Original Autographs=Scripture?

[Jude24]

The past few weeks I've been exploring the various textual issues (TR vs CT, etc.), and I'm curious to hear your thoughts on something I've been pondering. While listening to and reading various evangelical textual criticism scholars, the goal seems to be to get back to the original manuscripts and find out exactly what the authors wrote. My question is, if we could truly determine to the letter what the original authors wrote in the first manuscripts, would it even give us an actual answer as to what we should consider as scripture? This question is mainly focusing on debated long scripture passages such as the ending of Mark 16 and John 7:53-8:11, rather than debated words.

For example, if we determined that Mark did not write chapter 16:9-20 in his gospel, does this automatically determine that it is not to be considered as scripture? Similar to the ending of Deuteronomy that Moses did not write but we still consider to be scripture, could another apostle possibly have written the ending of Mark?

I ask this because I hear all the "evidence" that the writing style of the ending of Mark does not seem to match the rest of the book and some manuscripts do not include it, but it seems to me that if the church seems to have regarded the ending as Mark as scripture for so long that it should be considered as such even if the evidence determines Mark did not write it.

As you can probably tell, I lean toward TR-priority, but I can still see the importance of looking at the evidence. I just don't necessarily think the evidence should determine what is scripture and what is not.

I hope this question makes sense.

 

[joebonni63]

I think this is what you were looking for:

The earliest extant complete manuscripts of Mark, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, two 4th-century manuscripts, do not contain the last twelve verses, 16:9–20, nor the unversed shorter ending. Codex Vaticanus (4th century) has a blank column after ending at 16:8 and placing kata Markon, "according to Mark".

But maybe like like some translations put those verses in the footnotes and explain why it's not part of the text.

 

[cthorn14]

As you can probably tell, I lean toward TR-priority, but I can still see the importance of looking at the evidence. I just don't necessarily think the evidence should determine what is scripture and what is not.

Yes, that's definitely the reformed view (WCF 1.4):

The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth 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.

Perhaps an oversimplification, but I think both sides see the importance of looking at 'the evidence', but disagree over what the evidence is. The CT side sees particular manuscripts as speaking very loudly as to which words were immediately inspired by God. The TR side sees providential preservation of a manuscript tradition as a more significant testimony. The CT side replies by saying the TR position takes too narrow a view of providential preservation. The TR side replies by saying the CT view of providential preservation shakes confidence in the Scripture and is at odds with the original intention of the confession. CT then sees TR as seeking illegitimate certainty.

 

[Logan]

I get what you are saying. Theodore Letis, as far as I can tell, said that the ending of Mark was both not original, and part of Scripture.

Brevard Childs seems to think that the locus of authority is whatever the church accepts. So the church accepts or canonizes the books that are part of Scripture, and it also accepts or canonizes the text that is in those books. In other words, the history of the text, or what was original, is immaterial because what matters is what the Church has now.

I don't think this is the Reformed view though. While it is certainly true that the Reformed appealed to the copies (apographs, read Turretin, around page 100 in his first volume of Elenctic Theology), they did so because they represented the autographs, not because the church had accepted it or embraced it. Turretin says that the edict of a king being read aloud in the square has the authority of the king, but only insofar as the reader is accurately rendering the original. For Turretin, the original authority was in the autographs, the derived authority was in the apographs, insofar as they accurately represented the autographs.

The apographs have a derived authority from the autographs, inasmuch as they accurately represent the autographs. The Reformed did indeed appeal to the autographs, but since those didn't exist, they appealed to the apographs as accurately representing the autographs.

There is much wisdom and caution to be exercised here, to be sure and I think the CT is too uncautious (I think the Byzantine Priority view is a good balance). But if it can be shown definitely that something is not original (not part of the autograph) then the Reformed would reject it as being uninspired and unauthoritative.

To hold any other view would open the door to the "four author" theory of the Pentateuch, or the later revisions of Daniel, if one accepted that future inspiration modifies earlier inspiration. Incidentally, CS Lewis seemed to have that view of Scripture: that what was initially written down is not what we have, but was "refined" by God over the years, slowly working through people to correct it and bring it all into uniformity with his ultimate plan. The Reformed should absolutely reject this.

I think the CT proponents err when they too aggressively assert that older is better and disregard many witnesses in favor of a few favored ones.
I think the TR proponents err when they assert (assume) that "the TR" reflects the autographs, even when there is no evidence for some of its readings and the history of the TR doesn't fit that assumption.

The view that "whatever comes about must be the providentially preserved text" is true to an extent (all things only come about by providence), but I dislike that assumption because it's only used when it supports a particular position, and denied when it doesn't. E.g., the TR was in wide use, therefore it must be the providentially preserved text, but the CT being (or becoming) widely used indicates nothing of the sort.

 

[joebonni63]

I get what you are saying. Theodore Letis, as far as I can tell, said that the ending of Mark was both not original, and part of Scripture.

Brevard Childs seems to think that the locus of authority is whatever the church accepts. So the church accepts or canonizes the books that are part of Scripture, and it also accepts or canonizes the text that is in those books. In other words, the history of the text, or what was original, is immaterial because what matters is what the Church has now.

I don't think this is the Reformed view though. While it is certainly true that the Reformed appealed to the copies (apographs, read Turretin, around page 100 in his first volume of Elenctic Theology), they did so because they represented the autographs, not because the church had accepted it or embraced it. Turretin says that the edict of a king being read aloud in the square has the authority of the king, but only insofar as the reader is accurately rendering the original. For Turretin, the original authority was in the autographs, the derived authority was in the apographs, insofar as they accurately represented the autographs.

The apographs have a derived authority from the autographs, inasmuch as they accurately represent the autographs. The Reformed did indeed appeal to the autographs, but since those didn't exist, they appealed to the apographs as accurately representing the autographs.

There is much wisdom and caution to be exercised here, to be sure and I think the CT is too uncautious (I think the Byzantine Priority view is a good balance). But if it can be shown definitely that something is not original (not part of the autograph) then the Reformed would reject it as being uninspired and unauthoritative.

To hold any other view would open the door to the "four author" theory of the Pentateuch, or the later revisions of Daniel, if one accepted that future inspiration modifies earlier inspiration. Incidentally, CS Lewis seemed to have that view of Scripture: that what was initially written down is not what we have, but was "refined" by God over the years, slowly working through people to correct it and bring it all into uniformity with his ultimate plan. The Reformed should absolutely reject this.

I think the CT proponents err when they too aggressively assert that older is better and disregard many witnesses in favor of a few favored ones.
I think the TR proponents err when they assert (assume) that "the TR" reflects the autographs, even when there is no evidence for some of its readings and the history of the TR doesn't fit that assumption.

The view that "whatever comes about must be the providentially preserved text" is true to an extent (all things only come about by providence), but I dislike that assumption because it's only used when it supports a particular position, and denied when it doesn't. E.g., the TR was in wide use, therefore it must be the providentially preserved text, but the CT being (or becoming) widely used indicates nothing of the sort.

I think this is all great but if the Apostles wrote something different and is actually older than the TR that would make the TR incorrect. I believe that is what the question was about. We can't just say well someone revised the Text so lets use that even though we have older editions proving likewise.

 

[Sam Jer]

I think this is all great but if the Apostles wrote something different and is actually older than the TR that would make the TR incorrect. I believe that is what the question was about. We can't just say well someone revised the Text so lets use that even though we have older editions proving likewise.

But do the older editions prove otherwise (when you do not assume the various CT text theories such as the lucian recension)? The manuscript evidence alone does not conclusively prove either text.

 

[Logan]

I think this is all great but if the Apostles wrote something different and is actually older than the TR that would make the TR incorrect. I believe that is what the question was about. We can't just say well someone revised the Text so lets use that even though we have older editions proving likewise.

I don't understand how this interacts with what I wrote.

 

[Jude24]

I get what you are saying. Theodore Letis, as far as I can tell, said that the ending of Mark was both not original, and part of Scripture.

Brevard Childs seems to think that the locus of authority is whatever the church accepts. So the church accepts or canonizes the books that are part of Scripture, and it also accepts or canonizes the text that is in those books. In other words, the history of the text, or what was original, is immaterial because what matters is what the Church has now.

I don't think this is the Reformed view though. While it is certainly true that the Reformed appealed to the copies (apographs, read Turretin, around page 100 in his first volume of Elenctic Theology), they did so because they represented the autographs, not because the church had accepted it or embraced it. Turretin says that the edict of a king being read aloud in the square has the authority of the king, but only insofar as the reader is accurately rendering the original. For Turretin, the original authority was in the autographs, the derived authority was in the apographs, insofar as they accurately represented the autographs.

The apographs have a derived authority from the autographs, inasmuch as they accurately represent the autographs. The Reformed did indeed appeal to the autographs, but since those didn't exist, they appealed to the apographs as accurately representing the autographs.

There is much wisdom and caution to be exercised here, to be sure and I think the CT is too uncautious (I think the Byzantine Priority view is a good balance). But if it can be shown definitely that something is not original (not part of the autograph) then the Reformed would reject it as being uninspired and unauthoritative.

To hold any other view would open the door to the "four author" theory of the Pentateuch, or the later revisions of Daniel, if one accepted that future inspiration modifies earlier inspiration. Incidentally, CS Lewis seemed to have that view of Scripture: that what was initially written down is not what we have, but was "refined" by God over the years, slowly working through people to correct it and bring it all into uniformity with his ultimate plan. The Reformed should absolutely reject this.

I think the CT proponents err when they too aggressively assert that older is better and disregard many witnesses in favor of a few favored ones.
I think the TR proponents err when they assert (assume) that "the TR" reflects the autographs, even when there is no evidence for some of its readings and the history of the TR doesn't fit that assumption.

The view that "whatever comes about must be the providentially preserved text" is true to an extent (all things only come about by providence), but I dislike that assumption because it's only used when it supports a particular position, and denied when it doesn't. E.g., the TR was in wide use, therefore it must be the providentially preserved text, but the CT being (or becoming) widely used indicates nothing of the sort.

Thank you for your informative response. I certainly agree with your view. You are right that my hypothetical could open up to the door to the potential error that the Bible can be revised over time.

I agree with your position. I am somewhere in between CT and TR. I mostly agree with the TR as it reflects the Byzantine/majority view, but I agree that fully accepting the TR seems to throw out overwhelming evidence on many occasions.

 

[Ploutos]

There is much wisdom and caution to be exercised here, to be sure and I think the CT is too uncautious (I think the Byzantine Priority view is a good balance). But if it can be shown definitely that something is not original (not part of the autograph) then the Reformed would reject it as being uninspired and unauthoritative.

To hold any other view would open the door to the "four author" theory of the Pentateuch, or the later revisions of Daniel, if one accepted that future inspiration modifies earlier inspiration. Incidentally, CS Lewis seemed to have that view of Scripture: that what was initially written down is not what we have, but was "refined" by God over the years, slowly working through people to correct it and bring it all into uniformity with his ultimate plan. The Reformed should absolutely reject this.

Does this logically follow? Do you believe that Moses wrote the account of his own death or updated place names to reflect what would become common usage centuries later?

I've never thought that later edits to OT books conflicted with the doctrine of divine inspiration OR led to aberrant/higher-critic views. I've thought that one can readily accept editorial changes to Genesis without believing the JEDP theory or Third Isaiah. The locus of inspiration has never rested in the sole authorship of every word of the Torah by Moses.

But it does seem a different standard is applied to the NT. Does the source of Mark's inspiration lie in every last word having come straight from Mark's pen, such that if it could be proven that he wrote 16:8, lifted his quill, then immediately dropped dead of a massive coronary, we would be forced without choice to reject anything after as an uninspired addendum?

 

[DanSSwing]

I think the originals are much more important for NT than for OT. For example, we know that the original oral tradition (maybe even written?) of the Pentateuch can't be exactly what we have since the written versions use anachronisms for the city of Ramses in Egypt, i.e. they call it by this name in explaining history long before Ramses became Pharaoh. I'm happy with calling these anachronisms the Word of God, but I am more reluctant to do so re: additions to the NT.

 

[Sam Jer]

I actually thought you would be asking about the language of "inerrant in their'e originsl autographs". Okay, that's nice, but how do we know what's in those autographs?

 

[joebonni63]

I don't understand how this interacts with what I wrote.

This topic went off into the oldest manuscripts I think that's what happened. But your question is very valid.