In this
episode I want to kill several birds with one stone as it were, by addressing
several topics in one WM that have come across my desk.
I am
thankful for those who listen and for those who sometimes share links or
suggests possible topics, though I, obviously, do not address them all.
In this
episode, I want to address four topics, all related to text and translation,
roughly in the order in which I got them. The four topics:
1. Comments by Jim Renihan on
providential preservation and the chapter one of the confession.
2. Comments by Rob Plummer on the CJ.
3. Recent discussion about the ESV and
the ESS controversy.
4. Yet another new translation: the EHV:
Evangelical Heritage Version.
First, the comments by Jim Renihan on
providential preservation:
I have a lot
of respect for Dr. R as a scholar of RB history but did not follow his argument
in this post.
Here is the
content (in italic) with some responses:
Submitted
by Prof. Renihan
Here is something that I wrote many
years ago seeking to address the question of the providential preservation of
the text of Scripture and the doctrine of our Confession of Faith.I hope it
will be unto edification. The statement in question is Chapter 1, Paragraph 8,
which says
8. The Old Testament in Hebrew, (which was the Native
language of the people of God of old) and the New Testament in Greek, (which at the time of the
writing of it was most generally known to the Nation),being
immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and Providence kept pure
in all Ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of Religion
the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues
are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in
the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read and search them,
therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every Nation,
unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they
may worship Him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of
the Scriptures may have hope.
Here
are my comments:
On the Confessional issue, I think
that the matter has to be handled with great care. On the one hand, it is
easy to think that the language of the Confession supports the kind of doctrine
of providential preservation promoted by modern defenders of the Textus
Receptus. But, in the study that I have done on the issue, I think that
that is probably anachronistic. Much more work needs to be done, but I
think that the Confessional position is much more carefully nuanced than is
sometimes represented to us today.
So, I want to know what is “the kind of
doctrine of providential preservation promoted by defenders of the TR”? Is he
thinking of KJV Only-ism? The text criticism of Edward F. Hills or Theodore
Letis? The approach of the TBS?
What was the view of the framers of the
confession on the text of the Bible? Clearly they affirmed the original
inspiration and preservation of the Scriptures in the traditional text (the MT
of the OT and the TR of the NT, as evidenced by the use of prooftexts).
He says that the undefined view of
preservation he opposes is “probably anachronistic.” I agree that more study is
needed and more nuance should be applied. I also agree that there is a problem
with anachronism but not the kind that Renihan appears to be thinking. It is
anachronistic to assume the framers held the modern (18-20th
centuries) restorationist view of text criticism. This is the real anachronism.
Next,
Renihan cites an excerpt from a sermon by William Bridge [third sermon on 1 Peter 1:19 in a
series titled “Scripture Light the Most Sure Light” (pp. 441-462) in his Collected
Works, Vol. 1]:
Consider for example the words of William
Bridge, a member of the Westminster Assembly, and thus someone whose comments
carry some weight in terms of the opinions of (perhaps)some of the Westminster
Divines. I grant that he was an Independent, and so some holding the
above noted views might dismiss him, but we cannot. In fact his ministry
gave quite a strong impetus to the Particular Baptists of Norfolk. Daniel
Bradford, an original co-pastor of the Norwich PB church had been a member of
Bridge’s church. Here is Bridge’s comment (from Works, 1:450):
“How can we hold and keep fast the
letter of the Scripture when there are so many Greek copies of the New
Testament, and those diverse from another?”
“Yes, well; for though there are many
received copies of the New Testament, yet there is no material difference
between them. The four evangelists do vary in the relation of the same
thing; yet because there is no contradiction, or material variation, we do
adhere to all of them, and deny none. In the times of the Jews, before
Christ, they had but one original of the Old Testament, yet that hath several
readings: there is a marginal reading, and a line reading, and they differ no
less than eight hundred times the one from the other; yet the Jews did adhere to
both, and denied neither. Why? Because there was no material
difference. And so now, though there be many copies of the New Testament,
yet seeing there is no material difference between them, we may adhere to all:
for whoever will understand the Scripture, must be sure to keep and hold fast
the latter, not denying it.”
I went back and read the Bridge sermon which is
on the topic of Scripture, though not much else is said about text than is
cited here. His point in the sermon is to distinguish between the letter and
the Spirit.
What I see him saying here is little different
than what I have read in other men of the era: namely, he believes that the true
text of Scripture is found in the existing copies (apographa). Nowhere does he suggest reconstructing the autographa.
In fact, he clearly defends the Masoretic text,
noting the careful Masoretic notes, pointing to textual discussions by the
scribes on proper interpretation of the text but making “no material
difference.” See the discussion in Würthwein’s The Text of the OT where he lists issues related to (a) special
points [puncta extraordinaria] which occur
c. 15 times; (b) inverted nun [nun
inversum] 9 times; (c) sebirin
[note meaning “to suppose”] which occurs c. 350 times; and the khetib and qere [written vs. spoken form] occurring c. 1300 times (pp. 17-18),
not to mention the tiqunne sopherim
[scribal corrections] and the itture
sopherim [scribal omission] (pp. 18-19).
As for the NT, note Bridge’s focus is on the
existing copies.
This perspective is identical to that found in
John Owen when he wrote: “the whole of Scripture, entire as given out from God,
without any loss, is preserved in the copies of the original yet remaining….
These copies, we say, are the rule standard and touchstone of all translations….”
(Works, XVI, p. 357).
These men were themselves
scholars. They knew that to assert a doctrine of providential
preservation as is often promoted today, one would have to assert that there is
at least one manuscript that has always been preserved from error of any
kind. But it is impossible to know which one it is. They did not
see one text as the standard for the churches (purposely plural!) but that the
word of God was in the texts that they had.
I do not follow the logic here. Why would
holding to providential preservation require the preservation of the text in
one single manuscript? Who makes such an argument? Maybe he was thinking of
Wilbur Pickering and Family 35, but Pickering is not a TR man and even his
stress is on a family of mss. The point of Bridge and Owen is that the
preserved text is there in the copies establishing the traditional text.
Renihan turns next to Richard Muller:
Richard Muller makes this comment
(Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological terms, page 323 s.v. Variae
lectiones): “specifically, variant readings in the several ancient codices of
Scripture that lead to debate concerning the infallibility of the scriptural
Word. The orthodox, Lutheran and Reformed, generally argued that the
meaning of the original can be recovered by careful collation of the
texts. In the second half of the seventeenth century, the argument was
developed that inconsistencies occurred only in the copies, or apographa, and
not in the now lost originals, or autographa, of Scripture.”
But Muller is not saying that the older men
held the modern reconstructionist view. He is saying quite the opposite. Their focus was on the apographa. Muller makes
this point very clearly in PRRD, Vol 2 (see especially, 6.3.a “the Hebrew and
Greek Texts” pp. 418-437). Here, Muller notes:
By
“original and authentic” text, the Protestant orthodox do not mean the autographa which no one can possess but
the apographa in the original tongue
which are the source of all versions (p. 433).
For
them, the autographa were not
concrete point of infinite regress for the future critical examination of the
text but rather a touchstone employed in gaining a proper perspective on
current textual problems (p. 434).
Finally, Renihan compares the undefined view
of providential preservation he opposes as a form of “successionism”:
So, I do not believe that our
Confession requires from us a doctrine of providential preservation as it is
often stated today. This is a kind of successionism, not unlike the false
notion promoted by Baptist successionists. It is, in my opinion, an
attempt to rely on something earthly: if we can’t prove antiquity, we have no
firm basis for our faith (or practice). It was rejected, and rightly so,
by the first generation of particular Baptists (when challenged that their
baptism was invalid because it had no successive lineage), and I think needs to
be rejected by us. The Word of God has a self-authenticating nature. We
do not need church councils to approve the Bible. The Scripture is
contained in the text, and in faithful translations.
In my understanding, the Confessional
doctrine simply asserts what Bridge states above: we have the word of God in
our texts. God has always preserved it. We do not have to trace a line
back to Paul or John or Isaiah or Moses (and the issue becomes even more
complicated when the PP doctrine is applied to the OT). We simply confess
that God has kept his word pure through the ages in the manuscripts that we
have.
Again, I would like to know who holds this supposed view. Is
it wrong to think that the Bible has been providentially preserved? Is this not
the language of the confession when it says that Scripture “by His singular care and Providence” has been“kept pure in all Ages”? We are not
defending a line of bishops by the laying on of the hands of men BUT the
preservation of Scripture by God. When Jude exhorted believers to “earnestly
contend for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints” (v. 3)
was he not, in part, urging the safe keeping and transmission of the Bible?
I do see an encouraging sign in
Renihan’s note. It shows that it is appearing on the radar screen as a
confessional issue among RBs.
Second,
comments by Rob Plummer on the CJ:
Rob Plummer is a NT professor at SBTS,
and he has a very helpful online ministry called daily dose of Greek (dailydoseofgreek.com). These are short
videos in which Plummer puts up a Greek verse and does a voice-over where he
gives grammatical analysis of the verse, parses the verbs, explains the vocab
and syntax, etc. I commend it to those learning (or wanting to refresh their
Greek). As one might expect from someone teaching at a broad evangelical
school, like SBTS, the text which Plummer uses for these videos is the modern
critical text.
Someone sent me a
link to the video on 1 John 5:7 the Comma Johanneum. As one might expect
Plummer treats just the first half of the verse: “For there are three that bear
record” and omits analysis of the second half “in heaven, the Father, the Word,
and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”
What is interesting are the comments
on the text (c. 1:40 mark).
Plummer notes that there is a text
tradition, “not strongly supported by any early witnesses” which adds the CJ (1
John 7b-8a). He notes that these additional words are supported by the “King
James translation(s).”
Plummer asks the right question: “Did
John write these words?” But answers in the negative since, “The earliest they
can be found in a Greek ms. is the 15th century.”
Let me offer some response to this.
First, I’d point readers to my blog post on the CJ
and the Papyri. In that post, I point out that there is, in fact, very little
early evidence (papyri evidence) for the general epistles and for 1 John. There
are only two papyri with fragments of 1 John (p9 from the third century and p74
from the seventh century, and neither of these include the text of 1 John 5:7-8).
What can be said is that the CJ is not the uncials Sinaiticus and Vaticanus,
but these are clearly texts that do not support the traditional text, so this
comes as no surprise.
Second, I’d note that it is not
exactly accurate to say that the CJ is not supported by any ancient witnesses
(even if those witnesses are not Greek mss.). It appears in Priscillian’s Liber Apologeticus (c. 382) and in
several early Latin mss of the Bible. So, the CJ is clearly not a late
fabrication, even if it does not appear in a Greek mss until the 15th
century. Note: At least it does appear in several Greek mss, unlike the
conjectural reading at 2 Peter 3:10 in the NA28 which has no Greek mss support
at all!
Third, I find it interesting that
Plummer dismisses the reading by noting its support in the “KJ translations.”
Notice the tendency to denigrate the KJV, as if any reading appearing within it
is automatically under suspicion of being spurious. The CJ did not originate in
the KJV and appeared in all the vernacular Protestant translations, not just in
English. Why not say, it is in the Erasmus tradition (second edition, 1519), or
the Stephanus tradition, or the Beza tradition, or the TR tradition of Greek
text. What about saying it is part of the Calvin tradition (since Calvin
supported it in his commentaries)? Or, the Tyndale tradition? Or, noting that
the CJ was cited in the WCF and the 2LBCF-1689? Or, that is accepted as part of
the authoritative text of Scripture in Eastern Orthodoxy?
Plummer’s comments are brief but
typical of the dismissive rejection of the CJ, even among mainstream
evangelicals.
Third,
Recent discussion about the ESV and the ESS controversy.
Most of you know that I am not fan of
the ESV translation, which is an evangelical updating of the Revised Standard
Version, which in turn was a revision of the English Revised Version of the 19th
century.
I was recently pointed to Rachel Miller’s July 24, 2017 article
Eternal
Subordination of the Son and the ESV Translation which was posted to the
Aquila Report website (Miller is a homeschooling mom, who serves as a news
editor for the AR). In that article she makes reference to the July 18, 2017
Gentle Reformation (GR) Podcast Episode
45: Does ESV=ESS? and the questions they raise related to the translation
of two verses in the ESV: John 14:10 and 16:13.
Behind all of this is a controversy that stretches back
several decades to conflicts between gender complementarians and gender
egalitarians. In arguing that men and women are equal in essence but distinct
in function, some evangelical scholars like Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware drew a
parallel to the relationships with the Trinity arguing that though the Father,
Son, and Spirit are equal in essence they are different in function, most
notably stressing that the Son submits to the Father.
Critics, however, have charged that this argument challenges
the orthodox view of the Trinity which has always maintained that the three
persons of the Godhead “are one God, the same in essence, power, and glory.” At
its worst, some have suggested that the Grudem/Ware view posits the eternal
subordination of the Son (ESS), making it an essentially semi-Arian position.
I remember papers being done on this topic at ETS years ago. The
conflict resurfaced more recently on the internet with some Reformed men (like
Carl Trueman of Westminster Seminary) questioning the orthodoxy of the complementarian
inspired view of the Trinity.
Since Grudem was the driving force behind the ESV, some have
been examining the ESV for traces of this theology (as well as the study notes
in the ESV Study Bible). See also this
article and this one.
GR and Miller point out that in the ESV of John 14:10 and
16:13 the translators do not simply translate the reflexive pronouns heautou/emautou but add an interpretation by including the word “authority.”
Compare (emphasis added):
ESV John 14:10 Do you not believe
that I am in the Father and the Father is in me. The words that I say to you I
do not speak on my own authority [ap emautou], but the Father who dwells
in me does his works.
KJV John 14:10 Believest thou not
that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you
I speak not of myself [ap emautou]: but the Father that
dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
ESV John 16:13 When the Spirit of
truth comes, he will guide you into all truth, for he will not speak of his own authority [aph heautou], but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will
declare to you the things that are to come.
KJV John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the
Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not
speak of himself [aph heautou]; but
whatsoever he shall hear, that shall
he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
Miller notes that the ESV does not consistently render these
pronouns using “authority” but does so explicitly in these cases related to the
persons of the Trinity (the Son in John 14:10 and the Spirit in John 16:13).
I might add that the ESV reading does not follow its RSV exemplar.
The RSV at John 14:10 reads “on my own” and at John 16:13 “on his own.”
I do not think that Grudem and Ware or the ESV are “Arian.” This
does demonstrate, however, the problem with translations that attempt to make
dynamic equivalent theological interpretations to support some contemporary
theological issue in their times. Sticking to a more literal rendering the KJV
(and also the RSV) for these verses is preferred.
It is yet another significant chink in the armor of the ESV.
Finally, there is yet
another new English translation on the horizon: the EHV: the Evangelical
Heritage Version.
You can now apparently get both print and electronic versions
of at least some portions of the EHV NT and Psalms on Amazon (look
here). And the OT is soon to be finished, completing the entire project.
The EHV is produced by the Wartburg Project and is apparently a
distinctly Lutheran translation. The general editor is John Brug of Wisconsin
Lutheran Seminary (the flagship seminary of the WELS denomination: Wisconsin
Evangelical Lutheran Synod). We are to assume this will be the preferred
translation for WELS churches (much like the CSB and the SBC, though they
appear to be one step ahead by keeping any denominational mention incognito).
The brief description on
the opening page of the WP site says the EHV follows the by-now-familiar
path of attempting to strike “a balance between the poles of so-called literal
and dynamic equivalent theories of translation.”
The text on which the EHV is based is not readily apparent
from my cursory exploration (someone else may be able to find it). This discussion
on this FAQ page seems to
indicate that it is an eclectic mix and might favor the Byzantine text. Therein
we read: “Our approach to the text of the NT is to avoid a bias toward any one
textual tradition of group of manuscripts”, adding that the UBS/Nestle “tends
to lean too heavily toward the theory that the shorter text is the better
reading.”
The question remains: Do we really need yet another English
translation in an already crowded field?
JTR
