Home » Posts tagged 'Dan Wallace'
Tag Archives: Dan Wallace
Wallace’s Remarkable Erroneous Paper On The Doctrine Of Preservation
Daniel Wallace
Certain names represent the biggest evangelical challengers to the biblical and historical doctrine of the preservation of scripture. They have written journal articles or books against preservation of scripture.
The Bible version issue starts with scriptural teaching on preservation. When you believe what God said, you come to perfect preservation. Then you have to deal with what that looks like in the real world. The teaching of the Bible presupposes the outcome.
One of the biggest names is Daniel Wallace, longtime professor of Greek at Dallas Theological Seminary. Any evangelical who takes Greek knows who Dan Wallace is. Second or third year Greek students use his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. It is a very helpful book to own and use.
Manuscript Evidence
In recent years Wallace turned his attention to The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts. A major stated mission of CSNTM is the following:
To provide digital photographs of extant Greek New Testament manuscripts so that such images can be preserved, duplicated without deterioration, and accessed by scholars doing textual research.
Wallace considers their task to continue the restoration of a lost text of the New Testament.
Denial of Preservation
When anyone asks Wallace about the preservation of scripture, he sends them back to a journal article he wrote in the 1990s, entitled, “Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism.” Rather than interact on the subject, Wallace points to that article. He doesn’t need to talk about it. Wallace wrote the article and that ends the conversation. He wrote it, that settles it.
With Wallace’s demand, I acquiesced and read his article with an open mind and great interest. I didn’t assume he was wrong. I welcomed the possibility he was right. What he wrote, however, was very disappointing. It was filled with errors. Wallace and I had a brief back and forth on an evangelical blog in the comment section, since deleted. He claimed that I cherry picked the points I made about his article. I ask you to consider if that’s true with the below links to my analysis of his article.
First Post. Criticizing Professor Wallace part one
Second Post. Criticizing Professor Wallace part two
Third Post. Criticizing Professor Wallace part three
Fourth Post. Criticizing Professor Wallace part four
For a man of such renowned, his article denying the preservation of scripture is very, very poor. It’s still right there all over the internet though, remarkable multiple errors and all.
The Error or Falsehood of Balancing the Extremes to Come to the Truth
In my lifetime, I’ve lost things. I found them by searching between two places on the extreme of where I’d been. Some call it retracing your steps. It couldn’t have been somewhere beyond the two places, so I looked in between, somewhere in the middle.
In the same way, we do not find or know the truth by searching somewhere between two extremes. Jesus said, “Thy Word is truth” (John 17:17). Scripture tells the truth. That’s how we find or know the truth, by looking at the Bible and understanding what it says.
When I was a boy, my family ate through a sheet cake until one piece was left. My brother and I both wanted the piece, so we must split it in half. We had a deal. Whoever measured, the other got the first choice of his piece. The goal was to cut the cake exactly down the middle. That was fair. It was the closest to what both sides wanted. If you wanted both sides happy, you had to look to the middle.
Men want what they want. The best way to get closest to what most people want is by looking to the middle somewhere, to moderate somewhere between the extremes. Men don’t get along because they want what they want and they clash over their desires. To find peace between men, it makes sense to get as close as possible between two contradicting opinions.
Scripture starts with the wants of God. Usually we call this the will of God, which is also the pleasure of God, what pleases Him. Very often God’s desire is one of the extremes, even more extreme than the most extreme desire of men. Not always though. Sometimes the will of God is one of greater liberty than what man will give. Because of lust, man doesn’t want what God wants. Men would want whatever extreme that they could get if possible, but to live with one another, they negotiate somewhere between each other for the greatest satisfaction between them.
As a method, is this moderation or negotiation the will of God? Is this how God operates? It isn’t. Very often the way of God is foolishness to man. He rejects objective truth, because it clashes with what he wants.
What I’ve described so far, you can see in history, and I give you three explanations that are essentially the same, known by different names.
Dialectics
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was a German philosopher, born in Stuttgart in 1770 and died in Berlin in 1831. Hegel said that nothing was truth that could not pass a test of experience. He believed self-determination the essence of humanity. In seminary in Tubingen, Hegel disliked the strictness or narrowness and rejected orthodoxy. He viewed mystical experience instead as the reality of Christianity.
Philosophers give Hegel credit for dialectic methodology, which he considered “speculative.” Johann Gottlieb Fichte took Hegel’s method and refined it with three terms — thesis, antithesis, and synthesis — which are now called a Hegelian dialectic. The idea behind this is that truth arises from error in the course of historical development. A constant refinement occurs through moderation, which is a synthesis of thesis and antithesis. This replays again and again, forming a new synthesis, which becomes a new thesis and so on.
Many believe American pragmatism, as seen in John Dewey (father of Dewey decimal system), the founder of modernist American education system or philosophy. Subject matter came from intellectual pursuit, tinkering and improving, all according to human reason.
I believe man comes to these compromises with a yearning for absolute truth, while rejecting objective truth. The receipt of objective truth starts with God. Because of his rejection of God, man becomes God and formulates truth according to his reason. Since men cannot unify around one truth without God, they invent a new way to grasp truth, which they need for satisfaction. The quest and the outcome never fulfill. As Paul wrote, he ever learns but never comes to the knowledge of the truth, indicating the longtime existence of a kind of dialectic.
Triangulation
The first I remember hearing of triangulation came when President Bill Clinton reshaped his politics to win the 1996 election. He was very unpopular during the 1994 midterm election, but with the counsel of his political operatives, he employed what they called, triangulation.
I did not know that triangulation already existed as a scientific or philosophical concept. It actually started, as you might assume, as a geometric concept, used in surveying. Triangles have three points, and if you have two points already, you triangulate to get the third. You very often now hear the language, “finding the sweet spot between two points.” I use this in economics, when the economists look for the perfect sweet spot for a tax rate.
In Clintonian politics, triangulation involved incorporating the ideas of a political opponent. If you stand at 43 percent and can’t win a popular election, you try to raise your popularity by attracting more people by using their ideas. You come to the right position by triangulating between two opposing opinions. This surely sounds similar to Hegelian dialectics.
Churches now use triangulation and I have noticed they do this by stating core values. The core saws off the extremes. Someone reading the core values won’t be offended by certain specifics. Those offenses are left out. You see the brochure with the very happy family, leaving out the hard parts. The core attempts to draw together as many people as possible in a Dewey-like pragmatism.
Triage
Triage is like triangulation, but proceeds from a medical analogy. I had not considered triage before I heard Al Mohler use the metaphor to describe the balance between apparent essential and non-essential truths. What you imagine is a bad war situation where casualties arrive and are prioritized according to how serious the wounds and how close they are to death. The doctors can save this one, not this one, and they shuffle people into their various places, using the triage to save the most possible. It is a form of pragmatism or what some might call a hierarchical ethic, the ethic of doing the most good for the most people.
The triage reminds me of the tomato trucks that drive down Highway 99 in the San Joaquin Valley of California. As you follow one of these trucks, tomatoes are hopping off onto the road and the side of the road all over the place. The drivers don’t stop to retrieve the lost tomatoes. They are casualties of this method.
Al Mohler’s triage treats certain truths like so many tomatoes falling off the back of a tomato truck. The thought is that we can’t keep or follow everything, so we choose what is most important. This creates a coalition of the largest number of people based upon a fewer number of truths. Man need not live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God, just the ones he deems important.
Maybe you with me notice the shrinking number of important truths and the growing number of less important. With this method, churches decide whether to keep their homosexual members. They relegate wokeism with the triage to non-essential. This pulls together a larger coalition, which allows for bigger offerings and a larger work. This must be what God wants to do. He wouldn’t want smaller would He?
The Text of Scripture
Today men determine what the Bible says according to two poles, radical skepticism and absolute certainty. They say those are both wrong. This is read from Dan Wallace in the introduction of a book, Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism. He wrote:
These two attitudes—radical skepticism and absolute certainty—must be avoided when we examine the New Testament text. We do not have now—in our critical Greek texts or any translations—exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote. Even if we did, we would not know it. There are many, many places in which the text of the New Testament is uncertain. But we also do not need to be overly skeptical. Where we should land between these two extremes is what this book addresses.
This isn’t new. I heard it a lot. It reflects the above three concepts I laid out. As you read, you might think God works in absolute certainty. You would be right. This is a Christian worldview. It arises from scripture.
The goal in modern textual criticism is to fall somewhere between radical skepticism and absolute certainty. It sees “absolute certainty” as an extreme. If the text of the Bible is not certain, and men defer to that position, somewhere, however, north of radical skepticism, one would see how that the inspiration, interpretation, and application of scripture are also not certain. How does someone live by faith in something uncertain as such? This occurs when man applies his dialectic, triangulates, or forms a triage based on human reason.
Man-centered philosophies are not faith. They also put man above God. Rather than follow the truth of scripture, man judges God and comes to a better, more pragmatic position. It’s a way to preserve Christianity from itself.
“The Phone” and “The Church”
My wife and I were out Saturday in door-to-door evangelism. We talked to several people including a long time to a couple of Mormon missionaries. At one of the doors, we rang the bell and stood waiting in the cold outside. We heard someone talking, so we waited longer. Then I said, “Someone is talking on the phone.” “The phone.”
As we walked to the next door, I thought about the ease at using that language. “Someone is on the phone.” “He’s on the phone.” Is there only one phone in that household? Doubtful.
I remember when there was one phone in the house, so if you were on “the phone,” you really were on “the phone.” There was one. When I grew up, it was one phone, attached to the wall with a short stretchable cord. Then came the option of getting a longer cord. If someone called, that was the only phone call happening in the house.
In our house right now, we’ve got three phones for four people. Despite the number of phones, if someone calls, no one would question the statement, “He’s on the phone.” Everyone knows “the phone” doesn’t mean “one phone,” as in one phone in number. It is a singular noun, but it does not mean a single phone. You know that. Everyone knows that today.
So, when the words “the church” are found in the New Testament, why would people think that it must mean “one church”? They shouldn’t.
Particular or Generic Singular Noun
Perhaps you remember from English class, and it’s the same in the New Testament Greek language, that one aspect of the noun is number. Number. Nouns are either singular or plural in number. Singular is one and plural is more than one. Under the category of number is singular and plural. However, let’s go further.
Under the category of singular noun is one of two possibilities, depending upon the context. A singular noun is either (1) particular (specific), or (2) generic. It cannot be any other but one of those two: particular or generic (specific). If you hear another possible usage of the singular noun, someone invented it or made it up.
When I said to my wife, “Someone is on the phone,” what usage was that? I could not tell which phone he had. It was a man on “the phone.” That was not a particular phone, so it was not a particular usage. It was the generic use of the singular noun. It didn’t matter what particular phone he was using.
Generic nouns are nouns that refer to all members of a class or group. They are often used when making generalizations or talking about universal truths.
In 1938 Fred Long Farley wrote, The Art of Language, and he wrote an example of the use of the generic singular noun:
The generic use of the singular is seen in . . . “the dog is man’s best friend.”
One English grammar calls these “count” (particular, specific) or “non-count” (generic) singular nouns. In 2000 Kabakciev wrote in Aspect in English:
The pattern of the article used with count and non-count nouns should be complemented with the pattern of use of generic and non-generic nouns. . . . Generic notions in English are expressed, for example, by subjects like the cat, a cat, and cats in sentences like . . . . a. The cat drinks milk b. The cat is an animal.
As you are read this, I think you understand the generic use of the singular noun. You understand “the phone” as I used it to my wife. Arthur Wakefield Slaten counted up the generic nouns and the ones with the definite article “the” in his book, Qualitative Nouns in the Pauline Epistles, and he wrote:
The 929 generic nouns were rendered in English nouns preceded by the definite article in 222 cases.
In other words, generic nouns occur all the time in the Pauline epistles. Expect it.
Te Ekklesia, The Church
Ekklesia, the Greek noun translated “church,” is found at least 117 times in the New Testament. Then you’ve got te ekklesia, “the church.” Those two words in the Greek New Testament occur together at least 70 times, closer to 80. You have a lot of opportunities to decide whether “the church,” this singular noun, is particular or generic. Related to number, it can be only one of those two.
Here are some examples of “the church” used as particular or specific, and particularly in the Pauline epistles:
Romans 16:1, “I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea.” Romans 16:5, “Likewise greet the church that is in their house.” 1 Corinthians 1:2, “Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus.” 1 Corinthians 11:18, “For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.” 1 Corinthians 11:22, “What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.” 1 Corinthians 14:5, “I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.” 1 Corinthians 14:12, “Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.” Colossians 4:16, “And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.” 3 John 1:9, “I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.” Revelation 2:1, “Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks.”
Read those verses. There are many other examples than those above. I gave obvious cases of particular or specific uses of “the church.” What about the generic uses of “the church” in the Pauline epistles?
1 Corinthians 12:28, “And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.” 1 Corinthians 14:19, “Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.” 1 Corinthians 14:35, “And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” Ephesians 3:21, “Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.” Ephesians 5:23-24, “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.” Colossians 1:18, “And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.” 1 Timothy 3:5, “(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)”
There are more than these examples of the generic use of “the church.”
Generic Nouns
While speaking about qualitative nouns, in his The Basics of the New Testament Syntax, Daniel B. Wallace addresses generic nouns:
It is akin to a generic noun in that it focuses on the kind. Further, like a generic, it emphasizes class traits. Yet, unlike generic nouns, a qualitative noun often has in view one individual rather than the class as a whole.
If you want to read an in depth discussion of the generic noun, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a long article that says very much about it, more than I would want to quote here. If you don’t get what I’m writing and need more, there’s a lot there.
Sometimes even when Paul writes to a particular church, he’s not writing about a particular church, but about the doctrine of the church, so he uses a generic singular noun. This is very common in scripture, as noted before, but it is also seen in The Constitution of the United States. Think of the very beginning in the preamble, “the common defense” and “the general welfare.” In Article One is “the state legislature,” speaking of no particular state.
Ephesians 5:23 is a great place to look at the generic use of “the church,” even as quoted above in that list of uses. “The husband” is a generic singular noun, speaking of no particular husband, but “the husband” as a class. “The wife” is also a generic singular noun. Then “the church” and “the body” are used the same way. If “the church” and “the body” were to be anything other than a generic singular noun, then one would expect “the husband” and “the wife” to be something else too, which they aren’t.
There is only a generic or a particular use for the singular noun. There is no “universal” or “Platonic” or “mystical” usage of the singular noun. A “mystical” use, or anything like it, allows to treat scripture like a Gumby doll. Ekklesia, which means, “assembly,” can’t be a single, universal, mystical, something-or-other. It is by nature only local.
When the New Testament says, “the church,” it is either a particular, specific church or it is representative of a class, the generic usage of “the church,” and context will determine which one. When talking about the church as an institution, the New Testament uses “the church.” That’s the way it should be. It is not saying there is one church in the entire world, just like there is not one wife and one husband in the entire world. There also is no mystical wife, no mystical husband, and no mystical church.
You probably still use the words, “the phone.” And when you do, you too are using a generic singular noun, just like when the New Testament often times uses the words, “the church.” You don’t mean a “universal, mystical phone” and the New Testament doesn’t mean a “universal, mystical, church.”
Recent Comments