I stumbled across an interesting post regarding a book review concerning the textual integrity of the New Testament over here. From there it was a short hop and a skip to an article featured in ‘Islam-Awareness.org’ on the very question of the textual integrity of the NT. The article is quite lengthy, but an interesting read. A counter-argument is presented by a Mr. J. P. Holding which, I believe, seems sufficiently persuasive. Mr Holding’s article as a general defence of NT’s textual integrity in response to criticisms is here.
The following is just a summary of their arguments and counter-arguments, and you would do well to read the actual articles, if only because they’re interesting (to me, lah).
IA on textual integrity of the NT and Holding’s objections
There is no clear ’stated’ conclusion the article makes with specific respect to the purpose of the article. One might say the conclusion, perhaps suppressed, is that: the textual integrity of the NT is suspect. As a supplementary to this conclusion, it is unclear whether IA claims that the NT does not have a cohesive integrity that warrants a purely literal interpretation of the Bible, or whether the basis of Church doctrine is founded on sand because the textual integrity of the NT is in question. Perhaps the latter supplementary conclusion is an implication I have drawn.
Nevertheless, the argument against the textual integrity of the NT is drawn from a refutation of three positions:
- The basis of the numerical superiority of what are termed ‘Byzantine texts’ as corroborative, empirical evidence for the veracity of the current interpretation of NT texts.
- The claim that authoritative manuscripts are sufficient to provide for NT interpretation, by:
- Showing that there exists unaccounted variances between authoritative texts, and
- Showing that claims of primacy of these texts by recourse to their age is unwarranted
- The claim that patristic citations (citations by the early Desert Fathers) are sufficient to reconstruct the entirety of the New Testament.
I’ll just consider two of IA’s claims with reference to Holding’s counter-arguments.
Of byzantine texts…
IA’s position on Byzantine texts is that firstly, their numerical superiority is marred by the fact that most major scholars find these texts unreliable, and secondly, that ‘authoritative texts’ used to derive the NT are sourced from texts of a different kind. As such, the argument that the accuracy of the NT is based on the numerical superiority of extant Byzantine manuscripts is shown to be false.
Holding also acknowledges that authoritative texts must exist as standards to judge Byzantine texts as suspect. This is a point IA is willing to accept, as they then go on to try and discredit the veracity of these ‘authoritative texts’, so no argument there.
Holding’s then says:
“Numerical superiority is used for no other purpose than to show that we have a far greater “data pool” for the NT than any other comparable document, and that this in turn elevates our level of assurance at being able to get back to the original text, as it helps us trace the history and nature of transmission and thus assure us of getting closer to what an original said.”
If we accept without qualification that there are authoritative texts, then it appears plausible that the ‘original text’ can be obtained by, at least, negative conclusions drawn from the content of these ‘Byzantine texts’, i.e. authoritative texts say A, but Byzantine texts say B, C and D so we need to ask ourselves why this is so.
If this is, however, the only use for Byzantine texts, then a greater burden is placed on authoritative texts as sources for the New Testament - which is, of course, IA’s point, which I think is a telling but unremarkable point.
Of variances…
IA’s article then examines the extent of variances between these ‘authoritative texts’ by highlighting the number of verses that agree with each other in manuscripts available, and in verses that do not agree with each other, noting that only 62.9% of the verses in the NT agree with each other. Now, they state clearly that the variances do not take into account ‘orthographical’ variances (errors in spelling and such) or differences in word, implying therefore that the variances they have obtained from their cited source are substantive.
Exactly how these variances are substantive is not discussed at all, as Holding rightly points out. Do these variances affect the intepretation of the contents of the NT? Do these variances affect biblical support for doctrines? Unless elucidated, all discussion about variances prove nothing.
IA remarks that, if texts with the highest degree of certainty are removed, there appears to be a total of 16.5% of verses in the NT that are doubtful. Rather than focusing on Holding’s objections with reference to the kind of variances observed, IA has noted that variants have been included in texts of the Greek New Testament obtained from such authoritative texts for their ‘exegetical significance’.
I was rather confused when IA concluded that the ‘16.5%’ representing variances were therefore significant, while not really confronting Holding’s charge that such variances have not received a full elucidation as to their content. For all we know, the ‘texts included for their exegetical significance’ merely refers to significant texts with respect to these variances, but not really to the content or significance of these variances.
I’m in agreement with the thrust of Holding’s objections, here.
Thoughts…
After reading those two articles, I googled a few bits and pieces off the internet to try and understand IA’s position. It appears to me that the strategy seems firstly to cast doubt on the textual, if not literal, integrity of the New Testament as an oblique apologetic reply to claims made by Christians on the basis of their faith, i.e. the Bible.
From a Catholic standpoint, at least, I don’t see how IA’s analysis poses any problems, but for Protestant Christians whose belief is based on sola scriptura, the problems are self-evident. If a literalist view of the Bible is suspect, then the basis of their doctrine is suspect, it appears. Unless Protestants are willing to maintain that the substance of the message is more important than its literal meaning, which presents a slippery slope down to relativistic hell. Unless, of course, IA’s further analysis can bring up specific instances of variances and showing how it affects doctrine, I think the RC position remains unchanged.
The second part of the strategy appears, to me, to be to bolster claims of the Quran’s own textual integrity, and thereby confirming the Quran’s own declarations to textual purity; it is a well-known claim that the Quran has come down through all 1400 years uncorrupted and unchanged. In a few short clicks, I found myself in the WhyIslam.org forums and began reading some of the posts made. One which struck me most was a reply from a member claiming that views presented in other websites questioning the claims of the Quran were missionaries disguised as orientalists (which, I assume, means scholars of the eastern tradition).
In any case, one such instance of a remark in passing shouldn’t be the basis of forming an opinion. Maybe the claim of scholars for the textual integrity of the Quran should be similarly examined with the same rigour. For an alternative view, also disparaged by muslim scholars apparently, go here. The arguments are well thought-out.