Modern Textual Criticism
In a recent video, Mark Ward again attacked the biblical and historical position on the preservation of scripture. He’ll surely have or find people who will support him. They use modern versions and many of them don’t understand the issue. He helps them stay in the dark on this. Ward says that we, who he calls the advocates of his MT/TR story, cause division with true believers. Division comes from a later, novel bibliology that contradicts the already established and believed position. When someone changes a biblical position, the right way is showing how that the former position rests on wrong or no exegesis. This isn’t what occurred.
What did occur was that modern textual criticism arose out of German rationalism. Modern textual criticism in its roots traces back to German rationalism, particularly in the 18th and 19th centuries. A shift in theological thought characterized this period, where scholars began to apply rationalistic principles to biblical texts, leading to a more critical approach to scripture.
German Rationalism
German rationalism emerged as a philosophical movement that emphasized reason and empirical evidence over biblical exposition and theology. This intellectual climate encouraged scholars to scrutinize manuscripts of scripture with the same critical lens applied to other historical documents. The movement sought to understand the Bible not merely as a sacred text but as a collection of writings subject to human authorship and historical context.
The principles of German rationalism significantly influenced early textual critics such as Johann Griesbach, who is often regarded as one of the pioneers in this field. Griesbach’s work involved analyzing biblical manuscripts using methods that reflected rationalist thinking, which included questioning historical belief about divine inspiration and preservation of scripture. His approach laid the groundwork for subsequent textual critics like B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, who further developed these ideas in their own critical editions of the New Testament.
Continued Assessment of Mark Ward’s Attack
Perfect or Accurate Translation
Ward slants the MT/TR position to attempt to make it look like a joke and it’s advocates a bunch of clowns. Then when he does it, he doesn’t allow anyone to come and correct his statements. He next says that MT/TR supporters believe the King James Version (KJV) translators saved the Bible from Satanic counterfeits by making a “perfect translation” of “perfect Hebrew and Greek texts.” I’ve never called the KJV a “perfect translation.” The only time “perfect translation” occurs in my voluminous writings is when quoting and criticizing Peter Ruckman. Besides that, I wrote this:
God doesn’t ever promise a perfect translation. Turretin, like me, believes that preservation occurs in the original languages because that is what Scripture teaches.
This is the only usage by me for “perfect translation.” I use the language “accurate translation,” because I believe they could have translated the same Hebrew and Greek texts differently. Most of the other MT/TR men would say the same as I.
Perfect Hebrew and Greek Texts
Ward also gets the “perfect Hebrew and Greek texts” wrong. Mark Ward already knows this. He caricatures our position to try to make it look silly. That is mainly what he is doing. The MT/TR position expresses the doctrine of perfect preservation of scripture, but doesn’t say that all the preserved words are either in one manuscript (text) or even printed edition. The words are instead preserved and available to every generation of believer. God did perfectly preserve the text of scripture and providentially provided a settled text by means of the same method of canonicity, the inward testimony or witness of the Holy Spirit through the church.
True churches received God’s Words. They agreed on them. This is a position taken from biblical presuppositions. Just like churches agreed on Books, they agreed upon Words. What I’m describing is the historical and biblical way of knowing what are the Words of God. What I just described doesn’t sound as stupid as how Mark Ward characterized this part of his fabrication of a story.
Satanic Corruption
One thing Ward gets right is “spotting” the Satanic corruptions in other Bibles. If you have a settled text based on God’s promises, then whatever differs from it is a corruption. Two different words can’t both be right. The text of scripture isn’t a multiple choice question. If we are to live by every Word, then we must possess every Word. It’s true that I believe that Satan wants to confuse through the offering of all these different “Bibles” and presenting hundreds of variations of text as possible. This doesn’t fit scriptural presuppositions and it affects the authority of scripture.
Story of Ruckmanism
The second story Ward tells is his story of Ruckmanism. Many times Mark Ward has called Ruckmanism more consistent than the MT/TR position. Maybe he believes that, but it seems possible he says it to get under the skin of MT/TR people. Ruckmanism doesn’t operate with scriptural presuppositions unless one considers an allegorical or very subjective interpretation of passages, which read into the Bible, to be scriptural. Ward says that Ruckmanities originated their position as a reaction to lack of manuscript support in the MT/TR.
Peter Ruckman was born in 1921. Ruckmanism came to and from him no earlier than then 1940s. His view of the superiority of the King James Version arose from his presupposition that it was advanced revelation from God. No one held that belief until Ruckman. Peter Ruckman wrote in The Christian Handbook of Biblical Scholarship:
The King James Bible was ‘given by inspiration of God.’
Ruckman invented the position and then defended it by spiritualizing or allegorizing certain passages, reading into them his viewpoint on the King James Version. Ruckmanism did not come from his view of the inferiority of the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament as a further iteration of that.
Ruckman’s Position
Since Ruckman believed God reinspired the King James Version, he rejected all other versions. Even if they had the same textual basis as the King James Version, he would repudiate them. To him, the English words were equal to the original manuscripts of scripture. That view did not proceed from disagreement about underlying textual differences. Ruckman denied the preservation of scripture through original language manuscripts and editions.
Several times, Ward says the Ruckman story is the inspiration of the translator “to recover the right reading.” That’s false. Ruckman did not believe, as Ward says in his Ruckman story, that the textual choices and translation choices of the King James Version were perfect. To Ruckman and his followers, God didn’t inspire the right reading. No, God inspired the English itself. It wasn’t that Ruckman didn’t like the textual choices of Erasmus or that he relied on the Latin Vulgate. Based on his presuppositions, he took a novel double inspiration position.
Support of the Majority of Manuscripts
Unlike the critical text, which has support of either a small minority of manuscripts or none at all, the majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts support almost the entirety of the Textus Receptus. Only in very few places does the Textus Receptus have support of few extant Greek manuscripts, even though there is large extant Latin evidence in those few places. In one place, one word has no extant manuscript evidence. However, that does not mean no manuscript support. TR editions are printed copies from sometimes a non extant manuscript. It is preservation of scripture.
Not all the manuscripts relied upon by Theodore Beza survived the religious wars in Europe. In one place where critical text advocates say he did conjectural emendation, he writes in Latin that he had the support of one Greek manuscript too. I believe in preservation in the original languages. However, people like Mark Ward are hypocritical in this, because they themselves support the best texts in many places rely on a translation. His and their Septuagint view says that Jesus Himself quoted from the Septuagint.
More to Come
“Ruckmanism doesn’t operate with scriptural presuppositions unless one considers an allegorical or very subjective interpretation of passages, which read into the Bible, to be scriptural.”
The author doesn’t even give examples here, and just expects us to swallow this as fact. Well, except this:
The King James Bible was ‘given by inspiration of God.’
Well, the Bible says, All scripture is given by inspiration of God.
Is the KJV scripture? If so, then it is. If not, then it’s not scripture. That’s not allegorical or symbolic interpretation. What would be allegorical is if someone thought this meant the originals, which are nowhere in the context.
The context of Timothy’s verse is the previous verse of Timothy’s childhood copies. Since Timothy was Greek, it was most likely the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. At any rate, it’s not talking about the originals in context.
It’s not even that novel anyways. The Jews held to “double inspiration” long before anyone did. They believed the aforementioned Septuagint, which was commissioned by king Ptolemy Philadelphus, was inspired. They believed that Ezra’s edits on the Samaritan Pentateuch and translation to Aramaic Hebrew were inspired. That text by Ezra is what forms the basis of the Masoretic and the Septuagint, and the Samaritan woman pointed out that Ezra changed the text from Jacob’s mountain to Jerusalem, and this changed was attested by both Samaritans and Ezra’s own words.
In fact, most of the differences between MT/TR Onlyists and Ruckmanism is that MT/TR is reliant on Greek philosophy, whilst Ruckmanism brings back Jewish beliefs about scripture.
Sam,
I don’t give any examples. I would assume that anyone reading would understand that Ruckman used an allegorical interpretation to read double inspiration into the Bible.
There is a difference between saying the King James Version is inspired and saying it is “given” by inspiration of God. You know what Ruckman meant, because he said many statements about it. What God inspired continues to be inspired. What you’re saying about preservation of scripture is not what the Bible says. Jots and tittles are Hebrew letters. Preservation refers to what God inspired. The doctrine of preservation of scripture has nothing to do with Greek philosophy. This answer is our last interaction on this subject here on this blog.
By Sam’s logic, all other translations are inspired by God, too, since they also have the verse “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God.” If he responds that the other translations are not Scripture, thus not inspired, then what makes a translation Scripture? The basis for this must be the manuscripts. Is what has been translated the accurate reflection of what God originally gave.
Also, Sam states, “it is not talking about the originals in context.” The verse says “all Scripture is GIVEN by inspiration.” The given refers to the time when it was first written down. In context, it IS talking about the originals. Since the verb is not in the past tense (“is given…. is profitable”), the implication is that the attribute and result of inspiration continues to carry on to Timothy’s day and ours through God’s providential preservation.
What you’re writing is true, David.
Kent,
“This answer is our last interaction on this subject here on this blog.”
So, you are no different than this Mark Ward. You expect him to be interested in your presuppositions on inspiration, but you are no different in not discussing this with others who do not hold to your view of inspiration.
Of course, I agree with Sam, but as you shut me down, you only allow him one comment.
Why complain about Mark?
What you are doing brother is being hypocritical when you are do exactly the same thing you complain of others.
Tom
Tom,
You’re just wrong. I’ve dealt with Ruckmanism at the blog. It’s not going to be a topic we discuss. I was answering Ward. That doesn’t open it up to every Ruckmanite who wants to start a discussion here. I let Sam have his say, I said mine, and we’re done. That’s not the same as no comment. It’s also different because Ward is literally targeting me, using my name, and then doesn’t allow me to answer him.
I’m not going to keep talking about this either.
KB
Dear Bro B,
Thank you for these helpful articles. I agree with about 99% of what you say here.
I would just clarify that not all TR editions have one word with no MS support in Rev 16:5. One can defend the TR without agreeing to translatable Scripture with no textual support.
Also, this sentence is not a criticism of your position, but a statement about Ruckman’s incomprehensibility, but Ruckman is very easy to misrepresent because he said so many bizarre and nutty things that what he really thought is not easy to determine. Someone who talks about patristics quoting the KJV or quoting the NIV is going to be really easy to misrepresent.
Thomas,
I think that’s a good clarification. For further clarification, I was thinking of the TR behind the King James NT.
Thanks.
KB
I agree with Brother Ross that it is very easy to “misrepresent” Peter Ruckman. I have had that experience. He said and wrote many crazy, contradictory, and confusing things. So when I say that Ruckman believed X, someone can come along and say, “No, you’re wrong,” because Peter Ruckman said or wrote Y. The problem is that he wrote both X and Y, and they are confusing and contradictory. The question then becomes, “who you gonna believe,” Ruckman, or Ruckman?
It’s true, Robert. Thanks.
This is from Chat GPT which is a machine with the least bias one can have.
Question:
In 2 Timothy 3:16 the word inspiration is used for scripture. Does the context and other uses of scripture in the King James Bible limit its use to the originals. Do not use men’s teachings, but only the Bible to come to a conclusion.
Answer:
Let’s examine 2 Timothy 3:16 and the concept of “inspiration” as it applies to Scripture, using only the Bible itself to determine whether it is limited to the original manuscripts.
2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV):
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”
Key Points to Consider:
Definition of “Scripture”:
The term “scripture” in this verse refers to the sacred writings acknowledged by the early Christians, which included the Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible) and, by extension, the writings that would become the New Testament.
Throughout the New Testament, “scripture” is used to refer to the written word of God, such as in Matthew 4:4, where Jesus says, “It is written,” referring to the Old Testament as authoritative and inspired by God.
“Inspiration of God”:
The phrase “inspiration of God” (Greek: theopneustos) literally means “God-breathed.” This means that Scripture is not of human origin but is breathed out by God Himself.
The focus of this phrase is on the divine origin and authority of Scripture, indicating that what is written comes from God and carries His authority.
Usage of “Scripture” in Other Passages:
2 Peter 1:20-21: “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”
This passage emphasizes that Scripture did not originate from human will but was delivered by men who were moved by the Holy Spirit, underscoring its divine origin and inspiration.
Matthew 5:18: Jesus says, “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”
This highlights the enduring nature of God’s Word, suggesting that the Scriptures, as they have been transmitted, retain their divine authority.
Transmission of Scripture:
Deuteronomy 17:18-19: The king was commanded to write a copy of the law for himself and to read it all his life, demonstrating that copies of Scripture were still considered authoritative.
2 Kings 22: When the Book of the Law was found in the temple during King Josiah’s reign, it was read and recognized as authoritative, despite being a copy of the original.
No Limitation to the Originals:
The Bible itself does not limit the concept of inspiration to the original manuscripts. Copies of Scripture were used, read, and quoted as the authoritative Word of God throughout the Bible.
Acts 17:11: The Bereans were commended for searching the Scriptures daily to verify Paul’s teaching. They were not using the original autographs, but copies of the Scriptures.
Conclusion:
Based solely on the Bible, the concept of “inspiration” in 2 Timothy 3:16 applies to the Scriptures as a whole, not just to the original manuscripts. The Bible presents the written Word of God—whether in its original form or in accurate copies—as divinely inspired and authoritative. The Scriptures are consistently treated as the Word of God, regardless of whether they are the original autographs or faithful copies, indicating that the inspiration of God applies to the Scriptures as they have been preserved and transmitted through the ages.
Tom,
Many times I’ve found that you don’t listen. It’s like playing chess and only seeing your own pieces. Not good. I believe anything that God inspired remains inspired. If it was given by inspiration, then it is still inspired. As long as a translation is accurately translated, it is also inspired. We say that again and again and again here. So many times, and then you guys come on and challenge us. What we don’t believe is this advanced revelation view that Ruckman believed, and you are gaslighting us by trying to somehow say that Ruckman’s view of inspiration fits 2 Timothy 3:16-17. It doesn’t.
Kent,
I did not write that. Ruckman was not in the question. I asked a question of an AI bot. I gave you what it said and you go off on what you say inspiration means
It is a source that is neither KJB, CT, MT or Original language only. It agrees with Sam and I based on just looking at an English King James Bible and you do not like it.
And I am gaslighting? Seriously? This view did not originate with Ruckman. It originated with bible believing Christians who could care less about “manuscript evidence”. They just believed the bible that was preached and believed it to be the very words of God.
Tom
C’mon Tom. You printed something you asked AI Bot. Would you have printed it if you didn’t agree with it? I agree with it too, but why send it to us like we don’t believe it? I agree with the AI Bot, which I know critics out there, is a culling of the internet so it can be wrong. But I agree with it. Is it saying what you think though? No. This is why you’re gaslighting, because you are saying something from the passage that is not there, that is, this advanced revelation, double inspiration stuff. You can deny that. I’m fine with it. Go ahead and deny it, say you don’t believe that. I’d be happy. If you’re defending Ruckman with it though, you are saying it.
All others reading, notice how that real Ruckmanites do not, I repeat, do not have the same view as us. They comment more against us here than the critical text guys, but they are both similar in the criticism. Both don’t believe God preserved what He inspired. But again, these are KJVO, truly that. Know that when Mark Ward calls us that, he is purposefully himself also gaslighting everyone about us.
I want to explain here in this comment a part of this issue with Ward. Since the way that you know what scripture is — to Ward — is only through textual criticism, which is extremely inexact, then you cannot know with certainty what the Words are. Notice with Ward though that you can know what the Books are. Even though scripture doesn’t even teach that. You’ll never hear that talked about by them even though we use that paradigm to help. You know which books by the agreement of the churches, which represents the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit. We’re saying that scripture teaches that doctrine about Words, not Books. The way you know and have certainty is by this means. It is similar also to historical doctrine and not having a private interpretation.
Ward equates this historical doctrine of true Christians with Ruckmanism. He doesn’t say it, but that is what he is doing. Many are turning to this doctrine. They understand it is true. However, there is a lot of water under the bridge now since Wescott and Hort and others. To be recognized as a true scholar in the academy, just like you had to believe in an old earth, you have to believe in the science of textual criticism. That’s what Ward wants and this is very evident, since he ends his big edification requires intelligibility campaign parking on textual issues.
Thank you for writing this series. It is very enlightening. These thoughts ran through my mind as I read.
Neo-Orthodox seek to restore the faith and the text of Scripture to a more primitive time?
That kind of restorationist thinking seems like the philosophic underpinning of the Church of Christ, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventism, Mormonism, and Pentecostalism. Neo-Orthodoxy and Textual Criticism are like the ivory tower version of a tent revival. They are all like different heads of the same Satanic hydra—the Beast.
Another thought: The Devil is smart. Ruckmanism entered churches through a fifth column, posing as a friend. Once within a church, it offends the simple or unregenerated. Offended, these individuals reject Ruckmanism along with the KJV, no longer able to distinguish between the two. As an overcorrection, they readily embrace the modern versions.