Subject: Re: James 2:18

From: "Dale M. Wheeler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 16:35:56 -0800

James White wrote:

At 03:39 PM 3/19/96 -0500, you wrote:
>In a message dated 96-03-15 19:10:19 EST, D. Wheeler wrote:
>
>> The real problem for
>>TC, as I see it, is that passages like this, linked together in a chain,
>>form the basis for the characterizations of what Byzantine scribes must have
>>done, and then subsequent decisions are based on those generalizations.
>>Many more studies, like what Colwell did for the papyrii, are needed on the
>>Byz material, so that we can formulate an accurate, rather than anecdotal
>>picture of the Byz scribal process...I would suggest that the newest studies
>>are not all that flattering to the anecdotal picture.
>
>It was most fascinating (and for me, rather frustrating) to see this post
>twice in my mailbox.  No, not because of a system problem, but because one of
>the subscribers here copied it over to the most vitriolic of KJV Only,
>Ruckmanite mailing lists (i.e., the Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, "all
>scholars are together in a grand conspiracy to get the KJV" style folks) as
>an illustration of the "subjectivity" of textual criticism.  In fact, the
>person who forwarded it added at the beginning, " As Dr. Wheeler points out,
>such phony scholarship needs to be debunked in the same way that Hort's
>"Lucian Recension" was debunked by Burgon." Something tells me Dr. Wheeler
>was not trying to say that we cannot make progress and hence should simply
>grab the TR and be done with it (those who demand absolute certainty in all
>things think we need to go that direction), but that further study is
>*always* to be advised.  Nor did I see anything in his post about "phony
>scholarship" (a term used by KJV Only advocates to describe, well, everyone
>who doesn't agree with them).  I doubt if even one person on that other list
>would take it the way it was originally intended, however, and I would not be
>surprised at all to see this post quoted again and again in the context,
>"See, scholars admit that they are just picking and choosing among variants
>just to get away from God's Holy Word, the AV 1611!"  The only moral to this
>story I can draw is, it doesn't matter what you say or how you say it,
>somebody can, and most probably will, twist it to suit their needs.

James:  If you think you are frustrated, just think how I feel !!!!! I'd
appreciate it if you would privately post the message to me with the group's
address so I can defend the unwarranted use of my comment.  You have
apprehended my meaning correctly; I really don't care who "wins" the battle
as most likely candidate pointing to the autographs, I'd just like to see
the search done in such a way that we all (well at least those of us who
want to actually think about the issue) feel like the emerging theory
honestly deals with all data.  If the research finally being done on the
minuscules in a systematic way leads us away from the Byz texts, so be it;
but such a decision must be based on research not impression.  Equally if
the research leads toward the Byz as the preserver of the original, then I
hope those who have held the opposite viewpoint will look at the evidence in
an unprejudiced manner.  A lot of people on both sides of the issue have a
lot personally and professionally at stake, but we all hope that such
concerns will not get in the way of the pursuit of truth in this most
important of arenas.  This happily has been the general pattern, e.g., the
surrender of the Hortian Lucian recension in the face of overwhelming
evidence to the contrary.  I myself remain ambivalent seeing pluses and
minuses on both sides of the argument.  The only thing that I'm absolutely
sure of is that this search DOES NOT, CAN NOT, WILL NOT lead to the KJV (of
whatever vintage, none of which are used by KJV'ers anyway) or the TR (the
question I always ask TR'ers is "Which TR do you mean ?" To which I always
get a puzzled look; to which I reply "Which of Erasmus' editions did you
have in mind? Or perhaps you are referring to one of the Stephanus or
Elziver editions?"... I've never really gotten an answer to this query).  I
applaud their passion to find the original, but it is clearly misguided, in
my opinion.  Indeed in the case of the point under discussion, the TR reads
XWRIS, not EK.

***********************************************************************
Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D.
Chair, Biblical Languages Dept                  Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street                               Portland, OR  97220
Voice: 503-251-6416    FAX:503-254-1268     E-Mail: [email-masked] 
***********************************************************************