# Why not having the autographs is OK



## sotzo (Aug 1, 2008)

Why is it OK that we don't have the original autographs? 

It seems to me even if we had them, most of us could not understand them anyway without them being translated to our native tongue, thus moving from the infallible autographs to a translation.

Secondly, even if we (by "we" I mean people like me, rather than some of you seasoned Greek / Hebrew linguists llike Metzger, et al), we would still be subjective interpreters of the text...not advocating a relativistic interpretation grid here...just that we are, after all, not able to objectively grasp the truths of an infallible text in a way that is commensurate with their force as infallible.

Thoughts? I am trying to sort through what the implications would be of actually hacing the autographs and what that would mean practically for our Christian lives.


----------



## larryjf (Aug 1, 2008)

I would have to agree that the original texts would not make a difference practically.

If they would make the Church better, then one would have to ask why God kept them from the Church.

The search for the original, non-existent text is a paradigm shift.
Instead of receiving the infallible (meaning not able to fail) Word of God that the Church has been entrusted with (as the pillar and ground of the truth), the shift is to search out and discover the inerrant (meaning without error) text.


----------



## Davidius (Aug 1, 2008)

The point of the issue raised by our lack of the autographs is that we want to know how close the manuscripts we have are to the ones that were actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, et al. It's not so much a question of interpretation. Laying that aside, the new critics are saying that we can't even be sure that the content in the texts we have today matches what Luke actually wrote.


----------



## Kim G (Aug 1, 2008)

Davidius said:


> The new critics are saying that we can't even be sure that the content in the texts we have today matches what Luke actually wrote.



I was an English Literature major and read books by Homer, Plato, Sophocles, Aristotle, Euclid, Socrates, Aesop, Euripides, Virgil, etc. In many cases, we have only two or three incomplete manuscripts for their works, yet no one doubts that we are reading the words of those men. Yet having over 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament isn't enough for us to know that we have the true words of Luke, Paul, etc.?


----------



## Poimen (Aug 1, 2008)

They might become idols to us (as argued by John Frame).


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 1, 2008)

As I understand textual criticism, we do have the autographa contained in the texts that we have. Because textual criticism isn't perfect and never will be, we haven't settled on exactly what the autographa is, within the textual variants, but don't we say that it's in there? It seems like an overstatement to say flatly, "We don't have the autographa." I know of no textual variant that changes a biblical teaching. Many, if not most, variants are easy to spot as scribal emendations. Some are quite obvious (e.g. the three witnesses). The variants have never been a problem for me. The quality of the NT text far surpasses any other such text in our possession, as I think someone else already suggested. Fear not: we have the Word of God in the original languages and we have the Word of God in faithful translations.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Aug 1, 2008)

The fact that the autographa was inerrant is the motive for textual criticism. The details of the textual variants among the existing manuscripts is the focus of textual criticism. This is a scholarly task. But we shouldn't let the existence of textual variants and scholarly concerns "make a mountain out of a mole hill." In spite of the very minor differences, e.g. between the TR and Critical texts, we have the Word of God.


----------



## R Harris (Aug 1, 2008)

Poimen said:


> They might become idols to us (as argued by John Frame).



I would agree, sort of like the Ark of the Covenant, Noah's Ark, or any other Biblical artifact. God would not want us wasting time with such things, and if He in His will wants an artifact discovered, then it will be.


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 1, 2008)

Davidius said:


> The point of the issue raised by our lack of the autographs is that we want to know how close the manuscripts we have are to the ones that were actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, et al. It's not so much a question of interpretation. Laying that aside, the new critics are saying that we can't even be sure that the content in the texts we have today matches what Luke actually wrote.



This is something of a caricature. One must make allowances for textual critics who are deciding to overstate their case so that they can justify their own jobs. Most evangelical critics are much closer to what Scott Clark said. Even the liberal ones would not claim that the NT text is worse than Homer, Aristotle, etc., but rather much better.


----------



## larryjf (Aug 1, 2008)

R. Scott Clark said:


> As I understand textual criticism, we do have the autographa contained in the texts that we have. Because textual criticism isn't perfect and never will be, we haven't settled on exactly what the autographa is, within the textual variants, but don't we say that it's in there?



To say that the autographa is contained in the apographa, but that we can't get to it because textual criticism isn't perfect, is not much different from saying that we don't have the autographa from a practical standpoint.

Besides, how can we know that the textual critical methods that are being employed yield a text closer to the autographa? Without having it available all methods put a heavy weight on their own presuppositions.


----------



## larryjf (Aug 1, 2008)

R Harris said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> > They might become idols to us (as argued by John Frame).
> ...



Perhaps the autographs have already become an idol of the modern Church. We do spend a great deal of time focusing on them. If idol can be used in the sense of vanity, i would suggest that is exactly what is happening...after all, most seem to concur that the autographical text wouldn't contradict anything that we already have in our Scripture...so why all the focus on rediscovering the autographa...it won't make Christians any more pious.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Aug 2, 2008)

larryjf said:


> R Harris said:
> 
> 
> > Poimen said:
> ...



The argument over the "autographs", as I understand it, results in a shift in the locus of the Authority. The idea of "Sola Scriptura" as a known and knowable Authority becomes theoretical and in practice that authority shifts to the textual critics who mediate God's Word in the perpetually changing texts. The unity of Protestantism has been shattered.

As a result Protestantism which championed the doctrine of Sola Scriptura against a Church Magisterium has returned to the same principle in a scholarly magisterium. The result has been a drastic alteration in both the public and private reverence of Scripture as God's Word.

The quest for this ideal non-existent text has become the "holy grail" of the modern Church, not so much an idol, but the mitre and scepter of the Kingdom.


----------



## sotzo (Aug 2, 2008)

Good stuff from all...I gather from this thread that the answers to the questions in my OP are:

1. Yes, even if we had the autographa (not contained within a translation, but the actual documents themselves), they would need to be translated into different languages, thus the autographa would, in practice, only be available to those who could read greek/ hebrew.

2. And yes, even for those that could read the greek / hebrew / aramaic of the autographa, they cannot infallibly interpret an infallible set of autographs.

Is that correct?

If the above is true and if it is also true that the doctrine of Scripture is what is preserved through all of this rather than every single letter, then why should we reject a Barthian view of the Bible with respect to inerrancy? That is, why shouldn't we be satisfied that we can know the doctrine without having to say we can't know the doctrine unless inerrancy is held?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 2, 2008)

Sotzo,

I find a false premise or two in your summary.

1. We do have the autographa. They're not a chimera but a reality.

2. The church has ministers whose vocation it is to read God's Word in the original languages. (This is why it's so important to well-taught ministers). We graduate 30-40 MDiv students a year who can read the original languages. close to 1000 students who can read the original languages. This doesn't account for any other schools who've graduated even more. 

3. The concern about having autographa is to have God's Word. We have faithful translations that accurately render the original in English such that those translations can be said to be God's Word.

4. Your point about infallible interpretation is a red-herring. We don't claim to have an infallible interpretation. WCF 1.4:



> The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.



WCF 1.7-10:



> All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
> 
> 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; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in, the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.
> 
> ...



We confess that Scripture interprets itself infallibly. There is an infallible interpretation. Your summary assumes a sort of skepticism we reject. We confess that Scripture is perspicuous. 

Once more:



> those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other...



5. For the life of me I cannot see what Barth's doctrine of Scripture has to do with this discussion. Have you ever read Barth? What connection do you see between the commitment to the authority of the autographa and Barth? Inerrancy is an objective fact not the result of our reception of or interpretation of Scripture. We don't make Scripture inerrant. It is inerrant. 

Are you looking for some way to make some translation (as such) inerrant?


----------



## larryjf (Aug 2, 2008)

R. Scott Clark said:


> 1. We do have the autographa.



Then could you please tell me what 1 Sam 13:1 says in the autographa.


----------



## sotzo (Aug 2, 2008)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Sotzo,
> 
> I find a false premise or two in your summary.
> 
> 1. We do have the autographa. They're not a chimera but a reality.



If the autographa is defined as the original manuscripts that comprise the Bible, then where are they? What do you mean by they are reality?



> 2. The church has ministers whose vocation it is to read God's Word in the original languages. (This is why it's so important to well-taught ministers). We graduate 30-40 MDiv students a year who can read the original languages. close to 1000 students who can read the original languages. This doesn't account for any other schools who've graduated even more.



I don't see how that gets past the fact that we don't have the original manuscripts or, even if we did, how it gets past the fact that we still are erring humans interpreting an inerrant text. My OP is really asking whether a rejection of inerrancy is practically different from not rejecting inerrancy in light of 1) we don't have the inerrant texts and 2) nobody can know an inerrant text inerrantly.



> 3. The concern about having autographa is to have God's Word. We have faithful translations that accurately render the original in English such that those translations can be said to be God's Word.



Yes, my ESV (for example) is a faithful translation of the original languages in down-the-line iterations of the inerrant autographa. How is that _practically_ different from saying the original text can err? Not saying everything is defined in terms of its pragmatism...however, I am trying to find the functional difference.



> 4. Your point about infallible interpretation is a red-herring. We don't claim to have an infallible interpretation. WCF 1.4:



I'm not arguing that we have an infallible interpretation...of course, we don't. God alone is infallible.



> 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; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in, the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.



What do the divines mean here by "pure in all ages"...what is kept that way? 



> We confess that Scripture interprets itself infallibly. There is an infallible interpretation. Your summary assumes a sort of skepticism we reject. We confess that Scripture is perspicuous.



Flesh out the statement that "Scripture interprets itself infallibly". While there is indeed an infallible interpretation such is not and cannot be ours. I'm confessional...yet the confession is secondary to Scripture which is why the Church's understanding of the latter's nature is critical.



> 5. For the life of me I cannot see what Barth's doctrine of Scripture has to do with this discussion. Have you ever read Barth? What connection do you see between the commitment to the authority of the autographa and Barth? Inerrancy is an objective fact not the result of our reception of or interpretation of Scripture. We don't make Scripture inerrant. It is inerrant.
> 
> Are you looking for some way to make some translation (as such) inerrant?



I have read very little of Barth, but my understanding is that he sees Scripture as a witness to the Word of God rather than the Word of God written. The connection I see b/w the commitment to the authority of the autographa and this view of Barth's is that his view leads to a "so what?" response to those who would say we do not have the original autographs. In other words,, the "witness to the Word of God" is my ESV and I don't need the original autographs to have that witness and its perspecuity.



> We don't make Scripture inerrant. It is inerrant.



Yes, and all I'm saying is that this is ultimately both a presupposition and seems to me to be, in practice, not different from a Barthian view absent the original manuscripts and our own fallibility.


----------

