Chapter by Chapter Review of "Why I Preach from the Received Text"

Status
Not open for further replies.

greenbaggins

Puritan Board Doctor
Some things first. I am interacting primarily with the problems in this book. This should not be interpreted as an indication that I have no areas of agreement with the authors. There are vast areas of agreement. In fact, being a Sturzian actually means, practically speaking, that I will wind up agreeing with the TR over against the CT in more than a few places. I haven't done this particular research yet. But I agree with the TR on the longer ending of Mark, the reading of 1 Timothy 3:16, and am open on the subject of John 7-8. Most of these contributors are either extreme or strong TR advocates. And there are many problems in this book. The Myers quotation has already been picked over by many people. I wish to draw attention to some other problems, including at least two statements so misleading as to transgress the boundary into lies, in my opinion.

The Editorial Introduction

On page 15, there is a caricature of “the modern critics.” It is not the case that modern critics assume corruption, and then “arrogate” to themselves the role of corrector of Holy Writ. That might be true of liberal textual critics, but not conservatives. Conservatives also believe that God's text has been preserved. What seems to be assumed here is that there only one plausible definition of “preserved,” and it has to be the TR.

It is ambiguous for the introduction to claim that the confessional forefathers affirmed the TR (also p. 15). They affirmed readings that were in the TR. That is not the same as affirming the TR itself, let alone confessionally.

It is overstated that 19th century critics set out to undermine the authority of the traditional text and replace it. They were tweaking the text based on new evidence. This will be the first of dozens of passages where the differences between the TR and the CT are exaggerated.

The purpose of the book is mis-stated on page 17, when the “original Hebrew” is included in the purpose of the book, whereas the obvious and wide defense of the KJV is not even mentioned as part of the purpose statement of the book, and in fact is discounted as one of the purposes of the book. I counted 160 references in the book to the TR, and 149 references to the KJV. I don't remember seeing a single reference to the Leningrad Codex, Aleppo Codex, Great Isaiah Scroll, BHS, BHQ, (the LXX is mentioned once on p. 72) or any other important text-critical issue concerning the Old Testament.

Archibald Allison's Chapter

It is absolutely false, his claim that “When an error was made in a manuscript, it was discarded” (p. 29). We have no evidence that this was true of New Testament manuscripts. If it were true, we would only possess one complete manuscript of the entire New Testament, and no variants at all, since if a variant is counted as an error, discovery of one such error would necessitate the destruction of that manuscript. Instead, what we find is that there is evidence of correction in dozens of manuscripts. They didn't discard them, they corrected them. This is a very elemental error, quite surprising for someone as well-read as Allison.

Jonathan Arnold's Chapter

The rhetoric about “modernistic” and “replacing the classic Protestant doctrine of Scripture” is unfounded. This has not happened in classic Protestant denominations. Again, having a different understanding of textual preservation does not mean a completely different doctrine of Scripture. This is so overstated on his part as to be ludicrous. He also makes the claim (p. 32) that the early Protestant confessions actually affirm (in such language, apparently) the TR, which no early confession actually does. As mentioned above, affirming certain readings in the TR is not the same as affirming the TR as THE authentic text.

He mis-states the problem of uniformity of manuscripts, on p. 39 by claiming that “the various extant ancient manuscripts of the Bible are not always identical.” This implies that some are. There are no two manuscripts of the NT that are identical. None whatsoever. This is a highly misleading statement.

Another problem that is seen in several of the chapters is the definition of the word “corrupted” (p. 40, 63). This word should, in my opinion, really be dropped from text-critical discussion altogether. The way it is usually used in common parlance implies deliberate falsification. That is not how CT text-critical scholars use the term. Any kind of difference, no matter how slight, constitutes a “corruption” in CT circles. I did not see a single author in this book who used the term use it in the way that CT scholars use the term. So, there is a considerable amount of talking past one another on that point.

I was very puzzled by his term “adequate” on page 42 to describe our access to what God has preserved. What is “adequate” and why isn't the CT “adequate”? He actually claims that the TR is the confessional text. No denomination I am aware of would agree, except maybe the FCoSC.

Doug Barger's Chapter

This chapter illustrates another fundamental error that almost all TR advocates make: assuming that which is to be proved. On page 52, he says that modern scholars “convince many that the Bible contains words, phrases, and entire passages that are not inspired.” This assumes that the TR is correct on all text-critical issues, and then makes inspiration the issue. It is not the issue. The issue is whether a given reading is original or not. If it was not original, then it was not inspired. It doesn't go the other way (“this isn't inspired, so therefore it must not be genuine”). In assuming that the TR is correct, it assumes that CT authors have this sort of attitude that they are above the text, and can snip things out at their pleasure. This is a caricature. I don't know a single text critic except maybe Bart Ehrman would agree that this is even a remotely fair description of what they do and how they think. It is highly ironic that he wants to speak in a “spirit of gentleness and meekness” while trying to direct them away from the “presumptions of the modern critics,” implying that all of them have absolutely no overlap with “the testimony of God Himself.” This is not a spirit of gentleness and meekness, to put it mildly.

Gavin Beers's Chapter

His doctrine of God's providence (as I have found in nearly all TR advocates' work) is very narrow. Not one of them seems to want to answer the question of why older-but-hidden manuscripts are manuscripts God actually preserved (see p. 58). Let's ask a hypothetical question: if any of the manuscripts used to form the TR had ever been lost for single day, would that mean they couldn't be used? If not for a single day, then what about a year? If not for a year, then what about a decade? Century? How long is too long for a manuscript to be out of bounds and useless for text-critical work? And how exactly would any position on this question have even a hope to be justified from Scripture? Sinaiticus was both preserved and used in the church. One does not correct useless or unused manuscripts, and there are many correctors of Sinaiticus. So, by his own criteria (“We are looking for a text that has been preserved and used in the Church”), we should use Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. He seems to caricature CT scholars again by saying “not just a text that is old,” as if that was the only thing that mattered to CT scholars. The last page and a half really has nothing to do with the TR, as it is a defense of the KJV.

Poul de Gier's Chapter

The obvious reductionism and lack of nuance in this chapter is palpable. “The modern view” (p. 63)? There are the TR views, the CT views, the Majority Text view, the Byzantine priority view, the Sturzian view. This is absurd: lump all non-TR positions into one slave-to-Westcott-and-Hort basket and knock down the strawiest of strawmen. As for his attempt to discount Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, many manuscripts were corrected against other manuscripts. This is not unique to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, as he seems to imply. And why would anyone correct a worthless manuscript? No TR advocate ever answers that question. So few papyri? I wouldn't call 141 papyri few. Some of them are fragments, of course, but that is just as true of minuscules and other uncials.

He makes the entirely unsupported claim that “early heretics tampered with the scriptures and entire regions, such as Egypt, were affected” (p. 67). First of all, heresy affected every region of the church, including Byzantium during the time when those manuscripts were being produced. That does not mean heretics tampered with the manuscripts, let alone that such only ever happened in Egypt. This is a poisoned well fallacy, one to which TR advocates quite often succumb.

He makes the claim, also quite common among the TR advocates that other streams of manuscripts were “rejected,” (p. 68) even though there is absolutely zero evidence for this. The only answer I've ever been able to finagle out of a TR advocate for this point is “the current state of the manuscripts.” Presumably this means the simple fact of majority being on the side of the Byzantine texts. Minority does not equal rejection. Barring any positive statement from people of that time period to the effect of this: “we reject the Egyptian manuscripts,” saying that the Egyptian manuscripts were “rejected” is pure speculation. That there are fewer of them now (which, of course, might have been quite different in the fourth century, say) has nothing to do with whether they were rejected or not. Far less speculative as an explanation for why there are fewer Egyptian manuscripts is the fact that Islam conquered Egypt in the 7th century. Islam does not allow Christian evangelism or propagation of Christian texts. So the Christians probably hid those manuscripts rather than allow Muslims to burn them all. Nothing to do with rejection. This “rejection” argument needs to be jettisoned by all TR advocates.

Tanner Dikin's Chapter

Dikin doesn't bother to answer the question of the LXX on page 72. If it was “flawed,” then why did the NT authors use it, oftentimes word for word, in their quotations of the Old Testament, even when it deviated from the Hebrew text somewhat? Quotation of Psalm 12:6-7 (p. 73) to support this particular doctrine of preservation (as if other text-critical positions are somehow opposed to it) is not cogent, and has been well-answered by Mr. Ward and others.

William O. Einwechter's Chapter

His rhetoric about a “shameful capitulation” to modern textual criticism (p. 79) gives the lie to the idea that Christopher Myer's piece is the only chapter problematic on such issues. The problem with this chapter is that it completely fails to show how and why Warfield, for instance, would even disagree with a syllable of the words quoted from Owen. None of the quotations form Owen actually mention the TR. I don't disagree with a syllable of any of the Owen quotations, and yet I am not TR. This chapter has a firmly anachronistic feel to it, as if Owen were reacting to modern CT argumentation, which he is not.

Brent Evans's Chapter

This chapter seems like a rather large building to build on a single issue, whether “amen” is present or not in several places in the NT. He says that the TR is an important starting point for preaching Christ as the amen, as Revelation 3:14 says. This is highly ironic, as the CT has “the amen” plainly referring to Christ in that very verse. He, again like so many TR advocates, uses the prejudging language of “omit” when it comes to what the CT doesn't have that the TR does have. This prejudges whether the language was there and was either accidentally or purposely left out, or whether, from the other side, it was accidentally or intentionally added. This is why it is much better to use the now-fairly-standard practice of saying “plus” or “minus” instead of “omit” or “insert.” The problem with this essay is that all the ways he speaks of preaching Christ are just as easy to do from the CT as from the TR. And if the CT were to be closer to the original, then this argument borders on post-hoc argumentation (“this TR text lets me preach better, therefore it is better”).

Philip Gardiner's Chapter

The only comment I will make on this chapter is his assumption that non-TR folk don't believe in preservation, which is a common caricature. He asks the rhetorical question, “If God has not providentially preserved his Word, how can we be sure what he inspired?” (p. 106). As if other positions do not believe in preservation! He offers a bait and switch. Just earlier, he says “they may have certain questions about preservation.” Then he says “If God has not providentially preserved...” Having certain questions is quite different from denying preservation all together. He seems to equate the two in a very caricaturing kind of way.

Dane Johannsson's Chapter

Dane's chapter also has the problem of lumping all non-TR positions into the vague expression “modern textual criticism” (p. 111).

He makes a rather astonishing claim on p. 113: “In short, for over four centuries, the Received Text, via translation in the Authorized Version, has been the touchstone and standard of all Reformed Bible preaching and commentary.” This is certainly overstated. He doesn't even limit this to English-speaking Reformed preaching, as he should, since the KJV wasn't precisely the version used in non-English-speaking Reformed and Presbyterian churches. The Geneva Bible had a huge following even after the KJV was produced, and in the last forty years in particular, the KJV can certainly not be said to be “the touchstone and standard” anymore. The NIV and now ESV has far more churches using it than the KJV does. He says the KJV is “the Reformed Christian's text” (107-8). He used the present tense for this statement. This is plainly not true in today's Reformed world. The Reformed world uses the NASB, NKJV, KJV, ESV, and NIV.

Howie Owen Jones's Chapter

This common canard that non-TR positions don't hold to providential preservation is perpetuated in this chapter (p. 119). Far more accurate would be to say that the CT holds to a broader view of preservation and providence than the TR position does. Certainty is, I believe, a common idol among TR advocates. If there isn't 100% certainty, then we don't have God's Word. One of his criticisms of the CT is that “there are many uncertainties in the Critical Text” (p. 121). There is no documentation whatsoever that CT thinking is “Enlightenment thinking” (ibid.). He uses the prejudging language of “Verses are questioned and even removed in the Critical Text” (ibid.). There is no nuance in his opinion about the differences between the Majority Text position and the TR position. The TR is NOT based on the majority of Byzantine manuscripts (contra p. 124). That would be the Robinson/Pierpont Majority text position and published Greek text. This kind of lack of nuance plagues most of the essays. The TR position cannot argue majority manuscript arguments and get away with retaining the Comma Johanneum.

Appealing to now non-existent Byzantine manuscripts is a pipedream and a contradiction of the TR position in other points. Access to any manuscripts was fairly limited in the time of the production of the TR. This would have been true also of the theologians of the time period. The TR position argues that only manuscripts in use in the church are appropriate for use in textual criticism, even though that position is hardly held consistently. Because when Egyptian manuscripts can be shown (by the existence of correctors) to be used in the church, they are still rejected by most TR advocates as being of the slightest use in textual criticism. Theoretical Byzantine manuscripts can just as easily be counteracted by equally theoretical Egyptian manuscripts, which might very well have outnumbered Byzantine manuscripts for hundreds of years, especially before Muslim invasion of Egypt. Castles in the air are hardly good foundations for textual criticism.

Trevor Kirkland's Chapter

Kirkland argues that the NIV used “sleight of hand” to fool people into thinking that the manuscripts needed to be preserved as opposed to the words (p. 126). It is highly unlikely that the produces of the NIV were ignorant of the distinction between manuscripts and readings. It is more likely that Kirkland is guilty of being uncharitable in his reading of notes that have to be, by necessity, quite brief. He brings up the translation issue of 2 Kings 23:29 as compared with 2 Chronicles 35:20. While it can certainly be agreed that the KJV offers a better translation than the NKJV on this point, he neglects to mention the fact that the following modern translations also essentially agree with the KJV: ASV, NETS, ESV, NAB, NASB, NRSV, Tanakh, CEB, and HCSB. The other arguments Kirkland uses in favor of the KJV are mostly not relevant to the TR debate.

Brett Mahlen's Chapter

I would only mention here that Mahlen appears to misunderstand Warfield. Warfield clearly states in his introduction to textual criticism that the original is in the apographs, whereas Mahlen suggests that Letis “shows in chapter one how Warfield had moved the Reformed focus from infallible apographs to inerrant autographs” (140). On the other hand, it can legitimately be asked if there is any single apograph without a single copying mistake in it. When Warfield thus says that the autograph is the one without a single mistake of a copying nature, he is not necessarily denying to the apographs infallibility in other senses. Great confusion can happen when infallibility of the original as coming through the apographs is equated with copying infallibility. The autograph is in the apographs, as Warfield himself says (see below). The question is which apographs are to be considered for the discovery of the autograph?

A couple of quotations from Warfield might be helpful here, as he gets maligned in this discussion quite often. He mentions “the providence of God in preserving for His Church in each and every age a competently exact text of the Scriptures” (12); “The great mass of the New Testament, in other words, has been transmitted to us with no, or next to no, variation” (14); “The autographic text of the New Testament is distinctly within the reach of criticism in so immensely the greater part of the volume, that we cannot despair of restoring to ourselves and the Church of God, His Book, word for word, as He gave it by inspiration to men” (15); “We seek the original text of the New Testament in the extant MSS” (p. 136).

Robert McCurley's Chapter

Overblown rhetoric characterizes this chapter as well. Saying “Likewise, the believer does not depend upon unbelieving methodology, nor may he employ the world's depraved assumptions in grappling with textual questions” (p. 145). It's obviously a bad thing modern confessionally Reformed text critics of any non-TR position employ the “world's depraved assumptions” in doing their work. I question this statement's charity, truthfulness, and even sanity. He also seems to think that any deviation from the TR constitutes “purposeful alteration of the text of Scripture” (p. 147). He uses the poisoned well fallacy of “a region rife with Arian heresy.” It doesn't seem to occur to him that Alexandria is actually the place where Athanasius opposed the Arian heresy. He was bishop of Alexandria! It was everywhere else where the Arian heresy was making inroads, including the entire Byzantine empire! So he gets this history 100% wrong. The presence or absence of the Arian heresy is neither here nor there with regard to the copying of manuscripts. This was one of the very worst essays in the book, full of lies and twisting of Scripture.

Christian McShaffrey's Chapter

I would question whether absolute certainty is something God intended for us to have in textual criticism. In my opinion, if God had wanted us to have that level of certainty, He would have preserved the actual autographs themselves. I seriously question whether “kept pure in all ages” requires 100% purity at every point. The argument about word order (154-5) seems to ignore the difference word order makes in English as opposed to Hebrew and Greek. Preserve the word order in Genesis 1:1, and you get the following: “In the beginning created God the heavens and the earth.” This is highly ambiguous, as it could be taken to imply that God is a created being (if the word “created” is not understood as a transitive verb but a verbal adjective modifying “God”). McShaffrey appears to think that word order means just as much in Hebrew in Greek as it does in English. This is manifestly not the case.

McShaffrey argues about the italicized words. I, for one, do not believe that italicizing words makes anything clearer. It does not clarify whether the word was implied by the original or simply added on a whim. It also implies a highly strict word-for-word correspondence theory that is simply not plausible. Words only have meaning in context. If I use the word “lie,” do I mean “tell a lie,” or “lie down”? Only in context can it be determined which meaning of the word is intended. There is meaning on every level of the text. A word for word correspondence theory that is too strict will make for terrible English. The word “and” in English implies tying together two thoughts. The Hebrew vav and the Greek de and kai are not as strict as that, and often simply imply a continuation of the narrative. Many Hebrew vavs are quite adequately translated by putting the text in paragraphs. McShaffrey leaves out “optimal equivalence” theory, laid out in the Christian Standard Bible introduction, which easily wins out in sheer merit over all other translation theories.

Many TR advocates use the second person distinction between “thee” and “thou” as almost an exclusive argument in favor of the KJV. McShaffrey has other arguments, but I often get the impression that this is the lynch-pin argument. While it is regrettable that modern correct English does not have an easy workaround for this problem, it is certainly not completely insoluble. “You all” can work for plural (Southern “y'all”, while informal, is quite popular in the United States). Hendricksen, in his commentaries, used to space out the “you” to indicate plural. Many translations have notes that show when the you is plural where it would make a significant gain to understanding.

It should be noted that almost all of these arguments in this essay are defending the KJV, not the TR.

D. Scott Meadows's Chapter

His statement that the TR is the Word of God is phrased in such a way that alternatives are excluded from being the Word of God. The simple answer to his query “Why don't you preach from the Received Text?” is that some of us don't think it is the most accurate text. The assumption is operative in this essay that modern Reformed textual critics couldn't agree with Turretin. This is highly doubtful. It is also anachronistic, as pointed out before, since the Reformers and post-Reformation scholars were reacting against Roman Catholic teaching, not Westcott and Hort or the many other positions now on offer.

Pooyan Mehrshahi's Chapter

One problem with this chapter is that he seems to assume that the proof-texts have to be held in their usually printed form if one is to adhere to the Westminster Standards. This is a very bizarre position, not one held by any Reformed or Presbyterian denomination of which I am aware. The proof-texts were added later as evidence of a long exegetical tradition in the commentaries about why and how this doctrine got its formulation in the way it did. The answer to his question on page 174 is “quite easily, as most Presbyterian and Reformed denominations actually do.” He commits an outright lie on page 175 when he says, “The critical text is generally based on the minority of available texts.” In the vast majority of the NT, the critical text matches the TR word for word and the Majority text word for word. So, it is GENERALLY based on the same readings as the TR. This kind of lie undermines the TR position at every point: a gross exaggeration of the differences between the TR and the CT, and no acknowledgment whatsoever of the vastness of the agreement. Only a very few acknowledge the vastness of agreement. The majority of TR advocates only see differences. This is why it is difficult for me to respect the TR position as it is often argued.

Mark L.R. Mullins's Chapter

I don't really have much to say about this overly brief chapter.

Christopher Myers's Chapter

I don't have much to say about this chapter that hasn't been said by other critics. I will say that he maligns Warfield and the Hodges by saying that they became sympathetic to evolutionary methodology (p. 190). This is a lie, as has been shown in the responsible secondary literature (particularly Fred Zaspel). Charles Hodge explicitly repudiated evolution in his Systematic Theology, and Warfield also rejected it (contrary to seemingly endless claims to the contrary). This essay should never have been included in this book at all.

Jeffrey Riddle's Chapter

I have no comment on this chapter, except that I found it unconvincing.

Christopher Sheffield's Chapter

The language “riddled with corruption,” which he is presumably putting in the mouths of modern text critics, is another example of the ambiguity of the word “corruption,” as well as being not true of confessionally Reformed text critics. We would prefer that people not put words in our mouths.

His argument about Acts 20:28 is specious, since “of the Lord” is just as fully affirming of the deity of Christ as “of God” is.

His statement about Romans 9:5 on page 209 is so highly misleading as to transgress into the "lie" territory.[see *footnote] The only modern editions of the text that substantially disagree with the punctuation in the TR are the 19th edition of NA, the 3rd edition of UBS, and the Lachman edition. All other editions are so agreed with the TR on this position that the NA 27th-28th edition doesn't even have a text-critical entry on the punctuation point. I would point out that the following translations agree essentially with the KJV on the meaning of this important verse: ASV, ESV, NIV, CSB, NASB, NLT, NRSV, NET, CEB. All of these translations equate Christ with God, which is the central point of the translation/textual issue.

While I am convinced that the correct reading of 1 Timothy 3:16 is “God” and not “who,” his assertion that “who” constitutes a reading that “may lend themselves to a denial of Christ's deity” (210) is absurd. Being non-affirming is hardly equivalent to a denial, and the reading “who” does not constitute a denial of Christ's deity.

The argument about Revelation 1 doesn't wash either. The CT says just as plainly as the TR does that the speaker is Christ. All of verses 5-7 are explicitly about Christ, and the repetition of “the one who is, and who was, and who is coming” in verse 8 from verse 4 proves it conclusively.

He argues that “The changes introduced by the Critical Text strike at the very core of the Christian faith—the person of Jesus Christ.” That is ridiculous. First of all, I have answered all his specious arguments, including the lie. Secondly, this rhetoric is so overblown as to be ridiculous. The Critical Text affirms the deity of Christ every bit as much as the TR does. This essay was terribly argued.

John Thackway's Chapter

He seems to think that modern critics want to arrive at what they believe is the nearest text to the original (216), as if the editors of the TR were not trying to accomplish the very same thing. TR advocates want to drive a truck through the supposed differences in methodology between the TR and the CT editors, but the reality is that there is not nearly as much difference as there is similarity in methodologies. I don't really want to get into that here. Suffice it to say that the differences are usually grossly exaggerated. He commits a rather obvious anachronism in forgetting that Lloyd-Jones wrote well before Hendriksen (222).

Robert Truelove's Chapter

I don't have much to say about this chapter, except that I found it unconvincing.

J.D. Watson's Chapter

He seems to think that WH believe orthodox scribes intentionally altered the text (237), and that therefore WH were essentially accusing the orthodox scribes of lying. Alterations could happen for many different reasons, not all of them intentional (in fact, very few intentional!), and WH are quite clear on this point. He misunderstands Warfield, on p. 239. Warfield was talking about the originals AS PRESERVED IN THE MSS. This is nearly explicit in his quotation of WCF 1.8. I dealt with this misunderstanding above, as well.

Joshua White's Chapter

He also seems to gloss the word “corrupt” as Metzger uses it (247), in a far more sinister way than Metzger himself used it (see above). He utters a ridiculous caricature of Reformed textual critics on p. 250: “According to modern textual criticism, Christians during the first eighteen hundred years of church history were simply following the errant grammatical expressions of various scribes.” I know not a single Reformed textual critic who would agree that this is even remotely a fair description of his own opinion. Lumping all non-TR positions into one place doesn't help this statement either.

Appendix

I find it highly ironic that the editors exhort TR advocates in churches to “be sure to avoid overly-charged rhetoric” (255). This book engages in overly-charged rhetoric in perhaps half of the chapters, and certainly not just Myers's chapter. I also find it mind-blowing that they suggest “If you cannot do this (due to conscience), politely request that your membership be transferred to a nearby church of like faith and practice” (255). This is a first-order issue for them. It is worth leaving a church over, at least for some people. This is divisive. Even entertaining the possibility that someone should leave a church over this issue is something I find objectionable. If someone objects, "But this is Scripture we are talking about!" My answer is simple. The objection assumes that the TR has Scripture and no one having a Bible based on the CT has the Scripture at all. The issue is not whether someone has Scripture at all, but whether the differences between TR and CT are worth leaving a church over. In my opinion they are not.

Conclusions
This book is full of caricatures and misrepresentations, is lacking in nuance, and offers a fundamental bait and switch. In saying that the book is not primarily about the KJV, and is about both the Hebrew and Greek originals, when it barely mentions anything about OT textual criticism, but mentions the KJV 149 times, is definitely a bait and switch. It is barely more about the TR than about the KJV. No doubt the authors want to distance themselves from KJVOism. However, as several reviewers have noted, functionally this book is KJVO. Jeffrey Riddle has already responded by saying, functionally, that any critique of this book at all is toxic (he used this label over Everhard's critique, which was, in my opinion, an extremely gracious and fair critique). If he is going to use that label over a gracious critique, then I will turn it around and say this book is toxic in many of its essays. I will do everything in my power to prevent anyone from my church even knowing about its existence. We just put the ESV in our pews last year. This book would function to undermine the confidence of anyone whose Bible is not already the KJV. That is the fundamental problem here. The book is sectarian and divisive. It needs to be pointed out clearly and repeatedly that this kind of argument is not repeated regularly in reverse fashion in non-TR circles that are Reformed. I don't even know of anyone who would say that the KJV is not God's Word, or that there needs to be an asterisk beside it in such a claim.

*I am using the word "lie" (note the scarequotes) as a perfect synonym of "untruth." There is no judgment being made on the character of Mr. Sheffield, and there is no accusation here of any "intent to deceive." His statement on Romans 9:5 in the CT is simply false. That is what I mean.
 
Last edited:
Lane, thank you for your review. As it does not seem like a reasonable and sober-minded discussion of the subject, I see little point in buying or reading it.
 
Thanks for your efforts Lane. I’ll read it over and give it some thought.

Do you think we will see more attention given by Reformed ministers to refuting this position in the months and years ahead?
 
Agree with everything stated in the review. James White's book The King James Only Controversy is also a very good counterpoint to this book and really the KJV movement in general. It basically points out all of the same issues with the KJV position as Lane has in relation to this book, and goes on to even more areas that are problematic. I don't say TR because realistically, that is not what the book is about 90% of the time.
 
Thanks for your efforts Lane. I’ll read it over and give it some thought.

Do you think we will see more attention given by Reformed ministers to refuting this position in the months and years ahead?
Unless I’m mistaken, I think one may overestimate the exposure the average layman has with this issues. And then should the minister bring this up if that is the case?
 
Unless I’m mistaken, I think one may overestimate the exposure the average layman has with this issues. And then should the minister bring this up if that is the case?
Yes, because it needs to be addressed. As noted in the review, the TR rhetoric is often times not charitable or measured and is in fact schismatic. This is the type of thing that causes denominations to split.
 
Thanks for your efforts Lane. I’ll read it over and give it some thought.

Do you think we will see more attention given by Reformed ministers to refuting this position in the months and years ahead?
Yes, particularly if the CB position continues to pick up steam.
 
Thanks Lane. I have zero interest in purchasing this book, even for a critique. But I read the preview on Amazon and it followed essentially the pattern that I assumed it would:

First sentence of the introduction: "From the beginning, the devil has sought to destroy the souls of men by enticing them to doubt God's Word." And then draws the equivalent of anyone questioning the TR being in line with Satan questioning God's word "Yea, hath God said...?" And says Eve added some words to Scripture, and she also "deleted" words. And this goes directly into a discussion of those awful textual critics.

This is a scare tactic.

They then say that "God has raised up men in every generation since the fall and given them the courage needed to rebuke the devil and his servants."

This sets up the teams. We are the courageous men rebuking the devil. They are those who "delete" portions of God's word, just like Satan. Choose your side now.

This is hardly the setup for a gracious discussion or an irenic entreaty to consider things with an open mind. Throughout the introduction there is an "us" vs "them" mentality and I find that dangerous.
 
Thank you for the review Lane. I had considered reading the book and doing something similar. I may still read it, but you're better at doing this than I am.

I have met and sat under the preaching of several of these men. One was even briefly my pastor. I found as someone who had studied textual criticism a fair amount that the basic arguments I heard while in the FCoS(C) were persuasive for the TR. I began to assume for a period that it was the confessional position as was often presented, and well, I wanted to be confessional as I love the Westminster Confession of Faith (and still do -- Chapter 1 is even my favorite!). I found as I re-evaluated later that at least the folks I knew were not honestly dealing with the data and didn't have good answers to questions beyond a high level defense. It's very helpful for me to see these arguments laid out in text form that I heard over the years so that they can be better responded to. It's men who fervently love the Lord and his Word, but our arguments should be rooted in truth and faithful representation. I'm afraid you've demonstrated many of these arguments are not that at all.
 
I think the "based on" part is more opinion than fact.
Perhaps. I like the concept of taking the confession seriously at this point, but also believe the Confessional Text position has not solved the 'which TR' question - that is essential if you take a very literal interpretation of WCF 1:8 'kept pure in all ages'. Which edition of the TR is kept PURE in ALL ages?
 
Perhaps. I like the concept of taking the confession seriously at this point, but also believe the Confessional Text position has not solved the 'which TR' question - that is essential if you take a very literal interpretation of WCF 1:8 'kept pure in all ages'. Which edition of the TR is kept PURE in ALL ages?
This is why WCF 1.8 cannot be referring to the TR. In the CB movement, "pure" means either 100% pure, or "vast majority pure." But no one manuscript exactly equals the TR. So which manuscript(s) was it that was "kept pure in all ages" before the TR existed? All ages has to include the time before the TR existed, which means that WCF 1.8 cannot be referring to the TR as that which was kept pure in ALL ages, even before the TR existed. To put it in the most stark terms as a question: which manuscript(s) represented the text kept pure in all ages before the TR existed? The manuscripts that eventually made up the TR? This seems like the most likely answer to the question from the TR position. But since none of those manuscripts are 100% equal to the TR, then by necessity the TR position has to back up and say that any one of those manuscripts was the text kept pure in all ages, no matter what differences they have among themselves. In which case, we certainly cannot have 100% pure any more in all ages, let alone have WCF 1.8 refer to the TR, since the TR is not precisely equal to any of the manuscripts used in its making.

Most TR advocates say to me that if I am a Sturzian, I don't have an edition of the Greek NT to point to. Which edition will the TR advocates point to before, say 1500, as the text kept pure in all ages? There were no editions of the Greek NT at all before that time. If they say "It's the Byzantine tradition generally," than I ask why not the Majority text position? The TR position cannot use any Majority text arguments unless they want to jettison the Comma Johanneum (yet they do use such arguments).

If a position says that the TR was providentially preserved through all ages, and that it was texts in use in the church, then a clear line of this preservation needs to be traced all the way back to the autographs. This cannot be done in the case of the Byzantine tradition. If it was visible texts in use in the church, then they need to trace that visibility all the way back, otherwise there is no visibility, which appears to be a sine qua non with the TR position. Only those manuscripts that are visible through their entire existence are those kept pure in all ages. I have not seen anyone do such tracing. It can be proven that the readings from the Byzantine tradition are older than most CT guys say they are (Sturz proved this). That is most definitely not the same thing as saying that the manuscripts are that old. Usually, the response is something like this, "But of course manuscripts that are in use eventually deteriorate." Why not assume that such manuscripts were rejected if they disappeared? That is the argument they use on the disappearance of Alexandrian manuscripts. No, "kept pure in all ages" refers to all the manuscripts by God's preservation preserved. All of them put together are the apographs in which the autographs are to be found. Any other position on that points runs into countless difficulties.
 
I found as I re-evaluated later that at least the folks I knew were not honestly dealing with the data and didn't have good answers to questions beyond a high level defense. It's very helpful for me to see these arguments laid out in text form that I heard over the years so that they can be better responded to. It's men who fervently love the Lord and his Word, but our arguments should be rooted in truth and faithful representation. I'm afraid you've demonstrated many of these arguments are not that at all.

This is precisely what bothers me. I'm quite sure they are well meaning and I went into my investigation of the "TR position" with an open mind. It sounded great! Who wouldn't want a "confessional" and "reformed" defense of the text? I would love to believe that one TR edition is the standard, even if it were Scrivener. But what I generally found was well-meaning individuals who researched into something only as far as it supported their priors, and then stopped. Claims were made about historical figures and manuscripts that upon investigation, proved to be ignorant, at best.

Unfortunately it's easy to become persuaded by some partial truths in a blog post that claim the church had one text through all her history and now the evil textual critics are now deleting portions of the Bible. It's much, much harder to educate someone to the nuance that is behind textual history, textual criticism, and the views of those in the past.

We have to be willing to honestly deal with all the data, not invent stories and scenarios for parts that don't fit a presupposition. And I am firmly convinced that we have to have a view of providence and purity that is general enough to encompass all ages (as the Confession says!), not just the 1500s onward.

I would actually think that all of us here would gladly jump on the TR side if it could actually be demonstrated that it was logically consistent, fit all the data, and could be shown to be the view of at least some of the major Puritans / Reformers, or if it was actually be a falsifiable hypothesis that could be evaluated objectively.
 
This is troubling. I’ve always considered Rev McCurley to be a sober and godly minister.


Robert McCurley's Chapter

Overblown rhetoric characterizes this chapter as well. Saying “Likewise, the believer does not depend upon unbelieving methodology, nor may he employ the world's depraved assumptions in grappling with textual questions” (p. 145). It's obviously a bad thing modern confessionally Reformed text critics of any non-TR position employ the “world's depraved assumptions” in doing their work. I question this statement's charity, truthfulness, and even sanity. His quotation of Matthew 5:18in support of his position is a gross twisting of Scripture. Jesus is talking about the law. The Old Testament is the plain referrent, as nothing in the New Testament had been written down at the time when Jesus spoke these words. It is in the context of hypothetical abrogation of OT law, not textual preservation. He also seems to think that any deviation from the TR constitutes “purposeful alteration of the text of Scripture” (p. 147). He uses the poisoned well fallacy of “a region rife with Arian heresy.” It doesn't seem to occur to him that Alexandria is actually the place where Athanasius opposed the Arian heresy. He was bishop of Alexandria! It was everywhere else where the Arian heresy was making inroads, including the entire Byzantine empire! So he gets this history 100% wrong. The presence or absence of the Arian heresy is neither here nor there with regard to the copying of manuscripts. This was one of the very worst essays in the book, full of lies and twisting of Scripture.”
 
Lane, much appreciation of your thorough review. You pretty much have confirmed many of the thoughts I had gotten from other reviewers, and lines up with my own experience from authors like Riddle and sites like “Young, Textless, and Reformed.”

Which edition of the TR is kept PURE in ALL ages?
From all the arguments I’ve read and heard of CB, the logical conclusion is that edition of the TR that is “pure in all ages” was in Early Modern English before it was published (or at least printed) in Greek. After all the KJV is “a TR itself.” Minus a few outliers, the vast majority of CB arguments I’ve heard assume it is the KJV that is perfect, and it identical with the ”true TR.”
 
This is troubling. I’ve always considered Rev McCurley to be a sober and godly minister.
You shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath-water. He has a blind spot, apparently, where he can't see clearly. So do we all. Although I've never found the quotation, I have heard it was Calvin who said that the very best theologian could only be, at best, 80% correct in his theology. Chalk this up to his 20%.
 
I know some of the men involved in this book and met Rev. McCurley back in 1994 and venture to say few can match him in gifts and godliness, so I'm not happy with the severity of the language that Lane uses here, and it seems sort of incongruous to now flatter the man as useful to the church after saying his chapter was filled with lies and twisting of Scripture.
 
I know some of the men involved in this book and met Rev. McCurley back in 1994 and venture to say few can match him in gifts and godliness, so I'm not happy with the severity of the language that Lane uses here, and it seems sort of incongruous to now flatter the man as useful to the church after saying his chapter was filled with lies and twisting of Scripture.
What’s your take on Rev. McCurley’s words?
 
I have not read the book. But someone who tells lies and twists scripture is not qualified for the gospel ministry. So language such as that leaves nowhere to go.
I haven’t read his chapter yet, so I can’t comment about what he has written.

In your estimation, does Matthew 5:18 teach about the preservation of the TR?
 
I know some of the men involved in this book and met Rev. McCurley back in 1994 and venture to say few can match him in gifts and godliness, so I'm not happy with the severity of the language that Lane uses here, and it seems sort of incongruous to now flatter the man as useful to the church after saying his chapter was filled with lies and twisting of Scripture.
Rev. McCurley is of course our pastor, as we are a preaching station and are overseen by the session in Greenville. I’m speechless.
 
Last edited:
But someone who tells lies and twists scripture is not qualified for the gospel ministry.
There is a difference between writing an essay wherein lies have been propagated and being a person who is characterized by lies—the same thing with twisting Scripture. I am not commenting on whether or not Pastor Lane's assessment is accurate, but even the best of ministers can occasionally propagate lies and even twist Scripture, sometimes due to sincere ignorance. Again, I am not saying this is what Pastor McCurley in fact did. My point is simply that such things do not necessarily disqualify them from ministry.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top