Where should textual criticism be discussed in systematic theology?

This is a question I have been pondering since giving my paper at ETS this year on textual criticism in the Reformation. Note carefully that the question is not how or if to discuss textual criticism, but where. (For more on how, see here.)

Source

The obvious answer, of course, is under the heading of bibliology. But where within that? Most modern theologies—certainly evangelical ones—discuss textual criticism under the subtopic of inerrancy. It makes sense given that textual criticism deals with errors and so does inerrancy. (For more on that below)

But this has not always been the place where textual criticism is treated. In my reading of Reformation writers, textual criticism is almost always addressed under the heading of authenticity. There are good historical reasons for this that were the subject of my paper but they are not my focus here. What interests me here is the other place I found textual criticism discussed and that is under the topic of the clarity of Scripture. Let me give some examples.

Ussher (1581-1656)

James Ussher in his Explication of the Body of Christian Religion, written in Q&A format, starts with a large section on Scripture or the “grounds of the Christian religion.” After discussing things like inspiration and canonicity he moves to objections. Textual criticism is discussed under objections, not to inspiration or infallibility, but perspicuity. The broader question is, “Are the Scriptures then plain and easy to be understood?” (p. 18). The specific question that leads directly to textual criticism is this:

How can the certain understanding of the Scriptures be taken out of the Original Tongues, considering the difference of Reading, which is in diverse Copies both of Hebrew and Greek; as also the difficulty of some Words and Phrases upon which the best Translators cannot agree?

I’ve discussed his answer before on the blog here. What I want to draw attention to here is the question itself where What about difficult word meanings? is treated right along with What about textual variants? For Ussher, both present problems for perspicuity. His answer, in part, is that not all the Scriptures are equally clear in themselves or to all readers. Just before this, Ussher had given no less than six reasons why God leaves some places in Scripture “obscure.” But my point here is to draw attention to the fact that Ussher puts uncertainties resulting from textual variation in the same category as uncertainties from interpretation.

Baxter (1615-1691)

Writing a little later, Richard Baxter does the same. In discussing the “many parts” of the Scriptures that have uncertainty, his first example comes from the fact that “many hundred texts are uncertain, through various readings in several copies of the original.” (By original, he means original language.) And what does Baxter discuss in the next paragraph? “Many hundred words in the Scripture that are ambiguous, signifying more things than one.” So, again, we have text-critical uncertainty dealt with in the same context as lexical or interpretive uncertainty. (For more on Baxter and textual criticism, see here.)

KJV Preface (1611)

One final and perhaps unexpected place one finds these two types of uncertainty combined is in the preface the King James Bible. Among the things Miles Smith needed to accomplish in the preface was to defend its use of marginal notes. The problem with notes is that they showed the reader where the meaning was uncertain and that might seem to undermine the Bible’s authority. But such uncertainty has a theological justification in that “it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation ... but in matters of less moment” (source). 

It’s in this context that Smith mentions how Pope Sixtus V expressly forbid “that any variety of readings of their Vulgar edition should be put in the margin; (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way;) but we think he hath not all of his own side his favors for this conceit.” It’s that parenthetical remark (emphasis mine) that shows that Smith draws only a slight distinction between textual and lexical ambiguity. The KJV marginal notes themselves do even less to distinguish them. (For more on that, see my chapter here.) Again, then, we see textual uncertainty treated in the same category as semantic ambiguity.

So what?

Having surveyed these three examples, let’s tweak our initial question by asking instead What benefits might we gain by a return to this older way of treating textual criticism? Instead of treating it as a problem for inerrancy or inspiration, what if we treated it as a problem for the clarity of Scripture? Here are some initial thoughts:

1. It avoids the problem of conflating textual errors with theological ones. As noted above, one reason people naturally put textual criticism together with inerrancy is that both trade in the language of “error.” The problem is that most scribal errors do not produce a text that is in theological or historical error. If we discussed textual criticism as a problem for the clarity of Scripture, this would probably be more obvious to people. Textual variants do affect the meaning of Scripture even if the meaning they affect is not a matter of larger theological consequence.
2. It makes the problem ours rather than God’s. What I mean here is that treating textual criticism in relation to the clarity of Scripture connects the issue to hermeneutics (our role) more than inspiration (God’s role). This follows from the previous point. We have to decide if Goliath is either four or six cubits, and that has some affect on our interpretation of the narrative. But that is just one among several interpretive questions that affect our reading of the story. We can still understand the story, still appreciate it, still apply it even when we have unanswered questions leftover. Just as we can all live with uncertainty in interpretation, so we can live with uncertainty in textual criticism. Hence the final point:
3. It reminds us that the clarity of Scripture has never required absolute certainty or total clarity. If you read the full context from the three examples I gave above, you will see that they all go into detail about how not everything in Scripture is equally plain to every reader at all times and in all places. One thing that still surprises me in reading the Reformers is just how readily they admit that there are “dark” or uncertain places in the Bible. They never hide from this. And yet, they were equally clear that the existence of such dark places doesn’t require a magisterium because it doesn’t nullify the Bible’s magisterial authority. If that’s true in interpretation, surely it’s true in textual criticism too.

Objections?

If these are some benefits, are there any drawbacks to treating textual and interpretive uncertainty together? Here’s two I can think of:

1. It obscures the knock-on effect of textual uncertainty. Someone might object that, since interpretation depends on textual decisions, uncertainty about the text has greater ramifications than uncertainties of interpretation. Treating them together obscures this. Perhaps, but I would venture that uncertainties of interpretation (and translation with them) are far more common and typically more serious than textual ones. The places where commentators disagree about the meaning has to be far greater than where they disagree about the original text. That seems true across time—it’s not just a function of our modern manuscript discoveries. Interpretive disagreements have always outweighed and outnumbered textual ones. Whatever uncertainties we can tolerate when it comes to interpretation have to be more than enough to encompass the textual uncertainties.
2. Because inerrancy is tied to the autographs we should treat textual criticism in relation to inerrancy. I’m sensitive to this one since this is usually how textual criticism comes up in theological contexts. When an evangelical student learns about textual criticism, his next question is never “But what about perspicuity?” It’s usually “What about inerrancy?” But, while this is the case, should it be? Must it be? Maybe we wouldn’t field so many concerned theological questions if we were in the habit of treating textual criticism as a question for the clarity of Scripture. We could still talk about the distinction between the autographs and the copies, but that distinction itself might not need to bear so much weight (see point one above under So what?).

Well, these are my initial thoughts and I’d be very happy to hear yours.

Three New Essays on Theology and Textual Criticism

At ETS last year, the conveners of the session on inerrancy invited several people to give papers on inerrancy and textual criticism. That included me and my coblogger Dirk Jongkind and Matthew Bennet of Cedarville University. (Dan Wallace was also slated to speak, but unfortunately couldn’t make it at the last minute.) Those papers have now been published in the latest issue of Presbyterion. 

In Dirk’s paper, he examines the claim that textual variants don’t affect theology and uses that to discuss the relationship of textual criticism and theology more generally. In my paper, I consider whether a shift to the pursuit of the initial text creates a problem for evangelicals who hold to inerrancy. In Bennett’s very interesting paper, he compares textual criticism of the New Testament to textual criticism of the Qur’an with particular attention to the theological ramifications for Christians and Muslims respectively. (It was certainly news to me to learn about the online Encyclopedia of the [variant] readings of the Qur’an and its 14,000 recorded textual variants.)

You can read all three papers online at our Academia pages:

• “It Does Not Make a Difference”: The Fraught Relation Between The Textual Criticism of the New Testament and Theology (Jongkind)
• Inerrancy and the Initial Text (Gurry)
• Apples and Oranges: The Theological Implications of Textual Critical Discoveries in the Bible and in the Qur’an (Bennett)

Leander Keck on Textual Criticism and Inerrancy

I once had the pleasure of meeting Leander Keck in Cambridge where he used to attend the NT seminars when he was in town. Since then I have tried, from time to time, to read some of his work.

Here is a bit from one of his very early books on his theological approach to the Bible called Taking the Bible Seriously. It is basically an attempt to maintain some authority for the Bible while giving full reign to historical criticism. Here is what he says in a brief aside on textual criticism:

It is amazing how fundamentalism* talks so confidently about the inerrant, perfect, infallible character of the original Autographs of the Bible when no one has seen one for more than eighteen centuries! Moreover, it is clear that originally no one thought the wording was perfect since copyists, translators, and authors had little fear of changing it. This is one reason the text critic’s task is so complex. He aims to unravel these changes in order to provide a text which is reasonably reliable. He has no perfect text to offer (pp. 56–57).

I don’t have much to say on this since we’ve discussed inerrancy plenty on the blog and Keck isn’t saying anything that Warfield hadn’t addressed in his day (see here). I quote it here as just another example of the objection.

———
*In a footnote, he explains: “In this essay, the term ‘fundamentalism’ is used loosely to characterize right-wing Protestantism in general. The term has a checkered history.” From there he goes on short description of the history of the Fundamentals and mentions “more sophisticated” fundamentalists who are fleeing the term. He mentions those involved with Christianity Today and Inter-Varsity Fellowship and concludes, “Recently, conversation has been resumed between sophisticated fundamentalists and the other wings of Protestantism; this is clearly a good omen.” (He doesn’t say who or what it is a good omen for.)

‘Held in Honor’: The Roman Catholic View of Textual Criticism

While doing some reading tonight on Roman Catholic theology, I rediscovered my copy of Pope Pius XII’s 1943 encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu on the promotion of Biblical studies. There is much of interest in this document, especially in its robust defense of Scripture’s inerrancy and its explanations on the role of the Latin Vulgate in Catholic theology. 

What most caught my attention, however, was the material on textual criticism. Near the very the beginning, the document turns to Augustine to set the stage. In clarifying the nature of inerrancy, the encyclical quotes Augustine as follows:

Nor is the sacred writer to be taxed with error, if “copyists have made mistakes in the text of the Bible,” or, “if the real meaning of a passage remains ambiguous.”

This qualification about scribal errors is, of course, stock-in-trade for Evangelicals and Augustine is often who we turn to for early support for it. Then later, the document becomes more explicit on the importance of textual criticism for the proper study of the Bible when it says this:

17. The great importance which should be attached to this kind of criticism was aptly pointed out by Augustine, when, among the precepts to be recommended to the student of the Sacred Books, he put in the first place the care to possess a corrected text. “The correction of the codices” – so says this most distinguished Doctor of the Church – “should first of all engage the attention of those who wish to know the Divine Scripture so that the uncorrected may give place to the corrected.” In the present day indeed this art, which is called textual criticism and which is used with great and praiseworthy results in the editions of profane writings, is also quite rightly employed in the case of the Sacred Books, because of that very reverence which is due to the Divine Oracles. For its very purpose is to insure that the sacred text be restored, as perfectly as possible, be purified from the corruptions due to the carelessness of the copyists and be freed, as far as may be done, from glosses and omissions, from the interchange and repetition of words and from all other kinds of mistakes, which are wont to make their way gradually into writings handed down through many centuries.

18. It is scarcely necessary to observe that this criticism, which some fifty years ago not a few made use of quite arbitrarily and often in such wise that one would say they did so to introduce into the sacred text their own preconceived ideas, today has rules so firmly established and secure, that it has become a most valuable aid to the purer and more accurate editing of the sacred text and that any abuse can easily be discovered. Nor is it necessary here to call to mind – since it is doubtless familiar and evident to all students of Sacred Scripture – to what extent namely the Church has held in honor these studies in textual criticism from the earliest centuries down even to the present day.

19. Today therefore, since this branch of science has attained to such high perfection, it is the honorable, though not always easy, task of students of the Bible to procure by every means that as soon as possible may be duly published by Catholics editions of the Sacred Books and of ancient versions, brought out in accordance with these standards, which, that is to say, unite the greatest reverence for the sacred text with an exact observance of all the rules of criticism. And let all know that this prolonged labor is not only necessary for the right understanding of the divinely-given writings, but also is urgently demanded by that piety by which it behooves us to be grateful to the God of all providence, Who from the throne of His majesty has sent these books as so many paternal letters to His own children.

I haven’t read any further than this encyclical to know whether this view has changed since the momentous Vatican II council. But I thought it interesting, not least because of how it overlaps with Evangelical views of the importance of textual criticism.

Inerrancy and Textual Criticism

I have been reminded that some time ago I promised to open a discussion on the relationship between inerrancy and textual criticism. This is it. I’ll start with my thoughts and hope that others will contribute theirs as well as explore specific applications of the principles explored.

Prolegomena

Luke in Cod. Bodmer 25 (credit)

The first thing I should say is about the relationship between inerrancy and this blog. As the blog’s founder I am very, very happy to sign inerrancy statements in almost whatever shape or form they take. However, the term I preferred when establishing this blog was simply to say that the scriptures were ‘true’. Although this might seem a weaker term, I do not mean it in a weaker sense. Moreover, it has the advantage of being self-evidently in continuation with all historic mainstream views of scripture that have been articulated down church history. Using the term ‘true’ also means that I am not forced into instant qualifications of the term I use because I am not using a technical term.

The second belief that I see as fundamental to this blog is the belief that God may be said to be the author of specific sequences of words which constitute scripture (i.e. belief in verbal inspiration). Though this belief is not without its problems, it is less problematic than alternative accounts of inspiration (e.g. that God inspired thoughts in scripture, but may not be said to be the author of specific words—the question ‘which thoughts?’ is even harder to answer than the question ‘which words?’).

That said, for the sake of discussion I want to use the term ‘inerrancy’, since, in this context, I believe it will optimise the point I am trying to make.

Basic thesis

My basic thesis is that inerrancy may only be used as a secondary criterion for the original reading. It cannot be used to overturn strong external support or to support conjecture.

Hendel: The Shared Origin of Modern Textual Criticism and Inerrancy

This is now a few days late for Reformation Day, but Ronald Hendel, editor-in-chief of the Hebrew Bible: Critical Edition (HBCE), has just put an article online that should be of particular interest to ETC readers. The essay looks at the relationship between inerrancy and textual criticism in Protestant-Catholic debates during the Reformation and Post-Reformation. The main contention is that the same concern for a “perfect text” led to both modern textual criticism and the modern doctrine of Biblical inerrancy. 

I must say I was not convinced by the overall argument since it seems to me that both textual criticism and inerrancy as he describes them existed before his main sources. But Hendel is right, I think, to argue that the Reformation debates about Scripture (especially sola scriptura) raised new questions about inerrancy and textual criticism. One example we could cite is the debate about whether Hebrew vowel points are inspired and inerrant. (On which, see PJW’s thoughts here.)

Here is part of Hendel’s conclusion:

The dream of a perfect text in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is a story worth telling—although I have only sketched the highlights—because the discipline of biblical scholarship still works largely within the conceptual space carved out by these controversies. In particular, the modern discipline of textual criticism and the orthodox Protestant doctrine of biblical inerrancy have a shared origin in early modern arguments about textual variants in the Hebrew Bible. Since then, textual criticism has become institutionalized as a non-theological practice, and most theologians are unaware of its inner workings. Yet the empirical realia of texts and variants were once central in theological discourse, providing a fulcrum for deep rifts in early modern culture. The conceptual changes were long lived....

The Catholic-Protestant controversy, based in part on the problem of textual variants, yielded the high doctrine of biblical inerrancy. As Philip Benedict sums up, “Controversy with Catholicism and the need to defend established positions had produced the doctrine of the literal inerrancy of the biblical text.” Text-critical issues were at the center of these fraught discourses about the perfect text. 

I would be interested to hear from readers on their take on the essay. You can read the PDF on Hendel’s Academia page.

As a side note, anyone looking for a good PhD topic (and whose Latin is good) could make a great thesis out of tracing the role of textual criticism in the 16th–17th century debates about Scripture.

Update

It looks like Hendel has a collection of essays (including this one) titled Steps to a New Edition of the Hebrew Bible coming out this month in SBL’s Text-Critical Studies series. The introduction is available here.

ETC Interview with Chuck Hill: Part 2

This is part 2 of our interview with Chuck Hill. Part 1 is here.

In The Early Text of the NT, you suggest that David Parker “gives the impression that concern for the original text is simply a religious phenomenon, driven by pressure from churches who desire an ‘authoritative text’” (p. 4). You point out, rightly in my opinion, that religious belief is hardly the only motivation for seeking a work’s original text. But what is the relationship between a high view of Scripture (as found, say, in the Westminster Confession) and the quest for the original text? Is such a view of scripture viable without the concept of a single original text?

Having a high view of Scripture, as you pointed out, is not the only motivation for seeking an original text. I don’t know why anyone would make that assumption. But is a high view of Scripture viable without ‘the concept of a single original text’? The short answer, I suppose, has to be ‘yes’, but it depends, of course, on what is meant by ‘the concept of a single original text.’ You can, of course, make a distinction between the original text (let’s just define it as the text as it left the author’s hands for the last time, with the author’s intent for release) and the ‘Initial text’ or Ausgangstext (the text we reconstruct as the source of all the known readings). But even the ‘Initial text’ is a form of the text that originated with the author. Different compositional stages of a book (e.g., a book before the author added a prologue, or decided to insert new material, etc.) are not different editions of the book, and it just seems like obfuscation to bring them into the picture.

The main, possible complication, I suppose, would be if the author did make a second edition (as some people have argued for the text of Acts). Let’s say (for the sake of argument) Paul sent a letter to the Roman church and kept his own personal copy, then later modified his copy in some way, intending to make this revised copy the basis for copies that would be more widely distributed to the churches, perhaps along with a collection of his letters. In this case you could say there are two ‘original’, authorial texts of Romans, essentially two editions.

Each of these would have originated with the author with his intention to be ‘released’ or published. Each one, I think we would have to say, was inspired, written by Paul in the exercise of his apostolic ministry. So here we would have two ‘originals’. In my opinion, the natural standard we would be seeking (if we could tell the difference) would be the final version that left Paul’s control, as representing the author’s final, intended ‘original’, even if it was not the ‘original’ original.

Or, let’s say that the ‘release’ of a book like Revelation, or even one of the Gospels, for that matter, was marked by the sending out of several ‘initial’ copies as part of the release. What if there were minor scribal differences between them? In this case, presumably there was still one single master copy from which other copies were made, which would be the logical ‘original’. But what if this, or any other, first exemplar itself contained errors that were made and somehow not corrected, in the inscription process? Then the ‘original’ text, or the normative text, would presumably go back to the author’s intention, no matter what happened between thought and words appearing on a page. This is why Warfield, in his book on NT textual criticism, identified the original text as the text intended by the author.

You teach in an institution that holds the Bible to be “absolutely and finally authoritative as the inerrant Word of God.” How do you respond to critics who say that such a belief is necessarily restrictive and even incompatible with the academic study of the Bible? Does belief in inerrancy restrict your scholarship in any way?

Yes, I’m sure it has restricted the number of stupid things I would otherwise have said. I can’t say I feel restricted in a negative way. Inerrancy can be defined in unhelpful ways but I see it not as ‘a thing in itself’ so much as simply a corollary of a couple of very basic articles of the Christian faith: that God is true and cannot lie, and that Scripture is his word. If we were starting over today, perhaps we would have found another word besides ‘inerrancy’ because it seems so prone to misunderstanding. But it has entered the theological vocabulary and it does have its value – and not to affirm it sounds a lot like not affirming God’s truthfulness. God speaks in a way that is ultimately true, not false. For me, that doesn’t predetermine very much about what the text must say or look like; God might speak, and speak truly, in ways and in forms I don’t expect. Human language (which God seems happy to employ, thankfully, because we are humans) is full of surprises.

It’s true that my convictions about God and Scripture will make me loathe to declare historical or theological problems in Scripture to be real errors or material contradictions, preferring instead to lay out options and sometimes withhold judgment until more evidence is in. But I don’t know why that should be judged to be incompatible with academic study. The ability to jump to conclusions should not be considered an essential attribute of academic scholarship. (I know that might be controversial.)

I think those who have a high appreciation for the divinity of Scripture will often look at a text much more carefully and insightfully than those who don’t, who might be satisfied with (or even eager to take) a shallower and less sympathetic treatment. And, of course, I think we would have much, much deeper problems without such a God who has spoken to us in Scripture.

If you had a particularly gifted student who wanted to pursue graduate work in textual criticism or canonicity (or both!), are there any particular issues you might want to steer them toward? Any you would advise them to avoid?

Studies of particular manuscripts are now starting to come into their own, and this is a good thing that should be encouraged in every way. I think the study of textual division is one area that holds a lot of potential (see on next question).

Sorting out the issues behind what has been called the ‘Western’ textual tradition, in my view, would be helpful, particularly the relationship between the early Latin and Syriac translations and their presumed Greek Vorlagen. How much of what has been attributed to a Greek Vorlage is really a result of translation technique? I don’t think the Greek fragments of Irenaeus that contain Biblical citations have been adequately analyzed and compared with the Greek manuscripts and the Old Latin translation(s).

More work is being done on early patristic appropriations of Scriptural texts, and that is a welcome sign, but more can still be done. More attention could be given to early Christian book collections, of churches or of individuals. There are a number of signs that Christians in the second half of the second century already believed that Scripture consisted of a ‘closed collection’ of books. These could be explored further.

I can’t think of any to avoid, except anything that won’t hold your interest for years of study.

2016 Academic Lecture  |  Listen here

Dr. Charles E. Hill, delivers the Spring 2016 Academic Lecture at RTS Orlando on the theory of the early development of the NT text. Offering an alternative solution to long held views.

Can you share any of your current research projects with us?

Of most interest to readers of this blog might be the work I’m doing on textual divisions in early manuscripts. For the Michael Holmes FS I did an investigation of early manuscripts of John, focusing on what appears to be a very early template for textual division, best preserved in P75 and in B. Among other things, I think it indicates that the scribes of Vaticanus probably had access to a very early copy, or copies, of John. My paper at SBL last November (2015) carried the study through to the other three Gospels, and I’m hoping to take this research further.

Following up on the work begun in ETNT, I’m working on updating the prevailing theoretical model for the early development of the NT text. Extending work on the Johannine Corpus (The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church) I’m also working on a book on the composition of John, in which I’m revisiting theories of multiple editions of the Gospel. Also I’m writing something on the socio-theological context of 1–3 John. If I should live long enough, I’m hoping to write a commentary on John.

Dr. Hill, thank you so much for your time and experience.

Thank you for your interest!

New book on the Authority of Scripture

Today I received my copy of a new book: D.A. Carson (ed.), The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016). It is quite a big book (36 chapters and 1,240 pages), so this is not a review, more of an initial reaction and recommendation.

For information on the general motivation there is an interesting video of Don Carson on the Eerdmans website, also some discussion on Justin Taylor’s blog where you can see a detailed list of chapters. For some early push-back on Carson’s framing of the book see the comments from Nijay Gupta: Why I’m Disappointed with DA Carson’s New Book (for part of the back story see here).

Here is a list of chapters (sorry for the length):

1. D. A. Carson, “The Many Facets of the Current Discussion”

Part 1: Historical Topics 

2. Charles E. Hill, “‘The Truth Above All Demonstration’: Scripture in the Patristic Period to Augustine”
3. Robert Kolb, “The Bible in the Reformation and Protestant Orthodoxy”
4. Rodney L. Stiling, “Natural Philosophy and Biblical Authority in the Seventeenth Century”
5. John D. Woodbridge, “German Pietism and Scriptural Authority: The Question of Biblical Inerrancy”
6. Thomas H. McCall, “Wesleyan Theology and the Authority of Scripture: Historic Affirmations and Some Contemporary Issues”
7. Bradley N. Seeman, “The ‘Old Princetonians’ on Biblical Authority”
8. Glenn S. Sunshine, “Accommodation Historically Considered”
9. David Gibson, “The Answering Speech of Men: Karl Barth on Holy Scripture”
10. Anthony N. S. Lane, “Roman Catholic Views of Biblical Authority from the Late Nineteenth Century to the Present”

Part 2: Biblical and Theological Topics

11. Stephen G. Dempster, “The Old Testament Canon, Josephus, and Cognitive Environment”
12. V. Philips Long, “‘Competing Histories, Competing Theologies?’ Reflections on the Unity and Diversity of the Old Testament(s’ Readers)”
13. Peter J. Williams, “Ehrman’s Equivocations and the Inerrancy of the Original Text”
14. Simon Gathercole, “E Pluribus Unim? Apostolic Unity and Early Christian Literature”
15. Graham A. Cole, “Why a Book? Why This Book? Why the Particular Order within This Book? Some Theological Reflections on the Canon”
16. Peter F. Jensen, “God and the Bible”
17. Henri A. G. Blocher, ‘God and the Scripture Writers: The Question of Double Authorship”
18. Bruce K. Waltke, “Myth, History, and the Bible”
19. Barry G. Webb, “Biblical Authority and Diverse Literary Genres”
20. Mark D. Thompson, “The Generous Gift of a Gracious Father: Toward a Theological Account of the Clarity of Scripture”
21. Osvaldo Padilla, “Postconservative Theologians and Scriptural Authority”
22. Craig L. Blomberg, “Reflections on Jesus’ View of the Old Testament”
23. Douglas J. Moo and Andrew David Naselli, “The Problem of the New Testament’s Use of the Old Testament”
24. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “May We Go Beyond What Is Written After All? The Pattern of Theological Authority and the problem of Doctrinal Development”

Part 3: Philosophical and Epistemological Topics

25. James Beilby, “Contemporary Religious Epistemology: Some Key Aspects”
26. R. Scott Smith, “Non-Foundational Epistemologies and the Truth of Scripture”
27. Michael C. Rea, “Authority and Truth”
28. Paul Helm, “The Idea of Inerrancy”
29. Richard Lints, “To Whom Does the Text Belong? Communities of Interpretation and the Interpretation of Communities”
30. Kirsten Birkett, “Science and Scripture”

Part 4: Comparative Religions Topics

31. Te-Li Lau, “Knowing the Bible Is the Word of God Despite Competing Claims”
32. Ida Glaser, “Qur’anic Challenges for the Bible Reader”
33. Timothy C. Tennent, “Can Hindu Scriptures Serve as a “Tutor” to Christ?”
34. Harold Netland and Alex G. Smith, “Buddhist Sutras and Christian Revelation”

Part 5: Thinking Holistically

35. Daniel M. Doriani, “Take, Read”

Part 6: FAQs

36. D. A. Carson, “Summarizing FAQs”

The essays I read were all interesting, well-informed, confident that they could defend the authority of the Bible against the challenges it faces. I especially liked Hill’s essay on Scripture in the early church, obviously that is because it dealt with a lot of things I am personally and professionally interested in, but also because it is obvious that Hill has worked in detail and for a long time with the questions he is addressing about this period. So it challenged me to think about the data and the argument. Readers of this blog will enjoy that essay. They will also enjoy Pete Williams’ essay, hopefully this will help straighten out a lot of discussions of the inspiration of the original text of Scripture (readers of this blog will have already figured this out from Pete’s posts). I dipped into some of the history chapters, read all the biblical chapters, enjoyed some of the more theological discussions and completely avoided the philosophical and comparative religion chapters.

The first thing I noticed, and needed to figure out in order to appreciate the book at all, is that in general for this book the “authority” of Scripture is basically regarded as synonymous with the “inerrancy” of Scripture. In fact the indices show that “inspiration” and “inerrancy” are addressed far more frequently than “authority”. In addition, the book does not seek to demonstrate the authority (or inspiration or inerrancy) of Scripture. It basically presumes the doctrine and is then shaped around the many challenges to the authority of Scripture. For example, there is an interesting essay attributed* to D.J. Moo and A.D. Naselli, ‘The Problem of the New Testament’s Use of the Old Testament’. The first sentence is as follows:

‘Does the use of the OT in the NT argue against Scripture’s inerrancy? Many scholars think it does. This essay explains why it does not.‘ [my italics] (Of the 36 chapters at least a dozen could have used an equivalent first sentence for their topics.) 

The essay discusses the topic of the NT use of the OT as a “problem”. It is not discussed as part of the data by which a responsible contemporary evangelical doctrine of Scripture might be formulated, it is rather presented as a problem to inerrancy. In fact by the end of the essay it is still a problem: ‘the phenomena of the OT in the NT, then, constitute a mixed picture for the doctrine of inerrancy.’ But in the end the problem can’t trump the doctrine. The final sentence: ‘Certainly, in our view, the issues do not constitute enough “inductive” data to overthrow the clear claims of Scripture for itself, claims that the Christian church through the centuries has recognized as significant to provide clear and enduring authority for the people of God.’ But this whole issue of the relationship between a “deductive” approach and an “inductive” approach to sourcing the doctrine of Scripture is never actually addressed. I went to the index and checked for discussions of the “phenomena” of Scripture - the actual nitty gritty of the Bible as it really is - and found only two pages (p. 55 where Hill argues that we shouldn’t think that the church fathers were ignorant of discrepancies between the Gospels; and p. 1159 where I couldn’t actually find the word). (Incidentally there is no essay on discrepancies between the Gospels and how this is not a problem.)

So the second thing I noticed is that for whatever reason ‘the clear claims of Scripture for itself’ (quoting Moo & Naselli from above) are never discussed in this book. The book pretty much assumes an already formulated doctrine of Scripture and seeks to defend that doctrine against various challenges. This is important because of something V. Philips Long says in his essay on OT history:

‘it is no good defending a text with respect to claims that it never makes’ (p. 387 my italics). 

So it would have been helpful to have some constructive discussions to articulate what ‘the claims of Scripture for itself’ really are. I had an ironic moment in reading Graham Cole’s very interesting chapter ‘Some Theological Reflections on the Canon’ when he complained about Brevard Childs: ‘the paucity of references in his major work on biblical theology to the role of the Holy Spirit in the production of Scripture is a singular weakness ... 2 Timothy 3:16 hardly figures in his work and 2 Peter 1:21 not at all according to his index of biblical references’ (p. 466).

Of course the irony is that this collection is equally lacking in treating these topics. There is practically nothing on the work of the Holy Spirit (in fact the first entry under ‘Holy Spirit’ in the index is ‘inspiration’, but next to it is only blank space, no page numbers!); the only actual engagement with 2 Tim 3.16 comes in a critique of Karl Barth’s exegesis of the passage, otherwise there are only glancing references which presume rather than demonstrate what it teaches (2 Peter 1.21 does appear in the index, but is not discussed in any substantial manner).

The third thing I noticed, building on the first two observations, is that only seven of the 36 chapters deal directly with the Bible. The weight of the whole collection is spread out fairly evenly over the major areas: history, theology, Bible, philosophy, and the helpful new areas of comparative religious issues in relation to the authority of Scripture. But I found it interesting that a book about the Bible’s inspiration and independent authority over the people of God begins not with the Bible itself, but with church history - nine chapters to get the tradition straight before we get to the Biblical chapters.

The fourth thing I noticed is that in fact lots of the biblical essays don’t really deal with the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture very straightforwardly. In fact a lot of them barely deal with the Bible at all (in this I would count Dempster, Long, Williams, and Waltke), but are discussions about background to or secondary discussions about the Bible. Dempster’s essay is about Josephus’ view of the OT canon, arguing that Josephus had a clear and closed view of the OT canon and then that this was (could have been?) part of the ‘cognitive environment’ of early Christianity. It is a helpful historical essay and it engages well with the issue, the arguments and the evidence. Long’s essay is a very general discussion of the problems in contemporary history of Israel study and how theists can engage with the debates. Williams defines the original text, in critical dialogue with B.D. Erhman, as the immaterial text which survives in the manuscript tradition and then mounts a brief 12 point defence of the presumption that the text of the New Testament has been transmitted reliably. Gathercole defends a broad apostolic unity around 1 Cor 15.3-11, and then spends 17 pages defending the apostolic connections to (not necessarily ‘authorship of’) the four canonical gospels. It is interesting stuff, but does Scripture itself claim apostolic authorship for the Gospels? Or is that a product of church tradition? In any case, the relationship between this discussion and the inspiration of Scripture is never articulated.

Only two of these essays reflect back on the definition of the authority of Scripture from the perspective of their subject. Blomberg discusses Jesus’ view of the OT, running a refreshed version of J.W. Wenham’s argument: ‘When it comes to the inspiration, truthfulness, authority, and relevance of the Bible of his world, Jesus could scarcely have held to higher views.’ (p. 696) ... ‘If we are followers of Jesus, we will want to adopt his view of the Scriptures.’ (p. 699)  Blomberg does then deal with the way that Jesus’ use of the OT also challenges some conservative views, especially on the interpretation of the revered Scripture. Webb describes the diverse literary genres which are found in the Bible. I found this a very interesting essay because he was not too bothered with the secondary literature and he went back to consider how the doctrine of Scripture might actually be re-shaped by the content and genres of Scripture itself. His question was: 

 ‘what are the implications of this diversity [of genres] for the kind of authority the Bible exercises?’ (p. 613) 

Personally I think I would have been helped more if this question had been asked more often.

Fifthly, there is a problem in relation to the chronology of the essays. The original essays were distributed in advance of a conference held in June 2010 and the book is published in 2016. D.A. Carson recognises the problem and suggests ‘most of these papers are sufficiently weighty and robust that they will not quickly become dated’ (p. xvi). The difficulty is obvious - you can’t expect authors to continually up-date essays while waiting for all the contributors to finish up. But the outcome does occasionally look a bit odd because the essays don’t address publications from the last five years, or we get the occasional distracting footnote: ‘Regrettably, I learned of Kevin Vanhoozer’s Remythologizing Theology, Cambridge Studies in Christian Doctrine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010) too late to use it in this essay.’ (p. 545) In addition, some topics seem more important now than they did six or seven years ago (pseudonymity, OT text issues, Septuagint).

In conclusion, I confess I haven’t yet found this book deeply satisfying. Intellectually, emotionally and spiritually it didn’t engage me in the way I hoped it would. Nevertheless, I’m glad I bought it. I’ve already found several of the essays useful in helping me articulate a high view of Scripture’s authority. I’m sure I’ll refer back to it on a variety of issues.

*I have some suspicions about this essay on stylistic and content grounds.

Peter Enns, Westminster, Inerrancy, and Textual Criticism

Sometime ago now Westminster Theological Seminary suspended Peter Enns, one of its OT faculty members. I was especially interested that the Christianity Today report opened with the following sentence:

“Two of the hottest issues in evangelical theology right now are the New Testament’s use of the Old Testament and evangelical textual criticism.” (Ted Olsen, ‘Westminster Theological Seminary Suspends Peter Enns’)

It is great that our blog is one of the two hottest issues in evangelical theology; but unfortunately I couldn’t detect much interest in textual criticism in Enn’s book Inspiration and Incarnation (2005); or in the debates initiated by it, for an introduction to these see e.g. Green Baggins and Digital Brandon.

Now, however, WTS have released some of the internal faculty documents (debating papers), which are quite helpful in clarifying (some of) the issues that have divided their faculty. At a fairly basic level this reflects an important debate about the role of the phenomena of Scripture in clarifying and modifying a doctrine of Scripture derived initially from Scripture’s direct self-testimony; with a predictable division between the biblical scholars (‘yes the phenomena are really important’ - see the Hermeneutics Field Committee’s Reply to the HTFC, pp. 28-97) and the systematicians (‘phenomena? ha! they didn’t pose a problem in the 17th century so why worry about them now?’).

But in this document we also have some discussion of textual criticism, as illustrating the principle that reformed theologians have had to adjust to the changes in the realia since the 17th century, and that Warfield in particular was at the heart of various theological adjustments in the light of hard evidence - in one case regarding the Long Ending of Mark (Hermeneutics Field Committee’s Reply to the HTFC, pp. 50-52).

Three TC articles at CT

Over Christianity Today there are three articles on textual criticism including:

1. On the Pericope adulterae with Is 'Let Him Who Is Without Sin Cast the First Stone' Biblical? by Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra. It includes this quote:

"Such judgments [about the inauthenticity of the pericope] raise questions about what words like canonicity and inspiration mean for evangelicals. If we reserve the word inspired for the text in the earliest manuscripts, yet accept that other material (such as the pericope adulterae) should be included in our biblical canon, are we implying that select biblical passages may be canonical yet not inspired? If so, what should we do with this distinction?"

2. There is some Q & A with Dan Wallace about his trip to Albania by Derek Keefe.

3. Finally, there is a "classic" article on Textual Criticism and Inerrancy by J.I. Packer which answers the question, "How can I reconcile my belief in the inerrancy of Scripture with comments in Bible translations that state that a particular verse is not 'in better manuscripts'?"

Do we contribute to being misunderstood?

There are many parts of the interview with Bart Ehrman that interest me and it would be tempting for me to indulge in picking over bits of his replies. However, the most interesting section remains the following words of Ehrman:

“We don’t have the original texts of the NT; we all knew this, of course, already while I was at Moody Bible Institute: that’s why we talked about the inspiration of the autographs. But I came to see that the absence of the originals, and our inability in places to know for certain what was in the originals, rendered the claim that the original texts were inspired more or less irrelevant. What good does it do to say these original texts were inspired if we don’t have them??”

What makes it so interesting is that Ehrman thinks that at this point he is engaging with what evangelicals believe. Although our Lord was misunderstood, I think that we evangelicals should not entirely wash our hands of how we are misunderstood, and Ehrman’s perception of what evangelicals believe is probably shared by many more. The two confusing terms in this passage are ‘texts’, ‘original(s)’, and the confusing phrase is ‘inspiration of the autographs’. As I have mentioned before, ‘text’ is normally defined as something immaterial, though in Ehrman’s sentence ‘We don’t have the original texts of the NT’ it clearly means ‘We don’t have the original material manuscripts of the NT’. The last two occurrences of the word ‘texts’ in this extract purport to represent evangelical belief, but evangelicals would not generally agree with the statement that ‘the original material manuscripts’ were inspired.

‘Original’ is a confusing term too. In earlier phases of English it has meant simply ‘origin’ as in John Owen’s ‘Divine Original’. It has also been common for people to talk of consulting the ‘original’ by which they mean text in the original language.

‘Inspiration of the autographs’ is indeed a phrase that is used by evangelicals, but is hazardously open to misunderstanding. Again it sounds like inspiration is attributed to a material entity. I would propose that we drop speaking of ‘inspiration of the autographs’ and speak of ‘inspiration on the autographs’. The phrase may sound awkward, but it makes clear that we’re not saying that there was anything magical about the papyrus. We’re talking about inspiration of sequences of immaterial words, which happened to be recorded on autographs, which were themselves very unimportant. Just as the transmission of the coding of DNA is what matters in biology, not the particular molecules configured to present the code, so it is the wording of scripture is important within a doctrine of scripture not the autograph manuscripts (though these are of course historically important as artefacts).

I’d recommend therefore the following clarifications of terminology.

Phrases to drop:

• inspired/inerrant originals/autographs
• inspiration of the autographs
• ‘We don’t have the original texts of the NT’

Phrases to adopt:

• inspired/inerrant wording/text
• inspired on the autographs
• ‘We do have the original text of the NT’ (if you believe that all original wording is preserved somewhere in the manuscript tradition)

Some of these issues are dealt with in my earlier post on The Bible vs the Scriptures and in point 3 of my review of Misquoting Jesus and in some of the comments on thereunder.

Does pointing matter?

Does Hebrew pointing matter? This may seem a strange question from someone who spent the good part of five years of his life teaching students to point Hebrew (see my exasperated The Great Pointing Crisis). However, I am asking it more as a theological question and in relation to evangelical doctrines of scripture.

Most are probably familiar with the story of how Elias Levita (1469-1549) called into question the antiquity of the Masoretic pointing and how the question of the antiquity and inspiration of the vowels became a matter of special controversy in the seventeenth century. Key elements included the bringing to Europe of the first copy of a Samaritan Pentateuch by Pietro della Valle in 1616, with a script that was (rightly) judged archaic and that lacked pointing. Johannes Buxtorf (snr) attempted to refute Elias Levita’s contention that the vowels were late, and this contention was continued by his son, Johannes Buxtoft (jnr), who particularly strove with Louis Cappel. Very much connected with this is John Owen’s controversy with the London Polyglot of 1657[1658].

Even towards the end of the seventeenth century the Helvetic Consensus Formula (1675) said that:

‘... The Hebrew original of the OT which we have received and to this day do retain as handed down by the Hebrew Church, “who had been given the oracles of God” (Rom 3:2), is, not only in its consonants, but in its vowels either the vowel points themselves, or at least the power of the points not only in its matter, but in its words, inspired by God.’ (Canon II, Klauber’s translation)

Subsequent opinion has concluded that those who argued for the antiquity or inspiration of the vowels were wrong.

Some will also be aware that there has been some movement towards re-establishing the antiquity of the vowels—not arguing that they were ancient written entities, but rather affirming the antiquity of the reading tradition. Many who work within Masoretic studies find this plausible, and my Doktorvater, the great Semitist Geoffrey Khan, always used to say that the vowels were as old as the consonants. Even the Samaritans have their own oral system of pointing (with occasional marks in manuscripts) and this has been studied by Stefan Schorch (Die Vokale des Gesetzes: Die samaritanische Lesetradition als Textzeugin der Tora 1. Band 1: Das Buch Genesis [Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 339; Walter de Gruyter, 2004]). It both agrees and disagrees with the Masoretic system.

I should like to distinguish between (a) the pointing as a source of information to us about ancient Hebrew and (b) the pointing as a necessary guide in the identification of lexemes and grammatical forms in particular instances.

It seems to me that the pointing is very important in giving us a knowledge of the language and in moving us closer to the position that a native speaker would be in (function a), but is relatively unimportant in actually identifying the lexical or grammatical forms being used (function b). I read through Jeremiah 36 and Genesis 1 last night in Hebrew with this in mind and came to the conclusion that with competence in the language (based on a knowledge of pointing) it was possible to identify the lexemes and grammatical forms in all words in these texts. I wonder how much this is the case across the Hebrew Bible.

Often when people have sought to disregard pointing, they have disregarded it in both functions a and b. Such was the case with Dahood. I wonder, however, what people think about the following as a possible evangelical approach:

To accept that pointing is a reliable guide to ancient Hebrew, to its repertory of lexemes and grammatical structures, but to argue that it is not necessary for the identification of lexemes and grammatical structures in particular cases. This would seem to me to have the advantage of being able to maintain that the ancient written text (consonants comprising words with clear lexical identity and in specific grammatical forms) is self-sufficient provided one has (from somewhere) expertise in the language.

Whether the object marker is pointed with sere or seghol is not relevant for grammatical function or lexical identification. Neither is the question of whether a form is in pause or not (though unit division itself can be sematically important).

The Helvetic Consensus Formula was IMHO wrong in attributing ‘inspiration’ to the vowels. However, I would like to think they were particularly striving to be able to maintain that words in the text had particular grammatical forms and lexical identities. If so, they would not have been so much in error.

Thoughts?

Inerrancy and textual criticism

I have been reminded by a correspondent that some time ago I promised to open a discussion on the relationship between inerrancy and textual criticism. This is it. I'll start with my thoughts and hope that others will contribute theirs as well as explore specific applications of the principles explored.

Prolegomena

The first thing I should say is about the relationship between inerrancy and this blog. As the blog's founder I am very, very happy to sign inerrancy statements in almost whatever shape or form they take. However, the term I preferred when establishing this blog was simply to say that the scriptures were 'true'. Although this might seem a weaker term, I do not mean it in a weaker sense. Moreover, it has the advantage of being self-evidently in continuation with all historic mainstream views of scripture that have been articulated down church history. Using the term 'true' also means that I am not forced into instant qualifications of the term I use because I am not using a technical term.

The second belief that I see as fundamental to this blog is the belief that God may be said to be the author of specific sequences of words which constitute scripture (i.e. belief in verbal inspiration). Though this belief is not without its problems, it is less problematic than alternative accounts of inspiration (e.g. that God inspired thoughts in scripture, but may not be said to be the author of specific words—the question 'which thoughts?' is even harder to answer than the question 'which words?'). That said, for the sake of discussion I want to use the term 'inerrancy', since, in this context, I believe it will optimise the point I am trying to make.

Basic thesis

My basic thesis is that inerrancy may only be used at the most as a secondary criterion for the original reading. It cannot be used to overturn strong external support or to support conjecture. If inerrancy is allowed to be a primary criterion then we are adopting a method that is

1. highly subjective
2. does not adequately control human bias
3. beyond the remit of an evangelical textual critic

1) Apologists are often naturally concerned to be able to present a Bible 'without problem'. There can therefore be a tendency to want to solve problems prematurely. There are therefore numerous cases where apologists adopt readings in the name of inerrancy that are text-critically highly dubious otherwise. For one example you can see a brave but misguided attempt to suggest that the name Cainan was not originally in Luke 3:36 (I do not intend to 'shame' this site, which has some merit to it).

For me a major problem with the attempt to solve a problem by taking a text-critical decision that would otherwise be judged unlikely is that it is hard to see any non-subjective criteria by which one could decide when to take such a step. There are, after all, difficult texts of various kinds within scripture: texts that can readily be read to suggest that Jesus' would return to earth within a generation of his ministry, texts that make the relationship between Synoptic and Johannine chronology problematic, etc. Who is to decide which texts are so problematic that the doctrine of inerrancy can be invoked with the result that the reading otherwise judged best be set aside? This is the problem of subjectivity.

2) Evangelicals have often taken a rather dim view of when critics of other persuasions have allowed their own interpretative framework to be decisive in adopting readings. Thus we have not been too impressed by von Soden's adoption of the reading without the virginal conception in Matthew 1:16 (on the basis of the Sinaitic Syriac), nor by the way Ehrman sometimes allows his framework of 'orthodox corruption' to be decisive in deciding between readings. The problem with these approaches is that the doctrinal framework does not appear to be adequately constrained by the external evidence. Advocates of inerrancy need to demonstrate to others that they too are accountable to the external evidence and will not ignore it simply to demonstrate the truthfulness of their position.

3) Ultimately, I think that to use the doctrine of inerrancy to override the manuscripts is to enter into a domain to which we are not called. I, personally, am of the conviction that an editor of the NT should never accept a conjecture into a text (though see earlier debate on this blog, e.g. 'Ephesians 1.1 update', 'conjectural emendation', 'more on conjectures'), not because I hold the absolute conviction that no conjecture could ever be correct. I strongly doubt that any conjecture is correct, but acknowledge in theory that some may be. My view that an editor should not accept an emendation into the text is not based on the view that there are no correct emendations, but on the view that even if some were correct it would not be an editor's business to print them. Similarly, if it be that God has not given us every word he inspired within the manuscripts that is essentially his business, not ours. I do not have to take it upon myself to 'restore' what he has not seen fit to preserve. That's why if editing 1 Samuel 13:1 I would simply preserve MT. If something has dropped out, I have no way of knowing what it is (despite the conjectures of the early versions), so it is not my business to put it in. My job as a textual critic is not to ensure that readers have an inerrant edition of the Bible in their hands.

Inerrancy is a belief that is derived from God's character as one who does not err and the inference that if words may rightly be said to be 'his' they should therefore share that characteristic. Historically, authors like Jerome or Calvin were convinced that God's words were entirely true, but almost certainly did not believe that they had an errorless copy of those words in their own possession.

Comments? Disagreements? Issues raised?