If you can't believe the Bible ...

  • Thread starter Thread starter CatholicMedic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CatholicMedic

Guest
Hello everyone,

I borrowed the title of this thread from an article which appeared in the Raleigh News and Observer, Religion section.

I read the article and heard part of an interview with the author on a local NPR station. I have not read his book (yet?).

Anyway, I though I’d post the link to the story and see what everyone thinks.

newsobserver.com/419/story/387840.html
 
Just one reason why “scripture alone” theology is a total joke.
 
Having engaged in textual criticism for many years, I believe the main concept of the article to be correct. These scribal “errors” have long been known and acknowledged; there is no shocking revelation, here. The primary criterion in this kind of study is that we cannot presume any scribal discrepancies without objective manuscript evidence. The examples cited in the article are correct, but the interpretation of the causes behind the manuscript variances is entirely a matter of opinion.

For example, contrary to the article’s position, it seems rather more likely that the “pericope adulterae” in John was not added, but removed from biblical texts at some point in early Church history, on the basis tha it seemed to be too easy-going on adultery. Too liberal, we would say. The “Trinitarian comma” of I John is known to have first appeared in manuscripts copied during the Priscillianist controversy. The manner in which such interpolations usually appeared was as a marginal gloss which, when the manusrcript was later copied by another scribe, was inserted into the text. This was usually done, not because the scribe had some hidden theological agenda, but because he had a doubt as to whether it was an authentic reading, and decided err on the side of caution by including the gloss in his text.

The study of textual criticism and the analysis of variant readings is a highly entertaining pasttime - I heartily recommend it to anyone interested in serious Bible study. As observed above, it illustrates the total absurdity of fundamentalism, and demonstrates the necessity of Tradition and Magisterium…
 
The fact that every bible on the book shelf today is written in a different way tells you that the translations have obviously been altered. I don’t believe though that the Apostolic Tradition, the Scriptures, or Magestaerium of the Catholic Chrisitian Church have changed any doctrinal Christian belief.

The Catholic Church has pretty well documented that the passing down of scriptures has been very consistent. I still believe the scriptures are the inspired word of God.
 
40.png
tjmiller:
it illustrates the total absurdity of fundamentalism, and demonstrates the necessity of Tradition and Magisterium…
Click to expand...
Well, we’re not totally absurd, although we do have a good time.

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy presents the consensus of evangelicalism, and that opinion is also the opinion of the movement known as Fundamentalism. We’re quite aware of text issues. In fact, the most ardent students of the subject you can find will include a high percentage of evangelicals and Fundamentalists because we’re so consumed with the Bible.
 
I’ll rephrase: the abundance of textual discrepancies demonstrates the profound ridiculousness of sola scriptura, and the need for an inerrant Teaching Authority, guided by the Spirit into all Truth as promised by Christ, coterminous with the deposit of Divine Revelation
 
If the textual discrepancies, being unimportant in 99% of the cases, do not affect doctrine, then it seems to me that they could have no impact on whether or not sola scriptura was ridiculous.

I’ve seen sola scriptura defined various ways around here, but I assume that you’re using the historic definition. Your earlier reference to objective manuscript evidence indicates that you limit yourself to real scholarship, as distinguished from, say, Ehrman’s sensationalism.

There are several well known lines of argument against sola scriptura, but I’m curious about this one: why do you say that the presence of textual discrepancies makes sola scriptura profoundly ridiculous?
 
40.png
Kevan:
There are several well known lines of argument against sola scriptura, but I’m curious about this one: why do you say that the presence of textual discrepancies makes sola scriptura profoundly ridiculous?
Click to expand...
It doesn’t. Sola Scriptura was ridiculous enough to begin with.
 
40.png
Kevan:
If the textual discrepancies, being unimportant in 99% of the cases, do not affect doctrine, then it seems to me that they could have no impact on whether or not sola scriptura was ridiculous.

I’ve seen sola scriptura defined various ways around here, but I assume that you’re using the historic definition. Your earlier reference to objective manuscript evidence indicates that you limit yourself to real scholarship, as distinguished from, say, Ehrman’s sensationalism.

There are several well known lines of argument against sola scriptura, but I’m curious about this one: why do you say that the presence of textual discrepancies makes sola scriptura profoundly ridiculous?
Click to expand...
I pretty much agree with what Kevan said here. I’ll repeat it for clarity

If the textual discrepancies are
  1. unimportant in 99% of the cases and
  2. do not affect doctrine
then how does that show *sola scriptura * to be ridiculous?

Also, Article X. of The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/history/chicago.stm.txt states

"Article X.

We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the
autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be
ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further
affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to
the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected
by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence
renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant."
 
For a short critique (case study) of Bart Ehrman’s ‘The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture’ check out this case study by J.P. Holding tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.html#ehrman

( the case study is part of a larger article titled ‘The Textual Reliability of the New Testament’by J.P. Holding tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.html )

Regarding John 7:53-8:11 in the Gospel of St. John, see the following quote taken from “V. Critical Questions Concerning the Text” newadvent.org/cathen/08438a.htm#V in the “Gospel of St. John” article newadvent.org/cathen/08438a.htm in The Catholic Encyclopedia. (bold emphasis mine)
John 7:53-8:11
Click to expand...
This passage contains the story of the adulteress. The external critical evidence seems in this ease to give still clearer decision against the authenticity of this passage. It is wanting in the four earliest manuscripts (B, A, C, and aleph) and many others, while in many copies it is admitted only with the critical mark, indicative of doubtful authenticity. Nor is it found in the Syrian translation of Cureton, in the Sinaiticus, the Gothic translation, in most codices of the Peshito, or of the Coptic and Armenian translations, or finally in the oldest manuscripts of the Itala. None of the Greek Fathers have treated the incident in their commentaries, and, among Latin writers, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Hilary appear to have no knowledge of this pericope.
Click to expand...
Notwithstanding the weight of the external evidence of these important authorities, it is possible to adduce still more important testimony in favour of the authenticity of the passage. As for the manuscripts, we know on the authority of St. Jerome that the incident “was contained in many Greek and Latin codices” (Contra Pelagium, II, xvii), a testimony supported today by the Codex Bez of Canterbury (D) and many others. The authenticity of the passage is also favoured by the Vulgate, by the Ethiopians Arabic, and Slavonic translations, and by many manuscripts of the Itala and of the Armenian and Syrian text. Of the commentaries of the Greek Fathers, the books of Origen dealing with this portion of the Gospel are no longer extant; only a portion of the commentary of St. Cyril of Alexandria has reached us, while the homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Fourth Gospel must be considered a treatment of selected passages rather than of the whole text. Among the Latin Fathers, Sts. Ambrose and Augustine included the pericope in their text, and seek an explanation of its omission from other manuscripts in the fact that the incident might easily give rise to offense (cf. especially Augustine, " De coniugiis adulteris", II, vii). It is thus much easier to explain the omission of the incident from many copies than the addition of such a passage in so many ancient versions in all parts of the Church. It is furthermore admitted by the critics that the style and mode of presentation have not the slightest trace of apocryphal origin, but reveal throughout the hand of a true master. Too much importance should not be attached to variations of vocabulary, which may be found on comparing this passage with the rest of the Gospel, since the correct reading of the text is in many places doubtful, and any such differences of language may be easily harmonized with the strongly individual style of the Evangelist.
Click to expand...
It is thus possible, even from the purely critical standpoint, to adduce strong evidence in favour of the canonicity and inspired character of this pericope, which by decision of the Council of Trent, forms a part of the Holy Bible.
Click to expand...
Regarding the ending of the Gospel of Saint Mark, see this whole section titled “IV. State of Text and Integrity” newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htm#IV in the “Gospel of Saint Mark” article newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htm in The Catholic Encyclopedia.

For more on New Testament textual criticism, you might want to consult the following books

The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus
by Lee Strobel
(Chapter 3, where Lee Strobel interviews New Testament scholar Bruce Meztger)

A General Introduction to the Bible (Hardcover)
Revised & Expanded edition (1986)
by Norman L. Geisler & William E. Nix

Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism
Revised Edition (1995)
by J. Harold Greenlee

The Making of the New Testament
by Arthur G. Patzia

The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration
3rd Edition (1992)
by Bruce Metzger

The Text of the New Testament
2nd Revised edition (1995)
by Kurt Aland & Barbara Aland

The Catholic Encyclopedia
newadvent.com/
 
40.png
discipleofJesus:
The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus
by Lee Strobel
(Chapter 3, where Lee Strobel interviews New Testament scholar Bruce Meztger)
Click to expand...
‘Bruce Meztger’ should be ‘Bruce Metzger’
 
"Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?
A Debate between

William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman

Dr. Craig, Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California, and Dr. Ehrman, James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, will discuss the status of the Christian claim to Jesus’ resurrection from the perspective of historical data. March 28, 2006 7:30PM, Hogan Ballroom
Free and open to the public. Sponsored by the Center for Religion, Ethics and Culture and the Campus Christian Fellowship."
holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrdebate.htm
 
"Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?
A Debate between

William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman

Dr. Craig, Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California, and Dr. Ehrman, James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, will discuss the status of the Christian claim to Jesus’ resurrection from the perspective of historical data. March 28, 2006 7:30PM, Hogan Ballroom
Free and open to the public. Sponsored by the Center for Religion, Ethics and Culture and the Campus Christian Fellowship."
holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrdebate.htm
 
Here is a very good
“Review of
Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005)”

By: Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D.
bible.org/page.asp?page_id=3452
 
When I was a ***sola scriptura ** * fundamentalist protestant, I was indoctrinated not only with the notion that the Bible was the *sole authority * for Christian living and belief (an idea nowhere to be found in the Bible) - but inculcated also with the doctrine of **“verbal, plenary inspiration” ** of Scripture (that is, that the Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant, word for word, every word - even down to the part on the inside of the front cover, where it says, "genuine cowhide :rolleyes: ).

Now, the fact that the textual variants do not substantially affect the integrity of doctrine is not quite relevant to this notion. For if any notable textual discrepancies exist - and there are thousands - then **we cannot know with the certainty of faith exactly which words ** (word for word and every word) among the various readings are divinely inspired and inerrant. We may be able to come to a relative moral certainty, through the science of textual criticism, regarding which of the variant readings reflects the original text, but we can never arrive at the absolute certainty which divine faith requires.

It is thus clear that Christ the Lord never meant for the original text of the New Testament to be somehow miraculously preserved from error in the process of textual transmission, or for scribes down through the ages to enjoy the charism of infallibility. But He did establish an Apostolic Catholic Teaching Authority, unfailingly to guard, protect, and proclaim His Word until He should come again in glory. For it is no writing, but rather the One True Church itself, which He personally established at the price of His blood - Mother and Teacher of all churches, built upon Peter and his succesors until the end of time, endowed with the fulness both of divine truth and the means of holiness and salvation - which he gave unto us as the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (I Tim. 3:15).

If one is to believe in the notion of verbal plenary inspiration that underpins the doctrine of sola sciptura, then one must decide - and on what divine authority? - exactly which of the ancient readings, and exactly which of the ancient manuscripts, is the divinely inspired, inerrant Word of God. They cannot all be.
Let’s take the most ancient for a starting point: which reflects the “real” Bible? Papyrus 45, 46, 47, 66, 72, 74, or 75; Greek Codex Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi, or Bezae; the Curetonian, Sinaitic, or Peshitta Syriac; Latin Codex Palatinus, Bobbiensis, Vercellensis, Veronensis, Bezae, or the Vulgate; the Fayyumic or Sub-Achminic Coptic; the Gothic Codex Argenteus; etc., etc. (not to mention the citations found amongst the writings of the Early Church Fathers, from which nearly the entire NT corpus can be reconstructed)??? Surely the Lord never intended us to have to be textual scientists in order to know what His Word is. He gave us the living Magisterium of the Catholic Church for that.
 
You appear to have refuted your own previous allegation that textual discrepancies render sola scriptura profoundly ridiculous. You have now stated a silly notion (indicated by your :rolleyes: insert) and, for some reason, associated it with the doctrine of sola scriptura, which you, being a scholar, know good and well has nothing to do with it.

What you have actually argued against is the doctrine of plenary verbal inspiration, and you have claimed that it underpins the doctrine of sola scriptura.

You have conceded that we may be able to reach a relative moral certainty regarding the text of scripture, but you stopped short of saying that the science of textual criticism does give us a reliable text of scripture. But, of course, you do believe that textual criticism gives us a reliable text.

Now, if we have a reliable text of scripture, then there is nothing in those discrepancies that remain which would keep us from regarding it as an infallible rule of faith and practice. You can appeal to the problems of canonicity and hermeneutics, but you cannot appeal to the presence of textual variants.

Therefore I say that your original accusation that “the abundance of textual discrepancies demonstrates the profound ridiculousness of sola scriptura” was incorrect. Do you agree?
 
No, we don’t have any single “reliable text” of Scripture, in the sense of one in which we can have *the full and absolute certainty of divine faith * that it contains no error of any kind whatever. Textual criticism (TC) simply can help us arrive at a relative moral certainty regarding this or that specific variant reading - that is, a probable idea as to which variants are less likely to be authentic.

Scientific probability and the firm assurance of divine faith are not synonymous. Our faith, while not irrational, does not rest upon a mass of rational likelihoods as its basis. I use term like “absolute certainty of divine faith” and “relative moral certainty” in strict theological senses.

To believe that we have anything like an inerrant text out there would be to propose that TC is a divinely inspired, infallible undertaking. Did the Lord will that the science of textual criticism be necessary, in order to know what His Word really is? (I find no hint of that in the Bible…)

I used the Sarcasm Smilie only in reference to the “genuine cowhide” bit…(I did actually hear that, as a humorous remark, in a FP sermon as a child.)
The notion of SS, as I was raised to believe in it, rested upon the presupposition of VPI, as I before mentioned, but I realize there may be various other understandings of the concept.
 
40.png
tjmiller:
No, we don’t have any single “reliable text” of Scripture, in the sense of one in which we can have *the full and absolute certainty of divine faith * that it contains no error of any kind whatever.
Click to expand...
Can’t you grasp the difference between a text we can rely on and one that has “no error of any kind whatever”? A reliable text doesn’t teach error. The kind you are denying is a straw man that no scholar ever supposed existed.
To believe that we have anything like an inerrant text out there…
Click to expand...
…would make one unique in the history of scholarship.
Did the Lord will that the science of textual criticism be necessary, in order to know what His Word really is? (I find no hint of that in the Bible…)
Click to expand...
Good point, but it doesn’t touch on the relationship of textual discrepancies to belief in (or rejection of) sola scriptura, so I’m passing over it.
I used the Sarcasm Smilie only in reference to the “genuine cowhide” bit…(I did actually hear that, as a humorous remark, in a FP sermon as a child.)
Click to expand...
I’ve said it myself, so I know what you mean. “I believe the Bible from Genesis to Maps!” etc. Nevertheless, you know as a scholar that the Fundamentalist and evangelical doctrine of plenary verbal inspiration is not reflected accurately by what you said you were taught. You might justifiably speak ill of any who claimed that that was the doctrine, but you shouldn’t let on that they were actually stating what SS people have believed down through the centuries.
The notion of SS, as I was raised to believe in it, rested upon the presupposition of VPI, as I before mentioned, but I realize there may be various other understandings of the concept.
Click to expand...
I assumed that you, as an educated person, would know the correct definition of the doctrine of SS. But even then, VPI has never entailed belief in an inerrant text other than the autographs.
 
In order to believe that the Bible is the sole authority for Christian living and belief, divinely inspired and inerrant, word for word and every word, one must have much more than merely a probably reliable biblical text. One must have an *inerrant * text! We all seem to acknowledge the fact that no such inerrant text exists. :nope: Therefore, the Bible on one’s desk can not be said to be the “Word of God”.

What, then, happened to this “Word of God”? Where did it go? Who has it now? When we believe in that “Bible” on the desk, are we not merely placing our faith in fallible committees of textual critics and translators, rather than (or as much as) in God and His Revealed Truth? When one has no infallible, living, divinely established Teaching Authority, and denies also the authority of Apostolic Tradition, these are the sad conundra with which one is left to wrestle… 😦

I would much enjoy approaching the issues from an angle in addition to that of mere abstract doctrinal principle, however, by critically examining the texts of various biblical passages themselves. This would appear to be a topic rather more suited for the Sacred Scripture sub-forum, though.

Charis kai eirene!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top