Should a reformed church take issue if one of its officers holds to verbal plenary preservation, and that the Textus Receptus is the providentially preserved Scripture for the Church?

With the understanding that the individual is irenic and not divisive regarding this issue.

__________________
Larry Bray
Training for Elder - Reformed Presbyterian Church of Boothwyn, PCA
Boothwyn, PA - http://www.rpcb.org/

Free Online Reformed Seminary - http://www.tnars.net

-----------------------------------------------------
"The best Christian is still a poor Christian" - R.B. Kuiper

I think the question may be a red herring. Is the issue 'whether the AV can be improved upon', i.e. 'whether the Bible ought to be translated into the vernacular'? The 'Received Text' (the constructed document as such does not exist and the AV itself sometimes departs from it) most definitely differs from the original autographs (there can be no argument about this), but existing discrepancies (subject to conspiracy theories of the worst kind) should not be exaggerated: they are extremely minimal and it is possible to reconstruct the NT text with almost perfect accuracy. Bruce Metzger's ”Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament” sheds some light on this issue. Behind it all, of course, lies the overruling providence of God.
It would be foolish to fall out with brethren who have not examined the more complex issues pertaining to textual criticism. Greater mortals (incl. J Murray and M Lloyd-Jones) have faithfully preached from the AV, but have not shied away from offering corrections (i.e. deviations from the 'Textus Receptus') when deemed appropriate. I would most certainly not judge a man's spirituality by his lack of understanding of textual criticism. Differences over this issue should not result in the development of a spiritual superiority complex with either party.

__________________
Independent Reformed Baptist Church (NE England, nr. Durham)

I think your heart's in the right place on this, Dieter, though I would like to ask you a few questions.

When you say, "The 'Received Text' (the constructed document as such does not exist and the AV itself sometimes departs from it) most definitely differs from the original autographs (there can be no argument about this)" I am not sure how you define your terms.

When you say "the Received Text" which TR are you referring to? Stephens of 1550? The Elzevirs'? Beza's? Or Scrivener's of 1894? These all are referred to -- loosely -- as the Textus Receptus. The TR 1894, Scrivener's compilation of the Greek underlying the KJV, does exist, and the KJV does not depart from that.

When you say "The 'Received Text'...most definitely differs from the original autographs (there can be no argument about this)", I am not sure how you have arrived at this conclusion. That is, how do you know this?

When you say, "existing discrepancies ... should not be exaggerated: they are extremely minimal and it is possible to reconstruct the NT text with almost perfect accuracy". I would ask, How minimal the discrepancies, and how perfect the accuracy? And, is Metzger's work conducive to this reconstruction "with almost perfect accuracy"? Perhaps I should seek precision by asking, What percentage "perfect accuracy" are you talking of?

Thanks!

To answer your question, Larry, I would say, No, they should not take issue with such a one, given, as you said, he continued irenic in his demeanor and was not divisive.

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)

A few comments in response

The so-called Received Text – cf. http://www.afii.org/grtrkjv.html (a misnomer – received by whom? The phrase first appears in 1633, i.e. later than 1611 / AV) - well what is it? We only possess an eclectic text. The AV is based on Erasmus' revised text (sort of) which is a bit too complicated to explain. Broadly speaking, Parker says that the TR was authorized by Erasmus, canonized by Stephanus (in 1550 – Stephanus' third ed., based on Erasmus' third ed., not the first one) and deified by Beza (cf. Calvin NT Com., 122; first bracket mine).
The AV acutally departs from the 1550 ed. (one can cite some 200 examples of sifting variants).
Metzger (in loc.) has convincingly argued that, e.g., that 1. John 5:7f. (v.l.) has crept in! Candlish already preceded Metzger in 1866!
Variants undoubtedly exist, none of which affect the overall teaching of the NT.
The Westminster Confession does not assume that the TR is free from corruptions. Calvin frequently speaks of errors having crept in.
We may speak of some 1.400 variants (very few when compared with the actual length of the NT, most of which are insignificant (e.g. l. 'and' or 'but'; 'Jesus' or 'Jesus Christ'). Only some 50 variants are of some importance. If you wish to work out the percentage in detail you will need to do a word count (I am rather too busy with other matters).
You may wish to look at http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/links_Biblical.htm

Hello Dieter,

The OP question may be a “red herring” to you, if your interests lie elsewhere, but to others it is to the point!

Red herring, definition: “something used to draw attention away from the real issue” or
“something introduced…in order to divert attention or mislead”

What is the real issue? I gather you have a view of the NT text which looks askance at the AV and the idea of God’s providential preservation of the Greek (and Hebrew) underlying it. The real issue is, What is the authentic New Testament text? And if you will attempt to dismiss the TR in a scholarly way you must engage scholarship which supports it, though I understand you are “too busy with other matters” to undertake such a task.

Concerning the phrase, Textus Receptus:

Textus Receptus is a Latin term which means “Received Text.” The name itself comes from an edition of the Greek NT produced by Bonaventura and Abraham Elzevir (or Elzevier). The Elzevirs printed seven editions of the Greek NT between 1624 and 1678. Their second edition (1633) has this sentence in the preface: “Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum, in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus” (Therefore you [dear reader] have the text now received by all, in which we give nothing changed or corrupted). From this statement (Textum…receptum) comes the term Textus Receptus or TR, which today is commonly applied to all editions of the Greek NT before the Elzevir’s, beginning with Erasmus’ in 1516.*

*From, “ERASMUS AND THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS,” by William W. Combs (Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1, Spring 1996: pp. 35-53) http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_1/ERASMUS.PDF

In point of fact, Dieter, the term Textus Receptus refers to the Reformation text, the Greek text as it was published by Erasmus, Stephens, Beza, and the Elzevirs (though these latter were not the editors but the printers), which several texts varied only minutely from one another. So this was indeed “the text now received by all” in the Reformation community, and the phrase is no misnomer!

You are saying you “only possess an eclectic text”? Because you are not speaking for me. You say, “The AV is based on Erasmus' revised text (sort of) which is a bit too complicated to explain.” Too complicated for whom? You? Me? If you think me, try me.

The excellent Calvin scholar and translator, T.H.L. Parker, whose cute quip you quote, was no friend of the Reformation scholars’ approach to the text. Letis points out, “…Parker subscribes to the modern, post-Enlightenment method, which places primacy on internal criteria, [and] he cannot sympathize with Calvin’s method [of preferring the common readings]…” (The Majority Text, by Theodore P. Letis; “Theodore Beza As Text Critic: A View Into the Sixteenth Century Approach to New Testament Text Criticism”; p. 121)

Interesting topic, where the TR/KJV departs from Beza! (A book has been written on the subject: Where the King James Bible Leaves the Greek Text of Theodore Beza 1598, by Kirk DiVietro.) But no point in engaging you on your various points, seeing you are in such a hurry to go.

We’ve had some good discussions concerning the late Dr. Metzger, as well as 1 John 5:7, the variants, etc.

When you say, “The Westminster Confession does not assume that the TR is free from corruptions,” I beg to differ. Owen and Turretin, two architects of the Reformation doctrine of the providential preservation of Scripture (apart from the Scripture itself), allowed minute variations within the Textus Receptus manuscripts, but those variations outside of them they did not recognize.

Steve

I will reply but it's late and I am tired.

Some of the VPP's that i have come into contact with say that the Hebrew and Greek texts (Ben Chayyim and TR) are the "closest" to the originals.

Doesn't this invalidate their belief in verbal plenary preservation? Shouldn't they believe that there is Hebrew and Greek that are "exactly" like the originals?

A FEW COMMENTS IN REPLY

Contrary to your protestations – and with due respect – Calvin did not entirely base his translation on what has come to be known as 'the Received Text' (your observation is anachronistic). At any rate, he often departs from Erasmus' edition (which you may know, contains passages translated from the Latin into Greek!), basing his translation on his own (scholarly) understanding of the Greek text. I produced a dissertation in my university days and was surprised at Calvin's handling of the Greek.

The Church has never possessed a non-eclectic text. The idea of a purely uniform, received text is a historical myth! Providentially, thousands of manuscripts have been preserved, and their collaborative evidence proves reliable in regard to transmission; variants must not be exaggerated, as explained before. Nothing like it exists in the history of literature!

I think that behind the supposed arguments lies a desire to retain the KJV (itself being a revision and by no means an accurate translation – indeed, is there one?) as sacrosanct; the parallel to the status of the Vulgate (as officially formulated at the First Council of Trent) is ironical!

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 – which, incidentally, we use in family worship.
For preaching and studying purposes I read the original languages, as well as different translations.

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.

I have come across http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_receptus but have not ascertained whether it is reliable.

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

Larry,

You say,

Among the AV/TR 1894 defenders there are a couple of camps. It is a nuanced business. The following link (and one related) looks at a discussion of Owen’s view of this (and he was one of the Reformation architects of the doctrine of providential preservation). There are also those who hold to absolute preservation. Is God able to do that?

http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost...6&postcount=67

http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost...6&postcount=76

Steve

Thank you Steve.

So from reading those links and some other things that i have read it seems that there is a distinction drawn between variants and corruptions. When i first looked into the issue i always considered variants to be corruptions on some level. This is all very interesting stuff.

I noticed that you spoke of the works of Letis being hard to come by. You can get many of his works from the Institute for Biblical Textual Studies - ibts@voyager.net

Hi Larry,

Well, I would say that variants are corruptions (two differing readings can't both be right). Per Owen's view, there are miniscule differences within the broad TR mss which, he says, God has given us to exercise our discernment. Perhaps such a one is the matter of the omicron or omega in Romans 7:6, though Will Kinney says no: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Romans7-6.html]

Would you know if Letis' (unpublished at his death), From Sacred Text to Religious Text: An Intellectual History of the Impact of Lower Criticism on Dogma, or, the multi-media work, Eclipse of the Sacred are anywhere available, even if in rough draft? (The former was his Ph.D. dissertation at the University of Edinburgh.)

Ted Clore, if you're looking in, would you know? Are you able to contact his widow, Susan? It would be a shame to let his valuable work -- upon which he spent so much dilligent investigation and thought -- perish.

Well - I think we will just have to agree to differ and leave it at that. But my disagreement is no criticism of your spiritual state. Please do not be offended!
I fail to see how your logic proves me to be on the RC side, "You are taking Rome’s side against the claims of the Reformers" (sic).
I fail to see how the TR has now become identical with the autographs (assuming that John did not write in Latin!)
I fail to see that a Latin 'Vorlage' has (since Erasmus' time) now been elevated to the level of 'inspired Scripture'. The Westminster Confession points to the original languages, Hebrew and Greek. The Hebrew vowel points, at any rate, were added much later, and are thus not part of the original (sometimes a different English rendering is possible).
To argue that Protestantism combats the papacy on the basis of a 16th century text (I reiterate my contention about textual variants, most of which are insignificant) seems absurd to me, allowing Romanism to attack a novel tradition!
Having studied the Scriptures in the original, I fail to see how 'AV only supporters' can purport to reflect Hebrew or Greek idioms. Neither, I suppose, would you would agree with Luther's translation approach whom you cite as relying on the Received Text. He departed from it in his German translation – though, granted, not necessarily for textual reasons.
In Scotland I know of men who would argue that the Gaelic is clearer than the Hebrew. Oddly enough, I have read a book on the linguist relation between Hebrew and Gaelic! A linguistic case can be made for Adam and Eve speaking in Gaelic!
Anyway, I trust you are knowing the LORD'S blessing on your labour!

In Him,

Dieter

I'm sorry to say that they do not publish those materials.

nope.

__________________
~etexas~

Hi Dieter,

I know no offense was meant, and I have taken none. It is perfectly alright for brothers to differ on academic subjects, even though this one is close to both of our hearts.

What I meant about your taking the RC side v. the Reformers pertained to the argument that their TR was invalid due to the existence of variants. I would not extend that to any other area of your thinking.

Interesting thing, the Hebrew vowel points of the Masoretic text. That the vowel points were from of old (i.e., extant in the time of Jesus and before), and not the construction of the Masorete scribes, was a point of doctrine in the post-Reformation church. From another post:

That offer still stands, by the way.

You say,

I fail to see how the TR has now become identical with the autographs (assuming that John did not write in Latin!)

I suppose I should hear the tone of wry British humor in there! What if (and I am seeking to reconstruct the history of the text here) during the 50 years (approximately 335 – 385 A.D.) the Arian party held supreme power both in the Greek church and the Imperial government, the zealous among them expunged parts of those verses they held to conduce to heresy (Acts 20:28, 1 Timothy 3:16, 1 John 5:7, among others)?* We know that Constantine had ordered from Eusebius 50 complete Bibles to replace those destroyed during the persecution of Diocletian, and we know the textual treasure house of Origen’s library in Caesarea was available to Eusebius (a devotee of Origen); Tischendorf, among others, was of the opinion that Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus (B) were of that 50. These verses are altered in Aleph and B, and could well have been useful in the Arian cause.

At any rate, this would explain why some verses missing in the Greek / Byzantine manuscripts of the Eastern Empire would have remained intact in the Latin MSS of the Western portion of the Empire where neither Diocletian’s vendetta against the Scriptures (and Eusebius’ replacements) nor the Arian oppression had much impact. Frederick Nolan’s classic Inquiry into The Integrity of the Greek Vulgate looks carefully into this matter: http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/cl.../inquiry0.html

------------

* [So fervent and violent were the anti-Nicenes], “in 357 a council at Sirium…forced Hosius, now a centenarian [a hundred years or more of age], to attend against his will and to sign [an Arian formula] after being beaten and tortured…” (from, A History of Heresy, by David Christie-Murray, p. 51)

------------

You say,

To argue that Protestantism combats the papacy on the basis of a 16th century text (I reiterate my contention about textual variants, most of which are insignificant) seems absurd to me, allowing Romanism to attack a novel tradition!

One might agree with your sentence as it pertains to the present (“combats”), but as regards the past it is historical fact. A 16th century text was used to combat the papacy. As this defense was based upon Scripture – so the post-Reformation divines showed – it was no “novel tradition” at all, but sound doctrine.

I am not sure of the language Adam and Eve spoke; there are those who say Hebrew, and I do not know enough to say otherwise. Nor do I know what language shall be spoken in Heaven – or rather, in the Kingdom of God – although many people groups claim it will be their language. I think that possibly we shall each speak in our native tongues, and yet understand utterly all other tongues. For there is a beauty intrinsic to each.

You said, “I fail to see how 'AV only supporters' can purport to reflect Hebrew or Greek idioms.” Perhaps it has to do with the quality of the language.

I have enjoyed our discussion, Dieter. Thank you again for your irenic manner.

In Him,

Steve

Steve,

I am currently investigating how we might obtain copies of the Dr. Letis dissertation.

I found someone who quoted from his dissertation in their dissertation and they pointed me to a direction where i may be able to get it.

I will keep you informed with what i find out.

Larry, that would be great! If your lead pans out, I will discontinue seeking contacts in Edinburgh to access the University records.

Thanks,

Steve