Which Greek Text?: The Debate Among Fundamentalists

by Charles L. Surrett

This book presents a case for the Textus Receptus, the Greek text from which the New Testament in the King James Version of the Bible was translated. The purpose is to shed more light, and less heat, on the debate. This is not a book about name-calling or character assassination, but is a factual way to account for statements from the Bible about itself. This book is in its second printing, and has been slightly revised.

116 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1999

Reviews

[John Uit de Flesch · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent summary and defense of the Textus Receptus position. It is not a lengthy book, and so it doesn't go into great detail. I understand that the author has also written a follow-up book that adds to and fills in the blanks from this edition.

[Mark Jr. · Rating 1 out of 5]

Surrett is, as I said in a review of his other book on this topic, a Christian gentleman. I like this:

Those who defend the TR and the KJV have been considered “ignorant,” “unscholarly,” and “out of touch with reality.” Those who take the opposite position have been called “compromisers,” “hypocrites,” and “heretics.” This kind of rhetoric adds plenty of heat to the debate, but very little light.

And I like this:

As important as all these issues are, it is also important, in the spirit of II Tim 2:24-25, that believers demonstrate courtesy toward each other in the debate. Since there are many Fundamentalists who hold differing views while still maintaining a commitment to the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures, Bible-believers must not see each other as enemies. The battle is better fought when the real Enemy (Satan) is identified. The desire of this author is that these thoughts may stimulate more intelligent, gentlemanly debate among believers who desire to edify each other. May issues, rather than personalities, dominate the discussion, and may the Lord be pleased, not only with the Fundamentalist preacher’s position, but also with his disposition.

I also like his honesty in saying that Psalm 12:6–7 is shaky ground upon which to build a “doctrine of preservation”:

One passage that has been often used by some preservationists in defense of their position is Ps 12:6-7: The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. In the first printing of this book, this author drew a conclusion about the passage above that needs to be corrected. While there is, in the Hebrew text, a gender discordance between “words” (feminine) in verse six and the pronoun “them” (masculine) in verse seven, it is not proper to say that it is grammatically impossible for the two to be referring to the same thing. In fact, Thomas Strouse, in an essay on this passage, gives examples of the same type of gender discordance used elsewhere in the Psalms in connection with God’s Word (Psalm 119:11, 129, 152).72 Thus, it is certainly possible to use this passage to support the doctrine of the preservation of God’s Word, although the gender discordance and the tenor of the surrounding context may allow those who disagree with the preservation concept to debate it in the passage under consideration. Because of this controversial grammatical issue, Psalm 12:6-7 may not be the best passage to use when debating with those who deny that the preservation of Scripture is taught in the Bible.

But the insuperable difficulty of TR-onlyism, the one issue I can never seem to find any of its proponents answering directly, is the all-or-nothing viewpoint it assumes. Listen to this:

From a practical standpoint, in order for believers to be able to evaluate their own obedience to every word of Scripture, they must have every word. For a student of the Bible to be properly motivated in precise exegesis of the New Testament, he must work with the text under the assumption that every prefix, suffix, stem change, preposition, and root word are precisely known.

And yet, Surrett has to know that there are multiple editions of the TR which disagree among themselves. I think those disagreements are minor, but he’s claiming certainty about every last affix! His viewpoint doesn’t allow for uncertainty about even spelling, as best I can tell. “Things that are different are not the same,” as KJV-Only folks are wont to say. Indeed: Dr. Surrett, which TR is the right TR, and how do you know?

Dr. Surrett is technically not KJV-Only. He told me himself in a conversation we had. He is “a TR man.” Theoretically, another English translation could be made of the TR that satisfies him and displaces the KJV. But I am utterly convinced that all—all—talk by KJV users about textual criticism is a red herring they introduce that subsequently takes them off the scent, a smokescreen they set up that blinds them to the real issues. They are trying to find a non-heretical way to insist that people stick with the KJV. I deeply appreciate that Surrett wants to avoid (and does avoid) the heresy of double inspiration. But the distinction is lost on most KJV-Only followers in the pews. They confuse text and translation, inspiration and translation, pretty well completely.

Sigh. I just want a Bible I can read. I just want a Bible I can understand. In my own language. You prefer the TR? Fine! Translate it into contemporary English.

[Adam Ferguson · Rating 1 out of 5]

Rated low primarily because it is so difficult to read (at least on Kindle). Quotes don't even use quotation marks. I can't remember ever seeing a book with worse typography.

As much content as I could discern through the horrific formatting was in line with other books on the subject, but Surrett often uses verses to claim more than the verses are saying, in my opinion. His arguments have a lot of holes and fall pretty flat.

I do appreciate the gracious spirit with which Surrett writes, but...this book is not worth your time.

[Rev. Paul Jones, Th.D · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a pastor and a student of the Bible it is important for me to understand the history of Bible translations.

I liked this book because it presented the argument in a very thorough manner. I would recommend it to anyone who has ever had to discuss different Bible translations or been curious about why Bible translations are not the same.