WM 331: "PhD Onlyism": The Critic Critiqued

 

JTR

WM 325: Review of Seven Significant & Curious Problems with Mark Ward's "Scholarly" Article on Psalm 12:6-7

Here are notes from my review of MW's "scholarly" article:

First: The article, beginning with its title, attacks a straw man.

Mark Ward suggests he is opposing those who hold that there are (or were in 1611) extant “Perfect Manuscript Copies of the Bible” and conflates this with those who hold to the perfect preservation of the Scriptures (as in WCF 1:8: “kept pure in all age”). He never demonstrates (through credentialed citations), beyond his own assertions, that those whom he lists as his opponents advocate for the existence of “Perfect Manuscript Copies of the Bible.”

Second: MW falsely blames the KJV’s use of the adjective “pure” (Psalm 12:6) and the verb “preserve” (Psalm 12:7), for causing confusion regarding the proper interpretation of Psalm 12 (see p. 30).

These terms in English were not invented by the KJV translators but are part of the classic Protestant English translation tradition. See the use of the same terms at Psalm 12 in Coverdale’s Psalter (1553).

Third, MW falsely suggests that interpretations of Psalm 12:6-7 as related to the preservation of Scripture are the result of “English-only exegesis” which “can give rise to falsehoods and unnecessary divisions within the body of Christ” (p. 30).

Those he lists as suggesting Psalm 12:6-7 as relating to the preservation of Scripture, however, clearly do not do so simply on the basis of English translations, but on the reading/interpretation of the Hebrew original (cf. Thomas Strouse and PVK2 on “gender discordance” as a stylistic feature of Hebrew) (p. 32).

Fourth, MW misrepresents my position in this article.

He lists myself, “Jeffrey Riddle,” as a “leading” proponent of the interpretation of Psalm 12:6-7 which he opposes, but he does not accurately present my position. The best documentation he can provide for my views are two quotations (one not properly enclosed in quotation marks) taken out of context from a 2022 podcast [see pp. 32-33]).

I have done no formal, published writing on this passage. Oddly enough, MW makes no reference even to the only informal writing I have done on this text in the only blog post.

Fifth, in his “interpretive plebiscite” MW perpetuates his straw man presentation of his opponents, who supposedly read Psalm 12:6-7 as promising “perfect manuscript copies of the Bible” (p. 39).

Of course, the straw man view will not be found in the survey, because, as far as I know, no one hold it. The real question is whether there are interpreters of Psalm 12:6-7 which connect this passage to the preservation of the “pure words” of Scripture, prior to the rise of KJVO in the mid-20^th century.

Even MW’s survey is suspect as he overlooks historical figures who interpret Psalm 12:6-7 counter to his thesis (e.g., John Wesley, Ebenezer Ritchie, etc.).

MW’s false pretext, leads to false conclusions: “This writer could not find a single interpreter before the advent of KJV-Onlysim who interpreted Psalm 12:6-7 to promise perfect manuscript copies of the Bible” (p. 49).

Sixth, MW insists that the “purity” and “preservation” of Scripture in Psalm 12:7 can only apply to the content of Scripture and not to the words of Scripture (see p. 50).

He here denies the classic Protestant construal of the authoritas divina duplex.

He also completely rejects the classic Protestant approach which acknowledges the existence of textual variants in the transmission of manuscripts while also affirming the providential preservation and reception of Holy Scripture.

See Thomas Watson’s comments on the preservation of both the matter and form of Holy Scripture.

Seventh, MW thus wrongly concludes that Psalm 12:6-7 is completely irrelevant as an apologetic prooftext for both the purity of Scripture (in content and words) (v. 6) and the preservation of Scripture (v. 7), as well as the preservation of God’s people (v. 7), and suggests that anyone who holds such a view in like Athanasius standing along against the world.

He does not acknowledge that one might well hold a “both-and” perspective on Psalm 12:7. It refers both to God’s preservation of his needy people and the preservation of everyone of his promises (words) to them. This indeed is a distinct theme we see elsewhere in Scripture (see Isaiah 59:20-21).

Counter to MW’s conclusion, the view that Psalm 12:6-7 applies to the preservation of the purity of Scripture is hardly an “Athanasius” that must stand “against the world.” Even MW’s own article lists more than 20 historical figures who held such a position.

JTR

WM 321: Fidelity and Intelligibility: Has Mark Ward Misunderstood Tyndale's Plowboy?

 

My notes for this episode:

Mark Ward is a freelance youtuber who has become well known as an, and sometimes extremist, critic of popular contemporary use of the incessant King James Version, even claiming that it should no longer be used in Christian institution and declaring recently that it would be sinful to give a KJV to a child.

If you’ve ever listened to any of Ward’s videos, there’s a good chance you’ve heard him make the claim that he is simply following the spirit of William Tyndale (1494-1536), the first person to translate the NT into English from the original Greek, who once famously declared to a Roman Catholic cleric, “If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plough shall know more of the Scripture than thou dost.”

In a recent debate with an independent Baptist pastor, Ward finished his closing statement with several dramatic references to Tyndale and the plow boy.

He lamented that some folk supposedly have put “having the Bible” over “understanding the Bible.”

He claimed that “Literally no one has done more work than he has to help people understand the KJV.”

He recalled (as he has often done in the past) that in his senior year of high school he played Tyndale in the school play.

He declared, “I have the heartbeat of William Tyndale.” Continuing in an impassioned and theatrical tone to say, “Please do not deny that my heart’s desire is for the plowboy to understand God’s Word,” saying, “I don’t want to miss a single [word], and I don’t want the plowboy to miss them either.”

And adding, “You cannot have the help of a preacher. You need a translator.”

He closed his speech with this paraphrase, “Lord open KJVOnlyism’s eyes.”

If you know Ward, you know he has a very broad definition of KJVOnlyism, essentially encompassing anyone who prefers its use to other translations.

The question remains as to whether Ward has properly understood what Tyndale meant in his famous statement, “If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plough shall know more of the Scripture than thou dost.” Did Tyndale carry out his work of translation in the way that Ward suggests?

I’ve noted before some of many problems with Ward’s approach is his insistence on “absolute intelligibility” in Bible translation. Unless the reader—no matter his age, experience, or maturity—understands the meaning of every single word and phrase at his first sitting, Ward suggests, then the translation fails.

Criticism of Ward’s “absolute intelligibility” view was well stated by James Snapp, Jr. on his blog on October 29, 2024, in an article titled, “Mark Ward and his Ridiculous Claim about the KJV.”, a critique that Ward has yet to acknowledge, much less to offer a response.

In that post, Snapp said, “Dr. Ward seems to think that the Bible should be translated so plainly that it is incapable of being misunderstood.  Unfortunately such a translation has never existed and never will exist on earth….”

I thought of this recently as a I read an essay by Alan Jacobs, an Humanities Professor at Baylor University. The essay is titled, “Robert Alter’s Fidelity,” and it appears in a collection of Jacob’s essays, titled, Wayfaring: Essays Pleasant and Unpleasant (Eerdmans, 2010).

The essay is about Jewish scholar and literary critic Robert Alter’s publication of his translation of The Five Books of Moses. He has since completed the entire OT. Jacobs praises Alter’s translation not for its readability but its fidelity, and he makes much of that distinction.

In the opening pages he also makes some interesting comments about Tyndale’s saying about the plow boy and his interpretation of it is not the same as Ward takes it to be.

See Jacobs’ essay pp. 12-15.

Highlights and conclusion:

Jacobs says, “In translation, fidelity is the ultimate imperative and trumps every other virtue: even clarity or readability” (12).

Jacobs says we must not think that Tyndale assumed “the ideal experience of reading Scripture” is one in which “clarity manifests itself fully and immediately” (13).

He warns against translations that are swayed by “an assertively egalitarian, democratizing, and anti-clerical culture like our own today” (14).

He warns also of translators who think of themselves as being in loco parentis, thinking of readers as “little children” who need “scholarly fathers” to protect them “from the agonies of interpretive confusion” (14).

 Tyndale himself did not do this. He introduced words in his translation that his readers would not know (because he himself coined those words and phrases: like, Jehovah, atonement, Passover, scapegoat, mercy seat, etc.).

Tyndale was more concerned with fidelity than intelligibility. This same sense led AV translators to use terms like “propitiation” to describe the atonement in Romans and 1 John. The term was not well known to the readers of that day, but it rightly taught the meaning of Christ’s atoning death.

Jacobs says men of this era knew that Scripture “exhibits its clarity only to those who undergo the lengthy intellectual discipline of submitting to its authority” (14).

No matter how passionately it might be stated, we must conclude that Mark Ward does not, in fact, demonstrate “the heartbeat of William Tyndale.”

Ward’s understanding of Tyndale seems frozen in a simplified and unsophisticated version of Tyndale’s thought, retained from Ward’s memory of a high school play.

It does not represent a mature and accurate understanding of Tyndale or his view of what makes for a good translation.

As Paul puts it in 1Corinthians 13:11: “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”

One of the marks of Ward’s confusion on this issue is that he claims the text underlying a translation is an unimportant factor in evaluating the worthiness of that translation. This is a total rejection of fidelity as the guiding principle of Bible translation.

In the end, we have to conclude, with Jacobs, that those who approach Bible translation, as does Mark Ward, do not approach in the spirit of Tyndale, whose concern was not that the plowboy might immediately have complete comprehension of every word, but that he might, over time, with the Spirit’s help and the instructions of officers appointed in Christ’s church, come to know it truly and faithfully.

JTR

WM 319: A Response to Mark Ward's Offer to "Translate" the 1689 Confession

 

Self-identified recovering KJVO-ist, freelance youtuber, and now ardent critic of the King James Version, Mark Ward recently issued a call on his youtube channel for a new “translation” of the 1689 Confession (as well as the Savoy Declaration and WCF) into modern English.

Ward begins this call by noting, “In 2021 in preparation for my ordination I translated the 1689 LBC into modern English.”

Ward, somewhat unsurprisingly, notes that he found “dead words” and “false friends” in the Confession, terms those familiar with his dogged attacks on the “intelligibility” of the KJV will quickly recognize.

Ward says he dealt with such terms in his “translation” of the Confession using modern language as he prepared for his ordination to pastoral ministry at the now defunct Cornerstone BC of Anacortes, Washington.

We’ll return to this statement later to examine Ward’s RB ministerial credentials.

Ward gives five examples of supposedly outdated words in the Confession that, he insists, need to be “translated.”

I found no merit in any of the five examples that would justify this. More importantly, I found that two of Ward’s examples are theologically problematic.

The first of these is “circumstances” from 1:6. Ward says this term is “obsolete” in the modern context. He makes no mention of the fact, however, that “circumstances” has long been a technical term among Reformed theologians in discussions especially over the Regulative Principle of Worship.

He does not draw attention to a classic distinction between “substantial” (essential) elements and “circumstantial” parts of worship.

Michael Bushel in his book Songs of Zion, explains:

Circumstances are defined by [James Henley] Thornwell as “those concomitants of an action without which it either cannot be done at all or cannot be done with decency and decorum.”

Bushel continues:

The time and place of worship, for instance, may be seen as a circumstance of worship, because one cannot worship God without doing so at a specific time, and yet the aspect of time does not, and need not, be considered in a definition of what constitutes an act of worship (29).

In Ward’s so-called  “translation” of the Confession, he says he rendered the word “circumstances” as “extraneous details.” This does not, however, accurately convey what the framers of the Confession meant by the term “circumstances.” The time when the church meets for worship is not an “extraneous detail,” but a part of worship which is not “substantial” or “essential.”

The second example is Ward’s handling of the word “authentical” in 1:8. According to Ward this word has nothing to do with the contemporary word “authentic,” meaning genuine or matching with the originals, despite the fact that in context the framers refer to the text as immediately inspired and “kept pure” in all ages (i.e., the true text is consistent with the originals).

Here Ward’s bias towards the “reconstruction” method of textual criticism shines through. “Authentical,” for Ward, can’t mean that the text kept pure in all ages by God’s singular care and providence matches the original, because, according to Ward, they did not have the originals. So, it can only more vaguely mean something like an approximation of the text which is, nonetheless, still “authoritative.”

New Zealand Reformed theologian Garnet Howard Milne, however, in his book Has the Bible been kept pure?, a monograph dedicated to WCF 1:8 cites the 17^th century definition of “authentical” by the English divine Edward Leigh (1602-1671). Leigh said:

The question betwixt us and the Papists, now cometh to be considered, which of these Editions is authentical, that is, which of it self hath credit and authority, being sufficient of it self to prove and commend it self, without the help of any other Edition, because it is the first exemplar or Copy of divine truth delivered from God by the Prophets and Apostles (133).

Milne concludes, “In other words, the authentical edition is the correct copy of an author’s work” (133). Such a definition does not fit with Ward’s “translation.”

The other three examples Ward offered [“private spirits” in 1:10; “opposite to all good” in 6:4; and “necessities” in 27:2], as noted, IMHO do not warrant any adjustment in the text, but can be more than adequately understood by the mature reader.

Ward’s approach to the Confession recalls some of the problems evident in his approach to the AV, as pointed out by James Snapp, Jr. in an October 29, 2024 blog post, which Ward, has, thus far, completely ignored. Snapp, BTW, is hardly a proponent for either the traditional text or traditional Protestant translations.

Snapp’s article is titled, “Mark Ward and his Ridiculous Claim About the KJV,” and was written to respond to a now rather infamous statement made by Ward that it would be sinful to give the KJV to a child. Here, in part, is what Snapp wrote:

Mark Ward seems to have missed a fundamental point about the intelligibility of Scripture.  No Scripture was ever written with the understanding that its readers would be in a literary and educational vacuum.  Christians are instructed to worship together.  Christians should consider the Scriptures together…

We are expected to mature.  With maturity comes new understanding of what was once unintelligible.  We are expected to fellowship together.  We are expected to learn…. The fact that children can read as children and misunderstand things does not render the King James Version full of shortcomings.  The shortcoming is in the individual's level of comprehension - which is constantly changing.   

 Dr. Ward seems to think that the Bible should be translated so plainly that it is incapable of being misunderstood.  Unfortunately such a translation has never existed and never will exist on earth….

 I encourage Mark Ward:  come out of your fantasyland in which children never grow up and are incapable of learning new things.

Snapp makes the valid point that Ward advocates for an impossible goal of “absolute intelligibility” in a Bible translation, for any reader, of any age or maturity.

Snapp’s critique of Ward’s views on English Bible translations is also applicable to his newly expressed views on the Confession. No substantial and significant written document will ever be “incapable of being misunderstood.”

What is more, the case can be made that the historical Confession in its original form is not unintelligible to modern readers, who approach it with humility in the context of Christian community, instructed by teaching elders, and informed by a tradition of classic Protestant interpretation.

Oddly enough, after covering his five examples of supposedly “outdated” terms in the confession, Ward proceeds to justify revision of the Confession based on how the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (1662) was updated after WW2. The Anglicans did it, so why shouldn’t we?

This seems to be a peculiar argument, because it was, in fact, the liberal mainline factions of the Episcopal denomination that embraced revision to the prayer book on their way to liberalizing church practices relating to issues like ordination of women.

It has been the conservative and orthodox Anglicans who broke away from the liberal mainline that have held fast to the 1662 prayer book.

I can tell you that if there ever comes a time, in my lifetime, when a group of Reformed Baptists reject the original text of the 1689 Confession in favor of a modern “translation” of it, I and my church will be among many that will be forced to separate from them.

I have no doubt that if any church were to accept even the few changes Ward suggested in his video, they would be at risk of departing, at the least, from the classic confessional view of the regulative principle of worship and from the classic confessional view of the immediately inspired and providentially preserved Scriptures as “authentical.”

Eventually, Ward proposes that a set of recognized experts should get together, and, according to Ward, they should invite “a red-headed word nerd” to join them and help them with all his vast knowledge and expertise.

He adds, “it will take big names and institutions.”

Ward proceeds to say that he offers this counsel “from my tiny little spot on the Reformed spectrum as an independent—and I’ve been independent since I was born.” That last statement, oddly enough, does not seem very Baptistic.

So Ward sees himself a “Reformed” independent. But what exactly does that mean?

He continues, “I’m issuing this call. I think Reformed denominations should hold a sort of ecumenical council and translate the confession—not revise it.”

By using the word “translation” Ward thinks he can head off conservative opposition to any efforts to “update” or “revise” the Confession. But by “translation” Ward, of course, means “interpretation” and “change” (see the examples of “circumstances” and “authentical”).

Ward insists he only wants to make the confession more accessible to the ordinary reader. He adds that this would especially fit with the concept of the “priesthood of the believer,” a phrase more familiar to twentieth century SBC moderates than to 17^th century Particular Baptists.

As I listened to Ward’s unsolicited call to change the Confession I began to wonder about his confessional convictions, his ministerial standing, and his ecclesiastical commitments. Until recently I did not know that he even claimed to be a “Reformed Baptist” of some sort.

As a guest on the podcast of Covenant Baptist Seminary (an RB seminary) on October 21, 2024, Ward said (c. 17:56 mark), “I was ordained according to a lightly edited (by myself) [edition] of the 1689 Confession…” He adds, “I also took some minor exceptions, but we can get into that in another interview…”

The podcast host did not follow up on this statement, and did not ask Ward to explain in what areas he does not fully subscribe to the confession, or what these so-called “minor exceptions” might be.

Ward was a guest again on the Covenant Baptist Seminary podcast on December 17, 2024. In this episode, Ward said (c. 18:43 mark), “I am sort of a Reformed Baptist, because in God’s providence I’ve never been near enough to a 1689 congregation for it to be a reasonable option for me…”

So, by Ward’s own admission, he has never actually been a member of a confessional RB church.

What is more, he gives further explanation in this episode about his inability fully to subscribe the 1689 Confession. He states,

“I’m probably just a little bit different on eschatology than the standard 1689 guy.” Yet, he adds, “I’m a confessional guy.”

Neither of the podcast hosts expressed any curiosity about what Ward meant by this statement. What is his position on eschatology? Where does his view on eschatology depart from the 1689 Confession to which he cannot fully subscribe and to which he takes exception? Is he a dispensationalist? If so, can he fairly be said to be a “confessional guy”?

This conversation sparked my curiosity about Ward’s ministerial and ecclesiastical standing.

So, I took a look at the “About Me” page on Ward’s blog (By Faith We Understand) where I read the following:

I attended Mount Calvary Baptist Church for 18 years while in Greenville, SC, and I “pastored” an outreach congregation there Sunday mornings for the last (almost) six of those years.

MCBC is a well-known Independent Baptist Church but certainly not a confessional RB church. Notice Ward only says he “attended” this church but not that he was a member of it. Notice also the nuanced language. Ward does not say he served on the staff or as a recognized pastor in this church. In fact, he puts the word “pastored” in quotes, indicating his role was not officially pastoral. He continues:

After moving to Washington, I was something of an assistant pastor for six years—though ordained for only the last 9 months of that time—at Cornerstone Baptist Church of Anacortes. The church voted to close toward the end of the COVID era.

Presumably Cornerstone BC of Anacortes was also an independent Baptist church and not a confessional church. Again, Ward’s language here is unclear, He does not say he served as elder in this church or as an assistant pastor, but that he was “something of an assistant pastor” for nearly six years and was ordained nine months before the church dissolved. Was he ever installed as an officer in this church? He concludes:

My family now attends Emmanuel Baptist Church of Mount Vernon, WA, where we serve in various capacities.

This church is also an independent Baptist congregation. I find it interesting that Ward only says he “attends” this church and does not say he is a “member” of this church. The church’s leadership page lists seven elders and six deacons. Ward is not listed as a church officer. I did not locate any sermons or teaching by Ward that were posted on this church’s youtube page (but, admittedly, my search was not exhaustive). What are the “various capacities” in which he has served in this church?

The church’s belief page lists twelve brief doctrinal points, but it offers no mention of any classic Christian creeds or Protestant confessions. The statement on “The Last Things” reads, “We believe in the personal and visible return of the Lord Jesus Christ to earth and the establishment of His kingdom. We believe in the resurrection of the body, the final judgment, the eternal felicity of the righteous, and the endless suffering of the wicked.” Though vague, it might indicate belief in dispensational premillennialism and a millennial kingdom, and I did run across one sermon preached by the lead pastor titled “The Rapture of the Church.”

So, at this point I am unsure of Ward’s confessional, ministerial, and ecclesiastical standing.

Confessionally, he does not fully subscribe to the 1689 Confession.

Ministerially, he was ordained to the gospel ministry by an independent Baptist church within nine months of its closing but does not say he served as an elder in this church.

Ecclesiastically, he states that he has never been a member of a confessional RB church and only says he presently  “attends” an independent Baptist church (that apparently holds to some form of dispensationalism).

I want to be clear, I am not criticizing Ward for the convictions which he holds. I do not believe that the kingdom of God begins and ends with confessional RBs. I have many friends who are not confessional RBS.

I am concerned, however, by the fact that Ward is suggesting not only that the 1689 confession be “translated” (i.e., changed) but also that he would offer himself up as a candidate to be on a committee to do this work.

I’m also concerned that he claims to be a “confessional guy” even though he does not fully subscribe to the 1689 confession, has never been a member of a confessional RB church, has never served in the office of elder in a confessional RB church, and he may be only “attending” a church at present.

I also wonder what Ward would make of Confession 26 on each Christian’s duty to give “up themselves to the Lord, and to one another” in particular churches (26:6), where the bishops or elders are given “the peculiar administration of ordinances, and execution of power or duty” (26:8), it being “incumbent on the bishops or pastors of the churches, to be instant in preaching the Word, by way of office,” while others “also gifted” might also preach only if they are “approved and called by the church” (26:11). I wonder how Confession 26 reads in Ward’s “translation” of the Confession.

Has any church at present approved him as a public preacher and teacher, or is any church giving oversight to the teaching he now offers in various venues, including on his youtube channel and especially behind the paywall in the courses he now offers and charges his patrons to access? I wonder also whether this teaching adheres to any confession that might be examined.

I also wonder about the fact that at least one Reformed Baptist Seminary has welcomed Ward as a lecturer and lists him on its faculty page. I even wonder that an RB seminary would welcome him as a podcast guest to speak to areas of interest to confessional Baptists.

In the end, I want to give my answer to Mark Ward’s call to “translate” the confession and his offer to serve on a committee which would take up such a work. My response, quite simply is, No.

The better option, IMHO, for one who considers himself to be confessional (and Baptistic) would be to join a confessional RB church and to sit under the teaching and instruction of that church to grow in one’s knowledge of Scripture, as well as in his understanding of corresponding confessional RB beliefs and practices. If one aspires to teach and interpret doctrine, including that found in the confession, he should express these desires to the elders of his church so that he might be examined as a candidate to become an elder or sanctioned as a “gifted brother,” and only then to exercise his ministry not independently but under the authority of a particular church.

JTR

WM 313: Rejoinder to Ward, Ross, & Meade on the LXX and Classic Protestant Bibliology (Part 2)

 

JTR

WM 312: James Snapp Jr. on Mark Ward and his "Ridiculous Claim" About the KJV

 

JTR

WM 311: Rejoinder to Ward, Ross, & Meade on the LXX and Classic Protestant Bibliology

 

JTR

Lecture Two: 2022 Kept Pure in All Ages Conference: Seven Problems with Mark Ward's "Which TR?" Article

 

JTR

Jots & Tittles 3: Is Confessional Bibliology A "False Teaching"?

 

Last week someone sent me a link to an online article by Kent Brandenburg titled, “The Who-Is-Nicer or Who-Is-Meaner Argument for the Text of Scripture.”

The articles notes that those who advocate for the modern critical text have a tendency to use this so-called “argument,” charging advocates for the traditional text with not being nice and then using this as an reason in favor of their position.

He mentions Mark Ward and James White by name as those who frequently make use of this tactic.

Indeed, in Mark Ward’s online review of Why I Preach From The Received Text he is highly critical especially of Chris Myers and the rhetoric he used in his article.

In fact, MW begins his review with something of a exhortation against “tribalism” in which he writes:

When I read a book such as this one, one that announces its agenda on the front cover, I am always on the lookout for the authors to demonstrate their awareness of three of the very simplest of truths in a biblical worldview, namely that 1) there is created goodness in my opponents, who are made in God’s image; 2) the fall affects my tribe, too; and 3) Christ’s redemptive power is strong enough to save both of our tribes.

 

When Christian people forget or ignore or even deny these simple truths, they fall into tribalism, into canonizing their friends and demonizing their opponents. And they lack both humility and charity. When the other side is only ever wrong and our side is only ever right, there is pride and every evil work.

 

As I noted in my rejoinder, however, it seemed inconsistent, if not hypocritical, when Ward later wrote of Myers in this review:

 

I respond to a great many arguments from KJV/TR defenders, and I ask the Lord for patience in this work. But Myers’ words are utter and complete foolishness unworthy of response; they are almost impossibly divisive; they are sin.

Given MW’s stated desire not to engage in the demonizing of his opponents I was surprised to hear MW declare at the CB position was a “false teaching” in the opening to the final episode of the recent TCC (episode 7/7 posted on 8/22/22).

 

In the opening segment as the panelist are reviewing what PVK,Jr. has called their “trauma” regarding their experiences with the KJV and their IFB backgrounds, MW makes this statement (c. 7:17):

“... the source of this division is, in our judgement, a false teaching of textual absolutism.”

 

So, MW declares that what he calls “textual absolutism” is “false teaching.” I suppose this would mean that those promoting such views would be “false teachers.”

 

Back in TCC 3/7 the panelists defined those who they believe fall into their error under the umbrella of “Textual Absolutists.”

 

First, they said there are “extreme views”: (1) Ruckmanism; and (2) KJV-Onlyism.

 

Second, they said there are “moderate views”: (3) KJB Defenders; (4) KJB/TT Defenders; and (5) TR Defenders.

 

One might say that one of the major problems with the TCC is that they lump such different views together. Here MW does what he claims he would not do, conflate CB with KJVO.

 

In this statement made in TCC 7/7 MW made no distinction in the term “textual absolutism.” They are all, according to his words, “false teaching.”

 

That is, on the face of it, a very serious charge to bring against anyone, especially publicly. Consider what the apostle Peter said about false teachers in 2 Peter 2: 1ff.

 

I am hoping that MW simply made a mistake in his wording and that he will consider offering a correction to his statement and perhaps he would even consider withdrawing TCC 7/7 and maybe even the entire series.

 

I happened to post to twitter today a quotation from John Owen:

 

 "As, therefore, the integrity and purity of the Scripture in the original languages may be proved and defended against all opposition,... so we must ascribe their preservation to the watchful and powerful operations of the Spirit of God absolutely securing them throughout all generations" (Works, 4: 234).

 

And I wondered: Does this make John Owen a textual absolutist? Was he then promoting a false teaching? Was he a false teacher?

 

I hope Mark Ward will soon offer some clarification for us on his statement.

JTR

WM 247: Rejoinder to a "Toxic" Book Review

In WM 245 I mentioned that several folk had asked if I planned to offer a rejoinder to what has been called a “toxic” review of the new book I co-edited with Christian McShaffrey, titled Why I Preach from the Received Text: An Anthology of Essays by Reformed Ministers.

The book was released on Friday, July 22, 2022. By July 24, 2022 Mark Ward, noted anti-KJV activist, had posted a caustic review of this book to his blog (byfaithweunderstand.com), as well as to several online sites, including amazon and goodreads. On amazon he gave the book two stars. As of today, there are 11 reviews there. Every other review presently posted gives the book the maximum five stars.

Though the print in Why I Preach from the Received Text is fairly large (to make for ease of reading) and the chapters are short, the content does cover some 276 pages. So, in less than two days MW apparently got an e-version of the book, read it, and then posted a review of over 3,700 words! Note: His review is much longer than the 25 individual chapters of the book, which were limited to c. 2,500 words each.

After reading his review my main question is not whether Mark read the book. I think he probably skimmed through it. The question is, “Did he really understand what it is about?”

So, let me offer a summary of his review, as it falls into four parts:

First, Introduction:

He begins by noting that the essays in the anthology are more like “personal testimonies” rather than “careful arguments.” That’s true.

Nevertheless, he adds, the writers do make “properly academic claims.”

He notes the book includes a “spectrum of views” that “do not all perfectly cohere.” This also true.

He cites two “poles” on this spectrum, represented by the essay by Brett Mahlen on one side and the essay by Chris Myers on the other. He closes the intro:

“So I think I’ll describe the poles, which I take to be the contributions of Mahlen and Myers. And then I’ll examine what they said about the main issue at stake in the debate over the KJV: the current intelligibility of Elizabethan English.”

I have written quite a few book reviews for my blog and scores for printed journals. The first task of a reviewer is to understand the work he is reviewing and to understand the purpose of the author(s) in producing it.

After supposedly reading through Why I Preach From the Received Text, MW thinks the “main issue” with the book is what it has to say about the “intelligibility” of the KJV.

In fact, never once in the review does MW ever define or address what the book is really about. He never asks, Why do the Reformed ministers represented in the book choose to make use of the Received Text as their standard for preaching, teaching, and ministry as opposed to the modern critical text?

Never once does he make reference to WCF/2LBCF 1:8 and its statement that God has “immediately inspired” the Scriptures in the original Hebrew and Greek, and that these Scriptures have been “kept pure in all ages,” even though that paragraph is quoted in almost every single chapter in the book and attention is called it in the Introduction.

Instead, MW fixates on the fact that many of the writers, all of whom minister in the English-speaking world, also make related and tangential reference as to why they choose to use the classic Protestant translation, the AV, which is based on the Received Text.

Did he overlook the paragraph quoted below in the Introduction? It states:

We gave each contributor the same topic to consider, “Why I Preach from the Received Text.” In reading these essays it will become clear that all the contributors have high respect for the Authorized or King James Version of the Bible in English, as many make mention of this venerable translation in their respective essays. The reader should not, however, be confused about this book’s primary focus. Critics of the traditional text, in fact, often confuse our position with “King James Version-Onlyism,” a position which is inconsistent with WCF and LBCF 1:8. We did not ask our authors to address, “Why I Preach from the King James Version,” but “Why I Preach from the Received Text.” The primary purpose of this book is a defense of the traditional original Hebrew and Geek text of the Bible (16-17)?

Did he miss the closing sentence of the Introduction: “May the Lord use this book as an instrument to stimulate, revive, confirm, and defend intelligent and effective use of the traditional text of the Word of God” (19)?

We are left with only three possibilities: Either (1) he failed to read these parts of the Introduction, or (2) he read it but did not understand it; or (3) he read it and chose to ignore it. Sadly, it seems the latter is the case.

Second: A Brief Lecture on “Biblical Worldview”:

Here MW chooses to take it upon himself to lecture the readers of his review on the dangers of “tribalism.” The danger, he seems to suggest, is that if one comes to strong convictions about the text of Scripture and embraces the Confessional Text, he necessarily runs the risk of demonizing his opponents, acting uncharitably, and being filled with pride

Again, he designates two “poles” among the essays. On one side there are those he judges to be adequately charitable, as represented by Brett Mahlen, but on the other side, there are those he judges to be uncharitable, as represented by Chris Myers.

MW is especially unhappy with the essay titled “The Invincible Word” (pp. 185-193), written by Chris Myers, pastor of Phoenix Reformed Presbyterian Church, a RPCNA congregation in Phoenix, AZ.

MW takes particular offense at a contrast set up by Myers between, on one hand, “Satan’s Bible with gnostic heretics writing false scriptures and twisting the true scriptures” and, on the other hand, “the received and preserved Word of God” (189).

MW writes the following about Myers’s approach:

“This “two-streams hypothesis” is very common outside of Confessional Bibliology; it is found, too, in all forms of KJV defense, especially in the extreme brand of KJV-Onlyism known as Ruckmanism (after Peter Ruckman, who called these two streams the Antiochene and Alexandrian streams).”

If you listen enough to MW you know this is a line of argumentation (i. e., reference to a “two-streams hypothesis”) which he is fond of using. The question, however, remains: Is it accurate to say this of Myers’s article?

Myers, in fact, says nothing in his article about a “two-streams hypothesis,” Ruckman, Antioch or Alexandria.

Ruckman certainly did not invent the idea of drawing a stark contract between things that are spiritually good/healthy and things that are spiritually evil/unhealthy.

Such contrasts abound in early Christianity. Jesus himself told parables contrasting the narrow and broad ways (Matt 7), wise and foolish builders (Matt 7), wheat and tares (Matt 13), sheep and goats (Matt 25). John contrasted light and dark (John 1:5; 3:19, et al). Paul contrasted the works of the flesh and the fruit of the spirit (Gal 5).

The term “synagogue of Satan” (used by Myers in his article) was not invented by Ruckman, but it appears in the book of Revelation (2:9; 3:9).

These types of contrast continue in post-apostolic Christianity. The Epistle of Barnabas begins with a contrast between “The Two Ways: The Way of Light and the Way of Darkness” (18-20). The Didache begins with the similar contrast between, “The Way of Life and the Way of Death” (1-5). The Didache, in fact, begins, “There are two Ways: a Way of Life and a Way of Death, and the difference between these two Ways is great” (1).

Is it possible that Myers’ metaphors in his article are shaped more by Biblical and general Christian usage, than by Ruckman?

If Pastor Myers personally believes that it is spiritually corrupt and dangerous for modern texts and modern translations to remove portions of the Word of God that he believes are inspired and have been preserved by God (like the TE of Mark and the PA), does he not have a right to warn against their removal using strong and unequivocal language?

Pastor Myers clearly declares that he believes the stakes are high on this issue. He writes, “…. if we do not possess God’s Word, we cannot confidently preach God’s Word, and people will not be converted” (187).

Even given his strong convictions, however, he takes pains at points NOT to make personal attacks on those who have embraced modern texts and translations.

He writes, for example, that this is “not a battle against flesh and blood” (187).

He calls B. B. Warfield, Charles Hodge, and A. A. Hodge “men of God” even though he disagrees with them on text and translation (189).

He later states that “many godly men” who have embraced modern textual criticism “may personally hold to the doctrine of providential preservation,” but, he adds, “this is inconsistent” (191).

I am not writing here simply to defend Pastor Myers’s article. He can put up his own defense. We as editors included the article because one of the goals of this anthology was to provide a platform for various perspectives on why and how the traditional text should be defended. Pastor Myers’s views represents one set of convictions among those who embrace the CB position.

Oddly enough, after accusing Pastor Myers of “demonizing” his opposition, it is MW who offers this final acerbic attack on Myers in his review:

“I respond to a great many arguments from KJV/TR defenders, and I ask the Lord for patience in this work. But Myers’ words are utter and complete foolishness unworthy of response; they are almost impossibly divisive; they are sin.”

Isn’t MW using here a “two-streams” approach to Myers article? Isn’t he creating a dualism of wisdom/foolishness; unity/division; and holiness/sin? When he accuses Myers of being foolish, divisive, and sinful is he not suggesting that he and his position are wise, unifying, and holy?

In fact, isn’t MW the one who “demonizes” Chris Myers in this review?

Third: MW’s Eight Headings on the Readability of the KJV (even though this book is not about the readability of the KJV):

The major part of MW’s 3, 700 word review is located in this third section, devoted to various references in the book to the KJV with which Ward takes exception. I will list each statement highlighted by MW with a brief discussion:

1.     KJV readability is not a real problem.

Here MW takes exception to a comment by Gavin Beers, a Free Church of Scotland Continuing minister. Sadly, MW misses out on the main point of Pastor Beers’s testimony in his article “From Atheism to the Authorized Version.” No doubt, Beers’s comments do not conform to MW’s narrative about the AV no longer being useful for evangelism and discipleship, so he diverts attention to a peripheral matter.

2.     KJV English is not colloquial.

MW here takes exception to one statement by Poul de Gier, a bivocational farmer/pastor of Dutch heritage in Alberta, Canada.

One wonders if MW bothered to read Pastor de Gier’s statement at the close of his article, “Some might think we are ‘King James Only’, but we consider that a dangerous position to hold” (70).

3.     Contemporary versions do not make difficult passages of Scriptures easier to understand.

Here MW disputes Australian pastor Philip Gardiner’s report that reading the book of Job in the NIV as a new Christian did not help him to understand the book.

4.     The KJV was purposefully archaic, even in its day—so there is no problem with archaism.

MW pulls one statement by Pastor Trevor Kirkland out of context, and ignores his larger argument.

5.     Uneducated people can read the KJV with adequate understanding.

MW disputes Brett Mahlen’s reported experience in his prison ministry with incarcerated persons from various educational backgrounds who prefer and have no problems understanding the AV. Again, this does not fit with WM’s narrative that the AV is unintelligible. He even tries to play off his own anecdotal experiences against those of Mahlen.

6.     The KJV follows the inspired Hebrew and Greek word order.

MW takes exception to a comment in Christian McShaffrey’s article regarding the AV’s general adherence to a formal correspondence method of translation. MW makes this comment a straw man. McShaffrey does not claim that the AV always follows the exact word order of the original, but was simply citing with approval and appreciation some places where it does do this.

7.     The KJV contains archaic words, but modern versions also contain difficult words.

MW takes exception to another brief comment by McShaffrey on the AV and again misses his larger point.

8.     Someday the KJV may need to be revised because of changes in English.

MW ends, as he puts it, on a “high note” by agreeing with Scott Meadows’s observation that there may come a time when the AV will need revision. He proceeds then to criticize Meadows, however, because Meadows does not think that time has yet arrived.

 

Consider overall: The bulk of MW’s review of the book, centered here in this third section of his review, is based on scattered and peripheral comments drawn from the book regarding the AV, without ever addressing the book’s main thrust on the value of the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts and the Protestant doctrine of preservation.

Fourth: Conclusion:

The conclusion consists of three paragraph.

In the first paragraph, MW begins by noting that he shares much “doctrinal belief” with the authors of the anthology, including a commitment to Calvinism and love of the Puritans. As far as I know, however, MW is not confessionally Reformed. He may be a Calvinistic independent Baptist, but he is not a confessional Reformed Baptist. This may explain why he is not able adequately to grasp, explain, or respond to the Confessional Text position.

Here are the last two paragraphs, divided and responded to in sections:

Paragraph two begins:

“But it takes an elaborate set of contrivances to convince people of something they can’t not know, namely that KJV English is unnecessarily archaic and, at places (due to half a millennium of language change), unintelligible.”

 

Response: Oddly enough, despite its alleged shortcomings as outlined by MW, the AV continues to be among the most read and appreciated Bible translations in the world. Nevertheless, this book is not about the AV but its underlying text.

 

Paragraph two continues:

 

“The writers in this book, for all their appeals to the Reformed tradition, do not represent the historic orthodox or Reformation position on the Bible. They claim a perfection for one edition of the Greek New Testament that is a tiny minority view. They tend to insist on the exclusive use of one translation, something the Reformers certainly did not do.”

 

Response: I would point readers to the discussion of the bibliology of the Protestant orthodox in R. Muller’s PRRD, Vol. 2 and in Richard F. Brash, “Ad Fontes!—The Concept of the ‘Originals’ of Scripture in Seventeenth Century Reformed Orthodoxy”, Westminster Journal of Theology 81 (2019): 123-139. Beyond these secondary sources, I would recommend reading the primary sources (e.g., Whitaker, Owen, Turretin).

 

We should also remember that truth is not determined by majority vote.

 

We should also take notice that this book does not advocate “exclusive use” of the KJV, and, in fact, it is not, at core, about translations.

 

Paragraph two continues:

 

“They misuse Bible passages such as Psalm 12:6–7, which (I have shown in a recent paper) have never in the history of the church until the advent of KJV-Onlyism been used the way KJV/TR defenders use this passage.”

 

Response: I examined MW’s claims about Psalm 12:6-7 and the preservation of Scripture and found it wanting in WM 245.

 

He adds:

 

“And they divide the church unnecessarily.”

 

Response: Divisions, however, are not always bad. In 1 Corinthians 11:19, Paul writes, “For there must also be heresies [divisions] among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.”

 

The ending of the second paragraph reads as follows:

 

“The editors picked some of the most capable and gracious men of their sect, but at the lay and pastoral levels their views are almost always accompanied by a spirit of arrogance and strife. And the editors of this book included at least one essay in which the English translations used by countless faithful Christians were called Satanic.”

 

Response: I have already responded to MW’s mischaracterization of Chris Myers’s article above. Myers has a right to warn against any text or translation that he believes compromises the integrity of Scripture.

 

MW begins the third and final paragraph:

 

“I see in this book an effort to marginalize some TR defenders who cannot speak with any of the intelligence and grace (most of) these authors used.”

 

Response: I see here a mark of inconsistency. In the previous paragraph he said our views are “almost always accompanied by a spirit of arrogance and strife,” but he now says the authors in this anthology generally speak with “intelligence and grace.” Which is it?

 

He concludes the review:

 

“But I cannot recommend this book, and I am dismayed that the tiny Confessional Bibliology movement has gathered enough strength to publish it. I pray that its days will be few.”

 

Response: We are not surprised that MW could not recommend the book. We would have been shocked if he had. We encourage anyone interested to read the book and think for themselves. If they do this, we believe such readers will see that MW’s review does not present an accurate or fair review or evaluation of our book’s content and purpose.

 

So, Tolle lege, take up and read.

JTR