a 1588 question

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Logos1560, Jun 11, 2008.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    In his 1588 book entitled A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists, William Whitaker (1547-1595) asked: "What reason can be alleged why the authentic word of God should perish in those languages in which it was first published, and become authentic in a new tongue, into which it was translated by a man who was not a prophet?" (p. 148).

    Whitaker wrote: "Their Moses, their prophets, their apostles, their evangelists, yea, their Christ, is Jerome; for, in receiving his writings as authentic, they attribute to him what truly appertains to Moses, the prophets, the apostles, the evangelists, and Christ" (p. 148).
     
  2. Rubato 1

    Rubato 1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,167
    Likes Received:
    0
    He's been dead a while, huh?
     
  3. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    There ya go- the original OLOV man (Original Languages - Only Veritable).

    :laugh:
     
  4. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,114
    Likes Received:
    220
    Any new thoughts
     
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The early English translators including the KJV translators held the same basic view of Bible translation as that advocated by William Whitaker.

    William Fulke is said to have held frequent meetings for the study of the Bible with William Whitaker, KJV translator Laurence Chaderton, and other Puritans at Cambridge. Walter Hook noted that Whitaker “held many meetings in the University with Fulke, Chaderton, Dod, and others, but the purpose of these was only to expound the Scriptures” (Ecclesiastical, VIII, p. 722). David Norton stated that Fulke “became a pillar of the Church of England” (History of the English Bible, p. 50). Whitaker and Chaderton were married to sisters. E. S. Shuckburgh noted that for a period of time Chaderton had “a dwelling house in common with ‘the famous and learned Whitaker,‘ who was related to him by marriage and friendship” (Laurence Chaderton, p. 9). The Dictionary of National Biography pointed out that "no English divine of the sixteenth century surpassed Whitaker in the estimation of his contemporaries" (Vol. XXI, p. 22).
     
  6. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Here are more examples that show the view held by William Whittaker and William Fulke.

    In his 1583 book that defended the Protestant view of Bible translation, Puritan William Fulke (1538-1589) stated: "We say indeed, that by the Greek text of the New Testament all translations of the New Testament must be tried; but we mean not by every corruption that is in any Greek copy of the New Testament" (A Defence, p. 44). In the preface of another book, Fulke noted: "The dissension of interpreters [translators] must be decided by the original Greek" (Confutation, p. 26). Fulke maintained: “The Greek text of the New Testament needeth no patronage of men, as that which is the very word and truth of God” (Confutation, p. 32). He observed:

    We acknowledge the text of the Old Testament in
    Hebrew and Chaldee, (for in the Chaldee tongue were
    some parts of it written,) as it is now printed with
    vowels, to be the only fountain, out of which we must
    draw the pure truth of the scriptures for the Old
    Testament, adjoining here with the testimony of the
    Mazzoreth, where any diversity of points, letters, or
    words, is noted to have been in sundry ancient copies,
    to discern that which is proper to the whole context,
    from that which by errors of the writers or printers
    hath been brought into any copy, old or new
    (A Defence, p. 78).

    In another place, Fulke pointed out: "We acknowledge the Hebrew "as the fountain and spring, from whence we must receive the infallible truth of God's Word of the Old Testament" (Ibid., p. 147). He also wrote: "It becometh us best in translation to follow the original text, and, as near as we can, the true meaning of the Holy Ghost" (Ibid.,
    p. 214). Gail Riplinger acknowledged that many of the KJV translators had in their hands a copy of Fulke’s two books (In Awe, p. 536).


    Puritan William Whitaker (1547-1595) wrote: "We make no edition authentic, save the Hebrew in the old, and the Greek in the new, Testament" (Disputation on Holy Scripture, p. 140). In this same 1588 book, Whitaker maintained that "the authentic originals of the scripture of the old Testament are extant in Hebrew, of the new in Greek" (p. 138). Whitaker observed: "The papists contend that their Latin text is authentic of itself, and ought not to be tried by the text of the originals. Now in this sense no translation ever was, or could be, authentic. For translations of scripture are always to be brought back to the originals of scripture, received if they agree with those originals, and corrected if they do not. That scripture only, which the prophets, apostles, and evangelists wrote by inspiration of God, is in every way credible on its own account and authentic" (p. 138). Whitaker asserted: “That is called authentic, which is sufficient to itself, which commends, sustains, proves itself, and hath credit and authority from itself” (p. 332). Whitaker wrote: “Our adversaries determine that the authentic scripture consists not in the Hebrew and Greek originals, but in the Vulgate Latin version. We, on the contrary side, say that the authentic and divinely-inspired scripture is not this Latin, but the Hebrew edition of the Old Testament, and the Greek of the New” (p. 135). Whitaker noted: “The church hath not power of approving any man’s translation, however accurate, in such a manner as to pronounce it alone to be authentic scripture, and preferable to the sacred originals themselves. For authentic scripture must proceed immediately from the Holy Ghost himself; and therefore Paul says that all scripture is divinely inspired” (p. 148).

     
  7. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,144
    Likes Received:
    321
    At the individual level, this depends on ones view of the doctrines of Papal infallibility (ex cathedra) and apostolic succession, whose acceptance leads one to believe that the Pope, cardinals and bishops of the Church of Rome speak with the same authority of Christ, the apostles and evangelists of the primitive apostolic church.

    If they, through the voice of the Magisterium, say Latin has become the "language of heaven" then "the faithful" are required to accept that dogma upon pain of excommuncation.

    The element of fear only works if one is convinced that a man (or organization of men) has the power to take away one's salvation which both the Anglo and Roman Catholic churches propounded.

    John 10
    27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
    28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
    29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
    30 I and my Father are one.

    This is the passage which freed me from the Church of Rome.​

    HankD
     
    #7 HankD, Oct 29, 2009
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2009

Share This Page

Loading...