Verses that prove providential preservation of TR tradition?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hello Jacob,

I don't understand what you are saying here:

"But my approach to Ehrman would be different from the TR family. I hold to the CT and its presuppositions. So this only punts the problem back"​

Please explain.

I accept textual criticism ala Bruce Metzger. While I am happy to ally with TR guys, many think I accept the godless presuppositions of the enemy.
 
Here is an example of a "jot/tittle" being omitted in the copying process, and why Matthew 5:18 can't refer to this process. Heiser explains:

the image below shows that, in Gen 4:8 the conversation between Cain and Abel has been accidentally omitted in the Masoretic Text (MT). The reason is simple. The scribe’s eye skipped from one waw to another (see the red Hebrew letters), thus omitting the two words that matter. The correct text is witnessed in the Septuagint and the Syriac. The Syriac testimony is of note since Syriac Bibles typically translate the traditional Masoretic text — but in this case, the Syriac base text preserves the correct reading


gen48.jpg
 
Question, I'm a simple man ... In Matthew 5:18 could the meaning of one jot or tittle not passing until all is fulfilled refer to the stipulations within the Law being required until the veil was rent in the temple, or perhaps until the resurrection, and not to the text at all ?
 
Question, I'm a simple man ... In Matthew 5:18 could the meaning of one jot or tittle not passing until all is fulfilled refer to the stipulations within the Law being required until the veil was rent in the temple, or perhaps until the resurrection, and not to the text at all ?

That's exactly what it means. See Vern Poythress's response to Greg Bahnsen.
 
Thanks Jacob, what I get from that text is pasted below, if I could have changed the text to black I would have, but couldn't figure it out. Here is Poythress quoting D.A. Carson from his commentary on Matthew ;
Once we have determined the force of “fulfill” along the lines indicated by Carson, the meaning of the subsequent verses is easier to establish. Some further quotes from Carson’s commentary may serve to indicate the correct lines of interpretation. With regard to verse 18 Carson says,

The reference to “jot and tittle” establishes [the extent of Old Testament authority]: it will not do to reduce the reference to moral law, or the law as a whole but not necessarily its parts, or to God’s will in some general sense. . . . The two “until” clauses answer [the question of duration of the Old Testament’s authority]. The first–“until heaven and earth disappear”–simply means “until the end of the age”: i.e., not quite “never” . . . but “never, as long as the present world order persists.” The second–“until everything is accomplished”–is more difficult. . . . panta (“everything”) is best understood to refer to everything in the law, considered under the law’s prophetic function–viz., until all these things have taken place as prophesied. This is not simply pointing to the Cross . . . , nor simply to the end of the age. . . . the entire divine purpose prophesied in Scripture must take place; not one jot or tittle will fail of its fulfillment. . . . Thus the first “until” clause focuses strictly on the duration of OT authority but the second returns to considering its nature; it reveals God’s redemptive purposes and points to their fulfillment, their “accomplishment,” in Jesus and the eschatological kingdom he is now introducing and will one day consummate.14
More below ;
Concerning verse 19 he continues,
The entire Law and the Prophets are not scrapped by Jesus’ coming but fulfilled. Therefore the commandments of these Scriptures–even the least of them (on distinctions in the law, see on 22:36; 23:23)–must be practiced. But the nature of the practicing has already been affected by vv. 17-18. The law pointed forward to Jesus and his teaching; so it is properly obeyed by conforming to his word. As it points to him, so he, in fulfilling it, establishes what continuity it has, the true direction to which it points and the way it is to be obeyed. Thus ranking in the kingdom turns on the degree of conformity to Jesus’ teaching as that teaching fulfills OT revelation.15

Thus Matt. 5:17-19 asserts in a sweeping and direct fashion what the rest of Matthew illustrates in detail: Jesus in his person and his ministry brings to realization and fulfillment the whole warp and woof of Old Testament revelation, including the revelation of the law. The whole law points to him and its purposes find their realization in him. All the commandments of the law are binding on Christians (7:19), but the way in which they are binding is determined by the authority of Christ and the fulfillment that takes place in his work.

When we become disciples of Christ, our lives are transformed by our fellowship with him. We become participants in the kingdom of heaven (5:3, 10), under the care of our heavenly Father. We become imitators of our Father (5:45), so that Jesus’ commandment makes sense, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (5:48). Such is the fulfillment of that great commandment from Moses, “Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy” (Lev. 19:2).

As disciples of Christ we are to “obey everything I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:20). Since Jesus commands us to practice and teach even the “least of these commandments” of the law (5:19), we are bound to do so. But we do so as disciples who have learned how to discern the function of the law of Moses as a pointer to the realities of Jesus Christ our Lord. The way in which each law is fulfilled in Christ determines the way in which it is to be observed now. Since the law foreshadows the righteousness of Christ and the kingdom of heaven, the practice of the law in the deepest sense takes the form of replicating the character and grace of Christ in our lives and imitating our heavenly Father. To have this fellowship with and obedience to Christ is no burden, as Christ himself says, “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light” (Matt. 11:28-30). The rabbis spoke of commitment to the true God and his law as “the yoke of the kingdom of heaven,” “the yoke of the law,” and “the yoke of commandments.”
16 But the rabbis did not anticipate that the law would be fulfilled in the yoke of Jesus Christ.17
 
Jacob, whatever you think, and whatever side you are on, regarding the internecine textual contests, you are not the enemy, but a brother in the family of God in Christ!

But you may still be corrected in a brotherly and kind way: in your post #182 you are holding up a passage, Genesis 4:8, which was recorded by Moses and both kept and reproduced (when manuscripts wore out) by the priests the sons of Levi (Deut. 31:9); see also Deut. 17:18; Deut. 31:24, 25, 26. It was not given to scribes of other tribes (for we know not the makeup of the Jewish LXX writers), nor those of other lands, who wrote the Samaritan Pentateuch, or the Syriac; neither the Vulgate. It is certainly adequate as it stands in the Hebrew:

And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.​

If some want to supply it, for understanding’s sake, that is fine. It is conjecture to say it was “omitted in the copying process”.

Further (in post 177), to say applying Matt. 5:18 “to the manuscript process is basically to torpedo inerrancy” goes against much scholarly exposition of this verse. For instance, Calvin says of this,

I answer, the expression, shall not pass away, must be viewed as referring, not to the life of men, but to the perfect truth of the doctrine. There is nothing in the law that is unimportant, nothing that was put there at, random; and so it is impossible that a single letter shall perish.​

Now I myself have not used this verse with regard to teaching preservation from the Scripture, though I would not fault those who do. If this had been missing in the time of Christ, He would not have said “the scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), but corrected the error. Even a single word is of the utmost importance to the God who said we shall live “by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4), even as He said through Jeremiah in 26:2,

Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD’s house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD’s house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word…​

I do not want to drag this out defending every word in the OT corpus. My point is, it is not sound to correct the Hebrew by the Septuagint. Even as we do not correct the Greek by the English!
 
Jacob, whatever you think, and whatever side you are on, regarding the internecine textual contests, you are not the enemy, but a brother in the family of God in Christ!

But you may still be corrected in a brotherly and kind way: in your post #182 you are holding up a passage, Genesis 4:8, which was recorded by Moses and both kept and reproduced (when manuscripts wore out) by the priests the sons of Levi (Deut. 31:9); see also Deut. 17:18; Deut. 31:24, 25, 26. It was not given to scribes of other tribes (for we know not the makeup of the Jewish LXX writers), nor those of other lands, who wrote the Samaritan Pentateuch, or the Syriac; neither the Vulgate. It is certainly adequate as it stands in the Hebrew:

And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.​

If some want to supply it, for understanding’s sake, that is fine. It is conjecture to say it was “omitted in the copying process”.

Further (in post 177), to say applying Matt. 5:18 “to the manuscript process is basically to torpedo inerrancy” goes against much scholarly exposition of this verse. For instance, Calvin says of this,

I answer, the expression, shall not pass away, must be viewed as referring, not to the life of men, but to the perfect truth of the doctrine. There is nothing in the law that is unimportant, nothing that was put there at, random; and so it is impossible that a single letter shall perish.​

Now I myself have not used this verse with regard to teaching preservation from the Scripture, though I would not fault those who do. If this had been missing in the time of Christ, He would not have said “the scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), but corrected the error. Even a single word is of the utmost importance to the God who said we shall live “by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4), even as He said through Jeremiah in 26:2,

Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD’s house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD’s house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word…​

I do not want to drag this out defending every word in the OT corpus. My point is, it is not sound to correct the Hebrew by the Septuagint. Even as we do not correct the Greek by the English!
Forgive me for butting in Steve, I know you addressed the post to Jacob, but I have a question for you. Based on Jacob's answers to my questions (see posts 184 & 186) it seems that our Lord was not referring to the 'letter' of the law, but the Spirit of the law. Looking at the verses before and after 5:18 doesn't that seem to be what he is saying in the context ? Not a textual issue, but a call to obedience ?
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
 
Jacob, whatever you think, and whatever side you are on, regarding the internecine textual contests, you are not the enemy, but a brother in the family of God in Christ!

But you may still be corrected in a brotherly and kind way: in your post #182 you are holding up a passage, Genesis 4:8, which was recorded by Moses and both kept and reproduced (when manuscripts wore out) by the priests the sons of Levi (Deut. 31:9); see also Deut. 17:18; Deut. 31:24, 25, 26. It was not given to scribes of other tribes (for we know not the makeup of the Jewish LXX writers), nor those of other lands, who wrote the Samaritan Pentateuch, or the Syriac; neither the Vulgate. It is certainly adequate as it stands in the Hebrew:

And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.​

If some want to supply it, for understanding’s sake, that is fine. It is conjecture to say it was “omitted in the copying process”.

Further (in post 177), to say applying Matt. 5:18 “to the manuscript process is basically to torpedo inerrancy” goes against much scholarly exposition of this verse. For instance, Calvin says of this,

I answer, the expression, shall not pass away, must be viewed as referring, not to the life of men, but to the perfect truth of the doctrine. There is nothing in the law that is unimportant, nothing that was put there at, random; and so it is impossible that a single letter shall perish.​

Now I myself have not used this verse with regard to teaching preservation from the Scripture, though I would not fault those who do. If this had been missing in the time of Christ, He would not have said “the scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), but corrected the error. Even a single word is of the utmost importance to the God who said we shall live “by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4), even as He said through Jeremiah in 26:2,

Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD’s house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD’s house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word…​

I do not want to drag this out defending every word in the OT corpus. My point is, it is not sound to correct the Hebrew by the Septuagint. Even as we do not correct the Greek by the English!
On Genesis 4:8, you are right that the case is more complex than often asserted, Steve, though the solution is not quite as straightforward as you suggest. 'amar without the following direct speech is certainly a very unusual construction, exactly like English "Cain said to Abel". It's striking that all the ET's I found that have "Cain said to Abel" follow it with the LXX, while those that keep the MT are forced to render 'amar differently (spoke, talked with, told). So you can easily see why the Greek translators (and the Peshitta) would have felt the absence. "Talked with" is a very common idiom but elsewhere always translates dibber + a preposition, so it's not an obvious rendering. However, there are two places where something similar occurs (out of over 5000 uses of 'amar!), namely 2 Chr 1:2 and 32:24 (where amar without following speech is generally rendered "he spoke to"). What is more, in this case Qumran (specifically 4Q2 Genesis) supports the MT, so the more difficult text may well be the original.

However, I can't agree that we would never want to even consider correcting the MT on the basis of LXX, especially where it is supported by Qumran. The Hebrew text of the OT is remarkably preserved but not perfectly as is clear from the Kethib/Qere readings where the massoretes supplied the vowels for a different word from the consonantal text. If it has been preserved in the LXX and at Qumran, we can hardly say it has passed away, even if it isn't reflected in the MT.

I'm also still waiting for someone to make sense out of the MT of Ezekiel 40:14. The KJV is fairly literal but results in nonsense in English; even the NASB is making up an unsupported text in order to make some sort of sense out of it. Nor was the LXX able to make head or tail of it. If you want to argue for a perfectly preserved text, this is the verse you need to tackle (preferably before I finish my commentary...). I would genuinely appreciate anyone who can do it!
 
I'm also still waiting for someone to make sense out of the MT of Ezekiel 40:14. The KJV is fairly literal but results in nonsense in English; even the NASB is making up an unsupported text in order to make some sort of sense out of it.
Iain, I thought you were going to go one step further and say we have one translation that has solved the problem, i.e. the CSB :) :)
 
No, I'm sorry. We omitted the second half of the verse altogether, with a footnote, which felt like the most honest thing to do.
Obviously you did not feel comfortable including the second half as in the HCSB. It raises an interesting question. If this was truly part of God's Word (2 Tim 3:16) then is it right to 'delete' it? By this I mean if it is part of the original should you not use the best tools (mss outside the MT etc), or perhaps a textual emendation to come to a reasoned decision re the best way to translate?

I admit this is a difficult textual issue but just a bit curious.
 
Obviously you did not feel comfortable including the second half as in the HCSB. It raises an interesting question. If this was truly part of God's Word (2 Tim 3:16) then is it right to 'delete' it? By this I mean if it is part of the original should you not use the best tools (mss outside the MT etc), or perhaps a textual emendation to come to a reasoned decision re the best way to translate?

I admit this is a difficult textual issue but just a bit curious.
You are absolutely right; if I had a good alternative Hebrew MS, or something in the LXX or Targum, or even a textual emendation to propose (though I don't like the idea of conjectural emendations at all), I'd have put it in. It's not just that the MT doesn't make sense in English, it also has the prophet "making" something for the only time in the temple vision and seems to give a height measurement, when the only other thing whose height is given is the wall around the temple. My best (very tentative) guess is that this was originally two marginal notes that somehow got combined and incorporated into the text. I'd love a better explanation, but haven't come up with one over the past 20 years of searching. Nor have any of the commentators with whom I am familiar.

Understandably Ezekiel 40:14 gets less attention than 1 John 5:7, but it's an important text to account for in any doctrine of textual preservation.
 
Hello Iain (I’ll get back to you shortly, JimmyH),

Good to see you here again. For which publisher / series are you doing another Ezekiel commentary? Your NIV Application Commentary on that book was very helpful.

Concerning Genesis 4:8, I spoke with my friend (and PB member), Albert Hembd, who is studying under the supervision of Professor Yosef Ofer at Bar Ilan University in Israel—probably working on his doctorate at this point, while he continues working for the TBS. With regard to Gen. 4:8, he says,

I personally believe that the extra words were added into the Septuagint by Alexandrian Greeks who added them by "critical emendation." The words are found in no Qumran remnant, nor in any older Masoretic text. The words came into the Vulgate through the LXX. However, interestingly, Rahlfs omits them from his edition of the LXX. The words apparently only appeared in some texts of the LXX, but not all. Possibly Vaticanus has them (Brenton relied almost exclusively on Vaticanus, but Rahlfs considered also Alexandrinus and the "Lucianic" manuscripts)? It would be worth a check as to which LXX manuscripts have them and which don't. My personal opinion is that the Alexandrian Greeks assumed something was wrong with the text and that therefore, it had to be "fixed." But it doesn't need to be "fixed." It's simply a curious literary expression in Hebrew we don't fully understand. But the verse makes perfect sense as it is.​

Iain, we have come to this impasse before, and while I have great appreciation and respect for your learning and skill, I remain a confessional adherent in this matter, as the WCF at 1.8 reads (in part),

The Old Testament in Hebrew, (which was the native language of the people of God of old,) and the New Testament in Greek, (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations,) being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them.​

Our Confession (it reads virtually the same in the 1689) does not accord to the Greek, Syriac, Samaritan, or Vulgate the status of authenticity it does to the Hebrew, and, ultimately, there I make my stand—on the basis of the Scriptures it reflects.

The same for Ezekiel 40:14 — a number of translations supply words to help make better sense of the original in Hebrew, as is done with other admittedly less difficult passages, and I will trust the Bible as it is.
 
Last edited:
Hello Jimmy,

In Carson’s commentary (in the Expositor’s series), on p. 141 he says, acknowledging a wide variety of views regarding the exegesis of vv. 17-20 in Matt. 5,

2. The theological and canonical ramifications of one’s exegetical conclusions on this periscope are so numerous that discussion becomes freighted with the intricacies of biblical theology.​

Then on p. 145 he says,

But vv. 17-18 do not wrestle abstractly with OT authority but with the nature, extent, and duration of its validity and continuity. The nature of these has been set forth in v. 17. The reference to “jot and tittle” establishes its extent: it will not do to reduce the reference to moral law, or to the law as a whole but not necessarily to its parts, or to God’s will in some general sense. “Law” almost certainly refers to the entire OT Scriptures, not just the Pentateuch or moral law (note the parallel in v. 17)​

Carson ended the paragraph immediately previous to this with,

In any event, Jesus here upholds the authority of the OT Scriptures right down to the “least stroke of a pen.” His is the highest possible view of the OT.​

Carson is certainly not KJV defender (to wit, his book, The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism), but he does seem to appreciate that the text itself may be being referred to.

I would argue thus: The Lord Jesus said, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt 4:4). His words do give rise to a theological issue: implicit in the saying is that by every word of His we live, and such being the case He will see to it that we have what we need in order to live. He has also said,

…His divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him that hath called us unto glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature…(2 Peter 1:3, 4)​

Can He not fulfill these promises, He of whom it is written, that He “worketh all things after the counsel of His own will”? (Ephesians 1:11)

Consider these Scriptures:

Matt 24:35 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away".

Isaiah 59:21 "As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."​

If one wants to take these sayings of the LORD precisely, it does argue for a preservation in the minutiae. Likewise Psalm 12:6, 7:

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.​

That some do not accept the translation of Psalm 12 the AV uses does not deter my using it (an entire established exegetical tradition suppressed—censoredby editorial fiat!). See the interesting article defending these verses by Shin Yeong Gil on this (p 150), God's Promise to Preserve His Word:

http://www.febc.edu.sg/assets/pdfs/bbush/The Burning Bush Vol 6 No 2.pdf .

At any rate, Jimmy, all this to say there are other Scriptures I would use to uphold preservation in the minutiae besides Matt 5:18.
 
Steve, the thing about the Septuagint that I think you may be missing is that it is a translation of an underlying Hebrew text. It seems rather clear that, at times, that underlying Hebrew text differs from the MT. Jeremiah seems an obvious example of this. I wrote a paper on the differences in Jeremiah between the LXX and the MT, and concluded that an earlier edition of Jeremiah had been written by him in Egypt, which became the basis for the LXX. Jeremiah later expanded the book for the audience in Jerusalem during the exile. I would argue that the final version Jeremiah wrote is the canonical one. However, there do seem to be a few instances where the LXX seems to have a superior reading. This involves the perilous process of back-translating the Greek into Hebrew. So, the relationship that the LXX can have to OT textual criticism is roughly equivalent to the way in which Latin translations of the NT could conceivably function in NT criticism. The thing that makes the LXX unique, however, is that the LXX manuscripts are so much older than the oldest MT we have. Yes, we have the Isaiah scroll. But, as Iain mentioned, Qumran has readings from both the LXX and the MT. It is not, therefore, quite as simple as saying that the MT always preserves the original. Even within the MT, there are differences between the Aleppo codex and the Leningrad codex. Now, make no mistake, I give the MT the benefit of the doubt, and I think we have to be extremely cautious about using the LXX for text-critical purposes. However, the LXX does have a legitimate part to play in OT textual criticism, and can, on occasion, offer a better reading, not because it is original, but because it offers a reading of the underlying Hebrew manuscript, which means that this position does NOT fall foul of the confessional viewpoint on this. If the LXX can correct the MT, it is only insofar as the original Hebrew text underlying the LXX corrects the MT.
 
Our Confession (it reads virtually the same in the 1689) does not accord to the Greek, Syriac, Samaritan, or Vulgate the status of authenticity it does to the Hebrew, and, ultimately, there I make my stand—on the basis of the Scriptures it reflects.

Does the fact that the MT is much, much younger than the LXX and the Syriac make a difference?
 
Lane, I'd very much like to see your paper on the differences in Jeremiah between the LXX and the MT—sounds interesting!
____

Jacob, how can the Masoretic Text be "much, much younger than the LXX and the Syriac"? Unless by MT you were meaning Majority Text, which really doesn't apply to the Hebrew.
 
Lane, I'd very much like to see your paper on the differences in Jeremiah between the LXX and the MT—sounds interesting!
____

Jacob, how can the Masoretic Text be "much, much younger than the LXX and the Syriac"? Unless by MT you were meaning Majority Text, which really doesn't apply to the Hebrew.

The Masoretic text was copied and disseminated by the Masoretes in the Middle Ages. It is not the original text.
 
Thank you, Lane - I'll have to check that out!
____

Jacob, it— the MT, and the proto-MT before it—is considered by almost all Jews as the authentic Hebrew Bible, and likewise by almost all conservative Christian scholars. Yes, some will avail themselves of other versions to aid in critical studies, but there really is no other Hebrew Bible. Our Westminster Confession and 1689 say as much, at 1.8.

It is a good thing the Masoretes (I think it was Augustine who called them "the librarians of the church") labored to bring the Hebrew text to a state of near perfection, and with the vowel points ensured the correct pronunciation for future generations.
 
Jacob, it— the MT, and the proto-MT before it—is considered by almost all Jews as the authentic Hebrew Bible, and likewise by almost all conservative Christian scholars. Yes, some will avail themselves of other versions to aid in critical studies, but there really is no other Hebrew Bible. Our Westminster Confession and 1689 say as much, at 1.8.

I like the Masoretic, but it is *not* the authentic Bible. It is the product of several textual traditions that were codified (cf Ellis Brotzman, Old Testament Textual Criticism).

As for a proto-Masoretic text being the authentic bible, that's all well and good but that is specifically what we don't have.
 
I rarely way in on these discussions, as they generally produce more heat than light but this one (despite being on its seventh page) has remained very civil.

One point that rarely ever seems to be taken into account is that there are mediating positions between the hardline CT and TR views. For instance, one may believe that the Byzantine readings are generally more correct while not holding to the view that the Alexandrian MSS can never be consulted nor favoured.

On the issue of the Septuagint, does not the Formula Consensus Helvetica condemn the notion that the Hebrew text can be corrected by the LXX? Is it condemning something different from the notion that the LXX may be used to help us discern the original Hebrew reading?
 
Lane, I'd very much like to see your paper on the differences in Jeremiah between the LXX and the MT—sounds interesting!
____

Jacob, how can the Masoretic Text be "much, much younger than the LXX and the Syriac"? Unless by MT you were meaning Majority Text, which really doesn't apply to the Hebrew.

I rarely way in on these discussions, as they generally produce more heat than light but this one (despite being on its seventh page) has remained very civil.

One point that rarely ever seems to be taken into account is that there are mediating positions between the hardline CT and TR views. For instance, one may believe that the Byzantine readings are generally more correct while not holding to the view that the Alexandrian MSS can never be consulted nor favoured.

On the issue of the Septuagint, does not the Formula Consensus Helvetica condemn the notion that the Hebrew text can be corrected by the LXX? Is it condemning something different from the notion that the LXX may be used to help us discern the original Hebrew reading?

Yes, the FCH does condemn it in canon 3. As I read the canon, I am tempted to say that it doesn't condemn what I advocate. I think without further information about the exact practice it was condemning, it would be difficult to say for sure. The likelihood is that FCH does condemn what I advocate. Which makes it a good thing that I don't have to subscribe to the FCH! LXX studies were in a much more simple form in those days, and huge advances in our understanding of the LXX have happened since then. I don't know many (if any!) confessional OT scholars who would say that the LXX can never be used to correct the MT, as long as it is understood that it is really the underlying Hebrew that is doing so. And all of the confessional OT guys I know are always very cautious about that process, knowing how prone to error it is, and how difficult it is to establish that the LXX is actually based on a different Vorlage than the MT, thus ruling out a translation issue.
 
A comment and observation (and question)- this debate has always reminded me of the young earth vs. old earth one. Evidence exists that is used by both sides, but there is an interpretation of evidence driven by presuppositions. And the presuppositions, among folks like us here on the board at least, are mainly theological ones (hopefully). So one's view really depends on presuppositions, I think- someone like @Jerusalem Blade please correct that thinking if wrong. It's good to talk about evidences as it helps many come to one position or the other. But in the end, doesn't it all boil down to what one believes the Scripture teaches about God's preserving his word? It seems to me that two positions are represented on the PB: that the Scriptures teach either that he has kept pure and preserved the readings for his church all through the ages; or they teach that he will ultimately keep pure and preserve the readings for his church. Is this what the issue boils down to? I'm sure I'm putting it ineptly somewhat.
 
But in the end, doesn't it all boil down to what one believes the Scripture teaches about God's preserving his word? It seems to me that two positions are represented on the PB: that the Scriptures teach either that he has kept pure and preserved the readings for his church all through the ages; or they teach that he will ultimately keep pure and preserve the readings for his church.

That's more or less it. Our (CT advocates) contention is that the Old Testament was hand-copied for 3,000 years before it was first set to printer. Copyist errors are going to show up (same as New Testament). Textual criticism means looking at these errors and variants and trying to decide which is best.

Erasmus did the same thing.

Further, many of the older treatments of the Textus Receptus aren't really aware of the age of the Masoretic Text and why comparing it to the LXX and the Syriac (and the Samaritan Pentateuch) is necessary.
 
It is a good thing the Masoretes (I think it was Augustine who called them "the librarians of the church")

Can you show where Augustine said this? The Masoretes weren't really active until well after Augustine died. In any case, Augustine didn't know anything about Hebrew, so I wonder how he could have commented on this.
 
Steve, the thing about the Septuagint that I think you may be missing is that it is a translation of an underlying Hebrew text. It seems rather clear that, at times, that underlying Hebrew text differs from the MT. Jeremiah seems an obvious example of this. I wrote a paper on the differences in Jeremiah between the LXX and the MT, and concluded that an earlier edition of Jeremiah had been written by him in Egypt, which became the basis for the LXX. Jeremiah later expanded the book for the audience in Jerusalem during the exile. I would argue that the final version Jeremiah wrote is the canonical one. However, there do seem to be a few instances where the LXX seems to have a superior reading. This involves the perilous process of back-translating the Greek into Hebrew. So, the relationship that the LXX can have to OT textual criticism is roughly equivalent to the way in which Latin translations of the NT could conceivably function in NT criticism. The thing that makes the LXX unique, however, is that the LXX manuscripts are so much older than the oldest MT we have. Yes, we have the Isaiah scroll. But, as Iain mentioned, Qumran has readings from both the LXX and the MT. It is not, therefore, quite as simple as saying that the MT always preserves the original. Even within the MT, there are differences between the Aleppo codex and the Leningrad codex. Now, make no mistake, I give the MT the benefit of the doubt, and I think we have to be extremely cautious about using the LXX for text-critical purposes. However, the LXX does have a legitimate part to play in OT textual criticism, and can, on occasion, offer a better reading, not because it is original, but because it offers a reading of the underlying Hebrew manuscript, which means that this position does NOT fall foul of the confessional viewpoint on this. If the LXX can correct the MT, it is only insofar as the original Hebrew text underlying the LXX corrects the MT.
Did the Apostles themselves have access to an LXX copy that has disappeared since that time, or perhaps had their own version of the Hebrew text, or maybe a different type of MT to work off from?
And was it a case where the Holy Spirit used the LXX in certain passages, as while the entire Book like Enoch was not inspired, that portion used in the NT book was accurate?
 
Did the Apostles themselves have access to an LXX copy that has disappeared since that time, or perhaps had their own version of the Hebrew text, or maybe a different type of MT to work off from?
And was it a case where the Holy Spirit used the LXX in certain passages, as while the entire Book like Enoch was not inspired, that portion used in the NT book was accurate?
If I'm not mistaken some of the quoted Scripture by our Lord, the Apostles, was sourced from the LXX. So they certainly had copies available to them. I'm sure someone will correct this old man if I'm wrong. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top