Broken Clocks | When Better Discernment is Demonstrated by Non-Fundamentalists
by CA Donate
There is an old saying, “Even a broken clock is right twice a day.” There are times in history when even the unlikeliest of people practiced better discernment than some Fundamentalists today.
It´s amazing to know that some Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans and Anglicans in the past advocated for the right biblical text. I am NOT trying to promote Catholicism, Episcopalianism, Lutheranism or even Anglicanism. God forbid. What I am saying is that in the history of textual scholarship there were members of these churches that rendered a Hebrew or Greek word according to the Traditional Text and not according to Jerome´s Vulgate. That must really surprise folks who are ok with the way their Bibles read today. Typically, Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans and Anglicans in that period followed the Latin Vulgate to the tee. However, some didn´t. Some were quite biblical, as we know from the translators of the English AV. That was almost to be expected in English which had a long history of following the right text, but in Spanish, it was rare for an Anglican, Episcopal, Lutheran or any former Catholic minister to follow the Traditional Text.
Take, for example, the phrase “semejante al Hijo de Dios” (like the Son of God) which is found in Daniel 3:25 in the KJV and in the Spanish RVG. The Reina Valera 1960 says “a hijo de los dioses” (a son of the gods) denying the precious presence of Jesus Christ with the three Hebrews in the fiery furnace. This is the same verse that Dr. Mickey Carter, pastor emeritus of Landmark Baptist Church in Haines City, my sending church, used to confront his former Spanish pastor, Elmer Fernandez. “He was pagan—how could he know?” That’s the typical response. Francisco de Enzinas, who translated the first New Testament in Spanish following the TR, was raised a Roman Catholic, then converted to Lutheranism. And Casiodoro de Reina, another former Catholic turned Anglican, translated “semejante a hijo de Dios” in 1569. Cipriano de Valera, a former priest and friends with Reina, became a Calvinist. His revision in 1602 of Reina is most admirable, despite saying in his Introduction how he and Reina consulted the polyglot Biblia of Antwerp, a major undertaking by Catholic scholar Benito Arias Montanus. The least the 1960 could have done is to have followed Reina and Valera here. Admittedly, I would never endorse Anglicanism, Lutheranism or Calvinism. And yet, these men knew God had preserved a text, and it was much better than the Vulgate.
Then there was a Catholic scholar named Phillipe Scio de San Miguel, who back in the late 1700´s translated into Spanish from the Latin Vulgate (filio Dei) to Spanish thusly: “es semejante al Hijo de Dios”. 100% right. See Volume III. The Catholic scholar had more sense than the 1960 fundamentalists who insist that their Bible, the Reina Valera 1960, “is just like the KJV”, which it isn´t, at least not in this passage.
Then, there was Felix Torres- Amat, another Catholic biblical scholar who revised Scio, and said that he consulted not just Reina and Valera, but Ferrara and Bonifacio Ferrer (just like Reina and Valera). He states that he wasn´t trying to offend the Catholic hierarchy with such consultations, but he was seeking to amend the Vulgate´s gross errors. Read it for yourself here: https://archive.org/details/sagrada-biblia-torres-amat-completa/Biblia%20Torres%20Amat%20part1%20Genesis-Numeros/page/n11/mode/2up?q=Valera. Amazing!
As a matter of fact, there were earlier witnesses that attested to “Son of God” in Spanish. First there´s a 13th Century Manuscript in Salamanca (Spain) called the “Fazienda de Ultramar” which quotes this verse like it ought to be. The reader can verify this himself by going to corpus.bibliamedieval.es. The same website mentions E8/E6 and GE (General Estoria) which refer to manuscripts dating as far back as 1270 and 1430! They say, “Son of God” albeit in old Spanish, “fijo de dios”.
Before I continue, the Catholic Church published the New Vulgate Bible in Latin in 1979 which follows the critical text for both testaments. There´s a Spanish Catholic Bible called “Biblia de Navarra” published in 2004 based on the N.V. (Nova Vulgata), and in Daniel 3:92 (Daniel 3:25 in the Valera) reads just like the Reina Valera 1960! Why? Because the 1960 is a critical-text Bible based on the same text as the Navarra Catholic Bible. They both follow the Stuttgartensia Hebrew text (or BHS)---very corrupt, even though it is considered “Masoretic”. It isn´t the same Masoretic Hebrew text the Reformation Protestants used which is called the Jacob Ben Chayyim Hebrew Masoretic Text of 1522, Bomberg edition.
In 1821, the British & Foreign Bible Society asked a former Spanish Catholic priest converted Anglican named José María Blanco, to revise Scio’s Vulgate. Years later, the American Bible Society in New York produced a Spanish Bible known as “Edición Esteriotípica”, or Valera-Scío. Having been involved in Catholicism for many years, Blanco was very familiar with Scio´s translation, so when asked if he would help produce a Bible that could be used of the Lord to evangelize Hispanic countries, he cunningly decided to follow many passages which read differently than Valera, omitting the vast side notes Scio had in his.
For verification of the existence of the Valera-Scio Bible, see Jose Flores´book, “La Biblia en España”, CLIE, 1978, page 315, where it is mentioned. The Valera-Scío was an attempt to introduce Spanish Bibles into countries where religious intolerance rejected the Scriptures in the vernacular. The ABS thought it might be a good idea to incorporate a Protestant Bible with a Catholic Bible, hoping that Catholic authorities would be ok with it. It worked! The production of this edition lasted 7 years, beginning in 1850 through 1857. Spanish readers could be blessed if they had such a Bible in their hands and read that the fourth man was the Son of God, an Old Testament pre incarnate appearance of the Lord.
Another example is the way the Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans and Anglicans translate the Greek “logos” to Verbo instead of Palabra. I´m referring to John 1:1. There is plenty of information on this on our website, but sufficient to say that one of the major reasons for Verbo is because Augustine was fighting Arians in the 4rth Century. He knew how Tertullian and earlier witnesses defended the Trinity by coining a term that would specifically be related to Jesus Christ, and His deity. The use of “sermo” was more to do with the words of God in general, His sayings, His speech, His reasoning. Therefore, we have a Catholic bishop defending the Trinity! Nothing wrong with that!
Back to Scio, see Romans 1:16 where he had a sidenote:
“…El Griego: tou Xristou. Aunque el Evangelio parezca una necedad á muchos de los Gentiles, no por eso me he avergonzado de predicarle en las ciudades más ilustres, ni me avergonzaré tampoco de hacer lo mismo en la capital del imperio y del mundo.”
He recognized the true reading and had enough sense to mention it. That´s more than we can say about Westcott and Hort´s calling the TR “vile”, or Eugene Nida´s 1960 translation rules, saying that they “would never go back to the Receptus”. And yet, Catholics and Anglicans did consult the TR and, in some cases, preferred it over the Vulgate.
Another well-known Anglican minister serving in Gibraltar was George Norton. This is what his biographer said:
“The name of God, Jehovah, appears in a note in Matthew 26:2 and Revelation 19:1. Jehovah also appears in the text of Luke 1:13. Norton based his work on the Textus Receptus, and published his New Testament in 1858. Las Escrituras del Nuevo Pacto was a Project made in England so that the American Bible Union could distribute it as a publication which was totally protestant, and not Scio´s which was being promoted by the British & Foreign Bible Society in the 1850´s. Norton had the help of Juan Calderón (1791-1854) who was a well-respected Spanish philologist and professor at King´s College London. Calderón was also a scholar in Hebrew and classic languages. Despite his Catholic upbringing and training, he based most of the translation of this New Testament on the Receptus except for the Gospel of Luke. The work was completed in 1848 but wasn´t published until 1858 in Edinburgh, Scotland, in Barcelona and New York. The Old Testament was based on the Septuagint but was never published because the public was wholly given to Valera´s translation”. See Serrano, Rafael A. (2014). Historia de la Biblia en español. Una introducción.124 pp. ISBN 978-1-312-11071-7.
A few examples of Rev. Norton´s New Testament passages that followed the TR are:
1. Matthew 5:29 “infierno” (Hell). He used infierno in 10 passages.
2. Mark 1:2 “por los profetas” (in the prophets)
3. Luke 23:42 “Señor” (Lord)
4. John 1:1 “Palabra” (Word) following Erasmus´ Latin sermo.
5. Romans 1:16 has a side note, “de Cristo” (of Christ).*Remember, Norton was an Anglican who followed the Vulgate for many years before his conversion.
6. Ephesians 3:9 also has a side note, “por Jesús Christo” (by Jesus Christ). *Yes, Norton used “Jesús Cristo” following older versions’ style of separating the name and the title of the Lord.
7. 1st Peter 2:2, Norton translates it like the Vulgate, but again, he adds a sidenote explaining that some manuscripts omit “unto salvation” (para salvación). It is these sidenotes which makes me think that at least he understood there were variants, in this case, from the TR.
7. Revelation 22:14 “ejecutan sus mandamientos” (do his commandments).
There are many more, but the reader can do his own collation by accessing his work at https://archive.org/details/las-escrituras-del-nuevo-pacto-traduccion-del-original-griego-1858/page/n245/mode/2up.
Now let’s consider Reformed Episcopalians and their contribution in the usage of the Traditional Text. The one that comes to my mind is Juan Bautista Cabrera (1837-1916). Cabrera was a Catholic priest prior to converting to Christ and joining the Reformed Episcopalian Church and seeking refuge in Gibraltar where he worked. History tells us that he worked on the revision of the Reina Valera Old Testament Bible as early as 1895. See https://www.editorialhccp.com/r/biblia-rvr/historia/. It is believed he also had a part in the 1909 revision. The 1909 “Antigua” Reina Valera is TR based, even though it also incorporated by critical readings taken from the Eberhard Nestle edition of the Greek New Testament. Calvin George (https://www.literaturabautista.com/en-conmemoracion-del-primer-centenario-de-la-version-antigua-de-la-reina-valera-1909-2009/ ) makes a big deal of it, yet he defends the 1960. Folks, they are different!
Let’s cite some examples:
In Matthew 1:1-16, the 1909 has the word “engendró” (begat) 39 times while the 1960 only 17 times. Not bad for a reformed episcopalian, yet Calvin George, a fundamental Baptist, says that the 1960 is ok.
In Matthew 5:22, the 1909 has “locamente” (without a cause), yet the 1960 omits it. Seems reformed Episcopalians like Cabrera understood that the omission from Westcott and Hort was wrong. Calvin George, on the other hand, thinks the omission is “adecuate”.
In Matthew 17:20 (and many other passages), the Nida Baptist 1960 says “poca fe” (little faith) but the 1909 which an Episcopalian worked on rightly follows the TR saying “incredulidad” (unbelief).
In Luke 21:5 the 1909 says “dones” (gifts) just like the TR; I suppose a reformed Episcopalian sure knew not to add anything that remotely resembled his former faith, and yet Calvin George has no problem with “ofrendas votivas” (votive offerings), a concept much too familiar with professing Catholics.
John 1:42 says in the 1909 and the TR that Cefas means “stone”, yet the ecumenical-to-the-hilt 1960 calls Cefas “Pedro”, which lines up with popery. I suppose the Episcopalian Cabrera would turn in his grave if he knew what they did to his revision.
There are many more examples, but you get the picture. There were Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans and Episcopalians who had more honesty and character than most modern day IFB Hispanic fundamentalists who just love their 1960. What’s worse is the support they get from KJV-Only American pastors who either ignore these facts or woefully digress from their beliefs.
Friend, would you belong to any of these popish churches, daughters of Rome? I doubt it! I certainly wouldn´t. I would have never joined up with the churches in Spain that were pastored by reformed Anglicans, Episcopalians, of Lutherans for that matter. Yet, many of the early pioneer reformed Anglicans, Lutherans and Episcopalians knew that the TR was much better and was divinely preserved. Even some of those earlier Catholic scholars like Scio, and Torres Amat knew it. That’s why they either translated it correctly or added a sidenote to its effect. Sadly, today´s common IFB Hispanic pastor prefers to use a revision which was done by ecumenical Baptists. They shun the RVG which is produced by fundamental, soul-winning Bible believing Baptists. Makes no sense! May God open the eyes of God´s people.
