Hold on a minute

“The human authors of Scripture were inspired to write by God’s Holy Spirit, but they wrote with careful attention to organization and structure; in other words, they did not write haphazardly, randomly, or chaotically.”

“Because real human authors wrote the Bible, even as they were inspired by God’s Holy Spirit, we should expect that they wrote in logical and organized ways.”

I recently read “The Key to Finding the Author’s Emphasis When You Read the Bible,” by Jon Nielson. The above quotes are from that essay. It had some helpful information, but those particular statements struck me as odd, even trending toward wrong. Maybe the author thought he was addressing a problem in people’s thinking about the Bible. On the other hand, I wondered if he also has a problem in his thinking. Nielson mentions the Holy Spirit twice in the article. Both times he correctly says the human writers of the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Yet, both times, there seems to an underlying implication that we should remember that Scripture is structured, logical, and organized because humans wrote it. Now, I don’t know about you, but I recognize that the divine authorship is a much better guarantee that Scripture is structured, logical, and organized (rather than the human element). I would never begin to imagine that the Holy Spirit would write “haphazardly, randomly, or chaotically.” Nielson may not have intended to imply that, but it came across that way to me.

I find it more reassuring that the Holy Spirit is the original and ultimate author of Scripture.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

All manner of pleasant fruits, new and old

Martin Luther probably did not say, “The Bible is neither ancient nor modern. It is eternal.” Neither did he likely write, “The Bible is not antique or modern. It is eternal.” Both of these statements are frequently quoted unsourced, and almost as frequently quoted sourced to authors who quoted the words unsourced – but never with a distinct reference to some writing of Martin Luther, as far as I can find.

Regardless of who wrote or said it, it seems to contain a kernel of truth, doesn’t it? We might also just as well turn it around and say, “The Bible is both ancient and modern. It is eternal.” The Bible itself is forever settled in heaven. The message of the Bible is timeless and relevant for all people in all places – throughout all generations!

Some folks are obsessed with antiques. Others must have whatever is the newest and most up to date. The Bible is full of surprises; it is ever old and ever new, a faithful and trustworthy friend who reveals to us fresh insights as we travel along life’s highway. It contains “all manner of pleasant fruits, new and old” which God has set in it for us. It is the top-of-the-line Bread of Heaven. Like manna, it provides complete spiritual nutrition. everything you need for life and godliness.

John Canne and his Bible notes

Yesterday I posted a transcription “To the Reader” from John Canne’s publication of the King James Bible with marginal notes (The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, Newly Translated out of the Original Tongues and with the former Translations diligently Compared and Revised, With Marginal Notes, Shewing The Scripture to be the best Interpreter of Scripture).

John Canne was an English separatist minister, theologian, and author. He was also a printer. He ministered both in England and in Holland. In the early 1620s, Canne succeeded Henry Ainsworth as pastor of a congregation of English independents in Amsterdam, staying there almost 20 years. In the 1650s he was at Hull. While there his wife Agnees and daughter Deliverance died and were buried at the Holy Trinity Church graveyard. Canne later went back to Holland, and it is believed he died in Amsterdam circa 1667. He was the author of several works, his Bible with marginal notes probably being the most important and enduring. Some others are:

• (1634) A Necessitie of Separation from the Church of England, prooved by the Nonconformists Principles. Specially opposed vnto Dr Ames, his Fresh Suit against humane ceremonies in the point of separation only. Also Dr Laiton, Mr Dayrel, and Mr Bradshaw are here answered, etc.
• (1639) A Stay against Straying; Or an Answer to a Treatise, intituled: The Lawfulnes of hearing the ministers of the Church of England. By John Robinson. Wherein is proved the contrarie, viz: The unlawfulnes of hearing the ministers of all false churches.
• (1647) The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, Newly Translated out of the Original Tongues and with the former Translations diligently Compared and Revised, With Marginal Notes, Shewing The Scripture to be the best Interpreter of Scripture.
• 1656) Truth with Time: or, Certain Reasons proving that none of the seven last plagues, or vials, are yet poured out : neither will the time of their pouring out begin, till after the rising of the Two Witnesses and fourty two months of the Beasts reign be expired. Likewise, an answer to the said reasons; with a reply. Further, the author hath here set down (in a brief exposition) his opinion of the first vial.
• (1657) The Time of the End: Shewing, First, Until the Three Years and an Half are Come (which are the last of the 1260 dayes) the Prophecies of Scripture Will Not be Understood, Concerning the Duration and Period of the Fourth Monarchy and Kingdom of the Beast. Then, Secondly, when that Time Shall Come ... the Knowledge of the End ... Will be Revealed by the Rise of a Little Horn, the Last Apostacy, and the Beast Slaying the Witnesses; Contemporizing the Characters of which the Little Horn, the Last Apostacy and the Beast ... are Here Faithfully Opened, Etc.

There has been some idea that Canne was possibly a Baptist. Champlin Burrage pushes back against that idea in “Was John Canne a Baptist? A Study of Contemporary Evidence.”

Matthew Verschuur has an abbreviated transcription of “To the Reader” HERE.

More biographical information on Canne can be found in Dictionary of National Biography:

“Canne, John,” W. E. A. Axon, Dictionary of National Biography, Volume VIII (Burton—Cantwell), Leslie Stephen, editor. New York, NY: Macmillan and Co., 1886, pp. 411-413. (This can also be found on Wikisource.)

John Canne, to the Bible reader

The following exhortation to the Bible reader was written by John Canne, as an introduction to his The Holy Bible ... with Marginal Notes, Shewing The Scripture to be the best Interpreter of Scripture. It is very instructive and illuminating. This is transcribed from the 1662 printing (no publisher or location given). It was published first in 1647, but this (1662) is the earliest edition I found online. I felt the earlier the better, with less likelihood of editorial changes and interpretations.

To that end, I have tried to reproduce as best I could the original formatting, spelling, italics, etc., so as to not add my own interpretations of what was written. However, I may have introduced my own errors. There is a later better typesetting (from 1747), which I consulted in places I found hard to read. All below was written by John Canne.

To the Reader.

IT is a Truth acknowledged by all, of all persuasions, viz. The Scripture to be the best interpreter of Scripture. To this I shall add a few things.

I. Such is the fulness and perfection of the holy Scripture, as it hath enough, and sufficiency in it self for the Explanation and opening of the Sence and meaning of it.

II. That this Explanation and Opening of Scripture by Scripture, is attainable; and (by Gods blessing) may be done, and with such fulness of matter, and clearness to the truth of the Sence, as there will be little need for other Interpreters, much less for men to impose their private Interpretations, and bold Glosses upon the Text.

III. I do not know any way whereby the Word of God (as to the Majesty, Authority, Truth, perfection, &c. of it) can be more honored and held forth: and the Adversaries of it (of all sorts) so thorowly convinced, and silenced, as to have the Scripture to be its own Interpreter. This I am sure, did men in their Expositions on the Scriptures speak less themselves, and the Scripture more, the Scripture would have more honour, and themselves less.

But here I must confess, to have a Scripture-interpreter, in the way I speak, Viz. of that Sufficiency and Fulness, as there should be no need to seek farther for the Sence and meaning of the Text: There are many things first to be done; among which some particulars I shall briefly set down.

I. That the Original Text of Scripture be rightly Translated, and, as much as possible, even word for word, without departing from the Letter of Scripture in the least. For it is necessary to preserve the Letter intire, how inconvenient, yea, how absurd soever and harsh it may seem to men’s carnal Reason: because the foolishness of God is wiser then men.

II. That Scripture Metaphors be not omitted, nor mistranslated one for another, but rightly opened.

III. Concerning the various Readings: here all care, study, and endeavour ought to be used, that nothing be taken but what is breathed by the Spirit of God in the Text.

IV. That the Genuine and proper signification of the Original words be truly opened, and explained; for this is of great use and furtherance to the work I mention.

V. The doubts and seeming differences be carefully heeded, and by Parallel Scriptures reconciled.

VI. That some words which are in the Original Tongues left untranslated be translated, and their signification opened. For howsoever such words to some may seem unfruitful, and afford not such matter in the Letter, yet according to the manifold wisdom of God, (and as the spiritual man judgeth) there is an excellent meaning of the Spirit in them.

Lastly. The Original particles are to be minded, and special notice taken of them, as a thing of great Concernment, to shew the Connexion of the Text and Context.

There are other particulars besides these, to have an exact and full Scripture-interpreter, but I shall refer them to another Time, and Place more proper. What I have done concerning this work, the thing it self will shew when it cometh forth: and therefore I will say nothing more  or less: but onely as Christ said of the woman, I have done what I could.

Something I will speak of the Reasons and Grounds whereby I have been encouraged in this kinde of labor.

1. The sweetness and great content that I have had all along in this Scripture work, hath caused me to account other studies and readings (which I formerly used) very low in comparison of it. It is said of Jacob, that he served seven years for Rachel, and they seemed but a few days, for the love he had to her. I can truly speak it, I have served the Lord in this work more than thrise seven years, and the time hath not seemed long, neither hath the work been any way a burden to me, for the love I have had to it.

But 2. That which hath more encouraged me, hath been a perswasion and good hope, that many will have much Soul good, and spiritual Comfort by it. For 1 Some people wilbe the more willing and forward to read and Search the Scriptures; having by them a Guide and Help: as when they meet with any place which is dark and they understand it not, then by direction to some other Text of Scripture immediately to be informed and satisfied, without looking into Commentaries which may be they have not. 2. A Scripture Interpreter will encourage men to exercise themselves, and in the meditation and Study of the Scriptures: as when a man hath a light carried before him, he goeth more cheerfully, then if he were in the dark, and groped for his way. 3. By this means not onely the knowledge of God and his Truth will grow and increase: But the Scriptures wilbe unto people more familiar and more their own (as I may say) then they were before: For those things which we hear from others, or have out of Books, usually soon come, and soon gone: whereas such Truths as are gotten by our own searching the Scriptures (the Lord giving a blessing to it) doe abide and continue with us.

4. Seeing it is the Spirit of God, that inlivens and breathes in the Scriptures, where can we expect the presence of this good Spirit, if not in the search and Meditation of the Scriptures. I speak not to the derogation of Commentators and other works of godly men: yet this I say, we making our prayer to the onely wise God, may expect the pouring out of the Spirit, as to be guided into the truth of the sence of the Scriptures in Reading and Studying them, more then in reading other Books.

5. That the Scriptures every where, are so much Neglected, so little honoured and regarded among men, one reason is, their Ignorance of them: to have therefore this Ignorance removed, and the word of God loved and delighted in, there cannot be (as I humbly conceive) a better way and meanes then a Scripture self-Interpreter.

6. It is not the Scripture that leadeth men into Errours and By-wayes, but the Misinterpretations, and false Glosses imposed upon it, as when men by perverting the Scripture to their own Principles and purposes will make them speak their sence, and private Interpretation. Laying therefore aside mens Interpretations, and onely following the Scripture Interpreting it self, it must needs be the best way, and freest from Errors.

But 3, That which hath most encouraged me is, the honour and glory of God: which I hope and desire will redound to his holy Name by it. And therefore whosoever shall reap any benefit either by this or what followeth, I beg of him for Christs sake that he give praise to God alone.

For conclusion, These Scripture-References, they are FEW, to those I could have produced.

But I have made it a great part of my work to comprise much in a little room, and therefore have viewed over all my Larger Notes, and with my own hand from beginning to the end, verse after verse, have chosen the most principall and proper Texts, so far as the Margin could contain. Besides I have used what care and diligence I could, to avoid all Mistakes in the Notes, and to have them placed in a right and due order.

Moreover (Reader) I intend God assisting with health and life, to set forth an Edition of the Bible in a large and fair Character, with large Annotations (a work I have been many years upon) and to make what speed I can. But the work will be heavy and require Care and Time.

For I purpose Therein to set forth all that I have done concerning the Scripture interpreter: whether I shall live to see it finished, God onely known: Howsoever it is ready and prepared for the press: so that if the Lord take me away before it be published, what remains of the Copy unprinted I shall leave in such hands as will (I doubt not) be both carefull and faithfull in accomplishing my Intentions; which that it may be to the glory of God, and good of his people every where, is my earnest prayer.

John Canne.

Three false friends

Psalm 2:1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

On January 11, 2024, Mark Ward posted a so-called false friends video titled “Three False Friends in One Important Verse.” I ran across it around the first part of February, listened to it, and made a comment. It was a polite pointing out of his failure to engage the New Testament commentary concerning the verse under consideration, Psalm 2:1. I observed how the record indicates that the early church interprets “people” in this verse as the people of Israel.

In the video Mark claims that “rage,” “imagine,” and “people” are false friends in Psalm 2:1.[i] At about 7:04 he begins to discuss the word “people” and spends a lot of time on it. Mark goes into a long drawn-out explanation of why “people” is a false friend. He notes that the Hebrew word is plural while the English word people is singular. Then (using the Oxford English Dictionary, OED) he explains that this was common usage of that period of English – people is plural “peoples.”[ii] He further thinks this significantly impacts the interpretation of Psalm 2:1, that heathen and people(s) represent the nations, the Gentiles. With the so-called false friend he avers “some readers might think this is referring to the people of Israel.”

Enter the readers of the New Testament church at Jerusalem! Mark looks at several examples of the use of the word “people” – but fails to notice the one New Testament example in which the text is mentioned and interpreted.

First, at a Jerusalem Church prayer & praise meeting, they refer to this Psalm.

Act 4:25 who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?

Next they make some application of it.

Acts 4:26-27 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together...

See the ways they relate the understanding of it.

“For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate [kings & rulers], with the Gentiles [heathen, nations], and the people of Israel [people], were gathered together,” They understand “people” to be the people of Israel, just what Mark was afraid the “false friend” would lead people to think! Acts 4:27 [some versions, oddly in my estimation, translate this “peoples of Israel.”]

To the comments I made under his YouTube video, Mark replied:

“I really like this comment, Robert—very perceptive example. But I’m not yet sure what you think it’s proving. What conclusion are you coming to here about Psalm 2 or about the argument I made about ‘peoples’ from the OED?

“This does seem to be a place where ‘people’ is expected, not ‘peoples.’ And without native-speaker-level knowledge of Greek, I’m not sure what to make of the choice of λαοῖς. I’d want to look at some commentaries.”

I make four observations:

• 1. A discussion of the meaning of words in the Old Testament should take into consideration any inspired New Testament reference or references.
• 2. λαοὶ in Acts 4, verse 25 (specific reference to Psalm 2:1) and λαοῖς in verse 27 are plural. In number this agrees with the Hebrew in Psalm 2:1.
• 3. They identify the “people” (λαοῖς) with Israel (Ἰσραήλ). My understanding of Acts 4:25-28 teaches me to believe the “people” in Psalm 2:1 is Israel. The original language in both places (OT Hebrew & NT Greek) is plural, but it seems odd to say in English “the peoples of Israel” (even though one might call for it in a wooden literalness, I suppose).
• 4. Speaking of commentators, one commentator who speaks of “people” as Israel in both places is John Gill. (Psalm 2:1; Acts 4:25) “by ‘the people’ are meant the people of Israel” By the way, John Gill was very proficient in Hebrew (he was a leading Hebraist of his day).

Later, I noticed that I had failed to address his question about the OED. The long drawn out explanation from the OED is unnecessary if one simply acknowledges and addresses the NT reference in Acts 4:25-27. Mark needs the argument from the OED coupled with the plural interpretation to turn the word “people” in Psalm 2:1 into a so-called false friend. The NT reference to the verse questions his whole roughly ten-minute point. Obviously, that hinges on the interpretation of Acts 4:25-27 being correct.  However, I am not out on some rotten KJVO limb with this interpretation. In teaching through the book of Acts, I have found this to be the common understanding. Notice this one example:

“In the prayer of the church two matters of theological interest stand out. First, there is a ‘pesher’ treatment (cf. comments on 2:16) in which the groups enumerated in the psalm are equated with the various persons and groups involved in Jesus’ crucifixion…‘the nations’ with the Gentile authorities; and ‘the people’ with ‘the people of Israel.’” Richard Longenecker, Acts (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary with the New International Version), page 104

Mark put in a lot of work preparing for and making this video. He did not put in enough. Perhaps in his excitement to make a new false friend, he completely overlooked the facts that Psalm 2:1 is quoted and applied in the New Testament. Any work that proceeds without factoring that in is faulty and incomplete, falling short of its goal.

---

[i] Mark complained of modern translations such as CSB, ESV, MEV, NKJV (as well as LSB, NCB, OJB, TLB, WEB) continuing to use the word “rage.” A note in the NET Bible might help indicate the thinking that goes into modern translations keeping “rage.” Though NET went with “rebel” in Psalm 2, they kept “rage” in Acts 4:25, noting “The Greek word translated rage includes not only anger but opposition, both verbal and nonverbal.”

[ii] “the Hebrew here is plural people and yet the King James chose to render this word as a singular people there’s no textual variant in the Hebrew the ancient Greek Septuagint is plural too as is the Latin Vulgate … why would the King James and the Geneva Bible ... translate a plural word with a singular; there’s a reason, one based in language change just look at this the OED says that there was a time in English when the apparently singular word people could be used with plural agreement it meant Nations plural that’s just what we have in Psalm 2:1.” Not just way back when, but even today people is a collective noun. While it can be grammatically singular, it never refers to a single person, but rather persons collectively.

You Again

Quoting two authors.

“It is true that Elizabethan English is more precise than modern English in its use of pronouns. Nevertheless I confess that, as a preacher, I would rather specify the exact meaning of the odd ambiguous pronoun now and then, than explain all the archaisms in the text of the KJV.” (Donald A. Carson, The King James Version Debate, p. 98)

On the one hand, men like Carson insist that a Bible must be translated so that the reader can understand without the assistance of a preacher. On the other hand, here Carson admits he is willing that the readers be left out of understanding certain places. He picks and chooses what he desires to explain and what he does not.

“How often does your inability to distinguish singular ‘you’ and plural ‘you’ trip you up in your daily English reading or conversation? Almost never. Context almost always distinguishes the two sufficiently...” (Mark Ward, Authorized, p. 100)

Carson calls this problem “the odd ambiguous pronoun now and then,” and Mark Ward tells us the indistinct “you” trips you up “almost never.” However, this is not the whole truth, and our experiences with modern English tell us otherwise.

Two brief points.

For a Bible study in 2021, I quickly put together a list of two dozen verses to illustrate how significant the ye/thee distinction can be. (See some of them Here.) Did Jesus tell Nicodemus you must be born again, or did he tell him you must be born again? Which is it? Rather than the “the odd ambiguous pronoun now and then,” there are hundreds of places in the Bible where the use of “you” for either second person singular or second person plural can make it difficult to understand the passage.

Our own practices belie the claim that the number of “you” is not a problem. We know instinctively that we need to make the distinction between singular and plural “you,” even though our modern language has betrayed us! We modern – yea, even educated – English speakers, despite what they teach otherwise in schools, have devised numerous ways to let our hearers know we mean “you plural” – y’all, you’uns, youse, and you lot, for examples.

These difficulties should not be brushed aside. They, like other interpretational difficulties, should be met and overcome through prayer and Bible study. Additionally, we who use the King James Bible have an interpretational tool built right into the text, when it comes to you and you.

Ephesians 2:20 and preservation of the Scriptures

Ephesians 2:20 and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

I apply the meaning of Ephesians 2:20 to the preservation of Scripture, and so have others. The foundation of New Testament Christianity rests on the writings of the apostles and prophets who represent the Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord who preserves the churches preserves this foundation of it (e.g., Matthew 16:18). We no longer have apostles and prophets, but their teachings are preserved in the Scriptures and are our sole rule of faith and practice.

“Learn here...that nothing is to be regarded as a fundamental part of the Christian system, or as binding on the conscience, which cannot be found in the ‘prophets and apostles;’ that is, as it means here, in the Holy Scriptures.” -- Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

“Since apostles and prophets were both groups with a teaching role, it seems clear that what constitutes the church’s foundation is neither their person nor their office but their instruction. In practical terms this means that the church is built on the New Testament Scriptures.” -- John R. W. Stott, The Message of Ephesians: God’s New Society, Downer’s Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1979, pp. 106-107

“When he says the foundation, he is talking about the revelation the apostles and the prophets were given which they gave to us in its written form. That is called the New Testament.” -- Ephesians 2:19-22 by Wayne Barber

Israel was succoured by the law, a written covenant. However, in their existence as a visible nation, they also depended on their being the progeny of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were ordered by a succession of the priests from Aaron, (and, later, also a succession of kings), and were planted in a geographical location given them by God. In contrast, the church is a spiritual creature of the word, built on the revelation of Jesus Christ and kept by it (Matthew 16:18). The local churches are visible, but as a kingdom, this nation (Matthew 21:43) does not have geographical borders (John 18:36), ancestral lines according to the flesh (Galatians 3:28-29), or hereditary offices (1 Peter 2:5-9). To lose the word is to lose the church. According to God’s promise and providence, both have been preserved. Bible succession is a necessary part of the Lord keeping his promise of Matthew 28:18-20, as well as for the church to fulfill the commission of Matthew 28:18-20, “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.”

Thou shalt keep the Scriptures

A writer before Benjamin Wilkinson uses Psalm 12:6-7 as a proof-text concerning the Scriptures, contrary to the collected wisdom of the anti-KJVO movement.

Need I make any comment on these passages [i.e., the 6 passages of Scripture he is discussing, rlv]? Surely they assert themselves: for “the words of Jehovah are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Jehovah, Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”1 For “the law,” or “doctrine” (margin), “of Jehovah is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of Jehovah is sure, making wise the simple.”2

1 Psalm xii. 6, 7.
2 Psalm xix. 7

Outlines of Prophetic Truth, Robert Brown (of Barton-upon-Humber), London: S. W. Partridge and Co., 1890, pp. 155-56. I am not sure, but this author might be Robert Brown (1844-1912), solicitor and philologist, who lived at Barton-upon-Humber. However, I have not found any source that connects him directly to this work.

Ye Scholars, Hearken

𝔗𝔬 𝔶ͤ ſ𝔠𝔬𝔩𝔢𝔯𝔢 𝔞𝔶𝔢𝔫𝔢𝔰 𝔪𝔶 𝔟𝔦𝔟𝔩𝔦𝔬ð𝔢𝔠𝔢:

𝔄𝔵𝔦𝔱𝔥 𝔜 𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔢, 𝔳𝔫𝔡𝔲𝔯ſ𝔱õ𝔡𝔦ſ𝔱 𝔱𝔥𝔬𝔲 𝔫𝔬𝔱 𝔙𝔙𝔶𝔠𝔩𝔦𝔣? ℑ𝔣 𝔱𝔥𝔬𝔲 𝔡𝔬𝔦ſ𝔱 𝔫𝔬𝔱, 𝔳𝔳𝔥𝔦 𝔡𝔬𝔦ſ𝔱 𝔱𝔥𝔬𝔲 ſ𝔠𝔥𝔢𝔳𝔳𝔦ſ𝔱 𝔪𝔢 𝔳𝔳𝔥𝔞𝔱 𝔱𝔬 𝔨𝔫𝔬𝔳𝔳𝔢? 𝔜 𝔳𝔳𝔬𝔱 𝔫𝔬𝔱 𝔳𝔳𝔥𝔦 𝔜 ſ𝔠𝔥𝔲𝔩𝔡𝔦ſ𝔱 𝔥𝔢𝔯𝔨𝔫𝔢 𝔲𝔫𝔱𝔬 𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔢. 𝔙𝔫𝔡𝔲𝔯ſ𝔱õ𝔡𝔦ſ𝔱 𝔱𝔥𝔬𝔲? ℑ𝔣 𝔱𝔥𝔬𝔲 𝔡𝔬𝔦ſ𝔱, 𝔤𝔢ſſ𝔦ſ𝔱 𝔱𝔥𝔬𝔲 𝔳𝔳𝔬𝔬ſ𝔱 𝔞𝔟𝔬𝔲𝔢 𝔞𝔩𝔩𝔢? 𝔙𝔙𝔥𝔞𝔱 𝔨𝔫𝔬𝔳𝔳𝔦ſ𝔱 𝔱𝔥𝔬𝔲, 𝔳𝔳𝔥𝔦𝔠𝔥𝔢 𝔳𝔳𝔢𝔢 𝔨𝔫𝔬𝔳𝔳𝔢𝔫 𝔫𝔬𝔱? 𝔙𝔙𝔥𝔞𝔱 𝔳𝔫𝔡𝔲𝔯ſ𝔱õ𝔡𝔦ſ𝔱 𝔱𝔥𝔬𝔲, 𝔳𝔳𝔥𝔦𝔠𝔥𝔢 𝔳𝔳𝔢𝔢 𝔳𝔳𝔦𝔱𝔢𝔫 𝔫𝔬𝔱?

Transcribed in Roman type.

To yͤ ſcolere ayenes my biblioðece:

Axith Y thee, vndurſtõdiſt thou not VVyclif? If thou doiſt not, vvhi doiſt thou ſchevviſt me vvhat to knovve? Y vvot not vvhi Y ſchuldiſt herkne unto thee. Vndurſtõdiſt thou? If thou doiſt, geſſiſt thou vvooſt aboue alle? VVhat knovviſt thou, vvhiche vvee knovven not? VVhat vndurſtõdiſt thou, vvhiche vvee vviten not?

The reflection above gives vent to something on which I have thought much, but perhaps posted little, directly. It alludes to questions I want to ask every scholar who undertakes to oppose the normal use of the King James Bible by those of us who choose to do so. It includes the particular reference to the Wycliffe Bible because I first asked it in context of a video posted by Marke VVarde. Mark questioned what a preacher would do if he stumbled upon a group of Christians who insisted on the exclusive use the Wycliffe Bible. It provided a ready foil, a well-dressed strawman, and some hazy humour as he read from the Wycliffe Bible with an “English accent.” However, a little-known Bible that has not been read—even looked at—by more than a few in over 500 years provides little in common with a Bible that has been in constant use from its dawning to the present. Yet there always are scholars ready and willing to advance their “ignorance” as a hand-up offered to us “more ignorant” to solve all our problems and fulfill all our needs. Wherefore (“for that reason,” not “why”) I have built a very large front porch at the entrance a small house of two questions. Here they are:

1. If you cannot understand the King James translation of the Bible, why should I take your advice? 
2. If you can understand the King James translation of the Bible, why do you think I cannot?

Be careful

When we are not being careful, we most conservative brothers and sisters allow ourselves to be carried away by the popular teachings of conservative brethren who are carried away by the popular teachings of “The Academy.”[i]

Two examples.

I have spoken and written of the inspiration of 2 Timothy 3:16 as referring directly to the Old Testament and only by extension to the New Testament.[ii] 2 Timothy 3:16 does not directly refer to the New Testament? Where did I get that? If we trace it back, it probably finds its origin in repeating conservatives who have accepted the liberal view of dating the New Testament writings as late rather than early. That is, they believe that none of the New Testament scriptures existed at the time when Paul wrote those words to Timothy. Therefore, they say, Paul could have only meant the Old Testament when he wrote of inspiration.

However, taking the Bible as our guide, we find first that Jesus himself authenticated beforehand the New Testament writings as Scripture. John 16:13 records, “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.” Further, Christians accepted the writings of the apostles as scripture even before the canon was closed. For example, Paul refers to Luke’s Gospel as scripture (1 Timothy 5:18; cf. Matthew 10:10), and Peter refers to all of Paul’s epistles as scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16), placing them on equal footing with the Old Testament.[iii]

In another place, I wrote concerning 1 John 5:7-8:

Cyprian of Carthage wrote, possibly invoking the comma…Cyprian certainly references this part of John’s first epistle, but it is not a verbatim quotation of it – thereby leaving the use of it inconclusive and open to argument.

Why be equivocal? Cyprian (circa AD 250) wrote, “of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written, ‘And these three are one’” (Treatise 1, On the Unity of the Church, Chapter 6). Where is it written? In the Bible, only in 1 John 5:7. One might argue, as does Dan Wallace, that he reads such into the text. However, Cyprian wrote – “it is written” – “of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” – not that what is written means such and such.[iv]

We need to learn to turn our backs on the assumptions of “The Academy” and learn to exercise caution following conservative scholars who are following the assumptions of “The Academy.” May the Lord help us to do so.

---

[i] The society or gaggle of distinguished scholars who aim to promote and maintain standards in their particular fields, or a body of established opinion widely accepted as authoritative in their particular fields (e.g., religion, textual criticism, etc.).

[ii] I believe the New Testament is inspired but there made the “safe” argument by extrapolation.
[iii] Peter mentions this in the natural flow of his larger thought, without needing to stop and make an argument to prove Pauls writings are scripture. This indicates his audience has an understanding that the apostolic writings are authoritative. Peter also equates the inspiration of the apostles with the prophets of the Old Testament in 2 Peter 3:2. See also John 14:26, John 15:26-27, John 16:13, 1 Corinthians 14:37, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, 1 John 4:6, Jude v. 17, and Revelation 1:1-3.
[iv] Wallace says, “and these three are one” is “the wording of which occurs in the Greek text.” However, what he refers to in his Greek text is οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν (these three agree in one), rather than ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν (these three are one). Wallace also writes that the Comma “at first shows up in Latin, starting with Priscillian in c. 380.” However, Cyprian (writing in Latin) was familiar with it written in some kind of text by AD 250, some 130 years earlier. He wrote, Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est: Et hi tres unum sunt.

Is Preservation a new doctrine?

So says Dan Wallace. In 1992, 2008, and probably still today.

“First, the doctrine of preservation was not a doctrine of the ancient church. In fact, it was not stated in any creed until the seventeenth century (in the Westminster Confession of 1646).” From “Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism,” published in Grace Theological Journal, No. 12 (1992) pp. 21-25.

“I don’t hold to the doctrine of preservation. That doctrine, first formulated in the Westminster Confession (1646), has a poor biblical base. I do not think that the doctrine is defensible–either exegetically or empirically.” From “Mark 16:8 as the Conclusion to the Second Gospel,” by Daniel B. Wallace, in Perspectives on the Ending of Mark, David Alan Black, Editor. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Academic, 2008, p. 7.

Is Wallace correct? Is preservation a new doctrine? Well, he may be correct that the doctrine was first “formulated” in a creed or confession in 1646. I am not aware of an earlier statement that spells out the doctrine of preservation the way that the Westminster Confession 1.8 does.[i] The Savoy and London Baptist Confessions follow this same “formulation”.

8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;880 so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them...

To dismiss doctrine because it was not stated in a creed is a dangerous step to take, and one that disregards the very nature of creeds and confessions. Those who “formulated” the Westminster Confession believed in preservation prior to creating the Confession. Anabaptist, Protestant, and Reformed writings exhibit this before 1646.[ii]

Creeds and confessions often address matters that were not previously addressed. Would we assume that all churches believed in abortion and homosexual marriage before some confession thought it necessary to mention these items? No. We would more likely accept the truth that there was no felt prior pressing need to address it.

The confessions most likely had not addressed preservation before because it was assumed. The earlier confessions obviously built on Scripture. They presupposed the inspiration, infallibility, inerrancy, and authority of Scripture. The Westminster Assembly most likely addressed this in 1646 because of the ongoing struggle against Catholics over Sola Scriptura (and perhaps underlying issues in the Church of England as well).

A number of debaters (such as Wallace) believe the preservation passages mean the general content of God’s Word, not a physical record of it.[iii] Most of us who posit the providential preservation of the Scriptures would agree. However, such an admission does not end the discussion. We would ask how Wallace and other naysayers against preservation know the content of God’s Word, absent the preservation of the writing on some type of media? How do you know the “divine ethical principles or the promise of fulfilled prophecy”? In other words, has God preserved the content to us via media, or in some other way? Is he giving you special revelation? It is evident that God’s people in both the Old and New Testaments bowed to the authority of the texts they had in hand. They believed God gave these words and preserved these words. They did not remove or diminish the authority to an absent autograph. When Abraham spoke to the rich man about his brothers, he said, “They have Moses and the prophets” (Luke 16:29). When Jesus post-resurrection taught his disciples, he referred to them to what was written (Luke 24:44), not to autographs they did not have.

Earlier evidence for preservation

The London Baptists, before they revised the Westminster Confession, adopted a confession in 1644. They enlarged it in 1646.[iv] In article 7, the 1644 confession stated:

The rule of this knowledge, faith, and obedience, concerning the worship and service of God, and all other Christian duties, is not mans inventions, opinions, devices, laws, constitutions, or traditions unwritten whatsoever, but only the word of God contained in the Canonical Scriptures. John 5:39; 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Col. 1:18, 23; Mat. 15:9

Such writings presuppose that they have the word of God, the next article stating:

In this written Word God has plainly revealed whatsoever He has thought needful for us to know, believe, and acknowledge, touching the nature and office of Christ, in whom all the promises are Yea and Amen to the praise of God. Acts 3:22, 23; Heb. 1:1, 2; 2 Tim 3:15-17; 2 Cor. 1:20

In 1646, articles 7 & 8 were revised to: “The rule of this knowledge, faith, and obedience, concerning the worship of God, in which is contained the whole duty of man, is (not men’s laws, or unwritten traditions, but) only the word of God contained [viz., written] in the holy Scriptures; in which is plainly recorded whatsoever is needful for us to know, believe, and practice; which are the only rule of holiness and obedience for all saints, at all times, in all places to be observed. Col. 2:23; Matt 15:6,9; John 5:39, 2 Tim. 3:15,16,17; Isa. 8:20; Gal. 1:8,9; Acts 3:22,23.”

A Declaration of Faith of English People Remaining at Amsterdam in Holland, 1611 presupposes preservation, since “the scriptures of the Old and New Testament are written for our instruction” and “we ought to search them for they testify of Christ.”[v]

The 1596 Confession of the Brownists suggest that they have the authoritative Scriptures, since “the canonicall bookes of the old and new Testament” are the rule of faith, worship, service, and all Christian duties – and “in this word Jesus Christ hath revealed whatsoever his father thought needfull for us to know, believe & obey.”[vi]

The Waterlander Anabaptist Confession of 1577 supports this idea of presupposition, beginning the first article of faith with “We believe and confess with Holy Scripture…”[vii]

Michael Ayguan (1340-1460), commenting on Psalm 12:7:

“Keep them: that is, not as the passage is generally taken, Keep or guard Thy people, but Thou shalt keep or make good Thy words: and by so doing, shalt preserve him—him, the needy, him, the poor...” From A Commentary on the Psalms: From Primitive and Mediaeval Writers, Volume I, Psalm 1 to Psalm 38 (John Mason Neale, London: Joseph Masters, p. 177)

The Waldensian Confession of 1120 acknowledged the books of the Holy Bible for their sacred canonical scriptures.[viii]

John Chrysostom (circa AD 347–407) recommends exalting the word of God (which he presumably believed he had) above the words of men, writing, “Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things…”[ix]

Gregory of Nyssa (circa AD 335–395) writes against Eunomius, acknowledging that the voices of the apostles and prophets have been preserved in writing:

Let him tell us whence he has this boldness of assertion. From what inspired utterance? What evangelist, what apostle ever uttered such words as these? What prophet, what lawgiver, what patriarch, what other person of all who were divinely moved by the Holy Ghost, whose voices are preserved in writing, ever originated such a statement as this?[x]

Cyril of Jerusalem (circa AD 316-386) saw the Scriptures (which he presumably believed he had) as authoritative over opinions:

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures.[xi]

Athanasius of Alexandria (circa AD 298-373), in his Discourse 2, Against the Arians, compares the words of men which pass away with the word of God, which does not change or pass away:

For observe, many and various are men’s words which pass away day by day; because those that come before others continue not, but vanish. Now this happens because their authors are men, and ideas which are successive; and what strikes them first and second, that they utter; so that they have many words, and yet after them all nothing at all remaining; for the speaker ceases and his word forthwith is spent. But God’s Word is one and the same, and, as it is written “The Word of God endureth for ever,” not changed, not before or after another, but existing the same always.

Irenaeus of Lyons (circa 130–202), writing Against Heresies implied that he had the perfectly preserved Scriptures:

“If, however, we cannot discover explanations of all those things in Scripture which are made the subject of investigation, yet let us not on that account seek after any other God besides Him who really exists. For this is the very greatest impiety. We should leave things of that nature to God who created us, being most properly assured that the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit...”[xii]

In Against Heresies, Book II, 27:2, Irenaeus speaks of “the entire Scriptures” and “the very words of Scripture…”

The teachings have been handed down in the Scriptures:

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.[xiii]

See also Against Heresies, Book III, 4:1, 5:1.

Athenagoras the Athenian (circa AD 133–190), addressing the Emperors Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, as well as philosophers, implies the writings of the Old Testament are preserved and available, not only to him, but also to his readers.

If we satisfied ourselves with advancing such considerations as these, our doctrines might by some be looked upon as human. But, since the voices of the prophets confirm our arguments—for I think that you also, with your great zeal for knowledge, and your great attainments in learning, cannot be ignorant of the writings either of Moses or of Isaiah and Jeremiah, and the other prophets, who, lifted in ecstasy above the natural operations of their minds by the impulses of the Divine Spirit, uttered the things with which they were inspired, the Spirit making use of them as a flute-player breathes into a flute;—what, then, do these men say? “The LORD is our God; no other can be compared with Him.” And again: “I am God, the first and the last, and besides Me there is no God.” In like manner: “Before Me there was no other God, and after Me there shall be none; I am God, and there is none besides Me.” And as to His greatness: “Heaven is My throne, and the earth is the footstool of My feet: what house win ye build for Me, or what is the place of My rest?” But I leave it to you, when you meet with the books themselves, to examine carefully the prophecies contained in them, that you may on fitting grounds defend us from the abuse cast upon us.[xiv]

Two traditions, which we might view as strange today, nevertheless show that some in the early church had no problem with the idea of special preservation of the Bible, even the possibility of miraculous preservation. First, the tradition of 2 Esdras/Ezra 4 14:1-48, in which Ezra writes the law again by divine inspiration after it had been lost, was held by early church fathers. Others believed that God preserved the Old Testament in Greek by a translation miracle.[xv] It is not necessary to agree with or endorse these views to understand that the early church writers held ideas about the preservation of the Scriptures.

It seems a strange combination of ideas to try to hold inspiration and inerrancy while rejecting special preservation.

“There exists no reason for supposing that the Divine Agent, who in the first instance thus gave to mankind the Scriptures of Truth, straightway abdicated His office; took no further care of His work; abandoned those precious writings to their fate. That a perpetual miracle was wrought for their preservation—that copyists were protected against the risk of error, or evil men prevented from adulterating shamefully copies of the Deposit—no one, it is presumed, is so weak as to suppose. But it is quite a different thing to claim that all down the ages the sacred writings must needs have been in God’s peculiar care; that the Church under Him has watched over them with intelligence and skill; has recognized which copies exhibited a fabricated, which an honestly transcribed text; has generally sanctioned the one, and generally disallowed the other.” John Burgon, The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and Established, pp. 11-12

The Bible is the rule

Belief in or rejection of the doctrine of preservation ultimately rests squarely on the Scriptures themselves, not what has been declared by confessions of faith and personal creeds. Any new doctrine that has never before been posited in Christendom is suspect. Such is not the case with preservation. It has been written about directly, and presupposed over and over by those who make there case based on the writings of scripture.

For more on the doctrine of preservation according to the Bible, start with Preservation: Concluding thoughts. From there, you can work your way back for more via links at the bottom of the page.

---

[i] Though usually thought of as a Reformed Confession (and rightfully so), this Confession was formulated within the Church of England. It is my understanding that after the English monarchy was restored in 1660, the Westminster Confession lost any official status in the Church of England.
[ii] The Westminster statement on the Scriptures shows some dependence on the Articles of Religion of the Church in Ireland in 1615. However, these articles do not specifically include the kept pure in all ages phrase. James Ussher (1581–1656), thought to be a prime mover in these articles, wrote in his A Body Of Divinitie (p. 10), “...the marvellous preservation of the Scriptures; though none in time bee so ancient, nor none so much oppugned, yet God hath still by his providence preserved them, and every part of them.” See also, for example, John Jewel (1522-1571) in Two Treatises (p. 14): “By the space of so many thousand years, the word of God passed by so many dangers of tyrants, of Pharisees, of heretics, of fire, and of sword, and yet continueth and standeth until this day, without altering or changing one letter. This was a wonderful work of God, that having so many so great enemies, and passing through so many so great dangers, it yet continueth still, without adding or altering of any one sentence, or word, or letter. No creature was able to do this: it was God’s work. He preserved it, that no tyrant should consume it, no tradition choke it, no heretic maliciously should corrupt it. For his name’s sake, and for the elect’s sake, he would not suffer it to perish.”
[iii] Wallace: “It seems that a better interpretation of all these texts is that they are statements concerning either divine ethical principles (i.e., moral laws which cannot be violated without some kind of consequences) or the promise of fulfilled prophecy.”
[iv] In 1646, articles 7 & 8 were revised to: “The rule of this knowledge, faith, and obedience, concerning the worship of God, in which is contained the whole duty of man, is (not men’s laws, or unwritten traditions, but) only the word of God contained [viz., written] in the holy Scriptures; in which is plainly recorded whatsoever is needful for us to know, believe, and practice; which are the only rule of holiness and obedience for all saints, at all times, in all places to be observed. Col. 2:23; Matt 15:6,9; John 5:39, 2 Tim. 3:15,16,17; Isa. 8:20; Gal. 1:8,9; Acts 3:22,23.”
[v] A Declaration of Faith of English People Remaining at Amsterdam in Holland, 1611.
[vi] A True Confession, 1596, articles 7 and 8.
[vii] “Confession of Faith (Waterlander, 1577),” Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online, 1577.
[viii] Waldensian Confession of Faith, 1120.
[ix] Homilies on 1, 2 Corinthians, Homily 13, 2 Cor. 6:11-12.

[x] Against Eunomius, Book II, Chapter 9.
[xi] Catechetical Lecture 4, paragraph 17.
[xii] Against Heresies, Book II, 28:2.
[xiii] Against Heresies Book III, 1:1.
[xiv] A Plea for the Christians, Chapter 9. The Testimony of the Prophets.
[xv] “God...inspired Esdras the priest, of the tribe of Levi, to recast all the words of the former prophets, and to re-establish with the people the Mosaic legislation.”(Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, 21:2,) See also, for the LXX: Justin Martyr (AD 150-160), Hortatory Address to the Greeks, Chapter 13, Irenaeus (AD 175-185), Against Heresies, Book III, 21:2, Eusebius of Caesarea (AD 300-340) Preparation of the Gospel, Book VIII, Chapter 1. It is not necessary to agree that these views were right. Simply notice that they believed the preservation of the Scriptures, contra the revisionism of Wallace.