Good points
The KJVOs like Edward Hills for ONE REASON: he is an actual textual critic, and he shares their views for the most part. He admitted in "Believing Bible Study" to three errors in the KJV, but this is generally not even discussed by the modern KJVO movement.
Fact is that the KJV was an ECLECTIC text based on prior TRs. Scrivener notes that the KJV translators made different choices because there were - are you ready for this - 252 variant readings within the TR itself!!
They chose Beza on some, Stephanus on some, Erasmus on some.
In short - they engaged in textual criticism and ecelecticism just like the KJVOs accuse modern translations of doing.
Now that said - I concur with your original point. This is little more than a scholarly way of being 'KJVO' without the idiocy attached to the label.
Keep in mind, however, that there are really only two well-known TR advocates, Hills and his late disciple, Theodore Letis. Yet the latter is NOT BY A LONG SHOT a KJVO. For example, Letis admits that the last 12 verses of Mark are secondary but holds them to be canonical. He also denies the authenticity of I John 5:7, so he would qualify as a TR guy.
Hills is a TR guy but he still opts for virtually every reading in the KJV. And keep in mind - he does not do this because of his training in TC but because of his theological a priori.
C4K said:
The KJVOs like Edward Hills for ONE REASON: he is an actual textual critic, and he shares their views for the most part. He admitted in "Believing Bible Study" to three errors in the KJV, but this is generally not even discussed by the modern KJVO movement.
Fact is that the KJV was an ECLECTIC text based on prior TRs. Scrivener notes that the KJV translators made different choices because there were - are you ready for this - 252 variant readings within the TR itself!!
They chose Beza on some, Stephanus on some, Erasmus on some.
In short - they engaged in textual criticism and ecelecticism just like the KJVOs accuse modern translations of doing.
Now that said - I concur with your original point. This is little more than a scholarly way of being 'KJVO' without the idiocy attached to the label.
Keep in mind, however, that there are really only two well-known TR advocates, Hills and his late disciple, Theodore Letis. Yet the latter is NOT BY A LONG SHOT a KJVO. For example, Letis admits that the last 12 verses of Mark are secondary but holds them to be canonical. He also denies the authenticity of I John 5:7, so he would qualify as a TR guy.
Hills is a TR guy but he still opts for virtually every reading in the KJV. And keep in mind - he does not do this because of his training in TC but because of his theological a priori.
