Wallace on textual criticism....

[christ_undivided]

I believe this might be Wallace's final chapel message at DTS. It was stream recently. No matter what side you're on, I believe most anyone can agree that Wallace is a man of integrity and well reasoned in his beliefs. This is a extraordinarily well done presentation on the goals of textual criticism. I wanted to share the link with everyone and get your thoughts. Please opine.

 

[Conan]

I'm going to disagree with Wallace saying B/p75 are the closest until the 8th century. Pretty sure over the same text we have A, the Purple Codices, E, all Byzantine.

Manuscript Ee (07)​

Basel, University Library A.N. III. 12. Contains the Gospels almost complete; lacks Luke 3:4-15, 24:47-end. Luke 1:69-2:4, 12:58-13:12, 15:8-20 are supplements in a later, cursive hand. Dated paleographically to the eighth century (so all recent authorities;
Burgon argued for the seventh; the letterforms look old, but the accents, breathings, and punctuation argue that it is relatively recent). This makes it the very first purely Byzantine uncial in any part of the Bible; it is the first Byzantine manuscript to contain not merely the small, more ordinary Byzantine readings but also the story of the Adulteress (found earlier in D, but no one will claim Bezae is Byzantine!). (In the gospels, there are earlier almost-pure Byzantine uncials: A and the Purple Uncials; elsewhere, all Greek witnesses to the Byzantine text are even later than E. Obviously the Byzantine type is much older than E. E is simply the earliest pure representative of what became the dominant type in the Middle Ages.) All examiners have agreed on E's Byzantine nature; the Alands list it as Category V; von Soden lists it as Ki; Wisse calls it Kx Cluster W. (We might add that Kx Cluster W is Ki; Wisse's three chapters did not provide enough text to distinguish the two groups, but historical evidence seems to imply that they are distinct although very closely related.) Certain disputed passages are marked with asterisks (Matt. 16:2-3, Luke 22:43-44, 23:34, John 8:2-11). It is well and carefully written, and probably deserves inclusion in critical apparati as the leading witness of the later Byzantine type

NT Manuscripts - Uncials

www.skypoint.com

 

[christ_undivided]

I'm going to disagree with Wallace saying B/p75 are the closest until the 8th century. Pretty sure over the same text we have A, the Purple Codices, E, all Byzantine.

Manuscript Ee (07)​

Basel, University Library A.N. III. 12. Contains the Gospels almost complete; lacks Luke 3:4-15, 24:47-end. Luke 1:69-2:4, 12:58-13:12, 15:8-20 are supplements in a later, cursive hand. Dated paleographically to the eighth century (so all recent authorities;
Burgon argued for the seventh; the letterforms look old, but the accents, breathings, and punctuation argue that it is relatively recent). This makes it the very first purely Byzantine uncial in any part of the Bible; it is the first Byzantine manuscript to contain not merely the small, more ordinary Byzantine readings but also the story of the Adulteress (found earlier in D, but no one will claim Bezae is Byzantine!). (In the gospels, there are earlier almost-pure Byzantine uncials: A and the Purple Uncials; elsewhere, all Greek witnesses to the Byzantine text are even later than E. Obviously the Byzantine type is much older than E. E is simply the earliest pure representative of what became the dominant type in the Middle Ages.) All examiners have agreed on E's Byzantine nature; the Alands list it as Category V; von Soden lists it as Ki; Wisse calls it Kx Cluster W. (We might add that Kx Cluster W is Ki; Wisse's three chapters did not provide enough text to distinguish the two groups, but historical evidence seems to imply that they are distinct although very closely related.) Certain disputed passages are marked with asterisks (Matt. 16:2-3, Luke 22:43-44, 23:34, John 8:2-11). It is well and carefully written, and probably deserves inclusion in critical apparati as the leading witness of the later Byzantine type

NT Manuscripts - Uncials

www.skypoint.com

..............

 

[christ_undivided]

I believe this might be Wallace's final chapel message at DTS. It was stream recently. No matter what side you're on, I believe most anyone can agree that Wallace is a man of integrity and well reasoned in his beliefs. This is a extraordinarily well done presentation on the goals of textual criticism. I wanted to share the link with everyone and get your thoughts. Please opine.

Looks like they moved the video. Can't find it now. Sorry. Thanks

 

[Conan]

I do not believe Wallace is well reasoned in his textual criticism. He tried to pawn off that the Byzantine text did not become the dominate text until the 10th century. Everyone else, especially Hort, thought the Byzantine Text dominated 4th century.

It is a plain fact that Erasmus, despite living 500 years ago, and only having a fraction of the manuscripts available to Wallace, has a more accurate Greek New Testament than Wallace. For every correction Wallace makes, he introduces many more errors.

He may be a very learned and intelligent Scholar. But he should be making the New Testament more accurate. Not less so.

 

[christ_undivided]

I do not believe Wallace is well reasoned in his textual criticism. He tried to pawn off that the Byzantine text did not become the dominate text until the 10th century. Everyone else, especially Hort, thought the Byzantine Text dominated 4th century.

It is a plain fact that Erasmus, despite living 500 years ago, and only having a fraction of the manuscripts available to Wallace, has a more accurate Greek New Testament than Wallace. For every correction Wallace makes, he introduces many more errors.

He may be a very learned and intelligent Scholar. But he should be making the New Testament more accurate. Not less so.

Some what experience do you have in actually handling and cataloging the ancient manuscripts yourself?

Who cares what Hort claimed. I know you don't really care, yet you try to pass off his opinion as if it matters. It doesn't.

You've never seen me quote Hort or most anyone else. I gave up quoting men a very long time ago. I didn't post the video because I believe he is right about everything he says. I do like the character he brings to the topic. He has very good methods and reasoned conclusions. That is more than I can say for most.

You have a silly infatuation with the Byzantine tradition. Not that anyone can proclaim purity to the traditions of men. Witnessing the variation in reproduction of the texts is important. It is this variation that exposes the hearts of men. No matter what we desire most, we must remain true to evidence. No matter if that evidence does not support what we desire..

If you watch the video before it was taken down, you would have seen that Wallace mentioned the fact that even Ehrman has said that textual variants themselves do not destroy the Christian faith.

My faith does not stand in the mistakes of men. When I talk of errors and mistakes it is to expose the hearts and desires of men to forget their mistakes at the expense of their humility.

There is plenty of blame to go around. We can start with ourselves.

 

[Conan]

Some what experience do you have in actually handling and cataloging the ancient manuscripts yourself?

None? But that doesn't have anything to do with it. I didn't criticize Wallace on his bases of cataloging ancient manuscripts. Rather his dismissing of ancient manuscripts. His school of thought. Not his ability to catalog or handle manuscripts.

Who cares what Hort claimed. I know you don't really care, yet you try to pass off his opinion as if it matters. It doesn't.

The point was that textual critics traditionally believed that the Byzantine Test came to dominate the manuscripts. Hort was an easy example to come to mind.

You've never seen me quote Hort or most anyone else. I gave up quoting men a very long time ago. I didn't post the video because I believe he is right about everything he says. I do like the character he brings to the topic. He has very good methods and reasoned conclusions. That is more than I can say for most.

There is nothing wrong with quoting people whatsoever. Your own self quotes Ehrman and Wallace.

You have a silly infatuation with the Byzantine tradition.

No. Ehrman and Wallace dismissal of the Byzantine Manuscripts should be called out as abnormal as it is. To take 85-95% of the evidence and dismiss it is criminal.

Not that anyone can proclaim purity to the traditions of men. Witnessing the variation in reproduction of the texts is important. It is this variation that exposes the hearts of men. No matter what we desire most, we must remain true to evidence. No matter if that evidence does not support what we desire..

If you watch the video before it was taken down, you would have seen that Wallace mentioned the fact that even Ehrman has said that textual variants themselves do not destroy the Christian faith.

My faith does not stand in the mistakes of men. When I talk of errors and mistakes it is to expose the hearts and desires of men to forget their mistakes at the expense of their humility.

There is plenty of blame to go around. We can start with ourselves.

Wallace's great flaw is to see a tiny few manuscripts full of mistakes and to comb these for the original text while dismissing the great majority of manuscripts. It doesn't mean that he is not a very intelligent scholar. He is a very intelligent Scholar. He just cannot do textual criticism any better than Ehrman.

 

[christ_undivided]

None? But that doesn't have anything to do with it.

Sure it does. He has actually handled the evidence himself. WE.... have not had the privilege of doing the same. He isn't READING what others have to say about it. He is examining the extant evidence. If you do not see the advantage to his position, I don't know how I can reason with you.

I didn't criticize Wallace on his bases of cataloging ancient manuscripts. Rather his dismissing of ancient manuscripts. His school of thought. Not his ability to catalog or handle manuscripts.

His expertise is far greater than any "office clerk".....

I'll give you an example. The Book of Revelation is a very disputed writing! Both from its textual history and its canonical history. The Book of Revelation alone is one of the most abused writings in all of Christianity. It has caused more division and hatred among Christians than most any extant NT witness in history.

What would think if the actual "Mark of the Beast" is 616 and not 666? How would that affect the arrogance people bring to the "table" when discussing the "Revelation"? He has written about this. He has handled the evidence itself. His humility in dealing with subjects such as this is very important.

Contrarily, you would DESTROY such evidence because it does not support your position. Which is what has happened with the Byzantine text. There are very few early witnesses to the Byzantine witness in the Epistles and especially in the Book of Revelation.

The point was that textual critics traditionally believed that the Byzantine Test came to dominate the manuscripts. Hort was an easy example to come to mind.

In its limited reach, yes. Don't be so easily influenced with western sensibility from the 15th century. The Byzantine texts were popularized by the canonical process that established the Gospels. No matter how we "slice this", it 300 to 400 years removed from the "autographs" themselves. The limited witnesses to the remainder of the canonical NT from the same timeframe tell a specific "story".

There is nothing wrong with quoting people whatsoever. Your own self quotes Ehrman and Wallace.

I quoted them in the context of the video that I posted.

No. Ehrman and Wallace dismissal of the Byzantine Manuscripts should be called out as abnormal as it is. To take 85-95% of the evidence and dismiss it is criminal.

Explain your percentages? It is based upon quantities of manuscripts or of unique witnesses? I don't count "copies" twice or more.

Wallace's great flaw is to see a tiny few manuscripts full of mistakes and to comb these for the original text while dismissing the great majority of manuscripts. It doesn't mean that he is not a very intelligent scholar. He is a very intelligent Scholar. He just cannot do textual criticism any better than Ehrman.

That is utterly preposterous.

Name the "Greatest" mistake he has made and I will take his position.

 

[Conan]

Sure it does. He has actually handled the evidence himself. WE.... have not had the privilege of doing the same. He isn't READING what others have to say about it. He is examining the extant evidence. If you do not see the advantage to his position, I don't know how I can reason with you.

What does that have to do with reading variants from an apparatus? Ok, to you it is an advantage. To me, it doesn't affect choosing between variant readings. Unless the apparatuses don't give complete information, and they don't. Yes handling the manuscripts would be advantageous. But that's not what you were talking about.

His expertise is far greater than any "office clerk".....

I'll give you an example. The Book of Revelation is a very disputed writing! Both from its textual history and its canonical history. The Book of Revelation alone is one of the most abused writings in all of Christianity. It has caused more division and hatred among Christians than most any extant NT witness in history.

What would think if the actual "Mark of the Beast" is 616 and not 666? How would that affect the arrogance people bring to the "table" when discussing the "Revelation"? He has written about this. He has handled the evidence itself. His humility in dealing with subjects such as this is very important.

Please tell me that you haven't fell for the 616 reading? Let me give you a hint. It's 666, not 616.

Contrarily, you would DESTROY such evidence because it does not support your position. Which is what has happened with the Byzantine text. There are very few early witnesses to the Byzantine witness in the Epistles and especially in the Book of Revelation.



In its limited reach, yes. Don't be so easily influenced with western sensibility from the 15th century. The Byzantine texts were popularized by the canonical process that established the Gospels. No matter how we "slice this", it 300 to 400 years removed from the "autographs" themselves. The limited witnesses to the remainder of the canonical NT from the same timeframe tell a specific "story".

So, you think the Gospel of John in the Byzantine Text to be 300 to 400 years different than the originals?

Take John 1:1-17. Tell me how many words do not go back to the 1st century AD?

I quoted them in the context of the video that I posted.



Explain your percentages? It is based upon quantities of manuscripts or of unique witnesses? I don't count "copies" twice or more.

For almost the whole New Testament (Revelation excluded)85-95% of all manuscripts agree. It's called the Majority or Byzantine Text. At different times manuscripts drop out of the majority reading and others rotate in.

That is utterly preposterous.

Name the "Greatest" mistake he has made and I will take his position.

If he has argued for 616, you can start there?

 

[christ_undivided]

What does that have to do with reading variants from an apparatus?

Weren't you just recently referencing a manuscript that had been overwritten as it was very meaningful evidence?

Ok, to you it is an advantage. To me, it doesn't affect choosing between variant readings. Unless the apparatuses don't give complete information, and they don't. Yes handling the manuscripts would be advantageous. But that's not what you were talking about.

Might not be what you're talking about but it is definitely what I'm talking about. "Hands on" experience is superior to blindly accepting what you prefer to read from others.

Please tell me that you haven't fell for the 616 reading? Let me give you a hint. It's 666, not 616.

I don't need your hint. I remember when the fragment was found @ the Ashmolean Museum.

Let me guess.... You actually believe Irenaeus and the claims of "Polycarp" to be a disciple of The Apostle John?

I'll give you some time to get acquainted with the information.

So, you think the Gospel of John in the Byzantine Text to be 300 to 400 years different than the originals?

Take John 1:1-17. Tell me how many words do not go back to the 1st century AD?

So I reference the oldest extant witness to the Byzantine textform being established by the texts of the Gospels and you come up with this? NO.......

You're ignore what I wrote. The Byzantine witness is much later in the epistles. This tells us a great deal concerning this infatuation you have with the Byzantine textform. The Word of God is not confined by the English language of the KJV.... NOR is it confined by Byzantine textform you prefer. There are superior references from other collections. To say otherwise is rejecting reality.

For almost the whole New Testament (Revelation excluded)85-95% of all manuscripts agree. It's called the Majority or Byzantine Text. At different times manuscripts drop out of the majority reading and others rotate in.

Why are you excluding Revelations? Might it be.... that you know enough about its history that you don't want to include it in your "majority"?

I don't care a single thing about feeding your false narrative of a "majority". As I said, there are meaningful deviations from the texts you prefer. YOU would like to remove those variants from the discussion. That would be evil.

You don't get to choose for me. What right do you have to claim a winner? You don't speak for anyone but yourself. Nor do I.....

What is evil is to remove any comments contrary to the choices YOU prefer. I'm fine with EVERYONE making their own choices with the information. I don't see the difference between what you desire and what king James desired. You're simply taking it a step further than king James did. You want the evidence to go away.

If he has argued for 616, you can start there?

So you've spent this time criticising Wallace..... and you ask me to "start there".... but you have no idea if he has argued for the 616 reading or not?

Typical. Thanks for wasting my time. You don't know enough about Wallace to have an option.

 

[Conan]

. YOU would like to remove those variants from the discussion. That would be evil.

You don't get to choose for me. What right do you have to claim a winner? You don't speak for anyone but yourself. Nor do I.....

What is evil is to remove any comments contrary to the choices YOU prefer. I'm fine with EVERYONE making their own choices with the information. I don't see the difference between what you desire and what king James desired. You're simply taking it a step further than king James did. You want the evidence to go away

This gets wearysome. I have already told you I would like to see every meaningful variant noted. Not just what I prefer. That is false.

 

[christ_undivided]

This gets wearysome. I have already told you I would like to see every meaningful variant noted. Not just what I prefer. That is false.

Meaningful? So gets to determine how meaningful they are?

You haven't said anything that remotely distances yourself from the practice of "calling balls and strikes" for EVERYONE.

Would you remove any reference to 616?

At the very least, we know this was an issue with Irenaeus discounting the number. This places the timing of the issue about as early as it gets among NT textual variants. The very construct of the number is problematic. I have no desire to make a decision on the proper choice. Let everyone know the evidence and let them decide. After all, I'm not going to be able to use YOUR ASSESSMENT as a defense when I face our Lord.

 

[Maestroh]

I do not believe Wallace is well reasoned in his textual criticism. He tried to pawn off that the Byzantine text did not become the dominate text until the 10th century.

That is not at all what he said unless you have a different sourcing. In his 1991 paper, "Inspiration, Preservation, and NTTC," Wallace said the following on page 30:

Majority text advocates tacitly assume that since most Greek manuscripts extant today belong to the Byzantine text, most Greek manuscripts throughout church history have belonged to the Byzantine text. But this assumption begs the question in the extreme, since there is not one solid shred of evidence that the Byzantine text even existed in the first three centuries of the Christian era. Not only this, but as far as our extant witnesses reveal, the Byzantine text did not become the majority text until the ninth century. Furthermore, for the letters of Paul, there is no majority text manuscript before the ninth century.

END QUOTE

He is referring to EXTANT witnesses, and is absolutely correct.

Everyone else, especially Hort, thought the Byzantine Text dominated 4th century.

Was dominant at that point?
Or BEGAN at that point?

It is a plain fact that Erasmus, despite living 500 years ago, and only having a fraction of the manuscripts available to Wallace, has a more accurate Greek New Testament than Wallace.

It is a plain opinion that is at variance with both reality and fact.

For every correction Wallace makes, he introduces many more errors.

Wallace didn't publish five TRs that then had to be supplemented by another 20 editions.

He may be a very learned and intelligent Scholar.

This is indisputable, whether you agree with him or not.

But he should be making the New Testament more accurate. Not less so.

Give an example.

 

[Steven Avery]

Who cares what Hort claimed.

Who cares what is in the Westcott-Hort recension.

Junque Versions are the result.

 

[christ_undivided]

Who cares what is in the Westcott-Hort recension.

Junque Versions are the result.

Avery..... I willing to admit that you're right at times and wrong at times. I don't believe Hort is authority on any subject no more than you're an authority on any subject.

"Name dropping" to establish a position has little value to me.

The KJV is a recension......

You should reconsider your appeal to "Junque". Treasure can be found among discarded items.

 

[Shoonra]

The Westcott-Hort edition of the Greek NT is, I think, very useful and an indicator (altho now somewhat dated) of the original Greek NT.

Unlike some other editors, who started with the Textus Receptus and then trimmed it to remove doubtful passages, W&H began with the oldest known mss, and the versions based on the oldest text traditions, and produced an approximation of the original NT text. It may well be that Nestle or Nestle-Aland or the UBS is somehow closer to the original text but the readings of the W-H text cannot be disputed without some solid evidence. A great deal can be learned from the second volume of the W-H edition, which was a textbook on textual criticism and an analysis of many of the problem passages; this second volume is much neglected altho it is still in print.

 

[Steven Avery]

The Westcott-Hort edition of the Greek NT is, I think, very useful and an indicator (altho now somewhat dated) of the original Greek NT.

Unlike some other editors, who started with the Textus Receptus and then trimmed it to remove doubtful passages, W&H began with the oldest known mss, and the versions based on the oldest text traditions, and produced an approximation of the original NT text. It may well be that Nestle or Nestle-Aland or the UBS is somehow closer to the original text but the readings of the W-H text cannot be disputed without some solid evidence. A great deal can be learned from the second volume of the W-H edition, which was a textbook on textual criticism and an analysis of many of the problem passages; this second volume is much neglected altho it is still in print.

The Vaticanus text is like a Reader's Digest text where there were thousands of shortenings.
(Either directly, or in its exemplars.)

Thus it is basically worthless.

The Sinaiticus text has similar problems, and is 1800s.

This is the core of the Westcott-Hort recension.

 

[christ_undivided]

The Vaticanus text is like a Reader's Digest text where there were thousands of shortenings.
(Either directly, or in its exemplars.)

Thus it is basically worthless.

The Sinaiticus text has similar problems, and is 1800s.

This is the core of the Westcott-Hort recension.

Nonsense. The work of anyone in the field involves ancient sources. You've been endless arguing over the dating of Sinaiticus as if proving your claim true.......would destroy any opposition to your position. It is ridiculous "dance" you're doing with virtually no meaning.

 

[Unbound68]

Nonsense. The work of anyone in the field involves ancient sources. You've been endless arguing over the dating of Sinaiticus as if proving your claim true.......would destroy any opposition to your position. It is ridiculous "dance" you're doing with virtually no meaning.

And he boldly declares “sinaiticus is 1800s” as if his ridiculous opinion trumps every single scholar on the planet.

 

[Steven Avery]

Nonsense. The work of anyone in the field involves ancient sources.

Many scholars understood the worthlessness of Vaticanus as a Version changer, even before Burgon.