New Testament Textual Criticism: Answer Key to Quiz

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/about/dan-wallace on 30 Oct 2007
Bibliology & Dan Wallace - Contra Mundane & New Testament & Text Criticism

Comments (59)

Related Posts

• New Testament Textual Criticism: Answer Key to Quiz
• New Testament Textual Criticism 101
• The Nature of Textual Variants
• Textual Variants: What Issues Are At Stake? Part 2
• The Number of Textual Variants: An Evangelical Miscalculation

59 Responses to “New Testament Textual Criticism: Answer Key to Quiz”

1. C Michael Patton on 30 Oct 2007 at 1:34 am #

   Awesome post Dan. Everyone need to read this!

2. Thomas on 30 Oct 2007 at 3:54 am #

   You said:

   “The “providential view” is a name I made up, but I’m sure that someone holds to something like this! Many King James only advocates, for example, would argue that God must have preserved scripture a certain way, and the KJV is how he did it.”

   What you claim to have “made up” is actually what the Magisterial Reformers held to and is the Confessional position of the Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:8

   While they didn’t hold to unlearned anabaptist thought about inspiration of translation, which should be self evident, they did hold that the commonly Received Text of Scripture was the original text Providentially Preserved (1, Aland quote).

   Thus, during the English civil wars the printing of Bibles in England had ceased, some copies printed in Holland and imported were examined by the Assembly of Divines in 1643 and found to contain printing errors they considered to be “corrupt and dangerous to religion.” (see Scrivener, Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), p 25) They then petitioned Parliament to outlaw any importation that was not approved by said Divines which was enacted, but it didn’t do much good as many were subsequently imported from Holland with false claims as to the origin of press .

   In that sense one could say the Westminster Divines were “King James Onlyists” as they were opposing the Tridentine attacks upon Sola Scriptura through the introduction of variant readings and Rome’s assertion therein that Papal Infallibility was the only reliable guide to Truth. This claim, of course, has simply been restated today in terms that enlightenment textual philosophers are now the infallible guide.

   (1) “…it is undisputed that from the 16th century to the 18th century orthodoxy’s doctrine of verbal inspiration assumed… [the] Textus Receptus. It was the only Greek text they knew, and they regarded it as the ‘original’ text.” (Kurt Aland, “The Text of the Church” Trinity journal 8 (1987), p. 131.

   While it is not true that it was the only Greek “text” they knew (2), in case someone reads that to mean “manuscript text”, it is true they regarded it as the original and reliable text of Scripture itself.

   That is why it is called the “Received Text” as it is held by orthodox Protestantism to be the original autographa Providentially Preserved and “received” by Christendom through the ages. They had a much higher view of Scripture and approached the issue from an entirely different orientation, never entering their mind to attempt to compare apographs with hypothetical “inerrant autographs” which they didn’t nor could possess. Thus, the doctrine of Inspriration, Inerrancy and Infallibility was not approached from the enlightment philosophy that posits an extrabiblical standard upon textual reliability.

   Furthermore, it is incorrect to allude, the way you do that the Received Text “finds its roots in Erasmus’s Novum Instrumentum Omne.” The word “roots” indicates, at least in my interpretation, that you are saying that Erasmus created a “received text,” when it is merely the transmission of a manuscript text already commonly received into printed form.

   Sincerely,

   Thomas

   (2) Paul Bombasius, on June 18, 1521, the secretary of the Lorenzo
   Pucci at Rome, sent a letter to Erasmus containing a copy of portions of Codex Vaticanus. Jospeh Dixon (1853) says that Erasmus rejected it presuming Vaticanus to be corrupt and altered to match the Latin.

3. bethyada on 30 Oct 2007 at 4:34 am #

   7 out of 10. 4, 6, 8 incorrect (though didn’t read the word complete in question 6–always read the exam question thoroughly before answering!).

   Disclaimer: Never studied theology at university level but have read several articles in the Prof’s soapbox series some years back.

4. Peter Head on 30 Oct 2007 at 6:29 am #

   Over on ETC I scored 0/10.
   http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2007/10/dan-wallaces-tc-quiz-for-students.html

5. stevemoore on 30 Oct 2007 at 6:30 am #

   Thanks, - learned a lot already and looking forward to hearing more about this.

   -steve

6. connie @ Practicing Theology on 30 Oct 2007 at 9:12 am #

   I must give credit to my husband for any answers I got correct, as he has been my greatest teacher over the years–my wrong answers are purely MY fault!!!! BTW, he studied under YOU, Grassmick, etc. at DTS. Hope you’ll keep this sort of thing coming, it is very helpful!

7. Nick N. on 30 Oct 2007 at 9:16 am #

   I got 5 out of 10

8. Bill on 30 Oct 2007 at 9:16 am #

   Great test Dan. I at least did not score a zero.

   Seriously, great information and in a form that is intriguing.

9. centuri0n (F. Turk) on 30 Oct 2007 at 9:24 am #

   5 out of 10, but #1 is a trick question. I protest — how do I complain to the dean?

   

10. Scott on 30 Oct 2007 at 10:48 am #

    I got a 50%, but learned some things! Thanks!

11. lbovee on 30 Oct 2007 at 12:03 pm #

    6 out of 10.

    Dan’s job is safe.

12. Truth Unites... and Divides on 30 Oct 2007 at 12:22 pm #

    Utterly brilliant post Professor Wallace. Immense gratitude for leading and sharing this series on textual criticism.

    P.S. Another note of gratitude to Thomas for writing the following:

    “They had a much higher view of Scripture and approached the issue from an entirely different orientation, never entering their mind to attempt to compare apographs with hypothetical “inerrant autographs” which they didn’t nor could possess. Thus, the doctrine of Inspriration, Inerrancy and Infallibility was not approached from the enlightment philosophy that posits an extrabiblical standard upon textual reliability.”

    If I may ask, if they did not approach this from an Enlightenment philosophy with its attendant extrabiblical standards, then whence or how did they approach the doctrine of Inspiration, Inerrancy, and Infallibility?

13. Luke Hatfield on 30 Oct 2007 at 3:37 pm #

    Thomas,
    Where did the Magisterial Reformers get the idea “that the commonly Received Text of Scripture was the original text Providentially Preserved”? This is certainly not a Biblical idea, so aren’t they also imposing an extrabiblical standard by which to determine the inspired text? It seems to me that they more or less picked one specific text and decided to go with that one. The original manuscript view agreees that there was one inspired text (the original manuscript), but it is now lost, hence the task of textural criticism, that is, to as nearly as possible determine what that original manuscript was.

    This understanding of inspiration comes from the Bible itself. 2 Peter 1:21 says, “Men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” Based on this passage, I believe inspiration was a one-time event for each book/portion of the Bible. The Holy Spirit carried that author along to write down that particular letter, psalm, etc. at that particular time. So the original manuscripts as they were penned when “men were carried along by the Holy Spirit” - those are the writings I hold as inspired and therefore infallible, inerrant, and completely authoritative, and I believe that is why textual criticism is so important and why I appreciate the work of scholars like Dan Wallace and others who are helping recover as nearly as possible what those original manuscripts said.

14. Dan Wallace on 30 Oct 2007 at 9:00 pm #

    Glad you folks had fun with this. Peter, since you got a zero out of ten, I should probably throw out the entire quiz as invalid. I don’t know too many folks who can compete with your text-critical expertise. But since I’m the professor in this ‘course,’ I’ll keep it and give you a second chance to redeem yourself.

    Frank, no dean to protest to. Trick questions have never been off-limits to professors. Live with it.

    Thomas, I have to protest a couple of your critiques. I said that I made up the NAME of ‘providential view,’ not the idea. I know that the idea is implicit in the Westminister Confession, the first confession ever to suggest a doctrine of preservation, by the way (then followed by the Helvetic Confession). And you are quite right that the Westminster divines were especially thinking of the textus receptus when they articulated this doctrine. Second, I stand by my statement that the TR finds its roots in Erasmus’ Novum Instrumentum, your interpretation of what ‘roots’ means notwithstanding. Since I was describing what the Elzevirs did, rather than what Erasmus did, I think that ‘roots’ is wholly appropriate as a description of how to connect the TR to Erasmus.

    Good discussions, folks. More to come.

15. Thomas on 30 Oct 2007 at 9:15 pm #

    Dear Truth Unites and Divides,

    You asked:

    “If I may ask, if they did not approach this from an Enlightenment philosophy with its attendant extrabiblical standards, then whence or how did they approach the doctrine of Inspiration, Inerrancy, and Infallibility?”

    Francis Turretin, a Geneva Reformer and author of the Helvetic Consensus, explains the matter plainly. For more see that Consensus:

    “By the original texts, we do not mean the autographs written by the hand of Moses,
    of the prophets and the apostles, which certainly do not now exist. We mean their
    apographs which are so called because they set forth to us the word of God in the
    very words of those who wrote under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”
    Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1992 1:106.

    For a much more expansive answer I would refer you to Richard Muller’s, “Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics.” Here is a pertinent quote:

    “By “original” and “authentic” text, the Protestant orthodox do not mean the autographa which no one can possess but the apographa in the original tongue which are the source of all versions. The Jews throughout history and the church in the time of Christ regarded the Hebrew of the Old Testament as authentic and for nearly six centuries after Christ, the Greek of the New Testament was viewed as authentic without dispute. It is important to note that the Reformed orthodox insistence on the identification of the Hebrew and Greek texts as alone authentic does not demand direct reference to autographa in those languages: the “original and authentic text” of Scripture means, beyond the autograph copies, the legitimate tradition of Hebrew and Greek apographa. The case for Scripture as an infallible rule of faith and practice and the separate arguments for a received text free from major (non-scribal) error rests on an examination of the apographa and does not seek the infinite regress of the lost autographa as a prop for textual infallibility…. [In related footnote 165 Muller observes: "A rather sharp contrast must be drawn, therefore, between the Protestant orthodox arguments concerning the autographa and the views of Archibald Alexander Hodge and Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield."] p. 433

    The principle held today in modern criticism of this “infinite regress” to “inerrant autographa” is the textual heterdoxy of BB Warfield when he departed from the Westminster Confession and then redefined it in terms of his departure standing upon the enlightenment presupposition of Wescott and Hort. His departure from Protestant orthodoxy created a need to establish and maintain a scientific definition of Biblical inerrancy under attack by naturalistic scientific theory, walla, “inerrant autographa.” It is a new and novel idea in terms of historic Reformed Orthodoxy, none of the Magisterial Reformers held to the concept, on the contrary, that was Rome’s claim.

    To the Reformers the Bible was infallible because it was the very word of the Living God. They simply identified the legitimate tradition of the preservation of the text and received it.

    So, they approached it in the way they approached Nicene and Chalcedonian orthodoxy, thus they did not create a second classification of Scripture based upon hypothetical and hellenic presuppositions (”inerrant autographs”) in which God by His “singular care and providence” becomes required to abide by. Once you take the Bible in your hands and pit the autographa against the apographa, you are attempting to hold it in dialetical tension in the hellenic Form/Matter dialetic; you then become a wordless “Christian Mime.” Which is why the Gospel only speaks today in terms of “relevancy,” instead of an authoritative word from the Most High God.

    Thus, they didn’t philosophize about the text, they received the Scriptures that was common to Greek and Protestant Church through the ages. The modern heterdoxy of “inerrant autographs” would have been seen by the Reformers as a concession to Rome, and the modern fundamentalist “KVJ Only” baptist clearly senses this. He simply doesn’t have the ability to deal with the problem of Biblical Authority with the philosophical tools at hand to him, this is because he is standing upon Reformed Orthodoxy in receipt of the Authorized Version but theologically denies the doctrines of that Orthodoxy. Hence, he necessarily creates the “inspiration” of the translation to maintain his theological independence. If you look at Riplinger, for example, whom James White disparages; she receives the Bible of Chalcedonian Orthodoxy (e.g., Calvinism) and sets out on anti-Calvinistic tirade because the Reformed caved to naturalistic scientific criticism ala BB Warfield and published that Romish NIV. James White, then, in his championing of Warfeldian heterdoxy simply confirms, in their eyes, every word she wrote.

    We need to consider that the fundamentalist Baptist dogmatic stand upon the Authorized Version is the greatest opportunity for an evangelistic explosion of Reformational Orthodoxy since the Reformation itself. We should be embracing this, not disparaging it.

    The Reformers did not try to stand upon a presupposition of neutral objectivity, they were biased against Rome and championed that bias. It is a matter of presuppositions by and through which one interprets the data, EF Hills explains this very well in his work, King James Version Defended.

    The same problem exists, for example, in the way the evolutionist pretends to be capable of standing upon neutral ground to interpret the creation, instead of being analogical and thinking God’s thoughts after Him, in his definition he becomes a maker of facts, and stumbles. Likewise, the principles of eclectic criticism is the academic equivalent of the Scopes Monkey Trial in its quest for the inerrant autographa, which is why the Authorized Version is scorned and disparaged.

16. Truth Unites... and Divides on 31 Oct 2007 at 9:00 am #

    Dear Thomas,

    Much, much thanks for the in-depth reply! You have given me much to ponder upon. There’s quite a bit to unpack.

    Pax.

17. Thomas on 31 Oct 2007 at 2:52 pm #

    Dear Luke,

    You asked,

    “Where did the Magisterial Reformers get the idea “that the commonly Received Text of Scripture was the original text Providentially Preserved”?”

    That is the essence of the Reformation and its doctrine of Sola Scriptura in its return to “ancient catholic orthodoxy.” Steinmetz explains what this term means:

    “[T]he attempt of the Protestant reformers to recapture ancient doctrine and discipline is labelled innovation by a Church which has lost contact with its own past and which identifies modern belief and practice with the faith and discipline of the early Church….In point of fact, the Protestant reformers are attempting to keep faith with the ancient teaching of the Apostles as understood by the fathers against the later unwarranted innovations and novelties introduced by the medieval Catholic Church.” Steinmetz, Luther in Context, 1986 p 92

    continuing,

    “This is certainly not a Biblical idea, so aren’t they also imposing an extrabiblical standard by which to determine the inspired text?”

    It most certainly is a Biblical idea because returning to the original language texts as against Popery was a rejection of it’s extrabiblical innovations upon the doctrines of the Faith once delivered to the Saints and the text itself.

    continuing,

    “It seems to me that they more or less picked one specific text and decided to go with that one.”

    The issue is one of Authority, does it rest in men or does it rest in the Word of God itself? Does the visible Church create Authority or does it simply recognize Authority?

    They rejected the former and accepted the latter. Hence, they recognized the Received Text as the Authoritative text of ecclesiastical tradition and received it upon the same terms they received the early ecumenical creeds.

    Hence, there is continuity between the teaching of the Creeds and the Scripture and discontinuity in the Romish practice and textual variants that support it. Modern textual criticism says these variants are the “oldest and best manuscripts.” They marked those textual variants out as corrupted. Burgon, who actually spent about six years personally collating manuscripts explains his rejection of Wescott and Hort’s New Greek Text:

    “The task of laboriously collating the five “old uncials” throughout the Gospels, occupied me for five-and-a-half years, and taxed me severely. But I was rewarded. I rose from the investigation profoundly convinced that, however, important they may be as instruments of Criticism, codices Aleph A B C D are among the most corrupt documents extant. It was a conviction derived from exact Knowledge and based on solid grounds of Reason. You, my lord Bishop, who have never gone deeply into the subject, repose simply on Prejudice. Never having at any time collated codices Aleph A B C D for yourself, you are unable to gainsay a single statement of mine by a counter-appeal to facts. Your textual learning proves to have been all obtained at second-hand, taken on trust. And so, instead of marshalling against me a corresponding array of ANCIENT AUTHORITIES, you invariably attempt to put me down by an appeal to Modern Opinion.” Burgon, Revision Revised, p 376

    Burgon, even though a High Church Anglican, was standing upon textual Protestant Orthodoxy. Wescott and Hort following Greisbach had rejected this and formulated a new theory, which if held to will destroy Protestantism. That is why everyone that faithfully holds to modern textual criticism eventually rejects the doctrines of Protestant Orthodoxy and is invariably led back to Rome or a High Church position, or some in between (e.g., Federal Vision Theology of Reformed Presbyterians)

    Finally,

    “The original manuscript view agrees that there was one inspired text (the original manuscript), but it is now lost, hence the task of textural criticism, that is, to as nearly as possible determine what that original manuscript was.”

    I agree that this the modern view and it was the view of Rome, it is not the view of Reformational Orthodoxy, they denied it was lost, but preserved in the apographs inerrant and infallible, just with the warts of uninspired human agencies upon its transmission.

    The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Mainz stated the issue very well, when he first saw a Bible:

    “Of a truth I do not know what book this is, but I perceive everything in it is against us.” Bennet’s Memorial of the Reformation, p. 20; Edin., 1748

    The modern view of textual criticism is a continuation of medieval
    scholasticism. Scholasticism reintroduced Aristotle’s humanism into Western
    history, the result was the decline of orthodox Christianity and it’s Trinitarian
    answer to the problem of the “One and the Many”, or the problem of Authority.

    The implications of scholasticism are by their very nature subordinationist. Revelation
    was slighted and nature was, after Greek philosophical presuppositions, asserted as
    the primary and basically self sufficient order. The same principle is held to by secular humanists when they interpret “natural law,” which means something completely different to Christians.

    When Scripture is suboridnated the determination of history and Sovereignty as a religious concept passes from eternity into time, from the supernatural to the natural. Subsequently, a subordinationist Christology was developed and this became the imperial Christology of the Roman Catholic Church.

    Modern textual criticism invariably leads one back to an Imperial Christology as well and displaces Chalcedonian Orthodoxy in the process.

    Cordially,

    Thomas

18. Scott on 31 Oct 2007 at 6:08 pm #

    Thomas,

    I would like to read more along the lines you are spelling out. You mentioned a couple of references ie EF Hills and Mueller, anything else I can check in to.

    Oh and thanks for the detailed response. And the distinction between what you are setting forth and KJV-Onlyism.

    sda

19. Thomas on 01 Nov 2007 at 6:47 pm #

    Dear Mr. Wallace,

    You stated:

    “Thomas, I have to protest a couple of your critiques. I said that I made up the NAME of ‘providential view,’ not the idea.”

    I’m sorry if I misunderstood you, I see a category “(e) Providential view” was created as a “theory of textual criticism”. Thus, when you said you made up the name, I directly associated the name to the category.

    The principle of providential preservation is inherit in Scripture itself, though, it is self attesting and God claims to be it’s author and to preserve it.

    “I know that the idea is implicit in the Westminister Confession, the first confession ever to suggest a doctrine of preservation, by the way (then followed by the Helvetic Confession). And you are quite right that the Westminster divines were especially thinking of the textus receptus when they articulated this doctrine.”

    The Helvetic Confession preceeds the Westminster, not the other way around. maybe you mean the Helvetic Consensus Formula? Thank you for clarifying your statement on the term “roots”.

    “Since I was describing what the Elzevirs did, rather than what Erasmus did, I think that ‘roots’ is wholly appropriate as a description of how to connect the TR to Erasmus.”

    Finally, would you mind clarifying what you mean particularly, so I’m not reading into your statement my own meaning?

    Thanking you in advance for your time and consideration.

    Cordially,

    Thomas

20. Thomas on 01 Nov 2007 at 8:04 pm #

    Dear James,

    J: The Westminister Confession says that the Hebrew and Greek texts have been providentially kept pure. That is an affirmation of the didactic reliability of the extant text(s) used by the church; it is an endorsement of the Textus Receptus’ teachings, but that is not an endorsement of the Textus Receptus itself.

    No sir, that is not what the Reformers believed, again I would point you to Aland:

    “…it is undisputed that from the 16th century to the 18th century orthodoxy’s doctrine of verbal inspiration assumed… [the] Textus Receptus. It was the only Greek text they knew, and they regarded it as the ‘original’ text.” (Kurt Aland, “The Text of the Church” Trinity journal 8 (1987), p. 131.

    The Helvetic Consensus Formula of 1675 explains clearly the meaning of Reformed Orthodoxy in terms of the texts mentioned in the Westminster Confession:

    “The Hebrew original of the Old Testament, which we have received and to this day do retain as handed down by the Jewish Church,…not only in its matter, but in its words, inspired of God, thus forming, together with the original of the New Testament, the sole and complete rule of faith and life: and to its STANDARD, as to a Lydian stone, all extant versions, Oriental and Occidental, ought to be applied, and wherever they differ, be conformed.” HCF, Chapter 2, edited for clarity

    To them it was the ‘Inerrant Original Autographs.” Jack Rogers did a good job in explaining what this meant to Reformers in comparison to modern principles:

    “The text of Scripture is the Word of God, and God’s Word is not to be sought independently of the text of Scripture. Inspiration does not usually imply any particular theory about how the Scripture came to be the Word of God. Nor does inspiration eliminate the human contribution which the human authors made to the written Scripture. And most certainly, for the Westminster divines, inspiration can not be used as an excuse for trying to find God’s Word separate from the written text of Scripture.” Rogers, Scripture in the Westminster Confession, p 301-2

    It’s just that people have been beat up so long with this “inerrant autographa” mythology that is about 100 years old, they have no knowledge of how the Reformers looked at and understood Scripture and how they dealt with it. Thus, they wrest the doctrine of Inspiration and Preservation in our Confessional Standard completely out of its context which is to ascribe independent and novel meaning to it that has no connection to its historical place and meaning.

    J: You’re implicitly saying that Protestants who do not uphold the TR are not orthodox. This is, of course, not granted. I see no reason why acceptance of the TR as the original text should be a litmus test for orthodoxy.

    Yes sir, that is a departure from historic Protestant Orthodoxy. In terms of its Bibliology it is heterdox.

    As to the litmus test, Sola Scriptura is the quintessential litmus test upon which everything else rests. They regarded the Received Text as the tangible representation of Sola Scriptura.

    J: Modern-day text-critics don’t do that much either, except when offering conjectural emendations.

    No sir, the orientation to the issue is completely different and results in diametrically opposite conclusions. The integrity of the witnesses is destroyed. For example, if we look at Greenleafs “The Testimony of the Evangelists” 1846 edition based upon the Authorized Version, you’ve got THE American authority on legal evidence demonstrating the legal validity of the Scriptural record of the Gospel witnesses. But in the 1875 reprint with Tischendorf’s appendix, based upon Sinaiticus, his work is completely and totally destroyed. It’s reduced to mere heresay.

    J: Turretin’s and Muller’s comments seem illogical to me; they define the “original text” as the text of the copies. Again we must ask, which copies, and why?

    First, I’m not going to argue my point on Erasmus even though I disagree, which was your first paragraph not quoted. Mr. Wallace clarified his meaning and carrying that out further will probably be more edifying in another thread where I’m sure we will have the opportunity at some future point.

    Which copies? The one’s that produced the Received Text. Why?

    “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” John 5:39

    In order so that,

    “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.” 1 John 5:13

    Compare that in the hypothetical text Bibles, the object of that faith necessary for eternal life, given as the reason they are written unto us, is MISSING. They read:

    “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life.” NASB

    The Reformers approached the Bible in the exact opposite to modern criticisms principle that the more orthodox a reading is the more suspect of being false it is.

    J: Warfield was on the scene when a need arose to compose a theologically tenable approach to the many disagreements in the MSS. But anyone, completely independent of Warfield, can walk through the observations about textual variants and see that they do not all mean the same thing, and that in those cases a need exists to scientifically discover which of the contending variants is identical to the meaning of the autograph. The alternative is to posit a text.

    No, Warfield went to Leipzig and studied there for a year and thereby departed from the historic Protestant position knowingly, without a need, because he abandoned Providential Preservation and posited “Inerrant Autographa” Restoration consistent with that dogma.

    None of the Reformers and none of the old Princetonians ever posited a radical discontinuity between autographa and apoghra, as had Warfield…”because none of them had fully accepted the German (e.g. higher critical) consensus on the variants, as had Warfield.” Letis, EF Hills Contribution to the Ecclesiastical Text, 1989 p 86

    J: But you’re missing an important detail: to the early Reformers, the “legitimate tradition” was the entire MSS-copying enterprise undertaken by all Christian copyists. They did not explicitly and consciously reject readings (readings, that is, which are not obvious scribal errors) in the non-Byzantine MSS which have come to light since that time. (Codex D is an exception to this.) About the most that can be said is that the Reformers would probably favor, on dogmatic grounds, readings which conveyed the same meaning as the TR, and would probably reject readings which conveyed meanings substantially different from the TR.

    No sir, again refer back to Aland, above. They regarded the Received Text as the original text, ipsissima Verba, and their critical work is the method in which they identified it. But it is completely different to what you posit, this is pre-enlightenment, they never thought in enlightment categories, never applied Aristolean “logic” and never pitted “copies vs copies” (e.g., apographa) against a hypothetical inerrant autographa, a mysterious Q document, or any of these things in the form/matter dialetic to the manuscripts of Holy Scripture.

    J: No they didn’t. First, “Protestant Church” and “through the ages” just don’t go together like that, unless you want to redefine “throughout the ages” to refer to about a century. Second, the Textus Receptus is not identical to the Byzantine Text perpetuated by Greek Orthodox copyists; there are very many differences! Third, that claim is shown to be untrue when one considers the early centuries of Christendom; no patristic writer can be shown to have utilized the Textus Receptus. Fourth, the various Reformation-era texts (Erasmus’ several editions, Stephanus’ several editions, etc.) disagree among themselves; they cannot all be, at those points of disagreement, the one text that was common among all Greek and Protestant churches throughout the ages. And, besides, just because one form of text was promoted much more than others by copyists in the Greek Orthodox Church, that does not make its contents original.

    First, you interpreting “Protestant” incorrectly, it means “witness to” not “protest against.” All the true “confessing” Churches through history (is that a better word) have utilized and maintained this text type, although not exactly identical, but also that doesn’t mean to the Reformers what it means to Modern Criticism.

    To them, there was no lost inerrant original autograph, there was the preserved word of God which merely needed to be collated and conformed, not corrected and restored.

    Second, you are positing a presupposition of textual perfection that they never operated within. This is an innovation being thrust back into history, it’s very much like the way the Supreme Court reads “Separation of Church and State” into the First Amendement by incorporating it into the Fourteenth Amendment. Modern “textual criticism” is the “14th Amendment” of Sola Scriptura and it results in the exact same thing, the destruction of the Biblical Authority over man.

    The Reformers were dealing with the issue of Authority, not seeking an “inerrant autographa.”

    “If they [Reformers] disowned the creed and threw off the yoke of
    Rome, it was that they might plant a purer faith and restore the
    government of a higher Law. They replaced the authority of Papal
    Infallibility with the authority of the Word of God. The long and dismal
    obscuration of centuries they dispelled, that the twin stars of liberty and
    knowledge might shine forth, and that, conscience being unbound, the
    intellect might awake from its deep somnolency, and human society,
    renewing its youth, might, after its halt of a thousand years, resume its
    march towards its high goal. ” Wylie, History of Protestatism

    The Tridentine attacks against the Reformation were against Sola Scriptura with variant readings claiming a lost original whereby only Papal Infallibility and tradition of the Church was Authoritative. This claim of modern criticism is old Tridentine stuff, nothing new, the Received Text came into existence as a defense against it, hence obviously, when it ascended again in 1881 it was counter-reformational. Burgon knew it as did others and shivers went down their spines, but it was the dawn of science and everyone was enamored with Darwin and seeking daily for some new thing. So, it shouldn’t surprise us that Warfield got caught up into this, it was an age of non-reason that mounted such an incredible attack upon Christianity that not much of its Reformational roots are really left today at all.

    Letis explains Protestant Scholasticism in a diagram, which I can’t reproduce here, but I’ll do so textually:

    1 Reformers, Sola Scriptura —- Offensive
    2 Roman Catholicism, forced to define itself, Trent —- Defensive
    3 above, Variant Readings, Authority in Church —- Offensive
    4 Reformers, forced to define itself, Providential Preservation —- Defensive (Helvetic Consensus Formula)

    The Received Text as a locus of the Authority of Reformed Orthodoxy is derived from this. It’s not in the whole body of manuscripts left to be redefined, that work is done, and the Holy Spirit has born witness of it….”by their fruits ye shall know them.”

    “The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God, (who is truth itself), the author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.” WCF, 1:4

    Rushdoony has some excellent comments on this:

    “The denial of the Received Text enables the scholar to play god over God. The determination of the correct word is now a scholar’s province and task. The Holy Spirit is no longer the giver and preserver of the Biblical text: it is the scholar, the textual scholar. Perhaps when the Council of Jerusalem declared, “It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us” (Acts 15:28) they should have added “subject to the correction of textual scholars.” The Westminster Confession summed up the Reformation faith, especially that of the Calvinists. For them, the authority of the Church depends on the Bible, not vice versa. Rome, on the other hand, adapted the view that the authority of the Bible rests upon the Church.

    The modern view is a development of the position of the Council of Trent, but with an ironic twist. The center of authority is shifted now from the leaders of the church (Catholic or Protestant) to the scholars of the church. Well before the 19th century was over, Catholic scholars were questioning the right of Rome to deny them the freedom to pursue their studies to whatever conclusion they deemed necessary.” Rushdoony, The Problem of the Received Text, p 8

    So, it was Simon who began the Roman Catholic Tridentine attack upon the Received Text in terms of textual criticism in 1689, prior they had not critical apparatus to compete against the Reformers and could only assert “variants”. It’s been counter-reformational since that time.

    Hence, Rushdoony concludes:

    “The historic belief of Christians has been that the God who gave the Word preserved the Word. This is the doctrine of the preservation of the Word of God. The Word gives the direct and authentic Word of God. Now preservation has a new meaning. The Biblical scholars hold that their’s is a word of restoration, so that preservation requires their restorative word. The triune God is replaced by scholarly men.

    Thus, the denial of the Received Text’s validity is no small matter. It rests on a religious revolution with far-reaching implications. This means that the many men of Reformed or Arminian theologies, who profess the orthodox doctrines of their communions, hold to a position which undermines their faith. It should not surprise us that seminaries and Biblical scholars have for generations led their churches into various forms of humanism. By playing god over God, they begin with the essence of original sin and humanism, man as his own god, determining the validity of everything.” Ibid. p 9

    I’ve run out of time to address your other points.

    Cordially,

    Thomas

21. Thomas on 01 Nov 2007 at 8:19 pm #

    Dear Scott,

    In my understanding the issue of modern textual criticism has to be put into its proper context to understand both its origin, method and effect in terms of the Reformational Orthodoxy that delivered unto us the Received Text, and the Authorized Version as the established Bible, as well as our Reformed Confessional standards. That is to say, we must seek to understand the rationale employed by the Reformation era editors in producing the Received Text and the Westminster Confession’s theological tenet of Providential Preservation of which it is the tangible reality.

    You can simply can’t evaluate Renaissance scholarship by post-Enlightment standards and make the conclusion that they were all wrong, or doofus’s, or not as smart as we are &c. They approached the issue from a completely different orientation.

    As Rushdoony states, “The issue of the Received Text is thus no small matter, nor one of academic concern only. The faith is at stake.” The Problems of the Received Text, 1989

    First, one needs to understand the Reformed Dogmatics in which this textual tradition arose, so the reference to Muller is a good one as well as “The Inspiration of Scripture: A Study of the Theology of the Seventeenth Century”, by Robert D Preus, Ph.D.

    Then, I would suggest, these two works to understand the principles of Griesbach and its affect upon the theology and the discipline:

    An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament, Frederick Nolan, 1830

    “The Canon of Scripture being received as the unerring rule of faith, and the ultimate test of controversy; the foundation of all Religion must necessarily collapse with the destruction of its
    integrity. As this object would be effectually obtained, should the critical system, on which Dr.
    Griesbach proposed to amend the Received Text, be incautiously admitted; it required no exertion of sagacity, or stretch of foresight to observe, that while his critical labors continued silently to gain
    ground; the landmarks fixed by the Established Church, as a barrier to innovation and error, could
    not preserve their original position.” Ibid.

    The Rise of Biblical Criticism in America, 1800-1820: The New England Scholars, Jerry Wayne Browne, 1969

    “Joseph S. Buckminster persuaded the officials of Harvard College to publish an American edition of Griesbach’s Greek New Testament, because he viewed text criticism as a most powerful weapon to be used against the supporters of verbal inspiration.” Ibid.

    Also, you’ll need a good history of the Reformation, and Bennet’s “Memorial of the Reformation” is an absolutely pleasurable read, then everything by Edward Freer Hills and Theodore Letis, especially:

    “The Ecclesiastical Text,” Theodore P. Letis
    “The Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text and the Claims of the Anabaptists,” Theodore P. Letis

    and finally, John Owen, “Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of the Scriptures”

    Cordially,

    Thomas

22. Scott A on 02 Nov 2007 at 9:03 am #

    Thomas,

    Thank you for the reply, for the resources, and for your extended time in supplying such illuminating comments.

    Providentially, I have been in discussion with my son, who is in India and a dear friend concerning Sola Scriptura vs. Solo Scriptura. The whole matter of identifying a distinction between these two positions has only recently come to my attention beginning with 2007. As I consider this, I had been surmising that “Reasoned Eclecticism” indeed falls out of step with SOLA Scriptura and is much more in line with SOLO Scriptura. Your comments are reinforcing this conclusion - though I personally have much more studying to do in this regard. I look forward to pursuing the resources you listed.

    sda

23. James Snapp, Jr. on 02 Nov 2007 at 12:45 pm #

    Dear Thomas,

    I, too, am short of time today, so this reply is cursory.

    – The term “pure” in the West.Conf. simply means pure, not necessarily “identical to the original text in all respects.” Aland’s statement does not make the word more specific than it is.

    – The Helvetic Consensus Formula of 1675 does indeed embrace “the Hebrew original of the Old Testament, which we have received” as a standard text, rendering text-critical research basically superfluous for those who confess the Helvetic Consensus Formula of 1675. But that does not make the Formula correct, and it does not make the received Hebrew text original.

    – If it is against Reformation creeds to assert that the Textus Receptus is not the original text (which I do not grant), then the sooner such creeds are abandoned or adjusted to fit the facts which God has made available, the better.

    – T: “They regarded the Received Text as the tangible representation of Sola Scriptura.” Let’s say that that was the case, for the moment. Still, (a) this is not stated in the West.Conf., and (b) the existence of such a belief does not make it correct, any more than the existence of the Reformers’ beliefs about astronomy.

    – T: “Which copies? The one’s that produced the Received Text. Why? “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” John 5:39 In order so that, “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.” 1 John 5:13 . . .”

    But copies that were not used to produce the TR also testify of Christ. So, again, why exclude them? Plus, you seem to be saying that the more clearly a text speaks about Christ, the more original its contents must be. That seems illogical.

    – T: “Again refer back to Aland, above. They regarded the Received Text as the original text, ipsissima Verba . . .” As you say, refer back to Aland, and notice the statement that the Reformers accepted the TR by default, because it was the only Greek NT text known to them.

    – T: “All the true “confessing” Churches through history (is that a better word) have utilized and maintained this text type” — No they haven’t; the Byzantine Text, as a unit, has not been shown to have been utilized and maintained in the second and third centuries. Plus, you have to choose which text you’re going to be endorsing here: the Byzantine Text, or the Textus Receptus. There are many differences between them.

    – T: “To them, there was no lost inerrant original autograph, there was the preserved word of God which merely needed to be collated and conformed, not corrected and restored.” That’s another way to describe the positing of a text. But simply assuming that the TR is original does not make it original. Plus, I can’t see how to make sense of the claim that “To them, there was no lost inerrant original autograph,” since clearly the autographs are lost.

    – “The historic belief of Christians has been that the God who gave the Word preserved the Word. . . . Now preservation has a new meaning. . . . The triune God is replaced by scholarly men.” You’re creating a dichotomy where none need exist. When God has preserved His written Word, He did so through His people. It’s not an either/or scenario.

    – T: “Many men of Reformed or Arminian theologies, who profess the orthodox doctrines of their communions, hold to a position which undermines their faith.” If they are confessing that they regard the Textus Receptus as the original text, then that is so. But in such cases, the false assumptions on which such a confession is based should be abandoned. The alternatives are to either consider the TR divinely transmitted (i.e., to accept the idea that God oversaw not only the NT authors, but also copyists who added to and deleted from the original text and thus produced the TR), or to acknowledge that the divine authority of any particular reading depends on its presence in the autographs.

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.

24. Wesley on 02 Nov 2007 at 1:27 pm #

    Hello Thomas,

    I’m curious: was the idea of the TR as the preserved text par of the entire reformation, or only the Reformed element via Calvin and then the puritans? I ask becasue I cannot find a similar doctrine in the Lutheran confessions, and then Anglican 39 articles as also silent on this point.

    So although it may be required for Orthodoxy for Geneva and Westminster, it doesn’t seem to have been (at least a big enough issue for Lutherans, and I think the 39 Articles would undermine the idea) for Canterbury or Witenburg.

    Also, the TR position seems circular. It seems one would have to follow Calvin’s doctrine of the “internal witness of the Spirit” in relation to the Canon. I think I would need to see evidence of an exact line of manuscripts going all the way back to the 1st century. Otherwise I still have to ask the question: What made them say that the manuscripts that became part of the TR was correct, as opposed to other manuscripts? How are we sure Erasmus got it right when he sat down and tried to put the different Greek texts together? He also had to make critical decisions over what to include in his publication of the TR.

    Also, even in a TR preservation paradigm, isn’t the point the same as the critical text that the originals are what matter? John sat down and wrote his Gospel, a TR-preservation would say that the TR preserves what John wrote exactly, whereas the critical position would say we have to look at the variants to discover the original. But either way, both positions are an attempt to get back to the original autographs, the only different being whither one believes those autographs have been preserved perfectly in some manuscript tradition, and therefore see that tradition as authoritative. I see a false dichotomy in this issue between the TR-pres and modern-crit

25. Kent on 02 Nov 2007 at 7:44 pm #

    Thomas,

    Where did you get or are you getting your training? I take the same position as you do on the preservation of Scripture and I know many who do. The way you explain it is about how I would, and I too believe it is the historic position, the Warfield position revisionist history of the WC. How could I contact you? You can write me at betbapt@flash.net, if you wish not for that to be public.

    Kent

26. Dan Wallace on 03 Nov 2007 at 11:28 pm #

    Sheesh, I go away for a couple of days and this blog takes on a life of its own! Or, rather, one of you uses it as a bully pulpit for your own views. I have three notes for all: First, comments on blogs need to be restricted in space and contents. This is site is not meant for anyone to use for his own agenda. Keep it short or start your own blog. I don’t mean to be rude, but I do want all to respect the purpose of RMM blogs. By writing nearly 9000 words (the 26 comments collectively), there’s a lot to chew on here. The problem is that much of it is quite ancillary to what the discussion was in the first place. Second, the argument about the doctrine of preservation that Thomas brought up has been dealt with elsewhere; see my “Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism,” posted at bible.org (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1221). This was originally in Homer Kent’s Festschrift, then published in Grace Theological Journal. Bible.org has posted it with permission. Third, we will not take time to discuss this issue for another reason: this blog series is about textual criticism, not theological dogma. The irony here is that those who cling to certain Protestant confessions as the final word on the Word end up holding to a Catholic method to defend Protestant doctrine! I wholeheartedly agree with James on this point: Warfield recognized what needed to be said in his time, and he said it. Those who simply wish to fall back to 16th and 17th century articulations of the faith don’t recognize that doing so is elevating tradition above scripture. You can charge others with being nuda scriptura or solo scriptura, but in the process you need to recognize that you have denied the methodological battle cry of the Reformation, “Ad fontes!” (back to the sources!).

    Let’s please keep the discussion on topic, folks. There’s much in the realm of textual criticism that many of you want to learn about. Some, no doubt, will feel as if they need to parade their knowledge. That’s fine. Just keep the comments short and on topic. Thanks.

27. Thomas on 05 Nov 2007 at 1:40 am #

    Gentlemen,

    It was my intention to demonstrate what the Reformers believed in regard to the spurios claim that the “Providential…theory of textual criticism” was something that was made up. While this may have been merely a “name” of a category that was made up, I believe anyone is going to associate that the same way I did and it was coupled to a charge broad-brushing anyone that held to such a thing stood in the camp of the fundamentalists.

    I believe I have provided an adequate amount of evidence that demonstrates there was and is a completely different orientation to the issue that is silently glossed over in the modern critical claim. The Church, at best, is left with the impression that the Reformers just didn’t have the evidence to make a correct determination, or at worst, were nincompoops and must be dismissed out of hand.

    What troubles me most about that is that these were men that were hunted down and many died horrible deaths in order to secure for their posterity the words of God. Modern criticism works without risk or threat casting aspersions upon great men of the faith.

    I believe that Christians, who receive the Bible as the very word of God, have a right to know the truth of history and not merely the opinions of modern textual critics that advance their cause without hardly ever a mention of the varying views of history which was responsible for the English Protestant Reformation, upon which all of the American settlement rests.

    Every man is born into history on grounds inheriting the past, he has a right to the truth of that history. While Mr. Wallace may wish to charge me with some agenda, that simply isn’t the case. I simply offered a post demonstrating their was another view in history, and then simply answered some questions of others that seemed to me, at least, to be ignorant of this (even if they disagreed with its conclusions) or interested in it.

    There is one correction I need to make, in my haste of response - which I too admit was too lengthy for blog comments, and for that I apologize - I stated they held to it as the inerrant original. I should have said “infallible original” As they did hold the inerrancy and infalibility as two separate things and did not seek an inerrancy. Their orientation was completely different - they simply worked to identify what they believed was the preserved word of God.

    Finally, then, Mr. Wallace claims that the Protestant claim of “Ad fontes” was sought independent of ancient catholic orthodoxy, that is simply false. “Ad fontes” was coupled to a return to the Faith of the early Church as contained within the Creeds. There is no irony here, nor a Catholic method - it is fundamentally dishonest to equate ancient catholic orthodoxy to medieval scholasticism’s shift in the locus of Authority to the visible Church.

    I’m happy to respond to James or Welsey, or answer any other questions privately if anyone wishes. You may write me at rt.25.blocked@spamgourmet.com This is a disposable email address to protect my inbox from spam.

    In Christ’s Bonds,

    Thomas

28. CB on 08 Nov 2007 at 2:14 am #

    Hmm, the Syrian church might argue that Vaticanus NT is complete ending at Hebrews, since their canon excludes the other books. Ok, it’s missing part of Hebrews, but some might argue Sinaiticus is missing the end of Mark. Complete is a bit vague.

    So there were no textual variants prior to Erasmus? @#$#@% Erasmus.

29. Dan Wallace on 08 Nov 2007 at 1:32 pm #

    Thomas said, “Finally, then, Mr. Wallace claims that the Protestant claim of “Ad fontes” was sought independent of ancient catholic orthodoxy, that is simply false. “Ad fontes” was coupled to a return to the Faith of the early Church as contained within the Creeds. There is no irony here, nor a Catholic method - it is fundamentally dishonest to equate ancient catholic orthodoxy to medieval scholasticism’s shift in the locus of Authority to the visible Church.”

    Isn’t that a bit of sleight of hand? I wasn’t speaking specifically of ancient catholic orthodoxy, but of the traditionalism that Roman Catholicism became. Further, although the methodological battle cry of the Reformation as ‘ad fontes’ surely was not as interested in the early Creeds (though it was interested in them) as it was in getting back to what the Bible taught. Sola fidei cannot be found in the Creeds. And to imply that I was “fundamentally dishonest” in my assessment is inappropriate language. Please keep the conversation civil. I know you are diligent to respect the faith of the Reformers, something I have very strong leanings toward myself. But what is more important than their faith is whether it is right and true. Hence, I wrote my article, “Inspiration, Inerrancy and New Testament Textual Criticism.” It gives biblical and empirical arguments against the Reformation doctrine of providential preservation. My point there was to note that although we may wish to believe that God has preserved Scripture (and this is something that I can wholeheartedly embrace for the New Testament, but far less dogmatically for the OT), such a belief cannot be elevated to a doctrinal belief because (1) it effectively turns one into a Marcionite because the OT is not as preserved as the NT, and (2) the biblical basis for the doctrine is wanting.

30. Kent on 08 Nov 2007 at 2:41 pm #

    Creeds aren’t the Bible, but to the reformers they represented historic, biblical doctrine. We can go directly to Scripture (or can we if it hasn’t been preserved?) for our doctrine, but it can’t be a novel interpretation if we believe the Holy Spirit guides the saints. The reformers and others thought that there was a biblical basis for the doctrine of providential preservation, so they placed it in their creeds. I read it in their sermons and other writings as well. Are we saying that there has been a total apostasy on the correct doctrine about preservation of Scripture? That yourself Dr. Wallace and textual critics have revived a true, ancient teaching on the preservation of Scripture? This view of textual-criticism-equals-providential-preservation is the novel interpretation, unless I’m missing something. You know also, I’m sure, that modern eclectics often claim that belief in preservation began with the 20th century KJVO movement.

    Regarding civility, I thought the implication that someone was using this as a bully pulpit was uncivil, but I guess that shows the subjectivity of niceness. You seem to be essentially saying, Dr. Wallace, that if we don’t lower our evaluation of NT preservation to match our OT preservation, we are Marcionites? Therefore, we are Marcionites if we believe in the historic doctrine of providential preservation? That makes the Westminster divines Marcionites. Is that civil?

31. Dan Wallace on 08 Nov 2007 at 11:27 pm #

    Kent, all I am saying is that even the Reformers knew that their doctrines had to be based on scripture. And I challenged the view that their doctrine of preservation was based on scripture. My essay on that subject has been around for a quarter of a century now. Rather than use theological arguments, I would ask you to use scripture to back up your assessment. And if God has not preserved the OT like he has preserved the NT, to argue for a doctrine of preservation that will not work for the OT, how would you describe that? Does it not imbibe in a form of Marcionism, though certainly unconsciously?

    Methodologically, I would have to say that precisely because I stand with the Reformers in regarding scripture as our final authority, I use that authority to show that the Westminster Confession was incorrect in its view of preservation. I can put this very plainly: I do not think there is one verse in scripture that can be used to argue that God has preserved every word of the Bible.

32. Kent on 09 Nov 2007 at 2:45 am #

    Dr. Wallace,

    Thanks for the interaction. This is your blog and I am respectful of your work with Greek grammar and syntax. Your work has helped many. You have voiced the desire to keep exegesis and theology out of this thread. I also want to respect that. Without those terms and on neutral turf, I would explain how and why you are wrong with your Marcion comparison. In my opinion, it smacks of a theological mud sling that adds little.

    I asked about total apostacy of the doctrine of preservation, because it was established historically in the writings and creeds of genuine believers from at least the seventeenth century that had been embedded in their hearts and souls from a tradition of saints centuries preceding them. I was hopeful that you would give me at least a smidgen of the historic evidence of your non-preservation view. A lot of false doctrine and “corrections” to orthodoxy can be traced from the 19th century. Some of it we call “cultic.” Usually as a part of our exercise in discernment, we call on the proponents to show us some historic evidence for their doctrine.

    I hear you loud and clear. You say Scripture does not teach preservation. Hear me loud and clear: I believe you are teaching a brand new doctrine of non-preservation to fit your view of history, human reasoning, and science. I would be happy to have you show how wrong this is with historic material.

    I believe that I can easily show from Scripture the doctrine of the preservation of every Word of God. Most professing saints believe God has preserved His Word and they have come to that view by reading and studying His Word in the context of a church outside of the influence of textual critics. I would much rather step behind Scripture with exegesis to argue the doctrine of preservation. As strong as the history of the doctrine of preservation, I believe Scripture itself about its own preservation is even stronger.

33. Dan Wallace on 09 Nov 2007 at 8:51 am #

    Kent, I think you’re still missing the point. First, I argued in my article that history was on my side, not on the side of a doctrine of preservation. Second, I demonstrated that this doctrine was not only recent but also not biblically sound. Third, I showed that the doctrine of preservation did not work with the Old Testament and thus to hold to it unwittingly made one a Marcionite, bibliologically speaking. I stand by my arguments, and want to ask you one question: have you read my article? If so, you need to interact with it rather than make accusations that have been answered there.

34. Kent on 09 Nov 2007 at 11:41 am #

    Thanks again and thanks for interacting. Yes, I read the article several times, but years ago. I promise you a reread. I went to download the pdf into a theological article file and found it already there, probably from my read before. An answer would be lengthy, I would think, but I will provide bullet points. Thank you.

35. Dan Wallace on 09 Nov 2007 at 6:48 pm #

    Very good, Kent! I look forward to the exchange.

36. C. on 12 Nov 2007 at 8:29 am #

    I would like to thank Thomas for his contributions above,. I came to this blog on a general google search and ended up learning a great deal (and also just seeing what I’ve already come to understand articulated rather well and insightfully). It would have been a shame if Thomas’ comments had not been here.

    I wonder if Thomas could direct those of us who find his comments informative and inspiring to a site where he writes, perhaps, regularly? Or a site where like-minded people are contributing?

    My email: puritanchristian at gmail dot com

37. Kent on 14 Nov 2007 at 7:39 pm #

    Dr. Wallace,

    I reread your essay dealing with preservation that was published in 1992 in GTS, a little over a decade ago. I anticipated the deep exegesis, the ad fontes that you had mentioned here, especially to overturn the historical bibliology of preservation that has been in print for over 400 years. The Schleitheim Confession of 1527 employs the long ending of Mark against infant baptism and references the pericope adulterae (John 7:53-8:11). The Waterland Confession of 1580 cites 1 John 5:7 as one of two verses for Trinitarianism, references the long ending of Mark 8 times, cites Acts 8:37, states “the Son of the Living God” (not “Holy One”) from John 6:69, and uses “of his flesh and of his bones” from Ephesians 5:30 found in the TR and omitted in the CT. Confession after confession after these continues to cite TR Only text in support of doctrinal statements. Your exegesis would also nullify the influential Particular Baptist True Confession of 1644, which states that to the “Church [Christ] hath made the promises, and giuen the seales of his Covenant, presence, loue, blessing and protection: Heere are the holy Oracles as in the side of the Arke, surely kept & purely taught.” Of course, your exegesis would also override the Westminster Confession (1643-48), the Swiss Confession (1675), the Second London Confession of 1677, the 1679 General Baptist Orthodox Creed, and the New Hampshire Baptist Confession of 1833. This represents quite a few serious and devout Christians for a lengthy period of time. It would be unusual that they had apostatized in this area of preservation from the true teaching of Scripture.

    Your essay says silence concerning the doctrine of preservation historically before the seventeenth century. We have other extra scriptural evidence of the belief in the doctrine of preservation before the obvious post-printing press era—Josephus (Contra Apion, I, viii), Philo (cf. Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica, VIII, vi, 7), Baruch 4:1, Wisdom 18:4, Tobit 1:6, Enoch 99:2, 4 Ezra 9:37, 2 Baruch 77:15, and Exodus Rabbah 6:1. Divine preservation of Scripture has been a doctrine that men have believed going as far back as what you will read documented in these early locations and then, of course, the Confessions mentioned above.

    Your non-preservation position is new. You don’t have any history behind you from professing Christians. Dr. William Combs of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, someone who essentially supports your view of textual criticism, in the published seminary journal [DBSJ 5 (Fall 2000): 3-44] writes: “In an article entitled ‘Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Criticism’ by Daniel B. Wallace, we find what is apparently the first definitive, systematic denial of preservation of Scripture. . . the position of Wallace . . . appears to be a rather novel one.”

    With it being new, I would have expected a very detailed presentation debunking preservation passages. You say ad fontes. You give two short pages (mainly footnotes) that simply stand as a denial of the doctrine of preservation, but don’t prove anything unless we are simply supposed to take your opinion about them. And how could we do that if we are ad fontes? You far from overturn the passages with the amount of work you put in. You seemed like you were just preaching to the textual criticism choir.

    I could say more, but this pretty well sums up what I see from your article. The question out there then is: Who has apostatized on the doctrine of preservation?

    Thanks again.

38. Dan Wallace on 15 Nov 2007 at 12:27 am #

    Kent, I’m afraid that you’re the pot calling the kettle black. You said, “I anticipated the deep exegesis, the ad fontes that you had mentioned here, especially to overturn the historical bibliology of preservation that has been in print for over 400 years.” Yet all you provided was snippets from non-universal councils and Second Temple Judaism. You didn’t interact with one of the verses that I dealt with. You didn’t show that my exegesis of such texts was wrong. You didn’t explain how it is possible to affirm a doctrine of preservation while simultaneously lacking all of the text (what kind of a doctrine would that be, anyway?). “Ad fontes” means back to scripture, not back to traditions.

39. C. on 15 Nov 2007 at 4:37 am #

    “non-universal councils”…

    What would be your definition of a universal council? It would seem the goal posts are being moved into the stadium parking lot.

40. Kent on 15 Nov 2007 at 6:06 pm #

    Dr. Wallace,

    This is a worthwhile discussion. It is good for people to see how you approach theological matters. I haven’t checked your catalog at Dallas, but I would think that they have a historic theology section. I do believe in verticality of authority, that is, authority from Scripture, but I’ve always understood the authority of Scripture not to be separate from the pillar and ground of the truth. Could you show me one statement previous of 1800 in historic theology in which a person confessing faith in Christ espouses a scriptural position denying the preservation of Scripture? One man with a unilateral perspective should show amazing exegetical evidence to overturn statements representing tens of thousands of believers. At the same time, like I said, I don’t mind going text by text through these passages to see if they truly do teach preservation. I agree that Scripture stands atop any discussion on preservation, just like I believe it stands on the doctrine of canonicity in which we see in Scripture a teaching of the canonicity of Words, not books. Nowhere does the Bible tell us how many books God would include in the canon. The Holy Spirit guided His saints into all truth.

    Regarding exegesis, first, what do you think of this quote? “This common introductory formula ["it is written"] to OT quotations seems to be used to emphasize that the written word still exists. It implies a present and binding authority.” This guy says that the perfect passive, “it is written,” means that the written word still exists, has been preserved. What do you think of that statement of preservation? Sounds like a guy not staggering at the promise of God in unbelief, but stepping behind the text (ad fontes).

    Second, let’s consider your dealing with the texts you chose to consider—five in the text and two more in the footnotes.

    You wrote: “But 1 Pet. 1:23–25, for example, in quoting Isa. 40:8, uses rhema (not logos)—a term which typically refers to the spoken word.”

    I don’t know how closely you were reading those verses, because v. 23 uses logos and then v. 25 uses rhema. V. 23 says the logos of God lives and abides forever. It’s also logos in UBS 3/4 in case you were wondering. I think if I made that mistake, someone might attempt to embarrass me. Maybe you would be nicer than that. That was your one argument against four of the verses. Then you argued against his usage of Psalm 119:89, a verse that I wouldn’t use to argue for preservation. That ended your arguments in the actual text of your article.

    You left most of your heavy lifting to the footnotes. In footnote 74, you write this:

    “In passing, it should be noted that all these proof-texts, if they refer to the written word at all, refer to the OT.”

    Why would promises of preservation of Scripture found in the OT not be applicable to the NT if we believe they are equally inspired? That was curious in light of (and what I see as bogus) your Marcionism claims in the very article. Isn’t the God of the Old also the God of the New?

    Next in footnote 77 you deal with John 10:35, not a verse I use to teach preservation. Then in the same footnote, you reference Matthew 5:18 and write:

    “(Matt. 5:18) plainly refers either to the ethical principles of the law or the fulfillment of prophecy, or both. (The validity of each of these options turns, to some degree, on how plerothe is used elsewhere in Matthew and the weight given to those texts—e.g., are Matthew’s OT quotation introductory formulae [hina plerothe] in 1:22; 2:15; 4:14, etc., connecting the term to eschatological fulfillment] more significant or is Jesus’ own use of plerothe [in 3:15, connecting it to ethical fulfillment] more significant?) Either way, the idea of preservation of the written text is quite foreign to the context.”

    You say you are treating Matthew 5:18. And yet plerothe isn’t in Matthew 5:18; it’s in 5:17. The word “fulfil” in 5:17 is a different word than “fulfilled” in 5:18. 5:18 uses ginomai, nullifying your entire paragraph. Jots and tittles refer to Hebrew letters. Paraphrased: Not one Hebrew letter will disappear from the law until all comes about. In 5:17 Christ didn’t come to destroy the law and then its jots and tittles will not disappear. The parallel in Luke 16:17 states: “And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.” Nothing had been lost from the text of the law, and nothing ever would be lost. It would be easier for heaven and earth to pass than for such a loss to take place.

    In the last material about preservation you treat Matthew 24:35:

    “Occasionally Matt. 24:35 (”Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away”) is used in support of preservation. But once again, even though this text has the advantage of now referring to Jesus’ words (as opposed to the OT), the context is clearly eschatological; thus the words of Jesus have certainty of fulfillment. That the text does not here mean that his words will all be preserved in written form is absolutely certain because (1) this is not only foreign to the context, but implies that the written gospels were conceived at this stage in Heilsgeschichte—decades before a need for them was apparently felt; (2) we certainly do not have all of Jesus’ words recorded—either in scripture or elsewhere (cf. John 20:30 and 21:25).”

    The eschatological context doesn’t affect the teaching on preservation—it enhances it. The Lord Jesus Christ assures His disciples that His promises not only shall certainly be fulfilled but also shall remain available for the comfort of His people during that troubled period which shall precede His second coming.

    You offer two other reasons why the verse doesn’t teach preservation. First, however, Jesus’ promise does not make a point that the gospels had already been written down. It assumes that they would be, even as they were. He is omniscient and could make that promise. As you know and have said in your Greek grammar that this is the strongest guarantee in Greek language. His Words were preserved because they were written down. Heaven and earth are physical entities that will pass away, that is, disappear. They can be less counted upon in their preservation than Jesus’ Words. Heaven and earth will disappear in the end times, so Jesus’ Words are time sensitive. They’ll be around surely when heaven and earth will not. Why not just take the plain meaning of the text? It seems verbal gymnastics are used to explain away something that people see in Scripture.

    In your second argument, you use John 20:30 and 21:25 to make a point. Why deny the teaching that Jesus just had made with something of your own invention regarding unrecorded Words of Jesus? You don’t really know of any Words of Jesus outside of the Ones in Scripture, and John 20:30 and 21:25 don’t help your point, because they say absolutely nothing about His Words. Both of those speak of things that He did that are not recorded. Again, they say nothing about Words.

    There are other verses that teach preservation.

    Matthew 4:4, “But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” If man shall live by every Word, then he must have every Word. Ad Fontes.

    Isaiah 59:2, “As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.” It’s self-explanatory. There are some more, but my time is done.

    Can I say that I am personally concerned for you? I have honest compassion for you. A third of your article seemed to come from Bart Ehrman, a man who specializes at engendering doubt. I hope you do not take his path.

    Thanks again.

41. Dan Wallace on 16 Nov 2007 at 5:05 am #

    Kent, thanks for your interaction. I am out of town right now and have only a few minutes a day on the Internet, so I can’t give a complete response to you.

    First, I’d like to respond more specifically to the confessions that you enumerated. You mention the Schleitheim Confession of 1527, The Waterland Confession of 1580 as two examples that are prior to the Westminster Confession as those that speak of a doctrine of preservation or, in your words, “the historical bibliology of preservation.” Actually, they do nothing of the sort; rather, they cite specific texts that the great majority of evangelicals today would say are not authentic. In particular, the Waterland Confession enlists 1 John 5.7 for the Trinity (presumably in the form that the KJV has it, instead of how modern translations have it, although this was not explicitly mentioned) and cites Acts 8.37 in its doctrinal package. Those verses have been known to be later additions to the Bible for centuries. But let’s suppose that you are right: that these confessions actually argue for the preservation of THESE texts, and that one can extrapolate (as you have done) that the doctrine of preservation has been “in print for over 400 years.” In that case, my view is hardly novel, new, unique, or even unusual. I know of no biblical scholar—evangelical or otherwise—who would consider such texts as authentic. I’m sure you can supply me some names, but here’s the point: The Evangelical Theological Society has over 4500 members; this is widely regarded as the key theological society that defines evangelicalism today. So, if I’m a heretic so is John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Vern Poythress, Darrell Bock, Ken Barker, Bill Mounce, Maurice Robinson, Bruce Waltke, D. A. Carson, Douglas Moo, Edwin Yamauchi, and thousands of others. Indeed, the entire translation committees of the NIV, ESV, NET, Holman, NASB, and virtually every other modern translation are condemned. The only modern English translation that I am aware of that includes Acts 8.37 and the Trinitarian formula in 1 John 5.7 and is the New King James, yet the editors themselves did not consider these passages to be authentic! You have, in one paragraph, condemned John MacArthur, Chuck Swindoll, R. C. Sproul, Haddon Robinson, Howard Hendricks, Sam Storms, Tom Schreiner, Bob Thomas, and countless others. If you’re right, then there is a massive conspiracy afoot that has been brewing for centuries, yet simultaneously has been published in numerous works and therefore made public. How is this possible? When you say, “Your non-preservation position is new. You don’t have any history behind you from professing Christians” you seriously misrepresent both what you see as evidence on your side and non-evidence on mine.

    To the reader who is interested in the evidence against the authenticity of the TR in certain places, I would urge him or her to read the “tc” notes in the NET Bible on 1 John 5.7. There is no note on Acts 8.37, since this is a verse that has such a poor pedigree that it didn’t even rate a mention. Also, to the reader, I would urge him to read the note on Rev 22.19, since apparently you, Kent, seem to imply that the TR is the only authentic Bible.

    As for your treatment of my treatment of the passages, I would simply urge the reader to look at my whole argument rather than the cherry picking that you have done with it. The essay is located here: http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1221

    Lest readers are deceived by your rhetoric, they need to know that you are essentially arguing for the Textus Receptus or TR, a published Greek text that never existed in any manuscripts, especially not the original manuscripts. This is the Greek text that stands directly behind the King James New Testament. If any would like to see how it was constructed, what problems there are with it, and why no bona fide biblical scholar today considers it to accurately, in all particulars, represent the original wording, they can consult the many essays I have written on this topic that are posted at http://www.bible.org.

    Finally, your statement that “A third of your article seemed to come from Bart Ehrman.” This shows that you really are not aware of the real debates occurring between evangelicals and liberals. Have you not seen my “Gospel according to Bart,” an article published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, but also posted on bible.org? Did you not realize that I took an entirely different approach to the reliability of the NT manuscripts than Ehrman did in Reinventing Jesus, and explicitly critiqued his views in Dethroning Jesus as well as in Lee Strobel’s The Case for the Real Jesus (in which I was interviewed for the second chapter)? Have you not seen my critique in the Christian Research Journal? That anyone could say that Bart Ehrman and I are on the same side concerning the reliability of the manuscripts is incredible. Further, as I have said repeatedly, although I do not embrace a doctrine of preservation, I do embrace the historical evidence for God’s providential care of his text. It seems that you are the one who is creating doubts about the preservation of scripture by linking that belief to a particular form of the text that has long since been rejected by good and godly men.

42. C. on 16 Nov 2007 at 5:52 am #

    I’m a Christian. I have the discernment of the Holy Spirit. I know rot when I see it. I don’t touch Critical Text bibles.

    Perhaps I’m in a stronger position to stand on what I’m able to discern in that I have no academic career or reputation to protect in the eyes of the world.

    You definitely have to fear only God and not man to stand on the biblical doctrine of the preservation of every Word of Scripture.

    God bless the heroic men and women of God who stood and fought heroically, and gave their lives, so that the Word of God would be available to myself and other Christians that came after them.

43. Kent on 16 Nov 2007 at 12:21 pm #

    Dr. Wallace,

    Thanks again. Your Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics has been a help to many. I want to emphasize that. You are also an interesting read; definitely not boring, which is not true of all.

    EDITED by moderator for using blog as a platform to address P&P readers. While this is not always inappropriate, this particular post was. See rules under “about.”

44. Truth Unites... and Divides on 16 Nov 2007 at 12:58 pm #

    I don’t fully understand the theological disagreement between Kent and Dan Wallace, but I greatly appreciate the back-and-forth discussion! Thank you to both.

    My still-forming understanding of textual criticism was immensely aided by a metaphor that James Snapp Jr. offered awhile back. Although I don’t know whether his analogy technically supports the doctrine of preservation or not, it makes sense to me. He wrote:

    “I liken the situation of the NT text and its message to the situation of a ship and its cargo. The shipowner sends the ship on a voyage to deliver the cargo. The ship needs a captain to steer it, and the ship needs a crew to take care of it. During the voyage, the hull of the ship undergoes weathering, with a barnacle here and a paint-chip there (as the owner knew it would). Nevertheless, when the ship arrives at its destination, none of the cargo has been lost and its quality has not deteriorated.”

45. C. on 16 Nov 2007 at 2:55 pm #

    Unfortunately many of the shipmates are Arians. And on the voyage they have a lot of idle time on their hands…

    Stay with the cargo carried in the ship that is captained by the Holy Spirit…

46. Kent on 16 Nov 2007 at 3:00 pm #

    Dr. Wallace,

    First, moderator of this blog, I truly apologize if I broke the blog rules in addressing the readers of the blog. I did not know it was a rule. I hope you could let the readers know that all I did was address the readers at a couple of points, and to let you know, unknowingly of the blog decorum. When he addressed the readers as he did, I took Dr. Wallace’s lead, and only on the points that he addressed the readers. I was hoping you would notice that, because minus the rules, I wouldn’t have spoken directly to the readers except in rebuttal to his address to the readers.

    Now, minus that faux paux, if you would allow, let me give the content of what I said there. In hindsight, I would rather have not brought in the tiny smidgen of a TR defense into my historical content at the beginning of a gigantic amount of material showing the historicity of the doctrine of preservation. The TR is not the subject at hand, which is, first a defense of the historic doctrine of preservation of Scripture and then a Scriptural defense. I don’t mind defending the TR, but this is not my goal here, so I think moving into that right now is a distraction and a deflection. I have no doubt that you can line up eclectics not supportive of the TR, but our point is that you can’t name anyone who denies the scriptural doctrine of the preservation of Scripture before 1800 and I would even like to see this in print before 1900. I do think you know that is what we’re talking about.

    Regarding my Scriptural defense, I wasn’t at all, as you say, cherry-picking. I quoted most of that entire section in which you solely made your exegetical points in the article. A huge chunk of my comment was verbatim cutting and pasting from bible.org. Then I simply looked up the verses and dealt with them. I had to smile at the cherry picking comment, not knowing whether it was an ice cream sundae metaphor or full court basketball. You asked me to deal with the Scriptural aspects (ad fontes) of your article, and I did.

    I made one sentence about Bart Ehrman, because you relied so heavily (I estimated 1/3) on him as an authority for your bible.org article. I have read Misquoting Jesus and your reviews of it and other Ehrman, and for how dangerous he is, what he says, and his agenda, I thought you creampuffed him. I’m happy that you are repudiating him now. I believed it was fair for me to bring him up because you had no disclaimer to offset his lack of credibility and you used him so profusely. I believe it would be parallel to my quoting Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger to support the doctrine of preservation. I would deserve my comeuppance, if I did.

    By the way, I would say it is about zero people who think that I have created doubts about the preservation of Scripture. They might be able to say quite a few things, but that wouldn’t be one of them. I’ll await your cherry pie. Thanks again.:-)

47. CB on 17 Nov 2007 at 3:03 am #

    “I’m a Christian. I have the discernment of the Holy Spirit. I know rot when I see it. I don’t touch Critical Text bibles.”

    Maybe so, but you do use bibles with a critical text, if not THE so-called Critical Text, since all bibles have a critical text.

48. C. on 17 Nov 2007 at 6:52 pm #

    >”Maybe so, but you do use bibles with a critical text, if not THE so-called Critical Text, since all bibles have a critical text.”

    A sophistic and null point. Something I’d expect to see on a Roman Catholic apologetics board.

    Bottom line: ye shall know them by their fruits. Apply this biblical standard to the traditional text vs. what academic Christianity has been pushing since the late 19th century. The Reformation - light after darkness - vs. the state of Christianity since 1881. If you want to undermine the faith do what the devil did in the Garden. “Hath God said?” It’s very effective…

49. Dan Wallace on 17 Nov 2007 at 9:18 pm #

    C., I don’t think that you’re the only one who has the Holy Spirit. Why should your view of things be accepted more than another’s? At bottom, your view is not at all verifiable and smells of Mormon theological justification rather than biblical Christianity. If anything, Christianity is a faith that is grounded in history. And by that I mean especially the New Testament. The fact of the incarnation of Christ means that the Bible has subjected itself to historical inquiry; we should not have a hands-off approach to it. Remember the Jews of Berea? They were more noble-minded than the Jews in Thessalonica because they had the twofold attitude of joyful acceptance of the gospel AND the diligent examination of the data that supported that gospel (Acts 17.11).

    Kent, regarding my article on preservation, one point I made was that “It seems that a better interpretation of all these texts is that they are statements concerning either divine ethical principles (i.e., moral laws which cannot be violated without some kind of consequences) or the promise of fulfilled prophecy.” I stand by that. But let me explore a couple of points that you raised earlier.

    First, you commented:
    “Why would promises of preservation of Scripture found in the OT not be applicable to the NT if we believe they are equally inspired? That was curious in light of (and what I see as bogus) your Marcionism claims in the very article. Isn’t the God of the Old also the God of the New?”
    To this I would argue–exactly my point!If the OT demonstrably has places in which conjecture is necessary, and if most of the NT verses that are used to speak of preservation are referring to the OT, then either those NT verses are wrong, or extracting a doctrine of preservation from them is wrong. I choose the latter. Those who choose the former, I believe, end up following in the train of Marcion. If I’m right about the necessity of conjecture in the OT, then to hang on to a doctrine of preservation is to fly against the evidence and eventually end up being bibliologically schizophrenic. And this is why I said that your view ultimately creates doubt. Because when it’s placed side by side with the evidence, that doctrine is seen to be invalid. And this means either that the Bible is not true because preservation is not a true doctrine, or the Bible is true even though the doctrine of preservation is not. I have seen way too many earnest Christians who started with a faulty paradigm fall away f

50. CB on 18 Nov 2007 at 3:18 am #

    >”Maybe so, but you do use bibles with a critical
    >text, if not THE so-called Critical Text, since all
    >bibles have a critical text.”
    >
    >A sophistic and null point. Something I’d expect to
    >see on a Roman Catholic apologetics board.
    >
    >It’s your side that has to deal with the fact that
    >cultists overwhelmingly choose Critical Text bibles
    >and avoid the Authorized Version like the plague.

    If you used a Majority text, you might be able to make some kind of argument. But since you use the AV which is based on a critical text: a mish mash of the Greek, the Latin, and various minority if not actually non-existant readings, then you really don’t have a leg to stand on. As it is, all you have is a Tradition.

51. C. on 18 Nov 2007 at 11:06 am #

    I use the text - the traditional text - the Holy Spirit has shepherded into existence and down through time and that has caused all the light that the Reformation brought to this dark, tyrannous world.

52. C. on 18 Nov 2007 at 11:42 am #

    Those who gave witness to and confessed the Word of God in the time of the Reformation knew the Voice of the Shepherd. They very well knew what was the Word of God. Rome put forward different words. The reformers rejected Rome. The Word of God the reformers accepted who witnessed to and confessed the Word of God and who knew the Voice of the Shepherd was the traditional text, received through time from other Christians who witnessed to and confessed the Word of God. God’s remnant in time. The Holy Spirit shepherding the Word of God in and through time.

53. CB on 19 Nov 2007 at 7:52 am #

    “Those who gave witness to and confessed the Word of God in the time of the Reformation knew the Voice of the Shepherd. They very well knew what was the Word of God. Rome put forward different words.”

    The history of Christendom is far more expansive than medieval Rome versus the reformers. If you know so little as to think the church started with Luther, then I guess you may as well stay in your insular world. As for Luther himself, he would have disagreed with you.

54. CB on 19 Nov 2007 at 4:21 pm #

    I’m neither protestant nor reformed nor Roman Catholic, but I dare say if Luther were here now he’d be more at home in my church than yours, as would be the centuries of scribes who “preserved” the texts. If there’s a link between preservation and faith, that puts me one up on you.

55. C. on 19 Nov 2007 at 8:39 pm #

    As you havn’t said what church you belong to I have no way of affirming or denying your statement.

    I would just say: humble yourself to the Word of God. That would be the text you find it most difficult (in a going-against vanity/worldly pride/self-will sense) to humble