Apographa

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is essential-vocab-1.png

“copies of an original;

specifically, the scribal copies of the original autographa (q.v.) of Scripture.”Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology, Term: apographa.

The term apographa deserves close attention in that the documents were not merely understood to be copies of copies of copies. Still, for the Protestant Scholastics and for us here at StandardSacredText.com the apographa are in one sense the copies of the original autographa. Muller observes under the same entry,

“The Protestant scholastics distinguished between the absolute infallibility of the original copies of the biblical books and the textual imperfection of the apographa.”

Muller, Dictionary, apographa.

For the Protestant scholastics, there were two kinds of “copies.” First, there were the copies that made up the sacred text of God’s people, from which the Protestant scholastics did battle with Roman Catholic apologists. Second, the apographa as “manuscript tradition”, which though essentially correct, did possess imperfections which Protestant scholastics thought easily remedied through “their exegetical method intended, by means of mastery of the languages and the comparative study of the extant texts, to overcome errors caused by transmission.”

“In addition, the Protestant orthodox held, as a matter of doctrinal conviction stated in the locus de Scriptura Sacra of their theological systems, the providential preservation of the text throughout history.”

Muller, Dictionary, apographa.

This “matter of doctrinal conviction” is born out quite clearly in the declaration of the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.8:

“The Old Testament in Hebrew…and the New Testament in Greek…being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical.”

Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.8.

In short, first, the historic Protestant orthodox position on this point was to hold that the original text they held to as the sacred text, which was a copy, was equal to the autographa. Second, the textual tradition [i.e., the apographa] did indeed possess corruptions, but these corruptions could be easily overcome through “their exegetical method intended…to overcome errors caused by the transmission of the text.”

What is Standard Sacred Text.com – Text

Before addressing a topic so fundamental as the doctrine of God, Francis Turretin begins his Institutes of Elenctic Theology with a discussion on the doctrine of Scripture. Turretin is writing in the third wave of the Reformation and the struggle over the certainty and authority of the Scriptures was still a hotly contested locus between the Protestants and Catholics

In his second topic and second question, Turretin asks,

“Was it necessary for the word of God to be committed to writing? We affirm.”

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 2.

He goes on to remark on the three things that prove said necessity: “1.) the preservation of the word; 2.) its vindication; 3.) its propagation.” Turretin offers a summary of these three when he writes,

“It was necessary for a written word to be given to the church that the canon of true religious faith might be constant and unmoved; that it might easily be preserved pure and entire against the weakness of memory, the depravity of men, and the shortness of life; that it might be more certainly defended from the frauds and corruptions of Satan.”

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 2, Sec. VI.

Note the timely and relevant language here. Turretin, writing in 1696, acknowledges the weakness of memory which is an Achille’s Heal of mere oral tradition, the depravity of men to alter the word of God, the brevity of human life, and finally Satan himself as corruptors of the Scriptural text. For Turretin and the Reformers in general, the textual issues is at the bottom a moral, generational, and spiritual one.

Observe even further that although a great bit of artillery is aimed at “the canon of true religious faith” Turretin declares that the writing of Scripture “remains constant and unmoved.” The very writing of the Scriptures ensures for the Reformers a preserved, pure, and entire written word of God.

Simply put, we here at StandardSacredText.com hold to the same conclusion. God gave His word in written propositions easily, purely, and entirely. Those same propositions, by virtue of being God’s propositions, remain easily, purely, and entirely preserved in a single standard sacred text. We here at StandardSacredText.com hold that text to be the union of the Masoretic Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, and the 1881 Scrivener’s Greek New Testament. Regarding the English-speaking believing community, we believe the King James Version to be the standard sacred text for the English-speaking believing community.

William Whitaker and Revelation 20:18

Welcome to the Brickyard. This is a place to find quotes for use in your own research. The bricks are free but the building is up to you. The following quotes are from William Whitaker on Revelation 20:18. He originally wrote them in 1588.

“For we may, by parity of reason, argue thus: The authority and analogy of the other books is the same: if, therefore, it be not lawful to add to this book, then, by parity of reason, it will be unlawful to add to any other book, or detract from it.”

William Whitaker, Disputations on Holy Scripture, trans. and ed. William Fitzgerald (Orlando, FL: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2005), 622.

“Those, therefore, who add any thing to the scripture itself, or take any thing from it, are obnoxious to this denunciation.”

William Whitaker, Disputations on Holy Scripture, trans. and ed. William Fitzgerald (Orlando, FL: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2005), 622.

“I confess that the apostle [John] denounces an anathema against those who add any thing to that word of God which he preached; but I maintain that the whole of that word is contained in the scriptures.”

William Whitaker, Disputations on Holy Scripture, trans. and ed. William Fitzgerald (Orlando, FL: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2005), 623.

Scripture Endures Forever

What are we as Christians to make of these passages? Are we to disregard them as oriental hyperbole, or a literary device, or a contextually limited application? Or are we to accept the clear and conspicuous, historically anchored meaning of “forever”? To reject the truth of Scripture’s “foreverness” presents the need to reinterpret the passages below which is no small feat. And critics capriciously say, “No doctrine is effected with the reconstruction of novel texts and versions, except is this case the doctrine of Scripture’s “foreverness.”

I leave you, gentle reader, with the following list for your reading pleasure.

Job 19:24, “Oh that my words were now written! oh that they were printed in a book! That they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever!” Psalm 12:7, Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever (לְעוֹלָֽם, olam). Psalm 33:11, “The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations (לְעוֹלָ֣ם, olam).” Psalm 105:8, “He hath remembered his covenant for ever (לְעוֹלָ֣ם, olam), the word which he commanded to a thousand generations.” Psalm 117:2, “For his merciful kindness is great toward us: and the truth of the LORD endureth for ever (לְ֜עוֹלָ֗ם, olam). Praise ye the LORD.” Psalm 119:89, “Forever (לְעוֹלָ֥ם, olam), O Lord, they word is settled in heaven.” Psalm 119:111, “Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage for ever (לְעוֹלָ֑ם, olam): for they are the rejoicing of my heart.” Psalm 119:144, “They righteousness of thy testimonies is everlasting (לְעוֹלָ֑ם, olam); give me understanding, and I shall live.” Psalm 119:152, “Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever (לְעוֹלָ֣ם, olam).” Psalm 119:160, “Thy Word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever (וּ֜לְעוֹלָ֗ם, olam).” Ecc. 3:14, “I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever (לְעוֹלָ֔ם, olam): nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.” Isa. 30:8, “Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever (עוֹלָם, olam) and ever” or “forever to eternity.” Isaiah 40:8, “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever (עוֹלָם, olam).” Isaiah 54:10, “For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the LORD that hath mercy on thee.” Isaiah 59:21, “As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My spirit that is upon thee, and my Words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever (עוֹלָם, olam).” Matthew 5:18, “For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass (οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ) from the law, til all be fulfilled.” Matthew 24:35, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away (οὐ μὴ παρέλθωσιν).” Luke 16:17, “And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.” 1 Peter 1:23-25, “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God which liveth and abideth forever (αἰῶνα). For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth forever (αἰῶνα). And this is the Word which by the gospel is preached unto you.”

What is Standard Sacred Text.com – Sacred

Eminent scholar, Daniel Wallace opines in the following manner,

“I would question whether it is an epistemologically sound principle to allow one’s presuppositions to dictate his text-critical methodology. This is neither honest to a historical investigation nor helpful to our evangelical heritage.”

Daniel Wallace, “Challenges in New Testament Textual Criticism for the Twenty-First Century” in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Vol. 52, Iss. 1 (March 2009): 79-100. 93.

Here at StandardSacredText.com we do not question whether it is an epistemologically sound principle to allow one’s theological presuppositions to dictate text-critical methodology. Indeed, we argue the opposite. We argue that it is honest to historical investigation. Why? Well of course the Scriptures are a historical particular but so is divine revelation.

The fact that the Red Sea parted is a historical fact. According to the Christian worldview, the fact that God made the Red Sea part is also a historical fact. In fact, divine revelation is just as much a historical “artifact” as the physical document we call the Scriptures. The apostle John’s writing of the gospel of John is a historical fact. In the same way, according to the Christian worldview, God’s inspiring John to write the inspired words of the gospel of John is also a historical fact.

As such we do not exclude the Triune God or Christian theology from any of our academic endeavors whether that be linguistic, scientific, historical, or other. What we believe about what the Bible says about itself is a sacred issue, indeed, a sacred duty. And by sacred we mean set apart to God. Paul reminds us in I Corinthians 10: 31, “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.” Text-critical method falls under “whatsoever ye do. ” If the glory of the Triune God is your aim in text-critical methodology then it seems something of your theological presuppositions is dictating your methodology.

If God’s glory is not the aim of the Christian, then said Christian violates Paul’s injunction. Certainly, we would say this of a marriage which has some other aim. Or a business that has some other aim. In fact, some may say that this “other aim” may amount to idolatry.

“The glory of the Triune God” is a Christian theological presupposition.
A: All the things a Christian does should be done to the glory of the Triune God.
B: Text-critical methodology is something a Christian does.
Conclusion: For a Christian, text-critical methodology should be done to the glory of the Triune God.

Weekly Question – What if we had a Standard Sacred Text?

What if we had a standard sacred text?

Say the English-speaking believing community was to arrive at and agree on a standard sacred text. What negative outcomes do you think will come about? What are the cons? How would the Church be injured? What does the worst-case scenario look like? What is the likely scenario? Why is this the case?

Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.

The Department of Education, Big Pharma, and Bible Publishers

Riding home from a family visit, we were listening to the radio and a commentor’s observation on the existence of the Department of Education. He scoffed at the notion that the DOE functioned to educate children. In summary, he concluded that the education of children was not the department’s purpose because well-educated children would give the DOE no reason to exist. Departmental preservation required that there not be a solution to the issue of public education only the constant requirement for additional funding of the DOE due to poor grades and perpetually failing school systems. Implementing a solution would put the DOE out of business.

The pharmaceutical industry, “Big Pharma” then came to mind. Drug making companies that have been in existence well over 100 years have never produced medicine to cure one disease. Because solutions or cures are not what they are in business for. Cures would put them out of business. Drug after drug is marketed and sold but solutions to sickness and disease is not part of their business model because keeping the masses just sick enough is part of the plan.

Carry this business model over into Bible publishing. After over 100 years of bible publishing, the brightest academic minds have been incapable of coming up with a solution to the problem of divergent bible versions. And lest one think this be an unwarranted comparison with the DOE and drug manufactures, consider the profound hypocrisy of bible publishers who had a solution in the King James Bible but abandoned the answer so they could go back to the drawing board and start over again. Bible publishers have taken a page out of governmental and big business models that never intend a solution only a self-perpetuating income stream with the multiplication of novel bibles that some misguided saints argue are the word of God.

Every discipline has its spokesmen and “professionals” to write academic and scholarly propaganda in support of these high-tech rackets, and bible publishers are no different. Even bible publishers have their Anthony Fauci to tell us to omit the 1 John 5:7. The essential element of each business plan is to never provide an answer or solution; do enough to keep the consumer on the hook by creating a sensed need but never come to the place where the consumer no longer needs the business. The Church is living with scholarly imposed “masks,” the saints always fearful of being ostracized for not doing what they are told.

When the education of children was the responsibility of the community where the kids lived, families were better educated; when garden grown food was the staple diet and homeopathic medicine was appreciated and utilized communities were healthier; and before professional scholars took over the reconstruction of the Bible, the Church was stronger. It’s amazing how well our schools, medical practitioners, and Churches performed without the need of experts. Common sense people want solutions to problems not just more money thrown at the dilemma but solutions are not what the “mystery of iniquity which doth already work” (2 Thess. 2:7) has to offer.

The last thing the academy wants to hear is that we don’t need anymore experimental bibles, the Church has a standard sacred text, and it’s the King James Bible. This statement is more than a confession of faith. It strikes at the foundation of a multi-billion-dollar industry that like the DOE and Big Pharma has power through the accumulation of wealth as their driving motivations.

It’s time for the Church, but most of all the Pastors, to stop listening to so-called experts who have failed to produce solutions and return to the Bible God has blessed. A Bible that has the proven solution to the spiritual need of the lost and is the ground upon which the Church and home may grow and abound, the King James Bible.

You may say to yourselves, this post sounds too secular and crass to be true. Is the accumulation of wealth by keeping the textual critical enterprise barely alive, already on life support because of Artificial Intelligence, and by being propogandists for the bible publishing company. Is the “love of money” really at the core of this issue? Was it money that drove scholars to write and publish now irrelevant paperback rags attacking the King James Bible? Would Mark Ward and James White cease their textual escapades if it cost them their living? If the King James Bible was again accepted by the Church as the standard sacred text, an industry that has its fingers in many disciplines would be out of business and many would be out of work. In a world that runs on wasted resources, who wants that to happen?