KJV vs. NKJV
- Thread starter Josh Williamson
- Start date
- Status
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
Steve, I know you don't intend to respond but I just can't see this and I feel like I'm beating a dead horse. I could see perhaps the Byzantine family of texts but not "strictly Erasmus' 3rd, Stephen's 1550, and Beza's 1598 editions." Owen contends strongly for the originals (Hebrew and Greek) and acknowledges many variants. He also commends the methods of those like Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, etc. but I just can't see how he only holds strictly to their editions. If he acknowledges "That there are in some copies of the New Testament, and those some of them of some good antiquity, diverse readings, in things or words of less importance" and doesn't condemn them, what does he mean?
Owen said:
Why commend it as useful if only Erasmus, Stephens, and Beza are to be considered?
Owen comes up with five complaints (very strong complaints) about the Appendix:
1. vowel points are shown to be added, and thus the Scriptures have been to be "corrupted". He denies this.
2. 800 variations in the Hebrew are presented as legitimate variations, but some of these come from critical amendments and such.
3. That it is claimed Scripture can be "corrected" out of the various ancient translations (who must have had a "true text" where it varies from ours). He denies this.
4. Men can by conjecture restore corrupted texts by interpolation or some such. He denies this.
5. Too many variants are given which really don't deserve a place, such as obvious scribal or printing errors.
I see no complaint that they just don't match the common text and therefore should be rejected. Would that not be the case if only Beza, Erasmus, and Stephens are to be considered?
This is one of his primary complaints. He never complains that varieties or various readings are offered up (as one would think he would if only Beza, Erasmus, and Stephens are to be used).Owen said:
Not done away with entirely, as one would think would be the case if only Beza, Erasmus, and Stephens are to be held to.Owen said:
He then claims a place of authority, or standard, for the KJV, as I take it, and offers suggestions for improving the Appendix.
Owen said:
i.e., he is certain that the remaining reliable manuscripts will coincide so close with our present edition as to inspire confidence in it. He is supremely concerned that the Christian have confidence in God's Word. But these manuscripts are not just those from Beza, Stephanus, and Erasmus. That much seems clear or I wonder how I can be so misunderstanding him.
I see Owen's view as one that has a high view of Scripture, and desires to harmonize the various readings, not pitting one text against another. But that doesn't mean he would ignore any text outside of Erasmus, Beza, and Stephanus.
It is certainly arguable over how much variation Owen would have considered "uncorrupted", or which family he would have considered most reliable (if he even thought in families). But while commending the work and method of Erasmus, Beza, and Stephanus, nowhere does he say their work is all that should be looked at, indeed, his recommendation of their methods seems to be an encouragement to continue it. Once again, I am quite certain he would have rejected the CT, but I have not been persuaded that he held only to Beza, Erasmus, and Stephanus. He held to the originals and the methods those men used in comparing them to one another.
Regardless, I think we can both agree that Owen held a high view of Scripture and didn't want anyone's confidence shaken in it. He believed God's people had never been left without the pure, entire Word of God and that it was preserved, and even with various readings, could be found by comparing manuscripts (not by using ancient translations or conjectures). We would do well to listen to his complaints of those seeking to depose God's word, and his commendations of such as Erasmus, Beza, and Stephanus.
If anyone else would like to read "Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text" (it is a very good read), especially the first and third chapter, please do.
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
Thank you very much for that.
And thank you, Jimmy, for the link. It does look to be like something in response to the Quakers specifically and not have much to do with textual issues.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Logan, alas, I am not ready to bow out and give you the last word – not yet! I simply cannot abide leaving the thread with such misunderstanding being held forth as the truth, and undisputed.
In my post 177, when I said of the common text used by the Reformers, it “was to be found strictly in Erasmus’ 3rd, Stephen’s 1550, and Beza’s 1598 editions”, I amended that sentence by adding, “ – including the manuscripts they used to compile these editions – ” &etc, as likely many of them were still available.
What I object to in your presentation is the statement that Owen was willing to bring in readings from other than the Byzantine majority of manuscripts, then or in the future. I suppose what impels you to think as you do is the lack of a sense of historical context, resulting in your imposing what you think reasonable from a post-Enlightenment 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century view of textual criticism, and “interpreting” Owen in that light.
I gather at this point you have little liking for Dr. Letis’ ideas, seeing him as likewise (along with myself) misinterpreting Owen, and disseminating “false” views. Nonetheless, he has proven himself an astute scholar regarding the Reformation and post-Reformation eras, and you have not.
For the sake of contextualizing the discussion we are having in its proper historical-theological setting, I will post the conclusion of Dr. Letis’ essay, “Theodore Beza As Text Critic: A View Into the Sixteenth Century Approach to New Testament Text Criticism”. I have requested of the publisher permission to scan and put the entire essay on Scribd, for such valuable material ought be widely available (the book is out of print), if for no other reason than to prevent modern thinkers from imposing their views onto sixteenth and seventeenth century ways of seeing and thinking about the Scripture and text-critical issues, as you have unfortunately done.
From “Theodore Beza As Text Critic”:
CONCLUSION: THE INTERPRETATION OF EDWARD F. HILLS CONSIDERED
I am indebted to the work of Edward F. Hills for providing me with the trajectory of this study. As a text critic who was well exercised in the Enlightenment methodology, he determined that this led to utter skepticism, when attempting to arrive at a consensus text, or when even trying to maintain that such ever existed. He reminds us that Westcott and Hort’s fragile and arbitrary “consensus” was not very long-lived and that
among . . . modernistic and unbelieving scholars skepticism has for many years been the order of the day. So great has been the disagreement among them that for almost a century they have remained unable to complete a new critical edition of the Greek New Testament to replace Tischendorf’s 8th edition of 1869. They cannot decide which readings shall be placed in the text and how the variant readings shall be exhibited. [SUP]l08[/SUP]
It became evident to Hills that the only new consensus waiting to take the place of Westcott and Hort’s, was that there is no consensus, presumably because there never was any. Hence, Hills returned to the Reformers to discover their method. He observed that there was a conscious, theological feature to their praxis that certified that the consensus of the documents themselves, as descriptively found in the MSS that survived the long medieval interlude, would be the consensus that they would perpetuate. This was not just the result of determining this to be the simplest approach to the complex problem, but it reflected their belief (a naive one by today's standards) that this was indeed the received text, founded on, according to Hills, what Harnack had called the common faith. In Harnack’s discussion of this he determined just what the parameters of belief were which transcended all ethnic, sectarian barriers and united the early Christian communities against Gnosticism.[SUP]109[/SUP] In like manner, Hills maintained, the emerging evangelicalism of the sixteenth century (including Erasmus) was affected by a renewed understanding of this common faith, in opposition to the great medieval heresy of papalism, and it is this influence that kept the text intact, while in the notes of Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza, a critical, humanistic interest in variants was reflected:
In his preparation of the textus receptus Erasmus was . . . guided by the common faith of Christendom. For centuries it had been commonly believed that the currently received New Testament text (primarily the Greek text and secondarily the Latin text) was the true New Testament which had been preserved by God's special providence. In his editorial labors on the New Testament text Erasmus was governed by the common faith. He was not himself, indeed, notable as a man of faith, but his intention was to provide a text which would be purchased by the general public. Hence, he was influenced by the faith of others, and this placed a restraint upon the humanistic tendency to treat the text of the New Testament as he would the texts of other ancient books. What was true of Erasmus was true also of Stephanus, Calvin, Beza and other 16th-century scholars who labored on the textus receptus.[SUP]110[/SUP]
The renewed common faith (the faith held by nearly all evangelicals during the 16th-century renewal) belief that the text handed down by the Byzantine Church was correct is what gave 16th century textual criticism its consensus; and since the Enlightenment, when such a theological control was abandoned, no such consensus has arisen—but for the consensus that the 16th century was wrong. And while the Reformers did not hold to a perfectionist view of this received text, as is reflected in their notes, they nevertheless preserved its form for purposes of canonicity.
In conclusion, it is not accurate to judge Beza and the Reformation century as "unscientific" or without a method, by Enlightenment standards; because clearly,
During the Reformation period the approach to the New Testament text was theological and governed by the common faith in Holy Scripture, and for this reason even in those early days the textual criticism of the New Testament was different from the textual criticism of other ancient books. [SUP]111[/SUP]
___________
[SUP]108[/SUP] Edward F. Hills, Believing Bible Study, 2nd ed. (Des Moines: The Christian Research Press, 1977), p. 89.
[SUP]109[/SUP] Adolph Harnack, History of Dogma, translated from the 3rd German edition, Vol. 1 (London: Williams and Norgate, 1894), pp. 145-221.
[SUP]110[/SUP] Hills, Believing Bible Study, p. 36.
[SUP]111[/SUP] Hills, King James Version. p. 63.
In my post 177, when I said of the common text used by the Reformers, it “was to be found strictly in Erasmus’ 3rd, Stephen’s 1550, and Beza’s 1598 editions”, I amended that sentence by adding, “ – including the manuscripts they used to compile these editions – ” &etc, as likely many of them were still available.
What I object to in your presentation is the statement that Owen was willing to bring in readings from other than the Byzantine majority of manuscripts, then or in the future. I suppose what impels you to think as you do is the lack of a sense of historical context, resulting in your imposing what you think reasonable from a post-Enlightenment 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century view of textual criticism, and “interpreting” Owen in that light.
I gather at this point you have little liking for Dr. Letis’ ideas, seeing him as likewise (along with myself) misinterpreting Owen, and disseminating “false” views. Nonetheless, he has proven himself an astute scholar regarding the Reformation and post-Reformation eras, and you have not.
For the sake of contextualizing the discussion we are having in its proper historical-theological setting, I will post the conclusion of Dr. Letis’ essay, “Theodore Beza As Text Critic: A View Into the Sixteenth Century Approach to New Testament Text Criticism”. I have requested of the publisher permission to scan and put the entire essay on Scribd, for such valuable material ought be widely available (the book is out of print), if for no other reason than to prevent modern thinkers from imposing their views onto sixteenth and seventeenth century ways of seeing and thinking about the Scripture and text-critical issues, as you have unfortunately done.
From “Theodore Beza As Text Critic”:
CONCLUSION: THE INTERPRETATION OF EDWARD F. HILLS CONSIDERED
I am indebted to the work of Edward F. Hills for providing me with the trajectory of this study. As a text critic who was well exercised in the Enlightenment methodology, he determined that this led to utter skepticism, when attempting to arrive at a consensus text, or when even trying to maintain that such ever existed. He reminds us that Westcott and Hort’s fragile and arbitrary “consensus” was not very long-lived and that
among . . . modernistic and unbelieving scholars skepticism has for many years been the order of the day. So great has been the disagreement among them that for almost a century they have remained unable to complete a new critical edition of the Greek New Testament to replace Tischendorf’s 8th edition of 1869. They cannot decide which readings shall be placed in the text and how the variant readings shall be exhibited. [SUP]l08[/SUP]
It became evident to Hills that the only new consensus waiting to take the place of Westcott and Hort’s, was that there is no consensus, presumably because there never was any. Hence, Hills returned to the Reformers to discover their method. He observed that there was a conscious, theological feature to their praxis that certified that the consensus of the documents themselves, as descriptively found in the MSS that survived the long medieval interlude, would be the consensus that they would perpetuate. This was not just the result of determining this to be the simplest approach to the complex problem, but it reflected their belief (a naive one by today's standards) that this was indeed the received text, founded on, according to Hills, what Harnack had called the common faith. In Harnack’s discussion of this he determined just what the parameters of belief were which transcended all ethnic, sectarian barriers and united the early Christian communities against Gnosticism.[SUP]109[/SUP] In like manner, Hills maintained, the emerging evangelicalism of the sixteenth century (including Erasmus) was affected by a renewed understanding of this common faith, in opposition to the great medieval heresy of papalism, and it is this influence that kept the text intact, while in the notes of Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza, a critical, humanistic interest in variants was reflected:
In his preparation of the textus receptus Erasmus was . . . guided by the common faith of Christendom. For centuries it had been commonly believed that the currently received New Testament text (primarily the Greek text and secondarily the Latin text) was the true New Testament which had been preserved by God's special providence. In his editorial labors on the New Testament text Erasmus was governed by the common faith. He was not himself, indeed, notable as a man of faith, but his intention was to provide a text which would be purchased by the general public. Hence, he was influenced by the faith of others, and this placed a restraint upon the humanistic tendency to treat the text of the New Testament as he would the texts of other ancient books. What was true of Erasmus was true also of Stephanus, Calvin, Beza and other 16th-century scholars who labored on the textus receptus.[SUP]110[/SUP]
The renewed common faith (the faith held by nearly all evangelicals during the 16th-century renewal) belief that the text handed down by the Byzantine Church was correct is what gave 16th century textual criticism its consensus; and since the Enlightenment, when such a theological control was abandoned, no such consensus has arisen—but for the consensus that the 16th century was wrong. And while the Reformers did not hold to a perfectionist view of this received text, as is reflected in their notes, they nevertheless preserved its form for purposes of canonicity.
In conclusion, it is not accurate to judge Beza and the Reformation century as "unscientific" or without a method, by Enlightenment standards; because clearly,
During the Reformation period the approach to the New Testament text was theological and governed by the common faith in Holy Scripture, and for this reason even in those early days the textual criticism of the New Testament was different from the textual criticism of other ancient books. [SUP]111[/SUP]
___________
[SUP]108[/SUP] Edward F. Hills, Believing Bible Study, 2nd ed. (Des Moines: The Christian Research Press, 1977), p. 89.
[SUP]109[/SUP] Adolph Harnack, History of Dogma, translated from the 3rd German edition, Vol. 1 (London: Williams and Norgate, 1894), pp. 145-221.
[SUP]110[/SUP] Hills, Believing Bible Study, p. 36.
[SUP]111[/SUP] Hills, King James Version. p. 63.
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
I will be the first to admit that I know almost nothing about textual criticism of any form, so I would be hard-pressed to even know what post-Enlightenment 21st century textual criticism would look like. I am just reading Owen trying to find out what his views were. I really don't care which way they go as they don't hurt or help any "case" I am trying to make for manuscript tradition.
Certainly, and I hope I have maintained some humility in this discussion. I do not pretend to be a brilliant scholar, but taking all that Owen says (not just select sentences), I just can't see it. It would seem that his only writings about the "Appendix" would be to say "it's all a pile of rubbish except for those variations that Erasmus, Beza, and Stephanus considered" or "because they depart from the common text". But he doesn't. As I said, I could potentially see just Byzantine/Majority texts, but not just the ones used by Erasmus, et al.
I must admit that not having Rev. Winzer pounce on me has been encouraging, since he seems to do that when I am wrong
Speaking of him, if he wants to correct me for misinterpreting Owen, then he's welcome to. I found everything in his post #145 agreeable to what I have been saying, and nothing in it that seems to restrict Owen to just Beza, Erasmus, Stephanus, and the texts they used.
I have endeavored to seek out what their views were. Thus my recent quote of Turretin, Watson, and the like. I am likewise concerned that people impose their views onto those of the sixteenth and seventeenth century. I am trying to read with an open mind, and I have nothing to prove by it. I don't think it is merely a lack of historical context (I have read and love a number of the Puritans), but if so, I have no defense except to say that at least I am being honest. And I'm very sorry we can't see eye to eye on this, it does not seem to be for a lack of trying on either of our parts.
Edit:
Steve, it crossed my mind last night that you may still be thinking of Owen's quote here:
Owen said:
Of which you said:
Which variants? Certainly Owen is saying that some of these variants ought by no means to be brought into competition with the common reading, specifically those which he complained about in the immediately preceding paragraph. He wants to reduce the number. How do we jump from this to thinking he is saying that all variants should be rejected? Once again, if this is what he meant, it seems that his only comment on the Appendix would be something along the lines of "what need have we of this pile of rubbish that departeth from the received variants of our common text? If any man desireth to compare variants he need only look at those of Beza, Erasmus, and Stephanus, for there we have all the variants allowed by God and they are small indeed."
I also note that in another work (Owen's second discussion on the Annotations of Grotius), he rejects a couple of variant readings Grotius had supported, not on the grounds that they didn't agree with the common text (though he does mention that Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza were apparently unaware of it), but because they were apparently unknown to the vast majority of manuscripts and didn't have enough support from "ancient copies". I also found he knew of some variants in Hebrews (in his commentary) but rejected them on the grounds that it did not make sense to the passage, not because they weren't of the common text. I wish you knew how many hours I've devoted to trying to see if Owen really meant Erasmus et al. All the more so because I have leisure time during my work trip.
Last edited:
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
Owen said:
Steve, here Owen contends for a reading which is, to the best of my knowledge, outside of the TR. It is definitely not in Stephanus' 1550 or Scrivener's 1894. True, he says that Stephanus also made use of a copy that had this, but his primary reason for preferring it is not it was in a manuscript Stephanus used (after all, Stephanus apparently rejected the reading, if he had it), but that it was in "many ancient copies."
I also was looking through his commentary on Hebrews to find if he considered other readings. He did. Some of them are not from the TR as we have it today, whether they were part of Beza's or Erasmus' or Stephanus' I cannot tell as I don't have access to all of those. I was going to list them out but they are too numerous. If you search for "copies" you will find many, as he often seems to consider "many ancient copies." especially in volume 2 and 4.
Which I don't think is preferred by any textual tradition.Owen on Heb 1:7 said:
I know of no textual tradition that uses it without the negation, but he seems to treat them as equally acceptableOwen on Heb 10:2 said:
Here he prefers the common reading, but doesn't deny the other (which again, I don't think any textual tradition accepts).Owen on Heb 10:23 said:
There are many more. Note, I that it appears (on my inept comparison) that some of these readings he is talking about (or even prefers) aren't in the TR, Majority, or Alexandrian texts. Is it still plausible he only held to Erasmus, Beza, and Stephanus? I cannot see how.
JimmyH
Puritan Board Senior
I certainly am no scholar either but from my reading of John Owen's 'Integrity And Purity Of The Hebrew And Greek Text' , Of Lections Gathered Out Of Translations, vol 16 BOT Works, this brief excerpt, reading the quoted text below, leads me to the conclusion that John Owen considered the Bible as he had it to be providentially given. your mileage may vary.
"The distemper pretended is dreadful and such as may well prove mortal to the sacred truth of the Scripture. The sum of it, as was declared before, is, "That of old there were sundry copies extant, differing in many things from those we now enjoy, according to which the ancient translations were made, whence it is come to pass that in so many places they differ from our present Bibles, even all that are extant in the world ; " so Cappellus ; -- or,"That there are corruptions befallen the text (varieties from the Greek word I cannot translate) that may be found by the help of translations ;" as our Prolegomena.
Now whereas the first translation that ever was, as is pretended, is that of the LXX., and that of all others excepting only those which have been translated out of it, doth most vary and differ from our Bible, as may be made good by some thousands of instances, we cannot but be exceedingly uncertain in finding out wherein those copies which, as it is said, were used by them, did differ from ours, or wherein ours are corrupted, but are left unto endless uncertain conjectures.
What sense others may have of this distemper I know not ; for my own part, I am solicitous for the ark, or the sacred truth of the original, and that because I am fully persuaded that the remedy and relief of this evil provided in the translations is unfitted to the cure, yea, fitted to increase the disease. Some other course then, must be taken ; and seeing the remedy is notoriously insufficient to effect the cure, let us try whether the whole distemper be not a mere fancy, and so do what in us lieth to prevent that horrible and outrageous violence which will undoubtedly be offered to the sacred Hebrew verity, if every learned mountebank may be allowed to practise upon it with his conjectures from translations."
"The distemper pretended is dreadful and such as may well prove mortal to the sacred truth of the Scripture. The sum of it, as was declared before, is, "That of old there were sundry copies extant, differing in many things from those we now enjoy, according to which the ancient translations were made, whence it is come to pass that in so many places they differ from our present Bibles, even all that are extant in the world ; " so Cappellus ; -- or,"That there are corruptions befallen the text (varieties from the Greek word I cannot translate) that may be found by the help of translations ;" as our Prolegomena.
Now whereas the first translation that ever was, as is pretended, is that of the LXX., and that of all others excepting only those which have been translated out of it, doth most vary and differ from our Bible, as may be made good by some thousands of instances, we cannot but be exceedingly uncertain in finding out wherein those copies which, as it is said, were used by them, did differ from ours, or wherein ours are corrupted, but are left unto endless uncertain conjectures.
What sense others may have of this distemper I know not ; for my own part, I am solicitous for the ark, or the sacred truth of the original, and that because I am fully persuaded that the remedy and relief of this evil provided in the translations is unfitted to the cure, yea, fitted to increase the disease. Some other course then, must be taken ; and seeing the remedy is notoriously insufficient to effect the cure, let us try whether the whole distemper be not a mere fancy, and so do what in us lieth to prevent that horrible and outrageous violence which will undoubtedly be offered to the sacred Hebrew verity, if every learned mountebank may be allowed to practise upon it with his conjectures from translations."
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
I'd certainly agree with that, though specifically in your quotation Owen is arguing against using an ancient translation (like the Septuagint) to "correct" our modern Greek or Hebrew, on the supposition that we now have corrupted copies and the translation used "pure" ones.
Owen believed what they had to be authoritative, and he also believed the complete Word of God was in the copies of the originals that had been handed down, but he also knew there were variations and believed it to be the proper role of the critic to compare between manuscripts (but not interpolate). This is probably the mildest (and most respectful) form of textual criticism. Thus far I think we are uncontested. The question in discussion is whether Owen's appeal to the "originals" in his day only included that of Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, and the manuscripts they used.
sevenzedek
Puritan Board Junior
Somebody! Please! Where might I find the NMOV (New Master Owen Version)? I had to read that quote twice in order to learn that Owen preferred his own copy of the Bible, as he had it, over those that were translated from corrupted texts that differed from his in some thousands of instances; yea, even from all that were then extant in the world.
What I didn't find was anything concerning providential preservation. But I reckon he would have given assent to such a notion based upon the fact that he was, for his own part, solicitous for the ark, or the sacred truth of the original, and that because he was fully persuaded that the supposed remedy and relief of the evil provided in the translations was unfitted to the cure, yea, rather fitted to increase the disease (so Owen). Owen was very frowny-faced about increasing the disease. And he probably wouldn't have been very excited about having some LXX or ESV for breakfast either. As Steve noted, for his own part, Owen probably held his AV like a dog holds his bone.
I heard that Owen was likened to an elephant because of his girth and grace in expressing complex thoughts—complex ideas; not very concise. I would add to such an idea. Owen is like an elephant because of his impeccable memory. He doesn't forget what he is writing about when he arrives at the final paragraph of a very long sentence.
JimmyH
Puritan Board Senior
LOL, I didn't find him hard to follow in this instance. Then again, I've read so many authors from that period that the cadences work for me. He breaks his thought progression up with commas, I don't find it that difficult to understand. Reminiscent of my listening to Charlie Patton, Leadbelly, Son House, and like that. The records/CDs used to come with transcripts of the lyrics because the words were unintelligible to the average listener. I listened to them so much that I became able to understand them with no trouble, while other friends of mine couldn't understand them at all. In other words,, read Owen and his contemporaries enough and it becomes easier to follow.
Bill The Baptist
Puritan Board Graduate
"This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend, some people started reading not knowing what it was, and they'll continue reading it forever just because, this is the thread that never ends...........................................
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Logan, your example of Owen commenting on Rev 22:11 proves nothing, as you have not shown that the “many ancient copies”, or the copy Stephanus used were not from the Byz Greek. (The apparatus of Stephanus 1550 in The Englishman’s Greek New Testament, cites nineteenth century editions supplied by later editors, and is not helpful in finding what either Stephanus or Owen had before them.) You are simply making huge assumptions, and should I be refuting assumptions?
My objection to this example applies to the other examples you have given; you have not shown they are not in the copies or readings the TR editors used.
It should also be borne in mind that there were some Latin readings in the editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza (nor should we forget the Elzevirs and their slightly later editions, 1624-1641), which Erasmus, under the hand of Providence, brought back into the Greek textus receptus, and we do not even know all the versions and mss the TR editors had access to. These would all count as “included in the manuscripts (or readings therefrom) they used to compile their editions”. I think there must remain some things beyond our ken.
Regarding your mention of Owen’s earlier comment on the “usefulness” of the variants (your post # 182), this from Richard A. Muller’s, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 2 Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology, 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] ed., may shed some light on that:
____________
c. The Ancient Versions
The authentic editions of Scripture are, thus, the Hebrew and the Greek texts, which represent the language of the original authors. In this assertion, coupled with the recognition that the church possessed no original copies of the text, orthodoxy manifested the necessity of textual criticism and, indeed, fostered the detailed technical analysis of the ancient text and versions that would produce such works as the great London Polyglott Bible edited by Brian Walton.[SUP]205[/SUP] Yet, in this process of critical establishment of text, orthodoxy could not—for obvious theological reasons—allow a priority of the ancient versions. Ainsworth, thus, quite carefully argues the importance of the use of ancient versions in the work of translation and interpretation. The versions, particularly the Chaldee paraphrase and the Septuagint, offer significant interpretations of difficult texts. Late in the seventeenth century, the eminent orientalist, Pocock, could similarly comment that the Hebrew text was illuminated by inquiry "into such other languages of neere affinity to it, in which the same words are in use, as the Syriacke and Arabick." Nonetheless, the Hebrew text remains prior.[SUP]206[/SUP] . . . . (p 447) [emphasis added]
All translations have divine authority insofar as they correctly render the original: "the tongue and dialect is but an accident, and as it were an argument of divine truth, which remains one and the same in all Idioms."[SUP]216[/SUP] As for the Chaldee, it is not a translation but a paraphrase and is of great usefulness as an exposition of the Hebrew[SUP].217[/SUP] The Greek of the "Seventy-two Interpreters," comments Leigh, had great authority among the Hellenistic Jews and was used by the Evangelists, "when they might do it without swerving from the sense of the prophets."[SUP]218[/SUP] The Syriac and Arabic versions of the New Testament are ancient and “very profitable for understanding the Greek.” [SUP]219[/SUP] Leigh finally turns to the Latin translation, commenting that Tremellius’ and Junius’ version is best for the Old Testament while Erasmus and Beza are to be favored for the New.[SUP] 220[/SUP] (pp 449-550)
___________
[SUP]205[/SUP] Brian Walton, ed., Biblia Sacra Polyglotta, 6 vols. (London, 1657) and Biblicus apparatus, chronologico-topographico-philologicus: prout ille tomo praeliminari operis eximii polyglotti (London, 1658).
[SUP]206[/SUP] Ainsworth, Psalmes, fol. 2 verso; Edward Pocock, Commentary on the Prophecy of Hosea Oxford,1685).
[SUP]216[/SUP] Edward Leigh, A Systeme or Body of Divinity, Handling the Scripture Or Word of God; Treatise, I.vi (p. 94); London 1654 cf. Mastricht, Theoretico-practica theologia, I.ii.11, citing Ames, Medulla, LXXXIV.32-33.
[SUP]217[/SUP] Leigh, Treatise, I.vi (p. 95).
[SUP]218[/SUP] Leigh, Treatise, I.vi (p. 97).
[SUP]219[/SUP] Leigh, Treatise, I.vi (p. 98).
[SUP]220[/SUP] Leigh, Treatise, I.vi (p. 99).
______________
So there is indeed some legitimate use for the variances, as Owen indicated was the case for him, apart from inclusion into the “common edition” the Reformers and post-Reformation divines treasured, and which they already possessed amongst themselves.
My objection to this example applies to the other examples you have given; you have not shown they are not in the copies or readings the TR editors used.
It should also be borne in mind that there were some Latin readings in the editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza (nor should we forget the Elzevirs and their slightly later editions, 1624-1641), which Erasmus, under the hand of Providence, brought back into the Greek textus receptus, and we do not even know all the versions and mss the TR editors had access to. These would all count as “included in the manuscripts (or readings therefrom) they used to compile their editions”. I think there must remain some things beyond our ken.
Regarding your mention of Owen’s earlier comment on the “usefulness” of the variants (your post # 182), this from Richard A. Muller’s, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 2 Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology, 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] ed., may shed some light on that:
____________
c. The Ancient Versions
The authentic editions of Scripture are, thus, the Hebrew and the Greek texts, which represent the language of the original authors. In this assertion, coupled with the recognition that the church possessed no original copies of the text, orthodoxy manifested the necessity of textual criticism and, indeed, fostered the detailed technical analysis of the ancient text and versions that would produce such works as the great London Polyglott Bible edited by Brian Walton.[SUP]205[/SUP] Yet, in this process of critical establishment of text, orthodoxy could not—for obvious theological reasons—allow a priority of the ancient versions. Ainsworth, thus, quite carefully argues the importance of the use of ancient versions in the work of translation and interpretation. The versions, particularly the Chaldee paraphrase and the Septuagint, offer significant interpretations of difficult texts. Late in the seventeenth century, the eminent orientalist, Pocock, could similarly comment that the Hebrew text was illuminated by inquiry "into such other languages of neere affinity to it, in which the same words are in use, as the Syriacke and Arabick." Nonetheless, the Hebrew text remains prior.[SUP]206[/SUP] . . . . (p 447) [emphasis added]
All translations have divine authority insofar as they correctly render the original: "the tongue and dialect is but an accident, and as it were an argument of divine truth, which remains one and the same in all Idioms."[SUP]216[/SUP] As for the Chaldee, it is not a translation but a paraphrase and is of great usefulness as an exposition of the Hebrew[SUP].217[/SUP] The Greek of the "Seventy-two Interpreters," comments Leigh, had great authority among the Hellenistic Jews and was used by the Evangelists, "when they might do it without swerving from the sense of the prophets."[SUP]218[/SUP] The Syriac and Arabic versions of the New Testament are ancient and “very profitable for understanding the Greek.” [SUP]219[/SUP] Leigh finally turns to the Latin translation, commenting that Tremellius’ and Junius’ version is best for the Old Testament while Erasmus and Beza are to be favored for the New.[SUP] 220[/SUP] (pp 449-550)
___________
[SUP]205[/SUP] Brian Walton, ed., Biblia Sacra Polyglotta, 6 vols. (London, 1657) and Biblicus apparatus, chronologico-topographico-philologicus: prout ille tomo praeliminari operis eximii polyglotti (London, 1658).
[SUP]206[/SUP] Ainsworth, Psalmes, fol. 2 verso; Edward Pocock, Commentary on the Prophecy of Hosea Oxford,1685).
[SUP]216[/SUP] Edward Leigh, A Systeme or Body of Divinity, Handling the Scripture Or Word of God; Treatise, I.vi (p. 94); London 1654 cf. Mastricht, Theoretico-practica theologia, I.ii.11, citing Ames, Medulla, LXXXIV.32-33.
[SUP]217[/SUP] Leigh, Treatise, I.vi (p. 95).
[SUP]218[/SUP] Leigh, Treatise, I.vi (p. 97).
[SUP]219[/SUP] Leigh, Treatise, I.vi (p. 98).
[SUP]220[/SUP] Leigh, Treatise, I.vi (p. 99).
______________
So there is indeed some legitimate use for the variances, as Owen indicated was the case for him, apart from inclusion into the “common edition” the Reformers and post-Reformation divines treasured, and which they already possessed amongst themselves.
JimmyH
Puritan Board Senior
"It ain't over 'til it's over." Yogi Berra ( how's that for theology ?)
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
Steve, respectfully, I don't know if you've been reading my posts fairly. Have I ever said they weren't from the Byzantine texts? In fact, in post #185 I said:
I allow they could be from just the Byzantine family, though if it was that important one would think Owen would specifically mention it, and would want to know whether the text he was looking at had also looked at by one of those three (but he doesn't). Wouldn't he say in his Hebrews commentary something like "I know this variant isn't found in the common text, but it's acceptable because I found out that Erasmus looked at a manuscript that had it."?
Once again, I don't know whether that is the case or not, but that's not my intention to prove. I do think it's clear it's not in the various editions of the TR, however.
My entire discussion has been to say that Letis is wrong in saying Owen would only have allowed variants that were found in the various editions of the TR. If you agree with that, we're done. I don't see where I've made assumptions on that. But if you want to move the finish line to say that Owen only included all the Byzantine manuscripts and that I'm "assuming" that is not the case, that's no longer Letis, that is you. Or if you want to claim Owen would only have used the variants that were in the manuscripts Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza used, that again is you, not Letis. I'd admit either of those could be possibilities, yet I think it would be up to you to prove Owen would have restricted himself as such, as that's a pretty specific claim, and Owen never mentions just those three but always several others who employed the same methods.
I'm really not sure what you'd be trying to prove at that point, though.
To reiterate, I have only been claiming that this quotation from Letis, is false about Owen. I don't accuse Letis of doing so intentionally. I have bolded those areas I had problems with.
Letis said:
I am sorry you seem to be exasperated over this. I've never wanted to argue with you and I'm certainly wanting this to be over! I feel rather pedantic holding to such specific point.
tleaf
Puritan Board Freshman
As a "lay reader" of these many posts, may I jump in to say that the bottom line of all this is: Can I be assured that I have the Word of God in my hands?
My Authorized Version has had 400 years to be criticized, critiqued, convoluted and cast aside....and yet it remains!!
To what purpose do we keep straining at gnats?
Blessings to all.
My Authorized Version has had 400 years to be criticized, critiqued, convoluted and cast aside....and yet it remains!!
To what purpose do we keep straining at gnats?
Blessings to all.
JimmyH
Puritan Board Senior
Which raises the question, as to whether it is straining at or straining out ? Translation wise ...... Straining Gnats and Camel Swallowing
sevenzedek
Puritan Board Junior
I had that problem with the KJV. After a while, I just got used to it. I've been switching back and forth between the KJV and the NKJV.
Owen is challenge for as well, but get better at it as I stumble along. His work is actually good practice for holding thoughts in context.
An even bigger question Jimmy. I like the ESV. Can I use my ESV with confidence?
sevenzedek
Puritan Board Junior
The question of whether we actually have God's word in our hands is one of the questions that this thread ultimately addresses.
I would characterize this conversation with foxes rather than gnats.
Song of Songs 2:15
Catch us the foxes,
The little foxes that spoil the vines,
For our vines have tender grapes.
You're fellowship with us and Christ is one of those tender grapes we seek to preserve. Of course, I have mostly been an observer in this thread. The heavy lifting is being done by those other wordy, and helpful guys.
JimmyH
Puritan Board Senior
I am a mere babe in Christ, unschooled in these matters, having to rely on the learning of those who've gone before. I was saved through reading a Schofield Reference Bible (KJV) and have continued to use a KJV as my main Bible ever since then. At that time, in 1986, I had to use the '84 NIV to help me to understand portions that were too difficult for me in the KJV. So while I continue to use the KJV as my main Bible, the David Norton New Cambridge Paragraph being my current text of choice, I also continue to read the ESV, NKJV, NASB, and even the 1984 NIV at times.
Steve and Reverend Winzer are convincing advocates for the AV and,the underlying text. In one sense they are 'preaching to the choir' when it comes to me, OTOH, since Reverend D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones says, in many of his sermons, that "in this instance, the RV got it right", or (paraphrasing) in that instance "the RSV has the correct reading", I will continue to read other translations for my own edification. I find it difficult to believe that scholarly men of God such as R.C; Sproul or John MacArthur would continue to publish study Bibles bearing their names, in the ESV translation, if it were not a reliable text. Whichever text, "I place my hope on nothing less than Jesus Blood and Righteousness, when all around is sinking sand, On Christ the solid rock I stand." Just in my exceedingly humble opinion.
sevenzedek
Puritan Board Junior
You may use the ESV with as much confidence as Jesus had with the LXX.
So how does this logically follow?
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Hey Logan, I'm willing to let it rest as is if you are. I must say you are a dogged opponent, much as I am!
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
That's probably best, especially as what Owen believed on this point isn't really critical to anyone's spiritual growth or salvation. I will agree I can be dogged, though I've not really considered myself an "opponent" in this discussion as we are both of the same mind in a huge number of things I'm sure. Thank you for being patient with me!
sevenzedek
Puritan Board Junior
I understand that the LXX is not widely held by some to be an extremely accurate translation of the OT, yet, as it is also widely held by some, Jesus quotes from the LXX authoritatively. The conclusion I draw from this is that God will hold us accountable to what we know; even if our translation is perceived to be flawed.
Here, I am not arguing for any errors of the ESV, but that the issue of Jesus' quoting from the flawed LXX means that we are still accountable to what we know from translations; even when they might appear somewhat flawed.
Whether or not there are flaws in the ESV, we are still held accountable to the gospel message in it. In other words, I think the primary question God asks is not about what translation or manuscript type we use (TR, CT, ESV, KJV, NKJV), although this is an important issue.
In the light of this issue, I am still sticking to my guns in preference to the TR translations over the CT translations, but I am not so blind as to think that a person cannot be sanctified unless the use the translation that accords with my convictions. While I may not agree with CT translations, CT bibles are NOT to be considered trash-worthy.
Personally, I enjoy the ESV very much, but I stay away from it because it does not align with my convictions. We all see and know in part. Everyone is going to come away from these issues with different convictions. I respect that.
One Little Nail
Puritan Board Sophomore
Yes there is enough truth within the Critical Text Family of Bibles to save a man but their corruptions
make them unreliable for The Word of God is needed that a Man of God be thoroughly furnished unto
all good works if the Words of God are missing it will hinder our sanctification
Brother Logan I still can't for the Life of me see that there would be any new Texts that would be completely
or substantially different from the Received Text as there found in one stream of manuscripts that have their support
in the various Uncials, Cursives, Lectionary & Church Father readings as well as the earliest Translations
like the Old Italic not vulgate that support the Traditional Textual readings, as opposed to any corrupted
manuscripts like Aleph & Codex B (Vaticanus & Sinaiticus) or the derived Critical Texts, that would be discovered
that could have been used by Owen or others for that matter to bring any great difference in The Scripture readings
that we possess, God's promise of a Providential Preservation & its derived Inspiration from the Originals would have
ensured that we've had The Word of God substantially all along.
make them unreliable for The Word of God is needed that a Man of God be thoroughly furnished unto
all good works if the Words of God are missing it will hinder our sanctification
Brother Logan I still can't for the Life of me see that there would be any new Texts that would be completely
or substantially different from the Received Text as there found in one stream of manuscripts that have their support
in the various Uncials, Cursives, Lectionary & Church Father readings as well as the earliest Translations
like the Old Italic not vulgate that support the Traditional Textual readings, as opposed to any corrupted
manuscripts like Aleph & Codex B (Vaticanus & Sinaiticus) or the derived Critical Texts, that would be discovered
that could have been used by Owen or others for that matter to bring any great difference in The Scripture readings
that we possess, God's promise of a Providential Preservation & its derived Inspiration from the Originals would have
ensured that we've had The Word of God substantially all along.
Last edited:
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Jon,
When you say that “Jesus quotes from the LXX authoritatively” that is not quite accurate, for it is the four evangelists that render His words in Greek (unless you would have the Messiah of the Jews speaking Greek to the Pharisees, Scribes and priests, which is unlikely – although I would venture to say He could speak that language, it being the common language of the Roman Empire), with this proviso (in bold italic):
The Greek of the "Seventy-two Interpreters," comments Leigh, had great authority among the Hellenistic Jews and was used by the Evangelists, "when they might do it without swerving from the sense of the prophets." [SUP]218[/SUP]
_________
[SUP]218[/SUP] Richard A. Muller’s, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 2, p 449, citing Edward Leigh, A Systeme or Body of Divinity, Handling the Scripture Or Word of God; Treatise, I.vi (p. 97).
These threads go quite into the topic:
LXX Discussion thread (Many issues concerning the Septuagint): LXX Discussion
Do NT authors quote the LXX? thread (Further consideration of Septuagint issues): Do NT authors quote the LXX?
Owen was of the view that where the NT appears to quote the LXX when it contradicts the Hebrew, it was “Christian” scribes who altered the LXX to conform to the NT readings.
When you say that “Jesus quotes from the LXX authoritatively” that is not quite accurate, for it is the four evangelists that render His words in Greek (unless you would have the Messiah of the Jews speaking Greek to the Pharisees, Scribes and priests, which is unlikely – although I would venture to say He could speak that language, it being the common language of the Roman Empire), with this proviso (in bold italic):
The Greek of the "Seventy-two Interpreters," comments Leigh, had great authority among the Hellenistic Jews and was used by the Evangelists, "when they might do it without swerving from the sense of the prophets." [SUP]218[/SUP]
_________
[SUP]218[/SUP] Richard A. Muller’s, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 2, p 449, citing Edward Leigh, A Systeme or Body of Divinity, Handling the Scripture Or Word of God; Treatise, I.vi (p. 97).
These threads go quite into the topic:
LXX Discussion thread (Many issues concerning the Septuagint): LXX Discussion
Do NT authors quote the LXX? thread (Further consideration of Septuagint issues): Do NT authors quote the LXX?
Owen was of the view that where the NT appears to quote the LXX when it contradicts the Hebrew, it was “Christian” scribes who altered the LXX to conform to the NT readings.
sevenzedek
Puritan Board Junior
Steve,
If you say that Jesus did not quote the LXX, it is enough for me to question my other sources.
Stephen,
Perhaps what I say concerning the ESV is correct for the wrong reasons.
If you say that Jesus did not quote the LXX, it is enough for me to question my other sources.
Stephen,
Perhaps what I say concerning the ESV is correct for the wrong reasons.
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
I think Steve is just making a minor correction: Jesus may not have quoted from the LXX (he probably didn't speak to the Jews in Greek), but the Apostles did when writing down Jesus' words.
So the correction would be that that apostles quote from the LXX authoritatively.
I would take it then that you would discard the King James Bible. After all it calls into question a number of key texts. Its center column reference in Luke 10:22 suggests an addition to the word of God. It suggests a deletion in Luke 17:36. It suggests a variation at Acts 25:6. It questions some of the text at 1 John 2:23. In Revelation 16:5 it follows Beza's conjectural emendation and NOT the Received Text. It looks like the King James Bible itself is 'naughty' by your textual standards!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
