Responding to Taylor DeSoto Regarding Revelation 16:5, Beza, and Francis Turretin

Back in November of 2019, Taylor DeSoto ("TD") posted a "Crash Course in the Textual Discussion," in which he made the following odd assertion related to Revelation 16:5: "Many advocates of the MCT are quick to point out that the TR does not have Greek manuscript support for Revelation 16:5, but the MCT also has readings that do not have Greek manuscript support, like 2 Peter 3:10, mentioned above. This does not mean that the verses cannot be supported, just that it is rather hypocritical that many MCT advocates demand extant manuscript support when there were manuscripts available at one time that may have had a reading."

This argument is poorly written and even more poorly thought through.  First, hypocrisy by "advocates of the MCT" is not an argument for TD's position or against the alleged hypocrites' position.  Hypocrisy is a moral failing.

Second, the fact that the NA28 has two readings without Greek manuscript support does not excuse "the TR" for having a reading without Greek manuscript support.  If the criticism of the TR is legitimate, then it is also a legitimate criticism of the reading of the NA28 at 2 Peter 3:10.  The fact that the main text of the NA28 can be improved does not imply that the TR cannot be improved. 

Third, we could improve TD's argument to say that the critics of the TR are being inconsistent by adopting a reading without Greek manuscript evidence (at 2 Peter 3:10) while rejecting the TR reading at Revelation 16:5, which lacks Greek manuscript evidence.  However, the critics of the TR could improve their criticism either by (1) acknowledging that the NA28 main text does need improvement (a position taken by some "MCT advocates" including all that hold that the doctrine of preservation entails God preserving the Scriptures in the original languages) or (2) by arguing a more nuanced point (which is what the remainder of the "MCT advocates" -- including the editors that adopted the reading -- would do).

Fourth, the claim that "there were manuscripts available at one time that may have had a reading" is simply an appeal to ignorance. What "may have" been is not evidence one way or another.

Fifth, a sharper version of the "manuscripts available" argument would be to argue that Beza's revision of the text he received was based on a manuscript.  That said, there is a sound basis to think that no manuscripts had such a reading. More on this point in other posts. 

Two days after the post above (going by the date stamps of the posts) TD posted "A Summary of the Confessional Text Position," and two days after that a commenter going by "RS" engaged Taylor DeSoto ("TD") in the comment box of TD's "Summary" post.

I assume that the original comments (having endured these past four years) are there to stay.  Thus, the following is edited to remove formalities, to make the formatting more compact, to correct typographic errors, and to insert RS's comments directly into TD's post to avoid repetition (and maybe some more minor changes that I have now forgotten).  Also, I'm breaking up the dialog at places where it is convenient for me to comment, even where that breaks up the original comment.  So, if you need the original exchange, see the link.

RS (original comment): Is it safe to assume that the “Confessional” Text position has no Principles, Methodology or Praxis to help determine or guide it’s proponents in the sifting of Textual variants? What is your chosen base Text? Scrivener, Beza, Erasmus, Stephanus etc.? Or do you have the option to choose amongst their readings?

TD 0: It is not a reconstructive methodology, so there would be no reconstructive principles. The position is based on the concept that the Scriptures have not fallen away and do not need to be reconstructed. In terms of the text I use, I work from a Scrivener text and 1550 Stephanus.

First issue: unlike Beza, Stephanus, and Erasmus (as well as the translators and editors of the KJV), the mislabeled "Confessional Text" position is opposed to reconstruction of the text.  Stephanus, in his 1550 edition, provided a textual critical apparatus referring to the Complutensian edition (itself a reconstruction) and multiple manuscripts.  Erasmus aimed to reconstruct the Greek text, and relied on more than one manuscript for that reason.  Beza likewise aimed to reconstruct the original Greek text and - like Erasmus - altered the Greek text that was given to him at numerous points, usually on the basis of the Greek manuscripts (although at times Beza referred to versions, especially the Latin and Syriac).  While Beza seldom changed the main text on the basis of his own conjectural notions, he did frequently suggest such emendations in his annotations.  In principle, therefore, the chief architects of the family of printed texts later referred to as the "textus receptus," including Beza whose 1598 edition text is what the King James translators nearly always used, held to and used "a reconstructive methodology" and "reconstructive principles."

I appreciate TD's forthrightness in acknowledging that the "Confessional Text" position lacks such methodology and such principles.  The next logical step would be to openly acknowledge, therefore, that the "Confessional Text" position is not the position of the 16th and 17th century churches that approved of the work of Erasmus and Beza.  In particular, the central element of a reconstruction methodology, namely collation, was heartily embraced by folks like Turretin (as I have discussed elsewhere).

As for TD's choice of texts to use, I have a few minor observations.  The main reason to use Scrivener's TR is because one wants a Greek text to match the KJV.  On the other hand, Scrivener's TR is a close approximation of Beza's 1598.  So perhaps TD would like to Beza's 1598, but it's hard to get in a reliable digital form and/or to get in a quality printed/bound form.  The bigger surprise from my standpoint is why TD would need to use two different (even if only a little) Greek texts, if his goal is not reconstruction of the original from those different texts.

My suspicion is that although TD presents his position as not having a reconstructive methodology or reconstructive principles, he uses those two Greek texts because they are the two 16th century printed editions that have the greatest following amongst the Protestant churches, in terms of serving as the basis for translation into the vulgar tongues of various nations.  In the case of the King James translation, for example, the belief is that the King James translators referred to these two editions in their work. 

RS 0x: What about the locations where various editions of the TR have no Greek manuscript evidence backing them,–do you believe that these areas don’t need reconstruction? More importantly, what is the formula used to choose between TR variations when they do exist?

TD 1.1: In the locations where there is not any extant manuscript support, we go with the reading that is historically received (used), ... 

RS 1.1x: ***How is the “historically received” reading determined? What factors would lead you to choose one TR reading against another?*** For example: You mentioned Rev.16:5, what *factors* lead you accept the reading of Beza or Scrivener over against Erasmus or Stephanus? The fact that the reading {εσομενος} is *not* found in any single extant manuscript could not have made it attractive to you, so what did/does? Let’s stay on this. The TR is split, therefore a decision must be made; either by us, or for us. (1.) We can choose the reading ‘εσομενος’, which is the reading of Beza and contained within Scrivener by default. This reading is also followed by the A.V. 1611 {“shalt be”}. Or (2.), We can choose the reading ‘οσιος’ which is the reading of Erasmus and Stephanus. This reading {“holy”} is followed by 1534 Tyndale, 1537 Matthew’s, 1557 & 1599 Geneva Bible’s. What makes Beza and the A.V. 1611 correct, and Erasmus, Stephanus, Tyndale, Matthew’s, both Geneva Bible’s and every single trace of extant Greek manuscript evidence wrong? …And who made this decision?  

RS is asking a valuable and probing question here.  We will get to TD's final answer in a moment, but notice that the criterion of "historically received (used)" would have been (in the 16th and 17th centuries) a reason to overthrow the Greek readings in numerous places on the basis of the historical reception and usage of the Vulgate Latin edition. In fact, there may be places where this was actually done (such as at 1 John 5:7-8).  In other words, there may be places where Erasmus and/or Beza (and others following them) actually overthrew the Greek readings in favor of Latin Vulgate readings, which had been widely accepted and used in the churches for over a millenium.  Nevertheless, you will be hard pressed to find Erasmus or Beza (or those who followed them) accepting that this is the correct methodology.  Indeed, folks on the Protestant side eagerly defended the Masoretic and Greek texts as being original against attacks that were premised on long reception of other readings by the churches.  To suggest that the criterion of "historically received (used)" is something that would have been acceptable to the leading 16th and 17th century Reformers as a basis to step over all the Greek manuscripts is to engage in wishful thinking.  That is not to say that they considered historical usage and reception irrelevant, just that it is not sufficient to overthrow the Greek manuscripts.

Moreover, had the 16th and 17th century Reformers considered the historical reception and usage of εσομενος vs. οσιος, the latter would undoubtedly have prevailed, as there was no record of any historical reception or usage of that substitution, either in the manuscripts or in the translations, commentaries, etc.

Additionally, the 16th and 17th century Reformers did not believe themselves locked into Tyndale's translation, or the Geneva Bible translation, despite the excellent reception that those enjoyed for a time.  Indeed, they did not accord heavy weight to the reception and usage in Latin or English (for the New Testament) or the reception and usage in Latin, Greek, and English (for the Old Testament).

It must be acknowledged that Archbishop Bancroft urged the King James translators to revise the Bible "as little as the Truth of the original will permit," and forbade them to make improvements to transliterations.  Nevertheless, the fact that the Bishop's Bible had been received by the church did not make it invulnerable to improvement from the Hebrew and Greek originals.  

TD 1.2: ... and the testimony of those scholars who say they pulled the reading from a once existing manuscript (Beza in Rev. 16:5 for example) 

RS 1.2x:  **Does the testimony of Beza carry more weight than the whole Greek manuscript tradition? Or is it the combination of Beza and the A.V. 1611 that tips the scales?**

I must insert here that it seems nearly transparent that it is the usage by the King James translators/editors that tips the scales for folks like TD.  

TD 2. Similar to the first question, the first assumption is that the decisions on variants were decided by the use of a particular reading over another in time. The Reformed and Post-Reformation Divines seem to be more or less unified on which readings were original. Not to say that they were in complete harmony, but I have yet to find an example where such discord results in the change of meaning in a passage as a whole. In short, I have yet to find a variant within the TR tradition that has troubled me, either evidentially or internally (including Eph 3:9). In terms of “Sifting through variants,” there are really not many to sift through within the TR tradition that are meaningful in any way. When variants are considered, we consider them the same way that the framers of the Confession say they did. John Owen and Turretin provide great examples of this type of reasoning.

Of course, neither John Owen (a non-conformist) nor Turretin (Swiss) were "framers of the Confession," although Owen was active in the revision of the Confession for the congregationalists, known as the Savoy Declaration.

While Owen was somewhat suspicious regarding the work of textual criticism, he did not oppose it in absolute terms:

(source) But compare:

(source) Finally, though:

(source)

Notice that while Owen does not like the idea of publishing exhaustive lists of textual variants, he is in favor of winnowing things down to the few places where there is some significant textual variant in the oldest and best manuscripts.

More importantly, Owen does not suggest that the way to identify the correct text is to look to what was done in 1611. While Owen is certainly skeptical of the value of an exhaustive study of the manuscripts, Owen does see value in identifying and addressing significant textual variants based on collation.

Likewise, Turretin explictly affirms the same:

(Second Topic, Question 5, Section 5)

TD 3.1: In terms of the reading I use, I refer to the text that was used in the translation I read, as most people do. This particular reading is important, because it does represent one of the few places where the reading is truly split in the TR tradition. I believe this to be a much more reasonable task then, let’s just say, the 19 indeterminate readings in 1 and 2 Peter alone in the ECM. 

RS 3.1x: **Background: I’ve read the KJV for 35 years (since my youth) and although I have–and–occasionally use other English translations, the KJV is the Bible that I both read and teach out of.  That said, the above argument amounts to; Jack has gotten into trouble for breaking one of his mother’s favorite dishes, and in trying to defend himself exclaims, “but Jill has broken 19 of your best sewing needles Mom!”.**

1) The issue that RS raises seems to be an issue that TD overlooks.  If there is a principle that we cannot have any uncertainty, the fact that one position has more uncertainty than the other is a red herring.

2) I seem to recall from other places that the translation TD uses is the KJV.  However, the KJV was not translated from a single text.  That's the reason that Scrivener was called upon (two centuries later) to create a Greek text to align with the KJV.  

3) While I agree that there are "few" places where the "the reading is truly split in the TR tradition," there are very few places where an exhaustive collation yields a meaningful split in the manuscript tradition.  

TD 3.1: I personally receive Beza’s reading as that is the reading that was commented upon and used the most – and it is consistent with the theology and grammar of the passage (though I have seen people argue well for οσιος). Since both theological concepts are present in Revelation, this is truly a reading where doctrine is not changed from my perspective. Many people give lip service that doctrine is not changed no matter what the variant is, but that is not true. 

RS 3.1x: **So your authority is Beza, the KJV and the majority of your favorite Biblical commentators:–And therefore the testimony and preservation of the *total* transmission history of the New Testament Text, i.e. All of “Catholic Antiquity” has to bow in submission to these 16th and 17th century witnesses. I take it that Dr. Hort’s often blind admiration of Cod. B, or Tischendorf’s equally unwarranted homage of Cod. א, doesn’t strike you as unreasonable and biased?**

While I agree that Beza's change to Revelation 16:5 does not, in itself, teach some heresy, I tend to think that is the case with nearly all the variant issues.  TD clearly disagrees that this is more broadly the case, but we can reserve that issue for another time.

I suspect that RS's comment here was a bit too sharp for TD, but TD should try to develop a better answer.

More importantly, why should we try to divine which reading was original, based on which reading was (subsequent to 1582, apparently) commented on and used the most?  That's quite obviously not the measure used by Owen and Turretin, whose names TD dropped.  That's a measure that would have been useless to Beza himself, or at any rate would not have led him to make the change he did.

TD 3.2: That being said, the reading came from a Greek manuscript according to Beza, and the reading was preserved in a printed text. 

RS 3.2x **The first part of your statement is up for debate. Even so, is it possible for me to state that I once saw something in an ancient manuscript and then emend the Text accordingly, even when said singular ms. is nowhere to be found? Or, does this only carry enough authority to overthrow all extant evidence if my name is Beza, or I lived in the 16th or 17th century? This question is posed to evoke thought, not hard feelings.**

Beza's statement has very limited evidentiary value.  Even assuming he did have such a manuscript, which we have good reason to doubt, so what?  We almost never adopt a singularly attested reading. 

TD 3.3: The concept that a reading must be preserved in hand written ink rather than printed ink is strange, and I’ve never understood it. If the reading is original, it doesn’t matter if a pen or a press preserved it, the way I see it. 

RS 3.3x **There’s too much to unpack here. Yet I will say this, you have opened the flood gates to the Redaction Critics and the practice of Conjectural Emendation for the sake of retaining a reading that has the support of *no* Greek manuscript!**

The question is whether the reading is original. Why should we accept it as original on the basis of its existence in a printed text? While I appreciate the fact that TD has never understood textual criticism, that's hardly an argument for his position.  The point is not the a reading must be preserved with quill and ink, as opposed to chisel and stone, or modern laser printing (or whatever), but that a late 16th century printed text is in itself a very weak witness to the original from the standpoint of textual criticism.  That's true for the Bible, and it's true for other books as well.   

TD 3.4 There is no way to verify that the reading was or wasn’t in the originals, so while manuscript support may give us false assurance that we’ve arrived at the correct reading, simply counting noses doesn’t quite get us to the answer anyway. This is well understood in pretty much every methodology around, but is typically ignored here. So we either make a majority text appeal here, which doesn’t mean a whole lot as there aren’t really any mss of Revelation surviving, or we can make an appeal to the reading that has been used the most by the church with the reasonable assumption that the manuscript existed at some point. I side with the latter, though I know many people who go with the majority reading. In any case, I think we have to treat Revelation uniquely, as it is one of the least testified to books in the NT. There is no consistent methodology that can be applied in Revelation, and that’s just a fact. 

RS 3.4x: ** That is in fact your opinion. The methodology of Burgon and others can hold up just fine in Revelation.**

This is where TD clearly departs from the view of Turretin and Owen. When he claims: "There is no way to verify that the reading was or wasn’t in the originals ..." he is just wrong.  That the view of folks like Ehrman and Parker, perhaps, but it is not a view that accords with the doctrine of preservation.

Likewise, "there aren’t really any mss of Revelation surviving" is just nonsense.  There are literally hundreds of manuscripts of Revelation surviving.

Similarly, regarding "we can make an appeal to the reading that has been used the most by the church," this isn't the argument of Owen or Turretin, and it has the barely concealed premise that "the church" came into existence some time after 1580 to be a useful argument for TD's position in this case.

To suggest that "There is no consistent methodology that can be applied in Revelation" is once again wrong.

TD 3.5: Despite common claims, each variant has to be handled uniquely, as they each have their own transmission history which is different than the transmission history of every other variant. If you look at the % agreement in the CNTTS database, the NA text basically follows mss 02 in 89% of the textually significant variants, and the closest agreement that mss has to any other mss in the CNTTS database is 77% and lower. That is to say that Revelation is a tricky book even in the critical text. 

RS 3.5x: **Agreed!! Probably the trickiest.**

Oddly, what TD says here is at least mostly correct.  However, TD's method of handling "each variant" does not seem to be unique.  He seems to go with "what did the Reformed churches from 1611-1850 use?" 

TD 3.6: Gill, in his commentary, handles εσομινος first, then οσιος separately. In any case, both readings exist within the TR tradition, so I handle this text by looking to the people that have handled it before me. Every pre-critical text commentary I have read handles the variant reading, and favors the Beza reading on the basis of internal theological grounds based on the context and the theology of the passage itself. So I adopt the reading on that basis as well, not on the basis of it simply being in the KJV or Scrivener text. That being said, I would not divide over this, and since I see it as being easily resolved on internal grounds, 

RS 3.6x: **How can the insertion of a reading which has absolutely no external evidence behind it be “easily resolved” on any grounds?**

RS is right about this.  To suggest that this is "easily resolved on internal grounds" is naive at best.  In point of fact, the internal grounds argument is rather weak and - I think it is telling - TD appeals to the ease of resolution but does not offer a specific solution. 

TD 3.7 One final note, and possibly worth considering, is that the latest survey of extant manuscripts conducted by Jacob W. Peterson estimates that there are well over 500 manuscripts that have not been examined or “discovered,” not to mention that manuscripts made after 1000AD are being ignored by the ECM. That is to say, that even with the extant data we have catalogued, it is possible that a manuscript we have has the reading but is simply not “discovered.” 

RS 3.7x: **This is an argument from silence, which as it were, is based upon a guess. How many of these “estimated” manuscripts contain the 16th chapter of the book of Revelation? –And how many do you suppose read ‘εσομενος’?**

This half-baked argument ignores the work of Hoskier and others, who did not "ignore" post A.D. 1000 manuscripts, but faithfully catalogued their readings.  While it is certainly possible that there could be some as-yet uncatalogued reading at Revelation 16:5, that's not a serious argument for the uncatalogued reading's originality. 

TD 3.8: Such is the gamble when we base our readings on extant data – we can’t know for certain if the reading is the most reliable, because we don’t have all the data, and even the data we do “have” isn’t all cataloged. I see the merit, from a reconstructionist model, of adopting the οσιος reading, but I simply wouldn’t be able to do so with absolute confidence that the reading is authentic due to the slim mss attestation in the whole of Revelation. Due to this reality, I receive the reading that most commentators of the time considered more theologically and grammatically consistent with the passage and the book as a whole. This way, I am not reverting to “who made this decision” but rather appealing to the passage itself and the reading that fits most comfortably in the passage.

RS 3.8x: **Would it not be more of a gamble to base our readings on *no* extant data? So your position is that we should follow the least attested readings because we don’t know what every manuscript read throughout the history of the Text (again an argument from silence)?** **It may help to know that I am *not* an advocate for the Modern Academic Critical Text. Nor have I ever been.**

Of course, basing our readings on extant data is exactly the position that both Owen and Turretin supported.

Furthermore, why should "the time" be given the kind of privilege that TD accords it?  Francis Turretin was born in 1623.  John Owen was born in 1616.  What's privileged time period? The mid- to late-17th century?  Why should that have priority over earlier or later periods?  But if it must be given such priority, why is priority only given to the conclusion regarding readings and not to the method of obtaining such conclusions?  The answer seems obvious: a desire for certainty, even at the expense of sacrificing the foundation. 

TD (Last word): Probably the most uncharitable way you could have interpreted my response. 1. The reading existed in a manuscript at one point 2. It fits the theology 3. It was used in translation and commentary for centuries uninterrupted ^^ That’s my reason. Please do not comment again.

As far as I know, the dialog ended there.  For what it's worth, RS wasn't me, nor vice versa.

Even if the reading existed in a manuscript at one point (which TD cannot prove), it was not used "uninterrupted" for centuries.  Multiple 17th century and 18th century printed Greek texts do not have it, and the reading was challenged during those centuries. Furthermore, if this methodology were consistently applied, we ought to lock in the Vulgate readings, as they were "used in translation and commentary" for even more centuries.  That's not an argument that the Reformers accepted, in fact it's what they openly rejected.

Turretin's "Sources" for 1 John 5:7

Matthew Everhard has video (link to video) in which he suggests that the historic Francis Turretin was not being honest in his defense of Johannine Comma (the longer reading at 1 John 5:7-8).  

I note that Everhard is working from a different translation of Turretin than that found in P&R's publication, namely the Dennison translation. I don't know where he got that translation, but it is fairly accurate. Starting around 4:20 into the video, Matthew Everhard states (all transcriptions are lightly edited computer-generated transcripts):

4:20-5:03 (approximately)

It just so happens that this is either a wild overstatement or he is fudging the truth or he is stretching the truth or perhaps he just doesn't know what he's talking about here because look he says "all the Greek witnesses have it." Okay, so that's a universal positive. He's making a universal positive argument here by saying that they all have it. "The words always were of unquestioned truth" okay so that's a pretty dynamic statement there, "and are read in all the Greek manuscripts from the times of the Apostles themselves." Okay, now this would be probably the sentence that we have the most trouble with because as it turns out this is just factually not true. 

I agree that it is not factually true.

6:19 to 6:59 (approximately)

Now, unfortunately this is a statement that is repeated very very often today especially by those who defend either the King James version which contains John's comma or by those who defend the textus receptus and a lot of people will point back to Turretin's statement here saying it's always been there and because Turretin is seen as a very reliable and trustworthy defender of reformed Orthodoxy this statement from him as taken as as good as gold as it comes to John's comma.

I agree that this does get trotted out by folks who totally disagree with Turretin's view on textual transmission.

10:15 to 11:43 (approximately)

And so for Francis Turretin to claim that John's comma is in all the Greek manuscripts, that is just wildly wildly inaccurate. It cannot possibly even remotely be considered accurate. It is essentially a false statement and this is the problem with making universal positives: it's in all of them or it's in none of them. It's so easy to disprove a universal positive or a universal negative because all you need is one example to the contrary to disprove the entire statement. So Francis Turretin tries to do too much here by fudging or stretching the data well well beyond the levels of truthfulness. Now one could possibly say that Turretin knew about a bunch of manuscripts that we don't have today and this is the argument that advocates of the Textus Receptus or advocates of the King James Version will commonly make. They'll say, "Well he was referring to the manuscripts that he knew of." Well where are they? Well apparently they've all gone out of existence because because of all of the myriads and myriads of plethora of manuscripts there's only this very very scant few that actually have John's comma and the oldest one with a comma in its text is from the 14th Century. Man alive, that is not great biblical support or manuscript evidence to support John's comma.

First, I would caution this "plethora" argument, unless you take the time to figure out how many Greek manuscripts of 1 John there are, because that is the first response by the more learned TR advocates.

Second, there is a more straightforward explanation for Turretin's claim.

11:54 to 12:48 (approximately)

Remember what Francis Turretin said here. He says -- "not the saying in first John 5:7, although some formerly called it into question and heretics do so today," so Turretin goes pretty far into the deep end of the pool here by saying that "formerly some called into question" that may be a reference to Calvin as we're going to see here and "heretics do so today" which again is a statement that a lot of people from the TR defense position or the King James version defense position they want to call people heretics because Francis Turretin said so well if that's true then I I guess Calvin is either one of those formerly who's just wrong here according to Turretin or he's one of those heretics as modern advocates might say.

I won't address his Calvin arguments, for a variety of reasons, but primarily because I think there is a better explanation, and Calvin's errors are different from Turretin's.

Once we understand Turretin's claim better, the heretics and "formerly some" will fall into place.

17:50 to 18:45 (approximately)

So, I think Turretin is trying to do too much. I get his point, he really does want to redress the Roman Catholic Arguments for the supremacy of the Latin Vulgate and he does so by making a great argument in general that we should rely on the Greek and the Hebrew not the Latin but this statement that we looked at today clearly he presses the boundaries of anything that could remotely even be considered true and again the argument of some modern advocates of the Textus Receptus and of the King James version that perhaps he had a just all these manuscripts they all had it and those just happened to be the one that poof disappeared from history somehow and that all that we're left with is all those plethora and myriads of manuscripts that don't have it except for one or two that were really late like yikes level late in terms of history here -- that's just not a great way to make that argument, okay? so easily testable.

This is starting to catch the correct line.  Turretin is engaging Roman Catholic claims.  By contrast, Everhard's material is probably aimed at something like this material from FBC Roy (link to video).  So, Turretin is using Roman Catholic scholarly material against themselves.

Dennison's translation of Francis Turretin's Institutes, Volume 1, p. 115, states:

Transcription:

X. There is no truth in the assertion that the Hebrew edition of the Old Testament and the Greek edition of the New Testament are said to be mutilated; nor can the arguments used by our opponents prove it. Not the history of the adulteress (Jn. 8:1-11), for although it is lacking in the Syriac version, it is found in all the Greek manuscripts. Not 1 Jn. 5:7, for although some formerly called it into question and heretics now do, yet all the Greek copies have it, as Sixtus Senensis acknowledges: "they have been the words of never-doubted truth, and contained in all the Greek copies from the very times of the apostles" (Bibliotheca sancta [1575], 2:298). Not Mk. 16 which may have been wanting in several copies in the time of Jerome (as he asserts); but now it occurs in all, even in the Syriac version, and is clearly necessary to complete the history of the resurrection of Christ.

The original text (first edition) of Second Topic, Question XI, section X says:  

Transcription:

X. Falso Editio Hebraea Vet. & Graeca N. T. dicitur mutila: Nec quae ab Adversariis afferruntur testimonia hoc evincere possunt; Non historia adulterae Io.8. licet enim desit in Syriaca Versione, reperitur in omnibus Graecis Codicibus. Non dictum 1. Io.5:7. quamvis enim quidam in dubium olim vocarint, & vocent hodie haeretici, habent tamen omnia Exemplaria Graeca, ut Sixtus Senensis agnoscit; verba indubitatae semper veritatis fuerunt, & in omnibus Graecis exemplaribus ab ipsis Apostolorum temporibus lecta. Non Marc 16. caput, quod potuit in variis exemplaribus defiderari tempore Hieronymi, ut ipse fatetur, sed nunc in omnibus habetur etiam in Syriaca versione, & est plane necessarium ad perexendam historiam resurrectionis Christi.

Translation:

X. It is falsely stated that the Hebrew edition of the Old Testament and the Greek New Testament are mutilated: The testimonies brought forth by the Adversaries cannot prove this; not the story of the adulteress in John 8, for although it is missing in the Syriac Version, it is found in all Greek Codices. Not the saying in 1 John 5:7. Although some have doubted it in the past, and heretics do so today, all Greek manuscripts, as Sixtus of Sienna acknowledges, contain it; these words have always been of undoubted truth and have been read in all Greek manuscripts since the times of the Apostles themselves. Not Mark 16, which might have been missing in various manuscripts in the time of Jerome, as he himself admits, but now is found in all, even in the Syriac version, and is absolutely necessary to completely narrate the story of Christ’s resurrection.

In short, I think Dennison's translation is perfectly fine and accurately conveys Turretin here.

Notice, however, that Turretin makes a claim about "all the Greek copies" of 1 John, based on the testimony of Sixtus of Siena (aka Sixtus Senensis).

Moreover, look at what Sixtus Senensis said (Liber Septimus, p. 597B - this is not the same printing/edition referenced by Dennison, although it is the same Bibliotheca Sancta):

Transcription:

Ipsam vero primam Ioannis Epistolam, Anabaptistae contendunt, adscititiis additionibus falsatam, sumpto hinc argumento, quod in quinto eius capita addita sit sentnentia illa: Tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in caelo, Pater, Verbum, & Spiritus Sanctus: & tres unum sunt, quam sententiam eo in loco dicunt insertam a fautoribus Trinitatis, reclamantibus omnibus vetustis Graeciae exemplaribus, in quibus ea verba olim non fuisse, etiam Hieronymus in praefatione Canonicarum Epistolarum testatus est. Erasmus vero, qui in prima editione sua Novi Testamenti eam non habet, idcirco illam se praeteriisse affirmavit, quia in Graecis codicibus ea verba non legerentur.

Translation:

Indeed, the Anabaptists contend that the first Epistle of John has been corrupted with spurious additions, drawing this argument from the fact that in its fifth chapter, the sentence has been added: 'There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.' They claim this sentence was inserted in that place by supporters of the Trinity, contrary to all the ancient Greek manuscripts, in which these words were not originally found, as even Jerome has testified in the preface to the Canonical Epistles. Moreover, Erasmus, who in his first edition of the New Testament does not include it, stated that he omitted it because those words were not read in the Greek codices.

(p. 599)

Transcription:

Ad vero, quod impii Anabaptistae, ac Servetani de verbis illis, quae in quinto capite primae Ioannis adiecta contendunt, respondemus, ea verba apud Catholicos indubitate semper veritatis fuisse, & in omnibus Graecis exmplaribus ab ipsis Apostolorum temporibus lecta: nec opus est quicquam de ipsorum perpetua integritate, synceritateque dubitare, cum Iginus Papa primus, inducat ea adversus Haereticos, tanquam invictum pro summa Trinitate testimonium. Sic enim in epistola ad omnes Christi fideles scribit: Et iterum ipse Ionnes Evangelista ad Parthos scribens ait: Tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in caelo, Pater, Verbum, & Spiritum Sanctus, & hi tres unum sunt. Quin & sancta mater Ecclesia testimonium istud quotannis per octavam Paschae in sacris mysteriis, ut ex vera & germana eiusdem Evanelistae Epistola decantat. Nec Hieronymus usquan dixit, illud in codicibus Graecis Ecclesiae Catholicae defuisse, immo in Prologo Canonicarum ad Eustochium, conqueritur, haec verba ab infidelibus, & Haereticis translatoribus in Latinum versa non fuisse, cum passim in Graecis voluminibus legerentur, haec verba ab infidelibus, & Haereticis translatoribus in Latinum versa non fuisse, cum passim in Graecis voluminibus legerentur, haec enim sunt Hieronymi eo in Prologo verba: Quae scilicet Epistolae, si ut ab eis, hoc est, Graecis authoribus, digesta sunt, ita quoque ab interpretibus fideliter verterentur in Latinum eloquium, nec ambiguitatem legentibus facerent, nec sermonum sese varietas impugnaret, illo praecipuem loco, ubide unitate Trinitatis, in prima Ioannis epistola positum legimus, in quo etiam ab infidelibus translatoribus multum erratum esse a fidei veritate comperimus, trium tantummodo vocabula, hoc est Aquae, Sanguinu, & Spiritus, in ipsa sua editione ponentibus, & Patris, Verbique, ac Spiritus Sancti, testimonium omittentibus, in quo maxime & fides Catholica roberator, & Patris, & Filii, & Spritus Sancti in una Divinitatis substantia comprobatur. Hec Hieronymus. Quod autem ex prima Erasmi traductione adijciunt, nihil nos movet viti huius Authoritatas, cuius non paucas sententias nuper catholica Ecclesia damnavit, cum ea verba in Graecis exemplaribus ut ostendimus, semper fuerint, & nunc quoque in nostris Graecis codicbus palam in hunc modum legantur, τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, πατήρ, λόγος, καὶ Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον καὶ οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν Et ipsem et Erasmus in Annotationibus suis fateatur, haec eadem verba, haberi in pervetustis Graecis exemplaribus Britanniae, Hispaniae ac Rhodi.

Translation:

To the truth, regarding the words that the impious Anabaptists and followers of Servetus contend have been added to the fifth chapter of the first Epistle of John, we respond that these words have always been undoubted truth among Catholics, and read in all Greek copies since the times of the Apostles themselves. There is no need to doubt their perpetual integrity and sincerity, since Pope Eugene I used them against heretics, as an invincible testimony for the supreme Trinity. Thus, he writes in his letter to all the faithful of Christ: 'And again, John the Evangelist himself writing to the Parthians says: There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.' Moreover, the holy mother Church chants this testimony every year during the octave of Easter in the sacred mysteries, as from the true and genuine Epistle of the same Evangelist. Nor did Jerome ever say that it was missing in the Greek codices of the Catholic Church; on the contrary, in the Prologue to the Canonical [Epistles] to Eustochium, he complains that these words were not translated into Latin by unfaithful and heretical translators, although they were widely read in the Greek volumes. These are the words of Jerome in that Prologue: 'Which Epistles, if as they are composed by their Greek authors, were also faithfully translated by interpreters into the Latin language, they would not cause ambiguity to the readers, nor would the variety of words conflict with each other, especially in that principal place, where we read of the unity of the Trinity, in the first Epistle of John, in which we also find that much error has been made by unfaithful translators far from the truth of faith, only placing three words, that is, Water, Blood, and Spirit, in their own edition, and omitting the testimony of the Father, and of the Word, and of the Holy Ghost, in which the Catholic faith is particularly strengthened, and the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are proved to be in one substance of the Divinity.' Thus Jerome. As for what they add from the first translation of Erasmus, it does not move us because of this Author's authority, whose not a few sentences the Catholic Church has recently condemned, since as we have shown, those words have always been in the Greek copies, and are now also plainly read in our Greek codices in this manner: τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, πατήρ, λόγος, καὶ Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον καὶ οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν. And even Erasmus himself admits in his Annotations that these same words are found in very ancient Greek copies of Britain, Spain, and Rhodes.

So, we can see the basis for Turretin's claim.  I'm not sure how helpful most of the printed texts of the Greek New Testament would have been.  Even if Turretin had consulted Stephanus' 1550, the notes are not clear about the manuscript evidence for the reading.

Stephanus 1550 (link to source)

If you were reading this textual apparatus, would you think what Turretin did, namely that all the Greek manuscripts have the text?

1 John 5:7 - Francis Turretin and the Textual Evidence

Some "TR friendly" questions/comments, I recently received.  I'm posting them without attribution for now, but I'll update with attribution if my interlocutor would like.  After all, these issues are less about him (or me) and more about the truth of the matters we are discussing.  His comments are bold in quotation marks, whereas my responses are in plain font. 

"You seem, like most, to judge Turretin's statement based upon extant (in 2022) evidence rather than what he had in his time. This is wrong headed."

For the reader's background, Turretin made the statement regarding the Johannine Comma, at 1 John 5:7, "although some formerly called it into question and heretics now do, yet all the Greek copies have it."  I had pointed out that Turretin's statement was wrong.

My interlocutor is raising an important nuanced point.  The evidence available to Turretin in the 1600s was different from the evidence that we have today.  My interlocutor is mistaken in thinking that my judgment about Turretin is based only on the evidence we have today as distinct from what was available in Turretin's time.

For example, we know the seven manuscripts that Erasmus used in creating his first printed edition of the New Testament: minuscules 1^eap, 1^rk, 2^e, 2^ap, 4^ap, 7^p, and 817 (the "modern" numbering of these is respectively 1, 2814, 2, 2815, 2816, 2817, and 817- we could add to these, 2105, a commentary by Theophylact on Paul's epistles).  Only 2815 and perhaps 1 are witnesses to 1 John 5:7. There are a few other manuscripts that some have suggested Erasmus may have had for the first edition, none of those include 1 John.

Minuscules 1 and 2815 do not have the Johannine Comma. 2815 was apparently the Greek manuscript sent by Erasmus to the printer to serve as the primary basis for his printed text. We still have manuscript 2815 in the University of Basel library. I haven't checked Basel's records, but I'm confident that 2815 was there throughout Francis Turretin's life.  1 has been in the University of Basel library since the late 1500s.

Likewise, we know of other manuscripts that were known during Francis Turretin's life, and which don't have the Johannine Comma.

It would be wrong to judge FT's statement based on manuscripts we only discovered after his death, but that's not what we're doing when we say he was wrong to claim, "all the Greek copies have it."  It's ok.  People make mistakes.

"We do not judge people in the past based upon modern extant evidence." 

We can and do judge them that way.  For example, as I mentioned above, we have located most (if not all) of the manuscripts that Erasmus' first edition relied on.  We can judge the quality of his collation based on that "modern extant" evidence.  We can do the same for Turretin's claims.  Had Turretin been more vague and said, "I've seen it in a manuscript in Basel," then it might be harder to judge his statement.  We could, however, still judge it.  We would just have to be more tenuous in our conclusions.  In this case, it's very straightforward that the great Turretin was just wrong.

"That is the problem with your method, you use modern evidence with no regard to manuscript destruction."

Manuscript destruction can happen.  I was just lamenting the other day the loss of a Georgian translation of the Didache.  It was last seen, that I could find, in the 1930s in Germany. Sometimes things like that happen.

However, sometimes we can still know something about those lost or destroyed manuscripts.  For example, we have a collation of the Georgian translation of the Didache against the single Greek example of the Didache.  It's of very little scholarly value, but at least it's something.

"How many early manuscripts do you think we have with 1 John 5 (the whole chapter)?"

The ECM project currently lists 265 witnesses to 1 John 5:7, though some of the witnesses may have a gap in the text at that point.  It seems fair to say that there are at least 150 witnesses to the short reading (i.e. the text without the Johanine Comma), with the manuscript copies having the Johaninne Comma coming from the 1500s or as later insertions into the margins of the pre-1500 manuscripts.  In short, there is no reasonable basis for the great Francis Turretin to claim that "all the Greek copies have it." They didn't all have it in his day.  There were some made in the 1500s and still around in the 1600s that had it, and there were some older ones where it had been added into the margins.  

"The 'which TR?' is just a false 'gotcha' that makes me roll my eyes." 

It's false for folks who accept revisions to the TR, but true for those who don't.  The "which KJV" question was a legitimate question for me to ask Will Kinney in my debate with him, and he had his answer.  The "correct" answer for folks who are open to revisions to the TR is that they use such-and-such as their base text, but that they are open to corrections to it. 

Will Kinney asked me a similar question about which Greek text, and I was able to hold up the printed NA27 and tell him that NA27 with its critical apparatus has the original text.  It may not always be the main text of the NA27, but it's all there.  Nothing has been lost.  

"Turretin answers it, the TBS introduction to the Greek NT answers it (first sentence of the last paragraph), and it has been answered many times, but yet people try the gotcha." 

Turretin was open to revisions, as I assume you know.  I'm glad the TBS folks have their answer, though I don't think their continued inclusion of the Johanine Comma is reasonable.

"Once again, for those in the back, the TR is the family of printed editions, based upon manuscripts, and these include but are not limited to the editions of Beza, Stephanus, Elzivirs, and others, and there are minor variants between them."

Usually, the TR also includes Scriveners' "final" addition to that family in 1894.  In fact, many TR folks simply mean that one.  

And there are minor differences between that family of printed texts and the NA28.  There are only two differences that are more than two verses (the end of Mark and the story of the woman caught in adultery), as I'm sure you are aware.  I think it would be accurate to say that there are fewer differences between the NA27 and any TR of the TR family and an early Byzantine uncial (like codex Washingtonianus) and any TR of the TR family.  

That said, there are a few differences that typically matter to "TR preferred" folks, such as the long ending of Mark, the story of the woman caught in adultery, the doxology of the Lord's Prayer, the Johannine Comma, and maybe a dozen or so others.  That said, we're still talking about a small number of potentially significant differences.

Many TR advocates like to play up the rhetoric as though the Nestle-Aland editions represent an overthrow of the text or some kind of revolutionary different Bible.  They don't.  They are just a more accurate reflection of the original text than the older work, not a radical departure.

"I am still interested in whether you believe Mark 16, John 8, and the 16 other disputed/absent verses are inspired or not. I don't need any argument for or against, I want to know if you believe they are the word of man or the word of God."

My opinion doesn't matter absent the arguments.  At least, my opinion shouldn't matter unless I can support it by arguments.  Moreover, it is fascinating that this particular interlocutor is so transparently uninterested in hearing the arguments.  I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt that he thinks he's already heard the arguments.  If so, then he just seems to be looking for some kind of tribal affiliation.  I'm happy to weigh in on each one, one by one, I guess, but the bottom line is that I'm more confident about my own conclusions on some texts than others.  It would be mind boggling if the Johannine Comma or the story of the woman caught in adultery turned out to be original.  It's very hard to imagine that the doxology of the Lord's prayer or "Father forgive them for they known not what they do," were original.  It would be easier to understand how the long ending of Mark might be original.

"It would be better to believe the explicit statements of Turretin rather than a Platonic form of Turretin. I believe in the 'Turretin of history,' you believe in the 'Turretin of faith.'"

This sounds very lovely, but what my interlocutor is focused on is Turretin's conclusions about the originality of certain texts, rather than on Turretin's arguments leading him to that conclusion.  Turretin's arguments on textual matters appear to be poorly informed as to the facts, and consequently it is unwise to follow him down the garden path on those points.  Turretin's arguments themselves are not always well founded (consider his arguments, such as they are, about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary - a point that made it into a Reformed confession!).  

Francis Turretin - the "Received Text" - "Confessional Text" and related Textual Critical Issues

Background - Name and the significance of Methodology
I've been using the nom de plume, TurretinFan, for over a decade. Why? It's certainly not because I slavishly follow everything that theologian taught. On the contrary, I have a number of disagreements with him, though typically about things that don't or shouldn't matter. The big examples that come to mind are geocentrism and the perpetual virginity of Mary. From time to time this leads to taunts of "You should stop calling yourself 'Francis Turretin'" or the like. I can live with that.

My reason for using that pen-name is because I enjoy the clarity of thinking that the real Francis Turretin had, as expressed in his elenctic methodology. His methodology has led to him sometimes being referred to as a Reformed scholastic. I don't think he would want to be lumped in with the medieval scholastics, but at least some of them (for example, Thomas Aquinas) can be admired for their systematic consideration of issues.

Methodology and Textual Positions
Methodology is key in distinguishing different textual positions, not just in distinguishing presentations of theology. I myself enjoy the King James Version and appreciate the beauty of the language used, as well as the useful clarity provided by distinguishing between "thou" and "you." Enjoying, however, is not really a methodology. I don't just enjoy the KJV, I preferentially use it as an English translation. Yet again, however, mere use is not a methodology.

When it comes to the text of the New Testament, there are many schools of thought. Depending on who you listen to, you may hear terms like "Critical Text," "Received Text," "Ecclesiastical Text," "King James Only," "Majority Text," "Byzantine Text," "Westcott and Hort Text" and so on.

At the risk of over-simplification, we can broadly group the positions into four schools of thought.

A. Non-Preservationist

This school of thought sees nothing particularly special about the Scriptures and treats them as being the same as any other ancient text. This group could be further sub-divided into naturalists (like atheists) and super-naturalists (like Muslims and Mormons). The latter groups may think that the New Testament was a special book, but they nevertheless insist that it was hopelessly corrupted due to (among other things) a lack of divine preservation.

Interestingly enough, when we read Reformation-era Reformers, we see them contending against Roman Catholics who had this same non-preservationist mindset as it applies to the Greek text. They would insist that the Latin was preserved, but would not extend this to the original Greek. Interestingly enough, we also see a similar mixture of views in certain KJV only groups who are open to the idea the New Testament has been preserved (in this time) only in English and not in the original language. Modern Roman Catholics (post Vatican II) seem to accept the preservation of the original text of the New Testament, and the Nova Vulgata reflects a reliance on the Greek text to correct the Latin text.

B. Preservationist

This school of thought views the Scriptures as the Word of God and understands (hopefully from the Scriptures themselves) that because of the Scriptures' purpose and nature, God will preserve them forever, or at least until we see God face to face.

1. Hard Traditionalist

This sub-group of preservationists take the position that the preserved text is a matter of hard tradition. This may take the form of a particular text being widely used by "the church" or the form of a particular text being supposedly authoritatively accepted by the church.

2. Soft Traditionalist

This sub-group of preservationists take the position that the preserved text is a matter of what we might call "lower case t tradition." They believe that because God has preserved his word through every generation, therefore we can examine tradition to see what text has been handed down.

3. Rationalist

This sub-group of preservationists take the position that the preserved text can be obtained without any particular reference to tradition, as such. In this view, the New Testament text can be established more or less the same way that we would establish the text of Homer's works, but with much higher certainty because of the much better evidence.

This is, of course, an over-simplification. Among the preservationists, there is probably something more resembling a spectrum, rather than the neat boxes I've provided.

The Confessional Position

The Westminster Confession of Faith and the London Baptist Confession have identical text at I:6:

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; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in, the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the language of every people unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.

The key phrase for our discussion is, of course, "by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages."

The quoted phrase means at least that only the views in group B are confessional, while the views in group A should not be taught in the church. The confession does not specify to what degree we should be relying on tradition or reason to identify the providentially preserved Scriptures. As a result, the big tent of the confession is broad enough for a variety of views on this. There is not just one "ye olde Confessional Position" on that level of detail. I leave it to someone with more time on their hands to review the minutes of the Assembly to see if the wording was debated, but ultimately it matters what made it into the Confession, and such further detail did not.

The Confession's Proof Texts

Some folks like to point out that the Confession uses as proof texts, the following:

• The long ending of Mark: 7:3(f), 8:4(g), and 17:3(m)
• The Comma Johanneum: 2:3(o)

These same folks do not usually immediately note that the original WCF did not include these proof texts. Instead, these were added as an afterthought in response to the English House of Commons demanding proof texts.

To further complicate things, when the American Presbyterians revised the confession to (among other things) update the proof texts, those references were removed, such that the version of the WCF on the OPC website today does not use those proof texts (link to pdf version).

So, saying that the inclusion of the long ending of Mark and the Comma Johanneum is "confessional," is strained. It is probably most accurate to say that the original authors of the Confession probably accepted those passages without seriously investigating the matter.

The Real Francis Turretin's Position
The real Francis Turretin, however, did not simply hastily add a proof text to his work. In 1674, Turretin published a treatise, "De Tribus Testibus Coelestibus ex 1 Joann. V, 7" and in 1676 he published "De Spiritu, Aqua et Sanguine in terra testantibus, ex 1 Joann. V, 8." Moreover, near the start of the former treatise, Turretin attempts a defense of the passage against the Socinian accusation of insertion. His first argument? an appeal to the historical evidence as he understood it, with reference to Jerome and to the work of Erasmus, Complutensis, and Stephanus, among others who provided printed Greek New Testaments, based on his understanding that they drew the reading from the most ancient codices.

Turretin's second argument was an appeal to the wording of the remainder of the text. He reasons that verse 9's comparison between human and divine testimony only makes sense if the three earthly testimonies are in parallel with three heavenly testimonies.

Turretin's third argument is to appeal to the writings of Cyprian, Athanasius, and Fulgentius, who (he thought) used the verse approvingly.

Turretin's fourth argument is to question whether it is more probable that the Arians removed the verse or the orthodox added the verse.


In other words, while Turretin obviously reaches the opposite conclusion of the current editors of the ECM, he does so using a very similar methodology. In fact, the question of orthodox corruption of the text is one that remains of interest today (hundreds of years later).

This may not persuade the harder-tradition folk. So, an easier example is Turretin's rejection of the word "Cainan" in Luke 3:36. According to Turretin, the best explanation here is that the word was spuriously added by corruption via the Septuagint (see vol. 1, pp. 73-74 of Turretin's Institutes, 1.2.5.12). In that case, Turretin is clearly departing from the "Textus Receptus" reading. His reason for doing so is mostly on internal grounds of needing to harmonize with the Old Testament.

And, of course, this gets us to Turretin's own clear statement about his methodology (emphasis supplied):

The question is not as to the particular corruption of some manuscripts or as to the errors which have crept into the books of particular editions through the negligence of copyists or printers. All acknowledge the existence of many such small corruptions. The question is whether there are universal corruptions and errors so diffused through all the copies (both manuscript and edited) as that they cannot be restored and corrected by any collation of various copies, or of Scripture itself and of parallel passages.

Notice that Turretin explicitly acknowledges small corruptions and argues that these can be restored and corrected. The tools for such correction are collation (which is exactly what CBGM and other "modern" textual critical techniques primarily rely on) and comparison with Scripture itself (the internal evidences that CBGM is (to my knowledge) less well equipped to perform, but which human editors nevertheless have to employ, and which we see in the most recent texts of the New Testament.

Turretin was not unique in these views. He was not alone in mistakenly accepting the Comma Johanneum, nor was he alone in doing so on faulty textual critical grounds. He was not alone in being unfamiliar with the manuscripts in existence, and he was not alone in relying heavily on the printed editions (and perhaps even only on reports about those printed editions).

The Real Turretin on: Christ's Atonement is Both Substitutionary and Exemplary

Tony Stiff at Sets 'n' Service has provided a brief quotation from the real Turretin providing a helpful reminder that the Atonement is not only Substitutionary but also Exemplary
(source). Sometimes in our eagerness to emphasize the distinctives of Reformed Theology, we can lose sight of that fact. The fact that Christ's death is an example is important: and something Paul mentions.

-TurretinFan

Calvin vs.(?) Turretin on Inerrancy

The doctrine of Biblical inerrancy is sometimes associated with Francis Turretin (the real one, not me, his fan).  There was an interesting article in the Autumn 2011 edition of "Foundations," which addresses the question, "Did Turretin Depart from Calvin's View on the Concept of Error in the Scriptures" (link to pdf of whole issue).  The author, Ralph Cunnington, does an excellent job of demonstrating and explaining that - in fact - both Calvin and Turretin were in agreement.  His conclusion states:

Calvin and Turretin both held to a view of the inspiration and authority of Scripture which affirmed that the Scriptures as originally given were without error in all that they affirmed. The view that Calvin only affirmed the infallibility of the saving content of Scripture rests upon decidedly unpersuasive grounds and conflicts with Calvin’s unambiguous statements to the contrary.
Furthermore, the contention that a radical disjunction exists between Calvin’s view of Scripture and that of Turretin remains unproven. While a shift in the form of theological discourse unquestionably took place in the seventeenth century, the content of orthodox doctrine remained substantially the same. Far from dispensing with Calvin’s doctrine of inspiration, Turretin sought to defend it against the new challenges that it faced in the seventeenth century. While his methodology may be questioned, we should be in no doubt that Turretin intended his doctrine to be an expression of continuity with the doctrine expounded by the Reformers.

But please read the article for yourselves!

- TurretinFan

The Real Francis Turretin on Faith and Reason

The question is not whether reason is the instrument by which or the medium through which we can be drawn to faith. For we acknowledge that reason can be both: the former indeed always and everywhere; the later with regard to presupposed articles. Rather the question is whether it is the first principle from which the doctrines of faith are proved; or the foundation upon which they are built, so that we must hold to be false in things of faith what the nature light or human reason cannot comprehend. This we deny.

…If reason is the principle of faith, then first it would follow that all religion is natural and demonstrable by natural reason and natural light. Thus nature and grace, natural and supernatural revelation would be confounded.
…A ministerial and organic relation is quite different from a principial and despotic.
…We must observe the distinction between an instrument of faith and the foundation of faith.
…The Lutherans falsely object to us that we hold reason to be the principle and rule of demonstration in controversies because we sometimes draw arguments from reason, and argue from reason against the ubiquity of Christ’s body. For we assign to reason only a ministerial and instrumental, not a principal office. And if, in compound questions, we use reason for the purpose of proof, it bears the relation not of a principle but of means from which the theologian argues; and the are not with us primary arguments, but only secondary and auxiliary forces. Besides, while the theologian uses arguments drawn from reason, he does it rather as a philosopher rather than as a theologian. As to the ubiquity of the body of Christ, we reject this doctrine both philosophically and theologically, because it is absurd and contradicts the first principles of theology and philosophy.

(cited as Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1.8.4, 5, 6, 24 at this link)

The Real Francis Turretin on the Church in Relation to the Trinity

The church is the primary work of the holy Trinity, the object of Christ’s mediation and the subject of the application of his benefits.

(cited as Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T Dennison (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Pub., 1992), 3:1, at this link)

The Real Francis Turretin on Faith and Reason

He does not therefore mean to take away reason entirely because grace does not destroy, but perfects nature. He only wishes it to serve and be a handmaid to faith and as such to obey, not to govern its mistress; that it may be in subjection and not entirely discarded, that it may be not the foundation, but the defender of faith and embrace, contend for and adorn the faith already established.

(cited as Turretin 1.1.9.15 at this link)

The Real Francis Turretin: The Supernatural Existence of Everything

"All things are properly said to be … supernaturally through infinite power (as from the terminus a quo and by the way of creation)."

Cited generally as "Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, P & R." (at The Lord God Exists).

The Real Francis Turretin on Christ's Teaching Role

“Christ is our only teacher (Matt. 23:8) in such a sense as that the ministry of the word is not thereby excluded, but necessarily included because now in it only he addresses us and by it instructs us. Christ is not set in opposition to the Scriptures; rather he is set in opposition to the false teachers of the Pharisees who ambitiously assumed the authority due to Christ alone.”

Cited as Turretin, Institues, V. I, 59 (at Reformed Reasons)

The Real Francis Turretin on Sin's Relation to God

The Real Francis Turretin on sin's relation to God:

Theology treats sin not as belonging to God, but as holding certain relationship to Him (either that of opposite or contrary or as coming under His providence and justice); just as medicine treats of diseases and their remedies although its principle subject is man as curable.

(cited as Topic 1, Questions 5, Part X at this link)

Imputation Attested in the Early, Medieval, and even Counter-Reformation Era

Pastor David King was of great help in providing the following example of an early church Father, a medieval Father, a Doctor of the Church (according to Rome), and a cardinal of the Roman church, all affirming imputation in some form or other.

Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153): The fragrance of your wisdom comes to us in what we hear, for if anyone needs wisdom let him ask of you and you will give it to him. It is well known that you give to all freely and ungrudgingly. As for your justice, so great is the fragrance it diffuses that you are called not only just but even justice itself, the justice that makes men just. Your power to make men just is measured by your generosity in forgiving. Therefore the man who through sorrow for sin hungers and thirsts for justice, let him trust in the One who changes the sinner into a just man, and, judged righteous in terms of faith alone, he will have peace with God. See Kilian Walsh, O.C.S.O., Bernard of Clairvaux On the Song of Songs II (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, Inc.,1983), Sermon 22.8, p. 20.
Latin text: Porro sapientiae tuae odorem ex eo percipimus quod audivimus quia si quis indiget sapientia, postulet eam a te, et dabis ei. Aiunt siquidem quod des omnibus affluenter, et non improperes. At vero justitiae tuae tanta ubique fragrantia spargitur, ut non solum justus, sed etiam ipsa dicaris justitia, et justitia justificans. Tam validus denique es ad justificandum, quam multus ad ignoscendum. Quamobrem quisquis pro peccatis compunctus esurit et sitit justitiam, credat in te qui justificas impium, et solam justificatus per fidem, pacem habebit ad Deum. Sermones in Cantica, Sermo XXII, §8, PL 183:881D.

Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153): Man therefore was lawfully delivered up, but mercifully set free. Yet mercy was shown in such a way that a kind of justice was not lacking even in his liberation, since, as was most fitting for man s recovery, it was part of the mercy of the liberator to employ justice rather than power against man s enemy. For what could man, the slave of sin, fast bound by the devil, do of him self to recover that righteousness which he had formerly lost? Therefore he who lacked righteousness had another’s imputed to him, and in this way: The prince of this world came and found nothing in the Saviour, and because he notwithstanding laid hands on the Innocent he lost most justly those whom he held captive; since He who owed nothing to death, lawfully freed him who was subject to it, both from the debt of death, and the dominion of the devil, by accepting the injustice of death; for with what justice could that be exacted from man a second time? It was man who owed the debt, it was man who paid it. For if one, says S. Paul, died for all, then were all dead (2 Cor. v. 14), so that, as One bore the sins of all, the satisfaction of One is imputed to all. It is not that one forfeited, another satisfied; the Head and body is one, viz., Christ. The Head, therefore, satisfied for the members, Christ for His children, since, according to the Gospel of Paul, by which Peter’s [i.e., Abelard] falsehood is refuted, He who died for us, quickened us together with Himself, forgiving us all our trespasses, blotting out the hand writing of ordinances that was against us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross, having spoiled principalities and powers (Col. ii. 13, 14). Dom. John Mabillon, ed., Life and Works of Saint Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux, trans. Samuel J. Eales, Vol. II, Letter CXC – Against Certain Heads of Abaelard’s Heresies, 6.15 (London: Burns and Oates Limited, 1889), pp. 580-581. Cf. Epistola CXC, ad Innocentum II, Pontificem, Tractatus de erroribus Petri Abaelardi, Caput VI, §15, PL 182:1065B-D.

Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621): And in this way, it were not absurd, if any one should say that the righteousness and merits of Christ are imputed unto us, when they are given and applied unto us, as if we ourselves had satisfied God. For translation, see The Works of John Owen, The Doctrine of Justification by Faith, General Considerations, ed. William H. Goold, (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, Third printing, 1977), vol. V, p. 56.
Latin text: Et hoc modo non esset absurdum, si quis diceret nobis imputari Christi justitiam et merita; cum nobis donentur et applicentur; ac si nos ipsi Deo satisfecissemus. Roberti Bellarmini, Opera Omnia, De Controversiis, Tomus Quartus, Pars Prima, De Justificatione (Neapoli: Apud Josephum Giuliano, 1858), Liber II, Caput 10, p. 523.

Bellarmine cannot deny this when he says that Christ can rightly be said to be made righteousness meritoriously "because he satisfied the Father for us, and gives and communicates that satisfaction to us, when he justifies us, so that he can be called our sanctification and righteousness, as if we ourselves had satisfied God" ("De Justificatione," 2.10 Opera [1858], 4:523). This he confirms on 2 Cor. 5:21: "The righteousness of Christ is imputed to us as to the satisfaction, which he made for us" (ibid., p. 524). Nor can that which our opponent adds in the same place help his cause when he says: "But not on this account can we be reckoned righteous, if the stains and corruption of sins truly inhere in us" (ibid.). For if the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us (as he had already confessed), then certainly we are considered righteous in him; for no one imputes righteousness to him whom he does not count righteous. And if the satisfaction of Christ is imputed to us, then our debts for which he satisfied are not imputed [to us], but are remitted. Falsely also he holds "that the righteousness inhering in us is here called the righteousness of God because it is given to us of God; or also because it is the image and effect of the righteousness of God" (ibid.). For the little clause "in him" stands in the way; for how could it be said to be in Christ, if it was in us? [Cardinal] Contarini acknowledges this: "The righteousness of God in him, since his righteousness is made ours, is given and imputed to us" (cf. "De Justificatione," Casparis Contareni Cardinalis Opera [1571], p. 592). 

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 2, pp. 652-53, Sixteenth Topic, Third Question, Section XVII, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1994)

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466) commenting on Psalm 22:1: Let it [i.e., the LXX] therefore heed John’s loud cry, “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world,” and the divinely inspired Paul’s words, “For us he made him to be sin who did not know sin so that we might become righteousness through him,” and again, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us.” So just as the one who was a fount of righteousness assumed our sin, and the one who was an ocean of blessing accepted a curse lying upon us, and scorning shame endured a cross, so too he uttered the words on our behalf. After all, if he willingly submitted to chastisement prescribed for us—“Chastisement of our peace is upon him,” the inspired author says—much more is it the case that it was on our behalf that he employed these words in our person, crying out, The words of my failings are far from saving me: do not have regard to the faults of nature, he is saying, but grant salvation in view of my sufferings. Robert C. Hill, The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 101, Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on the Psalms, 1-72 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2000), pp. 146-147.

Greek text: Ἀκουσάτωσαν τοίνυν Ἰωάννου τοῦ πάνυ βοῶντος· «Ἴδε ὁ Ἀμνὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου.» Τοῦ δὲ θεσπεσίου Παύλου λέγοντος·«Τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν, ἵνα ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη ἐν αὐτῷ.» Καὶ πάλιν· «Χριστὸς ἡμᾶς ἐξηγόρασεν ἐκ τῆς κατά ρας τοῦνόμου, γενόμενος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κατάρα.» Τοιγαροῦν ὥσπερ δικαιοσύνης ὑπάρχων πηγὴ, τὴν ἡμετέραν ἁμαρτίαν ἀνέλαβε, καὶ εὐλογίας ὢν πέλα γος, τὴν ἐπικειμένηνἡμῖν ἐδέξατο κατάραν, καὶ σταυρὸν ὑπέμεινεν αἰσχύνης καταφρονήσας· οὕτω καὶ τοὺς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐποιήσατο λόγους. Εἰ γὰρ τὴν ὡρισμένην ὑμῖν παιδείαν ὑπῆλθενἑκών· «Παιδεία γὰρ εἰρήνης ἡμῶν ἐπʼ αὐτὸν,» ᾗ φησιν ὁ προφήτης· πολλῷ μᾶλλον τοῖς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀνθʼ ἡμῶν ἐχρήσατο λόγοις, καὶ βοᾷ «Μακρὰν ἀπὸ τῆςσωτηρίας μου οἱ λόγοι τῶν παραπτωμάτων μου.» Μὴ ἀποβλέψῃς, φησὶν, εἰς τὰ τῆς φύσεως πλημμελήματα· ἀλλὰ δὸς τὴν σωτηρίαν διὰ τὰ ἐμὰ παθήματα. Interpretatio in Psalmos, Psalmi XXI, v. 1, PG 80:1012.

Addendum, thanks to Bruce McCormack's Justification in Perspective:

Ambrosiaster (fl. 4th century): This he says, that without the works of the law, to an impious person (that is, a Gentile) believing in Christ, his faith is imputed for righteousness, as it was to Abraham. How then can the Jews imagine that through the works of the law they are justified with Abraham's justification, when they see that Abraham was justified not from the works of the law, but by faith alone? Therefore there is no need of the law, since an impious person is justified with God through faith alone. Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Paul's Epistles, on Romans 4:5 (PL 17:86).

Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225): In short, faith in one of two gods cannot possibly admit us to the dispensation of the other, so that it should impute righteousness to those who believe in him, and make the just live through him, and declare the Gentiles to be his children through faith. Such a dispensation as this belongs wholly to Him through whose appointment it was already made known by the call of this self-same Abraham, as is conclusively shown by the natural meaning. Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book 5, Chapter 3 (see here).

The Real Turretin on Covenant of Grace and Covenant of Works in the Mosaic Covenant

Kerux, Volume 24, Number 3, p. 76, FN70 (Dennison et al.):

[O]ur editors have summarized Turretin as teaching that “the form of the Mosaic covenant was the covenant of works, but its substance was the covenant of grace” (12). This muddles Turretin’s otherwise careful distinctions regarding the administration of the covenant of grace under Moses, and oversimplifies his rather complex formulation. It is true that Turretin argues that the Mosaic administration contained a restatement of a “form of the covenant of works” to remind Israel of the broken covenant of works and to lead them to Christ (2:263). But Turretin later clarifies that by “form of the covenant of works,” he is referencing “the law in itself” apart from the Mosaic covenant (2:269). This he distinguishes from “the Mosaic covenant itself, in which the law was enacted” (ibid.). This administration included not only this “legal relation” but also an “evangelical relation,” which was “sweeter” in that it led them to Christ (2:227). Thus, Turretin calls this administration a “mixture of both the law and the Gospel” (2:263). As he says elsewhere: “And thus in sweet harmony the law and the gospel meet together in this covenant. The law is not administered without the gospel, nor is the gospel without the law. So that it is as it were a legal-gospel and an evangelical-law; a gospel full of obedience and a law full of faith” (2:268). In short, our editors summary of Turretin’s view of the Mosaic covenant is at best severely truncated, and at worst, misleading. It fails to grapple with Turretin’s own stated definitions, and oversimplifies Turretin’s complex (though very precise) views.

I don't post this comment to endorse it (I haven't carefully enough studied Turretin's relevant writings to form a conclusion), but simply as an interesting point worthy of further consideration. Turretin's careful distinctions are one of his principle advantages and following them is critically important in understanding his writing.

-TurretinFan

Turretin Resources

Dr. Matthew Barrett at Blogmatics kindly posted links to some resources relating to the real Francis Turretin. First, a pdf of a table of contents of Turretin. Second, an mp3 of Maurice Roberts describing "The Theology of Turretin." Barrett provides the following advice: "Read and digest Turretin. Let him be your tutor in Reformed theology."

Turretin on the Faith of Infants (Reasons - Part 1)

XIV. Rationes cur ita statuamus sunt: 1. Quia promissio Foederis non minus ad Infantes, quam ad Adultos pertinet; siquidem Deus pollicetur se fore Deum Abrahami, et seminis ejus, Ge. xvii.7, et, Act. ii. 39, promissio dicitur facta Patribus et Liberis. Ergo et beneficia Foederis, qualia sunt remissio peccatorum, et sanctificatio, ad eos pertinere debent, ex Jer. xxxi., xxxii., et pro statu ipsorum a Deo ipsis communicantur. Quo sensu juxta quosdam fidelium liberi dicuntur sancti Paulo, 1 Cor. vii. 14. Licent hoc melius referatur ad sanctitatem externam et foederalem quae illis competit, secundum quam, quia nascuntur ex parentibus foederatis et Christianis, saltem ex altero, censentur etiam in sanctitate geniti, id in Christianismo, et non in Ethnicismo, qui status erat ἀκαθαρσἱας et impuritatis.

XIV. The reasons are: (1) the promise of the covenant pertains no less to infants than to adults, since God promises that he will be "the God of Abraham and of his seed" (Gen. 17:7) and the promise is said to have been made "with the fathers and their children" (Acts 2:39). Therefore also the blessings of the covenant (such as "remission of sins" and "sanctification") ought to pertain to them (according to Jer. 31 and 32) and are communicated to them by God according to their state. In this sense (as some think), the children of believers are called "holy" by Paul (1 Cor. 7:14). This may with more propriety be referred to the external and federal holiness which belongs to them, according to which (because they are born of covenanted and Christian parents—at least of one) they are also considered to be begotten in "holiness" (i.e., in Christianity, and not in heathenism, which was a state of uncleanness [akatharsias] and impurity).

(source for English, including the other paragraphs of this question)

The above is taken from Turretin's Institutes, Volume 2, 15th Topic, 14th Question, 14th paragraph. One unfortunate error in Dennison's edition of Turretin's Institutes (in English) is that "Patribus et Liberis" has been placed in quotation marks (see English version above), when - in fact - it is not a quotation from Acts 2:39, but rather the sense of the text.

This is mostly being posted for a friend who wants the Latin, rather than to spark conversation (although, of course, if someone wants to comment on the faith that infants can have, they are welcome to do so).

-TurretinFan