“Warding Off” Confessional Bibliology

“Warding Off” Confessional Bibliology: A Reply to The Authority of the Septuagint

I subtitle this “A Reply to” rather than “A Review of” The Authority of the Septuagint. It contains some review, but I also make severe criticisms and strong complaints about the work, and focus on certain authors, traits, and chapters far above the others.

The Authority of the Septuagint: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Approaches was released by IVP Academic October 30, 2025.[i] Edited by Gregory R. Lanier and William A. Ross, they add contributions from ten other scholars: Levi Berntson, J. V. Fesko, Edmon L. Gallagher, Karen Jobes, Thomas Keene, Joshua McQuaid, James B. Prothro, Myrto Theocharous, Daniel Treier, and Mark Ward. (When I look at the list, the last name seems to be the “odd man out,” in several ways.)[ii] The contributors combine to create nine chapters (one an introduction by Lanier and Ross and one a summary by Theocharous), two excursuses, and an afterword. The bulk of the work is followed by an extensive bibliography, brief information about the contributors, a meager general index, as well as scripture and ancient text indices.

In the introduction, Lanier and Ross introduce their purpose, provide overviews for the coming chapters, and set up three interesting categories of test cases. The purpose of the book is to address the question of whether the Septuagint has any authority for churches today (and, if so, what is the nature of that authority). Up front they make it clear that voices at the far poles will be excluded – the Greek Orthodox because they hold the LXX as their definitive text, and any variety of Protestants who believe the LXX has no authority. Here, on page 2, they boldly conflate as one two different views that are not the same – exclusive use of the King James Bible and Confessional Bibliology. In this they will go from bad to worse. While the Greek Orthodox position will simply be ignored, the Confessional Bibliology position will not. The Greek Orthodox gets no place at the table, while the Confessional Bibliologist gets no place at the table and gets an entire “chapter” (excursus) attacking their position. Myrto Theocharous, in her summary, mildly rebukes the exclusion of the insights of “the Christian traditions of the East” (pp. 205-206, 232), but seems to generally accept as “gospel” the hatchet job on Confessional Bibliology.

The three categories of test cases (pp. 6-17) are (1) New Testament citations that align with the LXX against the Hebrew; (2) New Testament citations that align with the Hebrew against the LXX; and (3) New Testament citations that do not align with one another. These cases have interesting potential, but are not engaged by every contributor. I have not analyzed all the test cases, but one caught my eye – NT quotations of Genesis 2:24 (pp. 15-16). This example is presented as textual diversity or non-alignment of citations. One difference cited is the difference “of the verb for ‘cling’.” Matthew, in NA-28, has κολληθήσεται while Mark and Paul have προσκολληθήσεται. However, there is a variant here, a case where some MSS of Matthew have προσκολληθήσεται (compare NA-28 with TR and RP in Matthew 19:5).[iii] It does not exude confidence, whether the editors simply did not know this or chose not to mention this to their readers.

Chapter Six – but especially the two excursuses – appear designed to challenge and refute the Confessional Bibliology view of the Septuagint. Confessional Bibliology almost seems to be a burr under the saddles of the editors. On the one hand, they wish to sideline it as a view unworthy of notice, while on the other hand giving it prominent notice in their design to refute it! Berntson has a good historical overview of the Reformed view of the LXX, but, in my opinion, seems to overemphasize the minority views (pp. 113-137). In her summary, Theocharous, without drawing attention to Berntson, corrects this with her conclusion (Table 9.1, p. 232) by stating the consensus view of the Reformers and Early Scholastics was that the Hebrew text was authoritative and the LXX was not.

In his excursus “‘Kept Pure in All Ages’?” (pp. 138-146), J. V. Fesko fires a warning shot across the bow of Confessional Bibliology by addressing the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.8, which states (among other things) that “The Old Testament in Hebrew” is “Authenticall.”[iv] Without specifically mentioning it, Fesko reviews a primary point of Confessional Bibliology. When all is said and done, however, the shot misses its mark. The Westminster Confession still places authority in “The Old Testament in Hebrew” – the Old Testament in Hebrew, not the Old Testament in Greek!

The excursus by Mark Ward is titled “The Septuagint and Confessional Bibliology.”[v] Rather than have a proponent discuss their view and its relation to the Septuagint, the editors hired a hit man to write a hit piece. Ward is not a random scholar chosen to write about this subject, but an opponent who has prayed imprecatory prayers against Confessional Bibliology![vi] The excursus begins its excursion poorly and ends it badly. In violation of his promise to stop identifying Confessional Bibliology with IFB King James Bible “Onlyism,” he calls the two views “fraternal twins” (p. 169).[vii] For his schtick, Ward “reviews” the Reformation Bible Society Conference of 2024 (p. 170). He undertakes to summarize and reply to “the main confessional bibliology arguments levied against the use of the Septuagint.” He further misunderstands, since the conference focused on the Old Testament and the LXX, that Confessional Bibliology has found some new direction.[viii] Something is not new simply because it just dawned on him!

Ward falsely indicates that he is interacting with “the four key presenters at the Reformation Bible Society conference” (p. 170, fn 6).[ix] He includes three of the plenary lectures given at the Reformation Bible Society conference, but avoids the fourth. He knows he is misrepresenting the facts – and so does editor William Ross, who attended the conference. The four plenary lectures were: “What Exactly is the Septuagint?” by Russell Fuller; “How Did the Early Church Use the LXX?” by Jeffrey Riddle; “What was the Reformation Perspective on the LXX?” by David Kranendonk; and “Why Does the Septuagint Matter Today?” by Christian McShaffrey.[x] He avoids the fourth and replaces it by mentioning – and then dismissing – a short paper that was not particularly relevant to his cause (because it was a paper given in a breakout session).[xi] When Ward excludes one of the primary speakers at the conference he is reviewing, how can we have any confidence when he says things like, “none of the speakers reckon in any detail with…” (p. 173). How can the reader know this, when Ward refuses to present all the facts?

On page 173 Ward muddies the waters by implying that Confessional Bibliologists are tilting at windmills, then gives examples that show they are not, including citing the ESV preface concerning using the LXX (and other ancient versions) “to support a divergence from the Masoretic text” (p. 174). He further stirs the mud by saying that Confessional Bibliologists oppose use of the LXX (p. 176), as if the conference presenters do not know the difference between using the LXX to help understand Hebrew words and using it to emend the base text to reflect the reading of the LXX rather than the MT. Their opposition is not to use of the LXX or other early versions to help understand words and such like, but to the use of the LXX to change the Hebrew Masoretic text. Ward even points to examples where modern versions do just that, such as the NIV at Genesis 4:8.[xii] Who’s tilting at whom?

Perhaps Ward raises some questions that Confessional Bibliologists will need and want to answer, but the overall excursus runs off in the wrong direction, smattered with misrepresentations and falsehoods.

While excluding the Confessional Bibliologists from giving their viewpoint, the editors chose to have a Roman Catholic scholar give a Catholic viewpoint. James B. Prothro’s chapter “A Roman Catholic Approach” injects further questions about the authoritative canon (pp. 190-191), gives due deference to the deuterocanonicals (pp. 184, 187, 204), and even in an indirect way questions sola scriptura (pp. 193).[xiii] However, “A Roman Catholic Approach” fits the mold for which the editors were looking – a view between the poles that gives some authority to the LXX, rather than all or none (p. 2).[xiv] The book ends with Myrto Theocharous summarizing things, and Septuagint scholar Karen Jobes reflecting on the overall topic.[xv]

Straight talk, no excursus.

The Authority of the Septuagint contains a lot of information that I found interesting, educational, and even helpful, even though I disagree with the book’s aim and its conclusions. Nevertheless, to a greater degree, I found that The Authority of the Septuagint, like sheep and commentaries, went far astray. This is especially true in the choice to have Mark Ward – of all people – write the excursus on Confessional Bibliology. In his so-called review of the Confessional Bibliology book Why I Preach from the Received Text, Mark Ward ended with an imprecatory prayer against Confessional Bibliology, “I pray that its days will be few.” On his blogpost “Breaking My Two-Year Silence on Confessional Bibliology,” Ward professed to disliking leading proponents of Confessional Bibliology.[xvi] Yet Lanier and Ross chose this man to run off and on about Confessional Bibliology.[xvii] They obviously knew that Ward was an opponent of the position. Ross, in fact, was a guest on the podcast when Ward “broke his silence.”[xviii] Ross also attended the very Reformation Bible Society conference that Ward misrepresented in his excursus! He knew better. The editors could not have not known that Ward misrepresented parts of the conference, dislikes leading proponents of the position, and desires that the Confessional Bibliology position should be destroyed! I find their choice of Mark Ward to write about Confessional Bibliology in their book to be misguided, reprehensible, and unsuitable for a book foisted on the public as “academic.”

In their “Preface,” Lanier and Ross say that a project like this could easily “go off the rails” (p. vii).[xix] I believe it did. This book will stand as a perpetual stain on the reputation, honesty, and decency of its editors, as well as a question mark on the quality of oversight and care put into the materials published by InterVarsity Press/IVP Academic.

Endnotes.

---

[i] https://www.ivpress.com/the-authority-of-the-septuagint
[ii] The information about contributors says that Mark Ward “serves as editor for Crossway Publishers.” Ward was not an editor with Crossway when the book was published in 2025. He was only there from May to November in 2024. However, he probably was in that position at the time he contributed the excursus. https://byfaithweunderstand.com/c-v/ | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wewxfs5gE9Q
[iii] For example, κολληθήσεται appears in B D W Θ 078; προσκολληθήσεται appears in א C L Z f¹ 33.
[iv] Authentical = original, genuine, trustworthy, reliable.
[v] He also includes this “chapter” on his YouTube channel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w2hkulghmI
[vi]  https://byfaithweunderstand.com/2022/07/24/review-why-i-preach-from-the-received-text/ “I am dismayed that the tiny Confessional Bibliology movement has gathered enough strength to publish it. I pray that its days will be few.”
[vii] http://www.jeffriddle.net/2022/07/wm-243-responding-to-another-comment-by.html I was one of several individuals – including Dane Jöhannson, Dwayne Green, and Tim Berg – who advised and asked Mark to stop calling Confessional Bibliology “KJV-Onlyism” – to which he agreed, writing, “I have prayerfully considered their appeals and yours, and I have decided to stop using that label” for Confessional Bibliology. However, he did not stop.
[viii] This is another instance showing that Ward misunderstands Confessional Bibliology and is not qualified to lecture or write about it. First, it implies that Ward is not familiar with the OT views of the Reformers and the Protestant Scholastics. Westminster 1.8 (as well as the Savoy and 1689 London Confessions) is a touchstone of the Confessional Bibliology movement, and clearly includes the Old Testament in Hebrew as one of the two confessional texts. Additionally, this is addressed in Why I Preach from the Received Text (e.g., pp. 15-17), which Mark Ward reviewed as soon as it was available in July 2022. To address Confessional Bibliology’s position on the Old Testament as if it were some new thing suggests either pretense or incompetence.
[ix] Ward again misrepresents that he is discussing the “four main presenters” on page 178.
[x] https://www.textandtranslation.org/videos-2024-reformation-bible-society-conference/
[xi] Not that there was anything wrong with this short paper, just that it is misrepresented by Ward as if it were one of the plenary lectures. Short papers in breakout sessions are usually situated somewhat more peripherally to the main topic than the plenary lectures. Ward knows how conferences work in this regard.
[xii] The ESV adds from the LXX to the text of Psalm 145:13, and this book notes other places where the LXX “corrects” the Hebrew.
[xiii] Prothro provides a “fraternal twin” to Daniel Wallace’s “gift that keeps on giving.” Prothro writes: “At the same time, it is not as though we do not have God’s Word unless we have a perfect Bible. Given the textual evidence, it would be difficult in most cases to know that we had such a Bible even if we did” (p. 190).
[xiv] …there must be some option between these two poles…” Another interesting thing about the inclusion of a Roman Catholic view: Many modern Protestants and evangelicals sound closer to the Roman Catholics who were debating the Protestant Scholastics and further from the view of men like John Owen and Francis Turretin. Greogry Lanier describes Prothro as “one of our Cambridge buddies who is now Roman Catholic.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69JlFGgO7g4
[xv] It was my impression that Myrto Theocharous is not all that familiar with Confessional Bibliology and assumed that Ward was shooting straight.
[xvi] https://byfaithweunderstand.com/2024/09/26/breaking-my-two-year-silence-on-confessional-bibliology/
[xvii] Gregory Lanier has also exhibited personal distaste for representatives of Confessional Bibliology. He has described them as “grumpy Protestants who really don't like what we’re doing.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69JlFGgO7g4

[xviii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wozfw14b4n8
[xix] There is an interesting “fraternal twinship” between “go off the rails” and “excursus.” The latter comes from Latin excurrere, “to run out of.”

Defending Chris Myers’ point

...without agreeing with everything he wrote.

Why I Preach from the Received Text, a book I recently reviewed quite positively, has come under specific attack for its Chapter 19 – “The Invincible Word” – by Christopher Myers.

First, a few general observations on Christopher Myers’ chapter. It struck me as different from most of the previous essays I had read in the book. Many of those were much more personal and testimonial. After extolling the word of God as invincible and indestructible, Myers quickly transitioned to a history of the transmission of God’s word, with the transmission of Satan’s work along with and against it. In this relation of the history, the writer affirmed Satan’s various attacks on the word of God, through uninspired writings competing with those of the apostles, hindering the laity’s access to the word of God, variations that diminished the deity of Christ, and so forth (pp. 187-191). Ultimately, the Christian reader must choose between the faulty text disrupted by the work of Satan and the reliable one that has stood the test of time.

Mark Ward and Matthew Everhard have both charged Chris Myers of accusing folks who use certain modern translations of using Satan’s Bible. In his blog review of the book, Ward writes:

“Myers makes it clear that when he refers to Satan’s Bible, he is not speaking of the sectarian New World Translation or the Book of Mormon, but to the Bible that I carried to church this very day as I write (the ESV), and to the one my pastor preached from (the NASB), and, by a small extension, to the Bible I preached from in our Spanish ministry (the NVI, related to the NIV).” (Review: Why I Preach from the Received Text)

In a YouTube video, Everhard states:

“One of the authors calls some of the modern translations, including the NIV and the ESV, Satan’s Bible.” (Sparring TR & KJV Advocates! Interview with Dane Johannsson and Brett Mahlen, @ 49:10)

Myers wrote:

“Modern translations based on Satan’s Bible, that omit some of the Word of God, include the New American Standard Bible, New International Version, English Standard Version, and many others.” (Why I Preach, p. 192)

I understand that those who use the ESV, NASB, NIV, et al., will take offense at Myers above expression. However, I do not believe the quotes from Ward and Everhard exactly or accurately portray Myers’ statement, in its context. While one might extrapolate that from what Myers wrote, it is not what he wrote. There is a fine line. He did not say they are using Satan’s Bible, but that these Bibles are “based on” it (“based on,” an adjective that in context seems to mean that they have attachment to or reliance on it as a source item for their translations). The attempts Satan has made against God’s word affect all these Bibles.[i] The more I look at “Chapter 19,” the more I think people have misunderstood and misapplied what Myers wrote. Is it just vacant talk that provides some sort of “moral high ground” when we say we are seeking to understand and fairly represent our opponents? If not, then we must all try to understand and then fairly represent our opponents, including Chris Myers and what he wrote. He wrote strong words. Very strong words. These words cannot help but sound inflammatory to modern Bible proponents. He is calling them out. The point he is making is that the modern translations founded on the NU Greek text are heirs to the defects (especially deletions) that have entered into the texts through the leavening work of Satan.

Possibly many TR and KJV proponents failed the Dale Carnegie “How to Win Friends and Influence People” course, while most CT and modern Bible proponents passed with flying colors! Myers sharply spells out the consequences of what he understands as an assault against the word of God, whereas the other side simply says we are adding verses instead of their removing verses, usually leaving us to intuit the rest that goes with that accusation.[i] Who is nicer? Regardless, pleasing demeanor and affable tone are not the arbiters of truth.

Satan has an interest in opposing, questioning, and confusing God’s word. This is not some KJVO or TRO conspiratorial viewpoint. The text and teaching of the Bible itself verifies this.[ii] From the beginning the serpent questioned the word of God. A wicked king tried to burn it. False apostles mimicked letters in the name of Paul. The multiplication of Bible translations, the words written about textual variants, and so on, can work to his advantage. There are textual variants (and translations thereof) that do matter. George Vance Smith, an Unitarian, served on the English Bible Revision Committee created in 1870 that produced the English Revised Version. He believed the variants had theological impact, and he wrote with some pleasure that he thought the new revision muted the doctrine of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and the atonement (see Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly Reviewed). You do not have to be a TR or KJV advocate to recognize this. James Snapp, Jr., an advocate of “Equitable Eclecticism,” exhibits this when he writes, “But we should not let ourselves pretend that some textual variants cannot be used against orthodox doctrines...There was, and is, a spiritual battle going on” (see Abner Kneeland, Forgotten American Translator (and Apostate)). A spiritual battle!

In “Mark of the beast, is it 666 or 616?” our friend Dwayne Green discusses text criticism, the mark of the beast, and the variant number 616 instead of 666. He says:

“It makes senses that the Devil would want to confuse you about what that number is.” (Mark of the beast, is it 666 or 616? @ 0:43)

Dwayne is neither KJVO nor TRO. Yet he recognizes that Satan has an interest in confusing us about God’s word. Is it only okay for those who are not KJVO or TRO or Confessional Bibliologists to point this out? No, it is truth, regardless of who says it, and regardless of who objects.

Wilbur Pickering, like Dwayne Green, is neither KJVO nor TRO. He is a modern textual critic advocating what is called the Family 35 Majority Text. He has strong words about Satan’s influence on the text of the Bible.[iii]

“Since eclectic textual criticism is based on falsehoods, it belongs to Satan. Since most theological seminaries and Bible schools teach eclectic textual criticism, even the most conservative ones, and since that is the only option that they teach, most students graduate thinking that is all there is. The graduate may believe the NT to be inspired and inerrant in the autographs, but he uses and teaches from an eclectic Greek text and modern versions based on an eclectic text. He embraced a lie because he trusted the teachers who assured him it was the truth. But that lie has become a stronghold of Satan in his mind, which is why so many evangelicals seem to be unable to reconsider what they were taught.” (Textual criticism and the spiritual factor)

The above examples demonstrate that speaking of Satan working against the word of God is not a feature of any one brand of “Bible Onlyism,” neither is it a relic of the past. Others believe and say that there is Satanic influence in textual transmission and Bible translation.

That agreement with Myers laid out, I also diverge somewhat with his approach. We should exercise caution not to cause sincere believers (even sincerely wrong ones) to doubt God’s word. For those who completely exclude any part of critical texts and modern translations from being God’s word, my point will fall flat. However, (the rest of you) consider that in many places the critical text and traditional text have the same readings. Some translations of verses have the same words as those same verses in the King James translation. In good conscience and the spirit of truth, we cannot deny those portions are the word of God, regardless of where they appear.

Here is Romans 1:1 from four different Greek texts. Which one is the word of God?

• παυλος δουλος ιησου χριστου κλητος αποστολος αφωρισμενος εις ευαγγελιον θεου
• παυλος δουλος ιησου χριστου κλητος αποστολος αφωρισμενος εις ευαγγελιον θεου
• παυλος δουλος ιησου χριστου κλητος αποστολος αφωρισμενος εις ευαγγελιον θεου
• Παῦλος δοῦλος Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ κλητὸς ἀπόστολος ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ

Here is Romans 1:1 from three different English translations. Which one is the word of God?

• Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
• Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
• Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

These examples are all the same (with the exception of the capitalization and pointing in the fourth Greek example, and, of course, the difference between Greek and English). Either every one is the word of God or none is the word of God. We cannot keep a consistent (or biblical) textual view if the same word of God ceases to be the word of God when sewn under the wrong two leather covers. SO, in my opinion, we need to respect the word of God that is the word of God, whether it is printed under the covers of a Bible text or translation we do not like, quoted in a book we would not read, printed on a banner, posted on Facebook, or spoken from the mouth of either the godly or godless. This position does not mean we cannot or should not oppose what is wrong in the the ESV, NASB, NIV, and other modern translations, as defective and deficient. It means that we carefully choose to apply or not apply certain terminology to books that contain some of God’s word, mistranslate some of it, and/or leave out some of it. It may be that we need to use that book, and the words of God contained within it, to convince some sincere believer concerning his or her views. For example, say there is a sincere believer who thinks the NIV is the word of God. Adamantly I say, “No, it is Satan’s book.” Then that person may begin to question God’s word (in other words, question God’s word in principle, not just the NIV, because he or she thinks it is God’s word). Later they may not accept any Bible as authoritative! A speaker may intend for a person to question the NIV and/or critical text and accept the KJV and/or traditional text. However, there is no guarantee that will be the results.

It is not necessary to believe that evangelical text critics and modern Bible translators are Satanists in order to believe they have been led astray in creating, adopting, and/or translating a certain defective text.[iv] Some of us believe that the Westcott-Hort/NU text tradition leaves out and changes some of God’s words. If we are correct, then the basic point Christopher Myers makes is correct. Some of us might make the point in different language than Myers, but the general point is true nevertheless.

It will be interesting to hear whether and how Myers himself responds to these criticisms.

Greater is he that is in his word (God) than he who opposes it (Satan). The word of God is not bound. It is not broken. The Devil cannot defeat it.

---

[i] In fact, if our opponents are correct, then the attempts that Satan has made against God’s word affects MY Bible. They may not wish to say that plainly, but they are saying it when they say that the Textus Receptus adds to the word of God. “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar” (Proverbs 30:5-6). Biblically speaking, if we add to the word of God, we are liars, following the father of lies (John 8:44), and our Bible, at least in its additions, is “based on” Satan’s Bible. Refusing to state the conclusion that follows your position may seem nice, but those are the consequences nevertheless. “Translations based on Satan’s Bible, that add to the Word of God, include the Geneva Bible, King James Bible, Modern English Version, New King James Version, 21st Century King James Version, and several others.” If you think I am wrong, tell me precisely, instead of beating around the proverbial bush.
[ii] See, for example, Genesis 3:1; Luke 4:9-10; 8:11-12; John 8:44; 1 Corinthians 14:33; 2 Corinthians 11:13-15; Ephesians 6:10-18; 2 Timothy 4:3-4; Revelation 12:9.
[iii] Pickering is more emphatic in this interview, Transcript of TF Radio Episode 12- Dr. Wilbur N. Pickering.
[iv] Humility and honesty makes the “traditional-text Christians” admit that we have been and can be led astray in many areas of life.

Book Review: Why I Preach from the Received Text

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: 

• Word Magazine 239, Christian McShaffrey and Jeff Riddle video discussing Why I Preach from the Received Text
• Greater Heritage Information Sheet
• Free Sample of the Introduction and First Chapter
• Search Jeff’s web site for interviews with the chapter authors
• 25 quotes from 25 chapter authors

Why “Which Textus Receptus”?

“Which Textus Receptus” and Related Online Responses.

• Which Textus Receptus? A Critique of Confessional Bibliology -- “I argue that neither mainstream KJV-Onlyism nor Confessional Bibliology can justify dividing from the majority of evangelical biblical scholars over its doctrines: their views differ only in degree and not in kind from the majority view of textual criticism.”
• Which Textus Receptus?! A Response to Mark Ward’s Critique of Confessional Bibliology -- “Although Ward’s paper is to be welcomed for thoughtfully engaging CB, his insistence to forge the position as a kind of KJV-Onlyism is overreaching.”
• This Textus Receptus: A Response to Mark Ward’s Critique of Confessional Bibliology -- “I discuss several apparent misunderstandings evinced by Ward which I believe impair his ability to rightly ‘summarize’ both ‘Mainstream KJV-Onlyism’ and ‘Confessional Bibliology.’”
• Responding to the “Which TR?” Objection -- “In the end, once more we can affirm that these minor differences are not the same either in ‘scale’ or ‘kind’ with those encountered by those using the modern reconstruction method.”
• Editions of the TR Argument and Excellent Preservation Versus Perfect Preservation -- “Ward and others conflate the very few differences between the TR editions into an eclectic text position, as if the modern textual critics believe the same as those who wrote the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF). This isn’t true. ”
• Various Editions of the “Which TR?” Question in a Debate about the Preservation of Scripture -- “The one word for which opponents of verbal plenary or perfect preservation are seeking or desiring does not contradict the logic of faith. It does not veto the theology, the doctrine.”
• Which Edition of the Received Text Should We Use? -- “According to Scrivener’s extensive comparisons, there are 252 places in which the Erasmus, Stephanus, Elzevir, Beza, and Complutensian Polyglot disagree sufficiently to affect the English translation.”
  
• Which Textus Receptus? -- “Some people hold out the question “Which TR?” to Received Text advocates as if a definitive answer is needed or it is a deal breaker for the position.”

Introduction.

In 2020, Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal published Mark Ward’s “Which Textus Receptus? A Critique of Confessional Bibliology.”[i] Two years later, Mark Ward believes this has not been answered. Two years later, I have found about a half-dozen answers to “Which Textus Receptus.”[ii] The discrepancy, apparently, is that the writers believe they have answered Ward, and Ward believes they have not. This addition to the pot is not my “answer to’ but some “thoughts on” Mark Ward’s “Which Textus Receptus.”

“Which TR” is not a question of fact.

Why does Mark Ward ask “Which Textus Receptus?” The question is not a question of inquiry about a fact. By that, I mean Mark does not actually want or need to know whether Robert Vaughn uses the 1881/1894 Scrivener, Doug Wilson uses the 1550 Stephanus, and so on. He is already aware, for example, that “There is one edition of the Greek New Testament that [the mainstream KJV-Only movement, rlv] consistently uses in its various educational institutions: Scrivener’s TR, particularly the edition put out by the Trinitarian Bible Society.”[iii] He further notes, “This 29th and final TR is the one used today by basically all who prefer the TR.”[iv] In addition, “Various influential defenders of the TR have pointed to Scrivener (Riddle, Truelove, the Trinitarian Bible Society, and many others), Stephanus (Douglas Wilson), and Beza (Chuck Surrett, who later pointed to Scrivener instead), as the best—or, in some cases, the perfect—exemplar of the TR tradition.”[v]

That “Which TR” is not a question of fact can be seen when Mark answers his own question. Regarding the group discussed first, he says, “the answer of mainstream KJV-Onlyism to the question, ‘Which TR?’ is: ‘The KJV’.”[vi] Regarding the second group, he summarizes, “Confessional Bibliology’s answer to the question, ‘Which TR?’ is ‘The KJV’.”[vii]

So there you have it. Mark Ward is not inquiring of us who use the Textus Receptus to find out which TR we use, or what we believe about it. He inquires for a different purpose – a reason that is set out in his “Abstract.” His idea is to demonstrate that TR proponents should not divide from evangelical textual critics over bibliology, since the views of TR proponents “differ only in degree and not in kind from the majority view of textual criticism.”[viii]

Ostensibly, the basic argument of his paper is “meant to build a bridge between TR defenders and that majority evangelical position.” Apparently, he thinks that bridge can be built by convincing TR advocates that we all “are in the same boat” – that is, the TR is just as much a critical text as the Critical Text (“our views differ only in degree and not in kind”). On the other hand, in my opinion, he shoots his entire premise in the foot by concluding that all TR advocates are simply covert KJV-Onlyists.

“Which TR” is a stratagem of debate.

By stratagem here, I mean a skillful plan or maneuver used to gain an advantage over the opposing disputant. Knocked off balance, perhaps the TR supporters will be confused, unable to answer, and begin to see the “error” of their ways.[ix]

Mark delicately crafts a list that totals “in fact, twenty-eight TRs,” strikingly equivalent in quantity to the numbering of Nestle-Aland editions of the Greek New Testament. Additionally, he speaks of the Scrivener-created TR as the 29th, which will be the number of the next published NA.[x] I question the equivalency beyond a numerical coincidence, and even that coincidence. In a blog post, Mark makes a comparison between the number of TRs and NAs, writing, “But by my count, Scrivener’s TR was actually the 29th major TR.”[xi] However, for example, in “Which Textus Receptus? A Critique of Confessional Bibliology” he wrote, “Theodore Beza produced five major and five minor editions of the TR between 1565 and 1604.”  Minor editions are not major editions and therefore not counted as such.[xii]

I think others have pushed back on the differences in kind between the TR and NA. I do not intend to go there. Let others do so. I merely point out that we are settled with what we have. We do not rush to correct and change the Textus Receptus in light of every new discovery. All must acknowledge that it true, because that is one of the continual complaints of modern textual critics to TR advocates. It is old, outdated, untouched by the oldest, latest, biggest, and best. As Mark writes, there is a “final TR.” There will never be a “final NA,” and I perceive Christians will be no better off for that fact.

This coincidence of numbering, however, is not Mark’s main point, but more of an accidental one. The “nuts and bolts” of “Which Textus Receptus” is this:

…I demonstrate that two particular TR editions carry all but one of the same kinds of differences that occur between the TRs and the critical texts of the GNT. I argue that neither mainstream KJV-Onlyism nor Confessional Bibliology can justify dividing from the majority of evangelical biblical scholars over its doctrines: their views differ only in degree and not in kind from the majority view of textual criticism.[xiii]

The basic argument of this paper, then, is meant to build a bridge between TR defenders and that majority evangelical position. It is meant, to use another image, to reveal that they—we—are in the same boat. The Lord in his good providence has not given any Christian warrant to claim exhaustive and perfect certainty in our textual criticism of the New Testament. TR defenders must stop claiming to have a “pure” and “absolute” text; that claim is, quite simply, causing brothers and sisters to divide unnecessarily.[xiv]

I ask, “Who is dividing from whom?” I sit where I have always.

We Traditional Text and KJV advocates are not all agreed on all the details about the KJV. No, all TR proponents are not rabid KJV-Onlyists.[xv] However, I think we are all agreed on this – we are not interested in modernizing the King James Bible. No lasting good can come of it. It will only further divide a consistent group of Christians (the KJV is still the Bible more English Christians read than any other) who, in the face of hundreds of Bible translations available to English-speaking people, continue to share a continuum, community, and commitment to one Bible, the Authorized or King James Bible. We do not wish to give that up.

Conclusion.

I was raised in a church made up of people who  believed they possessed the Bible, the words that God gave. The inspired Bible. They were not KJV-Onlyists of the modern kind, but they only used the KJV. They never talked about being KJV biblicists, KJV believers, KJV-Only, or any such talk. They mentioned nothing about other translations beyond the occasional talk of the RSV, such as the “young woman” vs. “virgin” issue.[xvi] The average members knew the Bible, what it said, what they should believe, how they should live. They knew no Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, not much of the history of Bible transmission, and nothing about textual criticism. Yet, their lives proved they knew and believed their Bibles. Somehow, I cannot help but believe that they were better off in their world than the morass in which we now live.[xvii]

I am reminded of a story I heard long ago when I was young. Now I am old. The story tells of an old man and old woman, husband and wife, who were riding along in their old Chevrolet pickup truck.[xviii] Sitting by the passenger door, she looked out the window and began to reminisce about old times. Remember going here. Remember going there. Remember doing this. Remember doing that. Then she waxed a bit wistful, “Remember how we used to sit so close in this old truck?” He looked at her affectionately, with a bit of a wry grin, and replied, “I haven’t moved.”

---

[i] Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Volume 25, 2020, 51-77.
[ii] By this, I mean I have found their existence by Google searching. I do not mean I have read them all.
[iii] “Which Textus Receptus? A Critique of Confessional Bibliology,” page 56.
[iv] Ibid., page 53.
[v] Ibid., page 60.
[vi] Ibid., pp. 56-57.
[vii] Ibid., page 54.
[viii] Ibid., page 51.
[ix] This is neither a charge nor a complaint, but merely a simple assessment. Debaters use strategy to make their points.
[x] “An international and interconfessional editorial board is currently preparing the 29th edition. It will bring many changes, especially in the Gospel of Mark and the Acts of the Apostles.” “The Novum Testamentum Graece (Nestle-Aland) and its history”
[xi] Bold emphasis mine. “Is the Textus Receptus Perfect in Every Jot and Tittle? Ambrose vs. Scrivener” Accessed 2021,
[xii] I suppose one might also discuss whether all the NAs are “major” editions.
[xiii] “Which Textus Receptus? A Critique of Confessional Bibliology,” page 51.
[xiv] Ibid., page 77. “Causing brothers and sisters to divide” could encompass actively splitting churches or simply something keeping us from working together. In The History of the King James Only Controversy within the Independent Baptist Churches: Its Effect and Importance, 1964-2000, Frederick Widdowson wrote, “As a controversy it split churches apart” (p. 9). However, neither his thesis shows nor my own research indicates that such individual church splits have occurred in abundance. It is my opinion this is greatly exaggerated. As far as the other, I suspect the Bible versions issue seldom is the sole cause of keeping us separated. While Mark chides us as separationists (i.e., the reason for division), he is actively engaged in a speaking and writing war that will divide the Christians who agree on using the Authorised or King James Version of the Bible (and will not unite those who disagree on the TR vs. CT).
[xv] For example, I believe there could be changes introduced, but do not believe they can be profitably agreed upon by the aggregate of King James Bible readers. Therefore, leave it alone. In the late 19th century Westcott, Hort, and company broke the stable thread of progressively minor updates to the King James translation of the Bible and ruined the possibility of effectively doing so in the future.
[xvi] Which might be brought up in Sunday School literature.
[xvii] That said, I realize we are not going back to simpler times.
[xviii] Our old pickups had bench seats way back when.