WM 241: Responding to a Comment by Mark Ward

Responding to a comment on WM 240 by Mark Ward:

Brother Riddle, I am not "against the Authorized Version." I love and trust the KJV. If you are asking for charitable descriptions of your position, I must ask the same. This is a persistent misrepresentation of my view. I am not against the KJV anymore than I am against the Wycliffe Bible. But if people insist on using it exclusively in churches, I must call them to the standard of 1 Cor 14: edification requires intelligibility.

My point in this podcast was to make the observation that, from my perspective, it seems you often put forward inconsistencies in your rhetoric.

For example, in you book Authorized, you begin by noting that that you grew up “reading and hearing the KJV,” adding, “and I don’t recall having any trouble with the verbiage” (1), but you later exhort your readers, “Children and new converts should not be given copies of the KJV” (120). Clearly, this latter statement is “against” the usage of the AV. To point this out and to say that you are “against the AV” is not, in fact, a misrepresentation, nor is it uncharitable. It is simply a statement of fact drawn from your own words.

In the WM 240 podcast I called attention to an inconsistency in your argument against CB in your 2020 article. In that piece, you initially state that proponents of CB “take a different path to a similar but not identical viewpoint” as KJVO (57), but, later, you argue that CB and KJVO have “the same viewpoint” (62-63). Your rhetoric here is inconsistent.

I sincerely wish to avoid pejorative labeling. After my book came out, when I was first contacted by William Sandell, who was then, at least, a proponent of Confessional Bibliology (I don't know where he's at now), I believed him when he said he was NOT KJV-Only.

If you truly wish to avoid pejorative labeling, then do not refer to those who hold to the traditional Protestant text as KJVO.

But then I started talking with your followers, Dr. Riddle. And I simply could not avoid the parallels. I grew up KJV-Only. I know the arguments we made to one another. I note that there is massive overlap between the arguments made by IFB KJV-Onlyists and those made by Confessional Bibliologists. 

First, I’m not sure who these “followers” of mine are or whether they accurately reflected my position. I can only speak for myself.

Second, definitions are again a problem in your argument. Did you grow up in a church of the Ruckman/Riplinger KJVO variety? Or in a church that simply preferred the KJV? Whatever the case, your experience does not necessarily mean that you properly understand the Confessional Text position. You claim there are “massive overlaps” with your (undefined) KJVO. Are there not also “massive differences”? Let’s look at your list:

- Both groups use the same prooftexts (Mt 5:18; Ps 12:6–7; Ps 119:105; Mt 4:4; etc.).

Wouldn’t nearly all Christian make use of these passages and other similar ones in building their Bibliology?

- Both groups use the same key words to describe the TR/KJV: "preserved," "pure," "stable," "settled," "unchanging."

Wouldn’t most ordinary Christians use these words to describe the Bible, even those who have no firm views on text or translation?

- Both groups insist that inspiration demands perfect preservation.

But true KJVOs of the Ruckman/Riplinger variety would say this applies to an English translation and not the “immediately inspired” divine original (WCF 1:8).

- Both groups use the same tone. This is admittedly a more subjective judgment than the previous two points. And, frankly, you are a more courteous combatant, Dr. Riddle. I don't expect this comment to be persuasive to you, but for the cause of truth I must say it.

You’re right when you say your argument here is completely subjective. BTW, I’ve also received some pretty harsh comments from Modern-Text-Onlyists.

- Both groups maximize the differences between the TR and the critical text. You yourself, in your review of my book, called the CT a "completely different underlying text."

Do you deny that there are fundamental differences between the traditional text and the modern critical text? If they are not different, then why not just embrace the traditional text?

- Both groups call the critical text "corrupt" and argue that it undermines or attacks Christian doctrines. (CT proponents do not return this favor; I believe Scrivener's TR is a good reconstruction of the original text, just not the best available.)

Is not the integrity of the text of the Bible a key doctrinal issue? Does it not affect other issues like canon, preservation, authority, etc.? To remove Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 would remove 24 verses from the Bible, the equivalent to one or more shorter books in the NT. To remove 1 John 5:7b-8a would deprive the church of a key prooftext for the Trinity. Modern translations/texts of John 1:18 challenge the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son. These and other examples clearly show that the doctrinal stakes are high.

BTW, modern critical text advocates claim that the traditional text is corrupted (so they do “return the favor”). In my debate with him JW said Mark 16:9-20 is a spurious unorthodox corruption. I recently heard an OPC pastor say the same of the PA. CB advocates are not alone in maintaining that the question of text has key theological import.

- Both groups refuse to answer the "Which TR?" question. They consistently claim to have a perfectly pure text but just as consistently dodge the questions of which TR is perfect and why.

- Both groups functionally—as you said to Dwayne Green, "practically"—resort to Scrivener's TR. And that TR is the KJV.

Answers to the “Which TR?” question have been given by the TBS (in its statement on the doctrine of Holy Scripture), by myself (on my blog), by Truelove, by Krivda, by Vaughan (“a stratagem of debate”), and by McShaffrey (citing Burgon, “a diversion fallacy…throwing dust into the eyes”). Scrivener’s TR is clearly the Protestant standard in use today. Is it that no one has answered your question, or that you don’t like the answers?

Again, definition is important. KJVO (by strict definition) would not embrace Scrivener’s TR since it is not the KJV. So anyone who suggests the TR is the standard is NOT KJVO by definition.

- Both groups put "the TR" in their church (and other institutional) doctrinal statements but fail to specify which TR they believe to be perfect.

Again, definitions are key. If truly KJVO, a church or institution would not list the TR as a standard but the KJV.

Churches and institutions are free to define the translations and texts that they choose to use. Is it really confusing if a church says they use the traditional text without specifying a certain edition? Does it not, at the least, say they don’t use the modern text?

Do you apply this same standard to churches that embrace modern texts/translations. Do you insist they must specify, for example, which edition of NA they use? Does your church do this?

- Both groups refuse to explain the specific differences between TR editions that I talked about in my paper. Two years on, I still simply do not know how you would handle those specifics. I listed ten passages in which the two TRs I looked at exhibit "Differences in Words That Produce Differences in Meaning." I listed one missing clause (1 John 2:23) and two outright contradictions (Jas 2:18; Rev 11:2) between TR editions. I do not know how you account for these, because you have not explained.

Have you ever considered that there might be problems in some of the premises in your paper? Like, for example, you offer comparisons between one printed edition (the 1550 Stephanus) and Scrivener’s. Why should the minor differences these two editions hold weight when it has already been affirmed that Scrivener’s is the generally accepted standard?

Also: Have CB advocates really “refused” to respond to your objections? Are we obligated to respond to the objections of anyone who disagrees with us? Or, do only your papers, podcasts, etc. hold this special power? Why are we obligated to respond to you?

- Both groups dismiss and ignore my false friends argument. They say, ironically, that people should study to show themselves approved. To my knowledge, not a single KJV defender in either group has publicly or privately acknowledged learning a specific false friend from me. And very, very few (Robert Truelove being a very notable exception, Bryan Ross being another) have acknowledged that there are any false friends in KJV English at all—even though their own TBS Westminster Reference Bible and Defined KJB list numbers of my false friends.

Again, are we required to respond to your arguments? I did address one of your suggested “false friends” (“halt”) in my review of your book and challenged the idea that this term is confusing or incomprehensible.

You said, "Confessional Christians necessarily reject KJV-Onlyism, especially of the Ruckman-Riplinger variety." I don't deny this. But this defines KJV-Onlyism narrowly as Ruckmanite double inspirationism. My IFB church growing up was not Ruckmanite, but we were KJV-Only, and proud of it. And we said almost all the same things you say about the KJV, minus anything about the Westminster Confession, of course!

Again, definition is a big problem. It is you who lumped in those who prefer the KJV with those who hold to Ruckman/Riplinger views. I’m not yet convinced you really understand why a confessional man cannot be called KJVO. WCF 1:8 is key. It is the immediate inspiration of the originals that is central, not translations.

You said, "There are those who affirm the Confessional Text position who do not make primary or exclusive use of the King James Version." I acknowledge this. After years of searching, I know two such people, and both of them go to the same church. And one of them has said to me that he is privately frustrated with the rest of Confessional Bibliology for being basically KJV-Only.

Your anecdotal experiences are not the standard. There are more than two examples of persons who embrace the traditional text but who do not make exclusive use of the KJV (and they’re not all in the same church!). You also have not yet addressed the TBS doing translations into other languages based on the traditional Reformation text. What about my German friend Andrej?  Is he KJVO?

Dr. Riddle, the best way to get me to stop using the label "KJV-Onlyism" for your view is to provide an answer to the substance of my argument in that Detroit paper. How do you handle differences among classic, mature, Protestant editions of the TR? If they exhibit the same kinds of variants as do the TR and the CT, why are those variants "corruptions" for my text but not for yours?

Whether or not I respond to your article, I have the feeling you will still try to lump in CB as KJVO. Smiles. I’ve already addressed this issue in my 2019 blog article responding to Dirk Jongkind.

I may get around to responding to your 2020 article at some point. To be straight, I see some major logical problems with your argument, which makes responding a challenge. One of those logical problems is the emphasis you give at the end of your article to the supposed significance of differences in printed editions of the TR and differences between the TR and the modern critical text. To me, this comparison seems illogical. Perhaps I’ll have time to explain why at some point.

You are a gifted man. I have heard from a reliable source that you are an excellent preacher. I don't like having this disagreement with you. I am frustrated, brother, that you will not answer what I take to be simple questions that, before the Lord, I asked in good faith.

You’re right that this is not a personal disagreement. I really don’t know you personally. It is an intellectual and theological disagreement. I’m sorry you feel frustrated. If it is any consolation, you can be sure that many in the CB camp find your perspective on these matters (and especially your insistence on labelling of the CB position as KJVO) to be frustrating as well.

With respect to this podcast, your comments here do not really answer the three main objections put forward in this episode to your claim that CB is the “same” as KJVO:

1.     You fail to define what KJVO is, and then you use the term too broadly. Our suspicion is that you do so for rhetorical reasons.

2.     You do not explain how a CB advocate could hold to WCF 1:8 and its insistence on the immediate inspiration of the Bible only in the original Hebrew and Greek and still be reasonably and fairly described as KJVO.

3.     You do not explain how one could hold to CB but not make exclusive use of the KJV (and even be someone who does not speak English but who prefers the traditional Hebrew and Greek text of the Reformation and translations made from it in their own language) and still be reasonably and fairly described as KJVO.

Regards, JTR