The presuppositions of the TR Only position, which for the
most part match up with those of the KJV Only position seem to be as follows:
(1) That the Bible’s passages on the preservation of Scripture require a “perfect”
Bible, anything less makes God a liar and is thus a perversion of Scripture. (2)
That the definition of “perfect” envisioned by this viewpoint can allow for no
textual criticism, no revisions, no corrections of the text. {Some of the KJV Only would add “no variants”
to this list}(3) That other than the original autographs, this “perfect”
example of Scripture exists only in the TR (or KJV).
Let us for a moment assume each proposition to be true and
see what the results would be. (1) If the passages of Scripture about
preservation require a “perfect” Bible, they do not in any way indicate which
text that would be. Since it must be
available in every generation, it must have first existed in the Hebrew
manuscripts (aside from the Dead Sea Scrolls, all of which were lost prior to
the Middle Ages), then in the Greek manuscripts, although it could only be in
one text type, but without the original autographs there is no basis for
choosing one and only one text type as the “perfect” text when the only thing
we have to compare them to is each other. (2) If no textual criticism is to be
allowed, and how can it be when the text is “perfect”, there is no ability to
answer the clear evidence of a text which changed over time, with additions and
corrections, throughout its history (NT in particular given the wealth of
manuscripts we have of it). If the text
was already “perfect” and needed to remain “perfect” each and every generation,
it could not change, at all, not even a single word. Yet that is not the history of the
manuscripts. By comparing one generation
of them to another, in any text type, this becomes clear, copyists made
mistakes, both intentional and accidental that became accepted (for at least a
time, by an unsuspecting Church). But if
God’s power and veracity stands or falls based upon an unchanging text, the
only possible explanation is to ignore history and evidence and claim that the
text must be taken on faith no matter what (that’s Sam Gipp’s stated position,
any fault in the KJV, even typographical mistakes of the printer, are to be
ignored and the result taken on faith). (3)
Who is the authority, Scripture is certainly silent about which future
text will be the “perfect” one and which will be the corrupted ones, that
determines that the TR, and only the TR (and hence the KJV) are to be deemed
perfect over and against the Byzantine text, the Alexandrian, the Majority
(which will always represent the Byzantine as the number of those manuscripts
is such a clear majority), or the Eclectic blending of all sources? Who designated Erasmus as the final authority
on the preservation of Scripture, who sanctified his work and declared it
without error? Keep in mind, that
Erasmus himself made significant changes to his printed editions with each new
one, as did Stephanus and Beza after him.
In the end, I see no compelling reason to belief that we
MUST believe any of those suppositions, if a TR Only (or KJV Only) advocate
wishes to tweak them somewhat, fine, but the primary issues remain. The Scriptures do promise preservation, but
are silent as to how that will occur and by what agency, The text tradition
does include many variants, all of them do, there are no perfect manuscript
traditions, even within Erasmus’ exceedingly limited number of manuscripts
representing one text tradition, there were variants that he had to sort out by
doing textual criticism. Lastly, the
only way that the TR, and only the TR, can be elevated to such a status is an
appeal to tradition or authority, both of which were supposed to be rejected by
the Reformers, to resurrect them now would be a disservice to the ideals of men
like Tyndale, Luther, and Calvin.
No comments:
Post a Comment