Textus Receptus Debate: Dr. James White & Dr. Peter Van Kleeck

Debate Introduction and Speaker Credentials

My name is Chris Arnzen. Is this on? My name is Chris Arnzen, and I am the host of Iron Sharpens Iron Radio. I hope that if you are not already listening to my program that you begin to. I understand flyers have been passed out to you.

And I have interviewed some of the most prominent thinkers in the Christian faith of the 20th and 21st centuries on the program, including some world-renowned names, like Dr. R .C. Sproul, who's now in glory with Christ, Dr. John MacArthur, one of our debaters here, Dr. James R. White, and many others who I'm sure you would recognize.

I hope you begin listening to the program Monday through Friday at 4 to 6 PM. And when I'm interviewing authors on a book, we always give away books to those who submit questions. So that's a great way to add to your library by listening to my program as well.

So please keep those flyers. Bring them to your churches, actually, and hang them up if your pastors will allow you to. And I hope to begin hearing from you with questions for my guests. A part of what I have been doing as a person involved in Christian radio, in fact, I've been involved in Christian radio going back to the late 80s.

And most prominently with WMCA Radio, which is an affiliate of Salem Media, the largest Christian radio network in the world. I worked there for 15 years. And it was while working there, in 1996, I began conducting debates just like this, most of them which featured Dr. James R. White of Alpha Omega Ministries, who's sitting there.

And with a couple of years of hiatus, I've been pretty much organizing debates every year since 1996. And if you go to the Alpha Omega Ministries website, AOMIN .org, you'll at least find out about all of those debates that featured Dr. White.

And they included debates with Roman Catholics, debates with Muslims, debates with anti-Trinitarian cults, with leftist Protestants, all kinds of folks. And also in-house debates like we're having today.

These two men are not only brothers in Christ, they're also Reformed Baptists, both of them. And they're both confessional Reformed Baptists, both adhering to the 1689 London Baptist Confession. And today would be considered an in-house debate amongst brothers in Christ.

And the debate thesis, which my moderator will repeat momentarily, is the Textus Receptus as the Word of God is equal to the New Testament autographs. And Dr. Peter Van Cleek will be affirming that thesis.

And Dr. James R. White will be opposing that thesis. So let me introduce, first of all, to you. He's not standing anywhere near. But I want to thank him. And I've been failing to thank him. And I have been kicking myself for failing to thank him.

But Andrew McMillan is providing us with the audio-visual of today's debate. And he did so with the pastor's luncheon that just took place on Thursday. He's also live streaming this event, as he did with the pastor's luncheon.

And I want to thank you so much, Andrew. You're one of the unsung heroes of these events, as most audio-visual guys are. Let's give him a round of applause. I also want to thank Pastor Doran Ray and all of the elders and the fine folks of Church of the Living Christ for allowing us to have these beautiful, spacious facilities for not only my luncheon speaking segment, where the keynote speaker has given his message, but also for this debate today.

And I hope to God that they are so pleased that they will allow me to continue to use these facilities. And thank you, Pastor Doran Ray and the folks at Church of the Living Christ. Let's give them a round of applause, too, please.

I'd like to introduce you to my moderator for half of the debate, a dear friend of mine, Dan Buttafuoco. He is with the law firm of Buttafuoco and Associates. And as long as I have been in broadcasting, has been a key sponsor of not only advertising for me, but when I worked for WMCA, but also my radio program, and a sponsor of events such as this today.

And not only is he an attorney, but he is a Christian apologist and actually is the founder and director of the Historical Bible Society. And Dan visits churches and schools and other organizations and institutions with a breathtaking, phenomenal selection of Bibles, very rare Bibles of antiquity, and very rare Christian books, like a first edition Fox's Book of Martyrs, first edition 1611 King James Bible, and on and on I could go.

And I'm sure Dr. White will even be telling you about the Stephanos text that Dan gave him as a gift a number of years ago. But Dan has not only been heavily involved in everything of importance I do as far as the faith is concerned, he's become one of my dearest friends on the planet.

Very interesting guy. Dan is not only a Calvinist, but he's also Pentecostal. And that makes him the first Christian I've ever met who excommunicated himself. So it's kind of an interesting situation with Dan.

But the second half of the debate, the moderator will switch because Dan has to leave here earlier. The second half of the debate will be moderated by the pastor I just mentioned of this fine establishment, Church of the Living Christ.

So I hope that you will all greet him when he takes Dan's place midway through. There is going to be a break in the middle of the debate to give you time of refreshments, which will take place after the first cross-examination session.

We'll have a 10-minute break, and then we'll all come back for the rest of the debate. Oh, I'm sorry, after the rebuttals. And so don't be worried about having to miss anything as far as refreshments and bathroom breaks and all that.

Well, first, I want to thank, as far as the debaters are concerned, I want to thank Dr. Peter Van Cleek, who with very, very short notice, I think it was only about three weeks ago, right? Something like that, three weeks ago.

I contacted him to see if he'd be interested in debating the thesis that we have today, and he immediately, eagerly accepted the challenge. And let me tell you something about this brother. Dr. Peter Van Cleek graduated from Westminster Theological Seminary East.

And he is, by the way, Dr. Peter Van Cleek, Jr. His father is also in ministry and even writes with him on the subject that is being debated today. He graduated Westminster Theological Seminary East with an MAR at Calvin Theological Seminary with a THM and at Liberty University with a PhD.

His dissertation utilized Reformed epistemology to argue in favor of Scripture beliefs as warranted, rational, and basic. Peter is currently in his fifth year as a professor at Trinity Baptist College in Jacksonville, Florida.

He is also the founder of wisdomgap .org, an apologetic ministry to college students. And please give a warm welcome to Dr. Peter Van Cleek. I really love Dr. Van Cleek's last name, very interesting name.

And after this debate, for time immemorial, if he wins this debate, people will be approaching anybody who lost at a sporting event or anything. They can say to them, you've been Van Cleek, dude. And of course, if he loses, people can say to those losers, you just pulled Van Cleek.

So I just love the name. Dr. White's last name is too boring to attach to anything like that. And now that leads me to introduce you to Dr. James R. White, who has been a dear friend of mine since 1996.

He is an author of numerous books, dozens of books. He is a New Testament Greek scholar. He's a seasoned debater, as I've already mentioned. And today, he is also a professor of history and apologetics at the Grace Bible Theological Seminary in Conway, Arkansas.

And I hope that you will all make sure you take advantage of his resources and materials as well. And here he is, Dr. James R. White of Alpha Omega Ministries. Well, I'm now going to turn over the debate to the moderator.

And I would like him just to very briefly let you know a little bit more about the Historical Bible Society, since they have been so generous to Iron Trump and Zion Radio and are a key reason that we even exist.

Thank you. Thank you, Chris. And thank you, everyone, for coming out tonight. The Historical Bible Society grew out of a private collection of Bibles that I had started to accumulate in the 90s and realized that God had a wider purpose for them other than for me to just show my friends and pull them out of my closet and sort of have a neat little artifact to facilitate a discussion.

When I saw the response of people to looking at real, true, accurate biblical artifacts, the type of stuff you'd see in the Met Museum, the type of stuff you see in the Morgan Library. We've actually given two books to the Morgan Library.

We've also lent two books to the Museum of the Bible in Washington. That demonstrates the quality of the collection. But upon seeing the reaction of people and the discussion that was stimulated by looking at these rare texts and the opportunity it was that it presented to witness for Christ and to get people interested in the word of God, which is really of preeminent importance, I realized that this had wider application than just a private collection.

So we organized the Historical Bible Society. And we were actually, I gave a presentation here in this church. Pastor Doran Ray was kind enough to have me here. I spoke to about 150 pastors or so. And it was well received.

We go to schools. We go to churches. And what we do is we use these books as, I call it, eye candy to get people to come out. And then we explain to them why we believe the Bible is the word of God. And that is certainly in short supply today, that idea, with the way society is.

And we want to come back to that which tethers us to reality and to truth and to eternity. So I'm a big promoter of the word of God. I'm a big promoter of these debates. And a big promoter of truth in general.

And so with that, I'm going to tell you about what we're going to do today. First of all, the goal here is to get to the truth. It's like a trial. I'm a trial lawyer. I handle cases. I've tried many jury trials over 41 years.

And what we tell every juror is to come into the courtroom with an open mind. Thank you. With an open mind. That is to come in here and listen to what each side says with an open mind towards what is the truth.

Because ultimately, all truth is God's truth. And we want to get at the truth here because the truth is important. Truth is important for its own sake. And it's certainly important in a Christian context.

We have two very learned and educated men here who are going to have a fierce clash of opposites. And through this, we hope and pray that the truth will come out. And that we will have a better understanding of the word of God and our faith and our relationship with Christ.

So with that in mind, let me just open with a word of prayer real quick. Heavenly Father, we just thank you for your goodness, for your mercy, for these learned men here who have given of their time and their talents.

We ask a blessing upon them and upon everyone here. We pray that everything that is said here would glorify you. And that ultimately, your truth would shine forth and that it would be clear what it is that we are to believe.

And we thank you for that. And we thank you for this opportunity. And I thank you for the opportunity to be part of this in Jesus' name. And so, let us begin. The thesis here, which Dr. Van Cleek is going to defend and Dr. White is going to oppose, is this.

The Textus Receptus represents the autographic text of the apostles in perfection. The format will be as follows. There'll be opening remarks. Dr. Van Cleek will go first. He'll have 20 minutes. Dr. James White will follow with 20 minutes.

And then after that, there will be rebuttals. Dr. Van Cleek, 10 minutes. Dr. White, 10 minutes. We will then have a break because we are old people and we need a break. Then there will be cross-examinations.

Round one, Dr. Van Cleek will question Dr. White for 20 minutes, and then after that, Dr. White will question Dr. Van Cleek for 20 minutes. Cross-examination is a wonderful vehicle for bringing out the truth.

It's very important. And then we'll have cross-examinations round two in which Dr. White questions Dr. Van Cleek for 20 minutes and then Dr. Van Cleek will question Dr. White for 20 minutes. And finally, after that, we'll have closing arguments, five minutes each, first Dr. Van Cleek and then Dr. White.

So with that in mind, let us begin. Dr. Van Cleek, you have 20 minutes to begin your presentation with your opening remarks.

And there was one correction, a very important one, is that the paperwork that Dan was reading from had an older thesis on it that we changed to the Textus Receptus as the Word of God is equal to the New Testament Autograph.

So I apologize, that was actually a blunder on my part with the paperwork that I gave with the format of the debate. So thank you for your patience. Let us begin.

Textus Receptus, Autographs, and Reformed Bibliology

I want to extend my thanks to Chris Arnzen for inviting me to participate in tonight's debate, as well as Dr. White for agreeing to provide a foil for my arguments. I hope this can be a time of learning and profitable discussion for all in attendance.

Before addressing the main line of my argument, let us consider briefly what is not at issue. The collection, collation, and examination of ancient New Testament texts can be a kingdom-building enterprise.

Manuscript evidence can play an important role in presenting a robust Christian worldview. The message of the gospel is taught in the NA28, as well as many translations which are based on the NA28. I believe a large portion of the NA28 is equal to the New Testament Autographs.

Most importantly, while I disagree with some of Dr. White's bibliological and philosophical deliverances, I believe he is my brother in Christ. Furthermore, I am thankful for much of his work and his persistence over 30 years to further Christ's kingdom.

As with all controversial discussions, we must begin by defining our terms, and particularly the terms of the debate topic. First, I take Texas Receptus, as defined in Richard Mullard's Dictionary of Latin and Greek Philosophical Terms, to mean the text supported by the Protestant Scholastics as the authentic text, quo ad verba.

The Protestant Scholastics understood authentic, or authentical, to mean, quote, authority, originality, genuineness, the power, dignity, or influence of a work that derives from its author. Quo ad verba means, quote, with respect to the words, was understood in the context of infallibility, as in, quote, the infallibilitas of the originals is both quo ad verbum and quo ad res, end quote.

As such, the TR was regarded by the Protestant Scholastics as equal to the autographs with respect to the words, quo ad verba, and the meaning of those words, quo ad res. Continuing our definition of terms, within the context of Christianity, I take Word of God to mean scripture, and scripture to mean the Word of God.

Lastly, I take New Testament autograph to mean the original document written at the hand of the original penman. I believe these texts to be complete and without error as pertaining to the words, quo ad verba, and as pertaining to the meaning of those words, quo ad res.

My aim tonight is to frame the textual debate for Christians. This debate between two Christians is in the midst of a Christian audience. As such, tonight's debate is not about subjective interpretations of manuscript evidence, but rather, it is about what the Spirit of God, through the Word of God, tells us to believe about the words he has preserved for us.

I appreciate Dr. White's robust, though narrow, evidential argument in defense of scripture, which he regularly employs against Muslims, Mormons, and atheists. But tonight, that argument will not do. And it will not do because, in large part, few, if any of our Christian beliefs are primarily based on evidential grounds.

Beliefs like God created the world in six literal sequential days, that Adam was created in God's image, the parting of the Red Sea, that Jericho fell by marching around its walls, that David killed Goliath, that Thomas was a disciple of Christ, that Jesus raised Lazarus.

In this manner, belief in the Bible is not special simply because we have thousands of manuscripts. Christians believe their Bible to be God's Word in the same way they believe the aforementioned beliefs, by the Spirit of God, speaking through the words of God, to the people of God, who then receive the words of God by faith.

In short, this simple reframing is to ask you to believe in each word of your Bible like you believe Elijah called down fire to consume his water-drenched sacrifice, or like you believe King David was once a shepherd boy.

In affirming the thesis, the TR as the Word of God is equal to the New Testament autographs, I offer the following three arguments. One, God's Word regards itself in autographic terms. Two, because God's Word regards itself in autographic terms, the Reformers historically regarded the TR as equal to the autographic New Testament text.

And three, the probability that the TR is equal to the autographic New Testament is very high. Beginning now with my first argument, God's Word regards itself in autographic terms. Tonight's debate is truly a question of that in the garden.

Yea, hath God said. More pointedly, our debate tonight focuses on whether the TR is what God said in the New Testament autographs. Admittedly, the Bible nowhere names the TR, but it does tell us how we ought to think and believe about God's Word.

In Genesis, we recognize and mark the doubting nature of the serpent's question and the added words of Eve. We see Noah building an ark without any evidence of rain and for 100 years preaching a truth for which he had no evidence other than that of the Word of God.

God's Word declared to Abraham and his wife that they would experience a kind of resurrection of the body and being able to bear a son. Again, we recognize and mark their lack of faith in the particulars of God's Word in the conception of Ishmael.

When Moses, then Moses who declares to Israel concerning the Word of God, quote, you shall not add unto the Word which I command you, neither shall you diminish from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord, which your God, your God, which I command you.

And later he says, what thing soever I command you, observe to do it. Thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it. And we are careful to mark when Nadab and Abihu added or diminished from God's Word in the slightest, for not even the mercy of God could spare them from God's fiery wrath.

Then we get the host of psalmic declarations regarding the Word of God. Holy, sure, true, truth, right, good, pure, righteous, and quickening. Note the conspicuous absence of language like sufficiently reliable or adequate with regard to God's statutes, commandments, and precepts.

Then we have the constant chorus of the prophets, and thus saith the Lord, as well as Isaiah's invocation of the triune God, declaring, quote, as for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord.

My spirit that is upon thee and my words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and forever, end quote.

Into the New Testament, Jesus tells us not one jot or tittle will pass from the Old Testament, even while speaking of a copy of a copy of a copy. Again, Jesus tells us to search the scriptures, plumb their depths, look at every word, because in those words are eternal life and testimony to the archetypical word of all other words.

Paul tells us that all scripture, in a collective sense, is God-breathed and is speaking of the holy scriptures mentioned in the prior verse, which are a copy of a copy of a copy. Peter, in his second letter, tells us that we have a more sure word of prophecy in the scriptures than we do from an eye and ear witness of Christ's transfiguration.

The writer of Hebrews tells us that the Son speaks to us now and does so through his word and spirit. Indeed, John tells us that the witness of God is greater in excellency than any human witness, and there should be no doubt that the Old and New Testament are such a divine witness.

John, in Revelation, warns all who would add or subtract from the text as pertaining to the words of scripture, quod verba, would endure far worse judgment than that of Nadab and Abihu. In the end, it is these things which we ought to believe about our Bible, which ought to remain primary and superior before and after any appeal to manuscript evidence.

But what of the fact that the scripture nowhere says the TR is the Bible? Pastors, the Bible nowhere names First Baptist of Czech or Apologia Church, and yet the Bible calls you to treat your church as Christ would.

Missionaries, the Bible nowhere names the foreign land to which you are to go, yet the Bible calls you to be salt and light there. Husbands, the Bible nowhere names your wife, yet the Bible calls you to love her as Christ loves the church.

Wives, the Bible nowhere names your husband, yet the Bible calls you to submit to his leadership as the church does to Christ. Church, the Bible nowhere names your pastor, yet the Bible calls you to honor and obey him in the Lord.

In the same manner, the Bible does not name the TR, but it does call you and I to treat our Bible like it's the autograph. My Bible is the TR, therefore I treat it like the autograph because God's word regards itself in autographic terms.

Argument number two, because God's word regards itself in autographic terms, the reformers historically regarded the TR as equal to the autographic New Testament text. First, let me remind you that the Protestant scholastics regarded the TR as the authentic text quo ad verba.

Let us now observe how the Protestant scholastics spoke of the TR. William Whitaker, the most quoted man by the Westminster Assembly writes, it behooves a translator of scripture not merely to take care that he does not corrupt the meaning but also as far as it is at all possible not to depart a hand's breadth from the words since many things may lie undercover in the words of the Holy Spirit, which are not immediately perceived and yet contain important instruction, end quote.

Whitaker here rightly challenges the assumption that man is able to declare this or that word of less importance without the Holy Spirit say so through the scripture. Edward Lee, who had a seat on the Westminster Assembly asserts of the scriptures that quote, formally, that is pertaining to the words, in itself there is no mixture of falsehood or error, no corruption or unsoundness at all in it, end quote.

The presence of man's words among God's words would amount to error, corruption and unsoundness. Here Lee asserts that not a single word of God's word is a pretender, a word of man pretending to be a word of God.

Then of course, the words of the Westminster Assembly and the London Baptist Confession attest to the same when the former writes quote, the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek being immediately inspired by God and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages are therefore authentic.

Here again, we see the word authentic as that mentioned in Muller's definition above regarding the Texas Receptus as the original authorial word for word copy of the autograph. Francis Turreton writing in 1696 concludes quote, unless unimpaired integrity characterized the scriptures, they could not be regarded as the sole rule of faith and practice and the door would be thrown wide open to atheists, libertines, enthusiasts and other profane persons like them for destroying its authenticity and overthrowing the foundation of salvation end quote.

Here Turreton, a reformed scholastic so emphatically asserts the unimpaired integrity of the TR that he goes on to reject corruptions quote, only in smaller things which do not affect the foundation of faith end quote, as well as the old but resuscitated assertion quote, that divine providence wished to keep scripture free from serious corruptions but not from minor end quote.

Indeed for Turreton, corruption in smaller or minor things had the power to overthrow the epistemic foundation of salvation. Turning then to John Owen we read quote, the sum of what I am pleading for as to the particular head to be vindicated is that as the scriptures of the Old and New Testament were immediately and entirely given out by God himself, his mind being in them represented unto us without the least interveniency of such wills as were capable of giving change or alteration to the least iota or syllable.

So by his good and merciful providential preservation in his love to his word and church, his whole word as first given out by him is preserved unto us entire in the original language. Owen carrying the torch declares that God has preserved his word entire down to the least iota and syllable in the original language or the Texas Receptus.

Abraham Kuyper in the same vein declares quote, in a number of Jesus's arguments from scripture that in the main they do not rest upon the general contents but often upon a single word or a single letter end quote.

Again as we saw with Whitaker we see here with Kuyper to say that some words are of little importance or to claim that 98 of the New Testament is good enough is to ignore the fact that our Lord himself regarded single words even single letters to be of the utmost importance to his revelation and teaching.

Again the Holy Spirit alone is qualified to determine what is or is not a word, syllable or letter that affects doctrine. Echoing John Owen, Richard Muller writes in his post-reformation reform dogmatics quote, the orthodox response was directed toward the preservation of the canon entire and it included the insistence that there is nothing in scripture of no importance, canon and words together.

Indeed he explicitly states in another place quote, the reformed orthodox do thus engage in a concerted textual effort to maintain their doctrine of purity and perfection of the text of scripture end quote.

Simply put before moving to my final argument since God's word regards itself in autographic terms we should expect that God's people through the Holy Spirit would treat their Bible as the autograph. And so we see the phenomenon of the reformers treating the TR as the autographic New Testament.

As such it should come at no surprise that such a phenomenon continues to this day in the form of the declaration, the TR as the word of God is equal to the New Testament autographs. Thus far I have argued that one, God's word regards itself in autographic terms.

Two, given argument one, the reformers historically regarded the TR as equal to the autographic New Testament text. Finally my third argument is the probability the TR is equal to the autographic New Testament.

And this is very high. In order to make this argument I borrow certain argumentative scaffolding from the Christian philosopher Richard Swinburne and his argument for the resurrection. If we are to make analysis of a given historical event like the TR as the word of God is equal to the New Testament autograph, then we would expect to find three kinds of evidence.

The first kind of evidence we would expect to find is posterior historical evidence like artifacts, manuscripts, and testimony regarding the autographs. The second kind of evidence we would expect to find is called background evidence.

This kind of evidence asks if there has been any past behavior on the part of the author of the autographs which would precipitate the existence of the autographs. Third and final, the third and final kind of evidence we would expect to find is prior historical evidence or the evidence that the author of the autographs would have good reason to bring the autographs into existence.

In short, if the T .R. is the Word of God is equal to the New Testament autographs, we would expect that, one, God is the kind of being that created and preserved the autographs. Two, God would have good reason to create and preserve the autographs.

Three, we would then expect to find artifacts, manuscripts, and testimony of the creation and preservation of the autographs. For the Christian, that God is the kind of being that created and preserved the autographs seems obvious, seeing that God has promised to preserve his words, and given the fact that the autographs are said to be God-breathed.

Furthermore, God has made the Church to be of such a nature to receive these autographic words because the same God who gave these autographic words by inspiration also indwells the Church. Given, number one, that God would have good reason to create and preserve the autographs is very reasonable for the Christian, and that as the Westminster Confession put it, God reveals himself through the autographs, quote, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, the malice of Satan, and of the world, end quote.

As a result of number one and number two, we would expect to find the autographs and testimony to them among God's people. As I pointed out in my second argument above, that is indeed the case for the Protestant scholastics.

In some, we see that God is the kind of being that would create and preserve the autographs. Additionally, God had ample good reason to create and preserve the autographs. As a result, there is a robust testimony to the fact that we do indeed have the autographs in the Texas Receptus.

Let us now employ Bayes' theorem to determine the probability that the TR as the Word of God is equal to the New Testament autographs, given the evidence mentioned immediately above. Let the conjunction of these three types of evidence, posterior, background, and prior, be represented by E.

And let the assertion, I'll put it up here for you guys, and let the assertion that TR as the Word of God is equal to the New Testament autographs be represented by T. As a result, we get the following probability equation.

The probability of T given E equals the probability of T given E, which is high, let's say 0 .9. That number multiplied by the probability of E given T, which is also high, again, let's say 0 .9. This equals 0 .89.

We then move the numerator into the first set of brackets in the denominator and add that to the probability of not T given E, which is low, given the converse in the numerator, let's say 0 .1, multiplied by the probability of not E given T, which is also low, given the converse in the numerator.

As a result, we get a 0 .89 over 0 .9, yielding a probability of 0 .98 repeating, or 98%, a greater than 98 probability. Which is to say that under these conditions, the fact that the TR is equal to the New Testament autograph is nearly certain.

Furthermore, it is highly improbable that God would create and preserve two contradictory autographs, given our background evidence and prior evidence. Seeing then that the TR accords with the requisite background, prior, and posterior evidence thusly presented, and that my opponent nowhere claims that he has an alternate but commensurate autograph, it remains highly probable that the TR in the New Testament autograph remains highly probable that the TR is the New Testament autograph, seeing that no meaningful undefeated defeater has arisen in the form of an alternate and superior autograph, which is also consistent with E.

In conclusion, I have offered three arguments in defense of the proposition the TR as the Word of God is equal to the New Testament autographs. Argument one, God's Word regards itself in autographic terms.

Argument two, because God's Word regards itself in autographic terms, the Reformers historically regarded the TR as the autographic New Testament text. And argument three, the probability that the TR is equal to the autographic New Testament is very high.

As such, I encourage you, based on the autographic terminology of Scripture, robust Reformed bibliology, and the overwhelming probability that the TR is equal to the New Testament autograph, that you too accept the TR as the Word of God and equal to the New Testament autographs.

Thank you.

Dr. White's Opening Critique of the Textus Receptus

Dr. White, opening remarks, please. Twenty minutes.

I'm sorry? Yes, Lord? What? There we go. All right. Well, good afternoon. We have a complicated subject, but not quite as complicated as we just heard. I'm going to simplify that for you just a little bit.

This is a vitally important subject because it really, as I have titled it, a debate about the future of Reformed apologetics. This is, will we utilize the gifts that God has given to us to defend the text of Scripture in our day against the greatest attacks that have ever been launched against it?

Or will we abandon everything God has given to us and retreat back to the text that was based upon about a dozen to maybe 20 manuscripts that was put together haphazardly during the 16th century, finally put together in one form in the beginning of the 17th century, called the Textus Receptus?

Or will we use the 5 ,600 manuscripts we have today, the other foreign language manuscripts we have, and the fact that we now have manuscripts that go back to within decades of the originals, rather than the fact that what Erasmus used, the oldest he had was a thousand years after the time of Christ?

That's the issue today. Will we retreat or will we utilize what God has given to us? I think it's very important, but we need to understand some things. Textus Receptus, I don't think we go to Dr. Moeller for the definition of that.

The Textus Receptus, this is what most people think of the Textus Receptus today, published by the Trinitarian Bible Society, but I also have the 1550 Stephanus over there. That would be considered one of the various forms of the Textus Receptus.

It's a series of printed Greek texts of the New Testament, encompassing the editions of Erasmus, between 1560 and 1535, Stephanus, the 1550 I'll show you later, and Beza, primarily his 1598 edition. These were the basis of the KJV New Testament when it was translated between 1604 and 1611.

The translators did not go to manuscripts. They used printed editions, Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza, in doing their work in the New Testament. Now, the phrase means the received text, and it did not come from a church or a council, but from an advertising blurb in the early 17th century.

That's where Textus Receptus came from. You advertised in Latin back then. They did school better than we do these days, I'm afraid. Today's TR is a compilation. This one, which is what most people point to, is a compilation made by FHA Scrivener in the late 19th century.

What's interesting is this is a Greek text that's actually based upon an English text. So what Scrivener did is he took those Greek compilations, the printed Greek texts that the King James translators used.

He looked at what choices they made, because they differ from one another. They have variants between them. We will talk about that tonight. There's differences between those printed editions. The King James translators had to make a decision.

What wording are we going to use? And so Scrivener looked at those printed editions, and he put together a Greek text based upon the decisions made by the King James translators. So this is actually a Greek text based upon an English translation, based upon a number of printed Greek texts, which themselves were based upon a small number of handwritten manuscripts, primarily through the work of Desiderius Erasmus, a Roman Catholic priest and humanist scholar between 1516 and 1535.

So that is where some of the definitions we need to understand. So as I said, TR is primarily the work of Erasmus. A few changes made by Stephanus. And autocorrect does not like Stephanus. It does not like any Latin at all.

So Stephans is supposed to be Stephanus. And Beza. Now, as I said, Erasmus had access to only around, at most, a dozen manuscripts, the oldest of which was from 1000 AD, and he trusted the least. It represents one particular branch, what is called the Byzantine text type, and does not represent the best or the earliest form of that text type.