What do you think?
Rate this book
Debating the Text of the Word of God
Christians believe that the Bible is the "word of God." But to what text does this refer? Is it the Bible translation I hold in my hands? Is it a textual family behind the King James Version? Is it a modern critical text, with its attempt to recover a single "original"? Or is it something else?
In this lively debate about the world's most influential book, two Christian intellectuals confront this subject head-on. Both participants come from a conservative evangelical tradition, and yet passionately disagree about what version of the New Testament is truly God-breathed.
Part theology, part textual-criticism, part ecclesiology, Debating the Text of the Word of God is the most thorough "in-house" debate ever conducted on this subject. You don't want to miss it!
In this lively debate about the world's most influential book, two Christian intellectuals confront this subject head-on. Both participants come from a conservative evangelical tradition, and yet passionately disagree about what version of the New Testament is truly God-breathed.
Part theology, part textual-criticism, part ecclesiology, Debating the Text of the Word of God is the most thorough "in-house" debate ever conducted on this subject. You don't want to miss it!
105 pages, Kindle Edition
Published September 11, 2017
9 people are currently reading
98 people want to read
About the author
Douglas Wilson
319 books4,551 followersI write in order to make the little voices in my head go away. Thus far it hasn't worked.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews
October 27, 2017
I wanted to give this book five stars; I wanted to be convinced of Wilson's position. I still do. I still want to hear and read the best arguments for the Ecclesiastical text. However, White's sensationalist prose aside, Wilson received a shellacking that had to be humbling.
Textual criticism is not a field of study to be taken lightly. Nor is it a place for half-baked argumentation. Don't get me wrong. My respect for Wilson is strong, but my admiration for his knowledge in this field is nil because his arguments are wanting. I simply cannot base my beliefs on this issue on his "faith" in the TR.
Textual criticism is not a field of study to be taken lightly. Nor is it a place for half-baked argumentation. Don't get me wrong. My respect for Wilson is strong, but my admiration for his knowledge in this field is nil because his arguments are wanting. I simply cannot base my beliefs on this issue on his "faith" in the TR.
September 13, 2017
Enjoyed the short debate. Was first introduced to this topic by listening to White, and I am now studying under Wilson. My main critique is for the publisher. The Q/A for both participants in the end is a good idea. But the questions felt subpar and kind of silly. Otherwise, I think this is an interesting format and a great length. I look forward to future publications.
September 13, 2017
Wilson's position is all about the canon. Has some weight to it in light of the canonical structure and history, and of the way NT writers quote the OT Scriptures. White seems to discount any kind of canonical input that is not run through the lens of methodical doubt first, and he insists on figuring out the exact text of the original autographs. I wonder what he would say about the canonical structure of the two testaments, does it have any kind of authority? The structure of the NT is covenantal, but that structure was not present when the autographs were written. On the other side, White makes good points when he says that there is no one TR, and that most people before us in history would have used the manuscripts we have if they had the chance.
February 20, 2020
I'd liken this book to a fencing match between two friends. They practice their swordplay, and are both skilled in the art, but each takes a different tact. However, their fencing is no mere hobby, but it is training for warfare. The Word of God is under continual assault from without the church and within. Unbelieving lions would like to undermine the integrity/reliability of the text of Scripture, while wolves from within endeavor to wrest the Scriptures.
Wilson and White each care deeply about the Bible. That is manifestly evident in this debate. Where they differ is which manuscripts––and more broadly, which manuscript tradition––should be understood as actual text of inspired Scripture.
Pastor Wilson holds to the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine Text type; while Dr. White believes there is still a "backlog" of textual criticism to be done to get the Church to the original text, and approves the Nestle-Aland/UBS Text as the sort of "jumping off" point for this endeavor. Neither denies that the Church does indeed have the authoritative, inerrant, and infallible Word of God. Rather they contend over the various discrepancies between the manuscripts, as well as what the Church's process should be for how to make those determinations.
The audiobook is read by both gentlemen, which was a nice touch. There are points where the format of the debate seemed to leave them "talking past" the other. But I have it on good authority that these gents will be continuing the conversation in other venues in the near future. For those who need a good introduction to the Xs & Os of textual criticism and manuscript traditions, this is a helpful starting place; namely because these are two men who both desire the church to submit to the Word of her Lord, whatever He says.
Wilson and White each care deeply about the Bible. That is manifestly evident in this debate. Where they differ is which manuscripts––and more broadly, which manuscript tradition––should be understood as actual text of inspired Scripture.
Pastor Wilson holds to the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine Text type; while Dr. White believes there is still a "backlog" of textual criticism to be done to get the Church to the original text, and approves the Nestle-Aland/UBS Text as the sort of "jumping off" point for this endeavor. Neither denies that the Church does indeed have the authoritative, inerrant, and infallible Word of God. Rather they contend over the various discrepancies between the manuscripts, as well as what the Church's process should be for how to make those determinations.
The audiobook is read by both gentlemen, which was a nice touch. There are points where the format of the debate seemed to leave them "talking past" the other. But I have it on good authority that these gents will be continuing the conversation in other venues in the near future. For those who need a good introduction to the Xs & Os of textual criticism and manuscript traditions, this is a helpful starting place; namely because these are two men who both desire the church to submit to the Word of her Lord, whatever He says.
December 29, 2020
First off, this book deals with a subject I've studied rather extensively (for a non-scholar) for some number of years. A true discussion of NT manuscripts really must begin foundationally with the formation of the NT Canon. Lots of information drives this debate beyond what is presented here. If you are looking for a deeper introduction to Textual Criticism, I'd pass on this book. There are far better works on both sides of the aisle (and you should read both). Reading this book is like sticking your foot into the ocean. You get some feel of the discussion but not much of one.
All that said, it's OK for what it is. It was obviously written to lay people and lay people should learn something of the argument from it. Doug Wilson did introduce a few positions I've never heard advocated in all my other research. Perhaps this book is worth it for that?? I don't know. Maybe.
For the record, this wasn't a public debate. It was a written dialogue back and forth. Because of that, the cross-examination section especially lacked intensity. There were places that I would loved to have had more responses by both men. But they moved on without any real interaction.
I guess I'm glad I read it. But it didn't add much to my understanding on this subject. Fortunately, it's a short book that can be read in a couple of sittings.
All that said, it's OK for what it is. It was obviously written to lay people and lay people should learn something of the argument from it. Doug Wilson did introduce a few positions I've never heard advocated in all my other research. Perhaps this book is worth it for that?? I don't know. Maybe.
For the record, this wasn't a public debate. It was a written dialogue back and forth. Because of that, the cross-examination section especially lacked intensity. There were places that I would loved to have had more responses by both men. But they moved on without any real interaction.
I guess I'm glad I read it. But it didn't add much to my understanding on this subject. Fortunately, it's a short book that can be read in a couple of sittings.
October 24, 2017
Very enjoyable read. In short: James White decisively won the debate at hand (about the best foundation greek NT) but as always, Wilson was the most fun to read. :-). This was a short book (about 100 pages) and I highly recommend it. eagerly waiting for the audio/video of the debate to be posted.
December 27, 2017
My two heroes going head to head about the priority of either the Alexandrian manuscript family ( more modern methods of textual criticism) or the Byzantine (more traditional) - very technical so you have to pay attention - I listened to it on audible on a long car journey.
December 10, 2017
I'm a fan of both these men and have heard them debate before on another subject. Both are Reformed and have high respect for the Word of God. I have a feeling that people who are interested in this subject might find ways of talking past the arguments presented (on both sides). So this book/debate might serve those of us who have an interest in textual criticism but not super passionate about this particular subject.
The book is well laid out like a proper debate would be conducted. I really, really wish there was more back and forth on the direct Q&A from the two as the clarification that could have been had would have been very valuable.
I won't use the review to give my opinion who won; however, it was clear that Wilson asserted a lot of claims that he didn't get around to substantiate. There were moments though, where he made some clarifying claims and counter claims that were good for his position. White had a lot of good arguments against Wilson's position and a few responses that were a little more geared towards deflecting than answering. This may have been the result of a non-neutral party bringing up those points. The "audience" Q&A portion, as in normal debates, had only one or two questions that helped the exploration of the topic. All others were for different arguments or off topic.
This is a good debate topic that should be explored further and is best for those who have already gotten into the topic of textual criticism. It is not the best for those just getting into the subject. Final Grade - B+
The book is well laid out like a proper debate would be conducted. I really, really wish there was more back and forth on the direct Q&A from the two as the clarification that could have been had would have been very valuable.
I won't use the review to give my opinion who won; however, it was clear that Wilson asserted a lot of claims that he didn't get around to substantiate. There were moments though, where he made some clarifying claims and counter claims that were good for his position. White had a lot of good arguments against Wilson's position and a few responses that were a little more geared towards deflecting than answering. This may have been the result of a non-neutral party bringing up those points. The "audience" Q&A portion, as in normal debates, had only one or two questions that helped the exploration of the topic. All others were for different arguments or off topic.
This is a good debate topic that should be explored further and is best for those who have already gotten into the topic of textual criticism. It is not the best for those just getting into the subject. Final Grade - B+
May 11, 2019
On the families of manuscripts that underlay our translations- Wilson argues for the TR (Byzantine manuscripts) and White for the NA/UBS (Alexandrian manuscripts). This is an important conversation and Christians should be engaged with it.
November 1, 2017
Very quick read. I had hoped that this would have been a written debate between a TR guy vs a CT guy, but unfortunately it was a debate between two reconstructionists (not in the theonomic sense). Wilson was a TR preferred guy and he didn't do the greatest job in my lowly opinion. Where he had Dr. White on the mat, in a headlock, leglock, and armlock, Wilson just got up and walked away (looking at the questions he asked Dr. White). Dr. White was jumping all over the place and the questions that Wilson did ask him, he never directly answered. White's other contributions were much stronger than Wilson's.
The more I read, the more I saw the similarities of the the two positions, and I was left thinking that Wilson and White were fighting for the same thing, with the one or two differences being that Wilson liked the TR manuscript tradition and Dr. White liked NA/USB, and that Wilson thought we will one day "recover" all the texts (When did we ever lose them?) and White said we basically already have done that through critical text analysis.
Very interesting nonetheless.
The more I read, the more I saw the similarities of the the two positions, and I was left thinking that Wilson and White were fighting for the same thing, with the one or two differences being that Wilson liked the TR manuscript tradition and Dr. White liked NA/USB, and that Wilson thought we will one day "recover" all the texts (When did we ever lose them?) and White said we basically already have done that through critical text analysis.
Very interesting nonetheless.
April 1, 2024
Great idea for a book series, this is just what I was looking for. It is in the format of a debate, but each response is written and the participants are given weeks to research and respond. I found that this really improved the arguments and as a reader, you are more sure of the content vs. just siding with the best debater.
Doug Wilson is one of my favorite Christian authors and I wanted to hear the reasoning behind his King James only stance for his church. The opposing voice, James White, is someone I haven't read much from so I expected to side with Wilson most likely. After listening to this book, I found White's reasoning and arguments much more compelling. At least in the context of this short work, he walked away the clear winner in my opinion. Recommended, can't wait to try more of these symposium style works.
Doug Wilson is one of my favorite Christian authors and I wanted to hear the reasoning behind his King James only stance for his church. The opposing voice, James White, is someone I haven't read much from so I expected to side with Wilson most likely. After listening to this book, I found White's reasoning and arguments much more compelling. At least in the context of this short work, he walked away the clear winner in my opinion. Recommended, can't wait to try more of these symposium style works.
August 31, 2019
A short but informative debate on the difference between the Modern Eclectic Text perspective and the Traditional/Ecclesiastical Text perspective as regards the Greek text of the New Testament. While I came into it thoroughly convinced of the Modern side, the debate was still informative. The debate was clear and decisively won by White with the modern perspective, with a number of questions remaining unanswered or answered by improper circular reasoning. I do wonder whether or not Wilson is truly representative of his side as is argumentation was lacking. I would recommend this to anyone either familiar with, or who has come into contact with the Reformed Ecclesiastical Texted position/debate.
November 25, 2017
Interesting read. James White is precise and analytical. He attempted one quip, at least that I detected. It didn't have much legs and he didn't linger or overwork it. Doug Wilson is witty and thoughtful. Of course, he worked some metaphors in and they were enjoyable. As to the arguments of each, they were mostly as expected if you're familiar with their work. Both have their own presuppositions, commitments, and perspectives. All of which is fairly obvious as you read their parts. Overall, all sides should cautiously consider what is presented.
October 3, 2017
I think for the formatting of this debate, there was much said. This book is refreshing for the fact that it is not talking about the "authoritative English bible"--the "renown King James" like a little man behind a big curtain, but actually talks about text families. Doug claims that the new textual criticism has brought in a spirit of unbelief. While James reminds us at what cost will we buy certainty. James white presented the price tag as truth. Good informative read.
October 1, 2019
Douglas Wilson offers a cool, collected, cogent defense of the Holy Scriptures. James White attacks the very authority of them and spends his half of the book telling outright lies about the manuscript evidence that no scholar would agree with (for example, that we have 150 3rd century manuscript attestations to the New Testament), as well as attacking the men of God who did textual scholarship in the 16th century. Read this for Wilson's half, the other half is incoherent childish babble.
July 26, 2020
A very intresting form of a debate between two good and recognised theologians. Unlike live debates, they had more time to prepare an answer. Still, the time they had was limited and the wordcount was in use. But this was in a new form which I think gave a little more... I don’t know...meat to their arguments. I hope to read more debates like this. They also have this in a soundbook where the debaters themselves read in their own arguments and questions.
I enjoyed it.
I enjoyed it.
June 6, 2023
This debate made me like Wilson even less than I already had unfortunately. I found his arguments were borderline schizophrenic, especially when compared to the cool rationality of James White. I think James did a fantastic job defending his position, while Wilson had me scratching my head the whole time. Overall, it was a worthwhile and engaging debate, but I'm just not sure how anyone can be TR only.
December 27, 2017
Very good. But I think they should have allowed one more pass at each other to follow up on questions, since one party was able to escape having to address some key points. Other than that it was good, but certainly not decisive on its own.
January 10, 2018
Interesting read
This was an interesting read but the format was a bit cumbersome. At times it seemed they were talking past each other and I was not sure if that was intended or if it was a consequence of the format.
This was an interesting read but the format was a bit cumbersome. At times it seemed they were talking past each other and I was not sure if that was intended or if it was a consequence of the format.
October 30, 2018
This debate serves as a nice introduction to textual traditions (Byzantine and Alexandrian), and the two approaches behind them. I remain convinced of the textus receptus, but White raised some good questions.
December 5, 2019
How we got our bibles and textual criticism is one of those topics every modern Christian should strive to understand. This little written debate is a good place to start, from two of the best guys in both camps.
April 6, 2022
Wilson debates with biblical grace and White with brash painted arrogance. Both have duel points; though I am leaning more towards Wilson. This debate has helped open my eyes to the importance of study on the Scriptures themselves.
April 20, 2024
I truly admire Doug Wilson but Dr. White got the better of him in this debate. It often sounded like Pastor Wilson really just wants the TR to be the inspired text but...it just doesn't work, sir. You may prefer it, fine. Weird, but fine.
October 20, 2017
Great
Great arguments, great reasoning, great men of God. What more can you ask for? Good way to start the debate...
Great arguments, great reasoning, great men of God. What more can you ask for? Good way to start the debate...
December 11, 2017
Good debate. Q and A could have been better. The A's were good; the Q's were lacking.
January 27, 2018
Enjoyable. It’s difficult to cover a very technical field in this format. The basic issues on both sides are set out.
July 24, 2018
Really educational. Would love to hear more on this topic in this type of format from these authors.
January 1, 2020
Helpful
June 9, 2020
Very good debate. I am with Dr. White on this issue, but Wilson brought up some legitimate points. However, some of his points were a bit off.
October 20, 2020
This is the best work on the subject I have found.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews