Today, with many Reformation truths accepted in evangelical Christendom, with the rejection of much rcc paganism, there has been a tendency to miss or ignore the Reformation "Battle of the Bible".
While some is discussed and understood about the translation and printing of the Bible (Wycliffe, Tyndale, Erasmus, Geneva, KJB) there is little about the struggle of the Reformation defenders and the historic Reformation Bible (Received Text) against the rcc Vulgate.
This battle is also very helpful to understanding the modern version texts, which have many of the Vulgate corruptions (where the Received Text is accurate) and many, many more corruptions that are unique to the alexandrian blunderama texts that are neither in the Reformation Bible or the Vulgate. It is little understood, even among KJB defenders, how the alexandrian text is far inferior to the Vulgate from the point of view of our Reformation Bible. Or from the point of view of the essentially inconsequential "Greek Byzantine Majority" text. However at this time this will not be our emphasis, such a discussion of the three-way (Reformation Bible/TR/KJB and Vulgate and W-H/NA27) should better be moved to its own thread. On this thread we plan to simply look at the discussion between the Reformation Bible defenders (Whitaker) and the counter-reformation rcc position for the Vulgate.
William Whitaker (theologian) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William...er_(theologian)
William Whitaker (1548-1595) was a prominent Anglican theologian. He was master of St. John's College, Cambridge, and a leading divine in the university in the latter half of the seventeenth century.
is a principle writer in this battle, and we will be looking at this work.
Those who are interested may want to begin by either reading or skimming the work above. You may also want to look at other writers of the period who are involved in the battle. (Robert Bellarmine, William Fulke, Thomas Stapleton, Thomas Bilson, Francis Turretin and others).
So I will plan shortly to give a brief outline of the early parts of the Whitaker book, then moving ahead to the sections of our greatest interest. There are many strengths, and some weaknesses, in the William Whitaker approach, and we can learn from both.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
PS.
Since I have a number of posters on ignore, it should be possible to have some pretty good discussions here. Hopefully readers will not mind the avoidance of the common diversions, politics and rabbit-trails. Deeper studies may be available on some other forums as well.
Last edited by Steven Avery; 11-02-2009 at 03:18 PM.
there is little about the struggle of the Reformation defenders and the historic Reformation Bible (Received Text) against the rcc Vulgate...This battle is also very helpful to understanding the modern version texts, which have many of the Vulgate corruptions (where the Received Text is accurate) and many, many more corruptions that are unique to the alexandrian blunderama texts that are neither in the Reformation Bible or the Vulgate. However at this time this will not be our emphasis, we plan to simply look at the discussion between the Reformation defenders and the counter-reformation rcc position for the Vulgate.
Since the KJVO is concerned that the RCC Vulgate has influence on the modern editions, I feel it is appropriate to set the record straight and show that the KJV draws from the Vulgate.
For starters:
The words "Calvary," "Bishop"
The lack of articles in the last chapter of Revelation demonstrates a translation from the Latin and not the Greek.
It does not bother me that the KJV has this heritage. The problem is the KJVO will only see the so-called corruptions of the modern versions and will not admit to the same in the KJV.
The KJVO is not much different from the RCC. Avery ignores his opponents, yet charges them with falsehoods (e.g., 1 Kings emendations). And Bible"protector" says that we need people like him to understand Scripture. The KJVO has fully demonstrated a commitment to RCC technique. The KJVOs around here call our versions "perversions" which harkens back to the RCC criticisms of the protestant Bibles.
__________________ Simply observing the floccinoccinihilipilification of the KJVO movement.
Of the Authentic Edition and Versions of the Scriptures
Hi Folks,
This is how "Disputation" is structured once we get to p. 110. The emphasis planned will be on "Question the Second" with a special emphasis on the eleven arguments given in chapter IX.
The First Controversy
Question the Second :
Of the Authentic Edition and Versions of the Scriptures ......... 110
Chapter I - The State of the Question
Chapter II - Of the Hebrew Edition (p. 112)
Chapter III - Of the Greek Version of the Seventy Translators of the Hebrew Books (p. 117)
Chapter IV - Of other Greek Translations of the Old Testament (p. 124)
Chapter V - Of the Greek Edition of the New Testament (p. 125)
Chapter VI - Of the Latin Vulgate Edition (p. 128)
Chapter VII - Wherein an Answer is Given to the Arguments of our Opponents, whereby they Endeavour to Prove that the the Latin Vulgate Edition is Authentic. (p. 135)
Chapter VIII - In Which an Answer is Given to the Ten Reasons of the Ango-Rhemist Translators, whereby they Endeavour to Prove the Authority of the Vulgate Version in the New Testament (p. 141)
Chapter IX -Wherein the Arguments Are Explained Whereby the Arguments are Whereby the Latin Vulgate Edition is Proved Not to be the Authentic Scripture (p. 145)
11 arguments - special attention
Chapter X - Wherein certain corrupt places in the Vulgate edition of the Old Testament are set forth (p. 163)
Chapter XI - Of the Latin Editions of the Psalms and its Manifold Corruptions (p. 179)
Chapter XII - Of Corruptions in the Latin Edition of the New Testament (p. 193)
Chapter XIII - Wherein the State of the Question Concerning Vernacular Versions is Explained (p. 208)
Chapter XIV - Wherein the Arguments of our Adversaries Against Vernacular Versions are Refuted (p. 211)
Chapter XV - Our Reasons for Vernacular Versions of the Scriptures (p. 235)
Chapter XVI - State of the Question Concerning Public Prayers and Sacred Rites in the Vulgar Tongue (p. 250)
Chapter XVII - The Arguments of the Papists for Service in a Foreign Tongue are Confuted (p. 251)
Chapter XVIII - Our Arguments, whereby we prove that the Offices of the Church should be Performed in the Vernacular Language of Every People (p. 258)
===========================================
Question the Third: Of the Authority of Scripture . . .275
Question the Fourth : Of the Perspicuity of Scripture . . 359
Question the Fifth : Of the Interpretation of Scripture . . 402
Question the Sixth : Of the Perfection of Scripture, against Unwritten Traditions 496
I was referring to Bible"protector" himself... He recently said we needed people in authority to rightly explain scripture.
"But ministers have been given the power to perfect the saints, and to watch for their souls, etc. Therefore, it would be foolish for Christians to be self-willed interpreters and allowing freedom of Bible versions."
__________________ Simply observing the floccinoccinihilipilification of the KJVO movement.
The State of the Question - Reformation Bible vs. Vulgate
Hi Folks,
Chapter I - The State of the Question
starts with the victory from the earlier part of the book over the apocrypha as clearly not scripture along with a notation about how the rcc apologists fall back on tradition. And then the overview of the textual battle within the accepted books.. ie the Reformation Bible, the Received Text, the "Hebrew and Greek originals" vs the Vulgate Latin editions of the rcc, which is in a sense the rcc text claimed to be received. The quote from the rcc Council of Trent is given that affirms:
the old Latin vulgate edition should be held for authentic in public lectures, disputations, preachings, and expositions, and that no man shall dare or presume to reject it under any pretext whatsoever (p. 111)
An interesting point can be made that this is not the historic rcc position, that this position was actually taken anew as a defensive maneuver against the power and authority and majesty of the Reformation Bible. Whitaker does not go into this historical question (at least not here). Which is understandable since he was dealing in the aftermath of Trent and in disputation with those who used Trent as their goal posts. However a reader should not assume that this Latin Vulgate primacy, in that manner, was affirmed by rcc church writers from 400 to 1500 AD. Such would be another study.
In fact this new Trent apologetics had been touched upon by Whitaker in an earlier part of the book.
And since the new popery, which in general may be called Jesuitism, differs widely from the old, and the former scholastic divinity delivered many things much otherwise than they are now maintained by the Roman church; we must, lest we should seem to construe the doctrines of the papists otherwise than the practice of the Roman church requires, or to take for granted what they grant not, or to ascribe to them opinions which they disclaim, take care to follow this order, namely, first to inquire what the council of Trent hath determined upon every question, and then to consult the Jesuits, the most faithful interpreters of that council, and other divines, and our countrymen at Rheims amongst the rest. And since Bellarmine hath handled these questions with accuracy and method, and his lectures are in every body's hands, we will make him, so to speak, our principal aim, and follow, as it were, in his very footsteps. (p. 18-19)
The following is a good representation of the Whitaker summary within the short chapter:
Chapter I - The State of the Question
... Although, therefore, our adversaries do not condemn the Hebrew and Greek originals, yet they conclude that not these originals, but the vulgate Latin edition is the authentic text of scripture. Our churches, on the contrary, determine that this Latin edition is very generally and miserably corrupt, is false and not authentic ; and that the Hebrew of the old Testament, and the Greek of the new, is the sincere and authentic scripture of God ; and that, consequently, all questions are to be determined by these originals, and versions only so far approved as they agree with these originals. Consequently, we and our adversaries maintain opinions manifestly contradictory. (p. 111)
Now there is a question that we hope to discuss more later about the phrase "Hebrew and Greek originals", which is, on closer examination, a bit of a misnomer (as most KJB opponents would be happy to point out against KJB proponents). Also we will look closely at the references to the Greek Bible editions and their collators, Erasmus, Beza and especially Stephens, as all are referenced by Whitaker. It is important to understand that the reference to the NT Greek Bible from Whitaker is to a tangible, extant text with specific readings, what is most simply and properly called the Reformation Bible NT (the OT being the Masoretic Text).
Putting that aside, the gauntlet is laid down, choose your position, your text. On one side is
a) the Hebrew and Greek of the Reformation Bible (the term textus receptus was not yet used for this Bible), ie. the Masoretic Text of the Tanach plus the Greek texts of Erasmus, Stephanus and Bezae, which were the texts defended by the Reformation scholars.
On the other side is
b) the Vulgate Latin texts, OT and NT, for which the rcc from Trentwere claiming authority.
The rcc claim that these these Latin texts were dating back to Jerome is strongly disputed, yet in a sense that is a secondary issue to us. This is more of a Tanach (OT) issue as the question arises as to why their are significant differences between Jerome and our Masoretic Text. (Nothing in magnitude like the Greek OT vs Masoretic Text differences, however.) On the NT side we have a clear idea, at least today, why the Vulgate Latin would be substantially different from the Reformation Bible and the Greek Byzantine Majority.
So without being overly concerned about how faithful the 1500 AD Vulgate was to the Vulgate of Jerome, we have a clear demarcation offered between two competing texts.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Last edited by Steven Avery; 11-01-2009 at 12:59 PM.
Today, with many Reformation truths accepted in evangelical Christendom, with the rejection of much rcc paganism, there has been a tendency to miss or ignore the Reformation "Battle of the Bible".
There has been a tendency to ignore the fact that the poster of this thread is a heretic who denies the Trinity. Get your orthodoxy straight, then maybe we'll listen to your bibliology. Maybe.
__________________
Take care,
Scott >>>Minion of BASSENCO<<< as outed by Shiloh
"In the heat of composition I find that I have inadvertently allowed myself to assume the form of a large centipede. I am accordingly dictating the rest to my secretary." - C. S. Lewis
Now there is a question that we hope to discuss more later about the phrase "Hebrew and Greek originals", which is, on closer examination, a bit of a misnomer (as most KJB opponents would be happy to point out against KJB proponents).
I find it interesting that Avery thinks this book defends the KJVO position. We already have here, an admission that the KJVO position is intolerant of the phrase "Hebrew and Greek originals."
__________________ Simply observing the floccinoccinihilipilification of the KJVO movement.
A Modalist helping to understand scripture. INDEED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Believers are able to interpret Scriptures because of the Holy Ghost. However, ministers have been put into the Church to help people know the truth. Notice that the word "teachers" is present in Ephesians 4.
The views and opinions expressed on this web site are not necessarily those of the Fighting Fundamental Forums management. This is an open and unmoderated forum. The content of each post is the sole responsibility of the poster. Participants are expected to follow the simple rules of the forum. Within these wide parameters various views are welcome to be expressed freely.
The college names used on the FundamentalForums.com web site are trademarks of their respective schools. The forums are not officially sanctioned by any of the institutions represented.
Whitaker - disputation on Holy Scripture: against the papists (Battle of the Bible)
INDEED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Linear Mode
