Issues in Textual Criticism & Biographies of Textual Critics - Introduction
The Myths of Textual Criticism: What textual Criticism really is
Textual Critics & Textual Criticism
Go Directly to the Westcott & Hort Section
CAUGHT ! -Textual Critic Exposed
*<A HREF="http://www.baptisttop1000.com/cgi-bin/1000/show.cgi?id=xofc" target="_blank"> <IMG SRC="http://www.baptisttop1000.com/cgi-bin/1000/counter.cgi?id=xofc" BORDER=0></A>
Textual Criticism
Textual Criticism - also called "Higher Criticism", "Biblical Criticism" and "Form Criticism"
Concerning the area of Biblical & Religious Studies, Textual Criticism is the area of academic expertise, established by professors & instructors for the stated purpose of attempting to discern just how much the text of the Bible can be reconciled to the historical records of the events that the Bible claims to describe.
In theory, Textual Criticism is about the search for fact, in the Bible - where most Christians search for truth. Those of you who have genuinely believed that Textual Criticism is a legitimate field of expertise will probably be a bit shocked.
The fact is that Textual Criticism is an academic area within Universities, where professors are expected to do everything they can to undermine the beliefs of those who hold to the truth, the integrity or the accuracy of the Bible.
This conclusion will surely be disputed - but only by those who are still trying to deceive students and the public.
If Textual Criticism desired to know the truth of the Historical and Archeological records of the Bible, then they would be popularizing just how many archeological and historical sites have been found around the world, because those sites or nations are discussed in the Bible.
The Bible has a very high rate of accuracy when it comes to stating facts and when it comes to describing the location of cities, events, etc. It's rate is at 100%. But that is what Textual Criticism does Not want you to find.
Textual critics actually want you to have Faith in them and the falsehoods they tell you about. What they really hope, is to obligate you to substitute your faith in God, for faith in Textual Criticism and the Textual Critics.
Textual Criticism is almost never - about the search for truths or facts. It is instead almost always about the search for endless theories about Why the Bible 1) should not be trusted or 2) why people should Not believe in Christianity.
In short, Textual Criticism takes a syntactical & deconstructionist approach through semiotics, in order to attempt to pursuade students away from Authentic Christianity using Dialectical methods of persuasion.
What is a Textual Critic ?
A textual critic is Not someone who simply has honest and legitimate questions about who Jesus Christ is, or what Christianity is about. A textual critic is not a layman, and a textual critics is not someone who is interested in an honest discussion about the accurate truths of Christianity and the Bible.
A Textual Critic is a person who had committed themselves to the willful and conscious opposition of the Bible as the Word of God, and the Rejection of Jesus Christ, and His claims to be the only and only Begotten Son of God, and the true Saviour of the World.
Usually a Textual Critic is a person whose main purpose, is to cause others to Lose their faith in Christianity, Jesus Christ, or the Bible.
Honest people must learn to make the distinction between those who
1. are legitimately seeking the answers about Christianity, its origins and Jesus Christ, and
2. those who are trained deliberate and malicious attackers of Christianity who do Not have a genuine interest in Christianity, nor in the History of the Christian faith, except to do it harm. Many colleges and universities have textual critics, and many Textual Critics often are professors in the History or Religion departments of colleges and universities. However, many also are still employed as professors at Seminaries which train future pastors and professional clergy.
TEXTUS RECEPTUS - NO REGISTRATION -
FREE NEW TESTAMENT DIGITAL PDF - DOWNLOAD PAGE
Results of Textual Criticism:
T
It's not what usually comes to mind when you think of Christianity -- but Christianity is changing. And nowhere is this change more apparent than at Berkeley's Graduate Theological Union. In 1996 one of the union's member seminaries, the multidenominational Pacific School of Religion, established the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry.
Here is an example of what Textual Critics say, and the way that they
attack the Bible & Christianity
Hopefully, - by reading the above paragraphs - you caught the point of the Textual Critic (Strauss) who was saying that Jesus did NOT come to offer Personal Salvation, but instead came to
get us to recognize that - according to Strauss - the human life is Divinity. According to the first paragraph, maybe you noticed that the union of the two natures - was taking place within "humanity" (the human race), and NOT within the Savior Jesus Christ. That is blasphemy. It is preaching another Gospel. According to the second paragraph posted above,
- according to Strauss -,(one of many German Textual Critics from the 1800s who influenced American Professors), we are our own Gods, and
we do not need
a personal savior.
That - is an example of what Textual Critics do, and teach.
(Source: Historical Evidences of the Truth of the Scripture Records by
Sir George Rawlinson - Forthcoming)
----------------
Sinking Sand -- Ruin Looms for a Church that Forsakes God's WordThe Scriptures have always suffered the attacks of the kingdom of darkness, even as far back as the garden of Eden, when the serpent slyly asked the woman, "Indeed, has God said ...?"
The Evil One knows that if he can undermine the Bible, he can undermine the Christian. For Jesus said His words are like a rock upon which a house is built (Matthew 7:24), serving as a firm foundation for His followers
Full Story at: http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/2/112004b.asp
----------------
FREE and AVAILABLE
ENGLISH-LATIN and LATIN-ENGLISH DICTIONARY IN PDF
True Background & History of Textual Criticism
Now that we have seen an illustration of Textual Criticism, here is some of the background of this movement, which very much affects Evangelicals and their Bible Translations.
"Textual Criticism" is the name of a historical movement which began in Europe as a rejection of the Protestant Reformation. It was rooted in the desire to dethrone God, and to ensure that the Protestant faith would be "undermined from within". As a result of this strategy, many of the Textual critics from the 1700s through the 1900s have been protestants. However they were very unusual Protestants, in that these Protestant Textual Critics did not sincerely believe the Bible: they consciously rejected Jesus Christ and the claims of the Bible.
Because the Bible is so critically important to the life of a Christian,
these Textual Critics began their attacks on Christianity with attacks on the
Bible. Several of the Critics that we discuss below...are examples of those who
used their academic or pastoral background to actually try and harm
Christianity.
The Fact is that Textual Criticism was an attempt by scholars to use their
ability to argue intellectually that the Bible could not be true, and
could not be the True Word of God. This was their thrust. It was - and remains
today - their goal to demonstrate the Bible to be a book that could not and
cannot be
counted on, and they failed miserably. But not before they did a lot of damage,
by misleading the innocent.
Textual Critics pretend both that they are the friends of Christians, the friends of laymen, and the friends of the Bible. But they are nothing of the kind. They are like the false friends who misled Pilgrim, in the great Christian classic "Pilgrim's Progress" by John Bunyan.
They can accomplish far more by pretending to be the friend of Christianity rather than by openly stating that they are its enemy. So they often take a dual approach: they are friendly in their personal interactions, but they are very critical of Christianity, the Bible and Jesus Christ...in the books and articles that they write.
It was Textual Critics who formulated the theory that the Jews could not have
written the Pentateuch because "writing" had not been around in that
part of the world. Then they started finding writing in that part of the world,
and inscriptions written in Hebrew. But they were proven wrong.
It was Textual Critics who formulated the theory that the Bible was not to be
trusted because the Hittite Empire had been alleged to exist in the Bible, but
it supposedly had not existed because there was no proof. Then, Oxford Professor
A.H. Sayce and others released the results of excavations in the Near East
demonstrating that the Hittite Empire DID exist. But they were proven wrong.
It was Textual Critics who formulated the theory that the Bible could not be
trusted because Elohim and Jehovah/Yaweh were actually two totally separate Gods
that the Bible had mistaken and somehow confounded by getting sources confused.
They alleged therefore that Moses could Not have written the Pentateuch. [This
is the position of Hebrew "scholar" & Bible attacker Rudolph Kittel]. But they were
proven wrong. Others came along to demonstrate that the Bible and its method of
transmission was eminently trustworthy.
Textual Critics are to theology what evolutionists are to science. They claim to
have evidence (which supports their attack on the Bible). But they are
constantly proven to be wrong, so they simply keep changing tactics and hope
that others will not notice.
As Textual Critics understood that they would have more trouble attacking the
Bible on a historical basis and archeological basis, they started attacking the
Text itself - and replacing it with their texts...that they asserted were
superior. In so doing, they were departing from the reformation, from the Bibles
used by the Waldensians, and from the Greek Manuscripts that authenticate the
old and historic Textus Receptus.
Westcott and Hort were
not in opposition to Textual Criticism.
On the Contrary ! They were rather Textual Critics
themselves, and represented the height of the movement of Textual
Criticism. Their work was designed to intentionally change the Bible
and the Theology of the Christian Church.
The Goal of a Textual Critic is for their criticism of the Bible to serve as a permanent stumbling block to you in your life and spiritual walk.
They do not need to convince you that the Bible is Totally wrong. That task would be far too difficult - even for them. Their goal is to lead you ...into doubt, and then to use those doubts to undermine your faith.
Most Textual Critics - off the record - know that they will not be able to mislead you entirely. Their goal starts with more modesty: to convince you that a piece of the Bible, or a certain Book of the Bible - cannot be relied on. Doubt is the main tool they count on. And they also count on our not being able to find out how many errors they have made in the past.
They have an effective strategy: it is to continue to teach the same old mistakes that have been previously shown to be false. Now of course, that may initially seem a bit odd. But think about it; the new students coming into universities and seminaries do not know that those mistakes have been refuted or addressed or effectively met before. They were not there, when those mistakes and false statements were refuted a hundred years ago. In this manner, Textual Critics continue to use many of the same and tired arguments that they have used before.
The solution to that strategy ? Dust off the old books, and find out how those Textual Critics were refuted. Too many people today are under the false impression that Textual Critics have made progress through the decades. What is actually true is the exact opposite: The More time passes by, and the more discoveries are made and tests are applied to the Bible, the More the Bible demonstrates itself to be unsurpassed in historical and archeological accuracy.
But the Textual Critics of today - (and this movement still exists today) - cannot help themselves. In their articles and books, they cannot help but praise those Bible Attackers who came before them, for whom they have an almost holy reverence. They know their time is short. To learn how to defend our faith is the answer. We begin by studying a small amount of information on the first Textual Critics, their approaches and their arguments.
Learning how to refute them is never a waste of time, because we know that we will confront their same arguements today, either in a classroom or a seminary or in a church. Many pastors today have been misled by the Textual Critics. A good joke that we laugh at - is the contention that Westcott and Hort were refuting Textual Critics.
The fact is that Westcott & Hort WERE the Textual Critics. This is kind of like the wolves insisting that they are really sheep. Some pastors just accept those folktales, wanting to be thought-of as modern or "sophisticated". Those who do accept the work of the Textual Critics - are not "modern" but rather only "deceived". We need to get our eyes back on Jesus Christ, and worry far less about the opinions of men. The solution is to come out from among the Textual Critics, denounce their works, and begin to diligently apply ourselves to being able to present a ready defense and a reason for the hope that lies within us.
Textual Criticism in the USA
Textual Criticism in America these days takes a litterary deconstructionist approach and attempts to apply this to different Bible versions. Usually, the more the text in the specific Bible version is clearly defined, the more problems that Textual Criticism finds within that version. But if a Bible version is imprecise or unclear, then Textual Criticism usually claims that the unclear version is to be prefered over the clear one.
Textual Criticism in the USA is often approached from the perspective of radical feminism, which begins its opening premise with the assertion that the Bible must be bad because it is patriarchal. The fact that what is truly morally problematic is the abuse of patriarchy (referred to commonly as a "Sin nature") is not something that Feminists like to talk about.
Textual Criticism in the USA has a specific application within conservative Protestant groups and denominations. The goal of Textual Criticism in those denominations and seminaries is to convince them specifically - that two Textual Critics from England were the best gifts to man given by God himself.
Textual Criticism must concern itself with the vindication of its own expertise: which is attacking and undermining the Bible. Since two professors from England were the best at this work, they are the ones who usually are accorded great respect and worship by Textual Critics.
In other words, the goal of Textual Criticism - even at most Conservative Seminaries - is to convince students that Westcott and Hort, were the best, brightest, most accurate, wisest, the greatest etc.
Usually the field of Textual Criticism serves as the resting place for those who worship the myths of Westcott and Hort.
Textual Criticism in Europe & America compared
Textual Criticism in Europe usually begins a different way, by the systematic study of many of the original Textual Critics who wrote in German. Their works are very long and comprehensive, and they often lead the unsuspecting very far astray, and away from the Bible as a book which is inspired and which is deserving of trust. The main focus in Textual Criticism is in the study of all of the false assertions made by textual critics in the past.
Often the history of Textual Criticism is overlooked in America, where more emphasis is placed on various methods to market the Church as a consumable capitalist commodity, and how to encourage pastors to constantly focus on the short-term goals of a church - through a focus on the increase in church attendance (mistakenly called "church growth").
A true method of church growth is to assist and motivate churchgoers to have a very strong internal spiritual life, but this is usually not taught very much in Seminary courses, though laymen mistakenly think it is.
The rest of the time in American seminaries is spent becoming barely knowlegeable in Greek and Hebrew, but especially learning how to do this - from False manuscripts of the Greek and Hebrew texts.
Most pastors simply use those Greek texts for the rest of their lives. They never even stop to question 1) how those texts were recommended to them 2) what the basis was for the selection of that Greek Text and 3) if a better or more historical Greek Text would have been a possibility.
At this site (and a few others out there), we focus on Textual Criticism and its history both in the USA and Europe. We are aware that a great deal of European Higher Criticism is often imported into the United States. We also want those who want to know truth, to learn and understand what Textual Criticism really is, so that they can know how to defend against it.
Most of the Textual Critics in the USA have found refuge in Seminaries. It is from there that they continue to insist to us that Westcott and Hort "must" be good - because they were the best "Experts". It is noteworthy that the topic of conversation defines a "good" textual Critics as one who is an "expert", instead of a person who is "Godly".
Westcott & Hort were "experts", but almost no one would characterize them as "Godly". And their specific expertise - in fact - was in how to undermine the Bible in many different ways. That is not the kind of Expertise that should make us give those men any kind of credit nor praise.
But if there is one major change in Textual Criticism in Europe, it is that it has made room to acomodate the teachings and text of Westcott & Hort. This is because the UBS (United Bible Societies) published the Nestle-Aland text, and in turn - IT relies heavily on the Westcott & Hort Greek [invented] text.
The second reason is that English is the de facto universal language around the world, and Europeans cannot afford to ignore English-language areas of study, or "inquiry", even if they sometimes wish they could.
The professors who teach Higher Criticism in Europe have always been scarred of American learning, because they knew that it was one of the few places in the West that they would not be able to entirely control, and that movements could arise that would challenge their authority and the basis upon which Textual Critics were trying to convince their students to decide to remain eternally lost, instead of placing their personal faith in Jesus Christ, and His successful claims and accomplishments through His Real death on the cross and resurrection three days later.
Anyone wanting to know more about Textual Criticism or Higher Criticism - will find our information indispensable. Anyone who is in Seminary or who wants to attend would find this information to be usefull in learning facts in order to prevent their own deception.
Textual Critics do not like to tell students exactly who are the Textual Critics who came before today. Usually, professors who are textual critics simply assign work and books to be read that attack the Bible, without discussing the bias and the points of view of the authors that they are recommending - prior to that. This is done in order to be sure that the student starts receiving the propaganda before he understands its source.
If students instead had to go and find out about the lives and claims of the "giants" of Textual Criticism before studying their works, the students would have the chance to learn for themselves that most of these Giants in this area, do not deserve the reputations and status that they have claimed for themselves.
We welcome your stories about seminaries and the various experiences you have shared with us, while having to learn from Textual Critics. We hope that those who stop by here...will continue to share their stories...about the methods used - to harm the Gospel of Christ and Christianity.
Textual Criticism and Bible Versions
Textual Criticism begins with 2 unspoken rules in all languages:
1. The work of Westcott & Hort is always to be praised, honored, and venerated.
2. The Protestant Reformation and any of its accomplishments or leaders are always to be denigrated.
In English, the version of the Bible that is the oldest and the one that has the closes ties to the work of the Reformation is the King James Bible. Its closest equivalent in German is the Bible of Martin Luther. Both come from the same sources and use the same family of manuscripts. For this reason, much of our time here is invested in explaining the differences between the King James Version and the Modern Versions of the Bible available in the English languages. Those who have questions about versions from other countries or other languages should email us.
----------------
What would be an example of a modern day Textual Critic or Bible Attacker ?
You can find that at: Heresy in the Cathedral: Bishop Chane's Christmas Message
at
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/?adate=12/31/2003#1238434
The
Center for "Progressive Christianity"- a Closer Look
----------------
Textual Criticism & The Clergy Leadership Network:
The
New Religious Left
?
----------------
(The Above Link now Active)
About Textual Criticism
A question for us:
"I'm puzzled as to why the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex
Sinaiticus would be used as the basis for the modern translations if they're the
least reliable. Wouldn't that go against the purpose of having revised
translations in the first place?"
------
Our Reply:
Doesn't this question pre-suppose that the purpose of the revision would be to
clarify the text, rather than to cloud the text or change it ?
What if someone were trying to actually Change the text of the Bible, and then sell others on the
changes made as though they were "corrections" ???
Just to rule that out, would it not be wise to do more research into the lives
and beliefs of those who actually did the translations upon which all of our
modern bibles rely on ?
If all of this sounds impossible, it won't once you investigate the lives of the
translators.
In order to understand translations, you have to know the background of the
purpose of the Revisions. They were done because these Textual Critics determined
- a priori - that the KJV and the Textus Receptus HAD to be a false text. In
other words, they began by rejecting the Bible that had been used by Christians
for 2000 years. Then, they began to try to find other texts to justify their
research.
The Idea of Textual Critics (actually Bible Attackers) trying to change the Bible is not a new proposition. Most of them have openly proposed to do this. The reason is that it was their conclusion that Christianity had to be corrupt, and the Bible had to be innacurate - because those same Textual Critics did not want to accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ nor His Message of salvation by Faith Alone (plus Nothing) through Him. As a result of rejecting Jesus Christ, Textual Critics began to try to find ways to alter the Bible in order to undermine it and Jesus Christ.
Look into the lives of those who started the field of Textual Criticism, and see
what they believed about Jesus, and about the Bible, and about Christianity.
Names of some of more prominent Textual Critics:
- Bengel
- Semler
- Wettstein
- Griesbach
- DeWette
- Lachman
- Tischendorf
- Westcott
- Hort
Most of these men hated God, never made a profession of faith, and spent their
entire lives in the pursuit of religion, but rejecting God, the Bible and the
personal message of salvation by Faith alone through Christ Jesus (and for the
record, they were protestants officially, but subverters actually).
Below are links to short biographies of some of the
Textual Critics who founded the movement known as Textual Criticism:
Men who loved God and His Word
or
Men who despised God, Rejected Jesus Christ, and gave us false texts....
Which side of the equation would YOU rather be on?"
Purchase one of the books we offer and support this ministry !
Daniel Wallace CAUGHT !
A Textual Critic - who is a fan of the Nestle-Aland Greek Invention - attempts to suggest that there is a significant Rift between the Conclusions reached by
1. John William Burgon and 2. F.H.A. Scrivener.
This is a tactic often used by those who want to separate those who are in favor of the Textus Receptus from those who are in favor of the historical Majority Text [which is not the same as the Majority Text of Hodges & Farstad]
However, in This Article, the author exposes the work of the Textual Critic, the fallacies in his reasoning, the distortions of his methods, and the lack of accuracy in many of his statements:
The Article is:
Crossing Boundaries in New Testament Textual Criticism: Historical Revisionism and the Case of Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener
The author is Maurice A. Robinson. The Textual Critic (Pro-Nestle/Aland) being exposed is Daniel Wallace. Read this excellent article at:
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol07/Robinson2002.html
(yes - we know that some are having trouble accessing this link - we continue to work on this)
Why We Disagree with Seventh Day Adventists
The Lighter Side:
Please
Note: We do try to be accurate. If you see anything which you believe
Is not
correct on our website, please do bring it to our attention.
Thank you
(XOFC Staff)
we can be reached at: xofcbooks2@yahoo.com