From: Don Wilkins (dwilkins@ucr.campus.mci.net)
Date: Wed Dec 10 1997 - 16:00:25 EST
At 09:12 AM 12/10/97 -0800, you wrote:
>White's response to Gail Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions can be found
>at:
>
> http://www.bible.org/docs/theol/biblio/riplnger.htm
>
>Gail Riplinger's response to White's critique of New Age Bible Versions
>can be found at
>
> http://www.av1611.org/othpubl.html
>
>under the link entitled Gail Riplinger's Response to James White's
>Critique of New Age Bible Versions [ Part 1 ] [ Part 2 ] [Part 3 ] [
>Part 4 ] [Part 5 ] [ Part 6 ] [ Part 7 ]
>
>In Part 5 (and maybe elsewhere) of her work, Gail makes some damning
>charges about the critical apparatus in NA 27, UBS4 and Hodge's Majority
>text, claiming that von Soden's work, which these texts apparently rely
>upon for their basis and listing of variants, is seriously flawed,
>omitting many important manuscripts. Is anyone out there with a good
>knowledge of textual criticism able to refute or support Gail's charges?
>I can deal with translation issues, but I have no knowledge or training
>for grappling with textual criticism issues. Because of what I perceive
>to be grievous problems with other things Riplinger argues, I'm hesitant
>to accept what she(?) says about the textual issues, but if she is
>correct in this, I'd like to know.
Without going into too much detail, I would like to assure you that
Riplinger simply does not know what she is talking about, and in fact has a
very distorted concept of facts and citations. The history of textual
criticism is most complex, but in a nutshell Riplinger (who, I might
emphasize, knows nothing about textual criticism) wants to find ways to
dismiss the oldest and most reliable manuscripts (using the number of
changes in NA 27 and the development of the "Nestle" text going back
ultimately to Westcott and Hort) in favor of late manuscripts which have the
"byzantine" or "Majority" text on which the KJV and the NKJV are generally
based. Beneath all of this is a fear on her part that the KJV, as it is
known today, will lose credibility as the only real English Bible--or
perhaps I should just say "only Bible". It is true that there have been many
changes in the NA text and quite a number of editions since its inception,
but these changes are in the main editorial. Indeed, as a translator for the
NASB, I reject many of these changes but still use NA as a reliable source
for the texts of extant manuscripts. By comparison, there is no credible
manuscript support for the controversial KJV readings that Riplinger
attempts to defend. Moreover, so sloppy and biased is Riplinger's approach
that a number of vocal KJV only advocates have denounced her, notably David
Cloud. She has also shown that she is reluctant to confront her critics on a
level playing field, as I personally witnessed during a television debate in
which I participated a couple of years ago: she was invited but declined to
participate, and instead was represented by Joseph Chambers. When I directly
challenged Chambers on some of Riplinger's distortions in her book, he said
that he had not read her book thoroughly but was certain that it was very
well written and that she was right!
If you are looking for more believable advocates of the "Majority Text," I
would first recommend that you read Harry Sturz's work on a second-century
New Testament. Farstad's and Hodges' book on the MJ is also a good source. I
don't agree with these scholars, but they are reasonable and are trying to
do a responsible and objective job. David Cloud, whom I mentioned above, is
also a fairly reasonable advocate of the KJV only position, and has a good
web site that you can consult.
Don Wilkins
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:36 EDT