The "Stable Text" King James Version Argument

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

A Third Cavil against the King James Version

In the letter to the readers, the translators of the King James Version provided the following defense of their translation against a contemporary cavil offered primarily by their Roman Catholic adversaries (source):

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? Saint Augustine was not afraid to exhort S. Jerome to a Palinodia or recantation; the same S. Augustine was not ashamed to retractate, we might say revoke, many things that had passed him, and doth even glory that he seeth his infirmities. If we will be sons of the Truth, we must consider what it speaketh, and trample upon our own credit, yea, and upon other men's too, if either be any way an hindrance to it. This to the cause: then to the persons we say, that of all men they ought to be most silent in this case. For what varieties have they, and what alterations have they made, not only of their Service books, Portesses and Breviaries, but also of their Latin Translation? The Service book supposed to be made by S. Ambrose (Officium Ambrosianum) was a great while in special use and request; but Pope Hadrian calling a Council with the aid of Charles the Emperor, abolished it, yea, burnt it, and commanded the Service book of Saint Gregory universally to be used. Well, Officium Gregorianum gets by this means to be in credit, but doth it continue without change or altering? No, the very Roman Service was of two fashions, the New fashion, and the Old, (the one used in one Church, the other in another) as is to be seen in Pamelius a Romanist, his Preface, before Micrologus. the same Pamelius reporteth out Radulphus de Rivo, that about the year of our Lord, 1277, Pope Nicolas the Third removed out of the Churches of Rome, the more ancient books (of Service) and brought into use the Missals of the Friers Minorites, and commanded them to be observed there; insomuch that about an hundred years after, when the above name Radulphus happened to be at Rome, he found all the books to be new, (of the new stamp). Neither were there this chopping and changing in the more ancient times only, but also of late: Pius Quintus himself confesseth, that every Bishopric almost had a peculiar kind of service, most unlike to that which others had: which moved him to abolish all other Breviaries, though never so ancient, and privileged and published by Bishops in their Dioceses, and to establish and ratify that only which was of his own setting forth, in the year 1568. Now when the father of their Church, who gladly would heal the sore of the daughter of his people softly and slightly, and make the best of it, findeth so great fault with them for their odds and jarring; we hope the children have no great cause to vaunt of their uniformity. But the difference that appeareth between our Translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that we are specially charged with; let us see therefore whether they themselves be without fault this way, (if it be to be counted a fault, to correct) and whether they be fit men to throw stones at us: O tandem maior parcas insane minori: they that are less sound themselves, ought not to object infirmities to others. If we should tell them that Valla, Stapulensis, Erasmus, and Vives found fault with their vulgar Translation, and consequently wished the same to be mended, or a new one to be made, they would answer peradventure, that we produced their enemies for witnesses against them; albeit, they were in no other sort enemies, than as S. Paul was to the Galatians, for telling them the truth [Gal 4:16]: and it were to be wished, that they had dared to tell it them plainlier and oftener. But what will they say to this, that Pope Leo the Tenth allowed Erasmus' Translation of the New Testament, so much different from the vulgar, by his Apostolic Letter and Bull; that the same Leo exhorted Pagnine to translate the whole Bible, and bare whatsoever charges was necessary for the work? Surely, as the Apostle reasoneth to the Hebrews, that if the former Law and Testament had been sufficient, there had been no need of the latter: [Heb 7:11 and 8:7] so we may say, that if the old vulgar had been at all points allowable, to small purpose had labour and charges been undergone, about framing of a new. If they say, it was one Pope's private opinion, and that he consulted only himself; then we are able to go further with them, and to aver, that more of their chief men of all sorts, even their own Trent champions Paiva and Vega, and their own Inquisitors, Hieronymus ab Oleastro, and their own Bishop Isidorus Clarius, and their own Cardinal Thomas a Vio Caietan, do either make new Translations themselves, or follow new ones of other men's making, or note the vulgar Interpreter for halting; none of them fear to dissent from him, nor yet to except against him. And call they this an uniform tenor of text and judgment about the text, so many of their Worthies disclaiming the now received conceit? Nay, we will yet come nearer the quick: doth not their Paris edition differ from the Lovaine, and Hentenius his from them both, and yet all of them allowed by authority? Nay, doth not Sixtus Quintus confess, that certain Catholics (he meaneth certain of his own side) were in such an humor of translating the Scriptures into Latin, that Satan taking occasion by them, though they thought of no such matter, did strive what he could, out of so uncertain and manifold a variety of Translations, so to mingle all things, that nothing might seem to be left certain and firm in them, etc.? Nay, further, did not the same Sixtus ordain by an inviolable decree, and that with the counsel and consent of his Cardinals, that the Latin edition of the old and new Testament, which the Council of Trent would have to be authentic, is the same without controversy which he then set forth, being diligently corrected and printed in the Printing-house of Vatican? Thus Sixtus in his Preface before his Bible. And yet Clement the Eighth his immediate successor, publisheth another edition of the Bible, containing in it infinite differences from that of Sixtus, (and many of them weighty and material) and yet this must be authentic by all means. What is to have the faith of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with Yea or Nay, if this be not? Again, what is sweet harmony and consent, if this be? Therefore, as Demaratus of Corinth advised a great King, before he talked of the dissensions among the Grecians, to compose his domestic broils (for at that time his Queen and his son and heir were at deadly feud with him) so all the while that our adversaries do make so many and so various editions themselves, and do jar so much about the worth and authority of them, they can with no show of equity challenge us for changing and correcting.