In light of Porter's point-by-point critique of Wallace, I found it humorous to see him complain:
"Grudem may well be wrong, but Wallace does not need to engage in such disproportionately long point-by-point refutation and analysis to make his own point (pp. 215–27)." (p. 96)
Why do I get the feeling that Porter and Grudem are friends? (Both have been associated with Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.)
Porter ends by saying:
"I remain unpersuaded that Wallace, though I agree with his theological conclusions, has done Sharp’s rule great service in this monograph. Instead, I think that he has made the issues more problematic, especially in light of his overall unconvincing explanations of a range of texts and issues."
On the one hand, it's not surprising to learn that someone from DTS made issues more problematic in light of overall unconvincing explanations (e.g. pretty much everything they've written about John 1:1c), but that was a rather quirky way to put it. Apparently Porter just HAD to tip his hat to Trinitarianism, so that in the end his point seems to be that Wallace is correct but for the wrong reasons.
The doctrine of the Trinity is like the doctrine of Darwinism in that its proponents seem to feel obligated to pay it homage whenever they write about related subject matter.
I thought some of the areas that Porter chose to analyze were quirky, and at some points, he seemed quite nit-picky. You're also going to find few scholars like Porter or Wallace, who are willing to remotely question the Trinity doctrine. However, I did like how Porter questioned Wallace's qualifications for Sharp's Rule and also analyzed Wallace's summary dismissal of counterexamples from the LXX and Patristic lit.
3 comments:
Hi Edgar,
In light of Porter's point-by-point critique of Wallace, I found it humorous to see him complain:
"Grudem may well be wrong, but Wallace does not need to engage in such disproportionately long point-by-point refutation and analysis to make his own point (pp. 215–27)." (p. 96)
Why do I get the feeling that Porter and Grudem are friends? (Both have been associated with Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.)
Porter ends by saying:
"I remain unpersuaded that Wallace, though I agree with his theological conclusions, has done Sharp’s rule great service in this monograph. Instead, I think that he has made the issues more problematic, especially in light of his overall unconvincing explanations of a range of texts and issues."
On the one hand, it's not surprising to learn that someone from DTS made issues more problematic in light of overall unconvincing explanations (e.g. pretty much everything they've written about John 1:1c), but that was a rather quirky way to put it. Apparently Porter just HAD to tip his hat to Trinitarianism, so that in the end his point seems to be that Wallace is correct but for the wrong reasons.
The doctrine of the Trinity is like the doctrine of Darwinism in that its proponents seem to feel obligated to pay it homage whenever they write about related subject matter.
~Kaz
Here's Porter's first review, for those interested:
www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/53/53-4/JETS_53-4_801-870_BookReviews.pdf
~Kaz
Hi Kaz,
I thought some of the areas that Porter chose to analyze were quirky, and at some points, he seemed quite nit-picky. You're also going to find few scholars like Porter or Wallace, who are willing to remotely question the Trinity doctrine. However, I did like how Porter questioned Wallace's qualifications for Sharp's Rule and also analyzed Wallace's summary dismissal of counterexamples from the LXX and Patristic lit.
Thanks for posting the other JETS link.
Post a Comment