The "Young, Textless, and Reformed" author (Taylor DeSoto, I believe) is one of the folks associated with the misleadingly labeled "Confessional Bibliogy" group, which advocates a "Textus Receptus" position that seems to recognize the authority of the original languages of Greek and Hebrew, but which seems to conform to whatever Greek or Hebrew was followed by the translators/revisers of the King James Version.
One of Taylor's arguments is an argument centered on a perceived need for a "stable text." We can see this argument in a variety of similar forms (emphasis is mine):
It is important to remember that the Comma Johanneum was seated at 1 John 5:7 until evangelical textual critics began deconstructing the Scriptures based on theories that haven’t succeeded in giving the people of God a stable text. (1 John 5:7 and Modern Criticism)
Further, if the text of the Reformation is corrupt, then we do not have now, and have never had, a stable text of Holy Scripture. (Absolute Certainty, The Received Text ...)
The King James Bible is not going to change like other Bible versions, because it is based on a stable text platform, and no publishing houses own the copyright, so nobody can profit on making light revisions every five years. (Six Reasons ...)
That is to say, that from the time of Hort’s text in the 19th century, the modern effort of textual criticism has yet to produce a single stable text. The printed editions of the modern critical text contain a great wealth of textual data, but none of these are a stable text that will not change in the next ten years. ... So why is there a discussion regarding which text is better? Up until this point in history, the alternative text, the critical text, has been thought to be much more stable and certain than it is now. (A Summary of the Confessional Text Position)
An important reality to consider when discussing variants from an MCT perspective is that the modern critical text is not finished, and the finished product is not claiming to be a stable or definitive text. (A Crash Course in the Textual Discussion)
That is why, in my blog, I focus so heavily on the doctrine of Scripture. The current efforts of textual criticism are not capable of producing a stable text. In fact, a stable or final text is not even the goal. The goal of modern textual criticism as it exists in the effort of the ECM is to construct the history of the surviving texts of the New Testament, not a final authorial text for all time. The only way the modern critical methods could produce a stable text would be to strip out all of the verses that are contested by variation. (Revisiting the Fatal Flaw Argument ...)
This is not a new argument. It is the same argument that had to be addressed by the translators of the King James Version. This was identified in their "Translators to the Reader" as a third cavil offered against their version (emphasis is mine - see this link for more context):
Yet before we end, we must answer a third cavil and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our Translations so oft; wherein truly they deal hardly, and strangely with us. For to whom ever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he saw cause?
As you will glean from the context, their main objectors were the Roman Catholics of the time. For example, Pope Clement VIII in Aeternus Ille (link to translation)
And since not only among heretics, but even among some Catholics, although with different intentions, there arose an excessive and not entirely praiseworthy zeal, almost a lust for interpreting the Scriptures into Latin, Satan, the author of all evil, used them, even if they were unaware, to create such confusion and diversity of versions that he tried to make everything doubtful. He endeavored to bring the matter to the point that, while different interpreters introduced different forms and appearances into the words of the Scriptures, nothing certain, nothing stable, and no inviolable authority could be found in them without great difficulty, so that it was greatly feared that we might return to that ancient chaos of editions about which St. Jerome said: "Among the Latins, there are as many versions as there are copies. Each one added or subtracted according to his own judgment, and certainly, what is inconsistent cannot be true."
Notice that Clement VIII's rationale is indistinguishable from Taylor's. Clement VIII goes on to state:
In this search for the genuine text, it is generally agreed among all that there is no argument more certain and firm than the faith of old and approved Latin manuscripts, both printed and handwritten, which we have procured from various libraries. Therefore, in any reading where more and older and more corrected books agreed, we have decided that this should be retained as the words of the original text or as closest to them. Where assistance was needed to establish the genuine edition, the explanations of the holy Fathers and old expositors who illustrated various places and books of the Scriptures were of great help. Whatever was observed to be useful was included in this work. Finally, in those places where neither the manuscripts nor the doctors' great consensus seemed sufficient, we deemed it necessary to resort to Hebrew and Greek examples, not to correct the errors of the Latin interpreter but to provide something certain and undoubted in place of words that, although ambiguous among the Latins, could have been interpreted otherwise than necessary. Thus, what was inconstant, diverse, and manifold due to varying manuscripts was established uniformly, consistently, and in one manner, with the truth of the sources duly considered.
This is the same objective that Taylor values - a move from manuscripts to a single, stable text.
Ultimately, history repeats itself. People sometimes value stability over truth, but this is the wrong priority. As the KJV translators themselves taught, it is a mark of wisdom to revise when we discover errors.
-TurretinFan
No comments:
Post a Comment