Reformed Only! Masoretic Text (MT)

[Erik Nelson]

So you see what I see.

Our Masoretic Text, even by their own admission, is/was corrupt.

But in this thread, I have been taken to task.

That is why I haven't posted in it in a while.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Josephus says that after the lapse of ages no one has dared either to add to or take away from or alter the peculiar books of the Jews in any respect and that they think it an honor to die for the Scriptures (Against Apion 1*.42 [Loeb, 1:180-81]). Philo, in his book on the departure of the Israelites from Egypt (cited by Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 8.6.357c [ed. Gifford, 1903], 1:387) goes further, asserting that “even up to his time, through a space of more than two thousand years, not so much as a word had been changed in the law of the Hebrews and that any Jew would rather die a hundred times, than suffer the law to be altered in the least.” They carry their ridiculous superstition concerning the sacred manuscript to such a length that if a corrected book of the law fell on the ground, they proclaimed a fast and expressed their fears that the whole universe would return to its original chaos, so far were they from corrupting the manuscripts. (4) The carefulness of the Masoretes not only about verses and words, but also about single letters (which, together with all the variations of punctuation and writing, they not only counted, but also wrote down, so that no ground or even suspicion of corruption could arise). Arias Montanus employs this argument in the “Praefatio” to his Biblia sacra Hebraicey Chaldaice, Graece et Latine (1572), vol. I. (5) The multitude of copies; for as the manuscripts were scattered far and wide, how could they all be corrupted either by the carelessness Of librarians or the wickedness of enemies? Augustine says, “No prudent man can believe that the Jews however perverse and wicked could do it, in copies so numerous and so far and widely diffused” (CG 15.13* [FC 14:440; PL 41.452]). Vives said this ought to be the reply to those “who argue that the Hebrew manuscripts Of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New have been so falsified and corrupted as to make it impossible to draw the truth from these sources” (Saint Augustine, of the Citie of God with. . .comments of. . .Vives [1620], p. 519).”

Ibid., p. 107

Richard Muller notes that modern theologians, following Hodge and Warfield, have altered the doctrine of preservation so that inerrancy would only refer to the non-extant original manuscripts and not also the faithful copies we possess today:

“By ‘original and authentic‘ text, the Protestant orthodox do not mean the autographa which no one can possess but the apographa in the original tongue which are the source of all versions. The Jews throughout history and the church in the time of Christ regarded the Hebrew of the Old Testament as authentic and for nearly six centuries after Christ, the Greek of the New Testament was viewed as authentic without dispute (Leigh, Treatise, I.vi; c.f. Owen, Divine Original, in Works vol. 16, pg. 300-301). It is important to note that the Reformed orthodox insistence on the identification of the Hebrew and Greek texts as alone authentic does not demand direct reference to autographa in those languages; the ‘original and authentic text‘ of Scripture means, beyond the autograph copies, the legitimate tradition of Hebrew and Greek apographa. The case for Scripture as an infallible rule of faith and practice and the separate arguments for a received text free from major (i.e., non-scribal) errors rests on an examination of apographa and does not seek the infinite regress of the lost autographa as a prop for textual infallibility.

“A rather sharp contrast must be drawn, therefore, between the Protestant orthodox arguments concerning the autographa and the views of Archibald Alexander Hodge and Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield. This issue must be raised because of the tendency in many recent essays to confuse the two views. Like virtually all exegetes and theologians before and after them, they recognized that the text of Scripture as we now have it contains contradictory and historically problematic statements. They also recognized the futility of harmonizations of the text—but they insisted that all such difficult or erroneous passages ought to be understood as the result of scribal errors. Those who claim an errant text, against the orthodox consensus to the contrary, must prove their case. To claim errors in the scribal copies, the apographa, is hardly a proof: the claim must be proven true of the autographa. The point made by Hodge and Warfield is a logical trap, a rhetorical flourish, a conundrum designed to confound the critics—who can only prove their case for genuine errancy by recourse to a text they do not (and surely cannot) have.”

‘We … receive the Scripture in these languages only [i.e., Hebrew and Greek] as canonical and authentic. And what is more, not only the Autographa, which for many reasons belonging to the most wise counsel of divine providence, were allowed to perish: but in the Apographa as well‘ (Mastricht, Theologia Theoretico-Practica I.ii.10).

Muller, Richard A., Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 2, pg. 414.

This is nothing but an evasive tactic invented to sidestep liberal critics. If the Bible, as it exists today and in our possession, is not infallible, then the foundation of our faith is shaky and the critics have prevailed against us. It’s meaningless to argue for the theoretical infallibility of the non-extant autographa. We must argue for the infallibility for the Bible in our possession.

See also Letis, Theodore P., The Protestant Dogmaticians and the Late Princeton School on the Status of the Sacred Apographa.

Both of those authors, both Josephus and Philo lived in the FIRST century. The allegation is that the Masoretes began to corrupt their scriptures in the SECOND century after the failure of 3 rebellions against Rome. In 70, in 112. And in 136 under Bar Kochba whom the greatest of rabbis had it declared it to be Messiah. Evidently, when they recognized that. The Messiah would not. Be fulfilled in them with their current scriptures. They chose corrupted versions with different implications.

But no up through the time of Josephus. Who summarizes and cite scripture? It's clear from his citations that his copy of a scripture was essentially the same as the Septuagint. No changes were made to the Hebrew Scriptures, until the SECOND century and afterwards.

 

[Erik Nelson]

For us "received text" folks, per WCF at 1.8, the Second Great Rabbinic Bible / 2nd Bomberg text edited by Jacob ben Hayyim in 1524-25 is considered the OT referred to as providentially preserved.

Below is worth a read on the DSS, which is extracted from this.

Chapter 7: Understanding The Dead Sea Scrolls

I am still waiting for someone to show me where I may obtain a copy of the Greek LXX for reference purposes. Not a Greek translation of Daniel, or of Isaiah, or any other individual book, but a Greek translation of the Old Testament which is known to have been available during the time of Christ.

Also:
Table of Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, in English translation

Resources on the Septuagint:
Joel Kalvesmaki

Apostolic Bible Polyglot

 

[Erik Nelson]

Modern textual witchcraft is alive and well giving those with itchy ears what they want to hear.

Quote:

The lump of carbonized parchment could not be opened or read. Its curators did nothing but conserve it, hoping that new technology might one day emerge to make the scroll legible.

Just such a technology has now been perfected by computer scientists at the University of Kentucky. Working with biblical scholars in Jerusalem, they have used a computer to unfurl a digital image of the scroll.

It turns out to hold a fragment identical to the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible and, at nearly 2,000 years old, is the earliest instance of the text.

Modern Technology Unlocks Secrets of a Damaged Biblical Scroll

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Well, even the Masoretic text agrees with the Septuagint meanings. 99% of the time. There are only a few verses here in there, of specific MESSIANIC reference which. Are wildly different between the 2 textual traditions

 

[JM]

Both of those authors, both Josephus and Philo lived in the FIRST century. The allegation is that the Masoretes began to corrupt their scriptures in the SECOND century after the failure of 3 rebellions against Rome. In 70, in 112. And in 136 under Bar Kochba whom the greatest of rabbis had it declared it to be Messiah. Evidently, when they recognized that. The Messiah would not. Be fulfilled in them with their current scriptures. They chose corrupted versions with different implications.

But no up through the time of Josephus. Who summarizes and cite scripture? It's clear from his citations that his copy of a scripture was essentially the same as the Septuagint. No changes were made to the Hebrew Scriptures, until the SECOND century and afterwards.

Wow, that's awful. The church had a corrupt manuscript all this time! Protestantism was built on corrupt mss and now, look at us.

I'm converting to Catholicism now.

Thanks Erik.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Wow, that's awful. The church had a corrupt manuscript all this time! Protestantism was built on corrupt mss and now, look at us.

I'm converting to Catholicism now.

Thanks Erik.

psalm 22:16

Refuting Rabbinic Objections to Christianity and Messianic Prophecies

https://www.oneforisrael.org/refuting/

 

[FireDragon76]

In reality, so far as I have read, the DSS agrees more often with the LXX than it does the MT and both point to a "text" older than that of Ezra's.

From what I have read, that seems to be the case.

Oddly, I was wondering the same thing about why modern Jews are so quick to throw out the Septuagint as if it wasnt translated by Jewish scholars who were trying to hold to the appropriate meaning of the text as they knew it to be, from a position of knowledge.

It's all down to the transformation from Second Temple Judaism into Rabbinic Judaism. The diversity of Second Temple Judaism was lost and the concept of a Jewish orthodoxy emerged, with a corresponding canon of scriptures, one that was polemically set against anything Christian.

 

[JM]

I thought y'all believed only the originals were inspired? If the Apostles and Jesus quoted the LXX doesn't that mean the translation was inspired to some degree? Does anyone know "which" LXX was quoted by Jesus and the Apostles?

The LXX is full of issues.

Septuagint Issues | 1 Samuel 17-18

More LXX translational issues: Isa 28:16 | Random Musings

Quote:

Limitations of the Septuagint

The Orthodox Church argues that the Septuagint is more accurate than the Hebrew Bible and should be used in Bible translation. However, it is good to be aware of some of the Septuagint's limitations.

The Septuagint of Job is about a sixth shorter than the traditional Hebrew text of the Bible known as the Masoretic Text. The missing portions were supplied from the Greek version of Theodotion. The Septuagint of Jeremiah is about an eighth shorter than the Masoretic Text, repeated passages are cut out and the order is changed. Furthermore, the Septuagint often preserves different numbers, e.g. the ages of some of the patriarchs in Genesis are given variously, thus:

(see link below for examples)

So, perhaps for all the plaudits the Septuagint supposedly received from Ptolemy II, it should come as no great surprise that the Septuagint did not receive a universally favorable reception among the Jews: "That day was as ominous for Israel as the day on which the golden calf was made since the Law could not be accurately translated" (Mesechet Sopherim [Tractate for Scribes] 1.7). Source

 

[JM]

In case anyone missed it - What you are witnessing is the rationalist view of "how do we determine scripture."

You will hear a lot about it Dean because it was the Reformed view of scripture until the 1800's when Christians started to become influenced by German Liberal theology and a form of textual criticism that has it's roots in secular philosophy rather than Christian thinking.

The posts above were not written by me - what you find below was written by me. I post it here to demonstrate how a Christian should consider scripture, using examples about the Greek NT text, I believe you can all deduced the principles and presuppositions we are to use as Christians when handling God's word.

I hold to the same position the 17th century Reformers confessed, and is stated in Westminster and Second London Baptist Confessions. According to these confessions, the scriptures are:

“immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.” (article 1:8)

Dr. Edward Hills explains how Erasmus, in his first printing of his Greek New Testament, was guided by a common faith held by all concerning, the text they had. And that,

“Luther, Melanchton, Stephanus, Calvin, Beza, and the other scholars of the Reformation Period who labored on the New Testament text were similarly guided by God’s special providence. These scholars had received humanistic training in their youth, and in their notes and comments they sometimes reveal traces of this early education. But in their actual dealings with the biblical text these humanistic tendencies were restrained by the common faith in the providential preservation of Scripture, a faith which they themselves professed along with their followers. Hence in the Reformation Period the textual criticism of the New Testament was different from the textual criticism of any other book. The humanistic methods used on other books were not applied to the New Testament. In their editions of the New Testament Erasmus and his successors were providentially guided by the common faith to adopt the current text, primarily the current Greek text and secondarily the current Latin text. … thus the logic of faith led true believers of that day, just as it leads true believers today, to the Textus Receptus as the God-guided New Testament text”

The Greek text edition circulated by Theodore Beza was in common use and considered authoritative. There was little or no further textual criticism done to his Greek edition, hence, it was received. In history we find a clear witness of the Protestant church to the Received Text. The church is the witness, the pillar and ground of truth. (1 Timothy 3:15)

J. H. Gosden of the Gospel Standard Baptist observes in his commentary on the Gospel Standard Baptist Articles of Faith,

“By inspiration of God gave the Holy Oracles, and power – perennial miracle – He preserves them intact. They are inerrant, unchangeable, unlosable. Could they err or change or be lost, their divine origin would be disapproved and dependence upon them would be misplaced. In such a case there would exist no foundation upon which to build for eternity, no final court of appeal respecting truth and error, no standard of doctrine, no rule of practice, no touchstone of experience. “

Those who prefer to use a rational approach in defining the New Testament text have to admit that scripture is selected by the text critic. In the office of a scholar many manuscripts are studied. The assumption is often stated that “only the originals are inspired.” The scholar must conduct examinations of the many manuscripts to determine which verse is more likely to be inspired and therefore authentic. But what kind of method does he use? What is his rule to determine what is, might be or is not scripture? The Bible critic or critics, whatever the case maybe, must choose and whatever kind of rule chosen, becomes their guiding principle. It is not driven by the logic of faith the Reformers used but a secular naturalistic presupposition. This presupposition denies the God who acts in history and intervenes in our daily lives. It denies what scriptures reveals about itself.

As the peoples historian D’Aubigne declared, “Christianity is neither an abstract doctrine nor an external organization. It is a life from God communicated to mankind…”

The CT man has no biblical text:

Bart Ehrman states, “there is always a degree of doubt, an element of subjectivity.”

Kurt Aland declares that the latest Text of the United Bible Societies is “not a static entity” and “every change in it is open to challenge.”

G. Zuntz admits that “the optimism of the earlier editors has given way to that scepticism which inclines towards regarding ‘the original text’ as an unattainable mirage.”

Douglas Wilson writes,

“This witness is not offered by the Church as “something to think about” or as a mere “suggestion.” The testimony of the Church on this point is submissive to Scripture, but authoritative for the saints. For example, if an elder in a Christian church took it upon himself to add a book to the canon of Scripture, or sought to take away a book, the duty of his church would be to try him for heresy and remove him immediately. This disciplinary action is authoritative, taken in defense of an authoritative canonical settlement. This does not mean the Church is defending the Word of God; the Church is defending her witness to the Word. As the necessity of discipline makes plain, this witness is dogmatic and authoritative. It is not open for discussion. God does not intend for us to debate the canon of Scripture afresh every generation. We have already given our testimony; our duty now is to remain faithful to it. “

Dr. Daniel Wallace is a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary and is considered an expert inn ancient biblical Greek and New Testament criticism. In a blog post about the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature he wrote,

“As remarkable as it may sound, most biblical scholars are not Christians. I don’t know the exact numbers, but my guess is that between 60% and 80% of the members of SBL do not believe that Jesus’ death paid for our sins, or that he was bodily raised from the dead. “

We cannot declare the originals only, exchanging “King James Onlyism” for “Original Text Onlyism,” our very idea of sola scriptura does not allow for it. Without a foundational set of manuscripts Protestantism is reduced to just one of many traditions with sola scriptura a late development and no less of a tradition then that found in Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism. This tradition is reduced to a Magisterium of scholars instead of Popes, Cardinals and Bishops. We have replaced the Roman Magisterium with a Magisterium of Textual Critics. Rome acts like a final authority, and the scholar tells us what the final authority might be.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Hazelelponi]

I can't figure out what your trying to say.

 

[JM]

I can't figure out what your trying to say.

I'm saying Christian who use modern textual criticism are guilty of assume an unbelievers worldview. They deny that scripture can be "kept pure in all ages" as the Reformed Confessions state. Presuppositions are important.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Dr. Edward Hills explains how Erasmus, in his first printing of his Greek New Testament, was guided by a common faith held by all concerning, the text they had. And that,

“Luther, Melanchton, Stephanus, Calvin, Beza, and the other scholars of the Reformation Period who labored on the New Testament text were similarly guided by God’s special providence. These scholars had received humanistic training in their youth, and in their notes and comments they sometimes reveal traces of this early education. But in their actual dealings with the biblical text these humanistic tendencies were restrained by the common faith in the providential preservation of Scripture, a faith which they themselves professed along with their followers. Hence in the Reformation Period the textual criticism of the New Testament was different from the textual criticism of any other book. The humanistic methods used on other books were not applied to the New Testament. In their editions of the New Testament Erasmus and his successors were providentially guided by the common faith to adopt the current text, primarily the current Greek text and secondarily the current Latin text. … thus the logic of faith led true believers of that day, just as it leads true believers today, to the Textus Receptus as the God-guided New Testament text”

Dr. Hill was wrong in assuming that just because they had "humanistic training" that their past "training" influenced them later. It is a well poisoning fallacy. It is like arguing because a Christian went to public schools growing up, the influence of that early education still resides in their thinking and currently influences their theology so that traces of it can be found in their theological thoughts. It's absurd and cannot tell you how many times I've read this type of argument. Essentially the argument is that only those trained in Christian schools are capable of not being subject to humanistic influence in their theological endeavors, which is absurd. I have to wonder if men like Dr. Hills have even experienced the life changing miraculous regeneration from above. If he were consistent in his smear, he would accuse the Apostle Paul of being influenced by his training to becoming a Pharisee and after his conversion later traces of his training in his letters, hence casting a cloud of doubt on the majority of the New Testament. This line of thought seriously undermines the sovereignty of God and His power and influence over those He monergistically regenerates and His providence in renewing minds daily for His purposes. Discernment tells me Dr. Hills has a Catholic agenda underneath his line of thinking, it is evident to me at least.

 

[JM]

Dr. Hill was wrong in assuming that just because they had "humanistic training" that their past "training" influenced them later. It is a well poisoning fallacy. It is like arguing because a Christian went to public schools growing up, the influence of that early education still resides in their thinking and currently influences their theology so that traces of it can be found in their theological thoughts. It's absurd and cannot tell you how many times I've read this type of argument. Essentially the argument is that only those trained in Christian schools are capable of not being subject to humanistic influence in their theological endeavors, which is absurd. I have to wonder if men like Dr. Hills have even experienced the life changing miraculous regeneration from above. If he were consistent in his smear, he would accuse the Apostle Paul of being influenced by his training to becoming a Pharisee and after his conversion later traces of his training in his letters, hence casting a cloud of doubt on the majority of the New Testament. This line of thought seriously undermines the sovereignty of God and His power and influence over those He monergistically regenerates and His providence in renewing minds daily for His purposes. Discernment tells me Dr. Hills has a Catholic agenda underneath his line of thinking, it is evident to me at least.

AW, Hills point isn’t an assumption, it’s demonstrated.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I'm saying Christian who use modern textual criticism are guilty of assume an unbelievers worldview. They deny that scripture can be "kept pure in all ages" as the Reformed Confessions state. Presuppositions are important.

I can agree with the quote from Dr. Wallace, and the other 40% including Dr. Wallace, do not assume a non-Christian worldview, nor deny the providence of God in maintaining the purity of His word in all ages. Dr. Wallace sees the need for engaging in textual criticism, he's devoted his life to it. If for no other reason than to address the 60-80% of non-Christians involved in the same field and expose their presuppositions. I have nothing but respect for men like Dr. Wallace knowing I could never do the work he does, and as a poor layman depend on men like him where I come up short.

 

[JM]

I can agree with the quote from Dr. Wallace, and the other 40% including Dr. Wallace, do not assume a non-Christian worldview, nor deny the providence of God in maintaining the purity of His word in all ages. Dr. Wallace sees the need for engaging in textual criticism, he's devoted his life to it. If for no other reason than to address the 60-80% of non-Christians involved in the same field and expose their presuppositions. I have nothing but respect for men like Dr. Wallace knowing I could never do the work he does, and as a poor layman depend on men like him where I come up short.

But they do!

They approach the Bible 'as if' it's just another human document and then set about the work of establishing what is and isn't inspired.

Reformed Christians assume, presuppose, that scripture "has been kept pure in all ages," which is the established basis of authority. To claim otherwise destroys the foundational claims Protestants make for scripture.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

AW, Hills point isn’t an assumption, it’s demonstrated.

I did not argue for or against the TR, I argued against his criticism of Reformation scholars. The same type of arguments are leveled against the writings of Augustine. That said, I do not subscribe to the line of thinking that the TR is 100% the inerrant Word of God. It's a long and complicated story as to why. But I do see the providence of God in maintaining purity of His word in all ages, not that scholars had full access to one hundred percent of it. God is able to accomplish His plan of redemption despite man's efforts to spoil it. Early Churches were blessed to even have access to one letter of the New Testament, did their lack of access to a complete Bible take away from their faith or salvation or deny the providence of God in maintaining the purity of His word in all ages? No.

 

[JM]

I did not argue for or against the TR, I argued against his criticism of Reformation scholars. The same type of arguments are leveled against the writings of Augustine. That said, I do not subscribe to the line of thinking that the TR is 100% the inerrant Word of God. It's a long and complicated story as to why. But I do see the providence of God in maintaining purity of His word in all ages, not that scholars had full access to one hundred percent of it. God is able to accomplish His plan of redemption despite man's efforts to spoil it. Early Churches were blessed to even have access to one letter of the New Testament, did their lack of access to a complete Bible take away from their faith or salvation or deny the providence of God in maintaining the purity of His word in all ages? No.

Ah, that's the rub isn't it? They had the gospel contained in tradition...some say. The gospel tradition was just as important as the word because they didn't have the complete word therefore they had tradition. Now we are in EO/RC territory and it's unavoidable when we use human reason to sort out the textual issues.

The main issue is that canon is settled. It has to be if we are to appeal to it, without a settled canon, we have reasonable doubt and an unreasonable faith. This is the ultimate end of textual criticism.

 

[JM]

You could never take the pulpit and say what you guys are saying without causing doubt among the people of God. You just can’t do it. So, practically, it doesn’t matter what we post on CF, the average person in the pew doesn’t need to know any of it. It's just intellectual mumbo jumbo. They believe the Bible they hold in their hands is the very word of God and it is authoritative.

So honestly, it doesn’t matter what intellectuals say or what they believe, it’s just not practical. This is why you never hear sermons preached on the subject.

Yours in the Lord,


jm

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

But they do!

They approach the Bible 'as if' it's just another human document and then set about the work of establishing what is and isn't inspired.

Reformed Christians assume, presuppose, that scripture "has been kept pure in all ages," which is the established basis of authority. To claim otherwise destroys the foundational claims Protestants make for scripture.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Erasmus was not a Reformed Christian, he vehemently argued against Dr. Luther on the subject of free will. Whether he wanted to or not, he could not help but bring his theological presuppositions with him, even if he prayed for theological "neutrality" in translating it would not exist. The best he could do is recognize his presuppositions and by the grace and providence of God keep them in check. Maybe as a Reformed Christian I should embrace Geneva Bible onlyism? lol Just kidding. But seriously it was the Bible used by a number of Reformers and Puritans. Wonder why that is or why they decided to work on another translation?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Ah, that's the rub isn't it? They had the gospel contained in tradition...some say. The gospel tradition was just as important as the word because they didn't have the complete word therefore they had tradition. Now we are in EO/RC territory and it's unavoidable when we use human reason to sort out the textual issues.

Protestants do not deny oral tradition, it is the continuing of oral tradition and the point in time where or if it ceased and the degree of authority ascribed to oral tradition versus written tradition that is the question. Our Confessions have authority in our Churches, it's just they do not have the same degree of authority as Scripture. They are of lesser authority. I am fine with the notion of ancient oral and written Christian tradition accepted with an equal level of authority, but ancient oral and written tradition should not be conflated with modern oral and or written tradition, one would have to presuppose a continualism which does not exist...though some argue it does, I deny it.

The main issue is that canon is settled. It has to be if we are to appeal to it, without a settled canon, we have reasonable doubt and an unreasonable faith. This is the ultimate end of textual criticism.

I agree the canon is settled, and not because of halfway early Church councils, but because of the providence's of God, because it is His Word, it is His canon. It is because of man, because of man's efforts from his nature and presuppositions to influence texts that textual criticism of the lower type is a necessity, and because of manuscript discoveries and means of transportation (to have access) and access to a greater abundance of manuscripts as time has passed. The ultimate end of textual criticism from a Christian worldview is to crush all doubts, to give Christian confidence in the English translations they read from.