Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Hello Dennis,
Thank you for your kind remarks. Though I’m not a doctor, but an educated layman (true, I’m a Ruling Elder, functioning as a Teaching Elder in a foreign-field mission church). I don’t even have a high school diploma save in the USMC the equivalency diploma I received there (1959/60) and the GED I received in a college in Florida upon being tested before matriculation. I don’t have a college degree, and haven’t darkened the door of a theological cemetery (oops, seminary). I reveal all this to encourage folks to undertake the not-very-difficult study of the basic principles of textual criticism and textual history. I mean, one does not need to be a trained and certified mechanic to understand the production history, quality control, and all-around superiority of a Mercedes-Benz over a poorer-quality vehicle. As our Bibles are without a doubt the most important book in our lives – upon which we stake our eternal destinies, and those of our families – it is appropriate to give some time and effort to study those matters pertaining to it. One does not need to be a textual scholar or critic, or even fluent in the Greek or Hebrew – which I am not – to know the textual and historical issues necessary to comprehend which Bibles are the best. We are not – to use Machen’s memorable phrase – to be under “the tyranny of experts”, seeing as the Lord has made these matters plain to all His people, not just the formally educated. And I flout my inferior educational background to prove this point, perhaps similarly to Paul’s boasting in his weakness and infirmities, in which Christ’s strength may be manifest in fulness (2 Cor 12:9, 10). Note, however, I do not in the slightest mean to denigrate those who have labored in seminaries and universities to better serve the Lord and His people! Were it not for such I would not have the resources I have! My point is that simple folks may know which Bibles are best, and be able to defend their views, discerning the misinformation so prevalent in these times.
A book I would recommend is Crowned With Glory : The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version, by Dr. Thomas Holland.
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Crowned-Glory-Ancient-Authorized-Version/dp/0595146171]Crowned With Glory : The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version[/ame]
It is irenic, simple, clear, yet astute in its scholarship. It not only deals very well with the issues of the Greek text, but has an unusually good grasp of the Hebrew Masoretic, and that in light of the Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts. An easy read.
Jeff,
The ESV, NASB, NIV and most all modern versions (save the NKJV, MKJV and maybe one or two others in a similar vein) do use the Critical Text as their Greek base, and this is the primary reason for their inferiority.
What is left? The NKJV has some errors due to poor translation, even using the TR in the New Testament, though in the Old it does not use the Masoretic Text as its sole base – which the KJV does – but is eclectic. Notwithstanding this, it is not a bad translation. In fact, it is the pew Bible in the church I serve (the planting church gave me a choice between the NKJV and the ESV, and I opted for the former). The Modern King James Version, by Jay Green, is also not bad, though he has a preference for the Majority Text which shows through in a couple of brackets and some accompanying notes.
I would welcome – for the record – an updated-language AV, as long as the meanings, and the majestic (Hebrew-Greek language-structure rendered into) English were retained. Jakob Van Bruggen’s lesser-known work, The Future of the Bible (available from Russ Spees <[email protected]>, along with all of Ted Letis’ works), deals extensively and in great depth on the translation issue, as well as some textual matters. This is an excellent book.
I would no doubt keep and exclusively use my AV, though an updated form of it would be most welcome, and I could well use it in the church.
It has often been noted that the English of the AV remarkably captures the structure of both the Hebrew and Greek language as spoken by the prophets and apostles, thus re-presenting the majestic cadences of those tongues, as the Lord speaks through them. This is something not accomplished by the modern versions, which generally have a different translation principle. Bruggen goes into these things quite deeply.
Some folks don’t like the old language, and yet there is something to be said for there being a “set-apart” language, set apart from common discourse, for use in the House of God. When in the presence of an earthly king or president, we would be careful to use that speech which is acceptable in protocol on such occasions. Of course, if the king were our dad, we would be intimate in our communication, except when in formal occasions.
So far, the AV is the best translation I have to use.
Mike,
You bring up a good point when you say,
The question has also been phrased thusly:
I answer, There is a preserving of the text, and then there is a preserving of the text — where its integrity is held even to minute readings not granted the former. That the former was nonetheless adequate is analogous to the Bibles based upon the Critical Text (underlying the modern versions) being efficacious to save and edify God’s people today, as witnessed by the multitudes regenerated through those who use the NIV, NASB, ESV etc. The minute preservation occurred in the primary edition (KJV/TR) which was to serve the English-speaking people and the translations created for the vast missionary work they undertook, which impacted the entire world. (It is accepted by many today that the English language is now the universal language — the second language of most other nations.) There was a progression in the purifying of the text, so as to almost (some would say completely) perfectly reconstitute the original manuscripts of the apostles, even as there has been, in the area of theology, a restoration of apostolic doctrine, which also went through phases of deterioration and eventual renewal.
Thus, even those areas of the church which were non-Greek-speaking also had a “preserved text” — as do multitudes in this present day — though their texts were not “minutely preserved.” The texts they had were efficacious unto the salvation of souls and the sustaining of the churches.
As regards the “minutely preserved” text, I observe the fait accompli of His work – Him who said, “I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure” (Isaiah 46:9, 10) – I observe this Book produced in 1611, and I seek to understand in retrospect what He did and how He did it. I am aware some scoff at what they may term my “unscientific and ignorant” approach, but what is that to me? I do not have faith in their “science” or in their “learning,” so their judgment of my approach is not relevant to me. Some may term this (as I have heard said) “invincible ignorance,” but if my approach to knowledge is approved by my Lord, I care not for their disapproval.
Many times the people of God have not understood how a prophecy was to be fulfilled until it was a done thing, and then they looked backward to see how He had worked. It is thus in observing how He fulfilled His promise to preserve His word.
I look at the completed act of His providential preservation, the manuscripts He brought into the possession of (despised-by-many) Erasmus, and those editors who came after him; I follow the transmission backwards, the nature of those texts – behold, in the main they are those of the Byzantine text-type, with some few readings from the Latin Vulgate – and I seek to discern and construct what Maurice Robinson and Wm. Pierpont posited in their Introduction to The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine / Majority Textform,
I am likewise aware that Messrs. Robinson and (the late) Pierpont would disown me as one of their illegitimate progeny, as they make clear on their page xli, but – as mentioned above – I want to make clear I refuse to be under bondage to “the tyranny of experts”. I do not need the knowledge of “experts” who proceed according to methodologies I do not subscribe to. I will consider their work (as much as I am able) and use it if I please.
Consider something else: When the Lord said, “the gates of Hell shall not prevail against...My church” (Matt 16:18), did this mean that no church would ever fail or apostatize? We have in Revelation evidence that some churches were in deep decline even then, and we know from history that many churches have been destroyed by succumbing to satanic wiles. But this does not in the slightest negate the saying of the Lord, for His true church will remain victorious over the dark powers, and He will preserve His elect. Likewise with the Scriptures, does the carelessness of men in handling and copying them, or their wickedness in altering them, negate the Lord’s saying, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away”? (Matt 24:35) No, it does not, for others have been careful to preserve them, by the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit. Does the disobedience of men negate the truthfulness of God?
I repeat what I said above:
To give you an example. I know a godly woman who loves God’s Word; she uses the NIV, and that has been her Bible since her conversion over 12 years ago. She may not even be aware of certain missing portions of it. For the last part of Ephesians 5:30, “of his flesh, and of his bones” is omitted from her version, without being testified to by a margin note! So also is Acts 8:37 in its entirety missing. Is her case much different from those pre-TR or MT people living in regions which had very similar omissions? God has preserved His word; the sinfulness of man and the wickedness of the devil have sought to deprive many of it in its unsullied integrity, yet God has triumphed over such darkness by adequately preserving it for the salvation of His beloved elect.
I hope this is helpful.
For King and Kingdom!
Steve
Thank you for your kind remarks. Though I’m not a doctor, but an educated layman (true, I’m a Ruling Elder, functioning as a Teaching Elder in a foreign-field mission church). I don’t even have a high school diploma save in the USMC the equivalency diploma I received there (1959/60) and the GED I received in a college in Florida upon being tested before matriculation. I don’t have a college degree, and haven’t darkened the door of a theological cemetery (oops, seminary). I reveal all this to encourage folks to undertake the not-very-difficult study of the basic principles of textual criticism and textual history. I mean, one does not need to be a trained and certified mechanic to understand the production history, quality control, and all-around superiority of a Mercedes-Benz over a poorer-quality vehicle. As our Bibles are without a doubt the most important book in our lives – upon which we stake our eternal destinies, and those of our families – it is appropriate to give some time and effort to study those matters pertaining to it. One does not need to be a textual scholar or critic, or even fluent in the Greek or Hebrew – which I am not – to know the textual and historical issues necessary to comprehend which Bibles are the best. We are not – to use Machen’s memorable phrase – to be under “the tyranny of experts”, seeing as the Lord has made these matters plain to all His people, not just the formally educated. And I flout my inferior educational background to prove this point, perhaps similarly to Paul’s boasting in his weakness and infirmities, in which Christ’s strength may be manifest in fulness (2 Cor 12:9, 10). Note, however, I do not in the slightest mean to denigrate those who have labored in seminaries and universities to better serve the Lord and His people! Were it not for such I would not have the resources I have! My point is that simple folks may know which Bibles are best, and be able to defend their views, discerning the misinformation so prevalent in these times.
A book I would recommend is Crowned With Glory : The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version, by Dr. Thomas Holland.
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Crowned-Glory-Ancient-Authorized-Version/dp/0595146171]Crowned With Glory : The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version[/ame]
It is irenic, simple, clear, yet astute in its scholarship. It not only deals very well with the issues of the Greek text, but has an unusually good grasp of the Hebrew Masoretic, and that in light of the Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts. An easy read.
Jeff,
The ESV, NASB, NIV and most all modern versions (save the NKJV, MKJV and maybe one or two others in a similar vein) do use the Critical Text as their Greek base, and this is the primary reason for their inferiority.
What is left? The NKJV has some errors due to poor translation, even using the TR in the New Testament, though in the Old it does not use the Masoretic Text as its sole base – which the KJV does – but is eclectic. Notwithstanding this, it is not a bad translation. In fact, it is the pew Bible in the church I serve (the planting church gave me a choice between the NKJV and the ESV, and I opted for the former). The Modern King James Version, by Jay Green, is also not bad, though he has a preference for the Majority Text which shows through in a couple of brackets and some accompanying notes.
I would welcome – for the record – an updated-language AV, as long as the meanings, and the majestic (Hebrew-Greek language-structure rendered into) English were retained. Jakob Van Bruggen’s lesser-known work, The Future of the Bible (available from Russ Spees <[email protected]>, along with all of Ted Letis’ works), deals extensively and in great depth on the translation issue, as well as some textual matters. This is an excellent book.
I would no doubt keep and exclusively use my AV, though an updated form of it would be most welcome, and I could well use it in the church.
It has often been noted that the English of the AV remarkably captures the structure of both the Hebrew and Greek language as spoken by the prophets and apostles, thus re-presenting the majestic cadences of those tongues, as the Lord speaks through them. This is something not accomplished by the modern versions, which generally have a different translation principle. Bruggen goes into these things quite deeply.
Some folks don’t like the old language, and yet there is something to be said for there being a “set-apart” language, set apart from common discourse, for use in the House of God. When in the presence of an earthly king or president, we would be careful to use that speech which is acceptable in protocol on such occasions. Of course, if the king were our dad, we would be intimate in our communication, except when in formal occasions.
So far, the AV is the best translation I have to use.
Mike,
You bring up a good point when you say,
“The problem is that if we hold that God providentially preserved the TR....what about the Alexandrian Church that God apparently decided not to providentially provide with his word?”
The question has also been phrased thusly:
“Would this mean that God’s people had no access to the TR readings before they were included in the TR? If only the Greek Byzantine was the providentially preserved text, what about other locations in the world that had a different text-type — did they not have an adequate Bible?”
I answer, There is a preserving of the text, and then there is a preserving of the text — where its integrity is held even to minute readings not granted the former. That the former was nonetheless adequate is analogous to the Bibles based upon the Critical Text (underlying the modern versions) being efficacious to save and edify God’s people today, as witnessed by the multitudes regenerated through those who use the NIV, NASB, ESV etc. The minute preservation occurred in the primary edition (KJV/TR) which was to serve the English-speaking people and the translations created for the vast missionary work they undertook, which impacted the entire world. (It is accepted by many today that the English language is now the universal language — the second language of most other nations.) There was a progression in the purifying of the text, so as to almost (some would say completely) perfectly reconstitute the original manuscripts of the apostles, even as there has been, in the area of theology, a restoration of apostolic doctrine, which also went through phases of deterioration and eventual renewal.
Thus, even those areas of the church which were non-Greek-speaking also had a “preserved text” — as do multitudes in this present day — though their texts were not “minutely preserved.” The texts they had were efficacious unto the salvation of souls and the sustaining of the churches.
As regards the “minutely preserved” text, I observe the fait accompli of His work – Him who said, “I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure” (Isaiah 46:9, 10) – I observe this Book produced in 1611, and I seek to understand in retrospect what He did and how He did it. I am aware some scoff at what they may term my “unscientific and ignorant” approach, but what is that to me? I do not have faith in their “science” or in their “learning,” so their judgment of my approach is not relevant to me. Some may term this (as I have heard said) “invincible ignorance,” but if my approach to knowledge is approved by my Lord, I care not for their disapproval.
Many times the people of God have not understood how a prophecy was to be fulfilled until it was a done thing, and then they looked backward to see how He had worked. It is thus in observing how He fulfilled His promise to preserve His word.
I look at the completed act of His providential preservation, the manuscripts He brought into the possession of (despised-by-many) Erasmus, and those editors who came after him; I follow the transmission backwards, the nature of those texts – behold, in the main they are those of the Byzantine text-type, with some few readings from the Latin Vulgate – and I seek to discern and construct what Maurice Robinson and Wm. Pierpont posited in their Introduction to The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine / Majority Textform,
A sound rational approach which accounts for all the phenomena and offers a reconstruction of the history of textual transmission is all that is demanded for any text-critical hypothesis. (p. xxxii)
I am likewise aware that Messrs. Robinson and (the late) Pierpont would disown me as one of their illegitimate progeny, as they make clear on their page xli, but – as mentioned above – I want to make clear I refuse to be under bondage to “the tyranny of experts”. I do not need the knowledge of “experts” who proceed according to methodologies I do not subscribe to. I will consider their work (as much as I am able) and use it if I please.
Consider something else: When the Lord said, “the gates of Hell shall not prevail against...My church” (Matt 16:18), did this mean that no church would ever fail or apostatize? We have in Revelation evidence that some churches were in deep decline even then, and we know from history that many churches have been destroyed by succumbing to satanic wiles. But this does not in the slightest negate the saying of the Lord, for His true church will remain victorious over the dark powers, and He will preserve His elect. Likewise with the Scriptures, does the carelessness of men in handling and copying them, or their wickedness in altering them, negate the Lord’s saying, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away”? (Matt 24:35) No, it does not, for others have been careful to preserve them, by the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit. Does the disobedience of men negate the truthfulness of God?
I repeat what I said above:
Thus, even those areas of the church which were non-Greek-speaking also had a “preserved text”—as do multitudes in this present day—though their texts were not “minutely preserved.” The texts they had were efficacious unto the salvation of souls and the sustaining of the churches.
To give you an example. I know a godly woman who loves God’s Word; she uses the NIV, and that has been her Bible since her conversion over 12 years ago. She may not even be aware of certain missing portions of it. For the last part of Ephesians 5:30, “of his flesh, and of his bones” is omitted from her version, without being testified to by a margin note! So also is Acts 8:37 in its entirety missing. Is her case much different from those pre-TR or MT people living in regions which had very similar omissions? God has preserved His word; the sinfulness of man and the wickedness of the devil have sought to deprive many of it in its unsullied integrity, yet God has triumphed over such darkness by adequately preserving it for the salvation of His beloved elect.
I hope this is helpful.
For King and Kingdom!
Steve
Last edited: