(2) James does not comprehend what Ruckman means by the KJV's "correcting the Greek" and the alleged "mistakes" in the KJV being "advanced revelation." Ruckman actually means no more by this than what James himself practices on this matter, for James is one of the leading "correctors" of the Greek, promoting what would constitute "advanced revelation" over alleged mistakes in variant copies of Greek manuscripts and/or texts.

Textual scholars are unanimous in their agreement that textual criticism applied to the extant manuscripts is necessary if the original readings of the New Testament are ever to be fully recovered. Those who hold to the view that only the King James Version of the Bible is the normative text of the church cannot be considered among rational, textual scholars. This position posits a 17th century English version as the only infallible Word of God, and is, therefore, based more on tradition, misinformation, and conspiracy than on real scholarly textual research.

Precisely how textual criticism should be applied, particularly with regard to the types of evidence discussed previously, and which manuscripts should form the basis of the reconstructed New Testament are hotly disputed issues. There are two broad categories into which the diverging views can be placed: the "Traditional Text" views, and the "Eclectic" views. Within the Traditional Text views, there are those who hold to a Majority Text position, those who hold to the Textus Receptus, those who hold to an Ecclesiastical Text, and those who hold to Byzantine Priority. All of these essentially look to the manuscripts of the Byzantine family as the basis for the New Testament text. Their differences lie both in how they arrive at their final text, and in the reasoning behind their choice of this particular family. Within the Eclectic views, one finds those who are Thoroughgoing, and those who are Reasoned. The difference between them is in the degree to which the principles of Eclecticism are applied.

There are a variety of positions with regard to the Greek text behind the New Testament that can be identified by their common allegiance to the Byzantine text type. Of these positions, there are four that should be mentioned: the Textus Receptus position, the Majority Text position, the Ecclesiastical Text position, and the Byzantine-Priority position. In this article we shall examine the first two of these, leaving the others to subsequent articles.

Since the term Textus Receptus has been applied to a variety of Greek New Testament texts over the years, it could be legitimately asked, "which Textus Receptus?" For those who hold this position, the text in mind is the text of Erasmus and the Elzevirs--the text that was eventually used by the King James Bible translators. While it is of the Byzantine text family, this edition of the Textus Receptus is not representative of the entire Byzantine text type. Indeed, many advocates for other Traditional Text views distance themselves from the Textus Receptus due to its many variations from the majority of other Byzantine texts. Given that it includes Erasmus' translation of the last six verses of Revelation from Latin into Greek, and for the rest is based on a relatively small collection of manuscripts, there are some quite unique readings in the Textus Receptus that are not found elsewhere, even among other Byzantine manuscripts.

It appears that the main motivation behind promoting the Textus Receptus as the true Greek text behind the New Testament is theological. Often its supporters refer to it as the text of the Reformation, as if the integrity of the text is reliant upon the supposed use of the text by those great men of God who led the Protestant Reformation. However, Dr. James White in his book The King James Only Controversy clearly demonstrates that there is insufficient evidence that the Reformers specifically promoted the use of the Textus Receptus over and above other streams from the Byzantine family (see page 69). Hence, while this is an interesting position, it is not one that is widely held, especially among the majority of textual scholars.

As the name suggests, the basis of the Majority Text position is that the key factor for determining the original text of the New Testament should be quantity of manuscripts. Since the Byzantine text type is by far the majority report, and has been since the ninth century, it comes as no surprise that the Majority Text is a Byzantine family text.

While Dean Burgon could not strictly be classified as a Majority Text advocate, he clearly utilized similar argumentation when defending the Byzantine text against the Westcott and Hort text. He expressed amazement that out of 1,000 Greek manuscripts 995 copies of the New Testament that have been around for centuries would be considered untrustworthy, and the reliability of the text would be carried by a handful of manuscripts that were unknown to the church until relatively recently. Would the truth of the text of Scripture reside with a vast multitude of manuscripts that have a remarkable level of agreement, or with a handful of manuscripts that cannot agree with one another most of the time? Burgon was also very skeptical of the popular text critical principle that witnesses should be weighed not counted. He wondered if it is possible to weigh every codex, version, or church Father, or whether every critic is competent to perform such a task. Burgon insisted that number is a vital criterion for determining the originality of a reading. If number would make a difference in a jury vote, he argues, why not when determining the original text of the New Testament, especially when the manuscripts in question cover a broad range of geographical regions.

Modern advocates of the Majority Text position also use stemmatics, or a genealogical method of tracing a reading's textual history, to determine the antiquity of a particular text. Zane Hodges, the main proponent of this method, describes it as a method whereby "a valid stemma [has] the power to explain the descent of the readings in a natural way" (Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad, The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, p. xxv, quoted in Daniel Wallace, "Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text," available on-line at http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/89c3.htm). The higher up the stemma a reading appears, the more likely it is to be original. Also, each stemma should be demonstrably the father of multiple readings, which appear only below the stemma.

Finally, proponents of the Majority Text position are apt to view their particular line of textual transmission as the only pure and, therefore, correct line. All other lines are considered unorthodox or heretical. Arguments based on a doctrine of divine preservation are often articulated to defend the idea that God has preserved this particular stream of the text, and this is evidenced by the vast quantity that still exists to this day. See, for example, the comments by Wilbur Pickering in his book, The Identity of the New Testament Text, as quoted by Daniel Wallace, "The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?" Bibliotheca Sacra 148 (April 1991): 152-158. This paper is also available online at http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/91B2.htm.

New Haven, Conn. — April 17, 2008

Ms. Shvarts is engaged in performance art. Her art project includes visual representations, a press release and other narrative materials. She stated to three senior Yale University officials today, including two deans, that she did not impregnate herself and that she did not induce any miscarriages. The entire project is an art piece, a creative fiction designed to draw attention to the ambiguity surrounding form and function of a woman’s body.

She is an artist and has the right to express herself through performance art.

Had these acts been real, they would have violated basic ethical standards and raised serious mental and physical health concerns.

   "A ploy being adopted by a growing number of evangelical apologists is what I call the 'hijacking' of the Church Fathers, attempting to press them into service for sola scriptura. This ploy mimics the Jehovah's witnesses and Mormons, who also attempt to defend their unorthodox teachings from behind a carefully-constructed facade of patristic quotes- quotes invariably taken out of their immediate context and without regard to the complete writings of the Fathers.
   The practice of selective quoting from the Fathers- great Fathers such as Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Augustine, and Basil of Caesarea- is spreading. In fact, often the very Protestant apologists who misuse and twist the testimony of the Fathers to fit their hermeneutic of anachronism (i.e., reading their own views such as sola scriptura and sola fide back into Scripture and the Fathers) are themselves accusing Catholics of 'misusing' or 'prooftexting' the Fathers" [Not By Scripture Alone, pp. 5-6].

   "Basil of Caesarea has provided Evangelical polemicists with what they think is the 'smoking gun' to deny Catholic claims and uphold sola scriptura: 'Therefore, let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth' (Epistle ad Eustathius). This, they think, means that Basil would have been comfortable with John Calvin's theology that 'All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them' (The Westminster Confession of Faith, 7). But if Basil's quote is to be of any use to the Protestant apologist, the rest of Basil's writings should be consistent and compatible with the theology expressed in this quote from the Westminster Confession. But watch what happens to Basil's alleged sola scriptura mindset when we look at other statements of his..." [Not By Scripture Alone, p. 7].

"Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or enjoined which are preserved in the Church, some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have delivered to us in a mystery by the apostles by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force" (On the Holy Spirit, 27)."

   "In any case, one should not be embarrassed by the contention of St. Basil that dogmata were delivered or handed down by the Apostles, en musterio. It would be a flagrant mistranslation if we render it as 'in secret.' The only accurate rendering is: 'by the way of mysteries,' that is- under the form of rites and (liturgical) usages, or 'habits.' In fact, it is precisely what St. Basil says himself: ta pleista ton mustikon agraphos hemin empoliteuetai. [Most of the mysteries are communicated to us by an unwritten way]. The term mustika refers here, obviously to the rites of Baptism and Eucharist, which are, for St. Basil, of 'Apostolic' origin... Indeed, all instances quoted by St. Basil in this connection are of ritual or liturgical nature" [Florovsky, Georges, Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View. The Collected Works, vol. 1. (Vaduz: Buchervertriebsansstalt, 1987), pp. 86-87].

"The whole passage has frequently been misinterpreted by Roman Catholic theologians, who imagine that in it they have found something to prove the Tridentine dogma of Tradition, considered as an equal and distinct source of revelation... In reality, this passage of Basil, the beginning of which is a little vague and lacking in precision, cannot be considered as confirming the Tridentine dogma that doctrinal Tradition is a second fully distinct source of divine revelation. In order to be convinced of the falsity of such an assertion, one need only take the trouble to read the whole passage. In brief, in all his homiletic, doctrinal, ascetic and monastic works, Basil refers constantly, and almost in every line, to the Bible, quoting, expounding, or illustrating it, or drawing out in detail what it teaches without departing from the traditional doctrine of the Church. He leaves us in no doubt that he regards the Bible, especially the New Testament, as the sovereign and all-sufficient moral and doctrinal standard for all Christians, and particularly for the cenobites under his charge. Basil of Caesarea thus taught me a never-forgotten lesson. [Emmanuel Amand de Mendieta, Rome and Canterbury: A Biblical and Free Catholicism, trans. Coslett Quin (London: Herbert Jenkins, 1962), pp. 140, 141, 143].

   "The papists themselves retain not all these traditions of Basil's. They do not dip, but sprinkle; they do not pray standing upon the Lord's day, as Basil here determines that we ought; for if we follow Basil, we ought to pray standing on all Sundays from Easter to Pentecost. This the papists do not observe, shewing therein that Basil is not to be listened to upon that matter. For Basil contends most earnestly for this tradition, and adduces three reasons in support of the practice: 1. because Christ arose upon the Lord's day; 2. because we seek the things that are above. But we should do this always; and according to this reason, we should always pray standing: 3. because the eighth day is a symbol of the world to come; and therefore, says he, the church hath taught its nurslings to make their prayers in an erect posture, and that upon a necessary obligation. A similar decree was made in the first council of Nice, can. 20. But a different custom hath now for a long time prevailed. The papists themselves have taught us by their own example to reject such traditions. For these traditions of Basil's are either necessary, or they are not. If they be not necessary, why do they press us with the authority of Basil? For either we should not be attacked, if they be unnecessary; or they sin in not observing them, if they be necessary. Let them choose which they will" [ William Whitaker, Disputations On Holy Scripture, trans. and ed. William Fitzgerald(Cambridge: University Press, reprinted 1849),p. 593].

When faced with the overwhelming task of evaluating the many New Testament manuscripts to determine the original reading of any passage, the textual critic must start with basic ground rules by which the various readings must be considered. These rules have developed over the last two hundred years, and are, more or less, adopted by textual scholars across the board. They take into consideration both internal factors (context and style, for example), and external factors (text type, age, and agreement with other versions or with early church fathers, for example). While textual scholars agree over the need for such canons, they differ over which canons should be use, or which carry the most weight.

There are three main factors that should be considered when assessing the external evidence for a reading. First, there is the date of the reading. This may not necessarily be the same as the date of the manuscript in which the reading is found. A manuscript might be relatively late, but contain a text that was copied from a very early manuscript. As Bruce Metzger notes, there are some late minuscule manuscripts that are now recognized as containing a text earlier than some of the later uncial texts. While the age of a reading is only one of many evidences that would contribute to its final assessment, a reading that cannot be traced back into the early days of the manuscript tradition is unlikely to be original.

We must be careful here because, as Dr. Maurice Robinson correctly points out, where there are only a few manuscripts, it makes sense that there will be fewer attestations to original readings. Hence, a lack of evidence for a reading in the earliest centuries of the manuscript tradition may simply be due to the lack of witnesses in that period of time (see Maurice Robinson's "The Case for Byzantine Priority," online paper available from http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol06/Robinson2001.html). However, there should be witnesses to that reading at a reasonably early date.

Second, consideration should be given to the geographical spread of the manuscripts that agree with a given reading or variant. If manuscripts from distant and diverse locations support a particular variant, that variant may have a greater claim to authenticity, since it is unlikely that these manuscripts could have been copied from one another. It is possible, however, that the manuscripts in question share a common ancestor, which would significantly diminish their claim to independent testimony.

Finally, the manuscript in question must be assessed in terms of its genealogy. Manuscripts that originate from the same source and maintain a close affinity to their sister documents need not be considered independently. The recognition of such family groupings can help the textual critic to reduce the number of manuscripts that need to be examined, and recognizing family traits in a manuscript can alert the critic to the nature of the text. Textual critics of different viewpoints may have a tendency to apply this principle according to their particular persuasions. For example, the identification of a manuscript as Byzantine might indicate to a scholar who favors Byzantine manuscripts that this is one to trust. However, that same identification might make a scholar who does not share this view of the Byzantine text family very wary of the manuscript--indeed, some might dismiss the manuscript out-of-hand on this basis alone. Naturally, this tendency should be guarded against most strongly.

Hort divided internal evidence into two main types, transcriptional and intrinsic. Transcriptional evidence pertains to the habits of scribes: things scribes were prone to do in the course of transcribing manuscripts. This would also include the kind of scribal errors discussed in a previous article, as well as more the more deliberate acts of copyists. Intrinsic evidence refers to the consideration of the author's style and the context in which he wrote: of all the possible variants, which is the author most likely to have written given his character, his style, his environment, and his background, as far as these things can be ascertained? Numerous rules have been proposed and refined over the years based on these considerations. What follows is a brief presentation of some of the more significant of these rules.

There can hardly be any dispute that of all the internal principles, this one is of paramount importance. Variant readings did not appear out of nowhere; they all originated as a result of misreading, misunderstanding, or not liking the original word. The reading that can be shown to have given rise to all the variants is clearly the original reading.

This principle is based on the assumption that a scribe would not normally substitute a common word for a rare word, or a clear reading for an obscure one. While this principle is usually true, and it is highly regarded amongst textual critics, it can be argued that the term "difficult" is often applied subjectively. For example, Acts 20:28 speaks of the church of God, "which He purchased through His own blood" (NASB). Many manuscripts however have "Lord" instead of "God." One might assume that "God" is the more difficult reading since this might imply that God (assuming this refers only to the Father) has blood, and that it was He and not the Son that died on the cross--the ancient heresy of patripassionism. In this instance "Lord" would be more acceptable since it implies Jesus, who certainly did shed His own blood for the church. The problem of using the principle of the most difficult reading here is that it assumes that "God" was a difficult reading for the original author. Yet, for the person who understands Trinitarian doctrine, and the way words are used by the New Testament authors as a whole, neither "God" nor "Lord" really presents any great theological difficulty. In the midst of the Christological debates of the third and fourth century, this passage may well have found itself thrust into the spotlight. Under these circumstances, the fact that this reading persisted, and that it did so in a variety of locations, would be of significance. But notice at this point that other factors are being brought to bear upon the reading (i.e., history and transmission) to test the theory. In other words, it is clear that this principle should not stand alone when used to give testimony to the veracity of a particular reading.

Maurice Robinson further qualifies this principle by recognizing that scribes often wrote nonsense, but other scribes rarely copied nonsense. Hence, a legitimate difficult reading would be copied into successive generations, but mere nonsense would not last beyond a few generations.

Each New Testament author exhibits a distinctive writing style that is evident from words or phrases they seem to favor. This principle simply states that of a given number of variants, the original is most likely to be the one that fits the authors style. Those variants that use words or phrases that the author has not used either in this work, or in other extant writings, are probably not original. There is some controversy over this principle since, once again, it is open to subjectivism, and it is also reliant upon incomplete sources. For example, it is clear that Mark uses the phrase kai. euvqu,j (and immediately) very regularly; it is one of the stylistic traits of Mark's Gospel. However, this principle might appear to ignore the fact that Mark could well choose to vary his style. For some reason, he may want to deviate from using this phrase at a certain point, and it is just as possible that a later scribe changed the reading to kai. euvqu,j assuming that this should be the original reading. It can also be argued that since Mark's Gospel is the only evidence of Mark's writing style extant, it is impossible to be certain of his style. Once again, this principle should not be the sole determining factor for the originality of a reading, but it should be one of the factors that are considered.

The emphasis here needs to be placed on clear. There is debate over the extent toward which scribes tended to harmonize passages. It is argued that harmonization occurred with such inconsistency that one should be careful when using this principle as a deciding factor. Some scholars may see the mere hint of a harmonization as a reason to discredit a reading. Such tendencies ought to be resisted, and only the most obvious harmonization should be rejected on the grounds of this principle.

This principle states that the textual critic needs to examine the scribe's style from the point of view of common scribal habits, such as transcriptional errors, harmonization, or expanding names out of piety. Included in this last category is the expansion of Jesus to Jesus Christ, or the Lord Jesus Christ. If the manuscript in question appears to reflect one or more of such phenomena regularly throughout the text, then it is possible that many, or all, of these readings are not original.

Mr White said last night that the Holy Spirit is within him. I challenge him to post the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, not only segments that make him look good as he already did. The Holy Spirit is about Truth, let us not disappont (sic) him, especially since the Holy Spirit is not within any human. I will post the entire debates for free, whole and entire!

You remember my point, he said that Christians don't consider Jesus the Father. Where then he does not know the last our, because he's not divine. Oh, but he is in complete harmony with the Father. Really? One then died. And the Holy Ghost and the God had no idea what was going on - one of them died! No, the one who died is an addition, not the subtraction. Come on people! Offer the creed the same way Abraham gave it to his people. Did he ever say anything like this? We're angry. I was insulted twice here. The stuff my opponent said about Mohammed (peace be upon him in arabic). Taking stuff out of context and put in [inaudible] fabricate afterwards. And secondly, calling a son to God is the greatest offense to us muslims. So don't think you can come here and act you're angry, because we are angry. Because Allah doesn't have a son. He told you so. Jesus never said I am Lord, I am divine, I am the God, the Creator, worship Me as you worship God, the Holy Ghost is God. Adam didn't say, Abraham didn't say, Noah didn't say. They must have known another god than the one you know. I ask Allah to open your hearts and mind. Because Jesus said it in so many ways that he is not God. You just want to stick it to him no matter what. [Allahu akhbar a couple of times from the crowd]

Text Types
Griesbach had, at the end of the eighteenth century, divided the various New Testament manuscripts into five or six groups based on his study of the transmission of the New Testament text. He eventually reduced these groups to three, and named them according to what he believed to be their region of origin: Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine. Inasmuch as the manuscript in question contained readings similar to others in one of these groups, it was assigned to that group. Westcott and Hort broadly agreed with Griesbach's identifications except that they re-named the Byzantine group the "Syrian" text. They believed that the textual evidence demonstrated the Syrian text to be the latest of the text types, containing what they called a mixed text. That is, the text often contained readings of other types conflated together to produce a smooth text. They considered this to be evidence of the work of a later editorial hand (or hands) on the text, sometime around the fourth century. In light of this, they were convinced that there were no Byzantine manuscripts prior to the fourth century, and the textual evidence at that time supported this claim. They dismissed the Syrian text as more fitted for cursory perusal or recitation than for repeated and diligent study.
   Along with the Syrian text, Westcott and Hort recognized the Western text, which, while an ancient and popular form of text, was characterized by paraphrase and a dangerous fondness for assimilating similar passages to destroy any meaningful differences between them. They also identified the Alexandrian text, which they considered to be one that is polished in style and more precise in syntax--hallmarks of revision to the text. Despite this, the Alexandrian text was thought to be early and an important witness to the original manuscripts.
   The best text type, according to Westcott and Hort, was by far what they called the Neutral text. This text was the most free from later stylization, harmonization, or any other kind of editorial corruption. Hence, this text type is, by their estimation, the closest to the original text of the New Testament. For Westcott and Hort, Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Codex Vaticanus (B) are the best representatives of this text type; every reading of these codices was to be given weight and none rejected lightly. When Aleph and B agree on a reading, especially when they agree against the other text types, unless there is very strong internal evidence to suggest otherwise, Westcott and Hort said that reading must be accepted as original.
   While Westcott and Hort contributed greatly to turning the tide of opinion against the Textus Receptus, the Textus Receptus was not without its defenders. Among those defenders, the most notable of this time was probably John William Burgon, Dean of Chichester. Metzger characterizes Burgon as a leading champion of lost causes and impossible beliefs, but it is wrong to dismiss Burgon lightly. He was certainly a scholar of the New Testament text and, unlike many who would take his position today, had a lot of first-hand experience examining the manuscripts in question. Burgon was not so much an advocate of the Textus Receptus as he was a critic of Westcott and Hort and a defender of the much-maligned Syrian text type. Contrary to Westcott and Hort, he considered this text type to be the "traditional" text and was not prepared to let Westcott and Hort cast aspersions on the text which, as he believed, was the text used by the church from the beginning, without a fight.
   Burgon is often criticized for the belligerent nature of his argumentation, however one must bear in mind that he believed he was fighting, against growing popular opinion in favor of his opponents, for the preservation of the Word of God. The character of a man's scholarship and the weight of his arguments should not be lightly dismissed because of the emotive way in which he may feel obliged on occasion to express them. Besides, Burgon's work is not as full of this kind of pugnaciousness as some portray, and it is not nearly as vitriolic as some of his modern-day followers. There is a scholarship to his work that demands respect and attention, even by those who disagree with him most strongly. Along with Burgon opposing Westcott and Hort were F. H. A. Scrivener, who also rejected their dismissal of the Syrian text, and George Salmon, who believed that more consideration should be given to the Western text type.
   Westcott and Hort's "Neutral" text was absorbed into the Alexandrian text by later scholars, and their Syrian text became more commonly referred to as the Byzantine text. Aside from this, their approach was largely adopted by the scholarly community, and the vast majority of Greek New Testaments published since their time have been based on their work. Their attitude towards Aleph and B has been modified by later scholars to account for the numerous significant finds of early New Testament manuscripts. Aleph and B still have pride of place, but their readings are not always so readily accepted in the face of earlier and better readings now available. As will be noted later, the hallmark of the position taken by most modern textual scholars is not one that holds to a couple of manuscripts regardless of the evidence, but rather one that is constantly informed by the facts of the evidence, and does not allow tradition and theological speculation to cloud the task at hand: the recovery of the original text of the New Testament.

Part 7: The Task of Textual Criticism: Weighing the Evidence--coming soon...

00:01:00 - Category: Textual Issues - Link to this article -

Boston College Papacy Debate: Scott Butler Attempts to Respond, Ends Up Melting Down

04/11/2008 - James White

00:01:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Debate Wrap Up

04/10/2008 - James White

20:47:26 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Steve Gregg vs. James White Debate: Finale, Part 5, Cross-Ex

04/09/2008 - James White

16:43:39 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

A Quiz on Christianity: Final

04/09/2008 - James White

00:01:00 - Category: Islam - Link to this article -

Arminian Rage

04/08/2008 - James White

21:24:28 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

Steve Gregg's Apology

04/08/2008 - James White

17:33:18 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

A Timely Addition

04/08/2008 - James White

16:58:53 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

Day Four of the Steve Gregg vs. James White Debate

04/08/2008 - James White

16:48:44 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

If You Want to be Ready for Today's Debate

04/08/2008 - James White

11:54:11 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

An Introduction to Textual Criticism: Part 5--The Received Text

04/08/2008 - Colin Smith

   The first official (i.e., sanctioned by the Pope) printed Greek New Testament appeared as part of the Complutensian Polyglot, a multi-lingual, multi-volume work. Although it was planned as early as 1502, was complete by 1517, and received Papal sanction by 1520, it was not published until 1522. While the Polyglot was in the process of being finished and sanctioned, a Roman Catholic Dutch humanist scholar, Desiderius Erasmus, who, possibly with the encouragement of his publisher Johann Froben, produced an unofficial edition of the Greek New Testament in 1516. Erasmus' work was fraught with problems. It is possible that Froben knew of the impending publication of the Polyglot and hurried Erasmus to finish his work to beat it to publication. As a result, the work contained many typographical errors. If this were not enough, Erasmus was unable to locate any single complete New Testament manuscript upon which to base his text; hence he had to compile his text from several manuscripts. All of his manuscripts were relatively late (from the tenth to the twelfth century), and the only manuscript he had of Revelation was missing its last page, leaving him no alternative than to translate these six verses from Latin into Greek. Given the fact that study of Greek was still relatively new in the West, and that Erasmus had no other text to work from, it is not surprising that this bold move generated a number of words that are unknown in any other Greek text, let alone New Testament manuscript.
   Erasmus published five editions of his Greek New Testament, the second of which was used by Martin Luther for his German translation. For the fourth edition, in recognition of the superior text contained in the Complutensian Polyglot (which had been published by that time), Erasmus made corrections in about ninety passages.
   Although Erasmus' text was flawed, the fact that it was the first on the market, and that it was relatively inexpensive, secured its position as the text of the Greek New Testament for hundreds of years. While other editions followed at the hands of able scholars (Robert Estienne (Stephanus), Theodore Beza, and the Elzevir brothers who coined the term "Textus Receptus," or the "Received Text," as part of their marketing literature), they all to some extent reproduced the work of Erasmus. Indeed, to this day, when people refer to the Textus Receptus, or the "Received Text," they are invariably referring to Erasmus' work.
   From the time of Stephanus' edition (1550) until 1881, Erasmus' text was refined and corrected according to manuscript finds from museums and libraries, quotations from the Early Church Fathers, and different language versions as they were available. Scholars also began the practice of making note of places where the published text varies from other manuscripts. Over time, these footnotes containing variant readings would evolve into elaborate apparati by which the armchair textual critic could evaluate the chosen readings for himself without having to examine hundreds of manuscripts. Modern editions of the Greek New Testament (such as the Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Societies texts) contain such apparati at the bottom of each page of text.
   While the majority of the manuscripts in use up to 1881 were late miniscules, there were some notable codices available to scholars of the day. Theodore Beza had in his collection what has come to be known as Codex Bezae, a fifth century codex of which there are 415 pages extant containing the Gospels, Acts, and the Catholic Epistles in Greek along with a Latin translation. Also in Beza's possession was Codex Clarmontanus, of which 533 pages are extant. This is a sixth century codex containing the Pauline Epistles. While the value of these manuscripts is a matter of controversy today, they were probably superior to many others that were available to Beza. However, he chose not to make much use of them since they deviated too much from the standard text of the time. A reference to a manuscript made available by the Pope to the editors of the Complutensian Polyglot suggests that the famous (or infamous, depending on one's perspective) Codex Vaticanus was also known at that time.
   During this period, some brave scholars actually departed from the Textus Receptus in their editions of the Greek New Testament. With an increase in manuscript discoveries, texts came to light from earlier periods that gave some scholars reason to question some of the previously accepted readings. These scholars were certainly a minority, and it took two events at the end of the nineteenth century to finally break the dominance of the Textus Receptus: the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus, and the publication of Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament.

Part 6: The Challenge to the Received Text--coming soon...

00:01:00 - Category: Textual Issues - Link to this article -

Day 3 of the Steve Gregg vs. James White Debate

04/07/2008 - James White

Here's the program (free/high quality).

22:02:46 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

The NIV and the Titanic: What You Never Knew!

04/07/2008 - James White

00:01:00 - Category: King James Onlyism - Link to this article -

Catholic Answers and Veronica's Station of the Cross

04/06/2008 - James Swan

"Originating in the Middle Ages and promoted by the Franciscans, the Stations of the Cross is a devotion to the passion of Christ from the moment of his condemnation by Pilate to his burial. Churches place fourteen images, representing scenes from the passion, spaced out on walls in such a way that a person walks from one to the other until meditations and prayers are completed" [Alfred McBride, O. Praem, Catholic Beliefs From A to Z (Ann Arbor: Servant Publications, 2001) p.159].

Recently John Martignoni appeared on Catholic Answers Live to answer questions on "Scriptural Apologetics." John is "dedicated to explaining and defending the Scriptural foundations of the Catholic faith." The show began with a lengthy discussion on the Stations of the Cross. This intrigued me, considering the practice appears late in church history, thus it is not a Biblical tradition. It appears to be based on a tradition that Mary daily walked the Via Dolorosa. At each place of importance, Mary knelt and prayed. Martignoni tried to present some sort of "scriptural foundation" to solidify each station, but one in particular has absolutely no explicit or implicit Biblical proof that can even romotely be mustered up for the cause of Rome: Station six- Veronica wipes the face of Jesus. Don't bother pulling out your Bible concordance and looking up "Veronica," she isn't there. The Catholic Encyclopedia offers this information on her:

"In several regions of Christendom there is honored under this name a pious matron of Jerusalem who, during the Passion of Christ, as one of the holy women who accompanied Him to Calvary, offered Him a towel on which he left the imprint of His face. She went to Rome, bringing with her this image of Christ, which was long exposed to public veneration" [source].

   Before one begins to suspect the historical possibility of Veronica and this story, the Encyclopedia then notes that early relics like the towel described above were called "vera icon (true image), which ordinary language soon made veronica...By degrees, popular imagination mistook this word for the name of a person and attached thereto several legends which vary according to the country." The Catholic Encyclopedia then lists many of these several legends. This though does not deter the Encyclopedia from concluding:

"These pious traditions cannot be documented, but there is no reason why the belief that such an act of compassion did occur should not find expression in the veneration paid to one called Veronica, even though the name has found no place in the Hieronymian Martyrology or the oldest historical Martyrologies, and St. Charles Borromeo excluded the Office of St. Veronica from the Milan Missal where it had been introduced."

Well, I can think of a few very good reasons not to venerate Veronica: the Encyclopedia has presented no positive historical evidence that such a person ever existed, and it earlier confirmed the origination of her name evolved from a description of an inanimate object to the status of a person!

Now let's take a listen to Mr.Martignoni's "scriptural apologetic" for Station six:



   First Martignoni informs us the source for Station six comes from the apocryphal Acts of Pilate from 100-125 A.D. Some of the sources I checked date the work from 150-255 A.D. The Catholic Encyclopedia, though an older work, states, "We are forced to admit that is of later origin, and scholars agree in assigning it to the middle of the fourth century" [source]. Obviously, the certainty that this is an early work is debatable. The actual reference to Veronica from this text is also less than compelling:

Chapter 7
   There was found there also a woman named Veronica, and she said: Twelve years I was in an issue of blood, and I only touched the edge of his garment, and directly I was cured.The Jews say: Our law does not admit the testimony of a woman.

Martignoni refers to the story of Veronica as stemming from "small 't' tradition." He correctly notes that the story from the Acts of Pilate speaks of Jesus healing a woman of a blood disorder. Note above, the story of Veronica's towel is...missing. The Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature notes,

"A late tradition represents [Veronica] as a niece of King Herod and as offering her veil, or a napkin, as a sundarium to the suffering Christ on the Way of the Cross, whose pictured features were thus impressed upon the linen. This tradition has found no acceptance since the 11th cent." [Henry Wace, William Piercy, eds., The Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature (Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1911), p. 1106].

   In fact, in some translations of the section above, the name isn't Veronica, but Bernice [Willis Barnstone, ed., The Other Bible (San Francisco: Harper San Fransisco, 2005), p.366]. The reason appears to be that the name "Veronica" is found in a later Latin manuscript (the original text is in Greek). Veronica (or Bernice) appears in the text as witness on behalf of Christ. These two women may in fact be the same, as "Veronica" appears to be a latinisation of "Bernice." But, neither name may be accurate. The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. VIII [Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995 (reprint)] translates the text simply as "a woman" (p. 419), and notes that only some of the manuscripts use either the names mentioned.
   Martignoni states if one or two of the Stations of the Cross did not happen, well, "so what?" He states, "You can't prove it did not happen." He then states the tradition of this story goes back almost 2000 years. This serves as proof that it did happen! My challenge to Martignoni would be to document this claim. Trace the tradition of this story back 2000 years. Explain why this is not a tradition of men, like those decried by Jesus.
   Where then did the Veronica story come from? I found a version of it in The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. VIII, pp.466-467, "The Death of Pilate Who Condemned Jesus." The editors note of this text, "The language shows it to be of a late date" (p. 354). Here is the pertinent section:

"And this messenger returning to his inn, met a certain woman named Veronica, who had been a friend of Jesus; and he said: O woman, a certain physician who was in this city, who cured the sick by a word alone, why have the Jews put him to death? And she began to weep, saying: Ah me! my Lord, my God and my Lord, whom Pilate for envy delivered, condemned, and ordered to be crucified. Then he, being exceedingly grieved, said: I am vehemently grieved that I am unable to accomplish that for which my Lord had sent me. And Veronica said to him: When my Lord was going about preaching, and I, much against my will, was deprived of His presence, I wished His picture to be painted for me, in order that, while I was deprived of His presence, the figure of His picture might at least afford me consolation. And when I was carrying the canvas to the painter to be painted, my Lord met me, and asked whither I was going. And when I had disclosed to Him the cause of my journey, He asked of me the cloth, and gave it back to me impressed with the image of His venerable face. Therefore, if thy Lord will devoutly gaze upon His face, he shall obtain forthwith the benefit of health. And he said to her: Is a picture of such a sort procurable by gold or silver? She said to him: No; but by the pious influence of devotion. I shall therefore set out with thee, and shall carry the picture to be seen by Caesar, and shall come back again.
   
Volusianus therefore came with Veronica to Rome, and said to Tiberius the emperor: Jesus, whom thou hast been longing for, Pilate and the Jews have delivered to an unjust death, and have through envy affixed to the gibbet of the cross. There has therefore come with me a certain matron, bringing a picture of Jesus himself; and if thou wilt devoutly look upon it, thou shall immediately obtain the benefit of thy health. Caesar therefore ordered the way to be strewn with silk cloths, and the picture to be presented to him; and as soon as he had looked upon it, he regained his former health."

   In the same volume, a document entitled "The Avenging of the Savior" claims Veronica was the woman "who suffered from an issue of blood twelve years" [The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. VIII, p. 475]. In this story, Veronica has a "portrait of the Lord." This portrait has miraculous powers.
   Martignoni notes that the Stations of the Cross are an act of devotion, therefore, one can still gain spiritual benefit from it. What benefit could possibly be gained from a practice not only non-Biblical, but including non-historical, and most likely fictional facts about Veronica? I've read elsewhere that plenary indulgences can be granted to those who take part in this act of devotion [Stanley Stuber, Primer on Roman Catholicism for Protestants (New York: Association Press, 1953), p.190]. Hence, an act that is part of small "t" tradition has quite an effect on a participant.
   Catholics continually make the claim that to be deep in history is to cease being Protestant. Well, if one does history as Martignoni does, I would have to ask how the word "history" is being defined. If it means that anything is history because one cannot prove it did not happen, and whatever small "t" tradition is now part of Catholic practice is true because it's a nice act of devotion, I would rather not go deep into Martignoni's method of history.

00:01:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Khalid Yasin and Inconsistent Islamic Arguments

04/05/2008 - James White

   Since many Christians struggle to understand Deedat's accent, or find Naik too "foreign" to understand, you might find Khalid Yasin to be very clear and forthright.

00:01:00 - Category: Islam - Link to this article -

Day 2 of the Steve Gregg vs. James White Debate

04/04/2008 - James White

   Here's the program (free/high quality).

20:00:59 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Greg Stafford on God's Ignorance: God As Man's Prophet

04/04/2008 - Jeff Downs

Regarding the creation of mankind, the Westminster Shorter Catechism (Q10) asks “How did God create man?” And it answers the question by stating “God created man male and female, after his own image, in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, with dominion over the creatures” (emphasis mine). And because we are made in the image of God, we are to image Him (as only man can), in all of our being. We tend to look at this section of Genesis (1-3) as man either obeying and disobeying God strictly in their ethic (how they live their lives).

But as God’s creatures, Adam and Eve were to be Yahweh’s servant with all their being. We are told that the greatest commandment is “to love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength” (emphasis mine). This commandment, although not stated in Genesis was certainly Adam greatest commandment. And just as we are not to love and serve God in our own strength, according to our own dictates, Adam, again, was no different.

It is clear from the NT that part of the image that is being restored has to do with knowledge. What we know, how do we know it, etc. One picture of the Christian, is that he is as priest, offering up to God our own bodies (including our minds) as living sacrifices, and in doing so our minds will be transformed, to know God’s will. We are told in other places that we are to “take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2Cor. 10:5). In Eph. 4:22-23 Paul states “You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.” and in Col. 3:10 Paul continues this line of reason stating “and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.”

If one of the goals of our sanctification is that we are “think God’s thoughts after him” as Cornelius Van Til stated, we can safely assume that in the garden, prior to the fall, Adam possessed the knowledge Paul speaks about in the above verses. The difference being, that Adam before the fall did not have to “take every thought captive,” this was a given. Adam, prior to the fall, was thinking God’s thoughts after Him.

Being made in the image of God, man was to be God’s prophet, priest and king. He was to rule over creation, he was to subdue creation and he was to proclaim the works and mind of the mind of his creator to the creation. After all, if Adam failed in any of these before the actual fall, we would have a pre-fall. But we know this wasn’t the case.

When we look at the teachings of Mr. Greg Stafford, we see the roles of prophet exchanged from man being the prophet of God, to God being a prophet for man. Mr. Stafford has established for himself (with the help of Jehovah’s Witness publications) that there is knowledge God is not aware of and can not know until man reveals it. After man says what he says, it becomes revelation for God, and now God can speak forth what Adam, a part from his image-bearing, has made known. Remember, Mr. Stafford has told us in the past, that when God commanded Adam to name the animals, God himself did not know what Adam was going to name them. God’s knowledge was limited to the free choices of man. God, now thinks man’s thoughts after him.

One important point to recognize here is that built into in Mr. Stafford’s theology, is a place for man’s autonomy. He (man) is a law unto himself. Before the fall, he can do things and say things without thinking God’s thought after him. Man, apart from God, makes decisions, which in the end, bind God and instead of man being the prophet for God, God becomes the mouth piece for man. Man becomes the final reference point and the the creator-creature distinction is blurred.

I can not say it better than Van Til at this point when he states “It is only when this point is carefully noted that the Christian and the non-Christian points of view are seen in their right relationship to one another. The two positions have mutually exclusive views of the ultimate reference point in predication” (Christian Apologetics, 2ed., 43).

[Note: The thoughts in this post are being developed for a paper I am currently writing for an apologetics class. When finished, Lord willing, I will post the paper on the blog].

14:27:08 - Category: Jehovahs Witnesses - Link to this article -

FIEL and Eros Pasquini

04/04/2008 - James White

   I saw this video on Tom Ascol's blog, and I had to repost it here:



   I, too, join Tom in thanking Eros for his incredible skill as a translator. When I spoke for FIEL a few years ago, Eros made the work so much easier. But he and I also had a wonderful time talking together about the Lord and His truth. What makes the above clip from Tom Ascol so humorous for me is what happened during my time there. First, you might note that Eros and I look a bit alike. In fact, in this picture, Eros and I had decided to have some fun with that, so I lent him one of my famous loud ties just for the evening. You see, the first time I spoke, as we approached the podium, the crowd began to laugh. We looked at each other with a little puzzlement at first before we got the joke. So I began, "Look! I came all the way to Brazil just to find my long lost brother!" So we decided to take the next step and dress alike to play off on the twins idea. We got a good round of applause!
   But what resonated most with Tom's torture of Eros with all the next-to-impossible-to-translate idioms was what happened with the other speaker who was with me at the Fiel conference, Pat Campbell from the St. Louis area. Pat's a great guy, but he just couldn't rid himself of his use of idioms or poetry. No matter how hard he tried, he'd still end up trying to quote a line from a hymn or something like that. Eros told him he could do that, if he would just let him know ahead of time, so he could see if there was an already published version of the hymn in Portugese, for example. So by the end of the week, though Pat tried, when he'd get to where he was about to spout off some idiomatic line or poem, he'd turn red, get all embarrassed, and Eros would just shake his head and laugh. We were all in on the joke by then. To this day when I go to St. Louis and meet Pat we laugh about our trip to Brazil together.
   In any case, I have very, very fond memories of my time in Brazil and especially of Eros Pasquini. May the Lord bless the Denhams, FIEL, and Eros as they labor for the Lord.

09:02:05 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

Boston College Papacy Rebuttal: James White

04/04/2008 - James White

00:01:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Michael Baigent, The Jesus Papers

04/03/2008 - James White

   Michael Baigent, whose highest degree is in "mysticism and religious experience," who likewise wrote the work that became the source of the central core of Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, his Holy Blood, Holy Grail, is about as unbiased when it comes to the New Testament as the Pope would be on Catholicism. A spinner of conspiracy theories and historical fiction, Baigent's The Jesus Papers is nothing more than another fictional attempt to make money on the back of shredding the New Testament and tapping in to decaying Western culture and its incessant desire for reasons to disbelieve. In the section where Baigent is trying to peddle his "Jesus didn't die" myth, we read the following:

   Certainly the New Testament is bad history. This is impossible to deny. The texts are inconsistent, incomplete, garbled, and biased. It is possible to deconstruct the New Testament to the point where nothing remains but a heavily biased, dogmatic Christian mythology---in which case we could argue that the account of Jesus supporting the payment of taxes to Caesar was simply a later addition to reassure the mostly Greco-Roman Gentile converts to Christianity that there was nothing politically dangerous about the new faith, that it was never a political threat to Roman power.

   Nothing like a slightly unbiased view of the New Testament, yes? Yet this is the face of the secular world today. "Please don't confuse me with replies, nor ask me why I choose to presume guilt first; I have no interest in explaining to you why I refuse to allow the text to speak as a whole, I much prefer to simply claim that everyone agrees with me that the NT stinks as history and is a jumbled, garbled mess, so thatI can then isolate any texts I want, weave them together into conspiracy theories that I can then either sell to gullible readers, or use to get tenure at the university." Sadly, this kind of thinking predominates in the classrooms of the American educational system.
   In any case, this is the context to the portion Shadid Lewis relied upon to make his argument about Jesus surviving the crucifixion. The context then is, "Context? Who needs context? Who needs to define terms as they were used in the original document? Throw context out! Let's string things together in any way we want!" This hardly gives us much reason to hope that Baigent will tell the truth about such things as lexicography, either. I note in passing, would our Muslim friends appreciate the Qur'an receiving the treatment the NT receives at the hands of Baigent? Most of these writers stay far away from the subject of the Qur'an (they want to make money and get to travel around and give talks at little gatherings, not dodge fatwas), but there isn't the slightest reason to think they would not treat it with the same disdain they do the NT. I wonder how our Islamic apologist friends would respond to that? In any case, here is the entire section from which Mr. Lewis cited in the debate on the 23^rd:

   But there is yet another oddity that we need to note: in the Gospel of Mark, Joseph of Arimathea is described as visiting Pilate and requesting the body of Jesus. Pilate asks if Jesus is dead and is surprised when told that he is indeed, for his demise seems very rapid to Pilate.But since Jesus is dead, Pilate allows Joseph to take the body down. If we look at the original Greek text, we see an important point being made: when Joseph asks Pilate for Jesus's body, the word used for "body" is soma. In Greek this denotes a living body. When Pilate agrees that Joseph can take the body down from the cross, the word he uses for "body" is ptoma (Mark 15:43-45). This means a fallen body, a corpse or carcass. In other words, the Greek text of Mark's Gospel is making it clear that while Joseph is asking for the living body of Jesus, Pilate grants him what he believes to be the corpse. Jesus' survival is revealed right there in the actual Gospel account.
   If the writer of the Gospel had wished to hide that fact, it would have been very easy for him simply to use one word for both statements---to have both Joseph and Pilate speaking of the ptoma, the corpse. But the writer chose not to be consistent. Could this be because it was too well known a fact for him to get away with any manipulation of it? This had to wait for the translation of the New Testament from Greek into Latin in the Latin Bible--the Vulgate--the word corpus is used by both Pilate and Joseph of Arimathea, and this simply means "body" as well as "corpse." The hiding of the secret of the crucifixion was completed. (The Jesus Papers, pp. 130-131).

   As long as one remembers this is conspiracy-driven fiction and not serious scholarship, one will resist the temptation to pull out one's hair at the unwarranted, countermanded leaps of illogic Baigent proposes with a straight face. I have reviewed this material in my response to Shadid Lewis here:



I note that there is no way to read Baigent without realizing that his argument does, in fact, demand that the one using it preclude soma from having any semantic overlap with ptoma, the very thing Shadid Lewis then accused me of "lying" about. Baigent is also obviously ignorant of the textual variant at this point as well. But in any case, this kind of "please don't bother me about the contradictions my interpretation introduces into the text, this will sell anyway" writing is good for a chuckle, but when it is being read by Islamic apologists standing in front of an audience and video cameras, well, that says a lot about the state of that dialogue, does it not?

22:09:58 - Category: Simply Silly - Link to this article -

Day 1 of the Steve Gregg vs. James White Debate

04/03/2008 - James White

   Here is the first hour of the five hour debate. If you wish to listen live, tune in tomorrow, 2pm PDT (5pm EDT) for the second portion! Here's the program (free/high quality).

19:03:12 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

The Entire Nadir Ahmed Debate: Playlist

04/03/2008 - James White

   I have never tried embedding an entire playlist before, so here is my first shot at it. I am not going to extend out eleven videos of the Nadir Ahmed "debate." His behavior is so far below acceptable that it gets in the way of the subject. So here is the playlist so that those who do wish to observe the interaction can do so. You may also want to share this with anyone who gets caught up in Nadir's constant debate challenges. This debate provides all the necessary documentation for any rational and reasonable person to dismiss Mr. Ahmed as one utterly unqualified to engage in public disputation. Below the playlist I am also providing one other video I produced debunking Ahmed's "Acid Test" argument. I had prepared the slides before the debate, since Ahmed had said he would present the argument, but he did not. I did not wish to waste the effort.



And then Ahmed's "Acid Test" debunked and refuted:

11:52:10 - Category: Islam - Link to this article -

Cross Examination of James White by Dennis Potter, University of Utah

04/02/2008 - James White

00:01:00 - Category: Mormonism - Link to this article -

First DL in Two Weeks!

04/01/2008 - James White

   Did the first Dividing Line in a number of weeks today. I played clips from the debates in Norfolk and responded to the claims made by Sami Zaatari and Shadid Lewis. Also played some clips from the "debate" with Nadir Ahmed. Also announced that starting Thursday we will have a five-day simulcast debate with Steve Gregg on the freedom of God in salvation. Even to this point I still don't know how it is going to be run. Evidently, Mr. Gregg does not check e-mail nearly as often as I do. So, I just hope it goes smoothly on the technical side. I truly have no time to worry about it, or even to prepare for it. As the banner ad on the main page here indicates, I have a debate with Shaikh Jalal Abualrub on the 12th. What the banner ads don't tell you is that on the 22nd I will be debating Dr. Michael K. Schutz, Professor of Sociology at CSU East Bay, on the campus there in Hayward, California (San Francisco area, directly across the Bay from the main campus of the Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary) on the subject of Gay Marriage. He's for it, I'm against it. I wonder if I'll be in the minority? You think? So to say I'm a bit under the gun for the next few weeks is a major understatement. So don't blame me if halfway through a segment in the Gregg series I start going after him about misunderstanding the Qur'an or something. So anyway, here's today's program (free/high quality).

19:15:27 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Press Release Regarding Dr. Lee Carter's Prejudiced Attacks Upon Christian Students

04/01/2008 - James White

PRESS RELEASE
Glendale Community College Professor Identifies Christians as the "Religiously Insane," Tells Christian Students Their Parents Lied to Them; Says Christians Would Nail Jesus to the Cross if He Came Back

   Dr. Lee Carter, a philosophy instructor at Glendale Community College, said the following to his class on October 25, 2007:

And in fact, if Jesus did come back, the most likely people to put him back on the cross would be Christians, and the most likely people to nail him to the cross would be fundamentalist Christians. They would be the ones who would be nailing that son of a bitch back to the cross, because he'd be the one who'd be refuting what they believe, and they wouldn't want that. Fair enough? So the most likely guys to be hammering in the nails, they are the guys who elected George Bush, and believe in the literal truth of the Bible, and don't believe in evolution, because they don't want to use reason, and they don't want to think, they'd rather stick to their illusions that hopefully may convince them that they don't have to be afraid at night when they are all alone, and the devil may whisper in their ears. (10/25/07)

   This kind of rhetoric is normative for Dr. Carter, who during the same semester identified Christians as the "religiously insane." In one class Dr. Carter informed a Christian student in no uncertain terms, in front of the entire class, that her parents had "lied" to her about the authorship of the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, found in the Christian Bible), and then said he would give the student $100 if she could tell him who wrote these books, and that she should start by "Googling it." This was said despite the fact that Dr. Carter had no idea what the student had, in fact, been taught by her parents on this topic.
   Dr. Carter warns Christian students that they will be challenged in his classes. It is perfectly fine to challenge a Christian student, or a Muslim student, or an atheist student for that matter. But Dr. Lee Carter's rhetoric is not an example of challenge: it is a clear example of prejudiced, bigoted behavior that goes far beyond anything that can honestly be called "academic freedom." The above cited instances were not unusual events; the mockery of Christians was a normative element of the lectures given by Dr. Carter.
   This information, in a much fuller form, with full documentation, was provided to the Board of the Maricopa Community Colleges as well as the President of Glendale Community College. When asked if Dr. Carter's behavior falls under the realm of "academic freedom," the President of Glendale Community College, Dr. Velvie Green, would only say that the concerns expressed about Dr. Carter's behavior have been "addressed" with him. Repeated efforts to get a clear, final answer as to whether this kind of prejudicial and bigoted behavior will be allowed to continue under the guise of academic freedom were not answered.
   I believe that if a Christian professor spoke in this fashion to a Muslim student, they would be dismissed instantly and without question. The irony is that another professor at Glendale Community College, Walter Kehowski, though a tenured professor of mathematics, was forced to fight to retain his job after forwarding to colleagues George Washington's "Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789." His greatest mistake was leaving the source of the address on the e-mail: Pat Buchanan's website. So consider the contrast: one professor has to fight for his job for even daring to note a historical, Christian statement because it was posted on a politically incorrect website: another professor is free to call Christians "the religiously insane," tell Christian students their parents "lied" to them, and say Christians would nail Jesus to the cross were He to return.

Further documentation on this topic. Includes audio links to discussions, interviews, etc.
Regarding Professor Walter Kehowski
And finally, one might note that Dr. Carter's comments are significantly more inflammatory than those in this lawsuit in California.

   Please feel free to copy this press release and send it to any media outlets/sources/writers you think might find it interesting or useful. If any of you have access to such media folks as Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, etc., please feel free to direct them to this information. Thank you!

16:59:20 - Category: Christian Worldview - Link to this article -

<< Previous Month Next Month >> Blog Archives