William Whitaker on Textual Criticism and Translations

One of the most significant historical works on bibliology is William Whitaker’s A Disputation on Holy Scripture (1588).  Whitaker was a Cambridge theologian who tirelessly defended the Christian faith and especially the doctrine of Scripture. His Disputation was primarily directed against Roman Catholic false doctrine regarding the scriptures. His work is a tour de force concerning the canon, the use and authority of the Latin Vulgate, and the authority, perspicuity, and interpretation of the Bible.  His arguments continue to hold great force even today in the support of true Christian doctrine.

My interest in Whitaker stems from the foundation he laid for the Westminster Confession of Faith, and especially the Confession’s first chapter, Of the Holy Scripture. {1} The section on bibliology is absolutely outstanding, a true gift to the church in elucidating the critical elements of the doctrine of scripture. Despite its thoroughness, people who hold to the truths spelled out by this document don’t always agree on certain controversial issues, such as preservation and translations. Since Whitaker’s Disputation touches on these issues, I thought it would be helpful to set forth his views as a respected and impartial voice that pre-dates our modern controversies. With that in mind, let’s look at what Whitaker says regarding the topic of textual criticism (an integral part of the preservation debate) and then move on to translations.

TEXTUAL CRITICISM

Most of what we will see here comes from Whitaker’s chapter on the “Authentic Edition of Scripture.” To set the context, this chapter deals with the question of the church’s official Bible. Should the church consider the Latin Vulgate the final authority regarding the text and teaching of Scripture, or, as Whitaker argues, should it be the underlying Hebrew and Greek text, what he often calls the “originals.”  It should be obvious that the Vulgate and the original language texts differ.  Which one, then, is true/authentic, and which one is corrupt? How would you decide? In his discussion, Whitaker often refers to the existing Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and the related subject of textual criticism.  His point is that the original language documents are superior to any Latin translation and therefore should be considered the true standard Biblical text for the church.

Let’s start where Whitaker does with the integrity of the Hebrew manuscripts.  He asks, if the Hebrew text is corrupted, “How were they corrupted? By the copyists? This cannot be said, since all the MSS agree.” [132] {2}  While this view may be overly optimistic (possibly reflecting the limited number of Hebrew texts available to him at the time), notice what he goes on to say after considering supposed errors in the Hebrew text:

“These then are the passages which Bellarmine was able to find fault with in the originals [i.e., the Hebrew MSS]; and yet in these there is really nothing to require either blame or correction. But, even though we should allow (which we are so far from doing, that we have proved the contrary), that these were faulty in the original [i.e., in the extant Hebrew MSS], what could our adversaries conclude from such an admission? Would it follow that the Hebrew fountain was more corrupt than the Latin streamlets, or that the Latin edition was authentic? Not, surely, unless it were previously assumed, either that canonical books of scripture cannot be erroneously copied sometimes by transcribers, or that it is very easy for us to discover many more errors in the Latin edition which ought not, and cannot be defended, as we shall hear presently.” [160]

In other words, if you could prove an error in the Hebrew manuscripts (which he is not conceding), then his appeal is to the facts that (1) copyists can make mistakes and (2) we observe much more corruption of this sort in the Vulgate than we do in the Hebrew.  I think it is fair to conclude that Whitaker believes the Hebrew manuscript evidence to be pristine – it hasn’t been proven to him otherwise – but he is not ruling out the possibility of corruption due to copyist mistakes, and that it would be reasonable to appeal to such a mistake if a real error were discovered in an extant Hebrew text.

Moving on to the NT text, he knows we need to do textual criticism with the existing Greek manuscripts because of the presence of copyist mistakes.

“Now then, if the originals of sacred scripture have not been so disgracefully corrupted by any malice of Jews or adversaries, as some person have ignorantly suspected; and if no mistakes have crept into the originals, but such as may casually be introduced into any book, (which our opponents expressly allow); why, I pray, did not the Tridentine fathers [i.e., Catholic officials who participated in the Council of Trent] rather command that the originals should be purified with the greatest care and diligence than that the muddy stream of the Latin edition should be preferred to the fountain, and become authentic?” [161]

“But if they say that the originals [i.e., the original language MSS] are only corrupted by some accident, we to may affirm the same, and with much more justice, of their own Latin version: for such accidental causes extend no less to the Latin than to the Hebrew and Greek books.” [162]

Whitaker says copying mistakes should be expected, just like you would have with copying “any book.” Such mistakes have occurred in both the original language manuscripts as well as copies of the Latin Vulgate. Instead of preferring the Latin Vulgate, though, the Catholic church should have been more concerned with purifying the small errors in the Greek MSS tradition than preferring the muddy errors of the Latin.

How should one go about making these corrections?  This is the subject of textual criticism and while Whitaker does not spend much time on this subject, he does mention some things that should sound familiar to us today.  The context for what he says concerns differences between the Vulgate and the “originals” and how he argues that the Greek or Hebrew reading is best. I find what he says here fascinating.

The first example comes from the last phrase in Romans 1:32, “but have pleasure in them that do them” (KJV). The Jesuit Robert Bellarmine prefers the Latin reading,“but they also that consent to them that do them” (Douay-Rheims) since, “according to the Greek the sense is, that it is worse to consent to an evildoer than to do ill oneself; whereas, taken absolutely, it is worse to do ill than to consent to another doing ill.” [195] To be honest, I don’t find much difference in the meaning of the Latin (as translated by the Douay-Rheims version) compared to the Greek (as translated by the KJV). I think this may be more of an interpretation issue, but the overall point that I want to show is not the meaning of Rom 1:32 but how Whitaker tries to defend the reading of the Greek text. He says:

“The sense of the Greek therefore is very true; and is what is given by the Greek interpreters, Chrysoatom, Theodoret, Cecumenius and Theophylact. And in all the Greek copies which Stephens followed, that is, all which he could by any means procure, there was no variety of reading in this place. That the Latin fathers read it otherwise, need not surprise us; since they did not consult the originals, but drew from the streams of this Vulgate translator.” [196]

In other words, all the Greek copies agree here, as do the Greek church fathers. This supports his contention that the Greek text is correct. He is careful, though, to qualify his statement regarding the Greek manuscripts with “all which he could by any means procure.” Thus, he allows for the possibility that other extant manuscripts may or may not agree with this reading. The main thing is that he is putting a premium on the Greek copies (over a translation) and collaborating the manuscript evidence with readings from the Greek church fathers.

Another very interesting example is Romans 11:6 and the omission in the Vulgate of “But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.” Regarding this phrase, “Bellarmine confesses that this sentence is in the Greek, but says that it is recognized by none of the commentators upon this place except Theophylact.” [196] Whitaker disputes this assertion but goes on to say:

“But what if the clause were not to be found in the commentaries of these writers? Must we, therefore, deem it spurious? By no means. For the Greek copies, and very numerous MSS of the greatest fidelity, and the most ancient Syrian translator, will suffice to prove that this sentence came from the apostle’s pen; whose evidence is still more confirmed by the very antithesis of the context and the sequence of the reasoning. For as the apostle says, ‘If it be of grace, then it is not of works; for then grace would not be grace;’ so to balance the antithesis he must say, ‘If it be of works, it is not of grace; for then work would not be work.’” [197]

Notice the modern sounding criteria Whitaker mentions: number of manuscripts (“very numerous”), quality of the manuscripts (“greatest fidelity”), other ancient translations (“Syrian translator”), age, (“most ancient”), church fathers (“commentaries of these writers”), and internal evidence (“context and sequence of the reasoning”).  These are all things that modern textual critics consider when evaluating textual differences among extant manuscripts.  Notice that he didn’t say anything like, “it has to agree with Tyndale” or “it’s the wording received by the church.”

Whitaker, in fact, denies the authority of the church in evaluating authentic scripture:

“As to Bellarmine’s last excuse, -- that the church hath interposed its authority, and judged the first version to be the truer – I ask, when, or how the church declared that judgment? Or what church it is that he means? Or what right any church had to determine a false or improper version to be truer than a true and proper one?” [134-135]

There are more examples of Whitaker’s method of textual criticism.  Regarding 1 John 5:13, he quotes the Latin and then says,

“And so indeed the text is exhibited in some Greek copies, as Robert Stephens informs us in his Greek Testament. But the majority, even the Complutensian {3},  otherwise, thus: . . . . “ I’m leaving out his citation of the majority Greek text reading. He then immediately follows with, “But we do not choose to raise any great contention with our opponent upon the reading of this passage, since there is no difference in the sense.” [199]

Here he acknowledges differences within the extant Greek evidence and suggests two things: (1) that the number of Greek language variants helps determine the authentic original reading of the text, and (2) that since the meaning is not impacted, there is no need for “great contention.” 

One last example should suffice, this time regarding Matthew 19:7. Whitaker quotes the Latin and then says, “But in most, and the most correct, Greek copies, we read…” [201] and then he references the Greek reading he prefers. Again, he cites the number of manuscripts and the quality of the manuscripts as evidence for preferring the Greek reading over the Latin.

While I believe there are good reasons for following a Reasoned Eclectic method of textual criticism over a majority text-like methodology, I appreciate what Whitaker is trying to do.  He acknowledges the existence of differences in the Greek manuscripts and other translations that need to be sorted out.  He concedes that copying errors can and do creep into biblical manuscripts just like they are “introduced into any book.” When these differences occur, he uses the same sorts of textual criticism techniques used today to determine the true reading of the autographs – age, number of MSS, other translations, church fathers, quality of the evidence, and internal contextual considerations. What he views as finally authentic, though, is “what came from the apostle’s pen,” not what the church views as authentic, or what aligns with tradition, or what corresponds to the primary English version of the day (e.g., Tyndale 1534 at this time).

TRANSLATIONS

Speaking of versions, Whitaker also had quite a bit to say regarding the need for vernacular translations. Here are some important takeaways:

1. Translations must be verified, tested against, and corrected by the original language texts, and ultimately by what was written by the inspired penmen.

“For translations of scripture are always to be brought back to the originals of scripture, received if they agree with those originals, and corrected if they do not. That scripture only, which the prophets, apostles, and evangelists wrote by inspiration of God, is in every way credible on its own account and authentic.” [138]

2. Translations are not inspired. That term should be reserved for the text delivered through inspiration by the prophets. Inspired documents are inerrant; translations are not.

“It is one thing to be a prophet, and another to be an interpreter of prophetic writings. . . . Since the Vulgate edition is nothing more than a version, it is not of itself authentic or inspired scripture. For it is the function of an interpreter to translate the authentic scripture, not to make his own translation authentic scripture. Now Jerome both might, and did err in translating.” [147] {4}

“For authentic scripture must proceed immediately from the Holy Ghost himself; and therefore Paul says that all scripture is divinely inspire, 2 Tim 3:16. Now Jerome’s translation is not divinely inspired; therefore it is not authentic scripture.” [148]

3. He advocates something along the lines of formal equivalence as a translation philosophy.

“For it behooves a translator of scripture not merely to take care that he do not corrupt the meaning, but also, as far as it is at all possible, not to depart a hand’s breath from the words; since many things may lie under cover in the words of the Holy Spirit, which are not immediately perceived, and yet contain important instruction.” [165]

4. Translations should be updated on a regular basis.

Here is the Jesuit argument:

“In the seventh place, the Jesuit reason thus: if the scripture should be read by the people in the vulgar tongue, then new versions should be made in every age, because languages are changed every age; which he proves from Horace’s Act of Poetry and from experience. But this would be impossible, because there would be a lack of persons fit to make the versions; and if it were possible, it would be absurd that the versions should be so often changed. Therefore the scriptures ought not to be read in the vernacular tongue.”

Here is Whitaker’s response:

“I answer, every part of this argument is ridiculous. For, in the first place, it is false that languages change every age; since the primary tongues, the Hebrew, Greek and Latin, have not undergone such frequent alterations. Secondly, there is never in Christian churches a lack of some sufficient interpreters, able to translate the scriptures and render their genuine meaning in the vulgar tongue. Thirdly, no inconvenience will follow if interpretations or versions of scripture, when they have become obsolete and ceased to be easily intelligible, be afterwards changed and corrected. I would assuredly have passed over this argument entirely, if I had not determined not to conceal or dissemble any arguments of our opponents.” [232]

5. He rejects that idea that a long-used translation should not be replaced.:

Here is the Jesuit argument:

“He proposes his FIRST argument in this form: For nearly a thousand years, that is, from the time of Gregory the Great, the whole Latin church hath made use of this Latin edition alone. Now it is absurd to say, that for eight or nine hundred years together the church was without the true interpretation of scripture, or respected as the word of God, in matters pertaining to faith and religion, the errors of an uncertain translator, since the apostle, 1 Tim iii., declares the church to be the pillar and ground of truth.” [135]

Here is a portion of Whitakers multi-part answer:

• Since not all believers use the same language translation, errors in one translation do not impact those who don’t use that translation.

“I answer, in the first place, that the Latin was not at that time the whole church; for there were many and very populous churches of the Greeks and others. Although, therefore, the Latin church had erred, yet it would not follow that the whole church of Christ had remained for such a length of time subject to that error.” [136]

• It is a false argument that says you must have a perfect translation or even a perfectly preserved original language manuscript.  The Bible teaches the fundamentals of the faith over and over again throughout the Scripture so that errors or misunderstandings that may creep in here or there do NOT impact the main points of the faith. Even the Vulgate is good enough to keep one orthodox.

“Secondly, that the church may be deceived in the translation of some passages without, in the meanwhile, ceasing to be the church. For the church is not subverted by the circumstance, that some place of scripture happens to be improperly rendered . . . the fundamental points of the faith are preserved intact in this Latin edition, if not everywhere, yet in very many places.” [136]

• If God intended that there be one authentic version for each language on par with the autographs, then that version should have been in existence throughout time, not just starting at a point in time for that language group.  For English speakers, this means an authentic English version should have been available before 1611.

“Thirdly, if it were so necessary that the Latin church should have an authentic Latin version, which might claim equal credence with the originals, it would have prevailed always in the Latin church, not only after Gregory, but also before Gregory’s time. But we have shewn that there were many Latin versions in the Latin church before Gregory, and no one in particular authentic; . . . ” [136]

CONCLUSION

As I read through Whitaker’s writing, I am encouraged by the solid biblical foundation he laid, not just for the Westminster Confession of Faith, but for dealing with Bible text controversies both old and new. While Whitaker is not always right, and while others in his era may have expressed some of these ideas differently, he is a trusted voice from years gone past.  His views have not been corrupted by German rationalism or modern liberalism. Some people may be surprised to see that many of the ideas referenced here are not recent innovations but reflect the thoughts and arguments of solid conservative theologians from church history.

NOTES:

[1] Wayne Spear, “The Westminster Confession of Faith and Holy Scripture,” in To Glorify and Enjoy God. A Commemoration of the 350th Anniversary of the Westminster Assembly, John L. Carson and David W. Hall, eds. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1994). See also, Wayne Spear, Faith of our Fathers: A Commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith. Crown and Covenant Publications, 2013.

[2] William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, 132. Throughout the rest of the document bracketed numbers will indicate the page from which I quote Whitaker.

[3] The Complutensian is an early 16th century Bible containing parallel texts – columns of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin for the OT and columns of Greek and Latin for the NT.  Erasmus published his Greek NT first (1516) because the publishing of the Complutensian got delayed until 1517 so that it could include the OT as well.

[4] Regarding inerrancy he writes: “we cannot but wholly disapprove the opinion of those, who think that the sacred writers have, in some places, fallen into mistake.” [36-37] “Whereas, therefore no one may say that any infirmity could befall the Holy Spirit, it follows that the sacred writers could not be deceived, or err, in any respect.” [37] “it is the special prerogative of scripture that it never errs.” [40] Note that he anchors inerrancy to what the sacred writers originally wrote.