Home » Posts tagged 'Latin'
Tag Archives: Latin
Answering Mark Ward’s Last Attack on Preservation of Scripture (part two)
Modern Textual Criticism
In a recent video, Mark Ward again attacked the biblical and historical position on the preservation of scripture. He’ll surely have or find people who will support him. They use modern versions and many of them don’t understand the issue. He helps them stay in the dark on this. Ward says that we, who he calls the advocates of his MT/TR story, cause division with true believers. Division comes from a later, novel bibliology that contradicts the already established and believed position. When someone changes a biblical position, the right way is showing how that the former position rests on wrong or no exegesis. This isn’t what occurred.
What did occur was that modern textual criticism arose out of German rationalism. Modern textual criticism in its roots traces back to German rationalism, particularly in the 18th and 19th centuries. A shift in theological thought characterized this period, where scholars began to apply rationalistic principles to biblical texts, leading to a more critical approach to scripture.
German Rationalism
German rationalism emerged as a philosophical movement that emphasized reason and empirical evidence over biblical exposition and theology. This intellectual climate encouraged scholars to scrutinize manuscripts of scripture with the same critical lens applied to other historical documents. The movement sought to understand the Bible not merely as a sacred text but as a collection of writings subject to human authorship and historical context.
The principles of German rationalism significantly influenced early textual critics such as Johann Griesbach, who is often regarded as one of the pioneers in this field. Griesbach’s work involved analyzing biblical manuscripts using methods that reflected rationalist thinking, which included questioning historical belief about divine inspiration and preservation of scripture. His approach laid the groundwork for subsequent textual critics like B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, who further developed these ideas in their own critical editions of the New Testament.
Continued Assessment of Mark Ward’s Attack
Perfect or Accurate Translation
Ward slants the MT/TR position to attempt to make it look like a joke and it’s advocates a bunch of clowns. Then when he does it, he doesn’t allow anyone to come and correct his statements. He next says that MT/TR supporters believe the King James Version (KJV) translators saved the Bible from Satanic counterfeits by making a “perfect translation” of “perfect Hebrew and Greek texts.” I’ve never called the KJV a “perfect translation.” The only time “perfect translation” occurs in my voluminous writings is when quoting and criticizing Peter Ruckman. Besides that, I wrote this:
God doesn’t ever promise a perfect translation. Turretin, like me, believes that preservation occurs in the original languages because that is what Scripture teaches.
This is the only usage by me for “perfect translation.” I use the language “accurate translation,” because I believe they could have translated the same Hebrew and Greek texts differently. Most of the other MT/TR men would say the same as I.
Perfect Hebrew and Greek Texts
Ward also gets the “perfect Hebrew and Greek texts” wrong. Mark Ward already knows this. He caricatures our position to try to make it look silly. That is mainly what he is doing. The MT/TR position expresses the doctrine of perfect preservation of scripture, but doesn’t say that all the preserved words are either in one manuscript (text) or even printed edition. The words are instead preserved and available to every generation of believer. God did perfectly preserve the text of scripture and providentially provided a settled text by means of the same method of canonicity, the inward testimony or witness of the Holy Spirit through the church.
True churches received God’s Words. They agreed on them. This is a position taken from biblical presuppositions. Just like churches agreed on Books, they agreed upon Words. What I’m describing is the historical and biblical way of knowing what are the Words of God. What I just described doesn’t sound as stupid as how Mark Ward characterized this part of his fabrication of a story.
Satanic Corruption
One thing Ward gets right is “spotting” the Satanic corruptions in other Bibles. If you have a settled text based on God’s promises, then whatever differs from it is a corruption. Two different words can’t both be right. The text of scripture isn’t a multiple choice question. If we are to live by every Word, then we must possess every Word. It’s true that I believe that Satan wants to confuse through the offering of all these different “Bibles” and presenting hundreds of variations of text as possible. This doesn’t fit scriptural presuppositions and it affects the authority of scripture.
Story of Ruckmanism
The second story Ward tells is his story of Ruckmanism. Many times Mark Ward has called Ruckmanism more consistent than the MT/TR position. Maybe he believes that, but it seems possible he says it to get under the skin of MT/TR people. Ruckmanism doesn’t operate with scriptural presuppositions unless one considers an allegorical or very subjective interpretation of passages, which read into the Bible, to be scriptural. Ward says that Ruckmanities originated their position as a reaction to lack of manuscript support in the MT/TR.
Peter Ruckman was born in 1921. Ruckmanism came to and from him no earlier than then 1940s. His view of the superiority of the King James Version arose from his presupposition that it was advanced revelation from God. No one held that belief until Ruckman. Peter Ruckman wrote in The Christian Handbook of Biblical Scholarship:
The King James Bible was ‘given by inspiration of God.’
Ruckman invented the position and then defended it by spiritualizing or allegorizing certain passages, reading into them his viewpoint on the King James Version. Ruckmanism did not come from his view of the inferiority of the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament as a further iteration of that.
Ruckman’s Position
Since Ruckman believed God reinspired the King James Version, he rejected all other versions. Even if they had the same textual basis as the King James Version, he would repudiate them. To him, the English words were equal to the original manuscripts of scripture. That view did not proceed from disagreement about underlying textual differences. Ruckman denied the preservation of scripture through original language manuscripts and editions.
Several times, Ward says the Ruckman story is the inspiration of the translator “to recover the right reading.” That’s false. Ruckman did not believe, as Ward says in his Ruckman story, that the textual choices and translation choices of the King James Version were perfect. To Ruckman and his followers, God didn’t inspire the right reading. No, God inspired the English itself. It wasn’t that Ruckman didn’t like the textual choices of Erasmus or that he relied on the Latin Vulgate. Based on his presuppositions, he took a novel double inspiration position.
Support of the Majority of Manuscripts
Unlike the critical text, which has support of either a small minority of manuscripts or none at all, the majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts support almost the entirety of the Textus Receptus. Only in very few places does the Textus Receptus have support of few extant Greek manuscripts, even though there is large extant Latin evidence in those few places. In one place, one word has no extant manuscript evidence. However, that does not mean no manuscript support. TR editions are printed copies from sometimes a non extant manuscript. It is preservation of scripture.
Not all the manuscripts relied upon by Theodore Beza survived the religious wars in Europe. In one place where critical text advocates say he did conjectural emendation, he writes in Latin that he had the support of one Greek manuscript too. I believe in preservation in the original languages. However, people like Mark Ward are hypocritical in this, because they themselves support the best texts in many places rely on a translation. His and their Septuagint view says that Jesus Himself quoted from the Septuagint.
More to Come
The Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius Baptist Succession Quote: Is it Legitimate?
The Trail of Blood, by J. M. Carroll, which we commended in a recent Friday’s post, contains the following quote by Roman Catholic cardinal and papal legate to the Council of Trent, Stanislaus Hosius:
Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent:
Were it not that the Baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers. (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112-113).
This Hosius quote is widely reproduced in other Baptist literature contemporary with Carroll. However, many non-Baptists have attacked it as illegitimate. For example, Catholics like to claim that Hosius never said anything like this. Other sources also claim Hosius never said it. Even some sincere Baptists–who, unfortunately, clearly did not know Latin–have said he never said it.
One of the problems with the quotation is that standards for citation in past centuries were not the same as they are now. “Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113” is very hard to trace. Furthermore, when Carroll wrote the Trail of Blood, citations did not necessarily have to include “…,” bracketed letters when capitalization was changed, and so on; it was acceptable and widely practiced to slightly paraphrase quotations. What Carroll and many Baptists in his day wrote was a proper citation back then, but it should be more properly cited now–that is, if it is legitimate. Is it?The answer is Yes! The Roman Catholic cardinal and papal legate to the Council of Trent Stanislaus Hosius definitely did make a statement to this effect. Baptists should have no qualms whatever with citing this leading Roman Catholic as evidence of their ancient heritage, far, far before Protestantism. Those who deny that he ever said it do not seem to have taken the time to investigate the matter properly or were ignorant of Latin. (Perhaps a good reason to learn Latin, no?) What they should do, though, is cite the quote in a manner that suits the 21st century. Here is an accurate citation of Cardinal Hosius–this is the quote to use:
For if so be, that as every man is most ready to suffer death for the faith of his sect, so his faith should be judged most perfect and most sure, there shall be no faith more certain and true, than is the Anabaptists’, seeing there be none now, or have been before time for the space of these thousand and two hundred years, who have been more cruelly punished, or that have more stoutly, steadfastly, cheerfully taken their punishment, yea or have offered themselves of their own accord to death, were it never so terrible and grievous. . . . If you will have regard to the number, it is like that in multitude they would swarm above all other, if they were not grievously plagued, and cut off with the knife of persecution.
This translation comes from Richard Shacklock’s translation of Hosius’ Latin in a work entitled The Hatchet of Heresies: A Most Excellent Treaties of the begynnyng of heresyes in oure tyme, compiled by the Reuerend Father in God Stanislaus Hosius, etc. (Antwerp: Aeg. Diest, 1565; Ann Arbor: Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership, 2011), 44-49.You can find the original Latin Shacklock is translating in Stanislai Hosii S. R. E. Cardinalis, Episcopi Varmiensis, In Concilio Tridentino Legati Opera Omnia Hactenus Edita, In Unum Corpus Collecta (Venice: Apud Franciscum Francisci, 1632), 203, sec. De Haeresibus Nostri Temporis. Here is a screenshot of the Latin text
If you know Latin, you can see the quotation near the top of the page.So the quotation about Baptist succession by Roman Catholic cardinal Stanislaus Hosius is absolutely accurate, and he certainly did say it. Those who deny that he said it failed to research the matter properly.If you would like to read the quote in greater context, or see links to the places where you can get Shacklock’s translation of Hosius or Hosius’s original Latin, please read my article “Famous Baptist Succession / History Quotes in Context” by clicking here. I supply lots and lots of context. So you can use the Cardinal Hosius quote–shout it from the housetops. Just cite it correctly so people do not have a reason to doubt its accuracy.Scripture teaches Baptist church polity and Scripture teaches an actual succession of churches from the first Baptist church, organized by Christ from those baptized by the first Baptist–John the Baptist–the greatest man who had lived other than Christ up to that time (Matthew 11:11). External historical data, such as the testimony of Cardinal Hosius to Baptist succession, support the infallible truth of Scripture, which proves that Baptist churches are the churches of Jesus Christ, founded by the Savior during His earthly ministry and preserved from that time until the present day. All other religious organizations that claim the name of Christian, unfortunately, are more akin in God’s eyes to the Roman Catholic whore of Babylon (Revelation 17) and her Protestant daughters (Revelation 17:5) than to the pure bride of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 5). If you are reading this and have not been born again, you should immediately repent and believe the gospel, being justified by faith alone apart from works. Then immediately attend, be baptized into and serve the Triune God in a faithful independent, unaffiliated Baptist church–the kind Christ started in the first century, the kind for which He loved and died and His bride (Ephesians 5:25). If, by His grace, you love Christ, you must and will keep His commandments (John 14:15).
Derek Cooper, Basics of Latin: A Christian Grammar
In conjunction with the Christian and classical Latin college course discussed here, I am working my way through Dr. Derek Cooper’s Basics of Latin: A Grammar with Readings and Exercises from the Christian Tradition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020). (Learn how you can make charitable donations at Amazon.com when you buy books there by clicking here, and learn here how to save money on Internet purchases in general.)
Dr. Cooper and Zondervan were kind enough to supply me with a complementary review copy of his grammar, as well as of his Dr. Cooper’s video lectures on his grammar:
although, with CDs going the way of the dinosaurs, I had to find a way to get the material off the CDs and believe that I will find the videos of his lectures on Logos Bible Software much more user-friendly. (You can also purchase his book on Logos–I got it there as well as utilizing the physical copy he supplied to me.) There was no compulsion or pressure at all to write a positive review in exchange for a copy of his book.
Positives about Derek Cooper’s Basics of Latin: A Grammar With Readings and Exercises from the Christian Tradition
First, Derek Cooper knows Latin well. He is associate dean of the faculty and associate professor of global Christianity at Reformed Episcopal Seminary. He is also managing director of Thomas Institute. A long-term foreign language instructor, he has taught Latin, Spanish, and Biblical Greek. Dr. Cooper is the author of many books, and has offered professional Latin translations for the Reformation Commentary on Scripture, the Martin Luther Handwriting Font Book, and is the translator of Philip Melanchthon’s Commentary on Proverbs. I was looking forward to meeting Dr. Cooper as part of a faculty tour of Greece with Tuktu Tours, but that tour, unfortunately, got cancelled because of COVID. (By the way, Tuktu Tours does a great job getting extremely knowledgable scholars to lead their tours. We have done faculty tours of Egypt and Turkey with them, and they were excellent. If you want to visit Bible lands, you would do well to go with Tuktu. Lord wiling, I will get posted on the KJB1611 YouTube channel relatively soon videos from Dr. James Hoffmeier, our tour guide in Egypt and a leading evangelical Egyptologist, discussing a variety of fascinating things relating to the intersection of Israelite and Egyptian history that he kindly allowed us to record during our tour of Egypt with him.) So Cooper’s grammar is written by someone who knows what he is talking about.
Second, the grammar covers the Latin of Christendom–which is what interests me in the Latin language. It is fine to be able to read Virgil in Latin, but I am interested in Latin as the language of Christendom for most of Christian history, as the language of the Old Latin and Latin Vulgate Bibles, of John Owen and Augustine of Hippo, of John Calvin and Thomas Aquinas, of the confessions of the Reformation and the polemics of Tertullian. In addition to focusing on the Latin of professing Christianity, I appreciate that he does not limit himself to Catholic Latin. A work like John Collins’ A Primer on Ecclesiastical Latin (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1985) will cover the Latin of the Vulgate, of the patristic writers or so-called “Church Fathers,” and of the Roman Catholic medieval tradition, but Reformation and post-Reformation Latin is excluded. Cooper certainly does not exclude Catholic authors, but neither does he exclude Protestants who rightly identify the Roman Catholic “Church” as the Whore of Babylon associated with the Antichrist.
Third, all of Cooper’s exercises are from actual Latin writers; he does not include made-up sentences to learn Latin. This is a great way of doing things, and it copies the method that William Mounce uses in his Basics of Biblical Greek, where all the exercises are from the New Testament, the LXX, or other Koine sources, instead of being made up.
Fourth, Cooper’s Latin text is appealing in its formatting. Zondervan has done a good job making the book look nice. The exercises, with an answer key, are included in the volume. Useful chapter summaries are included. The book is well laid out and a pleasure to read.
Fifth, Cooper’s lessons begin with an interesting historical notice illustrating the Latin to be learned in that chapter and ends with a Latin prayer. The historical information keeps students’ interest as they work through the book.
In summary, there is much to commend in Dr. Cooper’s Latin grammar.
Areas to Improve Derek Cooper’s Basics of Latin: A Grammar With Readings and Exercises from the Christian Tradition
There is only one major area of improvement I would suggest for Dr. Cooper’s Latin Grammar. There are not nearly enough exercises after each lesson to actually learn the Latin in the chapter. The exercises that are present are from actual Latin sources and are very interesting, but there simply are not nearly enough of them. As a comparison, in the Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata series, which I am working through in conjunction with Dr. Cooper’s grammar, chapter 12 discusses 3rd declension adjectives and 4th declension nouns. There are 23 sets of exercises (combining the exercises in the textbook and the exercises in Exercitia Latina I), each exercise generally having ten or more questions. One is in no danger of not having enough exercises–it may not be necessary to complete them all, but if you do complete them all, you will actually know the new grammatical material in the lesson of the Lingua Latina series. By way of contrast, there are only fifteen questions, total–three groups of five–to learn the material in chapter 12 of Cooper’s grammar. The exercises are interesting ones connected to extant historical Latin sources–that is great. But there simply are not nearly enough of them to actually learn the Latin.
An experienced Latin teacher could use Dr. Cooper’s Basics of Latin as a stand-alone text only if he supplied many exercises of his own to supplement those contained in the grammar. Perhaps a genius linguist could learn Latin from Cooper’s grammar on its own, but for the rest of us, it would simply not be possible. Thus, unfortunately, despite is many positive qualities, I cannot recommend Basics of Latin: A Grammar with Readings and Exercises from the Christian Tradition as a stand-alone Latin textbook, at least unless Dr. Cooper writes a supplementary workbook or in some other way provides students with a lot more exercises.
However, I do recommend, and recommend highly, utilizing Cooper’s grammar as a supplementary text to those who are actually learning Latin some other way. For example, one could (as I am doing) actually learn Latin grammar from the Lingua Latina series and then use Cooper’s grammar to review grammatical material already learned, with Cooper also serving as a transitional text from the classical Latin of the Lingua Latina series to the Latin of Christendom. For those who are actually interested in Christian Latin, the interesting historical material spanning the millennia of the use of the Latin language in Cooper’s grammar is interesting and motivating. Reading Cooper is a motivating reward for working through the material in the classical Latin textbook.
Concluding summary: my view of Derek Cooper’s Basics of Latin: A Grammar With Readings and Exercises from the Christian Tradition
So, in light of all of the above, how would I view Derek Cooper’s Basics of Latin: A Grammar With Readings and Exercises from the Christian Tradition? As a supplementary text to Latin grammar learned through another method, I recommend Cooper highly. As a stand-alone text to learning Christian Latin, I cannot recommend it, because it does not include enough exercises.
–TDR
Note: Links to Cooper’s grammar at Amazon are affiliate links.
Learn Christian Latin, Self-Directed: How I am Doing It
Latin is the language of Christendom for over 1,500 years–it is valuable for someone who wants to understand the history of Christianity, to understand the Latin Vulgate and Old Latin Bible translations, the language known by Biblical writers from Mark, early writers in Christendom, influential medieval theologians from Anslem to Aquinas, reformers from Luther to Calvin, Puritans like John Owen, and Baptist writers like John Gill. Latin also helps one to understand untranslated Latin excerpts in commentaries like Keil & Delitzch, Latin excerpts in systematic theologies, and so on.
Interestingly, only approximately 0.01% of all extant Latin, though admittedly with substantial influence, is composed of classical Roman authors Approximately 80% of extant Latin writings composed by those who professed to be Christians, while the other 20% is scientific and various other treatises by non-Christian writers (Derek Cooper, Basics of Latin: A Grammar with Readings and Exercises from the Christian Tradition [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020], xvii).
So in light of the value of Latin, I have prayerfully decided to to learn the language at my own pace. So how is it going? I’m glad you asked. How am I going about it?
I first started with Latin 101: Learning a Classical Language by Hans-Friedrich Mueller, a course offered by “The Great Courses” organization. Having profited by numbers of classes offered by The Great Courses, I would use their class to learn classical Latin and then transition to the Latin of Christendom. The “Great Courses” class offers a textbook with exercises and also video lectures, and I wanted to have lectures with a real, knowledgable teacher. I also did not want to pay very much money, and I knew that The Great Courses regularly offers sales where their classes are listed at 70-85% off (you should never pay the full price, or even half price, for a Great Courses course; they list prices are fake to make you feel like you are getting an incredible deal at 70% off. The marketing technique is effective–but the real, 70% off price for their classes is actually reasonable for courses that are often of high quality.)
I got through the majority of the Great Courses class, completing all the exercises, with their textbook and a Latin dictionary (Simpson, D. P., Cassell’s Latin Dictionary: Latin-English & English-Latin, 5th ed. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing, 1968) However, as I kept plugging away, I started to get really bogged down in the exercises. I was looking up practically every word in the dictionary and taking an inordinately long amount of time to complete the exercises. I believe that the Great Courses class will probably work for some, but for me there just were not enough exercises to attain sufficient mastery of the material before going on to the next chapter. So after slogging through a majority of the book, with progress getting slower and slower, I started looking for alternatives.
I discovered the Familia Romana / Lingua Latina: Per Se Illustrata series, and have to this point been very impressed. I purchased a number of books so that I could have everything I needed to teach myself using that series, as well as a few other works that help as described below:
5.) Ørberg, Hans H., Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata: Teacher’s Materials. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 2005. Amazon Smile link
I also got a few others; click here for my page on learning Christian and classical Latin for more information.
Recent Comments