Textual Variants: What Issues Are at Stake?

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/about/dan-wallace on 28 Nov 2007
Bibliology & Dan Wallace - Contra Mundane & Text Criticism

Comments (40)

Related Posts

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

40 Responses to “Textual Variants: What Issues Are at Stake?”

1. vinny on 28 Nov 2007 at 1:20 am #

   Good enough for government work I guess.

   The Bible is not taught that way though. I have heard many evangelical preachers stand with the Bible in their hands and say things like “The Bible says it, I believe, that settles it.” I have never heard one of them say anything like, “Of course, innerrancy and inspiration only apply to the autographs, but I am confident that none of the variants that may be contained in this translation call into question any essential Christian doctrines.”

   Nor do I ever expect to hear one say anything like that because it would never fill the pews or the collection plate. Your sophisticated view of the textual problems may work fine in the seminary, but it is the surety of the inerrrant and infallible Word of God that the people crave.

2. C Michael Patton on 28 Nov 2007 at 1:29 am #

   Vinny, setting the obscurity of your arguments aside (as I may be misunderstanding), I don’t think that the “craving” of the people is ever our motivation in the pursuit of truth. The lack of the bridging of the educational gap between the seminary and the pew is never an excuse for naivety.

3. Doulos Tou Theou on 28 Nov 2007 at 2:55 am #

   What about Matt 24:36 and its not mentioning the Son in the Byzantine text type? This variant is often cited in discussions as to whether or not Jesus was omniscient.

   It’s by God’s grace that we have Mark 13:32 to back up the Alexandrian text type.

4. vinny on 28 Nov 2007 at 8:41 am #

   I will try to be less obscure.

   I think that the certainty and simplicity of a literal interpretation of the Bible is a basic part of the appeal of evangelical Christianity . I think that evangelical preachers present it that way because that it what people respond to. They don’t want all the nuances and qualifications that they get in mainline or liberal churches.

   The reason many Christians felt “hoodwinked” after reading “Misquoting Jesus” is because, to some extent, they had been hoodwinked. They had been led to think about questions of inspiration and inerrancy in simplistic ways that did not make sense in light of the facts.

   I personally doubt that evangelical Christianity can survive without naivety. Once people start thinking about inerrancy in a more sophisticated way, they may well start doing the same thing with other doctrines. Before they know it, they are on the slipperly slope to mainline Protestantism.

5. Dan Wallace on 28 Nov 2007 at 8:48 am #

   Well said, Vinny! It is right to place some of the blame at the feet of evangelical leaders. We have not done a good job of speaking the whole truth to congregations. And the net result is that some folks turn to theological liberalism because of this sense of betrayal.

   Doulos, I think you answered your own question, didn’t you? Besides, even without ‘neither the Son’ in Matt 24.36, such is implied in the ‘Father ALONE’ (which is not found in the parallel in Mark).

6. Truth Unites... and Divides on 28 Nov 2007 at 9:53 am #

   Vinny writes: “I personally doubt that evangelical Christianity can survive without naivety. Once people start thinking about inerrancy in a more sophisticated way, they may well start doing the same thing with other doctrines. Before they know it, they are on the slipperly slope to mainline Protestantism.”

   I personally disagree with your assertion that evangelical Christianity survives primarily because of naivety. I think this is a very poor and shallow analysis.

   With regards to inerrancy, let me just provide two excerpts from Rob Bowman Jr. and Craig Blomberg:

   (1) Bowman’s Statement of Faith: “CBA as an organization affirms biblical inerrancy and recognizes as excellent though non-binding expositions of that doctrine the Chicago Statements on Biblical Inerrancy and Biblical Hermeneutics.”

   (2) Blomberg: “Inerrancy has become the hallmark of the last 90 years of American evangelicalism and its conceptual equivalent has been central to all of church history.”

   BTW, I do agree with your statement that the attack on inerrancy (which you think is a correct thing to do according to liberal mainline theology) will indeed open the door to a slippery slope towards liberal mainline Protestantism or the Emerging Church movement.

   Francis Schaeffer made that prognosis decades ago.

   Lastly, the attack on the inerrancy of Scripture is merely a simply disguised attack on the doctrine of the Authority of Scripture. I.e., if Scripture errs, then Scripture has no authority over me and I shall do and think what I believe is right.

   Conclusion: I’m not naive Vinny and I will not slide down the slippery slope towards liberal mainline Protestantism.

   Pax.

7. Keith_B on 28 Nov 2007 at 12:51 pm #

   Dan,
   Thank you for these posts they are very educational in regards to the texts.

   Regarding John 7:53-8:11 -

   Can you (or anybody) elaborate on the comment “it seems that most scribes were savvy enough to know where to put the story: they put it after John 7.52 precisely because it seemed to fit the argument that was already there.”

   I was under the impression Jesus was at the water pouring ceremony in 7:37 when he tells the feast gatherers to come to ‘Him’ to drink.

   From what I understand (if I remember right, Edershiem discusses this in his book about The Temple). In the Temple at Sukkot (Feast of Tabernacles) there were great oil lamps lit, since the Feast’s proximity in time to Chanukah (Festival of Lights). If so 8:12 would almost seem to continue the flow from that last great day of the Feast (of Tabernacles) when the giant oil lamps were probably lit (symbolic of God’s presence) and Jesus stands up and says He is the Light of the World.

   Can the passage flow from 7:52 to 8:12 without the story of the woman caught in adultery story (while it is true, it just happened to be inserted there).
   OR does the ‘adultery’ story flow from the discussion of Pharisees and Nicodemus regarding ‘judging’?

   Any thoughts?

8. vinny on 28 Nov 2007 at 1:07 pm #

   TUAD writes: “I personally disagree with your assertion that evangelical Christianity survives primarily because of naivety. I think this is a very poor and shallow analysis.”

   That was probably an overstatement.

   Like Bart Ehrman, I came to a belief in evangelical Christianity in my late teens and I know that a significant part of the attraction was the idea of finding a source of certainty in an unsure world. One of the first books I read was “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” and I remember thinking that the arguments and evidence were not nearly as persuasive as I thought they were going to be. Over the course of a couple of years, I found many things to be less certain and knowable than I first thought. Unlike Ehrman, I abandoned the faith before I turned twenty.

   Had I had the kind of teaching that Dr. Wallace advocates, perhaps I would not have become disillusioned. By the same token, if Ehrman had chosen a less conservative institution than Moody Bible Institute for his initial studies, perhaps he would not have been disillusioned by his later discoveries. On the other hand, if we had understood the nuances and qualifications from the start, perhaps neither one of us would have been attracted by this form of Christianity in the first place.

9. Truth Unites... and Divides on 28 Nov 2007 at 1:32 pm #

   Vinny writes: “Like Bart Ehrman, I came to a belief in evangelical Christianity in my late teens and I know that a significant part of the attraction was the idea of finding a source of certainty in an unsure world. … Over the course of a couple of years, I found many things to be less certain and knowable than I first thought.”

   Dear Vinny,

   How do you personally define certainty? What is it’s import to you? How does the concept of certainty fit within your epistemological framework? What are the affective aspects of the concept of certainty that appeal to you so? How does certainty affect your understanding and receipt of the Gospel? How does certainty affect your understanding and relationship with Jesus Christ? Does certainty impact your ability to proclaim Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?

10. Talk about your slippery slopes… « Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth on 28 Nov 2007 at 2:24 pm #

    [...] your slippery slopes… One commentator (Vinny) over at Parchment and Pen made the statement that: I personally doubt that evangelical Christianity can survive without naivety. Once people [...]

11. vinny on 28 Nov 2007 at 3:38 pm #

    TAUD,

    When I first heard the gospel at seventeen, I remember being very excited by the idea that I could “know” that I was saved. I had been raised Catholic, but I had considered myself an agnostic from the time I entered high school because I did not think that any religion really had any answers.

    Unfortunately, I had not constructed an epistemological framework at that time in my life so I cannot say for sure what I thought it meant to say that I could know that I was saved, that I could know God’s will for my life, that I could know the Bible was true, or that I could know that God answered prayers. Moreover, in the three decades since then, I have never been able to figure out why I responded so strongly to the idea of knowing those things.

12. Truth Unites... and Divides on 28 Nov 2007 at 4:26 pm #

    Bowman’s Statement of Faith: “CBA as an organization affirms biblical inerrancy and recognizes as excellent though non-binding expositions of that doctrine the Chicago Statements on Biblical Inerrancy and Biblical Hermeneutics.”

    I agree with Rob Bowman Jr. Furthermore, for a connection between the Doctrine of Inerrancy and the Doctrine of the Authority of Scripture, please consider point #5 of the Summary Statement within the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. It reads:

    5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible’s own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

13. Truth Unites... and Divides on 28 Nov 2007 at 7:02 pm #

    Vinny, by your heart, by your words and by your life, do you proclaim Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?

    Or another way of asking: Do you believe yourself to be a Christian in the historically orthodox Protestant view of theology?

    Or do you regard yourself more like Bart Ehrman does… an agnostic?

14. vinny on 28 Nov 2007 at 7:17 pm #

    Since my youthful experience with evangelical Protestantism, I have drifted between agnosticism and a liberal cafeteria Catholocism. Recently, I find myself most comfortable with the agnostic label.

15. Truth Unites... and Divides on 28 Nov 2007 at 7:30 pm #

    “Be merciful to those who doubt; snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.” (Jude 1:22-23)

    “While a large crowd was gathering and people were coming to Jesus from town after town, he told this parable: ‘A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path; it was trampled on, and the birds of the air ate it up. Some fell on rock, and when it came up, the plants withered because they had no moisture. Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up with it and choked the plants. Still other seed fell on good soil. It came up and yielded a crop, a hundred times more than was sown.’ When he said this, he called out, ‘He who has ears to hear, let him hear.’” (Luke 8:4-10)

    Dear Vinny,

    You have uncertainty, and I equate uncertainty with doubt. And Jude 1:22 says to be merciful to those who doubt.

    Peace and Blessings.

16. C Michael Patton on 28 Nov 2007 at 7:38 pm #

    Vinny,

    I have both uncertainty and doubt. The perfection of faith is that which lacks any doubt. No one’s faith is perfect.

    I pray that the words spoken on this blog does much to bring honor to God by being transparent, honest, and encouraging.

    I think this post series of Dan’s helps to lay the truth on the table, letting what would be a veneer become more solid.

    Michael

17. vinny on 28 Nov 2007 at 10:45 pm #

    I guess a man never knows when he might need a little mercy. Thank you.

18. Doulos Tou Theou on 28 Nov 2007 at 10:56 pm #

    Dan,

    Maybe I’m being overly pedantic, but the posting is about variants that are both meaningful and viable. In isolation the Byzantine text type reading of Matt 24:36 is both meaningful and viable, and potentially misleading to some.

    While you and I may tend to think that the mention of the Son is not necessary to render the proper meaning due to the exclusive mention of the Father, just look at what theological lengths the Eastern Orthodox who follow the Byzantine text type have to go to to harmonise their belief in Jesus’ full omniscience with Mark 13:32. Matt 24:36 isn’t viewed as causing nearly the same difficulty. I personally think that if it weren’t for the parallel passage that isn’t subject to variation the consensus view in Western churches on omniscience may have been different.

19. Dan Wallace on 28 Nov 2007 at 11:24 pm #

    Folks, some very interesting side comments here. Nice to see! As for the pericope adulterae or story of the woman caught in adultery, one of the best treatments on it is by none other than Bart Ehrman. He wrote an article twenty years ago in a scholarly journal that showed not only that the story was a conflation between two different traditions that melded together sometime before the fourth century but also that the scribes placed this passage after John 7.52 because of the context in John 7 about judgment.

    As for disillusionment about the evangelical faith, I would say first, that evangelicalism does not define Christianity. It is one branch of the Christian faith, which means that if one rejects evangelicalism that does not have to be a rejection of the whole faith. Second, if you were taught some simple, even naive, views of the faith at one time, to throw out everything that you once cherished doesn’t seem to me to be the most logical choice. I remember in Sunday school, when I was about 8 years old, the teacher said, “The Bible speaks about every single subject.” There was no more qualification than that. So, I asked her, “Does it speak about the American Civil War?” She wasn’t sure that it did, but she said she’d get back to me! The next year, another teacher told me, “There are no mistakes in the Bible.” So, I showed him my King James Bible and said, “Look! The pronouns for God are not capitalized—that’s a mistake!” He said, “Well, I guess there are mistakes in the Bible.”

    My point is that the Christian faith has always been populated by people who are naive, simple, ignorant. Then again, so has Texas! Yet, both the Christian faith and Texas also have a few geniuses in them. We ought not to make life decisions based on reactions to poor examples. Let’s investigate the data and think through the issues for ourselves.

    Finally, as for Matt 24.36, I actually think that the Byzantine reading there is probably correct (viz., that Matthew did not write, ‘neither the Son’). But again, I insist that the ‘only,’ which restricts the knowledge of the Son’s return, implies the Son’s ignorance. If the Orthodox church has had more of a problem with Mark 13.32, it would only be because that text is more explicit.

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

    Folks, some very interesting side comments here. Nice to see! As for the pericope adulterae or story of the woman caught in adultery, one of the best treatments on it is by none other than Bart Ehrman. He wrote an article twenty years ago in a scholarly journal that showed not only that the story was a conflation between two different traditions that melded together sometime before the fourth century but also that the scribes placed this passage after John 7.52 because of the context in John 7 about judgment.

    As for disillusionment about the evangelical faith, I would say first, that evangelicalism does not define Christianity. It is one branch of the Christian faith, which means that if one rejects evangelicalism that does not have to be a rejection of the whole faith. Second, if you were taught some simple, even naive, views of the faith at one time, to throw out everything that you once cherished doesn’t seem to me to be the most logical choice. I remember in Sunday school, when I was about 8 years old, the teacher said, “The Bible speaks about every single subject.” There was no more qualification than that. So, I asked her, “Does it speak about the American Civil War?” She wasn’t sure that it did, but she said she’d get back to me! The next year, another teacher told me, “There are no mistakes in the Bible.” So, I showed him my King James Bible and said, “Look! The pronouns for God are not capitalized—that’s a mistake!” He said, “Well, I guess there are mistakes in the Bible.”

    My point is that the Christian faith has always been populated by people who are naive, simple, ignorant. Then again, so has Arkansas! Yet, both the Christian faith and Arkansas also have a few geniuses in them. We ought not to make life decisions based on reactions to poor examples. Let’s investigate the data and think through the issues for ourselves.

    Finally, as for Matt 24.36, I actually think that the Byzantine reading there is probably correct (viz., that Matthew did not write, ‘neither the Son’). But again, I insist that the ‘only,’ which restricts the knowledge of the Son’s return, implies the Son’s ignorance. If the Orthodox church has had more of a problem with Mark 13.32, it would only be because that text is more explicit.

21. Chris on 30 Nov 2007 at 3:51 am #

    The distance in understanding between the seminary and the pew - or the street - is indeed often vast.

22. vinny on 30 Nov 2007 at 11:15 pm #

    Dan Wallace writes: “[I]f you were taught some simple, even naive, views of the faith at one time, to throw out everything that you once cherished doesn’t seem to me to be the most logical choice.”

    There are many things I cherish from my Roman Catholic upbringing but which I no longer preserve as part of my understanding of the world as anything more than metaphor. I am sure that there are elements in every religion in the world that might be similarly cherished. Evangelical Christianity, however, makes claims to exclusivity that make it harder to keep the baby while throwing out the bath water.

23. Dan Wallace on 01 Dec 2007 at 7:58 pm #

    Vinny, what exclusive type claims are you referring to?

24. vinny on 01 Dec 2007 at 8:57 pm #

    Sola fide, sola gratia, sola scriptura.

25. Dan Wallace on 02 Dec 2007 at 12:39 am #

    Vinny, I’m not so sure that the solas are any more exclusivistic than what Roman Catholicism teaches. Why, then, are you selecting evangelicalism as something that’s harder to believe, based on this criterion, than every other religious belief?

26. vinny on 02 Dec 2007 at 1:33 am #

    Roman Catholicism does not require me to believe that Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists are going to hell. I don’t find Roman Catholics showing up at my local school board meetings demanding that the science curriculum be determined by the propoganda put out by a few religious think tanks rather than the overwhelming consensus of the the scientific community at leading research universities in the fields of biology, geology, and psychology. I don’t find (many) Roman Catholics demanding that U.S. foreign policy conform to the ancient land distribution schemes of a desert deity.

27. Dan Wallace on 02 Dec 2007 at 4:44 am #

    Vinny, how in the world can you pit science curriculum or scientific study against the solas of the Reformation? Further, aren’t you procrusteanizing evangelicalism just a bit to make it fit what you reject? It seems that you have been exposed to a very narrow slice of evangelicalism and have decided that all of it is of the same stripe. Isn’t that a bit like profiling Arabs who want to fly? Furthermore, if you read the catechisms of the Catholic church, or the dogma of Islam, I think you’ll find just as many solas as you do in Protestant evangelicalism. I can understand you wanting to vent your frustrations and even anger at some evangelicals that have wronged you, but to project their attitude onto everyone else is a bit prejudiced.

28. vinny on 02 Dec 2007 at 7:30 pm #

    Dan,

    I do not feel that any evangelical Christian ever did me wrong. I was a teenager looking for meaning and purpose and I embraced the gospel of my own free will because I thought or hoped that it could provide the answers I was looking for. The Christians I encountered during that period were uniformly kind and generous towards me. I have fond feelings towards the man who led me to Christ and mentored me, however, he did have a very “all or nothing” theology that I associate with the Moody Bible Institute, which was one of his favorite destinations on Sunday mornings. He believed that it would be intellectually dishonest not to toss the whole kit and caboodle if I found it false or faulty in any particular and that made sense to me. I realize now that this is not the only way to think about things, but it is the viewpoint into which I fell and out of which I dropped.

    For the better part of the next twenty-five years, evangelical Christianity was not a major concern to me. I sporadically attended Catholic churches, but it was more out of a sense of familiarity rather than any real conviction that they knew anything more than anyone else. Over the years, I have known several warm and caring evangelical Christians including some in-laws. My latent agnosticism has not been a cause for conflict with them.

    My interest in the activities of evangelicals sharpened about four years ago when the local high school staged “The Laramie Project.” My son had a part and I thought it was a fine production, but a number of local Christians started railing about the “homosexual” agenda. One of them got elected to the school board and began working to get a number of books removed from the approved reading list. A local Christian radio personality proclaimed that parents like me who did not support the effort were either ignorant or indifferent towards the welfare of our children. The effort to remove the books failed, but two more conservative Christians ran for the school board in the next election and lost.

    During that last campaign, I started reading a blog maintained by followers of the radio personality. I found myself debating intelligent design, homosexuality, inerrancy, and other issues near and dear to the religious right. I was frequently challenged to “check out the evidence,” and I did so. I visited websites maintained by groups like Focus on the Family and I got books out of the library by writers like Lee Strobel.

29. Dan Wallace on 02 Dec 2007 at 7:41 pm #

    Vinny, thanks for being so open and vulnerable about your own spiritual journey. I’m sorry to hear that in the last four years you have been exposed to what sounds like an almost militant form of fundamentalism. A wise, very conservative pastor once told me, in response to my question about whether he was a fundamentalist, “Attitudinally, I am not; theologically, I am.” There’s often baggage that goes with certain beliefs, and the baggage needs to be unloaded. You may have heard my colleague, Darrell Bock, on the news recently. He was interviewed on a national TV news program about The Golden Compass (a movie that allegedly promotes atheism). Bock said that Christians don’t have the right to ban the film any more than non-Christians would have the right to ban The Passion of the Christ. Both sides needs to be heard. I like that attitude. It’s one we all should embrace. After all, America is not a Christian nation (in spite of some of the historical revisionism that suggests that it is or was).

    And I appreciate your willingness to dialogue on these issues on this site.

30. vinny on 02 Dec 2007 at 7:47 pm #

    Dan,

    Thanks. There were two more paragraphs to my last comment that seemed to have been mislaid.

    What I found most frustrating in these discussions was the evangelicals’ ideas of what constituted proof and evidence. They would assert the unquestioned validity of reparative therapy based on the claims of a handful of ex-gay Christians who claimed to have successfully changed their sexual orientation. They would cite some paper issued by the Discovery Institute as incontrovertible proof of the intellectual bankruptcy of evolutionary theory. No matter how equivocal the evidence, they seemed to consider a assertion conclusively established if it came from a website with a proper conservative Christian pedigree. After a couple of months, the bloggers tired of responding to me and disabled the comment function. Since then I have been engaging evangelicals in discussions throughout the blogosphere.

    I realize that evangelicalism is not monolithic and I have been gratified to find a number of thoughtful conservative Christians who are distressed by the simplistic propaganda that gets dished out as proven fact. For example, I found David Kuo’s “Tempting Faith” both insightful and honest. I find your opinions refreshing in many respects although textual criticism is a sufficiently arcane field that I am not always sure where you are coming from. Unfortunately, the thinking evangelical Christians seem to be in a distinct minority. Those who pontificate and polarize appear to dominate them by twenty to one; at least in volume if not in number.

31. Truth Unites... and Divides on 02 Dec 2007 at 7:52 pm #

    “I found myself debating intelligent design, homosexuality, inerrancy, and other issues near and dear to the religious right.” (Vinny)

    “I’m sorry to hear that in the last four years you have been exposed to what sounds like an almost militant form of fundamentalism.” (Dan Wallace)

    Request for Clarification: If a Bible-believing Christian subscribes to Intelligent Design (Genesis 1:1a “In the beginning God….), Same-Sex behavior is a sin, and Biblical Inerrancy, then he or she is regarded as an almost-militant fundamentalist?

    Is this a correct summation of your assertion Dr. Wallace?

32. Dan Wallace on 02 Dec 2007 at 8:02 pm #

    No, TUAD, it is not a fair representation of my views. I do believe in inerrancy; I believe that homosexual activity is explicitly prohibited in the New Testament; as for creation, I have no strong opinion on that issue (young earth, old earth; the mechanism of the creation, etc.). As for whether homosexuals can always or usually undergo reparative therapy, I have strong doubts. My point was that some Christian groups want to eliminate dialogue with others about these issues, and they do see things just one way.

    By contrast, consider Mark Noll, former professor at Wheaton College. He’s a superb evangelical scholar who has argued against young earthers. Whether he’s right or not, the fact is that he is an evangelical whose opinion differs from those on the political right who have almost hogtied the Republican party. The real danger of evangelicalism, on the one hand, is compromise over issues that do matter, but, on the other hand, it’s intolerance for dialogue in the public square and/or alignment with a political party that actually reduces the Church’s impact in the world.

33. Truth Unites... and Divides on 02 Dec 2007 at 9:30 pm #

    Dr. Wallace,

    Thank you for the clarification. Any Christian who holds that God is Creator, that Same-Sex behavior is sinful per Scripture, and that Scripture is inerrant shall NOT be regarded as a near-militant fundamentalist.

    I am a bit mystified, however, as to your importation of the mechanism of Creation, efficacy of reparative therapy, politics, and the assertion that there are unnamed Christian groups who want to eliminate or are intolerant of dialogue in the public square into my question about clarification. None of those things were in my original question.

34. James Snapp, Jr. on 04 Dec 2007 at 9:10 pm #

    Dear Dr. Wallace:

    Just a couple of clarifications:

    DW: “There are hundreds of thousands of differences in the wording of the manuscripts of the New Testament.”

    The Greek NT contains only about 137,500 words, so the “100’s of 1,000’s” claim is only possible when one counts particular differences multiple times. For instance, if one copyist spells the Greek word for “immediately” as “euthus” and another copyist spells it “euthews,” that is only one difference in wording. But this single spelling-difference is counted as a variant every time the word appears (i.e., if only two MSS of a book existed, and they disagreed only on the question of “euthews” or “euthus,” there would be 55 variants).

    DW: “No cardinal belief hangs on any disputed text.”

    The Alexandrian reading in Matthew 27:49 has a potentially fatal effect on the doctrine of inerrancy. The “autou” reading in Mk. 6:22 seems to have the same effect.

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.

35. Dan Wallace on 04 Dec 2007 at 11:16 pm #

    James, I’m sorry to disagree with you on both of your points. You are in error about how to count a variant. See my earlier blog, “The Number of Textual Variants: An Evangelical Miscalculation” (posted here: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2007/11/06/the-number-of-textual-variants-an-evangelical-miscalculation/#more-462). As for the two passages you raise, three points: (1) You admit that the readings that you reject have ‘a potentially fatal effect on the doctrine of inerrancy’—that is, they don’t necessarily deny inerrancy. (2) There are far more serious problems for inerrancy than these variants (see my essay, “Inerrancy and the Text of the New Testament: Assessing the Logic of the Agnostic View” (http://www.4truth.net/atf/cf/%7B0AA41589-FF9B-4057-8DD8-4C34D14E6387%7D/NTTCinerrancyNAMB.pdf). (3) I’m not denying inerrancy at all, but I do not believe that it is a cardinal doctrine. It’s not essential to believe for salvation, it’s never been a part of an ancient universal creed, and its definition has been all over the map.

36. Parchment and Pen » Textual Variants: What Issues Are At Stake? Part 2 on 05 Dec 2007 at 1:59 am #

    [...] wording that the New Testament author penned. We discussed three or four textual problems in the last blog; this time, we will discuss a couple [...]

37. James Snapp, Jr. on 05 Dec 2007 at 5:10 pm #

    Dear Dr. Wallace:

    Perhaps you missed my first point. I was not in error about how to count a variant; I was not counting variants but wording-differences. A single wording-difference that occurs oodles of times will yield oodles of variants — but it is still one wording-difference. That fact significantly nuances the claim that the NT MSS contain 100’s of 1,000’s of variants.

    Regarding the Alexandrian variant at Matthew 27:49, I will put things more perspicuously: this variant, if accepted into the text, would have a fatal effect on the doctrine of inerrancy. None of the variants you mentioned in your paper (“Inerrancy & the Text of the NT”) are more problematic than this one for the basic notion that the New Testament authors wrote true statements and not false ones.

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.

38. Dan Wallace on 05 Dec 2007 at 11:38 pm #

    James, I can see that I misunderstood your first point. However, I’m still not sure what you’re saying and why it’s important. As for Matt 27.49, thanks for listing this verse. I’ll add it to the list of problematic texts. But I’d like you to explain exactly what the problem is for the Alexandrian reading in this verse. As I noted in the NET Bible, I rejected that reading as authentic. But if it were authentic, what would the problem be?

39. James Snapp, Jr. on 06 Dec 2007 at 12:46 am #

    Dear Dr. Wallace:

    The point of my first clarification was simply that there is a difference between the number of variants and the number of distinct recurring wording-differences. Picture all variants arranged in rows and columns, so that the distinct recurring wording-differences are lined up behind one another. The very high number of variants might look quite intimidating, but things become much less intimidating when one realizes that most of the variants beyond the first row drop like dominoes.

    The problem with the Alexandrian variant at Matt 27.49 amounts to this: if the Alexandrian variant is adopted, then the sequence of events related by Matthew runs as follows: (1) Someone takes a spear and pierces Jesus’ side with it; water and blood flow from the wound; then (2) Jesus dies. Meanwhile, in John 19, (1) Jesus dies, in 19:31, and then, (2) in 19:34, a soldier, seeing that Jesus was already dead, pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, and out flowed blood and water. The order of events is different — and this is not a matter of thematic arrangement. John makes it spectacularly clear that the spearing occurred after Jesus had died, and the Alexandrian variant is equally clear that the spearing occurred before Jesus died. Either the Johannine text or the Alexandrian variant is therefore in error. Therefore if the Alexandrian variant at Matt. 27:49 were introduced into the text, the text would be errant.

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.

40. six steps + Victoria veritatis est caritas » Not Every Verse in your Bible is Inspired on 22 Dec 2007 at 9:57 am #

    [...] _____ * For more info on this textual variant, see the NET Bible’s notes on this passage. See also Dan Wallace’s recent articles “My Favorite Passage That’s Not in the Bible” and “Textual Variants: What Issues are at Stake“ [...]

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (hidden) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail