Van Kleeck vs White: The Textus Receptus As The Word Of God Is Equal To The New Testament Autographs

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

Any initial thoughts before this occurs?

 

[Polanus1561]

Found this : https://standardsacredtext.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/response-to-mark-wards-which-tr-5.pdf

"And finally, there is, to paraphrase Abram Kuyper, no square inch of this world where Christ does not say, “Mine.” This includes textual criticism. Thus, to exclude Christ’s lordship and His elect body from the process of textual work is to practice an idolatrous form of textual criticism. To do so is a kind of idolatrous special pleading."

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

I'm not super familiar with Van Kleeck's line of argument. I hope he will represent the best of the TR position against White. I'll be interested to hear the debate.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

I'll add, I know that he is a strong advocate of the use of the KJV as well-- I hope this debate will not veer into simply defending the KJV, and that he will keep the focus on the Greek text. When those issues are not properly distinguished, the TR position always suffers.

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

I’m curious how VK will defend ‘TR = Autographs.’

 

[retroGRAD3]

Nice graphic

 

[Polanus1561]

From a comment from James White on His FB

“Van Kleeck's unique position is not well known by a lot of folks. They only put out their third book in their series a few months ago. Fundamentally, they eschew "scientific" study (TC) and instead conflate canon and text and say the church has "accepted" the "final canonical iteration" which is the TR. Throw Matthew 5:18 in together with a strange application of "Reformed Epistemology," claim the more sanctified you are the more sensitive you are to the voice of Christ, and voila! The TR.”

Very interesting.

 

[Taylor]

From a comment from James White on His FB

“Van Kleeck's unique position is not well known by a lot of folks. They only put out their third book in their series a few months ago. Fundamentally, they eschew "scientific" study (TC) and instead conflate canon and text and say the church has "accepted" the "final canonical iteration" which is the TR. Throw Matthew 5:18 in together with a strange application of "Reformed Epistemology," claim the more sanctified you are the more sensitive you are to the voice of Christ, and voila! The TR.”

Very interesting.

I'm very interested in this debate. However, I wish we would move on from James White. I have profited significantly from him over the years, but he can exhibit a somewhat caustic demeanor in his public engagements, especially in the area of these textual discussions. This Facebook post is a case in point. Why this preemptive strike? The problem with these debates is that they end up being point-scoring parties. Is there no one better on the "CT side"?

 

[Polanus1561]

I'm very interested in this debate. However, I wish we would move on from James White. I have profited significantly from him over the years, but he can exhibit a somewhat caustic demeanor in his public engagements, especially in the area of these textual discussions. This Facebook post is a case in point. Why this preemptive strike? The problem with these debates is that they end up being point-scoring parties. Is there no one better on the "CT side"?

I guess the CT guys are more interested in discussing the science of textual criticism principles and evidences (Geographic distribution etc.). This looks like a theological discussion instead where I do not think much evidences will be even discussed.

 

[danekristjan]

I'll add, I know that he is a strong advocate of the use of the KJV as well-- I hope this debate will not veer into simply defending the KJV, and that he will keep the focus on the Greek text. When those issues are not properly distinguished, the TR position always suffers.

I really hope Dr. Van Kleeck is at least as competent in Greek as White. It's always a shame when TR defenders can't read the text they defend, and usually leads to their debate opponent wiping the floor with them.

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

I’ll reserve judgment of Dr. White’s words until I see/hear if they are true.

Does anyone know enough about his opponent to say one way or the other?

 

[Polanus1561]

I’ll reserve judgment of Dr. White’s words until I see/hear if they are true.

Does anyone know enough about his opponent to say one way or the other?

Read post #2

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

Read post #2

I’ll read the linked document. Thank you.

 

[Logan]

Finally got a chance to read Van Kleeck's paper linked in post #2.

I will say this for him: his view at least recognizes the historical facts (such as differences between TR editions). In that much he is consistent and I appreciate it. However, his entire case is built on analogy and story-telling.

He likens the various "TRs" to the process of sanctification: just as we grow or become refined in sanctification, so did the TR, and this ultimately resulted in Scrivener's TR, which is therefore our sacred scriptures for today. The problem I see with this viewpoint is that since he talks about Scrivener being the final TR, and Scrivener constructed it based on the readings in the KJV, it really makes the KJV the standard, something NO DIVINE OR REFORMER OR PURITAN WOULD HAVE SAID ABOUT THE GREEK.

It denies past generations could have a "final TR", and it precludes any future edition (we have reached the pinnacle). Wouldn't someone in the past holding to a 1550 Stephanus have just as much right to say that was the final one and why are you changing things up with your 1894 Scrivener which is based on the KJV? It also precludes the church from accepting any other "TR".

I also have never understood this line of reasoning that essentially says that we know that the TR (1894) is THE TR because the church is using it, or has "received it". But this same line of reasoning is denied to the users of CT-based translations. If nearly the entire church moves to CT-based translations (in other words, "receives" the CT) then that's wrong. Why? Why is it providential favor for one side and sin for the other side?

Also, Van Kleeck like so many, latches onto the "kept pure" portion of WCF 1:8 while ignoring the "in all ages" part.

He makes this statement: "In the Reformed tradition, the Confessional text was not lowered to the level of the 'various manuscripts.' The Scriptural readings stood outside the manuscript tradition as a separate and privileged source." This is a bold, bold claim, and the only support he gives from it is a quote from Turretin where he talks about "a collation of the Scriptures and the various manuscripts." That's quite an extrapolated viewpoint.

I don't know anything about Van Kleeck apart from this paper but it seems like we can add yet another TR viewpoint to the pile. I don't recognize his view as matching anyone else's.

 

[danekristjan]

Finally got a chance to read Van Kleeck's paper linked in post #2.

I will say this for him: his view at least recognizes the historical facts (such as differences between TR editions). In that much he is consistent and I appreciate it. However, his entire case is built on analogy and story-telling.

He likens the various "TRs" to the process of sanctification: just as we grow or become refined in sanctification, so did the TR, and this ultimately resulted in Scrivener's TR, which is therefore our sacred scriptures for today. The problem I see with this viewpoint is that since he talks about Scrivener being the final TR, and Scrivener constructed it based on the readings in the KJV, it really makes the KJV the standard, something NO DIVINE OR REFORMER OR PURITAN WOULD HAVE SAID ABOUT THE GREEK.

It denies past generations could have a "final TR", and it precludes any future edition (we have reached the pinnacle). Wouldn't someone in the past holding to a 1550 Stephanus have just as much right to say that was the final one and why are you changing things up with your 1894 Scrivener which is based on the KJV? It also precludes the church from accepting any other "TR".

I also have never understood this line of reasoning that essentially says that we know that the TR (1894) is THE TR because the church is using it, or has "received it". But this same line of reasoning is denied to the users of CT-based translations. If nearly the entire church moves to CT-based translations (in other words, "receives" the CT) then that's wrong. Why? Why is it providential favor for one side and sin for the other side?

Also, Van Kleeck like so many, latches onto the "kept pure" portion of WCF 1:8 while ignoring the "in all ages" part.

He makes this statement: "In the Reformed tradition, the Confessional text was not lowered to the level of the 'various manuscripts.' The Scriptural readings stood outside the manuscript tradition as a separate and privileged source." This is a bold, bold claim, and the only support he gives from it is a quote from Turretin where he talks about "a collation of the Scriptures and the various manuscripts." That's quite an extrapolated viewpoint.

I don't know anything about Van Kleeck apart from this paper but it seems like we can add yet another TR viewpoint to the pile. I don't recognize his view as matching anyone else's.

His view seems to be in line with almost all of the other TR adovocates. It just gets there a slightly different way. It seems reminiscent of many KJVO arguments (purified 7 times ... I.e. the 6 English translations from Wycliffe to the 7th, the KJV). If we CB/TR advocates don't cease arguing for scrivener onlyism, then we will never shake the label of KJV onlyism. As you pointed out, not one single Puritan divine or post reformation dogmatician ever saw "The TR" or argued for "the TR" if by "the TR" we mean a work compiled by a Revised Version text critic working backwards from the KJV. That then means that the Westminster divines also did not have the pure text.

 

[Logan]

Just read this fascinating bit on Van Kleeck's blog:

"Hey all. I wanted to give an update to my debate preparations. I’ve had a half a dozen or so men from different stripes and perspectives reading and refining my arguments. I really appreciate all their help to this point. The arguments I have constructed for the debate have not been used anywhere in our printed work or on the blog. I look forward to putting them to the test."

I'm interested to hear these unused arguments (and curious about the reasons why they haven't been used).

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

His view seems to be in line with almost all of other the TR adovocates. It just gets there a slightly different way. It seems reminiscent of many KJVO arguments (purified 7 times ... I.e. the 6 English translations from Wycliffe to the 7th, the KJV). If we CB/TR advocates don't cease arguing for scrivener onlyism, then we will never shake the label of KJV onlyism. As you pointed out, not one single Puritan divine or post reformation dogmatician every saw "The TR" or argued for "the TR" if by "the TR" we mean a work compiled by a Revised Version text critic working backwards from the KJV. That then means that the Westminster divines also did not have the pure text.

Agreed. I see Scrivener as an edition of the TR, but to argue for it as the single pinnacle does seem anachronistic and unhelpful. I think there's a much stronger case to be made for the Protestant TR editions together as the canonical, preserved text of the NT.

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

Just read this fascinating bit on Van Kleeck's blog:

"Hey all. I wanted to give an update to my debate preparations. I’ve had a half a dozen or so men from different stripes and perspectives reading and refining my arguments. I really appreciate all their help to this point. The arguments I have constructed for the debate have not been used anywhere in our printed work or on the blog. I look forward to putting them to the test."

I'm interested to hear these unused arguments (and curious about the reasons why they haven't been used).

That is interesting. Did he not release three volumes defending his position?

Edit:

I hope this kind of stuff doesn’t come up during the debate. I believe this is from his father.

“Contradicting the word, once considered a work of the Devil has gained respectability among the ecclesiastical intellectual elite and wandering sheep. And in this sphere of respectability, perhaps its time for the ecclesiastical social imaginary to recognize and accept the intuitive congruence between scholars and the Devil.”

Does the Devil Just Hold to Textual Variants?

Gen. 3:4, And the serpent said unto the woman, “Ye shall not surely die.” In this passage Satan contradicts the word of God in Gen. 2:17, “for in the day that thou eatest thou shalt surely die.” Co…

petervankleeck.home.blog

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

Am I reading him wrong here, or is he basically laying the poor state of theology in western “Christianity” at the feet of non-CBists?

2022 State of Theology Survey

The annual Ligonier State of Theology survey was recently released. You can find the whole report here. As with last years, things are getting worse in major sectors of Christian theology and Chris…

standardsacredtext.com

 

[Logan]

Sure sounds like it. I've been reading entries in his blog and it's a rather sarcastic echo chamber, unfortunately. Not very impressive.

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

Sure sounds like it. I've been reading entries in his blog and it's a rather sarcastic echo chamber, unfortunately. Not very impressive.

I did the same. That’s an accurate description.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

Am I reading him wrong here, or is he basically laying the poor state of theology in western “Christianity” at the feet of non-CBists?

2022 State of Theology Survey

The annual Ligonier State of Theology survey was recently released. You can find the whole report here. As with last years, things are getting worse in major sectors of Christian theology and Chris…

standardsacredtext.com

That's very unfortunate. This seems like a classic case of seeing every problem as the result of a pet issue.

 

[Logan]

Took a bit of digging, but finally found this summary of Van Kleeck's position:

"Simply put, we here at StandardSacredText.com hold to the same conclusion. God gave His word in written propositions easily, purely, and entirely. Those same propositions, by virtue of being God’s propositions, remain easily, purely, and entirely preserved in a single standard sacred text. We here at StandardSacredText.com hold that text to be the union of the Masoretic Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, and the 1881 Scrivener’s Greek New Testament. Regarding the English-speaking believing community. We believe the King James Version to be the standard sacred text for the English-speaking believing community."

 

[Logan]

He says things like this on his blog (commenting on a quote from Turretin):

"My point in bringing this up is that 400 years ago Protestants had to defend these passages from the Roman Catholics. 400 years ago, it was the heretics that questioned the veracity of 1 John 5:7. Now Protestants are called to defend these same passages against…Protestants, and the folks who defend the validity of 1 John 5: 7 are now called the heretics, the schismatics."

Who in the world does he think is calling defenders of 1 John 5:7 "heretics"? Is this a persecution complex?

 

[Logan]

And this line of reasoning I find baffling and I don't quite understand it:

Weekly Question – Do you know that no two Greek manuscripts agree in every place?

Yes, we here at StandardSacredText.com know that no two Greek manuscripts agree in every place. The Reformers knew this 400 years ago [See Turretin’s Institutes Second Topic, Q. 11]. Jerome k…

standardsacredtext.com

It's almost like the argument goes: we have to theologically and philosophically have a "standard text", so if you hold to the ESV as the standard for English speakers, that's a step in the right direction, and then we can debate which one is the standard.

It's almost like the primary goal is to make sure everyone uses the same English translation. And the question as to whether it represents the autographs is almost secondary?

 

[Jake]

And this line of reasoning I find baffling and I don't quite understand it:

Weekly Question – Do you know that no two Greek manuscripts agree in every place?

Yes, we here at StandardSacredText.com know that no two Greek manuscripts agree in every place. The Reformers knew this 400 years ago [See Turretin’s Institutes Second Topic, Q. 11]. Jerome k…

standardsacredtext.com

It's almost like the argument goes: we have to theologically and philosophically have a "standard text", so if you hold to the ESV as the standard for English speakers, that's a step in the right direction, and then we can debate which one is the standard.

It's almost like the primary goal is to make sure everyone uses the same English translation. And the question as to whether it represents the autographs is almost secondary?

I just read the linked paper from post #2 you commented on. He made a similar comment there:

"Third, at the very end of Ward’s paper he asks the following question, 'What could be more divisive than telling people who cannot read Greek or Hebrew – and therefore lack most of the capacity necessary to check out the issue for themselves – to disdain each other's Bibles?' 25 The answer is, telling people to disdain their own Bible. This is the very thing that SST proponents resist. We would be a long way down the road if every Christian believed their Bible was indeed the word of God in English and all others merely contained large portions of the Bible. Saying the ESV is God’s word in English is historically, theologically, and logically more consistent than saying the ESV, NIV, NASB, KJV, CSB, and the Message are all equally the Bible."

It's a new line of argument for me, to be sure. Even the most ardent TR folks who want to standardize on the KJV for the pulpit here and others I've met seem to be okay with some about amount of personal reference and use of other TR Bibles (whether other Reformation Bibles like the Geneva, Luther or something like YLT). It's quite strange to say there can be only one word of God in each language.

 

[danekristjan]

I just read the linked paper from post #2 you commented on. He made a similar comment there:

"Third, at the very end of Ward’s paper he asks the following question, 'What could be more divisive than telling people who cannot read Greek or Hebrew – and therefore lack most of the capacity necessary to check out the issue for themselves – to disdain each other's Bibles?' 25 The answer is, telling people to disdain their own Bible. This is the very thing that SST proponents resist. We would be a long way down the road if every Christian believed their Bible was indeed the word of God in English and all others merely contained large portions of the Bible. Saying the ESV is God’s word in English is historically, theologically, and logically more consistent than saying the ESV, NIV, NASB, KJV, CSB, and the Message are all equally the Bible."

It's a new line of argument for me, to be sure. Even the most ardent TR folks who want to standardize on the KJV for the pulpit here and others I've met seem to be okay with some about of personal reference and use of other TR Bibles (whether other Reformation Bibles like the Geneva, Luther or something like YLT). It's quite strange to say there can be only one word of God in each language.

Agreed. To argue that we either SHOULD or it would be IDEAL to have a standard sacred text in English is one thing. To say that God HAS done so, is, by any philosophical/theological/evidential argument both impossible and demonstrably inaccurate.

 

[danekristjan]

I just read the linked paper from post #2 you commented on. He made a similar comment there:

"Third, at the very end of Ward’s paper he asks the following question, 'What could be more divisive than telling people who cannot read Greek or Hebrew – and therefore lack most of the capacity necessary to check out the issue for themselves – to disdain each other's Bibles?' 25 The answer is, telling people to disdain their own Bible. This is the very thing that SST proponents resist. We would be a long way down the road if every Christian believed their Bible was indeed the word of God in English and all others merely contained large portions of the Bible. Saying the ESV is God’s word in English is historically, theologically, and logically more consistent than saying the ESV, NIV, NASB, KJV, CSB, and the Message are all equally the Bible."

It's a new line of argument for me, to be sure. Even the most ardent TR folks who want to standardize on the KJV for the pulpit here and others I've met seem to be okay with some about of personal reference and use of other TR Bibles (whether other Reformation Bibles like the Geneva, Luther or something like YLT). It's quite strange to say there can be only one word of God in each language.

Poor atheistic John Bunyan. He used a Geneva Bible his whole life and rejected the KJV. He chose not to have God's Word I guess.

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

What is it about the TR/KJV that attracts such odd outliers?

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

What is it about the TR/KJV that attracts such odd outliers?

I'm sure there are lots of outliers who hold other positions as well. I think the issue is that the outliers tend to shout the loudest and since the TR position (or at least the number actively advocating for it) is relatively small, they tend to be heard quite clearly above the rest.