WM 110: Reeves & Hill on John 5:4; Text Note: Luke 9:55-56

I have posted WM 110: Reeves & Hill on John 5:4; Text Note: Luke 9:55-56 (listen here).

In this WM I do two things:

First, I offer some thoughts on a passage from a new book that I have recently begun to read. It is Ryan M. Reeves & Charles E. Hill’s Know How We Got the Bible (Zondervan, 2018) in the “Know Series” edited by Justin Holcombe.

I devoted WM 46 (listen here) to challenging an online article Reeves had written on Erasmus and his Greek NT, in which he perpetuated some of the old “Erasmus Anecdotes” and added a few new ones.

See also this blog post: Response to Ryan Reeves.

And this one: Contrasting Ryan M. Reeves and John D. Currid: Was the study of the Bible in the original languages a hallmark of the Reformation?

Here's the passage from Reeves and Hill's Know How We Got the Bible which I review (p. 26):

            In the Reformation era, European scholars had a smaller number of biblical manuscripts or copies of the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament books, than have been found today. Their best copy of the New Testament, for example, dated from the twelfth century. After the rise of archaeology in the nineteenth century, we began to discover older copies of the New Testament. From these older copies, we learned that a few verses in Bible translations were not likely in the autographs, or original writings of Scripture.

            For example, the twelfth-century copy of John 5:4 reads:

For an angel came down at certain times into the pool and stirred the    water: so the first one who entered after the stirring of the water became healed of whatever disease he had. (author transl.)

            Older copies of John do not have these words, meaning they were not likely in the Gospel as originally written by the apostle John.

I point out that it is inaccurate to say that John 5:4 did not appear in any Greek mss. prior to the twelfth century. See my text note on this passage, which shows that John 5:4 appears in Codex Alexandrinus (dated fifth century) and in the Church Father Tertullian (c. 220).

Toward the end of this discussion I note that feminist theologians used to speak of the “hermeneutics of suspicion" and suggest that when you read any modern work on Biblical origins and development, even if the authors are credentialed scholars teaching in “conservative” or “evangelical” schools, one should employ a “hermeneutics of suspicion" or simply a grain of salt.

Second, I provide a spoken word version of my previously posted Text Note on Luke 9:55-56.

JTR

Contrasting Ryan M. Reeves and John D. Currid: Was the study of the Bible in the original languages a hallmark of the Reformation?

The first misstep in our story, then, is the idea that Greek had been completely lost until the sixteenth century (Ryan M. Reeves).

At the beginning of the sixteenth century the ancient Greek language was, for the most part, unknown (John D. Currid).

Last week I did a post [find it here] critiquing a blog post which recently appeared on the Reformation 21 website by Ryan M. Reeves, assistant professor of historical theology at Gordon-Conwell Seminary, (Jacksonville campus).  I also did a Word Magazine on the same topic (see WM# 46).

Reeves’ article was on the 500 year anniversary of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1516).  In my critique I raised a number of questions about his post, including the historical accuracy of a number of his comments about Erasmus’ Greek NT.

Beyond my questions about the accuracy of Reeves’ Erasmus anecdotes, one of the questions I raised about his post was his suggestion that the “real” myth about Erasmus is that there was little study of the Biblical languages in the pre-Reformation period. According to Reeves, there was, in fact, a vibrant interest in the study of the Bible in the original languages that existed even before the Reformation era.  Here is how Reeves put it in his blogpost (with some relevant passages underlined):

So the myth of this story is not that Erasmus altered the course of biblical scholarship. He did influence future scholarship. It is not that the reformers considered Greek irrelevant. The myth is how we understand the context. 

Prior to Erasmus a number of scholars learned Greek, mostly for the sake of classical studies, but at times to study the Bible. The Renaissance was centuries old by the time of the 95 Theses, though the movement had begun to focus on classical and biblical languages only in the previous century. Over the years, though, humanists strove to learn the scriptures to the best of their ability, even in the originals. Luther's own right-hand man, Melanchthon, was one of these prodigies in the study of Greek and taught this as a professor at Wittenberg. 

The first misstep in our story, then, is the idea that Greek had been completely lost until the sixteenth century. It is not true that everyone prior to the Reformation rejected the original languages for a view of the Vulgate as a pristine text. Catholic commitment to the Vulgate was as much a result of the Reformation as its cause. Prior to the Reformation there was no real dispute over it and other translations were not scorned, except in cases where texts were used by heretical movements. During the medieval period, Bibles did not languish in chains in dusty libraries, unloved and unread. Most people were illiterate, and so only the educated few could read the Bible. The reason they chained it was because it cost as much as a house to produce. One does not chain up things that are unwanted. 

Reeves’ comments came to mind again this weekend as I read John D. Currid’s book Calvin and the Biblical Languages (Christian Focus, 2006).  Contrary to Reeve’s comments above, Currid states the following:

At the beginning of the sixteenth century the ancient Greek language was, for the most part, unknown.  It was a mere curiosity even among the educated of Europe, almost a freakish field of study (p. 39).

This stands in complete contrast to Reeves’ statement that the “first misstep” in poplar conceptions of Erasmus is “the idea that Greek had been completely lost until the sixteenth century.” Did Currid make a blunder here, a misstep?  In fact, Currid offers sources to verify his statement.  He cites, in particular, D. Rebitté's work Gillaume Budé restaurateur des études grecques en France (Paris: essai historique,1846), which noted three key eras for the study of Greek in sixteenth century France:  (1) the scarcity period (1500-1530) when very few knew Greek, except for Gillaume Budé; (2) the pioneering period (1530-1560) reaching its climax with the publication of Henri Estienne’s Thesaurus in 1560; and (3) the “full blossom” period (1560-1600).  He notes that Calvin began learning Greek in the second period.

Currid later makes the argument, contra Reeves, that the study of Biblical languages was, in fact, a unique and distinguishing part of the Reformation period, setting it apart from the preceding age, which slavishly followed the Vulgate.  Thus, he writes:

Catholic priests and scholars of the sixteenth century were trained in Latin in order to use the Vulgate.  Few of them, however, studied Greek and even fewer were trained and knowledgeable in Hebrew.  What need was there to learn the languages to get at the real meaning of the Scriptures when, in fact, Jerome’s Vulgate was the Bible of Christianity and the version upon which the Church of Rome based its doctrinal tenets and teachings? (p. 65).

Reeves suggested, however, that RC commitment to the Vulgate was “as much a result of the Reformation as its cause.” Has Currid made another misstep?  Again, he cites a source to verify his view.  In this case his source is G. Lloyd Jones' The Discovery of Hebrew in Tudor England: A Third Language (Manchester University Press, 1983). Currid shares this quote from Jones:

Ignorant and illiterate monks, alarmed by the progress of the new learning, thundered from the pulpit that a new language had been discovered called Greek, of which people should beware, since it was that which produced all the heresies.  A book called the New Testament written in this language was now in everyone’s hands, and was ‘full of thorns and briers.’ There was also another language called Hebrew, which should be avoided at all costs since those who learned it became Jews (cited in Currid, p. 65).

While noting that this view was “commonplace” in pre-Reformation Europe, he evenhandedly observes that “it was dominant, but not absolute,” singling out Johann Reuchlin, in particular (p. 66).  Still, Currid firmly states:

In contrast to the Roman Catholic Church, the Reformers were, for the most part, seriously committed to the study of the original languages of the Bible.  It was a hall-mark of the Reformation (p. 66).

Later, he reiterates:

Yet, I would argue that the commitment of the reformers to the study of the original languages of the Bible was one of the hallmarks or emblems of the Reformation (p. 69).

Whereas Reeves appears to downplay the uniqueness of the Reformation interest in the study of the Bible in the original languages in distinction from pre-Reformation Roman Catholicism (and thereby he downplays the divide between the RC and the Reformed view of Scripture), Currid underscores it.

One would think that an article on Erasmus from a historical theologian on a blog titled “Reformation 21” would be a bit more like Currid than Reeves.

JTR

Word Magazine # 46: Reeves on Erasmus

I have recorded a "spoken word" version of  my written critique of Ryan M. Reeves' recent Reformation 21 blog post on "Erasmus and the Greek NT" and posted it to sermonaudio.com as WM # 46:  Reeves on Erasmus.

JTR

Response to Ryan M. Reeves: "Church History's Greatest Myths: Erasmus and the Greek NT"

Update (2.12.16):  I have posted a "spoken word" version of this critique as Word Magazine # 46:  Reeves on Erasmus.

A friend recently called my attention to an article by Ryan M. Reeves posted this month (February 2016) on the Reformation 21 blog [read the article here].  The article is titled “Church History’s Greatest Myths:  Erasmus and the Greek New Testament.” Reeves is assistant professor of historical theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.

The topic sparked my interest, particularly since I’m gearing up to attend the HBU Conference marking the 500 year anniversary of Erasmus’ Greek New Testament (1516) [see Dan Wallace’s recent post on the conference here].  I was also intrigued by the mention of “myths” surrounding Erasmus, thinking the article might address some of the modern scholarly myths that continue to circulate in seminary classrooms and textbooks without documentation from reliable sources (e.g., the first edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT was an error-filled rush job attempting to beat the Complutention Polyglot to the market; when receiving criticism for omitting the CJ in the first two editions, Erasmus made a rash promise to include it if a Greek manuscript containing it could be produced and one was then custom made by his critics to force his hand; Erasmus had an inadequate number of Greek mss., so he liberally back-translated long portions; etc.).

Unfortunately, I found Reeves’ article disappointing.

He begins promisingly by noting the “mythology” surrounding Erasmus’ Greek NT. Unfortunately, he then proceeds to further scholarly myth by noting “Erasmus’ slapdash effort to bring the text to print” and his stepping “into a quagmire of textual criticism.” He adds, with overmuch flourish, that “the tale is embellished to the point of being an overfed caricature of Reformation hagiography.”

He proceeds to note how Erasmus “cobbled together a series of Greek texts” with his supposedly “flawless” (very odd adjective used here) humanistic skill that “fueled the rise of textual, linguistic, and scholarly work on the Bible.”

Having inadvertently promoted a number of Erasmian myths, we finally get to what Reeves says is the real Erasmian myth:  a misunderstanding of the historical context in which his Greek NT appeared. The “first misstep” is “the idea that Greek had been completely lost until the sixteenth century.”  According to Reeves, there was robust interest in the Biblical languages prior to the Reformation and Catholics only staked out dogmatic commitments to the Latin Vulgate after the Reformation.  I know this is only a popular blog post and not an academic article, and certainly not an academic monograph, but at this point I wanted to say:  What?  Can Reeves please give the evidence for this?  Sure, there was some interest in the Biblical languages prior to the Reformation but was not one of the guiding slogans of the Reformers ad fontes, back to the sources?  Was this not a significant insight and commitment of the Reformers which distinguished them from the pre-Reformation RC theologians?  Was this not fueled by an array of providential circumstances, like the fall of Constantinople and the movement of Greek mss. (both pagan and Christian works) and Greek-speaking scholars into Western Europe and the rise of Renaissance humanist interest in the classical age? Even Wycliffe made his English translation from the Latin, did he not?  Yes, only after the Reformation had begun did Trent codify RC views on the Vulgate’s authority and the Westminster Confession declare that the Scriptures are only immediately inspired in the original languages, but were not these developments the result of the inherently conflicting visions of Catholics and Protestants that was at the heart of the Reformation dispute about the Bible?

Reeves then proceeds to assert that Erasmus was not a true “Greek scholar by today’s standards.”  He did not have modern 1400 page grammars.  He only spent five years learning Greek while in Cambridge from 1510-1515.  There are several things that do not seem quite right with this assessment.  First, in his celebrated biography of Erasmus [see Erasmus of Christendom, p. 59], Roland Bainton states that the Dutch humanist “learned the rudiments” of Greek before ever coming to England and had used several Greek quotations in his 1500 work Adages.  By the time he left for Paris he supposedly declared he would rather spend his money buying Greek books than clothes! More importantly, Erasmus was a peerless classical scholar and brilliant linguist.  Men of his generation had a facility with ancient languages that cannot be duplicated in the modern scene.   He was hardly held back by lacking a modern Greek grammar (even one with 1400 pages!).

Reeves also strangely suggests that Erasmus had a naïve view of the Greek manuscripts of the NT, thinking he need “only to walk into a library, find several editions [sic; rather:  manuscripts] of the Greek text, and then head off to the publisher.”  Erasmus has indeed often been faulted for the relatively few Greek mss. he used to compile his Greek NT.  Given, however, that his text was based on the Majority or Byzantine text, scores of mss. were hardly necessary.  A single Byzantine ms. would be basically the same as hundreds of others.  Nevertheless, Erasmus exercised due diligence in seeking out Greek ms. evidence as it was available to him, apparently even writing to compare readings in Codex Vaticanus in Rome.  Reeves repeats the popular anecdote about back translation of the ending of Revelation, but this assertion is not easily verifiable and Reeves provides no references (again, it is a popular blog post and not an academic article).  He throws out other anecdotes regarding Erasmus “at one point" adding a phrase at Acts 9:6 and forgetting “which verses in Revelation were his,” but, again, no hard or specific evidence is provided.  We are only left with questions:  If Erasmus merely considered options for Acts 9:6 but did not adopt them in the end, how can you fault him?  Which verses in Revelation is he talking about?

Reeves furthermore repeats the “rush to print” and the work was "error-laden" myths of Erasmus’ Greek NT.  He even has the audacity to blame Erasmus for creating “one of the great publishing catastrophes in early modern history. Errors in typesetting and transcription appeared everywhere.”  Ouch!  Oxford University Erasmian scholar M. A. Screech does not agree, however, with Reeves’ assessment of Erasmus’ work [see his “introduction” in Anne Reeve, Ed., Erasmus’ Annotations on the NT:  The Gospels, p. xii).  He describes the idea that Erasmus “hurriedly skimped” in his editing work on the Greek NT in order to beat the Spaniards to print as a “legend, repeated from book to book for a century or more.”  He also says that the Annotations “were remarkably free from misprints” and “even the Greek NT is not quite so full of them as is often alleged.”

Yes, Erasmus’ work was not well received by some in his day, most especially by those committed to the RC church, who did not welcome his challenge to the Vulgate.  As Reeves rightly points out and other scholars (like H. J. de Jonge) have solidly explained, Erasmus’ first concern in the Novum Instrumentum was his own new Latin translation.  His Greek text was a supplement to the Latin.  Early Reformers (like Luther, Tyndale, and even Calvin) no doubt used Erasmus, but it was the later printed editions of the TR from Protestant scholars like Stephanus and Beza that would have wider influence.  Reeves fails to note this.

The “second misstep” which Reeves identifies is the supposed assumption that the early Reformers could learn biblical languages “without limits.”  This is another place where I’d like citations.  Who has assumed this, for example?

He notes especially the weaknesses of the early Reformers with Hebrew.  Two objections:  (1) Reeves provides no specific examples but only generalities; (2) He fails to note that the transmission of the Hebrew Bible did not depend on the Reformers but on the Masoretic scribes.

One of the main rubs I have with Reeves throughout is that he seems to assert that we know the Bible and the Biblical languages better now than the Reformers did.  We may have “a comedy of riches” (strange term) at our digital fingertips but this does not mean we have the mastery and discipline of the great men of the Reformation.   Would Luther’s access to the Dead Sea Scrolls or to the Akkadian language really have made him a better expositor of justification by faith?  Does a modern seminary graduate really finish his degree with “a stronger foundation in biblical grammar” than Erasmus had?

Yes, 2016 marks 500 years since Erasmus’ Greek NT was published.  It is a work still surrounded by myths.  I am afraid Reeves has added to this condition rather than alleviated it.

JTR