Friday, November 16, 2018

The Vision (11.16.18): Martin Luther on the Psalms as "a little Bible"


At the end of October, we marked the five hundred and first anniversary of Martin Luther’s nailing of his Ninety-Five Theses to the church door at Wittenberg (October 31, 1517), thus igniting the Protestant Reformation. Luther’s rediscovery of the Biblical doctrine of salvation came not only from his study of New Testament books like Romans and Galatians, but also from his study of the Psalms. Luther described the book of Psalms (the Psalter) as “a little Bible.” He saw what previous generations of Christians stretching back to the apostles has also discovered: The Psalms speak of Christ. Luther wrote:
The Psalter ought to be a precious and beloved book, if for no other reason than this: it promises Christ’s death and resurrection so clearly—and pictures his kingdom and the condition and nature of all Christendom—that it might well be called a little Bible. In it is comprehended most beautifully and briefly everything that is in the entire Bible. It is really a fine enchiridion or handbook. I fact, I have a notion that the Holy Spirit wanted to take the trouble himself to compile a short Bible and book of examples of all Christendom or all saints, so that anyone who could not read the whole Bible [could] have here anyway almost an entire summary of it, comprised in one little book (as cited in Timothy George, Reading Scripture with the Reformers, p. 186).
May we continue to read, pray, preach, and sing this “little Bible” of the Psalter so that we might learn more of Christ.
Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Saturday, November 10, 2018

WM 108: Review Modern English Version (MEV) Bible



I have posted WM 108: Review: Modern English Version Bible (MEV) (listen to the audio here).

In this episode I share a draft of a written review of the Modern English Version (MEV):


Here is the opening to the review, the headings, and the concluding observations:

James F. Linzey, Ed., The Holy BibleModern English Version (Lake Mary, Florida: Charisma Media/Charisma House Book Group, 2014): 625 pp.

The Modern English Version (MEV) is yet another contemporary English translation of the Bible. This version is distinct, however, for several reasons. First, and most importantly, it is a translation based on the traditional original language texts of the Christian Scriptures (the Hebrew Masoretic text of the Old Testament and the Greek Textus Receptus of the New Testament), rather than the modern critical texts, which form the basis for most modern vernacular translations. Second, it also aims to be an “updating” of the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible, the venerable English translation that was based on these same traditional original language texts.

The history and perspective of the MEV

MEV layout, design, and formatting

The MEV and the text of Scripture

The MEV and the translation of Scripture

Concluding observations:

Though the MEV is “yet another contemporary English translation of the Bible,” its differences from other modern translations are significant. This is the first widely available modern translation since the New King James Version (completed 1982) which aims to follow the traditional original language texts and emulate the translation style and wording of the KJV. It is, in fact, similar in many ways to the NKJV and thus shares in some of its strengths and weaknesses.

The MEV, no doubt, reflects the ongoing popularity of the KJV in the English-speaking world and the respect it continues to enjoy among evangelical Christians despite decades of the marketing of “new and improved” translations based on the modern critical text.   The MEV could easily be read and used in the pew in churches that ordinarily use the KJV or NKJV. It might even enhance and further the appreciation of the Tyndale/King James Version tradition. For these reasons it is a distinctive and even refreshing addition to a crowded Bible market.

JTR


Friday, November 09, 2018

The Vision (11.9.18): Calvin on the Comforter as "not a builder of new revelations"



Image: Morning worship at the Lynchburg Reformed Baptist Mission (11.4.18)

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you (John 14:26).

Christ told his disciples that one of the works of the Holy Spirit would be to bring his words to the remembrance of his disciples. Indeed, the Spirit inspired the apostles and evangelists to write not only the Gospels but also the other NT writings, infallibly recording the words of Christ, and completing the canon of the Christian Scriptures. We now have the word written and need not crave or expect the continuation of extra-ordinary experiences. Scripture is sufficient.

Here is what Calvin had to say about the cessation of extra-ordinary experiences and the work of the Spirit in this age:

Hence it follows that he [the Comforter] will not be a builder of new revelations. By this single word we may refute all the inventions which Satan has brought into the Church from the beginning, under the pretense of the Spirit. Mahomet and the Pope agree in holding this as a principle of their religion, that Scripture does not contain a perfection of doctrine, but that something loftier has been revealed by the Spirit. From the same point the Anabaptists and Libertines, in our time, have drawn their absurd notions. But the spirit that introduces any doctrine of invention apart from the Gospel is a deceiving spirit, and not the Spirit of Christ.

Let us trust and be content with the work of the Spirit through the Word in this age.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Thursday, November 08, 2018

WM 107: Majority Text and TR; Text Note: John 14:15



I have posted WM 107: Majority Text and TR; Text Note: John 14:15 (listen here).

The second part of this episode is a text note on John 14:15. For details on content you can look at this blog post.

In the first part, I respond to some recent questions, including one about the differences between the Majority Text and the TR. Here are my notes on those questions:

Introduction: Responding to recent questions:

After the last WM, I received a couple of questions from listeners:

Question one: On the TR and the Majority Text:

Jeff,


I enjoyed your podcast where you reviewed Mr Plummer’s critique of the traditional text which underlies the KJV. Your comments were very helpful in demonstrating the history of the textual differences between the traditional text and the modern critical text.



Would you please consider doing a podcast which explains the differences between the traditional text and the newer majority text view? In particular the texts by Robison-Pierpont and Farnstad-Hodges. I am not a scholar, and my rudimentary understanding is that the majority text position is one which tries to advocate for a text which was providentially preserved, and that in most cases it supports the received text, with a few exceptions, most notably the book of Revelation.



If you could do a podcast about this issue it would be greatly appreciated.


Response: I have addressed this topic in several past episodes of WM but will consider addressing it in greater depths in a future episode. For now, we can say that the Majority and TR are very close to one another, but they also differ from one another and not just in the book of Revelation.


The most common difference is that the TR includes a verse or part of a verse that the Majority Text excludes. Examples:

Acts 8:37
                 
Acts 9:5b-6a 
        
1 John 5:7b-8a

But there are also cases where the Majority includes material not appearing in the TR. Example:

Revelation 21:21:

TR: “with you all”

Majority: “with all the saints”

And cases where words are placed in a different order. Example:

Revelation 22:13:

TR: “the beginning and the end, the first and the last”

Majority: “the first and the last, the beginning and the end”

In other cases, the Majority text has a different arrangement of verses than in the TR. See:

Romans 16:25-27

The Majority text has vv. 25-27 after Romans 14:23.

In still others, the Majority text provides a different reading. Examples:

Revelation 16:5:

TR: “the one who is and who was and who is to be” [NKJV]

Majority: “the One who is and who was, the holy One” (Pickering)

Revelation 22:19:

TR: book of life

Majority: tree of life

To trace differences between the TR, Majority text, and modern critical text, I suggest flowing the textual notes in the NKJV.

Question 2: On a RB TR Study Bible:

Pastor Jeff, Do you know if there will ever be a Reformed Baptist TR Study Bible. Maybe you and your Keach Conference Pastor friends could do it.

Response: Sounds like a great idea, but I’m not sure what the market would be for this. If funding/opportunity allowed, I’d be glad to work on it.

JTR

Text Note: John 14:15



The issue:

John 14:15 is an important instruction which Christ gives to Philip and the other disciples in the upper room.

In the KJV (following the traditional text), the verse is rendered as follows:

If ye love me, keep my commandments.

In the Greek text, the verse contains a slight textual variant in the apodosis, regarding the verb téreo “to keep.” In the traditional text, as reflected in the KJV, it is an imperative or command: keep my commandments (cf. NKJV, MEV).

In translations based on the modern critical text, however, the verb is in the future tense. Here is the ESV:

If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

The variation here is slight, but not insignificant. What did Christ say (cf. John 14:26)?

External evidence:

John 14:15 is a third class conditional [probably future sentence] sentence, with the protasis introduced by ean and “you love” in the subjunctive. The apodosis in such constructions can appear in any mood.

According to the NA 28 apparatus there are three primary variations here (given in reverse order from NA 28):

First, there is the reading taken by the modern critical text:

térésete, the future active indicative, second person plural: you will keep

It is supported by the codices B, l, Psi, as well as by the Coptic and by the Church Father Epiphanius of Constantia (d. 403).

Second, there is minority variation:

téréséte, the aorist active subjunctive, second person plural: you should keep

This variation is found in p66, Sinaiticus, 060, 33, and 579

Finally, there is the reading found in the Majority of Greek mss. and included in the TR:

térésate, the aorist active imperative, second person plural: keep

This reading is supported by A, D, K, Q, W, Gamma, Delta, Theta, family 1, family 13, 565, 700, 892, 1241, 1424, Lectionary 844, and the majority of the remaining extant mss. of this verse.

So, the difference comes down to a single letter: Is it epsilon (making the verb a future active indicative), eta (making the verb an aorist active subjunctive), or an alpha (making the verb an aorist active imperative). The majority reflects a consensus on the latter, while modern reconstructionists prefer the former.

Notice also that here is a place where three of the earliest uncials all have different readings: Alexandrinus: traditional; Vaticanus: modern; Sinaiticus: minority variation.

Internal evidence:

What prompted modern text critics to depart from the traditional text?

Metzger’s Textual Commentary (second ed.), gives the modern text only a {C} reading (see p. 208). He relays that the majority of “the Committee” preferred the future tense reading, rather than the imperative, though conceding the latter is “rather well supported.” He also suggests that the modern text reading is “perhaps indirectly supported by witnesses that read the aorist subjective.” The only specific internal argument put forward is that the traditional reading, in Metzger’s opinion, “accords less well with erótésó in the following verse.” See v. 16: “And I will pray [ask] the Father and he will give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever.”

Questions: Could one not suggest, however, that the modern reading reflects an attempt to smooth out the text by making it agree with the future tenses in v. 16? Would this not make the imperative reading in the traditional text a more difficult, and thus by the canons of modern text criticism, a preferred reading? Is this an example of inconsistent application of those canons and a rather arbitrary decision to depart from the traditional text? Could the variants from the traditional text possibly be explained simply as an unintentional scribal blunder in the copying of a single letter?

Conclusion:

This is a minor variation, compared to several much more significant variations elsewhere in the NT. It is not, however, without significance. What did the Lord Jesus say? Have his words been faithfully preserved? Did he issue a command to his disciples to obey his commandments?

The traditional reading is grammatically fitting and, as even Metzger concedes, “rather well supported” by external evidence. The internal evidence against the traditional text is weak. This was the reading embraced by the majority of Greek mss. I see no compelling reason to abandon it.

JTR

Saturday, November 03, 2018

WM 106: Plummer on the KJV



After a hiatus of several weeks, I have posted a new Word Magazine: WM 106: Plummer on the KJV (listen here).  A regular listener suggested a review of this youtube.com video in the "Honest Answers" series from the Southern Baptist Seminary, featuring NT Professor Dr. Robert Plummer, on the topic: "Is the King James Version of the Bible the most accurate translation?"

Unsurprisingly, Plummer not only rejects the KJV but also rejects the traditional text which under girds it. As happens too frequently among modern translation and text advocates, he lumps in defenders of the traditional text with the bogeyman of KJV-Onlyism. He suggests that the Greek text of the NT is based on the Byzantine text, rather than the Textus Receptus. Finally, he perpetuates the myth of Erasmus' "rash wager" leading to the insertion of the Comma Johanneum into the third edition of his Greek NT.

Some resources mentioned in this episode:

My blog post on WM 54: The Comma Johanneum and the Papyri, which points out that we actually have no papyri evidence pro or con on the originality of the CJ. This dulls the argument against the CJ based on the Greek manuscript evidence.

My article "Erasmus Anecdotes" from the Puritan Reformed Journal (January 2017), which demonstrates that the "rash wager" anecdote is a modern scholarly legend which began in the nineteenth century in order to undermine the Textus Receptus and which continues to be uncritically perpetuated by scholars today.

Grantley McDonald's Biblical Criticism in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge Press, 2016) , based on his 2011 dissertation at the University of Leiden, which explores the history of early modern controversy over the CJ. McDonald does not believe that the CJ is original, but his work (especially his dissertation) provides the most up to date analysis of the evidence relating to this disputed text.

JTR

Friday, November 02, 2018

The Vision (11.2.18): The Ministry of the Comforter


Note: Devotion taken from last Sunday's sermon on John 14:22-27.

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you (John 14:26).

Christ promises his disciples that the Spirit will be sent by the Father in his name (v. 26). Christians in East and West have differed over whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone (the East) or from the Father and the Son (West).

This verse is very important for teaching us about the ministry of the Holy Spirit in “this present evil world” (as Paul names it in Gal 1:4) and also about the inspiration of the Scriptures.

First, Christ promises the apostles that the Holy Spirit would teach them all things.

The Spirit is the primary Teacher of the church. The Spirit is the primary Preacher of the church. He is the great Instructor, Exhorter, Proclaimer, who stands behind every ordinary officer.

Calvin calls the Spirit “the inward Teacher,” noting that “outward preaching will be vain and useless, if it be not accompanied by the teaching of the Spirit.” He explains:

God has therefore two ways of teaching; for first, he sounds in our ears by the mouth of men; and secondly, he addresses us inwardly by his Spirit; and he does this either at the same moment, or at different times, as he thinks fit.

Second, Christ promises the apostles that the Spirit will bring to their remembrance all the things that Christ had said unto them.

This is key to understanding the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture. The apostles would be the men entrusted with the writing down of the Gospels (cf. “the apostles’ doctrine” in Acts 2:42). They recorded the commandments of Jesus, which we must obey. Paul says that all scripture is given “by inspiration of God” (1 Tim 3:16). Peter says that the “holy men of God” who wrote the Scriptures were “moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:21).

The Bible is not a book that can be explained merely on naturalistic terms. How could the evangelists perfectly record all the things that Christ said? Because the Holy Spirit was bringing this into the remembrance of the inspired penmen. The Bible is a supernatural work.

The Lord has not left us comfortless in this age. He has sent to us the Comforter to teach us and to bring to our remembrance the words of Christ.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Friday, October 26, 2018

The Vision (10.26.18): If ye love me, keep my commandments



Note: Devotion taken from last Sunday's sermon on John 14:15-21.

If ye love me, keep my commandments (John 14:15)

Note that this is a conditional statement. It is a “If this…then this…” statement. Usually, such constructions reflect a condition like, If you do this, then this will be the result. Or, if this is a reality in your life, then this will be the outcome.

But here the second part of the sentence is a command: “If ye love me, keep my commandments.”

We can glean at least two things from this:

First, Christ expect that his disciples will have an abiding love, affection, passion for him that will over-rule and overwhelm every other passion in their lives. Second, he expects them to be obedient to his commands.

There is, therefore, no such thing, from Christ’s perspective, as a disciple who loves him but who is unwilling to keep his commandments.

It also striking how in in both parts of this simple command, we see the underlining affirmation of the deity of Christ. By such statements Christ is making himself equal with God.

In the first part, it implies his expectation, even his demand, that his disciples will love him above all. Who can command this kind of devotion but God himself? When the Lord Jesus was asked to identify the greatest commandment (see Mark 12:28-31), he had quoted Deuteronomy 5:6, which reads: “And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.”

To whom is love rightly directed? To God alone. To whom does Christ say that love is rightly directed? To himself. The implication: Jesus is Lord.

In the second part, Christ speaks of his commandments. Who has the authority to give commandments? God alone. But now it is Jesus who gives commandments. The implication: Jesus is Lord.

If we love him, then we must keep his commandments.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff