Scenes from the 2013 Keach Conference

Image:  Lloyd Sprinkle leads the opening prayer on Friday evening. We had 94 registered attendees at this year's conference with representation from all corners of Virginia, as well friends from Kentucky, Maryland, and Ohio.

 

Image:  Conversation at the book table

Image:  Singing on Friday evening

 



Image:  Ladies in conversation

 

Image:  Richard Barcellos, Lloyd Sprinkle, and Ron Young, Sr. in conversation

 

Image:  Food and fellowship

 

Image:  Fellowship on Saturday morning

 

Image:  These brothers came down from Maryland.  Patrick McWilliams (left) contributes to the Confessing Baptist podcast

 

Image:  Children's fellowship

 

 

 

Images:  Question and Answer on Saturday morning

 

 

 

 

 

2013 Keach Conference

Image:  Richard Barcellos at the 2013 Keach Conference

 

 

Here are the audio links to the 2013 Keach Conference messages by Richard Barcellos on the theme "Of God's Covenants" (chapters seven, Second London Baptist Confession 1689) which focused on the Covenant of Works:

 

Of God's Covenant 1

 

Of God's Covenant 2

 

Of God's Covenant 3 

 

Of God's Covenant 4

 

And here is the link to Pastor Ron Young's Exhortation:

 

Occupy till I come (Luke 19:13)

 

And to the final Question and Answer session:

 

Question and Answer

The Vision (9/26/13): Some Practical Aids to the Musical Aspects of our Worship

Image:  Singing from the Trinity Psalter at the 2012 Keach Conference

A friend who has worshipped with us at CRBC sent me an email a few months back that I have been meaning to share with you.  His note provides some valuable aids that might enhance your participation in and enjoyment of the musical aspects of our worship at CRBC.  Here’s the note:

Since CRBC uses the Trinity Hymnal (Baptist edition) and the Trinity Psalter, I was wondering if you and others at CRBC were aware of some of the related information available online:

There is an online version of the Trinity Hymnal at http://www.opc.org/hymnal.html.

For the original Trinity Hymnal (1961, non-Baptist edition), they have lyrics, MIDI files of the tunes, various indices, and even a "concordance" ("Search the hymnal").

For the revised Trinity Hymnal (1990, non-Baptist edition), they have MIDI files of the tunes and MP3 files of organ accompaniment.

For the Trinity Hymnal (Baptist edition), they have information on Worship with Hymns, a set of 4 audio CDs available for purchase which have the piano accompaniment to 100 hymns.
(We have a set.)

Terry Johnson, compiler of the Trinity Psalter, has the following available online at the Web site of his church -- the Independent Presbyterian Church of Savannah, GA (http://www.ipcsav.org):

A downloadable .ZIP file of MIDI files for all (I think) of the tunes in the Trinity Psalter at his church's Worship Aids for Ministers page at http://www.ipcsav.org/worship-aids-for-ministers/.

Articles such as Learning and Loving the Trinity Psalter and The History of Psalm Singing in the Christian Church at his church's Articles page at http://www.ipcsav.org/resources/articles/.

A description of his book, The Family Worship Book : A Resource Book For Family Devotions at http://www.ipcsav.org/resources/books/book/the-family-worship-book.

His book includes an explanation of the Christian Sabbath, a Family Bible Reading Record, the Catechism for Young Children ("An Introduction to the Shorter Cathechism"), the Westminster Shorter Catechism, 50 Bible Memorization passages, a condensed version of Isaac Watts' A Guide to Prayer, Thomas Manton's Epistle to the Reader of the WCF and Larger & Shorter Catechisms, The Church of Scotland's Directory for Family Worship, and the text (words) to 60 selections from each of the Trinity Hymnal and Trinity Psalter.

I had borrowed a copy of it from the library and thought it might be a good way to introduce someone to the Lord's Day, Family Worship and/or Psalm Singing.

Perhaps some of that information could be of use to someone at CRBC if they wanted to sing some of the selections listed in "The Vision" for an upcoming Lord's Day.

Thanks to this brother for sharing his research with us.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

2013 Keach Conference

 

Image:  Richard Barcellos

Dear friends,
 

Just a reminder that the 2013 Keach Conference is this weekend.  This conference is sponsored by the Reformed Baptist Fellowship of Virginia and will be held on Friday evening-Saturday morning, September 27-28, 2013.  It is hosted this year by Christ Reformed Baptist Church in Charlottesville, Virginia (directions here).
 

This annual theology and ministry conference is free (though an offering will be collected in the meetings) and is open to anyone.  You can pre-register at Keach Conference 2013 or register onsite at the conference.
 

This year’s theme will be “Of God’s Covenant” from chapter seven of the London Confession.
 

Our speakers:  Pastor Ron Young, Sr. of Fincastle, Virginia will give an exhortation on ministry on Saturday morning.  Dr. Richard Barcellos will give a series of four messages on this year’s theme on Friday and Saturday.
 

The schedule:
 

Friday (September 27):

 

6:30 PM  Arrival, registration, fellowship

7:00 PM  Session I

Dr. Barcellos message one:  Part I:  Historical-Confessional, A Brief Overview of Chapter Seven:  “Of God’s Covenant”

Dr. Barcellos message two:  Part II:  Biblical Theological, Getting the Garden Right:  Hermeneutics and the Covenant of Works

Evening Fellowship, book tables
 

Saturday (September 28):

 

8:15-9:15 am  Complimentary Coffee Fellowship (doughnuts and bagels)

9:30 am  Session II

Exhortation:  Ron Young, Sr.:  Occupy Till I Come (Luke 19:13)

Dr. Barcellos message three:  Getting the Garden Right:  Eschatology and the Covenant of Works

Dr. Barcellos message four:  Getting the Garden Right:  Typology and the Covenant of Works

11:30 am  Session III

Question and Answer with the speakers
 

We hope you will consider joining us for one or both days of the conference.
 

 

JTR

More evidence of evangelical downgrade

Someone shared this clip on the RB yahoo list:

 

New Word Magazine: Dan Wallace on Preservation.Part 4 (9.24.13)

I recorded another Word Magazine episode yesterday (9.24.13) and uploaded it to sermonaudio.com this morning.  This episode continues "the series that will [seemingly] never end" reviewing Dan Wallace's 1992 article Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism.

 

Much of this episode responds to the charge that those who hold to the traditional text have an unbiblical desire for illegitimate certainty about the text of Scripture rather than for truth.  I question whether it is wrong to seek textual certainty and stability and also consider how liberals and non-Christians use this same kind of argument against all major Christian truth claims.

 

I also address some of Wallace's rhetoric including his suggestions that those who hold to the traditional text are:  Bultmannians, Catholics, rationalists, Marcionites, psychologically insecure, and "bibliologically schizophrenic."  Wow!  I sure am glad that modern-text onlyists don't indulge in the same kind of ad hominem rhetoric as the KJV-onlyists!

 

JTR

John Owen on the LXX: "Strange that so corrupt a stream should be judged a fit measure to correct the original by"

At one point in his booklet “The Divine Original of the Scriptures” (Collected Works, Vol. 16), the Puritan divine John Owen addresses the work of a contemporary “learned man” Ludovicus Capellus who attempted to correct the Hebrew text of the OT by using the Greek Septuagint.  I recalled this quote when thinking about the various LXX readings now being adopted in modern English translations of the Old Testament (see here).  Owen observed of this tendency to “uncertain conjectures” on “the credit of corrupt translations”:

 

Whether that plea of his be more unreasonable in itself and devoid of any real ground of truth, or injurious to the love and care of God over his Word and church, I know not; sure I am, it is both in high degree.  The translation insisted on by him is that of the LXX.  That this translation—either from the mistakes of its first authors, (if it be theirs whose name and number it bears), or the carelessness, or ignorance, or worse, of its transcribers—is corrupted and gone off from the original in a thousand places twice told, is acknowledged by all who know aught of these things.  Strange that so corrupt a stream should be judged a fit measure to correct the original by; and yet on account hereof, with some others not one whit better (or scarce so good,) we have one thousand eight hundred and twenty-six various lections exhibited unto us, with frequent insinuations of an infinite number more yet to be collected.  It were desirable that men would be content to show their learning, reading, and diligence, about things where there is less danger in adventures (pp. 301-302).

The Vision (9.19.13): God's Covenant

The annual Keach Conference will be held Friday evening (6:30 pm)-Saturday morning (9:30 am), September 27-28 at CRBC.  This conference is free (though an offering will be collected in the meetings) and open to anyone to attend.  This conference is sponsored by the Reformed Baptist Fellowship of Virginia.  For the last few years we have had each year’s theme center around a chapter in the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689).  This historic Puritan Baptist statement of faith based largely on the Westminster Confession of Faith serves as the doctrinal confession for our church and other Reformed Baptist congregations.  A confession of faith is always a “subordinate standard.”  That means it stands below Scripture and is to be corrected by Scripture.  A good confession, however, serves the useful purpose of describing how one might correctly interpret the Scriptures.

This year’s theme will be taken from chapter seven “Of God’s Covenant.”  Our keynote speaker, Dr. Richard Barcellos, is a seasoned and respected Reformed Baptist minister and theologian.  The text of this chapter is listed below along with the “prooftexts” cited to substantiate the doctrine presented.  I encourage you to read through this chapter as you prepare to come to the Keach Conference and spend time learning more about the faith “once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 1:3).   

1. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience to Him as their creator, yet they could never have attained the reward of life but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.1
1 Luke 17:10; Job 35:7,8

2. Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace,2 wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved;3 and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, His Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.4
2 Gen. 2:17; Gal. 3:10; Rom. 3:20,21
3 Rom. 8:3; Mark 16:15,16; John 3:16;
4 Ezek. 36:26,27; John 6:44,45; Ps. 110:3

3. This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman,5 and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament;6 and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect;7 and it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.8
5 Gen. 3:15
6 Heb. 1:1
7 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:2
8 Heb. 11:6,13; Rom. 4:1,2, and ff.; Acts 4:12; John 8:56

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

New Word Magazine: Review: Dan Wallace on Preservation.Part 3 (9.18.13)

I recorded and posted another edition of Word Magazine today.  This is part 3 of my review of Dan Wallace's article, Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Criticism.

 

The review touched on a number of issues, including Wallace's suggestion that the modern critical reconstruction of the "original" text of Scripture is anticipated by Josiah's finding of "the book of the law" in the temple.  In the episode, I mentioned a series of messages I preached in September 2012 at CRBC on Old Testament texts relating to the doctrine of preservation.  One of those messages was titled When the Bible was lost from 2 Kings 22--23. At the close of that message I made the following applications:
 

This passage is a testimony and a witness to the fact that God preserves his Word.  Perhaps wicked men had been able to destroy every copy of God’s Word, but some faithful priest had hidden one copy of the Word and it lay hidden till the time of its providential discovery.  God will preserve his Word.

Is this an argument for the modern reconstruction of a so-called critical text?

Some might argue that this text justifies the modern text critical reconstruction aimed at “purifying” the traditional text of Scripture, since it posits a time when Scripture was lost and then restored.

We reject this scheme.  Why?

1.      The setting in 2 Kings 22-23 is of a time when the Bible was still progressively developing.  It was at this time that the portion of Scripture as yet revealed was completely lost for a period of time.  The modern text critical construal claims that God’s word was not completely lost but partially corrupted, and this happened after the canon had been completed.

2.     The setting in 2 Kings 22-23 is of a time when either all the Scriptures then revealed (Genesis-Deuteronomy) or a large portion (Deuteronomy) was completely lost for a significant period of time.  It addresses a period of the absence of the true word.  The modern construal claims not that the Word was taken away but that non-scriptural material was added (like the ending of Mark, the woman taken in adultery, etc.) and that they (the scholars, the experts) need to purify our texts by removing these accretions.

3.     The Biblical account describes a time of the Word’s absence that was of a relatively short duration. Saul, the first king came to the throne c. 1000 BC.  Josiah came to the throne c. 640 BC.  If the Word was lost near the end of the time of the Judges this would have been a period of c. 350 years.  If suppressed in the days of wicked Manasseh it would have been sometime after he took the throne c. 687 BC (so for only c. 40 years).  The modern text critical construal claims the Word of God was lost in the second century A. D. and only restored by modern scholars in the last nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.  So, according to this view, the pure Word was lost for some 1,500-1,700 years!  Would the Lord have left his people without the Word for the majority of the time in which the New Testament church was in existence?

Text and Translation Note: Malachi 2:16a

A recent post on the Reformed Baptist officers’ Yahoo list asked about the translation of Malachi 2:16a in the ESV.

The issue:

The ESV reads:  “For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the LORD, the God of Israel….”  The online text of the ESV includes a footnote for the verse reading:  “Hebrew who hates and divorces,” acknowledging that the ESV departs from the Hebrew text to follow a conjectural rendering.

 

The vast majority of English translations, however, follow some variation of translating the traditional Hebrew Masoretic Text which reads:  ki saneh shalach amar Yahweh eloheh yisrael.  The verb saneh is qal perfect 3^rd person singular.  This is reflected in the KJV and NKJV translation which offer the most literal rendering of the Hebrew MT:

KJV:  Malachi 2:16 For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away….

 

NKJ Malachi 2:16 "For the LORD God of Israel says That He hates divorce…”

 

Other modern translations also follow the Hebrew text, but they choose to change the verb from third person to first person.  Examples:

NIV Malachi 2:16 "I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel….”

NASB Malachi 2:16 "For I hate divorce," says the LORD, the God of Israel….”

This change apparently reflects the suggestions of the critical text of the OT in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia where a footnote at senah suggests the reading should probably be in the first person (p. 1084).

Even the RSV (the base for the ESV translation) and the NRSV (like the ESV, a revision of the RSV) follow the Hebrew text:

RSV and NRSV Malachi 2:16  For I hate divorce says the LORD, the God of Israel….

 

There are several interesting things about the ESV rendering of this verse, but I'll break it down into two categories:  text and translation philosophy:

Text:

 

First:  Regarding text, the ESV follows the LXX which reads:  alla misesas [aorist participle from miseo, to hate] exaposteiles [aorist active subjunctive verb, second person singular, from exapostello, to send away] legei kurios ho theos tou Israel.  A literal rendering of the LXX would be:  “But hating you might send away, says the Lord God of Israel.”  This is also the reading of the Latin Vulgate.

 

A footnote in the print edition of the ESV reads:  “Probable meaning (compare Septuagint and Deuteronomy 24:1-4); or For the LORD, the God of Israel, says that he hates divorce, and him who covers”.

The ESV Study Bible provides an extended commentary on the translation of Malachi 2:16, beginning, “The Hebrew text of this verse is one of the most difficult passages in the OT to translate, with the result that the two main alternatives proposed for this verse are strongly disputed….” (see pp. 1776-1777).

Oddly enough the Geneva Bible follows the LXX as well and, thus, is closer to the ESV than to the KJV (a rarity).  Calvin’s commentary on Malachi also takes the Latin Vulgate reading as its base.

Second:  Regarding translation, I find it interesting that the ESV of Malachi 2:16a apparently reflects a dynamic equivalent rendering of the LXX which it follows.  It makes the participle from miseo a third person finite verb and the second person verb from exapostello into a third person verb.  It also adds the noun “wife” as the object of the verb exapostello though no such noun appears in the LXX.

It is also interesting to note that the ESV was apparently revised at some point.  The original (2001) ESV of Malachi 2:16a reads, "For the man who hates and divorces...." while, again, the current ESV reading is, "For the man who does not love his wife, but divorces her...."  Thus, the current ESV changed its predecessor’s more literal rendering of the verb “to hate” (miseo) to the negative (and softer?) “not love.”

This raises the issue of the ESV translation philosophy which has more dynamic equivalent renderings than one might expect in a version so heavily promoted as "essentially literal” (though this example is admittedly odd given that we are talking about the ESV’s rendering of a Greek translation of the OT and not the Hebrew original).   For another example of dynamic equivalence in the ESV of Jeremiah look here.

Analysis:

What is the significance of the textual and translation philosophy choices of the ESV?

 

First, for a long time, most of the battles over text seem to have been in the field of the NT with even most modern translations accepting the Hebrew MT for the OT, but now it seems that the translators are increasingly choosing to follow a reconstructed modern critical text of the Hebrew Bible.  The ESV (even more boldly than the RSV or NRSV) seems to be leading the way in preferring readings that have little or no Hebrew textual basis but are based on conjectural emendations like this one from the LXX.  Here are comments on a few other examples of this which I ran across when preaching through 1-2 Samuel:  1 Samuel 6:19; 1 Samuel 13:5; 1 Samuel 13:15; 1 Samuel 17; 2 Samuel 6:3; 21:8.  Another example would be Psalm 145:13 where the ESV includes a half verse found only in one Hebrew manuscript but supported by the LXX and the Syriac.

Second, one might ask how these decisions relate to the confessional perspective on Scripture reflected in the Westminster Confession and Second London Confession which stress the immediate inspiration of the OT in Hebrew and the NT in Greek (which would, of course, exclude the Greek of the LXX as authoritative).  Admittedly, this could also prove troublesome for supporters of the TR (like me) if it could be proven that some TR readings (like "book of life" in Rev 22:19) did not rest on some preserved Hebrew or Greek witness.

 

Third, it is also interesting that the ESV is so willing to offer such conjectures in the OT without any Hebrew textual basis given the disdain of most evangelical modern critical advocates for the Comma Johanneum of 1 John 5:7-8 which is, at least, supported by a handful of Greek witnesses (up to 9 now, I think).

 

Fourth, though the ESV Study Bible notes on the passage assure its readers that translations based on either the LXX or Hebrew MT of Malachi 2:16a equally affirm divine displeasure regarding divorce one wonders if there are not potential divergences in interpretation and application based on the translation one reads.  Is the point of Malachi 2:16a that the one who does not love (hates) his wife and divorces her covers himself in destruction (as in the ESV) or is it that the Lord hates divorce (as in the other English translations)?  Might this have some impact on one’s understanding of the Scriptural teaching on divorce?  

The Vision (9.12.13): Living with Boldness for Christ

In last Sunday’s sermon Fear not, little flock from Luke 12:32-40, I suggested that in this passage Jesus offered three challenges to his disciples:  (1) live with assurance; (2) live with boldness; and (3) live with expectant readiness.  Here are some of my notes on the challenge to live with boldness (from vv. 33-34):

Jesus begins, “Sell that ye have and give alms” (v. 33a).  The command here is much like that which Jesus will give to the rich young ruler when he asks Jesus what he needs to do to inherit eternal life:

 

Luke 18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

 

And you might recall that Luke records the man went away “very sorrowful, for he was very rich” (18:23).

 

Here in Luke 12:33, however, Jesus offers this as a command for all his disciples.  Is this to be taken literally?  Are we in sin if we hang onto any possessions at all?  Are Christians to be homeless and wandering vagabonds who have given all they have to the poor? 

 

If you read a bit further I think you will see that while Jesus is speaking metaphorically here (he does not expect every Christian to sell all his possessions at all times) he is also saying concretely to his disciples that they are not to make an idol of their possessions.  They are not to be like the rich fool, building bigger barns, and planning to take their ease, to eat, drink, and be merry with not a thought of thankfulness to God and stewardship of all they possess.

 

The fact that he is speaking metaphorically becomes clear in the continuation:  “provide yourselves bags [ballantion, purse of container] which wax not old….” (v. 33).  Now, I have found that it often makes sense to buy something of good quality that will last a long time, rather than to buy something of cheap quality that will only last a short time.  When I got back from Hungary in 1992 I bought a leather belt that I still wear.  I’ve used it for 20 years (though admittedly I’ve had to let it out a bit over the years) and just the other day one of the threads on it began to break.  Still, it lasted 20 years.  But Jesus speaks here of a purse that will never wear out.  Obviously, he is not speaking about a material object.  He is saying:  Do not invest your main interest and vigor and strength in the attainment and retention of merely material things.  Give these things away and dedicate them to the service of your neighbor.  Invest in that which will not wear out.

 

He further describes it as “a treasure [thesauros, treasure box, storeroom; the root for the English word “thesaurus” which is a treasury of words] in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth” (v. 33b).

 

We sometimes hear someone warn that we should not be so heavenly minded that we are no earthly good.  But here Jesus says we should not be so earthly minded as to be no heavenly good.

 

I remember the very first trip I ever took out of the country just after my freshman year in college.  It was a mission trip to Haiti with a group of Christian men.  Just the week before we arrived the missionaries we were working with had their home broken into and many cherished possessions stolen.  I’ll never forget what this humble and godly missionary said:  “but I have a treasure in heaven that no thief can break through and steal.”

 

Jesus cinches his point in v. 34:  “for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”  The questions you must ask yourself are these:  To what end am I living?  Am I living with boldness for Christ?  Is he the treasure I pursue above all and for which I would gladly cast away all?

 

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

E. J. Young on "What is Meant by Mosaic Authorship?"

Image:  Edward Joseph Young (1907-1968)

 

 

Note:  As I teach a "Survey of the Old Testament" class this semester, I have been reading Edward J. Young's An Introduction to the Old Testament (Eerdmans, Revised Ed. 1960). In this work, Young offers the following nuanced defense of the traditional Mosiac authorship of the Pentateuch under the heading "What is Meant by Mosaic Authorship?":

 

 

When we affirm that Moses wrote, or that he was the author of, the Pentateuch, we do not mean that he himself necessarily wrote every word.  To insist upon this would be unreasonable.  Hammurabi was the author of his famous code, but he certainly did not engrave it himself upon the stele.  Our Lord was the author of the Sermon on the Mount, but he did not write it.  Milton was the author of Paradise Lost, but he did not write it all out by hand.

The witness of sacred Scripture leads us to believe that Moses was the fundamental or real author of the Pentateuch.  In composing it, he may indeed, as Astruc suggested, have employed parts of previously existing written documents.  Also, under divine inspiration, there may have been later minor additions and even revisions.  Substantially and essentially, however, it is the product of Moses.  The position which conservatives contend has been well expressed by Wilson:  ‘That the Pentateuch as it stands is historical from the time of Moses; and that Moses was its real author, though it may be revised and edited by later redactors, the additions being just as much inspired and as true as the rest.’

New Word Magazine (9.10.13): Review: Dan Wallace on Preservation.Part 2

I recorded and posted another Word Magazine today, continuing my review and response to Dan Wallace's article Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism.

 

In this episode I take issue with several provocative and bold statements made by Wallace in the article like this one:  "Furthermore, for the letters of Paul, there is no majority text manuscript before the ninth century."

 

With regard to this statement I raised the following challenges:

 

1.  I asked what evidence Wallace had to prove this assertion, noting that the statement is made with no footnote to supporting evidence.

 

2.  I noted that there was probably less difference between the traditional text of the Pauline epistles and the texts used in the reconstruction of the modern critical text and a comparison of these same textual traditions in the Gospels where more major issues (e.g., Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53--8:11) typically exist.

 

3.  I noted that just because there are many manuscripts from the ninth and later centuries which support the traditional text, this does not mean that the traditional text only began at that time.  Rather, we might well assume that these later manuscripts were based on much earlier manuscript traditions which they copied.

 

4.  I noted that there seems to be directly contradictory evidence to the assertion that "there is no majority text manuscript [of the Pauline epistles] before the ninth century."

 

I pointed to two pieces of evidence:

 

First, in the introduction to the Nestle-Aland 27th ed. the editors list the "constant witnesses" for the Pauline epistles.  Among these is listed the uncial manuscript C (for all the 13 Pauline epistles except for 2 Thessalonians).

 

Second, in Bruce Metzger's The Text of the New Testament, Second Edition (Oxford University Press, 1968), he offers a description of C, also known as Codex Ephraemi (pp. 48-49).  Metzger dates C to the 5th century A.D.  He offers the following description of the text of C:  "Though the document dates from the fifth century, its text is of less importance than one might have assumed from its age.  It seems to be compounded from all the major text-types, agreeing frequently with the later Koine or Byzantine type, which most scholars regard as the least valuable type of New Testament text" (p. 49).  Metzger's obviously biased description of the Byzantine tradition aside, his assessment is that C dates to the 5th century and it provides a witness to the Byzantine text of the NT (including the Pauline epistles).

 

Conclusion:  Wallace's statement that there are no manuscripts that support the traditional text of the Pauline epistles until the 9th century is misleading, and, in the case of C, in particular, it is proven outright to be mistaken.