|
Letter #3
from James White, responding to Mr. McKinsey’s comments as
contained in the above two editions of Biblical
Errancy. I contacted Mr. McKinsey a number of times to
determine if the letter was going to be printed. It was,
partially, in the April, 1987 edition, though the original
letter was written and sent on October 13, 1986.
Section A:
Dear Mr. McKinsey:
I briefly respond to your
comments found in the October 1986 edition of Biblical
Errancv. I simply intend to correct a number of logical
and factual errors present in your rebuttal. First, you did
not at all deal with the facts that I brought up relevant to
our main discussion, that being your original charge that
Jesus and Paul did not agree on the wording of the 6th
commandment. I pointed out that both said the same thing -
ou phoneuseis
- Your reply involved a
number of issues, most of which lie outside the realm of a
brief reply. You spent some time discussing the subject of
textual criticism, and later said that "the problems
associated with lower (textual) criticism seem to elude you,
JW." I am enclosing two papers that should be sufficient
enough to demonstrate my proficiency in the realm of textual
criticism. Instead of proving your point, your comments
demonstrate a lamentable lack of knowledge of the field. Such
comments as your disbelief that the original writings ever
existed 7, that textual criticism involves "educated
guesses," that Geisler and Nix have no way of proving that
most errors are the result of copyist errors, etc. and etc.
simply prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to anyone who has
studied the field that you have not. I would challenge you to
dispute the findings of such scholars as Bruce Manning
Metzger, Kurt Aland, or F.F. Bruce in regards to this science.
Your lack of understanding of the subject is clearly
demonstrated by your comment concerning Geisler and Nix’s
comment about the variation in the text providing the means of
its own correction. Anyone who has done work with the actual
text knows this is true - only a person who is looking in from
the outside would find it “absurd." Your example of the
homicide detective demonstrates your misunderstanding of the
subject.
You made at least three
major errors in this section: 1) there is no textual variation
at Isaiah 7:14. The Hebrew is almah
the Greek (LXX) is parthenos. The dispute is on
rendering, not text. If you insist on saying there is a
textual difficulty here, please provide the textual sources
you are relying on. I am referencing Kittel’s Biblia
Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 1983, pg. 685, and Rahlf’s
Septuaginta 1979, pg. 575, and F. Delitzsch,
Commentary on the Old Testament: Isaiah, pgs. 216-217. 2)
You intimated that I may have “picked inaccurate manuscripts
among the thousands available.” May I ask you to provide a
single textual source giving a different reading other than
ou phoneuseis at either Matthew 19:18 or Romans 13:9? I
have consulted the Textus Receptus, the Stephens Text, the
Majority Text, Westcott and Hort, the UBS 3rd edition
(corrected), and the 26th edition of the Nestle-Aland text -
all indicate that there are no textual variants at this point
whatsoever - all read ou phoneuseis. 3) You postulated
a difference in meaning between the two instances of the same
word. Could you please provide lexicographical support for
this? You said that “context is a major factor.” Since the
context of these two instances is the same (the quotation of
the commandment), how could this change the meaning?
The facts are quite clear:
1) Both Paul and Jesus said the same thing; 2) both quoted the
same passage in the same context; 3) the text at this point is
perfectly pure - there are no textual variations known; 4)
there is no lexicographical data that would support the idea
of "different meanings" for identical usage of the same word
in the same grammatical form. Hence, your original language
charge is again shown false.
[The following section
continued this letter. However, Mr. McKinsey refused to print
it in Biblical Errancy ,
and gave no
indication other than closing the above section with "..."
after the word "false." The reader is left to decide just why
it was deleted. McKinsey denied any knowledge of deleting the
material when confronted with the fact while on the
Dividing Line radio program. He promised to look into it
and respond to the rest of the letter. At this time (12/87) no
response has been made.]
Quickly, in reference to
your material on immortality and eternal life, I would like to
simply point out that you again made two very basic, factual
errors. You referenced Mark 9:17 and John 10:20, indicating
that my explanation of the usage of echon was in error
due to the use of echon in these two passages. Unfortunately,
echon is not used in either passage, as anyone familiar
with the language could see. Echon at 1 Timothy 6:16 is
in the present participle active nominative singular masculine
form; the word at Mark 9:17 is echonta, the present
participle active accusative singular masculine form (a
completely different case), and the word at John 10:20 is not
even a participle - it is a finite verb, echei. Hence,
you completely misidentified the two examples you listed,
while continuing to ignore the factual presentation I made
concerning the syntax of the participle at 1 Tim. 6:16.
Finally, you wrote, “You
also dwell on ad hominem comments to such an extent that if it
continues you could notice a change in the tenor of my
responses.” Seemingly, you have arbitrarily decided that when
I point out errors on your part in regards to subjects that
you are ignorant of (there is nothing wrong with being
ignorant of something as long as you don’t try to act like you
know what you are talking about) I am being “patronizing” and
utilizing "ad hominem” argumentation. When you question my
information and make ad hominem comments about me, you are
simply debating. I have pointed out on a factual level that
you made errors in the topics under discussion - if you can
only respond by charging me with patronization and ad hominem
argumentation while threatening me with a “change in the
tenor” of your responses, I hardly see that further discussion
is advisable. If you will admit your factual errors, and come
up with facts and documentation of your own to support your
charges, maybe we could continue this debate in the way
debates are supposed to run. Till you are able to deal with
this subject on a scholarly level, I thank you for your time
and the opportunity of discussing this issue.
Notes
7. I did not go into depth in dealing with all the facts
that demonstrate Mr. McKinsey’s errors at this point See
footnote #1 for suggested sources for scholarly information on
this subject. BE is only six pages long, and I could have
filled all six pages with documentation on any one of the
areas I here listed. Of course, Mr. McKinsey, in his response,
will criticize my brevity, but as he knew, I could not send
him a letter that was excessively long. Any person who bothers
to read even an introductory text on the subject of textual
criticism will he able to see Mr. McKinsey’s errors.
Continue to Mr. McKinsey's
third reply |
