# Rushdoony and the TR?



## RamistThomist (May 21, 2007)

This is mainly for TR advocates. Did Rushdoony have any particular view on the TR? I ask this because Dr Theodore Letis has a contributing chapter in the Rushdoony festchrift. 

Also, in Rushdoony's lectures on Christian Curriculum, he praises the KJV for its stylistic beauty and said when he was younger and schooled in the KJV, he could quote much of the bible from memory because of the KJV's style.

But in the Institutes of Biblical Law Rush quotes from several different translations.

Thanks,


----------



## Pilgrim (May 21, 2007)

Draught Horse said:


> This is mainly for TR advocates. Did Rushdoony have any particular view on the TR? I ask this because Dr Theodore Letis has a contributing chapter in the Rushdoony festchrift.
> 
> But in the Institutes of Biblical Law Rush quotes from several different translations.
> 
> Thanks,



I believe that later he developed strong views favoring the TR (perhaps similar to Letis if not directly influenced by him) and that we discussed this on the PB about a year ago. There is a sharp exchange between Sandlin and Bahnsen on the old Theonomy-L list from about 10 years ago on this subject. The real fireworks started when James White entered the debate vs. Letis.


----------



## MW (May 22, 2007)

There was a whole issue devoted to it in the old Journal of Christian Reconstruction. I have a recollection that R. contributed.


----------



## Tallen (May 22, 2007)

Pilgrim said:


> I believe that later he developed strong views favoring the TR (perhaps similar to Letis if not directly influenced by him) and that we discussed this on the PB about a year ago. There is a sharp exchange between Sandlin and Bahnsen on the old Theonomy-L list from about 10 years ago on this subject. The real fireworks started when James White entered the debate vs. Letis.


 
The issue between Letis and White became whether White was qualified to speak for those within the guild of textual criticism. Letis, with impeccable academic credentials and White with what is viewed as somewhat shady credentials from some within the guild. So the discussion soon lost momentum and focused upon White's credentials and integrity. This left both Letis and White standing with egg on their faces. Letis because he felt he should address whether or not White was qualified to present an informed opinion, and White for presenting himself as though he was from within the ranks of textual critics.

I say this not to impugned either man, but as an observer of this whole exchange. For me it demonstrated that even those that are viewed as leaders of the issues of today..., are often driven by pride and a need for recognition. They battle the same battles as the rest of us.


----------



## Pilgrim (May 22, 2007)

Tallen said:


> The issue between Letis and White became whether White was qualified to speak for those within the guild of textual criticism. Letis, with impeccable academic credentials and White with what is viewed as somewhat shady credentials from some within the guild. So the discussion soon lost momentum and focused upon White's credentials and integrity. This left both Letis and White standing with egg on their faces. Letis because he felt he should address whether or not White was qualified to present an informed opinion, and White for presenting himself as though he was from within the ranks of textual critics.
> 
> I say this not to impugned either man, but as an observer of this whole exchange. For me it demonstrated that even those that are viewed as leaders of the issues of today..., are often driven by pride and a need for recognition. They battle the same battles as the rest of us.



I agree. The discussion went nowhere If I recall correctly, similar to the Letis-John Robbins exchange over the Letis review of G.H. Clarks _Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism_ where Letis kept insisting that Clark was in the Scottish Common Sense Realist tradition. Clark admitted upfront he was no specialist in textual criticism; his purpose in that book was to demonstrate the inconsistency of the textual critics when judged by their own standards. 

To get back to the subject of the thread, I searched the board yesterday but could find nothing on Rush and the TR. Maybe the discussion I remember was on one of your old blogs instead, Jacob. I seem to remember you saying last year that you had purchased an AV and had listened to some Rush lectures on the TR.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 22, 2007)

Pilgrim said:


> To get back to the subject of the thread, I searched the board yesterday but could find nothing on Rush and the TR. Maybe the discussion I remember was on one of your old blogs instead, Jacob. I seem to remember you saying last year that you had purchased an AV and had listened to some Rush lectures on the TR.



I think I remember saying something like that.


----------



## Tallen (May 23, 2007)

Letis was a regular on the Caledonian Board on Yahoo. This is a "theonomy" board with a lot of Rush's fans posting on it. At least at the time Letis was posting on the board. There are a couple of conversations on there where Letis discusses his likes and dislikes of Rush's theology and his eventual separation from him. I think that conversation happened in the summer of 03 or early 04. You can search for it:

 HERE 

There is some good historical related conversations that happened on that board between a few of the regulars.


----------

