NEW YORK - Leaders from five Anglican provinces said Friday they will boycott a once-a-decade world Anglican summit because the U.S. Episcopal Church ordained a gay bishop.
The five leaders from Africa and South America said they could not share communion with Episcopal bishops who in 2003 consecrated V. Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire.
The Episcopal Church is the Anglican body in the U.S.
Friday's announcement came from Archbishops Peter Akinola of Nigeria, Emmanuel Kolini of Rwanda, Benjamin Nzimbi of Kenya, Henry Orombi of Uganda and Gregory Venables of the Southern Cone, which is in South America.
"There is no serious space for those of an orthodox persuasion ... to be themselves or to be taken seriously," the archbishops said in a statement. They lead some of the largest or fastest-growing Anglican provinces in the world.
"The gathering will be diminished by their absence, and I imagine that they themselves will miss a gift they might have otherwise received" by attending, Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said.
Anglicans are deeply divided over how they should interpret what the Bible says about truth, salvation, homosexuality and other issues. Robinson's elevation has pushed the 77 million-member Anglican Communion to the brink of schism. Attendance at the meeting, called the Lambeth Conference, has become a focus of the tension.
The Lambeth event is set for July 16-Aug. 3 at the University of Kent in England. Several Anglican conservatives, including the five archbishops who announced their boycott Friday, are holding a separate meeting, seen as a rival to Lambeth, June 15-22 in Israel.
The five archbishops have also offered oversight to like-minded U.S. Episcopal parishes or dioceses that are splitting from the national church.
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the Anglican spiritual leader, did not invite a small number of bishops, including Robinson, to participate at Lambeth.
Earlier this month, bishops from the traditionalist Anglican Diocese of Sydney, Australia, said they would also boycott the event. Still, Williams has said that more than 600 out of 880 bishops have accepted invitations to Lambeth so far.
Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Comments
Former Episcopalian (Re: Your posting of Mon Feb 25, 2008 - continued)
I failed to mention that the proportion of “variant free verses in the New Testament” asserted by the Drs. Aland at the end of Table 1 (p. 29) stands at 62.9% degree of accuracy. Admittedly, this is a far cry from the 99.5% level of confidence advanced by Giesler and Nix.
Former Episcopalian (Re: Your posting of Mon Feb 25, 2008 )
It was a pleasure hearing from you. I appreciate the thoughtfulness you take in preparing your responses. Even more, your fraternal sincerity is a welcome reprieve to the inflammatory comments regularly expressed on these e-pages.
I’m getting ready to take the family out to dinner and then come home to grade Latin mid-term exams. So, responding to you with any degree of thoroughness will have to be deferred until later.
In response to another writer, I wrote the “claim that the MSS are 99% faithful to the non-existent originals is unjustified. The Drs. Aland, highly reputed Scripture scholars, place the accuracy of the MSS between “62.9%” to “80%”
Please allow me to quote two texts and cite and their source in its entirety: Aland, K., & Aland, B. (1995). The text of the New Testament: An introduction to the critical editions and to the theory and practice of modern textual criticism. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans.
First, the 80% accuracy figure was, in a sense, more generous than warranted because it takes into consideration only two types of Greek MSS at the exclusion of those from other linguistic origins. “…when identifying the text type of a manuscript it is all too easy to overlook the fact that the Byzantine Imperial text and the Alexandrian Egyptian text, to take two examples that in theory are diametrically opposed to each other, actually exhibit a remarkable degree of agreement, perhaps as much as 80 percent (p 28).”
Second, the Drs. Kurt and Barbara Aland state, “It is quite easy to demonstrate that the amount of agreement amount the editions of the New Testament we have been discussing is greater – far greater – than has generally been recognized. Table 1 gives a count of the cases in which there is complete agreement among the six editions of Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, von Soden, Vogels, Merk, and Bower with the text of Nestle-Aland (apart from orthographical differences). (pp. 28-29).”
Reproducing the text is pragmatically inexpedient. Note that the following appears immediately after Table 1. “ Thus in nearly two-thirds of the New Testament text the seven editions of the Greek New Testament which we have reviewed are in complete accord, with no differences other than in orthographical details (pp. 28-29).” It is important, again, to stress Coptic, Syriac, Old Latin and other linguistic strains were excluded from their consideration.
To Jay continued,
Response 4: Yes. I profess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh and accepted Him as my personal Lord and Savior at the age of fifteen. My study of Scripture prior to, during and after seminary - has only strengthened my relationship with Him, my fellow believers, as well as those who are not yet “of the household of faith.”
I never questioned your faith in any of my posts. I am glad that you profess that Jesus is your personal savior. I do have one question for you concerning this issue. You seem to question the Bible and its accuracy, how do you know what to believe?
I got this from the Islamic-Awareness website. It seems that they agree with you.
“Any claim that the New Testament has been restored to the 'original text' based on ignorance because the people who are involved in restoring the Greek New Testament itself do not make such a claim. As far as the claim that the New Testament has been restored to a magnificient value of 98.33% or 99.8% of the original text (well, where is the original text to compare with!) one should just look at the comparison of the total number of variant free verses in Nestle-Aland edition with the other critical editions such as that of Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, von Soden, Vogels, Merk, and Bover. It comes pretty close to 63%.
And Allah knows best!”
Jay,
Thank you for your response.
I will answer all three of your questions at one time. In the way you phrase your question, neither Geisler or Nix have expertise in Biblical textual criticism or Biblical languages. This, however, does not exclude them from reading and learning from other scholars and presenting these findings in a book that many non-biblical scholars can understand. Just because I never played soccer, does not mean that I cannot study the sport to learn how to teach it. The quote attributed to Metzger does not exist in his book. Geisler uses this 99.5% accuracy statement in two of his books Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (1999) and General Introduction to the Bible (1968). To my knowledge; Metzger never corrected this statement during his lifetime which he certainly had time to do before he passed away last year. Why didn’t Metzger correct this error?
Response 3: Metzger devoted his life to an academic exploration of the NT MSS. Regarding these documents he did say, “The more significant variations do not overthrow any doctrine of the church.” By the same token, it is important to consider the following part of the Strobel-Metzger interview which you did not mention. Strobel: “How many doctrines in the Church are in jeopardy because of variants?” Metzger: “I don’t know of any doctrine that is in jeopardy.” Strobel: “None?” Metzger: “None.” [Strobel, L. (1998). The Case for Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, p. 65]. Here, Metzger is not saying that doctrines are not in jeopardy because of textual inconsistencies. He is merely saying he knows of no such doctrine.
This is a glass half-empty statement. He knows of no such doctrine because at this time there are not any doctrines in jeopardy. Dr. Dan Wallace also concludes that there are no doctrines of the church in jeopardy. He is a professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and the Executive Director for the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts. Dan Wallace said:
In sum, there is an assumption made by non-evangelicals when they pose the question of
inerrancy and the autographs. It is that the wording of the autographs is, in places,
completely unrecoverable—that is, unknown and unknowable. But this assumption
implies that the wording of the original in some places cannot be found in the
manuscripts. That is manifestly not true. Pragmatically, the wording of the original is to
be found either in the text or the apparatus of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament.
We have the original in front of us; we’re just not sure at all times whether it is above the
line or below it.
Here is a link to an article he wrote.
http://www.4truth.net/atf/cf/{0AA41589-FF9B-4057-8DD8-4C34D14E6387}/NTTCinerrancyNAMB.pdf
Dear Chris333:
You assert that a multitude of early manuscripts convey 99% of what was recorded in the original New Testament documents. There are, by conservative accounts, 5,300 Greek manuscripts (MSS) 10,000 Latin versions, as well as 9,300 other early versions including Coptic, Aramaic, Syriac, etc. [McDowell, J. (1992).]
Roughly 24,000 handwritten Christian Scriptures present a considerable witness. But they are not an inerrant monolith, as you suggest. As early as the fourth century, when commissioned to produce a translation of the Bible, St. Jerome, grumbled “there are as many versions as there are manuscripts.” [Hieronymus, E. S. (398). Prologi Sancti Hieronymi in Biblia Sacra]. Throughout the centuries, other translators and scripture scholars have echoed the same complaint. John Mill noted 30,000 MSS variations in the eighteenth century. [Millii, J. (1707)].
Your claim that the MSS are 99% faithful to the non-existent originals is unjustified. The Drs. Aland, highly reputed Scripture scholars, place the accuracy of the MSS between “62.9%” to “80%” [Aland, K., & Aland, B. (1982)]. A 36.1% to 19% plunge in the confidence-level of the NT MSS is hardly a “slam-dunk.” The hope of ascertaining “the original text of the New Testament has become irretrievably lost.” [Metzger, B. M. (2005)].
You encourage me to N. T. Wright. His expertise is neither in the field of Biblical languages or Scriptural textual criticism. He summarily rejects the validity of textual criticism [Wright, N. T. (1992)] because the weaknesses of his historical and theological presumptions would be necessarily called into doubt. He is most certainly playing his strong suit to appeal to, and profit from, his base – as well as evade legitimate academic challenge.
It is naïve to say all the MSS variants are minor and do not affect the meaning of the Scripture. In I Timothy 3:16, Greek manuscripts speak of Jesus. Some MSS state “GOD was made manifest in the flesh” while others read “WHO was made manifest in the flesh.” [Metzger, B. M. (1994)]. Many similar differences exist and are not minor.
Chris, please be aware that I do not give you permission to call me “an ignorant person” as you did in your 18 February 2008 communication. If you cannot afford me the respect of a person who has been sealed by the blood of Christ, rest assured that I will cease responding to you.
I have responded to you in sincere fraternity. Kindly know that I do not mind your questions. They are most certainly welcome. However, without a genuine response to the questions I pose to you, as well, there is no dialogue only posturing. I hope would agree that if individuals will not respond to each other’s legitimate questions – as well as ask them – in a spirit of brotherly agape, there is no need to post in this forum.
Please list all the verses that allude to “homosexuality” and justify your assertion that “all manuscripts agree that homosexuality is wrong.”
Dear Former Episcopalian:
I have responded to the questions you have put to me. Your kind return of the favor would be appreciated. You have yet to answer the following questions I put to you:
First Question: You state Norman Geisler and William Nix are Scripture scholars: What about their academic credentials entitles them to speak with authoritative expertise in biblical languages?
Second Question: What expertise in Biblical textual criticism do Giesler and Nix claim to enable them to speak authoritatively about them?
Third Question: Giesler and Nix attribute the following quote to Metzger: “The New Testament has not only survived in more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in a purer form than any other great book – a form that is 99.5 percent pure.” (“General Introduction to the Bible,” p. 367.) The quote, they allege, is from “‘Recent Trends in the Textual Criticism of the Iliad and the Mahabharata’, Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism. (Metzger, 1963.E. J. Brill: Leiden).” In no place in the document does Metzger say this. What credibility do they garner when “citing” a non-existent quote?
Please be assured that I do not mind being challenged by your questions. They are wonderfully welcome. However, without a genuine response to the questions I pose to you, as well, there is no dialogue only posturing. I hope would agree that if individuals will not respond to each other’s legitimate questions – as well as ask them – in a spirit of fraternal charity, there is no need to post in this forum.
Dear Former Episcopalian (Re: Your posting of Thu Feb 21):
My last posting was addressed to you AND Chris333. I tried to attend to both of your postings since they were so similar, at several points. Please accept my apologies for any unintended confusion.
Response 1: I’m glad that, though you cite Metzger [Strobel, L. (1998). The Case for Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan], you concede Strobel is not a Biblical authority. Understandably, your point for citing Metzger was to bolster your position. Curiously, within the context of the interview (Strobel, 64-65), Geisler and Nix, attribute the spurious claim that New Testament MSS are “99.5%” accurate. Metzger never made this assertion.
Also, despite your additional assertion, Metzger never said “the copies would agree if and only if there really were originals. And the more manuscript copies we have the better chance we have of finding the originals, after we sift through all of the manuscripts.”
In direct contrast to your claim, Metzger actually said, “… (a) none of the New Testament books is extant, and (b) the existing copies differ from one another.” [Metzger, B. M. (2005). The text of the New Testament: Its transmission, corruption, and restoration. New York: Oxford, p. xv].
Response 2: I am well aware that the number of NT MSS witness far outweighs the quantity of other texts from antiquity. I concur. Your point in this matter is a non-issue for me.
Response 3: Metzger devoted his life to an academic exploration of the NT MSS. Regarding these documents he did say, “The more significant variations do not overthrow any doctrine of the church.” By the same token, it is important to consider the following part of the Strobel-Metzger interview which you did not mention. Strobel: “How many doctrines in the Church are in jeopardy because of variants?” Metzger: “I don’t know of any doctrine that is in jeopardy.” Strobel: “None?” Metzger: “None.” [Strobel, L. (1998). The Case for Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, p. 65]. Here, Metzger is not saying that doctrines are not in jeopardy because of textual inconsistencies. He is merely saying he knows of no such doctrine.
I feel it is important to state that doctrine is not divine revelation, unless one’s faith tradition is Roman Catholic, or Mormon – in which case it is. In the Protestant traditions, only one doctrine can overthrow another doctrine. Consider how the scriptural-doctrinal justification of slavery has been trumped by more liberation-minded theological doctrines of Rev. Dr. M. L. King, Jr. However, it cannot be presumed that variant Scriptures have not influenced doctrine.
Response 4: Yes. I profess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh and accepted Him as my personal Lord and Savior at the age of fifteen. My study of Scripture prior to, during and after seminary - has only strengthened my relationship with Him, my fellow believers, as well as those who are not yet “of the household of faith.”
Dear Former Episcopalian and Chris333 (Re: 21 February 2008)
Admittedly, I was disheartened to see that postings from each of us had been “flagged.” It is disappointing to think that the faith, understanding and agape of some readers, here, is so weak they can do nothing but resort to anonymous deletions of dialogues between members of the community of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
I did not see Jay's flagged post either but I assume from his other posts that there was nothing in it that was so inflammatory that it needed flagging.
Whoever flagged them, I wish he/she would speak up and explain his/her position so that we can defend ours. There are appropriate times to flag, but I believe this was not such a situation in any of our posts (I did not get to see Jay's flagged post though).
I have no idea why these posts were flagged. There was nothing in them that was inappropriate.
Also,
Why was everyones' posts flagged?
Jay,
I believe you stand corrected by Former Episcopelian, and should be appreciative.
You said something about homosexuals as well. I am not sure how you seem contented just to say that hating the sin and loving the sinner is a casuistic form of a disingenuity. It really is difficult to explain your position even in a secular light. For example, take a murderer, are you going to hate that person. Are you going to say, "I hate you, as a human being I hate you" or are you going to say, "I hate what you did, it was a disgusting thing" Murder is a bit strong, lets take another example, say someone who stole a candybar, are you going to tell this person, "I hate you, I cannot just hate what you did, I hate you!" or are you going to say, "I love you, but what you did was wrong and you should change" You hold a casuistic double standard which is impossible. You also said that it was "unproductive", may I ask in what way? What is productive, telling people, "Look what you are doing, I disagree with it and it may cause you to go to hell, but I will never ever tell you that it is wrong because that might hurt your feelings." Perhaps you think that this is more productive. You may dislike hearing this, but by your definition I also condemn thieves, murders, rapists, adulterers and all people who are not perfect (not I but the God I stand by). I also believe that all people, homosexuals included, can be saved by accepting the free gift God has given them and repenting of their sin.
Jay,
Did you even read my response to you? I did not cite Lee Strobel as a “Biblical Authority.” I cited Lee Strobel’s interview with Dr. Bruce Metzger contained within his book The Case for Christ. Some of the quotes attributed to Metzger in this book are as follows:
First, Strobel asks why it is so important to have thousands of manuscript to support a document like the New Testament. Metzger replies:
Well, the more often you have copies that agree with each other, especially if they emerge from different geographical areas, the more you can cross-check them to figure out what the original document was like. The only way they'd agree would be where they went back genealogically in a family tree that represents the descent of the manuscripts. (p. 59)
Metzger says here that the copies would agree if and only if there really were originals. And the more manuscript copies we have the better chance we have of finding the originals, after we sift through all of the manuscripts.
Second, Strobel asks Metzger about the comparison of the New Testament texts and later manuscripts with those of non-Christian texts and manuscripts, such as the Roman historian Tacitus, Jewish historian Josephus' Jewish War, and Homer's Iliad. "How does the New Testament stack up against well-known works of antiquity?" asks Strobel.
"Extremely well," [Metzger] replied. "We can have great confidence in the fidelity with which this material has come down to us, especially compared with any other ancient literary work." (p. 63).
Third, Strobel asks about the variations in the manuscripts. "Do they tend to be minor rather than substantive?"
"Yes, yes, that's correct, and scholars work very carefully to try to resolve them by getting back to the original meaning. The more significant variations do not overthrow any doctrine of the church. Any good Bible will have notes that will alert the reader to variant readings of any consequence. But again, these are rare." (p. 65).
Fourth and finally, Strobel asks what Metzger's scholarship has done to his personal faith.
"Oh," he said, sounding happy to discuss the topic, "it has increased the basis of my personal faith to see the firmness with which these materials have come down to us, with a multiplicity of copies, some of which are very, very ancient." (p. 71).
My “children’s story” sentence was used as an illustration to show that even though there are variants between the MSS, these variants are small and insignificant. To call the New Testament “error ridden” is not intellectually correct when most of the New Testament scholars agree that these variants are irrelevant to the discernment of church doctrine. The bottom line is there are no church doctrines in jeopardy from these different variants. As much as you would like to explain it away, you can’t.
Jay,
Here is what N.T. Wright said,
"There are only 10,000 places where variants occur and most of those are matters of spelling and word order (in the New Testament). There are less than 40 places in the New Testament where we are really not certain which reading is original, but not one of these has any effect on a central doctrine of faith. Note: the problem is not that we don't know what the text is, but that we are not certain which text has the right reading. We have 100 percent of the New Testament and we are sure about 99.5 percent of it.
"But even if we did not have such a good manuscript evidence, we could actually reconstruct almost the entire New Testament from quotations in the church fathers of the second and third centuries. Only eleven verses are missing, mostly from 2 and 3 John."
Sure ascertaining the exact original may be virtually impossible, but we can get very close, and the meaning is not compromised. I find it utterly hilarious whenever these "scriptural scholars" say that the Bible is somewhere around 60 to 80% accurate. Do you know why they say this? Because the Bible has miracles in it, if it werent for the miracles then they would herald it as a truly magnificent historical document. Besides that, how do you come up with numbers ranging from 60 to 80%? It is not so difficult to compare the over 5000 manuscripts we have and come up with an exact number, to have such wide "guesses" would mean that some assumptions must be in play.
Trivial differences are those of spelling and word order, and which do not affect the meaning of the text in any way, we can also compare with other manuscripts and come up with the correct reading. The originals themselves had spelling errors, they were written by humans, inspired by God, this is not the Quran.