Gideon Kruger and
his Lamentation research of Qumran Lamentation compared to the Masoretic Hebrew
text is just an example of how conventional Text Critics are thinking. ---They try to
be eclectic. ---They do not
like the Standard Text Method. The Method that chooses one text as primary and
all others as secondary. ---They try to
pull down the Hebrew consonantal text of the Masoretic Tradition as favorite
primary text. ---They want
all texts to be placed on an equal level and then pick and choose their way out
of it. ---Result? They
speak with three or four tongues at the same time. ---For example,
if you say the form of the text is the result of slips or human errors, then
you cannot also argue that the form of the text was deliberately interpreted to
present some kind of ideology or different message. Can you see the dilemma? I
can. ---So what is
the solution? The consonantal text of the Hebrew of the Masoretic Tradition is
the very Word of God and primary and this Standard Text is the norm to test all
other forms of secondary texts of the translations of this text. ---How do we
know that the Hebrew consonantal text is primary and all others secondary? ---The key to
know that is that 4QDana, the Qumran Daniel fragments in form and content are
99.9% the same as the consonantal text of the Masoretic Tradition dating to
Codex Aleppo in 1008 AD. This kind of accuracy over such a long period is
unrivaled and very, very rare. Why? Because that form is the very Word of God.
Which form? The consonantal Hebrew text of Codex Aleppo. Proved to be the same
at Qumran in one fragment and that one fragment is enough evidence. Period. ---Is your
professor telling you that we are not sure about the proper text of the Word of
God? Time to dig in to libraries and learn about the confusion of patristics of
conventional Textual Criticism. And find the true way about that science. ---Drop the
eclectic method and get back to the Standard Norm Method with the consonantal
text of the Masoretic tradition as primary Word of God. ---Is it not
just a jump in faith or belief? Yes, with 4QDana evidence as proof. If one is
correct maybe all are correct. ---Is doubt of
the eclectic method void of beliefs? No. Every text cited are more than 500
years and more from the original authors anyway. Also a case of believing a lot
of things, of connecting dots over a long period in the absence of data. No difference.
---The only difference
between the eclectic method of textual criticism and the standard text method
of textual criticism is that the first one is sowing nihilism, agnosticism,
atheism, and doubt in religion but the standard text method of textual
criticism is maintaining and upholding the Word of God as primary role in the
believers’ life. ---Willing to
get back to the truth?