I don’t mind some scholarly skepticism in the realm of historical criticism (higher criticism), but I reject the idea of its proponents who, owing to their emphasis on textual corruption, believe it is impossible to even speak about an original text, since these persons view the text as being unstable for many years, even centuries.
For me, an autograph is an original manuscript, the production of which is clearly described in Scripture (Exodus 24:4; Colossians 4:18; Galatians6:11). This autograph includes manuscript production by amanuensis, who directly received the text by dictation from the Biblical author (Jeremiah 36:4,17-18; Romans 16:22; 1 Peter 5:12). All this was done via the divine instrumentality of God (1 Chronicles 28:19; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 3:15-16).
I adopt the WCF’s distinctive reformed view by noting that the WCF’s identifying the Hebrew and Greek texts as authentical in no way requires a direct reference to the Hebrew and Greek autographa—as if some scaffolding for mounting an argument for infallibility is required. No, the arguments for (1)a received text free from major error (discounting scribal errors), and (2)Scripture as our infallible rule of faith and practice, rest upon the examination of the apographa we have received, as transmitted via the providential, preserving care of God from faithful copies.
On the matter of the term inspiration, I agree with A. A. Hodge, who writes in Outlines of Theology:
Can copies of Scripture be inspired? It depends. We can certainly deduce that the autographa were inspired, but it is also very logical for me to claim that apographic Scripture, what I define as faithful copies, is also theoneustos. When Paul wrote that all Scripture was theoneustos in 2 Tim 3:16, what existed at the time was not the autographa, but the faithful copies, the apographa. Accordingly, inspiration cannot be restricted to some lost autographs, unless we want to claim the church today is without an infallible Scripture.
I deny the views of some, such as Ehrman, that there is no possibility of recovering the original text (OT and NT) from existing manuscript witnesses. We have the preserved textual variants in our possession, which means we have all of the original words of Scripture—they are not lost to us. For example, along these lines I view the existence of textual archetypes as one potential means of recovering the original text. While we cannot prove the archetype is the original, we cannot prove that it is not. So, in my opinion, the skepticism of men like Ehrman is but a mere preference, probably determined by external presuppositions. When we can recover the original text is not something I can speculate about, yet that does not remove my confidence that it is possible.
There is a difference between verbal inspiration and verbal inerrancy. Inspiration concerns the words of the text (2 Tim 3:16; 1 Peter 1:12), and inerrancy concerns the truth or trustworthiness of the statements they make (Luke 1:1-4; John 17:17; 2 Peter 1:16).
Lastly:
1. Regarding...
God spoke through the authors and He is not the God of confusion. God spoke phenomenologically when describing things, that is the way they appear to to human observers. So we find passages stating that the sun rises, which we know from science that it does not "rise" but appears to us to do so. Indeed, the Bible is not a scientific book, but the Bible does not impart misinformation when touching on scientific matters.
2. Exegesis/Hermeneutics
I do not believe we can no more separate exegesis from hermeneutics than we could separate the act of using a shovel from the hole it digs. If exegesis is nothing more than the science of parsing words, then it is the stuff of rote machine intelligence that results in a cold and wooden translation.
Moreover, I do not believe we can, nor should, attempt to divorce ourselves from our presuppositions during the interpretative encounter with Scripture. There are presuppositions we bring to the process that are vitally necessary. Awareness of them is one thing all should endeavor to discover in themselves, but I believe that a view that presuppositions are to be eschewed to the best of one’s ability is a view that ultimately leads to rejection of too much truth contained in Scripture.
4. What do I mean by inerrancy and infallibility?
Inerrancy means the Scriptures do not err, a necessary theological deduction from inspiration, not a demand for scientific precision or wooden literalism.
Infallibility means the Scriptures cannot err, which is the higher standard over inerrancy.
My position is that the church divines when writing, WCF I.IV, got it right when noting that God is the Author of Scripture:
the authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, depends upon God, the author thereof: and therefore it is to be revered because it is the Word of God.
As the Author, God is not an author of confusion, thus where we encounter what we consider to be contradictions or errors, we cannot claim these to be genuine and must continue to diligently seek to resolve, including via the analogy of faith, what we think are contradictions or errors. (See also my point #1 above.) As Warfield writes:
I believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture. God's sovereignty prepared the writers, their lives, experiences, vocabulary, so that they would write exactly what God wanted to be written. Nothing here should be taken to assume that fallible men produced fallible writings. B.B. Warfield’s classic illustration drives home this point, wherein he speaks of a stained-glass Cathedral window. The window is not viewed as distorting the pure light, but rather is exactly fulfilling the design of the architect in producing exactly the effect that he desired. The writers of Scripture were uniquely superintended by the sovereign action of God via the Holy Spirit in all factors related to their writings.
On these topics, especially on matters related to inspiration versus mechanical or organic dictation (<--my view, as well as the WCF's), see:
1. The Inspiration of Scripture
2. "The Human Writers of the Scriptures" by E.J. Young
3. CHRISTIAN READER: The Genesis of Scripture
AMR
For me, an autograph is an original manuscript, the production of which is clearly described in Scripture (Exodus 24:4; Colossians 4:18; Galatians6:11). This autograph includes manuscript production by amanuensis, who directly received the text by dictation from the Biblical author (Jeremiah 36:4,17-18; Romans 16:22; 1 Peter 5:12). All this was done via the divine instrumentality of God (1 Chronicles 28:19; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 3:15-16).
I adopt the WCF’s distinctive reformed view by noting that the WCF’s identifying the Hebrew and Greek texts as authentical in no way requires a direct reference to the Hebrew and Greek autographa—as if some scaffolding for mounting an argument for infallibility is required. No, the arguments for (1)a received text free from major error (discounting scribal errors), and (2)Scripture as our infallible rule of faith and practice, rest upon the examination of the apographa we have received, as transmitted via the providential, preserving care of God from faithful copies.
On the matter of the term inspiration, I agree with A. A. Hodge, who writes in Outlines of Theology:
A.A. Hodge said:
Can copies of Scripture be inspired? It depends. We can certainly deduce that the autographa were inspired, but it is also very logical for me to claim that apographic Scripture, what I define as faithful copies, is also theoneustos. When Paul wrote that all Scripture was theoneustos in 2 Tim 3:16, what existed at the time was not the autographa, but the faithful copies, the apographa. Accordingly, inspiration cannot be restricted to some lost autographs, unless we want to claim the church today is without an infallible Scripture.
I deny the views of some, such as Ehrman, that there is no possibility of recovering the original text (OT and NT) from existing manuscript witnesses. We have the preserved textual variants in our possession, which means we have all of the original words of Scripture—they are not lost to us. For example, along these lines I view the existence of textual archetypes as one potential means of recovering the original text. While we cannot prove the archetype is the original, we cannot prove that it is not. So, in my opinion, the skepticism of men like Ehrman is but a mere preference, probably determined by external presuppositions. When we can recover the original text is not something I can speculate about, yet that does not remove my confidence that it is possible.
There is a difference between verbal inspiration and verbal inerrancy. Inspiration concerns the words of the text (2 Tim 3:16; 1 Peter 1:12), and inerrancy concerns the truth or trustworthiness of the statements they make (Luke 1:1-4; John 17:17; 2 Peter 1:16).
Lastly:
1. Regarding...
AMR said:
God spoke through the authors and He is not the God of confusion. God spoke phenomenologically when describing things, that is the way they appear to to human observers. So we find passages stating that the sun rises, which we know from science that it does not "rise" but appears to us to do so. Indeed, the Bible is not a scientific book, but the Bible does not impart misinformation when touching on scientific matters.
2. Exegesis/Hermeneutics
I do not believe we can no more separate exegesis from hermeneutics than we could separate the act of using a shovel from the hole it digs. If exegesis is nothing more than the science of parsing words, then it is the stuff of rote machine intelligence that results in a cold and wooden translation.
Moreover, I do not believe we can, nor should, attempt to divorce ourselves from our presuppositions during the interpretative encounter with Scripture. There are presuppositions we bring to the process that are vitally necessary. Awareness of them is one thing all should endeavor to discover in themselves, but I believe that a view that presuppositions are to be eschewed to the best of one’s ability is a view that ultimately leads to rejection of too much truth contained in Scripture.
4. What do I mean by inerrancy and infallibility?
Inerrancy means the Scriptures do not err, a necessary theological deduction from inspiration, not a demand for scientific precision or wooden literalism.
Infallibility means the Scriptures cannot err, which is the higher standard over inerrancy.
My position is that the church divines when writing, WCF I.IV, got it right when noting that God is the Author of Scripture:
the authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, depends upon God, the author thereof: and therefore it is to be revered because it is the Word of God.
As the Author, God is not an author of confusion, thus where we encounter what we consider to be contradictions or errors, we cannot claim these to be genuine and must continue to diligently seek to resolve, including via the analogy of faith, what we think are contradictions or errors. (See also my point #1 above.) As Warfield writes:
- . . . it is a first principle of historical science that any solution which affords a possible method of harmonizing any two statements is preferable to the assumption of inaccuracy or error—whether those statements are found in the same of different writers. To act on any other basis, it is clearly acknowledged, is to assume, not prove, error. (See B.B. Warfield, Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, p. 439)
I believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture. God's sovereignty prepared the writers, their lives, experiences, vocabulary, so that they would write exactly what God wanted to be written. Nothing here should be taken to assume that fallible men produced fallible writings. B.B. Warfield’s classic illustration drives home this point, wherein he speaks of a stained-glass Cathedral window. The window is not viewed as distorting the pure light, but rather is exactly fulfilling the design of the architect in producing exactly the effect that he desired. The writers of Scripture were uniquely superintended by the sovereign action of God via the Holy Spirit in all factors related to their writings.
On these topics, especially on matters related to inspiration versus mechanical or organic dictation (<--my view, as well as the WCF's), see:
1. The Inspiration of Scripture
2. "The Human Writers of the Scriptures" by E.J. Young
3. CHRISTIAN READER: The Genesis of Scripture
AMR
