# The Last Twelve Verses of Mark - Part 2



## CalvinandHodges (Mar 18, 2010)

Hi:

A new book entitled, _Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: 4 Views_ was released in 2008 where scholars defend and attack the notion that Mark 16:9-21 was written by Mark. Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary takes up the idea that the Gospel of Mark ends at 16:8, and argues against the Long Ending. He does not present any new evidence for his views, however, he does put a new spin on the old arguments against the ending. Below is a humble critique of his position.

He opens his article by pointing out that "everyone has presuppositions." He then goes on to point out the presuppositions of those, like Burgon and Pickering, who have defended the Long Ending of Mark (LE). In writing this section he says something that, to me, is most shocking and disturbing. He quotes Pickering as linking inspiration with preservation (which is consistent with WCF 1:8), and then quotes Burgon as saying something similar, then he writes:



> He [Burgon] articulated two presuppositions in this one sentence that are relevant for the ending of Mark. First, his belief in divine preservation - and of a peculiar kind - prevented him from even entertaining the possibility that the LE was not authentic. Second, he assumed that there actually are explicit promises in the Bible about its preservation - in spite of the likelihood that none of the texts that are so used are speaking about the preservation of the _written_ word, pgs. 6-7, Brackets mine, emphasis his.


What? How does this view affect the doctrines of inerrancy and infallibility? Is it really conceivable that God would inspire the written word only to have it lost? He continues:



> If, however, the doctrine of preservation is not part of your credo, you would be more open to all the textual options. I, for one, do not think that the real ending to Mark was lost, but I have no theological agenda in this matter because I don't hold to the doctrine of preservation. That doctrine, first formulated in the Westminster Confession (1646), has a poor biblical base. I do not think that the doctrine is defensible - either exegetically or empirically, pg. 7.


In a footnote Wallace incorrectly cites, "Matthew D. McGill" the real author of the article he is referring to is "Matthew D. McDill." This is not the only part of this essay that Wallace misrepresents. McDill's article argues in favor of the Long Ending as both cannonical and written by Mark:



> Since the Church, beginning with the early church fathers, accepted the LE as Scripture, the evidence that would cause the present-day church to consider it non-cannonical should be strong and certain. The external and internal evidence does not conclusively prove that the LE was not original or inauthentic; even if it did, this would not prove that it does not belong in the Canon, McDill, pgs. 42-43.



Wallace has not completed his misrepresentation of McDill. Before the citation Wallace quotes a small sentence from McDill, "Could a part of God's Word, inspired by the Holy Spirit be lost?" Then after the citation Wallace continues, "The belief in some sort of doctrine of preservation continues to persist, even when it has been demonstrated to be indefensible exegetically and empirically." Seems to indicate to the reader that McDill is denying the idea of preservation, but note what McDill really says:



> The fact that Mark may have originated in Rome, as tradition indicates, could affect one's evaluation of the external data. Cox explains, "If one could prove the origin of Mark in Rome, it would be less than reasonable to suggest any other ending other than the longer ending, based on the geographic dominance of the longer ending in the provinces surrounding Rome." If the LE was in the original MSS, then a scribe may have accidentally or intentionally omitted it. He may have intentionally omitted it due to the extraordinary signs or the focus on the unbelief of the disciples. These modifications to options one and two provide possibilities that can explain both the apparent differences in style and language as well as the existence MSS that omit the LE. These possibilities also remove the need for a "lost ending" as many scholars postulate. The theory of a "lost ending" must face questions of inspiration and canonicity: Could a part of God's word, inspired by the Holy Spirit, be lost?" pgs. 34-35.


When placed in context McDill's question is rhetorical in nature. He is saying the *exact opposite* of what Wallace is trying to make him out to say. That is, that the inspiration of God's Word has everything to do with the preservation of the text, in this case Mark 16:9-20. McDill states that those who claim that there is a "lost ending" must face the matters of inspiration and canonicity in their theory.

The whole article can be found here: Matthew D. McDill, 

Wallace then writes:



> My point in this preliminary treatment is to underscore the fact that we all bring a lot of presuppositions to the table that influence how we hear the evidence being presented; indeed, such presuppositions may even keep us from hearing the evidence, pg. 7


I wonder if Daniel Wallace takes his own advice.

I have not even probed the "meat" of his argument, and, since it is getting really late, I will have to do so later.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Mar 19, 2010)

*The Last Twelve Verses of Mark - Part 2A*

Hi:

Daniel Wallace, in part of a quotation cited above, wrote: "in spite of the likelihood that none of the texts that are used are speaking about the preservation of the _written_ word," pg. 7.

The first passage of Scripture that I would use to argue for Providential Preservation are the words of Jesus here, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled," Mt 5:18.

Jesus, here, is specifically talking about the written word "one jot or one tittle" refers to writing. He is most likely talking about the Old Testament - especially because it "speaks of me" - as he says elsewhere. And, because Jesus Himself is the fulfillment of the OT which will be completed at His Second Coming. The passage can also refer to the New Testament as well - since there are prophecies concerning Jesus that have not been fulfilled. Francis Turretin:



> That no canonical book has perished is proved by the testimony of Christ: Proof is derived: (1) from the testimony of Christ – ‘it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail’ (Lk 16:17; cf. Mt 5:18). But if not even one tittle (or the smallest letter) could fail, how could several canonical books perish? Although Christ speaks directly of the doctrine of the law and not of its books, yet it can be applied analogically to them, so as to imply their preservation and so much the more. Mention is made not only of the letters and points of which the Scripture is made up, but also that God wished this doctrine to be preserved in the written books. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Philipsburgh: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1992), v. 1, 96.


Or, this passage in Scripture:



> All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works, 2 Tim 3:16,17.


I ask rhetorically, Does the word "scripture" here refer to the written word? If so, then does Paul here assume that "all Scripture" will be preserved so that Christians throughout all time will profit from "doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness"? Or, is Paul saying that God cares only for the first century Christians, and that the ensuing generations God will not preserve "all Scripture" because He cares less about them?

Daniel Wallace continues, "I do not think that the doctrine is defensible - either exegetically or empirically." He then cites himself - his article can be found here: Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism | Bible.org; NET Bible, Bible Study

The problem that I see is that he does not give any cogent counter-exegesis for, at least, the two passages of Scripture cited above. He only makes a passing comment here:



> One of the fundamental problems with the use of these passages is that merely because “God’s Word” is mentioned in them it is assumed that the written, canonical, revelation of God is meant.


This is not exegesis, but eisegesis.

He does, however, make the bold suggestion that there is no Biblical evidence for the preservation of the Old Testament! I have to ask him, What are you reading? Do you have the infallible, inerrant and finally authoritative Scripture in front of you, or, do you have something less than infallible and inerrant? If Peter is writing about the spoken word, then what is it, Mr. Wallace, that you are reading out of Peter? Are Peter's written words inerrant? If so, then were they Preserved by God?

I think it is becoming pretty clear that when one starts to deny the Preservation of the Old and New Testaments, then one will start denying inerrancy and infallibility. This will become even more clear as we explore Mr. Wallace's article even further. However, it is 2am, and I need my beauty sleep!

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Hebrew Student (Mar 21, 2010)

CalvinandHodges,



> In a footnote Wallace incorrectly cites, "Matthew D. McGill" the real author of the article he is referring to is "Matthew D. McDill." This is not the only part of this essay that Wallace misrepresents. McDill's article argues in favor of the Long Ending as both cannonical and written by Mark:



First of all, I don't know how you can criticize Wallace for what is obviously a typo. Second, Wallace is *assuming* that McDill holds this particular view of preservation. McDill's article was written in 2004! He is not trying to say McDill holds this position at all! His point is that, even in 2004, there are still people who hold this view, even though it is indefensible.



> Jesus, here, is specifically talking about the written word "one jot or one tittle" refers to writing.



The word "iota" also refers to writing. However, when you say, "There is not one iota of alcohol in this drink," does that have something to do with writing? No, because context indicates meaning. This is just before Jesus says if anyone breaks the _least_ these _commandments_ [not individual words] shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven _in the very next verse_ [Matthew 5:19]! This is just before the section where Jesus is going to be talking about the righteous demands of the law, and how our righteousness needs to exceed that of the Scribes and Pharasees. He is going to be mentioning specific commandments and teachings of the elders. Hence, we are not dealing in a context of individual words, but individual teachings and commandments.



> I ask rhetorically, Does the word "scripture" here refer to the written word? If so, then does Paul here assume that "all Scripture" will be preserved so that Christians throughout all time will profit from "doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness"? Or, is Paul saying that God cares only for the first century Christians, and that the ensuing generations God will not preserve "all Scripture" because He cares less about them?



2 Timothy 3:16-17 certainly doesn't refer to individual written words. Look at what you quoted: "...for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness." Do you do those things with an individual word, or do you do those things with teachings? I would like to see you rebuke someone with the Greek word _kai_. In verse 14, he tells him to hold fast to "what he had learned." This is in the context of false teaching. Again, we are dealing with teaching, doctrine, and commandments, and it has nothing to do with individual words.



> He does, however, make the bold suggestion that there is no Biblical evidence for the preservation of the Old Testament! I have to ask him, What are you reading? Do you have the infallible, inerrant and finally authoritative Scripture in front of you, or, do you have something less than infallible and inerrant? If Peter is writing about the spoken word, then what is it, Mr. Wallace, that you are reading out of Peter? Are Peter's written words inerrant? If so, then were they Preserved by God?



How can an individual word be inerrant? What does it mean to say that the word _chesed_ is inerrant? I have heard Dr. Wallace speak many times, and his argument has always been that the way in which God has preserved his word is that no essential Christian doctrines depend on any of these varients. It doesn't matter which text you use. You will have the exact same doctrines in any text. It is those teachings that will not pass away; it is those teachings that are profitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness.



> I think it is becoming pretty clear that when one starts to deny the Preservation of the Old and New Testaments, then one will start denying inerrancy and infallibility. This will become even more clear as we explore Mr. Wallace's article even further. However, it is 2am, and I need my beauty sleep!



Are you not aware that Dr. Wallace has been one of the people almost strongly defending inerrancy and infallability? Let me ask you. Have you debated Bart Ehrman? Have you written a book called _Reinventing Jesus_, responding to the radical scepticism on Jesus' existence? Do you teach at Dallas Seminary, as school that, although dispensational, has been one of the leaders in fighting against these folks who would seek to undermine the authority of the text of scripture? Are you going around looking for all of the Greek manuscripts known to man [and some not known to man] in order to make high quality photocopies, and push our manuscript up incredibly high? To say Dr. Wallace denies inerrancy is absurd. He is doing more work to defend scripture than you and I put together. I would ask you to think about what you are writing, be accurate, and at least show some respect for a person who is doing this much work to defend the text of scripture.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Mar 24, 2010)

Hi Adam:

Thank you for that kind reply.

Many of your points have been answered in this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/response-greenbaggins-manuscript-traditions-within-orthodoxy-57259/

I will direct you there to my original post.

Daniel Wallace - if he believes what you say he believes - is not articulating the Reformed view of Inspiration and Inerrancy. He is teaching the neo-orthodox view that inspiration is in the teachings/meanings of the Scripture, and not in the very words of the Scripture. Thus, his "cure" to Ehrman, Metzger, and others is worse than the disease.

In answer to the silly question that you bring up, "How can an individual word be inerrant?" The answer: It is inerrant when it is written by an apostle or a prophet in the inerrant Scripture.

The problem with your position that inerrancy is in the meanings of the words, and not the very words themselves, is that the teachings must be derived from the words. If the words are not inerrant, then the teachings that are derived from those words are not inerrant. The Reformed view of inspiration is that the Scriptures are inerrant in their words (verbal), and in all the words of Scripture (plenary).

You ask how can I refute someone with the Greek word "kai" (meaning "and") - this is a silly question as you well know - however, I will indulge your silly question with a reasonable answer. The Scripture says:



> For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, *and* the promise made of none effect: (Rom*4:14*KJG)


The word "and" here tells me that if one holds to the Roman Catholic/Federal Vision view of the law, then their faith is made void *and* the promises are of no effect to such a person. Remove the word "and" here and the "teaching" is diminished. Thus, the individual word "and" here - as it is a part of holy Scripture - is as inspired as the rest of it - because that is what Paul wrote.

As far as Wallace's credentials are concerned - that he is defending a view of inspiration that is less than Biblical - and a Greek Text that has not been preserved through all ages - he is doing more harm to the Church than good.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Mar 25, 2010)

Greetings:

It has come to my attention that the references I made to "silly" above have come off as "heated." Such has not been my attitude or intention in the post. I assume that Adam was using a reducio ad absurdum when he asked the questions that I marked as "silly", and, sought to acknowledge that in my response.

Going on to Wallaces' article:

He deals with the external evidence first. In doing so, as all those who deny Markian authorship, he must downplay the massive textual database that supports the Long Ending (LE). Dr. Pickering points out this evidence:



> The passage in question (the Traditional ending) is contained in every extant Greek manuscript (about 1800) except the codices B (Vaticanus) and Aleph (Sinaiticus) and the twelfth century minuscule 304. It is also contained in all extant lectionaries (compendia of the established Scripture lessons linked to the ecclesiastical calendar). Dr. Wilbur N. Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text II, Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2003, 163. Parenthesis mine.


This is just the Greek textual witness. Dr. Pickering goes on to point out the witness of the ancient translations as well:



> The Syriac, Latin, Coptic and Gothic versions all massively support the passage. Only the Armenian and Georgian versions (both fifth century) omit it. To be more precise, every Syriac MS (about 1,000?) except one (the Sinaitic, usually dated around 400) contains the passage. Although the Sinaitic is the oldest extant Syriac MS, apparently, it is not representative the Syriac tradition … Every Latin MS (8,000?) except one (Bobiensis, usually dated about 400) contains the passage. But Bobiensis (k) also seems to be the only witness of any kind to offer us the so-called “shorter ending” by itself – every other witness that contains the “shorter ending” also contains the “longer ending,” thereby displaying a conflation … If the Latin tradition dates to the second century here we have second century support for the “longer ending.” It appears that the only Coptic witness that omits the passage is one Sahidic MS, ibid., 164.


In seeking to debunk this massive testimony to the LE Wallace seeks to look at the _motivation_ of those scribes who would "add" the LE to the text. The assumption that Wallace makes is twofold: 1) That the LE was "added" to begin with - an assumption that he has not proved, and, 2) That one can read the mind of a scribe writing in the 2nd Century. After refuting Farmer's statements concerning the motivation of the scribes he then goes on to say:



> If there is no adequate explanation for why some scribes would omit the LE, then the only alternative is that other scribes added it, pg. 13.


Wallace is seeking to debunk the debate of the textual witness from the texts themselves to the motivation of only 3 scribes who have omitted the LE from their texts. I will not be so distracted.

According to Burgon: Tischendorf, who found the Sinaiticus Text, noted that the last four pages of Mark in the Sinaiticus are fradulent. These four pages contain the "omission" of the LE. So, there are really only *two* Greek texts which omit the Long Ending: One supposed early - the Vaticanus - and one late manuscript.

As I pointed out in another post, the Vaticanus is not a reliable mss, and has been corrupted in other places. Here is one example: W. Willker Codex Vaticanus 1209, B/03: A textcritical complaint

These considerations will play a large role when we consider Wallaces' arguments for the Short Ending in the next post. For now, I have to get ready to go to class!

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Hebrew Student (Mar 25, 2010)

CalvinandHodges,

_Daniel Wallace - if he believes what you say he believes - is not articulating the Reformed view of Inspiration and Inerrancy_.

We are not talking about inspiration and inerrancy. We are dealing with preservation. Secondly, why you would say:



> Second, Mr. Baggins' statement, "Both positions can be well within the boundaries of confessional orthodoxy," (I take it he means Reformed confessional orthodoxy), is not really substantiated. Though there are principles within the Westcott-Hort/Reasoned Eclecticism (RE) theory that have Scriptural basis - the overall theory is contrary to confessional orthodoxy. For proof of this I will refer Mr. Baggins to John Burgon's excellent work, The Traditional Text. As far as I know Burgon's book has never been adequately answered by RE theorists - maybe Mr. Baggins will be the first?



While I am not a NT textual critic [my area is OT text criticism], I am familiar with New Testament Text criticism and Burgon. I find it strange that you would bring him up here. First of all, he was not reformed; he was an Anglican. Secondly, he wrote in the last century, long before the discovery of the papyri, which showed that Vaticanus, Siniaticus, and Alexandrinus represent a primitive form of the text. In fact, most ecclesiastical text proponents that I have ran into will defend 1 John 5:7 as being authentic. However, Burgon vehemently rejected that, and most critics of the Dean Burgon society have rightly pointed that out [see here for an example of this].



> He is teaching the neo-orthodox view that inspiration is in the teachings/meanings of the Scripture, and not in the very words of the Scripture. Thus, his "cure" to Ehrman, Metzger, and others is worse than the disease.



That is not the neo-orthodox teaching on scripture. The neo-orthodox are perfectly willing to admit that, in terms of the meanings of scripture, there are contradictions. They believe that spiritual truth can still get through, even with the contradictions in the meaning of scripture.



> The problem with your position that inerrancy is in the meanings of the words, and not the very words themselves, is that the teachings must be derived from the words. If the words are not inerrant, then the teachings that are derived from those words are not inerrant.



Which is fallacious precisely because individual words, and even individual sentences are not necessarily relevant to the meaning of a passage, and most assuredly not a book the size of the Hebrew Bible and the Greek New Testament put together. It would be like buying an old copy of War and Peace from a used, online bookseller, and finding that, when you get it, there is some damage to two of the pages such that two sentences in the book cannot be intelligibly understood. Now, given your position that "teachings must be derived from words," because of the fact that we do not know two sentences in the book, we could not know what the plot of War and Peace is by reading the rest of the book.

The mistake you are making is assuming that meaning is relegated to words alone. That has been handily refuted by modern linguistics, and, more specifically, the fields of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Generative Syntax has shown that meaning is also wrapped up in the way in which words relate to one another; semantics has shown that individual words and grammatical forms, in essence, have no meaning in and of themselves, and have a whole range of functions that must be discussed within the broader context of a sentence of passage. Pragmatics has shown that there are even ways of describing the context's relationship to semantics and syntax which will effect how syntax and semantics are, themselves to be understood. Also, to make matters worse, the modern field of textlinguistics has shown that there is meaning that is expressed even beyond the sentence level by the way in which an individual author constructs and individual passage.

Short summart of the last paragraph: Words, in and of themselves, are insufficient to establish meaning. While words *can* be relevant to the meaning of the passage, they are not *necessarily* relevant, and the meaning of the passage can still be constructed by other linguistic factors. Again, this is especially true in a book the size of the Hebrew Bible and the Greek New Testament put together.

I was trying to illustrate that in my question to you about the Greek word _kai_, and you have, actually, proven my point. You wrote:



> You ask how can I refute someone with the Greek word "kai" (meaning "and") - this is a silly question as you well know - however, I will indulge your silly question with a reasonable answer. The Scripture says:
> 
> For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: (Rom*4:14*KJG)
> 
> The word "and" here tells me that if one holds to the Roman Catholic/Federal Vision view of the law, then their faith is made void and the promises are of no effect to such a person. Remove the word "and" here and the "teaching" is diminished. Thus, the individual word "and" here - as it is a part of holy Scripture - is as inspired as the rest of it - because that is what Paul wrote.



You have thus proved my point. They only way you know that the teaching is diminished is because the phrases "For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void," and "the promise made of none effect:" are there! Don't write any other words besides kai, and tell me how that word *alone* is inerrant, without any thing else around it.

You make my point very well here. They only way you are able to rebuke a Roman Catholic or Federal Visionist with this passage is because words other than _kai_ exist in this passage. However, your position is not that "the words together are "profitable for...rebuking," but rather that the individual words themselves are! So, please, give us no other word than the word _kai_, and tell us how you would use it to rebuke someone.

All you have proven is that an individual word such as _kai_ *can* be relevant to the meaning of an *individual passage* of scripture, but you have not demonstrated that the entire teaching of the Bible on justification is made null and void by the deletion of this _kai_. Could I not go over to Romans 4:4-5 or Galatians 2:16 to say the very same thing you are saying?

The points I am raising are that:

1. It makes no sense to say that an individual word, such as kai, is inerrant. Without other aspects of linguistics such as syntax, semantics, and pragmatics, individual words cannot give us propositional truth. 

2. We also have to apply these principles to the entirety of scripture. Even individual propositions must be taken in the context of all that scripture says so that, even when a textual varient might cloud the meaning of an individual passage, we can go to clear passages of scripture that teach those very same things.

Thus, you are simply wrong to say that individual words are always relevant to meaning because "the teachings must be derived from the words." That is entirely reductionistic. All that I need for my position to hold is that the teachings of scripture do not hindge on any one varient, in any one passage. The fact that the differences between the two are less than 2% of the text is pretty incouraging in terms of establishing the meaning of the text without having every single word, much like buying an old copy of War and Peace with only two sentences missing, and still getting the plotline of War and Peace. If anyone takes the same proper hermenutics and applies them to the Textus Receptus and to the Nestle Aland 27th edition Greek text, it is my assertion that they will not come up with any different doctrines.



> The Reformed view of inspiration is that the Scriptures are inerrant in their words (verbal), and in all the words of Scripture (plenary).



Why do you get to speak for the entire reformed community to say what is "reformed" and what is not "reformed?" I am not trying to be rude here, but I think most of us would even say that what John Calvin himself said cannot be equated with what it means to be "reformed," unless you want to argue that we should execute heretics who deny the Trinity by the state.



> As far as Wallace's credentials are concerned - that he is defending a view of inspiration that is less than Biblical - and a Greek Text that has not been preserved through all ages - he is doing more harm to the Church than good.



Again, we are not talking about inspiration here; we are talking about preservation. Also, we are not dealing with denials of preservation; we are dealing with different views of preservation. How Dr. Wallace could be "harming" the church simply because he doesn't take your strange view of language, is absolutely beyond me.

Also, the state of affairs with regards to the longer ending of Mark need to be pointed out. What you have said about *the* longer ending of Mark is misleading. Actually there are *four* longer endings of Mark, each one different from one another. Secondly, while it is true that the majority of manuscripts contain some kind of a longer ending, one of the principles of Textual Criticism with regards to manuscripts is that "Manuscripts are not counted; they are weighed." If an error is made early, that error will be recopied and recopied, and, eventually, will become the majority of the manuscripts. However, it is still an error.

An example I can give of this in Old Testament Textual Criticism is, just because you have seven manuscripts that have one reading, and three manuscripts that contain a different reading, that does not mean that you go with the reading of the seven manuscripts. If all seven manuscripts are popular manuscripts, that come from the same family, that all come from the 1300's, whose reading is typical of Hebrew in 1300's in distinction from the Biblical period, whose reading is able to be explained as coming from earlier readings [by things like parallel corruption], and of the three minority manuscripts, two are conservative, and one is popular, they are all found amongst the Qumranic material, they agree with the Samaritan Pentatuch, the Septuagint, and the Peshitta, and the reading it contains is the more difficult reading, then you obviously prefer the minority to the majority. 



> According to Burgon: Tischendorf, who found the Sinaiticus Text, noted that the last four pages of Mark in the Sinaiticus are fradulent. These four pages contain the "omission" of the LE. So, there are really only two Greek texts which omit the Long Ending: One supposed early - the Vaticanus - and one late manuscript.



Actually, Tischendorf never "found" the text of Siniaticus; it was in posession of a monk. Secondly, what was the reasoning that Burgon or Tischendorf gave as to why they thought the text was "fraudulent?" If it is "fraudulent," how do you explain the fact that it agrees with the other manuscripts in places other than the longer ending without getting into conspiracy theories?

The point is that just quoting a scholar, or, in this case, quoting a scholar quoting a scholar without giving their argumentation is entirely tenuious.



> As I pointed out in another post, the Vaticanus is not a reliable mss, and has been corrupted in other places. Here is one example: W. Willker Codex Vaticanus 1209, B/03: A textcritical complaint



And, of course, if we take all of these majority manuscripts that you talk about, and write alternate readings in the margins, and then write brief discussions of those alternate readings in the margins, you will be willing to then reject them as witnesses, just like you do with Vaticanus, right? If we go through, and do that to all of these manuscripts, then, therefore, the readings of the majority of manuscripts could not be trusted?????????

The main problem with what Rob is saying here is that his mind is shutting down, and he is just taking certain ideas, and applying them uniformly and uncritically. A.E. Houseman wrote his brilliant article The Application of Thought to Textual Criticism to address such issues. While I don't agree with Houseman on everything, his article is very successful in showing the logical mistakes that are made by text critics when they do not apply thought to what they are saying, and I think it is very helpful in this situation.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 25, 2010)

Just for reference....

The last twelve verses of the Gospel ... - Google Books


----------



## py3ak (Mar 25, 2010)

Hebrew Student said:


> Second, Wallace is *assuming* that McDill holds this particular view of preservation. McDill's article was written in 2004! He is not trying to say McDill holds this position at all! His point is that, even in 2004, there are still people who hold this view, even though it is indefensible.


 
This is off topic, I suppose, but _what_? He assumed someone holds that position, but doesn't try to say that this someone holds that position, but uses him to illustrate or prove the point that people do in fact hold that position?


----------



## Hebrew Student (Mar 25, 2010)

py3ak,



> This is off topic, I suppose, but what? He assumed someone holds that position, but doesn't try to say that this someone holds that position, but uses him to illustrate or prove the point that people do in fact hold that position?



I agree. I did not write that very clearly. Dr. Wallace was not trying to pin his view on McDill. His whole point is that McDill, does, indeed, hold to a theory of preservation similar to Rob's view. Wallace's point in bringing up McDill was to point out that, even as late as 2004, people still hold this view, even though, as he says, it is indefensible exegetically and historically.

Also, I should clarify something else that I said. Rob said:



> The Reformed view of inspiration is that the Scriptures are inerrant in their words (verbal), and in all the words of Scripture (plenary).



and I said:



> Why do you get to speak for the entire reformed community to say what is "reformed" and what is not "reformed?" I am not trying to be rude here, but I think most of us would even say that what John Calvin himself said cannot be equated with what it means to be "reformed," unless you want to argue that we should execute heretics who deny the Trinity by the state.



In saying that, I am not rejecting Verbal, plenary inspiration, but rather, the interpretation of those words that Rob is giving in what he wrote. I would say that verbal inspiration refers to all of the propositions of the Bible, and the plenary refers to how those propositions fit together as a whole.

Sorry if I have not been clear. I have been trying to get my school work done, and I have been typing really fast. Also, I have been ill with pneumonia, and, when you are coughing as hard as I am, it does something to your train of thought .

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Mar 25, 2010)

Hi Adam:

Thank you for that long post. My aim here is to point out Wallace's errors - not yours. However, since you seem to want to defend Wallace, then I will engage with your points. First, you write:



> We are not talking about inspiration and inerrancy. We are dealing with preservation.


Preservation arises out of your view of inspiration. You believe that it is only the teachings/meanings that have been preserved. This squares with your view of Inspiration which holds that the Bible is inspired in its meanings/teachings. My position - which is the Reformed position as detailed in WCF 1:5, 8 - is that the words written by the Old and New Testament writers were inspired by God. You claim to be aware of OT Textual Criticism. I know enough about it to understand how they copied Scripture. So, I will ask you to detail to me the method which the Jews used in order to transmit the Word of God? Did they do so from an understanding of the teachings/meanings, or, did they copy Scripture Word for Word? 

You next write:



> I find it strange that you would bring him up here. First of all, he was not reformed; he was an Anglican. Secondly, he wrote in the last century, long before the discovery of the papyri, which showed that Vaticanus, Siniaticus, and Alexandrinus represent a primitive form of the text. In fact, most ecclesiastical text proponents that I have ran into will defend 1 John 5:7 as being authentic. However, Burgon vehemently rejected that, and most critics of the Dean Burgon society have rightly pointed that out


Are you suggesting that an Anglican cannot be Reformed? Have you read the 39 Articles? My suggestion for you is that you need to read Burgon's book rather than rely on Critical Text men who have distorted his teachings. Constantin Tischendorf discovered the Sinaiticus Text in May of 1844. Burgon's book was first published in 1896. He even includes a photolithograph of a page from the Sinaiticus Text. Burgon clearly debunks the idea that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus come from the same source. In fact, because there are over 3,000 differences between Aleph and B the idea that they came from the same source is not a reasonable proposition. Which Papyri are you referring to? I know which ones you *may* be referring to, but I want to make sure we are on the same page. As far as 1 John 5:7,8 is concerned I agree with you that Burgon did not hold that it was inspired. However, how does that debunk his views of Byzantine Priority? Are you saying that Burgon did not hold to Byzantine Priority because he did not hold to 1 John 5:7? Next,



> That is not the neo-orthodox teaching on scripture. The neo-orthodox are perfectly willing to admit that, in terms of the meanings of scripture, there are contradictions. They believe that spiritual truth can still get through, even with the contradictions in the meaning of scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## toddpedlar (Mar 26, 2010)

This thread is closed. The two of you can make your mutual repentance to each other off-line.


----------

