Someone said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. When I hear a critique of the perfect preservation view, standard sacred text view, or verbal plenary preservation view, it almost always focuses on ‘which text is the perfect text of the New Testament.” In the White/Van Kleeck debate, White asked this kind of gotcha question, which Textus Receptus edition is identical to the autographs? A person then waits for the answer.
In the Van Kleeck/White debate, White asked Van Kleeck whether Scrivener’s TR is the perfect Greek text. He said, “Yes.” I’m not saying it’s a good argument, but it works well with a certain audience.
I watched a critical analysis of Van Kleeck in the debate, and the podcast started with the moment White asked Van Kleeck that question. The critical analysis is essentially ridicule of the most inane variety. The young man in the podcast with three other men simply repeated Van Kleeck’s answer and then summarized it with a mocking voice. They didn’t explain why Van Kleeck’s answer was wrong. It just was. Why? Because it is so, so strange and ridiculous.
The critical text side does not have a settled text. If the question were reversed, that side would say it doesn’t know, unlike it’s proponents might say about knowing the 66 books of the Bible. They would say that’s knowable, even though the oldest extant complete twenty-seven book manuscript of the New Testament dates to the fourth century. Books are knowable. The words are not. Why? No biblical reason, only naturalistic ones. The same reasons could be used to debunk any doctrine of the Bible.
I believe Van Kleeck said that Scrivener’s or the blue Trinitarian Bible Society Greek New Testament is identical to the autographs of the New Testament because that corresponds to His bibliological position. If someone says he believes the biblical and historical doctrine of scripture, his saying there is a perfect text conforms to that belief. If he did not know what the text was, he would also admit that he doesn’t believe what the Bible says about itself or what churches have believed about what the Bible says about itself. An alternative is to change the historic and scriptural doctrine of bibliology to fit naturalistic presuppositions.
A biblical methodology that proceeds from a biblical bibliology must fit what the Bible says about itself. Because of this, it believes that the agreement of the church is evidence. This is the unity of the spirit. I’m not going to continue through every aspect of a biblical bibliology but all of those components combined lead to an agreement on one text. Van Kleeck had the audacity to utter it with confidence. I’m assuming that his confidence and assertiveness comes from faith that comes by hearing the Word of God.
Van Kleeck attacked the presuppositions of White in the White/Van Kleeck debate. He wanted to expose the naturalism. White wouldn’t answer the questions and the moderator would not require an answer. White also took the offensive by saying that the audience also was offended by the questions. It’s a common tactic of the left, when they “channel” everyone in the United States by speaking for “the American people.” Van Kleeck asked if there was even a single verse of the New Testament that was settled, guaranteed never to change with a future find of older manuscript evidence. White would not answer.
A vast majority of the opponents of the biblical and historical view on the preservation of scripture say the Bible doesn’t say how God would preserve scripture. I like to say that the whole Bible describes how God would do it. The Bible is very clear about how God said He would preserve what He said. If He told us how, that castigates all the means other than how He said, which includes modern textual criticism.
Very often, even among the standard sacred text proponents, they will not say what the perfect edition is. They anticipate the reaction. They ready for the ridicule. If it isn’t that blue Trinitarian Bible Society textus receptus, then what is it?
The idea that the autographs are perfectly reproduced in Scrivener’s edition of the TR is very attractive.
Perhaps you could address the following counter-arguments:
1.) Scripture promises certain and available words, not that they would be in a specific edition necessarily.
2.) Baptist confessions point to church recognition of the TR but do not identify Scrivener’s edition specifically:
https://faithsaves.net/baptist-canonicity-textus-receptus/
3.) There are other editions of the TR that are in print and widely available.
4.) The Trinitarian Bible Society (which is not a church, of course) does not claim Scrivener’s edition is perfect.
5.) If Scrivener’s edition of the TR has one or a few readings which violate Scriptural principles, it cannot be a perfect rendition of the autographs. Consider Revelation 16:5, where Scrivener’s has ho esomenos, which appears to be a reading that does not exist in any extant Greek manuscript. I am not 100% sure if Beza said he had a manuscript or if he said that he was introducing a conjectural emendation; there is some dispute about his Latin which I have not resolved at this time. Other editions of the TR have ho hosios, both before Beza (e. g., Stephanus 1550) and after Beza (e. g., Elzeveir 1624)–the edition which makes the claim to be the text “received by all,” the “Textus Receptus,” has ho hosios, not ho esomenos. In any case, it looks like 100% of extant Greek MSS, and if Beza said he was introducing a conjectural emendation, 100% of MSS that have ever existed to our knowledge, have ho hosios, not the Scrivener ho esomenos. Scripture teaches a preserved Bible, not a restored Bible, so a conjectural emendation invented by Beza cannot be correct. This is not the same situation as with 1 John 5:7, where the Greek MSS support is definitely less than stellar but it is still there, with further grammatical support in the Greek text itself, a presence in the Waldensian Bible, a presence all over Baptist confessions, in the large majority of Latin Vulgate MSS, etc. The Scrivener o esomenos does not appear in any Baptist confession, to my knowledge, in any Anabaptist vernacular version, or just about anywhere else at all. If we accept the Scrivener reading in Revelation 16:5, against 100% of extant Greek MSS that we are aware of, it is seems like our Biblical objections to the critical text and its overwhelming minority text are largely undercut.
Since Scripture is true, there is nothing wrong with a degree of special pleading to defend it. But nothing in Scripture says that this edition is where the words are, and Scriptural principles seem to strongly cut against it, rather than being for it. This could be a basis for the conclusion that we can be certain about all the words but a handful or a few handfuls of those words could be in editions of the TR other than Scrivener’s where the evidence against the Scrivener reading appears to be overwhelming.
I have read Sayer’s attempt to defend the Revelation 16:5 reading of Scrivener:
https://textusreceptusbibles.blogspot.com/2016/10/revelation-165-and-triadic-declaration.html
and it strikes me as being very unconvincing, and reasoning that, if applied consistently, would make it impossible to know if any reading is correct, or to argue against the critical text.
Again, the idea that Scrivener’s TR is perfect is very attractive. The idea that the TR itself is perfect seems to me to be clearly Scriptural. I am just not convinced that Scripture would push me towards a reading that Beza introduced in his edition of the TR that is not in TRs before or after him and which is rejected by 100% of the known evidence, rather than Scripture pushing me towards rejecting such a reading.
Thomas,
What you are explaining is the position that I have consistently expressed that I take. I use most of the same arguments. I have usually attempted to defend Scrivener’s without ever saying that I believe it is definitively it. I usually say something like what Strouse says, but what is not sufficient for a James White, that is, essentially Beza 1598. I’m not against what you’re writing. I want to defend Van Kleeck for giving an answer. I know those two answers cannot both be right, but they are very very close.
Hi Thomas,
1) 2) 3) and 4) are correct. For #1, they can be, but do not have to be in one single edition or tome. The biblical position is that they will be preserved. I would also add that if there are multiple witnesses to the word of God, that makes it impossible for one person to change it, whether intentionally or not, without being noticed. Considering that Christ had multiple witnesses for Him on earth at the start of the church, with the multiple apostles all confirming each others’ accounts, it should follow that the many witnesses of God’s word, which are multiplied, have increased over time (Acts 12:24). As it says in Scripture, “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations”.
As for your point 5), I think this counterpoint against textual preservation specifically through the TR as we have it now, is slightly inaccurate. But before I begin, I need to point out that Scrivener’s edition of the TR isn’t entirely accurate to the witnesses of the original TR editions. In Revelation 16:5, it’s fine, as I will explain below, but there are other places where it doesn’t seem to be fine, and because of that I would take a slightly different approach than Van Kleeck did, although these are simply details that you have to go somewhat in the weeds for, but which lead to the same conclusion of support for the Authorized Version (KJV) as a translation of the TR anyway.
Specifically, the Scrivener TR differs from the historical TR witnesses in the following way.
–1 Corinthians 14:10, the word “αὐτῶν” is missing in Scrivener TR
–Ephesians 6:24, the word “ἀμήν” (amen) is missing in Scrivener TR
–1 John 1:5, the word “ἐπαγγελία” (message/tidings) is changed to “αγγελια” (message) in Scrivener TR. While Beza/Stephanus/Elzevir/others and their sources used ἐπαγγελία = “message/tidings” in this verse.
Another instance that would not actually change the translation is where Scrivener’s TR differs in Luke 12:56, where the Greek word order is actually “earth” before “sky,” but Scrivener switched them, apparently because of the way the verse is translated in the KJV.
Anyway, because of the above, I would not place too much emphasis on Scrivener’s edition. Also, it is worth keeping in mind that Scrivener did take part in the committee on the Revised Version, and though he was on the conservative faction, he did play a role nonetheless. I still think Scrivener’s collations of the Authorized Version and other research has been useful, just as I think Webster’s dictionary is useful, even despite the fact he was also responsible for the 1833 Webster bible, a King James Bible with a set of unjustified word replacements, the details of which we don’t need to get into right now.
Now, as far as Revelation 16:5, if you have read about the concept of “Nomen Sacrum” before, then you are aware that many divine names in the Greek were traditionally written in an abbreviated form. This is also the case in Revelation 16:5, as the name “Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be,” is a name of God, and thus, may be abbreviated. So the Beza and Stephanus editions in this verse might differ in their precise spelling, but they are identical. For more information, check out this article on the subject of Revelation 16:5 which I myself found edifying: http://textus-receptus.com/files/Revelation%2016.5%20and%20the%20Triadic%20Declaration.pdf
Lastly, for the Greek support of the exact rendering given by Beza, we should note that there are actually two witnesses for this variant. I should point out that even if there weren’t, it would still be an equivalent variant regardless as the translators would most accurately translate this Nomen Sacrum – whether it was in its abbreviated form or not – in the exact same way. But there are in fact at least two witnesses here, because while the Elzevir edition, as you pointed out Thomas, did agree with Stephanus in presenting the abbreviated form of Revelation 16:5 (hosios), this was only true for the 1624 edition. In the Elzevir 1633 edition, it agreed with Beza. See: https://archive.org/details/ned-kbn-all-00002699-001/page/842
Also, as a side note, it was the 1633 Elzevir edition that actually said “textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum, in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus” in the preface. See here: http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/Textus_Receptus#Received_Text
Hopefully, the combined witnesses of the 1633 Elzevir edition and the 1598 Beza edition put together help to table this controversy, in addition to the far more important fact that the “variant” in this verse is one of the Nomina Sacra that should be translated the same way in either case, regardless if you go with Stephanus or Beza; that is, regardless of whether it is in its abbreviated form as a Nomen Sacrum or whether it is fully written out, similar to all other Nomina Sacra.
So in conclusion, Revelation 16:5 is not a valid objection against Scrivener’s TR, although 1 Corinthians 14:10, 1 John 1:5, or especially Ephesians 6:24 might be. Also, Scrivener’s TR in these few places agrees with the critical text.
Dear Bro Brandenburg,
Yes, I agree that they are very close. I am not against someone who thinks the Scrivener edition is perfect, and I am willing to be convinced that it is–I would like to be convinced, actually. I am also less interested in James White and people like him attacking the position than whether I can defend readings like ho esomenos Scripturally. If it is Scriptural to defend that reading, then who cares what James White says about it. But if it is not Scriptural, then the true reading is in the other TR editions.
I would note as well that James White, in attacking Revelation 16:5 in the Scrivener edition, does not seem to have the same sort of concern for conjectural emendations in the text and apparatus of the NA 26, 27, 28, etc. I would be interested in seeing if he ever warns about them.
I don’t know what Nick Sayer’s argument was on Revelation 16:5, but to me two overall arguments that come to mind for these very rare exceptions are presuppositional, just like arguing for the perpetuity of true churches. 1) One of these was an overall argument of Van Kleeck. We have printed editions. We don’t know everything that they had. White says more manuscript evidence now than ever, which is inscrutable. I think we’re bowing too much to extant manuscript evidence. Nothing in the Bible says a hand copy must exist. We are not certain what manuscripts known by 16th century believers no longer exist except in the product of the printed editions. Ancient translations are not original language preservation, but they are translations from something. 2) Believers agreed for centuries on this text. If we’re going to change it now, what about our biblical argument of the internal witness of the Holy Spirit manifesting itself in the agreement of the church?
Dear Bro Brandenburg,
I agree that believers agreed on the TR, and we can also see agreement on verses like 1 John 5:7. I don’t see where believers or true churches are agreed that ho esomenos is correct and the other TR editions are wrong. In fact, I can’t find anyone saying anything to that end anywhere.
Dear Andrew,
Thank you for the thoughtful comment. On Logos I had the 1550 and 1624 TRs so it was easy to check them–I did not check the 1633. Thanks for the correction. If anyone has collated the different TR editions and put them under one cover, that would be helpful.
I referenced Sayers’ work on Revelation 16:5 in my earlier comment–I think it is full of unjustifiable special pleading. Furthermore, even the things that he says support the Scrivener/Beza 1598 reading don’t actually do it, at least at times. Most of what he says is simply totally irrelevant.
Sayers never shows that hosios is a nomen sacrum for ho esomenos–he asserts it, to my recollection, without any evidence other than speculation. Where do we see this alleged nomen sacrum in ancient Greek MSS? Does Beza say this? Does anyone in ancient church history say this, or even in medieval or reformation-era history? Does anyone say it?
Thomas,
Something that does not ring true is that churches have not received ho esomenos. When these two Greek words were translated into the King James Version, through that they became accepted or received by the churches. They still are. This was the Hills position, that the King James was its own TR edition. The commentaries relied upon by the churches then used the same. This is a methodology. Extant manuscript is a type of methodology. Which fits the scriptural model?
Hi Thomas,
What do you think about the fact that the 1633 TR (by Elzevir) has “ἐσόμενος” ? Shouldn’t that be rightly considered the Elzevir/Beza reading? I wouldn’t put much weight on Scrivener’s version one way or the other. I think you have two possibilities like with Luke 2:22, there are two equivalent possibilities. Either 1) Elzevir found a source, possibly the same manuscript source as Beza used (or possibly not) to get that specific reading at Rev. 16:5. In that case, they both obviously got that reading from a Greek manuscript which means Beza 1598 and Elzevir 1633 both reflects the autograph epistle of Revelation that was circulated to the churches in Asia. No problem for the TR view if that is the case. The other possibility is 2) that they simply recognized that the Nomen Sacrum, which is equivalent in its fully written form, and expanded it. This is a similar state of affairs as case 1, because in both cases the abbreviated and expanded forms are equivalent and translate to the same thing anyway. This expansion could be based on other occurrences of the Triadic declaration combined with the textual context of the passage (i.e. the naïve translation of this phrase is grammatically incorrect), and it could be based additionally on manuscripts with this Nomen Sacrum in some other context besides Revelation 16:5 – which is another possibility. In either case, you then have people who didn’t know what Nomina Sacra were who translated this verse slightly inaccurately, although it wasn’t much noticed at the time. Finally, to close the loop, someone noticed this slight apparent inconsistency, and also didn’t know at all what Nomina Sacra were, so they wrote an argument against the received text based on that misunderstanding – tried to say it was all made up by Beza, thinking at the time that this was the best passage to use in order to, supposedly, disprove the received text. That would explain how all of this happened, just based on a basic misunderstanding of what Nomina Sacra are. Thanks for giving us your insights on this matter and hopefully that all made sense.
Dear Andrew,
I do not know why the 1633 TR changed back from hosios to ho esomenos. I would be interested in seeing what TRs have this reading and which ones do not (all the pre-Beza 1598 editions do not, I am pretty certain). It certainly is something worth looking into. If there is any firsthand material commenting on that, it would be worth reading. I wonder if they changed back again to hosios after 1633 or if they kept it after that.
If Beza had a Greek MS that is now lost that had ho esomenos in it, then saying that ho esomenos does not violate Scriptural principles about preservation is more defensible. I do not see that it requires that the autograph had ho esomenos–that 100% of extant MSS today read ho hosios, with other TR editions and many widely-used reformation era Bible versions, and all ancient versions, is still not a little strong.
I think it is unreasonable that in a time period when scribes were employing nomina sacra all over the place that translators like Jerome did not know what they were. It would have been common knowledge. Scholarly TR people and critical text people today also know what nomina sacra are. The question is not whether nomina sacra exist, but whether ho hosios is a nomen sacrum for ho esomenos, which, to my knowledge, is never clearly used that way in any known ancient Greek MSS, and, to my knowledge, was never proposed as an explanation before Mr. Sayers proposed it to defend ho esomenos in the Scrivener TR, and he provided no evidence that it was a nomen sacrum–he just asserted it. When ho hosios is perfectly good Greek and is not heretical in the least–identifying God’s holiness, which includes His transcendent “otherness,” with His self-existence in Revelation 16:5 is perfectly orthodox–we need more than just assertion that ho hosios is a nomen sacrum. We cannot just take any Greek phrase we want and say it is a nomen sacrum for other Greek words.
Thanks.
Thomas,
I have another detail that I didn’t bring up before, which is that there was a TR edition published by Elias Hutter in 1599 that read differently than either the Elzevir/Beza 1598 or the Stephanus 1550. It’s an extra piece of information, which is what tends to make me believe that this most specifically was in fact a Nomen Sacrum expansion.
You see, the way that Hutter has the text is an expansion of the Nomen Sacrum, similar to Beza, but not in the same way as Beza had it. It’s in the present deponent middle participle, ” ἐρχόμενος “, as opposed to the way Beza wrote it, was was a future middle participle, ” ἐσόμενος “. Here is the Nuremberg Polyglot of 1599 at this verse: https://i.imgur.com/9hQUdQG.png
This is a different way to write this sentence. Though it’s very similar to the way Beza did, it’s not exactly the same. In fact, the way Hutter had this word is exactly the same as the way it is rendered in Revelation 1:4, 1:8, 4:8 and 11:17. This gives the impression of expanding, or attempting to expand, a contracted Nomen Sacrum. This is, once again, possibly due to the similarities of this passage with the aforementioned four.
Hutter’s Nuremberg Polyglot has these four verses agreeing with Revelation 16:5. Beza’s copy of this verse is instead a hapax legomenon. This suggests that Beza expanded it differently, but the reason for why could have more than one possible explanation. On this question I am of the view that there was evidence of the appropriate expansion available to Beza, either in a Manuscript of Revelation 16:5, or in a Manuscript with another passage containing this NS, as this verse appeared the same way in all of his editions from 1582 onward. Once he was confident that the passage was a Nomen Sacrum, this could lead him to adopt a minority reading from a manuscript which he had in his possession at the time.
A similar event then would have occurred for Elzevir, where they did not have access to a source in 1624, so they did not replicate the expanded Nomen Sacrum. But by the year 1633 they had found a valid Greek manuscript source, so it was included. They clearly did not just slavishly follow Beza, otherwise the Elzevir 1624 edition would have reproduced Beza 1598, but it did not. The TR editors show remarkable integrity, none of them willing to include something for which each does not personally have a source, which thus, it seems to me, led to slightly dissimilar editions. They are not all carbon copies of each other. But the vast majority of differences amount to no difference in translation anyway.
If I can remark for a minute, I think it’s interesting to note how some of the historical TR were not as sure about Luke 17:36 (Stephanus didn’t even include that verse until his fourth 1551 edition) or the second half of 1 John 2:23. The King James editors also even left a marginal note saying so next to the former, and the latter remains italicized (out of tradition I think), even today when we know it belongs there. These are very rare exceptions by the way. These two verses are passages which we are fully confident of including today. But at the time, those verses were some of the most significant differences between historical TR. Meanwhile, the same historical TR editions show remarkable agreement on passages like 1 John 5:7, Revelation 21:24 and Revelation 22:19. Because seemingly, they were all able to find sources for these, so they appeared in every edition. This remains true except for some early editions of Erasmus which we don’t usually use or refer to anyway.
Getting back to the main subject, it seems most likely to me that there was a general awareness around the 1599 timeframe that Revelation 16:5, or specifically that phrase contained a nomen sacrum. This led to the placement of an expansion to this NS in the Nuremberg Polyglot of 1599 which, while it doesn’t match Beza, it still occurs in a different not entirely unfeasible way. The meaning of the word is not that different. It’s the participle for a suppletive verb for “εἶμι” and it follows the rendering of four other passages in the book of Revelation. The word “ἐρχόμενος” was rendered as “is to come” and “art to come” in the Authorized version, as opposed to “shalt be” as it stands in Revelation 16:5, which leads me to conclude that the KJV translators followed Beza (and equivalently Stephanus) rather than Hutter. Hutter’s placement of this word however, seems to indicate strongly that there was an awareness that the shortened form of Revelation 16:5 was a NS, as what Hutter gave there is an entirely reasonable candidate for expansion of the NS abbreviation. Elias Hutter’s 1599 Nuremberg Polyglot nonetheless is still quite significant and worthy of consideration, as it is a source for the Authorized Version reading of John 8:6.
I would question the naïve translation and rendering of the abbreviated form as well, because by looking close at the context of the passage, the Stephanus rendering is not “O holy” but rather it is “and O holy”.
The Stephanus 1550 reads, “καὶ ὁ ὅσιος,” and not simply, “ὁ ὅσιος”. This would have to be translated as “and O holy.” Notice the extra “and” —This is different than how the modern translations render it, because their source text is missing the “καὶ” as well, while Stephanus includes.
I apologize for not including my 1599 example sooner.
And Thomas, I have one last thing to add to the above. To address your concern that you haven’t seen arguments about Revelation 16:5 historically, that is a simple explanation.
People who research these things have just historically known what NS were since the time of Beza and Elzevir, so it wasn’t until recent times that anyone had a thought to try to argue that Revelation 16:5 in the KJV was wrong, without even knowing that much. Since everyone knew what they were and understood how the translation got there, this didn’t even become a controversy until later, when people – who were completely unaware of what NS were – started to argue against it. And if you look at some of those early arguments against it (whose names I will withhold), you will see they make no mention of Nomina Sacra in their argument against Revelation 16:5 in the TR. So, only at that point did it become necessary to go into explanations of what Nomina Sacra were, in order to easily explain this verse. And I think it does easily explain it for any number of reasons above.
Dear Andrew,
I appreciate that you want to find a way to defend the ho esomenos reading.
Unfortunately going from “nobody knew what a nomen sacrum was” to “everyone knew ho hosios is a nomen sacrum that can be unpacked as either ho erchomenos or ho esomenos and so nobody said anything about it” is a big stretch. The nomen sacrum in 1 Timothy 3:16 that can explain the “God” was manifest in the flesh vs. “which” was manifest is discussed, because it is a real nomen sacrum. Since everyone knew it was one, they actually talked about it. The “which” corruption removes the middle line in the theta.
“It wasn’t until recent times that anyone had a thought to try to argue that Revelation 16:5 in the KJV was wrong.”
That is not supported by commentaries from different centuries. Plenty of people thought ho esomenos was wrong.
Also, ho esomenos and ho erchomenos cannot both be right. They do not mean the same thing. Also, neither one means “O” + a word. The Greek article “ho” does not mean “O” unless it is part of a construction where the nominative is used for the vocative, which is not the case in this passage.
It is considerably more likely that both ho erchomenos and ho esomenos are conjectural emendations than that everyone knew that ho hosios could be a nomen sacrum with multiple ways to unpack it, and nobody every said a word about it until Mr. Sayers came along in a book with lots of special pleading. I am not saying that the readings are certainly conjectural emendations. They may not be. But unless Beza or Stephanus or someone else actually says “this is a nomen sacrum” and gives actual evidence of it, I do not believe Sayers argument accurately represents history in the real world, rather than pure speculation with nothing at all to back it up.
Thanks again.
I don’t see why we have to disagree, Thomas.
Thomas,
I am not going to keep doing this, but I would like it if you could please just straightforwardly represent what I wrote. The following are all possible reading comprehension mistakes you have made from your last post:
Your first claim, 1) I went from “nobody knew what a nomen sacrum was” to another position.
1a) I never said that phrase or anything even remotely similar. I never said that nobody knew it, only that certain people didn’t know. That’s quite a big difference between what you represent me as having said.
2) You claim I said that “everyone knew ho hosios is a nomen sacrum that can be unpacked as either ho erchomenos or ho esomenos”
2a) I never said that “ho erchomenos” was equivalent to the normal rendering or put them side by side like that. In fact, I said, “it’s not exactly the same,” meaning it’s not!
2b) In fact, I also said this, Thomas: “the KJV translators followed Beza (and equivalently Stephanus) rather than Hutter.” If your claim (2) is correct, and I supposedly made those two words equivalent, or treated them equivalent, why is it that I earlier said the KJV translators followed Beza rather than Hutter? If I said they were equivalent or put them side by side as such, where are the examples of this from anything that I wrote, Thomas? You seem to have created a straw man version of my post by saying that I made them equivalent and then trying to disprove the straw man, when I already said they are not equivalent and even made a point out of this.
3) You said: Unfortunately going from “nobody knew what a nomen sacrum was” to “everyone knew ho hosios is a nomen sacrum that can be unpacked as either ho erchomenos or ho esomenos and so nobody said anything about it” is a big stretch.
3a) In conclusion, this entire sentence is composed of nothing but straw man, from start to finish, as I did NOT say either of these things, nor anything remotely close to them. Please listen and read carefully for a minute because I value people’s time so I’m not going to keep doing this. I also said “people who research these things” knew, not that literally “everyone” knew, although pretty much everyone who was aware of this variant, which meant they had done some serious research, knew. This is because it wasn’t a big topic of controversy, as people historically who didn’t know what NS were generally weren’t writing books on Greek trying to “debunk” this verse; that is a more recent phenomenon.
Now another sentence. You quoted me as saying, “It wasn’t until recent times that anyone had a thought to try to argue that Revelation 16:5 in the KJV was wrong.” You literally placed the quotes around this sentence and put a period at the end of it, Thomas. But is this what I wrote? No, it’s not. It is not what I said. This one is just a misquote, there is nothing to even object to here. Thomas, lying and misrepresentation is a sin. What I said was this: “it wasn’t until recent times that anyone had a thought to try to argue that Revelation 16:5 in the KJV was wrong, without even knowing that much.”
Did you see the part that you cut out of this sentence? Read it again, because it’s important. I said, “without even knowing that much.” That’s how my sentence ends. Meaning just that. It’s a qualifier. Some people might have taken an objection to it for any possible reason, but they still knew what NS is, so you don’t see them making the same kind of claims as I described before. Specifically, as I said, where they “tried to say it was all made up by Beza”. The point is still valid. At least, I think it is. I don’t appreciate being misquoted in this way to my own detriment, even if it was made with all the noblest intentions.
4) “Also, ho esomenos and ho erchomenos cannot both be right.”
4a) I agree. See my point (2) above. I NEVER said that they were both right and I even explained carefully the difference between the two words already in the post before. I never said they were both right or both the same, but the most I said was that they were “not exactly the same.” And being not exactly the same still means they are not the same. The fact you imply in your post that I said this pains me, Thomas.
5) “Also, neither one means “O” + a word.”
5a) True. I don’t remember saying that it was, though.
6) “It is considerably more likely that both ho erchomenos and ho esomenos are conjectural emendations than that everyone knew that ho hosios could be a nomen sacrum with multiple ways to unpack it”
6a) I never said there WERE multiple ways to unpack it, Thomas. That wouldn’t make much sense, would it?
For my response to the rest of your post, I will forbear to respond further in light of my serious objections until and unless they are adequately addressed.
Also, to the audience, there is plenty more material I could reference in support of the TR in this verse, but I want to reduce clutter so I keep these things back since they aren’t really decisive in comparison to what was already said. For instance, there are of course patristics which support this reading, that can be found for instance here: https://web.archive.org/web/20210723183800/https://www.kjvtoday.com/home/translation-issues/shalt-be-or-holy-one-in-revelation-165
So don’t take my word for it, please do research if you are really concerned about the issues that we’ve covered here. Without getting into too many details at once, I try to stay with the most important testimony, and it is exactly what we have already covered previously.
Since this is a good chance to close things, there are a couple of exegetical points that might be deemed by our moderators worthy of mentioning. The first is that, while there is nothing wrong obviously with the concept that the Lord God is holy, the construction of the sentence as such in the verse we have been looking at is undoubtedly awkward if not treated as a Nomen Sacrum, which I believe it is. Think about what this sentence is saying, and consider that the word ” ὅσιος ” is in the singular nominative.
“Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.”
The use of the definite article before ” ἐσόμενος ” and indeed the other words, “ὢν” and “ἦν” in all five passages, Rev. 1:4, 1:8, 4:8, 11:17 and 16:5, constitutes a correct, yet very distinctive and unusual, way, to construct the phrase that it does in these five places. It’s clearly being used in order to link the three together into a single “name.” This is in fact the vocative case. It’s different than, say Hebrews 7:26 which is attributing holiness to Christ rather than designating what the name of God actually is – and there is an underlying distinction to justify that, because the repeated definite articles are present in the five places in Revelation, but not in Hebrews 7:26.
Why is this detail important? Simply because, as I understand it, “Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come” and “Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be” are both names of God. So in Revelation 16:5, we have the statement “Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.”
If we were to write a grammatically similar sentence, we could say, “You are righteous, O Lord, because you have judged thus.” Here, in my sentence, the word “Lord” is standing in for the longer name.
Now what happens if we take the naïve approach to the shorter form of the Greek sentence? If you translate it so that the word “holy” is nominative and not vocative:
1) “Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and holy, because thou hast judged thus.”
Then this would become:
1b) “You are righteous, O Lord, and holy, because thou hast judged thus.”
Notice, the word “holy” no longer becomes part of the name of God. That’s the point I want to make here. But this goes against the use of the definite article as we mentioned before, and the meaning of the verse is also slightly changed. Now God is both righteous and holy because of this judgement. It links the judgement to both righteousness and holiness, rather than connecting the latter intrinsically into the Name itself (as the case is in four other places in the book of Revelation with this construction).
So, take one other approach with the naïve translation, and you get this:
2) “Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, O holy one; because thou hast judged thus.”
This sentence would shorten to the same meaning that we had before. Because “O holy one” would be considered part of the name taken as a whole. And this is indeed what a large number of translations do. However, this has a problem for those who want to translate from the TR, because the Stephanus 1550 edition includes the extra word “and.” It says “καὶ ὁ ὅσιος”. The modern version get away with this second type of translation, wherein they still subsume the term “holy one” into the name, only because they are missing the “καὶ = and” in Revelation 16:5 in this place.
If we are going by Stephanus’ 1550 edition but ignoring the nomen sacrum, then we must instead translate it as, “and O holy” or something similar in order to keep the vocative that is required by the unusual construction with the definite article in these five places, one of which is Revelation 16:5. Some translations attempt to remove the “and” to deal with this, For example the WEB (based on the byzantine majority) attempts to translate this verse as the following: “You are righteous, who are and who were, you Holy One, because you have judged these things.” For it to say, “you Holy One,” is basically the same as if it said “O Holy One” or just “O Holy.” However, this translation removes the word “and,” a word which exists in the Stephanus 1550 text, as we said before.
I am definitely against removing the word “and” from any verse where it rightly belongs, as I’ve seen it done by loose translations and translators in places. Such as Colossians 2:2, where the KJV says “the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ” but many more recent translations (even of the TR) would instead say “the mystery of God the Father, and of Christ,” and here omit the fact that there are two “AND” words in the Greek TR for Colossians 2:2, not just one.
So, since we cannot remove the term “holy” from the vocative construction, and we cannot ignore the “and” word, the last possibility then is the phrase, “and O holy” or possibly “and you holy,” or similar. But I am not aware of anyone even attempting to make this translation. Neither the historical TR translations, nor the modern ones make this. This is another supplemental brick, one which we didn’t even need, in the already-existing wall of evidence.
Another small piece of exegetical evidence I have considered is the fact that since the specific NS in Revelation 16:5 actually ends in “ἐσόμενος” instead of “ἐρχόμενος,” this means that Revelation 16:5 is a name of God with a single occurrence. It also contains a hapax legomenon. Let’s investigate the difference to see what is gained by this.
The other four vocative constructions all say “and which is to come” at the end, while Revelation 16:5 says, “and shalt be.” There is a definite similarity in one way, as these are both the future tense. It’s certainly a fitting final component to a Name of God in both cases. I think one difference that strikes me between these two Names is the fact that the latter Name is more a indefinite statement of continual existence, as opposed to a future event of coming. It is an unending existence into the future. Similar to Psalm 90:2. This Name in Revelation 16:5 reminds me of Exodus 3:14, where it says, “I AM THAT I AM,” and, “I AM hath sent me unto you.”
It would be unfortunate then if this name were to be removed from the Bible.
And it would be even more unfortunate still if one were to proceed along with the critical text, because upon doing so, another interesting piece falls into place. Take a look at Revelation 17:8 in the KJV and compare it with the critical text, and tell me what you see.
What you will see is that the last three words in the King James, which says, “and yet is” are changed to “YET WILL COME” or something similar. Did you notice the change? The Alexandrian critical text, in Revelation 17:8, in addition to the change in Revelation 16:5, also contains this change. Namely, the beast that ascends out of the bottomless pit is given the name “was, and is not, and yet will be.” Interesting that it removes this name from God and then applies the future tense to the beast that ascends out of the bottomless pit.
By the way, the Authorized Version says here, “the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.”
It doesn’t say “and will come,” future tense. So, this difference in Revelation 16:5 and 17:8 is another interesting juxtaposition, then, between the modern versions on one hand and the Textus Receptus on the other.
Hello Andrew!
Thanks for your comment.
I was never trying to misrepresent what you said. That would not work especially well right after your comment, with all its context, was posted for everyone to see, would it?
In fact, I also am not trying to prove anything in particular, just stating that I find the NS explanation highly unconvincing.
When you said “everyone” knew, and I quoted you, neither I nor you meant that the three year-old on a yet-unreached island knew that Revelation 16:5 was a nomen sacrum. If you wish to go after my allegedly creating straw men further, you can, although I do not intended to respond to it further; you can simply explain your allegation, and I’ll plan to just leave it alone.
In my view, however, it would be much more helpful to link to some MSS where, outside of this text, ho hosios is a nomen sacrum for ho esomenos than to remind me that lying and misrepresentation is a sin, although if you believe I am guilty there, thanks for the reminder. You also seem to have missed that I pointed out that the actual nomen sacrum in 1 Timothy 3:16 is discussed because it actually is a nomen sacrum. Whether your argument is that nobody said Revelation 16:5 contains a nomen sacrum because everyone just knew it, nobody just knew it, or whatever percentage of people knew and did not know it in between you intend, you argument is still vastly more improbable than the fact that nobody said it was a nomen sacrum simply because it is not a nomen sacrum. The reason nobody is discussing the second moon that orbits planet earth is not because everyone just knows it, nobody recognized it is really a moon but thought it was something else, or some percentage in between everyone/nobody knew, but because there is no second moon. The reason nobody was discussing the alleged nomen sacrum in Revelation 16:5 until Mr. Sayers came along is because it isn’t one.
If you are not trying to say that the ho erchomenos and ho esomenos are alternative ways to unpack the alleged nomen sacrum ho hosios then I have no idea what you are trying to prove with these allegedly similar but not identical readings. I don’t actually see how they are any more similar than the verbs “come” and “be” are similar in English.
I apparently do not understand your “O” point either.
Let me clarify that in Revelation 16:5 the articular substantival participles do fit into the semantic category of nominative for vocative. They are not vocatives, but they are nominatives where the nominative is used for a direct address. I don’t want what I said in an earlier comment to be misunderstood. If someone is reading this and does not know what an articular substantival participle is, that is fine, but such a person should recognize that he should learn Greek grammar a bit before he is likely to get much from this discussion, and without that knowledge he may end up confused and with a more inaccurate understanding of the question than a more accurate one.
If you are able to answer my unanswered questions, that’s fine. If you don’t want to, you have liberty to do that as well, as long as you do it for the glory of God and with love and faith in Christ by the Spirit.
Dear Anonymous Long Comment Person,
I appreciate that you want to understand Scripture. That is great.
I would suggest that you spend some more time learning Greek. Someone who had a good Greek professor and paid attention in 2nd year Greek will see that you are clearly mistaken in your analysis. Someone with 3+ years of Greek is likely to see it easily and immediately. Someone with no Greek is not likely to get it, so I am not going to explain why in this comment thread. I would like to commend to you further study of the Greek language and also the exercise of care about drawing conclusions that may be a little beyond your current level of understanding. This is not an insult–just a statement of fact and a suggestion for you. Your argument simply betrays what I (hopefully graciously) would describe as a clearly limited understanding of the language you are speaking about. It is not what the Greek text means or what ho hosios, the reading of 100% of extant Greek MSS, means in that verse. Have you ever read the book of Revelation in Greek?
Your webarchive.org link is just Sayers’ argument. The alleged patristic evidence is a big stretch. The verb “to be” is very, very common, so finding the most common Greek word–“the”–followed by the form of “to be” in ho esomenos does not prove a patristic writer is supporting Beza in Rev 16:5. Someone like Chrysostom preaching verse by verse through Revelation and exegeting ho esomenos at the appropriate point in his Revelation commentary going through chapter 16 would be proof of the existence of Beza’s reading. Calling God “He who shall be” on its own does not prove anything. Someone aware of Exodus 3:14 and Jehovah’s affirmation of self-existence could easily do that without ever having heard of the Beza variant in Revelation 16:5. Simple probability would also make it extremely likely that in the huge mass of patristic and medieval writing the phrase ho esomenos would exist, even apart from its appropriate nature as a Divine title.
Thanks.
Dear whoever is reading this,
Please note that I’m not on a crusade against Scrivener’s TR in Rev 16:5. I love Scrivener’s TR and have read it cover to cover five times (I believe). Reading the Greek TR is a tremendous soul-refreshing joy. I just don’t want to make invalid arguments that don’t honor God if they are just not true, and don’t advance His cause or the Biblical doctrine of perfect preservation if they are not true.
Hi Thomas, thanks for getting back to me.
I’m guessing you mean the fact that “is to come” is actually a present middle or passive participle in Greek. If you think that the above phrase doesn’t point to a future event in its grammatical aspect (future perfect verb construction), though, then I really have to wonder.
You wrote: “If you wish to go after my allegedly creating straw men further, you can, although I do not intended to respond to it further”
I don’t consider what you wrote as a full response to my objections. That’s ok, it just means I won’t ever be able to answer the rest of what you wrote, because I can’t recognize what you represented me as saying as what I actually believe. I hope that that makes sense.
You also wrote: “If you are not trying to say that the ho erchomenos and ho esomenos are alternative ways to unpack the alleged nomen sacrum ho hosios then I have no idea what you are trying to prove with these allegedly similar but not identical readings.”
Simple, just read my post.
I wrote: “it seems most likely to me that there was a general awareness around the 1599 timeframe that Revelation 16:5, or specifically that phrase contained a nomen sacrum. This led to the placement of an expansion to this NS in the Nuremberg Polyglot of 1599 which, while it doesn’t match Beza, it still occurs in a different not entirely unfeasible way.”
The point of what most likely happened should be obvious from what I wrote. To spell it out briefly, this is one way you can end up with a situation with Beza, Hutter and Elzevir giving their versions of Revelation 16:5 when they did. Hutter knew that there was supposed to be an NS there and wanted to expand it. However, he was too loyal to the manuscripts he had, and didn’t apparently have access to the same source that Beza had been using (since 1582) to introduce the correct NS expansion – with the hapax legomenon. So, while he knew that there was supposed to be an NS there, he went with another expansion in his polyglot – namely, what it says in the other four Revelation passages. Either it was conjectural or else possibly a minority reading in lieu of a manuscript with the word ” ἐσόμενος “. Maybe Hutter had a manuscript that had this reading, I don’t know (we’ll soon show that it’s not important either way). But this was in lieu of actual physical evidence for the Elzevir/Beza rendering “ἐσόμενος” that we know today. Clearly Elzevir and Beza had that evidence, which is why they included it in their TR, but they only did so after seeing it; the fact that it’s an NS would make it easier to adapt such a reading despite likely being a minority reading. Hutter must have not had access to that specific evidence, but he still knew that there was supposed to be an NS, based on the internal and external evidence that it was. That’s why he treated it like one. So whether it was a conjectural emendation by Hutter himself, or by someone else who became Hutter’s source, the reality is the same either way that this third witness (Nuremberg Polyglot 1599) testifies that there is an NS expansion to the abbreviated Stephanus reading, even if it’s a different one than what Beza had. If anything, the fact that this third witness is different from Beza instead of the same speaks even more to this point, because it couldn’t have been copied from Beza’s TR.
And so, as we have now established by three witnesses that this is an NS, the proper expansion (given by both Elzevir and Beza) is formally equivalent to what Stephanus has, and we know that it would translate the same, either way, just as any Nomen Sacrum would.
In this sense wherein two variant spellings of the same passage are equivalent, it is also similar to how Luke 2:22 could have been translated the same way, regardless of whether it had the singular or plural reading, as we discussed in another article previously. And therefore, Revelation 16:5 or Luke 2:22 do not belong in the same category of serious variants between the TR editions of Stephanus and Beza, as with Romans 12:11 (“time” vs “Lord”), John 16:33 (“have” vs “shall have”) or 1 John 2:23. And even these still have perfectly good witnesses attesting to their readings. So, hopefully that explains the context of what we’re talking about more clearly, in case it wasn’t clear to anyone yet!
Thomas wrote: “Let me clarify that in Revelation 16:5 the articular substantival participles do fit into the semantic category of nominative for vocative.”
Yes, I agree. I find myself agreeing with you more, perhaps, than “myself as represented by you”! Hopefully that makes sense. I am satisfied to leave things like that.
Hello Andrew! I think I am going to leave this where it is, but if you ever come up with any actual evidence in ancient MSS that there is a nomen sacrum in Revelation 16:5, or any actual statement by Beza or anyone else involved in editing the TR, please feel free to share it. Beza certainly did not say anything like this when he gave his reason for ho esomenos in his annotations.
Just so you know, there is only one future perfect in the whole NT, and it isn’t in Revelation anywhere–it is εἰδήσουσί in Hebrews 8:11.
Also, a verb’s aspect is different from a verb’s time. So, no, its aspect does not point to future time.
Also, while I was not talking about “is to come,” that verb is deponent. It therefore has neither a passive nor a middle sense to it. It is the same as an active voice verb. Maybe this was clear to you already, but if it was not, I would suggest diving a bit deeper into the Greek language, as this is something students would learn quite early in 1st year Greek.
It would be too late to start with my current batch of students, I suspect, but you could teach yourself at least first year Greek with some diligence and the resources at https://faithsaves.net/Greek-courses/.
Thanks.
The phrase, “Is to come” doesn’t point to future time? If you say so. When you say “its aspect does not point to future time” I assume you are talking about the Greek verb and you keep trying to make it be about that in order to try to say that I am wrong, but I was always talking about the phrase in English.
These are subtle misrepresentations. For instance, you say it’s “the same as” an active voice verb and you would be right. But the form is middle or passive. See what I mean? And I know you are aware of this fact. So, you act like on the surface what you are saying contradicts what I am saying, when in reality it does not. And on yet another level, I never even meant to talk about the voice of the underlying Greek word anyway. That’s not what I’m trying to talk about right now. I don’t think delving into and arguing over (or trying to argue) such details makes you some kind of a superior believer or gives insights unattainable to anyone else. It just amounts arguing over semantic categories after a certain point. Yes, “shall be” and “is to come” are not the same, as I already pointed out. But they are not radically different, as some of your counter-arguments made against me seem to imply. And any English speaker knows that both of them do in fact point to the future, you don’t need to know a foreign language to know that. Come on now.
It’s unfortunate that you refuse to retract your earlier misrepresentations of me, and it’s unfortunate too that you don’t acknowledge that it was both a lie and a misrepresentation, which is a sin. I was outright saying that you sinned but even if you choose not to acknowledge that sin, I will forgive it anyway. That’s my will. Yes, everyone can see that you lied about me, about what I said. You seem to have thought that I wouldn’t go to the lengths to point that out, but I just did. And that’s what this situation is about.
Instead it seems you try to find something to nitpick about and just leave some kind of uncertainty floating about. Sure, then. But if I am wrong about something, we still haven’t seen anything concrete in that direction – there are only subtle misrepresentations of things I said, things which obviously don’t follow. I don’t like to keep seeing that. Maybe you caught some mistake I made which you allude to but are unwilling to talk about it. I’m comfortable with that. We can’t keep doing this though. Let me tell you what a charitable person would do. I’d like to think that I myself would always do this, and that’s what I strive to do if God can help me every day. If I saw anything somebody said that was inaccurate, I would either say nothing or just straightforwardly point out a mistake and provide the constructive alternative answer (not only criticizing like the radical skeptic does). The last thing I would do is try to make things an ego contest, because that’s disgraceful. I apologize to anyone who might think that’s what I’m doing here, rather than defending a reading in Scripture that appears very clear and well supported by the evidence, both internal and external.
I benefitted from the interaction between Andrew and Thomas. Thank you. You both have contributed to my increased knowlwdge of God’s word(s), and I consider you both way above me in knowledge.
I do think that Thomas’ responses in this thread have been condescending. I often learn from you, Brother Thomas, but I do sense that there is something to that which Andrew referred to – perhaps nitpicking to “win the debate” on technical grounds rather than an evident attitude of gentleness and kindness where mutual edification is the goal.
(I might comment more and ask questions more if I thought the responses would be gentle, spiritually helpful and Christ-like.)
I did not in detail check out the charge Andrew made of you sinning against him by possible misrepresentation, but I think he may have a point. I wonder if a brotherly phone call between you two would be beneficial since in some of your responses I did not sense goodwill toward Andrew from you, Brother Thomas. I seldom sense that you underrate your knowledge, but rather I often sense that you think you have already thought the issue under discussion through sufficiently, and therefore have to be right, or that you can handle it on the fly and be pretty sure you’ll get it right. You seem to communicate doubt about the sincerity and goodwill of other posters such that I tend to wonder about yours sometimes. That is what I sense. Generally speaking, I think you are more kind and less – shall I say – cocky, when you and Brother Kent disagree. With (many) others, not so.
I will keep this anonymous because I think (hope) that by so doing the content will be considered, with no other biases. And that makes me wonder: do you two men already know each other and therefore there is more to the debate than we onlookers see? Maybe one or both of you reject aspects of the other’s interpretations on other topics and therefore there is “baggage” in the debate that colors your perceptions?
I am praying for you both and am genuinely grateful for what I have gained from you both. Thank you both! May God bless you.
Believing Onlooker
Thanks Onlooker. Hopefully we can work on it here and be better.
Hi Onlooker!
I’m thankful that you learned something.
Gentleness and Christ-likeness is certainly always the goal, and is something important I believe I can work on, as all areas of Christian growth. James tells us the tongue is hard to master.
Thanks for praying!
I am sure that it is easy for background to color how we perceive many things. For example, Andrew affirms that I am “outright lying” about him, but I am not even sure what he is talking about, which makes me weigh whether it is wise to keep talking to him. Of course, he sees things rather differently.
Hi Thomas,
In case you really don’t know what I’m talking about, please see the sentence I wrote where I said, “it wasn’t until recent times that anyone had a thought to try to argue that Revelation 16:5 in the KJV was wrong, without even knowing that much.” Then see the next post where you took my sentence, removed the last part of it and placed a period after the word “wrong.” The post you made makes it sound like I said something that I never said, and then quotes it back at me. That one was a concrete example, because you had to have taken my sentence and removed the comma and placed a period there to create a new, out of context quote. Or a misquote. Making it look like I had ended my sentence there. This is very provocative to me since I remember full well what I really wrote.
I pointed this out in the very next post, but since you say you are not even sure what I am talking about I wanted to give you another chance to go back and look just to be fair.
By the way, I never said the words “outright lying” either so I’m not sure where that came from either? You can press ctrl-f and search for the words. Anyone can search for this. I didn’t say such a thing. I never did. And I’d rather not dwell on this any longer at this point. See you in the next one.
– Andrew
Because of time reasons, I have not been reading the comments between you. I know what I think about Revelation 16:5 and we both agree on the reading. Even though I agree with onlooker, I think we also have to be sure not to be too sensitive in these kinds of discussions.
To my onlooking friend,
I am glad I came back to view this page one more time at the end of this Lord’s day after receiving some refreshing from church today. My thought at this moment is, I think you yourself might have displayed greater knowledge in this thread just by remembering what Jesus said during the Sermon on the Mount, so thank you for that. We can’t forget to remember to forgive and keep our eyes on Jesus, and I recently got to hear a sermon on that subject and I so agree.
To everyone reading this (who finds this of interest, at least):
Andrew said:
“it wasn’t until recent times that anyone had a thought to try to argue that Revelation 16:5 in the KJV was wrong, without even knowing that much.”
To everyone reading this (who finds this of interest, at least):
When I quoted part of his sentence, he didn’t use the exact phrase, “outright lying.” Instead, he said:
“It’s unfortunate that you refuse to retract your earlier misrepresentations of me, and it’s unfortunate too that you don’t acknowledge that it was both a lie and a misrepresentation, which is a sin. I was outright saying that you sinned but even if you choose not to acknowledge that sin, I will forgive it anyway. That’s my will. Yes, everyone can see that you lied about me, about what I said. You seem to have thought that I wouldn’t go to the lengths to point that out, but I just did. And that’s what this situation is about.”
So there is the context.
Please consider, Andrew, that charity hoping and believing all things, showing great respect and love for those who preach and teach God’s Word, and similar principles would be worth considering in what you wrote above. Maybe ask your pastor if the paragraph above is respectful and honoring to God, and whether concluding that I am lying is the proper conclusion to draw when I quote your exact words but leave out the end of the sentence and put in a period, not to hide something, but because periods end sentences. Please consider this also in light of your recent attempt to analyze my internal state in the comments here:
https://kentbrandenburg.com/2022/09/30/historic-doubts-relative-to-napoleon-buonaparte-by-richard-whately-skepticism/
which was remarkably unsuccessful, and so maybe your attempt here is also not accurate. Perhaps we should exercise a bit more care before accusing people of things, and if that does not happen, nobody will want to interact with us or think interacting with us is valuable, instead of being a waste of time that will result in unjustified accusations.
Thanks.
I stand behind my words 100%.
Leaving something off of a quotation is not necessarily lying. You want to be careful not to make that accusation unless you know he left it off on purpose in order only to win an argument.
Thomas,
In as short an answer as possible (maybe one sentence), could you state your presupposition that leads you to question the Scrivener and King James version reading of Revelation 16:5?
Dear Bro Brandenburg,
Sure thing—Scripture teaches words will be preserved, not lost and restored, making what could be a conjectural emendation by Beza, ho esomenos, dubious, and the reading of 100% of known Greek MSS and widely used TR editions, ho hosios, look superior.
We have printed editions with ho esomenos received by the churches for hundreds of years. Do you think that ho hosios was received by believers? Why was it rejected as a reading for hundreds of years? Is that a generation of believers that received ho hosios? The King James translators accepted it? Do you think they didn’t know the manuscript evidence behind it? Why did the 1633 include it? Do you open up the door to extant manuscript evidence as the basis, that’s your presupposition? You say it’s words preserved? How do we know what the words are? Is the narrative about Beza more trustworthy than what actually occurred? What was God doing in all that?
It would seem, Thomas, you can’t mix these two presuppositions without trouble. It’s a challenge, but the door opened seems to be more trouble than the conjectural emendation narrative. Read Riddle’s interpretation here:
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2019/02/wm-117-conjectural-emendation-white.html
Dear Bro Brandenburg,
Thanks for the comment. The idea that the words of the NT are now in a single printed edition is very attractive, although, as we both recognize, it is not required by the promises of Scripture.
Ho hosios definitely has been received by believers. First of all, it was the only reading received by believers for the vast majority of church history. That is why it is in 100% of the MSS that we have. The people that were copying the Greek NT were copying ho hosios, believing it was the Word of God. Ho esomenos is not in any pre-Reformation Anabaptist Bible. It either is nowhere else at all (Sayers evidence that it is anywhere else is not very strong, or something I would want confirmed by someone who is actually an expert in the area, as I highly doubt Mr. Sayers reads Syriac, and he does not prove that any Syriac text actually reads like the KJV in Revelation 16:5) or so close to nowhere else that it amounts to almost the same thing. Ho hosios is in widely-used TR-Bibles such as the English Geneva and the Spanish Reina-Valera. It is in widely-used TR editions in print today, in interlinear TR editions in use widely today, etc. There are many KJVO people who are reading and using Greek NT editions today that have ho hosios. Belief in the TR does not at all require one to hold to ho esomenos.
Someone could say that maybe ho esomenos really was in use all over the place but the evidence for that is now gone. If we can argue that way, then a CT person can say that maybe the text of Vaticanus was really in use all over the place but we just don’t have the evidence for it. Many corrupt readings in Vaticanus have much “better” evidence for them than what exists for ho esomenos in Revelation 16:5. How can we consistently reject the critical text as not in use by God’s people and then adopt what is probably a conjectural emendation that has much worse evidence for its being in use than there is for Vaticanus?
When you say that ho hosios was “rejected as a reading for hundreds of years,” what hundreds of years are you talking about where it was not in use and available to believers? I am not aware of even one Baptist commentator who discusses the manuscript evidence situation who says that ho hosios is wrong because it was rejected by believers for hundreds of years.
Unlike the widely-cited 1 John 5:7 or Acts 8:37, from my study of Baptist confessions there is no confession written by any group of Baptist churches that cites ho esomenos, much less specifically stands for that reading or stands against ho hosios. What proof is there that the Spirit has been leading true churches to reject ho hosios and adopt ho esomenos?
I do not know why the 1633 TR edition adopted ho esomenos, and unless we have some primary evidence, nor does anyone alive today else know why. If there is primary source material on this, I would be interested to find out about it. I do not know which post-Beza editions have ho hosios and which have something else, although I would be interested in finding out about it. I can speculate that the (non-Baptist) editors liked Beza’s (probable) conjectural emendation, but I would just be speculating, like anyone else, and guesswork should not have much weight placed upon it.
I do not think that the KJV translators were aware of the manuscript situation for ho esomenos. I think they were probably following Beza’s printed edition without looking at MS evidence. If there is any extant evidence that they followed that reading because there were Greek MSS with those words in them, I would be very interested.
Dr. Riddle is not committed to the position that Scrivener’s TR is perfect. His position is that one can do textual criticism among TR editions. At the very least, saying that one can compare TR editions that have been in continual use, and when one TR edition follows 100% of MSS evidence and the other has 0% of MSS evidence, it feels ridiculous to me to say that the one with 0% of the evidence was in the mouths of God’s people from the first century until today, despite every copy of the Greek NT, every Anabaptist vernacular translation, and just about all other evidence saying exactly the opposite. Conjectural emendation seems clearly contrary to what Scripture promises about preservation. It does not look to me like believing what Scripture promises to justify conjectural emendation. This is not about ignoring Scripture’s promises on preservation. This is about receiving what Scripture promises on preservation and applying those promises to see how God has preserved His words, just like He said He would.
By the way, Dr. Riddle also rejects the nomen sacrum explanation of Andrew as unjustified for obvious reasons like that it isn’t a nomen sacrum, there is no evidence that ho hosios was ever a nomen sacrum that really meant ho esomenos, and Beza never breaths the slightest hint that he was unpacking ho esomenos from a nomen sacrum of ho hosios in his textual comments. Andrew calling me a sinful liar and refusing to give in on that does not change the facts.
I had read Dr. Riddle’s article that you linked a while ago while looking into this passage, as well as reading (or, more accurately, listening aloud through twice a cut and pasted version of) Mr. Sayers’ book. I appreciate that Dr. Riddle is a serious scholar, and he is right that James White is inconsistent in opposing conjectural emendation but holding to the CT. Note that Dr. Riddle points out that previous serious defenders of the KJV say Revelation 16:5 is a conjectural emendation, like Dr. Hills. Note as well that Dr. Riddle does not deny it is a conjectural emendation, and also says that he has not translated the entire note, and that his conclusion is only that “a question might be raised” as to whether Revelation 16:5 was a conjectural emendation. He does not say that even if it were not a conjectural emendation that ho esomenos was correct, as even if Beza had one MS, rather than, say, had misinterpreted a handwritten note he had written earlier saying that there was one when there was not, it would not prove that ho esomenos were correct. However, if there is actual Greek MS support for ho esomenos then the reading certainly becomes more defensible.
Just as an FYI, based on Riddle’s suggestion about it maybe not being a conjectural emendation, I had actually asked the professor who wrote one of my Latin grammars about Beza’s reading and whether he was saying he actually had a Greek MS some time ago. My Latin is slowly improving but I am not at the point yet where I would feel confident about accurately translating Beza and being confident that I had done it properly and correctly evaluated both the immediate statement and its broader context.
Thomas,
There are several facets to the presupposition or presuppositions we take. You mention some of them and not all of them. You’ve left out, it seems, three at least that present a problem to the, let’s call it, conjectural emendation view of Revelation 16:5. The three are, settled text (Rev 22:18-19), inward working of the Holy Spirit that produces unity (Jn 15:26, 1 Jn 2:20, 27, Eph 4:3), and canonicity of the text (2 Tim 3:15, 2 Pet 3:15-16, Col 4:16). For centuries a vast majority received ho hesomenos. We both know the TR editions vary slightly, which is a common attack by the critical text/modern version proponents, the most common. We say, rightly so, that all the words were preserved and available among those editions based on scriptural presuppositions.
I knew everything else you wrote. The only real addition is a bias toward Beza having a manuscript as a push-back against the conjectural emendation position. It harmonizes with the idea that Beza, the Elzevir brothers, and the King James Translators weren’t relying on a conjectural emendation.
Is it possible that the late manuscripts with Revelation 16:5 came from a single variation in Revelation 16:5? That this was corrected by Beza, et al. You could say it doesn’t seem likely, but you can’t say they don’t. The ho hosios view doesn’t bother me, because of some of the reasons you have given, mainly that it’s in the received text, so it was preserved and available. You believe in my other three presuppositions among others, but it seems a struggle for you to apply them to ho hosios. The Spanish essentially rejected scripture for the Roman Catholic Church. Tyndale and Geneva didn’t establish or settle as the English translation.
Dear Bro Brandenburg,
Thanks for the comment. I have a knee-jerk reaction to defend the KJV whenever possible.
Could you specify who these vast majority are who defended ho esomenos? It is not cited in any Baptist confession of faith of which I am aware. Is it the vast majority of Baptist commentaries on Revelation that you refer to that reject ho hosios and defend ho esomenos after discussing the MSS situation? The Scrivener TR did not even exist until near the end of the 19th century, and TRs with ho hosios have been around the whole time. Is it the vast majority of believers in parts of the world where Dutch and Spanish and French are spoken, or are we limiting ourselves to people very like ourselves who speak English? Among English-speaking believers, do most people even know about the difference?
Thank you.
Hi Thomas,
The vast majority of churches and believers were English speaking and they used the King James Version for hundreds of years. It’s still the case. They accepted that reading in the English. I don’t count, who wrote a commentary, or what scholar said what, as the means by which we know what true churches received. These people believed God inspired and then preserved every Word. Most of them didn’t know ho hosios. That’s not what they read. They weren’t reading Tyndale or the Geneva Bible. They weren’t comparing the TR editions. They were reading the most published version of the Bible in the history of mankind. It’s not a shot at the French, Spanish, or Dutch people. A vast minority of those people were true believers. A vast majority were state church people under the traditions and authority of men. I’m not saying they didn’t have the Word of God. I think you know this answer already.
The huge Anabaptist martyrology from the early centuries to the Reformation era, Martyr’s Mirror, was not written in English. I am not aware of anything that is as big that was originally in English. Don’t those believers count?
While we speak English and rejoice over the Biblical influence among English speakers, why don’t the Christians who speak Spanish in Central and South America, Christians in the rest of Europe, Africa, and Asia count? Are we sure that the “vast majority” of Christians speak English, and that Christianity is not a global religion with people in many nations, tongues, and languages?
Of course, the KJV was made by state church people as well, in a country where only a small minority were true believers, as is always the case in every country.
It isn’t “who wrote a [single] commentary.” Looking at a large number of the many Baptist commentaries I have on Logos, from different centuries, I did not find even one that rejected ho hosios. A few brief commentaries did not address the issue. Some pointed out that hosios is strongly supported in the MSS. None said that ho esomenos was correct and rejected ho hosios. Is there a 100% disjunction between Baptists who wrote commentaries and what other believers held to? Did the pastors preaching through Revelation reject what 100% of Baptist commentaries (that I checked) affirmed and universally reject ho hosios? Or did the people in the pews reject what their pastors and their study resources say? Do we have evidence for this? If ho hosios was rejected by true believers for hundreds of years, where is our proof? It isn’t in Baptist confessions or Baptist commentaries. If Baptists were rejecting ho hosios, they seem to have been rather mum about it.
Thomas,
So you are disregarding the reading in the received Bible for four hundreds plus years? I never said anything about who did the translating. This kind of statement is why people might be upset with you at times. I’m saying that the Spanish and French followed the state church. I’m not going to go through a discussion of the English Reformation. It’s what James White calls a category error. Believers and true churches for four hundred plus years received the KJV. They did not receive something else. Are you arguing that believers received ho hosios for those four hundred years?
Martyrs Mirror was written in Dutch. The 1637 Dutch Statenvertaling uses the same reading as Beza and the KJV translators did.
Were these commentaries produced by churches? Why was there not an uprising to revise Revelation 16:5 to follow the other reading?
Listen here from minute 23 and following: https://www.sermonaudio.com/solo/tbs/sermons/921201341303485/ Larry Brigden from the Trinitarian Bible Society.
Also, every commentary I looked at from people in the early centuries of Christianity followed ho hosios.
Dear Bro Brandenburg,
I do not understand how arguing for a reading that is in widely used TRs that have been in use continually from the time of printing until today, as well as in 100% of extant Greek MSS, is disregarding the reading in the received Bible.
I do not understand your point about a state church. There was a state church in Spain, in France, in England, and in every other country in Europe. In all of these countries the majority of the people followed the state church. Every translator of the KJV was part of the English state church. A minority wanted to purify it more, and a majority was fine with how it was, and none of them were against a state church or were not part of one. If I needed to articulate how that the Spanish had a state church, which shows that the Reina Valera reading in Revelation 16:5 is incorrect, while the KJV esomenos is correct, I do not know how to even articulate the argument successfully. So I am sorry if I misstated your point—I confess I do not understand what it is.
I do not understand your question about whether Baptist commentaries were produced by churches. If you mean “Did the entire Baptist church write the commentary?” the answer is, of course, “No,” because there are no commentaries that I am aware of that were written in this way. Could you explain in more detail why it is that hosios is not opposed and rejected in any Baptist commentary that I could find?
You are correct about the 1637 Dutch translation. Thank you for pointing that out.
When I am writing this I do not have Internet; I cut and paste it in later. Could you refer me to a written source from the TBS, instead of audio, that proves esomenos is the reading that was in use by true believers from the first century until today, instead of the reading in 100% of Greek MSS, the pre-Reformation Anabaptist Bible translations, in many printed TR editions, and many commonly used vernacular Bibles—hosios? Of course, we are both thankful for the TBS, but we recognize that they are a para-church organization with no commitment at all to Baptist polity.
Believers and true churches did in general receive the KJV, as well as receiving the Reina Valera and other vernacular Bibles that are from the TR that read hosios. We don’t believe in English language preservation because the verses do not teach that. Does Scripture teach that we know what the correct Greek words are by the sole criterion of looking at textual-critical choices made by Scrivener based on the KJV? If that is not the sole criterion, hosios wins by every other criterion.
“Why was there not an uprising to revise Revelation 16:5 to follow the other reading?” Could you explain what kind of uprising you are talking about, and where such an uprising has ever happened over one Greek word (esomenos vs. hosios) in church history? Did such an uprising happen so that all the Baptists I could find who wrote commentaries on Revelation 16:5, not a one of which said hosios was wrong, got disciplined out of their churches? Why have TR editions that have hosios been in use for centuries, and interlinears, computer tools, etc. with hosios still find a place in vast numbers of KJVO churches? Where is the uprising? I don’t understand what kind of uprising you expect to have happened, and where we see examples of these uprisings in church history.
“Are you arguing that believers received ho hosios for those four hundred years?” Hosios is the only reading that has been in use, not only for 400 years, but for 2,000 years, including the last 400. Esomenos was not in use for 1,600 years. It cannot be the correct reading if it was not in use for that long of a time. If it can be, then we can no longer consistently argue against Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. We cannot argue consistently against the unscriptural “restored Bible” mindset of the critical text.
Maybe you could explain what you believe should be done when the KJV reads “Amen” in Ephesians 6:24 but the Scrivener TR does not include amen, and illustrate the type of uprising you are expecting in churches over hosios in Revelation 16:5 from whichever reading in Ephesians 6:24 you believe is correct. The easy answer, it seems to me, is that the TR editions with amen are correct and the KJV is correct here, following 97% of Greek MSS, while the Scrivener TR is wrong to leave amen out. But if we have to go with whatever the KJV chooses in Revelation 16:5, then it seems we have to conclude in Ephesians 6:24 that the Scrivener TR is wrong, which means that all the words are not in the blue book published by the TBS. In any case, I have not been aware of any documented uprising over either reading in Ephesians 6:24.
I would be interested in hearing how you would council a Baptist pastor in Columbia to explain why his people should reject the reading in his TR Bible, which is older than the KJV, and adopt a reading that is in 0% of extant Greek MSS.
Thank you for your strong desire to defend the promises of Scripture on preservation and love every one of the words God has inspired and preserved for His people.
The idea that the Scrivener edition of the TR is perfect is very attractive. I just have difficulty seeing how it fits with Scripture’s promises of perfect preservation and perpetual availability in a very, very small number of words, where it seems like other TR editions have the preserved words. I feel like I would not be honest with what Scripture promises were I to say that what is probably a conjectural emendation by Beza is the true reading in Revelation 16:5, or that anywhere else a conjectural emendation is the correct reading. The difficulty is less, but still present, if Beza had one MS that is now lost but we are still having to say that a reading in exactly zero extant Greek MSS is the true reading which was in use century after century after century but somehow did not find its way into any of the large numbers of MSS of Revelation that we have today.
Thanks again.
Thomas,
I’m going to explain one more time. I did not, I did not, say that this relates to state church translations. It relates to believers using only the KJV for 400 years and this was a majority of believers in that time period. You didn’t join the state church by using the KJV. There was freedom in England not to be in the state church. And even if you were in it in England, there was a wider variance in the beliefs of those in it. Roman Catholicism preached a false gospel to the extent that there weren’t believers in that denomination in Spain and France. The English Reformation was different, as you know, Puritans remained in the state church, but they were saved. You know that it was different in England because of the nature of freedom there. I said I didn’t want to explain it, but I guess you don’t understand that. More copies of the KJV were printed and used by an exponentially wider margin. You also know that. This has been an argument for a standard sacred text, which is testimony of the Holy Spirit, canonization, and a settled text. The category error is that translation by state church means that the translation is corrupt, that Revelation 16:5 must be corrupted, which is an implication of what you’re saying in your attempt to scorch earth a debate like you do as a norm. It doesn’t win anything. I’m saying that English believers represent a vast majority of true churches and they weren’t challenging the reading in the KJV.
I’m also saying that churches did not rise up to overturn the reading in Revelation 16:5. Did churches publish those commentaries? Churches today publish the Bible. Our church has published books. I’m saying that scripturally, since the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, and the churches kept that reading, that is another presupposition that represents a biblical position. You are weighing extant commentaries as superior to the Bible believers were using. I think you understand what I’m saying. I’m incredulous that you don’t get it.
Larry Brigden, part of TBS, apparently knows Latin and has read Beza’s work in Latin. He also apparently did a written work to which he’s referred. I can’t find it online and in this interview he talks about it. He says that the conjecture story is not what it says and that it isn’t true. He says that Beza said that he came from an ancient manuscript on Revelation 16:5. I think it’s worth pursuing, because the interview remains online and he’s very dogmatic in the interview. I’m not convinced of Beza coming from merely a conjecture.
Again, I’ve never said English language preservation. That is total, total strawman. This is something you don’t need to do Thomas. It’s doesn’t look good either for you to resort to it in a discussion with me. It’s transparent to anyone reading that you’re doing it. Maybe your position is right. I’m actually fine with you if you believe it, but just deal with what the points I’m actually making. You know I don’t believe in that. Scrivener wasn’t using English as his guide either. He used the TR editions upon which the translators relied. The English didn’t believe because they were English. Who is saying that, Thomas? Please stop. I wonder about your debating present and future if this is what you’re going to do in a debate. It’s below you. And you resort to it regularly. I’m happy that the Reina Valera uses the TR. It’s a reading that’s been available.
What’s the point of bringing up whether TBS is Baptist? Most of the people in TBS are Baptists. Their general director is a Baptist pastor. I’ve been to his church in Westminster and had a lengthy conversation with him. What is the point there? Do you use a TBS published TR? I guess you’re a parachurch organization supporter, who appreciates fellowship with Presbyterians and Anglicans. Of course not. But that would be an identical kind of argumentation as you’re using.
Churches used the aforementioned reading. No uprising. They didn’t try to change it. You’re saying there’s no point there? Instead, rely on comments made by commentators? They didn’t influence the churches to make a translation from a different text.
Thomas, I didn’t say I believe Scrivener’s is it. I said that’s what Van Kleeck said. It’s reasonable to me. You can also take Scrivener’s annotated edition and it includes Amen in Ephesians 6. These are all men who believe in perfect preservation. I think we should be careful in going too hard on their position. This is a reason no one wants to say, which TR? They get it from James White, Mark Ward, and maybe Thomas Ross too, shot at on both sides. They believe in a settled text. This is a matter of faith. You can argue for Amen or not Amen in Ephesians 6 for whatever reason, but when someone gives you an argument, don’t strawman it. Just answer the argument in a civil way.
I would argue with the Columbian pastor like I’m arguing with you for Revelation 16:5. I probably wouldn’t argue with him at all, because he takes a TR position, but if we did argue on this, I would rely on the same presuppositions and think that he would understand them. Riddle has interviewed in his Word Magazine men who take his position on the text in South America. It’s not a Spanish thing. You’re making it that.
Your extant manuscript position, I believe, is indefensible with biblical presuppositions. I didn’t know you took it until this discussion. It seems like a change for whatever reason. I remember you taking a TR edition position before. Am I correct in saying this is a change for you?
Anyone guessing that Thomas and I have a problem with each other because we are pushing with each other in this discussion, and I decided to show it in public, don’t understand that we are close and remain so. He alone writes on my blog and many other evidences otherwise.
Dear Bro Brandenburg,
Thank you for your clarification—it is appreciated.
I agree that the KJV has been the strongly predominant English Bible for a long time, although I would not say believers were exclusively using the KJV for 400 years, since the Geneva Bible was a serious competitor to the KJV for a long time, was the Bible the Pilgrims brought to the USA, etc. It is still a competitor, although not a serious one, and the fact that I know someone who uses it in an IFB KJVO church from a recent modern reprint of the Geneva does not, of course, make it a serious competitor any longer. (I would prefer that this person use the KJV rather than the Geneva.) I think it would be accurate to say that TR-based Bibles were in use for hundreds of years by believers, exclusively or almost exclusively.
I don’t know where I said that translation made by a state “church” proved that the translation was corrupt, but if I did, let me be clear that I don’t believe that. I was trying to understand your point about the Spanish having a state church as an argument against the Reina Valera. I would also assume that you know (although some other readers may not) that Reina and Velera and others working with them fled from Spain to translate the Bible into Spanish, somewhat like the way Baptist-influenced Tyndale fled from England to translate the first English original language Bible.
I do not believe that Revelation 16:5 has been corrupted, since I believe 100% of the Greek MSS have the correct reading. Saying that 100% of the MSS are wrong looks much closer to saying that the verse has been corrupted, but God has promised this would not happen (as we both agree).
I don’t understand how you can say “English believers … were not challenging the reading in the KJV” when I cannot find even one commentary by Baptist English believers who attacked hosios as wrong in Revelation 16:5, far less from it being universal to attack hosios.
Could you clarify what you mean by churches “rising up” to argue for one Greek word, esomenos, being correct over the other Greek word, hosios? Please point out what this has looked like in church history when it happened. Or, perhaps, could you point out what it has looked like in differences of comparable significance (which is not the biggest significance) for differences between the Oxford and Cambridge KJV editions, such as:
2 Kings 19:23, “the Lord” versus “the LORD” Cambridge/Oxford, “sins” vs. “sin” in 2 Chronicles 33:19; “O Lord” vs. “O LORD” (Neh 1:11), or “whom he” vs. “whom ye” (Jer 34:16)
Have churches had an uprising over either Cambridge or Oxford, whichever one is wrong? As far as I can tell, the large majority of Baptist churches have used both printings of the KJV. I am not clear on what this sort of uprising is supposed to look like. How were Baptist churches punishing those who advocated hosios, such as (at least a) very large percentage of the Baptist pastors and other leaders who wrote commentaries? Or in relation to the “amen” or lack thereof at the end of Ephesians, what uprising has taken place over the wrong reading, and what did it look like? I do not understand what you believe should have happened were hosios the correct reading. Is it possible that the use of the KJV is another example of the Spirit leading churches to receive the TR, but it does not prove that individual words in Revelation (esomenos/hosios) or Ephesians (amen/ no amen) or OT passages (LORD/Lord) should not be determined by what has 100% (Revelation) or 97% (Amen, in Ephesians) of the textual evidence but by figuring out whether a higher percentage of Baptist churches were using Cambridge or Oxford KJV editions, whether a higher percentage of Baptists spoke English than Spanish, what percentage were using Scrivener’s TR versus Stephanus 1550, etc.?
Is your position that Baptist commentaries are irrelevant as evidence for what Baptist churches received, because these commentaries, like 99.9% of all commentaries, were composed by individual people, rather than by churches as a whole? Should we say that Baptist commentators held positions that were in opposition to the position of the churches they were members of or leaders in?
I’m not committed to saying Beza engaged in a conjectural emendation. It is possible that he said he had one MS with esomenos; my Latin is not good enough for me to be definitive at this point one way or the other on an (at least possibly) important question like this. It is also possible that, as I read that a book I have not read argued (so this is not primary source work here, but third hand), that Beza misread a note he had written himself and thought he had a MS when he was speaking about something else, that is, he thought he had taken notes from a MS somewhere but misread his note. I am not committed to that either. As I said above, esomenos is more defensible if at least there was one MS with the reading at some point, although more defensible does not mean correct, any more than my house is more defensible against elite Army commandos if the doors are locked and the garage door is down means I would hold out for very long.
Thank you for pointing out that the Scrivener TR with the annotations of the RV has amen at the end of Ephesians 6 while the TBS blue cover Scrivener TR does not. That was a very interesting point, and, checking up on this, you are exactly correct. I wonder if there are any other differences between Scrivener TRs. I am not aware of anyone addressing this.
I do not believe you take an English word preservation position. My point was that the only way esomenos is defensible is if we assume that whatever the KJV translated from must necessarily be correct, even if other TR editions, other very commonly used vernacular TR Bibles, the evidence we have from Baptists talking about Revelation 16:5, and 100% of the MSS have something different.
If you could explain how you would refute the charge that you are inconsistent in defending esomenos but rejecting Vaticanus, I would be interested in seeing how you would do that, if you have the time to explain.
I don’t just think that saying the Scrivener edition is reasonable is justifiable, but I think the position is very attractive. Having all the words in one printed edition is very attractive. I just have a hard time seeing how in this very, very, very small number of places the reading in this edition of the TR is defensible, rather than a reading in a different TR. Yes, I thought in the past that the Scrivener TR was identical to the autographs, but at that point I did not know that there were not just some minority readings in it (1 John 5:7, Acts 8:37, etc. which are defensible) but also a very, very small number of places like the single word esomenos that, at least at this point, look indefensible to me, while other widely-used TR editions seem to have a much more defensible—and by defensible I mean consistent with Scripture’s promises—reading. When I did not know this, and I thought Scrivener was likely to be exactly the same as the autographs, I still recognized that this was not something directly promised by Scripture, and something that did not exist for the majority of church history (I do not say “did not exist for the vast majority,” but for the “majority,” because as long as the autographs themselves were extant, which might have been a very long time, it would have been possible to get an exactly perfect copy of Scripture, and this situation likely persisted through careful copying of the autographs into generations of subsequent copies.)
As I believe you would agree, we are in agreement on the Biblical presuppositions here, but it is a question of how to apply those presuppositions in a very, very small number of passages.
“What’s the point of bringing up whether TBS is Baptist?”
The point is that God’s special presence is not in the TBS the way it is in the local congregation. If Baptist churches were universally saying one printed edition of the TR was perfect, that would be more significant than the TBS printing Scrivener and not even believing it is perfect themselves. As has been pointed out, the large majority of Baptist statements of faith by KJVO churches do not say they are speaking of a particular edition of the TR when they speak about God preserving the TR. And, furthermore, while the Spirit does lead churches to receive truth, it is not as easy as just looking at whatever a majority of Baptist churches are doing in year X and concluding that must be correct. On that basis, psalm-singing would be wrong, because, contrary to Baptist practice in times past, a very small percentage of Baptist churches obey the perfectly plain commands in the NT to sing psalms.
By the way, I have read Riddle saying he is not only not KJVO, but not even TR-only, but only TR-preferred. That is too weak of a position, although I appreciate his critique of the CT people and general defense of the TR.
Thanks again for your clarifications—I have learned a few things through this discussion.
Hi Thomas,
I’m glad you weren’t making a point of the state church producing the KJV. It seemed like you were making a point. My thinking was, why else would he write that? It seemed to be making one, but you’re saying, no, nothing there. Thank you.
I want to be sure on this. You’re saying that 100% of manuscripts, hand written copies, which seem to be more important to you than if copies are printed on a printing press, had ho hosios in it. Am I wrong on that? I’m giving you a chance to clarify that you know this to be true. I know that my position is that the words are preserved, not necessarily ink or paper or parchment. Many, many printed Greek editions are available and have been available that have esomenos in it. I would guess that there are tens of thousands that have esomenos in them. I’m writing something I believe you would have written or said until recently.
Regarding believers rising up to make sure that ho hosios was the reading and not esomenos, I have not seen or heard of it. Can you give me an example? I never said that believers rose up over esomenos. I have written and said that the most published and copied translation in all history, the King James Version, still the one most published today and purchased by far, translates esomenos, and churches and believers received that. I used the terminology “rising up,” not in some technical way, but to wonder why those who gladly receive his Word did not push in a diligent and vigilant way to see this correction take place, so that the one word was not added or taken away in a verbal, plenary inspired Bible.
For anyone reading, for me the separating issue for bibliology of preservation is the belief in what the Bible teaches about preservation. I want the biblical and historical doctrine of preservation to be kept. As this applies to the issue which Thomas and I are speaking, I wouldn’t separate over ho hosios and the explanation Thomas is giving. I am not convinced of it, because I’m not convinced that it matches my presuppositions derived from the Bible, about which I’m challenging Thomas in these comments. I’m still not satisfied with what he’s saying. We both believe every Word is preserved and available. He seems to be saying that esomenos was not available until Beza added a conjecture in one of his TR editions, one picked up by the Elzevir brothers in 1633, and then translated by the King James Translators. I don’t believe it was a conjecture. He’s bringing as strong a challenge as there could be, but it falls short for me so far.
Back to Thomas. I don’t think esomenos represents a snapshot in history, like you seem to be asserting. I still believe true churches are using the King James. I don’t think Spanish churches are using a different word in the Reina Valera because of some dedication to ho hosios. Many of them, I believe, have leaders who inform their congregations that it should be esomenos, and then explain that. I’m saying ho hosios is not the word used in a settled text, a standard sacred text, an ecclesiastical text. Those who use Revelation 16:5 to indicate that this is an English preservation position are wrong. There are a lot of minor variations on the applications and some of the details in the bibliology of preservation of scripture among even Baptists, like Riddle, Van Kleeck, various Baptists who serve with TBS, and others. Van Kleeck came out and committed in a greater way than Riddle. I don’t really know exactly what Riddle believes. Some of the men with whom he writes and speaks in conferences in churches have a more committed position than he does.
Dear Bro Brandenburg,
Thanks for the comment and for the thoughtful discussion.
It is not without significance what readings God allows to get printed in a printing press, or, for that matter, allows to be available and widely used in computer software. The words need to be in the mouths of God’s people in every generation. The problem with a reading that has 0% MSS support is that is strongly saying it was not in the mouths of God’s people for a very, very long time. Scripture would lead us to expect that the true words would be in the large majority of Greek MSS the large majority of the time, since God has preserved all His Greek words, with possibly a few exceptions, which is exactly what we have in the TR–a large majority of Greek MSS supporting it, with a small percentage of exceptions where it has minority Greek support but a lot of other support showing that the reading was in the mouths of God’s people.
Maybe–maybe–a reading that Beza says is in a MS but that MS is gone could have been in the mouths of God’s people generation to generation, and now it is in 0% of MSS, but this creates a lot of problems, and seems like a tremendous concession to the CT crowd if we go with it. I don’t think it fits very well with Scripture’s promises. Is it better than just Beza making up a reading? Yes, certainly–that seems totally indefensible from Scripture. But even if Beza had one MS, which has now vanished, this leaves a lot of problems. The NT has better MS evidence than any other ancient book. How can the best attested ancient book ever have the true reading entirely vanish from evidence that is overwhelmingly better than any other ancient text? Does that make it impossible to reconstruct ancient history, or, say, provide archaeological evidence for Scripture? What if Mormons say the same thing happened with all the evidence for their doctrines in the Bible that happened to esomenos in Revelation 16:5? What if Muslims say that the original NT talked about Muhammad but now he is gone, but that could have happened because the true readings of the NT can vanish from 100% of the MSS on my own presuppositions? I do not see how we can consistently oppose the Vaticanus/Sinaiticus text on the grounds it was not in use but then defend readings that have worse evidence for them than many in the CT / minority / textus rejectus (my term for the CT).
I don’t believe there is any reason to conclude that there would be a general “rising up” over a single word in the book of Revelation, whatever the word is. I have never employed this “rising up” argument. So I don’t believe there would be a “rising up” against esomenos. I think if esomenos is wrong, we would see that believers would not copy it, so it is not in the MSS–check. It is not in widely used ancient versions–check. It has incredibly poor evidence for it, and the “evidence” people cite for it was not cited by Beza-check. It is not used in Baptist confessions–check. It is not defended as clearly the truth against variant readings in Baptist commentaries–check. An alternative reading finds itself in 100% of the MSS, is in widely used TR editions, in TR vernacular version Bibles, in Baptist commentaries, etc. So the situation we have, with no “rising up” by anyone, is what I would expect. I am just saying I don’t see any examples in history of a “rising up” as I am conceiving it for practically any textual reading–perhaps for texts like 1 John 5:7 or blocks like Mark 16:9-20, unless I fail to understand what you mean by this term. If I fail to understand, and this actually has happened against hosios and for esomenos, then I would like to see the evidence for it.
Thanks again.
Thomas,
I’m happy we’re talking, and I think we are because this reads as new from you. I think you’re saying that it is new too. We can change or tweak our positions for various reasons. I’ve done that myself 8 or 10 different times on various issues through the years, or refined what I already held because of growth in doctrine. Right now, I view this as a step backwards, and I’m wanting to explain.
I asked you to clarify something, that is, are you saying that 100 percent of handwritten copies, manuscripts, have ho hosios in them? You didn’t answer that, but I believe implied, yes, that’s what you think. I believe that position is a challenge and an inscrutable one. You don’t know that. I gave you an opportunity to say “extant manuscripts,” which is likely true. 100 percent of extant manuscripts have ho hosios. That settles this issue, right? That doesn’t mean 100 percent of manuscripts though. James White said in the debate with Van Kleeck that we have more manuscript evidence than ever, which is also inscrutable. We don’t know that. It’s likely untrue. It’s much more likely to say that at the end of the first or second century there was more manuscript evidence than there is today, because believers were copying the NT books and dispersing them. It’s why we don’t take a different snapshot every century or even every decade to decide now what the Bible is.
Esomenos is a challenge to our faith, because apparently there is not an extant manuscript with it. We have only translations and TR editions. Should our methodology be “extant Greek manuscripts” or the testimony of the Holy Spirit through the churches, a settled text, and the canonization of Words? I am thankful for manuscript evidence. I talk about it with skeptics of scripture. It adds, like the Dead Sea Scrolls, to the testimony of the prophecies of Isaiah, and like the irreducible complexity of the cell to God’s creation. Once we capitulate to ho hosios, the discussion won’t be over with the other side. Then we’ll have to talk about why certain words or phrases are in the minority of the extant manuscripts, then why there are not older manuscripts evincing TR readings, and why Comma Johanneum isn’t in some of the TR editions, etc.
We can’t say that true churches and believers did not possess esomenos until Beza because of paucity of extant manuscripts. The former does not follow the latter. Scripture does not support it as a method. Our biggest failure would be to diverge from our presuppositions. The reason I bring up the absence of believers fighting for a correct reading is because this lack of tenacity manifests the presupposition of which I speak.
I came back to write this one last comment here. We don’t find much manuscript evidence past 1440. Why? The printing press was invented. People stopped copying by hand and if they did, it had little evidentiary value. Therefore, manuscript evidence gets older and older and wears out. People don’t need hand copies anymore. They have printed editions, which are easier to read and use. Let’s say as some assert, that Beza had an ancient manuscript with esomenos along with ancient translations and grammatical or rhetorical assumptions. Then that as well as many other manuscripts were lost for varied understandable reasons. They burned up in fires. They were stolen and lost. Somehow they were destroyed. Once printed editions came, for those who believed in perfect preservation, they put far less emphasis on manuscript evidence. Their presuppositions led to that. In the 19th century, suddenly the importance of manuscript evidence took on new importance in light of different presuppositions, presuppositions that also affected biblical doctrines and practices. The 19th century presuppositions took priority in academia and affected employment and income. Like asserting a worldwide flood, it became a career ender in scientific fields. Scholars bifurcated truth into a sacred and secular category, the sacred essentially subjective and mystical, a matter of opinion, faith no longer a means of knowing.
Dear Bro Brandenburg,
In the same way that we can say that Aleph and B represent a small minority text that was rejected by the churches, we can say that esomenos does not exist in any Greek MS. Is it within the realm of philosophical possibility that Aleph and B really represent the text of the large majority of MSS while the TR represents, overall, a small minority text? Philosophers who discuss what is theoretically possible would say “yes,” but in any practical way, the answer is clearly “no.” That Aleph and B are the real majority while the TR is really the minority is about as likely as esomenos really being a reading that was in use century after century, in true believers’ mouths, and yet not appearing in any extant Greek MS.
You wrote:
“We can’t say that true churches and believers did not possess esomenos until Beza because of paucity of extant manuscripts. The former does not follow the latter. Scripture does not support it as a method. Our biggest failure would be to diverge from our presuppositions.”
I actually believe that defending what is likely a conjectural emendation by Beza is a greater threat to our (shared) presuppositions. My argument that esomenos is incorrect because God promised the words would be preserved and available, and esomenos was not always available so it cannot be preserved, does not change the Biblical presuppositions at all. Saying the Bible allows for esomenos and that fits with Biblical presuppositions makes it harder to argue against the CT, since the textus rejectus / UBS / CT text regularly has better evidence for it than esomenos does. How can we say esomenos was in the mouths of God’s people in every generation but the unique corruptions of Vaticanus were not, when there is more evidence for Vaticanus than for esomenos?
You said: “Let’s say as some assert, that Beza had an ancient manuscript with esomenos along with ancient translations and grammatical or rhetorical assumptions.”
If Beza actually had all that esomenos becomes much easier to defend, although it would not mean that hosios as wrong. But people assert things that just aren’t so. There are no ancient translations that read like Scrivener’s TR in Revelation 16:5. The nomina sacra thing where esomenos somehow is shortened to hosios is just totally made up. If Beza actually had one manuscript, the reading becomes less a violation of what Isaiah 59:21 and other verses promise. But 100% of extant MSS sure seems to fit Isaiah 59:21 much better. How can we argue that the CT violates Scriptural principles of preservation, as a restored text, and yet defend esomenos?
You wrote:
“Once printed editions came, for those who believed in perfect preservation, they put far less emphasis on manuscript evidence. Their presuppositions led to that.”
I certainly do not believe printed editions should be discounted, but could you give some Baptist writers, or even non-Baptist writers, who make an explicit assertion such as that one?
Again, the idea that all the words are in one printed edition is very attractive. But since it is not explicitly promised in Scripture, we cannot place our faith in more than what God promised. I can say for certain that God kept His promises about preservation, and can say that it seems in my opinion likely to whatever extent that God might chose to do more than He promised and might chose, without having promised it, to providentially have all His words in one printed edition. But if coming to that conclusion about a printed edition requires me to embrace conjectural emendation, which clearly violates what God actually did promise, then I would do well not to draw the conclusion about the single printed edition and just stick with what God actually did promise.
Thank you.
Dear Thomas,
As a method, the TR is as a whole a majority text, as you know, but it is not a majority in several places still. We still receive those minority verses and words, because of the biblical method we follow, that is presuppositional. We don’t receive the TR because it is majority in extant manuscript evidence, just like we don’t receive a doctrine and history of the church according to extant historical doctrinal evidence.
When you talk about shared presuppositions, I’m not sure any more whether we do. You have new arguments that deal with history in a different way. I have never heard you so supportive of the Geneva Bible and Reina Valera and comments in commentaries as superior. I know I haven’t changed. You have. I read it here in the language of your comment. You leave out terms like, extant (very often, not always). You equivocate extant manuscript evidence with manuscript evidence (very often, not always). You presuppose that a majority of extant manuscripts is a majority of manuscripts. The TR is not a majority text, as you know, across the board. The settled text sounds unsettled. That method is a slippery slope.
We argue that God preserved words, not paper, parchment, and ink. We argue canonization of words. Churches received those words. I don’t want to rehash this, because I hear that you are saying now that churches received ho hosios, as seen in the Geneva Bible, Reina Valera, TR editions, commentaries, especially in extant manuscript, and in an interpretation of conjectural emendation for Beza. I get that you can show yourself removed from reliance on a single English translation, apparently indicative of original language preservation, free from the accusation of back translation. The translators did not solely depend on Beza. They diverge in instances, yet they stick with ho esomenos.
You say ho esomenos was not always available based on extant manuscript evidence. How do we know what was available in the first four centuries? Based on the evidence they had a different text of scripture, using that chosen method. The promise of an Isaiah 59:21 is not that God would preserve ink, paper, and parchment. The words would be in believer’s mouths. The words were available, generally accessible. We don’t have a hand copy. We have printed editions. It’s a faith challenge, a one word challenge. I get what it means.
We can use the minority status of Aleph and B. It isn’t our argument, just like we don’t argue for creation from evidence. We have evidence. I believe that, but we argue from scripture. I don’t argue from a conjectural emendation. I argue from reception of a word. Both are preserved and available. How do we decide which one is right? I’m being consistent.
Dear Bro Brandenburg,
Thanks for the comment. Are you saying that you reject Aleph and B’s text simply because it differs from the Greek text underneath the KJV, as the sole and/or absolutely definitive reason? I would say that their minority MS status, their absence from any printed edition for centuries, their absence from vernacular Bibles for centuries, their absence from pre-Reformation Baptist Bibles, their absence from Baptist confessional life, etc. show that they were not received by God’s people. Most of the arguments for esomenos as consistent with Scriptural promises would also justify Aleph and B. If we can say that esomenos was in the mouths of God’s people and received for the first four, first ten, first fifteen centuries, how can we say that Vaticanus was not? Is the simple fact that the KJV has esomenos the sole reason?
The text of Scripture is at least as settled today as it was before the invention of the printing press. The question is whether God has gone beyond what He promised to put all of His words in a single printed edition in 1881. Someone may have liberty to believe that this has taken place, but if belief that God in 1881 did more than He had promised results in necessary consequences that undermine plain statements of Scripture, it may be better to conclude that we should believe He did what He promised but not something other than that.
Thanks again for the thought-provoking discussion.
Dear Thomas,
I haven’t changed my position at all. All the words found in the original manuscripts of the New Testament are in the printed editions of the TR. I go one step further in saying scripture teaches a settled text. You’ve argued yourself that we can’t take away from or add to something that isn’t settled. Scripture also shows that God’s people will know what His Words are.
Aleph and B were not received and not available. You know I take this view by the way. You know it. You know it very, very well. It wasn’t because they were the minority manuscripts or else we would take the majority text view, a position also that you have argued would assume all the manuscripts are collated so that we would know what the exact present or extant majority is. I don’t take that view.
Since preservation is original language preservation and the King James translators translated from original language words that were preserved, all of which we can see in the TR editions. Believers also received those words, those original language words represent a settled text. Could you point me to where you’ve made this “Baptist commentary” point before? I don’t remember it. It seems to be an invention related to your new view about manuscript evidence, as seen with ho hosios and ho esomenos. I want to read where you’ve previously made this position, one that upends what a vast majority Bible believers actually had and read and received for hundreds of years.
We can say Vaticanus is a text rejected by God’s people. We don’t reject it because it was in the minority. See above. I think there is an argument there in addition to others, but it isn’t presuppositional. It is evidential.
Vaticanus wasn’t available and it wasn’t used for hundreds of years for and by God’s people after the printing press. By the way, I’m not saying that these older manuscripts, like Aleph and B, Alexandrius, Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus could not be accessed by anyone. Leading believers in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century perhaps knew of them and rejected them. A presuppositional argument is that they weren’t being copied though by God’s people, so they weren’t available to them. You’re comparing ho esomenos to that seems to me only like a debate strategy or technique, associating the reception of ho esomenos, which is in TR editions, translated in the KJV, to reception of Vaticanus. It doesn’t help you when you do that.
I don’t know of anyone that argues that God promises in the Bible to put all the words in one printed edition. Believers would know what God’s Words are, they would be accessible or available to them, and there must be a settled text. I would add a canonization of Words. True believers recognize every Word by the indwelling Holy Spirit as manifested by the unity of the Spirit in His true churches. You seem to have invented the Baptist commentary view or borrowed the required extant hand-copy view, which aren’t in the Bible.
I don’t take an 1881 position. You should have put that one in the form of a question too, rather than assume. I take a TR edition position and it was settled through a unique form of the TR translated by the KJV translators, testified by the reception of a vast majority of true churches for hundreds of years. I’ve never, and I mean never, said that I believe the NT became a settled text in 1881. Never. Ever. You won’t find my saying this one time anywhere.
Dear Bro Brandenburg,
Yes, of course I know that you reject Aleph and B. I am concerned that adopting esomenos makes that rejection significantly harder. Can you explain exactly in what sense “Aleph and B were not received and not available” but esomenos was received and was available for the first 1500 years of church history, at least? Do we have to be agnostic about that entire period before the invention of printing?
It is true that all the MSS have not yet been collated, but it is still possible to see that Aleph and B are a small minority text. All the votes will not need to be counted in Oklahoma before it becomes obvious that Republicans will defeat Democrats in practically all the races, and before the reverse becomes clear in California. The fact that all the MSS have not been collated is a point against a strict “Majority Text” type of position when that is in dialogue with a TR position. It is not necessary to show that the CT is a minority, rejected text.
I agree 100% with:
“All the words found in the original manuscripts of the New Testament are in the printed editions of the TR. I go one step further in saying scripture teaches a settled text. You’ve argued yourself that we can’t take away from or add to something that isn’t settled. Scripture also shows that God’s people will know what His Words are.”
Amen!
We have never discussed Baptist commentaries before, to my recollection, because, as far as I can recall, I have never been in a position where a textual reading that is in no Baptist confessions, no extant Greek MSS, no pre-Reformation Anabaptist vernacular Bibles, etc. is allegedly received by the vast majority of believers. I have never, at least personally, had to discuss such an argument with anyone. It does not make sense to me that a reading that believers were not copying before the printing press was invented (and thus was rejected), and that the vast majority of Baptist leaders who are documenting their beliefs in writing by paying close attention to Revelation 16:5 are rejecting, esomonos, in favor of hosios, is nevertheless the reading John the Apostle recorded by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and a silent vast majority who never seems to document their position on the verse is supposedly being led to receive esomenos.
I do not know what percentage of TR translations–of which there were very, very many–followed the reading in 100% of extant Greek MSS and what percentage followed what Beza put in and is in at least one edition of Stephanus. Let’s say (as a thought experiment) that there were 100 TR translations into world languages, and 95% of those read hosios. Would that make any difference for your position? Also, let’s say that Beza actually did introduce a conjectural emendation in Revelation 16:5, perhaps because he misread a note he had written so he thought he had a MS but he really did not. Would that affect your conclusion? Is conjectural emendation unscriptural?
Thanks for the clarification!