Subject: Academic imperialism

From: Bart Ehrman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 10:29:11 -0400 (EDT)

I'm in full sympathy with the concern expressed by Jim West and others
that the academic community can be highly imperialistic in protecting its
domain.  I would like to point out a couple of mediating factors, though.

   The first is that the major journals that I've worked closely with have
their articles refereed "blind" (i.e., the scholars evaluating submissions
do not know who wrote them).  I've just refereed an article this week for
_Early Christian Studies_ (edited by Liz Clark), and so the issue is fresh
on my mind (I'd love to know who *did* write it); and I know that's the
case with the Journal of Biblical Literature, which I serve as an
associate editor.  Final decisions on the articles, of course, are made by
the editor, who *does* know who submitted them; but I know of no policy,
spoken or unspoken, of limiting acceptances to submissions by established
scholars.  If anything, it is quite the contrary; i.e., there seems to be
a tendency to want to get younger scholars involved and to look for
interesting new ideas instead of the same ole stodgy stuff)

    Second, I should say as book review editor for JBL, that my experience
(and Larry Hurtado may want to confirm this for Critical Review of Books
in Religion) indicates that a *ton* of stuff gets published, some of it by
major publishing houses, that is by unknown scholars, a lot of it, in my
judgment, that has absolutely no *business* getting published.  Publishers
with standing orders with libraries know that the more books they crank
out, the more money they'll make, and so the pressure is on to secure
manuscripts as quickly as possible, relax evaluation procedures, reduce
quality control, push heavily in an initial advertisement blitz, and then
forget about the books (which is just as well, in many instances) as soon
as the subscriptions have been sold.  I think it's a very dangerous
situation that our field has gotten into as a result, since anything
"published"  automatically has a kind of implicit authority, and people
who don't know a field well have little means for discerning wheat from
chaff.   

   I'm a firm believer in letting everyone have his or her say, and think
that the internet possibilities are fantastic for this.  But I'm also a
strong proponent for having ideas and analyses of data evaluated by
experts in a field before having them placed in published circulation.
Over the years I've heard lots of scholars complain that they can't get a
book or an article published and intimate some kind of conspiracy theory
against them or their work to account for it.  It's possible that that
sort of thing does go on -- I have no way of knowing; but given what I do 
know about the kinds of stuff that does get published and the people who
publish it, I suspect that far far more frequently the problem is that the
piece simply doesn't pass muster (especially if it gets turned down all
over the map -- which, I'll agree with Larry, has happened to *all* of
us!) (I have a really hot piece on the Phibionites, too dated now, I
suppose, that made *me* hatch a conspiracy theory once!).

-- Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 16:39:13 -0700

Since the thread on Academic Imperialism continues, I suppose I have to
add my opinions. After all, I am one of the "outsiders."

I am not a textual critic by profession. I am a mathematician and
physicist. I chose these fields because I am good at them, and
there is need of them. Does the fact that I did not choose
to be a textual critic mean I am incapable of it?

I don't claim to know all there is to know about Greek
language and literature. I won't claim that I have studied every
heterodox or orthodox interpretation of various passages.

But I know the scientific method. I know statistics. And I know better
than to assume the solution. This causes me to look at TC in a light
which is -- to say the least -- not normal for TCers.

The net result: Many of you (certainly not all) refuse to listen
because I don't come from your preferred background. Similarly,
if Maurice Robinson or Jim West posts a message, you ignore them
because their theories are unusual.

This is a frightening thought. Surely you do not believe that
conventional wisdom is always right -- do you? 

I would think that people would appreciate ideas from scholars
who have not published. It makes available information that would
not otherwise be available. For that matter, it leaves space
available in the journals for *your* publications.

Nor is there logical consistency here. One person wants to see
publications before listening. Another believes that even
publications have no value. Given a choice between publishing
an common and an uncommon opinion, will not most publications
choose the ordinary, common opinion? It is, after all, the safe
thing to do. It makes it very hard to break down the walls.

I know that an unmoderated list will see a number of far-fetched,
unsubstantiated theories. But I don't think we've seen much of
that here. The theories may be obscure, but they are documented.
Jim West presents his evidence; it may not be convincing, but
he offers it. Maurice Robinson's views do not agree with the
rest of ours, but they are clearly and understandably stated.
As for my views, when I have offered an opinion, I have usually
offered the statistics to back it. I also have half a megabyte of
files on my web site clarifying my opinions. Surely this is
adequate documentation! And if it isn't, I am perfectly willing
to offer the databases I used -- including some hundreds of hours
of custom programming.

If this were truly a high-traffic list, it might be reasonable
moderate it -- or at least break it into two lists, one devoted
solely to textual orthodoxy and one open to speculation. But this
is a quiet list. If you don't want to read what I, or Robinson, or
(insert your favorite enemy here) says, just ignore our posts.
If nothing else, we provide much of the discussion on what would
otherwise be an even quieter list....

I don't really care if you listen to me or not. I'm on this list
because it's interesting, not because it's my job. Neither
is my Bible text affected, since I can edit one based on
my own principles. I have tried to offer new perspectives --
a chance to move TC forward, rather than stick in the past.
Is that truly a reason to squelch me (or Robinson, or West,
or Elliot, or Dearing, or whoever the day's preferred victim is)?

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Matthew Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 20:10:35 -0700 (PDT)

> add my opinions. After all, I am one of the "outsiders."

So am I.  But I do not think you are being fair to the professional textual
critics.

> to be a textual critic mean I am incapable of it?

Certainly not.  But you have to admit that you and I are at a
disadvantage, just as Metzger would be at a disadvantage if he tried to
explain Kaluze-Klein theories of modern cosmology relying mainly on his
understanding of Genesis. 

> heterodox or orthodox interpretation of various passages.

Nobody knows _all_ about these.  But I must admit, the more I read
Metzger's work, the more impressed I am with his detailed knowledge of the
variety of theological beliefs throughout the period before the printing
press.  So he gets embarassingly close, which represents an ideal for
TCers. 

> which is -- to say the least -- not normal for TCers.

I am hoping that with your background of using statistics you can help
catch some of the common errors in using statistics that people with
humanities backgrounds (including TCers!) are more prone to. 

> because their theories are unusual.

Now this is where I think you are being unfair to the professional textual
critic.  The reason Robinson gets the treatment he does is that he
persists in pushing theories that have already been thoroughly debunked. 
The theory of Byzantine priority was thoroughly debunked in Westcott and
Hort's time.  It is a topic more proper for elementary TC textbooks than
for the list. 

As for West's theories, I am not in as good a position to comment on them. 
As I try to remember them right now, I think I am confusing his with
others posted here.  But I seem to recall an undue haste to abandon
Alexandrian readings and prefer Western ones.  The Alexandrian text-type
comes from some of the best recensionists and editors the early Byzantine
empire had to offer.  Nobody really knows who did the Western recensions. 
Until we do (if we ever do), this preference is rash. 

> conventional wisdom is always right -- do you? 

Now this line of yours reminds me of certain writers you as a physicist
are probably already familiar with: I have in mind a certain character (I
forget the name), who insists that Millikan mismeasured the mass of the
electron by a factor of two.  He insists that all of elementary particle
physics should be rewritten on this basis, even though no professional
physicist agrees with him.  Do you think _his_ theories are worthy of
consideration?  Beware of doing the same thing in TC. 

Matthew Johnson
Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our 
great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13).

PS: a good TCer should know Greek Grammar well enough to know why my sig
file is the preferred tranlsation (over the KJV) for "tou megalou theou
kai so^te^ros he^mo^n IY XY"

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 11:00:43 -0700

> understanding of Genesis.

It depends on whether or not he has _studied_ in the field. Metzger could very well have 
understood "Kaluze-Klein theories" if he had done consederable study in the field!

> persists in pushing theories that have already been thoroughly debunked.

That´s why we need even _more_ open forums where other than the "accepted" text critics can 
contribute. Just because Robinson´s theories have been "thoroughly debunked" by established 
scholars, does not make his theories _untrue_. He has presented a _history_ of textual 
transmission which is far more realistic than the theories of modern eclectics.

> Hort's time.

Yes, and many things have changed since their time:
1) Many elements in W&H´s theories have (as I see it) been "thoroughly debunked" by many 
scholars in subsequent time.
2) Scholars today are far more open to Byzantine _readings_ than scholars of W&H´s time were.
3) Both studies and finds since W&H´s time have _increased_ the possibility of having a 
sensible "Byzantine priority" theory, not _decreased_ it!!
4) 

> It is a topic more proper for elementary TC textbooks than
> for the list.

This is, of course, simply _not true_!! The tc-list is the place for such discussions. The 
problem with textbooks is that most of them dismiss the Byzantine text without giving it a fair 
chance! Maybe some of the Byzantine priority advocates should publish elementary TC textbooks, 
so that we could have an even balance in the field! Most textbooks are in serious lack of 
objectivity, not to mention the lack of giving the Byzantine text a fair consideration!

> great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13).

Robert Waltz is probably right in his statements regarding "academic imperialism" (i.e. his 
post dated 20 April 16:39). 
And let me also use this opportunity to thank him for his courage to present his views and the 
results of his studies (which many times are far better and far more sensible than the 
"scholarly consensus"). I must admit, without Bob Waltz´s and Dr. Robinson´s contributions, 
this list would be rather "grey"!

So thanks to both of you.....

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 10:38:47 +000

I'd like to join in condemning "academic imperialism", which I take 
to mean the forcible prevention of a given view being circulated in 
spite of the documentation/arguments in its favor.  No question.  Any 
such prohibition would ruin scholarship and rob the term of any 
meaning.
As it appears that a few on this list have mis-read my earlier 
postings, let me reiterate and (hopefully) clarify things.
1) No one has proposed "squelching" people.  I have repeatedly asked 
people with strong views to supply the evidence and rationale for 
them, and in a forum and form where these can be assessed.  Item:  A 
dictionary article of a few hundred words making unsupported 
statements is *not* such argumentation or documentation.  Nor are 
various unsupported statements such as that this or that scholarly 
work has been "debunked", or that a whole discipline is "stuck in the 
mud" etc., especially when coming from individuals who have not 
established any authority for their judgments by critically-tested 
research publications.
2) In the case of emergent scholars with no publications (yet), there 
is fully room to speak up, but they will have to provide evidence & 
arguments (not merely assertions) just like established scholars must 
do.  That is, if they expect their views to be granted any impact on 
the opinion of critical scholars in the field.
3) Self-taught scholarship has a noble history.  In TC, perhaps 
Tregelles is the most famous example.  But as T. shows, self-taught 
scholarship, just like formally trained scholarship, exbibits itself 
as valid through the hard work of research and the submission of such 
research to the critical judgment of scholars in the field.
4) This is an unmoderated list.  Which means that people can make the 
kind of unsupported assertions I've complained about above, and can 
trot out their pet theories and make great claims for them.  It also 
means that scholars concerend with critically-established ideas and 
are free to "ignore" unsupported ideas and complain about them--just 
as I've done!

L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place 
Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX
Phone: 0131-650-8920
Fax: 0131-650-6579
E-mail:  [email-masked]

---

From: Nichael Lynn Cramer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 08:07:30 -0500

Matthew Johnson wrote:
>Robert B. Waltz wrote:
> [...]

At the risk of posting a "me-too" message, I'd like to thank Mr Johnson for
his posting, and to add a hearty "amen".

Helge Evensen wrote:
>> The

This, I feel, is simply not accurate.

While it is true that most intorductory TC texts may not contain long
chapters on the Byzantine text model, virtually all contain extensive
pointers into the literature on the topic.  No volume can hold *all* that
has ever been thought or written about a field; but for those who wish to
persue the topic enormous documentation is almost always provided --albeit
indirectly.  (And which, I think it is safe to say, provides overwhelming
evidence why this position can no longer be considered tenable.)

To continue the Physics analogy from earlier in this thread:  No modern
introductory text on Physics contains chapters on the "Caloric Fluid"
theory of heat.  But all explain why it no longer credited (and provided
any desired level of supplimentary argumentation for anyone willing to make
a trip to the library.)

Is that theory being dismissed "out of hand"?  Certainly not.  But neither
is there any need --particularly given the constraints of such a text-- to
completely rehash the old --readily available-- material.

Nichael
[email-masked]               "Did I forget, forget to mention Memphis,
http://www.sover.net/~nichael/      Home of Elvis and the ancient Greeks..."

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 08:06:20 -0700

Remember, folks, all I was doing was asking for a fair hearing. This sort
of argument is neither good nor Christian. And, in my case at least, it
takes free time away from the work I am doing (in this case, a detailed
study of family 1739 in 2 Corinthians, which I hope will set the history
of the family on a firmer footing).

I'm not going to respond to everything, since some things either are true
or are not. I'll try to confine myself to areas where I have something
to add (like physics :-).

>humanities backgrounds (including TCers!) are more prone to. 

That's one of the things that has upset me. I've seen a lot of bad
mathematical methodology in textual criticism, but when I speak up,
I am told that it's obvious that so-and-so's method is right/wrong/
obvious/absurd/whatever.

I'm not a pure statistician; as a physicist, I spent most of my
time in analysis (my seminar project was on Fourier theory and
orthogonal polynomials). But at least I've studied the matter.

>Hort's time.  It is a topic more proper for elementary TC textbooks than

Robinson will point out how everybody jumps in to condemn his views as
soon as they come up. I would note that I have had more battles with
Robinson than almost anyone on this list. Certainly I do not agree
that the Byzantine text contains the original text.

And yet, the basic condemnation of the Byzantine text remains that of
Hort. Since that time, Hort's refutation of the text has simply been
accepted. But it is worth noting that the single most important basis
of Hort's condemnation of the Byzantine text is conflations. Hort lists
a total of eight Byzantine conflations. It has been shown (I admit I
forget who showed it) that this is very nearly the *entire* list of
Byzantine conflations. And it is too short to mean much -- especially
since the other text-types also contain some conflations.

Now I personally still think the Byzantine text to be late. It appears
to me to be much more harmonistic than the Alexandrian text. But that
is based on *casual observation.* Even that point has been questioned
(by Wisselink). Perhaps it's time we gave the matter another look.

None of that, however, is the point. The point is his (or my) freedom
to speak -- and, preferably, to be listened to. (Wouldn't you know, I
finally get listened to when I say something not about TC. :-)

I do not expect to be convinced by Robinson. But I am at least willing
to offer him a chance.

[ ... ]

>consideration?  Beware of doing the same thing in TC. 

Counter-argument based on the same experiment... When Millikan did his
work, he had a handful of observations where he seemed to get a fractional
charge (1/3 the normal value). He assumed -- as I freely admit I would
have assumed -- that they were observational error.

Nowadays we have quark theory, and everybody (except maybe me) believes
in fractional charges. So suddenly everyone is looking at Millikan's
results and saying, "Hey! He caught a quark."

I'm not saying we should accept crackpot theories. I merely ask that
we be willing to *listen* until the evidence is in. If evidence is
requested and is not forthcoming, that's plenty of time to ignore
what shows up. :-)

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 10:05:34 -0400 (EDT)

> Hort's time.  It is a topic more proper for elementary TC textbooks than
"> for the list. 

Excuse me, Matthew?  Speak at whatever point you desire regarding the
"thoroughly debunked" nature of the Byzantine-priority hypothesis and I
will be happy to provide a case which will satisfy the normal theoretical
criteria demanded of any hypothesis within the scientific method. 

If Hort supposedly debunked the matter, then why are scholars not
retaining Hort's specific "debunking" solution, i.e. the "AD 350 Syrian
recension" hypothesis?  The point I have continually been making is that
there _is_ another transmissional hypothesis out there which _can_ support
the priority of the Byzantine Textform, and that it _can_ be established
not only in regard to transmissional theory, but to the point of defense
of the Byzantine reading in multiplied textual variant units (or have you
not been noticing the substance of my posts?). 

Basically I consider your above statement text-critcially irresponsible.

Provide some examples and proof of such assertions which cannot be readily
replied to, and maybe we can talk...... 

[from the response to West:]

> The Alexandrian text-type
> empire had to offer.  

Wow.....I will fully accept the first part of this one (not the "early
Byzantine empire" part however, unless you define "early" differently than
I do, i.e. AD 160-175). But _thank you_ for concurring with my point
regarding the recensional nature of the Alexandrian texttype....

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

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 10:49:58 -0400 (EDT)

On Mon, 21 Apr 1997, Nichael Lynn Cramer wrote:

> pointers into the literature on the topic.  

I beg to differ.  For example, Metzger's _Text of the NT_ makes Burgon the
model for Byzantine-priority and dismisses him with a blatant _ad hominem_
argument (he opposed admitting women to Oxford; shades of the Citadel!)
coupled with a quoted portion of bombast from Burgon.  Other pro-Byzantine
defenders like Edward Miller (a disciple of Burgon, but without the
bombast) are not mentioned nor quoted; neither is the _theory_ of either
Burgon or Miller actively engaged. Rather, Burgon's position is linked
with a defense of the TR and KJV, and from there to the KJV-only defense
of E.F. Hills. All of it becomes totally tied to a theological agenda, and
the same guilt by association and theological argument persists even in
the 1994 appendix addition.

Similarly, Aland and Aland in their _Text of the NT merely link the
Hodges/Farstad majority text with a return to the TR, and not to something
which is actually quite different. _Nowhere_ in Metzger or Aland is a case
for Byzantine-priority seriously discussed or seriously dismissed. I will
allow that Wallace in the Ehrman/Holmes volume _does_ attempt to provide
some interaction with the various pro-Byzantine theories, but even there
in such a distorted manner that (as I stated previously), were what
Wallace describes actually my own theory, *I* would not even hold it.... 

> No volume can hold *all* that
> indirectly.  

And which documentation refuting the theory is so "enormous", beyond the
ad hominem and guilt-by-association material?  If you are merely speaking
of the other theories and developments in the field of NTTC, I happen to
follow and in general accept most of their data and conclusions as well,
differing only on the point of Byzantine-priority. I do not think such
valid research affects the theoretical underpinning to the degree you
claim, even though it is certain that none of the modern eclectics hold to
a Byzantine-priority position (which if they did, would instantly place
them out of the loop and not exactly _persona grata_ within the club).

> (And which, I think it is safe to say, provides overwhelming

If the position is untenable, then why not interact with my defense of
individual Byzantine readings and show _where_ within "normal" modern
eclectic principles (which I attempt strenuously to apply _in pleno_ and
not merely selectively) I supposedly have no case.  Certainly, I have
commented on a large number of variant units on this list, and generally
my comments merely go by the wayside.  If there are disagreements and
serious considerations which might overturn my claims, I most certainly am
willing to consider them, but for whatever reason (perhaps simply the
deliberate desire to ignore and not respond to them as espoused by
Hurtado?) very little serious interaction occurs in regard to such
variants as soon as I stick my 2 cents in.....

I suspect this all reflects the point Wallace made in his critique essay
where he called for pro-Byzantine supporters virtually to prepare a
textual commentary on _every_ variation from UBS or NA27.  Based on what I
see from within this discussion group, my suspicion is that -- even if
this were totally done in a scientific and detailed manner, using every
internal and external principle known to modern eclecticism -- this still
would not be sufficient to convince those who do not with to consider an
alternate position. That is why I am not in the business of trying to
change the entire text-critical worldview merely by my comments; I know
far better the typical reaction to anti-establishment theories in any
genre -- especially when such theories might be supported by what would be
considered abundantly sufficient evidence were the external supporting
data of MSS, Versions, and Fathers _reversed_ in any given situation.

---

From: "Robert A. Weiter, M.S.W., C.C.S.W." <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 14:45:41 -0500

> such prohibition would ruin scholarship and rob the term of any

Greetings,

I have been a rather longtime "lurker" on this list (largely because all
of exegetical and TC texts are packed away in storage in Missouri).  I
earned a theological degree from St. Louis University and also did
M.Div. studies back in the early eighties at Christ Seminary -- Seminex,
and worked in professional religious / theological education and did
special graduate studies in the Department of Theology at The University
of Notre Dame (1990).  I currently editing the second edition of a
Christology text which was written by one my former professors.

For over ten years, I have been working as a psychotherapist / clinical
social worker. I am highly respected in that field and have published,
lectured and taught extensively -- particularly in Child and Adolescent
Psychiatric Services, treatment of juvenile sex offenders, sexual
orientation issues, and religious issues in psychotherapy and disability
issues. Now that I am in the midst of "student in care" process within
my denomination, United Church of Christ, and returning to seminary to
complete M.Div. studies (in fall, 1997) as a prerequisite to Ordination,
my interest in Textual Criticism has certainly resurfaced.  (Theological
study and discourse has always been my first love <grin>.)

My reason for moving from "lurker" status right now is the recent
extremely nasty tone which this mailing list has taken.   I would expect
much more mature and professional behavior from educated adults in the
tradition of the "academy".  A list such as this needs to take into
account the various academic, theological and (to some extent) religious
backgrounds of participants.  If some folks want only those who are
professional textual critical scholars to subscribe than perhaps a
closed list for academics is best.  (I belong to several lists which
required proof of my professional licenses and qualifications before I
was allowed to subscribe.  In one case, I had to send a copy of my
Indiana Health Professions License to a university.)

It seems that what is accepted as scholarship or "debunked" often
depends on theological or ideological positions of the various people in
the discussion.  This isn't only true in Biblical Scholarship, it's true
in my other field, psychology / psychotherapy.  I note by the signatures
at the end of posts just how diverse the participants on this list are.  

I remember the aphorism by Rupertus Meldinius (Peter Meiderlin) written
during the bitter theological disputes of the Thirty Years' War:

                                       In essentials unity,
                                     In perspectives liberty, 
                                      In all things charity. 

The folks who have been particularly nasty recently, might remember this
aphorism next time you want to flame.

Yours in Christ,

Robert A. Weiter, M.S.W., C.C.S.W.
Indiana State (Licensed) Certified Clinical Social Worker
Psychotherapist
Consultation Assessment and Treatment Services
18115 State Road #23
#175
South Bend, Indiana 46637
"

---

From: "Robert A. Weiter, M.S.W., C.C.S.W." <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 14:53:34 -0500

Robert A. Weiter, M.S.W., C.C.S.W. wrote:
> and did

Personal Nitpick:

I'm SORRY - WRONG DATE.  University of Notre Dame was 1991. <g>

---

From: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 20:25:30 -0500 (CDT)

On Sun, 20 Apr 1997, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> press.

I too like Metzger's NT TEXT.  He was (and is) remarkable to say the least.  
I have read some chapters or sections ten times and still learn each 
time.  However he is obviously biased against the BYZ text.  I suppose 
most writers on the text are; Greenlee and definitely Aland.  That does 
not diminish the value in my opinion.  I read none of them to find truth, 
but to gain more information on how to evaluate the text.

> The reason Robinson gets the treatment he does is that he

Even a beginner like me knows this is either a joke or a faux pas

--
Prof. Ron Minton: [email-masked]   W (417)268-6053  H 833-9581
Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803