Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallen  The issue between Letis and White became whether White was qualified to speak for those within the guild of textual criticism. Letis, with impeccable academic credentials and White with what is viewed as somewhat shady credentials from some within the guild. So the discussion soon lost momentum and focused upon White's credentials and integrity. This left both Letis and White standing with egg on their faces. Letis because he felt he should address whether or not White was qualified to present an informed opinion, and White for presenting himself as though he was from within the ranks of textual critics.
I say this not to impugned either man, but as an observer of this whole exchange. For me it demonstrated that even those that are viewed as leaders of the issues of today..., are often driven by pride and a need for recognition. They battle the same battles as the rest of us.  |
I agree. The discussion went nowhere IIRC, similar to the Letis-John Robbins exchange over the Letis review of G.H. Clarks
Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism where Letis kept insisting that Clark was in the Scottish Common Sense Realist tradition. Clark admitted upfront he was no specialist in textual criticism; his purpose in that book was to demonstrate the inconsistency of the textual critics when judged by their own standards.
To get back to the subject of the thread, I searched the board yesterday but could find nothing on Rush and the TR. Maybe the discussion I remember was on one of your old blogs instead, Jacob. I seem to remember you saying last year that you had purchased an AV and had listened to some Rush lectures on the TR.