How textual critics do it.

[Ehud]

"We see now why Dr. Warfield was so inconsistent. We see why he felt
himself at liberty to adopt the naturalistic theories of Westcott and
Hort and did not perceive that in so doing he was contradicting the
Westminster Confession and even his own teaching in the realm of
systematic theology. The reason was that Dr. Warfield kept these
subjects in separate boxes. Like an authentic, medieval scholastic,
he kept his systematic theology and the Westminster Confession in his
FAITH box and his New Testament textual criticism in his REASON box.
Since he never tried to mingle the contents of these two boxes, he
was never fully aware of the discrepancies in his thinking.

When I began to study New Testament textual criticism at Westminster
in 1935, I noticed another thing. Almost as much time was spent in
disparaging Dean Burgon as in praising Dr. Warfield. This again
aroused my curiosity. Who was this Dean Burgon? Upon investigation, I
found that he had been a British scholar that had not fitted into the
usual scholastic mold. He had not kept his theology and his New
Testament textual criticism in two separate boxes, but had actually
dared to make his theology the guiding principle of his New Testament
textual criticism. For this he was pronounced 'unscholarly."

E.F. HILL Presbyterian scholar.
He was a distinguished Latin and Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Yale
University. He also earned the Th.B. degree from Westminster
Theological Seminary and the Th.M. degree from Columbia Theological
Seminary. After doing doctoral work at the University of Chicago in
New Testament textual criticism, he completed his program at Harvard,
earning the Th.D. in this field.


2 observations on scholarship from the schools of Higher Learning in the 1930's.

1. Textual critics have no true logical and reason.
2. If you truly believe God preserved his word you are unscholarly.


EHUD

 

[Rippon]

"... he had been a British scholar that had not fitted into the usual scholastic mold." That's a sample of awkward English from E.F. Hill -- Presbyterian scholar .

Your second proposition regarding higher critics of the 30's : "If you truly believe God preserved his word you are unscholarly."

But Ehud , you believe that God only preserved His Word in one form -- the KJV , right ? That's not only unscholarly , but illogical .

 

[EdSutton]

"We see now why Dr. Warfield was so inconsistent. We see why he felt
himself at liberty to adopt the naturalistic theories of Westcott and
Hort and did not perceive that in so doing he was contradicting the
Westminster Confession and even his own teaching in the realm of
systematic theology. The reason was that Dr. Warfield kept these
subjects in separate boxes. Like an authentic, medieval scholastic,
he kept his systematic theology and the Westminster Confession in his
FAITH box and his New Testament textual criticism in his REASON box.
Since he never tried to mingle the contents of these two boxes, he
was never fully aware of the discrepancies in his thinking.

When I began to study New Testament textual criticism at Westminster
in 1935, I noticed another thing. Almost as much time was spent in
disparaging Dean Burgon as in praising Dr. Warfield. This again
aroused my curiosity. Who was this Dean Burgon? Upon investigation, I
found that he had been a British scholar that had not fitted into the
usual scholastic mold. He had not kept his theology and his New
Testament textual criticism in two separate boxes, but had actually
dared to make his theology the guiding principle of his New Testament
textual criticism. For this he was pronounced 'unscholarly."

E.F. HILL Presbyterian scholar.
He was a distinguished Latin and Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Yale
University. He also earned the Th.B. degree from Westminster
Theological Seminary and the Th.M. degree from Columbia Theological
Seminary. After doing doctoral work at the University of Chicago in
New Testament textual criticism, he completed his program at Harvard,
earning the Th.D. in this field.


2 observations on scholarship from the schools of Higher Learning in the 1930's.

1. Textual critics have no true logical and reason.
2. If you truly believe God preserved his word you are unscholarly.


EHUD

Unbelievable!

"Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I shall ask you a rhetorical question, and proceed to answer it, myself.

Is it even possible? to misquote something in the process of its being 'cut and pasted'?

YEP!! Sho' 'nuff is! :thumbs:

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I offer you the above as 'EXHIBIT "A"'!" :laugh:

Ehud, my young friend, you have just been "BUSTED"!

Try that one on for an example of "true logical."

Ed

 

[rsr]

We solve this problem by substituting the biblical doctrine of the universal priesthood of believers for Burgon’s high Anglicanism. Just as the Old Testament text was preserved by the Old Testament priests, so the New Testament text was preserved by the universal priesthood of believers, that is by true believers in every walk of life.

This is an argument I have often wondered about. Who, exactly, were the true believers who preserved the pure text? What evidence would Hills provide to show that the texts upon which the T.R. is based are in fact the ones preserved by the elect?

And this providential preservation did not cease with the invention of printing. Hence the true text is found not only in the text of the majority of the New Testament manuscripts but more especially in the Textus Receptus and in faithful translations of the Textus Receptus, such as the King James Version. In short, the Textus Receptus represents the God-guided revision of the majority text.

Is this at all at odds with his previous assertion? If the majority text (putting aside why God in his providence would not see fit to provide a single preserved text instead of one that had to be compiled from a number of competing texts) required revision, how does that square with his previously stated confidence in perfect preservation?

Were the previous majority texts only a little bit wrong?

 

[David Lamb]

Who was this Dean Burgon? EHUD

"Dean" was his position in the Anglican church (not his first name, nor an academic title). The entry about him in McClintock & Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature says:

Burgon, John William, D.D.​

a clergyman of the Church of England, was born at Smyrna, in Asia Minor, August 21, 1813. He graduated from Worcester College, Oxford, in 1845. In 1846 he became fellow of Oriel College, and Gresham lecturer in divinity in 1868. He was made vicar of St. Mary the Virgin. Oxford, in 1863, and dean of Chichester in 1876 . He died August 4, 1889. Among his works are: ​

Petra: a Poem (1846): — Oxford Reformers (1854): — Plain Commentary on the Book of Psalms (1857, 2 volumes): — The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark Vindicated against Recent Critical Objectors and Established (1871): — Poems (1885).​

​

Theologically, he was a "High Anglican", that is, an Anglican with Roman Catholic leanings.

 

[franklinmonroe]

2 observations on scholarship from the schools of Higher Learning in the 1930's.

1. Textual critics have no true logical and reason.
2. If you truly believe God preserved his word you are unscholarly.

The first of the "observations" cannot be derived merely from the two paragraphs by E.F. Hill that have been supposedly cited (BTW- what book, page numbers?). In fact, only a contrary conclusion is really possible based upon the statement that "he kept ... his New Testament textual criticism in his REASON box".

Neither can the second of the "observations" be derived from just the presumably quoted material, as there is no indication whatsoever within it to establish the positions of Warfield or Burgon on 'preservation' (or any other particular doctrine). According to the second paragraph the reason Burgon was called "unscholarly" was because he didn't keep his theology separate from his textual criticism; but "theology" is much more than any single doctrine.

These undocumented 'quotes' do not support these two conclusions in the least.

 

[readmore]

Looks like this was a cut & paste from http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP12.htm which is an article by Dr. Hills titled A HISTORY OF MY DEFENCE OF THE KING JAMES VERSION. Here's another choice quote:

Moreover, this special providence did not cease with the invention of printing. Therefore, the true New Testament text is found today in the majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts, in the Textus Receptus, and in the King James Version and other faithful translations of the Textus Receptus. And therefore also this same preserving providence is operating today through the agency of all true believers, however humble, who retain and defend the King James Version.

 

[Maestroh]

Let's Let The Facts Get In The Way Now

"We see now why Dr. Warfield was so inconsistent. We see why he felt
himself at liberty to adopt the naturalistic theories of Westcott and
Hort and did not perceive that in so doing he was contradicting the
Westminster Confession and even his own teaching in the realm of
systematic theology. The reason was that Dr. Warfield kept these
subjects in separate boxes. Like an authentic, medieval scholastic,
he kept his systematic theology and the Westminster Confession in his
FAITH box and his New Testament textual criticism in his REASON box.
Since he never tried to mingle the contents of these two boxes, he
was never fully aware of the discrepancies in his thinking.

When I began to study New Testament textual criticism at Westminster
in 1935, I noticed another thing. Almost as much time was spent in
disparaging Dean Burgon as in praising Dr. Warfield. This again
aroused my curiosity. Who was this Dean Burgon? Upon investigation, I
found that he had been a British scholar that had not fitted into the
usual scholastic mold. He had not kept his theology and his New
Testament textual criticism in two separate boxes, but had actually
dared to make his theology the guiding principle of his New Testament
textual criticism. For this he was pronounced 'unscholarly."

E.F. HILL Presbyterian scholar.
He was a distinguished Latin and Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Yale
University. He also earned the Th.B. degree from Westminster
Theological Seminary and the Th.M. degree from Columbia Theological
Seminary. After doing doctoral work at the University of Chicago in
New Testament textual criticism, he completed his program at Harvard,
earning the Th.D. in this field.


2 observations on scholarship from the schools of Higher Learning in the 1930's.

1. Textual critics have no true logical and reason.
2. If you truly believe God preserved his word you are unscholarly.


EHUD

Having Theodore P. Letis' entire Master's thesis of Hills on hand, let's tell -as Paul Harvey would call it - 'the REST of the story.'

1) Hills - in modern parlance - lied in order to get his credentials. In 1946, he wrote a doctoral dissertation in FAVOR of the Westcott-Hort theory called 'The Caeserean Family of Manuscripts' (or something close to that - typing from memory here). Yet he claims in 1935 he began reading Burgon and then he kept the W-H position. Then - suddenly in 1952 - he reverted to what is, in essence, a King James Only position.

2) Hills was - literally - thrown out of the University of Chicago for his failure to do doctoral level work. Oh and his advisor? The famous textual critic Ernest Cadman Colwell, author of 'Colwell's rule.'

3. Hills took Van Til's concept of presuppositionalism to an illogical extreme. What he PRESUPPOSED was that the KJV was the preserved Word of God. His presupposition was not a valid one at all since any of us could do the same with, say, the Vulgate. Hills started from the TR-KJV tradition and worked backward to formulate what constituted 'true' manuscripts. He unashamedly used theology to determine the text.

One must wonder, of course, how any logical human being committed to sola scriptura as Hills supposedly was could have used theology to find the text since he would have needed the text to formulate the theology in the first place.

The FACT of the matter is that Dr. Hills was one of the most illogical writers after whom I've ever read who was supposed to be a 'scholar.'

The fact of the matter is this: once the Pandora's box is opened and theology determines the text, we will have FAR MORE than 120 (or however many) versions of the Bible. Every single denomination will have its own (theoretically speaking) and the proof texts of the opponents will be decided NOT by TC but by provincial assumption.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... He unashamedly used theology to determine the text.

One must wonder, of course, how any logical human being committed to sola scriptura as Hills supposedly was could have used theology to find the text since he would have needed the text to formulate the theology in the first place...

I think there has been some "barking up the wrong tree". Textual criticism is concerned with establishing the 'original' text from manuscript evidence. Following pre-established rules an objective methodology should not be influenced much by theology. Only in situations where the manuscript evidence was ambiguous, or evenly divided, could theology aid in a textual decision. It is translational decisions that are more likely to be theology driven, not textual criticism.

 

[EdSutton]

Having Theodore P. Letis' entire Master's thesis of Hills on hand, let's tell -as Paul Harvey would call it - 'the REST of the story.'

1) Hills - in modern parlance - lied in order to get his credentials. In 1946, he wrote a doctoral dissertation in FAVOR of the Westcott-Hort theory called 'The Caeserean Family of Manuscripts' (or something close to that - typing from memory here). Yet he claims in 1935 he began reading Burgon and then he kept the W-H position. Then - suddenly in 1952 - he reverted to what is, in essence, a King James Only position.

2) Hills was - literally - thrown out of the University of Chicago for his failure to do doctoral level work. Oh and his advisor? The famous textual critic Ernest Cadman Colwell, author of 'Colwell's rule.'

3. Hills took Van Til's concept of presuppositionalism to an illogical extreme. What he PRESUPPOSED was that the KJV was the preserved Word of God. His presupposition was not a valid one at all since any of us could do the same with, say, the Vulgate. Hills started from the TR-KJV tradition and worked backward to formulate what constituted 'true' manuscripts. He unashamedly used theology to determine the text.

One must wonder, of course, how any logical human being committed to sola scriptura as Hills supposedly was could have used theology to find the text since he would have needed the text to formulate the theology in the first place.

The FACT of the matter is that Dr. Hills was one of the most illogical writers after whom I've ever read who was supposed to be a 'scholar.'

The fact of the matter is this: once the Pandora's box is opened and theology determines the text, we will have FAR MORE than 120 (or however many) versions of the Bible. Every single denomination will have its own (theoretically speaking) and the proof texts of the opponents will be decided NOT by TC but by provincial assumption.

While I do not necessarily or particularly agree with the conclusions of Dr. "E.F. Hill", is there something wrong with changing one's position? Misrepresentation, is another thing, entirely, but I will not get into something I know nothing about.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Having Theodore P. Letis' entire Master's thesis of Hills on hand, let's tell -as Paul Harvey would call it - 'the REST of the story.'

[Snipped!]

The fact of the matter is this: once the Pandora's box is opened and theology determines the text, we will have FAR MORE than 120 (or however many) versions of the Bible. Every single denomination will have its own (theoretically speaking) and the proof texts of the opponents will be decided NOT by TC but by provincial assumption.

FTR, there are at least 120 versions and/or editions of the Bible in English floating around. I would have absolutely no idea how many are extant in other languages.

Ed

 

[franklinmonroe]

FTR, there are at least 120 versions and/or editions of the Bible in English floating around...

Of course, this depends upon how one defines a 'Bible'. I can attest to about 200 unique English renderings just since 1900 of the New Testament (complete or nearly all 27 books); about half of these titles also have an accompanying Old Testament. There seems to be about an equal number of volumes attempted in English before 1900 (although this period is not my focus). In addition, there are many complete translations of only the Hebrew scriptures (OT) which I did not include in this count. There has been nearly 40 more NT versions released since 2000 (averaging one about every 2 months recently). Be very sure that I am not counting previously published texts that are merely re-marketed under a new cover name.

Rev. Bradford B. Taliaferro's first edition of the Bible Version Encyclopedia lists over 500 English versions of the 'Bible'. Neither he nor I include translations of just the Gospels, just the Epistles, or individual book translations (like Genesis, Psalms, etc.). I am assisting him with his second edition in which I will have contributed even more entries.

 

[Maestroh]

Brother Ed

Changing one's position is all fine and good - I'm sure all of us have done it.

Pretending to hold one position to the point of writing a doctoral dissertation to get your credentials - and then 'changing back' to a position you had held for at least 17 previous years - is patently dishonest.

Hills may indeed be the only true KJV Onlyist who earned credentials as a textual critic, but his arguments are thoroughly illogical, question begging, and based upon presuppositions that Hills has redefined with an invented term 'the logic of faith.' In fact, Ruckmanism is nothing more than taking Hills' textual criticism to its logical conclusion.

From Chapter Four of Hills' online book "The KJV Defended," here are Hills' 'Principles of Consistently Christian Textual Criticism.' (This is under 3f of the page that loads).


Principle One: The Old Testament text was preserved by the Old Testament priesthood and the scribes and scholars that grouped themselves around that priesthood.

Principle Two: When Christ died upon the cross, the Old Testament priesthood was abolished. In the New Testament dispensation every believer is a priest under Christ the great High Priest. Hence the New Testament text has been preserved by the universal priesthood of believers, by faithful Christians in every walk of life.

Principle Three: The Traditional Text, found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts, is the True Text because it represents the God-guided usage of this universal priesthood of believers.

Principle Four: The first printed text of the Greek New Testament represents a forward step in the providential preservation of the New Testament. In it the few errors of any consequence occurring in the Traditional Greek Text were corrected by the providence of God operating through the usage of the Latin-speaking Church of Western Europe. In other words, the editors and printers who produced this first printed Greek New Testament text were providentially guided by the usage of the Latin-speaking Church to follow the Latin Vulgate in those few places in which the Latin Church usage rather than the Greek Church usage had preserved the genuine reading.

Principle Five: Through the usage of Bible-believing Protestants God placed the stamp of His approval on this first printed text, and it became the Textus Receptus (Received Text). It is the printed form of the Traditional Text found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts.

Principle Six: The King James (Authorized) Version is an accurate translation of the Textus Receptus. On it God has placed the stamp of His approval through the long continued usage of English-speaking believers. Hence it should be used and defended today by Bible-believing Christians.


END CITATION

I would simply note that according to Edward F. Hills, textual criticism is very easy: we use the KJV.

He says majority rules in principle three - but then in principle four says that in the TR (which was not collated until 1516 btw), any 'errors of consequence' were corrected.

I should note therefore that according to Edward F. Hills, there were errors in the Greek text of the Bible that were consequential UNTIL the many collations of the TR.

This is nothing more than KJV Onlyism with clouds of obfuscation thrown up to sound scholarly.

 

[EdSutton]

Of course, this depends upon how one defines a 'Bible'. I can attest to about 200 unique English renderings just since 1900 of the New Testament (complete or nearly all 27 books); about half of these titles also have an accompanying Old Testament. There seems to be about an equal number of volumes attempted in English before 1900 (although this period is not my focus). In addition, there are many complete translations of only the Hebrew scriptures (OT) which I did not include in this count. There has been nearly 40 more NT versions released since 2000 (averaging one about every 2 months recently). Be very sure that I am not counting previously published texts that are merely re-marketed under a new cover name.

Rev. Bradford B. Taliaferro's first edition of the Bible Version Encyclopedia lists over 500 English versions of the 'Bible'. Neither he nor I include translations of just the Gospels, just the Epistles, or individual book translations (like Genesis, Psalms, etc.). I am assisting him with his second edition in which I will have contributed even more entries.

I would guess that I could probably name 40-50 English versions off the top of my head. And I know that many of those have more than one edition, hence my statement that there were at least 120, as that was the number offered by another poster. I possess a book that lists over 100 different issuances of some form of the English Bible between 1900 and around 1970. Couple that with the number attempted since John Wyclif up to 1900 and the number from 1970 on, and those two ideas put together, are where I got my "agreement figure".


Surely 500 is a bit greater than 120, as well.

I know, "Don't call you Shirley!" :laugh:

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Changing one's position is all fine and good - I'm sure all of us have done it.

Pretending to hold one position to the point of writing a doctoral dissertation to get your credentials - and then 'changing back' to a position you had held for at least 17 previous years - is patently dishonest.

Hills may indeed be the only true KJV Onlyist who earned credentials as a textual critic, but his arguments are thoroughly illogical, question begging, and based upon presuppositions that Hills has redefined with an invented term 'the logic of faith.' In fact, Ruckmanism is nothing more than taking Hills' textual criticism to its logical conclusion.

From Chapter Four of Hills' online book "The KJV Defended," here are Hills' 'Principles of Consistently Christian Textual Criticism.' (This is under 3f of the page that loads).


Principle One: The Old Testament text was preserved by the Old Testament priesthood and the scribes and scholars that grouped themselves around that priesthood.

Principle Two: When Christ died upon the cross, the Old Testament priesthood was abolished. In the New Testament dispensation every believer is a priest under Christ the great High Priest. Hence the New Testament text has been preserved by the universal priesthood of believers, by faithful Christians in every walk of life.

Principle Three: The Traditional Text, found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts, is the True Text because it represents the God-guided usage of this universal priesthood of believers.

Principle Four: The first printed text of the Greek New Testament represents a forward step in the providential preservation of the New Testament. In it the few errors of any consequence occurring in the Traditional Greek Text were corrected by the providence of God operating through the usage of the Latin-speaking Church of Western Europe. In other words, the editors and printers who produced this first printed Greek New Testament text were providentially guided by the usage of the Latin-speaking Church to follow the Latin Vulgate in those few places in which the Latin Church usage rather than the Greek Church usage had preserved the genuine reading.

Principle Five: Through the usage of Bible-believing Protestants God placed the stamp of His approval on this first printed text, and it became the Textus Receptus (Received Text). It is the printed form of the Traditional Text found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts.

Principle Six: The King James (Authorized) Version is an accurate translation of the Textus Receptus. On it God has placed the stamp of His approval through the long continued usage of English-speaking believers. Hence it should be used and defended today by Bible-believing Christians.


END CITATION

I would simply note that according to Edward F. Hills, textual criticism is very easy: we use the KJV.

He says majority rules in principle three - but then in principle four says that in the TR (which was not collated until 1516 btw), any 'errors of consequence' were corrected.

I should note therefore that according to Edward F. Hills, there were errors in the Greek text of the Bible that were consequential UNTIL the many collations of the TR.

This is nothing more than KJV Onlyism with clouds of obfuscation thrown up to sound scholarly.

I guess I'm a little slow, here. Are you agreeing with my brief post, or disagreeing with it? Or are you wanting me to agree with the gist of a Master's thesis that I have never seen? I do recall suggesting that there was nothing intrinsically wrong with changing one's position. But I did not support or agree to any misrepresentation, by any stretch.

Whether or not I agree or disagree with the conclusions of "Dr. E.F. Hill", he is a familiar name to me, although the OP miscopied it. (Yes, I rather quickly found the two sites the OP did a 'hatchet job', 'er I mean a "cut and paste", from.)

As such, the works and/or books by Dr. "E.F. Hill" are available. I happen to posess two of them. The two volumes are in little danger of becoming "worn out", any time soon.

Neither his private nor academic life is something I have been particlularly aware of. And I see little reason to delve into it now, after he has been departed this world for a quarter of a century. I don't mean to sound crass, here, but I am not greatly interested in his (or most others who have long since departed) history, but do have some interest in his, theirs and others' positions on Biblical subjects.

Ed

 

[Maestroh]

Clarifying

I guess I'm a little slow, here. Are you agreeing with my brief post, or disagreeing with it?

I agree with you that it is a copy (edit) and paste job and that the poster should have provided the link or at least a place to verify the information.

Neither his private nor academic life is something I have been particlularly aware of. And I see little reason to delve into it now, after he has been departed this world for a quarter of a century. I don't mean to sound crass, here, but I am not greatly interested in his (or most others who have long since departed) history, but do have some interest in his, theirs and others' positions on Biblical subjects.

Ed

I agree - except that in most cases of dealing with KJV Only defenders, they like to argue that Westcott and Hort were 'bad' due to whatever they did on the side - and they usually recite hand-me-down arguments that have never been proven such as Westcott and Hort being involved in seances and the like.

Hills may have had a Ph.D. in textual criticism, but he was thoroughly illogical and employed numerous non-sequitor arguments to make his case.

 

[s8147817430]

"Dean" was his position in the Anglican church (not his first name, nor an academic title). The entry about him in McClintock & Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature says:

Burgon, John William, D.D.​

a clergyman of the Church of England, was born at Smyrna, in Asia Minor, August 21, 1813. He graduated from Worcester College, Oxford, in 1845. In 1846 he became fellow of Oriel College, and Gresham lecturer in divinity in 1868. He was made vicar of St. Mary the Virgin. Oxford, in 1863, and dean of Chichester in 1876 . He died August 4, 1889. Among his works are: ​

Petra: a Poem (1846): — Oxford Reformers (1854): — Plain Commentary on the Book of Psalms (1857, 2 volumes): — The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark Vindicated against Recent Critical Objectors and Established (1871): — Poems (1885).​

​

Theologically, he was a "High Anglican", that is, an Anglican with Roman Catholic leanings.

I thought he was an independent fundamental, soul-winning, separated King James Only baptist.

 

[Ehud]

another dumb scholar

Bravo,

The FACT of the matter is that Dr. Hills was one of the most illogical writers after whom I've ever read who was supposed to be a 'scholar.'

I wonder if all his degrees are real of fake. If real, I guess it does not say much for the so called schools of higher learning that would graduate such a stupid illogical so called scholar:laugh: :laugh:

Ehud

 

[EdSutton]

Bravo,


I wonder if all his degrees are real of fake. If real, I guess it does not say much for the so called schools of higher learning that would graduate such a stupid illogical so called scholar:laugh: :laugh:

Ehud

Glad you find this funny. Does it rise to the level of humor of a "cut and paste" job (or should that be 'hatchet job'?) that makes a mistake in the process? Even one, as much of a "technologically challenged person" as I am, is able to "cut and paste" correctly, FTR. And without failing to give proper credit, no less. FTR, I am aware of the two sites you took your information from. It took me less than two minutes to find the exact sites.

Oh yeah, I do not recall saying anything derogatory about the individual (whom you have never indentified correctly, in this thread, BTW) in any way. But just so you will know, there is no such person as "Dr. E.F. Hill", who is a Greek textual scholar. You might be served to find out who the individual actually was, and what he went by. Or is that too much like an "illogical" suggestion?

Ed

 

[Askjo]

Hills may have had a Ph.D. in textual criticism, but he was thoroughly illogical and employed numerous non-sequitor arguments to make his case.

Illogical? You stand on wrong side where he did not stand.