# Helvetic Consensus and the Original Languages



## Taylor (Sep 30, 2016)

I have a question about two statements that have been troubling me within the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] and 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] canons of the _Helvetic Consensus_, written at least in part by that mighty systematizer of the Reformed tradition Francis Turretin. It regards the issue of variations within the NT and OT textual traditions. Here is the first statement (Canon II):



> ...in particular, The Hebrew original of the OT which we have received and to this day do retain as handed down by the Hebrew Church...It thus forms, together with the Original of the NT the sole and complete rule of our faith and practice; and to its standard, as to a Lydian stone, all extant versions, eastern or western, ought to be applied, and wherever they differ, be conformed.



However, later, speaking of those who find discrepancies between the extant Hebrew and the _vorlage_ of different versions (like the LXX), it says (Canon III):



> ...they affirm that besides the Hebrew edition of the present time, there are in the versions of the ancient interpreters which differ from our Hebrew text, other Hebrew Originals. Since these versions are also indicative of ancient Hebrew Originals differing from each other, they thus bring the foundation of our faith and its sacred authority into perilous danger.



My question is this: If, as this seems to be saying, variations within the textual tradition "bring...our faith and its sacred authority into perilous danger," then how can one endeavor that "all extant versions, eastern or western, ought to be applied, and wherever they differ, be conformed"? I would imagine that these principles are applied to the OT and NT alike.


----------



## MW (Sep 30, 2016)

The first is saying, in general, that any and every version based on the Hebrew text must be tested for authenticity in light of the received Hebrew text, not vice versa. The second is saying, specifically, that examination has shown a different Hebrew text underlying some versions, and if that were made a test of authenticity it would endanger the "foundation of our faith" since the certainty of faith is founded upon the sure authority of Scripture.


----------



## Taylor (Oct 1, 2016)

MW said:


> The first is saying, in general, that any and every version based on the Hebrew text must be tested for authenticity in light of the received Hebrew text, not vice versa. The second is saying, specifically, that examination has shown a different Hebrew text underlying some versions, and if that were made a test of authenticity it would endanger the "foundation of our faith" since the certainty of faith is founded upon the sure authority of Scripture.



That's helpful. I think the essence of my question involved what exactly is to be "conformed" to what. Thanks!


----------

