That can't be said about the East Coast States I lived in as a Sailor. The KJV only crowd was big in Virginia Beach and Jacksonville, Florida. It was pretty big around the Indy area too but it lost steam when the big Fundy KJV Only Church got busted down for Tax evasion. smh. It really hasn't been much of an issue around here. Most people are content with their positions and seem to be pursuing other things.
Start with finality. When will the work of ascertaining the authentic Greek text be finished? How will you know?
Is that a reasonable standard to expect of anyone? And given that obviously we will never reach that standard (think of how many manuscripts are destroyed) what are you suggesting we do? Just stick with the KJV because of some ad hoc theory about preservation that is historically bankrupt?
I’m not a fan of Dan Wallace, and I don’t agree with him in textual criticism. However, I do think we need to be fair to him. This article, recently published, deals with this quote in its context. I still disagree with it, but it does shed a little different light on it.
Thank you for the information. I will check it out. Do note also though, that one of the current contributors to that very blog is Tommy Wasserman, who is noted to have said the following:
No, it isn't. Let's not anachronistically read the KJVO theory of preservation back into the Westminster divines.
"But yet we affirm, that the whole Word of God, in every letter and tittle, as given from him by inspiration, is preserved without corruption. Where there is any variety it is always in things of less, indeed of no, importance. God by his providence preserving the whole entire, suffered this lesser variety to fall out, in or among the copies we have, for the quickening and exercising of our diligence in our search into his Word."
If he said that, that is extremely troubling. Again, I posted the article not to go soft on Wallace, but simply to be fair. But this that you have quoted is precisely the reason I have great hesitation about modern textual critics, even evangelical ones. There is not and can be no neutrality in this endeavor.
As far as I can tell in this discussion on textual criticism so far, the only people I see quoting Dan Wallace are the TR side. As Taylor is saying, Wallace should absolutely be criticized for some of the bizarre things he says, but please note the CT side is not using him as "their guy". Also, there are several individuals taking a different angle such as the majority text side (which also disagrees with the TR theory) or even the Sturzian side. All this to say, continuing to bring up Dan Wallace is a bit of a straw man unless someone is actually using him to support their arguments.
Seems like we all should be calling balls and strikes. The non TR sides have no issues calling out Dan Wallace's nonsense. With Myers, I continue to see doubling down in most cases, not all though. Are you able to criticize one of your own when they are out of line or is there an unwritten rule that this cannot take place?
For what it's worth other evangelical TC guys like Gurry have said they would not agree with Wasserman's statement. I also have several professors at RTS who are very godly men and involved in textual criticism. It's already a bad way to argue a position, but even on factual grounds I don't think the whole, "All text-critics are unsound in the faith/theologically corrupt/etc." argument holds any water.
Well, it seems we are an impasse again, which is normally what happens on this subject. For my part, I would agree we should speak to each other with charity and brotherly love, but also with truth. Each side should be called out when needed.
How is it even remotely comparable to suggest that demonstrable falsities being called out (I can see that the word 'lie' carries the connotations of malicious intent, but clarification has been provided to show that isn't what is being implied) is in any way like someone claiming that non-TR bible translations are in some sense the work of the devil? The embarrassment belongs to those producing the shoddy work that was shown for what it was.
Oh, I agree entirely, brother, which is why I said I have “hesitation” instead of disgust (or something similar). Some of the godliest men I know are proponents of the Critical Text.
