Tag Archives: textual criticism

Between Ehrman and Error

Posted on by Leave a comment

Recently on Blogging Theology I posted a video on the tenacity of the proposed ausgangstext which filled the lacuna of John 20:28. The vast majority of Muslims (expectedly) were enthusiastic about discussing the tenacity of Doubting Thomas’ alleged statement. The vast majority of Christians were not, which was also understandable. Then there were those caught in-between, educated enough to know that there had to be, or that there was more evidence behind what I had published, and there were others who were incredulous as to what that evidence could have been. Upon release of my second response video, I took a little more time, some 20 minutes and expanded on the rationale leading to the conclusions I mentioned in my first video on the topic.

Everyone knows about Dr. Ehrman’s famous statement, “copies of copies of copies of copies”. Yet the only two arguments I received in return were quite amusing. The first of which was that some people were curious as to whether Dr. Ehrman had commented on this passage or not. For some reason I have yet to discover, some Muslims’ hold on simple textual criticism of the New Testament is limited to only what Dr. Ehrman says, yet at the same time they are fully willing to simultaneously argue against his famous aforementioned quote. I duly provided a list of scholarship that not only knew of the work I gained the reference from John 20:28 on, I also provided the name of a seminary which uses the work itself, while also foregoing to mention that the scholar in question has been cited by Dr. Ehrman himself – one of the Muslims who opposed me in those comments had perhaps not yet read Dr. Ehrman’s references to this scholar (and his conclusions).

Nonetheless, the second argument I received was that no other variant of John 20:28 existed post p66, although I did point out that this was the case in Codex Bezae, as minor of a variant as it is, the challenge that not one variant exists has thoroughly been debunked (for those unread, the manuscript was eventually edited by a scribe).

bezae1

Following from this ignorant argument, was the case that since we know what every text post p66 said, then we must know what p66 itself said. This again, coming from those who agree with Dr. Ehrman’s aforementioned statement. We are therefore left with the following problem. Hence the title, Between Ehrman and Error. We have the following from the gracious Dr. Ehrman (emphasis mine own):

My point has always been (for example, in Misquoting Jesus) that we can’t know with absolute complete certainty what was said in each and every passage of the NT. That point – which I think cannot be refuted – is principally directed against fundamentalists who want to claim that every word of the Bible is inspired by God. How can we say the words were inspired if we don’t know in a lot of cases what the words were??? – Source.

I don’t think there’s an easy answer to these questions.  But they shouldn’t be ignored, as they ALWAYS are (in my experience) by people who want to assure us that we “know the original text in 99% of all cases.”   Really?   Which original?

If it were just up to me, I would say that the “original” is the first form of the text that was placed in circulation.  But since that in fact is not the oldest form of the text, maybe we shouldn’t call it the original. – Source.

One very interesting piece of evidence for this view involves a fact that is not widely known outside the ranks of the professional textual critics.  It is this:  new papyri manuscripts – relatively very old ones – do show up all the time (several in the past few years).  Whenever a new papyrus turns up, it almost NEVER contains a textual variant that is completely new.  The variants are almost always variants that we know about from our later manuscripts.  This shows, the argument goes, that variants were not created later.  Our later manuscripts preserved variants, they didn’t create them.  And this shows, it is argued, that all of the earlier variants are to be found even in the later manuscripts.

This is a terrific argument, and very interesting.  On the surface, it seems pretty convincing.  But in fact, in my view, it does not actually show that we have the original reading or that we can know that we do.  I will explain why in the next post. – Source.

I don’t think our New Testaments are likely ever to change much.  And I don’t think we know in a lot of places what the originals said.  Where’s the contradiction?  I’m not saying that we *know* that we have the original text in 99.9% of the passages of the NT.  I’m saying we *don’t* know – for a wide variety of reasons that I haven’t gotten into very much here.   But I’m emphasizing the word “know.”  We simply don’t know.

Do I *suspect* that most of the time we are pretty close or even there?  Yes, that would be my guess.  But it’s just a guess based on scholarly assumption and suspicion. – Source.

During those 300 years, Mark was being copied, and recopied, and recopied, by scribes.  Until we get our first full copy.  Can we know that this copy from 300 years later was 99% like the version that came directly from the pen of the author?  Of course we can’t know.  How would we know? – Source.

Between Ehrman and Error. It’s really as simple as that. Dr. Ehrman used the word “guess”, I used the word “guesswork”. Dr. Ehrman used the word “suspicion”, I used the word “speculation”. Dr. Ehrman repeatedly points out that we cannot know what the original text said. He repeatedly points out that most variant units are decided on guesses and suspicion. So the question begs itself, how far are the conclusions in my video, different from that of Dr. Ehrman’s himself?

The problem presents itself, as he described regarding Mark, we don’t know what version of what copy we received. Given that basic, common sense principle, extend that to John 20:28, given that p66 is our earliest and we have no intermediate text (that is, the text between what the original author(s) wrote and the text of p66 itself), and that it has a lacuna or gap for the famous, “and my God” – then there is no way of certainty of knowing what p66 itself said or what the intermediate text(s) said, what the archetypal text said, or what the autographic text said. To require that we must need a variant before being able to dispute what a missing text says, is essentially self-refuting, the gap itself presents us with a problem, we don’t know what it said and we don’t know if any of the intermediate texts said something variable. We simply cannot know, just as Dr. Ehrman says.

So between Ehrman and Error, I agree with him, we cannot know, it involves guessing and suspicion. Those who disagree, disagree with the very goodly Dr. they appealed to in the first place and are as such, in error.

and Allah knows best.

Ijaz Responds to James White’s Video on Textual Criticism

Posted on by One comment

Here is my response to Dr. White’s criticism of my video on the unreliability of the Bible. Of note are incorrect claims made on his part, conflating my statement of lacunae with his misrepresenting that statement as a ‘textual variant’ for over 40 minutes. Also his facetious and incredulous disregard for the science of higher criticism which he labeled as ‘mind reading’, along with citing or basing his arguments on misdatings of both p52 and p66.

There were a lot more errors on his end, and there was not a single rebuttal to the claims I presented and I was extremely disappointed to see negative comments about my character throughout his video despite both at the beginning and at the end of his video he said that this behaviour should not be condoned.

The Problem of Luke 23:34

Posted on by 6 comments

Introduction

Luke 23:34 is perhaps one of the most interesting verses in the New Testament narrative of Jesus, the son of Mary’s alleged crucifixion. It reads as follows[1]:

Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”[c] And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.

Our interest is primarily focused upon the prayer[2] of Jesus. The questions which are being asked are, why is Jesus praying for these men’s forgiveness? What purpose does it convey? What does it achieve? These questions need to be asked, as Jesus’ prayer in this case, occurs before his eventual death on the cross which is supposed to have ushered in a new covenant with God, a new doctrine of salvation. His death and resurrection which establishes itself as the pillar upholding the veracity and validity of the Christian faith as declared by Paul of Tarsus:

And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.[3]

Summarily, we are seeking to establish the reasoning for this prayer of forgiveness, in regard to its timing of the slaying of the lamb[4] for the forgiveness of the sins of the world[5], inclusive of those of the Jews and Romans who were no doubt instrumental in the events leading to the crucifixion event.

New Testament Textual Criticism of Luke 23:34

It would be inane to discuss the consequences of the verse in question at length, before establishing its place in the New Testament canon. Most would be unaware that this verse’s place in the canon is one of disputation and doubt. It would be of note to mention that the verse is recorded in the following versions of the English Print Editions of the New Testament [6]:

  • New International Version
  • New Living Translation
  • English Standard Version
  • New American Standard Bible
  • King James Bible
  • Holman Christian Standard Bible
  • International Standard Version
  • NET Bible
  • Aramaic Bible in Plain English
  • GOD’S WORD® Translation
  • Jubilee Bible 2000
  • King James 2000 Bible
  • American King James Version
  • American Standard Version
  • Douay-Rheims Bible
  • Darby Bible Translation
  • English Revised Version
  • Webster’s Bible Translation
  • Weymouth New Testament
  • World English Bible
  • Young’s Literal Translation

It had become necessary to list the instances of its presence in the English translations, as it is the language in which this article is being written. It was also necessary, so as to demonstrate its undoubted and frequent presence in the most accessible New Testament print editions in the English language. A noted citation in the NIV[7] translation reads as follows:

c. Luke 23:34 Some early manuscripts do not have this sentence.

Its presence in most translations is due to the verse’s presence in the modern critical editions of the Greek New Testament. As of this writing, it remains in the critical editions as is demonstrated by the Nestle-Aland 28th Greek New Testament[8]:

ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἔλεγεν· πάτερ, ἄφες αὐτοῖς, οὐ γὰρ οἴδασιν τί ποιοῦσιν. διαμεριζόμενοι δὲ τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ ἔβαλον κλήρους.

Codex Aleph  (א- Sinaiticus) does contain this verse[9], although atleast one of its suggested scribes or editors is thought to have edited or corrected the verse in question[10]. However Codices B (Vaticanus) and D (Bezae) do not contain this verse[11], thus explaining the citation in the NIV translation. At the time of this writing, I do not have access to the apparatus of the Nestle Aland 28th Edition Greek New Testament, therefore I was unable to attain the reasons or sources it outlines for the inclusion of the verse. However, in reading the erudite work of Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman, we note that it states the following in regard to its intentional omission in other codices[12]:

…an omission that makes particular sense if Jesus is understood to be asking God to forgive the Jews responsible for his crucifixion.

Their understanding of the omission is in the context of Jewish-Christian relations, more specifically, anti-Jewish Christian scribes within the first centuries of Christianity and the consequential promulgation of their views in Christian literature. The omission was meant to remove the view that Jesus the Christ had prayed for the forgiveness of the Jews for their role in his crucifixion[13]. There is also a Textual Critical maxim, which reads as follows: “lectio difficilior potior” – the more difficult/nonsensical reading is more evidential. Given that their is a possibility of intentional omission, then their is great possibility it was included in the earlier copies of the Gospel.

Having explored its place in the canon and the evidences for its inclusion, there is now no doubt that at the time of this writing, New Testament Textual Critics adhere to its inclusion despite its omission from two important early sources.

The Prayer in Light of the New Covenant & its Soteriological Plan

The traditional Christian soteriological belief in this doctrine of salvation by the Christ’s crucifixion can be understood in the following quote[14]:

Christ upon the cross, is gracious like Christ upon the throne. Though he was in the greatest struggle and agony, yet he had pity for a poor penitent. By this act of grace we are to understand that Jesus Christ died to open the kingdom of heaven to all penitent, obedient believers.

With his sacrifice, the gates of heaven were opened to the world[15]. The Gospel accounts inform us that Jesus the Christ a priori knew that he had to be crucified, we read:

And he said, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.”[16]

The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed. But woe to that man who betrays him!”[17]

‘The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ ”[18]

The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.”[19]

Since it is established in the narrative, as ascertained from the verses listed previously that his eventual crucifixion and death would lead to the payment of the sins of the world, then it is a strange occurrence that the Christ would pray for someone’s forgiveness. If he knew his death was imminent and with that, forgiveness would be brought upon the world, why would he beseech the Father for the forgiveness of others? Perhaps an analogy can demonstrate the peculiarity and absurdity of this event. It is as if I had a letter in my possession. Knowing that I’m about to use a photocopying machine to duplicate that letter, just before I use the photocopier, I choose to handwrite the letter on a sheet of blank paper and then photocopy the original letter. It’s redundant, anachronistic, futile. Jesus undoubtedly knows that the entire world, inclusive of those men before him; that he is about to pay for their sins, yet he prays to the Father just before his death that their sins should be forgiven. Regardless of someone’s theological, philosophical or personal views, the oddity of this occurrence is striking.

Such an understanding is noted by the exegete Matthew Henry, for he states[20]:

As soon as Christ was fastened to the cross, he prayed for those who crucified him. The great thing he died to purchase and procure for us, is the forgiveness of sin.

In essence, he prayed for the same thing that his death would achieve. Some might postulate that this is a sign of Jesus’ mercy and love for mankind, as is held by Stier et al; we read from the Pulpit Commentary the following[21]:

Then, as always, thinking of others, he utters this prayer, uttering it, too, as Stier well observes, with the same consciousness which had been formerly expressed, “Father, I know that thou hearest me always.” “His intercession has this for its ground, though in meekness it is not expressed: ‘Father, I will that thou forgive them.”

While such an apologetic exegesis would placate some, I do not find it to be sensible. For, if Jesus the Christ, who is also the Son; a deity capable of forgiving sin as is claimed from Luke 7:48[22], then why did the Son simply not forgive the sins of the world, or the sins of the Roman and Jewish persecutors? He clearly had the ability to do so, the authority to do so, so why would the Son choose not to do this? Instead, the Son as we are led to believe, chooses to beseech the Father! This prayer therefore leads to an even greater problem, (it implies) subordination and hierarchy within the Trinitarian dogma. Beliefs tantamount to heresy when tested against the proto-orthodoxical Nicaean creed[23], which establishes the Son as co-equal to God[24]:

Such is the genuine doctrine of Arius. Using Greek terms, it denies that the Son is of one essence, nature, or substance with God; He is not consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, or within the real sphere of Deity.

Jesus the Christ, otherwise known to Christendom as the Son, had the ability to forgive sins, he did not need to request that the Father do this. If he prayed out of love, mercy, grace and compassion for the forgiveness of the sins of the Roman and Jewish persecutors, then why did he not use this love, mercy and grace to absolve them of their sins? He is in essence, praying for something he could already grant them, therefore this excuse is redundant and unremarkable, in clear contradiction of this fanciful idea of proposed love, mercy, grace and compassion.

Did They Need to be Forgiven?

Whether the prayer was uttered in reference to the Jews, the Romans, or some combination of those peoples; did they need to be forgiven? Forgiving them would readily imply that their actions were sinful, criminal, morally wrong. However as we are well aware, and as I have previously stated, the sacrificing of a sacrificial lamb is the purpose[25] of Christ’s earthly mission. This prayer for forgiveness would then have us believe that the sacrifice was morally wrong according to Jesus himself! The significance of such a prayer is now very telling, it is detrimental to the sacrificial imagery steadily enforced throughout the New Testament and as referenced previously[26]. Christians do not believe that Christ’s sacrifice was sinful or wrong, it is the very foundation of their faith as we had read from the Apostle Paul[27]!

We are at an unfortunate dilemma, Christ’s prayer now seems to be undermining the very pillars of proto-orthodox Christian belief. If it was God’s will that the world be saved from their sins by the hands of the Romans and Jews, then it is absurd that we should consider the persons responsible for the crucifixion as sinful individuals. Rather, if the Christian world is to be consistent with their beliefs, these men should be celebrated, just as the cross is celebrated. However, if it is the case that Jesus considered his persecutors that led to his crucifixion as criminals, as murderers, then the possibility of Jesus’ death being labeled as a crime and an injustice done to him is significantly more appropriate and honest. Such a view would be in blatant violation of the Christian world view on salvation. Perhaps what is more troubling is the position of those who perform the Passover sacrifice, we read the following[28]:

“Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.”

If Jesus the Christ is to be considered the sacrificial lamb, then those who perform the sacrifice for Passover have been atoned of their sins as is clearly stipulated in the Pentateuch[29]:

For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.

If we are to believe that Luke 23:34 is in relation to the Jews, then Jesus’ prayer of forgiveness for them is troubling, for it would then imply that the very God of the Jews, did not know that the sacrificing of the Passover lamb was not a crime, but an act of atonement for the Jews.

Conclusion

There are very few cases in which we can understand the purpose of this prayer. One scenario is that Jesus did not expect his death to open the gates of forgiveness and that he did not have the ability to forgive sins by his own will and authority, therefore his prayer to God was one in sincerity. However, if he did know that his eventual death would lead to the world’s forgiveness and that he had the ability to forgive sins without any sacrifice, then his prayer to God seems out of place and problematic to the narrative, rendering his prayer to be completely redundant and meaningless.

Another case in which we can perhaps derive some closure on the issue, is that if Jesus was in fact the sacrificial Passover lamb, then his prayer for forgiveness for the Jews, would mean that he either did not know the laws of the Pentateuch, or that he did not consider himself to be a sacrificial Passover lamb; the latter belief would then render Paul a liar and would cause the Christian faith to be false as per his declaration in 1 Corinthians 15:14.  The former argument would then have us believe that Jesus could not be a deity as he is ignorant of the very law which he would have instructed the Jews himself.

Whichever way the prayer is examined, as I have aptly demonstrated it is of grave detriment to the Christian faith and without a doubt its place in the Biblical canon is of service to those who which to prove that Jesus the Son of Mary, is not and has never been a deity.

and Allaah knows best.

Sources (APA Style):

[1] –  Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. (2011). Luke 23:34. Retrieved from http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2023&version=NIV

[2] – Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible by Matthew Henry. (2003). Luke 23:34. Retrieved from http://biblehub.com/commentaries/mhc/luke/23.htm

[3] – Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. (2011). 1 Corinthians 15:14. Retrieved from http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+15%3A14&version=NIV

[4] – Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. (2011). Revelation 5:12. Retrieved from http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+5%3A12&version=NIV

[5] – Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. (2011). John 3:16. Retrieved
from http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3%3A16&version=NIV

[6] – Bible Hub’s Parallel Verses. (2014). Luke 23:34. Retrieved from http://biblehub.com/luke/23-34.htm

[7] – See: [1]

Note: The Pulpit Commentary, Ibid, relates the same conclusion as I have written:

” These words are missing in some of the oldest authorities. They are found, however, in the majority of the most ancient manuscripts and in the most trustworthy of the old versions, and are undoubtedly genuine.”

[8] – Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece. (2013). Luke 23:34. Retrieved
from http://www.nestle-aland.com/en/read-na28-online/text/bibeltext/lesen/stelle/52/230001/239999/

[9] – Codex Sinaiticus. (2009). Luke 23:34. Retrieved
from  http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=35&chapter=23&lid=en&side=r&verse=34&zoomSlider=0

[10] – Ibid. See the transcription notes, Editor cb2.

[11] – Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. (1891). Luke 23:34. Retrieved from http://biblehub.com/commentaries/cambridge/luke/23.htm

[12] – Ehrman, B., & Metzger, B. (Eds.). (2005). The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration (4th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

[13] – Ibid.

[14] – See: [2]

[15] – See: [5]

[16] – Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. (2011). Luke 9:22. Retrieved
from http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+9%3A22&version=NIV

[17] – Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. (2011). Luke 22:22. Retrieved
from http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+22%3A22&version=NIV

[18] – Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. (2011). Luke 24:7. Retrieved
from http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+24%3A7&version=NIV

[19] – Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. (2011). Matthew 26:24. Retrieved
from http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+26%3A24&version=NIV

[20] – See: [2]

[21] – The Pulpit Commentary. (2010). Luke 23:34. Retrieved from http://biblehub.com/commentaries/pulpit/luke/23.htm

[22] – Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. (2011). Luke 7:48. Retrieved
from http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke+7%3A48&version=NIV

[23] – The Nicaean Creed. (n.d.). The Nicaean Creed. Retrieved from http://www.creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm

[24] – Barry, W. (1907). Arianism. The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved June 11, 2014 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm

[25] – See: [16], [17], [18], [19]

[26] – See: [4]

[27] – See: [3]

[28] – Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. (2011). 1 Corinthians 5:7. Retrieved
from http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:7&version=NIV

[29] – Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. (2011). Leviticus 17:11. Retrieved
from http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2017:11&version=NIV

 

Christians Naturally Distrust and Disbelieve in the New Testament

Posted on by 2 comments

There’s a problem with the New Testament, and every conservative Christian scholar, including the likes of Daniel B. Wallace, James White to the Liberals such as Dr. Crossan have implicitly conceded to their distrust of the New Testament text. Let’s first list a few facts to establish the foundation for our case:

  • The Council of Nicea was held in 325 CE.
  • The oldest editions of the New Testament in their most complete forms date between 350 – 450 CE (Codices Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus and Ephraemi Rescriptus).
  • The Councils of Carthage in 393 and 397 CE affirmed the Christian canon of the New Testament.

The Argument

If Christians are satisfied that the ‘true’ and ‘original’ text of the New Testament was in circulation at the time of the Council of Nicea, and accept that the New Testament books were used before, during and after the Council to affirm the Athansian Creed of the Hypostatic Union, versus that of the Arian Creed, and also accept that in 367 CE Athansius affirmed these texts, and also agree that in 393 and 397 CE the Patristics (Early Church Fathers) agreed that the New Testament in circulation was the ‘true’ and ‘original’ scripture, then why do Christians seek manuscripts before the Councils of Nicea and Carthage to ‘validate the text of the New Testament’?

What am I saying? I’m saying –

We have New Testament codices from the 4th century. In the 4th century, three important Ecumenical councils utilized the New Testament canon and since it was used during the Council of Nicea, then Christians should be statisfied with the New Testament codices of the 4th century. Since they are not satisfied and constantly seeking to rediscover the ‘original’ (authograph) manuscripts from the time of the presbyters and apostles, then they are acknowledging their distrust in the New Testament which existed at the time of the 4th century – the same New Testament we essentially have today. That being the same New Testament canon and codex that Christians today call scripture.

The Problem

If the Christians accept the canon of the New Testament during the 4th century and believe as they do today in the New Testament we currently have – largely based on 4th century codices, then they should not seek a New Testament before the 4th century, as that would by and large mean that the Church Fathers affirmed the wrong canon, they affirmed false books, invented books, incorrectly attributed books to the apostles as being scripture, moreso their use of it during their debates against each other would mean that the evidences used to establish proto-Orthodox Christian doctrine are false, therefore meaning the beliefs and scripture of contemporary Christians is false.

Apologetic Use of this Argument

We now no longer need to invest our time in approaching Christians to discuss their New Testament. The very fact that they are zealously attempting to rediscover the original text, when they already have the texts ratified, verified and authenticated by the Church Fathers, the same text the Church Fathers used to defend current orthodox Christian beliefs – demonstrates that Christians have based their beliefs on foundations they themselves do not trust. Therefore, in terms of polemics and apologetics, the Christians who claim to understand Textual Criticism and adamantly preach about any New Testament manuscript before the 4th century has demonstrated to the Muslim that he is unsatisfied with the New Testament and the beliefs based on it.

This would mean, in simple terms – there is no reason to argue or debate about the New Testament text, when we can simply agree with the Christians in their search for an earlier than 4th century text. We should simple shake their hands and say, “thank you for giving us reasons to doubt your scripture and your beliefs about God”.

Conclusion

If the Church fathers used the wrong New Testament text, and based their beliefs (which they quoted heavily) on the New Testament of the 4th century, then undoubtedly the religion of Christianity has collapsed due to their own search for any New Testament document/ manuscript before the 4th century CE.

Some Comments on James White and Adnan Rashid’s Debate

Posted on by 8 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

I was taken aback by some of James White’s arguments in yesterday’s debate with Br. Adnan Rashid, however I was pleased with the simplicity of his presentation. The topic being debated was, “Was the Qur’an or the Bible Reliably Transmitted? ” and what a show it was. James’ presentation was rather straight forward, to the point and predictable. Admittedly, he’s a seasoned orator which would impress the lay Christian, but as a person who studies the Christian scriptures and their textual history, I felt nothing but shame for James White. His arguments were borderline facetious, if not absurd and really demonstrated a lack of honesty on his part. I’m not sure if he would be willing to defend his statements, but many of his comments were dishonest to say the least. Let’s examine his main point:

  • An Uncontrolled Text is Superior to a Controlled Text.

James’ reasoning, revolved around the idea that if multiple people, at multiple places, at multiple times wrote a documents which ‘largely agreed’ with one another, the autograph would be more preserved and thus rendering the text, ‘reliably transmitted’. This view is largely held by neo-inerrantist Christian scholars such as Maurice Robinson, William Pierpont, Zane Hodges and Aruthur Farstad. There view can be summed up in this excerpt:

“from a transmissional standpoint, a single Textform would be expected to predominate among the vast majority of manuscripts in the absence of radical and well-documented upheavals in the manuscript tradition.” – Maurice Robinson, “The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine/Majority Textform”, Preface to the 2nd Ed.

It must be understood however, that this understanding is not due to the science of textual criticism, but based on faith that God preserved the Bible, see Dr. B. Metzger and B. Ehrman, ‘The Text of the NT: It’s Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, 4th Ed, pg 219, Citation #29. Therefore James’ position is not based on sound research and study, which he alluded to, but based upon dogmas. It is with this in mind that I’d like to contest his view of preservation through ‘uncontrolled copying‘, by providing a simple example:

  • Scribe writes epistle.
  • Some time passes.
  • Later scribe copies epistle (emendations/ interpolations occur).
  • Some time passes.
  • Another scribe copies the mistakes of the previous scribe and adds mistakes of his own.
  • At this point the original epistle is lost and the autographs of the two later scribes are preserved.

The question we’d have to ask James, is which manuscript autograph would he give precedence to? Would his criteria be based upon dating or level of variance after comparison with his current New Testament codex? If it’s a combination of both, then what would be common to both manuscripts would be the errors of the first copyist and the recopied errors by the second copyist, thus leaving us with something vastly variant to the original:

In some cases the evidence will be found to be so evenly divided that it is extremely difficult to decide between two variant readings. – Dr. B. Metzger and B. Ehrman, ‘The Text of the NT: It’s Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, 4th Ed, Preface XV.

Occasionally, none of the variant readings will commend itself as original, and one will be compelled either to choose the reading that is judged to be the least unsatisfactory or to indulge in conjectural emendation. – Dr. B. Metzger and B. Ehrman, ‘The Text of the NT: It’s Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, 4th Ed, pg 343.

However, let’s say that we oppose James’ view and we examine a controlled text.

  • A Controlled Text is Superior to an Uncontrolled Text.

What if the original scribe oversaw the copying of his manuscript, and left instructions that any copy henceforth would have to be double checked with his manuscript. That’s a level of control that at the minimum preserves the text by one generation. If this method is continued, essentially all generations of copyists would be able to preserve the original scribe’s works. This is essentially what the Ijaza is in Islam. A person is given the authority to transmit knowledge/ data, because they have achieved a level of approval according to the one who has received authority from one with authority to transmit the knowledge/ data. We know that later Christianity adopted controlled textual transmission, because it better preserved the texts:

It is a striking feature of our textual record that the earliest copies we have of the various books that became the New Testament vary from one another far more widely than do the later copies, which were made under more controlled circumstances in the Middle Ages. – Dr. B. Metzger and B. Ehrman, ‘The Text of the NT: It’s Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, 4th Ed, pg 275.

The vast majority of Christian texts which have survived are from the Middle Ages:

Furthermore, the work of many ancient authors has been preserved only in manuscripts that date from the Middle Ages (sometimes the late Middle Ages), far removed from the time at which they lived and wrote. – Dr. B. Metzger and B. Ehrman, ‘The Text of the NT: It’s Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, 4th Ed, pg 275.

The end of the twentieth century saw a resurgence of interest in the Byzantine text type among those who believe that the original text is best preserved in the vast majority of witnesses produced in the Middle Ages.’ – Dr. B. Metzger and B. Ehrman, ‘The Text of the NT: It’s Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, 4th Ed, pg 218.

Therefore the correlation being that texts which are controlled, have been vastly more preserved as opposed to the earlier uncontrolled texts of which are sparse and often vastly variant with one another:

Complaints about the adulteration of texts are fairly frequent in early Christian literature. Christian texts, scriptural and nonscriptural, were no more immune than others from vicissitudes of unregulated transmission in handwritten copies. In some respects they were more vulnerable than ordinary texts, and not merely because Christian communities could not always command the most competent scribes. Although Christian writings generally aimed to express not individual viewpoints but the shared convictions and values of a group, members of the group who acted as editors and copyists must often have revised texts in accordance with their own perceptions. This temptation was stronger in connection with religious or philosophical texts than with others simply because more was at stake. A great deal of early Christian literature was composed for the purpose of advancing a particular viewpoint amid the conflicts of ideas and practices that repeatedly arose within and between Christian communities, and even documents that were not polemically conceived might nevertheless be polemically used. Any text was liable to emendation in the interest of making it more pointedly serviceable in a situation of theological controversy. – H. Y. Gamble, Books And Readers In The Early Church: A History Of Early Christian Texts, 1995, Yale University Press: New Haven & London, pp. 123-124.

It is with the above being said, I must thereby conclude that James White’s position in his debate with Br. Adnan Rashid is unscholarly, deceptive, displays a significant level of ignorance of the history and the science of textual criticism and is nothing short but a disgrace to the field of academia. I pray that God guides James White to admitting his erroneous position and that he corrects himself, sooner rather than later.

wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

Recent Entries »