Letis on Inerrancy, and Warfield

[Logan]

I did an inordinate amount of reading this week. As posted in another thread I was trying to find out more about Letis' position and was excited to find a lengthy interaction between him and Dr James White. Unfortunately it is not Letis at his best and he repeatedly demeaned Dr White, refrained from answering questions (instead he criticized him for not having read Muller and Preus) and overall seemed very pompous. I am told that this was not Letis' best moment and certainly there was no content there to understand his position. So I dug deeper and found some writings on this website (though many links are dead) as well as two essays that Steve posted.

I also found his dissertation (pdf), which Letis repeatedly referred to in his discussion with Dr White. Interestingly to me, Letis repeatedly attacked "inerrancy of the originals" and when Dr White asked if he believed in "the inerrancy of the originals" responded by saying it was not the appropriate question and did Dr White still beat his wife?

At first glance, it would seem that Letis is not taking an orthodox view at all, but to clear up any misconceptions people might have, here is Letis' explanation:

Allow me to say that many have been confused by my advocacy of the word "Infallible," and my pronounced dislike of the modern term "inerrant," because the former word is the word always used by Luther, Calvin, and the Westminster Divines, in its Latin form, "infallibilitas." On this please consult Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), s.v. "authoritas Scripturae." There you will see the meaning of "infallible"contains the sense that Scripture is "without admixture of error...historically true in its record of words, deed, events, and doctrines." As for the word "inerrant," it has no pedigree as a theological term until late in the 19th century and because when it arrived in a new context (its original context was as an astronomical term), it always and only had reference to the "autographic" form the text, a sweeping revisionism of the WCF which taught a preserved "infallibility," not a lost "autographic inerrancy." I trust this makes clear that the earlier accusation about me was intended to suggest not that I actually have a historically more grounded statement of Scripture (via the WCF), but that somehow I have a weaker view because I choose to hold to the WCF's language and content on this issue (because, with this standard my own Lutheran orthodox view is in complete agreement).

Unless I am mistaken, Letis seems to think that one cannot hold to both "inerrancy" and "infallibility". Surely he would agree that the originals were without error, but he dislikes the term because in his mind it makes a distinction between the autographa (original scripts by the original authors) and the apographa (copies of the originals). I don't deny that the word "inerrancy" is usually made to make a distinction between the autographa and the apographa, but I do deny that this is purely 19th century Warfieldianism. Letis says

Hence, it was the use of the word "inerrancy" by B.B. Warfield in the 19th century (a non-theological innovative terminological alteration to the language of Biblical authority), that resulted in the "quest for the historical text" i.e., the endorsement of the Westcott and Hort edition of the Greek N.T., (which assumes the extant text is corrupt), which in turn evolved into the quest for the historical Jesus and the Jesus Seminar, the most blatantly arrogant project of unbelief presently active on this planet. Moreover, his use of the word at Princeton was a major contribution towards that Institution going liberal in 1929.

Letis asserts over and over that this distinction between the autographs and the apographs is a post-enlightenment idea, and that to believe only the originals were "inerrant" is distinctly Warfieldian. I never saw him actually deal with Warfield's evidence (in Warfield's volume on the Westminster Assembly, especially pp 236 ff), but perhaps he does in other writings I don't have access to. However, to criticize someone of Warfield's scholarship repeatedly, seems worthy of defense. In Warfield's own words:

No doubt the authors of the Confession were far from being critics of the nineteenth century: they did not foresee the course of criticism nor anticipate the amount of labor which would be required for the reconstruction of the text of, say, the New Testament. Men like Lightfoot are found defending the readings of the common text against men like Beza; as there were some of them, like Lightfoot, who were engaged in the most advanced work which up to that time had been done on the Biblical text, Walton's "Polyglott," so others of them may have stood with John Owen, a few years later, in his strictures on that great work; and had their lot been cast in our day it is possible that many of them might have been of the school of Scrivener and Burgon, rather than that of Westcott and Hort. But whether they were good critics or bad is not the point. It admits of no denial that they explicitly recognized the fact that the text of the Scriptures had suffered corruption in process of transmission and affirmed that the "pure" text lies therefore not in one copy, but in all, and is to be attained not by simply reading the text in whatever copy may chance to fall into our hands, but by a process of comparison, i.e. by criticism. The affirmation of the Confession includes the two facts, therefore, first that the Scriptures in the originals were immediately inspired by God; and secondly that this inspired text has not been lost to the Church, but through God's good providence has been kept pure, amidst all the crowding errors of scribes and printers, and that therefore the Church still has the inspired Word of God in the originals, and is to appeal to it, and to it alone, as the final authority in all controversies of religion.

I agree with this statement, and Warfield follows it up with primary source quotation after quotation (some from the Westminster Divines) to back this up. Letis, apparently does not agree, repeatedly saying Warfield introduced this post-enlightenment idea (even using the strong phrase 'the Warfieldian heresy of "Inerrant autographs.'"). To defend his position, he seems to constantly refer to R. Muller and Preus which he says is necessary to an historical understanding of the period and for evaluating the writings of pre-19th century authors. Perhaps Letis is unknowingly guilty of "Mullerism" or "Preusism", instead of everyone else being seduced by "Warfieldianism". In any event I wish he would say where Warfield is misinterpreting these writers.

This doctrine, therefore, is a dramatic departure from the WCF which never stated Biblical authority in such absurd terms [(inerrancy)]. The above is also incomplete because it fails to point out that this is NOT classic Protestant orthodoxy as found perfectly expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith, which says absolutely NOTHING about "autographs" or "inerrancy," but rather puts its stress on a PRESERVED text that it calls "infallible."

That the Westminster divines believed their present Scriptures to be an "infallible" rule, I agree, but that they believed it to be without error of transmission I disagree, or would say they at least allowed for it. That they believed no Scripture had been lost over time was also clear, but was in some manuscript or another.

Since Warfield's view has been so much maligned as being a 19th century innovation, I would like to devote my next post to some lengthy quotations from Turretin, to show at the very least it was nothing new. If Warfield inherited this view from Hodge who inherited it from Turretin (whose text was the standard Systematic Theology for many years at Princeton) then so be it.

 

[Logan]

Continuing the previous post and the accusations made against Warfield. Letis stated that anyone who believed in "inerrancy of the originals" was departing from orthodoxy (he called Warfield's view "heresy") and that nearly everyone today has been so influenced by Warfield's post-enlightenment teaching that we are guilty of reading a historical view into the WCF and other authors that is not found there. He accuses Warfield of holding autographa as alone authoritative. Warfield would have agreed that the apographa are also authoritative, because they accurately represent the autographa.

I believe Letis' allegations to be false, especially since this view has been around longer than the time of the Warfield.

The words "inerrancy of the originals" may not appear in Turretin but the distinction certainly is made. In fact, I found Turretin's formulation to be extremely close to that of Warfield, and rather than help Letis' case, made a strong case against him. In Letis' dissertation he selects quotes from Turretin and Owen and these seem to be supporting his case, but unfortunately (perhaps not intentionally) does not read far enough.

That they and the formers of the WCF believed in the authority of the copies they had there can be no doubt. But it was because they believed they accurately represented the originals. Here are some extensive quotes from Turretin but they are well-worth reading.

The question does not concern the irregular writing of words or the punctuation or the various readings (which all acknowledge do often occur); or whether the copies which we have so agree with the originals as to vary from them not even in a little point or letter. Rather the question is whether they so differ as to make the genuine corrupt and to hinder us from receiving the original text as a rule of faith and practice.
The question is not as to the particular corruption of some manuscripts or as to the errors which have crept into the books of particular editions through the negligence of copyists or printers. All acknowledge the existence of many such small corruptions. The question is whether there are universal corruptions and errors so diffused through all the copies (both manuscript and edited) as that they cannot be restored and corrected by any collation of various copies, or of Scripture itself and of parallel passages. Are there real and true, and not merely apparent, contradictions? We deny the former.

The reasons are: (1) The Scriptures are inspired of God (theopneustos, 2 Tim 3:16). The word of God cannot lie (Ps 19:8-9; Heb 6:18); cannot pass away and be destroyed (Mat 5:18); shall endure forever (1 Pet 1:25); and is truth itself (John 17:17). For how could such things be predicated of it, if it contained dangerous contradictions, and if God suffered either the sacred writers to err and to slip in memory, or incurable blemishes to creep into it?

(2) Unless unimpaired integrity characterize the Scriptures, they could not be regarded as the sole rule of faith and practice, and the door would be thrown wide open to atheists, libertines, enthusiasts and other profane persons like them for destroying its authenticity and overthrowing the foundation of salvation. For since nothing false can be an object of faith, how can the Scriptures be held as authentic and reckoned divine if liable to contradictions and corruptions? Nor can it be said that these corruptions are only in smaller things which do not affect the foundation of faith. For if once the authenticity of the Scriptures is taken away (which would result even from the incurable corruption of one passage), how could our faith rest on what remains? And if corruption is admitted in those of lesser importance, why not in others of greater? Who could assure me that no error or blemish had crept into fundamental passages? Or what reply could be given to a subtle atheist or heretic who should pertinaciously assert that this or that passage less in his favor had been corrupted? It will not do to say that divine providence wished to keep it free from serious corruptions, but not from minor. For besides the fact that this is gratuitous, it cannot be held without injury, as if lacking in the necessary things which are required for the full credibility of Scripture itself. Nor can we readily believe that God, who dictated and inspired each and every word to these inspired men, would not take care of their entire preservation. If men use the utmost care diligently to preserve their words, especially if they are of any importance, as for example a testament or contract, in order that it may not be corrupted, how much more, must we suppose, would God take care of his word which he intended as a testament and seal of his covenant with us, so that it might not be corrupted; especially when he could easily forsee and prevent such corruptions in order to establish the faith of his church?

The principal arguments for the integrity of the Scriptures and the purity of the sources are four. (1) The chief of these is the providence of God, who as he wished to provide for our faith by inspiring the sacred writers as to what they should write, and by preserving the Scriptures against the attempts of enemies who have left nothing untried that they might destroy them, so he should keep them pure and uncorrupted in order that our faith might always have a firm foundation. (2) The religion of the Jews who have always been careful even to the point of superstition concerning the faithful keeping of the sacred manuscripts. (3) The diligence of the Masoretes who placed their marks as a hedge around the law that it might not in any way be changed or corrupted. (4) The number and multitude of copies, so that even if some manuscripts could be corrupted, yet all could not.

Turretin gives some examples of alleged contradictions and then continues:

Although we give to the Scriptures absolute integrity, we do not therefore think that the copyists and printers were inspired, but only that the providence of God watched over the copying of the sacred books, so that although many errors might have crept in, it has not so happened (or they have not so crept into the manuscripts) but that they can be easily corrected by a collation of others (or with the Scriptures themselves). Therefore the foundation of the purity and integrity of the sources is not to be placed in the freedom from fault of men, but in the providence of God which (however men employed in transcribing the sacred books might possibly mingle various errors) always diligently took care to correct them, or that they might be corrected easily either from a comparison with Scripture itself or from more approved manuscripts. It was not necessary therefore to render all the scribes infallible, but only so to direct them that the true reading may always be found out. This book far surpasses all others in purity.

Turretin passes to some more examples, including the mention of "Cainan" in Luke 3:36:

This [is spurious and] is plainly proved: (1) by the authority of Moses and of the books of Chronicles which, in the genealogical records formed in three places (Gen. 10:24; 11:13; 1 Chron. 1:18), make no mention of him; (2) the Chaldee paraphrases which uniformly omit Cainan in the book of Genesis and Chronicles; (3) Josephus does not mention him, nor Berosus guided by him, nor Africanus whose words Eusebius quotes in his Chronicorum (cf. 1.16.13 [PG 19.153-54]); (4) the sacred chronology would thus be disturbed and brought into doubt in the history of Moses, if the years of Cainan are inserted between Arphaxad and Sala. Abraham would not be the tenth from Noah as Moses asserts, but the eleventh. (5) It does not exist in any of the Codices. Our Beza testifies that it is not found in his most ancient manuscript (Annotationes maiores in Novum ... Testamentum, Pars prior [1594], p. 262 on Luke 3:36). Ussher ("De Cainano Arphaxadi filio" in Chronologia Sacra 6; cf. Whole Works [1847-64], 11:558) asserts that he saw the book of Luke written in Greek-Latin on the most ancient vellum, in characters somewhat large without breathings and accents (which having been brought from Greece to France was laid up in the monastery of St. Irenaeus in the suburbs of Lyons; and being discovered in the year 1562 was afterward carried to England and presented to the University of Cambridge), and in it he could not find Cainan. Scaliger in his prologue to the chronicle of Eusebius ("Prolegomena," Thesaurus temporum Eusebii .. chronicorum canonum [1606/1968], 1:ii) affirms that Cainan is lacking in the most ancient copies of Luke. Whatever the case may be, even if this passage proves to be a mistake, the authenticity of Luke's gospel cannot be called in question on that account: (a) because the corruption is not universal; (b) this error is of little consequence and a ready means of correcting it is furnished by Moses, so that there was no necessity for that learned man Vossius to throw doubts upon the purity of the Hebrew manuscript in order to establish the authenticity of the Septuagint.

Note above that Turretin clearly believed the common text of his day to be in error, upon the authority of other Greek manuscripts. He continues to clarify his position on the purity of the sources:

By the original texts, we do not mean the autographs written by the hand of Moses, of the prophets and of the apostles, which certainly do not now exist. We mean their apographs which are so called because they set forth to us the word of God in the very words of those who wrote under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The question is not, are the sources so pure that no fault has crept into the many sacred manuscripts, either through the waste of time, the carelessness of copyists or the malice of the Jews or of heretics? For this is acknowledged on both sides and the various readings which Beza and Robert Stephanus have carefully observed in the Greek (and the Jews in the Hebrew) clearly prove it. Rather the question is have the original texts (or the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts) been so corrupted either by copyists through carelessness, or by the Jews or heretics through malice, that they can no longer be regarded as the judge of controversies and the rule to which all the versions must be applied? The papists affirm, we deny it.

Which Turretin follows by making arguments that they have not been "corrupted", including that copies had been spread "far and wide". Nowhere does he refer to any kind of "ecclesiastical text" as the authority.

Although various corruptions might have crept into the Hebrew manuscripts through the carelessness of transcribers and the waste of time, they do not cease to be a canon of faith and practice. For besides being in things of small importance and not pertaining to faith and practice (as Bellarmine himself confesses and which, moreover, he holds do not affect the integrity of the Scriptures), they are not universal in all the manuscripts; or they are not such as cannot easily be corrected from a collation of the Scriptures and the various manuscripts.

Turretin then clarifies what he means by "corruptions"

A corruption differs from a variant reading. We acknowledge that many variant readings occur both in the Old and New Testaments arising from a comparison of different manuscripts, but we deny corruption (at least corruption that is universal).

Turretin continues on to defend the various readings.

There is no truth in the assertion that the Hebrew edition of the Old Testament and the Greek edition of the New Testament are said to be mutilated; nor can the arguments used by our opponents prove it. Not the history of the adulteress (John 8:1-11), for although it is lacking in the Syriac version, it is found in all the Greek manuscripts. Not 1 John 5:7, for although some formerly called it into question and heretics now do, yet all the Greek copies have it [habent tamen omnia Exemplaria Graeca], as Sixtus Senensis acknowledges: "they have been the words of never-doubted truth, and contained in all the Greek copies from the very times of the apostles" [et in omnibus Graecis exemplaribus ab ipsis Apostolorum temporibus lecta] (Bibliotheca sancta [1575], 2:298). Not Mark 16 which may have been wanting in several copies in the time of Jerome (as he asserts); but now it occurs in all, even in the Syriac version, and is clearly necessary to complete the history of the resurrection of Christ.

Note that Turretin was mistaken in his claims for support from the Greek, nevertheless his method is clear: support from the Greek must be found, not simply its use by the church or acceptance as an "ecclesiastical text".

Finally, Turretin turns to the section I most wanted to point out in this discussion, as it has much bearing on the criticisms of Warfield and the attacks of Letis. His section on "authenticity". I will add some emphasis to certain portions.

An authentic writing is one in which all things are abundantly sufficient to inspire confidence; one to which the fullest credit is due in its own kind; one of which we can be entirely sure that it has proceeded from the author whose name it bears; one in which everything is written just as he himself wished. However, a writing can be authentic in two ways: either primarily and originally or secondarily and derivatively. That writing is primarily authentic which is autopiston ("of self-inspiring confidence") and to which credit is and ought to be given on its own account. In this manner, the originals of royal edicts, magistrates' decrees, wills, contracts and the autographs of of authors are authentic. The secondarily authentic writings are all the copies accurately and faithfully taken from the originals by suitable men; such as the scriveners appointed for that purpose by public authority (for the edicts of kings and other public documents) and any honest and careful scribes and copiers (for books and other writings). The autographs of Moses, the prophets and apostles are alone authentic in the first sense. In the latter sense, the faithful and accurate copies of them are also authentic.

Again, the authority of an authentic writing is twofold: the one is founded upon the things themselves of which it treats and has relation to the men to whom the writing is directed; the other is occupied with the treatise itself and the writing and refers to the copies and translations made from it. Over all these this law obtains---that they ought to be referred to the authentic writing and if they vary from it, to be corrected and emended. The former authority may be either greater or lesser according to the authority of him from whom the writing comes and and in proportion to the power which he has over the persons to whom he directs his writing. But in the sacred Scriptures this authority is the very highest such as can be in no other writing, since we are bound straightway to believe God for that supreme power which he has over men as over all other things, and for that highest truth and wisdom distinguishing him, and to obey in all things which his most sacred word (contained in the authentic Scripture) enjoins for belief or practice. But the latter consists in this, that the autographs and also the accurate and faithful copies may be the standard of all other copies of the same writing and of its translations. If anything is found in them different from the authentic writings, either autographs or apographs, it is unworthy of the name authentic and should be discarded as spurious and adulterated, the discordance itself being a sufficient reason for its rejection. Of the former authority we spoke in Question Four "On the Divinity of the Scriptures." We will now treat of the other which occurs in the authentic version.

Now what Turretin would believe to be "accurate and faithful copies" may certainly be debated. I don't know that the case can be made for just the Byzantine texts but I would not rule that out entirely. Nevertheless, it is clear that Turretin distinguished between the authority of the autographs and the authority of the apographs, the former alone being free from all error, and the latter having authority dependent upon its closeness to the former and especially that the common Greek text of his day must likewise be held up to this standard. To that end, he argues that we do have manuscripts that accurately represent the original and that any corruptions or variants can be found out by comparing copies. That he did comparisons himself indicates to me that he didn't think the published editions of the TR to be perfect but still needed correction from manuscripts found to be authentic writings.

Does this differ from what Warfield taught? The words may vary but I believe the concept to be identical. In which case Letis (if I understand his position) is incorrect in saying this was an innovation of Warfield (or heresy) brought about by post-enlightenment thinking and unknown before his time. Turretin includes several quotes from men writing to him regarding his defense particularly of the Hebrew, saying that it is clear that this has been the position of the church in her sparrings with Rome. Warfield almost certainly went further in what he believed were "authentic copies" but he also certainly would have agreed that the Scriptures possessed of the church in all ages have indeed been authentic and authoritative, an infallible rule of faith and practice.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hi Logan,

I haven't read your 2nd post re Turretin yet, but I wanted to ask if you have read Letis' essay, "B.B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism", in his book, The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority and the Popular Mind (The Institute for Renaissance and Reformation Biblical Studies, 1997)? And if you haven't, where are you getting your ideas and quotes of Letis re Warfield from? I don't want to be in the position of defending all that Letis says, but I also don't want inaccuracies or half-truths about him held forth, as his scholarship is of great value.

 

[MW]

There is no reason why Dr. Letis should be judged on the basis of one "performance" on an email discussion list, especially one which was early in the history of reformed discussion lists and people were still trying to work out the etiquette of such a forum.

Dr. Letis was quite within his rights to stand on confessional ground and call into question the unconfessional nature of the critique made on his views. "When did you stop beating your wife" is a well known example in the field of logic for identifying a loaded question. It is a simple way of showing that any answer to the question requires the respondent to admit the fault against which he is defending himself.

I believe the issue with "inerrrancy" pertains to the doctrinal baggage which comes with it. "Infallibility" can be historically defined without having to advocate later views. "Inerrancy" contains reactionary elements to theological liberalism, and in some instances it reacts too far the other way; this is especially the case with matters relating to the letter of Scripture.

 

[Logan]

A very understandable concern Steve. I believe I have linked to every source I used and I tried to be as thorough in my web searches as possible, but clearly not everything Letis wrote is available online. I have not read the essay you mention, but I tried to be very careful not to characterize Letis against what he himself would have said, to that end I tried to quote his own words whenever I could. I did concede that perhaps Letis dealt more fully with Warfield in some writing unavailable to me.

Do you know of a copy of this online?

 

[Logan]

There is no reason why Dr. Letis should be judged on the basis of one "performance" on an email discussion list, especially one which was early in the history of reformed discussion lists and people were still trying to work out the etiquette of such a forum.

Dr. Letis was quite within his rights to stand on confessional ground and call into question the unconfessional nature of the critique made on his views. "When did you stop beating your wife" is a well known example in the field of logic for identifying a loaded question. It is a simple way of showing that any answer to the question requires the respondent to admit the fault against which he is defending himself.

I believe the issue with "inerrrancy" pertains to the doctrinal baggage which comes with it. "Infallibility" can be historically defined without having to advocate later views. "Inerrancy" contains reactionary elements to theological liberalism, and in some instances it reacts too far the other way; this is especially the case with matters relating to the letter of Scripture.

I don't believe I was trying to judge Letis based on this one "performance", and tried to make that clear it was not his "best" moment.

I am aware that "did you stop beating your wife" is a loaded question example. However, it was clear James White was honestly wanting to know Letis' position and the difference or issue could well have been answered as quickly and simply as you very ably did above. I agree that I think it was the "baggage" that Letis objected to with the term "inerrancy", which is why I wanted to quote him on it, as opposed to simply stating "he doesn't believe in inerrancy".

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Logan, this is not an auspicious beginning to what could be a scholarly discussion. First, you further expose Letis’ personal failure (which is widely known already) rather than cover his sin (nor which really pertains to his scholarship), and then you presume to weigh in on a topic involving him and Warfield without even consulting the seminal essay on the matter! May it not be meted to you as you have meted to him, and may you have occasion to hear the matter before thinking to answer it!

To which end I am presently scanning the aforementioned essay to post on Scribed as were the other two. But this chaffing at the bit to delve into and pronounce on a subject before even becoming familiar with the specifics of it gives the appearance of being agenda-driven. Or something.

It took me some time to obtain Letis’ books (I was out of the country then – in the Middle East), and so I kept quiet on topics I was not thoroughly conversant with; and weighed in only when I was.

Would you demonstrated patience along with doggedness! Without the former the latter could lead one into trouble.

It’s taking time to scan, but I’ll post a link here when the article is up.

 

[Logan]

Steve, I look forward to reading the paper but it was not my original intention to interact with it but rather Letis' statements made elsewhere. I attempted to deal with these statements in particular and not the subject as a whole. If I was wrong in this I certainly apologize.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Dr. Theodore Letis' essay, "B.B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism"

 

[yeutter]

Thanks for linking to Letis' essay. It should be helpful in clearing up some questions I have.

 

[Logan]

I've read through most of the essay so far and had compiled a list of items where the evidence contradicts his conclusions. It is starting to grow and become tedious so I will just share a few specifics later.

But I believe the main issue is that Letis mistakenly believes Warfield placed all authority in the autographa, and he also mistakenly believes the Westminster Confession and those defending it (like Alexander, Hodge, etc) placed all authority in the received text. I think it can be easily shown that both Warfield and men like Alexander, Hodge, etc. believed in the authority of both, yet would distinguish between them and say that the apographs derive their authority from the autographs.

Letis also seems to think that the Reformed view of "verbal inspiration" refers to apographa and particularly opposes Warfield for holding to the verbal inspiration of the autographa. Turretin specifically says the scribes were not inspired and I confess I cannot see how "verbal inspiration" can apply to any but the originals, though certainly we have authoritative copies of those inspired autographs.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I'm sorry to be the copyright police but the moderators have been tightening up on this sort of thing. Steve, if you don't have permission to post the full article I am not sure fair use means 100 percent of an essay. It's perhaps iffy; but getting permission would sure be appropriate if you have not (I would guess Mrs. Letis owns the copyrights).

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I don't know in the specific case when chapters are whole essays but this link says a single chapter is generally considered fair use though there are lots of grey lines.
Copyright and Fair Use - UMUC Library

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Chris, I just emailed the publisher to get his view of the matter. He usually gets back to me quickly. I told him it was a matter of protecting both Letis and the book against derogatory and unwarranted remarks, initially made by a member here who didn't even have full knowledge of the matter, but only a handful of info gleaned from the internet. I'll go with what he says. He is in contact with Mrs. Letis.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

That's good enough for me; thanks Steve.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Chris, I know that one criteria of acceptability as "fair use" is the reason or motive for publishing portions of copyrighted work. If it for strictly educational purposes, and if no money is to be gained from publishing it, this tends to it being allowable.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Potential income lost to the holder is the flip side of that question. In this case I don't see it as an issue.

Chris, I know that one criteria of acceptability as "fair use" is the reason or motive for publishing portions of copyrighted work. If it for strictly educational purposes, and if no money is to be gained from publishing it, this tends to it being allowable.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Chris,

I have actually been pressing the publisher to get Mrs. Letis to authorize printing and selling the book (along with his other two books, The Majority Text and Edward Freer Hills's Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text) in digital format, as they would probably go like hotcakes. He said it would take some expertise and time to do that, but the idea interests him.

He told me he just facilitated the recent publication of a work of Letis’, the lead essay, “Erasmus and the Birth of Historical Consciousness” – in the book, The Rise of Historical Consciousness Among the Christian Churches, by Kenneth Parker and Erick Moser. This later essay of Letis’ (I haven’t finished it) seems to me a key to understanding his lengthy doctoral thesis on Erasmus and the secularization of the sacred text of Scripture.

 

[Logan]

derogatory and unwarranted remarks, initially made by a member here who didn't even have full knowledge of the matter

Have I been derogatory and unwarranted? A quote from Letis is a quote from Letis, something he has to answer for, no matter where he wrote it. And if I respond to some of his statements without reading everything he's written, does it then become unwarranted? In that case, I might say Letis was very unwarranted in responding to Warfield, especially since he misrepresented his views so badly.

I have now read through the entire essay and I have satisfied myself that I did not misrepresent Letis earlier when replying to various quotations by him, particularly regarding Warfield. In fact, it has only strengthened my belief that his entire view of Warfield is false, particularly in the points I outlined in my last post. Here are some specific assertions from Letis (all are taken from the essay on Warfield Steve provided), and primary source quotes I pose in opposition to them.

Note that Letis essay is full of emotive language, which I find off-putting, but I won't list examples.

Nevertheless, in contrast to Charles Hodge's view, which we shall treat below, Warfield began by deprecating the established text (what was called the textus receptus---the "received text") which had hitherto been the locus of the verbal view of inspiration. For Warfield, the scholastics had stumbled when their reverence for the word of God, perversely but not unnaturally exercised, erected the standard or received text into the norm of a true text.

By "perversely" Warfield meant "obstinately", as I think can be seen in the original quotation of Warfield's. That it was the "locus" (and not the manuscripts underlying TR) remains to be seen, as does the statement that Warfield's view was in contrast to Hodge's.

In order to save, therefore, his [Warfield's] verbal view of inspiration---the last vestige of Francis Turretin's influence---he was forced to now relegate inspiration to the inscrutable autographs of the biblical records.

Does not inspiration properly refer to the original authors? God-breathed? Or do we believe that every scribe was also inspired? I believe the proper Reformed view is that the originals were inspired, and we have faithful copies of those inspired originals. There was no relegation.

These [reconstructed copies], he [Warfield] now also argued, when once reconstructed, would be inerrant in a way which far surpassed the text thought to be inspired by the Westminster Divines.

I would like to be shown where Warfield argued the reconstructed copies would be basically "more inerrant" (whatever that means). The only footnote for this section is a citation from Donald McKim who said essentially that some scholars have argued that this emphasis on the inerrancy of the original autographs originates from Reformed Orthodoxy, especially the writings of Turretin. Letis then continues the footnote by saying this is wrong and it is actually post-Enlightenment thinking that Warfield got his ideas from. I wish it would be shown why it is wrong.

The true test for determining if one is an heir of the Reformed scholastics is found in the role the Westminster Confession plays in locating final Scriptural authority. Archibald Alexander, Charles Hodge, and the Southern Presbyterian, Robert Dabney were genuine heirs of Turretin. They focused authority in present, extant copies of the biblical texts (apographa), with all the accompanying textual phenomena, as the "providentially preserved" and sanctioned edition (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:8).

Letis assumes a lot here. Remember that this is the same Archibald Alexander who in his inaugural address in 1812 said

For though the serious mind is at first astonished and confounded, upon being informed of the multitude of various readings, ...yet it is relieved, when on careful examination it appears that not more than one of a hundred of these, makes the slightest variation in the sense, and that the whole of them do not materially affect one important fact or doctrine. It is true, a few important texts, in our received copies, have by this critical process, been rendered suspicious; but this has been more than compensated by the certainty which has been stamped on the great body of Scripture, by having been subjected to this severe scrutiny.

Remember also that this is the same Hodge who in his Romans commentary preferred in some places the "uncial MSS" readings ("omitted by the great body of modern critics", "the best manuscripts", the "oldest and best manuscripts") even against the "common text" (Rom 3:28, 8:1, 8:11), though certainly often making the case for retaining the common text reading in other passages. I don't know much about Dabney but regardless I think Letis wrongly equates believing in the authority of the autographa with an inability to believe in the authority of the apographa. Certainly Hodge and Alexander had no problems placing authority in the apographa, but neither did Warfield, as is evidenced by the following quote from him:

The affirmation of the Confession includes the two facts, therefore, first that the Scriptures in the originals were immediately inspired by God; and secondly that this inspired text has not been lost to the Church, but through God's good providence has been kept pure, amidst all the crowding errors of scribes and printers, and that therefore the Church still has the inspired Word of God in the originals [apographs is meant here], and is to appeal to it, and to it alone, as the final authority in all controversies of religion. [my emphasis]

Letis is mistaken in that he assumed Warfield placed all authority in the autographa, and he is also mistaken in thinking the Westminster Confession and those defending it (like Alexander, Hodge, etc) placed all authority in the received or "ecclesiastical" text.

Because the standard text of the day was suitable for Hodge, he felt no need to plea for an inerrant autograph.

Since the inerrant autographs were unavailable to Hodge (or to us), it makes no sense to plead for them...unless (like Warfield) you are responding to liberal criticism that the Bible, when originally penned, contained errors.

The section on Alexander's views is put forward without any citational support, but are apparently Letis' own interpretations. Whether they are true or not I cannot tell.

[Warfield] avoided altogether, however, any mention of the threat textual variants posed to verbal inspiration...

It makes me wonder how could textual variants pose a threat to verbal inspiration? Unless one believes in continuing inspiration, the term "inspired" only refers to the originals, even while faithful copies are to be considered likewise authoritative. Is this not always how the term "verbal inspiration" has been used?

In his treatment of Warfield's view of the ending of Mark, he confuses correlation with causation. Just because Warfield's position that it was not originally part of the canon was also the position of the higher critics does not mean it was Warfield's reasoning.

In Enlightenment fashion, therefore, Warfield said that in text critical matters, the faithful follow the same method as the Germans, treating Scripture like any other piece of literature, without reference to either inspiration, or the uniqueness of the Bible

This is given without citation, but a read-through of Warfield's handbook on Textual Criticism gave me this statement:

Some critics have seemed ready to cast the whole text into "pie," and set it up again to suit their own (and no one else's) conceits. Others have even savagely guarded each fragment of the transmitted text as if the scribes had wrought under Divine inspiration. The whole matter is nevertheless simply a matter of fact, and is to be determined solely by the evidence, investigated under the guidance of reverential and candid good sense. The nature of the New Testament as a Divine book, every word of which is precious, bids us be peculiarly and even painfully careful here: careful not to obtrude our crude guesses into the text, and careful not to leave any of the guesses or slips of the scribes in it.

Undoubtedly Warfield did treat Scripture as Divine, and not "In Enlightenment fashion...like any other piece of literature" as Letis claims.

Briggs, on the other hand, while also employing the new criticism at Union, such as he saw Warfield now advocating, nevertheless, chose not to shift the historical understanding of the Westminster Confession, in the way Warfield did. As a result, he suffered severe recriminations. Briggs had history on his side, however, when he simply argued that "The Westminster divines did not teach the inerrancy of the original autographs." [my emphasis]

Keep in mind that this is the same Briggs who wrote things like "the dogma of verbal inspiration", "There is nothing Divine in the text---in its letters, words, or clauses", "The theory that [errors] were not in the original text is sheer assumption, upon which no mind can rest with certainty", “we are obliged to admit that there are scientific errors in the Bible, errors of astronomy, of geology, of zoology, of botany, and of anthropology.” in short, the very Briggs that Warfield defended the Scriptures against. Briggs was tried and convicted for heresy, specifically:

* that he had taught that reason and the Church are each a fountain of divine authority which apart from Holy Scripture may and does savingly enlighten men
* that errors may have existed in the original text of the Holy Scripture
* that many of the Old Testament predictions have been reversed by history and that the great body of Messianic prediction has not and cannot be fulfilled
* that Moses is not the author of the Pentateuch, and that Isaiah is not the author of half of the book which bears his name
* that the processes of redemption extend to the world to come

Though Letis would say that merely citing someone for historical relevance is not necessarily agreeing with them.

This keyed me in to something about Letis that I am still unwilling to admit, that Letis' idea of an "ecclesiastical text" is one which the church accepts or "canonizes". He gives this impression when he apparently agrees with Bart Erhman (whom he cited as authoritatively on a radio program I have a copy of) that the Scripture we have today are not the Scripture the apostles wrote (what we have is apparently an orthodox corruption). Likewise in some of his responses to people reading his book. Nevertheless, this isn't a problem for him because the church's canonization, like he views the canonization of the books of Scripture, is what determines what we we accept as "infallible." (and thus it now makes sense why he repeatedly hammers Warfield for saying that "verbal inspiration" applies only to the autographs). I will supply quotes regarding this later but I am not absolutely certain this is his position. If it is, it certainly explains a lot about his views.

Furthermore, like the Westminster Divines, they all believed that only the original autographs were given by inspiration [Letis' emphasis]. But unlike Warfield, we have shown that important early Princetonians admitted error in the autographs. Moreover, we never discover them making an appeal to original autographs as the sole repository of inspiration, because this was not the position of the Reformed scholastics, from whom they derived their theology. Furthermore, like the Protestant dogmaticians before them, because of their naive, underdeveloped knowledge of, or adoption of text criticism, they never believed there to be a radical discontinuity between the original text and copies. Warfield, however, certainly did.

Just because Warfield made a distinction (as Turretin cited earlier) does not mean that he saw a radical discontinuity. He continued to maintain the authority of the apographa. Once again, the early Princetonians never (or seldom) appealed to original autographs presumably because there was no need to: they didn't have them and the present copies were authoritative. But it was necessary for Warfield to defend them against those who said the autographs were errant. I also do not believe Letis showed they admitted error in the autographs. I read the passage in Hodge and the quote from Alexander and didn't see the allowed "errors" in the original Letis mentions.

Overall, I was disappointed that Letis never dealt with the primary-source quotations Warfield gave that his view was indeed that of the Westminster Divines, and indeed of the Reformed Community as a whole. Indeed, Letis never dealt with Warfields own defense of himself. One would think those citations especially would have to be explained away before the accusation is made that Warfield's ideas were a post-enlightenment innovation.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Logan, would you kindly edit and give page numbers for your Letis quotes?

 

[Logan]

One last post and then I hope to be done with this as I feel like I've spent too much time on it.

It is difficult to pin down Letis on his views of the "ecclesiastical text". He himself states.

In my endeavor to clarify what I have said in my oral [presentations] and in what I have written, I shall refer nearly exclusively to my own book, the Ecclesiastical Text ... for the material that I believe will serve me well in setting the record straight regarding my views. Because my book is made up of a collection of separate essays, all of which appeared previously in various academic journals and magazines, one really must work rather hard, I must confess, to arrive at the synthesis within the book which I am certain does exist.

It appears to me that Letis believed that just as the books of the Old and New Testament had been "canonized" at the council of Nicea, so the text itself was also "canonized" against all the corruptions that had been introduced to it at that time, or in his own words "the text of Scripture, the canonical form of each book was ratified at this time." He also accepts that textual criticism of the New Testament is valid for academics.

My position is that the enterprise to reconstruct the most primitive form of the Greek N.T. is in and of itself not only a vital and important enterprise, but that it is perfectly necessary for those interested in classical studies, the historical method, and therefore, the academic discipline of text criticism proper.

However, he apparently disagrees that it should be used in the church, choosing rather the "ecclesiastical text" (which he says Erasmus held himself to), which is canonical. He is very clear to make the distinction that it does not derive its authority from the church (a Roman Catholic view) but compares it to the canonization of the books of Scripture. So specifically, it was the "Eastern Church" that canonized the current form, and he suggests we should follow that.

In conclusion, may I say that the current climate certainly allows for individual communities to choose to abide by the Ecclesiastical Text, rather than exchange this for an ever-emerging critical text. Again, I say this without in any way taking away from the specialists' need to further the discipline as a perfectly legitimate enterprise, but it must be the faith communities that make the final judgment on such theological matters as canon/text, with all the insight the discipline can afford. I suggest that one of the largest historic orthodox traditions, the ancient Eastern Church, more or less made such a decision years ago (see my chapter "The Ecclesiastical Text Redivivus?"). Why not smaller communities that desire to be organically (not institutionally, of course) connected to the large stream of historic orthodox Christianity and the textual standards that served this community since at least the fourth century?

So once again, Letis says that trying to get back to the "primitive texts" is vital and important, but it is not this reconstructed text that the church should rely upon, but rather the "ecclesiastical text" that the church has received as canonical.

I have found at least two others who understand Letis this way. Note that they don't refer to any sources, but if I've misunderstood Letis' position then it is at least one I am not alone in.

However, if I understood our conversation correctly—and he seemed to enjoy mystifying—he basically accepted a fairly standard history of the text during the first four centuries, but believed that what the text that the church had come to receive was the locus of authority. For instance, he thought that Mark 16:9-20 was secondary and inspired.

And a commenter adds

You hit the nail on the head, Pete, with your description of his position in your example about the long ending of Mark. His view of the historical transmission of the text is basically Hortian. However, the text was improved over time via "orthodox corruption," which was a work of God, in part to remove the errors that Letis frankly confessed were in the autographa. Letis heavily applauded Ehrman's book, Orthodox Corruption. He viewed the received text as the canonical form of God's Word, hence his association with the views of Childs.

If I understand Letis' approach to Scripture correctly (basically that we probably don't have the originals that the apostles wrote but it doesn't matter since our ecclesiastical text is received as canonical or infallible, presumably through God's providence, though he doesn't state so that I could tell), then I sharply disagree with him and also disagree it was the Reformed position.

This sheds a lot of light on the various accusations Letis made toward Warfield. If he really did believe this, then no wonder he criticized Warfield's talk of the autographs alone being "verbally inspired", or that authority lies in the autographs (though like Turretin, Warfield believed we had authentic copies that were also authoritative. Did Letis interpret the 16th and 17th centuries through this lens? It appears so, which is also why I believe he got it wrong.

 

[Logan]

Logan, would you kindly edit and give page numbers for your Letis quotes?

Certainly, I apologize for not doing that in the first place. I went sequentially yet did not deal with every single thing Letis said (fact-checking all of it would be too tedious). I am blessed to have in my library (and to have read) many of the sources he refers to: Warfield's works, Owen's works, Turretin's Institutes, Hodge's Systematic Theology, Life of Hodge, A.A. Hodge's Commentary on the Confessions, Calhoun's history of Princeton, etc. so I was able to spend a lot of time today with my books.

 

[Logan]

I would additionally contend that even if the very words "inerrancy of the autographs" do not appear in writings before Warfield, it was certainly assumed. Turretin, when he admits of "errors" that have crept in, assumes an inerrant autograph. Or at the very least when variants are mentioned, there is an assumed standard underlying it, which all assumed was originally inerrant. The King James Translators in their preface to the reader, likewise make the following statement:

For what ever was perfect under the Sunne, where Apostles or Apostolike men, that is, men indued with an extraordinary measure of Gods spirit, and priviledged with the privilege of infallibilitie, had not their hand?

Here they assert that what the apostles or apostolic men wrote, was "perfect". Other writers such terms as "without error", or that the writers "could not err", such as Charles Hodge when he said

They were ignorant of many things, and were as liable to error or ignorance, beyond the limits of their official teaching, as other men. An inspired man could not, indeed, err in his instruction on any subject.

Or when Hodge refers to the sacred writers being "preserved from all mistakes." Or on page 682 of the linked article where he equates infallibility of the original authors with "freedom from error".

In so saying, men like Hodge, spoke about the inerrancy of the autographs while still maintaining that we have faithful and authoritative copies of these contained in our apographs. I hope it is clear that the same is true of Warfield, and there is not some mutually exclusive view that one accepts either the authority of the apographs or autographs. Just because Warfield more clearly defined that view, does not mean that it was different from previous views.

It appears to me that the vast majority of Christians of every age believed in the inerrancy of the originally inspired autographs, but likewise accepted the authority of faithfully transmitted apographs. Letis makes the mistake of thinking Warfield thought of the autographs only as authoritative. This is absolutely untrue, Warfield believed the apographs were faithful representations and that they too were to be received as authoritative.

Letis also makes the mistake of thinking that past Christians only held to the apographs as authoritative. They believed in the authority of the apographs, that is certain, but they did not hold to it against the autographs, as Letis seems to assume. Rather, they saw the authority of the apographs as deriving from the autographs, and since they believed they had faithful copies of the autographs, the apographs were indeed authoritative.

I am convinced that Letis misrepresented Warfield grossly, and impugned him when he wrote his essay. And I am all the more disheartened by this when I see Letis being cited continually on many different websites in an effort to malign Warfield.

 

[Logan]

Likewise, Walton's Prolegomena: says the only copy that can plead the privilege of being with "no mistake in the least" is the autographa. Apparently he was a victim of post-enlightenment thinking long before Warfield.

I do not only say, that all saving fundamental truth is contained in the Originall Copies, but that all revealed truth is still remaining entire; or, if any error or mistake have crept in, it is in matters of no concernment, so that not only no matter of faith, but no considerable point of Historicall truth, Prophesies or other things, is thereby prejudiced, and that there are means left for rectifying any such mistakes where they are discovered. To make one Copy a standard for all others, in which no mistake in the least can be found, he cannot, no Copy can plead this privilege since the first autographa were in being.

So too Westminster Divine Richard Capel (Remains, 1658) says:

Now by Scripture is meant the Word of God written. Written then, Printed now; … It is consented unto by all parties, that the translators and transcribers might erre, being not Prophets, nor indued with that infallible Spirit in translating or transcribing, as Moses and the Prophets were in their Original Writings … The tentation lies on this side, … Sith there are no Prophets, no Apostles, no nor any infallible Spirits in the Church, how can we build on the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles now, sith the Scriptures in their translated Copies are not free from all possible corruptions, in the Copies we have either by transcribers or translators… For the Originals, though we have not the Primitive Copies written by the finger of God in the Tables, or by Moses and the Prophets in the Hebrew, or by the Apostles and the rest in the Greek for the New Testament, yet we have Copies in both languages, which Copies vary not from the Primitive writings in any matter that may stumble any.

He affirms the autographs were free from "all possible corruptions", yet at the same time affirms that those who transmit copies might err. This sounds like "inerrancy of the autographs" to me, yet Capel firmly believes that our copies do not vary significantly from the autographs and are therefore authoritative.

 

[MW]

Turretin, when he admits of "errors" that have crept in, assumes an inerrant autograph. Or at the very least when variants are mentioned, there is an assumed standard underlying it, which all assumed was originally inerrant.

This is beside the point. One can only say the autographs are without error because one has access to the autographs in the apographs. Whatever may be assumed from the writings of older divines can only be assumed because they affirmed an infallible Word in their possession. To speak of a non-existent thing as being infallible is meaningless.

 

[Logan]

I would like to stop posting on this topic but feel compelled to make (hopefully) one last one regarding Letis' views.

It appears, from all the evidence that I can glean, that Letis' personal views were similar to Bart Ehrman's in that he sees the New Testament as having arisen out of oral tradition and not being originally penned as inerrant. However, for Letis this is not a problem because the Church received those texts as canon in the 4th century, and later the Reformed church received Textus Receptus as canon in the 4th century. It seems more important for him to know what the church received, than what was originally written, though he concedes that what was originally written is useful for academic purposes. He argues that the church always receives the current texts as infallible.

What evidence do I have for that?

1. My own impressions as I read Letis' essay on Warfield. It was not immediately clear and that's why I hesitated to say that was his view, but once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains...

2. A radio program on Southwest Radio, in which Letis quotes Ehrman's book "Orthodox Corruption" as the most important work on textual criticism of the 20th century, and without any sort of disclaimer, uses it against James White's book. Ehrman, as I understand it, believes the New Testament text was "modified" during the second and third century, so that what we have is what the second and third century re-wrote, not what was originally written. An "evolving text" so to speak.

3. Independent conclusions that this was his view by two men on a blog post, one of whom had talked to him on this issue in person.

4. Another recorded lecture by Letis, in which he talks about Jerome "canonizing" the text when collating and doing his Vulgate translation, but more specifically at the end, during the question and answer session, when Letis conjectures that perhaps the apostles didn't even agree on whether to include the account of the Adulterous woman in John 8, but that since it was recognized from the early days as Scripture by the church, that it should be accepted.

5. An open letter from Bob Jones University that contained a critique of Letis' views. Including the surprise that Letis would allow that the originals (autographs) contained errors, concluding that "This is an incredible concession! Is this the price Dr. Letis would have us pay in order to gain an ecclesiastically approved Bible?" Letis responded in-depth but remained silent on this accusation. An argument from silence is not concrete proof, certainly, but it does seem telling.

6. A review by James Price in which Price likewise responded to Letis' work and gave this remark near the end:

He rejects the idea of inerrant autographs because he evidently thinks they never existed, and, therefore, a textual critical search for those texts is a vain enterprise. He must be satisfied with a text that grew out of multiple redactions of traditions and that was ultimately canonized by an ecclesiastical authority.

Note again that Letis responded (in very strong disapproval) to Price and corrected him on even minute issues, but he never corrected him on this.

If this is true, then it makes complete sense why, when James White asked him if he believed in the inerrancy of the autographs, he responded by saying "this is the wrong question. Have you stopped beating your wife?" For Letis, the question about the autographs was a logical error because it assumed the existence of the autographs, something Letis apparently did not.

If I have misrepresented Letis, please correct me.

 

[MW]

So too Westminster Divine Richard Capel (Remains, 1658) says:

Capel did not attend the Assembly.

 

[MW]

If I have misrepresented Letis, please correct me.

You are arguing from silence. The main point is that modern textual criticism is seeking a text which does not exist -- a phantom. It begins with a presupposition that is unreformed, adopts evidential methods that are unscientific, and ends in a quest that is unrealistic.

 

[Logan]

This is beside the point. One can only say the autographs are without error because one has access to the autographs in the apographs. Whatever may be assumed from the writings of older divines can only be assumed because they affirmed an infallible Word in their possession. To speak of a non-existent thing as being infallible is meaningless.

It is meaningless unless you are responding to people who either did not believe the original authors were inspired, or that God did not preserve them from error. This is the issue that Warfield had to deal with. It has no bearing, of itself, on whether you accept the apographs as authoritative.

Capel did not attend the Assembly.

Whether he did or not has no bearing on why I quoted him, which was to point out that Warfield's view was no innovation.

You are arguing from silence.

Would you mind dealing with the entirety of the evidence before making that claim? It is not entirely from silence, there are a number of statements I've linked to. Including four independent sources that came to the same conclusion I did, and two interviews of Letis and two responses Letis made that allude to his views.

Do you intend to keep picking out points like this or would you like to respond to the main arguments in my posts?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

This is correct; he was appointed a member for Gloucestershire but did not attend the assembly. Cf. Chad Van Dixhoorn, Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly 1643-1652, vol. 1, p. 112. Source is old DNB.

So too Westminster Divine Richard Capel (Remains, 1658) says:

Capel did not attend the Assembly.