How does the OPC proof text SC Q. 107 when the only version that has a conclusion to the Lord's Prayer is the AV? Doesn't the OPC's inclusion of Q 107 require them to, at least on this particular variant, side with the AV?
Dr. James White would not preach on these texts!?
- Thread starter JOwen
- Start date
- Status
How does the OPC proof text SC Q. 107 when the only version that has a conclusion to the Lord's Prayer is the AV? Doesn't the OPC's inclusion of Q 107 require them to, at least on this particular variant, side with the AV?
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
Ken:
A number of proof texts are given with respect to WSC 107 in the OPC version--check it out: http://www.opc.org/documents/SCLayout.pdf.
What you are seeking is given in WSC 99, where the Lord's Prayer is first cited. The last proof text for that question cites the Lord's Prayer from Matthew in the KJV, including the conclusion in question.
The answer to your question is that the OP version of the Standards employ the KJV and thus the eclectic text variants are not ordinarily there. The OP did not go into texts from the AV and change them to reflect the eclectic text. Rather, the Johannine comma is a special case and the whole verse is eliminated. It has, as you know, its own and highly controverted history. Otherwise, texts are there in their KJV form.
Peace,
Alan
A number of proof texts are given with respect to WSC 107 in the OPC version--check it out: http://www.opc.org/documents/SCLayout.pdf.
What you are seeking is given in WSC 99, where the Lord's Prayer is first cited. The last proof text for that question cites the Lord's Prayer from Matthew in the KJV, including the conclusion in question.
The answer to your question is that the OP version of the Standards employ the KJV and thus the eclectic text variants are not ordinarily there. The OP did not go into texts from the AV and change them to reflect the eclectic text. Rather, the Johannine comma is a special case and the whole verse is eliminated. It has, as you know, its own and highly controverted history. Otherwise, texts are there in their KJV form.
Peace,
Alan
Thank you, Dr. Strange. By 'OP version' do you mean the 'OPC version'?
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
Ken:
Yes, I mean the version in use by the OPC. And we gave the PCA permission to print the same version using their own cover. I am uncertain as to the history of the proof texts in the PCA constitutionally (Wayne?), but they print a version that is precisely the same as ours with the same proof texts.
Peace,
Alan
Yes, I mean the version in use by the OPC. And we gave the PCA permission to print the same version using their own cover. I am uncertain as to the history of the proof texts in the PCA constitutionally (Wayne?), but they print a version that is precisely the same as ours with the same proof texts.
Peace,
Alan
Wayne can confirm by I believe the reason PCA has no problem issuing the OPC version with their prooftexts is the PCA never approved/adopted proof texts for the WCF and Catechisms.
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
Chris:
That is what I believe to be the case, i.e., that the PCA has never approved proof texts for the Standards. My uncertainty stems from my being unaware of any actions in the PCA to approve proof texts, but I was concerned that I might have missed something. You confirm what I think to be, though Wayne can verify.
Peace,
Alan
That is what I believe to be the case, i.e., that the PCA has never approved proof texts for the Standards. My uncertainty stems from my being unaware of any actions in the PCA to approve proof texts, but I was concerned that I might have missed something. You confirm what I think to be, though Wayne can verify.
Peace,
Alan
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
A PCA congregation I visit (not my home church) always uses the traditional Lord's Prayer (Matt 6) even though it is pretty strictly an ESV / NIV church – I suppose because this Scripture is very widely known in its traditional form, and to use the CT form would be a glaring departure from what the church up through the ages has mostly used. Would there were such a care for godly ecclesiastical tradition as regards the rest of Scripture!
whirlingmerc
Puritan Board Sophomore
Hi,
hope it's not too hot in Queens today
I hear upstate is very hot.
What I meant was that there is a wide controversy and I do not know enough about it
I do believe in inerrency, infallibility and plenary inspiration of the original documents so maybe I should have skipped that reference as you say.
(not inerrant in my spelling)
Why it might be cow towing to Muslims is a mystery to me. Seems a disagreement over which texts are best.
Michael
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
Steve,
Have you been to many churches that do not use the traditional Lord's Prayer i.e. recite it from another version besides the AV? I have been to one that did that. Otherwise, I've always heard it from the KJV, even in churches that use the NASB or ESV.
whirlingmerc
Puritan Board Sophomore
I may regret this, but ... OK... why is the account in various places various books in various manuscripts?
John 7:53-8:11 -- is it authentic?
Steve, thanks for the references, I shall look into it.
John 7:53-8:11 -- is it authentic?
Steve, thanks for the references, I shall look into it.
Last edited:
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Chris, you're right – I have not heard it in other than the traditional form even in CT-leaning churches, which seems inconsistent to me if one favors the CT as generally superior. It's like there is an instinct which says, "Do not change this – this is sacred", that overrides other considerations. A less positive spin might be, as I said above, "to use the CT form would be a glaring departure from what the church up through the ages has mostly used", and the cognitive dissonance make people wonder if the new wasn't really for the worse after all.
puritanpilgrim
Puritan Board Junior
I love how there is a copy of Luke with the story in it.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Hi Michael,
I would think it appears in various places (very few, really) because many scribes knew intuitively (from familiarity with Bible and manuscripts) that it belonged somewhere, but were puzzled and perhaps daunted by “an internal notation, in many Scriptures prepared for....ecclesiastical use, [that] read (translating from the Greek) ‘over-leap’ [i.e., skip over] from verses 7:53 to 8:11, as the topic related therein was inappropriate for that day” (John Burgon, see post #23 above). While the regular reading for Pentecost Sunday was where the notation to skip the passage (as inappropriate for that day) appeared, it nonetheless was retained by the Greek church in their Byzantine text and in their Lectionary reading for every October 8[SUP]th[/SUP] up through the centuries.
Without enumerating all the places – scribal guesses – it found its way into, it remains that church fathers from antiquity affirmed its place in Scripture in John 8 and the reason they knew of why it had been removed (apart from the Greek church situation – again see post #23 above, Hills' comments)!
The reason it appears in so many ancient Latin mss. is that they did not have the notation to skip over it the Greek church did, and there was no like confusion among the scribes in the Latin West.
What you – and we all – are witnessing is that confusion engendered by both Rome and the God-hating rationalists (do any unbelievers love God?) with the flooding of Christendom with textual variants in an attempt to overthrow the mighty Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which fatally opposed Rome’s doctrine of Tradition trumping all other authority. Does it not appear that Rome won, through winning the hearts and loyalty of even the Reformed Protestants? Still and all, there are those die-hard Reformed souls – and churches – which hold to the standards of the Reformation, and will until the Lord returns.
But you can see, Michael, that the faith of multitudes in an intact and trustworthy Bible has been profoundly shaken by the defense of the variants against the foundation of Sola Scriptura the Reformers held, and that by modern Reformed and Presbyterian church leaders.
I have noted the following information elsewhere, and shall do it again here to make my point:
Here is something to consider when we talk of being true to the Reformation, the differences in various verses, i.e., the variant readings, and the United Bible Societies stance vis-à-vis Rome (and by implication, the Reformation).
This is from a post from Will Kinney’s articles page alleging an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Society on jointly producing the critical text:
Kinney: “I have a copy of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition right here in front of me. It is the same Greek text as the UBS (United Bible Society) 4th edition. These are the Greek readings and texts that are followed by such modern versions as the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard AND the new Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem Bible 1985.
“If you have a copy of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, open the book and read what they tell us in their own words on page 45 of the Introduction. Here these critical Greek text editors tell us about how the Greek New Testament (GNT, now known as the UBS) and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece grew together and shared the same basic text. In the last paragraph on page 45 we read these words:
"The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. This marks a significant step with regard to interconfessional relationships. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text: it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament."
And then, from The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity:
Collaboration for the Diffusion of the Bible
“Following the responsibility undertaken by the then Secretariat for the preparation of the dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, the PCPCU was entrusted with promoting ecumenical collaboration for the translation and diffusion of Holy Scripture (Dei Verbum, n. 22). In this context, it encouraged the formation of the Catholic Biblical Federation, with which it is in close contact. Together with the United Bible Societies it published the Guidelines for Interconfessional Cooperation in Translating the Bible” (1968; new revised edition 1987).
[Kinney]: The United Bible Societies Vice-President is Roman Catholic Cardinal Onitsha of Nigeria. On the executive committee is Roman Catholic Bishop Alilona of Italy and among the editors is Roman Catholic Cardinal Martini of Milan. Patrick Henry happily claims, “Catholics should work together with Protestants in the fundamental task of Biblical translation …[They can] work very well together and have the same approach and interpretation ... This signals a new age in the church.” - Patrick Henry, New Directions in New Testament Study (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1979), 232-234.
United Bible Societies welcomes Pope Francis
[Excerpt:] MARCH 15, 2013 - The election of Pope Francis, ‘a long-time friend of the Bible Societies’, is an encouragement to United Bible Societies (UBS) to work even harder to make the Bible available to everyone.
“He is a man of the universal church with an ecumenical spirit and he is a pastor, who knows the reality of ‘simple’ people. The new Pope is a truly biblical person whose faith and actions are deeply rooted in the Bible and inspired by the Word of God.”
“As a long-time friend of the Bible Societies Pope Francis knows that our raison d’être is the call to collaborate in the incarnation of our Christian faith,” says Mr Perreau. “we assure Pope Francis of our renewed availability to serve the Catholic Church in her endeavours to make the Word of God the centre of new evangelisation.”
[end excerpt]
___________
I think this may give many pause to think, What on earth are we doing siding with the arguments of Counter-Reformation Rome?
Little wonder, in my view, that an increasing number of Reformed persons are crossing the Tiber (turning to Rome) in an effort to find a line of unbroken tradition and of infallible authority. Where they find this in the papal system, we find it in the word of God providentially preserved by Him so that His children may stand against the world, the flesh, and the devil. Take my life if you must, but do not take the word of my God out of my hands or out of my heart!
I would think it appears in various places (very few, really) because many scribes knew intuitively (from familiarity with Bible and manuscripts) that it belonged somewhere, but were puzzled and perhaps daunted by “an internal notation, in many Scriptures prepared for....ecclesiastical use, [that] read (translating from the Greek) ‘over-leap’ [i.e., skip over] from verses 7:53 to 8:11, as the topic related therein was inappropriate for that day” (John Burgon, see post #23 above). While the regular reading for Pentecost Sunday was where the notation to skip the passage (as inappropriate for that day) appeared, it nonetheless was retained by the Greek church in their Byzantine text and in their Lectionary reading for every October 8[SUP]th[/SUP] up through the centuries.
Without enumerating all the places – scribal guesses – it found its way into, it remains that church fathers from antiquity affirmed its place in Scripture in John 8 and the reason they knew of why it had been removed (apart from the Greek church situation – again see post #23 above, Hills' comments)!
The reason it appears in so many ancient Latin mss. is that they did not have the notation to skip over it the Greek church did, and there was no like confusion among the scribes in the Latin West.
What you – and we all – are witnessing is that confusion engendered by both Rome and the God-hating rationalists (do any unbelievers love God?) with the flooding of Christendom with textual variants in an attempt to overthrow the mighty Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which fatally opposed Rome’s doctrine of Tradition trumping all other authority. Does it not appear that Rome won, through winning the hearts and loyalty of even the Reformed Protestants? Still and all, there are those die-hard Reformed souls – and churches – which hold to the standards of the Reformation, and will until the Lord returns.
But you can see, Michael, that the faith of multitudes in an intact and trustworthy Bible has been profoundly shaken by the defense of the variants against the foundation of Sola Scriptura the Reformers held, and that by modern Reformed and Presbyterian church leaders.
I have noted the following information elsewhere, and shall do it again here to make my point:
Here is something to consider when we talk of being true to the Reformation, the differences in various verses, i.e., the variant readings, and the United Bible Societies stance vis-à-vis Rome (and by implication, the Reformation).
This is from a post from Will Kinney’s articles page alleging an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Society on jointly producing the critical text:
Kinney: “I have a copy of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition right here in front of me. It is the same Greek text as the UBS (United Bible Society) 4th edition. These are the Greek readings and texts that are followed by such modern versions as the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard AND the new Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem Bible 1985.
“If you have a copy of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, open the book and read what they tell us in their own words on page 45 of the Introduction. Here these critical Greek text editors tell us about how the Greek New Testament (GNT, now known as the UBS) and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece grew together and shared the same basic text. In the last paragraph on page 45 we read these words:
"The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. This marks a significant step with regard to interconfessional relationships. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text: it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament."
And then, from The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity:
Collaboration for the Diffusion of the Bible
“Following the responsibility undertaken by the then Secretariat for the preparation of the dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, the PCPCU was entrusted with promoting ecumenical collaboration for the translation and diffusion of Holy Scripture (Dei Verbum, n. 22). In this context, it encouraged the formation of the Catholic Biblical Federation, with which it is in close contact. Together with the United Bible Societies it published the Guidelines for Interconfessional Cooperation in Translating the Bible” (1968; new revised edition 1987).
[Kinney]: The United Bible Societies Vice-President is Roman Catholic Cardinal Onitsha of Nigeria. On the executive committee is Roman Catholic Bishop Alilona of Italy and among the editors is Roman Catholic Cardinal Martini of Milan. Patrick Henry happily claims, “Catholics should work together with Protestants in the fundamental task of Biblical translation …[They can] work very well together and have the same approach and interpretation ... This signals a new age in the church.” - Patrick Henry, New Directions in New Testament Study (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1979), 232-234.
United Bible Societies welcomes Pope Francis
[Excerpt:] MARCH 15, 2013 - The election of Pope Francis, ‘a long-time friend of the Bible Societies’, is an encouragement to United Bible Societies (UBS) to work even harder to make the Bible available to everyone.
“He is a man of the universal church with an ecumenical spirit and he is a pastor, who knows the reality of ‘simple’ people. The new Pope is a truly biblical person whose faith and actions are deeply rooted in the Bible and inspired by the Word of God.”
“As a long-time friend of the Bible Societies Pope Francis knows that our raison d’être is the call to collaborate in the incarnation of our Christian faith,” says Mr Perreau. “we assure Pope Francis of our renewed availability to serve the Catholic Church in her endeavours to make the Word of God the centre of new evangelisation.”
[end excerpt]
___________
I think this may give many pause to think, What on earth are we doing siding with the arguments of Counter-Reformation Rome?
Little wonder, in my view, that an increasing number of Reformed persons are crossing the Tiber (turning to Rome) in an effort to find a line of unbroken tradition and of infallible authority. Where they find this in the papal system, we find it in the word of God providentially preserved by Him so that His children may stand against the world, the flesh, and the devil. Take my life if you must, but do not take the word of my God out of my hands or out of my heart!
Last edited:
It took a little time for the "books" to be collected and form what comes to be known as the fourfold gospel tradition. So in the earlier transmission of mss. the books were being copied individually. They were also being used individually, which led to speakers and writers often joining passages together. It is possible that by this means a passage in John came to be used in connection with a passage in Luke, and that over time it finds its way into the transmission of the text.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
From a chapter in the book, O Great and Terrible Love: A pilgrimage from Woodstock to Celestial City (via Babylon and Armageddon):
Warrior-scholar
The warrior must be a scholar, or rather, a certain class of warrior must, as attacks will be directed in such manner as to undermine the very basis of spiritual consciousness, which stands upon the word of the King. Undermine the word of the King, as contained in His book – in that alone – and the mind of the warrior has no foundation on which to stand – on which to be.
The word of truth – the Scriptures of the Jews, whether in Hebrew, Greek, English, or other languages – is the basis of spiritual life for the younger brothers and sisters of the Christ, who now take His place in the satanic warfare as He has ascended to the throne of glory and power, having accomplished His warfare, and blazed the path for those who follow Him.
The written Word itself must be defended, its reliability, intactness, purity, even these millennia since their being written. Whoever cannot defend these holy writings will be vulnerable to attack from various fronts – in the mind and spirit directly from demons, from human vessels of doubt, unbelief, and / or hostility to the King who is the Lord of the Writings, and by other means.
One should be familiar with the arguments used against their reliability, and be able to overturn them. To do this one must study, if not in great depth (some will pursue it so), then to get a basic grasp, sufficient to be convinced in one’s own mind and to repel assaults. As the days get darker and times fiercer, these attacks will mount with greater subtlety and force.
Thus the warrior must also be a scholar, whether fledgling or master, for the times require it.
Warrior-scholar
The warrior must be a scholar, or rather, a certain class of warrior must, as attacks will be directed in such manner as to undermine the very basis of spiritual consciousness, which stands upon the word of the King. Undermine the word of the King, as contained in His book – in that alone – and the mind of the warrior has no foundation on which to stand – on which to be.
The word of truth – the Scriptures of the Jews, whether in Hebrew, Greek, English, or other languages – is the basis of spiritual life for the younger brothers and sisters of the Christ, who now take His place in the satanic warfare as He has ascended to the throne of glory and power, having accomplished His warfare, and blazed the path for those who follow Him.
The written Word itself must be defended, its reliability, intactness, purity, even these millennia since their being written. Whoever cannot defend these holy writings will be vulnerable to attack from various fronts – in the mind and spirit directly from demons, from human vessels of doubt, unbelief, and / or hostility to the King who is the Lord of the Writings, and by other means.
One should be familiar with the arguments used against their reliability, and be able to overturn them. To do this one must study, if not in great depth (some will pursue it so), then to get a basic grasp, sufficient to be convinced in one’s own mind and to repel assaults. As the days get darker and times fiercer, these attacks will mount with greater subtlety and force.
Thus the warrior must also be a scholar, whether fledgling or master, for the times require it.
JasonGoodwin
Puritan Board Sophomore
I'm trying to get back into a routine of visiting the PB more often. Having said that, debates and discussions like this can really get inside baseball. It's just best to sit back, read, learn - and not say anything.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
