# MT, LXX and Dead Sea Scrolls



## Tom Hart (Feb 22, 2019)

Someone posted in another thread to say that we do not need the LXX or the Dead Sea Scrolls to "correct" the MT.

Why not? Why should the MT be assumed to be the only correct version? After all, it is certainly not the original.

The question might be simple, or maybe the answer is obvious. My ignorance of textual issues is showing here.

I would appreciate replies from all perspectives.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 22, 2019)

I'll take a stab. There are places where the MT isn't really clear. Looking at the DSS or the LXX can shed light on it, even if you stay with the MT reading.

I will say this by way of clarification (since everyone from Eastern Orthodox to Bart Ehrman uses this argument). When you hear about a textual tradition having "corruptions," it doesn't that the Jews nefariously deleted Isaiah 53. Corruptions can be anything from a tattered scroll to revocalizing the vowels to give a different word to doubling a letter, etc.

Same thing happens with the LXX or the NT.


----------



## JimmyH (Feb 22, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I'll take a stab. There are places where the MT isn't really clear. Looking at the DSS or the LXX can shed light on it, even if you stay with the MT reading.
> 
> I will say this by way of clarification (since everyone from Eastern Orthodox to Bart Ehrman uses this argument). When you hear about a textual tradition having "corruptions," it doesn't that the Jews nefariously deleted Isaiah 53. Corruptions can be anything from a tattered scroll to revocalizing the vowels to give a different word to doubling a letter, etc.
> 
> Same thing happens with the LXX or the NT.


I understand that, what I'd like to know ... is whether there is any merit to the genealogy questions raised in the video that Perg posted here ? A few days ago I reviewed the video absent Perg's thread, and forgetting where I'd first heard of it (I'm getting old) I posted a duplicate thread, more or less. The LXX coming from an older Hebrew OT manuscript differs from the MT in some critical dating. Was there a conspiracy between the Masoretes and the scribes to deny the deity of Christ ? Did Shem live long enough to meet Abram, or did the scribes delete 100 years off of the ages of Noah's descendants ? Or ... is there nothing to the speculations ?


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 22, 2019)

JimmyH said:


> Was there a conspiracy between the Masoretes and the scribes to deny the deity of Christ ?



Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't. No one has shown evidence of "covering up." It's unlikely, though. The Masoretes had the entire bible memorized. Traditional communities are very loathe to change the script.

Now, Jews did stop using the LXX because Christians were using it.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Feb 22, 2019)

JimmyH said:


> Was there a conspiracy between the Masoretes and the scribes to deny the deity of Christ?



I'm not convinced there was a conspiracy, but I don't see just why we should trust 11th-century Jews to have the only correct manuscript.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Feb 22, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> I'm not convinced there was a conspiracy, but I don't see just why we should trust 11th-century Jews to have the only correct manuscript.



Indeed, and post 33 AD I don't see why we would trust _any_ non-Christians to faithfully preserve _any _manuscripts of Holy Scripture.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 22, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> I'm not convinced there was a conspiracy, but I don't see just why we should trust 11th-century Jews to have the only correct manuscript.



That's about right. Here is the way I look at it:
1) The Masoretes have a Hebrew text that is remarkably well-attested when compared with Syriac and Greek.
2) The final product, however, is quite late.
3) As Christians we need all three traditions.

This is only a problem if we have a Platonic view of inspiration/inerrancy where God downloads information from "heaven" to our heads. If that's one's view of inspiration, and then we try to tie it to a providential preserving of the words in a manuscript copy, then it's pretty easy (if not inevitable) to lose inerrancy.


----------



## Tom Hart (Feb 25, 2019)

I'd appreciate a pro-MT perspective. If I've got something wrong, please point it out to me.


----------



## KMK (Feb 25, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> I'm not convinced there was a conspiracy, but I don't see just why *we* should trust 11th-century Jews to have the only correct manuscript.





SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Indeed, and post 33 AD I don't see why *we* would trust _any_ non-Christians to faithfully preserve _any _manuscripts of Holy Scripture.





BayouHuguenot said:


> That's about right. Here is the way I look at it:
> 1) The Masoretes have a Hebrew text that is remarkably well-attested when compared with Syriac and Greek.
> 2) The final product, however, is quite late.
> 3) *As Christians* we need all three traditions.



For clarification, the 'we' to which you all refer is confessing Christians? Or humanity in general? Or the church? Or true believers?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Charles Johnson (Feb 26, 2019)

The MT as represented by the Aleppo and Leningrad codices should be taken as the normative text because the high level of disruption in Western Jewish communities led to a greater variety of textual variants and the age those codices as well as the meticulous care taken in their copying mean that they are exceptionally pure. OT textual criticism consists entirely of correcting the Western manuscripts based on these codices. Now I think it's sufficiently obvious that a translation is by nature subject to a far greater degree of error than an original manuscript, so it should only be used in place of an original language if the original is highly corrupted or non-existent - a condition which in no way relates to the biblical text, which is easily the best-preserved text in the history of the world. So that's why we should use the MT and not the Septuagint - though as another said, the Septuagint, Vulgate, etc are fine when considered as commentaries and one wants to see what reading of the text others have taken.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Feb 26, 2019)

KMK said:


> For clarification, the 'we' to which you all refer is confessing Christians? Or humanity in general? Or the church? Or true believers?



I had in mind mainly me and my cousin Toby.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 26, 2019)

KMK said:


> For clarification, the 'we' to which you all refer is confessing Christians? Or humanity in general? Or the church? Or true believers?



I meant conservative Christians who do textual work


----------



## KMK (Feb 26, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I meant conservative Christians who do textual work



Thank you for this helpful clarification.

So, the OP should be understood as saying, "Someone posted in another thread to say that we [conservative Christians who do textual work] do not need the LXX or the Dead Sea Scrolls to "correct" the MT."

Am I understanding this correctly?


----------



## Tom Hart (Feb 27, 2019)

KMK said:


> Thank you for this helpful clarification.
> 
> So, the OP should be understood as saying, "Someone posted in another thread to say that we [conservative Christians who do textual work] do not need the LXX or the Dead Sea Scrolls to "correct" the MT."
> 
> Am I understanding this correctly?



I suppose that will do.


----------



## Eoghan (Feb 27, 2019)

As I understand it the MT was painfully copied as Charles Johnson posted. The scrolls from which they were copied were not preserved but buried. This means that while they are faithful copies of the original text from antiquity they are dated from when they were produced. 
Imagine a 12th printing of a textbook being corrected by a translation of the original into Russian. The Russian translation may indeed be older than a 12th edition in English but it ignores the process of translation and discounts the fidelity of the 12th edition to the 1st. 
As you may guess I am not a fan of the LXX and view it with the same scepticism as the Living Bible or the Message (the latter is maybe a wee bit unfair).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## iainduguid (Feb 27, 2019)

Eoghan said:


> As I understand it the MT was painfully copied as Charles Johnson posted. The scrolls from which they were copied were not preserved but buried. This means that while they are faithful copies of the original text from antiquity they are dated from when they were produced.
> Imagine a 12th printing of a textbook being corrected by a translation of the original into Russian. The Russian translation may indeed be older than a 12th edition in English but it ignores the process of translation and discounts the fidelity of the 12th edition to the 1st.
> As you may guess I am not a fan of the LXX and view it with the same scepticism as the Living Bible or the Message (the latter is maybe a wee bit unfair).


Eoghan,
Your analogy doesn't really work, since what we have are a diversity of conflicting copies of the textbook (not throughout, for the textbook has been remarkably well copied, but it is a long and complex work and there are places of disagreement). And we are interested not merely in Russian or English but in translating the textbook into a third language. The question is a) may we use the Russian translation to aid us in choosing between diversity in our English copies and to help extensively with our translation work? Clearly the translators of the KJV thought we could. If you don't agree with this, you don't currently have any Bible in English (or probably any other language apart from Hebrew) that meets your standards. 

The more controversial question (in terms of this exchange) is whether you can ever use the Russian translation (which you have used so widely elsewhere) as a witness to an alternative English tradition, to take its place among the wider English manuscript tradition of your textbook. It's not an issue of public versus private preservation, since your Russian translation has been available to you throughout your history. It's a view about whether God preserved his Word solely in copies made one language, or potentially in copies of that original language text made in multiple languages.

These are complex questions, and Reformed confessional folk have historically come to different conclusions about them. The Septuagint translation varies widely in different books - the Pentateuch is much more NASB than NLT. There are places where the Septuagint is more Targum than translation. There are places where the Septuagint is clearly guessing as to the meaning of an obscure word, where the KJV has followed it (for want of better alternatives), but now with the help of other ancient languages we can translate the words better. There are similar complex questions surrounding the origins of the written vowel points in the Masoretic tradition, and whether Adam and Eve spoke Hebrew (as we now have it). 

Again, we shouldn't overblow the issue: if you scan through the footnotes of modern English translations, you'll see most of the places where they have preferred a Septuagint reading, and how little difference it makes overall. It's probably a couple of hundred places in the whole OT. The Word of God has been remarkably preserved in his providence, and we may have confidence not only that we have an accurate understanding of the original Hebrew texts but that our English Bibles are also the Word of God.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 27, 2019)

KMK said:


> Thank you for this helpful clarification.
> 
> So, the OP should be understood as saying, "Someone posted in another thread to say that we [conservative Christians who do textual work] do not need the LXX or the Dead Sea Scrolls to "correct" the MT."
> 
> Am I understanding this correctly?



Correct.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 27, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> Someone posted in another thread to say that we do not need the LXX or the Dead Sea Scrolls to "correct" the MT.


Can you provide a link to where that someone said that?


----------



## Tom Hart (Feb 27, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Can you provide a link to where that someone said that?



https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...ion-of-tr-tradition.97375/page-7#post-1190691

The user is @Jerusalem Blade. He has been engaging with the question in the other thread.

_"It is not sound to correct the Hebrew by the Septuagint. Even as we do not correct the Greek by the English!"_​

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JimmyH (Feb 27, 2019)

> ="iainduguid, post: 1191327,
> 
> Again, we shouldn't overblow the issue: if you scan through the footnotes of modern English translations, you'll see most of the places where they have preferred a Septuagint reading, and how little difference it makes overall. It's probably a couple of hundred places in the whole OT. The Word of God has been remarkably preserved in his providence, and we may have confidence not only that we have an accurate understanding of the original Hebrew texts but that our English Bibles are also the Word of God.


Dr Duguid, I had quoted a previous post in hopes of getting a reply from you concerning the controversy over genealogies in Genesis 5-11 between the MT and the Septuagint here. If the Septuagint is correct Shem didn't live long enough to meet Abram. Wondered, you being a scholar in the languages if you have an opinion on which is possibly correct. Thanks in advance.


----------



## iainduguid (Feb 27, 2019)

JimmyH said:


> Dr Duguid, I had quoted a previous post in hopes of getting a reply from you concerning the controversy over genealogies in Genesis 5-11 between the MT and the Septuagint here. If the Septuagint is correct Shem didn't live long enough to meet Abram. Wondered, you being a scholar in the languages if you have an opinion on which is possibly correct. Thanks in advance.


Hi Jimmy,
I haven't studied the issue enough to have an opinion on it. There are actually three different chronologies: MT, LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch, and the issues are complex. Here is one scholarly argument in favor of the LXX. But there are are also issues with the LXX dates which lead other scholars to defend the MT.

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/file.axd?file=2018/7/14+Smith+Septuagint+Chronology+final.pdf

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## KMK (Feb 27, 2019)

iainduguid said:


> The Word of God has been remarkably preserved in his providence, and *we* may have confidence not only that *we* have an accurate understanding of the original Hebrew texts but that our English Bibles are also the Word of God.



By 'we', you are referring to all English speaking Christians, correct? In other words,, all English speaking Christians may have confidence that our English Bibles are the Word of God, in spite of differences about the use of the LXX among conservative Christians who do textual work.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 27, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...ion-of-tr-tradition.97375/page-7#post-1190691
> 
> The user is @Jerusalem Blade. He has been engaging with the question in the other thread.
> 
> _"It is not sound to correct the Hebrew by the Septuagint. Even as we do not correct the Greek by the English!"_​


Thanks. I just wanted to see the context, as I’m still learning about the issues too. I do agree with the statement.


----------



## iainduguid (Feb 27, 2019)

KMK said:


> By 'we', you are referring to all English speaking Christians, correct? In other words,, all English speaking Christians may have confidence that our English Bibles are the Word of God, in spite of differences about the use of the LXX among conservative Christians who do textual work.


Yes. Not just "experts"


----------



## Eoghan (Feb 27, 2019)

iainduguid said:


> Eoghan,
> Your analogy doesn't really work, since what we have are a diversity of conflicting copies of the textbook (not throughout, for the textbook has been remarkably well copied, but it is a long and complex work and there are places of disagreement). And we are interested not merely in Russian or English but in translating the textbook into a third language. The question is a) may we use the Russian translation to aid us in choosing between diversity in our English copies and to help extensively with our translation work? Clearly the translators of the KJV thought we could. If you don't agree with this, you don't currently have any Bible in English (or probably any other language apart from Hebrew) that meets your standards.
> 
> The more controversial question (in terms of this exchange) is whether you can ever use the Russian translation (which you have used so widely elsewhere) as a witness to an alternative English tradition, to take its place among the wider English manuscript tradition of your textbook. It's not an issue of public versus private preservation, since your Russian translation has been available to you throughout your history. It's a view about whether God preserved his Word solely in copies made one language, or potentially in copies of that original language text made in multiple languages.
> ...




Currently engaged in studying the Psalms I discovered that the LXX has more headings than the MT. I would dismiss the LXX additions and assume the MT maintained the original number of headings/introductions. As you hinted at athe LXX is not in fact one single translation but is perhaps better called a collection of Greek translations which accumulated over time? Would you agree?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Feb 28, 2019)

Many conservative Reformed Christians who hold to exclusive psalmody point to Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 as verses that provide the foundation for their position. The argument goes that the wording ("psalms, hymns and songs") is from the Septuagint. I agree. I think the case is convincing. Those words, going back to before the time of Christ, were the words that believers used to speak of the psalms for centuries. Greek words, drawn from a Greek translation. I have heard those words are used to refer to the psalms in the writings of Clement of Alexandria and Athanasius, among others.

There are other places in the New Testament where the Septuagint is referred to and quoted. As that's the case, it strikes me as rather incongruous that, according to some, the Septuagint must be wholly rejected in issues of textual criticism. Why, if the Septuagint was for the Apostles good enough to quote, must we in our time entirely discard it?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Tom Hart (Feb 28, 2019)

And before anyone asks, by "we" I mean "Christians who engage in textual work".

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 28, 2019)

That’s a good question Tom. Many defenders of EP point to the fact that the Psalms are labeled thus in Greek texts (as I have done) but in these discussions we’ve been having on PB I’ve realized more of the complexity of the issue with the LXX. Here’s a quote from an old PB thread from MW (Matthew Winzer): 

“The argument [re EP] does not depend on the "LXX." The "LXX," as a Greek translation of the Old Testament, is consulted in order to understand the usus loquendi of the terms utilised in the New Testament, and to gain an understanding of what these terms denoted and connoted for Greek speaking people of that time. Anyone who regularly consults technical commentaries will see this is an acceptable use of ancient Greek translations of the Old Testament. Nothing out of the ordinary is taking place.”

The LXX is regarded as many other ancient texts as worthy of consultation, but not correction. Also about the LXX, it’s commonly mistakenly believed to have existed in some solid form that we still have today, but that’s an assumption not based on any data available. Which is why Rev. Winzer puts that title in quotes. Consider the fantastical story of the LXX’s creation, which gives it its name. What they did have at the time of Christ and the apostles were Greek texts of the Hebrew Bible.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Tom Hart (Feb 28, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Here’s a quote from an old PB thread from MW (Matthew Winzer):
> 
> “The argument [re EP] does not depend on the "LXX." The "LXX," as a Greek translation of the Old Testament, is consulted in order to understand the usus loquendi of the terms utilised in the New Testament, and to gain an understanding of what these terms denoted and connoted for Greek speaking people of that time. Anyone who regularly consults technical commentaries will see this is an acceptable use of ancient Greek translations of the Old Testament. Nothing out of the ordinary is taking place.”
> 
> The LXX is regarded as many other ancient texts as worthy of consultation, but not correction. Also about the LXX, it’s commonly mistakenly believed to have existed in some solid form that we still have today, but that’s an assumption not based on any data available. Which is why Rev. Winzer puts that title in quotes. Consider the fantastical story of the LXX’s creation, which gives it its name. What they did have at the time of Christ and the apostles were Greek texts of the Hebrew Bible.



Interesting. Basically, "psalms, hymns and songs", while terms used in the LXX, were just the familiar terms used at the time. So there's nothing here that should lead us to think that the LXX therefore has some authority anywhere on the same level as the Hebrew Scriptures.

Hmm. That's not quite satisfying. I'll chew on it for a bit.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 28, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> "psalms, hymns and songs", while terms used in the LXX, were just the familiar terms used at the time.


Yes, as Matthew 26:30 helps make clear.


----------



## Tom Hart (Feb 28, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Yes, as Matthew 26:30 helps make clear.



There's a difference here, I think. It is one thing to use a common word -- no doubt "psalm", "hymn" and "song" were all common words then as they are now -- but Paul in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 is using a specific formula, three words together.

As I pointed out, many theologians have said that this is very intentionally reflectibe of the language of the Septuagint, in particular the headings of the psalms themselves. Would you disagree?


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 28, 2019)

I was just pointing out another place in the Scripture that the use of old Greek texts helped confirm that ‘hymn’ was familiar to readers as alluding to the Psalms. Same as in in the Eph and Colossians passages. 

While you’re chewing, and if you’re interested, here’s another old thread that addresses NT quotes said to be from the LXX. 
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/do-nt-authors-quote-the-lxx.55489/ I haven’t read through all of it. Again, my conviction is that in the end this is a theological issue, as are issues involving young earth vs old earth. I guess arguments and claims involving data could go on and on endlessly.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## iainduguid (Feb 28, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Yes, as Matthew 26:30 helps make clear.


It's not quite that clear, as 1 Kings 4:32 demonstrates...

(and Ex 15:1; Deut 31:19; Judges 5:12; etc...)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Feb 28, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I was just pointing out another place in the Scripture that the use of old Greek texts helped confirm that ‘hymn’ was familiar to readers as alluding to the Psalms. Same as in in the Eph and Colossians passages.



Naturally the words were familiar to people in their language, just as the same words are familiar to us in ours. But is it a formulaic reference to the Septuagint, or is it Paul's own formula?


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 28, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> Naturally the words were familiar to people in their language, just as the same words are familiar to us in ours. But is it a formulaic reference to the Septuagint, or is it Paul's own formula?


I don’t know of any reason to believe it’s the former or how it could be proved. So Paul’s own, why not say.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 28, 2019)

iainduguid said:


> It's not quite that clear, as 1 Kings 4:32 demonstrates...
> 
> (and Ex 15:1; Deut 31:19; Judges 5:12; etc...)


Reverend Duguid I’m not quite following you.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 28, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Reverend Duguid I’m not quite following you.



I don't have my copy of the LXX at hand, but I think that the word "hymn" is used with those non-psalter songs.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 28, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I don't have my copy of the LXX at hand, but I think that the word "hymn" is used with those non-psalter songs.


Oh ok. I don't see that fact affecting that "a Greek translation of the Old Testament, is consulted in order to understand the usus loquendi of the terms utilised in the New Testament."
I'm still not sure what you're seeing as a problem, but in case it has to do with any argument affecting EP, I'd say that other inspired songs in Scripture being called "hymns" wouldn't make any difference as far as "hymn" referring to the Psalms. These were hymns not included in the Psalter. The defense of keeping only to that collection of songs in corporate worship rests on the purpose of the Psalter.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 28, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I'm still not sure what you're seeing as a problem,



I didn't say anything about a problem. Your post seemed to say that hymn = psalm; our use of the LXX showed that hymn can be used of something other than a psalm.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 28, 2019)

I was addressing Dr. Duguid, sorry; he intimated that inspired songs outside the Psalter being called hymns presented an argument (a problem) to my previous post. I'm still not sure in what way until he clarifies.

Yes, hymn was used as a name for other inspired songs as well as songs included in the Psalter.


----------



## Tom Hart (Feb 28, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I don’t know of any reason to believe it’s the former or how it could be proved. So Paul’s own, why not say.



It is in the Book of Psalms in the Septuagint that we find the terms "psalm", "hymn" and "song" to refer to the psalms themselves.

If Paul was using ordinary words to describe the psalms, and not overtly making reference to the Greek translation, do you not then think the case for exclusive psalmody from those verses is thus significantly weakened? After all, the Apostle might be speaking of ordinary "hymns" and "songs".

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Mar 1, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> It is in the Book of Psalms in the Septuagint that we find the terms "psalm", "hymn" and "song" to refer to the psalms themselves.
> 
> If Paul was using ordinary words to describe the psalms, and not overtly making reference to the Greek translation, do you not then think the case for exclusive psalmody from those verses is thus significantly weakened? After all, the Apostle might be speaking of ordinary "hymns" and "songs".


Assuming their Greek psalters did contain the same superscriptions as the present LXX has, then perhaps Paul could be referencing that; I don't really know enough to be able to say much about it. But it's unknown as to whether that was the case. Matthew 26:30 and Mark 14:26 simply use hymnos, with the reader expected to understand it as being a Psalm, so hymnos to Greek-speaking Christians must not have been just an ordinary word.

I don't think it weakens the case for EP if it's not claimed as fact that Paul is overtly referring to or quoting the Greek Bible of the time, because in the end "the exclusive aspect of the EP argument depends entirely on the restrictive nature of the regulative principle." The argument can be made by way of the RPW and in other ways that Paul is referring to inspired song only in Ephesians and Colossians.


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 1, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Assuming their Greek psalters did contain the same superscriptions as the present LXX has, then perhaps Paul could be referencing that; I don't really know enough to be able to say much about it. But it's unknown as to whether that was the case. Matthew 26:30 and Mark 14:26 simply use hymnos, with the reader expected to understand it as being a Psalm, so hymnos to Greek-speaking Christians must not have been just an ordinary word.
> 
> I don't think it weakens the case for EP if it's not claimed as fact that Paul is overtly referring to or quoting the Greek Bible of the time, because in the end "the exclusive aspect of the EP argument depends entirely on the restrictive nature of the regulative principle." The argument can be made by way of the RPW and in other ways that Paul is referring to inspired song only in Ephesians and Colossians.



OK, then. Paul need not be referring to the Septuagint. Then exclusive psalmody cannot come close to being settled by those verses. You can go that route if you like, but I find the reasoning lacking.

You have been saying, essentially, that the LXX as it is known to us is not known to have existed in the time of Christ and the apostles. Yet Christ and the apostles quote it. So do numerous writers of the early Church. In addition, as I have read, the Jews Philo and Josephus refer to it.

In Luke 4, Luke quotes the Septuagint. That doesn't mean that the Septuagint is what Jesus read in the the synagogue. It does suggest, however, that Luke's audience would have been familiar with the Septuagint. At the very least, Luke himself was familiar with it. Paul's audience's probable familiarity with the Septuagint Psalms is the basis for the claim that Paul was referencing the Septuagint when he wrote the words "psalms, hymns and spiritual songs". After all, Paul quotes the Septuagint elsewhere. Certainly, if Paul did not regard the Septuagint as in any sense authoritative, he could have substituted his own translation every time. In fact, he follows the Septuagint Psalms several times in the third chapter of Romans alone. (See Romans 3:4,12,13 and compare them to the Septuagint's Psalms 51:4, 14:3, 5:9, 140:3.)

Do you have any sources that suggest that the LXX was incomplete in the days of the writing of the New Testament? Were the NT authors quoting only sections of an incomplete collection? I think your assertions demand firm support.

[Edited for spelling and clarity and to correct a factual error.]

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Mar 1, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> You have been saying, essentially, that the LXX as it is known to us is not known to have existed in the time of Christ and the apostles. Yet Christ and the apostles quote it. So do numerous writers of the early Church. In addition, as I have read, the Jews Philo and Josephus refer to it.
> 
> In Luke 4, Luke quotes the Septuagint. That doesn't mean that the Septuagint is what Jesus read in the the synagogue. It does suggest, however, that Luke's audience would have been familiar with the Septuagint. At the very least, Luke himself was familiar with it. Paul's audience's probable familiarity with the Septuagint Psalms is the basis for the claim that Paul was referencing the Septuagint when he wrote the words "psalms, hymns and spiritual songs". After all, Paul quotes the Septuagint elsewhere. Certainly, if Paul did not regard the Septuagint as in any sense authoritative, he could have substituted his own translation every time. In fact, he follows the Septuagint Psalms several times in the third chapter of Romans alone. (See Romans 3:4,12,13 and compare them to the Septuagint's Psalms 51:4, 14:3, 5:9, 140:3.)
> 
> ...


I was assuming that you had probably read some about the issues with the Septuagint in these threads, since you have a keen interest in it. (Steve, aka Jerusalem Blade, has provided some information and links in some of his posts). There was a Greek Bible in the days of Christ and the apostles but it can’t be said that it was identical to the LXX available to us today. See the thread I link to below for information.

The LXX needs to be thought of and spoken of in more nuanced ways. I just want to be accurate when speaking about the LXX, and its history is more complex than I thought. I put a link below to some discussion on that, previously posted by Steve, just to get you started. My convictions about how God preserved and kept his word pure through the ages, and about what happened in reforming times with the selections of manuscripts to produce the Protestant Bible, are what spurred me to look into the position that the LXX and Dead Sea Scrolls cannot be used to correct the MS. I don't claim that the NT authors never speak with reference to the Greek texts they may have had; there are and have been varying views on the matter. But if they did, it doesn't mean that the Septuagint (or the Assumption of Moses!) were considered by Christ or the apostles to be on a par with the canon of Scripture.

I can’t speak knowledgeably to all the issues but I have grasped that issues with the LXX need to be understood for the very reason that your OP suggests- there is a (modern) widespread belief that the Septuagint and Dead Sea scrolls are on a par with the MT and should be consulted for correcting it. Steve posted this link: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/do-nt-authors-quote-the-lxx.55489/ (A lot to wade through but if you'll carefully read posts by those defending the TR position you'll learn some of what needs to be researched.) 

I'll close with this: those who hold to the TR position ultimately receive the texts handed down to us from the Reformation by faith as being the texts God has preserved pure through the ages. There are reasons for that which I can talk a little more intelligibly about. I love this doctrine (it comes from Scripture first, not our confession) with all my heart, find great hope, joy, and assurance in it. Just as I first did when I realized that in spite of the majority evangelical view about the age of the earth (and thus death before the fall), and all the overwhelming data and proofs brought forth to 'prove' it, I could rest in God's testimony about his creating the world in 6 days. I realize good and Godly people who love God's word disagree. Some day we'll all have a clearer sight!


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Mar 1, 2019)

Here's another brief discussion I came across of the LXX. https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/21872/what-are-the-oldest-copies-we-have-of-lxx

And with that I have to bow out of discussing it! I'm not the best spokesman with the best grasp of the issues surrounding the LXX or the Dead Sea Scrolls. If I come across anything else in the near future I'll post it.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 1, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I'll close with this: those who hold to the TR position ultimately receive the texts handed down to us from the Reformation by faith as being the texts God has preserved pure through the ages.



And all we are saying is show us these Hebrew texts. They aren't the Masoretic text (at least not for the fathers before the Middle Ages). Further, the LXX is a witness to these earlier Hebrew texts.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Mar 1, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> And all we are saying is show us these Hebrew texts. They aren't the Masoretic text (at least not for the fathers before the Middle Ages). Further, the LXX is a witness to these earlier Hebrew texts.


Jacob, I personally don’t know enough to answer your “show me” question but others do and have, I’m quite sure. But what happened beginning with Erasmus is a traceable history. The Reformation brought together the texts preserved pure, so that we could have in our hands the complete, inerrant word of God. The LXX is what it is, and is useful for what it’s useful for.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 1, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Jacob, I personally don’t know enough to answer your “show me” question but others do and have, I’m quite sure.



No. They haven't. They know that. That's why the question is always, "Show us this existing Hebrew manuscript predating the Masoretes."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Mar 1, 2019)

I have an honest question that has crossed my mind. Moderators please delete if too off topic. Following the logic of the TR only, Why did we need the KJV if we already had the Geneva Bible (pure in all ages)? I am not being sarcastic or hiding my intent. Honest question? Why can the logic being used to defend the 1611 KJV not be used to reject it and defend the Geneva? If you say the KJV updated the Geneva, why reject the use of NKJV over the KJV? I apologize in advance if my ignorance is showing. Humbly trying to learn and be logically consistent.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Mar 1, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> No. They haven't. They know that. That's why the question is always, "Show us this existing Hebrew manuscript predating the Masoretes."


I’m sure the answer doesn’t have to be, Oh sure here it is. The answer is going to be as complex as this whole issue on both sides where data is concerned. In your demand I think you’re begging the question.


----------



## JimmyH (Mar 1, 2019)

In regard to the rabbit trail this thread has taken ... EP .;. I am not for it, nor against it. I am a member of the OPC. The OPC just finished a project of years in compiling and publishing a new Trinity Psalter Hymnal. The chairman of the Special Committee on the Psalter-Hymnal, the Rev. Dr. Alan D. Strange, is a respected member of this board.

What bothers me about what I see as a continuing argument for EP on this board, is the denomination I belong to sings Psalms AND Hymns. Is the OPC, and the majority of other Presbyterian and Reformed Churches out of sync with the RPW ? Is it unscriptural for the OPC, and other denominations to sing both inspired and uninspired 'Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual songs' ? 

I'm not looking for a fight. By now I know who the advocates of EP are on this board, and I regard them as brothers and sisters in Christ. I'm just weary of feeling convicted of a practice of worship that I, and the majority of Reformed congregations are locked into. I don't think 'we' are wrong, but the continuing controversy leaves seeds of doubt. 

Below see a Google map of all of the practic

 ing EP churches in North America ;


----------



## Smeagol (Mar 1, 2019)

JimmyH said:


> In regard to the rabbit trail this thread has taken ... EP .;. I am not for it, nor against it. I am a member of the OPC. The OPC just finished a project of years in compiling and publishing a new Trinity Psalter Hymnal. The chairman of the Special Committee on the Psalter-Hymnal, the Rev. Dr. Alan D. Strange, is a respected member of this board.
> 
> What bothers me about what I see as a continuing argument for EP on this board, is the denomination I belong to sings Psalms AND Hymns. Is the OPC, and the majority of other Presbyterian and Reformed Churches out of sync with the RPW ? Is it unscriptural for the OPC, and other denominations to sing both inspired and uninspired 'Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual songs' ?
> 
> ...


Jimmy.....just FYI that map is lacking. There are many more NA EP/AO congregations.


----------



## JimmyH (Mar 1, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> I have an honest question that has crossed my mind. Moderators please delete if too off topic. Following the logic of the TR only, Why did we need the KJV if we already had the Geneva Bible (pure in all ages)? I am not being sarcastic or hiding my intent. Honest question? Why can the logic being used to defend the 1611 KJV not be used to reject it and defend the Geneva? If you say the KJV updated the Geneva, why reject the use of NKJV over the KJV? I a





Grant Jones said:


> Jimmy.....just FYI that map is lacking. There are many more NA EP/AO congregations.


Grant, thanks for the information. That map was as of 2017. I will see if I can update with a better one. The point is ... comparatively speaking... there are few EP congregations available in the USA.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Mar 1, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> I have an honest question that has crossed my mind. Moderators please delete if too off topic. Following the logic of the TR only, Why did we need the KJV if we already had the Geneva Bible (pure in all ages)? I am not being sarcastic or hiding my intent. Honest question? Why can the logic being used to defend the 1611 KJV not be used to reject it and defend the Geneva? If you say the KJV updated the Geneva, why reject the use of NKJV over the KJV? I apologize in advance if my ignorance is showing. Humbly trying to learn.


Grant, since I’m ‘here’ I’ll just say that the KJV, in God’s providence, was commissioned by King James who reportedly did not like the Genevan Bible because of it’s side comments. But he did want them to produce a Bible true to the original languages. The men who were brought together to produce this new Bible were men of great scholarship and godliness and they undertook the task with fear and trembling. The Genevan Bible is also based on the TR texts, so that’s different than the creation of the many versions translated using CT methods. 

If you look back through church history, God uses the magistrate in bringing together church councils for the purpose of refining and codifying truth. The convening of the AV scholars, and the Westminster Assembly, I believe display that. These were Reforming times. 

My understanding is that this doesn’t mean that the KJV can’t be improved upon. But the premise is that God has provide the pure and preserved fount for any improvements. It also doesn’t mean that those who use Bibles based on the CT don’t have God’s word, they do. But of course holding to the Received Text position will mean the KJV is preferable, as it’s the best we have in that stream. Someone more knowledgeable please correct anything I’ve misstated.


----------



## Smeagol (Mar 1, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Grant, since I’m ‘here’ I’ll just say that the KJV, in God’s providence, was commissioned by King James who reportedly did not like the Genevan Bible because of it’s side comments. But he did want them to produce a Bible true to the original languages. The men who were brought together to produce this new Bible were men of great scholarship and godliness and they undertook the task with fear and trembling. The Genevan Bible is also based on the TR texts, so that’s different than the creation of the many versions translated using CT methods.
> 
> If you look back through church history, God uses the magistrate in bringing together church councils for the purpose of refining and codifying truth. The convening of the AV scholars, and the Westminster Assembly, I believe display that. These were Reforming times.
> 
> My understanding is that this doesn’t mean that the KJV can’t be improved upon. But the premise is that God has provide the pure and preserved fount for any improvements. It also doesn’t mean that those who use Bibles based on the CT don’t have God’s word, they do. But of course holding to the Received Text position will mean the KJV is preferable, as it’s the best we have in that stream. Someone more knowledgeable please correct anything I’ve misstated.


So if both the Geneva and the KJV are based on the TR, and it would seem from your explanation (which I truly appreciate you sharing) would be the KJV updated and “tidied” up the Geneva.

Does not the NKJV do this for KJV? The NKJV is based on the TR correct?


----------



## Afterthought (Mar 1, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> If you say the KJV updated the Geneva, why reject the use of NKJV over the KJV?


It is believed that the KJV is a better English translation than the Geneva and other good translations at the time. The NKJV did not improve on the KJV (from our perspective, e.g., a lack of distinction between second person singular and plural; see also the issues with things like Gen. 4:7 and Heb. 2:16), so it is not accepted. The two issues: text and translation must be kept separate. The best translation is the one that is translated from the best text in the best manner. This really is off-topic, so if you want to investigate further our views, here are a few lectures by Dr. Dilday to give you the basics (also check out the Trinitarian Bible society): https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=910081511470

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Mar 1, 2019)

JimmyH said:


> In regard to the rabbit trail this thread has taken ... EP .;. I am not for it, nor against it. I am a member of the OPC. The OPC just finished a project of years in compiling and publishing a new Trinity Psalter Hymnal. The chairman of the Special Committee on the Psalter-Hymnal, the Rev. Dr. Alan D. Strange, is a respected member of this board.
> 
> What bothers me about what I see as a continuing argument for EP on this board, is the denomination I belong to sings Psalms AND Hymns. Is the OPC, and the majority of other Presbyterian and Reformed Churches out of sync with the RPW ? Is it unscriptural for the OPC, and other denominations to sing both inspired and uninspired 'Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual songs' ?
> 
> ...


Aw, brother, God will sort it out. I think that you just trust him and sing. I appreciate your heart for God. You’re where you are by God’s providence. At least you are now singing some Psalms! I believe there will be more congregations founded who stick with singing the Psalms.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Mar 1, 2019)

Afterthought said:


> It is believed that the KJV is a better English translation than the Geneva and other good translations at the time. The NKJV did not improve on the KJV (from our perspective, e.g., a lack of distinction between singular and plural), so it is not accepted.


Thanks. However this is where the thoughts hit a solid brick wall for me. 1611 KJV just gets an “off limits stamp” but every pre or post English translation (even TR based) are shot down. I plan to keep studying this off PB, but just wanted to share my current hurdle.


----------



## Afterthought (Mar 1, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Thanks. However this is where the thoughts hit a solid brick wall for me. 1611 KJV just gets an “off limits stamp” but every pre or post English translation (even TR based) are shot down. I plan to keep studying this off PB, but just wanted to share my current hurdle.


The KJV really is that good, although most of us use an 18th or later century edition (not the 1611); keep in mind also that it is a translation used by Reformed churches and across denominations, which gives it further authority and desirability when it comes to translation preferences. Translations are not "shot down" by informed preferers of the KJV, and informed users of the KJV recognize translation problems/variants and will expound them accordingly: the KJV does not get a free pass. Informed users also recognize that sometimes it isn't a matter of a translation of a word or verse being wrong or right, but that different legitimate translations can be made that shed further light on the original. The 21st Century KJV version does a decent job in updating, although I'm not sure the result is clearly better.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Jake (Mar 1, 2019)

JimmyH said:


> Grant, thanks for the information. That map was as of 2017. I will see if I can update with a better one. The point is ... comparatively speaking... there are few EP congregations available in the USA.



I think there are at most 150 Scottish-tradition (i.e., Presbyterian) EP churches in North America (around 100 in the RPCNA and handfuls in other denominations). It doesn't appear you checked a lot of boxes for EP denominations on that map including the RPCNA and the FCoS(C) for starters. 

There are also the Dutch-tradition that are almost entirely EP (FRCNA, PRCA, HRC, NRC, HHK, etc.). The trick is on the Dutch side that there are a handful of other Scripture songs generally allowed as well so most on the Scottish-side don't include them.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 1, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I’m sure the answer doesn’t have to be, Oh sure here it is. The answer is going to be as complex as this whole issue on both sides where data is concerned. In your demand I think you’re begging the question.



How am I begging the question? Demonstrate, please. I am simply asking for proof.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Mar 1, 2019)

Perhaps misstated as begging the question, but as knowledgeable as you are, it’s hard to believe you don’t already know the TR position’s response to your demand for proof. I certainly don’t know it! It’s taken me hours of time to research issues with the LXX (but glad I did).


----------



## JimmyH (Mar 1, 2019)

Jake said:


> I think there are at most 150 Scottish-tradition (i.e., Presbyterian) EP churches in North America (around 100 in the RPCNA and handfuls in other denominations). It doesn't appear you checked a lot of boxes for EP denominations on that map including the RPCNA and the FCoS(C) for starters.
> 
> There are also the Dutch-tradition that are almost entirely EP (FRCNA, PRCA, HRC, NRC, HHK, etc.). The trick is on the Dutch side that there are a handful of other Scripture songs generally allowed as well so most on the Scottish-side don't include them.


I'm able to perform search functions ... but I'm not a computer whiz. I didn't know that I should've/could've checked the boxes. I noted the boxes were color coded to the bullet points in the map, and thought that was the extent of it. Thanks for the correction.

Here all North America EP options listed on the EP website ;

*USA*
Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church of Wylie, TX (RPCGA)
Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church of New Braunfels, TX (RPCGA)
Dallas Reformed Presbyterian Church (RPCNA) meeting in McKinney, TX
First Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) of San Francisco, CA
Knox Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) of Lansdowne, PA
Emmaus Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) in Fort Collins, CO
All Saints Reformed Church of Brea, CA (RPCNA)
Topeka Reformed Baptist Church, KS
American Presbyterian Church (APC) congregations
Emmanuel Chapel (RPCNA) – Dayton, TN
Faith Presbyterian Church Reformed of Rowlett, TX
Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) in North America congregations
Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland North America congregations
Free Reformed Churches of North America mostly Psalms but maybe not EP?
Pageland Reformed Presbyterian Church (RPCNA), Pageland, SC
Protestant Reformed Church (PRCA) congregations
Presbyterian Reformed Church (PRC) congregations
Puritan Evangelical Church of America San Diego, CA
Reformation Church of Blue Bell, PA (RCUS) – predominantly Psalms
Reformation Church of Boerne, TX
RPCNA congregations
Westminster Presbyterian Church in the US (WPCUS) congregations
East Texas Reformed Fellowship
Heritage Netherland Congregations sing many Psalms in worship
Puritan Reformed Church of La Crosse, WI (still meeting?)
Christ Presbyterian Church (RPCNA) of Grandview, MO
Wisconsin Free Presbyterian Church of West Bend, WI
Crossville, TN – Grace Chapel http://gracechapeltn.com

*Canada*
Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARP), Halifax, NS
Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland North America congregations
Vancouver Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 1, 2019)

@Jeri Tanner,

Thank you for your engagement on this topic. I do appreciate it. My own views are still far from settled, and I will continue to do research.

By the way, whatever conclusions I come to, the KJV will remain my preferred translation for daily reading and memorization. No other translation comes close to its beauty.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 1, 2019)

JimmyH said:


> What bothers me about what I see as a continuing argument for EP on this board, is the denomination I belong to sings Psalms AND Hymns. Is the OPC, and the majority of other Presbyterian and Reformed Churches out of sync with the RPW ? Is it unscriptural for the OPC, and other denominations to sing both inspired and uninspired 'Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual songs' ?



A subject for another thread perhaps, but I think you have already guessed the answer.

Yes, the singing of man-made hymns and psalms are out of line with the Westminster Standards. We would also say the practice is unbiblical, in violation of the RPW.

No EP advocate wants to have to say this. It is too often met with cries that we are legalistic and rigid. In fact, the concern is for obedience to God's word.

There is much more to say here. A whole book's worth, really.

I'd echo what @Jeri Tanner has said above. In this day, it's a blessing that you're singing from God's hymnbook at all. Praise God and pray for continued reformation according to the word of God.


----------



## iainduguid (Mar 1, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> @Jeri Tanner,
> 
> Thank you for your engagement on this topic. I do appreciate it. My own views are still far from settled, and I will continue to do research.
> 
> By the way, whatever conclusions I come to, the KJV will remain my preferred translation for daily reading and memorization. No other translation comes close to its beauty.


This has been an interesting discussion, that has certainly encouraged me to research some areas that I had not previously considered. Whilst doing so, I read the address by the original translators of the KJV to the reader and was struck by this comment:

_It hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve, to resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) _Melius est dubitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis_, it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain. There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption._

To be sure, they are addressing the issue of translation of obscure passages rather than text critical issues. But the notable point is that their doctrine of divine providence does not expect to be able to resolve all of the challenges straightforwardly. I would suggest that exactly the same arguments apply to the task of text criticism. The vast majority of the text is abundantly clear and undisputed among us all. But to assert that only the particular version of the Hebrew text printed by Bomberg may be consulted and all other texts should be ignored seems to me to "dogmatize on this or that peremptorily". The position adopted by the KJV translators - to allow marginal notes in such cases - is precisely that followed by modern versions.

(It is also the case that some of these translational uncertainties with which the KJV struggled are much more easily answered by contemporary translators, given the resources to which we have access, but that's a different topic).

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Mar 1, 2019)

Jacob,

In her post #44 Jeri said,

“I'll close with this: those who hold to the TR position ultimately receive the texts handed down to us from the Reformation by faith as being the texts God has preserved pure through the ages.”

In your post #46 you said,

“And all we are saying is show us these Hebrew texts. They aren't the Masoretic text (at least not for the fathers before the Middle Ages). Further, the LXX is a witness to these earlier Hebrew texts.”

Jeri then said that others _have _shown you.

And in post #48 you said,

“No. They haven't. They know that. That's why the question is always, ‘Show us this existing Hebrew manuscript predating the Masoretes.’ ”


In another thread, in my post #253 I posted this material regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls and the testimony of the Proto-Masoretic Isaiah Scroll 1QIsa._b_, how that—in minute particular—highlighted the agreement between this Proto-Masoretic manuscript and the Masoretic Text, and proved beyond any doubt the later text of the Masoretes was virtually identical with the discovery of the material over 1,000 years earlier. In the section reposted below it is stated that, “About forty percent of the biblical texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls are Masoretic” [i.e., the Proto-Masoretic are the same as the later Masoretic]. Here’s the section.

*The Proto-Masoretic Text*

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

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

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

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

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

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

Between 1963 and 1965 manuscripts were discovered while excavating Masada, the famous rock fortress where Jewish nationalists withheld the advances of the Roman army in 73 or 74 AD. Masada is farther south of Qumran than Wadi Murabbaat, along the western coast of the Dead Sea. These manuscripts must date before the fall of the fortress, which place them before 74 AD. Fourteen scrolls containing biblical texts were found that agree extensively with the Masoretic Text. The only possible exception to this amazing agreement is the book of Ezekiel, and even there the textual variants are extremely minor. [Wurthwein, 31.]​
This does show that you either haven’t bothered to appreciate the data, or you are just in denial concerning it. You said, “Show us this existing Hebrew manuscript predating the Masoretes.” It _has _been done.

Now this recognized intimate identification—*and possession*—of the Proto-Masoretic during the early centuries of the present era *was not among the Christians *who, when expelled from any association with the Jewish communities, were bereft of the Hebrew OT, but recognized and possessed only among the Jews. And among the Jews this Proto and then mature Masoretic Bible was their only Hebrew Bible. Your saying, “They aren't the Masoretic text (*at least not for the fathers before the Middle Ages*)” is correct, for the Christian fathers were deprived of them, but they were for the Jewish people.

When you say (in post #46), presumably about the vorlage behind the LXX, “Further, the LXX is a witness to these earlier Hebrew texts”, yet a) the Jews did not recognize them, and b) we don’t have these (partial) Hebrew texts, just Greek translations of whatever they were. As such they are useful to scholars seeking light on the standard Hebrew Bible, but the missing vorlage cannot be reconstructed into a rival edition to the Hebrew acknowledged by the Jewish people, whose oracle from God the Hebrew OT they possessed was and is.

I really tire of this kind of loose and inaccurate sort of argumentation, where when you are confronted with faulty reasoning (post #179), blithely reply, “Looks like it” and move on without even acknowledging a erroneous statement.


----------



## JimmyH (Mar 1, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> A subject for another thread perhaps, but I think you have already guessed the answer.
> 
> *Yes, the singing of man-made hymns and psalms are out of line with the Westminster Standards. We would also say the practice is unbiblical, in violation of the RPW.*
> 
> ...


Indeed., it is a blessing to join my brothers and sisters on the Lord's day and worship in song. The problem I have with the bolded text above is if someone says that hymns go against the RPW, and the WCF, they are saying it about my OPC, and the majority of Reformed churches in the USA, and the world. 

On the one hand I feel that anyone who says that must be wrong, on the other hand I think of Luther. I read that an inquisitor at the Diet of Worms said to Martin Luther, "How can one man be right and the whole church be wrong ? " So I don't know who is right in this, and I wish that it was clear, one way, or the other.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 1, 2019)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I'm sorry to be so tough on you, Jacob, but you are a serious and heavy hitter, philosophically astute, and it is not usual to see you use language and ideas so loosely. I have respect for you and your learning, and desire that you be more careful with your words, that I may continue to accord you the esteem you normally warrant.



I am not fazed in the least. I see what you mean now. By "proto" Masoretic text do you mean stuff like Dead Sea Scrolls? Because those specifically would not have been in Jewish possession. Further, if we can use the Dead Sea Scrolls, can we use them to correct the KJV? Like where the Dead Sea Scrolls and LXX seem to give a different reading of Deut. 32:8?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Mar 1, 2019)

That’s right. And I appreciate that you were not offended (I deleted my last post before I saw yours, thinking it might have been too tough). 

And you’re correct, they were in _nobody’s _possession until the late 1940s, but they represent to an astonishing extent what the Jewish people from the earliest time of the NT era had up to the medieval period and to the Reformation.

There is certainly no _necessity _to amend the Masoretic to read as the LXX has Deut 32:8 (see Calvin or Gill and how they handle the MT reading), though I see that occasionally some do amend it so.


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 1, 2019)

JimmyH said:


> Indeed., it is a blessing to join my brothers and sisters on the Lord's day and worship in song. The problem I have with the bolded text above is if someone says that hymns go against the RPW, and the WCF, they are saying it about my OPC, and the majority of Reformed churches in the USA, and the world.
> 
> On the one hand I feel that anyone who says that must be wrong, on the other hand I think of Luther. I read that an inquisitor at the Diet of Worms said to Martin Luther, "How can one man be right and the whole church be wrong ? " So I don't know who is right in this, and I wish that it was clear, one way, or the other.



Oh dear. I just found a grammar mistake in my reply.

I recommend that you start a new thread. You'll get more engagement than just from this young, freshly Reformed Canadian.

I'll just note that the EP view is very much in the majority in terms of historical Presbyterianism. And not just Presbyterianism.

You might like to give this sermon from Kenneth Stewart a listen.
https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=12118214341605


----------



## JimmyH (Mar 1, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> Oh dear. I just found a grammar mistake in my reply.
> 
> I recommend that you start a new thread. You'll get more engagement than just from this young, freshly Reformed Canadian.
> 
> ...


Brother Tom, start a new thread ? I'd be grateful if I never saw another thread on the topic as long as I'm in this world of time.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 2, 2019)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> There is certainly no _necessity _to amend the Masoretic to read as the LXX has Deut 32:8 (see Calvin or Gill and how they handle the MT reading), though I see that occasionally some do amend it so.



I have strong reasons why the MT reading is not the best one on this, but that might derail the thread.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 2, 2019)

If both the MT and the Dead Sea Scrolls bear witness to the same proto-Masoretic text, can we use the Dead Sea Scrolls to correct the Masoretic text at points?


----------



## TheOldCourse (Mar 3, 2019)

JimmyH said:


> Indeed., it is a blessing to join my brothers and sisters on the Lord's day and worship in song. The problem I have with the bolded text above is if someone says that hymns go against the RPW, and the WCF, they are saying it about my OPC, and the majority of Reformed churches in the USA, and the world.
> 
> On the one hand I feel that anyone who says that must be wrong, on the other hand I think of Luther. I read that an inquisitor at the Diet of Worms said to Martin Luther, "How can one man be right and the whole church be wrong ? " So I don't know who is right in this, and I wish that it was clear, one way, or the other.



Most OPC, PCA, ARP, etc. elders that are familiar with the issue and the history of it will admit that their practice deviates from the original understanding and intention of the WCF and the RPW contained therein. Hymnody didn't enter Presbyterian and Reformed churches until the "Great" Awakening. They would deny that it strikes at its system of doctrine and will usually claim that, while the Assembly would have understand the relevant clauses in an EP manner, they were written vaguely enough that they may be understood faithfully a non-EP manner.

It smacks a bit of "living constitutionalism" to me, but, to be fair, the Westminster Standards have authority only as an ecclesiastical document and the OPC and PCA adopted them while being non-EP along with non-EP directories for worship. I still think they can be called back to faithfulness on the basis of their confession on this matter but it's a fair to recognize that they did not adopt it as an EP document. The ARP, on the other hand, was an explicitly EP church for most of its history. Its change to hymnody in 1946 was accomplished by a mere overture but was an abandonment of part of its constitutional standards. Thankfully, it seems to be recovering its love for psalmody in recent years. I can only hope and pray that it leads to a wholehearted re-embracing of its confessional worship practices.

Reactions: Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------

