WCF 1.8 and CT

Does WCF 1.8 require use of the Received Text

  • Yes

    Votes: 24 42.9%
  • No

    Votes: 24 42.9%
  • Hmm...I don't know

    Votes: 8 14.3%

  • Total voters
    56
Status
Not open for further replies.
"If it was incidental you wouldn't be digging your feet in."​

Please don't presume to know my motives.


Rob (C&H), can you give a source for this figure, please: "To make a comparison: The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus agree with each other about 92% of the time." I know that in the Gospels alone they disagree against one another 3,036 times (from Hoskier's collation in Codex B and its Allies: A Study and an Indictment, Vol. 2, page 1).


Andrew, you said,

I'd suggest that the Divines did not claim on behalf of Matt 6:13 any more or less than for the rest of scripture, that it had been "kept pure in all ages". They were surely aware that the Biblical text is subject to recognition of variants, and sometimes deletion of spurious readings. 1 John 2:23b is the example I keep coming back to on that.​

But that was not one of the variants (that is, the omission of the end of the verse) they owned as being possibly legitimate. It was precisely the variants that the Roman Catholic church used (including variants in Codex B, even though they differed from variants in the Latin Vulgate) in its attempt to overthrow the Reformers' doctrine of Sola Scriptura, that the Post-Reformation scholars denied the validity of and fought against. By Post-Reformation scholars I include the Westminster divines. Ted Letis has an essay on this: "John Owen Versus Brian Walton: A Reformed Response to the Birth of Text Criticism", in The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate pp. 146-190, ISBN: 944355005. (Walton produced the Biblia Polyglotta, which contained a vast multitude of variants, the intent of which was to undermine the Reformation's Scripture.)

A study on Matthew 6:13: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/defending-lords-prayer-1-a-27974/

In the same book (The Majority Text) Letis also has an essay, "Theodore Beza as Text Critic: A View Into the Sixteenth Century Approach to New Testament Text Criticism"; and in his, Edward Freer Hills's Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text, he has an essay, "The Scholastic Approach to Text Critical Problems", where he scrutinizes Beza, Calvin, and Owen. Letis' work as a historian of the text, and textual issues, is very valuable, although his books are out of print, and rare. I think I paid $100 for The Majority Text through Amazon! One might try the distributor, Russ Spees at [email protected] , to see if he has any copies of it (I didn't know he had it at normal retail till later). He may also have some copies of the book on Edward Hills left, though I think he is out of The Ecclesiastical Text.

RE 1 John 2:23b, I mentioned above that it is not in my AV as part of the text proper, being italicized, indicating it was supplied by the translators. I know it is not part of the Bible. May it help give a sense of meaning, as other supplied / italicized portions do? Yes. But, I repeat, it is not Scripture.


Paul (Prufrock), I think you would find Letis' stuff of great interest.

I will need to continue my responses after our evening service.

Steve
 
Last edited:
It was precisely the variants that the Roman Catholic church used (including variants in Codex B, even though they differed from variants in the Latin Vulgate) in its attempt to overthrow the Reformers' doctrine of Sola Scriptura, that the Post-Reformation scholars denied the validity of and fought against. By Post-Reformation scholars I include the Westminster divines.
Could you please clarify that? What did the post Reformation scholars including the Westminster Divines fight against, sola scriptura or certain Roman Catholic variants?
 
Sorry if that was unclear, Tim. It was the Roman Catholic variants.

[Note: TimV only thanked me for the little line above, not what is below. For some reason I can't get a new post, only an add-on to an earlier one]

-----Added 12/14/2008 at 03:14:44 EST-----

In the AV, Matthew 5:22 reads “whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause”, while the Critical Text omits the Greek word [size=+1]eikh[/size], pronounced i-kay' – in Latin sine causa, and reads “whoever is angry with his brother”. John Burgon, discussing this omission, remarks,

Our present contention however is but this,—that a Reading which is attested by every uncial Copy of the Gospels except B and [size=+1]a[/size]; by a whole torrent of Fathers; by every known copy of the old Latin,—by all the Syriac, (for the Peschito inserts [not translates] the word εικη,)—by the Coptic,—as well as by the Gothic—and Armenian versions;—that such a reading is not to be set aside by the stupid dictum, ‘Western and Syrian.’ By no such methods will the study of Textual Criticism be promoted, or any progress ever be made in determining the Truth of Scripture…

May we however respectfully ask these learned Editors why, besides Irenaeus—Eusebius—and Cyprian—they do not mention that [size=+1]eikh[/size] is also the reading of Justin Martyr—of Origen himself—of the Constitutiones App.—of Basil three times—of Gregory of Nyssa—of Epiphanius—of Ephraem Syrus twice—of Isidorus twice—of Theodore of Mops—of Chrysostom 18 times—of the Opus imp. twice—of Cyril—and of Theodoret—(each in three places). It was also the reading of Severus, Abp. of Antioch:—as well as of Hilary—Lucifer—Salvian—Philastrius—Augustine, and—Jerome—(although, when translating from Origen, he pronounces against [size=+1]eikh[/size])—not to mention Antiochus mon.—J. Damascene—Maximus—Photius—Euthymius—Theophylact— and others?…We have adduced no less than thirty ancient witnesses…

The sum of the matter proves to be as follows: Codd. B and [size=+1]a[/size] (the ‘two false Witnesses’)—B and [size=+1]a[/size], alone of MSS—omit [size=+1]eikh[/size]. On the strength of this, Dr. Hort persuaded his fellow Revisers to omit ‘without a cause’ from their Revised Version: and it is proposed, in consequence, that every Englishman’s copy of S. Matthew v.22 shall be mutilated in the same way forever…

But the question arises—Will the Church of England submit to have her immemorial heritage thus filched from her? We shall be astonished indeed if she proves so regardless of her birthright.

[from Burgon’s, The Revision Revised, pages 359-362.]​

That in Augustine’s Retractations (i. 19. 4) he makes the statement, “The Greek manuscripts do not contain sine causa”, may have other reasons, as in the manuscripts he had access to, etc. In light of the voluminous testimony to its authenticity this is not highly significant.

-----Added 12/14/2008 at 03:44:01 EST-----

Tim says:

"Since Steve keeps quoting Edersheim, I typed out something just now from my copy of his Life and Times:

..we have here the Greek translation of the Old Testament, venerable not only as the oldest, but as that which at the time of Jesus held the place of our Authorized Version, as as such is often, although freely, quoted in the New Testament.

"You see in this case Edersheim holds to the position all orthodox scholarship. You have to go to marginalized, mainly IFB sources to deny that New Testament authors quoted from both the Hebrew text the Greek text, and that they vary more than the TR does from the CT. So, to make myself doubly plain, were the New Testament authors in violation of 1.8?"​

-------

In Book I, Chapter II, Edersheim has a long discussion of Hellenistic Jews, their worldview, their attitudes vis-à-vis Palestinian Jews, traits of the Hellenists, along with their literature, including the LXX. When he says it was “the people’s Bible” (p. 23) he makes clear that for the Jews who could not speak or read the Hebrew this was the only Scripture they had, not to mention it was dirt cheap to procure a Greek copy, while an approved Hebrew copy was not only far beyond the reach of most financially, but unreadable to most. He discusses the legendary origin of the LXX, gleaning what actual historicity of it was available, and also the character of the work, and its value. It was full of errors, Hellenisms displacing the Hebrew, and such.

Seeing as he had such a generous view of the Septuagint, it is as “a friendly witness” he pronounces against Christ quoting from it and speaking Greek to the rabbis and Pharisees.

Again, in Book I, p. 234, we find Edersheim saying,

“From His [Christ’s] intimate familiarity with Holy Scripture, in its every detail, we may be allowed to infer that the home of Nazareth, however humble, possessed a precious copy of the Sacred Volume in its entirety. At any rate, we know that from earliest childhood it must have formed the meat and drink of the God-Man. The words of the Lord, as recorded by St. Matthew [5:18] and St. Luke [16:17], also imply that the Holy Scriptures which He read were in the original Hebrew, and that they were written in the square, or Assyrian, characters (this may be gathered even from an expression as ‘One iota, or one little hook’). Indeed, as the Pharisees and Sadducees always appealed to the Scriptures in the original, Jesus could not have met them on any other ground, and it was this which gave such point to His frequent expostulations with them: ‘Have ye not read?’​

As for it being “marginalized, mainly IFB sources [who] deny that New Testament authors quoted from both the Hebrew text the Greek text” I post this conversation re http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/psalm-14-3-lxx-15502/ :

Has anyone seen this before? I have always read that Romans 3:10-18 is a collection of texts scattered throughout the Old Testament that Paul "strung together" ... namely, Ps. 14:1-3; Ps. 10:7; Isa. 59:7, 8; Ps. 36:1.

But when I just checked the Septuagint reading of Psalm 14 (in two different Septuagint texts), Ps. 14:3 had the entire quotation of Rom. 3:12-18.

This would mean that Paul didn't string the texts together; the Septuagint translators did so at Ps. 14:3, and Paul simply quoted the Septuagint at Ps. 14:1-3 (interestingly enough, 14:2 reads the same in the Septuagint as in our Bibles; so that Paul's reading of "There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God" is his own apostolic, inspired interpretation of that verse, and not also derived from the Septuagint).

And I respond:

Calvin specifically pronounces on verse 15 of Romans 3:

The expression which Paul adds from Isaiah, Destruction and misery are in their ways, is a most striking one, for it is a description of ferocity of immeasurable barbarity, which produces solitude and waste by destroying everything wherever it goes…

…There follows the phrase, The way of peace they have not known. They are so habituated to rapine, acts of violence and wrong, savagery and cruelty, that they do not know how to act in a kind or friendly way.​

No doubt he was aware of the LXX’s reading. This quote would be from [the Hebrew] Isaiah 59:7, 8.

Keil and Delitzsch, in their comments on Psalm 14:3, say:

The citations of the apostle which follow his quotation of the Psalm…were early incorporated in the [Koine] of the LXX. They appear as an integral part of it in the Cod. Alex. [and he lists a few more odd places where it is found in text or margin –SMR]…Origen rightly excluded this apostolic Mosaic work of Old Testament quotations from his text of the Psalm, and the true representation of the matter is to be found in Jerome, in the preface to the xvi. book of his commentary on Isaiah.​

Lastly I submit Douglas Moo’s opinion (from his NICNT commentary, The Epistle To the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996):

The inclusion of Romans 3:13-18 in several MSS of the LXX of Psalm 14 is a striking example of the influence of Christian scribes on the transmission of the LXX. (See S-H for a thorough discussion). (p. 203, fn. 28) [S-H refers to A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, by William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam (ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902)]​

What Moo is saying, explicitly—as Origen implicitly, K&D concurring—is that the LXX’s reading in Psalm 14:3 came from Romans via Christian scribes, and not the other way around, i.e., from the LXX into Romans.

These are not marginal folks! And an educated minority view need not be slurred as “marginal”! Joshua and Caleb had a minority appraisal of the promised land of Canaan, and were marginalized by the vast majority, but the Lord vindicated them. It would be pleasant – and godly – to discuss the issues without denigrating people!

-------

Archaeology has failed to produce a single piece of papyrus written in Greek before c.150 A.D. that any writer of the New Testament used for a "quotation".

The nearest thing to an Old Testament Greek Bible found by anyone is the Ryland Papyrus (No. 458), which has a few portions of Deuteronomy 23-28 on it. This piece of papyrus is dated 150 B.C. (questionable date) which is fifty to one hundred years later than the writing of the so-called original Septuagint.

The thing is, whatever the quality – and the extent – of a Greek Old Testament in the time of Christ is conjecture, for we have no LXX from those days besides Ryland Papyrus (No. 458). The only LXXs we have still extant are those to be found in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. We just don’t know the state of the LXX in Christ’s time. I don’t believe this can be disputed.

As TimV picks and chooses from Edersheim, so do I. I don’t hold to every view he has; though his views of Christ speaking in Hebrew to the Pharisees – and not Greek – I hold as sound.
 
Hi, Steve

Yes, I did say
As for it being “marginalized, mainly IFB sources [who] deny that New Testament authors quoted from both the Hebrew text the Greek text”
and I meant it fully. You wrote
These are not marginal folks! And an educated minority view need not be slurred as “marginal”!
After you quoted some people including K&D (Keil and Delitzsch)
What Moo is saying, explicitly—as Origen implicitly, K&D concurring—is that the LXX’s reading in Psalm 14:3 came from Romans via Christian scribes, and not the other way around, i.e., from the LXX into Romans.
It has nothing to do with the amount of education someone has. It has everything to do with training yourself to think in a traditional Western, Christian, logical way.

Instead of spending the 15 minutes it would have taken you to do the simple research necessary to find out whether Keil and Delitzsch believed that some New Testament authors quoted the Septuagint as well as the Hebrew, you spent hours working backwards from a preconceived theory. And the way you did it was by using sources to look for evidence supporting your theory, and you came to the conclusion that Keil and Delitzsch held to your view that New Testament authors didn't quote from the Septuagint.

And that's not how science works.

Here's what Kiel and Delitzsch wrote about Isaiah 6:9-10

and one heal it,” i.e., “and it be healed:” and it is in accordance with this sense that it is paraphrased in Mar_4:12, whereas in the three other passages in which the words are quoted in the New Testament (viz., Matthew, John, and Acts) the Septuagint rendering is adopted, “and I should heal them”

If Keil and Delitzsch are to be believed (you brought them up, as you did Edersheim, not me) Matthew, John and the author of Acts would all have been in violation of WCF 1.8, according to your reading of it.
 
Tim,
I believe that the point that Steve is attempting to make is that we do not know what the original Sept looked like at the time of the Apostles. I think his point with Psalm 14:3, was that it is accepted by many that the Sept was altered (if only at that point) after the fact. Since that is the case, it is hard to use the Sept as a battering ram against those who believe it was not quoted at all.

Instead you are going to have to not just put forward the Sept but instead also put forward why you believe it is accurate at that point.

Or put another way, it is not a question of conspiracy vs. non conspiracy. It is a question of big conspiracy vs. small one.
 
Last edited:
Tim,
I believe that the point that Steve is attempting to make is that we do not know what the original Sept looked like at the time of the Apostles.
I appreciate that, but my point has to do with how a person evaluates evidence. If virtually all of orthodox scholarship is unanimous, including sources Steve himself quotes from to make his case, I'm under no obligation to treat revisionist literature as having the same value as the overwhelming bulk of orthodox evidence. K&D would have been shocked to have learned that their names were brought up to support a position the opposite of which they believed.
 
Hi:

You didn't address King James' oversight of the matter in his capacity as "head of the church".
Anglicans hold that the King of England is the head of the Church of England. Are you asking if I believe this? - no I do not. Nor do I believe that the Church of England - today - is a true church of God. However, back in the 1600's I do believe that the Church of England was a true Church. The marks of the True Church are:

The right preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The right administration of the Sacraments.
The right application of Church Discipline.

The idea of Church government does not come into view on this matter.

Next,

But again, this is not high on my list, because I still don't see the distinction here between the KJV and NIV. In both cases, independent Biblical scholars used the knowledge and wisdom God gave them to translate the scriptures for the Church. I don't care who told them to do it, and to some extent I don't care who they were. I only care about the quality of what they came up with. In the case of both the KJV and the NIV, I consider each resulting translation to be superb (given resources and state of textual knowledge available in their day, etc.
The King James Translators were not "independent Biblical scholars," but members of the Church of England. You may think differently if you like, but such an understanding is generally regarded as fantasy.

The problem with your "I don't care" attitude is that it runs contrary to the Bible. The Scriptures are clear that the Word of God is given to the Church - not a bunch of "independent Biblical scholars", a "publishing corporation," or a "Bible Society." Again, if you want to continue thinking that the KJ translators are equivalent to the NIV translators, then you are free to do so.

There is an historical precident giving King James the authority to commission a translation. Constantine, in 313 AD, called the Church to create a new Greek text. The Church responded to the call.

The above is fine and good, except that:

1. Just because Erasmus himself doesn't mention the story doesn't mean it was made up, or that Metzger had no sources for it. (Obviously, he had a source he trusted.)

2. I think you are speaking very uncharitably about James White. "lackey?" "intellectually dishonest?" Come on.

3. That Erasmus disputed the authenticity of the Johannine Comma is beyond question, since he vented his unhappiness in his own text-critical footnote. That he didn't simply transcribe the epistle entirely from a flawless, original TR-matching source manuscript is pretty obvious though. He had to find that part somewhere else.
1) Where did the story come from? It does not come from any of the sources or published, and non-published, writings of Erasmus. If Dr. Metzger had a source for his "story" then he would have published it and not run a retraction of it as a footnote in his book.

Andrew, you are speculating here. If Metzger had a reliable source, then he would have produced it and saved himself some scholarly embarrassment.

2) I am not being uncharitable because what I say is verifiable. Myself and others have emailed Dr. White pointing out the retraction that Dr. Metzger made. Dr. White is not even willing to consider Metzger's humility on the subject, and is unrepentant. This is a sure sign of either ignorance blinding one to reality, or, intellectual pride. In this matter Dr. Metzger is showing more Christian humility (even though he is an unbeliever) than Dr. White who claims to be a Reformed Baptist.

3) Erasmus can dispute it till he is blue in the face. The argument for the inclusion of the Johannine Comma outweighs the argument against it.

Until you can substantially answer my first post to you it is not profitable for me to answer any other points you may have. Consider that I have placed you into a "No Spin Zone" and that you will need to answer my first post to you before I answer any other points.

Tim - I will probably be able to give you an answer tomorrow.

Blessings,

Rob
 
Thanks Rob, I'm looking forward to it. Also, you've given me a bit to chew on with your point about the Church being needed to authorize a translation. Definitely worth some thought, as I myself have made the point many times that parachurch organisation aren't proper because they are without the Churches mandated oversight of Elders.

I do have a few questions (although I'm already leaning towards your view of the matter). When you say

The problem with your "I don't care" attitude is that it runs contrary to the Bible. The Scriptures are clear that the Word of God is given to the Church - not a bunch of "independent Biblical scholars", a "publishing corporation," or a "Bible Society." Again, if you want to continue thinking that the KJ translators are equivalent to the NIV translators, then you are free to do so.

Who gave approval to Erasmus?
 
Tim,
I believe that the point that Steve is attempting to make is that we do not know what the original Sept looked like at the time of the Apostles.
I appreciate that, but my point has to do with how a person evaluates evidence. If virtually all of orthodox scholarship is unanimous, including sources Steve himself quotes from to make his case, I'm under no obligation to treat revisionist literature as having the same value as the overwhelming bulk of orthodox evidence. K&D would have been shocked to have learned that their names were brought up to support a position the opposite of which they believed.

I do not believe that Steve was quoting them in support of the belief that the Apostles never quoted the Sept. He was quoting them to support the belief that a conspiracy occurred at Psalms 14:3. He does not seem to, nor does he need them to believe that the Sept was never quoted.

That is enough to change the debate from non-conspiracy vs. conspiracy to small conspiracy theorists vs. big conspiracy theorists.

CT
 
I do not believe that Steve was quoting them in support of the belief that the Apostles never quoted the Sept. He was quoting them to support the belief that a conspiracy occurred at Psalms 14:3. He does not seem to, nor does he need them to believe that the Sept was never quoted.

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

Can we at least both agree if NT authors DID quote from places in the Septuagint that were different than from the Hebrew the term "kept pure in all ages" in 1.8 can't mean one single translation?
 
Thanks Rob, I'm looking forward to it. Also, you've given me a bit to chew on with your point about the Church being needed to authorize a translation. Definitely worth some thought, as I myself have made the point many times that parachurch organisation aren't proper because they are without the Churches mandated oversight of Elders.

I do have a few questions (although I'm already leaning towards your view of the matter). When you say

The problem with your "I don't care" attitude is that it runs contrary to the Bible. The Scriptures are clear that the Word of God is given to the Church - not a bunch of "independent Biblical scholars", a "publishing corporation," or a "Bible Society." Again, if you want to continue thinking that the KJ translators are equivalent to the NIV translators, then you are free to do so.

Who gave approval to Erasmus?

Hi Tim:

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

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

Good question,

Blessings,

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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


Warfield and Scholasticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

--------

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

** . . . the real impetus for Warfield’s position was both the need to answer the challenge of text criticism to verbal inspiration, as well as his personal agenda of wanting to legitimize German text criticism by a new interpretation of the Westminster Confession, by means of which he would actually abandon scholasticism altogether. These are both post-Enlightenment, nineteenth century influences.
 
So we've dealt with Edersheim and K&D, who were used in support of the revisionist position, but have been show to have supported the orthodox position. Now we turn our attention to Dabney, who is being used to support the revisionist position:

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

And then we look to see what Dabney actually said:
Robert Dabney:

No one claims for the Textus Receptus, or common Greek text of the New Testament, any sacred right, as though it represented the ipsissima verba, written by the inspired men in every case...It is therefore not asserted to be above emendation.
(Dabney, Robert L. Discussions: Evangelical and Theological, Vol. 1, 1891, p. 350, Banner of Truth Trust reprint, 1982, Bible For Today reprint # 2124.)
Main Entry: emen·da·tion
Pronunciation: \ˌē-ˌmen-ˈdā-shən; ˌe-mən-, e-ˌmen-\
Function: noun
Date: 1536
1 : the act or practice of emending
2 : an alteration designed to correct or improve
 
So we've dealt with Edersheim and K&D, who were used in support of the revisionist position, but have been show to have supported the orthodox position. Now we turn our attention to Dabney, who is being used to support the revisionist position:

Which one is the 'revisionist' position and which one is the 'orthodox' position? Is this referring to the poll in the OP?
 
Which one is the 'revisionist' position and which one is the 'orthodox' position? Is this referring to the poll in the OP?
I was trying to use a less inflammatory word then conspiracy theorists, so I picked revisionist, which isn't really good either. I want a word to describe what the overwhelming number of Bible scholars hold to, and a word which describes what a very small minority hold to.
 
Just as a warning though: the overwhelming number of Bible scholars hold to a great many things that confessionals consider offensive: numerical consensus in today's world of biblical studies may not always be a good thing. The question which is more pertinent, however, is what is the position that an overwhelming number of Westminster Assemblymen held?
 
Which one is the 'revisionist' position and which one is the 'orthodox' position? Is this referring to the poll in the OP?
I was trying to use a less inflammatory word then conspiracy theorists, so I picked revisionist, which isn't really good either. I want a word to describe what the overwhelming number of Bible scholars hold to, and a word which describes what a very small minority hold to.

Are the Bible scholars you are referring to 'Reformed' or just in general? If you are refering to the majority of 'general' Bible scholars, then how does that have any bearing on the WCF?
 
Just as a warning though: the overwhelming number of Bible scholars hold to a great many things that confessionals consider offensive:

OK, then I'll go back to overwhelming number of orthodox scholars. And now we can add another one, Dabney, who was also quoted as supporting a position he just didn't hold. Did you read the two quotes four posts above this?
 
Sorry Tim, I didn't mean to get back involved, I just wanted to steer it back to the pertinent question, which is not what do later theologians think; but rather, what did the Westminster Divines think?
 
OK, then I'll go back to overwhelming number of orthodox scholars. And now we can add another one, Dabney, who was also quoted as supporting a position he just didn't hold. Did you read the two quotes four posts above this?

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

TimV wrote:

So my question is, since we don't really know if Erasmus had a complete text of Rev. or not, and we certainly don't know for sure that he had the word book in front of him, are there any Greek texts of the Byzantine tradition that are older than the text Erasmus hypothetically used? Where can I find some specifics as to number of Byzantine texts that use tree, and the ages of them? There must be someone you can ask at your Seminary.
Thanks
Tim
We do know that Erasmus was translating out of the Greek text in the last several verses of Revelation. There is so much evidence to this that I hardly know where to start. I am, by the way, waiting for my copy of Hoskier in order to reproduce his reasons more perfectly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The disputed text reads:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
If we read the three verses concerning the Tree of Life correctly, then we must conclude that it is given to believers, and is available for believers only:

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

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

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

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

Blessings,

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

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

Further, "TR" means different things to different writers, so you will need to clarify what you mean by the term and what men like Dabney might have meant by it.
I read this:
The true test for determining if one is an heir of the Reformed scholastics is found in the role the Westminster Confession plays in locating final Scriptural authority. Archibald Alexander (1772–1851), Charles Hodge (1797–1878), and the Southern Presbyterian, Robert Dabney (1820–1890) were genuine heirs of Turretin. They focused authority in present, extant copies of the biblical texts (apographa), with all the accompanying textual phenomena, as the “providentially preserved” and sanctioned edition (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:8).
and read this
Robert Dabney:

No one claims for the Textus Receptus, or common Greek text of the New Testament, any sacred right
and see a contradiction.

As to the main point I keep coming back to, I've tried to simplify it down to it's basic question: Did NT authors quote from both the Masoretic and Septuagint.
 
Thanks, Rob. Remember my question was how many Greek texts use tree and how many use book. I still can't find anyone who can answer what seems to me a question that a specialist would quickly be able to answer. At this point I'm not interested in personal opinions on the subject; it's a simple question of the number of readings and their ages.

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

Further, "TR" means different things to different writers, so you will need to clarify what you mean by the term and what men like Dabney might have meant by it.
I read this:
The true test for determining if one is an heir of the Reformed scholastics is found in the role the Westminster Confession plays in locating final Scriptural authority. Archibald Alexander (1772–1851), Charles Hodge (1797–1878), and the Southern Presbyterian, Robert Dabney (1820–1890) were genuine heirs of Turretin. They focused authority in present, extant copies of the biblical texts (apographa), with all the accompanying textual phenomena, as the “providentially preserved” and sanctioned edition (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:8).
and read this
Robert Dabney:

No one claims for the Textus Receptus, or common Greek text of the New Testament, any sacred right
and see a contradiction.

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

And if it can be proven that the NT authors did quote from both, then it is also proved that the Divines did not have in view the TR when they wrote 1:8? Am I on the right track?
 
I read this:
The true test for determining if one is an heir of the Reformed scholastics is found in the role the Westminster Confession plays in locating final Scriptural authority. Archibald Alexander (1772–1851), Charles Hodge (1797–1878), and the Southern Presbyterian, Robert Dabney (1820–1890) were genuine heirs of Turretin. They focused authority in present, extant copies of the biblical texts (apographa), with all the accompanying textual phenomena, as the “providentially preserved” and sanctioned edition (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:8).
and read this
Robert Dabney:

No one claims for the Textus Receptus, or common Greek text of the New Testament, any sacred right
and see a contradiction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The problem of the LXX is not new; the Reformers were certainly not ignorant of it, and yet the possibility (or even certainty) of its use in the NT did not undermine or alter their view that the Hebrew autographs and apographs (and only these) were authentic.
 
Just so everything is clear to everyone, do you believe that NT authors quoted even once both the Hebrew text and another Greek text that differs from the Hebrew text?

I am open to being shown some place where the NT penmen "quoted" from a Greek "text." As you make your case to depend on it, you bear the burden of showing it.
 
The fact that they used it did not mean it was authentic in itself; the specific verses which he claims they did use become authentic upon that basis, but this is wholly different.

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

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

The above sounds largely correct to me. The editors of my edition of the LXX (Zondervan) assert that though the authors of the NT did use the LXX, they tended to correct in the direction of the MT where the LXX is most divergent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top