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.
Thirdly, We add, that the whole Scripture, entire as given out from God, without any loss, is preserved in the copies of the originals yet remaining; what varieties there are among the copies themselves shall be afterward declared

Note: in the bold text above it is clear that Owen is not referring to a compiliation, like Beza's, but to the extant copies within the Byzantine tradition. Owen continues:

Robert, you're throwing me! When I read the quotes of Owen, it's clear as day he's read either read those quotes from Erasmus and Augustine I posted earlier on this thread. But where did Owen speak about the Byzantine texts? My reading of all three men is such that none of them would advocate a TR only position.

I'd appreciate something from Owen where he spoke about the Byzantine tradition being superior to others. In the mean time, do you think Owen, when confronted with all the Byzantine texts available today would have preferred tree over book in Rev 22? Why or why not, based on his writings.

-----Added 12/10/2008 at 10:51:45 EST-----

Tim, you say, "The only confusion is that you still don't understand what you are arguing". Interesting. What is it I'm arguing?
You are arguing that
you focused on Edersheim's use of the word "dialect" (where he meant Aramaic as a distinct and separate language partially derived from Hebrew -- even as it can be said French is a "dialect" of Latin: a distinct language descended from it)
which is necessary when building the complex alternative history that the AVonly position relies on, at least in the extreme form you and Thomas and evidently some others here cling to. You have to believe that, other wise your rhetorical argument "why would Christ speak to a Jewish people in a foreign language" when it comes to Him quoting the Septuagint would fall flat on it's face.

But it is not true. Aramaic didn't descend from Hebrew. You are dead wrong. I've posted from both resources on line, then an expert on the Targum, and now today will post a email I got yesterday from one of the worlds foremost scholars in Aramaic.

Aramaic and Hebrew are two different, though closely related, languages (say, like English and Frisian). Amoraic Hebrew was a literary type of Hebrew written by native speakers of Palestinian Aramaic. Naturally, Pal.Aram. influenced Amoraic Hebrew, and to some degree vicas versa, but Hebrew and Aramaic were not and are not the same language.

Best wishes,
Hezy Mutzafi

Palestinian Aramaic was like Yiddish. The language of the Jews of East and Central Europe. It came down from German, and it totally, without question, mutually unintelligible to speakers of Hebrew.

You can use dialect if you want. You can claim anything if you want. You can claim that Palestinian Aramaic was a dialect of Hebrew. You can claim that Yiddish is a dialect of Hebrew. But you will be wrong.

But Edersheim was right in his differing usage of the word.
No, Edersheim was being sloppy, and was wrong. What he said in a moment of sloppiness that you've latched on to because if fits into your alternative history goes against all orthodox scholarship.

If you don't want to answer my question about what you meant re Christ quoting the LXX, fine.
Again, it will have to wait until you are convinced that Christ spoke to His people in a language that was not even a dialect of Hebrew.
 
Thirdly, We add, that the whole Scripture, entire as given out from God, without any loss, is preserved in the copies of the originals yet remaining; what varieties there are among the copies themselves shall be afterward declared

Note: in the bold text above it is clear that Owen is not referring to a compiliation, like Beza's, but to the extant copies within the Byzantine tradition. Owen continues:

Robert, you're throwing me! When I read the quotes of Owen, it's clear as day he's read either read those quotes from Erasmus and Augustine I posted earlier on this thread. But where did Owen speak about the Byzantine texts? My reading of all three men is such that none of them would advocate a TR only position.

I'd appreciate something from Owen where he spoke about the Byzantine tradition being superior to others. In the mean time, do you think Owen, when confronted with all the Byzantine texts available today would have preferred tree over book in Rev 22? Why or why not, based on his writings.
Hay Tim:

I think it necessary to point out that the terms "Byzantine," and "Alexandrian," were not terms used in Owen's time to denote the families of MSS that we recognize today. Nevertheless, it was a clear and understood principle that the Greek MSS present during the Reformation fell into two categories: Corrupt and Pure. Scrivener points out that Erasmus was well aware of the copy of the Vaticanus in the Vatican Library:

The manuscript is first distinctly heard of (for it does not appear to have been used for the Complutensian Polyglot) through Sepulveda to whose correspondence with Erasmus attention has been seasonably recalled by Tregelles ... he furnishes Erasmus with 365 readings as a convincing argument in support of his statements. It would probably be from this list that in his Annotations to the Acts, published 1535, Erasmus cites the reading kauda, ch xxvii. 16 ... from a Greek codex in the Pontifical Library, since for this reading Cod. B is the only known Greek witness, except for a corrector of Cod. Aleph, Scrivener, Frederick Henry, A Plain Introduction To The Criticism of the New Testament, Wipf & Stock, Eugene OR, 1997, vol. 1, pg. 109.
Erasmus was in and out of Rome during the years 1508-1512, and it is very likely that he handled the Vaticanus himself. Scrivener also notes that Erasmus makes a passing comment concerning a text in the Vatican in his annotations on Hebrews 1:3. Such is significant because one of the criticisms of the Vaticanus comes from this very text. Consider:

W. Willker Codex Vaticanus 1209, B/03: A textcritical complaint

The translation does not do justice to the sentiment of the editor - there is the idea of continuation in it. That is, that the scribe of the Vaticanus had tampered with other parts of the text as well. One can easily envision Erasmus opening this text to Hebrews, and coming to the conclusion that it is a corrupted text. The Reformation attitude toward what we call today the Alexandrian MSS were that they were corrupt. This attitude was probably handed down to them through ancient times.

In a letter to Froben it is clear that Erasmus was painfully aware of the very few MSS available to him. Yet, in his first four versions he would not use the Vaticanus. In the fifth edition, as Scrivener notes above, he included one word, and he probably did so in deference to his friend.

In the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek John Owen is writing against Walton's London Polyglott (a copy of which is available in the Rare Book Room of my Seminary's Library). Owen claims that the Polyglott is very scholarly and useful, but has some reservations concerning it. The Editor of Owen's Works, in a Prefatory note, makes this clear:

He objected further to the practice of Cappell, in making innovations on the received text by the authority of translations only, on the ground that these translations were made from copies essentially different from any now extant. He exonerates Walton from this error, but deems him not sufficiently careful to refrain from admitting into his Polyglott readings gatherered from such a source, ibid, 346.
Text critics of the Critical Text would have us believe that the Alexandrian family of MSS did not appear until the finding of the Sinaticus in the mid 1800's. But such is not the case. The Alexandrian family of MSS were rejected by the Church through all of history because they were deemed corrupt and inferior.

That the Alexandrian MSS are considered older does not free them from the charge of corruption. The Apostle Peter, in the first century, was already pointing out that heretics were corrupting the Word of God:

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction, 2 Peter 3:16
It follows that there are ancient texts which have been corrupted by heretics. These texts were known by the Church through all the ages, and were rejected as corrupt. When it came time to copy texts the Church choose to copy the Byzantine MSS - which is why we have 5,000 MSS from the Byzantine family, and only a handful of copies from the Alexandrian family. The Church through all the ages recognized the Byzantine Greek text as the true apographia of the autographs, and not the Alexandrian family.

Thus, when Owen is defending the "originals" as represented in the Received Text he is defending the Byzantine family of MSS even though he may not know the exact wording "Byzantine family."

Blessings,

Rob
 
Thanks, Rob, but doesn't tree appear much more often in Byzantine texts than book in Rev. 22:19?
 
Thanks, Rob, but doesn't tree appear much more often in Byzantine texts than book in Rev. 22:19?

Ooops! Missed that point - sorry.

First, contrary to the wishes of the Critical Text editors, Erasmus did not re-translate from the Latin to the Greek the last six verses of Revelation. H.C. Hoskier points out that Erasmus probably used mss 2049 in his translation. See: H. C. Hoskier, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse, vol. 2 (London: Bernard Quaritch, Ltd., 1929), 644.

Second, the use of minority readings does not go beyond the pale of text criticism - unless you hold exclusively to the Majority Text. The Critical Text itself uses a number of minority readings in its Greek editions. Thus, it is not beyond the scope of even the modern views of textual criticism to use a minority reading such as "book" in Rev. 22.

Since 2049 is a Byzantine text - the use of "book" here may actually be the original reading. To determine the legitimacy of a minority reading one has to look at both internal and external factors.

Sorry, I do not have any more time, but I hope this gives you an idea in answering your inquiry.

In Jesus,

Rob
 
Second, the use of minority readings does not go beyond the pale of text criticism - unless you hold exclusively to the Majority Text. The Critical Text itself uses a number of minority readings in its Greek editions. Thus, it is not beyond the scope of even the modern views of textual criticism to use a minority reading such as "book" in Rev. 22.

I don't favor any of the texts totally above any of the others, and my understanding is that none of the modern translations rely solely on any of the texts.

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
 
Now, by "translations" here, are you willing to admit that Owen is speaking about the King James Version, which was a translation in existence during this time?

Certainly he was. I don't know which translation he personally preferred, but his statement applies to all translations and I fully agree with his meaning: that a translation is either more or less perfect depending on how well it conforms to the text of the original Hebrew and Greek autographs.

In reading your posts it seems that you want to lump all those who would defend the Greek Text (TR) with those who would defend the translation found in the King James Version.

Well, it is a remarkable coincidence. Scrivener's TR had one rule for its assembly -- that it follow the readings of the KJV as closely as possible from whatever Greek sources could be found to support the KJV. Scrivener admitted that his own opinion of the trustworthiness of a given reading had nothing whatsoever to do with whether a reading was included in his text -- the rule was merely whether a reading followed the KJV.

The purpose of Scrivener's work was not to present a Greek text claimed to be the exact text of the autographs (he didn't make that claim); but rather to facilitate comparison with the RV through his detailed footnotes, a goal at which he succeeded very well.


I would not use it either in preaching, or, as a primary text, but not for the reasons you suppose. The Bible is the sole treasure of the Church. To put its translation into the hands of a "publishing organization" a "corporation" or in a para-Church organization (such as a Bible society - whose charter was to print and distribute the Bible, and not make a translation), is to take the Bible out of the hands of the Church, and make it a marketing tool to enrich the pockets of men like Rupert Murdoch (owner of the NIV). For this same reason the RSV (being authorized by a denomination that is no longer a church) is not authoritative as well. The ESV (published not by the Church, but by Crossway Books) also falls into the category of being non-authorized. The NASB, as it is a product of the Lockman Foundation, does not fit the criteria as well.

The KJV was created by commission and authorization of the King of England. I wonder if you view the English monarch as the lawful head of the Church of England?

Regardless, I view this as an unprofitable subject to quibble about. The KJV has neither closer nor more distant ties to a legitimate church authority than the NIV. It's an arbitrary and meaningless distinction, in my opinion. Far more important is for sound linguistic scholars of the Church to be actively engaged both on translation work, and in evaluating available translations, so that elders can make informed recommendations to their flocks.

In reviewing the rest of your argumentation it appears that you seem to equate Scrivener's Greek NT with the translation of the KJV. Consequently, you then try to equate those who would defend the "TR" with those who would defend the KJV

That was the one rule that determined what readings Scrivener included in his main text. I am at a loss to know how you can disagree with that. If you view a move from the TR of Beza to the TR of Scrivener as a move closer to the autographs, then by definition you endorse the readings of the KJV, or to put it another way of the TR plus the ample list of non-TR readings in the KJV.

But you rightly pointed out that Owen, Turretin, and others were not defending Scrivener's Greek Text? And, I believe I made it clear above, that Owen was not seeking to defend a translation, but the Byzantine MSS which contained the apographia of the autographs.

It is possible for Owen to be mistaken on the subject of which manuscripts are more or less reliable than others.

As I mentioned to you on the other forum - you have been reading too much James White. I believe that Pastor Winzer has also pointed out to you that you need to read more concerning the TR before you can become an able critic of it.

Actually, I think you said I'd been reading too much Metzger. Same difference. :^)

Blessings to you.
 
And now a third noted scholar on whether Edersheim is right or not, Hayim Sheynin.

Gratz College (emeritus), United States
Research Interests
General and Comparative Linguistics, Classical Philology, Slavic Philology, Semitic Philology, Medieval Hebrew Poetry, Genizah Studies, Manuscripts and Paleography, Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin Epigraphics, Jewish Languages with Special Attention to Judeo-Romance Languages (in Particular Ladino Texts from 16th to 19th Centuries), Judeo-Aramaic, Judeo-Greek, Indo-European Languages, Semitic Languages, Translations from the Most Indo-European and Semitic Languages, Jewish Studies, Sephardic Studies, Bibliography and Booklore
Jewish Languages
Sheynin, H. In press. In Search of the Common Transliteration for the Jewish Languages. In Z. Harvey (ed.), Society and Culture: Papers of the VI International Congress in Sephardi Languages and Literatures. Jerusalem: Misgav Yerushalayim.
Sheynin, H. 1999. Languages Jewish. In M. Terry (ed.), Reader's Guide to Judaism. Chicago & London: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers. 356-361.
Sheynin, H. 1999. Problems in Romanization of Jewish Languages. In B. Y. Leff & L. S. Wolfson (eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Convention of the Association of Jewish Libraries. New York: Association of Jewish Libraries. 242. [The paper was too long. Only the summary is published.]
etc....Jewish Language Research Website: Hayim Sheynin

Thank you for your email. The claims presented to you
are not true.
Mishnaic Hebrew is just the post-Biblical Hebrew of
the Tannaitic period. Since in this period in
Palestine the spoken vernacular was Western Aramaic
(in the shape of several dialects like Galilean,
Judean, etc.) the Mishnaic Hebrew is influenced by
Aramaic (lexically and syntactically)....I hope this helps,

Dr. Hayim Y. Sheynin.
and to make double sure, I emailed him back
Yes, that helps hugely. So am I right in saying the Palestinian dialect of Aramaic can't be called a dialect of Hebrew? RegardsTim
No, Palestinian dialect of Aramaic is not dialect of
Hebrew. It is one of dialects of late and middle
Western Aramaic. The closest dialects are Samaritan
Aramaic and Nabatean Aramaic.

The Jews used Palestinian Aramaic for Jerusalem
Talmud, Midrashim (like Bereshit Rabba), Targumim,
Tosefta, etc. The early Christians used it for
translations of Greek Christian books, starting from
New Testament [it started around 2nd century C.E.],
sometimes it is called Palestinian Syriac. See works
of Edward Kutscher, S. Liberman, Michael Sokoloff,
Christa Muller, etc.

Hayim Sheynin
 
Umm, all this language usage (What they spoke in Israel) is fine, but what does it have to do with the TR or the KJV? I'm not getting the connection. (And this isn't a stupid question designed to lead people into a certian answer either)
 
Umm, all this language usage (What they spoke in Israel) is fine, but what does it have to do with the TR or the KJV? I'm not getting the connection. (And this isn't a stupid question designed to lead people into a certian answer either)

If Christ can be shown to have quoted from two different sets of Texts, namely the Hebrew and Greek Septuagint, which all orthodox scholarship says He did, then the AV position, at least in it's hard core form falls flat on it's face. I'm trying to systematically go through the myths and false information that support the AV position and tackle them one by one. One myth, that Steve and others here, who supports the hard core version of the AV school, have to hold is that Aramaic is a dialect of Hebrew. It's one of the foundation rhetorical proofs that Christ didn't speak to His people in a foreign language, and that's why he insists Edersheim is correct when he wrote:

If Greek was the language of the court and camp, and indeed must have been spoken by most in the land, the language of the people, spoken also by Christ and His Apostles, was a dialect of the ancient Hebrew, the Western or Palestinian Aramaic. It seems strange that this could ever have been doubted. A Jewish Messiah Who would urge His claim upon Israel in Greek, seems almost a contradiction in terms.

To try to get both an answer to my question of how many Byzantine texts use tree rather than book in Rev. 22:19, and to get a feel for what AVers really hold to when pushed to the logical conclusions of their theories, I joined an AVer discussion forum. There was a question about why new "Bibles" use terebinth rather than oak in Judges 6:11. I thought I'd try to add something to the thread, and I wrote:

The Hebrew word translated as Oak can mean other trees as well. I notice that the translators of the Septuagint chose the word Terebinth τερέμινθον, which is the native wild Pistachio tree. My experience is that the growth patter of the Terebinth, and it's softer leaves as opposed to an Oak's prickly leaves would make it a better choice for a meeting place, and I dare say that was what the translators of the Septuagint had in mind. Perhaps the AV having been translated in an area where there aren't any Terebinth trees growing was a reason for choosing Oak rather than Terebinth?

An AVer wrote next:

However, the Septuagint is a farce since there's no proof it was even available until well after the New Testament was penned. In fact, there's really no reason, other than lack of faith in God's word, to even use the Septuagint as more than historical reference.

... I'm sure you could understand that an "oak" tree is not a "pistachio" tree. So either 1) you think the King James Bible is wrong, and therefore you have set yourself up as an authority over God's word, or 2) you're playing Devil's advocate, which isn't a very profitable hobby, especially on a board such as this.
another wrote this:
The site holds that the King James Bible is 100% perfect, and any attempt at deviating from it based on "The Hebrew" or "The Greek" is counter-productive and nothing but a cause of cancer in the body of Christ. The King James Bible is God's final, definitive written word for mankind in English: being produced in the Philadelphian Church Age (the church that was praised for keeping the words of God) is but one of the evidences of the Blessings of God on it. Any translation in any language from any other time period should be carefully considered before accepting it as pure.
I mentioned that the Afrikaans "Old Translation" which is their equivalent of the KJV has a term for terebinth, but they reject the idea that any deviation from the KJV is wrong, even though the translators of the Afrikaans Bible had been living in a similar environment to the Mideast for 300 years and would likely be in a better position than the COD divines on the subject, but I'm sure that is going to get me banned.

And this mindset is why on the poll this very thread started out with, 22 members of the Puritan board have voted that most of the Elders in the PCA, OPC etc.. who post regularly on this board are in a state of constant and willful violation of their ordination vows.

So, before moving on to the next support pillar of the AV only view that the Septuagint was a myth, is there still anyone out there who still believes with Edersheim that

If Greek was the language of the court and camp, and indeed must have been spoken by most in the land, the language of the people, spoken also by Christ and His Apostles, was a dialect of the ancient Hebrew, the Western or Palestinian Aramaic. It seems strange that this could ever have been doubted. A Jewish Messiah Who would urge His claim upon Israel in Greek, seems almost a contradiction in terms.
?
 
Thanks Tim, I'm on my way to work. I'll contemplate all of this and post some more questions, but it may be awhile, I've got 300 hungry doctors comming in to dinner tommorow!
 
Umm, all this language usage (What they spoke in Israel) is fine, but what does it have to do with the TR or the KJV? I'm not getting the connection. (And this isn't a stupid question designed to lead people into a certian answer either)

If Christ can be shown to have quoted from two different sets of Texts, namely the Hebrew and Greek Septuagint, which all orthodox scholarship says He did, then the AV position, at least in it's hard core form falls flat on it's face. I'm trying to systematically go through the myths and false information that support the AV position and tackle them one by one. One myth, that Steve and others here, who supports the hard core version of the AV school, have to hold is that Aramaic is a dialect of Hebrew. It's one of the foundation rhetorical proofs that Christ didn't speak to His people in a foreign language, and that's why he insists Edersheim is correct when he wrote:

If Greek was the language of the court and camp, and indeed must have been spoken by most in the land, the language of the people, spoken also by Christ and His Apostles, was a dialect of the ancient Hebrew, the Western or Palestinian Aramaic. It seems strange that this could ever have been doubted. A Jewish Messiah Who would urge His claim upon Israel in Greek, seems almost a contradiction in terms.

To try to get both an answer to my question of how many Byzantine texts use tree rather than book in Rev. 22:19, and to get a feel for what AVers really hold to when pushed to the logical conclusions of their theories, I joined an AVer discussion forum. There was a question about why new "Bibles" use terebinth rather than oak in Judges 6:11. I thought I'd try to add something to the thread, and I wrote:



An AVer wrote next:


another wrote this:
The site holds that the King James Bible is 100% perfect, and any attempt at deviating from it based on "The Hebrew" or "The Greek" is counter-productive and nothing but a cause of cancer in the body of Christ. The King James Bible is God's final, definitive written word for mankind in English: being produced in the Philadelphian Church Age (the church that was praised for keeping the words of God) is but one of the evidences of the Blessings of God on it. Any translation in any language from any other time period should be carefully considered before accepting it as pure.
I mentioned that the Afrikaans "Old Translation" which is their equivalent of the KJV has a term for terebinth, but they reject the idea that any deviation from the KJV is wrong, even though the translators of the Afrikaans Bible had been living in a similar environment to the Mideast for 300 years and would likely be in a better position than the COD divines on the subject, but I'm sure that is going to get me banned.

And this mindset is why on the poll this very thread started out with, 22 members of the Puritan board have voted that most of the Elders in the PCA, OPC etc.. who post regularly on this board are in a state of constant and willful violation of their ordination vows.

So, before moving on to the next support pillar of the AV only view that the Septuagint was a myth, is there still anyone out there who still believes with Edersheim that

If Greek was the language of the court and camp, and indeed must have been spoken by most in the land, the language of the people, spoken also by Christ and His Apostles, was a dialect of the ancient Hebrew, the Western or Palestinian Aramaic. It seems strange that this could ever have been doubted. A Jewish Messiah Who would urge His claim upon Israel in Greek, seems almost a contradiction in terms.
?

Are you labeling all of those who voted 'yes' on this poll as 'hard core AVers'? Or are you speaking strictly of Mr. Rafalsky?
 
This is not a true statement by TimV:

One myth, that Steve and others here, who supports the hard core version of the AV school, have to hold is that Aramaic is a dialect of Hebrew.​

The statement by Edersheim about Aramaic being a dialect of ancient Hebrew is incidental and not related the point I was making. Nor do I in any way have to hold that to support my position re the AV.

It certainly is not, as Tim says,

one of the foundation rhetorical proofs that Christ didn't speak to His people in a foreign language​

I don't see how it follows that the status of Aramaic being a dialect of Hebrew or not bears on the issue of Christ not speaking Greek / quoting the Septuagint to the Jewish leaders and rabbis. Aramaic was not a foreign language to the Jewish people, not since their exile in Babylon and the time of Ezra. It was the normal language of the Palestinian Jews, while Hebrew was the language of the synagogue. Although Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire, and spoken by most in Palestine, it was not the language of the synagogue or of the Pharisees, nor would Christ have addressed them in that tongue. If there had been a synagogue of the Hellenistic Jews He had been to, He could have, but that is mere speculation, as we have no mention of it in the Scripture.

To the Jewish leaders Hebrew was the tongue spoken in synagogue and temple; if the Hebrew Scriptures were read they were "targumed" (translated) into the Aramaic so those who didn't speak Hebrew could understand. This is my position. Don't misrepresent it. My quote of Edersheim was to show his view that Christ did not use Greek to make His Messianic claim upon Israel. Deal with that, and not with extraneous issues.

Incidentally, Edersheim is not the only commentator to use the expression that Aramaic was a "dialect" of the Hebrew (as I noted earlier):

From Paton J. Cloag’s, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, MDCCCLXX), vol 1, p. 202:

Speaking of the situation in Acts 6:1ff., “...the murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews”, Cloag says,

...the Hellenists, then are contrasted with the Hebrews as regards language. As the Hebrews are those Jews who spoke the Hebrew language, or rather the dialect of it then current, the Aramaic—the Palestinian Jews; so the Hellenists are those Jews who, residing chiefly in foreign parts, had lost the use of their native Hebrew, and spoke the Greek language—the Hellenistic Jews.​

It appears Cloag is using "dialect" to simply mean the current language of the Hebrews then living in Palestine.

J.A. Alexander, in his Geneva Series (BOT) commentary on Acts, distinguishes between the Hebrews and the Grecians and says,

...the Hebrews, or natives of Palestine and others...used the scriptures, and spoke the Aramaic dialect before described (on 1:19). (p. 242)​

Commenting on that verse (Acts 1:19) he speaks of the phrase “proper tongue” (AV),

...i.e., their own language or peculiar dialect, an Aramaic modification or corruption of the Hebrew spoken by the Jews from the time of their captivity in Babylon, and often called by modern writers, Syro-Chaldaic... (p. 28)​

He uses "dialect" to mean the language current among the Hebrews then.

John Gill on “proper tongue” in this verse says,

...or in their own dialect, the Jerusalem dialect, which was now Chaldee, or Syriac... (Exposition, vol 8, p. 144)​

I bring these quotes up to show that other commentators used the word, and Edersheim was not alone in using that phraseology.

But as I said, and let me state it again emphatically, the status of Aramaic — whether one may call it a "dialect" of the Hebrews — is, to my thinking, a diversion from the point in question, that being, did Christ quote the Septuagint, speaking in Greek to the rabbis, priests, and scribes. The status of the Aramaic vis-à-vis dialect of Hebrew or no has no bearing on my argument.

I would also, shortly, like to return to the question of the OP re the WCF 1:8 and the Critical Text. I'm sorry for my part in hijacking the thread — though I won't let blatant misrepresentations of what I have said stand.

There was a turning point in the Presbyterian understanding of 1:8, where what had been the view of it from the time of its being written, changed. It think this is important in the discussion. I will shortly post on it.
 
dialect (dì´e-lèkt´) noun
Abbr. dial.
1. a. A regional variety of a language distinguished by pronunciation, grammar, or vocabulary, especially a variety of speech differing from the standard literary language or speech pattern of the culture in which it exists: Cockney is a dialect of English. b. A variety of language that with other varieties constitutes a single language of which no single variety is standard: the dialects of Ancient Greek.
2. The language peculiar to an occupational group or a particular social class; jargon: the dialect of science.
3. The manner or style of expressing oneself in language or the arts.
4. A language considered as part of a larger family of languages or a linguistic branch: Spanish and French are Romance dialects.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution restricted in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

It seems to me that we can't consider Aramaic a dialect of Hebrew under definition #1. However, we can consider both Hebrew and Aramaic as dialects of a wider Semitic language family, under definition #4.

I think definition #4 is not used very often nowadays, though I wonder if it was more prevalent back in the 1800's and such when more scholars were TR advocates? Does that evaluation sound about right, Steve and Tim?
 
This is a short intro to the topic I mentioned above. It pertains to Warfield championing Westcott and Hort's revised Greek text, and his efforts against the higher critical attack on the Scriptures. This bears directly on the OP's question. I would say, in brief, that those who hold to the WCF (and 1:8 in particular) while using the CT, do so in good conscience, due to Warfield's influence. Were BBW's views correct? That's another matter. I'll continue later. It's way past my bedtime in this part of the world.

Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield wrote to the general Christian public in Sunday School Times 24 in 1882, that Mark’s long ending was “no part of God’s word,” and therefore “we are not to ascribe to the verses the authority due to God’s Word.” [Cited from Theodore P. Letis’ The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority and the Popular Mind, p. 53]. In naming him thus be it understood I mean not at all to demean “the mighty Warfield,” as other than in the area of text criticism I honor and love him. But when a man is wrong we sin if we do not decry that error which causes harm to the flock of God.

To his credit, Warfield’s intentions were good; he hoped to disarm the threat posed by text criticism in the hands of liberal and unbelieving scholars by redefining the Westminster Confession’s statement on Scripture to refer to the inerrant autographs (anciently lost and beyond reach) instead of the apographs (the copies; texts in the hands of the Westminster divines). I quote from Letis’ essay “B. B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism” (in The Ecclesiastical Text”, pp. 26-27) *[see footnote]:

Only eight years after Warfield’s death [in Feb 1921], the higher criticism entered Princeton and the seminary was reorganized to accommodate this. The facile certainty that Westcott and Hort’s system seem to offer Warfield evaporated. Later text critics abandoned the hope of reconstructing a “neutral” text and today despair of ever discovering an urtext, the final resting ground of Warfield’s doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy. Warfield had given earnest expression to his hope that,

The autographic text of the New Testament is distinctly within the reach of criticism….we cannot despair of restoring to ourselves and the church of God, His book, word for word, as He gave it by inspiration to men. [“The Rights of Criticism and of the Church”, The Presbyterian (April 13, 1892):15]​

Fifty years later, the Harvard text critic, Kirsopp Lake, offered a more modest assessment:

In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort….we do not know the original form of the Gospels, and it is quite likely that we never shall. [Family 13 (The Ferrar Group (Phila., The Univ. of Penn. Press, 1941), p. vii]​

Warfield’s Common Sense adoption of German methods would be more fully developed by others at Princeton who would no longer find his appendage of the inerrant autographs theory either convincing, or any longer relevant for N.T. studies.​

Make no mistake about it, Warfield’s textual theories, taken in good faith from Westcott and Hort – which he was open to after his studies in German criticism at the University of Leipzig in 1876 – single-handedly turned the Reformed Communities from their former view of the WCF and its prizing the texts-in-hand to the (what turned out to be) never-to-be-found-or-restored autographic texts. This was the watershed. And today men of good intentions seek to make the best of it, developing theories and stances so as to defend what they say is a trustworthy Bible.

-----

* This essay may also be found in Letis' book, Edward Freer Hills's Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text, pp. 62-89.
 
This is not a true statement by TimV:

One myth, that Steve and others here, who supports the hard core version of the AV school, have to hold is that Aramaic is a dialect of Hebrew.
The statement by Edersheim about Aramaic being a dialect of ancient Hebrew is incidental and not related the point I was making. Nor do I in any way have to hold that to support my position re the AV.
If it was incidental you wouldn't be digging your feet in.

4. A language considered as part of a larger family of languages or a linguistic branch: Spanish and French are Romance dialects.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution restricted in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
It seems to me that we can't consider Aramaic a dialect of Hebrew under definition #1. However, we can consider both Hebrew and Aramaic as dialects of a wider Semitic language family, under definition #4.

I think definition #4 is not used very often nowadays, though I wonder if it was more prevalent back in the 1800's and such when more scholars were TR advocates? Does that evaluation sound about right, Steve and Tim?

Thanks, Andrew for you well intentioned moderation ;-) but the answer is no. Steve tried that tack. The definition in number 4, Spanish and French being Romance languages (descended from Latin):
One of a group of closely related languages. Ex. Some of the dialects descended from the Latin language are French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese.” World Book Dict.
but I've personally contacted three experts in the field, and the last one said
No, Palestinian dialect of Aramaic is not dialect of
Hebrew. It is one of dialects of late and middle
Western Aramaic. The closest dialects are Samaritan
Aramaic and Nabatean Aramaic.

Andrew, you are well read enough to know that Latin was the origin of both French and Spanish. And even if that was a fact you previously hadn't considered, by now I think it's plain that Palestinian Aramaic did NOT have as an antecedent Hebrew.

A better analogy would be that since English and Spanish and Latin are all Indo European languages, I'll simply choose to call English a dialect of Latin. In my own private language.

Sorry, but that dawg don't hunt. Right?

Definition # 4: Latin to Spanish = dialect (in the most reaching definition possible!!)

Is Hebrew's relation to Palestinian Aramaic similar? No, because Spanish descended from Latin, but PA didn't descend from Hebrew. It's not that hard.

Right? Anyone else out there (before we move on) who wants to claim Palestinian Aramaic can be properly called a dialect of Hebrew?

And PLEASE, if Google has 3 million hits on 9/11, and 3,999,150 of them say Arab terrorists flew two commercial airliners into the Twin Towers, and 50 say the US government brought the Twin Towers down, PLEASE let's not put all data on an equivalent footing. Anyone can prove anything they want using those techniques. Gill is very valuable, but has been dead for a couple centuries. He believed in Dragons. Edersheim had some fantastic views of the number of Jews in Iraqi treasure Cities that nobody takes seriously today. Let's honor them and remember how limited their information was compared to ours.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, Andrew for you well intentioned moderation ;-) but the answer is no. Steve tried that tack. The definition in number 4, Spanish and French being Romance languages (descended from Latin):
One of a group of closely related languages. Ex. Some of the dialects descended from the Latin language are French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese.” World Book Dict.
but I've personally contacted three experts in the field, and the last one said
No, Palestinian dialect of Aramaic is not dialect of
Hebrew. It is one of dialects of late and middle
Western Aramaic. The closest dialects are Samaritan
Aramaic and Nabatean Aramaic.

Andrew, you are well read enough to know that Latin was the origin of both French and Spanish. And even if that was a fact you previously hadn't considered, by now I think it's plain that Palestinian Aramaic did NOT have as an antecedent Hebrew.

A better analogy would be that since English and Spanish and Latin are all Indo European languages, I'll simply choose to call English a dialect of Latin. In my own private language.

Sorry, but that dawg don't hunt. Right?

Definition # 4: Latin to Spanish = dialect (in the most reaching definition possible!!)

Is Hebrew's relation to Palestinian Aramaic similar? No, because Spanish descended from Latin, but PA didn't descend from Hebrew. It's not that hard.

Right? Anyone else out there (before we move on) who wants to claim Palestinian Aramaic can be properly called a dialect of Hebrew?

And PLEASE, if Google has 3 million hits on 9/11, and 3,999,150 of them say Arab terrorists flew two commercial airliners into the Twin Towers, and 50 say the US government brought the Twin Towers down, PLEASE let's not put all data on an equivalent footing. Anyone can prove anything they want using those techniques. Gill is very valuable, but has been dead for a couple centuries. He believed in Dragons. Edersheim had some fantastic views of the number of Jews in Iraqi treasure Cities that nobody takes seriously today. Let's honor them and remember how limited their information was compared to ours.

Hmmmm... If you review my post above, you will note I phrased my sentences very carefully. I suggested that under definition #4, both Hebrew and Aramaic were dialects of a wider Semitic language family. Under definition #4, it seems you can't have a language be a dialect of another language, cf. Spanish --> Latin (or PA --> Hebrew).

I think you and I are on the same page here, Tim.
 
I think you and I are on the same page here, Tim.
Sorry! I must have misunderstood you. I thought you said that
However, we can consider both Hebrew and Aramaic as dialects of a wider Semitic language family, under definition #4.
But that won't work, unless you are willing to call English a dialect of Ancient Persian, since they're both part of a "wider Indo-European language family.

Are we still on the same page?
 
I think you and I are on the same page here, Tim.
Sorry! I must have misunderstood you. I thought you said that
However, we can consider both Hebrew and Aramaic as dialects of a wider Semitic language family, under definition #4.
But that won't work, unless you are willing to call English a dialect of Ancient Persian, since they're both part of a "wider Indo-European language family.

Are we still on the same page?

Yes, we're on the same page, because ancient Persian is not a "language family". Both Hebrew and PA can be dialects of some amorphous Semitic language family, but they cannot be dialects of another distinct language under definition #4.

French and Italian are both dialects of the Romance language family under definition #4. They are not dialects of Latin under definition #4. Latin is not a language family, it is a language in its own right.

Similarly (and I guess this is where I failed to connect with the thread), it would be improper to say that Aramaic is a dialect of Hebrew under definition #4. While I expect usage of definition #4 was more widespread in the 1800's, I also wonder if sometimes the historical scholars who have been quoted on this thread were a little sloppy in their usage.

Which is what you had been saying all along, if I understand correctly... I feel like I came into the middle of an existing conversation. My apologies for being a little clumsy in trying to hop on midway through.
 
Last edited:
While I expect usage of definition #4 was more widespread in the 1800's, I also wonder if sometimes the historical scholars who have been quoted on this thread were a little sloppy in their usage.

Which is what you had been saying all along, if I understand correctly... I feel like I came into the middle of an existing conversation. My apologies for being a little clumsy in trying to hop on midway through.

No, your comments are valuable, and help clarify things. What you wrote above is exactly right.
 
Ok, I took care of all my problems at work today, caught up on The Clone Wars on the toon network, my wife is cooking a delicious dinner, Ribeye steak and cheesy rice. Now I've settled in and read what y'all posted.

Thanks Steve for that stuff about the WCF. It's nice to know that a battle over texts did take place.

Now with the formalities and friendliness out of the way, I'm ready. :lol:

This is what I'm trying to understand -

quote -"If Christ can be shown to have quoted from two different sets of Texts, namely the Hebrew and Greek Septuagint, which all orthodox scholarship says He did, then the AV position, at least in it's hard core form falls flat on it's face. I'm trying to systematically go through the myths and false information that support the AV position and tackle them one by one. One myth, that Steve and others here, who supports the hard core version of the AV school, have to hold is that Aramaic is a dialect of Hebrew. It's one of the foundation rhetorical proofs that Christ didn't speak to His people in a foreign language..."

The idea that if Jesus could be shown to have quoted from two different sets of text is one of the ideas I'm having a problem seeing how that applies to the TR/KJV controversy.

I don't see how Jesus quoting from different texts could be a problem to the TR/KJV. We know that the Hebrew was used in the temple. And different translations were used. The Aramaic/Hebrew distinction almost seems like a non-point to me. Jesus probably used Hebrew in the temple and other translations when addressing differing groups. But how to tell which one he used where would be difficult. Mathew probably wrote down verbatim what Jesus said. But his gospel was written in Hebrew. So all his quotes of Jesus were translated into Hebrew. The other Gospels were written in Greek. So what Jesus used was translated into Greek. So It would be difficult to know which version got used by Jesus. I go by what Josephus said about the Jewish culture at the time, and what the Church fathers wrote about the Bible and who wrote it. They were closer to that time, and knew more about the events that happened then than modern scholars do.

There, that's that about that idea.

Now I've eaten my delicious dinner. My wife it the best cook in the whole world.

:popcorn:
 
Not really, I ate most of the cheesy rice. About 75% of it! And just a little bit of steak, but those are my wifes to snack on latter. She loves those!
 
I've followed this thread from the beginning but am having trouble understanding the purpose of the debate over 'dialects' in regards to the phrase 'kept pure in all ages'.

To get back to the OP, it is obvious that the Divines believed that Matt 6:13 had been 'kept pure in all ages' because they specifically identify the words, "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen." as the conclusion of the Lord's Prayer in SC Q 107. If a person believes that those words are not a part of the true NT, then wouldn't they have to take exception to the SC Q 107 which clearly states, "The conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer, which is, For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen..."?

And, BTW, by simply asking the question I am not accusing anyone of anything. It is the same question I asked a year ago but did not get much of a response: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/critical-text-wsc-q-107-a-26864/
 
TimV:

I am still working on your question.

Andrew:

I do not think that you have substantially answered my post. If John Owen was not defending a "translation" such as the KJV, then how can you lump him into those who would defend the translation?

You wrote:


Well, it is a remarkable coincidence. Scrivener's TR had one rule for its assembly -- that it follow the readings of the KJV as closely as possible from whatever Greek sources could be found to support the KJV. Scrivener admitted that his own opinion of the trustworthiness of a given reading had nothing whatsoever to do with whether a reading was included in his text -- the rule was merely whether a reading followed the KJV.

So what? I fail to see the problem here - that Scrivener created a Greek text which showed the readings of the KJV was an act of supreme scholarship on his part. Are you somehow castigating his work because he desired to show the textual basis for the KJ readings?

As I pointed out to you before - it is the Byzantine MSS that contain the apographia of the autographs - not a collation done by Beza, Scrivener, Erasmus, or Stephanus. Scrivener's work is a monumental work of scholarship within the Textus Receptus tradition. I value it highly because it shows the Greek renderings of the King James translation. Whether Scrivener, or myself, agree with those renderings is another matter altogether. I think you noted that there were 190 differences between Scrivener and Beza. This would argue that both Scrivener and Beza agree over 99.95% of the time.

To make a comparison: The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus agree with each other about 92% of the time.

The purpose of Scrivener's work was not to present a Greek text claimed to be the exact text of the autographs (he didn't make that claim); but rather to facilitate comparison with the RV through his detailed footnotes, a goal at which he succeeded very well.
Good. He showed the liberalizing trend of translations not based upon the Byzantine MSS. I am glad we agree with each other here.

The KJV was created by commission and authorization of the King of England. I wonder if you view the English monarch as the lawful head of the Church of England?
The Church of England at the time of the translation of the KJV was a true Church of God. That I may disagree with their ecclesiology is not a matter of import. The translation was done within the authority of the True Church. William Twisse the proculator of the Westminster Assembly, for example, was episcopalian in his views of Church government.

Actually, I think you said I'd been reading too much Metzger. Same difference. :^)

Blessings to you.
It is not the same difference. Bruce Metzger was, at least, willing to admit error when confronted with it. James White is a lackey of Metzger who is a popularizer, and, not as intellectually honest.

Take, for example, the "story" that Erasmus required "one Greek text" in order to include 1 John 5:7 in the Greek. I will reproduce it here from Dr. White's website:

A hue and cry was raised upon publication, and charges of heresy and Arianism were cast about. Erasmus asked his friend in Rome, Bombasius, to consult the famous Codex Vaticanus concerning the passage. When Bombasius replied that the verse was not contained in that ancient codex, Erasmus rashly proclaimed that if he were to find so much as one Greek text containing the “Three Witnesses” he would include it in his next edition. Of course, such a manuscript was quickly produced. Many suspect it as having been produced specifically for the occasion. It is today known as minuscule 61 and is housed at Trinity College, Dublin. It is dated to the 16th century, and Metzger reports it opens of its own accord to the passage in 1 John, its having been consulted at that point so often.24 True to his word Erasmus included the spurious passage in the third edition (1522) “that there be no calumny.”25 He expressed in a lengthy footnote his doubts concerning the authenticity of the manuscript.
Here is the actual statement from Metzger on the subject:

Erasmus promised that he would insert the Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was found—or was made to order!
When he was challenged on this by Erasmian scholars Roland Bainton and Henk de Jong, Metzger placed a footnote stating that such a "story" is not found in any of Erasmus' writings. Dr. White omits such a footnote. One can only suppose that it is a prejudice on Dr. White's part that causes him, to this day, to refrain from admitting the truth. The dating of the MSS in question was to the 13th Century - not the 16th. (Montiforanus was dated by Clarke to the 13th Century - A. Clark, The New Testament: A Commentary and Critical Notes, Vol. 6, p. 928-929). No scholar has ever questioned the dating. They have tried to equate Montiforanus with Brittanicus, but the different readings in 1 John between the two do not allow for such an equivalance.


Blessings,

Rob
 
Last edited:
I've followed this thread from the beginning but am having trouble understanding the purpose of the debate over 'dialects' in regards to the phrase 'kept pure in all ages'.

I think you're right, that discussion should probably have a thread of its own, if folks aren't tired of discussing it yet.

To get back to the OP, it is obvious that the Divines believed that Matt 6:13 had been 'kept pure in all ages' because they specifically identify the words, "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen." as the conclusion of the Lord's Prayer in SC Q 107. If a person believes that those words are not a part of the true NT, then wouldn't they have to take exception to the SC Q 107 which clearly states, "The conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer, which is, For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen..."?

And, BTW, by simply asking the question I am not accusing anyone of anything. It is the same question I asked a year ago but did not get much of a response: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/critical-text-wsc-q-107-a-26864/

In answer to your question, I suppose it would make sense to take a very qualified exception to that.

I think that contra your complaint, you actually did get a pretty good response in the other thread. Daniel Ritchie pointed out that any exception would surely not be taken to the doctrine contained in the text, because we have:

1Ch 29:11 Yours, O LORD, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is yours. Yours is the kingdom, O LORD, and you are exalted as head above all.​

There are a couple subtleties in your post above that need a reply, and some points besides to be made.

1. 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.

2. CT advocates are not happy about having to delete known and loved passages of "scripture" when they establish to their satisfaction that they were actually post-apostolic scribal glosses or interpolations. Nobody (emotionally) wants to take the "amen" off the Lord's Prayer. It's what scholars were forced to do out of respect for the text, not a malicious exercise in "seeing how we can change the Bible".

3. Rather than forcing those who are aware of modern textual scholarship to take an exception or struggle with this issue, it would probably make the most sense for the General Assembl(ies) to modify the catechism. I expect that you will disagree with this, I just throw it in there because it makes sense to me.
 
3. Rather than forcing those who are aware of modern textual scholarship to take an exception or struggle with this issue, it would probably make the most sense for the General Assembl(ies) to modify the catechism. I expect that you will disagree with this, I just throw it in there because it makes sense to me.

This is exactly the point of my opening post: if you feel that the confession needs to be modified, this is the same as saying you take exception to the confession, lest why would it be changed? I wasn't asking for people's personal views on the CT (as many in their posts have pointed out for me), but rather whether it is in accord with the confession, which I think Ken (KMK) observed quite well in a practical case (WSC 107) which parallels my question of the dogmatic prescription of WCF 1.8

So, TsonMariytho, point blank:

1.) Is the quest of the critical text in harmony with WCF 1.8?

and

2.) Is the use of the critical text in harmony with 1.8?
 
Andrew:

I do not think that you have substantially answered my post. If John Owen was not defending a "translation" such as the KJV, then how can you lump him into those who would defend the translation?

You wrote:


Well, it is a remarkable coincidence. Scrivener's TR had one rule for its assembly -- that it follow the readings of the KJV as closely as possible from whatever Greek sources could be found to support the KJV. Scrivener admitted that his own opinion of the trustworthiness of a given reading had nothing whatsoever to do with whether a reading was included in his text -- the rule was merely whether a reading followed the KJV.

So what? I fail to see the problem here - that Scrivener created a Greek text which showed the readings of the KJV was an act of supreme scholarship on his part. Are you somehow castigating his work because he desired to show the textual basis for the KJ readings?

No, I certainly don't "castigate" Scrivener, the man. I have the highest respect for his scholarly knowledge and abilities. I chose his text for the parallel Greek-English Bible I typeset (public domain version).

Scrivener, the text, I don't castigate either, depending on your definition of "castigate". I think it's a really interesting and useful Greek NT version that happens to be tailored to the KJV's readings. It's a really nice to those who use and love the KJV.

I have argued that the Scrivener "TR's" relevance to textual criticism aimed at recovering the autographs is very limited, due to our inability to know for sure the manuscript basis behind the KJV -- which Scrivener said, not me, so don't give me too hard a time over this!

As I pointed out to you before - it is the Byzantine MSS that contain the apographia of the autographs - not a collation done by Beza, Scrivener, Erasmus, or Stephanus. Scrivener's work is a monumental work of scholarship within the Textus Receptus tradition. I value it highly because it shows the Greek renderings of the King James translation. Whether Scrivener, or myself, agree with those renderings is another matter altogether. I think you noted that there were 190 differences between Scrivener and Beza. This would argue that both Scrivener and Beza agree over 99.95% of the time.

To make a comparison: The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus agree with each other about 92% of the time.

The purpose of Scrivener's work was not to present a Greek text claimed to be the exact text of the autographs (he didn't make that claim); but rather to facilitate comparison with the RV through his detailed footnotes, a goal at which he succeeded very well.
Good. He showed the liberalizing trend of translations not based upon the Byzantine MSS. I am glad we agree with each other here.


The Church of England at the time of the translation of the KJV was a true Church of God. That I may disagree with their ecclesiology is not a matter of import. The translation was done within the authority of the True Church. William Twisse the proculator of the Westminster Assembly, for example, was episcopalian in his views of Church government.

You didn't address King James' oversight of the matter in his capacity as "head of the church". 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.)

It is not the same difference. Bruce Metzger was, at least, willing to admit error when confronted with it. James White is a lackey of Metzger who is a popularizer, and, not as intellectually honest.

Take, for example, the "story" that Erasmus required "one Greek text" in order to include 1 John 5:7 in the Greek. I will reproduce it here from Dr. White's website:

A hue and cry was raised upon publication, and charges of heresy and Arianism were cast about. Erasmus asked his friend in Rome, Bombasius, to consult the famous Codex Vaticanus concerning the passage. When Bombasius replied that the verse was not contained in that ancient codex, Erasmus rashly proclaimed that if he were to find so much as one Greek text containing the “Three Witnesses” he would include it in his next edition. Of course, such a manuscript was quickly produced. Many suspect it as having been produced specifically for the occasion. It is today known as minuscule 61 and is housed at Trinity College, Dublin. It is dated to the 16th century, and Metzger reports it opens of its own accord to the passage in 1 John, its having been consulted at that point so often.24 True to his word Erasmus included the spurious passage in the third edition (1522) “that there be no calumny.”25 He expressed in a lengthy footnote his doubts concerning the authenticity of the manuscript.
Here is the actual statement from Metzger on the subject:

Erasmus promised that he would insert the Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was found—or was made to order!
When he was challenged on this by Erasmian scholars Roland Bainton and Henk de Jong, Metzger placed a footnote stating that such a "story" is not found in any of Erasmus' writings. Dr. White omits such a footnote. One can only suppose that it is a prejudice on Dr. White's part that causes him, to this day, to refrain from admitting the truth. The dating of the MSS in question was to the 13th Century - not the 16th. (Montiforanus was dated by Clarke to the 13th Century - A. Clark, The New Testament: A Commentary and Critical Notes, Vol. 6, p. 928-929). No scholar has ever questioned the dating. They have tried to equate Montiforanus with Brittanicus, but the different readings in 1 John between the two do not allow for such an equivalance.


Blessings,

Rob

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.
 
I've followed this thread from the beginning but am having trouble understanding the purpose of the debate over 'dialects' in regards to the phrase 'kept pure in all ages'.
The main question is what a group of people long dead meant by kept pure in all ages, and people disagree on that. It seems obvious to me they would be willing to correct the version of the Bible they were using when new information came to light, as per the quotations I've posted by Augustine and Erasmus. Take this from Augustine, which the Divines were naturally familiar with

In the Harmony of the Gospels (ii. 29, 67), writing of the daughter of Jairus (Matt. ix. 29), he mentions that some codices contain the reading "woman" (mulier) for "damsel." Commenting on Matt. v. 22, "Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause," he includes the expression "without a cause" without even a hint of its spuriousness (Serm. on Mt. i. 9, 25); but in his Retractations (i. 19. 4) he makes the correction, "The Greek manuscripts do not contain sine causa."

Look it up in your KJV and Geneva. It's got the sine causa. Then look it up in versions like the ESV and ASV, Vulgate, etc.. and you'll see it's not there.

It blows my mind that some people think the Divines thought that the TR was the final word, but there you go. Some people here actually interpret 1.8 in that way.

So in the absence of any definitive proof, try changing the question. Ask yourself whether 1.8 COULD mean that what 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."
and that room for correction was built into what the Divines meant.

If you're still with me, let's say that 1.8 COULD mean either that the TR is exactly the Word of God or that it COULD mean that God preserved His Word, but not necessarily on one piece of paper throughout the ages.

So, for purposes of discussion, if you were absolutely certain that New Testament authors had access to more than one translation of the Bible, and that those translations differed even more than the Textus Receptus does from the Critical Text, and that New Testament authors quoted from both of those translations, would those New Testament authors have been violating 1.8?

Edit: 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?
 
Last edited:
Further on bibliographic references on WCF 1:8, it was remiss of me not to mention an article seminal to my own thinking, which is Theodore Letis' "Edward Freer Hills' Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesisatical Text," in Journal of Christian Reconstruction 12 (1989), 2:21ff. This article shows that for the reformed tradition the "authentical text" is in fact a canonical issue.

I found it for $9.10 here: https://www.chalcedonstore.com/xcart/product.php?productid=2189&cat=34&page=1

Does anyone know if it is online?

The issues of JCR are 80% off of the normal price, so the price is basically 2 bucks plus shipping.

CT
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top