Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Tim,
In the interests of transparency – flying my colors fully – I’d like to give an idea of some of the nuances of my view.
Though as Paul F. said, it is a mocking slur to label the verbal plenary preservation (VPP) school as the “Fundy Baptist school of KJVOnlism” just because many of them hold to it. As I mentioned earlier, Will Kinney, a Calvinist (whether paedo or credo, I don’t know), holds to it with excellent scholarship.
Myself, I have expounded the tenets of both schools, what you likewise disparagingly call, the “Reformed view of KJVOnlism” and the VPP, showing how each of them are formulated and operate in practice, as in the following:
[From this discussion: History of the KJV and TR.]
Letis is one of the best resources for understanding the historical background of the textual criticism of the Reformers and the post-reformation divines, and their views of the TR and the KJV.
I have suspended my judgment between the two schools (I have made this clear elsewhere), as I ponder them. For instance, where Turretin disallows Cainan in Luke 3:36, I find the work of Floyd Nolan Jones far more reasonable (see here) and in accord with the presuppositions of providential preservation.
There is the more abstract realm of presuppositions, and the “down-in-the-trenches” realm of dealing with each contested textual reading. The VPP – and especially the brilliant IFBs – school excel in researching and defending individual TR and KJV texts. Though Burgon excels by far most other scholars in his defenses of numerous TR texts. Still, he was more a Majority Text man than a strict TR defender, yet he was loath to have the TR and AV changed, as he knew it would likely do damage rather than better them. Hills, by the way, was a Presbyterian (J. Gresham Machen a powerful early influence on his spiritual life). Perhaps the best writing on the life and development of Hills is Letis’ essay in his book, Edward Freer Hills’s Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text.
I continue researching and studying particular textual problems – both OT and New – and likely will till the Lord calls me home. By the way, Tim, this “King James Onlyism” [the proper spelling], is, in my case – as I’ve made known a number of times – properly called, the “King James priority” school, if you are indeed interested in showing the nuances rather than an erroneous and simplistic black and white stereotype. I bring this up as there are KJO folks who disallow the validity of Bibles not KJV, and I am not of that bent. I have taken pains to establish this. I may call readings or variants in those Bibles invalid, but not the Bibles in their entirety. The “King James Onlyism” jargon completely misrepresents the distinction I labor mightily to establish. You wouldn’t misrepresent someone deliberately, would you? I didn’t think so, as I believe you are a man of integrity.
In the interests of transparency – flying my colors fully – I’d like to give an idea of some of the nuances of my view.
Though as Paul F. said, it is a mocking slur to label the verbal plenary preservation (VPP) school as the “Fundy Baptist school of KJVOnlism” just because many of them hold to it. As I mentioned earlier, Will Kinney, a Calvinist (whether paedo or credo, I don’t know), holds to it with excellent scholarship.
Myself, I have expounded the tenets of both schools, what you likewise disparagingly call, the “Reformed view of KJVOnlism” and the VPP, showing how each of them are formulated and operate in practice, as in the following:
[From this discussion: History of the KJV and TR.]
The argument for the TR is that God had kept the Byzantine textform (the Scriptures of the Greek Church) in a very pure (but not perfect) state, and these mss were used by Erasmus, along with readings from the Latin Vulgate, and other Latin mss, to produce his Greek editions, the later ones being those used by subsequent editors, such as Beza, Stephens, and the Elzevirs.
Edward Hills, a textual scholar and KJV defender, says he has found 3 errors in the KJV, one of which I know he attributes to Eramsus, and that is in Romans 7:6. I am still researching that. From Ted Letis’ books, I have learned that John Owen (and perhaps Turretin) owned possible minute variants within the TR editions, and their view was that God had allowed them:
This is from Dr. Theodore P. Letis’ The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate:
* Owen’s Divine Original online: DIVINE ORIGINAL, AUTHORITY, SELF-EVIDENCING LIGHT, AND POWER OF THE SCRIPTURES. This is from volume 16 of Owen’s works.
This would be in line with the thinking of Dr. Hills. There is another view, and that is God completely – that is, perfectly – preserved the Greek and Hebrew texts, so that they are without any error whatever.
If one wants to understand the matter of the Greek (the Hebrew is another discussion) editions used by the Reformers and post-Reformation divines, it is helpful to learn something of the historical context of those times. Letis’ two books, although hard to get (I would suggest a good seminary library – or your local library’s Inter-Library Loan System), are excellent historical resources: The Majority Text, and The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority, and the Popular Mind. Although there is some excellent work in the latter, I think the former might be the more valuable.
Who knows that the doctrine of providential preservation, and that with regard to the Textus Receptus (the early forms of it), was developed by the post-Reformation theologians to withstand the assault of Rome’s counter-reformation? And that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura was based on God’s preserving the texts these theologians had – the Reformation texts – and it was these “texts in hand” the WCF 1:8 had in mind. Letis’ latter book, The Ecclesiastical Text, has as its first essay the groundbreaking, “B.B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism,” which clearly proves that Warfield redefined the WCF’s understanding of the Scriptures referred to in 1:8 (contrary to the intent of its framers) to refer to the no-longer existent autographs instead of the apographs, the copies they actually had. Warfield meant well, but he departed from bulwark of the Standards, and what we see today, in terms of the erosion of integrity in the Reformed communions, is in great measure a result of this. Of course there is more to this erosion, such as the entertaining of Arminianism within the very precincts of the Calvinist stronghold, yet the loss of a sure Scripture is as a mighty torpedo in the hull. It remains to be seen, the effects of this loss in that one body of congregations that held to the doctrines of grace. Maybe not this generation, but in one or two, should the Lord tarry that long, we will see devastation – as regards spiritual stability – that will make us weep, for this is the province of our children and grandchildren.
Edward Hills, a textual scholar and KJV defender, says he has found 3 errors in the KJV, one of which I know he attributes to Eramsus, and that is in Romans 7:6. I am still researching that. From Ted Letis’ books, I have learned that John Owen (and perhaps Turretin) owned possible minute variants within the TR editions, and their view was that God had allowed them:
This is from Dr. Theodore P. Letis’ The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate:
Owen saw only the minor variants between the various editions of TR as valid areas for discrimination, staying within the broad parameters of providential preservation, as exemplified by “Erasmus, Stephen, Beza, Arias Montanus, and some others.” Within the confines of these editions was “the first and most honest course fixed on” for “consulting various copies and comparing them among themselves.”
This is both the concrete domain of the providentially preserved text, as well as the only area for legitimate comparisons to chose readings among the minutiae of differences. In fact, “God by His Providence preserving the whole entire; suffered this lesser variety [within the providentially preserved editions of the TR –TPL] to fall out, in or among the copies we have, for the quickening and exercising of our diligence in our search into His Word [for ascertaining the finality of preservation among the minutiae of differences among the TR editions –TPL] (The Divine Original, p. 301)* It is the activity, editions, and variants after this period of stabilization that represent illegitimate activity, or, as Owen says, “another way.”
Thus Owen maintained an absolute providential preservation while granting variants. (“John Owen Versus Brian Walton” fn 30, p. 160)
This is both the concrete domain of the providentially preserved text, as well as the only area for legitimate comparisons to chose readings among the minutiae of differences. In fact, “God by His Providence preserving the whole entire; suffered this lesser variety [within the providentially preserved editions of the TR –TPL] to fall out, in or among the copies we have, for the quickening and exercising of our diligence in our search into His Word [for ascertaining the finality of preservation among the minutiae of differences among the TR editions –TPL] (The Divine Original, p. 301)* It is the activity, editions, and variants after this period of stabilization that represent illegitimate activity, or, as Owen says, “another way.”
Thus Owen maintained an absolute providential preservation while granting variants. (“John Owen Versus Brian Walton” fn 30, p. 160)
* Owen’s Divine Original online: DIVINE ORIGINAL, AUTHORITY, SELF-EVIDENCING LIGHT, AND POWER OF THE SCRIPTURES. This is from volume 16 of Owen’s works.
This would be in line with the thinking of Dr. Hills. There is another view, and that is God completely – that is, perfectly – preserved the Greek and Hebrew texts, so that they are without any error whatever.
If one wants to understand the matter of the Greek (the Hebrew is another discussion) editions used by the Reformers and post-Reformation divines, it is helpful to learn something of the historical context of those times. Letis’ two books, although hard to get (I would suggest a good seminary library – or your local library’s Inter-Library Loan System), are excellent historical resources: The Majority Text, and The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority, and the Popular Mind. Although there is some excellent work in the latter, I think the former might be the more valuable.
Who knows that the doctrine of providential preservation, and that with regard to the Textus Receptus (the early forms of it), was developed by the post-Reformation theologians to withstand the assault of Rome’s counter-reformation? And that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura was based on God’s preserving the texts these theologians had – the Reformation texts – and it was these “texts in hand” the WCF 1:8 had in mind. Letis’ latter book, The Ecclesiastical Text, has as its first essay the groundbreaking, “B.B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism,” which clearly proves that Warfield redefined the WCF’s understanding of the Scriptures referred to in 1:8 (contrary to the intent of its framers) to refer to the no-longer existent autographs instead of the apographs, the copies they actually had. Warfield meant well, but he departed from bulwark of the Standards, and what we see today, in terms of the erosion of integrity in the Reformed communions, is in great measure a result of this. Of course there is more to this erosion, such as the entertaining of Arminianism within the very precincts of the Calvinist stronghold, yet the loss of a sure Scripture is as a mighty torpedo in the hull. It remains to be seen, the effects of this loss in that one body of congregations that held to the doctrines of grace. Maybe not this generation, but in one or two, should the Lord tarry that long, we will see devastation – as regards spiritual stability – that will make us weep, for this is the province of our children and grandchildren.
Letis is one of the best resources for understanding the historical background of the textual criticism of the Reformers and the post-reformation divines, and their views of the TR and the KJV.
I have suspended my judgment between the two schools (I have made this clear elsewhere), as I ponder them. For instance, where Turretin disallows Cainan in Luke 3:36, I find the work of Floyd Nolan Jones far more reasonable (see here) and in accord with the presuppositions of providential preservation.
There is the more abstract realm of presuppositions, and the “down-in-the-trenches” realm of dealing with each contested textual reading. The VPP – and especially the brilliant IFBs – school excel in researching and defending individual TR and KJV texts. Though Burgon excels by far most other scholars in his defenses of numerous TR texts. Still, he was more a Majority Text man than a strict TR defender, yet he was loath to have the TR and AV changed, as he knew it would likely do damage rather than better them. Hills, by the way, was a Presbyterian (J. Gresham Machen a powerful early influence on his spiritual life). Perhaps the best writing on the life and development of Hills is Letis’ essay in his book, Edward Freer Hills’s Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text.
I continue researching and studying particular textual problems – both OT and New – and likely will till the Lord calls me home. By the way, Tim, this “King James Onlyism” [the proper spelling], is, in my case – as I’ve made known a number of times – properly called, the “King James priority” school, if you are indeed interested in showing the nuances rather than an erroneous and simplistic black and white stereotype. I bring this up as there are KJO folks who disallow the validity of Bibles not KJV, and I am not of that bent. I have taken pains to establish this. I may call readings or variants in those Bibles invalid, but not the Bibles in their entirety. The “King James Onlyism” jargon completely misrepresents the distinction I labor mightily to establish. You wouldn’t misrepresent someone deliberately, would you? I didn’t think so, as I believe you are a man of integrity.
Last edited: