E.R., I do have to concede that your "apple and oranges" pertaining to the use of "absolutist" is right; its depends on who uses it and how that word is used.
I just watched the discussion on the Byz vs. the TR / KJV translation on the Youtube piece linked to above. I think Prof Robinson is wise and gracious, and distinguishes well between his and the TR view.
I'll restate something I've said here on PB before:
The matter of discerning the true word of God has always been in the realm of faith, not science or evidence (though evidences we have aplenty, to confirm our faith). There are a few readings that are not attested in the Byz, which, as noted, did not altogether escape the ravages of the doctrinal wars of the early centuries, that were preserved in other mss, some in the Old Latin. The Lord saw to it
not a word of His would be diminished from His book, even as He
commanded His prophets of old to conduct themselves (
Deut 4:2KJV;
Jer 26:1KJV;
Jer 26:2KJV).
Thus the pure READINGS of the Greek autographs kept in various mss – mostly the Traditional (Byzantine) Greek, but a very few kept in other versions due to attacks upon and mutilations on the Greek – were put into print in the Greek Textus Receptus editions (known to and used by the Westminster divines), having also been put into the English, Dutch, and other translations.
We are grateful to Drs. Robinson, and Pickering, and Bruggen, and the others who have gone before us, but we believe God who promised we would have His word intact – in the minutiae – when we needed it. And that need is now, at the end of the age.
The Byzantine was the "ecclesiastical text" in the Greek church for over a millennia. This Byzantine then became the foundation of the "ecclesiastical text" (primary church text, if you will) of the Reformation – with some very few readings that were lost in the doctrinal wars of the early centuries, but were preserved in other mss, some in the Old Latin, and thus kept in that preserved text.
It is true that this TR and its translations into English are no longer "the primary church text", at least in the eyes of many. In these days of the deterioration of the visible church, and of sound doctrine, and of no confidence in a providentially preserved text in the minutiae, many folks see the older standard – the traditional – TR that to be retained.
When
Isaiah 59:19KJV says, "When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him", some of us say yes, we have that standard, even though it is not as easy reading (I greatly appreciate the slightly flawed modern versions' help in this).
Isaiah 59:21KJV also speaks of that standard's longevity.
True, the truth I speak of is so diminished in the eyes of some that one could say this is a subjective matter, and not empirical. That's the bone of contention. Like an old bulldog, I won't give up that bone.
As it was mentioned in the Youtube clip, a brief word on Erasmus' choice of the MSS of the Andreas family in Revelation:
Noted textual scholar H.C. Hoskier’s basic conclusion toward the 200 plus MSS he collated for Revelation was:
I may state that if Erasmus had striven to found a text on the largest number of existing MSS in the world of one type, he could not have succeeded better, since his [Andreas] family-MSS occupy the front rank in point of actual numbers, the family numbering over 20 MSS besides its allies. (The John Rylands Bulletin 19-1922/23, p 118.)
It should be noted again that this exemplary MS used by Erasmus was of the Andreas group, the readings of which we find in the TR and AV. Perhaps needless to say, I do not think it coincidence this primary manuscript fell into the hands of Erasmus. For I believe that the Lord providentially preserved His word, and the only place it makes sense to have been preserved in was the Greek Textus Receptus as discerned by Erasmus, Stephens, Beza, and the AV translators, and given to us in the AV.
We have, in the TR, the best MSS containing the readings the LORD wanted us to have for His Bible printed in the time of the Reformation.
I see it often disparaged that we rely on Scriptural and theological-based presuppositions furor defense of our view. But we are a people of faith, not – primarily – evidences, as evidences are often proved faulty, as in the case of science, its evidences, and evolutionary theory.
I have not answered many of the issues raised in the Youtube clip, but have in previous writings here on PB (
Textual Posts).
