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.
Could you please clarify that? What did the post Reformation scholars including the Westminster Divines fight against, sola scriptura or certain Roman Catholic variants?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.
..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.
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).
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.
and I meant it fully. You wroteAs for it being “marginalized, mainly IFB sources [who] deny that New Testament authors quoted from both the Hebrew text the Greek text”
After you quoted some people including K&D (Keil and Delitzsch)These are not marginal folks! And an educated minority view need not be slurred as “marginal”!
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.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.
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”
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.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.
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:You didn't address King James' oversight of the matter in his capacity as "head of the church".
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.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 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.
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?
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).
Main Entry: emen·da·tionRobert 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.)
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:
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.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.Which one is the 'revisionist' position and which one is the 'orthodox' position? Is this referring to the poll in the OP?
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?
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.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
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: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.
Dabid
I think what Pastor Klein is seeking to clarify is exactly what position you are using Dabney to argue against.
I read this: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.
and read thisThe 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 see a contradiction.Robert Dabney:
No one claims for the Textus Receptus, or common Greek text of the New Testament, any sacred right
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.
I read this: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.
and read thisThe 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 see a contradiction.Robert Dabney:
No one claims for the Textus Receptus, or common Greek text of the New Testament, any sacred right
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.
I read this:
and read thisThe 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 see a contradiction.Robert Dabney:
No one claims for the Textus Receptus, or common Greek text of the New Testament, any sacred right
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.
(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.
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)
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)
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?
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.