Riddle responds to Ward's review of "Why I preach from the Received Text"

[Taylor]

people like you

give you cover

you will never convince

You show absolutely no understanding

give you a definition

that's your problem

people like you

You (supposedly) have

you'll have another one

Why does it bother you

Why do you keep referring to Jacob and Jason with plural pronouns? They are each one person.

 

[retroGRAD3]

Reformation comes about via the Spirit working in the visible church. I hold to the establishment principle so believe that reformation goes hand in hand with magistrates who become nursing fathers and mothers to the church, as we see in church history. Providing the peace and space for that now established church to come together for church councils. It is how we have received our confessions of faith and the working out of doctrinal issues over the centuries. God instituted church councils in this way for the peace and good of the church. Westminster was the last such church council.

Fair enough. It seems we are at an impasse on this point.

 

[Logan]

Brother Alexander, I am not against the KJV at all nor have I attacked it. I think it is a masterpiece of a translation. If you think the recent topics were specifically to attack the KJV then you are mistaken. What I am particularly opposed to are bad arguments.

I have no issue with the following argument, as an example:
"I think the KJV is majestic, accurate, it has many benefits such as personal vs plural pronouns, and though there are some shortcomings, most can be overcome with a little bit of study so as to not make that too big of a hurdle. It is accepted as the official translation of my denomination. It is the closest thing we have to a universal standard, and has been in constant use for 400 years and largely influenced our language, therefore I think we should stick to it."

That's something we can discuss, agree with or disagree with, but it's clearly in the context of an opinion with reasonable points. What I find repugnant is when reasons are proposed to make it an absolute and to attack other translations. E.g.,

"No other translation will ever be acceptable unless it is
a. done during a time of Reformation
b. Authorized by the magistrate of the English-speaking world
c. Done exclusively by a team of church members
d. Is done with the TR that was derived from the KJV
e. Is accepted by the established church
f. Is accepted by all Reformed churches,
etc., etc."

There is no disagreement allowed with "reasons" such as these. They are stated as absolutes with which no disagreement is even entertained.

And none of them are scriptural requirements, or requirements that seemingly would apply to any translation in any other language! They are especially designed to make the KJV the only appropriate translation and to bind it on everyone. I would hold that this is, as I have said, post hoc reasoning, that looks at what happened with the KJV (in isolation to everything else) and then reasons that this must be the standard, simply because it happened. I would have the same issue if someone tried to argue that the ESV or the NKJV were the only acceptable translation based on a similar kind of reasoning.

 

[retroGRAD3]

Brother Alexander, I am not against the KJV at all nor have I attacked it. I think it is a masterpiece of a translation. If you think the recent topics were specifically to attack the KJV then you are mistaken. What I am particularly opposed to are bad arguments.

I have no issue with the following argument, as an example:
"I think the KJV is majestic, accurate, it has many benefits such as personal vs plural pronouns, and though there are some shortcomings, most can be overcome with a little bit of study so as to not make that too big of a hurdle. It is accepted as the official translation of my denomination. It is the closest thing we have to a universal standard, and has been in constant use for 400 years and largely influenced our language, therefore I think we should stick to it."

That's something we can discuss, agree with or disagree with, but it's clearly in the context of an opinion with reasonable points. What I find repugnant is when reasons are proposed to make it an absolute and to attack other translations. E.g.,

"No other translation will ever be acceptable unless it is
a. done during a time of Reformation
b. Authorized by the magistrate of the English-speaking world
c. Done exclusively by a team of church members
d. Is done with the TR that was derived from the KJV
e. Is accepted by the established church
f. Is accepted by all Reformed churches,
etc., etc."

There is no disagreement allowed with "reasons" such as these. They are stated as absolutes with which no disagreement is even entertained.

And none of them are scriptural requirements, or requirements that seemingly would apply to any translation in any other language! They are especially designed to make the KJV the only appropriate translation and to bind it on everyone. I would hold that this is, as I have said, post hoc reasoning, that looks at what happened with the KJV (in isolation to everything else) and then reasons that this must be the standard, simply because it happened. I would have the same issue if someone tried to argue that the ESV or the NKJV were the only acceptable translation based on a similar kind of reasoning.

Great summary. Agree with this 100%.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Reformation comes about via the Spirit working in the visible church. I hold to the establishment principle so believe that reformation goes hand in hand with magistrates who become nursing fathers and mothers to the church, as we see in church history. Providing the peace and space for that now established church to come together for church councils. It is how we have received our confessions of faith and the working out of doctrinal issues over the centuries. God instituted church councils in this way for the peace and good of the church. Westminster was the last such church council.

The Westminster Assembly did not enshrine the exclusive use of the KJV as a dogma. Meanwhile, certain very small denominations have decided that it is a dogma in the absence of a church council declaring that it is. I am afraid that this argument just strikes me as yet another example of special pleading that is inconsistently applied in order to prove what it has already decided is the case.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

The Westminster Assembly did not enshrine the exclusive use of the KJV as a dogma. Meanwhile, certain very small denominations have decided that it is a dogma in the absence of a church council declaring that it is. I am afraid that this argument just strikes me as yet another example of special pleading that is inconsistently applied in order to prove what it has already decided is the case.

Also, piggybacking on this point, does not our confession (WCF XXXI.3) state that synods - not merely international church councils - have the authority to determine such things? If so, then the idea that only a multi-national church council has the power to do so must be an unconfessional one.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

The Westminster Assembly did not enshrine the exclusive use of the KJV as a dogma. Meanwhile, certain very small denominations have decided that it is a dogma in the absence of a church council declaring that it is. I am afraid that this argument just strikes me as yet another example of special pleading that is inconsistently applied in order to prove what it has already decided is the case.

The assembly didn't speak to the issue of any future translations/changes of the Bible, so no, they certainly didn't enshrine the KJV as the only acceptable translation of the texts used. (Who on the PB has claimed they did?) They (or their spiritual fathers at least) had been happy with the Geneva and likely would have continued to be so (don't know enough to say so for sure). Since your first sentence is an inference based on something I don't claim to be true, it's hard to speak to the rest of your reply as it's based on that. I will say that the same small denominations, at least the one I'm most familiar with, have been the remaining part of the church still holding to our Confession of faith as whole denominations, with no exceptions permitted in their ministers. This is a comfort to me that there is still a remnant of the visible church that is keeping to the old paths.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

The assembly didn't speak to the issue of any future translations/changes of the Bible, so no, they certainly didn't enshrine the KJV as the only acceptable translation of the texts used. (Who on the PB has claimed they did?) They (or their spiritual fathers at least) had been happy with the Geneva and likely would have continued to be so (don't know enough to say so for sure). Since your first sentence is an inference based on something I don't claim to be true, it's hard to speak to the rest of your reply as it's based on that. I will say that the same small denominations, at least the one I'm most familiar with, have been the remaining part of the church still holding to our Confession of faith as whole denominations, with no exceptions permitted in their ministers. This is a comfort to me that there is still a remnant of the visible church that is keeping to the old paths.

Okay, so you admit that your position is extra-confessional?

 

[RamistThomist]

A denomination has accepted a new translation. This isn't the same as how the Bible defines the visible church. We have in our nation a church divided. We ought to be united under the apostles' teaching, being of the same mind on these important matters.

You are sneaking a lot of issues in here. Strictly speaking, one aspect of the visible church *has* spoken on this issue. As to being united under the apostles' teaching, that begs the very question. My view is the Apostles' view, of course.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Okay, so you admit that your position is extra-confessional?

No, I believe holding to the TR is a confessional position; I believe the wording of the Confession on the matter: ..."by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them..." is alluding to the inspiration and preservation of all his words, and that the divines held that the texts received and translated from were those preserved by him. Just as the canon of Scripture had been preserved by his singular care and providence.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

You are sneaking a lot of issues in here. Strictly speaking, one aspect of the visible church *has* spoken on this issue. As to being united under the apostles' teaching, that begs the very question. My view is the Apostles' view, of course.

I am saying things, but how you see it as 'sneaking' I can't say. I am not clear on what you mean by your second two sentences.

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

I've made my point and if you don't like it that's your problem.

I fail to see why people like you and @Logan et. al. care so much about this. You (supposedly) have the modern, CT Bible you want (and you'll have another one soon enough I imagine). And yet again and again we have attacks made on the KJV, new threads springing up. Why does it bother you so much that people like me prefer the KJV? If I had to hazard a guess I'd say it's because, despite having a plethora of translations to choose from, you're not satisfied with what you have but we are satisfied with what we have. Well that's what happens when you force new, defective translations on the church. This desire to force your translations on us speaks to the weakness of your position not ours.

You are projecting onto the other side. The reason the KJV is brought up so often is that the other side of the aisle is so often on the attack, denouncing everything else as less than God’s word. To defend against such ridiculous and damaging rhetoric, many people feel the need to set the record straight.

Your attitude in this post reveals much.

 

[retroGRAD3]

No, I believe holding to the TR is a confessional position; I believe the wording of the Confession on the matter: ..."by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them..." is alluding to the inspiration and preservation of all his words, and that the divines held that the texts received and translated from were those preserved by him. Just as the canon of Scripture had been preserved by his singular care and providence.

All sides of this debate that hold to the WCF can appeal to that statement and be telling the truth on their convictions. I believe though that only quoting half of the section does not provide the full context of what the assembly actually believed. The second half is just as important as the first:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

No, I believe holding to the TR is a confessional position; I believe the wording of the Confession on the matter: ..."by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them..." is alluding to the inspiration and preservation of all his words, and that the divines held that the texts received and translated from were those preserved by him. Just as the canon of Scripture had been preserved by his singular care and providence.

You told me that the Westminster divines did not enshrine the notion that the KJV is the only acceptable translation, which is a position that you espouse for various reasons. In other words, you espouse something extra-confessional. There is nothing wrong with that per se, as virtually all of us will have some private opinions beyond what is set down in the Westminster Standards. All that I ask is that we acknowledge that these things are our private opinions and not confessional dogmas.

 

[RamistThomist]

I am saying things, but how you see it as 'sneaking' I can't say. I am not clear on what you mean by your second two sentences.

I am not sure how the Apostles' teaching, whatever that is, relates to the discussion at hand? Could you clarify for us what you mean by the Apostles' teaching relative to this thread?

 

[Jeri Tanner]

All sides of this debate that hold to the WCF can appeal to that statement and be telling the truth on their convictions. I believe though that only quoting half of the section does not provide the full context of what the assembly actually believed. The second half is just as important as the first:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.

Jason, if you're alluding to the command to translate the Scriptures into the vulgar language of every nation, and by it mean to say that the KJV no longer accomplishes this, then read my post #76 for some thoughts on that. (I believe the KJV does still accomplish that.)

You told me that the Westminster divines did not enshrine the notion that the KJV is the only acceptable translation, which is a position that you espouse for various reasons. In other words, you espouse something extra-confessional. There is nothing wrong with that per se, as virtually all of us will have some private opinions beyond what is set down in the Westminster Standards. All that I ask is that we acknowledge that these things are our private opinions and not confessional dogmas.

Where have I espoused that the KJV is the only acceptable translation? I have not. I think it's the best translation we have, and I think a lot was lost by the acceptance of the CT movement.

I am not sure how the Apostles' teaching, whatever that is, relates to the discussion at hand? Could you clarify for us what you mean by the Apostles' teaching relative to this thread?

My statement you reference was "We have in our nation a church divided. We ought to be united under the apostles' teaching, being of the same mind on these important matters." I believe God's will is that the various congregations be of the same mind on doctrine and practice that was commanded by the apostles (it being the mind of God). That would include that all the elements of worship would be uniform. This would necessitate that their copy of the Scriptures be uniform.

 

[retroGRAD3]

My statement you reference was "We have in our nation a church divided. We ought to be united under the apostles' teaching, being of the same mind on these important matters." I believe God's will is that the various congregations be of the same mind on doctrine and practice that was commanded by the apostles (it being the mind of God). That would include that all the elements of worship would be uniform. This would necessitate that their copy of the Scriptures be uniform.

This is just an observation, but it seems most of the visible church actually is pretty uniform on which translation to use. They appear to be the ESV (smaller churches) and NIV (almost all mega and non-denominational churches). The KJV is a minority position across the board as far as I have observed. If we are going off shear numbers then the bold part would be working against you and it would seem you are in rebellion to what the visible church has actually decided. However, I don't think that type of argument is good and this would apply to when either side uses it.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

This is just an observation, but it seems most of the visible church actually is pretty uniform on which translation to use. They appear to be the ESV (smaller churches) and NIV (almost all mega and non-denominational churches). The KJV is a minority position across the board as far as I have observed. If we are going off shear numbers then the bold part would be working against you and it would seem you are in rebellion to what the visible church has actually decided. However, I don't think that type of argument is good and this would apply to when either side uses it.

Majority rule/popularity is not how God has instituted that the church decides something! But I repeat myself.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I am not sure how the Apostles' teaching, whatever that is, relates to the discussion at hand? Could you clarify for us what you mean by the Apostles' teaching relative to this thread?

Maybe I am mistaken but the subject of trying to define the Church Universal or maybe the visible and Invisible distinctions so as to define a legitimate authority in putting a seal and approval on translations and manuscripts in today's setting?

Me and my run on sentences. LOL

 

[Polanus1561]

Jason, if you're alluding to the command to translate the Scriptures into the vulgar language of every nation, and by it mean to say that the KJV no longer accomplishes this, then read my post #76 for some thoughts on that. (I believe the KJV does still accomplish that.)

Where have I espoused that the KJV is the only acceptable translation? I have not. I think it's the best translation we have, and I think a lot was lost by the acceptance of the CT movement.

My statement you reference was "We have in our nation a church divided. We ought to be united under the apostles' teaching, being of the same mind on these important matters." I believe God's will is that the various congregations be of the same mind on doctrine and practice that was commanded by the apostles (it being the mind of God). That would include that all the elements of worship would be uniform. This would necessitate that their copy of the Scriptures be uniform.

Back to something I posted somewhere here: why then did the Apostles seemingly not 'unite' / 'correct' the divergent OT textual traditions during their time, but not only that, they quoted both LXX and the (proto)Masoretic Hebrew text?

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Back to something I posted somewhere here: why then did the Apostles seemingly not 'unite' / 'correct' the divergent OT textual traditions during their time, but not only that, they quoted both LXX and the (proto)Masoretic Hebrew text?

i remember that Rev. Winzer here on the board spoke to the LXX here on the board. You can still search those old threads using MW for his name.

 

[RamistThomist]

Maybe I am mistaken but the subject of trying to define the Church Universal or maybe the visible and Invisible distinctions so as to define a legitimate authority in putting a seal and approval on translations and manuscripts in today's setting?

Me and my run on sentences. LOL

It could be that, but it isn't clear.

 

[RamistThomist]

My statement you reference was "We have in our nation a church divided. We ought to be united under the apostles' teaching, being of the same mind on these important matters." I believe God's will is that the various congregations be of the same mind on doctrine and practice that was commanded by the apostles (it being the mind of God). That would include that all the elements of worship would be uniform. This would necessitate that their copy of the Scriptures be uniform.

Even if that is true, and Daniel's reference of the WCF suggests it isn't, it is not clear why that would necessitate the TR or the KJV.

 

[RamistThomist]

Majority rule/popularity is not how God has instituted that the church decides something! But I repeat myself.

It kind of is to a degree on the visible church. If the visible church is united, and they appear to be at least on this issue, then we can expect to see a majority position. Otherwise, it would be the invisible church.

 

[Taylor]

I have never found this whole discussion of church councils, authorization, reformation, etc., to be convincing or even profitable. The goalposts not only seem arbitrary and detached from any biblical warrant, but they also frequently move. It seems to me the best approach is to evaluate each translation or textual tradition on its merits or lack thereof.

 

[Polanus1561]

Won't councils/synods etc. not be a part of the Baptist/TR argument (Riddle/Truelove)?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I have never found this whole discussion of church councils, authorization, reformation, etc., to be convincing or even profitable. The goalposts not only seem arbitrary and detached from any biblical warrant, but they also frequently move. It seems to me the best approach is to evaluate each translation or textual tradition on its merits or lack thereof.

Seeing an American use an illustration from "soccer" to make a point warms my heart.

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

Seeing an American use an illustration from "soccer" to make a point warms my heart.

Hockey goalposts, my lad.

 

[Grant]

The Westminster Assembly did not enshrine the exclusive use of the KJV as a dogma. Meanwhile, certain very small denominations have decided that it is a dogma in the absence of a church council declaring that it is. I am afraid that this argument just strikes me as yet another example of special pleading that is inconsistently applied in order to prove what it has already decided is the case.

Agreed and it also “guts” much of the non-European/English visible church (Asia and the like) from being included in the visible church. And does so for no other reason but to enshrine a single vulgar English.

It kind of is to a degree on the visible church. If the visible church is united, and they appear to be at least on this issue, then we can expect to see a majority position. Otherwise, it would be the invisible church.

Exactly, at times the standard standard seems to be:
Large Scale Uniformity and support of a Christian magistrate in order for a new translation to get a blessing.

But then from @Jeri Tanner : “Majority rule/popularity is not how God has instituted that the church decides something! But I repeat myself.”

This raised to discount large denominations’ ordained officers from deciding another English translation as being more beneficial for their sheep. I think this is a prime example that @Logan has been speaking about.

Personal Context: I love the KJV and so I am not attacking it. But the arguments to say that the KJV is the only one the church should use can be frustrating. We use the NKJV.

 

[Northern Crofter]

After catching up with this thread, I come away with the sense that much of the disconnect (to put it lightly) by the end of the thread is perhaps largely due to most participants in the US being part of fellowships (PCA, OPC, RPCNA et al) that have abandoned the establishment principle, while most in UK/Commonwealth fellowships (and their more recently established American cousins - the FCoS(C), the PRC, etc.) retain it. As someone with 2 passports and toes in two continents, I suggest that the latter see "ecclesiastical authority" in the visible Church as different than those in a denomination. When the Westminster Standards refer to "churches" (for example in WCF 25.5), they were, in the original context, I believe, referring to established national churches. I think they would largely view American denominations as schisms and sects (though perhaps without the charge of being schismatic and/or sectarian).

With the emphasis throughout Scripture on God's dealing with nations, the onus seems to be on those proposing the idea that a denomination has the authority to produce or promote a translation to show the Biblical warrant for (first) denominations and (then) that they have such authority. "Is Christ divided?" / "For there must be heresies even among you, that they which are approved among you, might be known." / "...no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation." These texts (and others) communicate the desired oneness of the visible Church and necessarily preclude intranational divisions of churches. God is not divided, and He is not the author of confusion. The establishment principle in the WCF allows (if not instructs) the civil magistrate to call upon the Church to make a judgment on a matter such as the text and translation of Scripture (31.2 - see also the end of 31.5), but precludes magistrates from making such a judgment themselves (31.3) - it is unto the visible Church that "Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God" (WCF 25.3). It is not optional for the visible Church to assemble in synods (national) and councils (international) - "For the better government and further edification of the Church, there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called synods or councils." (WCF 31.1) Denominations can call their gatherings "synods" and "councils," but the members of the Westminster Assembly would not view them as such. The Westminster Assembly itself was not even a regular ecclesiastical assembly, but rather an advisory commission called by the civil magistrate in keeping with what the Assembly would go on to write in WCF 31 where it states the 4 justifications for a meeting of a synod or council:

1. if a magistrate called upon them to consult and advise with them about matters of religion (31.2);
2. if the magistrate is an open enemy to the Church, the ministers can call for a synod on their own by virtue of their office or send delegates to an ecumenical council to consult about matters of religion (31.2);
3. if the magistrate accepts their petition to "intermeddle with civil affairs" in extraordinary cases (31.5);
4. if the magistrate requires them to give advice on civil affairs (31.5).

If you believe that the original Westminster Standards are agreeable with Scripture, then the idea that a Church (a national church in the view of the Assembly) or Council of Churches, and only a Church/Council can authorize a translation or approve of a translation should not seem odd. These bodies do not have to, but no other body can. This action would, I believe, fall under their synodical/conciliar authority to "determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church" (WCF 31.3). Since their "decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God, appointed thereunto in his Word," (Ibid.), it would make sense (and perhaps be wise) that they decide which text of the original languages and/or vulgar translation they are using to make such decrees and determinations (the former being more important than the latter). As I posted in a different discussion, an example of this occurred in Scotland. The "Bassandyne Bible," a reprint of the first folio Geneva Bible, was the first Bible authorised to be printed in Scotland (Edinburgh, 1579) and was ordered to be in each parish kirk by King James' Privy Council after a petition to that effect from the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (see History of the Bassandyne Bible, the first printed in Scotland; with notices of the early printers of Edinburgh by William Dobson, 1887, Chapter 4). (This would have been King James VI of Scotland before he became King James I and decided he didn't like the Geneva translation after all - though when he expressed his disfavor, it was directed at the commentary in the notes and not necessarily the translation). This appears to be an example of what the Westminster Assembly later approved of - the Church petitioning the civil magistrate to "take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire" (WCF 23.3). To clarify some of the misconceptions in the above posts, unlike the Geneva Bible in Scotland, there is no official record showing James I(VI) authorised the final product of what became known as the KJV/KJV - rather he authorised the process that led to it (see Logan's reference to Barlow and the 1603 Hampton Court in #38 above).

What I find repugnant is when reasons are proposed to make it an absolute and to attack other translations. E.g.,

"No other translation will ever be acceptable unless it is
a. done during a time of Reformation
b. Authorized by the magistrate of the English-speaking world
c. Done exclusively by a team of church members
d. Is done with the TR that was derived from the KJV
e. Is accepted by the established church
f. Is accepted by all Reformed churches,
etc., etc."

There is no disagreement allowed with "reasons" such as these. They are stated as absolutes with which no disagreement is even entertained.

And none of them are scriptural requirements, or requirements that seemingly would apply to any translation in any other language! They are especially designed to make the KJV the only appropriate translation and to bind it on everyone. I would hold that this is, as I have said, post hoc reasoning, that looks at what happened with the KJV (in isolation to everything else) and then reasons that this must be the standard, simply because it happened. I would have the same issue if someone tried to argue that the ESV or the NKJV were the only acceptable translation based on a similar kind of reasoning.

Logan, I hope what I posted above and believe are principles drawn from the WCF are different from what you find repugnant - I agree that there is no merit for a. through f. (though to be consistent in what I believe is a confessional view, I believe e. is valid if stated "Is accepted by an established church").

I'd rather judge the translation primarily upon its own merits than judge it primarily by the circumstances under which it was produced.

But is it in your authority as an individual to make this judgment? (I hope you don't think I'm picking on you by only quoting you!)