A List of Archaic Words Appearing in the NIV, NASB, NKJV, and NRSV

Drawing again from Laurence Vance’s Archaic Words and the Authorized Version we turn to Appendix 4 where he lists all the archaic words he found in the NIV, NASB, NKJV, and NRSV. It seem fair to conclude that archaic words would fall among those most suited to be False Friends seeing that archaic words have either passed out of use or are on the verge of passing out of use. As such English-speakers may very well think they know what these words mean but in the end do not which is the very definition of a False Friend according to Mark Ward.

The trouble for Ward is that such archaic words, False Friends, and potential False Friends occur in modern versions and in significant numbers as the following lists show.

Archaic Words in the NIV

abode, ancients, aright, asunder, away with, beckon, begotten, bier, bewitched, bowels, calved, celestial, coney, confections, convince, cormorant, decked, deride, distill, dung, effect, estate, forevermore, fowl, girdle, hallowed, haunt, heresies, infamy, inasmuch, insatiable, jeopardy, kernels, laden, lance, lusty, mantle, mattock, naught, nurtured, odious, osprey, pangs, phylacteries, plowshare, rend, respite, rushes, soothsayer, spoil, suckling, temperate, tetrach, trafficked, unto, usury, vaunt, vestments, vex, wanton, yokefellow.

Archaic Words in the NASB

abase, abated, abode, adjure, alms, ancient, apparel, aright, art, asunder, away with, backbiting, beget, beseech, bewail, bewitched, bondwoman, bowels, breeches, brimstone, calves, canst, cleave, comely, constrains, cormorant, coaches, covert, crib, dainty, dearth, deck, deride, didst, distill, doest, dost, doth, dung, effect, eminent, engines, estate, evermore, familiar, feigned, fetch, firstlings, fleshhook, footmen, forbearance, fowl, fuller, gaiety, garners, gavest, girdle, graven, gross, guile, handmaid, harrow, hast, haunt, heresies, hinds, importune, impotent, inasmuch, issue, jeopardy, know, laden, laud, layer, lightness, litters, lordly, lunatic, lusty, mail, maintenance, mammon, mantle, maranatha, mattock, milch, mill, nether, nurtured, odious, offscouring, pangs, paramours, perdition, phylacteries, pipes, plowshare, presbytery, principalities, putrefaction, raiment, rampart, ravening, remission, rend, reprobate, requite, riot, rushes, seemly, seest, seethe, shalt, sherd, speakest, stay, strait, suckling, swaddling, tares, temperate, tenons, teraphim, tetrach thee, thereon, thine, thou, thy, timbrel, trafficked, travail, unto usury, vagabond, valor, vaunt, venture, verily, vermilion, vex, virtue, wanton, warp, wayfarers, whence, wherewith, woof, wrought, yea, yonder

Archaic Word in the NKJV

abase, abode, alms, amiss, anise, apparel, aright, austere, away with, backbiters, beckoned, beggarly, begot, bemoan, beseech, bewail, bewitched, bittern, bondwomen, brimstone, calves, carnal, celestial, circumspect, cloven comeliness, concourse, confederacy, convince, covert, crib, dainties, daubed, dayspring, debased, decks, deride, dispensation, disquiet, distill, dung, effect, epistle, eventide, evermore, familiar, fan, feigned, fetch, flanks, flay, footmen, forbearance, foursquare, fowl, fuller, gad, godhead, graven, greyhound, gross, hallowed, haunts, hemlock, henceforth, heresies, immutable, impudent, inasmuch, issue, jeopardy, jot, know, laden, laud, laver, litters, lordly, lusty, mail, mammon, mantle, mattock, mill, mite, nativity, offend, offscouring, omnipotent, or ever, pangs, paramours, phylacteries, pipes, plowshare, potentate, principality, prognosticators, shod, smith, soothsayer, spoil, straits, suckling, tares, temperate, tenons, terrestrial, tetrarch, therein, timbrel, tittle, unto, usury, vagabond, valor, vehement, verity, vermilion, vestments, vex, virtue, visage, wanton, warp, wayfaring, whence, whereupon, whet, winebibber, woof, wrought, yea, yonder

Archaic Words in the NRSV

abase, abate, abode, adjuration, alms, apparel, assuage, asunder, augment, away with, backbiting, beget, beggarly, bemoan, beseech, bewail, bewitched, bier, bowels, calving, cleft, clemency, comely, coneys, constraints, cormorant, covert, crib, dainty, debased, decked, delectable, disquieted, dissembles, distill, dromedaries, dung, effect, enjoined, ensign, ensues, estate, eventide, evermore, execration, familiar, firmament, firstling, flagon, flay, footmen, forbear, foursquare, fowl, fuller, gad, garner, goodly, gross, guile, hallowed, haltingly, harrow, haunt, henceforth, hoarfrost, impudent, inasmuch, isles, know, laden, lance, laud, laver, litters, lusty, mail, maintenance, mantle, mattock, milch, mill, naught, noontide, obeisance, pipes, plowshare, pound, rampart, ravening, remission, rend, riotous, soothsayer, stay, straits, stripling, supplant, surfeit, swaddling, temperate, teraphim, thereupon, thrice, timbrel, trafficked, unshod

Of the 25 “False Friends” which Ward treats in his book, 5 are present in the modern translation: bowels, heresies, issue, spoil, and haltingly.

If edification requires intelligibility understood in a Wardian way, and so he declares the Authorized Version an unsuitable version of the Bible for modern day English-speakers, then to remain consistent he should include, at a minimum, the NIV, NASB, NKJV, and NRSV as unsuitable translations as well and by the same standard. Why? Because even the modern versions retain words which Ward regards as False Friends. Additionally, these modern versions contain a slew of dead/archaic words.

Again, Ward is a nice guy, but his scholarship on this point is spotty at best. And it is this point that rest at the very foundation of this argument and contribution to the textual/version discussion. It is my hope that he would have the integrity to walk back the greater part of his contribution to the textual/version issue and then rethink his aim and trajectory should he continue in this discussion. It is quite apparent. There is just too much he hasn’t thought about and too little that he has read on this topic.

On a separate note, in honor of the 4th of July we will be discounting ebooks over the course of the weekend. Stay tuned for more info and let your friends know because friends tell friends about free books.

Another Verse on Verbal Preservation: Isaiah 40:6-8

            1 Peter 1:24 is a citation of Isaiah 40:6-8. This passage, within its immediate context is a powerful testimony to the faithfulness of God to Israel because “the word of our God shall stand forever.” The first voice of chapter 40 in found in verse 3 which prophetically speaks of John the Baptist preparing the way for the Messiah, (Matt. 3:3; Luke 3:4). The prophet hears a second voice in verse 6, “The voice said, Cry.” And he said, “What shall I cry?” A third voice heralds the Messiah as their God in verses 9 and following. Within the context of this three-part announcement, the second voice “celebrates the divine word of promise in the face of the approaching fulfillment and appoints a preacher of its eternal duration.”[1] The theme of his message is the perishable nature of all flesh and the imperishable nature of the word of God. Keil and Delitzsch comment,

Men living in the flesh are universally impotent, perishing, limited; God, on the contrary (ch. xxxi. 3), is omnipotent, eternal, all-determining; and like Himself, so is His word, which, regarded as a vehicle and utterance of His willing and thinking, is not something separate from Himself, and therefore is the same as He.[2]

            Verse 7a describes what happens to the grass and the flower. The spirit, ruach, of “the Lord bloweth upon it,” i.e., “the ‘breath’ of God the Creator, which pervades the creation, generating life, sustaining life, and destroying life, and whose most characteristic elementary manifestation is the wind.”[3] The verse goes on to say that the people or the human race are the perishable grass; “such grass withereth and such flower fadeth, but the word of our God (Jehovah, the God of His people and of sacred history)” יקום לעולם “shall stand forever.” The word “rises up without withering or fading, and endures forever, fulfilling and verifying itself through all times.”[4] Keil and Delitzsch continue,

If this word of God generally has an eternal duration, more especially is this case with the word of the parousia of God the Redeemer, the word in which all the words of God are yea and amen. The imperishable nature of this word, however, has for its dark foil the perishable nature of all flesh, and all the beauty thereof. The oppressors of Israel are mortal, and chesed with which they impose and bribe the perishables; but the word of God, with which Israel can console itself, preserves the field, and ensures it a glorious end to its history. Thus, the seal, which the first crier set upon the promise of Jehovah’s speedy coming, in inviolable; and the comfort which the prophets of God are to bring to His people, who have now been suffering so long, is infallibly sure.[5]

            The certainty of Christ’s coming and the consolation He will bring as the God of Israel is made “infallibly sure” by the word of God. This is the passage Peter draws upon when writing verse 25, “But the word of the Lord endureth for ever.” From the pen of Isaiah, the truth of chapter 40 is referred to by Peter within a New Testament, salvific context. The gospel that is preached by Peter is the imperishable, infallibly sure word of God, the same word Isaiah wrote of Christ’s coming bringing hope and security to the Israeli people. Peter’s word of God “which liveth and abideth forever” is Isaiah’s word of God which “shall stand forever.”

            Note that the eternal word is tied directly to promise of Christ bringing spiritual renewal in Isaiah 40:30-31 and the promise of being born again in 1 Peter 1:23. Considering this connection in the light of Isaiah 59:21, the dynamic between the Spirit, Word, and believer at work in the flow of redemptive history is unmistakably demonstrated.

[1] Keil, Delitzsch, Isaiah, 143.

[2] Keil, Delitzsch, Isaiah, 143. For the comparison of man with flowers and grass see Isa. 37:27, Job 8:11-12, and 14:2, Psalm 90:5-6

[3] Keil, Delitzsch, Isaiah, 144.

[4] Keil, Delitzsch, Isaiah, 144.

[5] Keil, Delitzsch, Isaiah, 144-145.

Edification Does Not Require Intelligibility (Part 2)

Following up on a prior post in the same vein, I am reminded of the words of the Apostle Peter. A fisherman from Galilee who walked with our Lord, the master teacher, for 3 years. Peter was with the Lord on the Mount of Transfiguration and preached at Pentecost. Yet with these overflowing credentials Peter proclaims that the Apostle Paul, an Apostle born out of due time and least among the Apostles, has put forward things hard to be understood.

The Apostle Peter writes in his second epistle,

“And also in all his [Paul’s] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”

2 Peter 3:16

As I noted in my prior post, Mark Ward is fond of saying that “Edification requires intelligibility.” I went on to point out that “intelligible” means, “able to be understood.” Here the Apostle Peter by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit proclaims that the Apostle Paul writes things that are “hard to be understood.” And what is Peter’s critique of these “hard to be understood” things?

Albert Barnes observes in his Notes on the Whole Bible,

“Things pertaining to high and difficult subjects, and which are not easy to be comprehended. Peter does not call in question the truth of what Paul had written; he does not intimate that he himself would differ from him. His language is rather that which a man would use who regarded the writings to which he referred as true, and what he says here is an honorable testimony to the authority of Paul.”

Albert Barnes, Notes on the Whole Bible, 2 Peter 3:16.

Barnes begins by pointing out what Peter is not doing. Peter is not questioning Paul’s words though He is eminently capable of choosing different words. Nor is Peter employing his office as an Apostle to withstand Paul to the face because, “Edification requires intelligibility and sometimes Paul is unintelligible to people.” Seeing that 1 Corinthians is currently regarded as one of the earliest if not the earliest written book of the NT, Peter could have said, “Paul in your first letter to the Corinthian Church, you said ‘except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken [14:9]?’ And now here you are writing things hard to be understood even by me. Paul, you are doing the very thing you tell other people not to do.'”

This would have been the perfect time for Peter to withstand Paul to the face for contradicting his own message to the fledgling church. Paul declares himself to speak in tongues more than all in Corinth (1 Cor. 14:18) and commands that people speaking in tongues ought speak words “easy to be understood” (1 Cor. 14:9). Yet, according to Peter, he [Paul] insists on writing things hard to be understood (2 Peter 3:16).

So Ward has either got to run with the idea that Paul is contradicting his own command in inspired Scripture or he is going to need to nuance his position a bit more. Maybe something like, Paul in 1 Corinthians 14 is talking about foreign languages via the sign gifts and Peter is talking about things that will need study and with that study understanding will come. The former talks about unlearned foreign languages and the latter is things you need to learn in your own language or through a teacher.

So when TR/KJV folks encourage their brothers in Christ to study, read, get the dictionary out, get out the lexicon, and use the online study helps, are they not simply falling in line with the Apostle Peter here? This won’t be the first time you will need study helps. In fact, the brightest and most able among us still use study helps in understanding the Bible. You know why? Because some places in Scripture are hard to be understood.

Indeed, as Barnes points out,

“… those portions of the writings of Paul, for anything that appears to the contrary, are just as ‘hard to be understood’ now.”

Albert Barnes, Notes on the Whole Bible, 2 Peter 3:16.

Peter goes on to tell us what happens when certain people, certain unlearned and unstable people come in contact with Paul’s hard to be understood writings. That is, Peter tells us that the unlearned and unstable twist, contort, and torture the words of Paul. Who exactly are the unlearned? The word Peter uses ἀμαθής means “ignorant”, or those who cannot or will not learn. How about the unstable? Who are they? Peter uses the word ἀστήρικτος meaning those who are not established in the faith, who lack proper moorings.

So those who will not or cannot learn and also those who lack proper moorings in the faith, take Paul’s hard to be understood words, and wrest, twist, and torture them. What again is Peter’s response? Does he call Paul to change his words for the sake of the unlearned and unstable? Does he exhort Paul to be consistent with his command in 1 Corinthians 14? Wouldn’t it better if Paul would simply use more easily understood words? I mean, doesn’t he know that he is speaking to the poor, the wretched, and the slave of the region? How many of Paul’s recipients in Corinth or Galatia or Philippi were steeped in Jewish ritual and tradition or had Paul’s education and upbringing? Even the Apostle Peter who walked with the Lord for three years calls Paul’s writings hard to be understood, how much more so a temple prostitute in Ephesus, and yet Paul persists in his hard-to-be-understood writing.

In sum, 1.) simply because something is hard to be understood does not mean it needs to be changed or abandoned. Rather, for the Apostles Peter and Paul, the expectation was that the reader, the Christian would change which is exactly what we have been saying. Study not only to grow in your theological education but to grow in your literary, grammatical, syntactical, and linguistic education as well. 2.) As it currently stands, Mark Ward’s interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:9 seems to give rise to a contradiction in Scripture via 2 Peter 3:16. In the former Paul commands things easy to be understood and in the latter Peter observes that Paul goes against that command by offering things that are hard to be understood.

In conclusion, I leave you with words from the Westminster Confession 1.7,

“All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear to all.”

Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.7.

If Ward is going to start calling himself a Reformed Baptist, he may need to brush up on the Perspicuity of Scripture and its relationship to intelligibility and edification.

For the Church, whatsoever your hand finds to do, do it with your might. So read, study, and investigate the Scriptures with all your might. Some of your study will be hard, but the fruit of that labor will satisfy your very soul. Beyond that, the blessing and unity resulting from a standard sacred text among the English-speaking church far outweighs the difficulties we all face from time to time in the study of God’s word.

Henrich Bullinger, 1504-1575, on the Perfection of Scripture’s Authority from the Holy Ghost and Scripture’s Self-authentication

[For those readers familiar with the Standard Sacred Text, Bullinger’s comment further demonstrates the historic orthodox understanding of Scriptural authority. From the abundant testimony of Reformation era writers from the Continent and England the theological continuity on this point is conspicuous. Bullinger’s commentary is of an intimate character showing the continuity between the work of the Holy Spirit in the giving of the autographa and the Holy Spirit’s work in confirming the authority of the preserved Scripture to every believer. Note his citation of the gentle work of the Spirit in the life of Augustine turning his heart from being resistant to this truth to “at last thoroughly persuading him.” The same Spirit that assured Augustine assures the believer today that Scripture is indeed God’s Word. Also note the Shepherd/sheep reference and the relationship every believer has with Christ as grounds for accepting the Scripture. As you read, please consider the rich, unifying theological heritage of pre-critical Orthodox theology forsaken by modern text critics compared to the vacuous and divisive critical approach of recent history.]

Chapter IX

That the Canonical Scripture hath the chief perfection of her authority from the holy Ghost, and of herself: And contrarily that the Church receiveth her authority from the Scripture.

Hitherto we have yielded many reasons for the most excellent authority of the Canonical Scripture. Now the question is, from when the scripture hath or received this most excellent and perfect authority, or by whom the Canon was made, whereunto the Canonical books pertain. The papists say that the Scripture hath her authority from the Church, and that therefore the authority of the Church is greater than the authority of the Scriptures. As though the word of God, which endureth forever (Isa. 40:8), were subject to men’s decrees, as though God his truth should entreat men top authorize it. It is not so. The word of God is of itself most sure, and needeth not the propping up of men, but holdeth up all things. “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall in no wise pass away” (Matt. 24:35). The Scripture receiveth her strength or authority chiefly from God, from whom it was revealed. That is to say, that it came not by the will of men (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21) but that the men of God, being moved by the holy Ghost. Both spake and wrote. Whom being chosen and elected for this office, God adorned with many and sundry miracles and divine testimonies.

So that there is no doubt at all, that those things were given by God by inspiration which they wrote and set down. And the selfsame spirit, which hath caused these things to be written, assureth us, that they are not the inventions of men. And when the spirit of God doeth herein witness to our spirit, it seals up the Scripture in our hearts, the faithful soul doeth marvelously rejoice and is greatly confirmed. Therefore we being illuminated by the virtue of the spirit, do not now believe, either through our own judgment, or through the judgment of others, that the Scripture is of God, but do most certainly persuade ourselves above man’s judgment, none otherwise then if we did behold therein the power of God, that the Scriptures are come unto us, even from the very mouth of God by the administration of men.

Therefore the Spouse in the Ballets sayeth with marvelous joy, “My beloved said unto me.” I say nothing of that, which everyone, which is lightened with the light of true faith sayeth, must needs find by experience in himself. By this experience wrote once Augustine the man of God, how God by a little and a little tempered and disposed his heart with his most meek and most merciful hand, and at the last thoroughly persuaded him, so at the last he knew and believed, that those books were delivered to mankind by the Spirit, and the only true and most true God. Therefore the authority of the Scripture doth depend not on the judgment of Church, but by the inward testimony of the holy Ghost: “Neither is it to be doubted that we become Christ’s sheep through the power of the holy Ghost, that we follow not falsehoods, errors, corruptions, and heresies, which are the voice of strangers, but hear only the voice of Christ.”.

And John witnesseth, the Christ said thus, concerning the Spirit, “If God were your father, why do ye not know my speech?” (John 8:42-43). For it is most certain, that we are adopted to be sons of God, by the means of the holy Ghost, which when we have obtained, Christ witnesseth in this place, that we by the lightning of the same Spirit, may so discern his speech from strangers, that it may be manifest and certain unto us. In the selfsame sense, Christ sayeth also in another place (John 10:2-5), “He that entereth in by the door, is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth, and the sheep hear his voice, andn he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he shall put forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. A stranger they shall in no wise follow, but fly from him, for they know not the voice of strangers.” Neither is it to be doubted that we become Christ’s sheep through the power of the holy Ghost, that we follow not falsehoods, errors, corruptions, and heresies, which are the voice of strangers, but hear only the voice of Christ, that is to say, embrace the natural sense of the Scripture. And Paul sayeth to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 2:14-15) “The natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he known them, because they are spiritually discerned.” And in the same place (1 Cor. 2:10) “The spirit searcheth the deep things of God.” And Christ also sayeth (John 14:26) “The comforter, which is the holy ghost, shall bring all things to your remembrance , whatsoever I have said unto you.” Also John hath said these words in his Epistle (1 John 2:27) “The anointing teacheth you of all things,” Again, (1 John 4:6) “He that knoweth God heareth us.”

To be brief, Augustine in the place lately cited sayeth, “Therefore when as we were weak to find forth the truth by clear reason, and when we had need of the authority of the holy Scriptures, for the same purpose, I began to believe forthwith, that thou wouldest by no means give so excellent authority unto that Scripture throughout all lands, but that they will was, that thou wouldest be sought by it, and wouldest be believed by it.”[1] Behold, it is God, I say, it is God, which hath established his holy books with so great authority in all nations. And August. added the cause why God will be sought through them, is why he will be believed through them.

I conclude therefore, that the scripture hath not her authority chiefly from the Church. For the firmness and strength thereof dependeth upon God, is not of men. And the word being both firm and sure, was before the Church, for the church was called by the word (Eph. 2:20). And seeing the doctrine of the prophets and of the apostles is the foundation of the Church, it must needs be, that the certainty of the Church must consist in the said doctrine, as in her foundation and groundwork, before the said Church can take her beginning. (Eph. 2:20) For if the Church of Christ were founded in the beginning by the writing of the Prophets, and with the preaching of the Apostles. Wheresoever the said doctrine be found, certainly the allowing of the doctrine went before the Church, without the which doctrine the Church could never have been. And because the spirit of God wrought in the hearts of them, which heard the word of God (and read it, that they might acknowledge that it was not the word of man, but of God. Undoubtedly, the word of God receiveth authority from the spirit, and not from the Church.

Henrie Bullinger, A most godly and learned discourse of the worthiness, and sufficiency of the holy Scripture: Also of the clearness, and plainness of he same, and of the true use thereof. Translated out of the Latin into English by John Tomkys (London: Ponnsonby, [1571] 1579), Chapter IX

[1] Updated translation: “Thus, since we are too weak by unaided reason to find out truth, and since, because of this, we need the authority of the Holy Writings, I had now begun to believe that thou wouldst not, under any circumstances, have given such eminent authority to those Scriptures throughout all lands if it had not been that through them thy will may be believed in and that thou mightest be sought.”

The Church’s 1st Century Text-Critical Heritage

Speaking of the Bereans, Luke writes,

“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and search the scriptures daily whether those things were so.”

Acts 17:11

John speaking of the Ephesian Church writes the following in a similar vein,

“…thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars.”

Revelation 2:2

At the inception of the Church, generally speaking, first century Christians had three forms of special revelation: the sign gifts, the Old Testament, and the Apostolic Message. In both of the passages mentioned above we see that the Church, the fledgling Church, the Church without commentaries and study helps, was able to and accurately performed the work of determining what was the Apostolic Message and what was not – what was the word of God and what was not.

Indeed, as the Westminster Confession of Faith observes,

“All synods or councils, since the Apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.”

WCF 31.3

How exactly were they, the Church, able to determine what was the Apostolic Message, what was the word of God, and what was not? By the analogy of faith. In Acts 17:11, the Bereans compared Scripture with Scripture to see “whether those things be so.” In Revelation 2:2, John records that the Ephesian Christians tested/tried those who claimed to be apostles but where not. In like manner, we see in 1 John 4:1 that the Church is “believe not every spirit, but to try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.”

Albert Barnes commenting on 1 John 4:1 writes,

“If they taught what God had taught in his word, and if their lives corresponded with his requirements, and if their doctrines agreed with what had been inculcated by those who were admitted to be true apostles, 1 John 4:6, they were to receive them as what they professed to be.”

Albert Barnes, Notes on the Whole Bible, 1 John 4:1.

Again the impetus and power to determine what is or is not the word of God is to compare what is said by a true or false apostle with the words of Scripture. This of course assumes, that the Church in the first century assumed the Old Testament, which was a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy and on and on was indeed the word of God and superior to the authority of a person professing to be a apostle whether that be Paul or some other.

What is more, I would like to ask my Critical Text/Multiple Version Only [CT/MVO] brothers whether they believe any one of the myriad of Bibles they hold to is a sufficiently reliable source to critique the Apostle Paul or the Apostle Peter? Put more concretely, in a world where the Old Testament shadows and figures are fulfilled in Jesus, and then Paul in Romans or the writer of Hebrews begins to show how the Gospel has gone to the Gentiles and that Jesus of Nazareth is greater than angels and the entire Jewish sacrificial system, do you believe that your subjective appraisal of the Bible as “sufficiently reliable” is going to be able to authoritatively persuade you and the Apostle Paul if he errs in his presentation?

It is also interesting to point out that the Church was able to determine the words of God, the Apostolic Message without the means of textual criticism. Certainly a form of textual criticism existed at that time seeing that there were many copies and manuscripts of the Old Testament. Still, the Scripture does not call the saint to employ textual criticism. Instead, they are commanded to search the Scriptures.

My point is this, 1.) if you put the words of God in front of God’s people whether they be the words of an Apostle or the words of the Old Testament, they can determine whether those words are from God or not by hearing the voice of the Shepherd through the power of the Spirit. It is no different now and they can do it without the subjective artistic commentary of the textual scholar.

2.) There is no guarantee nor is their any meaningful argumentation for the CT/MVO position that a sufficiently reliable Scripture is suited to withstand an Apostle of Christ to the face should that Apostle stray from the message given to them by Christ. In short, you need to raise the bar for “sufficient reliability” by orders of magnitude from “You can get saved out of this Greek NT or version” to “You can rightfully question and even oppose an Apostle of Christ out of this Greek NT or version”. And as I’m sure you know, Apostles talked about more than the way to salvation. Or as Barnes points out,

“No one should be received as a religious teacher without the clearest evidence that he has come in accordance with the will of God.”

Albert Barnes, Notes on the Whole Bible, 1 John 4:1.

This includes the version from which you read, Christian. Putting Barnes’ words another way, “No Bible should be received as a religious teacher without the clearest evidence that it has come in accordance with the will of God.” But for our CT/MVO brothers they trade “clearest evidence” for “sufficiently reliable evidence”.

“Easter” is a Perfectly Legitimate Translation in Acts 12:4

The following is a portion of Will Kinney’s work on Acts 12:4 and the rendering of pascha as Easter. You can find the full article here. Today’s gotcha question revolves around whether the KJV translators were negligent in translating pascha as Easter.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Is the word “Easter” an error in the King James Bible?

In Acts 12:4 we are told of Peter being taken prisoner by Herod. “Then were the days of unleavened bread. And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after EASTER to bring him forth to the people.”

Definition and origin of the English word “Easter” 

Webster’s 1828 dictionary  Easter – A festival of the christian church observed in commemoration of our Savior’s resurrection. It answers to the pascha or passover of the Hebrews, and most nations still give it this name, pascha, pask, paque.

American Heritage Dictionary of the English language 5th edition, 2011 – Easter: Derivatives include East, Easter, aurora, aur – See page 2037.  Easter, from Old English eastre, Easter, from Germanic austron – dawn. – the direction of the sunrise. 1.b. Ostmark – from the Old High German ostan, east. Both are from Germanic aust – eastern. 1. A Christian feast commemorating the Resurrection of Jesus. 2. The day on which this feast is observed, the first Sunday following the full moon that occurs on or next after the vernal equinox.  — Page 2037 aur – to shine (said especially of the dawn)

Merriam Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th edition. Easter – Middle English estre, from Old English astre; akin to Old High German starun (plural) Easter, Old English ast east

Oxford English Dictionary – Easter – 1. The most important and oldest festival of the Christian Church, celebrating the resurrection of Jesus Christ and held (in the Western Church) between March 21 and April 25, on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the northern spring equinox.

2. The period in which Easter occurs, especially the weekend from Good Friday to Easter Monday.

Origin – Old English astre; of Germanic origin and related to German Ostern and east

Oxford English Dictionary online.

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/easter

Excellent article on Easter from KJV Today.

http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/easter-or-passover-in-acts-124

The etymology of “Easter” on the other hand has nothing to do with “flocks” or animal fertility. “Easter” (“Ostern” in German) is a Germanic word derived from the word “east” (“Ost” in German). Today, “east” refers to the direction from which the sun rises. The direction of east goes by that name because the Saxon word “east” meant “dawn”, “sunrise” or “morning”. The etymology of “east” is as follows:

“Old English east “east, easterly, eastward,” from Proto-Germanic *aus-to-, *austra- “east, toward the sunrise” (cf. Old Frisian ast “east,” aster “eastward,” Dutch oost Old Saxon ost, Old High German ostan, German Ost, Old Norse austr “from the east”), from PIE *aus- “to shine,” especially “dawn” (cf. Sanskrit ushas “dawn;” Greek aurion “morning;” Old Irish usah, Lithuanian auszra “dawn;” Latin aurora “dawn,” auster “south”), literally “to shine.” The east is the direction in which dawn breaks.” (Online Etymological Dictionary)

Paska in the Modern Greek Dictionaries 

The Greek word paska means Easter today. The Oxford Greek-English Learner’s Dicionary 2012 lists the word paska and the very first definition is Easter.  The second one is Passover.  

The same is true of the Collins Greek-English Dicitonary 2003, and in Divry’s Modern English-Greek Dictionary 1991. All three of these modern Greek-English Dictionaries list Easter as the first meaning, and Passover as the second meaning. 

 Here is an online Greek translation site that is very easy to use.  Just click on the link and go to the site.  On the left hand side you can type in the Greek word or on the right hand side you can type in the word Easter.  See what the Greek word means, and how to say Easter in Greek.

http://www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon/

Paska = Easter

Online Etymological Dictionary

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=paschal

paschal (adj) – early 15th century, “of or pertaining to EASTER”, from Old French paschal (12th century) and directly from Late Latin pastels, from pascha Passover, EASTER, from Greek pascha Passover, from Aramaic pasha “pass over”, corresponding to Hebrew pesah, from pasah “he passed over.”  Past was an early Middle English term for EASTER.

Pascha can mean more than the Jewish holy day of Passover. In fact, Greeks today who wish to send the greeting Happy Easter say, kalee pascha. Literally it means good Passover. However it has come to mean good or happy Easter.

[1] See Dr. Walter Bauer’s, A Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament And Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957)  Under the Greek word pascha we find #4. “in later Christian usage the EASTER festival” (page 639)

[2] G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961), 1048-1049. He discusses the history and meaning of the Greek word Paska.

Dr. G. W. H. Lampe has correctly stated, Pascha came to mean Easter in the early church. Dr. Lampe lists several rules and observances by Christians in celebration of their Pascha or Easter. He also points to various Greek words such as “paschazo” and “paschalua” that came to mean “celebrate Easter” and “Eastertide.” 

https://archive.org/stream/LampePatristicLexicon/Lampe%20Patristic%20Lexicon_djvu.txt

Christ’s observance of Passovers as evidence for chronology of his life,  EASTER.

ref. Quartodeciman and other controversies; dispute about Asiatic observance of EASTER on Jewish Passover day, 14th day of Nisan.  Polycarp and Anicetus dispute the question, each maintaining his own tradition (claimed by Polycarp to be Johannine). councils convened and decision that feast must be kept on Sunday only. EASTER to be observed after vernal equinox and so once only in any year; hence to be further removed from Jewish practice.

The Quartodecimans Controversy. This word (quartodecimans) simply means “the 14th”.

None of the Quartodecimans claimed that it was wrong to celebrate Jesus’ resurrection. On the contrary, the evidence indicates that both Polycarp and Anicetus celebrated Jesus’ resurrection annually. Polycarp’s claim seems to have been that the best day to do so was on Nisan 14. Anicetus argued for the Sunday that was closest to the date of the Jewish Passover, since it changed days every year and Christ rose from the dead on Sunday.

[3] Gerhard Kittle, Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament, Vol. II. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 901-904.”In Christian usage EASTER is called pascha” (page 897). “The oldest accounts of a Christian Paschal feast take us back to the apostolic period. The N.T. tells us nothing about the details, but the gaps may be filled in from accounts of the Quartodecimans, since their EASTER, as we now know, was a direct continuation of that of the primitive Church.” (page 901). “The paschal feast thus took place in the primitive Church at the same time as the Jewish Passover, that is, on the night of the 15th Nisan…Hence the original Christian EASTER, as we have come to know and deduce it from the Quartodeciman sources, shared with the Jewish Passover not only the time and details of the rite but also the expectation of the Messiah…The first assured reference to a Sunday EASTER is in 155 A.D., but it was probably much older than this.”  (pages 902-903)

From the article “Should it be Passover or Easter?”

There is no doubt that paska means Easter in modern Greek.  The charge, however, is that it did not mean Easter until centuries after the composition of Acts 12:4.  This is not true.  In the Gospel of John there is already a distinction being made between the Christian  paska and the Jewish  paska.  One of the words for Passover in modern Greek is paska (Passover of the Jews).  We see this same phrase already in the time of John the Apostle:

John 2:13: And theJews’ passover was at hand.

John 11:55: And theJews’ passover was nigh at hand.

The fact that John writes, “Jews Pascha” indicates that there was a need to qualify the word Pascha for the immediate audience of John’s Gospel.  Such a phrase would be redundant unless there were already a distinction between a Jew’s Pascha and another Pascha.  Apparently within the first century, Christians had already appropriated the word Pascha to refer to the Christian celebration of the resurrection.

http://whoisisrael.org/should-it-be-passover-or-easter/?fbclid=IwAR0oEPyEXOdT2-eceAUPvb-ao_YLp7LxUvsC3SOqZF1VnRzz2bHx7RRtSsY

King James Bible Dictionary

https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/kjd/e/easter.html

EASTER, n. – A festival of the christian church observed in commemoration of our Savior’s resurrection. It answers to the pascha or passover of the Hebrews, and most nations still give it this name, pascha, pask, paque.

There are two very different views among King James Bible believers concerning the meaning and significance of the word Easter as found in Acts 12:4. One view is that Easter was in fact the name of the Anglo-Saxon pagan goddess of spring and that Herod was waiting till after this pagan holiday was over before he was going to have Peter killed. There are however many serious problems with this view. Number one is the fact that the pagan goddess was named Eoestre or Eastre or some say Ishtar or Astarte (all different gods and goddesses), but the name is not Easter.  

The King James Bible translators did not have some sort of a collective “senior moment”, and though they translated the Greek word paska as Passover some 28 times, suddenly they had some sort of a memory slip and make it Easter this one time in Acts 12:4.  And they also knew how to spell English words correctly. There is no way that they really meant to say Eostre instead of Easter.

If the King James Bible had read: “intending after Ishtar” or “intending after Eoestre”, they might have a case for their argument. But it clearly does not read that way. It says: “intending after EASTER to bring him forth to the people.”

Let’s look at it from the Greek side of things. The Greek word used here is clearly paska. There is NO way on God’s green earth that the Greek word paska can possibly mean anything remotely like “Eoestre” or “Ishtar”.  The King James Bible translators were not morons. They knew exactly what this word means and it means EASTER, particularly when it applies to the yearly celebration of the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that is what they wrote. The second major problem with this view is that Herod was an Edomite and probably a Roman citizen, but by no stretch of the imagination was he an Anglo-Saxon. 

The term Anglo-Saxon designates the population in Britain partly descended from the Germanic tribes who migrated from Europe and settled the south and east of the island beginning in the early 5th century, and the period after their initial settlement through their creation of the English nation up to the Norman conquest. The Anglo-Saxon era denotes the period of English history between about 550 and 1066. The term can be used for the language, also known as Old English, that was spoken and written by the Anglo-Saxons in England (and parts of south-eastern Scotland) between at least the mid-5th century and the mid-12th century, after which it is known as Middle English. 

So it would be more than a little difficult to have a Roman/Edomite king in the first century celebrating an Anglo-Saxon pagan goddess who was never acknowledged among the Romans and in fact did not even exist until some 4 to 5 centuries later. About the only thing the term Easter and the Anglo-Saxon Eoestre could possibly have in common is that they are both derived from the Middle English word “east” meaning simply the East. Aside from that, it’s a theory totally devoid of and contrary to all known historical facts.

Here is part of a very long sermon given by Lancelot Andrews, one of the original KJB translators, in 1618

  • Lancelot Andrewes Works, Sermons, Volume Two (In case you don’t know, Lancelot Andrewes was one of the King James Bible translators.)
  • Sermons of the Resurrection Preached Upon Easter-Day, 1618.
    Preached before King James, at Whitehall, on Sunday the Fifth of April, A. D. MDCXVIII – 404- 428
    Transcribed by Dr. Marianne Dorman – AD 2002
    Text 1 Corinthians xi:16
    http://anglicanhistory.org/lact/andrewes/v2/easter1618.html

Lancelot Andrews was one of the chief translators of the King James Bible and he gives a lengthy discourse on the custom of keeping the Christian feast of Easter to celebrate the Resurrection of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

He states:

“Then, will we descend to shew the keeping of Easter, to be such, ever in use with ‘the Churches of God’ from the time of the Apostles themselves. Which, if we can make plain, here is a plain text for it; that if one should ask, what Scripture have you why Easter may not be laid down? It may well be answered, Non habemus talem consuetudinem, nec Ecclesiæ Dei. CUSTOM TO KEEP IT WE HAVE THE APOSTLES, THE CHURCH HAD IT; BUT TO ABOLISH IT, “SUCH CUSTOM HAVE WE NONE,” WE DEPART FROM THEM BOTH IF WE DO.”

EVEN BY AUTHORITY OF DIVINE SCRIPTURE IT IS, THAT EVERY YEAR EASTER IS KEPT SOLEMNLY.’ We have touched two Scriptures heretofore: ‘The day, which the Lord had made,’ applied ever to this feast. That text for the Old. And for the New Testament that verse in this Epistle, ‘Christ our Passover is offered, let us therefore keep a feast.’

He then continues in his discourse to cite many well known early church writers who referred to the yearly celebration of Easter.

It should be obvious that the King James Bible translators themselves believed that the yearly celebration of EASTER had both Scriptural and apostolic authority. 

  • Tyndale also translated several N.T. passages as “the Easterlamb” instead of “the Passover lamb”. Clearly he was not referring to some mythical pagan goddess called Ishtar or Eostre. If people would actually do some research on the Ishtar/Eostre thingy, and not just believe what men like Hisslop have said, there is a lot of doubt that such a thing even existed or was practiced. 
  • 1 Corinthians 5:7  Tyndale 1534 – Pourge therfore the olde leven that ye maye be newe dowe as ye are swete breed. For Christ OURE ESTERLAMBE is offered vp for vs. Coverdale 1535 – Pourge out therfore the olde leuen, that ye maye be new dowe, like as ye are swete bred. For we also haue an EASTER LAMBE, which is Christ, that is offred for vs.Matthew’s Bible 1549 – For Christ oure EASTERLAMBE  is offered vp for vs.
  • There is NO way on earth that the underlying Greek word paska can even remotely be translated as Ishtar or Eostre or Ashteroth. It has nothing at all to do with these things. Never did; never will. I think it was out of some misguided attempt to try to defend the KJB’s “Easter” that some over active imaginations came up with this Eostre thing as a possible explanation. But it is entirely wrong at every level.
  • Had it said Ishtar or Eostre and not Easter, they may have had a point of some kind. But it doesn’t say that, does it. No, the KJB and previous English bibles say Easter, and even in places where it wasn’t correct to do so – like when they place Easter in the place of Passover. But here in Acts 12:4 it makes sense, because it is the only post resurrection mention of the paska, which for the Christian is now Easter.   
  • I think these earlier English Bibles were looking at the Easter lamb in the post-resurrection Christian sense as the fulfillment of the Old Testament “type” that was the Passover and that is why they translated it this way. The KJB perfected this revelation and placed “Easter” in the ONLY post-Resurrection reference in the New Testament.
  • The word “passover” does occur in 1 Corinthians 5:7 “…For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.” and in Hebrews 11:28 – “Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.” but in both cases the verses are referring to a time and an event PREVIOUS TO the Resurrection of our Lord. Acts 12:4 is the ONLY time the word paska is used when it refers to a time and an event that occurs AFTER the Resurrection.

The second view, and the one being increasingly accepted among King James Bible believers who have done a little more research into this matter, is that it really means Easter as Christians all over the world in many languages understand the word – a yearly celebration of the Resurrection of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

For another brother’s excellent study on the meaning of Easter as found in Acts 12:4 see his article here at KJV For Today – http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/easter-or-passover-in-acts-124

Here is another site, KJB Textual Technology, that has some very good articles defending the truth of the King James Bible. Here is their article called Easter Is Correct: One Place Where Passover Does Not Apply. You can see it here –

http://www.kjvtextualtechnology.com/a–acts-12–easter-is-the-correct-rendering.php

____________________________________________________________________________

Thanks again to Will Kinney at https://brandplucked.webs.com/ for collaborating with us here at StandardSacredText.com.

Again, in the age of Google it is easy to find out for yourself that these gotcha questions have already been answered and it is easy to find those answers if want to.

Our Opponents are Against Multiple Translations as Well

Most of my academic carrier opponents of the TR/KJV position have told me that there are some translations that we all agree are terrible translations of the Bible. Presently, the translations usually cited as terrible translations are those like the Mirror Bible, The Passion Translation, and The New World Translation. Sometimes the Message is included in this list.

Don’t get me wrong, I too hold that these translations are terrible translations, but why, according to the Critical Text/Multiple Version Only position, are these translations “terrible translations”? What makes them terrible? Who determines what makes these translations terrible and by what authority is that claim made?

Let us assume for a moment that The Passion Translation [TPT] is the inspired infallible word of God in English. For any of us to claim that the TPT is terrible is to judge wrongly regarding the words of God in English. That would be quite a weighty failure in judgement, don’t you agree? So by what standard, by what authority, do any of us claim that the TPT is a terrible translation?

Is TPT a terrible translation because it strays from the commonly understood content of Scripture? Is TPT using phrases and making translation changes which are so different from the “accepted” multitude of other translations? This seems to hardly be an objection seeing that once upon a time the current accepted modern versions did the very same thing when they strayed from the Authorized Version. So maybe TPT is not a terrible translation. Perhaps it is just going to take time for the Church to get used to it.

I think it likely that TPT is rejected as a terrible translation because it translates the Bible in a way deemed unfaithful to the originals. And who deems TPT to be an unfaithful translation of the textual tradition? How do we know that current Critical Text proponent simply don’t have the stomach to do what their academic forefathers did in turning the trajectory of the English-speaking Church from the KJV to the RSV? It seems to me that when Critical Texts advocates or Multiple Version Only advocates gripe about TPT or the Mirror Bible or the Message they sound more and more like the King James Version camp, but of course are very late to the game.

Additionally, the Critical Text/Multiple Version Only folks are more in our camp by rejecting TPT. They draw a line in the sand, though it is unclear what authority allows them to draw such a line. Critical Text/Multiple Version Only advocates reject certain translations as faithful translations of God’s words.

They do exactly the same thing as we do though we exclude more translations from the “faithful translations” pool. For our part though we have an argument for why we reject the TPT and the myriad of modern translations. We have philosophical arguments based in properly basic Christian belief and warranted and rational beliefs. We have exegetical arguments grounded in historic orthodoxy and careful treatment of the original languages. We have robust theological arguments, again based in historic orthodoxy and consistent with Reformed Bibliology.

Our opponents on the other hand have arguments like, “I don’t like the way it sounds” and “That translation does not fit the prevailing subjective translations philosophy supposed by the academy.” Or they may argue, “These ‘terrible translations’ affect major doctrine.” Which of course is ridiculous if TPT is God’s word it is teaching major doctrine and ought to be considered an authority in every Christian’s life.

If TPT is not God’s word according to the Critical Text/Multiple Version Only crowd, how much of it is not God’s word? How do you measure that? What is the threshold which makes a translation a terrible translation? Who determines that threshold? Why should we trust that person’s stated threshold?

To my Critical Text/Multiple Version Only brothers, we believe you when you say TPT is a terrible translation, but it is wholly unclear why you believe that and by what authority you hold that belief.

On this point you are no different than atheists. Atheists seem to know rape is wrong, but they can’t explain why without provincial appeal to the assumed relative subjective social contract of their contemporary society. Even then their moral structure falls apart because morality need a transcendent source which has immediate and effectual causal power in the present i.e., God knows your sin, He will judge your sin, and be sure your sins will find you out.

The Critical Text/Multiple Version Only position is the same. It is not Christian. That is, the Critical Text/Multiple Version Only position is not grounded in the revealed words of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as revealed in the 66 books of the Canon. Instead all appeals to standards, authority, and threshold are punted to the assumed relative subjective authority of the prevailing contemporary opinions regarding textual criticism.

In sum, the Critical Text/Multiple Version Only position is very much like our position in that certain translations are not faithful to the originals and are in this sense terrible. The difference is we here at StandardSacredText.com know these translations are unfaithful and we can explain why from a distinctively Christian position anchored in exegesis, theology, and philosophy. Our opponents know certain translations are unfaithful to the originals, but their attempts to explain why are no better, no more Christian, and no more effectual than those of common garden variety atheists.

All Promises of God are in Him, Yea and Amen

“For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God.”

2 Corinthians 1:20

1.) Are the words of God given in the original Greek and Hebrew promises to God’s people?

“prom·ise

[ˈpräməs]

NOUN

a declaration or assurance that one will do a particular thing or that a particular thing will happen:

It seems so and in the following ways: 1.) God has promised to preserve His words in the mouth of His people (Isa. 59:21). 2.) God has promised to preserve His words to the very jot and tittle (Matt. 5:18). 3.) God has spoken with the force of certainty that all Scripture is inspired (2 Tim. 3:16). God says that His words are right words (Psalm 33:4, and pure words (Psalm 12:6). These are all declarations by God that His words were, are, and will be preserved, inspired, right, and pure and that He will ensure that such is the case.

Every word of God implicitly carries the qualitative statement, “This word is divine and true, and always will be.”

2.) Given the above, can any of God’s words be regarded as anything other than “yes and amen”?

Albert Barnes, commenting on 1 Cor 1:20, writes,

“Are yea – Shall all be certainly fulfilled. There shall be no vacillation on the part of God; no fickleness; no abandoning of his gracious intention.

And in him amen – In Revelation 3:14, the Lord Jesus is called the “Amen.” The word means true, faithful, certain. And the expression here means that all the promises which are made to people through a Redeemer shall be certainly fulfilled. They are promises which are confirmed and established, and which shall by no means fail.”

I Corinthians 1:20

For a certainty, the giving of Scripture is part of God’s gracious intention both in the saving of His people and the sanctifying of His people. Furthermore, the Redeemer will fulfill the promises He made in Isa. 59:21 and Matthew 5:18. In the eyes of God and our Redeemer, every word of Scripture is yes and amen. As such, can any of God’s words be regarded as anything other than yes and amen?

It seems the answer is, no. Certainly God does not know His words to be not His words nor does He know His words to be “sufficiently reliable” words. If God knows His words to be “yes and amen” and so does not speak of His words as not His words or as merely sufficiently reliable words, by what authority do Christians claim God’s words to not be God’s words? By what authority do Christians claim that God’s words are merely sufficiently reliable? Why don’t Christians treat every word of God with yes and amen?

How are such claims asserting doubt and sufficient reliability be understood in terms of obedience to the will of Father when the Father Himself won’t call His own words sufficiently reliable while Christians do?

***Remember boys and girls. No major doctrine of orthodoxy or orthopraxy is at stake in the enterprise of modern textual criticism.***

Benedict Pictet (1696) on the Duty of Reading the Scriptures

From all that has been said, we may abundantly infer the duty of reading the scriptures. This obligation arises from the positive command of God, directed to all and each of mankind – “These words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thy heart; and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest in the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up, “ etc. (Deut. vi. 7-9; xxx. 11-14); “Blessed is the man whose delight is in the law of the Lord, and in the law doth he meditate day and night,” (Psalm i. 1, 2); “Let the word pf Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, whereinto ye do well that ye take heed, “ (Col. iii. 16; 2 Peter ii. 19); “Search the scriptures.” (John v. 39). The end also for which the scriptures was given obligers us to read it, namely, the salvation of all men, which it could not effect, unless it were perused. All the encomiums bestowed on the scripture, are so many arguments for the reading of it. It is the will or testament of a Father, therefore it must be read by the children; it is the epistle of the Creator to the creature, therefore to be perused by the latter; it is the food of our souls, to nourish which it must therefore be read; to which we may add, the constant practice of the Jewish and Christian church. All the fathers exhort to this duty, and among the rest Chrysostom, who, preaching to the people, declares, I always exhort, and will not cease to exhort you, not only to give ear to what is aid in this place, also to apply yourselves at home to the constant reading of the divine scriptures. And he reproves those who allege various excuses for their neglect of this duty, such as various occupations, and the care of their families; and who dared to assert that this duty belonged not to them, but to the monks and hermits. We are well aware, indeed, that many abuse the reading of the scriptures; but if any one should make this a reason for neglecting the duty, he would be like a man, who, because of the frequent abuse of meat and drink, should choose to perish for hunger and want.

[Pictet comments, “All the encomiums [high praise] bestowed on the scripture, are so many arguments for the reading of it.” What are the encomiums Pictet refers to? That scripture is the will and testament of the Father, epistle of the Creator, and food for our souls. At Standard Sacred Text we make much for the Christocentricity of the Scripture, and here we see the same emphasis made by Pictet with his reference to “will and testament.” This of course refers to the familiar words of Hebrews 9:15-17 and the New Covenant sealed with by the vicarious, bloody death of Jesus Christ. 162 years earlier, William Tyndale makes a similar comparison in the prologue of his 1534 English NT: “Here thou hast (most dear reader) the new testament or covenant made with us of God in Christ’s blood.” [Note that for Pictet “easier to read” and multiple versional readings do not rise to the level of high praise.] It is indeed high praise to speak of the scripture in terms of the finished work of Christ on the cross. Such commendations edify the church, evangelize the lost, and fortify the soul of the saint. Furthermore, these accolades do not tend to division and perplexity but to unity and comfort around the Savior. When the scriptures are given high praise, the arguments will again be heard for the importance of its reading.]

Benedict Pictet, Christian Theology, translated from the Latin by Frederick Reyroux (London: R. B. Seely and Sons, 1696 [1834]), 58-59.

Benedict Pictet (1696) on Scripture as the Only Rule of Faith and Practice, part 2

From what has been said, we may easily ascertain who is the true and supreme Judge of controversies, viz. God who speaks in Scripture. For he only can be a supreme judge in religious matters, who never errs, nor can err, in his decisions, who is influenced neither by partiality, nor by passion, and from whom there is no appeal. But all these qualifications belong not to man; God alone can claim them, for he is truth itself, is no respecter of persons, and acknowledges no superior. To this judge the prophet and apostles always appeal, as we have already shown; and if there had been any other, the scripture would have mentioned him somewhere, since there was nothing of which the faithful had greater need to be reminded; whereas scripture is perfectly silent about it, as every reader may observe. But here we may remark that God, speaking in the scripture, is called a Judge, because he hath taught in his Word such things, as, being properly understood and applied, will finally settle all controversies of faith.

[Pictet in this section makes an important observation for the believer. If there had been another judge other than scripture to which the believer is to appeal, the scripture “would have mentioned him somewhere.” Take for instance a hypothetical and spurious verse, “The time will come when they will no longer have sound doctrine; therefore, in the fulness of time, text critical scholars will arise to set the scripture and people aright.” Of course, the fact that there is no such verse has not prevented the Evangelical church, with an air of misguided piety, to treat the text critical scholar as if the verse existed and was sanctioned by God. And because God speaking in scripture is no longer the Judge that “will finally settle all controversies of faith” ambivalent textual scholars have successfully left Christian theology frayed and controversies unresolved.]

The scripture, therefore, is the fountain and rule of divine law, by which all controversies of faith both can and ought to be clearly determined, as in the commonwealth all decisions and judgments are found in the law; and even the Turks, in all controversies make a final appeal to the Koran; and this is clearly perceived by the fathers of the church. This Optatus speaks: Ye say, It is lawful; we say, It is not lawful; between your lawful and our unlawful, the minds of the people are divided and perplexed. Let no one believe you, let no one believe us; the arbiter must be sought from heaven; no decision on this matter can be found on earth: but why do we knock on the door of heaven, since here below we have the gospel testament? And Augustine says: We are brethren; why do we strive? Out Father did not die without a will; he made a will, then died, and rose again. So long shall we strive about the inheritance, until the will be brought forward. And when the will is brought forth, all are silent, that it may be opened. The Judge listens attentively, the advocates are silent; silence is proclaimed in the court, all the people are attentive, the words of the deceased testator may be read. He lies unconscious in the tomb; but his words have power; so Christ sits in heaven, and his testament is called into question. Open it then, let us read; we are brethren, why do we strive?

[Pictet reminds us of the currently unresolvable conundrum the church has placed itself by the acceptance of Multiple Version Onlyism. Because no “fountain and rule of divine law, by which all controversies of faith both can and ought to be clearly determined,” exists, indeed, “the minds of the people are divided and perplexed.” When considering that the body being divided and perplexed is the bride of Christ, those for whom Christ died, to create such difficulty for the saints is not a peripheral matter. Resolving this division and perplexity should be of the highest priority but MVO by its pluralistic nature is wholly incapable of finding a resolution. This also begs the question regarding opponents to a standard sacred text. Other than from their own sectarian argument, from what grounds other than “I say so” or “He says so” can they produce something that relates to “a fountain and rule of divine law” first for themselves and then deliver that individualized perspective with such force as to impose such an autonomous rule in a convincing way upon others? MVO advocates are also divided and perplexed, maintain this perspective as ecclesiastically normative, and would have everyone experience the same enigma.]

Benedict Pictet, Christian Theology, translated from the Latin by Frederick Reyroux (London: R. B. Seely and Sons, 1696 [1834]), 55-56.