Perspective on the TR in the 20th and 21st centuries
Seeing as I supported Lane in his view regarding “strong” and “extreme” CBTR views condemning other versions as “satanic” or “illegitimate” Bibles here on PB, I want also to present a balanced perspective on this whole issue, including the TR generally.
Perhaps I have alienated some of my TR and AV friends with my stand, which I have explained earlier here – as apart from such a stand our house will be divided. But as regards Lane’s sense that he has been oppressed by TR views for a long while – let me give some perspective.
Here on PB I started posting on textual issues in 2006, to bring some light on the matter, which I had been studying for years. Yes, I was still in the rough in those days, and had much to learn, but had a basic grasp of the main issues.
Starting in the late 19th century, after Westcott and Hort finished their Greek Critical NT, and the English version of it was published, slowly the academics in the field of NT criticism began to believe that these new versions were superior – due to its claimed “neutral” Greek text – to the old Textus Receptus, and, with BB Warfield’s support for it, slowly it began to take the field, as it were.
In the following years textual critics and scholars – in the main – followed suit, though there were some scholars who strongly differed. It was the promise of a “neutral” uncorrupted text, with a new methodology for ascertaining the most reliable readings, that was the big draw. Seeing as how the Bible was under attack by liberals and rationalists, all sound scholars rightly were eager for withal to fight back. The TR/AV were set aside as inferior to the new critical text and English translations of it, in light of the new textual discoveries and attending theories.
When, in the 1970s the NASB came out, and slightly later, the NIV, these became very popular, and even Reformed preachers began using them. The word among scholars and textual critics was that the old Received Text – and its primary English translation, the KJV – were inferior and intrinsically flawed, and that the newer modern versions were far superior. Remember these words: inferior and superior. In the 1990s déclassé would describe its standing among many pastors and scholars, and this was almost an established “truth” in most seminaries.
Puritan Board has been one of the very few places on the internet that gave a fair hearing to the TR/AV, and that is partly because we are conservative, confessional, and scholarly, a legacy of sorts of ours. Yes, there have been some overbearing TR/AV folks here, but of late I have not noticed any. Yes, on the internet there are many such, but not here, to my knowledge. I have not frequented Confessional Bibliology sites of late, as I am busy, and what with my age I don’t work quickly anymore, so my time is precious.
With the publication of the new TR book this seemed to introduce a new element here. I can understand that the articles in it were not addressed to the PB, although some of the authors are members, but to the general Christian world to assertively push back against the label of Inferior so widely pronounced against the TR and its English AV translation. My brother, James White, pronounces this hard, with ridicule and condescension, and his influence is wide and deep. Now I like James, and would delight to have a peaceable meal with him, and consider him a stand-up brother in the current spiritual combat, yet he has almost single-handedly turned many against the Scripture editions many hold very dear. In truth, so intense has the opposition to the TR/AV been that it is little wonder some pastors and scholars feel compelled to counter this with their own views. I haven’t read the TR book, although I have a free pdf copy the publishers sent me, and have looked through it a bit, and I will get to it, but pdf books are hard for me to read (I’ll be glad to send a pdf copy to any here who ask me for it – it was a freebie from the publisher anyway).
My point is this: the TR/AV folks have long been an underdog and looked-down-upon class in the general Christian culture of seminary trained or influenced people – not to mention the books such write – so it’s healthy and appropriate to push back, and defend their views. Only it’s a shame there wasn’t better foresight in the editorial oversight, to cull out some extreme statements.
I don’t think Lane has been oppressed here on PB by such – or very little – extreme CBTR views, but rather is concerned that those views may enter into our PB community. But apart from the “strong” and “extreme” positions he’s said he’s okay with TR views here. And I’m with him on that. I would not allow divisive and condemning teaching regarding any of our Bibles in my congregation, and likewise would counter such on PB.
That some folks here are dismayed when they hear a pastor say, “If in good conscience you have trouble with a church not holding to a TR/AV preference, it is okay to think about leaving, and finding a church that does hold to such”, I wonder how many of you have been to churches that belittle and ridicule the TR/AV? I have, and it detracts from the worship of our God, and offends our sense of reverence for His word. I could deal with it, but it is understandable why some don’t want to. After all, the TR/AV folks – just like the CT or ET folks – have reverence and love for the word of God they hold to be authentic and sacred, and are tired of the general Christian world declaring that their Bible is Inferior and Unreliable (not “satanic”, but still a crushing judgment!). Desiring a church that respects – does not belittle – what is sacred to them is not bad, but good.
I think it healthy that there is – here at PB – some pushback on the excesses and errors of said new book, but let’s get real – the TR/AV folks have endured an unwarranted disdain and condescension from their brethren for their love of the Reformation text from the Christian world generally (usually not here at PB, with some exceptions) and it is certainly understandable to want to hear preaching and teaching from the Bible they love and hold most dear to their hearts of all things on this earth.
Inferior and Unreliable – how is that much different from “satanic” and “illegitimate”? All our Bibles – CT, ET, TR, ESV, NIV, NASB, CSV, AV etc – are sacred to those who hold them and commune with their Lord through them.
Concerning the “strong” and “extreme” CBTR views: according to Lane’s definition of the “strong” – “the TR is the Word of God; others, while faithful in the main, still have an asterisk by them” – I’ve already discussed this earlier here; even the CT have asterisks regarding parts of the TR and AV. Inferior and unreliable are strong asterisks! Why should James White get a free pass, and not the TR folks? We can have strong doubts about versions due to their variants – all camps have this of other versions – and yet acknowledge they are sacred to their holders in good conscience before the Lord, and to honor them!
About even the “extreme” view per Lane: “all other Bibles [than the TR based are] based on Satan’s Bible”. This is certainly not a view I would tolerate among my flock, and would oppose it strongly here, yet it is understandable for some to have this feeling when considering the scandalous doings and purposes of some on the Westcott and Hort Revision Committee of 1871-1881, some aspects of which I have documented here. Lying and deceiving are satanic (I have earlier asked Lane to seek forgiveness from those he accused of lying, when deceived or mistaken would have been more appropriate and godly), but W&H went beyond this, admitting such.
Even so, I myself would not say that the Greek CT of W&H was satanic (despite their antics), as it but represents an alternative textual line which, in the main, is God’s word. “In the main” meaning, except for the variants – an “asterisk” even the CT and ET folks use.
Would one say of the Roman “church” it is satanic? – does not the Reformed stand on the papal office as antichrist clearly mean that? What then does the Vatican involvement with the production of the modern CT texts indicate? Again, even so, I would not call their work satanic, as B and Aleph – their exemplars – are historical NT documents, and are valuable. I even like some of the translation choices in the NIV, NASB, and ESV, and have written them in the margins of my KJV!