I am the author who accused you of setting up a straw man.
> <This is a straw-man argument. The massive number of extant New
> Testament manuscripts (MSS) does not prove the accuracy of the
> content, nor is Geisler claiming that it does.>
>
> I was both a participant in the debate and one of the transcribers of the
> tapes. I think I understand what Geisler was arguing on this point, and he
> was either arguing that the "massive number of extant New Testament
> manuscripts" proves the accuracy of their content or else I can't understand
> plain language.
I was not present at the Geisler-Till debate, but I did type the transcript in word-for-word myself in order to prepare the HTML version for the World Wide Web (http://freethought.tamu.edu/debates/geisler-till/). Now I am certainly not accusing you of being able to "understand plain language", but I do think you have misunderstood (conflated?) Geisler's argument.
> Let's just let Geisler's own transcript speak for itself. The third sentence
> that Geiser read from his opening speech said this: "First, the New Testament
> documents are historically reliable accounts." After making this assertion,
> he spent over two pages discussing the number of manuscripts in existence,
> the "early" dates of the manuscripts, and the accuracy with which the
> originals were copied.
>
> This brought him to the second division of his first speech, which he began
> with this statement: "In brief, there is nothing like this kind of evidence
> for any other historical event from the ancient world. *Now, if the New
> Testament documents are reliable,* it remains only to show that they affirm
> that Jesus died and rose from the dead a few days later."
>
> Notice the conclusion that Geisler obviously reached from the three points he
> had just made. He argued that (1) MSS of the New Testament are more numerous
> than any other ancient documents, (2) these manuscripts were copied within
> only a generation of the time of the events that they recorded, and (3) the
> manuscripts were accurate copies of the originals. Then he *immediately*
> concluded that "if the New Testament documents are reliable, it remains only
> to show that they affirm that Jesus died and rose from the dead a few days
> later."
>
> Now if this does not mean that Geisler sees that the number of NT manuscripts
> has a direct bearing on the historical accuracy of the claims recorded in the
> NT, I simply can't understand plain language. I would like to hear from the
> person who posted this "reply" and see him show what is wrong with the
> interpretation that I have drawn from Geisler's own statements.
Okay, I'll bite. According to my reading of the Geisler-Till Debate transcript, the following outline is an accurate summary of Geisler's presentation.
THE GEISLER-TILL DEBATE: DR. GEISLER'S FIRST SPEECH
[Interested readers are invited to verify my outline of Geisler's speech by reading his speech for themselves on the WWW at http://freethought.tamu.edu/debates/geisler-till/geisler1.html]
I. THE NT DOCUMENTS ARE HISTORICALLY RELIABLE ACCOUNTS.
A. The extant NT MSS are accurate copies of the originals.
1. The NT has more MSS.
2. The NT has earlier MSS.
3. The NT is more accurately copied.
B. The writers were eyewitnesses or contemporaries of
eyewitnesses.
1. Luke, John, Acts, 1 Corinthians purport to be written by
eyewitnesses and/or contemporaries.
2. The accounts are fresh, vivid, and accurate (giving specific
geographical, topological, and cultural details)
3. Archaeology has confirmed the Gospel records.
4. The MS evidence points to a 1st-cent. date for the Gospel
material.
5. The writers of the NT were known to be honest men. 6. Second century writers "link" with the NT.
7. The Church Fathers cite the NT as authentic.
8. NT scholarship supports an early dating of the gospels.
9. The time lapse between the writing of the NT and the events
it described is too short for mythological development.
10. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians circa 56 CE.
II. THESE DOCUMENTS SUPPORT THE RESURRECTION [outline of second contention ommitted as it is not germane to this discussion]
I think it is very clear from the above outline that Geisler did NOT conclude the NT is historically reliable *solely* on the basis of the manuscript attestion of the NT. I think Geisler correctly recognizes that as a necessary, but not sufficient requirement. Geisler went on to prove that the NT writers were in close time proximity to the events they describe, and alluded to several forms of external confirmation for the NT documents (patristic writings, archaeological discoveries, etc.)
> I think my response to Briggs demonstrated that the number of extant NT MSS
> has nothing to do with whether the content in them is historically accurate.
Well of course the number of extant NT MSS does not prove content reliablity. But that is also not very interesting, because no one (to my knowledge) - certainly not Geisler, McDowell, W.L. Craig, Craig Blomberg, Stephen T. Davis, Stephen Collins, or J.P. Moreland - claims that it does.
> Furthermore, my response to Briggs asked for proof of why the dates of the
> manuscripts would have anything to do with their historical accuracy.
You seem to confuse Geisler's arguments which were merely designed to pre-empt his opposition, with arguments that actually prove his point of view. And this is a significant distinction. If I could show that the gospels were written in the second century, that would seriously undermine the historicity of Jesus' resurrection. But if Geisler can show they were written in the mid-first century, that makes the objection that "the resurrection was tacked on" much more tenuous.
> I said
> in this response that even if we had the very original autographs themselves
> that would constitute no proof at all that their content was historically
> accurate.
So what? Nobody's claiming that the original autographs would prove historical reliability! The concept here is that the number and dating of extant manuscripts determines TRANSMISSION accuracy, not content accuracy.
> Since any writer of an original document can make mistakes or
> deliberately falsify information, the historical accuracy of the document
> must be decided by other means. That is true of the NT documents too. My
> response to Briggs also pointed out that accuracy in copying the originals
> constitutes no proof at all of historical accuracy.
Again, you've misunderstood the purpose of the argument. By correctly pointing out that the NT MSS were accurately copied (with a few insignificant exceptions), he is pre-empting the objection, "But maybe the resurrection is false because the copyists wrote the story in! How do you know the copyists didn't invent the Resurrection?" Again, unless you can provide us with a direct quote where Geisler says, "The fact that the copyists made accurate copies of the NT MSS proves that what the NT says is accurate", I think your arguments are irrelevant.
> Even if we knew
> positively that all copies of the original MSS had been copied with 100%
> accuracy that would prove absolutely nothing about the historical accuracy of
> the MSS.
But nobody is claiming that would prove the accuracy of the content. All we're claiming - Norman Geisler, Jeff Lowder, and everyone else - is simply *transmission* accuracy. Can you see the difference?
> JUST WHERE IS THE STRAW MAN?
The straw man is that you keep rejecting the historical accuracy of the New Testament on the grounds that the only support we have for its reliablity is *transmission* accuracy. However, as we've seen, Geisler presented much more evidence in support of the historicity of the NT than just that, evidence which you pretty much failed to deal with.
> The poster of the reply stated that I did not prove that any of the 30,000
> variations in the NT MSS have any significant effect on doctrine. In the
> first place, I don't have to prove this,
Either you have the evidence or you do not. In your article, you claimed that you would produce the evidence if pressed on it. I'm pressing, so where's the evidence? I'm not saying you're wrong, mind you, but this is an important point and you need to give evidence for it.
> because, as I have repeatedly noted,
> even if there were no variations *at all* in *any* of these manuscripts, that
> would not prove historical accuracy.
However, if you could prove there were variations in the texts that touch on major doctrines or events, that would undermine their reliability, which is why I'm pressing you for some examples of these "30,000 variations" and your evidence for them.
> I did attempt to show how that a
> variation in the gospel of Mark [the absence of the Marcan Appendix in some
> manuscripts] would have a very significant effect on the doctrine of baptism
> as taught in the Chruch of Christ,
Two responses:
1. This does not undermine any universal Christian doctrines. Now perhaps your publication is only concerned with the Church of Christ, but that is certainly NOT the impression that I got. So-called "libertarian" views of inerrancy aside (whatever they are), you attack many Christians who I would be willing to bet are not in the Church of Christ. I have seen you attack Josh McDowell and William Lane Craig, for example, and I don't think they've ever been associated with the Church of Christ. Nor do I think Geisler has been associated with the Church of Christ. But that means you can't use the "if it's not associated with the Church of Christ, I don't have to deal with it" defense.
2. It is unclear how the absence of the Markan appendix in some MSS undermines the historical reliablity of the NT *as a whole*. Standard historical procedure is to simply toss the passage in question, NOT the whole text. And it appears Christians have done exactly that. All of the Bibles I have seen that have any kind of annotations on the side fully acknowledge that the Marcan appendix (Mark 16:9-20) does not appear in some ancient MSS. But that does nothing to undermine the NT's report on the virgin birth, for example.
> and somehow this was interpreted as a
> desire to discredit the Church of Christ rather than refute the claim that
> the variations have had no effect on Christian doctrine. Several on the list
> have been debating the meaning of the word "Christian," and the best that I
> can tell, no agreement has yet been reached.
For starters, it is universally agreed upon that Christians believe the historicity of Jesus. Surely your variations do not undermine this doctrine. It is also universally agreed upon by Christians that God exists, and that Jesus is the model of ethical behavior. I haven't seen any variations that would call these beliefs into question. I could list several more essential doctrines, but I don't have to. You have the burden of proof. You claimed that variations in the NT texts undermined significant Christian doctrines. However, you have failed to 1) identify the textual variations and 2) which doctrines are undermined by them. Note that I did not dismiss your argument by saying "well, I don't consider that doctrine essential to Christianity" - you never identified them! So I think that your comments on defining "Christian" really hold any water here.
> Doctrinal disputes and
> controversies are so widespread in Christianity that there will always be
> some group who would say that variation X (no matter what it might be) has no
> effect on its doctrines. The fact that 30,000 variations exist in the NT
> documents is enough to discredit the claim that the MSS were copied with
> 99.9% accuracy.
Unless you give us 1) examples of these variations, and 2) evidence indicating they exist, I don't think we need to take your argument seriously. As my old New Testament professor used to say, "An ounce of evidence is worth more than a pound of assertions."
> The fact that even 100% accuracy would prove nothing about
> historical reliability makes this argument a non sequitur if not the real
> straw man in this debate.
Sigh....
> Whoever posted the reply to my analysis should take notice of the fact that
> several Christians on the list have tried to pull this same argument about
> the number of NT MSS on us, and it has been shot down enough that anyone
> should be able to see that neither I nor anyone else on the list is setting
> up straw men when we point out that the argument is totally without merit.
I'm not a Christian, I'm an agnostic and one of the managers of the Internet Infidels, but I will defend Geisler on this one. There is no contradiction in admitting the transmission accuracy of the NT and not believing in God.
> <<I think you have misunderstood Geisler's purpose. Unless you can
> produce a quotation of Geisler saying that "the number of New
> Testament manuscripts proves that the content of the New Testament is
> accurate", I think your complaints are groundless.>>
>
> I have not produced a statement from Geisler in those exact words, but the
> quotation that I cited above from his speech clearly shows that this is what
> he meant. When he spoke at length about the number of manuscripts, the dates
> they were copied, and the accuracy with which they were copied, AND THEN
> SAID, "Now if the New Testament documents are reliable, it remains only to
> show that they affirm that Jesus died and rose from the dead a few days
> later," if he didn't mean to say that the number of manuscripts in existence
> had a direct bearing on their historical accuracy, then please tell us what
> he did mean.
Geisler meant to say that the number of manuscripts in existence has a direct bearing ONLY on TRANSMISSION accuracy.
> All through Geisler's second speech (which he simply read from a previously
> prepared manuscript rather than trying to answer my counterarguments), he
> referred to how he had established the historical reliability of the NT
> documents, yet he said nothing to prove the historical accuracy of these
> documents except to talk about how many of them exist, when they were copied,
> and how accurately they were copied.
This is simply wrong. Geisler alluded to patristic writings (the writings of the Church fathers, archeological discoverties, external confirmation, etc.). He did not base his case for the historical reliability of the NT *merely* on the basis of *transmission* accuracy.
> So please explain why I am setting up a
> straw man when I say that Geisler argues that the number of NT manuscripts in
> existence somehow proves their historical accuracy. Someone is having a
> problem understanding what Geisler meant, and I don't think I'm the one with
> the problem.
>
> Farrell Till
Jeff Lowder -=+ Internet Infidel +=- jlowder@atheist.tamu.edu Lowder Institute for Secular Studies http://freethought.tamu.edu/~jlowder/ Jeff Lowder <jlowder@southwind.com>