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

 

JTR

WM 387: BLQ Article: THE SEPTUAGINT & MODERN CHALLENGES to the Traditional Text of the OT (Part 1)

 

Read a PDF of the article here on my academia.edu page.

JTR

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 376: Johann Gerhard on the PURITY of the GREEK TEXT of the NT

 

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

Petrus Van Mastricht (1630-1706) on the Purity, Preservation, and Authenticity of Holy Scripture

 

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 371: My Former Debate Opponent (Stephen Boyce) Swims the Tiber

 

JTR

Reformation Bible Society Journal: Volume 1: The Reformation Text and the Septuagint

 

The Reformation Bible Society has published the first volume of the RBS Journal: The Reformation Text and the Septuagint (RBS, 2025). This initial volume contains papers from the inaugural RBS conference held on August 3, 2024 at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia and a couple of extra articles and book reviews.

We hope to produce Volume Two this year (2026) with papers from the 2025 conference held on August 2, 2025 at Cornerstone University in Grand Rapids, Michigan on the theme: "The Text and Canon of Revelation."

Lord willing, we will host our third annual conference on August 1, 2026 at Greenville Presbyterian Seminary in Taylors, South Carolina on the theme: "Confessional Bibliology: Defined & Defended."

The RBSJ is available now in both an e-book and a paperback format. Look here for links.

JTR

Below is the title page and table of contents:

WM 366: KEACH on the DIVINE AUTHORITY of the Holy Scriptures: Part 16 of 17: RAGE of the DEVIL

 

JTR

Discussion Notes on Revelation 22:19

Image: Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia, December 2025.

From an X post:

Last week an RB pastor friend got in touch asking for info for a discussion that had come up on Revelation 22:19.

Here's a slightly edited version of my response:

Regarding your question about Rev 22:19 (assuming this has to do with the "book of life" [TR]/"tree of life" [Modern Critical Text] variant), here are a few preliminary comments: 1. The TR is NOT based on the modern reconstruction method but relies on providential preservation; "book of life" is the reading that prevailed in Protestant (and especially English) Bible translation tradition. 2. The TR often follows the majority text but this is a case where it prefers an extant minority reading. 3. The reading "book of life" is only lightly attested in extant Greek manuscripts, but witness to it is not non-existent. Hoskier pointed to ms 141 (now known as ms. 2049) as holding the reading. Schmid also suggests mss. 296, 1668, and 2136 as supportive of the TR in Rev. 22. 4. Revelation is notorious overall for having the least, latest, and most disjointed extant Greek witnesses. It is particularly difficult for those who rely on modern reconstruction. 5. One example of the difficulty: At Rev. 4:8 both major modern printed editions of the so-called Majority/Byzantine Text supply different readings, because no clear Majority text prevails. Farstad/Hodges has a nine-fold "holy" and Robinson/Pierpont a three-fold "holy" at Rev. 4:8.

6. The TR can hardly be attacked for preferring a lightly attested reading, since the modern critical text also frequently does the same. For example, at 2 Peter 3:10 the NA28 has a reading that is a conjecture supported by no extant Greek mss. The modern text has multiple verses that have sequential readings found in no extant Greek mss. See my article: "Verses with 'Zero-Support' in the Modern Critical Text of the Greek NT."

7. Examination of the internal evidence shows that both "book of life" and "tree of life" are used in Revelation. Some suggest a scribe might have altered 22:19 to read "tree of life" at an early stage in order to have the passage harmonize with "tree of life" in Rev. 22:2, 14.

8. There has been peculiar controversy over the last six verses of Revelation (22:16-21). Since the nineteenth century it has been frequently suggested that Erasmus "back-translated" these verses from a Latin source. I gave a lecture last year for the Reformation Bible Society challenging the reliability and veracity of this anecdote.

=m7KkUch5Bvzb7YW4

9. It is interesting that the original printing of the KJV carried a note at Rev 22:19 (still printed in some Bibles) at the phrase "out of the book of life," which reads, "Or, from the tree of life." This indicates an openness to the possibility that "tree of life" is original, though the translators preferred "book of life." This type of distinction is sometimes (though rarely) made in KJV in recognition of variants by the old Protestant translators, but this is a far cry from the modern critical approach that jettisons large portions of the traditional text of Scripture (like Mark 16:9-20 or John 7:53--8:11) or suggests that the text is, in no way, stable.

--

This friend also shared some notes given to him by another pastor (who uses the NKJV) providing another internal argument in favor of the "book of life" reading:

"God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." •    Some of your translations may read “tree of life” here, but here we preach from the NKJV, which reads “Book of Life.” •    Now obviously we are not going to argue about certain manuscripts but we do indeed believe that the Lord has providentially preserved His Word and that it comes to us in what is called the Textus Receptus, or the Received Text •    But further than this, when we consider v. 19 in light of the flow and structure of the book of Revelation itself, the Book of Life makes deep and fitting sense •    When we hear of the Book of Life as it appears in this book, it is always associated with eternal judgment and salvation ◦    Revelation 3:5 "He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels." ◦    Revelation 13:8: "All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." ◦    Revelation 20:15: "And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire." •    To have one’s name removed from the Book of Life is to be shut out from eternal life and cast into judgment. •    The tree of life, on the other hand, is consistently portrayed as a reward for the righteous, never as something a false professor might lose. ◦    Revelation 2:7 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give to eat from the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God.” ◦    Revelation 22:2 “In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.” ◦    Revelation 22:14 “Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.” ◦    In each of these three texts, the tree of life is promised to the righteous, to the overcomers, and to those who belong to God in the eternal state. ◦    It is never used in a context of loss, warning, or judgment. ◦    It is always reward-oriented, never spoken of as something that a false believer might have a “part” in and then lose. •    And so the language here—of someone’s “part” or “portion” being taken away—corresponds naturally with the idea of a name written in a book, not with fruit from a tree. •    So even at the level of the text itself, “Book of Life” accords with the solemn warning being given and underscores just how serious it is to tamper with the Word of God.

Revelation 22:19 "and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

JTR

WM 358: GERHARD on the INTEGRITY of the HEBREW TEXT of OT: Not corrupted by JEWS

 

JTR

WM 353: John Owen (Biblical Theology) on the Septuagint

 

JTR

WM 352: KEACH on the DIVINE AUTHORITY of the Holy Scriptures: Part 4 of 17: HOLINESS

 

JTR

Five Misrepresentations of the Confessional Text position by Mark Ward in "The Septuagint and Confessional Bibliology" in The Authority of the Septuagint:

From X:

Five Misrepresentations of the Confessional Text position by Mark Ward in "The Septuagint and Confessional Bibliology" in The Authority of the Septuagint:

1. MW once again claims that we are "fraternal twins" to IFB KJVO (p. 169). We have repeatedly stated that KJVO is completely incompatible with WCF/2LBCF 1:8 and is a position we repudiate. To say we are *only* "fraternal twins" to KJVO is, in fact, a deceptive and pusillanimous obfuscation.

2. MW reviews only three of our four plenary lecturers in the 2024 RBS conference, completely overlooking Christian McShaffrey's lecture on Apologetics. Co-editor Ross was at the conference and should have noticed this oversight. MW apparently made this omission because McShaffrey does not hold a PhD degree. This, however, is not a standard for participation in the RBS or holding to the CB position. McShaffrey is an established OPC pastor, the stated clerk of his presbytery, a member of the executive committee (& secretary) of the RBS, and a respected writer and spokesman for the Confessional Text position. MW, however, imposes his own arbitrary standard (he only reviews speakers who hold the PhD, p. 170), and so inexplicably omits consideration one of the four plenary speakers for the conference he was reviewing.

3. MW claims that our 2024 conference on the LXX represented a distinct shift or turn in emphasis for CB by focusing on the OT, though we have from the beginning had a whole Bible (OT and NT) emphasis and concern. The assertion that this is a new emphasis of CB is simply wrong.

4. MW states that CB holds that there are singular extant “perfect manuscript copies” of the Bible (p. 178). This is never an argument we have made, but MW continues to repeat this charge. He provides no citations to demonstrate that this is our view, because no such citations exist.

5. MW makes no serious reference to or any interaction with perhaps the key emphasis of the CB movement. We are contending for retrieval of the classic Protestant position regarding the text of Scripture, held by men like Owen and Turretin, including the rejection of the LXX's use to "correct" the Hebrew text (what Berntson calls in his article in this book the "older view" of the Protestant orthodox).

JTR

WM 343: Book Interview: John Hooper, It is Written: A Believer's Guide to the Doctrine of Scripture

 

Find book info (including ordering info) here.

JTR

WM 342: "SHOCKING" Analysis: Lanier, "Grumpy Protestants," and the Authority of the LXX

 

JTR

WM 340: Analysis: Are "THEOLOGICAL JUDGEMENTS IRRELEVANT" for establishing the TEXT of Holy Scripture?

 

JTR

WM 333: "PERFECT SCRIPTURE only reserved for the next life?": The Critic Critiqued Continued

 

JTR

WM 335: ERIKA KIRK, "Father, forgive them," & the TENACITY of LUKE 23:34a

 

JTR