Low Views of Scripture

I was just in the Christian chat room defending the doctrine of the Trinity against a few who would deny it and in the process of the conversation one woman cited John 1:18 as a proof that Jesus was not God. I immediately pointed out the rather significant textual variant in the verse, whereas the oldest manuscripts (mss) read monogenēs theos which can be translated as 'the unique God' or 'the only begotten God' or 'the one of a kind God' [See The Greek New Testament, 4th Rev. Ed., Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce Metzger, eds. (Germany: United Bible Society, 1998), 314 for a list of mss containing this reading.] The later mss read monogenēs huios from which we get the translation 'only begotten Son' or 'unique Son' etc. The woman proceeded to tell me that she can read it in English and doesn't need to stinking Greek, blah blah blah... So of course I suggested reading the NIV ('God the one and only') or the NASB ('only begotten God').

Then here comes a Roman Catholic with his low view of Scripture spouting off about how no two mss read the same and all we have are copies of copies of copies. Of course I mentioned to him that the science of textual criticism gives us the ability to compare variant readings and get back to the original reading. He obviously didn't understand what I was saying as he began to chide that we don't have the original mss, all we have are copies from the 4th century and later. I corrected him again by saying that we do not need the autographs (original mss) to get back to the original reading. I then corrected his misinformation about the oldest manuscripts.

Above you see the John Rylands P52 Papyrus which dates to about A.D. 125 which is within 40 years of the time of John's writing! Now of course this alone refuted the assertion that we have no mss evidence prior to the 4th century but I was inclined to list even more.

So I also mentioned the Bodmer Papyri P64 and P66 which date to about A.D. 200 and P75 which dates in the early 3rd century as well. Did he change his tune after this? Of course not.

Then I continued along in my quest and mentioned the Chester Beatty Papyrus P45 which dates to the early to mid 3rd century.

Other mss worth noting are P1; P5; P15; P22; P27; P30; P39; P40; P47; P48; P49; P65; P67; P70; P76 (all of which date to the 3rd century). But none of this matters to the Roman Catholic because again, they have a decidedly low view of Scripture.

I have to ask myself why this man would enter into a conversation in which I was defending the doctrines of the Trinity and full deity of Christ and attempt to undercut me by claiming that the mss we possess are of late dates and not original. The only answer I can come up with is so that he could eventually assert the authority of the RCC in these matters. It's not enough to simply deny the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, but the Scriptures themselves must be attacked in order to garner support for the RC position. But what is really frustrating is that even after I listed these various papyri and their dates, this man stuck his fingers in his ears, his head in the sand, and started shouting at the top of his lungs, 'I can't hear you!'

He wouldn't even acknowledge the evidence I presented or attempt to check into it. His next argument was that no gospel was accepted before A.D. 140! Well of course this was false as well (and also quite beside the point, especially for the RC who had no canon until Trent in the 16th century!) Paul's conflates two quotes, 1 from the LXX (Ou phimōseis boun aloōnta, Deut. 25:4) and one from Luke's Gospel (ho ergatēs tou misthou autou, Lu. 10:7) in his first epistle to Timothy (1Tim. 5:18) which dates between A.D. 55-63. So we have a New Testament example from the early first century that the gospels were accepted before A.D. 140!

But I also asked him if he was familiar with Papias and when he wrote. He refused to answer the question which of course means no. Scholars date the fragments of Papias which are preserved in Eusebius' Church History to around A.D. 100. Papias acknowledged Mark as "the interpreter of Peter, [who] wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered" (Papias, "Fragments VI" in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, Roberts, Alexander and James Donaldson, eds. (Christian Literature, 1885; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, rpt. 2004), 154-55.) So his argument fails on Patristic evidence as well.

It can also be added that Ignatius and Polycarp accepted the gospels prior to A.D. 140 but that woudn't matter either because when one is stuck in their tradition they seem to want to stay stuck no matter what. I can only hold Scripture in the highest esteem and praise God for the Word that he has given me! These words seem fitting, “O God, I praise your word. Yes, LORD, I praise your word.” (Ps. 56:10, NLT)