Got an amusing email overnight from a KJV-onlyist named Keith Whitlock, who wrote:
Thought you might be interested in a little laugh. Got a nice BMW in restoration right now. If you can come up with any errors in the KJV or any lies in Gail’s works I’ll deliver it to your door. Great deal, Eh? Good luck!
Glad to oblige, Keith. For reasons I explained in my previous post on Gail Riplinger, I don’t have a paper copy of New Age Bible Versions and cannot give a precise citation for this quote, apart from a chapter number and a corresponding footnote. I’m sure you won’t have any trouble finding the exact location from the information I provide, nonetheless.
Concering the papyrus P75, Riplinger writes the following in Chapter 35 of New Age Bible Versions:
[Bruce M.] Metzger says, “Papyrus 75 supports the majority text dozens of times. In relation to the [majority] text, P46 (about A.D. 200), shows that some readings . . . go back to a very early period . . . P66 [has] readings that agree with the [majority] . . . text type.” (emphasis added)
Riplinger cites this excerpt in footnote 38 of chapter 35 as coming from Metzger’s book Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, pp. 64, 108. The full citation for this book is in footnote 9:
Bruce Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981) . . .
Let me note, first, that Riplinger mis-cites this quotation. None of it appears on page 108 of Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, and some appears on page 64. So it’s a very badly formed citation – typical of Riplinger’s sloppy writing . but it isn’t, technically, a lie.
This is, however.
Note the section that I’ve emphasized, above. This phrase, “Papyrus 75 supports the majority text dozens of times,” does not exist – on page 64, 108, or anywhere else in Manuscripts of the Greek Bible. It simply isn’t there. And in any case, it contradicts what Metzger says about P75 elsewhere in the book, for example:
Textually the manuscript is of importance in showing that the Alexandrian type of text characteristic of the fourth-century codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus was current at the beginning of the third century . . . Furthermore, not only is the text of P75 Alexandrian, but it is closer to B [Vaticanus] than that of any other manuscript, while the influence of the readings of the Western type is almost non-existant. (Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, 68)
So, in short, Gail Riplinger manufactured a quotation from Bruce Metzger to say the exact opposite of what he actually says in the same book.
Certainly sounds like a lie to me.
So, Keith, once you’ve finished that restoration job, I’ll let you know where to deliver it. I guess we’ll see if you have the stones to be a man of your word. I doubt it, though. Riplinger sycophants and the KJV-onlyists who make the biggest boasts also usually have the biggest problem with integrity.
Postscript, 11:30 pm: Earlier this evening, after posting the first draft of this article, I emailed Whitlock back with a link to this post, adding:
Let me know when I can expect my car.
I reserve the right to make any further communication public.
To which Whitlock responded:
You do that. and in writing.
I am, of course, happy to oblige, so here it is. A couple of minutes later, Whitlock added:
So the Butcher never said P75 supports the Textus Receptus/Majority/ Byzantine? I’ll check it out. Anyway, what is your favorite color? Don’t get your hopes up.
(Believe me, I haven’t.) And then, a couple of hours later, he added:
P75 does support the TR in dozens of places. Kiln and Pickering researched that. Why don’t we ask the Butcher himself? I’ll email him.
Note the not-so-subtle shift of categories, from the content of Metzger’s book to the factuality of Riplinger’s fictitious quotation? These people don’t even try to be sneaky about their deception. I responded:
Hi Keith. I wondered how long it would take you to fabricate an excuse not to honour your offer after making it. Didn’t take long, did it? Not even three hours, and you’re already lying to my face.
Gail the Ripper said that the words:
p75 supports the Byzantine text dozens of times
appear in Bruce Metzger’s _Manuscripts of the Greek Bible_ on page 64 or 108. Those words do not appear in that book on those pages or elsewhere.
Gail the Ripper made up a quotation.
Therefore, Gail the Ripper lied.
It is disingenuous of you to try to claim now that my beef was with whether or not P75 supports the TR, when you know full well my beef is with manufactured quotations.
Try again. Can you find the following words in the 1981 edition of _Manuscripts of the Greek Bible_ by Bruce Metzger:
p75 supports the Byzantine text dozens of times
What’s that? They’re not there? Then man up, and give me my car.
I’m still not holding my breath, mind you. You have to wonder whether honesty is even in these dolts’ vocabulary.
You gotta laugh.
Post-postscript, 1:30 pm Aug. 15: Overnight I got three more emails from Keef, who really needs to learn to plan ahead instead of filling up my inbox with crap he could have sent in a single message.
Sent at 1:04 am:
KInd [sic] of weak eh? Allow me time to research the Butcher’s book and/or ask Gail about it. It is possibly a mistake not a lie. Gail is a woman of God not a liar.
Got any more “lies” What [sic] is the dictionary definition of a lie. [sic] To deceive correct. [sic] The chapter of her book is about the earliest papyrus manuscripts and their support of the KJV type manuscripts of which P75 is one.. [sic]
Metzger died in 2007. Did you catch that?
Actually, I did; note, however, that the Keefster was the one who offered, earlier last night, to “email the Butcher” himself. Confused, would we?
Then, at 1:41:
Got any more lies for me? Could you be fair and allow me the time to check it out myself? I’ll have to use inter-library loan. That may take a couple of weeks. I could ask Gail and she would set it straight but I need the practice ” iron sharpens iron” [sic]
The BMW is a 1974 2002. All new paint, interior, souped up engine & suspension, nice stereo. A really fun car.
Maybe J R could be of assistance
Is it just me, or are Keefer’s emails getting more incoherent as the night waxes late?
I’m not sending him any more lies. I’ve already met the terms of his challenge, and now he’s trying to backpedal.
The backpedalling continues at 2:29:
Up kind of late eh? I hope it is not because of me.
No, at this point I’d already been in bed for an hour. As I said, incoherent. Unaware of this, Keef continues:
Relax, if I find out that Gail’s qoute [sic] is a lie intended to deceive you as regarding the witness of ancient Papyri P75 for the common text, you will get your BMW.
Scott, this offer has been open to everyone for a few months. So far no one has been successful. You will not be either.
But I will welcome any honest attempt. What I really want is attempts to discredit the KJV.
Keefo is backpedalling so fast, I hope he’s installed rear-view mirrors on his bicycle.
My response, this morning:
You KJVers wouldn’t know “honesty” if it bit you in the ass, but thanks for playing MY game, Keefie. Have a day, thanks for the blog fodder, and enjoy your fictitious car.
It was fun when it started, but with Keef’s emails becoming consistently more whiny and desperate for attention, it’s time to move on.
Post-post-postscript, 1:40 pm: And while I’m writing this, I get yet another email from Keef, pleading with me to stay on the line. I swear this guy is worse than one of those phone psychics. Anyway, he writes:
Such verbal grace seasoned with salt. People consider “men” who beat up, slander and levy false accusations against little old ladies anything but stony.
Do your anti villification laws apply just to Canadians? Did not the Canadian Protestant Association endorse Gail’s NABV?
Here is a picture of the car in restoration. I’ll keep you all updasted on it’s progress.
And, of course, the email had a HUGE jpeg of his totally, sincerely, no-I-mean-you-can-really-have-this one-hundred-percent-genuwine BMW attached to it, just to be extra annoying.
Now, unless I get yet another email before I sign this off, I’ve had enough fun with the idiot man-child.
Any moment now.
Nope? Oh well.