Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
I would like to devote this post to part of an essay by Dr. Theodore P. Letis, in the book he edited and contributed to, The Majority Text: Essays And Reviews In The Continuing Debate. This is from the essay, “In Reply to D.A. Carson’s ‘The King James Version Debate’”. It is to be lamented that this book of timely (even now, though it was published in 1987) essays and reviews is out of print and unavailable to buy—though I daresay one could get a copy through your library’s inter-library loan system and photocopy it for your personal use. It is a very important collection. I will be reviewing it later on this thread.
I interrupt my review of Dr. Wallace’s essay because the following material will give such an overview of the two positions—CT vs. MT/TR—so as to make understanding the issues quite easy to grasp.
As Letis begins his interaction with Carson, he proceeds thus:
The rest of the essay is as outstanding in its discernment as the above, particularly Letis’ response to Carson’s “Thesis 9,” which states “The charge that the non-Byzantine text-types are theologically aberrant is fallacious.” (p. 62) (This is the only one of Carson’s theses he responds to, as he has a purpose to achieve with it.) And then he picks the one verse which Carson does not use (in his chart by Victor Perry (p. 64)): 1 Timothy 3:16. Letis comments:
After showing how almost all the modern versions chose the significant variant that replaces “God” with “He” or “He who” (contrary also to proper Greek grammar), aligned with the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation (seeing as the JWs use the actual Westcott-Hort Greek text), Letis remarks:
---------
This ends my quoting from Letis’ book. Below you will find the footnotes, which in themselves are often illuminating and profound.
It is too bad that I cannot convey to the reader the cumulative effect of Letis’ (and others) essays in this book, which gives enhanced force to what I have quoted above. In Letis’ essay, “Theodore Beza as Text Critic,” he give a sense of the discernment, not only of Beza, but Erasmus before him, Calvin, and other of his peers, as regards the variants and other textual issues they were conversant in. These men were not careless, nor did they have poor access to representative texts of varying text-types, very close to what we have today, although less in number. In the next essay, “John Owen Versus Brian Walton,” we are taken into the worlds of the 16th and then the 17th century Reformers and their descendants, and how they viewed and dealt with the Biblical texts, especially vis-à-vis Rome, and its tremendous assaults on the Reformation foundation stone of Sola Scriptura, which it effected mainly through the ruse of presenting significant variants to the Reformation texts, the standard of which was the Textus Receptus, along with the editions of Erasmus, Stephens, Beza, and Elzevir. It was in the 17th century that the doctrine of providential preservation of God’s infallible Scripture was developed, and that primarily against the attempts of Rome to subvert the Reformation. Letis faults John Owen (minimally) regarding his view of the Hebrew vowel points being part of the inspired and preserved OT Masoretic text (the issue not settled to my mind), and yet deeply appreciates his stand on the preservation of the Bible the Reformers received. It is reflective of the Reformers attitude—and stance toward Rome—that the Helvetica Consensus Formula and the Westminster Confession state as they do regarding the Scriptures. In this fascinating historical-theological-textual survey of these two centuries we actually can enter into the Zeitgeist of those times. It puts in perspective the struggle we are having yet today regarding the texts, and how Rome, along with post-Enlightenment thought, has captured the Evangelical mind, at least concerning the Greek NT texts.
Combined with the essays on the Majority Text, particularly vis-à-vis the Critical Text, this book is a tour de force in the discipline, sure to support the views of those disposed to hold to the Traditional Text, against fierce opposition at the present time (I keep in mind that you most likely have read the above concerning presuppositions and dogmas). It will give us withal to stand intelligently against our opponents.
I have begun to read Letis’ other book, The Ecclesiastical Text. I already notice a shift in his voice, or perhaps I should say tone. It is slightly sharper. I am not sure what to make of it yet. Stay tuned.
-----------------------
Footnotes
(1) Arthur F. Holmes, All Truth is God’s Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), p. 104.
(2) Ibid., pp.104-05. Gerhard Maier forcefully acknowledges this in his monograph, The End of the Historical-Critical Method, transl. Edwin W. Leverenz and Rudolph F. Norden (St. Louis: Concordia, 1977), p. 11: “the selection of a method of study can predetermine and prefigure the scope, extent, and type of results. Accordingly, a critical method of Bible interpretation can produce only Bible critical propositions.”
(3) Zane C. Hodges, A Defense of the Majority Text (unpublished paper: Dallas Theological Seminary, n.d.), p. 18. Hodges’ conviction has become a less conscious part of his method, as the more neutral concept of statistical probability takes its place. It is still, however, the “hidden agenda” that causes him to resort to statistical probability as an argument.
(4) Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, 4th ed. (Des Moines: The Christian Research Press, 1984), p. 2. [Available online: http://www.Jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdefen.htm]
(5) Wilbur N. Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1977), p. 143. [http://www.revisedstandard.net/text/WNP/index.html]
(6) Jakob van Bruggen, The Ancient Text of the New Testament (Winnipeg: Premier, 1976), p. 40.
(7) John William Burgon, The Revision Revised (London: John Murray, 1883),. p.8)
(8) van Bruggen, The Ancient Text, p. 40. Maier states: “This task [text criticism] remains subject to general theological and methodological principles and is therefore clearly an aspect of theology,” End of the Historical-Critical Method, pp. 80-81.
(9) Gordon D. Fee, “The Text of the New Testament and Modern Translations,” Christianity Today (June 22, 1973), pp. 6-11)
(10) Hills, The King James, p. 2/
(11) See Frederick Nolan’s critique of Griesbach’s premises and methodology in his An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament, (London: F.C. and J. Rivington, 1815).
(12) See his critique of Westcott and Hort’s theory in F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th ed., 2 vols. Revised by Miller (London: George Bell and Sons, 1894), Vol. 2, pp. 285-301.
(13) See Burgon’s “Letter to the Right Rev. C.S. Ellicott, D.D., bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, in reply to his pamphlet in defense of the revisers, and their new Greek text of the New Testament,” as it appears in his Revision Revised, pp. 369-520.
(14) See Edward Miller’s The Oxford Debate on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament which is an edited version of the public debate held at New College on May 6, 1897, principally between Edward Miller the advocate of the traditional (majority) text, and William Sanday, the advocate for Westcott’s and Hort’s text. Interesting to note is the fact that many of the same arguments raised in this debate were being raised again in the JETS debate between Hodges and Fee, eighty-one years later.
(15) Notes Souter’s harsh comments in review of H. Hoskier’s Concerning the Genesis of the Versions of the New Testament, 2 vols. (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1910, 1911), as they appeared in the Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 13 (1912): “We cannot afford to do without his valuable cooperation in New Testament textual criticism, but would suggest that he confine his energies to the collection and accurate presentation of material, and leave theorizing to others, at least meantime” (p. 122). Hoskier’s response was the massive two-volume Codex B and Its Allies: A Study and an Indictment, 2 vols. (London: Bernard Quaritch, Ltd., 1914), wherein he replied directly to Souter: “I refuse to be bound by such advice” (p. i).
(16) See the debate between Hodges and Fee in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Vol. 21, Nos. 1 and 2 (March 1978, June 1978).
(17) Hills, The King James, pp. 62-114.
(18) Zane C. Hodges, “Rationalism and Contemporary New Testament Textual Criticism,” Bibliotheca Sacra 128 (January, 1971), 27-35. Hodges has, however, been similarly criticized for his rationalistic use of the argument of statistical probability.
(37) Burgon, The Revision Revised, pp. 424-501. Also, see Terence H. Brown’s God Was Manifest in the Flesh (London: The Trinitarian Bible Society, n.d.); Hill’s King James Version Defended, pp. 137-38; and Frederick H.A. Scrivener’s, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th ed., 2 vols. Revised by Miller (London: George Bell and Sons, 1894), Vol. 2, pp. 390-95, where he affirms, “I dare not pronounce qeovvV a corruption.”
(38) Burgon, The Revision Revised, pp. 105-06. The passage reads; “But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, the dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.”
(39) Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History (translated by Christian Frederick Cruse (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974), 5:28, pp. 213-16).
I interrupt my review of Dr. Wallace’s essay because the following material will give such an overview of the two positions—CT vs. MT/TR—so as to make understanding the issues quite easy to grasp.
As Letis begins his interaction with Carson, he proceeds thus:
If D.A. Carson’s book illustrates nothing else it shows there are two schools of thought. Both schools interpret the data of NT textual criticism and modern translations differently, and both groups fill in the gaps in the data with assumptions which favor their given position. I hope some are beginning to see that this is not an argument between scholarship (the established school represented by Carson) and non-scholarship (the challenging school which has traditionally been treated as non-scholarly and completely uncritical). To the contrary, the best representatives of both schools display genuine scholarship. Why is it, then, that these two schools co-exist on this all-important issue of the very wording of the NT text? And is this a recent or a long-standing debate? It is these questions that we hope to broach—and answer—in this essay.
In Arthur Holmes’ little work All Truth is God’s Truth he makes the following observation in the chapter, “On Justifying Our Beliefs”:
Certainly there is nothing profound about this insight but it nevertheless answers why the pro-Majority Text authors have not brought Carson around to their position and why Carson will not make so much as a dent in the position held by those who favor the Majority Text and, therefore, the KJV. In order to understand the clashing beliefs of these two groups, which in turn explains why certain information seems conclusive to one group and not to the other, we must examine the contextual values of each. After all, one’s “projects determine what knowledge he seeks and what degree of certainty is needed for belief and action.”(2)
When reviewing the defenses of the Majority Text, one dominating consideration emerges: a prior commitment to what the Bible has to say concerning itself with regard to inspiration and preservation. For the Majority Text apologists, this is an all-consuming consideration to which everything else must be subordinated. Their arguments, therefore, are not directed at some neutral bar of determination (as if such a thing existed) but are consciously directed to those who also have the same priority. As Zane C. Hodges says:
and Edward F. Hills:
or Wilbur Pickering:
or Jakob van Bruggen:
and finally John William Burgon:
Obviously, then, what the Bible says about itself concerning providential preservation, is the “project” that determines for these scholars what knowledge they seek and what degree of certainty they require for belief and action. As van Bruggen affirms, this method of textual criticism “directs her attention to defining a conviction and does not lose herself, like modern textual criticism, in a quest for the unknown.”(8) These scholars are looking for a continuously, providentially preserved text; and starting with Burgon’s reconstruction of the text-history, through the contemporary echoes of his initial research (i.e., Hills, Hodges, Pickering, van Bruggen, et al.) it has become clear as day, to men of such persuasion, that this text is found nearly always in the majority of the manuscripts. Just so there is no attempt to move away from this issue to an issue of apparent fact versus non-fact, it must be remembered that we do not possess the autographs: therefore, no one can prove anything conclusively with regard to which manuscripts are closest. The issue is reduced to two reconstructions of text transmission history, one based on the guiding principle of a “required” providentially preserved text and the other based on the conclusions of a discipline which claims theological neutrality at its base. This leads us to examine what the considerations are in Carson’s school that “determine what knowledge he seeks and what degree of certainty is needed for belief and action.”
That Carson’s school claims total theological neutrality with regard to the method of textual criticism applied, and the overall approach to the NT documents, is a quality that is boasted of by its proponents.
In Carson’s school of textual criticism those who do not necessarily hold to any view of inspiration and those who are supposed to hold to an evangelical view of inspiration, share agreement. This is conceded by Gordon D. Fee:
Here is where the plumb-line is drawn. Hills protests, saying,
What Hills offers is an unambiguous “confessional statement” that leads to a particular interpretation of New Testament textual criticism data. Such a confessional statement, the omission of which in one’s method of textual criticism will lead to a totally different interpretation of the same data, is precisely what Fee admits is conspicuously absent from the school represented by himself and Carson. Is it any wonder that the two schools do not see eye to eye? Is it not clear by now why Nolan never convinced Griesbach’s disciples (1815),(11) Scrivener never convinced Westcott and Hort who dominated over the revision committee for the Revised Version (1870-1881),(12) Burgon never convinced Bishop Ellicott (1883),(13) Miller never convinced Sanday (1897),(14) Hoskier never convinced Souter (1914),(15) Hodges never convinced Fee (1978), (16) and finally, why Hills, Pickering, and van Bruggen have not convinced Carson?
Hills himself a well-trained textual critic, who earned his doctorate in NT textual criticism from Harvard, has classed Carson’s school because of its omission of the before-mentioned “confessional statement,” the “naturalistic method”(17) of textual criticism; Hodges at one time similarly called it “rationalistic.”(18)
The mystery of the ages must be put forth in the question: At what point were confessing evangelicals persuaded to “compartmentalize” their beliefs concerning inspiration and preservation, in order to be allowed to play at textual criticism? (e.g., as Carson has mentioned: Warfield, Machen, Robertson, et al.). While agreeing that much unfair abuse has been heaped on Westcott and Hort in pro-TR literature, I am nevertheless compelled “by the facts of history” to acknowledge them carefully as the major force in producing this situation…(pages 191-196 of Letis’ Majority Text)
In Arthur Holmes’ little work All Truth is God’s Truth he makes the following observation in the chapter, “On Justifying Our Beliefs”:
As a rational being a man examines evidence and arguments and brings them to bear on what he values and on what is proposed to his belief and action. As a valuing being he is motivated not only by what he knows but also by what he loves….his values help to shape his beliefs.(1)
Certainly there is nothing profound about this insight but it nevertheless answers why the pro-Majority Text authors have not brought Carson around to their position and why Carson will not make so much as a dent in the position held by those who favor the Majority Text and, therefore, the KJV. In order to understand the clashing beliefs of these two groups, which in turn explains why certain information seems conclusive to one group and not to the other, we must examine the contextual values of each. After all, one’s “projects determine what knowledge he seeks and what degree of certainty is needed for belief and action.”(2)
When reviewing the defenses of the Majority Text, one dominating consideration emerges: a prior commitment to what the Bible has to say concerning itself with regard to inspiration and preservation. For the Majority Text apologists, this is an all-consuming consideration to which everything else must be subordinated. Their arguments, therefore, are not directed at some neutral bar of determination (as if such a thing existed) but are consciously directed to those who also have the same priority. As Zane C. Hodges says:
When the history of the New Testament text is interpreted in this way [the majority text closest to the autographs] the widespread uniformity of the manuscripts at once becomes a potent tribute to the providence of God in preserving His word. There is no other interpretation of textual history that can make this claim without serious reservations. For if the mass of witnesses is corrupt, 80% of the tradition is corrupt. And no one is quite sure how touse the remaining 20%!
True, This argument will no doubt only appeal to men of faith. but to what better kind of man could appeal be made?(3)
True, This argument will no doubt only appeal to men of faith. but to what better kind of man could appeal be made?(3)
and Edward F. Hills:
…If the doctrine of the Divine inspiration of the Old and New Testament scriptures is a true doctrine, the doctrine of the providential preservation of the scriptures must also be a true doctrine. It must be that down through the centuries God has exercised a special providential control over the copying of the scriptures and the preservation and use of the copies, so that trustworthy representatives of the original text have been available to God’s people in every age.(4)
or Wilbur Pickering:
I believe that God preserved the original wording of the text down to our day….my beliefs become presuppositions which I bring to my study of the evidence—any thoughtful person will realize that it is impossible to work without presuppositions…(5)
or Jakob van Bruggen:
We can only conclude with the absolute certainty, that the ancient text of God’s inspired word both now and in the future will remain an object of God’s special care. This certainty creates for us the obligation to treat the text that has been handed down to us with great care. This obligation lies in the confession of the Reformation (Westminster Confession, chapter 1, 8).(6)
and finally John William Burgon:
The provision, then, which the divine author of scripture is found to have made for the preservation, in its integrity, of His written word, is of a peculiarly varied and highly complex description. First—by causing that a vast multiplication of copies should be required all down the ages,—beginning at the earliest period, and continuing in an ever-increasing ratio until the actual invention of printing—He provided the most effectual security imaginable against fraud.(7)
Obviously, then, what the Bible says about itself concerning providential preservation, is the “project” that determines for these scholars what knowledge they seek and what degree of certainty they require for belief and action. As van Bruggen affirms, this method of textual criticism “directs her attention to defining a conviction and does not lose herself, like modern textual criticism, in a quest for the unknown.”(8) These scholars are looking for a continuously, providentially preserved text; and starting with Burgon’s reconstruction of the text-history, through the contemporary echoes of his initial research (i.e., Hills, Hodges, Pickering, van Bruggen, et al.) it has become clear as day, to men of such persuasion, that this text is found nearly always in the majority of the manuscripts. Just so there is no attempt to move away from this issue to an issue of apparent fact versus non-fact, it must be remembered that we do not possess the autographs: therefore, no one can prove anything conclusively with regard to which manuscripts are closest. The issue is reduced to two reconstructions of text transmission history, one based on the guiding principle of a “required” providentially preserved text and the other based on the conclusions of a discipline which claims theological neutrality at its base. This leads us to examine what the considerations are in Carson’s school that “determine what knowledge he seeks and what degree of certainty is needed for belief and action.”
That Carson’s school claims total theological neutrality with regard to the method of textual criticism applied, and the overall approach to the NT documents, is a quality that is boasted of by its proponents.
In Carson’s school of textual criticism those who do not necessarily hold to any view of inspiration and those who are supposed to hold to an evangelical view of inspiration, share agreement. This is conceded by Gordon D. Fee:
What is most probable in textual choices transcends confessional boundaries, hence, confessional evangelicals are generally at one with other scholars on the principles, if not on the actual choices, of textual criticism.(9)
Here is where the plumb-line is drawn. Hills protests, saying,
If, now, the Christian Church has been correct down through the ages in her fundamental attitude toward the Old and New Testaments, if the doctrines of the Divine inspiration and providential preservation of these Scriptures are true doctrines, then the textual criticism of the New Testament is different from that of the uninspired writings of antiquity. The textual criticism of any book must take into account the conditions under which the original manuscripts were written and also those under which the copies of these manuscripts were made and preserved. But if the doctrines of the divine inspiration and providential preservation of the Scriptures are true, then the original New Testament manuscripts were written under special conditions, under the inspiration of God, and the copies were made and preserved under special conditions, under the singular care and providence of God.
What Hills offers is an unambiguous “confessional statement” that leads to a particular interpretation of New Testament textual criticism data. Such a confessional statement, the omission of which in one’s method of textual criticism will lead to a totally different interpretation of the same data, is precisely what Fee admits is conspicuously absent from the school represented by himself and Carson. Is it any wonder that the two schools do not see eye to eye? Is it not clear by now why Nolan never convinced Griesbach’s disciples (1815),(11) Scrivener never convinced Westcott and Hort who dominated over the revision committee for the Revised Version (1870-1881),(12) Burgon never convinced Bishop Ellicott (1883),(13) Miller never convinced Sanday (1897),(14) Hoskier never convinced Souter (1914),(15) Hodges never convinced Fee (1978), (16) and finally, why Hills, Pickering, and van Bruggen have not convinced Carson?
Hills himself a well-trained textual critic, who earned his doctorate in NT textual criticism from Harvard, has classed Carson’s school because of its omission of the before-mentioned “confessional statement,” the “naturalistic method”(17) of textual criticism; Hodges at one time similarly called it “rationalistic.”(18)
The mystery of the ages must be put forth in the question: At what point were confessing evangelicals persuaded to “compartmentalize” their beliefs concerning inspiration and preservation, in order to be allowed to play at textual criticism? (e.g., as Carson has mentioned: Warfield, Machen, Robertson, et al.). While agreeing that much unfair abuse has been heaped on Westcott and Hort in pro-TR literature, I am nevertheless compelled “by the facts of history” to acknowledge them carefully as the major force in producing this situation…(pages 191-196 of Letis’ Majority Text)
The rest of the essay is as outstanding in its discernment as the above, particularly Letis’ response to Carson’s “Thesis 9,” which states “The charge that the non-Byzantine text-types are theologically aberrant is fallacious.” (p. 62) (This is the only one of Carson’s theses he responds to, as he has a purpose to achieve with it.) And then he picks the one verse which Carson does not use (in his chart by Victor Perry (p. 64)): 1 Timothy 3:16. Letis comments:
The one passage, however, which unambiguously states, in a dogmatic formula, that Jesus Christ was in every sense of the word deity (and is therefore, the pivotal passage of sufficient clarity, by which the other ambiguous passages must be understood and without which, we have at best, ambiguity concerning this doctrinal issue) was not treated by Carson, namely, 1 Timothy 3:16.
I will not attempt to defend the majority text reading as this has been done admirably by Burgon.(37) the traditional reading is as follows:
I will not attempt to defend the majority text reading as this has been done admirably by Burgon.(37) the traditional reading is as follows:
and without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh…
After showing how almost all the modern versions chose the significant variant that replaces “God” with “He” or “He who” (contrary also to proper Greek grammar), aligned with the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation (seeing as the JWs use the actual Westcott-Hort Greek text), Letis remarks:
By recognizing the manuscript tradition that altered this confession of the apostolic church, the modern translations have endorsed a form of Christianity that was considered by Nicean/Chalcedonian Tradition to be outside the pale of the catholic Faith. Burgon recognized the reading supporting Arianism was adopted by the revisers of 1881, and he likened the change to a strong characterization penned by the Apostle Peter:
Burgon had good reason to accuse the Church of England of taking up the ancient error of Arianism, unwittingly perhaps, because Eusebius gives clear testimony that is was heretics, subordinationists, who were altering the manuscripts in the pre-Nicean period to substantiate their position.(39)
So there is a clear line of demarcation, because of this passage alone, which puts the majority text/TR/KJV in the Nicean/Chalcedonian tradition whereas all modern translations from 1881 on, not founded on the majority text, are clearly aligned with the Arian reading. A telling demonstration of this is found in the fact that our modern-day Arians, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, in their Bible, guard their understanding of Christ’s “subordination” to the true God, at this passage; but queerly enough, all Bibles used by evangelicals, which are not the KJV, read like The New World Translation at this point. That the KJV offers the reading the Reformers recognized (and they did have the optional reading in Erasmus’ notes on this passage), as “received,” is clear from the following quotes from the historic editions of scripture used by Luther and the English, Protestant churches:
Luther’s (1552)…..Gott ist offenbaret im fleisch…
Tyndale’s (1525)…..God was shewed in the fleshe…
Coverdale’s (1535)…..God was shewed in the flesshe…
Matthew’s (1537)…..God was shewed in the flesshe…
The Great (1539)…..God was shewed in the flesshe…
Geneva (1560)…..God is manifested in the flesh…
Bishop’s (1568)…..God was shewed manifestly in the flesh…
Some will fault me for not answering every objection of Carson’s, but it was only our intention to raise the old issue of presuppositions and to underscore the fact that this debate is not one between experts with data and non-experts with dogma, but rather one between experts with the same data, but different dogma—the dogma of neutrality versus the dogma of providence…(pp. 201-204)
May we be permitted to say without offence that in our humble judgment, if the Church of England, at the revisers bidding, were to adopt this and thousands of other depravations of the sacred page—with which the church universal was once well acquainted, but which in her corporate character she has long since unconditionally condemned and abandoned—she would deserve to be pointed at with scorn by the rest of Christendom? Yes, and to have that openly said of her which S. Peter openly said of the false teachers of his day who fell back into the very errors which they had already abjured. The place will be found at II S. Peter ii:22.(38)
Burgon had good reason to accuse the Church of England of taking up the ancient error of Arianism, unwittingly perhaps, because Eusebius gives clear testimony that is was heretics, subordinationists, who were altering the manuscripts in the pre-Nicean period to substantiate their position.(39)
So there is a clear line of demarcation, because of this passage alone, which puts the majority text/TR/KJV in the Nicean/Chalcedonian tradition whereas all modern translations from 1881 on, not founded on the majority text, are clearly aligned with the Arian reading. A telling demonstration of this is found in the fact that our modern-day Arians, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, in their Bible, guard their understanding of Christ’s “subordination” to the true God, at this passage; but queerly enough, all Bibles used by evangelicals, which are not the KJV, read like The New World Translation at this point. That the KJV offers the reading the Reformers recognized (and they did have the optional reading in Erasmus’ notes on this passage), as “received,” is clear from the following quotes from the historic editions of scripture used by Luther and the English, Protestant churches:
Luther’s (1552)…..Gott ist offenbaret im fleisch…
Tyndale’s (1525)…..God was shewed in the fleshe…
Coverdale’s (1535)…..God was shewed in the flesshe…
Matthew’s (1537)…..God was shewed in the flesshe…
The Great (1539)…..God was shewed in the flesshe…
Geneva (1560)…..God is manifested in the flesh…
Bishop’s (1568)…..God was shewed manifestly in the flesh…
Some will fault me for not answering every objection of Carson’s, but it was only our intention to raise the old issue of presuppositions and to underscore the fact that this debate is not one between experts with data and non-experts with dogma, but rather one between experts with the same data, but different dogma—the dogma of neutrality versus the dogma of providence…(pp. 201-204)
---------
This ends my quoting from Letis’ book. Below you will find the footnotes, which in themselves are often illuminating and profound.
It is too bad that I cannot convey to the reader the cumulative effect of Letis’ (and others) essays in this book, which gives enhanced force to what I have quoted above. In Letis’ essay, “Theodore Beza as Text Critic,” he give a sense of the discernment, not only of Beza, but Erasmus before him, Calvin, and other of his peers, as regards the variants and other textual issues they were conversant in. These men were not careless, nor did they have poor access to representative texts of varying text-types, very close to what we have today, although less in number. In the next essay, “John Owen Versus Brian Walton,” we are taken into the worlds of the 16th and then the 17th century Reformers and their descendants, and how they viewed and dealt with the Biblical texts, especially vis-à-vis Rome, and its tremendous assaults on the Reformation foundation stone of Sola Scriptura, which it effected mainly through the ruse of presenting significant variants to the Reformation texts, the standard of which was the Textus Receptus, along with the editions of Erasmus, Stephens, Beza, and Elzevir. It was in the 17th century that the doctrine of providential preservation of God’s infallible Scripture was developed, and that primarily against the attempts of Rome to subvert the Reformation. Letis faults John Owen (minimally) regarding his view of the Hebrew vowel points being part of the inspired and preserved OT Masoretic text (the issue not settled to my mind), and yet deeply appreciates his stand on the preservation of the Bible the Reformers received. It is reflective of the Reformers attitude—and stance toward Rome—that the Helvetica Consensus Formula and the Westminster Confession state as they do regarding the Scriptures. In this fascinating historical-theological-textual survey of these two centuries we actually can enter into the Zeitgeist of those times. It puts in perspective the struggle we are having yet today regarding the texts, and how Rome, along with post-Enlightenment thought, has captured the Evangelical mind, at least concerning the Greek NT texts.
Combined with the essays on the Majority Text, particularly vis-à-vis the Critical Text, this book is a tour de force in the discipline, sure to support the views of those disposed to hold to the Traditional Text, against fierce opposition at the present time (I keep in mind that you most likely have read the above concerning presuppositions and dogmas). It will give us withal to stand intelligently against our opponents.
I have begun to read Letis’ other book, The Ecclesiastical Text. I already notice a shift in his voice, or perhaps I should say tone. It is slightly sharper. I am not sure what to make of it yet. Stay tuned.
-----------------------
Footnotes
(1) Arthur F. Holmes, All Truth is God’s Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), p. 104.
(2) Ibid., pp.104-05. Gerhard Maier forcefully acknowledges this in his monograph, The End of the Historical-Critical Method, transl. Edwin W. Leverenz and Rudolph F. Norden (St. Louis: Concordia, 1977), p. 11: “the selection of a method of study can predetermine and prefigure the scope, extent, and type of results. Accordingly, a critical method of Bible interpretation can produce only Bible critical propositions.”
(3) Zane C. Hodges, A Defense of the Majority Text (unpublished paper: Dallas Theological Seminary, n.d.), p. 18. Hodges’ conviction has become a less conscious part of his method, as the more neutral concept of statistical probability takes its place. It is still, however, the “hidden agenda” that causes him to resort to statistical probability as an argument.
(4) Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, 4th ed. (Des Moines: The Christian Research Press, 1984), p. 2. [Available online: http://www.Jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdefen.htm]
(5) Wilbur N. Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1977), p. 143. [http://www.revisedstandard.net/text/WNP/index.html]
(6) Jakob van Bruggen, The Ancient Text of the New Testament (Winnipeg: Premier, 1976), p. 40.
(7) John William Burgon, The Revision Revised (London: John Murray, 1883),. p.8)
(8) van Bruggen, The Ancient Text, p. 40. Maier states: “This task [text criticism] remains subject to general theological and methodological principles and is therefore clearly an aspect of theology,” End of the Historical-Critical Method, pp. 80-81.
(9) Gordon D. Fee, “The Text of the New Testament and Modern Translations,” Christianity Today (June 22, 1973), pp. 6-11)
(10) Hills, The King James, p. 2/
(11) See Frederick Nolan’s critique of Griesbach’s premises and methodology in his An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament, (London: F.C. and J. Rivington, 1815).
(12) See his critique of Westcott and Hort’s theory in F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th ed., 2 vols. Revised by Miller (London: George Bell and Sons, 1894), Vol. 2, pp. 285-301.
(13) See Burgon’s “Letter to the Right Rev. C.S. Ellicott, D.D., bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, in reply to his pamphlet in defense of the revisers, and their new Greek text of the New Testament,” as it appears in his Revision Revised, pp. 369-520.
(14) See Edward Miller’s The Oxford Debate on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament which is an edited version of the public debate held at New College on May 6, 1897, principally between Edward Miller the advocate of the traditional (majority) text, and William Sanday, the advocate for Westcott’s and Hort’s text. Interesting to note is the fact that many of the same arguments raised in this debate were being raised again in the JETS debate between Hodges and Fee, eighty-one years later.
(15) Notes Souter’s harsh comments in review of H. Hoskier’s Concerning the Genesis of the Versions of the New Testament, 2 vols. (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1910, 1911), as they appeared in the Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 13 (1912): “We cannot afford to do without his valuable cooperation in New Testament textual criticism, but would suggest that he confine his energies to the collection and accurate presentation of material, and leave theorizing to others, at least meantime” (p. 122). Hoskier’s response was the massive two-volume Codex B and Its Allies: A Study and an Indictment, 2 vols. (London: Bernard Quaritch, Ltd., 1914), wherein he replied directly to Souter: “I refuse to be bound by such advice” (p. i).
(16) See the debate between Hodges and Fee in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Vol. 21, Nos. 1 and 2 (March 1978, June 1978).
(17) Hills, The King James, pp. 62-114.
(18) Zane C. Hodges, “Rationalism and Contemporary New Testament Textual Criticism,” Bibliotheca Sacra 128 (January, 1971), 27-35. Hodges has, however, been similarly criticized for his rationalistic use of the argument of statistical probability.
(37) Burgon, The Revision Revised, pp. 424-501. Also, see Terence H. Brown’s God Was Manifest in the Flesh (London: The Trinitarian Bible Society, n.d.); Hill’s King James Version Defended, pp. 137-38; and Frederick H.A. Scrivener’s, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th ed., 2 vols. Revised by Miller (London: George Bell and Sons, 1894), Vol. 2, pp. 390-95, where he affirms, “I dare not pronounce qeovvV a corruption.”
(38) Burgon, The Revision Revised, pp. 105-06. The passage reads; “But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, the dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.”
(39) Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History (translated by Christian Frederick Cruse (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974), 5:28, pp. 213-16).
Last edited: