# A History Of The Authorized Version



## Blueridge Believer

The King James Version of the Bible

And why it is the best translation available today. Very good read put out by the PRCA.


A Puritan's Petition
Four Puritans along with fourteen representatives of the Church of England were gathered together at Hampton Court for an ecclesiastical conference in January 1604. The Puritans had many objections concerning the English Church as it was then established. They were hoping that their new king, James I, would so guide the Church of God in England that there would be further reformation of the Church. They wanted to make the Church of England more like the Reformed Church of Geneva and the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland. They had already met James on his way to London where he was to receive the English crown and had presented him with a petition stating their grievances. The petition was signed by about a thousand clergyman and therefore called the Millenary Petition. It was on account of that petition that James had called the conference to hear and determine things pretended to be amiss in the Church. 

It did not go so well for the Puritans, however. Not only were they in the minority at the conference, but King James, rather than sympathizing with them, supported the cause of the High Churchmen or Conformists who did not want the Presbyterian form of Church government. In the midst of their struggle Dr. John Reynolds, the Puritan president of Corpus Christi College, suddenly petitioned the king, that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the original. This motion of the Puritan leader evidently was not something which he had planned but something that was introduced incidentally in order to keep from losing all ground at the conference. 

This is confirmed by the preface to the readers entitled The Translators To The Readers which was found in the first edition of the King James Version. There we read, ...the very historical truth is that upon the importunate petitions of the Puritans, at his Majesties coming to the crown, the conference at Hampton Court having been appointed for hearing their complaints; when by force of reason they were put from all other grounds, they had recourse at the last, to this shift, that they could not with good conscience subscribe to the Communion Book, since it maintained the Bible as it was there translated, which was as they said, a most corrupted translation. 

The Puritans did object to the translations of the Great Bible and the Bishops' Bible which were quoted in the Prayer Book, but they did not zealously demand a new translation. They were content with their Geneva Bible and its Calvinistic notes. The motion for a new translation was incidental to them. In fact, if it were up to them, there probably would not be a King James Version of the Bible.


----------



## ModernPuritan?

so there is no way, other folk today could meet these reasons as put forth in the article?
1) It was translated by men who are unsurpassed in their knowledge of Biblical studies.
operitive phrase would be unsurpassed at that time. to insist that there are no people equally as brilliant or learned in Biblical studies would be silly no?
2) The translators were pious men of God who believed in the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures.
*~ so there is no way that there could be other groups today of Godly scholars with a vast knowledge of those tounges?*
3) It is the mature fruit of generations of English translations as well as the careful work of its translators.
*~ so there is no way that there could be other groups today of Godly scholars with a vast knowledge of those tounges?*

4) The King James Version is based upon the Received Text rather than the critical Greek text of modern versions.
*~have we at any point since the KJV, found OLDER manuscripts of Scripture? wouldnt it be important to make sure that translations reflect the oldest available? there are a lot of variants. 
*
5) It is a word-for-word translation which faithfully and accurately reflects the originals.
* ~ how are the versions today that claim the same thing any different? some words have multiple meanings that would not effect the rest of the verse.*
6) The language is one of reverence and respect which gives honor to the majesty of its Author.
*~ there are other translations that do, please share specific proofs that support this. Using versions that most here would probably aggree with (ESV/Geneva/NASB/etc.)*

8) Our spiritual forefathers thought so highly of it that they were willing to suffer and even die for it.
* ~ so folk are persecuted like they were. this is not a valid argument for supremecy.*
---------------------------
still, it was an intresting article, thanks for sharing


----------



## Grymir

Long live the King!! Nice article!! Mega-Ditto's!


----------



## ModernPuritan?

furthermore I would have to ask, Doesnt the KJV state that language changes hence there must be changes in the KJV version? also, which KJV version to my reckoning there are more than one revisions of the KJV.


bear in mind, these are questions ive had for a while and so far no one has been able to provide a non heresay? or non conjecture? answer?? (which ever one is he said she said)


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Grymir said:


> Long live the King!! Nice article!! Mega-Ditto's!



I really liked this part:




God's Word To His Church
Authorized Bible
The new translation did not immediately take over all others. For some time there was a struggle with the Geneva Bible. But in the end, the people of God recognized the superior qualities of the King James Version so that it conquered all others. It has gone through hundreds and hundreds of editions since it was first published in 1611. Some changes have been made in the spelling, punctuation, italicizing, and cross references. Nevertheless, the King James Version which we have today is basically the same as that published in 1611. It is still the choice of God's people too. Even with all the competition from the modern versions, the King James Version is one of the most popular of all versions. 

As far as we know the King James Version, also called the Authorized Version, was never authorized. Even thought it was appointed by the King, it was never approved by Parliament nor the Convocation, nor the Privy Council. Nevertheless, it is recognized by God's people as the Authorized Bible-God's Authorized Bible. God has so worked in the hearts of His people that it has been recognized as God's Word by generation after generation of English-speaking Christians. It has been recognized as the version which God has given to us in His good providence. There is no other translation so universally regarded as God's Word.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Jeff,

Sorry I can't take the time to answer your questions / objections above as as it is I am stealing from my sleep to be writing, but perhaps you would find some extended discussions of these very issues of value. I post here some threads where these things are delved into.

I hope some of the things you question may be answered here (I know it's a good bit of reading, but there's good info, which you may appreciate).

Steve


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

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

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

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/textual-manuscripts-27898/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/defending-lord-s-prayer-1-a-27974/

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

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/do-textual-variants-give-us-confidence-22188/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/verbal-plenary-preservation-21765/

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


----------



## Poimen

From the article:



> The King James Version, although it is almost 400 years old, is still the best translation available today.



Although this was probably not the intent of the original author it is rather revealing that the best translation of the Bible is in _English_, and not in Dutch, Chinese etc. 

I wonder if other language groups make translations of the Bible in an older, antiquated version of their current tongue? Perhaps we should be looking at our cultural preferences, not making assumptions about the superiority of our translations.


----------



## ModernPuritan?

Ill look into those posts. but im not asking which Greek text should be the basis of translation. Im asking on what authority can we insist that the KJV is an inspired English translation to be held up above all others? what about the mistranslations of the KJV? ITs fine if one prefers the KJV, but to assert KJV primacy is rather silly i should think.


----------



## Hippo

ModernPuritan? said:


> Ill look into those posts. but im not asking which Greek text should be the basis of translation. Im asking on what authority can we insist that the KJV is an inspired English translation to be held up above all others? what about the mistranslations of the KJV? ITs fine if one prefers the KJV, but to assert KJV primacy is rather silly i should think.



A claim for KJV primacy or support for the TR also verges on the idolitrous. KJV prefered or support for the MT are fine in my book, but to go beyond such positions is very questionable.


----------



## ADKing

Poimen said:


> From the article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The King James Version, although it is almost 400 years old, is still the best translation available today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although this was probably not the intent of the original author it is rather revealing that the best translation of the Bible is in _English_, and not in Dutch, Chinese etc.
> 
> I wonder if other language groups make translations of the Bible in an older, antiquated version of their current tongue? Perhaps we should be looking at our cultural preferences, not making assumptions about the superiority of our translations.
Click to expand...


I think you are correct is saying that this was not the author's original intent. He probably would agree that the best translation of the Bible in English is the AV (rather than saying the best translation is in English). It is my understanding that the Old Dutch Bible and the Old French (Louis Segond) are TR based and still endorsed by TR advocates although they obviously use older Dutch and French vocabulary and style. Someone feel free to correct me if I am mistaken here.


----------



## ADKing

Hippo said:


> ModernPuritan? said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ill look into those posts. but im not asking which Greek text should be the basis of translation. Im asking on what authority can we insist that the KJV is an inspired English translation to be held up above all others? what about the mistranslations of the KJV? ITs fine if one prefers the KJV, but to assert KJV primacy is rather silly i should think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A claim for KJV primacy *or support for the TR *also verges on the idolitrous. KJV prefered or support for the MT are fine in my book, but to go beyond such positions is very questionable.
Click to expand...


This is very strong language, friend. What about the conviction that God has providentially preserved his word in the body of texts we know as the TR strikes you as verging on idolatry?


----------



## Hippo

ADKing said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ModernPuritan? said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ill look into those posts. but im not asking which Greek text should be the basis of translation. Im asking on what authority can we insist that the KJV is an inspired English translation to be held up above all others? what about the mistranslations of the KJV? ITs fine if one prefers the KJV, but to assert KJV primacy is rather silly i should think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A claim for KJV primacy *or support for the TR *also verges on the idolitrous. KJV prefered or support for the MT are fine in my book, but to go beyond such positions is very questionable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is very strong language, friend. What about the conviction that God has providentially preserved his word in the body of texts we know as the TR strikes you as verging on idolatry?
Click to expand...


Just because I have convictions it does not make them right and we should all examine our convictions in light of the faith. 

Any sect can claim that its beliefs have been providentially preserved, it is a Roman argument and is always an assertion. I just cannot see the logic in asserting the TR has been providentially preserved especially as the TR contained noted that have been corrected. 

I really do not mean to be confrontational about this, but the faith derives from apostolic truth not "because it is" type arguments.


----------



## ModernPuritan?

because God gave us his word in Hebrew and Greek period, end of that discussion.

2) many learned men from 100 AD till this very second have vast depths of learning and knowledge in the ORiginal HEbrew and greek. TO insist that the KJV is better because the folk who translated it had superior language expertise is a fallacious he said she said argument

3) God promised that HIs Original words in hebrew and greek would be preserved. Not translations.

4) if the KJV folk were inspired in the translation how can you say others arent? to say they arent is to deny GOD the ability to grant them the necessary knowledge to translate,

5) to insist that the AV is the best translation or the only "God apporoved" is erroneous. THe KJV borrows from the Geneva Bible around 60% or so?? 

6) there are translations errors in the KJV, As with any translation, the translation is subject at all times to human error. WHy on earth do you think the puritans were so big on teaching children the original tounges?? 

im not arguing against the Textus receptus at this point. Im arguing against the silly notion that the KJV is the best God ordained english translatiton.


----------



## SolaGratia

Poimen said:


> Although this was probably not the intent of the original author it is rather revealing that t*he best translation of the Bible is in English[/I*_], and not in Dutch, Chinese etc.
> 
> I wonder if other language groups make translations of the Bible in an older, antiquated version of their current tongue? Perhaps we should be looking at our cultural preferences, not making assumptions about the superiority of our translations._


_

Poimen, 

The Reina-Valera is a Spanish Bibles that :

is important to note that this translation was based on the Hebrew Masoretic Text (Bomberg's Edition, 1525) and the Greek Textus Receptus (Stephanus' Edition, 1550). As secondary sources Reina was aided by the Ferrara Bible for the Old Testament and the Latin Edition of Santes Pagnini throughout. 

In other words it is older than the KJV. By the way the Greek New Testaments (i.e.,Polyglot Bible) that Erasmus used, was from the Spain. And the Greek New Testament that the KJV translators used was the 1550 Robert Stephanus edition (also from Spain if I am not mistaken). 

So you say that the KJV is the best bible translated, I think is an overstatement, since where did you think the KJV came from? 

FYI, Francisco de Enzinas, of Spain, who help translate the Reina-Valera even taught Greek in Cambridge thanks to Thomas Cranmer. This Enzinas, Spanish Reformer, was also where John Foxe, author of the famous English Book, Foxe's Book of Martyrs, got his eyewitness accounts which were originally penned by Enzinas and not John Foxe. Much more can be said... but this is good enough. 

Having said that, I nevertheless, when I read my Bible in English it is the KJV. _


----------



## ADKing

Hippo said:


> ADKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A claim for KJV primacy *or support for the TR *also verges on the idolitrous. KJV prefered or support for the MT are fine in my book, but to go beyond such positions is very questionable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is very strong language, friend. What about the conviction that God has providentially preserved his word in the body of texts we know as the TR strikes you as verging on idolatry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because I have convictions it does not make them right and we should all examine our convictions in light of the faith.
> 
> Any sect can claim that its beliefs have been providentially preserved, it is a Roman argument and is always an assertion. I just cannot see the logic in asserting the TR has been providentially preserved especially as the TR contained noted that have been corrected.
> 
> I really do not mean to be confrontational about this, but the faith derives from apostolic truth not "because it is" type arguments.
Click to expand...


With all due respect, friend, I think you are missing my point. I did not assert that because I had a conviction that it was right. I asked, what about that conviction you found to be "verging on idolatry" (to use your words). I am glad we are agreed that faith derives from apostolic truth 

I just happen to believe that that truth is accessible in the Scriptures, and that those Scriptures (in the NT) are what we commonly call the TR. This certainly is not a Romish doctrine (the Romanists disagreed!). I think the comparision is not valid.


----------



## Hippo

ADKing said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ADKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is very strong language, friend. What about the conviction that God has providentially preserved his word in the body of texts we know as the TR strikes you as verging on idolatry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because I have convictions it does not make them right and we should all examine our convictions in light of the faith.
> 
> Any sect can claim that its beliefs have been providentially preserved, it is a Roman argument and is always an assertion. I just cannot see the logic in asserting the TR has been providentially preserved especially as the TR contained noted that have been corrected.
> 
> I really do not mean to be confrontational about this, but the faith derives from apostolic truth not "because it is" type arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With all due respect, friend, I think you are tilting at windmills. I did not assert that because I had a conviction that it was right. I asked, what about that conviction you found to be "verging on idolatry" (to use your words). I am glad we are agreed that faith derives from apostolic truth
> 
> I just happen to believe that that truth is accessible in the Scriptures, and that those Scriptures (in the NT) are what we commonly call the TR. This certainly is not a Romish doctrine (the Romanists disagreed!). I think the comparision is not valid.
Click to expand...


But do you hold the the TR (i.e that particular manuscript) or do you believe that similiar manuscripts (i.e. non Alexandrian) can be examined in order to ascertain what the original form of the underlying text was(i.e. MT)?

The problem with the TR position is that to say that one particulat text was providentially preserved is a "because it is argument" and that is problematic. It is like saying that a particular translation is providential and must have supremacy be that the KJV or the Vulgate.


----------



## ReformedDave

THE best version?????????? It is the one that I will actually read and study on a regular basis.


----------



## Poimen

SolaGratia said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although this was probably not the intent of the original author it is rather revealing that t*he best translation of the Bible is in English[/I*_], and not in Dutch, Chinese etc.
> 
> I wonder if other language groups make translations of the Bible in an older, antiquated version of their current tongue? Perhaps we should be looking at our cultural preferences, not making assumptions about the superiority of our translations._
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> Poimen,
> 
> The Reina-Valera is a Spanish Bibles that :
> 
> is important to note that this translation was based on the Hebrew Masoretic Text (Bomberg's Edition, 1525) and the Greek Textus Receptus (Stephanus' Edition, 1550). As secondary sources Reina was aided by the Ferrara Bible for the Old Testament and the Latin Edition of Santes Pagnini throughout.
> 
> In other words it is older than the KJV. By the way the Greek New Testaments (i.e.,Polyglot Bible) that Erasmus used, was from the Spain. And the Greek New Testament that the KJV translators used was the 1550 Robert Stephanus edition (also from Spain if I am not mistaken).
> 
> So you say that the KJV is the best bible translated, I think is an overstatement, since where did you think the KJV came from?
> 
> FYI, Francisco de Enzinas, of Spain, who help translate the Reina-Valera even taught Greek in Cambridge thanks to Thomas Cranmer. This Enzinas, Spanish Reformer, was also where John Foxe, author of the famous English Book, Foxe's Book of Martyrs, got his eyewitness accounts which were originally penned by Enzinas and not John Foxe. Much more can be said... but this is good enough.
> 
> Having said that, I nevertheless, when I read my Bible in English it is the KJV. _
Click to expand...

_

I am not sure I understand your post. I didn't say that the KJV is the best bible translation, the author of the article that was cited did._


----------



## SolaGratia

From your post you wrote:



Poimen said:


> Although this was probably not the intent of the original author _it is rather revealing that the best translation of the Bible is in English, and not in Dutch, Chinese etc. _
> 
> I was informing you that there are other languages such as Spanish with a fine translation of the Bible.
> 
> And I was trying to answer your below question;
> 
> As I wonder if other language groups make translations of the Bible in an older, antiquated version of their current tongue?
> 
> I guess I misunderstood what your wrote, sorry.


----------



## Thomas2007

ModernPuritan? said:


> Ill look into those posts. but im not asking which Greek text should be the basis of translation. Im asking on what authority can we insist that the KJV is an inspired English translation to be held up above all others? what about the mistranslations of the KJV? ITs fine if one prefers the KJV, but to assert KJV primacy is rather silly i should think.




I have to prepare for my lesson tomorrow evening, so I don't have time to get into anything tonight. 

First, would you please indicate where the author or anyone in this thread has asserted that "the KJV is an inspired English translation?"

Second, the textual issue is the heart of the debate, and primacy rests first there, secondarily upon the Authorized Version as a five fold revision of English Bibles beginning with Tyndale and ending with the Bishops Bible. 

Third the Authorized Version is the fountainhead through which the English language itself, and the divine foundation upon which English common law countries rests. It shouldn't be silly to argue for the primacy of the Declaration of Independence unto the political institutions of the United States, should it? Nor should it be perceived as silly to argue for the primacy of the Authorized Version as the binding tie between law and gospel in the sociological foundations of American society, it's just a matter of historical facts.


----------



## Thomas2007

Hippo said:


> Just because I have convictions it does not make them right and we should all examine our convictions in light of the faith.
> 
> Any sect can claim that its beliefs have been providentially preserved, it is a Roman argument and is always an assertion. I just cannot see the logic in asserting the TR has been providentially preserved especially as the TR contained noted that have been corrected.
> 
> I really do not mean to be confrontational about this, but the faith derives from apostolic truth not "because it is" type arguments.




Well, sir, it is evident you are arguing from a tremendous lack of knowledge and understanding of our Reformed heritage. May I suggest you read through some of the links provided by Elder Rafalsky? The Westminster Confession of Faith 1:8 is a reference to the Mastoretic Hebrew and Received Greek text. It is quite silly to propose that these divines placed their sanction upon any hypothetical text whatsoever before seeing it and approving of it.


----------



## Grymir

Blueridge, thanks again for the article. A couple of great quotes from the article really caught my attention -

"Many tell us that the King James Version is no longer useful because its language has become obsolete, but what they do not realize is that its language is not a type of English that was ever spoken anywhere. Oh, it was such that the people could understand it, but it was, nevertheless, a particular language deliberately chosen to make the King James Version a version that reflects the reverence and respect which is due unto its Divine Author. In that respect, they succeeded too, for there is no version that even comes close to the beauty and majesty of the King James Version."

"Therefore, Theodore Beza, the successor of Calvin at Geneva, a great Reformer himself, was a leading influence upon our King James Version."

"Indeed, we find fountains of living water in the King James Version of the Bible. It is the living Word of the living God. Do not despise it and reject it for the unreliable modern versions as so many do today. Do not let anyone take this great Bible away from you. This version is the Bible we ought to use in our homes and churches. It ought to be the authority for both our faith and practice. We ought to stand up for and defend this Bible which has been given to us by the good providence of God."

Beza! Who can forget that Beza himself had a hand in it? 

And from the Protestant Reformed Churches of America (although unofficial), Sigh, I wish I wasn't in this liberal wasteland, and could find a reformed church that uses the KJV. I think that using the KJV keeps Church's from going down the liberal/modernist/barthian path.

Thanks! It's nice to hear people stand up for the best Bible ever! - Grymir


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Jeff,

You spoke (in post #2) about the quality of the translators of the AV – and other versions as well – and that _is_ an issue, but you also brought up in that post and #13 the matter of the Hebrew and Greek texts underlying the various versions, and that I would think, along with you, the foremost issue.

Perhaps it has been made clear in the posts above that Authorized Version defenders – at least here at PB – do not claim “inspiration” for the translation. Inspiration pertains to the original writings of the Old and New Testament documents alone.

Your claim Mike (post #9), that “KJV primacy or support for the TR also verges on the idolatrous” – as well as Jeff’s (#8) that it’s “rather silly” – bespeak a lack of familiarity with the bases of the King James Bible and Textus Receptus defenses, and likely also an indoctrination in those views, such as Dr. James White’s, which look askance at the AV/TR position, or in some cases even ridicule it.

The _primary_ issue in this entire matter centers on the Hebrew and Greek text-forms used, and as pertains to the Greek, there are – arguably – only two: the Byzantine and the Alexandrian (note, please, that the TR 1894 [which is the Greek underlying the King James translation] is one of a number of editions of what may generically be called the Textus Receptus, and the “Eclectic text” [say, that which purportedly underlies the NIV] for all intents and purposes is Alexandrian _in its variant readings_; and there _is_ no printed edition of the so-called “Western text-form”; it is but a _theoretical_ construct).

The Hebrew is a different matter, and can be discussed at a later time, if desired.

Now the qualities of these two respective text-forms, the Byzantine (or Traditional – for it existed before its appearance in the Byzantine Greek churches) and the Alexandrian are open to inspection. Much labor has been exerted on analyzing the merits or demerits of these text-forms. It is readily granted that in terms of mere age the Alexandrian documents are the oldest, but when we look at their characteristics other factors enter in. I refer to the discordance between the two primary exemplars – in legal terms, _witnesses_ – of this text-form, codices Vaticanus or B, and Sinaiticus or Aleph ([size=+1]a[/size]). It is well known that there are 3,036 differences between these two witnesses in the Gospels alone (according to the careful collation done by Herman C. Hoskier, in his two-volume, _Codex B and Its Allies: A Study and an Indictment_).

It also should be noted that the age of these exemplars may well not reflect as ancient a text-form as the younger documents of the Traditional text, which latter comprise at least 90% of the extant Greek mss.

In the Alexandrian text-form, which I will henceforth generally term, the “Critical Text” or just CT, there are numerous omissions (a phenomena which characterizes the CT throughout), which, when examining the evidences for omission, are found wanting, that is, without warrant (pardon my understatement here, please). Much work has been done in this area.

So we have in the CT a text-form which is considered corrupt by accomplished text critics, both of the Majority Text (MT) schools (also called the Byzantine Text schools) and the AV/TR school. These scholars have compiled massive evidences to support their views, to the point where there is a shift among many critics and scholars from the CT to the MT.


I submit a pertinent quote from an essay by Dr. Theodore Letis:

Both schools [the TR and the CT –SMR] interpret the data of NT textual criticism and modern translations differently, and both groups fill in the gaps in the data with assumptions which favor their given position. I hope some are beginning to see that this is not an argument between scholarship (the established school represented by Carson) and non-scholarship (the challenging school which has traditionally been treated as non-scholarly and completely uncritical). To the contrary, the best representatives of both schools display genuine scholarship. Why is it, then, that these two schools co-exist on this all-important issue of the very wording of the NT text?​
He closes the essay with these words,

Some will fault me for not answering every objection of Carson’s, but it was only our intention to raise the old issue of presuppositions and to underscore the fact that this debate is not one between experts with data and non-experts with dogma, but rather one between experts with the same data, but different dogma—the dogma of neutrality versus the dogma of providence…(pp. 201-204). [From, _The Majority Text: Essays And Reviews In The Continuing Debate_, the essay, “In Reply to D.A. Carson’s ‘The King James Version Debate’”.]​
If it is brought to my attention that the CT can also claim the providence of God in preserving _their_ manuscripts, then we move to hand-to-hand combat, as it were, in the trenches of examining specific readings. To list but a few: Mark 16:12-20; John 7:53-8:11; 1 Timothy 3:16; Matthew 1:7, 10. What are the evidences pro and con for retaining these readings in the AV/TR as the original readings? On what bases does the CT seek to omit or alter them?

One will see that to allege “silliness” or “idolatry” to the position of KJV primacy – which is based not only on the presupposition that God has preserved His word, but on close examination of textual transmission (the history of it), and specific readings – is not a responsible allegation.

Thus far we have really spoken only of the Greek text, and not concerning the translation of it into English, which is another matter. But until we settle the matter of the authentic Greek text as providentially preserved by God, it is almost pointless to go on to discussing the English translation.


----------



## DMcFadden

Dr. Rafalsky,

You've don it again! I accepted the arguments of CT reflexively frrom the time Bob Gundry taught them to me in beginning Greek back in 1971. Since then, I have only studied, preached, and taught from CT translations. But, every time you post on this topic, it shakes to the core my predispositional preference for the CT that was simply accepted uncritically as a college freshman.

If you keep this up much longer, you will make me a devotee of your "quaint," "old fashioned," "unscholarly," "tendentious," "dogmatic," "tunnel vision," etc. views . . . which, after reading your pieces, seem none of the above! Thanks!

About a hundred years ago I read Pickering and Carson (in that order). My vague recollection is that Carson succeeded in knocking down the ideas Pickering raised. Assuming that I am masochistic enough to want to scramble my brains with another dip in the chilly waters of textual criticism, what would you advise?


----------



## ModernPuritan?

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Thus far we have really spoken only of the Greek text, and not concerning the translation of it into English, which is another matter. But until we settle the matter of the authentic Greek text as providentially preserved by God, it is almost pointless to go on to discussing the English translation.



I thank you for your response Blade. But so we are clear- I see it in two ways:

I see the greek NT text (text recept) 

I see translations of the text recept

Im not arguing against wether the Original greek TR is the best. Im fine with the assertion that the Origianl greek TR is the best and most complete NT.

My only argument is with those that would say the KJV is the best/only "acceptable"_* translation*_ of the TR. I find no reason that a group of Godly men couldnt accurately translate the TR today, using current, professional, scholarly english (none of the "yo man/dude trash) version. 

so again, im arguing against a the primacy of a translation of the TR, NOT the primacy of the Actual Greek Textus Recepticus

but thank you for your response and the effort you put into it!

see, the KJV borrows heavily from the GEneva Bible and another translation.

Id like to see how a ESV/NASB would have any negative effect on Doctrine, reproof, Instruction, etc.. as far as I can read the ESV/NKJV/NASB all use the TR as the primary ORigianl greek.


----------



## Hippo

Thomas2007 said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because I have convictions it does not make them right and we should all examine our convictions in light of the faith.
> 
> Any sect can claim that its beliefs have been providentially preserved, it is a Roman argument and is always an assertion. I just cannot see the logic in asserting the TR has been providentially preserved especially as the TR contained noted that have been corrected.
> 
> I really do not mean to be confrontational about this, but the faith derives from apostolic truth not "because it is" type arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, sir, it is evident you are arguing from a tremendous lack of knowledge and understanding of our Reformed heritage. May I suggest you read through some of the links provided by Elder Rafalsky? The Westminster Confession of Faith 1:8 is a reference to the Mastoretic Hebrew and Received Greek text. It is quite silly to propose that these divines placed their sanction upon any hypothetical text whatsoever before seeing it and approving of it.
Click to expand...



I have read quite alot around this subject and will continue to do so. While I disagree with some of Elder Rafalsky emphasis I agree or at the very least can see merit in nearly everything that he says. In particular that it is perfectly respectable to reject the CT and hold to the corruption of Alexandrian manuscripts. 

The problem is that if we hold that God providentialy preserved the TR why can we say that? is it beacuse we use the TR and want confidence, what about the Alexandrian Church that God apparantly decided not to providentailly provide with his word?

To say that one particular text has been preserved because it is the one we use is a circular argument. To say that the Byzantium texts were not corrupted after an examination of those texts and the Alexandrian texts can be a logical conclusion.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Grymir said:


> And from the Protestant Reformed Churches of America (although unofficial), Sigh, I wish I wasn't in this liberal wasteland, and could find a reformed church that uses the KJV. I think that using the KJV keeps Church's from going down the liberal/modernist/barthian path.
> 
> Thanks! It's nice to hear people stand up for the best Bible ever! - Grymir



Timothy -- I know that Davenport is not exactly next door to Des Moines, but you might be interested to know that the Presbyterian Reformed Church, which has a Des Moines congregation, and does stand up for the KJV:



> The Authorized King James Version shall be the text used in the public reading of the word, and the Scottish Metrical Psalter the text for singing in worship.



That congregation is also home to the widow of Edward Hills, a notable scholar who wrote _The King James Version Defended_ and other such works.


----------



## Grymir

Thanks VirginiaHuguenot! Both for the church and book. Des Moines is about a three hour drive. I wish it was closer, because I would be there. My wife and I are getting together a list of good Reformed church's together, so this summer we can go on day trips and visit some. I've added the Des Moines Congregation to my list for sure! By that time I'll have read the book you've linked to too. Maybe I'll get to meet her.

There are a few KJV-Only Fundamentalist Baptist Church's in my area. When I first saw them, I thought it would be a match made in heaven! Little did I know how arminian they were when I went. And don't you dare mention Church History or Calvin! They almost threw me out because there was a Liberal Episcopalian (an ex-bishop) who also came the day I did. In the Sunday School class, a Young-Earth view was being taught, and he was bringing up Greek words and church historical views to debunk the young-earth view, and make a case for evolution, which was going right over the pastors and teachers heads. I spoke up and showed what the Greek really said (from my KJV, which is one of the many reasons I like it.), and showing the correct church history. After my second visit, the Pastor accused me of being in league with him and that we came together to overthrow his church. I was quite disheartened. And didn't go back.

That book looks great. Thank you so much. It's nice to see scholarly work on the subject. The Chapter on the history of unbelief is excellent work. And to trace it in the philosophies is so easy to understand. Edward Hills speaks my language! This will be an enjoyable and applicable read.

Mega Ditto's again VirginiaHuguenot!! - Grymir


----------



## Davidius

ModernPuritan? said:


> 2) many learned men from 100 AD till this very second have vast depths of learning and knowledge in the ORiginal HEbrew and greek. TO insist that the KJV is better because the folk who translated it had superior language expertise is a fallacious he said she said argument



You yourself said that the puritans trained their children in the original language. I trust the translation of someone who grew up in a godly home and was reading and writing in Greek and Hebrew from an early age more than I would trust most ministers' abilities today. I've only had a year of Greek and I've found on several occasions that I can explain grammar better and even read some passages of the NT better than some ministers I've come across. Frankly it scares me. I guess the guys who have done the newer translations know their stuff, though.


----------



## Thomas2007

Hippo said:


> I have read quite alot around this subject and will continue to do so. While I disagree with some of Elder Rafalsky emphasis I agree or at the very least can see merit in nearly everything that he says. In particular that it is perfectly respectable to reject the CT and hold to the corruption of Alexandrian manuscripts.
> 
> The problem is that if we hold that God providentialy preserved the TR why can we say that? is it beacuse we use the TR and want confidence, what about the Alexandrian Church that God apparantly decided not to providentailly provide with his word?
> 
> To say that one particular text has been preserved because it is the one we use is a circular argument. To say that the Byzantium texts were not corrupted after an examination of those texts and the Alexandrian texts can be a logical conclusion.



Hello Sir,

Thank you for your kind response and please forgive the abrupt tone of my initial post, it was late and I was way behind in my preparation for today, so I hurriedly replied.

As Elder Rafalsky correctly points out the heart of the issue is the textual priority of the RT vs the CT, for the two main positions supporting the Authorized Version and modern translations, respectively. 

To begin grasping the historicity of this issue one must comprehend the basis and foundation upon which the doctrine of Sola Scriptura was championed against the Roman Magisterium and the textual basis for that development. 

The issue of the authentic edition of the Scriptures enters Reformed theology by way of the polemic with Rome. Failure to understand that and simply presume that one is standing upon neutral ground in this debate, and one is able to just pick and choose however one may wish, is an incorrect understanding of the historical situation. Contrariwise, the orthodox argued for an authentic and legitimate textual tradition, this then eliminated private or obscure copies in the evidentiary debate.

Following that, one must learn of the historical position of Rome at the Council of Trent and its formal Tridentine attack upon Sola Scriptura - which was raising the issue of variant readings. Hence, Rome countered the Protestant doctrine of Authority by simply demonstrating that the variant readings in the manuscripts were so numerous that no one could possibly know what the original autograph was, hence, there is no certainty for faith or theology without the tradition of the Roman Church and Authority of the Magisterium.

Leigh, then summed up the issue quite well:

"If the authority of the authentical copies in Hebrew, Chaldee and Greek fall, then there is no pure Scripture in the Church of God, there is no high court of appeal where controversies (rising upon the diversity of translations, or ortherwise) may be ended. The exhortations of having recourse unto the Law and to the Prophets, and our Saviour Christ asking "How is it written," and "How readest thou," is now either of none effect, or not sufficient." Leigh, Treatise, I.vi (pp 102-103)

This, of course, was precisely the position of Rome - although Scripture was truly the Word of God, it cannot stand as Authority on its own outside of the Roman Magisterium and its tradition.

Hence, for the Protestants the issue of Providential Preservation and the development of that doctrine comes by way of the polemic with Rome and it rests upon the textual tradition of the Received Text as the authentic and legitimate text of Scripture. This is precisely the type of language you will find in the Westminster Confession of Faith - not a concept of some hypothetical text that may be extrapolated from the manuscripts, but an actual text received from Greek Churches and that was in use and authority for centuries and merely changed from a manuscript form to a printed form in the work of Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza.

This is not, as you say, a circular argument - but a linear one in the development and apologetical defense of Sola Scripture. Hence, we receive from our Protestant fathers, use and defend the Received Text because it is the Providentially Preserved text, not that it is Providentially Preserved because we use it.

This is a very brief sketch of the outline of the main issues simply to provide you a simple basis to comprehend and answer to your question, hence it is not to be considered an exhaustive presentation, which I simply don't have time for at present. However, if you wish to study this more there are numerous threads that carry these arguments forward and numerous books that also explain it better than I can. In this line I would recommend "The Ecclessiastical Text" by Theodore Letis.

Cordially,

Thomas


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Dennis,

Thank you for your kind remarks. Though I’m not a doctor, but an educated layman (true, I’m a Ruling Elder, functioning as a Teaching Elder in a foreign-field mission church). I don’t even have a high school diploma save in the USMC the equivalency diploma I received there (1959/60) and the GED I received in a college in Florida upon being tested before matriculation. I don’t have a college degree, and haven’t darkened the door of a theological cemetery (oops, seminary). I reveal all this to encourage folks to undertake the not-very-difficult study of the basic principles of textual criticism and textual history. I mean, one does not need to be a trained and certified mechanic to understand the production history, quality control, and all-around superiority of a Mercedes-Benz over a poorer-quality vehicle. As our Bibles are without a doubt the most important book in our lives – upon which we stake our eternal destinies, and those of our families – it is appropriate to give some time and effort to study those matters pertaining to it. *One does not need to be a textual scholar or critic, or even fluent in the Greek or Hebrew* – which I am not – *to know the textual and historical issues necessary to comprehend which Bibles are the best.* We are not – to use Machen’s memorable phrase – to be under “the tyranny of experts”, seeing as the Lord has made these matters plain to all His people, not just the formally educated. And I flout my inferior educational background to prove this point, perhaps similarly to Paul’s boasting in his weakness and infirmities, in which Christ’s strength may be manifest in fulness (2 Cor 12:9, 10). _Note, however, I do not in the slightest mean to denigrate those who have labored in seminaries and universities to better serve the Lord and His people!_ Were it not for such I would not have the resources I have! My point is that simple folks may know which Bibles are best, and be able to defend their views, discerning the misinformation so prevalent in these times.

A book I would recommend is _Crowned With Glory : The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version_, by Dr. Thomas Holland.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Crowned-Glory-Ancient-Authorized-Version/dp/0595146171]Crowned With Glory : The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version[/ame]


It is irenic, simple, clear, yet astute in its scholarship. It not only deals very well with the issues of the Greek text, but has an unusually good grasp of the Hebrew Masoretic, and that in light of the Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts. An easy read.


Jeff, 

The ESV, NASB, NIV and most all modern versions (save the NKJV, MKJV and maybe one or two others in a similar vein) _do_ use the Critical Text as their Greek base, and this is the primary reason for their inferiority.

What is left? The NKJV has some errors due to poor translation, even using the TR in the New Testament, though in the Old it does not use the Masoretic Text as its sole base – which the KJV does – but is eclectic. Notwithstanding this, it is not a bad translation. In fact, it is the pew Bible in the church I serve (the planting church gave me a choice between the NKJV and the ESV, and I opted for the former). _The Modern King James Version_, by Jay Green, is also not bad, though he has a preference for the Majority Text which shows through in a couple of brackets and some accompanying notes.

I would welcome – for the record – an updated-language AV, as long as the meanings, and the majestic (Hebrew-Greek language-structure rendered into) English were retained. Jakob Van Bruggen’s lesser-known work, _The Future of the Bible_ (available from Russ Spees <[email protected]>, along with all of Ted Letis’ works), deals extensively and in great depth on the translation issue, as well as some textual matters. This is an excellent book.

I would no doubt keep and exclusively use my AV, though an updated form of it would be most welcome, and I could well use it in the church.

It has often been noted that the English of the AV remarkably captures the structure of both the Hebrew and Greek language as spoken by the prophets and apostles, thus re-presenting the majestic cadences of those tongues, as the Lord speaks through them. This is something not accomplished by the modern versions, which generally have a different translation principle. Bruggen goes into these things quite deeply.

Some folks don’t like the old language, and yet there is something to be said for there being a “set-apart” language, set apart from common discourse, for use in the House of God. When in the presence of an earthly king or president, we would be careful to use that speech which is acceptable in protocol on such occasions. Of course, if the king were our dad, we would be intimate in our communication, except when in formal occasions.

So far, the AV is the best translation I have to use.


Mike,

You bring up a good point when you say,

“The problem is that if we hold that God providentially preserved the TR....what about the Alexandrian Church that God apparently decided not to providentially provide with his word?”​
The question has also been phrased thusly:

*“Would this mean that God’s people had no access to the TR readings before they were included in the TR? If only the Greek Byzantine was the providentially preserved text, what about other locations in the world that had a different text-type — did they not have an adequate Bible?”*​ 
I answer, There is a preserving of the text, and then there is a preserving of the text — where its integrity is held even to minute readings not granted the former. That the former was nonetheless adequate is analogous to the Bibles based upon the Critical Text (underlying the modern versions) being efficacious to save and edify God’s people today, as witnessed by the multitudes regenerated through those who use the NIV, NASB, ESV etc. The _minute preservation_ occurred in the primary edition (KJV/TR) which was to serve the English-speaking people and the translations created for the vast missionary work they undertook, which impacted the entire world. (It is accepted by many today that the English language is now the universal language — the second language of most other nations.) There was a progression in the purifying of the text, so as to almost (some would say completely) perfectly reconstitute the original manuscripts of the apostles, even as there has been, in the area of theology, a restoration of apostolic doctrine, which also went through phases of deterioration and eventual renewal.

Thus, even those areas of the church which were non-Greek-speaking also had a “preserved text” — as do multitudes in this present day — though their texts were not “minutely preserved.” The texts they had were efficacious unto the salvation of souls and the sustaining of the churches.

As regards the “minutely preserved” text, I observe the fait accompli of His work – Him who said, “I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure” (Isaiah 46:9, 10) – I observe this Book produced in 1611, and I seek to _understand in retrospect what He did and how He did it_. I am aware some scoff at what they may term my “unscientific and ignorant” approach, but what is that to me? I do not have faith in their “science” or in their “learning,” so their judgment of my approach is not relevant to me. Some may term this (as I have heard said) “invincible ignorance,” but if my approach to knowledge is approved by my Lord, I care not for their disapproval.

Many times the people of God have not understood how a prophecy was to be fulfilled until it was a done thing, and then they looked backward to see how He had worked. It is thus in observing how He fulfilled His promise to preserve His word.

I look at the completed act of His providential preservation, the manuscripts He brought into the possession of (despised-by-many) Erasmus, and those editors who came after him; I follow the transmission backwards, the nature of those texts – behold, in the main they are those of the Byzantine text-type, with some few readings from the Latin Vulgate – and I seek to discern and construct what Maurice Robinson and Wm. Pierpont posited in their Introduction to _The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine / Majority Textform_,



> A sound rational approach which accounts for all the phenomena and offers a reconstruction of the history of textual transmission is all that is demanded for any text-critical hypothesis. (p. xxxii)



I am likewise aware that Messrs. Robinson and (the late) Pierpont would disown me as one of their illegitimate progeny, as they make clear on their page xli, but – as mentioned above – I want to make clear I refuse to be under bondage to “the tyranny of experts”. I do not need the knowledge of “experts” who proceed according to methodologies I do not subscribe to. I will consider their work (as much as I am able) and use it if I please.

Consider something else: When the Lord said, “the gates of Hell shall not prevail against...My church” (Matt 16:18), did this mean that no church would ever fail or apostatize? We have in Revelation evidence that some churches were in deep decline even then, and we know from history that many churches have been destroyed by succumbing to satanic wiles. But this does not in the slightest negate the saying of the Lord, for His _true_ church _will_ remain victorious over the dark powers, and He will preserve His elect. Likewise with the Scriptures, does the carelessness of men in handling and copying them, or their wickedness in altering them, negate the Lord’s saying, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away”? (Matt 24:35) No, it does not, for others have been careful to preserve them, by the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit. Does the disobedience of men negate the truthfulness of God?

I repeat what I said above:

*Thus, even those areas of the church which were non-Greek-speaking also had a “preserved text”—as do multitudes in this present day—though their texts were not “minutely preserved.” The texts they had were efficacious unto the salvation of souls and the sustaining of the churches.*​
To give you an example. I know a godly woman who loves God’s Word; she uses the NIV, and that has been her Bible since her conversion over 12 years ago. She may not even be aware of certain missing portions of it. For the last part of Ephesians 5:30, “of his flesh, and of his bones” is omitted from her version, without being testified to by a margin note! So also is Acts 8:37 in its entirety missing. Is her case much different from those pre-TR or MT people living in regions which had very similar omissions? God has preserved His word; the sinfulness of man and the wickedness of the devil have sought to deprive many of it in its unsullied integrity, yet God has triumphed over such darkness by _adequately_ preserving it for the salvation of His beloved elect.

I hope this is helpful.

For King and Kingdom!

Steve


----------



## caddy

Steve, where you able to get all this information into a Blog?


----------



## TimV

> Thus, even those areas of the church which were non-Greek-speaking also had a “preserved text” — as do multitudes in this present day — though their texts were not “minutely preserved.” The texts they had were efficacious unto the salvation of souls and the sustaining of the churches.
> 
> As regards the “minutely preserved” text, I observe the fait accompli of His work – Him who said, “I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure” (Isaiah 46:9, 10) – I observe this Book produced in 1611, and I seek to understand in retrospect what He did and how He did it. I am aware some scoff at what they may term my “unscientific and ignorant” approach, but what is that to me?



I certainly wouldn't use the word "unscientific" since we're dealing with pure faith, not science. And "ignorant" may be a bit too strong as well, but you do need to be aware that if one can find three mistakes in the KJV, a different spelling in any of the texts that compose the TR etc.. then it becomes a question of degree. None of the verses you quote come anywhere near to proving that God would preserve a text "minutely" in any event.

The best that you can argue for is that there are less mistakes in, say, the KJV than in the, say, NIV. And then it becomes a question of "degree" not some such phrase like "minutely preserved" which implies no place name spelling differences etc... I mean that kind of faith boarders on the fanatic and non-systematic to me, although I also prefer the the same texts that you do.

Talking to Afrikaners, who have a similar sub-set to our KJV only crowd (the "Old Translation" is God's Word while the "New Translation" isn't as good since there're several mistakes) I could never understand what they were saying. I suppose most any language with more than one Bible translations has this particular subset of people.

I'll bet there were those types of people during the time of Christ, and that may very well be one of the reasons He mixed his quotes, sometimes quoting the Septuagint and sometimes quoting the Hebrew, perhaps to make the point that while God's Word will never pass away, we shouldn't equate God's Word to any particular text at the expense of others.


----------



## TimV

> Leigh, then summed up the issue quite well:
> 
> "If the authority of the authentical copies in Hebrew, Chaldee and Greek fall, then there is no pure Scripture in the Church of God, there is no high court of appeal where controversies (rising upon the diversity of translations, or ortherwise) may be ended. The exhortations of having recourse unto the Law and to the Prophets, and our Saviour Christ asking "How is it written," and "How readest thou," is now either of none effect, or not sufficient."



I don't know who Leigh is or was (like Elder R., my degree's in agriculture not theology) but that quote seems, at least on the surface, to be remarkably not well thought out. First, it simply isn't true. In the PCA and I assume most confessional denominations, there is a "high court of appeal" and they allow several translations based on several texts. May I ask which denomination you know of doesn't? This guy seems to be taking personal opinions to the point of excess. Second, Christ Himself, when asking those questions, quoted from two texts which in places are hugely different, so why on earth the man would appeal to an example which refutes his theory is beyond me. (Or, I may not understand the subject, and I trust I will be willing to change my views!).

BTW Thomas, in your fourth paragraph above you shouldn't use the term orthodox as excluding Catholics. It's a technical term.


----------



## etexas

Grymir said:


> Long live the King!! Nice article!! Mega-Ditto's!


Hail King Jimmy!


----------



## Thomas2007

TimV said:


> Leigh, then summed up the issue quite well:
> 
> "If the authority of the authentical copies in Hebrew, Chaldee and Greek fall, then there is no pure Scripture in the Church of God, there is no high court of appeal where controversies (rising upon the diversity of translations, or ortherwise) may be ended. The exhortations of having recourse unto the Law and to the Prophets, and our Saviour Christ asking "How is it written," and "How readest thou," is now either of none effect, or not sufficient."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know who Leigh is or was (like Elder R., my degree's in agriculture not theology) but that quote seems, at least on the surface, to be remarkably not well thought out. First, it simply isn't true. In the PCA and I assume most confessional denominations, there is a "high court of appeal" and they allow several translations based on several texts. May I ask which denomination you know of doesn't? This guy seems to be taking personal opinions to the point of excess. Second, Christ Himself, when asking those questions, quoted from two texts which in places are hugely different, so why on earth the man would appeal to an example which refutes his theory is beyond me. (Or, I may not understand the subject, and I trust I will be willing to change my views!).
> 
> BTW Thomas, in your fourth paragraph above you shouldn't use the term orthodox as excluding Catholics. It's a technical term.
Click to expand...


Hello Tim,

The gentlemen is Edward Leigh, he was an English puritan and theologian of the 17th century. Probably his most important work was his Critica Sacra that he did for the Westminster Divines. The quote there is very well thought out, it echos the general consensus of the high orthodox defending Sola Scriptura against the Tridentine counterattack, others would also utilize very similar language such as John Owen and Francis Turretin which culminated in the Helvetic Consensus Formula of 1675.

The modern departure from historic Reformed orthodoxy that you relate in reference to the PCA is precisely what we are arguing against - and why there is no "high court of appeal" today. 

The whole idea of an authentic and legitimate tradition of the original language texts that preserved quoad verba (word) and quoad res (substance) the very words of God is completely redefined today. The historical definition has been abandoned following most notably BB Warfield and his radical departure with his "inerrant original autograph" hypothesis that places Scripture in dialetical tension arguing for priority of the autographs against the apographs. That is what is a "remarkably not well thought out" position. Our Protestant fathers would view that as a concession to Rome, because it was precisely Rome's argument standing upon the nature/grace dialetic of Aquinas and asserting the Roman Magisterium against Sola Scriptura. Rushdoony has insightful comments that would be applicable here:

"The modern view is a development of the position of the Council of Trent, but with an ironic twist. The center of authority is shifted now from the leaders of the Church (Catholic or Protestant) to the scholars of the Church. Well before the 19th century was over, Catholic scholars were questioning the right of Rome to deny them the freedom to pursue their studies to whatever conclusion they deemed necessary. In the second half of the 20th century, Catholic and Protestant prelates increasingly echo the conclusions of textual scholars.

The role of the Spirit of God has been transferred to the spirit of some men, i.e., those Biblical scholars engaged in textual studies. Not the text of Scripture itself but the word of the scholars determines the reading and dating of the text, i.e., its meaning and validity.
Paul tells us, “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17). Faith and hearing are the work of God in the life of man. It is a direct and personal relationship through Christ and the Holy Spirit. Now we have another mediator, the scholar.

The historic belief of Christians has been that the God who gave the Word preserved the Word. This is the doctrine of the preservation of the Word of God. The Word gives the direct and authentic Word of God. Now preservation has a new meaning. The Biblical scholars hold their’s is a word of restoration, so that preservation requires their restorative word. The triune God is replaced by scholarly men.

Thus, the denial of the Received Text’s validity is no small matter. It rests on a religious revolution with far-reaching implications. This means that many men of Reformed or Arminian theologies, who profess the orthodox doctrines of their communions, hold to a position which undermines their faith. It should not surprise us that seminaries and Biblical scholars have for generations led their churches into various forms of humanism. By playing god over God, they begin with the essence of original sin and humanism, man as his own god, determining the validity of everything, including the Word of God, for himself (Genesis 3:15). In effect, they say, “Yea, hath God said?” (Genesis 3:1) of the best of Scripture." RJ Rushdoony, The Problem of the Received Text

Today, modern Reformed Christians nominally utilize the language of our Confessions but they don't have the same definitions and meaning. And Authority no longer rests in Scripture we possess but in Scripture we don't posses, thus, a new Magisterium has arisen - the textual scholar who mediates God's word to us, quoad verba, through publishing corporations.

The Bride of Christ has been turned into a marketplace where publishing corporations bring forth a new Bible every five or six years that is finally going to get us a little bit closer to the inerrant original autograph, but not quite, and they make merchandise out of her in the process. For example, when the RSV was brought out it was published by Thomas Nelson, when the NKJV was brought out it too was published by Thomas Nelson - two different texts based upon two different theories - but there is a lot of money to be made from Christians with itchy ears always searching for some new thing. Now we have an evangelical update to the RSV called the ESV, something else to buy that finally gets you a little bit closer, but not quite, and still no Authority. Modern Christians spout out "Sola Scriptura" but they don't have the faith of our Fathers and don't believe they have in their hands the actual inspired and infallible Word of God. They are ashamed of that type of thinking and culturally despise those that affirm it.

The primarily theological and Pastoral approach of our Protestant Fathers to preserve and propagate the Prophetic Word unto the Church, has been replaced with a non-theological, non-Pastoral and Profitable Word of unordained and unelected textual scholars. Prophet and Profit may sound the same, but they have radically different meanings, and like Christ we need to take whips into our hands and drive those from the Church of our God that turn it into a den of thieves.

The historic view and arguments concerning autographa and apographa in the Protestant scholastics is one of linguistic continuity, not verbal inerrancy. Muller explains it better than I:

“By “original and authentic” text, the Protestant orthodox do not mean the autographa which no one can possess but the apographa in the original tongue which are the source of all versions. The Jews throughout history and the church in the time of Christ regarded the Hebrew of the Old Testament as authentic and for nearly six centuries after Christ, the Greek of the New Testament was viewed as authentic without dispute. It is important to note that the Reformed orthodox insistence on the identification of the Hebrew and Greek texts as alone authentic does not demand direct reference to autographa in those languages; the “original and authentic text” of Scripture means, beyond the autograph copies, *the legitimate tradition of Hebrew and Greek apographa*. The case for Scripture as an infallible rule of faith and practice and the separate arguments for a received text free from major (i.e., non-scribal) errors rests on examination of the apographa and does not seek the infinite regress of the lost autographa as a prop for textual infallibility.” Richard Muller, Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 2 - Holy Scripture the Cognitive Foundation of Theology, p. 433

Thus, your statements to Elder Rafalsky clearly indicate that while you may "prefer" the Received Text your thinking is presuppositionally standing upon the thinking of modern criticism. Its just that this thinking is not historically connected to the meaning of Sola Scriptura and Providential Preservation, it's a redefinition of the terms. I don't say that to be a judgment of you as you are probably unaware of the change, but just to inform you of that change.

An analogy that may put this into context and give you a frame of reference is the way in which the First Amendment to the United States Constitution has been reinterpreted through the 14th Amendment and the federal government becomes a central government lording over the States. Hence, the meaning of the First Amendment has been turned "inside out" via the 14th Amendment.

Consistent with this analogy, the "inerrant original autograph" becomes the "14th Amendment" to Sola Scriptura and turns the doctrine inside out. The logical trap erected by Warfield in his "inerrant original autograph" hypothesis to confound the critics asserting errancy now traps Christians also searching for inerrancy - Sola Scriptura as a doctrine of Authority now has no meaning. Rome explicitly understood this because yielding to their position allows them to erect the Magisterium as Authority over Scripture. In legal teminology this is called a "negative pregnant," it's a very sophisticated and complex way of thinking using double negatives to assert a positive and it is this complexity that makes unraveling this mess so difficult.

Hence, I would not approach the issue of the Alexandrian text upon the same grounds that Elder Rafalsky is doing above because the issue has never been one of Authority of that text. In other words, the Alexandrian text never was asserted by our Protestant Fathers in terms of Sola Scriptura and has always been maintained as subordinate to the Church Magisterium as its Latin Translation ascended to priority within that Church over the Hebrew and Greek. Contrariwise, the Byzantine text of the Greek speaking Churches was always appealed to by the continual usage of that text as having Authority over the Latin Vulgate by those who spoke that language. Hence, the authentic and legitimate tradition identified by the Reformers and defended by the Protestant Orthodox following them is based upon the "canonicity" of the text. Thus, Providential Preservation is a doctrine of Authority of the text resting upon the doctrine of inspiration and infallibility of the Word maintained within the linguistic continuity of the authentic and legitimate tradition of the Greek speaking Churches, *not* one of verbal inerrancy.

Therefore, I follow Turretin and simply dismiss the Alexandrian text as not being a part of the authentic and legitimate tradition because of its descrepancies from it. It must be conformed to the Providentially Preserved text.

“Faithful and accurate copies, not less than autographs, are norms for all other copies...and for translations. If any discrepancy is found in these, whether it conflicts with the originals or the true copies, they are not worthy of the name "authentic," and must be rejected as false and corrupted, and there is no other reason for this rejection except the discrepancy." Turretin, Doctrine of Scripture

Finally, your reference to Christ and the Apostles quoting the Septuagint is backwards - rather the Septuagint was reverse engineered to quote the New Testament. I think Elder Rafalsky has done some work there on PB, you may try searching for it as I don't know which thread it is in.

In conclusion, then, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and Providential Preservation has always been a doctrine of *Authority* - not a doctrine of verbal inerrancy. It has never been one of pitting the autographa against the apographa. The radical shift at the beginning of the 20th century to the schools of thought within the text critical position is a heterdox aberration that undermines the Authority of Scripture in the name of Sola Scriptura.

I would point out, then, that denominations like the PCA and even my own, the OPC, have radically departed from the historic Reformed orthodox definition of Sola Scriptura and Providential Preservation. They need to be reformed. 

Cordially,

Thomas


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Tim,

You will probably agree that pure faith and pure science are in perfect accord.

When Jesus says, in Matt 5:18, “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled,” He is referring to the smallest of the Hebrew letters and parts thereof. Is this not talking of letters and words being kept from passing away, i.e., preserved?

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

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

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

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

Thus Owen maintained an absolute providential preservation while granting variants. (“John Owen _Versus_ Brian Walton” fn 30, p. 160)

* Owen’s _Divine Original_ online. This is from volume 16 of Owen’s works.​
This would be in line with the thinking of Dr. Hills. There is another view, and that is God _completely_ – that is, perfectly – preserved the Greek and Hebrew texts, so that they are without any error whatever. And a strong case could be made for that position also. Besides the verse (Matt 5:18) mentioned above, there is also Matt 4:4: “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” Was the Lord indulging in hyperbole in that statement?

If one wants to understand the matter of the Greek editions (the Hebrew is another discussion) used by the Reformers and post-Reformation divines, it is helpful to learn something of the historical context of those times. Letis’ two books, (to obtain contact Russ Spees <[email protected]>) are excellent historical resources: _The Majority Text_, and _The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority, and the Popular Mind_. Although there is some excellent work in the latter, I think the former might be the more valuable.

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

But to return to the matter of the text.

Dr. Hills (who got his doctorate in text criticism at Harvard) writes concerning the matter of providential preservation (in _Believing Bible Study_, pp. 217, 218),

*The Logic of Faith – Maximum Certainty* 

God's preservation of the New Testament text was not miraculous but providential. The scribes and printers who produced the copies of the New Testament Scriptures and the true believers who read and cherished them were not inspired but God-guided. Hence there are some New Testament passages in which the true reading cannot be determined with absolute certainty. There are some readings, for example, on which the manuscripts are almost equally divided, making it difficult to determine which reading belongs to the Traditional Text. Also in some of the cases in which the Textus Receptus disagrees with the Traditional Text it is hard to decide which text to follow. Also, as we have seen, sometimes the several editions of the Textus Receptus differ from each other and from the King James Version.

In other words, God does not reveal every truth with equal clearness. Hence in New Testament textual criticism, as in every other department of knowledge, there are some details in regard to which we must be content to remain uncertain. But this circumstance does not in the least affect the fundamental certainty which we obtain from our confidence in God’s special, providential preservation of the holy Scriptures. Through this believing approach to the New Testament text we gain _maximum certainty_, all the certainty that any mere man can obtain, all the certainty that we need. Embracing the common faith, we take our stand upon the Traditional Text, the Textus Receptus, and the King James Version and acknowledge these texts to be trustworthy reproductions of the infallibly inspired original text. Admittedly there are some readings which remain undecided, but these are very few. For the special providential preservation of the Scriptures has kept this element of uncertainty down to a minimum.​
Throughout Hills’ books he does take this stance, that in _a very few_ instances there are small errors, or variants about which we do not have certainty. There are other KJVO defenders who will not allow even this minimal uncertainty. In this case Romans 7:6 is more of an issue (to me, at any rate) than 1 John 5:7. Concerning Romans 7:6 (one of the three instances he admits) Hills says concerning the readings,

_that being dead wherein we were held_, opposed to, _being dead to that wherein we were held_​
that the latter phrase is the correct one, and this error was due to “Conjectural emendation by Beza; correct reading given by KJV translators in margin.” As I said, I am still looking into this.

Let’s look at this matter of certainty versus uncertainty for a moment. I have looked elsewhere at this portion from Pickering’s _The Identity of the NT Text_ where he examines the evidence concerning the CT’s reading of 1 Timothy 3:16 compared to the TR’s (the former deletes “God” and the latter retains it):

The argument from statistical probability enters here with a vengeance. Not only do the extant MSS present us with one text form enjoying a 95% majority, but the remaining 5% do not represent a single competing text form. The minority MSS disagree as much (or more) among themselves as they do with the majority. For any two of them to agree so closely as do P75 and B is an oddity. We are not judging, therefore, between two text forms, one representing 95% of the MSS and the other 5%. Rather, we have to judge between 95% and a fraction of 1% (comparing the Majority Text with the P75, B text form for example). Or to take a specific case, in 1 Tim. 3:16 some 600 Greek MSS (besides the Lectionaries) read "God" while only seven read something else. Of those seven, three have private readings and four agree in reading "who." So we have to judge between 99% and 0.6%, "God" versus "who." It is hard to imagine any possible set of circumstances in the transmissional history sufficient to produce the cataclysmic overthrow in statistical probability required by the claim that "who" is the original reading.​
To do some numerical comparing of our own: the three phrases Hills says are errors (BBS, p. 83) comprise nine Greek words. In the Greek of the Textus Receptus (1894 edition) there are 140,521 words. That is .0064% or *sixty-four one thousandths of one percent*. Compare that with the variance between the Greek of the TR and the Greek of the Westcott and Hort text: 9,970 Greek words are changed. That is 7.095%. This would be equal to having the entire book of Romans (9,447 words) plus 2 and 3 John (and then some) thoroughly changed (usually the changes are omissions)! The uncertainty is 1,108.59 times greater in the Critical Text. (The word count for the TR is from D.A. Waite’s, _Defending The King James Bible_, p. xii) 

This is what Hills means when he says we opt for maximum certainty instead of maximum uncertainty. I suppose technically you can say that sixty-four one thousandths of one percent is but a degree less than seven percent and ninety-four one hundredths of one percent, but the difference is immense. At any rate, this is a view concerning the degrees of difference. 

But in light of the Lord’s saying that man should live by *every word* that proceeds from the mouth of God, for you to say it “borders on the fanatic” to hold to a “minutely preserved” text is a bit risky. And when He assures us that “His divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness” (2 Pet 1:3) this may easily include that _by which we must live_, that being His “every word”. So those who make the claim for a perfectly preserved text have warrant for their presupposition that He would fulfill His promises to do so. It is neither far-fetched nor fanatical, although it must indeed take into account the providential – the _supernatural_ – working of the Almighty.

Since you mention it, would you mind showing me where Jesus quoted the Septuagint (as though the Jewish Messiah would speak in Greek to His rabbinic and Pharisaic enemies)?

According to the Presbyterian confession, is not the “high court of appeal” the Scripture in the original languages? From the WCF 1:8:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them....​
The Greek New Testament spoken of was the Textus Receptus of the Reformers. While what you say to Thomas concerning “confessional denominations” (and I would speak concerning the Reformed ones) is so, and there is a lack of unanimity as to what the genuine word of God is, the trickle-down effect of this is devastating the house of God.

What you say to Thomas re Catholicism, that “technically” they should be included among the “orthodox”: On what technicality can murderers of Christians – centuries worth of murders! – and heretics depriving vast multitudes of the true Gospel of Christ, be called “orthodox”? I know this last question is off topic, but you piqued my curiosity.


----------



## nicnap




----------



## TimV

> As I said, I am still looking into this.



And I can save you two lots of time and huge amounts writing on threads like this by pointing out, again, that Christ quoted both the Septuagint and Hebrew Scripture, which vary 100 times more than the TR does from some other texts used by modern translations. And that totally destroys the basic foundations of your argument. And without reams of writing. If you say God obligated Himself to preserve a text "minutely preserved" then Christ would have quoted from it and from no other.




> Since you mention it, would you mind showing me where Jesus quoted the Septuagint (as though the Jewish Messiah would speak in Greek to His rabbinic and Pharisaic enemies)?



Friend, if you substitute Aramaic for Hebrew then that statement would indeed be both silly and ignorant. Do you honestly think that Christ only spoke in Hebrew? Christ speaking Aramaic is page one chapter one when you start learning these things, and what does that have to do with a "Jewish Messiah" anymore than speaking Greek?

But let's start this way. Do you doubt that Christ took quotes from the Septuagint text at times (into whatever language He translated it into) rather than the Hebrew?

And do you know why many churches, like many Eastern Orthodox, use the Septuagint in their Bibles, and even to translate Scripture into different languages, rather than the Hebrew text? Have you found something some of the greatest thinkers in history have missed?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Tim,

What I was looking into was Romans 7:6.

It was a simple request, "would you mind showing me where Jesus quoted the Septuagint"?

No doubt the Lord Jesus spoke Greek, and Aramaic was the language of the Jewish people at that time, while the language of the Temple and the synagogue was Hebrew (albeit the latter targumed into Aramaic).

But I wasn't talking about Aramaic; I was talking about Him using Greek (or a Greek version translated for that matter) to the Hebrew-speaking and reading scribes, Pharisees and priests.

You say, "But let's start this way. Do you doubt that Christ took quotes from the Septuagint text at times (into whatever language He translated it into) rather than the Hebrew?" Yes, I do doubt it. Please show me where.

Actually, it is mostly the Greek Orthodox who use the Septuagint as their OT, and I do know why they use it: they consider it superior to the Hebrew, even as they consider their language, church, and philosophy superior to all others. The Russian Orthodox use the Hebrew to translate their OT from, as it is the original language it was written in (for the most part).

Unless you can give me some examples of Jesus using the LXX, you are only begging the question, that is, assuming what you have yet to prove.

I'm sorry if I have offended you in any way, Tim. I have been trying to conduct this conversation in a scholarly yet friendly way.


----------



## TimV

> What you say to Thomas re Catholicism, that “technically” they should be included among the “orthodox”: On what technicality can murderers of Christians – centuries worth of murders! – and heretics depriving vast multitudes of the true Gospel of Christ, be called “orthodox”? I know this last question is off topic, but you piqued my curiosity.



It's not off topic, in that we're dealing with private language issues, and private language doesn't help with debate. There is no substitute from a thorough regimen of study. For a technical religious definition of orthodox you need to go to an ecclesiastical encyclopedia and look up the word. It does nobody any good to play rhetorical games. Like the above. Or like "why would the Jewish Messiah speak such and such a language?" when dealing with whether or not He quoted from both the Septuagint and the Hebrew text. It has absolutely nothing to do with the subject.

Read Matthew 13:14-15 in the KJV and then Isaiah 6:9-10 in the same translation. Then read the Isaiah in the Septuagint and tell me which is closer.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Steven,

No, I haven't had time to compile my stuff and put it into a blog -- I would also have to organize it somewhat, and I'm pressed for time (there's a lot of material!). Though it is a good idea, and I am thinking about it again. Thanks for asking.

Steve


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

"If Greek was the language of the court and camp, and indeed must have been spoken by most in the land, the language of the people, spoken also by Christ and His Apostles, was a dialect of the ancient Hebrew, the Western or Palestinian Aramaic. It seem strange that this could ever have been doubted. A Jewish Messiah Who would urge His claim upon Israel in Greek, seems almost a contradiction in terms. We know, that the language of the Temple and the Synagogue was Hebrew, and that the addresses of the Rabbis had to be “targumed” into the vernacular Aramaen – and can we believe that, in a Hebrew service, the Messiah could have arisen to address the people in Greek, or that He could have argued with the Pharisees and Scribes in that tongue, especially remembering that its study was actually forbidden by the Rabbis?"

From _The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah_, Vol. 1, pp.129, 130; by Alfred Edersheim​
Taken from the thread, http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/what-language-did-Jesus-apostles-read-scriptures-26314/#post321502

Back tomorrow; bedtime here.


----------



## KMK

ModernPuritan? said:


> My only argument is with those that would say the KJV is the best/only "acceptable"_* translation*_ of the TR.



To say that the KJV is the 'best' is not the same thing as saying it is the 'only acceptable' translation.



ModernPuritan? said:


> I find no reason that a group of Godly men couldnt accurately translate the TR today, using current, professional, scholarly english (none of the "yo man/dude trash) version.



No doubt that this is true. However, because 'current' English is simply not as accurate as 'KJV' English, any attempt to modernize the language will result in less accuracy. Take, for example, the 'ye and you' of the KJV would become only 'you' in 'current' English no matter how professional or scholarly.

Those who advocate a 'current' English version of the TR must admit that they believe readability is more important than accuracy.

The flip side of the argument is that we ought to keep the accuracy of the KJV and teach people how to read it. That was the example of our Puritan forefathers because, as was noted before, the English of the KJV was never anyone's spoken English. It has always been a language that had to be learned.



ModernPuritan? said:


> see, the KJV borrows heavily from the GEneva Bible and another translation.



Actually it was the Bishop's Bible that the KJV borrowed from most.

From the KJV translation rules as posted by Andrew here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/KJV-translation-rules-20107/



> The first instructed them to make the "Bishop's Bible," so called, the basis of their work, altering it no further than fidelity to the originals required…





ModernPuritan? said:


> Id like to see how a ESV/NASB would have any negative effect on Doctrine, reproof, Instruction, etc.. as far as I can read the ESV/NKJV/NASB all use the TR as the primary ORigianl greek.



See this awesome thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/av-theology-compared-modern-versions-19437/


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

I have been challenged by TimK with his assertion that Jesus quoted from both the Hebrew OT and the Greek Septuagint. I asked him for an instance, and he provided this:

Read Matthew 13:14-15 in the KJV and then Isaiah 6:9-10 in the same translation. Then read the Isaiah in the Septuagint and tell me which is closer.​
This is a complex and nuanced topic, so I hope you will bear with me, Tim, even though you have sought to save me “lots of time and huge amounts [of] writing on threads like this” if only I would adopt your view of the texts Jesus quoted. Thanks, but the facts compel me to decline your offer. And it is good exercise for the mind to study and research topics like this, and not having dealt in-depth with this verse before, and desiring to further illumine this matter of the LXX, I am happy to spend the time writing on it.

_What_ facts? 

In the book by Floyd Nolen Jones, _The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis_.pdf, the historical background and quality of the LXX is thoroughly examined. These are among the points concluded (see page 22):

(1) _The letter of Aristeas_ [which purports to give a history of the LXX –SMR] is mere fabrication (Kahle called it propaganda), and there is no hard historical evidence that a group of scholars translated the O.T. into Greek between 285-150 B.C.

(2) The research of Paul Kahle shows that there was no pre-Christian LXX.

(3) No one has produced a Greek copy of the Old Testament written before 150 A.D.

(4) Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion and Origen produced the first "Septuagints" – that none
existed before their works.

(5) The Septuagint "quotes" from the New Testament and not vice versa, i.e. in the matter of
N.T. - O.T. quotation, the later formulators of the Greek O.T. made it conform with the New
Testament Text which they had before them as they forged their product.

(6) After 1900 years of searching, archaeology has failed to produce a single piece of papyrus
written in Greek before c.150 A.D. that any writer of the New Testament used for a "quotation".

They further point out that the nearest thing to an Old Testament Greek Bible found by anyone is the Ryland Papyrus (No. 458), which has a few portions of Deuteronomy 23-28 on it. This piece of papyrus is dated 150 B.C. (questionable date) which is fifty to one hundred years later than the writing of the so-called original Septuagint (see footnote 1, p. 36).”

The entire book, in pdf format, is provided so one may become familiar with the pros and cons of the LXX debate. Of course, there is an entire industry built around these text-critical matters, where we are told that on our own we cannot hope to sort out the muddle of the textual problems – in both the Old and New Testaments – that confront the reader of the Bible (God having failed to provide an intact one for His people), but for our benefit they will undertake to devote their lives as part of this Bible Industry, and make their living from it. We are only required to buy their books and the periodic “new Bibles” they produce as they pursue “the [ever elusive] authentic text”.

But to the text in question!

The Authorized Version, Matthew 13:14, 15:

And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: 
[see also: Isa 6:9, John 12:40, Acts 28:26]

For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. 
[see also: Isa 6:10, Mark 4:12, Acts 28:27]​
The Authorized Version, Isaiah 6:9, 10:

And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. 
[see also: Mt 13:14 Luke 8:10 John 12:40 Acts 28:26] 

Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. 
[see also: Mt 13:15 Mark 4:12 Acts 28:27]​
The Septuagint [click for link!] (by Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton), Isaiah 6:9, 10:

Ye shall hear indeed, but ye shall not understand; and ye shall see indeed, but ye shall not perceive.

For the heart of this people has become gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.​
So here we have two versions of the prophet Isaiah, the Hebrew Masoretic and the Greek Septuagint. Should they both be considered inspired by God? 2 Timothy 3:16 says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness...” Can the LXX be considered Scripture, “given by inspiration of God”?

According to Moses (Deuteronomy 31:24, 25), it was to the Levites only that the care of the Scriptures were given, their keeping and their copying. The one exception to this was the king, who was commanded to “write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites...” (Deut 17:18, 19). So when this translation purported to be written by six elders out of each tribe in Israel is presented to us, are we to accept it as of God? It was not done by those appointed and authorized to copy or in any way reproduce God’s word.

So what is the status of the Isaiah 6 passage in the LXX? I maintain it is the same as that in Psalm 14:3 of the LXX (see post #5 in that thread). It was “back-engineered” from the New Testament to conform to what the writers thought was the correct OT reading, not realizing (or caring) that the Lord and the NT authors, inspired by the Holy Spirit, sometimes modified the OT quotes to suit His purposes in the new covenant situation.

There are reports of the five Books of Moses existing before the time of Christ – and the quality of those five books in the Septuagint are of fair quality (see below for more on this), but we have no warrant at all to confidently assert the existence of the rest of the Old Testament in Greek before the time of Christ, or before the end of the first century, for that matter.

Concerning Christ’s quotation in Matthew of the _Hebrew_ Isaiah passage, Calvin says, “these are not the _ipsissima verba_ [the very words] of the prophet; but it does not matter, for all Christ wanted to show was that there was nothing novel or unusual in many people being struck senseless at God’s Word.” Calvin and other reformers knew of the LXX, as it was known to Erasmus before him, being given numerous texts from the Vaticanus manuscript (where the primary LXX text is found!) by a friend of his:

“We are informed by another author that, if Erasmus had desired, he could 
have secured a transcript of this manuscript" (Bissell, Historic Origin of 
the Bible, p. 84).

"There was no necessity, however, for Erasmus to obtain a transcript 
because he was in correspondence with Professor Paulus Bombasius at Rome, 
who sent him such variant readings as he wished" (S.P. Tregelles, On the 
Printed Text of the Greek Testament, p. 22).

"A correspondent of Erasmus in 1533 sent that scholar a number of selected 
readings from it [Codex B], as proof [or so says that correspondent] of its 
superiority to the Received Text" (Frederic Kenyon, Our Bible and the 
Ancient Manuscripts, Harper & Brothers, 1895, fourth edition 1939, p. 138).

[Taken from a post on the manuscript evidence available to the Reformation editors]​
That the wording of the LXX Isaiah passage is close to the AV reading proves what? _Often_ the Lord and the apostles quoted the OT loosely, and not “the _ipsissima verba_”, according as the Spirit of God guided them. As with the “back-correcting” of the LXX’s Psalm 14:3 to “match” Romans 3:12-18, this is the same thing.

Consider, the Hebrew priests and Levitical scribes knew in their very bones that they were not to add or take away or change _even one letter_ of the words God gave them through Moses, the prophets and inspired authors of Scripture. They knew the number of letters in each book, and in the entire Scripture, and counted them to make certain they added or omitted nothing while writing a new copy of their Hebrew texts. The writers of the LXX had no such compunctions. They added entire books, omitted things they thought should not be in the Scripture, were careless in their work; in short, they were not the authorized caretakers of God’s Word. What they produced was not God’s Word, but a facsimile of it, and a poor one at that.

When Jesus said that not “a jot or tittle” would be removed from the Law He could only be referring to the Hebrew, for the "Jot" is the Hebrew word "Yodh", the 10th letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and the smallest letter. Tittle refers to the little lines or projections by which the Hebrew letters differ from each other. Dr. Thomas Strouse comments,

“Since the Greek OT (LXX) does not have jots and tittles He was not referring to this inferior translation which has a historical background and timetable that are very suspect.” 

(Taken from his larger article on the OT Hebrew Text)​
Jones begins to sum up his finds at the end of his book; he says,

At this point the reader should, in all fairness, be apprised of the fact that very nearly all references in the literature which allude to the Septuagint actually pertain to _only_ two manuscripts, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus [size=+1]a[/size].

This is especially true of Codex Vaticanus B.[1] Dr. Ira M. Price, who is certainly
no ally to the position and findings of this author (FNJ), nevertheless clearly discloses (as does Swete and Kenyon) that the text of all the "standard" LXX editions over the past 400 years – the 1587 Sixtus, Holmes-Parsons, von Tischendorf (Swete, p. 187), Swete, the Brooke-McLean great Cambridge edition, Rahlfs 1935 edition – has rested mainly on Vaticanus B along with Aleph (= "S" or [size=+1]a[/size]) and Alexandrinus A.[2] This little known reality is generally concealed from the student. When he consults any standard LXX reference on a reading, he finds many various sources cited throughout the work. As a result, he is left with the impression that the LXX before him is a fully representative text of all these many ancient sources. But this is grossly misleading as all those citations merely represent the few thousand variant "corrections" that have been consulted and/or added to the main text; yet the central text is almost exclusively that of B and [size=+1]a[/size].

Hence a false impression has been created, and the student is left deceived as though the extant LXX prepared for general use is something other than it is. Indeed, what real significance can rightly be attached to these few thousand references when one weighs them against the vast bulk of the c.430,000 words (Apocrypha excluded) contained in the Greek Old Testament? These two uncial MSS[3] also contain Bel and the Dragon, Tobit, Judith etc. Thus, it must be recognized that the Septuagint which we actually utilize in practical outworking, the LXX which is cited almost 90 percent of the time, is actually the LXX that was _written_ more than 250 years _after_ the completion of the New Testament canon – and by a "Catholicized Jehovah's Witness" at that!

Notes
[1] Price, _Ancestry of Our English Bible_, op. cit., pp. 69-70; Horne, _An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures_, op. cit., fn. 1 on p. 282 and fn. 3 on p. 288; Swete, _An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek_, op. cit., pp. 181-190; Kenyon, _Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts_, op. cit., p. 121. Codex Alexandrinus A is also an LXX MS and is a major source for variant reading considerations; see Price, p. 70 and Horne's fn. 1 on p. 289, fn. 3 on p. 299, & fn. 2 on p. 301.
[2] Kenyon, _Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts_, op. cit., p. 121: "The text of the current editions of the Septuagint are mainly derived from this (i.e., Vaticanus B - FNJ) manuscript".
[3] These MSS (B and Aleph) are probably two of the 50 copies of the Bible (or at least first generation copies of these 50) which Constantine commissioned Eusebius to prepare and place in the major churches throughout the empire. See Frederick Nolan, _An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament_, (London, Eng: F.C. and J. Rivington Pub., 1815), pp. 25-42, 94, 99; Price, _Ancestry of Our English Bible_, op. cit., p. 79. Vid. supra the Apocrypha, fn. 3 on p. 23.​
I don’t believe the assertion that the Septuagint is quoted by our Lord and the NY authors. There is too much information which contradicts its authenticity, both historical and textual.

I’m sorry this post is not as well organized as I’d like, but there was a lot of information – too much information! – at my disposal, and I had to opt for some brevity over comprehensiveness. Dr. Jones’ book (link above) will give you far better comprehension than this brief sketch here.

There are so many things which assault our faith in God’s true word. And yet He has raised up faithful men to shine light in the encroaching darkness.

I hope my Reformed brethren will not object to my often using the work of Independent Fundamentalist Baptists; it is the Lord Jesus’ doing that these folks have some of the best scholarship in the area of textual studies and defense. We differ with them on the Doctrines of Grace, but stand with them on the matter of God’s Word.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Steve,
Do you have an opinion on other works by Floyd Nolen Jones?

CT


----------



## KMK

Jerusalem Blade said:


> When Jesus said that not “a jot or tittle” would be removed from the Law He could only be referring to the Hebrew, for the "Jot" is the Hebrew word "Yodh", the 10th letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and the smallest letter. Tittle refers to the little lines or projections by which the Hebrew letters differ from each other. Dr. Thomas Strouse comments,
> 
> “Since the Greek OT (LXX) does not have jots and tittles He was not referring to this inferior translation which has a historical background and timetable that are very suspect.”
> 
> (Taken from his larger article on the OT Hebrew Text)​



Very interesting!



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hence a false impression has been created, and the student is left deceived as though the extant LXX prepared for general use is something other than it is. Indeed, what real significance can rightly be attached to these few thousand references when one weighs them against the vast bulk of the c.430,000 words (Apocrypha excluded) contained in the Greek Old Testament? These two uncial MSS[3] also contain Bel and the Dragon, Tobit, Judith etc. Thus, it must be recognized that the Septuagint which we actually utilize in practical outworking, the LXX which is cited almost 90 percent of the time, is actually the LXX that was _written_ more than 250 years _after_ the completion of the New Testament canon – and by a "Catholicized Jehovah's Witness" at that!



Also, very interesting!

I had heard of this book before. Thank you for providing a link!

BTW, why would CT advocates mind if you quote from a fundy baptist since they are so fond of quoting from Metzger?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

CT,

I downloaded them in pdf from the same site, but haven't had time to look at them yet. I will shortly, and comment.


----------



## Grymir

Thanks Jerusalem Blade! You know your stuff. This is far better than the tripe I usually hear. I especially liked the line about not needing to be an expert in Hebrew and Greek to know a good translation! Super enjoyable. I'll give thanks tomorrow. See my prayer about dishwasher installation for why.


----------



## Thomas2007

Jerusalem Blade said:


> “We are informed by another author that, if Erasmus had desired, he could
> have secured a transcript of this manuscript" (Bissell, Historic Origin of
> the Bible, p. 84).
> 
> "There was no necessity, however, for Erasmus to obtain a transcript
> because he was in correspondence with Professor Paulus Bombasius at Rome,
> who sent him such variant readings as he wished" (S.P. Tregelles, On the
> Printed Text of the Greek Testament, p. 22).
> 
> "A correspondent of Erasmus in 1533 sent that scholar a number of selected
> readings from it [Codex B], as proof [or so says that correspondent] of its
> superiority to the Received Text" (Frederic Kenyon, Our Bible and the
> Ancient Manuscripts, Harper & Brothers, 1895, fourth edition 1939, p. 138).
> 
> [Taken from a post on the manuscript evidence available to the Reformation editors]​
> That the wording of the LXX Isaiah passage is close to the AV reading proves what?



Steve,

Thanks for taking the time to put this together. I would add a couple of points for clarification to provide a stronger answer to your rhetorical question.

1. In Erasmus travels, in particular the years he lived with Aldus Manutius, and then following was secretary to the Pope, he appears to have actually come into contact and seen the Vaticanus itself. Manutius had gathered together several greek Christians from Constinople, that had escaped the Muslim overthrow, and brought manuscripts of the Scripture with them. They lived together for a number of years pledging to speak and write only in Greek while they did so for the purposes of becoming intimately and organically connected with the language of Scripture. It is here in this environment that Erasmus refined his Greek skills and began his work. Aldus Manutius is the founder of the Aldine Press and also, interestingly enough, inventor of the italic type face which is utilized by the Authorized Version to indicate translational emmendation so as not to impugn the ipsissima verba of the underlying original tongue!

I'm providing a quote below from one of my recent lectures concerning this.

I finished those lecture series this past Lord's Day with a lot of in-depth research that debuncts the majority of the historical revisionism of the critical camp. Moreover, I've arrived at the conclusion that Erasmus has to be examined from an entirely different vantage point to properly understand him and his work. In other words, the apologetic that has been mounted to defend the Recieved Text against the modern critical smears, while many times are factually correct counterpoints, are nevertheless premised upon a false revision of the actual history by the modern critical schools.

For example, one of the critical school smears is how hastily Erasmus worked with Froben, but what they don't tell you is that his license from Maximillius extended him exclusive printing rights for four years. A license, though, is a license of the press - not the scholar. Yet, they insinuate that the haste was required to beat the Complutesian to press - who were, after all, prohibited from printing by the exclusive license. Nor do they tell you that this license and original arrangement for printing was with Erasmus' good friend Aldus Manutius who, however, died in February 1515. This necessitated an arrangement with a new printer, Froben, who wanted to print his Latin translation and annotations separate from the Greek text, but Erasmus wouldn't hear of it because he wanted his translation to be presented as standing upon authority of the original greek. The haste doesn't appear to be attempting to beat the Complutesian to press, as they allege, rather it seems to be over concerns of Froben's partner of printing the Greek text on its own which he did a few months later. Failure to grasp the importance of Erasmus' Latin Translation in relation to the original greek is a major misunderstanding of modern Christians and the basis in which they are so easily deceived by the modern critical schools historical revisionism.

Hence, Erasmus and Manutius were working on this project together, with Erasmus preparing his Latin translations and Annotations for publication while living in England from 1509 to 1515 at the request of King Henry VIII, and Manutius preparing the Greek in Italy. They also don't tell you that the manuscripts he worked from in England were seized by customs officials when he went to Basel. Hence, the necessity of haste where he says: "At last I have escaped from the workhouse in Basel, where I have got through six years work in eight months,” were necessitated because of Manutius death with the preparation of the Greek for printing now falling upon his shoulders amidst the disagreement of how they should be printed - together or separately. This answers so many questions and solves them, as well, like the last six verses of Revelation and more very important ones. 

Hence, to properly present the truth, integrity must be built for Erasmus work, and it can be. It most certainly can be!

I've walked away from this study with a lot more respect for Erasmus. It's easy to look at history from one side, especially based upon the theological conflict derived from Luther's Bondage of the Will, and end up with a skewed impression that Erasmus' erred soteriological understanding brands him as a virtual Arminian heretic. However, who knows that Luther owes his very life to Erasmus? When the Elector of Saxony received word that the Pope wanted to see Luther in Rome, and everyone knew what that meant, he sent for Erasmus to advise him. His response was: "Luther has committed two sins: he has touched the pope's crown and the monks bellies." He then advised the Elector to protect Luther. 

The truth is much deeper and much clearer than the historical revisionism fed to us in "cunningly devised fables" (2 Peter 1:16) by the modern critical schools.

Here is the quote:

If you remember, Erasmus collated many manuscripts dividing them into two classes, those that coincided with the Byzantine texts and those that coincided with the Vaticanus. Since the Latin Vulgate came into existence in 382 AD, he characterized Greek manuscripts of this era as being corrupted by Arians and Origenists. As he said defending his rejection of their readings in 1527: “We too came across a manuscript of this nature, and it is said that such a manuscript is still preserved in the papal library written in majuscule characters.” Dr. DeJonge says of this statement: “The manuscript to which Eramus refers at the end of this passage is the Codex Vaticanus…designated B, Erasmus regarded the text of this codex as…inferior.” In his textual work from 1522 to 1535 Paul Bombasius and Sepulveda would provide Erasmus several hundred readings from the Vaticanus.​ Interior quote from H.J. De Jonge, Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum

It should be no surprise, then, that the Pope's library was open to the greatest scholar of the day while serving as the Pope's secretary! Further, it should be easier to understand that Erasmus's requests for transcriptions of certain passages are based upon his prior examination of the manuscript itself.

2. Now to answer your rhetorical question: "That the wording of the LXX Isaiah passage is close to the AV reading proves what?" Based upon my studies, I've arrived at this conclusion.

The LXX is held up as an "inspired translation" of the ancient Hebrew text, then it is asserted that Christ and the Apostles approved of this recension quoting it in the New Testament, whereby the LXX is then postulated to represent the true text and the Hebrew Masoretic text is discredited. Hence, the modern support of it is part of the Romanist Tridentine counterattack against Sola Scriptura to bolster the Latin Vulgate and was developed by Trent's apologists in the debate with the Protestants over the integrity of the vowel points of the Masoretic Hebrew text.

This, then, provides a fraudulent foundation for Hort's Lucian recension hypothesis, asserting the superiority of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which so devastatingly demolished the Received Text at the beginning of the 20th century. The *authority* of which rests upon accepting the BC LXX as representing true quotes in the New Testament. To bring this forth it was then necessary to destroy Christian's faith in the integrity of the Received Text which required the deception of faithful Protestants like B.B. Warfield and many other of our shepherds. That is because the universal position of Protestant Christians was that the Received Text was the preserved word of God in every detail, and once our shepherds were deceived they led the flock of Christ astray. (Jeremiah 50:6) As the Aland's plainly say:

"We can appreciate the better the struggle for freedom from the dominance of the Textus Receptus when we remember that in this period it was regarded as *preserving even to the last detail the inspired and infallible word of God himself*." The Text of the New Testament, An Introduction to the Critical Editions, Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, p 16

To carry this out Erasmus work and the integrity of those texts are chided as being late and worthless copies in comparison to their self-claimed "oldest and best manuscripts." Yet, they have no evidence that any BC "Septuagint" ever existed, and further because they hold that the term defining the Greek Old Testament is "the translation of the Seventy" or LXX, and that only comes from the Letter of Aristreas which claims that only the Torah was translated by them, then the question over Isaiah is moot. It can't be LXX and must be a post-Apostolic work because the only evidence of its existence is Origen's Hexapla from which the Vaticanus and Jerome's Latin Translation are derived.

Hence, it seems to me that this is nothing more than a continuation of the Tridentine counterattack against Sola Scriptura. The reason is very simple, they manufacture a cunningly devised fable to assign the authority of the Apostolic witness to the Latin Vulgate via the Greek. This is based upon an hypothetical BC translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek which then is used to establish a fraudulent hypothesis in favor of the Alexandrian text by saying Christ and Apostles quoted it, supporting a hypothetical recension of the Greek into the Byzantine text type from which to dismiss 95% of the manuscript evidence.

Let us never forget that Origen was condemned as a heretic with 15 anathema's against him at the Second Council of Constinople in 553 AD. 

"If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their impious writings, as also all other heretics already condemned and anathematized by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and by the aforesaid four Holy Synods and [if anyone does not equally anathematize] all those who have held and hold or who in their impiety persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned: let him be anathema."​
This is why this old codex Vaticanus and its text type was abandoned and disappears into obscurity surviving in the Pope's library and the Sinaiticus awaiting it's proper fate as kindling for the monks fires at St. Catherines.

The question, then, must be asked. If the written record existing in Origen's Hexapla of about 250 AD is received as a true translation of a BC Hebrew text upon no manuscript evidence whatsoever - then why can't the Byzantine text which is repeatedly vindicated as representing a text as far back as the second Century be the true text of the New Testament?

The problem is that both Rome and Protestants can't be right. Either Rome is right or Protestants are - either they are condemned or we are. Either the Second Council of Constinople's anathema against Origen condemns the modern critical schools or Trent's anathema's condemn us. Somebody has sown tares into the Church of God and they've done it using the Bible itself! Matthew 13:28 Whoever reads this, study to shew yourself approved of God and work out your own salvation in fear and trembling!

In closing, I am reminded of the words of Earnest Colwell. And who is Earnest Colwell you may ask? He was Dean of Chicago University School of Divinity under whom a young Westminster graduate and protege of J. Gresham Machen would come to study, Edward F. Hills - author of King James Version Defended.

"The genealogical method as defined by Westcott and Hort was not applied by them or by any of their followers to the manuscripts of the New Testament. Moreover, sixty years of study since Westcott and Hort indicate that it is doubtful if it can be applied to New Testament manuscripts…Hort utilized this principle solely to*depose the Textus Receptus, and not to establish a line of descent…Yet, in truth, all of Hort's main points were subjectively-based and were*deliberately contrived to overthrow the Byzantine-priority hypothesis. Earnest Colwell, "Hort Redivivus”​
In Christ's Bonds,

Thomas


----------



## TimV

I just love the methodology of the true Conspiracy Theorist.

It's true that the vast majority of people who have looked into the subject believe that two hijacked planes brought down the two towers on 9/11, _but we know different_ because jet fuel isn't hot enough to melt steel. If you don't believe me, check out this article written by so and so, _a licensed architect_! Folks, we're dealing with a *HUGE* conspiracy!!!

And while it's true that virtually all scholars who specialise in the subject, from all denominations, and for all of Christian history believe that there was a Greek translation of at least the Law and some of the Prophets in wide circulation at the time of Christ, and that NT authors quoted from them, it's NOT TRUE!!! And to prove it _read this book_!!!

I don't have to bow down to people who know the relevant languages and subject matter!!! I can get there using _deduction_!

You see, in both cases, the Conspiracy theorist works backwards. They first come to a theory, then work backwards to prove their theory by picking and choosing items that support their theory.

But whether one likes it or not, the only true test of a theory is to try to disprove it.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Tim,

I would modify your axiom to read thus: “The true test of a theory is will it stand under all attempts to disprove it, and give demonstration of its truth.” And add another: “A theory in full accord with God’s Word is true.”

CT,

I looked at Jones’ _Which Version is the Bible?_, and _Ripped from the Bible_, and they seem sound. In the former, looking at Romans 8:1, he avers that Calvinists do not like the AV reading as it seems to deny salvation by grace, but this is not so – though perhaps he has run across some of this ilk (IFBs are strong opponents of Calvinism). Apart from that his textual studies I believe are alright. He is an astute scholar. I have a hard copy of his large book on Bible chronology, but haven’t gone through that yet (I collect books on Bible chronology).

Why do you ask? Have you found anything amiss in him re textual or other matters (apart from the IFB distinctives)?

Thomas,

I didn’t have time to read your post, but will later this evening.


For those of you interested in the topic of the Septuagint I list the table of contents of Jones’ book. Despite TimV’s sarcasm (I do not consider that an adequate response), the scholarship in the book is excellent. I realize that when one says the emperor has no clothes, they will be met with scorn from those who are blinded by their wishful thinking he does!

Two caveats: Jones shows that Terence Brown of the TBS did believe in a pre-Christ LXX (with reservations); see p. 51, footnote 2 of the pdf version. And Edward Hills also believed that (I will find a PB post which shows his view on this sometime soon).




*THE SEPTUAGINT: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. THE HISTORY OF THE LXX................................................... 1*
THE SEPTUAGINT (LXX).......................................................... 1
PROBLEMS AT THE ONSET....................................................... 2
THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT .......................................... 3
THE TESTIMONY OF THE "STAR WITNESS" – FALLACIOUS!........... 6
THE SCRIPTURES CONFRONT THE LXX'S "HISTORY..................... 7
THE QUALITY OF THE TRANSLATION......................................... 8
THE PRINCIPAL MATERIALS ..................................................... 9
DISCORDANT AGES OF THE PATRIARCHS IN THE LXX................. 11
DISCORDANT LENGTHS OF KINGS REIGNS IN THE LXX............... 13
BIBLE CHRONOLOGY BASED ON HEBREW (TRUE) O.T. TEXT........ 14
CHAPTER SUMMATION............................................................ 15

*II. THE STATUS OF THE LXX.................................................... 17*
THE HEXAPLA AND MESSIANIC PROPHECY................................. 17
OTHER REVISIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT .................................. 19
THE "BIBLE" OF THE EARLY CHURCH?....................................... 20
AN EXTANT PRE-CHRISTIAN SEPTUAGINT? ............................... 21
WAS THERE ACTUALLY A PRE-CHRISTIAN ERA SEPTUAGINT?...... 22
IS THE APOCRYPHA THE CLUE TO THE TRUTH REGARDING THE LXX? ... 23
THE FAITHFULNESS OF THE HEBREW TEXT................................ 24

*III. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE LXX........................................27*
DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT QUOTE FROM THE SEPTUAGINT?...... 27
_A. DIRECT HEBREW - LXX COMPARISONS_ ........................... 27
_B. IRREFUTABLE INTERNAL EVIDENCE_ ............................... 34
THE OBJECTION AGAINST THE HEBREW MASORETIC TEXT ANALYZED ... 35
WHY THEN DO CONSERVATIVES UPHOLD THE LXX? ..................... 37
_A. TO DEFEND "VIRGIN" IN ISAIAH 7:14_....................................37
_B. TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ENTIRE O.T. WAS TRANSLATED_....... 38
LXX "PROOF TEXTS" FOUND WANTING........................................ 39
THE FALLACIOUS NATURE OF THE LXX DEMONSTRATED ............... 41
THREE "PROBLEM" TEXTS IN THE BOOK OF HEBREWS................... 44

*IV. THE LXX VERSUS GOD'S PROMISE.........................................47*
THE BIBLE - A "SACRED" BOOK................................................... 47
WHAT DOES GOD HIMSELF PROMISE CONCERNING THE SCRIPTURES? .. 48
OVERVIEW................................................................................ 49
FINAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................ 50
CONCLUDING REMARKS.............................................................. 57
*BIBLIOGRAPHY..........................................................................58
INDEX.....................................................................................62*


----------



## TimV

It's less sarcasm than awe.



> I realize that when one says the emperor has no clothes, they will be met with scorn from those who are blinded by their wishful thinking he does!



But the Emperor in this case is 99% of scholars who have studied the matter over the last 2000 years. And I truly don't believe it's wishful thinking on my part. 

You, by your own admission, prefer Fundie Baptist scholars.



> I hope my Reformed brethren will not object to my often using the work of Independent Fundamentalist Baptists;



But there is a reason that people who write things like "The Trail of Blood" aren't taken seriously by informed people, especially from traditions that have a tradition of serious scholarship. And the reason isn't fear, or wishful thinking, or blindness but rather an amusement that often is tinged with contempt, or sorrow, or frustration or simply disinterest.

I am by no means accusing you, or mocking you. I am just trying to point out that when you hold to things that go against the overwhelming view of the church, while you may be right the actual likelihood of you being right is very slim. So you will have to learn the original languages, and familiarize yourself with the great body of work on the subject rather than cherry picking your sources before you will be given a serious hearing by serious people. On that matter, as I want to point out that my critique of your methodology is no reflection on you as a brother who's done ten times as much for the Kingdom as I have.


----------



## Thomas2007

TimV said:


> I just love the methodology of the true Conspiracy Theorist.
> 
> It's true that the vast majority of people who have looked into the subject believe that two hijacked planes brought down the two towers on 9/11, _but we know different_ because jet fuel isn't hot enough to melt steel. If you don't believe me, check out this article written by so and so, _a licensed architect_! Folks, we're dealing with a *HUGE* conspiracy!!!
> 
> And while it's true that virtually all scholars who specialise in the subject, from all denominations, and for all of Christian history believe that there was a Greek translation of at least the Law and some of the Prophets in wide circulation at the time of Christ, and that NT authors quoted from them, it's NOT TRUE!!! And to prove it _read this book_!!!
> 
> I don't have to bow down to people who know the relevant languages and subject matter!!! I can get there using _deduction_!
> 
> You see, in both cases, the Conspiracy theorist works backwards. They first come to a theory, then work backwards to prove their theory by picking and choosing items that support their theory.
> 
> But whether one likes it or not, the only true test of a theory is to try to disprove it.




Hello Tim,

At the end of the 17th century the Letter of Aristreas was proven to be fraudulent by Humphry Hody - who wasn't a conspiracy theorist, he was a Reformed Professor of Greek at Oxford University. This was discussed in this thread: LXX Torah only, or Genesis-Malachi?

The Reformation begins upon the publication by Erasmus of his New Testament in 1516 and Valla's work in 1517. Hence, the Received Text breaks upon the world coupled to the proof that the Isidorian Decretals and Donation of Constantine are fraudulent documents. It is upon this ground that Luther's very first 95 Thesis brings home the point that our Lord's teaching at the beginning of His ministry is "Repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand." This is overturning the sacrament of penance which is derived from the Apocrapha, which comes from the Greek Old Testament and thereby influenced Jerome in the translation of the Latin which reads: "Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (See Matthew 4:17, in the Authorized Version and the Latin Vulgate)

Learning that the LXX is fraudulent is common knowledge and is just the continuation of the Reformation in uncovering the width, height, depth and breadth of the Ole Deluders work at the height of Arianism in the middle of the 3rd century. *Everyone has known this and it was a long settled issue and has been for over three centuries*. Elder Rafalsky and I have only continued a discussion that is the historic Reformed and orthodox position.

We must, however, rest our opinions upon the truth of Scripture and not the opinions of men in a majority or minority. That is what is being argued for in this thread. Anyone can jump off a building denying the validity of gravity, but the truth of God's Law will prevail - and it doesn't matter which position one takes, you can believe in gravity or disbelieve in it, jump off a building and God's Law will prevail.

We do know that there is a Greek Old Testament that includes the Apocrapha, indeed is the source of it. Where it came from is what is being discussed here. Either way, if you believe it is genuine then certainly you are entitled to your opinion - it's just that as Protestants we have long rejected the Apocrapha and don't recognize its source as being an authentic and legitimate transcription of the Holy Scriptures.

The follower so of Wescott and Hort have now for a century broken upon the Protestant world and made merchandise of the Church disturbing the peace and purity of the Church claiming that all along Rome has always been right. 

For you to break in upon a thread accusing the historic Reformed and orthodox position on the true identity of the New Testament as being "fanatical" and that we mustn't forget that the Roman Catholics are "orthodox" too and then respond with your flippant and disrespectful post makes it very difficult to take you seriously.

The question is can you defend your arguments or not? Are juvenile responses like this the best we can expect?

Cordially,

Thomas


----------



## TimV

> At the end of the 17th century the Letter of Aristreas was proven to be fraudulent by Humphry Hody



So what? Nobody has ever relied solely upon him. What have you done with Philo and Aritobulus?



> Learning that the LXX is fraudulent is common knowledge





> Everyone has known this and it was a long settled issue and has been for over three centuries.



Everyone meaning a hand full of Fundies, right?



> it's just that as Protestants we have long rejected the Apocrapha and don't recognize its source as being an authentic and legitimate transcription of the Holy Scriptures.



Well, some of it we do, like the part Jude quotes, and some of it we don't. But we're talking about the Law and Prophets, aren't we.




> For you to break in upon a thread accusing the historic Reformed and orthodox position



The view that the Septuagint is a hoax is not the historic Reformed and orthodox position.


----------



## KMK

TimV said:


> But the Emperor in this case is 99% of scholars who have studied the matter over the last 2000 years.





TimV said:


> I am by no means accusing you, or mocking you. I am just trying to point out that when you hold to things that go against the overwhelming view of the church,



You seem to make the mistake of conflating 'scholars' with the church. 



> 1 Tim 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.



You keep sarcastically mentioning fundy baptists but have you examined the beliefs of all of these 'scholars' upon whom you trust?


----------



## TimV

> You keep sarcastically mentioning fundy baptists but have you examined the beliefs of all of these 'scholars' upon whom you trust?



Have I examined the beliefs of the tens of thousands of scholars who don't think the quotes in the NT seemingly taken from the Septuagint were "back translated" in a titanic hoax?

No, I haven't. And I mentioned the Fundies since Elder A. brought up the fact that he relies heavily on them.

I can think the Masoretic text a preferable text for translating the OT, and I can think that the TR a superior text to translate the NT from without buying into conspiracy theories.


----------



## KMK

TimV said:


> I can think the Masoretic text a preferable text for translating the OT, and I can think that the TR a superior text to translate the NT from without buying into conspiracy theories.



You are correct. However, your sarcasm in regards to the fundamental baptist beliefs of this scholar do not help you to persuade others unless you can show that none of the scholars whom you trust have similar beliefs. 

You seem to be setting some kind of 'bar' for acceptable scholarship in regards to textual criticism. Are scholarly opinions acceptable as long as they are not fundamental, baptist or both? Would you accept the scholarship of a man who denies the inerrancy of Scripture, for example? What about a continuationist?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

A little more information.

From Dr. Kirk D. DiVietro’s, _Did Jesus & the Apostles Quote the Septuagint (LXX)?_, pages 4, 7:

The Aramaic Talmuds which contained acceptable Aramaic paraphrases of the Hebrew text were considered authoritative commentaries, but not the word of God. The Palestinian Jewish community accepted only the Hebrew Scriptures. This was the community of Jesus and the Apostles. 

The prophets and the Hagiographa (Holy Writings), the other two divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures, were the object of various official and unofficial translation attempts. By the days of Philo (100 B.C.) and Josephus (100 A.D.), there was an almost complete Alexandrian version of the Old Testament. While this Greek Old Testament did circulate in the Hellenistic world, it did not enjoy the full confidence of its readers except in the synagogues of Egypt....

Other regions of the Hellenistic world combined the Alexandrian Pentateuch with a regional Greek text of the Prophets and Holy Writings. There were regional Greek Bibles which enjoyed varying confidence by their readers.

In Alexandria, the confidence was almost unshakable. In Israel, the Hebrew Scriptures continued to dominate in the Synagogue. There were forms of the Greek Old Testament available to Jesus and the writers of the New Testament Scripture. Usually the Alexandrian translation of the Law of Moses combined with a regionally done copy of the Holy Writings and the Prophets, is called the Septuagint in a non-technical sense. BUT, there is no reliable evidence that the Septuagint as it is known and published today, did* exist in the pre-Christ world.

In this paper, I will attempt to clarify my use of the term in its setting. We are asking the question, “Did Jesus and the writers of the New Testament use a complete, universally accepted Greek Old Testament, produced in Alexandria, Egypt, as the authoritative Word of God.”

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

....If Jesus and the writers of Scripture accepted [the LXX] as authoritative Scripture then the plenary, verbal inspiration of Scripture is irrelevant. If Jesus and the writers of Scripture accepted it as authoritative Scripture then the doctrine of preservation is a sham.

*The Value of the Septuagint to Us*

What value does the LXX have for us? Just because the LXX is not the _Bible of Jesus and the writers of Scripture_ does not mean that it is valueless. The Septuagint married the vocabulary of Greece to the theology of Israel. If this marriage had not taken place Christianity would have either died as an extension of Israel’s law, or Greece’s logic. But in the Septuagint, God provided a commentary and word study….

The work of the early Greek translators of the Old Testament provided a ready made translational database for Jesus and the writers of Scripture. While on occasion they may have coined a phrase or borrowed vocabulary, the writers of the New Testament had established Greek equivalents to work with. The similarities between fragmentary Greek Old Testament manuscripts and the New Testament may well have been the joyful result of not having to reinvent the wheel. While they may not have used the pseudo-Septuagints for their daily Bible, they may well have used them to shortcut the process of restating a Hebrew quote in the Greek New Testament. When the pseudo-Septuagint fell short in accuracy, the writer would offer a Holy Ghost inspired running translation.

The pseudo-Septuagint offers the modern Bible student a rich source of semi-Biblical, theological literature. Having this large homogenous yet diverse body of literature, the student can determine with relative accuracy the meaning of words he finds in the Greek New Testament. The search facilities of modern computers allows the student to do original statistical analysis and reach first hand decisions on matters of definition and use. The student on no longer servant to the _scholars_.​
* The manuscript actually reads “did not exist” but I have determined this is a typo; I have sent an email to a friend of DiVietro asking him to contact him for confirmation.

DiVietro examines a large number of purported LXX New Testament quotes as found in John, Acts, and Hebrews. The book can be gotten at The Bible for Today online store.

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

Tim,

You say, 



> But the Emperor in this case is 99% of scholars who have studied the matter over the last 2000 years. And I truly don't believe it's wishful thinking on my part.



That’s too sweeping a statement to pass! Over the last two thousand years? 

If there is no _evidence_ that a pre-Christ LXX – a complete and standard version – existed, how else say it? I think it clear from all of the above that I am not denying at least a copy of the Pentateuch, and some other portions of the prophets did exist (we have reports of this), but the actual documents, or copies thereof, are no longer extant, and the Septuagint which does exist today is certainly not the same as whatever may have existed in the past. The fact is, we do not know what existed – we do not have any of the words written, save in the “Ryland Papyrus (No. 458), which has a few portions of Deuteronomy 23-28 on it. This piece of papyrus is dated 150 B.C. [with some uncertainty –SMR].” Otherwise there are no extant pre-Christ manuscripts.

What is it you are saying that 99% of the scholars are saying? That there are? And whatever is being asserted concerning Jesus and the NT authors quoting the “Septuagint” is certainly NOT agreed on by “99% of the scholars”. The only “Septuagint” we have now is from Codices B, Aleph, and A, and these manuscripts are notoriously corrupt.

These days perhaps 70% of the scholars do not agree with my statement concerning their corruption. But then again perhaps 80% (more?) of the scholars do not agree with the Reformed distinctives – does this make them right? What if it is 90% Now are they right?

When you disparage “The Trail of Blood” (of which I had not heard before), it makes me wonder (along with your evading the simple question about Catholics & their orthodoxy – apart from “technical ecclesiastical definitions”). Any one who has studied the history of the Waldenses (Vadois) and Albigenses in the mountains of Italy and France, and *the trail of blood* their Catholic hunters drenched the ground of Europe with as they slaughtered them up through the centuries, would not lightly disparage these Baptists. Now I do not hold that the Waldenses were all Baptists, but the Baptists do claim them, and the trail of blood is the blood of the martyrs, genuine martyrs, and their pursuers the genuine children of the devil.

These “Fundies” you seem to disdain (and, yes, your patronizing “amusement...often tinged with contempt” – is quite evident) are our brothers and sisters in Christ, with whom we shall spend eternity in the Kingdom. Although you will not own it, *they* are the ones carrying the torch of loyalty to God’s preserved Word ever since our own mighty and beloved (for such he is) Warfield sought to douse it in the waters of rationalist doubt.

That the LXX of today is found in the corrupt B and Aleph _is indeed_ a true guilt by association, for that text-form is notorious.

Before Warfield, in the Reformed and Presbyterian camp, the LXX of the Vatican was not acknowledged as true Scripture. “Hoax” is not the right word. And I never said that. The hoax is when some seek to assert that it is inspired Scripture. As though Moses wrote in Genesis 2:2 that on the _sixth_ day God ended His work.

You are saying that Jude quoted the apocryphal “Book of Enoch”?

Is there a _satanic_ conspiracy against the human race, and especially against those who are the born-again children of God? Was there a satanic conspiracy against the Savior when He was in the world (that is, a _concerted_ effort to thwart His work and destroy Him)? And when He was taken out of it, was there a satanic conspiracy to attack His written word? This is acknowledged by multitudes of Christians – of all Protestant denominations – but not among the liberal scholars who dislike the supernatural. And if there is indeed a satanic conspiracy, do not the demons seek to use humans as agents of their agendas?

Ridicule is only an effective weapon if it is not used against the truth. There are indeed conspiracies of deception, and the conspirators often deceived themselves. This is life on the planet earth.

Good night (for such it is here).


----------



## TimV

> However, your sarcasm in regards to the fundamental baptist beliefs of this scholar do not help you to persuade others



No, most Fundamentalist scholars do not share the opinions of the two brothers. It's a segment, like the Missionary Baptists that say there was a continuation of Apostolic Baptists that held pure to the faith all during the ages, and unlike those of us who's traditions came out of Rome, were never tainted by Rome, like the Presbyterians, Lutherans etc.. were tainted. It's the same type of logic and scholarship every time, and that includes reams of material when they reply to posts that don't have anything to do with the questions you ask them.



> Are scholarly opinions acceptable as long as they are not fundamental, baptist or both?


They can be Fundamental as long as historic, Western standards of scholarship apply.


> Would you accept the scholarship of a man who denies the inerrancy of Scripture, for example?


I do it all the time, as does everyone here. When I have a question about my honeybees I don't look to religion, I look to competence. Same with my mechanic. Everyone reading right now has had the same experiences. We'd all prefer 5 pointers doing difficult electrical work, but there are things more important.


----------



## TimV

> Usually the Alexandrian translation of the Law of Moses combined with a regionally done copy of the Holy Writings and the Prophets, is called the Septuagint in a non-technical sense. BUT, there is no reliable evidence that the Septuagint as it is known and published today, did* exist in the pre-Christ world.



Yes, well, nobody said it did. What was said is that Christ and the NT authors quoted passages from the Septuagint, i.e. Greek translations of various parts of the Law and Prophets. Then you went off on a titanic conspiracy theory which posited back translations to account for verses that are more similar to the Greek translation/s than the Hebrew.



> If there is no evidence that a pre-Christ LXX – a complete and standard version – existed, how else say it? I think it clear from all of the above that I am not denying at least a copy of the Pentateuch, and some other portions of the prophets did exist (we have reports of this), but the actual documents, or copies thereof, are no longer extant, and the Septuagint which does exist today is certainly not the same as whatever may have existed in the past.



Who said otherwise? The question is whether the NT authors quoted exclusively from the Hebrew, and that's not the case.




> When you disparage “The Trail of Blood” (of which I had not heard before), it makes me wonder



Which is really typical of your methodology. You admit you are unfamiliar with the subject matter and then post a really, really long opinion.



> (along with your evading the simple question about Catholics & their orthodoxy – apart from “technical ecclesiastical definitions”).



No evasion here. I'm trying to get you to not use personal language. If Catholics and Lutherans and Russian Orthodox hold to the Ecumenical Councils we call them lower case "o" orthodox. What's there to evade?



> These “Fundies” you seem to disdain (and, yes, your patronizing “amusement...often tinged with contempt” – is quite evident) are our brothers and sisters in Christ, with whom we shall spend eternity in the Kingdom.


Yes, as are many of the third of a billion or so who prefer the Septuagint to the Hebrew as their OT. So?



> Although you will not own it, they are the ones carrying the torch of loyalty to God’s preserved Word ever since our own mighty and beloved (for such he is) Warfield sought to douse it in the waters of rationalist doubt.



Sorry. I post on a Fundie site, and respect the people, but there's just no comparison when it comes to responsible scholarship between Fundies and those of the Reformed tradition. I'm perhaps chauvinistic, but they don't hold a candle to us.



> You are saying that Jude quoted the apocryphal “Book of Enoch”?



Yes, he did. And no, it doesn't mean that the whole of that Book was inspired.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Tim, 

I had not heard of “Trail of Blood” _before_, but after your mention I familiarized myself with it. It is standard fare regarding Baptist history, or at least Waldensian history, concerning which I have studied quite a bit. That’s a very important aspect of church history, as it pertains to forerunners of the Reformation. It is not always wise to make _ungrounded_ assumptions, and then run with them.

The point of my posting as I do is, in part, to show one does not need fluency in the original languages to be informed about the history and quality of the Biblical texts, and to make sound choices thereby. Seeing as “experts” and “scholars” disagree, shows that fluency is not a determining factor in deciding on this issue of the texts. To be sure, fluency is a great gift which may be used to edify the church – but it is also a weapon of the devil in his seeking to destroy it.

My “really, really long opinions” – were they _but_ that, would be worthless; if they are based on familiarity with the topics, and are supported by facts – or at least, in some instances, feasible hypotheses (for when we deal with the history of the Biblical texts there are large gaps where we have no substantial data) – they may be of worth. If I desire to use the materials of others – materials which are often overlooked as they are not in the mainstream of contemporary thinking – to bring forth information which is little known and highly pertinent to the topic, I think I do well.

The truth of the matter is, we are in an age of decline concerning the knowledge of the Biblical texts – not fluency in them, but of their history and quality – and this for at least the last hundred years. In the Reformation era the general state of understanding was quite different, and it is this that I seek to know and to share with others.

You have yet to prove the NT authors used other than the Hebrew to quote from, whereas I have shown – in the http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/psalm-14-3-lxx-15502/ thread – that scholars (Calvin, Keil and Delitzsch, Moo, for starts) – also hold to what you call the “conspiracy theory” of the NT-era LXX authors back-correcting their OT quotes from the NT. 

I realize I subject myself to the ridicule of the “formally” educated (those that are of a certain bent regarding knowledge so obtained) by exposing my lack thereof. But as the Biblical writers themselves were often “unlearned and ignorant” men, who learned in the Lord’s school, I am not ashamed. And those who would seek to shame me, well, may the Savior deal with it, seeing as I am about His business – upholding the integrity of His word in this day when its integrity is impugned in so many quarters, even among the Reformed.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Jerusalem Blade said:


> CT,
> 
> I looked at Jones’ _Which Version is the Bible?_, and _Ripped from the Bible_, and they seem sound. In the former, looking at Romans 8:1, he avers that Calvinists do not like the AV reading as it seems to deny salvation by grace, but this is not so – though perhaps he has run across some of this ilk (IFBs are strong opponents of Calvinism). Apart from that his textual studies I believe are alright. He is an astute scholar. I have a hard copy of his large book on Bible chronology, but haven’t gone through that yet (I collect books on Bible chronology).
> 
> Why do you ask? Have you found anything amiss in him re textual or other matters (apart from the IFB distinctives)?



I asked because he has works have not been on your list of recommended works on the subject and it seemed that he was a competent scholar PhD and the like (I also have his work on biblical chronology.) I was wondering if there was something that you knew that made you not recommend his works on this subject. Now I know that this is not the case.

CT


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Concerning The Book of Enoch,

First of all, we do not know he was quoting the Book of Enoch. Calvin and Gill are of the opinion that Jude was quoting from a saying perserved in ancient tradition as an authentic saying of Enoch, held in high regard by the Jews of his day. Note Jude does not say, "Enoch wrote...", but "Enoch...prophesied..."

To assert dogmatically that Jude quoted from the book, and not an ancient saying, is unsound.

Pastor Bruce brought up in an another thread that Jude does quote Deuteronomy 33:2 in his 14th verse.

-------

Concerning _having_ to know the original tongues, this from another post:

I know many pastors, and many in the Presbyterian churches, some in the Reformed, and I know of none who are _fluent_ in the Hebrew and Greek languages (not including some Jewish and Greek pastors). They have sufficient knowledge to study the meanings and tenses of words, but I can do the same with my ample lexical materials, who do not even have _their_ knowledge. (There are exceptions here on PB, where are some well-educated clergy.)

And then we have the phenomenon of those with either fluency or “sufficient knowledge” who use the corrupted Critical Text. Fluency does not get at the problem of a people bereft of the sure Biblical text, and the ensuing loss of confidence in what they do have.

If a man has adequate lexical and study tools to get at the deeper meanings and grammatical constructions of the original languages, and has a genuine, deep, vital relationship with the Lord our God, and a thorough grasp of the doctrines of grace, along with a knowledge of Biblical history, theology, counseling, and a discernment into the human heart, is such not adequate to minister if more competent ministers are not to be found? The Lord Jesus worked with rough and unlearned men.

And what need have we of scholars – I care not for their pedigrees and advanced credentials – who are enamored of the (what are to many of us) destructive and faithless secular methodologies turned against our Bibles? Cloud is right in this. Professors and “fathers” – fine as they may be at times – are not to supplant the authority of the Scriptures, and the Spirit of Christ who teaches us through them (1 John 2:20-27). Consider this quote from an online article on John Bunyan:

There was one book, however, that he knew as hardly any other man in any age has known it — the Bible. His knowledge of it was not the scholar's knowledge, for he knew nothing of Greek and Hebrew or even of such Biblical criticism as existed in his own day. What he had was a verbal knowledge of the English versions that was never at fault. Many stories are told of the readiness with which he could produce apposite scriptural quotations, often to the confusion of much more learned men than himself. This intimacy with the Bible, combined with one other element, is enough to account for the substance of _The Pilgrim's Progress_. That other element is his profound acquaintance with the rustic and provincial life about him, and with the heart of the average man.​
One learned pastor and theologian’s widely reported view of Bunyan was this:

John Owen, generally reckoned to be the most accomplished and learned theologian that England has ever produced, was asked by the King why he was so fond of listening to the Particular Baptist John Bunyan preach, ‘to hear a tinker prate,’ as the King sarcastically expressed it. Owen replied, ‘May it please your Majesty, could I possess the tinker’s abilities for preaching, I would willingly relinquish all my learning.’​
Tim, when it comes to “responsible scholarship” in these days we live in now, the IFBs – _some_ of them – do indeed “hold a candle to us” in the area of textual studies. I refer to the scholarly and generally irenic among them. Centuries ago this was not so, but now it is. Of course this is one of the bones of contention between the TR and CT adherents; we are simply on different sides of the fence in this matter. To utterly ignore the positions of the post-Reformation theologians on the textual issues, and make it seem like this is but aberrant IFB ideology, is what we call “spin” – spinning a spell of disinformation. And I like to dispel such.

chauvinist: a person displaying excessive or prejudiced loyalty or support for a particular cause, group, or gender.

You indicated that “many of the third of a billion or so who prefer the Septuagint to the Hebrew as their OT” shall spend eternity with us in the Kingdom. I gather you are speaking of the Greek Orthodox (for the Russians hold to the Hebrew OT), and some other Orthodox communions. I live in the country where it is said the “purest Greek Orthodoxy” exists. I married into a Greek Orthodox family (my wife is Presbyterian now, having converted). On what basis do you assert that these folks, who consider Mary equal to – if not greater than – her Son, who insist that God gave the Greek Orthodox Church (to the exclusion of the Protestant “heretics”) to dispense His grace to those who submit to her dictates, status in the Kingdom of God? These who say that to be saved one must confess to a priest, take the communion of the Mass, partake of the other sacraments of the GOC, and follow the ways of this religion, _these_ are “sound teachers” able to lead sinners to peace with God? To assert that salvation may be found in a sacramental system as opposed the simplicity of faith in the Gospel of Christ is serious error, to my thinking. To say that a “church” which does not stand before God justified by faith, which does not account the legal aspects of the atonement of Christ of great significance, preferring instead the mystical doctrines they associate with the Incarnation, to say that these folks have standing in the Kingdom – or “many” of them do – is to support false teaching. Which is not to say that some – some _few_ – know the Lord (as with Catholics also). But “many”, as though the sacramental system were efficacious unto salvation? Paul pronounced a divine curse on such deviant gospels!

Steve


----------



## TimV

> First of all, we do not know he was quoting the Book of Enoch. Calvin and Gill are of the opinion that Jude was quoting from a saying perserved in ancient tradition as an authentic saying of Enoch, held in high regard by the Jews of his day. Note Jude does not say, "Enoch wrote...", but "Enoch...prophesied..."


Ah, I'd forgotten that Enoch was back translated. How convenient. Of course Christ used the word speak instead of wrote as well, so we could have left out that last sentence.




> If a man has adequate lexical and study tools to get at the deeper meanings and grammatical constructions of the original languages, and has a genuine, deep, vital relationship with the Lord our God, and a thorough grasp of the doctrines of grace, along with a knowledge of Biblical history, theology, counseling, and a discernment into the human heart, is such not adequate to minister if more competent ministers are not to be found? The Lord Jesus worked with rough and unlearned men.



Yes, but we aren't talking about ministering, are we. We are talking about a specialist field.



> And what need have we of scholars



and there follow eight inches of writing about Bunyan, who was a masterful teacher. But we're talking about specialist fields, not the qualifications for ministers.



> You indicated that “many of the third of a billion or so who prefer the Septuagint to the Hebrew as their OT” shall spend eternity with us in the Kingdom. I gather you are speaking of the Greek Orthodox (for the Russians hold to the Hebrew OT), and some other Orthodox communions. I live in the country where it is said the “purest Greek Orthodoxy” exists. I married into a Greek Orthodox family (my wife is Presbyterian now, having converted). On what basis do you assert that these folks, who consider Mary equal to – if not greater than – her Son, who insist that God gave the Greek Orthodox Church (to the exclusion of the Protestant “heretics”) to dispense His grace to those who submit to her dictates, status in the Kingdom of God?



That's what you get from spending so much time reading ignorant Fundies rather than good, solid Reformed writers (like Rushdoony, Thomas, if you're following, and since you brought up his name. I personally started the ball rolling for his in house publishing, and was paid for that and for writing articles for Chalcedon when there were only 9 families up there. He was really big on the Ecumenical Councils, as you'd know if you had read much of his work). You start getting strange ideas about Salvation. The same Fundies that bloviate about Mary being co-redeemer with Christ usually believe the same thing, except that they substitute themselves as co-redeemer. So what? I wish it were different, and that all Fundies, Orthodox and Catholics would convert to conservative Presbyterianism. But "on what basis do I assert (many) of these folks......" will go to heaven? It's the word orthodox, lower case "o", coupled with a real belief that Christ is God and died for their sins.


----------



## KMK

TimV said:


> However, your sarcasm in regards to the fundamental baptist beliefs of this scholar do not help you to persuade others
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, most Fundamentalist scholars do not share the opinions of the two brothers. It's a segment, like the Missionary Baptists that say there was a continuation of Apostolic Baptists that held pure to the faith all during the ages, and unlike those of us who's traditions came out of Rome, were never tainted by Rome, like the Presbyterians, Lutherans etc.. were tainted. It's the same type of logic and scholarship every time, and that includes reams of material when they reply to posts that don't have anything to do with the questions you ask them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are scholarly opinions acceptable as long as they are not fundamental, baptist or both?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can be Fundamental as long as historic, Western standards of scholarship apply.
Click to expand...


Could you elaborate on 'western standards of scholarship'?



TimV said:


> Would you accept the scholarship of a man who denies the inerrancy of Scripture, for example?
> 
> 
> 
> I do it all the time, as does everyone here. When I have a question about my honeybees I don't look to religion, I look to competence. Same with my mechanic. Everyone reading right now has had the same experiences. We'd all prefer 5 pointers doing difficult electrical work, but there are things more important.
Click to expand...


I was not asking if you accept the scholarship of men who deny the innerancy of Scripture in regards to bees, or cars, or electricity. We are talking about textual criticism. 

Would you accept the *textual* scholarship of a man who denies the inerrancy of Scripture?


----------



## TimV

> Would you accept the textual scholarship of a man who denies the inerrancy of Scripture?



Of course I would. If Philo was a Jew, or any of a number of other non-Christians living back then wrote about the translations, or modern archaeologists, textual experts, etc.. and the subject was whether or not portions of Greek translations of the Scriptures were existent and quoted by NT authors why on earth not as long as they were expert? It's not like I would want to know how they interpreted them.

There is some value do deductive reason, based on Scriptural principles. Of course there is. But if that reasoning goes against majority church teaching, then one needs to look at the reason carefully.

For example if Elder A. says, as he did earlier on this thread 


> According to Moses (Deuteronomy 31:24, 25), it was to the Levites only that the care of the Scriptures were given, their keeping and their copying. The one exception to this was the king, who was commanded to “write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites...” (Deut 17:18, 19). So when this translation purported to be written by six elders out of each tribe in Israel is presented to us, are we to accept it as of God? It was not done by those appointed and authorized to copy or in any way reproduce God’s word.



Then I would say
1. The Scripture Elder A. used doesn't speak to the issue, as so many other things he's written on this thread.


> 24 So it was, when Moses had completed writing the words of this law in a book, when they were finished, 25 that Moses commanded the Levites, who bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying: 26 “Take this Book of the Law, and put it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there as a witness against you;


Not a word about copying or translating.

2. This is one of the most classic cases of Straw Man I've seen in a long time. One of several historical sources that speak of the Hebrew being translated into Greek claimed people from every tribe were involved, therefore we can't accept it as God's word. For one thing most of the historical sources don't make the claim that people from every tribe participated, and for another the prohibition Elder A. claims about who was allowed to translate is just something he made up. 

3. What that would mean practically for us today is that we'd be under the same sort of restrictions today when it comes to translating, right?

So, I reject that particular allegation by Elder A. And that should serve as an example of what ISN'T an example of Western scholarship norms.

Regards
Tim


----------



## TimV

And again, that is not to say he isn't a much better Christian than I am or that he hasn't done ten times the work for the Kindom, or that he doesn't have anything of value to say.


----------



## KMK

TimV said:


> Would you accept the textual scholarship of a man who denies the inerrancy of Scripture?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I would. If Philo was a Jew, or any of a number of other non-Christians living back then wrote about the translations, or modern archaeologists, textual experts, etc.. and the subject was whether or not portions of Greek translations of the Scriptures were existent and quoted by NT authors why on earth not as long as they were expert? It's not like I would want to know how they interpreted them.
Click to expand...


Did Philo deny the inerrancy of Scripture?

Regardless, if you do not deny the textual scholarship of men based on their view of Biblical innerancy, why would you deny the textual scholarship of men based on their views of baptism and fundamentalism?



TimV said:


> There is some value do deductive reason, based on Scriptural principles. Of course there is. But if that reasoning goes against majority church teaching, then one needs to look at the reason carefully.



Agreed. And no one here is claiming that you should blindly believe Mr. Rafalsky. But you have not proved that Mr. Rafalsky's 'reasoning goes against majority church teaching.' You have made claims (without citing any sources) that Mr. Rafalsky's reasoning goes against '99% of scholars'. But you have not shown how Mr. Rafalsky's reasoning goes against majority church teaching. Scholars are not the church. The Jesus Seminar is made up of scholars. Am I to blindly believe what the majority of them teach?



TimV said:


> For example if Elder A. says, as he did earlier on this thread
> 
> 
> 
> According to Moses (Deuteronomy 31:24, 25), it was to the Levites only that the care of the Scriptures were given, their keeping and their copying. The one exception to this was the king, who was commanded to “write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites...” (Deut 17:18, 19). So when this translation purported to be written by six elders out of each tribe in Israel is presented to us, are we to accept it as of God? It was not done by those appointed and authorized to copy or in any way reproduce God’s word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I would say
> 1. The Scripture Elder A. used doesn't speak to the issue, as so many other things he's written on this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 24 So it was, when Moses had completed writing the words of this law in a book, when they were finished, 25 that Moses commanded the Levites, who bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying: 26 “Take this Book of the Law, and put it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there as a witness against you;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a word about copying or translating.
> 
> 2. This is one of the most classic cases of Straw Man I've seen in a long time. One of several historical sources that speak of the Hebrew being translated into Greek claimed people from every tribe were involved, therefore we can't accept it as God's word. For one thing most of the historical sources don't make the claim that people from every tribe participated, and for another the prohibition Elder A. claims about who was allowed to translate is just something he made up.
> 
> 3. What that would mean practically for us today is that we'd be under the same sort of restrictions today when it comes to translating, right?
> 
> So, I reject that particular allegation by Elder A. And that should serve as an example of what ISN'T an example of Western scholarship norms.
> 
> Regards
> Tim
Click to expand...


This does not define 'western scholarship norms' or 'western standards of scholarship'. I googled it and it seems to be a popular phrase but cannot find a definition. BTW, who is Elder A? Do you mean Elder Rafalsky or some rhetorical figure?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Calvin on Jude 14, 15:

“_And Enoch also_. I rather think that this prophecy was unwritten, than that it was taken from an apocryphal book; for it may have been delivered down by memory to posterity by the ancients. 
Were any one to ask, that since similar sentences occur in many parts of Scripture, why did he not quote a testimony written by one of the prophets? the answer is obvious, that he wished to repeat from the oldest antiquity what the Spirit had pronounced respecting them: and this is what the words intimate; for he says expressly that he was _the seventh from Adam_, in order to commend the antiquity of the prophecy, because it existed in the world before the flood.

But I have said that this prophecy was known to the Jews by being reported; but if any one thinks otherwise, I will not contend with him, nor, indeed, respecting the epistle itself, whether it be that of Jude or of some other. In things doubtful, I only follow what seems probable.”​
Sarcasm is a poor substitute for intelligent, even if disagreeing, discussion!

A “specialist field”, the history of the texts? It ought to be, and increasingly is, a field being made open and clear to non-specialists. This is one good contribution to the field:

_Crowned With Glory : The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version_, by Dr. Thomas Holland.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Crowned-Glory-Ancient-Authorized-Version/dp/0595146171]Crowned With Glory : The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version[/ame]

It is irenic, simple, clear, yet astute in its scholarship. It not only deals very well with the issues of the Greek text, but has an unusually good grasp of the Hebrew Masoretic, and that in light of the Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts. An easy read.

Teaching is ministering. It is serving, feeding the Lord’s sheep. And when a flood from the enemy comes in loaded with doubt and confusion concerning the Word of their Shepherd, it is appropriate food.

“Specialist fields”! How about the plain man and woman’s “Basic knowledge about the Bible, and how the Lord of hosts preserved His Word.” The Lord’s sheep are not under “the tyranny of experts” (Machen), dependent upon scholars. 

“Ignorant Fundies”?

Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies (1 Cor 8:1). “Though I have...all knowledge...and have not charity, I am nothing” (1 Cor 13:2). “Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled” (Hebrews 12:15).

I have said this before, you who are listening in, do not take this tack in your dealing with brothers, but adorn the Gospel you proclaim – be it concerning the Word, or how our Lord saves – with the qualities of His Spirit exemplified in your own. God forbid we should manifest the spirit of darkness cloaked with the words of truth.

Tim, you said,

“But ‘on what basis do I assert (many) of these folks......’ will go to heaven? It's the word orthodox, lower case ‘o’, coupled with a real belief that Christ is God and died for their sins.”​
I live among them, talk with them, listen to them – and have these past nigh six years, and it is not like that. Not in this land, neither among the majority of Roman Catholics, who trust not in the Person and work of the Son of God, but in a system, and in their compliance with that system. Yes, the system teaches “that Christ is God and died for their sins”, but the mere mental assent to that axiom is not saving. A “real belief” is being in heart-union with Jesus Christ and thus being born anew of His Spirit. 

It is a grief to see “religious” folks weighed down with the burdens of the world, sin, and the devil, and have not the Comforter in their hearts to lift them into the presence of the Savior. Were I to believe your view, I would not seek to evangelize the lost Greek Orthodox, and they would perish in a Christless eternity unwarned. The multitude of the nation has cast off the “old faith” as fit only for the grandmothers and grandfathers (Yiayias and Papoos) and ignorant village folks. The children, multitudes of them, are growing up feral. Engaging in prostitution by husbands is widespread, families are bereft of the peace, wisdom and grace of the Gospel of Christ. Feminism is taking deep root in multitudes of women’s hearts. The emptiness of the GO faith – its absence of the living Word and presence of the Lord Jesus and His Father – has hardened the hearts of most of the people here. Others trust in their fasting, confession to priests, the Mass, and the rituals.

To such it is a cruel counsel you offer: leave them be, they have their “orthodoxy” small o.

The “straw man”

JB: “there is no reliable evidence that the Septuagint as it is known and published today, did exist in the pre-Christ world.”

TimV: “Yes, well, nobody said it did. What was said is that Christ and the NT authors quoted passages from the Septuagint, i.e. Greek translations of various parts of the Law and Prophets.”​
Tim, if whatever was quoted by Jesus and the NT authors – be it the Masoretic Hebrew *or* a _faithful and accurate_ Greek translation (generic Septuagint) – *does not exist today*, then you cannot use the existing Septuagint (that which comes from Codex Vaticanus) as though it were the same version. It is commonly agreed by Septuagint scholars that the Vaticanus and Aleph version of the LXX came from Origen’s Hexapla. The LXX of Vaticanus is not an accurate text. You cannot say that _this one_ is the one Jesus quoted. The fact is, we do not have the Septuagint of those days. If there was one, and it was true to the Hebrew, and He and the apostles used it, we will never know. To assert, as you have, that Matthew 13:14 and 15 were taken from the Septuagint – and you can only refer to the Septuagint of Vaticanus – because they are more similar than the Hebrew version, is far-fetched and without warrant. Your Septuagint may be very different than whatever Greek Isaiah _may_ have existed in Christ’s day. H.B. Swete, one of the premier LXX scholars and editors, says of the Vaticanus Isaiah (the only one extant – along with Aleph and Alexandrinus), that it shows “obvious signs of incompetence” (Swete, _An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek_, p. 316), and is the most inferior book of the LXX, with Psalms but little better (Ibid, p. 315).

If you cannot know what a Septuagint in the times of Christ said in its text, then you cannot say that Christ quoted from it. Is that not a no-brainer?

---------

A last remark before I leave this thread – until next week at any rate, due to responsibilities I must not neglect: I do not hope to persuade you, Tim, of my view – especially in light of your contempt toward IFBs, whose scholarship I avail myself of (unless the Lord step in) – but I write, as I have said elsewhere, for those who seek understanding in this matter of the Bible versions, and the original languages underneath them. What I say is certainly not everyone’s cup of tea, as a survey of the preferences here on PB will show (the ESV won the last poll, KJV came in second), but there are those who appreciate a survey of the scholarship supporting the primacy of the TR/AV.

I sincerely seek not to use sophistry

“sophistry, which my dictionary defines as ‘a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone.’ ” –Paul Krugman OP ED NYT Jan 18, 08​
in my arguments or presentations. On occasion I have been shown to be wrong, and have had to amend my views. I try not to erect straw men, easily knocked down, as this is a futile method for promoting a position, for soon enough you will be discovered, and folks will lose interest in what you have to say. And if what we do we do unto the Lord Jesus, how should I stand before my Savior with a clean conscience if I am dishonest intellectually? For what I am about is seeking to bring light into that which God has said is the most precious thing to Him, as regards His Name:

...Thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Ps 138:2​
And should I tread this holy ground with unclean hands and the heart of a fool? God forbid.

I am fairly immune to accusations and contempt from opponents, for I know the source of such, and besides, I know the wretchedness of my own heart – and the King knows also! –save for His sustaining grace. What can my opponents say in falsehood that I do not know in truth? It may even be that my adversaries have better hearts than I do! Note I do not say “enemies” – for no brother is my enemy.

For King and Kingdom.

Steve

P.S. I’ll have to put some photos in the Photo Forum, so y’all can see the lady that puts up with me, and my daughter & grandson.


----------



## Pilgrim

The AV Translators on the Septuagint: 



> *The Translation of the Old Testament out of the Hebrew into Greek*
> 
> While God would be known only in Jacob, and have his Name great in Israel, and in none other place, while the dew lay on Gideon's fleece only, and all the earth besides was dry; then for one and the same people, which spake all of them the language of Canaan, that is, Hebrew, one and the same original in Hebrew was sufficient. But, when the fulness of time drew near, that the Sun of righteousness, the Son of God should come into the world, whom God ordained to be a reconciliation through faith in his blood, not of the Jew only, but also of the Greek, yea, of all them that were scattered abroad; then lo, it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek Prince (Greek for descent and language) even of Ptolemy Philadelph King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek. This is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jews by vocal. For the Grecians being desirous of learning, were not wont to suffer books of worth to lie moulding in Kings' libraries, but had many of their servants, ready scribes, to copy them out, and so they were dispersed and made common. Again, the Greek tongue was well known and made familiar to most inhabitants in Asia, by reason of the conquest that there the Grecians had made, as also by the Colonies, which thither they had sent. For the same causes also it was well understood in many places of Europe, yea, and of Africa too. Therefore the word of God being set forth in Greek, becometh hereby like a candle set upon a candlestick, which giveth light to all that are in the house, or like a proclamation sounded forth in the market place, which most men presently take knowledge of; and therefore that language was fittest to contain the Scriptures, both for the first Preachers of the Gospel to appeal unto for witness, and for the learners also of those times to make search and trial by. It is certain, that that Translation was not so sound and so perfect, but that it needed in many places correction; and who had been so sufficient for this work as the Apostles or Apostolic men? Yet it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to them, to take that which they found, (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient) rather than by making a new, in that new world and green age of the Church, to expose themselves to many exceptions and cavillations, as though they made a Translation to serve their own turn, and therefore bearing witness to themselves, their witness not to be regarded. This may be supposed to be some cause, why the Translation of the Seventy was allowed to pass for current. Notwithstanding, though it was commended generally, yet it did not fully content the learned, no not of the Jews. For not long after Christ, Aquila fell in hand with a new Translation, and after him Theodotion, and after him Symmachus; yea, there was a fifth and a sixth edition, the Authors whereof were not known. These with the Seventy made up the Hexapla and were worthily and to great purpose compiled together by Origen. Howbeit the Edition of the Seventy went away with the credit, and therefore not only was placed in the midst by Origen (for the worth and excellency thereof above the rest, as Epiphanius gathered) but also was used by the Greek fathers for the ground and foundation of their Commentaries. Yea, Epiphanius above named doth attribute so much unto it, that he holdeth the Authors thereof not only for Interpreters, but also for Prophets in some respect; and Justinian the Emperor enjoining the Jews his subjects to use especially the Translation of the Seventy, rendereth this reason thereof, because they were as it were enlightened with prophetical grace. Yet for all that, as the Egyptians are said of the Prophet to be men and not God, and their horses flesh and not spirit [Isa 31:3]; so it is evident, (and Saint Jerome affirmeth as much) that the Seventy were Interpreters, they were not Prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the Original, and sometimes to take from it; which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sense thereof according to the truth of the word, as the spirit gave them utterance. This may suffice touching the Greek Translations of the Old Testament.


----------



## TimV

Thanks much, I hadn't seen that before



> and therefore that language was fittest to contain the Scriptures, both for the first Preachers of the Gospel to appeal unto for witness, and for the learners also of those times to make search and trial by. It is certain, that that Translation was not so sound and so perfect, but that it needed in many places correction; and who had been so sufficient for this work as the Apostles or Apostolic men? Yet it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to them, to take that which they found, (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient) rather than by making a new,



So if one were to say that the Septuagint wasn't as good a source as the Hebrew but NT authors sometimes quoted from it, then one would be in good company.


----------



## KMK

Pilgrim said:


> The AV Translators on the Septuagint:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Translation of the Old Testament out of the Hebrew into Greek*
> 
> For not long after Christ, Aquila fell in hand with a new Translation, and after him Theodotion, and after him Symmachus; yea, there was a fifth and a sixth edition, the Authors whereof were not known. These with the Seventy made up the Hexapla and were worthily and to great purpose compiled together by Origen.
Click to expand...


If I am reading this correctly, doesn't this admit that the 'Septuagint' of Origen cannot be proved to be the same 'Septuagint' that existed at the time of Christ? And if so, one cannot prove or disprove the use of the 'Septuagint' by Christ. Please correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## TimV

> If I am reading this correctly, doesn't this admit that the 'Septuagint' of Origin cannot be proved to be the same 'Septuagint' that existed at the time of Christ? And if so, one cannot prove or disprove the use of the 'Septuagint' by Christ. Please correct me if I am wrong.



There's no need to admit anything. It says there were constant improvements/revisions of the Septuagint from the time it was commissioned by Ptolemy Philadelphia two and a half centuries before the Christ. In the third sentence of the work posted by the Mod the term "70" is used, and that's what Septuagint means.

What the translators of the AV said was that the Septuagint was first commissioned two and a half centuries before the Christ, and constant improvements and revisions were made. In other words, even if those scholars had even heard of Steve's theory of "back translations" they didn't put any stock in it.

To say that there was no such thing as the King James Version because there have been revisions/improvements to it over the centuries would be the equivalent of what you are wondering/implying. 

Steve, I'd love to see a picture of your wife! My brother who is a senior law enforcement official (was in charge of Michael Jackson's security during his court case in Santa Barbara county!) was fortunate enough to marry a Greek girl, who is the best sister in law a man could hope to have.

Best
Tim


----------



## MW

The conspiracy theory idea has been mentioned so many times now that I think everyone understands the point of the criticism. Something more substantial needs to be offered to rebut the thesis.


----------



## TimV

I'm sorry, and will try and modify the sarcasm.
Thanks
Tim
edit: I deleted a gratuitous sarcastic remark in my above post.


----------



## MW

That is much appreciated. Is there any possibility of folk interacting with John Owen's approach to the subject as found in his commentary on Hebrews, vol. 1:106-117, and the view expressed by the editor on pp. 117-118?


----------



## KMK

TimV said:


> If I am reading this correctly, doesn't this admit that the 'Septuagint' of Origin cannot be proved to be the same 'Septuagint' that existed at the time of Christ? And if so, one cannot prove or disprove the use of the 'Septuagint' by Christ. Please correct me if I am wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no need to admit anything. It says there were constant improvements/revisions of the Septuagint from the time it was commissioned by Ptolemy Philadelphia two and a half centuries before the Christ. In the third sentence of the work posted by the Mod the term "70" is used, and that's what Septuagint means.
> 
> What the translators of the AV said was that the Septuagint was first commissioned two and a half centuries before the Christ, and constant improvements and revisions were made. In other words, even if those scholars had even heard of Steve's theory of "back translations" they didn't put any stock in it.
Click to expand...


But because the LXX was revisised or 'improved' up to the time of Origen, and since there are no copies of the original, we still have no idea what it looked like at the time of Christ, right?



TimV said:


> To say that there was no such thing as the King James Version because there have been revisions/improvements to it over the centuries would be the equivalent of what you are wondering/implying.



I am not sure what you mean here.


----------



## Thomas2007

TimV said:


> There's no need to admit anything. It says there were constant improvements/revisions of the Septuagint from the time it was commissioned by Ptolemy Philadelphia two and a half centuries before the Christ. In the third sentence of the work posted by the Mod the term "70" is used, and that's what Septuagint means.



Tim,

You were the one dogmatically asserting that the Apostle's quoted from what is called the "Septuagint," the only record of which we have is Origen's Hexapla and then Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus. I first mentioned and then Elder Rafalsky provided ample evidence that many of these are in fact emendations in Origen's Hexapla performed around 250 AD. It is common knowledge that the Alexandrian Platonists operated fast and loose with Scripture engaging in some of the worst conjectural emendation to date.

Further, it was proven by Humphrey Hody that the Letter of Aristreas - the only source of the legend of the "Septuagint" was fraudulent, the same way the Donation of Constantine and Isidorian Decretals are fraudulent. Instead of dealing, calmly and dispassionately, with these historical facts you started on a tirade accusing us of being "conspiracy theorists."

Yet, a conspiracy to establish the Papacy does seem to historically exist as the Donation of Constantine and Isidorian Decretals testify. Our Protestant Father's received this knowledge and utilized it to advance the Reformation and defend the doctrine of Sola Scriptura against the Church Magisterium.



TimV said:


> What the translators of the AV said was that the Septuagint was first commissioned two and a half centuries before the Christ, and constant improvements and revisions were made. In other words, even if those scholars had even heard of Steve's theory of "back translations" they didn't put any stock in it.



The Letter of Aristreas at this point was not known to be fraudulent. Further it was John Owen that argued for "back translations" in his disputes with Cappel and the school of Samuer on the denial of the inspiration of the Hebrew vowell points. This, of course, was taken up by Richard Simon following Romanist Isaac La Peyrere and the idea that the Old Testament was mostly mythology. Talk about "conspiracy theories," La Peyrere believed that there were pre-Adamic men. He was imprisoned for his beliefs and later recanted them before the Pope asserting that it was his Protestant upbringing that had polluted his thinking. Yet, he had a tremendous impact upon Biblical criticism as Woodbridge notes:

"La Peyreres influence was selective but immense. The principle founders of modern biblical criticism, Baruch Spinoza and Richard Simon, were both intellectual debtors to his studies." J Woodbridge, Biblical Authority, p 89

This is the foundation of the departure from the historic sacred criticism of the Reformation to the naturalistic scientific criticism that originates with Simon and follows him, in one unified chorus of denying the reliability of Scripture.

The record before us is that out of thousands of New Testament manuscripts no two agree exactly, yet it is asserted as a dogmatic truth that a record of the Greek Old Testament of 250 AD is a perfect record of a pre-Christian translation from which the Apostle's quoted.

You offer as proof nothing more than a post-Apostolic Greek Old Testament quotes the Apostolic New Testament. That doesn't prove anything, the burden of proof is upon you to show that the original autograph of the Greek Old Testament, or at least a pre-Christian copy, matches the post-Apostolic Greek Old Testament. Only then can you prove the Apostle's quoted it - other than that it is not proof, it's just your dogmatic assertion based upon your presuppositional interpretation of the evidence. An interpretation we believe is incorrect because it is presuppositionally incorrect.



TimV said:


> To say that there was no such thing as the King James Version because there have been revisions/improvements to it over the centuries would be the equivalent of what you are wondering/implying.



No it's not. We know in fact that this translation existed, we have detailed knowledge of it that is provable fact. There is no evidence of a Septuagint and that which exists that claims there was is a fraudulent document written probably in the time of Philo to lend support for his syncretism of Judaism with Platonic philosophy.

All we are saying is that there is no proof of a BC Septuagint, there is a legend of it in a fraudulent document that attempts to establish it as a historical fact. That evidence, which is all we have to know of it, necessarily disproves its existence. We do know that there is a Greek Old Testament, when that came about is unknown, and just because some of it matches the New Testament is *not* proof the Apostle's quoted it.

Rather, your dogma is more akin to some Independent Fundamentalist Baptists you deride that claim the King James Bible is inspired and Paul used it, when you assert that something of which the only evidence exists is post-Apostolic and the Apostle's used it.

It is more likely than not, and that is the only evidentiary presupposition we have, is that Alexandrian scribes brought the Greek Old Testament into line with the New Testament. We can clearly see this in the texts (e.g., Genesis 46:20-27 and Acts 7:14) and it's even more damning when we examine the Apocraphyl books and notice that they do the same thing - back translate the New Testament into the Apocrapha. 

It was John Owen that pointed these things out 350 years ago and through which the authenticity of the Hebrew was upheld. It is the Protestant Confessional position that the Hebrew of the Old Testament is the authentic and legitimate tradition (WCF 1:8) and not the Greek Old Testament, we do after all reject the Apocrapha as being canonical. (see Romans 3:1-2) It was the Hebrews unto whom the oracles of God were committed, not the Alexandrian Greek scribes who added the Apocrapha to the Old Testament canon.


----------



## TimV

> Further, it was proven by Humphrey Hody that the Letter of Aristreas - the only source of the legend of the "Septuagint" was fraudulent, the same way the Donation of Constantine and Isidorian Decretals are fraudulent. Instead of dealing, calmly and dispassionately, with these historical facts you started on a tirade accusing us of being "conspiracy theorists."



Look, friend. If I could get you to give a clear answer to a clear question, without Fundie style rhetorical logic, without going off onto other subjects, without anything but focusing in on answering the question, why do you say that the Letter of Aristreas is the only source for the "legend" of the Septuagint? If Philo lived literally during the same time as Christ and wrote that there was an annual celebration on the island that the Septuagint was translated to celebrate the making of the translation, then why isn't he a source?


----------



## Thomas2007

TimV said:


> Further, it was proven by Humphrey Hody that the Letter of Aristreas - the only source of the legend of the "Septuagint" was fraudulent, the same way the Donation of Constantine and Isidorian Decretals are fraudulent. Instead of dealing, calmly and dispassionately, with these historical facts you started on a tirade accusing us of being "conspiracy theorists."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, friend. If I could get you to give a clear answer to a clear question, without Fundie style rhetorical logic, without going off onto other subjects, without anything but focusing in on answering the question, why do you say that the Letter of Aristreas is the only source for the "legend" of the Septuagint? If Philo lived literally during the same time as Christ and wrote that there was an annual celebration on the island that the Septuagint was translated to celebrate the making of the translation, then why isn't he a source?
Click to expand...


Dear Tim,

"....there is no new thing under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9

I've provided very detailed and clear answers. As I've stated several times, Hody dealt with all of this especially in his second work on the subject which included a reply to Isaac Vossius.

Philo is obviously quoting the Letter of Aristeas, or maybe vice versa. I pulled out my copy of The Works of Philo to refresh my memory and while his account of festivals is independent, so is his claim of inspiration of the translation whereby each group independently came up with the exact same translation... "_ every one of them employed the self-same nouns and verbs, as if some unseen prompter had suggested all their language._" Yonge, The Works of Philo - On the Life of Moses VII (37), p 494. Of course paragraph 40 tells you precisely what Philo is doing, creating a fake Mosaic "antiquity" for Platonic philosophy to support his syncretization. Again, I would point you to Wasserstein's "Legend of the Septuagint from Classical Antiquity to Today, 2005"

Of course, what no one has brought up is cross collating Quitna, Sexta and Septima - the most obvious that very plainly demonstrates the post-Apostolic alterations, is Habakkuk 3:13 in Sexta: "Thou wentest forth to save thy people for the sake of Jesus thy anointed One..."

When you depart from the authentic and legitimate tradition of the Masoretic Hebrew and Received Greek texts you are being set up for a fall. That is our confessional standard and that is what I'm sticking with.

And although you'll probably think this last statement is going off onto another subject, which is isn't, but when you then go back farther in the Alexandrian tradition you'll find that a great majority of scholars today agree that the Old Testament is actually Hebrew adaptations of Ugartic literature substituting Yahweh for Baal. And how do you argue with that, these scholars "know" and speak in absolutes that the Ugartic literature, which in many instances is an exact copy of the Psalms and other Old Testament books, represents a tradition that pre-dates the Exodus by a millienia.

If you accept their version then we are all fools, either that, or this process of translating the Old Testament into other languages has been going on for quite some time, with alteration to discredit it. When you get down to where the rubber meets the road, no one denies that their is a Greek Old Testament or even Ugaritic copies of the Psalms - it's the dates that are in question, and who copied from whom. I believe the Greek Old Testament represents a recension adapted to the New Testament and I believe the Phoenicians copied the Old Testament adapted to Baal worship.


----------



## TimV

> Philo is obviously quoting the Letter of Aristeas, or maybe vice versa. I pulled out my copy of The Works of Philo to refresh my memory and while his account of festivals is independent,



So, if I have this straight, there is no question that Philo lived in Alexandria, that he was born 20 years before Christ and died about 20 years after Christ rose from the dead, and that he writes an independent account of an annual festival in the city in which he lives that celebrates the Septuagint and he may be the source for the Letter of Aristeas. But he is not a source for there being a Septuagint.

Is that right?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Matthew,

I'm looking at that section you mentioned in Owen's first volume on Hebrews, and will comment when finished.


Tim,

You said,

To say that there was no such thing as the King James Version because there have been revisions/improvements to it over the centuries would be the equivalent of what you are wondering/implying.​
There have been some studies of what exactly changed; I will present some of the findings shortly. It certainly does not qualify as "revision" — spelling and minor changes. 

I'll comment also on the Translators' Preface. It'll take me a little while to catch up!

Thanks, Tim. Yes, there are some winners among the Greeks. The Lord sure gave me one after His own heart.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Tim,

Here is a response to your recent post re Josephus, in which I give a brief summary (by Will Kinney) of a lecture, with some links:

THE LETTER OF ARISTEAS (Summary of a lecture by J. Davila on 11 February 1999) Aristeas
Dr.James R. Davila - Lecturer in Early Jewish Studies, St. Mary's College, University of St. Andrews, Fife, Scotland.

Note: The scholar who wrote this is not a King James Only man, and he accepts the widespread idea that there was some kind of Greek translation of the Old Testament. This makes his research all the more devastating to those who promote the idea of a Pre-Christian LXX version. The LXX defenders like to use quotes from people like Josephus, Philo, Augustine, Epiphaneus, Eusebius, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr who refer to the Letter of Aristeas as proof of this LXX version, and who themselves further embellished the accounts of this alleged Greek translation.​
Kinney's article:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/LXXJophus.html


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

In post #74 it was said,

“To say that there was no such thing as the King James Version because there have been revisions/improvements to it over the centuries would be the equivalent of what you are wondering/implying [i.e., the changes in the LXX from a BC time to AD 200+ would render it a different version entirely –SMR].”


Concerning the differences between editions of the KJV

What immediately follows is from Dr. D.A. Waite, who wrote, among other things, _Defending the King James Bible_: [from: The Superiority of the King James Version]

*THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 1611 KJV AND THE PRESENT KJV*

In the New King James Version they have the history of the King James Bible in the back. On page 1229 of my edition, the editors wrote:

"Over the years from 1611 to 1616, words and phrases in the King James Bible were changed, and printing errors were corrected.

"In 1629 the first edition of the Authorized Version, printed by the presses of Cambridge University, underwent a thorough and systematic revision of the text, the italics and the marginal references. Dr. Samuel Ward and Dean Bois [he is the one who read the Hebrew Bible when he was five] two of the 1611 translators, participated in that revision. A still further revision, more thorough than the first, was carried out in the Cambridge edition of 1638. This carefully supervised revision covered `from the beginning of the volume to the end.'

"The first Bible to contain dates of biblical events in the margin was a three-volume edition in 1701 ... In 1762 Dr. Thomas Paris, a Fellow of trinity College, Cambridge issued a major revision of the King James Bible; and seven years later the Oxford Revision, the work of Dr. Benjamin Blayney was released. ... Marginal notes were increased to almost 65,000, half of which were cross-references."

Basically, those were the revisions up to 1769. The question is, how great were those revisions? How much was the wording changed? That is why I compared the present day Old Scofield King James Version and read the original 1611 and looked not just at the spelling changes. Some say there are 40,000 to 50,000 changes, and if you listened to them you would think we don't have anything like the original today. That would be a tremendous number of changes in my judgment. More confusion. They want an excuse to give us a "new" King James Version. That is why they give the history of the changes, to make us think this is JUST ONE MORE CHANGE. If there are 40,000 to 50,000 changes, they are related, by and large, to spelling differences, NOT to changes in the meaning or sounds of words.

For instance, take John 9, the account of the man born blind. Now, the word "blind" in verse 1 is spelled "blinde." It's a change. But is "blind" any different from "blinde"? If that is a change you're talking about, it doesn't affect the ear. Now, in the second verse, "sin" is spelled "sinne." That is a change. Then the word "born" is spelled "borne." But the sound is the same. What I did, was to count only the changes that could be HEARD. And from Genesis to Revelation, did I get 30,000? No. Did I get 20,000? No. 1,000? No. I got 421 changes to the ear, that could be heard, out of the 791,328 words. Just 421. That is actually one change out of 1,880 words. As for those 421 changes to the ear--most of them minor, just changes in spelling.

There were ONLY 135 SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES that were different words. The others were only 285 minor changes of form only. Of these 285 minor changes, there are 214 very minor changes such as "towards" for "toward"; "burnt" for "burned"; "amongst" for "among"; "lift" for "lifted"; and "you"; for "ye." These kinds of changes represent 214 out of the 285 minor changes of form only. Now you're talking about only 136 real changes out of 791,328 words. Many people imply that the King James Bible is completely changed from what they had in 1611, that there are THOUSANDS of differences. You tell them about the mere 136 changes of substance plus 285 minor changes of form only. (D.A. Waite, Defending the King James Bible).​
I note that in his book he elsewhere provides the written research, concerning which I am curious, and will purchase it from his online bookstore at Bible for Today. It is listed as Item #OP1294

I also just pulled F.H.A. Scrivener’s book off the shelf, _The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611): Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives_ (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1910), which has much information on this topic, and I will be looking through it to glean what facts I can, the which I will post.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Matthew,

Very interesting read, what Owen thought of the LXX being used for the OT quotes in Hebrews. It may very well be from him that the understanding the LXX was “back-corrected” from the NT originated (and not the IFBs or some supposed “conspiracy theorists”). It is a good example of a highly-trained scholar (both an accomplished Hebraist and Greek expert) refuting the “LXX-quoting NT authors” hypothesis. And he goes into great detail over each supposed instance. These seven volumes on Hebrews are a treasure. I have found no better exposition – for example – on the matter of Melchisedec in Hebrews 7 than his.

That the editor, William H. Goold, sought to contradict Owen (and not only on the LXX “back-corrections”, but on the authorship of the epistle as well) is not surprising seeing as the text-critical company he kept – which he called “the voice of modern criticism” – included such German (or German trained/influenced) rationalists as Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf (p. 117), Mill, Wetstein, and Davidson (p. 102). Sometimes good scholars posthumously fall into the hands of lesser men, who would use the grand vehicle of the former’s excellence to carry their own shabby baggage.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

I hope this is not overload for some folks, but I want to give links to some articles on the Septuagint by Will Kinney from his KJV articles page. He's a good scholar (and a Calvinist -- probably Reformed Baptist doctrinally), if a little hard-hitting with some of his textual opponents.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoLXXOne.html

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoLXXTwo.html

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoLXXThree.html

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Luke336LXX.html

And this one is a response of his to Dr. James Price's view of the KJV:

Sharper Iron Forums - A KJB response to KJV Onlyism:A New Sect

----------

I'd like to wind down this discussion, if no one minds -- I have so many things to take care of!

Steve


----------



## Pilgrim

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I hope this is not overload for some folks, but I want to give links to some articles on the Septuagint by Will Kinney from his KJV articles page. He's a good scholar (and a Calvinist -- probably Reformed Baptist doctrinally), if a little hard-hitting with some of his textual opponents.
> 
> http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoLXXOne.html
> 
> http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoLXXTwo.html
> 
> http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoLXXThree.html
> 
> http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Luke336LXX.html
> 
> And this one is a response of his to Dr. James Price's view of the KJV:
> 
> Sharper Iron Forums - A KJB response to KJV Onlyism:A New Sect
> 
> ----------
> 
> I'd like to wind down this discussion, if no one minds -- I have so many things to take care of!
> 
> Steve



Steve,

Any comments on the AV Translators Preface about the Septuagint that I posted earlier?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

The Bible says:

_Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away, Mt 24:35_

_For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you, 1 Pt 1:24,25._

_We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts, 2 Pt 1:19_

The differences between the Critical Text and the Byzantine are so great that they produce two different Bibles. What scares me is the implicit argument of the CT that the Bible did not exist in its pure form until the mid to late 1800's. Such a supposition seems to contradict what Christ and His Apostles taught on the matter.

Any thoughts on this? Pro or Con?

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## TimV

> Hello Tim,
> 
> Here is a response to your recent post re Josephus, in which I give a brief summary (by Will Kinney) of a lecture, with some links:



I never said anything about Josephus. I am trying to get a clear answer to the question of whether Philo is a source for the existance of a Septuagint or not.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Tim said:

I never said anything about Josephus. I am trying to get a clear answer to the question of whether Philo is a source for the existence of a Septuagint or not.​
Sorry Tim, you’re right!

From the Dr. James R. Davila lecture noted above:

PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA (around the turn of the era; _Vita Mosis_ 2.25-44) also tells the story of a translation of the Pentateuch under Philadelphus with an outline very similar to Aristeas (it is quite likely he read the work). The king sends an embassy to Judea to get some translators; he treats them to feasting with witty and virtuous conversation and questioning; the translation takes place on the island of Pharos. But Philo seems to be the first to add that by prophetic inspiration all the translators produced exactly the same Greek text independently. He also tells of an annual festival at Pharos to his day which celebrated the translation. His agenda was to show that the LXX (which Philo used instead of the HB) was just as inspired as the original Hebrew.​
It would seem to confirm that Philo had some version of at least parts of the OT in Greek, the general consensus being that he had but the Pentateuch. The only thing we can be sure of was that he knew of the “claims of Aristeas” – and some say it was Philo himself who wrote it. It is certain he embellished the legend, the account of the “prophetic inspiration” of the 72. Is he to be counted as a source for a Christ-contemporary LXX? All we can say is he spoke of the Pentateuch, and, as Davila says, he did have an agenda to promote. What he actually had in his possession we cannot be sure of. Not what I would call a clear source.


----------



## ChristianTrader

TimV said:


> Hello Tim,
> 
> Here is a response to your recent post re Josephus, in which I give a brief summary (by Will Kinney) of a lecture, with some links:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said anything about Josephus. I am trying to get a clear answer to the question of whether Philo is a source for the existance of a Septuagint or not.
Click to expand...


Tim, 
Do you have any thoughts on Owen and his comments concerning the controversy?

CT


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

For what it's worth, Matthew Poole in his preface to the _Synopsis_ says:



> The Greek Septuagint: thus called, because it is said to have been produced by seventy-two, or, when they declare it by the round number, seventy learned men. Whether those translators really only translated the Pentateuch, or the entire Old Testament; whether it is the true stock of those translators which we have in our hands, or rather a counterfeit, hitherto theologians are debating: “It is not for us to settle such great disputes.”1
> 
> [1] Virgil, _Eclogue_ 3:108.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Chris,

Some thoughts (re the portion of the Translators’ Preface, in post #71):

The translators said:

“...it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek Prince (Greek for descent and language) even of Ptolemy Philadelph King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek. This is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters, commonly so called...”​
The Lord’s providential preservation evidently did not extend to their knowledge of the history of the LXX, as it apparently was not known to them that Aristeas’ letter was not genuine, a matter now widely agreed upon.

...which [LXX] prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jews by vocal.​
Though it cannot be _proven_ to have existed, nor do we have the text of it _if it did_, there may well have been a Greek copy of the Pentateuch, and possibly some of the prophets and the writings which were available to Greek-speaking Jews _and_ Gentiles. It is reasonable to assume that the early churches (apostolic, sub-apostolic) had some Old Testament Scriptures in the Greek language.

It has been stated by me above (quoting Dr. DiVietro) that the value of a pre-Christ or Christ-contemporary Septuagint was in its “marrying the vocabulary of Greece to the theology of Israel”, and for today’s use “The pseudo-Septuagint offers the modern Bible student a rich source of semi-Biblical, theological literature. Having this large homogenous yet diverse body of literature, the student can determine with relative accuracy the meaning of words he finds in the Greek New Testament.”

Could the apostles have used a Greek translation to _help_ them quoting the OT while they wrote the NT Scriptures in Greek? While they did not _quote_ it, they may well have considered how the OT Scriptures had been translated from the Hebrew into the Greek.

The original bone of contention between Tim and myself concerned Jesus supposedly quoting the LXX of Isaiah 6:9 & 10 when He spoke as recorded in Matthew 13:14 & 15, simply because the LXX and Matthew agree _somewhat_ in wording, while the Hebrew does not agree so closely. The question I posed – which was treated with undeserved ridicule, and then evaded by irrelevant argumentation – was why would Jesus, the Messiah of the Hebrew people, when speaking to His disciples (and at other times the priests, Pharisees, and scribes) use Greek, when the primary spoken language of the nation was Aramaic, and the Scriptures of the nation were in Hebrew? Let me re-state what I said earlier, quoting Edersheim:

"If Greek was the language of the court and camp, and indeed must have been spoken by most in the land, the language of the people, spoken also by Christ and His Apostles, was a dialect of the ancient Hebrew, the Western or Palestinian Aramaic. It seems strange that this could ever have been doubted. A Jewish Messiah Who would urge His claim upon Israel in Greek, seems almost a contradiction in terms. We know, that the language of the Temple and the Synagogue was Hebrew, and that the addresses of the Rabbis had to be “targumed” into the vernacular Aramaen – and can we believe that, in a Hebrew service, the Messiah could have arisen to address the people in Greek, or that He could have argued with the Pharisees and Scribes in that tongue, especially remembering that its study was actually forbidden by the Rabbis?"

From _The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah_, Vol. 1, pp.129, 130; by Alfred Edersheim

[Taken from the thread, http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/what-language-did-Jesus-apostles-read-scriptures-26314/#post321502]​
Might He have spoken Greek when in the Decapolis area, where many Gentiles lived, Gentiles who followed him, and whom He healed and fed? Possibly. What language did He speak to the Syrophenecian woman in (whom Mark in 7:26 tells us was a Greek)? That she addressed Him in Jewish terminology (“Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David...” Matt 15:22) would seem to indicate she was fluent in Aramaic, and knew something of Messianic prophecy. But as DiVietro pointed out concerning the Aramaic:

The Aramaic Talmuds which contained acceptable Aramaic paraphrases of the Hebrew text were considered authoritative commentaries, but not the word of God. The Palestinian Jewish community accepted only the Hebrew Scriptures. This was the community of Jesus and the Apostles.​
I realize this may seem to be dancing around the question, but without a historical-grammatical understanding of the setting of Jesus in those days, we cannot hope to piece together with full comprehension what was going on. To say He quoted from the Greek translation to speak to His disciples is without warrant, first, because He had the Hebrew available (and ready in His mind, knowing the Scriptures by heart), and could have translated it into the Aramaic had He wished; second, because Matthew’s Gospel is known to be the Gospel to the Hebrews, that which took the greatest pains to prove the prophecy-fulfilling Messiahship of Jesus, and to show from the Scriptures that He was indeed the One who should come, of whom Moses and the prophets wrote – and Matthew, speaking to the nation of Jewish readers, _should be quoting a Greek manuscript?_ The Translators in their Preface say, “It is certain, that that Translation was not so sound and so perfect, but that it needed in many places correction.... Notwithstanding, though it was commended generally, yet it did not fully content the learned, no not of the Jews”. It is not likely Matthew would do such a thing, quoting an imperfect Greek text when trying to convince the Jewish nation of the credentials of the Son of David. And thirdly, it is without warrant because we simply do not know what any early Greek translation of the Old Testament looked like. The one we have – the Septuagint extant today – came through Origen, around 230-40 AD.

Consider Origen for a moment, from whom we got the LXX, and the precursor of the Vaticanus manuscript; Origen says [translated from the Greek], 

…these [the Scriptures] do not contain throughout a pure history of events, which are interwoven indeed according to the letter, but which did not actually occur. Nor even do the law and the commandments wholly convey what is agreeable to reason. For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, is it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish [from the Latin it is translated: “And who is found so ignorant…”] as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, toward the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? and again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that any one doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.[1]​
One of the grievous errors of Origen is his constant inclination to interpret Biblical events and stories figuratively, denying the literal histories (as did his intellectual fathers, Clement and Philo). He himself is, in fact, known as the father of the allegorical – or “spiritualizing” – method of interpretation. He is also known to “correct” Scriptures if he thinks the text is unclear or wrong. To wit: in his commentary on Matthew,[2] when dealing with chapter 19, verse 19, he says that the Lord’s words to the rich young ruler, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” _cannot_ be genuine, as the text seems to indicate the Lord concurred with the man’s affirming he kept this command, and thus must have been perfect, while the Lord shows in verse 21 he was not, and what he needed to do to be so. Origen then concludes – because there is a difficulty for him here (but certainly solvable) – this clause was added by some tasteless scribe. Dr. Edward Hills remarks,

In his comment on this passage Origen gives us a specimen of the New Testament criticism which was carried on at Alexandria about 225 A.D….it is clear that this renowned Father was not content to abide by the text which he had received but freely engaged in the boldest sort of conjectural emendation. And there were other critics at Alexandria even less restrained than he who deleted many readings of the original New Testament text and thus produced the abbreviated text found in the papyri and in the manuscripts _Aleph_ and _B_.[3]​
In his book, _Believing Bible Study_ (page 47), Hills says,

Among the Christian scribes of Alexandria developments took another turn. According to Streeter (1924), these learned Christians followed the tradition of Alexandrian classical scholarship, which was always to prefer the shortest reading in places in which the manuscripts differed. The Alexandrians were always ready to suspect and reject New Testament readings which seemed to them to present difficulties.​
Here Origen talks of Scripture in general:

I do not condemn them (authors of Scripture) if they even sometimes dealt freely with things *which to the eye of history happened differently*, and changed them so as to subserve the mystical aims they had in view; so as to speak of a thing which happened in a certain place, as if it had happened in another, or if what took place at a certain time, as if it had taken place at another time, and to introduce into what was spoken in a certain way some changes of their own. *They proposed to speak the truth where it was possible* both materially and spiritually, and where this was not possible it was their intention to prefer the spiritual to the material. *The spiritual truth was often preserved, as one might say, in the material falsehood*.[4] (Emphases by Wm. Grady)​ 
This is what one might call “a low view of the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture”! And it does not give confidence that one of the “foremost textual critics and teachers of the early church” dealt honorably (as _we_ who hold the Bible in high esteem would understand “honorably”) with the texts that came his way! Can this be where the change [noted earlier] in Genesis 2:2 originated in the LXX – as though Moses wrote there that on the _sixth_ day God ended His work? Compare with your Bibles translated from the Hebrew!

Burgon comments on Origen’s view of Matthew 19:19:

Now all this is very instructive. Here is the most famous critic of antiquity estimating the genuineness of a clause in the Gospel, not by the amount of external attestation which it enjoys, but by his own self-evolved fancies concerning it. As a matter of fact, no extant copy, Father, or version is without the clause under discussion. By proposing therefore that it shall be regarded as spurious, Origen does but convict himself of rashness and incompetancy.[5]​
This is instructive to us in the 21st century as well, for it is upon the very same principles of textual criticism that Westcott and Hort established their Revised Greek Text! Personal fancies instead of careful examination of facts, and accumulation of solid evidence. And it is no coincidence that Origen was a hero and an inspiration to these two men some 16 centuries later. 

William Cunningham, in his two-volume _Historical Theology_, after considering some pros and cons regarding Origen’s contribution to the theology of the church, says,

It is certain, however, that Origen thought that the divine nature was united only with the soul, and not with the body of Christ; so that there was no proper hypostatical union, as it is commonly called,—no proper assumption by Christ of human nature. This groundless fantasy led to his maintenance of what may be regarded as a still more serious and dangerous error, viz., a virtual denial that Christ offered a real atonement for the sins of men. This, of course, overturns the Gospel of our salvation; and it is a melancholy instance of the extent to which an unwarrantable indulgence in mere philosophical speculations may lead men astray from the path of Scriptural truth.[6]​
Footnotes

1 _Ante-Nicene Fathers_, Vol. 4, by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., (MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), page 365. 
2 _Origenes Werke_, Vol. 10, 1937, pages 385-388; Die Griechischen Schriftsteller, Preussisch. Akademie der Wissenschaften. Cited in _Believing Bible Study_, pages 47, 48, and _The King James Version Defended_, pages 144, 145, both books by Edward F. Hills (IA: The Christian Research Press, 1977 and 1984 respectively)
3 _The King James Version Defended_, Hills, pages 144, 145.
4 _The Ante-Nicene Fathers_, Vol. 10, _Original Supplement to the American Edition_, 5th ed., by Allen Menzies (MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1990), page 383. Cited by William P. Grady, _Final Authority: A Christian’s Guide to the King James Bible_, page 94.
5 _The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, Vindicated and Established_, by John William Burgon (London: George Bell and Sons, 1896), page 274.
6 _Historical Theology: A review of the principle doctrinal discussions in the Christian church since the Apostolic Age_, Vol. 1, by William Cunningham (Canada: Still Waters Revival Books, reprint edition 1991), pages 155, 156.

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

Thank you for bearing with this brief excursus (some of which I got from a paper I had previously written), as I wanted to show something of the mind-set of the man through whose instrumentality we got the LXX which exists today.

The Preface Translators say that the “Translation of the Seventy” was used by the Greek Fathers as the ground and foundation of their commentaries, which is not a great recommendation in my view, as I live in a land which bears the bitter fruit of these “Fathers” and their commentaries. The commentaries, those that have spawned the GO religion, are unsound.

And what is the final verdict of the Translators of the King James Bible?

...the Seventy were Interpreters, they were not Prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the Original, and sometimes to take from it; *which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew*, and to deliver the sense thereof according to the truth of the word, as the spirit gave them utterance. This may suffice touching the Greek Translations of the Old Testament. [Emphases added –SMR]​
This last portion, “and to deliver the sense thereof, as the spirit gave them utterance,” may well indicate those OT quotations in the New, which are not “exact” as per the way _we_ in this age quote, but the way the Lord Jesus quoted Isaiah 6 in the Matthew passage we have belabored, giving the sense of it, as the Holy Spirit gave Him utterance, and Paul in Hebrews, Luke in Acts, John in his Gospel, in the same manner, sometimes giving exact quotes, and sometimes not. The copycat Septuagint of Origen and Vaticanus has its value, but not as inspired Scripture, which the Lord and His men quoted from. Whatever Greek Old Testament may have existed in Jesus’ age and before, we can only surmise concerning.

From Dr. Thomas Holland’s _Crowned With Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version_ (p. 121); he says,



> It is also clear that the KJV translators promoted the use of such translations since they recognized the importance of having God’s word translated into the language of those who cannot read Hebrew or Greek, despite the lack of quality and accuracy contained in those translations. Their argument with the Catholic Church, which at that time made a practice of burning Bibles that were in any language other than Latin, was that God’s word translated poorly was still God’s word and must be treated with respect and dignity. They illustrate the point with the Greek translations of Aquila, Theodotion, and the LXX.



Chris, I hope this is an adequate response.

Steve


----------



## TimV

> He also tells of an annual festival at Pharos to his day which celebrated the translation. His agenda was to show that the LXX (which Philo used instead of the HB) was just as inspired as the original Hebrew.



Thomas, Philo *lived *in the city where the Septuagint was translated. He was *there* at the time of Christ. People *read* the book that he wrote. Nobody to my knowledge except you and Steve don't count him as a source. Steve says it *seems* to him he can't be trusted.

What do *you* think? Is Philo a source for their being a Septuagint?


----------



## TimV

> Tim,
> Do you have any thoughts on Owen and his comments concerning the controversy?



Sorry, I haven't read Owen yet on the subject.


----------



## TimV

> The original bone of contention between Tim and myself concerned Jesus supposedly quoting the LXX of Isaiah 6:9 & 10 when He spoke as recorded in Matthew 13:14 & 15, simply because the LXX and Matthew agree somewhat in wording, while the Hebrew does not agree so closely. The question I posed – which was treated with undeserved ridicule, and then evaded by irrelevant argumentation – was why would Jesus, the Messiah of the Hebrew people, when speaking to His disciples (and at other times the priests, Pharisees, and scribes) use Greek, when the primary spoken language of the nation was Aramaic, and the Scriptures of the nation were in Hebrew?



I never *said* that Christ spoke in Greek. I *said *He quoted the Septuagint as well as the Hebrew. I clearly implied He quoted the *Greek text* rather than the *Hebrew text* exclusively. Just like when He quoted the Hebrew text He often used *another* language than Hebrew, namely Aramaic, which *isn't* a dialect of Hebrew.


----------



## KMK

TimV said:


> The original bone of contention between Tim and myself concerned Jesus supposedly quoting the LXX of Isaiah 6:9 & 10 when He spoke as recorded in Matthew 13:14 & 15, simply because the LXX and Matthew agree somewhat in wording, while the Hebrew does not agree so closely. The question I posed – which was treated with undeserved ridicule, and then evaded by irrelevant argumentation – was why would Jesus, the Messiah of the Hebrew people, when speaking to His disciples (and at other times the priests, Pharisees, and scribes) use Greek, when the primary spoken language of the nation was Aramaic, and the Scriptures of the nation were in Hebrew?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never *said* that Christ spoke in Greek. I *said *He quoted the Septuagint as well as the Hebrew.
Click to expand...


?? If He quoted the Septuagint then by definition He spoke in Greek. 

Are you saying that Jesus quoted the Septuagint by translating it into the Hebrew? Why would He do that when He essentially wrote the Hebrew? Why not quote from His own writings?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

KMK said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The original bone of contention between Tim and myself concerned Jesus supposedly quoting the LXX of Isaiah 6:9 & 10 when He spoke as recorded in Matthew 13:14 & 15, simply because the LXX and Matthew agree somewhat in wording, while the Hebrew does not agree so closely. The question I posed – which was treated with undeserved ridicule, and then evaded by irrelevant argumentation – was why would Jesus, the Messiah of the Hebrew people, when speaking to His disciples (and at other times the priests, Pharisees, and scribes) use Greek, when the primary spoken language of the nation was Aramaic, and the Scriptures of the nation were in Hebrew?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never *said* that Christ spoke in Greek. I *said *He quoted the Septuagint as well as the Hebrew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ?? If He quoted the Septuagint then by definition He spoke in Greek.
> 
> Are you saying that Jesus quoted the Septuagint by translating it into the Hebrew? Why would He do that when He essentially wrote the Hebrew? Why not quote from His own writings?
Click to expand...


That is such an obvious thing I have never even thought of for some reason.


----------



## MW

We need to be clear on what the status question is in order to avoid talking past each other. It does not appear to me to be relevant whether the Septuagint existed in part or in whole prior to or at the writing of the NT. The real question is whether the NT shows a dependence on the Septuagint.


----------



## KMK

armourbearer said:


> We need to be clear on the status quaestionis in order to avoid talking past each other. It does not appear to me to be relevant whether the Septuagint existed in part or in whole prior to or at the writing of the NT. The real question is whether the NT shows a dependence on the Septuagint.



How can the NT 'show' a dependence on something that no longer exists?

It all sounds like conjecture to me.


----------



## MW

KMK said:


> How can the NT 'show' a dependence on something that no longer exists?



"No longer exists?"


----------



## Thomas2007

TimV said:


> He also tells of an annual festival at Pharos to his day which celebrated the translation. His agenda was to show that the LXX (which Philo used instead of the HB) was just as inspired as the original Hebrew.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas, Philo *lived *in the city where the Septuagint was translated. He was *there* at the time of Christ. People *read* the book that he wrote. Nobody to my knowledge except you and Steve don't count him as a source. Steve says it *seems* to him he can't be trusted.
> 
> What do *you* think? Is Philo a source for their being a Septuagint?
Click to expand...


Dear Tim,

Based upon Philo's written account I don't think it is reliable, so I don't think he is a credible witness. This is one reason why, but I don't have time to get as involved as Elder Rafalsky is into this, so I'll just outline this brief reason:

This is what Philo says:

Ptolemy, surnamed Philadephus, was the third in success after Alexander...and having conceived a great admiration for and love of the legislation of Moses, conceived the idea of having our laws translated into the Greek language; and immediately he sent out ambassadors to the *high-priest and king of Judea, for they were the same person*. And having explained his wishes, and having requested him to pick him out a number of men, of perfect fitness for the task, who should translate the law, the high-priest, as was natural, being greatly pleased, and thinking that the king had only felt the inclination to undertake a work of such character from having been influenced by the providence of God, considered, and with great care selected the most respectable of the Hebrews whom he had about him, who in addition to their knowledge of their national scriptures, had also been well instructed in Grecian literature, and cheerfully sent them." Yonge, The Works of Philo - On the Life of Moses, II V (28) - VI (31), 1993​
Philo claims it was done in the time of Ptolemy II Philadelphus who reigned in Egypt from 281 to 246 BC. But then his account of the High Priest in Jerusalem is also King..."_for they were the same person._" It was only after the Maccabean revolt, in the Hasmonean period, that the office of High Priest was united with the King, this is from 166 to 163 BC. In his own account he has more than a century of time gapping between them.

Based upon the rules of evidence, Philo's testimony is prima facie unreliable as to their being a "Septuagint."

It appears to be designed in order with the Letter of Aristeas but then switches gears to make it a divinely sanctioned translation in which he establishes..._"these translators not mere interpreters but hierophants and prophets to whom it had been granted it their honest and guileless minds to go along with the most pure spirit of Moses._" II, VII (40)

This, then, connects his account of the translation with his account of Moses as filling both offices "though the providence of God" of High Priest and King as well as Lawgiver and Prophet, or a fourfold office whereby..."_the connection of these four powers is beautiful and harmonious, for being all connected together and united one to another, they unite in concert, receiving and imparting a reciprocity of benefits from and to one another, imitating the virgin graces with whom it is an immutable law of their nature that they cannot be disunited..._" II, I (6)

Hence, he is connecting together not only divine providence for this supposed translation but divine Authority for it insomuch that it would supplant the Hebrew, as he says: "_...they would admire and reverence them both as sisters (e.g., Hebrew and Greek translation), *or rather as one and the same* both in their facts and in their language..._" II, VII (40)


Cordially,


Thomas


----------



## TimV

> ?? If He quoted the Septuagint then by definition He spoke in Greek.
> 
> Are you saying that Jesus quoted the Septuagint by translating it into the Hebrew? Why would He do that when He essentially wrote the Hebrew? Why not quote from His own writings?



This is one of the things you don't get, Ken. And that's the reason I'm still in this thread. People who haven't a specific knowledge of this subject can get into really bizarre thinking by listening to what is being said, especially by Steve.

Look, Ken. I tried to make this point earlier, and I'm disappointed none of those who are familiar with the basics of Biblical language have stepped in. Christ didn't speak to the masses in Hebrew. He spoke mostly in Aramaic. When Steve calls Aramaic, or Palestinian Aramaic a "dialect of Hebrew" he is passing on misinformation. Aramaic is a different language than Hebrew. 

There is not one person on this board with an advanced theology or relevant language degree who things Christ typically quoted Hebrew OT Scriptures when he was speaking to the masses. So what happens to your question then? You ask



> Why would He do that when He essentially wrote the Hebrew? Why not quote from His own writings



And the answer is they didn't speak Hebrew. They spoke Aramaic. Read this from Isaiah 36


> 11 Then Eliakim, Shebna and Joah said to the field commander, "Please speak to your servants in Aramaic, since we understand it. Don't speak to us in Hebrew in the hearing of the people on the wall."



Palestinian Aramaic had many Hebrew words etc.. just like Yiddish has many Hebrew words. The Jews in eastern Europe in the last century spoke Yiddish, which is a dialect of German. Those Jews didn't understand Hebrew any more than the average Jew understood Hebrew during the time of Christ.

Edit: Steve quoted Edersheim calling Palestinian Aramaic a dialect of Hebrew, it was not a claim he made himself.


----------



## TimV

> Based upon Philo's written account I don't think it is reliable, so I don't think he is a credible witness.



So then the letter of Aristeas isn't the only source, is it. 

Philo is also a source, but after studying the material in-depth, you don't think the man was credible. You think that the rules of logic dictate that because he may have made a mistake deliberate or otherwise about the history of the Septuagint, specifically about something that happened 250 years before he was born, cancels the fact that he was a witness to a celebration to the Septuagint in his own day. 

So, as we have it at this point, you concede that the letter of Aristeas isn't the only source. There are two sources, both in your opinion not credible, Philo and Aristeas.

Now my next question is: are there any other sources besides these two, even sources you don't like?


----------



## TimV

BTW Steve, you may want to consider *NOT* using Edersheim when making your point about the lack of proof for the historical Septuagint. On a hunch, since you brought him up several times, I got my copy out of The Life and Times and he says we have to, based on the evidence, say that the Septuagint was completed during the reign of Ptolemy 111, who ruled between 247-221 BC. 

He calls the Septuagint the "People's Bible" of the time of Christ.


----------



## KMK

armourbearer said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can the NT 'show' a dependence on something that no longer exists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "No longer exists?"
Click to expand...




TimV said:


> There's no need to admit anything. It says there were constant improvements/revisions of the Septuagint from the time it was commissioned by Ptolemy Philadelphia two and a half centuries before the Christ.



Tim said the LXX was constantly 'improved' and 'revised' so how do we know for sure what the LXX looked like at the time of Christ? If we don't know what it looked like, how do we 'show' that the NT writers depended upon it?


----------



## Thomas2007

TimV said:


> Based upon Philo's written account I don't think it is reliable, so I don't think he is a credible witness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then the letter of Aristeas isn't the only source, is it.
> 
> Philo is also a source, but after studying the material in-depth, you don't think the man was credible. You think that the rules of logic dictate that because he may have made a mistake deliberate or otherwise about the history of the Septuagint, specifically about something that happened 250 years before he was born, cancels the fact that he was a witness to a celebration to the Septuagint in his own day.
> 
> So, as we have it at this point, you concede that the letter of Aristeas isn't the only source. There are two sources, both in your opinion not credible, Philo and Aristeas.
> 
> Now my next question is: are there any other sources besides these two, even sources you don't like?
Click to expand...


Tim,

I don't think there are two sources or witnesses in Philo and Aristeas. Fraudulent documents are not sources or witnesses, nor is Alexandria a proper repository for the Scriptures. Romans 3:1-2 is clear. Further, it has been a few years since I went through this subject for myself, but it was not logic that I analyzed it through but rather Greenleaf's Rules of Evidence for Ancient Documents.

I've provided answers to your questions, yet repeatedly you never deal with one fact presented. You admit you've never studied John Owen, you didn't know who Edward Leigh was, I doubt you've read Francis Turretin either. I believe you said you had never heard anyone that ever doubted this, yet both Elder Rafalsky and I have provided you Reformed Protestant witnesses that go back hundreds of years from which we derive our position.

I'm happy to discourse with you and attempt to explain my position, but I can't argue into a void. You chide us and utilize various forms of disparagement, imply that Pastor Ken is ignorant on this subject, yet admit you haven't studied it thoroughly.

The problem is that with this lack of understanding regarding the polemic with Rome over the Providential Preservation of Scripture and how the doctrine came to be Confessionally established in the Westminster Confession of Faith you can't understand what is at stake.

At common law when you bring a witness forward you have to be able to vouch for his veracity as a witness. The veracity of both the Letter of Aristeas and Philo have been destroyed in this thread, I guess we could go on into Aristobolus and other's but I don't see the point, because you haven't dealt with anything so far.

If you have something of substance to add, then please do - or at least deal with the evidence that has been publicly posted.

Cordially,

Thomas


----------



## MW

Thomas2007, please deal with TimV's arguments without calling into question his intentions in entering into this discussion.


----------



## MW

KMK said:


> Tim said the LXX was constantly 'improved' and 'revised' so how do we know for sure what the LXX looked like at the time of Christ? If we don't know what it looked like, how do we 'show' that the NT writers depended upon it?



Scholars to and fro here, but at a bare mimimum it is accepted that the Septuagint shares a large vocabulary with the NT, and make use of it in examining NT words.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

From post #104:

Tim: 



> “People who haven't a specific knowledge of this subject can get into really bizarre thinking by listening to what is being said, especially by Steve.”



I’d like to look at this, and review what I have actually been saying, to see if it fits the “bizarre” bill you allege. But first, this exchange, where KMK questions why Jesus would not have used the Hebrew to quote from:

KMK: “Why would He do that when He essentially wrote the Hebrew? Why not quote from His own writings”

Tim: “And the answer is they didn't speak Hebrew. They spoke Aramaic. Read this from Isaiah 36:11: 



> Then Eliakim, Shebna and Joah said to the field commander, ‘Please speak to your servants in Aramaic, since we understand it. Don't speak to us in Hebrew in the hearing of the people on the wall.’



Palestinian Aramaic had many Hebrew words etc.. just like Yiddish has many Hebrew words. The Jews in eastern Europe in the last century spoke Yiddish, which is a dialect of German. Those Jews didn't understand Hebrew any more than the average Jew understood Hebrew during the time of Christ.”​
Tim, you err here. The reason Eliakim & co. asked Rabshakeh to speak in “the Syrian language” (Aramaic) and *not* in “the language of the Jews” (Hebrew), was not that the “men on the wall” didn’t understand Hebrew, but rather that they did, which Rabshakeh sought to capitalize on when he disparaged Hezekiah and hoped to terrify the soldiers and all listening with the promise of their coming doom. Eliakin wanted to spare the men from hearing such things in their own language – the Hebrew.

------

Yes, Edersheim is not one I would choose to support my view of the Septuagint, as he would be a witness on your side. But he was pertinent about the use of Greek to the rulers of Israel in the quote I used. The which I would like to look at some more.

Tim, you said,

There is not one person on this board with an advanced theology or relevant language degree who thinks Christ typically quoted Hebrew OT Scriptures when he was speaking to the masses.​
Let’s look at this. Two points I would like to make: 1) Often Jesus spoke to the rulers, priests, and Pharisees _in the presence and hearing of the masses_. It was from fear of the masses that the Pharisees and priests refrained from seizing Him on a number of occasions. Now when the Lord was disputing with the rulers, He must needs have done this in the Hebrew language, particularly when quoting the Scripture. Jesus was a hero in the eyes of the common people, for He dared to withstand the corrupt temple priests, and often rebuked the contemptuous Pharisees in their hearing, using Scripture. Seeing as only the Hebrew Scriptures were acknowledged as authoritative in Jerusalem and Judea, the burden of proof is on you if you allege He used the Greek (even in a running translation) in these exchanges. Many are the claims made in a court of law, but only those with substantial evidence win the day.

2) The claim that Palestinian Jewry in the time of Christ could not speak Hebrew has been seriously challenged. I quote from Thomas Holland’s, _Crowned With Glory_, chapter 6, “Oracle of the Jews”:

For years it had been thought that the Bible Christ used was the Greek Septuagint (also known as the LXX). The common thought was that the Jews at the time of Christ had all but lost their use of Hebrew since the international language of that day was Greek. However, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (which will be discussed in greater detail in the following chapter), it has been established that the Jews did not lose their use of Hebrew. In fact, most of their writings (both sacred and secular) were written in Hebrew.

Alan Millard, Professor of Hebrew and Ancient Semitic Languages at the University of Liverpool, England, observed that for years scholars believed Hebrew was limited to religious usage during the time of Christ. But from the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and books written in common Hebrew among them, it can now be established that a form of Hebrew, like the Hebrew used in the Old Testament yet distinct in form, was in use during the time of Christ and the apostles.* This confirms what we find in the Gospels concerning the Hebrew Old Testament used by Christ. Jesus proclaimed; “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matthew 5:18). It is interesting that Christ used the words _jot_ and _tittle_ which are Hebrew letters, not Greek. Additionally, Jesus states in Luke 11:51; “From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zecharias,” attesting to the Hebrew order of Scripture. The placement of Old Testament books are different in the Jewish order, ending with 2 Chronicles and not Malachi. In 2 Chronicles 24:21 we are told of the stoning of faithful Zechariah, and Christ’s statement not only spoke of the martyrdom of Old Testament saints, but marks the limit of the Hebrew order: from the beginning (Genesis) to the end (2 Chronicles). (pp. 111, 112)

* Alan Millard, _Discoveries from the Time of Jesus_, (Oxford: Lion, 1990), 35.​
-------

Now what is the “bizarre thinking” you allege I inculcate? Let me count the ways.

I uphold the Traditional Text, and in particular the Textus Receptus Greek and Masoretic Hebrew.

I appreciate the scholarship of some Independent Fundamentalist Baptists as regards the Textual histories of the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, as well as Presbyterians, Reformed, Anglicans, Methodists, Reformed Baptists, and others. In this area I have found the IFBs outstanding.

I have posted views concerning the Septuagint which range from those who say there is no evidence whatever for the existence of a pre-Christ or Christ-contemporary Septuagint, to those who say there were Old Testament portions, particularly the Pentateuch, but they are not to be confused with – or identified as – the text known today at the Septuagint.

The term “Septuagint” means that Greek translation by “the Seventy” of legend (for there is no historical basis to assert their actual existence or the LXX allegedly produced by them). So, technically, when one says there was no Septuagint or LXX before the time of Christ, this is accurate. Now, if one were to say, there were Scriptures translated from the Hebrew into the Greek, for there is some little attestation for that, that could be accepted. But to call them the Septuagint is a misnomer.

I have asserted that Christ did not use the Greek translation when He quoted Scripture, but rather used the Hebrew. In particular I denied his using the LXX’s version of Isaiah 6 when he quoted from Isaiah in Matthew 13:14, 15.

I have stated, in the company of others, including John Owen, that the exact reproductions of NT phrases found in the LXX were replicated in this latter by “Christian” (or Christian era) scribes, and were not taken from the LXX and put into the NT – rather the reverse.

I have said that Jesus did not speak Greek (or use a Greek translation) when quoting Scripture to His countrymen and women.

Are any of these things properly called “bizarre” – or as you earlier typed my style (post #41) “rhetorical games”? I do not think this would pass as civil discourse even in the secular realm of discussion.

No doubt some of my view are controversial, but then the Presbyterian and Reformed soteriology is controversial in the larger Christian camp. We cannot avoid controversy if we take a stand for particular views. What we _can_ avoid, however, is a contemptuous, defaming tongue, for we then belie the Spirit of grace who lives within us, and is our life.

Here on PB many doctrinal positions are represented – and some quite opposed to one another, such as the paedo-credo – and yet we seek to adorn the Gospel we say we live by with mild and respectful spirits. Yes, we may argue our points vigorously, but all who are born from above shall be our fellows in an untold wondrous eternity of friendship in the presence of our King, and we are told to begin that life of love here, and now.

So please, ease up a little. I may be wrong in some things I say, and if I cannot be corrected of such in this life, then the Lord will correct me when I stand before Him – along with all others who presume to teach (James 3:1) – on that great Day of Reckoning. For now, we are to help one another as we all traverse this wicked world (with wicked hearts of our own!) on our way to the Land of Glory.

Let's end this significant discussion graciously, cleansed by the blood of the Lamb. Thanks for your stimulating opposition. I have been bettered by it, and have seen some areas where I need further study.

Steve


----------



## TimV

> Tim, you err here. The reason Eliakim & co. asked Rabshakeh to speak in “the Syrian language” (Aramaic) and not in “the language of the Jews” (Hebrew), was not that the “men on the wall” didn’t understand Hebrew, but rather that they did, which Rabshakeh sought to capitalize on when he disparaged Hezekiah and hoped to terrify the soldiers and all listening with the promise of their coming doom. Eliakin wanted to spare the men from hearing such things in their own language – the Hebrew.



No, Steve, I do not err. You are not following the argument. Both Ken and Backwoods thought that it was obvious that Christ spoke to the masses in Hebrew, and the whole point of the quote was to show that Aramaic was not and is not a dialect of Hebrew. I believe at least Ken got it. The overwhelming opinion of both religious and secular thought has always been that Christ generally did not address crowds in Hebrew, so He in the very nature of things translated the Scriptures into the language of the audience, as do we today whenever we post Scripture in English.




> Yes, Edersheim is not one I would choose to support my view of the Septuagint, as he would be a witness on your side.






> For years it had been thought that the Bible Christ used was the Greek Septuagint (also known as the LXX).






> The term “Septuagint” means that Greek translation by “the Seventy” of legend (for there is no historical basis to assert their actual existence or the LXX allegedly produced by them).





> No doubt some of my view are controversial, but then the Presbyterian and Reformed soteriology is controversial in the larger Christian camp.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Tim, 

I understand this: you said of the people on the wall,

"Those Jews didn't understand Hebrew any more than the average Jew understood Hebrew during the time of Christ."​
But they did understand it. And what of the findings from the Dead Sea Scrolls that show the Palestinian Jews of Christ's time _did_ know far more Hebrew than had previously been thought?

The use of Aramaic is another issue; the primary issue was concerning the Greek.

I stand by my saying Jesus did not use the Greek Old Testament when quoting Isaiah 6 in Matthew 13, but quoted it loosely from the Hebrew as the Spirit of God led Him.

I will let those reading our exchanges determine for themselves whose presentation of historical and textual data is most credible.


----------



## Pilgrim

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Let's end this significant discussion graciously, cleansed by the blood of the Lamb. Thanks for your stimulating opposition. I have been bettered by it, and have seen some areas where I need further study.





Jerusalem Blade said:


> I will let those reading our exchanges determine for themselves whose presentation of historical and textual data is most credible.



Agreed. I think this one's about outlived its useful lifespan and it went off topic a long time ago.


----------

