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:
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.
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.