Home » Posts tagged 'Beza'

Tag Archives: Beza

From the Work of Beza in 1598 to Modern Skepticism and the Greek New Testament

January 6, 2025 / 11 Comments on From the Work of Beza in 1598 to Modern Skepticism and the Greek New Testament

F. H. A. Scrivener showed 190 differences between his printed text, representing the underlying text of the King James Version, and that of Theodore Beza‘s printed edition in 1598. This was eighty-two years after the first printed edition of the Textus Receptus (TR) in 1516 and thirteen years before the publication of the King James Version (KJV). Beza had more manuscripts than Erasmus did in his first edition, including Codex Claromontanus and Codex Bezae. He did not overhaul the received text, making some corrections while keeping much of the editions of Erasmus and Stephanus already established within and by church usage.

The number of words different are much greater between Beza 1598 and Erasmus 1516 than Beza 1598 and Scrivener’s, something like 1500 to 190. Scrivener’s, the representation of the text underlying the King James Version, is not Erasmus 1516, as much as critics use Erasmus 1516 text for their Textus Receptus criticism. The KJV translators relied on Beza 1598, which agreed with earlier printed editions of the Greek New Testament, but corrected errors based on words in available Greek manuscripts. The progress between 1516 and 1611 followed the creed, a mistake made in one copy was corrected by another.

The Approach of Theodore Beza

The small number of corrections in the 16th century printed editions of the Greek New Testament showed the consensus among Bible believing and practicing churches for the completion of this work. The doctrine of preservation guided the thinking that this would not continue as an ongoing, never-ending work. Theodore Beza approached his biblical text work with a strong theological conviction that God had preserved His Word through history. He indeed believed that the TR represented a divinely preserved text.

For Beza, the work of Erasmus and Stephanus was a heritage of the divine transmission of Scripture. Beza recognized this and aimed to keep intact the familiar readings embraced by the churches. The reception history played a crucial role in Beza’s decisions. Keeping these was a reliance upon divine providence. By accepting and printing familiar readings, he aimed to ensure that his edition would be embraced by those already accustomed to earlier versions.

Theodore Beza’s theological perspective influenced his textual choices. He believed that certain readings aligned with doctrinal truths central to an orthodox biblical theology. This belief led him to retain readings and make adjustments only when absolutely necessary.

The cessation of further printed editions of the Greek New Testament after the Elzevir Brothers 1633 arrived almost entirely because of the acceptance of the standardization of existing translations of the text. The text should reflect what people read. People in churches read translations, not printed Greek editions. This revealed the settling of an underlying Greek text in the nature of the canonization of scripture. The internal testimony of the Holy Spirit decided the end of this period through the unified testimony of the saints.

The Settling of the Text of Scripture

Samuel P. Tregelles in his An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament writes (pp. 33-35):

Beza’s text was during his life in very general use amongst Protestants; they seemed to feel that enough had been done to establish it, and they relied on it as giving them a firm basis. . . . After the appearance of the texts of Stephanus and Beza, many Protestants ceased from all inquiry into the authorities on which the text of the New Testament in their hands was based.

According to Tregelles, in the early 18th century, Richard Bentley wrote that the text of Stephanus could not have claimed greater authority if “an apostle had been the compositor” (p. 29).

The reception of the churches indicated a settled text. The saints in the churches understood God’s warning neither to add or take away from the words of this book (Revelation 22:18-19, Deuteronomy 4:2). The text of the Bible was not a personal playbox for the fiddling of scholars. Churches also trusted the providence of God. He was at work in the perfect preservation of scripture.

Changes from “the Enlightenment”

New changes of the text of the Bible did not again arise until what historians call “the Enlightenment.” The late 18th and 19th centuries, almost two hundred years later, brought the rise of skepticism towards traditional authorities, including religious texts. This cultural shift brought a new view as to how biblical texts were viewed and utilized. The rise of modernism, a different world view from previous centuries, introduced methodologies steeped in a critical approach to science and history. This rejected reliance on faith, supernaturalism, highlighted by a denial of miracles.

Scholars such as Jean Astruc and Julius Wellhausen introduced critical methods that questioned the previously accepted understanding of textual integrity. For instance, Wellhausen’s documentary hypothesis suggested that the Pentateuch was composed from multiple sources rather than being authored solely by Moses. This perspective led to a reevaluation of all original texts, suggesting they were not divinely inspired but rather products of historical and cultural contexts.

Secular Methodologies

Scholars began applying secular methodologies to analyze the scriptures. A new approach fostered an environment of interpretation through a historical-critical lens, resulting in conclusions that diminished spiritual significance. The adoption of modernist principles in seminaries blended scriptural beliefs with contemporary critical methods. It was a different epistemology, knowledge no longer attained by faith or at least primarily by faith, but mostly through human observation and reasoning.

Modernism’s focus on empirical evidence encouraged scholars to pay closer attention to textual variants found in different manuscripts. The rise of higher criticism during the modernist movement also played a crucial role in shaping how scholars approached biblical texts. This analytical lens affected how critical texts are constructed. It started with a rejection of the doctrine of providential, divine preservation and a bias toward naturalistic explanations. Scholars began integrating insights from fields such as linguistics and anthropology into their analysis of biblical texts, leading to new methodologies for understanding language use and cultural contexts within the New Testament.

Conclusion

The critical text of the New Testament did not arise from the heritage of the Textus Receptus. These represent two entirely different worldviews, epistemologies, and methodologies. Progress from Erasmus, Stephanus, to Beza represent supernaturalism, divine providence, orthodox biblical belief, and certainty. The Bible stood as final authority for faith and practice.

Modernism gave birth to the critical text out of a cradle of skepticism. It started with doubt in the work of God and the veracity of providential preservation. Human empiricism supersedes belief in God. For this reason, the text of scripture never stops changing with a hopeless future for a settled text. This undermines the faith of God’s people and hardens the hearts of the lost.

What Is the “False Doctrine” of Only One Text of the Bible? (Part Six)

December 27, 2024 / 10 Comments on What Is the “False Doctrine” of Only One Text of the Bible? (Part Six)

Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four Part Five

Through the years, I’ve heard many in my audience of evangelism give this answer: “So many Bibles out there!” Is that true though? Are there really multiple Bibles and you can choose which Bible you want? It truly is not true, but that’s what many think because of the glut of English translations. There is only one Bible, yet people think of there as many Bibles. Is anyone responsible for causing this wrong thinking? Yes, the multiple versionists, who promote numerous “Bibles.”

Let’s say I agree with Mark Ward and his hundred plus “false friends” in the King James Version, so I decide I’ll do a Kent Brandenburg Version, the KBV. I add my KBV to modern English translations from the same text as the King James Version. Would that be good for me to do? Doing an update like that would seem to follow a Mark Ward suggestion. My doing my own update, I believe, is not good. I wouldn’t do it, even though I could. It would be right for many reasons. Could some good reasons prohibit another English translation of the Bible? I say, yes.

Biblical Criteria for an Update

Before someone tries an update, he should put together a list of biblical criteria for that undertaking. I’ve thought about it and have in the past produced that list. Several scriptural reasons would keep me from presently doing my own English translation and publishing it. What is the criteria for an update and what makes a translation a standard? Mark Ward has not produced such a list (that I know of). I haven’t seen it. The Bible has the principles that will form a list of criteria as a basis of a standard translation. If an update were justifiable, the leadership for a translation should follow a list with biblical criteria for that update.

What is the purpose of the update? From Mark Ward’s perspective, it’s these false friends or semantical changes that disallow an average person from understanding the Bible as well as he could. I’ve already said that we can address that with marginal notes or footnotes. We could also have a few page guide or booklet to accompany a Bible without notes in it. What is bad about that choice? Who would be against it, whose main concern is semantical change? Apparently marginal notes and footnotes are great for textual variants, but not good for translation explanations?

Scrivener’s Greek New Testament

In my list of five concerns that I’ve read Mark Ward to express, the fifth is the following (as coming from him):

The underlying text behind the King James Version didn’t exist in a single edition until Scrivener in the late 19th century, who himself didn’t support the Textus Receptus.

I agree with this point that many, many men have made, who attack my position. What they’re saying is true. No single printed edition of the Greek New Testament that matches the underlying text of the King James Version existed until Scrivener’s (actual text). Is there some kind of legitimate point to what Mark Ward and others say, using this as an attack of our position on the preservation and availability of the original language New Testament? I don’t see it, have explained it many times, and I will explain it again here. There are a few different points to the answer.

The Scrivener Greek Text Already Existed Before the Printed Edition

I am differentiating between the Greek text and the printed edition. Printed editions of the Greek New Testament did not exist until the invention of the printing press. Please, please get that statement. The text of the Greek New Testament existed before the printing press, but no one printed it until the 16th century. The Bible existed before the invention of the printing press. This is the same issue. It would seem simple to understand.

Kurt and Barbara Aland

The early printed editions of the Greek New Testament are known as the Textus Receptus (TR). The TR never meant one printed edition. Even Kurt and Barbara Aland the famed textual critics, the “A” in “NA” (Nestles-Aland), wrote (“The Text of the Church?” in Trinity Journal, Fall, 1987, p.131):

[I]t is undisputed that from the 16th to the 18th century orthodoxy’s doctrine of verbal inspiration assumed this Textus Receptus. It was the only Greek text they knew, and they regarded it as the ‘original text.’

He also wrote in his The Text of the New Testament (p. 11):

We can appreciate better the struggle for freedom from the dominance of the Textus Receptus when we remember that in this period it was regarded even to the last detail the inspired and infallible word of God himself.

His wife Barbara writes in her book, The Text of the New Testament (pp. 6-7):

[T]he Textus Receptus remained the basic text and its authority was regarded as canonical. . . . Every theologian of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (and not just the exegetical scholars) worked from an edition of the Greek text of the New Testament which was regarded as the “revealed text.” This idea of verbal inspiration (i. e., of the literal and inerrant inspiration of the text) which the orthodoxy of both Protestant traditions maintained so vigorously, was applied to the Textus Receptus.

Theodore Beza, Richard Capel, and Edward Hills

The specific editions of the Textus Receptus, published in the 16th century, almost identical (but not identical) to Scrivener’s, were those produced by Theodore de Beza, particularly his 1588–89 and 1598 editions. The differences between those of Beza and the underlying Greek text of the KJV were like those between each of the editions of the printed editions of the Textus Receptus. It represents the common belief of the saints, communicated by Richard Capel, “what mistake is in one print, is corrected in another.” This also corresponds to the well-known expression of Edward Freer Hills in his The King James Version Defended:

The King James Version ought to be regarded not merely as a translation of the Textus Receptus but also as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus.

Scriptural Presuppositions

According to scriptural presuppositions, God preserved every Word and all of His Words in the language in which they were written, and made them available to every generation of believer. Read that last sentence again. That doesn’t say that God promised to preserve one printed edition.

I don’t want to go through this again. The King James Translators translated from a text. They used the Textus Receptus. It was available. They didn’t turn it into a printed edition. Why? I don’t hear the critics answering that question, maybe because they don’t care. The text was available. King James himself made an explicit instruction that his translators proceed from manuscripts written in the original languages of the Bible, Hebrew for the Old Testament and Greek for the New Testament. He explicitly instructed that the translation should not alter the originals.

Commentators

Commentators wrote from 1500 to 1800 and referred regularly and constantly to the last twelve verses of Mark, 1 John 5:7, and John 8:1-11, including as examples, John Gill, Matthew Henry, and Albert Barnes. They say, “God was manifest in the flesh,” instead of “he was manifest in the flesh,” in 1 Timothy 3:16. They very often refer to the Greek words that are not included in the modern critical text. What were they looking at to refer to these words, but the Greek text that they possessed?

John Berriman quotes the Greek text of 1 Timothy 3:16, using Theos (“God,” not “he”) in his 1741 dissertation on 1 Timothy 3:16. Commentator after commentator refers to the “book of life” in Revelation 22:19. You know what I’m saying. People referred to, exegeted, exposed, taught, and preached the same underlying text of the King James Version. They weren’t waiting for the publication of Scrivener’s.

“Where Is the Printed Edition?”

Men ask as a part of an rhetorical argument: “Where is the printed edition?” I’ve never said once that we believed in the preservation of a printed edition, so the question is a strawman. Scripture teaches the preservation of words and their availability. That happened. Those were presuppositions upon which succeeding generations depended.

Another presupposition is a settled text. This required settling on a text. The presupposition guides the interpretation of history. On what text did believers settle? All of these presuppositions become a matter of faith as an epistemology (“by faith we understand”).

The presupposition of a settled text also relates to the canonicity argument. The inward testimony of the Holy Spirit in believers becomes the guiding factor. Where is the agreement of believers? It isn’t a critical text or eclecticism, which contradicts the presuppositions. One can see this is a so-called text not received by the churches. I say “so-called” because an eclectic text has no historical precedent. It never existed until its doctors constructed it, hence the nickname, “Frankentext.”

Requests

I would like, even request, three things from this series of posts. One, I would like the other side of this debate to steelman my position. I’m pretty done with the misrepresentations. The worst thing to the other side is not distorting what I say, but being called a liar for their distortions. Two, cease bringing up counters like no one answers their questions. Three, please try to stop the judging of motives. I read one yesterday, a pastor who says that the King James Version is an idol. Really? This really is coming from the side that incessantly touts its own humble tone.

The other side does not start with scriptural presuppositions. At the best, it has tried to answer our biblical ones. These are also historical presuppositions and we’ve proven that. The other side fulfills themselves this statement: “you overplayed your hand and committed the classic error of an ideological extremist by refusing to give me a millimeter.” I don’t see them give a millimeter to historical and biblical presuppositions. They’ve got to deny them with all their being, and attack, attack, and attack.

Should True Churches Ascribe Perfection to the Apographa of Scripture? pt. 2

January 16, 2023 / 10 Comments on Should True Churches Ascribe Perfection to the Apographa of Scripture? pt. 2

Part One

Confidence, Absolutism, or Skepticism?

A recent panel of friends decided on three categories of faith in the text of scripture: confidence, absolutism, and skepticism. They chose “confidence” and determined the other two to be false. Further explained, our present text of the Bible has what they consider minimal errors, which yields overall maximum confidence.

Absolutism posits zero errors, relying on a presupposition from a biblical and historical doctrine of preservation. The panel said no one can be, nor should be, absolute or certain with the text of scripture. The Bible may say that the text is certain, but the facts or the science say otherwise. Scripture may say that God preserved every Word, but since He didn’t preserve all of them, those passages must mean something else.

Those just confident in the text, but not certain, foresee a sad future for absolutists. In their experience, they witnessed other absolutists go right off the cliff after the awareness of errors in the text of scripture. They love those people. They are trying to save them. The key is to manage expectations. By encouraging the expectation of only minor errors, but overall stability (what is often called “tenacity”) of the text, they will prevent a doomsday mass exodus of future absolutists. This reads as a kind of theological pragmatism, using human means to manipulate a better outcome. Remaining fruit requires human adaptation.

Skepticism, like absolutism, the panel of friends said also was bad. There is no reason to be skeptical about a Bible with minor errors. Not only do we not know what all the errors are, but we do not know how high a percentage there is. The confidence collective says, “Don’t be skeptical and don’t worry either, it won’t affect the gospel; you can still go to heaven with what’s leftover from original inspiration.”

Faith in Preservation of Scripture Not Arbitrary

The words of God are not arbitrary in their meaning. If scripture teaches that God preserved every one of His words for every generation of believers, then He did. You must believe God. You do not say you believe Him and then put your head in the sand. Let me further explain.

If someone asks, “So what were the words that God preserved?” you give an answer. If you will not (and I mean “will not”) give an answer, then you do not believe what He said He would do. Denying is the opposite of believing. You also don’t answer with something like the following: “I know God preserved every word, but I don’t know which words they are. I just hope that at some time in the future — ten, a hundred, a thousands years from now — I can say I do know what they are.

Furthermore, if you say that you believe what God said about His preservation of His inspired words in the language in which He inspired them, your position must manifest that belief. Standing, as Mark Ward did in his latest video production, and saying, “I do not have a perfect copy of the Greek New Testament” [I typed that verbatim from his latest production (at 48 second mark)], does not arise from faith in what scripture teaches on its own preservation. For the believer, the teaching of scripture forms the standard for his expectation of what God will do. This is his presupposition.

No Percentage of Preservation Less Than 100 Percent

Scripture does not teach the moderate preservation of scripture. It does not teach a high percentage of preservation. The Bible does not reveal nor has historic Christianity believed that God preserved “His Word,” an ambiguous reference to the preservation of something like the message of God’s Word.

When you start reading the New Testament, it refers to Old Testament predictions of Jesus. Based on those presuppositions, you receive Jesus. The Old Testament presents the correct ancestry. Jesus fulfills it. It prophesies a virgin birth. He again fulfills it. And so on. Then in the real world, you receive Jesus Christ. This is a model for faith. This is how Simeon and Anna functioned in Luke 2.

If you read Daniel 11 and the predictions there of future occurrences, as a believer you would believe them and then start looking for their occurrence in the real world. Faith follows a trajectory that starts with scripture. Scripture does not say how many books the Bible would have. Various truths in scripture guide the saints to the sixty-six canonical ones.

The Scriptural Expectations of Churches

The church, so the historical belief of true churches, expected a standard sacred text, a perfect one, based on scriptural principles, despite the existence of textual variants. Then they received that text. They believed those principles, the doctrine which proceeded from scripture, during an era of slightly differing printed TR editions. They still believed in one settled text.

In Mark Ward’s orbit, the bases for rejecting a perfect text are the variations either between manuscripts or early printed editions. That is enough for him and others to say that we do not have a perfect copy of the Greek New Testament. They mock those who believe in a single perfect Bible. They only accept multiple differing Greek New Testaments and multiple differing versions. Scripture doesn’t teach this.

As I wrote earlier, the doctrine of preservation is not arbitrary. An actual single Bible in the real world comes with it. When you don’t believe the latter, you don’t believe the former. Not believing the latter is akin to saying you know (so believe in) God and then not as a practice or lifestyle keep His commandments (cf. 1 John 2:3-4). John says this person is a liar.

Mark Ward can mock the fact that I and others believe the perfect text is the one behind the King James Version, but that belief proceeds from all the various truths in scripture about preservation (which we explicate in Thou Shalt Keep Them). We start with scripture. Ward starts, like a modernist, with sensory experience or what one might call empirical evidence. This approach to knowledge brings constant revision. It is why James White will not rule out future changes in the text based on potential new manuscript discoveries.

A New Line of Attack on Scriptural Doctrine of Preservation

A new line of attack from Ward is pitting the King James against an early Dutch translation of the textus receptus. He imagines a Dutch believer offended when an English one calls his Statenvertaling (translated in 1635) “corrupt.” The translators of that Dutch version attempted to produce a translation for the Dutch like the King James Version. English believers applaud that. They haven’t and they wouldn’t call it corrupt.

Ward is correct in pointing out that the two translations come from a slightly different TR edition of the New Testament. That means they cannot both be right. Both could not represent perfect preservation. One is slightly wrong. Ward puts “corrupt” in the mouths or minds of King James Version advocates against the Statevertaling. They wouldn’t call it corrupt anymore than they would any TR edition.

I don’t know of any angry Statevertaling supporters, standing on its differences from the King James Version. No Dutch reaction to the English exists, such as that when Peter Stuyvesant stomped his wooden leg upon New Netherland becoming New York in 1664. Instead, the Dutch followed a Christian belief in the received text and its faith in divine preservation.

Abraham and Bonaventure Elzivir were Dutch. Their printings of the textus receptus (1624, 1633, and 1641) were essentially a reprint of Beza 1565. Their printings were elegant works, a grand possession for a Bible student. They wrote in Latin in their preface: “Therefore you have the text now received by all in which we give nothing altered or corrupt.” That sounds like textual absolutism to me.

Hints at English Supremacy?

Ward suggests a charge of English supremacy in a sort of vein of white supremacy or English Israelism. Advocates of capitalism do not proceed from Scottish supremacy. Majority text supporters do not arise from Eastern Roman supremacy or Byzantine supremacy. Beza and Stephanus were French. Are TR onlyists French supremacists? I don’t follow a French text of scripture. Or maybe better, Huguenot supremacy. This is another red herring by Ward. It’s sad to think this will work with his audience.

I do not see the trajectory of true churches passing through the Netherlands and the Dutch Reformed. I don’t trace it through the Massachusetts Bay Colony either. Each has a heritage with important qualities. Ward tries to use this argument to justify errors in the Greek New Testament, the mantra being, “various editions differ with errors found everywhere.” This is not what the Christians of that very time believed. They did not believe like Ward and his textual confidence collective. These 17th century believers were absolutists.

False Equivalents and Historical Revisionism

Ward calls the differences between the Dutch Bible and the King James Version with their varied TR editions, “text critical choices.” He uses another informal logical fallacy called a “false equivalent.” He takes modern critical text theory and projects it back on the textual basis of the Statevertaling. The translation proceeded from the Synod of Dort as a Dutch imitation of the King James Version. The point wasn’t changing anything.

Labeling the differences in TR editions “text critical choices” is also historical revisionism. Ward revises history to justify modern practice. Modern historians deconstruct the past to challenge the status quo. History does not provide the desired outcome. They change the history and construct new meaning in the present.

I see modern textual critics undermine a true historical account by exaggerating certain historical details or components. Two examples are the so-called backtranslation of Erasmus in Revelation and then a conjectural emendation of Beza. Advocates of modern textual criticism latch on to these stories and construct them into a revision of the historical account.

While men like Ward and others use false equivalents and historical revisionism, it does not change what the Bible, perfectly preserved for believers, says about its own preservation. Everyone will give an account for their faithfulness to what God said. He will make manifest the damage teachers do by creating or causing doubt or uncertainty concerning the text of His Word.

WHAT IS TRUTH