Tag: Theology

Testing the Textus Receptus: Luke 2:22

~ fundyreformed ~ 19 Comments

In Testing the Textus Receptus posts, I test the claims of Textus Receptus (TR) Onlyism. This is a moderate form of King James Onlyism focusing on the Greek (& Hebrew) basis for the King James Version.

As I mentioned earlier, Luke 2:22 is one of three passages that James White (author of The King James Only Controversy) recently asked TR Only proponents to “explain why [someone] should use the TR’s [reading]”.

To help explain the context, let me quote Luke 2:22 and 23 here.

And when the time came for their purification according to the Law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every male who first opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord” ) — Luke 2:22-23 (ESV)

Jesus is a baby, and Joseph and Mary in this passage are going to Jerusalem to perform all the sacrificial rituals the Law required. The textual variant here concerns “their”. The King James Version reads “her”.

The TR Only Claim

This textual difference is claimed as an error in the modern Critical Text. “Their purification” would either implicate Jesus as possibly requiring purification for sin, or it would disagree with the OT Law which required only a woman to go through ceremonial purification after a child birth, not the man (if Joseph is in view). Again, this reading, according to TR Onlyists, must be an error due to theological reasons. Since two possible options for interpreting the text are clearly errors, and since the KJV offers a different reading, the conclusion is reached that the modern text must have it wrong on this point.

This verse then becomes one of a number of texts claimed to be doctrinal errors in the modern critical text. If we accept the critical text, we are accepting this theological error. We should side, say they, with the Textus Receptus which has been given the approval of God’s people for hundreds of years. The churches received this text with the reading: “her purification”. Case dismissed.

But when we start to test this claim, and dig a little deeper into this textual decision, the picture gets blurry fast.

Testing that Claim: History of the TR

Which reading did the churches receive? Well, the Textus Receptus did not always contain this reading. Early Bible Versions before the KJV, such as William Tyndale’s New Testament (1525) and the Coverdale Bible (1535) read “their purification”. The churches accepted those Bibles, it would seem. Stephen’s (or Stephanus) 1550 text which was accepted in England as the preferred form of the Textus Receptus, also reads “their purification”. Beza’s text (the 1598 edition which was most preferred by the KJV) and the later Elzevir’s text of 1633 both have “her purification”.

So did the churches cry foul, and eventually influence the textual editors to change the reading to suit their tastes? Maybe. It’s also possible that Beza fixed what he thought was a defect in the text, to bring it more in line with the Latin Vulgate.

Before we move on, we should note that nothing in Scripture would make us think that only churches of one nationality and one language should make this grave a decision. When we look at other Reformation era Protestant Bibles, produced for other languages, we again find a split in opinion. The Italian Diodati (1603) supports the “their” reading, according to some textual critical notes I found online (at this site). Luther’s German Bible uses a pronoun that in German can be either “her” or “their” so it doesn’t help us. The Dutch Staten translation of 1637 uses “her”. The Portugues translation of 1681 (by Ferreira de Almeida) says just “days of purification”. We could go on in this search, but the prevailing theory would be all the Bibles produced by Christians before the 1800s should all read the same since they were received text Christians before the modern versions, right? It’d be interesting to see some more research done in this area, I am limited in what I can do here.

Testing that Claim: Manuscript Evidence

Looking more closely at the question, we come to manuscript evidence. Here we get an ever clearer picture of the situation. The Greek manuscripts overwhelmingly support “their”. There are a few manuscripts, such as an early Western manuscript (Codex D) along with a few other manuscripts which read “his”. But only 1 miniscule, a late text (number 076), contains “her”. Now, E.F. Hills, a TR Only advocate trained in text criticism, wrote that there may be a few other miniscules that have this reading. So the Greek evidence overwhelmingly supports the reading “their”. Keep in mind, this evidence comes from Ceasarean, Alexandrian and Byzantine type manuscripts. The Greek is clear, the reading is “their”.

With the Latin, the majority of the Vulgate readings have a pronoun which means either “his” or “her”. It is not a support for “their”, but not an unequivocal support of “her” either. Their are some Vulgate manuscripts that read “Mary”. We can add in here some of the Old Italian manuscripts as well, also having a neutral support for either “his or her”.

Next their are two possible supports from the Church Fathers for “her”. But these are dubious, and not clear.

Moving on to other languages we have no more support for “her” at all. We do have Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, Georgian and Armenian support for “their”.

If you want to test my account of the evidence, you can read the NET Bible footnote regarding this, here. See the explanation of the textual problem in this article at Bible.org. Or see the listing of key texts supporting the various options of the readings, here at zhubert.com, or from this excellent online Greek New Testament site. You can also see that “their” (αυτων) is the 1550 Stephanus TR reading, and “her” (αυτης) is the 1894 Scrivener TR reading, at Biblegateway.com.

Testing that Claim: Exegetical Discussion

We won’t go into great depth on this point, but we should provide some other options for interpreting the text that the TR Only position does not consider. The presence and use of “their” as a valid reading, was at one point part of the TR tradition. To assume that reading requires an interpretation that either Jesus needed purification for his sin, or that Luke did not understand the OT law well enough, is to impugn the TR tradition itself. Not to mention the multitude of Byzantine manuscripts that have “their” as well.

Being honest in our exegesis of the passage, we see Luke is emphasizing that everything was being done according to the Law as it should be. Perhaps there was some need for Joseph to be purified too, from his involvement with the birth, or other reasons. Also the word “purification” could be a broad term of that era, which could have generally applied to Joseph and Mary consecrating Jesus as their firstborn and paying his redemption price according to he Law. The main point of the passage remains clear and we do not have to assume this is a doctrinal error.

The Verdict

First off, we should be very wary of TR Only claims that this verse represents a doctrinal error, or evidence of textual corruption. Many Christians in the TR era preferred Stephanus’ text and used earlier ones, read Tyndale’s Bible, and were not thereby accepting a doctrinal error in this point. Furthermore virtually every Byzantine manuscript to which TR Only folk point for support for their precious TR, has it wrong (according to the TR Only position) at Luke 2:22 as well. Were the users of such texts intentionally corrupting the text at that point? Or complicit in doctrinal error? Did students of the word conclude from that passage that Jesus was a sinner or the Bible’s message in Luke was errant? No. Throwing this charge out on evangelicals today who choose to use a text that reads “their” instead of “her” at this place, is just as wrong.

Secondly, it should be apparent that their is no clear mechanism here for TR Onlyists to decide whether the reading should be “her” or “their”. The majority of Greek manuscripts support “their”. Stephanus’ text, which is one of the two most widely accepted TR editions of their day, had “their”. Elzevir’s following Beza’s, had “her”. Which is right? This also opens up the questions surrounding the Latin versus Greek debate. The Latin Vulgate is a mix of Western and Alexandrian readings mostly. Do we assume Beza leaned on the Vulgate to get this reading? Codex D, named after Beza (it is called Bezae), reads “his”. It is Western and the Vulgate is Western in the Gospels. So is the Vulgate thinking “her” or “his”? And if the Vulgate meant “her” by its use of the neutral pronoun, are we okay with a reading being preserved down through time in a Latin manuscript tradition, while many other readings are supported instead by the Greek tradition?

My conclusion is we cannot assume the TR has it right at this point. The vast majority of the evidence points to Beza’s being wrong in changing the TR to read “her” instead of “their”.

Testing the Textus Receptus: Introduction

~ fundyreformed ~ 13 Comments

Recently, James White debated Bart Ehrman, a former evangelical textual scholar turned agnostic on the reliability of the New Testament. I am not necessarily a White fan, and I am not going to speculate as to who really won the debate. What interests me has to do with White’s fielding some criticism from proponents of the Textus Receptus at his blog. (The Textus Receptus (Received Text), is the Greek basis for the King James Version.)

White raised four questions regarding what actually constitutes the Textus Receptus. I think those questions are spot on, and I’d like to hone in on the last one, for a few posts. As an aside, I should mention I had someone provide some KJV Only answers to White’s questions over at my King James Only Debate Research Center‘s forums. (Feel free to go over there and interact if you’d like.)

Here are White’s questions:

1) When did “the church” “received” this text?
2) What council engaged in a study of the respective texts and determined that this is the “one” text that most closely represents the original?
3) Which text IS the “TR”? Can you identify a single text as THE TR? If not, why not?
4) Please explain why I should use the TR’s readings of Luke 2:22, Revelation 16:5, and the final six verses of Revelation.

What White is doing here is testing the premise of Textus Receptus Onlyism. How is it that the Textus Receptus was received by the Church? What does that reception entail? Which text was received? How can we know which readings are correct based on this textual position?

He and others (like myself) are not splitting straws when they bring up difficult passages and possible errors in the Textus Receptus. We are testing the claims of TR Onlyism. If the Textus Receptus is truly the only Scripturally warranted text, then questions like these should not be stumpers. In fact, there should be a systematic approach to textual questions which is controlled, consistent, and guided by Scripture or in some way authoritative. Should we really expect the TR to be inerrant? If so, how do we deal with these kinds of questions.

For those who haven’t heard the term Textus Receptus Only, I should give a brief sketch of what that position entails. I used to claim the title as my own, so I am not going to try to misrepresent that view. This view holds that the Textus Receptus (TR) is the best Greek text today. It is not corrupted and full of errors as are the most commonly used text (Nestl- Aland 27 / UBS 4th edition) and even the new Majority text (ca. 1980). These other texts are critical texts, but the TR was handed down from the Reformation era. It was not pieced together by textual critics but by men who cherished Scripture. They simply collated the existing manuscripts they were aware of, and rejected incorrect readings and provided us a printed text.

After several years of editing, correcting printer’s errors, and the like, the text became stabilized with the printing of the King James Version. The text of the King James Version can be considered as a variety of the Textus Receptus, because the translators did not follow one specific text. Sometimes they sided with Stephanus’ 1550 edition, other times with Beza’s 1598. The text behind the King James translator’s choices was eventually compiled by Frederick Scrivener in the late 1800s and is available today from the Trinitarian Bible Society.

This view distances itself from a KJV Only view which claims the English corrects the Greek, or that there was some kind of second inspiration for the KJV, where its every translation choice was inerrant. The TR Only view holds that the inspired Word of God was preserved perfectly in the Textus Receptus (for the New Testament, Hebrew Masoretic Text for the Old). You will notice however, that almost every proponent of this view will claim that the Trinitarian Bible Society edition of the TR is actually inerrant (or some other edition is), and that there are no textual errors (or even serious translational mistakes) in the King James Version.

In at least 3 future posts (1 for each of the passages White mentions), I will put this position to test. In the future I may explore other problem areas for the Textus Receptus. I should make clear that I understand there are problems with my text of choice (the NA 27) too. But I am not claiming inerrancy for my text. I believe that essentially I have the Word of God in my English Standard Version, and that although in some few places there is some uncertainty as to which reading is the correct one, this does not shake my faith. That uncertainty does not mean the Bible was not verbally inspired, and it does not mean I cannot be reasonably certain as to which reading is correct, nor does it bring any major Bible doctrine into question. It does mean I’m being honest with the evidence, and should cause me to wrestle with the text in prayer as I seek to understand its meaning for my life.

“The Chronological Study Bible (NKJV)”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 7 Comments

Chronological Study Bible NKJV, order at Amazon.comAuthor: compilation of several scholars
Format: Hardcover
Page Count: 1690
Publisher: Thomas Nelson
Publication Date: 2008
ISBN: 0718020685
Rating: 3 of 5 stars

The Chronological Study Bible (NKJV) by Thomas Nelson Publishers, is a very well done study Bible. The hardback book is beautifully designed with color and graphics on every page. In fact, pages without some kind of article or note are few and far between. The Bible is arranged chronologically, which means individual books and the order of groups of books are arranged according to a chronological ordering. Sometimes this is done according to the presumed date a book was written, often it relates to what time period the section describes. In any case, the Chronological Study Bible will always let you know why each section is included where it is.

What makes the book valuable for study are the many discussions of the history, customs and culture of the time period that the Scripture is addressing. Many parallels are drawn between ancient near-eastern culture and the writings of Scripture. Key archaeological finds which often testify to the historical veracity of Scripture are described or even pictured. Time-lines are given for the Biblical events as well as historical events of that same era.

I flipped through every page of this massive volume (1600+ pages), and read or skimmed through each article. It is both fascinating and educational, and brings the Bible alive. Such a view of the historical time-frame of Scripture, however, does bring up some questions. The introduction highlights this fact and explains that this study Bible “takes with equal seriousness the views of traditional, conservative Bible students and those of modern, critical scholarship.” (pg. xi) It doesn’t try to “persuade readers that one particular view is correct”, leaving that for the reader to decide.

This in my mind is the only real drawback of the book. In the main the Chronological Study Bible presents multiple views on various issues (such as the dates for the Exodus), but occasionally the perspective shared is not what I’d agree with. Sometimes the notes state that the Bible borrowed concepts from previous cultures, and the role of inspiration is ignored. See for instance the discussion of Satan on pg. 902. It also presents a consistent egalitarian view regarding the role of women in the church, in the notes on the relevant passages.

Often, however, the historical insights enlighten the text and help the reader better understand what’s going on. There’s a fascinating discussion of the phrase “offspring of vipers” on pg. 1124 which stands as a positive example in this light.

Ultimately, those who are serious Bible scholars will find this resource very helpful. And these kinds of questions do need to be addressed and thought through. For new Christians, an uncritical endorsement of this book may not be best, however. In every other respect this study Bible far exceeded my expectations.

I encourage you to check out the Bible for yourself at chronologicalstudybible.com. You’ll find a preview and other great information on the study Bible there.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by the publisher. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.

This book is available for purchase at the following sites: Amazon.com or direct from Thomas Nelson.

Why "Limited Atonement" (part 2)

~ fundyreformed ~ 18 Comments

I apologize for not picking up my limited atonement series sooner. The holidays plus a couple bouts of illness intervened.

I’m not optimistic enough to think in the next few posts I’ll answer all of everyone’s questions on this topic. I’ll still have more research to do and questions of my own, I’m sure. What I hope to do, however, is to explain where Calvinists are coming from in this whole matter of “Limited Atonement”, and I hope to show that even if you disagree with our conclusions, there are strong Biblical arguments for our position.

Points of Agreement

In this debate, its important to remember where we are on the same page. Most non-Calvinists agree with the 5 point Calvinists in many respects regarding the atonement.

1) We agree that Christ died to secure salvation for all who would believe in Him.

2) We agree that not all people will believe in Jesus; therefore, many will sadly perish ultimately in Hell.

3) We agree that Christ’s death provides the basis for the global mission of preaching the gospel to all. Everyone has a bonafide offer of salvation in the gospel, because of Christ’s death.

4) We also agree that because of Christ’s death, mercy (common grace) is given to all men such that God does not consume those who sin instantly. Rather, he gives them innumerable good things to enjoy in this life. God is freed up to do this because Jesus’ death proves that God is just.

Here we see a great degree of agreement. Without actually saying Christ died for all, Calvinists nevertheless believe all benefit from His death. Setting aside that semantic quibble, Calvinists basically affirm all the main things non-Calvinists affirm about the atonement. (We’ll deal with the non-Calvnist reasons for insisting on death for all, and their logical objections to the Calvinist view in future posts.)

Calvinist’s add one additional point

Calvinists go further, however, and affirm the following.

5) Christ’s death not only makes salvation possible for all who would believe, it actually purchases the very faith by which the elect believe. It does so because by his death, Jesus actually propititated God’s wrath for the elect and suffered in their place.

In short, we believe that the elect were in God’s mind all along with his designs for the atonement. He had called them from the beginning of the world, and it is consistent with Scripture and reason that he would see his death as effecting their salvation particularly. We all believe in a substitutionary atonement, in this view, however, Christ actually substituted for specific people, the elect.

In the next post I hope to provide the Biblical support that Calvinists have for this claim. Then I’ll try to interact with objections to that view and the support for the typical non-Calvinist evangelical position.

God Working in Us: Philippians 2:13 And the Will

~ fundyreformed ~ 13 Comments

I’m getting ready to start up my series on the Calvinist view of the atonement soon. One of the objections which has already arisen in the comments on part 1, is the idea that Calvinists believe God somehow forces unbelievers to believe the Gospel. Faith is not a gift from God, it is claimed, but rather something the lost must do. They are offered life upon the condition of faith, and while God may help them believe, He will not “force” them.

What I find amusing in this objection is how the same people who hold that view find no problems with the following verse.

Philippians 2:13, “For it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”

This verse teaches clearly that in the lives of believers, God works in them both providing the will and doing the works in and through them. This is why Paul says:

“But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.” (1 Cor. 15:10)

Christians have no problem affirming that God works in the very hearts and minds of believers. God empowers them for every good work (1 Cor. 12:6, 1 Pet. 4:11). He equips us with everything we need to do what is right. But He does more than that, He works in us the very things that please Him:

Heb 13:20-21 Now may the God of peace… equip you with everything good that you may do his will, working in us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.

In doing all of this, is God forcing believers to please Him? Doesn’t God’s work negate the goodness of the works we believers produce? On the one hand, the good works of believers testify to them and others that we are truly justified and actually regenerate. They provide assurance that we are God’s children. But God is the one producing these works. God requires this of us, but then He works in us to do what He requires.

I think most of us agree with this and find no problems. What is the difference then when it comes to unbelievers? Do they have to give God the key to their hearts before He’ll work in them to believe? Is God’s work in believers okay because we sanctioned it, but not okay in unbelievers because they haven’t? If God works in unbelievers to will to receive Christ as Lord, is this forcing them to do something against their will?

For my part, I don’t see how we can draw a line between believers and unbelievers which limits God’s ability or right to work in hearts. I see the teaching of Scripture that God works in us to will as fitting nicely with the passages which teach that faith and repentance are gifts (see Acts 11:18, 15:9, 18:27; Rom. 12:3; Phil. 1:29; Eph. 2:8-9; 2 Tim. 2:24-26; 2 Pet. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:14; Acts 3:16; 1 Pet. 1:21).

I have further support in this idea of there being no hard and fast line which limits God from working in unbelievers like He does in believers. In 2 Thessalonians, Paul starts out by thanking God for the believers growing faith. He doesn’t point to the believers as the source of the growth in faith, but thanks God (1:3). Then later in the epistle, Paul goes on in the same vein:

“But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.” (2 Thess. 2:13)

Paul thanks God for choosing them to be saved. God accomplished that through His Spirit’s work, and by providing belief in them.

So I conlude we should praise God for working in us to trust Him, and to grow in His grace to the degree that we have. Praise God for mercifully energizing my heart and giving me a desire to live for Him!