The Divine Authenticity of Scripture: Critical Review 3

The Inerrancy of the Autographa?

I refused to support the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy for a number of years because A) I hadn’t looked into it enough, and B) I didn’t understand why the inerrancy of the autographa (original manuscripts of the Bible) really mattered, since we don’t have them anyway. And, wasn’t “inerrancy” just a fundamentalist invention to try and force Christians into buying young earth creationism and literalistic interpretations of Revelation?

I obviously had no idea what I was talking about. But after several years, and a few recent months of research on the subject, my views changed (I suppose this isn’t surprisings since I’m still in my ‘formative years’). One particularly influential essay was Greg Bahnsen’s “The Inerrancy of the Autographa,” found in the official ICBI publication Inerrancy. It never occurred to me to ask “how does Jesus and how do the people of God treat the Bible – as manuscripts that came from autographs?” Bahnsen’s rigorously biblical approach compelled me to look deeper into the issue, and finally to realize the significance of the autographs. It simply never occurred to me to ask, “What does the Bible have to say about itself?” The great Presbyterian scholar John Murray gave some wisdom on this a number of years ago:

“If the Bible does not witness to its own infallibility, then we have no right to believe that it is infallible. If it does bear witness to its infallibility then our faith in it must rest upon that witness, however much difficulty may be entertained with this belief. If this position with respect to the ground of faith in Scripture is abandoned, then appeal to the Bible for the ground of faith in any other doctrine must also be abandoned. The doctrine of Scripture must be elicited from the Scripture just as any other doctrine should be. If the doctrine of Scripture is denied its right of appeal to Scripture for support, then what right does any other doctrine have to make this appeal?” – 1946, John Murray

So, what does the Scripture teach in regards to manuscripts, autographs, and distinctions (whether in authority/function etc.) between the two?

Bahnsen, Inerrancy, and Scripture

Bahnsen argues that “Present copies function authoritatively because they are viewed as reflecting the autographa correctly… The sufficiency of a copy is proportionate to its accurate reflection of the original,” (this is an extremely small list of references for Bahnsen’s argument, but a few might be helpful: Exodus 32, 34, Jer. 36:1-32, Deut. 17-18, John 10:34-36 and quote of Psalm 82:6, etc.). Copies of the autographs have “functional authority,” so that we can call them “Scripture” and “the Word of God.” Jesus never had the autographs any more than we did, and yet he referred to copies of the original as “the Word of God” and as having authority for the church. We don’t “need” the autographs today. Scripture is also clear, however, that, since the autographs certainly contain original and therefore the most pure form of the autographic text, they carry the most weight and alone have the divine attribute of total “inerrancy.” The present copies of the Bible today, which (as far as textual scholars like Kurt Aland, James R. White, etc. are concerned) contain the autographic text (+ additions, more on this later), are tethered to the originals for that reason. That is the biblical position of the autographs.

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. (Inerrancy, 163-4)

Keep in mind the difference between the autographs (physical papyri) and the autographic text (the text on the papyri). Bahnsen continues:

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. (Inerrancy)

James Scott agrees in a 2009 Westminster Theological Journal article:

Although we generally equate our Bibles with Scripture, we must recognize that, strictly speaking, our Bibles are Scripture only to the extent that they accurately represent the inspired text (II Tim. 3:16). – James W. Scott, Reconsidering Inerrancy, 194

Thus, A) there are degrees of inerrancy, since we’re talking about letters, words, text, and the comparison between texts, and B) there is a distinction between the autographic text and the autographic codex.

In summary, Bahnsen makes a compelling argument for:

• There are degrees of inerrancy.
• There is a difference between autographs and autographic text.
• The Scriptures teach that copies and their authority are “tethered” to the originals.
• The Scriptures teach that the authority of copies is sufficient for the church, so that Jesus and others can refer to errant copies of Scripture as “Scripture” and “the Word of God.”

McGowan’s (Attempted) Refutation of the Above Argument

McGowan’s treatment of Greg Bahnsen’s essay “The Inerrancy of the Autographa” in The Divine Authenticity of Scripture is inadequate. In essence, he dismisses its primary thrust.

McGowan quotes Bahnsen saying that textual variation is not a problem with inerrancy, since the attribute of inerrancy only (strictly) applies to the autographs. Then, McGowan responds to this assertion, “This is a curious argument, which implies that God has no further interest in, nor control over, the biblical texts after the autographa have been produced,” (The Divine Authenticity, 110).

This is simply untrue. Textual variation and its general irrelevance with the doctrine of inerrancy in no way “implies that God has no further interest in, nor control over, the biblical texts after the autographa have been produced.” Just because God gives priority to one project (inscripturation) doesn’t mean he has “no further interest in, nor control over,” another (transmission). Is not God permitted to have distinctions within His control over the universe? Can He not sovereignly choose to produce single autographic codices and preserve that autographic text through fallible copies that contain variations?

Surely He can, and surely He did. Kurt and Barbara Aland’s works, Daniel Wallace’s work, and James R. White’s opening presentation in his debate with Bart Ehrman make it superbly clear that, frankly, God has a remarkable interest in preserving the original text of the Bible throughout the ages. In fact, White said:

…Think about these handwritten papyri written by persecuted believers, slated for destruction by the decree of Caesar himself, and yet despite 250 years of persecution and the destruction of countless copies, this body of writings the New Testament today boasts the broadest and earliest manuscript tradition of any comparable ancient writing. You’ll forgive me, please, for seeing in this the very hand of God Himself. – James R. White, opening statements, Does the Bible MisQuote Jesus? (2009)

The very providence of God undoubtedly permeated the transmission of the manuscript copies. God – who is sovereign over all things – had all control, not “no control” – over the transmission of the Bible. But He chose to preserve the autographic text through fallible human beings and amidst textual variation.

Now, as Christians, we can say, “OK, let’s get to work on textual criticism like faithful believers to pare away the variants and get to the original,” or, we can say, “Forget this. God should have preserved manuscripts without variation if He really cared about the church. I’m leaving Christianity,” like Bart Ehrman. Whatever the case, it is simply unfortunate that McGowan inserts a false implication into the position he is critiquing.

The next thing McGowan says is, “Bahnsen even tries to insist that this is the view of Scripture itself [copies are tethered to originals]…It is difficult to see any evidence for this assertion, and I am not at all persuaded by the references he presents in the pages following,” (110).

“Even tries to insist that this was the view of Scripture itself”? I’m not sure why McGowan puts it this way… “this” is the entire point of Bahnsen’s essay! McGowan presents Bahnsen’s entire argument as if it’s just a tidbit attached on to some other larger enterprise. The reverse is true. Bahnsen provides over 12 pages of Scriptural exposition regarding the Bible’s position on the autographs, copies, and distinctions between the two. He provides over a half-dozen arguments from dozens of Scriptural texts. This is the meat, the very essence of Bahnsen’s essay. McGowan simply chooses not to engage it. Indeed, McGowan does not address a single one of the Scriptural arguments in the 12 pages of Bahnsen’s primary argumentation.

So to say, “It is difficult to see any evidence for this assertion” is to say “I haven’t read Bahnsen’s main argument,” or simply “I’ve read Bahnsen’s main argument but I don’t want to deal with it at all because it refutes my beliefs.”

McGowan then turns around and makes objections that Bahnsen specifically addressed in those 12 pages, saying:

“Must we assume that problems like this did not exist in the autographa or that explanations are forthcoming for all of them? It is also surely the case that the amount of time required to defend the inerrancy of biblical statements that appear to be conflict with each other or with other well-established facts is neither justified nor profitable. After all, if God is able to use the errant copies (manuscripts, translations, editions) that we do have, in order to do his work, why invest so much theological capital in hypothetical originals we do not have?” 113

Nowhere in Scripture itself is there a claim to the kind of autographic inerrancy Warfield taught. Those who advocate inerrancy might well (and do) argue that it is a legitimate and natural implication of the doctrine of divine spiration, but they cannot argue that inerrancy is itself taught in Scripture. 114

Unfortunate, indeed. McGowan pretends as if Greg Bahnsen’s essay simply does not exist.

Regarding this first quote of McGowan (page 113), James Scott responds concisely:

McGowan then asks: “Must we assume that problems like this did not exist in the autographa or that explanations can be forthcoming for all of them?” The answer is yes. We “assume” it because it is a necessary consequence of the Bible being the word of God and therefore truthful and self-consistent. Actually, there are relatively few instances in which an appeal to a variant reading is helpful in solving the apparent conflicts in the parallel accounts of the Synoptic Gospels, and extremely few in which an appeal to a presumably lost original reading would seem to be appropriate—but that possibility must always be considered. In the overwhelming number of cases, it is rather the case that “explanations can be forthcoming” from a careful analysis of the precise meaning of the texts in question.
Not satisfied to raise doubts regarding the historical accuracy of the gospel narratives, McGowan goes on to say that “the amount of time required to defend the inerrancy of biblical statements that appear to be in conflict with each other or with other well-established facts is neither justified nor profitable.” Only someone who believes that there are errors in the Bible and wants to gloss over it, or someone who does not care whether we know what is true and what is false in it, would make such a statement belittling those who have studied the Scriptures deeply and reverently in an effort to ascertain the harmony of their teachings. If God can accomplish his work using “errant copies,” McGowan asks in conclusion, “why invest so much theological capital in hypothetical originals we do not have?” But the originals are not hypothetical; we have, to a remarkable extent, the text of the originals. We focus on that text because we distinguish between the word of God and all human corruptions of it. We invest “theological capital” in harmonizing the Scriptures and defending their accuracy, in historical as well as in doctrinal matters, because that is necessary in order to determine the whole counsel of God and to give confidence to people that Scripture is the reliable word of God. – Scott, Reconsidering Inerrancy, 195-196