VIDEO - 1647 Westminster Confession of Faith

[NaphtaliPress]

That rings a bell now, but my formal notes are not up to the American texts at Q. 105 yet. I had checked the reading in the Aitken 1797 and it was correct; didn't have my 1789 to hand. Looking at Warfield I see he notes all this as you say. He is incorrect though on the origins. The American text relied on Scottish editions which did not have this error far as I can tell and its introduction in 1789 is the earliest and independent of the same error in the Scottish text.* As I say, the Scottish stream did not make the same error until the Blair & Bruce edition of 1831. And also, if I recall rightly, these are not plate set but all were set by hand; and the error is not found in the earlier of the seven similar Blair/Bruce (1803, 1810, 1815, 1827, 1831, 1836, 1841). So these seem to be independent careless mistakes on the compositors' part in each case.
*I have not checked the 1745 Ben Franklin edition but all my research heretofore indicates it did not figure in the texts of any later editions.

Chris,

I was referring to Warfield's work, The Printing of the Westminster Confession. He notes on page 76 that unlawful/lawful was in the 1789 amnd 1792 American editions incorrect. It was corrected by one edition after that, then, it seems, the FP edition copied a MSS that had the error.

 

[MW]

On the Puritan's desk, or coffee table of the day, the everyday household of the Puritan Family, they had the Geneva Bible.

Is the alteration of the translation for nostalgic reasons? If it is intended to be historically helpful one would like to see historical reasons for the alteration. As far as I am able to see, altering the translation will be a step in the wrong direction. There are places where the Geneva version will obscure rather than reveal the connection between propositions in the standards and their scriptural support. The same would apply to the ESV or NKJV.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

That rings a bell now, but my formal notes are not up to the American texts at Q. 105 yet. I had checked the reading in the Aitken 1797 and it was correct; didn't have my 1789 to hand. Looking at Warfield I see he notes all this as you say. He is incorrect though on the origins. The American text relied on Scottish editions which did not have this error far as I can tell and its introduction in 1789 is the earliest and independent of the same error in the Scottish text.* As I say, the Scottish stream did not make the same error until the Blair & Bruce edition of 1831. And also, if I recall rightly, these are not plate set but all were set by hand; and the error is not found in the earlier of the seven similar Blair/Bruce (1803, 1810, 1815, 1827, 1831, 1836, 1841). So these seem to be independent careless mistakes on the compositors' part in each case.
*I have not checked the 1745 Ben Franklin edition but all my research heretofore indicates it did not figure in the texts of any later editions.

Chris,

I was referring to Warfield's work, The Printing of the Westminster Confession. He notes on page 76 that unlawful/lawful was in the 1789 amnd 1792 American editions incorrect. It was corrected by one edition after that, then, it seems, the FP edition copied a MSS that had the error.

Good to know. Thanks Chris.

 

[Afterthought]

In the FPP edition of the full standards the WLC is still I believe simply a reprint of the 1855 Johnstone and Hunter editions which retained the error. The FPP printing of just the LC has the correct text (forget the date).

Interesting. The LC on the FP website uses lawful instead of unlawful.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

I'll have to check that out.

Why is it when you think of somebody that is reformed, you picture a guy sitting in a study smoking a pipe, reading a book and listening to classical music. Watching this video reminded me of that because of the music.

When I hear the music, I keep seeing the hat in my head. Reformed guys have good hats! (and possibly wigs...)