Textual Variants, Logical Contradictions, and the Principle of Explosion
One of the fundamental presuppositions underlying Christian theological discourse is that Scripture is both authoritative and coherent. Within this framework, it is generally held that no genuine contradictions reside in the biblical text, at least not when interpreted properly. Yet, the variants among the manuscript used by those affirming modern textual criticism introduce logical inconsistencies undermining the text’s authoritative status. This article examines how the omission of the phrase “without a cause” (εἰκῇ) in Matthew 5:22, as reflected in certain Critical Text (CT) editions, engenders a logical contradiction. When analyzed through the lens of classical logic’s principle of explosion (ex falso quodlibet), this contradiction can be shown to yield absurd conclusions—such as “James R. White does not exist”—thereby highlighting the theological and interpretive stakes involved in textual critical decisions as well as the necessity of holding to a Biblical view of preservation.
The Textual Variant in Matthew 5:22
The textual history of Matthew 5:22 diverges along two primary lines of transmission. The Textus Receptus (TR), which undergirds the traditional English translations such as the King James Version, includes the phrase “without a cause” after the injunction against anger. By contrast, the Critical Text (CT), supported by certain ancient manuscripts, omits this qualifying phrase. The result is a reading that unequivocally condemns all anger: “Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment.”
From a theological and pastoral perspective, the TR reading preserves a conceptual space for justifiable indignation—anger that arises from righteous motives or moral concern, as opposed to capricious, self-serving wrath. In the CT form, however, no such allowance is made. All anger appears to be proscribed, a move that seems incongruent with other scriptural depictions of morally appropriate anger.
Identifying the Potential Contradiction
The significance of this textual variation becomes evident when placed in conversation with other passages of Scripture. For instance, the Gospels and the broader New Testament present instances of Jesus Himself displaying anger. Mark 3:5 shows Jesus looking upon the hardness of human hearts “with anger,” and John 2:15 recounts His forceful expulsion of moneychangers from the Temple, an action typically understood as righteous indignation. This portrayal is consistent with the New Testament’s overarching affirmation of Jesus’s sinlessness (1 Peter 2:22; Hebrews 4:15).
However, if Matthew 5:22 in the CT is taken at face value—condemning all instances of anger without exception—then Jesus’s demonstrable anger would place Him “in danger of the judgment,” thereby implying sin where none exists. This reading constructs the following logical structure:
- Premise 1: Jesus is sinless (1 Peter 2:22; Hebrews 4:15).
- Premise 2: Jesus experiences anger (Mark 3:5; John 2:15).
- Premise 3 (from CT’s Matthew 5:22): Anyone who becomes angry is liable to judgment.
From these premises, we arrive at contradictory conclusions:
- Conclusion A: Jesus, having shown anger, is liable to judgment.
- Conclusion B: Jesus, being sinless, cannot be liable to judgment.
These conclusions are mutually exclusive. The introduction of a contradiction at the heart of the biblical witness is thus a direct consequence of the CT reading—provided one interprets the text as written without trying to justify it.
The Principle of Explosion: Ex Falso Quodlibet
In formal logic, the principle of explosion states that once a contradiction is admitted into a logical system, any proposition can be derived from it. This principle is not a mere hypothetical quirk; it is a fundamental logical axiom. It asserts that if both a statement (A) and its negation (¬A) are held true, the system’s internal consistency collapses, permitting the inference of arbitrary statements, no matter how unrelated or absurd.
Applied to our scenario, the admitted contradiction—Jesus is both sinless and yet apparently subject to judgment under the CT reading—creates a breach in the logical integrity of the scriptural “system.” If Scripture is seen as a coherent corpus of revelation, the presence of such a contradiction allows one to conclude, in a strictly formal logical sense, anything at all. This includes propositions wholly extraneous to the biblical narrative and theological tradition. It is here that we encounter the facetious yet illustrative example: from such a contradiction, one could “logically prove” that James R. White does not exist.
To be clear, this is not a genuine theological assertion; rather, it exemplifies the catastrophic implications of allowing contradictions to stand. Once we sanction a logical inconsistency within our framework, no claim—no matter how absurd—remains off-limits. The text loses its capacity to delimit the range of legitimate interpretations, and thus its function as a stable source of doctrinal authority.
Textual Criticism, Theological Coherence, and Authority
This scenario underscores a key concern within textual criticism and hermeneutics. The work of textual critics—examining manuscripts, weighing variants, and attempting to restore the earliest attainable text—is not a merely antiquarian pursuit. Rather, it has profound theological implications. The decision to accept or reject certain readings can subtly shape our understanding of doctrinal categories such as sin, righteousness, and the moral character of Christ.
If the biblical text, as currently construed, leads to contradictions about the moral perfection of Christ, the trustworthiness and authority of Scripture become problematic. The biblical canon is meant to function as a consistent, coherent revelation of divine truth, not a compendium of conflicting statements that reduce the hermeneutical task to free-form speculation. Allowing a contradiction to persist introduces the troubling possibility that the biblical narrative cannot reliably guide doctrine and praxis.
Such implications have long been recognized by theologians who emphasize the internal coherence of Scripture. Augustinian, Thomistic, Reformed, and other traditions alike stress that while the biblical text may contain perplexing complexities, these should not devolve into outright logical contradictions. The role of careful exegesis and historical-critical study is to clarify ambiguities, harmonize apparent inconsistencies, and preserve the integrity of the text as a consistent revelation.
Demonstrating How “James R. White Does Not Exist” Using the Principle of Explosion
To finalize this argument and demonstrate how logical inconsistencies arising from the Critical Text reading of Matthew 5:22 allow us to conclude “James R. White does not exist,” we apply formal logic rigorously. This illustrates the catastrophic consequences of permitting contradictions within a theological system.
Logical Argument Framework:
- Establishing the Contradiction:
- Premise 1: According to the Critical Text reading of Matthew 5:22, “Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of judgment.”
- Premise 2: Jesus is portrayed in Scripture as sinless (1 Peter 2:22; Hebrews 4:15).
- Premise 3: Jesus is depicted as being angry (Mark 3:5; John 2:15).
- Conclusion A (from Premise 1): Jesus is in danger of judgment (since all anger is condemned in the CT).
- Conclusion B (from Premise 2 and 3): Jesus is not in danger of judgment (since He is sinless).
Contradiction: Jesus cannot both be in danger of judgment (Conclusion A) and not in danger of judgment (Conclusion B). This inconsistency results in a logical breakdown.
- Principle of Explosion:
- The principle of explosion (ex falso quodlibet) states that if a logical system contains a contradiction, any proposition can be derived as true within that system.
- Since we have a contradiction (A and ¬A), we can logically infer any arbitrary statement, including the statement: “James R. White does not exist.”
- Deriving the Conclusion:
- Step 1: Assume the contradiction is true: Jesus is both in danger of judgment and not in danger of judgment.
- Step 2: Using logical derivation, construct a disjunction: “Either the contradiction holds, or James R. White does not exist.”
- Symbolically: (A ∧ ¬A) ∨ B (where B = “James R. White does not exist”).
- Step 3: Since (A ∧ ¬A) is inherently true in this scenario (we assumed the contradiction), the disjunction is valid.
- Step 4: By the rules of formal logic, if one part of a disjunction is true, the entire disjunction is true. Therefore, B (“James R. White does not exist”) is valid.
- Implications for Biblical Authority:
- The derivation above demonstrates not a factual claim about James R. White’s existence but the absurdity that results when a logical contradiction is introduced into a system. If contradictions are permitted, any statement—no matter how outlandish—can be proven true. This undermines not only logical consistency but also the theological coherence and authority of Scripture.
Conclusion:
The argument that “James R. White does not exist” is not presented as a serious proposition but as a demonstration of the disastrous implications of allowing logical contradictions into theological discourse. If the Critical Text’s reading of Matthew 5:22 is genuine which must lead to a contradiction, the resulting instability could theoretically justify any assertion, no matter how absurd. This exercise underscores the necessity of textual coherence for the preservation of biblical authority, doctrinal soundness, and logical integrity. By resolving such contradictions through rejecting modern textual criticism and its evil fruit, we safeguard Scripture’s role as a consistent and reliable foundation for Christian faith and practice.
