Subject: Waite just a minute

From: "Mark E. Burrill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 10:47:40 -0400

Can anyone comment on the legitimacy of the work of Dr. D.A. Waite? 

I've had the opportunity to listen to some extensive interviews of him
recently on the radio. I find him rather puzzling. His predisposition toward
the TR notwithstanding, I find his defense of it and evidence against other
texts somewhat enigmatic. At times he seems to cite evidence in a perfectly
logical and systematic way building a persuasive and compelling case...but
he will inevitably undermine his own scholarly integrity by lapsing into
fits of unscholarly invective by accusing the writers of many MSS of gnostic
heresy, calling newer versions "per-versions," etc. 

These things as well as some carefully "omitted" facts in his interviews
brings his integrity into suspicion even in my less-than-scholarly mind. Do
his arguements warrant consideration, or is he among the ranks of the
Ruckmanites?

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 15:12:49 -0400 (EDT)

> Can anyone comment on the legitimacy of the work of Dr. D.A. Waite? 

Plain and simple: it is _not_ legitimate.  Waite's position is to defend 
utterly the TR underlying the KJV and not to admit any deviation 
therefrom as possibly original, since his ultimate agenda is to promote a 
KJV-Only position among a certain constituency.  In attempting to make 
his case, reliance upon various pro-Byzantine supporters often appears 
(Burgon being notable), but ignoring those places where the same 
Byzantine partisans happen to differ from the KJV/TR connection.  

Waite and a handful of supporters even went so far as to create a "Dean 
Burgon Society" which is quite humorous, since their own constitution and 
by-laws would preclude Burgon from membership since he was not a 
fundamentalist Baptist nor held to the absolute autograph authenticity of 
the text underlying the KJV. *;-)
 
> heresy, calling newer versions "per-versions," etc. 

This is typical of most if not all of the KJV-Only crowd as soon as 
facts and evidence are not forthcoming to defend their position.  Merely 
compare the ridiculous "New Age Bible Versions" by Gail Riplinger with 
much of what Waite says and the connection and illogic will be clear.  
Whatever that crowd is involved in, it is not textual criticism nor sound 
theology nor scholarship in any form.
 
> Do his arguements warrant consideration, or is he among the ranks of the
> Ruckmanites? 

Need a further answer be given? *;-)

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~