Verses that prove providential preservation of TR tradition?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jacob, the so-called (by you) “Papist edition by Erasmus” was the beginning of the new Received Text in Greek, the readings of which would be refined as both Erasmus and other editors put their hands to it.

The primary evidence is the word of God saying what He would do as regards preserving His word, and then our looking back in hindsight to see how He did it. Just as in the creation debates, the primary evidence is not found in fossils or earth strata, but in the record of Creation He gave to Moses to write, for our understanding. The word of God is our foundation for knowing anything.

Which is not to say I do not value evidences! I have labored for years showing evidences for particular readings, as this link in my signature at the bottom of every post shows: Textual Posts. Those, and the Eschatology posts represent a lot of work in these two areas. Nevertheless, my primary evidence is that which the LORD our God has provided in His word, and upon which my guiding presuppositions are based.
___

I said: In fact, God did preserve His word from the very beginning of it to the very end.
And you said: No one here denies this.

The issue is, How did He preserve it. And has that preservation been finalized or is it still in process, in flux? If the latter, will it ever be finished in this life? I give here three verses from Scripture:

Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

1 Peter 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever.

Psalm 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

Now the word of the LORD spoken of above, is it settled forever in heaven only, and not here on the earth as well for the men to whom it was given for their salvation and comfort? Does it endure, and stand inviolate, only in heaven and not here for us who must live by it? Was God not able to have His word endure forever here in the world? Can it be that it is settled only in heaven, and not here that we may benefit therefrom? The Confessions, and myself, maintain that the Old Testament in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek—our Bible—is settled here, and has, and will endure until the very end of time.

The Reformed have stated in their foundational documents—the WCF and the 1689—in chapter 1 section 8:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of Church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope. (WCF 1.8)​

Please note the boldface type [added]: this clearly indicates a finished product: it had been kept pure, and this that was kept—and which they had in hand—was to be the “court” of final appeal to the churches. It was not something that was in process, and for which they would have to wait, as would be the case with the “provisional” texts of the scholars not satisfied with the Reformed Confessions.

Tom, I think from following the thread you can see that when I use the term, Masoretic Text (MT), in the days before the Masoretes that text-form was called the Proto-Masoretic Text. To get the terminologies straight is why I posted Emmanuel Tov’s article on it.

I posted material and a couple of links on Augustine and the canon in post #216. Simply put, he acknowledged that the proto-Masoretic text—the text in Hebrew—was the only one the Jews of that day owned as theirs. Other texts based on a Hebrew vorlage (original) but in a different tongue were used by communities that were not Jewish.

Tom, for one to say that the Masoretic Text is not the authentic text of the Bible explicitly seeks to refutes the statement of the WCF and 1689 at 1.8. I have written that section out four paragraphs above. The Hebrew Text they had in hand was the Ben Hayyim Hebrew, or Second Great Rabbinic Bible:

The Mikraot Gedolot (or, in English, the [Second] Rabbinic Bible) was produced by Jacob ben Haim (also known as Yaakov ben Hayyim ibn Adonijah). The Mikraot Gedolot was published by Daniel Bomberg in Venice in 1524-1525, and is a classic printing of the Hebrew Bible, the Hebrew Masoretic text. The Mikraot Gedolot of ben Hayyim is believed to have been used by the translators of the King James Version of the Bible in 1611, as the source text (Textus Receptus) of the Hebrew Old Testament.

https://biblemanuscriptsociety.com/Bible-resources/Early-Bibles/Rabbinic-Bible

You asked, Tom, “Did the Westminster Divines believe the MT to be the only authority? Could you prove this?” There was no other Hebrew Bible acknowledged by both the Jews and the Protestant / Reformed Christians at that time besides the Ben Hayyim edition.
 
Last edited:
It was not something that was in process, and for which they would have to wait, as would be the case with the “provisional” texts of the scholars not satisfied with the Reformed Confessions.

All of that is well and good, but you cannot move logically from the claim--the Masoretic text today (which we didn't have until the 11th century) to the claim therefore (because of the 11th century MT) that we had an established text "in all ages before then." It is the fallacy of asserting the consequent.
 
Last edited:
Tom, I think from following the thread you can see that when I use the term, Masoretic Text (MT), in the days before the Masoretes that text-form was called the Proto-Masoretic Text. To get the terminologies straight is why I posted Emmanuel Tov’s article on it.

I posted material and a couple of links on Augustine and the canon in post #216. Simply put, he acknowledged that the proto-Masoretic text—the text in Hebrew—was the only one the Jews of that day owned as theirs. Other texts based on a Hebrew vorlage (original) but in a different tongue were used by communities that were not Jewish.

OK, so Augustine was talking about the proto-Masoretic Text. Do you hold that to be identical to the Masoretic Text?

Also, is it not true that the Septuagint was used by Greek-speaking Jews? (This might be earlier than Augustine, however.)

Tom, for one to say that the Masoretic Text is not the authentic text of the Bible explicitly seeks to refutes the statement of the WCF and 1689 at 1.8.... The Hebrew Text they had in hand was the Ben Hayyim Hebrew, or Second Great Rabbinic Bible:

Do you take "pure in all ages" to mean manuscripts identical to the autographs?

You asked, Tom, “Did the Westminster Divines believe the MT to be the only authority? Could you prove this?” There was no other Hebrew Bible acknowledged by both the Jews and the Protestant / Reformed Christians at that time besides the Ben Hayyim edition.

What did the Westminster Divines (or others of the time) think of the Septuagint?

I would appreciate any sources you can give (quotations, articles, etc.) to support your claim that the Westminster Divines believed the Masoretic Text to be the only valid Hebrew text.
 
I'm not sure if that is 'right', or not .... At my congregation we use the 1984 NIV, which some call 'the New Inspired Version' .... not sure about that either ... :)

My minister has talked about changing from the NIV to the ESV. If he does, I am starting my own NIV-only sect, whose leading slogan will be, "If it's not 1978, it's not great!" ;)
 
Please note the boldface type [added]: this clearly indicates a finished product: it had been kept pure, and this that was kept—and which they had in hand—was to be the “court” of final appeal to the churches. It was not something that was in process, and for which they would have to wait, as would be the case with the “provisional” texts of the scholars not satisfied with the Reformed Confessions.

So, Steve, I just want to be clear on what you are saying. You are claiming that the TR is not something that was in process ever at any given time? But you said at the beginning of your post
Jacob, the so-called (by you) “Papist edition by Erasmus” was the beginning of the new Received Text in Greek, the readings of which would be refined as both Erasmus and other editors put their hands to it.
. That sounds like a process to me. I'm not sure you can have it both ways: either the TR was a process, in which case we have to ask the question of what Greek NT manuscript was the finished product in order that your interpretation of the WCF holds with regard to pre-TR times, or the TR dropped out of heaven as a finished product itself.


Tom, for one to say that the Masoretic Text is not the authentic text of the Bible explicitly seeks to refutes the statement of the WCF and 1689 at 1.8.
Ok, but no one is saying this or claiming this. If all we ever had was the MT, we would have the Word of God (though, as Iain said, there are variations within the MT manuscripts). We keep coming back to the same problem, which is that your argument does not recognize degrees of purity and degrees of approximation. The fact is that we do not have any manuscript today that we can say with certitude "This is the autograph." We have a variety of manuscripts, which, when compared, gets us 99.99% close to the autograph. All we are saying is that the LXX bears witness to a Hebrew text that can be compared to the MT, sometimes favorably, sometimes unfavorably. Now, if you are claiming that the MT is the autograph, then you run into the problem of the vowel points, which were added by the Masoretes. The MT manuscripts we have are apographs, not autographs. As I see it, the only way your argument works is if the MT is the autograph. On the other hand, I do not see why very close approximations have to be said to be impure. Again, the Westminster divines were responding to the claims that the texts were utterly corrupt. I do not think we have to interpret them as requiring absolute purity. If God had needed for us to have absolute purity, he would have preserved the autographs for us.
 
Jacob, the so-called (by you) “Papist edition by Erasmus” was the beginning of the new Received Text in Greek, the readings of which would be refined as both Erasmus and other editors put their hands to it.

The primary evidence is the word of God saying what He would do as regards preserving His word, and then our looking back in hindsight to see how He did it. Just as in the creation debates, the primary evidence is not found in fossils or earth strata, but in the record of Creation He gave to Moses to write, for our understanding. The word of God is our foundation for knowing anything.

Which is not to say I do not value evidences! I have labored for years showing evidences for particular readings, as this link in my signature at the bottom of every post shows: Textual Posts. Those, and the Eschatologyposts represent a lot of work in these two areas. Nevertheless, my primary evidence is that which the LORD our God has provided in His word, and upon which my guiding presuppositions are based.
___

I said: In fact, God did preserve His word from the very beginning of it to the very end.
And you said: No one here denies this.

The issue is, How did He preserve it. And has that preservation been finalized or is it still in process, in flux? If the latter, will it ever be finished in this life? I give here three verses from Scripture:

Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

1 Peter 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever.

Psalm 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

Now the word of the LORD spoken of above, is it settled forever in heaven only, and not here on the earth as well for the men to whom it was given for their salvation and comfort? Does it endure, and stand inviolate, only in heaven and not here for us who must live by it? Was God not able to have His word endure forever here in the world? Can it be that it is settled only in heaven, and not here that we may benefit therefrom? The Confessions, and myself, maintain that the Old Testament in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek—our Bible—is settled here, and has, and will endure until the very end of time.

The Reformed have stated in their foundational documents—the WCF and the 1689—in chapter 1 section 8:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of Church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope. (WCF 1.8)​

Please note the boldface type [added]: this clearly indicates a finished product: it had been kept pure, and this that was kept—and which they had in hand—was to be the “court” of final appeal to the churches. It was not something that was in process, and for which they would have to wait, as would be the case with the “provisional” texts of the scholars not satisfied with the Reformed Confessions.

Tom, I think from following the thread you can see that when I use the term, Masoretic Text (MT), in the days before the Masoretes that text-form was called the Proto-Masoretic Text. To get the terminologies straight is why I posted Emmanuel Tov’s article on it.

I posted material and a couple of links on Augustine and the canon in post #216. Simply put, he acknowledged that the proto-Masoretic text—the text in Hebrew—was the only one the Jews of that day owned as theirs. Other texts based on a Hebrew vorlage (original) but in a different tongue were used by communities that were not Jewish.

Tom, for one to say that the Masoretic Text is not the authentic text of the Bible explicitly seeks to refutes the statement of the WCF and 1689 at 1.8. I have written that section out four paragraphs above. The Hebrew Text they had in hand was the Ben Hayyim Hebrew, or Second Great Rabbinic Bible:

The Mikraot Gedolot (or, in English, the [Second] Rabbinic Bible) was produced by Jacob ben Haim (also known as Yaakov ben Hayyim ibn Adonijah). The Mikraot Gedolot was published by Daniel Bomberg in Venice in 1524-1525, and is a classic printing of the Hebrew Bible, the Hebrew Masoretic text. The Mikraot Gedolot of ben Hayyim is believed to have been used by the translators of the King James Version of the Bible in 1611, as the source text (Textus Receptus) of the Hebrew Old Testament.

https://biblemanuscriptsociety.com/Bible-resources/Early-Bibles/Rabbinic-Bible

You asked, Tom, “Did the Westminster Divines believe the MT to be the only authority? Could you prove this?” There was no other Hebrew Bible acknowledged by both the Jews and the Protestant / Reformed Christians at that time besides the Ben Hayyim edition.
Steve,
Is there any English translation that adopts the approach you advocate, of MT only, with no emendations permitted based on other text families? Certainly Edward Hills doesn't think that that approach describes the KJV. He says:

Sometimes also the influence of the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate is discernible in the King James Old Testament. For example, in Psalm 24:6 the King James text reads, O Jacob, with the Hebrew kethibh but the King James margin reads, O God of Jacob, which is the reading of the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, and also of Luther's German Bible. In Jer. 3:9 the King James margin reads fame (qol) along with the Hebrew kethibh, but the King James text reads lightness (qal) in agreement with the Septuagint, and the Latin Vulgate. And in Psalm 22:16 the King James Version reads with the Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Latin Vulgate, they pierced my hands and my feet. The Hebrew text, on the other hand, reads, like a lion my hands and my feet, a reading which makes no sense and which, as Calvin observes, was obviously invented by the Jews to deny the prophetic reference to the crucifixion of Christ. (The King James Version Defended, 166).

What is notable here also is Hills insistence, along with Calvin and Matthew Henry that the MT is not only in error in Ps 22:16, but has been deliberately falsified! That's hardly an assertion of confidence in divine preservation of the text. It's perhaps ironic that I wouldn't go nearly as far as they would, when the confusion of a yod and a waw could be a simple copying error.

The point is simple: according to your rule, the KJV (and other translations) should never, ever depart from the MT reading in favor of the LXX. It's not always simple to distinguish between the KJV adopting a variant reading from the LXX and the KJV using the LXX to translate obscure words (which it does often, sometimes wrongly), but one straightforward example will suffice. In Ruth 3:15, the KJV (along with the Geneva Bible before it) translates "and she went into town", following the LXX, when the MT (ironically followed by many modern versions, including the NIV!) clearly has "and he went into town." I could multiply examples, if necessary. But there is no English Bible based solely on the MT.
 
Hello Dr. Duguid,

I know that you surpass me in all biblical knowledge and I am happy to be corrected.

I am not advocating a particular English translation at this time but rather for the preserved word of the original languages.

It is my understanding that Ben-Chayyim (30 years Calvin's senior) found כארו in corrected copies. Though Calvin was unaware of that particular Hebrew reading, it was nevertheless preserved during his lifetime.

Maybe Calvin's view of the doctrine of preservation makes use of the LXX not as authoritative but rather assisting (as he did not have that Hebrew source at his disposal at that particular time though it was providentially preserved). He says: "With respect to the Septuagint version, there is no doubt that the translators had read in the Hebrew text, כארו, caaru, that is the letter ו, vau, where there is now the letter י, yod." Nevertheless, I don't know why he doesn't mention the Ben-Chayyim.

No doubt the original manuscripts have been corrupted by carelessness or intention but that is not what I am disputing. What I am asserting is not all the manuscripts have degenerated to the point of being irretrievable as the corruption is not universal. I believe a collation of manuscripts can render a pure reading.

I believe the LXX is a great asset to the church but still a fallible human translation and should not be regarded as equal to the sources. I may be in the minority but I agree with Canon III of the Helvetic Consensus Formula:

Canon III: Therefore, we are not able to approve of the opinion of those who believe that the text which the Hebrew Original exhibits was determined by man's will alone, and do not hesitate at all to remodel a Hebrew reading which they consider unsuitable, and amend it from the versions of the LXX and other Greek versions, the Samaritan Pentateuch, by the Chaldaic Targums, or even from other sources.
 
Last edited:
Hello Dr. Duguid,

I know that you surpass me in all biblical knowledge and I am happy to be corrected.

I am not advocating a particular English translation at this time but rather for the preserved word of the original languages.

It is my understanding that Ben-Chayyim (30 years Calvin's senior) found כארו in corrected copies. Though Calvin was unaware of that particular Hebrew reading, it was nevertheless preserved during his lifetime.

Maybe Calvin's view of the doctrine of preservation makes use of the LXX not as authoritative but rather assisting (as he did not have that Hebrew source at his disposal at that particular time though it was providentially preserved). He says: "With respect to the Septuagint version, there is no doubt that the translators had read in the Hebrew text, כארו, caaru, that is the letter ו, vau, where there is now the letter י, yod." Nevertheless, I don't know why he doesn't mention the Ben-Chayyim.

No doubt the original manuscripts have been corrupted by carelessness or intention but that is not what I am disputing. What I am asserting is not all the manuscripts have degenerated to the point of being irretrievable as the corruption is not universal. I believe a collation of manuscripts can render a pure reading.

I believe the LXX is a great asset to the church but still a fallible human translation and should not be regarded as equal to the sources. I may be in the minority but I agree with Canon III of the Helvetic Consensus Formula:

Canon III: Therefore, we are not able to approve of the opinion of those who believe that the text which the Hebrew Original exhibits was determined by man's will alone, and do not hesitate at all to remodel a Hebrew reading which they consider unsuitable, and amend it from the versions of the LXX and other Greek versions, the Samaritan Pentateuch, by the Chaldaic Targums, or even from other sources.
Hi Vince,
I did note the fact that Calvin was wrong in believing that the correct reading was not present in a minority of MT texts. However, the quote demonstrates that he did not espouse the view that you are arguing for. Otherwise, he should have followed what he believed to be the unquestioned MT, rather than claiming that the MT had been deliberately corrupted at this point, and preferring the Septuagint.

My question is this: why is it okay to judge among the MT manuscripts and correct errors in many places (and even use Septuagint readings in support of MT manuscripts), but not to incorporate the Hebrew manuscripts that are attested by the LXX? It's not like the LXX wasn't accessible to the church (often far more easily than variant MT manuscripts) down through the ages. I can see why people might be reluctant to use Qumran, on your view of preservation, but I don't see how in principle the Hebrew manuscripts attested by the LXX are off limits. If it is so unreliable, why does the KJV rely on it so often for translation issues?

In case you missed it, no one here is arguing for making the LXX equal to the MT. But it can occasionally attest alternate Hebrew readings (both in the consonantal text and in the vowels). Why should that not be weighed, along with variant manuscripts in the MT? The text would still have been perfectly preserved for the church down through the ages.
 
Gentlemen, I said in post #188 (a long time ago, I know!), “I do not want to drag this out defending every word in the OT corpus.” One or two defenses shall be sufficient. All the contested words or passages can be defended, but I am not going to write a book concerning all those here.

Tom, in post 244 you said, “OK, so Augustine was talking about the proto-Masoretic Text. Do you hold that to be identical to the Masoretic Text?” Tom, have you been following the material I’ve linked to which substantiates what I have been asserting, such as Prof. Tov’s, The (Proto-)Masoretic Text: A Ten-Part Series? Each of these ten parts is very brief, as in a four or five minute-read each.

You further asked, “Also, is it not true that the Septuagint was used by Greek-speaking Jews? (This might be earlier than Augustine, however.)”

The answer would be Yes, before and during the time of Christ, and in the apostolic era, but when the Jewish Christians started using it to effectively convince their fellow Jews that Jesus was the Messiah, they renounced the use of the LXX as authentic Scripture for Jews, seeing as it had been co-opted by Jesus’ followers. But more on that in a moment.

You then asked, “Do you take ‘pure in all ages’ to mean manuscripts identical to the autographs?” The word “pure” has been bandied about here as though it were virtually meaningless, as if 99.999% rendered it short of “free of any contamination”; “not mixed or adulterated with error”. If there are one or two words which are in partial doubt, and we know which they are, and all the rest are free of doubt, I would be content to affirm “pure in all ages” meant substantially pure, identical to the autographs save for two possible (but not probable) exceptions. I take this to be the position of the Westminster Divines. E.F. Hills thought there may be three errors in the NT. Though there are some scholars who would not accept even the one or two errors I hypothesized.
_____

Lane, if the LORD was providentially preserving His word through the church age (though this may apply to the OT as well, but in a different way), and He began to have it materialize in the final form He wanted in the time of the Reformation, sure, this was a process, humanly speaking. You then ask, if so, “what Greek NT manuscript was the finished product in order that your interpretation of the WCF holds with regard to pre-TR times?

I have stated the answer to this often. In the pre-TR times all the areas that had NT manuscripts had them in varying states of preservation. In the main they were all sufficient for the Lord to save His elect, and nurture the churches, even if they all did not have preservation in the minutiae. The Byzantine Greek manuscripts, coming from the areas where the autographs had been sent to sound churches, had the best MSS, even though the theological battles of the 4th century, what with the Arians and the Sabellians, wrought some damage to the Byz MSS. This was remedied at the time of the Reformation beginning with Erasmus putting together a Greek text to supplant the Latin Vulgate of Rome, which was further brought to purity by the other Reformation editors, such as Stephanus, and Beza, and the AV translators.

When you ask “what Greek NT manuscript was the finished product”, that I can’t say, as they used a number of different TR editions, plus likely other versions, including Tyndale and the other English Bibles, as well as Waldensian Bibles (of which there were a few in Geneva), and the translation they came up with was the result. Due to the London fires we don’t have their notes, so the Greek text(s) underlying each word can only be discerned in Scrivener’s 1894, which was a back-translated production. Yes, we have Beza’s editions which are very close, and also Stephanus’ editions.

As I have said earlier, WHAT was “kept pure in all ages”? — 1) an entire and intact Greek NT? And that throughout the church age till printing came to be? I don’t believe this. 2) Or the pure READINGS of the autographs kept in various Greek mss, and then compiled in an authoritative edition, and then printed? Which edition would that be? I know of none. 3) Or the pure READINGS of the Greek autographs kept in various mss—mostly the Traditional (Byzantine) Greek, but a very few kept in other versions due to attacks and mutilations on the Greek—and then put into print in the Greek Textus Receptus editions (known to and used by the Westminster divines)? I hold to the third option. This was a reconstruction or a process involving the TR here, from a human point of view, but from God’s vantage simply a keeping of it, and manifesting it to men according to promise.
_____

More on the Proto-Masoretic and Masoretic text shortly.
 
I can see why textual critics and scholars do not like the Westminster Confession regarding the Scripture, and either ignore it or seek to drown its stand in a flood of variants. I understand it is in good conscience, and with good and scholarly intentions, but the Confession stands as a wall against opposition to the Westminster doctrine of preservation.

Iain, regarding Ruth 3:15, the translators may well have not relied on the LXX, but simply discerned that the reading must have been she and not he, and were supported by the other versions’ correct reading— similar to Luke 2:22 where to put their purification instead of her would have been blatant error. The LORD was keeping His word pure.

But I’d rather focus on Psalm 22:16. I had posted a link to a site talking of this, but you didn’t appear to have taken cognizance of it, so I’ll post a bit from it here, and afterwards a portion from William Whitaker.

"They pierced my hands and my feet" or "Like a lion my hands and my feet" in Psalm 22:16?

Psalm 22:16 in the KJV says: “For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.”

Christians believe that the 22nd Psalm portrays the crucified Messiah, Jesus Christ. Verse 16 in most Christian translations says “they pierced my hands and my feet”, which points to the crucifixion. The contention is that “they pierced” is based on a Christian textual corruption. There are two textual variants underlying the portion translated “they pierced”: “כארי” which means “like a lion”, and “כארו” which arguably means “digging”. The difference is whether the final letter is a Yod (י) or a Vav (ו). Christians prefer “כארו” because “digging” could convey the idea of “piercing”. If the "כארי" reading were followed, the verse would read:

"For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: like a lion my hands and my feet."
כארו or כארי?

The Hebrew Masoretic text underlying the KJV, the Second Rabbinic Bible, edited by Jacob Ben Chayyim and printed by Daniel Bomberg in 1525, has "like a lion" in the text of Psalm 22:16(17). However, Ben Chayyim in the Massorah Finalis of the fourth volume of the Second Rabbinical Bible states: "In some correct Codices I have found כארוas the Kethiv [= textual reading] and כאריas the Keri [= the official marginal reading];" (Christian D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (1896), p. 969). There are also some early witnesses to the reading “כארו”. A manuscript of Psalm 22 found at Nachal Hever (5/6Hev Col. XI, frag. 9) supposedly from the 1st century has “כארו” (Tim Hegg, Studies in the Biblical Text, "Psalm 22:16 - "like a lion" or "they pierced"?"). The NIV 2010 footnote says "pierced" is the reading found in the "Dead Sea Scrolls and some manuscripts of the Masoretic Text, Septuagint and Syriac". Clarke's Commentary on the Bible says “כארו” is the kethib, or marginal reading. So "כארו" is preserved as a minority reading in the Masoretic tradition. It has long been known that the LXX has “ὤρυξαν χεῖράς μου καὶ πόδας” (they dug my hands and feet). The Vulgate also has “dig” (foderunt)….

Critics argue that even if the text were to read "כארו", there is no such word in Hebrew. The trilateral root of the verb “dig” is “כּרה”. It has been argued that there is no basis for the Aleph in "כארו" if it were a form of "כּרה". The counterargument has been that the form with the Aleph is an alternate spelling. Then again, even if "כארו" could mean “digging”, critics argue that it is a stretch to translate it as “piercing” because the usual word for “pierce” (“נקב” (Kings 18:21, Isaiah 36:6), “דּקר” (Zechariah 12:10)) is not used here.

"Like a lion" = "They pierced"

It is possible that the original Hebrew word was “כארו” (digging) and some Masoretes corrupted the text. However, "like a lion" is not a completely out-of-context reading. The Psalm uses an animal motif to refer to the perpetrators, referring to them as bulls (verse 12), dogs (verses 16, 20), unicorns (verse 21) and even lions elsewhere (verses 13, 21). In light of this, ardent supporters of "כארי" (like a lion) may never be convinced otherwise. The translation, "they pierced", however, can be justified even if "כארי" (like a lion) were the original reading.​
There is more—with substance—to the article, so those interested click on this link.
_____

Then there is William Whitaker, in his A Disputation on Holy Scripture:

In order, then, to show that the Hebrew originals are not absolutely pure, Bellarmine [a Romish opponent] proposes five places, which he thinks undoubtedly corrupt...

The third place is Ps. 22:17 [AV, v. 16]. All Christians read, “They pierced my hands and my feet.” But the Hebrew MSS. have not Caru, [כָּרוּ] “they pierced,” but Caari, [כָּאֲרִי] “as a Lion.” I answer, that this is the only specious indication of corruption in the Hebrew original; yet it is easy to protect this place also from their reproaches. For, first, learned men testify that many Hebrew copies are found in which the reading is Caru; Andradius, Defens. Trid., book 4, and Galatinus, book 8, chapter 17. And John Isaac writes that he had himself seen such a copy, in his book against Lindanus, book 2; and the Masorites themselves affirm that it was so written in some corrected copies. Secondly, in those books which have this reading, the Masorites tell us that it is not to be taken in the common acceptation: whence it plainly appears that nothing was farther from their minds than a design to corrupt the passage. Thirdly, the place is now no otherwise read than it was formerly before Jerome’s time. For the Chaldee Paraphrast hath conjoined both readings, and the Masorites testify that there is a twofold reading of this place. Jerome, too, in his Psalter read in the Hebrew Caari, as our books have it, though he rendered it “fixerunt.” So that it can never be proved, at least from this place, that the Hebrew originals were corrupted after the time of Jerome. (pp. 158, 159)​
_____

I said I would post more on the Proto-Masoretic text, and the LXX, and that I shall do shortly—with a view to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the significant part they play in this matter. But now I must prepare to sleep, and if I have time in the morning before I leave for an appointment, I will do it then, otherwise later in the day. If y’all give me time before responding to me, I can finish my response.
 
Last edited:
Hello Tom, I see you couldn’t wait for an answer, and started another thread on this—but that’s okay, this one is getting a bit too long! Still, I’ll be answering you on this here thread. This that is to follow is from Dr. Thomas Holland’s book, Crowned with Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version, Chapter 7, “Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls”. (He deals with the Hebrew and the Greek.) This is a classic on the topic of textual history and believing critical study from the vantage of the Received Text.
_____

Textual Variance Among The Scrolls

Some have mistakenly assumed that the Dead Sea Scrolls contain only biblical writings. Actually the Scrolls reflect a library scattered throughout eleven caves, containing biblical and non-biblical books. Some are still in scroll form, but most are fragmentary after over two thousand years of aging. With the exceptions of Esther and Nehemiah, every book of the Old Testament is represented in the findings at Qumran. It should be noted, however, that representation and full representation are not the same thing. Some books are represented with only fragmentary evidence in very limited number, while other books are better and more fully represented among the findings.

In the most current published lists of manuscripts among the Dead Sea Scrolls there are thirty-six manuscripts which represent the Book of Psalms, making it the most represented biblical book among the Scrolls. Deuteronomy follows with twenty-nine manuscripts and Isaiah with twenty-one. First and Second Chronicles are represented by only one manuscript, as is Ezra. Most of the others are represented by fewer than ten manuscripts. The exceptions are those previously listed, as well as Genesis (with fifteen manuscripts), Exodus (with seventeen), and Leviticus (with thirteen). There are about eight hundred manuscripts among the Scrolls. Of these, slightly over two hundred represent biblical books, which means only about one-fourth of the Qumran library contained copies of the Scriptures.

It should also be pointed out that not all of these biblical books represent the same textual history. The biblical books found at Qumran are divided into three textual categories:

1. Manuscripts that represent the Masoretic Traditional Text.
2. Manuscripts that represent the text of the Septuagint.
3. Manuscripts that represent the Samaritan text.
4. However, according to Dr. Emanuel Tov, who became co-editor-in-chief of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1991, there are two additional groups.
5. Texts that demonstrate a unique style of writing, spelling, and grammar found only at Qumran.
6. Nonaligned texts that do not show any allegiance to the four other groups. About twenty-five percent of the biblical manuscripts found at Qumran fall into the nonaligned category. [James C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 133-134.]​


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.]


The Proto-Septuagint Text

Only five percent of the Dead Sea Scrolls are Proto-Septuagint. These are texts written in Hebrew that reflect a reading closer to the Greek Septuagint than the Traditional Text. For example, the Greek Septuagint and the text of Jeremiah found at Qumran (4QJer.b) agree in omitting a healthy portion of the text. The Septuagint and Qumran text (4QExod.a) agree in stating the number of descendants from Jacob are seventy-five, instead of the seventy listed in the Masoretic Text. Some have assumed that Stephen was citing either the Septuagint or the Proto-Septuagint text of Qumran in giving the number as seventy-five (Acts 7:14 and Exodus 1:5). Yet, this can also be explained by the way the family was numbered and not the text Stephen was citing.


The Proto-Samaritan Text

As with the Proto-Septuagint textual type of the Dead Sea Scrolls, only five percent of the manuscripts found comprise the Proto-Samaritan textual type. The Samaritan Pentateuch, as indicated by the name, consisted solely of the five books of Moses. The Hebrew text is often the same as the Masoretic Text with differences in spelling rather than textual variants. However, there are nineteen hundred variants that agree with the text of the Septuagint over that of the Masoretic. This text also has some additions to it.

The information concerning the various textual types found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, along with other findings in that region, should reveal something to the reader. First, as in any library, the one at Qumran demonstrates a diversity of material. Is this not to be expected? If a student were to visit my personal library they would discover a wide variety of texts and general information. Second, considering the extensive use of the Masoretic Text in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and its exclusive use in other manuscript findings near the Dead Sea, the Traditional Hebrew Text must be unquestionably authoritative.​

[End Holland]
 
Hello Tom, I see you couldn’t wait for an answer, and started another thread on this—but that’s okay, this one is getting a bit too long! Still, I’ll be answering you on this here thread. This that is to follow is from Dr. Thomas Holland’s book, Crowned with Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version, Chapter 7, “Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls”. (He deals with the Hebrew and the Greek.) This is a classic on the topic of textual history and believing critical study from the vantage of the Received Text.
Good morning Steve, I bring this post, in another, I think related thread with a PDF critiquing the MT vs the Septuagint, to your attention. Something that should interest you I think ;
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/the-flood-3000-bc-or-before.97261/page-2#post-1191212
 
Hi Vince,
I did note the fact that Calvin was wrong in believing that the correct reading was not present in a minority of MT texts. However, the quote demonstrates that he did not espouse the view that you are arguing for. Otherwise, he should have followed what he believed to be the unquestioned MT, rather than claiming that the MT had been deliberately corrupted at this point, and preferring the Septuagint.

My question is this: why is it okay to judge among the MT manuscripts and correct errors in many places (and even use Septuagint readings in support of MT manuscripts), but not to incorporate the Hebrew manuscripts that are attested by the LXX? It's not like the LXX wasn't accessible to the church (often far more easily than variant MT manuscripts) down through the ages. I can see why people might be reluctant to use Qumran, on your view of preservation, but I don't see how in principle the Hebrew manuscripts attested by the LXX are off limits. If it is so unreliable, why does the KJV rely on it so often for translation issues?

In case you missed it, no one here is arguing for making the LXX equal to the MT. But it can occasionally attest alternate Hebrew readings (both in the consonantal text and in the vowels). Why should that not be weighed, along with variant manuscripts in the MT? The text would still have been perfectly preserved for the church down through the ages.

Hello Dr. Duguid,

Yes, you noted that Calvin was wrong in believing that the correct reading was not present but it wasn't clear to me if you held that it was providentially preserved during his lifetime. I appreciate the clarification. My view on Calvin (because of my great respect for him) is admittedly only conjecture and wishful thinking. Unfortunately, it is possible that he did indeed err in deferring to the LXX because he was unaware of the correct minority Hebrew reading (which was providentially preserved).

I do hold that it is necessary to correct errors using the Hebrew manuscripts but to use the LXX only as a secondary fallible human authority. I don't believe the LXX is unreliable in all cases, just not divine.

Respectfully, I do believe some are (maybe unwittingly) arguing for the equality or priority of the LXX in some instances. It is my contention (and others) that the divine original text is the fountain and all should flow from the source.
 
Hello Dr. Duguid,

Yes, you noted that Calvin was wrong in believing that the correct reading was not present but it wasn't clear to me if you held that it was providentially preserved during his lifetime. I appreciate the clarification. My view on Calvin (because of my great respect for him) is admittedly only conjecture and wishful thinking. Unfortunately, it is possible that he did indeed err in deferring to the LXX because he was unaware of the correct minority Hebrew reading (which was providentially preserved).

I do hold that it is necessary to correct errors using the Hebrew manuscripts but to use the LXX only as a secondary fallible human authority. I don't believe the LXX is unreliable in all cases, just not divine.

Respectfully, I do believe some are (maybe unwittingly) arguing for the equality or priority of the LXX in some instances. It is my contention (and others) that the divine original text is the fountain and all should flow from the source.
Vince,
We would all agree that that the divine original text is the fountain and all should flow from the source. The question is which Hebrew copies should be used in assessing what that divine original said.

1) Should we only use the Medieval Bomberg edition of the Masoretic Text (The Ben-Chayyim family)? This is the text that for the most part underlies the KJV
2) Should we use other Hebrew manuscripts within the Masoretic tradition (The Ben Asher family, which includes the Leningrad codex - the present scholarly base text)?
3) Should we use other Hebrew manuscripts that are witnessed by the LXX and Qumran (especially where both agree)?

17th century Reformation discussions of the issue are clouded by the fact that the opponents are Roman Catholics, arguing in favor of the Vulgate (which is based largely on the Septuagint), or rationalists who are seeking to cast doubt on the text as a whole. As a result, they tend to stress the problems in the LXX, problems that are undoubtedly real. Nonetheless, the Reformed frequently use the LXX to defend a particular MT manuscript versus others, so they clearly believed its witness was, at times, very valuable.

NO ONE HERE IS ARGUING FOR EQUAL WEIGHTING FOR THE LXX and MT. Sorry for shouting, but the point needs to be clear. In the vast, vast, vast majority of cases (99%?), we would follow the MT (and the differences between 1) and 2) above are very small). It is striking that in the world of contemporary translations, the high mark for LXX influence is the RSV. The NIV already marks a strong move back toward the MT, as do other more recent versions. But there are a very few cases, where it appears plausible that the other ancient Hebrew manuscripts reflected in the LXX and Qumran (especially when these agree) may actually reflect the divine source better. It is hard for me to see how that idea is radically different from using the LXX to support a minority manuscript reading within the MT tradition (as the 17th century Reformed did regularly, and the KJV does). Since the former was clearly not ruled out by the WCF (or they would have had to come up with a new translation to replace the KJV, it's hard to believe that the latter was.
 
I understand it is in good conscience, and with good and scholarly intentions, but the Confession stands as a wall against opposition to the Westminster doctrine of preservation. And this used to be a Confessional board!
Moderator Note:
Yes, the WCF sets fences around what is "in" and what is "out". The issue as relates to this topic is what said preservation means, hence the discussion. You wander into the weeds when you move the goal posts to imply that anyone that disagrees with your view of the what and the how of that preservation is actualized necessarily implies contra-Confessionalism.

Contrary to your provocative claim, this board is Confessional, Steve. Anyone that thinks otherwise needs to take a step back and think before giving in to rhetoric that poisons the well of the discussion in this thread. If you believe something is contra-Confessional, then make the argument, being ready to be cross-examined, for we will all be edified. But please do not make such infelicitous pronouncements like the above.
 
I found this link on an older PB post: Pastor Jeff Riddle's review of Howard Milne's "Has the Bible Been Kept Pure?" (audio). Howard Milne's book is available at Amazon. Pastor Riddle points out that a main distinctive of this book is its historical references, giving insight into the minds of the Westminster divines and others. I haven't read it yet so cannot say more than that, but it looks like a resource anyone interested in this discussion should have at hand.
 
Hello Patrick,

I had earlier stated in post #235,

“…when it is said [in post #203] that the ‘Masoretic…is *not* the authentic Bible’, this rebuts the WCF.”​

Does this not, on the face of it, contradict the Confession, which explicitly says, “The Old Testament in Hebrew” etc? This is not about my “view of the what and the how of that preservation”—that I have made clear, allowing that differing interpretations of the WCF / 1689 at 1.8 re preservation are not contra-confessional. But to say that the Masoretic Hebrew is not the authentic Bible—and in the context of this entire thread indicating that other language editions have equal authority (even though there was a later equivocating statement that the MT has “pride of place”)—is this not contradicting the Confession? For there was no other Hebrew Bible the WCF spoke of—albeit in different editions nowadays—but the Masoretic. Am I not right to say that this casts doubt on the authority of the Confession?

And when it is said that the WCF framers were responding to Rome, and to atheists, and not to modern textual knowledge, is this not saying that the Westminster divines did not have the light of new textual and linguistic discoveries we have, and are in this area practically irrelevant?

I really do seek to be conciliatory in these textual discussions, as I said in my first post here (post #125), but when statements go beyond the clear “goal posts” of the Confession, and implications are given that the WCF is outmoded at this point due to new knowledge, that is troubling to me.
 
I had earlier stated in post #235,

“…when it is said [in post #203] that the ‘Masoretic…is *not* the authentic Bible’, this rebuts the WCF.”
Does this not, on the face of it, contradict the Confession, which explicitly says, “The Old Testament in Hebrew” etc? This is not about my “view of the what and the how of that preservation”—that I have made clear, allowing that differing interpretations of the WCF / 1689 at 1.8 re preservation are not contra-confessional. But to say that the Masoretic Hebrew is not the authentic Bible—and in the context of this entire thread indicating that other language editions have equal authority (even though there was a later equivocating statement that the MT has “pride of place”)—is this not contradicting the Confession?

I feel pretty confident that I can speak for Jacob (and for myself at the same time) in answering this charge. Your definition of "authentic" probably does not align with what Jacob means in the quotation. This is what Jacob means: the Masoretic manuscripts that we have today are not the autographs. This is what Jacob means by "authentic" in context. What you mean by authentic seems to be something broader, something like "genuine." Jacob (and I, and Iain) would all agree that the MT is the Word of God. Period. It is genuine. It is genuine to the exact same extent that any edition of the Greek NT is genuine today: not the autograph but still God's word.

Second point, regarding NT textual criticism, your argument seems to me to arbitrarily stop all textual criticism at the time of the Reformation. You argue that churches had a sufficient but inchoate purity before the Reformation. You actually state that the church prior to the Reformation did NOT have preservation with regard to the minutiae. In my opinion, this statement of yours actually goes against the meaning of the Westminster Standards, which says "kept pure in all ages," not "in all ages after the Reformation." My view is simple: all the manuscripts we have preserve God's Word, some more purely, some less. The church, however, has always had access to God's Word through all ages. Because my view of the differences between TR and CT are that they are small and mostly insignificant, and affecting no major doctrine, I can affirm that the church PRIOR TO THE REFORMATION had God's Word kept pure. The process of refinement that has gone on in our understanding of textual criticism has only improved our grasp of the minutiae. You arbitrary stop that process at the Reformation. I would argue that my view is actually more in line with the WS than yours is.

Thirdly, your lay-out of the Dead Sea Scrolls material confirms what Iain and Jacob and I have been saying all along: go with the MT in the vast majority of cases, but there are a few places where the LXX (now supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls) points to a HEBREW (NOT GREEK) reading that is alternate to the MT that is preferable. Your layout of the Dead Sea Scrolls evidence does NOT support the idea of MT always and at any cost.
 
Hello Dr. Duguid,

NO ONE HERE IS ARGUING FOR EQUAL WEIGHTING FOR THE LXX and MT. Sorry for shouting, but the point needs to be clear.

And if claiming that that text has in at least one place been "fraudulently corrupted" by its transmitters doesn't shake your faith in God's Word, then a few errors in transmission that may be corrected from other Hebrew traditions reflected in the LXX and at Qumran are unlikely to do so!

In contrast, while I give strong priority to the masoretic text, I think there are places where the LXX (and other witnesses) may represent a different (proto-masoretic) Hebrew tradition that is more accurate.

Are you referring to the extant Hebrew manuscripts underlying the LXX? If so, we have no disagreement. If not, it seems that in some instances you are favoring the LXX translation (the stream). Thus divesting the Hebrew text (the fountain) of its divine authority and veracity.
 
What I really don't understand is how the views of MT-only folks can possibly line up with the attitude of the authors of the New Testament. It is a fact well-known and undisputed that there are a fair number of quotations of the OT in the NT where the LXX and the MT diverge, and where the NT authors go with the LXX. Now, I would explain this phenomenon by saying that the NT authors recognized that the LXX is a witness to an underlying Hebrew manuscript (which, Vince, is no longer extant), and they believed, in those instances, that the Hebrew manuscript underlying the LXX was more faithful in those particular instances. Hence, they quoted the Greek translation of that Hebrew manuscript. If the LXX cannot ever be used for text-critical purposes, then you CANNOT explain the NT phenomena. And I would just add this: an MT-only view of OT textual criticism does not agree with the NT's use of the LXX.
 
What I really don't understand is how the views of MT-only folks can possibly line up with the attitude of the authors of the New Testament. It is a fact well-known and undisputed that there are a fair number of quotations of the OT in the NT where the LXX and the MT diverge, and where the NT authors go with the LXX. Now, I would explain this phenomenon by saying that the NT authors recognized that the LXX is a witness to an underlying Hebrew manuscript (which, Vince, is no longer extant), and they believed, in those instances, that the Hebrew manuscript underlying the LXX was more faithful in those particular instances. Hence, they quoted the Greek translation of that Hebrew manuscript. If the LXX cannot ever be used for text-critical purposes, then you CANNOT explain the NT phenomena. And I would just add this: an MT-only view of OT textual criticism does not agree with the NT's use of the LXX.

Hello Rev. Keister,

I believe the quotes from the LXX were incorporated by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit into the sacred NT. We also have quotes from Aratus (Acts 17), Menander (1 Cor. 15), and Epimenides (Titus 1).
 
Vince, that only pushes the question back: why would the Holy Spirit inspire the NT authors to incorporate quotations from the LXX AS SCRIPTURE (as opposed to the pagan authors you mention, the LXX quotes are not in the same category at all). The quotes from the pagans are not introduced as Scripture, but some of the LXX quotations are.
 
Here are some interesting thoughts from John Davenant, who was a fairly big influence in terms of English Reformed thought, on the correct reading of Colossians 1:16. Note that he diverges from the TR reading.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top