Please observe:
Johann Salomo Semler | biography - German theologian | Encyclopedia Britannica
The following excerpts were taken from the above site:
Johann Salomo Semler, (born Dec. 18, 1725, Saalfeld, duchy of Saxe-Saalfeld [Germany]died March 14, 1791, Halle, Brandenburg), German Lutheran theologian who was a major figure in the development of biblical textual criticism during his tenure (175391) as professor of theology at the University of Halle.
Semler was a disciple of the rationalist Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten, whom he succeeded on his death in 1757 as head of the theological faculty. Seeking to study biblical texts scientifically, Semler evolved an undogmatic and strictly historical interpretation of Scripture that provoked strong opposition. He was the first to deny, and to offer substantial evidence supporting his denial, that the entirety of the text of Old and New Testaments was divinely inspired and fully correct. He challenged the divine authority of the biblical canon, which he reexamined in order to determine the sequence of composition of biblical books, their nature, and their manner of transmission. From this work he drew a crucial distinction between an earlier, Jewish form of Christianity and a later, broader form.
There are three things shown here that are noteworthy: 1) Semler was professor of theology starting in 1753 (this is only one year after Johann Gottfried Eichhorn was born); showing that Semler was at least one gerneration before Eichhorn; 2) Semler was a disciple of the rationalist Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten (this gives indication that it may to well to examine of Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten as well); and 3) He was the first to deny, and to offer substantial evidence supporting his denial, that the entirety of the Old and New Testaments was divinely inspired and fully correct. He challenged the divine authority of the biblical canon, which he reexamined in order to determine the sequence of composition of biblical books, their nature, and their manner of transmission.
Please notice, Semler was a theologian, who denied the Divine inspiration of the Scriptures. The question of the hour at this juncture is simply this: On or by what authority does he deny divine inspiration and thereby challenge divine authority of biblical books, their nature, and their manner of transmission? Did Semler actually believe that his 'intellect' and or learning allowed him that authority? I guess he did, (along with a lot of other scholars that have followed in his footsteps).
The root belief of textual criticism is found in Semler's philosophy. It is expressed in the following:
Biblical Scholarship
The following excerpts were taken from the above site:
Biblical Scholarship, professional study of the Bible, in which all relevant intellectual disciplines are brought to bear on the task of interpretation. Biblical scholarship can be distinguished from other approaches to the Bible, such as the devotional one or that of pure literary appreciation, by the fact that it attempts a critical assessment of the Jewish and Christian scriptures in the light of all contemporary resources of knowledge.
Unlike the literature of various other religions, the Bible has always been subject to some measure of scholarly criticism and correction. This criticism undoubtedly developed because Jews and Christians conceive of religion as historical, as the product of definite historical events. Even though the great majority of the Old and New Testament writings are, in fact, anonymous, they have always been ascribed to particular human authors. It has therefore been considered legitimate for other human beings to evaluate them. They have never been regarded simply as a literature transmitted directly from heaven or as so remote from the contemporary human condition as to render them immune to critical study. This is in distinct contrast, for example, to the Islamic and Hindu scriptures (see Koran; Veda). Despite its long standing, however, the notion of critical biblical study has changed radically over the years.
On the same site however, the following is stated:
Textual Criticism
Determining what was originally written, whatever its meaning or relevance may be, is the concern of the so-called lower criticism. The textual critic has two means of establishing a text: external and internal criteria. The external criteria comprise the physical properties of the manuscripts themselvestheir material, age, and the style of the scriptand the history of the manuscripts. (No autograph text of any biblical author has been found and it is unlikely that any will be.) The extant manuscripts of the Old Testament date only from Christian times, hundreds of years after the time of its original composition. Nevertheless, the evidence of the ancient versions (the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate) and the pre-Masoretic fragments (see Masora) that have survived suggests that the standard Hebrew text still extant has been preserved with extraordinary fidelity. The New Testament, on the other hand, is the best-attested text that survives from the Greco-Roman world. Complete and nearly complete New Testament manuscripts date from the 4th century, and numerous existing fragments were probably copied within a century of the original composition of the text. Although literally thousands of variant readings are found among these manuscripts, 90 percent of them involve only incidental matters (such as the substitution of one synonym for another) and present problems that can be solved with relative ease by the textual critic.
Notice these sentences from the first paragraph above: Even though the great majority of the Old and New Testament writings are, in fact, anonymous, they have always been ascribed to particular human authors. It has therefore been considered legitimate for other human beings to evaluate them. They have never been regarded simply as a literature transmitted directly from heaven or as so remote from the contemporary human condition as to render them immune to critical study. I was under the impression that the Scriptures were inspired (God-breathed from heaven). THIS IS THE BASIS (REASON) FOR THE LEGITAMACY OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM. (Because)
They [the scriptures] have never been regarded simply as a literature transmitted directly from heaven ...
Followed by this statement under the heading of Textual Criticism.
Determining what was originally written, whatever its meaning or relevance may be, is the concern of the so-called lower criticism. The textual critic has two means of establishing a text: external and internal criteria. The external criteria comprise the physical properties of the manuscripts themselvestheir material, age, and the style of the scriptand the history of the manuscripts. (No autograph text of any biblical author has been found and it is unlikely that any will be.)
Forgive me, I'm a little confused. I was completely unaware, (after reading the Bible), that the Bible had ANY human authors.
You see Tall, this isnt about numbers of MSS, nearly as much as it is about proper theology, which leads to proper biblical philosophy, which places our dependency upon the finished work of God, not scholars. That is why I believe in the same providential preservation as did the men that wrote:
The following is from the THE BAPTIST CONFESSION OF FAITH, With Scripture Proofs,
Adopted by the Ministers and Messengers of the general assembly which met in London in 1689.
1689 LBC: Chapter 1 "Of the Holy Scriptures"
The following excerpt was taken from the above site:
8._____The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.
(Romans 3:2; Isaiah 8:20; Acts 15:15; John 5:39; 1 Corinthians 14:6, 9, 11, 12, 24, 28; Colossians 3:16)
The Ministers and Messengers of the general assembly (of the Baptist in London), were not the only men who were not affected by the beliefs of Semler and his associates.
The men of the Westminster Confession of 1646 had written the same type of Confession 43 years earlier.
Historic Church Documents at Reformed.org
Think about it.
Jack
