Fri Nov 1 08:29:28 1996

From owner-tc-list  Fri Nov  1 08:29:28 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id IAA08385; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 08:27:47 -0500
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 08:23:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: TC and conservatives
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2391



On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, Mark Arvid Johnson wrote:

> How do you define KJV-Only? I have usually seen it refer to those that hold
> that the KJV is correct in all readings, infallible, and perhaps directly
> inspired as well. Edward F. Hills, though he did defend most minority
> readings in the TR and KJV, DID acknowledge textual errors in the KJV. 
> [ Believing Bible Study, pp.81-88, 214-228; The King James Version
> Defended, p. 229-30. ] 

Despite various equivocations and material which may have appeared to have
differed from the KJV/TR position, Hills was very careful to make such
only "possibilities" which it was quite clear he was himself _not_
inclined to accept.  Even his defense of the Johannine Comma reflected the
same type of "it might not be original, but then again I think it might"
etc.  I obviously have no use for this type of text-critical sophistry,
since it does not defend anything more or less than the KJV/TR.

> > I read a book by Gordon H Clarke called
> > "Logical criticisms of TC". 
> 
> >>A terrible booklet in my opinion, which shows the author to fully
> misunderstand the subject about which he presumes to pontificate.
> 
> Would you give an outline of your criticisms of this work? Superficially,
> at least, Gordon Clark's position and yours are similar; both are Byzantine
> Priority, specifically distanced from a KJVO or TR position.

Outline is simple, and can be verified by anyone knowing anything about
textual criticism: Clark continually gets factual data wrong (my copy was
littered with my notes to this effect; I filed it away years ago and never
have consulted it since).  Further, Clark misinterprets and misapplies both
the incorrect data as well as the correct data.  He defends some nebulous
philosophical concept of the "traditional text" (not even using the term
in the same manner as Burgon) and does not defend any concept of Byzantine
priority or "majority text".  His case is not based on any sound
text-critical principles but rather on nose-counting and philosophical
speculation. 

I simply have no use for Gordon Clark's booklet, and neither (to my
knowledge) has any mention or use been made of it by any pro-Byzantine
advocates, including Van Bruggen, Hodges/Farstad, Pickering as well as
myself.  Neither has there been any comment regarding Clark's booklet one
way or another from the various eclectic scholars. 

Back