Hello Logan,
I must admit I was perplexed when I read your remarks on the views of Ted Letis and John Owen; I thought to myself, “Can I really have been such a careless student of these things to so misunderstand what was being said?” And so it was
ad fontes (back to the sources) for me!
To start with the most recent, and work my way back on your posts. In your post #124, I would agree with you when you say Owen was of a mind to consider certain variants; in his own words (and these pertain to Hebrew variants in OT texts), “If any others can be gathered, or shall be hereafter, out of ancient copies
of credit and esteem, where no mistake can be discovered as their cause, they deserve to be considered” (emphasis added; p 359). The Appendix you mentioned was of the
Prolegomena and Appendix to the Biblia Polyglotta, a massive work by Anglo-Catholic Brian Walton listing all variant readings from all available mss extant then, and Owen was willing to consider all of them – as in “at least look them over” – and show that they did not vitiate the position he defended regarding the Reformation Bible and its attack against the claims of Rome to be the sole arbiter of both Biblical text and the meaning thereof. He was not afraid of them.
Logan, you made this statement:
Note again the Puritan’s understanding of “letter and tittle” does not apparently mean in the minutiae, but in doctrine and truth.
This statement warrants some comment, and also qualification, from me. When
I use the phrase “preservation in the minutiae” it does not mean that there may not be minute differences in the Greek TR mss, such as in spelling or other relatively insignificant ways. It also does not mean that there may not be slight differences in meaning, as in Romans 7:6 (which EF Hills brought up in his writings). It
does mean that in multitudes of both small and large places throughout the NT text the readings of the common text are maintained. To show you a couple of places in Owen where he more narrowly defined his meaning of what you term “letter and tittle”, I submit these two excerpts:
The sum of what I am pleading for, as to the particular head to be vindicated, is, That as the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were immediately and entirely given out by God himself, his mind being in them represented unto us without the least interveniency of such mediums and ways as were capable of giving change or alteration to the least iota or syllable; so, by his good and merciful providential dispensation, in his love to his word and church, his whole word, as first given out by him, is preserved unto us entire in the original languages; where, shining in its own beauty and lustre (as also in all translations, so far as they faithfully represent the originals), it manifests and evidences unto the consciences of men, without other foreign help or assistance, its divine original and authority (emphasis added; pp 349, 350).
And again,
That there are in some copies of the New Testament, and those some of them of some good antiquity, diverse readings, in things or words of less importance, is acknowledged. The proof of it lies within the reach of most, in the copies that we have ; and I shall not solicit the reputation of those who have afforded us others out of their own private furniture. That they have been all needlessly heaped up together, if not to an eminent scandal, is no less evident. Let us, then, take a little view of their rise and importance.
That the Grecian was once as it were the vulgar language of the whole world of Christians is known. The writing of the New Testament in that language in part found it so, and in part made it so. What thousands, yea, what millions of copies of the New Testament then in the world, all men promiscuously reading and studying the Scripture, cannot be reckoned. That so many transcriptions, most of them by private persons, for private use, having a standard of correction in their public assemblies ready to relieve their mistakes, should be made without some variation, is [not to be expected. From the copies of the first ages, others in the succeeding have been transcribed, according as men had opportunity. From those which are come down to the hands of learned men in this latter age, whereof very few or none at all are of any considerable antiquity, have men made it their business to collect the various readings we speak of; with what usefulness and serviceableness to the churches of God others that look on must be allowed their liberty to judge. We know the vanity, curiosity, pride, and naughtiness of the heart of man ; how ready we are to please ourselves with things that seem singular and remote from the observation of the many, and how ready to publish them as evidences of our learning and diligence, let the fruit and issue be what it will. Hence it is come to pass, not to question the credit of any man speaking of his manuscripts, which is wholly swallowed in this Appendix, that whatever varying word, syllable, or tittle, could be by any observed, wherein any book, though of yesterday, varieth from the common received copy, though manifestly a mistake, superfluous or deficient, inconsistent with the sense of the place, yea, barbarous, is presently imposed on us as a various lection (emphasis added; p 363).
I think it may be ascertained that here it
does mean the minutiae of grammar and syntax, and not the figurative “in doctrine and truth”.
You may note also that he talks about unacceptable variances from “the common received copy”, which would be the received text which the Reformers held up against the “Imperial” tradition of Rome, to overthrow their seeking to lord it over the consciences of men.
Indeed, as you rightly say, the “lections” in the Appendix were not all of the TR, but were of every extant variant available to Mr. Walton. Owen gives us a further look at his view of the contents of the Appendix:
As, then, I shall not speak any thing to derogate from the worth of their labour who have gathered all these various readings into one body or volume, so I presume I may take liberty without offence to say, I should more esteem of theirs who would endeavour to search and trace out these pretenders to their several originals, and, rejecting the spurious brood that hath now spawned itself over the face of so much paper, that ought by no means to be brought into competition with the common reading, would reduce them to such a necessary number, whose consideration might be of some other use than merely to create a temptation to the reader that nothing is left sound and entire in the word of God (pp 363, 364).
He again emphasizes that these “ought by no means to be brought into competition with the common reading”.
As he ends the section, Chapter III, “Of various lections in the Greek copies of the New Testament”, he begins Chapter IV with these words,
Having now declared in what sense, and with what allowance as to various lections, I maintain the assertion laid down in the foregoing treatise concerning the providential preservation of the whole book of God, so that we may have full assurance that we enjoy the whole revelation of his will in the copies abiding amongst us. . . (p 367).
Be assured he was not talking of the copies Rome was attempting to foist upon the world!
I don’t think I differ much from Rev Winzer’s view, except that I may be a little more liberal (in the modern sense) than he, and not nearly as pithy.
Are you aware, Logan, that Calvin’s view changed as he grew older? Early on he used Simon de Colines’ “renegade edition” (with 150 new readings in it), but most probably returned to Stephanus’ third edition (1550), the “common text” of Owen (see “Theodore Beza As Text Critic”, in Letis,
The Majority Text).
In his book,
The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority, and the Popular Mind, Letis has interesting chapters which touch on the Hodges, and Warfield. He was an historian of the Reformation Biblical texts, and has some very interesting work, though I do not agree with all he writes.
I think I will close my post here, though I want to remark on your statements re Erasmus, and other matters, but that will have to wait for another post.
