Subject: Re: Announcing "The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criti

From: [email-masked] (Nichael Lynn Cramer)
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 01:00:33 -0400

Robert B. Waltz wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Aug 1996, [email-masked] (Nichael Lynn Cramer)
>[ ... ]
>
>>
>>On the contrary, the essay in questions _does_ give a balanced,
>>comprehensive examination of the topic.  It also demonstrates --quite
>>thoroughly IMnsHO-- why it is all but impossible to take it seriously as a
>>model.  Despite much protestation on this mailing list, these things --a
>>balanaced discussion and demonstration of the errors of a method-- are not
>>incompatible.
>
>I should interject a comment here....
>
>While it will be obvious to those who have read my previous posts that
>I do not agree with Maurice Robinson, I *have* come to respect his
>erudition and his viewpoint. It is by no means identical with the
>King James First group, or even the Majority Text group. I would not
>consider it crackpot, ...

Re-reading my earlier note, I realize there was a possibility for
misunderstanding, and I want to make it clear that I most definitely was
_not_ including Dr Robinson --for whom I share your respect-- in this
group...

>  ... merely wrong. :-)

... OTOH, I too agree with this point.  ;-)

>As for hollow earth theories, they deserve to be considered. Considered
>and rejected, but *considered.*

As they have been.  What I object to is this notion that we have to start
from ground zero with every new notion which is presented.

>Perhaps it depends on your definition of a crackpot. But certainly
>conventional wisdom can be proved wrong. The examples in physics are
>endless. A handful of examples:
>
>* ... Galileo... Newton ....
>* ... Galileo, Kepler, and company ...
>*... existence of other elements ... Dalton ...
>* ...  Michelson and Morley ...

Exactly so.  And in each of these cases these scientists presented evidence
and argument that supported the new view that they offered and were --by
and large-- universally and quickly accepted by the scientific community at
large.

Nichael
[email-masked]                                               __
http://www.sover.net/~nichael              Be as passersby   -- IC

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 01:33:32 -0400 (EDT)

> _not_ including Dr Robinson --for whom I share your respect-- in this

I am sincerely relieved to know that I am not a crackpot. *;-)

> >  ... merely wrong. :-)

That point, however, I will dispute.....

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

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 09:16:36 -0400 (EDT)

On Sat, 17 Aug 1996, Maurice A. Robinson wrote:

>Robinson (and his co-editor Pierpont) _are_ mentioned in Daniel Wallace's
>article in the Fee and Epp volume which also has been cited.  

Ooops.....correcting myself, I believe that the Wallace article is in the
Ehrman and Holmes volume.  The Fee and Epp volume contains nothing except
Fee and Epp. *;-)