"Most"? or do you mean "many"?
The latest I saw this was on AOmin, where JW was responding to one of more vitriolic elements of the blogosphere, people who routinely (and pointlessly) needle guys like him for not measuring up to their standards. So, one needs to take his (or whomever's) "target" into consideration.
I thought JW's post didn't measure up to his usually higher standards of engagement. But in his defense, he was coming down to the other guy's level. As part of his reply, he apparently posted a clip from his debate with Bill Shishko, where he argues this particular point, re. Acts 2:39.
Watch the entire debate, and draw your own conclusions about the participants' positions. But I would point out that, absent inclusion in the "clip" of any "response" by WS, would itself be subject to the EXACT SAME argument he uses against a pb usage of Acts 2:39, namely selective restriction of context in order to make one's own position look better.
Not that I would necessarily draw that conclusion, but the method he's critiquing has done just what he's done in a different medium. If he argued that WS's response to him lacked "relevance", hasn't he "prejudiced" the watcher/listener? Isn't he obliged to put that material in there, and let the observer decide the strengths? If not, for whatever reason (time/space limits, editing the clips time/cost prohibitive, etc.), he would be giving himself a "pass" for what he berates someone else for. Not good form, brother.
It isn't really effective, in my opinion, because his point can't possibly be that quoting a portion of a verse is of itself "selective traditionalizing of the text." He just happens to think that the rest of that verse is "germane" to a better interpretation of the text--HIS interpretation. That is subjective, however. I could quote a passage in full for 5 verses complete, and someone (even JW) could say, ""Oh, but you left off verse 6, which militates against your position!"
The REAL (that is, our side's typical rejoinder) reason for sometimes not quoting the "rest" of the verse, is because it might not be as relevant to the point the speaker is making. If the point is to emphasize the linguistic parallel to Abraham's covenant (the promise is to you, and to your descendants after you), then the "gentile codicil" attached to the end of the verse simply isn't especially relevant to THAT point.
JW appears to fault Someone, quoting Francis Nigel Lee, quoting Acts 2:39, for a partial citation that includes an ellipsis (...) at the end. Now, what is MORE misleading? 1) a partial quote, with an ellipsis, that invites the reader to go see what was left out, to see if it might be relevant in his mind? Or 2) to quote the portion, put a period (.) and possibly let a careless reader, one who doesn't go check the verse, perhaps think that this is more definitive than it deserves to be?
Actually, neither of the choices is indicative of a "better" citation. Fact-checking is the burden of the listener, caveat emptor, and all that. The verse divisions are "reference markers" and a textual imposition or innovation--a point JW frequently makes himself, and rightly so. Our choices, then, for "how much" to quote is purely subjective, and often audience or space-limitation determined.
As I said, I think JW does much good work. But this objection only holds water if no pb ever answers the objection, either before or after it is raised.
