I don’t think so. Because of the great influence their manuscript, still has on modern Bibles.
Well I just don't think you've done the due diligence to understand W&H's positions and their contributions to textual criticism.
I did notice you have not responded, several times now, to the more germane issues I have raised in response to your questions. Particularly here I am thinking of the misunderstanding of textual criticism and higher criticism you had earlier. This isn't a criticism (no pun intended) but I do wonder where you are at with the more significant issues related to this post.
One of the unfortunate traits you are exhibiting (I humbly submit) is that of the artful dodger...you keep coming back to the character and intent of W&H when several of us have asked you to move on past them. They are not the main issue when it comes to the matters being discussed.
stilllearning said:
Boy am I glad, that you don’t use them: And from what I have learned, almost ANYTHING is better.
Perhaps you could provide us with a list of more credible textual sources since the work of W&H. I know I am interested to see the depth of your research into this area.
A couple of things I would enjoy to see you answer, if you have the time, specifically are the following:
1. What is your assessment of Tischendorf's success in creating textual critical solutions to support modern research?
2. How do you think Von Soden's textual theory differs from W&H in influencing modern textual research? Particularly the variation of the K-text from the Syrian text of W&H?
3. In Metzger's influential work, how do you reconcile the significant differences between the TR and more historic reconstructions, say the Nestle-Aland version? I'm also thinking of a response along the lines of how the textual variants in both play into the equation?
4. Most importantly, with the discovery of Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls) there has been a watershed moment for textual history, how do you see the comparisons with the TR and make up for the deficiencies in the readings?
This might help me better understand your position and give a better answer. I think we're missing a couple parts of the conversation here.
stilllearning said:
First, I wasn’t looking for “credibility”: I don’t care what people think. I am only interested in the truth.
(And the truth about W&H, is crystal clear.)
Well you have called into question the salvation of two men who you do not know. This is a slanderous accusation against gentlemen, who as far as I can tell, were humble servants of the the most High God.
In doing so you noted a comment from J.W. Burgon, a man who tirelessly refuted any manuscript other than the TR. The severity of his criticisms against W&H ended up becoming so personal that nobody wanted anything to do with by the end of the his career. Additionally, as Greenlee has noted in his text
Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, Burgon's criticisms ended with his death and no one else has been able to respond to the refutations of his points with any amount of academic vigor.
In mentioning Burgon I think it is important to note that your questions, and some of your points of critique are similar to his. Here are some ways that scholars in his day replied to three of his critical points of modern textual criticism:
1.
The traditional text served the Church well for 1500 years, why would God allow a corrupt text to influence the Church?
The suggestion of textual critical studies isn't to discredit the text. There is not reason to believe the traditional text is either heretical or corrupt. The point of textual criticism (as W&H, and others, developed) helps us see a more clear picture of the original text. We have a faithful text, yes, but we desire a clear text.
2.
Later witnesses must be better than earlier witnesses of the text.
We have seen in secular ancient literature, which is replete with extant documents, that later texts have had considerably more alteration and must be compared to the more contemporary text of the extant documents for a more faithful witness.
3.
The more traditional has not been refuted and, because it is older, must be intrinsically better.
This is probably a more subjective assessment of the text. Extensive comparison of text-types has left most scholars convinced that the late text is general inferior, not superior to the text.
stilllearning said:
And I have found that the only people who don’t like Jack Chick, are those who don’t agree with him.
If you can back up your charge....“Chick is completely unreliable” I would like to see it.
Well Jack Chick is a terrible example of an apologist who attempts to make his points through chastisement and mischaracterizations of individuals (which stands in opposition to how the NT teaches we are respond.) I don't feel comfortable refuting him in this space, but will be happy to engage in a convo in another thread. Pursuing Chick in further here is a red herring imho. It has been a long time since I wrote or did thorough research to refute his views so I will simply leave you with a decent link (I'd post others but can't vouch for them):
http://skatoolaki.com/tricktracts/index.html
btw, thanks for the link to W&H site. I appreciated it very much! :thumbs:
I look forward to your thorough reply.
