The Vision (1.13.17): A Confessional View on the Translation of Scripture

This lesson continues our series in the 1689 confession, by looking at chapter one, paragraph 8 (bold emphasis added):

Paragraph 8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old),14 and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.15  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,16 and search them,17 therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,18 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.19

14 Rom. 3:2 
15 Isa. 8:20 
16 Acts 15:15 
17 John 5:39 
18 1 Cor. 14:6,9,11,12,24,28 
19 Col. 3:16

I see three key points overall in this paragraph:  (1) the immediate inspiration of Scripture in the original language text; (2) the providential preservation of Scripture; and (3) the faithful translation of Scripture.

In this lesson we focus especially on the issue of translation. Herein, I see three key affirmations:

1.     The Christian has a right to and an interest in Scripture:

I am struck by the statement here that every believer has “a right unto and interest in the Scriptures.”  One of the privileges and benefits given to each Christian is the right to read a faithful translation of the Bible in a language he can understand.

This is necessary, because we are commanded to read Scripture.  The proof text given is Acts 15:15 where James stands before the apostles and suggests that Peter’s testimony before them is affirmed by Scripture: “And to this agree the words of the prophets….”

Another prooftext recalls the command of Jesus in John 5:39: “Search the Scriptures … and they are they which testify of me.”  The Christian must be able to obey the command of Christ.

Translation was a flashpoint of controversy during the Reformation, as the Roman Catholic Church resisted the translation of the Bible into the “vulgar languages” of the people.  The Reformation gave the Bible back to God’s people, and, thus, restored their right to it.

2.    It is proper and fitting to translate the Bible:

Several of the proof texts which offer the Biblical justification for this statement are taken from 1 Corinthians 14.  The original context regards worship in Corinth.  Paul rebukes persons who were speaking in languages that no one could understand.  He states: “So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? For ye shall speak into the air” (1 Cor 14:9).  The principle is this:  Men ought to be able to hear from God in a language they can understand.

This has been the Christian view from the beginning.  The Christian Scriptures have been translated into the language of the people from the earliest days.  Early translations of the Bible were made into Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic, Ethiopic, and other languages, long before English even existed as a language.

In Islam you are required to learn Arabic to read the Koran, adherents memorize and recite in mandated daily prayer by rote memory Koranic verses they do not understand, but in Christianity the Word comes to you in your heart language.

As the confession notes, anytime that Christian missionaries enter into a field where Christ is not known, the first task they should undertake is the faithful translation of the Bible.  This is what Judson did when he went to Burma (Myanmar), and his translation is still being used today. The Bible in a faithful translation is a missionary to you.

3.     The Bible in a faithful translation provides real benefits to believers:

The Bible is translated, “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.”

A prooftext cited is Colossians 3:16:  “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly….”

Notice the primary stress given on worship.  Christians need the Bible so that they can know how to worship God aright.

Uncited, though clearly echoed is Romans 15:4: “For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.”

Having a faithful Bible you can read and understand satisfies and comforts the Christian’s soul.

JTR

The Confession of Cyril Lukaris (1629)

Note:  Below is the text of the Confession of Cyril Lukaris (1572-1638) taken from this site (thanks to VLB for noting the link). Dennis Bratcher says it was published in Geneva in 1629, though its authenticity has been challenged by some Orthodox.  It was refuted in the Jerusalem Synod of 1672.  Note in chapter two:  "we believe the authority of the Holy Scripture to be above the authority of the Church."

The Confession 

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit Cyril, Patriarch of Constantinople, publishes this brief Confession for the benefit of those who inquire about the faith and the religion of the Greeks, that is of the Eastern Church, in witness to God and to men and with a sincere conscience without any dissimulation.

Chapter 1.

We believe in one God, true, Almighty, and in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; the Father unbegotten, the Son begotten of the Father before the world, consubstantial with the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father by the Son, having the same essence with the Father and the son. We call these three persons in one essence the Holy Trinity, ever to be blessed, glorified, and worshipped by every creature.

Chapter 2.

We believe the Holy Scripture to be given by God, to have no other author but the Holy Spirit. This we ought undoubtedly to believe, for it is written. We have a more sure word of prophecy, to which you do well to take heed, as to light shining in a dark place. We believe the authority of the Holy Scripture to be above the authority of the Church. To be taught by the Holy Spirit is a far different thing from being taught by a man; for man may through ignorance err, deceive and be deceived, but the word of God neither deceives nor is deceived, nor can err, and is infallible and has eternal authority.

Chapter 3.

We believe that the most merciful God has predestined His elect unto glory before the beginning of the world, without any respect of their works and that there was no other impulsive cause to this election, but only the good will and mercy of God. In like manner before the world was made, He rejected whom He would, of which act of reprobation, if you consider the absolute dealing of God, His will is the cause; but if you look upon the laws and principles of good order, which God’s providence is making use of in the government of the world, His justice is the cause, for God is merciful and just.

Chapter 4.

We believe that one God in Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to be the Creator of all things visible and invisible. Invisible things we call the angels, visible things we call the heavens and all things under them. And because the Creator is good by nature, He has created all things good, and He cannot do any evil; and if there is any evil, it proceeds either from the Devil or from man. For it ought to be a certain rule to us, that God is not the Author of evil, neither can sin by any just reason be imputed to Him.

Chapter 5.

We believe that all things are governed by God’s providence, which we ought rather to adore than to search into. Since it is beyond our capacity, neither can we truly understand the reason of it from the things themselves, in which matter we suppose it better to embrace silence in humility than to speak many things which do not edify.

Chapter 6.

We believe that the first man created by God fell in Paradise, because he neglected the commandment of God and yielded to the deceitful counsel of the serpent. From thence sprung up original sin to his posterity, so that no man is born according to the flesh who does not bear this burden and feel the fruits of it in his life.

Chapter 7.

We believe that Jesus Christ our Lord emptied Himself, that is He assumed man’s nature into His own substance. That He was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the ever virgin Mary, was born, suffered death, was buried, and risen in glory, that He might bring salvation and glory to all believers, Whom we look for to come to judge both quick and dead.

Chapter 8.

We believe that our Lord Jesus Christ sits on the right hand of His Father and there He makes intercession for us, executing alone the office of a true and lawful high priest and mediator, and from there He cares for His people and governs His Church adorning and enriching her with many blessings.

Chapter 9.

We believe that without faith no man can be saved. And we call faith that which justifies in Christ Jesus, which the life and death of our Lord Jesus Christ procured, the Gospel published, and without which no man can please God.

Chapter 10.

We believe that the Church, which is called catholic, contains all true believers in Christ, those who having departed their country are in heaven and those who live on earth are yet on the way. The Head of that Church (because a mortal man by no means can be) is Jesus Christ alone, and He holds the rudder of the government of the Church in His own hand. Because, however, there are on earth particular visible Churches, every one of them has one chief, who is not properly to be called [head] of that particular Church, but improperly, because he is the principal member of it.

Chapter 11.

We believe that the members of the Catholic Church are saints, chosen unto eternal life, from the number and fellowship of which hypocrites are excluded, though in particular visible churches tares may be found among the wheat.

Chapter 12.

We believe that the Church on earth is sanctified and instructed by the Holy Spirit, for He is the true comforter, whom Christ sends from the Father to teach the truth and to expel darkness form the understanding of the faithful. For it is true and certain that the Church on earth may err, choosing falsehood instead of truth, from which error the light and doctrine of the Holy Spirit alone frees us, not of mortal man, although by mediation of the labors of the faithful ministers of the Church this may be done.

Chapter 13.

We believe that man is justified by faith and not by works. But when we say by faith, we understand the correlative or object of faith, which is the righteousness of Christ, which, as if by hand, faith apprehends and applies unto us for our salvation. This we say without any prejudice to good works, for truth itself teaches us that works must not be neglected, that they are necessary means to testify to our faith and confirm our calling. But that works are sufficient for our salvation, that they can enable one to appear before the tribunal of Christ and that of their own merit they can confer salvation, human frailty witnesses to be false; but the righteousness of Christ being applied to the penitent, alone justifies and saves the faithful.

Chapter 14.

We believe that free will is dead in the unregenerate, because they can do no good thing, and whatsoever they do is sin; but in the regenerate by the grace of the Holy Spirit the will is excited and in deed works but not without the assistance of grace. In order, therefore, that man should be born again and do good, it is necessary that grace should go before; otherwise man is wounded having received as many wounds as that man received who going from Jerusalem down to Jericho fell into the hands of thieves, so that of himself he cannot do anything.

Chapter 15.

We believe that the Evangelical Sacraments in the Church are those that the Lord instituted in the Gospel, and they are two; these only have been delivered unto us and He who instituted them delivered unto us no more. Furthermore, we believe that they consist of the Word and the Element, that they are the seals of the promises of God, and they do confer grace. But that the Sacrament be entire and whole, it is requisite that an earthly substance and an external action concur with the use of that element ordained by Christ our Lord and joined with a true faith, because the defect of faith prejudices the integrity of the Sacrament.

Chapter 16.

We believe that Baptism is a Sacrament instituted by the Lord, and unless a man has received it, he has no communion with Christ, from whose death, burial, and glorious resurrection the whole virtue and efficacy of Baptism proceeds; therefore, we are certain that to those who are baptized in the same form which our Lord commanded in the Gospel, both original and actual sins are pardoned, so that whosoever has been washed in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit are regenerate, cleansed, and justified. But concerning the repetition of it, we have no command to be rebaptized, therefore we must abstain from this indecent thing.

Chapter 17.

We believe that the other Sacrament which was ordained by the Lord is that which we call Eucharist. For in the night in which the Lord offered up Himself, He took bread and blessed it and He said to the Apostles, "Take ye, eat, this is my body," and when He had taken the cup, He gave thanks and said, "Drink all of this, this is my blood which was shed for many; this do in remembrance of me." And Paul adds, "For as often as ye shall eat of this bread and drink of this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death." This is the pure and lawful institution of this wonderful Sacrament, in the administration of which we profess the true and certain presence of our Lord Jesus Christ; that presence, however, which faith offers to us, not that which the devised doctrine of transubstantiation teaches. For we believe that the faithful eat the body of Christ in the Supper of the Lord, not by breaking it with the teeth of the body, but by perceiving it with the sense and feeling of the soul, since the body of Christ is not that which is visible in the Sacrament, but that which faith spiritually apprehends and offers to us; from whence it is true that, if we believe, we do eat and partake, if we do not believe, we are destitute of all the fruit of it. We believe, consequently, that to drink the cup in the Sacrament is to be partaker of the true blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the same manner as we affirmed of the body; for as the Author of it commanded concerning His body, so He did concerning His blood; which commandment ought neither to be disremembered nor maimed, according to the fancy of man’s arbitrament; yea rather the institution ought to be kept as it was delivered to us. When therefore we have been partakers of the body and blood of Christ worthily and have communicated entirely, we acknowledge ourselves to be reconciled, united to our Head of the same body, with certain hope to be co-heirs in the Kingdom to come.

Chapter 18.

We believe that the souls of the dead are either in blessedness or in damnation, according as every one has done, for as soon as they move out of the body they pass either to Christ or into hell; for as a man is found at his death, so he is judged, and after this life there is neither power nor opportunity to repent; in this life there is a time of grace, they therefore who be justified here shall suffer no punishment hereafter; but they who die, being not justified, are appointed for everlasting punishment. By which it is evident that the fiction of Purgatory is not to be admitted but in the truth it is determined that every one ought to repent in this life and to obtain remission of his sins by our Lord Jesus Christ, if he will be saved. And, let this be the end.

This brief Confession of ours we conjecture will be a sign spoken against them who are pleased to slander and persecute us. But we trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and hope that He will not relinquish the cause of His faithful ones, nor let the rod of wickedness lie upon the lost of the righteous.

Dated in Constantinople in the month of March, 1629.  Cyril, Patriarch of Constantinople

Upcoming Paper Abstract for the 2017 HBU Theology Conference

Image:  Scene from the campus of Houston Baptist University

Note:  DV, I will be attending the annual Theology Conference at Houston Baptist University again this year and doing another paper.  Had a great time at the 2016 conference.  The 2017 conference theme is "How the Bible Came into Being."  Below is the abstract for this year's paper which I will hopefully complete between now and then. Some may recognize a familiar theme.

The Ending of Mark as a Canonical Crisis

Abstract:  Short Paper Proposal

HBU 2017 Theology Conference:  How the Bible Came Into Being

March 2-4, 2017

This paper will examine the ending of the text of Mark as an issue in canon criticism.  The ending of Mark is one of most disputed texts in the New Testament.  This was acknowledged by the fourth century Church Fathers Eusebius and Jerome.  The Longer Ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) eventually predominated in the Greek Majority Text and was thus incorporated into the early printed editions of the Greek New Testament and in the vernacular translations based on the Textus Receptus.  With the rise of modern text criticism in the nineteenth century, weight was given to the uncial manuscripts Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, both of which end at Mark 16:8.  The reigning scholarly opinion suggested that Mark 16:9-20 was not the original ending of Mark but a secondary composition intended either to complete the unfinished Gospel or as a substitute for a lost ending.  In the twentieth century, some scholars began to suggest that Mark had, in fact, originally intended to end the Gospel at Mark 16:8 and that Mark 16:9-20 was not only secondary but spurious, uninspired and non-canonical.  The modern critical editions of the Greek New Testament began to bracket the Longer Ending and to include other textual alternatives, including the so-called Shorter Ending of Mark (after Mark 16:8)  and the Freer Logion (after Mark 16:14).  Some modern English translations have followed suit.  These include the Revised Standard Version, the New Revised Standard Version, the English Standard Version and the New Living Translation.  This paper will suggest that these changes have ignited a contemporary canonical crisis not seen since the fourth century.  Contemporary Christian readers, pastors and teachers are left with uncertainty as to the canonical text of Mark.  Finally, this paper will argue that this canonical crisis should be addressed and solved by reaffirming Mark 16:9-20 as the canonical text and fitting ending of Mark.

Dr. Jeffrey T. Riddle, Pastor, Christ Reformed Baptist Church, Louisa, Virginia

Cyril Lukaris: The Calvinist Patriarch of Eastern Orthodoxy

Since my oldest daughter is serving now in the Peace Corps in a nation that is predominantly Eastern Orthodox, I have been trying to do some reading and studying on this branch of the Christian tradition (which I am sure they would see as the root!).

To this end, I’ve been reading John Anthony McGuckin’s The Orthodox Church:  An Introduction to its History, Doctrine, and Spiritual Culture (Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), which my daughter gave me as a Christmas present, BTW.

With my parallel interest in the text of Scripture, among the first sections I turned to in the book were those on Scripture and tradition.   I have not found McGuckin extremely helpful here, but in his discussion of “symbolical books” (collections of authoritative doctrinal and liturgical sources) he says some interesting things about the Reformation and an apparently Calvinistic patriarch named Cyril Lukaris (1572-1638).  Here is McGuckin:

[The symbolical books] were predominantly put together in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when the effects of the Protestant Reformation were being dimly felt to impinge on life in the Eastern churches….  One of the central texts in the list was the result of the explicit impact of the Reformation.  One of the seventeenth century patriarchs of Constantinople, Cyril Lukaris, had issued a statement of faith which many at the time believed had moved towards being an implicit endorsement of Calvinism.  It caused considerable alarm among the Orthodox (pp. 111-112).

He proceeds to describe how this resulted in the synod of Jerusalem in 1672 defining the Orthodox response to Protestantism.

A quick look at that intrepid source, Wikipedia, notes how Cyril Lukaris’ Calvinism was opposed, and he was eventually, yet apparently unrelatedly, assassinated by strangulation on the orders of the Ottoman Sultan and later came to be venerated in modern Orthodoxy as a Hieromartyr (priest or bishop-martyr).

Lukaris’ legacy as a “Calvinist Patriarch” is apparently disputed by the Orthodox.  See this article, “The Myth of the ‘Calvinist Patriarch,’” in response to an article in Credenda Agenda on Lukaris, and also this article “The ‘Calvinist Patriarch’ Cyril Lucaris and His Bible Translations” by Antony J. Khokhar.

One wonders what might have been if Reformed theology had gained a foothold in Orthodoxy or if there are any pockets of it still….

JTR

Robertson's confidence in "restorationist" text criticism c. 1925

Image:  A. T. Robertson at his desk at Southern Seminary

I’m continuing to work my way through A. T. Robertson’s An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament.

In chapter two on The Critical Text (pp. 28-40), Robertson describes the demise of the Textus Receptus and the corresponding rise of the critical text.  Interesting to see his confidence in the “restorationist” view of text criticism, as it stood in 1925.  What would Robertson make of the modern academic text critical abandonment of this confidence?

Notes:

In a more round-about way he lays out three eras of text study:

First, the foundational period (pre-1750). The main work was done by Mill, Bentley, and Bengel.

Second, the beginning of the critical period (c. 1750-1830).  Here the hero is Griebach.

Third, the critical period (post-1830).  Citing Souter, Robertson says this period is marked by strife between those who “blindly” hold to the Textus Receptus versus those determined “to secure the most ancient witnesses they could and to trust them” (p. 29).

He adds: “In the third period the bondage of the Textus Receptus is broken and the triumph of the critical text is won” (p. 29).

One of the heroes is Lachmann and his 1831 Greek NT, which for the first time broke with the TR.  Of Lachmann:

“He did not so reverence the Textus Receptus that he was afraid to publish his own text” (p. 30).

“His idea was to restore the text of the oldest manuscripts, that is the text of the fourth century, rather than the original text, but to make a definite start and to get away from the tyranny of the Textus Receptus” (p. 31).

Westcott and Hort then produce in 1881 “the greatest edition ever published” (citing Souter, p. 35).

“This is the purpose of Westcott and Hort, to restore the original text, as far it is possible to do so” (p. 37).

JTR

Word Magazine # 67: Tabletalk and Mark's Ending

I recorded and posted WM # 67 Tabletalk and Mark's Ending.   Below are my notes:

Someone recently mentioned to me that Tabletalk magazine, a publication of R. C. Sproul’s Ligonier ministries, had included in its devotional series comments on the ending of Mark.  This person sent me pics of two devotions (below with the sender’s markings and notes).  I am assuming this is from the December 2016 issue.  The devotions do not list an author so I assume they are written by someone on the editorial staff, maybe even written or approved by Sproul himself.

The first devotion (for Friday December 9) is on Mark 16:8 and titled “Fearful Women” (p. 41).

It rightly begins, “Christianity stands or falls on the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead.” It proceeds to note the importance of the doctrine of the resurrection for the gospel and how that this doctrine is perennially under attack and, thus, in need of defense.  It notes the fact that in each Gospel that women were “the very first witnesses to the empty tomb.”

Finally, the devotion promises that the question of Mark’s ending will be addressed later “in more detail.” Then, it states:  “Today, we note that the oldest manuscripts of Mark end with 16:8 and the women being fearful and silent.”  From what we know of the external evidence, is this statement somewhat misleading?  The devotion closes with questions to consider “if Mark 16:8 is indeed the last verse Mark wrote.”  I do appreciate the tentative nature of that approach.

The second devotion (for Monday December 12) in on Mark 16:9-11 and titled “The Preservation of Scripture” (p. 43).

It begins noting that we moderns “take for granted technologies that allow us to make precise copies of original documents.” For the first 1,500 year of Christianity, up to the time of the invention of the printing press, the Bible was transmitted by hand copies.

It then defines “the science of textual criticism” as “the means by which we discover the original text.” It then turns to the ending of Mark, noting “most scholars believe Mark 16:9-20 was not written by the same Mark who wrote the rest of the gospel that bears his name.  Some argue that the section was written by the same author, but there are strong reasons to believe it was not.” With regards to the “most scholars” versus “some” might I suggest that perhaps modern scholars, like ancient manuscripts, should sometimes be  “weighed” rather than “counted”!

Most striking is the final paragraph:

Nevertheless, given that there is an ancient tradition that this section is part of Mark’s gospel, and because Mark 16:9-20 includes information from Matthew and Luke that we know for certain is original to those books, we believe it is wise to include this section in our study of Mark’s gospel. To understand the work of Christ, we must consider not only the empty tomb but also our Lord’s post-resurrection appearances to His disciples. These details, which are critical to proclaiming the gospel are preserved for us, for God will not allow any part of His revelation to disappear (Matthew 24:35).

I appreciate this cautious approach and especially that the conclusion comes upon consideration of the doctrine of preservation.  Unlike some modern evangelicals who suggest the radical move of rejecting Mark 16:9-20 as spurious and uninspired (see my reviews of MacArthur, Hardy, Purswell, Kruger, Delhousaye) Tabletalk follows the more cautious line of Metzger.  IMHO, this is commendable.

JTR

The Vision (1.6.17): The Vanity of Riches

Image:  Part of the Marcos shoe collection.

Note:  Devotion taken from last Sunday's sermon on Ecclesiastes 5:9-20.

Ecclesiastes 5:11 When goods increase, they are increased that eat them: and what good is there to the owners thereof, saving the beholding of them with their eyes? 12 The sleep of a labouring man is sweet, whether he eat little or much: but the abundance of the rich will not suffer him to sleep. 13 There is a sore evil which I have seen under the sun, namely, riches kept for the owners thereof to their hurt.

There is, without doubt, quite a bit of humor in the Bible in general and more than a little levity in Ecclesiastes. I hear it in v. 11a: “When goods increase, they are increased that eat them.” Work hard, pile up more money to buy more food, to have bigger storage bins, and an extra refrigerator, and what do you get?  Fat!

The play here is, of course, on the word “increase.”  How does the piling up or goods “increase” a man morally, spiritually?  He might be increased, but sometimes only so that he needs a bigger pair of britches!  When he sits around the McMansion, he sits around the McMansion!

The humorous indictment continues in v. 11b: “and what good is there to be the owners thereof, save the beholding of them with their eyes.”

In George Eliot's classic novel Silas Marner, the hermit-like weaver has his only pleasure by sitting each night to count over and again his golden coins.

Bernie Madoff, the Ponzi-scheme-running financial planner, bilked many of their life savings, and along the way he amassed for himself a collection of expensive items, including 46 watches, most of them Rolexes, which he apparently spent his evenings ogling.

It is said that Imelda Marcos, the wife of the Philippine dictator and “kleptocrat” Ferdinand Marcos, had over 1,200 pairs of shoes.

Comedian Jay Leno is said to have a collection of 286 vehicles (169 cars and 117 motorcycles).

Exactly how many things do we need to be happy?  Of course, we need to heed Jesus warning against judging in Matthew 7:1.  Before I judge Leno for his cars I need to look at my book collection.  But we are prodded by Solomon here to self-examination.

His point continues in v. 12 with an interesting comparison to raise the point that sometimes the accumulation of riches can bring more headaches than rest.  First, he describes the laboring man who works hard and then enjoys the sweetness of sleep (v. 12a).  But then he describes the rich man who cannot sleep because his mind is racing with all the problems and complications that come with the management of his success (v. 12b).  Who is richer?  Who is better off? The man who cannot rest for worry or the man who sleeps like a baby?

In v. 13 he points to this strange “sore evil” that has come through his spiritual observations of the world.  There are those for whom the holding of riches is “to their hurt.”  We probably don’t need much more specific evidence of this, do we?  We can pick up a tabloid any day of the week and read of the rich and famous who have made shipwreck of their lives, whose riches have been to their hurt.

An unknown author once wrote:

Money will buy

            A bed but not sleep;

            Books but not brains;

            Food but not appetite;

            Finery but not beauty;

            A house but not a home;

            Medicine but not health;

            Luxuries but not culture;

            Amusements but not happiness;

            Religion but not salvation;

            A passport to everywhere but heaven

            (as cited in Currid, Ecclesiastes, p. 79).

Alongside Solomon’s words, we must place the words of Christ:

Luke 12:15:  And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Peter Hitchens on the King James Version

Image: Peter Hitchens stands by a less than friendly banner.

How about another Hitchens’ taken on the King James Version?

Christopher Hitchens’ younger brother Peter Hitchens is something of the polar opposite of his atheistic brother. Peter Hitchens is a self-identified Anglican Christian and a political conservative.  The brothers agree, however, in their admiration of the King James Version.  In the same year that Christopher Hitchens wrote his article in Vanity Fair on the KJV, Peter also wrote an article in the Daily Mail (January 6, 2011) on the AV titled “The King James Bible Versus the Sid James Bible.”

He writes the article in light of the beginning of the celebration of the 400^th anniversary of the KJV (in 2011).  Despite the celebration, Hitchens laments the decline of the KJV’s regular use in favor of modern translations, dubbed the “Sid James Version.”

Why the “extirpation of this mighty cultural treasure”?  Hitchens says the answer is to be found in “the extraordinarily fierce and bilious anti-religious vituperation” of our times. He further notes that there have been two generations brought up to believe that no one can tell them what to believe or how to live.  These persons “can tell within minutes of encountering the Authorized Version of the Bible, that it is their enemy’s weapon.  This is because it is not simply a translation, but a poetic translation, written to be read aloud to country people in large buildings without loudspeakers, to be remembered, to lodge in the mind and to disturb the temporal with the haunting sound of the eternal.”

JTR

More Hitchens on the King James Version

I recently did a post citing Christopher Hitchens’ admiring comments on the King James Version in his memoir Hitch-22.

This week I ran across his May 2011 article in Vanity Fair on the KJV titled When the King Saved God, which offers more expansive insights into the celebrated atheist’s admiration for the Authorized Version [the article also appears in Arguably: Essays by Christopher Hitchens (Twelve, 2011): 687-696].

Near the beginning, Hitchens writes:

Four hundred years ago, just as William Shakespeare was reaching the height of his powers and showing the new scope and variety of the English language, and just as “England” itself was becoming more of a nation-state and less an offshore dependency of Europe, an extraordinary committee of clergymen and scholars completed the task of rendering the Old and New Testaments into English, and claimed that the result was the “Authorized” or “King James” version. This was a fairly conservative attempt to stabilize the Crown and the kingdom, heal the breach between competing English and Scottish Christian sects, and bind the majesty of the King to his devout people. “The powers that be,” it had Saint Paul saying in his Epistle to the Romans, “are ordained of God.” This and other phrasings, not all of them so authoritarian and conformist, continue to echo in our language: “When I was a child, I spake as a child”; “Eat, drink, and be merry”; “From strength to strength”; “Grind the faces of the poor”; “salt of the earth”; “Our Father, which art in heaven.” It’s near impossible to imagine our idiom and vernacular, let alone our liturgy, without them. Not many committees in history have come up with such crystalline prose.

He expresses his admiration for the King James Version’s timelessness and its contribution to a unified field of reference for English speakers:

Though I am sometimes reluctant to admit it, there really is something “timeless” in the Tyndale/King James synthesis. For generations, it provided a common stock of references and allusions, rivaled only by Shakespeare in this respect. It resounded in the minds and memories of literate people, as well as of those who acquired it only by listening. From the stricken beach of Dunkirk in 1940, faced with a devil’s choice between annihilation and surrender, a British officer sent a cable back home. It contained the three words “but if not … ” All of those who received it were at once aware of what it signified. In the Book of Daniel, the Babylonian tyrant Nebuchadnezzar tells the three Jewish heretics Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego that if they refuse to bow to his sacred idol they will be flung into a “burning fiery furnace.” They made him an answer: “If it be so, our god whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thy hand, o King. / But if not, be it known unto thee, o king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.”

He adds:

A culture that does not possess this common store of image and allegory will be a perilously thin one. To seek restlessly to update it or make it “relevant” is to miss the point, like yearning for a hip-hop Shakespeare. “Man is born unto trouble as the sparks fly upward,” says the Book of Job. Want to try to improve that for Twitter?

He closes by lamenting the proliferation of modern English translations:

Not to over-prize consensus, it does possess certain advantages over randomness and chaos. Since the appearance of the so-called “Good News Bible,” there have been no fewer than 48 English translations published in the United States. And the rate shows no sign of slackening. Indeed, the trend today is toward what the trade calls “niche Bibles.” These include the “Couples Bible,” “One Year New Testament for Busy Moms,” “Extreme Teen Study Bible,” “Policeman’s Bible,” and—somehow unavoidably—the “Celebrate Recovery Bible.” (Give them credit for one thing: the biblical sales force knows how to “be fruitful and multiply.”) In this cut-price spiritual cafeteria, interest groups and even individuals can have their own customized version of God’s word. But there will no longer be a culture of the kind which instantly recognized what Lincoln meant when he spoke of “a house divided.” The gradual eclipse of a single structure has led, not to a new clarity, but to a new Babel.

I’ve noted before the odd contemporary circumstance we find ourselves in in which the King James Version is vilified in the Religion Department but praised in the English Department.  Another modern oddity is that the use and admiration of the KJV in evangelical Christian circles is somehow associated with obscurantism and anti-intellectualism.

Can we learn something from a skeptic like Hitchens about the value and beauty of the Tyndale/KJV tradition and our stewardship of it?

JTR  

A. T. Robertson on the Textus Receptus

Image:  A. T. Robertson (1863-1934)

I’ve begun reading through A. T. Robertson’s An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (Broadman Press, 1925). Robertson (1863-1934) was Professor of New Testament at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, a scholarly giant in his generation. Perhaps best known for his massive Greek grammar, he probably remains the most respected academic scholar ever to come from Southern Baptist life.

The book is dedicated to Robertson’s friend B. B. Warfield.  Indeed, Warfield and Robertson may have done more than any others to introduce modern text criticism into the mainstream for otherwise conservative Reformed and evangelical Christians. In this regard, what Warfield did for Presbyterians, Robertson did for Baptists.

In the opening chapter Robertson reviews the Textus Receptus.  In his discussion of Erasmus, he shows the same tendency of that age to diminish the Novum Instrumentum.

Here is Robertson’s summary of the Greek mss. of which Erasmus made use:

He based his printed text on 2, a poor minuscule of the twelfth century and corrected it by the cursive (minuscule) Greek manuscript 1 (a tenth century MS. kin in source to 118, 131, 209, and of considerable value). He also used 2 (fifteenth century) for Gospels, 2 ap (thirteenth century) for Acts and Paul, and 1r (twelfth century) alone for Apocalypse” (p. 18).

Note: I am finding that there is little agreement among scholars on this question of which and how many Greek mss. Erasmus used in compiling his Greek NT.  The number usually suggested is seven (see Roland Bainton, Erasmus of Christendom, p. 133). In his 1923 biography of Erasmus, Preserved Smith suggests he used ten (Erasmus: A Study of His Life, Ideals, and Place in History, p. 163).

Robertson also makes the standard charge of Erasmus having back-translated the final verses of Revelation, but provides no footnote directing the reader to Erasmus’ writings to substantiate the claim:

It is probable that he had Latin manuscripts of the Vulgate which he occasionally put into Greek. He confessed doing this for the last six verses of the Apocalypse save verse 20, which had been already translated by Laurentius Valla (p. 18).

Though Robertson does not relay the “rush to print” anecdote regarding Erasmus’ 1516 Greek NT, he does convey the “rash wager” anecdote with regard to the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum in the third edition (1522).  He writes:

The third edition of 1522 introduced the passage in 1 John v:7 because of a foolish promise made to Stunica … that he would insert it if he found it in any Greek mss. (p. 19).

Later, he adds that when Codex 61 was produced “he put it in because of his rash promise and thus it got into the Textus Receptus” (p. 19).

Note:  For my analysis and challenge of both the “rush to print” and “rash wager’ anecdotes, listen here.

It should be added, however, that although Robertson thoroughly embraced the modern critical text, he does express some admiration for the Textus Receptus (Did he think that he might need to placate his more conservative SB constituency?).  So, he writes:

It should be stated at once that the Textus Receptus is not a bad text. It is not a heretical text.  It is substantially correct (p. 21).

And later:

It is clear, therefore, that the Textus Receptus has preserved for us a substantially accurate text in spite of the long centuries preceding the age of printing when copying by hand was the only method of reproducing the New Testament (p. 21).

In the end, however, with the rise of modern text criticism, Robertson concludes, “But its days were numbered” (p. 26).

JTR

Eusebius on Diocletian persecutions and the destruction of NT manuscripts c. 303 AD

Image:  Bust of Diocletian (244-312 AD).

Though, as is often stated (and inflated) by Christian apologists, we have more fragments and portions of Greek NT manuscripts than any other work of antiquity, one of the major problems for those who hold to the “reconstructionist” view of NT text criticism is the fact that we have so few extant NT mss. earlier than the fourth century.  Yes, the number of extant papyri fragments continues to increase (127 listed the NA 28, though a good number of these are post-300 AD), many of these consist only of a verse or two and collectively they hardly cover the entirety of the NT (e.g., there is, for example, no papyri evidence to either support or deny the ending of Mark or 1 John 5:7-8). How can you “reconstruct” the text when there is so little evidence? Some modern academic NT text critics now suggest that the best which can be done is a reconstruction of the NT text as it existed in some places in the fourth century.

Why do we have so few early pre-300 AD Greek NT mss.?  Many were apparently destroyed during periods of Roman persecution which the pre-Constantinian Christians endured.

In Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History (VIII.ii), he gives eyewitness testimony to persecutions during the time of the Emperor Diocletian (c. 303 AD):

All things in truth were fulfilled in our day, when we saw with our very eyes the houses of prayer cast down to the foundations from top to bottom, and the inspired and sacred Scriptures [tas entheous kai hieras graphas] committed to the flames in the midst of the market places….

It was the nineteenth year of the reign of Diocletian …. In which as the festival of the Saviour’s Passion [Easter] was coming on, an imperial letter was everywhere promulgated, ordering the razing of the churches to the ground and the destruction by fire of the Scriptures [tas graphas], and proclaiming that those who held high positions would lose all civil rights, while those in households, if they persisted in their profession of Christianity, would be deprived of their liberty…. (from J. E. L. Oulton, trans., Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. II, pp. 257-259).

Of course, despite the persecution, the Scriptures were providentially preserved by God's people, though many valuable early copies were undoubtedly lost. One wonders if any of the remaining autographs were burned in the marketplaces at this time. This is why the papyrus-trail to the autographa is so fragmentary.  If we had some of these early mss., would they confirm the traditional text? This lack of early mss. evidence led nineteenth century scholars like Westcott and Hort to put so much confidence in the “great" fourth century post-Constantine uncials, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. It was the earliest evidence they had.  Unfortunately, this led to their giving the greatest weight to a transmission line that had come to its terminus and had ceased to be copied, while denigrating the line that had come to be most widely used and copied after the persecution ended.

JTR