DTS (and most NT Scholarship) certainly does take for granted that the TR is an "inferior text." It's blatantly obvious in Sproul's Knowing Scripture. Nonetheless, DTS cannot be criticized for not having alternative positions. Zane Hodges tried for many years at DTS to espouse his Majority Text position, which is very different in philosophy from the Critical Text position (UBS4 / NA27), as well as the TR position. The Majority Text (MT) position will practice textual criticism, but only within the MT or Byzantine Textual Tradition. The MT text position "counts" rather than "weighs" the manuscripts. The majority wins. Nonetheless, the Critical Text people take issue. Two prominent arguments are geneological and geographical solidarity. The Critical text argues that the MT only has limited geographical solidarity (Turkey) whereas the Critical Text enjoys much more geographical solidarity (Egypt, Turkey, Italy, Jerusalem, etc.) The critical text also argues that the MT only has geneological solidarity back to the 4th century AD, whereas the Critical Text enjoys geneological solidarity back to the 1st century AD. Obviously we want the manuscripts that reach closer to the time period they were written. Nonetheless, this endeavor is simply impossible given the multiple variations in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus (all cosidered 'early' mss.) and all the other major early textual witnesses.
Nonetheless, I am in agreement with the position that the "science" of Textual Criticism will not be our "knight in shining armor." TC is "dying" in the field of NT scholarship simply given the weight and enormity of the process. The process is pain-staking and would require thousands of trained people working 24-7 simply to collate all of the mss, not to mention deal with each and every variant. However, I am not convinced that the TR is some how superior simply because it has enjoyed a position of prominence. TC can be very helpful and is legitimate especially in matters of apologetics.
Personally, my issue with the KJV is not textual. My issue with the KJV is based on the changing nature of language over time. The KJV is "high" English. There is no doubt the "king's English" is majestic, but no one speaks or writes the way the KJV does any more, and more so the Scriptures were not written for the 'educated' but for the "average joe." The Bible is difficult to read and understand from the beginning. Using language and a language style that no one uses simply compounds the problem of interpretation. And the problem is not simply "looking up a word in the dictionary." The problem also exists in awkwardness and foreignness of the language style. Even with a Master's degree I find the KJV awkward and confusing at times. In college I tried to read and understand Hebrews, but I had a very difficult time grasping the book. It wasn't until I read a different translation that I grasped the force of the arguments. It wasn't because I didn't understand the words, it was wording and usage and style that threw me for a loop. Imagine the most uneducated, down-and-out person and we force them to learn a whole new "language" before they can begin to grow in their understanding. I am all for education, but people have died to make the Bible as accessible as possible, both in its availability through printing and in understanding of translation. Why not continue the tradition?
Scott,
I think that your third paragraph has great merit. Here's my caveat- Unfortunately, there are those who have used this reason to take their translation beyond mere grammatical/ structural changes. They eventually messed with the text. There are many good KJV people that would amen you,(Jacob von Brueggen), but experience says caution.
Kendall contends that the awkwardness in the text is done with the original language structure kept intact, to retain the force and meaning of the original languages. Kendall believes that this was done intentionally and cites several illustrations in his book. Making it easier to read would cloud or obscure the emphasis of the original language, or water it down. Wrestling with a sentence may force one to examine it much more closely. Some of this may be the equivalent of Holy Spirit underlining.
Kendall also asserts that language is fluid and that merely changing a word to a more contemporary word may also make it easier to read, but again lose the original punch of the (KJV translator's) word choice.He warns against sloppy vocabulary, culturally acceptable replacements that water down the theology or intent.
Kendall does not believe in double inspiration, but he does believe in Holy Spirit guidance and suggests that these men really believed they were handling the word of God. I know this is very subjective. He questions the level of belief or commitment of others who engage in the work with 300,000 variants. Do they really believe they have a copy? Or are they just getting closer? I can see why TC is waning. Who has time? If you think the KJV language is frustrating and confusing, how about hundreds of thousands of variant readings!?
Some thoughts. Again yours certainly are valid.
The geneological and geographical solidarity arguments have some holes. Enough to prove that they are not always true and maybe not true at all. I have read articles on the inconsistencies and "cherry picking" that may go on here. Beyond me.
pops
Nonetheless, I am in agreement with the position that the "science" of Textual Criticism will not be our "knight in shining armor." TC is "dying" in the field of NT scholarship simply given the weight and enormity of the process. The process is pain-staking and would require thousands of trained people working 24-7 simply to collate all of the mss, not to mention deal with each and every variant. However, I am not convinced that the TR is some how superior simply because it has enjoyed a position of prominence. TC can be very helpful and is legitimate especially in matters of apologetics.
Personally, my issue with the KJV is not textual. My issue with the KJV is based on the changing nature of language over time. The KJV is "high" English. There is no doubt the "king's English" is majestic, but no one speaks or writes the way the KJV does any more, and more so the Scriptures were not written for the 'educated' but for the "average joe." The Bible is difficult to read and understand from the beginning. Using language and a language style that no one uses simply compounds the problem of interpretation. And the problem is not simply "looking up a word in the dictionary." The problem also exists in awkwardness and foreignness of the language style. Even with a Master's degree I find the KJV awkward and confusing at times. In college I tried to read and understand Hebrews, but I had a very difficult time grasping the book. It wasn't until I read a different translation that I grasped the force of the arguments. It wasn't because I didn't understand the words, it was wording and usage and style that threw me for a loop. Imagine the most uneducated, down-and-out person and we force them to learn a whole new "language" before they can begin to grow in their understanding. I am all for education, but people have died to make the Bible as accessible as possible, both in its availability through printing and in understanding of translation. Why not continue the tradition?
Scott,
I think that your third paragraph has great merit. Here's my caveat- Unfortunately, there are those who have used this reason to take their translation beyond mere grammatical/ structural changes. They eventually messed with the text. There are many good KJV people that would amen you,(Jacob von Brueggen), but experience says caution.
Kendall contends that the awkwardness in the text is done with the original language structure kept intact, to retain the force and meaning of the original languages. Kendall believes that this was done intentionally and cites several illustrations in his book. Making it easier to read would cloud or obscure the emphasis of the original language, or water it down. Wrestling with a sentence may force one to examine it much more closely. Some of this may be the equivalent of Holy Spirit underlining.
Kendall also asserts that language is fluid and that merely changing a word to a more contemporary word may also make it easier to read, but again lose the original punch of the (KJV translator's) word choice.He warns against sloppy vocabulary, culturally acceptable replacements that water down the theology or intent.
Kendall does not believe in double inspiration, but he does believe in Holy Spirit guidance and suggests that these men really believed they were handling the word of God. I know this is very subjective. He questions the level of belief or commitment of others who engage in the work with 300,000 variants. Do they really believe they have a copy? Or are they just getting closer? I can see why TC is waning. Who has time? If you think the KJV language is frustrating and confusing, how about hundreds of thousands of variant readings!?
Some thoughts. Again yours certainly are valid.
The geneological and geographical solidarity arguments have some holes. Enough to prove that they are not always true and maybe not true at all. I have read articles on the inconsistencies and "cherry picking" that may go on here. Beyond me.
pops