# Problems with the modern text-critical approach and the ESV



## Willem van Oranje

The ESV is a fine translation in many ways. I use it for reference at times. However I am not convinced that it uses the correct textual approach or presuppositions. 

As far as modern NT critical scholarship, (on which the ESV is based) I am not convinced that modern scholarship is working based on correct presuppositions. I am suspicious of any work based on a theory that God allowed the Bible to be corrupted for many centuries before some German academics restored it to purity. Such stalwarts as Metzger and Hort state this view clearly in their books which explain and defend their textual work.

The theory of corruption and restoration seems to contradict the Scriptures and the Westminster Confession. Furthermore, it discards out of hand the diligent text-critical work done by the 4th century Church (note, the church, not the secular academy, that is significant,) and overturns it completely based on scanty evidence, (when we obviously don't have the same number, quality, or variety of manuscripts available today that the 4th century Church had. We've only been able to dig up a couple codices and some random fragments from that era.)

One separate concern that I have with the ESV is its tendency to make highly speculative emendations of the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament through "revocalization" and/or relying on secondary texts like the LXX, the Samaritan Pentateuch, or the DSS.

I am open to being proven wrong, if there are valid arguments. The problem is that I have not run across any convincing arguments in Metzger. He doesn't even really address the important observations and critical academic work done by Dean John Burgeon, who was speaking from a more ecclesiastically oriented perspective. It does not make for a convincing case when you simply reject an opposing argument out of hand instead of disproving it.

Now, who wants to show me why I'm wrong on this? Anyone?


----------



## nicnap

Most of us have been down these roads and shared our thoughts...I am sure someone will be willing. I personally am a MT/TR guy, but I use the ESV because I think it is a great "unifier" of many congregations. It is our renewed "shot" at a universal Reformed translation. I, at times, do not like the translator's notes, but I can deal with them/explain them as I see fit. I am sure TimV will be along shortly to give you his side of things.


----------



## greenbaggins

I don't know that it's necessary to say that you're wrong on this issue. I, too, have reservations about some of Metzger's conclusions, even though I agree in general with his text-critical positions. Here's the thing: every text-critical issue has to be solved on an individual basis. Every text-critical problem is distinct in terms of its witnesses, external and internal evidence. The thing that Metzger has done for us is to show us his conclusions (the conclusions of the committee, not just of him), and then he wrote a text-critical commentary that explains why they came to the conclusions they did. If one therefore uses the NA27 or USB4, one can see the paper trail, _and therefore make one's own conclusions_. I disagree with Metzger's conclusions plenty of times, because I tend to weight certain kinds of evidence differently than he does. For instance, he heavily weights internal evidence. I am a bit leery of internal evidence, since it sometimes makes unnecessarily warranted assumptions about what the copiest would or would not have done. I weight geographical distribution much higher than Metzger does, and that for a very simple reason: a difference in the manuscripts that has wide geographical distribution is much less likely to have originated from bias or a particular school of copying. There are, of course, many different issues and criteria that have to be taken into account when weighting the evidence. I also tend to weight the Byzantine evidence higher than Metzger does, as well. I consider it a perfectly legitimate text-form among the others. I think it is more than possible to use the text-critical work done by Metzger without having the same assumptions that he does. It will result in different opinions. But I am skeptical that there are only two positions: TR purity versus Metzger's problematic (some would even say unbelieving) assumptions. Is there no middle ground here? I would reckon myself in the middle ground here, giving more weight to the Byzantine tradition than Metzger does, and not sharing Metzger's view of the history of the manuscript tradition, and yet also holding to many of the same text-critical principles that Metzger does.


----------



## Reformed Baptist

I too am leaning toward the Traditional Text. I recently listened to a message by Rev. Malcom Watts of the Trinitarian Bible Society. He makes a very convincing argument for the Recieved Text. I would also agree that the Westminster (and the LBCF2) teach the doctrine of preservation. I am about to begin seminary study, but let me share a few thoughts from a "laymen's" viewpoint (I don't like the term layman..brother will suffice..ha!). 

A few weeks ago I and several men from the church were studying the Scripture and working through each word from the Greek. One gentleman was using the Nestle/Aland text and I was following along on my iphone through Blue Letter Bible. I am pretty sure the BLB uses the Traditional Text, and most likely Scriveners. We noticed a signifcant difference in the translation of a word. We learned that it wasn't a matter of translation. Both translations were good for their respective text. 

It was a matter of mss. And this raised a question in my heart and mind: So which word is God's word? Which word did He breath-out to the Apostle? It can't be both, because the words were completely different with different meanings. Now it must be granted that the word difference did not affect any significant doctrine of salvation, atonement, et. But it does affect the doctrine of preservation. 

To the man or woman that will struggle with this, like me, it must be searched out and studied. And I know that I am beginning with certain presuppositions. I am beginning with the faith that God has indeed preserved His word(s) and that not ONE of them have perished. Jesus said heaven and earth would pass away before His words would. Matt 24:35. I am well aware of the context of that passage, but I think we do no violence to the Word of God by taking a general principle from it. 

Jesus said in John 12:48 "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." If I am to be held personally accountable to the words of Jesus, how can you tell me that He permitted them to be lost, corrupted, and to perish from man? I cannot believe this. To those who are pastors of God's hertitage, you ought to give this serious consideration and study that you may truly prove to be a man after God's own heart and feed the sheep on knowledge and understanding. 

Concerning John William "Dean" Burgon, I believe he was a scholar of immense worth. Anyone concerned with this subject is lacking in their treatment of this who has not read Burgon and studies his work. I am presently corresponding with the British Library to obtain the 16 volume work Burgon did in indexing some 86,000 references to the text fo the NT out of the church fathers. The British Library posseses the work but has not imaged it yet. The most ecnomical way to obtain this is through low res imaging on microfilm. I am estimating it will run about $1200.00, but I am awaiting both an example of their work and a final quote of pricing. Anyone interested in this please feel free to contact me and I will forward you the emails I have received so far. 

Thank you for raising this topic as I believe it is of utmost importance.


----------



## TimV

Geoff and Riley, just some food for thought, but if there were say, 250 Greek manuscripts of a New Testament verse, and the overwhelming number were of the Byzantine family of texts, and every single one of them differed from the reading of the Textus Receptus, would you be in favor of changing the Textus Receptus in that one case?


----------



## Reformed Baptist

TimV said:


> Geoff and Riley, just some food for thought, but if there were say, 250 Greek manuscripts of a New Testament verse, and the overwhelming number were of the Byzantine family of texts, and every single one of them differed from the reading of the Textus Receptus, would you be in favor of changing the Textus Receptus in that one case?


 
To be honest Tim, I don't know. Perhaps Riley could answer better. Let me say that I am not against textual criticism. It appears to me (under my limited knoweldge so far) that in establishing the NT text one MUST do textual criticism, and I am not certain that the text type is the only rule that should be considered when compliling the NT text.


----------



## TimV

Yes, as was said by Nicholas, we've been down this road a zillion times. There seem to be two main schools of thought when it comes to the TR only position. The "Reformed" position, which isn't held by many people would say that even though a word might be questionable, i.e. it may very well not be a word inspired by the Holy Spirit, the church can "receive" it. 

The much more common KJO school of though is that held mostly by Fundamental Baptists, and it's frankly hard to get a straight answer out of them on that one.

BTW there are a couple places in the TR that just don't have any Byzantine (or any other) Greek witness. Erasmus had 6 portions of the NT available, and some of them were smudged. Today we have 5,800.


----------



## Reformed Baptist

TimV said:


> Yes, as was said by Nicholas, we've been down this road a zillion times. There seem to be two main schools of thought when it comes to the TR only position. The "Reformed" position, which isn't held by many people would say that even though a word might be questionable, i.e. it may very well not be a word inspired by the Holy Spirit, the church can "receive" it.
> 
> The much more common KJO school of though is that held mostly by Fundamental Baptists, and it's frankly hard to get a straight answer out of them on that one.
> 
> BTW there are a couple places in the TR that just don't have any Byzantine (or any other) Greek witness. Erasmus had 6 portions of the NT available, and some of them were smudged. Today we have 5,800.


 
Thanks for the information. Often when the subject is discussed there is criticism of Erasmus' text. I am still trying to collate the infromation surrounding Erasmus and I do understand that there were several revisions to his text, and that while his text was based on less manuscripts than were and now extant, those manuscripts did represent to a large degree the larger body of mss. Within the realm of the Received Text is not just Erasmus' text. There is the stephanus as well as others. The Trinitarian Bible Society, for example, uses the Scriveners. And I am still researching all the texts involved in the translation of the AV. I don't think it was just Erasmus' text.


----------



## TimV

Yes, there've been 106 (last I heard) editions of the TR. Remember AV is just the English translation of the TR, so they're two different subject. So for example Luther's Bible was based on the TR but wasn't the AV. And the Geneva Bible, which is in English and based on the TR also isn't the AV.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

nicnap said:


> Most of us have been down these roads and shared our thoughts...I am sure someone will be willing. I personally am a MT/TR guy, but I use the ESV because I think it is a great "unifier" of many congregations. It is our renewed "shot" at a universal Reformed translation. I, at times, do not like the translator's notes, but I can deal with them/explain them as I see fit. I am sure TimV will be along shortly to give you his side of things.


 
I share you concern for unity. I am increasingly seeing the proper OT/NT textforms as something which the broader church should be unified on, by making a collective decision which textform is to be appealed to in controversies and serve as the basis for translations to be used in the churches.

So, if I understand correctly, in a (broader) church which is undecided on which Bible translation to use, you favor a translation which is based on the NA27, which you view to be a corrupted NT text, for the sake of unity? Having the uncorrupted text of Scripture seems to me to be important enough to have a real debate over rather than just giving in to unmandated trends for the sake of unity when there is no declared unity on the subject, and many still favor the text that you view to be correct. No?

---------- Post added at 07:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:16 PM ----------




greenbaggins said:


> I don't know that it's necessary to say that you're wrong on this issue. I, too, have reservations about some of Metzger's conclusions, even though I agree in general with his text-critical positions. Here's the thing: every text-critical issue has to be solved on an individual basis. Every text-critical problem is distinct in terms of its witnesses, external and internal evidence. The thing that Metzger has done for us is to show us his conclusions (the conclusions of the committee, not just of him), and then he wrote a text-critical commentary that explains why they came to the conclusions they did. If one therefore uses the NA27 or USB4, one can see the paper trail, _and therefore make one's own conclusions_. I disagree with Metzger's conclusions plenty of times, because I tend to weight certain kinds of evidence differently than he does. For instance, he heavily weights internal evidence. I am a bit leery of internal evidence, since it sometimes makes unnecessarily warranted assumptions about what the copiest would or would not have done. I weight geographical distribution much higher than Metzger does, and that for a very simple reason: a difference in the manuscripts that has wide geographical distribution is much less likely to have originated from bias or a particular school of copying. There are, of course, many different issues and criteria that have to be taken into account when weighting the evidence. I also tend to weight the Byzantine evidence higher than Metzger does, as well. I consider it a perfectly legitimate text-form among the others. I think it is more than possible to use the text-critical work done by Metzger without having the same assumptions that he does. It will result in different opinions. But I am skeptical that there are only two positions: TR purity versus Metzger's problematic (some would even say unbelieving) assumptions. Is there no middle ground here? I would reckon myself in the middle ground here, giving more weight to the Byzantine tradition than Metzger does, and not sharing Metzger's view of the history of the manuscript tradition, and yet also holding to many of the same text-critical principles that Metzger does.


 
So, let me ask, do you come out with an NT manuscript close to Metzger's, despite your philosophical disagreements?

As you note, we are surely endebted to Metzger and others for the work they've done in cataloging and classifying variant readings for us to compare and study. There is nothing like their apparatus work in the Text-Critical field.

Is it possible for you to take a third position? Yes, it's possible. You just might not have an acceptable English Bible translation to use based on your own critical text. Dean Burgeon himself departed from the Textus Receptus on many readings based on the textual evidence that he weighed. Yet one thing that I appreciate very much about his approach, was that he did not take it upon himself to produce a new critical edition to be translated for the use of churches. One man or a handful of scholars do not have the authority to change the text (Hebrew and Greek) of Scripture which has been passed down through the centuries since the Reformation. This is something that must be decided collectively by the whole church, as the Scriptures are our corporate possession, not an individual property. And because the Textus Receptus has been passed down from the time of the Reformation, that is, because a received text exists, and has been used in the churches ever since, therefore it would take quite a high burden of evidence to warrant the type of consensus that would depart from the received text. I find Burgeon's submission to authority here to be quite commendable and based on sound theological principles of the preservation of the Scriptures in God's church. 

(In addition, the Eastern Orthodox Churches use the same (or nearly identical) Textus Receptus to this day as that which was passed to Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, etc. I know because I've checked. So that is even more testimony.)

---------- Post added at 07:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:24 PM ----------




TimV said:


> Yes, as was said by Nicholas, we've been down this road a zillion times. There seem to be two main schools of thought when it comes to the TR only position. The "Reformed" position, which isn't held by many people would say that even though a word might be questionable, i.e. it may very well not be a word inspired by the Holy Spirit, the church can "receive" it.
> 
> The much more common KJO school of though is that held mostly by Fundamental Baptists, and it's frankly hard to get a straight answer out of them on that one.
> 
> BTW there are a couple places in the TR that just don't have any Byzantine (or any other) Greek witness. Erasmus had 6 portions of the NT available, and some of them were smudged. Today we have 5,800.


 
Tim,

I could possibly favor amending it, if the evidence warranted, but there are several other factors to consider than just the number of manuscripts. That is important, but not the only criterion. Plus, I would want it to be a collective decision of the whole church and not just one congregation which decided to pick up the latest English version based on new text-criticism.

I find Dean Burgeon's principles of Textual Criticism to be very obejective, sound and convincing as a method. One of the important things which distinguishes his method from that of Metzger and Westcott/Hort and Nestle/Aland is that he considered the collective weight of all the criteria together, without assigning highest importance to one only, for example, the manuscript type.

Here is a list of Burgeon's criteria:

1. Antiquity (For Burgeon, this criterion was all about dating the variant. Any reliable source could establish the antiquity of a reading: codex, uncial, minuscule, quotes from the church fathers, Syriac or other early versions, etc. With this method, he was able to date many of the uniquely Byzantine readings much earlier than the earliest Byzantine exemplar, especially using his textual work in the church fathers.)

2. Number (The number of manuscripts supporting a reading)

3. Variety of Evidence (Catholicity, Geographic dispersion)

4. Respectability of Witnesses (Burgeon attempts to weigh sources based on objective criteria. I found his work helpful in this area.)

5. Continuity (or unbroken historical witness throughout all ages.)

6. Context (Internal evidence. E. g. are there a lot of problems with this manuscript in this passage?)

7. Internal Considerations, (or Reasonableness.)

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## TimV

> I would want it to be a collective decision of the whole church and not just one congregation which decided to pick up the latest English version based on new text-criticism.



That's never stopped anyone before. If you read the nasty letters between Jerome and Augustine you'll see the same reasoning. Augustine basically said the church should always use the Septuagint since that's the Bible the church has always used. The same as your "from the time of the Reformation" argument, but better, as you judge those things.

Jerome switched to the Hebrew OT. So again, as food for thought, are you glad he did? Even though the church at large didn't want him to?


----------



## Willem van Oranje

TimV said:


> I would want it to be a collective decision of the whole church and not just one congregation which decided to pick up the latest English version based on new text-criticism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's never stopped anyone before. If you read the nasty letters between Jerome and Augustine you'll see the same reasoning. Augustine basically said the church should always use the Septuagint since that's the Bible the church has always used. The same as your "from the time of the Reformation" argument, but better, as you judge those things.
> 
> Jerome switched to the Hebrew OT. So again, as food for thought, are you glad he did? Even though the church at large didn't want him to?
Click to expand...

 
His translation was confirmed by being used by the entire Latin-speaking Church. I agree with this collective decision and believe that it was warranted due to the superior evidence in favor of the Masoretic Text.


----------



## TimV

> His translation was confirmed by being used by the entire Latin-speaking Church. I agree with this collective decision and believe that it was warranted due to the superior evidence in favor of the Masoretic Text.



It was used by the West, but took a couple hundred years, right? So a single scholar could translate the Bible from a group of texts he thought better than the TR and it would be either vindicated or not after a couple hundred years? What kind of time framework are we talking about?


----------



## nicnap

Willem van Oranje said:


> nicnap said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of us have been down these roads and shared our thoughts...I am sure someone will be willing. I personally am a MT/TR guy, but I use the ESV because I think it is a great "unifier" of many congregations. It is our renewed "shot" at a universal Reformed translation. I, at times, do not like the translator's notes, but I can deal with them/explain them as I see fit. I am sure TimV will be along shortly to give you his side of things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I share you concern for unity. I am increasingly seeing the proper OT/NT textforms as something which the broader church should be unified on, by making a collective decision which textform is to be appealed to in controversies and serve as the basis for translations to be used in the churches.
> 
> So, if I understand correctly, in a (broader) church which is undecided on which Bible translation to use, you favor a translation which is based on the NA27, which you view to be a corrupted NT text, for the sake of unity? Having the uncorrupted text of Scripture seems to me to be important enough to have a real debate over rather than just giving in to unmandated trends for the sake of unity when there is no declared unity on the subject, and many still favor the text that you view to be correct. No?
Click to expand...




Well, brother, if you also understood me correctly you would have noted that I also said that I do not agree with many of the translators notes...which means that I don't swallow all of the translation "hook, line & sinker." It is not that simple; you are tossing out the entire text when the vast majority of it agrees. In those places where there is agreement, I will indeed utilize that text. In those places where there is disagreement, of course I would include in my reading the MT/TR. But, if I go to pastor a church that has as its stated translation the ESV, and even has them as their pew Bibles, I will gladly for the sake of congregational unity utilize the ESV. It makes corporate worship "more" corporate if everyone is on the same page. Will I include a reason why I disagree with the text? Of course, and I would supply what I thought the best reading from the Greek text that I would be working from (TBS TR). It is an obstreperous jerk who will split a congregation for the sake of a translation based on his preferred text, or comes into a congregation demanding a submission to his preferred text...or who is not even willing to utilize that text/translation that the congregation has deemed to be what they wish to have. As it stands, is the ESV perfect? No. Do I have my reservations? Yes. But do the majority of Reformed congregation seem to be moving to have the ESV? Yes, and for that sake, I will carry it to those places.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

TimV said:


> His translation was confirmed by being used by the entire Latin-speaking Church. I agree with this collective decision and believe that it was warranted due to the superior evidence in favor of the Masoretic Text.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was used by the West, but took a couple hundred years, right? So a single scholar could translate the Bible from a group of texts he thought better than the TR and it would be either vindicated or not after a couple hundred years? What kind of time framework are we talking about?
Click to expand...

 
It would be preferable if he would come to the church with his idea before beginning work, and work alongside other church scholars with the consent of the church. However, if the church so decides, it may adopt a translation (or Heb/Gr texts) previously made, by common consent. If/when there are any departures from the received MT/TR text, an extraordinarily high standard of proof needs to be found supporting the change.

---------- Post added at 08:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 PM ----------




nicnap said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nicnap said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of us have been down these roads and shared our thoughts...I am sure someone will be willing. I personally am a MT/TR guy, but I use the ESV because I think it is a great "unifier" of many congregations. It is our renewed "shot" at a universal Reformed translation. I, at times, do not like the translator's notes, but I can deal with them/explain them as I see fit. I am sure TimV will be along shortly to give you his side of things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I share you concern for unity. I am increasingly seeing the proper OT/NT textforms as something which the broader church should be unified on, by making a collective decision which textform is to be appealed to in controversies and serve as the basis for translations to be used in the churches.
> 
> So, if I understand correctly, in a (broader) church which is undecided on which Bible translation to use, you favor a translation which is based on the NA27, which you view to be a corrupted NT text, for the sake of unity? Having the uncorrupted text of Scripture seems to me to be important enough to have a real debate over rather than just giving in to unmandated trends for the sake of unity when there is no declared unity on the subject, and many still favor the text that you view to be correct. No?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, brother, if you also understood me correctly you would have noted that I also said that I do not agree with many of the translators notes...which means that I don't swallow all of the translation "hook, line & sinker." It is not that simple; you are tossing out the entire text when the vast majority of it agrees. In those places where there is agreement, I will indeed utilize that text. In those places where there is disagreement, of course I would include in my reading the MT/TR. But, if I go to pastor a church that has as its stated translation the ESV, and even has them as their pew Bibles, I will gladly for the sake of congregational unity utilize the ESV. It makes corporate worship "more" corporate if everyone is on the same page. Will I include a reason why I disagree with the text? Of course, and I would supply what I thought the best reading from the Greek text that I would be working from (TBS TR). It is an obstreperous jerk who will split a congregation for the sake of a translation based on his preferred text, or comes into a congregation demanding a submission to his preferred text...or who is not even willing to utilize that text/translation that the congregation has deemed to be what they wish to have. As it stands, is the ESV perfect? No. Do I have my reservations? Yes. But do the majority of Reformed congregation seem to be moving to have the ESV? Yes, and for that sake, I will carry it to those places.
Click to expand...



Nicholas,

I agree with your approach. If serving in a church which has collectively decided to use the ESV, I would do the same thing.

---------- Post added at 09:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:41 PM ----------

But, let me add, that if I were actually a part of a church which used the ESV, I would try to convince them to switch to a true MT/TR based translation, if it could be done in a way which didn't disrupt the peace of the church. This would generally mean talking it over the the elders first of all.


----------



## nicnap

Willem van Oranje said:


> But, let me add, that if I were actually a part of a church which used the ESV, I would try to convince them to switch to a true MT/TR based translation, if it could be done in a way which didn't disrupt the peace of the church. This would generally mean talking it over the the elders first of all.


 
So long as that wasn't your first "order of business," and you'd been there a while, I could see that. But, making such a change is a BIG deal, especially if pew Bibles are involved, etc.


----------



## TimV

> However, if the church so decides, it may adopt a translation (or Heb/Gr texts) previously made, by common consent.



But how? It took several hundred years, while both the MT and LXX were both widely used, and still today the LXX is used in the East. Do you approve of the process used?



> If/when there are any departures from the received MT/TR text, an extraordinarily high standard of proof needs to be found supporting the change.


 But the TR and MT are different. Which one should the should the church pick? Or are we at liberty to use either even though there are really big differences? And how much difference between texts would you allow?


----------



## Willem van Oranje

> However, if the church so decides, it may adopt a translation (or Heb/Gr texts) previously made, by common consent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But how? It took several hundred years, while both the MT and LXX were both widely used, and still today the LXX is used in the East. Do you approve of the process used?
Click to expand...


Ideally the OT text should have been decided by an ecumenical council. It is not helpful for relations between East and West that we are using different OT texts.



> If/when there are any departures from the received MT/TR text, an extraordinarily high standard of proof needs to be found supporting the change.
> 
> 
> 
> But the TR and MT are different. Which one should the should the church pick? Or are we at liberty to use either even though there are really big differences? And how much difference between texts would you allow?
Click to expand...

 
MT as in Masoretic Text. Yes, they are as different as Hebrew and Greek. No difference should be allowed between printed editions of the approved texts.


----------



## Grimmson

I guess I should begin by saying that I am not TR (Textus Receptus) only. Nor am I King James only. I am not for good reason, and that is the simple historical facts that neither of the documents as it has been established was around one and a half millennia ago. These facts must be remembered if one is going to try to apply the argument of a supernatural preserving of the text within the entire history of the church. And to my opinion these two positions is quite similar to the Vulgate only position that was applied against some like Wycliffe and going further back in time with the Septuagent (LXX) only position, against the Latin. In other words the real issue at hand here is tradition and how should the tradition be measured and tested in relation to the history of the church. 

One of the greatest things in our age is the discovery of more and more manuscripts. Manuscripts written on vellium, that would in all practical purposes lasting longer then papyri. One example of this is Codex Sinaiticus, one of the earliest complete bible manuscripts that came from the 4th century. It is a historian’s dream come true, because it shows what people were reading as part of their bible. It witnesses what we would call the majority readings and has some interesting variants. 

I do not think it is beyond a shadow of doubt that alterations of the original manuscripts took place. There was even reported variants and attempted work in various times in the Medieval period with attempts to restore the accuracy of the Latin biblical texts. We need to be careful not to make each word in our English Bible and Hebrew/Greek Bibles as inerrant, but is instead using WCF “keep pure in all ages” the reading of the text. There a big difference between preserving the reading and the written word. In other words the ideas were preserved in the reading, with over time more words added for clarification or changes in punctuation, word order, spelling of words, and chosen words applied (like the word used for daughter is different in Luke 8:48 of the Byzantine tradition compared to the Alexandrian tradition). Just because there are minor differences in various codices, does not make it less then the Word of God because the same doctrines and Christ are present with nothing added to or taken away that is essential for salvation and to lead one into righteousness. This idea gives me more of a connective continuity with my church family in all the ages of church. These differences is not to be seen completely as corruption, but instead the natural process of mistakes of developmental changes in the textual copying process. I think a case can be made for issues of tradition affecting the copying process where by the scribe would insert something because of some reason it seemed like a natural place for it to be inserted like with the Pericope De Adultera or a desire of harmonization all the of the gospels such as the Diatessaron. It is for these reasons I think modern day textual criticism is helpful and needed to apply within our own texts. It is not something we should fear. Non-Christian scholars can do good textual critical work based from common grace just like a non-christian mechanic can do good/proper work. The problem with the church doing it is many as of late are unprepared to do this work from a linguistic and historical perspective. Plus I would add that the denominational strive would make such a work undoable in today’s age. 

I think another issue to point out regarding the Majority Text (Byzantine tradition) is that it is not the TR. Daniel Wallace and may others has published differences between the two, but I think it is fair to say that the TR is a derivative of the Majority Text. 

Another important fact regarding the Majority Text is the reality that in the first millennium of the history of the church it was not the majority text. The Alexandrian tradition was the majority and that was clear in the fourth and fifth centuries. By the eighth century the Byzantine tradition really started to pick up against the Alexandrian tradition. By the ninth century there was an explosion of text manuscripts, at least as is implied by the current archeological applied data and current dating techniques. I think data like this helps to shape the constructed theories on the development of transmission as the texts are examined in their various periods and compared to other periods. 

The TR is an early form of textual criticism that used a limited number of biblical manuscripts. Modern bibles, like the ESV, use the UBS and Nestle/Aland’s work that implemented a larger amount of manuscripts for textual critical study. In their work, they try to look at a variety of different manuscript evidence (including in regard to region the manuscript is found and dating there of). Work has been and is currently being done to compare Patristic quotes towards various codices as well. To decide which is the more likely reading of the text based on factors of historical data and exegetical flow of the text requires wisdom and knowledge to put the pieces together. What is worked on is based on the sovereignty of what God has given us.

Another issue of consideration we should approach here is in regards to the question of the Apostles use of manuscript texts. It is clear if you read your New Testament that the citations of people Luke or Paul, of the Old Testament does not always match well with the Masoretic of the Hebrew Bible. Instead what is quoted in the LXX. It is what the people had that they were ministering to. There was no correction of “well this is what the Masoretic texts really says.” There is clearly a different view of inspiration of scripture here that applied by the New Testament authors, unless one going to grant superiority over the LXX to the Hebrew; which I do not see happening in regards to those that hold to the WCF. I think these differences should be allowed in print and taught in our churches; otherwise we are no different then those in the Patristic and Medieval Church that wanted to purposely harmonize scripture (like with the Gospels), which truly shows tampering with the Word of God.


----------



## TimV

> MT as in Masoretic Text. Yes, they are as different as Hebrew and Greek. No difference should be allowed between printed editions of the approved texts.



No, MT as in Majority Text. It is really different than the TR. Now, do we have liberty to choose one or the other?


----------



## Grimmson

TimV said:


> MT as in Masoretic Text. Yes, they are as different as Hebrew and Greek. No difference should be allowed between printed editions of the approved texts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, MT as in Majority Text. It is really different than the TR. Now, do we have liberty to choose one or the other?
Click to expand...

 
I wouldnt say they are really different. There maybe textually about 2000 areas of text that are different between the two.

Concerning liberty, that a good question. So let me answer it with a question. Do you know Greek? If not then just use a common English translation. If you do know Greek then read the NA27 and compare it to the TR and the Majority Text. That probably doesnt answer your question, but I see both as communicating the Word of God and I think there is wisdom in using a critical text that examines and uses a large number of manuscripts in the critical work. The more examined in time and location then the better I say.


----------



## TimV

> I wouldnt say they are really different. There maybe textually about 2000 areas of text that are different between the two.



The question was mostly for Riley. They're either different or not. 2,000 or 18,0000 it's a matter of degree and not principle. His theory seems to be that for 400 years in part of the world, part of the church came to use the TR as it's main text, therefore we should all accept it. But if that's the case there are some serious questions as whether or not we should go back to using a Greek OT since Jerome did the switch without being sanctioned by "the church". The Alexandrian type text has been going through the same process as the Hebrew OT did in the middle of the first millennium AD. It suddenly comes on the scene, people hate it, it gets published anyway and after a hundred years or so outstrips the Byzantine type text in usage.

Another question is the Majority Text. 

You can't have it both ways. Either we can choose the majority text instead of the TR or we can't. "The church" has never used the MT. The MT has changed every time a new batch of manuscripts come to light.

So, if (and this has been beaten to death here) every single Greek mss we have of Revelation 16:5 uses Holy One instead of Lord, should the church accept the change? Do we have the right to "receive" a corrupted reading? Do we have the right to run away from answering the question and still insist anyone who would change the TR to what Providence has preserved in the apographs is going to be thrown in the Lake of Fire?

Or, (again, beaten to death) if in Rev. 22:19 tree is found in 250 Greek mss and book is found in only 4, is there some sort of curse on people who would change the TR reading to what 99. something percent of Greek witnesses say? Do we have to wait for "church" approval to do it?

What would "church" approval look like? Whom would we insist attend this council?


----------



## Willem van Oranje

First of all, I would like to point out that I made no mention of the majority text. You are bringing it up for discussion. The majority text is simply a compilation of all the numerically superior readings for each word without regard to other factors which support authenticity. Number is an important criterion, but its not a sufficient test without the other factors. So no, I don't think the majority text is a good candidate to supplant the established Textus Receptus. And if it's not the received or approved New Testament, it shouldn't be used in the churches. 

If the Alexandrian text type is authentic, then why did the 4th century church reject it (based on the superior evidence they possessed compared to us) and entirely supplant it as a text form in following centuries?

Note that I am arguing that the Septuagint was supplanted by the Masoretic Text based on overwhelming and convincing evidence of its authenticity vis a vis the Septuagint. Therefore, there should be no talk of reverting to the Septuagint. Furthermore, this is not a case where a more recent critical edition supplanted a received edition. This was a question of which received edition should be used by the church, the Hebrew original or a popular Greek version?

Also note that it is not in just one part of the world that the Textus Receptus has been used in the church. It has been used by all of Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy. The only notable exception has been Roman Catholicism with its false reliance on one Latin version, the Vulgate.



Willem van Oranje said:


> However, if the church so decides, it may adopt a translation (or Heb/Gr texts) previously made, by common consent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But how? It took several hundred years, while both the MT and LXX were both widely used, and still today the LXX is used in the East. Do you approve of the process used?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ideally the OT text should have been decided by an ecumenical council. It is not helpful for relations between East and West that we are using different OT texts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If/when there are any departures from the received MT/TR text, an extraordinarily high standard of proof needs to be found supporting the change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the TR and MT are different. Which one should the should the church pick? Or are we at liberty to use either even though there are really big differences? And how much difference between texts would you allow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MT as in Masoretic Text. Yes, they are as different as Hebrew and Greek. No difference should be allowed between printed editions of the approved texts.
Click to expand...



---------- Post added at 08:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:17 AM ----------

David,

The apostles, in their occasional use of the Seputagint, gave affirmation that imperfect translations may be used. However, it is not fair to say that they always quoted from the Septuagint. At times, they seems to have made a close translation of the Hebrew, where the Septuagint reading was not adequate to support the point they were making.

I have two main points regarding the rest of your post. 1. The proper textform is a decision that should be made collectively by the whole church and 2. There is not sufficient evidence that the Codex Sinaiticus represents a more authentic textform than the received text. In fact, evidence seems to point to the Codex Sinaiticus as being inferior.

---------- Post added at 08:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:27 AM ----------

Tim,

The best scenario would be that the Hebrew and Greek textforms would be decided upon by the International Conference of Reformed Churches. Absent this, it could be addressed by NAPARC, or if not, by the OPC GA.


----------



## larryjf

I love the Received Text and think that it may be the best Greek NT. But i also love nicnap's point on the ESV being a "unifier."
When all is said and done i think having a common Bible is more important than our personal preferences. I, for one, use the ESV quite extensively simply because it is the Bible of my local church and it adds a great deal of uniformity when we are all on the same page (literally).


----------



## LawrenceU

> If the Alexandrian text type is authentic, then why did the 4th century church reject it (based on the superior evidence they possessed compared to us) and entirely supplant it as a text form in following centuries?



That is a pretty big assumption saying that they had superior evidence. We don't really know that. Also, there was a good bit more that mere textual criticism in those decisions.

BTW, I'm not pushing for the Wescott/Hort, NA position. I am just pointing out that this does not shore up your argument.


----------



## TimV

> That is a pretty big assumption saying that they had superior evidence.



Exactly. And what Jerome did was to use the Byzantine type family for his translation? Or an old Latin tradition that we now believe inferior to both the Byzantine and Alexandrian family texts?


----------



## ClayPot

Riley,

I appreciate many of your thoughts. However, the statement, "I am suspicious of any work based on a theory that God allowed the Bible to be corrupted for many centuries before some German academics restored it to purity," appears to be an exaggeration. I don't think the general belief among Christians who hold to the critical text viewpoint would say (or believe) that the text was corrupted for centuries (or that it had to be restored by German scholars). If you compare the critical text to the textus receptus or the Majority text, the differences really aren't that great. I'm not saying that there are only a few variants, but that the variants of significance are few. 

A more important detail is that I'm not sure you understand what the Textus Receptus is. Or maybe a better question is, "Which Textus Receptus?" Is the TR one of the Greek edition of Erasmus or Stephanus or something else? You get different answers depending on who you talk to. Either way, the TR was not the text "received" by the churches since the time of the Reformation. It wasn't the collective decision of the church as a whole to be the true text of the Bible. It was the text used to translate the KJV but that doesn't make it the received text of the church, even if the KJV was an extremely influential Bible. So I think that no matter which side you land as far as preferred manuscript tradition, we all must struggle in some way with the fact that there are differing Greek manuscripts in trying to know what the autographs of the Biblical books originally said.


----------



## ThomasCartwright

TimV said:


> Or, (again, beaten to death) if in Rev. 22:19 tree is found in 250 Greek mss and book is found in only 4, is there some sort of curse on people who would change the TR reading to what 99. something percent of Greek witnesses say? Do we have to wait for "church" approval to do it?
> 
> What would "church" approval look like? Whom would we insist attend this council?


 
Tim – how do you propose we decide definitively on Rev 22:19? Can you prove the extant manuscripts which differ from the TR constitute a majority? Have you examined all of them? Has anyone? Do you even know how many there are? Dan Wallace says there are at least 1000 that have not ever been photographed. Most of the extant TR manuscripts have never been examined as I understand it. 

I am amazed that someone who claims to be Confessional would be unsure of what Church approval is. Church approval would look like it has in the NT – the true saints of God received the Words, settled on them, and taught from them. We know exactly what this is what they have done for the last 400 years consistently. Before that, you do not know what they settled on for Rev 16:5 and neither do I. So where does that leave us? I have got 400 years of providence working through history – you have speculation. 

BTW – I would be interested – do you accept the Westminster Catechism’s view of the Ending of the Lord’s Prayer and the usage of 1 John 5:7 in the proofs of the Confession? Does that not look like “church approval” to you? Do you subscribe totally to the WCF and Catechisms?


----------



## TimV

> Tim – how do you propose we decide definitively on Rev 22:19? Can you prove the extant manuscripts which differ from the TR constitute a majority? Have you examined all of them? Has anyone?



We've been through that. Calvin and Hodges of this forum got a hold of Hoksier and checked. Four of about 250 have tree instead of book. If there are 1000 that haven't been looked at, then:

a) how many would include Revelation? A couple dozen?
b) what would be the odds of them significantly different than 250 collected from everywhere? I'll tell you: zero.




> I am amazed that someone who claims to be Confessional would be unsure of what Church approval is. Church approval would look like it has in the NT – the true saints of God received the Words, settled on them, and taught from them. We know exactly what this is what they have done for the last 400 years consistently.



Exactly!!! And that's what happened for the first 400 years of the Church! But it's a really poor excuse for not moving on from the LXX, and that's exactly what the church did. We moved on. Just like we're doing now. But with kicking and screaming, just like back then.



> Before that, you do not know what they settled on for Rev 16:5 and neither do I. So where does that leave us? I have got 400 years of providence working through history – you have speculation.



I've got 250 mostly Byzantine texts. Erasmus had one smudged copy of Revelation. And you, like always, won't deal with Rev 16:5 where you simply don't have any textual witnesses.


----------



## ThomasCartwright

TimV said:


> Tim – how do you propose we decide definitively on Rev 22:19? Can you prove the extant manuscripts which differ from the TR constitute a majority? Have you examined all of them? Has anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've been through that. Calvin and Hodges of this forum got a hold of Hoksier and checked. Four of about 250 have tree instead of book. If there are 1000 that haven't been looked at, then:
> 
> a) how many would include Revelation? A couple dozen?
> b) what would be the odds of them significantly different than 250 collected from everywhere? I'll tell you: zero.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am amazed that someone who claims to be Confessional would be unsure of what Church approval is. Church approval would look like it has in the NT – the true saints of God received the Words, settled on them, and taught from them. We know exactly what this is what they have done for the last 400 years consistently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly!!! And that's what happened for the first 400 years of the Church! But it's a really poor excuse for not moving on from the LXX, and that's exactly what the church did. We moved on. Just like we're doing now. But with kicking and screaming, just like back then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before that, you do not know what they settled on for Rev 16:5 and neither do I. So where does that leave us? I have got 400 years of providence working through history – you have speculation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've got 250 mostly Byzantine texts. Erasmus had one smudged copy of Revelation. And you, like always, won't deal with Rev 16:5 where you simply don't have any textual witnesses.
Click to expand...


I would be surprised if Calvin and Hodges had checked even a fraction of the evidence. Most of the Byzantine have never been audited on this or any other issue. That was one of Burgon's bugbears and nothing has moved on since then. 

What church moved on from the LXX? I did not know you were part of the Church of Rome? There is no objective evidence that the True Church used the LXX. Speculations and smoke and mirrors! You are moving from one assumption to another in your postings again.

As usual, you launch baseless accusations on those who disagree with you. I have already told you how I deal with Rev 16:5. You have admitted that there are actually manuscripts that back my position. So why the need to be abusive?

I note you avoided my questions - what objective and biblical method do you have that definitively settles the Rev 16:5 question? Do you believe the longer ending of the Lord's Prayer should be in our Catechism?


----------



## TimV

> There is no objective evidence that the True Church used the LXX.



Hmmmm... there's a small denomination that was started in Northern Ireland when Ian Paisley wasn't invited to a church picnic or something. I understand they allow baptist congregations to be members of the denomination. And now you're using Trail of Blood type logic. Augustine can't be considered a part of the True Church etc...

Do you have a link to your denominational website? Which one is it?


----------



## Calvinus

Please excuse the fact that I am new to this forum and I am not an expert on textual criticism. 

My areas of interest lie in Systematic and Historical Theology. I like the ESV as well. However, having said that, if I ever to have a problem or a question on a translation then I look up the different possibilities with Bibleworks and do a parallel investigation along with the different Greek textual variants.

As a layman, my questions have to be:
a) Will it make a difference on the major doctrines as established in our Standards (e.g: first 5 Ecumenical Councils, Westminster, 3 Forms of Unity and etc.)?
b) Will it harm the peace of the church in the inevitable "one-upmanship" - and please don't take that as a veiled criticism of this thread - it is not. 

If I am incorrect in taking this attitude please inform me of a better attitude or authoritative books to study so that it will be once and for all settled in my mind.


----------



## Grimmson

Willem van Oranje said:


> The apostles, in their occasional use of the Seputagint, gave affirmation that imperfect translations may be used. However, it is not fair to say that they always quoted from the Septuagint. At times, they seems to have made a close translation of the Hebrew, where the Septuagint reading was not adequate to support the point they were making.
> 
> I have two main points regarding the rest of your post. 1. The proper textform is a decision that should be made collectively by the whole church and 2. There is not sufficient evidence that the Codex Sinaiticus represents a more authentic textform than the received text. In fact, evidence seems to point to the Codex Sinaiticus as being inferior.


 
It is much more then occasional. I suggest looking into it. It has been highly affirmed that the majority of the Old Testament quotations comes from the LXX. Over 90 percent of the Old Testament quotations in the New Testament is in agreement with the LXX. The Masoretic texts is not even at 70 percent agreement with the NT quotations of the Old. 

Also from a realistic perspective the entire church as a majority does not hold to a TR only position, but instead has accepted the textual work that has brought about the Nestle-Aland twenty-seventh edition and the fourth edition of the United Bible Society as reflected by the use of them in our current English translations that are again the used texts in our churches and by their use in our denominational seminaries as well. I do not see a united church council coming together on this outside of an academic representative approach across the entire world of the church. 

Now regarding the Codex Sinaiticus, it is a treasure. I do not give it as high as a status as some like Konstantin von Tischendorf, but I would not call it a corrupted inferior text either. The document about fourteen hundred years old, the fact there are seen changes in it tells us about the scribal process and how well used it was. It for the time it was developed an extremely expensive project when considering the sheer number of animals skins and dead donkeys and sheep/goats needed to complete this project. If you make one mistake you cannot just throw it away, that money and resources down the drain which is one reason for some of the corrections present in the text. And it should also be considered that some text corrections were done during the first three hundred years of usage of the text as well. It usage tells me that it would not for it time been seen as inferior. It should be compared and contrasted by other codices and fragmented papyri that have been discovered. 

We cannot say that the fourth century rejected the Alexandrian text type. The evidence of it’s use as a whole screams the acceptedness of it; including in the writings of church fathers during that time and prior.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

LawrenceU said:


> If the Alexandrian text type is authentic, then why did the 4th century church reject it (based on the superior evidence they possessed compared to us) and entirely supplant it as a text form in following centuries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a pretty big assumption saying that they had superior evidence. We don't really know that. Also, there was a good bit more that mere textual criticism in those decisions.
> 
> BTW, I'm not pushing for the Wescott/Hort, NA position. I am just pointing out that this does not shore up your argument.
Click to expand...

 
It is more than obvious that the catholic church of the 4th century had more extensive textual evidence than we have on hand today. I don't think I even have to argue that point, so I won't..

Point is, we are not today in a position to second guess their work. The Byzantine textform was preferred. Over the coming centuries it supplanted all other textforms, quickly and broadly becoming the only accepted Greek New Testament the world over. This fact needs to be reckoned with, and given its due testimony. To break with this continuous textual tradition would require humongous evidence that they were in error, evidence which does not exist today. I am really understating things.


----------



## Hebrew Student

ThomasCartwright,



> There is no objective evidence that the True Church used the LXX. Speculations and smoke and mirrors! You are moving from one assumption to another in your postings again.



While it is certainly true that, throughout church history, various translations were adopted [the Vulgate, the Peshitta, etc.], it is almost impossible to argue against the idea that there was a point in time when the church used the LXX. First, several quotations from the LXX exist in the NT. In fact, I would say that NT quotes the LXX the vast majority of the time. How can that be if the LXX was never used by the church? Secondly, you have several codicies, such as Codex Siniaticus, which contain both the LXX and the NT in one bound form. Finally, it is also worth noting that several LXX manuscripts show evidence of being handled by Christians. For example, take Psalm 40:

Psalm 40:6 Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired; My ears You have opened; Burnt offering and sin offering You have not required.

A few LXX manuscripts that add "but a body you have prepared for me." This appears to come from Hebrews 10:5. How that could have gotten into the LXX if the church was not using the LXX I don't know.

Also, it is worth noting that, even though patristic writers such as Athenasius reject the apocrypha, the way they cite the lists of the canon is such that it shows that they were using the LXX.

Worse than that, it was not just Augustine who had a problem with Jerome, it was practically the entire church. Riots ensued over the fact that Jerome translated _qiqayon_ in Jonah 4:6 as a "castor oil plant." It hardly sounds like Augustine was alone.



> Tim – how do you propose we decide definitively on Rev 22:19? Can you prove the extant manuscripts which differ from the TR constitute a majority? Have you examined all of them? Has anyone? Do you even know how many there are? Dan Wallace says there are at least 1000 that have not ever been photographed. Most of the extant TR manuscripts have never been examined as I understand it.



While I realize this was addressed to Tim, and I realize it is about NT text criticism [my area is OT text criticism], I think the methodology is flawed. This is called an argument from silence. If we can just assume that any manuscript exists, and it is in the majority, then I can propose a manuscript that has polytheistic teachings in it, that will turn out to be in the majority of manuscripts. Can I produce the manuscript, or the copies that are in the majority? No, but who cares. I will just assume that it exists [in one of the unphotographed manuscripts], and that it is in the majority anyway.

This argument can basically be used to prove that any reading you want to be in the majority is in the majority. It can also be used to prove that any reading you want to be original is original.

Even worse, majority does not rule. There are many reasons for a manuscript being in the majority that have nothing whatsoever to do with it being the original reading. For example, if a mistake is made early on, it will be copied and recopied, and it will be in the majority, simply because it has been copied more times than the original reading has. Geographic distrubution and community is also important. For example, if the Samaritans have more vellum, papyrus reeds, or scribes, and produce more copies of their scriptures, it does not mean that the MT or the LXX do not have the correct reading of the passage. Also, there are popular manuscripts [manuscripts that are simplified to be read in the synagogue], and there are more conservative manuscripts [manuscripts that are more identical to the traditions in the LXX, Samaritan Pentateuch, and MT]. If a manuscript was used in public often, then one would expect to find the reading more often. However, the fact that the readings are simplified for popular use, and thus are larger in volume does not mean that they contain the original reading.

Willem Van Oranje,



> One separate concern that I have with the ESV is its tendency to make highly speculative emendations of the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament through "revocalization" and/or relying on secondary texts like the LXX, the Samaritan Pentateuch, or the DSS.



It would help if we had some examples. I don't agree with everything the ESV translators have done, but as far as something being "highly speculative," I would need to see examples.

Secondly, I don't know what you mean by "relying" on "secondary texts." No one simply blindly follows the LXX, Samaritan Pentateuch, or DSS, and if that is what you are charging with regards to the ESV, then, again, we need some proof. There are many places where the ESV departs from the LXX. There are many places where the ESV departs from the Samaritan Pentateuch. There are many places where the ESV departs from the DSS. You have to weigh all of the evidence, and come to conclusions.

Also, just a general statement here. I am very concerned about the fact that many of these arguments are starting to sound Roman Catholic. "We must accept a certain text because the church says so" is, in essence, what is being said. While I agree that the church has authority _that authority is not infallible_! Scripture is the only authority that is infallible. Remember that it was this same logic [the infallibility of the church] that gave us Sixtus V's "infallible" Latin Vulgate.

In fact, I remember having a discussion on this board before where someone was presenting arguments of this kind, and I was talking about it with a friend of mine. Someone else came over and started talking to me about it, and he said that he was a former Roman Catholic. He told me that the very same logic that he heard while in the Roman communion was being used in this argument.

Maybe it would be better to put it this way. I came to the doctrines of grace through the exegesis of the text of scripture. Why should I now abandon that approach, and just believe whatever the "church" tells me?

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## LawrenceU

Willem van Oranje said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Alexandrian text type is authentic, then why did the 4th century church reject it (based on the superior evidence they possessed compared to us) and entirely supplant it as a text form in following centuries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a pretty big assumption saying that they had superior evidence. We don't really know that. Also, there was a good bit more that mere textual criticism in those decisions.
> 
> BTW, I'm not pushing for the Wescott/Hort, NA position. I am just pointing out that this does not shore up your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is more than obvious that the catholic church of the 4th century had more extensive textual evidence than we have on hand today. I don't think I even have to argue that point, so I won't..
> 
> Point is, we are not today in a position to second guess their work. The Byzantine textform was preferred. Over the coming centuries it supplanted all other textforms, quickly and broadly becoming the only accepted Greek New Testament the world over. This fact needs to be reckoned with, and given its due testimony. To break with this continuous textual tradition would require humongous evidence that they were in error, evidence which does not exist today. I am really understating things.
Click to expand...


That is a very convenient dodge there, Riley  It is not 'more than obvious'. Were it so there would be no debate among those that hold dearly the truth of Scripture. The type of rhetoric in your statement regarding their textual evidence demands proof. Proof that as far as I know no one possesses. Simply because they were 400 years removed rather than 2000 years removed does not mean that they had better access to documents.


----------



## au5t1n

Hebrew Student said:


> Secondly, you have several codicies, such as Codex Siniaticus, which contain both the LXX and the NT in one bound form.


 
Among a Greek-speaking people, that would make more sense than pairing the Masoretic Text with the NT. Most people wouldn't be able to read the Old Testament in Hebrew. Should we assume that these codices were intended to be the source, rather than the translation? Obviously the NT wouldn't have needed to be translated if the language in which it was written was still spoken, so it makes as much sense to regard these codices as translations as to regard them as the authoritative source (NT excepted since it was the same language and didn't require translating). Perhaps the MT was regarded as the authority but the LXX was used as the translation, just as today the Hebrew and Greek are the authority while the churches are using English translations.


----------



## jogri17

What is your academic background on this subject?


----------



## Hebrew Student

austinww,



> Among a Greek-speaking people, that would make more sense than pairing the Masoretic Text with the NT. Most people wouldn't be able to read the Old Testament in Hebrew. Should we assume that these codices were intended to be the source, rather than the translation? Obviously the NT wouldn't have needed to be translated if the language in which it was written was still spoken, so it makes as much sense to regard these codices as translations as to regard them as the authoritative source (NT excepted since it was the same language and didn't require translating). Perhaps the MT was regarded as the authority but the LXX was used as the translation, just as today the Hebrew and Greek are the authority while the churches are using English translations.



I wasn't trying to argue against the Hebrew and Greek texts being the ultimate authority. I was responding to this claim:



> There is no objective evidence that the True Church used the LXX. Speculations and smoke and mirrors! You are moving from one assumption to another in your postings again.



I agree that the Hebrew and Greek are the final authority. However, the Greek Septuagint is very important in the reconstruction of the Hebrew text because its vorlage is very old; in some cases, at least as old as the DSS. We have to take into account that it is a translation, but, as we study the translation methodology of the translators of the LXX, we are able to discern their techniques, and understand how that relates to the vorlage. That also goes for the Peshitta and the Vulgate. They are all extremely important even though they are not written in Hebrew. Compare this with the DSS, the Wadi Murabba'at manuscripts, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Masoretic Manuscripts, the Cairo Geneza fragments, etc., and you have plenty of material for reconstruction the text of the Hebrew Bible.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## larryjf

There's been some talk about manuscripts in the 4th century and earlier.

Is it even appropriate to compare pre-4th century manuscripts to manuscripts that are after that date?

Going one step further, is it appropriate to gain any weighty insight into the text of Scripture from pre-4th century manuscripts seeing that the evidence from this time period in the Byzantine area is completely absent?


----------



## steadfast7

You guys really seem to know a lot about this stuff; but I hear comments about how this text is better than others -- how do you know?? It seems the best we can do is take the word of competent, Christian scholars, and trust God's spirit in teaching us his truth, isn't it? I'm sure they've thought about and studied this stuff more than any of us here.


----------



## JM

Nova said:


> You guys really seem to know a lot about this stuff; but I hear comments about how this text is better than others -- how do you know?? It seems the best we can do is take the word of competent, Christian scholars, and trust God's spirit in teaching us his truth, isn't it? I'm sure they've thought about and studied this stuff more than any of us here.


 
But then we will argue about competent scholars...

Douglas Wilson writes, "This witness is not offered by the Church as “something to think about” or as a mere “suggestion.” The testimony of the Church on this point is submissive to Scripture, but authoritative for the saints. For example, if an elder in a Christian church took it upon himself to add a book to the canon of Scripture, or sought to take away a book, the duty of his church would be to try him for heresy and remove him immediately. This disciplinary action is authoritative, taken in defense of an authoritative canonical settlement. This does not mean the Church is defending the Word of God; the Church is defending her witness to the Word. As the necessity of discipline makes plain, this witness is dogmatic and authoritative. It is not open for discussion. God does not intend for us to debate the canon of Scripture afresh every generation. We have already given our testimony; our duty now is to remain faithful to it. "

Dr. Daniel Wallace is a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary and is considered an expert inn ancient biblical Greek and New Testament criticism. In a blog post about the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature he wrote,

"As remarkable as it may sound, most biblical scholars are not Christians. I don’t know the exact numbers, but my guess is that between 60% and 80% of the members of SBL do not believe that Jesus’ death paid for our sins, or that he was bodily raised from the dead. "


----------



## Hebrew Student

JM,



> Douglas Wilson writes, "This witness is not offered by the Church as “something to think about” or as a mere “suggestion.” The testimony of the Church on this point is submissive to Scripture, but authoritative for the saints. For example, if an elder in a Christian church took it upon himself to add a book to the canon of Scripture, or sought to take away a book, the duty of his church would be to try him for heresy and remove him immediately. This disciplinary action is authoritative, taken in defense of an authoritative canonical settlement. This does not mean the Church is defending the Word of God; the Church is defending her witness to the Word. As the necessity of discipline makes plain, this witness is dogmatic and authoritative. It is not open for discussion. God does not intend for us to debate the canon of Scripture afresh every generation. We have already given our testimony; our duty now is to remain faithful to it. "



So, should we have tried Martin Luther for doubting the canonicity of the book of James? The fact of the matter is, even after the canon was, for the most part, understood, conservative scholars still debated the issue. Church history simply will not allow for a "thus saith the church" pronouncement.

The issue of the canon is a complicated and complex issue. James White has written an excellent discussion of this in his book _Scripture Alone_. Canon is a function of revelation, not of church settlement. Canon exists because God has inspired some books, but not all books. Therefore, it is not a matter of the church at all. The church is passive in the whole process, as God's spirit leads his church to have what he wants them to have.

I again find it interesting that we are going off to canon issues. This is the same argument that Roman Catholic apologists make. The similarities between this position and Roman Catholic arguments from authority are amazing. "Thus saith the church" is not an argument protestants should be using when it comes to issues of ultimate truth.



> Dr. Daniel Wallace is a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary and is considered an expert inn ancient biblical Greek and New Testament criticism. In a blog post about the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature he wrote,
> 
> "As remarkable as it may sound, most biblical scholars are not Christians. I don’t know the exact numbers, but my guess is that between 60% and 80% of the members of SBL do not believe that Jesus’ death paid for our sins, or that he was bodily raised from the dead. "



And yet, isn't it amazing that Dr. Wallace is one of those Christians out there fighting on the front lines against the attacks on the faith that these folks bring. The difference is that Dr. Wallace does so on the basis of looking at the facts with a mind to the lordship of Christ.

In fact, might I point out, that it was this very kind of thinking, namely, the "thus saith the church" that Martin Luther complained about. He complained because it was hurting the education of the leaders in the church. They knew more about what church councils said than about what scripture said! 

In fact, text critical studies gave rise to the Protestant Reformation [i.e., through the humanist movement]. Yet, Erasmus, Beza, et al. still followed the principles that Dan Wallace and other scholars follow. It is just that, now, we have more material, and more information. I fear that, if we don't take these thoughts captive to the obedience of Christ, and give something other than a "thus saith the church," we will end up just like the Roman Church at the time of Martin Luther.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## JM

Hebrew Student said:


> I fear that, if we don't take these thoughts captive to the obedience of Christ, and give something other than a "thus saith the church," we will end up just like the Roman Church at the time of Martin Luther.
> 
> God Bless,
> Adam



We cannot declare the originals only, exchanging "King James Onlyism" for "Original Text Onlyism," our very idea of sola scriptura does not allow for it. Without a foundational set of manuscripts Protestantism is reduced to just one of many traditions with sola scriptura a late development and no less of a tradition then that found in Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism. This tradition is reduced to a Magisterium of scholars instead of Popes, Cardinals and Bishops. We have replaced the Roman Magisterium with a Magisterium of Textual Critics, the latter acts as the final authority, and the former tells us what the final authority might be.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Lawrence, we only have 1 or 2 codexes dating from before this period. Those orthodox churchmen who revised and restored the New Testament to its purity in the 4th century doubtless had much more to work with than that. But this is not even my main point.

The fact remains that there is a received text. And because such a Received Text exists, having been handed down to us from the church of through the centuries, it is normative. It is not infallible, but it is normative. 

If someone wants to amend it, the burden of proof rests on them to prove that it is currupted in a given reading. (And it is not enough for them to be convinced in their own mind, for this is a collective decision of the church.) I have not come across any adequate attempts to do this. Nor do I expect that such a revision will be necessary, because I have faith in God having providentially preserved the text for the church of all ages. My perspective attempts to avoid the pitfalls of popish traditionalism on the one hand and schismaticism on the other (just me and the text.)

---------- Post added at 07:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:37 PM ----------

Adam, Luther does not qualify as a schismatic because he did not attempt to remove James and Revelation from the Bible. In fact, he included them in his Bible translation, despite possibly having a private opinion that they were not canonical. This is a great illustration of the ethic that I am promoting, that is, responsible churchmanship.

---------- Post added at 07:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:40 PM ----------

Larry, I am concerned with unity, but I want unity to be achieved by a use of the preserved/uncorrupted text of Scripture. And I am also concerned that we maintain continuity with the historic body of Christ as to what the text of Scripture is. I am not suggesting that the TR is perfect or infallible. I am just stating that a Received Text exists. Therefore, if someone wants to amend it, the burden of proof rests on that person. So far I have found their arguments to be tainted by unorthodox theories of the corruption of the text of Scripture, and therefore (and also for the textual reasons themselves) have been unconvinced.

---------- Post added at 08:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:56 PM ----------




Hebrew Student said:


> One separate concern that I have with the ESV is its tendency to make highly speculative emendations of the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament through "revocalization" and/or relying on secondary texts like the LXX, the Samaritan Pentateuch, or the DSS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would help if we had some examples. I don't agree with everything the ESV translators have done, but as far as something being "highly speculative," I would need to see examples.
> 
> Secondly, I don't know what you mean by "relying" on "secondary texts." No one simply blindly follows the LXX, Samaritan Pentateuch, or DSS, and if that is what you are charging with regards to the ESV, then, again, we need some proof. There are many places where the ESV departs from the LXX. There are many places where the ESV departs from the Samaritan Pentateuch. There are many places where the ESV departs from the DSS. You have to weigh all of the evidence, and come to conclusions.
Click to expand...

 
Examples that stick out immediately in my mind from the ESV are: Gen 49:10, Isaiah 18:17. From time to time I find that the ESV prefers rejects the MT reading in favor of a reading from the LXX, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the DSS, a revocalized word, or some combination of these. (Which I find disturbing, being a confessional Presbyterian who holds to the WCF view that the OT was preserved in the Hebrew text which was handed down to us.)


----------



## Hebrew Student

JM,



> We cannot declare the originals only, exchanging "King James Onlyism" for "Original Text Onlyism," our very idea of sola scriptura does not allow for it. Without a foundational set of manuscripts Protestantism is reduced to just one of many traditions with sola scriptura a late development and no less of a tradition then that found in Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism. This tradition is reduced to a Magisterium of scholars instead of Popes, Cardinals and Bishops. We have replaced the Roman Magisterium with a Magisterium of Textual Critics, the latter acts as the final authority, and the former tells us what the final authority might be.



Well, I guess the question needs to be whether to pursue truth, or certainty. It is not a matter of a "magisterium" of textual critics. I have my Biblia Hebrica Stuttgartensia, a copy of the LXX, the Peshitta, and the Vulgate, as well as access to the text of the Samaritan Pentatuch, the DSS, the Wadi Murabba'at material, and the Masoretic manuscripts. It is not a matter of believing whatever scholars say; I can go out an check it on my own. It is *you* who is bound to the decisions of the Masorites, who were not even Christians. You must say that their text is infallible [even though there are differences between Masoretic Manuscripts, a fact which really means that there is no "Masoretic Text."]

As far as Sola Scriptura being a late development, that is simply absurd. While the specific terms were not used, Sola Scriptura is one idea that has a very good historical pedigree. I do believe you are giving *way* too much credit to Roman Catholics.

Also, doing Text Criticism does not leave the church without an authority to stand on. After working on variants all last semester, I can honestly say that, even in the worst case senario, I could find no variation upon which major Christian doctrine stood. If there is a text with variation, you will always be able to find some other text which has no variation upon which to base the doctrine. Hence, we do have something to stand on since our teachings do not depend upon any one of those variants.

Willem van Oranje,



> Adam, Luther does not qualify as a schismatic because he did not attempt to remove James and Revelation from the Bible. In fact, he included them in his Bible translation, despite possibly having a private opinion that they were not canonical. This is a great illustration of the ethic that I am promoting, that is, responsible churchmanship.



Would you allow a person to preach in your pulpit if he never engaged in premarital relations, and never taught that premarital relations were okay, but privately believed that premarital relations were morally acceptable? That doesn't sound like much of an ethic.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Hebrew Student said:


> Would you allow a person to preach in your pulpit if he never engaged in premarital relations, and never taught that premarital relations were okay, but privately believed that premarital relations were morally acceptable? That doesn't sound like much of an ethic.
> 
> God Bless,
> Adam


 
Adam, it's a red herring. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Furthermore, even with Luther's private opinions about the canon, the question of whether Luther was a godly example of a good churchman is different from the question of whether he should, at this juncture, be allowed to preach in our church. I can affirm him as an example of a good church ethic while not allowing that someone with his exact views would be allowed to preach in our church.

---------- Post added at 08:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:18 PM ----------

David,

I'm not saying that the Codex Sinaiticus is not a great discovery to be valued and researched. I am saying that its accuracy has not been established. How do you know that it was not produced by Arian heretics who purposely cut sections out that they didn't like? After all, it would fit the time period, expensiveness of the production (for Arians had the upper hand in those days among the rich and powerful.)


----------



## Hebrew Student

Willem van Oranje,



> Adam, it's a red herring. You are comparing apples and oranges.
> 
> Furthermore, even with Luther's private opinions about the canon, the question of whether Luther was a godly example of a good churchman is different from the question of whether he should, at this juncture, be allowed to preach in our church. I can affirm him as an example of a good church ethic while not allowing that someone with his exact views would be allowed to preach in our church.



I don't know how it is apples and oranges, but I think that this shows how difficult it is to hold such a position.



> Examples that stick out immediately in my mind from the ESV are: Gen 49:10, Isaiah 18:17. From time to time I find that the ESV prefers rejects the MT reading in favor of a reading from the LXX, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the DSS, a revocalized word, or some combination of these. (Which I find disturbing, being a confessional Presbyterian who holds to the WCF view that the OT was preserved in the Hebrew text which was handed down to us.)



My point has been established, however, that they were not just going through and translating the LXX or any of the other versions. You just don't like that they have departed from the MT. Let us take a look at this claim, though.

Let's start with the vocalization. Which vocalization are you talking about as being received by the church and inspired? The Babylonian vocalization? The Tiberian Vocalization? The Palestinian Vocalization? There are differences between them. However, if you want to argue that it was the Tiberian that won out, then which Tiberian vocalization do you take? The Ben Asher or the Ben Naphtali? There are differences between them. Next, which manuscript of the Ben Asher or the Ben Naphtali do you take? There are differences between these as well.

Next, lets go into the Masoretic manuscripts themselves. The reality is that in the proto-Masoretic manuscripts, you find different readings than you do in later Masoretic manuscripts. Why arbitrarily reject these? Second, there are differences between Masoretic manuscripts. Kennicot manuscripts differ from Codex Lenningradensis and the Aleppo Codex. Which do you choose?

This is why there is no "Masoretic Text." The MT actually refers to a collection of manuscripts done by the Masorites. However, there are differences between them, both in vocalization, and in consonantal text.

Also, what do you do with places where the NT quotes the OT, but it is different in text and in meaning from the MT? A case in point is Habakkuk 1:5 in comparison with Acts 13:41:

Habakkuk 1:5 MT "Look _*among the nations*_! Observe! Be astonished! Wonder! Because I am doing something in your days-- You would not believe if you were told. 

Acts 13:41 NT 'Behold, _*you scoffers*_, and marvel, and perish; For I am accomplishing a work in your days, A work which you will never believe, though someone should describe it to you.'"

The difference is between the MT having _bgwym_ and the NT having what, as you translate back into Hebrew, would amount to_ bgdym_. Now, the variant arose from the confusion of a waw and a dalet. However, notice that you have a totally different meaning. Verses 1-4 come out with Habakkuk complaining to God about the wickedness in the land. If you take the MT reading, then God is answering Habakkuk. However, if you take the reading that is found in the NT, then God begins by addressing the evildoers themselves.

In fact, in this case, an entire word drops out of the NT rendering, namely, the bet preposition. It then becomes part of a word that is a vocative, which, again completely changes the meaning of the passage. Is he addressing the scoffers with a vocative, or is he telling Habakkuk and his followers to look among the nations? It depends upon whether you accept the MT or the TR as the text that was "handed down to us."

It is interesting that, at this point the TR supports the reading of the LXX and Syriac, the very things you say we should not use to amend the MT. In fact, what is interesting is that in the commentary 4QpHab, you actually have the reading _bwgdym_ in the first line of the commentary. So now the Qumran scrolls, the LXX and the Syriac all support a reading you say was handed down to the church in the TR, but is totally different than a reading found in the text you say was also received by the church, namely, the MT.

Also, as I noted earlier, the early reformers did not hold this view. Calvin, for example, in his commentary, deals with a handfull of textual variants. Never does he even suggest the argument from confessions. He tries to argue on the basis of manuscript evidence. When he is dealing with a famous NT variant in 1 John 5:7, he discusses the manuscripts he has verses the internal considerations of the passage itself. Since John Knox was a student of John Calvin, and since, given your standards, neither Calvin or Knox could be confessional Presbyterians, I think it is safe to say that there is something wrong with this definition of "confessional Presbyterian."

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Hebrew Student said:


> Willem van Oranje,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adam, it's a red herring. You are comparing apples and oranges.
> 
> Furthermore, even with Luther's private opinions about the canon, the question of whether Luther was a godly example of a good churchman is different from the question of whether he should, at this juncture, be allowed to preach in our church. I can affirm him as an example of a good church ethic while not allowing that someone with his exact views would be allowed to preach in our church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how it is apples and oranges, but I think that this shows how difficult it is to hold such a position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not! It's not even a related question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Examples that stick out immediately in my mind from the ESV are: Gen 49:10, Isaiah 18:17. From time to time I find that the ESV prefers rejects the MT reading in favor of a reading from the LXX, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the DSS, a revocalized word, or some combination of these. (Which I find disturbing, being a confessional Presbyterian who holds to the WCF view that the OT was preserved in the Hebrew text which was handed down to us.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point has been established, however, that they were not just going through and translating the LXX or any of the other versions. You just don't like that they have departed from the MT. Let us take a look at this claim, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. I never said they were "just translating from the LXX or other versions."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's start with the vocalization. Which vocalization are you talking about as being received by the church and inspired? The Babylonian vocalization? The Tiberian Vocalization? The Palestinian Vocalization? There are differences between them. However, if you want to argue that it was the Tiberian that won out, then which Tiberian vocalization do you take? The Ben Asher or the Ben Naphtali? There are differences between them. Next, which manuscript of the Ben Asher or the Ben Naphtali do you take? There are differences between these as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The vocalizations that have been handed down through us from the centuries. I'm not arguing for one particular Masoretic manuscript over others. That is a legitimate realm for textual criticism. I have a problem when they revocalize based on zero evidence from any Hebrew manuscript in the Mazoretic family. This is what I call "speculative."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next, lets go into the Masoretic manuscripts themselves. The reality is that in the proto-Masoretic manuscripts, you find different readings than you do in later Masoretic manuscripts. Why arbitrarily reject these? Second, there are differences between Masoretic manuscripts. Kennicot manuscripts differ from Codex Lenningradensis and the Aleppo Codex. Which do you choose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not prepared to answer that question, and I think it might vary from place to place somewhat, but your question helps to support my point that they should be examining the Masoretic manuscripts for the correct reading, not correcting the MT from other versions with no supporting Masoretic evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, what do you do with places where the NT quotes the OT, but it is different in text and in meaning from the MT? A case in point is Habakkuk 1:5 in comparison with Acts 13:41:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing, textually speaking. This does not cause a problem for me. The NT writers did not always quote verbatim from the Masoretic text. They often quoted from versions, or even modified the verse quoted in some way that we don't have an OT variant or version to support. That does not mean that we should be importing NT readings into the OT to correct the MT. If they quoted from the LXX, that doesn't make me question the validity of the MT reading for that verse. It just sends me digging to find out what the point of the NT writer was, and why he quoted from the LXX in that instance. Is it a theological point, merely a matter of the familarity of his listeners with the LXX?, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, as I noted earlier, the early reformers did not hold this view. Calvin, for example, in his commentary, deals with a handfull of textual variants. Never does he even suggest the argument from confessions. He tries to argue on the basis of manuscript evidence. When he is dealing with a famous NT variant in 1 John 5:7, he discusses the manuscripts he has verses the internal considerations of the passage itself. Since John Knox was a student of John Calvin, and since, given your standards, neither Calvin or Knox could be confessional Presbyterians, I think it is safe to say that there is something wrong with this definition of "confessional Presbyterian."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What precisely is the view to which you say that the early Reformers did not hold? I don't have an issue with Calvin arguing based on manuscript evidence. It's very important to argue the manuscript evidence. That's exactly what I'm inviting people to do, to prove their case to me. So far, I've been unconvinced by the manuscript evidence for the modern versions vis a vis the MT and TR which have been handed down to us. I agree that manuscript evidence plays an important role in this discussion. Incidentally, I think that Calvin had a lot to learn on several subjects, where others labored after him and built on what he had done. (I love Calvin. He, as an author, is one of my greatest influences.) Are you claiming that Calvin did not hold to a doctrine of preservation?
Click to expand...


----------



## JM

My presupposition is similar to the view held by the 17th century Reformers, as found in their Westminster and Second London Baptist Confessions. According to these confessions, the scriptures are:

"immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them." (article 1:8) 

Dr. Edward Hills explains how Erasmus, in his first printing of his Greek New Testament, was guided by a common faith held by all concerning, the text they had. And that, 

"Luther, Melanchton, Stephanus, Calvin, Beza, and the other scholars of the Reformation Period who labored on the New Testament text were similarly guided by God’s special providence. These scholars had received humanistic training in their youth, and in their notes and comments they sometimes reveal traces of this early education. But in their actual dealings with the biblical text these humanistic tendencies were restrained by the common faith in the providential preservation of Scripture, a faith which they themselves professed along with their followers. Hence in the Reformation Period the textual criticism of the New Testament was different from the textual criticism of any other book. The humanistic methods used on other books were not applied to the New Testament. In their editions of the New Testament Erasmus and his successors were providentially guided by the common faith to adopt the current text, primarily the current Greek text and secondarily the current Latin text. ... thus the logic of faith led true believers of that day, just as it leads true believers today, to the Textus Receptus as the God-guided New Testament text "

The Greek text edition circulated by Theodore Beza was in common use and considered authoritative. There was little or no further textual criticism done to his Greek edition, hence, it was received. In history we find a clear witness of the Protestant church to the Received Text. The church is the witness, the pillar and ground of truth. (1 Timothy 3:15) 

J. H. Gosden of the Gospel Standard Baptist observes in his commentary on the Gospel Standard Baptist Articles of Faith,

"By inspiration of God gave the Holy Oracles, and power - perennial miracle - He preserves them intact. They are inerrant, unchangeable, unlosable. Could they err or change or be lost, their divine origin would be disapproved and dependence upon them would be misplaced. In such a case there would exist no foundation upon which to build for eternity, no final court of appeal respecting truth and error, no standard of doctrine, no rule of practice, no touchstone of experience. "

Those who prefer to use a rational approach in defining the New Testament text have to admit that scripture is selected by the text critic. In the office of a scholar many manuscripts are studied. The assumption is often stated that "only the originals are inspired." The scholar must conduct examinations of the many manuscripts to determine which verse is more likely to be inspired and therefore authentic. But what kind of method does he use? What is his rule to determine what is, might be or is not scripture? The Bible critic or critics, whatever the case maybe, must choose and whatever kind of rule chosen, becomes their guiding principle. It is not driven by the logic of faith the Reformers used but a secular naturalistic presupposition. This presupposition denies the God who acts in history and intervenes in our daily lives. It denies what scriptures reveals about itself.

As the peoples historian D'Aubigne declared, "Christianity is neither an abstract doctrine nor an external organization. It is a life from God communicated to mankind..."

It was posted before:

Bart Ehrman states, “there is always a degree of doubt, an element of subjectivity.” 

Kurt Aland declares that the latest Text of the United Bible Societies is “not a static entity” and “every change in it is open to challenge.” 

G. Zuntz admits that “the optimism of the earlier editors has given way to that scepticism which inclines towards regarding ‘the original text’ as an unattainable mirage. ”

The CT man has no biblical text.

jm


----------



## Grimmson

Willem van Oranje said:


> I'm not saying that the Codex Sinaiticus is not a great discovery to be valued and researched. I am saying that its accuracy has not been established. How do you know that it was not produced by Arian heretics who purposely cut sections out that they didn't like? After all, it would fit the time period, expensiveness of the production (for Arians had the upper hand in those days among the rich and powerful.)





If it was a product of Arian heretics then it should be signs of it. Therefore let us look at some of the textual data.

Matthew 12:47 is missing in Codex Sinaiticus, and also in Vaticanus (fourth century), 
Bobbiensis (forth century), Freerianus (fifth century), Syriac Sinaiticus (fourth century) and Curetonianus (fifth century) and lastly the Sahidic text (about the fourth and fifth centuries. First of the absent of this text does not truly change the message of the reading of verses 46-50. It does however flow nicely within the reading of it. Personally I think a person was tired when copying a earlier edition of the 4th century text and it stuck. However with that said a case may be made perhaps that this absence may be applied example of a response against Arian heresy in the mid to late third century by down playing the creaturness or humanity of Jesus as it extends to a biological family and his relationship or interaction with such. Now I don’t think that the case, but it is an interesting idea. 

The omission of Matthew 6: 13 is extremely common in the manuscript traditions. It is also in Vaticanus, Bezae (fifth century), Dublinensis (sixth century), and minuscules dating up to the twelve century. There are also at least six variants of this passage that should be kept in mind. You do not start seeing the longer form of the variants until the late fourth to the fifth century and becomes more popular and longer as we approach the eighth century. The manuscript evidence does not support a pro or anti-Arian position and that includes from what I have seen so far concerning the church fathers in the second and third centuries through the fourth and fifth. 

Matthew 18:11 is missing, but shares this missed text with Vaticanus and a few other texts with classification of a later date, including the Sahidic text. Even though it is missing, it still pops up again in Luke 9:56. So if there was a deliberate attempt to strike the title the Son of Man and the purpose of Jesus then the scribes of the Codex Sinaiticus failed, because it is still in the text; a extremely important thing to remember. Plus I think a case could be made for a Arian to want to keep the phrase the Son of Man in the text, because of wanting to focus on Jesus being a created being and not the eternal Son. 

I can continue on in Matthew, but since this is a post and not a book or journal article let us move on to Mark 1:1 because the Son of God is omitted. The fact Son of God should not be an issue because it happens in early papyri manuscripts, and in authors like Irenaeus, Origen, and Epiphanius ( who wrote against the Arians and Origen) when mark 1:1 is quoted. Since it occurs before the Arian controversy, and is applied on both sides then this cannot be a case against the codex and for Arian authorship. 

I cannot really think of a section that really could say to be proof for Arian influence. And I think the parameters of this influence needs to be well established. John 1:34 cannot be used because of early papyri evidence.

Juan Hernández makes the argument looking at Revelation that the scribes of Sinaiticus were “anti-Arian” and that traces of this can be seen in the reading of Revelation. See Scribal habits and theological ... - Google Books .

I don’t have time to write anymore. I can talk about this some time later though if people are interested.


----------



## larryjf

Willem van Oranje said:


> Larry, I am concerned with unity, but I want unity to be achieved by a use of the preserved/uncorrupted text of Scripture. And I am also concerned that we maintain continuity with the historic body of Christ as to what the text of Scripture is. I am not suggesting that the TR is perfect or infallible. I am just stating that a Received Text exists. Therefore, if someone wants to amend it, the burden of proof rests on that person. So far I have found their arguments to be tainted by unorthodox theories of the corruption of the text of Scripture, and therefore (and also for the textual reasons themselves) have been unconvinced.


 
The thing is that the modern Church has by and large accepted the modern eclectic text as the Church's Bible.
Though it is true that the Bible has been pried out of the hand of the Church and given into the hands of textual critics, that does not mean that the Church has had no say in the text. The Church could have rejected the text that the critics compiled for the text of the 17th century....but she has largely accepted it rather than rejected it.
It's also important to realize that the text of Scripture didn't start to get pried out of the Church's hand in modern the modern Church...rather it was pried out of her hand with Erasmus.

---------- Post added at 05:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:23 PM ----------




Hebrew Student said:


> Well, I guess the question needs to be whether to pursue truth, or certainty. It is not a matter of a "magisterium" of textual critics. I have my Biblia Hebrica Stuttgartensia, a copy of the LXX, the Peshitta, and the Vulgate, as well as access to the text of the Samaritan Pentatuch, the DSS, the Wadi Murabba'at material, and the Masoretic manuscripts. It is not a matter of believing whatever scholars say; I can go out an check it on my own. It is *you* who is bound to the decisions of the Masorites, who were not even Christians. You must say that their text is infallible [even though there are differences between Masoretic Manuscripts, a fact which really means that there is no "Masoretic Text."]
> 
> As far as Sola Scriptura being a late development, that is simply absurd. While the specific terms were not used, Sola Scriptura is one idea that has a very good historical pedigree. I do believe you are giving *way* too much credit to Roman Catholics.
> 
> Also, doing Text Criticism does not leave the church without an authority to stand on. After working on variants all last semester, I can honestly say that, even in the worst case senario, I could find no variation upon which major Christian doctrine stood. If there is a text with variation, you will always be able to find some other text which has no variation upon which to base the doctrine. Hence, we do have something to stand on since our teachings do not depend upon any one of those variants.


 
The fact that you move the authority from a magisterium to the individual is not much help. It doesn't help if each of us have our own personal standard of authority with different variants than the others in our congregation. The Church herself needs a standard of authority, not just he individual Christian.

Your point about working with variants and the affect it has on doctrines is echoed by many others. I would suggest, however, that it does make a difference on how you look at the doctrine of preservation itself.


----------



## Hebrew Student

Willem van Oranje,



> The vocalizations that have been handed down through us from the centuries. I'm not arguing for one particular Masoretic manuscript over others. That is a legitimate realm for textual criticism. I have a problem when they revocalize based on zero evidence from any Hebrew manuscript in the Mazoretic family. This is what I call "speculative."





> I'm not prepared to answer that question, and I think it might vary from place to place somewhat, but your question helps to support my point that they should be examining the Masoretic manuscripts for the correct reading, not correcting the MT from other versions with no supporting Masoretic evidence.



The problem with both of these statements is the protomasoretic material. In other words, because of the fact that you have certain manuscripts from Qumran which are early forms of what would later become characteristics of Masoretic manuscripts, in reality, the Masoretic manuscripts are reflecting a state of affairs on down the line of transmission.

In other words, the only way this argument works is if there is such a thing as a masoretic urtext. The protomasoretic material makes this impossible, because it shows that the Masoretic text was the result of development over time.



> Nothing, textually speaking. This does not cause a problem for me. The NT writers did not always quote verbatim from the Masoretic text. They often quoted from versions, or even modified the verse quoted in some way that we don't have an OT variant or version to support. That does not mean that we should be importing NT readings into the OT to correct the MT. If they quoted from the LXX, that doesn't make me question the validity of the MT reading for that verse. It just sends me digging to find out what the point of the NT writer was, and why he quoted from the LXX in that instance. Is it a theological point, merely a matter of the familarity of his listeners with the LXX?, etc.



I think the point is, if the NT authors were willing to depart from the MT in their citations, then why do you have a problem with modern versions departing from the MT, when the very book you call scripture does it! If the MT is the preserved word of God, why would the NT authors be quoting the LXX?



> What precisely is the view to which you say that the early Reformers did not hold? I don't have an issue with Calvin arguing based on manuscript evidence. It's very important to argue the manuscript evidence. That's exactly what I'm inviting people to do, to prove their case to me. So far, I've been unconvinced by the manuscript evidence for the modern versions vis a vis the MT and TR which have been handed down to us. I agree that manuscript evidence plays an important role in this discussion. Incidentally, I think that Calvin had a lot to learn on several subjects, where others labored after him and built on what he had done. (I love Calvin. He, as an author, is one of my greatest influences.) Are you claiming that Calvin did not hold to a doctrine of preservation?



I would say that Calvin did not hold your view of preservation. Calvin never spoke of preservation in terms of the church being handed a particular family of manuscripts [such as the Masoretic Text]. He also said nothing about the DSS, he said nothing about the Cairo Geneza fragments, nor did he discuss the use of translations such as the LXX, Peshitta, and Vulgate. In fact, in the preface to the 1611 King James Version itself, the translators made very clear that they consulted all of these translations in their translation, and even made reference to the Septuagint itself. I have not found any place in the early reformers where they make mention of a view of preservation anywhere even close to what you have said.

larryjf,



> The fact that you move the authority from a magisterium to the individual is not much help. It doesn't help if each of us have our own personal standard of authority with different variants than the others in our congregation. The Church herself needs a standard of authority, not just he individual Christian.



It is not just the individual Christian. When I am looking at variants, I cannot just choose whatever I like. There are certain rules that one must follow. As we study the transmission of texts over time, we begin to see typical scribal errors: hapelography, dittography, homoiteluton, homoarkticon, confusion of similar letters, metathesis, changes due to transfer of script, etc. In other words, I cannot arbitrarily insert anything. I have to show how the one reading arose from the other.



> Your point about working with variants and the affect it has on doctrines is echoed by many others. I would suggest, however, that it does make a difference on how you look at the doctrine of preservation itself.



Indeed, but what good is it to go back to the Roman Catholic system, and stick your head in the sand when it comes to the simple confusion of letters, dittography, hapelographies, etc., and just blindly follow the church? In issues of ultimate authority, it is a terrible idea to just go back to the church. We need to be those who seek truth, and that means knowing the history and transmission of our text, and how we got it since, after all, it is the final authority.

My point is that those teachings, no matter what variants you accept, give us the standard and foundation upon which the church must stand.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## MW

Hebrew Student said:


> I think the point is, if the NT authors were willing to depart from the MT in their citations, then why do you have a problem with modern versions departing from the MT, when the very book you call scripture does it! If the MT is the preserved word of God, why would the NT authors be quoting the LXX?


 
First, the phenomenon of special revelation is no rule to us. Liberal theologians appeal to the different modes of revelation to prove degrees of inspiration. Conservatives stand on Scripture's own didactic witness to its full inspiration and interpret the phenomena accordingly. We are likewise bound to Scripture's didactic witness concerning its preservation. According to the reformed perspective, "the Old Testament in Hebrew" has been preserved entire by God's singular care and providence, WCF 1:8. The phenomena is to be interpreted in the light of this principle; we are not free to form a new principle on the basis of the phenomena.

Secondly, there is no proof that the NT authors departed from the MT in their "citations." It must first be proved that the NT authors "cited" OT texts in accord with empirical rules of citation before these citations can be used empirically to certify evidence. The most diverse readings are to be found in the Book of Hebrews and this book identifies itself as a "word of exhortation." These "words" make use of Hebrew customs of exposition, which were not tied to empirically correct rules of "citation." In one instance the Book of Hebrews demonstrates a complete disregard to the rules of citation by referring to a text as appearing in "a certain place." It is clear that the "integrity of the text" of the OT is not in any sense a matter of concern in these so-called citations, and it is therefore illegitimate to appeal to these "citations" to form a theory as to the integrity of the text.

Thirdly, it can be affirmed with certainty that the NT authors are never found "quoting the LXX." There are specific Greek forms for introducing quotations and the "Septuaginta" is never mentioned whenever any of these forms are utilised in the NT. There are references to OT Scripture which are rendered in the Greek language. The most that can be said is that these references sometimes bear a similarity to what has come to be known as the "LXX," a term which has been proven to be so fluid that one must wonder why it continues to be used as if it referred to a fixed and uniform text.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Larry, thankfully, this isn't universally the case. Probably 30-40% of Reformed churches use a TR/MT based translation to this day. So I would think you are overstating the case that the church has universally made her mind known on this issue. And if we can't have the true text of Scriptures, I wonder whether unity on such terms is worth it.


----------



## TimV

> Probably 30-40% of Reformed churches use a TR/MT based translation to this day.



What do you call an MT translation?


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Adam,

Thanks for your response. I'm interested to know whether there is convincing proof that the Qumran represent a proto-Masoretic text, or even an earlier textform. What kind of evidence are you basing this on? Surely this conclusion has to be based on more than the dating of the scrolls. The scholarly work of the Masorites in separating false readings out from among the true readings is not lightly to be discounted.

The NT writers were not making textual commentary to point to the original autographs of the OT, they were prophesying, preaching, and making doctrinal points. This means that we are not to jump to the conclusion that an NT rendering of an OT verse is the more authentic reading. It may not be the authentic reading of the OT verse, though the Spirit was pleased to use it for his own ends. I would do the same thing for example, if I were exhorting in a church which uses the ESV, and the ESV, though corrupted (in my view) on some points, were good enough to support the point I was making at that moment. In that case, I wouldn't necessarily feel the need to make a verbal correction of the ESV, as long as it was good enough to the purpose of the point I was making in quoting it.

I'll have to see what I can dig up on Calvin and preservation, though I have no problems standing upon the shoulders of men who progressively built on the work of the great Reformer, like for example the Westminster divines and Francis Turretin.

---------- Post added at 10:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:21 PM ----------




TimV said:


> Probably 30-40% of Reformed churches use a TR/MT based translation to this day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you call an MT translation?
Click to expand...

 
One whose Old Testament is based on the Masoretic text, like for example the Authorized Version.


----------



## TimV

So you think that a third or better of Reformed Churches today use the KJV or Geneva Bible? You are sadly mistaken. I doubt if even 10 percent do.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

TimV said:


> So you think that a third or better of Reformed Churches today use the KJV or Geneva Bible? You are sadly mistaken. I doubt if even 10 percent do.


 
Probably a third use the New King James Version.


----------



## TimV

No way.


----------



## au5t1n

More to the point, though, most of the Church has switched translations for the sake of updated language, not because of a universal consideration and acceptance of the alternative textual bases.


----------



## TimV

Yes, the confession demands the vulgar tongue. The KJV isn't vulgar. I've seen every argument under the sun that claims the KJV is vulgar and it's all nonsense. Pull a guy off the street and he won't understand it. So the KJV is NOT confessional. No way. Those arguments saying that we have to "teach" KJV language to the masses are ridiculous.


----------



## MW

TimV said:


> Yes, the confession demands the vulgar tongue. The KJV isn't vulgar.


 
You appeal to a dated expression in a 17th century confession to claim there is a problem with a 17th century translation of the Bible because it uses dated expressions. Don't you think readers of English can grasp ranges of meaning in the same way that you can?


----------



## TimV

> You appeal to a dated expression in a 17th century confession to claim there is a problem with a 17th century translation of the Bible because it uses dated expressions. Don't you think readers of English can grasp ranges of meaning in the same way that you can?



No, I'm unusually well read. And speak a half a dozen living languages. And even I have trouble understanding the KJV. There is no way the KJV is confessional.


----------



## MW

I think you are appealing to the confession without taking account of the confession's own terms of reference. The Confession speaks of "a due use of the ordinary means" in coming to an understanding of the Scriptures. Further, English authorities are agreed that the English of the AV was not the common speech of the people at the time it was published; nevertheless the Confession freely quotes it.


----------



## au5t1n

For the record, when I was an unchurched ten-year-old, I got ahold of an old KJV and read Genesis, Exodus, and Matthew, and I understood it well enough. It's a little archaic, sure, but it's not beyond the comprehension of the average native English speaker. After that I read the NIV for a few years and then the NASB and now I'm back to the KJV again. I'm about to finish a cover to cover read in a few weeks, and I can't say it was that hard (I'm 20 btw).


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Ok guys, this discussion is getting off topic with the posts about whether the language of the KJV is the vulgar tongue.


----------



## Hebrew Student

armourbearer,



> First, the phenomenon of special revelation is no rule to us. Liberal theologians appeal to the different modes of revelation to prove degrees of inspiration. Conservatives stand on Scripture's own didactic witness to its full inspiration and interpret the phenomena accordingly. We are likewise bound to Scripture's didactic witness concerning its preservation. According to the reformed perspective, "the Old Testament in Hebrew" has been preserved entire by God's singular care and providence, WCF 1:8. The phenomena is to be interpreted in the light of this principle; we are not free to form a new principle on the basis of the phenomena.



The issue is not the preservation, but the means and mode of that preservation. We both agree that God has preserved his word. That is not the issue. The issue is the means and mode. I would argue that this mode that has been presented so far on this board can be found nowhere in scripture, and you have to appeal to the church in order to make this work. That has been the pattern so far on this board.



> Secondly, there is no proof that the NT authors departed from the MT in their "citations." It must first be proved that the NT authors "cited" OT texts in accord with empirical rules of citation before these citations can be used empirically to certify evidence. The most diverse readings are to be found in the Book of Hebrews and this book identifies itself as a "word of exhortation." These "words" make use of Hebrew customs of exposition, which were not tied to empirically correct rules of "citation." In one instance the Book of Hebrews demonstrates a complete disregard to the rules of citation by referring to a text as appearing in "a certain place." It is clear that the "integrity of the text" of the OT is not in any sense a matter of concern in these so-called citations, and it is therefore illegitimate to appeal to these "citations" to form a theory as to the integrity of the text.



Of course, the problem with this is that we have actual Hebrew manuscripts that read at Habakkuk 1:5 exactly as Acts 13:41 cites this passage, such as 4QpHab. Even worse, this manuscript is dated before the writing of the NT. That would be an incredible coincedence if this "word of exhortation" matched exactly a manuscript that was already in existence before the NT was written!



> Thirdly, it can be affirmed with certainty that the NT authors are never found "quoting the LXX." There are specific Greek forms for introducing quotations and the "Septuaginta" is never mentioned whenever any of these forms are utilised in the NT. There are references to OT Scripture which are rendered in the Greek language. The most that can be said is that these references sometimes bear a similarity to what has come to be known as the "LXX," a term which has been proven to be so fluid that one must wonder why it continues to be used as if it referred to a fixed and uniform text.



With regards to the first statement, who cares whether they use the exact name? They are using a translation most familiar to their Greek speaking audience. With regards to your second question, again, it is irrelevant. Whether you take that position or not, _the fact of the matter is they still depart from the MT_! You have to explain why it is that they are departing from the MT if the MT is supposedly the "preserved word of God." Again, the "word of wisdom" argument won't work, because we have Hebrew manuscripts from Qumran that reflect the Septuagint rescention. If the apostles really believed the MT rescention to be the "preserved word of God," they why are they quoting from these other manuscripts?

Even worse than that, the term "Masoretic Text," although not as fluid as the LXX, is still fluid. Which Masoretic text is the preserved word of God? Codex Leningradensis? The Aleppo Codex? The Kennicot Manuscripts? If so, which Kennicot Manuscript? The term Masoretic text simply refers to readings that are typical of the Masoretic rescention. However, there are places where they differ, and there is no one "Masoretic Text." This is especially the case if you demand that we include vowel pointing. When they differ, which one do you take?

Willem van Oranje,



> Thanks for your response. I'm interested to know whether there is convincing proof that the Qumran represent a proto-Masoretic text, or even an earlier textform. What kind of evidence are you basing this on? Surely this conclusion has to be based on more than the dating of the scrolls. The scholarly work of the Masorites in separating false readings out from among the true readings is not lightly to be discounted.



The reason we know this is by comparison between the standard Masoretic manuscripts and the specific Qumran scrolls in question. The Isaiah scroll, for example, represents a very clearly protomasoretic rescention in that it agrees with the standard MT text of Isaiah in almost 99+ percent of cases. Because the readings of certain Qumran scrolls match the MT so closely [although not exactly], it is difficult to say that this somehow is a result of coincedence. Therefore, we call these texts "protomasoretic."



> The NT writers were not making textual commentary to point to the original autographs of the OT, they were prophesying, preaching, and making doctrinal points. This means that we are not to jump to the conclusion that an NT rendering of an OT verse is the more authentic reading. It may not be the authentic reading of the OT verse, though the Spirit was pleased to use it for his own ends. I would do the same thing for example, if I were exhorting in a church which uses the ESV, and the ESV, though corrupted (in my view) on some points, were good enough to support the point I was making at that moment. In that case, I wouldn't necessarily feel the need to make a verbal correction of the ESV, as long as it was good enough to the purpose of the point I was making in quoting it.



Well, again, the problem is the same one that armourbearer has. We actually have Hebrew manuscripts of these books that match the LXX rescention. In other words, the readings of the LXX are actually found in Qumran Hebrew manuscripts. I gave several examples of this, but also the Jeremiah fragments 4QJerb and 4QJerd contain the LXX readings from Jeremiah, and the 1 Samuel manuscript 4QSama have Septuagint readings from 1 Samuel. These Hebrew manuscripts shouldn't exist if the NT writers are just making a commentary on the text.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Reformed Baptist

Not responding to any one in particular here, but yesterday my daughter was essentially ridiculed for using the NKJV/KJV by two boys her age...in the church we are attending.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Dear Adam,

You misunderstood me. I never stated that the apostles didn't quote from the LXX. I believe that it is likely they did quote from the LXX at times. What I said was that their quoting of the LXX does not consititute a textual commentary. In other words, it doesn't mean that the LXX has the correct rendering where it differs from the MT, just because the apostles made use of it, warts and all.

You mentioned some things I have heard before about the Qumran scrolls resembling the LXX, particularly in Jeremiah and in some other places you mentioned. So what? What does that tell us? Where does that leave us? What conclusion does this drive you to? To me, the fact that some ancient Hebrew scrolls were digged up along with some apocryphal literature at the site of a cultic, sectarian commune, and that some of the biblical scrolls affirm the MT, while others are closer to the LXX, does not change much. There were obviously two Hebrew strands of (e.g.) Jeremiah, one represented by the Qumran, and one represented in the MT. The Qumran variant seems to have found its way into the LXX translation into Greek, while the other strand (which was passed to us in the MT) won the approbation of history, and of those dilligent scholars who handed the OT down to us. I still fail to see how this constitutes proof against the MT.


----------



## MW

Hebrew Student said:


> The issue is not the preservation, but the means and mode of that preservation. We both agree that God has preserved his word. That is not the issue. The issue is the means and mode. I would argue that this mode that has been presented so far on this board can be found nowhere in scripture, and you have to appeal to the church in order to make this work. That has been the pattern so far on this board.



We do not possess the originals as a blueprint. Hence any statement about the manner of preservation is _ipso facto_ a statement about preservation itself. A different mode of preservation requires a different doctrine of preservation. You are presenting a different doctrine of preservation, one which supposes the Old Testament in Hebrew has not been preserved entire. Your view denies that the church has possessed a pure Hebrew text to which it might appeal as a final authority in matters of controversy. This is clean contrary to the affirmation of WCF 1:8.

The appeal is made to the church because the oracles of God were committed to the church. Higher and lower criticism are bound by the same process. How do we discern the canon of Scripture? That is how we discern the text of Scripture. According to our Confession the church is not the judge of controversies; that is the work of the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures. Nevertheless the church is God's ordained witness which moves us to a high and reverent esteem of the Scriptures. We are not at liberty to discard the witness of God's appointment and choose one which is more to our liking.



Hebrew Student said:


> Of course, the problem with this is that we have actual Hebrew manuscripts that read at Habakkuk 1:5 exactly as Acts 13:41 cites this passage, such as 4QpHab. Even worse, this manuscript is dated before the writing of the NT. That would be an incredible coincedence if this "word of exhortation" matched exactly a manuscript that was already in existence before the NT was written!



You are claiming that we have actual Hebrew mss. which read a Hebrew text exactly as a Greek text cites the passage. Amusing!

Again, you claim "citation" where there is no proof of a source. It can be shown by other speeches that appeal to scripture does not invoke any specific text, so there is no basis upon which to prove that the speaker is invoking a specific form of the text. Your empirical use of these so-called "citations" does not accord with the non-empirical way in which appeal is made to Scripture in NT discourse. The fact that some mss. share more affinities with a text which is utilised in discourse would support a theory which derives variants from the phenomenon of oral tradition.



Hebrew Student said:


> With regards to the first statement, who cares whether they use the exact name? They are using a translation most familiar to their Greek speaking audience.



A translation familiar to their Greek speaking audience does not identify the source as the LXX. The LXX and the NT might both reflect an oral tradition which was familiar to both speaker and audience.



Hebrew Student said:


> With regards to your second question, again, it is irrelevant. Whether you take that position or not, _the fact of the matter is they still depart from the MT_! You have to explain why it is that they are departing from the MT if the MT is supposedly the "preserved word of God."


 
I have as little need to explain these variants as a believer in a closed Hebrew canon needs to explain "citations" which cannot be found in any of the canonical books of the OT.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

David, point is, we can't know for sure. There has got to be a reason that the church left out the Sinaitic variants when she transmitted the Scriptures down to us. I am inclined to think it must have been a good reason. We have no good basis to evaluate her decision based on the scanty evidence we possess.


----------



## TimV

> There has got to be a reason that the church left out the Sinaitic variants



Riley you're just not dealing with reality. Even the Reformers knew that there were errors in the different manuscripts that crept in either though clerical error or the "malice" of Jews and/or heretics. And that included the TR. Here's Turretin on Luke 3:36



> Turretin then takes up the problem of Luke 3:36, in which a certain Cainan appears in the common text in the genealogy of Christ, which Turretin considers to be "contrary to the truth of the Mosaic history, Gen. 11:13." He is of the opinion that this mention of Cainan is "spurious, having crept in from the version of the Septuagint ... either from the carelessness of copyists or from a certain pious zeal, that Luke might be consistent with the Septuagint which was then of great authority." He then proceeds to justify this conclusion by the following text-critical argument:
> 
> This [i.e. that Cainan in Luke 3:36 is spurious] is plainly proved: (1) by the authority of Moses and of the books of Chronicles which, in the genealogical records formed in three places (Gen. 10:24; 11:13; 1 Chron. 1:18), make no mention of him; (2) the Chaldee paraphrases which uniformly omit Cainan in the book of Genesis and Chronicles; (3) Josephus does not mention him, nor Berosus guided by him, nor Africanus whose words Eusebius quotes in his Chronicorum (cf. 1.16.13 [PG 19.153-54]); (4) the sacred chronology would thus be disturbed and brought into doubt in the history of Moses, if the years of Cainan are inserted between Arphaxad and Sala. Abraham would not be the tenth from Noah as Moses asserts, but the eleventh. (5) It does not exist in any of the Codices. Our Beza testifies that it is not found in his most ancient manuscript (Annotationes maiores in Novum ... Testamentum, Pars prior [1594], p. 262 on Luke 3:36). Ussher ("De Cainano Arphaxadi filio" in Chronologia Sacra 6; cf. Whole Works [1847-64], 11:558) asserts that he saw the book of Luke written in Greek-Latin on the most ancient vellum, in characters somewhat large without breathings and accents (which having been brought from Greece to France was laid up in the monastery of St. Irenaeus in the suburbs of Lyons; and being discovered in the year 1562 was afterward carried to England and presented to the University of Cambridge), and in it he could not find Cainan. Scaliger in his prologue to the chronicle of Eusebius ("Prolegomena," Thesaurus temporum Eusebii .. chronicorum canonum [1606/1968], 1:ii) affirms that Cainan is lacking in the most ancient copies of Luke. Whatever the case may be, even if this passage proves to be a mistake, the authenticity of Luke's gospel cannot be called in question on that account: (a) because the corruption is not universal; (b) this error is of little consequence and a ready means of correcting it is furnished by Moses, so that there was no necessity for that learned man Vossius to throw doubts upon the purity of the Hebrew manuscript in order to establish the authenticity of the Septuagint. 3



http://www.bible-researcher.com/turretin-text.html

It should be noted that there were several factual errors Turretin made, but it serves to illistrate the point (I know you're not making this particular point, Riley) that the largely Fundamental Baptist belief that the TR is perfect simply isn't a mainstream Reformed view and it never has been.

I just checked Gill out of curiosity, since he's often used as an exemplar by KJV onlies, and he also says of the mention of Cainan, who is mentioned in the KJV and TR



> for certain it is, there never was such a Cainan



The reason the "Church" added Cainan according to the most orthodox, TR supporting Reformed and most orthodox, TR supporting Baptist scholars that ever lived is because it was an error that didn't get caught.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Reading through the thread I have an unpleasant sense of déjà vu. We really have been down these roads and arguments “a zillion times” as one stalwart in the fray (on the CT side) has put it. Of course those new to the forums don’t have the benefit, such as it is, of having participated in these historical discussions (euphemistically speaking).

I do know this, though, that before starting a thread in a controversial area I will try to research the discussions to see what ground has been covered – and what not – here at PB. Why go over old ground – old arguments – unless I have new information and _better_ arguments?

As y’all can probably tell, I have for the most part retired from the Translations and Manuscripts forum, as I’ve pretty much made the case I wanted defending the Authorized Version and those Greek and Hebrew manuscripts which underlie it, per the WCF 1:8 – as well investigating the history of that portion of the Confession, and the interpretations of it.

This, along with Paedo-Credo discussions, have tended to be the most divisive and turbulent areas of contention, and I think this even more than the baptism stuff as the Scriptures are the very foundation of our faith, our communion with and trust of our saving God. So it matters, as in “life and death”.

This is why this forum is now moderated, rather than freely posted on – due to previous over-heated engines.

And it matters to the CT/ET (Critical Text/Eclectic Text) folks just as much as to the TR/AV and MT (Textus Receptus/Authorized Version and Majority Text) folks.

Below I will post the collection of text-critical discussions I have either started or participated in, for the benefit of those desiring to see some of our history, and for research purposes. Note that these posts support the TR and AV position. If you want to see the work of those supporting the CT/ET and modern version positions you can use the search feature (which is pretty good!) and research that for yourself, although there is much CT defense in the posts I list, as I have interacted with such.

There is an irony in this contention between TR and CT, in that it recapitulates the _exact_ contention the post-Reformation defenders of Sola Scriptura and Providential Preservation engaged in with the counter-reformation scholars of Rome, as concerns both the New Testament Scriptures and the Old. Discussion of these things is in the posts below.

I have a Bible in my hands I say is the very word of God. I say it because of the presupposition I have, which is based on His promises that He would preserve His word for His people. I go into the particulars of this view, and defend it against detractors, in many places below.

The adversaries of the church of Jesus Christ, be they Muslim, atheist, false brethren, or unbelieving text critics, all pay attention to our discussions, seeking to discern the soft underbelly of our faith in the Bible, that they may open and eviscerate us. Bart Ehrman is one such, and uses the CT arguments against the church.

It’s a sad day when textual scholars – believing _and_ unbelieving – turn against the faith our Reformation forebears had in God’s word, telling us instead the Bible we possess is a crapshoot – it changes with the throw of the dice of “new discoveries” and new ideas for emending the texts. The results of this destruction of the church’s faith in her Bible as the authoritative word of her Saviour and King is evidenced everywhere in the weakening of the faith of multitudes, the corruption of doctrine, and the growing apostasy. It has been pointed out that there are other factors contributing to this, and that is true, but that we don’t have a sure and settled word of God – a Bible we can hold in our hands and say, “_This_ is God’s word, by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages” – is the breaking of our “sword of the Spirit” (Eph 6:17) wielded as “a right Jerusalem blade”*** against the foes of Heaven.

But some of us have our sword intact, standing “strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might” (Eph 6:10).

** In John Bunyan's classic, Pilgrim's Progress, Mr. Great-heart is questioning newly-met Mr. Valiant-for-truth concerning his adventures, and asks why he did not cry out for help when overwhelmed. Valiant answers, “So I did to my King, who I knew could hear, and afford invisible help, and that was sufficient for me.” Then said Great-heart to Mr. Valiant-for-truth, “Thou hast worthily behaved thyself; let me see thy Sword;” so he shewed it him.

When he had taken it in his hand, and looked thereon a while, he said, “Ha! It is a right Jerusalem blade.” And Valiant, “It is so. Let a man have one of these blades, with a hand to wield it, and skill to use it, and he may venture upon an Angel with it. He need not fear its holding, if he can but tell how to lay on. Its edges will never blunt. It will cut flesh, and bones, and soul, and spirit and all.”*

-------------

The link to these following text-critical posts and threads may always be found in my signature, as the Textual Posts link.



*Answering Alan Kurschner of aomin thread*

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/answering-alan-kurschner-aomin-24839/#post304894

Hort on early Byz majority: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/answering-alan-kurschner-aomin-24839/#post307360

Borland essay; Lake, allegation Alexandrian text majority examined: ibid

W&H text not the same as CT/ET per White: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/answering-alan-kurschner-aomin-24839/#post306418



*Responding to James White of AOMIN thread*

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/responding-james-white-aomin-44382/



*Johannine Comma thread*

Nolan on 1 John 5:7: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/johannine-comma-37481/#post465749

Minute vs. adequate preservation: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/johannine-comma-37481/index2.html#post467490

Pickering on the early history of the text: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/johannine-comma-37481/index2.html#post467493

Holland on 1 John 5:7: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/johannine-comma-37481/index2.html#post468225



*Skepticism and doubt toward the Bible thread*

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/skepticism-doubt-toward-bible-52046/



*LXX Discussion thread*

Many issues concerning the Septuagint.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/lxx-discussion-54112/



*Do NT authors quote the LXX? thread*

Further consideration of Septuagint issues.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/do-nt-authors-quote-lxx-55489/



*KJV / Byz / TR Resources thread*

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/KJV-byz-tr-resources-53502/

The above link contains many resources, online and hardcopy. I want to stress: online resources sometimes go defunct. Download as much as you are able while they exist. For example, Will Kinney's superb KJV Articles page has moved: Kinney's new website. These studies are not "expendable", but essential. Download the lot while you can!



*Hebrew Vowel Points in Question* thread

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/hebrew-vowel-points-question-57425/#post748042 (My posts are #22 and #24)



*Not In Early Manuscript--Good or Bad?** thread*



*"Phantom Manuscripts"? thread*

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/phantom-manuscripts-20851/#post262198




*WCF 1.8 and CT thread*

Extended quote of Letis on Warfield and WCF 1:8: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/wcf-1-8-ct-40915/index3.html#post510367

and: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/wcf-1-8-ct-40915/index3.html#post509179

Burgon on Matt 5:22: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/wcf-1-8-ct-40915/index3.html#post509871

A summing up: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/wcf-1-8-ct-40915/index5.html#post513835



*KJV-Only Versus Byzantine Superiority thread*

Burgon on John 3:13: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/KJV-only-versus-byzantine-superiority-20221/index2.html#post270927



*Textual Manuscripts thread*

Lane vs. Steve on Alexandrian/W&H (& Asa – Amon): http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/textual-manuscripts-27898/




*What is the authentic New Testament text? thread:* (A partial list of contents in the OP)

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/what-authentic-new-testament-text-15134/#post194921

Quoting Letis’ essay responding to D.A. Carson: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/what-authentic-new-testament-text-15134/#post199947



CONCERNING ERASMUS (Coats, Cloud, etc): http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/what-authentic-new-testament-text-15134/#post196909

Letis / Borland on Asa and Amon (Matt 1:7, 10 ESV): http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/what-authentic-new-testament-text-15134/#post197418

Kirsopp Lake, “It is hard to resist the conclusion that the scribes usually destroyed their exemplars when they had copied the sacred books.”: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/what-authentic-new-testament-text-15134/#post198366




*Do Many Scholars Prefer the Majority Text? thread*

Byz priority: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/do-many-scholars-prefer-majority-text-24589/#post302411



*TTer gone CTer thread* (many posts)

Warfield assertion countered by Lake: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/tter-gone-cter-16956/#post219226



*History of the KJV and TR thread*

Owen on variants (from Letis): http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/history-KJV-tr-19376/index2.html#post243016


*A History Of The Authorized Version thread*

Extended discussion of the Septuagint starting at post #40: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/history-authorized-version-31573/#post389900



*Beelzebub or Beelzebul?* *thread* (see post #9 ff.)



*Byzantine readings of Paul thread*

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/byzantine-readings-Paul-32992/

Pickering and Robinson on “no early Byz mss”: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/byzantine-readings-Paul-32992/#post409938



*Do textual variants give us confidence? thread*

Some posts on the OT text: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/do-textual-variants-give-us-confidence-22188/#post277212


*Verses omitted from the ESV thread*

Extensive Nolan quote: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/verses-ommited-esv-24712/#post303785


*Linguistic Superiority between Geneva and KJV? thread*

Links to “Easter” discussions in KJV: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/linguistic-superiority-between-geneva-KJV-28275/#post343707



*Pascha in Acts 12:4 thread (re “Easter”) thread*

Steve’s input starting in post #10: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/pascha-acts-12-4-a-46832/


*Defending the Lord's Prayer 1 thread (Matt 6)*

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/defending-lords-prayer-1-a-27974/#post339309


*Defending the Lord's Prayer 2 thread (Luke 11)*

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/defending-lords-prayer-2-a-27979/#post339338



*On Gathering Intelligence and Evidence thread*
http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/gathering-intelligence-evidence-14440/


*Why do KJ Only types believe the Westcott and Hort manuscripts are bad? thread* (my first post #14)

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/why-do-kj-only-types-believe-westcott-hort-manuscripts-bad-14539/


*pierced/like a lion...need Hebrew help thread*

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/pierced-like-lion-need-hebrew-help-16007/#post204555



*NASB / ESV Revisions?? thread*

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/NASB-esv-revisions-14297/#post207878



*THE ASCENDANCY OF THE CRITICAL TEXT thread* (bare-knuckled poem)

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/ascendancy-critical-text-15711/



*On Enoch in Jude thread*

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/Peter-enns-blog-35587/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/history-authorized-version-31573/index2.html#post391843



*Colossians 1:14 thread*

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/colossians-1-14-a-28457/



*Did Lazarus write the Gospel of John? thread* (starting at post #18)

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/did-lazarus-write-gospel-john-31034/



*The Occult in the late 19th, early 20th centuries*

http://www.puritanboard.com/f64/occult-late-19th-early-20th-centuries-34386/


*Inspired in Teachings Only? thread*

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/inspired-teachings-only-35364/




*Biblical Preservation thread* (RE: Tischendorf rescued [Codex Sinaiticus] from a waste basket)

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/biblical-preservation-17739/#post223739



*Mark 16:12 thread*

http://www.puritanboard.com/f44/mark-16-12-a-20445/



*John 7:53-8:11 thread*

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/john-7-53-8-11-a-25089/



*King James Only Movement thread*

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/king-james-only-movement-36217/



*Verbal Plenary Preservation thread*

Discussion of Reformation texts: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/verbal-plenary-preservation-21765/

Arians in power for 50 years in Greek empire: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/verbal-plenary-preservation-21765/#post273656



*Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, and Granville Sharp thread*

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/titus-2-13-2-Peter-1-1-granville-sharp-18634/



*Farstad & Hodges Vs. Robinson & Pierpont thread*

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/farstad-hodges-vs-robinson-pierpont-49200/


*The merits of the A.V. thread*

On Bruce Metzger: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/merits-v-16705/#post214595



*AV Theology Compared to Modern Versions* thread

Dr. Vance Smith (Unitarian) on the 1881 Revisers effect on doctrines of the NT (see post #46)



*KJV Acts 22:28... this FREEDOM? thread*


----------



## TimV

> We really have been down these roads and arguments “a zillion times” as one stalwart in the fray (on the CT side) has put it.



And one reason more of us aren't on the same page is that you rely so much, as you've several times admitted, on Fundamental Baptist scholarship. And they paint things in terms of black and white. So, while I've a zillion times said I'm not on the CT side, and further have said I prefer the MT, you don't believe it or don't understand it. And I suspect the reason is that anyone who says the KJV has any errors in it automatically hates the KJV in the eyes of Fundamental Baptist KJVOnlies, and you've picked up on that mentality.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

I stand corrected re your position, Tim. Though Edward Hills and John Burgon are certainly no IFBs. Still, I do like the research and scholarship of some IFBs -- even though they may err here and there -- for in the main they are very good. And they are brethren, though we may differ with them on certain points, and to be treated with grace and honor.


----------



## Hebrew Student

armourbearer,



> We do not possess the originals as a blueprint. Hence any statement about the manner of preservation is ipso facto a statement about preservation itself. A different mode of preservation requires a different doctrine of preservation. You are presenting a different doctrine of preservation, one which supposes the Old Testament in Hebrew has not been preserved entire. Your view denies that the church has possessed a pure Hebrew text to which it might appeal as a final authority in matters of controversy. This is clean contrary to the affirmation of WCF 1:8.



Where do you get this idea that "The Old Testament in Hebrew" somehow establishes a context of textual variation and manuscripts? You and I both know that there are differences between English translations and the Hebrew text, because you can't translate certain aspects of the Hebrew into English [such as the difference between a waw consecutive and a waw hahippuk]. Hence, when it refers to Hebrew, it is a stretch to say that we are talking about textual variation.

Also, such an interpretation would require you to quote from the records of the Westminster Confession in order to show that this is, indeed, what they discussed. However, there is no evidence that they ever discussed anything having to do with textual variation. Hence, your entire interpretation is anachronistic, and in error.

Furthermore, a continued weakness for you is historical and scriptural. Calvin did not hold to your view; the King James translators did not hold to your view. Were they not "reformed?" Also, I am still waiting on the scripture verses to prove this position.



> The appeal is made to the church because the oracles of God were committed to the church. Higher and lower criticism are bound by the same process. How do we discern the canon of Scripture? That is how we discern the text of Scripture. According to our Confession the church is not the judge of controversies; that is the work of the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures. Nevertheless the church is God's ordained witness which moves us to a high and reverent esteem of the Scriptures. We are not at liberty to discard the witness of God's appointment and choose one which is more to our liking.



You see, that is the difference. It is not the church that moves me to a high and reverent esteem for the scriptures; it is the Holy Spirit of God, that changes me from a hater of God's word into a lover of God's word. And, isn't it amazing that Roman Catholics say the very same thing that you are saying. Karl Keating, for example, says that:



> The Catholic believes in inspiration because the church tells him so-that's putting it bluntly-and that same church has the authority to interpret the inspired text. [Catholicism and Fundamentalism p.127].



Just like the Roman Catholic, you believe that we "cannot discard the witness of God's appointment," and that it is ultimately the church that leads you to inspiration. The problem is that those that God appoints are fallible sinners. Therefore, their authority is fallible. To deny this is to put you in the same boat with Karl Keating.



> You are claiming that we have actual Hebrew mss. which read a Hebrew text exactly as a Greek text cites the passage. Amusing!
> 
> Again, you claim "citation" where there is no proof of a source. It can be shown by other speeches that appeal to scripture does not invoke any specific text, so there is no basis upon which to prove that the speaker is invoking a specific form of the text. Your empirical use of these so-called "citations" does not accord with the non-empirical way in which appeal is made to Scripture in NT discourse. The fact that some mss. share more affinities with a text which is utilised in discourse would support a theory which derives variants from the phenomenon of oral tradition.
> 
> A translation familiar to their Greek speaking audience does not identify the source as the LXX. The LXX and the NT might both reflect an oral tradition which was familiar to both speaker and audience.
> 
> I have as little need to explain these variants as a believer in a closed Hebrew canon needs to explain "citations" which cannot be found in any of the canonical books of the OT.



You simply are not understanding the argument. Here is a more drawn out discussion of what I am saying:

You are saying that the differences in the NT and the MT are simply a result of certain traditions or interpretations of the NT authors. The problem is that the LXX is based upon a different rescention of the Hebrew Text. From Qumran, we can establish that there are at least three different lines of transmission. I will eliminate the lines for the Samaritan Pentatuch, since they are irrelevant to the discussion:



> 1. Vorlage of the LXX→LXX rescention manuscripts in Qumran→NT quotations.
> 
> 2. Protomasoretic texts→Masoretic text.



However, you want to make the line like this:



> 1. Masoretic text→NT author alterations→LXX text.



The problem is that the Qumran material simply makes this unsustainable. When you compare the text of the LXX to the Hebrew texts I mentioned, you find that some of the Qumran manuscripts reflect the readings found in the LXX, _which means that those readings had to be in the manuscript tradition before the NT_. Hence, the rise of the LXX readings within the manuscript tradition cannot postdate the NT, as the model you are presenting states.

I also thought your first statement above was disingenuious. No one is saying that Hebrew and Greek are the same language. What we are saying is that the Hebrew manuscripts reflect the varation in wording found in the LXX. Hence, these could not have entered into the Septuagint tradition as simply part of the NT tradition. They had to predate the NT.

For example, the NT [and the LXX] uses the Greek term kataphronetai in Acts 13:41, departing from the MT, which has two words-the bet preposition, and the word for "nations" [goyim]. As I already mentioned, you have 4QpHab reading bwgdym. There is one other place in Habakkuk in which the Hebrew term bagad is found, and that is in Habakkuk 2:5. Here the LXX translates bagad by what term? Kataphronetes, the very same Greek term we have in both the NT and the LXX back in Habakkuk 1:5. There is only one other place in the entire LXX where this term occurs, and that is in Zephaniah 3:4, and there it is likewise translating the root b-g-d.

This is what I am saying. When you do this kind of comparison between the LXX and the manuscripts of Qumran, you find that they are reflecting the same rescention as the Hebrew vorlage of the LXX, long before the NT was written. Hence, it is absolutely impossible that the alternate readings cited by the NT could have simply been an interpretation, which then affected certain Greek translations of the Old Testament. The NT authors are citing a translation of Hebrew texts that are simply not Masoretic that also predate the NT. That is impossible to fit into your model.

You also seem to be implying that an author must say, "I am quoting the LXX" for him to be quoting the LXX. That is grossly simplistic. If that was the common translation of his day, then why would he need to say that? It sounds to me like you are imposing twenty-first century citation methodology onto a first century text, which, again, is entirely anachronistic.

Willem van Oranje,

It is difficult to understand how you can say that the NT authors quoted the LXX text, the quotations of the LXX text depart from the MT, and yet, those quotations are not authoritative. If they are not authoritative, then why are they quoted with the heading "as the scripture says," and such phrases as that? Are not the scriptures authoritative?

I think what I said initially is exactly what I would say right now. Namely, you believe what you believe about this issue only because the church tells you so, which, again, seems to put you in the same boat as the Roman Catholic.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Adam, the LXX is the Scriptures, to the extent that it is accurately reflecting the original, and in that God has used it to save people, just like he has the NIV and the Douay-Rheims Bible. The apostles were wise to use frequently what was familiar to their audience. And they did not always use the LXX.

I am not taking a Romanist position, I am applying Reformed understanding of tradition. It is not infallible, but it is to be regarded highly. We are not schismatics. We do not throw out the baby with the bathwater or try to reinvent the wheel every generation. It seems to me that you are not giving due weight to the testimony of the church in her purest ages on what the correct text of Scripture is. I'm not saying its infallible. But certainly it means a great deal. 

You as a scholar are treading where many have gone before, and I feel that you are not giving their work its due testimony.


----------



## MW

Hebrew Student said:


> Where do you get this idea that "The Old Testament in Hebrew" somehow establishes a context of textual variation and manuscripts?



From the teaching of Scripture, which is well summarised in WCF 1:8, "*The Old Testament in Hebrew* (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. 



Hebrew Student said:


> Also, such an interpretation would require you to quote from the records of the Westminster Confession in order to show that this is, indeed, what they discussed. However, there is no evidence that they ever discussed anything having to do with textual variation. Hence, your entire interpretation is anachronistic, and in error.



First, we have the plain statement of the Confession. Secondly, we have the traditional text which is reflected in their Scripture proofs. Thirdly, we have writings of the divines containing textual questions, which are decided on the side of the traditional text.



Hebrew Student said:


> Furthermore, a continued weakness for you is historical and scriptural. Calvin did not hold to your view; the King James translators did not hold to your view. Were they not "reformed?" Also, I am still waiting on the scripture verses to prove this position.



The Scripture verses are readily accessible in the proofs appended to the Confession, understanding of course that there is a tradition of exegesis which underlies these proofs. I'm not sure why you think Calvin or King James' translators did not hold my view. What text did Calvin comment on? What text did King James' translators use as their source? The traditional text.



Hebrew Student said:


> You see, that is the difference. It is not the church that moves me to a high and reverent esteem for the scriptures



WCF 1.5, "We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture."

It seems you are unable to discern the difference between the Reformed and Romanist view of tradition.



Hebrew Student said:


> You are saying that the differences in the NT and the MT are simply a result of certain traditions or interpretations of the NT authors. The problem is that the LXX is based upon a different rescention of the Hebrew Text.


 
You are simply restating your position when you should be making some attempt to demonstrate it. Try producing something which proves the point. If an alternate theory provides an equally plausible account of the facts it is obvious that your account of the facts is not decisive for settling the issue.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

To deal with TimV’s post #73 – the issue of Cainan – first.


With regard to Luke 3:36, which places Cainan in the lineage between Arphaxad and Salah (Sala), where the Genesis genealogy omits mention of Cainan, some remarks:

The absence of a person in the lineage does not annul the tightly interlocking numeric values between the patriarchs and their offspring. As Floyd Nolan Jones, in his _Chronology of the Old Testament_ puts it,

For regardless of the number of names or descendants that might be missing between Arphaxad and Salah (or any other two patriarchs) their lives are mathematically interlocked and a fixed relationship exists; when Salah was born, Arphaxad was thirty-five years old and so on across the entire span in question. Consequently, no time can possibly be missing even though names may so be. Strange as it may seem at first, in this instance the two concepts are mutually exclusive. (p. 34)​
Dr. Jones is firm that both the Genesis genealogy and the one in Luke 3 are correct and both the infallible word of God. While admitting there is no explanation for the omission given in Scripture, Jones gives a number of scenarios to show how it may have come to be. Here is one of them:

In this scenario both Arphaxad and Cainan (Arphaxad’s son) married young. Cainan dies after conceiving Salah but before his birth. At age 35, Arphaxad then adopts his grandson, Salah (like Jacob adopted his grandsons, Ephraim and Manasseh) (Mat. 1:1; Heb. 7:9-10). [Footnote: Compare Ruth 4:17 which declares that “there is a son born to Naomi”, whereas technically she is his step mother-in-law. . .] (Ibid., p. 35)​
At any rate, the Cainan spoken of in Luke 3:36 poses no threat to the timeline of Genesis 11, only a mystery. The LXX versions of Genesis 11 which posit a Cainan in them are spurious, patently contriving to construct an order which fails.


Will Kinney, not an IFB, writes similarly: 

Luke 3:36 Who was Cainan?

Will Kinney's article page


----------

Adam (Hebrew Student), in post 46, says,



> Well, I guess the question needs to be whether to pursue truth, or certainty.



Oh? Why set them against one another? Scripture does not do this. In Proverbs 22:20, 21 we read,

Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge,

That I might make thee know _*the certainty of the words of truth*_; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?​
With regard to your Hebrew mss 4QpHab containing a reading identical to Acts 13:41 and the LXX, I think Riley’s (Willem. . .) answer (post 70) is sufficient (I didn’t initially give the young man enough credit):



> “You mentioned some things I have heard before about the Qumran scrolls resembling the LXX, particularly in Jeremiah and in some other places you mentioned. So what? What does that tell us? Where does that leave us? What conclusion does this drive you to? To me, the fact that some ancient Hebrew scrolls were [dug] up along with some apocryphal literature at the site of a cultic, sectarian commune, and that some of the biblical scrolls affirm the MT, while others are closer to the LXX, does not change much. There were obviously two Hebrew strands of (e.g.) Jeremiah, one represented by the Qumran, and one represented in the MT. The Qumran variant seems to have found its way into the LXX translation into Greek, while the other strand (which was passed to us in the MT) won the approbation of history, and of those diligent scholars who handed the OT down to us. I still fail to see how this constitutes proof against the MT.”



Adam, from reading your things I gather you are a decent brother, and valiant for truth. But you are in the unenviable position of pitting the academy against the church. It seems to me that when we appeal to the Westminster Confession you say we “appeal to the church”, just as Rome does? I see you are in the OPC; how can you say such a thing? We hold that the WCF summarizes Biblical doctrine (save where some take exceptions), not church tradition.

As Rev. Winzer pointed out, the Scriptures were given to the church, into their care (as it was given to the Levites in the OT) and for their possession. In OT days it was not given to just anyone to be handled as if it were a book of the world. It is the book of Heaven, and what have mere earth-dwellers to do with it?

Can you imagine the ancient Jewish priesthood bringing in — or in anywise _allowing_ — wise men from Egypt or Babylon to superintend, change, copy, and preserve the scrolls of the Tenach?

But in NT days this has happened, and is happening now. That the academy – filled with both Babylonians and God’s people, a mixed bag – presumes to be the authority over God’s deposit to his church has had sorry results, mostly tending to skepticism and doubt toward the Bible. What is shown here to have happened with regard to NT textual criticism is happening with regard to the OT as well.

A profound distrust exists in the church – among the common priesthood of believers – for the scholars of the academy who use their learning to attack the Bible of the church. We see the strategies of Rome and her variants-weapon finding their fulfillment in the academy and its text-critical industry. As far as I and many others are concerned, this industry – _in the main, not for every individual_ – exists primarily for financial gain. So I can have supposedly up-to-date versions of the latest discoveries of texts and conjectural emendations we have a vast cadre of scholars living off the purchases of the church indoctrinated to believe she needs the “latest and most reliable” versions.

Instead of benefitting the church, she has been thrown into disarray and confusion from this development.

It has been said that,



> Nearly a century ago George Salmon astutely observed that Westcott and Hort had attributed to the gospel writers “erroneous statements which their predecessors had regarded as copyists’ blunders.” Salmon noted that “there was indeed but little rhetorical exaggeration in the statement that the canon of these editors was that Codex B was infallible and that the Evangelists were not. Nay, it seemed as if Hort regarded it as a note of genuineness if a reading implies error on the part of the sacred writer.” [G. Salmon, _Some Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament_ (London: John Murray, 1897)]. (From the book Dr. Theodore Letis edited (and contributed to), _The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate_, the essay by James A. Borland, *“Re-Examining New Testament Textual-Critical Principles and Practices Used to Negate Inerrancy”* [reprinted from the _Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society_; Vol. 25, No. 4 (December 1982), by permission].



One of the things Borland wrote about was the ESV’s Matthew 1 verses 7 and 10 with their notorious Asaph and Amos in Christ’s genealogy, alleged by text-critics to be error in the original autograph. Borland’s remarks in *this thread*, starting at post 40.

Strangely, I get the same sense here, that it is with some relish (alleged) errors are paraded forth so as to throw down the church’s faith in her Bible. This is a summary of our faith in it:

_*The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them.*_​
And are the assaults meant to bolster the idea that we need the scholar industry to have a reliable Bible (even though it is beyond their ability to produce one)?

No matter; we have one, and it cannot be taken from us, even we simple believers, for God has provided it for us, and enabled us to defend against its detractors.


----------



## TimV

> Dr. Jones is firm that both the Genesis genealogy and the one in Luke 3 are correct and both the infallible word of God.



Yes, and the Fundamental Baptist school of KJVonlism would say that. My point was that among the Reformed, even Reformed baptists like Gill who you've used to support your schhool of thought in the past, felt that IT IS AN ERROR. I even looked it up in Trapp's commentary, and he qoutes Beza as saying it's an error. Whether it is or not is beside the point.



> errors are paraded forth so as to throw down the church’s faith in her Bible



You are speaking for the church, but Henry, Gill, Turretin and everyone else I checked isn't speaking for the church? BTW I notice the Bishop's Bible leaves Cainaan out.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

As Kinney also points out, I don't know of any Bibles in print today that omit Cainan in Luke 3:36. Kinney says, "The simple fact is, the reading of Cainan in Luke 3:36 is not found in just one or two copies of Luke, but is the reading found in practically every known Greek manuscript in existence today. It is in the vast Majority of all Greek copies, including Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, as well as the ancient Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Coptic and Latin versions."

When there is a glaring error in the Greek text English Bibles usually omit it, such as almost all do with regard to Amos and Asaph in versions derived from the CT, save the ESV and a Catholic Bible, whose editors wanted to be "bold and daring" I guess.

Nothing at all amiss in saying that Luke 3:36 as we have it is the infallible and preserved word of God.


----------



## TimV

> Nothing at all amiss in saying that Luke 3:36 as we have it is the infallible and preserved word of God



No one said it was. The point is that if you believe that you're not speaking for the "church" or for the Reformers.


----------



## larryjf

TimV said:


> Nothing at all amiss in saying that Luke 3:36 as we have it is the infallible and preserved word of God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one said it was. The point is that if you believe that you're not speaking for the "church" or for the Reformers.
Click to expand...

 
Tim,
could you quote from those who say that Luke 3:36 is not part of the preserved word of God?


----------



## TimV

Larry, I quoted Turretin



> This [i.e. that Cainan in Luke 3:36 is spurious] is plainly proved



with a citation on page two of this thread. Gill says the same in his commentary on Luke 3:36. Everyone else I checked said the same thing, although Trapp doesn't provide a citation for his claim that Beza agreed. I simply used Turretin and Gill since they are often used by KJVOnlies as being fellow travellers.


----------



## larryjf

Thanks Tim.

I also noticed what Matthew Poole said on the subject:


> the best account I can give of it is, the Septuagint in Gen_11:12 have it just as Luke here hath it; and it is certain that Luke, in his quotations out of the Old Testament, doth generally follow the Septuagint, being the translation most in use among them. Beza tells us of an ancient copy of the Gospel he had, which mentions no Cainan. The best of it is, that it is a matter of no great moment, for the question is not, whether Sala was the son of Arphaxad, (for so he was, though Arphaxad was his grandfather, in the same sense that Christ is called the Son of Abraham, and the Son of David, and Elisabeth the daughter of Aaron, Luk_1:50) but whether he was the immediate son of Arphaxad or Cainan; whether Moses omitted Cainan, or some transcriber of Luke added Cainan out of the Septuagint (being then the current translation among them): the last is most probable.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello LawrenceU,

In your post 36 you suggested Riley was using a “convenient dodge” when he said that the 4th century (the 300s) had access to better mss. You said, “Simply because they were 400 years removed rather than 2000 years removed does not mean that they had better access to documents.”

I submit *this post* as evidence that Riley’s remarks had substance to them. This is from Wilbur Pickering’s _The Identity of the New Testament Text II_, from his chapter on the history of the text.

-------

TimV, as you’ve made clear, Gill and Turrentin aren’t infallible. On some points they err, or at least reasonable men disagree with them. With Gill, I especially disagree with him on baptism and eschatology.

Believe it or not, I learn from you, Tim. And knowing that you are around – like an investigative reporter with attitude – I try to make very sure of my sources.

Do I speak for the church? If I am in accord with the Westminster Standards, and with the sound sense of Scripture, one might say that I do, at least for a sector of it. Infallibly? No, for I personally may err, whatever my good sources.

As a poet, I do indeed lift my voice to the church, and to the people of earth – this is what poets do – and the proof is in the pudding as to whether I speak true or not. And the Lord will judge me, and my words, so I am careful, and prayerful.


----------



## Hebrew Student

Armourbearer,



> From the teaching of Scripture, which is well summarised in WCF 1:8, "The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them.




Well, then, you would be obligated to show us where in scripture your teaching on preservation is found. Secondly, notice the context of this section of the WCF:

WCF 1.8 The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;(1) so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.(2) _*But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,(3) therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,(4) that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;(5) and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.(6)*_

In other words, this is dealing in context with original languages vs translation. Hence, we are dealing with the meaning of the passages, as the meaning of a passage in Hebrew might be slighly more nuanced than the meaning of a passage in English. Hence, the entire context has nothing whatsoever to do with textual variation. I also, again, challenge you to find me anywhere in the minutes of the Westminster Assembly any place where they discussed textual variation. Again, this is simply anachronistic.



> The Scripture verses are readily accessible in the proofs appended to the Confession, understanding of course that there is a tradition of exegesis which underlies these proofs. I'm not sure why you think Calvin or King James' translators did not hold my view. What text did Calvin comment on? What text did King James' translators use as their source? The traditional text.



John Calvin comments on John 8:59:



> Some copies have the words, And so Jesus passed through the midst of them; which Erasmus justly considers to have been borrowed from the Gospel by Luke 4:30. Calvin's Commentary on John]



Here, Calvin agrees with Erasmus against the TR at John 8:59. It is also interesting that none other than Edward F. Hills, in Chapter 8 of his book The King James Version Defended notes that Calvin departed from the TR in eighteen different places [p.204].

Now, as to the KJV translators, they tell us what they used:



> Neither did we run over the worke with that posting haste that the Septuagint did, if that be true which is reported of them, that they finished it in 72. dayes; neither were we barred or hindered from going over it againe, having once done it, like S. Jerome, if that be true which himselfe reporteth, that he could no sooner write any thing, but presently it was caught from him, and published, and he could not have leave to mend it: neither, to be short, were we the first that fell in hand with translating the Scripture into English, and consequently destitute of former helpes, as it is written of Origen, that hee was the first in a maner, that put his hand to write Commentaries upon the Scriptures, and therefore no marveile, if he overshot himselfe many times. None of these things: the worke hath not bene hudled up in 72. dayes, but hath cost the workemen, as light as it seemeth, the paines of twise seven times seventie two dayes and more: matters of such weight and consequence are to bee speeded with maturitie: for in a businesse of moment a man feareth not the blame of convenient slacknesse. *Neither did wee thinke much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrewe, Syrian, Greeke, or Latine, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdaine to revise that which we had done, and to bring backe to the anvill that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helpes as were needfull, and fearing no reproch for slownesse, nor coveting praise for expedition, wee have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the worke to that passe that you see*. [The Preface to the KJV]



Notice, they are using things like commentators, Syriac, Greek, etc., just as I have said we should use. Not only that, but it is well known that the KJV translators used several editions of Erasmus and Beza, and there were differences between these. Why would the KJV translators use such varied sources if there was one "ecclesiastical text?"



> WCF 1.5, "We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture."
> 
> It seems you are unable to discern the difference between the Reformed and Romanist view of tradition.



Again, Armourbearer, look at the context. The divines here give us a scripture citation for what they are saying. They are citing 1 Timothy 3:15:

1 Timothy 3:15 but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.

A pillar and support holds something else up. In other words, we are dealing with the proclaimation of the truth of the scriptures by the church that convinces us that the scriptures are true. How is that proclaimation brought to the heart? Yes, by the Holy Spirit, exactly as I said. It has nothing to do with "tradition."

Yes, I am able to distinguish between Reformed and Catholic views of tradition. The only infallible tradition in the Reformed tradition is scripture. All other traditions are unbinding and fallible. So, I will ask you again. Why do you use something fallible to establish your teaching on preservation?



> You are simply restating your position when you should be making some attempt to demonstrate it. Try producing something which proves the point. If an alternate theory provides an equally plausible account of the facts it is obvious that your account of the facts is not decisive for settling the issue.



This is simply dishonest, Armourbearer. Anyone, can go back and reread my post, and see that I have extensive argumentation.

I realize also that we have to discuss alternate theories. However, a theory that says that the LXX readings came as a result of the NT, when the LXX readings are found in manuscripts that predate the NT is simply contrary to truth. There is no way to come up with a theory that the Dead Sea Scrolls don't exist, when you can take a plane over to Jerusalem, and sit down, and look at them. Your views are simply contrary to reality, and when you have to keep shifting ground because more and more evidence comes out against you, then it is simply a matter of squeezing out a camel to strain out a gnat, and it shows that you have a greater commitment to your theory than to the truth.

Not only that, there are some things which you have skirted. For example, which vowel pointing are you talking about? Which Masoretic Text are you talking about? Until you can tell us specifically which text is the "preserved word of God," one preserved text is impossible.

Jerusalem Blade,



> Oh? Why set them against one another? Scripture does not do this. In Proverbs 22:20, 21 we read,
> 
> Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge,
> 
> That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?



Well, even if I were to accept that translation [cf. NIV and ESV], I would have to ask the question of what the "certainty of the words of truth" is. I would argue that this is an objective genitive, not an appositional genitive. In other words, it is not "the certainty [which is] the word of truth", but rather, "being certain of the words of truth."

The fact that this is the case is evident since many people have great certainty of error. The Jehovah's Witness who has been in the society for many years has great certainty that the New World Translation is correct at John 1:1. Roman Catholics are certain that Matthew 16:18 teaches the Papacy. Just because you have certainty does not mean you have truth!



> With regard to your Hebrew mss 4QpHab containing a reading identical to Acts 13:41 and the LXX, I think Riley’s (Willem. . .) answer (post 70) is sufficient (I didn’t initially give the young man enough credit):



I think the simple answer is, given your view, the church established two different preserved words of God for Habakkuk 1:5. The NT following the Rescention of the LXX, differs from the other preserved word of God, the Masoretic Text.



> Adam, from reading your things I gather you are a decent brother, and valiant for truth. But you are in the unenviable position of pitting the academy against the church. It seems to me that when we appeal to the Westminster Confession you say we “appeal to the church”, just as Rome does? I see you are in the OPC; how can you say such a thing? We hold that the WCF summarizes Biblical doctrine (save where some take exceptions), not church tradition.



First, I would say that the WCF does not teach what you say that it does. Secondly, the WCF teaches _the system of doctrine_, but, there are many Presbyterians who do reject individual statements in the confession. Preterists, for example, would not say that the Pope is the Antichrist. Are people like Kenneth Gentry and Gary DeMar not Reformed? Again, I don't think that I am saying anything against the WCF, but the confession gets its authority from scripture, not the other way around.



> As Rev. Winzer pointed out, the Scriptures were given to the church, into their care (as it was given to the Levites in the OT) and for their possession. In OT days it was not given to just anyone to be handled as if it were a book of the world. It is the book of Heaven, and what have mere earth-dwellers to do with it?
> 
> Can you imagine the ancient Jewish priesthood bringing in — or in anywise allowing — wise men from Egypt or Babylon to superintend, change, copy, and preserve the scrolls of the Tenach?



Of course, this is a red herring, since anyone who would radically change or alter the text would stick out like a sore thumb. Not only that, but, if what you are saying is the case, then how did the Samaritans end up with the Pentateuch? How did the Qumran community end up with the entire Hebrew Bible? This would also destroy the reason generally given for Daniel being written in Aramaic. I would think that we would be willing to give anyone a copy of the word of God if they want it! It is the very word of God that leads to salvation.



> But in NT days this has happened, and is happening now. That the academy – filled with both Babylonians and God’s people, a mixed bag – presumes to be the authority over God’s deposit to his church has had sorry results, mostly tending to skepticism and doubt toward the Bible. What is shown here to have happened with regard to NT textual criticism is happening with regard to the OT as well.
> 
> A profound distrust exists in the church – among the common priesthood of believers – for the scholars of the academy who use their learning to attack the Bible of the church. We see the strategies of Rome and her variants-weapon finding their fulfillment in the academy and its text-critical industry.



Jerusalem Blade, actually, just the opposite has happened. Because of my study of Text Criticism, I have come to trust the word of God all the more. It seems like all of the examples of text critical issues do not change any major Christian doctrines. While there are certainly doctrinally relevant passages that have variation, the consistency of the teaching of the text, no matter which textual variant you take, is extrordinary. Some of my friends who study NT tell me that the evidence for the NT is even more extrordinary.

When you seek truth, and you simply let the history of the text of the Bible be the history of the text of the Bible, your trust in the text actually strengthens our trust in the scriptures. 

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## MW

Hebrew Student said:


> In other words, this is dealing in context with original languages vs translation.



No, it is dealing, first, with the integrity of God's inspired word through the process of divine preservation, and secondly, with the legitimacy of translation. Even a general acquaintance with the doctrine of Scripture in post reformation dogmatics reveals that these are two different sub-topics.



Hebrew Student said:


> Hence, the entire context has nothing whatsoever to do with textual variation.



It has everything to do with textual variation because the terms used by the Confession arose out of controversy with Romanists concerning their advocacy for the authenticity of the Greek version of the OT.



Hebrew Student said:


> I also, again, challenge you to find me anywhere in the minutes of the Westminster Assembly any place where they discussed textual variation. Again, this is simply anachronistic.



There was no explicit discussion of textual criticism because there was already a consensus on the integrity of the Protestant Bible. Again, I refer to the previous three arguments which establish the main point in contention: "First, we have the plain statement of the Confession. Secondly, we have the traditional text which is reflected in their Scripture proofs. Thirdly, we have writings of the divines containing textual questions, which are decided on the side of the traditional text."



Hebrew Student said:


> Here, Calvin agrees with Erasmus against the TR at John 8:59. It is also interesting that none other than Edward F. Hills, in Chapter 8 of his book The King James Version Defended notes that Calvin departed from the TR in eighteen different places [p.204].



I thought we were discussing the integrity of the MT.

At any rate, the very fact that you mention E. F. Hills should alert you to the consistency of departing from some individual readings while holding the MT or the TR in principle. If Hills himself had never departed from the TR your quotation would mean something; as it stands, you have only managed to discover how little you know about the position you are opposing.



Hebrew Student said:


> Now, as to the KJV translators, they tell us what they used:
> 
> ...
> 
> Notice, they are using things like commentators, Syriac, Greek, etc., just as I have said we should use.



Using the Greek version as a guide to translation is a wise and prudent thing to do; using it as the basis of textual emendation is an altogether different issue. I stand by my original statement. Look at the text which they translated. Appealing to their guides in translation is neither here nor there to settling the issue under debate.



Hebrew Student said:


> Not only that, but it is well known that the KJV translators used several editions of Erasmus and Beza, and there were differences between these. Why would the KJV translators use such varied sources if there was one "ecclesiastical text?"



The one "ecclesiastical text" represents a specific conviction as to the text which has been preserved; accompanying this conviction is the open acknowledgment that some work still needs to be done to clarify the variants within this accepted text.



Hebrew Student said:


> So, I will ask you again. Why do you use something fallible to establish your teaching on preservation?



Because, as you have so eloquently taught, this fallible church is the pillar and ground of the truth according to God's own appointment. I choose the fallible means of God's appointment over the fallible means which God has not appointed.



Hebrew Student said:


> This is simply dishonest, Armourbearer. Anyone, can go back and reread my post, and see that I have extensive argumentation.



If you want to revert to moral charges you should take your complaint to a moderator and undertake to prove it by clear evidence. Otherwise, retract your unsubstantiated accusation.

You have been provided with an alternate theory which equally accounts for variations from the MT in NT "citations." That alternate theory removes your ability to simply cite these variations as proof that the MT is not the preserved word of God. You could write thousands of pages documenting the variations and it would still fail to provide the proof which substantiates your claim. Thousands of witnesses attesting that a dark man with a scar on his right cheek and fair hair shot a police-officer does not prove that one particular dark man with a scar on his right cheek and fair hair shot a police-officer, especially when it can be shown that this particular man was somewhere else at the time. You would do well to go back and consider the variety of evidence and ensure that you have ruled out all other theories which might account for the evidence. It is not dishonest of any person to call another person to deal impartially and fully with the facts he is presenting.


----------



## TimV

> as it stands, you have only managed to discover how little you know about the position you are opposing.



The confusion may be (at least it was mine in the past) that there are two very different proKJVOnly schools of thought represented here on this thread and in the Protestant world. On the one hand, you have the largely Fundamental Baptist school which holds that the TR as we have it now is word for word identical to the original Scriptures as given by the Holy Spirit. This has been championed by Jerusalem Blade and TomasCartwright. You also have the Reformed school, which holds that there can be corruptions in the TR but the church can still "receive" it, and improvements can be made, although very carefully and restricted to the TR/MT tradition.


----------



## Hebrew Student

armourbearer,



> No, it is dealing, first, with the integrity of God's inspired word through the process of divine preservation, and secondly, with the legitimacy of translation. Even a general acquaintance with the doctrine of Scripture in post reformation dogmatics reveals that these are two different sub-topics.
> 
> It has everything to do with textual variation because the terms used by the Confession arose out of controversy with Romanists concerning their advocacy for the authenticity of the Greek version of the OT.



Again, I am still waiting for you to quote any record of the assembly to show that this is, indeed, what was discussed during the writing of this section of the confession. The context seems to be translation versus the original, as is clearly indicated when you read on.



> There was no explicit discussion of textual criticism because there was already a consensus on the integrity of the Protestant Bible. Again, I refer to the previous three arguments which establish the main point in contention: "First, we have the plain statement of the Confession. Secondly, we have the traditional text which is reflected in their Scripture proofs. Thirdly, we have writings of the divines containing textual questions, which are decided on the side of the traditional text."



The point is that you have to establish that the divines were discussing this in the context of writing this section of the confession. If they did not explicitly do this, or did not do that in this context, then your entire interpretation seems to have very little foundation.



> I thought we were discussing the integrity of the MT.
> 
> At any rate, the very fact that you mention E. F. Hills should alert you to the consistency of departing from some individual readings while holding the MT or the TR in principle. If Hills himself had never departed from the TR your quotation would mean something; as it stands, you have only managed to discover how little you know about the position you are opposing.



No, we were discussing whether Calvin held your position. I was quoting Hills' work on Calvin in order to show that even he admits that Calvin had a "humanistic tendency." Calvin clearly believed that there were errors in the TR, and, in the case of John 8:59, he actually agrees with modern critical texts against the TR. That's the point. In fact, that is not the only place. In eighteen other places he rejects TR readings in favor of critical text readings. Not only that, he, apparently, also made two conjectual emmendations: at James 4:2, and a deletion of John 2:14. Why would he need to make conjectual emendations if the word of God has been providentially preserved in the sense you are talking about?



> Using the Greek version as a guide to translation is a wise and prudent thing to do; using it as the basis of textual emendation is an altogether different issue. I stand by my original statement. Look at the text which they translated. Appealing to their guides in translation is neither here nor there to settling the issue under debate.



I totally disagree that this is their context. They are dealing with the entire work of translation itself. Also, it should be mentioned that the KJV in many places leans on the Latin. Again, they are hardly following your principle.

Also, to say, "Just go back to what they used" is an absurd argument to begin with. The main problem is that we don't know what they would do if they had the other evidence. Right now, we don't have any Hebrew manuscripts of the Pentateuch from 750 BC. Let us say that, after I die, we do find them, and we learn some better insights into the transmission of the Pentateuch. Would it be acceptable for someone to look at my writings, and say that I believed in the preservation of the text, and therefore, we are to limit ourselves to what I had, and not consider the manuscripts of the Pentateuch that we have just found? No, such would be foolish.

In the same way, "use what they had" is making the assumption that they had access to all of the materials we have today, and were chosing the Masoretic Text over and against the Qumran Scrolls. Such is absurd.



> The one "ecclesiastical text" represents a specific conviction as to the text which has been preserved; accompanying this conviction is the open acknowledgment that some work still needs to be done to clarify the variants within this accepted text.



Could I not, then, use the same arguments against you that you use against me? Where is your certainty, then, that the textual choices you choose are really the providentially preserved word of God? How will you know when you come upon those readings? Doesn't that make your knowledge of the "infallible word of God" likewise dependent upon man? How then does an appeal to the church even help you here?

And, as I have said, such a position is impossible to hold. The reason is because of the proto-masoretic material. An urtext of the Masoretic text is an oxymoron, because we know, from the Qumranic material, that the Masoretic text is one point along the line in transmission. Hence, the further you go back, the more the tradition is going to mix with other traditions, proving that, in reality, there is no "Masoretic text." The MT tradition is one rescention of the transmission of text.



> Because, as you have so eloquently taught, this fallible church is the pillar and ground of the truth according to God's own appointment. I choose the fallible means of God's appointment over the fallible means which God has not appointed.



Either way, it is still fallible. God appointed the church to up hold the truth. There is no guarantee that the church will obey its calling. How do you know that the church is obeying its calling when it comes to text criticism?



> If you want to revert to moral charges you should take your complaint to a moderator and undertake to prove it by clear evidence. Otherwise, retract your unsubstantiated accusation.



I simply don't need to. I have learned, as you deal on internet forums, that the best way to deal with people who say things that aren't true, is to just point people back to the truth. I have extensive discussion of the relationship between the LXX, MT, and NT on my post. If you choose to simply say that I am restating my position without ever demonstrating it, then you do so at your own peril, as anyone can read my discussion.



> You have been provided with an alternate theory which equally accounts for variations from the MT in NT "citations." That alternate theory removes your ability to simply cite these variations as proof that the MT is not the preserved word of God. You could write thousands of pages documenting the variations and it would still fail to provide the proof which substantiates your claim. Thousands of witnesses attesting that a dark man with a scar on his right cheek and fair hair shot a police-officer does not prove that one particular dark man with a scar on his right cheek and fair hair shot a police-officer, especially when it can be shown that this particular man was somewhere else at the time. You would do well to go back and consider the variety of evidence and ensure that you have ruled out all other theories which might account for the evidence. It is not dishonest of any person to call another person to deal impartially and fully with the facts he is presenting.



Of course, if the man is being charged with not being there at the time, and his DNA is found at the scene of the crime, then it sorta destroys any hope of saying they weren't there, right? You have alleged that the LXX readings came about because of the NT citations. However, you can't have the effect of a cause be before the cause. It is a contradiction. The DNA of the man is in the house, Armourbearer. The LXX readings exist where, according to your theory, they should not.

Also, I think it is important to note that theories must have some basis in reality. Anyone can argue from silence. Also, at a certain point in time, one begins to see a element of desparation, where one has to take highly unlikely explainations in order to explain the data.

For example, we could find that, not only does the man's DNA appear at the scene of the crime, but, also, there was a note written in his diary saying that he was going to kill this person, and the murder weapon was found at his house. Now, let us say that the defense attourney argues that he was at a party several days before, and cut himself badly, so that blood was on the floor. He then argues that someone must have picked that blood up, and sealed it away in a vial. Then, he argues that this same man shot the individual, and planted his DNA on this person. He then broke into his client's house, forced him to write that note in his diary, planted the murder weapon in his house, and then left. Now, that does explain all of the evidence. However, do you not think that it is far fetched? And, of course, the question we must ask at this point is, "Where is the proof?" Also, don't you think it would look suspicious if the defense attourney only got this crazy story after he found out all of the evidence against his client?

That is the point. Not only are your explainations far fetched, [and, in the case of the explaination you gave, downright impossible] but they also seem to be made up just for the occasion of having to deal with the evidence presented against you. This is why I say, theories are fine, but they must have some basis in reality. As Van Til taught, we show the truth of presuppositions by showing the impossibility of the contrary. That is why we bring up specific data, to show that your views cannot comport with it. If a theory cannot deal with the reality of the situation, then what good is the theory?

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Willem van Oranje

The ESV translators are making it really hard for the church to turn down their translation, due to the accuracy and skill of their translation work in certain places. Case in point:

John 1:16-17 ESV 16 And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 

Great! This rendering makes it plain (as it is in the Greek) that John is not contrasting Moses and Christ. Rather there is a progression of grace from Moses to Christ. "grace upon grace (ESV)" The KJV and NKJV unfelicitously insert the word _But_ in verse 17, making it seem like a contrast between Moses and Christ. (_But_ was a translation decision. It is not supported by any of the major Greek texts.)

I like their translation (ESV). I only wish they had used a better textual basis. The KJV needs updating, and the NKJV seems inadequate to me in many places (as a translation, mainly.) Alas!


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Adam,

I find it highly offensive you would charge an officer in the church with being “disingenuous” and “dishonest” because you do not appreciate their method of argumentation. I thought to expect better from you. Were this a military unit you would be court-martialed; it matters not that the one you accused is of a different church; a U.S. Marine reviling an Air Force officer would still be subject to military law. The church – and the government of God – has its laws which bear on this, and we are held to higher standards than the world’s armies.

You have demonstrated a lawless and insubordinate reviling spirit which disqualifies you from godly discourse. This is not a bar or a late-night duke-it-out session with other students. I would hope you have a change of heart.

I repeat what you said,



> Well, I guess the question needs to be whether to pursue truth, or certainty.


You seem to think that it’s an either / or: If we pursue truth as regards the better texts and correct readings of Scripture we shall have to forsake certainty as to having an intact and preserved edition of the Bible.

You and I have been around this bush before. The Scriptures I give for my understanding of the Lord’s promises to preserve His word, you disallow and give a differing exegesis of them, both OT and NT, to try to invalidate the doctrine of preservation I hold forth.

You say,



> I think the simple answer is, given your view, the church established two different preserved words of God for Habakkuk 1:5. The NT following the Rescention [sic] of the LXX, differs from the other preserved word of God, the Masoretic Text


It doesn’t follow. That the NT reading is _close_ the LXX and one Hebrew mss varying from the standard Masoretic reading does not at all prove the NT reading came from the LXX. 

I submit a comparison of the KJV, the LXX, Scrivener’s Greek, and the Masoretic Hebrew, taken from Dr. K.D. DiVietro’s, _Did Jesus & the Apostles Quote the Septuagint (LXX), p. 49_:








It is not a direct quote.

If anyone would “radically change or alter the text” you say? They would “stick out like a sore thumb” you say? Well, that’s what all this is about. Some have – or propose to – radically change or alter the text, and you’re among them. And it sticks out like a sore thumb! But you say that what you and other scholars propose “do not change any major Christian doctrines”. Now its just “major” doctrines! As though we can let “minor” doctrine slip away with the changes proposed. A major doctrine is God’s providential preservation of His word, both of the OT and the New. You seek to change that. We have been pretty outspoken concerning of what our doctrine consists. What about yours? What is your doctrine of preservation, if I might ask?

------
*


----------



## NaphtaliPress

*Calling a time out.
*


----------



## MW

Hebrew Student said:


> If you want to revert to moral charges you should take your complaint to a moderator and undertake to prove it by clear evidence. Otherwise, retract your unsubstantiated accusation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I simply don't need to. I have learned, as you deal on internet forums, that the best way to deal with people who say things that aren't true, is to just point people back to the truth.
Click to expand...

 
I will return to the rest of your post on Monday, DV. For the present, please note, you didn't point me back to the truth, you charged me with dishonesty. That is a moral accusation which speaks against character; it says nothing about the facts in evidence. As a moderator I am calling on you to substantiate the charge or retract it. However experienced and wise your internet discussions may have made you, you don't make the rules of the board.


----------



## MW

*This thread is now reopened.*


----------



## MW

Hebrew Student said:


> The point is that you have to establish that the divines were discussing this in the context of writing this section of the confession. If they did not explicitly do this, or did not do that in this context, then your entire interpretation seems to have very little foundation.



I have already pointed to the fact that these two sub-topics -- integrity of the text and legitimacy of translation -- are two different sub-topics in post reformation reformed dogmatics. One must be willing to look at the confession historically in order to have any hope of coming to a proper understanding of its contents. David Dickson, a 17th century reformed commentator, makes them two distinct questions in "Truth's Victory Over Error." He states that the Confession confutes two distinct errors of the Papists. Under question 12 he claims the Confession speaks of "the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek, which are the fountains." He asserts the Papists err in saying they are corrupted. Under question 13 he draws attention to the Papist error of denying the necessity of "translating the original tongues into the vulgar language." Thus the text as the fountain of translation and the original tongues to be translated are seen as two very distinct issues addressed by the Confession of Faith. Your understanding that WCF 1.8 only addresses the issue of translation is an ahistorical reading of an historical document.

Again, it is not possible to point to the Minutes in the Assembly because the subject never came under debate. The person who would allege there was a difference of opinion on this subject is the one who is bound to provide evidence for it. I maintain there was a consensus.

In order to show the kind of thinking which was characteristic of the divines, I quote from John Lightfoot, perhaps the most distinguished of the divines for his attainments in biblical and oriental literature. He claims the vowels of the Masoretic text were original and appeals to "one jot and one tittle" to substantiate his claim -- the same text which is appended to the confessional statement as to the preservation of the Hebrew and Greek:



> Some there be, that think the vowels of the Hebrew were not invented for many years after Christ. Which to me seemeth to be all one, as to deny sinews to a body: or to keep an infant unswaddled, and to suffer him to turn and bend any way, till he grow out of fashion. For mine own satisfaction I am fully resolved, that *the letters and vowels of the Hebrew were*,—as the soul and body of a child,—*knit together at their conception and beginning*; *and that they had both one author*.... Our Saviour, in his words of one 'Iota' and one small keraia (tittle) not perishing from the law, seems to allude to the least of the letters, Jod, and the least vowel and accent." -- (Works, 4:50.)





Hebrew Student said:


> No, we were discussing whether Calvin held your position. I was quoting Hills' work on Calvin in order to show that even he admits that Calvin had a "humanistic tendency." Calvin clearly believed that there were errors in the TR, and, in the case of John 8:59, he actually agrees with modern critical texts against the TR. That's the point. In fact, that is not the only place. In eighteen other places he rejects TR readings in favor of critical text readings. Not only that, he, apparently, also made two conjectual emmendations: at James 4:2, and a deletion of John 2:14. Why would he need to make conjectual emendations if the word of God has been providentially preserved in the sense you are talking about?



All that is claimed for Calvin is not denied, but where does Calvin fit in the historical scheme of things? Debate with Romanists was still in process of formulation, as the diversity of Calvin's comments will reveal; but he certainly was not of a mind to concede to the Papists that the fountains are corrupt. Any textual position takes time to formulate and there is always scope for individual disagreement where the principles of preservation are maintained. The fact that Edward Hills is quoted as an authority for the TR position should be indicative that the TR position does not negate the need for textual criticism.



Hebrew Student said:


> I totally disagree that this is their context. They are dealing with the entire work of translation itself. Also, it should be mentioned that the KJV in many places leans on the Latin. Again, they are hardly following your principle.



Yes, they are dealing with translation itself, not the thing to be translated.



Hebrew Student said:


> Could I not, then, use the same arguments against you that you use against me? Where is your certainty, then, that the textual choices you choose are really the providentially preserved word of God? How will you know when you come upon those readings? Doesn't that make your knowledge of the "infallible word of God" likewise dependent upon man? How then does an appeal to the church even help you here?



We are going in circles. You have already advocated the church is God's appointed means for holding the truth up to the world. Your reference to Hills as a trustworthy witness for the TR position should indicate that there is no claim by TR advocates for infallibility of the human means. It is simply a matter of trusting oneself to the testimony God has established in His church. Nobody thinks for a moment that we can do without the testuimony of the church for discerning the canon of Scripture; then why should anyone think it can be dispensed with for discerning the text of Scripture?


----------



## ThomasCartwright

I agree with much of Rev Winzer's approach here - it is biblical and consistent. I would go a stage further than him in regarding the final TR under the KJV as the one the Church received, settled, and preached from (Jerusalem Blade and myself share the same conviction on this). 

The issue of what the Reformers and the Westminster Divines has been dealt with at length. I personally did a huge amount of research in compiling their views on papers I submitted. Perhaps Adam would read those carefully and interact with the extended citations from our forefathers e.g. on areas such as why they used the term "authentical" in opposition to the "authentical Vulgate text"

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/historic-reformed-position-preservation-48332/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/re-transmission-text-paper-51867/


----------



## TimV

> I agree with much of Rev Winzer's approach here - it is biblical and consistent. *I would go a stage further *than him in regarding the final TR under the KJV as the one the Church received, settled, and preached from (Jerusalem Blade and myself share the same conviction on this).



If you've done a huge amount of research, that would be helpful to the discussion. We should make a list up of Reformed thinkers who have discussed the subject and put them into categories. Those who at times said the TR isn't word for word infallible and those who at times have said the TR is wrong. 

I'll start, beginning with Reformed thinkers who have felt the TR is corrupted in places:
John Calvin
Theodore Beza
John Trapp
John Gill
Francis Turretin
Matthew Henry
Matthew Poole

and a guy named George Smeaton, whom I'd never heard of until you brought him up here claiming he was a fellow traveller (until Rev. Winzer showed he also makes the list)
http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/george-smeaton-tr-60831/


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

First, Tim, I want to apologize for my knee-jerk and unwarranted remarks to you in my post #93 (which the admin kindly deleted for me) re the IFBs (and for which I asked your forgiveness privately). Actually, you were quite even-handed in what you said. I’m sorry for that!

Tim, EF Hills' view falls between the absolute and the almost absolute (3 errors in the NT) fidelity of the TR and the AV to the original autographs. Will Kinney, a Reformed brother and no IFB, holds to the absolute fidelity of the AV, and he is no slouch. 

Nor is there any fault in this! As though there were anything shameful or wrong with asserting that the Lord will preserve His every word, seeing as man does not live by bread alone, but by _*every*_ word that proceeds out of the mouth of God (cf. Matt 4:4). As though the Almighty cannot preserve His word – which he has magnified above all His name (Ps 138:2 AV) – when He has preserved our lives and selves down to the very atoms that would comprise us these many millennia since He conceived us in His mind before the foundation of the world! 

It is thought by some such a big deal for the Lord to have inspired and then preserved through His providence every word of His Bible. Consider though: He knew us and loved us with an eternal love, and chose us to be in Christ from before the creation of the world, that is, way before we existed in the material world. He thus preserved the specific genetic information in our DNA and the raw molecular material needed for the formation and manifestation of our beings all through the violent and ravaged history of the human race down to our day, so that we would be the very beings He had conceived in “eternity past”. That kind of preservation of keeping the genetic information intact – along with other manifold conditions – so that _*you*_ would manifest as He knew you in ages past is even more remarkable than keeping His words through the prophets, the Lord Christ, and the apostolic writers intact down through the ages.

If you exist, why should not a providentially preserved Bible?

As though it were a shameful thing to trust that God could and did preserve His word intact in the texts underlying the faithfully translated English AV, and gave us in the English a Bible that has extreme fidelity to the providentially preserved apographs. In this day, I suppose, disapproval comes from “the wise and the prudent” and upon His “babes” – His trusting children (Matt 11:25).

I will continue to honor and use the work of some IFBs. For they hold forth with good research and scholarship as they defend the Bible of the Reformation. The godly Independent Fundamental Baptists are choice saints in God’s eyes, and to be honored and loved, even though we may strongly differ with some of their views.


---------

Adam (Hebrew Student),

I think it wiser for me to follow your trail here in this thread, and stick with you. You start in post 35 by saying “it is an argument from silence” to note that the Majority Text (the Byz) has not been fully examined and classified, and thus we cannot be certain of what the majority of Byz readings really are.

I’ve examined this elsewhere (see here) (scroll down a bit). A brief excerpt from this link:

On this topic, I quote from Kevin James’, _The Corruption of the Word: The Failure of Modern New Testament Scholarship_ (distributed by Micro-Load Press, 1990, ISBN: 0962442003):

Some examples of places where a King James wording seemingly has little support are given in the following chapters. Seemingly, because, *while most existing New Testament copies have been roughly categorized into “majority” or “non-majority” groupings, the exact text of thousands of existing manuscripts is unknown except in a handful of places.* [Emphasis mine –SMR] 

It should be understood that it is impossible to *prove* which of two or more competing wording variations is the original since the originals have long since disappeared. But it is the height of folly to throw the settled received text of three and one-half centuries into the dustbin to make a revision *when the exact contents of thousands of existing copies of mainstream tradition manuscripts is unknown* [this last emphasis mine –SMR]. A clear picture of New Testament manuscript transmission history is also lacking. Finally, unless the vigilance of a living God is recognized, attempts at revision of the King James can easily stray from a stated target of supplying God’s people with a “better” New Testament.

Paul said: “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21.) This should be the guiding principle for the Christian church when dealing with the intricacies of the wording of the original text. (pp. viii, ix)​
For those interested in reading this now out-of-print work (perhaps you can get it through Inter-library Loan), he collates and studies a number of Greek manuscripts in the following chapters.

To continue examining this phenomenon of _thousands_ of majority text manuscripts deliberately unexamined and their testimony thus consigned to silence by the prejudice of the establishment CT critics, we turn to Frederik Wisse, in his, _The Profile Method for the Classification and Evaluation of Manuscript Evidence_ (Eerdmans, 1982).

The late Kurt Aland, director of the manuscript centre at Muster, Germany – where about 80% of all Greek manuscripts are available on microfilm – admitted,

…the main problem in N.T. textual criticism lies in the fact that little more than their actual existence is known of most of the manuscripts…(_The Significance of the Papyrii_ pp. 330,1, quoted in Pickering’s _The Identity of the New Testament Text_)​
Jack Moorman points out (quoting from _Hodges/Farstad 'Majority' Text Refuted By Evidence_ (also titled _When the King James Departs from the “Majority Text”_)), “However, Aland’s interest in the vast repository of MS evidence which he oversees is not what we would expect…Wisse explains:”

Yet Aland’s interest in the minuscules is not for their own sake. He is no longer satisfied with Hort’s judgment that the discovery of important cursives is most improbable. He wants to find the few hypothetical nuggets which Hort did not think were worth the effort. Aland wants to be able to say that he has searched the minuscules exhaustively for anything of value. This search of course, presupposed that the minuscules as such are of little value…Minuscules have to pass a test before they are worthy of inclusion in a textual apparatus. All MSS which are generally Byzantine will fail (_Profile Method_, p. 4)​
It is far from an argument of silence, but rather a quiet scandal among text critics. 

Your statement (still in post 35), 



> “Even worse, majority does not rule. There are many reasons for a manuscript being in the majority that have nothing whatsoever to do with it being the original reading.”



while true, does not do justice to the phenomenon of the majority of cursive NT mss. I won’t enter into a discussion of this here (but I will if necessary) as I have bigger fish to fry. You merely give a sound bite for the Westcott/Hort theory which has been pretty much debunked by the critics (although they have found nothing to replace that theory), and the entire discipline is in trouble and in disarray, despite die-hard workers like Dr. Wallace who labor to photograph and classify all the mss, whom you gotta respect even if in disagreement with him.

Still in post 35, you say,



> “Also, just a general statement here. I am very concerned about the fact that many of these arguments are starting to sound Roman Catholic. "We must accept a certain text because the church says so" is, in essence, what is being said. While I agree that the church has authority _that authority is not infallible_! Scripture is the only authority that is infallible. Remember that it was this same logic [the infallibility of the church] that gave us Sixtus V's "infallible" Latin Vulgate.



While this topic of the church is discussed later in the thread, I want to remark here that what it seems you are suggesting is tantamount to, “It will be the text critics who finally decide what text we accept.” More on that as we go on.

-------

In post #39 you say



> I agree that the Hebrew and Greek are the final authority. However, the Greek Septuagint is very important in the reconstruction of the Hebrew text because its vorlage is very old; in some cases, at least as old as the DSS. We have to take into account that it is a translation, but, as we study the translation methodology of the translators of the LXX, we are able to discern their techniques, and understand how that relates to the vorlage. That also goes for the Peshitta and the Vulgate. They are all extremely important even though they are not written in Hebrew. Compare this with the DSS, the Wadi Murabba'at manuscripts, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Masoretic Manuscripts, the Cairo Geneza fragments, etc., and you have plenty of material for reconstruction [sic] the text of the Hebrew Bible.



In Karen Jobes and Moisés Silva’s (K&J), _Invitation To The Septuagint_ (pp. 157, 158), they discuss this:

[The] example of 2 Samuel 14:30 [previously discussed by them –SMR] shows how frustratingly difficult it is to reach a firm conclusion about the Hebrew _vorlage_ [a German word used of the parent text from which a translation is made –SMR] of the Greek. Recovery of the parent text of the LXX remains a hypothetical ideal, even with possession of the Qumran scrolls, and therefore the value of the LXX for the textual criticism of the Hebrew text remains indirect. Anneli Aejmelaeus prefaces her article “What Can We Know about the Hebrew _Vorlage_ of the Septuagint?” with this reminder:

The use of the Septuagint in textual criticism of the OT is essentially concerned with tracing the Hebrew text underlying the translation, i.e., the _Vorlage_ of the translators, and comparing it with the MT. The _Vorlage_ is thus presupposed to be somehow within our reach. Nevertheless, _it is a text that is lost to us for good and all_. The rich discoveries of the past decades have not brought to light any text that could be identified as the _Vorlage_, nor can this be expected to happen in the future. All we know about the _Vorlage_ is thus in fact secondhand knowledge, and that is the problem. (Aejmelaeus, _Trail of the Septuagint Translators_, 77 [emphasis added by K&J].​
I think you overstate your case, Adam, and posit a certainty for your assertions which is not recognized by authorities in the field.

--------

In your post #43, Adam, you respond to JM:



> *JM*: Dr. Daniel Wallace is a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary and is considered an expert inn ancient biblical Greek and New Testament criticism. In a blog post about the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature he wrote,
> 
> "As remarkable as it may sound, most biblical scholars are not Christians. I don’t know the exact numbers, but my guess is that between 60% and 80% of the members of SBL do not believe that Jesus’ death paid for our sins, or that he was bodily raised from the dead."​
> *Adam*: And yet, isn't it amazing that Dr. Wallace is one of those Christians out there fighting on the front lines against the attacks on the faith that these folks bring. The difference is that Dr. Wallace does so on the basis of looking at the facts with a mind to the lordship of Christ.



You just glossed right over the pertinent quote JM offered from Wallace. Yes, Wallace is (as noted above) on the front lines, but the prevalence of unbelievers “working on the church’s Bible” (both OT and N) is shocking. Small wonder many in the church distrust the “Bible industry” and its “scholars”!

--------

In post #46 you interact with JM again:



> *JM*: We cannot declare the originals only, exchanging "King James Onlyism" for "Original Text Onlyism," our very idea of sola scriptura does not allow for it. Without a foundational set of manuscripts Protestantism is reduced to just one of many traditions with sola scriptura a late development and no less of a tradition then that found in Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism. This tradition is reduced to a Magisterium of scholars instead of Popes, Cardinals and Bishops. We have replaced the Roman Magisterium with a Magisterium of Textual Critics, the latter acts as the final authority, and the former tells us what the final authority might be.
> 
> *Adam*: Well, I guess the question needs to be whether to pursue truth, or certainty. It is not a matter of a "magisterium" of textual critics. I have my Biblia Hebrica Stuttgartensia, a copy of the LXX, the Peshitta, and the Vulgate, as well as access to the text of the Samaritan Pentatuch, the DSS, the Wadi Murabba'at material, and the Masoretic manuscripts. It is not a matter of believing whatever scholars say; I can go out an check it on my own. It is *you* who is bound to the decisions of the Masorites, who were not even Christians. You must say that their text is infallible [even though there are differences between Masoretic Manuscripts, a fact which really means that there is no "Masoretic Text."]
> 
> As far as Sola Scriptura being a late development, that is simply absurd. While the specific terms were not used, Sola Scriptura is one idea that has a very good historical pedigree. I do believe you are giving *way* too much credit to Roman Catholics.



Well, here we have again your infamous “pursue truth or certainty” quote! It sure appears to me you are pitting “a foundational set of manuscripts” against pursuing “truth” discerned by textual critics. And you punctuate your meaning with this remark: “there are differences between Masoretic Manuscripts, a fact which really means that there is no ‘Masoretic Text’ ”.

You say you have all those materials to “check on your own” while we poor slobs are bound to the decisions of the Masoretes. The problem is, first, you approach the field – quite unlike the Hebrew scholar Robert Dick Wilson – with the presupposition that God’s preservation of the text did not reside with any particular edition, but that preservation could be ascertained by you and your colleagues “checking on your own” among all the mss, variants, and editions, and you would come to some sort of conclusions about what the Bible really is. (Info on R.D. Wilson, an unusual Hebraic scholar *here*.)

You will pardon me if I am skeptical in the extreme. Your champion (in the NT arena), Dr. Wallace, has gone on record as saying God did not preserve the Bible, but that the critics can figure it out anyway.

We, on the other hand, say that God did indeed preserve His words, both in the OT and the New, according to His promises. He preserved it in the Ben Chayyim Masoretic edition, and in the Greek Textus Receptus underlying the New Testament. You of course will seek to marshal tons of evidences to refute this, and we will deal with that. If the Lord has not preserved His word in the MT and TR, and given us a faithful translation in the KJV, then He hasn’t done it, or done it yet. Which latter option means that the great missionary outreaches of the English-speaking nations were done using corrupt and false-reading Bibles, the Reformation was erected on a false foundation and Rome was right all along with her critiques of our Scripture and doctrine built on it, and we await some miraculous event wherein God will finally give us His preserved word (although multitudes gave their lives for the printing and disseminating the false-reading AV), even though it does appear that we are nearing the end – the little season when that wicked shall be released from those chains to gather the whole earth to war on the camp of the saints. Or maybe the Lord will give us a present in the New Earth and Heaven: His word which is (at least) settled in Heaven (Ps 119:89).

You folks will, I trust, bear with my sarcasm. It is certain that *the text-critics will vote down* any suggestion that a preserved version shall arise out the Critical or Eclectic textforms!

Despite the hordes of detractors scrambling like Will Smith’s _nightwalkers_ to overwhelm the citadel wherein God’s intact word is kept, it shall stand. For He did indeed, by His great power and wisdom, so design and purpose that the true readings, by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, were given in a final perfect form to the church come of age and purified in doctrine, that she might cast off the chains of harlot Babylon, and thwart the fatal thrusts of the antichrist (the manifestation thereof in that day).

In our own day, harlot Babylon has spread her tentacles way beyond the precincts of the Roman “church”, enlisting the 2nd beast, the false prophet, to re-wage the Romish assault, her formidable weapons polished and honed by the phalanxes of scholars schooled and hired by the Bible Industrial Complex to crank up the presses and make big bucks through their infamous Bible-of-the-week club. 

Consider: As I said to Tim, cannot the Almighty preserve His word – which he has magnified above all His name (Ps 138:2 AV) – when He has preserved our lives and selves down to the very atoms that would comprise us these many millennia since He conceived us in His mind before the foundation of the world! He thus preserved the specific genetic information in our DNA and the raw molecular material needed for the formation and manifestation of our beings all through the violent and ravaged history of the human race down to our day, so that we would be the very beings He had conceived in “eternity past”. 

If He preserved our respective information in the DNA (how many of us are there?), cannot He preserve His words, despite the violence and ravages of the ages?

He is quite able to see to it that that His choice of information is kept intact in the Ben Chayyim ms that made its way into the AV translators’ hands, despite the howls of rage and protest without the citadel.

---------

Adam, you have said (in post #53),



> I think the point is, if the NT authors were willing to depart from the MT in their citations, then why do you have a problem with modern versions departing from the MT, when the very book you call scripture does it! If the MT is the preserved word of God, why would the NT authors be quoting the LXX?



Well, they don’t, despite your claims. The NT authors may well depart from the MT, but not in citing the LXX, rather rephrasing the Hebrew according as the Holy Spirit gave them utterance. I reintroduce an example of that here:






This was not the TR in Acts 13:41 citing the LXX in Hab 1:5, but Luke diverging from the MT to rephrase what the prophet has said, which sort of thing the Holy Spirit has done a number of times.

For the NT rendering to qualify as a citation it would have to be a direct quote, which it clearly is not. Whatever it is, it is not an LXX quote, despite the similarity of expression. Similarity does not qualify to be classified as a citation.

Still in 53, you say,



> In issues of ultimate authority, it is a terrible idea to just go back to the church. We need to be those who seek truth, and that means knowing the history and transmission of our text, and how we got it since, after all, it is the final authority.
> 
> My point is that those teachings, no matter what variants you accept, give us the standard and foundation upon which the church must stand.



We go to the Scriptures, which the church uses to form its confessions and creeds. The question is, whose exegesis – whose understanding – do we look to as we seek to know what the ultimate authority of Scripture says, and to judge the confessions accordingly?

Do we go to such as yourself, or your colleagues, in the Text-critical Industry? Speaking for myself and a multitude of others, NO. We do not trust you or your method in these matters.

-----------

In post #68, you said to Armourbearer,



> The issue is not the preservation, but the means and mode of that preservation. We both agree that God has preserved his word. That is not the issue. The issue is the means and mode. I would argue that this mode that has been presented so far on this board can be found nowhere in scripture, and you have to appeal to the church in order to make this work. That has been the pattern so far on this board.



I have asked you elsewhere, what exactly is your view of how “God has preserved his word”.

You say of us (and you say it a lot) we “have to appeal to the church” to support our view of preservation. If we appeal to the WCF it is because it reflects the Scripture, the ultimate authority.

For example, the Lord Jesus said,

It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God (Matt 4:4).​
And Peter said that God, by His 

divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that called us to glory and virtue (2 Pet 1:3).​
The “words” in Matt 4:4 may refer to commands, sayings, and individual words; I would say it refers to them all, though I know you don’t like to hear about “individual words” as this doesn’t fit in with your exegetical theory. Nevertheless it stands, just as it does in Jeremiah 26:2, when Jeremiah is told to speak “all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word”. Even so, “every word” in Matt 4:4 may, without a stretch, mean every single word. And if He has given unto us all things that pertain to life and godliness – and we must live by every word He has spoken – then it follows He would provide that which we need to live. We have gone around this bush before here.

So if I ever appeal to the Westminster Confession (at 1:8), it is because the Confession itself appeals to those Scriptures which support it, and it reflects the clear teaching of Scripture, despite the denials of those who oppose our exegesis and our understanding.

You made an assertion (still in post #68) in an exchange with Armourbearer,



> *Armourbearer:* there is no proof that the NT authors departed from the MT in their "citations." It must first be proved that the NT authors "cited" OT texts in accord with empirical rules of citation before these citations can be used empirically to certify evidence.
> 
> *Adam*: Of course, the problem with this is that we have actual Hebrew manuscripts that read at Habakkuk 1:5 exactly as Acts 13:41 cites this passage, such as 4QpHab.



According to the comparison I provided above examining these two texts, you appear to have fudged the truth with your word “exactly”. For the TR and the LXX are not exact in their wording, and your example fails of the criteria required to warrant calling it a citation. You seem to overstate your cases fairly regularly.

Some information from Dr. Thomas Holland on the proto-masoretic text *here* (scroll down a little), to give another perspective on it.

I’ve written quite a bit already, so I’ll close this post, and may write further in another.


----------



## ThomasCartwright

TimV said:


> If you've done a huge amount of research, that would be helpful to the discussion. We should make a list up of Reformed thinkers who have discussed the subject and put them into categories. Those who at times said the TR isn't word for word infallible and those who at times have said the TR is wrong.
> 
> I'll start, beginning with Reformed thinkers who have felt the TR is corrupted in places:
> John Calvin
> Theodore Beza
> John Trapp
> John Gill
> Francis Turretin
> Matthew Henry
> Matthew Poole
> 
> and a guy named George Smeaton, whom I'd never heard of until you brought him up here claiming he was a fellow traveller (until Rev. Winzer showed he also makes the list)
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/george-smeaton-tr-60831/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you could Tim, as you claim to accept no one's view but cannot as yet articulate any doctrine of preservation for yourself. I have read countless objections from you and never ONCE a biblical model for determining the Words of God. I am assuming you actually believe in the Sufficiency of Scripture doctrine so go ahead and prove it.
> 
> We all accept that there were minor errors in the editions of the TR as that is why they are around 250 differences!! The only debate between those in the TR camp is which ones they are and how to determine a conclusion. In my mind there is only one consistent solution that leads us to a settled objective test for this.
> 
> Many of those who you cite above as accepting some errors in some of the editions of the TR do not reject the position I hold to. They may do but we can never know for sure. For one, they were dead before the final edition of the TR was recognised, received, and settled by the Church. Secondly, they do not have the benefit of hindsight in seeing what God has stamped His providential seal of approval on through the Church for the last 400 years. However, what they and people like George Smeaton, Rev Winzer etc. see is that the TR textual basis must be linked to the true Church's recognition and reception as led by a Providential God. They also reject the stream of manuscripts leading to the "authentical text" under the Vulgate. That is why the Divines accepted 1 John 5:7 and the long ending of the Lord's Prayer in their Confessional documents. You may not like it, but those of us in the TR camp here are being consistent with the broad paradigms they articulated for judging the textual question.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 03:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:51 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the confession demands the vulgar tongue. The KJV isn't vulgar. I've seen every argument under the sun that claims the KJV is vulgar and it's all nonsense. Pull a guy off the street and he won't understand it. So the KJV is NOT confessional. No way. Those arguments saying that we have to "teach" KJV language to the masses are ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I came across this response by a writer, who is no friend of the KJV, but answers this type of "seeker-sensitive" logic:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will not do to say that language has changed so readers accustomed to the new order must be accommodated for evangelical reasons, as though these changes were not imposed by an anti-Christian ideology enforced by political and economic sanctions. Even if the language were undergoing natural evolution to a more egalitarian form quite apart from these artificial and all too frequently mandatory constraints, the Scriptures themselves provide a theological-grammatical contradiction that requires, for those who regard them as authoritative, the reformation not of biblical, but of vernacular language. If, for example, our native speech had only a gender-neutral word to describe the human race, our conversion to the Christian faith and its theology would necessitate the addition of “man” to our vocabulary as its proper name.
> 
> It is more than dismaying to hear educated people who present themselves as orthodox, resting their own teaching authority on an infallible Bible, insist that our standard for its translation includes conformance to the mind and vocabulary of people whose discourse and understanding their Bibles tell them is pervaded by sin and error. The proponents of these new versions have got it exactly backwards: It is the Word of God that is to rule the word of man, not the other way around. The first question to be asked is not whether language has changed, but how God has taught us to speak. Where the ancestral tongue serves Scripture, altering it so it can serve no longer must be identified by Christians not as change to accept, but as corruption to resist.
> 
> Admittedly, part of the reason for the eclipse of the issue in our minds may be that few of us still belong to, or will regularly attend, churches where these Bibles are used or where teaching on these matters is foggy or the subject of lively debate. Speaking for my wife and myself, we will not attend a church, however orthodox or Evangelical it claims to be, where the teaching authority sees no problem in the use of egalitarian Bibles or in singing hymns that have been revised in accordance with feminist sensibilities. We will not have our children’s minds formed in this consciousness as though it were Christian, nor will we allow our own sensibilities to become dulled, having seen so many friends drift into heterodoxy by constant, unresisted exposure to error.
> 
> The churches must stand against what is heard everywhere else, even though the whole world be against them, actively teach where the error in such matters lies, and present a clear example of what is right in their own discourse. What good, after all, is a church whose main object is professedly to “win people to Christ,” when the Christ they are winning them to is a Christ whose maleness, like all maleness, has no deep significance—that is, a Christ who does not exist? Such churches, though they multiply converts, are, but for an intervening grace, winning them to an idol. Our alienation from them does not mean we won’t publish any more on the topic, but we do think the basic issue has been firmly and frequently addressed in these pages.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## TimV

> If you exist, why should not a providentially preserved Bible?



Steve, I'll not deny there are many compelling arguments for both the largely Fundamental Baptist school of though that you and Ferguson champion as are there for the largely Reformed school that Rev. Winzer represents, but I thought it would be valuable to make a list up. I admit to a great deal of curiosity as to how many Reformed thinkers from, say, 1550 to 1750 held to the position that the TR is without error.



> Perhaps you could Tim, as you claim to accept no one's view



Untrue!! I've said several times Pastor B. Buchanan of this forum and my denomination expressed my views (more clearly than me).



> Many of those who you cite above as accepting some errors in some of the editions of the TR do not reject the position I hold to. They may do but we can never know for sure.



Yes, they all reject your position since every single one of them differs at points from every single edition of the TR that's every been published! 
Edit: Smeaton shouldn't be on that list. He would be on an anti Fundamental Baptist school of thought list, but not on an anti Reformed school of thought list.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

> If you've done a huge amount of research, that would be helpful to the discussion. We should make a list up of Reformed thinkers who have discussed the subject and put them into categories. Those who at times said the TR isn't word for word infallible and those who at times have said the TR is wrong.
> 
> I'll start, beginning with Reformed thinkers who have felt the TR is corrupted in places:
> Kohn Calvin
> Theodore Beza
> John Trapp
> John Gill
> Francis Turretin
> Matthew Henry
> Matthew Poole
> 
> and a guy named George Smeaton, whom I'd never heard of until you brought him up here claiming he was a fellow traveller (until Rev. Winzer showed he also makes the list)
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/geor...aton-tr-60831/


This is a red herring. The OP is not about the Textus Receptus being an infallible text, it's about the place of continuity with the historic textual testimony of the church when doing textual criticism. This is a critical criterion which is rejected out of hand by modern text critics because they presuppose that the text has been corrupted.


----------



## TimV

> This is a critical criterion which is rejected out of hand by modern text critics because they presuppose that the text has been corrupted.



That's the purpose of the list. People who think the text has been corrupted. Now, since preservation is so central a teaching it shouldn't be hard to find to find a large number of Reformed thinkers who say the text

a) has been corrupted but can be fixed by working only within the Byzantine tradition (Reformed KJVO school)
b) was corrupted until the present form of the TR was published and no longer is (Fundamental Baptist KJVO school)


----------



## Willem van Oranje

TimV said:


> This is a critical criterion which is rejected out of hand by modern text critics because they presuppose that the text has been corrupted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the purpose of the list. People who think the text has been corrupted. Now, since preservation is so central a teaching it shouldn't be hard to find to find a large number of Reformed thinkers who say the text
> 
> a) has been corrupted but can be fixed by working only within the Byzantine tradition (Reformed KJVO school)
> b) was corrupted until the present form of the TR was published and no longer is (Fundamental Baptist KJVO school)
Click to expand...


Not sure where the "KJV only" stuff came into this discussion. We are discussing Hebrew and Greek texts, not English translations.

I think that anyone who holds that the text has been corrupted is going to have a hard time affirming that, "The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, [was] by His singular care and providence, *kept pure in all ages*..." WCF 1.8

My assumption is that the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus are essentially pure. This would not preclude the need or admissability of minor corrections, which would only become effective by common consent of the church based on irrefutable evidence. This is the position of the WCF as I read it. The theologians you cited are in agreement that these texts are pure. Their expressed doubts or deviations from it are very minor. 

Now, as everything else asserted in the WCF, its doctrine of preservation is open to debate and refutation by those who disagree or do not subscribe. There are those whom you note, who think that the text has been corrupted. The burden of proof rests on them to prove their case based on the available evidence, if they can. As yet I am not convinced. I see too much subjectivity in their methodology, and the fruit of their assumption that the text has been corrupted. The premise leads the conclusion. This premise must be proven, (the premise that the Masoretic Text and TR have been corrupted.) It cannot merely be assumed. Otherwise their argument is simply not convincing.


----------



## MW

TimV said:


> That's the purpose of the list. People who think the text has been corrupted.


 
There is a huge theological problem with that claim. It is one thing to weigh evidence for different readings and perhaps arrive at a different conclusion regarding an individual reading; it is quite another thing to claim the text has been corrupted. The Reformation stands on belief in an infallible Bible against the claims of an infallible magisterium. The basic contention of the Reformation is that the fountains have not been corrupted. The basic contention of Rome is that they have been corrupted.

Now, I know it might sound somewhat contradictory to say that the text is preserved and yet there might be differences as to the weight afforded to individual readings, but they really are different issues. The issue of preservation is bound to the question of an infallbile Bible. The issue of differences is bound to the question of a fallible Church.

Let's be clear as to the state of the question. The question has nothing to do with justifying the text underlying the AV translation. I think it can be shown without too much difficulty that the AV uses a slightly different "TR" to that which was later adopted. The question has everything to do with demonstrating the validity of our Reformation claim to stand on the principle of sola scriptura.

Let's be clear as to the state of the evidence. As matters stand there is not one word in all the mss. which have come down to us that can be proven by an empirical process to be the word of an inspired prophet or apostle. Not one word! In every text-critical theory, just as in every canonical theory, one must believe in a ministerial tradition (note, ministerial, not magisterial) which has been used by Providence to preserve the words of inspiration for the church. Most text critical theories make no account of this fact. The modern eclectic theory is outrightly antagonistic to it. To date, the only text critical school which has made any attempt to give this ministerial tradition the weight it deserves is the school to which men like Burgon, Scrivener, Hills, and Letis have given their name.

Let's be clear as to the state of the enquiry. It is conducted by fallible men. We are simply bound to accept that fact. If we do not accept that fact then we find ourselves chained again to a magisterium. But there is an infallible as well as a fallible presupposition upon which the enquiry might be conducted. A person who holds to preservation begins with a presupposition based on divine testimony and proceeds to weigh the evidence accordingly. A person who holds to corruption begins with a presupposition based on human observation and proceeds to weigh the evidence accordingly. It is the presupposition which is the decisive factor because it determines what the "critic" is open or closed to receive.

Where does that leave matters? It leaves the subject in a state of decision. The person who studies the subject must choose from the outset the principles by which he will conduct his study.


----------



## jayce475

TimV said:


> This is a critical criterion which is rejected out of hand by modern text critics because they presuppose that the text has been corrupted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the purpose of the list. People who think the text has been corrupted. Now, since preservation is so central a teaching it shouldn't be hard to find to find a large number of Reformed thinkers who say the text
> 
> a) has been corrupted but can be fixed by working only within the Byzantine tradition (Reformed KJVO school)
> b) was corrupted until the present form of the TR was published and no longer is (Fundamental Baptist KJVO school)
Click to expand...

 
Tim,

I might only have a fairly basic understanding of textual preservation, but if I'm reading you right, you are essentially saying that those of us who hold onto the TR position without claiming the underlying AV text to be the correct reading among variants believe that our bibles are corrupted? I don't have a corrupted bible, because God's Word promises it to be perfect. When you hold your bible in your hands, with your disdain towards what we call preservation, do you believe that you have an uncorrupted bible? Or are you quite comfortable with the thought that "bible in hand, give or take a few mistakes, corrupted through the centuries, is still quite sufficient for my faith"?


----------



## TimV

> I might only have a fairly basic understanding of textual preservation, but if I'm reading you right, you are essentially saying that those of us who hold onto the TR position without claiming the underlying AV text to be the correct reading among variants believe that our bibles are corrupted? I don't have a corrupted bible, because God's Word promises it to be perfect.



You've just contradicted yourself. On this thread JB and TM claim they hold in their hands a perfect Bible totally without faults. Rev. Winzer accepts that certain words may be wrongly included in the Bible. If I remember correctly some months ago he used the word corrupted when talking about the word Lord as opposed to Holy One in Rev. 16:5.

If you say that the underlying text of the KJV doesn't always have the correct reading among variants you can't say the Bible in your hands is perfect.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

TimV said:


> I might only have a fairly basic understanding of textual preservation, but if I'm reading you right, you are essentially saying that those of us who hold onto the TR position without claiming the underlying AV text to be the correct reading among variants believe that our bibles are corrupted? I don't have a corrupted bible, because God's Word promises it to be perfect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've just contradicted yourself. On this thread JB and TM claim they hold in their hands a perfect Bible totally without faults. Rev. Winzer accepts that certain words may be wrongly included in the Bible. If I remember correctly some months ago he used the word corrupted when talking about the word Lord as opposed to Holy One in Rev. 16:5.
> 
> If you say that the underlying text of the KJV doesn't always have the correct reading among variants you can't say the Bible in your hands is perfect.
Click to expand...

 
"X. Have the original texts of the Old and New Testaments come down to us pure and uncorrupted? We affirm against the papists." --Francis Turretin, heading of chapter X in the Institutes of Elenctic Theology.

Turretin acknowledges that minor errors have crept in to individual manuscripts, but affirms that the entire original text was preserved within the body handed down, and that those Hebrew and Greek texts which had been preserved in the church and handed down through the centuries are sufficiently true to the original to be the standard of faith and practice, and that they are to be used to correct "versions" such as the Vulgate and Septuagint, and not vice-versa. This is substantially my position, and it is the way in which I believe the Westminster divines were using the word, "pure." What evidence can you present to disprove this essential purity?


----------



## jayce475

TimV said:


> I might only have a fairly basic understanding of textual preservation, but if I'm reading you right, you are essentially saying that those of us who hold onto the TR position without claiming the underlying AV text to be the correct reading among variants believe that our bibles are corrupted? I don't have a corrupted bible, because God's Word promises it to be perfect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've just contradicted yourself. On this thread JB and TM claim they hold in their hands a perfect Bible totally without faults. Rev. Winzer accepts that certain words may be wrongly included in the Bible. If I remember correctly some months ago he used the word corrupted when talking about the word Lord as opposed to Holy One in Rev. 16:5.
> 
> If you say that the underlying text of the KJV doesn't always have the correct reading among variants you can't say the Bible in your hands is perfect.
Click to expand...

 
Riley and Rev Winzer have explained at length why we do not believe our bibles to be corrupted. Why is TM by the way? You mean Dr Ferguson?


----------



## Grimmson

jayce475 said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a critical criterion which is rejected out of hand by modern text critics because they presuppose that the text has been corrupted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the purpose of the list. People who think the text has been corrupted. Now, since preservation is so central a teaching it shouldn't be hard to find to find a large number of Reformed thinkers who say the text
> 
> a) has been corrupted but can be fixed by working only within the Byzantine tradition (Reformed KJVO school)
> b) was corrupted until the present form of the TR was published and no longer is (Fundamental Baptist KJVO school)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tim,
> 
> I might only have a fairly basic understanding of textual preservation, but if I'm reading you right, you are essentially saying that those of us who hold onto the TR position without claiming the underlying AV text to be the correct reading among variants believe that our bibles are corrupted? I don't have a corrupted bible, because God's Word promises it to be perfect. When you hold your bible in your hands, with your disdain towards what we call preservation, do you believe that you have an uncorrupted bible? Or are you quite comfortable with the thought that "bible in hand, give or take a few mistakes, corrupted through the centuries, is still quite sufficient for my faith"?
Click to expand...

 
I think it is fair to say that the Bible is God’s preserved Word. Now with that said, in the versions of the Bible and manuscripts that we have we can see there are differences in readings applied when comparing to earlier attempts of textual criticism (TR for example) to early and later manuscript traditions (4th century and onwards). To deny this fact would be intellectually dishonest and a claim that those found manuscripts is not the Word of God. A category needs to be set up where by scripture has been preserved as the Word of God, and at the same time recognize alterations (and additions) in the wording and the subjection of human traditions applied to the text for further commentary or explanatory purposes. The category is called the tenacity of scripture; which I am sure many of the ESV translators presuppositionly consider if they are in the faith. If they are not in the faith then it is not to much of an issue if there approach is carefully looked upon, because even heretics and schematics under common grace can do good work. Sometimes better and more honest work then many that professes the Christian faith. 

Comparing the older scripture ( from the fourth century and earlier) with the later copies of that same scripture ( later fourth through seventh and then with eighth through twelve) is a decent approach to bring back the manuscripts that the authors of Holy Write wrote. There should be a concern if we look at a text and see difference in what was read in their church and what is read in ours, regardless of the centuries applied. We should not be subject to our traditions, but instead of the Word of God in truth. The reason why the King James Only folks comes up time and time again in this dissuasion is because of the criticisms of such a approach with a tradition that says that the TR and/or AV is the only inspired text of the Church. Looking to the TR and the AV only throws out the majority of textual manuscripts and work that could possibly be done in the fear of removing words that are subjected to their own tradition. In this case it is the tradition that is dictating the Word of God and not the Word of God by the comparison of the varying readings, older or not. 

I been teaching a bible study on the Gospel of John and I gave a brief explanation of textual criticism because we were going to cover chapter five that week (5:3b-4 being a major variant). It was indeed an interesting conversation, because there was one person who though that the Bible was corrupted and was not recovered until the AV. This is a person in her 70s, lived her whole life attending church, that held to this. I dealt with that issue with a brief history of the Bible and its transmission, affirming that the Word of God has always existed. Affirming the LXX is the Word of God, Codex Sinaiticus is the Word of God, the TR is the Word of God, the NA27 is the Word of God, and the NASB is the Word of God (and am not denying any other major translations of such either, like the NKJV, NIV, and ESV). My goal was for them to have confidence in their Bible. Now, I didn’t push it in the study but if you were to ask me if 5:4 belongs in John then I would tell you no; and I would implement Chrysostom pattern of scripture quotation in his homilies on John and Tertullian’s application as it relates to the text. I do not see how denying that passage as scripture( under the category of the Word of God) makes one incompetent, not able to be equipped by God to do good work, also to hurt their training in righteousness, teaching, reproof, and correction. I also do not see the individual words as inspired, but instead the meaning of the reading of the text that is inspired; which is why I can turn to varying translations and early manuscripts and affirm them as God’s revealed infallible preserved Word concerning everything perfectly alone sufficient regarding salvation and instruction in righteousness. 

If such a view makes me a heretic on the standards of some here then so be it. It is not based on myself as individual, or if it may or may not convict me. But it is instead by the reading of Scripture, Scripture coming from earlier manuscripts of the same text that I see as scripture.


----------



## jayce475

Grimmson said:


> jayce475 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a critical criterion which is rejected out of hand by modern text critics because they presuppose that the text has been corrupted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the purpose of the list. People who think the text has been corrupted. Now, since preservation is so central a teaching it shouldn't be hard to find to find a large number of Reformed thinkers who say the text
> 
> a) has been corrupted but can be fixed by working only within the Byzantine tradition (Reformed KJVO school)
> b) was corrupted until the present form of the TR was published and no longer is (Fundamental Baptist KJVO school)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tim,
> 
> I might only have a fairly basic understanding of textual preservation, but if I'm reading you right, you are essentially saying that those of us who hold onto the TR position without claiming the underlying AV text to be the correct reading among variants believe that our bibles are corrupted? I don't have a corrupted bible, because God's Word promises it to be perfect. When you hold your bible in your hands, with your disdain towards what we call preservation, do you believe that you have an uncorrupted bible? Or are you quite comfortable with the thought that "bible in hand, give or take a few mistakes, corrupted through the centuries, is still quite sufficient for my faith"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it is fair to say that the Bible is God’s preserved Word. Now with that said, in the versions of the Bible and manuscripts that we have we can see there are differences in readings applied when comparing to earlier attempts of textual criticism (TR for example) to early and later manuscript traditions (4th century and onwards). To deny this fact would be intellectually dishonest and a claim that those found manuscripts is not the Word of God. A category needs to be set up where by scripture has been preserved as the Word of God, and at the same time recognize alterations (and additions) in the wording and the subjection of human traditions applied to the text for further commentary or explanatory purposes. The category is called the tenacity of scripture; which I am sure many of the ESV translators presuppositionly consider if they are in the faith. If they are not in the faith then it is not to much of an issue if there approach is carefully looked upon, because even heretics and schematics under common grace can do good work. Sometimes better and more honest work then many that professes the Christian faith.
> 
> Comparing the older scripture ( from the fourth century and earlier) with the later copies of that same scripture ( later fourth through seventh and then with eighth through twelve) is a decent approach to bring back the manuscripts that the authors of Holy Write wrote. There should be a concern if we look at a text and see difference in what was read in their church and what is read in ours, regardless of the centuries applied. We should not be subject to our traditions, but instead of the Word of God in truth. The reason why the King James Only folks comes up time and time again in this dissuasion is because of the criticisms of such a approach with a tradition that says that the TR and/or AV is the only inspired text of the Church. Looking to the TR and the AV only throws out the majority of textual manuscripts and work that could possibly be done in the fear of removing words that are subjected to their own tradition. In this case it is the tradition that is dictating the Word of God and not the Word of God by the comparison of the varying readings, older or not.
> 
> I been teaching a bible study on the Gospel of John and I gave a brief explanation of textual criticism because we were going to cover chapter five that week (5:3b-4 being a major variant). It was indeed an interesting conversation, because there was one person who though that the Bible was corrupted and was not recovered until the AV. This is a person in her 70s, lived her whole life attending church, that held to this. I dealt with that issue with a brief history of the Bible and its transmission, affirming that the Word of God has always existed. Affirming the LXX is the Word of God, Codex Sinaiticus is the Word of God, the TR is the Word of God, the NA27 is the Word of God, and the NASB is the Word of God (and am not denying any other major translations of such either, like the NKJV, NIV, and ESV). My goal was for them to have confidence in their Bible. Now, I didn’t push it in the study but if you were to ask me if 5:4 belongs in John then I would tell you no; and I would implement Chrysostom pattern of scripture quotation in his homilies on John and Tertullian’s application as it relates to the text. I do not see how denying that passage as scripture( under the category of the Word of God) makes one incompetent, not able to be equipped by God to do good work, also to hurt their training in righteousness, teaching, reproof, and correction. I also do not see the individual words as inspired, but instead the meaning of the reading of the text that is inspired; which is why I can turn to varying translations and early manuscripts and affirm them as God’s revealed infallible preserved Word concerning everything perfectly alone sufficient regarding salvation and instruction in righteousness.
> 
> If such a view makes me a heretic on the standards of some here then so be it. It is not based on myself as individual, or if it may or may not convict me. But it is instead by the reading of Scripture, Scripture coming from earlier manuscripts of the same text that I see as scripture.
Click to expand...

 
So is the bible inerrant on all matters of science and history as well? You are not only against preservation, but also the verbal plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures as well. The battle from the past century is apparently not over.


----------



## Grimmson

jayce475 said:


> So is the bible inerrant on all matters of science and history as well? You are not only against preservation, but also the verbal plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures as well. The battle from the past century is apparently not over.


 
In science, no. It is not written as a science book. We need to remember the genre and purpose in which scripture is written in. History is a different story. I think the history is inerrant as it was recorded by the standards of genre and time it was written in. And I want to clarify something that was just applied to me. I am not against preservation.I think the text has been preserved throughout time by the Holy Spirit, and in some cases added to by the traditions of man. I think John 5:4 is a perfect example of that, along with John 7:53-8:11. What needs to be done is to shave off these man-made traditions in scripture. But what John actually wrote in John/ his epistles are still there and communicated in the overall manuscript traditions. And I do accept verbal plenary inspiration from the Holy Spirit by the original authors of the original autographs of scripture, which is one reason why I have a high respect for the LXX. I do believe that the Holy Sprit guided the words that the authors were using by their own use of style to communicate what the Holy Spirit wanted to communicate; this does not mean that each word should be seen in some sacred sense outside of the desired purpose of communication of truth. It also does not mean that the Holy Spirit took over the faculties of the writers, whereby their style became void and taken over like some type of demonic mechanicalistic possession. Scripture is a union of authorship with God (being primary) with those men (secondary) he choose to write it. It is not by a bird singing in the ear of the author telling the human author what to write, but instead the Holy Spirit moved/guided the author to communicate what he wanted by his own power as the means of the writing of scripture. The goal of textual criticism should be to try to bring what we have as our text back to that in which the writers themselves wrote, because of a respect for the truthfulness of the Word of God. And I see all of scripture as inspired by “God profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-7 NKJV)


----------



## jayce475

Grimmson said:


> jayce475 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So is the bible inerrant on all matters of science and history as well? You are not only against preservation, but also the verbal plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures as well. The battle from the past century is apparently not over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In science, no. It is not written as a science book. We need to remember the genre and purpose in which scripture is written in. History is a different story. I think the history is inerrant as it was recorded by the standards of genre and time it was written in. And I want to clarify something that was just applied to me. I am not against preservation.I think the text has been preserved throughout time by the Holy Spirit, and in some cases added to by the traditions of man. I think John 5:4 is a perfect example of that, along with John 7:53-8:11. What needs to be done is to shave off these man-made traditions in scripture. But what John actually wrote in John/ his epistles are still there and communicated in the overall manuscript traditions. And I do accept verbal plenary inspiration from the Holy Spirit by the original authors of the original autographs of scripture, which is one reason why I have a high respect for the LXX. I do believe that the Holy Sprit guided the words that the authors were using by their own use of style to communicate what the Holy Spirit wanted to communicate; this does not mean that each word should be seen in some sacred sense outside of the desired purpose of communication of truth. It also does not mean that the Holy Spirit took over the faculties of the writers, whereby their style became void and taken over like some type of demonic mechanicalistic possession. Scripture is a union of authorship with God (being primary) with those men (secondary) he choose to write it. It is not by a bird singing in the ear of the author telling the human author what to write, but instead the Holy Spirit moved/guided the author to communicate what he wanted by his own power as the means of the writing of scripture. The goal of textual criticism should be to try to bring what we have as our text back to that in which the writers themselves wrote, because of a respect for the truthfulness of the Word of God. And I see all of scripture as inspired by “God profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-7 NKJV)
Click to expand...

 
Let's try to be a bit clearer. In saying "I also do not see the individual words as inspired, but instead the meaning of the reading of the text that is inspired; which is why I can turn to varying translations and early manuscripts and affirm them as God’s revealed infallible preserved Word concerning everything perfectly alone sufficient regarding salvation and instruction in righteousness.", are you now saying that you don't believe in verbal plenary preservation or verbal plenary inspiration? On one hand you're claiming that the bible comprises of ideas, then in the next breath you claim to believe in verbal plenary preservation. No one here ever posited that the authors of the NT or OT wrote down scriptures via dictation, so please don't pose it as a strawman. Verbal plenary inspiration by definition means the inspiration of words, not ideas, and I'm surprised to find one who rejects this tenet on a Reformed forum. This thread was meant not meant to be about inspiration and I figure that all the debate about preservation and critical text theories were based upon the presupposition that we did have words which were inspired and not just ideas. You have now challenged that and thrown a different question into the equation.

"In science, no. It is not written as a science book." This is a very low view of scripture. Yes it is not a science book in the sense that we generally understand science books to be, but you're now claiming that God's absolute truth is not scientific.


----------



## ThomasCartwright

TimV said:


> Untrue!! I've said several times Pastor B. Buchanan of this forum and my denomination expressed my views (more clearly than me).



Odd that no one else seems aware of your position here. I have no idea who this Pastor is or what your denomination believes. I would doubt if they have a uniform position judging by the diversity of viewpoints on this board. So let me ask you again:

(1) In light of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, what biblical framework do you hold to that objectively leads us to all the Words of God today?
(2) Do you believe the Confessional position in respect of 1 John 5:7, long ending of the Lord's Prayer and the purity of all the words in original language manuscripts?
(3) How do we objectively and definitively come to a solution on Rev 16:5?


----------



## Grimmson

jayce475 said:


> are you now saying that you don't believe in verbal plenary preservation or verbal plenary inspiration?



I noticed a now there, as if I been changing what I’ve been saying and that not the case at all. The purpose of words is to communicate ideas. Why cannot scripture be allowed to do that and then be passed on the next generations in the copying of a text and in the translation of the text? The fact I allow for the reading of a text to be inspired and preserved actually shows a high view of scripture and God’s ability to preserve it beyond the Hebrew and Greek. I do think that all of the words that the authors of the Old and New Testament are there as it stands overall in the varying traditions. Here proof of me saying just that:



Grimmson said:


> what John actually wrote in John/ his epistles are still there and communicated in the overall manuscript traditions. And I do accept verbal plenary inspiration from the Holy Spirit by the original authors of the original autographs of scripture, which is one reason why I have a high respect for the LXX. I do believe that the Holy Sprit guided the words that the authors were using by their own use of style to communicate what the Holy Spirit wanted to communicate


Looks to me like I hold to Verbal Plenary Inspiration. It matches your definition.


jayce475 said:


> Verbal plenary inspiration by definition means the inspiration of words.


Remember also that the purpose of those words were to also communicate ideas, which is why I connect the two and relate it in such as way that translated codex can still be the Word of God. To deny such would be to deny your own scriptures, because your strictly tied to the Hebrew and Greek. 

Now do I hold to Verbal Plenary Preservation? Depends on what you mean? Typically it is used as an argument in support that the TR as a divinely inspired and preserved in all ages, without any kind of error what so ever. I do not hold to that. I do believe that God has divinely inspired and preserved his Word in all ages, but not in the sense that there have been no errors in a text or that the TR is the end all of all manuscripts. I am not TR only as I have said before. This does not mean however that the errors are major or damning. Sometimes their copying errors. Some of the errors in scripture are silly to really die over. Two examples that come to my mind are from Hebrews 1:8 and 2 Peter 3:9. 

The majority of the texts say:
τῆς βασιλείας σου- your kingdom 
Yet the older, and fewer manuscripts say:
τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ - his kingdom.

I personally prefer the older manuscript reading here, but it not as big of an issue because in both cases the same thing is being communicated with the “his” and the “your” in this verse. 

Next 2 Peter 3:9
The Majority tradition, emerging in popularity after the end of the 8th century, and the TR says:
μακροθυμεῖ εἰς ἡμᾶς- “He is long suffering towards us”

Wescott and Hort using the following P72(4th century), Vaticanus (4th century), Ephraemi Rescriptus (5th century), Porphyrianus (9th century), 1739 (10th century) says:

μακροθυμεῖ εἰς ὑμᾶς –“he long suffering towards you”

NOW using the third variant with is in Sinaiticus (4th century) Alexandrinus (5th century), 044(9th century), 33(9th century) and syraic (starting in the 4th century), Sahidic(4th-5th centuries):
μακροθυμεῖ δἰ ὑμᾶς –“he is longsuffering because of us”

Which one right, does it change what being communicated in the text? No , it is not; particularly in the ancient world. The proper reading/interpretation of the text is still there regardless of the exact reading. I think a good case can be made for the last two, and I side more with Westcott and Hort here based on the early manuscript evidence that prefers ὑμᾶς over ἡμᾶς. And εἰς seems to be popular, but I wouldnt make a big fuss if scholars went with δἰ because of the strong early evidence.


jayce475 said:


> "In science, no. It is not written as a science book." This is a very low view of scripture. Yes it is not a science book in the sense that we generally understand science books to be, but you're now claiming that God's absolute truth is not scientific.



I think it is important to reading scripture in its given context, otherwise we do a disservice to God and the text he has given us. So we read poetry as poetry, history as history, and so on. I think I have a high view of scripture because I believe God has communicated to us all that we need to know for faith and practice to glorify him. We need to be careful not to propose something to a text that would have been interpreted differently by the original readers and writers of the text; instead of forcing a western minded standard to the text. What is the focus of scripture? It not to communicate science, but instead Christ; our need for Jesus and how we are to live and worship him. I don’t try to interpret scripture in a scientific mindset, but instead try to in light of how it would have been interpreted originally; which is my goal. I do not read Genesis 7 through Nine as a scientist, but instead see it as history; which I would make the claim that is what it is meant to be read as. Now I have seen 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, and Joshua 10, 12-13 used to historically to teach a geo-centeredness. I am not going to say if the authors knew or did not know that Earth orbited aroud the Sun. I have not studied that; however if they did then here would be a case I would disagree with their science. And that is not to communicate any idea that I think that they were dumb in any way, because I think as thinkers that were more intellengent then us on this posting board. 

You have to be careful how you apply God’s absolute truth and consider wisdom in applying the text. (For some reason Proverbs and Ecclesiastes just came to my mind)This does not mean to say that you cannot glean science from the bible, it just not the focus of what being communicated in the Bible. And if it seems were getting off topic then I will end my post there, because I do not want us to go to much off track here. Hopefully these posts help to explain my position and why I accept the ESV and some of the modern textual work that has been done.


----------



## TimV

> What evidence can you present to disprove this essential purity?



I tire of belaboring the point. So I'll just do it one more time. The largely Fundy Baptist school of KJVOlism differs from the Reformed view of KJVOnlism on that point. So while JB and TC say they have a Bible that is totally perfect, without the possibility of any errors of any kind, the Reformed school says there may be places where an individual reading is wrong in the TR. I don't see what is so difficult to understand about the difference, but that may just be me.



> Odd that no one else seems aware of your position here. I have no idea who this Pastor is or what your denomination believes.



You are making your problem mine. B. Buchanan has participated for years on this forum in threads that you have participated in. You may have forgotten, or tuned out, or something else, but that's not my problem. And "us" is not synonymous with "you". And my denomination is the OPC. Here is our website:
Orthodox Presbyterian Church
I have asked for a link to your denominational website, but you have totally ignored me as you do so often, but still insist that I answer (repeatedly) your questions. Does that bother you at all?




> (3) How do we objectively and definitively come to a solution on Rev 16:5?



You take a liberal Dutch Catholic's reading above every single preserved manuscript that the church has available today, and say they don't matter, since there may be some manuscripts that nobody has ever seen with the TR reading, and it fits better in with the Fundy Baptist school of KJVOnlism that you champion.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Grimmson said:


> jayce475 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So is the bible inerrant on all matters of science and history as well? You are not only against preservation, but also the verbal plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures as well. The battle from the past century is apparently not over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In science, no. It is not written as a science book. We need to remember the genre and purpose in which scripture is written in. History is a different story. I think the history is inerrant as it was recorded by the standards of genre and time it was written in. And I want to clarify something that was just applied to me. I am not against preservation.I think the text has been preserved throughout time by the Holy Spirit, and in some cases added to by the traditions of man. I think John 5:4 is a perfect example of that, along with John 7:53-8:11. What needs to be done is to shave off these man-made traditions in scripture. But what John actually wrote in John/ his epistles are still there and communicated in the overall manuscript traditions. And I do accept verbal plenary inspiration from the Holy Spirit by the original authors of the original autographs of scripture, which is one reason why I have a high respect for the LXX. I do believe that the Holy Sprit guided the words that the authors were using by their own use of style to communicate what the Holy Spirit wanted to communicate; this does not mean that each word should be seen in some sacred sense outside of the desired purpose of communication of truth. It also does not mean that the Holy Spirit took over the faculties of the writers, whereby their style became void and taken over like some type of demonic mechanicalistic possession. Scripture is a union of authorship with God (being primary) with those men (secondary) he choose to write it. It is not by a bird singing in the ear of the author telling the human author what to write, but instead the Holy Spirit moved/guided the author to communicate what he wanted by his own power as the means of the writing of scripture. The goal of textual criticism should be to try to bring what we have as our text back to that in which the writers themselves wrote, because of a respect for the truthfulness of the Word of God. And I see all of scripture as inspired by “God profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-7 NKJV)
Click to expand...

 
Case in point, John 5.4 has the testimony of the Syriac Peshitta, which dates it to the 2nd century, so the date test weighs in its favor. It has the testimony of Tertullian, of Jerome's critical work, and of the entire Byzantine tradition, and of Codex A. The diversity of geographical origin of its witnesses is impressive. (It is unlikely that it would have made its way into all those diverse regions if it had been spurious.) It has continuously been a part of the Greek New Testament in every age which it has been handed down, until the present day. 

Therefore, I don't see any good reason to throw it out, particularly since the main codices that omit it (Aleph, B) seem to have been quite scissor-happy with the text of the NT in general. (In other words they are not as reliable as the Byzantine tradition.)


----------



## Grimmson

Willem van Oranje said:


> Case in point, John 5.4 has the testimony of the Syriac Peshitta, which dates it to the 2nd century, so the date test weighs in its favor.



First, Syriac Peshitta is not from the second century, but instead fourth to fifth century. See New Testament Text and Translation Commentary, by Philip W. Comfort (p. xxxiii) and The Reference Charts of New Testament Criticism, by Roy M. Clampa (p. 21-makes the calm it is from the 5th century). Also to be found at (WAM) Reference Charts for New Teastament Textual Criticism - Roy M Clampa .



Willem van Oranje said:


> It has the testimony of Tertullian, of Jerome's critical work, and of the entire Byzantine tradition, and of Codex A.



Now I made the claim earlier against Tertullian’s application of the text. The following comes from John 5:4:

for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool and stirred up the water; whoever then first, after the stirring up of the water, stepped in was made well from whatever disease with which he was afflicted.


This is what Tertullian said (in the surrounding context), to be found in On Baptism chapter 5:


> “Well, but the nations, who are strangers to all understanding of spiritual powers, ascribe to their idols the imbuing of waters with the self-same efficacy.” (So they do) but they cheat themselves with waters which are widowed. washing is the channel through which they are initiated into some sacred rites—of some notorious Isis or Mithras. The gods themselves likewise they honour by washings. Moreover, by carrying water around, and sprinkling it, they everywhere expiate country-seats, houses, temples, and whole cities: at all events, at the Apollinarian and Eleusinian games they are baptized; and they presume that the effect of their doing that is their regeneration and the remission of the penalties due to their perjuries. Among the ancients, again, whoever had defiled himself with murder, was wont to go in quest of purifying waters. Therefore, if the mere nature of water, in that it is the appropriate material for washing away, leads men to flatter themselves with a belief in omens of purification, how much more truly will waters render that service through the authority of God, by whom all their nature has been constituted! If men think that water is endued with a medicinal virtue by religion, what religion is more effectual than that of the living God? Which fact being acknowledged, we recognise here also the zeal of the devil rivalling the things of God, while we find him, too, practising baptism in his subjects. What similarity is there? The unclean cleanses! the ruiner sets free! the damned absolves! He will, forsooth, destroy his own work, by washing away the sins which himself inspires! These (remarks) have been set down by way of testimony against such as reject the faith; if they put no trust in the things of God, the spurious imitations of which, in the case of God’s rival, they do trust in. Are there not other cases too, in which, without any sacrament, unclean spirits brood on waters, in spurious imitation of that brooding of the Divine Spirit in the very beginning? Witness all shady founts, and all unfrequented brooks, and the ponds in the baths, and the conduits in private houses, or the cisterns and wells which are said to have the property of “spiriting away,” through the power, that is, of a hurtful spirit. Men whom waters have drowned or affected with madness or with fear, they call nymph-caught, or “lymphatic,” or “hydro-phobic.” Why have we adduced these instances? Lest any think it too hard for belief that a holy angel of God should grant his presence to waters, to temper them to man’s salvation; while the evil angel holds frequent profane commerce with the selfsame element to man’s ruin. If it seems a novelty for an angel to be present in waters, an example of what was to come to pass has forerun. An angel, by his intervention, was wont to stir the pool at Bethsaida. They who were complaining of ill-health used to watch for him; for whoever had been the first to descend into them, after his washing, ceased to complain. This figure of corporeal healing sang of a spiritual healing, according to the rule by which things carnal are always antecedent as figurative of things spiritual. And thus, when the grace of God advanced to higher degrees among men, an accession of efficacy was granted to the waters and to the angel. They who were wont to remedy bodily defects, now heal the spirit; they who used to work temporal salvation now renew eternal; they who did set free but once in the year, now save peoples in a body daily, death being done away through ablution of sins. The guilt being removed, of course the penalty is removed too. Thus man will be restored for God to His “likeness,” who in days bygone had been conformed to “the image” of God; (the “image” is counted (to be) in his form: the “likeness” in his eternity for he receives again that Spirit of God which he had then first received from His afflatus, but had afterward lost through sin.



As you can see it is not a direct scriptural quotation, but instead the earliest known source for this tradition in the patristic writings. It is not dealing with the exergesis of John 5, instead is concerned with reinforcing his mystical view of salvation in contrast to unclean sprits and Mystery Cult baptisms.

I do not have time to track down Jerome, but Chysostom who is earlier then Jerome does not quote from it directly as well in regards to his homily of John 5. If you don’t believe me then look it up. 

Because I do not see the text in scripture in the second century, but instead the tradition of the angel at the pool of Bethesda in the third leaves me to believe an infection of the manuscripts by the end of the fourth and fifth centuries starting to emerge. I would use Chrysostom and Syriac Peshitta as part of my evidence for such. 



Willem van Oranje said:


> It has continuously been a part of the Greek New Testament in every age which it has been handed down, until the present day.



There no clear evidence of that in the textual traditions. Nor is it clear that in the fourth century Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were scissor happy in my study of the documents thus far. Therefore I still hold to my position. By the way, Codex A is fifth century.


----------



## ThomasCartwright

> You are making your problem mine. B. Buchanan has participated for years on this forum in threads that you have participated in. You may have forgotten, or tuned out, or something else, but that's not my problem. And "us" is not synonymous with "you". And my denomination is the OPC. Here is our website:
> Orthodox Presbyterian Church
> I have asked for a link to your denominational website, but you have totally ignored me as you do so often, but still insist that I answer (repeatedly) your questions. Does that bother you at all?



Again, you dodge the questions. Just point me to the threads here that you or this Rev Buchanan state these objective tests and I will withdraw. I did check your OPC link out which claims they believe this statement, "The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them" - do you believe that the Church must always appeal to the authentical Hebrew text to determine any Hebrew reading? Where is the authentical text? How do we objectively determine it?

It is your problem - you mock JB and my consistent and objective position on this issue by trying to infer that it is a "Fundy Baptist KJVO" position. You imply we are outside the traditional Reformed position without setting forth that or even if you disagree with it. I did not know that Edward F Hills was a Baptist but I guess you have done your research extensively! 

Whilst this is irrelevant, I am not a member of a "denomination" as the Bible Presbyterian Synod was dissolved since 1988 so what is your point?



> You take a liberal Dutch Catholic's reading above every single preserved manuscript that the church has available today, and say they don't matter, since there may be some manuscripts that nobody has ever seen with the TR reading, and it fits better in with the Fundy Baptist school of KJVOnlism that you champion.



Sigh...try debating the issue. It would be easy for me to say you represent the BJU Fundy Baptist school of Multi-Version Onlism but I will desist. The Rev 16:5 point has been debated at length and you know my answer and JB. However, what you never do is give answers to our questions. Why?

---------- Post added at 01:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:12 AM ----------




TimV said:


> The reason the "Church" added Cainan according to the most orthodox, TR supporting Reformed and most orthodox, TR supporting Baptist scholars that ever lived is because it was an error that didn't get caught.



I little humility should be in order before rashly making such bold statements. You seem to have a unbiblical attitude towards Independent Baptists and anyone who supports the TR position. A good lesson for you to learn is to study other possible explanations before declaring this an error. 

Consistent preservationists reject the argument against the inclusion of Cainan in Luke 3:36 by the Textus Receptus on the flimsy basis that it is omitted in Genesis 10:24, 11:12 and in 1 Chronicles 1:18, 24. The various genealogies throughout Scripture do sometimes contain gaps, which those who are presuppositionally committed to inerrancy, inspiration, and preservation must recognise as intentional and legitimate. There are biblical precedents for additional information about the specific names of individuals revealed by the Holy Spirit in the New Testament which are not found in the Old Testament narrative such as Jannes and Jambres in 2 Timothy 3:8. The same arguments you marshal against the inclusion of Cainan in Luke 3:36 could be used to claim 2 Timothy 3:8 is a scribal interpolation.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Tim,

In the interests of transparency – flying my colors fully – I’d like to give an idea of some of the nuances of my view.

Though as Paul F. said, it _is_ a mocking slur to label the verbal plenary preservation (VPP) school as the “Fundy Baptist school of KJVOnlism” just because many of them hold to it. As I mentioned earlier, Will Kinney, a Calvinist (whether paedo or credo, I don’t know), holds to it with excellent scholarship.

Myself, I have expounded the tenets of both schools, what you likewise disparagingly call, the “Reformed view of KJVOnlism” and the VPP, showing how each of them are formulated and operate in practice, as in the following:

[From this discussion: History of the KJV and TR.]

The argument for the TR is that God had kept the Byzantine textform (the Scriptures of the Greek Church) in a very pure (but not perfect) state, and these mss were used by Erasmus, along with readings from the Latin Vulgate, and other Latin mss, to produce his Greek editions, the later ones being those used by subsequent editors, such as Beza, Stephens, and the Elzevirs. 

Edward Hills, a textual scholar and KJV defender, says he has found 3 errors in the KJV, one of which I know he attributes to Eramsus, and that is in Romans 7:6. I am still researching that. From Ted Letis’ books, I have learned that John Owen (and perhaps Turretin) owned possible minute variants within the TR editions, and their view was that God had allowed them:

This is from Dr. Theodore P. Letis’ _The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate_:

Owen saw only the minor variants between the various editions of TR as valid areas for discrimination, staying within the broad parameters of providential preservation, as exemplified by “Erasmus, Stephen, Beza, Arias Montanus, and some others.” Within the confines of these editions was “the first and most honest course fixed on” for “consulting various copies and comparing them among themselves.”

This is both the concrete domain of the providentially preserved text, as well as the only area for legitimate comparisons to chose readings among the minutiae of differences. In fact, “God by His Providence preserving the whole entire; suffered this lesser variety [within the providentially preserved editions of the TR –TPL] to fall out, in or among the copies we have, for the quickening and exercising of our diligence in our search into His Word [for ascertaining the finality of preservation among the minutiae of differences among the TR editions –TPL] (_The Divine Original_, p. 301)* It is the activity, editions, and variants after this period of stabilization that represent illegitimate activity, or, as Owen says, “another way.”

Thus Owen maintained an absolute providential preservation while granting variants. (“John Owen _Versus_ Brian Walton” fn 30, p. 160)​
* Owen’s _Divine Original_ online: DIVINE ORIGINAL, AUTHORITY, SELF-EVIDENCING LIGHT, AND POWER OF THE SCRIPTURES. This is from volume 16 of Owen’s works.

This would be in line with the thinking of Dr. Hills. There is another view, and that is God _completely_ – that is, perfectly – preserved the Greek and Hebrew texts, so that they are without any error whatever.

If one wants to understand the matter of the Greek (the Hebrew is another discussion) editions used by the Reformers and post-Reformation divines, it is helpful to learn something of the historical context of those times. Letis’ two books, although hard to get (I would suggest a good seminary library – or your local library’s Inter-Library Loan System), are excellent historical resources: _The Majority Text_, and _The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority, and the Popular Mind_. Although there is some excellent work in the latter, I think the former might be the more valuable.

Who knows that the doctrine of providential preservation, and that with regard to the Textus Receptus (the early forms of it), was developed by the post-Reformation theologians to withstand the assault of Rome’s counter-reformation? And that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura was based on God’s preserving the texts these theologians had – the Reformation texts – and it was these “texts in hand” the WCF 1:8 had in mind. Letis’ latter book, _The Ecclesiastical Text_, has as its first essay the groundbreaking, “B.B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism,” which clearly proves that Warfield _redefined_ the WCF’s understanding of the Scriptures referred to in 1:8 (contrary to the intent of its framers) to refer to the no-longer existent autographs instead of the apographs, the copies they actually had. Warfield meant well, but he departed from bulwark of the Standards, and what we see today, in terms of the erosion of integrity in the Reformed communions, is in great measure a result of this. Of course there is more to this erosion, such as the entertaining of Arminianism within the very precincts of the Calvinist stronghold, yet the loss of a sure Scripture is as a mighty torpedo in the hull. It remains to be seen, the effects of this loss in that one body of congregations that held to the doctrines of grace. Maybe not this generation, but in one or two, should the Lord tarry that long, we will see devastation – as regards spiritual stability – that will make us weep, for this is the province of our children and grandchildren.​
Letis is one of the best resources for understanding the historical background of the textual criticism of the Reformers and the post-reformation divines, and their views of the TR and the KJV.

I have suspended my judgment between the two schools (I have made this clear elsewhere), as I ponder them. For instance, where Turretin disallows Cainan in Luke 3:36, I find the work of Floyd Nolan Jones far more reasonable (see here) and in accord with the presuppositions of providential preservation.

There is the more abstract realm of presuppositions, and the “down-in-the-trenches” realm of dealing with each contested textual reading. The VPP – and especially the brilliant IFBs – school excel in researching and defending individual TR and KJV texts. Though Burgon excels by far most other scholars in his defenses of numerous TR texts. Still, he was more a Majority Text man than a strict TR defender, yet he was loath to have the TR and AV changed, as he knew it would likely do damage rather than better them. Hills, by the way, was a Presbyterian (J. Gresham Machen a powerful early influence on his spiritual life). Perhaps the best writing on the life and development of Hills is Letis’ essay in his book, _Edward Freer Hills’s Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text_.

I continue researching and studying particular textual problems – both OT and New – and likely will till the Lord calls me home. By the way, Tim, this “King James Onlyism” [the proper spelling], is, in my case – as I’ve made known a number of times – properly called, the “King James _priority_” school, if you are indeed interested in showing the nuances rather than an erroneous and simplistic black and white stereotype. I bring this up as there are KJO folks who disallow the validity of Bibles not KJV, and I am not of that bent. I have taken pains to establish this. I may call readings or variants in those Bibles invalid, but not the Bibles in their entirety. The “King James Onlyism” jargon completely misrepresents the distinction I labor mightily to establish. You wouldn’t misrepresent someone deliberately, would you? I didn’t think so, as I believe you are a man of integrity.


----------



## TimV

> "Though as Paul F. said, it is a mocking slur to label the verbal plenary preservation (VPP) school as the “Fundy Baptist school of KJVOnlism”"



I was super careful from the start to say "largely", and I didn't feel it necessary to express that caveat after the first half dozen times. Ferguson's argument seems to be something like "Out of the 50 top proponents of my school of thought, only 47 are Fundy Baptists, therefore you are mistaken". I may be wrong on that, however.



> Owen saw only the minor variants between the various editions of TR as valid areas for discrimination, staying within the broad parameters of providential preservation, as exemplified by “Erasmus, Stephen, Beza, Arias Montanus, and some others.” Within the confines of these editions was “the first and most honest course fixed on” for “consulting various copies and comparing them among themselves.”



That would be an interesting and helpful quote to look into. Calvin quotes Erasmus (it's on this thread) as saying John 8:59 should be read as it is today in my ESV. If that's true, Erasmus has to be taken off that list. John Trapp quotes Beza as saying Cainaan should not appear in Luke 3:36. If true, Beza has to be taken off the list. Trapp's wrong on a lot of things, though.
EDIT: I misread the above statement. He's using Owen alone, rather than the others as holding to a TR only position. So, we can put Owen on the other list, as the first name.

Thanks for the spelling correction.

---------- Post added at 07:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:36 AM ----------

PS I did some thinking last night about Ferguson's "if they were alive today they'd see it my way" theory. So Gill, Calvin, Beza, Turretin, Henry, Poole and everyone else I've seen who in places chose readings not in any published TR editions or even MT compilations would have "seen the light" if they were alive today.

I have a friend who is push a Federal Vision agenda here and he uses the same argument. My old Pastor Rushdoony would have hated the FV. If nothing else, the stupid new definitions they use like "elect" meaning everyone baptised would have filled him with contempt. I spent a lot of time showing J. that this would have been the case, but he just sticks up his nose and says "he's dead, so you can't prove me wrong".

I thought the burden of proof in that case would have been on him. But I confess I don't even know how to begin dealing with that mentality. How do you reason against it? Calvin said "no, the TR is just wrong". Ferguson says "If Calvin would have been alive today he would have been on board with my largely Fundy Baptist school of KJVOnlyism". What gives?


----------



## ThomasCartwright

TimV said:


> I was super careful from the start to say "largely", and I didn't feel it necessary to express that caveat after the first half dozen times. Ferguson's argument seems to be something like "Out of the 50 top proponents of my school of thought, only 47 are Fundy Baptists, therefore you are mistaken". I may be wrong on that, however.



Actually what you said was that about me was that my view was "with the Fundy Baptist school of KJVOnlism that you champion." There was no "largely" or other qualification in it. It was a cheap shot trying to poison the wells. As I pointed out, you view is in line with the BJU Baptist Fundy School of MultiVersionOnlism. So what does that prove?



> PS I did some thinking last night about Ferguson's "if they were alive today they'd see it my way" theory. So Gill, Calvin, Beza, Turretin, Henry, Poole and everyone else I've seen who in places chose readings not in any published TR editions or even MT compilations would have "seen the light" if they were alive today.
> 
> I thought the burden of proof in that case would have been on him. But I confess I don't even know how to begin dealing with that mentality. How do you reason against it? Calvin said "no, the TR is just wrong". Ferguson says "If Calvin would have been alive today he would have been on board with my largely Fundy Baptist school of KJVOnlyism". What gives?



That is exactly my point - neither of us can be definitive on what Calvin would have decided if he was living in our day. He died in 1564 so how you can be sure what he would have regarded the final edition of the TR coupled with 400 years of Providential blessing on the 1611 KJV is beyond me. We do know that he regarded the Traditional Text as the uncorrupted authentical fount. We do know that he regarded the TR edition of his day as needing some minor amendments (most of which were later picked up in future TR editions). All of us here agree with him on that!


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

David (Grimmson), 

In your post #113 you say,



> I think the text has been preserved throughout time by the Holy Spirit, and in some cases added to by the traditions of man. I think John 5:4 is a perfect example of that, along with John 7:53-8:11. What needs to be done is to shave off these man-made traditions in scripture.


You wanna “shave off” these passages from my Bible? Or at least say they _oughta_ be? I can’t let that slide!

John 7:53–8:11 I gave a defense for here, so I’d like to talk about John 5:4.

In your post #116 you seem to have a high esteem for Westcott and Hort (W&H) and their two favorite mss, Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus ([SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE] or aleph). I appreciate that you have a scholarly approach, but I wonder how exposed you have been to critiques of W&H and B & [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE]. There are some pretty monstrous worms in them apples! But first to John 5:4. Later for the worms.


In his book, _The King James Version Defended_, chapter 6, Dr. Edward F. Hills writes,2. The Angel At The Pool (John 5:3b-4)

The next test passage in which the Traditional reading ought to be examined is John 5:3b-4, the account of the descent of the angel into the pool of Bethesda. For the benefit of the reader this disputed reading is here given in its context.2 Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches. 3 In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, _waiting for the moving of the water._ 4 For _an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had._ 5 And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years. 6 When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, He saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole? 7 The impotent man answered Him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me. 8 Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk. 9 And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed and walked.​The words in italics (vss. 3b-4) are omitted by Papyri 66 and 75, _Aleph B C_, a few minuscules, the Curetonian Syriac, the Sahidic, the Bodmer Bohairic, and a few Old Latin manuscripts. This disputed reading, however, has been defended not only by conservatives such as Hengstenberg (1861) (13) but also by radicals such as A. Hilgenfeld (1875) (14) and R. Steck (1893). (15) Hengstenberg contends that "the words are necessarily required by the connection," quoting with approval the remark of von Hofmann (an earlier commentator) that it is highly improbable "that the narrator, who has stated the site of the pool and the number of the porches, should be so sparing of his words precisely with regard to that which it is necessary to know in order to understand the occurrence, and should leave the character of the pool and its healing virtue to be guessed from the complaint of the sick man, which presupposes a knowledge of it." Hilgenfeld and Steck also rightly insist that the account of the descent of the angel into the pool in verse 4 is presupposed in the reply which the impotent man makes to Jesus in verse 7.

Certain of the Church Fathers attached great importance to this reference to the angel's descent into the pool (John 5:3b-4), attributing to it the highest theological significance. The pool they regarded as a type of baptism and the angel as the precursor of the Holy Spirit. Such was the interpretation which Tertullian (c. 200) gave to this passage. "Having been washed," he writes, "in the water by the angel, we are prepared for the Holy Spirit.'' (16) Similarly, Didymus (c 379) states that the pool was "confessedly an image of baptism" and the angel troubling the water "a forerunner of the Holy Spirit.'' (17) And the remarks of Chrysostom (c. 390) are to the same effect. (18) These writers, at least, appear firmly convinced that John 5:3b-4 was a genuine portion of the New Testament text. And the fact that Tatian (c. 175) included this reading in his Diatessaron also strengthens the evidence for its genuineness by attesting its antiquity. (19)

Thus both internal and external evidence favor the authenticity of the allusion to the angel's descent into the pool. Hilgenfeld (20) and Steck (21) suggest a very good explanation for the absence of this reading from the documents mentioned above as omitting it. These scholars point out that there was evidently some discussion in the Church during the 2nd century concerning the existence of this miracle working pool. Certain early Christians seem to have been disturbed over the fact that such a pool was no longer to be found at Jerusalem. Tertullian explained the absence of this pool by supposing that God had put an end to its curative powers in order to punish the Jews for their unbelief. (22) However, this answer did not satisfy everyone, and so various attempts were made to remove the difficulty through conjectural emendation. In addition to those documents which omit the whole reading there are others which merely mark it for omission with asterisks and obels. Some scribes, such as those that produced A and L, omitted John 5:3b, _waiting for the moving of the water_, but did not have the courage to omit John 5:4, _For an angel . . . whatever disease he had_. Other scribes, like those that copied out D and W omitted John 5:4 but did not see the necessity of omitting John 5:3b. A and L and about 30 other manuscripts add the genitive _of the Lord_ after _angel_, and various other small variations were introduced. That the whole passage has been tampered with by rationalistic scribes is shown by the various spellings of the name of the pool, _Bethesda, Bethsaida, Bethzatha_, etc. In spite of this, however, John 5:3b-4 has been preserved virtually intact in the vast majority of the Greek manuscripts (Traditional Text).​For footnotes see here. For full table of contents, here.

Burgon, noting the utter disarray of discordant readings in the extreme minority variants at John 5:4, [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE]BCD, remarks, “When witnesses prevaricate so hopelessly, how far can you believe them?” (_The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and Established_, p. 83.)

With the exception of these few extreme minority variants, the vast – _overwhelming_ – majority of Greek manuscripts retain the Traditional Text reading.

So it behooves us to look a lot more closely at Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus ([SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE]). Now, David, if you really have a hankering to do some shaving on the Bible, I’d suggest you start at the ESV’s (and the underlying Vaticanus’) travesty of the true record in the genealogy of Christ at Matthew 1:7 & 10, where it puts the psalmist Asaph and the prophet Amos in place of the rightful Asa and Amon, and which aberrant reading Metzger had the nerve to say was the reading of the autograph, and that Matthew just made a mistake. Regarding this matter I’ll reintroduce something I said earlier:



> Nearly a century ago George Salmon astutely observed that Westcott and Hort had attributed to the gospel writers “erroneous statements which their predecessors had regarded as copyists’ blunders.” Salmon noted that “there was indeed but little rhetorical exaggeration in the statement that the canon of these editors was that Codex B was infallible and that the Evangelists were not. Nay, it seemed as if Hort regarded it as a note of genuineness if a reading implies error on the part of the sacred writer.” [G. Salmon, _Some Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament_ (London: John Murray, 1897)]. (From the book Dr. Theodore Letis edited (and contributed to), _The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate_, the essay by James A. Borland, *“Re-Examining New Testament Textual-Critical Principles and Practices Used to Negate Inerrancy”* [reprinted from the _Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society_; Vol. 25, No. 4 (December 1982), by permission].


One of the things Borland wrote about was the ESV’s Matthew 1 verses 7 and 10 with their notorious Asaph and Amos in Christ’s genealogy, alleged by text-critics to be error in the original autograph. Borland’s remarks in *this thread*, starting at post 40. It’s very interesting reading, for those who want some background of Westcott and Hort and their “choice” mss.

Before we take a look at those mss., I want to look at something you said (still in your post #113):



> And I do accept verbal plenary inspiration from the Holy Spirit by the original authors of the original autographs of scripture, which is one reason why I have a high respect for the LXX. I do believe that the Holy Sprit guided the words that the authors were using by their own use of style to communicate what the Holy Spirit wanted to communicate. . .


It’s not really clear if you’re talking about the Holy Spirit guiding the writers of the LXX, though it does look like that, in what I’ve quoted, and in the rest of the paragraph. In the OT it was only the Levites / priests who were authorized to keep, maintain, and reproduce the Scriptures. The translators of the LXX (of which there were many and varied) were not authorized, and mainly did a very poor job, save perhaps in the books of the Pentateuch, which are considered to be better than the rest. Yet even these are not the authorized and inspired word of God.

Looking now at the manuscripts B and [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE], I am going to repost something from a thread of some 4 plus years ago, “Why do KJ Only types believe the Westcott and Hort manuscripts are bad?” The following is from *post #14* in that thread (in the event anyone want to read further in it):

*---------* 

It is noteworthy how few people are familiar with the works which examine the alleged “most reliable and early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses” that the Critical Text (CT) is based upon, which latter derives in the main from the Westcott and Hort (W&H) Greek text of 1881.

The quote above is from the margin note found in the NIV, and meant to indicate the spuriousness of Mark 16:9-20. The margin notes in the NASB and ESV are similar and to the same effect, the CT being the Greek they are also based upon.

The primary, and almost _exclusive_ “ancient witnesses” that omit these 12 verses are codices _Vaticanus_ (B) and _Sinaiticus_ ([SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE]) or _aleph_, after the first Hebrew letter, both of Alexandrian origin. Without looking at their origins in detail at this time, they were very likely Egyptian manuscripts modified by Origen, or at least accepted by him, and made into the official NT text by Eusebius of Caesarea (265-339) when Constantine requested 50 Bibles of him, due to the scarcity of Scripture after the destruction of churches, Bibles, and believers in the reign of Diocletian and his 10 years of horrific persecution (302-312). The fierce conflict in the days of Eusebius between the orthodox Christians and the Arians and Sabellians led to the manuscripts being tampered with for doctrinal reasons, as has been documented.

More to the point for the purposes of this thread is how these two manuscripts were resurrected from obscurity into places of prominence in the 19th century, and what the characters of each are.

Herman C. Hoskier was a textual scholar of the Greek New Testament who minutely examined and then opposed Westcott and Hort’s principal texts, _Vaticanus_ and _Sinaiticus_ in a two-volume study. The first is titled, _Codex B And Its Allies: A Study and an Indictment_; the second volume, which we will quote from here, is titled, _Codex B And Its Allies, Part II: Chiefly concerning [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE], but covering three thousand differences between and [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE] and B in the Four Gospels, with the evidence supporting each side, including the new manuscript evidence collected by VON SODEN, and the collateral readings of other important authorities_.(1) Hoskier states,In the light of the following huge lists let us never be told in the future that either [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE] or B represents any form of “Neutral” text…

Our little study [after the examination of B in Volume I] would be quite incomplete without a further account of the idiosyncrasies of [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE]. This is best shown by exhibiting the principal places where [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE] and B differ, which, in number, far exceed what anyone might suppose who does not go deeply into the comparative study of the two documents. As a matter of fact the “shorter” text of the two is found in [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE] …

I have tabulated the major part of these differences between [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE] and B in the Gospels and given the supporting authorities on each side. They amount to—

Matt. . . . 656+
Mark . . . 567+
Luke . . . 791+
John . . . 1022+

Total . . . 3036+ (2)​Hoskier’s study continues on for 381 pages of documentation (412 including a Scriptural index), if anyone is interested in pursuing a comparative examination of [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE] and B, the foundation of W&H’s critical text.
----------
(1) _Codex B And Its Allies_, by Herman C. Hoskier (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1914).
(2) Ibid., Vol. II, page 1.
-----------

In a courtroom when two witnesses testifying to the same matter disagree sharply with one another, they cannot be called “reliable” witnesses, but rather they impugn one another’s testimony. And when such _un_reliable witnesses are scrutinized in the light of a virtual multitude of other witnesses who disagree with the two while agreeing with one another, the evidence becomes preponderant in favor of the majority. Mere “age” of a manuscript may easily be offset by other more weighty factors. It is a given regarding the condition of a manuscript that those exhibiting the least wear have been used the least; often it is because they have been set aside as of inferior quality. In my own library the books that are in the worst shape, and which sometimes have to be replaced, are those I use the most. Those in the best shape I use the least.

[SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE] was discovered by Tischendorf at St. Catharine’s Greek Orthodox Monastery on Mt. Sinai in 1844. _Vaticanus_ has been in the Vatican Library at least since 1481, when it was catalogued. Those with some historical knowledge will remember that these were the years of the Inquisition in Spain during the reign of Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484). In 1481 some 2,000 believers dissenting with Rome were burned alive, with multitudes of others tortured (M’Crie, _History of the Reformation in Spain_, p. 104). When Pope Innocent VIII (1484-1492) sat in the royal “Throne of Peter,” he followed in the vein of his namesake Innocent III and commenced anew a persecution against the peaceful Waldensian Christians in the northern Italian Alps, commanding their destruction “like venomous snakes” if they would not repent and turn to Rome. (Wylie, _History of the Waldenses_, pp. 27-29) Bloodbaths followed against these harmless mountain peoples, who had their own Scriptures from ancient times, and worshipped in Biblical simplicity and order.

It perplexes many people that the Lord of these _many hundreds of thousands of Bible-believing saints who were tortured with unimaginable barbarity and slaughtered like dogs by the Roman Catholic “church” for centuries (it is no exaggeration to say for over a millennium) should have kept His choicest preserved manuscript in the safekeeping of the Library of the apostate murderers, designating it by their own ignominious name:_ Vaticanus. But it well suited W&H, who loved Rome, and despised the “evangelicals” of their own day, _and_ the Traditional Text they used to preach with power.

*---------* 

Rather than clutter up this present post with too much verbiage, I’ll just give the links to two following posts in the “Westcott and Hort manuscripts” thread, post #21 and post #25.

I may print some more material from these posts later, but not now. This stuff hasn’t seen the light of day for a number of years.

------

I won't be back till later Sunday (eastern Mediterranean time).


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Grimmson said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> Case in point, John 5.4 has the testimony of the Syriac Peshitta, which dates it to the 2nd century, so the date test weighs in its favor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, Syriac Peshitta is not from the second century, but instead fourth to fifth century. See New Testament Text and Translation Commentary, by Philip W. Comfort (p. xxxiii) and The Reference Charts of New Testament Criticism, by Roy M. Clampa (p. 21-makes the calm it is from the 5th century). Also to be found at (WAM) Reference Charts for New Teastament Textual Criticism - Roy M Clampa .
> 
> 
> 
> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has the testimony of Tertullian, of Jerome's critical work, and of the entire Byzantine tradition, and of Codex A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now I made the claim earlier against Tertullian’s application of the text. The following comes from John 5:4:
> 
> for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool and stirred up the water; whoever then first, after the stirring up of the water, stepped in was made well from whatever disease with which he was afflicted.
> 
> 
> This is what Tertullian said (in the surrounding context), to be found in On Baptism chapter 5:
> 
> 
> 
> “Well, but the nations, who are strangers to all understanding of spiritual powers, ascribe to their idols the imbuing of waters with the self-same efficacy.” (So they do) but they cheat themselves with waters which are widowed. washing is the channel through which they are initiated into some sacred rites—of some notorious Isis or Mithras. The gods themselves likewise they honour by washings. Moreover, by carrying water around, and sprinkling it, they everywhere expiate country-seats, houses, temples, and whole cities: at all events, at the Apollinarian and Eleusinian games they are baptized; and they presume that the effect of their doing that is their regeneration and the remission of the penalties due to their perjuries. Among the ancients, again, whoever had defiled himself with murder, was wont to go in quest of purifying waters. Therefore, if the mere nature of water, in that it is the appropriate material for washing away, leads men to flatter themselves with a belief in omens of purification, how much more truly will waters render that service through the authority of God, by whom all their nature has been constituted! If men think that water is endued with a medicinal virtue by religion, what religion is more effectual than that of the living God? Which fact being acknowledged, we recognise here also the zeal of the devil rivalling the things of God, while we find him, too, practising baptism in his subjects. What similarity is there? The unclean cleanses! the ruiner sets free! the damned absolves! He will, forsooth, destroy his own work, by washing away the sins which himself inspires! These (remarks) have been set down by way of testimony against such as reject the faith; if they put no trust in the things of God, the spurious imitations of which, in the case of God’s rival, they do trust in. Are there not other cases too, in which, without any sacrament, unclean spirits brood on waters, in spurious imitation of that brooding of the Divine Spirit in the very beginning? Witness all shady founts, and all unfrequented brooks, and the ponds in the baths, and the conduits in private houses, or the cisterns and wells which are said to have the property of “spiriting away,” through the power, that is, of a hurtful spirit. Men whom waters have drowned or affected with madness or with fear, they call nymph-caught, or “lymphatic,” or “hydro-phobic.” Why have we adduced these instances? Lest any think it too hard for belief that a holy angel of God should grant his presence to waters, to temper them to man’s salvation; while the evil angel holds frequent profane commerce with the selfsame element to man’s ruin. If it seems a novelty for an angel to be present in waters, an example of what was to come to pass has forerun. An angel, by his intervention, was wont to stir the pool at Bethsaida. They who were complaining of ill-health used to watch for him; for whoever had been the first to descend into them, after his washing, ceased to complain. This figure of corporeal healing sang of a spiritual healing, according to the rule by which things carnal are always antecedent as figurative of things spiritual. And thus, when the grace of God advanced to higher degrees among men, an accession of efficacy was granted to the waters and to the angel. They who were wont to remedy bodily defects, now heal the spirit; they who used to work temporal salvation now renew eternal; they who did set free but once in the year, now save peoples in a body daily, death being done away through ablution of sins. The guilt being removed, of course the penalty is removed too. Thus man will be restored for God to His “likeness,” who in days bygone had been conformed to “the image” of God; (the “image” is counted (to be) in his form: the “likeness” in his eternity for he receives again that Spirit of God which he had then first received from His afflatus, but had afterward lost through sin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you can see it is not a direct scriptural quotation, but instead the earliest known source for this tradition in the patristic writings. It is not dealing with the exergesis of John 5, instead is concerned with reinforcing his mystical view of salvation in contrast to unclean sprits and Mystery Cult baptisms.
> 
> I do not have time to track down Jerome, but Chysostom who is earlier then Jerome does not quote from it directly as well in regards to his homily of John 5. If you don’t believe me then look it up.
> 
> Because I do not see the text in scripture in the second century, but instead the tradition of the angel at the pool of Bethesda in the third leaves me to believe an infection of the manuscripts by the end of the fourth and fifth centuries starting to emerge. I would use Chrysostom and Syriac Peshitta as part of my evidence for such.
> 
> 
> 
> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has continuously been a part of the Greek New Testament in every age which it has been handed down, until the present day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There no clear evidence of that in the textual traditions. Nor is it clear that in the fourth century Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were scissor happy in my study of the documents thus far. Therefore I still hold to my position. By the way, Codex A is fifth century.
Click to expand...

 
David,

I won't make this long, because JerusalemBlade already posted a lot of what I was going to write, and in greater detail than I would have, in response to you here. I find Burgon's treatment to be convincing on this verse. He is only one voice, but at a minimum he needs to be answered. He contends that the variation between the codices listed as against this verse vary too much among themselves to be reliable, as another poster has typed more fully. 

The point I was making about historic continuity is this: Even you agree that this verse has come down to us from prior centuries in the church, since the 5th century at the latest. This 1500 years (minimum) of continuous use by the churches of this verse as God's holy word is significant testimony in its favor as being authentic.

As far as the Tertullian quote, (and Burgon lists other fathers from that era in addition to Tertullian who also quoted it according to his research,) he had to have gotten the idea of the angel from somewhere. What do you think he was quoting from, if this verse be not original?

As far as the Peshitta, since there is such a wealth of exemplars from the 5th century Aramaic-speaking churches (more numerous than we have of the Greek codexes up to that time) with so little textual variation, it seems most likely that what we have handed down to us is an accurate reproduction of the original Syriac translation of the New Testament, which would put it in the late first to early second century. 

Again, I find the evidence against John 5:4 wanting, upon examination of the arguments, which leads me to _not_ want it taken out of our Protestant Bibles.


----------



## Grimmson

*The long response*

I was wondering if someone was going to respond to my latest post here, because typically the more data I put up the less likely I am going to get a response. I also want to make it clear that the process of shaving off isn’t being done to get rid of the deity of Christ or deny his miracles or even to just shave something off of scripture. The issue is what exactly did the original author write based on the earliest references, not based on inserted man-made traditions. Therefore looking at the majority of the earlier texts is key, not just looking at what is called the majority texts, which started to emerge in popularity by near the end of the eighth century and did not become popular until the ninth century. 

I do not know where to begin in this post to respond to the esteemed Steve Rafalsky and also to Riley. I get the impression that Steve seems to think we have two different bibles as implied by the “my bible” and his issues with the use of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and thus two different sets of scripture to the faithful; rejecting as it were the unity of the one faith that we all share in the Word of God. I want to make this clear that I see both sides as having the inspired word of God and some of what I see as accused of corruption of a text is not based on earlier standards; but instead more on modern standards. What I will do is cover some of the issues of 5:4, cover Matthew 1:7-8, 10, and then cover with in more detail the arguments presented against Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

I find it interesting that there is not in any biblical manuscript, and I mean fragment or codex of scripture, prior to fifth century that has John 5:4. There is no Jewish tradition that I have ran across in Josephus or in Qumran (including 3Q15- the treasure scroll known as the copper scroll), at least in the Qumran literature I have read, that contain the tradition of the angel going to Bethesda. The earliest reference that we have is Tertullian, third century, and I made it clear that he was not directly quoting scripture. I even cited and underlined it in post 119 for confirmation. So we see no reference to the tradition in the first century, or the second century and no Greek biblical manuscripts two centuries there after. Does this mean that cripples man wasn’t going to try to be healed going into the pool when the water was stirred? No, that not the case I am saying. I question that it was by the means of an angel that the water was stirred which is the main means pointed out in the verse. This notion of an angel over the waters goes back to the idea of pagan fonts blessed by spirits for healing and good fortune. Zavim Mishnah five of the Mishna gives mention of a place called Gad-Yawan, which may have been used as a place of healing; but only if the water is moving by Jewish tradition for the healing and would have been blessed by God or the patron god of that spring for the fulfillment of healing and blessing; in other words its pagan ideas, more particularly of Greek influence, entering in and not Christian or even early Jewish as reflected by the literature. And I find it interesting that this tradition doesn’t start to gain scriptural traction until about the time of the rise of the cult of the martyrs, which included the use of relics for healings, protection, and other blessings.

Another issues of concern is that the Syriac tradition is not consistent with this passage. It is in Peshitta and Palestinian Syriac, but it is not in Syriac Curetonianus. The earliest manuscript tradition which trump the Syriac tradition in regards to date is the Coptic tradition. The Coptic tradition from the third through the fourth century agrees with clarity in the absence of verse four unanimously. We do not have a third century Syraic manuscript to compare the passage to that of a later tradition in its own family or to the Coptic tradition of it’s own time for comparison. It would be a good study though to compare the third century texts that we have from the third century between the two traditions. Another fact to point out is you don’t see the passage entering into the Coptic tradition until about the ninth century. Also one needs to be careful to remember that the reason why a particular text or reading of a text is common in a particular region is because of the process of mass professional copying by scribes from a single text. It would have been done by someone reading the text and people writing what they hear. It is a easier and quicker way to reproduce massive amount of a given text. Therefore if a given text has a error or somebody’s commentary inside the text itself, then that error and commentary would have been transmitted down the line and integrated into the tradition and recognized over time as scripture. Which would explain why in a given geographical region and tradition you have little variants within that tradition family. 

This leads me to the various spellings and readings of Bethesda, which even has a slightly different spelling in the Cooper Scroll. P75 (about 200s), which actually contain the oldest and about the same time as P66, has Bethsaida(Βηθσαιδά) as the English equivalent spelling. Wescott and Hort, using Eusebius and Sinaiticus have Bethzatha (Βηθζαθὰ) as the English spelling equivalent. These spelling between the two are really not that big of an issue, in fact they sound extremely similar to each other if you think about the sound each letter makes. The zeta in Bethzatha makes a z or dz sound. If you have a problem with hearing and processing sounds like me, the dz can sound like an s with the dropping of the d in finds. The theta makes a th sound, like in th ings, which could be confused with d sound such as in the word then. This confusion can further be reinforced when considering the relationship of stem and stem variation relationship with verbs when a another sigma is added to a delta, theta, or tau. Remember bayith is not a Greek word, but Aramaic which increases the probability of misspelling and mishearing a word( so when you write it down you write it down as a word that sounds similar to your own understaqnding). The Aramaic and Hebrew equivalents must be considered in the explanation of it’s use and rendering (including under etymological factors), implying second and third century equivalents must be looked at for a clearer explanation for the movement of this change. Βηθεσδά is the most common rendering of it and I think an explanation can be given to the movement from Βηθεσδά to Βηθσαιδά or perhaps the other way around. I cannot give a clear honest answer due to my own limited amount of time on this issue. There are people who have given their life to Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic word study comparisons; but am not that guy. It requires days, maybe weeks, not hours of study for such an extensive project. Also a important consideration to keep in mind is the importance of spelling or the lack there of the people developing these manuscripts. Spelling, particularly of names, wasn’t always as major of a concern compared to a more recent age. It has been said as an example that Wycliffe wrote his name at least three different ways. 

Going back to 5:4, I couldn’t say for sure where Tertullian got it from without a paper trail. And you have to be careful with Tertullian at times because his view of subjects, like baptism for example, is not the same for anyone here in this board under the current rules. I know that Tatian, the Assyrian in section 22:10 of the Diatessaron does recount the passage. However you need to be careful of him because he did alter the gospels in his Diatessaron to try to bring the gospels in harmony with one another as a redactor, and eliminated genealogies of Matthew and Luke and reworded many sections of scripture. Plus he wasn’t well liked in the West, removed by the church in Rome (Irenaeus made quite clear), and was seen as a heretic later on by Clement of Alexandra (who at one time was possibly a student of Tatian in Alexandria, but did not call him a heretic to my knowledge during Tatian’s lifetime), Origen ( I know it is funny coming him), Eusebius( almost as funny considering his Arian background, but the issue here was the accepted tradition that Tatian was the founder of the Encratites, to be taken over by Severus later on) and Jerome ( he also accepted the story of Tatian being the founder of the Syrian Gnostic group called the Encratites). The Syrian church widely used his work through the fifth century, which of course would not make the west that happy and could allow for the charge of corruption on the Syraic texts by the western churches. On the side, I think it is important to point out that 7:53-8:11 was not in his Diatessaron. This work would have be done somewhere around the mid to third quarter of the second century. His influence in Alexandria and Greece could have carried to Tertullian in North Africa by word of mouth, which does explains why Tertullian did not explicate quote the passage and instead related the idea in contrast to the pagan environment around him. If I was to guess where Tatian received what was to be called John 5:4, I would say Valentius maybe a possible candidate. So if the first tracked reading comes from one who is known as heretic in the history of the church, then worry about your position; especially if it not in early well established biblical manuscripts. 

You probably had enough of me talking about 5:4, so let move on to Matthew 1:7-8, 10. Should it be Asaph or Asa. Well some people may find this funny, but the main difference between the spellings of these two words is one letter, a phi. It is not that big of an issue. But if you really want to push it, all of the biblical manuscripts fourth century and earlier, including the old Latin, Coptic readings, and P1(third century copy of Matthew) has it as Asaph. The all puts the nail in the coffin for me. You don’t see the dropping of the phi at the end of the word to make Asa with the manuscripts that we have until the fifth century (including Ambrose who a late fourth century father). That does not mean it didn’t occur in the late fourth century and spread however, this is based on texts that we have. It is not like a few texts are looked at here, but a clear temporal reading change in the tradition. What probably happened is people realized the spelling in the LXX matched Asa and the Hebrew and started to correct their tradition in a redactionary process. This does not mean however that all the church fathers and the ESV translators thought the text was speaking of the Psalmist. I never thought it was going back to 1 Chronicles 3:10. These people were not dumb, the ancient fathers and the ESV translators. The ancients probably saw Asaph as just another spelling of Asa. I know in my ESV Study Bible the writer of the commentary sees it as just another spelling of Asa. If someone made the claim that the people who translated the ESV or those involved in textual criticism believed it is talking about the Psalmist, I would show that person “Asaph is probably an alternate spelling for Asa” in my ESV. Now if such a person continued to push and would not prove that Asaph can no way be a alternate spelling beyond a shadow of a doubt, I would stop reading what they had to say about textual criticism because they are showing to me that their blinded by their tradition and much rather keep their tradition then seek after the truth.

I do not want to do verse 10, but I guess I should. Instead of a dropping of a letter in this case we have a substituting of a letter at the end from a sigma to a nu. The argument is the same as with verses 7-8, it a alternate spelling. Do not mock my intelligence by saying that it has to be the prophet, but prove instead that it cannot be a alternate spelling. Now I am going to mention the documents that use the two variants for verse 10, along with their dates. 
For Ἀμώς :

Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (both fourth century), C(fifth century), D(fifth century I think) Δ(ninth century), Θ(ninth century), f1(12-14th century), 33(ninth-tenth century), 157(seventh through eighth century), 205(eighth century), 1071(twelfth century), 1292(thirteenth century), _l_ 68 (twelfth century), _l_ 253 (early eleventh century) _l_ 672( ninth century) _l_ 673 (twelfth century), _l_ 813(mid eleventh century), _l_ 1223 (thirteenth century), _l_ 1627 (eleventh century), it(c- twelfth through thirteenth century, d-fifth century, ff1-sixth century, g-eighth through ninth century, l-eight century, k-c. 400, q-sixth through seventh centuries), vg(mss) cop(sa-4th through fifth century, bo-ninth century, fay-unknown date), Armenian(fifth century), Georgian (fifth century), Ethiopioc (sixth century), and Epiphanius (early fifth)

For Ἀμὼν:

L(eight century), W (fifth century), f13(eleventh through fifthteen century ), 28(mid-tenth century), 180(sixth century), 565 (ninth century), 579(thirteenth century), 700 (eleventh century), 982 (ninth through tenth century), _l_ 211(twelfth century) 

And there also a third variant for the name, you can look it up in 
NA27 or USB4 if your interested. But as we can see Ἀμώς was pretty well preserved throughout the various ages of the church from the earliest manuscript date that we have on the passage. Maybe Matthew used a variant spelling. The manuscript evidence I am presenting is based from UBS4.

---------- Post added at 08:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 PM ----------




Jerusalem Blade said:


> In a courtroom when two witnesses testifying to the same matter disagree sharply with one another, they cannot be called “reliable” witnesses, but rather they impugn one another’s testimony. And when such _un_reliable witnesses are scrutinized in the light of a virtual multitude of other witnesses who disagree with the two while agreeing with one another, the evidence becomes preponderant in favor of the majority.


I agree that witnesses impugn each other testimony if they are not in agreement, the problem I think we have here is the issue of what we define as reliable and the majority. As you can see what is typically defined as the majority text, shouldn’t be classified with having the majority title because it wasn’t the majority until the ninth century. I define the most reliable reading based on a comparison of the earliest biblical manuscripts in their time in relation to the original autographs themselves. If the majority of the early biblical manuscripts are giving a different story in the third and fourth centuries to that of the fifth to later in the ninth century then we must question the testimony of the later source because they are further removed temporally from the person and point of origin. It is natural in the transmission of a text for it to receive slight changes over time, like in Homer’s Iliad, because you do not have a printing press to make an exact copy, but instead a fallible human being. So the question that must be considered is under what standard must a text be held by? The only honest way to do that is to compare readings of that time, the population of those readings during that time, the debates that were going on in that time, and a look at how those scriptures were quoted and applied. If a earliest reading came from a known liar or heretic, outside of the historical boundaries of orthodox during that time, then that witness and their work must be placed into question; such as Tatian. Now if the work was a commissioned work and supervised by what was classified as orthodox and fell in line with the confessional or creedal standards then there a chance at a more credible witness in history. So a comparison to as many early manuscripts must be done and if there is a noticeable shifts in readings from earlier to later, then one must be willing to confess that the evidence points into that direction as one moved diachronically in history.

. 


Jerusalem Blade said:


> Mere “age” of a manuscript may easily be offset by other more weighty factors. It is a given regarding the condition of a manuscript that those exhibiting the least wear have been used the least; often it is because they have been set aside as of inferior quality. In my own library the books that are in the worst shape, and which sometimes have to be replaced, are those I use the most. Those in the best shape I use the least.



There are several things I can say about Sinaiticus. First of all it has been well used in the centuries. If it wasn’t for the masterful production of the work and the dry climate of Egypt it wouldn’t have survived. It was produced during the age in which the cult of the saints were becoming more and more popular. By the time it reached it’s three hundredth year it was probably looked at as a treasure for their monastery, to keep by the steward of the convent. It was altered several times from it’s conception to the twelfth century (see Milne, H. J. M. and Skeat, T.C. (1938). Scribes and Correctors of Codex Sinaiticus. London: Trustees of the British Museum) to show that the ancient relic was still useful and needed to be used. And at some point warped in a pretty red cloth as sign of how respected such an ancient treasure would be. It was an expensive book that was meant to last and be used. It was by the reading of the relic by the keeper of the convent and the interesting conversation with Tischendorf that the keeper knew and could show Tischendorf the great treasure that would later be seen by the world. The beautiful document has been well marked over the years, much in poor condition, but by the grace of God not in as poor as it could have been in parts; but that only because the caretakers of it saw of precious it was.. 


Jerusalem Blade said:


> [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE] was discovered by Tischendorf at St. Catharine’s Greek Orthodox Monastery on Mt. Sinai in 1844.


Codex Sinaiticus was not discovered in 1844. It wasn’t until 1859 that it was discovered. 


> It obtained his approval in the month of September, 1858, and the funds which I asked for were placed at my disposal. Three months subsequently my seventh edition of the New Testament, which had cost me three years of incessant labour, appeared; and in the commencement of January, 1859, I again set sail for the East.
> I cannot here refrain from mentioning the peculiar satisfaction I had experienced a little before this. A learned Englishman, one of my friends, had been sent into the East by his Government to discover and purchase old Greek manuscripts, and spared no cost in obtaining them. I had cause to fear, especially for my pearl of the Convent of St. Catherine; but I heard that he had not succeeded in acquiring anything, and had not even gone as far as Sinai--"for," as he said in his official report, "after the visit of such an antiquarian and critic as Dr. Tischendorf, I could not expect any success." I saw by this how well advised I had been to reveal to no one my secret of 1844.
> By the end of the month of January I had reached the Convent of Mount Sinai. The mission with which I was entrusted entitled me to expect every consideration and attention. The prior, on saluting me, expressed a wish that I might succeed in discovering fresh supports for the truth. His kind expression of goodwill was verified even beyond his expectations.
> After having devoted a few days in turning over the manuscripts of the convent, not without alighting here and there on some precious parchment or other, I told my Bedouins, on the 4th February, to hold themselves in readiness to set out with their dromedaries for Cairo on the 7th, when an entirely fortuitous circumstance carried me at once to the goal of all my desires. On the afternoon of this day I was taking a walk with the steward of the convent in the neighbourhood, and as we returned, towards sunset, he begged me to take some refreshment with him in his cell. Scarcely had he entered the room, when, resuming our former subject of conversation, he said: "And I, too, have read a Septuagint"--i.e. a copy of the Greek translation made by the Seventy. And so saying, he took down from the corner of the room a bulky kind of volume, wrapped up in a red cloth, and laid it before me. I unrolled the cover, and discovered, to my great surprise, not only those very fragments which, fifteen years before, I had taken out of the basket, but also other parts of the Old Testament, the New Testament complete, and, in addition, the Epistle of Barnabas and a part of the Pastor of Hermas. Full of joy, which this time I had the self-command to conceal from the steward and the rest of the community, I asked, as if in a careless way, for permission to take the manuscript into my sleeping chamber to look over it more at leisure. There by myself I could give way to the transport of joy which I fat. I knew that I held in my hand the most precious Biblical treasure in existence--a document whose age and importance exceeded that of all the manuscripts which I had ever examined during twenty years' study of the subject. I cannot now, I confess, recall all the emotions which I felt in that exciting moment with such a diamond in my possession. Though my lamp was dim, and the night cold, I sat down at once to transcribe the Epistle of Barnabas. For two centuries search has been made in vain for the original Greek of the first part of this Epistle, which has only been known through a very faulty Latin translation. And yet this letter, from the end of the second down to the beginning of the fourth century, had an extensive authority, since many Christians assigned to it and to the Pastor of Hermas a place side by side with the inspired writings of the New Testament. This was the very reason why these two writings were both thus bound up with the Sinaitic Bible, the transcription of which is to be referred to the first half of the fourth century, and about the time of the first Christian emperor.
> Early on the 5th of February I called upon the steward. I asked permission to take the manuscript with me to Cairo, to have it there transcribed completely from beginning to end; but the prior had set out only two days before also for Cairo, on his way for Constantinople, to attend at the election of a new archbishop, and one of the monks would not give his consent to my request. What was then to be done?


What indeed? I suggest that people continue to read the story. It can be found at Tischendorf, Codex Sinaiticus .
This is the document that he brought back with him, the codex we now call Sinaiticus, not something to be burned in a fire. The stuff he saw burned was not Sinaiticus, they were manuscript copies of their mother. The 1844 myth for its discovery needs to end.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> _Vaticanus_ has been in the Vatican Library at least since 1481, when it was catalogued. Those with some historical knowledge will remember that these were the years of the Inquisition in Spain during the reign of Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484). In 1481 some 2,000 believers dissenting with Rome were burned alive, with multitudes of others tortured (M’Crie, _History of the Reformation in Spain_, p. 104). When Pope Innocent VIII (1484-1492) sat in the royal “Throne of Peter,” he followed in the vein of his namesake Innocent III and commenced anew a persecution against the peaceful Waldensian Christians in the northern Italian Alps, commanding their destruction “like venomous snakes” if they would not repent and turn to Rome. (Wylie, _History of the Waldenses_, pp. 27-29) Bloodbaths followed against these harmless mountain peoples, who had their own Scriptures from ancient times, and worshipped in Biblical simplicity and order.



That sounds much like trail of blood theory, and it really doesn’t have anything to do with Vaticanus. There were terrible things that happened then, but the cataloging of Vaticanus has no overall effect towards the treatment of people under Rome. The Waldensians under Lutheran standards, and perhaps under Reformed standards as well, were seen as heretics. 


Jerusalem Blade said:


> It perplexes many people that the Lord of these _many hundreds of thousands of Bible-believing saints who were tortured with unimaginable barbarity and slaughtered like dogs by the Roman Catholic “church” for centuries (it is no exaggeration to say for over a millennium) should have kept His choicest preserved manuscript in the safekeeping of the Library of the apostate murderers, designating it by their own ignominious name:_ Vaticanus. But it well suited W&H, who loved Rome, and despised the “evangelicals” of their own day, _and_ the Traditional Text they used to preach with power.



That still sounds like a trail of blood theory to me. Are you saying because I have no problem with using Vaticanus that I love and want to submit to Rome? You better be careful if your charging me with that, because that is a heavy charge I will fight. 

In conclusion I do not see a major issue with the ESV translators, the use of older manuscripts, and applying of the science of textual criticism to our modern bible. What it does in reality is strengthen your faith in the reading of God’s Word, because the majority of the variants does change the meaning of a given text. And we should all praise God for this reality.


----------



## alhembd

> Among a Greek-speaking people, that would make more sense than pairing the Masoretic Text with the NT. Most people wouldn't be able to read the Old Testament in Hebrew. Should we assume that these codices were intended to be the source, rather than the translation? Obviously the NT wouldn't have needed to be translated if the language in which it was written was still spoken, so it makes as much sense to regard these codices as translations as to regard them as the authoritative source (NT excepted since it was the same language and didn't require translating). Perhaps the MT was regarded as the authority but the LXX was used as the translation, just as today the Hebrew and Greek are the authority while the churches are using English translations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't trying to argue against the Hebrew and Greek texts being the ultimate authority. I was responding to this claim:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no objective evidence that the True Church used the LXX. Speculations and smoke and mirrors! You are moving from one assumption to another in your postings again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that the Hebrew and Greek are the final authority. However, the Greek Septuagint is very important in the reconstruction of the Hebrew text because its vorlage is very old; in some cases, at least as old as the DSS. We have to take into account that it is a translation, but, as we study the translation methodology of the translators of the LXX, we are able to discern their techniques, and understand how that relates to the vorlage. That also goes for the Peshitta and the Vulgate. They are all extremely important even though they are not written in Hebrew. Compare this with the DSS, the Wadi Murabba'at manuscripts, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Masoretic Manuscripts, the Cairo Geneza fragments, etc., and you have plenty of material for reconstruction the text of the Hebrew Bible.
> 
> God Bless,
> Adam
Click to expand...

 
We have to be careful here. There are some who would "reconstruct" the Massoretic Text by virtually setting it aside. The New American Standard Bible at times approaches this. However, with respect to the Greek Septuagint - we must confess that all the Reformers used it to reconstruct Psalm 22.16 (vs 17 in the Massoretic text). The majority Massoretic Text - the Massoretic Text, in all the printed editions - reads "like a lion my hands and feet." The Greek Septuagint, nine Massoretic manuscripts, and a Dead Sea Scroll (the only Dead Sea Scroll extant in this verse) read "they pierced my hands and feet."

Now: all the Reformers agreed with Calvin that, while normally, one would follow the reading of the majority of the Massoretic manuscripts, yet here, "like a lion my hands and feet" simply makes no sense. Moreover, there simply was too much of a temptation here for the unbelieving Jewish scribes to tamper with the text. After all, it only amounts to the changing of a final vav into a final yud - ka'aru to ka'ari. Calvin points this out in his commentary on the text, and says that the text should be critically emended to read "ka'aru" (they pierced), since this is the reading that obviously makes sense. Calvin himself had not seen the nine Massoretic manuscripts, certainly not the Dead Sea Scroll.

But the Greek Septuagint was invaluable in this isolated case for the reconstruction of the verse. Some have even argued that "ka'ari" might be a singular variant spelling of "ka'aru" (though saying that is likely a bit far-fetched).

But leave it to be said that, in some few instances, it is indeed necessary to look at the Septuagint for the reconstruction of the text, where it may indeed have been tampered with.

Another instance is 2 Samuel 21.19. "And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew [the brother of] Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear [was] like a weaver's beam."

The Massoretic Text actually says that Elhanan slew Goliath. The words "the brother" do not occur in the text. However, the parallel account in 1 Chronicles 20.5 tell us that it was the brother of Goliath that Elhanan slew.

Now: the Greek Septuagint actually translates 2 Samuel 21.19 to say that Elhanan slew the brother of Goliath.

The fact is: there are a few isolated ugly realities about the Massoretic Text, isolated instances where the Hebrew text appears to have been corrupted in the majority of the copies. While we should, as Calvin advises, generally follow the majority reading, yet in some few instances, it is necessary to repair the text, and the Septuagint historically has been useful in that regard (even though the Septuagint itself is quite bad in a number of places, and appears even to have used a corrupted Hebrew text, as in Jeremiah).

---------- Post added at 08:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:07 AM ----------




Jerusalem Blade said:


> Tim,
> 
> 
> Myself, I have expounded the tenets of both schools, what you likewise disparagingly call, the “Reformed view of KJVOnlism” and the VPP, showing how each of them are formulated and operate in practice, as in the following:
> 
> [From this discussion: History of the KJV and TR.]
> 
> The argument for the TR is that God had kept the Byzantine textform (the Scriptures of the Greek Church) in a very pure (but not perfect) state, and these mss were used by Erasmus, along with readings from the Latin Vulgate, and other Latin mss, to produce his Greek editions, the later ones being those used by subsequent editors, such as Beza, Stephens, and the Elzevirs.
> 
> Edward Hills, a textual scholar and KJV defender, says he has found 3 errors in the KJV, one of which I know he attributes to Eramsus, and that is in Romans 7:6. I am still researching that. From Ted Letis’ books, I have learned that John Owen (and perhaps Turretin) owned possible minute variants within the TR editions, and their view was that God had allowed them:
> 
> This is from Dr. Theodore P. Letis’ _The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate_:
> 
> Owen saw only the minor variants between the various editions of TR as valid areas for discrimination, staying within the broad parameters of providential preservation, as exemplified by “Erasmus, Stephen, Beza, Arias Montanus, and some others.” Within the confines of these editions was “the first and most honest course fixed on” for “consulting various copies and comparing them among themselves.”
> 
> This is both the concrete domain of the providentially preserved text, as well as the only area for legitimate comparisons to chose readings among the minutiae of differences. In fact, “God by His Providence preserving the whole entire; suffered this lesser variety [within the providentially preserved editions of the TR –TPL] to fall out, in or among the copies we have, for the quickening and exercising of our diligence in our search into His Word [for ascertaining the finality of preservation among the minutiae of differences among the TR editions –TPL] (_The Divine Original_, p. 301)* It is the activity, editions, and variants after this period of stabilization that represent illegitimate activity, or, as Owen says, “another way.”
> 
> Thus Owen maintained an absolute providential preservation while granting variants. (“John Owen _Versus_ Brian Walton” fn 30, p. 160)​
> * Owen’s _Divine Original_ online: DIVINE ORIGINAL, AUTHORITY, SELF-EVIDENCING LIGHT, AND POWER OF THE SCRIPTURES. This is from volume 16 of Owen’s works.
> 
> This would be in line with the thinking of Dr. Hills.​




Steve,

Thanks so much for this very responsible and fair-handed treatment of the Westminster doctrine of Providential Preservation as the Reformers themselves understood it. I myself agree with Hills and Owen. There are some few variants amounts the printed editions of the Textus Receptus, and some very few of them are reflected in a few very minor differences between the Staten Vertaling and the King James Version. However, I believe it very reasonable to say that the autographic text is indeed preserved in them.

As for the Comma: it is interesting that the modern-day Christian opponents of the Comma nonetheless support a reading in the Massoretic Text - Psalm 22.16 "They pierced my hands and feet" - that also has just as little manuscript support in the Hebrew. The overwhelming majority of Hebrew manuscripts read "like a lion my hands and feet." Calvin pointed out that the Greek Septuagint differed with that reading. He says in his commentary on that verse that it obviously does not make sense. He says that normally, he will follow the Hebrew manuscripts, but that in this case, the evidence was too strong for the unbelieving Jews having corrupted the text. The corruption amounts to the changing of a final vav into a final yud - ka'aru into ka'aru. So, Calvin, on the basis of the Greek Septuagint, recommends the emendation of the Hebrew text to read ka'aru (correctly, I believe).

Interestingly, since Calvin's day, manuscript evidence has surfaced confirming his conjecture. Nine manuscripts read "they have pierced" (not "like a lion"), and these manuscripts are listed in the Kennicott collection. Moreover, the only Dead Sea Scroll extant in this verse reads "they pierced my hands and feet."

And so: the Greek Septuagint here was a valuable instrument for recovering the the original reading in this one extraordinary instance. Since the Reformers' day, a small amount of manuscript (not printed edition, but manuscript) evidence confirms their conjecture.

Now: the interesting thing is, all the modern evangelical Critical Text advocates who oppose the Comma, nonetheless support this minority reading in Psalm 22.16! The NIV, the NASB, the ESV - they all read "they pierced my hands and feet" (in their text, anyway). Yet they oppose the Comma, which actually has an equal amount of manuscript support, and much more patristic support on the Latin side of the fence. Moreover, the Greek Orthodox Church itself - the stewards of the Byzantine Majority Text - include the Comma in their Greek Patriarchal Text, and in their "Apostolos" lectionary text. The Comma is officially read in their churches every year. So, the Greek Orthodox Church itself has admitted to their being a deficiency in the majority of their manuscripts!

Let's put it this way. Generally, our Reformed, Calvinistic forefathers followed the Byzantine Majority Text. However, in some very few isolated instances, they used wise, judicious textual criticism - a judicious textual criticism based upon a greater spiritual acuity and taste for these things than is known in our backslidden day. We need to rest in the wise judgment of our Reformed forefathers. We need to embrace the Providentially-Preserved Text that they believed in, that indeed, they prepared for us. We may believe, with Edward Hills and Ted Letis, that the hand of the LORD was upon those Bible-believing men.​


----------



## alhembd

Hebrew Student said:


> Here, Calvin agrees with Erasmus against the TR at John 8:59. It is also interesting that none other than Edward F. Hills, in Chapter 8 of his book The King James Version Defended notes that Calvin departed from the TR in eighteen different places [p.204].





> I thought we were discussing the integrity of the MT.
> 
> At any rate, the very fact that you mention E. F. Hills should alert you to the consistency of departing from some individual readings while holding the MT or the TR in principle. If Hills himself had never departed from the TR your quotation would mean something; as it stands, you have only managed to discover how little you know about the position you are opposing.



Reverend Winzer, and Hebrew Student:

I might shed some light on this subject, from my own review of what Greek text the AV translators followed. In some few instances, the AV translators did not follow Erasmus. However, it is important to note that Stephanus' 1550 edition of the Textus Receptus had marginal notes in it, and sometimes, the AV translators (or the Staten Translators) follow one of the marginal notes in Stephanus. The AV translators did use Stephanus' 1550 heavily. Moreover, in general, if they follow a marginal note in Stephanus, that reading is backed by older manuscripts, like Codex E. 

By the way, studies by unbelieving scholars at the Society for Biblical Literature have nonetheless confirmed that the text of Gregory Nazianuzus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Chrysostom, were 80% in conformity with Codex E, which proves that that text existed well into the fourth century. Moreover, there are variants amongst their readings, which proves they were not reading from a standardised church recension of the text. If they had been reading from a standardised church recension, there would have been little or no variants. The fact is, the Codex E text-type was a well-established text family in the 4th century, which proves it had to have been in existence in the second and third centuries as well, even from a merely natural logic point of view.

Only in Mark do the above Byzantine Fathers differ significantly from E. In fact, if one factors out E, their percentage of agreement with Codex E is actually much higher. You see: the Gospel of Mark was likely penned by the inspired Mark in Rome, and so, it is possible that, after the persecutions, the best copies of Mark did not make their way into the Byzantine area until the 5th century or so. (Manuscript copying was slow.)

But this is the important thing: every important Reformation translator in the seventh century had access to Stephanus, and to the readings in the marginal notes. Consequently, they sometimes follow the marginal note. However - *and this is very important* - you cannot honestly say that follow a marginal note in Stephanus is a departure from the Textus Receptus!! No! Stephanus 1550 edition is the queen of the Textus Receptus family, in many ways. The marginal notes include in them the variant TR readings. Consequently, following a marginal note in Stephanus *is still following the Textus Receptus.*

Accordingly, "Hebrew Student", in order to judge whether Calvin was following the TR, you must first see if indeed the reading he cites is listed in Stephanus' margin. It almost certainly is, since Calvin often used Simon Colines' text, and Simon Colines was a former partner of Stephanus, and Stephanus used his manuscript for some of the variant readings in his 1550 edition. (Colines' edition is still of the Textus Receptus family.)

Hope these comments shed light.


----------



## TimV

> Accordingly, "Hebrew Student", in order to judge whether Calvin was following the TR, you must first see if indeed the reading he cites is listed in Stephanus' margin. It almost certainly is, since Calvin often used Simon Colines' text



Does anyone here have access to Stephanus with notes?


----------



## alhembd

TimV said:


> Accordingly, "Hebrew Student", in order to judge whether Calvin was following the TR, you must first see if indeed the reading he cites is listed in Stephanus' margin. It almost certainly is, since Calvin often used Simon Colines' text
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone here have access to Stephanus with notes?
Click to expand...


Tim,

Go to Sola Scriptura Publishing It is a website of the Reverend Mark Langley, a conservative Reformed Baptist in Topeka, Kansas. On that website, Reverend Langley (whose congregation worship using only the Scottish Metrical Psalms and the Massachusetts Bay Psalms, without instrumental accompaniment) carries a CD with Stephanus' 1550 edition. It is a little hard to read. It is a facsimile, a photocopy, of an actual printed edition of the Stephanus, done, I believe, by a major university which has the Stephanus in their library. (Possibly, the University of Toronto.)

When I read it (it is a .pdf) I increase the size of the text to about 150%. It would be a great service to the Reformed Church at large if someone were to do this in a friendly Greek font, with all the marginal notes, in a digitalised font that could be searched.

However, even in the state that the .pdf is in now, it is tedious scrolling through it, but well worth the time!


----------



## TimV

Rather than me buying it, if you already have it, could you just look John 8:59 up?

Thanks


----------



## alhembd

TimV said:


> Rather than me buying it, if you already have it, could you just look John 8:59 up?
> 
> Thanks



Tim,

There are no variants listed in Stephanus for John 8.59. The words "going through the midst of them. And he went out thus," are included in all Stephanus' manuscripts. They are also included in the Greek Patriarchal Text of the Greek Orthodox Church, and in Maurice Robinson's Majority Text, as well as the Hodges-Farstad text. The words are included in all the Byzantine manuscripts. Only the Egyptian text omits them.

Most of the variants in Stephanus are variants one would find in the Byzantine Majority Text. For that matter, one could almost assemble most of the Byzantine Majority Text from Stephanus' variants. However, the Egyptian readings - like the omission of Christ's shedding drops of blood in the garden, or the omission of the woman taken in adultery, or the inclusion of Christ's supposedly being pierced before He gave up the ghost on the cross, in Matthew 27.49 - these all occur in the Alexandrian Text alone.

Hope this helps!


----------



## TimV

Thanks, Albert. So in this case we definitely have Calvin (and it would seem Erasmus?) rejecting the totality of the TR in favor of another reading. It surprised me that you said 


> Accordingly, "Hebrew Student", in order to judge whether Calvin was following the TR, you must first see if indeed the reading he cites is listed in Stephanus' margin. *It almost certainly is*


----------



## alhembd

TimV said:


> Thanks, Albert. So in this case we definitely have Calvin (and it would seem Erasmus?) rejecting the totality of the TR in favor of another reading. It surprised me that you said
> 
> 
> 
> Accordingly, "Hebrew Student", in order to judge whether Calvin was following the TR, you must first see if indeed the reading he cites is listed in Stephanus' margin. *It almost certainly is*
Click to expand...


Tim,

Good observation! This is an exceptional instance. There is a reason for it, however. The Latin Vulgate omits these words. It appears that both Erasmus and Calvin were influenced by the Vulgate.

Here are Calvin's words:

"Some copies have the words, And so Jesus passed through the midst of them; which Erasmus
justly considers to have been borrowed from the Gospel by Luke 4:30."

And here are the words of the Vulgate:

"Jesus autem abscondit se, et exivit de templo." Translated (roughly) "Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple." The words, "and going through the midst of them, he went out thus," are omitted.

That said, however, the omitted words are in all the Byzantine Greek copies.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Albert,

I'm finding this discussion fascinating. I've got Stephanus 1850 in Logos. Can you provide a verse with an example of a variant so I can see what it looks like?

It looks like Biblegateway provides a copy of the Stephanus 1850 but I'm not sure if it contains the marginal notes as I need to find some examples that I could check.


----------



## alhembd

Semper Fidelis said:


> Albert,
> 
> I'm finding this discussion fascinating. I've got Stephanus 1850 in Logos. Can you provide a verse with an example of a variant so I can see what it looks like?
> 
> It looks like Biblegateway provides a copy of the Stephanus 1850 but I'm not sure if it contains the marginal notes as I need to find some examples that I could check.


 
Rich,

I'll gladly try to help. Let me know if you can find a copy of Stephanus with the marginal note readings on the following:

Matthew 3.8, Matthew 8.5, Matthew 12.35, Matthew 4.10, Matthew 5.47, Matthew 7.14, Matthew 23.35, Matthew 27.35, Matthew 27.41.

All these variants, by the way, are differences between the Textus Receptus and the majority readings of the Byzantine Majority Text. In some cases, Stephanus found that the Byzantine Majority Text was the reading that all his manuscripts had, over against Erasmus. However, I have found in my own studies that, in many of those cases (using Tischendorf), I find that the TR reading is confirmed by the older Byzantine texts that Stephanus did not have in his possession: as for instance Codex E.

Matthew 27.41 is an interesting reading. Stephanus says, with Erasmus and the AV, the following: "Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said…" However, all of Stephanus' manuscripts read "Likewise also the chief priests mocking [him], with the scribes and elders and Pharisees, said…"

The Staten Vertaling departed from Erasmus on this verse, and followed the Complutensian, which had the reading that all Stephanus' manuscripts had. However, again, the older Byzantine manuscripts omit "and Pharisees."

All-in-all, however, the added words do not affect the real meaning of the history of the text, and, in fact, would only be describing what is a real fact. We know from the other accounts that the Pharisees were indeed present at the Saviour's crucifixion.

The differences amongst the various editions and manuscripts of the Textus Receptus family are minimal, and they attest to the high reliability of that tradition.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

There's an online version of the Stephen's 1550 here; in a number of different formats. It is the same, I believe as the Zondervan 1970 _The Englishman's Greek New Testament_. In the apparatus it has the variants as noted:

1877 - The Englishman's Greek New Testament, giving the Greek Text of Stephens 1550, with the various Readings of the Editions of Elzevir 1624, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, and Wordsworth, together with an interlinear literal Translation, and the Authorized version of 1611. 
London: Samuel Bagster, 1877. 3rd ed. 1896. 
Reprinted by Zondervan in 1970.

This interlinear uses the text of Robert Estienne (Stephens) 1550, and gives the text of the King James version in a parallel column. Newberry gives in the lower margin of each page a complete collation of six critical editions. Most of the variants which make a difference in translation are also given in English. 
Because of the critical apparatus, it is the best interlinear New Testament. 
It does not give information on the three most important critical texts of our century: Nestle 1898, Westcott and Hort 1881, and Aland, Black, Metzger, Wikren and Martini 1975. Most of the readings adopted in these three texts are however represented in the apparatus as the readings of earlier editors.

N.B. The following contemporary review shows that The Englishman's Greek N.T. was originally Newberry's work, not George Ricker Berry, as was later claimed by Zondervan.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

David, you said,



> I also want to make it clear that the process of shaving off isn’t being done to get rid of the deity of Christ or deny his miracles or even to just shave something off of scripture. The issue is what exactly did the original author write based on the earliest references, not based on inserted man-made traditions.



_Is_ that the issue, “What exactly did the original author write based on the earliest references”? Is that how you propose to arrive at the correct readings?

And then you go on,



> Therefore looking at the majority of the earlier texts is key, not just looking at what is called the majority texts, which started to emerge in popularity by near the end of the eighth century and did not become popular until the ninth century.



On John 5:4, David, notwithstanding your displayed erudtion, it seems to all come down to your invalidating the majority of cursive mss, and elevating the “earlier texts” as a textual methodology. Are we going to have a B[SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE] vs. TR shootout at the PCA Corral? Do you have a lot of spare time on your hands? I will be aiming at your foundational presuppositions. Why shoot the machine-gunner when you can take out the general commanding and directing the troops? Or better, take them both out (saving some foot-soldiers in the process.

But first, let’s take a brief look at the methodology and evidences for the readings Asaph and Amos supplanting Asa and Amon.

In the book Dr. Theodore Letis edited (and contributed to), _The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate_, James A. Borland has an essay, *“Re-Examining New Testament Textual-Critical Principles and Practices Used to Negate Inerrancy”* [reprinted from the _Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society_; Vol. 25, No. 4 (December 1982), by permission]. In this essay Borland shows how that one thrust of TC practice is indeed used to negate the inerrancy of the apostles’ original writings; in other words, the apostles were in error in the things they wrote. I quote the opening paragraph of the essay:

Perhaps it is not shocking to assert that Satan uses every means at his disposal to attack the credibility, reliability and authority of God’s Word. He began the assault in the garden with Eve and has not stopped yet. But often his ways are more subtle than the blatant lie succumbed to by Eve. We live in a modern era of sophistication. Even in Biblical and textual studies we hear more and more about the use of computers and other highly technical tools. And Satan is more than willing to accommodate our sophistication in the area of textual criticism. Especially is this so when it occasionally allows men to assert fallibility in the New Testament autographs based on widely accepted principles and practice of textual criticism.​
He briefly surveys the established tenets of NT text critical theory, and then in particular Dr. Hort’s, which postulates the “primacy of the two earliest uncial MSS, Aleph (Sinaiticus) and B (Vaticanus), which date from the middle of the fourth century A.D. These two MSS were given the question-begging designation of being the ‘neutral text.’” He continues,

In short, the resultant practice of these new sophisticated principles was to overturn completely the textual critical practices of the past. Since the majority Byzantine text was judged to be a later text, the supposedly more ancient, more pure “neutral text” was substituted at the junctures of innumerable variants…

In referring to the Westcott and Hort theory, George Ladd approvingly writes, “The basic solution to the textual problem has been almost universally accepted.” He goes on to assert that “it is a seldom disputed fact that critical science has to all intents and purposes recovered the original text of the New Testament.” Ladd believes that “in the search for a good text, piety and devotion can never take the place of knowledge and scholarly judgment.” [the quotes are from Ladd’s book, _The New Testament and Criticism_ (Eerdmans 1967) In a footnote Borland quotes Gordon Fee in the same vein saying, “Fee is equally bold in asserting that ‘the task of NT textual criticism is virtually completed’” (in “Modern Textual Criticism and the revival of the Textus Receptus,” _JETS_ 21, 1978, 19-33).] Yet it is precisely this “almost universally accepted” “knowledge and scholarly judgment” that if followed too often leads to the conclusion that the very autographs of Scripture recorded errors and blunders.​
He then considers more deeply Westcott and Hort’s rules of external evidence regarding the manuscripts (by which they were able to dispose of the testimony of the majority of manuscripts), and then their rules of internal evidence, which came to the forefront after their external rules had gotten rid of the MT. Borland goes on,

Naturally each of these canons [of internal evidence] to a large degree must be subjectively applied. When a decision is difficult in the area of the internal evidence of readings, scholars often resort to the old circular reasoning that “certain MSS tend to support the ‘original’ text more than others and that those MSS are the early Alexandrian. Therefore, when internal evidence cannot decide, Gordon Fee advises, “the safest guide is to go with the ‘best’ MSS.” [Fee, “Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” _Expositor’s Bible Commentary_, p. 431] Thus all too often external evidence is the last resort, and when it is appealed to, the results have already been determined by a preconception of which MSS are the “best.”….[L]et us examine several examples of this prevalent textual-critical method—which ultimately asserts that the autographs did indeed contain incontrovertible mistakes.

In other words, the prevalent textual methodology can be and is being used _to deny the inerrancy of the original autographs_.

Nearly a century ago George Salmon astutely observed that Westcott and Hort had attributed to the gospel writers “erroneous statements which their predecessors had regarded as copyists’ blunders.” Salmon noted that “there was indeed but little rhetorical exaggeration in the statement that the canon of these editors was that Codex B was infallible and that the Evangelists were not. Nay, it seemed as if Hort regarded it as a note of genuineness if a reading implies error on the part of the sacred writer.” [G. Salmon, _Some Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament_ (London: John Murray, 1897)]

*I. The Case of Asa and Amon*

One example of current import is found in the readings of Matthew 1:7, 10. These texts contain part of the kingly genealogy of Christ. Many conservative commentators seem almost oblivious to the problem [and in a footnote he lists a number]. But scholars who do not adhere to the doctrine of inerrancy do not pass up a chance to point out what they consider to be a fallacy in Matthew’s autograph. The majority of all MSS read _Asa_ (Asa; v. 7) and _Amōn_ (Amon; v. 10), easily recognized as two kings of Judah who were ancestors of Christ. Matthew’s point is to demonstrate our Lord’s royal lineage. But the United Bible Societies’ text instead chooses alternate readings based on the “better” manuscripts as well as some very subjective internal considerations. They substitute for the kings Asa and Amon the names “Asaph” and “Amos,” a psalmist and prophet respectively. They reason that “the evangelist may have derived material for the genealogy, not from the Old Testament directly, but from subsequent genealogical lists, in which the erroneous spelling occurred.” [B.M. Metzger, _et al_., _A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament_ (NY: United Bible Societies, 1971), p.1] Prior to that confident assertion, Bruce Metzger and others, claimed that “most scholars are impressed by the overwhelming weight of textual evidence supporting _Asaph_.” [_Ibid_.]

What is the composition of this “overwhelming weight of textual evidence” in favor of the Asaph blunder? Heading the list are the fourth and fifth century codices, Aleph B and C. Next come the minuscules of families 1 and 13 and two eleventh- and twelfth-century cursives, 700 and 1071, followed by fourteenth-century manuscript 209. Among the versions are several Old Latin MSS (notably k, Bobiensis, a fourth or fifth century production), along with others of the seventh century and beyond. The Coptic, following the basic Egyptian text of Aleph and B, agrees; and the Armenian, Ethiopic and Georgian translations, each perhaps related to Caesarean origins (of f1 and f13), indicate Asaph also. In the Harclean Syriac it merits only a listing in the margin. In summary, barely more than a dozen Greek MSS carry the Asaph reading, followed by a few Old Latin MSS, the Coptic and several minor versions.

On the other hand, the expected reading of Asa is found in literally hundreds of Greek witnesses beginning with uncials E K L M U V W Γ Δ and Π. These MSS date from the fifth through the tenth centuries and no doubt represent a wide geographic distribution, including Washingtoniensis (the Freer Gospels of the fifth century) and Regius (L), which in Metzger’s opinion has a good type of text, “agreeing very frequently with codex Vaticanus.” [Metzger, _The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration_, 2nd ed. (NY: Oxford Univ. Press, 1968), p. 54] In addition, hundreds of cursives lend their support including numbers of those known “to exhibit a significant degree of independence from the so-called Byzantine manuscript tradition.” [Metzger, _Textual Commentary_, p. xvii] These would include 33 (the queen of the cursives and constant ally of Aleph and B) and other minuscules beginning with the ninth century. To this may be added the entire bulk of cursive manuscripts that must represent nearly every geographical point where Greek was studied and copied throughout the middle ages and demonstrates an unbroken continuity of evidence sorely lacking in the paucity of material supporting the Asaph reading.

The lectionaries too stand solidly behind Asa, as do a number of Old Latin MSS including the notable fourth-century Vercellensis. the entire Vulgate is another early and uniform witness to Asa—as are the Curetonian, Sinaitic, Peshitta, Harclean and Palestinian versions of the Syriac. To these may be added both Ephiphanius and Augustine of the first quarter of the fifth century. Only a preconceived notion as to which witnesses are best would cause anyone to deny that the truly “overwhelming weight of textual evidence” favors the traditional reading of Asa.

If such is the case, then Asaph should be viewed as an early scribal blunder injudiciously copied into (fortunately) only a handful of Greek MSS. The evidence for Amon versus Amos in Matthew 1:10 is somewhat similar. It is difficult to believe that Matthew, no doubt an educated literary Jewish writer, was incapable of distinguishing between the Hebrew _’āsā’_ and _’āsāp’_ or between the even more distinguishable _‘āmôn_ and _‘āmôs_. Not only would he have known the names of Israel’s kings by memory, but he probably would have used the genealogy of 1 Chronicles 3:10-14 in securing the names he used.

Lest one thinks this all amounts to academic irrelevance, we should be aware that the Revised Standard Version places the prophet’s name Amos in the text of Matthew 1:10 with the note “other authorities read Amon.” The Catholic New American Bible (1970) reads Amos without explanation. The American Standard Version, the RSV and the New American Standard Bible each read Asa for Matthew 1:7 but append a note indicating that the Greek reads Asaph. But where does the reading for Asa come if not from the Greek? The ASV and NASB do the same for Amos in Matthew 1:10, and the Jerusalem Bible is similar. At the least, this nomenclature is certainly inconsistent with the usual way of introducing a textual variant. We might well believe that Matthew got his kings, prophets and psalmists a bit confused! (excerpted from pp. 46-52)​
[End Borland]

------

David, 

You said with regard to the spurious Amos replacing Amon (and the exact same applies to Asaph replacing Asa in v. 7), “Do not mock my intelligence by saying that it has to be the prophet, but prove instead that it cannot be a alternate spelling.” What? That note in your ESV Study Bible comes from a counsel of despair! What would you expect to read with a version where both the Greek and the English posit an error in the autograph! Before I respond, I shall continue to quote you:



> The ancients probably saw Asaph as just another spelling of Asa. I know in my ESV Study Bible the writer of the commentary sees it as just another spelling of Asa. If someone made the claim that the people who translated the ESV or those involved in textual criticism believed it is talking about the Psalmist, I would show that person “Asaph is probably an alternate spelling for Asa” in my ESV. Now if such a person continued to push and would not prove that Asaph can no way be a alternate spelling beyond a shadow of a doubt, I would stop reading what they had to say about textual criticism because they are showing to me that their blinded by their tradition and much rather keep their tradition then seek after the truth.



It is the esteemed editors of the Critical Greek text who say these names are not “alternate spellings” but errors in the autograph! You should boycott _their_ writings and not say of such as I, we are “blinded by [our] tradition”! 

It was the Committee which put together both the UBS 4 and NA 27 editions (Drs. Aland; J. Karavidopolous; Carlo Martini, and Bruce Metzger) that spoke on the matter of Asaph and Amos, through Dr. Metzger in his, _A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament_, Second Edition:



> Since, however, the evangelist may have derived material for the genealogy, not from the Old Testament directly, but from subsequent genealogical lists, in which the erroneous spelling occurred, the Committee saw no reason to adopt what appears to be a scribal emendation in the text of Matthew. (p.1)



In other words, because of the Committee’s presupposition “that the name ‘Asaph’ is the earliest form of text preserved in the manuscripts” (Ibid.) they decided that Matthew _had_ to have made an error, and this error is recorded in the “earliest and most reliable” MSS, and they weren’t going to tamper with “corrections” made by later scribes. “Like Duh, Matthew! Couldn’t you have found a reliable source!?”

But wait a minute! Although Matthew was the _human_ writer of the first Gospel account, *“All scripture is given by inspiration of God….*[and] *no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”* (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:20)

But it is not surprising that Dr. Metzger (with presumably & co.) would aver error in the apostle’s account, for he has said that the Pentateuch was not only not written by Moses, but was not to be taken as history but as “religion”.

When I am told that in the ESV’s Matthew 1 verses 7 and 10 with their notorious Asaph and Amos replacing the royal forebears of the Lord Jesus we have the authentic Greek text (reflecting the reading of the CT), with disdain I reject that assertion which posits error in the autograph of the apostle.

It is in the details of a thing that its excellence and especially its _functionality_ is seen. A superior watch is known by its internal parts and not only its face.

In the _details_ of the CT can we assert that God’s providence was active upon them to preserve the true readings, or did He pass over some of them, letting them fall into error? It will not do to aver “these are alternate spellings,” for Hebrew is a precise language, and Matthew was a literate man; we would not accept, in English, that Sola was an alternative spelling for Sol, or Merry an alternative for Mary.

In this discussion of the relative merits of the CT vs. the TR there are two approaches I use, the macro and the micro. The former pertains to the overview – positing a plausible (for some of the details are lost to us) history of the textual transmission, including the corruption of the text – and the latter involves fighting in the trenches, as it were; that is, looking at the specific variants introduced initially by Rome to subvert the Reformation’s Sola Scriptura / “preserved text” (and before Rome introduced in some mss early on), and now touted by those seduced to the progressive allure of those manuscripts who claim the variants represent the superior text.

So in this trench, Matt. 1:7, 9, we see the Critical Text asserting that in Matthew’s *original* the apostle made an error. This cannot be allowed to stand. It is on the face of it false.

If anyone is “mocking your intelligence”, Davis, it is Metzger and company, not I. It is the “experts” who have weighed in with the verdict of error in the autographs and not alternate spellings. Oh, did I call you Davis? We all know that is an error – for it cannot be an alternative spelling of David!

Okay, David – for I as well as ancient Matthew know how to spell! – you take me to task for saying the discovery of Sinaiticus was in 1844 rather than 1859? And you say, “The 1844 myth for its discovery needs to end”? Let’s look at that.

In _A General Introduction to the Bible_, by Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, they write concerning Codex Sinaiticus,

This fourth century Greek manuscript is generally considered to be the most important witness to the text because of its antiquity, accuracy, and lack of omissions. The story of the discovery of Aleph is one of the most fascinating and romantic in textual history. It was found in the monastery of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai by the German Count Tischendorf, who was living in Prussia by permission of the czar. On his first visit (1844), he discovered forty-three leaves of vellum, containing portions of the LXX (I Chronicles, Jeremiah, Nehemiah and Esther), in a basket of scraps which the monks were using to light their fires. He secured it and took it to the University Library at Leipzig, Germany. It remains there, known as the Codex Frederico-Augustanus [_after his patron, Frederick Augustus, King of Saxony_]. Tischendorf's second visit, in 1853, proved unfruitful; but in 1859, under the authority of Czar Alexander II, he returned again. Just before he was to return home empty-handed, the monastery steward showed him an almost complete copy of the Scriptures and some other books. These were subsequently acquired as a “conditional gift” to the czar. This manuscript is now known as the famous Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph). It contains over half the Old Testament (LXX), and all of the New, with the exception of Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11. All of the Old Testament Apocrypha, with the addition of the "Epistle of Barnabus", and a large portion of the "Shepherd of Hermas" are also included. *This codex was written in large clear Greek uncials on 364½ pages (plus the forty-three at Leipsig), measuring 13½ by 14 inches*. (pp. 273-274) [Emphasis added]​
Apart from the blatant errors in the first sentence regarding “accuracy, and lack of omissions” (this will be discussed by me shortly), what interests me is their statement in the _last_ sentence, that it was written on “364½ pages *(plus the forty-three at Leipsig)*” – do they include those forty-three in the Codex? Let’s have Count Tischendorf answer this himself. Telling of his first visit in April of 1844, he writes,

It was at the foot of Mount Sinai, in the Convent of St. Catherine, that I discovered the pearl of all my researches. In visiting the library of the monastery, in the month of May, 1844, I perceived in the middle of the great hall a large and wide basket full of old parchments; and the librarian, who was a man of information, told me that two heaps of papers like these, mouldered by time, had been already committed to the flames. What was my surprise to find amid this heap of papers a considerable number of sheets of a copy of the Old Testament in Greek, which seemed to me to be one of the most ancient that I had ever seen. The authorities of the convent allowed me to possess myself of a third of these parchments, or about forty-three sheets, all the more readily as they were destined for the fire. But I could not get them to yield up possession of the remainder. The too lively satisfaction which I had displayed had aroused their suspicions as to the value of this manuscript. I transcribed a page of the text of Isaiah and Jeremiah, and enjoined on the monks to take religious care of all such remains which might fall in their way.​
A friend of his living in Egypt wrote him to say, “The monks of the convent have, since your departure, learned the value of these sheets of parchment, and will not part with them at any price.” Of his second visit the Count writes,

I resolved, therefore, to return to the East to copy this priceless manuscript. Having set out from Leipzig in January, 1853, I embarked at Trieste for Egypt, and in the month of February I stood for the second time in the Convent of Sinai. This second journey was more successful even than the first, from the discoveries that I made of rare Biblical manuscripts; but I was not able to discover any further traces of the treasure of 1844. I forget: I found in a roll of papers a little fragment which, written over on both sides, contained eleven short lines of Genesis, which convince me that the manuscript originally contained the entire Old Testament, but that the greater part had been long since destroyed.​
Finally, on a third visit in 1859, he strikes paydirt :

After having devoted a few days in turning over the manuscripts of the convent, not without alighting here and there on some precious parchment or other, I told my Bedouins, on the 4th February, to hold themselves in readiness to set out with their dromedaries for Cairo on the 7th, when an entirely fortuitous circumstance carried me at once to the goal of all my desires. On the afternoon of this day I was taking a walk with the steward of the convent in the neighbourhood, and as we returned, towards sunset, he begged me to take some refreshment with him in his cell. Scarcely had he entered the room, when, resuming our former subject of conversation, he said: “And I, too, have read a Septuagint” — _i.e._ a copy of the Greek translation made by the Seventy. And so saying, he took down from the corner of the room a bulky kind of volume, wrapped up in a red cloth, and laid it before me. I unrolled the cover, and discovered, to my great surprise, *not only those very fragments which, fifteen years before, I had taken out of the basket*, but also other parts of the Old Testament, the New Testament complete, and, in addition, the Epistle of Barnabas and a part of the Pastor of Hermas. Full of joy, which this time I had the self-command to conceal from the steward and the rest of the community, I asked, as if in a careless way, for permission to take the manuscript into my sleeping chamber to look over it more at leisure. There by myself I could give way to the transport of joy which I fat. I knew that I held in my hand the most precious Biblical treasure in existence--a document whose age and importance exceeded that of all the manuscripts which I had ever examined during twenty years' study of the subject. I cannot now, I confess, recall all the emotions which I felt in that exciting moment with such a diamond in my possession. Though my lamp was dim, and the night cold, I sat down at once to transcribe the Epistle of Barnabas. For two centuries search has been made in vain for the original Greek of the first part of this Epistle, which has only been known through a very faulty Latin translation. And yet this letter, from the end of the second down to the beginning of the fourth century, had an extensive authority, since many Christians assigned to it and to the Pastor of Hermas a place side by side with the inspired writings of the New Testament. This was the very reason why these two writings were both thus bound up with the Sinaitic Bible, the transcription of which is to be referred to the first half of the fourth century, and about the time of the first Christian emperor. [Emphasis added]​
Tischendorf’s published account: The Discovery of the Sinaitic Manuscript

From these accounts it appears that what the steward held forth in the red cloth were, along with the “very fragments” Tischendorf had seen years before, other vellum leaves likewise rescued from the burning pile by those monks who quickly realized their value and secured them. So the initial discovery – and possession of but 43½ leaves from it – was in 1844, per the count’s own statement. The final possession of Sinaiticus was in 1859.

----------

David, so the Lord kept this “queen of the uncials”, Vaticanus – the purported exemplar of the best textual tradition – secreted away in the den of the killers of saints, and even had it named after the seat of the antichrist, the Vatican?

Are you really going to throw a “trail of blood” theory at me when I quote Reformation historians on the atrocities of Rome? What have we come to? Will you slander the Waldenses as heretics? Perhaps you have not considered in-depth their history.

I am not in the slightest charging you with “loving and wanting to submit to Rome” because you exalt their textual treasure. The Lord doeth all things well, and this “treasure” in the devil’s keep is bizarre. It is not His royal style, if you will.

I will add to this shortly.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

David, to strike a conciliatory note between us in this potentially volatile discussion – I see by your avatar you’re a backpacker, who I assume loves the outdoors, and such am I also. We’d probably get along well apart from contentions like this! I wish I was near my forests and mountains – the southern Catskills in mid-state New York – but here in the Mideast those are far away. Do you get any good mountain climbing in California? I do hope to be back in NY next year, DV, but I’d have to get in shape again to get to my mountains, as I’ve become pretty sedentary here. But back to the OK Corral!

In the Critical text (the Westcott & Hort manuscripts) there is the omission of “God” in 1 Timothy 3:16. Let’s look more closely at that text. Burgon, responding to the margin note in the original 1881 Revision which says “The word _God_, in place of _He who_, rests on no sufficient ancient evidence”, replies (we quote from the summation of his 76-page dissertation of proofs to the contrary):

Behold then the provision which THE AUTHOR of Scripture has made for the effectual conservation in its integrity of this portion of His written Word! Upwards of eighteen hundred years have run their course since the HOLY GHOST by His servant, Paul, rehearsed the ‘mystery of Godliness;’ declaring _this_ to be the great foundation-fact,—namely, that ‘GOD WAS MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH.’ And lo, out of _two hundred and fifty-four_ [cursive] copies of S. Paul’s Epistles no less than _two hundred and fifty-two_ are discovered to have preserved that expression. Such ‘Consent’ amounts to _Unanimity;_ and, (as I explained at pp. 454-5,) unanimity in this subject matter, is conclusive.

The copies of which we speak, (you are requested to observe,) were produced in every part of ancient Christendom,—being derived in every instance from copies older than themselves; which again were transcripts of copies older still. They have since found their way, without design or contrivance, into the libraries of every country of Europe,—where, for hundreds of years they have been jealously guarded. And,—(I repeat the question already hazarded at pp. 445-6, and now respectfully propose it to _you_, my lord Bishop; requesting you at your convenience to favor me publicly with an answer);—For what conceivable reason can this multitude of witnesses be supposed to have entered into a wicked conspiracy to deceive mankind?

True, that no miracle has guarded the sacred Text in this, or in any other place. On the other hand, for the last 150 years, Unbelief has been carping resolutely at this grand proclamation of the Divinity of Christ,—in order to prove that not this, but some other thing, it must have been, which the Apostle wrote. And yet (as I have fully shown) the result of all the evidence procurable is to establish that the Apostle must be held to have written no other thing but _this_…

The numerical result of our entire enquiry, proves therefore to be briefly this:

In 1 TIMOTHY 3:16 the reading [writing English for the Greek] _God manifest in the flesh_, is witnessed to by 289 manuscripts:—by 3 VERSIONS:—by upwards of 20 Greek FATHERS [all of which he has just listed in detail]…

The reading _who_ (…in place of God) is countenanced by 6 MANUSCRIPTS in all ([size=+1]a[/size], Paul 17, 73: Apost. 12, 85, 86):—by _only one_ VERSION for certain (viz. the Gothic):—_not for certain by a single Greek_ FATHER. (1)​ 
In short, the overwhelming testimony of Antiquity says that the Fathers, the Lectionaries, and the manuscripts were familiar with the very reading we ourselves have preserved in the Traditional Text. The fractional aberrant readings proceeding from their source in Alexandria or Caesarea, where the Deity of Jesus Christ was violently and wickedly denied, are virtually buried by the contradictory evidence of the true reading widely spread throughout the ancient Christian world.

Burgon, Commenting on the two major Alexandrian manuscripts,

We assert that, so manifest are the disfigurements jointly and exclusively exhibited by codices B & [size=+1]a[/size] [at which point he gives a long list of examples in the footnote], that instead of accepting these codices as two ‘independent’ Witnesses to the inspired Original, we are constrained to regard them as little more than a single reproduction of one and the same scandalously corrupt and (_comparatively_) late Copy…

The result is, that codex [size=+1]a[/size], (which evidently has gone through much more adventures and fallen into worse company than his rival) has been corrupted to a far graver extent than codex B, and is even more untrustworthy. Thus, whereas (in the Gospels alone) B has 589 Readings _quite peculiar to itself_, affecting 858 words,— [size=+1]a[/size] has 1460 such readings, affecting 2640 words.

One _solid fact_ like the preceding, (let it be pointed out in passing,) is more helpful by far to one who would form a correct estimate of the value of a Codex, than any number of such ‘reckless and unverified assertions,’ not to say peremptory and baseless decrees, as abound in the highly imaginative pages of Drs. Westcott and Hort. (2)​
Although it has been asserted by some that the W&H manuscripts are characterized by “*lack* of omissions,” the facts are glaringly contrary:

…Mutilation has been practiced throughout. By codex B (collated [i.e., minutely compared] with the Traditional Text), no less than 2877 words have been excised from the Gospels alone: by codex [size=+1]a[/size],—3455 words: by codex D,—3704 words. (3)​-----------

(1) _The Revision Revised_, Burgon, pages 494, 495, 496.
(2) Ibid., pages 317, 318, 319.
(3) Ibid., page 75.

------------

The discussion below I have excerpted from my booklet-in-progress, _To Break A Sword_. In this section I look at the Theory behind Westcott & Hort’s favoring the codices B and Aleph, and their basis for disdaining the majority Traditional Text. I have availed myself of the labors and wisdom of others which the Lord granted them. If in my bringing up the characters and documented motives of these two men, someone says, but this is _argumentum ad hominem_ (criticism of an opponent’s character or motives, rather than of the person’s argument or beliefs), please note that a person’s character and motives will certainly bear on their spiritual views, and hence on their doctrines and related textual matters. As the Lord Jesus said, “…a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” (Matthew 7:17, 18)

In a letter to Westcott, in April of 1861, while they were unofficially (1) working on their revision of the Greek text, Hort wrote,

Also—but this may be cowardice—I have a sort of craving that our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean, a text, issued by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy, will have great difficulties in finding its way to regions which it might otherwise hope to reach, and whence it would not easily be banished by subsequent alarms. (2)​
Hort was worldly-wise in this, for it was not until dogged research by scholars in the 20th century unearthed their “dangerous heresy” (3) (though “damnable” be a more apt description) in _many_ areas, that we have learned things about them their contemporaries were unaware of. In a letter to Bishop Lightfoot in May of 1860, concerning a proposed commentary they would write with Westcott on the New Testament, Hort said,

Depend on it, whatever either you or I may say in an extended commentary, if only we speak our mind, we shall not be able to avoid giving grave offence to…the miscalled orthodoxy of the day. (4)​
If one says, “What does it matter the character or beliefs of these men provided they were competent in their field?”, I say it matters much. Once I (unwittingly) had an unbeliever translate a Gospel teaching from English into Arabic, and he butchered it, because he did not comprehend what the Spirit of Christ was saying in the Scripture (1 Corinthians 2:14; Romans 8:7). Worldly competence is far removed from spiritual competence.

These two men – even in their early twenties, before they were accomplished Greek classicists (note that I say, “classicists,” and not believing scholars) – had an antagonism to the Bible of the Evangelicals similar to those unbelieving intellectuals of our day who resent the authority behind the claims of the Gospel of Jesus Christ when it is preached in arresting power, and in its integrity. Pleasant and aesthetic church services, soothing to the religious temperament, are acceptable, but not soul-convicting Spirit-empowered Gospel preaching! As we have shown by a few representative quotes, early in their lives they decided to pit themselves against the Bible of the Evangelicals, and labored almost thirty years preparing their substitute Greek text. How did they manage to overturn the Traditional Text, and curry the favor of the scholarly community (or a good part of it)? We will look at that now.

Quoting from Dr. Alfred Martin’s dissertation, “A Critical Examination of the Westcott-Hort Textual Theory”:

The Westcott-Hort theory holds the field in the opinions of so many people because it disposes of ninety-five percent of the documentary evidence in such a clever way that they do not perceive the loss of it. “Good riddance,” they say to all manuscripts, versions, and Fathers except a little handful (a handful, incidentally, which do not agree among themselves).

In an earlier chapter the Westcott and Hort theory was compared to a temple, the two chief columns of which were the “Syrian recensions” and the “Neutral Text.” Certainly enough has been said to show that these columns were in reality made of air. Scarcely any scholar can be found today, even among those most favorable to Westcott and Hort, who will vouch for deliberate and authoritative Syrian recensions or who will call their Neutral Text neutral.

Is it possible to believe that a text [the _Textus Receptus_] actually fabricated in the fourth century rapidly became so dominant that practically no copies were made any longer of exemplars which contained the type of text found in B and Aleph, also of the fourth century? This is really asking too much. The subjective character of the evidence adduced by Westcott and Hort permeates their whole theory. (1)​
In other words, W&H contrived a theory to explain away the overwhelming numerical dominance of the Textus Receptus manuscripts. This is the theory: an official church council – in Syrian Antioch, they say – in approximately 250 A.D., headed by a man named Lucian (who was a real “church” leader at that time, but an Arian), gathered the various, differing Greek manuscripts in circulation and combined them into an “official recension” (recension: “a critical revision of a text incorporating the most plausible elements found in varying sources” –_American Heritage Dict._). The trouble with this theory (we will get to the second part, the “Neutral Text,” in a moment) is that it is sheer conjecture, without even the minutest shred of historical – or any other – evidence. It is not even sound inference, as the data does not remotely lead to that conclusion. As with the _theory_ of evolution (which we saw both these men held), it is an interpretation of events and data unsupported by factual evidence. In impartial (i.e., true) science, the evidences for the creation model of origins are overwhelming, and the evidence for the “Big Bang” life-out-of-inorganic-matter (which matter supposedly always existed) is nonexistent upon close examination. Likewise, in the science of textual criticism data – solid facts – are essential in the establishing of a case; unsupported theories, while perhaps clever, are insufficient to make a case. And so it is with W&H’s theory; whenever any significant council was convened or church decision was effected, it is recorded in history. We have many records of various church councils, of various textual productions and (even) mutilations of Scripture by heretics, but there is absolute silence concerning their alleged Antioch council which produced a “Syrian recension.” _They just made it up!_ In order to displace the hated “vile Textus Receptus” (Hort’s phrase, quoted from his son’s biography in an earlier part of this writing) it was necessary that it somehow be discredited.

John Burgon’s unusual approach – _one_ of his approaches – to Hort’s fantastical theory (it having no basis whatever in historical records or in fact) is to take it seriously and on its face, to see what the implications of Hort’s scheme of an official recension would amount to. Burgon comments:

But how does it happen—(let the question be asked without offence)—that a man of good abilities, bred in a university which is supposed to cultivate especially the Science of exact reasoning, should habitually allow himself in such slipshod writing as this? The very _fact_ of a ‘Revision’ of the Syriac has all to be proved; and until it has been _demonstrated_, cannot of course be reasoned upon as a fact. Instead of demonstration, we find ourselves invited (1)—‘_To suppose_’ that such a revision took place: and (2)—‘_To suppose_’ that all our existing Manuscripts [comprising the TR] represent it. But (as we have said) not a shadow of reason is produced why we should be so complaisant as ‘to suppose’ either the one thing or the other. (2)​
It is a sad exercise reading through Burgon’s five volumes of _mountainous_ detailed proofs supporting his critique of Westcott and Hort’s Greek text and their appended volume regarding their operating theory, as well as his proofs for the authenticity of the Traditional Text. It is like a skilled attorney defending a virtuous and godly woman whom he loved against well-rehearsed and skilled false testimony before a jury disposed to receive sensational hearsay accounts over established and irrefutable facts provided by reliable witnesses. The outrage! (but held in check), the sadness, the righteous anger! (also held in rein), the frustration! Burgon marshals the proofs, but they are dismissed with scorn! Or ignored. But _we_ may benefit, that our sword might be held with confidence. And that _is_ the issue for us: that we be able to hold and wield our sword in behalf of our King, with His word proclaimed throughout the territory of the enemy, the devil, that the captives be set loose.

Burgon continues:

Now, instead of insisting that this entire Theory is made up of a series of purely gratuitous assumptions,—destitute alike of attestation and of probability: and that, as a mere effort of the Imagination, it is entitled to no manner of consideration or respect at our hands:—instead of dealing _thus_ with what precedes, we propose to be most kind and accommodating to Dr. Hort. We proceed _to accept his Theory in its entirety_. We will, with the Reader’s permission, assume that all he tells us is historically true: is an authentic narrative of what actually did take place. We shall in the end invite the same Reader to recognize the inevitable consequences of our admission: to which we shall inexorably pin the learned Editors—bind them hand and foot;—of course reserving for ourselves the right of disallowing _for ourselves_ as much of the matter as we please.

Somewhere between A.D. 250 and 350 therefore,—(‘it is impossible to say with confidence’ [-Hort, _Introduction-Appendix_, p. 137] what was the actual date, but these Editors incline to the latter half of the 3rd century, i.e., _circa_ A.D. 275);—we are to believe that the Ecclesiastical heads of the four great Patriarchates of Eastern Christendom,—Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople,—had become so troubled at witnessing the prevalence of depraved copies of Holy Scripture in their respective churches, that they resolved by common consent on achieving an authoritative Revision which should henceforth become the standard Text of all the Patriarchates of the East…

We venture to remark in passing that Textual matters must have everywhere reached a very alarming pass indeed as to render intelligible the resort to so extraordinary a step as a representative Conference of the ‘leading Personages or Sees’ [Hort, p. 134] of Eastern Christendom. The inference is at least inevitable, that men in high place at that time deemed themselves competent to grapple with the problem. Enough was known about the character and the sources of these corrupt Texts to make it certain that they would be recognizable when produced; and that, when condemned by authority, they would no longer be propagated, and in the end would cease to molest the Church. Thus much, at all events, is legitimately to be inferred from the hypothesis.

Behold then from every principal Diocese of ancient Christendom, and in the Church’s palmiest [most excellent, prosperous] days, the most famous of the ante-Nicene Fathers repair to Antioch. They go up by authority, and are attended by skilled Ecclesiastics of the highest theological attainment. Bearers are they perforce of a vast number of Copies of the Scriptures: and (by the hypothesis) _the latest possible dates_ of any of these Copies must range between A.D. 250 and 350. But the delegates of so many ancient Sees will have been supremely careful, before starting on so important and solemn an errand, to make diligent search for the oldest Copies anywhere discoverable: and when they reach the scene of their deliberations, we may be certain that they are able to appeal to not a few codices _written within a hundred years of the_ date of the _inspired Autographs_ themselves [sic]. Copies of the Scriptures authenticated as having belonged to the most famous of their predecessors,—and held by them in high repute for the presumed purity of their Texts—will have been freely produced: while, in select receptacles, will have been stowed away—for purposes of comparison and avoidance—specimens of those dreaded Texts whose existence has been the sole cause why (by the hypothesis) this extraordinary concourse of learned Ecclesiastics has taken place.

After solemnly invoking the Divine blessing, these men address themselves assiduously to their task; and (by the hypothesis) they proceed to condemn every codex which exhibits a ‘strictly Western,’ or a ‘strictly Alexandrian,’ or a ‘strictly Neutral’ type. *In plain English, if codices B, Aleph, and D had been before them, they would have unceremoniously rejected all three*, but then, (by the hypothesis) neither of the two first-named had yet come into being: while 200 years at least must roll out before Cod. D would see the light. *In the meantime, the immediate ancestors of B Aleph and D will perforce have come under judicial Scrutiny; and, (by the hypothesis,) they will have been scornfully rejected by the general consent of the Judges.* [bold emphases added]

Pass an interval—(are we to suppose of fifty years?)—and the work referred to is ‘_subjected to a second authoritative Revision._’ _Again_, therefore, behold the piety and learning of the four great Patriarchates of the East, formally represented at Antioch! The Church is now in her palmiest days. Some of the greatest men belong to the period of which we are now speaking. Eusebius (A.D. 308-340) is in his glory. One whole generation has come and gone since the last Textual Conference was held, at Antioch. Yet no inclination is manifested to reverse the decrees of the earlier Conference. This second Recension of the Text of Scripture does but ‘carry out more completely the purposes of the first;’ and ‘the final process was apparently completed by A.D. 350’ [Hort, p. 350].—So far the Cambridge Professor.

But one important fact implied by this august deliberation concerning the text of Scripture has been conveniently passed over by Dr. Hort in profound silence. We take leave to repair his omission by inviting the Reader’s particular attention to it.

We request him to note that, _by the hypothesis_, there will have been submitted to the scrutiny of these many ancient Ecclesiastics _not a few codices of exactly the same type as codices_ B _and_ Aleph: especially as codex B. We are able even to specify with precision certain features which the codices in question will have all concurred in exhibiting. Thus,—

(1) From S. Mark’s Gospel, those depraved copies will have omitted THE LAST TWELVE VERSES (16:9-20).
(2) From S. Luke’s Gospel the same corrupt copies will have omitted our SAVIOR’S AGONY IN THE GARDEN (22:43, 44).
(3) HIS PRAYER ON BEHALF OF HIS MURDERERS (23:34), will have also been away.
(4) The INSCRIPTION ON THE CROSS, in GREEK, LATIN, AND HEBREW (23:38), will have been partly, misrepresented,—partly, away.
(5) And there will have been no account discoverable of S. Peter’S VISIT TO THE SEPULCHRE (24:12).
(6) Absent will have been also the record of our LORD’S ASCENTION INTO HEAVEN (_ibid_. 51).
(7) Also, from S. John’s Gospel, the codices in question will have omitted the incident of THE TROUBLING OF THE POOL AT BETHESDA (5:3, 4).​
Now, we request that it may be clearly noted that, _according to Dr. Hort_, against every copy of the Gospels so maimed and mutilated, (i.e. against every copy of the Gospels of the same type as codices B and Aleph,)—the many illustrious Bishops who (_still_ according to Dr. Hort,) assembled at Antioch, first in A.D. 250 and then in A.D. 350,—by common consent set a mark of _condemnation_. We are assured that these famous men,—those Fathers of the Church,—were emphatic in their sanction, instead, of codices of the type of Cod. A,—in which all these seven omitted passages (and many hundreds besides) are duly found in their proper places.

When, therefore, at the end of a thousand and half a thousand years, Dr. Hort (guided by his inner consciousness, and depending on an intellectual illumination of which he is able to give no intelligible account) proposes to reverse the deliberate sentence of Antiquity,—his position strikes us as bordering on the ludicrous. Considering the seven places above referred to, which the assembled Fathers pronounce to be genuine Scripture, and declare to be worthy of all acceptation,—Dr. Hort expresses himself in terms which—could they have been heard at Antioch—must, it is thought, have brought down upon his head tokens of displeasure which might have even proved inconvenient…

It is plain therefore that Dr. Hort is in direct antagonism with the collective mind of Patristic Antiquity. _Why_, when it suits him, he should appeal to the same Ancients for support,—we fail to understand. ‘If Baal be GOD, then _follow him!_’ Dr. Hort has his codex B and his codex Aleph to guide him. He informs us [Hort, p. 276] that ‘the fullest consideration does but increase the conviction that the _preeminent relative purity_’ of those two codices ‘is approximately _absolute,—a true approximate reproduction of the Text of the Autographs._’ On the other hand, he has discovered that the Received Text is virtually the production of the Fathers of the Nicene Age (A.D. 250—A.D. 350),—exhibits a Text fabricated throughout by the united efforts of those well-intentioned but thoroughly misguided men. What is it to _him_, henceforth, how Athanasius, or Didymus, or Cyril exhibits a place?

Yes, we repeat it,—Dr. Hort is in direct antagonism with the Fathers of the 3rd and the 4th Century. His own fantastic hypothesis of a ‘Syrian Text,’—the solemn expression of the collective wisdom and deliberate judgment of the Fathers of the Nicene Age (A.D. 250—A.D. 350),—is the best answer which can by possibility be invented to his own pages,—is, in our account, the one sufficient and conclusive refutation of his own Text. (3)​
In this above illustration of the saying, “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit” (Proverbs 26:5), Burgon, knowing what the reality would be if Hort’s hypothesis were actual fact, turns it against him:

For ourselves, having said so much on this subject, it is fair that we should add,—We devoutly wish that Dr. Hort’s hypothesis of an authoritative and deliberate Recension of the Text of the New Testament achieved at Antioch first, about A.D. 250, and next, about A.D. 350, were indeed an historical fact. We desire no firmer basis on which to rest our confidence in the Traditional Text than the deliberate verdict of Antiquity,—the ascertained sanction of the collective Church, in the Nicene Age. The _Latin_ ‘Vulgate’ [A.D. 385] is the work of a single man—Jerome. The _Syriac_ ‘Vulgate’ [A.D. 616] was also the work of a single man—Thomas of Harkel. But this _Greek_ ‘Vulgate’ was (by the hypothesis) the product of the Church Catholic, [A.D. 250—A.D. 350,] in her corporate capacity. Not only should we hail such a monument of the collective piety and learning of the Church in her best days with unmingled reverence and joy, were it introduced to our notice; but we should insist that no important deviation from such a _‘Textus Receptus’_ as that would deserve to be listened to. In other words, if Dr. Hort’s theory about the origin of the _Textus Receptus_ have _any foundation at all_ in fact, it is ‘all up’ with Dr. Hort. He is absolutely _nowhere_. He has most ingeniously placed himself on the horns of a fatal dilemma.

For,—(let it be carefully noted,)—the entire discussion becomes, in this way, brought (so to speak) within the compass of a nutshell. To state the case briefly,—We are invited to make our election between the Fathers of the Church, A.D. 250 and A.D. 350,—and Dr. Hort, A.D. 1881. The issue is really reduced to _that_. The general question of THE TEXT OF SCRIPTURE being the matter at stake; (not any particular passage, remember, but _the Text of Scripture as a whole_)—and the _conflicting parties_ being but _two_;—_Which_ are we to believe? _the consentient Voice of Antiquity_,—or the solitary modern Professor? Shall we accept the august Testimony of the whole body of the Fathers? or shall we prefer to be guided by the self-evolved imaginations of one who confessedly has nothing to offer but conjecture? The question before us is reduced to that single issue. But in fact the alternative admits of being yet more concisely stated. We are invited to make our election between FACT and—FICTION…All this, of course, on the supposition that there is _any truth at all_ in Dr. Hort’s ‘New Textual Theory.’

Apart however from the gross intrinsic improbability of the supposed Recension,—the utter absence of one particle of evidence, traditional or otherwise, that it ever did take place, must be held to be fatal to the hypothesis that it _did_. It is simply incredible that an incident of such magnitude and interest would leave no trace of itself in history. (4)​
As stated earlier, the _Textus Receptus_ (TR) – the majority text comprising 90 to 95 percent of all the Greek manuscripts – did not happen because of a supposed official church decision and edict (although one might wish, as did Burgon, it had happened that way), but because the Lord worked through the priesthood of believers cleaving to – and faithfully reproducing – the text He supported through the collective wisdom imparted by Him, and also His faithfully providing the best texts to the right hands just when they were needed, and in particular this was the case in the years leading up to the production of the King James Bible in 1611.

----

(1) [for they did not receive their official appointment to revise the New Testament – not the Greek text, but make minor revisions in the English text – until 1871]
(2) _Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort_, by his son, Arthur Fenton Hort (Macmillan, London, 1896) Reprint by the Bible for Today. Vol. I, page 445.
(3) 2 Peter 2:1 more accurately classifies theirs as “damnable heresies” – there being a distinction between the two types.
(4) Ibid., page 421.
(5) _Which Bible?_ by David Otis Fuller, ed. (MI: Institute for Biblical Textual Studies, 1990), “A Critical Examination of the Westcott-Hort Theory,” by Dr. Alfred Martin, p. 171 (later Dr. Martin became Vice President of Moody Bible Institute in Chicago).

-----

Further scrutiny of Vaticanus, [size=+1]a[/size], and the Hortian methodology to follow.


----------



## alhembd

Jerusalem Blade said:


> There's an online version of the Stephen's 1550 here; in a number of different formats. It is the same, I believe as the Zondervan 1970 _The Englishman's Greek New Testament_. In the apparatus it has the variants as noted:
> 
> 1877 - The Englishman's Greek New Testament, giving the Greek Text of Stephens 1550, with the various Readings of the Editions of Elzevir 1624, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, and Wordsworth, together with an interlinear literal Translation, and the Authorized version of 1611.
> London: Samuel Bagster, 1877. 3rd ed. 1896.
> Reprinted by Zondervan in 1970.
> 
> This interlinear uses the text of Robert Estienne (Stephens) 1550, and gives the text of the King James version in a parallel column. Newberry gives in the lower margin of each page a complete collation of six critical editions. Most of the variants which make a difference in translation are also given in English.
> Because of the critical apparatus, it is the best interlinear New Testament.
> It does not give information on the three most important critical texts of our century: Nestle 1898, Westcott and Hort 1881, and Aland, Black, Metzger, Wikren and Martini 1975. Most of the readings adopted in these three texts are however represented in the apparatus as the readings of earlier editors.
> 
> N.B. The following contemporary review shows that The Englishman's Greek N.T. was originally Newberry's work, not George Ricker Berry, as was later claimed by Zondervan.


 
Steve,

You say that there is an online version of the Newberry. You give the name of the interlinear itself, which I would very much like to get, but you forgot the URL of the online version. Would you mind giving us the web address of the online version, please?

Thanks.

---------- Post added at 03:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:50 PM ----------




Jerusalem Blade said:


> (1) From S. Mark’s Gospel, those depraved copies will have omitted THE LAST TWELVE VERSES (16:9-20).
> (2) From S. Luke’s Gospel the same corrupt copies will have omitted our SAVIOR’S AGONY IN THE GARDEN (22:43, 44).
> (3) HIS PRAYER ON BEHALF OF HIS MURDERERS (23:34), will have also been away.
> (4) The INSCRIPTION ON THE CROSS, in GREEK, LATIN, AND HEBREW (23:38), will have been partly, misrepresented,—partly, away.
> (5) And there will have been no account discoverable of S. Peter’S VISIT TO THE SEPULCHRE (24:12).
> (6) Absent will have been also the record of our LORD’S ASCENTION INTO HEAVEN (_ibid_. 51).
> (7) Also, from S. John’s Gospel, the codices in question will have omitted the incident of THE TROUBLING OF THE POOL AT BETHESDA (5:3, 4).​



Steve,

These omissions above constitute the crux of the matter, I think. Did Christ sweat great drops of blood in the Garden? Irenaeus, one of the earliest Church fathers, and a very reliable one, says that he did. Accordingly, he says also that these manuscripts are unreliable. Did Christ pray for His enemies on the Christ, or did He not? For ourselves, we cannot but be persuaded that anti-semitic followers of Marcion deleted that quote.

I might make a small correction: the Alexandrian codices mention that the waters were troubled, but they omit the fact that it was an angel which did this. Again, this is a verse with much early patristic support.

I might add, too, that the Alexandrian codices say that Christ was pierced *before* His giving up the ghost, in Matthew 27.46, which thus blasphemously makes the piercing of the spear a *cause* of Christ's death; whereas, we know from the Saviour Himself that no man, nay, no *one* (as the Greek says) could take His life from Him, because He alone had power to lay down His life, and power to take it up again.

We could also add the number of variants which prove that the Alexandrian codices were corrupted by the Coptic translation. I'm busy at the moment, but sometime I will mention them (headings that follow the Coptic version, verses in the Greek which are only found in the Coptic translation, showing that the Greek in those codices was back-translated from the Coptic...)


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Albert,

The Englishman's Greek New Testament contains the Newberry edition; it was reprinted by Zondervan in 1970.

This link gives more info on it: Newberry Bibles.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

David,

Before I tackle the issue of the Majority Text (aka Byzantine Text) and its emergence in the 9th century, one last entry (with more info) by Metzger on Asaph. In his _A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament_, 2nd Ed., Metzger says,

It is clear that the name “Asaph” is the earliest form of text preserved in the manuscripts…([size=+1]a[/size] B)….the tendency of scribes, observing that the name of the psalmist Asaph (cf. the titles of Pss 50 and 73 to 83) was confused with that of Asa the King of Judah (1 Kgs 15:9 ff.), would have been to correct the error, thus accounting for the prevalence of [size=+1]Asa[/size] [Asa] in the later Ecclesiastical text and its inclusion in the Textus Receptus.

….Since, however, the evangelist may have derived material for the genealogy, not from the Old Testament directly, but from subsequent genealogical lists, in which the erroneous spelling occurred, the Committee saw no reason to adopt what appears to be a scribal emendation in the text of Matthew. (p. 1)​
Do you see the implications of Metzger (and Committee) having this view of the Scripture? Matthew got it wrong. To err is human, right? Not so! Metzger’s assertion that [size=+1]Asaf[/size] [Asaph] is “the earliest form of text preserved in the manuscripts” is false. It is rather *a* form of text preserved in the earliest surviving manuscripts ([size=+1]a[/size] B), for *the* “earliest form of text” must needs be identical with the apostle’s original, the autograph. 

Yes, this is a theological view impinging on the supposedly scientific field of textual criticism: yet it is a doctrine of the Scripture itself: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God…” (2 Timothy 3:16). Scripture attests to itself; and it corrects the errors of men pertaining to itself.

And as I said earlier, if _Metzger_ is “mocking your intelligence” by refusing the “alternate spelling” route, you’d better take that up with him and not me. But where he likely is I don’t think you’d want to go to confront him!

-------

I see that in post #126, David, you affirm, *“I agree that witnesses impugn each other’s testimony if they are not in agreement”*, though I wonder if that will shake you from your headlong infatuation with sisters Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, despite their disagreement _in the gospels alone_ 3,036 times! They do indeed impugn and cancel out each other’s testimony!

But then you immediately change the subject from that embarrassing admission and say, *“the problem I think we have here is the issue of what we define as reliable and the majority. As you can see what is typically defined as the majority text, shouldn’t be classified with having the majority title because it wasn’t the majority until the ninth century.”*

And in the beginning of that same post you say much the same: “Therefore looking at the majority of the earlier texts is key, not just looking at what is called the majority texts, which started to emerge in popularity by near the end of the eighth century and did not become popular until the ninth century.”

Again in post #126 you say – and I repeat it here so it may be clear to all what exactly your text-critical methodology is:



> “I define the most reliable reading based on a comparison of the earliest biblical manuscripts in their time in relation to the original autographs themselves. If the majority of the early biblical manuscripts are giving a different story in the third and fourth centuries to that of the fifth to later in the ninth century then we must question the testimony of the later source because they are further removed temporally from the person and point of origin.”



Just this evening I was reading in Dr. Jakob van Bruggen’s, _The Ancient Text of the New Testament_ (I would suggest downloading and saving this tiny (40 page) online version, as it is an out-of-print classic in the field, and one never knows how long links last); anyway, I was just reading van Bruggen’s remarks in the chapter, “The Age of the Byzantine Type”:

One of the first things a student must learn regarding the textual history, is the distinction between the age of the manuscript and the age of the text offered in that manuscript. A rather young manuscript can give a very old type of text. This is a true and interesting proposition. You would expect that this proposition would have the result, that people in the modern New Testament textual criticism would hardly argue from the age of the manuscript. However; the opposite is the case. Time and again you come across a comparison between "older manuscripts" and "many, but younger manuscripts". The common argument used against the Byzantine text‑type is even that this type is only found in young manuscripts. This argument, however, does not say anything as such. One must prove that the text‑form in these manuscripts is also of later date. (p. 22)​
He gives as an example of how this works,

Imagine that someone said: in the Middle Ages mainly cathedrals were built, but in modern times many small and plainer churches are being built. This statement seems completely true when we today look around in the cities and villages. Yet we are mistaken. An understandable mistake: many small churches of the Middle Ages have disappeared, and usually only the cathedrals were restored. Thus, a great historical falsification of perspective with regard to the history of church‑building arises. We are not able to make a general assertion about church‑building in the Middle Ages on the basis of the surviving materials. It we would still dare to make such an assertion, then we wrongly assumed that the surviving materials enabled us to make a fair comparison. But how is the situation in the field of New Testament manuscripts? Do we have a _representative_ number of manuscripts from the first centuries? Only if that is the case, do we have the right to make conclusions and positive statements. Yet it is just at this point that difficulties arise. The situation is even such that we know with certainty that we _do not_ possess a representative number of manuscripts from the first centuries. (p. 25) [emphases in original]​
When you say, David, *“the majority text . . . wasn’t the majority until the ninth century”*, that statement doesn’t give the true picture. I shall give a quote from Maurice Robinson and Wm. Pierpont’s “Introduction” to _The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine / Majority Textform_,

We do know that, after the 9th century, almost all manuscripts ceased to be copied in the uncial style (capital-letters), and were systematically replaced by the "modern" minuscule style (cursive-letters) which then predominated until the invention of printing. This "copying revolution" resulted in the destruction of hundreds of previously-existing uncial manuscripts once their faithful counterpart had been produced in minuscule script. Many truly ancient uncials may have vanished within a century due to this change in the handwriting style. Those palimpsest[34] manuscripts which survive provide mute testimony to the fate of many of those ancient uncials, the remnants of which, having been erased and re-used to copy sermons or liturgical texts, might simply have perished or been discarded once those texts were no longer considered valuable.

Since Kirsopp Lake found only genealogically-unrelated manuscripts at Sinai, Patmos, and Jerusalem, he concluded that it was "hard to resist the conclusion that the scribes usually destroyed their exemplars."[35] If strictly applied to all copying generations, this view would lead to a number of logical fallacies. Some of these have been discussed by Donald A. Carson and Wilbur Pickering.[36]

However, the real explanation of Lake's comment revolves around the "copying revolution": scribes apparently destroyed uncial exemplars as they converted the Greek text into the then-standard minuscule format. Thus, the apparently unrelated mass of later minuscules may in fact stem from long-lost uncial sources far older than the date of the minuscules containing them. This in itself adds a significant weight to the testimony of the minuscule mass, especially those copied in the ninth and tenth centuries, at the height of the copying revolution.

For modern researchers summarily to neglect the text of the minuscules because they mostly reflect a Byzantine type of text is to suggest that their text is all one and all late, in accord with Hort's thesis concerning the ultimate origin of the Byzantine Textform. Yet Von Soden and subsequent researchers have clearly shown the internal diversity found among the manuscripts of the Byzantine Textform – a diversity which cannot be accounted for genealogically. An unprejudiced consideration of the present hypothesis will impart a value to (at least) the earlier minuscule testimony which ranges far beyond that allowed by modern critics. This factor now makes the complete collation of all known minuscule manuscripts an important task which should be completed as rapidly as possible.[37] (pp. xxxix – xl)

------
Footnotes
34 From the Greek, "to rub again." The term denotes a manuscript from which the original text was erased and a second, differing text placed on top of the original writing. Through the use of various methods (e.g., ultraviolet light), the original text can often be recovered with extreme accuracy. 

35 Lake, Blake, and New, "Caesarean Text of Mark," p.349. 

36 Donald A. Carson, The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), pp. 47-48, note 5. Pickering offered a clarification and rebuttal of Carson's critique which differs at points from the present hypothesis; see Pickering, Identity, pp. 230-231, note 30 

37 See further W. J. Elliott, "The Need for an Accurate and Complete Collation of all known Greek NT Manuscripts with their Individual Variants noted in pleno," in J. K Elliott, ed., Studies in New Testament Language and Text [G. D. Kilpatrick Festschrift] (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976), pp. 137-143.​
I should say that Dr. Robinson has no sympathy with the KJV/TR point of view, and distances himself and his work from it. He is a strictly Byz priority man.

I go to these lengths in citing sources as it is crucial to begin breaking the oft-stated error that these thousands of 9th and 10th century Majority Text minuscules were “late” and thus of no consequence! Of the minuscules, Kirsopp Lake says in his book, _The Text of The New Testament_, 

Then, in the ninth century, Theodore the Studite, or some of his associates in the monastery of the Studium in Constantinople, invented an new and extremely beautiful form of cursive writing for literary purposes. This appears to have been adopted almost at once throughout the Greek world, and, although in succeeding centuries some local differences can be noticed, it remained dominant throughout the Byzantine Empire....It must not be assumed that an uncial is necessarily a more valuable witness to the text than a minuscule. Many uncials have a late text, while not a few minuscules have rare readings which bear witness to types of text otherwise lost to us. In short, it is neither the date nor the script of a MS. which determines its value for the critic, but the textual history of its ancestors. (p. 12)​
To assume an uncial _*is*_ a “more valuable witness” than a minuscule has led to a mudslide of opinion obscuring a proper apprehension of the history of the text! Not to belabor the old Westcott and Hort fallacies (held by few and far between nowadays, though it seems that you, David, may be one of these rare birds), I shall quote Dr. Fenton John Anthony Hort himself, in his volume II of _The New Testament in the Original Greek_, the “Introduction” to his theory:

A theoretical presumption indeed remains that a majority of extant documents is more likely to represent a majority of ancestral documents at each stage of transmission than _vise versa_. p. 45.​
What he is saying is that the majority of existing manuscripts would presumably represent a majority of ancient manuscripts, thus validating the contention of MT advocates that the Byzantine text was of ancient widespread origin reflecting the original autographs. It is interesting to note that regarding the Byzantine/Majority Text he said,

The fundamental Text of _late extant Greek MSS._ generally is _beyond all question identical_ with the dominant Antiochian or Græco-Syrian Text of the _second half of the fourth century._ Ibid. p. 92. [cited in Burgon’s _The Revision Revised_, p. 257. Emphases Burgon’s, I believe. –SMR]​
Of course Hort – concerning the first quote – sought to annul any connection of the Byzantine (what he calls the “Syrian” or “Antiochian”) Text with the ancient autographs by immediately positing a theory accounting for the vast numerical superiority of the Byzantine / Traditional Text, saying it came to be as a result of an official edition (“recension”) of the church in Syrian Antioch. I have dealt with this issue above: see John Burgon’s response to Westcott and Hort’s “Syrian recension” theory in post #139.

In sum: There was a revolution in manuscript writing that reached its height in the 900s, where minuscule writing (using lowercase Greek letters) replaced the older Uncial / majuscule (uppercase) letters, and all the old uncials _in use_ were copied in the new format and then, as text critic Kirsopp Lake suggested, were destroyed as outdated. One can only imagine what old uncials existed before that time. And in what quantity.

Even that great opponent of the Textus Receptus, Dr. Hort, conceded that the Byzantine (“Antiochian”) text was “dominant…[in] the second half of the fourth century”, and that this text “is beyond all question identical… [with the] late extant Greek MSS. generally”, that is, the majority of mss, a.k.a., the Majority Text. We have noted that Hort found a way to annul this numerical superiority with his theory, which has been thoroughly examined, and found wanting.***

So David, it will not do to just blithely assert that the oldest (B and aleph) are the best and most reliable, for we have seen that they are _far_ from that! They are rather, representatives of a local text type circulating in Egypt, and probably Alexandria in particular. It is also widely acknowledged that they do not at all represent a “neutral” text type (i.e., pure, uncorrupted from local sources). Wilbur Pickering gives a good look at the historical situation of the texts early on: *here*. A link to full contents of his book below.

-------

*** There is an excellent – and brief! – examination and rebuttal of the Hortian theory in the *“Introduction”* to _The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Byzantine/Majority Textform_, by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont. See the two sections, “Hort's Basic Contentions” and “A Rebuttal of Hortian Logic”.”

For further excellent and concise examinations and rebuttals of Westcott and Hort’s unfounded theories see also, Dr. Jakob van Bruggen’s, _The Ancient Text of the New Testament_

and Dr. Wilbur N. Pickering’s, _The Identity of the New Testament Text II_. This is slightly different from his hard copy edition.

There are many more besides these, but these should suffice for the moment.

-------

After all that has been said above, David, we look again at — and evaluate — your comment (at the end of post #126): “In conclusion I do not see a major issue with the ESV translators, the use of older manuscripts, and applying of *the science of textual criticism* to our modern bible.” [Emphasis added]. Okay. . . . And here is a sampling of the results of your alleged “science of textual criticism” on text critics in the 20th century:

“The ultimate text, if ever there was one that deserves to be so called, is for ever irrecoverable” (F.C. Conybeare, _History of New Testament Criticism_, 1910, p. 129)

“In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort and of van Soden, we do not know the original form of the gospels, and it is quite likely that we never shall” (Kirsopp Lake, _Family 13, The Ferrar Group_, Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1941, p. vii).

“…it is generally recognized that the original text of the Bible cannot be recovered” (R.M. Grant. “The Bible of Theophilus of Antioch,” _Journal of Biblical Literature_, vol. 66, 1947, p. 173).

“The textual history that the Westcott-Hort text represents is no longer tenable in the light of newer discoveries and fuller textual analysis. In the effort to construct a congruent history, our failure suggests that we have lost the way, that we have reached a dead end, and that only a new and different insight will enable us to break through (Kenneth Clark, “Today’s Problems,” _New Testament Manuscript Studies_, edited by Parvis and Wikgren, 1950, p. 161).

“…the optimism of the earlier editors has given way to that skepticism which inclines towards regarding ‘the original text’ as an unattainable mirage” (G. Zuntz, _The Text of the Epistles. A Disquisition upon the Corpus Paulinum_, 1953, p. 9).

“In general, the whole thing is limited to probability judgments; the original text of the New Testament, according to its nature, must remain a hypothesis” (H Greeven, _Der Urtext des Neuen Testaments_, 1960, p. 20, cited in Edward Hills, _The King James Version Defended_, p. 67.

“... so far, the twentieth century has been a period characterized by general pessimism about the possibility of recovering the original text by objective criteria” (H.H. Oliver, 1962, p. 308; cited in Eldon Epp, “Decision Points in New Testament Textual Criticism,” _Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism_, 1993, p. 25).

“The primary goal of New Testament textual study remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We have already suggested that to achieve this goal is well nigh impossible. Therefore, we must be content with what Reinhold Niebuhr and others have called, in other contexts, an ‘impossible possibility’ ” (R.M. Grant, _A Historical Introduction to the New Testament_, 1963, p. 51).

“…every textual critic knows that this similarity of text indicates, rather, that we have made little progress in textual theory since Westcott-Hort; that we simply do not know how to make a definitive determination as to what the best text is; that we do not have a clear picture of the transmission and alternation of the text in the first few centuries; and accordingly, that the Westcott-Hort kind of text has maintained its dominant position largely by default” (Eldon J. Epp, “The Twentieth Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism,” _Journal of Biblical Literature_, Vol. 43, 1974, pp. 390-391).

“We face a crisis over methodology in NT textual criticism. ... Von Soden and B.H. Streeter and a host of others announced and defended their theories of the NT text, but none has stood the tests of criticism or of time. ... [F]ollowing Westcott-Hort but beginning particularly with C.H. Turner (1923ff.), M.-J. Langrange (1935), G.D. Kilpatrick (1943ff.), A.F.J. Klijn (1949), and J.K. Elliot (1972ff.), a new crisis of the criteria became prominent and is very much with us today: a duel between external and internal criteria and the widespread uncertainty as to precisely what kind of compromise ought to or can be worked out between them. The temporary ‘cease-fire’ that most—but certainly not all—textual critics have agreed upon is called a ‘moderate’ or ‘reasoned’ eclecticism ... the literature of the past two or three decades is replete with controversy over the eclectic method, or at least is abundant with evidence of the frustration that accompanies its use...” (Eldon Epp, “Decision Points in New Testament Textual Criticism,” _Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism_, 1993, pp. 39-41).

“…we no longer think of Westcott-Hort’s ‘Neutral’ text as neutral; we no longer think of their ‘Western’ text as Western or as uniting the textual elements they selected; and, of course, we no longer think so simplistically or so confidently about recovering ‘the New Testament in the Original Greek.’…We remain largely in the dark as to how we might reconstruct the textual history that has left in its wake—in the form of MSS and fragments—numerous pieces of a puzzle that we seem incapable of fitting together. Westcott-Hort, von Soden, and others had sweeping theories (which we have largely rejected) to undergird their critical texts, but we seem now to have no such theories and no plausible sketches of the early history of the text that are widely accepted. What progress, then, have we made? Are we more advanced than our predecessors when, after showing their theories to be unacceptable, we offer no such theories at all to vindicate our accepted text?” (Eldon J. Epp, “A Continuing Interlude in NT Textual Criticism,” _Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism_, (Eerdman’s, 1993), pp. 114, 115).​
This is what the New Testament Greek scholars think of your vaunted “science of textual criticism”! Whence, pray tell, cometh your optimism when the experts in the field have none? Are you seeking to lead us down _their_ woeful path in your naïveté? Please, spare us the pangs – _the death throes_ – of a discipline gone awry! With good reason did Theodore Letis call this the “post-critical” age!


----------

