WM 392: LANIER on the PA as a NON-CANONICAL "TRUE STORY" & the MODERN EVANGELICAL CRISIS of EPISTEMOLOGY

 

JTR

WM 391: 8 Problems with Dr. Lanier's Chart on the PA as a "Floating Tradition"

JTR

WM 390: A New Scholarly Defense of the Woman Caught in Adultery (John 7:53--8:11)

 

Extra links for this episode:

New Books Podcast (8.2.26).

Book on Mohr Siebeck website.

TBS booklet defending PA.

JTR

WM 389: Another Unicorn Sighting!

 

JTR

WM 388: Responding to an INQUISITOR: Is affirming the MASORETIC TEXT as "kept pure in all ages" INCOHERENT?

 

JTR

WM 386: Interview: JOSEPH WEISSMAN on Defending the MASORETIC TEXT of the OT (VERITAS HEBRAICA)

 

JTR

Robert Preus on Seventeenth Century Lutheran Dogmaticians & Textual Variants:

 

From X post:

Here is Robert Preus’s description of how the seventeenth century Lutheran dogmaticians handled textual variants:

"In their defense of the authority of Scripture the dogmaticians were obligated to enter upon an involved discussion on the authenticity of the Hebrew and Greek texts of Scripture. It was their conviction, as opposed to the Catholics and Socinians, that there had been no general corruption of the Scriptures. Not only the canonical books themselves but also the sentences and words and letters of these books are authentic. They have not been corrupted by Jews or Christians by the errors or negligence or ignorance of copyists, but by divine providence have been preserved intact and incorrupt. There are of course innumerable individual errors in the thousands of codices, just as there are in copies of other books, and these errors may even have been inserted by Jews or heretics, but there has been no general corruption of Scripture. Most of the individual errors in Scripture are variant readings of a technical nature and of little importance, such as omissions, spellings, transpositions and the like, and can be quite easily corrected. Such variations, along with diversities in pointing and accent, cannot be called corruptions. It goes without saying that the dogmaticians argue for the authenticity of only the original Greek and Hebrew texts, not for translations."

-The Inspiration of Scripture: A Study of the Theology of the 17th Century Lutheran Dogmaticians, 134-135.

At least Five Lessons:

1. The Lutheran orthodox were aware of minor textual variants in the transmission of the text of the Bible.

2. They did not see such variants (whether intentional or unintentional) as defeaters for embracing the divine preservation of Scripture without corruption, just as the English orthodox divines would say in WCF 1:8 that the Bible had been by God's singular care and providence "kept pure in all ages."

3. Canon involves not only the books but also the texts (i.e., sentences, words, and letters) of those books. 4. They held to the original Hebrew and Greek texts as authoritative and not ancient versions (Latin, LXX, etc.).

5. The Protestant view was distinct from the RCC and Socinians.

WM 385: REJOINDER to Zachary J. Cole: "Modern" Textual Criticism & the Westminster Divines: PART TWO

 

JTR

WM 384: Bishop J. C. Ryle on the Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)

 

JTR

John Owen on Inspiration and Uncorrupted Preservation

 

From X Post:

John Owen (1616-1683) on why the affirmation of the inspiration of Scripture must also be accompanied by the affirmation of its uncorrupted preservation:

"But what, I pray, will it advantage us that God did so once deliver his word, if we are not assured also that that word so delivered hath been, by his special care and providence, preserved entire and uncorrupt unto us, or that it doth not evidence and manifest itself to be his word, being so preserved?" -Collected Works, 16:350.

John Owen on Confessional Bibliology

From X post:

John Owen (1616-1683) articulates Confessional Bibliology:

"The sum of what I am pleading for... is, That as the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were immediately and entirely given out by God himself, his mind being in them represented unto us without the least interveniency of such mediums and ways as are capable of giving change or alteration to the least iota or syllable; so by his good and merciful providential dispensation, in his love to his word and church, his whole word, as first given out by him is preserved unto us entire in the original languages; where shining in its own beauty and lustre (as also in all translations, so far as they faithfully represent the originals), it manifests and evidences unto the consciences of men, without other foreign help or assistance, its divine original and authority."

-Collected Works, 16:349-350.

Zanchi Defends the Traditional Reading of Philippians 4:13

From X post:

Zanchi defends the traditional reading of Philippians 4:13 ("I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me."):

"Paul does not simply say in Him who strengthens but in Christ who strengthens within. Hence, he indicates that it is Christ, dwelling in the hearts of the pious by His Spirit and through faith, who supplies the internal strength in the inner man whereby we can do all things and be content with our lot in all circumstances. Otherwise, we cannot properly and suitably either make use of prosperity or endure to the end. Christ learned this perfectly, and for that reason, He Himself strengthens us and grants us this contentment."

-Commentary on Philippians, 638. Contrast some modern translations of Philippians 4:13: RSV: I can do all things in him who strengthens me. ESV: I can do all things through him who strengthens me. NIV: I can do all this through him who gives me strength. NASB: I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.

See my BLQ article on the text of Philippians 4:13.

WM 381: The Bibliology of Bishop J. C. Ryle (1816-1900)

 

JTR

CRBC Sermon (4.5.26): Why the Ending of Mark Matters

JTR

WM 378: Gerhard: DOXOLOGY of the Lord's Prayer (Matt 6:13b) NOT SUPERFLUOUS!

 

Blog post on the doxology of the Lord's Prayer.

JTR

WM 377: Gerhard's DEFENSE of the PERICOPE ADULTERAE (John 7:53--8:11)

JTR

WM 374: Defending Mark 15.28: Why This 'Missing Verse' Belongs in Scripture

 

Read an online version of the article here.

Find a pdf version on academia site.

JTR

Modern evangelical avoidance of a plain sense reading of Confession 1:8

X post:

It is simply amazing to see the extent to which some modern evangelical interpreters will go to avoid a plain sense reading of WCF/2LBCF 1:8:

"Paragraph 8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;...."

Immediate inspiration in Hebrew and Greek allows use of the LXX and other ancient versions to correct the corrupted Hebrew? "By his singular care and providence" means by natural, ordinary, and humanistic restorationist (reconstruction) means? "Kept pure" means kept mostly pure? "In all ages" means "as reconstructed in recent times" with the rise of modern historical textual criticism in the 19th century, the discovery of the DSS in the 20th century, and the arrival of CBGM/ECM in the 21st century? "Authentical" does not actually mean genuine (having no relation to the modern term "authentic") but suggestively authoritative as an "initial text"?

You might believe it is outdated, reject it, or claim it points to a trajectory for a new modern articulation of the topic, but please don't attempt a radical, anachronistic, and tortured redefinition of its original meaning.

JTR

WM 370: REACTION: Byzantine Priority Conference: 1600 YEARS and COUNTING?

 

JTR

WM 369: Iain H. Murray on "INTELLECTUAL RESPECTABILITY" and SCRIPTURE

 

JTR