HBU Erasmus Conference Notes: Lecture 2: Craig A. Evans on Erasmus and "Textual Fundamentalism" (2.26.16 AM)

Image:  Craig A. Evans speaks at the HBU Erasmus Conference.

Session II: Craig A. Evans:  Erasmus and the Beginnings of Textual Fundamentalism.

CE notes that Erasmus used seven mss. to create his NT.  His focus initially seems to be on the Latin and later shifted to the Greek.

The influence of the text of Eramsus:  The editions of Stephus and Beza.  The second edition of the Elzevirs gave us the textus receptus.  The KJV translators depended on TR.

CE suggests that with the TR began textual fundamentalism.  It laid a foundation for a new form of fundamentalism.  The idea of a text with no errors arrives in this period with the standard printed text.  He draws a parallel with the quest for the ipsissima verba Jesu.  He says we have autographa of ancient works and copies always vary.  With printing of identical texts the view emerged of an error-free original text.

He cites the discovery of new mss. including papyri, the discovery of new variants, and a harmonizing tendency in the Byzantine texts.  Fundamentalists tried to defend the text and were threatened by a crisis of faith.

CE draws a parallel to differences among the Synoptic Gospels. Evans assumes Markan priority.  He says that most traditional Christians are not aware of the fact that the Gospels were edited and that the sayings of Jesus were edited.  Pastors should teach this to their people, he says.

He surveys Jewish and Greco-Roman views on history and rhetoric and says they overlapped. He cites the classic study Hellenism in Jewish Palestine by Saul Lieberman, which argued that Jewish scholarship was heavily indebted to Hellenism.  More recently Jaffe has come to the same conclusions.

CE says that the discrepancies in the Gospels begin with Jesus himself.  How do we know this?  We have the handbooks from antiquity.  Young Greeks began by memorizing brief anecdotes (chreia).  As the student progressed he began to assert these in his argument and to string together several.  He learned how to introduce them.  He was permitted to edit these and was indeed required to by necessity.  Change in wording was not prohibited nor was expansion or abbreviation.  The focus was on clarity.  CE is dismayed that most traditional Christians are unaware of this.

He says this view was also present in the pre-print culture up to the time of the TR.  A change takes place with Guttenberg.

We see this comfort with variety in the ancient historians.  He cites various accounts of the Roman Emperor Otho.  CE says the Gospel writers were not tape recorders but disciples.  He cites Matt 13:32 describing scribes bringing out treasures old and new. CE says Jesus did not expect his disciples simply to repeat his words verbatim.

He cites Dale Martin who said Bart Ehrman let text study ruin his faith because he had an inadequate theology of the Bible.  CE recommends Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible:  Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture.

JTR Analysis:

There was more than a little which I found unsettling about this presentation. CE represents the assumptions and approach of a classic evangelical “restorationist” approach.  There was, for example, no mention of the doctrine of the preservation of Scripture.  Those who seek stability in the Biblical text are “textual fundamentalists.”

I also have questions about some of the historical statements.  Examples:  He stressed how Jewish scholarship was affected by Hellenism, but does not tell us how it was also different.  If ancient Jews, like ancient Greeks, were as comfortable with differences in texts, variants, etc., as CE suggests, and did not expect precision in transmission why were the Masoretes so meticulous in their care for the OT text?

In the discussion period I raised a related question about the early Christians.  If they were so comfortable with diversity in the NT text and in supposed differences in the Synoptic accounts of Jesus due to the chreia pedagogy, why was there such an early effort to harmonize the Gospel accounts (see, e.g., Tatian’s Diatessaron)?  As regards the Church Fathers, what about Augustine’s efforts to harmonize the Gospels?  And in later church history, why did Calvin harmonize the Pentateuch in his OT commentaries and the Synoptic Gospels in his NT commentaries?  Can it be that desire for harmony, agreement, and uniformity existed prior to the printing press (and the TR)?

I also asked about another seeming logical inconsistency.  On one hand, CE says there is a harmonizing tendency in the textual tradition.  On the other hand, he then tells us that the ancients were comfortable with differences and variants among texts!  If they were so comfortable with these variants, why did they supposedly harmonize them?

One valuable thing I gained from this lecture: The realization of parallel issues regarding modern text criticism and modern “Synoptic Problem” criticism.

I also could not help thinking that what Protestant liberals suggested in the nineteenth century, modern evangelicals have thoroughly embraced in the twenty-first century (e.g., Markan priority, Q, rational eclecticism, etc.).

Friday AM Breakout Sessions

Gregory Barnhill and Natalie R. Webb, “Tolle Lege:  Reader’s Aids and Nomina Sacra in Early Christian Mss.”

First half:  Readers’ aids developed in Christian texts as they were read.  Presenters say there was a shift in 2-3 century with emergence of the office of lector.  Some have suggested that the letter carrier was the reader.  Reading aloud was an act of interpretation that needed to be done correctly.

They showed images of Codex B with paragraph division lines with raised dot and over-lining.  There are a variety of dots in the text, which they interpret as reading notes:  raised dots (end of complete thought; major pause); middle dot (take a breath); lower dot (shorter break).

Hurtado and others have suggested early origins for these reading helps.

Second half:  Nomina sacra.  Why these 15 words?  Unknown.  They focused on Israel as nomina sacra. Was it one way Christians staked their claim on this term?  They note that the Church Fathers’ use of Israel as a term in Barnabas, Justin Martyr (church as the true Israel), Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc.

This paper shows shift of interpretative traditions in text.

Timothy Bartel, When Virgil met St. Simeon:  Luke’s Canticle in Juvenicus.

Juvencus used Virgil’s hexameter verse style to paraphrase the Nunc Dimitis in Luke 2.

Stanley Helton, Origen and the Endings of Mark’s Gospel.

Metzger said Origen did not know the end of Mark’s Gospel.  But it has been pointed out that Origen also shows no evidence of knowing Mark 2 or 5 or even 16:1-8 at all.  Rather we have to learn about Origen’s approach to texts generally.

In Origen’s neglect of Mark generally, we see the church’s preference for Matthew over Mark.

Thompson showed Origen’s Mark was closest to Codex L (019), a ms. Similar to Vaticanus.  Helton suggests Origen would have known a tradition that Mark ended at 16:8.  See also Eusebius’ citation on the ending of Mark that most trace to Origen.

If you include Origen’s early work, his text of NT is closer to L.  In later years he shifted more to the so-called Caesarean text (so like Theta, 565, 700).

We know Irenaeus used the ending of Mark, and it is likely Origen would have read it.

Helton’s conclusion:  Origen would have known Mark ending at 16:8; the shorter ending, and the longer ending.

HBU Erasmus Conference Notes: Lecture 1: Timothy George on Erasmus and the Christian Life (2.25.16)

The 2016 Theology Conference at Houston Baptist University was titled “Ad Fontes, Ad Futura:  Erasmus’ Bible and the Impact of Scripture.”  The conference theme was in honor of the 500 year anniversary of Erasmus’ Novum Instrumentum omne (1516) which provided the first printed Greek NT and became the basis for the so-called Textus Receptus.  The conference was held February 25-27, 2016 Thursday evening to Saturday morning.  There were four plenary lectures and four break sessions.  Here are my notes from session one (2.25.16):

Session 1:  Timothy George, “Erasmus and the Search for the Christian Life”

TG is dean of the Beeson Divinity School at Samford University in Birmingham, AL. TG noted that it is good to smell the printer’s ink in Basel before moving to the anniversary of Luther in 2017.

Who was Erasmus?  What made him tick?  How did the Greek NT fit into his thought?

TG says he is the most tragic of the Reformers (?), living at the confluence of Renaissance and Reformation.  Though he remained RC, by 1559 all of Erasmus’ works were put on the banned index.

What did he look like?  According to an early biographer who was his friend he had a fair complexion and blue-ish gray eyes.  He was winsome, reticent, a brilliant conversationalist.  He had arched eyebrows, wry smile.  He had a delicate constitution.

He was one of the world’s first best-selling authors.  He was always on the move, always traveling.  There were FOEs (Friends of Erasmus) all over the world.

He was at Cambridge from 1511-1514 (dates?).  He worked there on the Greek NT and on the letters of Jerome.

He was the first well-known public intellectual.  He knew he played a unique role in introducing the world to new learning.  He believed he had awakened the world from its “pharisaical slumber.”

He brought together the classical and Christian traditions, the good and the sacred.

In April 1517 Erasmus wrote to Pope Leo X:  “If ever there was a golden age there is good hope there will be on in our time.”  He was filled with optimism and hope.  He had ties with the Pope and with the kings of Europe.  Soon, however, the earthquake of Luther’s Reformation would come.  Erasmus would eventually flee Basel due to uproar over the Reformation.  He later called it the worst century since Jesus Christ.

The formation of Erasmus:  He was born the illegitimate son of a Dutch priest.  We must be careful of psychoanalyzing, but this was certainly a cloud over his life.  His enemies often threw this in his face.  Is this why he moved so much?  He even backdated his birth.  He lost his parents in the Plague.  He was 13 when his mother died.  Many of his fellow students also died.  Luther also had a brush with death in the thunderstorm.  Whereas his experience gave Luther a combative nature, Erasmus would speak of his experience giving him a “weakness of spirit,” pusillanimity.

Erasmus entered the monastery and became a monk but his heart was not in it.  He snuck away to the library.  R. Bainton:  Luther went to the monastery to save his soul; Erasmus to enlighten his mind.

He became a secretary to a bishop and found a place to teach in Paris at the College de Montague (the same school where Calvin and Ignatius Loyola studied).

Erasmus was not pleased with the scholastic education system of his day.  He wanted to pursue “the philosophy of Christ.”  He first used the term in 1503 in the Enchiridion.  It was a program of moral reform for the individual and society and centered on personal devotion to Jesus.  His views were shaped by three persons:

1.  John Colet:  Erasmus heard his lectures on Paul.  Colet set his piety ablaze by pointing him to Paul and Plato.   From Paul he learned about grace:  the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.  Erasmus wrote four commentaries on Paul, now lost.   From Plato he learned idealism.  His spirituality was focused on stillness.

2.  Petrarch:  He was interested in history as more than merely a series of events/facts and in rhetoric.  He thought of history as a golden age, a fall, and a renewal.  Erasmus also thought in this way.

3.  Lorenzo Vallla.  He had a critical role in philology.  He examined the “donation of Constantine” and found it a forgery.  This gave focus to the importance of text criticism.  Erasmus discovered Vallas’s “Annotations” on the NT in a monastic library and published it.  This fueled interest in text criticism.

Erasmus’ “evangelical” heart is what makes him so important for the whole church:  Catholic, Protestant, Quaker, etc.  He wanted the Bible in the language of the people.

Luther would translate the NT in 1522 using Erasmus’ second edition (1519).  Tyndale would use Erasmus to translate the NT into English.

Erasmus died in Basel, then a Protestant city, in 1536.  This was the same year of Calvin’s first edition of the Institutes.  Erasmus’ last words in Dutch:  Liebe Gott, Dear God….

TG sees these last words as significant.  He says we can commend this type of piety in Erasmus.

Q and A:

In discussion George notes that he has grown more sympathetic to Erasmus over the years.

When asked about Erasmus and Luther TG cites a work by a Jesuit author, H. J. McSorely, titled, Luther Right or Wrong?  (1969).  TG says Luther was right, but he does not see this as the final word on the debate.

JTR Analysis:

This was a thoughtful and informative lecture from George. TG has long expressed sympathies with RC positions and on supposedly bridging the divide between Protestants and the RCC (cf. his input on the “Manhattan Declaration”). My friend Rob Stovall and I heard TG speak at an ETS event a few years ago and were struck by his references to the Pope as “the holy Father.” He did so at least once in this lecture also. Thus, it was not surprising that he presented a favorable view of Erasmus’ spirituality and counts him as a 'reformer' (though there was little reference to Erasmus' understanding or articulation of the Biblical gospel in it). 

Scenes from Houston Baptist University

Image:  The seal of HBU with John 14:6 as the motto.

I got back late Saturday from attending the Erasmus Conference at Houston Baptist University.  I'll be doing several posts this week from the trip and conference.  Houston is a great city to visit.  It is very large and very spread out (in the vein perhaps of everything being bigger in Texas).  As one Texan friend put it, "Houston is like a cancer that just keeps getting bigger!"  Houston is ethnically diverse, with Anglos, Latinos, African-Americans, Arabs, and Asians [there is a sprawling "China Town" around Bellaire Blvd.].  I found the people to be warm and friendly.   I spent most of my time on the attractive campus of HBU, a school with Southern Baptist roots which seems to be aiming for a more broad evangelical identity.

Here are a few scenes from HBU:

Image:  Outside the chapel and fine arts building.

Image: Belin Chapel.

Image:  Courtyard fountain.

Image:  The "Morris Columns" on the lawn, in front of the Hinton Center.

Image:  Walkway.

Image:  I had to check out the HBU baseball diamond.

Image:  Plaque on "The Nature of the College"

I found the above plaque interesting.  The founders of HBU obviously wanted to insure that the school remain committed to traditional, orthodox Christianity.  This reminded me of James Tunstead Burtchael's book The Dying of the Light:  The Disengagement of Colleges & Universities from Their Christian Churches (Eerdmans, 1998), which traces the tendency of schools which begin with a strong Christian identity and mission to drift, compromise, and become secular.  The plaque notes the desire that the school "stand as witness for Jesus Christ" and to that end resolves that the trustees, officers, faculty and staff "must believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible, both the Old Testament and the New Testament, that man was directly created by God, the virgin birth of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, as the Son of God, that he died for the sins of all men and thereafter arose from the grave, that by repentance and the acceptance of and belief in him, by the grace of God, the individual is saved from eternal damnation and receives eternal life in the presence of God; and it is further resolved that the ultimate teachings in this college shall always be consistent with the above principles."

It is noteworthy that this statement is influenced by the "fundamentals" approach to defending orthodoxy:  biblical inspiration, special creation of man (denying evolution), virgin birth of Jesus, historical resurrection, etc. It seems also to present a universal view of atonement:  "he died for the sins of all men" assuming the "all men" does not mean all types of elect men (Jews and Gentiles).  One thing it is not--and this is typical for Southern Baptists--and that is confessional (i.e., it appeals to these fundamentals but not to a historic ecclesiastical confession).

I don't know enough about HBU to evaluate where it stands on these principles after more than 50 years, but at the least it hosted a good theology conference.

JTR

The Benefits of "Communion" Among Churches

Image: Rose bushes and fountain at Houston Baptist University, Houston, Texas (2.25.16)

Note:  I completed a short series on Churchmanship last Sunday with a message on “Communion Among Churches” (Acts 15).  Here are some notes from the closing application:

There are specific benefits that might come through “communion” or fellowship among churches:

We might appeal to one another for assistance in dealing with difficult doctrinal or other problems that lead to conflict within any church or churches (see the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15).

We might appeal to one another in cases of church discipline (see the 2LBCF-1689 chapter 26, paragraph 15).  Churches can act improperly and unjustly.  They can also act rightly and be accused of acting improperly and unjustly.  In either case it would be good to have a court of appeal.  Compare:

Proverbs 15:22 Without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counsellors they are established.

We might spur one another on toward love and good deeds (cf. how Paul urged the Corinthians to consider the generosity of the Macedonians in 2 Corinthians 8:1-5).

We might assist each other in the ministry.

A church with only one elder might seek the counsel of the elders from other churches.

Sister churches might help a church that is without any elder by supplying preaching and counsel.

A man seeking theological education might seek to study with elders from various churches.

Churches might work together to host camps and conferences.

Churches might work together to plant new churches in places where there are no gospel churches.

We might aid and assist one another in times of distress and persecution.

We might pray for one another.  John Owen:  “There is not a single particular church or a member of any of them that does not have the prayer support of all the churches in the world and all the members of them every day.  Although this fellowship is invisible to the eyes of the flesh, it is glorious to the eyes of faith” (Gospel Church Government, p. 101).

We might hold one another accountable.  This means one church or group of churches might admonish another if it compromises its preaching of the gospel, its holding to the faith, its practice of community, or the purity of its worship and administration of the ordinances.

Last week I did a Bible study on the reaction to modern feminism known as MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) and I read Ecclesiastes 4:9-12:

Ecclesiastes 4:9 Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour. 10 For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up. 11 Again, if two lie together, then they have heat: but how can one be warm alone? 12 And if one prevail against him, two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord is not quickly broken.

I was struck in preparing this message on communion among churches, how these principles might be applied here as well.  Churches need communion with other churches, lest they become CHiGTOWS:  Churches going their own way.

Indeed, this might well be one of the questions you ask of any church you might consider joining to evaluate its health.  Is it connected and accountable to other churches?

As we seek to be faithful in other areas of our life as a church let us also seek to be faithful in this area of communion among churches.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

The Vision (2.19.16): Philip Henry's Prayer

Note:  I shared this prayer Sunday before last at the close of the sermon on Membership in the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12):

Philip Henry, the father of the great commentator Matthew Henry, taught his children to pray these words of commitment:

            I take God the Father to be my God;

            I take God the Son to be My Saviour;

            I take the Holy Ghost to be my Sanctifier;

            I take the Word of God to be my rule;

            I take the people of God to be my people;

            And I do hereby dedicate and yield my whole self to the Lord:

            And I do this deliberately, freely and forever.

            Amen.

May this also be our prayer.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Scenes from trip to Highland County, Virginia (2.17.16)

Last Wednesday morning (2.17.16) I drove over to Highland County, Virginia to take a look at the OPC's Machen Retreat Center where we will be hosting our upcoming Virginia Reformed Baptist Youth and Young Adult Conference May 20-21.  This was my first time to visit this beautiful part of the Virginia and I was impressed with the snowy mountain views, history, and quirky sites of the area. Here are a few pics I took on the journey:

Images:  Entrance to the Machen Center at corner of Bull Pasture River Rd. and Job's Hill Rd.

Image:  Main building at the Machen center.

Image:  Picture of J. Gresham Machen on the wall in the dining room in the main building.

Image:  One of the cabins.

Image;  Snow covered stream at Machen.

Image:  The striking Clover Creek Presbyterian Church meeting house on Bull Pasture River Road.

Image:  More views of Clover Creek.

Image:  Historical marker. 

Image:  Interior view of the church.  Nice simple, Reformed worship space.

Image:  Historical Marker for Fort George.

Image:  Historical marker for Civil War Battle of McDowell, Virginia.

Image:  Headwaters Presbyterian Church building off Rt. 250.

Image:  A working phone booth (!) near an open field and across from the Miller's Store in the Headwaters community.

Image:  The Confederate Breastworks on the line between Highland and Augusta Counties.

Image:  Path along the Confederate Breastworks.

Image;  I had to pull over and take a picture of this roadside shrine off Rt. 250 in western Augusta County.  Still trying to figure our what it means exactly.

A Christian Response to MGTOW

Last night in our midweek meeting I did a short study in our current series on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood titled "A Christian Response to MGTOW" [listen to the audio here].  This message follows up a previous one in the series on "A Christian Response to Feminism" [see this post].

In the opening I attempted to answer, "What is MGTOW?"  Here are the first few paragraphs:

The acronym MGTOW stands for “Men Going Their Own Way.”

It is a loose way of speaking about a small but emerging group of men in Western society who are increasingly choosing to live without women in their lives and, for some, with as little contact with anyone else, men or women, as possible.

MGTOW can in some ways be described as part of the modern Men’s Movement, a reaction against the rise of feminism and which some believe has led to reactionary and unjust discrimination against men and masculinity.

The MGTOW movement largely exists as a cyber or virtual community.  Those who are part of the movement communicate with each other via social media, in various forums which some have dubbed the “manosphere.”

The movement is, by nature, hard to define and there are men who would identify with the movement at various levels.

I have also posted to sermonaudio.com the pdf of my full notes for this message [find the pdf here].

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

Searched and Known # 5: Who was Abijam's mother?

Ethan McG has posted Searched and Known # 5:  Abijam's Mother [Listen here]. In this episode Ethan and I discuss the perceived difficulty in harmonizing the identification of Abijam/Abijah's mother in 1 Kings 15:1-2 and 2 Chronicles 13:1-2:

1 Kings 15:1 Now in the eighteenth year of king Jeroboam the son of Nebat reigned Abijam over Judah. 2 Three years reigned he in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom.

2 Chronicles 13:1 Now in the eighteenth year of king Jeroboam began Abijah to reign over Judah. 2 He reigned three years in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Michaiah the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah. And there was war between Abijah and Jeroboam.

JTR