Sola Scriptura vs Sola Ecclesia

[Itry]

Differences of opinion on authority issues have been long and deep on this board. The question is what or who is infallible and inerrant. I have titled the thread "Sola Scriptura vs Sola Ecclesia." To begin with, I should define what I mean by the terms.

SOLA SCRIPTURA
First, I am writing off the top of my head, nothing here is prepared. I know that there are people out there far better then me who can give statements in doctrine. I would invite others to google the old protestant statements of faith such as the Westminster, or the 1689 2nd LBC. If I mistate the doctrine, I am willing to take correction. Hopefully correction will come from authoritative sources in defining the doctrine.

For those who deny sola scriptura, I find that most attacks on the doctrine of sola scriptura are on the basis of misconceptions or misrepresentations of the doctrine. Here is my concise definition.

* Sola scriptura teaches---The bible, genesis to revelation, is the only infallible and inerrant source for doctrine and practice.
- This does not mean that the bible is the only source of truth. The bible does not tell us the speed of light. It does not tell us the exact number of books in the bible. Nor does it have to give us all truths. It makes the claim that it gives us sufficient truth (2Ti 3:17) That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.
- This does not mean there cannot be teachers and leaders. However it does mean that those teachers and leaders are not to be seen as infallible or inerrant. Some assemblies place less emphasis on teachers and leaders, some place greater emphasis on leaders, that is not the point. The point is that while we have teachers and leaders in some form, they are not infallible or inerrant.
- This doctrine also teaches that the apostles taught the infallible and inerrant word of God in oral fashion. However, since the apostles are dead, infallible oral teachings have ceased.
- This doctrine can still affirm tradition, but never infallible tradition. Traditions can still happen, but traditions are subject to the word of God.

* Sola Ecclesia--- The Church alone is the only source of infallible teaching and doctrine. This is the position of the Roman Catholic Church. They generally use terms like "sacred tradition." While the Bible is infallible in this doctrine, this teaching also claims that the Roman Catholic Church infallibly says what the scriptures mean. Of course then the final authority is not with the scriptures, but Rome. There are different kinds of theories on "sacred tradition." Some Roman Catholics have admitted development in doctrine and practice, others make the claim that all doctrine and practice goes back to the first century and Christ.

* Classic protestantism--- I will be using this term. By this term I am not referring to either liberal protestantism or any of the cults such as mormonism. Liberal protestantism is a completely different religion or world view. They do not view the scriptures as having every word and all of the scriptures as inerrant. Mormonism is much more like Roman Catholicism then protestantism in its source of authority. They have there own infallible people in Salt Lake City, not Rome. By the term Classic Protestantism I am referring to any denomination or group that agrees with sola scriptura.


Now to the comments of Elisa

What I will say here is what the Church teaches and what I believe with all my heart.

The typical person who believes in sola scriptura would say... "here is what the scriptures teach and what I believe."

The fullness of truth. And that comes only through Christ, His Church and His Holy Word.

The unspoken part here is that the Roman Catholic Church is the only infallible interpreter of his word. This is different from what classic protestants say of themselves. Classic protestants recognize that we are fallible as individual people, and fallible as a group. Now and only by diligence in paying close attention to the grammar of each passage of scripture, and comparing scripture with scripture can we arrive at a correct position on doctrine or practice.

The Holy Spirit can and does speak to all men. As the Holy Spirit did in the Old Testament, before Abraham and in the moral law written on the hearts of all men.

Romans 1:20 and 2:14: "Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. . . .For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law."

St. Faustina in the last century said that when Jesus appeared to her, He said that at the hour of death He appears to all men. (This is not public revelation, but private revelation and no Catholic has to believe this. But I do and the Church approves of it.) God is outside of time and space and a single moment can be like a thousand years to Him. If Jesus presents Himself to that individual in the moments between life and death and that person accepts Him, then they will be saved and no one may know they died a Christian.

The proposition here is stated in the first line. It is that the HS speaks to all men. This proposition is defended by quoting Romans 1:20 and Rom 2:14. The quoting of these text is completely non-sequitur. Let me deal with each text.

* Romans 1:20 speaks about General revelation in nature. Romans 1:20 does not even mention the Holy Spirit. Nature is a universal revelation of the attributes of God to everyone. We can see the glory of God in the far off distant stars. This revelation is not a special act of the HS whereby he wispers in each persons ear, it is just simply speaking of God revealing himself by his creative acts when the world began. It would be good to quote all of Romans 1:20 and not just the first part. This would show what this revelation in nature accomplishes for God.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:
The object of this revelation is so that all men will be without excuse. We cannot say we could not see God in nature, it was there all along, but mankind universally rejected this revelation. This can be seen from the context. Read the rest of Romans 1!
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness; Men do not accept this truth in nature, they hinder it, they subvert it, they put it down and hide it. The result of this revelation is not the speakings of the HS, but the condemnation of men.... "God gave them over."

* Romans 2:14 Rom 2:14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
This verse speaks of the extent of the depravity of sinful human nature. We are totally depraved in that sin nature affects all parts of our being... our emotions, our will, our motives. But this does not mean we are as sinful as we could possibly be. A pagan mother in deep dark heathenism still loves her children. Drug addicts can still rehabilitate themselves because somewhere deep down inside they know their lives are all messed up. There is a conscience still left in mankind. This is what verse 14 calls "do by nature then things of the law..." Verse 15 says that this is the "law of God written in the hearts."
This knowledge of good and evil will not spare mankind, but condemn mankind in the end.
Rom 2:16 in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ.
So then, this is not the secrete whisperings of the HS in some world wide special revelation (special revelation is what the OT prophets received in visions and dreams).

A point here---- In some ways this is a different issue. I maybe should have snipped it and discarded it from the discussion. The issue is that of authority. If only the Roman Catholic tradition is infallible, then what is this HS whisperings to all men worldwide? Is this a fallible whispering? I must admit I wonder what kind of fallible whispering the HS might make?




Now for a positive presentation of a correct view of the authority of the scriptures.
2Ti 3:16 Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.
The point of verse 16 is that the term "inspired" is found only with reference to the scriptures. Now when I use the term inspired, I am actually thinking of the greek term πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος. This term θεόπνευστος (inspired) never occrurs with reference to the Church. The Church is a teacher of the scriptures, but never an infallible or inspired teacher of the scriptures.

If at any time, I see the word θεόπνευστος with regard to the Church, I will admit error on my part concerning this doctrine. The Church is not inspired to infallibly teach doctrine. Please demonstrate this in the scriptures.

Itry

[Ian]

One major problem is that the author of 2 Timothy didn’t tell Timothy which scriptures are inspired. He didn’t even say that his own writings were inspired. And even if he had done, this would not be sufficient evidence to conclude that they were.

[Itry]

One major problem is that the author of 2 Timothy didn’t tell Timothy which scriptures are inspired.

Hello Ian, I would be happy to defend Christianity and the scriptures against whatever attacks you wish to pose. I hope we have a good conversation.

How do you read the verse when it says "All Scripture is inspired." in light of what they verse says, how do you say "which scriptures are inspired?"

He didn’t even say that his own writings were inspired.

Peter said Pauls writings were scripture. That should have been good enough, right?

And even if he had done, this would not be sufficient evidence to conclude that they were.

I never said self claims were sufficient. I recognize the existence of false prophets and false apostles, and they make self claims to speak for God and I do not consider them scripture or inspired.

Actually, since the NT is the only surviving record of the life and ministry of Jesus and the apostles from the 1st century, there are no competitors. The NT is the only written 1st century record that comes from Jesus teachings through the apostles. That alone qualifies it as a valid testimony of the words of Christ and his apostles.

[Ian]

No, Itry, I do not wish to attack Christianity at all. I just want Christians to stop bringing Christianity into disrepute by trying to base it on patently empty, unsupported assertions, expressed in uncompromisingly dogmatic language, and often backed up by argumentum ad hominem. That is like building a house upon the sand.

The first time you quoted 2 Tim 3:16 you rendered it, Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. The second time you quoted it you used the phrase, All Scripture is inspired. I think both of these are reasonable translations, but in neither case is it at all clear what writings are denoted by the word graphe, or by the word grammata in the previous verse. Since the previous verse refers to writings that Timothy had known from childhood, it probably did not refer to any of the New Testament. My best guess is that it refers to the Septuagint. I could not dismiss the possibility that it refers to a much wider range of pre-Christian writings, but I think it most unlikely that it refers to exactly the same books as you would regard as canonical.

You say, Peter said Pauls writings were scripture. That should have been good enough, right?

No, I’m afraid not. First, because most scholars think 2 Peter was not written by Peter the Apostle. Secondly, because the word he used, graphas, might just mean writings, not necessarily holy writ. The author valued Paul’s writings, as you and I do, but that is about as much as you can say about it.

You say, “The NT is the only written 1st century record that comes from Jesus teachings through the apostles. That alone qualifies it as a valid testimony of the words of Christ and his apostles.”

Well, quite a lot of it probably didn’t come through the apostles. Martin Luther, a better scholar than you or I, didn’t think so. All four gospels in the earliest manuscripts are anonymous. Nearly half of Paul’s epistles are of disputed authorship. A valid testimony? I would only say it is the best testimony we have. We just have to make the most of it, and not try to compensate for its dubious provenance by inventing stories about its authority. Let us at least be honest.

That said, I have a great love and respect for most of the Bible. Many of its passages speak to us with great power, and penetrate the human condition with amazing insight. I prefer to base my respect for it on its inherent worth, not on unsupported assertions.

[Itry]

No, Itry, I do not wish to attack Christianity at all. I just want Christians to stop bringing Christianity into disrepute by trying to base it on patently empty, unsupported assertions, expressed in uncompromisingly dogmatic language, and often backed up by argumentum ad hominem. That is like building a house upon the sand.

Where have I used ad hominems? If your referring to my comment that you are making an attack upon Christianity, I dont see how that is an ad-hom. The scriptures is the foundation for Christianity. I would naturally see an attack on the scriptures as an attack upon historic Christianity. I honestly do not understand how one can deny that the scriptures is the word of God, and claim to be Christian. Christianity is dogmatic about certain doctrines. Sola Scriptura is one of those doctrines. Can a Muslim attack the Koran and still be a Muslim? Can he say the Koran has false authorship, and is full of errors and still be a Muslim? Please show me this Muslim.

If I used ad hominems, what do you call expressions like "bringing Christianity into disrepute"... "patently empty" .... "unsupported assertions"
Yes, technically those are not ad-homs. At least not any more then what I said. A little hypocracy? Grasping at some pretended moral high ground? Do you really want to go there? Now back to the issues.

The first time you quoted 2 Tim 3:16 you rendered it, Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. The second time you quoted it you used the phrase, All Scripture is inspired. I think both of these are reasonable translations, but in neither case is it at all clear what writings are denoted by the word graphe, or by the word grammata in the previous verse. Since the previous verse refers to writings that Timothy had known from childhood, it probably did not refer to any of the New Testament. My best guess is that it refers to the Septuagint. I could not dismiss the possibility that it refers to a much wider range of pre-Christian writings, but I think it most unlikely that it refers to exactly the same books as you would regard as canonical.

Two points....
* You make the assumption that the LXX that is circulated in printed published form today is the same things as what the ancients had. The ancient LXX was a very fluid collection of manuscripts.
* In any case, the Jewish tradition of the time was that they considered the 24 books of the hebrew canon the inspired collection. The LXX was most likely begun with the 24 hebrew books and then others were added as time went on. Again, you need to consider Philo and Josephus (I think) and the statements of ancient Jews as to what they considered to be the canon. You seem to make this assumption that some of the Jews considered the LXX in its final printed form today as some option of canon. While that is an assumption that is convient for those opposed to the classic Christian view of the authority of scriptures, it is still an invalid assumption.

You say, Peter said Pauls writings were scripture. That should have been good enough, right?

No, I’m afraid not. First, because most scholars think 2 Peter was not written by Peter the Apostle. Secondly, because the word he used, graphas, might just mean writings, not necessarily holy writ. The author valued Paul’s writings, as you and I do, but that is about as much as you can say about it.

* Yes, most of those same kind of scholars would have insisted that the gospel of John was written in the 3ird century, well, until the discovery of the Brodmere papyri of John that was dated 125AD.

* I recognize that there is a range of meaning for the word graphe, but words have meaning in their contexts. In the bible the word graphe is commonly used of the sacred scriptures, and the sacred scripture meaning fits with "in all his epistles." 2 Peter 1 begins with comments concerning "prophecy of scripture" (1:20). I see no contextual reason to possibly even consider a different meaning.

You say, “The NT is the only written 1st century record that comes from Jesus teachings through the apostles. That alone qualifies it as a valid testimony of the words of Christ and his apostles.”

Well, quite a lot of it probably didn’t come through the apostles. Martin Luther, a better scholar than you or I, didn’t think so. All four gospels in the earliest manuscripts are anonymous. Nearly half of Paul’s epistles are of disputed authorship. A valid testimony? I would only say it is the best testimony we have. We just have to make the most of it, and not try to compensate for its dubious provenance by inventing stories about its authority. Let us at least be honest.

Yet even Martin Luther included the books you refer to in his translation of Erasmus's TR.

Here you assume that if books are anonymous or disputed that they cannot be canonical. Well, every aspect of Christianity is disputed, so if that is criteria for dismissal, then why do you consider yourself Christian? The scriptures claims to be theopneustos. If it is not completely and absolutely the very word of God, if any of it is a lie, then why should I trust any other part?

I find your reasoning interesting. When Peter says he wrote 2 Peter you dispute his authorship and not canonical. When a book is anonymous, you question its canonicity. It appears to me it is irrelevant to you if it claims apostolic authorship or not, you will not believe it anyway.

That said, I have a great love and respect for most of the Bible. Many of its passages speak to us with great power, and penetrate the human condition with amazing insight. I prefer to base my respect for it on its inherent worth, not on unsupported assertions.

Sigh...
Ian, do you really think this statement of yours above will make me think you hold a high view of the scriptures? I know the difference between someone who looks at the bible as the Word of God, and someone who views it as a book of false authorship, errors, and no better then a copy of Plato, Confucius, or the Koran. I am not sure why you do this. It makes me feel like you think all evangelicals are gullible wimps that will not recognize foundational theological differences anyway.

[Ian]

You ask, Itry, "Where have I used ad hominems?"

Well, I didn’t actually say that you had, but now that you ask, you will probably find the best examples in various postings you have addressed to Jpurssey.

You refer to an attack on the Scriptures. I would not regard anything I have said as an attack on the Scriptures, but I often put forward arguments to undermine some of the demonstrably false views that some people hold about the scriptures. Some people, not necessarily including you, seem to regard it as a sort of magic book. Some people, not necessarily including you, seem to give the Bible a sort of reverence that almost amounts to idolatry. It’s not a magic book, and saying so is not an attack on it. On the other hand, to say that it is entirely the work of God might be regarded as casting a dreadful slur on God.

You say, You make the assumption . . .
No, I don’t

Later you say, Here you assume that . . .
No, I don’t.

You say, "The scriptures claims to be theopneustos."
No, only some scriptures claim to be the word of God, and those that do so are among the least convincing. For example, 1 Samuel 15 claims to be speaking the word of God when it says, "Thus saith the Lord of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare him not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." The word of God? I don’t think so. It seems almost blasphemous to attribute such an injunction to God. The word of God speaks with sufficient power to need no support from phrases like, “Thus saith the Lord.”

You say, "t appears to me it is irrelevant to you if it claims apostolic authorship or not"

Well nearly correct! There is, however, some relevance in a book’s claim to apostolic authorship. Such a claim probably enhanced its perceived authority among 5th Century Christians, but in the 21st Century such a claim can undermine its perceived authority, because in some cases it is difficult to reconcile the claim with other evidence.

That does not necessarily mean that the author was a forger or a liar. It is also possible that some of the claims to apostolic authorship were added later by someone else. There are plenty of verses that are not found in any manuscripts before about the 5th Century, and several passages that look like clumsy insertions that interrupt an otherwise coherent discourse. So there can’t be much doubt that various copyists or editors tampered with the text of the New Testament.

[Itry]

You ask, Itry, "Where have I used ad hominems?"

Well, I didn’t actually say that you had, but now that you ask, you will probably find the best examples in various postings you have addressed to Jpurssey.

Maybe, can you cut and paste these ad-homs?

You refer to an attack on the Scriptures. I would not regard anything I have said as an attack on the Scriptures, but I often put forward arguments to undermine some of the demonstrably false views that some people hold about the scriptures. Some people, not necessarily including you, seem to regard it as a sort of magic book. Some people, not necessarily including you, seem to give the Bible a sort of reverence that almost amounts to idolatry. It’s not a magic book, and saying so is not an attack on it. On the other hand, to say that it is entirely the work of God might be regarded as casting a dreadful slur on God.

Please dont exempt me from those odd evangelicals that think the bible is a book of magic. Of course no such group exists. The actual language we use is that the Bible has verbal and plenary inspiration. It is infallible and innerrant. Feel free to consult the Chicago statement on inerrancy.
http://www.reformed.org/documents/index ... /icbi.html

You say, You make the assumption . . .
No, I don’t

Later you say, Here you assume that . . .
No, I don’t.

yeah you do.

You say, "The scriptures claims to be theopneustos."
No, only some scriptures claim to be the word of God, and those that do so are among the least convincing. For example, 1 Samuel 15 claims to be speaking the word of God when it says, "Thus saith the Lord of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare him not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." The word of God? I don’t think so. It seems almost blasphemous to attribute such an injunction to God. The word of God speaks with sufficient power to need no support from phrases like, “Thus saith the Lord.”

Is there a misunderstanding on your part of what I said.

The word "Theopneustos" occurs in only one passage. It is not used multiple times in scripture. Neither does it need to be. The passage clearly says that "all" scripture is inspired. There is no such thing as uninspired scripture. It is either the breath of God, or the product of mans mind. The bible is merely a collection of those writings.

What you do above is to remove a part of the inspired bible out because you dont like it. You hate it that God judges sin. The Amelekites attempted to wipe out Israel, or exterminate Israel. God told Saul to wipe out Amelek. Seems like justice to me.

In any case, when you think you can pass judgment on the bible, I see this as an attack upon scriptures. Maybe that is subjective, you dont see it that way. I see the bible as a book that authoritatively tells us about God, you see it as a book to chop up and pick and choose what you will believe. I see that as an attack upon the scriptures.

You say, "t appears to me it is irrelevant to you if it claims apostolic authorship or not"

Well nearly correct! There is, however, some relevance in a book’s claim to apostolic authorship. Such a claim probably enhanced its perceived authority among 5th Century Christians, but in the 21st Century such a claim can undermine its perceived authority, because in some cases it is difficult to reconcile the claim with other evidence.

That does not necessarily mean that the author was a forger or a liar. It is also possible that some of the claims to apostolic authorship were added later by someone else. There are plenty of verses that are not found in any manuscripts before about the 5th Century, and several passages that look like clumsy insertions that interrupt an otherwise coherent discourse. So there can’t be much doubt that various copyists or editors tampered with the text of the New Testament.

You seem to be talking about "textual emendation" of some passage where the concept of apostolic authorship is being inserted.

I apologize for the ad-hom in advance here, but I would be very shocked if you can muster any evidence here. In fact I would probably fall out of my chair. I must admit that I find it very difficult to take you as a serious bible student here. Again, sorry for the attitude here, and I know I have much to learn myself. I often am shocked at the naivety of liberal students of scriptures. I feel you feel for some pretty huge assumptions in the last paragraph you wrote. If you provide evidence of what you claim above, I know I will have to apologize for what I am saying here.

Nevertheless, I see no passage in the GNT that I consider a viable and meaningful variant where the issue of apostolic authorship could be a textual emendation by some later scribe. Now I will admit, I dont look at the manuscripts myself, the only thing I have access to is the printed text. I have an online Byzantine, but it has no textual apparatus. I have the Majority textform, and the NA 26 available with textual apparatus. Maybe you can find some varient in a passage concerning apostolic authority claims, but that would not accomplish your claims. There is a huge difference between textual emendation and variants. I mean we now have like 12 2nd century papyri witnesses to at least some part of the GNT. You could speculate that the textual emendation occurred before this, but how stupid do you think the 1st and 2nd century Christians were? By the 2nd century, there would have existed quite a number of papyri in several different places. The scribe would have needed to amend a significant number of texts to affect each family of manuscripts.

Ian, please excuse my scoffing attitude, I am aware of my lack of learning in sooo many area's. I doubt I am even the best person to speak of variants and textual theory on this board, probably to this field IHA takes the honors. But please understand my thinking, it seems to me to by a whopper of a claim that there is a textual emendation for some passage where there is an issue of claimed apostolic authorship.

Now maybe I am completely misunderstanding you. Maybe you are talking about the 4th and 5th century "Gospels" of the gnostics. If the orthodox christians of those times were complete morons and as stupid as a tree, they might not have recognizes the forgeries of the gnostics as fakes. But they did. Come on, did the council of Hippo or any early canon list every include any of these forgeries?

Where do you find any evidence for this claim of yours? All the evidence I see points to your opinion being against all of the historical evidence I can see.

Ian, I apologize in advance for the passion I am writing with. I guess we all feel passionate about what we believe and I should write with more restraint. However, I marvel at some of the claims made without any historical support that I am aware of. Help me out here dude, what kind of possible evidence could you muster with such claims? Please write back and let me know of these textual emendations or possible false gospels you are talking about. I am not seeing any.

[Itry]

Too All readers....
I want to add something here. This is only vaguely related to my discussions with Ian. In my mind it relates more to evangelical Christians who are asked the question.... "How did the early Church know which book was canonical and which book was not of apostolic authority."

There was some confusion over the books of the LXX, I am aware of that. However, part of that confusion was not the heretical gnostic gospels of the 4th and 5th centuries. Books like the Gospel of Thomas were of a very different world view and would easily be spotted. Oh, I am not saying there is not the occasional ignorant person who really has not thought about this issues, there is always some gullible people out there. But I am not talking about individuals, but the orthodox church as a whole, especially its scholars and the Early Church Fathers.

Let me ask all evangelicals if they know the difference between the book of Mormon and the Bible? Most evangelicals would reply, Duh, there is no manuscript support before the 19th century. Even Joseph Smith was not stupid enough to claim that. He claimed it was a special revelation from the Angel Morani with the golden plates. Of course where are these golden plates? The chance that the early Church was deceived by forgeries or even textual emendations was about the same chance that evangelicals today will not recognize the book of Mormon as a forgery. The 4th and 5th century gnostics were a heretical group that were completely separate from orthodox christianity. The early church would have known that the Gospel of Thomas was a forgery produced by gnosticism. They would have needed to be as dumb as rocks not to see it.

To Ian:
Now concerning my conversation with Ian. I think to assume that the Early Church would not recognize a textual emendation would not be much different from us recognizing that that the New World Translation (Jehovah Witness) has changed a few things. How much of either evangelicalism or liberalism has accepted the New World Translation? Now I admit we have many more manuscripts at our disposal then the ancient scriptoriums when professional scribes would have copied manuscripts after Nicea. They would have needed to depend upon the papyri of the persecuted Church in the first 2 or 3 centuries. But for a textual emendation to come down in history unrecognized and to be slipped into our present text assumes that the emendation was either universal among all scribes, or that it was in the first or second generation of copying. The universal group of scribes who secretely conspired to get together and change the text just does not seem a viable option. That was done with the Uthmanic revision of the Koran and it is known fact of history. If it had been done in Christianity we would know also. I think a successful emendation in the late first or early 2nd century is more plausible. But even then, if a scribe hypothetical emended the text, I suspect there would still be a variant text that would be different.

In fact this very thing may possibly occured. While there are no passages that I am aware of concerning the issue of apostolic authority, the most likely passage where textual emendation occurred is the long ending of Mark. Many would dispute this and believe the longer ending is original. Even assuming that the longer ending is an emendation, we have manuscripts with the shorter ending. The point is then we still have an accurate copy of the autograph. Mark seems to still be an accurate witness to the message of the apostles.

Ian, I cannot help but suspect you approach this whole subject with a presupposition. You assume an evolutionary development of the text. This has often been done in liberal scholarship. I cannot help myself here but to skoff. There is absolutely 0 evidence of an evolutionary development of the NT writings. I am not saying that they did not use sources. Mark used Peter, Luke probably used Paul. Jude is probably alluding to 2 Peter, but this goes back to the scriptures being traced back to apostolic authority, not a fanciful concept of the evolutionary development of the scriptures.

I do want to hear what you have to say, and I am probably writing too much, and I am and probably expressed myself a little too passionately, but where is your evidence for the things you say? I still see you as attacking the authority of scriptures, and me as taking a defensive position that the authority of the scriptures is "theopneustos" in every word (verbal) and in the whole (plenary). So where do we go from here?

[Itry]

I am talking way to much... but....

Ian, when you post that you do not believe God inspired the writer of the Book of Samuel (Jeremiah?) to wrote the passage in which God said that Israel is to destroy Amelek, that seems that you are arguing on the basis of Theology. You have already determined what is proper theology without the scriptures and now come to the scriptures to judge it on the basis of your theology.

Most likely, either your theology is wrong, or your understanding of the text is wrong. First, God did have the right to destroy the Amelikites. God has the right to destroy each and every one of us all. We are all sinful rebels. I dont think you believe that, do you?

Also, God had a special right to destroy Amelek, because they tried to destroy Israel. God promised to Abraham that "I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee." So then God has more then a right, he had a responsibility to see Amelek destroyed.

Do you believe all men are sinners? Rebel from God who has earned only Gods wrath? Again, I think concepts of deity, the gospel, and other huge differences lurk in our theology. You cannot accept the scriptural theology, so therefore you reject the scriptures. Is this your thinking?

[Ian]

Dear Itry,

I understood very well what you meant when you said, “The scriptures claims to be theopneustos,” but to avoid an uncharitable riposte, I chose to assume that you meant something that was not totally ridiculous. I treated it as if you meant the scriptures claim to be the word of God, as some parts of them indeed do.

The fact is that there is not a single book of the Bible that claims to be theopneustos. The second Epistle to Timothy says or implies that scriptures (writings) exist that are theopneustos, but it doesn’t specify what these writings include, or whether the author’s own epistles are among them. One possible literal interpretation is that everything ever written is inspired of God, including the works of Plato and Aristotle, but that is probably not what the author intended. Your conclusion that the whole of the Bible claims to be theopneustos is completely and utterly false. None of it does, with the faintly possible exception of 2 Timothy.

I think almost any decent person would consider the killing of infants and sucklings, and incitement to a campaign of genocide as utter depravity, on a par with the ideology of Adolph Hitler or Pol Pot. So I am not going to take you seriously when you say, “Seems like justice to me.” I know you are not really so depraved.

When I wrote, “It is also possible that some of the claims to apostolic authorship were added later by someone else,” I was again trying to be charitable. I was trying to find a possible excuse for the fact that 2 Peter and the Pastoral Epistles claim to be written by apostles, when the weight of evidence indicates that they very probably were not. I don’t know of any specific evidence to show that the words indicating authorship were added by someone else: I only believe it would be possible. Only a few words would need to be changed, and it would only need to be done on the original autograph, not necessarily on multiple copies. It is therefore possible that the author of the main parts of these epistles was neither a forger nor a liar.

This explanation is not so unlikely, given the evidence that the text of many NT books has been tampered with. Among the verses that were allegedly added to NT manuscripts at a late date, some not until about the 5th Century, are Matthew 5:44, 6:13, 16:2b-3, 17:21, 18:11, 20:16, 20:22, 20:23, 23:14, 25:13, 27:35; Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28; Luke 4:4, 9:54-56, 17:36, 23:17, 24:42; John 5:3b-4, 7:53-8:11; Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:6b-8, 28:16, 28:29; Romans 16:24 and 1 John 5:7-8. These are discussed in The Text of the New Testament, by Kurt and Barbara Aland.

Also, John 7:53-8:11 is not in any of the earliest manuscripts of John. It is also absent from the Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Sinaiticus and most of the later Greek manuscripts. Nor is it in any of the earliest translations of the Bible (Syriac, Coptic and Armenian), but the story is found in some early manuscripts of Luke.

These instances of tampering are only the ones that have been found out. There could be other verses that were altered before many copies were made, and these would probably not be found out. So we can’t rule out the possibility of a false claim of authorship being added to an otherwise perfectly honest epistle – even to a divinely inspired one.

The important point I am trying to make is that if we find errors, inconsistencies or contradictions in the Bible, (and there are plenty) it does not have to be totally dismissed as a pack of lies from start to finish, as I think you implied earlier. Just because a lot of books have been bound together in one collection, they do not all have to stand or fall together.

As for argumentum ad hominem, and your request for details, I just don’t have time to spend on something so minor, but if my memory serves me right, you have sometimes implied that people who disagreed with you were stupid or hypocritical or gullible or deceitful or were making unwarranted assumptions or were rebelling against God, and in most instances I thought these suggestions were without foundation and were only an attempt to weaken the other guy’s argument. I think you suggested somewhere that doctrinal disputes only arise because of sin and rebellion (presumably the other guy’s, not yours). Sometimes you say things like, “Do you really think we will swallow that?” or words to that effect, obliquely suggesting that the other guy is trying to deceive. I apologise for only giving a very limited answer to your question. I am not complaining. I don’t object at all to any of the things you have said or implied about me: I just disagree with most of them.

[Itry]

I understood very well what you meant when you said, “The scriptures claims to be theopneustos,” but to avoid an uncharitable riposte, I chose to assume that you meant something that was not totally ridiculous. I treated it as if you meant the scriptures claim to be the word of God, as some parts of them indeed do.

The fact is that there is not a single book of the Bible that claims to be theopneustos. The second Epistle to Timothy says or implies that scriptures (writings) exist that are theopneustos, but it doesn’t specify what these writings include, or whether the author’s own epistles are among them. One possible literal interpretation is that everything ever written is inspired of God, including the works of Plato and Aristotle, but that is probably not what the author intended. Your conclusion that the whole of the Bible claims to be theopneustos is completely and utterly false. None of it does, with the faintly possible exception of 2 Timothy.

I too thought we covered this ground. We seem to be going in circles here.

2Tim 3:16 claims that "all scriptures are inspired" (πασα γραφη θεοπνευστος) It is obvious and clear from the context what the term "all scriptures" (πασα γραφη) is talking about. It is talking about the OT scriptures. The context specifies this when it says in verse 15. "and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures." Now what "scriptures" would Timothy have been taught by Lois and Eunice? You say the LXX, but that seems to me to be over simplistic. I mentioned information about the LXX, and you did not respond to that. I also mentioned that I think there were at least two Jewish ancient secular writers that mentioned the 24 books of the Hebrew Canon. They did not mention them by name, but they mentioned the number 24 sacred books. This limits the LXX books to the ones that were originally translated from the Hebrew Canon. I am aware that as the LXX collection developed, later greek writings with no Hebrew history were added.

So then, it seems obvious to me that the term "all scripture" can be referring to the OT.

Your concept seems a little vague to me. Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to have a modified position that only some books are inspired and some books are not. You decide which books are inspired upon a totally subjective criteria of "does Ian like the theology of the book or not." Why should i see you as the final authority on deciding subjectively what literature is the word of God?

I think almost any decent person would consider the killing of infants and sucklings, and incitement to a campaign of genocide as utter depravity, on a par with the ideology of Adolph Hitler or Pol Pot. So I am not going to take you seriously when you say, “Seems like justice to me.” I know you are not really so depraved.

No, please do not change what I am saying. Absolutely I am saying that all mankind is worthy only of extermination. In fact the original penalty for sin was death. We all began to die from the time of Adams sin. Ya know, death and taxes are the only sure things in life.

Yes, absolutely I believe all men are worthy only of eternal punishment and immediate death. I only thank God that he is merciful and graceous and does not execute justice. But this does not mean he cannot execute justice at any time he chooses in his sovereign will.

I absolutely believe in the total depravity of man. By that term I dont mean that we are as sinful as we could be, but sin has permeated every part of our being, our thinking, our will, or emotions. We are rebels against God.

So please do not soften the offensiveness of what I say. I also believe the scripture teaches this. We are dead in our sins and trespasses (Ephesians 2:1). We are slaves of sin (Romans 6). No one seeks God (Romans 3:11). The point is, yes, we are rebels worthy only of death. We are not some nice little race working at getting along with God. We are seeking our own righteousness, not Gods.

As I said before, I perceive great differences between us. I take a classic christian position on the nature of man, you do not. You see man as maybe a little or partially depraved, but not the total depravity I speak of.

When I wrote, “It is also possible that some of the claims to apostolic authorship were added later by someone else,” I was again trying to be charitable. I was trying to find a possible excuse for the fact that 2 Peter and the Pastoral Epistles claim to be written by apostles, when the weight of evidence indicates that they very probably were not. I don’t know of any specific evidence to show that the words indicating authorship were added by someone else: I only believe it would be possible. Only a few words would need to be changed, and it would only need to be done on the original autograph, not necessarily on multiple copies. It is therefore possible that the author of the main parts of these epistles was neither a forger nor a liar.

It seems to me you are blurring two issues here. Are you speaking of the autographs, that they were not written by those in contact with apostles, or by apostles themselves? I think you are denying that the original autographs were apostolic. Usually this is based upon some hyper-liberal scholarship that fantasizes that there is some special internal evidence that demonstrates that Paul could not have written the pastoral epistles. They do statistical analysis on the different words used and try to show that these words could not be Pauline. Such thinking has little appeal to me. Do a statistical analysis on the posts I write here, and then do compare it with what I write on face book to my friends. Those same scholars I am sure could prove that what I have wrote in those two places were written by two different people.... nope, just me.

The other issue that I think you confuse is that copying issue. Again, I think even you are beginning to shy away from presenting the idea of an evolving text. You are now speaking of the original autograph being changed. Of course that looks to me like an oxymoron. How in the world can an autograph be changed? Do you mean after Pauls amanuensis penned the words, someone secretely erased them and put new words in and nobody noticed? How can you have "a few words would need to be changed, and it would only need to be done on the original autograph"?

This explanation is not so unlikely, given the evidence that the text of many NT books has been tampered with.

Conspiracy theory alert!

Among the verses that were allegedly added to NT manuscripts at a late date, some not until about the 5th Century, are Matthew 5:44, 6:13, 16:2b-3, 17:21, 18:11, 20:16, 20:22, 20:23, 23:14, 25:13, 27:35; Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28; Luke 4:4, 9:54-56, 17:36, 23:17, 24:42; John 5:3b-4, 7:53-8:11; Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:6b-8, 28:16, 28:29; Romans 16:24 and 1 John 5:7-8. These are discussed in The Text of the New Testament, by Kurt and Barbara Aland.

And I dont necessarily disagree that some are even all of these verses were added. If I have time I will write more on this later, but I have talked about this already.
(I should say that I am not sure where I stand on some aspects of textual criticism-- I dont know if I favor the criticial text, or the byzantine--Still working on that--I am guessing others like IHA would be more articulate on that issue.)
I still have talked about the issue you present. You seem to think all the more simplistic scribal errors are "tampering with the text." Take for instance your last one. 1John 5:7 and the comma. It really takes a KJV only person to defend that text. Both the Majority text and the Byzantine have dropped it. The earliest testimony is in some fairly early latin MSS. It was later put in the TR by Erasmus. The history of that variant is well known. Yet this is your evidence that scribal variants are "tampering" with the text.

Talk about extreme radical opinions, that has to be a whopper. Certainly Barbara and Curt Aland would never have agreed that scribal variants are "tampering." Where did you get that conspiracy theory idea?

Also, John 7:53-8:11 is not in any of the earliest manuscripts of John. It is also absent from the Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Sinaiticus and most of the later Greek manuscripts. Nor is it in any of the earliest translations of the Bible (Syriac, Coptic and Armenian), but the story is found in some early manuscripts of Luke.

And if this is the variant I am think of, some MSS have it in other places in John. I believe it is also missing in many of the papyri. I dont remember if it is the Broadmere papyri.

I think you assume that unless the scribe made a perfect photocopy of the manuscripts he was working with that he "tampered" with the text. Do I really have to say anything at all to refute such a conspiracy theory?

These instances of tampering are only the ones that have been found out. There could be other verses that were altered before many copies were made, and these would probably not be found out. So we can’t rule out the possibility of a false claim of authorship being added to an otherwise perfectly honest epistle – even to a divinely inspired one.

Ian, I must admit I am writing replys as I read your post. But At this point I am astonished. You really do believe every variant is "tampering with the text." I doubt there is any perfect manuscript except for the autograph.

I have to go... time to rush again. I will write more later.





The important point I am trying to make is that if we find errors, inconsistencies or contradictions in the Bible, (and there are plenty) it does not have to be totally dismissed as a pack of lies from start to finish, as I think you implied earlier. Just because a lot of books have been bound together in one collection, they do not all have to stand or fall together.

As for argumentum ad hominem, and your request for details, I just don’t have time to spend on something so minor, but if my memory serves me right, you have sometimes implied that people who disagreed with you were stupid or hypocritical or gullible or deceitful or were making unwarranted assumptions or were rebelling against God, and in most instances I thought these suggestions were without foundation and were only an attempt to weaken the other guy’s argument. I think you suggested somewhere that doctrinal disputes only arise because of sin and rebellion (presumably the other guy’s, not yours). Sometimes you say things like, “Do you really think we will swallow that?” or words to that effect, obliquely suggesting that the other guy is trying to deceive. I apologise for only giving a very limited answer to your question. I am not complaining. I don’t object at all to any of the things you have said or implied about me: I just disagree with most of them.[/quote]

[Ian]

You say, Itry,

It is obvious and clear from the context what the term "all scriptures" (πασα γραφη) is talking about.

I think it is only obvious and clear to those who have already made up their mind. It is very far from obvious and clear to me, and to many scholars better informed than I am.

Why should I see you as the final authority on deciding subjectively what literature is the word of God?

You shouldn’t. I am no authority at all. You have to decide for yourself, just as with any literature, and you have to let others do the same, without berating any who decide differently from you.

I do see the force of what you say about analysis of vocabulary and literary style. Someone might write in very different ways to different people in different contexts. But I think most of the best scholars who study the questions of authorship seem aware of this problem, and make allowances for it. Part of the problem with the Pastoral Epistles is not only their literary style and vocabulary, but also the fact that the historical events that they mention are very difficult to fit into the history of Paul as depicted by the Acts and by his undisputed epistles. Some scholars also say they cannot reconcile the teachings and the balance of emphasis of Paul with the teachings and balance of emphasis of the author of the Pastoral Epistles.

But At this point I am astonished. You really do believe every variant is "tampering with the text."

No, not at all. Absolutely not! Some variants are obviously simple, honest transcription errors, which can hardly be avoided, but the insertion of whole verses and whole stories can hardly be done by accident. The deliberate insertion or alteration of whole verses or stories is what I mean by tampering.

[Itry]

Ian, first I do want to express appreciation for even bothering to talk. I do want the conversation to continue.

You say, Itry,

It is obvious and clear from the context what the term "all scriptures" (πασα γραφη) is talking about.

I think it is only obvious and clear to those who have already made up their mind. It is very far from obvious and clear to me, and to many scholars better informed than I am.

Ian, you seem to be fond of saying that many unnamed scholars are on your side. Which ones? What do they say about the context. Such generalized comments must mean something to you, but they mean little to me.

You can make the same "everyone else is narrowminded" pitch if you wish. That seems to be the general comment of liberals, they can rarely make statements without some sort of Rhetoric like that. Nevertheless, let me repeat myself again.
When verse 15 says...
"2Ti 3:15 And that from a babe thou hast known the sacred writings"
So please explain exactly what you think the "sacred writings" (ἱερὰ γράμματα) are? You refuse continue to admit that it could be the entire OT, but you do not seem to wish to address the evidence I offered. Now I admit it was vague claims I made too, I mentioned the name Josephus and Philo (and am not even sure that was the 2 places---but that is the key). If the Hebrews had a understanding of which OT books were canonical, then the phrase in verse 15 I quoted above means a specific group of books we call the OT.

There are no "scholars" on any other side. Show me one.

Why should I see you as the final authority on deciding subjectively what literature is the word of God?

You shouldn’t. I am no authority at all. You have to decide for yourself, just as with any literature, and you have to let others do the same, without berating any who decide differently from you.

Yes, as I said, we both speak a little to passionate about what we think, I hope you do not honestly think I was trying to berate you. I do feel disappointed in you presenting what I called conspiracy theories about the textual transmission of the text, but I did not mean to berate you. I recognize that you have read at least a little on the subject, and might even have some education in this area. If you were completely ignorant of the subject, you would not be here talking to me. I recognize that you have a grasp of some or even much of the information. Nevertheless, I also think you have jumped to some very incorrect conclusions about that information. For instance, you are aware of variants. Yet because you know there are variants, you jump to the conclusion that this means that there must have been some scribe that intentionally perverted the text. I dont think that is a valid conclusion. It still smacks of conspiracy theory thinking. But we can talk more about that as we go.

Also, again, even this answer sounds like a subjective answer to me. Let everyone decide for themselves. Certainly I agree that anyone has the right to disagree with me, but only one of us are right and this is a very important topic. This is not some mere academic issue, but it can affect our eternal destiny. If we reject the scripture, and the gospel of the scripture, then it can have eternal consequences. I have not discussed your views of the gospel, but maybe we should do that sometime too.

I do see the force of what you say about analysis of vocabulary and literary style. Someone might write in very different ways to different people in different contexts. But I think most of the best scholars who study the questions of authorship seem aware of this problem, and make allowances for it. Part of the problem with the Pastoral Epistles is not only their literary style and vocabulary, but also the fact that the historical events that they mention are very difficult to fit into the history of Paul as depicted by the Acts and by his undisputed epistles. Some scholars also say they cannot reconcile the teachings and the balance of emphasis of Paul with the teachings and balance of emphasis of the author of the Pastoral Epistles.

I am not totally sure what historical events you refer to here. I suspect you might be referring to the issue of Pauls trips to Jerusalem and the sequence of events. I know that is disputed, but again, I see no reason to think that this means the books could not be written by Paul. There is a huge difference between not having sufficient information to establish a perfect historical chronology acceptable to all, and saying there are historical errors in the writings that demonstrate that Paul could not be the author. So then yes, there are historical issues, but not demonstrable historical errors.

But At this point I am astonished. You really do believe every variant is "tampering with the text."

No, not at all. Absolutely not! Some variants are obviously simple, honest transcription errors, which can hardly be avoided, but the insertion of whole verses and whole stories can hardly be done by accident. The deliberate insertion or alteration of whole verses or stories is what I mean by tampering.

Well, we should talk more about specifics. First, even if some scribe inserted a story that is not original, that would not mean that the autographs are not fully inspired. That just means we have a little more work to find out which MSS has the correct reading. If there are 4 variants on a table before us, I am suggesting one of them represents the autograph. So I admit to variants. I really dont think any variant came about with hostile intent. I read your word "tampering" as to maliciously, and with hostile intent, purposely change the text. Let me work with two fameous variants.

John 5:4 This is a whole verse.
* Critical text or the NA26
-The NIV and the RSV follows the critical text. So in those two translations there is no such thing as verse 4. They go strait from verse 3 to verse 5.
-The ASV keeps the reading with a note in the column that "early mss" do not contain the reading.
* Majority Text
This text keeps the reading. This is reflected in the KJV.

Now, think about this. There are both manuscripts that do not contain the reading, and also english translations that reflect the NA26 reading. So even if some malicious scribe attempted to corrupt the text and add his own view, there are plenty of manuscripts attesting to the truth and we still have english translations doing the same. How then could anyone who accepts the critical text think the text is corrupt?

No lets look at this potentially horrible variant that some scribe inserted to maliciously change Christianity. Let me quote the text with verse 4 in red.

Joh 5:1 After these things there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
Joh 5:2 Now there is in Jerusalem by the sheep gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew Bethesda, having five porches.
Joh 5:3 In these lay a multitude of them that were sick, blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water,
Joh 5:4 for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the waters stepped in was made whole, with whatsoever disease he was holden.
Joh 5:5 And a certain man was there, who had been thirty and eight years in his infirmity.
Joh 5:6 When Jesus saw him lying, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he saith unto him, Wouldest thou be made whole?

Now those who favor the critical text have often said that verse 4 was originally a note placed in the column by a very early scribe. This early scribe explained in the column why the waters moved. This may have been a tradition that came to this early scribe. Then a few centuries later, another scribe included the verse in the text. Read the verse yourself. Does that look like such an implausible explanation for a variant? Many who favor the critical text accept such explanations. They do not assume any hostile intent of these scribes. Many of then firmly believe in the inspiration of the entire scriptures.

1 John 5:7
Surprise, this verse is not even in the critical text or the Majority text, or the Byzantine. I think the only translation that includes it is the KJV. Most translations still have a verse 7, but of course they rearrange the content. If I recall the manuscript evidence concerning this verse, it has some early support only in the Latin translations. It might be as early as the 4th century (300s) in Latin. No greek manuscript in the first 500 years has it included (understatement). This is the obvious reason that modern translations do not have it. I dont remember, but I dont think even the NEW KJV has it in.

I once read someone explain that this text is the perfect defense for the doctrine of the trinity, and that possibly a scribe was explaining the passage in the column with the comments in verse 7. Again, in the 4th century the trinity controversy of Nicea was raging....

BUMMER, thought I was going to have time.... pager ringing, gotta go.

[Elizabeth]

Thank you brothers for this very informative exchange.

Elizabeth

[Itry]

Ian,
I want to make a few more comments.

Let me clarify things.

I understand your position to be that at least some variants demonstrate that the scriptures are corrupted.

I take the position that if we have 4 variants and lay them out on the table, one of them represents the autograph, and is inspired. Now that obviously means that 3 of the 4 are not inspired. This results in evangelicals who accept the inspired authority of all of the scriptures disagree. Some choose to add longer readings (Byzantine) and some give their reasons for the shorter readings (Critical Text).

Of course we have the differences in english translations. The difference would be between the NIV or ASV for the critical text, and the KJV for the (Byzantine). Now let me add yet another comment. The difference between the KJV and ASV does not affect our theology. We still come up with the same doctrine and beliefs. The differences are still irrelevant. I was talking about 1 John 5:7 when I was interrupted. Now I certainly agree that text has a meaningful variant. The Trinity could not be more clear in the longer reading of that text. Yet, does this mean that other verses in the NIV and ASV cannot be used to demonstrate the doctrine of the trinity? Of course not. I know of whole books on the trinity that never once use that verse!

Certainly the variant is meaningful, but to use that to say that the entire bible is not inspired is absurd. Actually, I will admit that I do not consider 1John 5:7 to be a viable variant anyway.

Again, there is a huge difference between someone saying that a certain variant is the correct one, and the rest are not the word of God and what you have been saying. You are saying because the scribes made mistakes, that some of these mistakes are malicious, and that the word of God has been corrupted by these malicious scribes. Then you seem to think that we can pick and choose what we will believe and jump to this huge leap of logic that anything we see (Saul and the Amelekites) that we dont like is the malicious scribe changing the text.

I also notice that you take remote possibilities (that scribes maliciously changed the text) and make them certainties, and then impute those certainties to any text you choose not to believe. Undoubtedly many of the texts you choose not to believe have no variants anyway.

What is the real difference between you and me? I would suggest it is world view. I believe the inspiration of the text, that it is authoritative and inspired. You believe it is not the product of the action of God in breathing out his word, you think it is mere human opinion and activity. Ian, there is no logical way to have a middle ground and pick and choose texts. Just believe it all!