# Ecclesiastical Text Logic



## Ravens (Mar 28, 2007)

I suppose this thread is primarily "aimed" towards armourbearer and JerusalemBlade, since they are the two most passionate and active defenders of the AV (and the underlying Greek text) on this board. It is only meant as an inquiry, hopefully one which will help further my own mental clarity on the subject; I have no desire to "debate" either of you. I don't like getting publicly embarassed.

For the record, I use the AV in my devotions, memorization, and study, am a Byzantine text proponent, and really fail to see how someone could use the Critical Text. So I'm in no way outright bashing the AV.

 

I don't have all of the nuts and bolts of this thought out, but I've been chewing on the issue for awhile, and here are the thoughts I'm having. These questions have more to do with the "presuppositional" and theological (Providential Preservation) defenses of the AV, moreso than the technical aspects. It seems as if this is Rev. Winzer's primary way of establishing the AV, and unless I am mistaken, JerusalemBlade uses this reasoning primarily when justifying the influence of the Vulgate on the Book of Revelation. 

*1: * I don't remember the exact exchange, as all of these thoughts derive from the multiplicity of recent threads on the subject. However, if I am not mistaken (and I very well may be), Rev. Winzer responded to one query as to how we know that the AV (and by implication, the Greek) is truly preserved word of God by saying, "How do you know that John 3:16 is the word of God." 

In essence, I assume this argument is saying that "My sheep know my voice", and that the word of God is self-authenticating. Two questions: I realize the Confession isn't speaking to this issue when it says:



> VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.[16]



However, may not an implication be drawn? If all of Scripture is inspired by the same Spirit, but some parts are harder to be understood than others, can we say that all Scripture, on the face of it, is equally, clearly perceived to be the word of God as every other part? Specifically when dealing with the Textus Receptus and the Vulgate readings in Revelation, as opposed to the Majority Text of Revelation. Is that position saying that we should be able to look at each variant reading (when they are so slightly different in places) and "know" which reading is the voice of the Shepherd?

Secondly, regarding this question: At the end of the day, resting this solely on a presuppositional commitment, how could the Authorized Version even have been approved? I suppose I'm speaking on a more "individual-to-individual" basis at this point. However, just as an AV adherent can tell a Majority Text adherent or Geneva Bible adherent, "Discussing technical things is avoiding the pertinent issue; do you not recognize the voice of God in Scripture", couldn't a theologian or elder who thought the Geneva Bible was a fine translation have said the same thing to an adherent of the newly translated AV (back in the day)?

Hypothetical simplified conversation from 1614:

AV adherent: This new translation is markedly improved over the Geneva Bible for a variety of reasons; let me show you a couple clear places of improvement.

GB adherent: We already have the word of God in English, and this translation was approved and forged in the heart of the Reformation, Geneva. Why should I listen to your technical arguments? I have the word of God right here.

Upon further query, could he not say "The Geneva Bible is self-authenticating?" 

Thirdly, it would seem that on an individual basis, it removes the issues from the objective realm altogether, as each person, ultimately, can only say, "I hear the Shepherd in manuscript tradition X", or "I hear the Shepherd in manuscript tradition Y", since any discussion of technicalities has moved away from the fundamental presuppositional appraisal.

Which leads me to...

*2:* I anticipate it could be said, "No promise is given to any individual to properly determine the exact voice and word of God; that is why we have elders and rulers, and especially synods and councils." We should heed their opinion.

Here is the main thing I've been thinking about. When used to establish the A.V. and tied to the fact that either a: churchly men who held to the 39 Articles, or b: The Westminster Assembly utilized the AV, this line of argument seems incredibly *Anglo-Centric.* 

I attend a church that holds to the Westminster Confession. It is the Confession I subscribe to. I have read it far more frequently than any of the 3FU. However, to me, the AV position requires another presupposition to justify it; i.e., not only can you have "It is the church that discerns the word of God", but "God blessed the English churches with the discernment of the true word of God in all the jots and tittles, in a way in which he did not bless the Dutch, French, or German churches." I suppose the Dutch church line would be the strongest argument, and *I confess* that I am highly ignorant of Dutch translations of Scripture.

However, I think its a safe assumption that there was a Dutch translation of Scripture, probably one that obtained normative use, and that this was used, if not in the Synod of Dort, at least in some other assembly, if not in the churches themselves (which should be "approval" and "authorization" enough).

So what would an adherent of the AV (and the underlying Greek) as the only true translation say to someone in a confessionally Reformed Dutch church, who holds to the 3FU, who utilized a Dutch translation of Scripture from that time period. Wouldn't it have to be something along the lines of, "English divines were more pious and better used of God than Dutch divines; and if you look at history, God was clearly more active in Scotland and England than in Holland." Now maybe you agree that God was more active in England than in Holland, speaking spiritually, and not just historically, but itsn't that a tenuous piece of reasoning to hang a bold "the AV has the only true underlying Greek" on?

And if one responds by saying, "The differences in the AV and the Dutch translation/s are so minor as to be worthless; both draw on the general Byzantine tradition found in the majority of manuscripts" (and I would agree), then how is that any different from holding, in the end, a Byzantine/MT view?

And that is to say nothing of French translations, German translations, etc.

Which leads me to *3:*

There is yet another presupposition (it seems to me) behind the AV reasoning . However, both sides seem to see fairly eye to eye on this issue, so I didn't see it as worthy of being mentioned yet. Regardless, all of us on the Puritanboard would agree that the Reformation witnessed the greatest clarity and exposition of Biblical doctrine since the days of the apostles. Period.

The AV adherent seems to say, "And shouldn't we listen to the church of the Reformation, and see what version of Scripture it used."

Now, I would agree that the Reformation churches represented the "most pure" churches. However, less pure churches can still be churches. And I haven't seen any Reformed theologians say that the church of the middle ages (say, around the time of Charlemagne and Gottschalk) had so far degraded as to be a syngagogue of Satan.

So if Scripture is foundational to the Church, and not vice versa, then wouldn't we have to assume that the church at large was bereft of the _pure_, preserved word of God until the translators of the AV put their hand to the plough?
_
Unless_ one is saying that there were actual translations in Latin, Coptic, Gothic, etc., that were based not only on the MT, but on the TR underlying the AV, then how could one avoid simply stating, "God had preserved His word infallibly in the manuscript tradition, but it wasn't until the AV translators that the dross was burned out, and the pure word recognized in its purest form."

If there are more than those two options, someone share with me. There might very well be.

However, I've never heard someone claim the first; so I assume the second would be the line of reasoning.

So, an AV adherent would say (I imagine; correct me where I'm wrong), that the Greek and Latin branches of the church, pre-Trent, pre-1054, had enough manuscripts that contained the word of God purely preserved, but not an actual, physical manuscript of "just the word of God, completely the word of God, and nothing but the word of God", as one would find in the Greek that underlies the AV.

If one adopts that position, wouldn't you have to say that Providential Preservation *functioned in such a manner* that the full text of Scripture was preserved, even when we can't point to such a manuscript, and even when major translations and church editions and liturgies apparently differed and veered from the true word of God. And if this is the case, wouldn't you have to say that the church failed to recognize and authorize the true Scriptures (in the jot and tittle sense).

I often see this line of the Confession quoted in these discussions:
*
by His singular care and providence*, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;

However, I'm thinking of reading it this way:

by His singular care and providence, kept pure *in all ages*, are therefore authentical;

If the "purity" functioned in such a way that the true word of God was present in the manuscripts even when not recognized by the church in all ages, why should we assume that the church of the Reformation (and specifically of the English Reformation, and on top of that, specifically those who chose to abandon the Genevan translation) ascertained the true word of God in the AV, _in such a manner_ as to be unquestionable and unassailable, even when it is based on the Vulgate, and not on the MT?

Lastly, some look retroactively at Providence in history and think, "Look how the AV was used, and at such a crucial time; God must have stamped it with approval." I think the same argument could be used for the Vulgate with regards to "crucial times" (i.e., the translation in use among faithful elders who would witness the rise and dominance of Antichrist... did God leave them with a broken blade to fight Antichrist with?), and with the Septuagint in terms of crucial times and authorization (i.e., used by Christ and the apostles (perhaps that's debateable), the early church, and held in the highest esteem by Augustine and the E.O. churches... so even though its a translation, shouldn't we expect the manuscript tradition the Septuagint is based on to line up exactly with the Masoretic text... if Providence functioned the same way in Palestine, Alexandria, etc., as it did in England)?

Well I suppose I've exhausted my thoughts on this matter. I'm just seeking for clarity.

It just seems that there are three or four debateable "hoops" to jump through between the "MT" pond and the "TR" pond; and I don't think I can connect the dots.

Anyway, just looking for Rev. Winzer's and JerusalemBlade's opinion on this. Sorry for the verbosity, and I know some points were weaker than others. If I didn't value your opinions I wouldn't bother to ask.

Cheers.


----------



## Ravens (Mar 28, 2007)

I hope others feel free to chime in as well. I wasn't directing it _exclusively_ to them. 

Just in case I wasn't clear.


----------



## MW (Mar 28, 2007)

Joshua, your queries are well noted, but I can only provide a fundamental response at present, which we may build on as further questions arise.

The question, Which text? revolves around the issue, Which church? It was to the Jews that the Old Testament oracles of God were committed, Rom. 3:2, and it is to the churches that the New Testament writings were inscribed, e.g., Gal. 1:2, etc. The gospel is not preached to sinners in the first instance, but it is entrusted to a faithful ministry, 2 Tim. 2:2. It is from the faithful ministry that sinners hear the gospel and subsequently believe, Rom. 10:14, 15. Hence the Confession insists in its first section that God has declared His will to the church and that the committal of the same _wholly_ unto writing is for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church.

The emphasised word in the previous paragraph is of fundamental importance. The reason why the word is written, and is not left to oral tradition, is in order to preserve and propagate the _whole_ of God's revealed will, so that the faithful ministry of the church may not shun to declare _the whole counsel of God_, Acts 20:27. The confession of this point is fundamental. A faithful church is that which propagates the whole counsel of God, and the whole counsel of God is preserved in the written Word. This means the church is bound to the belief that she possesses the written Word of God entire and uncorrupted.

Now the church of today does not exist disconnected from the past, but has inherited a tradition. Reformed Christians maintain that there is a catholic tradition in which God led and guided His people in the truth, but also an apostate church which emerged in the middle ages, and from which it became necessary to depart. The subsequent formation of the reformed church was not based upon thin air, but it was founded on the living and abiding word of God, 1 Tim. 3:15, as a continuation of the faithful witness of the church through the ages.

The reformed church, then, does not exist independent of the Scriptures, so that alterations in the latter leave the former unaffected. To the contrary, the testimony of the reformed church is intricately tied to its understanding of holy Scripture. Standing as we do in the reformed tradition, we are to examine the testimony of the reformed church to see if she has faithfully propagated the whole counsel of God. The immediate question which arises in this connection, is, did the reformed church possess the written Word entire and uncorrupted? If not, then her propagation of the whole counsel of God must be doubted. If so, then the question, Which text, is resolved; it is the one adopted by the reformed church.

If the truth of this position be admitted, it will be clearly seen that deviations from the reformed understanding of holy Scripture fundamentally undermine the reformed church and its witness. Roman Catholic polemicists insisted that the text of the Word of God was corrupted and therefore the written Word of God could not be trusted as the supreme standard of faith and life. The reformers and their true children maintained that the Word of God has been preserved pure in all ages because it is the living and abiding Word of God, and therefore the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures is the final judge. The question which confronts us as reformed Christians is, Which of these two positions do we believe and follow?

This is the fundamental point. The issue over which reformation version of Scripture is peripheral to this. We can allow slight differences in translation between the various reformation versions, both English and continental. These really only pertain to nuance and excellence of wording (verba). The problem with modern versions is their alteration of the sense (vox) of Scripture. They make changes in the meaning, which have a direct bearing on the way the doctrine and faith of the church is understood. I have provided some clear examples of this in another thread.

If a modern version were created which retained the reformation interpretation of the Scriptures, and at the same time provided a higher standard of verbal accuracy, then we would be compelled to adopt it as a genuine improvement. To date, however, modern versions have followed modern scholarship in departing from the reformation interpretation of Scripture, and whilst aiming to make the Word of God more readable have really only managed to make erroneous interpretations easier to understand and therefore accepted more readily. Moreover, the modern versions aim their translations towards the unchurched, whereas it has been noted above that the Scriptures were written for the church in the first instance, and can really only be understood by those who have been enlightened in the knowledge of Christ.

On the basis of these principles it will be evident that the 17th century scenario of an individual deciding between the Geneva or Authorised Versions is not compatible with individuals today deciding between the AV and modern versions. The AV was an improvement on the Genevan, as the Puritans themselves acknowledged (contrary to popular legend, as one will see by consulting the introduction to Matthew Poole's Annotations). The AV retained the catholic and ecclesiastical sense (vox) of the Genevan, whilst improving on the verbal accuracy. Hence reformed principles warranted a change in favour of the AV, whereas the same reformed principles warrant a rejection of modern versions as corruptions of the Word of God.

Blessings!


----------

