Verses that prove providential preservation of TR tradition?

[iainduguid]

Hello Dr. Duguid,







Are you referring to the extant Hebrew manuscripts underlying the LXX? If so, we have no disagreement. If not, it seems that in some instances you are favoring the LXX translation (the stream). Thus divesting the Hebrew text (the fountain) of its divine authority and veracity.

The extant Hebrew manuscripts are copies of earlier manuscripts, just as the LXX is translated from Hebrew manuscripts. In some cases we have some of those manuscripts from Qumran. So both are streams that (for the most part closely) reflect the original fountain.

 

[Johann Amadeus Schubert]

Vince, that only pushes the question back: why would the Holy Spirit inspire the NT authors to incorporate quotations from the LXX AS SCRIPTURE (as opposed to the pagan authors you mention, the LXX quotes are not in the same category at all). The quotes from the pagans are not introduced as Scripture, but some of the LXX quotations are.

Hello Rev. Keister,

Though the LXX is scripture and authoritative insofar as material and doctrine, it is the divine Hebrew manuscripts that are a God-breathed authority of words and substance. Thus the LXX translation is in a lower category than the Hebrew scriptures (but higher than the pagan authors).

Therefore any LXX quotes are not authentic by itself but only when the apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit to insert them in the NT.

There also other views that do not attribute the quotes to the LXX but believe that they are the NT apostle's own expression inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

[RamistThomist]

Therefore any LXX quotes are not authentic by itself but only when the apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit to insert them in the NT.

This is special pleading. Why did the Holy Spirit inspire them to use a defective translation when they had the real thing.

There also other views that do not attribute the quotes to the LXX but believe that they are the NT apostle's own expression inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Except when it is an actual quote from the LXX.

 

[greenbaggins]

Vince, you basically just restated what you said before, and did not answer my question, which was why the Holy Spirit would have inspired the authors in the NT to go with the LXX over against the MT on occasion. If the LXX is a witness to a different better Vorlage at that point, it would provide a perfectly understandable rationale for why the quotation looks the way it does. We do not have a Holy Spirit of confusion. If the MT represents the autographs at all points, then the Holy Spirit would never have inspired any NT author to quote a version that has a completely different meaning from the MT. And yet the Holy Spirit did just that on several occasions. You still have no explanation for WHY this phenomenon exists, whereas my position can explain it quite easily.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I can't keep up with this long thread, but has someone addressed the apparent conflict that WCF 1.8 speaks of the source languages as preserving what is authentical? So as the WA would rule out the Vulgate, so any other translation, i.e. the LXX as authentical? How do we get around that flat statement as far as the 'science' of using the LXX etc. to inform/change/supply the authentical text? Was there a 'yea, but' not stated because a confession is not the place to get into the weeds of the topic? As I have said, they would know of the various disputes such as Ussher's issues with the LXX. Or, if the conclusion is 'we know so much more now; the WA was naive, less informed;' what does that do to original intent as far as upholding the WCF and changing it constitutionally rather than by 'drift' over time?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Lane,

We certainly have different views of the MT and the LXX, and also of “authentic” and “pure”. I had genuinely entered this thread / discussion to conciliate the disputing sides, but found myself being drawn into the debate by continuing attacks on the view that I held even though I resisted, saying, “Please recognize that I am not engaging in the terms or charges of the debate here, but seeking a common ground whereby we may silence our respective cannons.” To no avail! It reminds me of Psalm 120:7, “I am for peace: but when I speak, they are for war.” Even though the opponents are not enemies, but brothers, with whom I engage in 'swordplay among friends'. But just like in martial arts, there can be full-contact sparring, and hold-back sparring—and some here want the former and some the latter, even though I said I did not want either! Folks with axes to grind. When I am hit as I carry the sacred Deposit, I will defend myself. Unfortunate that pugnaciousness prevails over conciliation here.

All the readings in the NT MSS were not available universally, although they were kept pure in all ages—that is, kept inviolate and intact—and made manifest universally at the time of the Reformation.

Also, we have a different understanding of what the evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls establishes, and I did not equivocate when I said what I held to, and what the evidence said.

With regard to the LXX and its relation to the OT MT, and to the NT Scripture, I will wait to respond to your paper on Jeremiah, which I hope to do shortly.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Seems to me that if something is declared authentical per God's special providence and singular care, per the Confession, then that something was truly believed by those that declared something authentical is a canonical issue.

Now if something is not authentical, then it is approximate, or, may it never be, false. Being open to other manuscripts that may provide more light on Scripture is fine so long as that which we hold dear is not prejudiced. Nevertheless, if something is authentical, then that something is what should be appealed to as authoritative.

“the word authentic is used, not in the modern sense in which it has been employed by many….as meaning historically true, but in its more literal sense, attested as a correct copy of the author’s work"
- J. S Candlish, “The Doctrine of the Westminster Confession on Scripture,” The British and Foreign Evangelical Review XXVI (January 1877)

"The same power and care of God that preserves the church would preserve the Scriptures pure to it: and He that did, and could, preserve the whole could preserve every part, so that not so much as a tittle should perish"
- John Lightfoot, The Whole Works of Rev. John Lightfoot, (London: J.F. Dowe, 822-25), 408

"By “original” and “authentic” text, the Protestant orthodox do not mean the autographa which no one can possess but the apographa in the original tongue which are the source of all versions. The Jews throughout history and the church in the time of Christ regarded the Hebrew of the Old Testament as authentic and for nearly six centuries after Christ, the Greek of the New Testament was viewed as authentic without dispute. It is important to note that the Reformed orthodox insistence on the identification of the Hebrew and Greek texts as alone authentic does not demand direct reference to autographa in those languages: the “original and authentic text” of Scripture means, beyond the autograph copies, the legitimate tradition of Hebrew and Greek apographa.

The case for Scripture as an infallible rule of faith and practice and the separate arguments for a received text free from major (non-scribal) error rests on an examination of the apographa and does not seek the infinite regress of the lost autographa as a prop for textual infallibility."
- Richard Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 1993), 433​

 

[greenbaggins]

I can't keep up with this long thread, but has someone addressed the apparent conflict that WCF 1.8 speaks of the source languages as preserving what is authentical? So as the WA would rule out the Vulgate, so any other translation, i.e. the LXX as authentical? How do we get around that flat statement as far as the 'science' of using the LXX etc. to inform/change/supply the authentical text? Was there a 'yea, but' not stated because a confession is not the place to get into the weeds of the topic? As I have said, they would know of the various disputes such as Ussher's issues with the LXX. Or, if the conclusion is 'we know so much more now; the WA was naive, less informed;' what does that do to original intent as far as upholding the WCF and changing it constitutionally rather than by 'drift' over time?

There is a difference between seeing the LXX itself as authentical (read autographical) Scripture (which some in the time of the Reformation wanted to say, which WCF 1.8 rules out, and which no one here says), and saying that the LXX is a witness to a Hebrew manuscript which has a claim to be authentic in places. The WCF does not, I believe, rule out the latter understanding, while it does rule out the former understanding. As Iain has pointed out, even the KJV translators went with an LXX reading in a few places, not because the LXX itself was the authentic reading, but because it bore witness to a Hebrew reading which was then seen as authentic. I am sensing that some people are unable to make this distinction in their minds, and are therefore thinking that we (Iain, Jacob, myself, and others) are advocating correcting Hebrew by means of Greek. This is not what is happening.

A little thought experiment might clear up the matter. Imagine that instead of the LXX, we had the Hebrew manuscripts on which the LXX was based. Would anyone object to using those Hebrew manuscripts for text-critical purposes? I would hope not. The actuality is that such is what we are trying to do. The problem is that we don't have that Hebrew manuscript itself (except for a few DSS, which DO support the idea of a Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX different from the MT), but the Greek translation of it. In order to use it properly, it must be retroverted back into Hebrew, which is a difficult and uncertain process. On occasion, however, it is obvious what the Hebrew underlying the LXX must have said, especially if the given LXX translation is hyper-literal in its general characteristics. Ultimately, then, we are not using the LXX itself, but the Hebrew manuscript underlying the LXX.

 

[greenbaggins]

Steve, I am not the one claiming that the other side's views are unconfessional. Your views are well within the confessional boundaries. You, however, are claiming that my views contradict the WS. That is why I continue to debate. Throwing out such claims, and then saying "I didn't want to debate this" doesn't come across in the way you intend.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Lane, a couple of things:

1) I have gone on record here (LXX Discussion, and Do NT authors quote the LXX?) saying that the NT authors do use Septuagint readings but not so as to contradict the Hebrew. John Owen in his 7-volume commentary on Hebrews takes the same stand and vigorously defends it in specific cases.

Concerning the vorlage under the Septuagint, this Hebrew text does not exist and it is not known what its actual readings were, save for unauthorized Jews (not the Aaronic priestly scribes) putting it together as they thought best. This early Greek version is generally accepted to have consisted of the Pentateuch, but concerning the other books there is not certainty.

When I read your paper I may comment more on that. What you said of it did sound interesting, and I am trying to get to it! (Had some urgent pastoral care matters, and chores to attend to recently which took a lot of time.)

There certainly have been things said in this thread (and other current threads on the OT) which are clearly unconfessional, but simply to disagree with the stand I take and to hold to the CT stand has been openly recognized as within the pale. I do not think that your and Iain’s views that the MT may be enhanced by readings in other than the MT is unconfessional. It is somewhat similar to the situation in NT with the TR. I might strongly disagree, but not on the basis of being unconfessional. There is a fine line there.

There is a playing with words, such as authentic and pure, which does chip away at the confession’s language—for truths are contained in language of precision—but, in my view, this may be discussed without dismissing them as unconfessional. I do think Warfield’s view of the WCF at 1.8 was revisionist and contrary to the framers’ meaning, but it has been agreed upon at this Board not to dismiss it as unconfessional, but rather—along with the definitions of its words—to argue the points instead of disallowing them. This is conducive to “to keep[ing] the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” here (Eph 4:3), especially when both sides of the discussion are clearly in good conscience before Christ our Lord as regards their scholarship and their intentions.

 

[Dachaser]

There is a difference between seeing the LXX itself as authentical (read autographical) Scripture (which some in the time of the Reformation wanted to say, which WCF 1.8 rules out, and which no one here says), and saying that the LXX is a witness to a Hebrew manuscript which has a claim to be authentic in places. The WCF does not, I believe, rule out the latter understanding, while it does rule out the former understanding. As Iain has pointed out, even the KJV translators went with an LXX reading in a few places, not because the LXX itself was the authentic reading, but because it bore witness to a Hebrew reading which was then seen as authentic. I am sensing that some people are unable to make this distinction in their minds, and are therefore thinking that we (Iain, Jacob, myself, and others) are advocating correcting Hebrew by means of Greek. This is not what is happening.

A little thought experiment might clear up the matter. Imagine that instead of the LXX, we had the Hebrew manuscripts on which the LXX was based. Would anyone object to using those Hebrew manuscripts for text-critical purposes? I would hope not. The actuality is that such is what we are trying to do. The problem is that we don't have that Hebrew manuscript itself (except for a few DSS, which DO support the idea of a Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX different from the MT), but the Greek translation of it. In order to use it properly, it must be retroverted back into Hebrew, which is a difficult and uncertain process. On occasion, however, it is obvious what the Hebrew underlying the LXX must have said, especially if the given LXX translation is hyper-literal in its general characteristics. Ultimately, then, we are not using the LXX itself, but the Hebrew manuscript underlying the LXX.

Didn't the Holy Spirit supervise over the penning down by the Apostles in the NT as to which words were to be used, and so He saw that in certain instances that the LXX of the time had recorded down from a Hebrew text more accurate a historical account then was copied down into the Hebrew text used by the Apostles themselves? This would be somewhat like when the Spirit allowed Jude to quote as truth a passage in Book of Enoch, while not saying the entire Book was accurate?

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Regarding the NT quotes from the LXX, it seems to only make sense that if one were writing in Greek and wished to include a Scripture quotation, that they would naturally quote from an existing Greek translation. In the same way, many of us have written research papers in which we quoted Scripture. I doubt many of us felt the need to translate the original Greek and Hebrew into English for the purposes of quotation, but rather simply chose an existing English translation to quote from.

 

[RamistThomist]

1 Samuel 13:1 is another problem in the Masoretic text which forces the reader to look at other traditions.

 

[JimmyH]

Regarding the NT quotes from the LXX, it seems to only make sense that if one were writing in Greek and wished to include a Scripture quotation, that they would naturally quote from an existing Greek translation. In the same way, many of us have written research papers in which we quoted Scripture. I doubt many of us felt the need to translate the original Greek and Hebrew into English for the purposes of quotation, but rather simply chose an existing English translation to quote from.

Since we read that following Alexander's conquering, and occupying, much of the known world of that day, Greek becoming the lingua franca over decades, and the LXX was written because many of the Hebrews had lost their ability to speak/read their native tongue, the writers of the NT quoted the LXX because that was the language, if not the writers, most of the readers knew and understood ?

Growing up in Miami I knew many young Latinos who cannot speak or read Spanish. There was even a time when the phrase 'Spanglish' was coined. To describe a hybrid that young people, in the late '70s, had adopted. A combination of the two languages that was neither here nor there.

 

[Tom Hart]

Regarding the NT quotes from the LXX, it seems to only make sense that if one were writing in Greek and wished to include a Scripture quotation, that they would naturally quote from an existing Greek translation. In the same way, many of us have written research papers in which we quoted Scripture. I doubt many of us felt the need to translate the original Greek and Hebrew into English for the purposes of quotation, but rather simply chose an existing English translation to quote from.

The trouble is that the Septuagint is not always the same as the Masoretic. For example, Paul in Romans 3 quotes several psalms, and he follows the language of the Septuagint, which differs from what we find in the Masoretic Text. How do we understand that? Surely Paul knew the Hebrew. Does Paul regard the Septuagint as authoritative?

 

[Bill The Baptist]

The trouble is that the Septuagint is not always the same as the Masoretic. For example, Paul in Romans 3 quotes several psalms, and he follows the language of the Septuagint, which differs from what we find in the Masoretic Text. How do we understand that? Surely Paul knew the Hebrew. Does Paul regard the Septuagint as authoritative?

Obviously we can’t know Paul’s precise thoughts on this, but it seems unlikely that he would utilize it if he didn’t think it authoritative. In the same way, it’s doubtful that any of us would quote from the New World Translation in seeking to make theological arguments.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Tom,

A thread here talks of Romans 3:10-18 and its relation to the LXX.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Here is a quotation from John Owen on the providential preservation of scripture, which is relevant to the above discussion on Matthew 5:18. Don't shot the messenger, but, while I am no hardline TR advocate, I do believe that verse requires us to believe in the preservation of every jot and tittle of the original scriptures. Quite how that works out in practice, I am not so sure.

Edit: Owen also makes a comment to the same effect in Works, 4: 213ff.