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.

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Rob,

As I've said before, you are a man of worth to the Kingdom, whom the King has given good gifts, yet as dead flies in the ointment, so the sin against charity spoils the sweet savor of your wisdom and honor (Eccl 10:1).

To say a man is deceived or blinded to the truth is one thing – we all suffer this ourselves to some extent somewhere in our lives – but it is entirely another to say a man is dishonest, that is, deliberately falsifies the truth for his own advantage and to knowingly deceive others. It is beyond your knowledge to assert this of Dr. White, to his motives and the inner workings of his mind. It has to be an assumption on your part, and therein is your fault – and the commission of slander.

To call a man a lackey, an unthinking tool of another, and a sycophant, is merely to insult a pastor before the world, as the allegation doesn't fit the facts – it is but a cruel slur.

If you seek to justify yourself in these calumnies you but further dishonor yourself in the eyes of those who know the Royal Law.

You will remember when someone from aomin (left unnamed) said I was dishonest (to deliberately hoodwink my hearers) by using the 1st edition of Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek N.T. instead of the 2nd, as there were changes in the latter. And I said the same thing to him I've said to you, "Unjustly you make this accusation – having no clue as to my motives – for it was a thing of ignorance and not dishonesty." I also reproved him for making this unfounded charge against an elder, which, although we are not in the same local church, still violates the respect to be given officers in the Kingdom. When I was an enlisted man in the Marines, I would have gotten in as much serious trouble disrespecting an Air Force officer as I would have a Marine. How much more should this apply to the government and officers of Christ!

Open rebuke is better than secret love (Pr 27:5). And an angry countenance drives away a backbiting tongue (Pr 25:23). Anger is not hostility. I have no hostility to you, nor residual anger.

Let the righteous smite me; it shall be a kindness: and let him reprove me; it shall be an excellent oil, which shall not break my head... (Psalm 141:5)​

Your brother in Christ

--------

TimV,

You're getting good at the details of this debate. Let me zoom out a little, enlarge the perspective, and ask you a (perhaps) difficult question (as construction is generally harder than demolition):

Did God leave us a Bible – a settled Scripture – which we have in hand? Is it reliable in all its parts? Can we say it is the sure Word of God to us, with certainty?

What Bible do you offer, when asked thusly?

Thanks,

Steve

-----Added 12/17/2008 at 04:03:00 EST-----

More on Dabney, to add to the quote Tim V pulled from his Discussions: Evangelical and Theological, Vol. 1, 1891, p. 350. This is from the next page (Rev. Winzer already quoted the first sentence, but I wish to add more to that quote).

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. This is because these various readings, which are now counted by the hundred thousand, are nearly all exceedingly minute and trivial; and chiefly because, while they diverge, on the one side and on the other, from the received text, the divergence is always within these minute bounds; which proves that text to be always within a very slight distance, if at all removed, from the infallible autographs. p. 351​

Dabney goes on to examine the significant variants, omissions mostly, that the received text (the TR mss) does not countenance, and finds these variants greatly wanting. He also examines the various radical text critics of his day and earlier, evaluates them (wanting as well) and also the purported "oldest and best" manuscripts. In the post-Reformation scholastic tradition he was, like Owen, "working WITHIN the TR tradition, not seeking by radical criticism to undermine it" (M. Winzer). So his caveat noted by TimV in post #164 is not at odds with the assertion of Letis (post #163) that Dabney held to the original view ("genuine heirs of Turretin") of the WCF 1:8.
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
First, there is no proof that a Greek text is quoted; it may have been a Greek Targum tradition.
But if it is a Greek Targum tradition then you've just detonated a 500 pound bomb in the hold of your ship because then that Greek targum tradition contains words different than what is recorded in the Hebrew, and Christ used them. Therefore God's Word, while kept pure in all ages, wasn't totally and exhaustively contained in one volume. I'd even be willing to accept that at times God's Word could have been kept pure through verbal tradition, e.g. from Adam to Moses.

Secondly, you assume the words of Christ are not found in the Hebrew of Isaiah. There is no reason why the original Hebrew might not be understood as including the nuance which is included in the Greek rendering of the Gospel
No reason except that the words are not there.

How about Acts 15:17
that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things

And Amos 9:12 which is quoted, first in the Hebrew
that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by my name," declares the LORD who does this.

and then the Septuagint
12 that the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things.

Which is closer?

-----Added 12/17/2008 at 06:21:03 EST-----

TimV,

You're getting good at the details of this debate. Let me zoom out a little, enlarge the perspective, and ask you a (perhaps) difficult question (as construction is generally harder than demolition):

Did God leave us a Bible – a settled Scripture – which we have in hand? Is it reliable in all its parts? Can we say it is the sure Word of God to us, with certainty?

What Bible do you offer, when asked thusly?

Thanks,

Steve
One of the neocons coined a phrase, "The end of history" to describe his certainty that liberal democracy had triumphed over all other political thinking. I first heard it after Mandela was released from Robben Island. Well, I'm not convinced.

No, Steve, I am not willing to say to you that any version of the Bible in existence is
– a settled Scripture – which we have in hand
although I do believe that God has kept His Word pure in all ages. I am quite certain that one of His tasks that He has set for His church is to search it out. And in the mean time, I think it's truly miraculous that the versions we have today are so close that there really aren't the sort of differences between texts that can legitimately be said to keep anyone from knowing God's will for our lives.

PS, are there people still following that object to the King James translators using the Septuagint to translate 14 of it's original books? And at the least, are does anyone think that any of the translators of the KJV would have used snear quote language when speaking of the "so called" Septuagint?
 

Grymir

Puritan Board Graduate
Actually, the Hebrew. Because the Septuagint has this little phrase "may earnestly seek me" in it that make all the difference in meaning.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Actually, the Hebrew. Because the Septuagint has this little phrase "may earnestly seek me" in it that make all the difference in meaning.

Except that is not what the KJV does:

Amos 9:12 (KJV)
That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.

Amos 9:12 (English translation of LXX):
that the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things.

Now Acts 15:17 (KJV):
That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.


So which verb is right? The LXX (seek - ζητέω) or the Hebrew (possess - יָרַש).
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
But if it is a Greek Targum tradition then you've just detonated a 500 pound bomb in the hold of your ship because then that Greek targum tradition contains words different than what is recorded in the Hebrew, and Christ used them.

The only ship it sinks is your chartered ferry that Christ "quoted" from a "Greek text." It poses no problem to the authenticity of the Hebrew text for the simple reason that the "quotation" does not claim to be giving the ipsissima verba, but may have been the accepted ipsissima vox of the "quoted" authority.

How about Acts 15:17

It should be borne in mind that James refers to prophets in the plural, v. 15. Hence he provides "allusion" to various sources, not a "citation" of one prophet, which would be fitting in an ad hoc speech of the nature recorded in Acts 15. This accounts for the deviation from both the MT and Greek texts.
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
The only ship it sinks is your chartered ferry that Christ "quoted" from a "Greek text." It poses no problem to the authenticity of the Hebrew text for the simple reason that the "quotation" does not claim to be giving the ipsissima verba, but may have been the accepted ipsissima vox of the "quoted" authority.
The ferry chartered by 99% of people who have studied the subject points out that
And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, "'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;
prophesy and written cover both ipsissima verba and ipsissima vox.

And your objection to the KJV translators using the Septuagint for 14 of their Bible's books? Do we need to guess whether or not they thought the Septuagint was a titanic hoax?
 

Grymir

Puritan Board Graduate
Actually, the Hebrew. Because the Septuagint has this little phrase "may earnestly seek me" in it that make all the difference in meaning.

Except that is not what the KJV does:

Amos 9:12 (KJV)
That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.

Amos 9:12 (English translation of LXX):
that the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things.

Now Acts 15:17 (KJV):
That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.


So which verb is right? The LXX (seek - ζητέω) or the Hebrew (possess - יָרַש).

Hi Fred, I of course opened my trusty KJV (Kind of like when Elric of Melnibone drew forth Strormbringer :lol:).

Still the OT in the KJV (Hebrew). Notice in the Septuagint version, the seeking is used with the Gentiles. As in them seeking. In the Acts verse, the seeking is limited to the first group, the residue. The Gentiles are called. Puting on my Calvinist cap, The phrase "may earnestly seek me" leapt out at me. In the LXX, its implied that all will seek the Lord, which isn't so. Only the regenerate will seek the Lord. This is a difference in theology between the KJV and the LXX. That's why I said the KJV (Hebrew). If the LXX was quoted, the bad theology would have shown through the Acts verse. Since the theology is consistant with the KJV (Hebrew), it looks like it was more likely used.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
prophesy and written cover both ipsissima verba and ipsissima vox.

That may very well be the case, but "verbal" variation does not establish your case of "textual" variation. It seems the evidence is not at hand for you to be able to provide even a single example where the NT "quotes" from a "Greek text."

And your objection to the KJV translators using the Septuagint for 14 of their Bible's books? Do we need to guess whether or not they thought the Septuagint was a titanic hoax?

I have no idea what you are referring to.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Actually, the Hebrew. Because the Septuagint has this little phrase "may earnestly seek me" in it that make all the difference in meaning.

Except that is not what the KJV does:

Amos 9:12 (KJV)
That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.

Amos 9:12 (English translation of LXX):
that the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things.

Now Acts 15:17 (KJV):
That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.


So which verb is right? The LXX (seek - ζητέω) or the Hebrew (possess - יָרַש).

Hi Fred, I of course opened my trusty KJV (Kind of like when Elric of Melnibone drew forth Strormbringer :lol:).

Still the OT in the KJV (Hebrew). Notice in the Septuagint version, the seeking is used with the Gentiles. As in them seeking. In the Acts verse, the seeking is limited to the first group, the residue. The Gentiles are called. Puting on my Calvinist cap, The phrase "may earnestly seek me" leapt out at me. In the LXX, its implied that all will seek the Lord, which isn't so. Only the regenerate will seek the Lord. This is a difference in theology between the KJV and the LXX. That's why I said the KJV (Hebrew). If the LXX was quoted, the bad theology would have shown through the Acts verse. Since the theology is consistant with the KJV (Hebrew), it looks like it was more likely used.

I'm not following you. What you say makes no sense, because the KJV Acts 15 passage does not quote the Hebrew (as reflected in the KJV OT. It quotes the Greek.
 

TsonMariytho

Puritan Board Freshman
And your objection to the KJV translators using the Septuagint for 14 of their Bible's books? Do we need to guess whether or not they thought the Septuagint was a titanic hoax?

I have no idea what you are referring to.

I believe that would be the Apocrypha.

On a semi-related note, I have a digital transcription of the KJV translators' notes for Zechariah 12:13 that references the LXX explicitly for a variant (Shimei / Simeon). However, I checked facsimiles of both the KJV 1611 and 1613, and that note is not present. I wonder what the story on that footnote is...
 

Grymir

Puritan Board Graduate
Hi Fred,

But it "quotes" the theology. The LXX's theology is radically different that the KJV (Hebrew). If the LXX was used, the bad theology used in the LXX would of shown up in the Acts passage. Since the theology behind the KJV (Hebrew) is used, that is probably the passage more likely to be used.

No matter what words are used in a quote, the theology (philosophy) comes through loud and clear. It's one thing to figure out which words are used, but the theology/philosophy behind the 'gist' of the verse is different. That's why I said KJV (Hebrew). As a theological/philosophical person (I am a polemicist), these things leap out at me, that a modern translator might not pick up on. Notice how most people would pick the LXX version based on just the words alone. And it's a circumstantial example. As armourbearer said - "It should be borne in mind that James refers to prophets in the plural, v. 15. Hence he provides "allusion" to various sources, not a "citation" of one prophet, which would be fitting in an ad hoc speech of the nature recorded in Acts 15. This accounts for the deviation from both the MT and Greek texts."

This is one problem I have with the CT. The philosophy of their translation is at odds with the TR.
 

TsonMariytho

Puritan Board Freshman
In that case, irrelevant.

Hmmmm. Not so fast. Tim was asking whether the KJV's translators believed the LXX to be a "titanic hoax". Apparently, they spent a lot of time and effort studying it, and large portions of the LXX ended up between the covers of the KJV.

Request: Could somebody who actually holds the view Tim is so colorfully describing here please summarize for me (and anybody else who might be similarly hazy) what your issue with the LXX is?

In other words, are there people here who hold that the LXX translations (for there were many) were all created after the New Testament, and based on the New Testament? Is that the "hoax" theory Tim refers to?

Do some of you folks believe it would be injurious to your TR priority position if it was demonstrated that the inspired New Testament sometimes references readings from a translation like the LXX that differ from our Masoretic Text? (That seems pretty clear from the discussion, but it would be nice for somebody on the TR side to assert clearly that he holds that view.)

I hope we can focus the discussion on more of a narrow line of conversation than just having some of us saying, "the KJV is right" and others of us saying, "the ???[?] is right". (I exaggerate, but you know what I mean.)
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Hi Fred,

But it "quotes" the theology. The LXX's theology is radically different that the KJV (Hebrew). If the LXX was used, the bad theology used in the LXX would of shown up in the Acts passage. Since the theology behind the KJV (Hebrew) is used, that is probably the passage more likely to be used.

No matter what words are used in a quote, the theology (philosophy) comes through loud and clear. It's one thing to figure out which words are used, but the theology/philosophy behind the 'gist' of the verse is different. That's why I said KJV (Hebrew). As a theological/philosophical person (I am a polemicist), these things leap out at me, that a modern translator might not pick up on. Notice how most people would pick the LXX version based on just the words alone. And it's a circumstantial example. As armourbearer said - "It should be borne in mind that James refers to prophets in the plural, v. 15. Hence he provides "allusion" to various sources, not a "citation" of one prophet, which would be fitting in an ad hoc speech of the nature recorded in Acts 15. This accounts for the deviation from both the MT and Greek texts."

This is one problem I have with the CT. The philosophy of their translation is at odds with the TR.

I'm sorry, but again, you make no sense. You are basically saying: "Well, the words mean nothing to me. It is the 'theology' of the passage. And since I like the 'theology' of the Hebrew text, and I assume that the KJV has the same 'theology' I'll basically ignore the words and assume that they are closer to what is not written."

That is Bible chaos, and no one, without a blinding KJV bias, would say that. (And I am a pro-MT/TR text guy, not a CT guy.)
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Request: Could somebody who actually holds the view Tim is so colorfully describing here please summarize for me (and anybody else who might be similarly hazy) what your issue with the LXX is?

No one can ascertain if it was translated by 70/72, or even who the translators were. No one can determine how much of it was translated before the Christian era or what function oral tradition played in the process. No one can decide what was the state of the original Hebrew text that was translated. No one can discern what the nature of the translation was -- was it intended to be literal, and how influenced was it by Hellenistic thought? No one can establish to what degree it is a pure text or to what extent it has been interpolated/emended by Christian editors.
 

Grymir

Puritan Board Graduate
Fred, I think you are mis-understanding what I'm saying. Just because you don't understand what I'm saying, doesn't make my point less. I never said the words mean nothing. You're making a big assumption in what I'm saying. I don't have a blind KJV bias either.

I was just answering TimV's question about which one matched up better on that particular verse.

And I noticed the LXX quote was Arminian in it's theology, and the KJV quote was Calvinist. If the LXX was the verse 'quoted', why didn't it's arminian theology come through? I also disagree with TimV's premise that it was 'quoted' verbatim also

The words people use, even in everyday speech, show a philosophical bias. Even a friendly conversation between two people can speak volumes. Most people don't pick up on these ideas.
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
I also disagree with TimV's premise that it was 'quoted' verbatim also
As a point of detail, I didn't say the Septuagint was quoted verbatim. I said the Hebrew wasn't quoted verbatim, and the Septuagint contains words quoted by NT authors that the Hebrew doesn't.
 

CalvinandHodges

Puritan Board Junior
Book of Life

Hi Tim:

Finally! I received a copy of Hoskier. Here is what he reports concerning the phrase, "Book of Life" in Revelation 22:19. The below are quotes from his book, The Text of the Apocalypse:

"The only information we have from von Soden as to the codices which he attempted to use in his apparatus is conveyed on the separate card issued with the last volume of Text, and embracing only about seventy MSS. out of the two hundred (plus) catalogued," Vol. 1, pg. xi.

Thus, I gather that there are between 200 and 250 Codices that contain all or part of the Book of Revelation. If there were more than 250 then I think he would bave been more precise.

He identifies the reading "Book of Life" as residing in Group 56-108.

"...en to Biblion gegrammenas (-touto) 56-108." Vol. 2. pg. 642. This group is comprised of about 52 codices.

Here are several observations he has made concerning Group 56-108. These are found in Vol. 1, starting at page 170 - I will not supply the page numbers:

"Thus we have a picture of a MS. possibly derived from another quite as early and probably earlier than Aleph, and if this be the case, then, instead of representing parts of the P and B revision, it furnishes the basis for both, and not alone for B ... Versions ought to help us with the problem connected with this MS., but I hardly see it yet. It agrees often with Latin, Coptic, Arminian, and Syriac, but generally with two or three of them together ... As before said, we find it difficult to connect our scribe - or his predecessor rather - with any definite Version or Country. The more exceptional readings nearly all are supported by seveal Versions, thus taking us back to early times and mixed readings, before the text was more or less settled by Church usage ... The MS. runs very smoothly. You look for removal of "plain and clear errors," and you find them removed. You look for the incorporation of "monstra" and curious readings and you do not find them. You are impressed by this ancient support of many readings of textus receptus ... And you are just thinking what a good witness you have (whether Alexandrine or not) when suddenly from time to time, without any warning, and as suavely as possible, you are introduced to novelties of the most pronounced kind!. We are in presense, remember, of a MS. edited between 400 and 750 A.D. It matters not whether it was rewritten in 1250. It has been faithfully transmitted, and the alterations are apparent."

Under, "New Readings" he asserts 22:18 thus:

"tas plegas tas en to Biblio gegrammenas (-touto) with 108**, which, however, omits tas in error."

Thus, to answer your question: We have about 250 codices of the Book of Revelation. Of these codices 52 of them attest to the "Book of Life" reading in Revelation 22:18.

If all of these codices contain Revelation 22:18, then about 20% of them read "Book of Life" rather than "Tree of Life."

Hope this helps,

Rob
 

TsonMariytho

Puritan Board Freshman
"tas plegas tas en to Biblio gegrammenas (-touto) with 108**, which, however, omits tas in error."

Thus, to answer your question: We have about 250 codices of the Book of Revelation. Of these codices 52 of them attest to the "Book of Life" reading in Revelation 22:18.

If all of these codices contain Revelation 22:18, then about 20% of them read "Book of Life" rather than "Tree of Life."

Hope this helps,

Rob

Rob, I am confused, please help me out here...

The controversial phrase as rendered by the TR is "απο βιβλου της ζωης" from Rev. 22:19, right?

Why do you reference 22:18 above?

It seems that 22:18 also contains the word "book" / βιβλιω, but that reading is not controversial.
 
Last edited:

CalvinandHodges

Puritan Board Junior
=TsonMariytho;511921]
"tas plegas tas en to Biblio gegrammenas (-touto) with 108**, which, however, omits tas in error."

Thus, to answer your question: We have about 250 codices of the Book of Revelation. Of these codices 52 of them attest to the "Book of Life" reading in Revelation 22:18.

If all of these codices contain Revelation 22:18, then about 20% of them read "Book of Life" rather than "Tree of Life."

Hope this helps,

Rob

Rob, I am confused, please help me out here...

The controversial phrase as rendered by the TR is "απο βιβλου της ζωης" from Rev. 22:19, right?

Why do you reference 22:18 above?

It seems that 22:18 also contains the word "book" / βιβλιω, but that reading is not controversial.

Whoops! You are right. I was looking at verse 18 and thinking it was 19 (I should have seen that Zoe (life) was not present!) My bad.

Vs 19 Biblion is remarked as being in Codices 92, 75, 57, 141, 119mg, Making it in 4 codices and 1 in the margin.

The reading Tree is found in Aleph, A, B. E, minniscule 208 and in a group of translations as well as a few Early Church Fathers. Though I have to admit I find the citations here a bit confusion. Here is what Hoskier wrote concerning the Tree references:

"Alpha ABE minn. omn. et 208 [exc. 57 141m Bibliou 119mg***] Compl. syr arm aeth sah gig Apr. Tyc. Beat. am dem lips6 [non boh arab cum vg et fu lips4,5 Prim. Ambr. Haymo Act Saturn. )ligno/libro ps-Aug.-Spec._]. Non liq. Cass. Beda."

It appears to me that the majority of the MSS attest to the "Tree" interpretation - how much of a majority I am not sure.

Thanks for pointing it out.
 

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Hold on a minute, I think 200 to 4 is a mistake. This was in error:

Thus, to answer your question: We have about 250 codices of the Book of Revelation. Of these codices 52 of them attest to the "Book of Life" reading in Revelation 22:18.

"Book of life" is not in Rev 22:18. And Rob corrected it.

I have Hoskier's two volumes beside me. His citations, as Rob noted, are somewhat confusing to me also, but I do not see verse 19 in all those 250 codices; perhaps a few handfuls to 4 or 5. I am willing to be corrected, but that's what it appears to me.

The CT goes with a far greater minority as regards Matthew 1:7, 10 when it reads Asaph and Amos as Christ's forebears instead of the correct Asa and Amon. The same with Mark 16:9-20. The issue is not necessarily numerical; other factors may bear on it.
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
No, Steve, I am not willing to say to you that any version of the Bible in existence is
– a settled Scripture – which we have in hand
although I do believe that God has kept His Word pure in all ages. I am quite certain that one of His tasks that He has set for His church is to search it out. And in the mean time, I think it's truly miraculous that the versions we have today are so close that there really aren't the sort of differences between texts that can legitimately be said to keep anyone from knowing God's will for our lives.

If this is true, then in what way can it be said that God has kept His Word *pure* in all ages? It seems to me that what you believe could be expressed better: "God has kept His Word *hidden* in all ages."
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
If this is true, then in what way can it be said that God has kept His Word *pure* in all ages? It seems to me that what you believe could be expressed better: "God has kept His Word *hidden* in all ages."

There comes a point where constant repeating doesn't help. I've asked you to ask yourself where God's Word was in 1450. I've asked for a straight answer, but I don't get one from you. I'm hoping you will say "On more than one manuscript". I'm hoping you are aware that the TR was a compilation. I'm hoping you don't think Erasmus had only one manuscript in front of him. I'm hoping that you think that when Erasmus said
You cry out that it is a crime to correct the gospels. This is a speech worthier of a coachman than of a theologian. You think it is all very well if a clumsy scribe makes a mistake in transcription and then you deem it a crime to put it right. The only way to determine the true text is to examine the early codices
that he took those few manuscripts that he had access to and combined them to get something different than any of them.

To understand where you're coming from, I have asked for a time line. Where was God's Word. Give me the physical location of where God's Word was every hundred years from the death of Moses to today. But all I get is conspiracy theories that rely heavily on translator motives.

Ken, the fact that God kept His Word pure in all ages doesn't mean that every single Christian who ever lived has had access to it, at least in it's exact, word for word form. The fact that only a teeny, tiny minority of Christians in the Reformed, or any other tradition thinks otherwise should give you pause.

I can see why it would be more comfortable to believe that the AV is God's exact, perfectly preserved Word in English. But there is another option than the simplistic either or option you give. When you accuse 99% of Reformed Elders (yes, I know you're a Baptist, and don't have the WCF in your tradition, so 1.8 didn't come up for you) of betraying their vows, and throwing things like
God has kept His Word *hidden* in all ages
in their face, you may want to remember how severe your accusation is.

The CT goes with a far greater minority as regards Matthew 1:7, 10 when it reads Asaph and Amos as Christ's forebears instead of the correct Asa and Amon. The same with Mark 16:9-20. The issue is not necessarily numerical; other factors may bear on it.
Why bring the CT into it? I don't think anyone here worships the CT. I'm quite certain that nobody here thinks the CT is God's exact, perfectly preserved Word. The Majority Text agrees with the overwhelming number of Greek manuscripts as well as the CT on this word.
 

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I could not find how many of the 230 manuscripts Hoskier collated contained Rev 22:19, though it is clear that some of these manuscripts were but fragments, and only had a portion of the whole. I will continue to search for the number that had that passage, and what the breakdown of the readings – tree or book – amounted to. But I did find some other interesting material in my searching.

There are two basic text groupings comprising the varying readings in Revelation – within the Majority Text camp! – as well as some CT readings. The MT groups are the 046 and the Andreas.

Hodges and Farstad in their, The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, p. xxxvi, do admit, “There is no reason why the parental exemplar of the Andreas texttype could not go back well into the second century.” And Hodges says, “…the Textus Receptus much more closely approximates Andreas than 046 – in fact, hardly resembles the latter group at all” (from “The Ecclesiatical Text of Revelation,” Bibliotheca Sacra, April 1961, p. 121). [In their edition of the MT, they favored the 046 group, so this is a significant admission.]

From Hoskier’s Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse,

We trace the origin of the B (046) group not further back than 8th or possibly 7th century. Now many many cursives are identified with this family group, whereas in the main our Textus Receptus is not, and has at any rate avoided the bulk of this revision (Apocalypse p. xxxvii)

This may be the proper place to emphasize why the Textus Receptus of the Apocalypse is intrinsically good. Apoc. 1, on which it is founded, is an old text. See how it comes out in Hippolytus…

It is actually possible to reconstruct a first-class text from Hipp.—47—and Textus Receptus, and a far better one than that of any of our five uncials. Why? Well, apart from a few idiosyncrasies, which the whole body of subsequent evidence rejects, Hippolytus represents as old a text as we can get. Then 47, also apart from a few distinguishing idiosyncrasies easily identified and rejected owing to lack of other support, is throughout a straightforward, careful witness. And lastly, the Textus Receptus, apart from any instinctive and intrinsic excellence, happens to prove back back to the very order of words used by Hippolytus’ codex; in places where t.r. disagrees we let 47+Hipp. guide us and they nearly always lead us in the right path, namely with the consensus of general evidence. (Ibid., p. xlvii)​

Hoskier’s basic conclusion was toward the 200 plus MSS he collated for Revelation:

I may state that if Erasmus had striven to found a text on the largest number of existing MSS in the world of one type, he could not have succeeded better, since his family-MSS occupy the front rank in point of actual numbers, the family numbering over 20 MSS besides its allies. (The John Rylands Bulletin 19-1922/23, p 118.)​

-----Added 12/20/2008 at 09:43:56 EST-----

Why bring the CT into it, you ask, Tim? Because these are the two basic textforms we have, the Majority Text (the TR being a form of that) and the Critical / Eclectic Text. Within these parameters are the choices we have for the texttype of preference.

I think it is inappropriate and inflammatory to accuse Ken of accusing "99% of Reformed Elders (yes, I know you're a Baptist, and don't have the WCF in your tradition, so 1.8 didn't come up for you) of betraying their vows", when he is but asking how they resolve an apparent discrepancy -- and not "accusing". I think a peaceful discussion can do without that kind of grandstanding hyperbole. This is not a barroom brawl, but a forum of pastors, elders, and hopefully godly believers seeking edification on a difficult topic.

Your disdain for the King James advocates -- your "contempt" -- is an unwelcome element in godly discourse. While we may be a minority (even as the Reformed are in the larger Christian community), if we conduct ourselves in a polite, respectful, and scholarly manner -- even while arguing our case vigorously -- it is a disgrace to subject us to such scorn and inflammatory rhetoric, as we are Christ's, "holy and beloved". Scorn we get enough from the world. I would ask the moderators / administrators to please effectively address this continual breach of PB protocol.
 
Last edited:

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
If this is true, then in what way can it be said that God has kept His Word *pure* in all ages? It seems to me that what you believe could be expressed better: "God has kept His Word *hidden* in all ages."

There comes a point where constant repeating doesn't help. I've asked you to ask yourself where God's Word was in 1450. I've asked for a straight answer, but I don't get one from you.

I don't know where God's Word was. I am glad for the work of the Erasmus and the Puritans etc.

I'm hoping you will say "On more than one manuscript". I'm hoping you are aware that the TR was a compilation. I'm hoping you don't think Erasmus had only one manuscript in front of him. I'm hoping that you think that when Erasmus said
You cry out that it is a crime to correct the gospels. This is a speech worthier of a coachman than of a theologian. You think it is all very well if a clumsy scribe makes a mistake in transcription and then you deem it a crime to put it right. The only way to determine the true text is to examine the early codices
that he took those few manuscripts that he had access to and combined them to get something different than any of them.

I think I understand you here...

To understand where you're coming from, I have asked for a time line. Where was God's Word. Give me the physical location of where God's Word was every hundred years from the death of Moses to today.

I cannot answer these questions.

But all I get is conspiracy theories that rely heavily on translator motives.

This comment musts be directed to someone else.

Ken, the fact that God kept His Word pure in all ages doesn't mean that every single Christian who ever lived has had access to it, at least in it's exact, word for word form.

What do the words "pure in all ages mean?" What does it mean to you? What does it mean to this majority that you refer to? What did it mean to the Puritans?

You said,

No, Steve, I am not willing to say to you that any version of the Bible in existence is
– a settled Scripture – which we have in hand
although I do believe that God has kept His Word pure in all ages. I am quite certain that one of His tasks that He has set for His church is to search it out. And in the mean time, I think it's truly miraculous that the versions we have today are so close that there really aren't the sort of differences between texts that can legitimately be said to keep anyone from knowing God's will for our lives.

Would you object if the WCF stated: "kept pure, although hidden, through all ages'?

You say that it is the 'task that He has set for His church to search it out.' Does that mean that it is the task of every believer? Every elder? Every presbytery? To decide for himself/istelf what the pure Word of God is? If so, which English version best meats that criteria?

The fact that only a teeny, tiny minority of Christians in the Reformed, or any other tradition thinks otherwise should give you pause.

It does. That is why I read your posts and ask you these questions.

I can see why it would be more comfortable to believe that the AV is God's exact, perfectly preserved Word in English. But there is another option than the simplistic either or option you give. When you accuse 99% of Reformed Elders (yes, I know you're a Baptist, and don't have the WCF in your tradition, so 1.8 didn't come up for you) of betraying their vows, and throwing things like
God has kept His Word *hidden* in all ages
in their face, you may want to remember how severe your accusation is.

You, sir, are the one who has consistently taken honest questions and turned them into accusations. The more important concern here is why do you assume that anyone asks a question that there is some kind of underlying accusation? :detective:
 

Poimen

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Moderator voice on

Okay it is time to get back to the main question of this thread:

Does WCF 1.8 require use of the Received Text

The rhetoric is getting a little heated so let's calm down and return to our regular scheduled programming. You know the drill: if you want to discuss the other issues that have come up in this thread start a new one or revive an old one.

ANY POSTS THAT DO NOT PERTAIN TO THE ORIGINAL QUESTION WILL BE DELETED.

Thank you.

Moderator voice off
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
Why bring the CT into it, you ask, Tim? Because these are the two basic textforms we have, the Majority Text (the TR being a form of that) and the Critical / Eclectic Text. Within these parameters are the choices we have for the texttype of preference.
Steve, both the Critical Text and the Majority Text use the word Tree in Rev. 22:19. Could you please tell my why the Elders of my Church
a) would be wrong in accepting the CT and MT reading of Rev. 22:19
b) would be in violation of WCF 1.8 in preferring the CT and MT reading of Rev. 22:19.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top