Daniel Wallace - Revision history

Nick: /* Uncertainty about scripture */

2019-06-10T15:48:58Z

Uncertainty about scripture

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:48, 10 June 2019
Line 22:		Line 22:

	==Uncertainty about scripture==		==Uncertainty about scripture==
	:~~Wolves within the Church~~		:I have never said in our debates that we are absolutely certain of the wording of the text of the New Testament. So, I would agree with him that “we really don’t have any way to know for sure” . . . . He is right that classical scholars do not ‘know exactly’ what these classical authors wrote. This is what I have said regarding the New Testament, too! We may have a high level of confidence, but it never rises to the point where we know exactly with absolute confidence what the text said. – Dan Wallace [http://danielbwallace.com/2012/05/01/the-bart-ehrman-blog-and-the-reliability-of-the-new-testament-text/]

	I have never said in our debates that we are absolutely certain of the wording of the text of the New Testament. So, I would agree with him that “we really don’t have any way to know for sure” . . . . He is right that classical scholars do not ‘know exactly’ what these classical authors wrote. This is what I have said regarding the New Testament, too! We may have a high level of confidence, but it never rises to the point where we know exactly with absolute confidence what the text said. – Dan Wallace [http://danielbwallace.com/2012/05/01/the-bart-ehrman-blog-and-the-reliability-of-the-new-testament-text/]

	==Published works==		==Published works==

Nick: /* Published works */

2019-06-10T15:48:26Z

Published works

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:48, 10 June 2019
Line 20:		Line 20:

	:“Scholars are not sure of the exact words of Jesus. Ancient historians were concerned to get the gist of what someone said, but not necessarily the exact wording. A comparison of parallel passages in the Synoptic Gospels reveals that the evangelists didn’t always record Jesus’ words exactly the same way. The terms ipsissima verba and ipsissima vox are used to distinguish the kinds of dominical sayings we have in the Gospels. The former means ‘the very words,’ and the latter means ‘the very voice.’ That is, the exact words or the essential thought. There have been attempts to harmonize these accounts, but they are highly motivated by a theological agenda which clouds one’s judgment and skews the facts. In truth, though red-letter editions of the Bible may give comfort to believers that they have the very words of Jesus in every instance, this is a false comfort.” (Dr. Daniel Wallace, “Fifteen Myths About Bible Translation”)		:“Scholars are not sure of the exact words of Jesus. Ancient historians were concerned to get the gist of what someone said, but not necessarily the exact wording. A comparison of parallel passages in the Synoptic Gospels reveals that the evangelists didn’t always record Jesus’ words exactly the same way. The terms ipsissima verba and ipsissima vox are used to distinguish the kinds of dominical sayings we have in the Gospels. The former means ‘the very words,’ and the latter means ‘the very voice.’ That is, the exact words or the essential thought. There have been attempts to harmonize these accounts, but they are highly motivated by a theological agenda which clouds one’s judgment and skews the facts. In truth, though red-letter editions of the Bible may give comfort to believers that they have the very words of Jesus in every instance, this is a false comfort.” (Dr. Daniel Wallace, “Fifteen Myths About Bible Translation”)

			==Uncertainty about scripture==
			:Wolves within the Church

			I have never said in our debates that we are absolutely certain of the wording of the text of the New Testament. So, I would agree with him that “we really don’t have any way to know for sure” . . . . He is right that classical scholars do not ‘know exactly’ what these classical authors wrote. This is what I have said regarding the New Testament, too! We may have a high level of confidence, but it never rises to the point where we know exactly with absolute confidence what the text said. – Dan Wallace [http://danielbwallace.com/2012/05/01/the-bart-ehrman-blog-and-the-reliability-of-the-new-testament-text/]

	==Published works==		==Published works==

Nick: /* Hatred for the Textus Receptus */

2019-04-27T15:09:32Z

Hatred for the Textus Receptus

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:09, 27 April 2019
Line 13:		Line 13:
	Wallace's hatred for the [[Textus Receptus]] can be seen in a 1994 article:		Wallace's hatred for the [[Textus Receptus]] can be seen in a 1994 article:
	: For the first two-thirds of the twentieth century, NT textual critics could speak with one accord: The textus receptus (TR) had finally been laid to rest. In 1899 Marvin Vincent referred to it as an "historical monument" that "has been summarily rejected as a basis for a correct text." A. T. Robertson in 1926 declared: "The Textus Receptus is as dead as Queen Anne." Eight years later Leo Vaganay similarly pronounced last rites over the corpse. And just three decades ago Bruce Metzger could justifiably dismiss the contemporary defense of the Byzantine text in a mere footnote.		: For the first two-thirds of the twentieth century, NT textual critics could speak with one accord: The textus receptus (TR) had finally been laid to rest. In 1899 Marvin Vincent referred to it as an "historical monument" that "has been summarily rejected as a basis for a correct text." A. T. Robertson in 1926 declared: "The Textus Receptus is as dead as Queen Anne." Eight years later Leo Vaganay similarly pronounced last rites over the corpse. And just three decades ago Bruce Metzger could justifiably dismiss the contemporary defense of the Byzantine text in a mere footnote.
	: The situation today is disturbingly different. Gone is the era when KJV/TR advocates could be found only in the backwaters of anti-intellectual American fundamentalism. A small but growing number of students of the NT in North America and, to a lesser degree, in Europe (in particular the Netherlands and Great Britain) are embracing a view that was left for dead more than a century ago—namely, that the original text is to be found in a majority of MSS. (''[ http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/37/37-2/JETS_37-2_185-215_Wallace.pdf The Majority-Text Theory - History, Methods, and Critique]. Daniel B. Wallace.'')		: The situation today is disturbingly different. Gone is the era when KJV/TR advocates could be found only in the backwaters of anti-intellectual American fundamentalism. A small but growing number of students of the NT in North America and, to a lesser degree, in Europe (in particular the Netherlands and Great Britain) are embracing a view that was left for dead more than a century ago—namely, that the original text is to be found in a majority of MSS. (''[ http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/37/37-2/JETS_37-2_185-215_Wallace.pdf The Majority-Text Theory - History, Methods, and Critique ]. Daniel B. Wallace.'')

	==Rejection of biblical and historical preservation==		==Rejection of biblical and historical preservation==

Nick: /* Rejection of biblical and historical preservation */

2019-04-27T11:50:24Z

Rejection of biblical and historical preservation

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:50, 27 April 2019
Line 17:		Line 17:
	==Rejection of biblical and historical preservation==		==Rejection of biblical and historical preservation==
	:"Up until the last few years, I would say—and have said—that the practice of textual criticism neither needs nor deserves any theological presuppositions. For example, I am not convinced that the Bible speaks of its own preservation. That doctrine was first introduced in the Westminster Confession, but it is not something that can be found in scripture." —Dan Wallace		:"Up until the last few years, I would say—and have said—that the practice of textual criticism neither needs nor deserves any theological presuppositions. For example, I am not convinced that the Bible speaks of its own preservation. That doctrine was first introduced in the Westminster Confession, but it is not something that can be found in scripture." —Dan Wallace
	https://bible.org/article/interview-daniel-b-wallace-textual-criticism?fbclid=IwAR26p7-XEotirYAoMBJbrpDeyfpTKhhfRd4J9qHbqpq3Sasr_bDtok6INV4		[https://bible.org/article/interview-daniel-b-wallace-textual-criticism?fbclid=IwAR26p7-XEotirYAoMBJbrpDeyfpTKhhfRd4J9qHbqpq3Sasr_bDtok6INV4 ]

			:“Scholars are not sure of the exact words of Jesus. Ancient historians were concerned to get the gist of what someone said, but not necessarily the exact wording. A comparison of parallel passages in the Synoptic Gospels reveals that the evangelists didn’t always record Jesus’ words exactly the same way. The terms ipsissima verba and ipsissima vox are used to distinguish the kinds of dominical sayings we have in the Gospels. The former means ‘the very words,’ and the latter means ‘the very voice.’ That is, the exact words or the essential thought. There have been attempts to harmonize these accounts, but they are highly motivated by a theological agenda which clouds one’s judgment and skews the facts. In truth, though red-letter editions of the Bible may give comfort to believers that they have the very words of Jesus in every instance, this is a false comfort.” (Dr. Daniel Wallace, “Fifteen Myths About Bible Translation”)

	==Published works==		==Published works==

Nick: /* Hatred for the Textus Receptus */

2018-12-11T11:42:57Z

Hatred for the Textus Receptus

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:42, 11 December 2018
Line 13:		Line 13:
	Wallace's hatred for the [[Textus Receptus]] can be seen in a 1994 article:		Wallace's hatred for the [[Textus Receptus]] can be seen in a 1994 article:
	: For the first two-thirds of the twentieth century, NT textual critics could speak with one accord: The textus receptus (TR) had finally been laid to rest. In 1899 Marvin Vincent referred to it as an "historical monument" that "has been summarily rejected as a basis for a correct text." A. T. Robertson in 1926 declared: "The Textus Receptus is as dead as Queen Anne." Eight years later Leo Vaganay similarly pronounced last rites over the corpse. And just three decades ago Bruce Metzger could justifiably dismiss the contemporary defense of the Byzantine text in a mere footnote.		: For the first two-thirds of the twentieth century, NT textual critics could speak with one accord: The textus receptus (TR) had finally been laid to rest. In 1899 Marvin Vincent referred to it as an "historical monument" that "has been summarily rejected as a basis for a correct text." A. T. Robertson in 1926 declared: "The Textus Receptus is as dead as Queen Anne." Eight years later Leo Vaganay similarly pronounced last rites over the corpse. And just three decades ago Bruce Metzger could justifiably dismiss the contemporary defense of the Byzantine text in a mere footnote.
	: The situation today is disturbingly different. Gone is the era when KJV/TR advocates could be found only in the backwaters of anti-intellectual American fundamentalism. A small but growing number of students of the NT in North America and, to a lesser degree, in Europe (in particular the Netherlands and Great Britain) are embracing a view that was left for dead more than a century ago—namely, that the original text is to be found in a majority of MSS. (''[ http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/37/37-2/JETS_37-2_185-215_Wallace.pdf The Majority-Text Theory: History, Methods, and Critique]. Daniel B. Wallace.'')		: The situation today is disturbingly different. Gone is the era when KJV/TR advocates could be found only in the backwaters of anti-intellectual American fundamentalism. A small but growing number of students of the NT in North America and, to a lesser degree, in Europe (in particular the Netherlands and Great Britain) are embracing a view that was left for dead more than a century ago—namely, that the original text is to be found in a majority of MSS. (''[ http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/37/37-2/JETS_37-2_185-215_Wallace.pdf The Majority-Text Theory - History, Methods, and Critique]. Daniel B. Wallace.'')

	==Rejection of biblical and historical preservation==		==Rejection of biblical and historical preservation==

Nick: /* Hatred for the Textus Receptus */

2018-12-11T11:42:29Z

Hatred for the Textus Receptus

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:42, 11 December 2018
Line 12:		Line 12:
	==Hatred for the Textus Receptus==		==Hatred for the Textus Receptus==
	Wallace's hatred for the [[Textus Receptus]] can be seen in a 1994 article:		Wallace's hatred for the [[Textus Receptus]] can be seen in a 1994 article:
	: For the first two-thirds of the twentieth century, NT textual critics could speak with one accord: The textus receptus (TR) had finally been laid		: For the first two-thirds of the twentieth century, NT textual critics could speak with one accord: The textus receptus (TR) had finally been laid to rest. In 1899 Marvin Vincent referred to it as an "historical monument" that "has been summarily rejected as a basis for a correct text." A. T. Robertson in 1926 declared: "The Textus Receptus is as dead as Queen Anne." Eight years later Leo Vaganay similarly pronounced last rites over the corpse. And just three decades ago Bruce Metzger could justifiably dismiss the contemporary defense of the Byzantine text in a mere footnote.
	to rest. In 1899 Marvin Vincent referred to it as an "historical monument" that "has been summarily rejected as a basis for a correct text." A. T. Robertson in 1926 declared: "The Textus Receptus is as dead as Queen Anne." Eight years later Leo Vaganay similarly pronounced last rites over the corpse. And just three decades ago Bruce Metzger could justifiably dismiss the contemporary defense of the Byzantine text in a mere footnote.
	: The situation today is disturbingly different. Gone is the era when KJV/TR advocates could be found only in the backwaters of anti-intellectual American fundamentalism. A small but growing number of students of the NT in North America and, to a lesser degree, in Europe (in particular the Netherlands and Great Britain) are embracing a view that was left for dead more than a century ago—namely, that the original text is to be found in a majority of MSS. (''[ http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/37/37-2/JETS_37-2_185-215_Wallace.pdf The Majority-Text Theory: History, Methods, and Critique]. Daniel B. Wallace.'')		: The situation today is disturbingly different. Gone is the era when KJV/TR advocates could be found only in the backwaters of anti-intellectual American fundamentalism. A small but growing number of students of the NT in North America and, to a lesser degree, in Europe (in particular the Netherlands and Great Britain) are embracing a view that was left for dead more than a century ago—namely, that the original text is to be found in a majority of MSS. (''[ http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/37/37-2/JETS_37-2_185-215_Wallace.pdf The Majority-Text Theory: History, Methods, and Critique]. Daniel B. Wallace.'')

Nick: /* Hatred for the Textus Receptus */

2018-12-11T11:41:57Z

Hatred for the Textus Receptus

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:41, 11 December 2018
Line 15:		Line 15:
	to rest. In 1899 Marvin Vincent referred to it as an "historical monument" that "has been summarily rejected as a basis for a correct text." A. T. Robertson in 1926 declared: "The Textus Receptus is as dead as Queen Anne." Eight years later Leo Vaganay similarly pronounced last rites over the corpse. And just three decades ago Bruce Metzger could justifiably dismiss the contemporary defense of the Byzantine text in a mere footnote.		to rest. In 1899 Marvin Vincent referred to it as an "historical monument" that "has been summarily rejected as a basis for a correct text." A. T. Robertson in 1926 declared: "The Textus Receptus is as dead as Queen Anne." Eight years later Leo Vaganay similarly pronounced last rites over the corpse. And just three decades ago Bruce Metzger could justifiably dismiss the contemporary defense of the Byzantine text in a mere footnote.
	: The situation today is disturbingly different. Gone is the era when KJV/TR advocates could be found only in the backwaters of anti-intellectual American fundamentalism. A small but growing number of students of the NT in North America and, to a lesser degree, in Europe (in particular the Netherlands and Great Britain) are embracing a view that was left for dead more than a century ago—namely, that the original text is to be found in a majority of MSS. (''[ http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/37/37-2/JETS_37-2_185-215_Wallace.pdf The Majority-Text Theory: History, Methods, and Critique]. Daniel B. Wallace.'')		: The situation today is disturbingly different. Gone is the era when KJV/TR advocates could be found only in the backwaters of anti-intellectual American fundamentalism. A small but growing number of students of the NT in North America and, to a lesser degree, in Europe (in particular the Netherlands and Great Britain) are embracing a view that was left for dead more than a century ago—namely, that the original text is to be found in a majority of MSS. (''[ http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/37/37-2/JETS_37-2_185-215_Wallace.pdf The Majority-Text Theory: History, Methods, and Critique]. Daniel B. Wallace.'')

			==Rejection of biblical and historical preservation==
			:"Up until the last few years, I would say—and have said—that the practice of textual criticism neither needs nor deserves any theological presuppositions. For example, I am not convinced that the Bible speaks of its own preservation. That doctrine was first introduced in the Westminster Confession, but it is not something that can be found in scripture." —Dan Wallace
			https://bible.org/article/interview-daniel-b-wallace-textual-criticism?fbclid=IwAR26p7-XEotirYAoMBJbrpDeyfpTKhhfRd4J9qHbqpq3Sasr_bDtok6INV4

	==Published works==		==Published works==

Nick: /* Hatred for the Textus Receptus */

2016-12-30T23:26:57Z

Hatred for the Textus Receptus

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:26, 30 December 2016
Line 14:		Line 14:
	: For the first two-thirds of the twentieth century, NT textual critics could speak with one accord: The textus receptus (TR) had finally been laid		: For the first two-thirds of the twentieth century, NT textual critics could speak with one accord: The textus receptus (TR) had finally been laid
	to rest. In 1899 Marvin Vincent referred to it as an "historical monument" that "has been summarily rejected as a basis for a correct text." A. T. Robertson in 1926 declared: "The Textus Receptus is as dead as Queen Anne." Eight years later Leo Vaganay similarly pronounced last rites over the corpse. And just three decades ago Bruce Metzger could justifiably dismiss the contemporary defense of the Byzantine text in a mere footnote.		to rest. In 1899 Marvin Vincent referred to it as an "historical monument" that "has been summarily rejected as a basis for a correct text." A. T. Robertson in 1926 declared: "The Textus Receptus is as dead as Queen Anne." Eight years later Leo Vaganay similarly pronounced last rites over the corpse. And just three decades ago Bruce Metzger could justifiably dismiss the contemporary defense of the Byzantine text in a mere footnote.
	: The situation today is disturbingly different. Gone is the era when KJV/TR advocates could be found only in the backwaters of anti-intellectual American fundamentalism. A small but growing number of students of the NT in North America and, to a lesser degree, in Europe (in particular the Netherlands and Great Britain) are embracing a view that was left for dead more than a century ago—namely, that the original text is to be found in a majority of MSS. (''[ http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/37/37-2/JETS_37-2_185-215_Wallace.~~pdfThe~~ Majority-Text Theory: History, Methods, and Critique]. Daniel B. Wallace.'')		: The situation today is disturbingly different. Gone is the era when KJV/TR advocates could be found only in the backwaters of anti-intellectual American fundamentalism. A small but growing number of students of the NT in North America and, to a lesser degree, in Europe (in particular the Netherlands and Great Britain) are embracing a view that was left for dead more than a century ago—namely, that the original text is to be found in a majority of MSS. (''[ http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/37/37-2/JETS_37-2_185-215_Wallace.pdf The Majority-Text Theory: History, Methods, and Critique]. Daniel B. Wallace.'')

	==Published works==		==Published works==

Nick at 20:07, 29 December 2016

2016-12-29T20:07:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:07, 29 December 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Critical Text Onlyists}}
	'''Daniel Baird Wallace''' (June 5, [[1952 AD\|1952]]-) is a professor of New Testament Studies at [[Dallas Theological Seminary]] where he has been tenured since [[1995 AD\|1995]].		'''Daniel Baird Wallace''' (June 5, [[1952 AD\|1952]]-) is a professor of New Testament Studies at [[Dallas Theological Seminary]] where he has been tenured since [[1995 AD\|1995]].

Line 8:		Line 9:

	Wallace, along with DTS colleague [[Darrell L. Bock]], has been an outspoken critic of the alleged "popular culture" quest to discredit orthodox, evangelical views of Jesus—including the writings of [[Elaine Pagels]] and [[Bart Ehrman]]<sup>[2]</sup>. Wallace critiqued Ehrman's ''Misquoting Jesus: The Story of Who Changed the Bible and Why'' for misrepresenting commonly held views of textual criticism, especially in Ehrman's view of the "orthodox corruption of Scripture."<sup>[3]</sup> Wallace and Ehrman dialogued at [[the Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum]] in April, [[2008 AD\|2008]].		Wallace, along with DTS colleague [[Darrell L. Bock]], has been an outspoken critic of the alleged "popular culture" quest to discredit orthodox, evangelical views of Jesus—including the writings of [[Elaine Pagels]] and [[Bart Ehrman]]<sup>[2]</sup>. Wallace critiqued Ehrman's ''Misquoting Jesus: The Story of Who Changed the Bible and Why'' for misrepresenting commonly held views of textual criticism, especially in Ehrman's view of the "orthodox corruption of Scripture."<sup>[3]</sup> Wallace and Ehrman dialogued at [[the Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum]] in April, [[2008 AD\|2008]].

			==Hatred for the Textus Receptus==
			Wallace's hatred for the [[Textus Receptus]] can be seen in a 1994 article:
			: For the first two-thirds of the twentieth century, NT textual critics could speak with one accord: The textus receptus (TR) had finally been laid
			to rest. In 1899 Marvin Vincent referred to it as an "historical monument" that "has been summarily rejected as a basis for a correct text." A. T. Robertson in 1926 declared: "The Textus Receptus is as dead as Queen Anne." Eight years later Leo Vaganay similarly pronounced last rites over the corpse. And just three decades ago Bruce Metzger could justifiably dismiss the contemporary defense of the Byzantine text in a mere footnote.
			: The situation today is disturbingly different. Gone is the era when KJV/TR advocates could be found only in the backwaters of anti-intellectual American fundamentalism. A small but growing number of students of the NT in North America and, to a lesser degree, in Europe (in particular the Netherlands and Great Britain) are embracing a view that was left for dead more than a century ago—namely, that the original text is to be found in a majority of MSS. (''[ http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/37/37-2/JETS_37-2_185-215_Wallace.pdfThe Majority-Text Theory: History, Methods, and Critique]. Daniel B. Wallace.'')

	==Published works==		==Published works==
Line 56:		Line 63:

	==External links==		==External links==
			* [http://confessionalbibliology.com/the-resources/jeff-riddle-textual-criticism-resources/jeff-riddle-dan-wallace/ Jeff Riddle’s Analysis of Dr. Dan Wallace’s paper parts 1 to 5 - Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism] Audios
	* [http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/dwallace/ Staff page at DTS]		* [http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/dwallace/ Staff page at DTS]
	* [http://www.csntm.org Center For The Study of New Testament Manuscripts, Daniel B. Wallace, Executive Director]		* [http://www.csntm.org Center For The Study of New Testament Manuscripts, Daniel B. Wallace, Executive Director]

Beza 1598 at 11:33, 8 March 2016

2016-03-08T11:33:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:33, 8 March 2016
Line 75:		Line 75:
	[[Category:Scholars of Koine Greek]]		[[Category:Scholars of Koine Greek]]
	[[Category:Dallas Theological Seminary alumni]]		[[Category:Dallas Theological Seminary alumni]]

			{{Donate}}