# Verses that prove providential preservation of TR tradition?



## RamistThomist

KJV-only advocates tell me that God providentially preserved the TR manuscript tradition. What verses in the Bible speak about God's preserving a specific textual tradition?


----------



## Romans922

Good sir, it is not so much about 'preserving a specific textual tradition'. If trying to find the correct answer to what I think is your question, perhaps you might consider asking the following:

If God has kept pure His Word in all ages (WCF 1.8), then 1) What does that mean, and 2) Do any of our textual manuscripts fit that (especially considering that one side believes their manuscripts/tradition is corrupted and must be put back together). 

As an aside, I'd encourage everyone to look deep at the history of how the Critical Text has come to be, who were the major players who put it together, and how might they affect the integrity of God's Word. [I obviously have my biases  ].

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Romans922 said:


> If God has kept pure His Word in all ages (WCF 1.8), then 1) What does that mean,



Depends on what "pure" means. If it means a textual tradition where all readings have zero variants, then I don't think that is what "pure" means. If it means God has not left himself without a witness, then that can equally apply to other traditions.


Romans922 said:


> I'd encourage everyone to look deep at the history of how the Critical Text has come to be, who were the major players who put it together,



That is the genetic fallacy

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 2 | Funny 1


----------



## Taylor

Now, where did that popcorn GIF go...?

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress

There are no notes in the minutes of the Westminster assembly about debate about "kept pure in all ages"; what works by Lightfoot or other members, particularly circa July 1644 where we know they were dicussing chapter 1, may shed light on this phrasing? Has Ussher's work on the Septuagint been translated and do they shed light on this?

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## TheOldCourse

BayouHuguenot said:


> That is the genetic fallacy



No, it's not. The genetic fallacy is basing consideration of a thing _entirely_ in its origins. One could say it's the postmodernist fallacy, on the other hand, to regard the original historical context of a matter as irrelevant.


----------



## RamistThomist

TheOldCourse said:


> No, it's not. The genetic fallacy is basing consideration of a thing _entirely_ in its origins. One could say it's the postmodernist fallacy, on the other hand, to regard the original historical context of a matter as irrelevant.



Let's pretend for a moment that Westcott and Hort are bad people. Does that make their arguments false?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheOldCourse

BayouHuguenot said:


> Let's pretend for a moment that Westcott and Hort are bad people. Does that make their arguments false?



Of course not, but it does suggest that one should consider their views with higher degree of scrutiny and suspicion if their motives were atheistical. In the same manner naturalistic evolutionists are not wrong merely because they are atheistical, or those who seek to "demythologize" the Virgin Birth, etc., but given that no man is impartial, once the partiality of a man is determined his views ought to be scrutinized with that partiality in mind.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## greenbaggins

TheOldCourse said:


> No, it's not. The genetic fallacy is basing consideration of a thing _entirely_ in its origins. One could say it's the postmodernist fallacy, on the other hand, to regard the original historical context of a matter as irrelevant.



Actually, not quite. The genetic fallacy is well defined by Wikipedia: 

The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue) is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.​
In this case, Andrew has indeed committed the genetic fallacy, because _his particular conclusion_ is based entirely on origins rather than its current meaning or context. On the other hand, Jacob had NOT committed the postmodernist fallacy, because saying WH's conclusions are independent of their particular religious stance is not the same thing at all as saying that the original historical context is a matter of irrelevance.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2 | Edifying 1 | Amen 1


----------



## greenbaggins

If God has kept pure His Word in all ages (WCF 1.8), then 1) What does that mean, and 2) Do any of our textual manuscripts fit that (especially considering that one side believes their manuscripts/tradition is corrupted and must be put back together). ​Andrew, this is not what the Reformed people who hold to CT believe. I do not hold this, nor do most Reformed people I know who hold to the CT. The TR does not match ANY one particular manuscript. It is an eclectic text within the Byzantine tradition. What you hold with regard to only one narrow range of manuscripts, I hold with regard to the full range of manuscripts.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 2


----------



## TheOldCourse

greenbaggins said:


> Actually, not quite. The genetic fallacy is well defined by Wikipedia:
> 
> The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue) is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested *based solely* on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.​
> In this case, Andrew has indeed committed the genetic fallacy, because _his particular conclusion_ is based entirely on origins rather than its current meaning or context. On the other hand, Jacob had NOT committed the postmodernist fallacy, because saying WH's conclusions are independent of their particular religious stance is not the same thing at all as saying that the original historical context is a matter of irrelevance.



I'm failing to see how my definition deviates from Wikipedia's other than being more succinct. See the bolded/underlined portion. It also is clear that Andrew did not commit it given that his first two paragraphs make no mention of the CT's origins, and indeed his citation of the origins is described even by himself as "an aside." To his principal question in his second paragraph, Westcott and Hort's background is irrelevant. If Andrew is guilty of the fallacy, it can only be because _any consideration_ of the origins of a stance or idea is regarded as fallacious. That would be, as I term it, a postmodern fallacy.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

TheOldCourse said:


> That would be, as I term it, a postmodern fallacy.



Most postmodernists (Derrida, Lyotard, etc) are very keen on genealogical argumentation and tracing the roots. They are almost always wrong, but they know the root position.

In fact, postmodernists begin with the origin of a position in order to trace the power-moves

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins

Chris, there is every difference in the world between saying that *consideration* of something is based on its origins versus a *conclusion* about something is based on its origins. Therein lies the difference between your definition of the genetic fallacy and Wikipedia's. The correct definition is that a conclusion about something is based on its origins. This is exactly what Andrew did. He argues that because of how the CT came to be, its history, and who the players were, that it affects the integrity of God's Word, and nullifies the CT position. This is a textbook occurrence of the genetic fallacy.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## TheOldCourse

greenbaggins said:


> Chris, there is every difference in the world between saying that *consideration* of something is based on its origins versus a *conclusion* about something is based on its origins. Therein lies the difference between your definition of the genetic fallacy and Wikipedia's. The correct definition is that a conclusion about something is based on its origins. This is exactly what Andrew did. He argues that because of how the CT came to be, its history, and who the players were, that it affects the integrity of God's Word, and nullifies the CT position. This is a textbook occurrence of the genetic fallacy.



Consideration yields conclusions, so I'm still not seeing a difference. It is the consideration of the origins that yields a conclusion based on those origins. If something is considered only with respect to its origins, then conclusions will be made only with respect to its origins. The former is the process, the latter is the result of that process. I have no problem with word wrangling, but as long as the only input in the consideration or conclusion is the origin of a thing, then they are functionally equivalent in the case of the fallacy.

Anyways, I still don't see Andrew doing that. His argument was:



> If God has kept pure His Word in all ages (WCF 1.8), then 1) What does that mean, and 2) Do any of our textual manuscripts fit that (especially considering that one side believes their manuscripts/tradition is corrupted and must be put back together).



Where is the genetic fallacy here? He only brings in the origins as an aside after this statement. It's clear that the origins statement is secondary, at best, to his implied conclusions.


----------



## greenbaggins

Chris, as to Andrew's definition of the CT position (that the CT position is that the manuscript tradition is corrupted and must be put back together), I have already answered that part of his statement. Firstly, it is not what Reformed CT folk believe. We believe that God's Word is in the manuscripts. Put all the differences among the manuscripts together, and they don't amount to a hill of beans, even the differences between the TR and the CT. But this paragraph is not his argument as to why the CT position is wrong. It is only his _description_ of the CT position, a description I noted as faulty with regard to Reformed versions of it. The paragraph you quoted is NOT his argument as to why the CT position is wrong. The paragraph that makes the argument is the other paragraph that mentions ONLY questions of origin as to why it is wrong. He says it is only an aside, but that is not really an aside. That is the substance of Andrew's argument as to why the CT position is wrong. 

Here is why Andrew committed the genetic fallacy: the only reasons he gives as to why the CT argument is wrong are reasons of historical origin of how the CT arguments came about. In other words, Andrew is not rejecting (so far) the CT arguments based on the merits of the arguments themselves. He (so far) only rejects them on the basis that their historical origin is suspect. That is the genetic fallacy. That the CT arguments might be taken in another sense by those of us who are Reformed, and might therefore lack the unbelieving baggage of Metzger, et al, doesn't ever seem to occur to TR defendants (and, by the way, is the main source of frustration in the controversy: Reformed folk who hold to the CT inevitably get tarred with Metzger's, and WH's brush, quite unfairly I might add). This is why Jacob has not fallen foul of your post-modern fallacy accusation: Jacob and I, and many others, who hold to the CT, do not hold it in the same way as Metzger does, or others like him, who accuse the TR tradition of being corrupted. There are nuances here in the CT positions that are getting left out, and confusion and suspicion are the typical result.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Taylor Sexton said:


> Now, where did that popcorn GIF go


Some popcorn brands are better than others. How do we find the best brand? Do we look at the label and assume it is the Received text that gives us the best brand? Or do we look more critically at the text on the label?

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Taylor

Stephen L Smith said:


> Some popcorn brands are better than others. How do we find the best brand? Do we look at the label and assume it is the Received text that gives us the best brand? Or do we look more critically at the text on the label?



_[Upon reading this post by Stephen, Taylor begins all the more frantically searching through his GIF collection deep within the recesses of his hard drive, still to no avail.]_

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## greenbaggins

Let me say one more thing by way of warning (and I say this first to myself!): we need to be VERY careful of imputing motivations to other brothers on this subject. As I have seen the debates on CT and TR in the past on this site, tempers get out of hand rapidly and easily. All too easily, accusations of either sectarianism or attacking the integrity of God's Word get thrown around. The fact is that TR and CT (and MT, for that matter) folk have co-existed in the Reformed world for quite some time now. Both seek to make Bible-honoring arguments for their positions.

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 4


----------



## NaphtaliPress

David Dickson says this in his comment on the WCF (which dates to within just a 2-3 years of the publication of the WCF).
Question 12 "Hath not the Lord, by his singular providence and care, kept pure in all ages the Old Testament in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek?"

Yes; Matt. 5.18.

Well then, do not the Papists err, who maintain, The Old Testament in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek, which are the fountains, to be corrupted, and that their common Latin version is authentic?

Yes.

By what reasons are they confuted?

1st, Because Christ says, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled, Matt. 5.18. 2nd, Because there can be no urgent necessity shown, why the fountains are corrupted. 3rd, If any such corruption had been in the Scripture, Christ, and his apostles, and the orthodox fathers had declared so much. 4th, Because they never have nor can make out any manifest corruptions in the fountains, albeit, most manifest and undeniable demonstrations are given of the corruptions of their Latin version, which they make authentic.​
Instruct my ignorance. While clearly the context of this statement of preservation was originally to counter the Romanist claim. What level of corruption did they allege against the Hebrew and Greek texts, and what level of corruption is in the Latin version referenced? And specifically how does either compare to the variants between the majority text and the CT?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## TheOldCourse

greenbaggins said:


> Chris, as to Andrew's definition of the CT position (that the CT position is that the manuscript tradition is corrupted and must be put back together), I have already answered that part of his statement. Firstly, it is not what Reformed CT folk believe. We believe that God's Word is in the manuscripts. Put all the differences among the manuscripts together, and they don't amount to a hill of beans, even the differences between the TR and the CT. But this paragraph is not his argument as to why the CT position is wrong. It is only his _description_ of the CT position, a description I noted as faulty with regard to Reformed versions of it. The paragraph you quoted is NOT his argument as to why the CT position is wrong. The paragraph that makes the argument is the other paragraph that mentions ONLY questions of origin as to why it is wrong. He says it is only an aside, but that is not really an aside. That is the substance of Andrew's argument as to why the CT position is wrong.
> 
> Here is why Andrew committed the genetic fallacy: the only reasons he gives as to why the CT argument is wrong are reasons of historical origin of how the CT arguments came about. In other words, Andrew is not rejecting (so far) the CT arguments based on the merits of the arguments themselves. He (so far) only rejects them on the basis that their historical origin is suspect. That is the genetic fallacy. That the CT arguments might be taken in another sense by those of us who are Reformed, and might therefore lack the unbelieving baggage of Metzger, et al, doesn't ever seem to occur to TR defendants (and, by the way, is the main source of frustration in the controversy: Reformed folk who hold to the CT inevitably get tarred with Metzger's, and WH's brush, quite unfairly I might add). This is why Jacob has not fallen foul of your post-modern fallacy accusation: Jacob and I, and many others, who hold to the CT, do not hold it in the same way as Metzger does, or others like him, who accuse the TR tradition of being corrupted. There are nuances here in the CT positions that are getting left out, and confusion and suspicion are the typical result.



Lane, perhaps you are thinking of other posts Andrew has made on the matter, but I do not see your description of his argument in what he actually posted. There is a great deal of inference taken, which inference being, I admit, necessary, as his was a brief response and not a full argument, but which is not actually what he stated. Given that he didn't actually state conclusions (though his own opinion can certainly be inferred), I don't see how he can be charged with the genetic fallacy. Saying (in brief):

1. The CT implies corruption of the Biblical text; Early CT scholarship was atheistical.

Is not the same as:

2. Early CT scholarship was atheistical, _therefore _the CT implies corruption of the Biblical text.

Statement 2 is the genetic fallacy, 1 is merely two statements which may relate to each other in numerous different ways. You yourself imply, when you said you answered part of his statement, that there was more going on to his argument than merely the genetic fallacy. We both know that Andrew doesn't hold to his TR/ET position _solely_ on the basis of his appraisal of Westcott and Hort's character and motives. Even if you believe that his other points are weak and that you have satisfactorily answered them, that he has other points is important.

What you say is fair regarding impugning orthodox CT advocates with views of Metzger and WH. It's also fair to argue that a view has a seriously dangerous implication even if its advocates do not admit of that implication. When an Arminian argues that my position makes God unjust, it's an argument I need to take seriously even though I certainly do not admit of that conclusion. And likewise when we argue that he nullfies the sovereignty and aseity of God. Of course he wouldn't admit that--it's heresy--but it's a fair criticism that says that the logical outworkings of Arminianism is Socinianism. In charity, we should certainly recognize, however, that they do not actually believe the things that we believe their views imply.

Also, for the sake of clarity, I never meant to imply that Jacob was guilty of what I termed a postmodern fallacy and certainly wasn't attempting to paint CT advocates with a broad brush there. I took Jacob as a bit rashly ascribing the genetic fallacy to Andrew, I believing that he knew full well that a _mere_ consideration of origins is not fallacious. It would be foolish to believe that the origins of an idea or position have absolutely no value in determining its truthfulness. It is also foolish to believe that they are the only thing of value. Every good theological paper or report starts with a historical survey but doesn't stop there.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TheOldCourse

BayouHuguenot said:


> Most postmodernists (Derrida, Lyotard, etc) are very keen on genealogical argumentation and tracing the roots. They are almost always wrong, but they know the root position.
> 
> In fact, postmodernists begin with the origin of a position in order to trace the power-moves



Yes but they did so in a manner that divorced texts from their historicity and authorship and radically separated the past and the present. History for many postmodernists is illustrative for its phenomena, but not a meaningful field of empirical study. Foucault might be a representative example. The views of WH or Metzger would be irrelevant and even inaccessible to them.

Regardless, it was just me coining a term off-hand. There's probably a better one for it.


----------



## Romans922

greenbaggins said:


> In this case, Andrew has indeed committed the genetic fallacy, because _his particular conclusion_ is based entirely on origins rather than its current meaning or context.



I'm trying to go over this as I'm reading it. I don't believe I was making a particular conclusion. I was suggesting keeping the history in mind as one decides the merits of a particular position. How Chris, above, summarized what I was saying is exactly how I'd put it. I was not at all suggesting a conclusion, though I have my own conclusion. Yet, it is not based solely or mostly on CT's history. 




greenbaggins said:


> He argues that because of how the CT came to be, its history, and who the players were, that it affects the integrity of God's Word, and nullifies the CT position.



This is a misrepresentation of my position. I do not believe that CT position is nullified because of how it came to be, i.e. its history, who the players were, etc. CT is nullified for various other reasons, but that (i.e. history) is not one of them. 


Now as to my 'aside', the OP is not about my aside at all. He's asking about the TR view essentially. "Where does God say He preserves a specific textual tradition?" Well, sorry Jacob, that's a ridiculous question on the face of it. We all know that He doesn't say 'This text tradition right here is the one, all others are of the devil.' 

That's why I tried to help him form the question better to get to what it seems he's looking for. After I type the following, I won't engage any further unless it has to do with Jacob's OP or at the least the questions I posed that I believe fit in line with what he's looking for. It would not be appropriate to continue talking about the corruption of the CT Text for instance, except on another thread. Jacob is looking for, it seems, what does the bible say (I add the Confession because I think it says what the Bible says) about text tradition.

So here it is:

As to the Reformed Textual position, that would be the Westminster Position.

As to the CT position, you must at least acknowledge that non-reformed scholars believe the text is corrupted and must be thus put back together. A simple google search could find plenty of resources to show that (e.g. James White would be an example of a Reformed Baptist who holds that position, to my memory).

But as to some reformed scholars from the pro-CT view on the subject, here's BB Warfield and Michael Kruger (both who I believe hold to a CT view, and are asserting the CT's corruption - you don't have to agree, but that's my view): 

"[Each manuscript copy] was made laboriously and erroneously from a previous one, perpetuating its errors, old and new, and introducing still newer ones of its own manufacture. A long line of ancestry gradually grows up behind each copy in such circumstances, and the race gradually but inevitably degenerates, until, after a thousand years or so, the number of fixed errors becomes considerable." - Warfield

"But just because we believe in God's continuous care over the purity of His Word, we are able to look upon the labors of great critics of the nineteenth century - a Tregelles, a Tischendorf, a Westcott, a Hort - as well as those of a Gregory and a Basil and a Chrysostom, as instruments of Providence in preserving the Scriptures pure for the use of God's people. Dean Burgon and Mr Miller are able to reconcile with their appeal to Providence the early prevalence of a corrupt text which needed purifying in the fourth century: why cannot they reconcile with it a further purification of this same text in the nineteenth century?" - Warfield

"Moreover, given the complexities of the textual history of some of the New Testaments writings (in particular, Acts), and the limited number of early papyri we possess, we should not be overly confident that our reconstructed critical text is equivalent to what was originally written. Such a cautionary approach has been exemplified by the Metzger-Ehrman volume which does not claim textual critics can recover the original text, per se, but rather the text 'regarded as most nearly conforming to the original'. Likewise, the present volume has attempted to strike a cautionary tone in its very title, The Early Text of the New Testament." - Kruger

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Tom Hart

BayouHuguenot said:


> That is the genetic fallacy



You might as well put that in your signature.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Although one can talk about textual issues, variations, and other related issues, that is not the main issue with TR.

The CT position claims to be rebuilding or reconstructing the “original”. This is the ideaological method they use. The TR position claims that the Word of God has been kept pure through all ages, in that there isn’t anything to reconstruct as we haven’t lost anything. 

These are what I have seen.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Tom Hart said:


> You might as well put that in your signature.



LOL. I do say that a lot. True, but I do say it.


----------



## RamistThomist

And if we want to quote the bad guys from the CT camp, I can follow with Gail Riplinger and the Ruckmanites. Riplinger makes charismatics look like BB Warfie.d.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## TylerRay

BayouHuguenot said:


> KJV-only advocates tell me that God providentially preserved the TR manuscript tradition. What verses in the Bible speak about God's preserving a specific textual tradition?


Jacob,
I think the "textual traditions" idea is the problem here--God's Word has been preserved pure in all ages. True, there are variant readings, etc., and that's why textual criticism is necessary. Textual criticism that agrees with the WCF's doctrine assumes the accuracy of the general tradition (not a particular "textual tradition" among others). Textual criticism that does not agree withe the WCF assumes that the text must be recovered. It's the difference of _discerning _the text vs. _recovering _or _reconstructing _the text.

It's through the textual criticism that agrees with the WCF that the various editions of the Textus Receptus were arrived at.

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## Andrew P.C.

BayouHuguenot said:


> And if we want to quote the bad guys from the CT camp, I can follow with Gail Riplinger and the Ruckmanites. Riplinger makes charismatics look like BB Warfie.d.




Not sure where this attack comes from.

I think this misses the main point for two reasons:

1) KJV-onlyists are nuts because they don’t really argue from a knowledgeable standpoint. They also use the KJV as the basis of their point, instead of the TR.

2) Warfield is a respectable theologian and has many great points on many topics. He also tows the line for CT. I’m not sure how you can compare KJVO and Warfield. 

With that, the underlining issue still hasn’t been addressed.


----------



## Tom Hart

BayouHuguenot said:


> True...



Not always.


----------



## RamistThomist

Andrew P.C. said:


> 2) Warfield is a respectable theologian and has many great points on many topics. He also tows the line for CT. I’m not sure how you can compare KJVO and Warfield.



Riplinger believed in some of the wackier forms of "God told me." The comparison meant that she is super crazy. I wasn't saying Warfield believed x, y, or z.


----------



## Smeagol

Still studying all this. Is this whole debate not more fundamentally based on what one perceives to be “better” manuscripts instead what method is applied?

In other words, do not those who are in the TR-Only group have to deal with text variants with the Byzantine Copies? Picking some within that group as more accurate than others.

As I said i am still studying this, but the TR-Onylist think those in the CT camp believe the Word is corrupted....but are not the TR-Onlysist the ones saying that ALL other manuscripts (specifically) Alexandrian are corrupt outside the TR?

Could this line of thinking not then imply that the manuscripts used in CT are more in line with the idea expressed in the Westminster Standards?

Just looking for help. Today I am a CT guy mainly because I like the fact that it pulls from a wider range of manuscripts, which for me says that God has kept his word pure, not ONLY in all ages, but also in a wider range of places.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay

Grant Jones said:


> Still studying all this. Is this whole debate not more fundamentally based on what one perceives to be “better” manuscripts instead what method is applied?
> 
> In other words, do not those who are in the TR-Only group have to deal with text variants with the Byzantine Copies? Picking some within that group as more accurate than others.
> 
> As I said i am still studying this, but the TR-Onylist think those in the CT camp believe the Word is corrupted....but are not the TR-Onlysist the ones saying that ALL other manuscripts (specifically) Alexandrian are corrupt outside the TR?
> 
> Could this line of thinking not then imply that the manuscripts used in CT are more in line with the idea expressed in the Westminster Standards?
> 
> Just looking for help. Today I am a CT guy mainly because I like the fact that it pulls from a wider range of manuscripts, which for me says that God has kept his word pure, not ONLY in all ages, but also in a wider range of places.


Grant,
Those of us who are more in keeping with the TR are happy to consider all the manuscript evidence. We doubt the modern theory of text types/families. The handful of manuscripts that are sometimes viewed as the "Alexandirian manuscripts" are weighed along with the rest of the textual evidence out there.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist

greenbaggins said:


> What you hold with regard to only one narrow range of manuscripts, I hold with regard to the full range of manuscripts.



In theory, yes, but in practice this is simply not the case. The CT, while produced in consultation with the full range of manuscripts, is reflective of what is contained in only a few manuscripts, while the TR, even though produced by consulting only a handful of manuscripts, is reflective of what is contained in the overwhelming majority of manuscripts.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> KJV-only advocates tell me that God providentially preserved the TR manuscript tradition. What verses in the Bible speak about God's preserving a specific textual tradition?


There would be none.


----------



## Dachaser

Bill The Baptist said:


> In theory, yes, but in practice this is simply not the case. The CT, while produced in consultation with the full range of manuscripts, is reflective of what is contained in only a few manuscripts, while the TR, even though produced by consulting only a handful of manuscripts, is reflective of what is contained in the overwhelming majority of manuscripts.


The Majority text/Bzt one, would be the text that does more so that then the TR does though.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Let's pretend for a moment that Westcott and Hort are bad people. Does that make their arguments false?


The Lord had no inspiration given to translation team though, as that was only applied towards the originals, as those advocating for 1611 KJVO would be assuming that the Holy Spirit inspire them to translate into English, and yet they acknowledge that other valid Bibles were used by them to revise, and that there would be a need to revise their Bible in the future also.
And which TR is the right inspired one to use, as Erasmus Himself had 6 editions, and used the Vulgate renderings at times, and the translation team also used Beza, so they practiced that dreaded textual criticism themselves.
Which KJV also would be the perfect one, as had 1611, 1769, 1842, and 1894?


----------



## Dachaser

greenbaggins said:


> Chris, as to Andrew's definition of the CT position (that the CT position is that the manuscript tradition is corrupted and must be put back together), I have already answered that part of his statement. Firstly, it is not what Reformed CT folk believe. We believe that God's Word is in the manuscripts. Put all the differences among the manuscripts together, and they don't amount to a hill of beans, even the differences between the TR and the CT. But this paragraph is not his argument as to why the CT position is wrong. It is only his _description_ of the CT position, a description I noted as faulty with regard to Reformed versions of it. The paragraph you quoted is NOT his argument as to why the CT position is wrong. The paragraph that makes the argument is the other paragraph that mentions ONLY questions of origin as to why it is wrong. He says it is only an aside, but that is not really an aside. That is the substance of Andrew's argument as to why the CT position is wrong.
> 
> Here is why Andrew committed the genetic fallacy: the only reasons he gives as to why the CT argument is wrong are reasons of historical origin of how the CT arguments came about. In other words, Andrew is not rejecting (so far) the CT arguments based on the merits of the arguments themselves. He (so far) only rejects them on the basis that their historical origin is suspect. That is the genetic fallacy. That the CT arguments might be taken in another sense by those of us who are Reformed, and might therefore lack the unbelieving baggage of Metzger, et al, doesn't ever seem to occur to TR defendants (and, by the way, is the main source of frustration in the controversy: Reformed folk who hold to the CT inevitably get tarred with Metzger's, and WH's brush, quite unfairly I might add). This is why Jacob has not fallen foul of your post-modern fallacy accusation: Jacob and I, and many others, who hold to the CT, do not hold it in the same way as Metzger does, or others like him, who accuse the TR tradition of being corrupted. There are nuances here in the CT positions that are getting left out, and confusion and suspicion are the typical result.


Per the OP question , there is no scripture to support the TR/KJVO position, as that would be assuming in some well sense that the Lord Himself supervised and inspired the decisions made when rendering from the Greek/Hebrew texts into their English 1611 KJV.
One can prefer the TR/Majority/Critical Greek texts, and can prefer a certain English translation, but cannot be seeing only one Greek text/one English Bible the only right one for use.


----------



## Taylor

Grant Jones said:


> Is this whole debate not more fundamentally based on what one perceives to be “better” manuscripts instead what method is applied?



I don't think so. I am not sure where I fall in this debate, but speaking only of the providential preservation aspect of this issue, it seems to me that the TR position disfavors manuscripts which—again, providentially speaking—"went off the radar" for a good many centuries. In other words, providential preservation would entail that a manuscript be both known and used/consulted in the Christian Church. Manuscripts that were rediscovered after many centuries because of disuse, or because they were plain forgotten and became unknown, would not be considered providentially preserved.

@Romans922, @TylerRay, and @Bill The Baptist, am I representing this position faithfully?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

Taylor Sexton said:


> would not be considered providentially preserved.


Taylor,

Doesn’t the fact that we have them now mean that they were providentially preserved? How could they have been preserved outside of providence?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TylerRay

Taylor Sexton said:


> I don't think so. I am not sure where I fall in this debate, but speaking only of the providential preservation aspect of this issue, it seems to me that the TR position disfavors manuscripts which—again, providentially speaking—"went off the radar" for a good many centuries. In other words, providential preservation would entail that a manuscript be both known and used/consulted in the Christian Church. Manuscripts that were rediscovered after many centuries because of disuse, or because they were plain forgotten and became unknown, would not be considered providentially preserved.
> 
> @Romans922, @TylerRay, and @Bill The Baptist, am I representing this position faithfully?


Taylor,
It's not so much about _manuscripts_ as it is about _readings. _It's not that those manuscripts haven't been preserved--clearly, if we have them, they have been preserved. But the idiosyncratic readings in some of those manuscripts are not readings that God, by his singular care and providence, has given to his church at large. So, we consider them highly suspect.

Again, we believe that God has preserved his word in the church, and that it doesn't need to be reconstructed or recovered, only discerned.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist

TylerRay said:


> But the idiosyncratic readings in some of those manuscripts are not reading that God, by his singular care and providence, has given to his church at large. So, we consider them highly suspect.



That begs several questions: 1) no verse promising providential preservation of this sort of a text; 2) why favor this mss care and providence and not the other one?


----------



## Smeagol

TylerRay said:


> Again, we believe that God has preserved his word in the church, and that it doesn't need to be reconstructed or recovered, only discerned.


Tyler,

Don’t you think there are reformed CT guys who feel the same way about using a larger variety and number of manuscripts? I admit, from my own reading of KJV and ESV, that their are many differences in rinderings; however I do not feel that any major or minor doctrines are altered in those variations. So I have confidence that the confessional reformed guys in EITHER camp, see themselves as trying to discern as close as possible the original writer’s intent. I am greatful for many on PB helping me learn more about the TR, because I was extremely ignorant (and likely still am). I now hold the TR translations in a much higher opinion. However I share the same respect for a few of the “modern” translations which are also used in many reformed elcessiastical bodies. I do not wish to complain against either the TR or the CT because I have a great respect for translation in general.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Andrew P.C.

BayouHuguenot said:


> That begs several questions: 1) no verse promising providential preservation of this sort of a text; 2) why favor this mss care and providence and not the other one?



I think of two streams:

CT position- We have discovered lost texts that take away or add to what has been past down through the church.

TR position- We have the text (or canon) which has been preserved through the church and kept pure through all ages.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Grant Jones said:


> however I do not feel that any major or minor doctrines are altered in those variations.




In the text itself I can’t say one way or the other. However, the philosophy behind each position is drastically different. So, in one sense, doctrines are altered.


----------



## TylerRay

BayouHuguenot said:


> That begs several questions: 1) no verse promising providential preservation of this sort of a text; 2) why favor this mss care and providence and not the other one?


As I said, it's about readings, not manuscripts.


----------



## Taylor

Grant Jones said:


> Taylor,
> 
> Doesn’t the fact that we have them now mean that they were providentially preserved? How could they have been preserved outside of providence?



To be clear: I was not _arguing for _what I said. Rather, I was merely trying to _present _what I see to be the TR position. In other words, what I wrote above, which you quoted, was not me giving my personal position. @TylerRay helpfully clarified what I said.


----------



## TylerRay

Grant Jones said:


> Tyler,
> 
> Don’t you think there are reformed CT guys who feel the same way about using a larger variety and number of manuscripts? I admit, from my own reading of KJV and ESV, that their are many differences in rinderings; however I do not feel that any major or minor doctrines are altered in those variations. So I have confidence that the confessional reformed guys in EITHER camp, see themselves as trying to discern as close as possible the original writer’s intent. I am greatful for many on PB helping me learn more about the TR, because I was extremely ignorant (and likely still am). I now hold the TR translations in a much higher opinion. However I share the same respect for a few of the “modern” translations which are also used in many reformed elcessiastical bodies. I do not wish to complain against either the TR or the CT because I have a great respect for translation in general.


Again, both parties are happy to use all the manuscripts. Erasmus and Beza used the manuscripts that are now designated "Alexandrian." Both parties produce critical editions (critical texts, if you will). The question is whether God's word has been discernibly preserved in every age. One group does their textual criticism with the presupposition that it has, the other from the presupposition that it hasn't.


----------



## Smeagol

TylerRay said:


> the other from the presupposition that it hasn't.


Can those who prefer a conservative CT translation be charged as guilty of this in every case? I am honestly wrestling with this and I am grateful for your answers.


----------



## Logan

TylerRay said:


> Again, both parties are happy to use all the manuscripts. Erasmus and Beza used the manuscripts that are now designated "Alexandrian." Both parties produce critical editions (critical texts, if you will). The question is whether God's word has been discernibly preserved in every age. One group does their textual criticism with the presupposition that it has, the other from the presupposition that it hasn't.



Practically speaking, when you say "both parties produce critical editions" or both parties are happy to use all manuscripts, what does that mean for today? Is there any textual criticism going on within the TR camp today or has that all been considered complete through Erasmus, Beza, the KJV translators, and Scrivener?

To bring up one of the big elephants again, the 1 John 5:7 has essentially no manuscript evidence, yet almost universally TR advocates say it should be included because it was providentially preserved (from the Latin). Genuinely asking: practically speaking, what does a TR critical edition mean? What are the practical results? Not trying to be combative, but I haven't figured that out.

Or put another way, if no change will ever be made to the TR at this point, regardless of evidence one way or another, then does textual criticism or consideration of all manuscripts mean anything, in practice? Is it just a convention that "well, it's been a standard for so long so we might as well use it even if we have better readings"?

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## TylerRay

Grant Jones said:


> Can those who prefer a conservative CT translation be charged as guilty of this in every case? I am honestly wrestling with this and I am grateful for your answers.


In my opinion, they often don't realize it. They embrace the view that's popular in academia today. They're righly turned off by the bad arguments that many KJV/TR advocates use, so they embrace the popular view, which has a lot of scholarship behind it. But at the end of the day, their view presupposes that significant, undiscernable corruptions have been a part of the common Bible for a large part of history.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay

Logan said:


> Practically speaking, when you say "both parties produce critical editions" or both parties are happy to use all manuscripts, what does that mean for today? Is there any textual criticism going on within the TR camp today or has that all been considered complete through Erasmus, Beza, the KJV translators, and Scrivener?
> 
> To bring up one of the big elephants again, the 1 John 5:7 has essentially no manuscript evidence, yet almost universally TR advocates say it should be included because it was providentially preserved (from the Latin). Genuinely asking: practically speaking, what does a TR critical edition mean? What are the practical results? Not trying to be combative, but I haven't figured that out.


Those are great questions, and I can't really give satisfactory answers. As far as producing a new critical edition with TR presuppositions, I don't think I know of any efforts. Burgon suggested a number of corrections. I've also heard individual men argue for readings different from what's in the KJV/Scrivener.

The I John 5:7 issue is an interesting one. It's been a while since I've looked at it, but I think you may be oversimplifying it. It's certainly a debatable reading, and it's not a hill I would die on.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Smeagol

Does the NKJV usually have footnotes for any of the “debatable” verses?

I primarily use the ESV (and KJV for comparison ). I have noticed sometimes the ESV leaves out a verse and will not even add footnotes.


----------



## TylerRay

Grant Jones said:


> Does the NKJV usually have footnotes for any of the “debatable” verses?
> 
> I primarily use the ESV (and KJV for comparison ). I have noticed sometimes the ESV leaves out a verse and will not even add footnotes.


The NKJV goes further than that--it has marginal notes showing every place where the NA/UBS differs from the TR. I don't think it includes variants that arent in either.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Grant Jones said:


> Does the NKJV usually have footnotes for any of the “debatable” verses?



Yes, they usually say "M Text reads …" or "NU Text reads …" or something to that effect.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

TylerRay said:


> NA/UBS





Reformed Covenanter said:


> "M Text reads …" or "NU Text reads …"



Can you give the full names for your shorthand? (Forgive my ignorance)


----------



## TylerRay

Grant Jones said:


> [QUOTE="Reformed Covenanter, post: 1189997, member: 1396] M Text reads …" or "NU Text reads …"



Can you give the full names for your shorthand? (Forgive my ignorance)[/QUOTE]
Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society. It's the standard modern critical edition.


----------



## Dachaser

Grant Jones said:


> Can those who prefer a conservative CT translation be charged as guilty of this in every case? I am honestly wrestling with this and I am grateful for your answers.


Sometimes those who argue for the TR seem to be saying that God inspired them in same way He did the originals, and thus the KJV itself would be inspired also!


----------



## Romans922

Dachaser said:


> Sometimes those who argue for the TR seem to be saying that God inspired them in same way he did the originals, and thus the KJV itself would be inspired also!



I don't get this. Why are we talking about KJV or KJVO in this conversation that has nothing to do with English translations. It really is when you are start attacking whether on the puritanboard or elsewhere, it's just a strawman argument to somehow link those who believe in TR that they are somehow some of those crazy KJVO people. It's ridiculous and needs to stop.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Logan

TylerRay said:


> Those are great questions, and I can't really give satisfactory answers. As far as producing a new critical edition with TR presuppositions, I don't think I know of any efforts. Burgon suggested a number of corrections. I've also heard individual men argue for readings different from what's in the KJV/Scrivener.
> 
> The I John 5:7 issue is an interesting one. It's been a while since I've looked at it, but I think you may be oversimplifying it. It's certainly a debatable reading, and it's not a hill I would die on.



I prefer "cutting to the chase" rather than "oversimplifying" 

Thanks for the response. I have great respect for people like Maurice Robinson and would love to see the TR folks come together and produce a more critical version based off of Burgon's studies, Scrivener's, Robinson's etc., and really the past five centuries of TR use.


----------



## iainduguid

Widening the debate a little, what about the text of the OT? Would the preservation position insist on the "majority" Rabbinic Bible? Would it allow for corrections from Leningrad (which was obviously not part of the church's tradition for years? Corrections from the Septuagint, which clearly has a different Hebrew original in some places, now attested from Qumran? It seems to me that often these discussions only treat half the Bible.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## RamistThomist

iainduguid said:


> Widening the debate a little, what about the text of the OT? Would the preservation position insist on the "majority" Rabbinic Bible? Would it allow for corrections from Leningrad (which was obviously not part of the church's tradition for years? Corrections from the Septuagint, which clearly has a different Hebrew original in some places, now attested from Qumran? It seems to me that often these discussions only treat half the Bible.



Thank you. Prof Duguid, where does the Syriac Peshitta fit in on the textual tradition debate?


----------



## TylerRay

Logan said:


> Thanks for the response. I have great respect for people like Maurice Robinson and would love to see the TR folks come together and produce a more critical version based off of Burgon's studies, Scrivener's, Robinson's etc., and really the past five centuries of TR use.


That would be great. At present, though, it's hard to imagine. We don't have the number of scholars, the funds, or the leisure that the larger community that produces the NU has. Plus, it would have a very limited appeal, even among TR folks (there would be those who would be skeptical).

Robinson is a different story, though. He's a Byzantine guy (I know there's only a hair's breadth of difference between the texts, but the theoies are different). He, with Pierpoint, have put out a critical edition of the "Byzantine text type." Look up Byzantine Text Form 2005.


----------



## iainduguid

BayouHuguenot said:


> Thank you. Prof Duguid, where does the Syriac Peshitta fit in on the textual tradition debate?


I can't think of an example where the Peshitta alone would influence a reading; it might be helpful for the translation of an obscure word, which is far more often an issue in the OT than the NT. And of course it might provide further support for a reading found in the LXX and at Qumran.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Johann Amadeus Schubert

Hello,

I believe that the CT is inferior as it has not been kept pure in all ages. (WCF 1.8)

It seems that the CT contains newly discovered fragments that add or take away from the manuscripts that have always been known and preserved by the church. 

If God inspired the Holy Writ and his church is the pillar and ground of the truth, it does not seem probable that he would allow corruption to his sacred manuscripts. Variants do not assume that the text is not authentic as the true reading can be distinguished by a collation of known and better manuscripts in the church's depository. 

The science of textual criticism is important but it must not be primary or on par with what Holy Scripture says but instead subservient to it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Johann Amadeus Schubert said:


> It seems that the CT contains newly discovered fragments that add or take away from the manuscripts that have always been known and preserved by the church.



Unless it can be demonstrated that these fragments are earlier (e.g., being Used by Irenaeus, Tatian, etc).

And if we judge doctrine by the text, and not the other way around, then it is the text that determines doctrine, not doctrine that determines text.

What I am seeing is the exact same argument that EO use: "If we don't presuppose that God promised to be with his church and keep the doctrine pure, even if we don't have textual evidence for the earliest claims, then what can we possibly believe?"

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol

Johann Amadeus Schubert said:


> If God inspired the Holy Writ and his church is the pillar and ground of the truth, it does not seem probable that he would allow corruption to his sacred manuscripts.


Why is it assumed that the manuscripts used in CT are ALL corrupted? You seem to only apply the above truth to the TR manuscripts. This does not seem logical and further seems to break your own rule. Unless you only view the TR manuscripts as being valid. Again, did God not preserve the other manuscripts?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins

Andrew, a couple of points. I believe you are using TR presuppositions in your description of Warfield and Kruger. The most evident example is in how you subtlely change the definition of the idea of "corruption." In the TR version of things, a wide gulf seems to exist between the TR manuscripts and all other manuscripts. The latter are corrupted with a capital C (Burgon's language on this particular issue goes far beyond what I have described here: he thinks they are of the devil). However, when Warfield and Kruger talk about corruptions, they are using the word with a lower-case "c." Even the quotations you have adduced show that Warfield didn't think the CT was very far away from the TR. Warfield wasn't thinking that we had to reinvent the whole wheel, much less that the church had been deprived of the Word for centuries. 

Andrew, I am glad you don't think that the CT position is nullified by the history of its origins. That's great. But if that is the case, you picked a most EXTREMELY misleading way to say it. Your rather strong hint was that the CT's history of origins was a significant strike against it (and you did not differentiate AT ALL between Reformed versions of the CT theory and unbelieving versions, thus lumping them all together). Its history is not a strike at all against the Reformed view of it, any more than Johann Gabler's take on Biblical Theology is a strike against Vos's view of Biblical Theology. 

Third point: do you believe that it is impossible for a Reformed person to hold to any form of CT and yet also claim that the text has been kept pure in all ages? I get the strong feeling that you think that is impossible. I will tell you my position: the Word of God has been kept pure in all ages. Notice that the word "absolutely 100%" does not occur prior to the word "pure" in the WS, nor does it in the phrasing of my opinion. I do not interpret that phrase in the confession to imply that in every age, the text of the original is present in any one manuscript, or even tradition of manuscripts. There are degrees of purity. The TR is mostly pure, and the pure doctrine of God comes through it. Its errors of transmission are mostly insignificant in nature. The CT offers a corrective to the TR that can make it even more pure. But this is, in my view, an issue of correcting a TR text that is, say, 98% pure (and the remaining 2% is mostly insignificant stuff), with the help of the other manuscript traditions to make it 99.99% pure. I would hope you can agree that this position of mine is FULLY in accord with the WS. 

What I see mostly from TR defenders, however, is an attempt (whether conscious or not) to disenfranchise people who hold to the CT. They cannot be confessionally Reformed, or at least they cannot be consistently Reformed, and only the TR position is Reformed. This goes too far, in my opinion. I have never seen anyone from the CT position claim that TR folk cannot be confessionally Reformed. I have seen the reverse, and I do not think there is any world of discourse where that is appropriate. 

I would like to brag for a minute about one of my professors, Dr. Michael Barrett. I took a class from him a little over a year ago, Fall of 2017, on textual criticism of the OT and NT. Dr. Barrett holds to the Majority Text position, rejects the idea of "families" of manuscripts, and holds that the oldest reading (not the oldest manuscript) is what we should be after. He rejects the CT position, but he is the farthest thing from rejecting CT brothers as being Reformed. He holds his position firmly, but with the utmost charity, and he did not grade me down on a paper that I wrote with which he had quite a few disagreements. I wish TR and Majority Text people were more like him.

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 1 | Sad 1


----------



## greenbaggins

Andrew P.C. said:


> Although one can talk about textual issues, variations, and other related issues, that is not the main issue with TR.
> 
> The CT position claims to be rebuilding or reconstructing the “original”. This is the ideaological method they use. The TR position claims that the Word of God has been kept pure through all ages, in that there isn’t anything to reconstruct as we haven’t lost anything.
> 
> These are what I have seen.



The TR is exactly that: a reconstructing and rebuilding of the original with only about 15 manuscripts and the Complutensian Polyglot. What do you think Stephanus was doing if not seeking to rebuild the original? It is amazing to me that TR defenders seek to put this vast gulf between the idealogies of the TR and the CT, as if they both weren't actually trying to do the exact same thing! The CT position holds that the original readings are out there in the manuscripts. Isn't that the same thing that the TR position holds? The only real difference, it seems to me, is that the TR holds that only Byzantine readings are allowed to be original, because use in the church is the only providence of which God is capable with regard to manuscripts. Hiding them away for later use is not something God could possibly do. I reject a narrow view of God's providence. Furthermore, Vaticanus was in Rome for centuries. If it be objected that this is the RCC, then I would point out Erasmus was a Roman Catholic, and was heavily involved in the origin of the TR.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 3 | Funny 2


----------



## py3ak

greenbaggins said:


> He holds his position firmly, but with the utmost charity, and he did not grade me down on a paper that I wrote with which he had quite a few disagreements. I wish TR and Majority Text people were more like him.



Just as an aside, this works both ways. Students who have presuppositional and methodological concerns with contemporary textual criticism do not necessarily have the confidence that their work won't be marked down for disagreements.


----------



## TylerRay

I'd like someone to tell me what a TR manuscript is, or what the TR textual tradition is.


----------



## greenbaggins

py3ak said:


> Just as an aside, this works both ways. Students who have presuppositional and methodological concerns with contemporary textual criticism do not necessarily have the confidence that their work won't be marked down for disagreements.



I'm sure you're right. CT is such the majority position that many professors forget that there are plausible arguments for the TR position, and that they should deal with the TR folk with as much charity as they would hope to have if the positions were reversed. 

Tyler, TR stands, in this case, for "Textus Receptus," the Greek text of the NT published by Robert Stephanus in the 1540's, building on Erasmus's work. Generally, the TR is known for representing the Byzantine manuscript tradition.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TylerRay

greenbaggins said:


> Tyler, TR stands, in this case, for "Textus Receptus," the Greek text of the NT published by Robert Stephanus in the 1540's, building on Erasmus's work. Generally, the TR is known for representing the Byzantine manuscript tradition.


Lane,
Thanks--I think you may have missed my point. The TR isn't a manuscript tradition, nor are there "TR manuscripts." That kind of sloppy language keeps getting used on this thread, implying that only a limited "family" of manuscripts is consulted when criticism is done from a TR perspective. My understanding is that Beza, the KJV translators, etc. consulted texts of the so-called Alexandrian text type, as well as texts from the so-called Byzantine text type when doing their textual criticism.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins

TylerRay said:


> Lane,
> Thanks--I think you may have missed my point. The TR isn't a manuscript tradition, nor are there "TR manuscripts." That kind of sloppy language keeps getting used on this thread, implying that only a limited "family" of manuscripts is consulted when criticism is done from a TR perspective. My understanding is that Beza, the KJV translators, etc. consulted texts of the so-called Alexandrian text type, as well as texts from the so-called Byzantine text type when doing their textual criticism.



Then you didn't make your point very clear. Yes, the scholars who published the TR consulted manuscripts that have Alexandrian text type (in fact, that is WHY I used the word "generally"). They rejected almost all Alexandrian readings if they differed from the Byzantine. I didn't say that the TR was a manuscript tradition. Nowhere have I said that. The TR is a Greek edition of the NT that is actually eclectic within the Byzantine manuscripts. Those who engage in textual criticism who favor the TR don't use the other manuscripts if they reject them, such as Burgon does! He only examines the Alexandrian texts to reject them. By "TR manuscripts" I only mean the manuscripts that were used to create the Greek edition of the TR. So, no sloppiness is in evidence.


----------



## JimmyH

I've posted the following before, long ago, in another thread where the TR vs the CT creds were being debated ... I post it again because I feel, from a CT perspective it is worth noting. FJA Hort, co translator with BF Westcott of a critical text of the GNT, wrote this in the introduction to his explanation of the W&H translation, 'Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek.' 1896, reprint Hendrikson 1988. Underlined and emboldened text, by me, are the points I wanted to stress.


> *With regard to the great bulk of the words of the New Testament, *as of most other ancient writings*, there is no variation or other ground of doubt, and therefore no room for textual criticism *; and here therefore an editor is merely a transcriber. The same may be said with substantial truth respecting those various readings which have never been received, and in all probability never will be received, into any printed text. *The proportion of words virtually accepted on all hands as raised above doubt is very great,* not less, on a rough computation, than seven eighths of the whole. The remaining eighth therefore, formed in great part by *changes of order and other comparative trivialities, constitutes the whole area of criticism.*
> 
> If the principles followed in the present edition are sound, this area may be very greatly reduced. Recognising to the full the duty of abstinence from peremptory decision in cases where the evidence leaves the judgment in suspense between two or more readings, we find that,* setting aside differences of orthography, the words in our opinion still subject to doubt only make up about one sixtieth of the whole New Testament *In this second estimate the proportion of comparatively trivial variations is beyond measure larger than in the former; *so that the amount of what can in any sense be called substantial variation is but a small fraction of the whole residuary variation, and can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text*.
> 
> Since there is reason to suspect that *an exaggerated impression prevails as to the extent of possible textual corruption in the New Testament,* which might seem to be confirmed by language used here and there in the following pages, we desire to make it clearly understood beforehand how much of the New Testament stands in no need of a textual critic's labours.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Johann Amadeus Schubert

BayouHuguenot said:


> Unless it can be demonstrated that these fragments are earlier (e.g., being Used by Irenaeus, Tatian, etc).
> 
> And if we judge doctrine by the text, and not the other way around, then it is the text that determines doctrine, not doctrine that determines text.
> 
> What I am seeing is the exact same argument that EO use: "If we don't presuppose that God promised to be with his church and keep the doctrine pure, even if we don't have textual evidence for the earliest claims, then what can we possibly believe?"



Hello Jacob,

It would seem unlikely that these fragments were used earlier and then lost for it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

I believe that Scripture is the first principle in the supernatural order and is self- attesting. The text manifests the doctrine and the doctrine affirms the text.

Textual evidence is very important. But they are secondary and should conform to Scripture. The science of textual evidence according to natural man is fallible. Therefore it must be subjected and taken captive to faith.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan

TylerRay said:


> Lane,
> Thanks--I think you may have missed my point. The TR isn't a manuscript tradition, nor are there "TR manuscripts." That kind of sloppy language keeps getting used on this thread, implying that only a limited "family" of manuscripts is consulted when criticism is done from a TR perspective. My understanding is that Beza, the KJV translators, etc. consulted texts of the so-called Alexandrian text type, as well as texts from the so-called Byzantine text type when doing their textual criticism.



I think there is unfortunately sloppy language all over, and I'm certainly guilty of it too. It seems that even TR advocates often disagree on what constitutes the TR (I could name five different views just from the members on this board)!

The TR published by TBS and that seems to be most common was in some sense a reconstruction from the KJV, by Scrivener, of the manuscripts and published texts available to the translators. Those manuscripts were no longer available so it seems to be something of an "eclectic text" (irony). My understanding is that it contains a few readings not found any surviving manuscript. Isn't that the sort of thing the CT gets criticized for?

I'm with Lane here. It's hard for me to see the major technical difference in process...


----------



## Johann Amadeus Schubert

Grant Jones said:


> Why is it assumed that the manuscripts used in CT are ALL corrupted? You seem to only apply the above truth to the TR manuscripts. This does not seem logical and further seems to break your own rule. Unless you only view the TR manuscripts as being valid. Again, did God not preserve the other manuscripts?



Hello Grant,

God did not preserve all the CT manuscripts throughout the ages. There are recent discoveries of fragments that have been lost for centuries. It seems unlikely that God would bestow such an inestimable treasure upon his church and then take it away.


----------



## Smeagol

Johann Amadeus Schubert said:


> Hello Grant,
> 
> God did not preserve all the CT manuscripts throughout the ages. There are recent discoveries of fragments that have been lost for centuries. It seems unlikely that God would bestow such an inestimable treasure upon his church and then take it away.


 
The God I read of in scripture often gives and takes away as he sees fit NOT as it makes sense to us. I am not trying to totally imply that with the preservation of his word, as I believe he has preserved it in all ages and in more manuscripts than the TR is based on. I am not willing to say God did not have a GOOD plan with the CT just because I cannot understand all the ways our Lord works. Even if we had 0 bibles left in the world, the Lord would still provide for his sheep I assure you.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Johann Amadeus Schubert said:


> It would seem unlikely that these fragments were used earlier and then lost for it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.



That's true only if you equate the fullness of Scripture with the apographa. And historically if we have evidence that some fathers used these fragments, and then they were lost, then that seems like my point.


Johann Amadeus Schubert said:


> I believe that Scripture is the first principle in the supernatural order and is self- attesting. The text manifests the doctrine and the doctrine affirms the text.



Depends on the doctrine in question. Trinity? Sure, but because it was able to be defended by guys like Athanasius who did not resort to the Johannine Comma, for example.



Johann Amadeus Schubert said:


> Textual evidence is very important. But they are secondary and should conform to Scripture



But God didn't give us fully intact Protestant canons. Men had to do the hard work of recovering manuscripts, some of which were damaged in persecution, and others damaged by time.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

When an apostle wrote a piece of Scripture, did the papyrus and parchment suddenly take on the properties of immutability and eternity? Of course not. They were copied and sometimes tricks of the eye came in (autou becomes auton, for example). And given that the script was often written without spaces, it was sometimes a judgment call. This is how copying ancient documents worked.

And yet God didn't seem too bothered by it.


----------



## TylerRay

Logan said:


> I think there is unfortunately sloppy language all over, and I'm certainly guilty of it too. It seems that even TR advocates often disagree on what constitutes the TR (I could name five different views just from the members on this board)!
> 
> The TR published by TBS and that seems to be most common was in some sense a reconstruction from the KJV, by Scrivener, of the manuscripts and published texts available to the translators. Those manuscripts were no longer available so it seems to be something of an "eclectic text" (irony). My understanding is that it contains a few readings not found any surviving manuscript. Isn't that the sort of thing the CT gets criticized for?
> 
> I'm with Lane here. It's hard for me to see the major technical difference in process...


I agree about the sloppiness. Things get muddled pretty quickly in a venue like this. That's not to say anything against thr PB--it's just hard to have a technical conversation on an online forum.

I can't speak to the Scrivener issue. All I know is that the goal was to present the Greek that underlies the KJV.


----------



## Logan

TylerRay said:


> I can't speak to the Scrivener issue. All I know is that the goal was to present the Greek that underlies the KJV.



It's an interesting goal, to be sure. Not necessarily a bad one but probably not the best one either.


----------



## TylerRay

greenbaggins said:


> Then you didn't make your point very clear. Yes, the scholars who published the TR consulted manuscripts that have Alexandrian text type (in fact, that is WHY I used the word "generally"). They rejected almost all Alexandrian readings if they differed from the Byzantine. I didn't say that the TR was a manuscript tradition. Nowhere have I said that. The TR is a Greek edition of the NT that is actually eclectic within the Byzantine manuscripts. Those who engage in textual criticism who favor the TR don't use the other manuscripts if they reject them, such as Burgon does! He only examines the Alexandrian texts to reject them. By "TR manuscripts" I only mean the manuscripts that were used to create the Greek edition of the TR. So, no sloppiness is in evidence.


Lane,
Please understand that my statement was not directed to you in particular. The OP speaks of a TR manuscript tradition, and that sort of language has been used here and there throughout the thread.

As for my point being clear, I assumed it would be understood in light of what I've said elsewhere in this thread. I've emphasized several times that there are no TR manuscripts, no TR manuscript tradition, etc., and that the various editions of the TR are critical editions of the Greek testament.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay

Logan said:


> It's an interesting goal, to be sure. Not necessarily a bad one but probably not the best one either.


It's useful for those who use the KJV. There's no reason it should be viewed as the definitive edition, though.


----------



## JimmyH

Logan said:


> I think there is unfortunately sloppy language all over, and I'm certainly guilty of it too. It seems that even TR advocates often disagree on what constitutes the TR (I could name five different views just from the members on this board)!
> 
> *The TR published by TBS and that seems to be most common was in some sense a reconstruction from the KJV, by Scrivener, of the manuscripts and published texts available to the translators. Those manuscripts were no longer available so it seems to be something of an "eclectic text" (irony). My understanding is that it contains a few readings not found any surviving manuscript.* Isn't that the sort of thing the CT gets criticized for?
> 
> I'm with Lane here. It's hard for me to see the major technical difference in process...


Interestingly enough, I listened to James White presenting a class on the TR and textual criticism a week or two ago on youtube here. I had bought the edition of the TR published by the Trinitarian Bible Society, not knowing that it was the Scrivener translation.
Why would that be a problem ? Well ... according to David Norton, in his The King James Bible, A Short History, From Tyndale To Today, Skivener edited the original edition of the Cambridge Paragraph Bible by making changes he 'thought' were accurate, without the textual evidence to prove it.
Page 180;


> Implicit here and throughout is the idea that an editor's duty is to perfect the text in the light of the originals. By highlighting the translator's human infirmity, Scrivener opened the way to changing the text even where there is no printing error involved. This aligns him with previous editors, feeling himself able to correct the text where he judges the translators to have erred as translators. So aiming to give the text 'in the precise shape that it _would_ have assumed', Scrivener is giving it in the shape he thinks it _should_ have assumed. He tests the variants not by the evidence for the translator's judgments but by his view of how the original texts should have been translated. The result is more conservative than Blayney's text, for he restores about a third of the original readings (listed in his appendix C) but the reader of The Cambridge Paragraph Bible can never be certain that the text is that of the translators because Scrivener is at heart a reviser.



In the aforementioned video @ 3:10 James White says that Scrivener used manuscripts by Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and compared them with one another, then back translated 'his' TR from the English translation of the KJV. Apparently Scrivener wanted a TR text that was as close as possible to what the KJV translators had. This was more difficult because they relied so much on Tyndale, further obscuring the original textual sources.

James White says, "This is a Greek text based on an English translation." JW says somewhere in the video, that there is no Greek manuscript in existence that reads exactly as the Scrivener translation.That said, it is a really nicely done edition, as far as the fonts, and the quality of the printed book. Whether Scrivener, as in the Cambridge Paragraph Bible, allowed his presuppositional biases to influence his translation is something I wonder about. At this stage of my struggle to learn koine it isn't an issue, because I'm still a neophyte with a long way to go to have the ability to read it fluently. I only bring it up to disseminate the information.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay

JimmyH said:


> Interestingly enough, I listened to James White presenting a class on the TR and textual criticism a week or two ago on youtube here. I had bought the edition of the TR published by the Trinitarian Bible Society, not knowing that it was the Scrivener translation.
> Why would that be a problem ? Well ... according to David Norton, in his The King James Bible, A Short History, From Tyndale To Today, Skivener edited the original edition of the Cambridge Paragraph Bible by making changes he 'thought' were accurate, without the textual evidence to prove it.
> Page 180;
> 
> 
> In the aforementioned video @ 3:10 James White says that Scrivener used manuscripts by Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and compared them with one another, then back translated 'his' TR from the English translation of the KJV. Apparently Scrivener wanted a TR text that was as close as possible to what the KJV translators had. This was more difficult because they relied so much on Tyndale, further obscuring the original textual sources.
> 
> James White says, "This is a Greek text based on an English translation." JW says somewhere in the video, that there is no Greek manuscript in existence that reads exactly as the Scrivener translation.That said, it is a really nicely done edition, as far as the fonts, and the quality of the printed book. Whether Scrivener, as in the Cambridge Paragraph Bible, allowed his presuppositional biases to influence his translation is something I wonder about. At this stage of my struggle to learn koine it isn't an issue, because I'm still a neophyte with a long way to go to have the ability to read it fluently. I only bring it up to disseminate the information.


We're getting pretty far afield of the OP, but I just want to say that, from what I understand, this is a very unfair representation of Scrivener's work. His NT is based on the KJV in the sense that he chose his Greek readings based on the KJV. His goal was to show the text which underlies the KJV. To be clear: Scrivener was not a TR guy--he held to the genealogical method, and preferred the so-called Byzantine text. Also, he did not have a superstitious attachment to the KJV--he helped produce the RV.


----------



## bookslover

Johann Amadeus Schubert said:


> The science of textual criticism is important but it must not be primary or on par with what Holy Scripture says but instead subservient to it.



Well, the science of textual criticism has, as its burden, determining the true text of Scripture by comparing and contrasting all of the existing manuscripts (both fragments and entire manuscripts). So, its job is to determine what Scripture says - so it's not a matter of textual criticism being "subservient" to the Bible, since it's determining what the Bible says (while not being involved with its interpretation).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JimmyH

TylerRay said:


> We're getting pretty far afield of the OP, but I just want to say that, from what I understand, this is a very unfair representation of Scrivener's work. His NT is based on the KJV in the sense that he chose his Greek readings based on the KJV. His goal was to show the text which underlies the KJV. To be clear: Scrivener was not a TR guy--he held to the genealogical method, and preferred the so-called Byzantine text. Also, he did not have a superstitious attachment to the KJV--he helped produce the RV.


Brother Tyler, who do you identify as being unfair in representing Scivener's work ? if you're referring to my speculation regarding his handling of the text, that was based on Norton's description of Scrivener's editing of the CPB. I did not say that he translated based on his bias, if he had any, I said that I hoped he didn't.


----------



## TylerRay

JimmyH said:


> Brother Tyler, who do you identify as being unfair in representing Scivener's work ? if you're referring to my speculation regarding his handling of the text, that was based on Norton's description of Scrivener's editing of the CPB. I did not say that he translated based on his bias, if he had any, I said that I hoped he didn't.


I was mainly referring to White's statement about it being a Greek edition based on an English version. I'll have to watch the video myself--forgive me for commenting before having done so, but White isn't known for being terribly charitable toward those with whom he disagrees on textual-critical issues.


----------



## JimmyH

TylerRay said:


> I was mainly referring to White's statement about it being a Greek edition based on an English version. I'll have to watch the video myself--forgive me for commenting before having done so, but White isn't known for being terribly charitable toward those with whom he disagrees on textual-critical issues.


Thank you for the clarification Tyler. Here is a bit of info I found on a site devoted to the TR. I found it in a google search, so I don't endorse it since I only discovered it tonight, but below is a little bio of Scrivener's TR ;


> In the latter part of the 19th century, F. H. A. Scrivener produced an edition of the Greek New Testament which reflects the Textus Receptus underlying the English Authorised Version.
> 
> F. H. A. Scrivener (1813-1891) attempted to reproduce as exactly as possible the Greek text which underlies the Authorised Version of 1611. However, the AV was not translated from any one printed edition of the Greek text. The AV translators relied heavily upon the work of William Tyndale and other editions of the English Bible. Thus there were places in which it is unclear what the Greek basis of the New Testament was. Scrivener in his reconstructed and edited text used as his starting point the Beza edition of 1598, identifying the places where the English text had different readings from the Greek. He examined eighteen editions of the Textus Receptus to find the correct Greek rendering, and made the changes to his Greek text. When he finished he had produced an edition of the Greek New Testament which more closely underlies the text of the AV than any one edition of the Textus Receptus.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

JimmyH said:


> Interestingly enough, I listened to James White presenting a class on the TR and textual criticism a week or two ago on youtube here. I had bought the edition of the TR published by the Trinitarian Bible Society, not knowing that it was the Scrivener translation.
> Why would that be a problem ? Well ... according to David Norton, in his The King James Bible, A Short History, From Tyndale To Today, Skivener edited the original edition of the Cambridge Paragraph Bible by making changes he 'thought' were accurate, without the textual evidence to prove it.
> Page 180;
> 
> 
> In the aforementioned video @ 3:10 James White says that Scrivener used manuscripts by Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and compared them with one another, then back translated 'his' TR from the English translation of the KJV. Apparently Scrivener wanted a TR text that was as close as possible to what the KJV translators had. This was more difficult because they relied so much on Tyndale, further obscuring the original textual sources.
> 
> James White says, "This is a Greek text based on an English translation." JW says somewhere in the video, that there is no Greek manuscript in existence that reads exactly as the Scrivener translation.That said, it is a really nicely done edition, as far as the fonts, and the quality of the printed book. Whether Scrivener, as in the Cambridge Paragraph Bible, allowed his presuppositional biases to influence his translation is something I wonder about. At this stage of my struggle to learn koine it isn't an issue, because I'm still a neophyte with a long way to go to have the ability to read it fluently. I only bring it up to disseminate the information.



While I certainly appreciate Dr. White, his assertions regarding textual criticism are often inaccurate.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay

JimmyH said:


> Thank you for the clarification Tyler. Here is a bit of info I found on a site devoted to the TR. I found it in a google search, so I don't endorse it since I only discovered it tonight, but below is a little bio of Scrivener's TR ;


That's a fair statement. The thing I run into from time to time is people claiming that Scrivener essentially made up Greek translations of portions of the NT. What he actually did was collate manuscripts/editions of the GNT to produce an edition that reflects the readings that the KJV translators chose. Think of the significance of that, especially at a time when almost everyone was still using the KJV: now, you can go straight from your KJV to your GNT to help with exegesis.

What makes it all the more interesting is that Scrivener himself didn't believe that all the readings in his TR were authentic!


----------



## Tom Hart

greenbaggins said:


> I will tell you my position: the Word of God has been kept pure in all ages. Notice that the word "absolutely 100%" does not occur prior to the word "pure" in the WS, nor does it in the phrasing of my opinion.



Consider me an interested bystander. I know too little about these issues to make a case one way or the other, but your definition of pure strikes me as odd.

Imagine a glass of pure water. Then imagine I dropped a tiny drop of ink into it. Once it's been mixed in, you might not even be able to see with your naked eye or taste it on your tongue. But once that ink has been added, can the water truly be called _pure_?

Normally, of course, we don't put our drinking water under a microscope to find any sort of corruption in it. Most of the time we just drink it without a second thought, since we trust that it is _pure enough_. But under a microscope that ink will show up.

You are saying that "pure" does not have to mean "one hundred percent pure", or that if one means "one hundred percent pure" then one has to say exactly that. In fact, if you use the word _pure_ to mean "less than 100% pure" then, aware of it or not, you are using it differently to any widely understood sense.

I would also ask how you think the Westminster Divines themselves would answer your understanding of the term. They were not ambiguous elsewhere; further, the context of "pure in all ages" does not seem to lead to your view.



greenbaggins said:


> The TR is mostly pure, and the pure doctrine of God comes through it. Its errors of transmission are mostly insignificant in nature. The CT offers a corrective to the TR that can make it even more pure.



Once more, if something is already pure, how can it be made more pure? Your peculiar use of the word _pure_ is causing me some confusion here.

If God has kept his word pure in all ages, how can we by our effort make it more pure?

My argument is not with CT; I simply don't see the views you have expressed as consistent with the WCF.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Tom Hart said:


> If God has kept his word pure in all ages, how can we by our effort make it more pure?



If the TR isn't attested in the earliest mss, then we are simply assuming that it is in the earliest mss because God kept his word pure. That is asserting the consequent.


----------



## Tom Hart

I am quite prepared to be educated here.

First off, what did the Wesminster Divines mean by "pure in all ages"? Can that view stand today?


----------



## RamistThomist

Tom Hart said:


> I am quite prepared to be educated here.
> 
> First off, what did the Wesminster Divines mean by "pure in all ages"? Can that view stand today?



As Mr Coldwell said, we don't know. We don't have any minutes on that (that I am aware of).


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I asked this above also. I have found a partial answer to it in a review done in last year's issue of _The Confessional Presbyterian_. Garnet Milne in his book offers a whole chapter on the question of what is meant by "pure in all ages", for which he marshals sources (I don't have the book but I assume he found the same thing that the Minutes themselves shed no light on the question of what was meant by pure in all ages). But you can see from the below review by a trustworthy scholar, Dr. Ben Shaw (GPTS) that the chapter is not clear. Ben offers his summation of what he thinks Milne means, with which he agrees. Ben also gives me an answer to my other question, that in actuality the differences in the critical text are more significant than the corruptions the Reformers noted in the Latin text in their polemics against Rome in her claims the Latin text was superior because of the many corruptions they saw between the Greek texts of the day. So I have to ask, what would the reformers have thought, and the Romanists, of a critical text that upturned the argument completely in being more 'corrupt' than the vulgate was 'corrupt' compared with the Greek manuscripts the Protestants had up to the time of the Westminster assembly? Again the context of 1.8 is Rome's claim. What impact does that have on the Westminster divines' intent in 1.8. Ben Shaw, "Review: Garnet Howard Milne, _Has the Bible Been Kept Pure? The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Providential Preservation of Scripture _(Author published, 2017), _The Confessional Presbyterian_ 14 (2018), 226. You can purchase the journal here. Milne's book can be bought in digital version for $2.99 here.
Milne concludes this key chapter with the following statement: “When the Westminster divines wrote that God had kept the Scriptures pure in all ages (WCF 1:8), they specifically stated that these were the original texts that had been immediately inspired by God. This means that the very same text God had dictated to the penmen of Scripture had been kept intact and as a consequence, it was deemed “authentical”, containing their own intrinsic authority, and this text was therefore to be appealed to by the Church “in all controversies of religion’” (149). This again appears to be a problematic statement. It is at best unclear, and certainly confusing.​
I think that what Milne ultimately intends to communicate is the following: first, the Westminster divines believed in the preservation of the biblical text by a special providence of God. Second, this special providence did not extend to the perfection of each manuscript copy. Instead, by a careful collation of the copies available, the pure Scripture was attainable. Third, this Scripture, preserved among many copies, was available to the church in any age, and would continue to be so available, due to the special providence of God.​
If that is indeed what Milne intends, I have to agree with him. However, I found the book less than helpful. There were too many instances, like those cited above, where Milne was unclear, or his language was insufficiently precise. I agree with his assessment of the modern situation, in that it often appears that New Testament text critics have little confidence that the Word they have is the final Word of God. I do not, however, think that Warfield and a few others are those primarily responsible for the present situation. Instead, that responsibility goes to Westcott and Hort, and the many who adopted the Westcott-Hort approach to textual criticism in the late nineteenth century. In some sense, textual criticism in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries has been a long footnote to the work of Westcott and Hort.​
As an interesting aside, I found in the course of researching for this review that the New Testament text held as standard by both the Roman Catholic Church (the Vulgate) and the Eastern Orthodox Church are both much closer to the Textus Receptus than to the modern eclectic text. Both the Vulgate and the Eastern Orthodox Greek text contain the long ending of Mark, the _pericope adulterae_ (John 7:53-8:11) and 1 John 5:7, the so-called Johannine Comma.​



Tom Hart said:


> I am quite prepared to be educated here.
> 
> First off, what did the Wesminster Divines mean by "pure in all ages"? Can that view stand today?

Reactions: Informative 3


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

BayouHuguenot said:


> As Mr Coldwell said, we don't know. We don't have any minutes on that (that I am aware of).



James Ussher's _Body of Divinity_ provides us with _some_ help (note that I say some help; it does not answer every question):

*How can the certain understanding of the Scriptures be taken out of the Original Tongues; considering the difference of Reading, which is in divers Copies both of Hebrew and Greek; as also the difficulty of some Words and Phrases upon which the best Translators cannot agree?*

Although in the Hebrew Copies there hath been observed by the Masorites some very few differences of Words, by similitude of Letters and Points; and by the Learned in the Greek Tongue there are like diversities of Reading noted in the Greek Text of the New Testament, which came by fault of the Writers: yet in most by circumstance of the place and conference of other places, the true reading may be discerned. And albeit in all it cannot, nor the Translator in all places determine the true interpretation; yet this diversity or difficulty can make no difference or uncertainty in the sum and substance of Christian Religion; because the Ten Commandments, and the principal Texts of Scripture on which the Articles of our Faith are grounded, the Sacraments instituted, the Form of Prayer taught, (which contain the sum and substance of Christian Religion) are without such diversity of Reading, or difficulty of Translating so plainly set down, and so precisely translated by consent of Learned Men in the Tongues, that no Man can make any doubt of them, or pick any quarrel against them.

James Ussher, _A Body of Divinity: or, the Sum and Substance of Christian Religion_, ed. Michael Nevarr (1648; Herndon VA: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2007), p. 20.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2


----------



## Logan

Tom Hart said:


> I am quite prepared to be educated here.
> 
> First off, what did the Wesminster Divines mean by "pure in all ages"? Can that view stand today?



By "pure", the Westminster Divines almost certainly do not mean what many proponents of the TR imply. In addition to Ussher's quite above (which is critical), Warfield compiled a list of writers from the period (including Westminster Divines) who said much the same thing (which I can type up if interested). The essentials were uncorrupted, the true reading can in most cases be discerned, the truth is to be found in all and not any one, etc.

I'm going to post some extensive quotes. I strongly urge anyone interested in the question of "pure" and what the Reformers and Divines would have meant, to read these, particularly as Turretin responds to the Roman Catholic claim of corruption. I can look up the page numbers later (Turretin was Vol 1 around pg 110) but I got these from my copies of Warfield's works and Turretin's Theology.



Warfield said:


> No doubt the authors of the Confession were far from being critics of the nineteenth century: they did not foresee the course of criticism nor anticipate the amount of labor which would be required for the reconstruction of the text of, say, the New Testament. Men like Lightfoot are found defending the readings of the common text against men like Beza; as there were some of them, like Lightfoot, who were engaged in the most advanced work which up to that time had been done on the Biblical text, Walton's "Polyglott," so others of them may have stood with John Owen, a few years later, in his strictures on that great work; and had their lot been cast in our day it is possible that many of them might have been of the school of Scrivener and Burgon, rather than that of Westcott and Hort. But whether they were good critics or bad is not the point. It admits of no denial that they explicitly recognized the fact that the text of the Scriptures had suffered corruption in process of transmission and affirmed that the "pure" text lies therefore not in one copy, but in all, and is to be attained not by simply reading the text in whatever copy may chance to fall into our hands, but by a process of comparison, i.e. by criticism. The affirmation of the Confession includes the two facts, therefore, first that the Scriptures in the originals were immediately inspired by God; and secondly that this inspired text has not been lost to the Church, but through God's good providence has been kept pure, amidst all the crowding errors of scribes and printers, and that therefore the Church still has the inspired Word of God in the originals, and is to appeal to it, and to it alone, as the final authority in all controversies of religion.





Turretin said:


> The question does not concern the irregular writing of words or the punctuation or the various readings (which all acknowledge do often occur); or whether the copies which we have so agree with the originals as to vary from them not even in a little point or letter. Rather the question is whether they so differ as to make the genuine corrupt and to hinder us from receiving the original text as a rule of faith and practice.
> The question is not as to the particular corruption of some manuscripts or as to the errors which have crept into the books of particular editions through the negligence of copyists or printers. All acknowledge the existence of many such small corruptions. The question is whether there are universal corruptions and errors so diffused through all the copies (both manuscript and edited) as that they cannot be restored and corrected by any collation of various copies, or of Scripture itself and of parallel passages. Are there real and true, and not merely apparent, contradictions? We deny the former.
> 
> The reasons are: (1) The Scriptures are inspired of God (theopneustos, 2 Tim 3:16). The word of God cannot lie (Ps 19:8-9; Heb 6:18); cannot pass away and be destroyed (Mat 5:18); shall endure forever (1 Pet 1:25); and is truth itself (John 17:17). For how could such things be predicated of it, if it contained dangerous contradictions, and if God suffered either the sacred writers to err and to slip in memory, or incurable blemishes to creep into it?
> 
> (2) Unless unimpaired integrity characterize the Scriptures, they could not be regarded as the sole rule of faith and practice, and the door would be thrown wide open to atheists, libertines, enthusiasts and other profane persons like them for destroying its authenticity and overthrowing the foundation of salvation. For since nothing false can be an object of faith, how can the Scriptures be held as authentic and reckoned divine if liable to contradictions and corruptions? Nor can it be said that these corruptions are only in smaller things which do not affect the foundation of faith. For if once the authenticity of the Scriptures is taken away (which would result even from the incurable corruption of one passage), how could our faith rest on what remains? And if corruption is admitted in those of lesser importance, why not in others of greater? Who could assure me that no error or blemish had crept into fundamental passages? Or what reply could be given to a subtle atheist or heretic who should pertinaciously assert that this or that passage less in his favor had been corrupted? It will not do to say that divine providence wished to keep it free from serious corruptions, but not from minor. For besides the fact that this is gratuitous, it cannot be held without injury, as if lacking in the necessary things which are required for the full credibility of Scripture itself. Nor can we readily believe that God, who dictated and inspired each and every word to these inspired men, would not take care of their entire preservation. If men use the utmost care diligently to preserve their words, especially if they are of any importance, as for example a testament or contract, in order that it may not be corrupted, how much more, must we suppose, would God take care of his word which he intended as a testament and seal of his covenant with us, so that it might not be corrupted; especially when he could easily forsee and prevent such corruptions in order to establish the faith of his church?
> 
> The principal arguments for the integrity of the Scriptures and the purity of the sources are four. (1) The chief of these is the providence of God, who as he wished to provide for our faith by inspiring the sacred writers as to what they should write, and by preserving the Scriptures against the attempts of enemies who have left nothing untried that they might destroy them, so he should keep them pure and uncorrupted in order that our faith might always have a firm foundation. (2) The religion of the Jews who have always been careful even to the point of superstition concerning the faithful keeping of the sacred manuscripts. (3) The diligence of the Masoretes who placed their marks as a hedge around the law that it might not in any way be changed or corrupted. (4) The number and multitude of copies, so that even if some manuscripts could be corrupted, yet all could not.





Turretin said:


> Although we give to the Scriptures absolute integrity, we do not therefore think that the copyists and printers were inspired, but only that the providence of God watched over the copying of the sacred books, so that although many errors might have crept in, it has not so happened (or they have not so crept into the manuscripts) but that they can be easily corrected by a collation of others (or with the Scriptures themselves). Therefore the foundation of the purity and integrity of the sources is not to be placed in the freedom from fault of men, but in the providence of God which (however men employed in transcribing the sacred books might possibly mingle various errors) always diligently took care to correct them, or that they might be corrected easily either from a comparison with Scripture itself or from more approved manuscripts. It was not necessary therefore to render all the scribes infallible, but only so to direct them that the true reading may always be found out. This book far surpasses all others in purity.





Turretin said:


> By the original texts, we do not mean the autographs written by the hand of Moses, of the prophets and of the apostles, which certainly do not now exist. We mean their apographs which are so called because they set forth to us the word of God in the very words of those who wrote under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
> 
> The question is not, are the sources so pure that no fault has crept into the many sacred manuscripts, either through the waste of time, the carelessness of copyists or the malice of the Jews or of heretics? For this is acknowledged on both sides and the various readings which Beza and Robert Stephanus have carefully observed in the Greek (and the Jews in the Hebrew) clearly prove it. Rather the question is have the original texts (or the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts) been so corrupted either by copyists through carelessness, or by the Jews or heretics through malice, that they can no longer be regarded as the judge of controversies and the rule to which all the versions must be applied? The papists affirm, we deny it.





Turretin said:


> Although various corruptions might have crept into the Hebrew manuscripts through the carelessness of transcribers and the waste of time, they do not cease to be a canon of faith and practice. For besides being in things of small importance and not pertaining to faith and practice (as Bellarmine himself confesses and which, moreover, he holds do not affect the integrity of the Scriptures), they are not universal in all the manuscripts; or they are not such as cannot easily be corrected from a collation of the Scriptures and the various manuscripts...
> 
> A corruption differs from a variant reading. We acknowledge that many variant readings occur both in the Old and New Testaments arising from a comparison of different manuscripts, but we deny corruption (at least corruption that is universal).



I think most CT people, particularly reformed, would not disagree with Turretin here, correct? At least acknowledge that? If the approach is textual emendation, then yeah, sure, there could be a problem, but is that really the case?

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 3 | Amen 2


----------



## Logan

Linked here is Scrivener's New Testament Greek (which I believe is the TBS TR and the TR many use as standard). Many CT people have their own positions to think more thoroughly through, but it is things like this that make me question the consistency of many of the positions stated by TR folks, things I think they just aren't aware of or have considered the implications of. It might seem a side-trail but I believe the implications are important, which is why I brougt it up earlier.

https://books.google.com/books?id=Ih43AAAAMAAJ

Here is what Scrivener says in the preface:



Scrivener said:


> The publication of an edition formed on this plan appeared to be all the more desirable as the Authorised Version was not a translation of any one Greek text then in existence, and no Greek text intended to reproduce in any way the original of the Authorised Version has ever been printed.
> 
> In considering what text had the best right to be regarded as "the text presumed to underlie the Authorised Version," it was necessary to take into account the composite nature of the Authorised Version, as due to successive revisions of Tyndale's translation. Tyndale himself followed the second and third editions of Erasmus's Greek text (1519, 1522). In the revisions of his translation previous to 1611 a partial use was made of other texts; of which ultimately the most influential were the various editions of Beza from 1560 to 1598, if indeed his Latin version of 1556 should not be included...the fifth and last text of 1598 was more likely than any other to be in the hands of King James's revisers, and to be accepted by them as the best standard within their reach. It is moreover found on comparison to agree more closely with the Authorised Version than any other Greek text...There are however many places in which the Authorised Version is at variance with Beza's text; chiefly because it retains language inherited from Tyndale or his successors, which had been founded on the text of other Greek editions. In these cases it is often doubtful how far the revisers of 1611 deliberately preferred a different Greek reading; for their attention was not specially directed to textual variations, and they might not have thought it necessary to weed out every rendering inconsistent with Beza's text, which might linger among the older and unchanged portions of the version. On the other hand some of the readings followed, though discrepant from Beza's text, may have seemed to be in a manner sanctioned by him, as he had spoken favourably of them in his notes; and others may have been adopted on independent grounds. These uncertainties do not however affect the present edition, in which the different elements that actually make up the Greek basis of the Authorised Version have an equal right to find a place. Wherever therefore the Authorised renderings agree with other Greek readings which might naturally be known through printed editions to the revisers of 1611 or their predecessors, Beza's reading has been displaced from the text in favour of the more truly representative reading...It was manifestly necessary to accept only Greek authority, though in some places the Authorised Version corresponds but loosely with any form of the Greek original, while it exactly follows the Latin Vulgate.



The goal of the project, and an admirable one, was to reproduce the Greek underlying the KJV, even where the KJV followed the Latin Vulgate and no known Greek. The result is almost of necessity going to be a franken-text, not representing any textual transmission processes. I have no idea why this is considered acceptable and "pure".

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## greenbaggins

Tom, the short answer to your question is that if your definition of "pure" has to be taken with regard to the WS, then we do not have God's Word at all, unless you are willing to claim that the autographs are 100% equal to a manuscript that we currently have. I am not willing to say that, and Stephanus was not willing to say that, since he based his edition on MORE THAN ONE manuscript. Logan brings up the other important answer to your question. The Westminster divines were almost certainly responding to RCC claims that Scripture had been badly corrupted in the manuscripts (hence the essential need for the magisterium). In that historical context, the Westminster divines were responding to the claim that the text was so corrupted that people couldn't read the Scriptures on their own. 

Your analogy of a drop of ink doesn't wash, if you'll pardon the pun, because it makes the mistake of the word-concept fallacy. What I mean by that is that word-order differences, different spellings of the same name, removal or addition of particles that often don't affect the basic meaning of the text would not constitute, any of them, corruption of the meaning of the text. The meaning of the text remains intact, and therefore pure. So, when I say that the TR is 98% pure, and relegate by far and away the majority of the remaining 2% of the differences to non-meaning-changing differences, I can still say that God's Word remains pure. By the careful comparison of manuscripts, we can arrive at the original reading in almost all cases. 

The problem here is that text-critical scholars often use the term "corruption" to describe something that is only a difference between two manuscripts. Then, when people see the term "corruption," they get really uptight about it, and start imputing intent to corrupt to the poor copiest who was only trying to do his best. It is one reason why I prefer the simpler and less fraught term "difference" to the term "corruption." 

One other thing needs to be kept in mind, folks, and that is that saying "omit" and "add" prejudges the particular reading, as if a standard is already assumed, and manuscripts that change anything from the already assumed standard are corrupting the text. If there is a difference, it is more accurate and less prejudicial to say "plus" for additional material in one manuscript and "minus" for less material in the other. That way it is not prejudged whether one manuscript added something or the other took it away. Lack of caution on this point is particular bad in TR advocates, I have noticed. They simply assume that the Alexandrian texts "omitted" something, without considering the possibility that the Byzantine manuscripts "added" something. Each reading must be considered on its own, since each reading has a completely different set of manuscript witnesses to it.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Johann Amadeus Schubert

Grant Jones said:


> The God I read of in scripture often gives and takes away as he sees fit NOT as it makes sense to us. I am not trying to totally imply that with the preservation of his word, as I believe he has preserved it in all ages and in more manuscripts than the TR is based on. I am not willing to say God did not have a GOOD plan with the CT just because I cannot understand all the ways our Lord works. Even if we had 0 bibles left in the world, the Lord would still provide for his sheep I assure you.



Hello Grant,

God's word to man is necessary for salvation. 

The CT has not been kept pure in all ages as we have newly discovered manuscripts that add or take away from what the church has always known. (I'm not saying the CT isn't sufficient for salvation)


----------



## Smeagol

Johann Amadeus Schubert said:


> The CT has not been kept pure in all ages


I fail to see this since we have them today and they date back for centuries. Just because “humans” did not find and use them does not mean they were not kept pure by our Lord. I see the discovery as a gift and not a curse from God.

If I pull out a bottle of wine from a 400 year old recently found wine cellar ... can I not say that the wine was being kept?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Johann Amadeus Schubert

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's true only if you equate the fullness of Scripture with the apographa. And historically if we have evidence that some fathers used these fragments, and then they were lost, then that seems like my point.



Hello Jacob,

I do equate the fullness of Scripture with the apographas. The providence of God would not permit one jot or one tittle to pass and his church labored to preserve it (Rom. 3:2). Although variants exist, they are not universal and they can be rectified through a collation of manuscripts.



BayouHuguenot said:


> Depends on the doctrine in question. Trinity? Sure, but because it was able to be defended by guys like Athanasius who did not resort to the Johannine Comma, for example.



God desired this doctrine to be preserved in writing (Luke 16:17).



BayouHuguenot said:


> But God didn't give us fully intact Protestant canons. Men had to do the hard work of recovering manuscripts, some of which were damaged in persecution, and others damaged by time.



Men had to do the hard work of discerning the correct reading from the various manuscripts that were always present with the church.


----------



## Johann Amadeus Schubert

bookslover said:


> Well, the science of textual criticism has, as its burden, determining the true text of Scripture by comparing and contrasting all of the existing manuscripts (both fragments and entire manuscripts). So, its job is to determine what Scripture says - so it's not a matter of textual criticism being "subservient" to the Bible, since it's determining what the Bible says (while not being involved with its interpretation).



Hello Richard,

Theology triumphs over science. And human reason must be brought in captivity when it exalts itself. Thus textual criticism should examine the manuscripts which the church has always known and preserved throughout the ages (Matt 5:18).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan

Johann Amadeus Schubert said:


> Hello Richard,
> 
> Theology triumphs over science. And human reason must be brought in captivity when it exalts itself. Thus textual criticism should examine the manuscripts which the church has always known and preserved throughout the ages (Matt 5:18).



Isn't that just pushing the problem back a step? Now we have to determine which manuscripts fit that qualification and we don't have a complete manuscript history so...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

Johann Amadeus Schubert said:


> which the church has always known and preserved throughout the ages (Matt 5:18).


The verses you keep using do NOT specify that the Church is the preserver, but rather the Lord.

Vince, I appreciate your imput, but your unwillingness to apply your logic with the CT manuscripts toward the TR manuscripts as well, sticks out like a soar thumb.

Further God has promised to preserve his word and should not be limited to do that in ways that WE think he should. The Lord uses mysterious ways at timeS to accomplish his promises.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

BayouHuguenot said:


> KJV-only advocates tell me that God providentially preserved the TR manuscript tradition. What verses in the Bible speak about God's preserving a specific textual tradition?


In the hope of focusing the discussion, a re-read of this 2008 thread is recommended:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/wcf-1-8-and-ct.40915/

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Johann Amadeus Schubert said:


> The providence of God would not permit one jot or one tittle to pass and his church labored to preserve it (Rom. 3:2).



Except the earliest fathers seemed to be unaware of the Johannine Comma. Secondly, that's not what that verse means.


Johann Amadeus Schubert said:


> Although variants exist, they are not universal and they can be rectified through a collation of manuscripts.



Which would then involve human judgment. This is special pleading.


Johann Amadeus Schubert said:


> God desired this doctrine to be preserved in writing (Luke 16:17).



That didn't answer my question, nor is anyone disputing this. 


Johann Amadeus Schubert said:


> Men had to do the hard work of discerning the correct reading from the various manuscripts that were always present with the church.



Precisely. It is the charge that many of the mss were not present.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Johann Amadeus Schubert said:


> Thus textual criticism should examine the manuscripts which the church has always known and preserved throughout the ages (Matt 5:18).



Then demonstrate the existence of the Johannine Comma during the time of Ignatius of Antioch, Tatian, and Papias.


----------



## Romans922

BayouHuguenot said:


> Except the earliest fathers seemed to be unaware of the Johannine Comma



Tertullian/Cyprian aren't early enough?

Further, please demonstrate such early church fathers who are aware of 1 John 5:6 or 5:8. It seems to me that those verses are mentioned no more/less than v7...


----------



## Dachaser

Romans922 said:


> I don't get this. Why are we talking about KJV or KJVO in this conversation that has nothing to do with English translations. It really is when you are start attacking whether on the puritanboard or elsewhere, it's just a strawman argument to somehow link those who believe in TR that they are somehow some of those crazy KJVO people. It's ridiculous and needs to stop.


I am not trying to attack anyone here on this issue, was just saying that based upon my encounters with those who are advocating for the validity of the TR being the best Greek text to use, nearly all of them also were in the KJVO position.
Other then those holding to the KJVO, who is advocating for the TR over either the MT/CT for use?


----------



## Dachaser

Logan said:


> I prefer "cutting to the chase" rather than "oversimplifying"
> 
> Thanks for the response. I have great respect for people like Maurice Robinson and would love to see the TR folks come together and produce a more critical version based off of Burgon's studies, Scrivener's, Robinson's etc., and really the past five centuries of TR use.


Isn't the 1894 Scrivener's Greek text considered by many to actually be the true TR for today?


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Unless it can be demonstrated that these fragments are earlier (e.g., being Used by Irenaeus, Tatian, etc).
> 
> And if we judge doctrine by the text, and not the other way around, then it is the text that determines doctrine, not doctrine that determines text.
> 
> What I am seeing is the exact same argument that EO use: "If we don't presuppose that God promised to be with his church and keep the doctrine pure, even if we don't have textual evidence for the earliest claims, then what can we possibly believe?"


Since many of the variants and manuscriptures were largely unknown at the time of the translation of the earlier English versions, are we just assuming here that they would have have just rejected all of them if available to them?
Did not both Erasmus and the KJV team themselves use some form of textual criticism?


----------



## Dachaser

Tom Hart said:


> Consider me an interested bystander. I know too little about these issues to make a case one way or the other, but your definition of pure strikes me as odd.
> 
> Imagine a glass of pure water. Then imagine I dropped a tiny drop of ink into it. Once it's been mixed in, you might not even be able to see with your naked eye or taste it on your tongue. But once that ink has been added, can the water truly be called _pure_?
> 
> Normally, of course, we don't put our drinking water under a microscope to find any sort of corruption in it. Most of the time we just drink it without a second thought, since we trust that it is _pure enough_. But under a microscope that ink will show up.
> 
> You are saying that "pure" does not have to mean "one hundred percent pure", or that if one means "one hundred percent pure" then one has to say exactly that. In fact, if you use the word _pure_ to mean "less than 100% pure" then, aware of it or not, you are using it differently to any widely understood sense.
> 
> I would also ask how you think the Westminster Divines themselves would answer your understanding of the term. They were not ambiguous elsewhere; further, the context of "pure in all ages" does not seem to lead to your view.
> 
> 
> 
> Once more, if something is already pure, how can it be made more pure? Your peculiar use of the word _pure_ is causing me some confusion here.
> 
> If God has kept his word pure in all ages, how can we by our effort make it more pure?
> 
> My argument is not with CT; I simply don't see the views you have expressed as consistent with the WCF.


The only pure source were the originals themselves...


----------



## RamistThomist

Romans922 said:


> Tertullian/Cyprian aren't early enough?



Their use is more of an echo/summary than an actual quote. And this passage wasn't really debate in the Nicene debates, which is odd. Passages like Prov 8 got all the attention, not 1 John 5.


----------



## Romans922

BayouHuguenot said:


> Their use is more of an echo/summary than an actual quote. And this passage wasn't really debate in the Nicene debates, which is odd. Passages like Prov 8 got all the attention, not 1 John 5.



So virtually no one talks about v.6 or 8, and it's a problem that v7 isn't mentioned?


----------



## Logan

Romans922 said:


> So virtually no one talks about v.6 or 8, and it's a problem that v7 isn't mentioned?



In the historical context of centuries of trinitarian debates...it's at least mystifying isn't it?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

Romans922 said:


> So virtually no one talks about v.6 or 8, and it's a problem that v7 isn't mentioned?



I should have been more specific. It isn't quoted by the early Greek fathers. Cyprian does allude to it.

In any case, it's absent from the Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, etc.


----------



## greenbaggins

Andrew, where do Tertullian and Cyprian show awareness of the Johannine Comma?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

greenbaggins said:


> Tom, the short answer to your question is that if your definition of "pure" has to be taken with regard to the WS, then we do not have God's Word at all, unless you are willing to claim that the autographs are 100% equal to a manuscript that we currently have. I am not willing to say that, and Stephanus was not willing to say that, since he based his edition on MORE THAN ONE manuscript. Logan brings up the other important answer to your question. The Westminster divines were almost certainly responding to RCC claims that Scripture had been badly corrupted in the manuscripts (hence the essential need for the magisterium). In that historical context, the Westminster divines were responding to the claim that the text was so corrupted that people couldn't read the Scriptures on their own.
> 
> Your analogy of a drop of ink doesn't wash, if you'll pardon the pun, because it makes the mistake of the word-concept fallacy. What I mean by that is that word-order differences, different spellings of the same name, removal or addition of particles that often don't affect the basic meaning of the text would not constitute, any of them, corruption of the meaning of the text. The meaning of the text remains intact, and therefore pure. So, when I say that the TR is 98% pure, and relegate by far and away the majority of the remaining 2% of the differences to non-meaning-changing differences, I can still say that God's Word remains pure. By the careful comparison of manuscripts, we can arrive at the original reading in almost all cases.
> 
> The problem here is that text-critical scholars often use the term "corruption" to describe something that is only a difference between two manuscripts. Then, when people see the term "corruption," they get really uptight about it, and start imputing intent to corrupt to the poor copiest who was only trying to do his best. It is one reason why I prefer the simpler and less fraught term "difference" to the term "corruption."
> 
> One other thing needs to be kept in mind, folks, and that is that saying "omit" and "add" prejudges the particular reading, as if a standard is already assumed, and manuscripts that change anything from the already assumed standard are corrupting the text. If there is a difference, it is more accurate and less prejudicial to say "plus" for additional material in one manuscript and "minus" for less material in the other. That way it is not prejudged whether one manuscript added something or the other took it away. Lack of caution on this point is particular bad in TR advocates, I have noticed. They simply assume that the Alexandrian texts "omitted" something, without considering the possibility that the Byzantine manuscripts "added" something. Each reading must be considered on its own, since each reading has a completely different set of manuscript witnesses to it.


Excellent summary here on this important topic, and would just add that when those against the CT claim that it is subtracting from the text, but that is based upon their assumption that the TR is the exact copy of the originals to us.
We do not even have today settled as to what would be the true and real TR text, as Erasmus used 6 of them, and the one most seen today as being that is the 1894 Scriveners, but there is some doubt as to its full validity .
We do not need any Greek text to be 100 % exact copy to the Originals themselves to be seen as the word of the Lord to us, and the TR/MT/CT all can be seen as being that to us in the Koine Greek for today.


----------



## Logan

Dachaser said:


> Excellent summary here on this important topic, and would just add that when those against the CT claim that it is subtracting from the text, but that is based upon their assumption that the TR is the exact copy of the originals to us.
> We do not even have today settled as to what would be the true and real TR text, as Erasmus used 6 of them, and the one most seen today as being that is the 1894 Scriveners, but there is some doubt as to its full validity .
> We do not need any Greek text to be 100 % exact copy to the Originals themselves to be seen as the word of the Lord to us, and the TR/MT/CT all can be seen as being that to us in the Koine Greek for today.



David, I mean this respectfully, but this makes almost no sense. I don't see any TR proponents (here at least) holding to these positions.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Logan said:


> David, I mean this respectfully, but this makes almost no sense. I don't see any TR proponents (here at least) holding to these positions.


Those holding to TR will many times claim that the CT and thus the modern translations made form it are omitting, deleting out large parts of the true word of God, but that is due to them assuming that the TR amount of words is actually better reflecting the originals to us.
Back to the OP, there is no scripture that I am aware of that supports any Greek text to be THE preserved one unto us for today to use and study.


----------



## Tom Hart

@Logan and @greenbaggins,

Thank you for your replies. You've given me a lot to think about on issues where my thinking is still not clear. I will be working on these issues, and I might eventually start a new thread.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

In the midst of various duties I have carefully followed this thread. It seems to me Jacob’s OP question was rhetorical, to the end of drawing out an answer that could be shot down, as Andrew (Romans922) appreciated in his post 22.

About the “genetic fallacy”: Westcott and Hort (W&H) and their text critical enterprise was not merely a neutral historical event, but a deliberate, reasoned attack on the Received Text / common Bible of the day, as documented by their own writings recorded in the memoirs of their sons. The seed of their work—their stated intentions and views and hoped-for results—when brought to bloom, completely overturn any sort of “genetic fallacy” accusation. They worked with a specific agenda in mind. To look at their work—the Critical Text they produced—apart from their agenda, is naïve. They gloried in their defense of the Unitarian Pastor, Dr. Vance Smith, being on the translation committee, who in turn gloried in their striking down the common reading of 1 Timothy 3:16 in the Greek, _theos _/ God, and in the English translation.

So with whatever esteem the CT is held in today—and Lane makes a good case for his position—it will not do to gloss over its beginnings with W&H.

I was interested in Lane’s view of CT-enamored folks in the Reformed camp, and he certainly expresses his—and many others’—position well, and convincingly. They hold what they believe in good conscience and rigorous scholarship (although “rigor”, in my view, does not always mean sound—but this is of course a moot point).

I also appreciated Logan’s continuing dogged examination of authors pertinent to the textual issue. This is such a wide-ranging and multifaceted discussion that for me to participate in it would require more time than I am willing to give, considering my duties.

In the end, I think Pastor Andrew Barnes’ view is that which is in accord with the WCF’s framers, though it be in the minority today. And Lane does well establish that the CTers among the Reformed do not lack godliness and are not to be looked down upon by their TR brethren, and vice versa.

This is one of the more civil extended TR-CT discussions on this board. And those convinced of their views appear to me to be like the Borg of Star Trek fame, who assimilate their opponents’ weaponry and come back stronger into the fray (this includes me), for we do grow from such interactions.

As a pastor (now retired) it has been incumbent upon me to preserve the unity of the church, and not divide it over the textual issues. I make it very clear in my teaching on textual matters that it is the variants I question and not the Bibles in the main. We should honor the word of God in all our Bibles, and keep this an academic and irenic discussion among good friends and brethren—for the Lord’s enemies are encircling us, and we need to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, for He is our strength, and the light of our lives.

Reactions: Like 10 | Edifying 1


----------



## greenbaggins

Steve, thanks for your post. It is very encouraging. I agree that the thread has been profitable. 

I do want to address the WH issue one more time. Even if WH had problems with their theology, that wouldn't make their textual decisions wrong. Besides, modern textual criticism has considerably nuanced and eclipsed WH's positions. For instance, CT advocates don't dismiss Byzantine readings nearly as thoroughly as WH did. And they don't weight Sinaiticus and Vaticanus quite as high as WH did either. 

Furthermore, there is a growing recognition that "family" relationships have to be considerably more nuanced than they used to be. It used to be the case that if a family relationship was shown to exist, then all the mss in the "family" only counted as one manuscript. Now that is considerably more nuanced, since "daughter" mss can be corrected against mss from a completely different tradition. So, the genealogical method is much more chastened now than it used to be, and I think that it all to the good. As I look at the genealogical method, it needs to be a question of relative weighting, not absolute. 

It is somewhat ironic in this discussion that reading Burgon's Revision Revised, while making me abhor his WAY over the top rhetoric on many issues, did convince me of his opinion on 1 Tim 3:16, of which his defense of the "theos" reading is quite masterful.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Tom Hart said:


> Consider me an interested bystander


Tom, you would have a vested interest in promoting the KJV. Does not the KJV say "As the *hart* panteth after the water brooks"

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Johann Amadeus Schubert

Grant Jones said:


> The verses you keep using do NOT specify that the Church is the preserver, but rather the Lord.
> 
> Vince, I appreciate your imput, but your unwillingness to apply your logic with the CT manuscripts toward the TR manuscripts as well, sticks out like a soar thumb.
> 
> Further God has promised to preserve his word and should not be limited to do that in ways that WE think he should. The Lord uses mysterious ways at timeS to accomplish his promises.



Hello Grant,

The Lord preserves his word through the medium of his church. (Rom. 3:2, 1st Tim. 3:15)

Thank you. I appreciate your input too but presuppositions based on first principles do not allow me to apply my logic concerning the CT.

God has promised to preserve his word according to his providence as revealed in his word.

I am thankful for Pastor Rafalsky's wise and encouraging post.

Grace and peace.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Johann Amadeus Schubert

BayouHuguenot said:


> Secondly, that's not what that verse means.



Hello Jacob,

The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law) from WCF 25.2

Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God (from WCF 25.3)



BayouHuguenot said:


> Which would then involve human judgment. This is special pleading.



Human judgment has various valid uses and should not be discounted but is not primary but secondary. Human judgment can be used but subservient to the faith. (Col 2:8)



BayouHuguenot said:


> That didn't answer my question, nor is anyone disputing this.



Sorry, I didn't see a question. I was just stating the doctrine.



BayouHuguenot said:


> Precisely. It is the charge that many of the mss were not present.



This is our fundamental difference.

I am thankful for Pastor Rafalsky's wise and encouraging post.

Grace and peace.


----------



## RamistThomist

Johann Amadeus Schubert said:


> This is our fundamental difference.



Great. Show me these ms readings. Show me early, pre-2nd century Greek mss having the Johannine comma.


----------



## Dachaser

greenbaggins said:


> Steve, thanks for your post. It is very encouraging. I agree that the thread has been profitable.
> 
> I do want to address the WH issue one more time. Even if WH had problems with their theology, that wouldn't make their textual decisions wrong. Besides, modern textual criticism has considerably nuanced and eclipsed WH's positions. For instance, CT advocates don't dismiss Byzantine readings nearly as thoroughly as WH did. And they don't weight Sinaiticus and Vaticanus quite as high as WH did either.
> 
> Furthermore, there is a growing recognition that "family" relationships have to be considerably more nuanced than they used to be. It used to be the case that if a family relationship was shown to exist, then all the mss in the "family" only counted as one manuscript. Now that is considerably more nuanced, since "daughter" mss can be corrected against mss from a completely different tradition. So, the genealogical method is much more chastened now than it used to be, and I think that it all to the good. As I look at the genealogical method, it needs to be a question of relative weighting, not absolute.
> 
> It is somewhat ironic in this discussion that reading Burgon's Revision Revised, while making me abhor his WAY over the top rhetoric on many issues, did convince me of his opinion on 1 Tim 3:16, of which his defense of the "theos" reading is quite masterful.


Even Dean Burgon saw the obvious need to have the TR revised in his day, and the KJV that it was based upon also though.


----------



## ZackF

Dachaser said:


> Even Dean Burgon saw the obvious need to have the TR revised in his day, and the KJV that it was based upon also though.


I’ve thought the TR as a CT edition(s) from an earlier time.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

See also:
https://chalcedon.edu/resources/books/jcr-vol-12-no-2-symposium-on-the-biblical-text-and-literature

The journal is available to read online at the link above. See Section 1. THE BIBLICAL TEXT starting at pg. 13 in the journal. The footnotes are copious throughout the articles in this section. Don't overlook them.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## greenbaggins

I wrote down the rules for NT textual criticism that I follow here, if anyone is interested.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Has the Bible Been Preserved for Us Today: https://www.challies.com/articles/has-the-bible-been-preserved-for-us-today/

Contains an informative graphic on the population categories of extant copies of NT manuscripts.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Johann Amadeus Schubert

BayouHuguenot said:


> Great. Show me these ms readings. Show me early, pre-2nd century Greek mss having the Johannine comma.



Hello Jacob,

Are you able to show early, pre-2nd-century Greek mss having the rest of the New Testament? 

Maybe start a new thread concerning the validity of the Johannine comma?

Thank you.


----------



## JimmyH

Johann Amadeus Schubert said:


> Hello Jacob,
> 
> Are you able to show early, pre-2nd-century Greek mss having the rest of the New Testament?
> 
> Maybe start a new thread concerning the validity of the Johannine comma?
> 
> Thank you.


Here are search results on PB for Johannine. Plenty to read for those with the time and the inclination. There have been a few threads on the subject in the past ...

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Johann Amadeus Schubert said:


> Are you able to show early, pre-2nd-century Greek mss having the rest of the New Testament?



are you asking if there is a pre second century complete Greek NT ms? Of course there isn't. That's not how the canonization process worked. We have specific copies of mss as early as 150 AD. Authors of Scripture wrote individual gospels or a specific letter in response to a specific location. Those deteriorated over time (because the parchment didn't have the property of immutability). Therefore, copies were made. Copies of copies. We have access to those. That's how the text works.

And to say that "one jot or tittle" means that God won't let his church be without his word is extremely problematic. The Syriac translations (very early) didn't have the book of Revelation, yet the Syrians were the most energetic preservers of Scripture.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor

BayouHuguenot said:


> And to say that "one jot or tittle" means that God won't let his church be without his word is extremely problematic.



Not to mention the fact that, exegetically speaking, Jesus in Matthew 5:17 ff. isn’t speaking of textual transmission, but of the abiding nature of the content of the law-word. I think that to apply this passage to textual transmission issues is dubious, at very best.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Tom Hart

Taylor Sexton said:


> Not to mention the fact that, exegetically speaking, Jesus in Matthew 5:17 ff. isn’t speaking of textual transmission, but of the abiding nature of the content of the law-word. I think that to apply this passage to textual transmission issues is dubious, at very best.



That verse is cited in WCF 1.8.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hi Jacob, from the below info from Jeff Riddle, it is clear there are no early MSS that have the text of 1 John 5:7-8, so to ask for them is pointless.

Jeff Riddle on his blog (http://www.jeffriddle.net/2017/08/wm-79-topics-on-text-and-translation.html) posts this:

First, I’d point readers to my blog post on the CJ and the Papyri. In that post, I point out that there is, in fact, very little early evidence (papyri evidence) for the general epistles and for 1 John. There are only two papyri with fragments of 1 John (p9 from the third century and p74 from the seventh century, and neither of these include the text of 1 John 5:7-8). What can be said is that the CJ is not the uncials Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, but these are clearly texts that do not support the traditional text, so this comes as no surprise.

Second, I’d note that it is not exactly accurate to say that the CJ is not supported by any ancient witnesses (even if those witnesses are not Greek mss.). It appears in Priscillian’s _Liber Apologeticus_ (c. 382) and in several early Latin mss of the Bible. So, the CJ is clearly not a late fabrication, even if it does not appear in a Greek mss until the 15th century. Note: At least it does appear in several Greek mss, unlike the conjectural reading at 2 Peter 3:10 in the NA28 which has no Greek mss support at all!​
Vince, the post (137) by JimmyH shows how extensively and *in*tensively the 1 John 5:7 issue has been discussed here. I think you’d enjoy it. I appreciate your thinking. You might like Riddle’s link just above on the CJ and the Papyri.

Even so, this discussion does not seem to be bearing fruit, as the present matter has been thoroughly examined, and no new info is being presented. Many of us are looking for new insights, clearer understanding, or new information. Why rehash old material?


----------



## RamistThomist

Tom Hart said:


> That verse is cited in WCF 1.8.



Which the divines didn't want to put in there, as they were forced to by Parliament. 

In any case, Jesus isn't referring to NT textual transmission, but to his own fulfilling of the Law and Prophets.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Romans922

BayouHuguenot said:


> Which the divines didn't want to put in there, as they were forced to by Parliament.



Who chose to put the verse there: the Divines or Parliament? Who chose what verse to put there: The Divines or Parliament?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

The WA did not want to put scripture proofs but that does not mean when it was clear they had to, that they believed the ones they were tasked with providing were somehow bogus.


BayouHuguenot said:


> Which the divines didn't want to put in there, as they were forced to by Parliament.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Tom Hart

BayouHuguenot said:


> Which the divines didn't want to put in there, as they were forced to by Parliament.



It's there, and the Divines put it there.



BayouHuguenot said:


> In any case, Jesus isn't referring to NT textual transmission, but to his own fulfilling of the Law and Prophets.



I'm pointing out that if you think that verse doesn't apply to textual transmission, you are at odds with the Assembly of Divines. Go ahead and disagree with it all you like, just be aware of your own position.


----------



## RamistThomist

Tom Hart said:


> I'm pointing out that if you think that verse doesn't apply to textual transmission, you are at odds with the Assembly of Divines. Go ahead and disagree with it all you like, just be aware of your own position.



Given that I am 100% positive that Jesus didn't mean textual transmission of manuscript copies, I am confident in my position. If this puts me at odds with the divines, I am okay with that.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist

NaphtaliPress said:


> The WA did not want to put scripture proofs but that does not mean when it was clear they had to, that they believed the ones they were tasked with providing were somehow bogus.



Sure. I get that. But as Richard Muller pointed out, they also rejected the idea that Scripture could be casually proof-texted like that. Maybe Muller is wrong. I don't put all my eggs in the historical theology basket at the end of the day.


----------



## RamistThomist

Romans922 said:


> Who chose to put the verse there: the Divines or Parliament? Who chose what verse to put there: The Divines or Parliament?



Sure. Parliament made the divines do it. That doesn't faze me in the least. If my position is forced to choose between a scripture proof text the divines used, or what the evidence from the textual history actually says, I go with the latter. This might make me a bad Calvinist. I'm okay with that.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Jerusalem Blade said:


> so to ask for them is pointless.



Not really. Vince said that the apographa is inerrant and attested by the manuscripts (which is not how inerrancy was traditionally defended). I then said if that were true, we should find evidence of the Comma (which we don't).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart

BayouHuguenot said:


> Given that I am 100% positive that Jesus didn't mean textual transmission of manuscript copies, I am confident in my position. If this puts me at odds with the divines, I am okay with that.



Sure. I just wanted to be clear, since it seemed you were saying that the Westminster Divines didn't mean that.


----------



## Smeagol

Tom Hart said:


> Sure. I just wanted to be clear, since it seemed you were saying that the Westminster Divines didn't mean that.


Tom,

Does it not matter that the actual reference is used after the word “authentical”? If I remember right the references are not for the entire section of 1.8 but rather split up between the individual sentences of the section. Looking for thoughts.


----------



## RamistThomist

If "every jot and tittle" applies to the manuscript tradition, then we have just lost inerrancy. Because we have different manuscript readings (even in the TR tradition), which means that some jots were missing. Which meant some jots and tittles have failed.

This is why Matthew 5 has nothing to do with this debate.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JimmyH

BayouHuguenot said:


> If "every jot and tittle" applies to the manuscript tradition, then we have just lost inerrancy. Because we have different manuscript readings (even in the TR tradition), which means that some jots were missing. Which meant some jots and tittles have failed.
> 
> This is why Matthew 5 has nothing to do with this debate.


As probably the least formerly schooled in this thread, I was hesitant to point that out ... but I was thinking it. The Divines could be wrong, or Muller could be wrong, but _our Lord cannot be wrong_. 

Therefore, since out side of the autographa some jots, some tittles are at variance, He couldn't have meant Matthew 5:18 to be interpreted to mean that all of the copies/translations are inerrant.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

Did God promise that the copyist would be temporarily inerrant? If he did, then we shouldn't have variants.


----------



## Taylor

Tom Hart said:


> That verse is cited in WCF 1.8.



The Westminster Divines and their Confession, as they asserted in the very same Confession, were not infallible. As much as I adore their work, and confess it as my own confession of faith, their citing of this passage for textual transmission issues is simply not defensible exegetically. It’s just not. Now, that is not to say that their doctrine is wrong; it is just to say their proof text is not relevant to it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Tom Hart

Grant Jones said:


> Does it not matter that the actual reference is used after the word “authentical”? If I remember right the references are not for the entire section of 1.8 but rather split up between the individual sentences of the section. Looking for thoughts.



That's a good point. It's the same sentence, but you're right to note that "authentical" is a key word here.

In any case, the Westminster Divines were not ignorant of the existence of variations in the manuscripts.

To be clear, I (and others, I think) have not been arguing that the manuscripts are inerrant.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Well, at least Muller could be wrong. I don't know what he has specifically said. But there was not a principled objection to putting scripture proofs to propositions; that was a requirement in the assembly debates. They just didn't record these as a matter of procedure (as they explain). They objected from tradition (prior confessions had none) and from the labor and the swelling it would make of the texts due to the number and complexity of the statements and importance they be sufficient due to the use of the WCF and catechisms as standards for the three nations. See their plea against the Parliament's order in Van Dixhoorn's minutes, calendar documents, vol. 5, p. 322. However, it was not unexpected or strange to expect them. Several catechisms even by Westminster divines like Rutherford and Palmer had proof texts.

As to the proof in question, the issue is not just that the Assembly used Matt. 5:18 at that place in CF 1.8, but it has been retained till today. The PCUSA had two revisions of the proofs and it survived both revisions. The PCUS changed proofs but likely retained it also (can't verify as don't have my WCF collection any more). And the OPC has retained the same proof (online version). The OPC has not been shy about changing proof texts. The EPC in their proofs has retained and merged everybody's set of proofs (as they note in their intro).

So sure, these denominations could all be wrong. But I suspect there is an explanation as to what each means in using that verse; at least Westminster's should be something that can be guessed at from period sources; Whitatker, their standard on the subject and from Ussher and others. As said already, in the 1640s they knew about variants. Dickson uses the proof in his exposition I cited way back on page one of this thread.

This is not my subject but I weighed in on the historical question. If someone really wanted to do something new they might tract down why the proof is still retained and why or do some digging to see what a Westminster divine may have said on Matthew 5:18. 



BayouHuguenot said:


> Sure. I get that. But as Richard Muller pointed out, they also rejected the idea that Scripture could be casually proof-texted like that. Maybe Muller is wrong. I don't put all my eggs in the historical theology basket at the end of the day.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

NaphtaliPress said:


> Well, at least Muller could be wrong. I don't know what he has specifically said.



See:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/hebrew-text-had-vowels-john-gill.80128/

and this post therein:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/hebrew-text-had-vowels-john-gill.80128/#post-1011522

This discussion is also relevant to the overall thrust of this thread:
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...ish-view-and-textus-receptus-advocates.19405/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> This discussion is also relevant to the overall thrust of this thread:
> https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...ish-view-and-textus-receptus-advocates.19405/



Rich hit that one out of the park. There is this push-back that any kind of asking the question about providential preservation. Erasmus himself, ironically, didn't do that, even when he had to reverse-engineer the last part of Revelation from Latin to Greek.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Thanks Patrick; I was speaking about what Muller specifically said about the Westminster assembly and the rejection of proof texting.


Ask Mr. Religion said:


> See:
> https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/hebrew-text-had-vowels-john-gill.80128/
> 
> and this post therein:
> https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/hebrew-text-had-vowels-john-gill.80128/#post-1011522
> 
> This discussion is also relevant to the overall thrust of this thread:
> https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...ish-view-and-textus-receptus-advocates.19405/

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Well, it’s early in the morning, and I have a little time. This old thread (2007) started by Rich is especially interesting. What is at stake, as I see it, is the understanding—I should even say doctrine—that we have a providentially preserved Bible, and I am referring to the Hebrew and Greek apographs, and only derivatively to faithful translations.

The thoughts that Rich brought up some 12 years ago (see link in the previous paragraph) question whether the church—even the Reformation church at the time of the Westminster Assembly—has the authority to decide what the preserved text of Scripture is, and asks, Is this not the same as the pronouncements of Rome declaring the true Scripture? Matthew Winzer in post #6 of that old thread sought to answer that by asserting,

The Protestant view maintains that the Spirit speaking in and by the Word is the supreme judge. We also maintain that the testimony of the church (as ordained of God) may move and induce us to a high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture. The church does not create doctrine, it simply declares what sound doctrine is. In the canonical process, the church does not create Scripture, it simply declares what Scripture is.​
As briefly as I can I would like to present in our own days here in February of 2019 a statement on this. No doubt it will be contested (for among the brethren there are differing views), but it should be made nonetheless, so that men may know the options they have in how they may stand regarding God’s preserved word.

There are those—in what is called the CT camp—who affirm that we do have it, and it is to be found in the plethora of extant manuscripts, and remains to be discerned, then assembled or compiled by scholars expert in the languages and the science of textual criticism. These CT proponents *do *affirm that the Lord has preserved for us His word, although we must labor to ascertain it. They also see their position as being in accord with the WCF at 1.8, following BB Warfield’s understanding of it. With good consciences and diligent scholarship they make their stands.

Those in the TR camp have a different take, basing their understanding on presuppositions—that is, theological views founded upon Scripture rather than science—with especial focus on the timing of the Reformation and its contest with Rome over the legitimacy of which of their differing views concerning the Faith of Jesus Christ is the true one. Of course one may say, in seeking to rebut the TR view, that it is not an either-or matter, having to choose between Rome or the Reformers. This, then—as I see it—would call into question the very validity of the Reformation’s doctrine of Sola Scriptura, including the apographs—the TR editions—the prime weapon it used against Rome.

If one says that the position of the Reformation is equal to the position of Rome: that the church has the authority to declare what the true Scripture is, whereas neither do, then what is an acceptable alternative to such a declaration? Does this not leave us, now in the 21st century, spiritual orphans, having untethered us from Reformation principles we have hitherto bound ourselves to, and by which we stand?

In a nutshell—after such momentous considerations—these are the TR presuppositions as contrasted to the CT: God preserved the text of Scripture up through the Byzantine church, which due to theological wars in the 300s A.D. (Sabellian, Arminian), suffered some damage (portions changed or removed), which were recovered—by God’s gracious providence—in the Greek editions at the time of the Reformation, through men availing themselves of Latin MSS and other versions, such as the Waldensian editions extant in Geneva in those days.

With regard to the phrase in the WCF at 1.8, “kept pure in all ages”, I would posit the following understanding:

WHAT was “kept pure in all ages”? — 1) an entire and intact Greek NT? And that throughout the church age till printing came to be? I don’t believe this. 2) Or the pure READINGS of the autographs kept in various Greek mss, and then compiled in an authoritative edition, and then printed? Which edition would that be? I know of none. 3) Or the pure READINGS of the Greek autographs kept in various mss—mostly the Traditional (Byzantine) Greek, but a very few kept in other versions due to attacks and mutilations on the Greek—and then put into print in the Greek Textus Receptus editions (known to and used by the Westminster divines)? I hold to the third option. This was not a reconstruction of the text here, but a *keeping *of it.

Thus the WCF and 1689 are not made to bear the burden of asserting there was an entire and intact NT extant throughout the church age before the Reformation, but rather the authentic *readings *of the entire Greek NT were “by [God’s] singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages”—not a one of them, not even a word, ultimately was corrupted, or lost, and “fell to the ground”, but instead kept intact and pure—despite attacks on certain passages, and words. This was actually done in God’s providential preservation at the time of the Reformation, when He also re-established Biblical doctrine at the commencement of the Protestant era.

Rome and its “religious” men were seen by the regenerated men following Luther, Calvin, and the others of the Reformation, as apostate and antichrist, having a Scripture rife with errors and mutilations.

All this to say, and founded upon this understanding—is that we have a Reformed church (albeit with its varying views on relatively peripheral matters) founded upon sound Biblical doctrines and an intact Bible in the original languages given us by God’s promises to preserve His word (no mention of the “textual tradition”) for his people. Here now in the 21st century we can look in retrospect and see how He worked. Our dogma is that of God’s providential preservation, discerned in historical hindsight, whereas the CT folks hold a dogma that, while God did indeed preserve His word for us, the science of textual criticism is needed to discern how He did that.

We can—and must—discuss these things amicably and without condescension toward those who differ, but with genuine affection, as we are approaching the fight of our lives, for the times are darkening and the storm clouds gather, and we Christians in the West shall no longer be exempt from the suffering our brethren (and sisters!) know in other lands. We need to be an intact church, even though we may differ in lesser matters. Our Bibles “lesser matters”? Well, compared to being united in genuine affection and friendship, *yes*—for the issue of variants, given the goodness of *all *our Bibles in the main is indeed an academic and lesser matter. To say otherwise, is to rend the unity of the church, in the approaching time of trial when it is of the utmost importance that we be one people, of one faith, under one King who has said that the most important thing, given orthodoxy of faith, is that we love one another.

I hope this is clarifying, and conduces to unity among us.

Reactions: Like 7 | Informative 1


----------



## Smeagol

Jerusalem Blade said:


> To say otherwise, is to rend the unity of the church, in the approaching time of trial when it is of the utmost importance that we be one people, of one faith, under one King who has said that the most important thing, given orthodoxy of faith, is that we love one another.
> 
> I hope this is clarifying, and conduces to unity among us.


----------



## RamistThomist

Following Steve's charitable post, can we clarify the following:

1) Those who use the CT aren't placing God under human reason (or at least no more than Erasmus did when he chose between variant readings)

2) Those who hold to the TR reject Peter Ruckman's wackier teachings (e.g., Origen wrote the LXX, the translators of the KJV corrected the Greek).

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

NaphtaliPress said:


> Well, at least Muller could be wrong. I don't know what he has specifically said. But there was not a principled objection to putting scripture proofs to propositions; that was a requirement in the assembly debates. They just didn't record these as a matter of procedure (as they explain). They objected from tradition (prior confessions had none) and from the labor and the swelling it would make of the texts due to the number and complexity of the statements and importance they be sufficient due to the use of the WCF and catechisms as standards for the three nations. See their plea against the Parliament's order in Van Dixhoorn's minutes, calendar documents, vol. 5, p. 322. However, it was not unexpected or strange to expect them. Several catechisms even by Westminster divines like Rutherford and Palmer had proof texts.
> 
> As to the proof in question, the issue is not just that the Assembly used Matt. 5:18 at that place in CF 1.8, but it has been retained till today. The PCUSA had two revisions of the proofs and it survived both revisions. The PCUS changed proofs but likely retained it also (can't verify as don't have my WCF collection any more). And the OPC has retained the same proof (online version). The OPC has not been shy about changing proof texts. The EPC in their proofs has retained and merged everybody's set of proofs (as they note in their intro).
> 
> So sure, these denominations could all be wrong. But I suspect there is an explanation as to what each means in using that verse; at least Westminster's should be something that can be guessed at from period sources; Whitatker, their standard on the subject and from Ussher and others. As said already, in the 1640s they knew about variants. Dickson uses the proof in his exposition I cited way back on page one of this thread.
> 
> This is not my subject but I weighed in on the historical question. If someone really wanted to do something new they might tract down why the proof is still retained and why or do some digging to see what a Westminster divine may have said on Matthew 5:18.


I was reading some old PB threads also and saw recommended “Edward Freer Hills' Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesisatical Text," among some other things. I’m not sure if it deals mainly with the Westminster history or not. https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/wcf-1-8-and-ct.40915/ (Long thread)

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Jacob, re 1) I’m not sure how a CT person would formulate the use of their reason in the text critical enterprise vis-à-vis God. Erasmus chose, after a long period of consulting MSS throughout Europe and the UK, what he perceived were the common readings. I can say this, CT proponents hold they are using God-ordained methods for determining the text, even if some say they are using “the presuppositions of [unbelieving] modern thought”, such as E.F. Hills in _Text and Time: A Reformed Approach to New Testament Textual Criticism_, p. 1 (original title, then changed by publisher to _The KJV Defended_). Please recognize that I am not engaging in the terms or charges of the debate here, but seeking a common ground whereby we may silence our respective cannons.

2) It is commonly understood that Origen compiled a version of the LXX in his _Hexapla_, a critical edition of the Hebrew Scriptures, but not that he “wrote it”, i.e., was the source of it. Ruckman errs in that, as portions of the OT in Greek antedate him, though we do not have sound understanding of what did actually exist of the Greek OT before Christ. Certainly some parts of it did. Re the teaching of the late Dr. Ruckman (died in 2016) that “the translators of the KJV corrected the Greek”, it is bizarre, and cannot be established.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

An afterthought: would it not be more productive to silence our cannons against the friendly factions in our own camp, and train them judiciously against the school of Bart Ehrman and those cadres (of atheists, Muslims, etc) he is training to attack the foundational documents of the church, and his gross misrepresentations of church history and the formation of the canon of the NT? Our intelligence and energy—of which we have plenty, by the grace and word of God—would be better spent thus, it seems to me.


----------



## RamistThomist

Jerusalem Blade said:


> and train them judiciously against the school of Bart Ehrman and those cadres (of atheists, Muslims, etc) he is training to attack the foundational documents of the church



To a large degree, yes. But my approach to Ehrman would be different from the TR family. I hold to the CT and its presuppositions. So this only punts the problem back


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Jeri Tanner said:


> I was reading some old PB threads also and saw recommended “Edward Freer Hills' Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesisatical Text," among some other things. I’m not sure if it deals mainly with the Westminster history or not. https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/wcf-1-8-and-ct.40915/ (Long thread)


The article in question can be read at the link provided in my earlier post:

https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...ion-of-tr-tradition.97375/page-5#post-1190355

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

Jerusalem Blade said:


> An afterthought: would it not be more productive to silence our cannons against the friendly factions in our own camp, and train them judiciously against the school of Bart Ehrman and those cadres (of atheists, Muslims, etc) he is training to attack the foundational documents of the church, and his gross misrepresentations of church history and the formation of the canon of the NT? Our intelligence and energy—of which we have plenty, by the grace and word of God—would be better spent thus, it seems to me.


Perhaps and I do agree. However, the fact that always brings this back up for my own conscience are those in the reformed camp and even the Puritan Board camp who claim that unless you use the KJV (some allow for NKJV too), then it should not be called the “Word of God” in the same way. Who make claims like “the ESV or CSB is terrible” or “such and such modern translation brutalizes the Word of God” (specifically the conservative modern translation) or “Unless you prefer the KJV you should take exception to the Westminster Standards” vs. most of us, who I would presume would view it as a matter of varying degrees of translation quality of the Word of God (I could be wrong). Steve, it does not seem you hold these views, but I have been wrestling with this for several months now (as one largely ignorant) and those attitudes has been one of the largest stumblings for me. Still thinking through it all.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

NaphtaliPress said:


> Thanks Patrick; I was speaking about what Muller specifically said about the Westminster assembly and the rejection of proof texting.


Perhaps it is this quote:

"the pattern of citing biblical proofs found in the confessional standard was not a form of rank proof-texting, as has sometimes been alleged of the Westminster Standards and of the theological works of the seventeenth-century orthodox in general. Rather, the confession and the catechisms cite texts by way of referencing an exegetical tradition reaching back, in many cases, to the fathers of the church in the first five centuries of Christianity and, quite consistently, reflecting the path of biblical interpretation belonging to the Reformed tradition as it developed in the sixteenth century and in the beginning of the seventeenth"
[Quoted from this: https://www.amazon.com/Scripture-Worship-Interpretation-Directory-Westminster/dp/1596380721]​
As cited in:
http://www.reformation21.org/shelf-...tion-and-the-directory-of-public-worshi-1.php

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Thanks; Jacob (@BayouHuguenot) would have to confirm since he raised the particular comment by Muller. I wonder if there is a specific tradition w.r.t. using Matthew 5:18 regarding preservation of the text of Scripture that may inform their use of it at WCF 1.8?


Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Perhaps it is this quote:
> 
> "the pattern of citing biblical proofs found in the confessional standard was not a form of rank proof-texting, as has sometimes been alleged of the Westminster Standards and of the theological works of the seventeenth-century orthodox in general. Rather, the confession and the catechisms cite texts by way of referencing an exegetical tradition reaching back, in many cases, to the fathers of the church in the first five centuries of Christianity and, quite consistently, reflecting the path of biblical interpretation belonging to the Reformed tradition as it developed in the sixteenth century and in the beginning of the seventeenth"
> [Quoted from this: https://www.amazon.com/Scripture-Worship-Interpretation-Directory-Westminster/dp/1596380721]​
> As cited in:
> http://www.reformation21.org/shelf-...tion-and-the-directory-of-public-worshi-1.php


----------



## RamistThomist

For the record, I meant Trueman instead of Muller. I had in mind a Trueman lecture. Muller might have said the same thing. I think he did. In any case, it doesn't change my larger point.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> If "every jot and tittle" applies to the manuscript tradition, then we have just lost inerrancy. Because we have different manuscript readings (even in the TR tradition), which means that some jots were missing. Which meant some jots and tittles have failed.
> 
> This is why Matthew 5 has nothing to do with this debate.


You are indeed correct, as Jesus would have been speaking towards His ministry/mission to fulfill all aspects of the OT Law in order to have salvation finished/accomplished upon His Cross...


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Interesting. Here is Trueman, using Muller. This actually should blunt the casual casting of the Matthew 5:18 as a proof text at WCF 1.8 as some absurdity and the legitimacy of my prior question of looking for the fuller backdrop of this "exegetical marker," to use the term of Muller/Trueman:
For example, one common complaint about the Westminster standards is that they are based upon proof texts. The concern seems to be that Reformed theology has thus been built on simplistic, decontextualized reading of isolated texts. Many, of course, will be aware that the divines themselves did not want the proof texts included and that they were overruled in this by Parliament. That in itself should give pause for thought about how such texts function. Yet [Richard] Muller has explored this issue further and demonstrated that the divines were not only competent exegetes themselves and that Reformed Orthodoxy is exegetically grounded but also that proof texts in the seventeenth century were not intended as simple, blunt answers to complex questions. Proof texts operated rather as exegetical markers, directing the reader to the key verse but doing so in the expectation that the reader would check the classical expositions of that verse.​

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Did God promise that the copyist would be temporarily inerrant? If he did, then we shouldn't have variants.


The only promised inspiration would be towards the originals themselves.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Following Steve's charitable post, can we clarify the following:
> 
> 1) Those who use the CT aren't placing God under human reason (or at least no more than Erasmus did when he chose between variant readings)
> 
> 2) Those who hold to the TR reject Peter Ruckman's wackier teachings (e.g., Origen wrote the LXX, the translators of the KJV corrected the Greek).


Would also just like to add to your points that divine inspiration was only to the originals themselves, as there would be no such thing as secondary/derived versions of inspiration.


----------



## RamistThomist

NaphtaliPress said:


> Interesting. Here is Trueman, using Muller. This actually should blunt the casual casting of the Matthew 5:18 as a proof text at WCF 1.8 as some absurdity and the legitimacy of my prior question of looking for the fuller backdrop of this "exegetical marker," to use the term of Muller/Trueman:
> For example, one common complaint about the Westminster standards is that they are based upon proof texts. The concern seems to be that Reformed theology has thus been built on simplistic, decontextualized reading of isolated texts. Many, of course, will be aware that the divines themselves did not want the proof texts included and that they were overruled in this by Parliament. That in itself should give pause for thought about how such texts function. Yet [Richard] Muller has explored this issue further and demonstrated that the divines were not only competent exegetes themselves and that Reformed Orthodoxy is exegetically grounded but also that proof texts in the seventeenth century were not intended as simple, blunt answers to complex questions. Proof texts operated rather as exegetical markers, directing the reader to the key verse but doing so in the expectation that the reader would check the classical expositions of that verse.​



That's what I was trying to say. The divines wouldn't have crudely based their whole view on inspiration on a rather tortured use of Matthew 5. They were too smart for that. I think Matthew 5 can sort of function as a pious application that God has indeed safeguarded his word, but to apply the verse to the manuscript process is basically to torpedo inerrancy.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Jacob,

I don't understand what you are saying here:

"But my approach to Ehrman would be different from the TR family. I hold to the CT and its presuppositions. So this only punts the problem back"​
Please explain.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

And further, is not Chris' post 174, quoting Trueman referencing Muller, saying the exact opposite of what you have said in post 177? That is, the Confession passages the proof texts accompanied _were exegetically grounded_, and the proofs were given with the "expectation that the reader would check the classical expositions of that verse." For the expositions (notably of Matt 5:18, as well as others) made clear the pertinence of those proof verses to the Confession's statements.


----------



## RamistThomist

Jerusalem Blade said:


> And further, is not Chris' post 174, quoting Trueman referencing Muller, saying the exact opposite of what you have said in post 177?



Looks like it.


Jerusalem Blade said:


> That is, the Confession passages the proof texts accompanied _were exegetically grounded_,



Which is different from basing it on surface level proof texts.


Jerusalem Blade said:


> For the expositions (notably of Matt 5:18, as well as others) made clear the pertinence of those proof verses to the Confession's statements.



People are welcome to use Matt 5:18 to that effect. I wouldn't do it, since you lose inerrancy if you tie it to the manuscript process.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello Jacob,
> 
> I don't understand what you are saying here:
> 
> "But my approach to Ehrman would be different from the TR family. I hold to the CT and its presuppositions. So this only punts the problem back"​
> Please explain.



I accept textual criticism ala Bruce Metzger. While I am happy to ally with TR guys, many think I accept the godless presuppositions of the enemy.


----------



## RamistThomist

Here is an example of a "jot/tittle" being omitted in the copying process, and why Matthew 5:18 can't refer to this process. Heiser explains:

the image below shows that, in Gen 4:8 the conversation between Cain and Abel has been accidentally omitted in the Masoretic Text (MT). The reason is simple. The scribe’s eye skipped from one waw to another (see the red Hebrew letters), thus omitting the two words that matter. The correct text is witnessed in the Septuagint and the Syriac. The Syriac testimony is of note since Syriac Bibles typically translate the traditional Masoretic text — but in this case, the Syriac base text preserves the correct reading

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JimmyH

Question, I'm a simple man ... In Matthew 5:18 could the meaning of one jot or tittle not passing _until all is fulfilled_ refer to the stipulations within the Law being required until the veil was rent in the temple, or perhaps until the resurrection, and not to the text at all ?


----------



## RamistThomist

JimmyH said:


> Question, I'm a simple man ... In Matthew 5:18 could the meaning of one jot or tittle not passing _until all is fulfilled_ refer to the stipulations within the Law being required until the veil was rent in the temple, or perhaps until the resurrection, and not to the text at all ?



That's exactly what it means. See Vern Poythress's response to Greg Bahnsen.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JimmyH

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's exactly what it means. See Vern Poythress's response to Greg Bahnsen.


I'd love to see that, where would I access the response ?


----------



## RamistThomist

JimmyH said:


> I'd love to see that, where would I access the response ?


https://frame-poythress.org/ebooks/the-shadow-of-Christ-in-the-law-of-moses/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JimmyH

BayouHuguenot said:


> https://frame-poythress.org/ebooks/the-shadow-of-Christ-in-the-law-of-moses/


Thanks Jacob, what I get from that text is pasted below, if I could have changed the text to black I would have, but couldn't figure it out. Here is Poythress quoting D.A. Carson from his commentary on Matthew ;


> Once we have determined the force of “fulfill” along the lines indicated by Carson, the meaning of the subsequent verses is easier to establish. Some further quotes from Carson’s commentary may serve to indicate the correct lines of interpretation. With regard to verse 18 Carson says,
> 
> The reference to “jot and tittle” establishes [the extent of Old Testament authority]: it will not do to reduce the reference to moral law, or the law as a whole but not necessarily its parts, or to God’s will in some general sense. . . . The two “until” clauses answer [the question of duration of the Old Testament’s authority]. The first–“until heaven and earth disappear”–simply means “until the end of the age”: i.e., not quite “never” . . . but “never, as long as the present world order persists.” The second–“until everything is accomplished”–is more difficult. . . . _panta_ (“everything”) is best understood to refer to everything in the law, considered under the law’s prophetic function–viz., until all these things have taken place as prophesied. This is not simply pointing to the Cross . . . , nor simply to the end of the age. . . . the entire divine purpose prophesied in Scripture must take place; not one jot or tittle will fail of its fulfillment. . . . Thus the first “until” clause focuses strictly on the duration of OT authority but the second returns to considering its nature; it reveals God’s redemptive purposes and points to their fulfillment, their “accomplishment,” in Jesus and the eschatological kingdom he is now introducing and will one day consummate.14


More below ;


> Concerning verse 19 he continues,
> The entire Law and the Prophets are not scrapped by Jesus’ coming but fulfilled. Therefore the commandments of these Scriptures–even the least of them (on distinctions in the law, see on 22:36; 23:23)–must be practiced. But the nature of the practicing has already been affected by vv. 17-18. The law pointed forward to Jesus and his teaching; so it is properly obeyed by conforming to his word. As it points to him, so he, in fulfilling it, establishes what continuity it has, the true direction to which it points and the way it is to be obeyed. Thus ranking in the kingdom turns on the degree of conformity to Jesus’ teaching as that teaching fulfills OT revelation.15
> 
> Thus Matt. 5:17-19 asserts in a sweeping and direct fashion what the rest of Matthew illustrates in detail: Jesus in his person and his ministry brings to realization and fulfillment the whole warp and woof of Old Testament revelation, including the revelation of the law. The whole law points to him and its purposes find their realization in him. All the commandments of the law are binding on Christians (7:19), but the way in which they are binding is determined by the authority of Christ and the fulfillment that takes place in his work.
> 
> When we become disciples of Christ, our lives are transformed by our fellowship with him. We become participants in the kingdom of heaven (5:3, 10), under the care of our heavenly Father. We become imitators of our Father (5:45), so that Jesus’ commandment makes sense, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (5:48). Such is the fulfillment of that great commandment from Moses, “Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy” (Lev. 19:2).
> 
> As disciples of Christ we are to “obey everything I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:20). Since Jesus commands us to practice and teach even the “least of these commandments” of the law (5:19), we are bound to do so. But we do so as disciples who have learned how to discern the function of the law of Moses as a pointer to the realities of Jesus Christ our Lord. The way in which each law is fulfilled in Christ determines the way in which it is to be observed now. Since the law foreshadows the righteousness of Christ and the kingdom of heaven, the practice of the law in the deepest sense takes the form of replicating the character and grace of Christ in our lives and imitating our heavenly Father. To have this fellowship with and obedience to Christ is no burden, as Christ himself says, “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light” (Matt. 11:28-30). The rabbis spoke of commitment to the true God and his law as “the yoke of the kingdom of heaven,” “the yoke of the law,” and “the yoke of commandments.” 16 But the rabbis did not anticipate that the law would be fulfilled in the yoke of Jesus Christ.17

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Jacob, whatever you think, and whatever side you are on, regarding the internecine textual contests, you are *not *the enemy, but a brother in the family of God in Christ!

But you may still be corrected in a brotherly and kind way: in your post #182 you are holding up a passage, Genesis 4:8, which was recorded by Moses and both kept and reproduced (when manuscripts wore out) by the priests the sons of Levi (Deut. 31:9); see also Deut. 17:18; Deut. 31:24, 25, 26. It was not given to scribes of other tribes (for we know not the makeup of the Jewish LXX writers), nor those of other lands, who wrote the Samaritan Pentateuch, or the Syriac; neither the Vulgate. It is certainly adequate as it stands in the Hebrew:

And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.​
If some want to supply it, for understanding’s sake, that is fine. It is conjecture to say it was “omitted in the copying process”.

Further (in post 177), to say applying Matt. 5:18 “to the manuscript process is basically to torpedo inerrancy” goes against much scholarly exposition of this verse. For instance, Calvin says of this,

I answer, the expression, _shall not pass away, _must be viewed as referring, not to the life of men, but to the perfect truth of the doctrine. There is nothing in the law that is unimportant, nothing that was put there at, random; and so it is impossible that a single letter shall perish.​
Now I myself have not used this verse with regard to teaching preservation from the Scripture, though I would not fault those who do. If this had been missing in the time of Christ, He would not have said “the scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), but corrected the error. Even a single word is of the utmost importance to the God who said we shall live “by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4), even as He said through Jeremiah in 26:2,

Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD’s house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD’s house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; *diminish not a word*…​
I do not want to drag this out defending every word in the OT corpus. My point is, it is not sound to correct the Hebrew by the Septuagint. Even as we do not correct the Greek by the English!

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## JimmyH

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Jacob, whatever you think, and whatever side you are on, regarding the internecine textual contests, you are *not *the enemy, but a brother in the family of God in Christ!
> 
> But you may still be corrected in a brotherly and kind way: in your post #182 you are holding up a passage, Genesis 4:8, which was recorded by Moses and both kept and reproduced (when manuscripts wore out) by the priests the sons of Levi (Deut. 31:9); see also Deut. 17:18; Deut. 31:24, 25, 26. It was not given to scribes of other tribes (for we know not the makeup of the Jewish LXX writers), nor those of other lands, who wrote the Samaritan Pentateuch, or the Syriac; neither the Vulgate. It is certainly adequate as it stands in the Hebrew:
> 
> And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.​
> If some want to supply it, for understanding’s sake, that is fine. It is conjecture to say it was “omitted in the copying process”.
> 
> Further (in post 177), to say applying Matt. 5:18 “to the manuscript process is basically to torpedo inerrancy” goes against much scholarly exposition of this verse. For instance, Calvin says of this,
> 
> I answer, the expression, _shall not pass away, _must be viewed as referring, not to the life of men, but to the perfect truth of the doctrine. There is nothing in the law that is unimportant, nothing that was put there at, random; and so it is impossible that a single letter shall perish.​
> Now I myself have not used this verse with regard to teaching preservation from the Scripture, though I would not fault those who do. If this had been missing in the time of Christ, He would not have said “the scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), but corrected the error. Even a single word is of the utmost importance to the God who said we shall live “by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4), even as He said through Jeremiah in 26:2,
> 
> Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD’s house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD’s house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; *diminish not a word*…​
> I do not want to drag this out defending every word in the OT corpus. My point is, it is not sound to correct the Hebrew by the Septuagint. Even as we do not correct the Greek by the English!


Forgive me for butting in Steve, I know you addressed the post to Jacob, but I have a question for you. Based on Jacob's answers to my questions (see posts 184 & 186) it seems that our Lord was not referring to the 'letter' of the law, but the Spirit of the law. Looking at the verses before and after 5:18 doesn't that seem to be what he is saying in the context ? Not a textual issue, but a call to obedience ?


> 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach _them_, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed _the righteousness_ of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.


----------



## iainduguid

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Jacob, whatever you think, and whatever side you are on, regarding the internecine textual contests, you are *not *the enemy, but a brother in the family of God in Christ!
> 
> But you may still be corrected in a brotherly and kind way: in your post #182 you are holding up a passage, Genesis 4:8, which was recorded by Moses and both kept and reproduced (when manuscripts wore out) by the priests the sons of Levi (Deut. 31:9); see also Deut. 17:18; Deut. 31:24, 25, 26. It was not given to scribes of other tribes (for we know not the makeup of the Jewish LXX writers), nor those of other lands, who wrote the Samaritan Pentateuch, or the Syriac; neither the Vulgate. It is certainly adequate as it stands in the Hebrew:
> 
> And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.​
> If some want to supply it, for understanding’s sake, that is fine. It is conjecture to say it was “omitted in the copying process”.
> 
> Further (in post 177), to say applying Matt. 5:18 “to the manuscript process is basically to torpedo inerrancy” goes against much scholarly exposition of this verse. For instance, Calvin says of this,
> 
> I answer, the expression, _shall not pass away, _must be viewed as referring, not to the life of men, but to the perfect truth of the doctrine. There is nothing in the law that is unimportant, nothing that was put there at, random; and so it is impossible that a single letter shall perish.​
> Now I myself have not used this verse with regard to teaching preservation from the Scripture, though I would not fault those who do. If this had been missing in the time of Christ, He would not have said “the scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), but corrected the error. Even a single word is of the utmost importance to the God who said we shall live “by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4), even as He said through Jeremiah in 26:2,
> 
> Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD’s house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD’s house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; *diminish not a word*…​
> I do not want to drag this out defending every word in the OT corpus. My point is, it is not sound to correct the Hebrew by the Septuagint. Even as we do not correct the Greek by the English!


On Genesis 4:8, you are right that the case is more complex than often asserted, Steve, though the solution is not quite as straightforward as you suggest. _'amar_ without the following direct speech is certainly a very unusual construction, exactly like English "Cain said to Abel". It's striking that all the ET's I found that have "Cain said to Abel" follow it with the LXX, while those that keep the MT are forced to render _'amar_ differently (spoke, talked with, told). So you can easily see why the Greek translators (and the Peshitta) would have felt the absence. "Talked with" is a very common idiom but elsewhere always translates _dibber_ + a preposition, so it's not an obvious rendering. However, there are two places where something similar occurs (out of over 5000 uses of _'amar_!), namely 2 Chr 1:2 and 32:24 (where _amar_ without following speech is generally rendered "he spoke to"). What is more, in this case Qumran (specifically 4Q2 Genesis) supports the MT, so the more difficult text may well be the original.

However, I can't agree that we would never want to even consider correcting the MT on the basis of LXX, especially where it is supported by Qumran. The Hebrew text of the OT is remarkably preserved but not perfectly as is clear from the Kethib/Qere readings where the massoretes supplied the vowels for a different word from the consonantal text. If it has been preserved in the LXX and at Qumran, we can hardly say it has passed away, even if it isn't reflected in the MT. 

I'm also still waiting for someone to make sense out of the MT of Ezekiel 40:14. The KJV is fairly literal but results in nonsense in English; even the NASB is making up an unsupported text in order to make some sort of sense out of it. Nor was the LXX able to make head or tail of it. If you want to argue for a perfectly preserved text, this is the verse you need to tackle (preferably before I finish my commentary...). I would genuinely appreciate anyone who can do it!

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Stephen L Smith

iainduguid said:


> I'm also still waiting for someone to make sense out of the MT of Ezekiel 40:14. The KJV is fairly literal but results in nonsense in English; even the NASB is making up an unsupported text in order to make some sort of sense out of it.


Iain, I thought you were going to go one step further and say we have one translation that has solved the problem, i.e. the CSB

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## iainduguid

Stephen L Smith said:


> Iain, I thought you were going to go one step further and say we have one translation that has solved the problem, i.e. the CSB


No, I'm sorry. We omitted the second half of the verse altogether, with a footnote, which felt like the most honest thing to do.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

iainduguid said:


> No, I'm sorry. We omitted the second half of the verse altogether, with a footnote, which felt like the most honest thing to do.


Obviously you did not feel comfortable including the second half as in the HCSB. It raises an interesting question. If this was truly part of God's Word (2 Tim 3:16) then is it right to 'delete' it? By this I mean if it is part of the original should you not use the best tools (mss outside the MT etc), or perhaps a textual emendation to come to a reasoned decision re the best way to translate?

I admit this is a difficult textual issue but just a bit curious.


----------



## iainduguid

Stephen L Smith said:


> Obviously you did not feel comfortable including the second half as in the HCSB. It raises an interesting question. If this was truly part of God's Word (2 Tim 3:16) then is it right to 'delete' it? By this I mean if it is part of the original should you not use the best tools (mss outside the MT etc), or perhaps a textual emendation to come to a reasoned decision re the best way to translate?
> 
> I admit this is a difficult textual issue but just a bit curious.


You are absolutely right; if I had a good alternative Hebrew MS, or something in the LXX or Targum, or even a textual emendation to propose (though I don't like the idea of conjectural emendations at all), I'd have put it in. It's not just that the MT doesn't make sense in English, it also has the prophet "making" something for the only time in the temple vision and seems to give a height measurement, when the only other thing whose height is given is the wall around the temple. My best (very tentative) guess is that this was originally two marginal notes that somehow got combined and incorporated into the text. I'd love a better explanation, but haven't come up with one over the past 20 years of searching. Nor have any of the commentators with whom I am familiar.

Understandably Ezekiel 40:14 gets less attention than 1 John 5:7, but it's an important text to account for in any doctrine of textual preservation.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Iain (I’ll get back to you shortly, JimmyH),

Good to see you here again. For which publisher / series are you doing another Ezekiel commentary? Your _NIV Application Commentary _on that book was very helpful.

Concerning Genesis 4:8, I spoke with my friend (and PB member), Albert Hembd, who is studying under the supervision of Professor Yosef Ofer at Bar Ilan University in Israel—probably working on his doctorate at this point, while he continues working for the TBS. With regard to Gen. 4:8, he says,

I personally believe that the extra words were added into the Septuagint by Alexandrian Greeks who added them by "critical emendation." The words are found in no Qumran remnant, nor in any older Masoretic text. The words came into the Vulgate through the LXX. However, interestingly, Rahlfs omits them from his edition of the LXX. The words apparently only appeared in some texts of the LXX, but not all. Possibly Vaticanus has them (Brenton relied almost exclusively on Vaticanus, but Rahlfs considered also Alexandrinus and the "Lucianic" manuscripts)? It would be worth a check as to which LXX manuscripts have them and which don't. My personal opinion is that the Alexandrian Greeks assumed something was wrong with the text and that therefore, it had to be "fixed." But it doesn't need to be "fixed." It's simply a curious literary expression in Hebrew we don't fully understand. But the verse makes perfect sense as it is.​
Iain, we have come to this impasse before, and while I have great appreciation and respect for your learning and skill, I remain a confessional adherent in this matter, as the WCF at 1.8 reads (in part),

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.​
Our Confession (it reads virtually the same in the 1689) does not accord to the Greek, Syriac, Samaritan, or Vulgate the status of authenticity it does to the Hebrew, and, ultimately, there I make my stand—on the basis of the Scriptures it reflects.

The same for Ezekiel 40:14 — a number of translations supply words to help make better sense of the original in Hebrew, as is done with other admittedly less difficult passages, and I will trust the Bible as it is.

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Jimmy,

In Carson’s commentary (in the Expositor’s series), on p. 141 he says, acknowledging a wide variety of views regarding the exegesis of vv. 17-20 in Matt. 5,

2. The theological and canonical ramifications of one’s exegetical conclusions on this periscope are so numerous that discussion becomes freighted with the intricacies of biblical theology.​
Then on p. 145 he says,

But vv. 17-18 do not wrestle abstractly with OT authority but with the nature, extent, and duration of its validity and continuity. The nature of these has been set forth in v. 17. The reference to “jot and tittle” establishes its extent: it will not do to reduce the reference to moral law, or to the law as a whole but not necessarily to its parts, or to God’s will in some general sense. “Law” almost certainly refers to the entire OT Scriptures, not just the Pentateuch or moral law (note the parallel in v. 17)​
Carson ended the paragraph immediately previous to this with,

In any event, Jesus here upholds the authority of the OT Scriptures right down to the “least stroke of a pen.” His is the highest possible view of the OT.​
Carson is certainly not KJV defender (to wit, his book, _The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism_), but he does seem to appreciate that the text itself may be being referred to.

I would argue thus: The Lord Jesus said, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (*Matt 4:4*). His words do give rise to a theological issue: implicit in the saying is that by *every* word of His we live, and such being the case He will see to it that we have what we need in order to live. He has also said,

…His divine power *hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness,* through the knowledge of Him that hath called us unto glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature…(*2 Peter 1:3, 4*)​
Can He not fulfill these *promises*, He of whom it is written, that He “worketh all things after the counsel of His own will”? (*Ephesians 1:11*)

Consider these Scriptures:

*Matt 24:35 *"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away". 

*Isaiah 59:21* "As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."​
If one wants to take these sayings of the LORD precisely, it does argue for a preservation in the minutiae. Likewise *Psalm 12:6, 7*:

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.​
That some do not accept the translation of Psalm 12 the AV uses does not deter my using it (an entire established exegetical tradition _suppressed—censored—_by editorial fiat!). See the interesting article defending these verses by Shin Yeong Gil on this (p 150), _God's Promise to Preserve His Word_:

http://www.febc.edu.sg/assets/pdfs/bbush/The Burning Bush Vol 6 No 2.pdf . 

At any rate, Jimmy, all this to say there are other Scriptures I would use to uphold preservation in the minutiae besides Matt 5:18.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## greenbaggins

Steve, the thing about the Septuagint that I think you may be missing is that it is a translation _of an underlying Hebrew text_. It seems rather clear that, at times, that underlying Hebrew text differs from the MT. Jeremiah seems an obvious example of this. I wrote a paper on the differences in Jeremiah between the LXX and the MT, and concluded that an earlier edition of Jeremiah had been written by him in Egypt, which became the basis for the LXX. Jeremiah later expanded the book for the audience in Jerusalem during the exile. I would argue that the final version Jeremiah wrote is the canonical one. However, there do seem to be a few instances where the LXX seems to have a superior reading. This involves the perilous process of back-translating the Greek into Hebrew. So, the relationship that the LXX can have to OT textual criticism is roughly equivalent to the way in which Latin translations of the NT could conceivably function in NT criticism. The thing that makes the LXX unique, however, is that the LXX manuscripts are so much older than the oldest MT we have. Yes, we have the Isaiah scroll. But, as Iain mentioned, Qumran has readings from both the LXX and the MT. It is not, therefore, quite as simple as saying that the MT always preserves the original. Even within the MT, there are differences between the Aleppo codex and the Leningrad codex. Now, make no mistake, I give the MT the benefit of the doubt, and I think we have to be extremely cautious about using the LXX for text-critical purposes. However, the LXX does have a legitimate part to play in OT textual criticism, and can, on occasion, offer a better reading, not because _it_ is original, but because it offers a reading _of the underlying Hebrew manuscript_, which means that this position does NOT fall foul of the confessional viewpoint on this. If the LXX can correct the MT, it is only insofar as the original Hebrew text underlying the LXX corrects the MT.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Our Confession (it reads virtually the same in the 1689) does not accord to the Greek, Syriac, Samaritan, or Vulgate the status of authenticity it does to the Hebrew, and, ultimately, there I make my stand—on the basis of the Scriptures it reflects.



Does the fact that the MT is much, much younger than the LXX and the Syriac make a difference?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Lane, I'd very much like to see your paper on the differences in Jeremiah between the LXX and the MT—sounds interesting!
____

Jacob, how can the Masoretic Text be "much, much younger than the LXX and the Syriac"? Unless by MT you were meaning Majority Text, which really doesn't apply to the Hebrew.


----------



## RamistThomist

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Lane, I'd very much like to see your paper on the differences in Jeremiah between the LXX and the MT—sounds interesting!
> ____
> 
> Jacob, how can the Masoretic Text be "much, much younger than the LXX and the Syriac"? Unless by MT you were meaning Majority Text, which really doesn't apply to the Hebrew.



The Masoretic text was copied and disseminated by the Masoretes in the Middle Ages. It is not the original text.


----------



## greenbaggins

Steve, just posted it as an article on the PB here.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Thank you, Lane - I'll have to check that out!
____

Jacob, it— the MT, and the proto-MT before it—is considered by almost all Jews as the authentic Hebrew Bible, and likewise by almost all conservative Christian scholars. Yes, some will avail themselves of other versions to aid in critical studies, but there really is no other Hebrew Bible. Our Westminster Confession and 1689 say as much, at 1.8.

It is a good thing the Masoretes (I think it was Augustine who called them "the librarians of the church") labored to bring the Hebrew text to a state of near perfection, and with the vowel points ensured the correct pronunciation for future generations.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Jacob, it— the MT, and the proto-MT before it—is considered by almost all Jews as the authentic Hebrew Bible, and likewise by almost all conservative Christian scholars. Yes, some will avail themselves of other versions to aid in critical studies, but there really is no other Hebrew Bible. Our Westminster Confession and 1689 say as much, at 1.8.



I like the Masoretic, but it is *not* the authentic Bible. It is the product of several textual traditions that were codified (cf Ellis Brotzman, _Old Testament Textual Criticism_).

As for a proto-Masoretic text being the authentic bible, that's all well and good but that is specifically what we don't have.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

I rarely way in on these discussions, as they generally produce more heat than light but this one (despite being on its seventh page) has remained very civil. 

One point that rarely ever seems to be taken into account is that there are mediating positions between the hardline CT and TR views. For instance, one may believe that the Byzantine readings are generally more correct while not holding to the view that the Alexandrian MSS can never be consulted nor favoured.

On the issue of the Septuagint, does not the Formula Consensus Helvetica condemn the notion that the Hebrew text can be corrected by the LXX? Is it condemning something different from the notion that the LXX may be used to help us discern the original Hebrew reading?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## greenbaggins

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Lane, I'd very much like to see your paper on the differences in Jeremiah between the LXX and the MT—sounds interesting!
> ____
> 
> Jacob, how can the Masoretic Text be "much, much younger than the LXX and the Syriac"? Unless by MT you were meaning Majority Text, which really doesn't apply to the Hebrew.





Reformed Covenanter said:


> I rarely way in on these discussions, as they generally produce more heat than light but this one (despite being on its seventh page) has remained very civil.
> 
> One point that rarely ever seems to be taken into account is that there are mediating positions between the hardline CT and TR views. For instance, one may believe that the Byzantine readings are generally more correct while not holding to the view that the Alexandrian MSS can never be consulted nor favoured.
> 
> On the issue of the Septuagint, does not the Formula Consensus Helvetica condemn the notion that the Hebrew text can be corrected by the LXX? Is it condemning something different from the notion that the LXX may be used to help us discern the original Hebrew reading?



Yes, the FCH does condemn it in canon 3. As I read the canon, I am tempted to say that it doesn't condemn what I advocate. I think without further information about the exact practice it was condemning, it would be difficult to say for sure. The likelihood is that FCH does condemn what I advocate. Which makes it a good thing that I don't have to subscribe to the FCH! LXX studies were in a much more simple form in those days, and huge advances in our understanding of the LXX have happened since then. I don't know many (if any!) confessional OT scholars who would say that the LXX can never be used to correct the MT, as long as it is understood that it is really the underlying Hebrew that is doing so. And all of the confessional OT guys I know are always very cautious about that process, knowing how prone to error it is, and how difficult it is to establish that the LXX is actually based on a different _Vorlage _than the MT, thus ruling out a translation issue.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

A comment and observation (and question)- this debate has always reminded me of the young earth vs. old earth one. Evidence exists that is used by both sides, but there is an interpretation of evidence driven by presuppositions. And the presuppositions, among folks like us here on the board at least, are mainly theological ones (hopefully). So one's view really depends on presuppositions, I think- someone like @Jerusalem Blade please correct that thinking if wrong. It's good to talk about evidences as it helps many come to one position or the other. But in the end, doesn't it all boil down to what one believes the Scripture teaches about God's preserving his word? It seems to me that two positions are represented on the PB: that the Scriptures teach either that he _has_ kept pure and preserved the readings for his church all through the ages; or they teach that he will _ultimately_ keep pure and preserve the readings for his church. Is this what the issue boils down to? I'm sure I'm putting it ineptly somewhat.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

Jeri Tanner said:


> But in the end, doesn't it all boil down to what one believes the Scripture teaches about God's preserving his word? It seems to me that two positions are represented on the PB: that the Scriptures teach either that he _has_ kept pure and preserved the readings for his church all through the ages; or they teach that he will _ultimately_ keep pure and preserve the readings for his church.



That's more or less it. Our (CT advocates) contention is that the Old Testament was hand-copied for 3,000 years before it was first set to printer. Copyist errors are going to show up (same as New Testament). Textual criticism means looking at these errors and variants and trying to decide which is best.

Erasmus did the same thing.

Further, many of the older treatments of the Textus Receptus aren't really aware of the age of the Masoretic Text and why comparing it to the LXX and the Syriac (and the Samaritan Pentateuch) is necessary.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Jerusalem Blade said:


> It is a good thing the Masoretes (I think it was Augustine who called them "the librarians of the church")



Can you show where Augustine said this? The Masoretes weren't really active until well after Augustine died. In any case, Augustine didn't know anything about Hebrew, so I wonder how he could have commented on this.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

greenbaggins said:


> Steve, the thing about the Septuagint that I think you may be missing is that it is a translation _of an underlying Hebrew text_. It seems rather clear that, at times, that underlying Hebrew text differs from the MT. Jeremiah seems an obvious example of this. I wrote a paper on the differences in Jeremiah between the LXX and the MT, and concluded that an earlier edition of Jeremiah had been written by him in Egypt, which became the basis for the LXX. Jeremiah later expanded the book for the audience in Jerusalem during the exile. I would argue that the final version Jeremiah wrote is the canonical one. However, there do seem to be a few instances where the LXX seems to have a superior reading. This involves the perilous process of back-translating the Greek into Hebrew. So, the relationship that the LXX can have to OT textual criticism is roughly equivalent to the way in which Latin translations of the NT could conceivably function in NT criticism. The thing that makes the LXX unique, however, is that the LXX manuscripts are so much older than the oldest MT we have. Yes, we have the Isaiah scroll. But, as Iain mentioned, Qumran has readings from both the LXX and the MT. It is not, therefore, quite as simple as saying that the MT always preserves the original. Even within the MT, there are differences between the Aleppo codex and the Leningrad codex. Now, make no mistake, I give the MT the benefit of the doubt, and I think we have to be extremely cautious about using the LXX for text-critical purposes. However, the LXX does have a legitimate part to play in OT textual criticism, and can, on occasion, offer a better reading, not because _it_ is original, but because it offers a reading _of the underlying Hebrew manuscript_, which means that this position does NOT fall foul of the confessional viewpoint on this. If the LXX can correct the MT, it is only insofar as the original Hebrew text underlying the LXX corrects the MT.


Did the Apostles themselves have access to an LXX copy that has disappeared since that time, or perhaps had their own version of the Hebrew text, or maybe a different type of MT to work off from?
And was it a case where the Holy Spirit used the LXX in certain passages, as while the entire Book like Enoch was not inspired, that portion used in the NT book was accurate?


----------



## JimmyH

Dachaser said:


> Did the Apostles themselves have access to an LXX copy that has disappeared since that time, or perhaps had their own version of the Hebrew text, or maybe a different type of MT to work off from?
> And was it a case where the Holy Spirit used the LXX in certain passages, as while the entire Book like Enoch was not inspired, that portion used in the NT book was accurate?


If I'm not mistaken some of the quoted Scripture by our Lord, the Apostles, was sourced from the LXX. So they certainly had copies available to them. I'm sure someone will correct this old man if I'm wrong.


----------



## Dachaser

JimmyH said:


> If I'm not mistaken some of the quoted Scripture by our Lord, the Apostles, was sourced from the LXX. So they certainly had copies available to them. I'm sure someone will correct this old man if I'm wrong.


Thanks, as I also wonder if their version is no longer existing, nor some of the other sources that they might have been using.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Jacob, here are some links to Augustine and that saying,


St. Augustine, _Sermon 5_ 5, citedin Jeremy Cohen, _Living Letters of the Law: Ideas of the Jew in Medieval Christianity_ (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), p 35


Mary H. Allies, “Jacob and Esau in the Church’ (Sermons IV and V), _Leaves from St Augustine_, London: Washbourne, 1899, pp. 324-6.

Civitas Dei / City of God, XVIII, Chapter 46 talks of the Jews in this manner, without actually using the term “librarians”.

The Letters of St. Augustine, p 58
https://archive.org/details/lettersofstaugus00sparuoft/page/58


The Evidences of Christianity in Their External, Or Historical Division: Exhibited in a Course of Lectures, Jun 4, 2011, by Charles Pettit McIlvaine:

Augustine on Jews the ‘librarians’

Augustine on the canon
http://www.bible-researcher.com/augustine.html (search for “librarians”)


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

I’ve been looking over a Jewish website, thetorah.com, and an article, “The (Proto-)Masoretic Text: A Ten-Part Series”, which, although the author, Prof. Emmanuel Tov at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, favors the Masoretic Text, he provides a lot of data concerning the various strains of texts current in early Judaism, both before Christ, and after. Of his own understanding on the comparative value of MT versus the other texts he says, he is reluctant to say because: “my own views … they change all the time” (Part 9). I don’t know if he is a religious Jew or secular, that is, one may be a scholar of the texts but not believe in God—not in any meaningful sense.


One thing I do clearly discern in his presentation of the data concerning the various texts of both the Torah and the larger Tenakh—though he certainly does not promote it—resulting from my presuppositions regarding the providence of God in the preserving of His word, is observing His hand keeping His word intact in the midst of apparent chaos, just as can be seen in the New Testament times. For example, from Part 3:


After the destruction of the Temple, the Qumran texts were hidden in the caves and lost to history. Two other non-MT text types, SP [Syriac Peshitta] and LXX, remained in use, but were cherished by religious groups that were no longer considered Jewish. Thus, with the splitting off from Judaism of the Samaritans and Christians, together with the destruction of centers like Qumran, MT was the only text surviving within Judaism from the previous plurality. This situation could easily create the illusion of a stability brought about by conscious stabilization by authorities.[4]

http://thetorah.com/proto-masoretic-text/socio-religious-background-and-stabilization/​

Looking over this entire discussion, respecting both the OT and NT Scriptures, I see a move toward a radical skepticism that God has preserved His word, both as given to the Jews and also to the Christians. Oh yes, it is said He has preserved them in the plethora of MSS, and we have but to sort it all out—with the help of the new “priest class”, the academics and their “sacred” scientific methodologies—but it remains that the specter of skepticism and doubt is permeating the minds of many with his ghoulish touch of death. Yes, many stalwart souls *today *are able to deal with the lack of a sure, intact, *present *word of God they can hold in their hands—for they already have a faith of long standing—but in the months and years to come, those without such faith, or not yet come to the faith, they will see the remarks of the pastors and professors, and may have to concur with the text critics of the previous generation, where such as this was the growing consensus:


“…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).

Taken from this thread.​

A friend of mine said to me yesterday—in effect—the faith of upcoming generations is being destroyed by the unbelief of those who presently teach. And I begin to wonder if my irenic stance, not wanting to divide the church with textual battles, is a bad strategy. Helpful now, but deadly to the church after I have gone Home.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Jacob, here are some links to Augustine and that saying,
> 
> 
> St. Augustine, _Sermon 5_ 5, citedin Jeremy Cohen, _Living Letters of the Law: Ideas of the Jew in Medieval Christianity_ (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), p 35
> 
> 
> Mary H. Allies, “Jacob and Esau in the Church’ (Sermons IV and V), _Leaves from St Augustine_, London: Washbourne, 1899, pp. 324-6.
> 
> Civitas Dei / City of God, XVIII, Chapter 46 talks of the Jews in this manner, without actually using the term “librarians”.
> 
> The Letters of St. Augustine, p 58
> https://archive.org/details/lettersofstaugus00sparuoft/page/58
> 
> 
> The Evidences of Christianity in Their External, Or Historical Division: Exhibited in a Course of Lectures, Jun 4, 2011, by Charles Pettit McIlvaine:
> 
> Augustine on Jews the ‘librarians’
> 
> Augustine on the canon
> http://www.bible-researcher.com/augustine.html (search for “librarians”)



Augustine is simply saying the Jews preserved the mss (including the Targums, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the MT. All of it. The translator has to weigh these different readigns. That's just inevitable. This is different from saying they preserved the Masoretic Text. The distinction is slight, I grant, but it will factor later in my argument (Lord willing).


----------



## RamistThomist

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I see a move toward a radical skepticism that God has preserved His word, both as given to the Jews and also to the Christians. Oh yes, it is said He has preserved them in the plethora of MSS, and we have but to sort it all out—with the help of the new “priest class”, the academics and their “sacred” scientific methodologies



Anyone who does translation does this. Jerome and Erasmus did exactly the same thing.


Jerusalem Blade said:


> but it remains that the specter of skepticism and doubt is permeating the minds of many with his ghoulish touch of death.



My faith got stronger studying textual criticism, so anecdote vs anecdote?


Jerusalem Blade said:


> “…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).



Bully for him.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Jacob, concerning Augustine and his view on the OT Scriptures, here is William Whitaker, in his, _A Disputation on Holy Scripture_, pp. 45-46 (please note what I have highlighted below) :


Hence, then, I draw an easy and ready answer. We, with Jerome and many other fathers, deny these books to be canonical. Augustine, with some others, calls them canonical. Do, then, these fathers differ so widely in opinion? By no means. For Jerome takes this word "canonical" in one sense, while Augustine, Innocent, and the fathers of Carthage understand it in another. Jerome calls only those books canonical, which the church always held for canonical; the rest he banishes from the canon, denies to be canonical, and calls apocryphal. But Augustine calls those canonical which, although they had not the same perfect and certain authority as the rest, were wont to be read in the church for the edification of the people. Augustine, therefore, takes this name in a larger sense than Jerome. But, that Augustine was not so minded as to judge the authority of all these books to be equal, is manifest from the circumstance that he admonishes the student of theology to place a certain difference between the several books, to distinguish them into classes, and to prefer some to others. If his judgment of them all was the same, as the papists contend, such an admonition and direction must appear entirely superfluous. Would Augustine, if he held all the books to have an equal right to canonicity, have made such a distribution of the books? Would he have preferred some to others? Would he not have said that they were all to be received alike? But now, Augustine does prefer some to others, and prescribes to all such a rule for judging as we have seen. Therefore Augustine did not think that they were all of the same account, credit, and authority; and, consequently, is in open opposition to the papists. All this is manifest. *It makes to the same purpose, that this same Augustine (de Civit. Dei, Lib. xvii. c. 20.) concedes, that less reliance should be placed upon whatever is not found in the canon of the Jews. Whence it may be collected that, when Augustine observed that some books were not received by all, or the greatest and most noble churches, his remark is to be understood of those books which are not contained in the Hebrew canon: and such are those which our churches exclude from the sacred canon. *​

To the same effect, see this article, “Augustine on the Canon”

____


And please note what I had quoted in post #213 above, by Prof Emmanuel Tov,


Two other non-MT text types, SP [Syriac Peshitta] and LXX, remained in use, but were cherished by religious groups that were no longer considered Jewish. Thus, with the splitting off from Judaism of the Samaritans and Christians, together with the destruction of centers like Qumran, MT was the only text surviving within Judaism from the previous plurality.​

All of which to say, that when Augustine refers to the Jews being the “librarians” of the church, he really means the Jews, and not the Samaritans, Syrians, or the LXX adherents (mostly Christians in his day), which were rejected by the Jews as holding to their Scriptures.


In the LORD’s providence, from the very beginning of the first century it was the rabbinic Proto-Masoretic text that was accorded the sole recognition as being their Scripture. If one cares to look over Prof. Tov’s account of this—from the Jewish standpoint—in his series I linked to above, it can be seen that *for the Jews*, the Proto-Masoretic text was the only one they recognized as Scripture. And this is what Augustine had in mind.


But more to the point, what you are proposing is not in the category of variants within the Received Text of the Hebrews, per WCF and 1689 at 1.8, but a complete setting aside of the Masoretic text of the Hebrews in favor of according to other versions—Syriac, Samaritan, and LXX—as having such authority equal to the MT that their versions, at least in part, may be approved as Scripture and may replace MT readings.


Granted, this is done by some, but it is not confessional, which, it appears to me, is not of much consequence to you. And it is this view / attitude that is signaling to new believers that the message of modern textual criticism is, *The Bible text is not sure, it is not settled, it is not certain*. Thus its authority is immensely diminished in their eyes: the Bible is not authoritative over my life, and its readings in various books—we are speaking of the OT in this immediate context—cannot be taken with certainty wherever a variant reading presents itself, whether it be in the Psalms, Genesis, the prophets, etc.


When we disregard the Confessions on certain points we become other than Reformed. They mean to set us apart from the rocky shoals that wreck the fragile ships our souls are, by pointing to the true Scripture and to true doctrine.


Next, I’ll be taking a look at Lane’s essay on Jeremiah in the OT prophets forum. Thank you for the discussion, Jacob.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

Jerusalem Blade said:


> the Proto-Masoretic text was the only one they recognized as Scripture. And this is what Augustine had in mind.



I don't dispute Augustine on the canon. That's not really the issue. As to a proto-Masoretic text, that's assuming the very thing that needs to be proven. We don't have the proto-Masoretic text. We have a Masoretic text, which is not the same thing. I think it is close to the same thing, and by comparing it to the Targums, the Samaritan Pentateuch (both of which are much older), the Dead Sea Scrolls, the LXX, and the Syriac, we can get _very _close to the "proto" text.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> but a complete setting aside of the Masoretic text of the Hebrews in favor of according to other versions—Syriac, Samaritan, and LXX—as having such authority equal to the MT that their versions, at least in part, may be approved as Scripture and may replace MT readings.



I never said anything close to that. I said the Masoretic text has difficulties in places and we are forced to go outside this 11th century text to look at how we can understand those difficulties.

If I were wanting to set aside the Masoretic Text, then why do I spend close to an hour every day studying it?


Jerusalem Blade said:


> Granted, this is done by some, but it is not confessional, which, it appears to me, is not of much consequence to you.



I don't go out of my way to attack the Confession, but I don't ignore the light-years worth of discoveries in archaeology, Semitic languages, etc., in the last 300 years.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins

Steve, I don't think that is what Jacob is doing. Neither of us would set aside the MT at all. Jacob and I both give the MT the benefit of the doubt. But that does not mean that the MT is precisely the same as the original autograph in all instances. And it is not the LXX _as a *Greek* manuscript_ that we are using on occasion to correct the MT. It is only as the LXX is a witness _to a slightly different *Hebrew* manuscript_ than the MT that it is being used. This is true of all the other versions as well. So, neither of us advocate replacing the MT with versions. What we are saying is that the versions, as they witness to a slightly different Hebrew Vorlage, can be used to correct the mostly correct MT. You quote Tov above, but you may not be aware that Tov advocates using the LXX in text-critical matters sometimes to correct the MT.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## iainduguid

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Jacob, concerning Augustine and his view on the OT Scriptures, here is William Whitaker, in his, _A Disputation on Holy Scripture_, pp. 45-46 (please note what I have highlighted below) :
> 
> 
> Hence, then, I draw an easy and ready answer. We, with Jerome and many other fathers, deny these books to be canonical. Augustine, with some others, calls them canonical. Do, then, these fathers differ so widely in opinion? By no means. For Jerome takes this word "canonical" in one sense, while Augustine, Innocent, and the fathers of Carthage understand it in another. Jerome calls only those books canonical, which the church always held for canonical; the rest he banishes from the canon, denies to be canonical, and calls apocryphal. But Augustine calls those canonical which, although they had not the same perfect and certain authority as the rest, were wont to be read in the church for the edification of the people. Augustine, therefore, takes this name in a larger sense than Jerome. But, that Augustine was not so minded as to judge the authority of all these books to be equal, is manifest from the circumstance that he admonishes the student of theology to place a certain difference between the several books, to distinguish them into classes, and to prefer some to others. If his judgment of them all was the same, as the papists contend, such an admonition and direction must appear entirely superfluous. Would Augustine, if he held all the books to have an equal right to canonicity, have made such a distribution of the books? Would he have preferred some to others? Would he not have said that they were all to be received alike? But now, Augustine does prefer some to others, and prescribes to all such a rule for judging as we have seen. Therefore Augustine did not think that they were all of the same account, credit, and authority; and, consequently, is in open opposition to the papists. All this is manifest. *It makes to the same purpose, that this same Augustine (de Civit. Dei, Lib. xvii. c. 20.) concedes, that less reliance should be placed upon whatever is not found in the canon of the Jews. Whence it may be collected that, when Augustine observed that some books were not received by all, or the greatest and most noble churches, his remark is to be understood of those books which are not contained in the Hebrew canon: and such are those which our churches exclude from the sacred canon. *​
> 
> To the same effect, see this article, “Augustine on the Canon”
> 
> ____
> 
> 
> And please note what I had quoted in post #213 above, by Prof Emmanuel Tov,
> 
> 
> Two other non-MT text types, SP [Syriac Peshitta] and LXX, remained in use, but were cherished by religious groups that were no longer considered Jewish. Thus, with the splitting off from Judaism of the Samaritans and Christians, together with the destruction of centers like Qumran, MT was the only text surviving within Judaism from the previous plurality.​
> 
> All of which to say, that when Augustine refers to the Jews being the “librarians” of the church, he really means the Jews, and not the Samaritans, Syrians, or the LXX adherents (mostly Christians in his day), which were rejected by the Jews as holding to their Scriptures.
> 
> 
> In the LORD’s providence, from the very beginning of the first century it was the rabbinic Proto-Masoretic text that was accorded the sole recognition as being their Scripture. If one cares to look over Prof. Tov’s account of this—from the Jewish standpoint—in his series I linked to above, it can be seen that *for the Jews*, the Proto-Masoretic text was the only one they recognized as Scripture. And this is what Augustine had in mind.
> 
> 
> But more to the point, what you are proposing is not in the category of variants within the Received Text of the Hebrews, per WCF and 1689 at 1.8, but a complete setting aside of the Masoretic text of the Hebrews in favor of according to other versions—Syriac, Samaritan, and LXX—as having such authority equal to the MT that their versions, at least in part, may be approved as Scripture and may replace MT readings.
> 
> 
> Granted, this is done by some, but it is not confessional, which, it appears to me, is not of much consequence to you. And it is this view / attitude that is signaling to new believers that the message of modern textual criticism is, *The Bible text is not sure, it is not settled, it is not certain*. Thus its authority is immensely diminished in their eyes: the Bible is not authoritative over my life, and its readings in various books—we are speaking of the OT in this immediate context—cannot be taken with certainty wherever a variant reading presents itself, whether it be in the Psalms, Genesis, the prophets, etc.
> 
> 
> When we disregard the Confessions on certain points we become other than Reformed. They mean to set us apart from the rocky shoals that wreck the fragile ships our souls are, by pointing to the true Scripture and to true doctrine.
> 
> 
> Next, I’ll be taking a look at Lane’s essay on Jeremiah in the OT prophets forum. Thank you for the discussion, Jacob.


Hi Steve,
This is a profitable discussion I think and lays out the difference in our positions fairly clearly. As I understand you, we may only look at the Masoretic text for our OT Scriptures (I'm not sure if that includes the possibility of textual criticism within that majority text, since there are some differences within the masoretic tradition?). Any other text traditions (LXX, Peshitta, Samaritan Pentateuch, Qumran, Targum etc) are entirely off limits for correcting the MT. In contrast, while I give strong priority to the masoretic text, I think there are places where the LXX (and other witnesses) may represent a different (proto-masoretic) Hebrew tradition that is more accurate.

John Calvin was very much in favor of the MT, but he was willing to depart from it in at least one place: Psalm 22:16. He says: "The original word, which we have translated _they have pierced, _is כארי, _caari, _which literally rendered is, _like a lion. _As all the Hebrew Bibles at this day, without exception, have this reading, I would have had great hesitation in departing from a reading which they all support, were it not that the scope of the discourse compels me to do so, and were there not strong grounds for conjecturing that this passage has been fraudulently corrupted by the Jews. With respect to the Septuagint version, there is no doubt that the translators had read in the Hebrew text, כארו, _caaru, _that is the letter ו, _vau, _where there is now the letter י, _yod."_ 

I'm not sure I'd follow him in claiming that this is a deliberate corruption, and would note that there are actually a few MT manuscripts that have the same as the LXX, but the majority of the MT manuscripts clearly don't have "they have pierced." Calvin knew of no Hebrew manuscripts in his day following the reading he adopted, yet he was willing to follow the LXX. It doesn't seem that he was resting the doctrine of preservation solely on the majority Hebrew text (as it existed in his day). I think Calvin qualifies as Reformed, and someone for whom the text of Scripture was adequately settled. And if claiming that that text has in at least one place been "fraudulently corrupted" by its transmitters doesn't shake your faith in God's Word, then a few errors in transmission that may be corrected from other Hebrew traditions reflected in the LXX and at Qumran are unlikely to do so! In reality, the differences between any and every English translation and the original Hebrew are at least as great as any textual differences (and therefore as likely, or unlikely, to shake the faith of believers). Yet we don't suggest that our English Bibles are not settled, certain and sure just because they are imperfect translations. They are nothing less than the Word of God (see WCF 1.8).

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 3


----------



## Tom Hart

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hence, then, I draw an easy and ready answer. We, with Jerome and many other fathers, deny these books to be canonical. Augustine, with some others, calls them canonical. Do, then, these fathers differ so widely in opinion? By no means. For Jerome takes this word "canonical" in one sense, while Augustine, Innocent, and the fathers of Carthage understand it in another. Jerome calls only those books canonical, which the church always held for canonical; the rest he banishes from the canon, denies to be canonical, and calls apocryphal. But Augustine calls those canonical which, although they had not the same perfect and certain authority as the rest, were wont to be read in the church for the edification of the people. Augustine, therefore, takes this name in a larger sense than Jerome. But, that Augustine was not so minded as to judge the authority of all these books to be equal, is manifest from the circumstance that he admonishes the student of theology to place a certain difference between the several books, to distinguish them into classes, and to prefer some to others. If his judgment of them all was the same, as the papists contend, such an admonition and direction must appear entirely superfluous. Would Augustine, if he held all the books to have an equal right to canonicity, have made such a distribution of the books? Would he have preferred some to others? Would he not have said that they were all to be received alike? But now, Augustine does prefer some to others, and prescribes to all such a rule for judging as we have seen. Therefore Augustine did not think that they were all of the same account, credit, and authority; and, consequently, is in open opposition to the papists. All this is manifest. *It makes to the same purpose, that this same Augustine (de Civit. Dei, Lib. xvii. c. 20.) concedes, that less reliance should be placed upon whatever is not found in the canon of the Jews. Whence it may be collected that, when Augustine observed that some books were not received by all, or the greatest and most noble churches, his remark is to be understood of those books which are not contained in the Hebrew canon: and such are those which our churches exclude from the sacred canon. *



I fail to see how this has anything to do with the discussion.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> When we disregard the Confessions on certain points we become other than Reformed. They mean to set us apart from the rocky shoals that wreck the fragile ships our souls are, by pointing to the true Scripture and to true doctrine.



Could you clarify how exactly Jacob has disregarded the Confessions? There was some discussion earlier on WCF 1.8 and the meaning of "pure in all ages". Are you referring to that phrase?


----------



## Jeri Tanner

@Tom Hart, Tom, I’m curious as to whether you’re familiar with any other proponents for the received text principle who are talking today? I just wondered how much you’ve looked into it.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

I think the problem that myself and others have with textual criticism is not so much the concept, but rather the reality. For all the comparing and criticizing, modern textual critics are never able to arrive at a settled text, and there is little indication they ever will. 

We are currently on the twenty-eighth edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, and does anyone doubt that there will one day be a twenty-ninth? If all of this updating were the result of genuinely significant textual discoveries, then I would not object, but I have seen no evidence to suggest that this is the case. My admittedly cynical assessment is that all the hand wringing has less to do with a desire to advance the text and more to do with an effort towards self-perpetuation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart

Jeri Tanner said:


> @Tom Hart, Tom, I’m curious as to whether you’re familiar with any other proponents for the received text principle who are talking today? I just wondered how much you’ve looked into it.



Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Other proponents of the TR? Other than whom?

I've begun looking into this only recently. I'm very ignorant of textual issues, and it's become clear to me that I need to work through it. Any help, any resource you can recommend, is appreciated.


----------



## Smeagol

Bill The Baptist said:


> I think the problem that myself and others have with textual criticism is not so much the concept, but rather the reality.


And you give Erasmus a pass? Did he not use textual criticism?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

@Tom Hart, I haven’t got very deeply into all the particulars of data myself (lack both the time and mental prowess) but learned enough to settle on and be satisfied with a theological stance. Here on the board Rev. Matthew Winzer (MW in a search) is another minister (in addition to Jerusalem Blade) who has spoken to theological and technical aspects. Robert Truelove has done a lot of work and is part of an upcoming conference on the matter.


----------



## greenbaggins

Bill The Baptist said:


> I think the problem that myself and others have with textual criticism is not so much the concept, but rather the reality. For all the comparing and criticizing, modern textual critics are never able to arrive at a settled text, and there is little indication they ever will.
> 
> We are currently on the twenty-eighth edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, and does anyone doubt that there will one day be a twenty-ninth? If all of this updating were the result of genuinely significant textual discoveries, then I would not object, but I have seen no evidence to suggest that this is the case. My admittedly cynical assessment is that all the hand wringing has less to do with a desire to advance the text and more to do with an effort towards self-perpetuation.



While I understand the semi-cynicism of your post, there are a couple of points that need to be born in mind. A new _Editio Critica Maior_ is in process of publication (a major critical edition). This means a new major critical edition that has every variant from every manuscript listed in the apparatus. The only fascicle that had been published at the time of the 28th NA was the one on the Catholic Epistles. Still, the revision in other places is congruent with the work on the major edition now underway. Secondly, as a matter of fact, new manuscripts have been found, and are being taken into account in the NA 28th. Thirdly, the process of detailed collation is still not complete on thousands of NT manuscripts that we currently have. Fourthly, the patristic citations can now be set on a much more firm foundation with the publication of modern, updated critical editions of the ECF. Previously, too much reliance on the Migne set limited the value of the patristic citations. But, as more and more of the ECF's are now being published in outrageously expensive sets (usually over $200 per volume!), the work of textual criticism has significant new vistas of information to traverse.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Grant Jones said:


> And you give Erasmus a pass? Did he not use textual criticism?


 
Did you read my entire post? The issue that I have is not with the concept of textual criticism but the practice as it is currently executed. There seems to be no desire to arrive at a settled text, but rather to constantly tinker and adjust for no apparent reason other than to be able to publish new editions of texts which will soon necessitate new editions of translations.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

greenbaggins said:


> While I understand the semi-cynicism of your post, there are a couple of points that need to be born in mind. A new _Editio Critica Maior_ is in process of publication (a major critical edition). This means a new major critical edition that has every variant from every manuscript listed in the apparatus. The only fascicle that had been published at the time of the 28th NA was the one on the Catholic Epistles. Still, the revision in other places is congruent with the work on the major edition now underway. Secondly, as a matter of fact, new manuscripts have been found, and are being taken into account in the NA 28th. Thirdly, the process of detailed collation is still not complete on thousands of NT manuscripts that we currently have. Fourthly, the patristic citations can now be set on a much more firm foundation with the publication of modern, updated critical editions of the ECF. Previously, too much reliance on the Migne set limited the value of the patristic citations. But, as more and more of the ECF's are now being published in outrageously expensive sets (usually over $200 per volume!), the work of textual criticism has significant new vistas of information to traverse.



I am not doubting that there have and continue to be new manuscripts discovered. My question is this: can you point to any textual discovery in the last 50 years or so that has genuinely changed anyone’s opinion on any disputed passage and that was significant enough to warrant a new editions of texts?


----------



## RamistThomist

Bill The Baptist said:


> My question is this: can you point to any textual discovery in the last 50 years or so that has genuinely changed anyone’s opinion on any disputed passage and that was significant enough to warrant a new editions of texts?



Not in the last 50 years, but if we extend it to the 1940s, the Dead Sea Scrolls changed everything (to Christians' advantage).

And the discovery of Ugarit in the 1920s aided our understanding of the book of Job. There are numerous hapax legomena (unusual words) in the Hebrew bible that earlier translations, like the King James, just didn't know what to do with them. Since Ugarit is almost identical to Hebrew in terms of vocabulary, it really aided our translation efforts.


----------



## Smeagol

Bill The Baptist said:


> Did you read my entire post? The issue that I have is not with the concept of textual criticism but the practice as it is currently executed. There seems to be no desire to arrive at a settled text, but rather to constantly tinker and adjust for no apparent reason other than to be able to publish new editions of texts which will soon necessitate new editions of translations.


Bill,

I did read your post. But again why do you not level this against Erasmus? Was there not already an English translation widely circulated. Were there not manuscript variations to be wrestled with? . Sure I could still be missing your point, but I just see no consistency in the conclusion. Yes I would love 1 English translation that all of the visible Church could agree to as the standard, but we do not have that, not even in the reformed confessional camps, not even in EP/AO camps.

I feel very confident that our reformed CT brothers have a STRONG desire to arrive at a settled text.

P.S. in my opinion this has more to do with opinions on manuscript reliability.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF

BayouHuguenot said:


> Not in the last 50 years, but if we extend it to the 1940s, the Dead Sea Scrolls changed everything (to Christians' advantage).
> 
> And the discovery of Ugarit in the 1920s aided our understanding of the book of Job. There are numerous hapax legomena (unusual words) in the Hebrew bible that earlier translations, like the King James, just didn't know what to do with them. Since Ugarit is almost identical to Hebrew in terms of vocabulary, it really aided our translation efforts.



My most point is; at least _in theory_, autographs _could_ be discovered. If that is a possibility then shouldn't we be open to more manuscripts?


----------



## RamistThomist

ZackF said:


> My most point is; at least _in theory_, autographs _could_ be discovered. If that is a possibility then shouldn't we be open to more manuscripts?



What do we mean by "preserved?" Do we mean the original scrolls from 3500 years ago? I doubt it. Ravages of time. 

By "preserved" do we mean copied? Sure, but unless we are going to extend inerrancy and infallibility to every copyist, then we are going to get manuscript errors.


----------



## ZackF

BayouHuguenot said:


> What do we mean by "preserved?" Do we mean the original scrolls from 3500 years ago? I doubt it. Ravages of time.
> 
> By "preserved" do we mean copied? Sure, but unless we are going to extend inerrancy and infallibility to every copyist, then we are going to get manuscript errors.



I meant that it is possible that an extant original exists no matter how remote even if a fragment especially of the New Testament. One can't rule it out absolutely. If he can't rule the possibility out then logically we can't fix the text to a particular set from now or a previous era. If we did so, to be consistent, we'd have to reject an original if found? Silly thought experiment I suppose.


----------



## RamistThomist

ZackF said:


> If he can't rule the possibility out then logically we can't fix the text to a particular set from now or a previous era.



The problem is that the Masoretic is not the original. It is written in a different script with vowels that weren't there. If we found an original, it would be written in paleo-Hebrew, not in the script we have today.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Tom, what it has “to do with the discussion” is simply that Augustine differentiated between the MT and other editions of the OT, and gave preference to the text of the Jews, i.e., the MT, and accorded to that the only Scriptures recognized as such by the Jews as their canon, in book and text.


And in post #203 Jacob said,


I like the Masoretic, but it is *not* the authentic Bible. It is the product of several textual traditions that were codified (cf Ellis Brotzman, _Old Testament Textual Criticism_).

As for a proto-Masoretic text being the authentic bible, that's all well and good but that is specifically what we don't have.​

Re your post #220, when it is said that the “Masoretic…is *not* the authentic Bible”, this rebuts the WCF.


I do find it odd on this a purportedly confessional board, to take a confessional stand with regard to the Scripture the Reformation / Westminster divines held to and referenced in their confession, that simply taking this position exposes one to great opposition and attempts to rebut, the new developments in text critical "science", and new manuscripts apparently trumping the view of the Reformers, as though they were ignorant and not up-to-speed and—ultimately—wrong in their stand against Rome in using the Hebrew MT and Greek TR to undergird their doctrine of Sola Scriptura. In very fact, the primary exemplars—although the NA 28 and the UBS 4 are purportedly eclectic texts—remain Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and the ongoing critical editions are supervised by the Vatican for the purpose of producing Rome-approved ecumenical Bibles. That seems not to faze in the least some Reformed folks.


As I have said, these CT Bibles are legitimate and used of God, and what is of issue are the variants. Still, the association with the Vatican would make our Reformed forebears turn in their graves, were their spirits not in the most excellent glory of our King.


With regard to Psalm 22:16—and the words “like a lion” and “pierced”—here is a brief study of that passage: http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/they-p...ike-a-lion-my-hands-and-my-feet-in-psalm-2216


During his travels throughout Europe, and England, Erasmus pored over as many manuscripts as he could find and get hold of, so as to study and note their readings. He became familiar with the readings commonly received by the people. He maintained voluminous notes. He rejected the readings of Vaticanus which were supplied to him by a friend in the Vatican. I suppose this was a sort of textual criticism, though I would term it becoming familiar with what he perceived as the Bible of the churches—and by that I do not mean the Catholic church, which reviled his textual efforts.


Regarding the earliest Hebrew MSS, and the early orthography of same, and the word of the LORD through Moses and the prophets and the authors of the other OT writings—taking into account the apparently labyrinthine trail of the MSS of the word of the LORD—could our great God not have providentially preserved this precious word of His, which He promises to do on a number of occasions? Is anything too difficult for Him? In fact, God did preserve His word from the very beginning of it to the very end. This is the confessional Reformed view, pre-Warfield. I hold to it, even if there are parts of it I do not understand, or are not clear, or appear disfigured. This is the inspired and preserved word of God in the Hebrew (and a little Aramaic) and the Greek, and I have a faithful and reliable translation of it in the English.


He preserved us—as He saw and loved us in eternity past—through all the ravages of the genetic pool, through all that would mar and destroy us, these many thousands of years, so that we appear before Him exactly as He envisioned us back then. Could He not do the same with His words, actually a simpler task than keeping *us *intact? He did indeed do so in both cases.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

Jerusalem Blade said:


> That seems not to faze in the least some Reformed folks.



Should Luther have been faze in using the Papist edition by Erasmus?


Jerusalem Blade said:


> could our great God not have providentially preserved this precious word of His, which He promises to do on a number of occasions?



He could, but asking that question isn't the same thing as "evidence."


Jerusalem Blade said:


> In fact, God did preserve His word from the very beginning of it to the very end.



No one here denies this.


----------



## RamistThomist

Jerusalem Blade said:


> With regard to Psalm 22:16—and the words “like a lion” and “pierced”—here is a brief study of that passage: http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/they-p...ike-a-lion-my-hands-and-my-feet-in-psalm-2216



I am not sure why you referenced this. We all agree that pride of place should be given to the Masoretic Text. Again, _no one has denied that_.


----------



## Tom Hart

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Tom, what it has “to do with the discussion” is simply that Augustine differentiated between the MT and other editions of the OT, and gave preference to the text of the Jews, i.e., the MT, and accorded to that the only Scriptures recognized as such by the Jews as their canon, in book and text.



First of all, there was no "Masoretic Text" in Augustine's day. According to Wikipedia, at least, the Masoretes were active a couple of centuries after Augustine, so whatever Augustine was talking about, it was not the MT.

Then there's also the fact that your quote concerned which literature was canonical. You'll have to educate me on just how this illustrates Augustine's views on textual transmission.

I hav said elsewhere that I am only an observer. My own views on this are not settled. I am sincerely trying to understand your position.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> [W]hen it is said that the “Masoretic…is *not* the authentic Bible”, this rebuts the WCF.



Where does it rebut the WCF? You've said this twice now, but you haven't explained clearly what you mean. Which chapter of the WCF? Which section? Did the Westminster Divines believe the MT to be the only authority? Could you prove this?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

This thread looks interesting, but there's no way I'm reading it all to get caught up. Tomorrow I plan on using the ESV in worship 

Additionally, it does stand for "Elect Standard Version", right?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## JimmyH

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> This thread looks interesting, but there's no way I'm reading it all to get caught up. Tomorrow I plan on using the ESV in worship
> 
> *Additionally, it does stand for "Elect Standard Version", right?*


I'm not sure if that is 'right', or not .... At my congregation we use the 1984 NIV, which some call 'the New Inspired Version' .... not sure about _that_ either ...


----------



## Bill The Baptist

JimmyH said:


> I'm not sure if that is 'right', or not .... At my congregation we use the 1984 NIV, which some call 'the New Inspired Version' .... not sure about _that_ either ...



Don’t you mean nearly inspired version? At least that’s what we called it in seminary.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Jacob, the so-called (by you) “Papist edition by Erasmus” was the _beginning _of the new Received Text in Greek, the readings of which would be refined as both Erasmus and other editors put their hands to it.

The *primary *evidence is the word of God saying what He would do as regards preserving His word, and then our looking back in hindsight to see how He did it. Just as in the creation debates, the *primary evidence *is not found in fossils or earth strata, but in the record of Creation He gave to Moses to write, for our understanding. The word of God is our foundation for knowing anything.

Which is not to say I do not value evidences! I have labored for years showing *evidences *for particular readings, as this link in my signature at the bottom of every post shows: Textual Posts. Those, and the Eschatology posts represent a lot of work in these two areas. Nevertheless, my primary evidence is that which the LORD our God has provided in His word, and upon which my guiding presuppositions are based.
___

*I said:* In fact, God did preserve His word from the very beginning of it to the very end.
*And you said: *No one here denies this.

The issue is, How did He preserve it. And has that preservation been finalized or is it still in process, in flux? If the latter, will it ever be finished in this life? I give here three verses from Scripture:

*Isaiah 40:8* The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

*1 Peter 1:25* But the word of the Lord endureth for ever.

*Psalm 119:89* For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

Now the word of the LORD spoken of above, is it settled forever in heaven only, and not here on the earth as well for the men to whom it was given for their salvation and comfort? Does it endure, and stand inviolate, only in heaven and not here for us who must live by it? Was God not *able *to have His word endure forever here in the world? Can it be that it is settled only in heaven, and not here that we may benefit therefrom? The Confessions, and myself, maintain that the Old Testament in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek—our Bible—is settled *here*, and has, and *will* endure until the very end of time.

The Reformed have stated in their foundational documents—the WCF and the 1689—in chapter 1 section 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 Church is finally to appeal unto them*. 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, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope. (WCF 1.8)​
Please note the boldface type [added]: this clearly indicates a finished product: it had been kept pure, and this that was kept—and which they had in hand—was to be the “court” of final appeal to the churches. It was not something that was in process, and for which they would have to wait, as would be the case with the “provisional” texts of the scholars not satisfied with the Reformed Confessions.

Tom, I think from following the thread you can see that when I use the term, Masoretic Text (MT), in the days before the Masoretes that text-form was called the Proto-Masoretic Text. To get the terminologies straight is why I posted Emmanuel Tov’s article on it.

I posted material and a couple of links on Augustine and the canon in post #216. Simply put, he acknowledged that the proto-Masoretic text—the text in Hebrew—was the only one the Jews of that day owned as theirs. Other texts based on a Hebrew vorlage (original) but in a different tongue were used by communities that were not Jewish.

Tom, for one to say that the Masoretic Text is not the authentic text of the Bible explicitly seeks to refutes the statement of the WCF and 1689 at 1.8. I have written that section out four paragraphs above. The Hebrew Text they had in hand was the Ben Hayyim Hebrew, or Second Great Rabbinic Bible:

The Mikraot Gedolot (or, in English, the [Second] Rabbinic Bible) was produced by Jacob ben Haim (also known as Yaakov ben Hayyim ibn Adonijah). The Mikraot Gedolot was published by Daniel Bomberg in Venice in 1524-1525, and is a classic printing of the Hebrew Bible, the Hebrew Masoretic text. The Mikraot Gedolot of ben Hayyim is believed to have been used by the translators of the King James Version of the Bible in 1611, as the source text (Textus Receptus) of the Hebrew Old Testament.

https://biblemanuscriptsociety.com/Bible-resources/Early-Bibles/Rabbinic-Bible​
You asked, Tom, “Did the Westminster Divines believe the MT to be the only authority? Could you prove this?” There *was *no other Hebrew Bible acknowledged by both the Jews and the Protestant / Reformed Christians at that time besides the Ben Hayyim edition.

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Jerusalem Blade said:


> It was not something that was in process, and for which they would have to wait, as would be the case with the “provisional” texts of the scholars not satisfied with the Reformed Confessions.



All of that is well and good, but you cannot move logically from the claim--the Masoretic text today (which we didn't have until the 11th century) to the claim therefore (because of the 11th century MT) that we had an established text "in all ages before then." It is the fallacy of asserting the consequent.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Tom Hart

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Tom, I think from following the thread you can see that when I use the term, Masoretic Text (MT), in the days before the Masoretes that text-form was called the Proto-Masoretic Text. To get the terminologies straight is why I posted Emmanuel Tov’s article on it.
> 
> I posted material and a couple of links on Augustine and the canon in post #216. Simply put, he acknowledged that the proto-Masoretic text—the text in Hebrew—was the only one the Jews of that day owned as theirs. Other texts based on a Hebrew vorlage (original) but in a different tongue were used by communities that were not Jewish.



OK, so Augustine was talking about the proto-Masoretic Text. Do you hold that to be identical to the Masoretic Text?

Also, is it not true that the Septuagint was used by Greek-speaking Jews? (This might be earlier than Augustine, however.)



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Tom, for one to say that the Masoretic Text is not the authentic text of the Bible explicitly seeks to refutes the statement of the WCF and 1689 at 1.8.... The Hebrew Text they had in hand was the Ben Hayyim Hebrew, or Second Great Rabbinic Bible:



Do you take "pure in all ages" to mean manuscripts identical to the autographs?



Jerusalem Blade said:


> You asked, Tom, “Did the Westminster Divines believe the MT to be the only authority? Could you prove this?” There *was *no other Hebrew Bible acknowledged by both the Jews and the Protestant / Reformed Christians at that time besides the Ben Hayyim edition.



What did the Westminster Divines (or others of the time) think of the Septuagint?

I would appreciate any sources you can give (quotations, articles, etc.) to support your claim that the Westminster Divines believed the Masoretic Text to be the only valid Hebrew text.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

JimmyH said:


> I'm not sure if that is 'right', or not .... At my congregation we use the 1984 NIV, which some call 'the New Inspired Version' .... not sure about _that_ either ...



My minister has talked about changing from the NIV to the ESV. If he does, I am starting my own NIV-only sect, whose leading slogan will be, "If it's not 1978, it's not great!"

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## greenbaggins

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Please note the boldface type [added]: this clearly indicates a finished product: it had been kept pure, and this that was kept—and which they had in hand—was to be the “court” of final appeal to the churches. It was not something that was in process, and for which they would have to wait, as would be the case with the “provisional” texts of the scholars not satisfied with the Reformed Confessions.



So, Steve, I just want to be clear on what you are saying. You are claiming that the TR is not something that was in process ever at any given time? But you said at the beginning of your post


Jerusalem Blade said:


> Jacob, the so-called (by you) “Papist edition by Erasmus” was the _beginning _of the new Received Text in Greek, the readings of which would be refined as both Erasmus and other editors put their hands to it.


. That sounds like a process to me. I'm not sure you can have it both ways: either the TR was a process, in which case we have to ask the question of what Greek NT manuscript was the finished product in order that your interpretation of the WCF holds with regard to _pre-TR times_, or the TR dropped out of heaven as a finished product itself. 




Jerusalem Blade said:


> Tom, for one to say that the Masoretic Text is not the authentic text of the Bible explicitly seeks to refutes the statement of the WCF and 1689 at 1.8.


 Ok, but no one is saying this or claiming this. If all we ever had was the MT, we would have the Word of God (though, as Iain said, there are variations within the MT manuscripts). We keep coming back to the same problem, which is that your argument does not recognize degrees of purity and degrees of approximation. The fact is that we do not have any manuscript today that we can say with certitude "This is the autograph." We have a variety of manuscripts, which, when compared, gets us 99.99% close to the autograph. All we are saying is that the LXX bears witness to a Hebrew text that can be compared to the MT, sometimes favorably, sometimes unfavorably. Now, if you are claiming that the MT is the autograph, then you run into the problem of the vowel points, which were added by the Masoretes. The MT manuscripts we have are apographs, not autographs. As I see it, the only way your argument works is if the MT is the autograph. On the other hand, I do not see why very close approximations have to be said to be impure. Again, the Westminster divines were responding to the claims that the texts were utterly corrupt. I do not think we have to interpret them as requiring absolute purity. If God had needed for us to have absolute purity, he would have preserved the autographs for us.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2 | Amen 1


----------



## iainduguid

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Jacob, the so-called (by you) “Papist edition by Erasmus” was the _beginning _of the new Received Text in Greek, the readings of which would be refined as both Erasmus and other editors put their hands to it.
> 
> The *primary *evidence is the word of God saying what He would do as regards preserving His word, and then our looking back in hindsight to see how He did it. Just as in the creation debates, the *primary evidence *is not found in fossils or earth strata, but in the record of Creation He gave to Moses to write, for our understanding. The word of God is our foundation for knowing anything.
> 
> Which is not to say I do not value evidences! I have labored for years showing *evidences *for particular readings, as this link in my signature at the bottom of every post shows: Textual Posts. Those, and the Eschatologyposts represent a lot of work in these two areas. Nevertheless, my primary evidence is that which the LORD our God has provided in His word, and upon which my guiding presuppositions are based.
> ___
> 
> *I said:* In fact, God did preserve His word from the very beginning of it to the very end.
> *And you said: *No one here denies this.
> 
> The issue is, How did He preserve it. And has that preservation been finalized or is it still in process, in flux? If the latter, will it ever be finished in this life? I give here three verses from Scripture:
> 
> *Isaiah 40:8* The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
> 
> *1 Peter 1:25* But the word of the Lord endureth for ever.
> 
> *Psalm 119:89* For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.
> 
> Now the word of the LORD spoken of above, is it settled forever in heaven only, and not here on the earth as well for the men to whom it was given for their salvation and comfort? Does it endure, and stand inviolate, only in heaven and not here for us who must live by it? Was God not *able *to have His word endure forever here in the world? Can it be that it is settled only in heaven, and not here that we may benefit therefrom? The Confessions, and myself, maintain that the Old Testament in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek—our Bible—is settled *here*, and has, and *will* endure until the very end of time.
> 
> The Reformed have stated in their foundational documents—the WCF and the 1689—in chapter 1 section 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 Church is finally to appeal unto them*. 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, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope. (WCF 1.8)​
> Please note the boldface type [added]: this clearly indicates a finished product: it had been kept pure, and this that was kept—and which they had in hand—was to be the “court” of final appeal to the churches. It was not something that was in process, and for which they would have to wait, as would be the case with the “provisional” texts of the scholars not satisfied with the Reformed Confessions.
> 
> Tom, I think from following the thread you can see that when I use the term, Masoretic Text (MT), in the days before the Masoretes that text-form was called the Proto-Masoretic Text. To get the terminologies straight is why I posted Emmanuel Tov’s article on it.
> 
> I posted material and a couple of links on Augustine and the canon in post #216. Simply put, he acknowledged that the proto-Masoretic text—the text in Hebrew—was the only one the Jews of that day owned as theirs. Other texts based on a Hebrew vorlage (original) but in a different tongue were used by communities that were not Jewish.
> 
> Tom, for one to say that the Masoretic Text is not the authentic text of the Bible explicitly seeks to refutes the statement of the WCF and 1689 at 1.8. I have written that section out four paragraphs above. The Hebrew Text they had in hand was the Ben Hayyim Hebrew, or Second Great Rabbinic Bible:
> 
> The Mikraot Gedolot (or, in English, the [Second] Rabbinic Bible) was produced by Jacob ben Haim (also known as Yaakov ben Hayyim ibn Adonijah). The Mikraot Gedolot was published by Daniel Bomberg in Venice in 1524-1525, and is a classic printing of the Hebrew Bible, the Hebrew Masoretic text. The Mikraot Gedolot of ben Hayyim is believed to have been used by the translators of the King James Version of the Bible in 1611, as the source text (Textus Receptus) of the Hebrew Old Testament.
> 
> https://biblemanuscriptsociety.com/Bible-resources/Early-Bibles/Rabbinic-Bible​
> You asked, Tom, “Did the Westminster Divines believe the MT to be the only authority? Could you prove this?” There *was *no other Hebrew Bible acknowledged by both the Jews and the Protestant / Reformed Christians at that time besides the Ben Hayyim edition.


Steve,
Is there _any_ English translation that adopts the approach you advocate, of MT only, with no emendations permitted based on other text families? Certainly Edward Hills doesn't think that that approach describes the KJV. He says:

Sometimes also the influence of the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate is discernible in the King James Old Testament. For example, in Psalm 24:6 the King James text reads, _O Jacob, _with the Hebrew _kethibh _but the King James margin reads, O _God of Jacob, _which is the reading of the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, and also of Luther's German Bible. In Jer. 3:9 the King James margin reads _fame (qol) _along with the Hebrew _kethibh, _but the King James text reads _lightness (qal) _in agreement with the Septuagint, and the Latin Vulgate. And in Psalm 22:16 the King James Version reads with the Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Latin Vulgate, _they pierced my hands and my feet. _The Hebrew text, on the other hand, reads, _like a lion my hands and my feet, _a reading which makes no sense and which, as Calvin observes, was obviously invented by the Jews to deny the prophetic reference to the crucifixion of Christ. (_The King James Version Defended_, 166).

What is notable here also is Hills insistence, along with Calvin and Matthew Henry that the MT is not only in error in Ps 22:16, _but has been deliberately falsified! _That's hardly an assertion of confidence in divine preservation of the text. It's perhaps ironic that I wouldn't go nearly as far as they would, when the confusion of a yod and a waw could be a simple copying error.

The point is simple: according to your rule, the KJV (and other translations) should never, ever depart from the MT reading in favor of the LXX. It's not always simple to distinguish between the KJV adopting a variant reading from the LXX and the KJV using the LXX to translate obscure words (which it does often, sometimes wrongly), but one straightforward example will suffice. In Ruth 3:15, the KJV (along with the Geneva Bible before it) translates "and she went into town", following the LXX, when the MT (ironically followed by many modern versions, including the NIV!) clearly has "and he went into town." I could multiply examples, if necessary. But there is no English Bible based solely on the MT.

Reactions: Like 6 | Informative 4


----------



## Johann Amadeus Schubert

Hello Dr. Duguid,

I know that you surpass me in all biblical knowledge and I am happy to be corrected.

I am not advocating a particular English translation at this time but rather for the preserved word of the original languages.

It is my understanding that Ben-Chayyim (30 years Calvin's senior) found כארו in corrected copies. Though Calvin was unaware of that particular Hebrew reading, it was nevertheless preserved during his lifetime.

Maybe Calvin's view of the doctrine of preservation makes use of the LXX not as authoritative but rather assisting (as he did not have that Hebrew source at his disposal at that particular time though it was providentially preserved). He says: "With respect to the Septuagint version, there is no doubt that the translators had read in the Hebrew text, כארו, _caaru, _that is the letter ו, _vau, _where there is now the letter י, _yod."_ Nevertheless, I don't know why he doesn't mention the Ben-Chayyim.

No doubt the original manuscripts have been corrupted by carelessness or intention but that is not what I am disputing. What I am asserting is not all the manuscripts have degenerated to the point of being irretrievable as the corruption is not universal. I believe a collation of manuscripts can render a pure reading.

I believe the LXX is a great asset to the church but still a fallible human translation and should not be regarded as equal to the sources. I may be in the minority but I agree with Canon III of the Helvetic Consensus Formula:

*Canon III:* Therefore, we are not able to approve of the opinion of those who believe that the text which the Hebrew Original exhibits was determined by man's will alone, and do not hesitate at all to remodel a Hebrew reading which they consider unsuitable, and amend it from the versions of the LXX and other Greek versions, the Samaritan Pentateuch, by the Chaldaic Targums, or even from other sources.


----------



## RamistThomist

Johann Amadeus Schubert said:


> What I am asserting is not all the manuscripts have degenerated to the point of being irretrievable as the corruption is not universal.



By manuscript, do you mean original or copy? No one here is saying that ALL of the copies have degenerated to the point of being irretrievable.


----------



## iainduguid

Johann Amadeus Schubert said:


> Hello Dr. Duguid,
> 
> I know that you surpass me in all biblical knowledge and I am happy to be corrected.
> 
> I am not advocating a particular English translation at this time but rather for the preserved word of the original languages.
> 
> It is my understanding that Ben-Chayyim (30 years Calvin's senior) found כארו in corrected copies. Though Calvin was unaware of that particular Hebrew reading, it was nevertheless preserved during his lifetime.
> 
> Maybe Calvin's view of the doctrine of preservation makes use of the LXX not as authoritative but rather assisting (as he did not have that Hebrew source at his disposal at that particular time though it was providentially preserved). He says: "With respect to the Septuagint version, there is no doubt that the translators had read in the Hebrew text, כארו, _caaru, _that is the letter ו, _vau, _where there is now the letter י, _yod."_ Nevertheless, I don't know why he doesn't mention the Ben-Chayyim.
> 
> No doubt the original manuscripts have been corrupted by carelessness or intention but that is not what I am disputing. What I am asserting is not all the manuscripts have degenerated to the point of being irretrievable as the corruption is not universal. I believe a collation of manuscripts can render a pure reading.
> 
> I believe the LXX is a great asset to the church but still a fallible human translation and should not be regarded as equal to the sources. I may be in the minority but I agree with Canon III of the Helvetic Consensus Formula:
> 
> *Canon III:* Therefore, we are not able to approve of the opinion of those who believe that the text which the Hebrew Original exhibits was determined by man's will alone, and do not hesitate at all to remodel a Hebrew reading which they consider unsuitable, and amend it from the versions of the LXX and other Greek versions, the Samaritan Pentateuch, by the Chaldaic Targums, or even from other sources.


Hi Vince,
I did note the fact that Calvin was wrong in believing that the correct reading was not present in a minority of MT texts. However, the quote demonstrates that he did not espouse the view that you are arguing for. Otherwise, he should have followed what he believed to be the unquestioned MT, rather than claiming that the MT had been deliberately corrupted at this point, and preferring the Septuagint.

My question is this: why is it okay to judge among the MT manuscripts and correct errors in many places (and even use Septuagint readings in support of MT manuscripts), but not to incorporate the Hebrew manuscripts that are attested by the LXX? It's not like the LXX wasn't accessible to the church (often far more easily than variant MT manuscripts) down through the ages. I can see why people might be reluctant to use Qumran, on your view of preservation, but I don't see how in principle the Hebrew manuscripts attested by the LXX are off limits. If it is so unreliable, why does the KJV rely on it so often for translation issues?

In case you missed it, no one here is arguing for making the LXX equal to the MT. But it can occasionally attest alternate Hebrew readings (both in the consonantal text and in the vowels). Why should that not be weighed, along with variant manuscripts in the MT? The text would still have been perfectly preserved for the church down through the ages.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Gentlemen, I said in post #188 (a long time ago, I know!), “I do not want to drag this out defending every word in the OT corpus.” One or two defenses shall be sufficient. *All *the contested words or passages can be defended, but I am not going to write a book concerning all those here.

Tom, in post 244 you said, “OK, so Augustine was talking about the proto-Masoretic Text. Do you hold that to be identical to the Masoretic Text?” Tom, have you been following the material I’ve linked to which substantiates what I have been asserting, such as Prof. Tov’s, “The (Proto-)Masoretic Text: A Ten-Part Series”? Each of these ten parts is very brief, as in a four or five minute-read each.

You further asked, “Also, is it not true that the Septuagint was used by Greek-speaking Jews? (This might be earlier than Augustine, however.)”

The answer would be Yes, before and during the time of Christ, and in the apostolic era, but when the Jewish Christians started using it to effectively convince their fellow Jews that Jesus was the Messiah, they renounced the use of the LXX as authentic Scripture for Jews, seeing as it had been co-opted by Jesus’ followers. But more on that in a moment.

You then asked, “Do you take ‘pure in all ages’ to mean manuscripts identical to the autographs?” The word “pure” has been bandied about here as though it were virtually meaningless, as if 99.999% rendered it short of “free of any contamination”; “not mixed or adulterated with error”. If there are one or two words which are in partial doubt, and we know which they are, and all the rest are free of doubt, I would be content to affirm “pure in all ages” meant substantially pure, identical to the autographs save for two possible (but not probable) exceptions. I take this to be the position of the Westminster Divines. E.F. Hills thought there may be three errors in the NT. Though there are some scholars who would not accept even the one or two errors I hypothesized.
_____

Lane, if the LORD was providentially preserving His word through the church age (though this may apply to the OT as well, but in a different way), and He began to have it materialize in the final form He wanted in the time of the Reformation, sure, this was a process, humanly speaking. You then ask, if so, “what Greek NT manuscript was the finished product in order that your interpretation of the WCF holds with regard to _pre-TR times?_”

I have stated the answer to this often. In the pre-TR times all the areas that had NT manuscripts had them in varying states of preservation. _In the main _they were all sufficient for the Lord to save His elect, and nurture the churches, even if they all did not have preservation _in the minutiae_. The Byzantine Greek manuscripts, coming from the areas where the autographs had been sent to sound churches, had the best MSS, even though the theological battles of the 4th century, what with the Arians and the Sabellians, wrought some damage to the Byz MSS. This was remedied at the time of the Reformation beginning with Erasmus putting together a Greek text to supplant the Latin Vulgate of Rome, which was further brought to purity by the other Reformation editors, such as Stephanus, and Beza, and the AV translators.

When you ask “what Greek NT manuscript was the finished product”, that I can’t say, as they used a number of different TR editions, plus likely other versions, including Tyndale and the other English Bibles, as well as Waldensian Bibles (of which there were a few in Geneva), and the translation they came up with was the result. Due to the London fires we don’t have their notes, so the Greek text(s) underlying each word can only be discerned in Scrivener’s 1894, which was a back-translated production. Yes, we have Beza’s editions which are very close, and also Stephanus’ editions.

As I have said earlier, WHAT was “kept pure in all ages”? — 1) an entire and intact Greek NT? And that throughout the church age till printing came to be? I don’t believe this. 2) Or the pure READINGS of the autographs kept in various Greek mss, and then compiled in an authoritative edition, and then printed? Which edition would that be? I know of none. 3) Or the pure READINGS of the Greek autographs kept in various mss—mostly the Traditional (Byzantine) Greek, but a very few kept in other versions due to attacks and mutilations on the Greek—and then put into print in the Greek Textus Receptus editions (known to and used by the Westminster divines)? I hold to the third option. This *was *a reconstruction or a process involving the TR here, from a human point of view, but from God’s vantage simply a *keeping *of it, and manifesting it to men according to promise.
_____

More on the Proto-Masoretic and Masoretic text shortly.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

I can see why textual critics and scholars do not like the Westminster Confession regarding the Scripture, and either ignore it or seek to drown its stand in a flood of variants. I understand it is in good conscience, and with good and scholarly intentions, but the Confession stands as a wall against opposition to the Westminster doctrine of preservation. 

Iain, regarding Ruth 3:15, the translators may well have not relied on the LXX, but simply discerned that the reading must have been she and not he, and were supported by the other versions’ correct reading— similar to Luke 2:22 where to put _their _purification instead of _her _would have been blatant error. The LORD was keeping His word pure.

But I’d rather focus on Psalm 22:16. I had posted a link to a site talking of this, but you didn’t appear to have taken cognizance of it, so I’ll post a bit from it here, and afterwards a portion from William Whitaker.

*"They pierced my hands and my feet" or "Like a lion my hands and my feet" in Psalm 22:16?*

Psalm 22:16 in the KJV says: “For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.”

Christians believe that the 22nd Psalm portrays the crucified Messiah, Jesus Christ. Verse 16 in most Christian translations says “they pierced my hands and my feet”, which points to the crucifixion. The contention is that “they pierced” is based on a Christian textual corruption. There are two textual variants underlying the portion translated “they pierced”: “כארי” which means “like a lion”, and “כארו” which arguably means “digging”. The difference is whether the final letter is a Yod (י) or a Vav (ו). Christians prefer “כארו” because “digging” could convey the idea of “piercing”. If the "כארי" reading were followed, the verse would read:

"For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: like a lion my hands and my feet."​*כארו or כארי?*

The Hebrew Masoretic text underlying the KJV, the Second Rabbinic Bible, edited by Jacob Ben Chayyim and printed by Daniel Bomberg in 1525, has "like a lion" in the text of Psalm 22:16(17). However, Ben Chayyim in the Massorah Finalis of the fourth volume of the Second Rabbinical Bible states: "In some correct Codices I have found כארוas the _Kethiv_ [= textual reading] and כאריas the _Keri_ [= the official marginal reading];" (Christian D. Ginsburg, _Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible_ (1896), p. 969). There are also some early witnesses to the reading “כארו”. A manuscript of Psalm 22 found at Nachal Hever (5/6Hev Col. XI, frag. 9) supposedly from the 1st century has “כארו” (Tim Hegg, _Studies in the Biblical Text_, "Psalm 22:16 - "like a lion" or "they pierced"?"). The NIV 2010 footnote says "pierced" is the reading found in the "Dead Sea Scrolls and some manuscripts of the Masoretic Text, Septuagint and Syriac". _Clarke's Commentary on the Bible_ says “כארו” is the kethib, or marginal reading. So "כארו" is preserved as a minority reading in the Masoretic tradition. It has long been known that the LXX has “ὤρυξαν χεῖράς μου καὶ πόδας” (they dug my hands and feet). The Vulgate also has “dig” (foderunt)….

Critics argue that even if the text were to read "כארו", there is no such word in Hebrew. The trilateral root of the verb “dig” is “כּרה”. It has been argued that there is no basis for the Aleph in "כארו" if it were a form of "כּרה". The counterargument has been that the form with the Aleph is an alternate spelling. Then again, even if "כארו" could mean “digging”, critics argue that it is a stretch to translate it as “piercing” because the usual word for “pierce” (“נקב” (Kings 18:21, Isaiah 36:6), “דּקר” (Zechariah 12:10)) is not used here.

*"Like a lion" = "They pierced"*

It is possible that the original Hebrew word was “כארו” (digging) and some Masoretes corrupted the text. However, "like a lion" is not a completely out-of-context reading. The Psalm uses an animal motif to refer to the perpetrators, referring to them as bulls (verse 12), dogs (verses 16, 20), unicorns (verse 21) and even lions elsewhere (verses 13, 21). In light of this, ardent supporters of "כארי" (like a lion) may never be convinced otherwise. The translation, "they pierced", however, can be justified even if "כארי" (like a lion) were the original reading.​There is more—with substance—to the article, so those interested click on this link.
_____

Then there is William Whitaker, in his _A Disputation on Holy Scripture_:

In order, then, to show that the Hebrew originals are not absolutely pure, Bellarmine [a Romish opponent] proposes five places, which he thinks undoubtedly corrupt...

The third place is Ps. 22:17 [AV, v. 16]. All Christians read, “They pierced my hands and my feet.” But the Hebrew MSS. have not _Caru_, [כָּרוּ] “they pierced,” but _Caari_, [כָּאֲרִי] “as a Lion.” I answer, that this is the only specious indication of corruption in the Hebrew original; yet it is easy to protect this place also from their reproaches. For, first, learned men testify that many Hebrew copies are found in which the reading is _Caru_; Andradius, Defens. Trid., book 4, and Galatinus, book 8, chapter 17. And John Isaac writes that he had himself seen such a copy, in his book against Lindanus, book 2; and the Masorites themselves affirm that it was so written in some corrected copies. Secondly, in those books which have this reading, the Masorites tell us that it is not to be taken in the common acceptation: whence it plainly appears that nothing was farther from their minds than a design to corrupt the passage. Thirdly, the place is now no otherwise read than it was formerly before Jerome’s time. For the Chaldee Paraphrast hath conjoined both readings, and the Masorites testify that there is a twofold reading of this place. Jerome, too, in his Psalter read in the Hebrew _Caari_, as our books have it, though he rendered it “fixerunt.” So that it can never be proved, at least from this place, that the Hebrew originals were corrupted after the time of Jerome. (pp. 158, 159)​_____

I said I would post more on the Proto-Masoretic text, and the LXX, and that I shall do shortly—with a view to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the significant part they play in this matter. But now I must prepare to sleep, and if I have time in the morning before I leave for an appointment, I will do it then, otherwise later in the day. If y’all give me time before responding to me, I can finish _my _response.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Tom, I see you couldn’t wait for an answer, and started another thread on this—but that’s okay, this one is getting a bit too long! Still, I’ll be answering you on this here thread. This that is to follow is from Dr. Thomas Holland’s book, _Crowned with Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version_, Chapter 7, “Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls”. (He deals with the Hebrew and the Greek.) This is a classic on the topic of textual history and _believing _critical study from the vantage of the Received Text.
_____

*Textual Variance Among The Scrolls *

Some have mistakenly assumed that the Dead Sea Scrolls contain only biblical writings. Actually the Scrolls reflect a library scattered throughout eleven caves, containing biblical and non-biblical books. Some are still in scroll form, but most are fragmentary after over two thousand years of aging. With the exceptions of Esther and Nehemiah, every book of the Old Testament is represented in the findings at Qumran. It should be noted, however, that _representation_ and _full representation_ are not the same thing. Some books are represented with only fragmentary evidence in very limited number, while other books are better and more fully represented among the findings. 

In the most current published lists of manuscripts among the Dead Sea Scrolls there are thirty-six manuscripts which represent the Book of Psalms, making it the most represented biblical book among the Scrolls. Deuteronomy follows with twenty-nine manuscripts and Isaiah with twenty-one. First and Second Chronicles are represented by only one manuscript, as is Ezra. Most of the others are represented by fewer than ten manuscripts. The exceptions are those previously listed, as well as Genesis (with fifteen manuscripts), Exodus (with seventeen), and Leviticus (with thirteen). There are about eight hundred manuscripts among the Scrolls. Of these, slightly over two hundred represent biblical books, which means only about one-fourth of the Qumran library contained copies of the Scriptures.

It should also be pointed out that not all of these biblical books represent the same textual history. The biblical books found at Qumran are divided into three textual categories:

1. Manuscripts that represent the Masoretic Traditional Text. 
2. Manuscripts that represent the text of the Septuagint.
3. Manuscripts that represent the Samaritan text.
4. However, according to Dr. Emanuel Tov, who became co-editor-in-chief of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1991, there are two additional groups. 
5. Texts that demonstrate a unique style of writing, spelling, and grammar found only at Qumran.
6. Nonaligned texts that do not show any allegiance to the four other groups. About twenty-five percent of the biblical manuscripts found at Qumran fall into the nonaligned category. [James C. VanderKam, _The Dead Sea Scrolls Today_ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 133-134.]​

*The Proto-Masoretic Text*

These manuscripts are called Proto-Masoretic because they agree with the Masoretic Text, yet date before the Masoretic Text became the official Hebrew Bible. It should be noted that the Dead Sea Scrolls have greatly enhanced the evidence supporting the authority of the Masoretic Text. Until the findings at Qumran (as well as findings at Wadi Murabbaat), the oldest Masoretic Texts dated to the Middle Ages. With Qumran, we now have manuscripts almost a thousand years older that are Masoretic. Most of the scrolls from Cave 4 are of this text-type and represent biblical books such as Isaiah, Ezekiel, the Minor Prophets, and some fragments of the Law and Historical books. 

The most noted group is perhaps the Isaiah Scrolls. Two scrolls containing the book of Isaiah were found in Cave 1. The first is sometimes called the St. Mark’s Manuscript (1QIsa._a_) because it was initially owned by St. Mark’s Monastery. The second is sometimes called the Hebrew University manuscript of Isaiah (1QIsa._b_) because it is owned by that university. Both represent the Masoretic Hebrew Text and are major victories for the Masoretic Text and the Authorized Version. 

Textual scholar Dr. James C. VanderKam has pointed out that 1QIsa._a_ is almost identical to the copies of Isaiah dating to the Middle Ages. Any differences are minor and hardly ever affect the meaning of the text. [Ibid., 126.] Dr. Menahem Mansoor, another textual scholar, has likewise stated that most of the differences are spelling or grammatical changes. Those that do not fall into this type are minor, such as an omission or addition of a word or two, or the mixing of Hebrew letters. [Menahem Mansoor, _The Dead Sea Scrolls_ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 74-75.] One such minor variant is found in Isaiah 6:3. The Masoretic Text and the King James Bible read, "Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts." The St. Mark’s Isaiah text reads, "Holy, holy is the LORD of hosts." Therefore, while 1QIsa._a_ may be in error in its omission of the third _holy_, the contents of this scroll overwhelmingly support the Masoretic Text.

As close as this scroll is to the Masoretic tradition, the Hebrew University’s Isaiah scroll is closer. [Ibid., 79.] Textual scholar Dr. Ernst Wurthwein concurred, calling the agreement between 1QIsa._b_ and the Masoretic Text "striking." [Ernst Wurthwein, _The Text of the Old Testament_ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 144.] Considering that a thousand years separate the Isaiah Scrolls from their Masoretic counterparts, the term _striking_ may be an understatement. In either case, the evidence from Qumran demonstrates the Traditional Hebrew Text existed long before the Middle Ages, once again establishing the biblical principle of preservation.

About forty percent of the biblical texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls are Masoretic. Further, the group of manuscripts listed by Dr. Tov as unique to Qumran also resembles the later Masoretic Text. [VanderKam, 143.] These texts account for twenty-five percent of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Therefore, among the biblical books of Dead Sea Scrolls, sixty-five percent reflect the Traditional Text of the Old Testament.

Providing additional support to the Masoretic readings among the Dead Sea Scrolls are findings at Wadi Murabbaat and Masada. In 1951, caves at Wadi Murabbaat, which is south of Qumran near the Dead Sea, were discovered which contained biblical manuscripts. The major difference here is that these biblical texts _exclusively_ reflect the Masoretic Text. [Mansoor, 28.] These manuscripts, however, are slightly younger and are believed to have been written between 132 and 135 AD. Still, their relationship to the Masoretic Text of the Middle Ages is virtually identical to that of the Proto-Masoretic Qumran group. [Ibid., 31.] The findings at Murabbaat include the Pentateuch, Isaiah, the Minor Prophets, and the book of Psalms.

Between 1963 and 1965 manuscripts were discovered while excavating Masada, the famous rock fortress where Jewish nationalists withheld the advances of the Roman army in 73 or 74 AD. Masada is farther south of Qumran than Wadi Murabbaat, along the western coast of the Dead Sea. These manuscripts must date before the fall of the fortress, which place them before 74 AD. Fourteen scrolls containing biblical texts were found that agree extensively with the Masoretic Text. The only possible exception to this amazing agreement is the book of Ezekiel, and even there the textual variants are extremely minor. [Wurthwein, 31.]


*The Proto-Septuagint Text*

Only five percent of the Dead Sea Scrolls are Proto-Septuagint. These are texts written in Hebrew that reflect a reading closer to the Greek Septuagint than the Traditional Text. For example, the Greek Septuagint and the text of Jeremiah found at Qumran (4QJer._b_) agree in omitting a healthy portion of the text. The Septuagint and Qumran text (4QExod._a_) agree in stating the number of descendants from Jacob are seventy-five, instead of the seventy listed in the Masoretic Text. Some have assumed that Stephen was citing either the Septuagint or the Proto-Septuagint text of Qumran in giving the number as seventy-five (Acts 7:14 and Exodus 1:5). Yet, this can also be explained by the way the family was numbered and not the text Stephen was citing.


_*The Proto-Samaritan Text*_

As with the Proto-Septuagint textual type of the Dead Sea Scrolls, only five percent of the manuscripts found comprise the Proto-Samaritan textual type. The Samaritan Pentateuch, as indicated by the name, consisted solely of the five books of Moses. The Hebrew text is often the same as the Masoretic Text with differences in spelling rather than textual variants. However, there are nineteen hundred variants that agree with the text of the Septuagint over that of the Masoretic. This text also has some additions to it. 

The information concerning the various textual types found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, along with other findings in that region, should reveal something to the reader. First, as in any library, the one at Qumran demonstrates a diversity of material. Is this not to be expected? If a student were to visit my personal library they would discover a wide variety of texts and general information. Second, considering the extensive use of the Masoretic Text in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and its exclusive use in other manuscript findings near the Dead Sea, the Traditional Hebrew Text must be unquestionably authoritative.​
[End Holland]

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## JimmyH

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello Tom, I see you couldn’t wait for an answer, and started another thread on this—but that’s okay, this one is getting a bit too long! Still, I’ll be answering you on this here thread. This that is to follow is from Dr. Thomas Holland’s book, _Crowned with Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version_, Chapter 7, “Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls”. (He deals with the Hebrew and the Greek.) This is a classic on the topic of textual history and _believing _critical study from the vantage of the Received Text.


Good morning Steve, I bring this post, in another, I think related thread with a PDF critiquing the MT vs the Septuagint, to your attention. Something that should interest you I think ;
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/the-flood-3000-bc-or-before.97261/page-2#post-1191212

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Johann Amadeus Schubert

iainduguid said:


> Hi Vince,
> I did note the fact that Calvin was wrong in believing that the correct reading was not present in a minority of MT texts. However, the quote demonstrates that he did not espouse the view that you are arguing for. Otherwise, he should have followed what he believed to be the unquestioned MT, rather than claiming that the MT had been deliberately corrupted at this point, and preferring the Septuagint.
> 
> My question is this: why is it okay to judge among the MT manuscripts and correct errors in many places (and even use Septuagint readings in support of MT manuscripts), but not to incorporate the Hebrew manuscripts that are attested by the LXX? It's not like the LXX wasn't accessible to the church (often far more easily than variant MT manuscripts) down through the ages. I can see why people might be reluctant to use Qumran, on your view of preservation, but I don't see how in principle the Hebrew manuscripts attested by the LXX are off limits. If it is so unreliable, why does the KJV rely on it so often for translation issues?
> 
> In case you missed it, no one here is arguing for making the LXX equal to the MT. But it can occasionally attest alternate Hebrew readings (both in the consonantal text and in the vowels). Why should that not be weighed, along with variant manuscripts in the MT? The text would still have been perfectly preserved for the church down through the ages.



Hello Dr. Duguid,

Yes, you noted that Calvin was wrong in believing that the correct reading was not present but it wasn't clear to me if you held that it was providentially preserved during his lifetime. I appreciate the clarification. My view on Calvin (because of my great respect for him) is admittedly only conjecture and wishful thinking. Unfortunately, it is possible that he did indeed err in deferring to the LXX because he was unaware of the correct minority Hebrew reading (which was providentially preserved). 

I do hold that it is necessary to correct errors using the Hebrew manuscripts but to use the LXX only as a secondary fallible human authority. I don't believe the LXX is unreliable in all cases, just not divine.

Respectfully, I do believe some are (maybe unwittingly) arguing for the equality or priority of the LXX in some instances. It is my contention (and others) that the divine original text is the fountain and all should flow from the source.


----------



## iainduguid

Johann Amadeus Schubert said:


> Hello Dr. Duguid,
> 
> Yes, you noted that Calvin was wrong in believing that the correct reading was not present but it wasn't clear to me if you held that it was providentially preserved during his lifetime. I appreciate the clarification. My view on Calvin (because of my great respect for him) is admittedly only conjecture and wishful thinking. Unfortunately, it is possible that he did indeed err in deferring to the LXX because he was unaware of the correct minority Hebrew reading (which was providentially preserved).
> 
> I do hold that it is necessary to correct errors using the Hebrew manuscripts but to use the LXX only as a secondary fallible human authority. I don't believe the LXX is unreliable in all cases, just not divine.
> 
> Respectfully, I do believe some are (maybe unwittingly) arguing for the equality or priority of the LXX in some instances. It is my contention (and others) that the divine original text is the fountain and all should flow from the source.


Vince,
We would all agree that that the divine original text is the fountain and all should flow from the source. The question is which Hebrew copies should be used in assessing what that divine original said.

1) Should we only use the Medieval Bomberg edition of the Masoretic Text (The Ben-Chayyim family)? This is the text that for the most part underlies the KJV
2) Should we use other Hebrew manuscripts within the Masoretic tradition (The Ben Asher family, which includes the Leningrad codex - the present scholarly base text)?
3) Should we use other Hebrew manuscripts that are witnessed by the LXX and Qumran (especially where both agree)?

17th century Reformation discussions of the issue are clouded by the fact that the opponents are Roman Catholics, arguing in favor of the Vulgate (which is based largely on the Septuagint), or rationalists who are seeking to cast doubt on the text as a whole. As a result, they tend to stress the problems in the LXX, problems that are undoubtedly real. Nonetheless, the Reformed frequently use the LXX to defend a particular MT manuscript versus others, so they clearly believed its witness was, at times, very valuable.

NO ONE HERE IS ARGUING FOR EQUAL WEIGHTING FOR THE LXX and MT. Sorry for shouting, but the point needs to be clear. In the vast, vast, vast majority of cases (99%?), we would follow the MT (and the differences between 1) and 2) above are very small). It is striking that in the world of contemporary translations, the high mark for LXX influence is the RSV. The NIV already marks a strong move back toward the MT, as do other more recent versions. But there are a very few cases, where it appears plausible that the other ancient Hebrew manuscripts reflected in the LXX and Qumran (especially when these agree) may actually reflect the divine source better. It is hard for me to see how that idea is radically different from using the LXX to support a minority manuscript reading within the MT tradition (as the 17th century Reformed did regularly, and the KJV does). Since the former was clearly not ruled out by the WCF (or they would have had to come up with a new translation to replace the KJV, it's hard to believe that the latter was.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

iainduguid said:


> It is striking that in the world of contemporary translations, the high mark for LXX influence is the RSV. The NIV already marks a strong move back toward the MT



As the hymn says:

I stand amazed in the presence
Of Zondervan's NIV
And wonder why we continue
To preach from the RSV.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I understand it is in good conscience, and with good and scholarly intentions, but the Confession stands as a wall against opposition to the Westminster doctrine of preservation. And this used to be a Confessional board!


*Moderator Note*:
Yes, the WCF sets fences around what is "in" and what is "out". The issue as relates to this topic is what said _preservation_ means, hence the discussion. You wander into the weeds when you move the goal posts to imply that anyone that disagrees with your view of the _what_ and the _how_ of that _preservation_ is actualized necessarily implies contra-Confessionalism. 

Contrary to your provocative claim, this board *is* *Confessional*, Steve. Anyone that thinks otherwise needs to take a step back and think before giving in to rhetoric that poisons the well of the discussion in this thread. If you believe something is contra-Confessional, then make the argument, being ready to be cross-examined, for we will all be edified. But please do not make such infelicitous pronouncements like the above.

Reactions: Like 3 | Edifying 1 | Amen 2


----------



## JimmyH

iainduguid said:


> Vince,
> We would all agree that that the divine original text is the fountain and all should flow from the source. The question is which Hebrew copies should be used in assessing what that divine original said.


Dr. Duguid, have you any thoughts on the controversy surrounding the Septuagint's chronology in Genesis 5 & 11 ? It is addressed in this thread ;
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/the-flood-3000-bc-or-before.97261/page-2#post-1191212


----------



## Jeri Tanner

I found this link on an older PB post: Pastor Jeff Riddle's review of Howard Milne's "Has the Bible Been Kept Pure?" (audio). Howard Milne's book is available at Amazon. Pastor Riddle points out that a main distinctive of this book is its historical references, giving insight into the minds of the Westminster divines and others. I haven't read it yet so cannot say more than that, but it looks like a resource anyone interested in this discussion should have at hand.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Patrick,

I had earlier stated in post #235,

“…when it is said [in post #203] that the ‘Masoretic…is *not* the authentic Bible’, this rebuts the WCF.”​
Does this not, on the face of it, contradict the Confession, which explicitly says, “The Old Testament in Hebrew” etc? This is not about my “view of the _what_ and the _how_ of that _preservation_”—that I have made clear, allowing that differing interpretations of the WCF / 1689 at 1.8 re preservation are not contra-confessional. But to say that the Masoretic Hebrew is not the authentic Bible—and in the context of this entire thread indicating that other language editions have equal authority (even though there was a later equivocating statement that the MT has “pride of place”)—is this not contradicting the Confession? For there was no other Hebrew Bible the WCF spoke of—albeit in different editions nowadays—but the Masoretic. Am I not right to say that this casts doubt on the authority of the Confession?

And when it is said that the WCF framers were responding to Rome, and to atheists, and not to modern textual knowledge, is this not saying that the Westminster divines did not have the light of new textual and linguistic discoveries we have, and are in this area practically irrelevant?

I really do seek to be conciliatory in these textual discussions, as I said in my first post here (post #125), but when statements go beyond the clear “goal posts” of the Confession, and implications are given that the WCF is outmoded at this point due to new knowledge, that is troubling to me.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello Patrick,
> 
> I had earlier stated in post #235,
> 
> “…when it is said [in post #203] that the ‘Masoretic…is *not* the authentic Bible’, this rebuts the WCF.”​


​As I noted, the issue is not the above, Steve, but this infelicity: "And this used to be a Confessional board!"

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Okay, I'll remove that, Patrick.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I had earlier stated in post #235,
> 
> “…when it is said [in post #203] that the ‘Masoretic…is *not* the authentic Bible’, this rebuts the WCF.”
> Does this not, on the face of it, contradict the Confession, which explicitly says, “The Old Testament in Hebrew” etc? This is not about my “view of the _what_ and the _how_ of that _preservation_”—that I have made clear, allowing that differing interpretations of the WCF / 1689 at 1.8 re preservation are not contra-confessional. But to say that the Masoretic Hebrew is not the authentic Bible—and in the context of this entire thread indicating that other language editions have equal authority (even though there was a later equivocating statement that the MT has “pride of place”)—is this not contradicting the Confession?



I feel pretty confident that I can speak for Jacob (and for myself at the same time) in answering this charge. Your definition of "authentic" probably does not align with what Jacob means in the quotation. This is what Jacob means: the Masoretic manuscripts that we have today are not the autographs. This is what Jacob means by "authentic" in context. What you mean by authentic seems to be something broader, something like "genuine." Jacob (and I, and Iain) would all agree that the MT is the Word of God. Period. It is genuine. It is genuine to the exact same extent that any edition of the Greek NT is genuine today: not the autograph but still God's word.

Second point, regarding NT textual criticism, your argument seems to me to arbitrarily stop all textual criticism at the time of the Reformation. You argue that churches had a sufficient but inchoate purity before the Reformation. You actually state that the church prior to the Reformation did NOT have preservation with regard to the minutiae. In my opinion, this statement of yours actually goes against the meaning of the Westminster Standards, which says "kept pure in all ages," not "in all ages after the Reformation." My view is simple: all the manuscripts we have preserve God's Word, some more purely, some less. The church, however, has always had access to God's Word through all ages. Because my view of the differences between TR and CT are that they are small and mostly insignificant, and affecting no major doctrine, I can affirm that the church PRIOR TO THE REFORMATION had God's Word kept pure. The process of refinement that has gone on in our understanding of textual criticism has only improved our grasp of the minutiae. You arbitrary stop that process at the Reformation. I would argue that my view is actually more in line with the WS than yours is.

Thirdly, your lay-out of the Dead Sea Scrolls material confirms what Iain and Jacob and I have been saying all along: go with the MT in the vast majority of cases, but there are a few places where the LXX (now supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls) points to a HEBREW (NOT GREEK) reading that is alternate to the MT that is preferable. Your layout of the Dead Sea Scrolls evidence does NOT support the idea of MT always and at any cost.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Johann Amadeus Schubert

Hello Dr. Duguid,



iainduguid said:


> NO ONE HERE IS ARGUING FOR EQUAL WEIGHTING FOR THE LXX and MT. Sorry for shouting, but the point needs to be clear.





iainduguid said:


> And if claiming that that text has in at least one place been "fraudulently corrupted" by its transmitters doesn't shake your faith in God's Word, then a few errors in transmission that may be corrected from other Hebrew traditions reflected in the LXX and at Qumran are unlikely to do so!





iainduguid said:


> In contrast, while I give strong priority to the masoretic text, I think there are places where the LXX (and other witnesses) may represent a different (proto-masoretic) Hebrew tradition that is more accurate.



Are you referring to the extant Hebrew manuscripts underlying the LXX? If so, we have no disagreement. If not, it seems that in some instances you are favoring the LXX translation (the stream). Thus divesting the Hebrew text (the fountain) of its divine authority and veracity.


----------



## greenbaggins

What I really don't understand is how the views of MT-only folks can possibly line up with the attitude of the authors of the New Testament. It is a fact well-known and undisputed that there are a fair number of quotations of the OT in the NT where the LXX and the MT diverge, and where the NT authors _go with the LXX_. Now, I would explain this phenomenon by saying that the NT authors recognized that the LXX is a witness to an underlying Hebrew manuscript (which, Vince, is no longer extant), and they believed, in those instances, that the Hebrew manuscript underlying the LXX was more faithful in those particular instances. Hence, they quoted the Greek translation of that Hebrew manuscript. If the LXX cannot ever be used for text-critical purposes, then you CANNOT explain the NT phenomena. And I would just add this: an MT-only view of OT textual criticism does not agree with the NT's use of the LXX.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## RamistThomist

greenbaggins said:


> Jacob (and I, and Iain) would all agree that the MT is the Word of God. Period. It is genuine. It is genuine to the exact same extent that any edition of the Greek NT is genuine today: not the autograph but still God's word.



Correct. that is what I meant.


----------



## Johann Amadeus Schubert

greenbaggins said:


> What I really don't understand is how the views of MT-only folks can possibly line up with the attitude of the authors of the New Testament. It is a fact well-known and undisputed that there are a fair number of quotations of the OT in the NT where the LXX and the MT diverge, and where the NT authors _go with the LXX_. Now, I would explain this phenomenon by saying that the NT authors recognized that the LXX is a witness to an underlying Hebrew manuscript (which, Vince, is no longer extant), and they believed, in those instances, that the Hebrew manuscript underlying the LXX was more faithful in those particular instances. Hence, they quoted the Greek translation of that Hebrew manuscript. If the LXX cannot ever be used for text-critical purposes, then you CANNOT explain the NT phenomena. And I would just add this: an MT-only view of OT textual criticism does not agree with the NT's use of the LXX.



Hello Rev. Keister,

I believe the quotes from the LXX were incorporated by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit into the sacred NT. We also have quotes from Aratus (Acts 17), Menander (1 Cor. 15), and Epimenides (Titus 1).


----------



## greenbaggins

Vince, that only pushes the question back: why would the Holy Spirit inspire the NT authors to incorporate quotations from the LXX AS SCRIPTURE (as opposed to the pagan authors you mention, the LXX quotes are not in the same category at all). The quotes from the pagans are not introduced as Scripture, but some of the LXX quotations are.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Here are some interesting thoughts from John Davenant, who was a fairly big influence in terms of English Reformed thought, on the correct reading of Colossians 1:16. Note that he diverges from the TR reading.


----------



## iainduguid

Johann Amadeus Schubert said:


> Hello Dr. Duguid,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you referring to the extant Hebrew manuscripts underlying the LXX? If so, we have no disagreement. If not, it seems that in some instances you are favoring the LXX translation (the stream). Thus divesting the Hebrew text (the fountain) of its divine authority and veracity.


The extant Hebrew manuscripts are copies of earlier manuscripts, just as the LXX is translated from Hebrew manuscripts. In some cases we have some of those manuscripts from Qumran. So both are streams that (for the most part closely) reflect the original fountain.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Johann Amadeus Schubert

greenbaggins said:


> Vince, that only pushes the question back: why would the Holy Spirit inspire the NT authors to incorporate quotations from the LXX AS SCRIPTURE (as opposed to the pagan authors you mention, the LXX quotes are not in the same category at all). The quotes from the pagans are not introduced as Scripture, but some of the LXX quotations are.



Hello Rev. Keister,

Though the LXX is scripture and authoritative insofar as material and doctrine, it is the divine Hebrew manuscripts that are a God-breathed authority of words and substance. Thus the LXX translation is in a lower category than the Hebrew scriptures (but higher than the pagan authors). 

Therefore any LXX quotes are not authentic by itself but only when the apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit to insert them in the NT.

There also other views that do not attribute the quotes to the LXX but believe that they are the NT apostle's own expression inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Johann Amadeus Schubert said:


> Therefore any LXX quotes are not authentic by itself but only when the apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit to insert them in the NT.



This is special pleading. Why did the Holy Spirit inspire them to use a defective translation when they had the real thing.


Johann Amadeus Schubert said:


> There also other views that do not attribute the quotes to the LXX but believe that they are the NT apostle's own expression inspired by the Holy Spirit.



Except when it is an actual quote from the LXX.


----------



## greenbaggins

Vince, you basically just restated what you said before, and did not answer my question, which was why the Holy Spirit would have inspired the authors in the NT to go with the LXX _over against the MT_ on occasion. If the LXX is a witness to a different better Vorlage at that point, it would provide a perfectly understandable rationale for why the quotation looks the way it does. We do not have a Holy Spirit of confusion. If the MT represents the autographs at all points, then the Holy Spirit would never have inspired any NT author to quote a version that has a completely different meaning from the MT. And yet the Holy Spirit did just that on several occasions. You still have no explanation for WHY this phenomenon exists, whereas my position can explain it quite easily.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I can't keep up with this long thread, but has someone addressed the apparent conflict that WCF 1.8 speaks of the source languages as preserving what is authentical? So as the WA would rule out the Vulgate, so any other translation, i.e. the LXX as authentical? How do we get around that flat statement as far as the 'science' of using the LXX etc. to inform/change/supply the authentical text? Was there a 'yea, but' not stated because a confession is not the place to get into the weeds of the topic? As I have said, they would know of the various disputes such as Ussher's issues with the LXX. Or, if the conclusion is 'we know so much more now; the WA was naive, less informed;' what does that do to original intent as far as upholding the WCF and changing it constitutionally rather than by 'drift' over time?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Lane,

We certainly have different views of the MT and the LXX, and also of “authentic” and “pure”. I had genuinely entered this thread / discussion to conciliate the disputing sides, but found myself being drawn into the debate by continuing attacks on the view that I held even though I resisted, saying, “Please recognize that I am not engaging in the terms or charges of the debate here, but seeking a common ground whereby we may silence our respective cannons.” To no avail! It reminds me of Psalm 120:7, “I am for peace: but when I speak, they are for war.” Even though the opponents are not enemies, but brothers, with whom I engage in 'swordplay among friends'. But just like in martial arts, there can be full-contact sparring, and hold-back sparring—and some here want the former and some the latter, even though I said I did not want either! Folks with axes to grind. When I am hit as I carry the sacred Deposit, I will defend myself. Unfortunate that pugnaciousness prevails over conciliation here.

All the *readings *in the NT MSS were not available universally, although they were kept pure in all ages—that is, kept inviolate and intact—and made manifest universally at the time of the Reformation.

Also, we have a different understanding of what the evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls *establishes*, and I did not equivocate when I said what I held to, and what the evidence said.

With regard to the LXX and its relation to the OT MT, *and to the NT Scripture*, I will wait to respond to your paper on Jeremiah, which I hope to do shortly.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Seems to me that if something is declared _authentical_ per God's special providence and singular care, per the Confession, then that something was truly believed by those that declared something authentical is a canonical issue.

Now if something is not authentical, then it is approximate, or, may it never be, false. Being open to other manuscripts that may provide more light on Scripture is fine so long as that which we hold dear is not prejudiced. Nevertheless, if something is authentical, then that something is what should be appealed to as authoritative.

“the word _authentic_ is used, not in the modern sense in which it has been employed by many….as meaning historically true, but in its more literal sense, attested as a correct copy of the author’s work"
- J. S Candlish, “The Doctrine of the Westminster Confession on Scripture,” *The British and Foreign Evangelical Review XXVI* (January 1877) 

"The same power and care of God that preserves the church would preserve the Scriptures pure to it: and He that did, and could, preserve the whole could preserve every part, so that not so much as a tittle should perish"
- John Lightfoot, *The Whole Works of Rev. John Lightfoot*, (London: J.F. Dowe, 822-25), 408

"By “original” and “authentic” text, the Protestant orthodox do not mean the autographa which no one can possess but the apographa in the original tongue which are the source of all versions. The Jews throughout history and the church in the time of Christ regarded the Hebrew of the Old Testament as authentic and for nearly six centuries after Christ, the Greek of the New Testament was viewed as authentic without dispute. It is important to note that the Reformed orthodox insistence on the identification of the Hebrew and Greek texts as alone authentic does not demand direct reference to autographa in those languages: the “original and authentic text” of Scripture means, beyond the autograph copies, the legitimate tradition of Hebrew and Greek apographa.

The case for Scripture as an infallible rule of faith and practice and the separate arguments for a received text free from major (non-scribal) error rests on an examination of the apographa and does not seek the infinite regress of the lost autographa as a prop for textual infallibility."
- Richard Muller, *Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics* (Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 1993), 433​

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins

NaphtaliPress said:


> I can't keep up with this long thread, but has someone addressed the apparent conflict that WCF 1.8 speaks of the source languages as preserving what is authentical? So as the WA would rule out the Vulgate, so any other translation, i.e. the LXX as authentical? How do we get around that flat statement as far as the 'science' of using the LXX etc. to inform/change/supply the authentical text? Was there a 'yea, but' not stated because a confession is not the place to get into the weeds of the topic? As I have said, they would know of the various disputes such as Ussher's issues with the LXX. Or, if the conclusion is 'we know so much more now; the WA was naive, less informed;' what does that do to original intent as far as upholding the WCF and changing it constitutionally rather than by 'drift' over time?



There is a difference between seeing the LXX _itself_ as authentical (read autographical) Scripture (which some in the time of the Reformation wanted to say, which WCF 1.8 rules out, and which no one here says), and saying that the LXX is a witness to a Hebrew manuscript which has a claim to be authentic in places. The WCF does not, I believe, rule out the latter understanding, while it does rule out the former understanding. As Iain has pointed out, even the KJV translators went with an LXX reading in a few places, not because the LXX itself was the authentic reading, but because it bore witness to a Hebrew reading which was then seen as authentic. I am sensing that some people are unable to make this distinction in their minds, and are therefore thinking that we (Iain, Jacob, myself, and others) are advocating correcting Hebrew by means of Greek. This is not what is happening. 

A little thought experiment might clear up the matter. Imagine that instead of the LXX, we had the Hebrew manuscripts on which the LXX was based. Would anyone object to using those Hebrew manuscripts for text-critical purposes? I would hope not. The actuality is that such is what we are trying to do. The problem is that we don't have that Hebrew manuscript itself (except for a few DSS, which DO support the idea of a Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX different from the MT), but the Greek translation of it. In order to use it properly, it must be retroverted back into Hebrew, which is a difficult and uncertain process. On occasion, however, it is obvious what the Hebrew underlying the LXX must have said, especially if the given LXX translation is hyper-literal in its general characteristics. Ultimately, then, we are not using the LXX itself, but the Hebrew manuscript underlying the LXX.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## greenbaggins

Steve, I am not the one claiming that the other side's views are unconfessional. Your views are well within the confessional boundaries. You, however, are claiming that my views contradict the WS. That is why I continue to debate. Throwing out such claims, and then saying "I didn't want to debate this" doesn't come across in the way you intend.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Lane, a couple of things:

1) I have gone on record here (LXX Discussion, and Do NT authors quote the LXX?) saying that the NT authors *do *use Septuagint readings but not so as to contradict the Hebrew. John Owen in his 7-volume commentary on Hebrews takes the same stand and vigorously defends it in specific cases.

Concerning the vorlage under the Septuagint, this Hebrew text does not exist and it is not known what its actual readings were, save for unauthorized Jews (not the Aaronic priestly scribes) putting it together as they thought best. This early Greek version is generally accepted to have consisted of the Pentateuch, but concerning the other books there is not certainty.

When I read your paper I may comment more on that. What you said of it did sound interesting, and I am trying to get to it! (Had some urgent pastoral care matters, and chores to attend to recently which took a lot of time.)

There certainly have been things said in this thread (and other current threads on the OT) which are clearly unconfessional, but simply to disagree with the stand I take and to hold to the CT stand has been openly recognized as within the pale. I do not think that your and Iain’s views that the MT may be enhanced by readings in other than the MT is unconfessional. It is somewhat similar to the situation in NT with the TR. I might strongly disagree, but not on the basis of being unconfessional. There is a fine line there.

There is a playing with words, such as authentic and pure, which does chip away at the confession’s language—for truths are contained in language of precision—but, in my view, this may be discussed without dismissing them as unconfessional. I do think Warfield’s view of the WCF at 1.8 was revisionist and contrary to the framers’ meaning, but it has been agreed upon at this Board not to dismiss it as unconfessional, but rather—along with the definitions of its words—to argue the points instead of disallowing them. This is conducive to “to keep[ing] the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” here (Eph 4:3), especially when both sides of the discussion are clearly in good conscience before Christ our Lord as regards their scholarship and their intentions.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

greenbaggins said:


> There is a difference between seeing the LXX _itself_ as authentical (read autographical) Scripture (which some in the time of the Reformation wanted to say, which WCF 1.8 rules out, and which no one here says), and saying that the LXX is a witness to a Hebrew manuscript which has a claim to be authentic in places. The WCF does not, I believe, rule out the latter understanding, while it does rule out the former understanding. As Iain has pointed out, even the KJV translators went with an LXX reading in a few places, not because the LXX itself was the authentic reading, but because it bore witness to a Hebrew reading which was then seen as authentic. I am sensing that some people are unable to make this distinction in their minds, and are therefore thinking that we (Iain, Jacob, myself, and others) are advocating correcting Hebrew by means of Greek. This is not what is happening.
> 
> A little thought experiment might clear up the matter. Imagine that instead of the LXX, we had the Hebrew manuscripts on which the LXX was based. Would anyone object to using those Hebrew manuscripts for text-critical purposes? I would hope not. The actuality is that such is what we are trying to do. The problem is that we don't have that Hebrew manuscript itself (except for a few DSS, which DO support the idea of a Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX different from the MT), but the Greek translation of it. In order to use it properly, it must be retroverted back into Hebrew, which is a difficult and uncertain process. On occasion, however, it is obvious what the Hebrew underlying the LXX must have said, especially if the given LXX translation is hyper-literal in its general characteristics. Ultimately, then, we are not using the LXX itself, but the Hebrew manuscript underlying the LXX.


Didn't the Holy Spirit supervise over the penning down by the Apostles in the NT as to which words were to be used, and so He saw that in certain instances that the LXX of the time had recorded down from a Hebrew text more accurate a historical account then was copied down into the Hebrew text used by the Apostles themselves? This would be somewhat like when the Spirit allowed Jude to quote as truth a passage in Book of Enoch, while not saying the entire Book was accurate?


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Regarding the NT quotes from the LXX, it seems to only make sense that if one were writing in Greek and wished to include a Scripture quotation, that they would naturally quote from an existing Greek translation. In the same way, many of us have written research papers in which we quoted Scripture. I doubt many of us felt the need to translate the original Greek and Hebrew into English for the purposes of quotation, but rather simply chose an existing English translation to quote from.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

1 Samuel 13:1 is another problem in the Masoretic text which forces the reader to look at other traditions.


----------



## JimmyH

Bill The Baptist said:


> Regarding the NT quotes from the LXX, it seems to only make sense that if one were writing in Greek and wished to include a Scripture quotation, that they would naturally quote from an existing Greek translation. In the same way, many of us have written research papers in which we quoted Scripture. I doubt many of us felt the need to translate the original Greek and Hebrew into English for the purposes of quotation, but rather simply chose an existing English translation to quote from.


Since we read that following Alexander's conquering, and occupying, much of the known world of that day, Greek becoming the lingua franca over decades, and the LXX was written because many of the Hebrews had lost their ability to speak/read their native tongue, the writers of the NT quoted the LXX because that was the language, if not the writers, most of the readers knew and understood ?

Growing up in Miami I knew many young Latinos who cannot speak or read Spanish. There was even a time when the phrase 'Spanglish' was coined. To describe a hybrid that young people, in the late '70s, had adopted. A combination of the two languages that was neither here nor there.


----------



## Tom Hart

Bill The Baptist said:


> Regarding the NT quotes from the LXX, it seems to only make sense that if one were writing in Greek and wished to include a Scripture quotation, that they would naturally quote from an existing Greek translation. In the same way, many of us have written research papers in which we quoted Scripture. I doubt many of us felt the need to translate the original Greek and Hebrew into English for the purposes of quotation, but rather simply chose an existing English translation to quote from.



The trouble is that the Septuagint is not always the same as the Masoretic. For example, Paul in Romans 3 quotes several psalms, and he follows the language of the Septuagint, which differs from what we find in the Masoretic Text. How do we understand that? Surely Paul knew the Hebrew. Does Paul regard the Septuagint as authoritative?


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Tom Hart said:


> The trouble is that the Septuagint is not always the same as the Masoretic. For example, Paul in Romans 3 quotes several psalms, and he follows the language of the Septuagint, which differs from what we find in the Masoretic Text. How do we understand that? Surely Paul knew the Hebrew. Does Paul regard the Septuagint as authoritative?



Obviously we can’t know Paul’s precise thoughts on this, but it seems unlikely that he would utilize it if he didn’t think it authoritative. In the same way, it’s doubtful that any of us would quote from the New World Translation in seeking to make theological arguments.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Tom,

A thread here talks of Romans 3:10-18 and its relation to the LXX.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Here is a quotation from John Owen on the providential preservation of scripture, which is relevant to the above discussion on Matthew 5:18. Don't shot the messenger, but, while I am no hardline TR advocate, I do believe that verse requires us to believe in the preservation of every jot and tittle of the original scriptures. Quite how that works out in practice, I am not so sure.

Edit: Owen also makes a comment to the same effect in _Works_, 4: 213ff.

Reactions: Like 2


----------

