2. The Four-Part Analysis: Arbitrariness in Richard Simon’s Textual Criticism
Introduction to Arbitrariness
Richard Simon’s Critical History of the Text of the New Testament exemplifies a methodology marked by arbitrary assumptions and speculative interpretations. Simon’s work is rooted in Enlightenment rationalism, which emphasizes human reason and historical inquiry at the expense of traditional theological presuppositions. This section will explore the arbitrary nature of Simon’s approach, focusing on his reliance on conjecture, subjective interpretations of textual variations, and speculative claims about the intentions of scribes and early Church Fathers.
1. Mere Opinions and Subjectivity
One of the hallmarks of Simon’s approach is his frequent reliance on subjective interpretations of textual variations. Simon’s analysis often assumes the motivations and intentions of scribes, without providing direct evidence to support these claims. For example, Simon suggests that scribes deliberately altered certain passages to conform to theological beliefs or to correct perceived errors in the text. While such claims are not inherently impossible, Simon rarely substantiates these assertions with concrete evidence from historical records or manuscripts. Instead, his conclusions are often based on conjecture about what he believed scribes might have done.
In one instance, Simon argues that variations in the Gospel of John reflect intentional alterations made by early Christian scribes seeking to harmonize the text with prevailing theological views. However, Simon provides no clear evidence of the specific individuals or circumstances that led to these supposed alterations. Instead, he relies on the assumption that early Christians, concerned with theological coherence, would have felt compelled to make these changes. This approach reflects a subjective bias that elevates hypothetical scenarios above verifiable historical data.
2. Relativism and Ignorant Conjectures
Simon’s textual criticism is further characterized by a relativistic approach to the authenticity of biblical passages. Rather than treating the traditional canon as authoritative, Simon questions the legitimacy of various readings based on the age and perceived reliability of different manuscripts. His willingness to dismiss traditional readings in favor of older or more fragmented manuscripts reflects a relativistic bias that undermines the stability of the biblical text.
A key example of this relativistic approach can be seen in Simon’s treatment of the ending of the Gospel of Mark. Simon suggests that the longer ending (Mark 16:9-20) is a later addition, citing the absence of this passage in some early manuscripts. However, Simon’s conclusion is based not on definitive historical evidence but on the assumption that earlier manuscripts must be more authentic. This line of reasoning ignores the possibility that the longer ending was lost or omitted in certain manuscript traditions and privileges age over ecclesiastical tradition or consistency in the broader manuscript record.
Additionally, Simon engages in what confessional critics would describe as “ignorant conjectures” by speculating about the motivations of the early Church Fathers in preserving or altering certain readings. For instance, Simon frequently attributes variations in the text to what he perceives as deliberate attempts by the Church Fathers to address heresies or protect orthodoxy. However, these claims are often speculative, based more on Simon’s assumptions about the nature of ecclesiastical politics than on direct historical evidence.
3. Unargued Biases
One of the most pervasive arbitrary elements in Simon’s approach is his unargued bias against the concept of divine preservation. By treating the New Testament as a purely human product, Simon dismisses the possibility that God could have actively preserved the biblical text from significant corruption. This bias is evident in Simon’s refusal to engage seriously with traditional claims of divine preservation or to consider the theological implications of his critical methodology.
Simon’s refusal to acknowledge the role of divine providence in the preservation of Scripture is not explicitly argued; it is simply assumed. This unargued bias reflects a fundamental departure from traditional Christian views of biblical inspiration and preservation, which hold that God has not only inspired the Scriptures but also actively ensured their transmission across generations. Simon’s Enlightenment-influenced methodology, by contrast, treats the biblical text as subject to the same kinds of corruption and revision as any other ancient text, without any special protection or guidance from God.
Direct Evidence from Richard Simon’s Writings
To substantiate these points, it is crucial to include direct quotations from Simon’s Critical History. For example, Simon frequently argues that “the differences found among the ancient copies of the New Testament prove that the books have not been preserved in their original purity.” This statement reflects Simon’s assumption that textual variations indicate corruption, rather than considering alternative explanations such as scribal errors or the intentional preservation of multiple traditions.
In another instance, Simon claims that “the early Fathers sometimes altered the text to suit their theological arguments,” yet he provides no specific historical evidence to support this assertion. Instead, Simon relies on his interpretation of the motivations of early Christian leaders, projecting his own assumptions about the nature of theological disputes onto the historical record.
Conclusion of the Arbitrariness Section
Richard Simon’s Critical History of the Text of the New Testament exemplifies a critical methodology that is marked by arbitrary assumptions, subjective interpretations, and unargued biases. Simon’s reliance on conjecture about the intentions of scribes and early Church Fathers, coupled with his relativistic approach to textual authenticity, undermines the stability and authority of the biblical text. By privileging human reasoning and historical inquiry over traditional confessional views of divine preservation, Simon’s work reflects a significant departure from the Christian understanding of Scripture as divinely inspired and faithfully transmitted.
3. The Four-Part Analysis: Inconsistency in Richard Simon’s Textual Criticism
Introduction to Inconsistency
In Richard Simon’s Critical History of the Text of the New Testament, there are fundamental inconsistencies that undermine the coherence of his textual criticism. His work attempts to reconcile a defense of the Christian faith with a method that frequently challenges the integrity of the New Testament text. This section will explore how Simon’s critique exhibits contradictions, both in his methodology and in the broader implications of his claims. These inconsistencies not only impact his arguments but also reveal tensions between his stated goals and the methods he employs.
1. Logical Fallacies
Richard Simon’s approach often leads to logical fallacies, where his premises and conclusions fail to align in a coherent manner. For example, Simon argues that the existence of textual variants proves that the original text has not been preserved in its purity. This reasoning is circular, as Simon presupposes that textual variants are evidence of corruption without considering other possibilities, such as scribal error or the existence of multiple authentic traditions. By assuming his conclusion within his premises, Simon engages in a form of circular reasoning that weakens his overall argument.
Moreover, Simon frequently commits the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance), where he assumes that the absence of certain readings in early manuscripts must indicate their inauthenticity. This assumption neglects the possibility of accidental omissions, regional textual variations, or the influence of liturgical practices on manuscript copying. Simon’s failure to account for these alternative explanations leads him to draw conclusions that are not supported by the evidence, resulting in a logically flawed critique of the New Testament text.
2. Behavioral Contradictions
A key inconsistency in Simon’s work lies in the contradiction between his stated goal of defending the faith and the implications of his critique. Simon presents himself as a defender of the Church’s authority, seeking to counteract Protestant claims of sola scriptura by highlighting the necessity of ecclesiastical tradition. However, his emphasis on textual corruption and human error undermines the very foundation of the Church’s authority, which rests on the reliability and integrity of the biblical text.
For instance, Simon argues that the Church Fathers occasionally altered the text to suit theological arguments or to combat heresies. While Simon’s intention is to emphasize the importance of tradition alongside Scripture, this claim inadvertently casts doubt on the Church’s ability to faithfully transmit the biblical text. This contradiction reveals a tension between Simon’s desire to uphold the authority of the Church and the implications of his historical-critical methodology, which suggests that the Church was complicit in altering the text to serve its theological aims.
3. Reductio ad Absurdum
One of the most revealing aspects of Simon’s inconsistencies is the application of the classical logical technique known as reductio ad absurdum. This technique demonstrates that an opponent’s position, when taken to its logical conclusion, results in an absurdity or untenable outcome. In the context of Simon’s work, his critique of the New Testament leads to the absurd conclusion that no biblical text can be trusted as an accurate reflection of the apostles’ original writings.
Simon’s emphasis on textual corruption and the unreliability of ancient manuscripts suggests that the New Testament has been fundamentally compromised by human error. If Simon’s claims are taken to their logical conclusion, they imply that the Church has failed in its duty to preserve the Scriptures, and that no reading or passage can be confidently affirmed as original. This outcome contradicts the traditional Christian belief in the divine preservation of Scripture, which holds that God has ensured the faithful transmission of His Word through the ages.
Moreover, Simon’s methodology ultimately leads to a form of skepticism that undermines the coherence of his own position. By treating the Bible as subject to the same kinds of corruption as secular historical documents, Simon implicitly denies the uniqueness of Scripture as the inspired Word of God. This skepticism, when extended to its logical conclusion, calls into question the entire foundation of Christian doctrine and the reliability of the Church’s teachings.
Direct Evidence from Richard Simon’s Writings
To illustrate these inconsistencies, it is essential to provide direct quotations from Simon’s Critical History. For example, Simon states that “the variations among the manuscripts are so numerous that it is impossible to determine with certainty the original text of the New Testament.” This assertion, if taken to its logical conclusion, implies that the New Testament is inherently unreliable and that the Church has failed to preserve its teachings faithfully. Such a claim directly contradicts Simon’s professed aim of defending the Church’s authority against Protestant criticisms.
In another instance, Simon argues that “the early Fathers, in their zeal to combat heresies, often altered the text to better reflect their theological arguments.” This claim not only undermines the integrity of the biblical text but also calls into question the reliability of the Church’s doctrinal formulations. By attributing textual alterations to the motivations of the Church Fathers, Simon inadvertently suggests that the Church’s teachings are based on manipulated readings of Scripture, rather than on the original writings of the apostles.
Conclusion of the Inconsistency Section
Richard Simon’s Critical History of the Text of the New Testament is marked by significant inconsistencies, both in its methodology and in its broader implications. Simon’s critique often leads to logical fallacies, behavioral contradictions, and absurd conclusions that undermine his stated goal of defending the faith. By challenging the integrity of the New Testament text, Simon inadvertently casts doubt on the reliability of the Church’s teachings and the foundation of Christian doctrine. These inconsistencies reveal the tension between Simon’s Enlightenment-influenced methodology and traditional confessional views of biblical preservation.
