# PRTS & the KJV



## Timotheos (May 24, 2017)

Sorry for another PRTS question.

I noticed in some places (like Dr. Beeke's article or their sermonaudio page) that the faculty uses the KJV in the classroom. I also noticed while listening to many of their lectures that the profs pray in KJV English. That could just be attributed toward the puritanism, however. 

For those "in the know", is the seminary somewhere on the scale of KJVOnlyism, not the lunatic fringe of some like Ruckman. But are they really more for the KJV than for good translations such as the NKJV or ESV to the discouragement of their use? Or is it just a classroom choice?


----------



## Parakaleo (May 24, 2017)

The KJV is used because it's the best translation of the best manuscripts. Nothing KJVO about it.

I also pray with thee and thou because it is more precise (it's second person singular; we pray to the Father) and I believe it to be biblical and reverent to pray in a way other than my everyday speech. It has revolutionized my prayer life.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (May 24, 2017)

Beeke has written before on why he retains the KJV. I don't agree with all of his reasons but he makes some good points.

I don't find the hyperbolical statement "the best translation of the best manuscripts" to be particularly useful. There are no objectively universal criteria to be able to say that. There are good arguments for, and good arguments against, and there are different criteria in different situations or for different people.

As for KJV English in prayers, you might find previous discussions interesting.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## greenbaggins (May 24, 2017)

I am signed up for the class on textual criticism for the Fall for my Th.M. Michael Barrett is teaching, and he espouses the Majority Text position.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Timotheos (May 24, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> I am signed up for the class on textual criticism for the Fall for my Th.M. Michael Barrett is teaching, and he espouses the Majority Text position.


As in the Hodges/Farstad MT or the Byz Priority of Robinson?


----------



## greenbaggins (May 24, 2017)

Tim, I am not sure about that, yet.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (May 24, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> Majority Text position


The Majority text of today, or the Majority text that existed prior to AD 700?

Reactions: Like 2 | Praying 1


----------



## JOwen (May 24, 2017)

Simply put, PRTS uses the KJV because it believes it to be the most faithful translation in the English language. Nothing Ruckmanite about it. For this reason, it is the agreed upon text for all classes. PRTS is not KJVOnly, but does use it exclusively, officially. What the profs use at home or in the pulpit is their business, though I suspect that most still use the AV personally.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (May 25, 2017)

JOwen said:


> Simply put, PRTS uses the KJV because it believes it to be the most faithful translation in the English language. Nothing Ruckmanite about it. For this reason, it is the agreed upon text for all classes. PRTS is not KJVOnly, but does use it exclusively, officially. What the profs use at home or in the pulpit is their business, though I suspect that most still use the AV personally.


Do they see modern versions as also being the word of God to us in English then, as those holding to Kjvo would not!


----------



## Dachaser (May 25, 2017)

Timotheos said:


> As in the Hodges/Farstad MT or the Byz Priority of Robinson?


Is there that much of a difference between those 2 Greek texts though?


----------



## Dachaser (May 25, 2017)

Logan said:


> Beeke has written before on why he retains the KJV. I don't agree with all of his reasons but he makes some good points.
> 
> I don't find the hyperbolical statement "the best translation of the best manuscripts" to be particularly useful. There are no objectively universal criteria to be able to say that. There are good arguments for, and good arguments against, and there are different criteria in different situations or for different people.
> 
> As for KJV English in prayers, you might find previous discussions interesting.


Yes, as there are good and valid reasons that are used to support many of the Greek texts in use, so one can be have a preference/prefer one over another, but not have it as the only valid one...


----------



## Timotheos (May 25, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Is there that much of a difference between those 2 Greek texts though?


Depends who you talk to. The method is certainly different. And since I studied Textual Criticism w/ Dr. Robinson, I tend to favor his view over H&F


----------



## JOwen (May 25, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Do they see modern versions as also being the word of God to us in English then, as those holding to Kjvo would not!


"Modern versions" is a rather large net to cast, but to varying degrees yes, they would acknowledge several as the Word of God.


----------



## BG (May 25, 2017)

It is Roman Catholic, it might as well be Latin

Reactions: Like 1 | Sad 1


----------



## MW (May 25, 2017)

The Australian Parliament is not Roman Catholic. It prays as follows: "Almighty God, we humbly beseech Thee to vouchsafe Thy special blessing upon this Parliament, and that Thou wouldst be pleased to direct and prosper the work of Thy servants to the advancement of Thy glory, and to the true welfare of the people of Australia."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (May 25, 2017)

*Moderator Note*:
Posts (or quotes thereof) that crossed the boundaries of charitable discussion have been removed.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## KBorg (May 26, 2017)

I went to PRTS (grad: 2013). The school is not KJV-O in the weird sense, though some of the reasons for the priority of the KJV differ from strange to scholarly (in my opinion). They pray with "Thees" and "Thous" because the Dutch culture distinguishes between the second person as used casually and formally and PRTS retains an *extremely* Dutch flavor. All professors are required to pray using "Thees" and "Thous" but students are not. All professors teach from the KJV, all students are expected to use the KJV in papers and sermons, and exegesis' base text is the Textus Receptus as prepared by F.H.A. Scrivener and, at least when I went, they did not have students interact with textual criticism.

A couple weeks ago The Jerusalem Chamber podcast did an interview with Dr. Michael Barrett of PRTS on textual criticism. It's well worth the listen: https://jerusalemchamber.com/2017/05/10/special-episode-interview-with-dr-michael-barrett/

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser (May 26, 2017)

KBorg said:


> I went to PRTS (grad: 2013). The school is not KJV-O in the weird sense, though some of the reasons for the priority of the KJV differ from strange to scholarly (in my opinion). They pray with "Thees" and "Thous" because the Dutch culture distinguishes between the second person as used casually and formally and PRTS retains an *extremely* Dutch flavor. All professors are required to pray using "Thees" and "Thous" but students are not. All professors teach from the KJV, all students are expected to use the KJV in papers and sermons, and exegesis' base text is the Textus Receptus as prepared by F.H.A. Scrivener and, at least when I went, they did not have students interact with textual criticism.
> 
> A couple weeks ago The Jerusalem Chamber podcast did an interview with Dr. Michael Barrett of PRTS on textual criticism. It's well worth the listen: https://jerusalemchamber.com/2017/05/10/special-episode-interview-with-dr-michael-barrett/


Based upon that, this school would seem to fit the definition of being KJVO!

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Dachaser (May 26, 2017)

JOwen said:


> "Modern versions" is a rather large net to cast, but to varying degrees yes, they would acknowledge several as the Word of God.


Would those include the NASB/Esv/NKJV then?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (May 26, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Based upon that, this school would seem to fit the definition of being KJVO!


I think there is a difference between KJV_Only_ and KJV _preferred_. The former is best represented by the likes of brandplucked with all the usual vitriolic engagement that accompanies such a view.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JOwen (May 26, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Would those include the NASB/Esv/NKJV then?


Yes


----------



## JOwen (May 26, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Based upon that, this school would seem to fit the definition of being KJVO!


If by King James only, you mean that it is the stated official translation for the seminary then you are correct. However the most ardent conservatives at the seminary would not in any way, shape or form, say that the KJV translation is without imperfections. And for the record, textual criticism is used in certain PRTS classes as needed (within the MT family). There is a vast difference however between textual variant comparison and the Higher Critical method. Thankfully in this regard, PRTS has not been tinctured with European Enlightenment Rationalism. So if you would like to lump PRTS in with fundamentalist KJV Onlyism ala Peter Ruckman, Samuel Gipp, Gail Riplinger, or D. A. Waite, I'm afraid you'll be hearing crickets. There's is no support for that. The reason PRTS uses the Authorized Version is as historic (tied to the founding denomination) as it is measured and scholarly.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser (May 26, 2017)

JOwen said:


> If by King James only, you mean that it is the stated official translation for the seminary then you are correct. However the most ardent conservatives at the seminary would not in any way, shape or form, say that the KJV translation is without imperfections. And for the record, textual criticism is used in certain PRTS classes as needed (within the MT family). There is a vast difference however between textual variant comparison and the Higher Critical method. Thankfully in this regard, PRTS has not been tinctured with European Enlightenment Rationalism. So if you would like to lump PRTS in with fundamentalist KJV Onlyism ala Peter Ruckman, Samuel Gipp, Gail Riplinger, or D. A. Waite, I'm afraid you'll be hearing crickets. There's is no support for that. The reason PRTS uses the Authorized Version is as historic (tied to the founding denomination) as it is measured and scholarly.


So they would use the Majority Greek text/TR, but would see those such as NASB and esv as being OK also?


----------



## Dachaser (May 26, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I think there is a difference between KJV_Only_ and KJV _preferred_. The former is best represented by the likes of brandplucked with all the usual vitriolic engagement that accompanies such a view.


True, as they seem to be MT/TR, but that is for their official use, and not against all modern versions, as KJVO are?


----------



## JOwen (May 26, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> So they would use the Majority Greek text/TR, but would see those such as NASB and esv as being OK also?


PRTS has not commented on other translations as far as I know. Try to view the seminary's position, not as negative (against other translations), but positive (AV use in classes and papers). I do not speak for them, but knowing the school as I do, they would never condemn anyone for using the ESV or NASB. You just can't submit coursework with them. 
I believe that other translations are still the Word of God insofar as they agree with the MT. For me personally (thanks to Dr. Barrett), because no 2 Greek manuscripts agree 100%, and there are roughly 5000 of them, I include Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus with all extant NT manuscripts, and weed out the variants against the Majority Text. When you include both text families, it is amazing what fights you can avoid while maintaining the doctrine of preservation.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## mhseal (May 26, 2017)

I would comment that I never once quoted the KJV in any of my papers at PRTS, and was never officially graded down for that. I believe Kyle and I spoke about that some years ago at a Starbucks.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JOwen (May 26, 2017)

mhseal said:


> I would comment that I never once quoted the KJV in any of my papers at PRTS, and was never officially graded down for that. I believe Kyle and I spoke about that some years ago at a Starbucks.


OK, interesting. This underlines PRTS' s graciousness when it comes to translations.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (May 27, 2017)

JOwen said:


> PRTS has not commented on other translations as far as I know. Try to view the seminary's position, not as negative (against other translations), but positive (AV use in classes and papers). I do not speak for them, but knowing the school as I do, they would never condemn anyone for using the ESV or NASB. You just can't submit coursework with them.
> I believe that other translations are still the Word of God insofar as they agree with the MT. For me personally (thanks to Dr. Barrett), because no 2 Greek manuscripts agree 100%, and there are roughly 5000 of them, I include Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus with all extant NT manuscripts, and weed out the variants against the Majority Text. When you include both text families, it is amazing what fights you can avoid while maintaining the doctrine of preservation.


So you would end up with a Greek text having both critical and MT witnesses included, as in when the CT agreed with the MT?
Isn't that what the NKJV tried to do, with their column notes showing ct/mu readings?


----------



## JOwen (May 27, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> So you would end up with a Greek text having both critical and MT witnesses included, as in when the CT agreed with the MT?
> Isn't that what the NKJV tried to do, with their column notes showing ct/mu readings?


The NKJV tried to do something along those lines but were unable to break away from their presuppositions, importing the methodology of the higher critical method into some texts, and certainly many marginal readings. Careful examination of the CT manuscripts, when brought into the whole body of texts (5000-ish) will by reasonable discovery set _portions of _the CT aside _at every point _it diverges with the Majority Text. So include every biblical text manuscript, but let the majority rule sift them, as it does at certain points with itself. The NKJV did not do this.
I think this is off topic. My apologies.


----------



## Dachaser (May 27, 2017)

JOwen said:


> The NKJV tried to do something along those lines but were unable to break away from their presuppositions, importing the methodology of the higher critical method into some texts, and certainly many marginal readings. Careful examination of the CT manuscripts, when brought into the whole body of texts (5000-ish) will by reasonable discovery set _portions of _the CT aside _at every point _it diverges with the Majority Text. So include every biblical text manuscript, but let the majority rule sift them, as it does at certain points with itself. The NKJV did not do this.
> I think this is off topic. My apologies.


Thanks for the clarification.... Is there really that much of a difference between even the CT/MT, as thought both pretty much agreed up the major truths of scripture?


----------



## JOwen (May 27, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Thanks for the clarification.... Is there really that much of a difference between even the CT/MT, as thought both pretty much agreed up the major truths of scripture?


My pleasure. The differences only lie in their differences. Where they agree, they are both the very Word of God. The problem arises in methodology, namely, scientific reasoning determining the true text, vs Divine Providence. The doctrine of preservation of the biblical text (WCF I:VIII) says that we have always had the complete Word of God. The CT method says we can never be sure. So for me it is not a manuscript problem so much as methodology.


----------



## Dachaser (May 27, 2017)

JOwen said:


> My pleasure. The differences only lie in their differences. Where they agree, they are both the very Word of God. The problem arises in methodology, namely, scientific reasoning determining the true text, vs Divine Providence. The doctrine of preservation of the biblical text (WCF I:VIII) says that we have always had the complete Word of God. The CT method says we can never be sure. So for me it is not a manuscript problem so much as methodology.


Think both would be saying though that the task of textual criticism would be to attempt to reconstruct the text to get as close to what the originals were, correct?


----------



## JOwen (May 27, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Think both would be saying though that the task of textual criticism would be to attempt to reconstruct the text to get as close to what the originals were, correct?


Yes, that is correct.


----------



## bookslover (May 28, 2017)

When Beeke became a co-editor of the Lectio Continua expository commentary series (with Jon D. Payne), Beeke announced that "the goal is to publish two volumes per year in the King James or New King James Version, according to the choice of each author" (the statement appears on page xv of Beeke's volume on Revelation).

Limiting the choice of translation the authors can use seems unfair to the authors but, if they're fine with it, I guess it's not a problem.

Beeke's statement does seem to show his (over) commitment to the KJV, in my opinion.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (May 28, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Based upon that, this school would seem to fit the definition of being KJVO!



Believing that a particular translation is the best and exclusively using it in light of this belief does not meet the criteria of "KJVO." In fact, most people probably do this in their own life and ministry. The defining mark of KJVO is a belief that the King James is not only the best translation, but that it is superior even to the Greek and Hebrew originals, and further ,that all other translations are not merely the product of faulty methodology, but the product of Satan. Nothing has been shown that would indicate that PRTS falls into that category.


----------



## Dachaser (May 29, 2017)

bookslover said:


> When Beeke became a co-editor of the Lectio Continua expository commentary series (with Jon D. Payne), Beeke announced that "the goal is to publish two volumes per year in the King James or New King James Version, according to the choice of each author" (the statement appears on page xv of Beeke's volume on Revelation).
> 
> Limiting the choice of translation the authors can use seems unfair to the authors but, if they're fine with it, I guess it's not a problem.
> 
> Beeke's statement does seem to show his (over) commitment to the KJV, in my opinion.


He would seem to be one who is close to holding the KJVO position, but his works such as in Puritan theology jas been very good!...


----------



## Dachaser (May 29, 2017)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Believing that a particular translation is the best and exclusively using it in light of this belief does not meet the criteria of "KJVO." In fact, most people probably do this in their own life and ministry. The defining mark of KJVO is a belief that the King James is not only the best translation, but that it is superior even to the Greek and Hebrew originals, and further ,that all other translations are not merely the product of faulty methodology, but the product of Satan. Nothing has been shown that would indicate that PRTS falls into that category.


The difference between holding to the KJV as being the best or the only one to use would be if one held to all modern translation are all bad, and if the KJV was a perfect english translation, as if their translators had inspiration from God to make that perfect version....


----------



## greenbaggins (May 30, 2017)

Jerrold, I hope you are aware that not all proponents of the CT hold to a position denying God's providence, but that some hold that God's providence can work in many different ways, including preserving manuscripts out of sight.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (May 30, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> Jerrold, I hope you are aware that not all proponents of the CT hold to a position denying God's providence, but that some hold that God's providence can work in many different ways, including preserving manuscripts out of sight.


God preserved for us today all of the original manuscripts close enough in all of the various sources to be able to reconstruct really close to the original text in the CT...


----------



## JimmyH (May 31, 2017)

bookslover said:


> When Beeke became a co-editor of the Lectio Continua expository commentary series (with Jon D. Payne), Beeke announced that "the goal is to publish two volumes per year in the King James or New King James Version, according to the choice of each author" (the statement appears on page xv of Beeke's volume on Revelation).
> 
> Limiting the choice of translation the authors can use seems unfair to the authors but, if they're fine with it, I guess it's not a problem.
> 
> Beeke's statement does seem to show his (over) commitment to the KJV, in my opinion.


Here is a link to Joel Beeke's own stated reasons for preferring the KJV.
https://youngpuritan.wordpress.com/...ions-practical-reasons-for-retaining-the-KJV/
If posting this link is in any way against PB policy will a moderator please delete it. I think the post is pertinent to the discussion since Joel Beeke's point of view was referred to specifically.


----------

