# Question for those with manuscript convictions.



## Username3000 (Aug 26, 2014)

I will begin by confessing that I don't know much about this topic, which may prove to be my greatest problem in the end.

As most of you are probably aware, there is seemingly always a discussion here on the board regarding the legitimacy/reliability/etc of particular manuscripts. My question is for those of you who have a particular conviction regarding manuscripts: What is your primary reason for engaging in long, often cyclical, discussions about this topic, besides a simple defense of what you believe is the Word of God, or an attack against that which you do not believe is the Word of God?

Let me word it another way: What in particular are you trying to accomplish in these discussions? Are you trying to open your brothers' eyes to see the truth? Are you simply trying to defend your belief against any who disagree? Do you feel that the gospel is at stake? 

The reason I ask this is because I find that these discussions often contain more that is discouraging and wearisome to me than I do that which is edifying. I am finding more combativeness in men's words than I am finding brotherly love straining after unity.

Please forgive me if this seems like a pointless rant or anything like that. I just wanted to voice my feelings about this. Any advice for me will be appreciated as well.

Thank you very much,

Elijah


----------



## MW (Aug 26, 2014)

E.R. CROSS said:


> What is your primary reason for engaging in long, often cyclical, discussions about this topic



There are alot of details and differences about the way to interpret them.



E.R. CROSS said:


> What in particular are you trying to accomplish in these discussions?



To let truth speak and silence prejudice.



E.R. CROSS said:


> I am finding more combativeness in men's words than I am finding brotherly love straining after unity.



Those are not mutually exclusive. If you saw your brother in the jaws of a lion it would require combat and result in pains and scars to free your brother and save his life.


----------



## KMK (Aug 27, 2014)

Most of the time these discussions are the result of unfounded biases against the KJV, and uninformed assumptions about those who prefer it.


----------



## Free Christian (Aug 27, 2014)

For, or to me, its about being logical! I need to believe I have the most faithful version available, logic tells me that. I cannot do that if I accept versions that have things in one which is omitted in another or other ways which casts doubt over the authenticity of what I read. I must come to a logical conclusion that God has supplied me with a faithful version and that He is capable of doing so. In other words, what I read He said. So then I must choose, based upon history and the testimony of the faithful who have gone before me and those who exist today who are in agreement with them.
My choice is then made. So with heart convicted and hopefully, though far from the greatest and possibly amongst the weakest, a faithful soldier in Christ, I step up.


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 27, 2014)

E.R. CROSS said:


> I will begin by confessing that I don't know much about this topic, which may prove to be my greatest problem in the end.



Here is what I personally consider to be a balanced explanation of the controversy. your mileage may vary.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Aug 27, 2014)

E.R. CROSS said:


> What is your primary reason for engaging in long, often cyclical, discussions about this topic, besides a simple defense of what you believe is the Word of God, or an attack against that which you do not believe is the Word of God?



Assuming you believe in the principle of Sola Scriptura, what good will the principle of Sola Scriptura be to us if we loose the integrity of the Scriptures. The integrity of scriptures is vital for anybody who hold to this principle. If the scriptures are prone to change with new discoveries (newly discovered MSS) it means our doctrines, which are derived from these scriptures, would also be prone to change over time.

Rev. Winzer gave a short explanation why we should reject "new" readings that are part of newly discovered MSS at post 88 of the following thread (http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/why-side-KJV-84155/index3.html) 



E.R. CROSS said:


> Let me word it another way: What in particular are you trying to accomplish in these discussions? Are you trying to open your brothers' eyes to see the truth? Are you simply trying to defend your belief against any who disagree? Do you feel that the gospel is at stake?
> 
> The reason I ask this is because I find that these discussions often contain more that is discouraging and wearisome to me than I do that which is edifying. I am finding more combativeness in men's words than I am finding brotherly love straining after unity.



I don't think most of us here are being uncharitable to those who currently do not side with us but seek to understand our position, but at the same time when both positions are understood by both debating parties and an agreement is not reached, compromised is still not an option. Even if the people debating do not reach a complete agreement it doesn't mean that they haven't learned anything and might correct some misconception they previously had. Also others watching might be learning from the debate. It happens to me often on this board, I learn a lot by reading both side of an argument.

Let me ask you this? Are those who debate Credo/Paedo baptism uncharitable to one another? Why do so many people believe that the subject to textual criticism is not worth debating? If you were not familiar with the different baptism positions would you say that it's discouraging and wearisome and not edifying to debate such subject? Is there any biblical truth that is not worth defending? 



E.R. CROSS said:


> Do you feel that the gospel is at stake?



I believe the integrity of the source from which the Gospel is communicated to us is as stake. If your source is an unstable foundation what does it say about the Gospel?


----------



## Phil D. (Aug 27, 2014)

KMK said:


> Most of the time these discussions are the result of unfounded biases against the KJV, and uninformed assumptions about those who prefer it.



Not to fall prey to what the OP was decrying, but it will be very clear to any objective viewer that, to use your own words, "unfounded biases" and "uniformed assumptions" are often present on the "other side" too.


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 27, 2014)

Fogetaboutit said:


> Assuming you believe in the principle of Sola Scriptura, what good will the principle of Sola Scriptura be to us if we loose the integrity of the Scriptures


I couldn't agree more. On the other hand, clinging to a manuscript family, while ignoring historical facts, doesn't particularly strike me as exhibiting 'faith.' On the contrary, my faith in the Scriptures allows me to face those facts and compare the work of dedicated textual scholars in rightly dividing the word of truth. As far as I'm concerned that textual work will preserve the integrity of Scripture.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Aug 27, 2014)

JimmyH said:


> On the contrary, my faith in the Scriptures allows me to face those facts and compare the work of dedicated textual scholars in rightly dividing the word of truth. As far as I'm concerned that textual work will preserve the integrity of Scripture.



Which scholars and which textual work, there are vast differences between the TR and the CT, which one is better? If you say the CT are you willing to be consistent and say that translation based on the TR are less accurate than those based on the CT and should not be used in public worship? This is one of the issues I have, most of those who accept the CT are not willing to say the TR is outdated and full of errors but that would be the logical conclusion. 

Did God preserved his word through the work of Reformation era Scholars and then Scholars from the late 17th centuring using opposing views on how scriptures should determined?


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 27, 2014)

Fogetaboutit said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> > On the contrary, my faith in the Scriptures allows me to face those facts and compare the work of dedicated textual scholars in rightly dividing the word of truth. As far as I'm concerned that textual work will preserve the integrity of Scripture.
> ...


If you read the article linked by me in post # 5 of this thread, you'll see what I accept the facts to be. I cannot know what anyone else does, but I do read and compare versions. I'm certainly no textual scholar, but I see CT based translations as being no less reliable than RT based translations. The word of God in either case.


----------



## KMK (Aug 27, 2014)

Phil D. said:


> Not to fall prey to what the OP was decrying, but it will be very clear to any objective viewer that, to use your own words, "unfounded biases" and "uniformed assumptions" are often present on the "other side" too.



That may be true, but I think KJV advocates are more often on the defensive than the offensive side of the ball here at PB. And you rarely ever see one of the CT Versions taking on other CT Versions. The 'sides' that seem to be the most passionate on PB are the defenders of the KJV and those who assume KJV defenders are out of their gourd.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Aug 27, 2014)

JimmyH said:


> I cannot know what anyone else does, but I do read and compare versions. I'm certainly no textual scholar, but I see CT based translations as being no less reliable than RT based translations. The word of God in either case.



So when there are differences between these versions how do you determine which one is right? So for example if you look at Matt 5:22 in the ESV and in the KJV which one is correct? So is it forbidden to be angry against your brother in any circumstances? Or is it permissible in certain circumstances? Is it your position that we cannot know which one of these reading is correct and should accept both as valid? 

How to you determine which of the variant reading are correct? Do you believe that some of these reading are correct in the TR and other in the CT and therefore which should own a variety of versions and pick and chose which reading are correct among all these versions?


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 27, 2014)

Fogetaboutit said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> > I cannot know what anyone else does, but I do read and compare versions. I'm certainly no textual scholar, but I see CT based translations as being no less reliable than RT based translations. The word of God in either case.
> ...


An interesting question/example. I took a look at Calvin's Commentary and note that John Calvin translates the verse the same way as the ESV, leaving out "without a cause." (Vol. XVI page 280)

Looking at Martyn Lloyd-Jones Studies In The Sermon On The Mount, on page 224 of volume one he writes,"Indeed let me remind you that there are some authorities who say that this qualifying phrase 'without a cause' should not be there. In some manuscripts it is omitted. It is impossible to decide exactly on grounds of textual criticism whether it should be included or not. But even taking it as it is, it is a tremendous demand; and if we leave out the qualifying phrase it is still more so."

The above proves nothing save that we just do not know, and I'm assuming that the earlier manuscripts did not contain the phrase, and that is why it is not in the ESV. If the statistics regarding accuracy, or the lack, in the article I linked to, are correct than the following quote from the article is pertinent to me, "In a very real sense, the very question of which is superior, Westcott and Hort, or the Textus Receptus, is passe, since neither is recognized by experts in the field as the standard text."

Whichever is to be held up as the 'standard text', it is generally held that whether the translation is based on the TR or the CT no doctrine is compromised. Quoting from the linked article again, "To this may be added the testimony of Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, the pre-eminent British authority on New Testament manuscripts at the turn of the twentieth century. In discussing the differences between the traditional and the Alexandrian text-types, in the light of God's providential preservation of His word, he writes, "We may indeed believe that He would not allow His Word to be seriously corrupted, or any part of it essential to man's salvation to be lost or obscured; but the differences between the rival types of text is not one of doctrine. No fundamental point of doctrine rests upon a disputed reading: and the truths of Christianity are as certainly expressed in the text of Westcott and Hort as in that of Stephanus." 

I personally would be very happy if we had the original autographs, or copies that were all exactly the same, and we could know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the existing copies are without error as the original autographs were. Since the copies of the original autographs would have been written by hand, on scrolls up to 30 feet long, it is not hard to understand why the earliest copies are no longer extant. Professor Bruce Metzger, among others, has explained why, and how, copyists made errors, whether accidental, or purposeful. We have what we have, and dedicated believers throughout the centuries have, and continue to try to sort it out. I'd be happier if it wasn't that way, but those are the facts and sticking my head in the sand and ignoring them is not an option for me.


----------



## MW (Aug 27, 2014)

JimmyH said:


> On the other hand, clinging to a manuscript family, while ignoring historical facts, doesn't particularly strike me as exhibiting 'faith.'



I quote your statement, Jimmy, because it demonstrates the kind of prejudice I mentioned in my earlier post. The adherents of the ecclesiastical text do not "ignore" historical facts. They might explain them in a way from which you dissent, but the facts are nonetheless recognised and explained.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Aug 27, 2014)

Jimmy can I ask you what is your philosophy (in you own words) on how scripture has been providentially preserved. Not saying that quoting scholars and great men of God is necessarily a bad thing, but we all know that even the best of men are wrong on occasions. Do you accept what these men say just because of their name and title, or do you truly understand how they interpret this subject and you agree with them. Here a few observation about these quotes.



JimmyH said:


> Looking at Martyn Lloyd-Jones Studies In The Sermon On The Mount, on page 224 of volume one he writes,"Indeed let me remind you that there are some authorities who say that this qualifying phrase 'without a cause' should not be there. In some manuscripts it is omitted. It is impossible to decide exactly *on grounds of textual criticism* whether it should be included or not. But even taking it as it is, it is a tremendous demand; and if we leave out the qualifying phrase it is still more so."



Does he mean modern textual criticism which approach the scriptures as any other secular book? Or the type of Textual Criticism which approach scripture with the presupposition that the Word of God in its entirety has been preserved throughout all ages via the agency of the church as the Reformation era scholars did? Do you agree with the statement Rev. Winzer made in another thread (I posted the link above) which in essence say that readings should not be accepted if they have been lost for most of New Testament dispensation but are "discovered" in late MSS. The same way we would not accept new book into the cannon just because it has been written by an apostle if they were discovered today or if it has been rejected by the church as whole up to now?



JimmyH said:


> The above proves nothing save that we just do not know, and I'm assuming that the earlier manuscripts did not contain the phrase,



Would you not agree that both of these reading cannot be both correct, we might not be able to empirically "prove" which is the correct reading, but it doesn't mean we cannot "know". You can come to the conclusion that one of these reading is true if you believe in God's promise to preserve his Words, you can determine which one it is if you look at the evidence with an eye guided by the principle that God did preserve his Words via the agency of the Church and has not let it be lost throughout the entire church (not only the Western Church) for almost the entire New Testament dispensation. I don't need to have empirical "proof" that God exist to "know" that he exists. 





JimmyH said:


> Whichever is to be held up as the 'standard text', it is generally held that whether the translation is based on the TR or the CT no doctrine is compromised.






JimmyH said:


> "We may indeed believe that He would not allow His Word to be seriously corrupted, or any part of it essential to man's salvation to be lost or obscured; but the differences between the rival types of text is not one of doctrine. No fundamental point of doctrine rests upon a disputed reading: and the truths of Christianity are as certainly expressed in the text of Westcott and Hort as in that of Stephanus."



Again you have to first determine what is preserved according to the doctrine of providential preservation in order to make such statements. What is being preserved, is it only the message of the scriptures or the scriptures themselves, did God only inspire "most" of the word in the canonical books, or all of them are inspired? What's the purpose of inspiring these lost words if they're not being preserved?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 27, 2014)

Getting back to the OP, let's just say that the issues are complex. Having been trained at a certain competency in Greek and how to handle textual variants it does take some exposure to the topic to figure out what's going on. It ought to be noted that those who produce Critical texts (i.e. UBS-4 and NA-28) are not eliminating variant readings but only giving their scholarly opinion on the preferred reading for the relatively small number of variants that exist in the New Testament. A pastor ought to be trained to handle even their own opinions.

I was mowing the other day and thinking to myself how there are people that give those who favor the KJV a really bad name because most of them are not TR-preferred but hold to some pretty whacky theories and give those who are sober a bad name.

That said, it does come down to different ways that we trust in the preservation of God's Word. Roman Catholics will seek certainty in their ecclesiastical authority and some are persuaded that without an infallible Church the Christian cannot know what books of the Bible can be trusted. Others look for certainty in a Providential establishment of a Greek text and question whether a Christian can have certainty on the Word of God unless one subscribes to that establishment.

I'm personally comfortable with a little bit of uncertainty about some of the texts. I believe we have more than what was inspired in our manuscripts but not less but also believe that the truth that God intends for life and salvation has been preserved. I know this drives some nuts but I'm content to call those Brother whom it drives nuts. I don't bear ill will toward them but it's just my conviction.

Look, all of our memories are poor. Even if we had a perfectly preserved text it doesn't stick in our memories perfectly preserved. The Spirit is still working through what God, in His Providence, has left us. Bart Ehrman refuses to believe in the Scriptures because He argues that, if it was inspired, God would have somehow prevented any scribe or copier from ever carelessly or even (on purpose) writing a variant in a text. I think it's a testimony of Providence that, given the failty of secondary causes (namely us) that God's Word has been preserved even if we don't always agree on whether or not a reading totally disappeared from the Greek manuscripts for hundreds of years but was preserved in the Vulgate.


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 27, 2014)

Elijah,

As one who has been around here a few years, I would offer a word of advice: 

1. Don't try to read every thread. Nobody has enough time for that. Even the moderators pick and choose what they will read. It would take a full time job to keep up with all of the long-winded threads, not to mention the ones that end up with dozens of responses.

2. Don't waste your time on a thread that creates more heat than light for you. For some on the PB, a corollary of sola scriptura is that textual issues hold a great deal of interest. They will discuss them endlessly. For many of them the issue is not a matter of ego or being argumentative. Rather, it relates to a strong desire to see others come to a "knowledge of the truth" on what is believed to be an important issue. If that seems "discouraging" or "wearisome" to you, it would be better to skip those kinds of threads generally.

Not speaking for anyone else, merely for myself, I held to the CT since taking Greek in August of 1971. However, a few years ago, the cumulative weight of unexamined premises, evident non sequiturs, and some good arguments by the brethren on the PB caused me to re-evaluate my position. These threads are fascinating to me and . . . strangely helpful. So, while I personally enjoy the interchange, it makes sense that you do not. Slogging through the points and counterpoints, some of them seeming to generate more heat than light, will not help you. So, skip them.


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 27, 2014)

Fogetaboutit said:


> Jimmy can I ask you what is your philosophy (in you own words) on how scripture has been providentially preserved.



Did you happen to read the article I linked to in post # 5 ? Refute what you feel is in error within that article. I would perhaps learn something.

Obviously if the information in the aforementioned article, along with the quoted text by John Calvin and Martyn Lloyd-Jones, both mighty men of God, with immense intellect, doesn't move you, nothing I can say will do so.

I only 'know' that I got saved in 1986, having been raised by atheists, an unbeliever from childhood into my late 30s. I was saved reading the Scofield Reference Bible 1984 NIV, and to a lesser extent the same 'study' Bible in the 'New' Scofield KJV. This by myself with no one to guide me but the Holy Spirit.

I believe the AV, NIV (1984), NASB, NKJV, and ESV are God's word providentially preserved in spite of the variances.


----------



## yeutter (Aug 28, 2014)

These lengthy, sometimes acrimonious posts on manuscripts have taught me a great deal. I have changed my conviction on which set of manuscripts should be preferred.


----------



## One Little Nail (Aug 28, 2014)

JimmyH said:


> I only 'know' that I got saved in 1986, having been raised by atheists, an unbeliever from childhood into my late 30s. I was saved reading the Scofield Reference Bible 1984 NIV, and to a lesser extent the same 'study' Bible in the 'New' Scofield KJV. This by myself with no one to guide me but the Holy Spirit.
> 
> I believe the AV, NIV (1984), NASB, NKJV, and ESV are God's word providentially preserved in spite of the variances.



My first Bible was a goodnews, though I never got saved reading it, I devoured it after getting saved such was my spiritual hunger, despite its blessing to me it was buried in my parents back yard & I moved on, it wasn't a very accurate rendition of the Scriptures so it probably would have been better off had I read something else.

Apparantly the the Critical Texts contain only around 80% of the Received Text in the New Testament, thats alot of words that are either missing or have been added, there differences between them they can't both be God's Preserved Words, 
one is & the other isn't, it is my belief that the evidence points to the Received Text, the CT's 2 main manuscripts don't even agree well with each other let alone with the Rec Text, you can't let the problem of the archaic or literary speech of 
the KJB be a hindrance to accepting its claims I know it may be difficult for you to understand but you need to make a choice on the Truth, 20% is alot of missing words (words which for the most part have been shown to be quoted within 
the writings of the Church Fathers) great sections like the Last twelve verses of Mark etc then theres all those verses 
which seem to question or diminish Christ's Divinity like counted not equality with God something to be grasped in Philippians 2:6 in the CT, you may be helped somewhat from the modern versions, you may have even been saved from 
them, this doesn't make them good nor right, just that God is able to do a great work from a tarnised & imperfect object,
He did make man from dust & woman from mans rib, just to give you an example!


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 28, 2014)

I respect the KJV position, and I love the KJV. I read it often. I myself am a CT person. I often think that the issue is sometimes overblown as to its importance. It is not an issue that we can ignore. However, the differences between the CT and the TR are tiny compared with the differences in, say, Homer's manuscripts. No doctrinal locus hangs on a textual variant. The forest is often lost because of the trees in this debate. I don't see either position should be maligned as undermining Scripture's authority. That being said, what I usually find is a fairly narrow view of God's providence being used in the defense of the KJV. The way I put it is often this: why couldn't God have a set of manuscripts that would be in use for a long period of time, and another set of manuscripts that would be "at rest?" Both sets can be called God's Word. And when better methods of preservation come to light, the older manuscripts are found so that the full history of transmission can be preserved. 

I don't always agree with the CT, either. They often weight the internal evidence too heavily. Each variant has to be taken on its own, with the various factors weighed (and there are a LOT of factors to consider, such as geographical distribution (a usually undervalued criterion), family relationships, age of manuscript (which doesn't always affect accuracy one way or the other!), number of manuscripts, and internal evidence (which has to be taken with a grain of salt, since this is often highly subjective)).


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 28, 2014)

In my opinion, FAR more damage is caused to Christ's kingdom by bad translation philosophy than is EVER caused by differences in manuscript traditions. I often find myself wishing that PB members would see this more clearly.


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 28, 2014)

Lane, indeed!

I have been tempted to use the Logos engine to compare a text in the TR and UBS with . . . say the NASB or ESV and "The Message" and graphically display the results. Yes, I understand the problems inherent in such an effort. But, it would demonstrate for a lay audience how much greater the range of differences are between the various English translations (based on the varying translation philosophy decisions) and between the TR and CT.

It must be remembered that the Apostles did not seem too embarrassed using the Greek Septuagint translation of the OT, despite both the textual and translational issues. After all, Paul could have done his own translation of the Hebrew to get closer to the original MSS if he had wanted to do so. Yet, "the Word of God said" . . . whether it was cited from the Hebrew MSS or the LXX.


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 28, 2014)

DMcFadden said:


> Lane, indeed!
> 
> It must be remembered that the Apostles did not seem too embarrassed using the Greek Septuagint translation of the OT, despite both the textual and translational issues. After all, Paul could have done his own translation of the Hebrew to get closer to the original MSS if he had wanted to do so. Yet, "the Word of God said" . . . whether it was cited from the Hebrew MSS or the LXX.



I don't think I'd even considered this point in relation to the debates on the NT manuscripts, but it does put them in perspective, doesn't it? The differences between MT Jeremiah and LXX Jeremiah are vast (one is fully a third larger than the other), and yet both are quoted in the NT as Scripture, If I recall correctly. That dwarfs the differences between TR and CT.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Aug 28, 2014)

JimmyH said:


> Did you happen to read the article I linked to in post # 5



I did, here a few thing I disagree with:



> On the down side, the distinctively Alexandrian text all but disappears from the manuscripts after the 9th century. On the other hand,* the Byzantine manuscripts, though very numerous, did not become the "majority" text until the ninth century*, and though outnumbering Alexandrian manuscripts by more than 10:1, are also very much later in time,* most being 1,000 years and more removed from the originals*.



How does he know this? How does he know the byzantine text didn't become a majority until the ninth century? Where did the byzantine text we have today come from? Even if most byzantine MSS we have "today" are dated later than the few Alexandrian MSS we have today, it does not prove that there were no byzantine MSS prior to the 9th century and that they were not used in majority.



> Returning to the specific texts, Westcott-Hort vs. the textus receptus: in truth,* both texts necessarily fall short of presenting the true original*. Obviously, those readings in the textus receptus which are without any Greek manuscript support cannot possibly be original.



Again he knows this how? Does he have access to the originals, he is presenting his opinion as facts.



> Besides these shortcomings, others also apparently occur in a number of places where a perceived difficulty in the original reading was altered by scribes in the manuscript copying process. *Probable examples* of this include Mark 1:2 (changing "Isaiah the prophet" to "the prophets," *a change motivated by the fact that the quote which follows in 1:3 is from both Malachi and Isaiah*), I Corinthians 6:20 (where the phrase "and in your Spirit which are God's" *seems to have been added* after the original "in your body," which is the subject under consideration in the preceding verses), Luke 2:33 (changing "his father and his mother" into "Joseph and his mother" *to 'safeguard' the doctrine of the virgin birth*), Romans 8:1, end (*borrowing from verse 4*, in two stages, the phrase "who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit"), Romans 13:9 (the* insertion of one of the Ten Commandments* to complete the listing), Colossians 1:14 (the *borrowing of the phrase* "through his blood" from Ephesians 1:7), etc



I'd like to know where he got that information, these are strong accusations. This is the conflation theory which have no evidence (as far as I know anyway).



> Therefore, *we refuse to be enslaved to the textual criticism opinions of either Erasmus or Westcott and Hort or for that matter any other scholars, whether Nestle, Aland, Metzger, Burgon, Hodges and Farstad, or anyone else. Rather, it is better to evaluate all variants in the text of the Greek New Testament on a reading by reading basis,* that is, in those places where there are divergences in the manuscripts and between printed texts, the evidence for and against each reading should be thoroughly and carefully examined and weighed, and the arguments of the various schools of thought considered, and only then a judgment made.



So is he saying we should all become Greek Scholars and trust in our ability to discern all these variant reading? Since he seem to reject all approach to textual criticism as flawed what is his guiding principle when deciding which reading is the correct one? 

And those who argue for the KJV get criticized for not being considerate to the poor uneducated layman because it is too hard to understand


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Aug 28, 2014)

DMcFadden said:


> It must be remembered that the Apostles did not seem too embarrassed using the Greek Septuagint translation of the OT, despite both the textual and translational issues. After all, Paul could have done his own translation of the Hebrew to get closer to the original MSS if he had wanted to do so. Yet, "the Word of God said" . . . whether it was cited from the Hebrew MSS or the LXX.



Do we know this for a fact? (this is not a rhetorical question) I heard theories that they might have used the Septuagint but I never seen any concrete evidence. Did they quote readings which are present in the Septuagint but not in the Masoretic Texts in the NT canonical books?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Aug 28, 2014)

Fogetaboutit said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > It must be remembered that the Apostles did not seem too embarrassed using the Greek Septuagint translation of the OT, despite both the textual and translational issues. After all, Paul could have done his own translation of the Hebrew to get closer to the original MSS if he had wanted to do so. Yet, "the Word of God said" . . . whether it was cited from the Hebrew MSS or the LXX.
> ...


Well, Will Kinney may be wrong but he is certainly not in doubt: No LXX - Another King James Bible Believer


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 28, 2014)

An interesting aspect I haven't explored. Google yielded this from the "Orthodox Wiki" ; Septuagint - OrthodoxWiki


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 28, 2014)

greenbaggins said:


> In my opinion, FAR more damage is caused to Christ's kingdom by bad translation philosophy than is EVER caused by differences in manuscript traditions. I often find myself wishing that PB members would see this more clearly.


Exactly! Thank you Rev Keister. This is the real issue. For example if one looks at the differences between the NKJV and the ESV (RT vs CT) the differences are insignificant compared to the NKJV and the NIV (that is, the dynamic equivalent philosophy brings many more changes in the text than does the differences in manuscripts).


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 28, 2014)

greenbaggins said:


> In my opinion, FAR more damage is caused to Christ's kingdom by bad translation philosophy than is EVER caused by differences in manuscript traditions. I often find myself wishing that PB members would see this more clearly.



Two good quotes in a row. This statement is especially true. One could also add that simply having the text itself settled doesn't even guarantee that a proper hermeneutic will be used to come to sound Biblical conclusions. Translation is simply the first (albeit) very important step. One can't even get past the issue of choosing what kind of genitive (objective or subjective) in some places without bringing in some things. It is cause for great humility and the conviction that we need the Spirit in all that we set out.

Incidentally, I also agree with your comments about the CT and weighting issues. It is very helpful, however, in the apparati that one can discern textual families and try to do the best one can to make wise choices when handling the Greek.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 28, 2014)

Fogetaboutit said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > It must be remembered that the Apostles did not seem too embarrassed using the Greek Septuagint translation of the OT, despite both the textual and translational issues. After all, Paul could have done his own translation of the Hebrew to get closer to the original MSS if he had wanted to do so. Yet, "the Word of God said" . . . whether it was cited from the Hebrew MSS or the LXX.
> ...



Etienne,

It would be impossible to establish with certainty because an author doesn't come out and say: "I've chosen the LXX reading here". That said, leaving the question aside, it is noteworthy that the NT authors are much more "loose" about making sure every word matches up between the way they cite things and the way the texts appear in the NT. Take the differences in Hebrews 8 and Jeremiah where Jeremiah is cited. Something has to account for that change even if one doesn't accept that the Septuagint was quoted. It may simply be convenient that the Hebrews 8 quote is exactly how the LXX reading is but, even if that was not used, it creates a problem for the position that we need absolute harmony on every word and phrase to be sure of things in Scripture and what God has inspired and preserved for us. We really can't escape the problem of difficulties anywhere and I'm content to trust what God has preserved for us without needing the kind of certainty that Bart Ehrman says I must have (no variants) in order to accept that what I have is God's Word.


----------



## MW (Aug 28, 2014)

We attempt to draw people's attention to the issue of translation as much as to the text.

On the basis that the New Testament _apparently_ quotes the LXX as the Word of God, what is to be done when the New Testament corrects the LXX? As has been discussed previously, there is no "LXX" in the sense of an individual idenitifiable book. There are different Greek translations and oral traditions which have come to be known as the LXX.

Concerning providential preservation -- (1) If one spoke of a book of the apostles being rediscovered it would not be accepted; the same should apply to the text. The fact is the textual critics surmise at times whether the variants are original with the apostles (or apostolic community which they suppose might have written the book). (2) We hold to SINGULAR care and PROVIDENCE, not ordinary providence, when maintaining that God has preserved His Word. By general providence God has equally preserved the spurious gospels and acts which are being thrust upon the church today. By general providence it is not possible to distinguish the true Word of God from counterfeits. (3) We also hold that special providence has especially made use of the church, which has been promised the continual ministry and testimony of His Spirit, to preserve the Word.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 28, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> (2) We hold to SINGULAR care and PROVIDENCE, not ordinary providence, when maintaining that God has preserved His Word. By general providence God has equally preserved the spurious gospels and acts which are being thrust upon the church today.


That's a good point. One can see, historically and in the manuscript evidence itself, singular care. I think we don't disagree that Scripture is especially preserved. I think we disagree on some specifics. 


armourbearer said:


> (3) We also hold that special providence has especially made use of the church, which has been promised the continual ministry and testimony of His Spirit, to preserve the Word.


I don't know if you've had a chance to read any of Michael Krueger's books (Heresy of Orthodoxy, Canon Revisited) but he shreds Ehrman using this very point. It is always useful to remember that these are not academic texts that some scholars kept on their shelves. The Christians were using books centuries before they were cool. We are a community of the Book and I think that's one of the reasons we can have such confidence that our collective memory was one of the things that the Spirit has used in the singular care of manuscripts.


----------



## MW (Aug 28, 2014)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I don't know if you've had a chance to read any of Michael Krueger's books (Heresy of Orthodoxy, Canon Revisited) but he shreds Ehrman using this very point.



This should emphasise that any attachment to the Book is an attachment to special providence, not simply general providence. So appeals to general providence for preserving mss. which were laid aside would be immaterial.


----------



## SeanAnderson (Aug 29, 2014)

I really enjoy these textual discussions here.

And it certainly isn't futile because it's led me to consider textual issues in greater depth.

I've always sided with the Critical Text (though I _have_ primarily read the ESV since I became a Christian) and I find some of the KJV-only fundamentalists can present ridiculous arguments. But I have recently questioned some of the CT manuscript decisions and the nature of the methodology itself. Though I still believe some later scribal additions have crept into medieval manuscripts, in some places, the Textus Receptus does have ancient support and the CT has been biased towards the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (against all others).

On the other hand, I don't think the TR is a Holy Grail; Textual critics have access to a large number of manuscripts which might not have been available in the past. All manuscripts should be compared, but the Byzantine texts should not be automatically discounted based on two inconsistent documents or subjective internal evidence. We also have to be cautious that the textual critics are godly men analysing the texts in a spiritual manner (as opposed to a worldly atheistic one).

I've learnt more about textual criticism and different manuscripts because of this board.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Aug 29, 2014)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Etienne,
> 
> It would be impossible to establish with certainty because an author doesn't come out and say: "I've chosen the LXX reading here". That said, leaving the question aside, it is noteworthy that the NT authors are much more "loose" about making sure every word matches up between the way they cite things and the way the texts appear in the NT. Take the differences in Hebrews 8 and Jeremiah where Jeremiah is cited. Something has to account for that change even if one doesn't accept that the Septuagint was quoted. It may simply be convenient that the Hebrews 8 quote is exactly how the LXX reading is but, even if that was not used, it creates a problem for the position that we need absolute harmony on every word and phrase to be sure of things in Scripture and what God has inspired and preserved for us. We really can't escape the problem of difficulties anywhere and I'm content to trust what God has preserved for us without needing the kind of certainty that Bart Ehrman says I must have (no variants) in order to accept that what I have is God's Word.



Thanks, this is what I thought but I wasn't sure if there was any evidence showing they did use Greek translations of the OT that I wasn't aware of. So if we don't know if they used the LXX (or any greek translation of the OT, let alone which specific one) it shouldn't be use as an argument to prove the Apostles didn't care if they were variations in the text by "stating" they used Greek Translation that had variant reading at odds with the Hebrew OT. 

The quotes inserted in the original NT epistles or gospels are also inspired therefore pointing out variance with Hebrew text from which they are being quoted from does nothing to prove that inspired words of scriptures might not be preserved, it's not like the quotes inserted by the apostles overwrite the text from which is being quoted, the same way Deuteronomy doesn't cast doubt of the authenticity of the text of Exodus even if it's being re-iterated slightly differently.

Also from the research I made (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) we do not have copy of the OT in Greek that predate the original writing of the the NT books, therefore it could also be possible that those who translated (or copied) the Greek version of the OT inserted the writing of the NT to make it match, either way it's all speculation.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 29, 2014)

Fogetaboutit said:


> The quotes inserted in the original NT epistles or gospels are also inspired therefore pointing out variance with Hebrew text from which they are being quoted from does nothing to prove that inspired words of scriptures might not be preserved, it's not like the quotes inserted by the apostles overwrite the text from which is being quoted, the same way Deuteronomy doesn't cast doubt of the authenticity of the text of Exodus even if it's being re-iterated slightly differently.


I didn't point it out to cast doubt on inspiration. The point being made was that those who are looking for "jot and tittle" precision for special care and providence won't find it because, as one example, Hebrews cites Jeremiah in the Greek differently than what we have in the Hebrew.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 29, 2014)

Fogetaboutit said:


> Also from the research I made (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) we do not have copy of the OT in Greek that predate the original writing of the the NT books



That is not correct. There are fragmentary copies that go back to 2nd Century BC.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Aug 29, 2014)

Semper Fidelis said:


> That is not correct. There are fragmentary copies that go back to 2nd Century BC.



Of the OT sections being quoted in the NT? I heard of Fragments from Deuteronomy going back to BC times but I've never heard of fragments from Jeremiah.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Aug 29, 2014)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Fogetaboutit said:
> 
> 
> > The quotes inserted in the original NT epistles or gospels are also inspired therefore pointing out variance with Hebrew text from which they are being quoted from does nothing to prove that inspired words of scriptures might not be preserved, it's not like the quotes inserted by the apostles overwrite the text from which is being quoted, the same way Deuteronomy doesn't cast doubt of the authenticity of the text of Exodus even if it's being re-iterated slightly differently.
> ...



Do we know for a fact that Hebrews is quoting from a Greek copy of Jeremiah that have a variant reading from the Hebrew OT? Or are we assuming this is the case?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 29, 2014)

Fogetaboutit said:


> Do we know for a fact that Hebrews is quoting from a Greek copy of Jeremiah that have a variant reading from the Hebrew OT? Or are we assuming this is the case?



{sigh} I stated earlier that, *regardless of whether or not one accepts that the author is quoting the LXX*, a problem remains for the "jot and tittle" view of special care and providence because, as one example, the author of the Hebrews quotes Jeremiah differently than what we have for our Hebrew manuscript tradition from which we translate the Old Testament.

Hebrews 8:6-9


> 6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenantb, which was established upon better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, *and I regarded them not*, saith the Lord.
> 
> The Holy Bible: King James Version. (1995). (electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version., Heb 8:6–9). Bellingham WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.



Jeremiah 31:31-32


> 31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, *although I was an husband unto them*, saith the LORD:
> 
> The Holy Bible: King James Version. (1995). (electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version., Je 31:31–32). Bellingham WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.



Notice I quoted from the King James. This is not a stylistic difference in the text.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 29, 2014)

Fogetaboutit said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > That is not correct. There are fragmentary copies that go back to 2nd Century BC.
> ...



That's not the question you asked but Jeremiah was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Aug 29, 2014)

Semper Fidelis said:


> {sigh} I stated earlier that, regardless of whether or not one accepts that the author is quoting the LXX, a problem remains for the "jot and tittle" view of special care and providence because, as one example, the author of the Hebrews quotes Jeremiah differently than what we have for our Hebrew manuscript tradition from which we translate the Old Testament.


 
Sorry if I annoy you, the reason I asked about the LXX was because it was "asserted" as a fact that the apostles used it and quoted from it. I didn't want to assume that there was no evidence of this hence my questions, but by the answers so far there is no such evidence available therefore I was only pointing out that it shouldn't be used as an argument to insinuate that the apostles would have no issues with the variance between CT and TR since they accepted variant readings from the LXX. 




Semper Fidelis said:


> That's not the question you asked but Jeremiah was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.



The purpose of my question was can we know that this reading quoted from the OT was known to exist in a Greek translation prior to the NT being written, sorry if I wasn't clear. If this is the case it would bring more weight to the plausibility of the argument, although it would still not be a flawless argument.

Was this copy of Jeremiah in Greek or Hebrew and did it agree verbatim with the quotation in Hebrews 8?


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 29, 2014)

Fogetaboutit said:


> Sorry if I annoy you, the reason I asked about the LXX was because it was "asserted" as a fact that the apostles used it and quoted from it. I didn't want to assume that there was no evidence of this hence my questions, but by the answers so far there is no such evidence available therefore I was only pointing out that it shouldn't be used as an argument to insinuate that the apostles would have no issues with the variance between CT and TR since they accepted variant readings from the LXX.


I don't think the _fact_, that within the Gospels and epistles there are quotes from the Septuagint version of the OT makes any statement or innuendo as to what the Apostles may have felt, had they known of the CT versus TR controversy. Here is a link to some examples ....... :

Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Aug 29, 2014)

JimmyH said:


> Fogetaboutit said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry if I annoy you, the reason I asked about the LXX was because it was "asserted" as a fact that the apostles used it and quoted from it. I didn't want to assume that there was no evidence of this hence my questions, but by the answers so far there is no such evidence available therefore I was only pointing out that it shouldn't be used as an argument to insinuate that the apostles would have no issues with the variance between CT and TR since they accepted variant readings from the LXX.
> ...



Actually that link kind of validates what I was trying to get at, he sites verses where the quotes from the OT in the NT "somewhat" agree with the LXX, others who depart from both the Hebrew Texts and the LXX etc. This doesn't prove anything but that apparently God inspired these quotation even if they are not taken verbatim from the OT. I don't see how this proves the Apostles used the LXX and accepted the variances between the LXX and the Hebrew Texts.


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 29, 2014)

Fogetaboutit said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> > Fogetaboutit said:
> ...



I've read the assertion that the NT Apostles depict our Lord quoting from the Septuagint, and I'm certainly not qualified to say exactly what the Apostles quoted from in the Gospels and epistles, but if they did quote from the Septuagint, and if it did differ from the Hebrew Scriptures, I don't feel personally, that would in any way compromise the veracity of Scripture. As I understand it the Septuagint was a Greek translation of the Hebrew OT, for the benefit of the many Jews of the diaspora who had lost their ability to understand the Hebrew, the Koine being the dominant language in much of that area. So if the NT quotes the Septuagint it seems to make sense to me that the writers do so to speak to those people in language they understand, and from a text they were familiar with both in reading and in hearing.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 30, 2014)

Fogetaboutit said:


> Sorry if I annoy you, the reason I asked about the LXX was because it was "asserted" as a fact that the apostles used it and quoted from it. I didn't want to assume that there was no evidence of this hence my questions, but by the answers so far there is no such evidence available therefore I was only pointing out that it shouldn't be used as an argument to insinuate that the apostles would have no issues with the variance between CT and TR since they accepted variant readings from the LXX.



I suppose the weariness stems from the fact that you're not reading what I wrote because you're very insistent on trying to find some "proof" one way or another to something. It doesn't exist. One of the problems I have with Ehrman is the standards he sets up. He tells us he can't trust the Scriptures because somebody may have altered the very next copy of Mark. What do you say to a person who says: "Well we don't have any absolute proof that the first copies of the autographs were corrupted by the orthodox."

First, I'm not aware of any other translations of the Hebrew into the Greek around the time of the Apostles. Now, is is *possible*, that the writers of the Scriptures never heard the Scriptures in Greek, never read them in Greek, and every citation of the OT is their translation from Greek to Hebrew? Well, yes. But then someone might wonder how it is that the translations match up. Oh, but you see, someone will say that they don't match up because it's not a perfect match but others will note that when people are quoting from memory you can usually tell if they're quoting from the King James and it would be quite silly to argue with someone that they weren't quoting the King James because they jumbled a couple of words here and there in their from memory citing. Do we insist that the Apostles had to break out a scroll every time they wanted to refer to a verse for fear that they may get word order incorrect? Could we even grant to the Apostles a memory of what they've seen another translator use in the Greek the right to change word order to emphasize something in the verse?

Furthermore, we know the Scriptures existed for the books in question and we even have copies of what their form may have looked like. We're as certain as that as we are of the Hebrew text because the same Dead Sea Scrolls tell us what the Hebrew was like around that time. Well, I take that back, we have one set of manuscripts lest someone come back and say: "How can we know for sure that what the Essenes had wasn't different than what the Apostles used." And again, I'd have to fall back on the fact that there is no absolute certainty because there just isn't much manuscript evidence.

Consequently, I left all that aside because I didn't want to get into the back and forth of the "well, how can we know for sure" stuff because, quite frankly, it wearies me when people use arguments against another position that attack their own but won't apply it to their own position.

Thus, I tried to keep the issue simple. I didn't say anything about the Apostles acceptance of the TR vs the CT. Frankly, to ague such would be absurdly anachronistic. My point is that the sense of some Hebrew texts is changed when they are quoted in the NT. Now, it just so happens that that sense matches the Septuagint in the case of the quotation of Hebrews 8 _for that word_. But, as I've already said, I'm not going to try to convince someone that it seems reasonable that some text is being quoted from memory. What, precisely, did the first century Gentiles read as far as Scripture? Did the Apostles embark on their own Hebrew to Greek translation in order to give the Greeks a translation in their vulgar language? If they didn't might it be that they felt the Greek already had a sufficient translation? If they did, am I not justified in asking for proof that this occurred and folding my arms at simply the assertion that it happened. To me, the idea that they would both refuse to translated the Scriptures in the vulgar language (when we believe that this is necessary) and that they would also refuse the Greeks to use another translation of the Scriptures is unreasonable so nobody is left without the problems that they're demanding others resolve.

Whatever scenario you draw up, one is left with the issue of the quotes not matching what we have in the original. One attempt to escape difficulty by assuming that the only confidence we can have is the Providential preservation of the Greek NT on every word choice only creates a problem when someone asks: "Well, if the only confidence we can have in God's Word is that every word had to be preserved without difficulty then what about Jeremiah 31:32?"


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Aug 30, 2014)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I suppose the weariness stems from the fact that you're not reading what I wrote because you're very insistent on trying to find some "proof" one way or another to something. It doesn't exist. One of the problems I have with Ehrman is the standards he sets up. He tells us he can't trust the Scriptures because somebody may have altered the very next copy of Mark. What do you say to a person who says: "Well we don't have any absolute proof that the first copies of the autographs were corrupted by the orthodox."



Why do you assume I'm not reading what you wrote? Did you not say that to to believe that every "jot and tittle" have been preserved (I'm assuming you are referring to VPP) is unreasonable? Why to you believe it's is unreasonable? Is it not because in your opinion the evidence available is pointing to the contrary? Now if textual evidence is a stumbling block for you to accept VPP why would speculative assertions would be acceptable to deny it? 

What does Ehrman have to do with this discussion? He rejected the infallibility of scriptures because he trusted on empirical evidence to prove or deny if the scriptures have been preserved or not. I have said many time that I do not hold to such view. I know they are variants, I just have faith that the original reading have been preserved through the ecclesiastical text. But I do not accept all the variants inserted in the CT especially when some of the variants have been lost or rejected throughout most of the NT dispensation.




Semper Fidelis said:


> First, I'm not aware of any other translations of the Hebrew into the Greek around the time of the Apostles. Now, is is *possible*, that the writers of the Scriptures never heard the Scriptures in Greek, never read them in Greek, and every citation of the OT is their translation from Greek to Hebrew? Well, yes. But then someone might wonder how it is that the translations match up. Oh, but you see, someone will say that they don't match up because it's not a perfect match but others will note that when people are quoting from memory you can usually tell if they're quoting from the King James and it would be quite silly to argue with someone that they weren't quoting the King James because they jumbled a couple of words here and there in their from memory citing. Do we insist that the Apostles had to break out a scroll every time they wanted to refer to a verse for fear that they may get word order incorrect? Could we even grant to the Apostles a memory of what they've seen another translator use in the Greek the right to change word order to emphasize something in the verse?



Interesting point of view, but still speculative, this is all I'm getting at. It was asserted "as a fact" that the apostles used the LXX to insinuate that it's futile to debate differences between the CT an TR, you personally might not have said that, but my original questions was trying to determine if that "assertion" was based on facts or speculations. Since my view is most often questioned by pointing out lack of empirical evidence I thought it was appropriate to point out that both side used speculative interpretations to fit their view and we should be careful to present our interpretation as facts. 




Semper Fidelis said:


> Consequently, I left all that aside because I didn't want to get into the back and forth of the "well, how can we know for sure" stuff because, quite frankly, it wearies me when people use arguments against another position that attack their own but won't apply it to their own position.



My basis for believing in VPP is because I believe that is what scriptures teaches not because I know (empirically) for sure. But from my understanding those who deny VPP do so because the evidence available is not sufficient for them to commit to it. What arguments have I used against any position that I'm not willing to apply to mine? 



Semper Fidelis said:


> Thus, I tried to keep the issue simple. I didn't say anything about the Apostles acceptance of the TR vs the CT. Frankly, to ague such would be absurdly anachronistic.



We agree on this and once again this is all I was trying point out. You might not have said such thing but other strongly suggested that would be the case. My comment were addressing these statements, I was not trying to put words in your mouth I apologize if it appeared that way.



Semper Fidelis said:


> Whatever scenario you draw up, one is left with the issue of the quotes not matching what we have in the original.



Is there a rule that says a quotation has to match verbatim with the text it's being quoted from in order to be accepted as inspired?


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 30, 2014)

Fogetaboutit said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > It must be remembered that the Apostles did not seem too embarrassed using the Greek Septuagint translation of the OT, despite both the textual and translational issues. After all, Paul could have done his own translation of the Hebrew to get closer to the original MSS if he had wanted to do so. Yet, "the Word of God said" . . . whether it was cited from the Hebrew MSS or the LXX.
> ...



Etienne,

I'm sorry, but your use of the word "fact" leaves me scratching my head. In light of the discussions in this thread, it would appear that those who do not accept that the NT cites the LXX rather than the Hebrew texts in some places at least will not allow that it is a "fact" regardless of the amount of texts cited. And, similarly, those who have been persuaded by the view that the NT does quote from the LXX will accept the examples as "facts" proving their case. For instance, the person answering the question "Does the NT quote from the Greek Septuagint?" in KJV Today (http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/reliable-hebrew-text/did-Jesus-quote-luke-418-19-in-the-septuagint) would agree with you that we do not know as a "fact" that the NT used the LXX in places.

Actually, framing it this way is problematic. Do you know as a "fact" that the NT never quoted from the LXX? For almost any assertion, challenging the opponent with the "know for a fact" burden squirrels the conversation. This particular issue is complicated by the messy reality that the NT is full of quotations, allusions, echos, and the like, employing the OT directly sometimes and indirectly in other places.

If you really want to see some reputable scholars who attempt to grapple with the issue, you might begin with the following, a bibliography compiled by ANDREAS J. KÖSTENBERGER. Coming as it does from one who has a position seemingly at variance from your own, I am not sure that you will accept the instances adduced in support of the thesis as constituting a sufficient proof to allow you to call the evidence presented by the term "fact."

Beale, G.K. John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 166. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1998.
Beale, G.K., ed. The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Text?: Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1994.
Beale, G.K., and D.A. Carson, eds. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007.
Bock, Darrell L. Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lukan Old Testament Christology. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 12. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987.
Brodie, Thomas L. Luke the Literary Interpreter: Luke—Acts as a Systematic Rewriting and Updating of the Elisha—Elijah Narrative. Rome: Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas, 1987.
Carson, D.A., and H.G.M. Williamson, eds. It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Charles, J. Daryl. Literary Strategy in the Epistle to Jude. Scranton: University of Scranton Press, 1993.
Cope, O.L. Matthew: A Scribe Trained for the Kingdom of Heaven. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 5. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1976.
Dodd, C.H. According to the Scriptures: The Substructure of New Testament Theology. London: Nisbet, 1952.
Ellis, Earl. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1991.
Evans, Craig A., ed. From Prophecy to Testament: The Function of the Old Testament in the New. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004.
Fekkes, J. Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions in the Book of Revelation: Visionary Antecedents and Their Development. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 93. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994.
France, R.T. Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and His Mission. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1971.
Freed, E.D. Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John. Novum Testamentum Supplements 11. Leiden: Brill, 1965.
Goppelt, Leonhard. Typos: The Theological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New. Translated by Donald H. Madvig. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1982.
Gundry, Robert, H. The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel: With Special Reference to the Messianic Hope. Novum Testamentum Supplements 18. Leiden: Brill, 1967.
Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1993.
Hanson, A.T. The Living Utterances of God: The New Testament Exegesis of the Old. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1983.
———. The New Testament Interpretation of Scripture. London: SPCK, 1980.
Holtz, Traugott. Untersuchungen über die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Lukas. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 104. Berlin: Akademie, 1968.
Hughes, G. Hebrews and Hermeneutics: The Epistle to the Hebrews as a New Testament Example of Biblical Interpretation. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.
Hurst, L.D. The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Background of Thought. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Kimball, Charles A. Jesus’ Exposition of the Old Testament in Luke’s Gospel. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 94. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994.
Köstenberger, Andreas J. “John.” Pages 415–512 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007.
———. “1–2 Timothy, Titus.” Pages 487–625 in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 12: Ephesians—Philemon. Edited by Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2005.
———. “The Mystery of Christ and the Church: Head and Body, ‘One Flesh.’ ” Trinity Journal 12 NS (1991): 79–94.
———. “The Identity of the Israēl tou theou (Israel of God) in Galatians 6:16.” Faith and Mission 19, no. 1 (2001): 3–24.
———. “Jesus, the Mediator of a ‘Better Covenant’: Comparatives in the Book of Hebrews.” Faith and Mission 21, no. 2 (Spring 2004): 30–49.
Lincoln, A.T. “The Use of the Old Testament in Ephesians.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 14 (1982): 16–57.
Lindars, Barnabas. New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962.
Longenecker, Richard N. Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999.
Moo, Douglas J. The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1983.
Moritz, Thorsten. A Profound Mystery: The Use of the Old Testament in Ephesians. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
O’Brien, Kelli. The Use of Scripture in the Markan Passion Narrative. New York: T&T Clark, 2010.
Porter, Stanley, E., ed. Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006.
Powery, Emerson. Jesus Reads Scripture: The Function of Jesus’ Use of Scripture in the Synoptic Gospels. Biblical Interpretation Series 63. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Rese, Martin. Alttestamentliche Motive in der Christologie des Lukas. Studien zum Neuen Testament 1. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1969.
Soards, Marion. The Speeches of Acts: Their Contents, Context and Concerns. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1994.
Soares Prabhu, G.M. The Formula Quotations in the Infancy Narrative of Matthew. Analecta biblica 63. Rome, Biblical Institute Press: 1976.
Stendahl, Krister. The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament. Philadelphia, Penn.: Fortress, 1968.
Williamson, R. Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Leiden: Brill, 1970.

My old Greek prof (Bob Gundry) did his PhD work under F.F. Bruce. His dissertation dealt with Matthew's use of the OT. He noted that Matthew's fulfillment quotations seemed to come from the Hebrew text with other of his quotations following more closely the Septuagint readings. In the final analysis, Gundry concluded that Matthew most likely employed what he knew of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic textual traditions.

So, do I know for a "fact" that the LXX is cited in the NT? No. But, I accept it provisionally enough to use it as my working hypothesis until proven otherwise.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 30, 2014)

Fogetaboutit said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > I suppose the weariness stems from the fact that you're not reading what I wrote because you're very insistent on trying to find some "proof" one way or another to something. It doesn't exist. One of the problems I have with Ehrman is the standards he sets up. He tells us he can't trust the Scriptures because somebody may have altered the very next copy of Mark. What do you say to a person who says: "Well we don't have any absolute proof that the first copies of the autographs were corrupted by the orthodox."
> ...


I'm not sure what VPP is an acronym for but I'll assume you mean verbal plenary preservation. I'm not stumbled by it. I think we have the text preserved but I don't believe that it is necessarily contained in the Textus Receptus. I don't believe, for instance, that inspired text was lost to all Greek manuscripts for centuries and preserved in the Latin Vulgate only to re-appear, by interpolation, back into the Greek manuscript tradition.

I believe there is a certain preservation in the use of the Scriptures but I also believe that what was inspired is the original language and so I want to see all of the original manuscript tradition and not merely the textual choices made centuries ago when the Church had fewer manuscripts from which to "return to the sources".

There is nothing at all speculative about my method any more than a person who is trying to explain how the TR ought to be accepted as the Providentially preserved text. Theirs is an article of faith as much as my own faith that God has preserved the text and not merely in the Western tradition when it was first seeking to return to the sources. I believe, in fact, that God Providentially preserved the Hebrew text even during the long centuries when many Churchmen weren't using it but the Jews were preserving the text. I believe the Greek text was preserved even during the long centuries when the Western Church was largely not reading it but was using the Latin Vulgate. It's only speculative insofar as someone insists that men have to know or map out the way Providence works and then insist that someone else's view of Providence that doesn't match their own is speculation.



> What does Ehrman have to do with this discussion? He rejected the infallibility of scriptures because he trusted on empirical evidence to prove or deny if the scriptures have been preserved or not. I have said many time that I do not hold to such view. I know they are variants, I just have faith that the original reading have been preserved through the ecclesiastical text. But I do not accept all the variants inserted in the CT especially when some of the variants have been lost or rejected throughout most of the NT dispensation.


And so I'll ask you in the same way that you ask me: "Where is your _proof_ that every word in the "ecclesiastical text" is what was inspired in the Greek given the absence of some of some texts in any Greek manuscript family (prior to their interrpolation from the Latin into Greek mss)?" I could just as easily call your own view "speculation" as you have my own.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as variants being "inserted" into the "CT". I don't know how much you know about how it works but scholars do not insert texts. They find manuscripts with readings and then show all the data they have collected. One need not agree with the choices they make because they're showing all the readings and a person can go and find where those readings occur. In fact, they'll also show how some other non-Greek readings preserve certain readings.

Thirdly, some of these variants have not been lost or rejected throughout most of the NT dispensation but in use by other Christian communities. As I noted, it is your belief that has to account for the loss of some readings lost to the Greek manuscript tradition which you insist must have been preserved in the Latin but otherwise lost in any original language reading. I don't believe that any Greek reading was lost.

Ehrman is relevant because he claims he abandoned the faith because he could not stomach verbal plenary preservation that had any messiness to it. He believes that the only way that one can have faith in the text of the Scriptures if for God to have preserved the text in a way that prevented any corruption (intentional or otherwise). He, likewise, demands "proof" for things that cannot be met by any evidence because the bar set for the evidence cannot be met. He's a variation on the theme but your standard for "proof" is similar to his own.



> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > First, I'm not aware of any other translations of the Hebrew into the Greek around the time of the Apostles. Now, is is *possible*, that the writers of the Scriptures never heard the Scriptures in Greek, never read them in Greek, and every citation of the OT is their translation from Greek to Hebrew? Well, yes. But then someone might wonder how it is that the translations match up. Oh, but you see, someone will say that they don't match up because it's not a perfect match but others will note that when people are quoting from memory you can usually tell if they're quoting from the King James and it would be quite silly to argue with someone that they weren't quoting the King James because they jumbled a couple of words here and there in their from memory citing. Do we insist that the Apostles had to break out a scroll every time they wanted to refer to a verse for fear that they may get word order incorrect? Could we even grant to the Apostles a memory of what they've seen another translator use in the Greek the right to change word order to emphasize something in the verse?
> ...


Again, you use the word speculation as if you have some sort of alternative explanation. What's your alternative that is not "speculative"? When Paul told Timothy that all scripture was God breathed in 2 Timothy and then charged him to preach the whole counsel of the Word. What was Timothy preaching from to Greek speaking people from the Old Testament? Let's put the shoe on the other foot and see how it feels when someone tells you that you're being "speculative". What did Paul and the Evangelists leave with the Churches from which they could read the Scriptures while the NT was, itself, still being formed? If it wasn't the LXX, what was it and where is the manuscript tradition of the OT in the vulgar tongue of the people to whom the Apostles preached?



> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Consequently, I left all that aside because I didn't want to get into the back and forth of the "well, how can we know for sure" stuff because, quite frankly, it wearies me when people use arguments against another position that attack their own but won't apply it to their own position.
> ...


I think I just gave you some homework to do since you like to call others "speculative" when they're not empiricists but also believe that what we find in manuscripts from Christian communities all over the place has some relevance to what the original language was. If you're going to simply assert that another's view is speculative because you believe you have faith in waht Scripture teaches then I believe what Scipture teaches and so my view is no more speculative or empirical than your own. You don't have the theological high ground by simply pointing out difficulties in the loss of texts from God's Word when you won't address how readings could disappear from the original language manuscripts.




> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Whatever scenario you draw up, one is left with the issue of the quotes not matching what we have in the original.
> ...



It's this kind of statement that I fear I may be totally wasting my time. No matter what I write, you will fold your arms toward anything that doesn't comport with the rule you have already established. Everybody else is speculative but you have faith. As much as I attempt to say: "Hey, I'm not a liberal because I disagree with you, I'm just trying to get you to think through your own position" I'm met with "Is there any rule...." It's very exasperating. I'm really not against people holding to the TR. It's been said that they are always under attack for their position but even when my own interaction is designed to try to get people to consider that there are broad implications to any view, I'm met with "...you're just speculating...." If this is as far as the conversation can ever proceed (I just know that the TR is the preserved text because I believe in the Bible) then one might as well state that up front because there is no real interest in discussing anything beyond agreement or disagreement with that conclusion.

If the author tells us that the Scriptures (OT) say something and quotes everything verbatim but uses a word that changes the sense of the text then there's no "rule" that there might be a variant reading. It's possible that the author changed the reading under inspiration. If that's the case then one would need to explain the difference theologically rather than based on a possibility that one of the two readings is not original. If one has already thrown out any ability to look at other original language texts then there is only one option (the theological explanation) but if one's commitment to preservation doesn't require the establishment of a text centuries ago then there remains some work to determine whether one of the readings may not be original.


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 30, 2014)

An excerpt from An Historical Account Of The Septuagint Version, and a brief biography of the author below. Follow the links for the full articles ;

An Historical Account of the Septuagint Version



> At Alexandria the Hellenistic Jews used the version, and gradually attached to it the greatest possible authority: from Alexandria it spread amongst the Jews of the dispersion, so that at the time of our Lord’s birth it was the common form in which the Old Testament Scriptures had become diffused.
> 
> In examining the Pentateuch of the Septuagint in connection with the Hebrew text, and with the copies preserved by the Samaritans in their crooked letters, it is remarkable that in very many passages the reading of the Septuagint accord with the Samaritan copies where they differ from the Jewish. We cannot here notice the various theories which have been advanced to account for this accordance of the Septuagint with the Samaritan copies of the Hebrew; indeed it is not very satisfactory to enter into the details of the subject, because no theory hitherto brought forward explains all the facts, or meets all the difficulties. To one point, however, we will advert, because it has not been sufficiently taken into account, — in the places in which the Samaritan and Jewish copies of the Hebrew text differ, in important and material points, the Septuagint accords much more with the Jewish than with the Samaritan copies, and in a good many points it introduces variations unknown to either.
> 
> ...


Sir Lancelot Brenton - Christian Classics Ethereal Library - Christian Classics Ethereal Library



> Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton 1807-1862
> 
> Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton was the son of Sir Jahleel Brenton. Lancelot was the second of four children and his key claim to fame was as the translator of one of only two English translations of the Septuagint. His father, Jahleel, was a Vice Admiral in the British Navy and a contemporary of Nelson. Jahleel was later made a Baronet for services to the crown. It was this title that Lancelot Brenton inherited. Lancelot however didn't inherit his father's acceptance of war, when he re-edited his father's memoirs he made it clear that he was a pacifist.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 30, 2014)

Hi Elijah,

To try to answer your questions in the OP, without getting drawn into the contests already begun. Initially – starting in 2006 – I began posting here in text critical matters so as to bring new information and understanding to a neglected area: the defense of the Traditional Text of the Old and New Testaments (see the link “Textual Posts” in my signature below for examples). After doing this for around 7 years I began to feel like continuing in such was overkill, plus I had other major projects I wanted to devote more time to. During those years I did seek to mount a vigorous defense both in the areas of more abstract thought as pertains to a particular view of providential preservation and an accompanying history of the transmission of the text (mainly the NT), as well as defenses of particular readings which had been contested by the variant readings.

I underwent a “civilizing” process during this time, where I began to have more empathy toward disagreeing brethren and their devotion to their versions of the Scriptures. After all, they were godly and learned men (and women) following their consciences and studied views. So I began to actively “legitimize” their Critical Text-based Bibles in the main (rather than demonize them as some do, and I used to do, I am sorry to say), and only contesting certain poor translation instances and (mostly) the issue of variant readings which changed or omitted the Traditional readings. This set the discussions on an entirely different footing, where we weren’t attacking each other’s Bibles but simply the variant readings. This is important, for we all of us – whatever view we hold – treasure and revere the word of God we hold to be the most accurate and reliable. It is the very foundation of our faith in Jesus Christ and the Father who sent Him, and the Holy Spirit who quickens God’s word and even our very own beings.

I was also struck by a remark Dennis M. made some time ago to the effect that the church will most likely never return to holding a Bible in common again, and we ought not to try to reverse that by force of will and argumentation. I also appreciate the irenic balance both Dennis and Rich have sought to maintain in the present discussion – even though they disagree with the particular view I uphold.

I think this is important: there is much more to the faith and the life we are now in than endlessly arguing about our Bibles; have we nothing else to focus our minds and energies on, nothing else which may edify the brothers and sisters, besides this issue upon which most have had their minds already made up? For those who have not, there is plenty of material on the board here to occupy a new learner in the field for many months!

Those who know what they believe, why not study to go after opponents of the faith and its Scripture such as Dr. Ehrman, rather than merely dissenting brethren?

I do believe there are times coming when life as we have known it here in America will drastically change (the West generally also, but not as radically as in the U.S.), and we will need skill in patience, tolerating disagreeing brethren, long-suffering ill treatment at the hands of an increasingly hostile culture, and enduring other calamities of Biblical proportions.

So nowadays I may make a remark here and there in the textual threads, but I think most of what needs to be said from both sides (and there are generally just two) has already been said, and much of these discussions are somewhat redundant – unless, of course, a new and major textual discovery has occurred, in which case we may converge to examine some issues afresh, and opine with regards to them.

I do not mean to discourage sincere seeking after understanding, nor should everyone think and behave like I do – yet when the déjà vu gets intense we ought to be conscious enough of what we are about to take note.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 30, 2014)

Great words Steve. I couldn't agree more with everything you said. If there was a two thumbs up option I would give it.

I do believe the discussions are important because many have never been exposed to the issue. One needs to be prepared to discuss this because folks like Ehrman have put the issue in the fore. We don't have to become manuscript wonks to appreciate the process of transmission but it's a very useful skill to have a basic apprehension of the issues to establish the text during translation and having the other language skills necessary to exegete and understand syntax and context and systematic theology as a whole to be able to handle the Scriptures properly. I agree that the discussions miss larger issues because, very often, it focuses on the battle over what amounts to a small handful of disputed texts and very rarely does the exegesis of those texts and relation to the overall theology of the pericope or writer even come to the fore.

Call me inconsistent but when I read my Bible, I include the TR readings that are bracketed as potentially not original. I am not so in service to one position that I'm willing to simply ignore those texts but none of the texts establish or change any doctrine. It probably seems that I invest more time on this issue than my thread participation indicates but I have been (probably poorly) attempting to broaden the perspective because the establishment of the text is just the starting point. There are so many other things that take a lifetime to continue to refine and, even when one knows what the text teaches, there's still the ongoing spiritual battle of even putting into practice what one believes.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Aug 31, 2014)

Semper Fidelis said:


> And so I'll ask you in the same way that you ask me: "Where is your proof that every word in the "ecclesiastical text" is what was inspired in the Greek given the absence of some of some texts in any Greek manuscript family (prior to their interrpolation from the Latin into Greek mss)?" I could just as easily call your own view "speculation" as you have my own.



I never said your entire position was speculative, I respect many of the points you brought up and even admit that they are convincing, I was only pointing out that saying that the authors of the NT books used Greek translations that "differed" from the original Hebrew (which is somewhat speculative) and then using that as an argument to insinuate the Apostles would reject verbal plenary preservation, is not a flawless argument and is not, at least in my view, sufficient to reject VPP. I have said many times that I do not have "proof" that the ecclesiastical text is what was inspired but I accept it based on logical assumptions. 



Semper Fidelis said:


> Again, you use the word speculation as if you have some sort of alternative explanation. What's your alternative that is not "speculative"?



I accept the quotation as inspired, I don't assume what was the source of their quotation, all I know it that is that they quoted a text that was inspired in Hebrew and was quoted in Greek, did they quoted from a Greek Translation or did he translated it from Hebrew to Greek as he was quoting I don't know.



Semper Fidelis said:


> It's this kind of statement that I fear I may be totally wasting my time. No matter what I write, you will fold your arms toward anything that doesn't comport with the rule you have already established. Everybody else is speculative but you have faith. As much as I attempt to say: "Hey, I'm not a liberal because I disagree with you, I'm just trying to get you to think through your own position" I'm met with "Is there any rule...." It's very exasperating. I'm really not against people holding to the TR. It's been said that they are always under attack for their position but even when my own interaction is designed to try to get people to consider that there are broad implications to any view, I'm met with "...you're just speculating...." If this is as far as the conversation can ever proceed (I just know that the TR is the preserved text because I believe in the Bible) then one might as well state that up front because there is no real interest in discussing anything beyond agreement or disagreement with that conclusion.



Where have I established rules, and where have I call "you" speculative? And where have I said I have faith and you don't? The only thing I said was I accept VPP and made sure to clarify that I accepted it by faith. Yes I believe VPP is an important doctrine and will try to defend it to the best of my ability, therefore if VPP is insinuated to be irrational I will question those assertions. I also never made any insinuation that I considered you to be a liberal, I actually respect many of your posts and thought I was addressing you cordially but you keep being condescending towards me.

Where have I said I just know the TR is the preserved text because I believe in the Bible? I said I believe in VPP, I also do not accept the approach to "rebuilding" scriptures adopted by the editors of the Critical Text, I also believe the ecclesiastical text have the best evidence according to my research so far, therefore I accept it as the best text.

If you see flaws in my reasoning of course you can point it out, but you don't need to be condescending and I don't appreciated having my position caricatured and then attributed to me.


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 31, 2014)

Steve,

I also agree with your post and appreciate it greatly. Actually, brother, you and your irenic postings have done more to disquiet me about the solidity of my unexamined support for the CT than anyone else. I find myself opting to include the woman taken in adultery and the long ending of Mark as legitimate in my own teaching and find myself siding with TR readings more often than with Alexandrian ones. The history nerd in me will always be amazed by the Sinaiticus for the same reason I was blown away by King Tut stuff in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, the Library of Celsus during my visits to Ephesus, the Knossos Palace on Crete, or the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul . . . history nerds are like that! But, the differences between א and B bother me greatly, as does privileging these two texts inordinately in the history of modern textual criticism.

So keep it up, Steve. You already having me singing "Almost Persuaded."


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 31, 2014)

Fogetaboutit said:


> Where have I said I just know the TR is the preserved text because I believe in the Bible?


Here.


> My basis for believing in VPP is because I believe that is what scriptures teaches not because I know (empirically) for sure. But from my understanding those who deny VPP do so because the evidence available is not sufficient for them to commit to it.



You state repeatedly that you are defending Verbal Plenary Preservation is if those who don't accept the TR as the Providential means reject it.

You still haven't answered my question about what the Apostles expected Greek readers to read as far as the Old Testament goes. Since the Septuagint has been shown to be in broad use by the diaspora prior to and during the time of the Apostles, is it your contention that the Apostles did not use it and prohibited its use for study but provided another Greek translation for those who did not read Hebrew? If so, where is the manuscript tradition to indicate this? If not, how were the Greek readers expected to read God's Word?

Finally, don't confuse reproof with condescension. If you cannot discern the statements in your own presentation that I'm reproving then I'll leave it to the reader to decide whether I am being condescending or have a genuine reason to call you out when you keep referring to certain of my statements as "speculation" in contrast to your "belief in the Scriptures and VPP".


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 31, 2014)

DMcFadden said:


> But, the differences between א and B bother me greatly, as does privileging these two texts inordinately in the history of modern textual criticism.
> 
> So keep it up, Steve. You already having me singing "Almost Persuaded."



Dennis
I moved from the TR to the CT. He is an example of a debate that convinced me. Much more could be said but James Whites arguments are coherent, theologically and historically sound, I believe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTfiuksOwl4


----------



## Username3000 (Aug 31, 2014)

Thank you for all the responses, brothers. I will continue to have a growing interest in this area, but I know that there are other things of much more importance that I must focus on. Namely, reading, meditating upon, and applying the Word of God.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Sep 1, 2014)

Semper Fidelis said:


> You still haven't answered my question about what the Apostles expected Greek readers to read as far as the Old Testament goes. Since the Septuagint has been shown to be in broad use by the diaspora prior to and during the time of the Apostles, is it your contention that the Apostles did not use it and prohibited its use for study but provided another Greek translation for those who did not read Hebrew? If so, where is the manuscript tradition to indicate this? If not, how were the Greek readers expected to read God's Word?



What do you think this statement was addressing



Fogetaboutit said:


> I accept the quotation as inspired, I don't assume what was the source of their quotation, all I know it that is that they quoted a text that was inspired in Hebrew and was quoted in Greek, did they quoted from a Greek Translation or did he translated it from Hebrew to Greek as he was quoting I don't know.



I never said Greek translation of the OT were not in use, I just don't assume that the Apostles quoted from Greek translations that differed from the original Hebrew, if this is not clear by now there is no reasons for me to repeat it again. I ask earlier if we had copies of the OT portion that the are quoted in Greek that predate the writing of the NT. The purpose of that question was to try determine if we could know for sure which is the chicken and which is the egg. If we know that these early copies would already contain it, it could remove speculation that the OT portion have been translated to fit the quotation of the NT after the NT had been written. I don't think this is a bad question.




Semper Fidelis said:


> is it your contention that the Apostles did not use it and prohibited its use for study but provided another Greek translation for those who did not read Hebrew?



Where have I said such thing? Even if Greek copies exited and were in use does it prove they were the source of the quotation? I think you read things into my posts that aren't there. Why do bible translators use original languages to translate from? Does it mean they prohibit the use of other bibles translated in common languages?



Semper Fidelis said:


> Finally, don't confuse reproof with condescension. If you cannot discern the statements in your own presentation that I'm reproving then I'll leave it to the reader to decide whether I am being condescending or have a genuine reason to call you out when you keep referring to certain of my statements as "speculation" in contrast to your "belief in the Scriptures and VPP".






Semper Fidelis said:


> {sigh}





Semper Fidelis said:


> It's this kind of statement that I fear I may be totally wasting my time.



This sound pretty condescending to me, but maybe I just have too much imagination, anyway I'm done I don't think we are going anywhere since this is getting emotionally charged.


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 1, 2014)

Stephen L Smith said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > But, the differences between א and B bother me greatly, as does privileging these two texts inordinately in the history of modern textual criticism.
> ...



Stephen, thanks very much for posting this. I listened to it this morning, and wrote a blog post about it. 

Steve Rafalsky, I have always admired the way you have conducted yourself, especially in the debates about the TR, and I applaud your last post with great applause. I also wish the debate could be less broad-brushed. It should be more about the individual variants than about the TR or CT as a whole. Each variant has its own story, and the evidence one way or the other is different in every single case.


----------



## jandrusk (Sep 1, 2014)

The Pretensions Of The English Standard Version | SermonAudio.com

Amazon.com: Tares Among the Wheat: Sequel to A Lamp in the Dark: Kevin Buchanan, Justin Hand, Christian J. Pinto, Adullam Films: Movies & TV


----------



## Logan (Sep 1, 2014)

Nice blog post. To be fair though, I don't think Moorman is really representative of TR-priority folk (ones that you'd find on this board at least). He reminded me of a well-meaning grandpa that held strongly to a belief and was very nervous of the dangers of people moving away from what he considers a beloved Bible.

And yes, he's still way better than Riplinger et al!


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 1, 2014)

Logan said:


> Nice blog post. To be fair though, I don't think Moorman is really representative of TR-priority folk (ones that you'd find on this board at least). He reminded me of a well-meaning grandpa that held strongly to a belief and was very nervous of the dangers of people moving away from what he considers a beloved Bible.



I have debated several of the PB TR folks quite extensively in the past. The PB folks are generally far more able theologically than Moorman. I did not claim that Moorman was the best representative of the TR position.


----------



## Logan (Sep 1, 2014)

Right, I've read some of your posts from years ago (and appreciated them). I just didn't want anyone else to get the idea that you thought Moorman was representative. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Sep 1, 2014)

greenbaggins said:


> I did not claim that Moorman was the best representative of the TR position.


True. I think James White does bring out the real problems of the TR position quite well. I am yet to find a Reformed TR advocate who can refute Whites argumentation. Ie, the problems with the TR position remain the same regardless of ones theological commitments. I speak as a former TR advocate.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Sep 1, 2014)

Logan said:


> I just didn't want anyone else to get the idea that you thought Moorman was representative. Sorry for the confusion.
> Logan


Hi Logan. Moorman has written a number of books on the subject so I assume he is well read on the issue from his perspective. James White also debated Dr DA Waite a few years ago (who has doctorates in theology and the original languages) and refuted him as well. It was DA Waites inability to refute James White that was a reason I questioned my TR assumptions.


----------



## MW (Sep 1, 2014)

Stephen L Smith said:


> It was DA Waites inability to refute James White that was a reason I questioned my TR assumptions.



Easy come, easy go!


----------



## One Little Nail (Sep 2, 2014)

Stephen L Smith said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > I did not claim that Moorman was the best representative of the TR position.
> ...



The same goes for the Egyptian family of manuscripts, with there caesarean sub-branch, which I believe have greater problems & greater difficulties to be surmounted, the Greek church basically preserved the the Greek New Testament 
whilst the Latin west was spurning the Scriptures use.

as for White he is an accomplished & gifted debater which is what gives him an edge when debating old men who have trouble recollecting their thoughts, any sharp minded individual would be made to look good in these circumstances, even when he is debating a more intelligent opponent who doesn't possess natural debating abilities.


----------



## KMK (Sep 2, 2014)

One Little Nail said:


> Stephen L Smith said:
> 
> 
> > greenbaggins said:
> ...



This brings up one of my major concerns about manuscript convictions: what are legitimate sources of conviction in this issue?

The Bible is to be eaten and digested. The Bible is to be read and memorized. The Bible is to be meditated on day and night. I don't see how one can do that while using 20 different versions! I highly recommend that people try to stick with a Bible instead of bouncing around. Obviously, each of us will choose a Bible based upon our convictions of which one is best. But, where do these convictions come from? 

Should my convictions be based upon what a seminary or parachurch organization says?
Should my convictions be based upon what a faceless individual says on an internet discussion board?
Should my convictions be based upon who published the Bible?
Should my convictions be based upon what Bible my father uses?
Should my convictions be based upon what Bible my pastor uses?
Should my convictions be based upon its history?
Should my convictions be based upon my understanding of the science of textual criticism?
Should my convictions be based upon which version best resonates in my heart?

Should my choice of a Bible be based upon my convictions in the first place?

These discussions seem to always carry the assumption that it is the duty of each individual English speaking Christian to 'decide for themselves', and that doesn't jibe with the overall tenor of Christian doctrine.

Before allowing James White or Steve Rafalsky or Ken Klein to choose a Bible for you, make sure you consider these questions and have a talk with your elders. 



> Heb 13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.


----------



## SeanAnderson (Sep 5, 2014)

Something I've been contemplating (and this coming from a man who traditionally supports the UT text)...

The Old Testament in most Christian Bibles (apart from Eastern Orthodox) is based on the Hebrew Masoretic Text. Some of these manuscripts are very late. In places, the Greek Septuagint is quite different from the Hebrew and historically might have led some to doubt the latter (in the same way that some early New Testament manuscripts cause confusion). However, the Hebrew text was trusted by the Christian church and when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered (pre-dating other Hebrew manuscripts by about 1,000 years), it was (correct me if I'm mistaken) a near-perfect match of the later Hebrew manuscripts. We can trust, even possessing tangible evidence, that the Hebrew Old Testament was providentially preserved in a single tradition. In places, the Greek Septuagint has shorter readings, so we can prove in this case that shorter does not mean more reliable.

However, the New Testament is treated differently by modern scholars. While the late Hebrew manuscripts were trusted as the tradition passed down, the late Greek manuscripts are sometimes even discounted. Longer readings are dismissed as probable additions to the text (the Masoretic/Septuagint readings prove this is not an accurate philosophy), sometimes even where the Church Fathers bear witness to them before the existence of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Why do we trust in such a stable Hebrew text base while we question the stability of the Greek NT? What if an NT equivalent of the Dead Sea Scrolls turned up which almost perfectly matched the TR? It is certainly not impossible. The Textus Receptus could very well, like the Masoretic Text, be a solid tradition. I'm now asking myself, why should it not be?

But we can at least say with confidence that all text traditions contain the true Word of God.


----------

