Students of the Textual Critics...try
refuting textual criticism
To XOFC:
I just finished reading another of your articles, this time on textual criticism. It is becoming apparent to me that whoever is writing your material is extremely misinformed.
How can you have an article on "textual criticism" when you appraently do not know what the term means? There is nothing inherently evil about textual criticism.
- How do you know this ? Can you objectively and empirically demonstrate and prove this ?
Burgon and Scrivener were textual critics, as were Westcott and Hort. Erasmus and Beza were textual critics.
- That is because Burgon and Scrivener were TRUE textual critics. They should not be confused with the usual sense or definitions associated with the term. Westcott & Hort were not true Textual Critics, and they violated their own guidelines almost every chance they had.
How can you prove that ?
Burgon proved this in his 560 Page book where he exposed specifically Westcott & Hort, in his book "The Revision Revised" - (which we offer).
The Textus Receptus and the KJV are the direct result of "textual criticism," as is every single translation of Scripture in any language!
- You say that, because your own personal definition of Textual Criticism seem to be devoid of any specific anti-Christian or anti-God bias. But your personal presuposition that because you are not anti-God, that other Textual critics are not, is without foundation...
And if you are not anti-God, you are the rare exception among textual Critics.
If you read the original "Translators to the Readers" in the 1611 KJV you will see that the KJV translators practiced "textual criticism."
Why do you suggest to educate us...on what we are already aware of ? Not only do we know what it says...we actually have the pictures of the pages of this KJF Preface. Have you done your own research ? have you looked at our site, before presupposing OUR lack of knowledge in this area ?
you can find the KJV preface on our site at:
http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/1611_kjv_actual_preface.htm
[Actually, we do understand. It is hard to see everything there is to see when you visit a site for the first time]
You can also find our commentary on that KJV Preface, which we have already commented on ...in detail at:
http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/notes_on_kjv_preface.htm
Textual criticism merely means that the mass of manuscript evidence is examined, and decisions are made as to the correct reading based on a specific theory of the transmission of the text.
- No, that is your personal definition. You take your individual "objective" definition and then read that back into the term. Then you move forward, and assert that others must have your definition which you mistakenly believe is "objective". The historic records of what the Textual Critics wrote and said do not validate your premise.
There is good textual criticism, and terrible textual criticism, depending on the character of the one doing it, his theory and methods.
- We would say there is True Textual Criticism and False Textual Criticism.
The Field of Academic study which goes by the name "Textual Criticism" is inherently FALSE textual criticism. It is not objective, and makes no pretense of such, unless it is to Outsiders (those who are unfamiliar with the actual work of the textual critics themselves).
To portray all textual criticism as some kind of conspiracy is absurd.
- Is that you reading in...to what we said ??? Where have we (XOFC) done this ???
Perhaps you confuse peoples natural inclination to cooperate in like-minded ventures with conspiracy. But that would be your term, not ours.
What we have said, is that they (Textual Critics) worked together. Since we can find them co-authoring books, teaching at the same seminars, endorsing each others writings, the historical record supports the contention that they Worked Together which is what we have said.
Sure, there are textual critics who have bad motives, and who use textual criticism as a vehicle to foist their errors on unsuspecting Christians. But there are also good textual critics, like Burgon, who used sound textual criticism to demonstrate the reliability of the traditional text, and the tom-foolery of the Westcott-Hort theory.
- Well, your definition about the supposed "neutrality" of Textual Criticism is a nice & traditional view of the world (probably you learned this from Textual Critics themselves), but this is not real world of textual criticism.
This is kind of like trying to tell us that Evolution contains no inherent bias of its own. It is only "science"....right...
Textual criticism is not a "movement." It is a science that has been practiced by Christians since the beginning of Christianity.
- No, you are confusing what they officially tells you to believe and then thinking that this is what is truly - taking place. (in other words, you are being deceived...by their claims to authenticity & objectivity).
It is also practiced by all students of ancient non-biblical literature, in order to determine the most likely reading of any given passage where there are manuscript variant readings. For example, the writings of Plato. It has no specific agenda, except to scientifically and logically discover which variant readings are most likely to be correct, and which are either mistakes or intentional coruptions.
- That would be literary criticism, form criticism, deconstruction and semiotics. While we have no trouble discussing these, they were not the specific point of the articles that we posted.
It was practiced by the Early Church Fathers, like Justin Martyr, who compared the LXX and Hebrew Scriptures. It was practiced by Tertullian in order to expose the heretical altered NT manuscripts of the Gnostic sects. It was used by Jerome in order to translate the Latin Vulgate using the Hebrew OT rather than the Greek LXX.
- No, see and right there is the difference.
Tertullian practiced Textual Criticism to teach Truth.
Jerome practiced Textual Criticism for the purpose of translating the corrupt Codex Vaticanus into his Latin Vulgate. His goal was to replace the actual Bible in Latin, that existed PRIOR to Jerome, which was the Vetus Itala (or the Italic) Bible. [And it is this Latin Bible - the Vetus Itala - that Tertullian quotes from, and NOT the LXX].
Jerome was a Roman Catholic establishment writer hired by Popes to corrupt the Bible and keep the new Bibles in conformity with Aberrant Roman Catholic Teachings. Jerome did Not practice true Textual Criticism. But he did practice the same kind of bad Textual Criticism that has been practiced since the 1800s (actually begun just after the Reformation).
[[And coincidentally, we are about to release the book written by Tertullian which is called Tertullian Against Marcion: The Five Books of Tertullianus against Marcion; Translated by Peter Holmes 1868 478 Pages & Index][We will release this work this month in January][Note: this has been released and is available]. It is the most thorough and comprehensive translation of this work that exists...and it also has many footnotes of explanations. ]]
====
And Textual Criticism is practiced by KJVOnly advocates in order to verify KJV readings, frequently by comparing ECF quotations of Scripture.
- Truth Seeking KJVOs hopefully would practice true Textual Criticism. The methods, sources, objectives, and principles would be entirely different than what Textual Critics practice today.
To say that "textual criticism" is evil is no different than saying that "translating the Scriptures" is evil. Both of these are neutral.
You do not know this. You do not know this for a fact. You think you know it, because you have believed those who have misled you. You want it to be true because the authenticity of the entire academic field of Textual Criticism of the Bible is at stake, and you are smart enough to know that if the problems are as big as we suggest that they are, that this would mean that the entire profession of Textual Critics (by which we mean 95% of them) is based on falsehoods, lies, false data, innacurate information, omissions and tampering...that can only lead to the conclusion that the Results of this Fraudulent Textual Criticism is Not based on the study of the Bible in any true sense, but rather on the premise of Subverting it.
No, You are wrong !
Well, that was convincing. If we are wrong, then simply write a refutation of Lichtenberger, or show us how Semler, Wettstein, Baur and the other Textual Critics were not unbelievers, and were not enemies of Christianity or opponents of the Reformation. Further show us how almost any of the Textual Critics believed in the Claims of Jesus Christ and accepted Him as their saviour.
It appears that You must not have not studied Textual Criticism much, and you must not be truly familiar with those who ran the movement. We say that because if the top 300 Textual Critics each one of them, said that they were in opposition either to
1) the Bible
2) the Reformation or
3) the Deity of Jesus Christ,
To suggest that those Textual Critics should be treated "objectively" is itself inherently dishonest. (because by their own writings and statements, they are not objective nor honest)
That is why in our New Books Section under Textual Criticism we publish the English Translation of the book "Ravenous Wolves: History of German Theology and Textual Criticism in the 19th Century", so that those who write to us will have a chance to read actually about Textual Critics, and find out what they actually did, and have a place to start in researching their work, their lives, their dissertations, their books, their careers, and the output of their work.
Only after this has been done, could one propose to comment on the issues that you have brought up.
IF you do not know who these men are, and if you do not study their material for yourself, then how can you objectively disagree with us ?
You Just say that because your book "ravenous wolves..." contains its own biased material on the Textual Critics that is against them. What would that prove ?
It would prove that you have not done your research. The book "Ravenous Wolves: History of German Theology and Textual Criticism in the 19th Century" was published by Lichtenberger originally in German in the 1800s. It was a celebration of the accomplishments of the top Textual Critics (dozens of them). In there, you can find out the names, their biographies, which books they wrote, where they taught, who they co-wrote with, who their mentors were, and in many cases what their tactics and bias was. You can also see - since the book states it - which Textual Critics mentored the next generation of Textual Critics - and helped them obtain jobs in Universities and take control of the Philosophy and Religion departments of almost all of the Universities in Europe, and most of them in the United States.
If we are wrong, then all you have to do is refute Lichtenberger's work. We make easy for you by offering it for sale. Its a sad fact that we have to offer books like this for sale. We have to do this, because otherwise, there is no basis to compare 1) what is said about the Textual Critics with 2) what the textual critics said for themselves. We don't have to work hard...concerning the Textual Critics. Their own words in the hundreds of books they wrote and left behind, do a much better job than we could.
Modern professors who are Textual Critics today really don't want any of this material to come out - even when it favors their anti-God agenda, because they are afraid of being caught and found out. Can you imagine the problems that this can create as Church members and average people actually find out how their seminaries and Christian colleges are trying to convince future Pastors and Leaders AGAINST the reliability of the Bible and the Manuscripts - even though they know that this is NOT True ??
As the books of the Textual Critics are republished, and becomes more and more available to the public at large, it is rather easy to see (by reading the material) that what we have shared with you...is true and accurate.
We not only inform people about what the Textual Critics were doing, we publish some of their works and books that proves it. But in order to understand this, you have to be willing to give up the propaganda that you have been fed...and actually start doing some independent studies of your own.
If we are wrong and you can prove this, then do you have research & documentation to back up what you state or infer ?
IF you do, then we are happy to be more detailed in our discussion. If you do not, then maybe we have provided a few starting points...
[You can find this book (Ravenous Wolves/Lichtenberger) on our site at:
http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/Textual%20Crit%20Bks.htm ]
It is the motives and qualifications of the one doing either textual criticism or translation that is important, and will reflect on the quality of their work.
- It is exactly their motives and their qualifications that We are talking about. That is what we are trying to get you to investigate and find out about - for yourself, and not be lazy or scared and take the mistaken word of the professors who are misleading you.
And if you do not know this about each and every of the top leaders in Textual Criticism as the result of your personal studies and what you have seen and read for yourself with your own eyes, then how can you affirm to us that we are wrong ?
If you claim that your own standards are objective, then doesn't this mean that you have Evidence OUTSIDE of your personal opinion ? So, where is it ? Maybe your evidence isn't so "objective" after all.
Textual criticism does NOT mean that one criticises the Bible. The term merely means that one carefully examines the manuscript evidence, and distinguishes the true readings from the corrupt readings using sound reasoning and logical arguments.
You are talking about what it SHOULD mean. We are talking about what it ACTUALLY means, as determined by how it is practiced by the Leaders in this Academic area of study - and how it is used to work against the Bible and Historic Christianity.
Always glad to receive feedback, we look forward to hearing from you when you are able & willing to do more research.
In Christ,
XOFC
Reasons NOT to do Personal Research
Books
/ Ebooks / Bookfiles Also available in PDF
Format
For Questions or Comments, Contact us at xofcbooks@yahoo.com