MT, LXX and Dead Sea Scrolls

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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).
 
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
 
Last edited:
@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.
 
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.
 
@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).
 
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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
 
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
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. :doh:
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top