People need to understand that when a TR person defends the TR as THE text they are doing far more than what their underlying theological presuppositions actually allow.
They say that the Critical Text is based upon rationalistic science that puts men in the place of judges of the word of God. Sometimes I have heard them say that textual scholars act like little popes.
This makes their strict TR position extremely problematic as they are claiming that Erasmus and the subsequent editors had an almost infallible oversight of the text. This fact is made obvious when one notes that the Majority Text has around 1500 Textual Variations from Scrivener's TR.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilgrim  Good post, especially with regard to the charges of heretical corruption of the Alexandrian manuscripts. This is an assertion that we often hear but one for which evidence is never produced. As you say, if it is a case of heretical corruption, then they must have been the most inept heretics in the world!
If I'm not mistaken (and correct me if I'm wrong), the TR that many refer to is the Scrivener text which I understand to be basically a reverse engineered critical text that represents what Scrivener thought to be the Greek underlying text of the KJV. If that's the case (and I don't mean to malign Scrivener here) and if we're told that this text is the "original" and any deviation from it is akin to tampering with the Word of God, how is this point of view really any different from Ruckman's statement that when the English (KJV) and Greek differ, correct the Greek with the English!? |