This is something I have been thinking about for a while that might foster some conversation while I am away this weekend.
The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy in III.E. states, “Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission.”
The Westminster Confession of Faith in 1.8 states, “The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical.”
[sidenote: I find it interesting that neither the CSBI or the WCF mention Aramaic, but that's a different story.]
The CSBI is a little more nuanced then the WCF in that the WCF states that Scripture has been “kept pure in all ages” whereas the CSBI gives a nod towards the need for textual criticism, but then states that the ‘autographs’ were originally inspired while the transmission of the texts may have been corrupted.
Enter 1 Sam 13.1: in the NRSV it reads: “Saul was…years old when he began to reign; and he reigned…and two years over Israel.”
Neither the LXX nor the MT have a correct or original reading of this passage.
My question is: how does this fact affect our understanding of inerrancy?
In light of 1 Sam 13.1, both the CSBI and WCF are inadequate. Neither are robust enough to handle what we actually have in our Bible.
The CSBI is inadequate because even though it gives a nod to “any slips that may have crept in,” it stresses the inspiration of the autographs. What good does that do? We do not have the autographs of any portion of Scripture and we do not even have a secondary text of 1 Sam 13.1 that solves this problem for us. What is the use, or function or purpose, of claiming that something is inspired by God if we don’t even have that “something?” It seems odd to claim characteristics for something that is not even in existence.
The WCF is simply flat out wrong in this instance, which obviously makes it inadequate. It states that Scripture has “been kept pure in all ages.” What does it mean by “pure”? If “pure” means that there should not be any words lost to history that were originally inspired by God and meant to be part of Scripture, then this part of the WCF is wrong. How can the term “pure” be defined in such a way that this part of the WCF can be true, while still recognizing the existence of 1 Sam 13.1? I’ll be honest, I’m not sure it can. Pure means pure. It does not mean that words have been lost.
The reason I am bringing this up is because many Christians are taught that Scripture has been kept completely pure in all ages. And then they go to college or watch a special on the History Channel only to find out that what they have been taught does not hold up to what the Bible actually is. Then they have a crisis of faith and usually the only people that they will now listen to are critical scholars (most times they are unbelievers) because these critical scholars, from this person’s point of view, are the ones who are dealing honestly with the texts. This person feels lied to by their faith community, or at least that they have had the wool pulled over their eyes.
I know this because I have seen it happen to many of my friends. What bothers me is that this does not have to happen. We can be honest about what the Bible is and how the Bible looks without resorting to nonsensical statements that seem to dodge the tough questions. I am a firm believer that Scripture is inspired by God. What I long for is an understanding of the inspiration that deals with the tough issues, such as 1 Sam 13.1, which will act as preventative medicine for Christians who are eventually faced with the tough issues of critical scholarship. Because they have been given a robust view of inspiration, they will not have a crisis of faith when approached with these issues. That is my hope: that we can develop a view of inspiration that deals with, and combats, all of the issues that are raised by critical scholarship. It will not do to simply resort to the CSBI or the WCF, as both are inadequate in this instance.
So, what do we do? How do we understand the inerrancy, authority, and infallibility of our Bible in light of what our Bible actually is?
1 May 2008 at 4.16 pm
I think the immediate response would be, “God has kept the Bible pure by keeping our ability to understand its doctrine pure. The years of Saul’s reign does not affect our doctrine.”
1 May 2008 at 5.07 pm
As much as I agree with you that doctrine has been kept pure, neither the CSBI nor the WCF at these points are talking about “doctrine.” If they were, that would be a different story. But they are specifically talking about Scripture, which makes them, in my view, inadequate.
1 May 2008 at 5.46 pm
[...] Weird News – Strange, Funny, News of the Weird wrote an interesting post today on 1 sam 13.1 and inerrancyHere’s a quick excerpt1 sam 13.1 and inerrancy Posted on 1 May 2008 by aboulet This is something I have been thinking about for a while that might foster some conversation while I am away this weekend. The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy in III.E. states, “Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that [...]
1 May 2008 at 7.02 pm
Art,
I love your posts and your heart but are you not a little worried that in your desire to defend Dr. Enns you seem to be arguing for the errency of scripture? It seems to me a little bit (as an admitted Baptist outsider…) that your current tack is to defend Dr. Enn’s by attacking scripture. What I mean to say is that in some of your statements and in this post in particular you seem to be taking issues with scripture in a way that seems dangerous to me. Now I understand what you are trying to do, (and don’t I don’t even disagree with your conclusions necessarily) but I worry that what may indeed happen is that you will undermine others trust in scripture…others who may not understand the kind of nuanced arguments that you and Dr. Enns are making….
Just wondering…
1 May 2008 at 7.03 pm
note that the wink was supposed to close the parenthesis….
1 May 2008 at 7.11 pm
poop: This post has nothing to do with Enns. I have never even heard Enns talk about this issue.
I also never said anythings about errancy. I said I want an understanding of INERRANCY that is robust enough to deal with these issues.
As to undermining people’s trust in Scripture, 1 Sam 13.1 is in our Bible. We can’t ignore it. If we, as faithful evangelicals with a high view of Scripture, don’t bring up these issues and provide robust answers as to how this relates to inerrancy (while still holding onto inerrancy), are we really serving the church? Or are we shirking the tough questions and passing them off to “liberals” to explain?
I should not be faulted for quoting a verse of Scripture and raising questions, even uncomfortable questions.
1 May 2008 at 7.27 pm
[...] while I am away this weekend. The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy in III.E. states, ???Sinhttp://aboulet.wordpress.com/2008/05/01/1-sam-131-and-inerrancy/Bible Trivia Hot Springs Village Voice 1. Is the Song of Solomon in the old or New testament or [...]
1 May 2008 at 8.02 pm
Art,
Great blog. I will readily go on the record as one of those who tend to trust non-believing scholarship before I will trust the scholarship of conservative Christians.
As one who frequently gets into these discussions, I understand where you’re coming from. Questioning the doctrine of inerrancy by no means one is arguing for errancy. I realize you weren’t attempting to bring this discussion back to Dr. Enns, but his hermeneutic of incarnation honestly saved me from going off of the deep end with this. I’m still very skeptical of conservative scholarship, but Enns created a way for me to maintain integrity in scholarship without sacrificing the integrity of my faith.
As far as your questions at the end, I don’t see a need for us to make the inspiration and inerrancy synonymous. I believe that the Scriptures, as I currently have them, have been divinely protected to assure that I have precisely what God wants me to have. If there are ‘errors’, then they are there by God’s intentional decision. I tend to look at inspiration as a collaborative effort between God and man, where he started the thought process and then put his stamp of approval on the end result. I got the idea from Bruegemann’s ‘The Psalms of Life and Faith’ and it seems very congruent with the way the Scriptures are constructed and were created.
Earl
1 May 2008 at 8.53 pm
Art et. al.,
In thinking about this issue, and reading the blog and comments… I have been wondering, how do we, with such a robust view of scripture, being aware of issues such as this… how do we interact with those among us who have a simple faih, and do not understand such positions? I am thinking mainly in line with my fundamentalist background, and the fact that I still have close connections, and fond relationships with people who are still in this camp. I am not saying that these people are not able to comprehend such a view, but they currently see no need for such a view in their reading of scripture.
With my future looming before me, and my desire to teach in a secular religions department addressing these issues, this is a good time to think through these issues, but the classroom and the kitchen are two completely different places. So how do I assure those in the kitchen that what I teach and believe in the classroom is actually adequate and appropriate? I can see a lot of burned bridges ahead in my future… I pray God puts out the fires!
2 May 2008 at 12.07 am
RE: Enns, I am sorry I have not read “I and I” but my assumption here (I know what happens when one assumes) was that you would argue that incarnational theology solves the problems outlined above.
Also: Here is the nice thing about being a Baptist…we really don’t give a frick what the WCF says. Athough I personally agree with much of it. The Bible is our authority…watching the current Westminster debate makes me glad of that I think.
Also again: I will go out on a limb and argue for functional purity of scripture…it seems to me the foolish God who has the power to inspire but lacks the strength or will to sustain…I don’t see this I guess as the same problem you do. We don’t have the original autographs, this is true but the character of God would necessitate that they were without error. Now you argue that there is no value in arguing for the characteristics of that which does not exist, but I would say that there is much value, perhaps not for the doctrine of scripture but certainly for the doctrine of God. (if he is true…)
Anyhoo, Have fun in Ohio…
D
2 May 2008 at 12.08 am
fricken wink thing again…crap why am I having such trouble closing parenthesis
2 May 2008 at 7.23 am
This is a circular debate. Scripture is infallible not inerrant as they are many errors in scripture. Infallible means that what scripture teaches is true since it is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
When we get into the modernist (and dated) debate on whether or not scripture is inerrant, I would say no but that it is infallible and thus authorative for life and faith.
I hate to say to you narrow-minded Evangelicals: Scripture is not pure in the sense that it is not without errors. Scripture is most definitely infallible but it will NEVR be inerrant. NEVER.
2 May 2008 at 8.01 am
I have to agree with Doc Ock on the infallible vs. inerrant thing. I’m not quite as down on inerrancy, since I think we might be able to come up with a workable definition, but inerrancy as traditionally defined in conservative circles is certainly not accurate.
Having said that, I think that any argument that sees scripture as inerrant based on the character of God isn’t quite right (sorry poop). I see where people are coming from with this, but I just don’t see the support for it in Scripture. It becomes a bit circular as well, “The Bible is inerrant because God speaks only truth,” “How do you know God speaks only truth?” “Because the Bible says so…” see?
I’ll also say that I think this is an extremely important discussion. I agree with Art when he says that arguing for the inerrancy of something which we do not have is a somewhat worthless proposition. Thanks for getting the ball rolling on this excellent discussion Art.
2 May 2008 at 9.22 am
Hi Art:
Excellent post. A few weeks ago, I initiated a similar discussion over at Conn-versation regarding Judges 1:14, and Achsah’s posture vis a vis the donkey. It was unfortunately nuked in the blowup there, but will hopefully reappear soon. At any rate, the point was that the LXX has Achsah seated on the donkey while addressing Caleb rather petulently, whereas the MT has her dismount, and speak more respectfully. So which is the inerrant version, and what do we say about the other?
In my experience, committed inerrantists tend to keep their arguments top down and quite general, and are very uncomfortable with these kinds of specific textual issues which beg answers. It’s up to those of us who spend time in the textual weeds to keep the questions flowing. Perhaps one day, the doctrine will get the major overhaul it needs.
2 May 2008 at 3.12 pm
I am grateful for this conversation because it brings to the foreground the insufficiency of the typical evangelical understanding of Scripture (see the ETS doctrinal statement: that Scripture is inerrant in the OG autographs). I’m afraid that I would disagree with poop about the usefulness of discussing the OG autographs. It seems to me that ‘hypothesizing’ about these non-existent manuscripts usually does more harm than good.
I hope this discussion helps us all nuance our view of Scripture. I think we should focus more on how the Bible is authoritative and normative for our lives, then whether there is the ‘hypothetical’ possibility that the OG (again non-existent) manuscripts could have had an error. Anyway, my two cents.
2 May 2008 at 8.39 pm
My inclination is to always first go and look at the history of interpretation.
From what I can tell, prior to the late 19th century there didn’t seem to be any widespread awareness of a textual difficulty here in 1 Sam 13:1, though there were a variety of interpretative proposals for what the text means.
So, question: What reason do we have for thinking that the MT doesn’t give us the correct reading?
Now, granted, the verse doesn’t appear in the LXX at all. So perhaps that points to an awareness of a textual difficulty very early on. Or perhaps it’s simply part of the variant textual tradition we find in the LXX, 4QSa, etc. – which raises difficulties of its own in terms of “autographa.”
Still, it isn’t just obvious that the MT has a problem here.
2 May 2008 at 10.25 pm
Joel: How can the MT reading be correct if it leaves words out?
3 May 2008 at 9.41 am
garver:
Also, my understanding is that inerrancy, as often described today is an invention of the 18th or 19th centuries. I could be inaccurate on that, and don’t have the required texts close at hand to check it. Nevertheless, I’m simply not sure that we can rule something out because it is “new.” Beyond that, I think the LXX clearly shows that the issue in 1 Sam. 13.1 has been known for quite a while.
3 May 2008 at 4.43 pm
Why should we think the MT leaves words out?
And, Calvin, I’m not suggesting that “new” is bad or should be ruled out. But when there’s a history of interpretation available, it’s worth considering.
The question of how the modern notion of inerrancy evolved is an interesting one, but I’m not sure it’s relevance to my question.
3 May 2008 at 4.57 pm
Joel: How do you translate 1 Sam 13.1?
3 May 2008 at 5.15 pm
Admittedly, my Hebrew is rusty (it’s been 14 years), but I’d be inclined to translate it:
“A son of a year was Saul when he reigned and two years he reigned over Israel”
Or, in better English:
“Saul was a son of a year when he became king and he reigned two years over Israel.”
3 May 2008 at 8.32 pm
So, according to your reading garver, Saul was one years old when he became king, he ruled for two years, being deposed or dying at age 3?
Doesnt this seem very odd, considering all the rest of the narrative about Saul doing things like leading armies and offering burnt offerings and such. (sarcasm kindly implied)
I am sure Im missing something about your translation. Can you clarify?
Nick
3 May 2008 at 8.55 pm
Let me throw this quote at you. I used it in a post of my own in a series I did on inerrancy.
“Many evangelical theologians distinguish between “infallibility” and “inerrancy” and argue that Scripture can be and is inspired and authoritative for faith and practice, while being flawed in terms of accuracy of details in history and cosmology. Its infallibility, then, is functional – it does not fail to communicate truth about God needed for salvation and Christian living. Other Christian theologians insist that inerrancy is necessarily implied by inspiration and infallibility. They argue that if Scripture is to be trustworthy at all, it must be inerrant in every detail.”
(Roger. E. Olson. The Westminster Handbook of Evangelical Theology. Westminster John Knox Press. 2004. 155)
I’ve come to the conclusion that inerrancy is a matter of conscience, and this quote shows why. It’s disputed among theologians, and it seems that being liberal or conservative makes no difference in the matter. The evidence and theological stances can go both ways equally.
4 May 2008 at 9.51 am
This seems a bit of a distraction from Art’s original point, which had to do with the notions of “autographs” and “purity” in relation to the text of scripture, which is a discussion we can still have whatever one does with 1 Sam 13:1.
As for that text, it seems the translation is pretty straightforward (with one ambiguity, to which I’ll return below). The question, then, is what it could possibly mean.
On that point there isn’t any unanimity in the history of interpretation, though there are some broad commonalities. The sentence seems presents two puzzling points: first, that Saul was a “son of a year” when he reigned and, second, that he reigned for “two years” over Israel.
Regarding the first half, interpreters differ.
One possibility is offered by the Targum Yonatan, which reads the passage as as saying that “just like a year old child, in whom there are no faults, was Saul when he began to reign.”
But in general, interpreters go in another direction, taking the “son of a year” to refer to a period of time in Saul’s life prior to the events recorded in 1 Sam 13.
Among these interpretations, some take the verse to be saying that Saul had already reigned for one year, his coronation as king marking a sort of birthday for him and for Israel as a kingdom. The difficulty here is that the verb form here, “in his reigning” elsewhere clearly means “began to reign.”
Most other interpreters, therefore, look back a year in Saul’s life and associate his being a “son of a year” with an earlier event: his anointing, his change of heart, his election at Mizpah, his renewal of kingship at Gilgal, or this entire month-long complex of events taken as a whole, having occurred about a year prior to the events of 1 Sam 13.
In the midst of those events, some interpreters point out the riddle-like interchange among the onlookers when Saul prophesies: “What has come over the son of Kish? Is Saul among the prophets?” To which a man answers, “And who is a father to them?” (10:11-12). The implication here is that, as part of his anointing as king and in preparation for battle, Saul had be “re-born” into the company of prophets and filled with the Spirit, a true son of Samuel and of God. Saul’s being a “son of a year,” then, would refer back to this event, a year prior.
Regarding the second half, there are two primary possilibities.
One possibility is that the verse is not a self-contained sentence, but rather is attached to the following verse. If that’s the case, then the verse might have the sense of, “Saul was a son of year when he began to reign and having reigned over Israel for two years, Saul choose 3000 out of Israel…” Thus the events that follow happen two years into Saul’s reign.
Other interpreters take the statement on its own, as stating that Saul only reigned two years. Now, obviously, he reigned much longer, through a variety of battles and events and various high priests – for 40 years according to Josephus (Antiquities) and Acts 13:21. But the point of the verse would be that only two years of that reign were fully legitimate in the sight of God.
Thus, the verse suggests that the events of the following chapters, leading up to God’s rejection of Saul as king in 1 Sam 15 and the anointing of David, occurred over a period of two years. The end of two years marked the end of Saul’s reign, when God said through Samuel: “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this very day, and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you” (15:28).
Now, in the late 19th century, it became increasingly common to suggest that there is a textual problem in 1 Samuel 13, rather than a hermeneutical problem. In general, interpreters saw problem with the first half (“son of a year”) prior to seeing one in the second half (“reigned two years”). Thus Jamieson-Fausset-Brown suggest a textual problem with the first half, but not second. Likewise, the 1917 JPS Tanach places an ellipsis in the first have, but allows the second half to stand as it appears in the MT.
So, it seems to me that if we are going to suggest that things like certain methods of harmonization, over-attachment to autographa, and so forth, betray modernist assumptions, then perhaps we need to push such a critique further and ask whether certain questions about the text also betray modernist assumptions of what the text “ought” to look like.
After all, even if, in some sense, something is “missing” here in 1 Sam 13:1, we don’t know the nature of that “error.” The text represented by MT seems to go back quite far. Perhaps the orginal author of Samuel was copying something over from a corrupted source which, in the providence of God, allows for intriguing hermeneutical possibilities. Perhaps an early (divinely-inspired?) redactor was filling out historical details from another source and simply wove in a text with problems. Is the LXX, which leaves out 1 Sam 13:1, an attempt to correct a problem that didn’t make sense to the LXX translators? Or does the LXX simply bear witness to another manuscript tradition (perhaps the one in 4QSa) that pre-dates the type of (redacted?) manuscript that’s preserved in the MT?
Obviously, I don’t know that answers to any of those questions. And I’m not sure that it matters. In the providence of God, we have the MT of 1 Sam 13:1 and, as far as I know, we have zero manuscript evidence of any other reading. So why should we discern a difficulty in the text rather than, with our pre-modern forebears, see it as an interesting, open-ended, and fruitful hermeneutical puzzle?
5 May 2008 at 2.32 pm
I agree with Nathan here. Although what remains in the text does provide ground for some fun interpretive choices, the one that clearly comes across as being the most sound is that the text has been corrupted. This is seen not only in the ESV and NRSV translations, but also in the NIV, which simply inserts numbers instead of following what the text actually says (which means, at least in this specific instance, it is not even a translation).
I completely see the benefit of looking at the history of interpretation before rash interpretive decisions are made. Any decision to depart from that history should have some solid ground to stand on. I think the textual issue, in this instance, provides that solid ground.
5 May 2008 at 2.26 pm
The problem with the history of interpretation that you have summarized is that it is characterized by trying to make the text say something it doesn’t say. Rather than the translation being straightforward, as you claim, this history demonstrates that for hundreds of years interpreters have struggled to make sense of a passage that is itself nonsense. The idiom ben shanah means ‘one year old.’ No where in the BHS does it mean ‘one year earlier,’ nor does it ever refer to a born-again experience or the time since a king’s coronation (arguments that suggest as much are examples of special pleading and anachronism). If you could supply an example from post-biblical Hebrew that would establish another meaning for this idiom, I would be interested to hear it. The inability to make sense of the Hebrew of this verse is sufficient evidence for its textual corruption, and I applaud the ESV’s handling of it.
5 May 2008 at 4.42 pm
Nathan, perhaps I was confusing. Let me try to clarify.
I didn’t suggest that the history of interpretation takes “son of a year” lexically to mean “one year earlier” or the like. Of course it translates as “one year old.” The issue isn’t translation (or lexical meaning), but interpretation (or contextual meaning), or however you wish to draw that distinctions. Your comment seems to conflate these two different senses of a text’s “meaning.”
All that’s to say, the question is whether saying “Saul was one year old when he began to reign” can be taken figuratively.
Based on the context, it’s obviously not literal but it’s not obviously nonsense either (especially given that Saul became a son of a new father about a year prior). So either the text is corrupt or it’s figurative (or both, if a redactor let a corrupt text stand because a figurative meaning seemed possible).
I’m sure we can all imagine ways in which expressions of chronological age could be used figuratively: “He’s an infant when it comes to philosophical insight.” “She is a mere 5 year old in her German skills.”
So I think the interpretive question is whether we find anything of that sort elsewhere in the OT or other ancient Semitic literature. Figurative use of numbers, even of time periods, certainly isn’t unknown. The question, then, would have to focus on figurative use of ages, relative to a genre like Samuel-Kings. And I admit readily that I really don’t know enough to say one way or another.
Also, it seems worth pointing out that hundreds of years of interpretive struggles do not, in themselves, suggest anything about a text except that it’s meaning is obscure. After all, there are all sorts of biblical texts that are difficult to understand, where no one suggests that the problem is textual.
So pointing out an inability to come to consensus on the interpretation of the text is not an argument for textual corruption apart from other clues – variant manuscript traditions, cases of dittography, possible cases of confusion between similar looking letters, etc. Since we really don’t have any other such clues in this instance, we have considerably less to go on.
Furthermore, even if there is a textual problem with the first part of the verse, that doesn’t entail that there is one in the second half – concerning the “two years” of Saul’s reign. The explanations offered for the “two years” might well be reasonable.
And I’m not saying that the text is not corrupt, just that it is not obviously corrupt. I don’t know for sure whether it’s corrupt and don’t think it much matters. But I’m not quite so obsessed with getting back to the “autograph” as some might be.
5 May 2008 at 8.10 pm
Well, since my last two comments were a bit off-topic, let me say a couple things about the main points of Art’s post, setting aside the textual issues of 1 Samuel 13:1.
Having read Art’s post on “questioning” and being “defensive,” I’ll begin by noting that I’m not trying to be “defensive” in what follows. Anyone who knows me knows that I’m quite open to questioning received opinions on things. But, as a philosopher and college professor, I’m also fairly keen to make sure questioning emerges out of some degree of charity, especially where deference is due, so that a classic text is given the best reading it can bear before it is critically scrutinized.
In that light, I don’t really see the same problems as Art does here with regard to either the CSBI or the WCF, though I find the WCF more congenial in several respects than the CSBI.
Regarding the CSBI, it states that “only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired,” but doesn’t hold to inerrancy in the transmission of those texts. Elsewhere the CSBI says that “inspiration, strictly speaking” only applies to the the autographic originals.
Now, I don’t share Art’s qualms about this – his “what good does that do?” question – since, as a general principle, there may be compelling reasons for asserting that an object possesses a particular characteristic, even if we don’t have any direct access to that object. Thus, in science, one often posits the existence of something and attributes qualities to it, even if there is no way at present to prove its existence, because it has some kind of explanatory value. Or one may posit something about the Sitz im Leben of a text, even though we have no direct access to that original setting because it helps explain features of the text we are attempting to interpret.
So the question here, with regard to the CSBI, would be the explanatory value of positing the existence of inspired original texts. It seems to me that the explanatory value lies in the relationship between the texts we do have and the original texts. If the original “autographic” texts are inspired, then insofar as the text we have represents continuity with the original texts, both in transmission and in translation, then (as the CSBI elsewhere says) we “have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within [our] reach.”
Now, it seems to me that there are still two sorts problems with the section of the CSBI that Art quoted.
First, when the CSBI says that “only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired,” it would seem to suggest that what we encounter as the scriptures is not inspired, at least strictly speaking. And that seems troubling. Yet if, as the CSBI maintains, the “true Word of God is within our reach” through translations, then how can that “true Word” be anything but an inspired Word of God? And if even translations have the character of inspiration in some degree, then how much more the original language manuscripts that are the basis for translation?
Here’s where the WCF might be a help to the CSBI, with the WCF’s implicit distinction between “immediate” and “mediate” inspiration. Thus, while only the “autographic” original text (to use the terminology of the CSBI) may be “immediately inspired,” the transmitted manuscripts and even our translations are “mediately inspired.” That is to say, insofar as they accurately communicate the original, derivative texts have the character of inspiration conferred upon them by their relation to and mediated by the immediately inspired originals.
As William Lyford – a member of the Westminster Assembly – wrote:
If this is true of translations, then how much more so the case with the transmission of texts in the original languages. Thus, the WCF’s emphasis on the immediate inspiration of the original text, rather than placing a distance between us and the God-breathed text of scripture, is designed to assure us that the scriptures we hear and read partake derivatively, yet truly, of that same inspiration.
Second, when the CSBI speaks of the “autographic” text of scripture, the term could be misleading. While this use of the term “autograph” with reference to the original text of scripture goes back to at least the 17th century, it seems to imply the notion of a single, individual author, composing a text so that, at the end of the process of composition, an “autograph” has been produced. But this is overly simplistic.
The letters of Paul, for instance, are often in the name of Paul and at least one companion, whose role in the composition of the letters is unknown. Moreover, it is clear from the closing greetings that Paul made use of an amanuensis whose role in shaping the vocabulary and diction of his letters is unknown. Other parts of scripture appear to involve complex histories of compilation, editing, and redaction. And the collecting together of diverse materials into a single book such as the Psalms and Proverbs, or perhaps some of the prophets, involve layers of authorial shaping. In all these ways, using language that implies a single, individual author producing an “autograph” is problematic.
Certainly, we may use the term “autograph” in a looser, stretchier way – to refer to all stages of the inspired biblical text insofar as it was authoritative in the life of God’s people as it progressed towards a more final, canonical form, as well as that more final form itself. But when arriving at that point, it might be better to develop a clearer, richer notion of what “original text” means than “autograph” might suggest.
Enough with the CSBI. Turning to WCF 1.8, I think it’s important to take it in its original 17th century context.
The point of the WCF here, as far as I can discern based upon the original context, is not to maintain a doctrine of “pure” textual transmission that would exclude the kinds of textual problems one might find in 1 Samuel 13:1 and elsewhere. 17th century theologians were well aware of textual variants and the like (as were their medieval predecessors, as is clear from the commentaries of figures such as Aquinas). Indeed, the 16th and 17th centuries saw the production of various early critical editions of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, working with the best available evidence, attempting to resolve various issues of textual variation.
Rather, it seems to me that the WCF is setting itself against its understanding of the Council of Trent and certain sorts of Roman Catholic claims for the uniquely “authentical” character of the Latin Vulgate. Many Roman Catholic scholars maintained, for instance, that Jerome had access to Greek and Hebrew texts that were of greater antiquity than the texts available to the 16th and 17th century church, and therefore the texts Jerome possessed were more reliable, pure, and authentic. Thus Jerome’s Vulgate translation was to be trusted over the Greek and Hebrew texts that were becoming available as an object of study during the Renaissance and thereafter, which, in the view of some Roman Catholic theologians, were impure and corrupt by comparison.
Furthermore, the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent stated:
Now contemporary Roman Catholic theologians will dispute whether or not Trent meant to declare the Vulgate the only authentic text of scripture and the only final appeal in theological controversies. Nonetheless, that is how Trent was understood in the 17th century by both Roman Catholic and Protestant theologians and how the state of discussion was passed along (through figures such as William Whitaker) to the Westminster Assembly.
Thus, it seems to me that, rather than ignoring issues of textual transmission and variation, the WCF is affirming that we should rightly turn to the available Hebrew and Greek texts of scripture – rather than to the Vulgate – in order to determine matters of theological controversy, making use of the best manuscript evidence we have available to us and not simply assuming that Jerome had better manuscripts available to him simply because he lived longer ago than we do. Through study of the manuscript evidence, we can be assured that our results will be as “pure” as anything Jerome possessed and, indeed, very likely more so.
If anything, then, WCF 1.8 is an affirmation of just the sort of close, critical textual study that Art seems to want to embrace. Such study is justified because, we are assured by the WCF, God has preserved for us original language manuscripts that are substantially correct and, through study, provide us with the resources we need to access the original Word of God with greater purity and accuracy than even Jerome.
As a side note, I suspect that when the WCF speaks of the OT “in Hebrew,” the term “Hebrew” here is inclusive of Aramaic (or what they called “Chaldee” in the 17th century), as a language of the Hebrew people. After all, a 17th century “Hebraist” such as John Lightfoot also had expertise in Aramaic. Our contemporary taxonomy of languages is rather different from those prior to the 19th century. This, of course, doesn’t explain why the CSBI still speaks only in terms of “Hebrew and Greek.”
At any rate, just some comments. Hope they’re helpful.
6 May 2008 at 12.18 am
Joel: Your comment is very helpful. BTW, my last post on defensive postures was not aimed at you AT ALL. I always find your comments very well tempered and helpful in the conversation. I just didn’t want you thinking that I was going after you in some passive-aggressive kind of way. That was not my aim AT ALL.
6 May 2008 at 6.30 am
In the King James Version, it reads:
“Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel,…”
The corresponding Matthew Henry Commentary:
“Saul reigned one year, and nothing particular happened; but in his second year the events recorded in this chapter took place. ”
I think the King James Version, which was the main English translation before the new translations, are translated from inerrant Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. All other modern translations use a different set (supposedly better, but are they really?).
God bless,
George
6 May 2008 at 7.55 am
Hey Art, I didn’t take your comments to be directed at me, but thought it best to be clear for purposes of general audience, etc.
13 May 2008 at 5.10 pm
[...] Nature of Scripture: See 1 Samuel 13:1 in the hands of angry inerrantists and 1 sam 13.1 and inerrancy at finitum non capax [...]