Robert Truelove

"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

Textual Criticism

Which Textus Receptus?

By Leave a Comment

Some people hold out the question “Which TR?” to Received Text advocates as if a definitive answer is needed or it is a deal breaker for the position. It is important to understand that the differences between its major editions are infinitesimal.

Here are some interesting quotes from “The Reformed Root of the English Bible: The Influence of Theodore Beza on the English New Testament” by Irena Backus (from the Princeton Monograph Series)…

Regarding Beza’s first edition she writes…

“Beza differed from Stephanus [1550] in about 25 places”

Regarding Beza’s subsequent editions she writes…

“Bezas 1582 version differed in about 40 places…” with subsequent editions differing little from it. (p. 2)

She also writes…

“Moreover, he [Beza] states openly that he was very unwilling to amend the basic text and was interested largely in readings which confirm it.” (pp. 6-7)

“Throughout Beza is more concerned with accurate interpretation of particular passages than with establishing a correct reading and thus shows considerable unwillingness to tamper with the Greek text of Robert Stephanus.” (p. 7)

This is in accordance with what Dr. Hills wrote in ‘Text and Time: A Reformed Approach to New Testament Textual Criticism”…

“The diffident manner in which Beza revealed these doubts [over certain textual variants] shows that he was conscious of running counter to the views of his fellow believers. As with Erasmus and Calvin, so also with Beza there was evidently a conflict going on within his mind between his humanistic tendency to treat the New Testament like any other book and the common faith in the current New Testament text. But in the providence of God all was well. God used this common faith providentially to restrain Beza’s humanism and lead him to publish far and wide the true New Testament text.”

Dr. Hills also provided the following list of 8 of what he thought were the most important variants among the different editions of the Received Text…

Luke 2:22 their purification, Erasmus, Stephanus, majority of the Greek manuscripts. Her purification, Beza, King James Elzevir, Complutensian, 76 and a few other Greek minuscule manuscripts, Latin Vulgate (?).

Luke 17:36 Two men shall be in the field: the one shall be taken and the other left. Erasmus, Stephanus 1 2 3 omit this verse with the majority of the Greek manuscripts. Stephanus 4, Beza, King James, Elzevir have it with D, Latin Vulgate, Peshitta, Old Syriac.

John 1:28 Bethabara beyond Jordan, Erasmus, Stephanus 3 4 Beza, King James, Elzevir, Pi 1 13, Old Syriac, Sahidic. Bethany beyond Jordan, Stephanus 1 2, majority of Greek manuscripts including Pap 66 & 75 Aleph A B. Latin Vulgate.

John 16:33 shall have tribulation, Beza, King James, Elzevir, D 69 many other Greek manuscripts, Old Latin, Latin Vulgate. have tribulation, Erasmus, Stephanus, majority of Greek manuscripts. Rom. 8:11 by His Spirit that dwelleth in you. Beza, King James, Elzevir, Aleph A C, Coptic. because of His Spirit that dwelleth in you. Erasmus, Stephanus, majority of Greek manuscripts including B D, Peshitta, Latin Vulgate.

Rom. 12:11 serving the Lord, Erasmus 1, Beza, King James, Elzevir, majority of Greek manuscripts including Pap 46 Aleph A B. Peshitta, Latin Vulgate. serving the time, Erasmus 2345, Stephanus, D G.

1 Tim. 1:4 godly edifying, Erasmus, Beza, King James, Elzevir, D, Peshitta, Latin Vulgate. dispensation of God, Stephanus, majority of Greek manuscripts including Aleph A G.

Heb. 9:1 Here, Stephanus reads first tabernacle, with the majority of the Greek manuscripts. Erasmus, Beza, Luther, Calvin omit tabernacle with Pap 46 Aleph B D, Peshitta, Latin Vulgate. The King James Version omits tabernacle and regards covenant as implied.

James 2:13 without thy works, Calvin, Beza (last 3 editions), King James Aleph A B, Latin Vulgate. by thy works, Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza 1565, majority of Greek manuscripts.

In light of the above information, I’ll leave it to the reader to decide how relevant the “Which TR?” question is to the position for the Received Text. I’ll simply say that there are various ways this question can be answered but regardless of the answer, you’re going to have essentially the same text.

James White’s Strange Dissonance with Historic Protestant Bibliology

By 5 Comments

Recently James White has been on the attack again against those of us who advocate the Received Text. He has accused us of “abusing” our Protestant forbears and the historic Reformed confessions, while pretending them allies of his own position. Spoiler alert!…they aren’t.

Our position is said to be “dangerous” but it is the good doctor who is in Cloudland. If one can make the Reformation and Post-Reformation Protestant dogmaticians advocates for contemporary textual criticism, then one can as easily claim that Christopher Columbus discovered the Northwest Passage. 

Some initial thoughts…

God has promised in his word and achieved by His singular care and providence the preservation of the Scriptures. The Scriptures are thereby guaranteed to be sufficient in fulfilling their purpose and function (teleology).

How we approach the subject of textual variation among the manuscripts is important. The position prevalent in our day is that the manuscripts are to be approached without any theological presuppositions. This has lead to viewing the manuscript history as not a story of providential preservation, but of the proliferation of textual corruption.

To put this another way, it is to say that the longer the period of time over which Biblical manuscripts are copied, the more corrupt the text becomes. This is the antithesis of the Biblical doctrine of providential preservation.

It is for this reason that I believe the praxis of contemporary textual criticism is worse than the actual product (the text it produces). This is often overlooked in the textual debate.

To approach the text of the Scriptures as a merely human artifact of history divorced from the Biblical doctrine of providential preservation is to say something of the Scriptures that undermines them at a fundamental level. It is an approach to the sacred text that is worldly and it should come as no surprise that the world loves it.

Opposed to this we have the approach of the 16th and 17th century Protestant dogmaticians…

“By the space of so many thousand years the word of God passed by so many dangers of tyrants, of Pharisees, of heretics, of fire, and of sword, and yet continueth and standeth until this day, without altering or changing one letter. This was a wonderful work of God, that, having so many, so great enemies, and passing through so many, so great dangers, it yet continueth still, without adding or altering of any one sentence, or word, or letter.”

—John Jewel (1522 – 1571), Treatise Of The Holy Scriptures

“Firstly, we thinke it not amiss to set downe the generall doctrine, that no one oracle or sentence of God can fall away. Whereby it will bee evident that the holy Scriptures both in the old and new Testament written in their original tongues, cannot either by addition, detraćtion, or exchange be corrupted. Whereunto the consideration of the authour of them, ministreth a substantiall proofe. For seeing they are of God, all whose workes remaine for euer; it followed that all the holy scriptures, being not only his handyworke, but as it were the chieſe, and masterworke of all other, must have a continuall endurance. And if there be not the least and vilest creature in the world which either hath not heretofore, or shall not hereafter, (by the mighty hand of God upholding all things) be continued: how much less is it to be esteemed, that any sentence of God, wherein a greater glory commeth to him, and greater fruit to his people then of many of those creatures, which (for these two ends) he doth so carefully continue, should perish and fall away.”

—Thomas Cartwright (1533 – 1603), Confutation Of The Rhemist Translation

“The marvelous preservation of the Scriptures; though none in time be so ancient, nor none so much oppugned, yet God hath still by his providence preserved them, and every part of them.”

–James Ussher (4 January 1581 – 21 March 1656), A Body Of Divinity

“…the general consent of all Hebricians and Grecians in the Christian world, consenting that our Originals are by the good hand of God preserved uncorrupt, and pure, is a sufficient persuasion, to breed a moral certainty answerable to natural evidence, excluding all reasonable dubitation to the contrary.”

Richard Capel (1586 – 1656), Capel’s Remains

“I cannot but confesse that it sometimes makes my heart ake, when I seriously consider what is said, That we cannot assure our selves that the Hebrew in the Old Testament, and the Greek in the New, are the right Hebrew and Greek, any further then our Masters and Tutors, and the General consent of all the Learned in the world do so say, not one dissenting. But yet say these, since the Apostles, there are no men in the world but are subject to deceive, and to be deceived. All infallibility in matters of this nature having long since left the world. Again, too like unto this is that of Master Wotton, who can tell (saith he) what the signification of the Hebrew and Greek words is even in the Bible, but by the report of men? And to the like purpose is that observation, That the two Tables written immediately by Moses and the Prophets, and the Greek Copies immediately penned by the Apostles, and Apostolical men are all lost, or not to be made use of, except by a very few. And that we have none in Hebrew or Greek, but what are transcribed. Now transcribers are ordinary men, subject to mistake, may faile, having no unerring spirit to hold their hands in writing

These be terrible blasts, and do little else when they meet with a weak head and heart, but open the doore to Atheisme, and quite to fling off the bridle, which onely can hold them and us in the wayes of truth and piety: this is to fill the conceits of men with evil thoughts against the Purity of the Originals: And if the Fountains run not clear, the Translation cannot be clean.”

“…My counsel is, that when he is come to be certain without actual doubting by reasons, arguments, consent of times, & of the Church, that our Bible is the Word of God, that he would in all humility and sincerity apply himselfe to read it, to hear it read, to heare it preached; and he may promise to himself that by the use of the word the Spirit of God will infuse & inspire divine & saving faith into his soul, and free him not only from all actual, but possible doubting, that the Bible translated is the word of God. “And if the translation, then the Originals: For what ever is the instrument to convert the soul; must needs be the pure word of God.”

–Richard Capel (1586 – 1656), Capel’s Remains

“Preservation of the books of the Scripture: the fury of many wicked Tyrants which sought to suppress and extinguish them, Many of the Bibles were taken from Christians and burnt in those cruel persecutions under Diocle­sian and Maxminianus his Collegue, but could not, as God caused it to be writ­ten for the good of his people, so by divine providence he hath preserved the same whole and entire.”

Edward Leigh (1602 – 1671), A Member of the Westminster Assembly, from A Treatise Of Divinity,

“But still the Scriptures are wonderfully preserved, as the three Children in the Furnace, not an Hair was singed; not a jot or tittle of the Truth is perished or corrupted. If it were corrupted, it must be before Christ’s Time, or after it: not before, then Christ would have noted it; not after, for then the Parts would not agree; but we find no such thing but an exact Harmony: Nor is there any lost, for here is a sufficient Instruction and Guide to Happiness. Christ hath promised not a tittle shall fall to the ground. The Word hath been in danger of being lost, but the Miracle of Preservation is therefore the greater. In Joshua’s Time there was but one Copy of the Law. In Dioclesian’s Time, there was an Edict to burn their Bibles, and Copies were scarce and chargeable, and yet still it hath been kept.”

Thomas Manton (1620 – 1677), A Second Volume Of Sermons

“It can, then, with no color of probability be asserted (which yet I find some learned men too free in granting), namely, that there hath the same fate attended the Scripture in its transcription as hath done other books.

Let me say without offense, this imagination, asserted on deliberation, seems to me to border on atheism. Surely the promise of God for the preservation of his word, with his love and care of his church, of whose faith and obedience that word of his is the only rule, requires other thoughts at our hands…”

“…Let it be remembered that the vulgar copy [the Received Text] we use was the public possession of many generations, — that upon the invention of printing it was in actual authority throughout the world with them that used and understood that language, as far as any thing appears to the contrary; let that, then, pass for the standard, which is confessedly its right and due, and we shall, God assisting, quickly see how little reason there is to pretend such varieties of readings as we are now surprised withal”

—John Owen, Of The Integrity And Purity Of The Hebrew & Greek Texts Of Scripture

In light of these and many other such citations, Richard Muller rightly observed…

“All too much discussion of the Reformers’ methods has attempted to turn them into precursors of the modern critical method, when in fact, the developments of exegesis and hermeneutics in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries both precede and, frequently conflict with (as well as occasionally adumbrate) the methods of the modern era.”

—Richard Muller, Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Vol 2, The Holy Scriptures

“Textus Receptus: …The term was adopted as a standard usage only after the period of orthodoxy, although it does refer to the text supported by the Protestant scholastics as the authentic text quoad verba, with respect to the words of the text.”

—Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin and and Greek Theological Terms, Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (P.357)

To recast the meaning of the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Bibliology of our Protestant fathers in order to make them a support for contemporary textual criticism (reasoned eclecticism, CBGM, etc) is the real abuse and we could also rightly call it dangerous. This trip into historical fantasy only works if words have no meaning.

“The Old Testament in Hebrew, (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek, (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.”

—Westminster Confession, Chapter 1, Paragraph 8a

 

Pre-Enlightenment Textual Criticism

By Leave a Comment

In this post I’ll be looking at an example of pre-Enlightenment textual criticism of the Greek New Testament (if we may even call it “textual criticism”). We’ll be looking at the work of one of the men on the Westminster Assembly that relates to the subject at hand.

In the 4 points below, we have a brief argument from Edward Leigh written in 1646 defending the authenticity of the doxology in the Lord’s Prayer in the Gospel of Matthew. The material I’ll be presenting is from “A Treatise of DIVINITY CONSISTING OF THREE BOOKES” (1646).

As a member of the Westminster Assembly, Leigh’s writings give us valuable insight into what the framers of the Confession meant when they confessed that God, “by his singular care and providence, kept [the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures] pure in all ages, [and] are therefore authentical.” (Westminster Confession 1.7)

“For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.”

—Matthew 6:13b

(1) If Erasmus had understood that that passage had been taken out of the Book of Chronicles written by the pen of the Holy Ghost…he would no doubt have taken heed how he had called this conclusion of the Lords Prayer trifles, for it appeareth manifestly, that this sentence was borrowed from Da­vid, 1 Chron. 29:11. with some abridgment of the Prophets words.

(2) That cannot be spurious without the which we should not have had a perfect form of Prayer; for since Prayer standeth as well in praising of God and thanksgiving, as in petitions and requests to be made unto him; it is evident that if this conclu­sion had been wanting, there had wanted a form of that Pray­er which standeth in praise and thanksgiving.

(3) If to give a substantial reason of that which goeth before be superfluous, then this conclusion may be so.

(4) For confirmation of this reading, we may allege be­sides the consent of the Greek Copies, the Syrian interpretati­on which is very ancient. Chrysostome, Theophylact, and Euthy­mius expound it. (B) The Lords Prayer in Luke is perfect in re­spect of the petitions, yet nothing hindereth but that in Mat­thew might be added the confirmation and conclusion; Mat­thew hath many other things in his Gospel, which Luke hath not.

What we see in this defense are the dogmatic commitments related to the text of the sacred Scriptures that would be expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith published only 1 year after Leigh’s treatise was written.

When we read chapter 1 of the Confession, it’s helpful to know what the framers actually meant by their words rather than anachronistically reading 21st century textual criticism into their words.

To sum up Leigh’s defense of the doxology to the Lord’s Prayer, he argues for its authenticity based upon (1) his belief that it is a citation of 2 Chronicles 29:11 and (2) is necessary to conclude a perfect, model prayer—for without it the prayer would lack praise and thanksgiving. He then goes on to state (3) that to argue that the doxology is not necessary is equivalent to saying all before the doxology is unnecessary, for praise is as necessary to prayer as petitions. 

It is only when we get to his final point (4) that he engages the evidence from the Greek manuscripts and ancient citations but even here (B) he doubles back on the dogmatic argument when he addresses the absence of the doxology in Luke’s gospel.

This excerpt is from Chapter 6 of the first book in his series. This chapter is entitled, “Of the Authentical edition of the Scripture.” In this chapter he is defending the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures against those who claim they had been corrupted (Roman Catholics). His defense of the doxology of The Lord’s Prayer is for the purpose of defending the integrity of the Greek New Testament overall. From this argument and the entirety of his defense in this chapter it is self-evident that he is not defending the lost text of the autographs, but the common text on hand in the current possession of the church.

If one is given to doubt on that point, Leigh even goes so far as to make the argument that Rome’s claim that the Latin Vulgate is the authentic text cannot stand because of unreconciled variants between its editions: “Since the Councell of Trent 2 Popes have set forth this vulgar Edition diversly; which of these shall be received as authenticall?”

It is self evident that when Leigh is referring to the “authentic edition,” he is actually referring to an edition in his possession, not a speculative text that is the product of never ending recension. This text would have no doubt been The Received Greek and Hebrew Testaments of The Reformation Era which largely reflect the text as found in the vast majority of the extant Greek and Hebrew manuscripts (with a few notable exceptions) and were canonically received in the printed editions of The Reformation.

The notable textual critic, Dr. Kurt Aland

 acknowledged this understanding of the historical Protestant position on the text of Scripture when he wrote:

Finally it is undisputed that from the 16th to the 18th century orthodoxy’s doctrine of verbal inspiration assumed this Textus Receptus. It was the only Greek text they knew, and they regarded it as the original text.”

~ Kurt Aland (Trinity Journal, Fall 1987)

“Yet no real progress was possible as long as the Textus Receptus remained the basic text and its authority was regarded as canonical.”

~ Kurt Aland (The Text of the New Testament, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1981, P.4)

Dr. Aland was no advocate of the Received Text but even he acknowledged what he called the “undisputed” facts of history.

While Leigh’s arguments do not address the few important variants between the editions of The Received Text (Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza), they do clearly present the mindset and dogmatic commitments to the text of the Scripture reflected in The Westminster Confession of Faith and retained in both the Savoy Declaration and 1689 London Baptist Confession. Leigh’s ideas on the subject were not novel nor sectarian. He represents the mindset that was common to Protestants throughout the 15th and 16th centuries.

For 21st century Christians looking at the issue of textual variation in the manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, it’s important to realize that contemporary scholarship approaches the subject with a completely different set of presuppositions than those of our Protestant forbears. The Reformed fathers weren’t ignorant of textual issues, but they addressed them first and foremost as a dogmatic concern which led them to some very different conclusions than those reached by scholars today.

“I guess the Bible is not quite what I thought it was…”

By 3 Comments

I think the vast majority of Bible believing Christians intuitively believe just as I do concerning the text of the Scripture. That is, we actually possess the infallible word of God, not in theory, but in fact. The rub doesn’t come until they turn a corner and run into lower criticism.

Once, when I was an advocate of contemporary textual criticism, I was explaining it to a man and he looked down dejectedly and said, “I guess the Bible is not quite what I thought it was.”

It makes me think of a similar instance in a lecture I heard by Michael Kruger where he was telling his students a story about how he went to a Presbyterian church to speak on the text of Scripture. He taught them that the long ending of Mark containing the resurrection account was not Scripture. The pastor’s wife approached him in tears afterwards about this and Kruger commented that she was influenced by tradition.

In reality, she had a view of the Bible as the infallible word of God and this renowned, trusted professor turned her understanding of the nature of the Biblical text up on its head. You’d cry too if it were you!

How can an infallible text contain a complete narrative, indeed a resurrection account!, for centuries and believers accepted it as authentic Scripture only now to be told it’s a fake? The implications of that are not well understood by believing proponents of lower criticism.

She thought she could approach the Bible with the same confidence as Jesus…

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

This is going to be jarring because it presents a different epistemology than that which the typical Bible believer holds to from upon their own reading of the Bible. “I can no longer just go to my Bible as the ultimate authority, I must always check it by the critics…for what my Bible says may or may not actually be the Bible. Furthermore, the critics are often not in agreement and what they affirm today they may deny tomorrow.”

Such is the mess you get when you disconnect the concept of Biblical canon from the text of the canon.

Is the Received Text of the Protestant Reformation “Infallible”?

By 7 Comments

Chapter 1, Section 8 of the  Westminster Confession declares the Biblical text the framers possessed is the infallible word of God. This is what is meant by “authentic”. We only have to look back to the Council of Trent to see that this is a counterclaim to Rome for Rome used the same language regarding the Latin Vulgate. Rome was declaring the original language texts to be corrupt. The Roman church being the authenticating authority declared the Latin Vulgate to be “authentic”. Protestants declared the original language texts to be “authentic”—authoritative and infallible. Protestants made this claim not based upon the authority of the church, but the Holy Spirit Himself as the authenticating authority (See Westminster Confession, Chapter 1, Sections 4-5).

Put another way, God inspired the text in a verbal plenary fashion. In His providence he preserved it in “essential purity” so that the full power and authority of the text remains. Whatever scribal issues may have been allowed to creep in (which are all debatable), God has so preserved the text that what we have in the corpus of the Received Texts of the Protestant Reformation is “infallible” (it does not err because it cannot).

On the other hand, if we say it merely represents the original, we are claiming no more authority for our Greek text than we do for a reliable translation of it. This is “mediate inspiration” and means it is only infallible to the degree it is in accords with the original autographs which we do not have. This would mean there is no edition of the New Testament that we may properly call “infallible” and no amount of critical studies will ever be able to make this claim.

This is both a teleological (misunderstanding the purpose of the Scripture) and epistemological (misunderstanding the authority of the Scripture) error of epic proportions if you believe the Bible is God’s infallible word. To claim the original language text as the ultimate, infallible authority but deny that we actually posses the full authority of that text creates a great inconsistency when it comes to our appeal to the Scripture as the ultimate authority for all faith and practice.

I hold that the full power of immediate inspiration is found within the Received Text. Not because God inspired scribes, but because He preserved the full power of the text by special providence. What I mean by the words “full power” is that the text has been so preserved in the Received Text as to contain all the force and authority of the original autographs (warning: a barbarian will miss the nuance in what I am saying).

A precedent for this is found in canon 2 of the Helvetic Consensus Formula (1675) which was chiefly framed by Francis Turretin. There we find…

“But, in particular, The Hebrew original of the OT which we have received and to this day do retain as handed down by the Hebrew Church, “who had been given the oracles of God” (Rom 3:2), is, not only in its consonants, but in its vowels either the vowel points themselves, or at least the power of the points not only in its matter, but in its words, inspired by God.”

The issue there is very similar to the one regarding the preservation of the Greek text in the Received Text of the Reformation. For the Old Testament Hebrew text, the question was whether or not the vowel points were originally inspired or if they were added later.

The Helvetic Consensus Formula declared “in its vowels either the vowel points themselves, OR AT LEAST THE POWER OF THE POINTS” were “inspired by God””. That is, if the vowel points were added later by scribes, God so directed it as to actually be a part of the preservation of the original since the vowel points are important for a proper understanding of the text (and especially so as Hebrew would be a dead language).

In like fashion, God has so preserved the Greek New Testament as to render the full power of the originals in the Received Text of the Reformation.

Take up a sound translation of our Received Text and read, for there you read a translation of the covenant of the King of Kings, God Almighty!