SolaGratia
Puritan Board Junior
Andrew,
So what greek text do you want for the WCF?
So what greek text do you want for the WCF?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
1.) In a sense, yes. Objectively speaking, there is a difference in the way the texts are formed. The one is based upon the way in which the text has been received; the other discards this as a viable, historical, rational method of knowing the original text, and seeks to reconstruct it by rational means. This is just different. Whether God is providentially controlling the assembling of the CT is another issue, and one that is outside the scope of the current discussion.
Hello Andrew,
Welcome to Puritan Board, I'd like to make a few comments into some parts of your posts.
The specific difference being discussed on this thread between the critical method versus the work of TR-favoring scholars is not entirely qualitative, but quantitative.
No, the basic presuppositions of modern textual criticism are humanistic and assume a naturalistic and evolving world and history. For example, it was once held that the days of Moses had no writing and was limited to oral tradition. Yet, when it was proven that it was an era of literacy, the presupposition remained because of the basic premise. The self attesting nature of Scripture of being an inspired record of God-breathed words is a radical contradiction to the "scientific" naturalistic presupposition.
In the most extreme position of the modern camp the God of the Bible has been rejected in favor of some kind of process whereby men and religions have developed. The failure of the otherwise godly men in the Reformed tradition that have adopted the modern critical view has been implicitly beginning with the same world and life view of what would otherwise be their opponents, and then trying to reason their way to a radically different view. It is suicidal.
They will then try to represent their activities as being "Reformed textual criticism," and postulate that the rationale for departing from the orthodox textual tradition is because of new textual discoveries &c. Hence, they are implying that the only issue separating the "reformed" moderns from the orthodox conservatives is one of ignorance, non-scholarship, or downright simpleton nature of the latter. What they grant with their left hand is taken away by their right.
The modern critical presupposition assumes the ultimacy of an impartial reason in all men whereby all things can be correctly assessed and adjudicated, without respect to the history and circumstances which Providence brought to pass. It is presumed that Providence is required to maintain the question of Authority for every generation to answer for themselves and hammer out on their own anvil.
On the contrary, the actual difference concerns an entirely different orientation to the issue.
Now, it seems to me that TR-only proponents are in a catch-22 situation. If they argue that only one Bible has been used in all the true church over its history, then they must explain why variants exist even in Reformational versions. Reality check -- to my knowledge, nobody in the English or German speaking Reformed world either uses, or has used a Bible identical in readings to Erasmus' edition -- or any other TR edition. The fact is that versions like the KJV freely followed non-TR readings when the translators felt like it was most correct to do so.
No, they are not in a catch-22 situation. The question is one of Authority. Ignoring the question and assuming one has a right to be on the playing field because one can run with the ball, doesn't mean it is so. The school has broken into the Church and since it is an institution of learning it arrogantly asserts that it will define the cognitive foundation of theology for the Church.
And if they argue that the variants are minimal, and that small variations don't really count in the grand scheme of things... then I would submit that the CT differs in only minimally in the grand scheme of things, and shouldn't cause anybody undue heartburn with regard to God's preservation of his Word.
No, once you understand the issues, the disruption to the peace and purity of the Protestant Churches and the decline of orthodoxy that has resulted because of it should terrify you because the Faith is at stake.
The removal of the landmark of the Protestant Faith from the Protestant Churches and Nations should be as impressed upon your mind as heinous an injury as your neighbor moving the landmark of your real property.
If that happened would you argue that a property line is a property line and it really doesn't matter where it is at?
Turning the question on its head a bit, can we ask whether the Westminster Divines believed they had a transcription of the autographs letter for letter? Since they were learned men who knew something about Biblical manuscripts, we can easily reject this nonsensical idea. Therefore, their meaning in WCF 1.8 surely allows for variants in the text.
Kurt Aland said this:
“We can appreciate better the struggle for freedom from the dominance of the Textus Receptus when we remember that in this period it was regarded as preserving even to the last detail the inspired and infallible word of God himself." (The Text of the New Testament, An Introduction to the Critical Editions, Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland)
"...it is undisputed that from the 16th century to the 18th century orthodoxy’s doctrine of verbal inspiration assumed… [the] Textus Receptus. It was the only Greek text they knew, and they regarded it as the ‘original’ text.” (Kurt Aland, “The Text of the Church” Trinity journal 8 (1987), p. 131.)
Apparently, the learned men you respect would probably be insulted at your statement that their beliefs were "nonsensical."
The history of philosophy has taught us that if we begin with autonomous reason and its doubt, all we finally end up with is doubt. Then you have vague and self-destructive affirmations of faith, no matter how definitively enunciated, ultimately resting in an "unknown" Revelation from God.
The philosophical presupposition of unknown Revelation from God is what must be rejected. (Acts 17:23)
Cordially,
Thomas
Andrew,
So what greek text do you want for the WCF?
Apparently, the learned men you respect would probably be insulted at your statement that their beliefs were "nonsensical."
Erasmus was very specific in his description of this copy, he believed it to be a very close copy of the Autograph itself and said so explicitly. What is also obscured is the copies Erasmus had access to in Italy, the copies he had in England that he couldn't bring with him to Basel
No, once you understand the issues, the disruption to the peace and purity of the Protestant Churches and the decline of orthodoxy that has resulted because of it should terrify you because the Faith is at stake.
On Christian Doctrine (book 2, chap. 14)"Those who are anxious to know the Scriptures ought in the first place to use their skill in the correction of the texts, so that the uncorrected ones should give way to the corrected."
Since I started this thread, I feel kind of responsible for the direction it takes, so I'm going to chime in once more. Tim, you are painting an inaccurate caricature of the position I asked about in my opening post. No one thinks Erasmus was inspired. No one is against textual criticism. No one disparages consulting diverse manuscripts when there is variance in the received tradition. The saying of Augustine in spot on. Erasmus is not the end-all, be-all of the Received Text: he was a collator, not a creator.
I've been trying to bring all this theory down to practice. You and Thomas and others have said that you have studied the matter for a long period of time. Could one of you please, please tell me if Erasmus had access to a Greek text of Revelation that had book instead of tree in chapter 22
And as a separate question, could you, Paul, please tell me that if the overwhelming majority of Byzantine texts use the word tree instead of book, and that there is no possible way Erasmus could have read a Greek manuscript of Rev with the word book, would you even consider the possibility that Erasmus could have done better on that one word?
Of course he could have done better in some of his conclusions. This is not disputed.
Keep in mind, the main problem is method, not results: most sober people will confess that the actual resultant differences between the two are nigh unto inconsequential; neither distorts God's word to the point of corruption, and neither opens the doors for heresy, unless we are looking for it already.
Also, keep in mind that no one has accused anyone of anything; with the exception that people are, indeed, disagreeing. This is acceptable.
All reasonable people who have looked into the matter know that Christ quoted both from the Hebrew and Septuagint. That settles the matter.
All reasonable people who have looked into the matter know that Christ quoted both from the Hebrew and Septuagint. That settles the matter.
Thus saith the Tim!
On another thread dealing with whether or not Aramaic and Hebrew were dialects of each other, support for this theory was given by a citation from F.F. Bruce in his NICNT commentary on Acts (Revised) In distinguishing between the two parties,, says of the Jews,
Quote:
..the Hebrews spoke Aramaic (or Mishnaic Hebrew) and attended synagogues where the service was conducted in Hebrew. (p.120)
As one of my favorite hobbies is languages, that quote bothered me, as it goes against what I though I'd learned about the subject of which languages were spoken in Palestine during the time of Christ. So I asked a friend, Dr. Andrew Mathis of Villanova University, and he said
Quote:
While I know Wikipedia is not the best possible source, note that Hebrew (a Canaanite language) and Aramaic are in different subdivisions. The other Canaanite languages are all dead languages, but I've seen enough of them (particularly in recent commentaries I've read) to see that they're related but unlike Hebrew in most ways.
That being said, there are numerous loan words from Hebrew into Judeo-Aramaic and back again.
But we also know that Jesus spoke Aramaic in the Galilee, whereas Hebrew was probably more spoken in Judea. Neither language was being spoken as much as Greek, however. In fact, I seem to recall that Hebrew was pretty much strictly a liturgical language after the Babylonian Captivity... I don't see much indicating that Aramaic and Hebrew are the same in any dialectic way. I think the guy you're debating is seeing the parenthetical phrase "(or Mishnaic Hebrew)" as an indication that it's a synonym for Palestinian Aramaic. It isn't.
.Upon looking into the subject further, I think Bruce must be confusing Mishnaic Hebrew with Amoric Hebrew. "Amoric" and "Amaraic" look much the same, but have different meanings. Amoric is a form of Hebrew taught by amora i.e. a class of teachers.
Palestine at the time was quadralingual, with Latin, Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew spoken by different demographics. None of these languages are dialects of each other. Hebrew and Aramaic have about the same relation as Latin and Greek.
Hebrew was mainly a liturgical language, and varied some over the centuries just like English. The language of the Jew was in no area Hebrew, but varied by where the Jews lived, just like today, with the average Iranian Jew having spoken Parsi for the last few thousand years, American Jews speaking English, Russian Jews speaking Yiddish or Russian, etc...but all of them having access to books written in Hebrew and scholars among them who speak Hebrew
In other words a statement of faith that allows you to interpret historical events backwards. "Erasmus must have had one because he must have had God's entire Word". So when it comes to objectice evidence, who's doin' the "saith"?So in terms of evidence, Tim, we are at a stalemate. I cannot produce a copy for you with that one word you desire to see as the page of codex I is missing it (although codex 141 contains it), nor can you deny that it was there, aside from merely assuming so.
But I have more than evidence. I have the faith that God preserved His word through these Reformation texts and that what He sovereignly decreed was realized in our King James Bible. He did preserve His Word for His people.
...you can quote two people, Bruce and Edersheim who mistakenly say that Hebrew and Palestinian Aramaic were the same language
And that SHOULD be the dead horse, as one of your own posted in this very thread, complaining about me bringing it upIf Greek was the language of the court and camp, and indeed must have been spoken by most in the land, the language of the people, spoken also by Christ and His Apostles, was a dialect of the ancient Hebrew, the Western or Palestinian Aramaic. It seems strange that this could ever have been doubted. A Jewish Messiah Who would urge His claim upon Israel in Greek, seems almost a contradiction in terms.
If you are going to continue to use the word dialect to mean anything you want to, then informed dialogue isn't possible. You wroteHardly. You constantly mis-represent the KJV position by citing Gail Riplinger and the other weirdo's views. That isn't even close to the real reason we use the KJV. The Septuagint is real. Deal with it. And quite mis-representing and slandering us KJV people. Please. - Grymir
Speaking of the situation in Acts 6:1ff., “...the murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews”, Cloag says,
...the Hellenists, then are contrasted with the Hebrews as regards language. As the Hebrews are those Jews who spoke the Hebrew language, or rather the dialect of it then current, the Aramaic—the Palestinian Jews; so the Hellenists are those Jews who, residing chiefly in foreign parts, had lost the use of their native Hebrew, and spoke the Greek language—the Hellenistic Jews.
In distinguishing between the two parties, F.F. Bruce in his NICNT commentary on Acts (Revised), says of the Jews,
...the Hebrews spoke Aramaic (or Mishnaic Hebrew) and attended synagogues where the service was conducted in Hebrew. (p.120)
--------
Re Mishnaic Hebrew:
“... From 1200 bc to c. ad 200, Hebrew was a spoken language in Palestine, first as biblical Hebrew, then as Mishnaic Hebrew, a later dialect that does not derive directly from the biblical dialect and one that gained literary status as the Pharisees began to employ it in their teaching in the 2nd century...” Britannica Online Encyclopedia
“The Mishnaic Hebrew language or Rabbinic Hebrew language is the ancient descendant of Biblical Hebrew as preserved by the Jews after the Babylonian captivity, and definitively recorded by Jewish sages in writing the Mishnah and other contemporary documents.” Nation Master Encyclopedia
“The term Mishnaic Hebrew refers to the Hebrew dialects found in the Talmud, excepting quotations from the Hebrew Bible. The dialects can be further sub-divided into Mishnaic Hebrew (also called Tannaitic Hebrew, Early Rabbinic Hebrew, or Mishnaic Hebrew I), which was a spoken language, and Amoraic Hebrew (also called Late Rabbinic Hebrew or Mishnaic Hebrew II), which was a literary language.” Wiki
-------
J.A. Alexander, in his Geneva Series (BOT) commentary on Acts, distinguishes between the Hebrews and the Grecians and says,
...the Hebrews, or natives of Palestine and others...used the scriptures, and spoke the Aramaic dialect before described (on 1:19). (p. 242)
Commenting on that verse (Acts 1:19) he speaks of the phrase “proper tongue” (AV),
...i.e., their own language or peculiar dialect, an Aramaic modification or corruption of the Hebrew spoken by the Jews from the time of their captivity in Babylon, and often called by modern writers, Syro-Chaldaic... (p. 28)
John Gill on “proper tongue” in this verse says,
...or in their own dialect, the Jerusalem dialect, which was now Chaldee, or Syriac... (Exposition, vol 8, p. 144)
(My emph, "manuscripts" above seems to be a typo, and should read "printed editions" or similar.)The other school, championed by John Owen, Turretin, E.F. Hills, Ted Letis, etc, own minute variants within the TR manuscripts. Hills, for instance, said he’d found 3. So while not “absolute”, it is virtually identical.
The 3 phrases Hills says are errors (Believing Bible Study, p. 83) comprise nine Greek words. In the Greek of the Textus Receptus (1894 edition) there are 140,521 words. That is .0064% or sixty-four one thousandths of one percent.
Andrew,
I'm not a KJV advocate. This has nothing to do with my views.
Hi Paul. No, they use "book". I just checked my copy of Stephanus (assuming you don't count a modern TR version that was back translated from the KJV to be an authentic TR) to check out what Tson said hereTim, sorry for my tardiness: call me a heretic, but yes, I like "tree." Don't most present TR editions say tree anyway?
And he is correct. The KJV added to the TR in 1Jn 2:23. I just checked the VulgateIf the pre-Scrivener TR is the perfect and complete Word of God, then the following verse portion doesn't belong in your Bibles:
1Jn 2:23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. [Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.]
The bracketed sentence above doesn't occur to my knowledge in the TR prior to Scrivener's work. Oddly enough, the inclusion of the sentence is not questioned in translations based on the critical text.
And it seems another one of those 80 examples where the authors of the KJV preferred the Vulgate to the TR.23 Omnis qui negat Filium, nec Patrem habet: qui confitetur Filium, et Patrem habet
OK. Sorry for lumping all TR advocates together. But I believe you would be the exception within your wider camp if you do not prefer Scrivener's TR edition to Beza's. (Out of curiosity, which do you prefer?)
First, just a side note, to prefer Scrivener's Text does not mean that, with respect to translations, you have an a priori commitment to the AV. What it does mean, is that you think the the translators of the AV are a good witness to the state of the Greek text as it was received in 1611.
However, to answer your question: neither. Let's just say I use a wide assortment of texts.
And he is correct. The KJV added to the TR in 1Jn 2:23. I just checked the Vulgate
And it seems another one of those 80 examples where the authors of the KJV preferred the Vulgate to the TR.23 Omnis qui negat Filium, nec Patrem habet: qui confitetur Filium, et Patrem habet
Yes, it does.You also say, "Yet the Wiki article you cite, in blue after the red, uses Amoraic instead of Aramaic." Not true.
The only confusion is that you still don't understand what you are arguing, and that includes the link you just posted. If you will read the link you just posted, you will find the author saysIt distinguishes between Mishnaic / Tannaitic Hebrew and Amoric. The latter was extant from 200-500 CE, the former 70-200 CE. I believe FF Bruce was identifying Mishnaic with Aramaic (an interesting article on this). I see no contradiction, though I'm sorry my bringing it in caused confusion.
One thing at a time, or we'll never get anywhere!! Until either I can see that your source F.F. Bruce was right, or until you can see that your source F.F. Bruce was totally, massively wrong when he wroteTim, when you say, "Christ quoted the Septuagint", what are you saying? I want to understand.
In distinguishing between the two parties, F.F. Bruce in his NICNT commentary on Acts (Revised), says of the Jews,
...the Hebrews spoke Aramaic (or Mishnaic Hebrew) and attended synagogues where the service was conducted in Hebrew.
Let's get this F.F. Bruce deal cleared up first. Aramaic was either Mishnaic Hebrew as he (and of course if you troll the internet all day and read reams of IFB literature you'll find others that say the same) says, or if Mishnic Hebrew isn't in any way, shape or form Aramiac like the overwhelming number of people who study the subject say. The only way Bruce could be correct according to virtually all of current orthodox and secular thought is if Bruce meant that the Jews spoke EITHER Mishnaic Hebrew which was also called Amoraic Hebrew OR Aramaic.Are you simply not accepting there are different definitions for "dialect"?
For this you might be interested in his plain introduction to the criticism of the New Testament.
(Sorry this is off topic) Are you familiar with the fourth edition of his work compiled by Edward Miller? If so, is it worth it, or is its only value in cataloging modern work, thus making more recent works more worthwhile?
Note: in the bold text above it is clear that Owen is not referring to a compiliation, like Beza's, but to the extant copies within the Byzantine tradition. Owen continues:Thirdly, We add, that the whole Scripture, entire as given out from God, without any loss, is preserved in the copies of the originals yet remaining; what varieties there are among the copies themselves shall be afterward declared
The fundamental precept that is driving Owen at this point is that the very copies that Erasmus and others used for compiling the New Testament contained the autographs. That the compilation which Erasmus used was not perfect was obvious - even to Erasmus - who made 5 other editions over the course of the next 15 years or so. That Stephens, Beza, and Scrivener sought to build and improve upon the work of Erasmus within the Byzantine MSs are examples of healthy text-critical efforts within the "TR" tradition. Owen then speaks about translations:In them all, we say, is every letter and tittle of the word. These copies, we say, are the rule, standard, and touchstone of all translations, ancient or modern, by which they are in all things to be examined, tried, corrected, amended; and themselves only by themselves.
Now, by "translations" here, are you willing to admit that Owen is speaking about the King James Version, which was a translation in existence during this time? Owen then criticizes what you may label as the KJO movement:Translations contain the word of God, they are the word of God, perfectly or imperfectly, according as they express the words, sense, and meaing of those originals
In reading your posts it seems that you want to lump all those who would defend the Greek Text (TR) with those who would defend the translation found in the King James Version. I noted that, when pressed, you will admit a difference, but then you come right back to this line of thinking when you ask and answer your own question:To advance any, all translations concurring, into an equality with the originals, - so to set them by it as to set them up with it on even terms, - much more to propose and use them as means of castigating, amending, altering any thing in them, gathering various lections by them, is to set up an altar of our own by the altar of God, and to make equal the wisdom, care, skill, and diligence of men, with the wisdom, care, and providence of God himself, John Owen, Works, vol. 16, pg. 357.
I would not use it either in preaching, or, as a primary text, but not for the reasons you suppose. The Bible is the sole treasure of the Church. To put its translation into the hands of a "publishing organization" a "corporation" or in a para-Church organization (such as a Bible society - whose charter was to print and distribute the Bible, and not make a translation), is to take the Bible out of the hands of the Church, and make it a marketing tool to enrich the pockets of men like Rupert Murdoch (owner of the NIV). For this same reason the RSV (being authorized by a denomination that is no longer a church) is not authoritative as well. The ESV (published not by the Church, but by Crossway Books) also falls into the category of being non-authorized. The NASB, as it is a product of the Lockman Foundation, does not fit the criteria as well.Here's a question for the gentlemen who are TR advocates in this discussion: If a publishing organization, let's say TBS, issued an English translation of the scriptures that was equal in quality and style to the KJV, yet adhered strictly to the pre-Scrivener TR, would you use it?
Somehow, I don't suspect that you would.
But you rightly pointed out that Owen, Turretin, and others were not defending Scrivener's Greek Text? And, I believe I made it clear above, that Owen was not seeking to defend a translation, but the Byzantine MSS which contained the apographia of the autographs.My conclusion -- the TR advocates I've met do not truly regard the historical TR as our nearest approach to the autographs. Rather, they advocate the TR secondarily to advocating the text of the KJV translation
(My emph, "manuscripts" above seems to be a typo, and should read "printed editions" or similar.)The other school, championed by John Owen, Turretin, E.F. Hills, Ted Letis, etc, own minute variants within the TR manuscripts. Hills, for instance, said he’d found 3. So while not “absolute”, it is virtually identical.
The 3 phrases Hills says are errors (Believing Bible Study, p. 83) comprise nine Greek words. In the Greek of the Textus Receptus (1894 edition) there are 140,521 words. That is .0064% or sixty-four one thousandths of one percent.
Observation -- the above and the quote from John Owen are not talking about Scrivener's KJV-tuned TR. According to Scrivener's own count, he had 190 differences versus Beza's text (from the intro to his edition).
Here's a question for the gentlemen who are TR advocates in this discussion: If a publishing organization, let's say TBS, issued an English translation of the scriptures that was equal in quality and style to the KJV, yet adhered strictly to the pre-Scrivener TR, would you use it?
Somehow, I don't suspect that you would. As discussion on this thread has repeatedly revealed, it's not about the TR -- it's about the KJV. If English speaking TR advocates truly accepted that the pre-Scrivener TR was the perfect and complete word of God, then the KJV would have been revised to conform to the TR a long time ago, instead of the other way around.
If the pre-Scrivener TR is the perfect and complete Word of God, then the following verse portion doesn't belong in your Bibles:
1Jn 2:23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. [Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.]
The bracketed sentence above doesn't occur to my knowledge in the TR prior to Scrivener's work. Oddly enough, the inclusion of the sentence is not questioned in translations based on the critical text. :^) But that is not our concern right now...
Are you gentlemen willing for that sentence to be struck from your Bibles? Would you like to take a magic marker and strike it out right now? If so, then why hasn't that removal been performed in the various KJV revisions that have taken place over the years? If not, then where was that sentence when Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, and the Elzivirs were typesetting their editions?
My conclusion -- the TR advocates I've met do not truly regard the historical TR as our nearest approach to the autographs. Rather, they advocate the TR secondarily to advocating the text of the KJV translation.
Greetings Andrew:
Welcome aboard. It is good to see you come over from the CRTA forums which have been shut down. I hope your stay here is profitable.