The Life Foundations
Nexus
WE HAVE THE
DOCTRINES, THE TEXT DOESN’T MATTER?
By Dr. Michael J. Bisconti
WE HAVE EDITED OUT THE NAME OF THE UNIVERSITY
PREVIOUSLY REFERENCED IN THIS ARTICLE BECAUSE THE ENEMIES OF THE FAITH HAVE
STARTED USING THEIR NAME TO OPPOSE THE FAITH.
Before we begin, we want it to be clear
to everyone that we are advocates of and, more important, PROVERS (yes, that’s
a real word), of the accuracy of what <University Name Edited Out> refers
to as the “Middle Ages” family of New Testament Greek manuscripts. This family includes the Textus Receptus and
the Byzantine Majority Text. Also, we
want to make it clear that there are many others besides <University Name
Edited Out> who hold to the “we have the doctrines, the text doesn’t matter”
position.
The purpose of this paper is NOT to detract from
<University Name Edited Out> but to detract…and destroy…the “we have the
doctrines, the text doesn’t matter” heresy.
We wish <University Name Edited Out> all the best. We have informed them of their error and
hope and pray that they will change their position.
<University Name
Edited Out> teaches the truths of God contained in the Word of God, the King
James Version of the Bible…on that we agree.
On SOME of the following we do NOT agree. The following passage is taken from Position
of the Bible Department of <University Name Edited Out> on the Scripture
- LINK DEACTIVATED [<University Name Edited Out> Bible Department -
<Author’s Name Edited Out>, <Author’s Name Edited Out>]. Those statements with which we do NOT agree
are underlined.
Because (1) the
Alexandrian manuscripts are much older and closer to the time the originals
were written, (2) a careful comparison of these manuscripts with those of the
Middle Ages has convinced us that a more accurate and careful job of copying
was done by the Alexandrian scribes, and (3) Erasmus had to work in haste and
with limited resources, it is our conviction that these Alexandrian
manuscripts, which were not known to Erasmus, are, as a rule, the more
accurate manuscripts to follow. Therefore, along with the great majority
of conservative scholars, we believe that the text based upon the Alexandrian
manuscripts is, as a whole, superior to the text based upon manuscripts of the
Middle Ages.
The portion of the New
Testament that has any substantial variation between the various manuscripts is
only about one word in a thousand. These variations in no way change the
teaching of the New Testament on any doctrine. Therefore, we consider this
not an issue of modernism versus conservatism but a matter of individual
judgment on the part of Fundamental Christians. Christians should be free to
choose and use either of these texts and still work together in harmony to
teach and preach the Word of God to those who are without it.
REFUTATION OF <UNIVERSITY NAME EDITED
OUT> POSITION STATEMENTS
We have extracted the
relevant position statements.
(Note: in case you don’t know,
square brackets, “[ ],” inserted in quoted material mean that the words contained
between those brackets were inserted by the person quoting the material, in
this case us. Such insertions are for
the purpose of clarifying the meaning of quoted material when the
written/spoken context is NOT provided with the material, as below.
MORE ACCURACY
1.
“these Alexandrian
manuscripts…are, as a rule, the more accurate manuscripts to follow”
Frankly, we are
flabbergasted (overwhelmed with shock) with <UNIVERSITY NAME EDITED
OUT>’s position. Note that in order
to refute this position we must address the 3 arguments proffered (offered for
acceptance) above.
(1) “the Alexandrian
manuscripts are much older and closer to the time the originals were written”
The “oldness” of a manuscript
is simply the explanation of the “closerness” to the time of the
originals. It is not an argument for
their “more accuracy” position. Their
use of the word “older” may be for the purpose of seeming to strengthen
their argument. On the other hand, they
may simply have gotten into the habit of quoting other writers/speakers without
ever having closely analyzed the statements they were quoting. What we are left with is:
“the Alexandrian
manuscripts are much closer to the time the originals were written”
You know, I once wrote a
short story about travelling to the moon when I was 10 years old. I lent a copy of the story to a boyhood
friend of mine named Sam. He made a
copy. 40 years later, Sam and I got
together at my home. He had become a doctor. For the fun of it, he had brought the copy
of my story he had made when I was 10 and told me an interesting story (keep in
mind that Sam’s mother had known that we were best friends):
Mike, when you loaned me
your story about travelling to the moon, my mother saw it and thought it was
cute; so she made a handwritten copy of it to put in a book of
remembrances. Twenty years later the
copy was fading; so she made another handwritten copy. Here is my copy and here is my mother’s copy
of the copy of your story.
Since we were at my home
and I save everything (in a mile of filing cabinets), I went to extract my
original writing (saved by my mother, etc., etc.) from “filing cabinet
‘Ch,’” where under “Childhood Remembrances” I found my original.
I compared all three
copies. Guess what (you probably see
what’s coming)?
My original story matched
perfectly with Sam’s mother’s copy of the copy of my story. Sam’s copy of my story, on the other hand,
did not.
IN OTHER WORDS, A LATER
MANUSCRIPT WAS MORE ACCURATE THAN AN EARLIER MANUSCRIPT.
What does this
prove? It proves that the following
postulate is FALSE:
A manuscript much closer
to the time the original was written is ALWAYS more accurate.
This means that the
CLOSENESS OF A MANUSCRIPT TO THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL PROVES NOTHING WITH
REGARD TO WHICH OF TWO MANUSCRIPT COPIES, AN OLD ONE AND A MORE RECENT ONE, IS
MORE ACCURATE. Thus, we have proven
that <UNIVERSITY NAME EDITED OUT>’s statement “the Alexandrian
manuscripts are much closer to the time the originals were written” PROVES
NOTHING AND IS IRRELEVANT.
Taken together with
everything we have stated above, this means that argument (1), “the Alexandrian
manuscripts are much older and closer to the time the originals were written” PROVES
NOTHING AND IS IRRELEVANT.
Well, we still have two
more arguments to address. Now for
argument (2):
(2) “a careful comparison
of these manuscripts with those of the Middle Ages has convinced us that a more
accurate and careful job of copying was done by the Alexandrian scribes”
Note what must we do
here. Their argument has two parts, a
premise and a conclusion:
Here is their premise:
“a careful comparison of
these manuscripts with those of the Middle Ages has convinced us that”
Here is their conclusion:
“a more accurate and
careful job of copying was done by the Alexandrian scribes”
A conclusion is only true
if its premise is true (kindergarten logic followed by all). Therefore, if a premise is false its
(subsequent) conclusion is false. Therefore,
if <UNIVERSITY NAME EDITED OUT>’s premise is false, their conclusion is
false. We must simply show that their
premise is false. (The next statement
is abstruse [difficult to understand] but we will explain it in the following
statement.) In other words, we must
show that the premise that “a careful comparison of these manuscripts with
those of the Middle Ages has convinced us that” is false. Now, we must clarify their premise. Their premise is:
A careful comparison of
the Alexandrian manuscripts with those of the Middle Ages has convinced us.
WOW, DOES EVERYONE SEE
WHAT I SEE! THIS IS NOT A
PREMISE AT ALL! IT IS SIMPLY A REPORT
THAT <UNIVERSITY NAME EDITED OUT> DID SOMETHING AND THEN WAS CONVINCED OF
SOMETHING. They compared manuscripts and
(then) obtained some results and, then, were convinced of something. FURTHERMORE, NOTE THAT THEIR “CONVINCEDNESS”
(CONVICTION) IS ONLY A BELIEF, IT IS NOT PROOF. I REPEAT, “IT IS NOT PROOF!”
Now, we will be
supergenerous. We will assume that here
is what <UNIVERSITY NAME EDITED OUT> really meant to say:
We collected massive
amounts of statistical data on the Alexandrian manuscripts and the M.A.
manuscripts. Next we performed
multiple, sophisticated, computer-aided statistical analyses of this data…these
analyses proved that the Alexandrian manuscripts were more accurate than the
M.A. manuscripts.
NOW, IN ORDER FOR
<UNIVERSITY NAME EDITED OUT> TO COME TO A CONCLUSION THEY WOULD HAVE TO
HAVE HAD A “STANDARD OF ACCURACY” AND GUESS WHAT? THE ONLY POSSIBLE STANDARD OF ACCURACY IS ONE OF THE TWO FAMILIES
OF MANUSCRIPTS THEMSELVES, THE ALEXANDRIAN FAMILY OR THE M.A. FAMILY. I’m sure that most of you see the problem:
IN ORDER FOR
<UNIVERSITY NAME EDITED OUT> TO COME TO A CONCLUSION, THEY HAD TO ASSUME
THAT EITHER THE ALEXANDRIAN STREAM WAS THE “STANDARD OF ACCURACY” OR THAT THE
M.A. STREAM WAS THE “STANDARD OF ACCURACY.”
Since <UNIVERSITY NAME
EDITED OUT> did, indeed, come to a conclusion, they DID, INDEED, ASSUME
THAT ONE OF THE TEXTUAL FAMILIES WAS “THE STANDARD OF ACCURACY.” THEY:
ASSUMED THAT THE
ALEXANDRIAN FAMILY WAS THE “STANDARD OF ACCURACY.”
THIS
BRINGS DISREPUTE ON <UNIVERSITY NAME EDITED OUT> AND WE ARE NOT HAPPY
ABOUT THAT!
<UNIVERSITY
PRESIDENT’S NAME EDITED OUT>, GET SOME EVEN SMARTER PEOPLE WORKING
FOR YOU!
Since they used an
assumption to arrive at their premise, their premise is an assumption.
We will now bring this
train of thought to its logical and inevitable conclusion:
The premise behind the
conclusion of the point under discussion has been shown to be AN
ASSUMPTION. THEREFORE, THE “OVERLYING”
CONCLUSION HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. (AN
ASSUMPTION NEVER PROVES ANYTHING [KINDERGARTEN LOGIC FOLLOWED BY ALL].)
Well, this leaves us with
one more argument to refute with regard to <UNIVERSITY NAME EDITED OUT>’s
“more accuracy” position. Here is
argument (3):
(3) Erasmus had to work
in haste and with limited resources
We will assume
that Erasmus did, indeed, have to work in haste and with limited
resources. But, for the record, note
the following:
First, Erasmus was a
genius. Therefore, he could accomplish
10 times more in the same period of time as another person. Second, there is no proof as to when Erasmus
started his work. Therefore, he may have
been preparing his text for a considerable period of time. Third, there is no proof as to the precise
nature of the resources at Erasmus’ disposal.
WE HAVE, THEREFORE, ALREADY DISPROVEN THIS ARGUMENT!
However, we want to give
<UNIVERSITY NAME EDITED OUT> their “Erasmus claim” SO WE CAN MAKE AN EVEN
STRONGER ARGUMENT AGAINST THEIR “ERASMUS CLAIM.” Very simply, the King James Bible
translators had A MULTITUDE OF
SOURCES (AND RESOURCES) besides the text of Erasmus.
WE MUST PAUSE…FOR WE ARE AGAIN
FLABBERGASTED! HOW COULD <UNIVERSITY
NAME EDITED OUT> HAVE DEMONSTRATED SUCH INFERIOR SCHOLARSHIP?!
ACTUALLY, WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. <UNIVERSITY NAME EDITED OUT> FELL
VICTIM TO THE “OJBECTIVITY DOCTRINE.”
THE OBJECTIVITY DOCTRINE SAYS THAT YOU MUST NOT ALLOW “EXTERNAL” MATTERS
INTERFERE IN ANY INVESTIGATION. AND
THAT IS WHAT <UNIVERSITY NAME EDITED OUT> DID. THEY DID NOT LET ANY “EXTERNAL” MATTERS INTERFERE WITH THEIR
INVESTIGATION.
THE PROBLEM IS:
THEY SET THEIR INTERNAL/EXTERNAL
BOUNDARY IN THE WRONG PLACE. THEY
EXCLUDED ANCIENT EVIDENCE FROM A MILLION OTHER SOURCES.
NOW, THE <UNIVERSITY NAME EDITED
OUT> PEOPLE WERE GOOD “RULE FOLLOWERS” – THEY FOLLOWED THE “DOCTRINE OF
OBJECTIVITY” – BUT THEY WERE NOT GOOD INVESTIGATORS!
Well, we have refuted the
3 arguments underlying <UNIVERSITY NAME EDITED OUT>’s “more accuracy”
position. ERGO (THEREFORE), THE “MORE ACCURACY”
POSITION IS FALSE AND, THUS, DISPROVEN.
TEXT SUPERIORITY
2.
“Therefore, along with
the great majority of conservative scholars, we believe that the text based
upon the Alexandrian manuscripts is, as a whole, superior to the text based
upon manuscripts of the Middle Ages.”
Well, this position
involves two elements:
A
Reference
“along with the great
majority of conservative scholars”
Our latest research shows
that the majority of conservative scholars do NOT believe their conclusion, stated
in the next subsection. However, if it
were true that the majority of scholars did believe their conclusion AND
WE EXCLUDED ALL OTHER AUTHORITIES, PROOFS, AND EVIDENCES, we could only
conclude that it was more likely than not that their conclusion was true. WE COULD NOT CONCLUDE WITH CERTAINTY
THAT THEIR CONCLUSION WAS TRUE. We
could not conclude with either reasonable certainty or documented certainty
that their conclusion was true. LEST WE
FORGET:
OUR LATEST RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THE
MAJORITY OF CONSERVATIVE SCHOLARS DO NOT BELIEVE THEIR CONCLUSION.
A
Conclusion
Their conclusion is:
“Therefore…we believe
that the text based upon the Alexandrian manuscripts is, as a whole, superior
to the text based upon manuscripts of the Middle Ages.”
This conclusion is based
on <UNIVERSITY NAME EDITED OUT>’s first position statement in our list of
their position statements. We have
disproven that position. Therefore,
this position is false. That is:
It is not true that “…the
text based upon the Alexandrian manuscripts is, as a whole, superior to the
text based upon manuscripts of the Middle Ages.”
Okay, two down, two more
to go.
NO ISSUE
3.
“this [is] not an
issue of modernism versus conservatism”
Modernism says “knowing
the precise words of Scripture in the original languages and in any translation
of the Scriptures doesn’t matter.” THIS
IS WHAT <UNIVERSITY NAME EDITED OUT> IS SAYING. <UNIVERSITY NAME EDITED OUT> HOLDS TO THIS TEACHING OF
MODERNISM. SO:
THIS IS AN ISSUE OF MODERNISM
VERSUS CONSERVATISM.
EITHER TEXT
4.
“Christians should be
free to choose and use either of these texts”
Obviously, since
<UNIVERSITY NAME EDITED OUT> doesn’t know if one or both textual families
are correct, they have no grounds for this statement. As far as <UNIVERSITY NAME EDITED OUT> is concerned, this
statement is true or false and they don’t know which. WE, HOWEVER, DO KNOW! See Scientific Biblical Studies.