Over at the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog, Elijah Hixson made an eager post “About that Dan Wallace quote.” This Dan Wallace quote:
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.
Hixson believes writers have taken this quote out of context in order to misrepresent Wallace’s view of text criticism.[i] (Or, at least has the effect of misrepresenting him, even if unintended.) He provides the entire paragraph for more context in order to try to rehabilitate “the gift that keeps on giving.”
“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.”[ii]
Before proving what Wallace believes by quoting Wallace, Hixson skews the sense of the data by suggesting Dan Wallace believes the same as Edward F. Hills. The Hills who believed this:
“Embracing the common faith, we take our stand upon the Traditional text, the Textus Receptus, and the King James Version and acknowledge these texts to be trustworthy reproductions of the infallibly inspired original text.”
Wallace’s statement is hard to press into an idea of possessing texts that are “trustworthy reproductions of the infallibly inspired original text.” However, what does Wallace himself say? Hixson provides two contextless quotes (though if you have the desire and the time, you can listen to the entire context, just as you can if you have the desire and the time to read Myths and Mistakes). Hixson provides Wallace’s concluding statement of a lecture at South Dakota State University.
“The New Testament Text in all essentials and in the vast majority of particulars is absolutely certain.”[iii]
Not sure of that context? Welp, I checked. Wallace concludes his talk with this, in which he says that he agrees with Bart Ehrman, “Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament” (Misquoting Jesus, p. 252). How much confidence does that exude to the average Christian, now knowing that evangelical text critic Dan Wallace agrees with agnostic text critic Bart Ehrman on the essentials of the manuscript tradition? (For other comparisons, see “We do not know.”)
The second leg of support for Wallace is from the “Theology in the Raw” YouTube broadcast. Interviewing Wallace, the host holds up a UBS-4 that he says he used to use, and asks whether any recent discoveries would change how some of its verses are rendered. Wallace replies:
“There’s a few passages I could talk about, but understand that scholars have known what is in Greek … original Greek New Testament for well over 150 years, because we have it above the line or below the line. It’s not ... like um if you have a multiple choice it’s either Text A, Text B, or Text C—it’s never Text D—‘none of the above.’ Never.” [iv]
This leg of support seems on its face contradictory of the original quote Hixson is defending.[v] In the one, Wallace says that we do not have exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote. In the other, Wallace says that scholars have known what is in the original Greek New Testament for over 150 years. Do we know it? Have we known it? Or do we not have it? Have we not known it? Might we peasants be excused for thinking that this sounds like someone talking out of both sides of his mouth?
Expressly, the two attitudes—based on more of the context Hixson does not explicitly reveal—are the “unreflective beliefs” of the “Dan Browns and Kurt Eichenwalds of our world” who “can liken, with a straight face, the scribal copying of Scripture to the parlor game of Telephone” contrasted with apologists who “speak of (nearly) absolute certainty when it comes to the wording in the New Testament” and the laity who “routinely think of their Bible as the Word of God in every detail.”[vi]
This chasm of context between the two extremes—that the scribal copying of Scripture is the textual equivalent of the parlor game of Telephone and a belief in absolute or near absolute certainty when it comes to the wording of Scripture—is deep and wide. Some pretty flaming liberals could fall between those cracks! I am not proposing that Dan Wallace is a flaming liberal. Neither do I think his view comes close to rubbing shoulders with the view of E. F. Hills, as Elijah Hixson seems to submit.
The context or lack thereof is likely not the main problem. Dan paints his picture in dark and grim shades. “A normal Christian” reads Wallace’s claim “and reacts understandably.” Notice how majority text advocate Maurice Robinson reframed Wallace’s statement in a much more positive light:
“For the vast bulk of the New Testament we already have – in our critical Greek texts and translations – exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote. The relatively few variant units in the New Testament where the text is relatively uncertain (i.e. a choice between one or a few possible alternatives) pales by comparison to the general integrity of the text as a whole.”
Now you, my dear Reader, may not exactly agree with what Robinson wrote either. Nevertheless, if Wallace had cautiously framed his ideas similarly, he would never have given his critics—critics of modern text critics—the gift that keeps on giving.[vii] I have no problem considering more of what Dan Wallace says (I have, at times, e.g., 2012 and 2022). Eventually, though, I do not think that such looks will extricate him from the jam into which he and his peers have gotten themselves.
[ii] For the source and context, see Daniel B. Wallace in “Foreword,” Myths & Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, Elijah Hixson & Peter Gurry, Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2019, p. xii. If this statement is considered from Wallace’s own perspective of reasoned eclecticism, his statement is true. That is, if the reasoned eclecticism approach to recreating the original Bible is the valid one, then Wallace is right. “We do not have…exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote” and “even if we did, we would not know it.” There is no cause for any hand wringing about what Wallace said. Just own it.
[iii] “How Badly Was the New Testament Corrupted?” The comment starts at about 1:13:35.
[iv] “How Reliable Are Our New Testament Manuscripts?” The comment starts at about 0:20:05.
[v] Surely we cannot be faulted for being confused by comments coming out of the critical camps. On the one hand, some say “We do not have in our critical Greek texts exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote” and on the other hand, some say “we have everything the apostles wrote, either in the text or the apparatus.” Which is it? Do you have what they wrote or not have it? To be fair, no doubt some of our statements may seem confusing to the opposing side. “God has preserved his word down to the jots and tittles in the TR” and “There are differences in the various editions of the TR.” I cannot speak for others, but the difference for me is that I take God’s promises in his word on faith as the truth, and admit that I do not have an explanation for all the particulars. (Same as I do in church history, which is my wheelhouse.) However, I cannot see how modern textual critics can make that claim, seeing how they base all their assertions on the manuscript evidence without any theological or biblical a priori.
[vi] Some more context – written before that paragraph: “On the other hand, some apologists for the Christian faith speak of (nearly) absolute certainty when it comes to the wording in the New Testament. And laypeople routinely think of their Bible as the Word of God in every detail. They are blissfully unaware that Bible translations change—because language evolves, interpretations that affect translation become better informed (and all translation is interpretation), and the text that is being translated gets tweaked. Biblical scholarship is not idle. Yet even the publisher of the ESV translation, extremely popular among evangelicals, contributed to this fictive certitude when it declared in August 2016 that ‘the text of the ESV Bible will remain unchanged in all future editions printed and published by Crossway.’ The next month it admitted, ‘This decision was a mistake.’ When a publishing house tries to canonize its Bible translation, what does this say to the millions of readers who know nothing of Greek, Hebrew, of Aramaic?” Some more context – written after that paragraph: “The new generation of evangelical scholars is far more comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty than previous generations. They know the difference between core beliefs and those that are more peripheral. They recognize that even if we embrace the concept of absolute truth, absolute certainty about it is different matter.”
[vii] Elijah, the author of “About that Dan Wallace quote,” concedes that Robinson’s reframing is better, making the right point and “does so in a way that is much less likely to bring about unnecessary doubt in regular Christians” – even suggesting a change to a statement more like Robinson’s “if they let us do a second edition.” That is quite an admission, context or not, implying the criticisms are not as wide of the mark as the blog post alleges.
14 comments:
Thank you for following up on this topic here: It honestly felt a bit petty to press and/or explore the issue further after the more recent blog post (ETC) regarding Fee's passing. So this alternate setting is welcome, and also seems more appropriate for the time being.
I think the primary issue here is the failure to note Wallace's important qualification i.e. "exactly." Do we have "exactly" what the New Testament authors wrote in "our critical Greek texts or any translations?"
Does the *text*¹ of the NA/UBS/ECM, the THGNT or SBL "exactly" match up with the autographs in every single possible instance of variation? Do the popular English translations of our various critical texts e.g. ESV, NLT, NASB, NIV, etc. perfectly match the autographic text in every unit of variation?
Obviously TR/KJV/CB advocacy doesn't think so,–so why all the bellyaching?
If we expand Wallace's statement to include all Greek NT editions e.g. Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, W-H, NA/UBS, SBL, Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elziver, MT, RP-BYZ, etc. Do any of these editions perfectly match the autographs in the text? And if any of them did, could it be proven?
Suppose we stretch Wallace's statement to include all English translations of the Greek NT e.g. Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, Bishop's, RSV, NRSV, NASB, NKJV, MEV, ESV, NIV, CSB, etc. Are any of these perfect?
This is pretty basic stuff, and it's generally only TR/KJV advocacy that has a problem understanding and digesting it...which is very telling.
So where is this Greek NT (and/or translation) that "exactly" matches the original autographs? Is it Scrivener ¹⁸⁸¹ and/or the A. V. ¹⁶¹¹?
If so–how can it be proven?
I don't expect you (or anyone) to answer all these questions, but I do hope they provoke thought, and in doing so help shed some light on this.
¹ The text, not text and margin/foot.
Matthew, thanks for your comment. I have been out of town. I will try to get back to this tomorrow or Monday.
Matthew, I felt sort of the same way about continuing that discussion once the blog post about the death of Gordon Fee superseded it.
In case I have not been clear or in case someone reads this does not know, I am a TR/KJV advocate who disagrees with Wallace.
I think the Wallace quote represents “exactly” what he believes, either in a broader context and standalone. Sure, it does not reveal “everything” he believes, but it is something he believes, and something he has not disowned. As I mentioned in footnote 2, considering this from the perspective of reasoned eclecticism, the statement is true – accurately represents that position. That is, if the reasoned eclecticism approach to recreating the original Bible is the valid one, then Wallace is right. “We do not have…exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote” and “even if we did, we would not know it.” There is no cause for any hand wringing for Elijah (who wrote the article) or anyone else about what Wallace said. I would add that I think his honesty about never knowing whether we have “exactly” what the authors of the New Testament is what is generally being keyed on by those of us who are “bellyaching.” (I don’t see it so much as complaining as it is highlighting where this position stands in relation to the autographa.)
I really do not think that TR advocates have a problem understanding what Wallace wrote, and perhaps it is more telling that Hixson wants to walk it back – would even like to change it to something more like what Maurice Robinson wrote if they ever put out a second edition. I also find interesting the follow up that Peter Gurry (another editor of Myths and Mistakes) did with “Ehrman’s Definition of Textual Criticism.” His first sentence relates it back to the Wallace quote blog post.
We shouldn’t – as a rule – be insanely pessimistic (just somewhat pessimistic then?) “about the possibilities of getting back to a pretty close approximation of the original text in most cases.” “Most of the time” he thinks we can get back to “a fair approximation of what ancient authors wrote,” but there are sometimes many places and sometimes many very important places “where there are real grounds for doubt.” Sounds more like skepticism than confidence to me, but, hey, I guess it is all a matter of perspective.
Thank you for the reply.
Do you believe that Stephanus ¹⁵⁵⁰ contains, "exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote"–without error?
Again, do you think that the NT within the Geneva Bible ¹⁵⁵⁷ contains, "exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote?"
I don't mean to barrage you with questions, but I think (hope) these may lead somewhere.
Confessing to not be intimately familiar with either Stephanus ¹⁵⁵⁰ or the Geneva NT ¹⁵⁵⁷, I would nevertheless still say no.
Thank you.
Okay, last question: Is there an edition of the Greek NT and/or an English translation (of it) which you *do* believe contains "exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote"–without error?
For the Greek, I use the TBS printing of the Scrivener GNT. In English, I use the Bible that has been believed and accepted by English Christians for 400 years (the KJV).
As I wrote in one of the footnotes above, I take God’s promises in his word by faith as the truth. I believe he promised to preserve his word, and therefore I operate as having been given that word in what has been passed down to me. I cannot prove that to those who want physical manuscript evidence. In a sense we are in the same boat – those who require manuscript evidence cannot prove they have what the authors of the New Testament wrote, and those who accept it on faith cannot prove they have what the authors of the New Testament wrote. However, with my theological a priori met to the satisfaction of my faith, I believe I have the word of God, while it seems that many are continually looking for it.
The problem I see here (in regards to Wallace's statement) is that (1) the KJV has some very slight variation amongst it's editions–and (2) none of them match the Scrivener ¹⁸⁸¹ "exactly." So what is one to do in such situations, follow the KJV or Scrivener's GNT?
One thing I would mention is that we are not following Wallace’s statement, but rather reacting to it. I feel that the word “exactly” is not really the focal part of Wallace’s quote that some of us find the most shocking. It is his admission of a perpetually unknown Bible. He says that we will never know whether we have it, and have no way of knowing that we have exactly what the apostles wrote, even if we did have exactly what they wrote! (However, his conclusion is a logical and honest one for someone who does not believe in providential preservation.)
In theory, I would prioritize the original language reading, in this case the Scrivener Greek New Testament. I say in theory because I can read and comprehend English in a much higher degree than I can Greek. As a practical matter, therefore, I might miss the nuances of the GNT, might question my conclusions re the GNT more than I would re the English, and so on.
One interesting practical difference, in my opinion, is that we have access to the original KJV and its editions through the years. We have access to various editions of the TR. So we can compare our thoughts, conclusions, etc. to those records. I realize this might not be of much import to CT advocates. On the other hand, we do not have the autographs to pull out and compare.
The fact is, we cannot evidentially prove that the original autographs are/were inspired, infallible, and inerrant. We accept that by faith, by taking God at his word.
I never intended to give the impression that Wallace's use of "exactly" (as a qualification) was somehow "shocking," on the contrary–it's actually what makes the statement much less shocking than is often purported.
Is it safe to say that Wallace's statement is correct in regards to every single printed edition of the GNT, as well as every single English translation of it *except* the KJV and Scrivener ¹⁸⁸¹ in your view?
And I'm trying to understand why you seem to have no qualms regarding the lack of a perfect edition of the GNT or of any translation that "exactly" matches what the Apostles wrote before 1611/1881(?). Did the Christians before said dates also hold to an incorrect view of preservation, considering that they didn't have a perfectly preserved text between two covers?
Thank you again for taking the time to explain your position in detail, it's appreciated! And I should probably make it crystal clear that I'm no fan of the modern critical text/s or reasoned eclecticism in general: And likewise, I certainly no fan of KJV/TR-Onlyism either, in case you wondered. Thanks again.
I didn’t mean to suggest that you are saying that the use of “exactly” as a qualification was “shocking,” but rather that the focus on this quote by someone like me is in another area. I probably did not word that well. Dan Wallace is working under a theory that is unable to produce what some of its proponents have often suggested it would. Wallace assesses that position accurately, in my opinion, and ultimately I think that is what is being highlighted. Wallace, unlike some others but like Lefty, wears his view on the outside for all the world to see. Reasoned eclectic criticism has no way of knowing or proving whether we have exactly what the apostles wrote. That probably should not be shocking, except that they have long purported that they could/would produce exactly that.
In regards to your question, I would say that Wallace’s statement – taken in reference to physical evidence – is correct across the board. That is, we cannot prove it by manuscript evidence and logic or whatever. On the other hand, I do not believe we are restricted to manuscript evidence and the Westcott-Hort Nestle-Aland principles of textual criticism. I consider physical and historical evidence, but accept what I have by faith. I do not have all the answers, but we do need to thoughtfully consider the issues.
Not having all the answers, I nevertheless did not mean to insinuate that I believe no one had what the apostles wrote before 1611. I addressed a specific question about Stephanus and Geneva. I feel a necessity of answering that way because I accept 1611/1881, and 1550/1557 has differences that do not match those.
I do not think that God’s promise of providential preservation requires a perfect edition between two covers. The fact that I am satisfied with having one does not mean God had/has to do it that way. It seems to me that God’s promise of providential preservation is to preserve his words rather than to preserve physical media. Obviously, he has worked providentially in the preservation of whatever physical media we have containing the words of the inspired writers. However, it is not necessary, in my opinion, to equate that as the same thing, though there is an obvious relationship between the two.
You mention that you are a fan neither of modern critical text/reasoned eclecticism nor of KJV/TR-Onlyism. Should that be taken to mean that you hold a majority text position, or something similar?
To be clear, and I expect you already understand, I obviously am no textual critic. I am first a pastor and second a researcher of Baptist history (among other things). Nevertheless, I believe I have some skills, the right, and the responsibility, to assess and comment on what textual scholars attempt to dispense to the Lord’s churches.
Thanks.
It's obvious that *no* position has any "way of knowing or proving whether we have exactly what the apostles wrote." This is one reason why I believe we should be following the reading that is supported by the fullest evidence, and not give an undue or exaggerated preference for specific manuscripts, text-types, printed editions and/or translations. Much of what is wrong with our current positions stems from an over-reliance, bias and in some cases flat out partisanship towards (or bias against) certain favored (or unfavored) documents. Thus my distaste for both extremes, viz., Neo-hortianism and KJV/TR-Onlyism. I tend to believe that both positions are inherently biased (to some degree) from the start.
You ask: "Should that be taken to mean that you hold a majority text position, or something similar?"
The MT position is logically unscientific on its face from my perspective, albiet the final results are similar (more or less) to what a strict following of the core methodology of Scrivener and Burgon would produce.¹ In short: a majority of manuscripts does not preclude the possibility of error. There are other factors and types of evidence that I believe we run the risk of ignoring by applying a MT approach.² So I personally advocate for a stricter following of the school of Scrivener and Burgon; blending the best of their very similar methodologies, and updating it accordingly.
I'll have to get back to you on preservation, because I don't understand your take on the period prior to the production of the KJV.
¹ Robinson's approach is more nuanced, and to delve into such is beyond the scope of my reply. Although I will say that I very often agree with his textual choices (though not always), and have much more good than bad to say regarding his position and text.
² This is not to say that H & F did not nuance their approach to include and weigh other evidences–especially when the Greek MSS. are closely split. It's just too little too late from my perspective.
I have a good deal of respect for Maurice Robinson, and have learned things from listening to or reading him.
What do consider in the core methodology of Scrivener and Burgon that is primarily needed to further nuance or correct the Majority Text approach?
Thanks.
A majority of Greek NT manuscripts should not be used as a litmus test to confirm the original reading. All evidence must be weighed and accounted for, the MSS., the Versions and the Father's. Likewise, internal considerations must be given more weight in my estimation. Most MT advocates will claim that they do weigh such things (at least when needed), but then it would seem the very name and idea behind a "majority text" is somewhat lost. So I consider it too-little-too-late at best, and essentially lip service at worse.
A better approach is to seek the best supported reading without special emphasis, bias or prejudice for or against such and such manuscript/s, "text-type," text family/cluster, etc. The respective representatives of the Lachmannian school have in general restricted the evidence pool according to their presuppositions: Likewise, I see the MT/BYZ camp putting too much focus (and weight subsequently) on the later cursives, and therefore diminishing the proper weight due to other types of evidence.
Please feel free to press further and ask more questions if you'd like.
Post a Comment