Robert, you're throwing me! When I read the quotes of Owen, it's clear as day he's read either read those quotes from Erasmus and Augustine I posted earlier on this thread. But where did Owen speak about the Byzantine texts? My reading of all three men is such that none of them would advocate a TR only position.

I'd appreciate something from Owen where he spoke about the Byzantine tradition being superior to others. In the mean time, do you think Owen, when confronted with all the Byzantine texts available today would have preferred tree over book in Rev 22? Why or why not, based on his writings.

-----Added 12/10/2008 at 10:51:45 EST-----

You are arguing that
which is necessary when building the complex alternative history that the AVonly position relies on, at least in the extreme form you and Thomas and evidently some others here cling to. You have to believe that, other wise your rhetorical argument "why would Christ speak to a Jewish people in a foreign language" when it comes to Him quoting the Septuagint would fall flat on it's face.

But it is not true. Aramaic didn't descend from Hebrew. You are dead wrong. I've posted from both resources on line, then an expert on the Targum, and now today will post a email I got yesterday from one of the worlds foremost scholars in Aramaic.

Palestinian Aramaic was like Yiddish. The language of the Jews of East and Central Europe. It came down from German, and it totally, without question, mutually unintelligible to speakers of Hebrew.

You can use dialect if you want. You can claim anything if you want. You can claim that Palestinian Aramaic was a dialect of Hebrew. You can claim that Yiddish is a dialect of Hebrew. But you will be wrong.

No, Edersheim was being sloppy, and was wrong. What he said in a moment of sloppiness that you've latched on to because if fits into your alternative history goes against all orthodox scholarship.

Again, it will have to wait until you are convinced that Christ spoke to His people in a language that was not even a dialect of Hebrew.

__________________
Tim Vaughan
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian, OPC,
Santa Maria
California

Hay Tim:

I think it necessary to point out that the terms "Byzantine," and "Alexandrian," were not terms used in Owen's time to denote the families of MSS that we recognize today. Nevertheless, it was a clear and understood principle that the Greek MSS present during the Reformation fell into two categories: Corrupt and Pure. Scrivener points out that Erasmus was well aware of the copy of the Vaticanus in the Vatican Library:

Erasmus was in and out of Rome during the years 1508-1512, and it is very likely that he handled the Vaticanus himself. Scrivener also notes that Erasmus makes a passing comment concerning a text in the Vatican in his annotations on Hebrews 1:3. Such is significant because one of the criticisms of the Vaticanus comes from this very text. Consider:

W. Willker Codex Vaticanus 1209, B/03: A textcritical complaint

The translation does not do justice to the sentiment of the editor - there is the idea of continuation in it. That is, that the scribe of the Vaticanus had tampered with other parts of the text as well. One can easily envision Erasmus opening this text to Hebrews, and coming to the conclusion that it is a corrupted text. The Reformation attitude toward what we call today the Alexandrian MSS were that they were corrupt. This attitude was probably handed down to them through ancient times.

In a letter to Froben it is clear that Erasmus was painfully aware of the very few MSS available to him. Yet, in his first four versions he would not use the Vaticanus. In the fifth edition, as Scrivener notes above, he included one word, and he probably did so in deference to his friend.

In the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek John Owen is writing against Walton's London Polyglott (a copy of which is available in the Rare Book Room of my Seminary's Library). Owen claims that the Polyglott is very scholarly and useful, but has some reservations concerning it. The Editor of Owen's Works, in a Prefatory note, makes this clear:

Text critics of the Critical Text would have us believe that the Alexandrian family of MSS did not appear until the finding of the Sinaticus in the mid 1800's. But such is not the case. The Alexandrian family of MSS were rejected by the Church through all of history because they were deemed corrupt and inferior.

That the Alexandrian MSS are considered older does not free them from the charge of corruption. The Apostle Peter, in the first century, was already pointing out that heretics were corrupting the Word of God:

It follows that there are ancient texts which have been corrupted by heretics. These texts were known by the Church through all the ages, and were rejected as corrupt. When it came time to copy texts the Church choose to copy the Byzantine MSS - which is why we have 5,000 MSS from the Byzantine family, and only a handful of copies from the Alexandrian family. The Church through all the ages recognized the Byzantine Greek text as the true apographia of the autographs, and not the Alexandrian family.

Thus, when Owen is defending the "originals" as represented in the Received Text he is defending the Byzantine family of MSS even though he may not know the exact wording "Byzantine family."

Blessings,

Rob

__________________
In Essentials Unity, in non-Essentials Liberty, in all things Charity.

Robert Paul Wieland
Springs Reformed Presbyterian Church
Colorado Springs, CO RPCNA
Student at Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Pittsburgh PA
Never be afraid to do something new. Remember, amateurs built the Ark, but professionals built the Titanic.

Thanks, Rob, but doesn't tree appear much more often in Byzantine texts than book in Rev. 22:19?

Ooops! Missed that point - sorry.

First, contrary to the wishes of the Critical Text editors, Erasmus did not re-translate from the Latin to the Greek the last six verses of Revelation. H.C. Hoskier points out that Erasmus probably used mss 2049 in his translation. See: H. C. Hoskier, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse, vol. 2 (London: Bernard Quaritch, Ltd., 1929), 644.

Second, the use of minority readings does not go beyond the pale of text criticism - unless you hold exclusively to the Majority Text. The Critical Text itself uses a number of minority readings in its Greek editions. Thus, it is not beyond the scope of even the modern views of textual criticism to use a minority reading such as "book" in Rev. 22.

Since 2049 is a Byzantine text - the use of "book" here may actually be the original reading. To determine the legitimacy of a minority reading one has to look at both internal and external factors.

Sorry, I do not have any more time, but I hope this gives you an idea in answering your inquiry.

In Jesus,

Rob

I don't favor any of the texts totally above any of the others, and my understanding is that none of the modern translations rely solely on any of the texts.

So my question is, since we don't really know if Erasmus had a complete text of Rev. or not, and we certainly don't know for sure that he had the word book in front of him, are there any Greek texts of the Byzantine tradition that are older than the text Erasmus hypothetically used? Where can I find some specifics as to number of Byzantine texts that use tree, and the ages of them? There must be someone you can ask at your Seminary.
Thanks
Tim

Hi:

I will look into it and get back to you, but, maybe, Mr. Rafalsky has some information on it?

Blessings,

Rob

Certainly he was. I don't know which translation he personally preferred, but his statement applies to all translations and I fully agree with his meaning: that a translation is either more or less perfect depending on how well it conforms to the text of the original Hebrew and Greek autographs.

Well, it is a remarkable coincidence. Scrivener's TR had one rule for its assembly -- that it follow the readings of the KJV as closely as possible from whatever Greek sources could be found to support the KJV. Scrivener admitted that his own opinion of the trustworthiness of a given reading had nothing whatsoever to do with whether a reading was included in his text -- the rule was merely whether a reading followed the KJV.

The purpose of Scrivener's work was not to present a Greek text claimed to be the exact text of the autographs (he didn't make that claim); but rather to facilitate comparison with the RV through his detailed footnotes, a goal at which he succeeded very well.


The KJV was created by commission and authorization of the King of England. I wonder if you view the English monarch as the lawful head of the Church of England?

Regardless, I view this as an unprofitable subject to quibble about. The KJV has neither closer nor more distant ties to a legitimate church authority than the NIV. It's an arbitrary and meaningless distinction, in my opinion. Far more important is for sound linguistic scholars of the Church to be actively engaged both on translation work, and in evaluating available translations, so that elders can make informed recommendations to their flocks.

That was the one rule that determined what readings Scrivener included in his main text. I am at a loss to know how you can disagree with that. If you view a move from the TR of Beza to the TR of Scrivener as a move closer to the autographs, then by definition you endorse the readings of the KJV, or to put it another way of the TR plus the ample list of non-TR readings in the KJV.

It is possible for Owen to be mistaken on the subject of which manuscripts are more or less reliable than others.

Actually, I think you said I'd been reading too much Metzger. Same difference. :^)

Blessings to you.

__________________
AV
Baptist
VA

And now a third noted scholar on whether Edersheim is right or not, Hayim Sheynin.

etc....Jewish Language Research Website: Hayim Sheynin

and to make double sure, I emailed him back

Umm, all this language usage (What they spoke in Israel) is fine, but what does it have to do with the TR or the KJV? I'm not getting the connection. (And this isn't a stupid question designed to lead people into a certian answer either)

__________________
Timothy Johnson
First United Presbyterian of Moline
PCUSA (Yea, I know)
Theology/Philosophy Sunday School Teacher
Davenport, IA

If Christ can be shown to have quoted from two different sets of Texts, namely the Hebrew and Greek Septuagint, which all orthodox scholarship says He did, then the AV position, at least in it's hard core form falls flat on it's face. I'm trying to systematically go through the myths and false information that support the AV position and tackle them one by one. One myth, that Steve and others here, who supports the hard core version of the AV school, have to hold is that Aramaic is a dialect of Hebrew. It's one of the foundation rhetorical proofs that Christ didn't speak to His people in a foreign language, and that's why he insists Edersheim is correct when he wrote:

To try to get both an answer to my question of how many Byzantine texts use tree rather than book in Rev. 22:19, and to get a feel for what AVers really hold to when pushed to the logical conclusions of their theories, I joined an AVer discussion forum. There was a question about why new "Bibles" use terebinth rather than oak in Judges 6:11. I thought I'd try to add something to the thread, and I wrote:

An AVer wrote next:

another wrote this:
I mentioned that the Afrikaans "Old Translation" which is their equivalent of the KJV has a term for terebinth, but they reject the idea that any deviation from the KJV is wrong, even though the translators of the Afrikaans Bible had been living in a similar environment to the Mideast for 300 years and would likely be in a better position than the COD divines on the subject, but I'm sure that is going to get me banned.

And this mindset is why on the poll this very thread started out with, 22 members of the Puritan board have voted that most of the Elders in the PCA, OPC etc.. who post regularly on this board are in a state of constant and willful violation of their ordination vows.

So, before moving on to the next support pillar of the AV only view that the Septuagint was a myth, is there still anyone out there who still believes with Edersheim that

?

Thanks Tim, I'm on my way to work. I'll contemplate all of this and post some more questions, but it may be awhile, I've got 300 hungry doctors comming in to dinner tommorow!

Are you labeling all of those who voted 'yes' on this poll as 'hard core AVers'? Or are you speaking strictly of Mr. Rafalsky?

__________________


http://www.villagecommunitychurch.org/


"Preparing a sermon is like cooking a meal. You need pots and pans and utensils, but you don't bring them out to the table where people are eating." Derek Thomas


Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

This is not a true statement by TimV:

One myth, that Steve and others here, who supports the hard core version of the AV school, have to hold is that Aramaic is a dialect of Hebrew.

The statement by Edersheim about Aramaic being a dialect of ancient Hebrew is incidental and not related the point I was making. Nor do I in any way have to hold that to support my position re the AV.

It certainly is not, as Tim says,

one of the foundation rhetorical proofs that Christ didn't speak to His people in a foreign language

I don't see how it follows that the status of Aramaic being a dialect of Hebrew or not bears on the issue of Christ not speaking Greek / quoting the Septuagint to the Jewish leaders and rabbis. Aramaic was not a foreign language to the Jewish people, not since their exile in Babylon and the time of Ezra. It was the normal language of the Palestinian Jews, while Hebrew was the language of the synagogue. Although Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire, and spoken by most in Palestine, it was not the language of the synagogue or of the Pharisees, nor would Christ have addressed them in that tongue. If there had been a synagogue of the Hellenistic Jews He had been to, He could have, but that is mere speculation, as we have no mention of it in the Scripture.

To the Jewish leaders Hebrew was the tongue spoken in synagogue and temple; if the Hebrew Scriptures were read they were "targumed" (translated) into the Aramaic so those who didn't speak Hebrew could understand. This is my position. Don't misrepresent it. My quote of Edersheim was to show his view that Christ did not use Greek to make His Messianic claim upon Israel. Deal with that, and not with extraneous issues.

Incidentally, Edersheim is not the only commentator to use the expression that Aramaic was a "dialect" of the Hebrew (as I noted earlier):

From Paton J. Cloag’s, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, MDCCCLXX), vol 1, p. 202:

Speaking of the situation in Acts 6:1ff., “...the murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews”, Cloag says,

...the Hellenists, then are contrasted with the Hebrews as regards language. As the Hebrews are those Jews who spoke the Hebrew language, or rather the dialect of it then current, the Aramaic—the Palestinian Jews; so the Hellenists are those Jews who, residing chiefly in foreign parts, had lost the use of their native Hebrew, and spoke the Greek language—the Hellenistic Jews.

It appears Cloag is using "dialect" to simply mean the current language of the Hebrews then living in Palestine.

J.A. Alexander, in his Geneva Series (BOT) commentary on Acts, distinguishes between the Hebrews and the Grecians and says,

...the Hebrews, or natives of Palestine and others...used the scriptures, and spoke the Aramaic dialect before described (on 1:19). (p. 242)

Commenting on that verse (Acts 1:19) he speaks of the phrase “proper tongue” (AV),

...i.e., their own language or peculiar dialect, an Aramaic modification or corruption of the Hebrew spoken by the Jews from the time of their captivity in Babylon, and often called by modern writers, Syro-Chaldaic... (p. 28)

He uses "dialect" to mean the language current among the Hebrews then.

John Gill on “proper tongue” in this verse says,

...or in their own dialect, the Jerusalem dialect, which was now Chaldee, or Syriac... (Exposition, vol 8, p. 144)

I bring these quotes up to show that other commentators used the word, and Edersheim was not alone in using that phraseology.

But as I said, and let me state it again emphatically, the status of Aramaic — whether one may call it a "dialect" of the Hebrews — is, to my thinking, a diversion from the point in question, that being, did Christ quote the Septuagint, speaking in Greek to the rabbis, priests, and scribes. The status of the Aramaic vis-à-vis dialect of Hebrew or no has no bearing on my argument.

I would also, shortly, like to return to the question of the OP re the WCF 1:8 and the Critical Text. I'm sorry for my part in hijacking the thread — though I won't let blatant misrepresentations of what I have said stand.

There was a turning point in the Presbyterian understanding of 1:8, where what had been the view of it from the time of its being written, changed. It think this is important in the discussion. I will shortly post on it.

__________________
Steve Rafalsky
Elder, International Evangelical Church (Reformed)
Limassol, Cyprus

"I am set for the defense of the gospel" (Philippians 1:17)

"Strengthened with all might, according to His glorious
power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness..." (Colossians 1:11)

Blog: A Great and Terrible Love

dialect (dì´e-lèkt´) noun
Abbr. dial.
1. a. A regional variety of a language distinguished by pronunciation, grammar, or vocabulary, especially a variety of speech differing from the standard literary language or speech pattern of the culture in which it exists: Cockney is a dialect of English. b. A variety of language that with other varieties constitutes a single language of which no single variety is standard: the dialects of Ancient Greek.
2. The language peculiar to an occupational group or a particular social class; jargon: the dialect of science.
3. The manner or style of expressing oneself in language or the arts.
4. A language considered as part of a larger family of languages or a linguistic branch: Spanish and French are Romance dialects.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution restricted in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

It seems to me that we can't consider Aramaic a dialect of Hebrew under definition #1. However, we can consider both Hebrew and Aramaic as dialects of a wider Semitic language family, under definition #4.

I think definition #4 is not used very often nowadays, though I wonder if it was more prevalent back in the 1800's and such when more scholars were TR advocates? Does that evaluation sound about right, Steve and Tim?

This is a short intro to the topic I mentioned above. It pertains to Warfield championing Westcott and Hort's revised Greek text, and his efforts against the higher critical attack on the Scriptures. This bears directly on the OP's question. I would say, in brief, that those who hold to the WCF (and 1:8 in particular) while using the CT, do so in good conscience, due to Warfield's influence. Were BBW's views correct? That's another matter. I'll continue later. It's way past my bedtime in this part of the world.

Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield wrote to the general Christian public in Sunday School Times 24 in 1882, that Mark’s long ending was “no part of God’s word,” and therefore “we are not to ascribe to the verses the authority due to God’s Word.” [Cited from Theodore P. Letis’ The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority and the Popular Mind, p. 53]. In naming him thus be it understood I mean not at all to demean “the mighty Warfield,” as other than in the area of text criticism I honor and love him. But when a man is wrong we sin if we do not decry that error which causes harm to the flock of God.

To his credit, Warfield’s intentions were good; he hoped to disarm the threat posed by text criticism in the hands of liberal and unbelieving scholars by redefining the Westminster Confession’s statement on Scripture to refer to the inerrant autographs (anciently lost and beyond reach) instead of the apographs (the copies; texts in the hands of the Westminster divines). I quote from Letis’ essay “B. B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism” (in The Ecclesiastical Text”, pp. 26-27) *[see footnote]:

Only eight years after Warfield’s death [in Feb 1921], the higher criticism entered Princeton and the seminary was reorganized to accommodate this. The facile certainty that Westcott and Hort’s system seem to offer Warfield evaporated. Later text critics abandoned the hope of reconstructing a “neutral” text and today despair of ever discovering an urtext, the final resting ground of Warfield’s doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy. Warfield had given earnest expression to his hope that,

The autographic text of the New Testament is distinctly within the reach of criticism….we cannot despair of restoring to ourselves and the church of God, His book, word for word, as He gave it by inspiration to men. [“The Rights of Criticism and of the Church”, The Presbyterian (April 13, 1892):15]

Fifty years later, the Harvard text critic, Kirsopp Lake, offered a more modest assessment:

In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort….we do not know the original form of the Gospels, and it is quite likely that we never shall. [Family 13 (The Ferrar Group (Phila., The Univ. of Penn. Press, 1941), p. vii]

Warfield’s Common Sense adoption of German methods would be more fully developed by others at Princeton who would no longer find his appendage of the inerrant autographs theory either convincing, or any longer relevant for N.T. studies.

Make no mistake about it, Warfield’s textual theories, taken in good faith from Westcott and Hort – which he was open to after his studies in German criticism at the University of Leipzig in 1876 – single-handedly turned the Reformed Communities from their former view of the WCF and its prizing the texts-in-hand to the (what turned out to be) never-to-be-found-or-restored autographic texts. This was the watershed. And today men of good intentions seek to make the best of it, developing theories and stances so as to defend what they say is a trustworthy Bible.

-----

* This essay may also be found in Letis' book, Edward Freer Hills's Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text, pp. 62-89.

If it was incidental you wouldn't be digging your feet in.

Thanks, Andrew for you well intentioned moderation ;-) but the answer is no. Steve tried that tack. The definition in number 4, Spanish and French being Romance languages (descended from Latin):
but I've personally contacted three experts in the field, and the last one said
Andrew, you are well read enough to know that Latin was the origin of both French and Spanish. And even if that was a fact you previously hadn't considered, by now I think it's plain that Palestinian Aramaic did NOT have as an antecedent Hebrew.

A better analogy would be that since English and Spanish and Latin are all Indo European languages, I'll simply choose to call English a dialect of Latin. In my own private language.

Sorry, but that dawg don't hunt. Right?

Definition # 4: Latin to Spanish = dialect (in the most reaching definition possible!!)

Is Hebrew's relation to Palestinian Aramaic similar? No, because Spanish descended from Latin, but PA didn't descend from Hebrew. It's not that hard.

Right? Anyone else out there (before we move on) who wants to claim Palestinian Aramaic can be properly called a dialect of Hebrew?

And PLEASE, if Google has 3 million hits on 9/11, and 3,999,150 of them say Arab terrorists flew two commercial airliners into the Twin Towers, and 50 say the US government brought the Twin Towers down, PLEASE let's not put all data on an equivalent footing. Anyone can prove anything they want using those techniques. Gill is very valuable, but has been dead for a couple centuries. He believed in Dragons. Edersheim had some fantastic views of the number of Jews in Iraqi treasure Cities that nobody takes seriously today. Let's honor them and remember how limited their information was compared to ours.

Hmmmm... If you review my post above, you will note I phrased my sentences very carefully. I suggested that under definition #4, both Hebrew and Aramaic were dialects of a wider Semitic language family. Under definition #4, it seems you can't have a language be a dialect of another language, cf. Spanish --> Latin (or PA --> Hebrew).

I think you and I are on the same page here, Tim.

Sorry! I must have misunderstood you. I thought you said that
But that won't work, unless you are willing to call English a dialect of Ancient Persian, since they're both part of a "wider Indo-European language family.

Are we still on the same page?

Yes, we're on the same page, because ancient Persian is not a "language family". Both Hebrew and PA can be dialects of some amorphous Semitic language family, but they cannot be dialects of another distinct language under definition #4.

French and Italian are both dialects of the Romance language family under definition #4. They are not dialects of Latin under definition #4. Latin is not a language family, it is a language in its own right.

Similarly (and I guess this is where I failed to connect with the thread), it would be improper to say that Aramaic is a dialect of Hebrew under definition #4. While I expect usage of definition #4 was more widespread in the 1800's, I also wonder if sometimes the historical scholars who have been quoted on this thread were a little sloppy in their usage.

Which is what you had been saying all along, if I understand correctly... I feel like I came into the middle of an existing conversation. My apologies for being a little clumsy in trying to hop on midway through.

No, your comments are valuable, and help clarify things. What you wrote above is exactly right.

Ok, I took care of all my problems at work today, caught up on The Clone Wars on the toon network, my wife is cooking a delicious dinner, Ribeye steak and cheesy rice. Now I've settled in and read what y'all posted.

Thanks Steve for that stuff about the WCF. It's nice to know that a battle over texts did take place.

Now with the formalities and friendliness out of the way, I'm ready.

This is what I'm trying to understand -

quote -"If Christ can be shown to have quoted from two different sets of Texts, namely the Hebrew and Greek Septuagint, which all orthodox scholarship says He did, then the AV position, at least in it's hard core form falls flat on it's face. I'm trying to systematically go through the myths and false information that support the AV position and tackle them one by one. One myth, that Steve and others here, who supports the hard core version of the AV school, have to hold is that Aramaic is a dialect of Hebrew. It's one of the foundation rhetorical proofs that Christ didn't speak to His people in a foreign language..."

The idea that if Jesus could be shown to have quoted from two different sets of text is one of the ideas I'm having a problem seeing how that applies to the TR/KJV controversy.

I don't see how Jesus quoting from different texts could be a problem to the TR/KJV. We know that the Hebrew was used in the temple. And different translations were used. The Aramaic/Hebrew distinction almost seems like a non-point to me. Jesus probably used Hebrew in the temple and other translations when addressing differing groups. But how to tell which one he used where would be difficult. Mathew probably wrote down verbatim what Jesus said. But his gospel was written in Hebrew. So all his quotes of Jesus were translated into Hebrew. The other Gospels were written in Greek. So what Jesus used was translated into Greek. So It would be difficult to know which version got used by Jesus. I go by what Josephus said about the Jewish culture at the time, and what the Church fathers wrote about the Bible and who wrote it. They were closer to that time, and knew more about the events that happened then than modern scholars do.

There, that's that about that idea.

Now I've eaten my delicious dinner. My wife it the best cook in the whole world.

Are there any leftovers? You gotta share, man.

Not really, I ate most of the cheesy rice. About 75% of it! And just a little bit of steak, but those are my wifes to snack on latter. She loves those!

I've followed this thread from the beginning but am having trouble understanding the purpose of the debate over 'dialects' in regards to the phrase 'kept pure in all ages'.

To get back to the OP, it is obvious that the Divines believed that Matt 6:13 had been 'kept pure in all ages' because they specifically identify the words, "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen." as the conclusion of the Lord's Prayer in SC Q 107. If a person believes that those words are not a part of the true NT, then wouldn't they have to take exception to the SC Q 107 which clearly states, "The conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer, which is, For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen..."?

And, BTW, by simply asking the question I am not accusing anyone of anything. It is the same question I asked a year ago but did not get much of a response: The Critical Text and WSC Q #107

TimV:

I am still working on your question.

Andrew:

I do not think that you have substantially answered my post. If John Owen was not defending a "translation" such as the KJV, then how can you lump him into those who would defend the translation?

You wrote:


So what? I fail to see the problem here - that Scrivener created a Greek text which showed the readings of the KJV was an act of supreme scholarship on his part. Are you somehow castigating his work because he desired to show the textual basis for the KJ readings?

As I pointed out to you before - it is the Byzantine MSS that contain the apographia of the autographs - not a collation done by Beza, Scrivener, Erasmus, or Stephanus. Scrivener's work is a monumental work of scholarship within the Textus Receptus tradition. I value it highly because it shows the Greek renderings of the King James translation. Whether Scrivener, or myself, agree with those renderings is another matter altogether. I think you noted that there were 190 differences between Scrivener and Beza. This would argue that both Scrivener and Beza agree over 99.95% of the time.

To make a comparison: The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus agree with each other about 92% of the time.

Good. He showed the liberalizing trend of translations not based upon the Byzantine MSS. I am glad we agree with each other here.

The Church of England at the time of the translation of the KJV was a true Church of God. That I may disagree with their ecclesiology is not a matter of import. The translation was done within the authority of the True Church. William Twisse the proculator of the Westminster Assembly, for example, was episcopalian in his views of Church government.

It is not the same difference. Bruce Metzger was, at least, willing to admit error when confronted with it. James White is a lackey of Metzger who is a popularizer, and, not as intellectually honest.

Take, for example, the "story" that Erasmus required "one Greek text" in order to include 1 John 5:7 in the Greek. I will reproduce it here from Dr. White's website:

Here is the actual statement from Metzger on the subject:

When he was challenged on this by Erasmian scholars Roland Bainton and Henk de Jong, Metzger placed a footnote stating that such a "story" is not found in any of Erasmus' writings. Dr. White omits such a footnote. One can only suppose that it is a prejudice on Dr. White's part that causes him, to this day, to refrain from admitting the truth. The dating of the MSS in question was to the 13th Century - not the 16th. (Montiforanus was dated by Clarke to the 13th Century - A. Clark, The New Testament: A Commentary and Critical Notes, Vol. 6, p. 928-929). No scholar has ever questioned the dating. They have tried to equate Montiforanus with Brittanicus, but the different readings in 1 John between the two do not allow for such an equivalance.


Blessings,

Rob

I think you're right, that discussion should probably have a thread of its own, if folks aren't tired of discussing it yet.

In answer to your question, I suppose it would make sense to take a very qualified exception to that.

I think that contra your complaint, you actually did get a pretty good response in the other thread. Daniel Ritchie pointed out that any exception would surely not be taken to the doctrine contained in the text, because we have:

1Ch 29:11 Yours, O LORD, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is yours. Yours is the kingdom, O LORD, and you are exalted as head above all.

There are a couple subtleties in your post above that need a reply, and some points besides to be made.

1. I'd suggest that the Divines did not claim on behalf of Matt 6:13 any more or less than for the rest of scripture, that it had been "kept pure in all ages". They were surely aware that the Biblical text is subject to recognition of variants, and sometimes deletion of spurious readings. 1 John 2:23b is the example I keep coming back to on that.

2. CT advocates are not happy about having to delete known and loved passages of "scripture" when they establish to their satisfaction that they were actually post-apostolic scribal glosses or interpolations. Nobody (emotionally) wants to take the "amen" off the Lord's Prayer. It's what scholars were forced to do out of respect for the text, not a malicious exercise in "seeing how we can change the Bible".

3. Rather than forcing those who are aware of modern textual scholarship to take an exception or struggle with this issue, it would probably make the most sense for the General Assembl(ies) to modify the catechism. I expect that you will disagree with this, I just throw it in there because it makes sense to me.

This is exactly the point of my opening post: if you feel that the confession needs to be modified, this is the same as saying you take exception to the confession, lest why would it be changed? I wasn't asking for people's personal views on the CT (as many in their posts have pointed out for me), but rather whether it is in accord with the confession, which I think Ken (KMK) observed quite well in a practical case (WSC 107) which parallels my question of the dogmatic prescription of WCF 1.8

So, TsonMariytho, point blank:

1.) Is the quest of the critical text in harmony with WCF 1.8?

and

2.) Is the use of the critical text in harmony with 1.8?

__________________
Paul Korte
OPC
Flint, MI

They who perceive in themselves discoveries of the divine goodness, so full and absolutely perfect, and who make them the subject of earnest meditation, will never embrace new doctrines, by which the very grace they feel so powerfully in themselves is thrown into the shade. --John Calvin

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

No, I certainly don't "castigate" Scrivener, the man. I have the highest respect for his scholarly knowledge and abilities. I chose his text for the parallel Greek-English Bible I typeset (public domain version).

Scrivener, the text, I don't castigate either, depending on your definition of "castigate". I think it's a really interesting and useful Greek NT version that happens to be tailored to the KJV's readings. It's a really nice to those who use and love the KJV.

I have argued that the Scrivener "TR's" relevance to textual criticism aimed at recovering the autographs is very limited, due to our inability to know for sure the manuscript basis behind the KJV -- which Scrivener said, not me, so don't give me too hard a time over this!


You didn't address King James' oversight of the matter in his capacity as "head of the church". But again, this is not high on my list, because I still don't see the distinction here between the KJV and NIV. In both cases, independent Biblical scholars used the knowledge and wisdom God gave them to translate the scriptures for the Church. I don't care who told them to do it, and to some extent I don't care who they were. I only care about the quality of what they came up with. In the case of both the KJV and the NIV, I consider each resulting translation to be superb (given resources and state of textual knowledge available in their day, etc.)

The above is fine and good, except that:

1. Just because Erasmus himself doesn't mention the story doesn't mean it was made up, or that Metzger had no sources for it. (Obviously, he had a source he trusted.)

2. I think you are speaking very uncharitably about James White. "lackey?" "intellectually dishonest?" Come on.

3. That Erasmus disputed the authenticity of the Johannine Comma is beyond question, since he vented his unhappiness in his own text-critical footnote. That he didn't simply transcribe the epistle entirely from a flawless, original TR-matching source manuscript is pretty obvious though. He had to find that part somewhere else.

The main question is what a group of people long dead meant by kept pure in all ages, and people disagree on that. It seems obvious to me they would be willing to correct the version of the Bible they were using when new information came to light, as per the quotations I've posted by Augustine and Erasmus. Take this from Augustine, which the Divines were naturally familiar with

Look it up in your KJV and Geneva. It's got the sine causa. Then look it up in versions like the ESV and ASV, Vulgate, etc.. and you'll see it's not there.

It blows my mind that some people think the Divines thought that the TR was the final word, but there you go. Some people here actually interpret 1.8 in that way.

So in the absence of any definitive proof, try changing the question. Ask yourself whether 1.8 COULD mean that what Erasmus said
and that room for correction was built into what the Divines meant.

If you're still with me, let's say that 1.8 COULD mean either that the TR is exactly the Word of God or that it COULD mean that God preserved His Word, but not necessarily on one piece of paper throughout the ages.

So, for purposes of discussion, if you were absolutely certain that New Testament authors had access to more than one translation of the Bible, and that those translations differed even more than the Textus Receptus does from the Critical Text, and that New Testament authors quoted from both of those translations, would those New Testament authors have been violating 1.8?

Edit: Since Steve keeps quoting Edersheim, I typed out something just now from my copy of his Life and Times
You see in this case Edersheim holds to the position all orthodox scholarship. You have to go to marginalized, mainly IFB sources to deny that New Testament authors quoted from both the Hebrew text the Greek text, and that they vary more than the TR does from the CT. So, to make myself doubly plain, were the New Testament authors in violation of 1.8?

The issues of JCR are 80% off of the normal price, so the price is basically 2 bucks plus shipping.

CT

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC

CT,
Thank you very much for the headsup on that sale.

Terry

__________________
Terry Morris
San Jose, Ca
Searching for a Reformed Church in San Jose.

"If it was incidental you wouldn't be digging your feet in."

Please don't presume to know my motives.


Rob (C&H), can you give a source for this figure, please: "To make a comparison: The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus agree with each other about 92% of the time." I know that in the Gospels alone they disagree against one another 3,036 times (from Hoskier's collation in Codex B and its Allies: A Study and an Indictment, Vol. 2, page 1).


Andrew, you said,

I'd suggest that the Divines did not claim on behalf of Matt 6:13 any more or less than for the rest of scripture, that it had been "kept pure in all ages". They were surely aware that the Biblical text is subject to recognition of variants, and sometimes deletion of spurious readings. 1 John 2:23b is the example I keep coming back to on that.

But that was not one of the variants (that is, the omission of the end of the verse) they owned as being possibly legitimate. It was precisely the variants that the Roman Catholic church used (including variants in Codex B, even though they differed from variants in the Latin Vulgate) in its attempt to overthrow the Reformers' doctrine of Sola Scriptura, that the Post-Reformation scholars denied the validity of and fought against. By Post-Reformation scholars I include the Westminster divines. Ted Letis has an essay on this: "John Owen Versus Brian Walton: A Reformed Response to the Birth of Text Criticism", in The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate pp. 146-190, ISBN: 944355005. (Walton produced the Biblia Polyglotta, which contained a vast multitude of variants, the intent of which was to undermine the Reformation's Scripture.)

A study on Matthew 6:13: Defending the Lord's Prayer 1

In the same book (The Majority Text) Letis also has an essay, "Theodore Beza as Text Critic: A View Into the Sixteenth Century Approach to New Testament Text Criticism"; and in his, Edward Freer Hills's Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text, he has an essay, "The Scholastic Approach to Text Critical Problems", where he scrutinizes Beza, Calvin, and Owen. Letis' work as a historian of the text, and textual issues, is very valuable, although his books are out of print, and rare. I think I paid $100 for The Majority Text through Amazon! One might try the distributor, Russ Spees at email@kjv-ibts.org , to see if he has any copies of it (I didn't know he had it at normal retail till later). He may also have some copies of the book on Edward Hills left, though I think he is out of The Ecclesiastical Text.

RE 1 John 2:23b, I mentioned above that it is not in my AV as part of the text proper, being italicized, indicating it was supplied by the translators. I know it is not part of the Bible. May it help give a sense of meaning, as other supplied / italicized portions do? Yes. But, I repeat, it is not Scripture.


Paul (Prufrock), I think you would find Letis' stuff of great interest.

I will need to continue my responses after our evening service.

Steve

Could you please clarify that? What did the post Reformation scholars including the Westminster Divines fight against, sola scriptura or certain Roman Catholic variants?

Sorry if that was unclear, Tim. It was the Roman Catholic variants.

[Note: TimV only thanked me for the little line above, not what is below. For some reason I can't get a new post, only an add-on to an earlier one]

-----Added 12/14/2008 at 03:14:44 EST-----

In the AV, Matthew 5:22 reads “whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause”, while the Critical Text omits the Greek word eikh, pronounced i-kay' – in Latin sine causa, and reads “whoever is angry with his brother”. John Burgon, discussing this omission, remarks,

Our present contention however is but this,—that a Reading which is attested by every uncial Copy of the Gospels except B and a; by a whole torrent of Fathers; by every known copy of the old Latin,—by all the Syriac, (for the Peschito inserts [not translates] the word εικη,)—by the Coptic,—as well as by the Gothic—and Armenian versions;—that such a reading is not to be set aside by the stupid dictum, ‘Western and Syrian.’ By no such methods will the study of Textual Criticism be promoted, or any progress ever be made in determining the Truth of Scripture…

May we however respectfully ask these learned Editors why, besides Irenaeus—Eusebius—and Cyprian—they do not mention that eikh is also the reading of Justin Martyr—of Origen himself—of the Constitutiones App.—of Basil three times—of Gregory of Nyssa—of Epiphanius—of Ephraem Syrus twice—of Isidorus twice—of Theodore of Mops—of Chrysostom 18 times—of the Opus imp. twice—of Cyril—and of Theodoret—(each in three places). It was also the reading of Severus, Abp. of Antioch:—as well as of Hilary—Lucifer—Salvian—Philastrius—Augustine, and—Jerome—(although, when translating from Origen, he pronounces against eikh)—not to mention Antiochus mon.—J. Damascene—Maximus—Photius—Euthymius—Theophylact— and others?…We have adduced no less than thirty ancient witnesses…

The sum of the matter proves to be as follows: Codd. B and a (the ‘two false Witnesses’)—B and a, alone of MSS—omit eikh. On the strength of this, Dr. Hort persuaded his fellow Revisers to omit ‘without a cause’ from their Revised Version: and it is proposed, in consequence, that every Englishman’s copy of S. Matthew v.22 shall be mutilated in the same way forever…

But the question arises—Will the Church of England submit to have her immemorial heritage thus filched from her? We shall be astonished indeed if she proves so regardless of her birthright.

[from Burgon’s, The Revision Revised, pages 359-362.]

That in Augustine’s Retractations (i. 19. 4) he makes the statement, “The Greek manuscripts do not contain sine causa”, may have other reasons, as in the manuscripts he had access to, etc. In light of the voluminous testimony to its authenticity this is not highly significant.

-----Added 12/14/2008 at 03:44:01 EST-----

Tim says:

"Since Steve keeps quoting Edersheim, I typed out something just now from my copy of his Life and Times:

Quote:

..we have here the Greek translation of the Old Testament, venerable not only as the oldest, but as that which at the time of Jesus held the place of our Authorized Version, as as such is often, although freely, quoted in the New Testament.

"You see in this case Edersheim holds to the position all orthodox scholarship. You have to go to marginalized, mainly IFB sources to deny that New Testament authors quoted from both the Hebrew text the Greek text, and that they vary more than the TR does from the CT. So, to make myself doubly plain, were the New Testament authors in violation of 1.8?"

-------

In Book I, Chapter II, Edersheim has a long discussion of Hellenistic Jews, their worldview, their attitudes vis-à-vis Palestinian Jews, traits of the Hellenists, along with their literature, including the LXX. When he says it was “the people’s Bible” (p. 23) he makes clear that for the Jews who could not speak or read the Hebrew this was the only Scripture they had, not to mention it was dirt cheap to procure a Greek copy, while an approved Hebrew copy was not only far beyond the reach of most financially, but unreadable to most. He discusses the legendary origin of the LXX, gleaning what actual historicity of it was available, and also the character of the work, and its value. It was full of errors, Hellenisms displacing the Hebrew, and such.

Seeing as he had such a generous view of the Septuagint, it is as “a friendly witness” he pronounces against Christ quoting from it and speaking Greek to the rabbis and Pharisees.

Again, in Book I, p. 234, we find Edersheim saying,

“From His [Christ’s] intimate familiarity with Holy Scripture, in its every detail, we may be allowed to infer that the home of Nazareth, however humble, possessed a precious copy of the Sacred Volume in its entirety. At any rate, we know that from earliest childhood it must have formed the meat and drink of the God-Man. The words of the Lord, as recorded by St. Matthew [5:18] and St. Luke [16:17], also imply that the Holy Scriptures which He read were in the original Hebrew, and that they were written in the square, or Assyrian, characters (this may be gathered even from an expression as ‘One iota, or one little hook’). Indeed, as the Pharisees and Sadducees always appealed to the Scriptures in the original, Jesus could not have met them on any other ground, and it was this which gave such point to His frequent expostulations with them: ‘Have ye not read?’

As for it being “marginalized, mainly IFB sources [who] deny that New Testament authors quoted from both the Hebrew text the Greek text” I post this conversation re Psalm 14:3 in LXX :

And I respond:

These are not marginal folks! And an educated minority view need not be slurred as “marginal”! Joshua and Caleb had a minority appraisal of the promised land of Canaan, and were marginalized by the vast majority, but the Lord vindicated them. It would be pleasant – and godly – to discuss the issues without denigrating people!

-------

Archaeology has failed to produce a single piece of papyrus written in Greek before c.150 A.D. that any writer of the New Testament used for a "quotation".

The nearest thing to an Old Testament Greek Bible found by anyone is the Ryland Papyrus (No. 458), which has a few portions of Deuteronomy 23-28 on it. This piece of papyrus is dated 150 B.C. (questionable date) which is fifty to one hundred years later than the writing of the so-called original Septuagint.

The thing is, whatever the quality – and the extent – of a Greek Old Testament in the time of Christ is conjecture, for we have no LXX from those days besides Ryland Papyrus (No. 458). The only LXXs we have still extant are those to be found in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. We just don’t know the state of the LXX in Christ’s time. I don’t believe this can be disputed.

As TimV picks and chooses from Edersheim, so do I. I don’t hold to every view he has; though his views of Christ speaking in Hebrew to the Pharisees – and not Greek – I hold as sound.

Hi, Steve

Yes, I did say
and I meant it fully. You wrote
After you quoted some people including K&D (Keil and Delitzsch)
It has nothing to do with the amount of education someone has. It has everything to do with training yourself to think in a traditional Western, Christian, logical way.

Instead of spending the 15 minutes it would have taken you to do the simple research necessary to find out whether Keil and Delitzsch believed that some New Testament authors quoted the Septuagint as well as the Hebrew, you spent hours working backwards from a preconceived theory. And the way you did it was by using sources to look for evidence supporting your theory, and you came to the conclusion that Keil and Delitzsch held to your view that New Testament authors didn't quote from the Septuagint.

And that's not how science works.

Here's what Kiel and Delitzsch wrote about Isaiah 6:9-10

If Keil and Delitzsch are to be believed (you brought them up, as you did Edersheim, not me) Matthew, John and the author of Acts would all have been in violation of WCF 1.8, according to your reading of it.

Tim,
I believe that the point that Steve is attempting to make is that we do not know what the original Sept looked like at the time of the Apostles. I think his point with Psalm 14:3, was that it is accepted by many that the Sept was altered (if only at that point) after the fact. Since that is the case, it is hard to use the Sept as a battering ram against those who believe it was not quoted at all.

Instead you are going to have to not just put forward the Sept but instead also put forward why you believe it is accurate at that point.

Or put another way, it is not a question of conspiracy vs. non conspiracy. It is a question of big conspiracy vs. small one.

I appreciate that, but my point has to do with how a person evaluates evidence. If virtually all of orthodox scholarship is unanimous, including sources Steve himself quotes from to make his case, I'm under no obligation to treat revisionist literature as having the same value as the overwhelming bulk of orthodox evidence. K&D would have been shocked to have learned that their names were brought up to support a position the opposite of which they believed.

Hi:

Anglicans hold that the King of England is the head of the Church of England. Are you asking if I believe this? - no I do not. Nor do I believe that the Church of England - today - is a true church of God. However, back in the 1600's I do believe that the Church of England was a true Church. The marks of the True Church are:

The right preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The right administration of the Sacraments.
The right application of Church Discipline.

The idea of Church government does not come into view on this matter.

Next,

The King James Translators were not "independent Biblical scholars," but members of the Church of England. You may think differently if you like, but such an understanding is generally regarded as fantasy.

The problem with your "I don't care" attitude is that it runs contrary to the Bible. The Scriptures are clear that the Word of God is given to the Church - not a bunch of "independent Biblical scholars", a "publishing corporation," or a "Bible Society." Again, if you want to continue thinking that the KJ translators are equivalent to the NIV translators, then you are free to do so.

There is an historical precident giving King James the authority to commission a translation. Constantine, in 313 AD, called the Church to create a new Greek text. The Church responded to the call.

1) Where did the story come from? It does not come from any of the sources or published, and non-published, writings of Erasmus. If Dr. Metzger had a source for his "story" then he would have published it and not run a retraction of it as a footnote in his book.

Andrew, you are speculating here. If Metzger had a reliable source, then he would have produced it and saved himself some scholarly embarrassment.

2) I am not being uncharitable because what I say is verifiable. Myself and others have emailed Dr. White pointing out the retraction that Dr. Metzger made. Dr. White is not even willing to consider Metzger's humility on the subject, and is unrepentant. This is a sure sign of either ignorance blinding one to reality, or, intellectual pride. In this matter Dr. Metzger is showing more Christian humility (even though he is an unbeliever) than Dr. White who claims to be a Reformed Baptist.

3) Erasmus can dispute it till he is blue in the face. The argument for the inclusion of the Johannine Comma outweighs the argument against it.

Until you can substantially answer my first post to you it is not profitable for me to answer any other points you may have. Consider that I have placed you into a "No Spin Zone" and that you will need to answer my first post to you before I answer any other points.

Tim - I will probably be able to give you an answer tomorrow.

Blessings,

Rob

Thanks Rob, I'm looking forward to it. Also, you've given me a bit to chew on with your point about the Church being needed to authorize a translation. Definitely worth some thought, as I myself have made the point many times that parachurch organisation aren't proper because they are without the Churches mandated oversight of Elders.

I do have a few questions (although I'm already leaning towards your view of the matter). When you say

Who gave approval to Erasmus?

I do not believe that Steve was quoting them in support of the belief that the Apostles never quoted the Sept. He was quoting them to support the belief that a conspiracy occurred at Psalms 14:3. He does not seem to, nor does he need them to believe that the Sept was never quoted.

That is enough to change the debate from non-conspiracy vs. conspiracy to small conspiracy theorists vs. big conspiracy theorists.

CT