Hi Folks, Dear George, I will set aside your statement about monomania. This is the second time you have insulted me, and I was hoping that perhaps someone
Message 1 of 4
, Oct 6, 2011
Dear George, I will set aside your statement about
"monomania." This is the second time you have insulted
me, and I was hoping that perhaps someone else would comment that your
tone is overly personal and unhelpful. (Just imagine the uproar if
someone had told Daniel Wallace and William Warren that they need
psychological help!) But since no one else has said so, consider it
said. I thank you for keeping your psychology-advice to yourself in
I was ready to say it, but not quite so eloquently :) . A little slow on
the uptake, but I was a little surprised to see real solid textual
studies dissed in such a dissmissive way. (At the time, I did not
think of it so much as psychological, simply diversionary.)
Perhaps if a poster was actively correcting the textual establishment on
a dozen issues, they might get upset with James for focusing on
one. Yet who is correcting a dozen ? Maybe,
hypothetically, Jan Krans could fault James for not knowing the ins and
outs of Erasmus and Beza flawlessly on the ending (note: hypothetical),
but I doubt that he would insult James on the work that he actually does,
which is pioneering plus.
The resurrection account of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (aka: the last 12
verses, the ending of Mark) is definitely historically in the Top 5
of Bible text variants, and James has pioneered mightily, and been
complimented for his efforts by many. Even when agreement is only
partial (as, e.g Maurice Robinson, who agrees with much of James on his
textual and early writer analysis but not the theories of variant
formulation. And I concur with Maurice there.). Dearsay, some
with the traditional Hortian perspective of exclusion probably give at
least grudging acknowledgment to what they have learned from the efforts
of James on these 12 verses. Often, I believe, if you learn one
issue extremely well, the carry-over to 100 hundred issues can be
enormous, and I believe that James is actually an example of this wide
ranging perspective developed out of the implications of a singular
Personally, I have had a couple of criticisms of the work of James, once
how he used a hypothetical (Codex Washingtonianus was involved, if I
remember) to make an argument sans real substance. And I noticed
that James seemed to tone down that analysis by analogy and even
critiqued such concepts when used in reverse .. good job James !
The big disagreement is the question of variant origins, we have tussled
and grustled, but for now that is for another day, another way.
Generally the moderation here is quite good, and appreciated, and I
realize that freedom of expression is important, but when a puerile
attempt is made to shut up a deep question with a type of psycho-babble,
count me in as one that protesteth.
On this one I would like to give James 100% support, without diverting
the forum too much unnecessarily away from the Topics du Jour.
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.
Changes have not been saved
Press OK to abandon changes or Cancel to continue editing
Your browser is not supported
Kindly note that Groups does not support 7.0 or earlier versions of Internet Explorer.
We recommend upgrading to the latest Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, or Firefox. If you are using IE 9 or later, make sure you turn off Compatibility View.