Subject: Re: tc-list re: barrett's response

From: "Perry L. Stepp" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 09:26:39 -0400

Regarding Barret's defense of his book, Robert B. Waltz
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>There is something this defense misses: It came from *the author of
>the book*. Not exactly an objective source.

I don't understand this objection.  A scholar feels that his/her work has
come under attack--a feeling that is quite justified in this particular
case, IMHO.  Said author responds by defending his/her work in the arena of
public discourse (this forum is certainly an accepted arena for public
discourse.)  We should not cast aspersions on that defense ("not exactly an
objective source") simply because it came from the one "being attacked,"
should we?

By your line of reasoning, we should take a jaundiced view of any further
word on the subject from Maurice Robinson (being as he is the one who raised
some of the initial criticisms.)  That doesn't make much sense to me.

PLStepp

********************************************************************
Senior Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TX
DCC's webpage: http://come.to/DeSotoCC
Ph.D. Candidate in Religion, Baylor University
#1 Cowboy Fan

Does it not concern us that God's name is often
dishonored because of poor theologies of God?
                   --Clark Pinnock, *The Openness of God*
********************************************************************

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 10:45:22 -0500

>objective source") simply because it came from the one "being attacked,"

I'm not denying the right of the author to defend him/herself. On a
particularl point of fact, an author has every right to answer
objections.

But what are the odds that an author is going to be able to
objectively assess his or her work? The author will (almost) always
view things in the best possible light. So I would prefer the
opinion of an outside investigator.

Given the number of unfavorable made about this book, I still think
we need to see an outside, controlled review (not a random list
of passages) before we can assess the book.

At least, that's what *I* use reviews for. Obviously, others see
things very differently....

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

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

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