Dave Armstrong's Blog, page 23

Introduction to the Victorian King James Version of the New Testament: A “Selection” for Lovers of Elizabethan and Victorian Literature

Scottish Bible translator James Moffatt (1870-1944) 
[this Introduction runs 12 pages in the book]
I've often thought about (as an outgrowth of my great love for the Bible) a “fresh” version that would retain the grandeur and majesty of the Authorized / “King James” Version's1611 English.
The general idea of removing archaisms has basically been done in well-known and widely used translations (I myself always use RSV in my study and my books) and many other lesser-known translations (all revisions of the King James Bible, or revisions of revisions: ASV to NASB / RV to RSV / KJV to NKJV, etc.). The present work is a similar “hybrid”.
I don't know Greek, and am therefore not qualified in the slightest to actually translate. But I know English (as a professional author) and know the Bible (as a longtime Christian apologist) very well. This work, accordingly, isn't technically a new translation at all, but rather a “selection” or collection of what I personally felt were the best renderings that maintained the KJV style as much as possible without the archaisms.
This can't escape being my “subjective project” in that sense. I am the editor and determine the overall text, but (I can't emphasize this highly enough) I'm not translator of even a single word. This New Testament is the product of a selection of wording from among the chosen renderings of those who arelegitimate translators.
The main criticism or complaint will probably be that this work is presumptuous. It will be misunderstood by some, perhaps many, as to its vision and intent. I don't think it is presumptuous at all, though, if someone merely selects from among the many existing translations (all done by linguists and scholars) and comes up with a new hybrid entity with the goal stated upfront and made very clear: good English style and maintaining the KJV / Rheims Elizabethan “feel” while also emphasizing literalness of translation and understandability. I'm not claiming to be anything I am not; I'm just a lover of the Bible and good, classic, beautiful English writing.
I'm a great fan, specifically, of 18th and 19th century English prose (e.g., John Henry Newman, John Wesley,  G. K. Chesterton: all authors I've massively read and from whom I've collected quotes for published “quotable” books. I also enjoy authors who continue this stylistic tradition, like C. S. Lewis, Ronald Knox, Thomas Howard, and others. That sense of style in prose (insofar as I have been influenced by it) is the leading motif or influence in my modifying or “updating” the KJV language and style (mostly whole verses and/or sentences; occasionally individual words or phrases).
If I were merely to update the KJV, it would be doing something scarcely different from what has been done a dozen times or more. But in highlighting the “Victorian” style of 18th-19th century British literature and Bible translations, the project thus acquires a uniqueness.
This is the selling point: updating the KJV with a 19th century high Victorian style that would have some strong sense of stylistic similarity (or analogous excellence, if you will) to Elizabethan English. It would be, in a word, a Bible for lovers of great English literature (both Elizabethan and Victorian): not for everyone, but for those who already have this interest, as I do.
The overall goal is “literal translation with [in revised passages] 19th century English style and flowing, readable quality.” Passages that remain magnificent today in the KJV or the Rheims 1582 New Testament need not be changed, as long as they are still able to be sufficiently understood. Other phrases or words strange or altogether unknown to us now, will be modified by choosing from other translations from the “Victorian” time period or shortly after it: all from Englishmen or (in two cases) Scotsmen. No American translations will be utilized.
There are plenty of translations available that fit the bill for what I'm looking for, that are in the public domain (no copyright issues or conflicts). I have arrived at five that I'll be utilizing for alternate renderings (The Rheims New Testament provides an alternate “Elizabethan” translation in addition to the 1611 KJV):
1) Rheims New Testament (1582): the work principally of the Catholic priest Gregory Martin, with assistance from four other men.
2) Young's Literal Translation (revised version of 1887) by Scotsman Robert Young: the same person who produced an elaborate Bible concordance (1879).
3) Weymouth New Testament (1903): by Richard Francis Weymouth.
4) Twentieth Century New Testament (1904).
5) James Moffatt New Testament (1922): Moffatt was also a Scotsman.
My methodology, was to start with the KJV and Rheims New Testaments (the two “Elizabethan” ones), determine if one or the other was to be used, or else use another translation for passages that are archaic or different in meaning due to the evolution of English. Alternate renderings came from among the four additional scholarly translations above. By this method, only real, existing (and acclaimed) translations are utilized. Again; I didn't “translate” a single word; I couldn't, since I don't know Greek. I also consulted the RSV and NASB versions as “models” in cases where it was difficult to choose which version to use.
I need to note a few elements of my editing, before I present a summary of the translations utilized:
1) Quotations from the Old Testament will be italicized (the method that Moffatt uses), will retain the older (KJV / Rheims) style, in order to convey a sense of citing ancient literature, and will be followed by the listing of the Old Testament passage cited (utilizing NASB cross-references).
2) No quotation marks will be used (KJV style). Quotations will start with a capital letter, following a comma.
3) The only changes to existing texts that I will make at all will be to capitalization (e.g., Weymouth uses capitalized divine pronouns; I will not, following the practice most versions), or changing period to commas, etc., in order to make the text flow across verses.
4) Following the previous point, standardized proper names will be used, that are the most common (e.g., “Zebedee” rather than “Zebediah” or “Zabdi”: as some of the above versions render it). “Holy Spirit” will be used rather than “Holy Ghost.” I will change these in the text (but this can hardly be considered “translating” – since names often show variation).
5) The standard usage of “LORD” and “God” will be followed, rather than “Jehovah” or “Yahweh” or other alternate renderings.
The Authorized / King James Version of 1611 was translated by 47 men from the Church of England: all but one, clergymen, and most of the best biblical scholars in England. The text of the Bishops' Bible (1572) was the primary guide for the translators, and (secondarily) other approved translations: the Tyndale Bible (1536), Coverdale Bible (1535), Great Bible (1539), and (especially, after the Bishop's Bible), the Geneva Bible (1560).
In fact, the KJV Preface reveals that the translators regarded their work as a revision primarily of the Bishops' Bible, rather than a fresh translation:
. . . we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make a bad one a good one . . . but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark.
The New Testament portion was also stylistically influenced to a considerable extent by the Catholic Rheims New Testament, with the demonstrable adoption even of many of the former's extensive and colorful “Latinate” words.
It was revised in a “Cambridge edition” in 1760: the culmination of twenty years of work by biblical scholar Francis Sawyer Parris (1707-1760), incorporating about about 24,000 changes: mostly outdated spelling and punctuation, and archaic language (as it was regarded at that time). Benjamin Blayney (1728-1801), slightly modified this 1760 version at Oxford in 1769: the result being the standard text ever since (excepting a few more changes).
The KJV's profound influence on English language and literature is so well-known that it hardly needs to be mentioned. F. F. Bruce (1910-1990), the great biblical scholar, in his book, History of the Bible in English (Oxford University Press, 3rd edition, 1978, pp. 109-110), stated:
A study of its prose rhythms suggests that the men responsible for it (not only King James's revisers but their predecessors as far back as Tyndale) had an instinctive feeling for good style. . . Prose rhythms do not obtrude themselves on the notice of readers or hearers, but they make a powerful impression none the less. Harsh combinations of sounds or accents, on the other hand, produce a sense of distaste.
The Rheims New Testament (1582), like all Catholic versions until the 20th century, was a translation of St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate from the 5th century, though primary translator Gregory Martin “conferred” with Greek manuscripts as well, and his version shows particular awareness of subtle distinctions in the Greek past tense; moreover, Bruce noted (pp. 122-123) that its treatment of the Greek definite article was “more accurate” than that of the KJV. It also was influenced by the Protestant Tyndale translation and the earlier Wycliffe Bible.
It was greatly revised by Bishop Richard Challoner in 1750; drawing considerably from KJV style, as his “base text.” The result was a revised version – geared towards greater readability – that bore more similarity to the KJV than its own heavily “latinate” predecessor. Bruce describes a “profound influence . . . even more in the cadences of the language than in the vocabulary” (p. 125).  Young's Literal Translation, produced by Scottish Bible scholar Robert Young (1822-1888), fully lives up to its name. It's considered the most literal translation of the Bible available. The work was first published in 1862, but revised in 1887, in order to take into account the cutting-edge Westcott–Hort Greek text.
In the Preface to the second edition, the translator unequivocally states:
This inspiration extends only to the original text, as it came from the pens of the writers, not to any translations ever made by man, however aged, venerable, or good; and only in so far as any of these adhere to the original--neither adding to nor omitting from it one particle--are they of any real value, for, to the extent that they vary from the original, the doctrine of verbal inspiration is lost, so far as that version is concerned.
If a translation gives a present tensewhen the original gives a past, or a past when it has a present; a perfectfor a future, or a future for a perfect; an a for a the, or a the for an a; an imperative for a subjunctive, or a subjunctive for an imperative; a verbfor a noun, or a nounfor a verb, it is clear that verbal inspiration is as much overlooked as if it had no existence. THE WORD OF GOD IS MADE VOID BY THE TRADITIONS OF MEN. [emphasis in original] . . .
The following translation need not, and ought not, to be considered, in any sense, as coming into competition with the Common Version, but as one to be used in connection with it, and as auxiliary to it; and not a few assurances have been received from clergymen and others that they thus use it, and find it at once interesting and profitable.
F. F. Bruce describes it as “designed to put the English reader as far as possible on a level with the reader of the Hebrew and Greek texts” (p. 132).
The Twentieth Century New Testament (1904) was done by twenty British translators who weren't scholars in the field, but who knew koine Greek. These included wives of ministers, housewives, school teachers, telegraph engineers, and railroad workers. It's considered the first “modern English” Bible. F. F. Bruce marvels at it:
How they succeeded in producing such an excellent version is difficult to understand. In later years several scholars have been glad to avail themselves of interpretations and renderings suggested by this non-specialist effort. (p. 154)
The aims of the translators are made very clear in the Preface:
This translation of the New Testament is an endeavour to do for the English nation what has been done already for the people of almost all other countries to enable Englishmen to read the most important part of their Bible in that form of their own language which they themselves use. It had its origin in the recognition of the fact that the English of the Authorized Version (closely followed in that of the Revised Version), though widely valued for its antique charm, is in many passages difficult, or even quite unintelligible to the modern reader. The retention, too, of a form of English no longer in common use is liable to give the impression that the contents of the Bible have little to do with the life of today. . . .
We believe that the New Testament will be better understood by modern readers if presented in a modern form; and that a translation of it, which presents the original in an exalted literary and antiquated dress, cannot, despite its aroma and the tender memories that have gathered around it, really make the New Testament for the reader of to-day the living reality that it was to its first readers. . . .
Our constant effort, . . . has been to exclude all words and phrases not used in current English.
By contrast, Baptist linguist and classical scholar Richard Francis Weymouth (1822-1902) was the lone translator of the Modern Speech New Testament (1903): usually known today by his name. F. F. Bruce gives his opinion of the work:
. . . the translator had no other object in view than the rendering of the New Testament into dignified modern English, with no theological or ecclesiastical bias . . .
His “modern speech” is not ultra-modern; he had no objection to using archaic words provided that they were still understood at the beginning of the twentieth century. “Without at least a tinge of antiquity, it is scarcely possible that there should be that dignity of style that befits the sacred themes.” . . .
It was a good omen that the first years of this century should see two such admirable versions of the New Testament in good twentieth-century English. (pp. 157, 160)
Linguist, exegete, and Church historian James Moffatt (1870-1944), a Scotsman from Glasgow, produced the final revision of his New Testament in 1922, for his New Translation of the entire Bible. He wrote in a 1926 Introduction to his work:
The aim I have endeavoured to keep before my mind in making this translation has been to present the books of the Old and the New Testament in effective, intelligible English. No translation of an ancient classic can be quite intelligible, it is true, unless the reader is sufficiently acquainted with its environment to understand some of its flying allusions and characteristic metaphors. But something may be done and, I am convinced, ought to be done at the present day to offer the unlearned a transcript of the Biblical literature as it lies in the light thrown upon it by modern research. The Bible is not always what it seems to those who read it in the great prose of the English version, or, indeed, in any of the conventional versions. What it is, may be partly suggested by a new rendering, such as the following pages present, that is, a fresh translation of the original, not a revision of any English version.
And four years earlier in a Preface to his New Testament, he stated:
Any new translation starts under a special handicap. It appears to challenge in every line the rhythm and diction of an English classic, and this irritates many who have no knowledge of the original. The old, they say, is better. . . . But intelligibility is more than associations, and to atone in part for the loss of associations I have endeavoured to make the New Testament, especially St. Paul's epistles, as intelligible to a modern English reader as any version that is not a paraphrase can hope to make them.
F. F. Bruce is a great admirer of Moffatt's version as well:
Moffatt's translation is characterized by the freedom and vigour of his idiom . . . if a translator's business is to produce on his readers the same effect as the original text produced on those who read and heard it, Moffatt succeeded wonderfully; and this is part of the secret of the popularity of his version. (pp. 167-168)
. . . to read through . . . a New Testament epistle in his version is one of the best ways to get a grasp of the general argument. And people who have been brought up to know and love the A.V. [KJV] from infancy should consider that much of it sounds foreign to those who have not been brought up to appreciate its wording. To such people Moffatt undoubtedly has made the Bible message intelligible . . . (p. 171)
Moffatt makes many highly interesting observations about translation in general, and his own. In his last Preface to his complete Bible, from December 1934, he wrote:
. . . any translator has a deep sense of responsibility. . . . He desires his transcript to be faithful to the meaning of the original, so far as he can reach that meaning, and also to do some justice to its literary qualities. But he is well aware that his aim often exceeds his grasp. Translation may be a fascinating task, yet no discipline is more humbling.
In the 39-page Introduction to the 1926 edition of the New Translation of the Bible, Moffatt continues his thought-provoking reflections:
To the best of my ability, I have tried to be exact and idiomatic. . . .
Gradually but steadily the English version of 1611 won the power and prestige of a classic. For one thing, it was literature, as none of its predecessors were, not even Tyndale nor the Douai version. “How real a creation,” says Newman [in The Idea of a University] how sui generis, is the style of Shakespeare, or of the Protestant Bible and Prayer Book, or of Swift, or of Pope, or of Gibbon, or of Johnson! Even were the subject-matter without meaning, though in truth the style cannot really be abstracted from the sense, still the style would, on that supposition, remain as perfect and original a work as Euclid's elements or a symphony of Beethoven. And, like music, it has seized upon the public mind.” Yes, the style of the English version has been creative as well as a creation. It has entered into the literature and language of the English-speaking race. For once, a committee produced a classic. . . .
Let the version remain an English classic. But let us be certain about the truth of what it translates. There is a truth in beauty of style, but there is a beauty in truth, and whatever we may lose in parting with an English classic, we gain more by contact with the actual meaning of the original, of which this classic seems to be not quite a perfect representation. Besides, the Bible was originally written for common people in their own language. . . .
The archaisms of a masterpiece in Elizabethan prose had become either unintelligible or misleading. . . .
Finally, Moffatt (perhaps surprisingly for a non-Catholic scholar with a theologically liberal bent) acknowledges the high importance of the Latin Vulgate as a source in translation (which ties into the fact that the Rheims version – prominent in this present work – was a translation of the Vulgate):
. . . the Vulgate is important . . . as it was made before any of our extant manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, and made from materials that in some cases go back to the second century, perhaps even from some Greek manuscripts which no longer exist, it is indispensable as an aid to the task of ascertaining the original Greek text as that was read in North Africa at any rate during the second century. A translation will often show what the text of its original must have been, in a case of dispute. This Latin version of Jerome, then, along with the Syriac versions which go back to the third century at least, must be reckoned of first-rate importance.
In summary, the common thread throughout this Bible is my selection (as editor) – for individual verses – of either the KJV or Rheims or else alternate renderings from the other four versions of the New Testament listed and described above. The final product obviously reflects my taste in prose and style, but the (rather high and ambitious) goal is for it to be (hopefully) a New Testament characterized by a blending of the grandeur and majesty of both Elizabethan and Victorian prose.
I seek to put beauty and style in the forefront, while preserving literal translations. I aim to produce (as editor) a New Testament that accurately conveys the original language, and one that is theologically orthodox and beautiful: in the 19th century English high Victorian style, combined with unchanged beautiful, majestic Elizabethan style, in passages that are still able to be understood by today's readers. 
[Note:  The selections for Mark, chapters 1-4 are presented in a separate post, along with source analysis].

* * * * * 
 

Victorian King James Version: "Selection" for the Gospel of Mark, with Source Information for Chapters 1-4

 Original Frontispiece for the Authorized "King James" Version of 1611.

Read the Introduction for an explanation of this New Testament "selection" (rather than translation).



The Gospel According to
MARK

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; 2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. [Mal 3:1]CHAPTER 2
And again he entered into Capernaum after some days, and it was heard that he was in the house;

CHAPTER 3
And he entered again into the synagogue, and there was a man there who had a withered hand. CHAPTER 4
  
CHAPTER 5
And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes. 2 And as soon as he stepped out of the boat a man from the tombs came to meet him, a man with an unclean spirit 3 who had his dwelling in the tombs, and no man now could bind him, not even with chains. 4 For having been often bound with fetters and chains, he had burst the chains, and broken the fetters in pieces, and no one could tame him. 5 And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones. 6 But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him, 7 shrieking aloud, Jesus, son of God most High, what business have you with me? By God, I adjure you, do not torment me. 8 (For he had said, Come out of the man, you unclean spirit.) 9 And he was questioning him, What is your name? and he answered, saying, Legion is my name, because we are many. 10 And they begged him earnestly not to send them out of the country. 11 And there was there near the mountain a great herd of swine, feeding. 12 And the spirits besought him, saying: Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them. 13 And Jesus immediately gave them leave. And the unclean spirits going out, entered into the swine: and the herd with great violence was carried headlong into the sea, being about two thousand, and were drowned in the sea. 14 The herdsmen fled and reported it to the town and the hamlets. So the people came to see what had happened, 15 and when they reached Jesus they saw the demoniac sitting down, clothed and in his right mind — the man who had been possessed by Legion, and they were afraid. CHAPTER 6
And going out from thence, he went into his own country; and his disciples followed him. 2 And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, Where did he get all this? and what wisdom is this that is given to him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands? CHAPTER 7
And there assembled together unto him the Pharisees and some of the scribes, coming from Jerusalem. 2 And when they had seen some of his disciples eat bread with common, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault. 3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews eat not without often washing their hands, holding the tradition of the ancients: 4 And when they come from the market, unless they be washed, they eat not: and many other things there are that have been delivered to them to observe, the washings of cups and of pots, and of brazen vessels, and of beds. 5 Then the Pharisees and scribes put this question to him, Why do your disciples not follow the tradition of the elders? Why do they take their food with common hands? 6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Isaiah prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. CHAPTER 8
In those days, when a large crowd had again gathered and when they had nothing to eat, he called the disciples and said to them, CHAPTER 9
[Verses 44 and 46 are not found in the best ancient manuscripts, and merely repeat verse 48]
CHAPTER 10
On leaving that place, Jesus went into the district of Judea on the other side of the Jordan. Crowds gathered about him again; and again, as usual, he began teaching them. 2 Presently some Pharisees came up and, to test him, asked, Has a husband the right to divorce his wife? 3 And he answered and said to them, What did Moses command you? CHAPTER 11
And when they were drawing near to Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount of Olives, he sent forth two of his disciples, 2 saying to them, Go to the village in front of you. As soon as you enter it you will find a colt tethered, on which no one has ever sat; untether it and bring it here. 3 If anyone asks you, Why are you doing that? Say that the Lord needs it, and he will send it back immediately. 4 So they went and found a young colt tied up at the front door of a house. They untethered it;5 but some of the bystanders said to them, What do you mean by untethering that colt? 6 So they answered as Jesus had told them, and the men allowed them to go. 7 And they brought the colt to Jesus; and they lay their garments on him, and he sat upon him. 8 Then many spread their outer garments to carpet the road, and others leafy branches which they had cut down in the fields; 9 and both those in front and those who followed cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. [Ps 118:26]10 Blessed be the kingdom of our father David: Hosanna in the highest. 11 And he entered into Jerusalem, into the temple: and having viewed all things round about, it now being evening, he went out to Bethany with the twelve. 12 And the next day when they came out from Bethany, he was hungry, 13 and noticing a fig tree in leaf some distance away he went to see if he could find anything on it; but when he reached it he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the time for figs. 14 Then he said to it, May no one ever eat fruit from you after this! The disciples heard him say it. 15 Then they came to Jerusalem, and entering the temple he proceeded to drive out those who were buying and selling inside the temple; he overthrew the tables of the money-changers and the stools of those who sold doves, 16 and would not allow anyone to carry a vessel through the temple; 17 And he taught, saying to them: Is it not written, My house shall be called the house of prayer to all nations? [Is 56:7] But you have made it a den of thieves. [Jer 7:11]18 This came to the ears of the scribes and high priests, and they tried to get him put to death, for they were afraid of him. But the multitude were all astounded at his teaching. 19 And when evening came he went outside the city. 20 And when they passed by in the morning they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots. [the best manuscripts do not contain verse 26]
CHAPTER 12
And Jesus began to speak to them in parables: A man once planted a vineyard, put a fence round it, dug a wine-press, built a tower, and then let it out to tenants and went abroad. 2 At the proper time he sent a servant to the tenants, to receive from them a share of the produce of the vintage; And as he was going out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him: Master, behold what manner of stones and what buildings are here. 2 And Jesus answering said unto him, You see these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. CHAPTER 14
CHAPTER 15
[verse 28 is not in the best manuscripts]
CHAPTER 16
[some of the most ancient manuscripts do not contain verses 9-20]

* * * * *

I kept track of which versions I utilized (whole verses or most of a verse), for the first four chapters of the Gospel of Mark:

King James (AV): 41 verses (27% of 149 verses)
Rheims NT: 39 (26%)
Weymouth: 25 (17%)
20th Century NT 21 (14%)
Moffatt 13 (9%)
Young's Literal Translation 10 (7%)

This shows clearly that I am drawing from all these sources, and seeking for the "best" renderings of each passage, according to stylistic considerations and the desire to retain the "feel" of "King James / Rheims" English, while updating awkward phrases and archaisms in it. A full 53% of the work (a majority of all passages) -- at least in these chapters -- remains King James / Rheims, with the remaining 47% is a revision of Elizabethan language in some fashion. I suspect that a similar ratio will pertain to the rest of the New Testament.


* * * * *

Victorian King James Version: Translations and Sources for Mark, Chapters 1-4

 Original Frontispiece for the Authorized "King James" Version of 1611.

See the paper introducing the concepts behind this New Testament "selection" (rather than translation).


The Gospel According to
MARK


The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; 2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. [Mal 3:1]CHAPTER 2
And again he entered into Capernaum after some days, and it was heard that he was in the house;
CHAPTER 3
And he entered again into the synagogue, and there was a man there who had a withered hand. CHAPTER 4
 * * * * *

I kept track of which versions I utilized (whole verses or most of a verse), for the first four chapters of the Gospel of Mark:

King James (AV): 41 verses (27% of 149 verses)
Rheims NT: 39 (26%)
Weymouth: 25 (17%)
20th Century NT 21 (14%)
Moffatt 13 (9%)
Young's Literal Translation 10 (7%)

This shows clearly that I am drawing from all these sources, and seeking for the "best" renderings of each passage, according to stylistic considerations and the desire to retain the "feel" of "King James / Rheims" English, while updating awkward phrases and archaisms in it. A full 53% of the work (a majority of all passages) thus far remains King James / Rheims, with the remaining 47% is a revision of Elizabethan language in some fashion.


* * * * *

Victorian King James Version: Translations and Sources for Mark, Chapters 1-2

 Original Frontispiece for the Authorized "King James" Version of 1611.

See the paper introducing the concepts behind this New Testament "selection" (rather than translation).


The Gospel According to
MARK


The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; 2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. [Mal 3:1]CHAPTER 2
And again he entered into Capernaum after some days, and it was heard that he was in the house; * * * * *

I kept track of which versions I utilized (whole verses or most of a verse), for Mark, chapters 1 and 2:

King James (AV) 18 (25%)
Weymouth 16 verses (22%)
20th Century NT 13 (18%)
Rheims NT 9 (12%)
Moffatt 8 (11%)
Young's Literal Translation 6 (8%)
Rotherham's Emphasized 3 (4%)

This shows clearly that I am drawing from all these sources, and seeking for the "best" renderings of each passage, according to stylistic considerations and the desire to retain the "feel" of "King James / Rheims" English, while updating awkward phrases and archaisms in it. 37% of the work thus far remains King James / Rheims, with the remaining 63% is a revision of Elizabethan language in some fashion.


* * * * *

Genesis of an Idea (No Pun Intended): "The Victorian King James Version" of the New Testament

Scottish Bible translator James Moffatt (1870-1944) 
Full title: Victorian King James Version of the New Testament:  A “Selection” for Lovers of  Elizabethan and Victorian  Literature


I've often thought about (as an outgrowth of my great love for the Bible) a "fresh" version that combines the grandeur and majesty of the King James 17th century English (1611, though revised in 1769 in about 24,000 places by Benjamin Blayney, removing mostly outdated spelling and punctuation) with the archaisms taken out. The "Authorized Version" of 1611 was translated by 47 men from the Church of England: all but one, clergy.

The general idea of removing archaisms has basically been done in well-known and widely used translations (I myself always use RSV in my study and my books) and many other lesser-known translations (all revisions of the King James, or revisions of revisions: ASV to NASB / RV to RSV / KJV to NKJV, etc.). Mine would be a similar "hybrid" -- but with my own stylistic taste the key distinctive or unifying factor.

I don't know Greek, and am therefore not qualified in the slightest to actually translate. But I know English and know the Bible well. This (accordingly) wouldn't technically be a new translation at all, but rather a "selection" or collection of what I personally felt were the best renderings that maintained the KJV style as much as possible without the archaisms. This can't escape being my "subjective project" in that sense. I'd be the editor, but not translator of even a single word.

I would select based on style and my own understanding (be what it may) of the meaning of Bible passages, but the point would be a selection of wording from among the chosen renderings of those who are legitimate translators.

The main complaint would probably be that it was presumptuous. It will be misunderstood by some, perhaps many, as to its vision and intent. I don't think it is presumptuous at all, though, if someone merely selects from among the many existing translations (all done by linguists and scholars) and comes up with a new hybrid entity with the goal stated upfront and made very clear: good English style (at least in my opinion!) and maintaining the KJV "feel" while also emphasizing literalness of translation and understandability. It is what it is, and folks may love it or hate it, but it's not presumptuous! I'm not claiming to be anything I am not: just a lover of the Bible and good, classic, beautiful English writing.

I'm a great fan, specifically, of 17th and 18th century English prose (e.g., Newman, Wesley, Chesterton: all folks I've massively read and from whom I've collected quotes for books [the links I just made] ), and those who continue this stylistic tradition, like Lewis, Tolkien, Knox, Thomas Howard and others. That sense of style in prose (insofar as I have been influenced by it) would be the leading motif or influence in modifying or "updating" the KJV language and style (mostly whole verses and/or sentences; occasionally individual words or phrases).

In fact, in mulling this over tonight and reflecting on feedback from a prior Facebook post (this paper is a revision of my initial posting), it all came together for me in a flash. If I were merely to update the KJV, it would be doing something scarcely different from what has been done a dozen times or more. But if I highlighted the "Victorian" style of 18th-19th century British literature, that would bring a uniqueness to the project that would, I believe, make it worthwhile spending the great deal of time it will require.

Such a New Testament would combine my love for the Bible (especially KJV style) and also my great love of the English writers from the 1700s and 1800s and those highly influenced by them (Newman, Chesterton, and Lewis are my three favorite writers). This is what would be the selling point: updating the KJV with a 19th century high Victorian style that would have some strong sense of stylistic similarity (or analogous excellence, if you will) to Elizabethan English. It would be, in a word, a Bible for lovers of great English literature: not for everyone, but for those who already have this love, as I do.

The overall goal would be "literal translation with [in revised passages] 19th century English style and flowing, readable quality". Passages that remain magnificent today in the KJV need not be changed, as long as they are still able to be sufficiently understood. Other phrases or words strange or altogether unknown to us now, will be modified by choosing from other translations from the "Victorian" time period or shortly after it: all from Englishmen or (in two cases) Scotsmen. No American translations will be consulted.

There are plenty of translations available that fit the bill for what I'm looking for, that are in the public domain (no copyright issues or conflicts). I have arrived at six that I'll be utilizing for alternate renderings (The Catholic Rheims New Testament provides an alternate "Elizabethan" 1582 translation in addition to the 1611 KJV):

Rheims New Testament (1582, the work principally of Gregory Martin [1542-1582], with assistance from four other men; heavily revised by Bishop Richard Challoner in 1750; drawing considerably from KJV style, with which he was familiar, being a convert)

Young's Literal Translation (rev. 1898) by Scotsman Robert Young: the same person who did the elaborate Bible concordance (1879).

Rotherham's Emphasized Bible (rev. 1902; by Joseph Robert Rotherham)

20th Century New Testament (1904; done by 20 British translators who weren't scholars in the field, but who knew koine Greek)

Weymouth New Testament (1912; by Richard Francis Weymouth)

James Moffatt New Testament (1922: the other Scotsman in the group)

The methodology, then, is to start with the KJV, determine passages that are archaic or changed in meaning due to the evolution of English (a fairly easy thing to do), and select alternate renderings from the six scholarly translations above (not as easy but not all that difficult, either). By this method, only real, existing (and acclaimed) translations are utilized. Again; I won't be "translating" -- or claiming to translate -- a single word; I couldn't, since I don't know Greek.

The common thread throughout, therefore, is my selection of alternate renderings (i.e., being an editor as I have been in many of my books), so the final product will obviously reflect my taste in prose and stylistic tendencies: and it winds up being (hopefully) a beautiful blending of Elizabethan and Victorian prose. That's the goal: a rather high and ambitious one (I love challenges!). Beauty and style are in the forefront, while seeking literal translations as close as possible to the manuscripts. I aim to produce a New Testament equally accurate to the original language [thus, theologically orthodox] and beautiful: in the 19th-century English high Victorian style, where it is not unchanged beautiful, majestic Elizabethan style.

The selections for Mark, chapters 1-2 are presented in a separate post, along with source analysis.



* * * * *

Genesis of an Idea (No Pun Intended): "The Victorian King James Version" New Testament

Scottish Bible translator James Moffatt (1870-1944) 

I've often thought about (as an outgrowth of my great love for the Bible) a "fresh" version that combines the grandeur and majesty of the King James 17th century English (1611, though slightly revised in 1769; removing mostly outdated spelling) with the archaisms taken out. The general idea has basically been done in well-known and widely used translations (I myself always use RSV in my study and my books) and many other lesser-known translations (all revisions of the King James, or revisions of revisions: ASV----> NASB / RV----> RSV / KJV----> NKJV, etc.). Mine would be a similar "hybrid" -- but with my own stylistic taste the key distinctive or unifying factor.

I don't know Greek, and am therefore not qualified in the slightest to actually translate. But I know English and know the Bible well. This (accordingly) wouldn't technically be a new translation at all, but rather a "selection" or collection of what I personally felt were the best renderings that maintained the KJV style as much as possible without the archaisms. This can't escape being my "subjective project" in that sense. I'd be the editor, but not translator of even a single word.

I would select based on style and my own understanding (be what it may) of the meaning of Bible passages, but the point would be a selection of wording from among the chosen renderings of those who are legitimate translators.

The main complaint would probably be that it was presumptuous. It will be misunderstood by some, perhaps many, as to its vision and intent. I don't think it is presumptuous at all, though, if someone merely selects from among the many existing translations (all done by linguists and scholars) and comes up with a new hybrid entity with the goal stated upfront and made very clear: good English style (at least in my opinion!) and maintaining the KJV "feel" while also emphasizing literalness of translation and understandability. It is what it is, and folks may love it or hate it, but it's not presumptuous! I'm not claiming to be anything I am not: just a lover of the Bible and good, classic, beautiful English writing.

I'm a great fan, specifically, of 17th and 18th century English prose (e.g., Newman, Wesley, Chesterton: all folks I've massively read and from whom I've collected quotes for books [the links I just made] ), and those who continue this stylistic tradition, like Lewis, Tolkien, Knox, Thomas Howard and others. That sense of style in prose (insofar as I have been influenced by it) would be the leading motif or influence in modifying or "updating" the KJV language and style (mostly for individual words; occasionally whole sentences).

In fact, in mulling this over tonight and reflecting on feedback from a prior Facebook post (this paper is a revision of my initial posting), it all came together for me in a flash. If I were merely to update the KJV, it would be doing something scarcely different from what has been done a dozen times or more. But if I highlighted the "Victorian" style of 18th-19th century British literature, that would bring a uniqueness to the project that would, I believe, make it worthwhile spending the great deal of time it will require.

Such a New Testament would combine my love for the Bible (especially KJV style) and also my great love of the English writers from the 1700s and 1800s and those highly influenced by them (Newman, Chesterton, and Lewis are my three favorite writers). This is what would be the selling point: updating the KJV with a 19th century high Victorian style that would have some strong sense of stylistic similarity (or analogous excellence, if you will) to Elizabethan English. It would be, in a word, a Bible for lovers of great English literature: not for everyone, but for those who already have this love, as I do.

The overall goal would be "literal translation with [in revised passages] 19th century English style and flowing, readable quality". Passages that remain magnificent today in the KJV need not be changed, as long as they are still able to be sufficiently understood. Other phrases or words strange or altogether unknown to us now, will be modified by choosing from other translations from the "Victorian" time period or shortly after it: all from Englishmen or (in two cases) Scotsmen. No American translations will be consulted.

There are plenty of translations available that fit the bill for what I'm looking for, that are in the public domain (no copyright issues or conflicts). I have arrived at seven that I'll be utilizing for alternate renderings:

John Wesley translation (1755; by the great founder of Methodism)

Revised Version (1881; done by over 50 British scholars from various denominations)

Young's Literal Translation (rev. 1898) by Scotsman Robert Young: the same person who did the elaborate Bible concordance (1879).

Rotherham's Emphasized Bible (rev. 1902; by Joseph Robert Rotherham)

20th Century New Testament (1904; done by 20 British translators who weren't scholars in the field, but who knew koine Greek)

Weymouth New Testament (1912; by Richard Francis Weymouth)

James Moffatt New Testament (1922: the other Scotsman in the group)

The methodology, then, is to start with the KJV, determine passages that are archaic or changed in meaning due to the evolution of English (a fairly easy thing to do), and select alternate renderings from the seven scholarly translations above (not as easy but not all that difficult, either). By this method, only real, existing (and acclaimed) translations are utilized. Again; I won't be "translating" -- or claiming to translate -- a single word; I couldn't, since I don't know Greek.

The common thread throughout, therefore, is my selection of alternate renderings (i.e., being an editor as I have been in many of my books), so the final product will obviously reflect my taste in prose and stylistic tendencies: and it winds up being (hopefully) a beautiful blending of Elizabethan and Victorian prose. That's the goal: a rather high and ambitious one (I love challenges!). Beauty and style are in the forefront, while seeking literal translations as close as possible to the manuscripts. I aim to produce a New Testament equally accurate to the original language [thus, theologically orthodox] and beautiful: in the 19th-century English high Victorian style where it is not unchanged beautiful, majestic Elizabethan style.



* * * * *

David T. King and William Webster: Out-of-Context or Hyper-Selective Quotations from the Church Fathers on Christian Authority: Part II: St. Basil the Great

   See the Introduction for the background to this series.
In Vol. III, King and Webster provide us with a litany of Scripture-praising proclamations from St. Basil (329-379): none of which differ in the slightest from Catholic belief. In their section on material sufficiency (pp. 70-72), the following statements are found:

. . . we have determined . . . to avoid now and always every utterance and sentiment not found in the Lord's teaching . . . our thoughts derive from the Scriptures . . . (Fathers of the Church, Vol. IX, Concerning Faith)

. . . what is in harmony with the Scriptures, what is not in opposition to the Fathers. (Homily 24, NPNF2)

Here even Webster and King include a passage that shows two legs of the Catholic "three-legged stool": Scripture and the fathers (i.e., tradition). Good for them: they actually included (almost despite themselves) a passage about apostolic tradition (!!!).

. . . each one should learn that which is useful from the inspired Scripture . . . that he may not be accustomed to human traditions. (Regulae Brevius Tractate, Interrogatio et Responsio XCV; translation by William Goode, Vol. III, p. 132)

. . . fearing lest he should either speak or order anything beyond the will of God as declared in the Scriptures . . . (Ibid., XCVIII; Vol. III, p. 132)

. . . every word and deed should be ratified by the testimony of the Holy Scripture . . . (Fathers of the Church, Vol. IX, The Morals, Rule 26; cited again in Vol. III, 143-144)

. . . in conformity with the Scriptures and rejecting what is opposed to them . . . (Fathers of the Church, Vol. IX, The Morals, Rule 72, pp. 185-186; cited again in Vol. III, 144)

. . . everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin. (Fathers of the Church, Vol. IX, The Morals, Rule 80, Cap. 22, pp. 203-204)

. . . let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth. (Letter 189, NPNF2, Vol. VIII)

We have no beef with all this, so there is no need for further comment. We simply add that the fathers, including St. Basil, do not oppose Scripture to the binding authority of the Church and apostolic tradition: all are regarded as perfectly harmonious and complementary. Since Webster and King exclude the many references to such authority other than the Bible, it's left to me to fill that gap and give the whole picture.

In their chapter three: "The Perspicuity of Scripture," Webster and King provide some of St. Basil's statements along those lines (pp. 185-186):

Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right. (Letter 283; NPNF2, Vol. VIII)

It is this which those seem to me not to have understood, who, giving themselves up to the distorted meaning of allegory, have undertaken to give a majesty of their own invention to Scripture. It is to believe themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and to bring forth their own ideas under a pretext of exegesis. Let us hear Scripture as it has been written. (Hexaemeron, Homily 9: The Creation of Terrestrial Animals 1; NPNF2, Vol. VIII)  

Note that allegory as a method of hermeneutics is not rejected (as many Protestants do, or largely do), but rather, "the distorted meaning of allegory."

All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful, composed by the Spirit for this reason, namely, that we men, each and all of us, as if in a general hospital for souls, may select the remedy for his own condition. (Fathers of the Church, Vol. 46: Homily 17 on Psalm 44; p. 283)

More is offered in chapter four: "The Self-Interpreting Nature of Scripture" (p. 245 for Basil):

. . . let us obey the Lord who says: 'Search the Scriptures.' Let us follow the example of the Apostles who questioned the Lord Himself as top the interpretation of His words, and learn the true and salutary course from His words in another place. (Fathers of the Church, Vol. IX, Concerning Baptism, Book II, Q&R 4, p. 399)

Whatsoever seems to be spoken ambiguously or obscurely in some places of holy Scripture, is cleared up by what is plain and evident in other places. (Regulae Brevius Tractate, Interrogatio 267; translation by William Whitaker, in his Disputation on Holy Scripture [Cambridge University Press: 1849, p. 491] )

And again in chapter six: "The Necessity for Diligent Personal Study of Scripture" (p. 287 for Basil) they cite the following:

The study of inspired Scripture is the chief way of finding our duty . . . (Letter 2 [3]; NPNF2, Vol. VIII)

Read your Bible carefully, and you will find the answer to your question there. (Letter 188; NPNF2, Vol. VIII; repeated on Webster and King's p. 302)

. . . one who examines each word minutely can gain a very accurate knowledge of the meaning of the Holy Scripture, so that there is no excuse of any of us being led astray . . . (Fathers of the Church, Vol. IX, Preface on the Judgment of God, p. 48)

That gives us a thorough survey of St. Basil's view of Scripture. No problem for Catholics here at all. But there is a huge problem for sola Scriptura Protestants, when we also look at what Basil wrote about tradition, including oral tradition, and the Church. So why don't we take a few minutes to examine the whole picture now, rather than a slanted, one-sided presentation for polemical purposes, that deliberately ignores all of this other relevant data (which amounts -- I would argue -- to sophistry and half-truth).

Much of the following was documented in August 2003 during a debate on the same topic with ant-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer, (originally promoted and held in the anti-Catholic CARM forum: Jason split -- with the obligatory insults -- long before it was over: a rather common occurrence for anti-Catholics) and has been available on my website or blog ever since. Additional material comes from my recent book: The Quotable Eastern Church Fathers . None of this is "new stuff" for me; it's "old ground."

The new thing in this paper is to demonstrate how Webster and King are so absurdly hyper-selective in their presentation. It's the game they play throughout their three-volume work, which is unworthy of any Christian who seeks to be honest about what the Church fathers taught, regardless of how consistent the results are with their own belief-system (while they accuse Catholics many times in the set of this same sort of historical dishonesty). Many Protestant scholars and historians routinely present the true facts (one need not be Catholic or Orthodox to be honest and truthful about patristic beliefs); but, sadly, anti-Catholic polemicists like Webster and King -- who have a distinct agenda -- do not.

To give just one example of an honest Protestant scholar, writing on our topic, J. N. D. Kelly -- someone cited by Webster and King --, stated about St. Basil and tradition:

. . . Basil made the liturgical custom of baptizing in the threefold name a pivot in his argument for the coequality of the Spirit with Father and Son, pleading that the apostolic witness was conveyed to the Church in the mysteries as well as in Scripture, and that it was apostolic to abide by this unwritten tradition.

(Early Christian Doctrines, HarperSanFrancisco: revised edition of 1978, 45; footnotes to the primary work: The Holy Spirit, 26; 28; 66-67; 71)

Now, wouldn't those passages in St. Basil the Great be relevant to the question of his views on authority and (supposedly his acceptance of) sola Scriptura? Certainly so; yet Webster and King deemed them not relevant enough to include in their "survey." They wouldn't fit with the plan, you see . . . The real Basil is so much a proponent of apostolic tradition that he says the enemies of the faith are those who want to destroy it:

The one aim of the whole band of opponents and enemies of “sound doctrine” is to shake down the foundation of the faith of Christ by levelling apostolic tradition with the ground, and utterly destroying it. (The Holy Spirit, 25; NPNF2-8)

He doesn't pit Scrpture and tradition  and Church against each other at all, but rather, appeals to them all interchangeably (the Catholic "three-legged stool" of authority): 

What our fathers said, the same say we, that the glory of the Father and of the Son is common; wherefore we offer the doxology to the Father with the Son. But we do not rest only on the fact that such is the tradition of the Fathers; for they too followed the sense of Scripture, and started from the evidence which, a few sentences back, I deduced from Scripture and laid before you. (The Holy Spirit, 16; NPNF2-8)

I was distressed to hear that over anti above the disturbance brought on the Churches by the Arians, and the confusion caused by them in the definition of the faith, there has appeared among you yet another innovation, throwing the brotherhood into great dejection, because, as you have informed me, certain persons are uttering, in the hearing of the faithful, novel and unfamiliar doctrines which they allege to be deduced from the teaching of Scripture . . . who has the hardihood now once again to renew by the help of sophistical arguments and, of course, by scriptural evidence, that old dogma of Valentinus, now long ago silenced? . . . These, brethren, are the mysteries of the Church; these are the traditions of the Fathers. Every man who fears the Lord, and is awaiting God's judgment, I charge not to be carried away by various doctrines. If any one teaches a different doctrine, and refuses to accede to the sound words of the faith, rejecting the oracles of the Spirit, and making his own teaching of more authority than the lessons of the Gospels, of such an one beware . . . (Letter #261; NPNF2-8)

Basil was a strong advocate of even oral, or unwritten tradition (one would never know that, merely reading Webster and King, would they?):

Let us now investigate what are our common conceptions concerning the Spirit, as well those which have been gathered by us from Holy Scripture concerning It as those which we have received from the unwritten tradition of the Fathers. (The Holy Spirit, 22; NPNF2-8)
. . . they clamour for written proof, and reject as worthless the unwritten tradition of the Fathers. But we will not slacken in our defence of the truth. We will not cowardly abandon the cause. The Lord has delivered to us as a necessary and saving doctrine that the Holy Spirit is to be ranked with the Father. (The Holy Spirit, 25; NPNF2-8)
Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us “in a mystery” by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay;—no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learnt the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents. . . . the Apostles and Fathers who laid down laws for the Church from the beginning thus guarded the awful dignity of the mysteries in secrecy and silence, for what is bruited abroad random among the common folk is no mystery at all. This is the reason for our tradition of unwritten precepts and practices, that the knowledge of our dogmas may not become neglected and contemned by the multitude through familiarity. . . . Time will fail me if I attempt to recount the unwritten mysteries of the Church. Of the rest I say nothing; but of the very confession of our faith in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, what is the written source? If it be granted that, as we are baptized, so also under the obligation to believe, we make our confession in like terms as our baptism, in accordance with the tradition of our baptism and in conformity with the principles of true religion, let our opponents grant us too the right to be as consistent in our ascription of glory as in our confession of faith. If they deprecate our doxology on the ground that it lacks written authority, let them give us the written evidence for the confession of our faith and the other matters which we have enumerated. While the unwritten traditions are so many, and their bearing on “the mystery of godliness” is so important, can they refuse to allow us a single word which has come down to us from the Fathers;—which we found, derived from untutored custom, abiding in unperverted churches;—a word for which the arguments are strong, and which contributes in no small degree to the completeness of the force of the mystery? (The Holy Spirit, 66-67; NPNF2-8)
In answer to the objection that the doxology in the form “with the Spirit” has no written authority, we maintain that if there is no other instance of that which is unwritten, then this must not be received. But if the greater number of our mysteries are admitted into our constitution without written authority, then, in company with the many others, let us receive this one. For I hold it apostolic to abide also by the unwritten traditions. “I praise you,” it is said, “that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you;” and “Hold fast the traditions which ye have been taught whether by word, or our Epistle.” One of these traditions is the practice which is now before us, which they who ordained from the beginning, rooted firmly in the churches, delivering it to their successors, and its use through long custom advances pace by pace with time. If, as in a Court of Law, we were at a loss for documentary evidence, but were able to bring before you a large number of witnesses, would you not give your vote for our acquittal? I think so; for “at the mouth of two or three witnesses shall the matter be established.” And if we could prove clearly to you that a long period of time was in our favour, should we not have seemed to you to urge with reason that this suit ought not to be brought into court against us? For ancient dogmas inspire a certain sense of awe, venerable as they are with a hoary antiquity. I will therefore give you a list of the supporters of the word (and the time too must be taken into account in relation to what passes unquestioned). For it did not originate with us. How could it? We, in comparison with the time during which this word has been in vogue, are, to use the words of Job, “but of yesterday.” I myself, if I must speak of what concerns me individually, cherish this phrase as a legacy left me by my fathers. It was delivered to me by one who spent a long life in the service of God, and by him I was both baptized, and admitted to the ministry of the church. (The Holy Spirit, 71; NPNF2-8) 

These are very clear, unambiguous statements indeed. They leave little room for doubt or any argument against the view that he holds to the authority tradition. Yet Webster and King argue that he believed in sola Scriptura, just like a good Protestant would. After all, this is presupposed in the very subtitle of their Volume III: "The Writings of the Church Fathers Affirming the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura". Even the citations they provide, in hyper-selectivity don't prove this claim, and the citations I am providing flat-out disprove and discredit it as dishonest and foolish posing.
St. Basil teaches the related Catholic notion of apostolic succession:

. . . we too are undismayed at the cloud of our enemies, and, resting our hope on the aid of the Spirit, have, with all boldness, proclaimed the truth. Had I not so done, it would truly have been terrible that the blasphemers of the Spirit should so easily be emboldened in their attack upon true religion, and that we, with so mighty an ally and supporter at our side, should shrink from the service of that doctrine, which by the tradition of the Fathers has been preserved by an unbroken sequence of memory to our own day. (The Holy Spirit, 79; NPNF2-8)

In our case, too, in addition to the open attack of the heretics, the Churches are reduced to utter helplessness by the war raging among those who are supposed to be orthodox. For all these reasons we do indeed desire your help, that, for the future all who confess the apostolic faith may put an end to the schisms which they have unhappily devised, and be reduced for the future to the authority of the Church; that so, once more, the body of Christ may be complete, restored to integrity with all its members. Thus we shall not only praise the blessings of others, which is all we can do now, but see our own Churches once more restored to their pristine boast of orthodoxy. For, truly, the boon given you by the Lord is fit subject for the highest congratulation, your power of discernment between the spurious and the genuine and pure, and your preaching the faith of the Fathers without any dissimulation. That faith we have received; that faith we know is stamped with the marks of the Apostles; to that faith we assent, as well as to all that was canonically and lawfully promulgated in the Synodical Letter. (Letter #92 to the Italians and Gauls, 3; NPNF2-8)

For Basil, the Catholic Church, following apostolic and patristic tradition, was the standard of orthodoxy:

Did it not at one time appear that the Arian schism, after its separation into a sect opposed to the Church of God, stood itself alone in hostile array? But when the attitude of our foes against us was changed from one of long standing and bitter strife to one of open warfare, then, as is well known, the war was split up in more ways than I can tell into many subdivisions, so that all men were stirred to a state of inveterate hatred alike by common party spirit and individual suspicion. But what storm at sea was ever so fierce and wild as this tempest of the Churches? In it every landmark of the Fathers has been moved; every foundation, every bulwark of opinion has been shaken: everything buoyed up on the unsound is dashed about and shaken down. (The Holy Spirit, 77; NPNF2-8)

. . . maintain for the true Church its famous orthodoxy . . . (Letter #47 to Gregory; NPNF2-8)

He held to the binding authority of ecumenical councils, which he regarded almost as inspired by God:

. . . the same Fathers who once at Nicæa promulgated their great decree concerning the faith. Of this, some portions are universally accepted without cavil, but the homoousion, ill received in certain quarters, is still rejected by some. . . . To refuse to follow the Fathers, not holding their declaration of more authority than one’s own opinion, is conduct worthy of blame, as being brimful of self-sufficiency. (Letter #52 to the Canonicae; NPNF2-8)
. . . you should confess the faith put forth by our Fathers once assembled at Nicæa, that you should not omit any one of its propositions, but bear in mind that the three hundred and eighteen who met together without strife did not speak without the operation of the Holy Ghost, . . . (Letter #114 to Cyriacus, at Tarsus; NPNF2-8)

St. Basil taught papal primacy and overarching authority:

It has seemed to me to be desirable to send a letter to the bishop of Rome, begging him to examine our condition, and since there are difficulties in the way of representatives being sent from the West by a general synodical decree, to advise him to exercise his own personal authority in the matter by choosing suitable persons to sustain the labours of a journey,—suitable, too, by gentleness and firmness of character, to correct the unruly among us here; . . .  ( Letter #69 to St. Athanasius, 1-2; NPNF2-8)
To renew laws of ancient love, and once again to restore to vigorous life that heavenly and saving gift of Christ which in course of time has withered away, the peace, I mean, of the Fathers, is a labour necessary indeed and profitable to me, but pleasant too, as I am sure it will seem to your Christ-loving disposition. For what could be more delightful than to behold all, who are separated by distances so vast, bound together by the union effected by love into one harmony of members in Christ’s body? Nearly all the East (I include under this name all the regions from Illyricum to Egypt) is being agitated, right honourable father, by a terrible storm and tempest. The old heresy, sown by Arius the enemy of the truth, has now boldly and unblushingly reappeared. Like some sour root, it is producing its deadly fruit and is prevailing. The reason of this is, that in every district the champions of right doctrine have been exiled from their Churches by calumny and outrage, and the control of affairs has been handed over to men who are leading captive the souls of the simpler brethren. I have looked upon the visit of your mercifulness as the only possible solution of our difficulties. Ever in the past I have been consoled by your extraordinary affection; and for a short time my heart was cheered by the gratifying report that we shall be visited by you. But, as I was disappointed, I have been constrained to beseech you by letter to be moved to help us, and to send some of those, who are like minded with us, either to conciliate the dissentient and bring back the Churches of God into friendly union, or at all events to make you see more plainly who are responsible for the unsettled state in which we are, that it may be obvious to you for the future with whom it befits you to be in communion. In this I am by no means making any novel request, but am only asking what has been customary in the case of men who, before our own day, were blessed and dear to God, and conspicuously in your own case. For I well remember learning from the answers made by our fathers when asked, and from documents still preserved among us, that the illustrious and blessed bishop Dionysius, conspicuous in your see as well for soundness of faith as for all other virtues, visited by letter my Church of Cæsarea, and by letter exhorted our fathers, and sent men to ransom our brethren from captivity. But now our condition is yet more painful and gloomy and needs more careful treatment. We are lamenting no mere overthrow of earthly buildings, but the capture of Churches; what we see before us is no mere bodily slavery, but a carrying away of souls into captivity, perpetrated day by day by the champions of heresy. Should you not, even now, be moved to succour us, ere long all will have fallen under the dominion of the heresy, and you will find none left to whom you may hold out your hand. (Letter #70 to Pope Damasus [complete]; NPNF2-8)

St. Basil the Great, then, is seen to hold the same opinion concerning authority and the rule of faith as all the other Church fathers, and it is not sola Scriptura. Webster and King are dead-wrong to claim otherwise.

* * * * *

David T. King and William Webster: Out-of-Context or Hyper-Selective Quotations from the Church Fathers on Christian Authority: Part I: St. Cyril of Jerusalem

See the Introduction for the background to this series.
In Vol. III, Ch. 2 ("The Ultimate Authority of Scripture"). Webster and King cite the following passages from St. Cyril:

Have thou ever in your mind this seal , which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning , but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.

[Catechetical Lectures, IV: 17]

And first let us inquire for what cause Jesus came down. Now mind not my argumentations, for perhaps you may be misled but unless thou receive testimony of the Prophets on each matter, believe not what I say: unless thou learn from the Holy Scriptures concerning the Virgin, and the place, the time, and the manner, receive not testimony from man. For one who at present thus teaches may possibly be suspected: but what man of sense will suspect one that prophesied a thousand and more years beforehand? If then you seek the cause of Christ's coming, go back to the first book of the Scriptures.

[Catechetical Lectures, XII:5]

Catholics have no problem with these statements. We only would if Cyril intended them to be in opposition to or in exclusion of the authority of the Church and tradition; but of course he doesn't do that. In other passages that Webster and King conveniently omit, he acknowledges these.

In the same Lecture 4 (first quote above), St. Cyril writes at length about Holy Scripture (sections 33-36). How does he instruct a believer to determine which books are in the Bible? He does so by an extrabiblical authority: the Church:

Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testament, and what those of the New. (IV:33)

Right off the bat, this is contrary to several of the tenets that the authors laid out in the Introduction to Vol. III:

3.) All doctrines must be proven from Scripture.
4.) What the Apostles taught orally has been handed down in Scripture.
5.) Scripture is the ultimate judge in all controversies.
6.) Scripture is the ultimate and supreme authority for the Church.
7.) If Scripture is silent on an issue it cannot be known.

The canon of Scripture is never listed in Scripture, which contradicts all five tenets above. Scripture is silent on that issue, and Webster and King say, therefore, that it can't be known (#7). But the canon is known through the authority of the Catholic Church. The Church delivers Holy Scripture to the Christian believer. Protestantism has never been able to rationalize away this clear contradiction of sola Scriptura. Hence, Cyril states:

Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than yourself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes. (IV:35)

Moreover, when Cyril lists the books of the Old Testament, delivered authoritatively by the Church, he includes "Jeremiah . . . including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle" (IV:35). Baruch was thrown out of Protestant Bibles, but accepted by the Church fathers and Catholics. The "Epistle of Jeremiah" is the last chapter of Baruch in Catholic Bibles, but excluded by Protestant ones. In the next section (IV:36), he lists all New Testament books except for Revelation, and states: ". . . whatever books are not read in Churches, these read not even by yourself,. . ."

Thus -- so Cyril would say -- , not only is Revelation not Scripture, but not to be read at all by an individual. This is because the canon of the Bible was itself a developing doctrine of the Church. Revelation was one of the last books accepted. Cyril died in the decade before the Church finalized the canon at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). These included the deuterocanonical books (what Protestants call the "Apocrypha": those that they arbitrarily reject).

This is an example of why Catholics don't grant individual Church fathers binding authority: only the Church in its authoritative pronouncements (through councils and popes) has that. The fathers are guides when they agree en masse. The canon was still developed, and reached its final development shortly after Cyril. But neither what he said about the biblical canon, nor what the Church declared shortly afterwards, comports totally with what Protestants think, nor with sola Scriptura.

We know that St. Cyril cited deuterocanonical books in these same Catechetical Instructions; e.g., Wisdom of Solomon (9:2; 9:16; 12:5), Sirach (6:4; 11:19; 13:8), and the chapters of Daniel that Protestants discarded (14:25; 16:31).

Commenting on the Creed, Cyril again upholds a strong notion of the authority of the Catholic Church:

Now then let me finish what still remains to be said for the Article, In one Holy Catholic Church, on which, though one might say many things, we will speak but briefly. 

It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men's knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly . . . (XVIII:22-23)

Now, imagine if Cyril had said this about Scripture, that it "teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men's knowledge." Webster and King would be all over that as proof that he was teaching material sufficiency of Scripture and also formal sufficiency ("complete"). But here he is stating these attributes with regard to the Church, not Scripture (the Church teaches with completeness, just as Scripture does); and so for that reason, Webster and King decided that this passage was not commensurate with their sophistical plan of "proving" that the Scripture alone provides this sort of sufficiency or "completeness" -- and they deliberately omitted it.

This is their standard practice with all the Church fathers, and it's intellectually dishonest, on the grounds that a half-truth or a partial truth is almost as bad as a lie. They habitually present one strain of patristic teaching that agrees with Catholicism: glowing remarks about Holy Scripture, while ignoring all that is said of the Church, tradition, apostolic succession, bishops, councils, popes, etc.

Even this would be acceptable if their stated intent was simply to show what the fathers believed about Scripture. We would have no beef with that. But this isn't what they are doing. They claim that the fathers taught sola Scriptura: the notion that nothing is infallible or finally binding except scriptural teaching. That's not true (as a matter of demonstrable fact), and it's shown to not be true precisely by noting what these fathers thought about these other elements of authority (the Church, tradition, apostolic succession, bishops, councils, popes). St. Cyril rejects all sectarianism and denominationalism:

Concerning this Holy Catholic Church Paul writes to Timothy, That you may know how you ought to behave yourself in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth [1 Tim 3:15]. 

But since the word Ecclesia is applied to different things (as also it is written of the multitude in the theatre of the Ephesians, And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the Assembly [Acts 19:14], and since one might properly and truly say that there is a Church of evil doers, I mean the meetings of the heretics, the Marcionists and Manichees, and the rest, for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to you now the Article, And in one Holy Catholic Church; that you may avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which you were regenerated. And if ever you are sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord's House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, . . . (XVIII:25-26)

He teaches that salvation comes through the Catholic Church:

In this Holy Catholic Church receiving instruction and behaving ourselves virtuously, we shall attain the kingdom of heaven, and inherit eternal life; . . . (XVIII:28)

He refers to the passing-on of apostolic tradition:

And now, brethren beloved, the word of instruction exhorts you all, to prepare your souls for the reception of the heavenly gifts. As regards the Holy and Apostolic Faith delivered to you to profess, we have spoken through the grace of the Lord as many Lectures, as was possible,. . . (XVIII:32)

Make thou your fold with the sheep: flee from the wolves: depart not from the Church. . . . The truth of the Unity of God has been delivered to you: learn to distinguish the pastures of doctrine. (VI:36)

He refers to "the divine Scriptures used in the Church" and "the tradition of the Church's interpreters" (XV:13). This goes against Webster and King's typically Protestant notion that "Scripture interprets Scripture, i.e., it is self-interpreting."

He regards the Church as the determinant of orthodoxy, insofar as what it holds, is apostolic Christianity:

And to be brief, let us neither separate them, nor make a confusion : neither say thou ever that the Son is foreign to the Father, nor admit those who say that the Father is at one time Father, and at another Son: for these are strange and impious statements, and not the doctrines of the Church. (XI:18)

And formerly the heretics were manifest; but now the Church is filled with heretics in disguise. For men have fallen away from the truth, and have itching ears. [2 Tim 4:3] Is it a plausible discourse? All listen to it gladly. Is it a word of correction? All turn away from it. Most have departed from right words, and rather choose the evil, than desire the good. This therefore is the falling away, and the enemy is soon to be looked for: and meanwhile he has in part begun to send forth his own forerunners , that he may then come prepared upon the prey. Look therefore to yourself, O man, and make safe your soul. The Church now charges you before the Living God; she declares to you the things concerning Antichrist before they arrive. Whether they will happen in your time we know not, or whether they will happen after you we know not; but it is well that, knowing these things, you should make yourself secure beforehand. (XV:9)

. . . the Catholic Church guarding you beforehand has delivered to you in the profession of the faith,  . . . (XVII:3)

He speaks in terms of the Catholic "three-legged stool" rule of faith: tradition, Church, and Scripture: all harmonious:

But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to you by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. For since all cannot read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by want of learning, and others by a want of leisure, in order that the soul may not perish from ignorance, we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines. This summary I wish you both to commit to memory when I recite it , and to rehearse it with all diligence among yourselves, not writing it out on paper , but engraving it by the memory upon your heart , taking care while you rehearse it that no Catechumen chance to overhear the things which have been delivered to you. . . . for the present listen while I simply say the Creed , and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which you now receive, and write them on the table of your heart. 

Guard them with reverence, lest per chance the enemy despoil any who have grown slack; or lest some heretic pervert any of the truths delivered to you. For faith is like putting money into the bank , even as we have now done; but from you God requires the accounts of the deposit. I charge you, as the Apostle says, before God, who quickens all things, and Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed the good confession, that you keep this faith which is committed to you, without spot, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ. (V: 12-13)

At every turn, then, we see that St. Cyril is thoroughly Catholic, and does not teach sola Scriptura. Webster and King have misled their readers in claiming the contrary, by trotting out just two passages, while ignoring the many other relevant ones that I have highlighted above.


* * * * *

David T. King and William Webster: Misrepresentations and Misleading Out-of-Context or Hyper-Selective Quotations from the Church Fathers: Part I: St. Cyril of Jerusalem

See the Introduction for the background to this series.
In Vol. III, Ch. 2 ("The Ultimate Authority of Scripture"). Webster and King cite the following passages from St. Cyril:

Have thou ever in your mind this seal , which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning , but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.

[Catechetical Lectures, IV: 17]

And first let us inquire for what cause Jesus came down. Now mind not my argumentations, for perhaps you may be misled but unless thou receive testimony of the Prophets on each matter, believe not what I say: unless thou learn from the Holy Scriptures concerning the Virgin, and the place, the time, and the manner, receive not testimony from man. For one who at present thus teaches may possibly be suspected: but what man of sense will suspect one that prophesied a thousand and more years beforehand? If then you seek the cause of Christ's coming, go back to the first book of the Scriptures.

[Catechetical Lectures, XII:5]

Catholics have no problem with these statements. We only would if Cyril intended them to be in opposition to or in exclusion of the authority of the Church and tradition; but of course he doesn't do that. In other passages that Webster and King conveniently omit, he acknowledges these.

In the same Lecture 4 (first quote above), St. Cyril writes at length about Holy Scripture (sections 33-36). How does he instruct a believer to determine which books are in the Bible? He does so by an extrabiblical authority: the Church:

Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testament, and what those of the New. (IV:33)

Right off the bat, this is contrary to several of the tenets that the authors laid out in the Introduction to Vol. III:

3.) All doctrines must be proven from Scripture.
4.) What the Apostles taught orally has been handed down in Scripture.
5.) Scripture is the ultimate judge in all controversies.
6.) Scripture is the ultimate and supreme authority for the Church.
7.) If Scripture is silent on an issue it cannot be known.

The canon of Scripture is never listed in Scripture, which contradicts all five tenets above. Scripture is silent on that issue, and Webster and King say, therefore, that it can't be known (#7). But the canon is known through the authority of the Catholic Church. The Church delivers Holy Scripture to the Christian believer. Protestantism has never been able to rationalize away this clear contradiction of sola Scriptura. Hence, Cyril states:

Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than yourself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes. (IV:35)

Moreover, when Cyril lists the books of the Old Testament, delivered authoritatively by the Church, he includes "Jeremiah . . . including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle" (IV:35). Baruch was thrown out of Protestant Bibles, but accepted by the Church fathers and Catholics. The "Epistle of Jeremiah" is the last chapter of Baruch in Catholic Bibles, but excluded by Protestant ones. In the next section (IV:36), he lists all New Testament books except for Revelation, and states: ". . . whatever books are not read in Churches, these read not even by yourself,. . ."

Thus -- so Cyril would say -- , not only is Revelation not Scripture, but not to be read at all by an individual. This is because the canon of the Bible was itself a developing doctrine of the Church. Revelation was one of the last books accepted. Cyril died in the decade before the Church finalized the canon at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). These included the deuterocanonical books (what Protestants call the "Apocrypha": those that they arbitrarily reject).

This is an example of why Catholics don't grant individual Church fathers binding authority: only the Church in its authoritative pronouncements (through councils and popes) has that. The fathers are guides when they agree en masse. The canon was still developed, and reached its final development shortly after Cyril. But neither what he said about the biblical canon, nor what the Church declared shortly afterwards, comports totally with what Protestants think, nor with sola Scriptura.

We know that St. Cyril cited deuterocanonical books in these same Catechetical Instructions; e.g., Wisdom of Solomon (9:2; 9:16; 12:5), Sirach (6:4; 11:19; 13:8), and the chapters of Daniel that Protestants discarded (14:25; 16:31).

Commenting on the Creed, Cyril again upholds a strong notion of the authority of the Catholic Church:

Now then let me finish what still remains to be said for the Article, In one Holy Catholic Church, on which, though one might say many things, we will speak but briefly. 

It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men's knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly . . . (XVIII:22-23)

Now, imagine if Cyril had said this about Scripture, that it "teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men's knowledge." Webster and King would be all over that as proof that he was teaching material sufficiency of Scripture and also formal sufficiency ("complete"). But here he is stating these attributes with regard to the Church, not Scripture (the Church teaches with completeness, just as Scripture does); and so for that reason, Webster and King decided that this passage was not commensurate with their sophistical plan of "proving" that the Scripture alone provides this sort of sufficiency or "completeness" -- and they deliberately omitted it.

This is their standard practice with all the Church fathers, and it's intellectually dishonest, on the grounds that a half-truth or a partial truth is almost as bad as a lie. They habitually present one strain of patristic teaching that agrees with Catholicism: glowing remarks about Holy Scripture, while ignoring all that is said of the Church, tradition, apostolic succession, bishops, councils, popes, etc.

Even this would be acceptable if their stated intent was simply to show what the fathers believed about Scripture. We would have no beef with that. But this isn't what they are doing. They claim that the fathers taught sola Scriptura: the notion that nothing is infallible or finally binding except scriptural teaching. That's not true (as a matter of demonstrable fact), and it's shown to not be true precisely by noting what these fathers thought about these other elements of authority (the Church, tradition, apostolic succession, bishops, councils, popes). St. Cyril rejects all sectarianism and denominationalism:

Concerning this Holy Catholic Church Paul writes to Timothy, That you may know how you ought to behave yourself in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth [1 Tim 3:15]. 

But since the word Ecclesia is applied to different things (as also it is written of the multitude in the theatre of the Ephesians, And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the Assembly [Acts 19:14], and since one might properly and truly say that there is a Church of evil doers, I mean the meetings of the heretics, the Marcionists and Manichees, and the rest, for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to you now the Article, And in one Holy Catholic Church; that you may avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which you were regenerated. And if ever you are sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord's House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, . . . (XVIII:25-26)

He teaches that salvation comes through the Catholic Church:

In this Holy Catholic Church receiving instruction and behaving ourselves virtuously, we shall attain the kingdom of heaven, and inherit eternal life; . . . (XVIII:28)

He refers to the passing-on of apostolic tradition:

And now, brethren beloved, the word of instruction exhorts you all, to prepare your souls for the reception of the heavenly gifts. As regards the Holy and Apostolic Faith delivered to you to profess, we have spoken through the grace of the Lord as many Lectures, as was possible,. . . (XVIII:32)

Make thou your fold with the sheep: flee from the wolves: depart not from the Church. . . . The truth of the Unity of God has been delivered to you: learn to distinguish the pastures of doctrine. (VI:36)

He refers to "the divine Scriptures used in the Church" and "the tradition of the Church's interpreters" (XV:13). This goes against Webster and King's typically Protestant notion that "Scripture interprets Scripture, i.e., it is self-interpreting."

He regards the Church as the determinant of orthodoxy, insofar as what it holds, is apostolic Christianity:

And to be brief, let us neither separate them, nor make a confusion : neither say thou ever that the Son is foreign to the Father, nor admit those who say that the Father is at one time Father, and at another Son: for these are strange and impious statements, and not the doctrines of the Church. (XI:18)

And formerly the heretics were manifest; but now the Church is filled with heretics in disguise. For men have fallen away from the truth, and have itching ears. [2 Tim 4:3] Is it a plausible discourse? All listen to it gladly. Is it a word of correction? All turn away from it. Most have departed from right words, and rather choose the evil, than desire the good. This therefore is the falling away, and the enemy is soon to be looked for: and meanwhile he has in part begun to send forth his own forerunners , that he may then come prepared upon the prey. Look therefore to yourself, O man, and make safe your soul. The Church now charges you before the Living God; she declares to you the things concerning Antichrist before they arrive. Whether they will happen in your time we know not, or whether they will happen after you we know not; but it is well that, knowing these things, you should make yourself secure beforehand. (XV:9)

. . . the Catholic Church guarding you beforehand has delivered to you in the profession of the faith,  . . . (XVII:3)

He speaks in terms of the Catholic "three-legged stool" rule of faith: tradition, Church, and Scripture: all harmonious:

But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to you by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. For since all cannot read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by want of learning, and others by a want of leisure, in order that the soul may not perish from ignorance, we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines. This summary I wish you both to commit to memory when I recite it , and to rehearse it with all diligence among yourselves, not writing it out on paper , but engraving it by the memory upon your heart , taking care while you rehearse it that no Catechumen chance to overhear the things which have been delivered to you. . . . for the present listen while I simply say the Creed , and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which you now receive, and write them on the table of your heart. 

Guard them with reverence, lest per chance the enemy despoil any who have grown slack; or lest some heretic pervert any of the truths delivered to you. For faith is like putting money into the bank , even as we have now done; but from you God requires the accounts of the deposit. I charge you, as the Apostle says, before God, who quickens all things, and Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed the good confession, that you keep this faith which is committed to you, without spot, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ. (V: 12-13)

At every turn, then, we see that St. Cyril is thoroughly Catholic, and does not teach sola Scriptura. Webster and King have misled their readers in claiming the contrary, by trotting out just two passages, while ignoring the many other relevant ones that I have highlighted above.


* * * * *

David T. King and William Webster: Out-of-Context or Hyper-Selective Quotations from the Church Fathers on Christian Authority: Introduction to the Series

David T. King and William Webster are anti-Catholic Protestant polemicists who have been very active in opposing the Catholic Church. I have written in the past, twice (one / two) about William Webster's gross ignorance regarding the concept and definition of development of doctrine, and about his solely self-published books [one / two] (including the present three-volume work under consideration).

David T. King, likewise, was exceedingly ignorant about Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman: claiming that he was a modernist who believed in evolution (heretical notion) rather than development (orthodox notion) of doctrines. I quickly disabused him of that fairy tale. I've also refuted his claim that St. John Chrysostom and St. Irenaeus were proponents of sola Scriptura and have three other papers about his foolishness and antics on my Anti-Catholicism web page (one / two / three). None of these have ever been replied to by King, Webster, or any other anti-Catholic.

I'll be devoting a series to the three-volume set of King and Webster, entitled, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith ; in particular, their historical arguments, in Volume II (subtitled, "An Historical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura" -- William Webster), and Volume III (subtitled, "The Writings of the Church Fathers Affirming the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura" -- Webster and King).

The set was self-published (Battle Ground, Washington: Christian Resources Inc.) in 2001. For a withering critique of it, see Phil Porvaznik's delightful article, "Holy Scripture Volume IV: The Ground and Pillar of Whose Faith? (or what William Webster and David King don't tell you)".

This series will be devoted to exposing the unsavory tactics of (I must say) ultimately intellectually dishonest, sophistical citations of the Church fathers: a thing -- sadly -- very common in less scholarly Protestant circles from the very beginning. I've written many times about this (see examples on my Church Fathers page), including several examinations of John Calvin's "patristic distortions" in my first book devoted to him. King and Webster engage in the same timeworn, cynical, many-times-refuted tactics.

To start, let's be sure to present exactly what it is the authors / editors are contending for. All effective critiques must always nail down matters of definition and goals in the work being scrutinized. A Foreword by the King of the anti-Catholics, James White (to whom I have just devoted a book-length refutation), appears in the first two volumes. Mr. White writes:

The doctrine of sola Scriptura is a divinely given bulwark against error and the traditions of men. It teaches us that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. . . . 

Responding directly and forcefully to those of the Roman Church who press flawed, illogical, un-scriptural, and a-historical arguments upon a gullible audience, Webster and King demonstrate the truth of sola Scriptura through sound and knowledgeable exegesis of the text of Scripture and the writings of the early Christians. (Vol. I, 11-12)

King gets in his shots, too, in his Introduction to Vol. I:

In this work, we intend to prove that Roman apologists have misrepresented and manipulated the truth of Scripture, the facts of history, the writings of the Church Fathers and what the Reformers believed and taught regarding sola Scriptura. (Vol. I, 20)

In his Introduction to Vol. II, Webster pontifi---, er, opined:

. . . Scripture is both materially and formally sufficient. The reformers argued that the Church is not infallible but that all tradition and teaching must be subject to the final authority of Scripture. Scripture is the sole and final arbiter of truth, infallible and the ultimate authority. (Vol. II, 17)

. . . we will examine what the Church fathers taught about Scripture and tradition. We will find that the Reformers were correct in claiming patristic support for the principle of sola Scriptura . . . It is the Roman Catholic teaching on tradition and authority which is unbiblical and unhistorical. (Vol. II, 18)

The Introduction of Vol. III (no author given: both men edited this volume) focuses in on the Church fathers:

The Reformers insisted that Scripture was the ultimate authority for the Church and . . . that Scripture alone was . . . the only infallible rule of faith. . . .

When they [the Church fathers] are allowed to speak for themselves it becomes clear that they universally taught sola Scriptura in the fullest sense of the term embracing both the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture. This is clearly revealed by statements, such as the following, which are found repeatedly in their writings:

1) Scripture is the sole source of doctrine for the faith of the Church.
2) All doctrines necessary for salvation and moral living for the Christian are contained in Scripture.
3.) All doctrines must be proven from Scripture.
4.) What the Apostles taught orally has been handed down in Scripture.
5.) Scripture is the ultimate judge in all controversies.
6.) Scripture is the ultimate and supreme authority for the Church.
7.) If Scripture is silent on an issue it cannot be known.
8.) All teachers and councils are subject to the authority of Scripture.
9.) Any bishop or teacher who teaches doctrines that are not contained in Scripture or are contradictory to Scripture is to be rejected.
10.) Scripture reveals clearly and plainly all truths necessary for salvation and moral living.
11.) Scripture interprets Scripture, i.e., it is self-interpreting.
12.) The Holy Spirit reveals truth and gives understanding of Scripture directly to those who pray and walk in obedience.

. . . it is the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura which [is] true to the ancient faith and practice of the Church and that it is, in fact, the Roman Catholic Church which has misrepresented the Church fathers . . . (Vol. III, 9-10)

I submit that when readers see how Webster and King systematically, selectively prooftext the fathers and ignore hundreds of other statements of theirs that don't fit into their preconceived Protestant notions of authority (superimposed anachronistically back onto the fathers), that a very different picture will emerge, and that the fathers will be shown to be -- as always -- quite profoundly consistent with Catholic teaching with regard to the question of authority, tradition, Church, and Scripture (i.e., the rule of faith) that is the focus of the three-volume set.

I've already demonstrated this in a trilogy of books devoted to Catholic distinctives in the Church fathers (one / two / three), and in, e.g., a very in-depth debate on the fathers and sola Scriptura with anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer (one / two / three / four).  Now I will demonstrate how the attempt to establish the exact opposite (i.e., supposed Protestant distinctives in the fathers specifically in relation to the all-important question of authority and the rule of faith) fails miserably and is based on intellectually dishonest, highly selective use of quotations, to the exclusion of other highly relevant ones that don't fit into the preconceived (anti-Catholic / absurdly tendentious) "talking points."

I will show repeatedly how the citations presented prove nothing of what is claimed for them (or that we already agree, so that a quotation is a moot point with regard to Protestant-Catholic disputes), and how others that are omitted directly contradict sola Scriptura itself, and various tenets that comprise or surround it: particularly the twelve points above.