I came upon an article titled “Reformed Confessions of Faith and the Traditional Text” and as I read it, I started to realize that although I have studied this subject before and have even participated in a few discussions of this nature on the Highway’s boards. At present some of it is above my present knowledge concerning whether or not the article has its facts straight and even if it does, is it biasing those facts in order to project them towards their faulty presupposition? Although it is a study that one day I would like to go deeper on, at present to attempt such a study would take away from other important priorities. I thought however, it might be helpful to enquire on the Highway to see if the author’s claims are true.
To give an example, the author seems to believe that only the “Greek Textus Receptus (the printed edition of the Greek text at the time) along with the Byzantine manuscripts (the Traditional Text) upon which it was largely based and the Hebrew Masoretic Text” match what Matt. 5:18 says: “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”KJV
He goes on to say that this is what the Reformers themselves believed and he quotes some of them to prove his point. One quote he uses seemingly shows how John Owen himself believed the Textus Receptus to be authentic. The author says that John Owen (or the Reformers) would not agree with the conclusions in the modern critical text
By extension (if I understand the author’s point), I think he is probably saying that only Bible versions that have been translated from those texts are consistent with Matt. 5:18.
He also says something that I found interesting and I quote.
When the confession speaks of the original Greek and Hebrew as “being immediately inspired by God” it is often thought today to only be referring to the original autographs which are now lost. However, the confession proceeds to make clear that “immediate inspiration” is not referring merely to the autographs, but the text that came down to us through history for it goes on to states that it was “by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic”.

The main reason I bring this up is because almost without exception, when I listen to Reformed pastors or theologians on this subject, they almost always refer to only the original autographs as inspired and without err. Most see no real problem with this in terms of doctrinal accuracy; they seem to pay more attention to the issue of Formal Equivalence vs. Dynamic Equivalence; at least in Reformed circles.
Another point the author made, in using only certain manuscripts was that the Reformers used them in direct opposition to Roman Catholic claims.

Last edited by Tom; Thu Feb 15, 2018 5:47 PM.