Wallace's Conspiracy Theory

"Westcott & Hort (WH) were able to convince the vast majority of NT scholars of the truth of their textual choices. Essentially, they argued that the Greek text behind the KJV NT was inferior and late."

- Daniel Wallace

A. Those who Accept the PA as Holy Scripture: (36)

1. Asserting Authorship by John the Evangelist (23).

2. Assenting to Johannine Community Authorship (3).

3. Asserting Historical Truthfulness Only,
    but Retaining it as Scripture (10).

B. Those who have Signficant Doubts or are Neutral: (9)

4. Expressing Significant Doubt (5).

5. Remaining Neutral or Undecided (4).

C. Those who Reject the PA as Holy Scripture: (37)

6. Accepting it as a Historical Source but not as Scripture (27).

7. Rejecting it as Historical Fact and as Scripture (9).

8. Rejecting the concept of "Holy Scripture" entirely (1).

Year	Critic	Background
1707	Mill
1717	R. Bentley	only 4th cent. evidence
1734	Bengel	Text-types
1776	Wetstein	Socinian, Arian
1789	Griesbach	Recensions, Rejected Mark!
1831	Lachmann	thought TR = 15th cent.!
1861	Tregelles	Lachmann's follower
1869	Tischendorf	favoured א
1882	Westcott/Hort	favoured B/א
1904	Nestle	Tisch./WH text
1960	Nestle-Aland (NA)
1968	UBS-2
1968	NA-27/8
2008	NETBible
.

"How did WH dethrone the Textus Receptus (TR) and the Greek MSS that stood behind it? They accomplished their task with three arguments:

Thus, with these three arguments, WH demonstrated that the Byzantine text was:

Although some of the particulars of their overall view have been questioned today, most NT scholars find this general scheme to be a compelling argument against Byzantine superiority. Hence, the overthrow of the TR.

- Wallace

... Plus, Dr. Wallace’s claim that “Nowhere could it be shown that the Alexandrian combined Western and Byzantine readings or that the Western combined readings of the Alexandrian and Byzantine” is wrong. A consultation of Sinaiticus at John 13:24, I Cor. 7:34, I Thess. 1:5, Hebrews 10:12, and Rev. 6:7-8, and a consultation of Vaticanus at Mt. 3:12, Mt. 24:38, Mk. 1:28, Mk. 1:40, John 7:39, Eph. 2:5, and Col. 1:12, and a consultation of Codex D at Mt. 26:22, Luke 9:57, John 5:37, and Acts 10:48, should permanently cure all who have suffered from this delusion.

(In addition, we should notice the text of Mt. 26:36 in Papyrus 53, a manuscript which has been assigned to the 200’s. It looks conflate: rival reading are “OU” and “AN,” which P53 seems to combine as “OU AN.” Likewise the text of John 10:19 and 10:31 in Papyrus 66 look like conflations of rival variants. And the text of I Cor. 7:34 in Papyrus 46 looks like a conflation of rival variants. At the very least, this demonstrates that the appearance of conflation does not imply the lateness of the entire text in which the alleged conflation occurs. For more on this subject, see Pickering’s Appendix D at http://www.revisedstandard.net/text/WNP/ap_d.html .)

While James addressed this to a point, I want to emphasize the word-parsing. There are tons of Byzantine Greek quotes from before before AD 325, yet you could say, by parsing, that the "Byzantine Text" was not massively, precisely "quoted", since all writers tended to be a little in flux, until even after Nicea, about 400 AD and Chrysostom. By using the vague "Byzantine text.. quoted", rather than "amply represented", a deception is perpetrated.

So, eg. when church writers Irenaeus and Tertullian quote John 1:18 as the only begotten Son, where is that in the Wallace equation ? Irenaeus and Cyprian give the TR of Acts 8:37 (a solid minority reading in the Byzantine, supported by the Latin, yet totally absent in the Alexandrian) before Nicea. The ending of Mark is referenced by numerous writers. 100 examples could easily be given. And Daniel Wallace should know this, if not he can go to the Dean Burgon studies and brush up.

So Daniel Wallace can word-parse well those are verses, but it is not the full "Byzantine Text ..quoted" by the writers, as they varied on other verses. Yet, when he discusses the Alexandrian text, Wallace switches to "amply represented". The truth of the matter is that both texts are "amply represented" before 325 AD, and the only way that Daniel Wallace could try to make any mileage points was through word-shifting trickery. This is, unfortunately, a very common technique in modern textcrit, initially honed by writers like Porson and Griesbach and a few other 1800s writers, unto an art-form by Metzger and then today to Ehrman and Wallace and others.

- Steven Avery

"More recently, KJV only advocates have argued that the scholars who produced the WH text and those who embrace it belong to a global conspiracy. They often charge that the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, salvation by grace, etc. is destroyed by these scholars. Some say that a New Age conspiracy is behind the modern translations.

In response, just a few points should be made.

First, conspiracy theories are increasing among evangelicals nowadays, and this is a troubling sign. By their nature, conspiracy theories ask the reader to be completely skeptical toward one view while adopting the other, without an examination of the evidence. ...Once the cry of conspiracy is raised, a cloud of suspicion is cast over one side of the issue. ... The fact that conspiracy theories about Bible translations are getting readily accepted ... is symptomatic of the dumbing down of Christians in this country. ...

Second, if there really is such a conspiracy, then why do the majority of evangelical, Bible-believing seminaries and Bible colleges use modern translations and the Greek MSS behind them? If the faithful wish to find fault with the beliefs of these schools, then they should attack head-on their beliefs, rather than that they use the wrong Bible. But the issue is always the same: wrong Bible must mean, by implication, wrong beliefs.

Third, let me camp on this doctrinal issue a bit. What doctrines are at stake? Is the deity of Christ? Surely not. Evangelicals embrace the deity of Christ, regardless of which Bible they use. ...the vast majority of the faculty at these schools use the modern translations... Where is the cause and effect relationship between new translations and heresy?

- Daniel Wallace

Dr. Wallace posed a question: “Why do the majority of evangelical, Bible-believing seminaries and Bible colleges use modern translations and the Greek MSS behind them?” That’s easy; there are two main reasons: first, the heavy marketing of the modern translations, and, second, the deplorable state of text-critical studies in the United States -- an effect of the “dumbing-down” that Dr. Wallace affirmed to have occurred in American Evangelicalism. The Nestle-Aland texts, and the Textual Commentary written by Bruce Metzger, virtually win a majority of readers by default, with the result that millions of American Evangelicals are using a Greek text compiled by scholars who would not be allowed to preach in the pulpits of the churches they attend, or to teach in their Sunday School classes.

Dr. Wallace’s next question was, “What doctrines are at stake?” ... And he concluded, “Whatever the evangelical doctrine -- it is not compromised by these new translations or the MSS behind them. This is the real issue.”

No. The real issue is,
What did the authors of the New Testament write?
The question, “What doctrinal difference does it make?” is secondary.

In addition, I observe that Dr. Wallace has lately qualified the claim he made in this article. He said here, “Whatever the evangelical doctrine,” it is not compromised by new translations or their base-text. The claim that he makes nowadays is different: “No cardinal doctrine is jeopardized by any viable variant.”

(But what is a “viable” variant? Is a variant viable if it appears in only one early Greek manuscript? The translators of the TNIV seem to have thought so, because they adopted the text of Codex Bezae in Mark 1:41. What about a variant that appears in NO Greek manuscripts? The Nestle-Aland text includes such a variant in the text of Acts 16:12.)

Combine that with Dr. Wallace’s adjustment that inerrancy is a “more peripheral” doctrine, and it becomes clear to me that Dr. Wallace is currently reluctant to clearly affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy is not compromised by textual variants with strong manuscript-support.

Dr. Wallace re-stated his question: “What doctrines are changed if we change our Bibles?” Again, that’s not the question. The question is,

"What did the authors of the New Testament write?"

So, is there a conspiracy today? My answer may surprise the reader: yes, I believe there is. But the conspiracy has not produced these modern translations. Rather, I believe that there is a conspiracy to cause division among believers, to deflect our focus from the gospel to petty issues, to elevate an anti-intellectual spirit that does not honor the mind which God has created, and to uphold as the only Holy Bible a translation that, as lucid as it was in its day, four hundred years later makes the gospel seem antiquated and difficult to understand.² It takes little thought to see who is behind such a conspiracy."

- Daniel Wallace