To address this topic, my topic is John Calvin and text criticism. This is going to be much more general and less specific than Jeff's excellent previous presentation. The Textus Receptus emerged at the beginning of the Reformation period, of course, with the printing of the Greek texts of the New Testament in Erasmus' 1516 Novum Instrumentum. For the first time in the history of Christianity, the Greek texts of the New Testament achieved a standard printed form. The Textus Receptus became the text of choice among Protestant preachers, theologians, and scholars, including John Calvin of Geneva. Thus, it might rightly be called the Reformation text of the New Testament. In the 19th century, the reigning influence of the Texas Receptus was challenged with the publication of Karl Lachman's Greek New Testament in 1831. A more decisive blow came with the publication of Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament in 1881. The supposedly antiquated Texas Receptus was replaced by the modern critical text as the standard for both church and academy. This replacement, however, did not transpire without leaving some pockets of resistance. This has included the rise of interest in the so-called majority text or Byzantine text, and it has also included some Reformed Christians who have continued to prefer the Texas Receptus. Reformed advocates in particular have questioned the wisdom of jettisoning the Reformation texts of Luther, Tyndale, and Calvin for the modern critical text. In response to calls for return to the Reformation text, some modern critical text advocates have suggested that the foundational theologians and preachers of the Protestant Reformation era were largely unaware of many of the disputed textual passages in the Greek New Testament. They lived in the age before the discovery and publication of the great unsealed manuscripts and papyri. Thus, it is suggested that they naively used the printed editions of the Texas Receptive's Greek New Testaments out of convenience or ignorance rather than conviction. Such a perspective is evident in popular apologist James R. White's book, The King James Only Controversy. In assessing the claim that the TR was the preferred text of the Reformation or the text of the Reformers, White writes, Is this claim tenable though? Everyone admits that the Greek text utilized by Luther in his preaching and Calvin in his writing and teaching was what became known as the TR. But we must point out that they use this text by default, not by choice. In other words, it was not so much a matter of their rejecting other text types as it was a matter of using what was available. One cannot assert with any level of confidence that Calvin, were he alive today, would hold to the TR as the inspired text. In fact, there is good reason to think otherwise." A little bit later in King James' only controversy, he further asserts after a short review of Calvin's position. He says, the TR as the reformers text assertion is more than slightly misleading, especially if it is meant to indicate that they were particularly choosing the TR over against non-Byzantine texts such as those used in modern textual criticism. The simple fact is, this is continuing the quotation, the research and study into those texts had not yet sufficiently advanced to allow reformers to have a weighty opinion in matters that were not at the time under discussion. James White's assessment therefore is twofold. First, Calvin and the reformers used the Texas Receptus by default and not by particular choice. Second, major textual matters were not even discussed in the day of Calvin and his contemporaries. In this paper, I am going to briefly explore and challenge those assumptions and arguments by offering some references to Calvin's study of the Greek text of the New Testament and his exegetical treatment of several disputed passages. John Calvin was, of course, among the most significant and influential of the magisterial Protestant reformers. He was indeed the father of what we now call reformed theology, and he was a diligent student of the Bible. Historian Richard A. Muller notes that Calvin did not think of himself as a dogmatician in the modern sense of the term. Rather, like most of the other theologians of his time, he understood himself as a preacher and exegete, and he understood the primary work of his life as the exposition of scripture. Unlike Erasmus or Beza, Calvin did not produce his own printed edition of the Greek New Testament. Unlike Erasmus, he did not publish a complete Latin translation of the New Testament. Unlike Luther or Tyndale, neither did Calvin produce his own vernacular translation of the New Testament. His concern for the text of scripture and its proper translation came through his sermons, theological expositions, and most especially in his commentaries. Let's turn and consider for a few moments Calvin's view of the Greek text of the New Testament. I want to pose five quick questions and try to offer five responses to them. First of all, what prompted Calvin's interest in the Greek text? As I've already noted, his primary interest came in his creation of a translation of the Bible into Latin, which he made for his commentaries. It was incomplete because he didn't do commentaries on 2nd and 3rd John in Revelation. Otherwise, though, he did a Latin translation of the New Testament for the remaining books in the canon. T.H.L. Parker says this translation was carefully constructed, made with the help of the best technical tools at his disposal. Second question, how well did Calvin know the biblical languages? In his 2006 study entitled Calvin and the Biblical Languages, John D. Currid notes that at the start of the 16th century, the ancient Greek language was largely unknown in Europe. Calvin was among the early waves of students in France who began the study of Greek in the 1530s. Currid suggests that for his day, Calvin was an excellent Greek scholar, noting that his Hebrew was good, but his Greek was better. Third, which printed Greek text did Calvin use? Calvin nowhere explicitly divulges this information. Calvin's age, of course, witnessed the printing revolution, which we spoke about in the conference, and the proliferation of printed Greek New Testament texts, which of course began with Erasmus in 1516. Between 1516 and 1560, the year Calvin completed his New Testament commentaries, no less than 29 separate editions of the Greek New Testament had been published. Chief among these, of course, was Erasmus' text with its five editions in his lifetime. The Completion Polyglot, which was again printed in 1514 but not circulated until 1522. And then in 1534, Simon de Colenaes, or better known by his Latin name, Colenaes, printed his Greek New Testament, which Parker calls the most interesting and advanced 16th century Greek text. Colenaes' stepson and student, Robert Estienne, better known as Robertus Stephanus, or simply as Stephanus, in turn published three editions of the Greek New Testament, the last being the third edition in 1550. which was the first printed Greek text to include a critical apparatus with references to the Completention edition and 15 manuscripts including the 6th century Codex Besa and the 8th century Codex Regius. It is these printed editions that were likely available to Calvin. In his important 1971 study on Calvin's New Testament commentaries, T.H.L. Parker reported only two modern efforts preceding his own attempting to study Calvin's use of the printed text. There was an 1840 dissertation by D.G. Escher and a 1936 study by the Hungarian scholar Károly Erdős. Parker then sets out in 1971 to examine this question of what printed text did John Calvin use when he was writing his commentaries. As a result of his own analysis, Parker argued for a distinction between an early text and a later text that Calvin used in his work. He concluded that Calvin's basic text for his 1540 Romans commentary and for succeeding commentaries up to 1548 was the Colonnaeus Greek text of 1534. This was the text that was in some ways very similar to a modern critical text. Parker even exudes, quote, it is astonishing how modern Colonnaeus is. Nevertheless, for reasons never made completely clear, the later Calvin or mature Calvin apparently abandoned Colonius' text for the Texas Receptus as his preferred Greek text. Parker ultimately attributes this shift to a change in attitude in Calvin himself that arose from either his study of the New Testament or possibly came under the influence of others. And Parker believes that the most likely candidate to have influenced Calvin was Stephanus who moved to Geneva in 1550 and lived there until his death in 1558 I believe it was, 1559 he died. Fourth question, did Calvin also directly consult Greek manuscripts? In his pioneering 1962 article on the sources for Calvin's Latin New Testament translation, T.H.L. Parker judged the hypothesis that Calvin had actually examined Greek manuscripts at first hand as improbable, even though he would not rule it out, saying, we cannot say that it is impossible. As a postscript to that article, Parker adds that upon further study, he was, quote, more ready to believe that Calvin made use of Greek manuscripts at first hand. By the time Calvin wrote his 1971 book on Calvin's New Testament commentaries, he could more confidently assert, quote, there would be nothing inherently surprising in Calvin having worked with manuscripts. Fifth question, did Calvin engage in text criticism? John Currid notes that Calvin's prowess in the Greek language led to his great care in establishing what he thinks is the most reliable Greek text. Currid adds, he performed work in text criticism. He was well aware of variants and alternate Greek readings. He worked meticulously and diligently to establish the best text. Now, I want to turn to look at four representative passages from Calvin's commentaries to get a taste for how he treated some of the passages that remain among the most disputed in the New Testament. The first of these passages is the doxology of the Lord's Prayer, Matthew 6, 13b. The issue here, of course, regards the concluding doxology to the Lord's Prayer. For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen. Calvin was certainly aware of textual controversy regarding the doxology. In particular, he knew that it was omitted in the Latin versions, including the Vulgate, but included in many Greek copies. In his commentary on the passage, Calvin observes, quote, it is surprising that this clause, which agrees so well with the rest of the prayer, has been left out by the Latins. For it was not added merely for the purpose of kindling our hearts to seek the glory of God and of reminding us what ought to be the object of our prayers, but likewise to teach us that our prayers, which are here dictated to us, are founded on God alone, that we may not rely on our own merits, end quote. He also offers an exposition of the Lord's Prayer in the Institutes in Book 3, in which he says, even though this is not extant in the Latin versions, meaning the doxology, it is so appropriate to this place that it ought not to be omitted, namely, that his is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. The doxology, therefore, provides an example of a place where Calvin rejected the Latin Vulgate in favor of a reading supported by the Greek textual majority, and he does so also for theological reasons. The second example is the Pericope Adulteri, the woman caught in adultery passage, John 7.53-8.11. This is, of course, one of the two lengthiest passages under textual scrutiny in the New Testament. The other, of course, being the longer ending of Mark. With regard to the longer ending of Mark, Calvin does not comment directly on that passage. Of course, that might be unsurprising, given the fact that the longer ending of Mark is missing in only two extant Greek uncial manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, neither of which would have been available to Calvin in his day. Though Calvin was apparently very aware of textual issues relating to the woman caught in adultery. In his commentary, he says this, quote, it is plain enough that this passage was unknown anciently to the Greek churches and some conjecture that it has been brought from some other place and inserted here, end quote. This comment reflects Calvin's awareness of two important areas of concern with regard to the passage. First, he knows that it was omitted in a significant number of ancient Greek manuscripts. Second, he is aware of the conjecture that the Perikope Adulteri was a so-called floating tradition. Nevertheless, Calvin concludes, quote, but as it has always been received by the Latin churches and is found in many old Greek manuscripts and contains nothing unworthy of an apostolic spirit, there is no reason why we should refuse to apply it to our advantage, end quote. Note first the fact that Calvin's preference here is for the text that is best preserved in the Western Church in the Latin tradition, but he makes this judgment also based on the fact that the passage is supported by many extant Greek manuscripts. In addition, Calvin recognizes what he calls an apostolic spirit in the passage. which is consistent with the rest of John's Gospel and the New Testament as a whole. Calvin here anticipates the judgment of some modern text critics who have rejected the pericope adultery as an original part of John's Gospel, but who nevertheless suggest it preserves a memory of an historical event in the life of Jesus. The third passage, the so-called Mystery of Godliness passage, 1 Timothy 3.16. Here the question is whether the text should read, God was manifested in the flesh, as in the Textus Receptus, or He was manifested in the flesh, as in the Latin Vulgate, and also as it appeared in Erasmus' Latin text. Calvin makes clear his preference for the Texas Receptus reading. He begins by refuting the Latin versions. Quote, the vulgate translator by leaving out the name of God, refers what follows to the mystery, but altogether unskillfully and inappropriately, as will clearly be seen on a bare perusal, though he has Erasmus on his side, who, however, destroys the authority of his own views so that it is unnecessary for me to refute it. he proceeds to affirm the reading of the majority Greek copies. All the Greek copies, he says, undoubtedly agree in the rendering. God was manifested in the flesh. But granting that Paul did not express the name of God, still anyone who shall examine the whole matter, he says, will acknowledge that the name of Christ ought to be supplied. And so he says, I have no hesitation in following the reading which has been adopted in the Greek copies. Indeed, the key issue for Calvin with this passage is Christology, affirming an Orthodox Chalcedonian Christology. The fourth passage we'll look at is the Koma Yohaneum, 1 John 5, 7b through 8a, the so-called Three Heavenly Witnesses passage is one of the most disputed passages in the Texas Receptus. Rejected not only by the advocates of the modern critical text, but also by the advocates of the majority or Byzantine text. This much disputed passage was only added in in the third edition of Erasmus' Greek New Testament. Calvin was certainly aware of a serious dispute regarding this text. In his commentary on 1 John 5-7, he begins, the whole of this verse has been omitted by some. Jerome thinks that this happened through design rather than through mistake, and that indeed only on the part of the Latins. But even as the Greek copies do not agree, I dare not assert anything on the subject. Since, however, the passage flows better when this clause is added, and as I see that it is found in the best and most approved copies, I am inclined to receive it as the true reading." Again, we might wish that Calvin would have expanded upon his minimalist discussion. He does appeal to the church father Jerome and notes the possibility that the omission was intentional, probably for theological reasons. He also acknowledges that since what he calls the Greek copies do not agree, he does not believe that he can make an authoritative pronouncement based on the external evidence. I dare not assert anything on the subject, he writes. This does not mean, however, that Calvin is unwilling to draw any final conclusions. On the contrary, he turns to internal considerations, noting that the passage flows better when this clause is added. It is unclear exactly why, on the basis of an internal argument that he thought the Koma Yohaneum was appropriate, In later centuries, there will be an argument that will be put forward by Nolan and Robert Louis Dabney and others that based on gender agreement that the passage flows better with the Koma Yohaneum being retained. It would be an interesting speculation to think that Calvin thought about that, but it would in the end be only a speculation. Whatever his sources used in the deliberation on the text and his process, Calvin concludes that the passage is the true reading and accepts it as such despite its obvious challenges. Having looked briefly at those four passages as representative examples, let's turn and try to draw some conclusions about Calvin as a text critic. Let's begin by returning to the opening quotations that I gave you from a popular apologist, James R. White, and his challenge that the Texas Receptus should not be considered the Reformation text because the Protestant reformers, like Calvin, were, he says, largely unaware of and uninterested in textual issues within the Greek New Testament and that they only adopted the Texas Receptus by default and not by choice. I believe simply looking at Calvin's commentaries and looking at his comments on disputed passages within the Institutes demonstrate that White's assessment is grossly inaccurate. Calvin, for example, clearly did not have a naive or uninformed understanding of the text of the Greek New Testament. He clearly was well aware of many, if not most, of the major textual issues that continue to be discussed even in our day. His ultimate embrace of the Textus Receptus came only after measured and sophisticated study and deliberation. Here is one preliminary observation in my paper, I have three, but I'm just going to share one of them in light of time that we can make with regard to Calvin as a New Testament text critic. The mature Calvin generally affirmed and made use of readings from the Textus Receptus in line with the printed editions of Erasmus and Stephanus, though he was fully aware of the debates and disputes that existed regarding various textual difficulties and may have directly consulted Greek manuscripts which were available to him. In the early years of his commentary work, he made use of a printed text, the colonnades text, that in some ways anticipated the modern critical text. Nevertheless, he eventually rejected this text in favor of the Texas Receptus. At the conclusion of his significant study of Calvin's Greek text, T.H.L. Parker reflects on the historical impact of the mature Calvin's intentional embrace of the Texas Receptus and how this also might affect contemporary interpretations of Calvin himself. Parker observes, quote, most modern Calvin scholars would wish to disassociate Calvin from Calvinism, regarding Calvin as creative and fluid in his thinking and Calvinism as a systematized and hardened development. This development from the one to the other is frequently blamed on Beza. But in Calvin's retrogression, as Parker calls it, from Colonnaeus to the Texas Receptus, have we not an indication that the hardening was already taking place in Calvin himself? That therefore the older Calvin was already at least on the way to becoming the first Calvinist. If Parker is correct, One might suggest that Calvin's text criticism not only reflected his own mature convictions, but also shaped a doctrinal trajectory regarding scripture that is reflected in later Protestant dogmatic theology and articulated in the classic reformed confessions of faith. like the Westminster Confession of Faith and his daughter confession, the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689, which both insist in their opening chapter on scripture that the Bible is immediately inspired in the original languages and that its text has been kept pure and entire in all ages by the singular care and providence of God. These confessions and their related catechisms, of course, assume the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible and the Texas Receptus of the Greek New Testament as a confessional standard and, without embarrassment, cite such passages as 1 Timothy 3.16 and the Coma Iohaneum as proof texts to establish doctrines like the deity of Christ and the Trinity, much as Calvin did in his Institutes. This trajectory is further reflected in the bibliology of later theologians like John Owen and Francis Turretin, who focused their defense of the integrity of the divine original of scripture, as they called it, on its providential preservation in the extant apographa, or copies, rather than in a restorationist effort to recover the elusive and hypothetical autographs. The rise of modern text criticism influenced by the Enlightenment and the modern critical text in the 19th century and beyond, then might not only be considered a toppling of the Texas Receptus, but also a rejection of a distinctly Protestant, Reformed, and confessional approach to the text of Scripture that can be traced back to the Reformers themselves, including, rather, most notably to the text criticism of John Calvin. Thank you. Any questions? One minute. On the Jomana and Kama, one of his criteria was access to the best New Testament text or whatever. I can't remember. He didn't mention that. Well, again, his comments are fairly brief in the commentaries. He does refer to the coma also in the institutes. So I would say, first of all, he acknowledges that on external evidence that there's controversy over the Komeinoneum. But after acknowledging that, He makes the argument on internal grounds, I think for theological reasons also, to retain it, to affirm it. So you might present a hypothetical, well, what would Calvin say today? I don't know. I mean, we don't know. But I would say he knew there were problems with the coma in his day. I think he was well aware of the fact that there were problems with it. He for sure knew that Erasmus had added it. He had read Erasmus' annotation, discussion of it, and yet he affirmed it. I didn't get a chance to look at Colonius' New Testament, but apparently it does not include the Koma Yohaneum. So that's the one he used in his early years between 1540 and 1548. But in his later work, he intentionally chose to use the Texas Receptus, again, perhaps influenced by Beza, who obviously, or not Beza, but Stephanos, who included it in his editions. And perhaps they talked about it. Again, it's a speculation. Any final questions? Interacting with James White, he favors modern critical text. So would it be correct to say from what you've said that So that would knock out one of his many arguments that he does favor in the critical text. So you would be focusing on that one argument that he conveys for that. Would that be correct? Yeah. As I pointed out, he only touches on this briefly in the King James version only controversy, which is a popular work which has had a lot of influence in broad evangelicalism and people rejecting the King James Version and the text of Receptus and adopting the modern critical text and modern translations. So he has a discussion there where he sort of anticipates people who are confessionally reformed who favor the text of Receptus and who see the text of Receptus as the Reformation text. by, as of the citation that I gave, he argues Calvin only accepted the text receptus because this was the only thing he had in the printed text. He didn't really think about these issues. He was unaware of these issues. And so clearly, all you have to do is sit down and read Calvin's commentaries and you see that he was well aware of textual issues. And then I was struck when I read T.H.L. Parker's work that Parker's thesis is that Calvin made an intentional choice to embrace the TR. So there'll be an ongoing discussion with James White on whether or not, if you are confessionally reformed, is your views on the text of scripture a confessional issue? And I'm not sure how many people in here are familiar with confessional reform theology. I'm coming from a tradition where my church affirms the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, and Chapter 1 says we believe the scriptures are immediately inspired in the original languages, in Hebrew and Greek, and that they have been kept pure in all ages. by the providential care of God. I think there's a problem with people who are my fellow Reformed Baptists or confessional Presbyterian friends who have embraced the modern critical text and modern translations and not considered whether or not that is a confessional issue. That's a larger part that's behind this paper that wasn't necessarily explicitly stated. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time.