In the last part of an interview with Mark Ward, Wes Huff asked about Textus Receptus versus Critical Text. Ward went off on a four minute rant that I dissect so far in two parts, where I include a transcript of what He said. I’m going to provide only the third section for this post.
Review
So far Ward prevaricated six times in his four minute rant. Here’s the running list.
- Sound doctrine does not undergird the support of the Textus Receptus.
- Doctrine is not what makes a difference between Textus Receptus supporters and critical text supporters.
- All talk about the Textus Receptus arises from the King James Only movement.
- Advocates of the Textus Receptus say and believe that all other translations other than the King James Version are corrupt.
- Textus Receptus believers choose the position of preservation in the underlying text because they can’t believe God inspired an English translation of the New Testament.
- The supporters of the Textus Receptus bluster and give non-answers when challenged or asked why they won’t use a modern version of an identical text.
Third Part of Transcript
Here is the last of Ward’s answer to Huff’s question on the Textus Receptus versus the critical text:
Those are modern major, you know, translations of the Textus Receptus and the Greek New Testament, uh, of the Greek New Testament Textus Receptus. And why don’t you use them, if your real concern is the Textus Receptus, then those ought to be acceptable to you and I get a lot of bluster and non-answer from people over that to the point where I I have finally kind of just stopped asking, um. I’m, I’ve let my case on that land on the internet and people will make of it what they will. I don’t think that there are hardly any people in the world who really in their hearts truly care about the Textus Receptus.
I think there are some, uh, I think almost all of that is, uh, an unwitting, not dishonest, but unwitting desire to hold on to the King James, because I’ve met, you know, I can count on two hands the number of people that I’ve met who strongly prefer the Textus Receptus but are also fine with the New King James or the Modern English Version. Effectively everybody who wants to use the Textus Receptus also wants to use the King James exclusively and tell me that my Bible is Satan’s Bible, um, that’s divisive and not true and I’ve done a lot of work on my YouTube channel to try to graciously educate people on those issues.
Prevarication Number Seven
Textus Receptus Advocates Don’t Really Care about the Textus Receptus?
I’m now to the last sentence of the first paragraph of this section. Speaking of even whom Ward calls, TR Only (I would be in that group), Ward says these men in the opposition to him don’t really in their hearts care about the Textus Receptus. For deniability, Mark Ward puts it in an awkward manner, but he’s saying that those who call themselves TR Only don’t really care about the Textus Receptus. How he says that he knows this is that these men won’t use the NKJV or the MEV. This is the seventh of his prevarications.
The King James Version is still the most widely read English version of the Bible. It’s probably not the best-selling English version. From what I see, that’s still number two. I would challenge that, however, because the King James Version is still widely distributed for free, published by churches. Quite a few Baptist churches publish the King James Version and distribute editions of it widely at no cost. It really is not odd that people still use the King James Version and for many reasons.
Biblical and Historical
I’m not sure that Ward still doesn’t understand a widely held position for the Textus Receptus as believing it is the text to which the London Baptist Confession says was “immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages.” That could not have been the critical text. If someone did believe that confessional statement, he would believe the Textus Receptus is that “New Testament in Greek.” The writings for hundreds of year document that belief. This point should be patently obvious to Ward and Huff — how is it not?
What does Ward mean, these men don’t “really in their hearts care about the Textus Receptus”? Men like myself read and study the Textus Receptus almost every day. We believe it is the New Testament in Greek by God’s singular care and providence kept pure in all ages. All ages. That is the doctrine of preservation. There is a systematic and biblical doctrine of the preservation of scripture. Biblically and historically they believe in the perfect preservation of scripture. I read, study, use, or refer to the Textus Receptus nearly every day of the year.
I have explained this position to Ward and others many times. Ward never answers. He does however insult. He will refer to me and many others. That is normal for him. However, he gives these insults in a ‘gracious manner,’ which means in some kind of sweet and serendipitous tone. Personally, I don’t care that he is insulting, except that he uses the tone of his opposition as some sort of evidence of his superiority, like a virtue signal. He brings it up all the time. I think you, reader, should ignore Ward on this. See through it. It is totally false.
A Faux Christian Liberty Issue
When I listen to the whole presentation of Ward and Huff on this question, I see their overriding position on the issue as, and Ward says, it must be a Roman 14 issue. In other words, it is wrong if anyone takes it as anything other than an issue of Christian liberty. Those who won’t do that are causing division, they would say, in the body of Christ. Wes and Huff won’t disfellowship on the English Bible version issue. From their language, they will even advocate for the use of a paraphrase as a Bible translation, not worthy of separation.
It really is the politically correct position to have the underlying text of the Bible and the various translations from it to be a non-issue. Ward fights for this. He wants us just to let it go. Stop standing for one text of the Bible. Shut up. Sit down. Get along. We can have a preference, but overall the position must be essentially that God preserved all the doctrines of the Bible. Doctrines are preserved. Anyone who moves beyond that deserves all the insults, misrepresentations, and prevarications that Ward and others offer. They can’t stand it that we won’t accept that position.
Prevarication Number Eight
Ward’s eighth prevarication is that Textus Receptus guys unwittingly hold that text so they can keep using the King James Version. It’s actually just the opposite. The King James Version represents the perfect preservation of God’s Word because it translates from a perfectly preserved text. Others including myself will say other reasons. The church is the pillar and ground of the truth and the church held and passed down the Textus Receptus. God used the church to identify scripture. It’s a scriptural doctrine of canonicity. This text is what the church said it was.
Prevarication Number Nine
At the end, Ward said that the TR Only men call the modern versions, “Satan’s Bible.” That’s prevarication number nine. I’ve never called other versions, Satan’s Bibles. I’m sure he hears that from Ruckmanites. Huff and Ward were not addressing Ruckmanites with the question of the Textus Receptus. My position is that these modern versions contain the Word of God. They have a high percentage of scripture in them. In other words, what I say represents biblical doctrine and reality.
I wouldn’t call something with 95 percent scripture, Satan’s. Satan is working through false doctrine. Undermining preservation of scripture, is that Satanic? What do you think? When people are not sure they have all of God’s words, this takes away from authority. Ward constantly attacks certainty. He hates it. He will tolerate only “confidence,” something less than certainty. Why? Think about it.
It is a strategy of Ward to use this kind of “Satan’s Bible” type of language. He wants sympathy. This language discredits the people who say it and it means they can’t take the right position. Anyone who would call the ESV “Satan’s Bible” are at least quacks if not worse. He’s taking the worst of King James Only and grouping everyone with them. He knows he’s doing it. Please don’t fall for this strategy. He’s prevaricating.
Texti Recepti Joke
Ward and Huff don’t say it, but the real issue between the Textus Receptus and the critical text is the doctrine of preservation. Neither mention it at all. After Ward’s answer, Huff uses a typical argument, perhaps better mockery, of the issue by saying there are several Textus Receptus, actually Texti Recepti. He says it with a grin, almost a laugh, and a wink-wink. Most people listening won’t even get what he’s talking about, so it is a kind of inside joke between them.
He explains that there were several editions of the Textus Receptus printed in the 16th and early 17th century. Sure. He doesn’t say it, but those editions are very homogenous, very uniform. They differ very little, unlike the underlying texts behind the critical text, their favored position. The church just left the hand-copy phase of preservation into printed editions. You will notice that the era ended as well. The church believed, however, that they had all of the words in those editions and they settled on a text. They called this the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit.
The only ones who hold to a perfect text like the Bible teaches are Textus Receptus advocates. This is an argument against them, because the editions are not identical. That’s why this is so important to Huff and Ward. It’s a question answered many times, but they still use it, meanwhile ignoring what the church believed and what the Bible teaches about its own preservation. Ward and Huff take naturalistic presuppositions and they get an incoherent, unstable position as a result. Anything is the Bible with a large, wide latitude. This contradicts biblical teaching on the Bible itself.
Quotations of the Septuagint?
I have one other issue I said I would address, and it is Huff’s promotion of the Septuagint. He said that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint without explaining all the ramifications of that. Even the textual critics know that the Septuagint is a corrupt text of the Old Testament. It is a low view of inspiration and preservation to say that Jesus quoted from it. Huff doesn’t explain this. He said that sometimes Jesus quoted and sometimes He didn’t. I’ve written on this several times before and it is no foregone conclusion that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint. It doesn’t even make any sense.
A major reason critical text advocates like Huff will bring the Septuagint argument is that they believe it gives credence to a corrupt text. Since we know there are errors in the Septuagint, Jesus was saying that errors are acceptable in your text, as long as all the doctrines are there. Huff won’t say that, because that does not sound good, but it is what he and others think. They will say it among themselves but will not say it to the public like in his setting with Ward.
Ward has said that his view of preservation is that it must be God’s will that we don’t know what the words of scripture are, because we don’t know what they are. He seems to assert that we should rejoice in that, because it’s what happened.
Get Back to What God Said
From what I’ve writing, you can see that Ward and Huff totally missed the truth on the answer to this question. They gave an answer, but it was almost entirely false. I would say, oh, eighty to ninety percent false. The ten to twenty percent goes along with the nature of a counterfeit. Some truth needs to be in there. I’m choosing in as kind a way as possible to call these prevarications.
Ward and Huff need to go back to the drawing board as Christians. They should study the doctrine of preservation and let that get into their bones. The faith position takes biblical presuppositions. Ward and Huff should mold or conform their life, their reality, to what God says, and not science falsely so-called.
Ward and Huff have confidence that all the Doctrines are preserved, save the Biblical Doctrine of Preservation itself. Ironic!
Yes, the doctrine of preservation ironically is expendable. The issues are presuppositions and epistemology — faith. God could direct to the right books, but not the right words. He can feed the 5,000 with a boy’s small lunch, but He can’t keep His promise to preserve Words — or, He didn’t, so that must be the correct view.
I agree with your assessment that Mark Ward and Wes Huff’s foundational presuppositions begin with naturalism. They are both products of the Enlightenment and serve as case studies in its consequences. I’m not sure either of them fully recognizes this. If asked, they would likely—and enthusiastically—affirm that their first principles begin with God, unaware of the inconsistency. Their education likely contributes to this paradox, though it is probably not the only factor.