Slightly Imperfect Bibles?

[Jeri Tanner]

Of course it wasn't. Was the AV recognized in the same way as the Nicene Creed? I feel the comparison of the AV committees to Nicaea is unhelpful.

I understand that, and not to say that the council called together to produce the AV is exactly analagous to Nicaea. But this council did produce the Bible that became the common Bible of the English-speaking church. It was the Bible of the men at Westminster and was accepted by them as such. Until such a church council convenes again, I believe we shouldn't alter its content.

 

[Taylor]

I understand that, and not to say that the council called together to produce the AV is exactly analagous to Nicaea. But this council did produce the Bible that became the common Bible of the English-speaking church. It was the Bible of the men at Westminster and was accepted by them as such. Until such a church council convenes again, I believe we shouldn't alter its content.

This is fair, although I think you’re confusing providence with the explicit decision of a church council. That the AV commission was a church council, I think, has yet to be proved. There is no church council of which I am aware that made a declaration regarding the AV. Westminster used the AV, sure, but that is hardly an official pronouncement. And what else would they have used?

 

[Eyedoc84]

You and I must be what Tim Keller once called the mushy middle.

I’m getting more of a mushy middle. My wife’s cooking is too good.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

This is fair, although I think you’re confusing providence with the explicit decision of a church council.

I see, yeah. I guess it's more the outcome of that translation, its acceptance by the men of Westminster and implicit approval of it by affirming that God has kept his word pure? (Not that I think the AV is a perfect translation.)

Westminster used the AV, sure, but that is hardly an official pronouncement. And what else would they have used?

They believed that parts of it were the word of God (using verses and passages as proof-texts) that are now said to be probably not really the word of God. I guess for me, all this hinges on what I said in my first comment: I can understand scholars in the church continuing to look at manuscripts, and even forming opinions and having private debate as individuals. What doesn't seem good to me is the individualistic (or private) publishing of alternate versions of the Bible than what we received from the Reformation, which leave out portions of Scripture from that Bible, casting doubt not only on those passages but potentially many more. And it's a church unity issue.

I was in part informed and persuaded on the theological and churchly aspects of this by MW here on the board. I do appreciate all sides of the issue when they express things carefully and theologically (as I am very poor at doing! And sumpremely unqualified. So hushing up now.)

 

[Taylor]

I was in part informed and persuaded on the theological and churchly aspects of this by MW here on the board.

I can say the same for @Jerusalem Blade on my part, as well as @Logan and @greenbaggins. I am thankful for the brethren here.

(Also, there is certainly no need for you to "hush up." I respect you very much, sister, and I highly value our conversation. Iron sharpens iron, and I for one am certainly being sharpened.)

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I think it's a great thing that we can talk about this most crucially important aspect of our faith – the reliability of the word of God, our Bible – in the irenic and scholarly manner we are here. It being so important to each of us who live by this word, it at times devolves into unproductive contention, which then causes us to violate the command to abide in peace and love as Christ's family.

I can see brothers of mine – I think of Lane, and Logan, among others – who use their intelligence and studies to minimize the differences between our respective camps by means of really sharp syntheses of what "providential preservation" might entail apart from the more rigid – or should I say stricter – stand taken by the TR/AV folks (of which I am one). I think such syntheses commendable in that they do hold at bay the snarling dogs who seek to ravage and destroy our Bibles, or at least our faith in them, by positing legitimate defenses of the Bible.

But among ourselves it is different; some of us are content with said syntheses; others, while respecting these, want a more precise and minute view of our LORD's preservation of His word. We find warrant for this desire in His own desire that we are "precise and minute" in our fidelity to it, as He said through Jeremiah,

"Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD's house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD's house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word" (Jer 26:2).​

He spoke to this issue by Isaiah also in his prophesying,

"As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever" (Isa 59:21).​

There are many others I could marshal to support this point, but these suffice to warrant the idea – it might even be called a doctrine – of providential preservation in the minutiae. Not "in the main" – as a golden needle in a haystack – that our expertise may perhaps discover, and failing that, merely affirming that the golden needle is for certainty in there somewhere, and that satisfies our intellects and affirmations that His promises are true.

Some of us, however, say it is not enough. Our Saviour said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matt 4:4), and Peter said, "his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness" (2 Pet 1:3), one of the precious promises he mentions in the next verse.

I do take the sayings of the Spirit of God at His word. And this causes me to look around the landscape of Scripture and its transmission up through the ages, to discern where these promises of providential preservation might have been fulfilled – in the minutiae. In manifest, tangible form, which in these later centuries would be in printed editions, in book form.

I won't go into the standard defense of the TR and the use of the Reformation, of Erasmus and his editions of the NT being the basis of the editions of Beza, Stephanus, the Elzevirs, the AV translators and all that, which I've done many times and most of you are probably familiar with that anyway. There is no other viable contender for preservation in the minutiae; the exemplar of the texts who aspire to that position – Vaticanus, and its cousin, Sinaiticus – are so riddled with errors and problems that it's not even in the running (despite its being the Champion of the day).

I may get some pushback on that, but that's the case.

Speaking of Erasmus, and Vaticanus – which I told Logan I'd get back to him on – I really appreciate the detailed investigations you undertake , and have been undertaking these years we've been discussing these things. You've taught me I need to go to the sources as best I can and not rely on mere assertions!

I'll continue to investigate that area, but this I'll say (I'm trying to get scholarly papers that have combed through the Latin writings and letters – pertaining to Erasmus and Bombasius / Bombace, but I don't have access yet); it appears that Erasmus actually stayed with Bombace when he visited Rome, but the author of the paper I'm seeking (no TR fan!) says there is no mention of Bombace taking Erasmus to the Vatican Library he was prefect over, so we cannot assume he did.

Which is kind of odd – two men, both fervent and diligent NT scholars – not delving into the house of books they both were enamored of (and B was trying to convince E of the superiority of the Vatican text). But okay, it is an argument from silence. Still, it grates against common sense.

It remains, Erasmus did have a lot of information re Vaticanus, which, along with the Vulgate of Jerome, presented a different kind of text than the Greek minuscules – the great preponderance of which were Byzantine – and it was this latter strain of manuscripts, the Byz, that were reflected in Erasmus's editions, and which were the grist for the mills of Stephanus, Beza etc. Erasmus chose the Byz mss and not the Vatican's, as he thought the Greek reflected the original NT text.

We – the school I am of – say, this was God's providential care in bringing together the true readings of the NT vorlage (the original autographs) to His people in the Reformation, and through the missionary labors following that into all the world. The AV and the Geneva represent God fulfilling His promises to keep His word intact, the underlying Hebrew and Greek of the original languages translated into many tongues for many people.

There has always been hostility to bringing God's word to the nations – an authoritative, intact word. The papacy was one of the great enemies of the Protestant missionary endeavor, and what they called the Reformation's "paper Pope" – which they also hated. They upheld their "sacred tradition" instead, loath to give up their hold on the people.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

however, the original reading remains secure and unchanging. It is there.

It is where? My comment was a little 'tongue in cheek' but it illustrates the problem that we cannot lay our hands on a pure text, hence the textual disagreement.

I still like my Deut 29:29 thesis

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I have to make a minor correction in my post #66. Erasmus didn't live with Bombasius, prefect of the Vatican Library, when E visited Rome, but he lived with him earlier in the city of Bologna, Italy – in the house of Aldus the printer – along with a number of other young scholars. That's where they became close friends. It was later B sent E info on the contents of Codex B. (I just looked through Roland Bainton's, Erasmus and Christendom.)

 

[hLuke]

A general comment. There are languages around the world needing a translation, and with tens or hundreds of millions of people yearning for bibles in their language, and in comparison the wealth of very fine and faithful English translations, I trust that we are grateful for the diligent labour of various English translation panels throughout history, and content with the produce of many bible translations with which God has graciously blessed us, seemingly more than we need.

 

[hLuke]

With that general comment said, I remain sensitive to the importance of textual criticism and my brothers and sisters' interest in holy manuscripts.

 

[gcdugas]

What do you folks think of bibles like the ESV that list manuscript variants and such in the margins?

Notes in the margin essentially say: "Hath God said?"

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Notes in the margin essentially say: "Hath God said?"

Sometimes "Hath God said?" is a good question to ask, because sometimes "God hath not said".

 

[Logan]

Notes in the margin essentially say: "Hath God said?"

Does that include the KJV which was originally published with 104 textual variants listed in the margins?

 

[TooManySystematics]

I remained unconvinced that the "Confessional Text" position in any way accurately reflects an early-modern approach to textual criticism. Various of their authors that I've read speak as though the early Reformed authors held this wonderfully high view of the apographic text (note: note autographic), which continued until B.B. Warfield, who introduced doubt as to the apograph's reflection of the autographs. Since then it's been all downhill with Reformed people, generally, uncritically accepting liberal approaches to Scripture mediated to us by B. B. Warfield.

That simply isn't the case. Note Beza, who himself went against all Greek manuscript evidence in Luke 2:22 and Revelation 16:5 and made conjectural emendations there, emendations which are completely indefensible from all perspectives and positions. Note Calvin who went even farther than Beza in many other texts (see https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2021/08/calvins-conjectures.html?m=1 for examples). My personal thoughts are that there is absolutely no need for conjectural emendations, that any attempt to make one would be to, in a way, reject the preservation of Scripture. This sentiment is shared by many conservative textual critics. Does that mean that we who may hold to the Critical Text or the Majority Text have a higher view of the preservation of Scripture than Calvin or Beza?

However, if the actions of 16-17th century divines aren't enough, what about what they actually said? James Ussher, Anglican prelate of Ireland said that in most cases we can determine the original reading, though sometimes we cannot, but that in no way attacks the substance of the faith (http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2018/12/james-ussher-why-unsolved-variants-dont.html). Richard Baxter goes further, says that "many little words are uncertain", and the reason is that "God promised not infallibility to every scribe or printer" (http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2019/02/richard-baxter-on-autographs-and.html). He boldly states: "Many hundred texts are uncertain, through various readings in several copies of the original." This does not sound at all like the "Confessional Text" position.

The same year that Westcott and Hort finished their Greek New Testament, R. L. Dabney and man who even wrote in defence of 1 John 5:7, said this:
"No one claims for the Textus Receptus, or common Greek text of the New Testament, any sacred right, as though it represented the ipsissima verba, written by the inspired men in every case... It is therefore not asserted to be above emendation." (Works, vol. I, p. 398). Dabney said that "nobody" held that the Textus Receptus was identical to the autographic text in his day. In other words, nobody held to the same conclusion that the Confessional Text puts forward. This should be borne in mind. The "Confessional Text" position does not appear to match the historic perspective at all.

 

[Deleted member 11889]

On the topic of "kept pure in all ages":

Before I come to the consideration of these words, a doubt must be resolved. For some men may say that this is epistle is corrupted because these words are wanting in sundry translations and editions of the Bible. And Jerome says that they were not found in the copies of the Bible in his days. Answer. In the editions and translations of the Bible, there are sundry differences and diversities of readings. And these differences are not the fault of the Scripture, but of the men which used to write out the Bible. For the Bible heretofore was spread abroad, not by printing, but by writing. Again, though in the books of the Bible there be sundry varieties of reading, yet the providence of God has so watched over the Bible that the sense thereof remains entire, sound, and incorrupt, specially in the grounds of religion. And not the words principally, but the sense is the Scripture. For whether these words be left in, or put out, the sense of the verse is one and the same.

(William Perkins, Commentary on Galatians, quoted at https://heidelblog.net/2021/11/did-providence-stop-working-after-1633/)

 

[greenbaggins]

You know, it occurred to me fairly recently that a fair argument can be mounted apologetically against Islam in relation to the manuscripts found within the last two hundred years. Muslims claim that our NT is distorted, and yet the Koran quotes the NT as if people should go there to read what it says. One could argue that the great 4th and 5th century manuscripts were hidden so that Muslims would not destroy them, and so that we could prove that the text had not been distorted in the copies, but that the Bible we have now is substantially the same as what the early church had.

 

[Charles Johnson]

I understand that, and not to say that the council called together to produce the AV is exactly analagous to Nicaea. But this council did produce the Bible that became the common Bible of the English-speaking church. It was the Bible of the men at Westminster and was accepted by them as such. Until such a church council convenes again, I believe we shouldn't alter its content.

Didn't the Geneva Bible continue to be printed for many years after 1611?

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

What doesn't seem good to me is the individualistic (or private) publishing of alternate versions of the Bible than what we received from the Reformation, which leave out portions of Scripture from that Bible, casting doubt not only on those passages but potentially many more. And it's a church unity issue.

So we should only use the KJV and its predecessors? It’s that what you’re saying? Or we should only use translations done from manuscript traditions used by the Reformation? Help me understand.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Didn't the Geneva Bible continue to be printed for many years after 1611?

There was an edition of 1640 but the Westminster assembly itself only oversaw editions of the AV. I do not know if that was by design or if there simply were no printing firms willing to do another edition after 1640. *Edit. Also a 1644; both these were Amsterdam. But by the time of Westminster the AV was viewed as the English edition and you don't see any discussion of doing any actual English printings of the Geneva in the assembly.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

So we should only use the KJV and its predecessors? It’s that what you’re saying? Or we should only use translations done from manuscript traditions used by the Reformation? Help me understand.

Maybe reading back on my comments and interaction with @Taylor can help clarify- otherwise, I’ve bowed out of the conversation.

 

[gcdugas]

On the topic of "kept pure in all ages":

Before I come to the consideration of these words, a doubt must be resolved. For some men may say that this is epistle is corrupted because these words are wanting in sundry translations and editions of the Bible. And Jerome says that they were not found in the copies of the Bible in his days. Answer. In the editions and translations of the Bible, there are sundry differences and diversities of readings. And these differences are not the fault of the Scripture, but of the men which used to write out the Bible. For the Bible heretofore was spread abroad, not by printing, but by writing. Again, though in the books of the Bible there be sundry varieties of reading, yet the providence of God has so watched over the Bible that the sense thereof remains entire, sound, and incorrupt, specially in the grounds of religion. And not the words principally, but the sense is the Scripture. For whether these words be left in, or put out, the sense of the verse is one and the same.

(William Perkins, Commentary on Galatians, quoted at https://heidelblog.net/2021/11/did-providence-stop-working-after-1633/)

It appears Perkins was the first advocate of "dynamic equivalence".

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

On the topic of "kept pure in all ages":

Before I come to the consideration of these words, a doubt must be resolved. For some men may say that this is epistle is corrupted because these words are wanting in sundry translations and editions of the Bible. And Jerome says that they were not found in the copies of the Bible in his days. Answer. In the editions and translations of the Bible, there are sundry differences and diversities of readings. And these differences are not the fault of the Scripture, but of the men which used to write out the Bible. For the Bible heretofore was spread abroad, not by printing, but by writing. Again, though in the books of the Bible there be sundry varieties of reading, yet the providence of God has so watched over the Bible that the sense thereof remains entire, sound, and incorrupt, specially in the grounds of religion. And not the words principally, but the sense is the Scripture. For whether these words be left in, or put out, the sense of the verse is one and the same.

(William Perkins, Commentary on Galatians, quoted at https://heidelblog.net/2021/11/did-providence-stop-working-after-1633/)

In fairness, there is quite a difference between this position, that providential preservation pertains to the sense of scripture and not individual words, and the position the OP is arguing against. The OP is pointing out the deficiency of a text missing 854 words, including two blocks of 12 verses each, and 16 other individual verses, plus differences in other verses which affect the sense of the verse or passage. You cannot argue from the section of Perkins you quoted that the sense of a bible missing Mark 16:9-20 is "entire, sound and incorrupt" - that's not what he is saying. Of course same goes for John 7:53 - 8:11, Acts 8:37, etc.

 

[Deleted member 11889]

In fairness, there is quite a difference between this position, that providential preservation pertains to the sense of scripture and not individual words, and the position the OP is arguing against. The OP is pointing out the deficiency of a text missing 854 words, including two blocks of 12 verses each, and 16 other individual verses, plus differences in other verses which affect the sense of the verse or passage. You cannot argue from the section of Perkins you quoted that the sense of a bible missing Mark 16:9-20 is "entire, sound and incorrupt" - that's not what he is saying. Of course same goes for John 7:53 - 8:11, Acts 8:37, etc.

I disagree. These variances are not the result of a Marcionite purge of Scripture but rather the result of divergence in evaluation of textual evidence. Plenty of absurd suggestions have been made about which parts of Scripture are authentic or not, like the arguments about Pauline authorship of the Pastorals or Ephesians which never cease to amaze me as shining examples of erudite stupidity. The idea that those passages of Mark or John are questionable is founded on their absence from some manuscripts.

Your answer presumes a certain starting point to be correct by default, and other posts in this thread, written from the same starting point, are indeed arguing that the sense of Scripture is contained in the minutiae. It's an argument with some merit. But the shortcomings in the use and application of this line of reasoning are evident as well, and have been addressed better by others in this thread. I think the Perkins quote is completely relevant, as does R. Scott Clark who brings it up in a blog post on this very topic. I can't even claim originality for the suggestion!

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

I disagree. These variances are not the result of a Marcionite purge of Scripture but rather the result of divergence in evaluation of textual evidence. Plenty of absurd suggestions have been made about which parts of Scripture are authentic or not, like the arguments about Pauline authorship of the Pastorals or Ephesians which never cease to amaze me as shining examples of erudite stupidity. The idea that those passages of Mark or John are questionable is founded on their absence from some manuscripts.

Your answer presumes a certain starting point to be correct by default, and other posts in this thread, written from the same starting point, are indeed arguing that the sense of Scripture is contained in the minutiae. It's an argument with some merit. But the shortcomings in the use and application of this line of reasoning are evident as well, and have been addressed better by others in this thread. I think the Perkins quote is completely relevant, as does R. Scott Clark who brings it up in a blog post on this very topic. I can't even claim originality for the suggestion!

Perkins' point is that arguing over a missing word doesn't change the sense of the passage. RSC, (and you, if I understand you correctly), is using that to supoort a thesis that missing passages don't alter the overall doctrine taught in scripture as a whole. I'm not commenting on the merits of the Perkins quote, just pointing out that it doesn't support that thesis - it's not relevant to it at all.

 

[Deleted member 11889]

Perkins' point is that arguing over a missing word doesn't change the sense of the passage. RSC, (and you, if I understand you correctly), is using that to supoort a thesis that missing passages don't alter the overall doctrine taught in scripture as a whole. I'm not commenting on the merits of the Perkins quote, just pointing out that it doesn't support that thesis - it's not relevant to it at all.

I can't speak for RSC, but that's not my point and I didn't read that to be RSC's point.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

I can't speak for RSC, but that's not my point and I didn't read that to be RSC's point.

OK. In the article you linked to he specifically cited the two longer passages, (and the Johannine Comma, though he cites the wrong verse), and suggests these are passages that are questionable as to whether they are actually scripture. He then a bit later cites Perkins in support. Perkins is talking about a completely different issue though, and in a different category - he's talking about a missing word in a passage, which doesn't change the meaning of the passage. So the Perkins quote does not support the argument RSC is making.

Apologies if I misunderstood your point, I had assumed you were standing on the same ground as the article you linked to.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

This discussion sort of proves my point: what is called here "textual criticism" – the endless wrangling over the true-to-the-autograph status of the apographs – and the current widespread denial they are true, reflects a view that was not held by the Westminster Assembly, nor by the Three Forms of Unity, nor by the 1689 Confession, and which is the fruit of – initially, at any rate – Rome's assault on the Reformation text.

We, the Protestant, and more particularly the Reformed, are in disarray as to a consensus we have a sure, true, and reliable Bible given us by our God. If significant portions of it are fervently argued against among us, this but confirms my statement.

I wrote about this in 2009 here at PB, in the thread, "Skepticism and doubt toward the Bible", and things have only gotten worse, many having lost faith that our LORD provided us an intact, sure-in-all-its-parts, edition of His word, despite His promises. It is a bane upon our house loosed from an enemy's armory, and many have not the heart or mind to resist it.

Oh well, that's warfare.

 

[pgwolv]

not to mention the scandalous history of the exemplar critical text of 1881

Hi Steve, will you please point me to information on this, as I am not familiar with the scandal. God bless

 

[Logan]

Didn't the Geneva Bible continue to be printed for many years after 1611?

No, I mentioned this earlier in the thread. The idea behind the "Authorized" version was that it was to be the only Bible authorized to be read in churches and printed. King James did not like the Geneva Bible and actually banned its printing, but some printers continued to print it with the date "1599" on it to make it look like they weren't breaking the law. I believe it was continued to be printed in some other countries. I don't know if the ban extended to importing Bibles or not but obviously that would be far more expensive.

Thus, when Westminster came together, for better or worse, it truly was the state's official Bible and for practical purposes, the only Bible. I remember reading that many of the commissioners preferred Geneva but it was kind of a moot point at that stage.

So there was something of a forced uniformity behind the KJV. Not that I think it was a bad Bible at all, but it definitely wasn't pure free market that led to its rise.

Interestingly, there was a group of Scottish commissioners in the 1650s or so that attempted to petition for an update to the KJV, particularly to change some of the vernacular that was unfamiliar to their congregants.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

No, I mentioned this earlier in the thread. The idea behind the "Authorized" version was that it was to be the only Bible authorized to be read in churches and printed. King James did not like the Geneva Bible and actually banned its printing, but some printers continued to print it with the date "1599" on it to make it look like they weren't breaking the law. I believe it was continued to be printed in some other countries. I don't know if the ban extended to importing Bibles or not but obviously that would be far more expensive.

Thus, when Westminster came together, for better or worse, it truly was the state's official Bible and for practical purposes, the only Bible. I remember reading that many of the commissioners preferred Geneva but it was kind of a moot point at that stage.

So there was something of a forced uniformity behind the KJV. Not that I think it was a bad Bible at all, but it definitely wasn't pure free market that led to its rise.

Interestingly, there was a group of Scottish commissioners in the 1650s or so that attempted to petition for an update to the KJV, particularly to change some of the vernacular that was unfamiliar to their congregants.

Gillespie refers to the AV as our English translators and our English translation in his EPC (1637). In his 1641 Assertion of the Government he refers to it as the new English translation. Corrections were already being made before 1641, notably 1 Cor. 12:28 which figures in the case for ruling elders. That this was corrected to the Greek despite the heavy hand of the Stuart bishops is interesting.
“It would take a goodly volume to contain the misprints of the various editions {of the Authorized Version}. There are also many variations from the issues of 1611. Rom. 12:2 'What is that good, that acceptable, and perfect will of God,' passed into the present more literal reading in 1629. In the same way 'helps in governments,' 1 Cor. 12:28, became in the same year, more correctly, 'helps, governments'… .” John Eadie, The English Bible: An External and Critical History of the Various Translations of Scripture… (London: Macmillan and Co., 1876), vol. 2, p. 194.