- Aug 6, 2017
- 5,156
- 1,663
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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.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.
Apostolic Bible PolyglotFor 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
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 traditionsModern 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
Wow, that's awful. The church had a corrupt manuscript all this time! Protestantism was built on corrupt mss and now, look at us.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.
psalm 22:16Wow, 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.
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.
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.
I can't figure out what your trying to say.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?