Jots & Tittles 11: That Dan Wallace Quote and Another One

 

My notes:

Elijah Hixson recently posted a confusing article to the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog site criticizing those who hold to the Confessional Text (including at least three authors of the Why I Preach From the Received Text anthology) for the citation of a now “infamous” statement made by Dan Wallace in the foreword to the 2019 book Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism.

Let’s examine the entire paragraph from p. xii (bold added):

These two attitudes—radical skepticism and absolute certainty—must be avoided when we examine the New Testament text. We do not have now—in our critical Greek texts or any translations—exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote. Even if we did, we would not know it. There are many, many places in which the text of the New Testament is uncertain. But we also do not need to be overly skeptical. Where we should land between these two extremes is what this book addresses.

Hixson claims that the citation of the middle three sentences from the paragraph above (in bold) has been improperly used, because it was not shared in its proper context.

We do not have now—in our critical Greek texts or any translations—exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote. Even if we did, we would not know it. There are many, many places in which the text of the New Testament is uncertain.

Here are two responses to Hixson’s complaint:

First, the citation of the middle three sentences in the paragraph from p. xii does not in any way misrepresent Wallace’s view but simply illustrates and articulates it. These words are not Wallace’s summary of the views of some form of “radical skepticism” (as held by scholars like Bart Erhman or D. C. Parker) which he supposedly opposes. They represent his own view. If these words were his summary of a view he opposes it would indeed have been inappropriate to use this citation out of its wider context, but this is not the case. Our critique of Wallace is, in fact, that his view does not oppose radical skepticism but embraces and promotes it. The words taken from this paragraph very effectively illustrate this fact.

Second, I would say that reading the entire paragraph from which the citation is taken only makes Wallace’s quotation even more damaging to the cause of evangelical appropriation of modern textual criticism.

Wallace says that “absolute certainty” about the text of Scripture “must be avoided.” Yes, he does make the statement, “But we also do not need to be overly skeptical.” Our critique of Wallace, however, is that his view is not some kind of mediating position between “radical skepticism” and “absolute certainty,” but that his view embraces the same kind of textual agnosticism which is characteristic of 21^st century modern textual criticism. This what the citation taken from this paragraph is meant to illustrate.

With that said, let me move on to another quotation from Wallace in the same Foreword to Myths and Mistakes.

In a bid to avoid any controversy, I want to give this quotation in its proper full paragraph context.

So, here is the entire last paragraph of Wallace’s Foreword (pp. xix-xx):

As Michael Holmes has articulated and Zachary Cole attested, the New Testament manuscripts exhibit a text that is overall in excellent shape, but certainly not in impeccable shape; it manifests “microlevel fluidity and macrolevel stability [footnote 17].” What the authors of Myths and Mistakes insist on is that it is neither necessary nor even possible to demonstrate that we can recover the exact wording of the New Testament. But what we have is good enough.

Let me offer a few observations about this this quotation in its full paragraph context:

First, Wallace says he draws on an article from Michael W. Holmes (and attested by Zachary Cole’s article in Myths and Mistakes), that the currently extant manuscripts of the NT show that the text is “in excellent shape,” but not in “impeccable shape.”

Second, again using Holmes, he says the NT manifests “microlevel fluidity and macrolevel stability.” What does he mean by “macrolevel stability”? We assume he means that we have something called the NT, and it consists of some 27 books. This situation is stable. But, when we look more closely at the individual texts of those 27 books, we find “microlevel fluidity.” In other words, the texts of those books are not stable, and cannot be precisely defined. Thus, they are subject to change in various scholarly editions of the Greek NT, based on the varying opinions and conjectures of modern editors.

Third, Wallace asserts that it is not necessary to demonstrate that “we” (modern textual critics) can recover the exact wording of the NT. This means it is not necessary to recover the exact text of the NT.

Fourth, it is not possible to demonstrate that “we” (modern textual critics) can recover the exact wording of the NT. This means it is not possible using the modern empirical method of textual criticism to recover the original autogragh of the NT.

Fifth, since it is neither necessary nor even possible ever to reconstruct the original text of the NT, we should be content with what we have, which is “good enough.”

Conclusion:

This quotation from pp. xix-xx is consistent with the better-known quotation from p. xii.

Though Wallace can state that the NT is “overall in excellent shape,” he must add that it is not in “impeccable shape.” He does not define for us which parts are in “excellent shape” and which are not in “impeccable shape.” For Wallace and other modern textual critics, the modern Greek NT is at best a close approximation of the NT, but not a definitive reconstruction of its autograph which, according to Wallace, is neither “necessary nor even possible.” It promotes, in the end, a form of textual agnosticism (“microlevel fluidity” of the text).

This is precisely what conservative Reformed Protestants find to be alarming about the evangelical embrace of modern textual criticism, and why we are suggesting that this approach be abandoned in favor of retrieval of the traditional Protestant text of the Reformation.

The authors of the anthology did not abuse Wallace by quoting his own words in their respective articles. We have not misunderstood or misrepresented Wallace. The point is that we understand him and do not agree with him.

JTR

HBU Erasmus Conference Notes: Lecture 3: Dan Wallace on Erasmus' Greek New Testament (2.26.16)

Image:  Dan Wallace of Dallas Seminary speaks at the HBU Erasmus Conference.

Afternoon breakout session (2.26.16):

Jeff Cade, Martin Luther and the Reliability of the NT Manuscript tradition.

Cade noted that Luther was not a text critic but he did examine and make a number of textual decisions reflected in his translations.  He points to the following places where conjectures are found in Luther’s NT:  Acts 13:20; John 18:13-14, 24; James 4:2; 1 Corinthians 16:22; Romans 3:28.

Jeff Riddle, John Calvin and Text Criticism (see here).

Session III:  Dan Wallace:  Erasmus and the Publication of the First Greek NT

DW says Erasmus used only seven manuscripts, and he thinks he might only have used three.

Erasmus’ Novum Testamentum was rejected by Catholics and embraced by Protestants.

DW says there were imperfections in Eramus.  There was a rush job in printing, that resulted in “hundreds and hundreds of errors.”  There were Latin interpolations, as at Acts 9:4-6 and Revelation 22:17-22.  See especially “book of life” versus “tree of life” at Rev 22:19.

There was also the notorious inclusion of the Comma Johanneum in the third edition. Erasmus asked a friend to check Codex B.  DW says a scribe working at Oxford seems to have “made to order” a complete Greek NT ms (Codex 61) that had the CJ.

DW reported that the CJ now found in 9 mss (4 in text and 5 in margin).  The earliest is from the 10^th century.  DW wonders if more will be found.

Erasmus’ work was a great success.  Over 300,000 (!) copies were printed and circulated.

JTR Analysis:

Wallace offered few surprises in his presentation on Erasmus. He was appreciative of Eramus' work but sees the modern critical text as superior. He perpetuated the “rush to print” storyline. To his credit, he noted that the “rash vow" story on the CJ is not historically reliable but then proceeded to covey the related account of Codex 61 as created by Froy/Roy.

In the Q and A I asked about the number of papyri and later Greek mss. we have of 1 John. To say we only have 9 mss. with the CJ sounds devastating but there may not be that many extant mss. or early fragments of 1 John, so that the number that have the CJ might, in fact, be fairly respectable. DW did not know the details on the number of 1 John mss. off-hand.

New Word Magazine: Review: Dan Wallace on Preservation.Part 5

I uploaded a new WordMagazine today.  This episode is the fifth and final in a series of reviews of Dan Wallace’s article, Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism.

Here are a few sources I cited in the review:

First, Wallace argued that “the doctrine of preservation was not a doctrine of the ancient church,” noting that it was not articulated until the Westminster Confession.

In response I cited Richard A. Muller’s observation in Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 2:  “The church fathers devoted virtually all their theological energies to the exposition of the central issues in that body of doctrine—Trinity, Christology,  soteriology.  Whereas a high view of Scripture is implied in al their efforts, the development of an explicit doctrine of Scripture was, like the problem of theological prolegomena, left to later ages, specifically to the high scholastic era of the Middle Ages and to the Reformation and post-Reformation eras” (p. 6).  The point is that the fact that the doctrine of preservation was not explicitly articulated until the Westminster Confession, does not mean it was not a view held by early Christians and by the Church Fathers.

Second, I spent the final part of this episode noting four points.  These are drawn from David C. Parker, perhaps the leading academic NT scholar in the world today,  in his recent book Textual Scholarship and the Making of the New Testament (Oxford University Press, 2012) based on the 2011 Lyell Lectures at Oxford:

1.  Modern academic text criticism has abandoned the quest for the original autograph:

“…the modern concept of a single authoritative ‘original’ text was a hopeless anachronism, foisting on early Christianity something that can only exist as a result of modern concepts of textual production” (p. 24).

“The New Testament philologist’s task is not to recover an original text, not only because we cannot at present know on philological grounds what the original text might have been, nor even because there may have been several forms to the tradition, but because philology is not able to make pronouncements as to whether or not there was such an authorial text” (pp. 26-27).

2.  The Westcott-Hort Theory is outdated and inadequate:

On the conclusion that the “Neutral” text is superior to the Byzantine based on thirteen examples:  “… this is a totally inadequate amount of evidence, even if we grant their examples are only intended to be exemplary.  They did not have the evidential base to substantiate their claim that there is not one contrary example of the conflation found in the Byzantine text” (p. 82).

On the winsome presentation of the Westcott-Hort theory which based its critical text on the superiority of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus:  “It is confident and convincing.  It has been accepted by most people for a long time.  And yet we are left—or should be left—with the feeling that the theory does not deserve the reverence which has been accorded it” (p. 83).

He adds:  “Nevertheless, the time has come to abandon it [the Westcott-Hort proposal] completely, not because it was wrong, but because we can do better” (p. 83).

3.  The “geographical argument” should be rejected as a test for superiority:

“The geographical range of a reading may show its age or its popularity, but it will not demonstrate its superiority” (p. 80).

Note:  This quote applies in particular to Wallace’s argument that the traditional text is suspect because it was not dominant in Egypt.

4.  The application of text type theories from the Gospels to the rest of the NT is inappropriate:

“It is quite strange that NT philology drew up a concept of text types based upon the Gospels, and then assumed that it applied to the entire corpus of writings, even though it has always been widely acknowledged that the text types of the Gospels could not be shown to exist in other parts of the NT.  Thus we have worked with a very incomplete and unproven system, and in effect tried to reconstruct the oldest recoverable form of the writings without having a sound methodology for doing so” (pp. 161-162, n. 31).

Note:  This quote contradicts Wallace’s claim in the article that there is no majority text for the Pauline letters until the ninth century.  Wallace does precisely what Parker challenges:  He applies text types drawn from the Gospels to the rest of the NT (namely, the Pauline corpus).

New Word Magazine: Dan Wallace on Preservation.Part 4 (9.24.13)

I recorded another Word Magazine episode yesterday (9.24.13) and uploaded it to sermonaudio.com this morning.  This episode continues "the series that will [seemingly] never end" reviewing Dan Wallace's 1992 article Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism.

 

Much of this episode responds to the charge that those who hold to the traditional text have an unbiblical desire for illegitimate certainty about the text of Scripture rather than for truth.  I question whether it is wrong to seek textual certainty and stability and also consider how liberals and non-Christians use this same kind of argument against all major Christian truth claims.

 

I also address some of Wallace's rhetoric including his suggestions that those who hold to the traditional text are:  Bultmannians, Catholics, rationalists, Marcionites, psychologically insecure, and "bibliologically schizophrenic."  Wow!  I sure am glad that modern-text onlyists don't indulge in the same kind of ad hominem rhetoric as the KJV-onlyists!

 

JTR

New Word Magazine: Review: Dan Wallace on Preservation.Part 3 (9.18.13)

I recorded and posted another edition of Word Magazine today.  This is part 3 of my review of Dan Wallace's article, Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Criticism.

 

The review touched on a number of issues, including Wallace's suggestion that the modern critical reconstruction of the "original" text of Scripture is anticipated by Josiah's finding of "the book of the law" in the temple.  In the episode, I mentioned a series of messages I preached in September 2012 at CRBC on Old Testament texts relating to the doctrine of preservation.  One of those messages was titled When the Bible was lost from 2 Kings 22--23. At the close of that message I made the following applications:
 

This passage is a testimony and a witness to the fact that God preserves his Word.  Perhaps wicked men had been able to destroy every copy of God’s Word, but some faithful priest had hidden one copy of the Word and it lay hidden till the time of its providential discovery.  God will preserve his Word.

Is this an argument for the modern reconstruction of a so-called critical text?

Some might argue that this text justifies the modern text critical reconstruction aimed at “purifying” the traditional text of Scripture, since it posits a time when Scripture was lost and then restored.

We reject this scheme.  Why?

1.      The setting in 2 Kings 22-23 is of a time when the Bible was still progressively developing.  It was at this time that the portion of Scripture as yet revealed was completely lost for a period of time.  The modern text critical construal claims that God’s word was not completely lost but partially corrupted, and this happened after the canon had been completed.

2.     The setting in 2 Kings 22-23 is of a time when either all the Scriptures then revealed (Genesis-Deuteronomy) or a large portion (Deuteronomy) was completely lost for a significant period of time.  It addresses a period of the absence of the true word.  The modern construal claims not that the Word was taken away but that non-scriptural material was added (like the ending of Mark, the woman taken in adultery, etc.) and that they (the scholars, the experts) need to purify our texts by removing these accretions.

3.     The Biblical account describes a time of the Word’s absence that was of a relatively short duration. Saul, the first king came to the throne c. 1000 BC.  Josiah came to the throne c. 640 BC.  If the Word was lost near the end of the time of the Judges this would have been a period of c. 350 years.  If suppressed in the days of wicked Manasseh it would have been sometime after he took the throne c. 687 BC (so for only c. 40 years).  The modern text critical construal claims the Word of God was lost in the second century A. D. and only restored by modern scholars in the last nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.  So, according to this view, the pure Word was lost for some 1,500-1,700 years!  Would the Lord have left his people without the Word for the majority of the time in which the New Testament church was in existence?

New Word Magazine (9.10.13): Review: Dan Wallace on Preservation.Part 2

I recorded and posted another Word Magazine today, continuing my review and response to Dan Wallace's article Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism.

 

In this episode I take issue with several provocative and bold statements made by Wallace in the article like this one:  "Furthermore, for the letters of Paul, there is no majority text manuscript before the ninth century."

 

With regard to this statement I raised the following challenges:

 

1.  I asked what evidence Wallace had to prove this assertion, noting that the statement is made with no footnote to supporting evidence.

 

2.  I noted that there was probably less difference between the traditional text of the Pauline epistles and the texts used in the reconstruction of the modern critical text and a comparison of these same textual traditions in the Gospels where more major issues (e.g., Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53--8:11) typically exist.

 

3.  I noted that just because there are many manuscripts from the ninth and later centuries which support the traditional text, this does not mean that the traditional text only began at that time.  Rather, we might well assume that these later manuscripts were based on much earlier manuscript traditions which they copied.

 

4.  I noted that there seems to be directly contradictory evidence to the assertion that "there is no majority text manuscript [of the Pauline epistles] before the ninth century."

 

I pointed to two pieces of evidence:

 

First, in the introduction to the Nestle-Aland 27th ed. the editors list the "constant witnesses" for the Pauline epistles.  Among these is listed the uncial manuscript C (for all the 13 Pauline epistles except for 2 Thessalonians).

 

Second, in Bruce Metzger's The Text of the New Testament, Second Edition (Oxford University Press, 1968), he offers a description of C, also known as Codex Ephraemi (pp. 48-49).  Metzger dates C to the 5th century A.D.  He offers the following description of the text of C:  "Though the document dates from the fifth century, its text is of less importance than one might have assumed from its age.  It seems to be compounded from all the major text-types, agreeing frequently with the later Koine or Byzantine type, which most scholars regard as the least valuable type of New Testament text" (p. 49).  Metzger's obviously biased description of the Byzantine tradition aside, his assessment is that C dates to the 5th century and it provides a witness to the Byzantine text of the NT (including the Pauline epistles).

 

Conclusion:  Wallace's statement that there are no manuscripts that support the traditional text of the Pauline epistles until the 9th century is misleading, and, in the case of C, in particular, it is proven outright to be mistaken.

New Word Magazine (9.3.13): Review: Dan Wallace on Preservation

I recorded a new Word Magazine yesterday.  This episode begins a review of Dan Wallace's 1992 article (published on bible.org in 2004) Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism.  You can also listen to or download an audio reading of the article here.

 

In the episode I noted that Wallace approaches the study of the text of the NT as a broad evangelical and not from a Reformed confessional perspective.  Along those lines, I offered this quote from Wallace's contribution to Perspectives on the Ending of Mark, Ed. David Alan Black (B & H Academic, 2008) [see my longer review of this work in the January 2012 ATI (pp. 133-138) here]:

 

"If, however, the doctrine of preservation is not part of your credo, you would be more open to all the textual options.  I, for one, do not think that the real ending to Mark was lost, but I have no theological agenda in this matter I don't hold to the doctrine of preservation.  That doctrine, first formulated in the Westminster Confession (1646), has a poor Biblical basis.  I do not think that the doctrine is defensible--either exegetically or empirically [in a footnote here he cites the 1992 article under discussion].  As Bruce Metzger was fond of saying, it's neither wise nor safe to hold to doctrines that are not taught in Scripture.  I may be wrong in my view of preservation, but this presupposition at least keeps an open door for me for all the options in Mark 16" (p. 7). 

Dan Wallace's recent manuscripts discoveries

Image:  A photo from the CSNTM website of Dan Wallace with "Father" Justin, Librarian of St. Catherine's Monastary, Mt. Sinai

Back on February 1, 2012 evangelical NT scholar Dan Wallace perked up ears when in his third “debate” (dialogue) with Bart Ehrman he made mention of having recently discovered a fragment from Mark’s Gospel that may date to the first century, which, if true, would make it the earliest record of Mark in existence.

On February 10, 2012 Wallace made a post to his The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscript Studies website titled, “Earliest Manuscript of the New Testament Discovered?”  In that post he explained that “seven New Testament papyri have been discovered—six of them probably from the second century and one of them probably from the first.”  Wallace adds that “the first century fragment” has been dated “by one of the world’s leading paleographers,” who “said he was ‘certain’ that it was from the first century.”  He then states that this fragment is from the Gospel of Mark, and, if the dating is accurate, it would make this the earliest manuscript of Mark, predating p45 “by 100 to 150 years.”  Wallace also states that these manuscripts will be published in about a year.

There are a few things curious about the announcement.  Most notably, why the mystery?  Where were the manuscripts discovered?  Who discovered them?  Did Wallace’s CNTMS have a hand in their discovery?  How extensive is the Mark fragment and what verses does it include? What six books are the other manuscripts from and how extensive are they?  How have they been tentatively dated to the second century?  Who is the paleographer who has dated the Mark fragment to the first century?  How can he be “certain” of his dating?  What would be the purpose of keeping his identity secret?

Adding to the intrigue, Baptist Press did an article on Wallace’s manuscript find on February 16^th titled “Q & A:  A First Century Manuscript of Mark Found?” which includes an interview with Southeastern Seminary NT scholar Andreas Kostenberger.  Kostenberger states that “scholarly caution” should be maintained, noting that there have been other claims to the discovery of early manuscripts that have later fizzled (e.g., the notorious “Secret Gospel of Mark” that ended up being a hoax).   He also suggests that the reasons for discretion might be connected to a publishing agreement with Brill.  Baptist Press did a follow up article on February 28^th titled “1^st Century N. T. fragment:  more details emerge.”  This article cites further information shared by Wallace in a February 23^rd radio interview with Hugh Hewitt.  Among the new details:  The manuscripts were discovered in Egypt.  In addition to the Mark fragment, there is a sermon from Hebrews and “second century fragments from Luke and from Paul’s letters.”  Wallace is cited as saying that four of these Pauline manuscripts would predate p46 (c. 200 AD),  the earliest known papyri from Paul.  He is also cited as saying that the significance of this find “would be on par with the significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls.”  That is quite a claim given that the Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in 1948, contained a library of over 800 volumes (mostly in fragments) and provided manuscripts of the Old Testament that were in some cases more than a thousand years older than previously known documents!

Over on the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog, there seems to be more than a little skepticism over Wallace’s find (and some initial misunderstanding about Wallace’s report) in a February 10^th post.  In the comments, for example, Peter Head makes the following observation:

It doesn't make sense to me that a leading palaeographer would express themselves as "certain" on such a matter. Dating scribal hands on the basis of palaeography does not generally lead to certainty but to probabilities and to date ranges and one would expect a leading palaeographer to know that.  Now if the fragments have been found bundled together with a bunch of dated documents all from the first century, that would be interesting. But it doesn't sound like anyone has done this work yet.

So we are left with a couple of options: a) this is not a leading palaeographer; b) he has been misquoted/misunderstood; c) he is wrong; or d) (less likely) he is right and there is some peculiar feature of this manuscript that leads to the peculiar confidence expressed.

There is also a post on that blog from February 6^th on Walllace’s “debate”with Ehrman, which includes a link to Andreas Kostenberger’s analysis in which he critiques Wallace’s approach.

So, what’s the big deal about Wallace’s claim about finding the earliest fragment of Mark?  There is obviously a place for the collection and historical study of Biblical manuscripts, including fragmentary texts.  These documents, if authentic, might indeed give further historical proof for the first century origins of the New Testament writings (and, yes, there are radical scholars who want to late date much of the NT).  The problem comes with the attempt to sensationalize such discoveries by perhaps claiming greater significance for them than is warranted, or making such claims prematurely.  There is also the scent of academic elbowing and self-promotion of the next book.  You sometimes get the sense that Wallace is a big fan of the “Indiana Jones” films and that there just might be a rumpled fedora and a bull whip in his closet.  Of course, for Wallace and others who adopt the modern eclectic approach, such finds could potentially alter their construal of the “original” text of Scripture, depending on the find.  The modern critical text is necessarily and inherently unstable and might be radically altered by the newest “discovery.”  This is why I prefer the stability of adopting the traditional text.  

Dan Wallace and Bart Ehrman "Debate" The Text of the NT

I’ve read on a few blogs (James White and Justin Taylor) about the upcoming “debate” on October 1, 2011 between Dan Wallace of Dallas Seminary and Bart Ehrman on the topic “Can we trust the text of the New Testament?” I recently read and am in the process of writing a book review for an upcoming issue of ATI of Robert B. Stewart, Ed., Bart D. Ehrman & Daniel B. Wallace in Dialogue: The Reliability of the New Testament (Fortress Press, 2011). This book came from the Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum in Faith and Culture that was held at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary on April 4-5, 2008. This forum included a “dialogue” (not a “debate”) between Wallace and Ehrman on the “The Textual Reliability of the New Testament.” The book contains a full transcript of the 2008 Wallace-Ehrman Dialogue including their presentations and the q and a session with the audience. It also includes seven scholarly articles from the likes of Michael Holmes and David Parker, leading academic text critics).

Now, three years later, Wallace and Ehrman are going to participate in another event, this time in Dallas. This one is a fund-raiser for Wallace’s Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, with Erhman, no doubt, receiving a lucrative honorarium for his appearance. Though it is billed as a “debate,” my guess it is likely to be more of a “joint appearance.” Why do I say this? Because the two men are in essential agreement in their primary beliefs about the textual transmission of the New Testament. Here is part of what I have started writing for my book review in evaluating the 2008 dialogue between Wallace and Ehrman:

As the title indicates the central focus of the forum, and therefore the book, was the dialogue between Ehrman and Wallace. Ehrman is clearly the rock star in this dialogue. He is a self-described former evangelical who claims that his faith ran aground when he discovered the uneven history of the textual transmission of the New Testament as a graduate student at Princeton. Ehrman went on to write the groundbreaking scholarly work The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (Oxford University Press, 1993), which argued that orthodox scribes altered the transmission of the text of Scripture to suit their polemical purposes. He has since written a series of popular works on text criticism and Christianity that have attacked the authority and reliability of Scripture (e. g., Misquoting Jesus). Wallace is much less well known outside evangelical circles, but he is considered the foremost evangelical New Testament text critic of our day. As evidence of this, Wallace was asked to present one of only two plenary addresses to the 2008 meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society when the annual theme was on textual criticism. The second plenary address was by Peter Gentry on Old Testament text criticism.

From his opening remarks, it is clear that Wallace is in awe (envy?) of Ehrman’s professional accomplishments. At times he almost fawns over Ehrman (cf., e. g., his opening lines: “Bart, as I expected, your presentation was energetic, informative, and entertaining. It was vintage Bart Ehrman” [p. 27]). In the audience q and a, Wallace actually states, “I think that what Bart has done for the Christian community is a great service” (p. 47). His point is that he admires Ehrman for exposing not just the general population, but also Christians, in particular, to disputed textual issues in the New Testament like the comma johanneum (John 7:53—8:11). From an orthodox position, however, it strikes one as strange that Wallace would so enthusiastically praise a man who has so brazenly attacked and attempted to undermine the authority and reliability of Scripture. Certainly civility should be the rule for such interactions, but Wallace goes beyond good manners and essentially capitulates to Ehrman. One of the more bizarre moments recorded in the dialogue also came from the q and a when an audience member asked Wallace about the propriety of preaching from John 7:53-8:11. Wallace responded, “Those are great and very practical questions that Bart can answer far better than I, so I’ll turn to over to him” (p. 57). Ehrman then gave the deadpan reply, “No. I would not preach on that.” The transcriber adds: “Audience roars with laughter” (p. 58). It is hard to figure what Wallace was thinking in deferring to Ehrman, a hardened apostate and agnostic, a question about preaching. Was he trying to be coy, humorous, cute? Though the audience laughed, it was hardly amusing.

The transcript of the dialogue between Ehrman and Wallace comes off, in the end, rather flat. Few sparks fly. There is little heat or passion expressed in disagreement. The key reason for this is that Ehrman and Wallace actually have very little to disagree about when it comes to textual criticism of the New Testament. Both, in fact, are confirmed “reasoned eclectics” (as are all the other authors in the book) who embrace the modern critical text of the New Testament as descended from liberal Protestant scholarship of the 19th century forward (as represented by scholars like Westcott and Hort, Nestle, Aland, and Metzger). No doubt, a much more stimulating exchange would have resulted if either (or both) men would have entered into dialogue (debate?) with a proponent of the Majority Text or of the Textus Receptus or even a King James Version Only-ist.

Both Ehrman and Wallace agree, for example, that disputed passages in the traditional text like the comma johanneum (John 7:53-8:11) and the so-called longer ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) were not part of the authentic, original text of the New Testament. So, Ehrman says John 7:53-8:11 “was not originally in the Bible” (p. 24) and that Mark 16:9-20 was added by later scribes (p. 25). Wallace, likewise, says that the woman caught in adultery is his “favorite passage that’s not in the Bible,” and he agrees with Ehrman that the traditional ending of Mark “is not part of the original text of the Bible” (p. 29).

In the end, their agreement even seems to extend to the matter of the reliability of the New Testament. Ehrman concludes his opening remarks as follows:

"Is the text of the New Testament reliable? The reality is there is no way to know. If we had the originals, we could tell you. If we had the first copies, we could tell you. If we had copies of the copies, we could tell you. We don’t have copies in many instances for hundreds of years after the originals. There are places where scholars continue to debate what the original text said, and there are places where we will probably never know" (p. 27).

Wallace draws a strikingly similar conclusion:

"So, is what we have now what they wrote then? Exactly? No. But in all essentials? Yes" (p. 46).

Thus, both agree that it is impossible to reconstruct the original text of Scripture with absolute certainty. Where do they differ? Ehrman suggests that we simply do not have enough evidence to know what the original text of Scripture contained, and so we must remain agnostic and skeptical. Thus, he can continue to muse about orthodox corruptions. Wallace, however, suggests that while we do not have (and never will have) absolute certainty about the original text of the New Testament we have a modern reconstruction that is close enough for Christians to trust and rely upon.

JTR

 

Note:  Interested readers might also like to read my series of blog article reviewing Dan Wallace's ETS Plenary Address on NT Text Criticism (part one, two, three, four, and five).