Dan Wallace
From Textus Receptus
(Difference between revisions)
(→External Links) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Critical Text Onlyists}} | {{Critical Text Onlyists}} | ||
| + | Dan Wallace | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==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.'') | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
==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://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 | ||
Revision as of 20:05, 29 December 2016
| Critical Text Onlyists |
|---|
See Also |
Dan Wallace
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.)
