Another "'Cuz...and stuff" Critical Text defender

A Critical Text useful idiot was challenging me saying, "Well, Reformed men have no problem with these modern versions, and I think they know what they're talking about."

I replied: "The Reformed you know are probably academic-oriented, educated in culturally Marxist institutions, adopting post-modern attitudes - and mocking approaches to true believers - with a total lack of self-awareness or critical engagement. One of the poisons which gets put in their mouths, and which they swallow obediently, is the notion that they stand above the text, and the text needs them more than they need it. You can stand above a scholar-constructed text. You have to look up to a received text. For the latter you have to acknowledge something higher than you has given the text to you. You have to be grateful to something higher than you."

Then he said: "'Cuz, James White, and stuff."

So I replied: "When did the notion that we needed a text *constructed* from divergent manuscripts come about? As opposed to a text *edited* from a received body of similar manuscripts? When did this notion occur? At what point in history? The counter-Reformation? The so-called Enlightenment? The 1800s? When? Answer this question first, and defend it, or you're not serious."

No answer was forthcoming. And stuff.