# Critical Text Onlyism



## Robert Truelove (Oct 4, 2015)

No folks...I'm not making this stuff up. ;-)

http://www.theauthorizedversion.com/critical-text-onlyism/


----------



## Logan (Oct 5, 2015)

While the guy was certainly over-the-top, I see where he's coming from and wouldn't exactly call it "critical-text onlyism". You saying that you believe the Ecclesiastical Text is complete assumes your text is accurate and by implication that others are using an inferior text. Which isn't necessarily untrue, but it riles people up. It's more of a reaction to what you implied than an outright position. 

The same reaction would be evoked on the other side if one said "I recommend the NASB or ESV because it actually contains just God's word and doesn't add all those spurious, illegitimate passages."


----------



## Robert Truelove (Oct 5, 2015)

Logan said:


> While the guy was certainly over-the-top, I see where he's coming from and wouldn't exactly call it "critical-text onlyism". You saying that you believe the Ecclesiastical Text is complete assumes your text is accurate and by implication that others are using an inferior text. Which isn't necessarily untrue, but it riles people up. It's more of a reaction to what you implied than an outright position.
> 
> The same reaction would be evoked on the other side if one said "I recommend the NASB or ESV because it actually contains just God's word and doesn't add all those spurious, illegitimate passages."



By "Critical Text Onlyism" I am speaking more of the offensive behavior that some people on that side of the textual divide fall into. It is much like the behavior we find in some KJVO type. That's my point.

If you said to me, "I recommend the NASB or ESV because it actually contains just God's word and doesn't add all those spurious, illegitimate passages", I'd simply disagree with you...not question your integrity and say you should know better. See the difference?


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Oct 5, 2015)

I personally havent come yet to the Ecclesiastical Text position. But I sure appreciate the way Robert Truelove handles it!


----------



## greenbaggins (Oct 5, 2015)

Honestly, the differences between the Majority Text and/or TR, on the one hand, and the Critical Text on the other hand, are not worth fighting about, since no doctrinal formulation hangs on any of those differences. Should we be concerned to seek to achieve the best possible stance on textual criticism? Absolutely. God's Word should be handled with the greatest care. And good folks will differ in their opinion, depending on which criteria they use. 

Since we do not have the autograph manuscripts, I do not believe that any one manuscript exists that corresponds precisely with the autograph, which means that each textual issue must be dealt with on its own merits. There are places where I disagree with the CT (they often tend to weight subjective, internal evidence a bit too heavily). There are places where I disagree with the TR (which often doesn't adequately take geographical distribution of manuscripts into account). Nothing justifies the over-the-top rhetoric of Robert's interlocutor. A respect for the church would make him recognize that both the TR and the CT have honorable places in the church.


----------



## DMcFadden (Oct 5, 2015)

As always . . . Lane, you are one smart and sage pastor-scholar!


----------



## Robert Truelove (Oct 5, 2015)

greenbaggins said:


> Honestly, the differences between the Majority Text and/or TR, on the one hand, and the Critical Text on the other hand, are not worth fighting about, since no doctrinal formulation hangs on any of those differences. Should we be concerned to seek to achieve the best possible stance on textual criticism? Absolutely. God's Word should be handled with the greatest care. And good folks will differ in their opinion, depending on which criteria they use.
> 
> Since we do not have the autograph manuscripts, I do not believe that any one manuscript exists that corresponds precisely with the autograph, which means that each textual issue must be dealt with on its own merits. There are places where I disagree with the CT (they often tend to weight subjective, internal evidence a bit too heavily). There are places where I disagree with the TR (which often doesn't adequately take geographical distribution of manuscripts into account). Nothing justifies the over-the-top rhetoric of Robert's interlocutor. A respect for the church would make him recognize that both the TR and the CT have honorable places in the church.



As a Traditional Text advocate...I agree 100%!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 5, 2015)

Logan said:


> While the guy was certainly over-the-top, I see where he's coming from and wouldn't exactly call it "critical-text onlyism". You saying that you believe the Ecclesiastical Text is complete assumes your text is accurate and by implication that others are using an inferior text. Which isn't necessarily untrue, but it riles people up. It's more of a reaction to what you implied than an outright position.



I agree. The person doesn't seem to even understand the issues well enough to be branded in this fashion.

I actually find the blog post to be a little bit smug. Yes, the fellow is over the top but, like Lane, he's asking about one thing and it takes him for a loop when it appears to him that someone is saying his Bible can't be trusted as complete. He probably ought to be better informed but it is what it is. I'm not sure he can articulate how textual criticism even works to be able to say: "I trust the critical text and it only as a textual platform from which translators ought to be making english translations of the Bible and I therefore trust the translation I have."

I think the man handled the situation poorly but posting this on your blog (with names inserted) ensures that the world gets to see the name of ther person who embarrassed himself and I think it is very uncharitable to leave his name. Even though someone behaves like a knucklehead (the Lord knows I often do) doesn't mean that we don't still have to represent them accurately and I would not call him "CT-only" and I also wouldn't go out of my way to be sending James White a transcript of it. It just seems petty to me. It strikes me as "one-string-banjo-ism" to get into a discussion like that and then shoot a note to a party un-involved in the misunderstanding. If you want to evoke a rolling of the eyes by James then you probably succeeded in that goal.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Oct 5, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Logan said:
> 
> 
> > While the guy was certainly over-the-top, I see where he's coming from and wouldn't exactly call it "critical-text onlyism". You saying that you believe the Ecclesiastical Text is complete assumes your text is accurate and by implication that others are using an inferior text. Which isn't necessarily untrue, but it riles people up. It's more of a reaction to what you implied than an outright position.
> ...



If it were a private conversation, I'd not put it on the web but this was a public conversation on Facebook.

I've been bringing up this sort of attitude for some time with people (and yes, the vast majority of the times they are James White fans as they inevitably cite him). I hear time and again how it is the KJVOers who are divisive and cause problems in churches while people don't want to admit that there are people on the other side of the issue that are just as bad. Furthermore, as a pastor I've noticed that this is a growing problem.

The page I put up is going to be a collection of this sort of divisive behavior that I can send people to when they question that such things are really happening. This has been done time and again by others to demonstrate ignorant, mean spirited KJVOism. I fail to see how it becomes uncharitable when the same thing is done to those who oppose the Traditional Text in the same manner (especially when the conversations are already public).


----------



## MW (Oct 5, 2015)

Is the Bible "the Word of God?" If so, it is an exclusive concept. This means every one who embraces the word of God is functioning with some kind of "onlyism." It may be, for charitable reasons, that this exclusivity is not brought to the fore in discussion with others. It may be that it is presented in a subtle way due to the bad associations with which it has been connected. Nonetheless, it is there; and a candid treatment of the issues will not take place without an open acknowledgement that the Word of God itself is an exclusive concept.


----------

