Text and Translation Note: John 16:21, "Man" or "Human Being"? (Jots & Tittles 25)

 

JTR

Jots & Tittles 24: Peter Masters Defends the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20: To deny is "Absurd"

 

JTR

Jots & Tittles 23: An Error in Psalm 10:13 (MEV)

 

JTR

Jots & Tittles 22: Is Mark 16:12-13 another account of the road to Emmaus?

Notes:

This episode was stirred by my reading and review of Jakob Van Bruggen’s discussion of Mark 16:12-13 in his book Christ on Earth: The Gospel Narratives as History (Dutch original, 1987; English translation, Baker Books, 1998).

JVB on Mark 16:12-13:

JVB argues against the assumption that Mark 16:12-13 is another account of Christ’s appearance to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24:13-35. See Christ on Earth, pp. 284-286.

He sees two contrasts between the narratives:

First, the destination:

In Mark 16:12 the two disciples are going eis agron (AV: “into the country”).

In Luke 24:13 two disciples (Cleopas and unnamed disciple) are going eis kōmēn (AV: “to a village”).

Second, the return to Jerusalem:

In Luke the two disciples are told that Christ has already appeared to Simon (Luke 24:34). JVB sees Mark 16:12-13 as describing an earlier appearance.

In Mark 16:13 the focus is on the unbelief of the disciples. There is no direct mention of this in Luke 24:33-35.

JTR response:

First, regarding the destination:

The phrases “into the country” (Mark) and “to a village” (Luke) are not necessarily so different. Luke stresses that the distances from Jerusalem to Emmaus was “three-score furlongs” (Greek: 60 stadia, with a stadia being c. 1/8 of the Roman mile). The NKJV gives the distance as “seven miles.” The travel from Jerusalem to Emmaus would have taken the travelers into the “country.”

Second, regarding the return to Jerusalem:

Mark’s description of unbelief does not necessarily contradict an appearance to the disciples after Christ’s appearance to Peter. Compare Matthew 28:17, “but some doubted.” It makes sense for Mark to give emphasis to unbelief, since this is a theme in his Gospel and in his resurrection narrative.

Arguments in favor of harmonizing Mark 16:12-13 and Luke 24:13-35:

First, both describe Christ’s appearance to two disciples in a remote location, before these two go to the Eleven.

Second, Mark’s mention of Jesus appearing to the two en hetera morphē (AV: “in another form”; i.e., in this resurrection body) likely parallels Luke’s mention that the two did not immediately recognize the risen Jesus (cf. Luke 24:16, “their eyes were holden”).

Conclusions if JVB is correct and the two are not the same event:

First, this would show the value of Mark 16:9-20 as offering an independent resurrection appearance narrative. Contra modern critics it would show that the traditional ending is NOT a “pastiche” of accounts drawn from the other Gospels.

Second, it would mean that each of the four canonical Gospels has a unique resurrection appearance narrative:

Matthew: Appearance at a mountain in Galilee (Matthew 28:16 ff.).

Mark: Early appearance to two disciples (Mark 16:12-13).

Luke: Appearance on the Emmaus Road to Cleopas and another disciples (Luke 24:13-35).

John: Appearance to seven disciples at the Sea of Tiberias (John 21)

Overall assessment:

In the end, I am not convinced by JVB’s suggestion. Mark 16:12-13 and Luke 24:13-35 describe the same event and Mark abbreviates the longer account as found in Luke.

JTR

Jots & Tittles 21: Early Independent Circulation of the Gospels & Mark's Ending

 

JTR

Jots & Tittles 20: Matthew 5:44 and the ESV

 

JTR

Jots & Tittles 18: Insightful Comment: The End of Protestantism?

 

JTR

Jots & Tittles 17: "Plus Nothing" LIfe and Teachings of Jesus: A Modern Day Diatessaron?

 

JTR

Jots & Tittles 16: White and Wilson on the LXX and "Inspired Editing"

JTR

Jots & Tittles 15: PA affirmed in Yale Divinity Chapel Sermon!!!

 

You can find the entire chapel service here.

JTR

Jots & Tittles 14: Rejoinder to Matthew Everhard on the Why I Preach Appendix

 

JTR

Jots & Tittles 13: Bishop Thompson on the Canterbury Convocation (1870-1881)

 

JTR

Jots & Titles 12: What about the Apocrypha? Four Reasons the Apocrypha is Not Canonical

 

JTR

Jots & Tittles 10: Defending Christopher Myers' Point (R. L. Vaughan's Article)

 

JTR

Jots & Tittles 9: Interview: Jonathan Arnold, General Secretary, Trinitarian Bible Society

 

JTR

Jots & Tittles 8: Interview: Alejandro Riff, Pastor and Bible Translator in Argentina

 

JTR

Jots & Tittles 7: Interview: Craig Dennison, TBS Deputation Speaker

 

JTR

Jots & Tittles 6: Interview: Pastor Julio Benitez

 

This is a short Interview with Reformed Baptist Pastor and Seminary President Julio Benitez at the Trinitarian Bible Society in London (9.16.22).

JTR

Jots and Tittles 5: John Owen on Preservation, Satan's Craft, and "Missing Verses"

 

My Notes:

Introduction:

In this episode I want to read a section on the divine providential preservation of Scripture from John Owen’s work titled, “The Reason of Faith, Or, The Grounds Whereon the Scripture is Believed to be the Word of God with Faith Divine and Supernatural” (1677) (Works, 4:5-115).

This is part of Owen’s larger study on the Holy Spirit.

I thought it might be helpful to share this given some of the misunderstandings and even outright misrepresentations of Confessional Bibliology that have recently been appearing online.

Owen’s overall thesis in this work is that the believer must come to receive Scripture as the Word of God based on an internal compulsion founded upon the fact that Scripture is divine revelation, rather than upon, what he calls “moral persuasion” based on “external arguments.”

So, he writes:

“The sum is, We are obliged in a way of duty to believe the Scriptures to be divine revelation, when they are ministerially or providentially proposed unto us…. The ground whereupon we are to receive them is the authority and veracity of God speaking in them; we believe them because they are the word of God” (49).

He adds:

“Wherefore, we do not nor ought only to believe the Scripture as highly probable, or with moral persuasion and assurance, built upon arguments absolutely fallible and human… if we believe not with faith divine and supernatural, we believe not at all” (49).

Nevertheless, Owen holds that there is a place for “external arguments” reasonably to confirm belief in Scripture as the Word of God.

In chapter 3 of “The Reason of Faith” Owen outlines five such “Sundry convincing external arguments for divine revelation” (20-47). They include:

1.     The antiquity of the writings;

2.     The providential preservation of the Scriptures;

3.     The overall divine wisdom and authority of the Scriptures;

4.     The testimony of the church;

5.     The doctrines derived from the Scriptures.

Owen on Preservation:

I want now to read Owen’s discussion of the preservation of Scripture as one of these five external arguments :

[Reading from Owen, Works, 4: 23-26]

Conclusion:

The Reformed doctrine of the providential preservation of Scripture is one of the most neglected themes in contemporary theology. I think Owen’s views add insight into what the framer’s of the WCF meant in 1:8 when they spoke of God’s Word having been “kept pure in all ages.”

In recent years there have been various evangelical and even Reformed attempts either to reject this doctrine (See Dan Wallace) or to reinterpret it (See Richard Brash).

Confessional Bibliology represents an effort neither to reject nor reinterpret but to retrieve this doctrine. Sadly, lack of familiarity with and misunderstanding of this historic doctrine has resulted, in part, in the unjust confusion and conflation of Confessional Bibliology with IFB KJVO-ism (a phenomenon of the 20^th century).

Most recently a Presbyterian youtuber has ungraciously mocked CB as KJVO because of questions raised by us about “missing verses” in the modern critical text and in modern translations, accusing us of promoting wacky conspiracy theories. He has also suggested that the historic Christian position is to accept uncertainty about what exactly the text of Scripture is, so that we have no reason for anxiety when modern editors and translators remove passage from OR ADD to the traditional text.

I think you can clearly see in this excerpt from Owen, however, that he believed in the meticulous care of God’s Word, as he puts it, “that not a letter of it should be utterly lost.” He expresses his trust in divine providence to preserve “this book and all that is in it, its words and its syllables.” He even speaks clearly of the Scriptures having been preserved despite Satan’s efforts to corrupt it. He speaks of Scripture having been preserved despite “the malicious craft of Satan.” He notes that God’s providence even kept “apostatized Christians” from “the corrupting of one line in it.”

I think we can see that the beef some have with CB is really a beef with John Owen and the Reformed Protestant Orthodox and, sadly enough, perhaps with WCF 1:8.

I hope that this reading of Owen might help to clarify this point for those with sincere, serious, and open-minded interest in this topic.

JTR

Jots & Tittles 4: Five Questions about the Majority Text for its Contemporary Evangelical and Reformed Advocates

 

Introduction:

Several internet pundits and critics of the TR, like Dwayne Green and Matthew Everhard, have recently suggested that the proper text of the Greek NT may be found in the so-called Majority Text (the text represented by the majority of currently extant Greek mss.). Sometimes the Majority Text is put forward as a sort of via media between traditionalists, on one side, who hold to the TR, and progressives, on the other, who hold to the modern critical text. Such a view is problematic for several reasons, especially for those who are confessionally Reformed and affirm that God’s Word has been “kept pure in all ages” (WCF 1:8).

Five Questions:

Here are five questions I’d like to see addressed by contemporary evangelical and (especially) Reformed advocates of the Majority Text:

1) If the Majority Text is the preserved true text of the Greek NT, why were there no printed editions of it completed until the late 20th century (see the editions of Farstad and Hodges, The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, Second edition, 1985) and how does this fit with the doctrine that God’s Word has been kept pure in all ages?

2) If the Majority Text is the preserved true text of the Greek NT, why did God in his providence not allow the Protestant Reformers and Protestant orthodox to recognize it as such and make it the standard for their scholarship, preaching, and Bible translations? Relatedly: How was the Protestant Reformation able to succeed and be blessed by God without ever having access to the “true” Bible?

3) If the Majority Text is the preserved true text of the Greek NT, why have no widely used Protestant translations of it ever been made in any language? In fact, the only NT translation of the Majority Text in English that is currently in print that I know of is that independently published on amazon by Wilbur Pickering in 2013 and titled The Sovereign Creator Has Spoken: Objective Authority for Living. As far as I know there are currently no churches anywhere in the world which make liturgical use of a New Testament translated from the Majority Text in their worship.

Our friends may respond that even though there are no viable translations of the Majority Text widely available or practically in use today, they can still have access to it either through translations based on the TR (like the NKJV) or ones based on the modern critical text (like the ESV). This, however, means that they must approve and commend editions of the Bible to their congregations which either contain passages they do not believe are original and inspired (such as Acts 8:37 and 1 John 5:7-8 in TR-based translations), or that omit or cast doubt on passages that they do believe are inspired (like Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53—8:11 in modern critical text-based translations).

Dwayne Green has done a number of videocasts where he has doggedly asked “Which TR?” but to my knowledge he has never addressed the question, “Which Majority Text?” or “Which Majority Text Translation?” I hope we will get answers from him and other Majority Text advocates soon.

4) Given that the Majority Text is sometimes affirmed as the preserved true text of the Greek NT in part based on its usage in the Greek-speaking Eastern Church, why does the current standard printed edition of the Greek NT used by the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Patriarchal Edition (1904), essentially follow the TR and not the Majority Text (e.g, it includes Acts 8:37 and 1 John 5:7-8 without brackets or explanatory notes)?

5) If you affirm the Majority Text as the preserved true text of the Greek NT, what do you do with places in the NT (as in the book of Revelation) where there is no clear Majority Text? Must Christians be perpetually uncertain as to what the authoritative text of these passage is?

Conclusion:

In the end, I think we can see that the Majority Text is not really a viable option for traditional Protestant Christians who hold to the providential preservation of the Word of God. The only viable Protestant option, IMHO, for the Greek NT remains the Textus Receptus, the traditional text of the Reformation. In the providence of God it was the consensus printed text of the Reformation and post-Reformation eras and the basis for all their vernacular translations of the Bible, and it still widely used by Bible-believing Christians and churches around the world today.

JTR