Reformed Confessions of Faith and the Traditional Text

[Robert Truelove]

Here is an article I recently wrote on Reformed Confessions of Faith and the Traditional Text.

I had sent this to Dr. White in relation to some of our dialog (if you can call it that) on Facebook. He responded the next day with in an online video saying "Reformed Scholasticism is not infallible". Being a 1689 Reformed Baptist, I thought he'd try to debate my observations but it appears he agreed with me and simply said they were wrong. Interesting.

Anyway, in this article I briefly demonstrate what the 17 century Reformed Scholastics thought about the doctrine of the text of Scripture and how that relates to the statements made in the Reformed, English confessions.

http://www.theauthorizedversion.com/reformed-confessions-of-faith-and-the-traditional-text/

 

[Logan]

I think it's important to remember who these men were contending against: Rome with her claim that the Greek texts had been so corrupted that it was hopeless to rely upon them. It was to this claim that they responded.

That they believed each jot and tittle of God's word had been preserved: granted.
That they believed the locus of authority existed in their current copies, insofar that they represented accurately the autographs: granted.
That they believed the TR to be without flaw: I don't grant this.

When Owen says "the purity of the present original copies of the Scripture, or rather the copies in the original languages, which the Church of God doth now hath for many ages enjoyed as her chiefest treasure." Surely when he says "many ages" he doesn't mean only the previous 100 years. Owen referenced "other manuscripts" in his Hebrews commentary, indicating that he wasn't just relying on one printed text.

Similarly, Turretin offered corrections to the TR of his day.

And Richard Capel, of the Westminster Assembly, said

Now by Scripture is meant the Word of God written. Written then, Printed now;. . . It is consented unto by all parties, that the translators and transcribers might erre, being not Prophets, nor indued with that infallible Spirit in translating or transcribing, as Moses and the Prophets were in their Original Writings...

For the originals, though we have not the primitive copies written by the finger of God in the tables, or by Moses and the prophets in the Bebrew, or by the Apostles, and the rest in the Greek for the New Testament, yet we have copies in both languages, which copies vary not from the primitive writings in any matter which may stumble any. This concerns only the learned, and they know that by consent of all parties, the most learned on all sides amongst Christians do shake hands in this, that God by his providence hat preserved them uncorrupt.

What if there be variety of readings in some copies? and some mistakes in writing or printing? this makes nothing against our doctrine, sith for all this the fountain runs clear, and if the fountain be not clear all translations must needs be muddy...

Now Christians of all parties do agree, as touching the Originals, that they are kept pure: Only some of and among the Papists, passionate men do bite at the Originals; but herein they do but blur their own vulgar translation, since they confess it to be drawn out of the Originals.

Therefore I like that of Bellarmine, who stands upon it, that of such like things a certainty may be had from the testimonies of men, in some sort comparable to natural evidence itself, for that it leaves no scruple or dubitation in our minds: But what of all this? Why it shows that the general consent of (in a manner) 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...

Thus the case stands. The Originals are to be received and believed. That the Hebrew and Greek are the true Originals we believe by human testimonies, which leave the mind without perplexity, without all doubting, and so it follows, that by man's testimony the Originals are to be received, and believed by us, so that the heart stands free from any true cause of any doubting at all, which being equivalent to the highest certainty that is, it cannot but lay a foundation to build our faith upon...

And again:

Now, what shall a poor unlearned Christian do, if that he hath nothing to rest his poor soul on? the Originals he understands not; if he did, the first copies are not to be had; and he cannot tell whether the Hebrew and Greek copies by the right Hebrew, or the right Greek, or that which is said to be the meaning of the Hebrew, or Greek, but as men tell us who are not Prophets, and may mistake. Besides, the Transcribers were men, and might err; These considerations may let in atheism like a flood; To help all this, we will deliver our mind in some propositions...

So I dare lay it on the same God, that he in his providence is so with the Church of the Gentiles, that they have and do preserve the Greek Text uncorrupt, and clear: As for some scapes by transcribers, that comes to no more, than to censure a book to be corrupt because of some scapes in the printing, and 'tis certain, that what mistake is in one print, is correct in another...

I have made a long and tedious discourse about the Originals and translations, because I find by myself, that things let fall in print by learned men and great reformers, as touching the Originals, that none can say this is the Hebrew, that is the Greek, but because linguists and learned men say so, and they may err; Nor that this is the English of the Hebrew, or of the Greek which we say is, but men subject to trip do so say, that the Originals transcribed into many copies might err, and mistake; and for the translations, that there be flaws in them too, since the transcribers, and translators were no prophets, but men, though not willing perhaps, yet subject to speak and write besides the matter; that translations are not the Word of God, nor our rule.

These and such things as these, I doubt not do stagger the thoughts of weak, and of strong Christians too, and drive many towards atheism. And now saith a sick soul 'What shall a poor feeble-hearted Christian do?'

My counsel is, that when he come to be certain without actual doubting by reasons, arguments, and consent of times, and of the Church, that our Bible is the word of God, that he would in all humility and sincerity apply himself to read it, to hear it read, to hear it preached; and he may promise to himself that by the use of the word the Spirit of God will infuse and inspire divine and 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 whatever is the instrument to convert the soul, must needs be the pure word of God.

Note how he can claim the purity of the Originals, without denying there are variants. And encourages faith in it being the pure Word of God, whether translated or with variants.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Capel was appointed but did not attend or participate in the Westminster Assembly. Cf. Van Dixhoorn, 1.112

And Richard Capel, of the Westminster Assembly, said

 

[Robert Truelove]

I think it's important to remember who these men were contending against: Rome with her claim that the Greek texts had been so corrupted that it was hopeless to rely upon them. It was to this claim that they responded.

That they believed each jot and tittle of God's word had been preserved: granted.
That they believed the locus of authority existed in their current copies, insofar that they represented accurately the autographs: granted.
That they believed the TR to be without flaw: I don't grant this.

When Owen says "the purity of the present original copies of the Scripture, or rather the copies in the original languages, which the Church of God doth now hath for many ages enjoyed as her chiefest treasure." Surely when he says "many ages" he doesn't mean only the previous 100 years. Owen referenced "other manuscripts" in his Hebrews commentary, indicating that he wasn't just relying on one printed text.

Similarly, Turretin offered corrections to the TR of his day.

And Richard Capel, of the Westminster Assembly, said

Now by Scripture is meant the Word of God written. Written then, Printed now;. . . It is consented unto by all parties, that the translators and transcribers might erre, being not Prophets, nor indued with that infallible Spirit in translating or transcribing, as Moses and the Prophets were in their Original Writings...

For the originals, though we have not the primitive copies written by the finger of God in the tables, or by Moses and the prophets in the Bebrew, or by the Apostles, and the rest in the Greek for the New Testament, yet we have copies in both languages, which copies vary not from the primitive writings in any matter which may stumble any. This concerns only the learned, and they know that by consent of all parties, the most learned on all sides amongst Christians do shake hands in this, that God by his providence hat preserved them uncorrupt.

What if there be variety of readings in some copies? and some mistakes in writing or printing? this makes nothing against our doctrine, sith for all this the fountain runs clear, and if the fountain be not clear all translations must needs be muddy...

Now Christians of all parties do agree, as touching the Originals, that they are kept pure: Only some of and among the Papists, passionate men do bite at the Originals; but herein they do but blur their own vulgar translation, since they confess it to be drawn out of the Originals.

Therefore I like that of Bellarmine, who stands upon it, that of such like things a certainty may be had from the testimonies of men, in some sort comparable to natural evidence itself, for that it leaves no scruple or dubitation in our minds: But what of all this? Why it shows that the general consent of (in a manner) 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...

Thus the case stands. The Originals are to be received and believed. That the Hebrew and Greek are the true Originals we believe by human testimonies, which leave the mind without perplexity, without all doubting, and so it follows, that by man's testimony the Originals are to be received, and believed by us, so that the heart stands free from any true cause of any doubting at all, which being equivalent to the highest certainty that is, it cannot but lay a foundation to build our faith upon...

And again:

Now, what shall a poor unlearned Christian do, if that he hath nothing to rest his poor soul on? the Originals he understands not; if he did, the first copies are not to be had; and he cannot tell whether the Hebrew and Greek copies by the right Hebrew, or the right Greek, or that which is said to be the meaning of the Hebrew, or Greek, but as men tell us who are not Prophets, and may mistake. Besides, the Transcribers were men, and might err; These considerations may let in atheism like a flood; To help all this, we will deliver our mind in some propositions...

So I dare lay it on the same God, that he in his providence is so with the Church of the Gentiles, that they have and do preserve the Greek Text uncorrupt, and clear: As for some scapes by transcribers, that comes to no more, than to censure a book to be corrupt because of some scapes in the printing, and 'tis certain, that what mistake is in one print, is correct in another...

I have made a long and tedious discourse about the Originals and translations, because I find by myself, that things let fall in print by learned men and great reformers, as touching the Originals, that none can say this is the Hebrew, that is the Greek, but because linguists and learned men say so, and they may err; Nor that this is the English of the Hebrew, or of the Greek which we say is, but men subject to trip do so say, that the Originals transcribed into many copies might err, and mistake; and for the translations, that there be flaws in them too, since the transcribers, and translators were no prophets, but men, though not willing perhaps, yet subject to speak and write besides the matter; that translations are not the Word of God, nor our rule.

These and such things as these, I doubt not do stagger the thoughts of weak, and of strong Christians too, and drive many towards atheism. And now saith a sick soul 'What shall a poor feeble-hearted Christian do?'

My counsel is, that when he come to be certain without actual doubting by reasons, arguments, and consent of times, and of the Church, that our Bible is the word of God, that he would in all humility and sincerity apply himself to read it, to hear it read, to hear it preached; and he may promise to himself that by the use of the word the Spirit of God will infuse and inspire divine and 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 whatever is the instrument to convert the soul, must needs be the pure word of God.

Note how he can claim the purity of the Originals, without denying there are variants. And encourages faith in it being the pure Word of God, whether translated or with variants.

My article was not making a claim that the TR was viewed as settling all textual variant issues. My point is, the framers were confessing a text (that they believed they had) as represented in what we now call the Traditional Text (the TR merely being an edition of it).

What I am seeking to demonstrate is that Reformed Scholasticism did not hold to a doctrinal view of the text that is compatible with the assumptions behind reasoned eclecticism and that a Byzantine-Priority approach to textual criticism is in keeping with the concerns of the confessions.

Have I been misread or were you just adding to the discussion?

 

[Logan]

What I am seeking to demonstrate is that Reformed Scholasticism did not hold to a doctrinal view of the text that is compatible with the assumptions behind reasoned eclecticism and that a Byzantine-Priority approach to textual criticism is in keeping with the concerns of the confessions.

I agree with that summary.

Thanks for correcting me Chris, I think I'd made the same mistake before, since he's listed among the divines even though he didn't actually attend.

 

[MW]

I appreciate the work put into this. It is not easy to summarise the thinking process of an earlier age without unintentionally introducing later developments. There has been a clear attempt to distinguish what was done by the Protestant scholastics and what is envisaged as a specific approach needed today. As long as they are maintained as two different things it will be possible to test the claims of consistency made later in the article.

As to the question of consistency I cannot agree that Byzantine-priority follows through on the approach of the Protestant scholastics. First, because Byzantine priority, like Alexandrian priority, is essentially an evidential approach to the manuscripts and presupposes a specific theory of manuscript preservation. Secondly, these "priority" theories require the acceptance of a principle with which the Protestant scholastics did not work, namely, manuscript genealogy. As with the projected date of 1350 in an earlier thread, in 1647 or 1689 there was no attempt to formulate a theory of development; there was no quest for the historical text; there was only the Word to which they made their appeal.

 

[Logan]

Here are a couple who actually did attend the Westminster Assembly

And though there be errors of number, genealogies, etc., of writing in the Scripture, as written or printed, yet we hold Providence watcheth so over it, that in the body of articles of faith and necessary truths, we are certain, with the certainty of faith, it is that same very word of God, having the same special operations of enlightening the eyes, converting the soul, making wise the simple, as being lively, sharper than a two-edged sword, full of divinity of life, Majesty, power, simplicity, wisdom, certainty, etc., which the prophets of old, and the writings of the Evangelists, and Apostles had.

How shall we hold and keep fast the Letter of Scripture, when there are so many Greek Copies of the New Testament? and these diverse from one another?" "Yes, well: For though there are many received Copies of the New Testament; yet there is not material difference between them. The four Evangelists do vary in the Relation of the same thing; yet because there is no contradiction, or material variation, we do adhere to all of them and deny none. In the times of the Jews before Christ, they had but one original of the Old Testament; yet that hath several readings: there is a Marginal reading, and a Line reading, and they differ no less than eight hundred times the one from the other; yet the Jews did adhere to both and denied neither; Why? Because there was no material difference. And so now, though there be many Copies of the New Testament; yet seeing that there is no material difference between them, we may adhere to all: For whoever will understand the Scripture, must be sure to keep and hold fast the Letter, not denying it.

the Original texts are not corrupted either by Jews, Christians, or others, that they are of supreme authority in all matters, and the rule to try all translations by, That the copies we now have are the true transcripts of the first autographa written by the sacred pen-men, that the special providence of God hath watched over these books, to preserve them pure and uncorrupt against all attempts of sectaries, heretics, and others, and will still preserve them to the end of the world, for the end for which they were first written, that the errors or mistakes which may befall by negligence or inadvertency of transcribers or printers, are in matters of no concernment (from whence various readings have risen), and may by collation of other copies and other means there mentioned, be rectified and amended...

I do not only say, that all saving fundamental truth is contained in the Original copies, but that all revealed truth is still remaining entire; or that if any error or mistake have crept in, it is in matters of no concernment, so that not only no matter of faith, but no considerable point of historical truth, prophecies, or other things, is thereby prejudiced, and that there are means left for rectifying any such mistakes where they are discovered...

To make one copy a standard for all others, in which no mistake in the least can be found, he cannot, no copy can plead this privilege since the first autographa were in being.

 

[Robert Truelove]

Here are a couple who actually did attend the Westminster Assembly

And though there be errors of number, genealogies, etc., of writing in the Scripture, as written or printed, yet we hold Providence watcheth so over it, that in the body of articles of faith and necessary truths, we are certain, with the certainty of faith, it is that same very word of God, having the same special operations of enlightening the eyes, converting the soul, making wise the simple, as being lively, sharper than a two-edged sword, full of divinity of life, Majesty, power, simplicity, wisdom, certainty, etc., which the prophets of old, and the writings of the Evangelists, and Apostles had.

How shall we hold and keep fast the Letter of Scripture, when there are so many Greek Copies of the New Testament? and these diverse from one another?" "Yes, well: For though there are many received Copies of the New Testament; yet there is not material difference between them. The four Evangelists do vary in the Relation of the same thing; yet because there is no contradiction, or material variation, we do adhere to all of them and deny none. In the times of the Jews before Christ, they had but one original of the Old Testament; yet that hath several readings: there is a Marginal reading, and a Line reading, and they differ no less than eight hundred times the one from the other; yet the Jews did adhere to both and denied neither; Why? Because there was no material difference. And so now, though there be many Copies of the New Testament; yet seeing that there is no material difference between them, we may adhere to all: For whoever will understand the Scripture, must be sure to keep and hold fast the Letter, not denying it.

the Original texts are not corrupted either by Jews, Christians, or others, that they are of supreme authority in all matters, and the rule to try all translations by, That the copies we now have are the true transcripts of the first autographa written by the sacred pen-men, that the special providence of God hath watched over these books, to preserve them pure and uncorrupt against all attempts of sectaries, heretics, and others, and will still preserve them to the end of the world, for the end for which they were first written, that the errors or mistakes which may befall by negligence or inadvertency of transcribers or printers, are in matters of no concernment (from whence various readings have risen), and may by collation of other copies and other means there mentioned, be rectified and amended...

I do not only say, that all saving fundamental truth is contained in the Original copies, but that all revealed truth is still remaining entire; or that if any error or mistake have crept in, it is in matters of no concernment, so that not only no matter of faith, but no considerable point of historical truth, prophecies, or other things, is thereby prejudiced, and that there are means left for rectifying any such mistakes where they are discovered...

To make one copy a standard for all others, in which no mistake in the least can be found, he cannot, no copy can plead this privilege since the first autographa were in being.

Good stuff there. Even Walton (whom Owen criticized for his publishing of variants) doesn't appear to have been of a persuasion that would have allowed him to reject the Pericpoe Adulterae and the last 12 verses of Mark.

 

[jandrusk]

Just wondering if you or someone else has documented a review of White's book, "The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations?".

 

[MW]

And so now, though there be many Copies of the New Testament; yet seeing that there is no material difference between them, we may adhere to all: For whoever will understand the Scripture, must be sure to keep and hold fast the Letter, not denying it.

We come across this quite regularly in Puritan writings. The MT or TR was expounded, and any divergence which can be accommodated by the analogy of faith was expounded also.

 

[JimmyH]

Moving along through history, Fenton John Anthony Hort, The Greek New Testament : Introduction 1886 ;

With regard to the great bulk of the words of the New Testament, as of most other ancient writings, there is no variation or other ground of doubt, and therefore no room for textual criticism ; and here therefore an editor is merely a transcriber. The same may be said with substantial truth respecting those various readings which have never been received, and in all probability never will be received, into any printed text. The proportion of words virtually accepted on all hands as raised above doubt is very great, not less, on a rough computation, than seven eighths of the whole. The remaining eighth therefore, formed in great part by changes of order and other comparative trivialities, constitutes the whole area of criticism.

If the principles followed in the present edition are sound, this area may be very greatly reduced. Recognising to the full the duty of abstinence from peremptory decision in cases where the evidence leaves the judgment in suspense between two or more readings, we find that, setting aside differences of orthography, the words in our opinion still subject to doubt only make up about one sixtieth of the whole New Testament In this second estimate the proportion of comparatively trivial variations is beyond measure larger than in the former; so that the amount of what can in any sense be called substantial variation is but a small fraction of the whole residuary variation, and can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text.

Since there is reason to suspect that an exaggerated impression prevails as to the extent of possible textual corruption in the New Testament, which might seem to be confirmed by language used here and there in the following pages, we desire to make it clearly understood beforehand how much of the New Testament stands in no need of a textual critic's labours.