tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post7384937989390715266..comments2024-03-28T00:45:18.442+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: The Appeal to the Autograph in Early Protestant TheologyP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-78337512870549214722023-07-04T07:46:31.731+01:002023-07-04T07:46:31.731+01:00Typo in the autograph itself...Typo in the autograph itself...Your friendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00062844857912811825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-12908558185887887662018-07-29T01:11:05.068+01:002018-07-29T01:11:05.068+01:00Most Catholic teachers would have granted that the...Most Catholic teachers would have granted that the ancient Greek and Hebrew autographa were authentic. They argued that the MSS which we have today, however, cannot be regarded as authentic because, after many years of copying, they have become corrupt and impure. This thought naturally led back to a discussion regarding the integrity of the contemporary text, and was no doubt the main reason for the prolonged discussion concerning this point. The Lutherans answered that their adversaries could not prove their point. Quenstedt asserts that it is unthinkable that God in His providence would preserve intact a certain human version of Scripture but allow the original inspired texts to become mutilated. He writes: ‘We believe, as is our duty, that the providential care of God has always watched over the original and primitive texts of the canonical Scriptures in such a way that we can be certain that the sacred codices which we now have in our hands are those which existed at the time of Jerome and Augustine, nay, at the time of Christ Himself and his apostles.’ This was the Lutheran position in a nutshell. <br /><br />Robert Preus, The Inspiration of Scripture (139)<br />A. J. MacDonald, Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02606590381956913426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-71225590078135971442017-12-14T15:25:43.099+00:002017-12-14T15:25:43.099+00:00He's certainly not early Protestant and is def...He's certainly not early Protestant and is definitely too late to be very relevant for this discussion (though I can't resist the chance to sneak in a reference to him here or there), but the so-called last of the Puritans did ask some of our questions and address textual variants, even if only rarely (Spurgeon).Elijah Hixsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816323223305820788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-65632310432456373472017-12-13T21:36:17.763+00:002017-12-13T21:36:17.763+00:00... until it conflicts with your settled opinion.... until it conflicts with your settled opinion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-26633827656846242582017-12-13T21:33:36.177+00:002017-12-13T21:33:36.177+00:00I would see "authorgraph" as a more appr...I would see "authorgraph" as a more appropriate typo?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-57949997292119687052017-12-13T20:32:55.716+00:002017-12-13T20:32:55.716+00:00Logic's good.Logic's good.Peter Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14213320717319559673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-86455729418064789802017-12-13T18:56:26.558+00:002017-12-13T18:56:26.558+00:00Yes, but Warfield knew there were no completely ac...Yes, but Warfield knew there were no completely accurate, extant copies of the autographs. Therefore, the inerrant verbal texture exists in no material form. Hence Muller calling the autograph a "logical device" for him. The point is, the post-Reformers were not so interested in distinguishing errant copies (or their text) from the inerrant original. For them, the difference between these were so slight as to be a moot point. That's how I read them, anyway.Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-36711737725175278782017-12-13T18:17:31.551+00:002017-12-13T18:17:31.551+00:00If the text of the autographs is inerrant, so is t...If the text of the autographs is inerrant, so is the text of an accurate copy of the autograph. <br /><br />You cannot understand Warfield unless you understand that for him 'text' = 'verbal texture', i.e. the web of words.<br />Peter Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14213320717319559673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-62208180890752740942017-12-13T17:06:26.367+00:002017-12-13T17:06:26.367+00:00Thanks for the kind words Peter. I apologize for t...Thanks for the kind words Peter. I apologize for the typos in my comment above. ("Autorgraph" correct to "Autograph". And "type" correct to "time" in the second to last sentence).<br />I really appreciate conversations like this one. A discussion on the intersection of Innerrancy and TC should continue!<br />Timothy N. Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10696299768205488795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-53432916189930509022017-12-13T15:44:48.940+00:002017-12-13T15:44:48.940+00:00To be clear, I don't mean that we would likely...To be clear, I don't mean that we would likely find any focused consideration of whether or not later changes to the text could be inspired (a la Letis). I think it's more likely that that question didn't cross their minds. But I suspect that we could find evidence that they had a presumption that whatever reading the inspired original authors actually wrote must be the right reading, because they did engage in textual criticism even if only in a rudimentary way.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13379106188046530722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-68819839353513195212017-12-13T15:43:09.706+00:002017-12-13T15:43:09.706+00:00Turretin discuses a number of variants. But—if mem...Turretin discuses a number of variants. But—if memory serves—he never quite says what later Ptotrstants do about only the autographs beings inspired. It just wasn’t a category they used the way we do.Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-4902216909643828552017-12-13T15:40:15.364+00:002017-12-13T15:40:15.364+00:00But I expect that if we looked in the right places...But I expect that if we looked in the right places, especially their explicit discussions of textual variants, we might find that they occasionally did ask our questions. They just didn't put them front and center.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13379106188046530722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-60650806007961691502017-12-13T15:38:27.884+00:002017-12-13T15:38:27.884+00:00I think we can go back earlier than that, and in E...I think we can go back earlier than that, and in Europe, not just America, with the work Theopneustia, by Gaussen.<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Gaussen<br />https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/book_theopneustia.html<br /><br />If I recall correctly (I would need to recheck this), Gaussen never makes any explicit distinction between the inerrant autographs and errant later copies, though he does make such a distinction with respect to translations. However, his discussion of inspiration clearly presupposes (both when discussing errors in translations and at other points throughout the book) that it only applied to the original authors and not later copyists. Nor does his view leave any room for later changes made to the text to be inspired.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13379106188046530722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-67211586157130515562017-12-13T15:33:38.330+00:002017-12-13T15:33:38.330+00:00Thanks, Tim. I linked to Ronald F. Satta’s book in...Thanks, Tim. I linked to Ronald F. Satta’s book in my post and I got that reference from your excellent article on the topic of autographs. Very helpful.Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-7656436766928061692017-12-13T15:32:06.678+00:002017-12-13T15:32:06.678+00:00That’s basically my point: they weren’t asking our...That’s basically my point: they weren’t asking our questions.Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-61720234446010467542017-12-13T15:27:19.708+00:002017-12-13T15:27:19.708+00:00I think one place to check this in early Protestan...I think one place to check this in early Protestant writings is in their discussions of textual variants. What were they aiming for when opting for one reading over another? Was it the genuine words of the biblical author? Or did they make some allowance for later corruptions of the text to be received as inspired even though not original?<br /><br />I expect that it would be found that they consistently sought the original text, and that the reason we don't see this appreciation for the original autographs get emphasized as much as it is among evangelicals today is partly because they weren't as aware of important variants and didn't think the ones they were aware of were important enough to address when discussing the doctrine of inspiration.<br /><br />The whole issue of their focus on the original languages, as opposed to autographs as we understand the word, is really a tangent that doesn't help us understand what they did think about the inspiration of readings that they believed didn't go back to those autographs.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13379106188046530722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-88459665691526499272017-12-13T14:46:10.714+00:002017-12-13T14:46:10.714+00:00What the church need is a fixed canonical text, me...What the church need is a fixed canonical text, meaning: a fixed text that functions as a standard by which the variants can be assessed as just that —- variants from the providentially preserved, canonical form of the text of Scripture. Much like your (and Metzger's) opinion about the long ending of Mark. Are there variants at the end of Mark? Of course. Do they matter? No, they don't, because the long ending is canonical. Likewise, the PA is also canonical and should be included in the text without brackets, misleading notes, etc. A. J. MacDonald, Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02606590381956913426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-75612394987116285282017-12-13T12:44:56.396+00:002017-12-13T12:44:56.396+00:00Thanks for your post Peter. In a pre-Hodge/Warfiel...Thanks for your post Peter. In a pre-Hodge/Warfield quotation that I reference in my paper "What are the NT Autorgraphs?" by John Adger,<br /><br />"When we say that the scriptures are divinely inspired throughout, we do not speak of translations or copies, but of the original writings. For the Almighty todirect the pens of the sacred writers is one thing, and it is quite another for him to guide, infallibly, the pens of all in every age who may copy or translate or quote the Bible."<br /><br />Southern Presbyterian Review 4/4 (April 1851): 469.)<br /><br />At least in America, an appeal to the "original-writings" (which in my opinion is a synonym for 'autograph') was common well before Hodge/Warfield (as you noted) but not just in a linguistic sense. Hodge and Warfield appear to be simply following the American Presbyterian position held at the type. They certainly were no innovators.Timothy N. Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10696299768205488795noreply@blogger.com