Hello Dieter!

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, but I needed my mind unencumbered by this discussion in order to fully enter into the material for my sermon.

What you say is true, Calvin did not uniformly base his readings on the text of Erasmus (as Luther did), for in his early work he “had an affinity for a renegade edition published by Simon de Colines (1534)” [Letis op. cit., p. 119], though he moved away from depending on this source in his later years, in lieu of the common text.

My observation of what is anachronistic? Please be clear. If I am talking of text critical method in the Reformation and post-Reformation eras, delving into such things is most relevant. Do you not agree? I think contemporary text critical method is at a dead end.

Looking at your next remark:

[As I discuss below, it “proves reliable” as regards 85% of the readings.]

eclectic 1) choosing what is best or preferred from a variety of sources or styles; 2) made up of elements from various sources.

I would agree with you to a point. When Erasmus gathered his materials (which he had obtained from examining manuscripts for decades throughout Europe), as well as the manuscripts he had at hand, to produce his New Testament, this was, as you say, eclectic, as he chose from different sources.

The view of the post-Reformation scholars (Owen and Turretin among them) was that God, fulfilling in the minutiae (as opposed to in the main) His promise to preserve His word, had brought to the world-class scholar Erasmus those Byzantine mss & readings, as well as a few other readings that had been lost from the Byz, so that he might compile the New Testament in very close accord to the originals. I realize some folks do not like the idea that he took some of these few readings from the Latin Vulgate, but this did not deter the scholarly post-Reformation defenders of the doctrines of Sola Scriptura and its twin sister, God’s Providential Preservation of that Scripture. This is the view held by some scholars of our own time, namely, Theodore P. Letis, and Edward F. Hills. They all hold that this Textus Receptus was refined by Stephens, Beza, and the Elzevirs. This Reformation text was firmly established, and understood by all to be the providentially preserved and appointed-by-God form of Scripture representing the original Greek New Testament autograph even in the minutiae. You mentioned earlier, “The Westminster Confession does not assume that the TR is free from corruptions.” Would you please provide some support for that statement?

This TR, and the foremost English translation from it – the King James Bible – are the result of God’s providential preservation. It is not properly considered an “eclectic” text any longer, being the end result of God’s sovereign care to preserve His word. It is the word of God. In the minutiae. It is no “myth”! C’est un fait accompli.

I must hasten to add that there are a good number of scholars of the Byzantine-priority “school” (Robinson, Pierpont, Bruggen, Pickering, et al) who make a strong and clear distinction between the Byzantine textform and what the Eclectic schools come up with, these latter based, ultimately, upon an Alexandrian type of textform (what else is there of any repute, certainly not the “Western,” supported primarily by D?). Though these Byz folks will not accept what I aver in my KJV/TR 1894 defense, it shows there is a wide difference between the Byz and Alex textforms.

At the very end of Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont’s Introduction to The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine / Majority Textform, they say:

Christians who use a translation based upon the Alexandrian (or even the Western) texttype are only somewhat disadvantaged from a Byzantine-priority perspective, specifically in the study of details. The best-selling NIV, the NASV, and most other modern translations are themselves based upon a generally-Alexandrian text, and Christians seem to suffer no devastating effects from their use (one must remember that, regardless of texttype, over 85% of the text found in all manuscripts is identical).

There are certain exegetical and theological problems found within the manuscripts of the Alexandrian and Western texttypes. Many readings are plainly erroneous or contradict other passages of Scripture. However, the primary doctrinal emphases of Scripture remain sufficient and clear throughout even the worst of these manuscripts. Their many textual errors are in no way endorsed by the present editors, however, even though some of these erroneous readings appear in various modern English translations and critical Greek editions.

The Byzantine-priority hypothesis is advocated, not because it is the only "pure" and therefore "good" form of the text, but because it appears to possess a greater claim toward "autograph originality" than other proposed hypotheses. The goal of textual criticism is not to produce a merely "good" text, nor even an "adequate" text, but instead to establish as nearly as possible the precise form of the original text. That alone has been the goal of the present editors.

The question, not only for these Byzantine-priority advocates, but the people like myself, is, What about the 15% or so of differences between the texttypes? 15% is rather a lot. As regards a human being, it is about an arm and a leg. I do not fancy losing that amount of my Bible, even though in the main – the 85% – it is completely intact. As regards the wonder of even this 85% remaining intact it is, as you said, something unequalled in all the history of literature. But I say God has done something even more remarkable. He has kept His word intact almost completely, and some of us say completely.

You say,

To answer this please allow me to bring up a statement by Dr. E.F. Hills of Harvard,

Do we believing Bible Students "worship" the King James Version? Do we regard it as inspired, just as the ancient Jewish philosopher Philo (d. 42 A.D.) and many early Christians regarded the Septuagint as inspired? Or do we claim the same supremacy for the King James Version that Roman Catholics claim for the Latin Vulgate? Do we magnify its authority above that of the Hebrew and Greek Old and New Testament Scriptures? We have often been accused of such excessive veneration for the King James Version, but these accusations are false. In regard to Bible versions we follow the example of Christ's Apostles. We adopt the same attitude toward the King James Version that they maintained toward the Septuagint.

In their Old Testament quotations the Apostles never made any distinction between the Septuagint and the Hebrew Scriptures. They never said, "The Septuagint translates this verse thus and so, but in the original Hebrew it is this way." Why not? Why did they pass up all these opportunities to display their learning? Evidently because of their great respect for the Septuagint and the position which it occupied in the providence of God. In other words, the Apostles recognized the Septuagint as the providentially approved translation of the Old Testament into Greek. They understood that this was the version that God desired the gentile Church of their day to use as its Old Testament Scripture.

During the 4th century the Roman Empire was divided into two parts, a Greek-speaking Eastern half and a Latin-speaking Western half. In the West the knowledge of Greek died out, and only the Latin language remained. Hence for the Western Christians the Greek Bible became useless. For more than 1,000 years the Latin Vulgate was their only Bible. It was the Latin Vulgate that John Wyclif translated into English, and it was through the study of the Vulgate also that Martin Luther gained his knowledge of those Gospel truths by which he ushered in the Protestant Reformation. Hence, in spite of its errors, it is not too much to say that the Latin Vulgate was the providentially appointed Bible version for Christians of Western Europe during the medieval period.

But if the Septuagint was the providentially appointed Old Testament version during the days of the early Church and if the Latin Vulgate was the providentially appointed Bible version for Christians of medieval Europe, much more is the King James Version the providentially appointed Bible for English-speaking Christians today. In it the true text of the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament has been restored, and the errors of the Septuagint and of the Latin vulgate have been corrected. (Believing Bible Study, pp. 81, 82)

The Roman Catholic organization says that the Scriptures are corrupted at the fount, and the pronouncements of the Church are needed to correct what is amiss. They say the church determines the right reading and understanding of the Scriptures. We say quite other. We say the Scriptures determine the church, and we say we have, by God’s providence, the uncorrupted fount: “by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages”. When we allow the Scriptures to speak we discern the Church as it was established in the Reformation. This was our weapon against the claims of Rome.

In our view of the Scriptures, and God’s preservation of them, were we wrong vis-à-vis Rome? Was Rome right when it sought to undermine our doctrine of Sola Scriptura on the basis of the variants they showed in their manuscripts? The way I see it, that is the position you are taking now. You are taking Rome’s side against the claims of the Reformers. It seems to me you are saying, Whatever was wrong with Rome’s theology, they were right about the Scriptures, and the post-Reformations dogmatists were wrong. It further seems to me that this would undermine the validity of the Reformation, its Scriptural foundation.

You say,

As most people do not understand Elizabethan English (and even the KJV, so it seems, was archaic in some respects in 1611), TR adherents need not to shy away from using the NKJV

A brief writing about the “archaic” English from Jack Moorman: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbcdarks2.htm#NIV. And from this I will excerpt a passage by Hills on the topic:

The English of the King James Version is not the English of the early 17th century. To be exact, it is not a type of English that was ever spoken anywhere. It is biblical English, which was not used on ordinary occasions even by the translators who produced the King James Version. As H. Wheeler Robinson (1940) pointed out, one need only compare the preface written by the translators with the text of their translation to feel the difference in style. And the observations of W.A. Irwin (1952) are to the same purport. The King James Version, he reminds us, owes its merit, not to 17th-century English - which was very difficult - but to its faithful translation of the original. Its style is that of the Hebrew and of the New Testament Greek. Even in their use of thee and thou the translators were not following 17th-century English usage but biblical usage, for at the time these translators were doing their work these singular forms had already been replaced by the plural you in polite conversation (The King James Version Defended, Des Moines: Christian Research Press, 1984, pp. 218).

In the church I serve we do use the NKJV as the pew Bibles (I had to choose them as opposed to the ESV), though there are some problems, with both translation and text, of the NKJV. But I can work with them.

Dieter, you say,

If we are of a truly Reformed persuasion then we, like them, must not live in the past or alter it to accommodate our prejudices. I prefer a less obscurantist approach to the New Testament text, but to be fair, a case can be made.

obscurantist: a person who is opposed to progress and the spread of knowledge

What if the “progress” is really retrogression, and the knowledge is false, illusory? If in the past there is sound vision and knowledge, and in the present deterioration and disintegration, I should forsake the sound for the “new”?

Although no fan of his, I like a saying of C.S. Lewis’: “Whatever is not eternal is eternally out-of-date.”

"…but to be fair, a case can be made."

Indeed.

Steve

__________________
Steve Rafalsky
Elder, International Evangelical Church (Reformed)
Limassol, Cyprus

"I am set for the defense of the gospel" (Philippians 1:17)

"Strengthened with all might, according to His glorious
power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness..." (Colossians 1:11)