The Inerrancy of the Autographa
By Greg L. Bahnsen
Greg L. Bahnsen is engaged full time in scholarship and
writing. Until recently he served as Assistant Professor of Apologetics,
Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson, Mississippi. He is a graduate of
Westmont College (B.A.), Westminster Theological Seminary (M. Div. And Th.
M.), and the University of Southern California (Ph.D. in Philosophy). He is
an ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. He has served as
Youth Pastor, First Presbyterian Church, Manhattan Beach, California;
Assistant Pastor, Calvary United Presbyterian Church, Wyncote, Pennsylvania;
and Pastor, Trinity Chapel, Eagle Rock, California. Among his publications
are Theonomy in Christian Ethics; Homosexuality: A Biblical View; and
A Biblical Introduction to apologetics. His articles include
“Autographs, Amanuenses, and Restricted Inspiration” in Evangelical
Quarterly; “Socrates or Christ: The Reformation of Christian apologetics”
and “Pragmatism, Prejudice, and Presuppositionalism” in Foundations of
Christian Scholarship; “Inductivism, Inerrancy, and Presuppositionalism”
in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society; and other
articles, letters, and reviews in the Westminster Theological Journal,
Journal of Christian Reconstruction, Presbyterian Guardian, Banner of Truth,
Cambridge Fish, and Chalcedon Reports. Dr. Bahnsen is a member of
the Evangelical Theological Society, Evangelical Philosophical Society, and
the Advisory Board of ICBI. He has been the recipient of numerous
Fellowships.
Chapter Summary
While the Bible teaches its own inerrancy, the
inscripturation and copying of God’s Word require us to identify the
specific and proper object of inerrancy as the text of the original
autographa. This time-honored, common-sense view of evangelicals has been
criticized and ridiculed since the days of the modernist controversy over
Scripture. Nevertheless, according to the attitude of the biblical writers,
who could and did distinguish copies from the autographa, copies of the
Bible could serve the purposes of revelation and function with authority
only because they were assumed to be tethered to the autographic text and
its criteriological authority. The evangelical doctrine pertains to the
autographic text, not the autographic codex, and maintains that present
copies and translations are inerrant to the extent that they accurately
reflect the biblical originals; thus the inspiration and inerrancy of
present Bibles is not an all-or-nothing matter. Evangelicals maintain the
doctrine of original inerrancy, not as an apologetic artifice, But on sound
theological grounds: (1) the inspiration of copyists and the perfect
transmission of Scripture have not been promised by God and (2) the
extraordinary quality of God’s revealed Word must be guarded against
arbitrary alteration. The importance of original inerrancy is not that God
cannot accomplish His purpose except through a completely errorless text,
but that without it we cannot consistently confess the veracity of God, be
fully assured of the scriptural promise of salvation, or maintain the
epistemological authority and theological axiom of sola Scriptura
(for errors in the original, unlike those in transmission, would not be
correctable in principle). We can be assured that we possess the Word of
God in our present Bibles because of God’s providence; He does not allow His
aims in revealing Himself to be frustrated. Indeed, the results of textual
criticism confirm that we possess a biblical text that is substantially
identical with the autographa. Finally, contrary to recent criticisms, the
doctrine of original inerrancy (or inspiration) is not unprovable, is not
undermined by the use of amanuenses by the biblical writers, and is not
contravened by the New Testament use of the Septuagint as “Scripture.”
Therefore, the evangelical restriction of inerrancy to the original
autographa is warranted, important, and defensible; further, it does not
jeopardize the adequacy and authority of our present Bibles. Accordingly,
the doctrine of original inerrancy can be commended to all believers who are
sensitive to the authority of the Bible as the very Word of God and who wish
to propagate it as such today.
The Inerrancy of the Autographa
In addressing the household and friends of Cornelius, Peter
rehearsed how the anointed, or messianic, ministry of Jesus of Nazareth
eventuated in His death and resurrection (Acts 10:36-40). After the
Resurrection, Christ appeared to chosen witnesses, whom He charged to preach
to the people and to testify that He was ordained of God as the
eschatological Judge of mankind (vv. 41-42). According to Christ Himself,
all the prophets bore witness to Him, that through His name all who believe
on Him should receive remission of sins (v. 43). Here we see the heart of
the gospel proclamation rehearsed and the vital commission given to have it
publicized abroad for the eternal well-being of men. It should be obvious
that the proclamation of this message in correct form was crucial if its
hearers were to escape the wrath to come and enjoy genuine remission of
their sins through Christ. A different or perverted gospel was,
accordingly, nothing short of anathema; the life-giving good news could not
have come from man but had to have originated in the revelation of Jesus
Christ (Gal. 1;6-12).
Thus peter informs us that the preaching of the gospel (of
which the spirit of Christ testified in the Old Testament) by the New
Testament apostles was performed by means of the Holy Spirit sent forth from
heaven (1 Peter 1:10-12). As with all genuine prophecy, this gospel
proclamation did not come by the will of men, but men spoke from God, being
carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). In accord with the promise
of Christ, this spirit sent from heaven to inspire the preaching of the
gospel guided the apostles into all truth (John 16:13). As the
spirit of truth He would not generate error in the life-giving good news of
Christ as publicized by the apostles; their message was made inerrant.
Furthermore, the apostles spoke words taught by the Spirit of God (1
Cor. 2:12-13), and the Spirit speaking in them directed both what was
said and how it was said (cf. Matt. 10:19-20). Therefore, according
to Scripture’s own witness, the verbal form and content of the apostolic
publication of the gospel message should be deemed wholly true and without
error.
Throughout its record the Bible presupposes its own
authority. For instance, the Old Testament is often cited in the New
Testament with such formulas as “God says” or “the Holy Spirit says” (as in
Acts 1:16; 3:24-25; 2 Cor. 6:16). What Scripture says is identified with
what God says (e.g., Gal. 3:8; Rom. 9:16). For that reason all theological
arguments are settled decisively by the inherent authority signified in the
formula “it stands written” (literal translation). The same authority
attaches to the writings of the apostles (1 Cor. 15:1-2; 2 Thess. 2:15;
3:14), since these writings are placed on a par with the Old Testament
Scriptures (2 peter 3:15-16; Rev. 1:3). Apostolic Scripture often has the
common formula “it stands written” applied to it (e.g., John 20:31).
Therefore the Old and New Testaments are presented in the Bible itself as
the authoritative, written, Word of God.
Because of their divine origin the Scriptures are entirely
trustworthy and sure (cf. 1 Tim. 1;15; 3:1; 4:9; 2 Tim. 2:11; Titus 3:8;
Heb. 2:3; 2 Peter 1:19), so that by means of them we are able to discern
between what is true and what is false (cf. 1 Thess. 5:21; 1 John 4:1). The
Scriptures are the standard of trustworthiness (Luke 1:1-4) and will never
ail us or bring us embarrassment (Isa. 28:16; John 19:35; 20:31; Rom. 9:33;
1 Peter 2:6; 1 John 1:1-3). Their accuracy extends to every minute detail,
as our Lord said – to every “jot” and “tittle” (Matt. 5:18) – in such a way
that the indestructible endurance of any minor part is coextensive with that
of the whole (cf. Isa. 40:8; Matt. 24:35; 1 Peter 1:24-25). Every single
word of the Bible is, by its own witness to itself, infallibly true, god’s
own declaration is: “I, the LORD, speak the truth; I declare what is right”
(Isa. 45:19). Accordingly, the psalmist can say, “The sum of thy word is
truth” (Ps. 119:160), *[In this chapter, Scripture quotations are from the
American Standard Version, unless otherwise indicated.] and the wisdom
literature can counsel us, “Every word of God is tried [proven, true,
flawless]” (Prov. 30:5). If our doctrinal outlook is informed by the Word
of God, then, we must confess that Scripture is entirely truthful, or
inerrant. The unchallengeable testimony of Jesus was, "Thy word is
truth"”(John 17:17).
The Westminster Confession of Faith has good warrant for
calling “all the books of the Old and New Testament” in their entirety “Holy
Scripture or the Word of God written” (I.2), “all which are given by
inspiration of God,” who is “the author thereof,” being Himself “truth
itself” (I.40. These books of the Old and New Testaments, therefore, are in
their entirety “of infallible truth and divine authority” (I.5), so that “a
Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the
authority of God himself speaking therein” (XIV.2). According to this grand
confession of the church, no error can be attributed to the Bible at any
place. After all, if God sets forth false assertions in minor areas where
our research can check His accuracy (such as in historical or geographical
details), how do we know that He does not also err in major concerns like
theology? If we cannot believe the Lord’s Word when He speaks of earthly
things, how can we believe Him when He tells us of heavenly things? (cf.
John 3:12).
In this vein Archibald Alexander wrote, “And could it be
shown that the evangelists had fallen into palpable mistakes in facts of
minor importance, it would be impossible to demonstrate that they wrote
anything by inspiration.” Likewise Charles Hodge declared that the bible
was “free from all error whether of doctrine, fact or precept”; inspiration,
according to him, was “not confined to moral and religious truths, but
extends to the statements of facts, whether scientific, historical, or
geographical.” Alexander, Hodge, and B. B. Warfield all firmly maintained
that the Bible is “absolutely errorless” in any of the subjects it touches
on in teaching – whether statements about history, natural history,
ethnology, archaeology, geography, natural science, physical or historical
fact, psychological or philosophical principle, or spiritual doctrine and
duty. This doctrine of scriptural inerrancy, whether presented in the pages
of the Bible itself, in church confessions, or by stalwart theologians, is
never an academic curiosity or aside; it goes to the very heart of the
trustworthiness and truth of the life-giving message of the gospel found in
God’s written Word. If the Bible is not wholly true, then our assurance of
salvation has no dependable and divine warrant; it rests rather on the
minimal and fallible authority of men. Warfield saw this clearly:
The present controversy concerns something much more vital than the bare
“inerrancy” of the Scriptures, whether in the copies or in the
“autographs.” It concerns the trustworthiness of the Bible in its express
declarations, and in the fundamental conceptions of its writers as to the
course of the history of God’s dealings with his people. It concerns, in a
word, the authority of the Biblical representations concerning the nature of
revealed religion, and the mode and course of its revelation. The issue
raised is whether we are to look upon the Bible as containing a divinely
guaranteed and wholly trustworthy account of God’s redemptive revelation,
and the course of his gracious dealings with his people; or as merely a mass
of more or less trustworthy materials, out of which we are to sift the facts
in order to put together a trustworthy account of God’s redemptive
revelation and the course of his dealings with his people.
The church, following God’s Word, confesses the entire inerrancy of
Scripture as a crucial and inalienable aspect of the authority of God’s
revelation, by which we come to a genuine knowledge of Christ and the
assured enjoyment of eternal life (cf. 2 Tim. 3:15-16).
Inscripturation and Distinction
For the sake of preserving the apostolic testimony and
extending the fellowship of the church around the “word of life” (1 John
1:1-4), the proclamation and teaching of the apostles has been reduced to
written form. Such inscripturation of God’s revelation was required if the
church was to teach it until the end of the age (Matt. 28:18-20). Van Til
points out that inscripturation of God’s word gives it the greatest possible
permanence of form, being less liable to perversion than oral tradition
would be.
The great attribute of the written word is objectivity. The oral
word too has its measure of objectivity, but it cannot match either the
flexibility or the durability of the written word. Memory is imperfect.
The desire to change or pervert is ever present.
The drawback to having revelation in oral form (or tradition)
is that it is much more subject to various kinds of corrupting influences
that stem from man’s imperfect abilities and sinful nature (e.g., lapses of
memory and intentional distortion). To curb these forces, taught Kuyper,
God cast His word into written form – thereby achieving greater durability,
fixity, purity, and catholicity. A written document is capable of universal
distribution through repeated copying, and yet it can be preserved in
various kinds of depositories from generation to generation. As such it can
function both as a fixed standard by which to test all doctrines of men and
as a pure guide to the way of life.
Yet this admirable feature of inscripturation itself
generates a difficulty for the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy – a
difficulty that we must now face. A written word may have great advantages
over oral tradition but it is not immune from what Kuyper called “the
vicissitudes of time.” The spreading of God’s Word by textual transmission
and translation opens up the door to variance between the original form of
the written word and secondary forms (copies and translations). This
variance requires a refinement of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, for
now we must ask what constitutes the proper object of this inerrancy that we
attribute to Scripture. Does inerrancy (or infallibility, inspiration)
pertain to the original writings (autographa), to copies of them (and
perhaps translations), or to both?
To be sure, in answering such a question some have gone to
unscholarly excess in the interest of protecting the divine authority of
Scripture. Certain superstitious stories led Philo to postulate inspiration
of the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament. Some Roman Catholics,
following the declaration of Pope Sixtus V that the Vulgate was the
authentic Scripture, attributed inspiration to this translation. Some
Protestants have argued for the inspired infallibility of the vowel points
in the Hebrew Old Testament (e.g., the Buxtorfs and John Owen; the Formula
Consensus Helvetica more cautiously spoke of the inspiration of “at least
the power of the points”). The errorless transmission and preservation of
the original text of Scripture has been taught by men such as Hollaz,
Quenstedt, and Terretin, who failed to recognize the significance of textual
variants in the copies of Scripture that have existed throughout the history
of the church.
Notwithstanding such positions, the view that has persisted
throughout the centuries and is common among evangelicals today is that the
inerrancy (or infallibility, inspiration) of the Scriptures pertains only to
the text of the original autographa. In a letter to Jerome (letter 82),
Augustine said about anything he found in the biblical books that seemed
contrary to the truth: “I decide that either the text is corrupt, or the
translator did not follow what was really said, or that I failed to
understand it.” Here the distinction between the autographa and copies of
Scripture is clear, as is also the restriction of inerrancy to the former.
Likewise, in his conviction that the original was free from error, Calvin
showed concern about textual corruption; see his commentaries at Hebrews 9:1
and James 4:7. Luther labored diligently as a translator and exegete to
recover the original reading of the scriptural text. Richard Baxter said,
“No error or contradiction is in it [Scripture], but what is in some copies,
by failure of preservers, transcribers, printers, and translators.”
Warfield quotes this statement and goes on to allude to the work of other
men such as John Lightfoot, Ussher and Walton, and Rutherford, illustrating
how the question of restricting inspiration to the autographa was a burning
question in the age of the Westminster Assembly. He also expounded the
Westminster Confession of Faith I.8 as teaching that immediate inspiration
applies only to the autographa of Scripture, not to the copies, that the
original text has been providentially kept pure in the transmitted texts
(but not, as Smith and Beegle contended, in every or in any one copy), and
that present translations were adequate for the needs of God’s people in
every age.
For themselves, A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield asserted:
Nevertheless the historical faith of the church has always been, that all
the affirmations of Scripture of all kinds . . . are without error, when the
ipsissima verba of the original autographs are ascertained and
interpreted in their natural and intended sense . . .. No “error” can be
asserted, therefore, which cannot be proved to have been aboriginal in the
text.
Edwin Palmer cites Kuyper and Bavinck to the same effect and
he quotes Dijk as saying that the authority of the Bible “pertains always
and only to the original (and not to the translation) and to the pure text
that is to be found in the autographa.” Others who can be readily quoted as
distinguishing between the autographa and copies of Scripture and as
restricting inerrancy (or infallibility, inspiration) to the autographa
include J. Gresham machen, W. H. Griffith Thomas, James M. Gray, Lewis
sperry Chafer, Loraine Boettner, Edward J. Young, R. Surgurg, J. I. Packer,
John R. W. Stott, Carl F. H. Henry, et al. What Henry says is
representative:
Inerrancy pertains only to the oral or written proclamation of the
originally inspired prophets and apostles. Not only was their communication
of the Word of God efficacious in teaching the truth of revelation, but
their transmission of that Word was error-free. Inerrancy does not extend
to copies, translations or versions, however.
It is evident that H. P. Smith and C. A. Briggs were quite
mistaken when they alleged that the assertion of an original inerrancy for
Scripture was a new doctrine generated by “Modern scholastics.” Warfield’s
response was, as usual, appropriate:
This is a rather serious arraignment of the common sense of the whole series
of preceding generations. What! Are we to believe that no man until our
wonderful nineteenth century, ever had acumen enough to detect a printer’s
error or to realize the liability of hand-copies manuscripts to occasional
corruption? Are we really to believe that the happy possessors of “the
Wicked Bible” held “thou shalt commit adultery” to be as divinely “inerrant”
as the genuine text of the seventh commandment – on the ground that the
“inerrancy of the original autographs of the Holy Scriptures” must not be
asserted “as distinguished from the Holy Scriptures which we now posses”? .
. . Of course, every man of common sense from the beginning of the world
has recognized the difference between the genuine text and the errors of
transmission, and has attached his confidence to the former in rejection of
the latter.
The time-honored and common-sense perspective among Christian
believers who have considered the inescapable question raised by the
inscripturation of God’s word (viz., do inspiration, infallibility, and/or
inerrancy pertain to the autographa, to copies of it, or to both?) has been
that inerrancy is restricted to the original, autographical text of
Scripture.
Nevertheless, this basic evangelical doctrine of Scripture
has come under severe ridicule and criticism from many quarters in recent
years, thus calling us to a defense of it. H. P. Smith charged that the
doctrine of original inerrancy is speculative and is concerned with a text
that no longer exists and cannot conceivably ever be recovered. David
Hubbard reiterates that the standard evangelical view contends for the
inerrancy, not of any present texts, but of the original autographs to which
no generation of the church has ever had access. Accordingly, the approach
to scriptural inerrancy that restricts it to the autographa is held to be
trivial and without value, as charged by C. A. Briggs nearly a century ago:
“We will never be able to attain the sacred writings as they gladdened the
eyes of those who first saw them, and rejoiced the hearts of those who first
heard them. If the external words of the original were inspred, it does not
profit us. We are cut off from them forever.” The distinction between
inspired or infallible autographa and uninspired or fallible copies was
characterized by Brunner as useless, idolatrous, and untenable in the light
of textual criticism. The distinction is irrelevant or of no practical
value, he believes, since the praiseworthy quality (be it inspiration,
infallibility, or inerrancy) applies to no extant text. It is absurd
because it is impossible to define the character of a text that has
disappeared. The originals are unimportant since we cannot completely
restore them, and obviously God does not think that it is necessary for us
to have them. Moreover, we can still receive spiritual blessing from errant
copies, so we could as well receive such a blessing from errant originals.
It turns out, so the argument goes, that restriction of inerrancy to the
autographa is simply an intellectually dishonest escape from embarrassment
or an apologetical “cop-out.” Such a line of reasoning is often
encountered, and a large dose of sarcasm is often mixed with it.
Their [the assailants of the trustworthiness of the Scriptures] contention
has ever been twofold: that God never gave an errorless Bible, and if he
did, that errorless Bible is no longer in the possession of men. The air
has been thick with satirical references to autographic copies which no man
has ever seen, which are hopelessly lost, which can never be recovered. And
the defenders of the trustworthiness of Scripture have been sarcastically
asked what the use is of contending so strenuously for the plenary
inspiration of autographs which have thus forever passed away.
Great mirth has been evoked in this vein over the so-called
“lost Princeton Bible.” Lester DeKoster has gone to the limit of his reach
in pressing sarcasm into service against those who restrict inerrancy to the
autographa: nobody can use those lost autographa; the Bible on our table is
not the inerrant and infallible word of God, and so today the church has no
inerrant bible by which to live, and preaching is thereby made impossible
because it would be founded on the uninspired word of man. It now appears
that the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, which at first appeared so clearly
in accord with the Scripture’s own witness, is threatened with a necessary
qualification or restriction that vitiates the significance and importance
of the doctrine. What can we say in response?
In the following sections we will explore the biblical
attitude toward autographa and copies, which should be the starting
point of all genuinely Christian theological commitments. From that
platform we go on to explain the evangelical restriction of inerrancy
to the autographa, indicating that our evaluation of copies and translations
is not an all-or-nothing affair. The rationale for the evangelical
restriction is then reviewed, followed by various indications of the
importance of this doctrine regarding Scripture. Different aspects of
the assurance that we can have with respect to possessing God’s Word
today will subsequently be broached. Finally, we will conclude with an
examination of some explicit critique of the evangelical restriction
of inerrancy (or infallibility, inspiration) to the scriptural autographa.
We will conclude that the doctrine of original inerrancy is both warranted
and defensible, and is a doctrine to be commended to all believers who are
sensitive to the authority of the Bible as the very Word of God.
The Biblical Attitude
Scripture has scattered indications of interest in or
recognition of copies and translations of God’s Word in distinction from the
autographical manuscripts. We can also draw useful inferences from various
passages that tell us something of the scriptural attitude toward the
then-extant copies and subsequent translations. What we primarily learn is
that these nonautographical manuscripts were deemed adequate to perform the
purposes for which God originally gave the Scriptures. What King Solomon
possessed was obviously a copy of the original Mosaic law (cf. Deut. 17:8),
and yet it was considered to contain, truly and genuinely, “the charge of
Jehovah . . . according to that which was written in the law of Moses” (1
Kings 2:3). The book of Proverbs pauses at one point to draw clear
attention to the fact that “these are more proverbs of Solomon, copied by
the men of Hezekiah king of Judah” (Prov. 25:1). The copies are themselves
held to be canonical and divinely authoritative. The law of God that was in
the hand of Ezra was obviously a copy, but nevertheless it functioned as the
authority in his ministry (Ezra 7:14). When Ezra read from this law to the
people, so that divine guidance might be given for their lives, he
apparently read to them by way of translation, so they could understand the
sense in the Aramaic to which they had become accustomed in exile: And they
read in the book, in the law of God, distinctly [with interpretation]; and
they gave the sense, so that they understood the reading: (Neh. 8:8). In all
of these examples the secondary text does the work of God’s written Word and
shares its original authority in a practical sense.
The New Testament also evidences an interest in secondary
copies of God’s written Word. Paul was most concerned that he be brought
the ‘books, especially the parchments” (2 Tim. 4:13). In the practice of
collecting New Testament Epistles for the various churches (cf. Col. 4:160,
encouragement would naturally be given to copying the original manuscripts.
There is every reason, given the examples of Jesus and the apostles, to
assume that these copies were held to be profitable for teaching and for
instruction in righteousness (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16b). When New Testament writers
appeal to the authority of the Old Testament, they used the texts and
versions that were at hand, just as we do today. Jesus preached from the
existing scrolls and treated them as “Scripture” (Luke 4:16-21). The
apostles used the Scriptures that were in hand for arguing (Acts 17:2) and
demonstrating points (Acts 18:28). Their hearers checked the apostolic
proclamation by searching the Old Testament Scriptures that they then
possessed (Acts 17:11). Because their opponents shared a belief in the
functional authority of the available manuscripts of the Scriptures, Jesus
and the apostles confronted them on the common ground of the extant copies,
without fretting about the autographa themselves. This is illustrated in
the present imperative given to search the Scriptures as testifying of
Christ (John 5:39) and in the rhetorical and leading questions: “Have you
read . . .?” and “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” (e.g.,
in Matt. 12:3, 5; 21:16, 42; Luke 10:26). It may very well be true that the
“holy Scriptures” that Timothy had known from his childhood were not only
copies of the Scripture, but the Septuagint translation, at that. Still
they could make him “wise unto salvation.”
These illustrations show that the message conveyed by
the words of the autographa, and not the physical page on which we find
printing, is the strict object of inspiration. Therefore, because that
message was reliably reflected in the copies or translations available to
the biblical writers, they could be used in an authoritative and practical
manner. Contrary to the extreme and unfounded inferences drawn by Beegle,
the exhortation and challenges based on the copies of Scripture pertain to
the conveyed message and tell us nothing about the extant texts per
se. Much less do they demonstrate that the biblical authors made no
distinction between the original text and its copies. Otherwise the unique
and unalterable authority of the biblical message would not be guarded so
strenuously by these same authors.
Because Christ raised no doubts about the adequacy of the
Scriptures as His contemporaries knew them, we can safely assume that the
first-century text of the Old Testament was a wholly adequate representation
of the divine word originally given. Jesus regarded the extant copies of
His day as so approximate to the originals in their message that He appealed
to those copies as authoritative. The respect that Jesus and his apostles
held for the extant Old Testament text is, at base, an expression of their
confidence in God’s providential preservation of the copies and translations
as substantially identical with the inspired originals. It is thus
fallacious to argue that inerrancy was not restricted by them to the
autographa and to say that their teaching about inspiration had reference to
the imperfect copies in their possession.
The fact is that, although present copies and translations
had a practical authority and adequacy for the purposes of divine
revelation, the Bible evidences a pervasive concern to tether current
copies to the autographical text. There is, as one would expect, no
explicit biblical teaching regarding the autographa and copies of them, but
the point being made is still abundantly illustrated in the course of
Scripture’s teaching and statements. We therefore have an answer to the
question of Pinnock, Is the restriction of inerrancy to the autographa
strictly scriptural? And have a rebuttal to the allegation of Chapman that
it is not biblical to restrict inspiration to the autographa. According to
Beegle, there is no explicit teaching in the New Testament that
distinguishes between autographa and copies; the original writings are not
set apart in a special position, for the authors of Scripture deemed the
extant errant manuscripts inspired. Our examination of the scriptural
passages pertinent to this issue will undermine such claims as these.
We can begin our survey in the Old Testament, where we soon
discover that:
Most of the references to inspiration that are found in the Old Testament
concern the Semitic augographs. The majority relate to the biblical
writers’ own compositions, which they identify, not as products of divine
dictation, but as the equivalent of God’s own words: e.g., David, “The
spirit of Jehovah spake by me” (II Samuel 23:2); Isaiah, “Seek ye out . . .
(this) book of Jehovah, and read” (Isaiah 34:16); Jeremiah, “(God’s) words .
. . even all that is written in this book” (Jeremiah 25:13, cf. 30:2, 36:2),
or perhaps even Solomon in Ecclesiastes 12:11.
Others concern writings that were still fresh enough to imply
the original manuscripts either as present, e.g., Joshua’s referring to
Moses’ writings as “the book of the law of God” (Joshua 24:26), or as
immediately accesible, e.g., Joel’s quoting the contemporary (?) prophecy of
Obadiah 17, “as Jehovah hath said” (Joel 2:32).
The assumption throughout Scripture is that we are obliged to
follow the original text of God’s written Word. Present copies function
authoritatively because they are viewed as reflecting the autographa
correctly. This foundational perspective comes to the surface from time to
time. For instance, Israel was required to do what God “commanded their
fathers by Moses” (Judg. 3:4). This reference implicitly points to the
original message, which came from the author himself. Isaiah was explicitly
told to write, and his book was to be a witness forever (Isa. 8:1; 30:8);
the autographical text was the permanent standard for the future. Daniel
“understood by the books” (which we can assume to have been copies), but
these very books indicate that the God-given words were “the word of Jehovah
[which] came to Jeremiah” (Dan. 9:2). The perfect aspect indicates
completed action with respect to the coming of the word of God to Jeremiah
specifically.
Likewise the New Testament assumes that correct teaching can
be found in copies of Scripture then in existence because they trace back to
the autographical text. Matthew 1:22 quotes Isaiah 7:14 as “spoken by the
Lord through the prophet” (cf. 2:15). Jesus taught that we are to live by
“every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4), thus
tethering the authority of the Scriptures iin hand to the original utterance
given by divine inspiration. What people read as “Scripture” in the books
of Moses was thought of as “spoken unto them by God” (Matt. 22:29-32; Mark
12:24-26). The inspired David himself spoke to them in the copy of the Book
of Psalms that they possessed (Matt. 22:43; mark 12:35; Luke 20:42), just as
when on e reads the copy of Scripture he will see that which was spoken by
Daniel the prophet himself (Matt. 24:15; Mark 13:14). In each case the
autographical text is assumed to be present in the extant copy that is
consulted. When Christ asked, “Have you not read . . . [in extant copies,
no doubt]?” (Matt. 19:4; cf. v. 7), He was actually seeking what Moses
himself commanded the Jews (Mark 10:3). The Mosaic words that He quoted
from Genesis 2;24 were viewed by Him as fully equivalent to what “God said”
as the original author of Scripture (Matt. 19:4-5). Those who possess
existing scrolls “have Moses and the prophets” themselves, who, accordingly,
should be heard as such (Luke 16:29).
The actual distance between the autographa and the copies can
be for present purposes ignored, because the original text is thought to
appear in these copies. After all, it is the things written by the prophets
themselves that bind us (Luke 18:31). In expounding the extant Scriptures
Christ actually expounded what the prophets had spoken and He could
therefore condemn those who were slow to believe what the prophets
themselves had spoken (Luke 24:25-27). In the Scriptures as they were then
written, Christ’s followers could find what is fulfilled by Him, namely, all
things “which were written” in all the Old Testament (Luke 24:44-46,
author’s translation). The “writings” that were then in hand, and that
indicted their hearers, were assumed to be identical with what Moses wrote
(John 5:45-47), and the law that was cited as relevant to a current
controversy was understood to be given by Moses (John 7:19; cf. v. 23).
John 10:34-36 is particularly instructive. Jesus said, “Is
it not written in your law . . .?” thereby indicating their own manuscript
copies of the Old Testament. He then quotes Psalm 82:6, resting the thrust
of His argument on one word in that text. The premise of His argument is
that God “called them ‘gods,’ unto whom the word of God came.” That is, God
called the judges “gods” who were contemporary with Asaph, the psalm writer,
and they were the ones to whom the word of God came. It is thus Asaph’s
original that is equated with the word of God. Jesus was able to accept,
and work on the foundation of, the Jews’ belief in the authority of “their
law” (copies) because He deemed these to reflect the original accurately.
The “Scripture” to which He appealed in this controversy is intimately
connected with what was actually said to those “to whom the word of God
came.” The inscripturated word of God that originally came to the
Israelites is not found written in their present-day law books. Here we
find quite an explicit indication that the authority of present copies is
traced to the autographa lying behind them.
The importance of the autographa for the new Testament
Scriptures is already hinted at in Jesus’ promise that the Holy spirit would
take His original words and bring them to the remembrance of the apostles
for the sake of their writings (John 14:25-26). When the apostles cited the
Old Testament in their preaching and writing, it was with the assumption
that they were propounding the initially composed Scripture. Accordingly,
peter described “this Scripture” (i.e., Ps. 69:25) as that “which the Holy
spirit spake before by the mouth of David” (Acts :16; cf. 4:25). The
earlier autograph, given beforehand by the Holy Spirit, is the primary
referent of his preaching form present copies of the Psalm. Similarly Paul
cited Isaiah 6:9-10, saying, Well spake the Holy spirit through Isaiah the
prophet unto your fathers . . .” (Acts 28:25; cf. Rom. 3:2), and he
proceeded on the understanding that his quotation was true to the original
deliverance given many years previously. The citation of Jeremiah 31 in
Hebrews 10 is viewed as a rendition of what the Holy Spirit originally said
through the prophet (Hebrews 10:15). Indeed, the comfort that could be
gained from the then-present copies of the Scriptures was tethered to
“whatsoever things were written aforetime,” the original text written in
former days (Romans 15:4). In a similar way, that for which Paul claimed
inspiration was his autographical text – “The things which I write unto you
. . . are the commandment of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37; cf. 2:13).
Over and over again we are confronted with the obvious fact
that the biblical writers made use of existing copies, with the significant
assumption that their authority was tied to the original text of which the
copies are a reliable reflection. It is especially important to note this
fact with respect to two key verses that teach the inspiration of
Scripture. In 2 Timothy 3:16 Paul stresses that all the Scriptures were
God-breathed, placing obvious emphasis on their origin, and thus on
their autographic form. The reason why the sacred writings known to Timothy
(perhaps the Septuagint) could make him wise unto salvation is found in the
fact that they were rooted in the original, divinely given Scripture – those
writings that were the direct result of inspiration and that Paul here
associated with Scripture’s original form as coming from God. Likewise, in
2 Peter 1:19-21 we are told that “we have the prophetic word” (presumably in
copies) and must heed it and treat it as authoritative. Why is this so?
Because men spoke from God, being “carried along” by the Holy Spirit. The
sufficiency and function of the extant biblical manuscripts is not divorced
from, but rather explained in terms of, the original manuscripts, which were
divine products.
We have noted a long list of illustrations that point to the
fact that, the adequacy of existing copies of the Bible was countenanced in
terms of the autographical texts that are presumed to stand behind such
copies.
The importance and criteriological authority of the
autographical texts of Scripture are brought out in four specific Old
Testament situations. Each shows us that the inspiration, infallibility,
and inerrancy of the Bible must be found in the autographical text, which is
normative for God’s people and for identifying anything that would lay claim
to the title of “God’s Word.”
The first known case of the need for textual restoration is
related in Exodus 32 and 34. The first tablets of the law were written by
God Himself (Exod. 32:15-16) but were subsequently destroyed by Moses in his
anger (v. 19). God provided for the rewriting of the words of the original
tablets (Exod. 34:1, 27028), and Scripture makes the point that these second
tablets were written “according to the first writing” (Deut. 10:2, 4). Here
is a significant model for all later copying of the biblical autographs;
they should reproduce the words that were on the first tablet or page in
order to preserve the full divine authority of the message they convey.
So also, in Jeremiah 36:1-32 it is said that the prophet
dictated the word of God to Baruch, who wrote it in a scroll. When this
scroll, with its unfavorable message, was read to King Jehoiakim, he cut it
into pieces and burned it. The word of God then came to Jeremiah,
instructing him to make a new copy of the Scripture, and we see quite
plainly that the standard for the copy was the original text: “Take another
scroll and write on it all the words that were on the first scroll” (v.
28). As common sense tells us, a reliable copy ought to reproduce the
original text accurately.
The paradigmatic or criteriological nature of the autographic
text of Scripture is also taught in Deuteronomy 17;18. Although the Mosaic
autograph as placed by the Levites next to the ark of the covenant (Deut.
31:24-26), a copy of this law was to be written by the king in a book, “out
of that which is before the priests and the Levites.” The copy would offer
authoritative guidance only as it correctly reflected the original. Without
studied concern for a copy that accurately transmitted the autograph, the
king could not be sure of himself in refraining from turning aside to the
right or to the left from God’s commandment (Deut. 17:19-20). Copies of
Scripture, then, were not to deviate in the slightest from the original
text.
The fourth key Old Testament situation that manifests the
esteem and deference the Jews gave to the autographic text is recorded in 2
Kings 22 and 2 Chronicles 34, which relate the recovery of the temple copy
of the book of the Law during the reign of Josiah. The existence of the
book of the Law was previously known; it had been placed by the side of the
ark of the covenant and used for public reading from time to time (Deut.
31:12, 24-26; 2 Chron. 35:3). However, though there were likely private
copies of the Law in the hands of some priests and prophets, The official,
autographical copy had been lost from sight. Chronicles indicates that
Josiah had already begun to follow the law in a hazy fashion, probably
according to a traditional knowledge of it (34:3-7). Subsequently the
temple began to be repaired, during which time the book of the Law was found
by Hilkiah, the high priest. Josiah’s desire to repair the temple already
demonstrated his disposition to foster the worship of Jehovah, and Hilkiah’s
discovery generated great excitement. In time Josiah became quite concerned
about the words of “this book that is found” (2 Kings 22:13). Apparently it
brought to his attention material (most likely the curse-threats of the
covenant: 2 Kings 22:11, 13, 15, 18-19; cf. Deut. 28; Lev. 26) that was not
found in the other available copies or traditions of the law.
What is relevant for our concern here is that this recovered
Book of the Law, which corrected and supplemented Josiah’s theological
outlook, was, I believe, the original, officially preserved mosaic
autograph. What was found was not simply “a book” (a copy of some generally
known volume) but “the book of the law” – a manuscript somehow
different from others (2 Kings 22:8). In particular, it was the book of the
law “by the hand of Moses” (2 Chron. 34:14, literal translation). While the
evidence is not fully decisive and the recovered book was not necessarily
the autograph, the weight of evidence favors this interpretation; there is
little obvious counterevidence.
This Old Testament incident magnifies the value, corrective
function, and normative authority of the autographic text of Scripture over
all copies or traditional understanding of what God had said. The
sufficiency of a copy is proportionate to its accurate reflection of the
original. Deviation from the autograph jeopardizes the profit of a copy for
doctrinal instruction and for direction in righteous living.
The biblical writers clearly knew how to distinguish, then,
between autographa and copies and they perceived the significance of the
difference. Josiah’s recovery of the autographic Scripture was a momentous
occasion, not merely the addition of one more copy, among many manuscripts,
to an undifferentiated repository of Bibles!
There are yet other ways in which Scripture teaches or
illustrates the explicitly recognized or assumed normativity of the
autographa for subsequent copies. First, the Bible warns us throughout
against altering the text of God’s Word. According to god’s command, it is
not to be added to or diminished (Deut. 4:2; 12:32). Proverbs counsels,
“Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar
(30:6); honesty requires that one stick to the originally given message of
God without supplementing it with new features. Otherwise the permanent
norm of judgment could hardly be expressed in these words: “To the law and
to the testimony! If they speak not according to this word, surely
there is no morning for them” (Isa. 8:20).
The New Testament Scriptures evidence the same jealousy for
the unaltered purity of the original text, as seen in the well-known warning
of the book of Revelation (22:18-19). The normativity of the autographic
message is the presupposition underlying the conflict with tradition pursued
by Christ and the apostles (e.g., Matt. 15:6; Col. 2:8). As evidenced in
Matthew 5:21ff., tradition conveyed the Old Testament text to some extent,
but it was not to be allowed to obscure the authentic Word of God
(Mark 7:1-13). Accordingly, we see Christ condemning Pharasaical teaching
when it altered the text of the Old Testament Scriptures – e.g., with
respect to hatred (Matt. 5:43) and with respect to divorce (Matt. 19:7). In
the same vein with Old Testament warnings, Paul instructs Christians not to
tamper with the Word of God (2 Cor. 4:2). The New Testament lays great
stress on not accepting teachings that run counter to the apostolic message
(e.g., Rom. 16:17; Gal. 1:8; 1 John 4:1-6). We find, even as we would
expect, strong warning against departing from what is said in the apostolic
text (2 Thess. 3:14, where the norm is “the word by this epistle”).
Believers are to be on guard against what purports to be Scripture but is
not. Do not be troubles, Paul says, by “an epistle as though from us” (2
Thess. 2:2). Paul usually wrote his own authentic letters by means of an
amanuensis (e.g., Rom. 16:22) – an arrangement that created ripe conditions
for forgery. However Paul’s custom was to add his own authenticating
signature to his letters, as he notes in 2 Thessalonians 3:17: “The
salutation of me Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every
epistle: so I write” (cf. 1 Cor. 16:21; Gal. 6:11; Col. 4:18).
Significantly Paul makes this statement in the same Epistle in which he
warns against spurious apostolic epistles. Here Paul draws attention to the
quite literal “autograph” as authenticating the message that is to be
believed and obeyed by Christ’s people!
Criteriological textual authority, we conclude, is uniformly
presented in Scripture as being the original, autographic texts of the
biblical books. Copies are to be evaluated and heeded in the light of the
autographa, which ought to be reflected in them. Their authority derives
from the original text, whose own authority derives from God Himself.
We may now summarize the attitude that the Bible itself
displays to the autographa and copies in this fashion. The authority and
usefulness of extant copies and translations of the Scriptures is apparent
throughout the bible. They are adequate for bringing people to a knowledge
of saving truth and for directing their lives. Yet it is also evident that
the use of scriptural authority derived from copies has underlying it the
implicit understanding, and often explicit qualification, that these extant
copies are authoritative in that, and to the extent that, they reproduce the
original, autographic text.
Biblical writers understood the distinction between the
original and a copy and they manifest a commitment to the criteriological
authority of the original. These two features – the adequacy of extant
copies and the crucial and primal authority of the autographa – are rather
nicely combined in the standard formula used in the New Testament for citing
Scripture to clinch an argument: “it stands written.” This form (the
perfect tense) appears at least seventy-three times in the Gospels alone.
It signifies that something has been established, accomplished, or completed
and that it continues to be so or to have enduring effect. “It stands
written” expresses the truth that what has been written in the original
Scripture remains so written in the present copies. Conversely, that to
which the writer appeals in the present copies of Scripture as normative is
so because it is taken to be the enduring witness of the autographic text.
New Testament arguments based on a phrase (as in Acts 165:13-17), a word (as
in John 10:35), or even the difference between the singular and plural form
of a word (as in Gal. 3:16) in the Old Testament would be completely emptied
of genuine force if two things were not true: (1) that phrase, word, or form
must appear in the present copies of the Old Testament, or else the argument
falls to the ground with the intended opponent because it is spurious to
begin with (i.e., there is no evidence to which appeal can be made against
him), and (2) that phrase, word, or form must be assumed to have been
present in the original text of the passage cited, or else the argument
loses its authoritative foundation in the Word of God (i.e., such an element
of the text would have no more authority than the word of any mere human at
best and would be an embarrassing scribal error at worst). If the New
Testament authors are not appealing through their extant copies of the
original text, their arguments are futile.
We see, then, that the Bible demonstrates two points. First,
the permanent need of God’s people for the substantial reliability of the
extant biblical text is satisfied. We can believe our copies of
Scripture and be saved without having the autographic codex, for the Bible
itself indicates that copies can faithfully reflect the original text and
therefore function authoritatively. Second, the paramount features and
qualities of Scripture – such as inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy –
are uniformly identified with God’s own original word as found in the
autographic text, which alone can be identified and esteemed as God’s own
word to man.
A brief postscript to this section can be added regarding the
use of the Septuagint in the New Testament and the problem of New Testament
quotations of the Old Testament that appear to deviate from the original.
Neither one of these practices undermines our previous conclusions. The
Septuagint was used to facilitate the communication of the New Testament
message. It was the popular version of the day. This fact, however, does
not confer inspiration on it (a view held by men such as Philo and
Augustine). Even Beegle admits that if the New Testament writers considered
the Septuagint inspired, it was so “in a secondary or derivative sense.” As
Jerome maintained in his dispute with Augustine over this matter, only the
Hebrew text was strictly inspired. The authors of the New Testament, we
must assume, used the Septuagint only to the extent that this translation
did not deviate essentially from the Hebrew text. Just as people can write
in their own vocabularies without introducing falsehoods and can quote
questionable sources without incorporating erroneous portions from them, so
also the New Testament writers could use the vocabulary and text of the
Septuagint without falling into error. Being carried along by the Holy
spirit in their work (cf. 2 Peter 1:21) they were shielded from such error,
for that spirit is the “spirit of truth” (John 16:13). Textual diversity
was recognized by the New Testament writers, but it was not a source of
perplexity, since they were directed by the Spirit. They could select the
reading that best carried the divine meaning, often quoting the Septuagint
as the Word of God and yet sometimes even correcting the Septuagint
rendition!
A greater difficulty is found in the fact that the Septuagint
is sometimes quoted in a way that initially appears to be contrary to the
Hebrew text and as hardly permissible. This relates to the problem posed by
many critics, that the way in which the New Testament sometimes quotes the
Old Testament seems to show little concern for accurate rendering of the
original. Foitzmyer says, “To modern critical scholarship their [the New
Testament writers’] way of reading the Old Testament often appears quite
arbitrary in that it disregards the sense and the content of the original.”
This is not the place to launch into a full discussion of the
well-known, difficult passages related to this issue, some of which call for
further study in the light of the broader attitude that Scripture itself
teaches toward the issues of inerrancy and the original text. As always,
the biblical phenomena must be considered in terms of the basic and
background testimony of Scripture about itself – that is, in the light of
Scripture’s own given presuppositions. Suffice to say here that an
artificial standard of precision that would have been foreign to the culture
and literary habits of the day in which Scripture was penned need not be
imposed on the Bible in the name of inerrancy or of fidelity to the
autographa. Methods of quotation were not as precise in that age as they
are today, and there is no reason why New Testament citations had to be
verbally exact. The issue is whether the meaning of the autographic text is
or is not assumed to lie behind the extant texts and translations used by
the New Testament writers. I have given grounds above for adopting this as
the assumption of the biblical witness. In focusing on a particular
(sometimes narrow, sometimes general) point or insight, New Testament
quotation of the Old Testament need only embody an accuracy that suits the
writer’s purpose. Preachers today are not being unfaithful to Scripture
when they mix passing allusion with strict quotation from the Bible, when
they rearrange biblical phrases, or when they paraphrase contextual matters
in getting to their specific target statement, phrase, or word. Their
scriptural point can be communicated in a way that is true to the sense
without being a pristine rendition of the specific text.
Therefore, the New Testament use of the Septuagint or of
inexact renditions of the Old Testament does not belie the commitment of the
involved writers to the criteriological authority of the autographa. The
practice does, however, underline their unanxious acceptance of texts or
versions that were not strictly autographic as being adequate for the
practical purposes at hand in their teaching. These were adequate precisely
because they could be assumed to portray the true sense of the
original.
Explanation and Rationale for the Restriction
Given the previously explored biblical attitude toward the
autographa and copies of them, we can proceed to explain the sense in which
evangelicals correspondingly restrict inerrancy to the scriptural autographa
and offer reasons for that restriction.
There is circulating at present a rather serious
misunderstanding of the evangelical restriction of inerrancy (or
inspiration, infallibility) to the autographic text and of the implications
of that restriction. DeKoster claims that there are only two options:
either the Bible on our pulpits is the inspired Word of God, or it is
the uninspired word of man. Because inspiration and inerrancy are
restricted to the autographa (which are lost, and therefore not found on our
pulpits), then our bibles, it is argued, must be the uninspired words of man
and not the vitally needed word of God. Others have misconstrued an
epistemological argument for biblical inerrancy as holding that, if the
bible contains even one mistake, it cannot be believed true at any point; we
cannot then rely on any part of it, and God cannot use it to communicate
authoritatively to us. From this mistaken starting point the critics go on
to say that the evangelical restriction of inerrancy to the autographa means
that, because of errors in all present versions, our Bibles today cannot be
trusted at all, cannot communicate God’s word to us, and cannot be the
inspired Word of God. If our present Bibles, with their errors, are not
inspired, then we are left with nothing (since the autographa are lost).
Such a dilemma rests on numerous fallacies and
misunderstandings. In the first place, it confuses autographic text
(the words) with autographic codex (the physical document). Loss of
the latter does not automatically entail loss of the former. Certain
manuscripts may have decayed or been lost, but the words of these
manuscripts are still with us in good copies. Second, evangelicals do not,
by their commitment to inerrancy, have to commit the logical fallacy of
saying that if one point in a book is mistaken, then all points in it are
likewise mistaken. Third, the predicate “inerrant” (or “inspired”) is not
one that can be applied only in an all-or-nothing fashion. We create a
false dilemma in saying that a book either is totally inspired or totally
uninspired (just as it is fallacious to think a book must be either
completely true or completely false). Many predicates (e.g., “bald,”
“warm,” “fast”) apply in degrees. “Inerrant” and “inspired” can be counted
among them. A book may be unerring for the most part and yet be slightly
flawed. It can have inspired material to some measure and uninspired
material to some measure. For example, an anthology of sacred texts from
world religions would be inspired to the degree that it includes selections
from the Bible. This is not to say that inerrancy or inspiration as
qualities admit of degrees, as though some passages of the Bible could be
“more inspired” than others, or some passages of the Bible could be “more
inspired” than others, or some statement with a given sense in Scripture
could be a mixture of truth and error. Rather, the objects (viz., certain
books) of these predicates have elements or parts to which the predicates
completely apply and elements or parts to which the predicates do not
apply. That baldness can be applied in degrees means that certain objects
(e.g., heads) may have hairy areas and nonhairy areas, not that there is
some quality that itself is a cross between hair and nonhair.
It needs to be reiterated quite unambiguously that
evangelical restriction of inerrancy to the autographa (1) is a restriction
to the autographic text, thereby guarding the uniqueness of God’s
verbal message and (2) does not imply that present Bibles, because
they are not fully inerrant, fail to be the Word of God. The evangelical
view does not mean that the inerrancy, or inspiration, of present Bibles is
an all-or-nothing matter. My Old Cambridge edition of a Shakespearean play
may contain mistaken or disputed words in comparison with the original text
of Shakespeare, but that does not lead me to the extreme conclusion that the
volume on my desk is not a work of Shakespeare. It is Shakespearean
– to the degree that it reflects the author’s own work, which (because of
the generally accepted high degree of correlation) is a qualification that
need not be explicitly and often stated. So also my American Standard
Version of the Bible contains mistaken or disputed words with respect to
the autographic text of Scripture, but it is still the very Word of God,
inspired and inerrant – to the degree that it reflects the original work of
God, which (because of the objective, universally accepted, and outstanding
degree of correlation in the light of textual criticism) is a qualification
that is very seldom in need of being stated. As virtually anybody would
understand, a copy counts as the words of a work only to the extent that it
has not altered the very words of the author of that work.
Therefore, let us clearly explain the implication of the
evangelical view of inerrancy’s restriction to the autographa. Francis
Patton put it this way: “Just so far as our present Scripture text
corresponds with the original documents is it inspired . . .. Have we a
correct text? If we have not, then just in proportion to its incorrectness
are we without the word of God.” Many contemporary evangelicals have made
the same kind of statement. Pinnock writes, “Our bibles are the Word of God
to the extent that they reflect the Scripture as originally given,” and “a
good copy of an original work can function like the original itself, to the
extent to which it corresponds to the original and is in accord with it.”
In the same way translations, as observed by Henry, “may be said to be
infallible only to the extent that they faithfully represent the copies
available to us.” Palmer accordingly answers DeKoster’s false dilemma about
having or not having the inerrant and inspired Word of God on his desk by
pointing out that copies and translations are inspired, infallible, and
inerrant to the extent that they have faithfully reproduced the original
text. To the extent that they add to, subtract from, or distort the
original, they are not the inspired Word of God.
Is there any good reason for this point of view? What
rationale can be offered by evangelicals for restricting inerrancy
(inspiration, infallibility) to the biblical autographa? Critics have often
assumed that inerrancy is restricted to the autographa for apologetical
reasons and they have condemned this restriction as desperate weaseling and
an “apologetical artifice” (to use Brunner’s words), an intellectually
dishonest cop-out arising from embarrassment. Rogers attacks the
evangelical restriction of inerrancy to the autographa as an attempt to
secure an “unassailable apologetic stance” (which, Pinnock observes, would
produce a position that is unfalsifiable yet meaningless). Such abuse is
misplaced. Evangelicals appeal to the missing autographa in a limited and
specific fashion, where independent evidence (quite apart from apologetical
embarrassment) supports the suggestion of transcriptional error. Inerrancy
critic Stephen Davis recognizes that restriction of inerrancy to the
autographa is seldom a ridiculous apologetical maneuver on the part of
evangelicals, because textual criticism has, for the most part, firmly
established the biblical text. Since that which the apologist defends is
the teaching of the autographic text (apart from the presence or
absence of the autographical manuscripts), he can hardly be charged with
tactical retreat if he holds, with Warfield, that “the autographic text of
the New Testament is distinctly within reach of criticism in so immensely
the greater part of the volume, that we cannot despair of restoring to
ourselves and the Church of God, His book, word for word, as He gave it by
inspiration to men.” The restriction of inerrancy to the autographa does
not leave the evangelical with only a chimera to defend. Moreover,
evangelicals such as Warfield are not so deluded as to think that recovery
of the autographic text would (though impossible with absolute perfection)
rid them of all biblical difficulties for which to give an answer.
That some of the difficulties and apparent discrepancies in current texts
disappear on the restoration of the true text of Scripture is undoubtedly
true. That all the difficulties and apparent discrepancies in current texts
of Scripture are matters of textual corruption, and not, rather, often of
historical or other ignorance on our part, no sane man ever asserted.
Explaining evangelical restriction of inerrancy to the autographa by the
supposed motivation to have an easy apologetical escape from difficulties
can be safely dismissed. It simply is not so.
If evangelical rationale is not apologetical, then what is
it? It is quite simply theological. God has not promised in His Word that
the Scriptures would receive perfect transmission, and thus we have no
ground to claim it a priori. Moreover, the inspired Word of God in the
Scriptures has a uniqueness that must be guarded from distortion.
Consequently we cannot be theologically blind to the significance of
transmissional errors, nor can we theologically assume the absence of such
errors. We are therefore theologically required to restrict inspiration,
infallibility, and inerrancy to the autographa.
There is nothing absurd about holding that an infallible text
has been fallibly transmitted, and the fact that a document is a copy of
Holy Writ does not entail that it is wholly right. Although we can agree
with Beegle that there is no inherent reason why God could not have
preserved from defects the scribes who copied the Bible, he is certainly
mistaken to think we should assume that copies of Scripture were the result
of inspriration unless the Bible explicitly teaches us that they were not.
The fact is that inspiration is an extraordinary gift or predicate, which
cannot be assumed to apply to just anybody. If one wishes to maintain that
the scribes of the Bible were inspired in their work and automatically
infallible in their results, then the burden of theological proof lies on
him. As things stand in Scripture, however, inspiration refers to the
original words produced under the Holy Spirit and not to the production of
scribal copies. Again contrary to Beegle, the fact that the original
Scripture had its origin in God does not mean that the copies, as textual
copies, also have their origin in God, but that the message they
embody traces ultimately back to some measure of God’s given revelation. E.
J. Young’s reasoning is more cogent:
If the Scripture is “God-breathed,” it naturally follows that only the
original is “God-breathed.” If holy men of God spoke from God as they were
borne by the Holy Spirit, then only what they spoke under the spirit’s
bearing is inspired. It would certainly be unwarrantable to maintain that
copies of what they spoke were also inspired, since these copies were not
made as men were borne of the spirit. They were therefore not
“God-breathed” as was the original.
It should now appear clear that restriction of inerrancy to
the autographa is based on the unwillingness of evangelicals to contend for
the precise infallibility or inerrancy of the transmitted text, for
Scripture nowhere gives us ground to maintain that its transmission and
translation would be kept without error by God. There is no scriptural
warrant for holding that God will perform the perpetual miracle of
preserving His written Word from all errors in its being transcribed from
one copy to another. Since the Bible does not claim that every copier,
translator, typesetter, and printer will share the infallibility of the
original document, Christians should not make such a claim either. The
doctrine is not supported by Scripture, and Protestants are committed to the
methodological principle of sola Scriptura. Here then is the basic
rationale for restricting inerrancy to the original, prophetically and
apostolically certified document of God’s Word: there is biblical evidence
for the inerrancy of the autographa, but not for the inerrancy of the
copies; the distinction and restriction are therefore theologically
warranted and necessary.
Everybody knows that no book was ever printed, much less hand-copied, into
which some errors did not intrude in the process; and as we do not hold the
author responsible for these in an ordinary book, neither ought we to hold
God responsible for them in this extraordinary book which we call the Bible.
This quote from Warfield indicates the common-sense nature of restricting
the evaluative qualities of a literary work to its autographic text. Common
sense tells us that the identity of a literary text is determined by its
original autograph (“the first completed, personal or approved transcription
of a unique word-group composed by its author”). When a slight mistake or
distortion creeps into a copy of a literary work, it thereby creates a
somewhat different literary text, with some degree of originality. Choosing
to ignore minor changes, we can continue to label the original and the
slightly distorted copy in similar fashion, but that does not mean we can
afford to be indifferent to an accurate text.
What modern author would view with equanimity an edition of one of his plays
that substituted several hundred words scattered here and there from the
corruptions of typists, compositors, and proof-readers? . . . One can no
more permit “just a little corruption” to pass unheeded in the transmission
of our literary heritage than “just a little sin” was possible in Eden.
The actual value of an author’s literary production cannot be
safely estimated if one is not sure whether the text before him represents
the author’s work or the “originality” of a scribe. Say you are evaluating
what you take to be Shakespeare’s Hamlet, and you come across the
phrase “solid flesh” in the famous line “O! that this too too solid flesh
would melt” (Act I, Scene 2). On the basis of this reading you might well
give a more or less favorable evaluation of this work supposedly by
Shakespeare; but if you did, you would not only be embarrassed, you would
actually be unfair to Shakespeare. Shakespeare wrote “sallied [i.e.,
sullied] flesh,” despite the widespread replication of the “solid flesh”
reading. Shakespeare has Hamlet reflect on the fact that his natural or
inherited honor has been soiled by the taint of his mother’s dishonorable
blood, as the original reading indicates, thereby making quite a difference
to the sense of the line. The merit or demerit of the “solid flesh” reading
belongs to some copyist or editor, not to the author. Common sense keeps us
from attributing secondary alterations in the text and their value (or lack
of it) to the author, for he is responsible only for the autographic text of
his literary work.
This principle is equally true of God’s Word. What we say
about it by way of evaluation should be restricted to what God actually
originated in the text and should not include the “originality” of
intermediate scribes. As Warfield notes, “It is the Bible that we
declare to be ‘of infallible truth’ – the bible that God gave us, not the
corruptions and slips which scribes and printers have given us.” Absolute
truth can be attributed to God’s Word but not to the words that are the
results of errors by scribes and printers.
The identity of the bible, or the Scriptures, then, must
certainly be determined by the autographic text, and the evaluative
predicate of “inerrancy” can be legitimately applied only to that text
(regardless of how many manuscripts contain it). Where we cannot be certain
that a manuscript reflects that autographic text, we must refrain from
judgment and reserve the evaluation for the original. This is especially
true with respect to God’s word in the Scriptures, because they are uniquely
the communication of God to man in human language. They have the
extraordinary status of not being merely human in quality (cf. Gal. 1:12; 1
Thess. 2:13). The isolation of these writings as specially inspired is the
very basis of the church’s distinction between canonical and noncanonical
compositions. Only what God Himself has said constitutes the standard for
verifying Christian truth-claims as theologically authoritative. And for
this reason the textual readings that result from scribal mistakes cannot be
elevated to divinely authoritative status simply because the transferred
title of “Holy Scripture” is placed over them. What constitutes God’s own
Word is not thus elastic and changing but, rather, unique and standardized.
Even evangelicals who deny inerrancy must surely be sensitive
to this rationale, for they too will want to protect the unique quality of
God’s inspired and infallible (although errant) Word. If they did not, they
would be committed to the superstitious and absurd consequence that anything
that is placed between the covers of a book formally labeled “The Bible” is
God’s inspired Word. Successive copying errors could conceivably destroy
the message of God completely; would it then still qualify as “inspired”?
Obviously not.
Evangelicals who believe the Scripture is not inerrant can
offer no reason for thinking that copying mistakes must always be restricted
to matters of history and science, while being absolutely precluded from
texts touching on matters of faith and practice (the alleged exclusive
domain of “infallibility” according to many theorists). The infamous
“Wicked Bible” of 1631 rendered the seventh commandment as “Thou shalt
commit adultery” (omitting the crucial word not), and for this
scandalous misprint the printers were severely fined by the archbishop. Can
any evangelical seriously hold that this reading is inspired and
infallible? If not, then all evangelicals are committed in some
sense to restrict their bibliology to the autographa. Even errancy
evangelicals speak of the unique quality of God’s written and
inspired Word, admitting that although salvation and instruction can come
through a less than perfect translation, “it is the word of God only to the
degree that it reflects and reproduces the original text.” Those who, like
Davis, say that “these manuscripts [the autographs] play no particular role
in my understanding of the Bible. I believe that presently existing Bibles
are infallible works that constitute the word of God for all who read them”
are simply being shortsighted or naïve. Restriction to the autographic text
is a common-sense move made at some point by all evangelicals, for all want
to guard the extraordinary quality of God’s written Word.
The Importance of the Restriction
We have now rehearsed the biblical understanding of the
relation of the autographa to copies and the significance of each. We have
explained the sense in which evangelicals restrict inerrancy to the
autographa and the implication this has for current copies, and we have
established the theological rationale for that restriction. But the
question quickly arises as to whether this is not, after all, just a trivial
discussion, since the autographa are beyond our reach. Piepkorn declares,
“Since the original documents are inaccessible and apparently irrecoverable,
the ascription of inerrancy to these documents is in the last analysis
practically irrelevant.” Evans rhetorically asks, how does it affect
the value of today’s errant record that the error was not there originally?
The direct response to this perspective is that restricting
inerrancy to the autographa enables us to consistently confess the
truthfulness of God – and that is quite important indeed! Inability to
do so would be quite theologically damaging. Only with an inerrant
autograph can we avoid attributing error to the God of truth. An error in
the original would be attributable to God Himself, because He, in the pages
of Scripture, takes responsibility for the very words of the biblical
authors. Errors in copies, however, are the sole responsibility of the
scribes involved, in which case God’s veracity is not impugned.
Some years ago a “liberal” theologian . . . remarked that it was a matter of
small consequence whether a pair of trousers were originally perfect if they
were now rent. To which the valiant and witty David James Burell replied
that it might be a matter of small consequence to the wearer of the
trousers, but the tailor who made them would prefer to have it understood
that they did not leave his shop that way. And then he added that, if the
Most High must train among knights of the shears He might at least be
regarded as the best of the guild, and One who drops no stitches and sends
out no imperfect work.
If the Scriptures, like the works of Homer and others, came
to us merely by God’s general providence in history, then errors in the
original might make little difference to us, but inspiration is another
thing altogether. “Amazing indeed is the cavalier manner in which modern
theologians relegate this doctrine of an inerrant original Scripture to the
limbo of the unimportant,” exclaimed Young, for the veracity of God and the
perfection of the Godhead are involved in that doctrinal outlook.
He, of course, tells us that His Word is pure. If there are mistakes in
that Word, however, we know better; it is not pure . . .. He declares that
His law is the truth. His law contains the truth, let us grant Him that,
but we know that it contains error. If the autographa of Scripture are
marred by flecks of mistake, God simply has not told us the truth concerning
His Word. To assume that he could breathe forth a Word that contained
mistakes is to say, in effect, that God Himself can make mistakes.
And the minute that we say that, we have in principle lost our ultimate
foundation of theological knowledge. Our personal assurance of salvation,
as objectively grounded in the Scriptures, is swept away – for God’s
well-meant promises of such might still be in error.
The fact that we cannot now see the inerrant autographa does
not destroy the importance of the claim that they existed as such. As Van
Til remarks, when one is crossing a river that has swollen to the point of
placing the surface of the bridge under a few inches of water, he might not
be able to see the bridge but he is very glad nonetheless that it is there!
He would not think for a moment that this unseen bridge is without any
significance and try to cross the river arbitrarily at just any other point.
In looking at my present Bible I cannot see the autographa exactly, but I
am most glad that inerrant originals undergird my walk and constitute a
bridge that can bring me back to God. I would not arbitrarily try to be
reunited with Him by just any other course. The value of my present Bible
derives, in the long run, from its dependence on the errorless original, as
is illustrated by R. Laird Harris:
Reflection will show that the doctrine of verbal inspiration is worthwhile
even though the originals have perished. An illustration may be helpful.
Suppose we wish to measure the length of a certain pencil. With a tape
measure we measure it at 6 ½ inches. A more carefully made office ruler
indicates 6 9/16 inches. Checking it with an engineer’s scale, we find it
to be slightly more than 6.58 inches. Careful measurement with a steel
scale under laboratory conditions reveals it to be 6.577 inches. Not
satisfied, we send the pencil to Washington, where master gauges indicate a
length of 6.5774 inches. The master gauges themselves are checked against
the standard United States yard marked on a platinum bar preserved in
Washington. Now, suppose that we should read in the newspapers that a
clever criminal had run off with the platinum bar and melted it down for the
precious metal. As a matter of fact, this once happened to Britain’s
standard yard! What difference would this make to us? Very little. None
of us has ever seen the platinum bar. Many of us perhaps never realized it
existed. Yet we blithely use tape measures, rulers, scales, and similar
measuring devices. These approximate measures derive their value from their
being dependent on more accurate gauges. But even the approximate has
tremendous value – if it has had a true standard behind it.
We conclude that even though we can be blessed without an
errorless text and can formulate the great doctrines of the faith, the
inerrant autographa are not thereby rendered unimportant, and the claim that
God did not have to give the scriptural originals inerrantly is specious.
God can work through our errant copies to bring us to saving faith, but that
does not diminish the qualitative difference between the perfect original
and imperfect copy – just as an imperfect map may bring us to our
destination, but it is nevertheless qualitatively different from a strictly
accurate map (e.g., in fine details).
There is tremendous importance in confessing the doctrine,
and in drawing the distinction implicit in it, that inerrancy is restricted
to the scriptural autographa. We can admit, with Davis, that God did not
keep the copyists from error and that nevertheless the church has grown and
survived with an errant text, but to infer from these facts that an inerrant
autograph was not vital to God or necessary for us would be to commit the
fallacy of hasty generalization. The importance of original inerrancy is
that it enables us to confess consistently the truthfulness of God Himself.
We thereby can avoid saying that the one who calls Himself “the Truth” made
errors and was false in His statements.
However some may still ask, “If God took the trouble and
deemed it crucial to secure the entire accuracy of the original text of
Scripture, why did He not take greater care to preserve the copies
errorless? Why did He allow it to be corrupted in transmission? Numerous
evangelicals have suggested that God has done so in order to prevent His
people from falling into idolatry with respect to the errorless
manuscripts. In so saying, however, they make the same mistake made by many
critics of original inerrancy in regard to other points – namely, of
confusing the autographic text with the autographic codex. The original
manuscripts might well have perished, thereby preventing an idolatry of
them, but the main question is why the text of the autographa has not
been inerrantly preserved. Perhaps a more convincing answer would be that
the need for textual criticism, due to an errant text of Scripture, would
have the effect of drawing attention away from trivial details of the text
(by which, e.g., it could be used as a magic amulet or cabbala) and toward
its conveyed message. In the long run, however, we simply have to turn away
from such questions, which presume to have an a priori idea of what to
expect from God, and confess, “Why God was not pleased to preserve the text
of the original copies of the Bible, we do not know.” “The secret things
belong unto Jehovah our God, but the things that are revealed belong unto
us” (Deut. 29:29). And God has not chosen to share with us His motivation
for allowing the text of the autographa to become slightly corrupted in
particular copies of the Scripture. Possession of an answer as to why God
permitted this is surely not a necessary condition to holding to the
restriction of inerrancy to the autographa, if the position is maintained on
independently sufficient grounds.
Some evangelicals have written as though two very different
kinds of restriction on the inerrancy of Scripture are equally damaging to
the doctrine and are virtually on a par. Errancy evangelicals restrict the
utter trustworthiness of Scripture to revelational matters that make us
“wise unto salvation,” whereas inerrancy evangelicals restrict inerrancy to
the autographic text. Since it is thought that these two kinds of
restriction have the same practical effect, errancy evangelicals sometimes
maintain that opposition from inerrancy evangelicals to their viewpoint is
trivial. After all, it is alleged, the epistemological status of the two
views is the same, since errors in our present copies of Scripture must be
recognized, thereby jeopardizing the unchallengeable authority of these
manuscripts. Careful attention to the issue, however, will show that the
importance of original inerrancy is not undermined by such reasoning. If
the original manuscripts of Scripture were errant, then we could not
possibly know the extent of error in them. The range of possible
faults is virtually unbounded, for who can say at what point an errant God
stops making mistakes? Who could presume to know how to set God’s
“mistakes” in order? (Compare Romans 3:4; 9:20; 11:34; 1 Corinthians
2:16.) On the other hand, errors in transmission are, in
principle, correctable by textual criticism. Wenham has grasped the
point here:
It has been said that, since there is no need for a guaranteed inerrancy
now, there is no reason to suppose that inerrancy was ever given. But the
distinction between the Scripture as it was originally given and the
Scripture as it is now is not mere pedantry. We must hold, on the one hand,
to the absolute truth of direct divine utterance. God does not
approximately speak the truth. Human expositions of what God has said, on
the other hand, do approximate to truth, and one can speak meaningfully of
different degrees of approximation. If the term ‘essential infallibility’
is applied to a divine utterance, it has no precise meaning. It is like a
medicine that is known to be adulterated, but adulterated to an unknown
degree. When, however, ‘essential infallibility’ is referred to Scriptures
once inerrant but now slightly corrupt, the meaning can, within limits, be
precise. We know to a close approximation the nature of the tiny textual
adulterations. The bottle is, as it were, plainly labeled: “This mixture is
guaranteed to contain less than 0.01% of impurities.” And our Lord himself
(in the case of the Old Testament) has set us an example by taking his own
medicine. A man’s last will and testament is not invalidated by superficial
scribal errors; no more are the divine testaments in the Bible.
An inerrancy restricted to matters of faith and practice
(assuming for the moment that these can be separated from historical and
scientific details of God’s Word) is not after all on the same
epistemological footing with an inerrancy extending to everything taught in
God’s Word but restricted to the autographic text.
It is impossible to maintain the theological principle of
sola Scriptura on the basis of limited inerrancy, for an errant
authority – being in need of correction by some outside source – cannot
serve as the only source and judge of Christian theology. The philosophical
basis for certainty, Christ speaking inerrantly in the identifiable
historical revelation of God’s written Word, is in principle preserved by
the doctrine of original inerrancy but is vitiated by a doctrine of limited
inerrancy whereby God can speak mistakenly about some issues. The former
view provides a starting point and final authority than is conceivably
provided in pagan literature. From a theological standpoint, why should we
diligently seek the autographic text if the unerring word from God would not
thereby be secured? “If error had permeated the original
prophetic-apostolic verbalization of the revelation, no essential connection
would exist between the recovery of any preferred text and the authentic
meaning of God’s revelation.”
By way of summary, the doctrine or original inerrancy permits
doubts only about the identification of the text – doubts that can be
allayed by textual critical methods. In this case God’s Word remains
innocent of error until proven guilty; that is, what I find written in my
present Bible is assumed to be true unless someone has good reason to doubt
the integrity of the text qua text. The doctrine of limited
inerrancy, however, which asserts aboriginal textual errors in historical or
scientific matters, elicits corrosive doubt about the truth of God’s Word,
such that its statements cannot be fully trusted until verified or cleared
of error by some final, outside authority. To put matters another way, the
difference between those who maintain original inerrancy and those who hold
to limited inerrancy is indicated in the divergent outcomes of textual
criticism for the two. When the proper text has been identified by someone
holding to original inerrancy, he has an incontestable truth.
However, someone holding to limited inerrancy who identifies the original
text has simply found something that is only possibly true (and thus
possibly false).
We have seen, then, that the doctrine of restricting
inerrancy to the biblical autographa is far from trivial or irrelevant. It
has tremendous importance, not because inerrancy is necessary for God to
use, and the reader to profit from a copy of Scripture but in order to
maintain the veracity of God and the unchallengeable epistemological
authority of our theological commitments.
The Assurance of Possessing God’s Word
Throughout the previous discussion we have insisted on and
defended the restriction of inerrancy to the autographic text of the Bible.
The question might now arise as to whether we actually can be sure of
possessing the genuine Word of God in our present copies and translations of
the Bible. After all, the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture is
reserved for the original text and applies to the current text only to the
extent that it reflects the original. How can we know that our extant
copies are substantially correct transcriptions of the autographa? The
answer here is twofold: we know it from the providence of God and from the
results of textual science.
If we do not assume that God has spoken clearly and given us
an adequate means of learning what He has actually said, then the entire
story of the Bible and its portrayal of the plan of God for man’s salvation
makes no sense whatever. As James Orr observed, because the preservation of
the text of Scripture is part of the transmission of the knowledge of God,
it is reasonable to expect that God will provide for it lest the aims of His
revealing Himself to men be frustrated. The providence of God superintends
matters so that copies of Scripture do not become so corrupt as to become
unintelligible for God’s original purposes in giving it or so corrupt as to
create a major falsification of His message’s text. Scripture itself
promises that God’s Word will abide forever (Isa. 40:8; Matt. 5:18; 24:35;
Luke 16:17; 1 Peter 1:24-25), and by His providential control God secures
the fulfillment of such a promise.
John Skilton gives a helpful response to our current
question:
We will grant that God’s care and providence, singular though they have
been, have not preserved for us any of the original manuscripts either of
the Old Testament or of the New Testament. We will furthermore grant that
God did not keep from error those who copied the Scriptures during the long
period in which the sacred text was transmitted in copies written by hand.
But we must maintain that the God who gave the Scriptures, who works all
things after the counsel of his will, has exercised a remarkable care over
his Word, has preserved it in all ages in a state of essential purity, and
has enabled it to accomplish the purpose for which he gave it. It is
inconceivable that the sovereign God who was pleased to give his Word as a
vital and necessary instrument in the salvation of his people would permit
his Word to become completely marred in its transmission and unable to
accomplish its ordained end. Rather, as surely as that he is God, we would
expect to find him exercising a singular care in the preservation of his
written revelation.
Faith in the consistency of God – His faithfulness to His own
intention to make men wise unto salvation – guarantees the inference that He
never permits Scripture to become so corrupted that it can no longer fulfill
that end adequately. We can conclude theologically that, for all practical
purposes, the text of Scripture is always sufficiently accurate not to lead
us astray. If we presuppose a sovereign God, observes Van Til, it is no
longer a matter for great worry that the transmission of Scripture is not
altogether accurate; God’s providence provides for the essential accuracy of
the Bible’s copying.
We maintain, therefore, that the Bible which we have in our
hands is fully adequate to bring us to Christ, to instruct us in His
doctrine, and to guide us in righteous living. It is obvious that God has
done His work in and through the church for centuries, despite the presence
of minor flaws in the extant copies of the Scripture. Consequently it is
clear that the necessity of restricting inerrancy to the autographa is not
of the necessity-for-effectiveness kind. “It does not follow . . . that
only an errorless text can be of devotional benefit to Christians, nor do
those who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture maintain such a position.”
The copies we now possess are known to be accurate and sufficient in all
matters except minor details. As the Westminster Confession of Faith goes
on to say, having restricted immediate inspiration to the original text of
Scripture, the ordinary vernacular Bibles in use among Christians are
adequate for all of the purposes of the religious life and hope (I.8). We
can usually ignore the distinction between the autographa and copies, being
bold about the Word of God; yet when we engage in detailed study of
Scripture, we must reckon with the distinction and remain teachable as to a
more precise text.
The adequacy of our present copies and translations does not,
of course, dismiss the need for textual criticism. “The truth and power of
Scripture are not annulled by the presence of a degree of textual
corruption. This fact, however, does not give grounds for complacency. An
imperfect text should be replaced by a superior one.” After all, “if holy
men spoke from God, as the Christian faith claims, then it is the account of
their words that will concern us, and not a series of glosses interpolated
by a medieval scribe.” Out of respect for God and the uniqueness of His
Word, the church, as part of its stewardship of the Bible, seeks to do its
best to correct the extant copies of Scripture so as to preserve the full
impact of what was originally given and to be faithful in specific issues of
faith and practice.
People have, as we said earlier, asked, Of what use is an
inerrant original if it is totally lost from recovery? “This is the problem
of textual criticism,” says Harris. It is not possible in the short space
afforded here to rehearse the principles, history, and results of textual
criticism. However, the outstanding quality of our existing biblical texts
is well known. The original text has been transmitted to us in practically
every detail, so that Frederick Kenyon could say:
The Christian can take the whole Bible in his hand and say without fear or
hesitation that he holds in it the true Word of God, handed down without
essential loss from generation to generation, throughout the centuries.
Textual criticism of the copies of the Scripture we possess
has brought immensely comforting results to the church of Christ. Vos
concludes that ‘we possess the text of the Bible today in a form which is
substantially identical with the autographs.” Warfield’s words also bear
repeating here:
On the other hand, if we compare the present state of the New Testament text
with that of any other ancient writing, we must render the opposite verdict,
and declare it to be marvelously correct. Such has been the care with which
the New Testament has been copied, – a care which has doubtless grown out of
true reverence for its holy words, – such has been the providence of God in
preserving for His Church in each and every age a competently exact text of
the Scriptures, that not only is the New Testament unrivaled among ancient
writings in the purity of its text as actually transmitted and kept in use,
but also in the abundance of testimony which has come down to us for
castigating its comparatively infrequent blemishes. The divergence of its
current text from the autograph may shock a modern printer of modern books;
its wonder approximation to its autograph is the undisguised envy of every
modern reader of ancient books.
The great mass of the New Testament, in other words, has been
transmitted to us with no, or next to no, variation; and even in the most
corrupt form in which it has ever appeared, to use the oft-quoted words of
Richard Bentley, “the real text of the sacred writers is competently exact;
. . . nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or lost
. . . choose as awkwardly as you will, choose the worst by design, out of
the whole lump of readings.” If, then, we undertake the textual criticism
of the New Testament under a sense of duty, we may bring it to a conclusion
under the inspiration of hope. The autographic text of the New Testament is
distinctly within the reach of criticism in so immensely the greater part of
the volume, that we cannot despair of restoring to ourselves and the Church
of God, His Book, word for word, as He gave it by inspiration to men.
Elsewhere Warfield said that those who ridicule the “lost
autographs” often speak as though the Bible as given by God is lost beyond
recovery and that men are now limited to texts so hopelessly corrupted that
it is impossible to say what was in the autographic text. Over against this
absurd and extreme view Warfield maintained that “we have the autographic
text” among our copies in circulation and the restoration of the original is
not impossible.
The defenders of the trustworthiness of the Scriptures have constantly
asserted, together, that God gave the Bible as the errorless record of his
will to men, and that he has, in his superabounding grace, preserved it for
them to this hour – yea, and will preserve it for them to the end of time .
. .. Not only was the inspired Word, as it came from God, without
error, but . . . it remains so . . .. It is as truly heresy to affirm that
the inerrant Bible has been lost to men as it is to declare that there never
was an inerrant Bible.
The charge that God did not apparently deem the preservation
of the original text important is pointless because, far from being
hopelessly corrupt, our copies virtually supply us with the autographic
text. All the ridicule that is heaped on evangelicals about the “lost
autographa” is simply vain, for we do not regard their text as lost at all!
As Harris says,
To all intents and purposes we have the autographs, and thus when we say we
believe in verbal inspiration of the autographs, we are not talking of
something imaginary and far off but of the texts written by those inspired
men and preserved for us so carefully by faithful believers of a long past
age.
The doctrine of original inerrancy, then, does not deprive
believers today of the Word of God in an adequate form for all the purposes
of God’s revelation to His people. Presupposing the providence of God in
the preservation of the biblical text, and noting the outstanding results of
the textual criticism of the Scriptures, we can have full assurance that we
possess the Word of God necessary for our salvation and Christian walk. As
a criticism of this evangelical doctrine, suggestions that the autographic
text has been forever lost are groundless and futile. The Bibles in our
hands are trustworthy renditions of God’s original message, adequate for all
intents and purposes as copies and conveyors of God’s authoritative Word.
Concluding Criticisms
Before ending our discussion, we will examine three different
remaining types of direct attacks on the doctrine of restricting inerrancy
to the autographic text. The first alleges that the doctrine is unprovable,
the second that it cannot be consistently maintained along with other
evangelical doctrines and truths about the Bible, and the third that it is
simply untrue to the teaching of Scripture itself.
First, there are those who would attempt to make much of the
unprovable character of original inerrancy because the autographa are now
gone. Since the original biblical manuscripts are not available for
inspection, it is thought that taking them to have been without error is
groundless speculation. After all, nobody today has actually seen these
allegedly inerrant autographa. This criticism, however, misunderstands the
nature and source of the doctrine of original inerrancy. It is not a
doctrine derived from empirical investigation of certain written texts; it
is a theological commitment rooted in the teaching of the Word of God
itself. The nature of God (who is truth Himself) and the nature of the
biblical books (as the very words of God) require that we view the original
manuscripts, produced under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit of truth,
as wholly true and without error. To the charge that the errorless
autographa have not been seen we can reply that neither have errant
autographa ever been seen; the view that the biblical originals contained
errors is just as much divorced from direct empirical proof as the opposite
view. The basic question remains biblically oriented and answered. What is
the nature of Scripture as it came from the very mouth of God? Evangelicals
do not believe that their answer to that question is unprovable, but rather
that it is fully demonstrated from the Word of God itself.
A second direct criticism of the restriction of inspiration
(and thereby inerrancy) to the autographa comes from George Mavrodes, who
challenges evangelicals to be guided by the principle of sola Scriptura
and to explicate a definition of “autograph” that applies to all of the
biblical books and does not deny the use of uninspired amanuenses in the
production of those autographic manuscripts (thus discounting the notion of
a literally handwritten copy by the author). Moreover, the view must not
arbitrarily restrict inspiration to the manuscripts produced by such
amanuenses.
I have responded to this challenge in the same journal,
arguing that inspiration is not arbitrarily, but rather practically,
restricted to the autographic text because we cannot be sure – without the
actual autographa to use for comparison – that copies that are prone to
error (since God has not promised inerrant copying of His Word) will be
strictly accurate. In saying this I understood an autograph to be the first
completed, personal, or approved transcription of a unique word-group
composed by its author. In that sense we can see that every biblical book
had an autograph, and we can accommodate the fact that amanuenses were used
in their production, without attributing inspiration to the amanuenses. The
fact that the finished product is designated “God-breathed” (2 Tim.
3:16) guarantees inerrant copying by the amanuensis without placing him in
the same category as the author, who was moved by the Holy spirit (cf. 2
Peter 1:21). Accordingly, the restriction of inspiration to the autographic
text can be maintained consistently, along with important theological
principles (such as sola Scriptura) and with obvious facts about the
Bible (such as the use of amanuenses in its production).
In response to my article, Sidney Chapman took another tack
in criticizing the restriction of inspiration to the autographa. He ends up
contending for the implausible thesis that the Septuagint was inspired,
arguing simply that, since “all Scripture is inspired” (2 Tim. 3:16) and
Paul treated a virtual quote from the Septuagint as “Scripture” (in Rom.
4:3), therefore the Septuagint is inspired. Chapman, however, falls into
various logical fallacies in his argument. First, there is an obvious
equivocation on the word Scripture as it is found in the two
different texts cited. In Romans 4:3 Paul is simply interested in the sense
or meaning of the scriptural teaching of the Old Testament at Genesis 15:6.
This teaching can be conveyed by any accurate copy or translation, and, in
view of his audience, Paul readily used the available Septuagint version.
In 2 Timothy 3:16, however, Paul is reflecting on the specific Scripture as
it originated from God, and thus on the autographa alone (or identical texts
in subsequent manuscripts). Thus the Septuagintal reading can be called
“Scripture” in virtue of its expressing the sense of the original, whereas
the autographa is strictly and literally “Scripture” in and off itself. The
fact that I can casually call my American Standard Version the “Scripture”
(because I assume its essential accuracy in conveying the original) can
hardly be grounds for concluding that I do not distinguish between this
English translation and the Hebrew-Greek original, or that I do not
differentiate between the autographa and its copies.
Second, Chapman needs to take account of the fact that Paul
does not directly state that the Septuagint or any part of it is in fact
“Scripture.” He does not even mention the Septuagint as such. Moreover,
Paul does not illustrate or imply that the Septuagint is “Scripture” in the
same sense as 2 Timothy 3:16, for his reading is not strictly identical with
the Septuagintal word-group or text.
Third, even if the Septuagint reading at this point were
“Scripture” in the full sense (and not simply scriptural), one could
confer the same status on all of the Septuagint texts only by the
fallacy of composition or hasty generalization. Therefore, we must conclude
that Romans 4:3 does not teach or illustrate the inspiration of the
Septuagint as a version. Chapman has not presented a successful
counterexample to the thesis that inspiration is restricted to the
autographic text of Scripture.
Chapman’s second line of argument against the restriction of
inspiration to the autographa states that this restriction would also have
to restrict the profitableness of Scripture (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16) to the
autographa, in which case our present translations would not benefit us for
doctrine and instruction in righteousness. However, this line of thought
does not take account of the facts that (1) a present-day translation can be
scriptural in its thrust as long as it conveys the original sense of God’s
Word; (2) because the predicates “profitable” and “inspired” are not
mutually implicatory, a present translation can be profitable because it
conveys God’s Word and still not be an inspired text as such; and (3) the
inspired and/or profitable quality of a copy or translation of the
Scriptures can be applied by degrees (as was explained earlier in this
chapter). Therefore, the fact that inspiration or inerrancy is restricted
to the autographa need not deprive our present copies and translations of
genuine profit to us in our Christian experience.
By way of summary, the present study has maintained that,
while the Bible teaches its own inerrancy, the inscripturation and copying
of God’s Word requires us to identify the specific and proper object of
inerrancy as the text of the original autographa. This time-honored,
common-sense view of evangelicals has been criticized and ridiculed since
the days of the modernist controversy over Scripture. Nevertheless,
according to the attitude of the biblical writers, who could and did
distinguish copies from the autographa, copies of the Bible serve the
purposes of revelation and function with authority only because they are
assumed to be tethered to the autographic text and its criteriological
authority. The evangelical doctrine pertains to the autographic text, not
the autographic codex, and maintains that present copies and translations
are inerrant to the extent that they accurately reflect the biblical
originals; thus the inspiration and inerrancy of present Bibles is not an
all-or-nothing matter. Evangelicals maintain the doctrine of original
inerrancy, not as an apologetical artifice, but on the theological grounds
that: (1) the inspiration of copyists and the perfect transmission of
Scripture have not been promised by God, and (2) the extraordinary quality
of God’s revealed Word must be guarded against arbitrary alteration. The
importance of original inerrancy is not that God cannot accomplish His
purpose except through a completely errorless text, but that without it we
cannot consistently confess His veracity, be fully assured of the scriptural
promise of salvation, or maintain the epistemological authority and
theological axiom of sola Scriptura (since errors in the original,
unlike those in transmission, would not be correctable in principle). We
can be assured that we possess the Word of God in our present Bible because
of God’s providence; He does not allow His aims in revealing Himself to be
frustrated. Indeed, the results of textual criticism confirm that we
possess a biblical text that is substantially identical with the autographa.
Finally, contrary to recent criticisms, the doctrine of
original inerrancy (or inspiration) is not unprovable, is not undermined by
the use of amanuenses by the biblical writers, and is not contravened by the
New Testament use of the Septuagint as “Scripture.” Therefore, the
evangelical restriction of inerrancy to the original autographa is
warranted, important, and defensible. Further, it does not jeopardize the
adequacy and authority of our present Bibles. Accordingly the doctrine of
original inerrancy can be commended to all believers who are sensitive to
the authority of the Bible as the very Word of God and who wish to propagate
it as such today.
E. J. Young, Thy Word is Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), pp.
88-89.
Archibald Alexander, Evidences of the Authenticity, Inspiration, and
Canonical Authority of the Holy Scriptures (Philadelphia: Presbyterian
Board of Publication, 1836), p. 229.
Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 1 (1872-73; reprinted.,
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), pp. 152, 163.
Archibald A. Hodge and Benjamin B. Warfield, “Inspiration,” The
Presbyterian Review 7 (April 1881), pp. 27, 236, 238.
B. B. Warfield, “The Inerrancy of the Original Autographs,” reprinted in
Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield, vol. 2, ed. John
E. Meeter (Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1973), pp. 581-2.
Cornelius Van Til, A Christian Theory of Knosledge (Nutley, N.J.:
Presbyterian and Reformed, 1969), p. 27.
Bernard Ramm, special Revelation and the Word of God (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961), pp. 134-135.
Abraham Kuyper, Principles of Sacred Theology (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1954), pp. 405ff.
Henry Preserved Smith, Inspiration and Inerrancy (Cincinnati:
Robert Clark, 1893), pp. 97-98, 107-12; R. Laird Harris, Inspiration and
Canonicity of the Bible, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969), p.
87; Jack Rogers, “The Church Doctrine of Biblical Authority,” in Biblical
Authority, ed. Jack rogers (Waco: Word, 1977), pp. 30, 31, 35; Clark
Pinnock, “Three Views of the Bible in Contemporary Theology,” in Biblical
Authority, ed. Rogers, p. 62; Clark Pinnock, Biblical Revelation
(Chicago: Moody7, 1971), p. 156; Dewey M. Beegle, Scripture, Tradition,
and Infallibility (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), pp. 163-64.
Cf. John Murray, Calvin on Scripture and Divine Sovereignty
(Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1960), pp. 27-28.
Cf. M. Reu, Luther and the Scriptures (Columbus, Ohio: Wartburg,
1944), pp. 57-59.
Warfield, “Inerrancy of the Original Autographs,” pp. 586-87.
B. B. Warfield, “The Westminster Confession and the original Autographs,”
in Selected Shorter Writings, vol. 2, pp. 591-92; Beegle,
Scripture, Tradition, and Infallibility, p. 144.
Warfield, “The Inerrancy of the original Autographs,” pp. 580-82, 586-87;
“The Westminster Confession and the Original Autographs,” pp. 588-94.
Hodge and Warfield, “Inspiration,” pp. 238, 245.
Edwin H. Palmer, Response to Editor, The Banner, vol. 112, no. 43
(Nov. 11, 1977): 25.
J. Gresham Machen, The Christian Faith and the Modern World (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1936), pp. 38-39; W. H. Griffith Thomas, “Inspiration,”
Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. 118, no. 469 (Jan.-Mar., 1961), p. 43; James M.
Gray, “The Inspiration of the Bible,” in The Fundamentals, vol. 2
(Bible Institute of Los Angeles, 1917), p. 12; Lewis Sperry Chafer,
Systematic Theology, vol. 1 (Dallas Seminary press, 1947), p. 71;
Loraine Boettner, Studies in Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957),
p. 14; E. J. Young, Thy Word is Truth, p. 55; R. Surburg, How
Dependable is the Bible (Philadelphia and New York: Lippincott, 1972),
p. 68; J. I. Packer, “Fundamentalism” and the Word of God (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958), p. 90; John R. Stott, Understanding the Bible
(Glendale: Gospel Light, 1972), p. 187; Carl F. H. Henry, God,
Revelation, and Authority, vol. 2 (Waco: Word, 1976), p. 14.
Smith, Inspiration and Inerrancy, p. 145; C. A. Briggs, The
Bible, the Church, and the Reason (New York: Scribner, 1892), p. 97.
Warfield, “Inerrancy of the Original Autographs,” p. 585.
Smith, Inspiration and Inerrancy, p. 144.
David Hubbard, “The Current Tensions: Is There a Way Out?” in Biblical
Authority, ed. Rogers, p. 156.
C. A. Briggs, “Critical Theories of the Sacred Scriptures in Relation to
Their Inspiration,” The Presbyterian Review, vol. 2 (1881): 573-74.
Emil Brunner, Revelation and Reason: The Christian Doctrine of Faith
and Knowledge, trans. Olive Wyon (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1946), p.
274.
Cf. Young, Thy Word Is Truth, pp. 85-86; Pinnock, Biblical
Revelation, p. 81.
Warfield, “The Westminster Confession and the original Autographs,” p.
588.
Lester DeKoster, editorials in The Banner for August 19, 26, and
September 2, 1977.
I am dependent for some of these examples on J. Barton Payne, “the Plank
Bridge: Inerrancy and the biblical Autographs,” United Evangelical Action
24 (December 1965): 16-18.
G. C. Berkouwer, Holy Scripture, trans. And ed. Jack Rogers (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), p. 217.
F. F. Bruce, “Foreword” to Beegle’s Scripture, Tradition, and
Infallibility, p. 8.
Beegle, Scripture, Tradition, and Infallibility, p. 156.
Cf. Berkeley Mickelsen, “The Bible’s Own Approach to Authority,” in
Biblical Authority, ed. Rogers, pp. 83, 95.
Beegle, Scripture, Tradition, and Infallibility, Chapter 7.
John Wenham, Christ and the Bible (Downers Grove, Ill.;
InterVarsity, 1972), p. 164; Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and
Authority, vol. 2, p. 14.
As suggested by Pinnock in “Three Views of the Bible in Contemporary
Theology,” p. 63.
Ibid., p. 64; Sidney Chapman, “Bahnsen on inspiration,” Evangelical
Quarterly, vol. SLVII, no. 3 (July-September 1975): 167.
Beegle, Scripture, Tradition, and Infallibility, pp. 154-55,
164-66.
Payne, “Plank Bridge,” p. 17.
C. F. Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament: The Book of the
Kings, trans. James Martin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), p. 478.
Such is the view of many expositors; cf. Lange’s Commentary, vol. 6; Karl
Chr. W. F. Bähr, with Edwin Harwood and W. G. Sumner, The Books of the
Kings (New York: Scribner, Armstrong and Co., 1872), book 2, p. 258;
Payne, “Plank Bridge,” p. 17.
Cf. Richard N. Longenecker, “Ancient Amanuenses and the Pauline
Epistles,” in New Dimensions in New Testament Study, ed. R. N.
Longenecker and M. C. Tenney (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), pp. 288-92.
Cf. Payne, “Plank Bridge,” p. 18.
Beegle, Scripture, Tradition, and Infallibility, pp. 170-71, cf.
p. 173.
Cf. Payne, “Plank Bridge,” p. 17.
See Pinnock, Biblical Revelation, p. 83.
See Berkouwer, Holy Scripture, pp. 223, 225.
See L. I. Evans, “Biblical Scholarship and Inspiration,” in Smith,
Inspiration and Inerrancy, pp. 47, 66=67; Mickelsen, “the Bible’s
Approach to Authority,” pp. 85ff.
J. A. Fitzmyer, “The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran
Literature and in the New Testament,” New Testament Studies, (1961),
p. 332.
DeKoster, editorial in The Banner (September 2, 1977), p. 4.
See Smith, Inspiration and Inerrancy, pp. 135-36, cf. pp. 62-63;
Pinnock, “Three Views of the Bible in contemporary Theology,” p. 65; Stephen
T. Davis, The Debate About the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster,
1977), pp. 79-81; Paul Rhees, Foreword to biblical Authority, ed.
Rogers, p. 12.
See the discussion of word groups over against parchment and ink in Greg
L. Bahnsen, “Autographs, Amanuenses, and Restricted Inspiration,”
Evangelical Quarterly, vol. 45, no. 2 (April-June 1973): 101-3.
Cf. John Warwick Montgomery, “Biblical Inerrancy: What Is at Stake?” in
God’s Inerrant Word, ed. J. W. Montgomery (Minneapolis: Bethany
Fellowship, 1974), pp. 36-37.
B. B. Warfield, An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New
Testament (New York: Thomas Whittaker, 1887), p. 3.
Francis L. Pattton, The Inspiration of the Scriptures
(Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1869), p. 113.
Pinnock, Biblical Revelation, p. 86.
Clark H. Pinnock, A Defense of Biblical Infallibility
(Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1967), p. 15.
Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority 2, p. 14.
Palmer, reply to editor, The Banner (November 11, 1977), p. 24.
Norman Geisler and William Nix express this point of view in terms of a
contrast between actual inspiration (reserved for the autographs) and
virtual inspiration (applied to good copies or translations) in A General
Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody, 1968), p. 33.
E.G., Smith (and Evans), Inspiration and Inerrancy, pp. 63, 14;
Harry R. Boer, Above the Battle? The Bible and Its Critics (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), p. 84; Beegle, Scripture, Tradition, and
Infallibility, pp. 148-149; Gerstner also cites Briggs, Loetscher, and
Sandeen in “Warfield’s Case for Biblical Inerrancy,” in God’s Inerrant
Word,, ed. Montgomery, pp. 136-37.
Rogers, “The Church Doctrine of Biblical Authority,” p. 39; Pinnock,
“Three Views of the Bible,” p. 65.
Montgomery, “Biblical Inerrancy: What Is at Stake?” p. 36.
Davis, The Debate About the Bible, p. 25.
Warfield, Introduction to Textual Criticism, p. 15.
Warfield, “Inerrancy of Original Autographs,” p. 584.
Begle, Scripture, Tradition, and Infallibility, pp. 163, 165.
Pinnock, Defense of Biblical Infallibility, p. 15.
Beegle, Scripture, Tradition, and Infallibility, pp. 154, 155.
Young, Thy Word Is Truth, pp. 56-57.
Gertsner, “Warfield’s Case for Biblical Inerrancy,” p. 137.
Montgomery, “Biblical Inerrancy: What Is at Stake?” p. 35.
Patton, Inspiration of the Scriptures, p. 112; Gray, “Inspiration
of the Bible,” pp. 12-13.
Pinnock, Biblical Revelation, p. 82.
Warfield, “Inerrancy of Original Autographs,” p. 582.
Cf. Bahnsen, “Autographs, Amanuenses, and Restricted Inspiration,” pp.
104-5.
Fredson Bowers, Textual and Literary Criticism (Cambridge:
University Press, 1966), p. 8.
Fredson Bowers, “Hamlet’s ‘Sullied’ or ‘Solid’ Flesh,” Shakespeare
Survey IX (1956): 44-48. The embarrassment that can come to a literary
critic who assimilates copyist errors is illustrated by the case of
Matthiesseni John Nichol’s “Melville’s ‘Soiled’ Fish of the Sea,”
American Literature XXI (1949): 338-39.
Warfield, “Inerrancy of Original Autographs,” p. 582.
Bahnsen, “Autographs, Amanuenses, and Restricted Inspiration,” pp. 102-3.
Ibid., p. 103.
Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority 2, p. 13.
Orr, Revelation and Inspiration, p. 200.
Ramm, Special Revelation and the Word of God, p. 207.
Davis, Debate About the Bible, p. 116.
A. C. Piepkorn, “What Does ‘Inerrancy’ Mean?” Concordia Theological
Monthly XXXVI (1965): 590.
Evans, “Biblical Scholarship and Inspiration,” p. 62.
Gray, “Inspiration of the Bible,” p. 13.
Young, Thy Word Is Truth, pp. 89-90.
Ibid., pp. 86, 89; cf. Rene Pache, The Inspiration and Authority of
Scripture (Chicago: Moody, 1969), p. 135.
Gray, “Inspiration of the Bible,” p. 13.
Young, Thy Word Is Truth, p. 87.
Van Til, Introduction to Systematic Theology (syllabus,
Westminster Theological Seminary, reprinted 1966, now published by the den
Dulk Christian Foundation as part of the series “In Defense of the Faith”),
p. 153.
Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible, pp. 88-89.
Cf. Beegle, Scripture, Tradition, and Infallibility, p. 158;
Young, Thy Word Is Truth, p. 89.
Davis, Debate About the Bible, pp. 78-79.
E.g., Pinnock, “Three Views of the Bible,” p. 66.
E.g., Kuyper, Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology III, p. 67; Pache,
Inspiration and Authority of Scripture, pp. 138-39; Wenham, Christ
and the Bible, p. 186; Geisler and Nix, General Introduction to Bible,
pp. 32-33; E. Sauer, From Eternity to Eternity (London: Paternoster,
1954), p. 110; Pinnock, Biblical Revelation, p. 83; Harold Lindsell,
The Battle for the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), p. 36.
Cf. Beegle, Scripture, Tradition, and Infallibility, p. 159;
Davis, Debate About the Bible, pp. 79-80.
E.g., Wenham, Christ and the Bible, p. 186.
Young, Thy Word Is Truth, p. 61.
Cf. ibid., p. 88; Pache, Inspiration and Authority of Scripture,
pp. 135-36; L. Gaussen, The Divine Inspiration of the Bible (Grand
Rapids: Kregel, 1941; reprint edition, 1971), pp. 159-60.
Wenham, Christ and the Bible, p. 186.
Pinnock, Biblical Revelation, p. 74.
Cornelius Van Til, “Introduction” to B. B. Warfield, Inspiration and
Authority of the Bible (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1948),
p. 46; Van Til, The Doctrine of Scripture (den Dulk Christian
Foundation, 1967), p. 39; Van Til, Christian Theory of Knowledge
(Nutley, N. J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1969), pp. 34-36.
Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority 2, p. 14; cf. Van Til,
“Introduction” to Inspiration and Authority of Bible, p. 4.
Robert Reymond, “Preface” to Pinnock, Defense of Biblical
Infallitility.
Orr, Revelation and Inspiration, pp. 155-56.
Cf. Kuyper, Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology III, pp. 68-69;
Pinnock, Biblical Revelation, p. 83.
John Skilton, “The Transmission of the Scriptures,” in The Infallible
Word, rev. ed., ed. N. B. Stonehouse and P. Woolley (Philadelphia:
Presbyterian and Reformed, 1946), p. 143.
Packer, “Fundamentalism” and the Word of God, pp. 90-91.
Van Til, Christian Theory of Knowledge, p. 28. The critical
implications of not presupposing God’s sovereign control of all things are
pressed in this regard by Van Til against those who would question original
inerrancy: for instance, Beegle (cf. Doctrine of Scripture, pp.
72-91) and Brunner (“Introduction” to Inspiration and Authority of Bible,
pp. 46ff.).
Young, Thy Word Is Truth, p. 87.
Geisler and Nix, General Introduction to the Bible, p. 32.
Pinnock, Biblical Revelation, p. 85; cf. Skilton, “Transmission of
the Scriptures,” p. 167.
Ibid., p. 82.
Cf. Young, Thy Word Is Truth, p. 87.
Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible, p. 96.
See Skilton, “Transmission of the Scriptures;” Wenham, Christ and the
Bible, chapter 7; Geisler and Nix, General Introduction to the Bible,
part III, for competent surveys.
Frederic Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, rev. (New
York: Harper, 1940), p. 23.
Johannes G. Vos, “Bible,” The Encyclopedia of Christiantiy, vol.
1, ed. Edwin Palmer (Delaware: National Foundation of Christian Education,
1964), p. 659.
Warfield, Introduction to Textual Criticism, pp. 12-13, 14-15.
Warfield, “Inerrancy of Original Autographs,” pp. 583-84.
Warfield, “Westminster Confession and the Original Autographs,” pp. 589,
590.
Young, Thy Word Is Truth, pp. 56-57.
Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible, p. 94.
Pinnock, Biblical Revelation, p. 82; Pinnock, Defense of
Biblical Infallibility, p. 15; Geisler and Nix, General Introduction
to the Bible, p. 32; Lindsell, Battle for the Bible, p. 27;
Lindsell, God’s Incomparable Word (Wheaton: Victor, 1977), p. 25.
George Mavrodes, “The Inspiration of Autographs,” Evangelical
Quarterly, vol. 61, no. 1 (1969): 19-29.
Cf. Beegle, Scripture, Tradition, and Infallibility, pp. 152, 160;
Smith, Inspiration and Inerrancy, p. 122.
Cf. Bruce, “Foreword” to Scripture, Tradition, and Infallibility,
pp. 8-9.
Bahnsen, “Autographs, Amanuenses, and Restricted Inspiration,”
pp.100-110.
Cf. Pinnock, Biblical Revelation, p. 83; Longenecker, “Ancient
Amanuenses and the Pauline Epistles,” p. 296; Warfield, Limited
Inspiration (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, n.d.), p. 18-19.
Sidney Chapman, “Bahnsen on Inspiration,” pp. 16267.
Cf. Davis, Debate About the Bible, pp. 64-65. Beegle uses a
similar argument from linguistic labels to conclude that the Septuagint
copies in the NT age were inspired; see Payne, “Plank Bridge,” p. 17.
I argue this on pp. 102-3 of my article “Autographs” but Chapman confuses
the argument about the original text with another one about the
original manuscripts. A rebuttal to Chapman’s critique of elements
of my own argument is not relevant here, although significant
misunderstandings of that argument and fallacious attempts to undermine it
would be noteworthy.