Thursday, January 04, 2007

Ecstatic Utterances and PPL Revisited

I’ve been doing some more research in this area. As I earlier indicated, I believe that modern ecstatic utterances (babblings, etc.) are not the same phenomena as biblical tongues. I believe that the biblical tongues were normal, human languages and that the ability to speak them came miraculously, not from studying them. I will try to succinctly present evidence for that conclusion. Second, I will discuss the cessation of that particular gift. (I don’t believe all spiritual gifts have ceased.) Third, I will discuss the origin of modern ecstatic utterances, including private prayer language (PPL). To make this presentation more readable, I will place references as endnotes so as not to interrupt the train of thought.

Question #1: Were the “tongues” mentioned in Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 12-14 human languages or ecstatic utterances?

Acts 2

“And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.” (Acts 2:4, NASB)

In the above verse, the word “glossais” (γλώσσαις) is used for “tongues.”

“And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language.” (Acts 2:6)

In the above verse, the word “dialekto” (διαλέκτω) is used for “language.”

Some proponents of modern ecstatic utterances have said that the people speaking in tongues were using non-human languages, and these proponents believe that the hearers miraculously heard the message in their own language. If these proponents are correct, two miracles would have been required. This scenario seems inefficient and unnecessary.

If the miracle was in the hearing, then there was no need for a miracle in the speaking. The speakers could have spoken normally, and the hearers would have heard miraculously. The evidence favors the view that the speakers were miraculously speaking various human languages. The Greek scholar Kenneth Wuest commented on Acts 2:4:

“Let us be careful to note that Acts 2:4 refers to the languages of the individuals mentioned in Acts 2:8-11.” (1)

1 Corinthians 14:21

“21 In the Law it is written, "BY MEN OF STRANGE TONGUES AND BY THE LIPS OF STRANGERS I WILL SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE, AND EVEN SO THEY WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME," says the Lord. 22 So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe.”

In verse 21, the Greek word for “other tongues” is “heteroglossois” (ετερογλώσσοις). In Acts 2:4, the Greek phrase for “other tongues” is “heterais glossais” (ετέραις γλώσσαις). Notice the similarity between the “other tongues” in Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 14. Paul was writing to the church at Corinth, a group that understood what he meant by “tongues.” Luke, in contrast, was writing to someone who may not have been familiar with the gift of tongues, so he was more descriptive in Acts 2.

At the beginning of verse 22 in 1 Corinthians 14, the phrase “so then tongues”—“hoste hai glossai” (ωστε αι γλωσσαι) is significant. The inferential conjunction “hoste” means “therefore” or “so then.” “Hai” is a definite article that modifies “tongues,” and in this situation it is an article of previous reference (anaphoric article). The Greek scholars Dana and Mantey commented on this use of the article:

To Denote Previous Reference. The article may be used to point out an object the identity of which is defined by some reference made to it in the context.” (2)

Thus, Paul was referring to human languages in verse 21, and he was referring to human languages in verse 22. Fred Fisher, a former professor at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, listed some reasons for believing that the “tongues” in 1 Corinthians 12-14 referred to human languages:

“This was a common use for the word ‘tongues’ in the New and Old Testaments (cf. Rev. 5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; 17:15). . . . The complex of Greek words which is translated ‘interpret’ or ‘interpretation’ (1 Cor. 12:10, 30; 14:5, 13, 26-28) is used, with one exception, in the New Testament with the meaning of translating a foreign language (cf. Acts 9:36; John 1:38-42; 9:7; Heb. 7:2). The one exception where the meaning is the more common Greek meaning of explaining something is Luke 24:27. . . . The analogy between the Old Testament passage and the tongues in Corinth (1 Cor. 14:21) would support the idea of a foreign language, for the Old Testament passage clearly has this meaning (cf. Isa. 28:11-12). . . . The statement that the tongues were a sign for ‘unbelievers’ (1 Cor. 14:22) would be in favor of a foreign language which the unbeliever could understand. . . . The strong supposition that all spiritual gifts were for the purpose of gospel proclamation would favor the idea of foreign languages as the meaning of the phenomenon at Corinth. In view of these considerations, it would seem that the weight of the evidence is in favor of giving the ‘tongues’ at Corinth the meaning of speaking unlearned foreign languages. The only real objection to this is found in 1 Corinthians 14:2 and 14 and possibly 23. If, however, we suppose that the speaker did not himself understand the language, but spoke it in the grip of the Holy Spirit, these passages could be so interpreted.” (3)

Question #2: Has the biblical gift of tongues ceased?

1 Corinthians 13:8-10

“8 Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part; 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.”

Four things distinguish tongues from prophecy and knowledge in the passage: the use of the middle voice for “cease” rather than the passive voice for “done away” in verse 8, the use of the verb “cease” (pauo, παύω) with tongues instead of the verb “done away” (katargeo, καταργέω) used with prophecy and knowledge, the fact that verse 9 omits tongues but says that prophecy and knowledge are partial, and the fact that verse 10 uses the same verb (“done away”) as verse 8 for prophecy and knowledge. That's four strikes that indicate that the gift of tongues is in a different category. Paul was saying that biblical tongues would cease by themselves (middle voice), but prophecy and knowledge would be stopped (passive voice) when the perfect comes. I interpret “the perfect” as the second coming of Christ. Thus, Paul was saying that the gifts of prophecy and knowledge will be stopped when Christ returns, but tongues would stop by themselves at some point prior to His return. Has that point in history already occurred? Yes. Notice what Robert Gromacki said about it:

“In the three centuries that followed the apostolic era, there are only two references to tongue-speaking (Montanus and Tertullian who was a Montanist). The fact that Montanism reflected a false, egotistical view of pneumatology can hardly argue for the genuineness of Biblical glossolalia in that period. Therefore, there are no genuine cases of glossolalia in the post-apostolic era. Speaking in tongues had definitely ceased. The testimonies of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Chrysostom, and Augustine confirm this conclusion.” (4)

Could biblical tongues start again after ceasing for a while? Gromacki answered this question:

“If the gift were supposed to be permanent, then it would have occurred in every generation of every century up to the present time. To argue that the gift was active in the apostolic era, then silent for centuries, and is now active again is contrary to the plain statement of Scripture. When they cease, they cease. This is a blanket statement—not to be repeated again.” (5)

Herschel Hobbs also commented on 1 Corinthians 13:8-10:

“The word ‘cease’ is a future middle form. They will make themselves cease or automatically cease. This gift ended with the first century.” (6)

Question #3: What is the origin of modern ecstatic utterances and private prayer language (PPL)?

This is an interesting question. I’ll quote several people to provide some possible answers.

Gromacki gave the following options:

“Four possible opinions as to the source of modern glossolalia have been presented. Both sides admit that the phenomenon can be satanically, psychologically, and artificially produced. However, the advocates believe that much tongue-speaking has been produced by God. The author believes that the origin of modern speaking in tongues cannot be limited to just one source, but that all modern glossolalia can be explained by the first three mentioned.” (7)

David Christie-Murray referred to animism as a cause:

“Animism is an early stage in the evolution of religions; . . . primitive peoples imbued with animistic beliefs commonly accept that human beings may be possessed by spirits and speak their languages when under possession.” (8)

George Cutten mentioned great excitement as a cause:

“Pseudo language, or articulate sounds which simulate words, is probably the most common kind of speaking with tongues. . . . With the great excitement attending certain experiences, we can well understand from other cases how the rational part of the mind—consciousness—would be put out of action.” (9)

In regard to private prayer language, I think Matthew 6:7 can be applied:

“And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words.”

The Greek word in verse 7 for “use meaningless repetition” is “battologeo” (βαττολογέω). The word is onomatopoetic, meaning it sounds like the word it means. For instance, we use the word “swish” to describe a basketball going through the net without touching the rim, and we use the word “buzz” to describe the sound a bee makes. “Logeo” means “to speak,” and thus “battologeo” means “to speak batto.” Thus, Jesus said that we should not “speak batto” when we pray privately. Jesus said that this practice was something that the Gentiles did. Gromacki cited the instructions given by a person teaching others to speak in tongues:

“Repeat certain elementary sounds which he told them, such as ‘bah-bah-bah,’ or something similar. He then laid his hands on the head of each seeker, prayed for him, and the seeker did actually speak in tongues.” (10)

Not every person that uses PPL today says “batto,” but another onomatopoetic word—“babble”—describes some of the content of the prayers of some people who engage in PPL. We should not babble in private prayer.


1. Kenneth Wuest, Untranslatable Riches from the Greek New Testament, in
Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1942), 109.
2. H. E. Dana and Julius Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament
(Toronto: The Macmillan Company, 1955), 141.
3. Fred Fisher, Commentary on 1 & 2 Corinthians (Waco: Word Books, 1975), 217.
4. Robert Gromacki, The Modern Tongues Movement (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1967), 17.
5. Gromacki, 126.
6. Herschel Hobbs, The Epistles to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1960), 64.
7. Gromacki, 49.
8. David Christie-Murray, Voices from the Gods: Speaking with Tongues (London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul, 1978), 4.
9. George Cutten, Speaking with Tongues: Historically and Psychologically Considered (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1927), 173.
10.Gromacki, 42.

For Further Study

A missionary friend of mine sent the following web addresses for sites that discuss the origin of ecstatic utterances, etc.:


Blogger Lew A said...


I am coming over from David Rogers' blog. This was a very well written post. I do not use PPL, I also do not hold a position on the issue. Both sides seem to have some decent arguments but I like to study scripture for myself concerning these issues before I come to my own conclusions.

There are a couple of points of contention I have with this post.

Re: Question #1 -
Acts 2:
I do not agree that tongues being a non-human language in Acts 2 necessitates two miracles, nor do I agree the miracle(s) would be inefficient and unnecessary. Surely, it would be more efficient for God to create a single language that all people understood (whether we knew it or not).

It is the reaction of the men that makes me wonder about the language being spoke. Some where amazed because they were "hearing" in their own language (which say nothing about what language was being spoken). You also have to consider the reaction of the negative people. They thought they were drunk (full of sweet wine). If you were speaking in a human language that other people understood, why would you think the speakers were drunk?

Further, consider this - there are about 15 different places listed (give or take a few for redundancies sake) - It would be very difficult for 15 different languages to be spoken at the same time in an understandable way. The speakers would have to be very far apart from each other, otherwise it would probably start sounding like "ecstatic utterances."

Acts 10 may help muddy the waters. This is when Peter shares the gospel with Cornelius. Cornelius speaks in tongues. Cornelius probably would have known, Latin, Aramaic, and Greek. Peter would have known these languages as well. How would/did Peter know if Cornelius was speaking in tongues as a sign from God?

Re: Question #2 -
You have made an interesting point with 1 Corinthians 13. I am not sure how conclusive we can claim that to be, but it is interesting. Questions: How do we know that tongues have already ceased?

No documentation of a miracle happening does not mean that the miracle has ceased. Especially if people where obeying Paul's instructions for speaking in tongues privately.

According to this post, knowledge and prophecy will survive until Christ's return. I wonder how the documentation of biblical prophecy throughout history compares to the documentation of biblical tongues throughout history. If tongues required to "occur every generation" then prophecy should have to meet the same requirement (which by the way is not found in the bible - and as far as I know did not occur in the OT.


I am going to abruptly stop here.

Forgive any spelling/grammar errors - I have spent more time on this comment than intended and do not have the time to check it.

God Bless,

Fri Jan 05, 01:00:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Baptist Theologue said...

Lew, you made some good points. You asked,

“If you were speaking in a human language that other people understood, why would you think the speakers were drunk?”

Let me list two possible answers:

1. Albert Barnes in reference to Acts 2:13 said:

“In times of a revival of religion men will have some way of accounting for the effects of the gospel, and the way is commonly about as wise and rational as the one adopted on this occasion. ‘To escape the absurdity of acknowledging their own ignorance, they adopted the theory that strong drink can teach languages’ (Dr. McLelland).”

2. Those people speaking in tongues may have had a distinct Galilean accent (Acts 2:7). I served as an IMB missionary to South Korea for ten years. My Korean pronunciation was pretty good, but I still had a Memphis accent when I spoke Korean. I did not look Korean, so the Koreans did not attribute my strange accent to drunkenness. When a person speaks a language with a strange accent, but is not racially different than native speakers, then a hearer might assume the speaker is drunk.

You also said,

“The speakers would have to be very far apart from each other, otherwise it would probably start sounding like ‘ecstatic utterances.’”

People who speak the same language usually stick together. Probably there were at least 15 large groups of people that were separated by quite a bit of distance, and the disciples gravitated to the groups that spoke the languages with which they were gifted.

You said,

“Cornelius speaks in tongues. Cornelius probably would have known Latin, Aramaic, and Greek. Peter would have known these languages as well. How would/did Peter know if Cornelius was speaking in tongues as a sign from God?”

In Acts 4:13, Peter and John are described as “unlearned and ignorant men” (KJV). Peter probably knew Greek because it was the language of commerce, as English is today. Greek was known well in Palestine in Peter’s day. I doubt that Peter knew Latin. Cornelius was miraculously speaking in a language he had not learned, but we are not told which language it was. God used this event to show the Jews that the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles (Acts 10:45). Whatever the language miraculously spoken by Cornelius, Peter was convinced.

You said,

“No documentation of a miracle happening does not mean that the miracle has ceased. Especially if people where obeying Paul's instructions for speaking in tongues privately.”

Since the first century, I have seen no documentation of a Christian miraculously speaking a human language that the person had not studied or learned in childhood. If the gift continued past the first century, you would think there would be at least one documented case. The gift was to be used privately in some cases and publicly in others. My impression is that the gift could be controlled, turned on or off, as a person with the gift of teaching can control that gift today. Thus, if no one was present that could understand the language, the person with that language gift was to refrain from using it. Occasionally we hear anecdotal reports of people miraculously speaking or hearing an unlearned language on the mission field, but those occurrences are usually one-time events and are undocumented. If such events do occur, they would qualify as miracles, but they would not qualify as the gift of tongues because they are one-time events and apparently cannot be controlled or repeated.

You mentioned the gift of prophecy. As you know, people disagree about what that gift is.

Fri Jan 05, 02:06:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Grosey's Messages said...

Well written , Mike.
Perhaps Cornelius' tongue language was Hebrew, known to Peter, but probably unknown to Cornelius, as the common aramaic there would be pretty far different from the clasical Hebrew.
Greek would have been the lingua franca.

Fri Jan 05, 02:29:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Baptist Theologue said...

Steve, like you, I have wondered whether the language Cornelius spoke was Hebrew. He was a God-fearer, and he was "of good report among all the nation of the Jews" (Acts 10:22), so he possibly may have been exposed to Hebrew to some degree prior to his miraculously speaking an unlearned language.

Fri Jan 05, 02:41:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Alan Knox said...


I am a new reader to your blog. I found this to be an interesting post. I have studied the gift of tongues in Scripture trying to understand if it is intelligible languages or not. I have read many of the authors that you quote. One thing that you do not mention is that there is an equal number of authors who disagree with your position. I do not know if "tongues" in Scripture always refers to known languages or not.

You quote several authors who make a case that tonuges have ceased of themselves. They use fact that παύω (pauo) is in the middle voice in 1 Cor 13:8 (παύσονται - pausontai). However, you did not state the opposing view.

First of all, παύω (pauo) is always used in the middle voice in the NT. It is difficult to understand how to translate a middle voice if there is no active voice to compare it to. Many verbs in the middle voice have active or even passive meanings.

Second, they state that the middle voice means that the tongues will cease of themselves. Again, this is a simplistic and often errant understanding of the middle voice. Often the middle does not have a reflexive meaning at all. For example, most people would not be willing to translate 1 Peter 4:1 has "ceased from sin of themselves". Yet, this is the same verb in the middle voice as in 1 Cor 13:9.

When you state a view such as this post, it would be good for you to interact with scholars who disagree with your view.


Fri Jan 05, 03:02:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Grosey's Messages said...

Whether the middle voice, in this case, has other meanings.. it is clear from teh context that the cessation of some charismata is intended. 1Cor 13:8 Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for languages, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when the perfect comes, the partial will come to an end. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put aside childish things. 12 For now we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, as I am fully known. 13 Now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love.

The question is when.. is the second coming intended (alone) in the phrase, or is the completion of revelation intended (also). (the brackets make for 3 interpretations.
When combined with the purpose statement in 1 Cor 14: 20 Brothers, don’t be childish in your thinking, (is this signifying the conclusion of the thought in 13:11?*SG) but be infants in evil and adult in your thinking.
21 It is written in the law: By people of other languages and by the lips of foreigners, I will speak to this people; and even then, they will not listen to Me,says the Lord. 22 It follows that speaking in other languages is intended as a sign, not to believers but to unbelievers. But prophecy is not for unbelievers but for believers.

I think this would indicate that with the fulfillment of the purpose of tongues as signifying the end of the dispensation of Israel as the covenant people, comes the cessation of the charisma of tomgues.

I just read your very good and very full debate with WB. Very well stated.
Hey, its a full moon over here right now.. is it a full moon over OK?

Fri Jan 05, 03:56:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Baptist Theologue said...

Alan, you said,

“First of all, παύω (pauo) is always used in the middle voice in the NT. It is difficult to understand how to translate a middle voice if there is no active voice to compare it to.”

Bauer’s Lexicon (BAGD, page 638), A. T. Robertson, and Spiros Zodhiates’ The Complete Word Study New Testament (page 946) all say that “pauo” occurs in the active voice in 1 Peter 3:10. Robertson commented on the verb in 1 Peter 3:10:

“Let him refrain (pausatō). Third person singular first aorist active imperative of pauō to make stop, whereas the lxx has pauson (second person singular).”

Even if you take this one strike away from 1 Corinthians 13:8-10, however, there are three others, as I mentioned in the original blog post.

Here’s what Robertson said about the verb in 1 Corinthians 13:8:

“They shall cease (pausontai). Future middle indicative of pauō, to make cease. They shall make themselves cease or automatically cease of themselves.”

The late A. T. Robertson is still regarded as our best Southern Baptist authority on Greek.

Best wishes at SEBTS. I was in a class with Danny Akin when we were in the M.Div. program at SWBTS in the early 80s. I doubt he remembers me.

Fri Jan 05, 04:22:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Alan Knox said...


Robertson was a great Greek scholar. However, his grammar is also dated. It was written before the discoveries of the papyri.

While I disagree with your interpretation of 1 Cor 13, that was not the purpose of my previous comment. I only wanted to show that you ignored a large portion of scholarship concerning this topic. You would have a better argument if you interact with those scholars (and modern scholars) who disagree with you.


Fri Jan 05, 05:27:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Baptist Theologue said...

Alan, I would like to know the details of your position, including how you think the papyri you mentioned have affected interpretation of the key passages with which I dealt. I will be away from the computer tonight and tomorrow morning, so feel free to take your time with your next post. Make it a long one with references if you so desire.

Fri Jan 05, 06:13:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Alan Knox said...


I tend to take a simple view: 1 Cor 13:8-10 is referring to the return of Christ. When Christ returns, prophecy, tongues, knoweledge (and other spiritual gifts) will cease, because they will no longer be needed. I think you can find this view in Grudem's Systematic Theology, and in Gordon Fee's commentary on 1 Corinthians. btw... I am not charismatic or pentacostal. I do not believe speaking in tongues is necessary for salvation. God has never gifted me to speak in tongues, publicly or privately.

The statement regarding papyri does not directly effect 1 Corinthians 13. However, scholars have learned much about 1st century Greek by studying papyri. Some of them were biblical texts, but most were normal communications of that day.

I apologize for not given a longer defense. Perhaps I will post something on my blog, but it may be a while. I have a few other things in the works.


Fri Jan 05, 07:26:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Baptist Theologue said...

Alan, my impression is that you think that “cease” in the future, middle form in 1 Corinthians 13:8 is deponent, which, if true, would take away one strike from the four strikes I indicated in the original post. You referred to recent scholarship. Daniel Wallace’s Greek Grammar is the latest, respected grammar that has been published (1996), and it has been endorsed by Bruce Metzger and C. F. D. Moule. Wallace is an associate professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. He denies the deponency of “cease” in 1 Corinthians 13:8:

“If the voice of the verb here is significant, then Paul is saying either that tongues will cut themselves off (direct middle) or, more likely, cease of their own accord, i.e., ‘die out’ without an intervening agent (indirect middle). It may be significant that with reference to prophecy and knowledge, Paul used a different verb (κατάργέω) and put it in the passive voice. In vv 9-10, the argument continues: ‘for we know in part and we prophecy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial shall be done away [καταργηθήσονται].’ Here again, Paul uses the same passive verb he had used with prophecy and knowledge and he speaks of the verbal counterpart to the nominal ‘prophecy’ and ‘knowledge.’ Yet he does not speak about tongues being done away ‘when the perfect comes.’ The implication may be that tongues were to have ‘died out’ of their own before the perfect comes. The middle voice in this text, then, must be wrestled with if one is to come to any conclusions about when tongues would cease. The dominant opinion among NT scholars today, however, is that παύσονται is not an indirect middle. The argument is that παύω in the future is deponent, and that the change in verbs is merely stylistic. If so, then this text makes no comment about tongues ceasing on their own, apart from the intervention of ‘the perfect.’ There are three arguments against the deponent view, however. First, if παύσονται is deponent, then the second principal part (future form) should not occur in the active voice in Hellenistic Greek. But it does, and it does so frequently. Luke 8:24 is brought into the discussion: Jesus rebuked the wind and sea and they ceased (επαύσαντο, aorist middle) from their turbulence. The argument is that inanimate objects cannot cease of their own accord; therefore, the middle of παύω is equivalent to a passive. But this is a misunderstanding of the literary features of the passage: If the wind and sea cannot cease voluntarily, why does Jesus rebuke them? And why do the disciples speak of the wind and the sea as having obeyed Jesus? The elements are personified in Luke 8 and their ceasing from turbulence is therefore presented as volitional obedience to Jesus. If anything, Luke 8:24 supports the indirect middle view. Third, the idea of a deponent verb is that it is middle in form, but active in meaning. But παύσονται is surrounded by passives in 1 Cor. 13:8, not actives. The real force of παύω in the middle is intransitive, while in the active it is transitive. In the active it has the force of stopping some other object; in the middle, it ceases from its own activity. In sum, the deponent view is based on some faulty assumptions as to the labeling of παύσονται as deponent, the parallel in Luke 8:24, and even the meaning of deponency. Paul seems to be making a point that is more than stylistic in his shift in verbs. But this is not to say that the middle voice in 1 Cor. 13:8 proves that tongues already ceased! This verse does not specifically address when tongues would cease, although it is giving a terminus ad quem: when the perfect comes.”

Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 422-423.

The passage does not say when tongues would cease, but history does. I’ll be away from the computer until Monday.

Sat Jan 06, 11:53:00 AM 2007  
Blogger Baptist Theologue said...

P.S.: Interestingly, Dr. Wallace’s book is used in two-thirds of the nation’s schools that teach Greek. Notice the following description of him from Dallas Theological Seminary’s web site:

“B.A., Biola University, 1975; Th.M., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1979; Ph.D., 1995.

Dr. Wallace influences students across the country through his textbook on intermediate Greek grammar. It is used in more than two-thirds of the nation’s schools that teach that subject. He is the senior New Testament editor of the NET Bible and coeditor of the NET-Nestle Greek-English diglot. Recently his scholarship has shifted from syntactical and text-critical issues to more specific work in John, Mark, and nascent Christology. However he still works extensively in textual criticism, and has founded The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, an institute with an initial purpose to preserve Scripture by taking digital photographs of all known Greek New Testament manuscripts. His postdoctoral work includes work on Greek grammar at Tyndale House in Cambridge and textual criticism studies at the Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung in Münster. When he is not involved in scholarly pursuits, Dr. Wallace and wife, Pati, enjoy spending time with their boys and beagles.”

Mon Jan 08, 08:50:00 AM 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home