Jeffrey T. Riddle & Christian M. McShaffrey, editors. Why I Preach from the Received Text: An Anthology of Essays by Reformed Ministers. Winter Springs, FL: The Greater Heritage Christian Publishing, 2022. 280 pp. $15.99. Paperback and Hardcover; also available in eBook, PDF and EPUB formats.
Since I discovered his Word Magazine, I listen regularly and profitably to Jeffrey Riddle, pastor of Christ Reformed Baptist Church in Louisa, Virginia. He is a leading spokesman for Confessional Bibliology and often uses Word Magazine to support the traditional original language texts of the Bible against the ravages of the modern critical text. For that reason, I was excited when he teamed up with Christian McShaffrey (Editor-in-Chief of Text and Translation) to produce a book – Why I Preach from the Received Text – promoting some of the very things he promotes on his YouTube Channel.
This book is available from all the usual suspects (e.g. Amazon), but I chose to order it from the publisher. The Greater Heritage is a conservative Christian publishing company that issues original articles, books, Bible studies, and church resources. I purchased it, read it, and now give you my thoughts.
Why I Preach from the Received Text expands and extends the available resources confronting the modern text criticism and its associated texts and translations. A supporting cast of 22 Reformed ministers and 1 deacon joins editors McShaffrey and Riddle. The editors build this work with a simple design around a simple question to the contributors – “Why do you preach from the Received Text?” The answers furnish the chapters of the book. The answers have both simple significance and complex contents.
Why I Preach from the Received Text is a valuable contribution to the field of Bibliology. The editors launch the book with an “Editorial Introduction” (pp. 13-19), which demonstrates why this book matters. There is an attacking foe. “Modern academic textual criticism rejects divine preservation, and therefore proceeds to pursue reconstruction of the text based on human reasoning” (p. 15). There is a position to defend. “The primary purpose of this book is a defense of the traditional original Hebrew and Greek text of the Bible” (p. 17). The goal of testifying, teaching, and encouraging is soaked in prayer, “May the Lord use this book as an instrument to stimulate, revive, confirm, and defend intelligent and effective usage of the traditional text of the Word of God” (p. 19).
This book is a collection of writings by various authors. The contributors are “men who were gladly laboring in the trenches of local church ministry” (p. 16) – connecting to the work of God in the “highways and hedges” of church houses rather than the ivory towers of scholars in academia. These authors exhibit both unity and diversity – unity on the text of the Bible and Reformed theology, with diversity of denominational affiliations and geographical locations. Twenty-four of the chapter authors are preachers. One essay displays a non-pastoral perspective – a Baptist deacon explains why he wants to be preached to from the Received Text! The choice of introducing the essays in alphabetical order suggests that all these essays are equally important. The reader can fruitfully follow the established order, or may read them in any order. The essays not only complement each other, but also are capable of standing alone. The book’s style (conversational, with short chapters) and little larger than usual print makes it easy to read.
In his review of this work, Mark Ward “wondered how [he could] fairly describe a book that has more than two dozen authors,” writing, “There is, indeed, a spectrum of views represented here. The contributions do not all perfectly cohere.” I question that he succeeded in describing it fairly (here and elsewhere). A reader must understand the purpose of the book in order to understand whether the views expressed do or do not cohere. Yes, these chapters present the various views of 25 different authors. However, they do cohere (hold together, unite) at the place of the purpose of the book – defending and promoting preaching from the traditional text of Scripture.
Following the 25 essays, the editors return with a practical “Appendix” which offers “Steps Toward Change.” The book testifies and teaches, but also propels and persuades. The approach of “Steps Toward Change” is not academic, but pastoral, geared to local church ministry. May these steps be used and be successful.
An “Annotated Bibliography” on pages 261-276 rounds out the work. Rather than give a bare list, the editors chose brief descriptions and evaluations of each work – providing not only possible resources, but also guidance in selecting them. The bibliography is divided into 13 sections, beginning with “Books, Pamphlets, and Tracts” and concluding with “Websites that Defend the Traditional Text.” Though I consider myself well informed on this subject, I found two books of which I had never heard! (Historical Criticism of the Bible, by Eta Linneman, and Clash of Visions by Robert Yarbrough.) This bibliography will help the reader who will use it.
Why I Preach from the Received Text balances testimony and theology. Some authors “from a child” knew the traditional text, and some “fetched a compass” to get there. The authors are English speakers (residing in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States). Consequently, they preach from the Received Text (usually) via the Authorized Version, or (sometimes) the New King James Version. Though expressing consistent support for the Authorized or King James Bible, the writers are not King James Version Onlyists. They arrive at their common positions from their confession that original language copies of the Scripture have been “kept pure in all ages.” Supporters of the traditional original language texts and/or the King James translation who are not confessional may find the continuing appeal to the Confessions off-putting. If they will persevere, however, they will find much agreement with and support for their own viewpoint.
The authors present the positive and negative – what is right with the received text and what is wrong with the critical text – through testimonial, theological, and historical approaches. Positively, they believe that they have “scripture, theology, reason, and history on our side” (p. 259). The angles of approach allow each individual author to focus on the traditional text in his own way. For example, Pooyan Mehrshahi notes the value of a definitive text, “The TR-based historic translations [in various languages] give the church a standard and unifying text of the Holy Scriptures” (p. 171). Christopher Sheffield relates his journey, “I did not set out to disprove the claims of the modern Critical Text, only to understand them; but as time went on, I became increasingly convinced that the modern Critical Text and the philosophy which undergirded it, was an affront to the honor of God, the glory of Christ, and the good of the Church” (p. 206). Robert Truelove focuses on the canonical question of the text of the books of the Bible (pp. 225-233).
Due to the number of contributors, the essays are necessarily short. Some readers may find themselves wishing for more. Nevertheless, the brevity and autonomy of the chapters have an intrinsic sufficiency, and well suits the reader with a busy schedule. Due to the testimonial nature of the essays, there is an inevitable amount of repetition. However, that repetition can edify rather than annoy the reader. Good variety with repetition, unified on a central theme, is not inherently a bad thing. It helps us absorb and remember the points and their purpose.
The synopsis of the book is succinctly summed up in Scott Meadows’s chapter title “Why [do I preach from the Received Text (TR)]? It’s the Word of God” (p. 160). The theological position promoted by the contributors to this book sets their view above and apart from supporters of the modern Critical Text and Bibles translated from it. For the latter, there must always be some question whether all of it is the word of God. The contributors to this book do not settle for a gospel that is mostly good news, spiritual food that is mostly good food, or a spiritual sword that is mostly sharp. From what do they preach? The Received Text. It’s the word of God!
I highly recommend this book. This book can help us find answers to questions raised by the modern text critics. You will be better informed for having read it. Why I Preach from the Received Text is solid, accessible, and practical. It emanates from a biblical theology of the providential preservation of God’s inspired writings. It provides personal, thoughtful, and reasoned support for the traditional texts. It challenges, with personal, thoughtful, and reasoned objections, the modern critical texts. “To those who believe that God has providentially preserved his Word, the question of the veracity and tenacity of Scripture has been asked and answered. God has spoken” (p. 252). Those who favor the traditional texts of the Bible will find support, strength, and encouragement. King James “English Only” Defenders will find the book extremely respectful and supportive of the King James Bible, but also find that it does not directly support their position. Those who deny the traditional texts and favor the modern critical ones will be surprised, confronted, and challenged – perhaps even halt a little!
Why I Preach from the Received Text supports the time-honored traditional texts and offers a new vision for the old paths – a scriptural and suitable way forward in the original texts and Bible translations debates. Buy it. Read it.
A more technical theologically driven work would make an excellent sequel to Why I Preach from the Received Text.
Other related resources include:
6 comments:
R.L.V., you write: "Though expressing consistent support for the Authorized or King James Bible, the writers are not King James Version Onlyists."
Question: How exactly are you defining KJVO? Thanks
Hi, Matthew,
Thanks for reading and posting.
I think the best way to understand “King James Only” is to limit the term to refer to those who look to the King James Bible as their sole and final authority. Perhaps that is a little like trying to get the horse back in the barn, as we say around here, since the term has already been used in all kinds of ways. However, that is how I am using it in this review and in reference to Confessional Bibliologists. They may only use the King James Bible (most do, although all do not), but they never claim it as their final authority. Their claim of final authority is in the original language apographs rather than any translation.
So, in the review I use the term in what I think is the best understanding of it, and also in reference to how Confessional Bibliogists describe themselves.
Ok. I don't think all Confessional Bibliologists hold identical opinions on this matter (and some have certainly modified their views over time), so it's probably best to treat each advocate individually regarding this point.
That said, would you qualify someone who claimed (or essentially claimed) that the underlying Greek text of the KJV is the "final authority" (a la E.F. Hills) as KJVO?
I agree that all Confessional Bibliologists do not hold the same opinion about the King James translation and its use. Just a couple of days ago, I listened to an interview of two of the authors of Why I Preach from the Received Text in which one of the respondents seemed to agree with even using translations based on the critical text in certain contexts. So, yes, each advocate has his own individual position. I did see a general trend running throughout the book, though, to put a disclaimer on being KJVO.
I am certainly no expert on E. F. Hills, and it seems like you might be able to go either way with him. He is often quoted where he wrote this: "...the King James Version ought to be regarded not merely as a translation of the Textus Receptus but also as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus...we favor that form of the Textus Receptus upon which more than any other God, working providentially, has placed the stamp of His approval, namely, the King James Version, or, more precisely, the Greek text underlying the King James Version. This text was published in 1881 by the Cambridge University Press under the editorship of Dr. Scrivener and there have been eight reprints, the latest being in 1949...We ought to be grateful that in the providence of God the best form of the Textus Receptus is still available to believing Bible students."
https://archive.org/details/TheKingJamesVersionDefended
That sounds pretty KJVO, yet Hills also stipulates that in working with the Textus Receptus the translators basically created another Textus Receptus which is its "best form." I would want to review his writing again in its larger context before I made a decision on what I think about Hills in this regard, but it does sound like that to him at least the Greek text of the KJV is the final authority. On the other hand, most people I know who proudly accept the KJVO moniker do not pay any attention to the original languages. Clearly Hills was not in that camp.
Thank you for your helpful replies.
Said "disclaimer[s]" are only worth what each authors personal definition of KJV-Onlyism is. Many (no doubt) will offer a definition which amounts to KJVO = Ruckmanism (as Van Kleeck Jr. has¹), which is absolutely incorrect on its face. Some may go even further (as Riddle has²) and offer such an obtuse definition of KJVO that not even Ruckman would qualify. (No comment.)
Your comments regarding Hills are very fair. And, in fact, there have been sharply differing opinions as to whether Hills is to be regarded as KJVO. Generally speaking, he's usually been identified as a KJVO, or at least essentially KJVO (in my experience). Which seems to fall somewhat in line with your initial (and tentative) thoughts. This is important because just recently a very vocal proponent in this discussion wrote:
"Next let’s turn to the Confessional Text position which is most recently propounded by the likes of Dr. Jeff Riddle from Louisa, VA. Perhaps the modern progenitor of this position though is found in the work of Edward F. Hills in his work, The King James Version Defended aka Text and Time."
– Peter Van Kleeck Jr.
Point being: things equal to the same thing are equal to each other. Therefore, if (1) Van Kleeck's statement is accurate, and (2) Hills is KJVO—or at the least something very close to it, then so is Confessional Bibliology generally speaking. And I would stress that this is *not* "slander" as Sayers would have it, or "simply and clearly ignorant or maliciously mischaracterizing" said position, as Van Kleeck Jr. would have it (although he back stepped when pressed); who indeed goes further to say, "Such attempts to equate our position with KJVO represents a profound lack of charity and academic acumen."—Not so! They represent they opinions of learned men on both sides of the issues, as well as many KJVO's themselves!
¹ Quote: "I define KJVO as Double-Inspiration Ruckmanism."
² Quote: "I think if the term is to have any meaning the "Only" in KJVO must mean such a person who holds this position believes that the KJV is the ONLY Bible that can be used, even by those who do not speak English."
You’re welcome. I’ll add just a few more thoughts.
First, I would want to say that what I think is the best way to define or present KJVO is only tentative to me in the sense that I think there will never be a settled terminology in how people discuss this topic. (However, I am not saying it is not worth the effort to try.) For myself, I am settled that it is the best description. Many who debate this have an agenda beyond just being accurate. People use the terminology in various ways, and they will continue to do so. I further think James White complicated the discussion with his categories of KJVO. For example, he included people in his “Group # 2” who are Majority Text advocates who have compiled Greek texts in distinction to the Textus Receptus, and made English translations in distinction to the King James Version. He somewhat admits they are not KJV Only, and then places them within the “range of beliefs within the broad category of KJV Only” (White, The King James Only Controversy, pp. 23-25). I used White’s categories in the past, but have ditched them as not the best way to proceed.
I really don’t think we should be surprised. We Christians have been discussing Calvinism and Arminianism a lot longer than this, and can’t get people settled on how the terms should be used and exactly whom they describe. Should “Calvinist” only be applied to those who are Reformed (some say so), or is it validly broadened to anyone who holds the 5-points (TULIP)? Yet it is also widely applied to Amyraldians, who have a modified view that is more like 4-points. So, I don’t suppose there is much hope for the KJVO terminology being settled. Some use it for pejorative or polemic purposes, some want an accurate description, some just understand the issues differently, and so on.
I hate to differ with my friends, but I would not limit KJVO to Ruckmanism. I know plenty of people who think they are KJVO and reject the views of Ruckman (not only concerning the Bible, but all of his other wacky stuff). They hold to the KJV in English as their final authority, but don’t hold double inspiration or advanced revelation (“‘Mistakes’ in the A.V. 1611 are advanced revelation!” Ruckman, The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, pp. 125-126). I have never personally known anyone who advocated that non-English speakers should use the English KJV translation (of course, I do not know everyone). However, I do know that a number of people think that other language Bibles ought to be translated from the King James rather than from the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.
Regarding Hills, I suppose one problem could be that in his day we would have mainly only distinguished between those who were for the KJV and those who were for modern translations. There was no “Confessional Bibliology” terminology then, and by default he was KJVO. It seems fairly certain to me that Hills as a conservative Presbyterian was “Confessional.” Looking on the other hand, he separated himself from what he saw as extreme. According to the letter he sent Ted Letis, which has made its way around the internet, Hills thought the folks organizing the Dean Burgon Society were extreme, confused in their thinking, and that if he attended he would have “to straighten everybody out.”
Just one final comment. Creating categories of anything (of which I have mainly worked in reference to Baptist denominations) is not clear-cut work. It is messy. There are always overlaps between categories that make it a subjective choice of deciding where some of the “in-betweeners” fit.
Turned out to be a lengthy “few” thoughts. Sorry about that.
Post a Comment