Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] conspiracy theory always bad history

Expand Messages
  • Keith Dotzler
    Mr. Letis says: I am here, however, to dispute the historiography of conspiracy theory advocated on this list for several days now regarding Fenton John
    Message 1 of 4 , Sep 30, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Mr. Letis says:
       
      I am here, however, to dispute the historiography of conspiracy theory advocated on this list for several days now regarding Fenton John Anthony Hort and the Revised Version revision committee of I88I.
       
      Can you tell me specifically what you are disputing, regarding my posts of the last few days?  Once you give me specific points of contention (please cite my own words, so there is no doubt as to what I really said), I will then attempt to respond.  
       
      Keith 
       
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 5:11 PM
      Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] conspiracy theory always bad history

      Friends,

      After much time-consuming effort I have succeeded in joining your good group.

      Allow me to introduce myself. I am a member of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod. But I have not joined your group to debate either the regulative principle, nor post-millennialism, neither of which is held to within historic Lutheran orthodoxy.

      I am here, however, to dispute the historiography of conspiracy theory advocated on this list for several days now regarding Fenton John Anthony Hort and the Revised Version revision committee of I88I.

      I might add that I have a great deal of respect for the Covenanter tradition, I count my friend Rev. Sinclair Horne of the Scottish Reformation Society (whom I know from my days as a student at the University of Edinburgh), as one of the most honorable men I have ever met. Moreover, I also count Parnell McCarter, another good Covenanter, as a friend (see his comments about me here):

      http://www.puritans.net/news/bibletext082604.htm

      My mentor was the late Edward F. Hills, the most distinguished and celebrated N.T. text critic ever to emerge from confessional, orthodox, Reformed ranks, in all of the 20th century. I wrote my master’s thesis on his life and work at the very liberal, Emory University, here in Atlanta (go here to read the foreword to this):

      http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/Forewor11.html

      I was a founding committee member of the so-called “Dean Burgon Society.”

      I helped David Otis Fuller establish what today is called “The Institute for Biblical Textual Studies.” (go here to read about a series of lectures we co-sponsored with them):

      http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/IBTSEnchVol3No2_final.pdf

      I also wrote my doctoral dissertation at the University of Edinburgh on this issue, titled:

      “From Sacred Text to Religious Text: An Intellectual History of Erasmian Lower Criticism as a Contribution to the English Enlightenment and the Victorian Crisis of Faith.”

      Close to ten articles have since appeared by me in peer reviewed journal articles and dictionaries. Finally, I have four books in print at the moment on these subjects. I would be happy to supply anyone who asked with a full copy of my CV. I mention this not to indulge in self-aggrandizing grand-standing, but to establish my credentials in this area.

      Someone on your list has been advocating a troubling display of conspiracy theory that has been recycled now for about thirty years, beginning with the appearance of Peter S. Ruckman’s book Manuscript Evidence which appeared back in the early 70’s and has been replicated, as I have said, over and over again in a series of books that have all come from the American, Baptist, Fundamentalist, Dispensational, Separatist community by the following authors: Chick, Burton, Grady, Gipp, Riplinger, Cloud, Sorenson, Jones, Maynard, Moorman, Sightler, and Waite. The errors found in one or the other of these works are always the following:

      I) The N.T. authors never use the LXX either in citation or allusion.

      2) The true N.T. was not preserved by the Greek Orthodox Church, but in “Old” Latin codices by the medieval separatists, many of whom were heretical.

      3) Erasmus was either a “Protestant” (Cloud); or a “Baptist” (Sorenson); or a Bogomil (other Baptist authors), rather than an ordained Roman Catholic Priest, who neither denounced, nor ever left the Roman communion.

      4) Hort and Westcott were Satanist/Spiritualists, working for the Jesuits and the Roman Catholic Church.

      5) The AV is “inerrant.”

      6) Burgon was a “fundamentalist” (Waite).

      Etc., etc., etc.

      To follow-up on this please see my on-line essay here:

      http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/ecctext/index.html

      May I just remind our readers that the Reformation began as a movement within the Universities? Luther and Calvin were both university trained (Calvin in Law, Luther had a doctorate in Biblical theology). These reprehensible publications are only written in the vacuum of the separatist communities who have no accountability to anyone, much less to history, or the academic community. I will say with no hesitation that it is these authors and these publications that have resulted in the loss of the authority of the Renaissance Bible (A.V.) at this very hour. A bad argument and wrong evidence used in a good cause will only mean the demise of that cause in the public mind. Reformation people should know better…

      Theodore P. Letis

      www.thetext.org

       

       


      Do you Yahoo!?
      vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!

    • Theodore Letis
      Keith Dotzler wrote:Dr. Letis says: I am here, however, to dispute the historiography of conspiracy theory advocated on this list for
      Message 2 of 4 , Sep 30, 2004
      • 0 Attachment


        Keith Dotzler <keipen@...> wrote:
        Dr. Letis says:
         
        I am here, however, to dispute the historiography of conspiracy theory advocated on this list for several days now regarding Fenton John Anthony Hort and the Revised Version revision committee of I88I.
         
        Can you tell me specifically what you are disputing, regarding my posts of the last few days?  Once you give me specific points of contention (please cite my own words, so there is no doubt as to what I really said), I will then attempt to respond.  
         
        Keith 
        ---------------------------------------
        Not a problem, from post # III59:
         
        The committee that produced the RV was dominated by tractarians, just as the council of Trent was dominated by Jesuits
         
        This is utter non-sense. It as dominated by W&H who were in turn dominated by Griesbach and German text criticism. Read Burgon on this WHO never refers to ANY Jesuit or tractarian influences on either W. or H. This foolishness as first set forth by Benjamine Wilkinson, a Seventh-Day Adventist. The Catholic church had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the RV. Furthermore, neither W nor H were tractarians
         
        from post #III88
         
        ...the above quotes come from Grady's Final Authority, pp 220-223)
         
        Grady is a certifiable Ruckmanite, Dispensational Baptist preacher who use to sell office furniture, for crying out loud. How would he know ANYTHING about the history of Victorian religion??
         
        Why does a Reformed believer read this rubbish, rather than Hills, or even Van Bruggen? These guys ALL copy from one another's church basement press publications. Grady copies, Gipp, who copies Floyd Jones, who copies David Cloud, who copies D.A. Waite, who copies Chick, who copies Ruckman. NOT one of them has any training in this field; not one of them is even an academic in any field--they are all Baptist preachers...
         
        Theodore P. Letis
        Director
        The Institute for
        Renaissance and Reformation
        Biblical Studies
        P.O. Box 870525
        Stone Mountain, GA 30087
        http://www.thetext.org/


        Do you Yahoo!?
        vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!
      • Keith Dotzler
        Mr. Letis wrote: The Catholic church had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the RV. That remains to be seen. Your credentials in textual criticism do not
        Message 3 of 4 , Oct 2, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Mr. Letis wrote:
           
          The Catholic church had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the RV.
           
          That remains to be seen.  Your credentials in textual criticism do not automatically make you right.  There are some factors I believe you are overlooking, or, of which you may not be fully aware.  Do you deny that the Jesuits, as part of their continuing counter-reformation, infiltrated the seminaries of England (like Oxford) in the 19th century -- their primary goal being the same as it always had been up to that point, viz. the destruction of Protestantism?  Do you deny that the Jesuits put forth their Rheims ENGLISH New Testament in 1582 (translated from their Latin Vulgate) solely to usurp Tyndale's ENGLISH New Testament?  Do you want us to believe the Jesuits suddenly lost interest in attacking Protestant Bibles, after 1582?   Do you not find it incredible that, from 1881 to the present, professing Christianity has made a glaring shift away from all Reformation texts, Bibles, and doctrines, for false texts, false bibles, and false doctrines that had been previously REJECTED by the Reformers? 
           
          With that fact in mind, re-read your statement above.
           
           
           
          Mr. Letis continues:
           
          Furthermore, neither W nor H were tractarians
           
          How can you be so sure?  Look at what was going on in their day.  Unbelief in the authority and inspiration of the Bible abounded within the Anglican Church PRIOR TO the start of the "revision," not to mention the attacks that took place on the doctrines found WITHIN the Bible.  Look at the blasphemous garbage posited by Temple, Williams, Powell, Wilson, Goodwin, Pattison, and Jowett in Essays and Reviews (to which Dean Burgon brilliantly responded in 1861, in his work entitled, Inspiration and Interpretation).  Six of those seven men were ministers of the Church of England!  What doctrines were being attacked by those "ministers?"
           
          1. the word of God
          2. the Creation
          3. the Fall
          4. Redemption
          5. Justification
          6. Regeneration
          7. Salvation
          8. Miracles
          9. Inspiration
          10. Prophecy
          11. Heaven and hell
          12. Eternal punishment
          13. a Day of Judgment
          14. Creeds
          15. Liturgies
          16. Articles
          17. Jewish History
          18. Gospel narrative
          19. Doubt regarding the Incarnation
          20. the Resurrection
          21. the Ascension
          22. the Divinity of the Second Person of the Trinity
          23. the Personality of the Third Person of the Trinity
           
          Note that these doctrines were being attacked by ministers within the Church prior to the call for revision of the AV, and after the last of the Tracts for the Times had been published.   Funny you should mention German Textual Criticism.  That, in fact, was one of the methods used by Jesuits to infiltrate the seminaries, whereby they could replace the text of the Reformation with a text that had been rejected by the Reformers!  I am not a Seventh Day Adventist, and, though Wilkinson is wrong on some things (aren't we all?), you cannot deny the truthfulness of the following:
           
          "BECAUSE of the changes which came about in the nineteenth century, there arose a new type of Protestantism and a new version of the Protestant Bible. This new kind of Protestantism was hostile to the fundamental doctrines of the Reformation. Previous to this there had been only two types of Bibles in the world, the Protestant, and the Catholic. Now Protestants were asked to choose between the true Protestant Bible and one which reproduced readings rejected by the Reformers." (Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, ch 15, Ages Software)
           

          “It is certainly a remarkable circumstance that so many of the Catholic readings in the New Testament, which in Reformation and early post-Reformation times were denounced by Protestants as corruptions of the pure text of God’s Word, should now, in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, be adopted by the Revisers of our time-honored English Bibles.” (ibid. ch 12, Wilkinson cites Edgar's Bibles of England)

           
          Just because Burgon doesn't mention anything about W/H being tractarians, who's to say it isn't plausible...and even PROBABLE that they were...especially knowing the secret manner in which Westcott and Hort "introduced" their Greek text to the unsuspecting public?  It seems to me Burgon wanted to stay out of such matters anyway.  In fact, he was willing to keep SILENT on the fact that a Unitarian participated on the Revision Committee:
           
          "I frankly avow, my Lord Bishop [Ellicott], that the challenge you thus deliberately offer, surprises me greatly.  To have observed severe silence on this part of the subject, would have seemed to me your discreeter course.  Moreover, had you not, in this marked way, invited attention to the component elements of the Revising Body, I was prepared to give the subject the go-by." (Revision Revised, pg 503)
           
           
          Furthermore, your friend, Paul, himself, said that Burgon didn't see "a Jesuit plot behind all the tracts"...so why would Burgon have felt the NEED to mention whether W/H were Tractarians? 
           
          Have you ever heard of the doctrine of "Reserve?" (see tracts 80 & 87)  For the benefit of the readers, I will tell you what it is:  it is basically saying one thing, while secretly believing/doing another...all for the good of the cause.  In other words, the truth was "reserved" only for the initiated.  Tractarians (including Newman) would preach against Rome, while being secretly sympathetic to it.  Walsh documents a great deal of Newman's own Letters, in The Secret History of the Oxford Movement.  One thing I found interesting, is that some of the doctrines attacked in Essays and Reviews above are the SAME DOCTRINES that were held in "Reserve" by Tractarians!
           
          Taking into account the relation of Newman, Pusey, and Keble to Wiseman and Mai (Wiseman was appointed curator of Arabic mss in Vatican Library, and spent a great deal of time examining various mss in that library -- while Mai was a Jesuit who was the keeper of the same Library...having his own edition of Vaticanus!), its not a far stretch to see how W/H were influenced.  Leaders of the Oxford Movement had direct ties to text critics who resided at the Vatican.  To assert that W/H were miraculously UNAFFECTED or IMMUNE to anything I have mentioned thus far is simply ludicrous!       
           
           
           
          I'll respond to the second half of your post tomorrow, and will also give you some of my background...on this issue, as well as others.  In a nutshell, up until 2 years ago, I was a dispensational, pre-trib, pre-millennial, futurist, Arminian Baptist.  I ascribe to NONE of those things now.   
           
           
          Keith 
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 5:22 PM
          Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] conspiracy theory always bad history



          Keith Dotzler <keipen@...> wrote:
          Dr. Letis says:
           
          I am here, however, to dispute the historiography of conspiracy theory advocated on this list for several days now regarding Fenton John Anthony Hort and the Revised Version revision committee of I88I.
           
          Can you tell me specifically what you are disputing, regarding my posts of the last few days?  Once you give me specific points of contention (please cite my own words, so there is no doubt as to what I really said), I will then attempt to respond.  
           
          Keith 
          ---------------------------------------
          Not a problem, from post # III59:
           
          The committee that produced the RV was dominated by tractarians, just as the council of Trent was dominated by Jesuits
           
          This is utter non-sense. It as dominated by W&H who were in turn dominated by Griesbach and German text criticism. Read Burgon on this WHO never refers to ANY Jesuit or tractarian influences on either W. or H. This foolishness as first set forth by Benjamine Wilkinson, a Seventh-Day Adventist. The Catholic church had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the RV. Furthermore, neither W nor H were tractarians
           
          from post #III88
           
          ...the above quotes come from Grady's Final Authority, pp 220-223)
           
          Grady is a certifiable Ruckmanite, Dispensational Baptist preacher who use to sell office furniture, for crying out loud. How would he know ANYTHING about the history of Victorian religion??
           
          Why does a Reformed believer read this rubbish, rather than Hills, or even Van Bruggen? These guys ALL copy from one another's church basement press publications. Grady copies, Gipp, who copies Floyd Jones, who copies David Cloud, who copies D.A. Waite, who copies Chick, who copies Ruckman. NOT one of them has any training in this field; not one of them is even an academic in any field--they are all Baptist preachers...
           
          Theodore P. Letis
          Director
          The Institute for
          Renaissance and Reformation
          Biblical Studies
          P.O. Box 870525
          Stone Mountain, GA 30087
          http://www.thetext.org/


          Do you Yahoo!?
          vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!

        • bucerian
          ... Not if this last e-mail of yours was suppose to prove otherwise. It is ironic that the title of this thread is: conspiracy theory always bad history, and
          Message 4 of 4 , Oct 3, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Keith Dotzler"
            <keipen@c...> wrote:
            > Mr. Letis wrote:
            >
            > The Catholic church had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the RV.
            >
            > That remains to be seen.

            Not if this last e-mail of yours was suppose to prove otherwise. It
            is ironic that the title of this thread is: "conspiracy theory always
            bad history," and yet all that you presented was more of the same.
            Perhaps if I provide you with another example from the people from
            whom you have picked up your bad habits (Ruckmanites all), you can
            see the techniue you have become addicted to. What link that follows
            is my reply to the crazy woman Riplinger as found in my book, THE
            ECCLESIASTICAL TEXT: TEXT CRITICISM, BIBLICAL AUTHORITY AND THE
            POPULAR MIND:

            http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/white08b.gif

            My friend, you have offered NO evidence that either Westcott or Hort
            were part of a Jesuit conspiracy, or that Rome had anything
            whatsoever to do with the RV revision committee. NONE of your sources
            provide even a hint of this, because none of these authors ever
            argued this. It is a theory formulated by Peter Ruckman and repeated
            for 30 years. He got it from Benjamin Wilkinson, a Seventh-Day
            Adventist. You are wrong about this and I will say it one more time
            that it is irresponsible to repeat this misinformation on discussion
            lists, or elsewhere. You destroy the cause you think you are
            defending. Give up the conspiracy theory and become a real student of
            the subject (i.e., throw out your Ruckmanite library :-).

            Theodore P. Letis
            www.thetext.org
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.