Hello Robert!
I've bowed out of the textual criticism discussion on the Puritanboard for some time because since entering into the full-time pastorate I just don't have the time to answer the 3+ page replies I get from my typical 2-3 paragraph statements (come on guys, this is a forum).
Well, that sounds like somebody I know, and what I say in defense of that character is that forums may be chat, longer discussions, or even, when need requires, educational forums. Seeing as the Traditional Text position is not only in the minority, occasionally set up as a straw man, and often openly despised, the marshalling forth of evidence and extended discussion is warranted and appropriate.
I've asked these questions before and didn't get a straight answer but I would like to get clarity on where my brethren here on the Puritanboard are at who defend the TT over the CT. I am seeking simple 'yes' or 'no' answers to the following questions...
Q. “1. Do you believe any particular version of the Textus Receptus is absolutely identical with the original autographs?”
A. *
[* As the subject is too nuanced for a mere yes or no – neither qualifying as a “straight answer” – the question is left blank. But as an aside – off the record – there are two schools of TT defenders; one says yes, the 1894 TR compiled by Scrivener is absolutely identical with the original autographs due to providential preservation of the text-form by the Lord. The other school, championed by John Owen, Turretin, E.F. Hills, Letis, etc, own minute variants within the TR manuscripts. Hills, for instance, said he’d found 3. So while not “absolute”, it is virtually identical.
The 3 phrases Hills says are errors (
Believing Bible Study, p. 83) comprise nine Greek words. In the Greek of the Textus Receptus (1894 edition) there are 140,521 words. That is .0064% or
sixty-four one thousandths of one percent. Compare that with the variance between the Greek of the TR and the Greek of the Westcott and Hort text: 9,970 Greek words are changed. That is 7.095%. This would be equal to having the entire book of Romans (9,447 words) plus 2 and 3 John (and then some) thoroughly changed (usually the changes are omissions)! The uncertainty is 1,108.59 times greater in the Critical Text. (The word count for the TR is from D.A. Waite’s,
Defending The King James Bible, p. xii)]
Q. “2. Do you believe the Majority Text, is absolutely identical with the original autographs?”
A. No.
Q. “3. Do you believe there are any places in the underlying textual choices in the KJV that are flat out wrong?”
A. *
[* Same answer essentially as in Q. 1]
Q. “4. Do you believe that there are any places in the KJV where the translation is flat out wrong?”
A. *
[* Same as in Q.s 1 & 3]
Note: To
require a certain form of answer – one framed by the questioner – is to set up the discussion within parameters dictated by same, and is not conducive to the free exchange of ideas. I see the Lord often refused to answer according to the questions posed to Him.
Glad to see you back around here again, Robert. I’ll tell that aforementioned character to try to be less verbose!
Steve