Does the textual criticism method of Erasmus represent a reconstructionist philosophy?
Jan Krans wrote: “In the preface of the Annotations, Erasmus describes the basic text-critical task as follows: ‘if I found something damaged by carelessness or ignorance of scribes or by the injuries of time, I restored the true reading, not haphazardly but after pursuing every available scent’” (Beyond What is Written, p. 31; Vance, Text of the KJB, p. 364). Jan Krans noted: “We observe textual criticism in the making as often as Erasmus confronted two readings and tried to determine which one is secondary” (p. 51). Erasmus is translated into English as writing: "Here is another labor, to examine and correct the different MSS. . . and a great many of them, so as to detect which one has a better reading, or by collating a number of them to make a guess at the true and authentic version" (Rabil, Erasmus and the N. T., p. 69). Arthur Pennington cited Erasmus as writing the following in a letter: “By a collation of Greek and ancient manuscripts, I have corrected the text of the whole of the New Testament” (Desiderius Erasmus, p. 144).
If the goal of the textual criticism of Erasmus to correct, restore, or reconstruct the Greek text of the New Testament is correct, would it conflict with KJV-only claims and TR-only claims concerning preservation?
Edward F. Hills wrote: “The first New Testament textual critics were editors such as Erasmus (1466-1536), printers such as Stephanus (1503-1559), and Reformers such as Calvin (1509-1564) and Beza (1519-1605)” (KJV Defended, p 62; Text, p. 120). Edward F. Hills added: “In this department of biblical study they were unmethodical, and some of their remarks concerning the New Testament canon and text reflect the humanistic culture in which they had been reared” (Ibid.). Edward F. Hills suggested that there appears “in Erasmus a humanistic tendency to treat the New Testament text like the text of any other book” (Believing Bible Study, p. 203; KJV Defended, p. 204; Text, p. 343).
Erika Rummel claimed: “At Rom[ans] 12 note 23 Erasmus introduces a modern concept of textual criticism: the argument from the harder reading (lectio difficilior)” (Erasmus’ Annotations, p. 117). Erika Rummel added: “It [the argument from the harder reading] can be deduced from Erasmus’ practices, but more importantly, it is stated expressly at 1 Cor 15 note 44” (Ibid.). Jan Krans asserted: “With all the evidence presented here, we conclude that Erasmus understands and applies the principle of the harder reading in an astonishingly ‘modern’ way” (Beyond What is Written, p. 50). Jan Krans wrote: “Erasmus’ work on the New Testament offers an excellent example: a whole series of rules can be deduced from it, with fairly adequate descriptions of each” (p. 29). Jan Krans maintained that Erasmus “became a pioneer in New Testament textual criticism, and, as we will see, even in the conjectural emendation of the Greek text” (p. 28). Did Erasmus take on himself the role of being a corrector of holy writ?
Edward Andrews claimed: “The Erasmus critical edition began the all-important work of textual criticism” (King James Bible, pp. 19, 181, 219). Taylor DeSoto asserted: “Erasmus’s methods are more similar to the modern approach than Beza’s in many respects” (Received Text, p. 75). Paul Wegner wrote: “When Erasmus compared manuscripts to choose between readings, he used some of the same principles, at least in elementary form, that were developed by later text critics” (Student’s Guide, p. 210). Moises Silva claimed that Erasmus “the creator of what would be later known as the textus receptus was absolutely committed to the very principles that lie at the foundation of WH’s [Westcott/Hort] accomplishments” (Black, Rethinking NT, p. 142). In this same book, Eldon Jay Epp suggested that NT textual criticism since its beginnings with Erasmus “actually has remained much the same in terms of its goals, its arguments for priority of readings, its grouping of manuscripts, and its motivation and general procedures” (pp. 75-76).
In a letter to Martin Dorp, Erasmus is translated into English by Robert Adams as writing: “Neither is there the slightest reason to suppose that mankind will suddenly abandon their faith if word get outs that there is something in scripture that an ignorant or sleepy scribe wrote amiss, or that some unknown translator rendered ineptly” (Praise of Folly, p. 249). In this same letter, Erasmus asked: “Who does more to promote a lie, the man who corrects and removes a mistake, or the man who, out of reluctance to make a change, lets it stand?” (p. 247). Erasmus wrote: “These are the men who want nothing corrected lest their own ignorance be made manifest. These people throw up imaginary obstacles such as the supposed authority of councils, they exaggerate the terrible perils to Christian faith, they spread fantasies about the dangers to the church, as if it rested only on their shoulders” (p. 248). Erika Rummel maintained that “he [Erasmus] dispelled the idea that emendation and textual criticism undermined the authority of the Bible” (Erasmus’ Annotations, p. 124). Erika Rummel translated Erasmus as asking: “Does it not happen frequently that from several faulty manuscripts – though not faulty in the same way – the true and genuine reading is found?” (p. 131). Mike Holloway suggested that “its role [the role of textual criticism] is seen as being the corrector of the Bible” (Common Sense, p. 56).
[bold typed added in quotation of Erasmus by this poster]