What do you think?
Rate this book
Why I Preach from the Received Text: An Anthology of Essays by Reformed Ministers
An exceptional volume confirming the integrity of the traditional text of the Bible. Though used by the church for centuries, the traditional text of the Bible and translations based upon it are presently being jettisoned in favor of an unstable and constantly evolving modern critical text resulting in an undermining of the authority of God's Word. In light of this, Why I Preach from the Received Text seeks to stimulate, revive, confirm, and defend intelligent and effective usage of the traditional text of the Word of God. With a resounding chorus of unique voices from a variety of Reformed denominations, its compelling essays demonstrate that we have every reason to trust the traditional text, and that using it is neither unreasonable nor obscurantist. Both persuasive and encouraging, it is an exceptional volume for those interested in the integrity of the text of Holy Scripture, and an inspiring challenge for believers to consider the text of the Bible they choose to embrace.
- GenresTheology
280 pages, Hardcover
Published July 22, 2022
6 people are currently reading
29 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
July 25, 2022
I’ve wondered how I can fairly describe a book that has more than two dozen authors. There is, indeed, a spectrum of views represented here. The contributions do not all perfectly cohere.
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.
A biblical worldview
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 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.
Brett Mahlen was the one author who, I felt, showed the most evident grasp of the simple creation-fall-redemption Christian worldview. He tells the encouraging personal story of his conversion, and then of his growth in grace under the influence of certain men, including especially James White. In one key comment, Mahlen reflects with humility the way God’s world really works. He both pushes back against his own and sees good in his opponents:
“Some TR advocates like to insult James White, but I do not find that helpful. I do believe Dr. Riddle defeated Dr. White in the two debates of October 2020, however, just because I disagree with Dr. White or believe he lost a debate does not make him my enemy. I still benefit from his books and his debates against Romanists, cultists, and Muslims. I appreciate his stand against wokeism. All men have feet of clay, and I learn from a wide variety of men with whom I may disagree on some issues.”
Philip Gardiner strikes a similar tone:
“There are godly men who have embraced the modern Critical Text who solidly declare the doctrine of the Trinity, who uphold the deity of Christ, and strongly believe in praising God in prayer, “ascribing kingdom, power, and glory to him” (WSC, 107). It is true that their rejection of the Received Text has not caused them to deny the truth of orthodox doctrine or the reality of Christian living.”
Christopher Sheffield, too, is “confident that there are sincere brethren who uphold … foundational truths [such as the Trinity and deity of Christ] while advocating for the Critical Text.”
These notes of unity and humility are appreciated.
Demonization
But then comes the other pole in the book, the piece by Christopher Myers. Myers almost literally demonizes his opponents. He spins a grand narrative in which there have always been “two Bibles”:
“(1) Satan’s Bible with gnostic heretics writing false scriptures and twisting the true scriptures, and (2) the received and preserved Word of God.”
This “two-streams hypothesis” is very common outside of Confessional Bibliology; it is found in all forms of KJV defense.
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). Here is Myers:
“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.”
Let me stop and register this again: according to Myers, this very day I carried, heard, and preached from translations based on Satan’s Bible. The Bibles I read—that is extremely similar to his—are part of a corrupt stream deriving somehow from gnostic heretics. This is utter and complete foolishness; it is almost impossibly divisive; it is sin.
KJV Readability
Effectively everything in this book—minus appeals to the Reformed tradition and its confessions—I heard growing up in my Independent Fundamental Baptist, KJV-Only church. I am not saying that Confessional Bibliology and KJV-Onylism are identical positions. But they do use the same prooftexts and basic arguments. And I offer the same reply to both: 1 Corinthians 14 teaches that edification requires intelligibility, and it is wrong to bind other Christians’ consciences to use a 400-year-old Bible translation whose English is no longer fully intelligible.
What does this new book say about the readability of the KJV? I’ll summarize in eight headings:
1. KJV readability is not a real problem.
Gavin Beers writes:
“I wish to address one of the more common criticisms of the King James Version of the Bible: that its archaic language is not fitted for use in the twenty-first century. … I have found this to be much more of a projected than real problem.”
I hear this constantly from KJV defenders. I felt the same way myself for many years. But are the “dead words” of the KJV “no problem”? What are “chambering and wantonness” (Rom 13:13)? It is not difficult to look them up—but these words are not “no problem.” They are static in the public Scripture reading. They are unnecessarily archaic. These archaic words meant “sexual immorality” and “sensuality”—which is exactly what the ESV says. So what is wrong with using the ESV here?
And are the “false friends” in the KJV “no problem”? I rather think not. They were a problem in Noah Webster’s day 200 years ago. They are a worse problem today. They are not, perhaps, insurmountable. With some training from my Fifty False Friends in the KJV YouTube series and with access to the Oxford English Dictionary, many people are learning to read these false friends. But they do pose a problem.
2. KJV English is not colloquial.
Poul de Gier writes:
“It was these convictions that led our church to use the Received Text. The leadership spent a winter studying the New King James Version for potential use in the pulpit but felt retaining the KJV was more beneficial. … Has maintaining this position always been easy? No. It is not a majority position, and the KJV is not colloquial English.”
I’ve heard this many times, too: “the KJV is not colloquial English.” But this is a category mistake. The challenge made against continued (exclusive) use of the KJV is on the diachronic axis, not the literary one. In other words, I argue that KJV English is unnecessarily confusing and opaque today because it is unnecessarily old. I did not say and do not say that the fault with the KJV is that it is too formal or literary; that is a different axis. I *like* literary translations. I use one, the ESV. It, too, is not colloquial. What de Gier should have said is that the KJV is not *contemporary* English. By saying it is not colloquial, he is changing the subject.
3. Contemporary versions do not make difficult passages of Scripture easier to understand.
Philip Gardiner:
“I was delighted when I received my first copy of the NIV, but was soon disappointed when reading the book of Job. Simply having a modern translation did not make that book any easier to understand!”
In a sense, I don’t disagree here: Job is “hard to be understood” (2 Pet 3:16) no matter what translation you read it in. But can I be a bit picky? A modern translation didn’t make it “*any* easier”?
Here’s a verse in Job from the KJV, chosen nearly at random. It’s Job 35:8, part of a speech of Elihu:
“Thy wickedness *may hurt* a man as thou *art*;
“And thy righteousness *may profit* ithe son of man.”
I stumbled over this a bit. Your wickedness would hurt a man like you? Is that what it’s saying?
But here is the NIV at the same verse:
“Your wickedness only affects humans like yourself,
“and your righteousness only other people.”
This is a perfect example of the kind of thing that the NIV has done for me since I was a teenager (and finally won the right in my conscience to read it). It took the same interpretation as the KJV but put it in words I could understand. At least, I think that’s what the KJV translators were trying to say in their English. I find that first verset rather difficult, even after getting some help from the NIV.
Contemporary translations have helped me understand God’s word over and over and over—in countless places that have utterly nothing to do with textual criticism or preservation. The underlying Hebrew text in Job 35:8 is the same in every translation.
4. The KJV was purposefully archaic, even in its day—so there is no problem with archaism.
Trevor Kirkland writes:
“Our preference for a translation of the TR is the AV. We are not claiming perfection for the AV. Granted, it does have some blemishes and imperfections; however, the translators were not interested in being “contemporary.” Ironically, this has become a common criticism (i.e., that it uses “archaic” language) when, in fact, some of its language was already archaic in 1611!”
I’ve never understood why this argument, which I have also heard many times, is appealing to KJV defenders. Given that the KJV was a revision of the 1568 Bishop’s Bible and not a fresh translation, I think it did preserve some archaisms. *Thee* and *ye* had pretty well fallen out of use by 1611, I have read. But the fact that the KJV translators retained some archaic English elements from past translations doesn’t mean we ought to do the same today.
5. Uneducated people can read the KJV with adequate understanding.
Brett Mahlen works in prison ministry, a ministry that is dear to my heart, because for many years I served basically the same demographic (though outside prison walls):
“When I finally began using the KJV in my prison ministry, I felt like I had caught up to the inmates. Most of them read the KJV with understanding even though many came from poorly-run urban schools with historically poor test scores. These men in prison actually had dictionaries, and used them!”
I deny Brett’s experience as he may perhaps deny mine. KJV English bewildered the low-income folks to whom I ministered. So did the NASB, for that matter. In my ministry we used the New International Reader’s Version and loved it.
I’m tempted to call a draw here: our respective experiences cancel each other out. But I’ve done the lexical work. I’ve scurried around through the citations in the OED hundreds of times; I’ve dug into linguistic corpuses. I believe I have shown evidence that people who read the KJV today don’t understand it as well as they think they do. I refer readers to my work elsewhere.
6. The KJV follows the inspired Hebrew and Greek word order.
Christian McShaffrey, with whom I have had some profitable and cordial (and even hilarious: the guy is a wit) correspondence, writes:
“Sometimes word order is significant, and sometimes it is not, but a translation committee should not make that decision for the reader. It should simply translate the text as God inspired it. Here is an innocuous example from the AV: “Then came to him the disciples of John…” (Matthew 9:14). That translation follows the exact word order of the original Greek. We no longer speak that way, so modern translations often “fix” the archaic sound of it by re-arranging the words: “Then the disciples of John came to him…” (ESV). … Why rearrange words which God himself inspired? What if God intended to emphasize the action rather than the subject?”
I do not recall whether or not Christian has studied Hebrew or Greek, but I cannot agree with his point. Every translation into any language I know (and I have at least some familiarity with numerous Indo-European languages) requires some adjustments in word order. The siren song of the perfectly literal translation is just that: an invitation to steer one’s ship into the rocks.
Yes, the KJV often holds on to Hebrew and Greek word order—but unless it does this perfectly, Christian’s point falls. And it certainly does *not* do this perfectly, because no competent translator would ever do such a thing. To take just one example, chosen at random, here is Col 3:21 in the KJV:
“Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged.”
This is a fine translation. But it isn’t a perfectly “accurate” one by the standards my brother Christian has set up. Here is a literal translation reflecting the Greek word order:
“The fathers, not provoke the children of you, in order that not they lose heart.”
One might ask: “Why rearrange words which God himself inspired?” What if God intended to emphasize “not” by placing it first in the main clause? And I know just how the KJV translators would answer: *because the result is not a translation; it’s not English*.
How often a translator holds to the original word order is a judgment call. And if it’s a judgment call—and unless an “extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit” nudges certain translators the right way and leaves others to their own devices—then different translators are going to make different judgment calls. And some of them must be permitted to notice when “we no longer speak this way,” and then must be permitted to do what they are called to do: *to translate the Bible into our English*. Word order is an aspect of the language that must be translated; it cannot be carried over perfectly.
7. The KJV contains archaic words, but the modern versions also contain difficult words.
McShaffrey also writes:
“There are archaic words in the AV, but even modern translations like the English Standard Version use words that no modern man has ever spoken in actual conversation (e.g., behold, birthstool, bitumen, lest, satraps, etc.).”
Once again, we’re changing axes. No one denies that every good Bible translation will contain words modern men don’t use. That’s because the Bible refers to things we don’t have: mandrakes, birthstools, satraps, etc. Those are good examples he chose (except for “lest,” which is still contemporary, though formal).
The charge made against (exclusive use of) the KJV is on a different axis, the diachronic one, the one that notices that languages change over time. The ESV does not, to my knowledge, contain *archaic* words or *arhaic* syntax. And if it does, this may be regrettable in individual places, but there is simply no way that these holdovers (the ESV is in the KJV tradition!) happen anywhere near as often as archaisms happen in the KJV.
I have made this point repeatedly in my work. Anyone engaged in public debate is doomed to such Sisyphean tasks.
8. Someday the KJV may need to be revised because of changes in English.
But I get to end on a high note, a point of agreement. I believe I have referenced here every mention of KJV readability and/or Elizabethan English in this book. I went through them in the order in which they appeared. The final comes from D. Scott Meadows:
“While English changes and a future revision of the AV may become warranted, at least it translates trustworthy apographs (copies) of the autographs (original manuscripts).”
And I ask my brothers again: *when*? When will such a revision be warranted? We’ve got a pretty good idea of what language change looks like by now, at least in English. Certain words drop out of the language: I call them “dead words.” Other words drop or add senses, or both. Sometimes this causes confusion. I call these words “false friends.” Spelling changes, too. Word order (syntax) changes, too. Punctuation and even typography change over time, too. All of these factors have some bearing on intelligibility. How far does our English have to travel away from 1611—on any or all of these axes—before a revision of the KJV is called for?
Paul called for it already, I think, when he argued in 1 Corinthians 14 that people aren’t edified by words they don’t understand. But I can see why, given the great benefits the KJV brought us over the centuries, brothers of mine might weigh the value of retaining the KJV in pulpit ministry differently than I do. I am prepared to acknowledge that faithful men can make different judgment calls here.
I am not prepared to agree that archaic KJV English poses no problems, that prisoners are doing just fine with the KJV, that archaisms are actually good, or that modern versions aren’t any easier to understand after all.
Conclusion
I share so much doctrinal belief with the men who wrote this book. I, too, am a Calvinist who loves and honors the Puritans. I, too, am an inerrantist who is dismayed by the way some evangelicals treat the Bible. If I ran into (nearly!) any one of the contributors to *Why I Preach from the Received Text* in the adjoining seat on a plane, I feel certain we could enjoy sweet fellowship until the KJV came up. I think the ultimate impulses of the authors of this book contain a good deal of truth and righteousness. I also think that evangelicals involved in mainstream textual criticism need always to remember—as, in my experience, they do—that they are dealing with divine words. Such reverence for the Word is abundant in the writers of this book, and I praise God for it. I happen to know that certain of these men (I think especially of Pooyan Mehrshahi) are ardent and faithful evangelists. A few are known for their gracious dealings with others on social media. Others are known for their good preaching and faithful pastoring. Again, praise God.
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.
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.
A biblical worldview
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 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.
Brett Mahlen was the one author who, I felt, showed the most evident grasp of the simple creation-fall-redemption Christian worldview. He tells the encouraging personal story of his conversion, and then of his growth in grace under the influence of certain men, including especially James White. In one key comment, Mahlen reflects with humility the way God’s world really works. He both pushes back against his own and sees good in his opponents:
“Some TR advocates like to insult James White, but I do not find that helpful. I do believe Dr. Riddle defeated Dr. White in the two debates of October 2020, however, just because I disagree with Dr. White or believe he lost a debate does not make him my enemy. I still benefit from his books and his debates against Romanists, cultists, and Muslims. I appreciate his stand against wokeism. All men have feet of clay, and I learn from a wide variety of men with whom I may disagree on some issues.”
Philip Gardiner strikes a similar tone:
“There are godly men who have embraced the modern Critical Text who solidly declare the doctrine of the Trinity, who uphold the deity of Christ, and strongly believe in praising God in prayer, “ascribing kingdom, power, and glory to him” (WSC, 107). It is true that their rejection of the Received Text has not caused them to deny the truth of orthodox doctrine or the reality of Christian living.”
Christopher Sheffield, too, is “confident that there are sincere brethren who uphold … foundational truths [such as the Trinity and deity of Christ] while advocating for the Critical Text.”
These notes of unity and humility are appreciated.
Demonization
But then comes the other pole in the book, the piece by Christopher Myers. Myers almost literally demonizes his opponents. He spins a grand narrative in which there have always been “two Bibles”:
“(1) Satan’s Bible with gnostic heretics writing false scriptures and twisting the true scriptures, and (2) the received and preserved Word of God.”
This “two-streams hypothesis” is very common outside of Confessional Bibliology; it is found in all forms of KJV defense.
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). Here is Myers:
“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.”
Let me stop and register this again: according to Myers, this very day I carried, heard, and preached from translations based on Satan’s Bible. The Bibles I read—that is extremely similar to his—are part of a corrupt stream deriving somehow from gnostic heretics. This is utter and complete foolishness; it is almost impossibly divisive; it is sin.
KJV Readability
Effectively everything in this book—minus appeals to the Reformed tradition and its confessions—I heard growing up in my Independent Fundamental Baptist, KJV-Only church. I am not saying that Confessional Bibliology and KJV-Onylism are identical positions. But they do use the same prooftexts and basic arguments. And I offer the same reply to both: 1 Corinthians 14 teaches that edification requires intelligibility, and it is wrong to bind other Christians’ consciences to use a 400-year-old Bible translation whose English is no longer fully intelligible.
What does this new book say about the readability of the KJV? I’ll summarize in eight headings:
1. KJV readability is not a real problem.
Gavin Beers writes:
“I wish to address one of the more common criticisms of the King James Version of the Bible: that its archaic language is not fitted for use in the twenty-first century. … I have found this to be much more of a projected than real problem.”
I hear this constantly from KJV defenders. I felt the same way myself for many years. But are the “dead words” of the KJV “no problem”? What are “chambering and wantonness” (Rom 13:13)? It is not difficult to look them up—but these words are not “no problem.” They are static in the public Scripture reading. They are unnecessarily archaic. These archaic words meant “sexual immorality” and “sensuality”—which is exactly what the ESV says. So what is wrong with using the ESV here?
And are the “false friends” in the KJV “no problem”? I rather think not. They were a problem in Noah Webster’s day 200 years ago. They are a worse problem today. They are not, perhaps, insurmountable. With some training from my Fifty False Friends in the KJV YouTube series and with access to the Oxford English Dictionary, many people are learning to read these false friends. But they do pose a problem.
2. KJV English is not colloquial.
Poul de Gier writes:
“It was these convictions that led our church to use the Received Text. The leadership spent a winter studying the New King James Version for potential use in the pulpit but felt retaining the KJV was more beneficial. … Has maintaining this position always been easy? No. It is not a majority position, and the KJV is not colloquial English.”
I’ve heard this many times, too: “the KJV is not colloquial English.” But this is a category mistake. The challenge made against continued (exclusive) use of the KJV is on the diachronic axis, not the literary one. In other words, I argue that KJV English is unnecessarily confusing and opaque today because it is unnecessarily old. I did not say and do not say that the fault with the KJV is that it is too formal or literary; that is a different axis. I *like* literary translations. I use one, the ESV. It, too, is not colloquial. What de Gier should have said is that the KJV is not *contemporary* English. By saying it is not colloquial, he is changing the subject.
3. Contemporary versions do not make difficult passages of Scripture easier to understand.
Philip Gardiner:
“I was delighted when I received my first copy of the NIV, but was soon disappointed when reading the book of Job. Simply having a modern translation did not make that book any easier to understand!”
In a sense, I don’t disagree here: Job is “hard to be understood” (2 Pet 3:16) no matter what translation you read it in. But can I be a bit picky? A modern translation didn’t make it “*any* easier”?
Here’s a verse in Job from the KJV, chosen nearly at random. It’s Job 35:8, part of a speech of Elihu:
“Thy wickedness *may hurt* a man as thou *art*;
“And thy righteousness *may profit* ithe son of man.”
I stumbled over this a bit. Your wickedness would hurt a man like you? Is that what it’s saying?
But here is the NIV at the same verse:
“Your wickedness only affects humans like yourself,
“and your righteousness only other people.”
This is a perfect example of the kind of thing that the NIV has done for me since I was a teenager (and finally won the right in my conscience to read it). It took the same interpretation as the KJV but put it in words I could understand. At least, I think that’s what the KJV translators were trying to say in their English. I find that first verset rather difficult, even after getting some help from the NIV.
Contemporary translations have helped me understand God’s word over and over and over—in countless places that have utterly nothing to do with textual criticism or preservation. The underlying Hebrew text in Job 35:8 is the same in every translation.
4. The KJV was purposefully archaic, even in its day—so there is no problem with archaism.
Trevor Kirkland writes:
“Our preference for a translation of the TR is the AV. We are not claiming perfection for the AV. Granted, it does have some blemishes and imperfections; however, the translators were not interested in being “contemporary.” Ironically, this has become a common criticism (i.e., that it uses “archaic” language) when, in fact, some of its language was already archaic in 1611!”
I’ve never understood why this argument, which I have also heard many times, is appealing to KJV defenders. Given that the KJV was a revision of the 1568 Bishop’s Bible and not a fresh translation, I think it did preserve some archaisms. *Thee* and *ye* had pretty well fallen out of use by 1611, I have read. But the fact that the KJV translators retained some archaic English elements from past translations doesn’t mean we ought to do the same today.
5. Uneducated people can read the KJV with adequate understanding.
Brett Mahlen works in prison ministry, a ministry that is dear to my heart, because for many years I served basically the same demographic (though outside prison walls):
“When I finally began using the KJV in my prison ministry, I felt like I had caught up to the inmates. Most of them read the KJV with understanding even though many came from poorly-run urban schools with historically poor test scores. These men in prison actually had dictionaries, and used them!”
I deny Brett’s experience as he may perhaps deny mine. KJV English bewildered the low-income folks to whom I ministered. So did the NASB, for that matter. In my ministry we used the New International Reader’s Version and loved it.
I’m tempted to call a draw here: our respective experiences cancel each other out. But I’ve done the lexical work. I’ve scurried around through the citations in the OED hundreds of times; I’ve dug into linguistic corpuses. I believe I have shown evidence that people who read the KJV today don’t understand it as well as they think they do. I refer readers to my work elsewhere.
6. The KJV follows the inspired Hebrew and Greek word order.
Christian McShaffrey, with whom I have had some profitable and cordial (and even hilarious: the guy is a wit) correspondence, writes:
“Sometimes word order is significant, and sometimes it is not, but a translation committee should not make that decision for the reader. It should simply translate the text as God inspired it. Here is an innocuous example from the AV: “Then came to him the disciples of John…” (Matthew 9:14). That translation follows the exact word order of the original Greek. We no longer speak that way, so modern translations often “fix” the archaic sound of it by re-arranging the words: “Then the disciples of John came to him…” (ESV). … Why rearrange words which God himself inspired? What if God intended to emphasize the action rather than the subject?”
I do not recall whether or not Christian has studied Hebrew or Greek, but I cannot agree with his point. Every translation into any language I know (and I have at least some familiarity with numerous Indo-European languages) requires some adjustments in word order. The siren song of the perfectly literal translation is just that: an invitation to steer one’s ship into the rocks.
Yes, the KJV often holds on to Hebrew and Greek word order—but unless it does this perfectly, Christian’s point falls. And it certainly does *not* do this perfectly, because no competent translator would ever do such a thing. To take just one example, chosen at random, here is Col 3:21 in the KJV:
“Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged.”
This is a fine translation. But it isn’t a perfectly “accurate” one by the standards my brother Christian has set up. Here is a literal translation reflecting the Greek word order:
“The fathers, not provoke the children of you, in order that not they lose heart.”
One might ask: “Why rearrange words which God himself inspired?” What if God intended to emphasize “not” by placing it first in the main clause? And I know just how the KJV translators would answer: *because the result is not a translation; it’s not English*.
How often a translator holds to the original word order is a judgment call. And if it’s a judgment call—and unless an “extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit” nudges certain translators the right way and leaves others to their own devices—then different translators are going to make different judgment calls. And some of them must be permitted to notice when “we no longer speak this way,” and then must be permitted to do what they are called to do: *to translate the Bible into our English*. Word order is an aspect of the language that must be translated; it cannot be carried over perfectly.
7. The KJV contains archaic words, but the modern versions also contain difficult words.
McShaffrey also writes:
“There are archaic words in the AV, but even modern translations like the English Standard Version use words that no modern man has ever spoken in actual conversation (e.g., behold, birthstool, bitumen, lest, satraps, etc.).”
Once again, we’re changing axes. No one denies that every good Bible translation will contain words modern men don’t use. That’s because the Bible refers to things we don’t have: mandrakes, birthstools, satraps, etc. Those are good examples he chose (except for “lest,” which is still contemporary, though formal).
The charge made against (exclusive use of) the KJV is on a different axis, the diachronic one, the one that notices that languages change over time. The ESV does not, to my knowledge, contain *archaic* words or *arhaic* syntax. And if it does, this may be regrettable in individual places, but there is simply no way that these holdovers (the ESV is in the KJV tradition!) happen anywhere near as often as archaisms happen in the KJV.
I have made this point repeatedly in my work. Anyone engaged in public debate is doomed to such Sisyphean tasks.
8. Someday the KJV may need to be revised because of changes in English.
But I get to end on a high note, a point of agreement. I believe I have referenced here every mention of KJV readability and/or Elizabethan English in this book. I went through them in the order in which they appeared. The final comes from D. Scott Meadows:
“While English changes and a future revision of the AV may become warranted, at least it translates trustworthy apographs (copies) of the autographs (original manuscripts).”
And I ask my brothers again: *when*? When will such a revision be warranted? We’ve got a pretty good idea of what language change looks like by now, at least in English. Certain words drop out of the language: I call them “dead words.” Other words drop or add senses, or both. Sometimes this causes confusion. I call these words “false friends.” Spelling changes, too. Word order (syntax) changes, too. Punctuation and even typography change over time, too. All of these factors have some bearing on intelligibility. How far does our English have to travel away from 1611—on any or all of these axes—before a revision of the KJV is called for?
Paul called for it already, I think, when he argued in 1 Corinthians 14 that people aren’t edified by words they don’t understand. But I can see why, given the great benefits the KJV brought us over the centuries, brothers of mine might weigh the value of retaining the KJV in pulpit ministry differently than I do. I am prepared to acknowledge that faithful men can make different judgment calls here.
I am not prepared to agree that archaic KJV English poses no problems, that prisoners are doing just fine with the KJV, that archaisms are actually good, or that modern versions aren’t any easier to understand after all.
Conclusion
I share so much doctrinal belief with the men who wrote this book. I, too, am a Calvinist who loves and honors the Puritans. I, too, am an inerrantist who is dismayed by the way some evangelicals treat the Bible. If I ran into (nearly!) any one of the contributors to *Why I Preach from the Received Text* in the adjoining seat on a plane, I feel certain we could enjoy sweet fellowship until the KJV came up. I think the ultimate impulses of the authors of this book contain a good deal of truth and righteousness. I also think that evangelicals involved in mainstream textual criticism need always to remember—as, in my experience, they do—that they are dealing with divine words. Such reverence for the Word is abundant in the writers of this book, and I praise God for it. I happen to know that certain of these men (I think especially of Pooyan Mehrshahi) are ardent and faithful evangelists. A few are known for their gracious dealings with others on social media. Others are known for their good preaching and faithful pastoring. Again, praise God.
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.
August 6, 2022
I have a deep respect for the Masoretic Text and generally resist emendations to it. Equally, I hold to a Byzantine Text/Majority Text position as regard the text of the New Testament. As a family we use the AV/NKJV in family worship and when I'm using an English version in my personal devotions, I use the AV. As such, in practical terms, I'm not very far from the authors of this book.
While I didn't come to the book agreeing with its thesis, I did come with an open mind. I respect many of the authors and hoped that I may gain some insight as to why they hold to using the Textus Receptus. I was, however, disappointed.
Firstly, several of the articles were really arguments for using the AV rather than for using the Textus Receptus. This is despite the editors' insistence in the introduction that: 'The primary purpose of this book is a defence of the traditional original Hebrew and Greek text of the Bible.'
Secondly, many of the essays (and the most persuasive) read as arguments for the Byzantine/Majority Text and made no reference or attempt to defend the minority readings of the Textus Receptus. It can't be right to put a text forward as reliable on the basis that it reflects the majority of manuscripts when it simply does not and is recognised by its proponents (incl. the editor Jeff Riddle) not to do so. It is true that some contributors do note this issue, but this does not remove the sour taste left by those who leave an entirely wrong impression.
Thirdly, even those authors that do note the minority readings, the most famous being the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7), do not really address how or why the church appears to have entirely lost this reading for at least 1,000 years if the principles of preservation expounded in the book are correct. Equally, there is no attempt to address the fact that the AV itself corrects the Masoretic Text on occasion (such as in 2 Samuel 21:19 where 'the brother of' is added, thus implying that the translators believed the Masoretic Text was corrupt here). An honest approach to defending the Textus Receptus has to wrestle with these issues, but this book sadly does not do it. Part of my disappointment was that I would have liked to know what the TR position answer to such issues would be!
P. S. It's also disappointing to see Dean John Burgon again wheeled out as a TR advocate (p. 243) when he repeatedly stated that he believed the TR needed correction. He was a TR advocate in the same sense that I am, in that generally (not not always) he would defend its readings over against those based on modern eclectic textual criticism. However, this is not what is being argued in this book!
While I didn't come to the book agreeing with its thesis, I did come with an open mind. I respect many of the authors and hoped that I may gain some insight as to why they hold to using the Textus Receptus. I was, however, disappointed.
Firstly, several of the articles were really arguments for using the AV rather than for using the Textus Receptus. This is despite the editors' insistence in the introduction that: 'The primary purpose of this book is a defence of the traditional original Hebrew and Greek text of the Bible.'
Secondly, many of the essays (and the most persuasive) read as arguments for the Byzantine/Majority Text and made no reference or attempt to defend the minority readings of the Textus Receptus. It can't be right to put a text forward as reliable on the basis that it reflects the majority of manuscripts when it simply does not and is recognised by its proponents (incl. the editor Jeff Riddle) not to do so. It is true that some contributors do note this issue, but this does not remove the sour taste left by those who leave an entirely wrong impression.
Thirdly, even those authors that do note the minority readings, the most famous being the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7), do not really address how or why the church appears to have entirely lost this reading for at least 1,000 years if the principles of preservation expounded in the book are correct. Equally, there is no attempt to address the fact that the AV itself corrects the Masoretic Text on occasion (such as in 2 Samuel 21:19 where 'the brother of' is added, thus implying that the translators believed the Masoretic Text was corrupt here). An honest approach to defending the Textus Receptus has to wrestle with these issues, but this book sadly does not do it. Part of my disappointment was that I would have liked to know what the TR position answer to such issues would be!
P. S. It's also disappointing to see Dean John Burgon again wheeled out as a TR advocate (p. 243) when he repeatedly stated that he believed the TR needed correction. He was a TR advocate in the same sense that I am, in that generally (not not always) he would defend its readings over against those based on modern eclectic textual criticism. However, this is not what is being argued in this book!
August 10, 2022
I started reading this book already convinced of the position that the authors put forth in this anthology, so I may have been more enthused with the book if I was on the fence or newly crossed over. I do believe the received text breaches through a lot of the rhetorical flourishes that modern restorational textual criticism has placed on the Scriptures. I further think that the theological concept of providential preservation is something on which the trustworthiness of the scriptures stand or fall. So I do see the value in a book like this, especially for people in the reformed world who think "what's so important about using a particular manuscript tradition? I get not using The Message Bible, but why not the ESV?"
Several of these essays were top notch. Of particular recognition are the essays of Mahlen, Riddle, Mcshaffey, and Truelove. These four essays were really great and if the rest of the essays were like this, I would have absolutely loved this book. That's not to say that all the other essays were "bad" or anything, just that having read about 3 of the other essays, you've essentially read them all. Part of the problem for this is found in the introduction when each author was asked the eponymous question "Why do you preach from the Received Text?" Because each author was asked the same question, each gave similar anecdotes, and quoted from the same sources (WCF 1.8 was referenced probably by 20/25 of the authors), many used that unfortunate quote from Dan Wallace in Myths and Mistakes, and eventually you felt like you had read the same thing over and over again. I would have much rather enjoyed a book where each author was asked a different question about the Received Text and their use of it in the pulpit and in ministry. To be sure, there were some interesting essays that laid out the position well, such as Gavin Beers' instalment, but by and by, it was all essentially the same essays, anecdotes aside.
Regardless, this was a good first step in this TR movement and there are inevitable growing pains. I do hope they continue in the publishing field and improve some of the logistics of it all. There are certainly a lot of questions revolving around this issue. One more complaint from the cheap seats over here is that the authors, almost without exception, began their essays arguing *against* a certain position (some form of modern textual criticism) instead of arguing *for* the received text position. I'd like to see more positive arguments for the TR position instead of why the other guys are wrong.
Several of these essays were top notch. Of particular recognition are the essays of Mahlen, Riddle, Mcshaffey, and Truelove. These four essays were really great and if the rest of the essays were like this, I would have absolutely loved this book. That's not to say that all the other essays were "bad" or anything, just that having read about 3 of the other essays, you've essentially read them all. Part of the problem for this is found in the introduction when each author was asked the eponymous question "Why do you preach from the Received Text?" Because each author was asked the same question, each gave similar anecdotes, and quoted from the same sources (WCF 1.8 was referenced probably by 20/25 of the authors), many used that unfortunate quote from Dan Wallace in Myths and Mistakes, and eventually you felt like you had read the same thing over and over again. I would have much rather enjoyed a book where each author was asked a different question about the Received Text and their use of it in the pulpit and in ministry. To be sure, there were some interesting essays that laid out the position well, such as Gavin Beers' instalment, but by and by, it was all essentially the same essays, anecdotes aside.
Regardless, this was a good first step in this TR movement and there are inevitable growing pains. I do hope they continue in the publishing field and improve some of the logistics of it all. There are certainly a lot of questions revolving around this issue. One more complaint from the cheap seats over here is that the authors, almost without exception, began their essays arguing *against* a certain position (some form of modern textual criticism) instead of arguing *for* the received text position. I'd like to see more positive arguments for the TR position instead of why the other guys are wrong.
September 25, 2022
Mark Ward gives a very accurate review of this book. There is not much more I can add to what he wrote. The TR advocates did not do themselves any favors by including the Myers article and his "Satan's Bible" comment. I think ultimately this will very much hurt their cause and rightfully so. Myers should be church discipled and taken out of any type of teaching or leadership position until he matures as a Christian and a man. He is radically unbalanced on this issue. Sadly, the editors of this book knew what he wrote and left the article in, so it is likely they are also unbalanced on this issue and give full approval to what he said. Very shameful how Christians treat each other. I do think if the extremists like Myers continue to be at the front of this movement there will eventually be a church split with this group forming their own denomination. In fact, the end of this book basically encourages it. I should state, I am not a critical text person and do have an appreciation for the KJV. I just don't think it's the best translation anymore. If someone prefers the TR great, but don't tell your brother using the ESV they are using Satan's Bible, that is sinful and immature. In any case, this is not the book to read to be convinced of the position outside of a few well written ones that Ward mentions. Maybe someday there will be a balanced take on the position that doesn't seek to demonize brothers and sisters in Christ.
July 28, 2022
Excellent book. Please disregard the toxic review by Mark Ward and read the book for yourself.
June 29, 2023
Very good book with many different perspectives on using TR-based translations (and generally by extension, KJV). My two complaints are: (1) there is quite a bit of repetition of information, especially a particular quote by John Owens; and (2) some a particular logical error regarding use of Confessions. That circular reasoning is presented a few times as "I use a TR-based translation because it aligns with Westminster Catechism, etc." (putting the authority not the Confession and not the TR) but also stating "The great Reformed Confessions are built on TR" (putting the authority back on TR and not the Confession). I am not part of the Reformed branch of Baptists, so perhaps that is something common that I am just not familiar with. I also have to admit that some of the things said in chapter 19 by Christopher Myers are a bit over the top and not in the same tenor of the rest of the book.
The major mistake I see in other reviews is to assume this book is about the KJV. It is really about the theology and techniques of textual criticism. Yes, the KJV is mentioned many times (and I confess, I am pro-KJV so that does not bother me), but the underlying issues that have come through the introduction of Higher Criticism in the past 200 years is the main emphasis. Anyone, such as the one most popular review here, that only saw "KJV" as the topic missed a majority of the book. One theme of the book is presenting the irrational and spiteful nature in which the TR and KJV are treated by modern criticism. Some of the reviews I am seeing only prove that point.
The major mistake I see in other reviews is to assume this book is about the KJV. It is really about the theology and techniques of textual criticism. Yes, the KJV is mentioned many times (and I confess, I am pro-KJV so that does not bother me), but the underlying issues that have come through the introduction of Higher Criticism in the past 200 years is the main emphasis. Anyone, such as the one most popular review here, that only saw "KJV" as the topic missed a majority of the book. One theme of the book is presenting the irrational and spiteful nature in which the TR and KJV are treated by modern criticism. Some of the reviews I am seeing only prove that point.
August 8, 2022
This book is a wonderful collection of essays written by various pastors (one deacon being an exception) of Reformed churches. Read this book and you will understand why Christians ought to hold fast to the traditional texts of the Word of God, i.e. the Hebrew Masoretic OT and the Greek Received NT texts.
This has been the doctrine and belief of our Reformed forefathers, encapsulated in the Westminster Standards, the Savoy Declaration, the 1689 London Baptist Confession and the like.
Ignore those who tell you to believe otherwise, for their poisonous teaching will cause you to doubt and lose all certainty and trust in the very words that God gave by immediate inspiration and providentially preserved pure in all ages, and translated faithfully by able and godly men.
The fruit of modern textual criticism is bad fruit: confusion amongst the people of God, popish-like exaltation of academic scholars above God and his word, unbelief, and on it goes.
In modern textual criticism, no longer is God telling his Church what his words are by his Spirit, but scholars, mere men of dust, usurping God's rights as King and Head of the Church and attempting to tell the Church what God's word should be, or rather, what they probably be.
Get this book and be wonderfully instructed and edified, growing in your confidence in every pure word of God in our hands. Highly recommended!
This has been the doctrine and belief of our Reformed forefathers, encapsulated in the Westminster Standards, the Savoy Declaration, the 1689 London Baptist Confession and the like.
Ignore those who tell you to believe otherwise, for their poisonous teaching will cause you to doubt and lose all certainty and trust in the very words that God gave by immediate inspiration and providentially preserved pure in all ages, and translated faithfully by able and godly men.
The fruit of modern textual criticism is bad fruit: confusion amongst the people of God, popish-like exaltation of academic scholars above God and his word, unbelief, and on it goes.
In modern textual criticism, no longer is God telling his Church what his words are by his Spirit, but scholars, mere men of dust, usurping God's rights as King and Head of the Church and attempting to tell the Church what God's word should be, or rather, what they probably be.
Get this book and be wonderfully instructed and edified, growing in your confidence in every pure word of God in our hands. Highly recommended!
October 2, 2023
I was overall disappointed in the inconsistent and polarized argumentation presented. The book is a collection of short essays from 25 different ministers, so a broad array of perspectives is presented. Most of them were largely unconvincing due to having so little space to address the topic. The essays appear to be done competely independently, so there is a great deal of redundancy, with the same paragraph of the Westminster Confession being quoted about a dozen times. Many authors present internally inconsistent argumentation, demanding opposite things of the Biblical text in various places. Far too many of them insisted their position was distinct from KJV-Only, but proceeded to argue specifically for the KJV rather than the TR, which is the issue at hand in the book. Finally, several essays simply demonize the other side and attack straw men throughout the essay, without actually backing up their support of the TR.
In researching the issue apart from this work, I find that there actually are some arguments out there that support the use of the TR or the Byzantine manuscripts in place of the modern NU text, but virtually none of them are found in this book.
In researching the issue apart from this work, I find that there actually are some arguments out there that support the use of the TR or the Byzantine manuscripts in place of the modern NU text, but virtually none of them are found in this book.
March 30, 2023
I enjoyed this book and agree with its position. Nevertheless, the many authors repeated one another very often. The same Bruce Metzger quote (which is damning for the critical text perspective to be sure) popped up multiple times, for example. In addition to hearing many of the same points made over and over, since each author had a brief space to lay out their case for the received/ecclesiastical text position they rarely had time to develop their arguments in depth or answer objections. I think a more profitable project would have been to assemble a team of contributors to build a systematic and technical case for the received text position, with each author handling a particular aspect of the view or point of dispute with the critical text view. Hopefully a project like this will be forthcoming.
April 9, 2025
I was expecting a lot more from this book!
I love the KJV. It was the Bible the Lord used to bring me to the truth. I memorise scripture in the KJV. I love to read it aloud. It is so beautiful.
I found this collection essays made the same repetitive points that were over simplified. Albeit true, i was hoping for a deeper read.
I love the KJV. It was the Bible the Lord used to bring me to the truth. I memorise scripture in the KJV. I love to read it aloud. It is so beautiful.
I found this collection essays made the same repetitive points that were over simplified. Albeit true, i was hoping for a deeper read.
September 28, 2022
3.5 stars. As an anthology there are some really helpful essays and some less helpful essays.
January 17, 2023
Personal testimonies for various (usually Calvinistic) pastors as to why they preach from translations (usually the AV/KJV) based on the so-called Textus Receptus. Many of them, like myself, were taught, and believed, at one time, that the Critical Text was superior and that the original text of the NT has been lost, and only Textual Critics can rediscover it.
I do NOT use (normally) the AV/KJV, but (normally) the NKJV, and I do NOT hold to the idea that the Textus Receptus is a perfect edition of the Greek text, however, I do believe that:
1. The TR is a good representation of the Majority/Ecclesiastical text that was used by the Church (East and West) for more than 1500 years (and it can be argued for 1800 years)
2. Though the AV/KJV is over 400 years old, and its English is even older than that, it is still an example of Modern English (as opposed to Old English, or Middle English) and anyone who can read on the 12th grade level (alas, most high school graduates can't) can read it just fine.
I also believe that the AV/KJV needs an updating, and that the NKJV and MEV (Modern English Version) do a good job of that. There are comments in the book that criticize the NKJV for reporting what the Critical and Majority Greek editions read, but I disagree with those comments.
Finally, I would urge every minister and elder, if not every Christian, to read this book, and do their own research on the subject.
I do NOT use (normally) the AV/KJV, but (normally) the NKJV, and I do NOT hold to the idea that the Textus Receptus is a perfect edition of the Greek text, however, I do believe that:
1. The TR is a good representation of the Majority/Ecclesiastical text that was used by the Church (East and West) for more than 1500 years (and it can be argued for 1800 years)
2. Though the AV/KJV is over 400 years old, and its English is even older than that, it is still an example of Modern English (as opposed to Old English, or Middle English) and anyone who can read on the 12th grade level (alas, most high school graduates can't) can read it just fine.
I also believe that the AV/KJV needs an updating, and that the NKJV and MEV (Modern English Version) do a good job of that. There are comments in the book that criticize the NKJV for reporting what the Critical and Majority Greek editions read, but I disagree with those comments.
Finally, I would urge every minister and elder, if not every Christian, to read this book, and do their own research on the subject.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews