Monday, March 31, 2014

Wallace reviews Elliott

From the SBL Review of Biblical Literature 26 March 2014

J. K. Elliott
New Testament Textual Criticism: The Application of Thoroughgoing Principles
Reviewed by Daniel B. Wallace

 This is an interesting and helpful review of Elliott's collected essays. That is really a daunting book to review and Dan has done a good job of summarising. Dan says he has been persuaded to come over to the correct view of Hebrews 2.9 through reading this book. He also offers some general comments on thoroughgoing eclecticism and some critical reflections. Only on one point did I think he missed a trick. Dan mentions that he found a lot of typos in the book, stating: "I counted over 150". I would have thought that in the spirit of Keith Elliott we deserved the entire list!!!


  1. Nick Gledhill3/31/2014 7:38 pm

    Is the 'correct' reading at Heb 2.9 deemed to be 'grace' or 'apart from'?

  2. Archepoimen follower3/31/2014 10:41 pm

    According to Elliot, apart from God is the original in this verse and Wallace has been convinced that Elliot is correct in spite of the late manuscript evidence. Wallace demonstrates a trend in contemporary textual criticism away from external evidence.

  3. Well, I'm not sure that Wallace demonstrates that. This is a particularly interesting textual variation that just makes sense, despite of its external backings. I think he demonstrates a trend to accept such readings when it makes sense. And yes, I agree with Elliott on this one.

  4. Hm. And what is this "overwhelming patristic evidence" in favor of "apart from God" to which Wallace refers?

  5. Archepoimen follower4/01/2014 2:17 pm

    You are correct, such a broad sweeping conclusion from this one example was unwarranted.
    I would agree with James that overwhelming also seems too broad, a quick glance at GNT and NA seems to contradict this claim.

  6. full disclosure: I also published a review of this book.

    That said, it's probably no surprise that I found one aspect of Wallace's review very disappointing.

    Let's start with this line:

    "...3) he is open to occasional
    conjectural emendations
    representing the autographic wording (8), a view in keeping
    with abandoning the original text as an achievable goal. "

    As sympathetically as I can try to read Wallace here, I still can find no way to read that line except that he is misunderstanding what I see the primary purpose and goal of conjectural emendation to be. The only time a conjecture is ventured is when there is, for whatever reason, doubt that the authorial text has been preserved. The reason you venture the conjecture is, you hope, to offer your best effort at reconstructing that unpreserved authorial text. In other words, you take up conjectural emendation when you are seeking the original text, not when you have abandoned it. So I when Wallace says that taking up a conjecture is "in keeping" when the abandonment of the original text, it seems to me that what he's saying is the exact opposite of correct.

    (and, in fact, in my brill volume I have an entire section on how the modern trend to abandon the quest for the original text has undermined the practice of conjectural emendation precisely for this reason: if you are not seeking the original text, you have no need to enlist conjectures to try to find it.)

    So right from the start it seems Wallace is not quite right in his reference to conjectural emendation.

  7. But then it gets worse.

    Wallace critiques:

    "First, it has been a longstanding principle of rigorous eclecticism that the autographic text is surely to be found somewhere among the witnesses to the New Testament (see, e.g. , G eorge D. Kilpatrick
    , “Conjectural Emendation
    in the New Testament,” in
    New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis
    [ed. Eldon J. Epp and Gordon D. Fee
    ; Oxford: Clarendon, 1981]
    ,349 – 60). Yet, as Gordon
    Fee noted (“Rigorous or Reasoned Eclecticism — Which?” in
    Studies in New Testament
    Language and Text: Essays in Honour of George D. Kilpatrick on the Occasion of His Sixty
    - Fifth Birthday [ed. J. K. Elliott;NovTSup 44;Leiden: Brill, 1976], 183– 84, 189 n.45),
    rigorous eclecticism logically leads to conjectural emendation. The (former) denial of the
    need for conjecture is a position that rigorous eclectics held by fiat since they strongly
    privilege internal evidence over external, even to the point of finding the autographic
    wording at times in a
    lone manuscript. The danger of abandoning history altogether by
    using authorial style to trump
    all manuscript evidence was simply denied. But Elliott has
    now taken rigorous eclect
    icism to its logical conclusion
    and has thus fallen prey to Fee’s
    pointed criticism."

    I agree that rigorous eclecticism, if carried through with logical consistency, should be open to conjectural emendation. In fact, I said as much in my review of Elliott, and said it was a positive step therefore for Elliott to finally agree.

    My problem with Wallace here is first in his use of the assumption that the autographic text is surely to be found somewhere among the surviving witnesses (a notion that even Westcott & Hort, with their "primitive corruptions", would not accept), and second in the logic of this point of critique: he seems to think that the very acceptance of conjecture is itself a self-evident point of critique; To paraphrase him, he seems to be saying "Fee warned that rigorous eclecticism could lead to conjecture, and now look, it has!" That's akin to the old joke about baptists warning about how sex could lead to dancing. That works when you're in a culture where everyone agrees that dancing is self-evidently wrong, but it loses its punch when society progresses past that. In the same way, the discussion of conjectural emendation has, I think, long moved past that kind of taboo Wallace seems to be assuming. I argued (strongly, I hope) in my book for the full acceptance of conjecture. I may not persuade everyone, and certainly not Wallace, but I do think the discussion has moved well past the point where automatic rejection can just be assumed. I think Wallace is begging a question that can no longer be begged.

  8. Archepoimen follower4/02/2014 4:13 pm

    I am not convinced that except for a minority of textual critics that the discussion has moved well past the point of automatic rejection. Conjectural emendation is unnecessary when we have such a wealth of manuscripts available. Certainly your lack of faith in the external evidence, hence your rigorous eclecticism, does indeed lead to conjecture, exactly as predicted.

  9. "Archepoimen", not sure how to respond to you; you include a few premises, all of which I at least addressed, if not disproved, in my book. You're nevertheless stating them as true, and I'm not sure if that's because you've engaged my arguments and found them wanting, or you just haven't read my work.
    Either way, I'm just not sure where to start.

    Peter - only if you do it right!

  10. It would be interesting to take an informal survey at say SBL on conjectural emendation. I wonder how many reject emendation for reasons to do with external evidence and how many reject it for reasons to do with a dearth of convincing emendations.

  11. In my experience I found three main reasons 1) practical, i.e. lack of convincing examples, 2) ideological/methodological, i.e. their view on either the state of the external evidence or the purpose of textual criticism precluded conjecures (n.b. contra wallace, the latter point there involved those who reject the quest for the original text, and therefore see no need to use conjecture to get it, 3) theological, they believe that conjecture threatens their doctrine of inspiration, and therefore reject it a priori.

    I agree that even an informal survey would be interesting, but based on my reading and conversations, I would peg the ratio at 20% -40% - 40% for reasons 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

  12. Ryan, has your dissertation been published and, if so, with whom?

  13. Yes, it was published by brill last year in the NTTSD series, though I don't remember what volume.

    I expect Elliott to publish a helpful list of errata any day now.

  14. On the theological rationale for rejecting the whole idea of conjectural emendation: [Ryan's point 3] "theological, they believe that conjecture threatens their doctrine of inspiration, and therefore reject it a priori."
    If I believe in the inspiration of the original text of Scripture, then that (normally) entails some kind of textual criticism to ascertain (to the extent that is possible) the original text from the surviving witnesses/manuscripts. I can see how that COULD give rise to conjectural emendation within a conservative Protestament framework.
    On the other hand I might have two theological problems with conj. em.: a) it relies too much on human ingenuity (human ingenuity in weighing up evidence is OK - the reading chosen has a basis outside the scholar in the testimony of the witnesses; but human ingenuity in creating readings in Scripture is more problematic - the reading chosen is crafted by the scholar, it has no basis in the testimony of the witnesses);
    b) conj. em. takes for granted that if copyists can err, then all copyists could err. I think that even if one might argue against the preservation teaching of some majority text advocates, there could still be a basis in Scripture for thinking that the inspired Word is preserved somewhere in the textual tradition (esp. given point 1 that there is not a whole slew of very clear examples). This probably functions at gut level (somewhat unexamined) reluctance to give up completely on the idea of preservation.
    c) A third problem would be of character type - most people holding to a doctrine of inspiration are conservative, and accustomed to defending things like the general reliability of the NT textual tradition. It would be hard to change that mindset.

  15. There is another question in my mind as to what qualifies as a conjectural emendation.
    Acts 16.12 (NA26-28) txt based on vgmss
    2 Pet 3.10 (NA28) txt based on syph mss sa cvvid

    Are these conjectures? I'd be inclined to think not.

  16. My take is somewhat different. I would suggest that variants only found in versions have a high chance of being ancient conjectures themselves, and that adopting an ancient conjecture is in reality a form of conjectural emendation. Aversion to conjecture should not depend on when the conjecture was made.

    The richness of the external evidence actually makes this problem worse, because there could be good, early conjectures even in Greek that we cannot distinguish from authorial readings on internal grounds alone. Only a good, detailed history of the text can distinguish them, and the richness of the external evidence coupled with a poor sense of the genealogical relations means that we may in fact have a number of seemingly good ancient conjectures adopted into our critical texts on the grounds that they happen to be historically witnessed.

    However, I don't have a major issue with adopting good conjectures as the reading of the critical text, so this potential problem does not bother me as it might others.

  17. Peter, I resonate a lot with your first construction - about how a high view of inspiration could actually lead to c.e. - since we are dedicated to restoring that inspired text. That is where I think I would place myself theologically.

    I see your point regarding ingenuity, but I disagree completely. What your essentially pointing out is the weak link of human agency. But as Paul (the apostle, that is) points out, God has chosen to work through human agency: "how will they hear, without someone to preach?" From the first act of printing the text, to the initial reading of it, to the interpretation of it, to the preaching of it, to the final application of it, God has - apparently - designed a process that quite deliberately works though and uses human agency. I say "apparently" there, because either God wanted it that way, or God has lost all control of the situation, because like it or not, that is the way things are.

    Which leads to the last point, how are things? What is "the way things are"? I explore at length in my book, and so wont reprise it here, how I think the facts are that the external evidence is not nearly so rich as we think. Nor are we ever talking about "all" copyists making the same mistake. Not nearly all copies have survived. My estimates put it at significantly less than half. That means that to dominate the modern surviving ms base, a mistake would need only be shared by less than half the copyists, not all. But even that would only be the cases where all modern copies share the reading. As textual critics we know that quite often the external evidence is quite divided. In those cases, a corrupt reading could dominate the surviving ms tradition by overtaking only a small fraction of the total number of copies originally made. That's a much easier act to fathom.

    But, as to your last point about conservatives being hesitant to change, I do think that is spot on. why, I say a survey just last week published in Christianity Today, I think, that said the majority of bible readers today are still reading the King James Version!

  18. To counter Ryan's claim: if you reasonably presume that, say, the existing copies are less than half of what had existed, why should there then follow a further presumption that the copies that remain would not parallel in their readings that which had appeared in the copies no longer extant?

    And further, just how many conjectures considered of value in, e.g., Nestle27 really happen to occur in places where the overall existing external testimony is seriously divided?

    It would seem that these considerations alone would trump any claim regarding a major need for conjecture within the NT. In this I basically concur with Peter Head.

  19. Maurice,

    I agree that in theory, you could be correct: theoretically, with any database of evidence in any field, if you lost half the data, it could be theoretically possible that the lost half is faithfully paralleled by the surviving half.

    But, of course, theoretically, it is just as plausible that the lost half was different - a little different, somewhat different, or perhaps very different - from the surviving half.

    So which theory would apply in this case (or any specific case)? I would say: whichever theory is best supported by the local evidence of that case.

    In our particular case, the divergence between surviving manuscripts leads me to assume at least an equal amount of divergence amongst the lost manuscripts. And note well - that's not a great deal, but great enough, I believe, to rule out the position that the lost manuscripts are faithfully enough represented by the surviving ones that we are able to reasonably trust that the original reading was always preserved in the surviving group. It would be nice if we could hold that position, but I don't see how the character of the surviving manuscripts can allow for it.

  20. Obviously I prefer a position based on essential probabilities as derived from the existing data as opposed to speculation from silence as to what data no longer extant may or may not have read.

    We therefore shall differ on that point.

  21. Ryan,

    As regards human ingenuity I take your point that one must allow for some kind of thorough-going compatibilism between human agency and divine action (because of course the witnesses I would appeal to are copied by humans). I was pleased, however, to see from your book that I have Richard Bentley on my side!

    I was thinking about human agency and such matters when reading Allison on James 2.1 in the new ICC. [Allison accepts the c.e. to omit 'Jesus Christ'; but doesn't buy into the whole original Jewish text idea, nor AFAICR does he apply this to 1.1] His primary reasoning seemed to be the awkwardness of the whole phrase with 'Jesus Christ'. So then I was thinking to myself, 'awkwardness' is a difficult criteria here because I might easily think of the human author as writing something awkward (as also in Acts), so why should I prefer a less-awkward text? In other words human-divine agency can also mean awkwardnesses and difficulties residing in the original text. (Presumably something along these lines might be used to explain John 7.52)

  22. Peter,

    I'm glad you see the point about agency. The idea that we could have the text independent of human ingenuity is, I think, a ship that sailed long ago - not least of which with the advent of the practice of textual criticism itself with or without c.e. I especially like how you phrase it as a "compatibilism between human agency and divine action," and I think I would even expand that divine action to include not just the initial act of inspiration, but the ongoing guidance of the Spirit - both of the preachers preaching and the textual critics attempting to restore the text through conjectural means or otherwise.

    As for your next point, what I hear you expressing is a concern about the inherent subjectivity of a criterion like "awkwardness." I hate to sound like a broken record - particularly a broken record of an advertisement for my book - but I do think I went into that issue at length. To reprise it a little bit though, I do agree that there is a subjectivity inherent in the criteron - what is awkward for me would not necessarily be awkward for you. I do not, however, think that we therefore need to reject the criteron as useless. Rather, I think it is highly useful when qualified properly. That qualification is, I think, actually an easy task since the groundwork has been largely laid already in our discipline's use of the canon of lectio difficilior. Philosophically I think the two critera are virtually identical and can be used profitably in much the same way. To that end, we've long known, for example, that there is such a thing as a "too difficult" reading and that the canon cannot be used to support a reading so difficult that it in fact is ridiculous. We also know that "difficult" must refer to some substantive problem with the text - a demonstrable violation of the author's established style, theology, or grammatical character - and cannot merely be "difficult because I find it difficult." We've also long required some level of community consensus: it's not enough for one guy to find it difficult; to avoid such subjectivity, there must be some agreement that the reading is in fact difficult. All of that can be equally helpful, I believe, in the responsible practice of conjectural emendation.

    I would further add that not all emendations even require awkwardness. As Westcott & Hort pointed out, a conjecture is required only where the original text has been supplanted by a secondary text, and yet secondary readings will not always appear awkward or secondary - they would have had less chance at gaining acceptance in the manuscript tradition had they appeared obviously awkward; rather, only by appearing initially felicitous could the secondary reading gain currency. In that way, they write, secondary readings often bear the likeness of an improvement while lacking the reality of one.

    sitcGe officers

  23. p.s.

    I didn't have the new ICC when I wrote, but on the basis of his earlier papers (and Kloppenborg's as well), I did argue *against* the emendation in James 2:1.

    I'd like to think I found some good evidence to support rejection a conjecture there, though I believe Kloppenborg's (forthcoming?) hermeneia commentary takes me to task.

    Not that that's important, I just thought I'd add another comment in hopes of hitting your normal goal of 50!

  24. To help reach the goal of 50....

    I should point out that I actually agree with Ryan in his book that "reasoned eclecticism" as currently practiced necessarily must allow for conjectural emendation, given that there is very little difference between a favored reading supported by a single MS (clearly present in the current critical editions) and a reading that is purely conjectural (this even though my perspective is not eclectic in nature).

  25. Paul Anderson4/08/2014 8:46 pm

    Dr. Robinson's good point raised leads me to my own question on this topic. Being that single MS readings in current critical text editions are predominately from readings in B (03), which MSS are we utilizing as a springboard for conjectural emendation if not from the vast number of extant witnesses? Are these not trusted as valid, or are all Byzantine MSS seen as "contaminated" beyond usefulness and sacredness?

    Paul Anderson

  26. The Byzantine MSS are certainly not the springboard for the NA28 conjectural emendation in 2Pe 3:10, nor is there any reason why any particular MS or textual group of MSS should serve as a conjectural springboard over any other, especially since many well-known conjectures have been made at places where the various families of MSS do not deviate (e.g. the conjectures at 1Pe 3:19).

  27. I found from Ryan's book (p. 83) that I had addressed this topic before in a comment on a previous discussion (involving Ryan and Maurice and others):
    "For what it is worth I agree with Greenlee on this: in a passage with no variants (i.e. where all the manuscripts agree) I don't think there is any basis for conjectural emendation. Several reasons for this: a) it was not thought difficult by scribes - so there is no problem to be solved; b) conjectural emendations in these situations would be subject to the accusation of subjectivism and an attempt to improve on Scripture; c) no conjectural emendation in this situation is likely to commend itself to the scholarly crowd.

    It is a different matter when there are variants and an obvious problem to be solved."

    NB. It is a tiny bit weird to have a comment on a blog post quoted as my definitive viewpoint (I suppose I should take it as a compliment). But I think my position is fundamentally coherent with what I said above.

  28. By the way Ryan, at Tyndale House your book is catalogued and placed with books on James.

  29. Catalogued with the James books? I'm just pleased it is catalogued at all!

    I don't want to derail the topic, but I can't resist speaking to one thing:

    "NB. It is a tiny bit weird to have a comment on a blog post quoted as my definitive viewpoint (I suppose I should take it as a compliment). But I think my position is fundamentally coherent with what I said above."

    I really sympathise with you there. This is an ongoing discussion, I think, that hasn't really resulted in any clear direction or etiquette.

    Mark Goodacre had a good discussion about it last year on his blog, in a post titled "Peer-reviewed article responding to a blog post: what is the etiquette?"
    You can read that here:

    He describes a situation where he sketched out a position online, and then discovered someone had published a critical response to that position in a peer reviewed journal. Like you, in one way he felt vaguely complimented, but at the same time had very mixed feelings.

    As he wrote:

    "I will confess to mixed feelings. On one level, I am really flattered that Foster, and the editors of JTS, regarded my blog post of sufficient merit to warrant an extended response, and I am grateful to them, I think, for noticing my blog and regarding it so highly. On another level, I have to admit that it makes me slightly uneasy to see my random jottings here subjected to the same kind of detailed critique that one would normally reserve for scholarly books and peer-reviewed articles."

    The post provoked a good discussion (with, you'll be pleased to see, more than 50 comments!). The reason I bring this up is because one of those comments is mine, and the situation I describe in that comment is the exact one you found on p.83 of my book where I quote you!

    I'll reprint my comment from Goodacre's site here, I hope you'll understand me to be sincere in it.

  30. Here is the comment I made on Goodacre's blog:

    I faced this question last year. I was revising an item for publication, and in one part I was discussing - and critiquing - a certain idea. I decided that I needed another opening quotation of someone espousing that idea. I found the perfect quote: the speaker was a respected authority, he summarized the idea perfectly, and I thought he expressed it just right. It was the ideal quote.

    The problem was it was only published on the speaker's blogsite. I debated for some time whether it was fair to use the quote.

    On one hand, I think Mark makes a lot of valid points here. You write differently online than you would if you knew you were going to be quoted "on the record." Quoting online blog writing before the author has had a chance to polish and refine it is kinda like calling someone up on stage in the public spot-light without first giving them a chance to change their shirt and fix their hair.

    On the other hand, people often seem to assume - erroneously I think -- that you get some sort of automatic internet immunity; as if you can say or do whatever you like online and not be held accountable for it, or not have to stand behind it. We see this all the time with people getting fired from their jobs for something they posted online.

    In my case, the idea was out there, and this other person had clearly argued in favour of that idea. What could they do? Deny that they favoured that position because they had only argued for it online? There is a sense in which once you put something into the public sphere, you give other people some right to interact with it.

    I considered writing the author to ask if he minded me using the quote - and in hindsight, I wish I had done that, just to be safe - but in the end I decided just to use it, but to note very clearly that it was taken from a blogpost. I even gave the extended context in the footnotes. I thought that way the reader would grant the author some grace, knowing that the quote they were reading wasn't from a polished publication, but from a more casual blog. And once they know that, I'm confident that they won't hold it against him.

    In other words, I don't think he will receive any disrespect because of it. And that might be the key: yes, interact with blog posts as you find it necessary, but do so in a way that still gives the author respect, rather than scoring a cheap shot at their expense just because you caught them being a little more candid than usual.

  31. Paul Anderson,

    I think Maurice is quite right. An emendation does not spring board off of any one ms per se. A conjectural emendation is only proposed at points where we believe that no surviving manuscript preserves the authorial text. In other words, those are points where we think every manuscript of every type is corrupt. The emendation, therefore, does not springboard off of any one manuscript, but rather springboards off of pure conjecture.

    A good conjecture does, however, interact with all the existing manuscript readings in that, like any variant, it should have the ability to explain the rise of the other readings found in those manuscripts. If it cannot do that, then its status as a valid reconstruction of the authorial text is (even more) suspect (than usual!).

  32. I agree with Ryan in both his plea for the need of NT conjectural emendation and his theological defense of it. Also, I do not think I can add much to his excellent theoretical account in "No Longer Written". Well, in fact I am tempted to mention here dozens of conjectures at least as plausible as the interpretations that seek to uphold the transmitted text (or, in case of multiple readings, of the ‘highest’ reading in the stemma). But let me merely refer to footnote 33 in Jan Krans’ contribution to the 2nd edition of Ehrman & Holmes’ "The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research" (p. 622). His list of essential conjectures could, in my view, easily be expanded.
    What I would like to add to the discussion, however, is a theorerical point. We have to realize that the dilemma is not: to conjecture or not to conjecture. The dilemma is: to conjecture textually or to conjectural exegetically. In other words, rejecting conjectural emendation is not without obligations. This becomes evident once you stop discussing the phenomenon in general, and start stuyding those particular cases where there is a strong tradition of conjectural emendation. Rejecting a much supported conjecture often means accepting an interpretation you would normally reject as implausible. In other words, in those, say, 100 NT passages where there really is a problem, there is no ‘safe’ choice. No, it is not safe to propose a conjecture; of course we prefer readings attested in the better MSS. But it is neither safe to propose an interpretation whose only strength is, that all other interpretations of the transmitted reading are worse.
    In textual studies we have to come to terms with the fact that some places will remain uncertain forever. The scholarly history of such places shows a variety of interpretative efforts and textual conjectures. In each specific case a scholar has to define his position: interpretation or emendation (or, of course, 'nescio!'). Choosing the former is as much human agency as choosing the latter.

  33. Ryan,

    My point for clarification is having a Byzantine/MT prioritist position does not leave one much room for conjectural emendation. In fact, so-called Kr or fam. 35 has only 1 really significant divide in over 250+ MSS and that is found at Acts 12:25.

    So, if one were to utilize conjecture on a reading it would likely not come from such controlled & unified sources. Again, my point is from which textual preference does the need for such conjectural emendation usually come from? Certainly not from a Byzantine text priority position as the MS evidence is deemed trustworthy as it stands. Hope this clarifies my previous point.

    Paul Anderson

  34. Although not germane to the discussion of conjecture, an appeal to the later and more strictly controlled Kr/fam.35 tradition should not be used to minimize or ignore the numerous intra-Byzantine textual divisions that exist outside of that particular group.

    In Matthew alone, for example, the RP2005 edition shows over 40 instances of intra-Byzantine division, with similar instances scattered throughout the NT.

    And really, for those inclined to proffer conjectures, it really doesn't matter what base text may have served as the catalyst for such, as noted previously.

  35. Ryan,

    Thanks for that. The Foster/Goodacre situation was more seriously weird than this one (a JTS article to refute a blog post was rather disproportionate). Your use seems fine to me. It was a surprise though, because I wouldn't have thought (I still don't think) that I have a definite view on conj. em. But this discussion is helpful.

  36. Paul Anderson4/09/2014 11:06 pm

    Dr. Robinson,

    My private correspondence to you hopefully clears this matter from my perspective.

    Hope the best for your book Ryan.

    Paul Anderson

  37. This comment has been removed by the author.

  38. Ryan, I am still a bit at a loss where in your book you have demonstrated the necessity of conjectural emendation (as claimed on p. 61). As far as I can see you have only demonstrated that it is possible that the surviving tradition does not contain the correct reading. Likewise, on p. 33 you use 'For this reason ConjEmend must be employed' where 'this reason' points back to an if-clause. Again, this is not demonstration of the necessity of conjectural emendation, but arguing from the possibility of something. Have I missed the positively constructed case somewhere along the line? [BTW, I grant you all the possibilities]

  39. Dirk,

    Thanks for your question. I confess I don't have a copy of the book handy - it's still packed in a box from our move (along with all the other James books) - but I'll dig it out tonight and look those references up and post back.

  40. What about Heb 2.9? It would be interesting if folk commented on their take on Wallace accepting Elliott on this.

  41. This comment has been removed by the author.

  42. I hope this is the right place for this. Ryan, I am reading your book and enjoying it very much. However, I do have a concern about the conjecture at James 3.1. I don't understand how the shift from the second person plural γίνεσθε to the first person plural λημψόμεθα is supposed to fit with the conjectured μὴ πολ[ύλα]λοι διδάσκαλοι γίνεσθε. Is the author including himself among the πολ[ύλα]λοι διδάσκαλοι?