Chapter by Chapter Review of "Why I Preach from the Received Text"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert McCurley's Chapter

Overblown rhetoric characterizes this chapter as well. Saying “Likewise, the believer does not depend upon unbelieving methodology, nor may he employ the world's depraved assumptions in grappling with textual questions” (p. 145). It's obviously a bad thing modern confessionally Reformed text critics of any non-TR position employ the “world's depraved assumptions” in doing their work. I question this statement's charity, truthfulness, and even sanity. He also seems to think that any deviation from the TR constitutes “purposeful alteration of the text of Scripture” (p. 147). He uses the poisoned well fallacy of “a region rife with Arian heresy.” It doesn't seem to occur to him that Alexandria is actually the place where Athanasius opposed the Arian heresy. He was bishop of Alexandria! It was everywhere else where the Arian heresy was making inroads, including the entire Byzantine empire! So he gets this history 100% wrong. The presence or absence of the Arian heresy is neither here nor there with regard to the copying of manuscripts. This was one of the very worst essays in the book, full of lies and twisting of Scripture.
Lane, I would hope there is more to this than that? I do not see your reasoning as having been fully thought out. If you don't think the Arian heresy had any influence in Egypt as to manuscript evidence I would hope you had a better defense than this assumption. Just my humble opinion I will need more evidence as the two families are geographical. That doesn't mean you are wrong. I just think this sounds weak as a defense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top