Luther and Erasmus: The Controversy Concerning the Bondage of the Will

Protestant Reformed Theological Journal ^ | April 1999 | Garrett J. Eriks

[Agrarian]

It is the consensus (but not unanimous opinion) of the Orthodox on FR that BVI is probably the most patristically minded Pope we have seen since, well, maybe since the Schism... We tend to like him (as popes go, as you say!)

His writings on subjects like the liturgy while he was Cardinal Ratzinger are some of the most Orthodox-like writings to come out of the Roman church.

So your impressions aren't that off. I've been a bit of a fan of his since the mid-80's, when I first read things like "The Ratzinger Report."

Do I trust him? Well, he *is* a Pope... :-)

[kosta50]

Oh, sure, I will make sure I flag you. +Benedict XVI is much more patristic than previous popes. There has been considerable movement in bringing good will among Catholics and Orthodox, concentrating on things we share in common rather than the few theological issues that divide us, and certainly steps have been taken to address those issues in an atmosphere of brotherly love and mutual respect.

The Apostolic Church as a whole is moving towards a convergence, and that is good. I hope this can carry over to our Protestants brethren as well. But, "all in due time."

[Forest Keeper]

Anyway, God gives faith, correct? Are you saying that one must have "x" amount of faith (from God) to become baptized? What exactly are you saying when you claim that ONLY believers can be baptized? Does one have to earn baptism? Is it a work of man?

Well, yes, I would say that one "should" have faith in God, i.e. be a believer, before one is baptized. I have already shown that I do not scream bloody murder at infant baptism, but I do think it is better practiced by believers. I do not see baptism as having any salvational effects, therefore there is no rush. I see it as an obedience to God, a public profession of faith, and an observation of what God has already done for His elect. I agree with the following about baptism from "The Baptist Faith and Message":

"... It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper."

No one has to earn baptism, unless one counts believing in Christ "earning". On if it is a "work of man", I suppose it could be taken that way in the same sense that the Lord's Supper is. It is symbolic and done in remembrance.

The Apostles must have seen her apparent sinlessness, and Scriptures point to the "fittingness" of Mary being sinless - JUST like we presume that Jesus also didn't have a sinful thought, even though Paul or the Apostles couldn't have known either person's mind or thoughts.

I am unaware of the scriptures that point to the "fittingness" of Mary being sinless. I also don't think we need to presume at all about the thoughts of Jesus. Paul tells us specifically that He was without sin. Paul knows that includes thoughts. We can presume about how Paul found that out, but not as to whether it's true, if we believe that the Bible is inerrant. Paul makes no corresponding statement about Mary of any kind.

I don't see any sin from Mary's actions at Cana. You need to look beyond the literal in John's Gospel, brother. It goes much deeper, pointing to the woman at the foot of the cross and the woman in the Garden of Eden.

Sometimes you won't take "YES" for an answer. :) Please re-read my post. I said that I do NOT think Mary sinned at Cana.

[George W. Bush]

Do I trust him? Well, he *is* a Pope... :-)

Yup. But they chose rather well, it seems. Orthodox saying nice things, Baptists grudgingly admitting a papal improvement...I've been on a couple of threads where I actually had to defend him from false accusations. Normally, this is not the position a Baptist wants to be in. :-?

[Agrarian]

Ha! Yes, he does make it rather hard to dislike him, doesn't he? I just wasn't aware that Baptists were even falling prey to his attractions. (Maybe he is the beast of Revelation, deceiving even the elect!)

Keep in mind that while things are improving on a theoretical/dogmatic level between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, the practical divergence in worship and praxis has perhaps never been greater. And that is perhaps the biggest obstacle of all to reunion for us.

So while things are certainly getting friendlier, we are centuries away from anything of significance happening...

But I am hopeful for continued improvements under BXVI.

[Forest Keeper]

First of all, do not assume that every part of the Protoevangelion is true. It is not Scripture, nor is this tradition. In the case of traditions like this, we feel very confident in the basic account, but we don't read into small details of the tradition with the confidence that we can with Scripture. (emphasis added)

This is where I get confused on what "tradition" is. :) I'm not positive of the difference it makes if you capitalize "tradition"?

You don't know your Old Testament very well if you aren't familiar with the strictness with which the Jewish tradition considered "the cycle" to be a time when a woman was ritually unclean.

I knew they were considered unclean, as well as in the case of right after childbirth. I just didn't know that it was so strict that a woman can't even live in a temple if she EVER is that way. I guessed that maybe at worst, they might have to go live in a tent or something during that time. But if dem was the rules, then dem was the rules. :)

[George W. Bush]

I just wasn't aware that Baptists were even falling prey to his attractions. (Maybe he is the beast of Revelation, deceiving even the elect!)

There's a happy thought. I'll tell the other Baptists. ; )

[Agrarian]

Allow me to rephrase the paragraph you quoted:

"...do not assume that every part of the Protoevangelion is true. Written extra-Biblical accounts are not Scripture, nor can they be considered to be an innerant conveyor of Holy Tradition in the way that the Scriptures are . In the case of traditions like our beliefs about the conception, birth, early life, ever-virginity, and falling-asleep of the Theotokos, we feel very confident in the basic accounts, but we don't read into small details of the Church's accounts of these traditions with the confidence that we can with Scripture...."

Hope that helps.

[fortheDeclaration]

But it is not insuperable and we can always benefit from sound bible study provided we use reliable references based on appropriate texts.

One is free to use any tool to attempt to understand the King James, but the King James is the final authority.

Do you have any examples you would like to share with us, where the King James was in error?

[Forest Keeper]

... it seems to me that under Jewish law, once you were engaged you were consider married-just not consummated until the wedding night. If a person wanted to break the vow[s] before the consummation process, it required a certificate of divorce. Thus Joseph had to "put her away quietly". Joseph couldn't just call off the engagement. I don't have my reference books but if anyone can shed light on this I would appreciate any corrections or updates.

I checked several websites, both Catholic and Protestant, and the consensus was what you are saying here. The only way to break a betrothal would have been for Joseph to issue a bill of divorce, following standard Jewish law. So, having a case of cold feet would not have been good enough, but fornication/adultery would have been a sufficient reason. This explains the language in verse 19, i.e. they had not had the marriage ceremony yet.

[fortheDeclaration]

Unless the Church can find some Evidence of it in the Tradition and Scripture, it must resign itself to the view that was by the Orthodox side all along -- which is that we simply do not know and that God did not find it necessary to reveal.

Infants go to heaven.

They are not accountable and therefore do not receive the imputation of sin and God is free to impute to them Christ's rightousness, not having denied Him. (2Sam.12:23, Rom.5:13,Jn.14:6.

[Agrarian]

As you know, I am a strong KJV advocate. But it is not free of textual or translational errors.

As an example of the former, the most notable is the so-called "Johannine comma," in I John 5:7-8. None of the Byzantine manuscripts contain this phrase. It is found only in a handful of very late Western manuscripts and has been pretty convincingly traced to a marginal note of a medieval Catholic manuscript -- from whence it was put back into certain Greek manuscripts in the West.

The entire argument for the authority of the Textus Receptus is based on the fact that it reflects the Byzantine textual tradition, where Greek was used without interruption from the time of the Apostles down to Erasmus's time (and of course is still used today.) The tremendous unanimity of the hundreds of manuscripts divided by long distances and times in the Byzantine textual tradition reflects extremely careful copying and, I believe, the preserving action of the Holy Spirit. (This is pretty close attention to detail regarding the exact words of Scripture for a Church which some believe is only concerned with the general spiritual meaning of the Scriptures.)

The Johannine comma is not incorrect in its theology, but it is a pretty clear late insertion into the text.

Mistranslations are often a matter of opinion. Orthodox Christians would prefer that the ambiguous statement that appears three times in the NT, "ti emoi kai soi", be translated more literally. It literally means "What to me and to thee?"

The KJV translated it in both the case of the Gadarene demoniac and in Christ's words to his mother at Cana as "what have I to do with thee?"

The Catholic Douay-Rheims takes the same ambiguity found in Latin, "Quid mihi et tibi," and interprets it in each passage. For the Gadarene demoniac, it says "what have I to do with Thee?" And in Christ's use of it, the D-R translates the same phrase as "what is that to me and to thee?"

Keep in mind that in the passage in St. Mark, the demoniac runs and does homage to Christ before saying "ti emoi kai soi?" The demons are, in essence, saying to Christ: "we know that you are the Son of God -- and we're powerful spirits ourselves. What does it matter to you what we do with this lowly human?"

If "ti emoi kai soi?" were a put-down statement that basically said "shut up, I have nothing to do with you," (as many Protestants believe that Christ was saying to his mother) then one would not expect the demoniac to do homage (or "worship", as the KJV says -- the Latin says "et adoravit eum" -- adoration is strictly limited to what is due God) to Christ while he says it.

So the Douay-Rheims does capture the essence of what the passage means in the case of Christ speaking to his mother, but something is lost of the ambiguity. Likewise, the KJV misses the point somewhat, I think, in *both* passages.

These, again, are matters of interpretation. It is not possible or desirable always to have an exact equivalence between a Greek word or phrase and an English word or phrase. I recently discussed the "he who loses his life will save it... what shall a man give in exchange for his soul" passage, in which "psyche" is correctly translated into two different English words, depending on context.

Again, I am a great advocate of preserving and using the KJV. I have a KJV Gospel open beside me on a reading stand, a KJV Bible to my right on my desk, and a KJV with Textus Receptus Greek interlinear in front of me. Finding fault with the KJV is sort of like (if you will forgive the inadequate analogy) me critiquing Tiger Woods' golf game or Michael Jordan's jump-shot. The KJV translators are the giants -- we are the midgets who sit on their shoulders in the English-speaking world.

[Forest Keeper]

It is a circular argument to say "the Bible is the Word of God BECAUSE the Word of God is the Bible". You won't convince any thinking person using this logic.

I have been arguing that the Bible interprets itself, and is self-authenticating. I have said that God inspired the writers of scripture to the point of inerrancy. I have also said that in the same manner, God inspired the assemblers of the Bible to the point of inerrancy. It is fascinating that you totally buy the first part about the writers and totally reject the second. Perhaps this is because it robs men of power and glory. God, as an authenticator, just will not do in your system. Apparently, only men are wise enough to make this call. I suppose it would be more difficult to give all the credit to the men of the Church for individual writings. It seems that it is much more natural to give honor and glory to men in the case of assembling the Bible because that is a committee function.

YOU could pick them out from a pile of scrolls without any knowledge of them previously, and decide they were Scriptures? Please. Give me a break. Without the community led by the Spirit, you wouldn't have a clue on what was Scriptures...

But it appears that you deny the leadership of the Spirit. Otherwise, you would be stuck in the same circular argument that you accuse me of. If the Spirit had anything to do with authenticating the Bible then it would be God authenticating His word, an impossibility for you. For you, it seems the credit and glory must go to men.

Can you point those verses out for me? Where does the Bible say the non-elect believe the Scriptures are nonsense? It is readily apparent that Jesus of Nazareth's death did not fit the "Scriptural" view held by the Jews on who the Messiah would be.

Here are a couple of examples:

1 Cor. 2:14 : The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1 Cor. 1:21-25 : 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

I believe that the scriptures are ultimately from God, so they are foolishness to the unbeliever. And, Paul directly addresses your point about the Jews of the time. Those who demanded only a warrior-King were not "believers".

From the bible alone, Jews will not come to the faith.

I agree. No one comes to the faith but by God's grace.

Asking for someone to pray for me is worship? I guess you must worship living Christians, then!

My concern was that there really is more going on than simply asking someone else to pray for us. As far as I can remember, I haven't infallibly declared any of my friends to be "the Queen of Heaven" as Pope Pius XII did on Nov. 1, 1950. In Jeremiah it speaks of burning incense to a pagan goddess called the "Queen of Heaven". Something is wrong with this picture.

[jo kus]

I do not see baptism as having any salvational effects, therefore there is no rush.

That's interesting, because that is one of Jesus' final commands - to Baptize... If baptism is for the remission of sins, and we die before our sins are remitted, where is our final resting place?

I am unaware of the scriptures that point to the "fittingness" of Mary being sinless.

The Church Fathers wrote about Mary being the New Eve, making the connection between Mary and Eve. I have already explained this. Eve, Adam, Jesus ... and Mary were all born without sin. God untied the knot of disobedience with the New Adam and Eve.

Paul tells us specifically that He was without sin. Paul knows that includes thoughts.

The only way Paul would know anything about that is through oral tradition given to him from the Apostles. In the same way, the tradition tells us that Mary, too, was sinless.

Paul makes no corresponding statement about Mary of any kind.

Apparently, Mary wasn't a problem that other communities asked Paul to clarify.

Sometimes you won't take "YES" for an answer. :) Please re-read my post. I said that I do NOT think Mary sinned at Cana.

Hmm. Well, here is your post. You tell me what you are trying to say...

#6690, FK wrote:

One example of Mary's sin that I have heard of was at the wedding in Cana. Frankly, I'd be willing to let that one slide. Objectively, I honestly don't see enough evidence. However, and since I'm thinking of it at this moment, :) is it a sin to disbelieve when one has no excuse?

How would YOU read that if you were me? That Mary sinned? No?

Regards

[Forest Keeper]

The terminology of the Church has been to say that he took flesh from the Virgin. His flesh was not created "de novo" and inserted into her womb, and she wasn't just some kind of "surrogate mother." She was Christ's mother in the flesh.

Thanks for the clarification. If I'm following you, then this is my view as well. It's interesting to note that some of His, er, flesh could not have come from Mary. :) She didn't have the chromosomes for Jesus to be male.

[jo kus]

I have been arguing that the Bible interprets itself, and is self-authenticating.

And I have said you are wrong. The Bible does NOT authenticate itself.

First, who wrote the Gospels??? Nowhere in the Gospels do we have an author's name or claim on who actually wrote them. We have tradition telling us who wrote them. And what about Paul claiming to be an apostle? Where is that authenticated by someone else? Christ, nor the apostles themselves ever say that.

What about forgeries? Since we don't have the original writings, how can we know we have the ACTUAL writings? Paul himself was concerned about this in 1 Cor 16:21; Gal 6:11; Col 4:18; 2 Thes 3:17; Philem 19.; check esp. 2 Thes 2:2 ("We beg you, brethren, not to be quickly shaken in mind or excited, either by spirit or by word, or by letter purporting to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come"). So, again, this destroys the concept of self authentication.

If one were to use U.S. Federal Guidelines that we use today, the Bible would not fare very well in Self-Authentication. If you want to know about the specifics, read U.S. Code Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Federal Rules no. 902. Only a few of the NT books would hold up to court scrutiny, as they mention an author. The Book of component parts cannot be its own criterion for infallibility. Any judge would laugh you out of court with this process and argument.

It is one thing to prove a doctrine from a book that is proven authoritative. It is quite another thing to prove the authority of a book, from that book, before the book itself is proven authoritative. These two are very different situations. This is circular reasoning. It is even worse when we realize that the book (New Testament) is made up of twenty-seven parts and was not a “unit” or canon for over three centuries. So, the Bible must not only prove that it is itself, in its present form, inspired and infallible, but it must also make that proof for each of the individual component parts. Discussing the whole as inspired is irrelevant until the component parts are proven to be inspired and infallible and I see that done nowhere in Scripture.

Really, the Bible ABSOLUTELY RELIES on the witness of the Church to verify its contents as being from God. Even Martin Luther admitted that the if it weren't for the Catholic Church, we would not HAVE knowledge of the Scriptures.

Thus, it is NOT self-authenticating.

I have also said that in the same manner, God inspired the assemblers of the Bible to the point of inerrancy

You ASSUME that! That is based on Tradition. Every individual book does not call itself "inspired" or "scriptural". Do you really think that the Bible fell out of the heavens?

God, as an authenticator, just will not do in your system.

What proof do you have that the Bible, EVERY book, is from God? And why aren't various other books "from God"? What makes a book "from God"? You approach the Bible "knowing" it is from God based on what? "Feel-good" thoughts? Sorry, without the Church, there is NO evidence that the Bible, every book, is from God. He didn't come down and make it clear that it is from HIM.

But it appears that you deny the leadership of the Spirit.

In the Church, He is there. Christ promised this. Not in individual Protestants. Proof is in the pudding. Differences of doctrine makes this clear.

If the Spirit had anything to do with authenticating the Bible then it would be God authenticating His word, an impossibility for you. For you, it seems the credit and glory must go to men.

I haven't said that. I say that we must trust that men are true witnesses of the Resurrection. We either believe their testimony, or we don't. God doesn't point out the Canon's table of contents and its meaning to every person individually. Why do you keep saying that? Isn't it clear that the Holy Spirit operates through His Church? Why is He in competition with the "Pillar and Foundation of the Truth"?

I have mentioned this SCRIPTURE over and over - how long do you intend on ignoring that you are arguing against the TRUTH given by the Spirit of God? You claim YOU have the Spirit of Truth - which contradicts what the Bible clearly says. You appear to be saying that the Bible is your sole source of authority - UNLESS - it differs with your Protestant theology.

Here are a couple of examples [Where does the Bible say the non-elect believe the Scriptures are nonsense?]

Neither of your verses mention the Scriptures, but the Spirit of God.

My concern was that there really is more going on than simply asking someone else to pray for us. As far as I can remember, I haven't infallibly declared any of my friends to be "the Queen of Heaven" as Pope Pius XII did on Nov. 1, 1950. In Jeremiah it speaks of burning incense to a pagan goddess called the "Queen of Heaven". Something is wrong with this picture.

All generations will call Mary blessed. Fortunately, Catholics continue to highly venerate God's greatest creation. Sorry if you disapprove of our Lady and Mother of the Body of Christ. As to Jeremiah, similarities does not mean coorelation. You may recall that there were Isis cults that preached similar things about the Resurrection of God. Does that mean Christianity has pagan roots?

Regards

[Forest Keeper]

Christ does not say that John the Baptist was literally Elijah the Tishbite returned to earth. How could that be, since John the Baptist was conceived of Elizabeth and Zacarias? That would mean that Christianity believed in reincarnation. There is something in the patristic commentaries that, as I recall, even point out some ambiguity in Christ's statements that show that he is both saying that Elijah has come, and that he will come. I'll have to look it up.

This is a tough one for me, as I do agree with you about the problem of reincarnation. Here are two passages of what Jesus does say, with the seemingly uncontradicted last sentence (in the second one) about His audience:

Matt. 11:13-15 : 13 For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. 14 And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. 15 He who has ears, let him hear.

Matt. 17:11-13 : 11 Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. 12 But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands." 13 Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.

Jesus appears to compare the untimely deaths of both Himself and of John the Baptist, since "Elijah I" :) didn't die. However, OTOH, we have JTB's own denial:

John 1:21 : They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" He answered, "No."

This one hurts my head. :)

When Elijah *the Tishbite* (as the LXX specifically says in Malachi) returns literally, it will not be by being reincarnated in another body and born of a woman. He will return from heaven with Enoch. Malachi refers simultaneously to St. John the Baptist (who is, so to speak, a 2nd Elijah) and to the literal return of *the* Elijah the Tishbite at the end of time, in his prophecy.

Then how are the statements of Jesus explained? Jesus is clearly referring to the prophecy in Malachi, and appears to be saying, in chapter 11, that JTB IS this Elijah. I can't explain it. :)

[George W. Bush]

The Johannine comma is not incorrect in its theology, but it is a pretty clear late insertion into the text.

Strong arguments can be mustered for the Commata but perhaps that is not an issue by which the entire translation stands or falls. Considering the far greater textual deviations found in the Alexandrian texts in Mark, for instance, this is pretty minor and quite often amounts to little more than trying to drag the Byzantine text and its translations down to the level of the Alexandrian and its bastard offspring.

(This is pretty close attention to detail regarding the exact words of Scripture for a Church which some believe is only concerned with the general spiritual meaning of the Scriptures.)

It is a little ironic but it does demonstrate the far greater reverence of the Orthodox for scripture and its authority. Rome naturally lost this as it invested more and more of its tradition with the personalities of successive bishops of Rome, some of whom were probably atheists, judging by their worldliness. It is between the Orthodox and Rome comparable to the situation between the Protestants and Rome: Rome has always and increasingly invested its authority in men and rejected scripture as the final authority. While the Orthodox are not Protestants, they do not practice popery and therefore textual authority is higher and the treatment of scripture is a far more serious responsibility. Clearly, there were long periods of Rome's existence that one would guess that no prelate of Rome or member of the hierarchy had ever read, let alone reverenced and obeyed, God's Word. I thought Benedict's recent remarks on the authority of scripture was a recognition of how much Rome had robbed herself of by elevating the opinions of mere men over the riches of scripture. It also reflects the new generation of Catholics who are bible students and for whom scripture is an important part of their daily spiritual life, just as it has been for Protestants for so long. And for the Orthodox, depending on their community and circumstances in history.

Mistranslations are often a matter of opinion. Orthodox Christians would prefer that the ambiguous statement that appears three times in the NT, "ti emoi kai soi", be translated more literally. It literally means "What to me and to thee?"

The KJV translated it in both the case of the Gadarene demoniac and in Christ's words to his mother at Cana as "what have I to do with thee?"

The Catholic Douay-Rheims takes the same ambiguity found in Latin, "Quid mihi et tibi," and interprets it in each passage. For the Gadarene demoniac, it says "what have I to do with Thee?" And in Christ's use of it, the D-R translates the same phrase as "what is that to me and to thee?"

• Joh 2:4 Jesus says to her, "What [concern is that] to Me and to you, woman? My hour is not yet come." - Analytical-Literal Version
• Joh 2:4 And Jesus said to her, "Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come." - English Standard Version
• Joh 2:4 Jesus said to her, "How does that concern us, woman? My hour has not yet come." - International Standard Version
• Joh 2:4 Jesus said to her, What is that to Me and to you, woman? My hour has not yet come. - Literal Translation of the Holy Bible (LITV)
• Joh 2:4 Iesus saith vnto her, Woman, what haue I to doe with thee? mine houre is not yet come. - KJV 1611
• Joh 2:4 Jesus replied, "Mother, my time hasn't yet come! You must not tell me what to do." - Contemporary English Version (yeow!)

So we can see that ALT does well but remains more a study aid bible due to its focus on accuracy though the Orthodox would be satisfied and, I think, most others. The ESV's reading is centered to much on Jesus' referring only to Himself and omitting Mary. The ISV, though not a favorite of mine, probably gives the vernacular English reading the Orthodox would like best. The LITV is accurate enough and might please the Orthodox also. The KJV gives the reading found in various Textus Receptus bibles of the era, like Bishops and Geneva, as well as modern descendants and even unrelated versions (EMTV, MKJV, ASV). I included CEV as just one more example of how silly some of the modern versions; these are the bibles you would give a young person if you want them to grow up to be atheists.

With regard to how the passage is to be translated, my first instinct is to look at reliable commentary when faced with idioms like these. So I generally turn to Gill, an old Baptist authority who is much neglected in the modern era. I would urge you to read his explanation of the text.

...as the Jews endeavour to take an advantage of this against the character of Mary, the Papists are very solicitous about the manner in which these words are said, lest they should be thought to contain a reproof, which they cannot bear she should be judged worthy of; or suggest any thing to her dishonour, whom they magnify as equal to her son: but certain it is, that the following words,

what have I to do with thee?
show resentment and reproof. Some render the words, "what is it to thee and me?" and give this as the sense; what concern is this of ours? what business have we with it? let them look to it, who are the principal in the feast, and have the management of it. The Jew (r) objects to this sense of the words, but gives a very weak reason for it:

"but I say, (says he,) who should be concerned but the master of the feast? and he was the master of the feast:''

whereas it is a clear case that he was one of the guests, one that was invited, (John 2:2), and that there was a governor or ruler of the feast, who might be more properly called the master of it than Jesus, (John 2:8). However, since Christ afterwards did concern himself in it, it looks as if this was not his meaning. Others render it to the sense we do, "what have I with thee?" as the Ethiopic version; or "what business hast thou with me?" as the Persic version; and is the same with, מה לי ולך, "what have I to do with thee?" used in 1 Kings 17:18, where the Septuagint use the same phrase as here; and such a way of speaking is common with Jewish writers (s): hereby signifying, that though, as man, and a son of hers, he had been subject to her, in which he had set an example of obedience to parents; yet, as God, he had a Father in heaven, whose business he came to do; and in that, and in his office, as Mediator, she had nothing to do with him; nor was he to be directed by her in that work; or to be told, or the least hint given when a miracle should be wrought, by him in confirmation of his mission and doctrine. Moreover, he adds,

mine hour is not yet come:
meaning not the hour of his sufferings and death, in which sense he sometimes uses this phrase; as if the hint was, that it was not proper for him to work miracles as yet, lest it should provoke his enemies to seek his life before his time; but rather the time of his public ministry and miracles, which were to go together, and the one to be a proof of the other; though it seems to have a particular regard to the following miracle, the time of doing that was not yet come; the proper juncture, when all fit circumstances meeting together, it would be both the more useful, and the more illustrious: or his meaning is, that his time of doing miracles in public was not yet; and therefore, though he was willing to do this miracle, yet he chose to do it in the most private manner; so that only a few, and not the principal persons at the feast should know it: wherefore the reproof was not so much on the account of the motion itself, as the unseasonableness of it; and so his mother took it.

And so we see a certain variety of readings here, hints of Jewish challenges to how Jesus addressed his mother and whether a Jewish man would speak to his mother in this way, Rome's objections that Jesus might sass his mother since they think she is a Co-Redemptrix (while also trying to deny it), etc. Gill takes a medium approach here, suggesting He reproved her for suggesting He perform a miracle and that she accepted His authority gracefully. Given that Baptists do not hold to Marian notions, this verse is not as charged for us as it would be for the Orthodox and even more so for Rome.

From Calvin's Commentaries:

4. Woman, what have I to do with thee? Why does Christ repel her so rashly? I reply, though she was not moved by ambition, nor by any carnal affection, still she did wrong in going beyond her proper bounds. Her anxiety about the inconvenience endured by others, and her desire to have it in some way mitigated, proceeded from humanity, and ought to be regarded as a virtue; but still, by putting herself forward, she might obscure the glory of Christ. Though it ought also to be observed, that what Christ spoke was not so much for her sake as for the sake of others. Her modesty and piety were too great, to need so severe a chastisement. Besides, she did not knowingly and willingly offend; but Christ only meets the danger, that no improper use may be made of what his mother had said, as if it were in obedience to her command that he afterwards performed the miracle.

The Greek words (Ti> ejmoi< kai< soi<) literally mean, What to me and to thee? But the Greek phraseology is of the same import with the Latin Quid tibi mecum? (what hast thou to do with me?) The old translator led many people into a mistake, by supposing Christ to have asserted, that it was no concern of his, or of his mother’s, if the wine fell short. But from the second clause we may easily conclude how far removed this is from Christ’s meaning; for he takes upon himself this concern, and declares that it belongs to him to do so, when he adds, my hour is not yet come. Both ought to be joined together — that Christ understands what it is necessary for him to do, and yet that he will not act in this matter at his mother’s suggestion.

It is a remarkable passage certainly; for why does he absolutely refuse to his mother what he freely granted afterwards, on so many occasions, to all sorts of persons? Again, why is he not satisfied with a bare refusal? and why does he reduce her to the ordinary rank of women, and not even deign to call her mother? This saying of Christ openly and manifestly warns men to beware lest, by too superstitiously elevating the honor of the name of mother in the Virgin Mary, ^f43 they transfer to her what belongs exclusively to God. Christ, therefore, addresses his mother in this manner, in order to lay down a perpetual and general instruction to all ages, that his divine glory must not be obscured by excessive honor paid to his mother.

How necessary this warning became, in consequence of the gross and disgraceful superstitions which followed afterwards, is too well known. For Mary has been constituted the Queen of Heaven, the Hope, the Life, and the Salvation of the world; and, in short, their fury and madness proceeded so far that they stripped Christ of his spoils, and left him almost naked. And when we condemn those horrid blasphemies against the Son of God, the Papists call us malignant and envious; and — what is worse — they maliciously slander us as deadly foes to the honor of the holy Virgin. As if she had not all the honor that is due to her, unless she were made a Goddess; or as if it were treating her with respect, to adorn her with blasphemous titles, and to substitute her in the room of Christ. The Papists, therefore, offer a grievous insult to Mary when, in order to disfigure her by false praises, they take from God what belongs to Him.

My hour is not yet come. He means that he has not hitherto delayed through carelessness or indolence, but at the same time he states indirectly that he will attend to the matter, when the proper time for it shall arrive. As he reproves his mother for unseasonable haste, so, on the other hand, he gives reason to expect a miracle. The holy Virgin acknowledges both, for she abstains from addressing him any farther; and when she advises the servants to do whatever he commands, she shows that she expects something now. But the instruction conveyed here is still more extensive that whenever the Lord holds us in suspense, and delays his aid, he is not therefore asleep, but, on the contrary, regulates all His works in such a manner that he does nothing but at the proper time. Those who have applied this passage to prove that the time of events is appointed by Fate, are too ridiculous to require a single word to be said for refuting them. The hour of Christ sometimes denotes the hour which had been appointed to him by the Father; and by his time he will afterwards designate what he found to be convenient and suitable for executing the commands of his Father; but in this place he claims the right to take and choose the time for working and for displaying his Divine power. ^f44

In the second and third paragraphs, we see a sample of Calvin, the thoughtful and contemplative scholar and the lover of scripture and its study. His remarks and approach are instructive for any student of scripture. In the fourth paragraph, we see Calvin as the greatest Reformer, taking the theological fight to the enemy, Rome. The language may seem harsh but we should recall that these were life and death matters to the peoples of that time. And Calvin's charges against the Marianism of Rome are not entirely excessive by any means.

However, many might suggest that Calvin did in fact use the second paragraph to warm to his subject with a slyly tendentious interpretation before expanding it in the third paragraph and then pounding his point home with fury in the fourth paragraph. Well, everyone has an opinion.

What I see here is how often the theology of a period informs the translation and interpretation of these passages, many of them filled with vernacular idioms of a the biblical era, both the time of Jesus and Hebraisms Hebrew scriptures quoted by Jesus or his followers or Hebraisms that were retained by Jews in their vernacular Aramaic. For Gill, he strives for accuracy and to draw a picture of the scene without reference to Mary as a divine person, he takes a broad perspective and wastes little effort on Rome's assertions. For Calvin, he asserts Jesus as authoritative and Mary as unequal (but respected) and describes the intimacy between them before he launches into an indictment of Rome's liberties with Mary and how their elevation of her robs Christ of His own glory. For the Orthodox, well, it is difficult to know precisely how the Orthodox read this passage. I'd like to see an Orthodox commentary to compare to these others. I suspect that their use of comparative ancient texts might more closely match Gill's work as he often referred to well-known Persic, Ethiopic and Syriac versions and he had a background in Jewish history and perspective on Christian history and doctrine. As usual, I expect that their most regarded commentaries are not available in English. That's a shame, really.

I think we also should consider that the phrase in question (or a close variant) is used many times in the Old Testament as well as the New. We can find it in various forms and contexts in 1 Kings 17:18, 2 Kings 3:13, 2 Chronicles 35:21, Mark 1:24, Mark 5:7, Luke 4:34 and Luke 8:28. This may offer a partial reason for the rendering of the passage in the KJV and the bibles of the Reformation and many modern Western versions.

Okay, that's all I can dig up. You can all have a good laugh now. ; )

[Forest Keeper]

[HD to JK:] Given your definition, when the Church meant to discuss which scriptures were inspired, then they were only CONFRIMING what was ALREADY known. That's all FK and I are saying.

Yes, I fully agree. I do believe that the Apostles taught correctly. When their written works started coming forth, there was already a measure of knowledge against which to judge their authenticity.

[George W. Bush]

One is free to use any tool to attempt to understand the King James, but the King James is the final authority.

In practice, I treat it that way, certainly when comparing its readings to some corrupt garbage like the NIV prepared by ungodly persons. But we cannot instill it with the authority of the original autographs. That would be dishonest. It is entirely possible for a very gifted, scholarly, godly, and orthodox group of translators to produce a version based on the majority text family in more modern vernacular that contains the accuracy of the KJV as well as its internal devices to aid memorization and its ability to evoke imagery as a great literary work. We have often discussed these features of the KJV. I would not pretend that we could produce a better KJV because the KJV is a product of its own era. But we could produce something very comparable that would speak in more modern terms. After all, you know that we don't actually use the KJV 1611 even if some KJV advocates think we do. We use a nineteenth-century revision of the KJV. It is something like the fifth revision as I recall. The original is more like:

Mat 5:18 For verily I say vnto you, Till heauen and earth passe, one iote or one title, shall in no wise passe from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoeuer therfore shall breake one of these least commaundements, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdome of heauen: but whosoeuer shall doe, and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdome of heauen.
Mat 5:20 For I say vnto you, That except your righteousnesse shall exceede the righteousnesse of the Scribes and Pharisees, yee shall in no case enter into the kingdome of heauen.
Mat 5:21 Yee haue heard, that it was saide by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill: and, Whosoeuer shall kill, shalbe in danger of the iudgement.
Mat 5:22 But I say vnto you, that whosoeuer is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the Iudgement: and whosoeuer shall say to his brother, Racha, shal be in danger of the counsell: but whosoeuer shall say, Thou foole, shalbe in danger of hell fire.

To suggest that the KJV is somehow insuperable would invalidate the nineteenth-century revision of it that we use since the KJV translators were long dead when our revised KJV was edited. And if we claimed that the 1611 was insuperable, we would have invested it with an authority equalling or exceeding the original monographs. Naturally, these positions are impossible to hold honestly. No translation is perfect as the KJV translators made perfectly clear in the Translator's Notes. But that is certainly not to say that all translations are equal.

Do you have any examples you would like to share with us, where the King James was in error?

I am pretty certain I did not say it was in error. I'm surprised you would think that. I believe the KJV is the version that is less susceptible to doctrinal error than any other version in popular use by English-speaking peoples. And the role of scripture is to tell us an accurate history and to accurately convey the doctrine embedded in that scripture. No English bible has equalled it, IMO.