Textus Receptus

“Textus Receptus: the Received Text;

i.e., the standard Greek text of the New Testament published by Erasmus (1516) and virtually contemporaneously by Ximenes (the Complutensian Polyglot, printed in 1514 but not circulated [i.e., published] until 1522), and subsequently reissued with only slight emendation by Stephanus (1550), Beza (1565), and Elzevir (1633).

Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally From Protestant Scholastic Theology, Term: Textus Receptus.

Of particular note here is Muller’s observation that the 5 texts mentioned all fall under the title, Textus Receptus. Indeed, the term is popularized by the Elzevir text, and Muller observes as much when he writes,

“The term Textus Receptus comes from the Elzevir preface: Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum, ‘Therefore you have the text now received by all.'”

Muller, Dictionary, Textus Receptus.

But the practical and historical reality is that this tradition of Greek texts was and is regarded as the standard and received Greek text of the believing community. We see this stance quite clearly propounded by the Confessional Text position. Again, Muller observes,

“The term [Textus Receptus] was adopted as a standard usage only after the period of orthodoxy, although it does refer to the text supported by the Protestant scholastics as the authentic text quoad verba, with respect to the words of the text.”

Muller, Dictionary, Textus Receptus.

In sum, the term Textus Receptus refers to a tradition and to specific temporally conditioned textual artifacts [i.e., the five Greek texts mentioned above]. In this specific sense, Textus Receptus refers to a compiled copy of the autographs which was defended and supported by the Protestant Scholastics as the authentic standard Greek text quoad verba, concerning the words. This belief in the quoad verba quality of the Textus Receptus is how the Protestant Scholastics could believe and proclaim that the Greek text, the Textus Receptus, was the Original. They believed their Greek text was the authentic word of God quoad verba. Here at StandardSacredText.com all we argue that that same belief in the Textus Receptus remains warranted and rational today.

Bible Texts and possible Worlds.

            “If something is not necessarily true, it is possibly false.” This axiom succinctly delineates the philosophical quandary the modern church finds itself in relation to the possible worlds reflected in bible texts and versions. If the truth of God’s Word as we possess it today is not “necessarily true,” then it is possibly false, and as such, would allow for actualization of the possible world of any future archeological or textual discovery. Though only possible, this possibility alone, would be grounds for questioning or contradicting the truth as we know it, nullifying every notion, methodology and conclusion previously derived from the contemporary disciplines of archeology and textual criticism. The possibility of biblical and theological reconstruction is equivalent to saying that the truth as the Church knows it is not the truth, but only a truth accepted out of ignorance of yet undiscovered possibilities and each finding’s corresponding “truth.” The post-critical Church lives with its provincial, sectarian truth, not because it is correct but because it is the only choice left to the modern Church having rejected pre-critical orthodox principles.

            For example, omitting dia tou aimatos autou, “through his blood” from Colossians 1:14 illustrates the creation of a possible world. Because revelation is Grammatical/Historical, changing the words necessarily changes the event. For this modern omission in Col. 1:14 only part of the question is whether the textual critic or manuscript evidence supports or rejects a text — it is also whether the words where actually written in the first place, the event of writing dia tou aimatos autou. The possible world which admits the truth that Paul did not write these words could, among other considerations, conclude either, that,

  1. Paul (S) did not think this phrase (p).
  2. S meant to write p but because of a physical distraction he involuntarily omitted p.
  3. S was told by an angel not to write p.
  4. S was threatened with bodily harm if p was included so p was omitted.
  5. S fell in love and p was offensive to his fiancé, so he omitted p.
  6. et cetera.

            Each critical text, each modern bible version, represents only one of an infinite number of possible worlds, each edition in conflict with the other by virtue of the inherent variations raised by readings that define the scope of the editor’s and translator’s skills and investigation. Because the text or translation is only a truth and not the truth, then it is one manifestation of an infinite number of possible worlds and capable of exceptional absurdity. Did the Ethiopian eunuch confess Christ before being baptized or not in Acts 8:37? Either he did or he did not, and the editor of the modern version, of his own accord, is going to create a world in which there was no confession. Only God, speaking for Himself through His Word which is the truth will save the Church from believing a historic record, claimed to be divine, that is spurious.

Thus, to retain the exclusivity of the truth I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me (John 14:6) it is imperative that the Scripture exist externally to the Church, the critic, and the publisher; that Scripture imposes itself upon the Church and not become an object that anyone can shape according to their own natural inclinations; and that from outside,the Church may be assured that it is the viva vox dei, the living voice of God alone, revealing the truth which they hear in the pages of Holy Scripture.

Scripture as Supreme and Infallible Judge of All Controversies and Interpreter of Itself (Part 3)

We are now in our third installment of Turretin’s argument on Scripture as infallible judge of controversies and interpreter of itself. In part 2 we discussed the first four of Turretin’s arguments in support of the claim that the Scripture is such a judge and interpreter. In this installment we will discuss the final three of his arguments. To that effect, Turretin first argues that if man is the final judge and interpreter of Scripture: 1.) Why did Christ not mention such a person? 2.) Why did Paul not mention such a person? 3.) Why did Peter not mention such a person? and 4.) Popes have not shown themselves to be infallible. The point of course is that it does not appear the Scriptures anywhere make such a claim, that in some future time a man, whether scholar or Pope, was going to be the rightful judge of controversies and final interpreter of Scripture.

As a reminder, we have argued to this point in our discussion that the current disputes over which Bible ought the English-speaking believers to read is a controversy. Furthermore, the disputes about whether the woman caught in adultery, the long ending in Mark, and I John 5:7 are also controversies all of which fall within the jurisdiction of the Scripture as judge and self-interpreting. In short, neither scholar nor Pope is equipped with the necessary tools, nor are they put upon morally or scripturally to determine the validity of this or that text of Scripture. Indeed, they believe the evidence points to this or that conclusion but that is exceedingly different than saying they have the true reading. Fair enough?

Turretin goes on in his next argument to declare that the institutional church is not able to be its own judge and therefore cannot be the final judge of what is Scripture and what is not. Turretin writes,

“The church cannot be regarded as the judge of controversies because she would be a judge in her own cause and the rule of herself. For the chief controversy is about the power and infallibility of the church, when the very question is whether the church is the judge, or whether the church can err.”

Turretin, Institutes, vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 20, Sec. XIII.

Here Turretin has in mind the authority of the Roman Catholic Magisterium. The church in this sense has neither the power nor the moral right to claim that they are infallible in this or that regard and the Bible is not. Therefore, it is claimed that the church is the final judge of controversies and interpreter of Scripture. If they were, it seems quite apparent that a conflict of interest would soon arise. To be clear, the same goes for the academy. Now I have heard in recent days, per Peter Gurry, that he does not see himself in the place to tell the believer what is or is not the word of God. He claims to say only what he believes the evidence demands. Fair enough. I do want to know, given certain Christian pre-commitments, what is the fundamental difference between saying the evidence compels me to believe X is part of the New Testament and the evidence compels me to believe X is part of God’s word?

Moving on. Turretin’s seventh and final argument for this question is a compilation of quotes from the ancients showing their reliance on the Scripture as final judge of controversies and interpreter of itself. Those quotes are as follows.

Constantine writes, “‘therefore laying aside warring strife, we may obtain a solution of difficulties from the words of inspiration.'”

Turretin, Institutes, vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 20, Sec. XIV.

“Optatus writes, ‘You say it is lawful, we say it is not lawful; between your permission and our prohibition the minds of the people fluctuate and waver. No one believes you, no one believes us, a judge must be sought from heaven, on earth we can get no decision; but why should we knock at the door of heaven when we have the Testament here in the gospel?'”

Turretin, Institutes, vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 20, Sec. XIV.

“Augustine says, ‘We are brethren, why should we contend? Our father did not die intestate; he made a will…open it, let us read, why should we wrangle?'”

Turretin, Institutes, vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 20, Sec. XIV.

Augustine goes on in another place, “‘This controversy requires a judge. Christ shall judge; the apostle with him shall judge.”

Turretin, Institutes, vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 20, Sec. XIV.

“Lactantius says, ‘God speaks in the divine writings as the supreme judge of all things, to whom it belongs not to argue but to pronounce.'”

Turretin, Institutes, vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 20, Sec. XIV.

“Gregory of Nyssa writes, ‘The inspired writing is a safe criterion of every doctrine.'”

Turretin, Institutes, vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 20, Sec. XIV.

To all of this, all seven of these arguments, Turretin concludes,

“As a prince must interpret his own law, so also God must be the interpreter of his own Scriptures – the law of faith and practice. And the privilege allowed to other authors of interpreting their own words ought not to be refused to God speaking in the Scriptures.”

Turretin, Institutes, vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 20, Sec. XIV.

AMEN.

Quips and Quotes from G.K. Chesterton

Welcome to the Brickyard. This is a place to find quotes for use in your own research and writing. The bricks are free, but the building is up to you. The following quotes are from The Quotable Chesterton edited by Marlin, Rabatin, and Swan. It is a compilation of quotes from G.K. Chesterton across a host of topics. Enjoy.

Argument

“It is generally the man who is not ready to argue, who is ready to sneer.”

The Quotable Chesterton, 26.

Authority

“Authority ruling men must be respected; it must even be loved. Men must in the last resort love it; for the simple reason that men must in the last resort die for it.”

The Quotable Chesterton, 33.

Simplification

“The simplification of anything is always sensational.”

The Quotable Chesterton, 325.

“…it’s natural to believe in the supernatural. It never feels natural to accept only natural things.”

The Quotable Chesterton, 336.

Testimony

“…the more we study it the more queer the whole question of human evidence becomes. There is not one man in twenty who really observes things at all. There is not one man in a hundred who observes them with real precision; certainly not one in a hundred who can first observe, then remember and finally describe.”

The Quotable Chesterton, 341.

Theology

“Theology is only thought applied to religion.”

“The Quotable Chesterton, 343.

Thinkers (Modern)

“A modern ‘thinker’ will find it easier to make up a hundred problems than to make up one riddle. For in the case of the riddle he has to make up the answer.”

The Quotable Chesterton, 345.

REGENERATION AND THE WORD OF GOD

1 Peter 1:23, “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.”

The significance of maintaining the “common salvation” by “earnestly contending for the faith” is taught in Jude 3, “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” “Contending” is necessary to preserve that “commonly” believed or the common Christian Faith. What follows is a central element of the “common salvation,” the work of Regeneration, or being born again, and the unified role of the Spirit and Word.

The word of God is the objective instrument in bringing to consummation that spiritual change produced by the Holy Spirit. The Word addresses us consciously while the Spirit’s work in regeneration is a subconscious work. Regeneration is comprised of both aspects of the Word and Spirit’s power, working both consciously and subconsciously. We learn that reading the Bible without the Spirit’s teaching is unprofitable, 1 Cor. 2:14, “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” Furthermore, the Spirit without the Word will convict of sin but will not save. John 16:8, “And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.” 2 Cor. 2:15-16, “For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?” Faith only comes through hearing the Word, Rom. 10:17, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Repentance is likewise a gift of God, 2 Tim. 2:25, “In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” Finally, regeneration is entirely the work of God, John 3:5, “Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

In regeneration, Word and Spirit are brought together to create a new creature in Christ, 2 Cor. 5:17, “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” Regeneration is the outreach of the gospel as a direct creative act of the Holy Spirit that involves the transformation of the whole man. Internal illumination of the Word by the Spirit for the mind and will of the elect is inextricably tied together with the regenerating work of the Spirit. The new birth takes place in the womb of the teaching of God’s Word. Thus, to read the Word is to hear the message of Jesus mediated by the Holy Spirit. The Bible alone does not regenerate. The Bible is the truth, John 17:17, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” This truth is utilized by the Spirit to produce faith. Faith is the gift of the Spirit derived through the cognitive (mundane-phenomenal) understanding of Scripture. Eph. 2:8-9, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Spiritual discernment of the Bible is necessary to be born again and the Spirit gives this discernment.

Scripture as Supreme and Infallible Judge of All Controversies and Interpreter of Itself (Part 2)

In our last post on this point, we framed the question and asserted that disputes over what is or is not the New Testament and therefore what is or is not the word of God fall under the jurisdictional authority of the Spirit of God as supreme autocratic judge speaking through the words of God to the people of God by faith. Today we are going to discuss the first four of Turretin’s arguments to this point. He has a total of seven and we will address the latter three in the next post on this topic.

To summarize his first four argument, Turretin affirms that the Scriptures or God speaking in them are “the supreme and infallible judge of controversies” because 1.) The Bible sends us to itself to judge controversies, 2.) Christ sends us to the Bible to judge controversies, 3.) The Spirit is Himself an infallible judge, and 4.) Man is not an infallible judge. Beginning with the first, Turretin writes,

“God in the Old and New Testaments absolutely and unconditionally sends us to this judge – ‘and thou shalt do according to the law which they shall teach thee (Dt. 17:10); ‘to the law and the testimony, etc.’ (Is. 8:20); ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them’ (Ll. 16:29).”

Turretin, Institutes, vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 20, Sec. VIII.

Having asserted what the Scriptures teach, Turretin takes the opportunity to point our attention to what is conspicuously absent from the list of final judges and interpreters: man.

“Christ does not say they have the priests and scribes (who cannot err), but they have Moses and the prophets (viz., in their writings), implying that they are abundantly sufficient for full instruction and their authority must be acquiesced in.”

Turretin, Institutes, vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 20, Sec. VIII.

We may as well add textual critics to the list of priests and scribes. And for those fair-handed textual critics out there, if you do not profess to tell the church what is or is not the New Testament, then who does and by what standard(s)?

Moving onto Turretin’s second argument we see that he moves his emphasis from the revealed word to the Archetypal Word – Jesus Christ and the apostolic message. Turretin writes,

“The practice of Christ and his apostles confirms this for in controversies of faith they appeal to the Scriptures (Mt. 4:4, 6, 7; 22:29; Jn. 5:39; 10:34, 35; Acts 17:2, 11; 18:28; 26:22) and profess to know nothing besides Moses and the prophets (Lk. 24:44; Acts 26:22).”

Turretin, Institutes, vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 20, Sec. IX.

If we are to be imitators of Christ and if Paul calls us to be imitators of him as he is an imitator of Christ it stands to reason that we also should look to the Scriptures for the same reasons and in the same way. Because it is Christ doing it and because we are called to be as He is, then in these descriptions of Christ’s treatment of controversies we receive a prescription of how we too ought to do the same.

In Turretin’s third argument he emphasizes the particular person of the Holy Spirit and the kind of person He is. Turretin writes,

“A supreme and infallible judge is one who never errs in judgment, nor is he able to err; is uninfluenced by prejudice and from whom is no appeal…God speaking in the Scriptures claims these as his own prerogatives alone, as incapable of error in judgement, being truth itself, uninfluenced by partiality, being no respecter of persons (aprosopoleptes); nor can any appeal be made from him because he has no superior.”

Turretin, Institutes, vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 20, Sec. X.

God does not err. God cannot err, neither in His words nor in His judgments. God is truth itself. So, when God speaks through His word as an act of confirming His word as His word this speech will be the unerring truth. Now, will man receive it as such? Perhaps not, but that does not impeach the truth that such a phenomenon is happening in space and time and that the Spirit-filled believer can and does by faith hear God speaking in this way.

We come now to Turretin’s fourth argument which is stated as follows:

“Man cannot be the infallible interpreter of the Scriptures and judge of controversies because he is liable to error. Our faith cannot be placed in him, but upon God alone from whom depends the sense and meaning of the Scriptures and who is the best interpreter of his own words.”

Turretin, Institutes, vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 20, Sec. XI.

Turretin’s critique here is really twofold. One, scholars and popes are infallible interpreters in the controversy of what is or is not the New Testament and thereby what is or is not the word of God. People who assume themselves to be in this place are not suited for the responsibilities which appertain. Two, those of us who would like to put our faith in these men, and in many cases do, have erred according to the Scriptures. The Scriptures call us to look into the Scriptures. Christ and the apostles looked to the Scriptures to solve their controversies. We are called to do the same today and especially on the controversies surrounding whether or not this or that text should be counted among the words of the New Testament.

Weekly Question – How great is the ecclesiastical upheaval when the church’s Bible is quasi-replaced?

If we take the church to be a sub-culture of any culture, and we take the Bible to be at the center of that sub-culture because Christ can only be known through the Bible, how seismic is an attempt to replace that Bible with another like it let alone one very different?

On the level of language, the Bible serves as our source of language. We read the same words, memorize the same words, preform weddings and funerals in the same words, and preach from the same words. What happens when we change those words? Assuming no meaning is changed by changing words, the very act of changing the words will change the language of the sub-culture ostensible making for two cultures at least. As such, new Bibles necessarily divide.

Is it not then, that when some have called for different a Bible, they are not merely making a scholastic assertion with ecclesiastical ramifications? They are also making an assertation with cultural ramifications both within and without the church. Based on what authority can the scholar know that he/she is about to make our ecclesiastical culture better by making these kinds of assertions?

Scripture as Supreme and Infallible Judge of Controversies and Interpreter of Itself (Part 1)

We have now arrived at the twentieth question offered in Turretin’s treatment of Bibliology. Here he asks about the Scripture as the final and infallible judge of controversies in the church as opposed to the Scripture + Church Tradition or the Scriptures + the Magisterium. As you can imagine Turretin’s treatment is extensive so it’s going to take a couple posts to present his thoughts on this point. That said, let us begin with Turretin’s framing of the question. He writes,

“…the question concerns only the supreme and infallible judgment by which everything must necessarily stand or fall – whether this belongs to the Scriptures themselves (as we hold) or to some man or assembly composed of men (as the papists maintain).”

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 20, Sec II.

Turretin goes on to admit that there are certain types of judges, judges with varying degrees of authority and autonomy. He divides these judges into three types.

“First is the supreme and autocratic (autokratorikos), which judges by legislative and absolute authority after the manner of the higher prince, which enacts laws and from which there is no appeal.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 20, Sec III.

“Second is the subordinate (hyperetikos) or ministerial, which interprets the laws after the manner of a public minister.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 20, Sec III.

“Third is an idiomatic (idiotikos) or private, which both from the laws and from their interpretation judges in the way of private discretion.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 20, Sec III.

Turretin is not here concerned with the latter two. His emphasis falls on the first. Are the Scriptures (or God speaking in them) the supreme autocratic judge “from which there is no appeal?” Now of course, Turretin is not here addressing those of our day and age. He is addressing the Roman Catholic apologists of his time and particularly their assault on the Scripture as supreme judge of controversies and interpreter of itself. That said the correlation between then and now does bear striking similarities.

Turretin writes,

“The question is not whether the Scriptures are the rule and standard of controversies. This the papists do not object to, at least they appear to be willing to hold it, although what they give with one hand they take away with the other, arguing their obscurity and imperfection.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 20, Sec IV.

How many times have you and I heard some evangelical textual scholars say out of one side of their mouth, “Oh, yes, the Scriptures are the rule and standard.” only to say ten minutes later, “Well the true text is either in the text or apparatus.”? Note also that for Turretin an assault on the perspicuity and perfection of Scripture is an assault on the canon – the rule, the standard. Turretin it not responding to intactness of the gospel message over the whole warp and woof of the Bible. The Roman Catholics weren’t making that argument.

Turretin is responding to the Roman Catholic argument that the Greek and Hebrew are incurably imperfect and obscure. This is the current argument of the evangelical textual critic. The Bible still has imperfections and the CBGM is going to save us or maybe we can’t be saved. Turretin would demur. And why? Because the Spirit of God speaking in the word of God is the supreme autocratic judge regarding the words of Scriptures and the controversies surrounding those words.

The admittance of I John 5:7 is a controversy in the church and has been in the past. How are we to settle the controversy? By yielding to the Holy Spirit speaking through His words. The admittance of the long ending of Mark is a controversy in the church and has been in the past. How are we to settle the controversy? By yielding to the Holy Spirit speaking through His words. The admittance of the women caught in adultery is a controversy in the church and has been in the past. How are we to settle the controversy? By yielding to the Holy Spirit speaking through His words.

These and many other textual disputes are indeed controversies within the scope and jurisdiction of the authority of the Holy Spirit speaking through His words. If the story of the woman caught in adultery is the Holy Spirit’s words, He will speak to us through them. In such a way the Holy Spirit reveals Himself to be the supreme autocratic judge having absolute authority to judge all controversies even biblical textual controversies. I mean, in the end, the words at the center of the controversy are either the Holy Spirit’s or they are not. If they are, only God can judge righteously by speaking through them to the saint, and no amount of “in my professional opinion based on the evidence” can subdue God’s righteous judgement concerning His words. Such impious attempts are both immoral and doomed to fail.

John Owen, 1658, on Self-authenticating Scripture

Sect. 5. That then which is to be the establishment of the Souls of Believers, I shall labor to prove and evince, is plainly this, namely, that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, do abundantly, and uncontrollably manifest themselves to be the Word of the living God; so that merely on the account of their own proposal of themselves unto us, in the Name and Majesty of God, as such, without the contribution of help or assistance from Tradition, Church, or anything else without themselves, we are obliged upon the penalty of eternal damnation (as are all by whom by any means they come, or are brought) to receive them, with that subjection due to the Word of God. The Authority of God shining in them, they afford unto us all the divine evidence of themselves, which God is willing to grant unto us, or can be granted us, or is any way needful for us. So then, the Authority of the written Word, in its self and unto us, is from its self, as the Word of God, and the eviction of that Authority unto us, is by its self.

Eviction: “conclusive evidence”

John Owen, Of the Divine Originall, Authority, self-evidencing Light, and Power of the Scriptures: With an Answer to that Enquiry, How we know the Scripture’s to be the Word of God. Also A Vindication of the Purity and Integrity of the Hebrew and Greek Texts of the Old and New Testaments; in some Considerations on the Prolegomena (Oxford: Printed by Henry Hall, Printer to the University for Tho: Robinson, 1658), 34-35.