Thanks, as I also wonder if their version is no longer existing, nor some of the other sources that they might have been using.If I'm not mistaken some of the quoted Scripture by our Lord, the Apostles, was sourced from the LXX. So they certainly had copies available to them. I'm sure someone will correct this old man if I'm wrong.
Verses that prove providential preservation of TR tradition?
- Thread starter RamistThomist
- Start date
- Status
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Jacob, here are some links to Augustine and that saying,
St. Augustine, Sermon 5 5, citedin Jeremy Cohen, Living Letters of the Law: Ideas of the Jew in Medieval Christianity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), p 35
Mary H. Allies, “Jacob and Esau in the Church’ (Sermons IV and V), Leaves from St Augustine, London: Washbourne, 1899, pp. 324-6.
Civitas Dei / City of God, XVIII, Chapter 46 talks of the Jews in this manner, without actually using the term “librarians”.
The Letters of St. Augustine, p 58
https://archive.org/details/lettersofstaugus00sparuoft/page/58
The Evidences of Christianity in Their External, Or Historical Division: Exhibited in a Course of Lectures, Jun 4, 2011, by Charles Pettit McIlvaine:
Augustine on Jews the ‘librarians’
Augustine on the canon
http://www.bible-researcher.com/augustine.html (search for “librarians”)
St. Augustine, Sermon 5 5, citedin Jeremy Cohen, Living Letters of the Law: Ideas of the Jew in Medieval Christianity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), p 35
Mary H. Allies, “Jacob and Esau in the Church’ (Sermons IV and V), Leaves from St Augustine, London: Washbourne, 1899, pp. 324-6.
Civitas Dei / City of God, XVIII, Chapter 46 talks of the Jews in this manner, without actually using the term “librarians”.
The Letters of St. Augustine, p 58
https://archive.org/details/lettersofstaugus00sparuoft/page/58
The Evidences of Christianity in Their External, Or Historical Division: Exhibited in a Course of Lectures, Jun 4, 2011, by Charles Pettit McIlvaine:
Augustine on Jews the ‘librarians’
Augustine on the canon
http://www.bible-researcher.com/augustine.html (search for “librarians”)
Attachments
Last edited:
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
I’ve been looking over a Jewish website, thetorah.com, and an article, “The (Proto-)Masoretic Text: A Ten-Part Series”, which, although the author, Prof. Emmanuel Tov at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, favors the Masoretic Text, he provides a lot of data concerning the various strains of texts current in early Judaism, both before Christ, and after. Of his own understanding on the comparative value of MT versus the other texts he says, he is reluctant to say because: “my own views … they change all the time” (Part 9). I don’t know if he is a religious Jew or secular, that is, one may be a scholar of the texts but not believe in God—not in any meaningful sense.
One thing I do clearly discern in his presentation of the data concerning the various texts of both the Torah and the larger Tenakh—though he certainly does not promote it—resulting from my presuppositions regarding the providence of God in the preserving of His word, is observing His hand keeping His word intact in the midst of apparent chaos, just as can be seen in the New Testament times. For example, from Part 3:
Looking over this entire discussion, respecting both the OT and NT Scriptures, I see a move toward a radical skepticism that God has preserved His word, both as given to the Jews and also to the Christians. Oh yes, it is said He has preserved them in the plethora of MSS, and we have but to sort it all out—with the help of the new “priest class”, the academics and their “sacred” scientific methodologies—but it remains that the specter of skepticism and doubt is permeating the minds of many with his ghoulish touch of death. Yes, many stalwart souls today are able to deal with the lack of a sure, intact, present word of God they can hold in their hands—for they already have a faith of long standing—but in the months and years to come, those without such faith, or not yet come to the faith, they will see the remarks of the pastors and professors, and may have to concur with the text critics of the previous generation, where such as this was the growing consensus:
A friend of mine said to me yesterday—in effect—the faith of upcoming generations is being destroyed by the unbelief of those who presently teach. And I begin to wonder if my irenic stance, not wanting to divide the church with textual battles, is a bad strategy. Helpful now, but deadly to the church after I have gone Home.
One thing I do clearly discern in his presentation of the data concerning the various texts of both the Torah and the larger Tenakh—though he certainly does not promote it—resulting from my presuppositions regarding the providence of God in the preserving of His word, is observing His hand keeping His word intact in the midst of apparent chaos, just as can be seen in the New Testament times. For example, from Part 3:
After the destruction of the Temple, the Qumran texts were hidden in the caves and lost to history. Two other non-MT text types, SP [Syriac Peshitta] and LXX, remained in use, but were cherished by religious groups that were no longer considered Jewish. Thus, with the splitting off from Judaism of the Samaritans and Christians, together with the destruction of centers like Qumran, MT was the only text surviving within Judaism from the previous plurality. This situation could easily create the illusion of a stability brought about by conscious stabilization by authorities.[4]
http://thetorah.com/proto-masoretic-text/socio-religious-background-and-stabilization/
http://thetorah.com/proto-masoretic-text/socio-religious-background-and-stabilization/
Looking over this entire discussion, respecting both the OT and NT Scriptures, I see a move toward a radical skepticism that God has preserved His word, both as given to the Jews and also to the Christians. Oh yes, it is said He has preserved them in the plethora of MSS, and we have but to sort it all out—with the help of the new “priest class”, the academics and their “sacred” scientific methodologies—but it remains that the specter of skepticism and doubt is permeating the minds of many with his ghoulish touch of death. Yes, many stalwart souls today are able to deal with the lack of a sure, intact, present word of God they can hold in their hands—for they already have a faith of long standing—but in the months and years to come, those without such faith, or not yet come to the faith, they will see the remarks of the pastors and professors, and may have to concur with the text critics of the previous generation, where such as this was the growing consensus:
“…it is generally recognized that the original text of the Bible cannot be recovered” (R.M. Grant. “The Bible of Theophilus of Antioch,” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 66, 1947, p. 173).
Taken from this thread.
Taken from this thread.
A friend of mine said to me yesterday—in effect—the faith of upcoming generations is being destroyed by the unbelief of those who presently teach. And I begin to wonder if my irenic stance, not wanting to divide the church with textual battles, is a bad strategy. Helpful now, but deadly to the church after I have gone Home.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Augustine is simply saying the Jews preserved the mss (including the Targums, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the MT. All of it. The translator has to weigh these different readigns. That's just inevitable. This is different from saying they preserved the Masoretic Text. The distinction is slight, I grant, but it will factor later in my argument (Lord willing).
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Anyone who does translation does this. Jerome and Erasmus did exactly the same thing.
My faith got stronger studying textual criticism, so anecdote vs anecdote?
Bully for him.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Jacob, concerning Augustine and his view on the OT Scriptures, here is William Whitaker, in his, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, pp. 45-46 (please note what I have highlighted below) :
To the same effect, see this article, “Augustine on the Canon”
____
And please note what I had quoted in post #213 above, by Prof Emmanuel Tov,
All of which to say, that when Augustine refers to the Jews being the “librarians” of the church, he really means the Jews, and not the Samaritans, Syrians, or the LXX adherents (mostly Christians in his day), which were rejected by the Jews as holding to their Scriptures.
In the LORD’s providence, from the very beginning of the first century it was the rabbinic Proto-Masoretic text that was accorded the sole recognition as being their Scripture. If one cares to look over Prof. Tov’s account of this—from the Jewish standpoint—in his series I linked to above, it can be seen that for the Jews, the Proto-Masoretic text was the only one they recognized as Scripture. And this is what Augustine had in mind.
But more to the point, what you are proposing is not in the category of variants within the Received Text of the Hebrews, per WCF and 1689 at 1.8, but a complete setting aside of the Masoretic text of the Hebrews in favor of according to other versions—Syriac, Samaritan, and LXX—as having such authority equal to the MT that their versions, at least in part, may be approved as Scripture and may replace MT readings.
Granted, this is done by some, but it is not confessional, which, it appears to me, is not of much consequence to you. And it is this view / attitude that is signaling to new believers that the message of modern textual criticism is, The Bible text is not sure, it is not settled, it is not certain. Thus its authority is immensely diminished in their eyes: the Bible is not authoritative over my life, and its readings in various books—we are speaking of the OT in this immediate context—cannot be taken with certainty wherever a variant reading presents itself, whether it be in the Psalms, Genesis, the prophets, etc.
When we disregard the Confessions on certain points we become other than Reformed. They mean to set us apart from the rocky shoals that wreck the fragile ships our souls are, by pointing to the true Scripture and to true doctrine.
Next, I’ll be taking a look at Lane’s essay on Jeremiah in the OT prophets forum. Thank you for the discussion, Jacob.
Hence, then, I draw an easy and ready answer. We, with Jerome and many other fathers, deny these books to be canonical. Augustine, with some others, calls them canonical. Do, then, these fathers differ so widely in opinion? By no means. For Jerome takes this word "canonical" in one sense, while Augustine, Innocent, and the fathers of Carthage understand it in another. Jerome calls only those books canonical, which the church always held for canonical; the rest he banishes from the canon, denies to be canonical, and calls apocryphal. But Augustine calls those canonical which, although they had not the same perfect and certain authority as the rest, were wont to be read in the church for the edification of the people. Augustine, therefore, takes this name in a larger sense than Jerome. But, that Augustine was not so minded as to judge the authority of all these books to be equal, is manifest from the circumstance that he admonishes the student of theology to place a certain difference between the several books, to distinguish them into classes, and to prefer some to others. If his judgment of them all was the same, as the papists contend, such an admonition and direction must appear entirely superfluous. Would Augustine, if he held all the books to have an equal right to canonicity, have made such a distribution of the books? Would he have preferred some to others? Would he not have said that they were all to be received alike? But now, Augustine does prefer some to others, and prescribes to all such a rule for judging as we have seen. Therefore Augustine did not think that they were all of the same account, credit, and authority; and, consequently, is in open opposition to the papists. All this is manifest. It makes to the same purpose, that this same Augustine (de Civit. Dei, Lib. xvii. c. 20.) concedes, that less reliance should be placed upon whatever is not found in the canon of the Jews. Whence it may be collected that, when Augustine observed that some books were not received by all, or the greatest and most noble churches, his remark is to be understood of those books which are not contained in the Hebrew canon: and such are those which our churches exclude from the sacred canon.
To the same effect, see this article, “Augustine on the Canon”
____
And please note what I had quoted in post #213 above, by Prof Emmanuel Tov,
Two other non-MT text types, SP [Syriac Peshitta] and LXX, remained in use, but were cherished by religious groups that were no longer considered Jewish. Thus, with the splitting off from Judaism of the Samaritans and Christians, together with the destruction of centers like Qumran, MT was the only text surviving within Judaism from the previous plurality.
All of which to say, that when Augustine refers to the Jews being the “librarians” of the church, he really means the Jews, and not the Samaritans, Syrians, or the LXX adherents (mostly Christians in his day), which were rejected by the Jews as holding to their Scriptures.
In the LORD’s providence, from the very beginning of the first century it was the rabbinic Proto-Masoretic text that was accorded the sole recognition as being their Scripture. If one cares to look over Prof. Tov’s account of this—from the Jewish standpoint—in his series I linked to above, it can be seen that for the Jews, the Proto-Masoretic text was the only one they recognized as Scripture. And this is what Augustine had in mind.
But more to the point, what you are proposing is not in the category of variants within the Received Text of the Hebrews, per WCF and 1689 at 1.8, but a complete setting aside of the Masoretic text of the Hebrews in favor of according to other versions—Syriac, Samaritan, and LXX—as having such authority equal to the MT that their versions, at least in part, may be approved as Scripture and may replace MT readings.
Granted, this is done by some, but it is not confessional, which, it appears to me, is not of much consequence to you. And it is this view / attitude that is signaling to new believers that the message of modern textual criticism is, The Bible text is not sure, it is not settled, it is not certain. Thus its authority is immensely diminished in their eyes: the Bible is not authoritative over my life, and its readings in various books—we are speaking of the OT in this immediate context—cannot be taken with certainty wherever a variant reading presents itself, whether it be in the Psalms, Genesis, the prophets, etc.
When we disregard the Confessions on certain points we become other than Reformed. They mean to set us apart from the rocky shoals that wreck the fragile ships our souls are, by pointing to the true Scripture and to true doctrine.
Next, I’ll be taking a look at Lane’s essay on Jeremiah in the OT prophets forum. Thank you for the discussion, Jacob.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I don't dispute Augustine on the canon. That's not really the issue. As to a proto-Masoretic text, that's assuming the very thing that needs to be proven. We don't have the proto-Masoretic text. We have a Masoretic text, which is not the same thing. I think it is close to the same thing, and by comparing it to the Targums, the Samaritan Pentateuch (both of which are much older), the Dead Sea Scrolls, the LXX, and the Syriac, we can get very close to the "proto" text.
I never said anything close to that. I said the Masoretic text has difficulties in places and we are forced to go outside this 11th century text to look at how we can understand those difficulties.
If I were wanting to set aside the Masoretic Text, then why do I spend close to an hour every day studying it?
I don't go out of my way to attack the Confession, but I don't ignore the light-years worth of discoveries in archaeology, Semitic languages, etc., in the last 300 years.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
Steve, I don't think that is what Jacob is doing. Neither of us would set aside the MT at all. Jacob and I both give the MT the benefit of the doubt. But that does not mean that the MT is precisely the same as the original autograph in all instances. And it is not the LXX as a Greek manuscript that we are using on occasion to correct the MT. It is only as the LXX is a witness to a slightly different Hebrew manuscript than the MT that it is being used. This is true of all the other versions as well. So, neither of us advocate replacing the MT with versions. What we are saying is that the versions, as they witness to a slightly different Hebrew Vorlage, can be used to correct the mostly correct MT. You quote Tov above, but you may not be aware that Tov advocates using the LXX in text-critical matters sometimes to correct the MT.
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
Hi Steve,
This is a profitable discussion I think and lays out the difference in our positions fairly clearly. As I understand you, we may only look at the Masoretic text for our OT Scriptures (I'm not sure if that includes the possibility of textual criticism within that majority text, since there are some differences within the masoretic tradition?). Any other text traditions (LXX, Peshitta, Samaritan Pentateuch, Qumran, Targum etc) are entirely off limits for correcting the MT. In contrast, while I give strong priority to the masoretic text, I think there are places where the LXX (and other witnesses) may represent a different (proto-masoretic) Hebrew tradition that is more accurate.
John Calvin was very much in favor of the MT, but he was willing to depart from it in at least one place: Psalm 22:16. He says: "The original word, which we have translated they have pierced, is כארי, caari, which literally rendered is, like a lion. As all the Hebrew Bibles at this day, without exception, have this reading, I would have had great hesitation in departing from a reading which they all support, were it not that the scope of the discourse compels me to do so, and were there not strong grounds for conjecturing that this passage has been fraudulently corrupted by the Jews. With respect to the Septuagint version, there is no doubt that the translators had read in the Hebrew text, כארו, caaru, that is the letter ו, vau, where there is now the letter י, yod."
I'm not sure I'd follow him in claiming that this is a deliberate corruption, and would note that there are actually a few MT manuscripts that have the same as the LXX, but the majority of the MT manuscripts clearly don't have "they have pierced." Calvin knew of no Hebrew manuscripts in his day following the reading he adopted, yet he was willing to follow the LXX. It doesn't seem that he was resting the doctrine of preservation solely on the majority Hebrew text (as it existed in his day). I think Calvin qualifies as Reformed, and someone for whom the text of Scripture was adequately settled. And if claiming that that text has in at least one place been "fraudulently corrupted" by its transmitters doesn't shake your faith in God's Word, then a few errors in transmission that may be corrected from other Hebrew traditions reflected in the LXX and at Qumran are unlikely to do so! In reality, the differences between any and every English translation and the original Hebrew are at least as great as any textual differences (and therefore as likely, or unlikely, to shake the faith of believers). Yet we don't suggest that our English Bibles are not settled, certain and sure just because they are imperfect translations. They are nothing less than the Word of God (see WCF 1.8).
I fail to see how this has anything to do with the discussion.
Could you clarify how exactly Jacob has disregarded the Confessions? There was some discussion earlier on WCF 1.8 and the meaning of "pure in all ages". Are you referring to that phrase?
Bill The Baptist
Puritan Board Graduate
I think the problem that myself and others have with textual criticism is not so much the concept, but rather the reality. For all the comparing and criticizing, modern textual critics are never able to arrive at a settled text, and there is little indication they ever will.
We are currently on the twenty-eighth edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, and does anyone doubt that there will one day be a twenty-ninth? If all of this updating were the result of genuinely significant textual discoveries, then I would not object, but I have seen no evidence to suggest that this is the case. My admittedly cynical assessment is that all the hand wringing has less to do with a desire to advance the text and more to do with an effort towards self-perpetuation.
We are currently on the twenty-eighth edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, and does anyone doubt that there will one day be a twenty-ninth? If all of this updating were the result of genuinely significant textual discoveries, then I would not object, but I have seen no evidence to suggest that this is the case. My admittedly cynical assessment is that all the hand wringing has less to do with a desire to advance the text and more to do with an effort towards self-perpetuation.
Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Other proponents of the TR? Other than whom?
I've begun looking into this only recently. I'm very ignorant of textual issues, and it's become clear to me that I need to work through it. Any help, any resource you can recommend, is appreciated.
Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
And you give Erasmus a pass? Did he not use textual criticism?
@Tom Hart, I haven’t got very deeply into all the particulars of data myself (lack both the time and mental prowess) but learned enough to settle on and be satisfied with a theological stance. Here on the board Rev. Matthew Winzer (MW in a search) is another minister (in addition to Jerusalem Blade) who has spoken to theological and technical aspects. Robert Truelove has done a lot of work and is part of an upcoming conference on the matter.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
While I understand the semi-cynicism of your post, there are a couple of points that need to be born in mind. A new Editio Critica Maior is in process of publication (a major critical edition). This means a new major critical edition that has every variant from every manuscript listed in the apparatus. The only fascicle that had been published at the time of the 28th NA was the one on the Catholic Epistles. Still, the revision in other places is congruent with the work on the major edition now underway. Secondly, as a matter of fact, new manuscripts have been found, and are being taken into account in the NA 28th. Thirdly, the process of detailed collation is still not complete on thousands of NT manuscripts that we currently have. Fourthly, the patristic citations can now be set on a much more firm foundation with the publication of modern, updated critical editions of the ECF. Previously, too much reliance on the Migne set limited the value of the patristic citations. But, as more and more of the ECF's are now being published in outrageously expensive sets (usually over $200 per volume!), the work of textual criticism has significant new vistas of information to traverse.
Bill The Baptist
Puritan Board Graduate
Did you read my entire post? The issue that I have is not with the concept of textual criticism but the practice as it is currently executed. There seems to be no desire to arrive at a settled text, but rather to constantly tinker and adjust for no apparent reason other than to be able to publish new editions of texts which will soon necessitate new editions of translations.
Bill The Baptist
Puritan Board Graduate
I am not doubting that there have and continue to be new manuscripts discovered. My question is this: can you point to any textual discovery in the last 50 years or so that has genuinely changed anyone’s opinion on any disputed passage and that was significant enough to warrant a new editions of texts?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Not in the last 50 years, but if we extend it to the 1940s, the Dead Sea Scrolls changed everything (to Christians' advantage).
And the discovery of Ugarit in the 1920s aided our understanding of the book of Job. There are numerous hapax legomena (unusual words) in the Hebrew bible that earlier translations, like the King James, just didn't know what to do with them. Since Ugarit is almost identical to Hebrew in terms of vocabulary, it really aided our translation efforts.
Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
Bill,
I did read your post. But again why do you not level this against Erasmus? Was there not already an English translation widely circulated. Were there not manuscript variations to be wrestled with? . Sure I could still be missing your point, but I just see no consistency in the conclusion. Yes I would love 1 English translation that all of the visible Church could agree to as the standard, but we do not have that, not even in the reformed confessional camps, not even in EP/AO camps.
I feel very confident that our reformed CT brothers have a STRONG desire to arrive at a settled text.
P.S. in my opinion this has more to do with opinions on manuscript reliability.
ZackF
Puritan Board Professor
My most point is; at least in theory, autographs could be discovered. If that is a possibility then shouldn't we be open to more manuscripts?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
What do we mean by "preserved?" Do we mean the original scrolls from 3500 years ago? I doubt it. Ravages of time.
By "preserved" do we mean copied? Sure, but unless we are going to extend inerrancy and infallibility to every copyist, then we are going to get manuscript errors.
ZackF
Puritan Board Professor
I meant that it is possible that an extant original exists no matter how remote even if a fragment especially of the New Testament. One can't rule it out absolutely. If he can't rule the possibility out then logically we can't fix the text to a particular set from now or a previous era. If we did so, to be consistent, we'd have to reject an original if found? Silly thought experiment I suppose.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
The problem is that the Masoretic is not the original. It is written in a different script with vowels that weren't there. If we found an original, it would be written in paleo-Hebrew, not in the script we have today.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Tom, what it has “to do with the discussion” is simply that Augustine differentiated between the MT and other editions of the OT, and gave preference to the text of the Jews, i.e., the MT, and accorded to that the only Scriptures recognized as such by the Jews as their canon, in book and text.
And in post #203 Jacob said,
Re your post #220, when it is said that the “Masoretic…is *not* the authentic Bible”, this rebuts the WCF.
I do find it odd on this a purportedly confessional board, to take a confessional stand with regard to the Scripture the Reformation / Westminster divines held to and referenced in their confession, that simply taking this position exposes one to great opposition and attempts to rebut, the new developments in text critical "science", and new manuscripts apparently trumping the view of the Reformers, as though they were ignorant and not up-to-speed and—ultimately—wrong in their stand against Rome in using the Hebrew MT and Greek TR to undergird their doctrine of Sola Scriptura. In very fact, the primary exemplars—although the NA 28 and the UBS 4 are purportedly eclectic texts—remain Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and the ongoing critical editions are supervised by the Vatican for the purpose of producing Rome-approved ecumenical Bibles. That seems not to faze in the least some Reformed folks.
As I have said, these CT Bibles are legitimate and used of God, and what is of issue are the variants. Still, the association with the Vatican would make our Reformed forebears turn in their graves, were their spirits not in the most excellent glory of our King.
With regard to Psalm 22:16—and the words “like a lion” and “pierced”—here is a brief study of that passage: http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/they-p...ike-a-lion-my-hands-and-my-feet-in-psalm-2216
During his travels throughout Europe, and England, Erasmus pored over as many manuscripts as he could find and get hold of, so as to study and note their readings. He became familiar with the readings commonly received by the people. He maintained voluminous notes. He rejected the readings of Vaticanus which were supplied to him by a friend in the Vatican. I suppose this was a sort of textual criticism, though I would term it becoming familiar with what he perceived as the Bible of the churches—and by that I do not mean the Catholic church, which reviled his textual efforts.
Regarding the earliest Hebrew MSS, and the early orthography of same, and the word of the LORD through Moses and the prophets and the authors of the other OT writings—taking into account the apparently labyrinthine trail of the MSS of the word of the LORD—could our great God not have providentially preserved this precious word of His, which He promises to do on a number of occasions? Is anything too difficult for Him? In fact, God did preserve His word from the very beginning of it to the very end. This is the confessional Reformed view, pre-Warfield. I hold to it, even if there are parts of it I do not understand, or are not clear, or appear disfigured. This is the inspired and preserved word of God in the Hebrew (and a little Aramaic) and the Greek, and I have a faithful and reliable translation of it in the English.
He preserved us—as He saw and loved us in eternity past—through all the ravages of the genetic pool, through all that would mar and destroy us, these many thousands of years, so that we appear before Him exactly as He envisioned us back then. Could He not do the same with His words, actually a simpler task than keeping us intact? He did indeed do so in both cases.
And in post #203 Jacob said,
I like the Masoretic, but it is *not* the authentic Bible. It is the product of several textual traditions that were codified (cf Ellis Brotzman, Old Testament Textual Criticism).
As for a proto-Masoretic text being the authentic bible, that's all well and good but that is specifically what we don't have.
As for a proto-Masoretic text being the authentic bible, that's all well and good but that is specifically what we don't have.
Re your post #220, when it is said that the “Masoretic…is *not* the authentic Bible”, this rebuts the WCF.
I do find it odd on this a purportedly confessional board, to take a confessional stand with regard to the Scripture the Reformation / Westminster divines held to and referenced in their confession, that simply taking this position exposes one to great opposition and attempts to rebut, the new developments in text critical "science", and new manuscripts apparently trumping the view of the Reformers, as though they were ignorant and not up-to-speed and—ultimately—wrong in their stand against Rome in using the Hebrew MT and Greek TR to undergird their doctrine of Sola Scriptura. In very fact, the primary exemplars—although the NA 28 and the UBS 4 are purportedly eclectic texts—remain Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and the ongoing critical editions are supervised by the Vatican for the purpose of producing Rome-approved ecumenical Bibles. That seems not to faze in the least some Reformed folks.
As I have said, these CT Bibles are legitimate and used of God, and what is of issue are the variants. Still, the association with the Vatican would make our Reformed forebears turn in their graves, were their spirits not in the most excellent glory of our King.
With regard to Psalm 22:16—and the words “like a lion” and “pierced”—here is a brief study of that passage: http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/they-p...ike-a-lion-my-hands-and-my-feet-in-psalm-2216
During his travels throughout Europe, and England, Erasmus pored over as many manuscripts as he could find and get hold of, so as to study and note their readings. He became familiar with the readings commonly received by the people. He maintained voluminous notes. He rejected the readings of Vaticanus which were supplied to him by a friend in the Vatican. I suppose this was a sort of textual criticism, though I would term it becoming familiar with what he perceived as the Bible of the churches—and by that I do not mean the Catholic church, which reviled his textual efforts.
Regarding the earliest Hebrew MSS, and the early orthography of same, and the word of the LORD through Moses and the prophets and the authors of the other OT writings—taking into account the apparently labyrinthine trail of the MSS of the word of the LORD—could our great God not have providentially preserved this precious word of His, which He promises to do on a number of occasions? Is anything too difficult for Him? In fact, God did preserve His word from the very beginning of it to the very end. This is the confessional Reformed view, pre-Warfield. I hold to it, even if there are parts of it I do not understand, or are not clear, or appear disfigured. This is the inspired and preserved word of God in the Hebrew (and a little Aramaic) and the Greek, and I have a faithful and reliable translation of it in the English.
He preserved us—as He saw and loved us in eternity past—through all the ravages of the genetic pool, through all that would mar and destroy us, these many thousands of years, so that we appear before Him exactly as He envisioned us back then. Could He not do the same with His words, actually a simpler task than keeping us intact? He did indeed do so in both cases.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Should Luther have been faze in using the Papist edition by Erasmus?
He could, but asking that question isn't the same thing as "evidence."
No one here denies this.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I am not sure why you referenced this. We all agree that pride of place should be given to the Masoretic Text. Again, no one has denied that.
First of all, there was no "Masoretic Text" in Augustine's day. According to Wikipedia, at least, the Masoretes were active a couple of centuries after Augustine, so whatever Augustine was talking about, it was not the MT.
Then there's also the fact that your quote concerned which literature was canonical. You'll have to educate me on just how this illustrates Augustine's views on textual transmission.
I hav said elsewhere that I am only an observer. My own views on this are not settled. I am sincerely trying to understand your position.
Where does it rebut the WCF? You've said this twice now, but you haven't explained clearly what you mean. Which chapter of the WCF? Which section? Did the Westminster Divines believe the MT to be the only authority? Could you prove this?
Ryan&Amber2013
Puritan Board Senior
This thread looks interesting, but there's no way I'm reading it all to get caught up. Tomorrow I plan on using the ESV in worship
Additionally, it does stand for "Elect Standard Version", right?
Additionally, it does stand for "Elect Standard Version", right?
JimmyH
Puritan Board Senior
I'm not sure if that is 'right', or not .... At my congregation we use the 1984 NIV, which some call 'the New Inspired Version' .... not sure about that either ...This thread looks interesting, but there's no way I'm reading it all to get caught up. Tomorrow I plan on using the ESV in worship
Additionally, it does stand for "Elect Standard Version", right?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
