Daniel Wallace Misrepresents Textual Support

[Jordan Kurecki]

The Text of the Gospels: My Favorite Passage About an Adulteress in the Bible

"(1) Wallace: “We have three majuscule manuscripts, out of the 322 that we have, that actually have this passage. That’s it.”

This statement is wrong in two ways. First, the metric is unfair, since most of the 322 uncial manuscripts that he cited (a number which has risen slightly since then) do not have any text from the Gospel of John whatsoever. It would be unfair to say, “The Dallas Cowboys have failed to win 308 out of 316 football games this season” if the team only played 16 football games, won seven times, and had one tie. To include 300 games that the team could not participate in serves only one purpose: to convey a false impression.
Second, more than three majuscule manuscripts have the story of the adulteress! The uncials E, G, H, K, M, U, S, G, Ω, 047, and 0233 support the passage, and Codex F included it when the manuscript was in pristine condition. Wallace’s statement of the number of uncials (i.e., majuscules) that contain the pericope adulterae is off by a factor of four.
In addition, it is no secret that Codices Δ and L, while they do not contain John 7:53-8:11, contain blank space between John 7:52 and John 8:12, which is obvious testimony to their copyist’s awareness of the absent passage, and there is no good reason to neglect to mention this feature of these two manuscripts when presenting them as evidence for the non-inclusion of the passage....."

I find arguments along the lines of the ones made by Daniel Wallace by others when criticizing certain texts of the bible such as 1 John 5:7.For example, I read on one website that out of the "thousands" of manuscripts we have the Johanine comma only appears in 4... I remember reading a while ago about the number of Greek manuscripts we have that even have 1 John chapter 5 and the number was something like 30, not to mention they don't usually mention to you the quotations of the church fathers, latin manuscripts, or other ancient translations that do have the comma.

Often times the way the information is presented is not very clear and misleading conclusions are drawn from he information, as you can see from the above article.

 

[Deacon]

I am very suspicious of KJVO sites.

I looked for the original document cited.
The only sites where I find the quote (“We have three majuscule manuscripts, out of the 322 that we have, that actually have this passage.”) is on those critical of Daniel Wallace.

Could you document where Dan Wallace actually says this?

Rob

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

I am very suspicious of KJVO sites.

I looked for the original document cited.
The only sites where I find the quote (“We have three majuscule manuscripts, out of the 322 that we have, that actually have this passage.”) is on those critical of Daniel Wallace.

Could you document where Dan Wallace actually says this?

Rob

I do not believe that site is KJV only.

They are not citing a document by him, but are quoting from his New Testament Textual Criticism course, which you have to pay for. I am not going to pay 79$ and go though all that just to try and find the place where he says it for you.

 

[Logos1560]

Often times the way the information is presented is not very clear and misleading conclusions are drawn from he information, as you can see from the above article.

Often times the way KJV-only claims are presented is not very clear, and misleading or incorrect conclusions are often draw from the unproven claims. Do you apply the same measures to KJV-only sources that you apply to this second-hand article, which could misrepresent what was supposedly stated?

Would you condemn KJV-only sources that misrepresent textual support for the KJV?

They are not citing a document by him, but are quoting from his New Testament Textual Criticism course, which you have to pay for. I am not going to pay 79$ and go though all that just to try and find the place where he says it for you.

How do you know that they are actually accurately quoting from him?

You evidently do not actually know whether your source is accurate in what it claimed so perhaps you jump to a misleading conclusion.

 

[Logos1560]

Does D. A. Waite misrepresent the textual support for the Textus Receptus and the KJV?

KJV-only advocate D. A. Waite claimed that “the Textus Receptus is from a type of text known as the Traditional Text which is represented today by over 5,210 preserved Greek manuscripts” (Fundamentalist Distortions, p. 27). He asserted that “the Textus Receptus is the big circle of 5,210 Greek manuscripts or more” (p. 28). Waite declared that “the Textus Receptus is based on over 5,210 Greek manuscripts” (Fundamentalist Deception, p. 56). Waite argued that “over 5,210 out of the 5,255 manuscripts as of the 1967 total lie behind our Textus Receptus” (p. 71).

Charles Keen claimed that “it took 5,000 Greek manuscripts to get the Beza Manuscript Edition from which the KJV came” (Unpublished Word, Summer, 2008, pp. 10-11).

Who has carefully examined and completely collated all of those 5,210 Greek manuscripts so that it can accurately be implied or suggested that they are every word in agreement with the Textus Receptus?

KJV-only author J. A. Moorman acknowledged that “only a relative few of the 5555 MSS now catalogued have been collated” (When the KJV Departs, p. 17). KJV-only author David Cloud maintained that “the extant Greek manuscripts have never been collated and examined in such a way that a majority text could be determined with any degree of certainty” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 207; Faith, p. 692).

Does that statement suggest that it cannot with any degree of certainty be claimed that all those 5,210 manuscripts agree with the twenty to thirty textually-varying Textus Receptus editions and with the KJV?

 

[Yeshua1]

Does D. A. Waite misrepresent the textual support for the Textus Receptus and the KJV?

KJV-only advocate D. A. Waite claimed that “the Textus Receptus is from a type of text known as the Traditional Text which is represented today by over 5,210 preserved Greek manuscripts” (Fundamentalist Distortions, p. 27). He asserted that “the Textus Receptus is the big circle of 5,210 Greek manuscripts or more” (p. 28). Waite declared that “the Textus Receptus is based on over 5,210 Greek manuscripts” (Fundamentalist Deception, p. 56). Waite argued that “over 5,210 out of the 5,255 manuscripts as of the 1967 total lie behind our Textus Receptus” (p. 71).

Charles Keen claimed that “it took 5,000 Greek manuscripts to get the Beza Manuscript Edition from which the KJV came” (Unpublished Word, Summer, 2008, pp. 10-11).

Who has carefully examined and completely collated all of those 5,210 Greek manuscripts so that it can accurately be implied or suggested that they are every word in agreement with the Textus Receptus?

KJV-only author J. A. Moorman acknowledged that “only a relative few of the 5555 MSS now catalogued have been collated” (When the KJV Departs, p. 17). KJV-only author David Cloud maintained that “the extant Greek manuscripts have never been collated and examined in such a way that a majority text could be determined with any degree of certainty” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 207; Faith, p. 692).

Does that statement suggest that it cannot with any degree of certainty be claimed that all those 5,210 manuscripts agree with the twenty to thirty textually-varying Textus Receptus editions and with the KJV?

The answer would be that the KJVO group refuses to use the same "evidence demands" for the Kjv that they force all other translations to answer and account for!

 

[Logos1560]

How many actual Greek New Testament manuscripts can KJV-only advocates demonstrate were actually used in the making of the varying Textus Receptus editions by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza?

Would it not likely be less than 100 manuscripts out of the over 5,000 Greek NT manuscripts that are now known? The few Greek NT manuscripts used for making the TR editions were incompletely and imperfectly collated.

Samuel Tregelles wrote: "Robert Stephens, ten years before, in editing the Latin Vulgate, had made pretty extensive use of MSS.; and in giving the work of Greek collation into the hands of his son Henry, then aged only eighteen, he might have had some thoughts of similarly applying criticism to the Greek text" (Account, p. 31).

Scrivener asserted that “Robert Stephen professed to have collated the whole sixteen for his two previous editions,” but that “this part of his work is now known to be due to his son Henry [1528-1598], who in 1546 was only eighteen years old” (Introduction, II, p. 190).
Edward Miller affirmed: “Robert Stephen did not collate his authorities himself, but employed the services of his son Henry” (Guide to the Textual Criticism, p. 10). J. Scott Porter also maintained that “the MSS. were collated, and their readings noted, by Henry Stephens, son of Robert, then a youth of eighteen” (Principles, p. 250). Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible contended that “the collations were made by his son Henry Stephens” (III, p. 2131).

Irena Backus asserted that Robert Stephanus “used Henri’s collations as the sole source of Greek variants for his 1550 edition of the New Testament” (Reformed Roots, p. 3). John Michaelis as translated by Herbert Marsh pointed out that Robert Stephens “made use of several manuscripts which were collated by his son Henry” (Introduction to N. T., II, p. 448).

Henry Baird quoted Theodore Beza as writing in a preface to his NT about a copy of “our Stephens which had been most carefully collated by his son, Henry Stephens” (Theodore Beza, p. 236). KJV-only author Laurence Vance acknowledged that the text of Stephanus included the “collations of his son Henry” (Brief History, p. 13). Jan Krans pointed out that “in a 1565 addition to the preface, Beza informs us that the collations were actually Henri Stephanus’, who was probably asked to do them by his father” (Beyond What is Written, p. 212). Krans also referred to another source revealing that the collations were done by the son of Robert Stephanus, which is “Henri Stephanus’ own words in the preface to his 1587 New Testament” (p. 212, footnote 6).

There is also evidence that this comparing and collating of Greek New Testament manuscripts by this eighteen year old was imperfectly done.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

How many actual Greek New Testament manuscripts can KJV-only advocates demonstrate were actually used in the making of the varying Textus Receptus editions by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza?

What has this to do with the O.P.?
My understanding is that of more than 900 manuscripts that contain John's Gospel, only around twenty omit John 7:53-8:11.

 

[Rippon]

What has this to do with the O.P.?
My understanding is that of more than 900 manuscripts that contain John's Gospel, only around twenty omit John 7:53-8:11.

I don't have the time now to develop this --but closer to 100 manuscripts exclude the PA.

 

[Logos1560]

What has this to do with the O.P.?
.

A KJV-only poster started this thread based on the allegation that one scholar is said to have misrepresented the textual evidence concerning a verse or passage.

One sound response would be to show the KJV-only failure to practice what they preach since KJV-only advocates attempt to misrepresent the textual evidence alleged to support the varying Textus Receptus editions and the KJV.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

A KJV-only poster started this thread based on the allegation that one scholar is said to have misrepresented the textual evidence concerning a verse or passage.

One sound response would be to show the KJV-only failure to practice what they preach since KJV-only advocates attempt to misrepresent the textual evidence alleged to support the varying Textus Receptus editions and the KJV.

With respect, that is no response at all.
If you wish to criticize KJV-only practices, you can start a new thread and detail them. IMO, if you want to participate in this thread, you should deal with the O.P.

 

[rsr]

I think something must have been lost in the translation, so to speak. I find it difficult to believe that Wallace would make a claim without some modifiers. Was he simply pointing out the dearth of majuscules with the passage before the ninth century in that claim? Without context it is hard to know what he was in fact asserting.

 

[rlvaughn]

Here is one place online where Wallace writes about the John 7:53–John 8:11 text, perhaps giving some "context":
My Favorite Passage that’s Not in the Bible

 

[rsr]

That is indeed a cogent exposition of Wallace's argument, but it does not address the specific charge against Wallace about the evidence of the uncials.

 

[rlvaughn]

I understand. Just thought it would give a general idea of Wallace's thinking on this subject.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

"Jerome (AD 340-420), the translator of the Latin Bible called the Vulgate, said this about the pericope de adultera: “. . . in the Gospel according to John IN MANY MANUSCRIPTS, BOTH GREEK AND LATIN, IS FOUND THE STORY OF THE ADULTEROUS WOMAN who was accused before the Lord.” Jerome considered the pericope genuine, and included it in his Vulgate.

As noted by many textual scholars, perhaps the reason it had disappeared from some copies was due to the nature of the text itself in that Jesus freely forgave a woman taken in the very act of adultery.

Augustine (354-430 A.D.) wrote: "Some of little faith, I suppose from a fear lest their wives should gain impunity in sin, REMOVED FROM THEIR MSS THE LORD'S ACT OF INDULGENCE TO THE ADULTERESS."

Why the Story of the Woman Caught in Adultery Belongs in the Bible

http://brandplucked.webs.com/john753811.htm

 

[John of Japan]

What has this to do with the O.P.?
My understanding is that of more than 900 manuscripts that contain John's Gospel, only around twenty omit John 7:53-8:11.

This is inaccurate. Dr. Maurice Robinson has been collating all of the MSS that contain the pericope adulterae. (And we of the Byzantine priority persuasion are looking forward to the final results.) He has found that of all the MSS containing the passage relative to the location of the PA, a total of 1495 mss contain John 7:51-8:13, and 268 lack the PA.

These are mostly miniscules, not papyri or uncials. Of those, 16 have the PA and 19 lack it. This figure of 19 points to missing parts in 3 MSS: p39, Aleph, and C. This also includes a non-continuous text: 0250.

Hopefully this will correct any misapprehensions about the data.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

This is inaccurate. Dr. Maurice Robinson has been collating all of the MSS that contain the pericope adulterae. (And we of the Byzantine priority persuasion are looking forward to the final results.) He has found that of all the MSS containing the passage relative to the location of the PA, a total of 1495 mss contain John 7:51-8:13, and 268 lack the PA.

These are mostly miniscules, not papyri or uncials. Of those, 16 have the PA and 19 lack it. This figure of 19 points to missing parts in 3 MSS: p39, Aleph, and C. This also includes a non-continuous text: 0250.

Hopefully this will correct any misapprehensions about the data.

Thanks for the correction. However, my post did not come off the top of my head. I counted the texts listed in the apparatus of my copy of the UBS 4th Edition as omitting the P.A. I suppose this must be rather out of date (1993).

 

[John of Japan]

Thanks for the correction. However, my post did not come off the top of my head. I counted the texts listed in the apparatus of my copy of the UBS 4th Edition as omitting the P.A. I suppose this must be rather out of date (1993).

Well, then, you are paying attention. You should know, though, that the UBS apparatus is never going to be complete, especially with regards to the Byzantine textform. (There are just too many MSS for such an apparatus to list them all.) Metzger's textual commentary (2nd ed., companion to the UBS NT) has the tired old litany of "the earlier and better manuscripts" (p. 189). So there is still a basic prejudice the UBS editors have against the Byz. in spite of their claimed "eclectic" position.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Well, then, you are paying attention. You should know, though, that the UBS apparatus is never going to be complete, especially with regards to the Byzantine textform. (There are just too many MSS for such an apparatus to list them all.) Metzger's textual commentary (2nd ed., companion to the UBS NT) has the tired old litany of "the earlier and better manuscripts" (p. 189). So there is still a basic prejudice the UBS editors have against the Byz. in spite of their claimed "eclectic" position.

Indeed! It's frustrating when 80% or so of the existing MSS are written off in the apparatus with the term Byz.