Final Thoughts On Textual Criticism

On my last post I was on my review of the book titled" Unholy Hands On The Bible " by Dean John Burgon. He asked the modern Textual Critics seven very good questions, which I would like to give here. Mr. Burgon asks ,"May we suggest a few questions for these self-deemed experts---to which we append a remark or two:    (1.) Why do you praise Cod.B as the 'best' and 'most reliable manuscript when you know that it has grammatical,geographic and physical impossibilities embedded in it----readings which you yourself will not allow in the Text? And why then will you compare it with a manuscript which has none on these , which does not cause the scriptures to contradict themselves, and still call the carelessly---created Cod.B the best of the two? (2) If God could providentially guard the canon of scripture,so that only those books which He inspired were chosen,and if He determined beforehand how many hairs would be on your head,why is it thought incredible to you that God has devoted children to constantly watch over His God-Breathed words? The scriptures say that Satan blinds the minds of his servants (2 Cor.4:4), and causes them to do his will. Yet you say that God cannot be thought to have been able to enlighten the minds His servants so as to cause them to do His will in sorting out the corrupt manuscripts, and duplicating the authentic ones. Is there not a crisis of belief apparent in such a contradictory stand? (3) How could B.B. Warfield, and others since, regard Westcott and Hort as providentially chosen instruments to restore the Text of Scripture, when it is known that those two men were obviously not chosen to eternal life (no worshiper of Mary can be admitted into Heaven; but only the worshipers of Christ! --- not to mention their denial of His substitutionary  and intercessory offices.)   (4) How can you divorce yourself from Westcott and Hort, the men, and yet follow slavishly their theories as Critics? Do not fruits come from roots? Consider the source, then question the affirmations of these two men.  (5) How can you feel justified in presenting two or three possible readings in a single verse, claiming that each could be counted as scripture? Do you not see that in putting in brackets some words,and putting in the margins some heretical concoctions,detract from the proper attitude toward the Scriptures? Do you not care that Critics are using the Scriptures like a nose of wax, twisting it this way and tha t so to suit their current fancies?  (6) Mr. Critic,how do you explain the fact that the Received Text found its way into every corner of Christiandom, was copied there and authenticated by persons who had no contact with any others --- while your so---called 'Neutral Text' is found virtually nowhere but in Egypt and Caesarea? (7)  Instead of laughing at Burgon, or applying disparaging epithets to his efforts, will you be the first of all Critics to take up Burgon's studies and answer them one by one in order to establish the credibility of your position?   Now you have all seven of Mr. Burgon's questions. Will any anyone take the challenge before them and check to see if what the Dean said is right or wrong. this means getting a copy of his book and hunt down all the Manuscripts and the Patristic Evidence and the Liturgical Manuscripts. Someone who is willing to spend much time and money is the research needed and man hours to see if the Dean is correct. Again you'll find a copy of this book at wwwljesusloveyouchristianbooks.com or www.sgpbooks.com.

Unholy Hands On The Bible

I recently purchased the book titled Unholy Hands on the Bible : an Introduction to Textual Criticism. It really made me to start thinking about what true Textual Criticism really is and what it is not. This only concerns the Bible. For one thing it is not based on opinions from a few Greek MSS or a few early church Fathers, as the modern scholars are in the habit of doing, as well as follow ungodly scholars like Westcott and Hort, Griesbach,Lachmann,Tregelles,Tischendorf , with out actually checking out all of their reasons and claims the Traditional Text is corrupt,so we needed a new Greek text based on the texts they found. Here let a quote from a real scholar explain it. "Dean Burgon asks this question of those who would scoff at God's providential of preservation of the Text:"Is it indeed credible that Almighty Wisdom - which is observed to have made such abundant provision for the safety of the humblest forms or animal life,for the preservation of common seeds,often seeds of noxious plants - should yet have omitted to make provision for the life-giving seed of HIS own Everlasting Word? But what say our Textual Critics, and their dupes the translators,in the resent day? They say that thousands of words (most modern translations have up to 10,000 fewer words in their 'New Testaments') have been buried for from 1,000 to 1,800 years in Egyptian sands,in a convent wastebasket,and in the pope's library. " Now true Textual Criticism is taking and checking as many MSS. as possible and compare them with one another, and with the early writings of the church Fathers which wrote many commentaries on scriptures. And last but not lest is an examination of the Lectionaries. Then and only then do you have true Textual Criticism. Here is a question to ask yourself, "DOES GOD'S PROVIDENCE DEPEND ON TEXTUAL CRITICS?" This was the question Johm Burgon asked in his time which is still relevant today. This is all I'll say today. But will continue with this later. If you would like to purchase this book for your school or seminary, then go to www.jesuslovesyouchristianbooks.com or www.sgpbooks.com