Thread: WCF 1.8 and CT

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 may be, but I re-read his post again just now, and the context is me claiming that only marginalized sources claim NT authors didn't quote from both the Septuagint and Hebrew, and that they differ more than the TR, MT and CT do from each other.

Can we at least both agree if NT authors DID quote from places in the Septuagint that were different than from the Hebrew the term "kept pure in all ages" in 1.8 can't mean one single translation?

Originally Posted by TimV

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

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.

Who gave approval to Erasmus?

Hi Tim:

The official approval came from the Roman Catholic Church. Luther, as the head of his church, (I am using head here loosely) also approved of Erasmus' text. Calvin approved of the edition of Erasmus, but thought that the text needed improving.

That the pope authorized Erasmus in creating a Greek text does not "taint" the MSS. The Reformers at the time thought that the Roman Church was a True Church in its "essence." There are doctrines in the Roman Catholic Church that are true: The Trinity, the Deity of Christ, etc. We do not discount these doctrines because they are acknowledged by Rome.

Good question,

Blessings,

Rob

Dr. Theodore P. Letis on Warfield and the WCF 1:8

[From the beginning of the essay, “B. B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism”, in his book, The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority and the Popular Mind, pp. 1-5 (1997 ISBN: 965860701). I will not be including most of the footnotes accompanying the text, for reasons of space and time.]



B. B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism

Traditionally within evangelical circles, higher criticism has been viewed as the forbidding realm of destructive subjectivism. On the other hand, since the late nineteenth century, the lower, or textual criticism, has been viewed as the safe domain where all are thought to be constrained by “objective” data which ultimately demonstrate the reliability of the Biblical text. An historical study of the discipline of lower criticism, however, proves this to be a rather recent development.

Perceptive historians have long noted that it was specifically the lower criticism that originally haunted conservatives because of the threat it posed to their view of verbal inspiration. Thus it was that the lower criticism precipitated the nineteenth century, autographic inerrancy theory, adopted by “several Protestant orthodox theologians . . . after they had to face the results of textual criticism.”

It is sometimes forgotten that textual criticism, as Kümmel reminds us, provided one of the most “decisive stimuli” to the scientific, critical study of the Bible in the beginning. Moreover, it was the deist, Anthony Collins, who in the eighteenth century used John Mill’s early collection of 30,000 N.T. textual variants as an argument for replacing the revealed with the natural religion. And on the American scene, Joseph Stevens Buckminster, persuaded the officials at Harvard College in 1809 to publish an American edition of Griesbach’s critical Greek New Testament, because he saw its value in promoting text criticism, in his opinion, “a most powerful weapon to be used against the supporters of verbal inspiration.”

Benjamine Breckinridge Warfield (1851–1921), Professor at Princeton Seminary from 1887–1921, was the most astute and critically aware N.T. scholar at Princeton during his tenure. While he also retained the old scholastic view of verbal inspiration, he did so, keenly aware of this “weapon” in New England.

A good deal of Warfield’s early academic career, therefore, was spent mastering the discipline of N.T. text criticism so as to tame and neutralize this threat. How he went about his task helps to explain three developments at Princeton in his life time and his lasting influence on the current evangelical view of Scripture: 1) why he gave a distinctive emphasis to the autographic inerrancy theory; 2) how text criticism came to be viewed by evangelicals as a safe, neutral realm that can only support the evangelical cause and never harm it; 3) how Warfield contributed to a climate that was more tolerable toward genuine biblical criticism at Princeton at a time when such criticism was perceived to be threatening in the extreme.


Warfield and Scholasticism

Warfield’s first step in this process was to distance himself from the Protestant scholastic approach to text critical matters, while retaining the scholastic view of verbal inspiration. This was not an easy move. In the old scholastic system these two aspects went hand and hand—two parts of a whole.* Nevertheless, in contrast to Charles Hodge’s view, which we shall treat below, Warfield began by deprecating the established text (what was called the textus receptus—the “received text) which had hitherto been the locus of the verbal view of inspiration. For Warfield, the scholastics had stumbled when their reverence for the Word of God, perversely but not unnaturally exercised, became the standard or received text into the norm of a true text.

Warfield was the first from Princeton to break so decisively with the old text standard. He did so with the confidence that a far better text was then emerging.

Nevertheless, to abandon this standard meant he would be abandoning the text thought to be verbally inspired by the Divines who produced the Westminster Confession of Faith. In order to save, therefore, his verbal view of inspiration—the last vestige of Francis Turretin’s influence—he was forced to now relegate inspiration to the inscrutable autographs of the biblical records.

These, he now argued, when once reconstructed, would be inerrant in a way which far surpassed the text thought to be inspired by the Westminster Divines. Contrary to most critical evaluations of Warfield, the primary influence on him at this point was not Reformed scholasticism, but rather, the Enlightenment.**

The true test for determining if one is an heir of the Reformed scholastics is found in the role the Westminster Confession plays in locating final Scriptural authority. Archibald Alexander (1772–1851), Charles Hodge (1797–1878), and the Southern Presbyterian, Robert Dabney (1820–1890) were genuine heirs of Turretin. They focused authority in present, extant copies of the biblical texts (apographa), with all the accompanying textual phenomena, as the “providentially preserved” and sanctioned edition (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:8).

Warfield, on the other hand, was the first professor at Princeton to allow his Common-Sense Philosophy the role of reconstructing the text according to the canons of German criticism. Moreover, this German approach to reconstructing the text shared an organic connection with the more radical higher criticism. It demanded that Scripture be approached “as any other literature,” and it legitimized the use of the radical technique of conjectural emendation—the very foundation of the higher critical method. In this development, Warfield must be credited with introducing genuine biblical criticism at Princeton, which would receive acceptance at Princeton after the reorganization of this institution in 1929.

--------

Footnotes:
* By scholastic approach, with regard to the issue of text criticism and variants, I mean that approach used from the time of Theodore Beza (1519–1608) to Francis Turretin (1623–1687) whose dogmatics was the primary text at Princeton from 1812 to 1872. This involved fencing in the Masoretic O.T. text and the textus receptus N.T. text by creedal statements regarding their respective, providential preservation and sanction, over all rivals, as the locus of verbal inspiration. While there was a rational component to the posture—when data was brought forth in its defense—it was fundamentally a theological a priori and exceedingly important to the dogmaticians: as important as Warfield’s shift to centering final authority in the autographic text from 1881 onward. On this see, Theodore P. Letis, “The Protestant Dogmaticians and the Late Princeton School on the Status of the Sacred Apographa,” The Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 8 (1990): 16–42. [This is the next essay following the present one in Letis’ book, The Ecclesiastical Text –SMR]

** . . . the real impetus for Warfield’s position was both the need to answer the challenge of text criticism to verbal inspiration, as well as his personal agenda of wanting to legitimize German text criticism by a new interpretation of the Westminster Confession, by means of which he would actually abandon scholasticism altogether. These are both post-Enlightenment, nineteenth century influences.

So we've dealt with Edersheim and K&D, who were used in support of the revisionist position, but have been show to have supported the orthodox position. Now we turn our attention to Dabney, who is being used to support the revisionist position:

The true test for determining if one is an heir of the Reformed scholastics is found in the role the Westminster Confession plays in locating final Scriptural authority. Archibald Alexander (1772–1851), Charles Hodge (1797–1878), and the Southern Presbyterian, Robert Dabney (1820–1890) were genuine heirs of Turretin. They focused authority in present, extant copies of the biblical texts (apographa), with all the accompanying textual phenomena, as the “providentially preserved” and sanctioned edition (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:8).

And then we look to see what Dabney actually said:

Robert Dabney:

No one claims for the Textus Receptus, or common Greek text of the New Testament, any sacred right, as though it represented the ipsissima verba, written by the inspired men in every case...It is therefore not asserted to be above emendation.
(Dabney, Robert L. Discussions: Evangelical and Theological, Vol. 1, 1891, p. 350, Banner of Truth Trust reprint, 1982, Bible For Today reprint # 2124.)

Main Entry: emen·da·tion
Pronunciation: \ˌē-ˌmen-ˈdā-shən; ˌe-mən-, e-ˌmen-\
Function: noun
Date: 1536
1 : the act or practice of emending
2 : an alteration designed to correct or improve

Originally Posted by TimV

So we've dealt with Edersheim and K&D, who were used in support of the revisionist position, but have been show to have supported the orthodox position. Now we turn our attention to Dabney, who is being used to support the revisionist position:

Which one is the 'revisionist' position and which one is the 'orthodox' position? Is this referring to the poll in the OP?

Which one is the 'revisionist' position and which one is the 'orthodox' position? Is this referring to the poll in the OP?

I was trying to use a less inflammatory word then conspiracy theorists, so I picked revisionist, which isn't really good either. I want a word to describe what the overwhelming number of Bible scholars hold to, and a word which describes what a very small minority hold to.

Just as a warning though: the overwhelming number of Bible scholars hold to a great many things that confessionals consider offensive: numerical consensus in today's world of biblical studies may not always be a good thing. The question which is more pertinent, however, is what is the position that an overwhelming number of Westminster Assemblymen held?

Originally Posted by TimV

Which one is the 'revisionist' position and which one is the 'orthodox' position? Is this referring to the poll in the OP?

I was trying to use a less inflammatory word then conspiracy theorists, so I picked revisionist, which isn't really good either. I want a word to describe what the overwhelming number of Bible scholars hold to, and a word which describes what a very small minority hold to.

Are the Bible scholars you are referring to 'Reformed' or just in general? If you are refering to the majority of 'general' Bible scholars, then how does that have any bearing on the WCF?

Just as a warning though: the overwhelming number of Bible scholars hold to a great many things that confessionals consider offensive:

OK, then I'll go back to overwhelming number of orthodox scholars. And now we can add another one, Dabney, who was also quoted as supporting a position he just didn't hold. Did you read the two quotes four posts above this?

Sorry Tim, I didn't mean to get back involved, I just wanted to steer it back to the pertinent question, which is not what do later theologians think; but rather, what did the Westminster Divines think?

Originally Posted by TimV

OK, then I'll go back to overwhelming number of orthodox scholars. And now we can add another one, Dabney, who was also quoted as supporting a position he just didn't hold. Did you read the two quotes four posts above this?

I think what Pastor Klein is seeking to clarify is exactly what position you are using Dabney to argue against. I myself am a little confused as to your point, since it was acknowledged a few pages ago in this thread that the TR contains variants which require the science of comparative textual criticism. Further, "TR" means different things to different writers, so you will need to clarify what you mean by the term and what men like Dabney might have meant by it.

Hi:

TimV wrote:

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

We do know that Erasmus was translating out of the Greek text in the last several verses of Revelation. There is so much evidence to this that I hardly know where to start. I am, by the way, waiting for my copy of Hoskier in order to reproduce his reasons more perfectly.

First, the claim that Erasmus stated that he was translating out of the Latin into the Greek is another story told by Critical Text "scholars" in order to lessen the authority of the Textus Receptus. See: Erika Rummel, Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament: From Philologist to Theologian (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986), 93. "It is claimed that Erasmus openly declares in the Annotations of his 1516 edition (page 675) that he "ex nostris Latinis supplevimus Graeca" (supplied the Greek from the Latin). Thus the claim that last six verses of Revelation chapter twenty-two were retranslated from the Vulgate into Greek. However, the reprint of the 1516 edition of Erasmus does not contain this phrase on page 675 of his Annotations, which is the conclusion of his notes on the book of Revelation. Nor is such a phrase found elsewhere in that edition."

Second, Erasmus, who was a Greek scholar, in these last verses would know what were the common words and their spellings. However, in Rev. 22:17 Erasmus uses the word elthe rather than the more common word erchou. He is aware of the more common rendering (erchou) because he uses it in Rev. 22:7, 12, 20. There must have been a reason for him to use a different word in 22:17, and this suggests that he was not translating out of the Latin, but out of a Greek text which had this rendering.

Third, there is also a consistency in the translation that Erasmus uses which suggests that he was translating from a Greek text rather than from the Latin. The reading in Rev. 22:16 says, "...tou dabid." The Critical Text omits the "tou." The Latin Vulgate does not use the article in its translation. In this matter the Critical Text is closer to the Vulgate than the Textus Receptus.

Vulgate at 22:16 reads, "ego Iesus misi angelum meum testificari vobis haec in ecclesiis ego sum radix et genusDavid stella splendida et matutina", bold mine.

Critical Text reads, Ego Iesous epempsa ton aggelon mou marturesai humin tauta epi tais ekklesiais. ego eimi he piza kai to genos Dauid, ho aster ho lampros oh proinos.

Textus Receptus (Scrivener) at Rev. 22:16, Ego Iesous epempsa ton aggelon mou marturesai humin tauta epi tais ekklesiais. ego eimi he piza kai to genos tou Dabid, ho aster ho lampros kai opthrinos.

(It should be mentioned that it is vital for Greek that the "tou" be referenced to "Dabid." The reason for this is that one can now be assured that "Dabid" is in the Genetive "of David," and is not the direct object nor the subject of the sentence. "Dabid" is a Hebrew proper name being transliterated into Greek, and, because of this none of the Greek endings are placed on it. The article is specific to Gender, Number, and Case. Thus, the article is vital to the Greek here to indentify the word "David" as the Subject, Direct Object, or the Genetive of the sentence. This is a very basic rule of Greek, and any Greek writer would know this. That the CT cuts out the "tou" here is bad Greek.)

As I have looked at the arguments for "tree of life" and "book of life" I think the rendering "book" to be the theologically and grammatically correct reading of the text.

"Tree of life' is found three times in the New Testament: Rev. 2:7, 22:2, 14.

"Book of life" is found seven times in the New Testament: Phil.4:3; Rev. 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15; and 21:27.

The disputed text reads:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

If we read the three verses concerning the Tree of Life correctly, then we must conclude that it is given to believers, and is available for believers only:

Rev. 2:7, "To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life..."
Rev. 22:2, "...and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations."
Rev. 22:14, "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."

As I read it the tree of life is for those who "overcome" it is for the "healing of the nations," and for those who have obeyed the commandments of God. It seems very clear that the Tree of Life is for the Elect only.

However, when we read of the seven verses in the Book of Life, then we are told that one's name can be blotted out of it, Rev. 3:5. Such is the same warning given here in Rev. 22:19.

I will continue this when I get Hoskier's book tomorrow, Lord willing.

Blessings,

Rob

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

Dabid

A not-very-important side question -- was the above unusual transliteration of the word "David" (with a beta instead of an upsilon) a tradition begun with the TR, or was this spelling copied unchanged from Erasmus' sources?

Thanks, Rob. Remember my question was how many Greek texts use tree and how many use book. I still can't find anyone who can answer what seems to me a question that a specialist would quickly be able to answer. At this point I'm not interested in personal opinions on the subject; it's a simple question of the number of readings and their ages.

I think what Pastor Klein is seeking to clarify is exactly what position you are using Dabney to argue against.

Further, "TR" means different things to different writers, so you will need to clarify what you mean by the term and what men like Dabney might have meant by it.

I read this:

The true test for determining if one is an heir of the Reformed scholastics is found in the role the Westminster Confession plays in locating final Scriptural authority. Archibald Alexander (1772–1851), Charles Hodge (1797–1878), and the Southern Presbyterian, Robert Dabney (1820–1890) were genuine heirs of Turretin. They focused authority in present, extant copies of the biblical texts (apographa), with all the accompanying textual phenomena, as the “providentially preserved” and sanctioned edition (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:8).

and read this

Robert Dabney:

No one claims for the Textus Receptus, or common Greek text of the New Testament, any sacred right

and see a contradiction.

As to the main point I keep coming back to, I've tried to simplify it down to it's basic question: Did NT authors quote from both the Masoretic and Septuagint.

Originally Posted by TimV

Thanks, Rob. Remember my question was how many Greek texts use tree and how many use book. I still can't find anyone who can answer what seems to me a question that a specialist would quickly be able to answer. At this point I'm not interested in personal opinions on the subject; it's a simple question of the number of readings and their ages.

I think what Pastor Klein is seeking to clarify is exactly what position you are using Dabney to argue against.

Further, "TR" means different things to different writers, so you will need to clarify what you mean by the term and what men like Dabney might have meant by it.

I read this:

The true test for determining if one is an heir of the Reformed scholastics is found in the role the Westminster Confession plays in locating final Scriptural authority. Archibald Alexander (1772–1851), Charles Hodge (1797–1878), and the Southern Presbyterian, Robert Dabney (1820–1890) were genuine heirs of Turretin. They focused authority in present, extant copies of the biblical texts (apographa), with all the accompanying textual phenomena, as the “providentially preserved” and sanctioned edition (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:8).

and read this

Robert Dabney:

No one claims for the Textus Receptus, or common Greek text of the New Testament, any sacred right

and see a contradiction.

As to the main point I keep coming back to, I've tried to simplify it down to it's basic question: Did NT authors quote from both the Masoretic and Septuagint.

And if it can be proven that the NT authors did quote from both, then it is also proved that the Divines did not have in view the TR when they wrote 1:8? Am I on the right track?

Originally Posted by TimV

I read this:

The true test for determining if one is an heir of the Reformed scholastics is found in the role the Westminster Confession plays in locating final Scriptural authority. Archibald Alexander (1772–1851), Charles Hodge (1797–1878), and the Southern Presbyterian, Robert Dabney (1820–1890) were genuine heirs of Turretin. They focused authority in present, extant copies of the biblical texts (apographa), with all the accompanying textual phenomena, as the “providentially preserved” and sanctioned edition (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:8).

and read this

Robert Dabney:

No one claims for the Textus Receptus, or common Greek text of the New Testament, any sacred right

and see a contradiction.

Not sure why you would see a contradiction there. Dabney goes on to state, p. 351, "As more numerous collations of ancient documents are made the number of various readings is, of course, greatly increased; but yet the effect of these comparisons is, on the whole, to confirm the substantial correctness of the received text more and more." IOW, he was working WITHIN the TR tradition, not seeking by radical criticism to undermine it. This is precisely what reformed teachers have historically contended for.

Originally Posted by TimV

As to the main point I keep coming back to, I've tried to simplify it down to it's basic question: Did NT authors quote from both the Masoretic and Septuagint.

This simplification is unhelpful. 1. The NT nowhere mentions the "Septuaginta." 2. Christian emendation of OT texts is well known. 3. Even if NT penmen did quote from a pre-Christian Greek translation, the fact is that their rendering follows the Hebrew more times than this hypothesised translation, and thereby establishes the well known principle of ad fontes. 4. Where the Hebrew is not strictly followed, it can't be shown that NT penmen were "quoting," and thereby accrediting a textual source outside the Hebrew.

This simplification is unhelpful. 1. The NT nowhere mentions the "Septuaginta." 2. Christian emendation of OT texts is well known. 3. Even if NT penmen did quote from a pre-Christian Greek translation, the fact is that their rendering follows the Hebrew more times than this hypothesised translation, and thereby establishes the well known principle of ad fontes. 4. Where the Hebrew is not strictly followed, it can't be shown that NT penmen were "quoting," and thereby accrediting a textual source outside the Hebrew.

Just so everything is clear to everyone, do you believe that NT authors quoted even once both the Hebrew text and another Greek text that differs from the Hebrew text?

Tim,

I thought some thoughts from older Reformed divines regarding the LXX might be useful, since you find this quite important to the topic.

1.) Owen thought that some places where the NT seems to follow the LXX was because the LXX was later fixed to match the NT. See the following passage from his commentary on Hebrews:

(On Hebrews 10.5-7)
8. The words, therefore, in this place are the words whereby the apostle
expressed the sense and meaning of the Holy Ghost in those used in the
psalmist, or that which was intended in them. He did not take them from
the translation of the LXX., but used them himself, to express the sense of
the Hebrew text. For although we should not adhere precisely unto the
opinion that all the quotations out of the Old Testament in the-New, which
agree in words with the present translation of the LXX., were by the
scribes of that translation transferred out of the New Testament into it, —
which yet is far more probable than the contrary opinion, that the words of
the translation are made use of in the New Testament, even when they
differ from the original, — yet sundry things herein are certain and
acknowledged; as,
(1.) That the penmen of the New Testament do not oblige themselves unto
that translation, but in many places do precisely render the words of the
original text, where that translation differs from it.
(2.) That they do oftentimes express the sense of the testimony which they
quote in words of their own, neither agreeing with that translation nor
exactly answering the original Hebrew.
(3.) That sundry passages have been unquestionably taken out of the New
Testament, and inserted into that translation; which I have elsewhere
proved by undeniable instances. And I no way doubt but it hath so fallen
out in this place, where no account can be given of the translation of the
LXX. as the words now are in it.

William Whitaker held that the LXX copies we have today are surely most corrupt from their original versions. (Disputations, II.3)

Turretin, however, is where I will focus most. I think he gives two very interesting answers to LXX use by the apostles. The first:

The apostles used this version [the LXX] not because they believed it to be authentic and divine, but because it was then the most used and most universally received and because (where a regard for the sense and truth was preserved) they were unwilling either rashly to dispute or to create a doubt in the minds of the more weak, but by a holy prudence left unchanged what when changed would give offense, especially when it would answer their purpose. However, they did this in such a manner that sometimes when it seemed necessary, when the version of the Septuagint seemed to be not only unsuitable but untrue, they preferred the source. (II.14.7)

In other words, he claims they sometimes did quote from the LXX, not because it was authentic scripture, but rather they used it only when it did match the original Hebrew and that for the sake of those accustomed to it. Secondly, and most importantly, he says the following:

The quotations in the New Testament from the Septuagint are not authentic per se, but per accidens inasmuch as they were drawn into the sacred context by the evangelists under the influence of the Holy Spirit. (II.14.8)

The fact that they used it did not mean it was authentic in itself; the specific verses which he claims they did use become authentic upon that basis, but this is wholly different.

In other words, Turretin can claim that the apostles did, on occasion, quote from the LXX, but this does not mean that they allowed it to be an authentic version or translation of scripture en masse. They used it when it reflected the true and authentic scripture.

The problem of the LXX is not new; the Reformers were certainly not ignorant of it, and yet the possibility (or even certainty) of its use in the NT did not undermine or alter their view that the Hebrew autographs and apographs (and only these) were authentic.

Originally Posted by TimV

Just so everything is clear to everyone, do you believe that NT authors quoted even once both the Hebrew text and another Greek text that differs from the Hebrew text?

I am open to being shown some place where the NT penmen "quoted" from a Greek "text." As you make your case to depend on it, you bear the burden of showing it.

Originally Posted by Prufrock

The fact that they used it did not mean it was authentic in itself; the specific verses which he claims they did use become authentic upon that basis, but this is wholly different.

In other words, Turretin can claim that the apostles did, on occasion, quote from the LXX, but this does not mean that they allowed it to be an authentic version or translation of scripture en masse. They used it when it reflected the true and authentic scripture.

The problem of the LXX is not new; the Reformers were certainly not ignorant of it, and yet the possibility (or even certainty) of its use in the NT did not undermine or alter their view that the Hebrew autographs and apographs (and only these) were authentic.

The above sounds largely correct to me. The editors of my edition of the LXX (Zondervan) assert that though the authors of the NT did use the LXX, they tended to correct in the direction of the MT where the LXX is most divergent.

And if it can be proven that the NT authors did quote from both, then it is also proved that the Divines did not have in view the TR when they wrote 1:8? Am I on the right track?

If NT authors did quote from both, and by all reasonable criteria they did, the burden of proof would be on the contrarian; i.e. that the contrarians would have to prove conclusively that the Divines did not have this view.

Because if the Divines held to what the Church has always taught, they couldn't have meant that God's Word, kept pure in all ages, was written down specifically and exclusively in one text.

Since some people here are spending so much time interpreting every jot and tittle of WCF 1.8, perhaps I can ask at this time if they expect all Elder candidates of the PCA, OPC etc.. to declare exceptions if they believe parts of the OT e.g. Daniel were written in Aramaic and not Hebrew.

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

For any of the 23 people who voted yes in the poll, may I ask if any of you think Elders who believe Daniel was written and inspired in Aramaic are in violation of their vows?

-----Added 12/15/2008 at 11:45:09 EST-----

In other words, Turretin can claim that the apostles did, on occasion, quote from the LXX, but this does not mean that they allowed it to be an authentic version or translation of scripture en masse. They used it when it reflected the true and authentic scripture.

I am open to being shown some place where the NT penmen "quoted" from a Greek "text." As you make your case to depend on it, you bear the burden of showing it.

Does that count? What more will you be satisfied with than to show that than 99% of orthodox scholars agree with what you just "largely agree"d with?

Originally Posted by TimV

In other words, Turretin can claim that the apostles did, on occasion, quote from the LXX, but this does not mean that they allowed it to be an authentic version or translation of scripture en masse. They used it when it reflected the true and authentic scripture.

I am open to being shown some place where the NT penmen "quoted" from a Greek "text." As you make your case to depend on it, you bear the burden of showing it.

Does that count? What more will you be satisfied with than to show that than 99% of orthodox scholars agree with what you just "largely agree"d with?

No, it doesn't count, as Turretin is speaking within a certain context which has to do with the authenticity of the fountains, and the language he uses is loosely adapted for the purpose. Your case depends on a certain line of argument which you need to establish by evidence. So it's time for you to bring forth the evidence that the NT penmen "quoted" from a Greek "text;" you only need to demonstrate "one" instance of it.

Originally Posted by TimV

Since some people here are spending so much time interpreting every jot and tittle of WCF 1.8, perhaps I can ask at this time if they expect all Elder candidates of the PCA, OPC etc.. to declare exceptions if they believe parts of the OT e.g. Daniel were written in Aramaic and not Hebrew.

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

For any of the 23 people who voted yes in the poll, may I ask if any of you think Elders who believe Daniel was written and inspired in Aramaic are in violation of their vows?

The above point is well made -- I think it's obvious the WCF framers expected their readers to use common sense, both with respect to the above, and to the "kept pure" idea, which we all agree allows for correction as our knowledge of Biblical manuscripts improves (we disagree as to the extent of the allowed correction).


The longest Aramaic portions I'm aware of:

Daniel 2:4 through 7:28 is in Aramaic.
Ezra 4:8-6:18 and 7:12-26 are in Aramaic.

So it's time for you to bring forth the evidence that the NT penmen "quoted" from a Greek "text;" you only need to demonstrate "one" instance of it.

I've been doing that for days, and for purposes of emphasis using mainly sources contrarians have used to make their case. The last was Keil and Delitzsch

and it is in accordance with this sense that it is paraphrased in Mar_4:12, whereas in the three other passages in which the words are quoted in the New Testament (viz., Matthew, John, and Acts) the Septuagint rendering is adopted

but I can't convince you of that anymore than I can convince certain people that Arab hijackers brought down the two towers by flying planes into them because you make the burden of proof impossible.

In other words, Turretin can claim that the apostles did, on occasion, quote from the LXX, but this does not mean that they allowed it to be an authentic version or translation of scripture en masse. They used it when it reflected the true and authentic scripture.

All we have to do is to show that during the time of Christ there was

a) a parallel situation with our own, where there was more than one textual tradition
b)and that both of these varying texts were quoted by NT authors

to prove that the Word of God has been kept pure through all ages, but not in one, single, volume that somebody could specifically point to.

I do admit that the above still doesn't prove what was actually going on in the minds of the Divines. But the way 1.8 has been interpreted is in line with the above. And that is why no major Reformed church has required an exception to 1.8 by Elder candidates for not holding to the tiny minority AVer position. And it is not going to change anytime soon.

Hi:

I ask these of TimV:

If the New Testament can quote from the pagan Greek poet Aratus, Acts 17:28, then why can it not quote from a Greek paraphrase of the Hebrew Scriptures? What is more: are the writers of the NT allowed to give the "sense" (Hebrew Raz) of a passage in the OT? Or, do they have to adhere to a strict literal translation? (Hebrew Peshat). If so, then how do you get a literal translation from the Hebrew to the Greek?

If we were to allow your assertion that there are quotations from the LXX in the New Testament, then what would be your point? Some claim that the NT quotes from the Apocrypha. Should we then include the Apocrypha in the Canon as well?

I am still awaiting the copy of Hoskier.

Blessings,

Rob

I ask these of TimV:

If the New Testament can quote from the pagan Greek poet Aratus, Acts 17:28, then why can it not quote from a Greek paraphrase of the Hebrew Scriptures?

Hi Rob
The analogy would be if Aratus was quoted one way in the Hebrew text, and in a slightly different way in the Greek text, and the NT author preferred the Greek text.

If we were to allow your assertion that there are quotations from the LXX in the New Testament

First, let's be clear that it's not a small time contractor from California with a degree in agriculture that's making this claim. This claim is made by 99% of people who've studied the issue.

then what would be your point? Some claim that the NT quotes from the Apocrypha. Should we then include the Apocrypha in the Canon as well?

I'm using this admittedly complex tack to show why no large denomination holding to the WCF requires or expects officer candidates to make an exemption to 1.8 based on the AVer interpretation of history.

I am still awaiting the copy of Hoskier.

Thanks, and in the mean time, I would still be very interested in finding out whether any of those 23 people who voted yes would also require officer candidates to make exception to 1.8 based on a man's belief that some parts of the OT contained Aramaic writings that are Authentic.

Originally Posted by TimV

Thanks, and in the mean time, I would still be very interested in finding out whether any of those 23 people who voted yes would also require officer candidates to make exception to 1.8 based on a man's belief that some parts of the OT contained Aramaic writings that are Authentic.

Interesting question, but not quite the same. The question concerns the apographs, and they had the same Hebrew text that we have today. There's no ambiguity: we know what they meant. The fact that there is Aramaic intermixed in some portions does not undermine that anymore than the few Aramaic words in Mark's gospel undermine the fact that the New Testament is written in Greek.

Or do you disagree?

-----Added 12/16/2008 at 01:39:22 EST-----

Also, I think there is some confusion and speaking past one another between you (Tim) and some others: they are simply saying (I believe) that using LXX wording (or wording similar thereunto) to represent the Hebrew is not the same as "quoting" a Greek "text." It is using familiar wording to "quote" a Hebrew "text."

Whether or not you agree with that statement is another matter; it seems very clear that this is how the Reformers and Westminster Divines thought.

Do you agree that they thought this (whether or not you think they were right or wrong to do so)?

Going back to my post #154, TimV is right that it at least appears I am claiming Keil and Delitzsch supported my view re the LXX, whereas that is not so. My claim in fact was they concurred with other commentators that in Psalm 14:1–3 the LXX’s reading came from Romans via Christian scribes, and not the other way around, i.e., from the LXX into Romans. And that the only extant copies of the LXX are what we have from these "Christian scribes". We do not have whatever existed in the days of Christ. And my remarks pertained to one case study. My fault in not being more precise.

And TimV's insistence on precision of words used – and their definitions – is really right on. As is his demand for the integrity of evidences presented. I appreciate being held accountable to high standards like that.

He has a good point re Edersheim's use of the word "dialect"; however, that other commentators use it in much the same sense ought to give one pause in going after him as "sloppy". Yet, after interacting with Tim, I would prefer to see it written, "Aramaic a dialect of the Hebrews", or "Aramaic a dialect of the Semitic languages".

Re Edersheim's views of the LXX, they do not concur with mine, but his views of what language Christ spoke to the Pharisees, priests, and scribes do. It is very rare we find those who agree with us in all things! For instance, Edersheim was persuaded by Westcott (his commentary on John) that the Pericope De Adultera was not genuine, but, after reading Burgon's defense of the last twelve verses of Mark, that that portion of Scripture was genuine. A mixed bag.

Incidentally, Hermonta, I do believe that the New Testament does not quote the Greek O.T. where it differs from the original Hebrew. There are other explanations for the apparent similarities, which is one of the reasons I posted the Psalm 14:3 thing.

----------

Rob,

I think you set a bad example and precedent on this already volatile forum by calling James White names: "lackey", "intellectually dishonest". To publicly demean an elder and pastor in the church of Christ, charging him with wrongdoing because he does not concur with your understanding of textual issues, and because he does not return your (and others') emails to concede a point (valid though it be), is to violate many Biblical commands, the first and foremost that we are to deal with one another in love. R.C. Sproul, in his Developing Christian Character audio series, teaches on the concept of Judgment of Charity, whereby we seek to put the best "spin" on an opponent's perceived shortcomings rather than the worst, unless irrefutable evidence demands otherwise. I am as aware of Dr. White's views and writings re the KJV, the TR, and the CT as you, and yet I could go have a meal with him and enjoy fellowship. What's the difference between you and me in this? Though he and I disagree strongly on the textual issue (and baptism!), he is my brother, and a godly man. I will not put a bad spin on his motives or reasons re his approach to evidences in the textual debate, as there is something more important than such issues the Lord said we had to observe, and that is to love one another as He loves us. Is that just syrupy religious talk, or a demand of the Holy One?

There is a way of disagreeing – and of protesting error – without violating the commandment: "Speak not evil one of another" (James 4:11). To tear down another's reputation, especially a pastor's, and that in public for all the world to see (as this is an open forum) is a form of spiritual murder (1 John 3:15). There is a concealed (though not very well) hostility – hatred is not too strong a word for it – toward the person verbally abused.

Which brings me to the matter of marginalizing brethren due to their differing beliefs. I have in mind here the "KJV onlies" to whom, so it has been said, it is appropriate – "natural" – to be "sarcastic, dismissive and even contemptuous". To relegate someone to marginal status is to place them at the outer edge or lowest level of the social order. Ethnic groups have been marginalized by racist bigots, women by misogynists, the poor by the rich, and in the church of the Holy One those of differing views of the Bible by their opponents. That Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger do this to those who do not hold to the KJV is a disgrace and a sin. That some in the Presbyterian and Reformed churches do this to the KJV folks is worse, because of the greater spiritual light (which the doctrines of grace bring) and understanding of the Gospel of Grace we have.

To marginalize brothers and sisters whose Protector and Elder Brother is the One who poured out His life's blood on the cross for them is, beyond wickedness, foolishness, as such folly cries out for chastening.

There is a command, the second greatest of all the Law of God, and which the King emphasized when He said, "This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you" (John 15:12). Jesus spoke on this again, through the mouth of His apostle,

We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. (1 John 3:14).

Knowledge means nothing if one is devoid of genuine affection for his brothers. It is more like the devil waxing wise with a gloat of superiority, sarcastic, dismissive and contemptuous to the Savior's little brothers.

Contempt: lack of respect accompanied by a feeling of intense dislike. The feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior, base, or worthless.

To marginalize people is to say they have no worth, and no standing among those who are "in".

The Lord says that we may have great knowledge (and brilliant intelligence), but if it is without love, we are nothing (1 Cor 13:2). Like a devil. Full of knowledge – and death.

Love edifies, and if a man loves God (more than himself), the same is known of him: for he who loves God loves his brother also. And if a man say, "I love God" and hates his brother, he is a liar (1 Cor 8:1, 3; 1 John 4:21, 20).

The world looks and sees the meanness and go-for-the-jugular spirit over the issue of what is the best Scripture of the God of love and holiness and no doubt says, "What a house of clever devils – see how they hate one another!"

We all have our gross failings, immaturities, and sins, the Presbyterians and Reformed, as well as the Independent Fundamentalist Baptists, the Critical / Eclectic Text advocates, and the King James advocates – we all are wretched at heart in one way or another, and we all need undeserved favor, all camps of the Lord's people, one no less than all the others.

All this to say, I am grieved when I am supposed to be having a conversation about things holy, and yet the spirit of the conversation is unholy, "descended not from above, but earthly, sensual, devilish" (James 3:15).

Yet, after interacting with Tim, I would prefer to see it written, "Aramaic a dialect of the Hebrews", or "Aramaic a dialect of the Semitic languages".

I appreciate your gracious language as always, but there are no living scholars that specialise in the subject that agree with you. Whether Edersheim et. al. were sloppy or not specialists or whether language has changed from their days, no living person of note calls Aramaic a dialect of Hebrew. Whether it was 600 years before Christ

2Ki 18:26 Then Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and Shebnah, and Joah, said to the Rabshakeh, "Please speak to your servants in Aramaic, for we understand it. Do not speak to us in the language of Judah within the hearing of the people who are on the wall.

During the time of Christ or today, they are not, in 21st century English dialects of each other. Even softening it to "Aramaic a dialect of the Hebrews" is incorrect. Rather, as all the three scholars currently in the field that I've quoted on this thread have said, "Palestinian Aramaic, a dialect of Aramaic spoken by several ethnic groups in New Testament times in Palestine, mutually unintelligible with any form of Hebrew ever spoken".

Originally Posted by TimV

Yet, after interacting with Tim, I would prefer to see it written, "Aramaic a dialect of the Hebrews", or "Aramaic a dialect of the Semitic languages".

I appreciate your gracious language as always, but there are no living scholars that specialise in the subject that agree with you.

I think this is too harsh, Tim. Unless I'm missing something, Steve is not claiming that Aramaic is a dialect of the Hebrew language.

As to whether we can call it a "dialect of the Hebrews", I guess all you would need are some Israelites who speak it to call it that, at least informally. I think we can safely assert this much.

As to calling Aramaic and Hebrew co-dialects of a wider Semitic language family, I think we already agreed that was a valid current use of the word. (EDIT -- with the clear understanding that that use of "dialects" denotes entirely separate languages.)

Originally Posted by TimV

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.

Tim,

The "revisionist" position is the critical schools which the majority of scholarship holds to.

The Protestant scholastic defense of the New Testament doesn't arise until after Calvin and Beza's work (theological and textual) had solidified the "Received Text" as not just a publishers advertisement by the Elezevirs in 1623 but as an objective reality upon which Tyndales translation is based, the Great Bible of King Henry the VIII, the Geneva Bible of the Puritans, the Bishops Bible and the Authorized Version.

Tregelles notes:

"Beza's text was during his life in very general use among Protestants; they seemed to feel that enough had been done to establish it, and they relied on it as giving them a firm basis....After the appearance of the texts of Stephanus and Beza, many Protestants ceased from all inquiry into the authorities on which the text of the New Testament in their hands was based." Samuel Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament with Remarks on its Revision upon Critical Principles, 1854, p 33 - 35

As soon as publishing had distributed this work far and wide it became the Protestant standard and continued for three centuries, not based upon ignorance, but because the other view being championed came directly from the Tridentine attack upon the Reformation. What were initially textual matters, when coupled to the polemic against Romanism, became highly charged doctrinal matters. In the historical Reformed position on the texts and their orientation to them, the texts behind the modern critical school of thought don't pose a problem, they enhance and support it.

The historical Romanist position on the texts, today, has become the majority position held to and taught by the schools. This is simply a historical fact, not to imply that one that holds to the critical text also holds to popish doctrines. Rather that the textual position originates there and it is counter-reformational in it's scope and intent. It was specifically developed to attack the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and deny it as a valid doctrinal position asserting the Magisterium as Authoritative. While the modern schools don't champion the Magisterium today, they do champion scholars and scholarship, or man's wisdom, as being Authoritative - hence, it poses the same threat.

We are given a revisionist representation of Protestant history from modern critical schools that our Protestant father's, such as John Calvin and Theodore Beza, had no other option but to use the Received Text. That they didn’t have the evidence we do today, and on and on, when in fact they did - they just didn’t have the quantity of evidence, the quantity of which has only amplified with greater numerical preponderance the text type deliberately chosen by Eramus, Stephanus and Beza. The modern claims simply aren’t true but are fanciful misrepresentations, and their continual work since the pillars of Wescott and Hort fell, have proved the Protestant text.

Once Rome began appealing to Greek manuscripts that supported their traditions and novel teachings, which was in contradiction to the Reformers claim of Ad Fonte, as was exhibited to them by the Council of Trent with Vaticanus and Codex D then, and I’m quoting Theodore Letis: “Protestants would have to realize that not just any Greek document would serve their purpose, not even a very old one! Now they would have to be even more careful in basing their editions on the most objectively compelling evidence. It was the majority of documents concurring with each other that offered such security. And documents that exhibited features of eccentricity would now be all the more suspect. Since Calvin returned to Erasmus and Stephanus coupled with Beza’s adverse sentiments on Coline’s edition, a consensus has probably been reached to avoid an edition that had an unhealthy independence.”

Originally Posted by TimV

I was trying to use a less inflammatory word then conspiracy theorists, so I picked revisionist, which isn't really good either. I want a word to describe what the overwhelming number of Bible scholars hold to, and a word which describes what a very small minority hold to.

The word you're looking for in reference to the majority is Enlightenment Criticism, the minority hold to Sacred Criticism, the two have a completely different orientation to the issues.

Instead of continually accusing people or using disparaging language and presentations to make assertions, that seem in the main to be based upon a lack of knowledge, maybe you could consider trying to understand that the two different camps hold to two different presuppositions and orientations to the issues involved.

Repeatedly stating that our position is wrong because we don't hold to your presupposition doesn't prove anything - we have and will continually try to explain that we don't hold to your presupposition because we believe it is a wrong presupposition.

Hello Thomas,

Originally Posted by Thomas2007

That they didn’t have the evidence we do today, and on and on, when in fact they did - they just didn’t have the quantity of evidence, the quantity of which has only amplified with greater numerical preponderance the text type deliberately chosen by Eramus, Stephanus and Beza.

Either you are arguing for a majority text approach to textual criticism, e.g. the work of Hodges/Farstad, Robinson/Pierpont, or I'm not sure what you are saying above. To put it another way, the above does not seem to be compatible with the TR priority view. Could you clarify where you're coming from here?

Originally Posted by Thomas2007

The modern claims simply aren’t true but are fanciful misrepresentations, and their continual work since the pillars of Wescott and Hort fell, have proved the Protestant text.

I believe the pillars are quite intact. While nobody uses W&H's Greek NT anymore for translating, their core principles of textual criticism have been extremely widely adopted in the field. A huge number of Christians today use a translation of scripture based on the tradition of textual criticism they pioneered.

If widespread use in the Church -- no, let's narrow it even further, and say widespread use in the Reformed churches -- indicates God's special favor on a translation or a composite critical NT text, then the NIV, ESV, and NASB are surely favored by God by being put to work in the trenches of ministry all over the world. Not to mention the work of Bible translators such as those trained by and affiliated with Tyndale, where you also find wide use of the UBS Greek NT.

What a great post Thomas!! Mega-Dittos!

-----Added 12/16/2008 at 05:08:24 EST-----

Originally Posted by TsonMariytho

I believe the pillars are quite intact. While nobody uses W&H's Greek NT anymore for translating, their core principles of textual criticism have been extremely widely adopted in the field. A huge number of Christians today use a translation of scripture based on the tradition of textual criticism they pioneered.

That's the issue that I have. The textual criticism methods they used. The supposed 'neutrality' position.

And how it relates to WCF 1.8 is giving me pause to seriously consider it, in ways I haven't before.

Hello:

Mr. Rafalsky wrote:

Rob,

I think you set a bad example and precedent on this already volatile forum by calling James White names: "lackey", "intellectually dishonest". To publicly demean an elder and pastor in the church of Christ, charging him with wrongdoing because he does not concur with your understanding of textual issues, and because he does not return your (and others') emails to concede a point (valid though it be), is to violate many Biblical commands, the first and foremost that we are to deal with one another in love. R.C. Sproul, in his Developing Christian Character audio series, teaches on the concept of Judgment of Charity, whereby we seek to put the best "spin" on an opponent's perceived shortcomings rather than the worst, unless irrefutable evidence demands otherwise. I am as aware of Dr. White's views and writings re the KJV, the TR, and the CT as you, and yet I could go have a meal with him and enjoy fellowship. What's the difference between you and me in this? Though he and I disagree strongly on the textual issue (and baptism!), he is my brother, and a godly man. I will not put a bad spin on his motives or reasons re his approach to evidences in the textual debate, as there is something more important than such issues the Lord said we had to observe, and that is to love one another as He loves us. Is that just syrupy religious talk, or a demand of the Holy One?

There is a way of disagreeing – and of protesting error – without violating the commandment: "Speak not evil one of another" (James 4:11). To tear down another's reputation, especially a pastor's, and that in public for all the world to see (as this is an open forum) is a form of spiritual murder (1 John 3:15). There is a concealed (though not very well) hostility – hatred is not too strong a word for it – toward the person verbally abused.

Thank you, Steve, for that exhortation. The command for brotherly love is not one that is irrelevant or syrupy. However, we should not make the command "syrupy." I have not listened to RC Sproul's series, but I do know that love can seem harsh, and use harsh language as a means of Reformation. Jesus does so with Peter, "Get behind me Satan," and also with the Syro-Phonecian woman - calling her a "dog."

As far as James White is concerned - he is a public figure who has made public (and erroneous) statments. As I have mentioned earlier I have sought to deal with this privately. However, dealing with public statements publically is not wrong. Apparently, you think it appropriate to chastise me in this public forum? Are you violating your own standards?

James 4:11 is not exactly saying what you are intending it to say - since you have made this "public" I will also deal with it publically. The whole passage reads:

Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.

Have I judged James White to eternal damnation? If I came across as such, then I will repent in dust and ashes, and fast for 2 days. The key here is "speak evil of his brother." If I have born false witness against my brother, than again, I will repent in dust and ashes. As I have mentioned before - it is not uncharitable if it is true.

Christ publically denounced the Scribes and Pharisees. Paul publically denounced Peter, as well as the Sinner in Corinth. Matthew Henry:

The Christians to whom James wrote were apt to speak very hard things of one another, because of their differences about indifferent things. "Now," says the apostle, "he who censures and condemns his brother for not agreeing with him in those things which the law of God has left indifferrent thereby censures and condemns the law, as if it had done ill in leaving them indifferent. He who quarrels with his brother, and condemns him for the sake of any thing not determined in the word of God, does thereby reflect on that word of God, as if it were not a perfect rule. Let us take heed of judging the law, for the law of the Lord is perfect; if men break the law, leave that to judge them; if they do not break it, let us not judge them."

I am glad that you have fellowship with Dr. White, that you sat down and ate a meal with him, and that you may have an influence over him for good. I also ate with him, listened to him preach in a church in person, and I even drove him to one of his lectures when I was living on Long Island.

However, he is a man whose teaching ministry reaches thousands, and, on this subject, he is, consciously or unconsciously, turning many people astray on a matter that is vital to True Religion - the Text of the Scriptures. To blow the trumpet in Zion, to sound the horn that false teachings are being promoted in the Church does not fall under the auspices of "good manners." Psalm 139:21.

If you are at all implying that James White is my elder, and that I must submit to him, then I think you need to read up on ecclesialogy. James White is not my elder, and, if he applied for eldership in my church I would vote against him, because I do not believe he is qualified.

I respect Dr. White for his work on Mormons, Roman Catholics, and Muslims. In these areas he has done marvelous work, and has promoted the gospel of Jesus Christ among them on a level I may never reach. Textual Criticism is the bath water of his theology.

It is a grief to me whenever I hear him speak on such a matter.

After saying, "Judge not lest ye be Judged" Jesus tells us to "Give not what is Holy to the dogs - nor cast your pearls before swine," which requires us to make a judgment about people.

Maybe you can help me with a matter: How does Christ, Paul, and Peter use "harsh" sounding language - yet fail to violate James 4:11?

You have thrown more aspersions at me, and have "judged" me more than anything I have done to James White - why all the hostility?

Grace and Peace,

Rob

Gentlemen, may I suggest we redirect the thread back to the applicability of textual criticism to the "kept pure in all ages" teaching of the Confession?

Anybody have another observation related to that?

Here's one:

The letter of that principle in the WCF is directed at the original language scriptures. However, the spirit of the principle is the recognition that God preserves his scriptures for the use of his church in all ages. If we believe that, and we recognize that the CT (Critical Text) is coming into widespread use by millions and millions of Christians, including many Reformed believers, doesn't it become easier for us to grant the legitimacy of the CT?

I keep harping on this, because I have interacted with Reformed brothers of the TR tradition who seem to argue for the TR's primacy because it was in such wide use during the Reformation, even if they can't provide a text-critical justification for every reading. But if God grants similar widespread use to the Critical Text, shouldn't it make us all take pause, and ask the question about whether the Spirit of God is favoring the text by putting it to work? (I know I'm repeating myself now, sorry.)

I think you may be too far divorcing the meaning from the literal statement: besides, since the very foundation of the CT is that the text has not been kept pure in all ages and must be rediscovered, I think your proposal would be a hard argument to make.

The problem lies in that what is being so widely used now is not any text which was kept pure or received by the church; it was constructed (and that by the academy, and not the church, I might add).

(I used to hold a [roughly] similar position to what you're advocating)

Originally Posted by TimV

All we have to do is to show that during the time of Christ there was

a) a parallel situation with our own, where there was more than one textual tradition
b)and that both of these varying texts were quoted by NT authors

to prove that the Word of God has been kept pure through all ages, but not in one, single, volume that somebody could specifically point to.

Then why don't you meet your own burden of proof? Surely it can't be that difficult to show just one place where the NT penmen "quoted" a "Greek text," especially considering how dogmatically certain you seem about the whole thing. Quoting from some authority won't do; please demonstrate it from the text of the NT itself.

Originally Posted by Prufrock

I think you may be too far divorcing the meaning from the literal statement: besides, since the very foundation of the CT is that the text has not been kept pure in all ages and must be rediscovered, I think your proposal would be a hard argument to make.

The problem lies in that what is being so widely used now is not any text which was kept pure or received by the church; it was constructed (and that by the academy, and not the church, I might add).

(I used to hold a [roughly] similar position to what you're advocating)

How many of the readings from the CT are from manuscripts the church hasn't had wide access to for much of its history?

In many cases, the CT simply deletes what are regarded as later interpolations; certain readings which, in the opinion of the editors, are merely scribal glosses improperly elevated to text status. Thus in many, many places, the CT is wholly contained within the TR. So the problem isn't quite as stark as it might sound at first blush.

Is that a fair observation?

As noted earlier, even if it could be proved that the NT "quotes" from a "Greek text" (which is still far from being established), the fact would still remain that the NT expressly adopts Hebrew MT readings over and against the so-called LXX. E.g., Matt 11:29 adopts the saying of Jer 6:16 in the Hebrew, "rest," not the Septuagint, which reads "purification." That being the case, if the NT gives credence to a translation by quoting a Greek text, by the same force of evidence it removes the possibility of appealing to this other textual tradition as primary, only affording it a secondary place behind the authentic Hebrew text.

Isaiah 29 13-14 Septuagint

And the Lord has said, [e] This people draw nigh to me with their mouth, and they honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from me: but in vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men.
Therefore behold I will proceed to remove this people, and I will remove them: and [f] I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will hide the understanding of the prudent.

Same passage Hebrew ESV

Isa 29:13 And the Lord said: "Because this people draw near with their mouth and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men,
Isa 29:14 therefore, behold, I will again do wonderful things with this people, with wonder upon wonder; and the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the discernment of their discerning men shall be hidden."

From Mark 7 ESV

Mar 7:6 And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, "'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;
Mar 7:7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'
Mar 7:8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men."

If the what Christ said in the above verse, and remember He said He was quoting Isaiah, did He only draw on the Hebrew text?

To those who have been patiently following, please look at this through the prism of God "kept pure His Word in all ages" but not necessarily in one single manuscript. Christ quoted Isaiah. What Isaiah really said, and and the words He used are not all found in the Hebrew. Some are recorded in the Greek translation as well. So the words are all there, but one has to use more than one text to find them.

Now look at it through the prism of the AVer theory, that one single manuscript tradition contained the Word of God in "all ages" including the time of Christ.

Which makes more sense?