Thursday, February 19, 2009
Aramaic Primacy
I'm intrigued by "Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?", so I'm reading it as I can. It is the author's contention, as it is of the Assyrian Church of the East, that the Peshitta is the original form of the New Testament. "My words will never pass away."
N.T. Wright and the Gospel
Found this on Paul Lamey's blog (http://expositorythoughts.wordpress.com/2007/09/03/they-cant-both-be-wright/?referer=sphere_related_content/). Very troubling. I don't trust N.T. Wright.
"They Can't Both Be 'Wright'"
“Justification by faith is the heart of the Gospel. This is what is contained in the promise, ‘Whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.’ If we fail to grasp the fact that the righteousness which justifies us is imputed and not infused or inherent, we shall find that, in substance, what we preach is a gospel of works, not a Gospel of grace” [from N. T. Wright (along with John Cheeseman, Philip Gardner, and Michael Sadgrove) in the 1972 edition of The Grace of God in the Gospel (Banner of Truth)].
“If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom . . . . To imagine the defendant somehow receiving the judge’s righteousness is simply a category mistake. That is not how language works” [from N. T. Wright in the 1997 edition of What Saint Paul Really Said (Eerdmans)].
"They Can't Both Be 'Wright'"
“Justification by faith is the heart of the Gospel. This is what is contained in the promise, ‘Whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.’ If we fail to grasp the fact that the righteousness which justifies us is imputed and not infused or inherent, we shall find that, in substance, what we preach is a gospel of works, not a Gospel of grace” [from N. T. Wright (along with John Cheeseman, Philip Gardner, and Michael Sadgrove) in the 1972 edition of The Grace of God in the Gospel (Banner of Truth)].
“If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom . . . . To imagine the defendant somehow receiving the judge’s righteousness is simply a category mistake. That is not how language works” [from N. T. Wright in the 1997 edition of What Saint Paul Really Said (Eerdmans)].
Monday, February 09, 2009
What James White needs answered by TR-only folks
James White posted this on 02/03/09. "... but I also would like to invite the "Truly Reformed" out there to call the DL and defend their exaltation of the Textus Receptus. Specifically, I would like to ask them to answer the following questions:
1) When did 'the church' 'received' this text?
2) What council engaged in a study of the respective texts and determined that this is the 'one' text that most closely represents the original?
3) Which text IS the 'TR'? Can you identify a single text as THE TR? If not, why not?
4) Please explain why I should use the TR's readings of Luke 2:22, Revelation 16:5, and the final six verses of Revelation. "
I'm keeping this post as a trailmarker containing relevant questions to answer. I don't have the answers, since I'm a newbie.
But I do have some questions:
1. When did 'the church' determine the canon?
2. What council determined the canon?
3. It doesn't matter to me that any one of the several TR's has errors. It's a textual family or tradition.
4. James often uses these small examples as showstoppers for TR priority. Seems to me like you'd need to take a bigger view than just a handful of problem sections.
5. Here's an example of taking a bigger view, first raised by Burgon. The two hero texts of the Critical Text fans--Sinaiticus and Vaticanus--leave out the last 12 verses of Mark. This should be seen as a major strike against their reliability and value in anything Text Critical.
1) When did 'the church' 'received' this text?
2) What council engaged in a study of the respective texts and determined that this is the 'one' text that most closely represents the original?
3) Which text IS the 'TR'? Can you identify a single text as THE TR? If not, why not?
4) Please explain why I should use the TR's readings of Luke 2:22, Revelation 16:5, and the final six verses of Revelation. "
I'm keeping this post as a trailmarker containing relevant questions to answer. I don't have the answers, since I'm a newbie.
But I do have some questions:
1. When did 'the church' determine the canon?
2. What council determined the canon?
3. It doesn't matter to me that any one of the several TR's has errors. It's a textual family or tradition.
4. James often uses these small examples as showstoppers for TR priority. Seems to me like you'd need to take a bigger view than just a handful of problem sections.
5. Here's an example of taking a bigger view, first raised by Burgon. The two hero texts of the Critical Text fans--Sinaiticus and Vaticanus--leave out the last 12 verses of Mark. This should be seen as a major strike against their reliability and value in anything Text Critical.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)