The Negative Impact of Textual Criticism on the World Stage

“Muslim scholarly criticism of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament never brought about a corresponding study of the Qur’an. When European biblical criticism was brought to the Muslim East in the nineteenth century, it served only as an additional corroboration of the traditional polemical arguments about the falsification and unreliability of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament.”

Hava Lazarus-Yafeh, “Some Neglected Aspects of Medieval Muslim Polemics against Christianity,” Harvard Theological Review, 89:1 (1996), 61-84: 66.

Jordan Peterson and the Scriptures as the Precondition of Truth

One of my first forays into philosophy while a grad student at Calvin Theological Seminary was in writing a term paper wherein I compared the wisdom of the Wise Ruler in Plato’s Republic with the wisdom possessed and revealed by the Jewish king, Solomon. Not only did I compare them, but I also equated them. This as it turns out was a mistake and my paper showed the marks of that mistake.

In the last week or so the inimitable Jordan Peterson made some rather provocative, and for some Christian observers, encouraging comments on the nature of the Christian Scriptures and their role in establishing the substructure of Western truth paradigms.

Not long after Jordan Peterson made these comments some made naive jokes about how something could be truer than true, others were quick to claim Jordan Peterson for the Church as was done with Soren Kirkegaard, and others offered more measured and penetrating commentary. One such commentator was the Chestertonian pastor Presbyterian from Moscow…Moscow, Idaho. That pastor is Douglas Wilson.

Some know him to be a faithful pastor and gadfly on the horse that is modern Western culture. Still others perceive him to be a firestarter for the sake of firestarting. For this last group, I believe they hold Wilson in such a light because they have no taste for unrelenting razor-sharp rhetoric. Either that or they find affective comfort in soy lattes and/or skinny jeans and Wilson triggers their malformed Christian sensibilities which are chiefly expressed in their conflation of some amorphous concept of kindness with Christian love.

You can find Wilson’s observations and commentary here:

In the above video, Wilson observes that what Peterson means by truth and what the Christian means by truth is equivocal. Both are using the same term, but they do not precisely mean the same thing. Indeed, I agree that Peterson is not far from the kingdom of God [Mark 12:34] given the above statements and others regarding living as if there is a God and speaking of the Divine Logos and Christ being the embodiment of that Logos.

Regarding Peterson’s most recent comments, let us try to get ahold of his ideas first then juxtapose them to the Christian view and particularly what we are propounding here at StandardSacredText.com. Then finally we will note the differences and similarities between the two.

Beginning with Peterson, if you pay careful attention to the argument leading up to his statements on the truth quality of Scripture and Scripture as the precondition of truth you will note where he starts. He starts with western civilization and particularly with a less-than-brief western literary history. By my lights his points are as follows:

1.) There was a time when the Bible was The Book for western culture. By this he means that there was a book held in higher esteem or a book set apart by western culture and no other western book was considered its equal. In this sense the Bible was The Book.


2.) There is also a sense in which the Bible was The Book for the English-speaking western world because it was the first book printed. Note Peterson’s emphasis on technology and its advancements. The Gutenberg Press was inestimable leap in the means and method of communicating and the first book printed with this technology was the King James Version of The Book.


3.) Peterson uses 1 and 2 to begin to construct an inverse pyramid where the most foundational book to western society and culture rests at the pinnacle of this inverse pyramid and all other books are built upon this pinnacle. According to Peterson, close to the base or bottom of this inverse pyramid are the works of Shakespeare, Milton, and Dante in translation and by extrapolation, the great books of the western world as compiled in the Britanica series by the same name. But there is no doubt that Shakespeare, Milton, and Dante derive much of their material by either direct experience with the Bible and/or by experience through the culture via media i.e., stories, art, music, song, ecclesiastical architecture etc.


4.) Peterson thus concludes that the Bible is the foundation for all the truth we know, teach, and read about in at least our current western culture if not for western generations immemorial. In this sense the Bible is truer than true. The Bible is the precondition to truth as the western mind understands it. Put more concretely, to make a robust appeal to some truth, especially if truth is only a value in the fact\value divide, without referring to the Bible in some ways is like making a robust appeal to a child’s existence without referring to her parents in some way. You can do it, but the picture is profoundly incomplete.

Regarding the orthodox Christian position, the Scriptures are more than the precondition to truth as touching the western mind. Rather, the Scriptures are the precondition to all theological truth which includes ontology, epistemology, and morality or being, knowing, and ethics. The Scriptures are the precondition to these truths no matter the time or place in which the reader of the Scriptures finds himself/herself.

This is because the Scriptures are more than The Book which rests at the epistemological foundation of all other books in the western lineage of learning and teaching. The Scriptures are the propositional revelation of the incarnate Logos, the Archetypical Word, the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ. As such, the Scriptures rest as the founding pinnacle and the precondition of truth because the Scriptures are the revealed proposition of The Truth, and it is for this reason primarily that the Scriptures are The Book. And not just for the West but for all of humanity.

In sum, the efficacy of an argument depends on its explanatory scope and its explanatory force. We determine the former by how much of the data an argument can account for, and we determine the latter by how rational and believable the argument is given its attempts to explain the data. Peterson’s argument has considerable explanatory scope and force. It explains much of the data and in a way that is rational and believable, but it quite clearly seems to leave out the spiritual and theological implications of arguing for divine revelation as the precondition to truth. Thusly construed, the distinctively Christian argument employs the theological element and can absorb Peterson’s argument without doing violence to either.

If the Bible is the living word of God, then it is not we who examine it, but it that examines us. In other words, the virtues of the West were not built on the Bible. Rather, the Bible built the virtues of the West.

Daniel Turner, 1793, and Freedom from Ecclesiastical Despotism and Effecting the Protestant Reformation by means of the Reformation Era English Bible in the Tyndale/King James Version tradition.

“The most effectual means of producing a uniformity in religion, upon any other plan than that of rational conviction, would be to deprive the common people of the use of the Bible, in their mother tongue; and oblige them to receive their religion from the dictates of their spiritual guides only. It was by this means that the church of Rome kept her sovereignty over the consciousness of men for ages, with a surprising degree of uniformity. The giving of the Bible to the common people, in a language thy understood, gave the deepest wound to her ecclesiastical despotism, and contributed more than any thing (as a mean) to the effecting the Protestant Reformation in which we glory.”

Daniel Turner, Free Thoughts on the Spirit of Free Inquiry in Religion; with Cautions against the Abuse of it, and Persuasions to Candour, Toleration, and Peace, Amongst Christians of All Denominations (Printed and sold by G. Norton, for the Author; Sold also by J. Johnson, No. 72, St. Paul’s Church-yard; T Knott, No. 47, Lombard-street; J. Marsom, No. 187, High Holbron; T. Thomas, No. 29, Houndsditch, London: and by W. Watts, at Abingdon, 1793), 115.

Daniel Turner (1710-1798): Baptist pastor and hymn writer

On the Question of Tinkering with the Bible

According to the Cambridge English Dictionary, “tinker” means, “to make small changes to something, especially in an attempt to repair or improve it.”

At this point in the game, are the modern evangelical text-critics merely tinkering with the New Testament? I ask this question because of how the argument seems to be framed by the modern evangelical text-critic. Consider the following arguments.

Proposition 1: Nothing major is affected by the variants currently represented in the N/A 28.
Proposition 2: The original words of Scripture are contained in either the text or apparatus. If that worries you at all see P1.
Conclusion: We have all the words of the original and where we are unsure if the original word is in the text or apparatus nothing major is at stake.

Certainly, modern evangelical text-critics would think themselves to be repairing or improving the Greek New Testament. It is unclear if that is indeed the case and equally as unclear as to the standard by which such a repair or improvement is measured especially given certain Christian precommitments regarding what the Scripture says about itself. What is more, given the above propositions and conclusion it seems by the modern evangelical text-critic’s own admission that their work is only in minor things and in making minor changes. In sum, the modern evangelical text-critic seeks to repair or improve the Greek New Testament via the relatively minor things.

This seems to be the very definition of a New Testament textual tinker.

On the flip side, if the modern evangelical text critic admits that they are still making major changes to the Greek New Testament thus inferring the need for a professional, then something meaningful and substantive is in the balance. But if there are truly meaningful and substantive changes to be made thus necessitating a trusted captain at the helm, then it seems to me that Proposition 1 loses most of its bark and bite. Indeed, there very well may be major truths [however that is determined] at stake thus the necessity for professionals and not tinkers.

Perhaps this argument would be sufficient for a Bart Ehrman type who sees the text-critical work mostly done unless we achieve some Dead Sea Scroll level discovery at some point in the future. Perhaps the evangelical text-critic on the other hand would not accept this argument that they are merely tinkering with the text. And why? Because they believe themselves to be on the way to finding the original words of the inspired word of God. In this sense, their work is major work, but then of course they run into a whole other kind of hornet’s nest of objections. Consider the following:

Proposition 1′: Because the aim of modern evangelical text criticism is to find the original inspired words of the New Testament, every word is major in that each word of God is meaningful and substantive.
Proposition 2′: The fact that we are unsure in many places whether the original word of God is either in the text or apparatus [assuming it is in either of those two places] is a meaningful and substantive lack of assurance because one is God’s word, and the other is not, or perhaps a third unknown option is.
Conclusion’: Because we are unsure whether God’s original words are in the text or apparatus [or in some third place] meaningful and substantive [i.e., major] things are at stake and as such call for a professional and not a tinkerer to sort all this out.

In sum,
1.) Either the textual improvements made by modern evangelical text-critics are minor and thus their work is a work of tinkering.
OR
2.) The textual improvements made by modern evangelical text-critics are major thus the New Testament continues to endure major changes by professionals.
Conclusion: If (2), then the claim that we currently have the words of God in all major ways seems unfounded.

So, which will it be? Are you tinkers or are we still looking for the Scriptures in major ways?

Dictation and Inspiration

The term “dictation” in modern parlance bears a wooden, narrow meaning not applicable to inspiration during the Reformation. Indeed, if ever a word suffered the ignominies of modern theological reconstruction, it is the word “dictation.” The word was in general use among the Reformers as common terminology describing the penmen’s role in writing under immediate inspiration. Reformation era writers used the word “dictation” as a safeguard against the erosion of the active, creative instrumentality of the Holy Spirit in inspiration. Dictation and infallibility were linked in Reformation theological formulation. To replace infallibility, certainty and the impossibility to err, with degrees of inerrancy, to be without error, the Reformed Orthodox use of dictation would also be replaced and thus the demonization and inaccurate teaching on the16th and 17th c. theological definition of dictation.

The active, creative instrumentality was called  the mandatum scribendi, an assumption of the doctrine of verbal inspiration, viz., that the Spirit initiated the writing of Scripture and provided a mandatum,(command) or the impulsium (impulse) to write (2 Peter 1:21).[1] At issue is not the role of human penmen but the sharing of the creative factor of inspiration.[2] The trajectory of sharing this creative factor with the penmen resulted in the expansion of the Doctrine of Inspiration to include the psychology and limitations of the writers, categories not found in Scripture. The Reformers recognized the penmen’s reason, forms of expression, and cultural thought patterns in submission to the active creative instrumentality of the Holy Spirit.[3] Turretin, on this issue, comments,

The question is not whether the sacred writers were impelled by certain occasions to write. For we do not deny that they often made use of opportunities offered to commit to writing the mysteries of God. Rather the question is whether they wrote so according to the opportunities that they could not also write according to an expressed divine command. For we think these things should not be opposed to each other, but brought together. They could write both on the presentation of an opportunity and yet by divine command and by divine inspiration. Yea, they must have written by the divine will because God alone could present such an occasion, for it was neither presented to them without design nor employed of their own accord.”[4]

Dictation was not meant to infer that the penmen were mere “tools” or that inspiration was “mechanical” [5] removing the personalities of the writers from the writing. Diction described in these terms was a misappropriation of the word used by the Protestant Reformers, utilized pejoratively by post-critical commentators to disparage the pre-critical formulation of the infallibility of immediate inspiration therefore reinforcing multiple views of inerrancy that diminish the meaning of inspiration by secular regulations. Our Reformation era forefathers used the word “dictation” in a technical sense to underscore the Divine process of Scripture’s inspiration and the infallible canon it produced.For instance, Thomas Hall, B.D. and minister of Kings-Norton in Worcester-shire writes,

That the Sacred Scriptures are the very word of God. Holy men were but the instruments, tis God that is the Author of them; they were but the spirits of amanuenses to write what he should dictate to them. Hence it is called the word of God. Mark 7:13, 2 Cor. 2:17 and 4:2, 1 Thess. 4:15. the Oracles of God. [6]  

Indeed, Ames in 1641 refers to the work of the penmen in terms of dictation given by Jerome saying, “The Scripture must be understood by the help of the same Spirit, by whom it was dictated, as, Jerome, eodum spiritu debet intuigi scriptura qua suit dictate.”[7]

In addition to Ames and Hall the following are examples of pre-critical formulas of immediate inspiration, described as dictation. Dictation should be held to reinforce the Spirit’s creative role in Inspiration and not to negate the human element in Scripture. Francis Turretin writes in his Institutes,

And if corruption is admitted in those of lesser importance, why not others of greater? 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 (autopistian [self-authentication]) of Scripture itself. Nor can we readily believe that God, who dictated and inspired each and every word to these inspired (theopneustois) men, would not take care of their entire preservation.”[8]

Lamothe likewise writes, “When the Old Testament is cited by the Apostles, they usually call it the Scripture by way of excellency; as when St. Paul, speaking of an Oracle dictated by the mouth of God Himself, says, For what saith the Scripture, cast out the bondwoman and her son (Gal. 1:30),”[9] Again, quoting Eusebius, Lamothe finds that,

in the Ecclesiastical History that the heretics who denied the Divinity of our Lord, had the confidence to falsify the Scripture, to accommodate the Text to their opinions. Upon which the author of the primitive ages says, that it was not likely that the heretics were ignorant how criminal an enterprise of the nature was: For, says he, either they believed not that the Sacred Scriptures were dictated by the Holy Ghost; and so were infidels; or they imagine themselves to be wiser than the Holy Ghost, and then what are they other than demoniacs. Euseb. h.e.1.5.c.ult.[10]

God was the primary author of sacred Scripture, the Holy Spirit the active creative agent, and the penmen were secondary, the writers of inspired text. Ames says that Scripture’s inspiration “may serve to admonish us, not so much to meddle in the Scriptures, as if we were in another man’s ground, or in those things which belong unto others and not unto ourselves,”[11] good and timely counsel for today.

[1] Muller, Dictionary, 183.

[2] Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1993), 212. Strong writes, “The Scriptures are the production equally of God and man, and are therefore never to be regarded as merely human or merely divine.” Again on p. 216, “Inspiration is therefore not verbal, while yet we claim that no form of words which taken in its connections would teach essential error has been admitted into Scripture.”

[3] Muller, Dictionary, 155.

[4] Turretin, Institutes, 60. Contra James Leo Garrett, Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical and Evangelical (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 116., Garrett writes, “[Turretin] taught the utter passivity and sheer instrumentality of the biblical writers under the sway of the Holy Spirit, and the consequent inerrancy of the Bible.”

[5] Strong, Systematic, 208: Of the Dictation theory Strong writes, “This theory holds that inspiration consisted in such a possession of the minds and bodies of the Scripture writers by the Holy Spirit, that they became passive instruments or amanuenses – pens, not penmen, of God.”

[6] Thomas Hall, A Practical and Polemical Commentary, 1658, 274.

[7] Ames, Exposition, 186.

[8] Turretin, Institutes, 71 of the original language copies, autopistian; 126, autopiston.

[9] C.G. Lamothe, The Inspiration of the New Testament Asserted and Explained in Answer to some Modern Writers (London, Printed for Thomas Bennet, at the Half-Moon in ST. Paul’s Church-yard, 1694), 24.

[10] Lamothe, Inspiration, 32.

[11]Ames, Exposition, 251.

Rev. Robert Traill, 1705, on True Religion

“There are three things simply necessary into any man’s having a true religion and godliness; sound principles of divine truth, the savour of that knowledge in the heart, and the power of that savour in a man’s worship and walk. There are no sound principles of saving faith, but in God’s written word. There is no right savour of those principles, but in and by faith and love, which is in Christ Jesus, 2 Tim. 1:17 and 3:15. It is called this savour of the knowledge of Christ, as it is called, 2 Cor. 2:14 that the power of godliness is impressed upon the heart, and expressed in the life of a believer. If the principles of truth be not from God’s word, there can be no true religion if the truth confessed be consonant to God’s word, and faith and love be wanting, it may be man’s notion and opinion, but it is not the man’s religion; and if the power of the known truth be not his walk and conversation, neither should he himself, nor ought any other to think, that such a man hath any religion at all.”

Robert Traill, Sixteen Sermons on the Lord’s Prayer in John 17:24. First printed in 1705. (Glasgow: Printed and Sold by John Bryce, at his shop opposite Gibsons’s-wynd, Salt-market, 1776), Preface.

Beauty and the Scriptures as Art

Once we establish the primary argument that the Scriptures are known to be the Scriptures down to the very word, we can then work on other arguments to support that main argument. One of the arguments in favor of the KJV is its beauty the qualities of which seems to be lost on modern translations.

Historically in the West the Good, the True, and the Beautiful have traveled together. Their qualities interrelate and interpenetrate. God is the Good and what He makes is good. God is the True, the source of Truth and what He says is therefore true. God is the Beautiful and everything He makes, commands, and purposes is also beautiful. As such, it should not seem foreign to our ears for the Christian to make arguments for the goodness of Scripture, the truth of Scripture, and the beauty of Scripture.

Indeed, the content of Scripture, or shall we say the substance of Scripture is beautiful, but my focus is on the accidents of Scripture – the shape of the words, the order of the words, the excellency of translation, the majesty of translation, and phraseology. In this sense, in the sense of Scriptures shape, the Scriptures are a work of art. Unfortunately, by the 70’s the evangelical church has largely left of pursuit any meaningful pursuit of art.

Hans Rookmakker, chair of art history at the Free University of Amsterdam and colleague of Francis Schaeffer, once wrote in his work, Modern Art and the Death of a Culture, that

“Evangelicals have also underestimated the importance of art. They have thought of biblical pictures as being representations of biblical stories. But they did not see that the salt had become tasteless, that there was so much idealization, so much of a sort of pseudo-devotional sentimentality in these pictures that they are very far from the reality the Bible talks about.”

Rookmaaker, Death, 75.

As it was in Rookmaaker’s time so it is in ours. In our modern day we need look no further than God Is Not Dead II. Certainly, there are belligerent atheistic professors on college campuses and Christians need to be ready to give an answer of the hope that lies within them with meekness and fear. But as the story goes the evil professor is every bit a caricature, a form of idealization, and religious sentimentality in this and similar movies, abounds. They are like Hallmark Movies with some extra Christianity sprinkled in.

Art is the betrayer of culture. Art tattles on a culture. Art tells us what a culture truly believes. And Western culture believes

“Man is dead. He is nothing but a machine, a very complex machine, an absurd machine.”

Rookmaaker, Death, 129.

In the West, man is widely construed as a mere biological machine making temporal bodily transactions for the maximizing of pleasure and minimizing of pain. Machines are not concerned with beauty. They exist for accuracy and efficiency, but they are in the end dead things.

Does anyone take pause after saying, “Hmmm, we have found new hope in the CBGM and the employment of computers to do the work of men?” No, we forge ahead as dead machines having dead machines do the work of dead machines. Would believing text critics agree with my assessment? No, but have they dealt with the beauty question in their own work? No. Does their failure to treat the beauty question play into the current cultural language of men being dead machines therefore our art will be like us, dead and mechanical? Yes.

How often do you read in the preface or arguments for the modern versions that beauty is an essential element of the work? Perhaps not the translators, but how about the readers? How many of them seek beauty in their preferred text? None, because in large part the current ecclesiastical culture seems to have absorbed the culture and language of those around them. Don’t believe me? Take the time to read Carl Trueman’s The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self and come back for round two. Instead, all we hear about the next translation cash-grab is its accuracy and efficiency. Again, the language of lifeless machines. Is accuracy important? Of course. Is beauty less important? Never, because of the proximity of beauty to the Good and the True.

Indeed, if X is good and true, it should be equally as beautiful. If the Scriptures are good and true, then they should be at least as beautiful. But alas they are not. In fact, this is not even a stated aim of either the progenitors of the new translations nor is it the stated aim of those who read those translations. Why? At this point we can only guess, and my guess is that they do not care if their Bible is beautiful as to form because they are not sure it is good and true. Which is also why they keep making new Bibles at will. So, while they fail to care for the beauty of their text they tacitly argue against the goodness and truth of their own text by not making it beautiful.

To further the point I take you again to another of Rookmaaker’s works, Art Needs No Justification. In it he writes,

“So if an artist depicts the Christmas story, he does so not only because it happened so many years ago, but because he understands that to be still of great value and importance to us. And he will show what his understanding of it is. Therefore, if we see the many cheap and sentimental Christmas cards we really have to question what they stand for. Should that be the understanding of that story now? Isn’t that too cheap, unworthy of the reality of the Son of God coming into the world? Is that the quality of our Christianity? If it is, and I think it is, it raises many questions!”

Rookmaaker, Art, 43.

In another place he gives this accounting,

“I saw a painting that depicted the ‘column of fire at Mount Sinai.’ It was in the form and on the level of a poster. I saw a young artist painting ‘Ecce Homo,’ Christ among his enemies, but it was badly done, and therefore below the line [of appropriateness and decorum]. If one cannot paint a good head, how can one tackle a subject so difficult that many artists in the past avoided it, as it was so hard to do in a convincing and right way? We must know our limits and choose our genre as well as our subject since the genre itself is part of the communication.”

Rookmaaker, Art, 48.

In sum, translators show their understanding of translation and of the thing they are translating when performing the art of translation. If the translator will not or cannot make a beautiful translation of the Scripture in addition to its being accurate, this inability or failure tells us something of how the translator understands his discipline and of how he understands the nature of the Scriptures as good and true. As such, it may be that the subject of translation is too difficult for the translator/artist. As Rookmaaker points out, if the translator cannot make the translation beautiful, then perhaps he/she does not know his/her limits or chosen genre.

If the Scriptures are indeed the written words of the Creator God in the person of Jesus Christ, does it not stand to reason that they be beautiful and that we aim to make them beautiful? And if the Scriptures are not translated beautifully and if beauty is not a primary aim along with goodness and truth, does that not show how cheap we hold the Scriptures? Or to borrow from Rookmaaker again, does not our constant proliferation of ugly translations bespeak “the perceived quality of our Christianity” as ugly and unkempt?

So many seek to make Christianity attractive with smoke machines, laser light shows, and skinny jeans while we churn out ugly translations with the language and speed of a dead machine.

Verbum Dei: Word of God

For today’s Essential Vocab we look again into Muller’s dictionary of Greek and Latin theological terms and specifically at the term, Verbum Dei or Word of God. As you will see, it is important especially in nuanced theological discussion to distinguish between these four meanings of Word of God as well as to observe their intimate interrelatedness. Muller writes,

“Verbum Dei: Word of God;

as distinguished by the Protestant orthodox, there are four basic and interrelated meanings of the term Verbum Dei:”

Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology, Term: Verbum Dei.

“(1) the eternal Word of God, Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, the Son.”

Muller, Dictionary, Term: Verbum Dei.

“(2) the incarnate Word, Jesus Christ, the divine-human Mediator of salvation.”

Muller, Dictionary, Term: Verbum Dei.

“(3) the inspired Word of the Holy Scripture, which is the wisdom of God given in a form accessible to human beings but nonetheless grounded in the eternal Word and Wisdom of God, God the Son, and historically focused on Christ the Word incarnate.”

Muller, Dictionary, Term: Verbum Dei.

Here of course is where the rubber meets the road for the version controversy. If the revealed word of God is “grounded” in the eternal Word, Jesus Christ, then all that is revealed word must be consistent with the eternal Word. Can a spring send forth salt water and fresh water? Certainly not. In like manner, reading X is either the revealed word of God grounded in the eternal Word or reading X is merely the word of fallen men. These are our only two options.

That said, the revealed word is not alone in that a fourth kind of “word” accompanies the revealed Word. That is,

“(4) the internal Word of the Spirit, or testimonium internum Spiritus Sancti (q.v.), the Verbum internum, which testifies to the human heart concerning the truth of the written or external Word (verbum externum).”

Muller, Dictionary, Term: Verbum Dei.

In sum, when we speak of the Scripture as the word of God we speak of it as that Spirit-inspired and Spirit-testified word-revelation grounded in the eternal Word which has as its central topic the incarnate Word. For those of a more philosophical bent,

The First Cause of revealed Word is the Eternal Word.
The Formal Cause of revealed Word is the Word of the Spirit
The Efficient Cause of revealed Word is also the Word of the Spirit.
The Material Cause of revealed Word is the substance and accidents of the inspired words.
The Final Cause of revealed Word is to draw fallen man to the incarnate Word.

Zacharias Ursinus, 1587, on Scripture as the immortal seed of the Church

As for that, which some men say, that the Church is more ancienter than the Scriptures, and therefore of greater authority, it is too trifling. For the word of God is the everlasting wisdom of God himself. Neither was the knowledge of it then manifested unto the Church, when it was committed to writing, but the manifesting of it began together with the creation of mankind, and the first beginnings of the Church in paradise: yea, the word is that immortal seed of which the Church was born.

The Church therefore could not be, except the word was first delivered. Now when we name the holy Scripture, we mean not so much the characters of the letters and volumes, but rather the sentences which are contained in them, which they shall never be able to prove to be of less antiquitie than the Church. For albeit there were repeated and declared often after the beginning of the gathering of the Church, yet the sum of the Law and Gospel was the same forever.

To conclude, neither is that which they assume, always true, That the authority of the ancient witness is greater than that of the younger. For such may be condition and quality of the younger witness, that he may deserve greater credit that the ancienter. Christ being man, bare witness of himself. Moses also and the Prophets had long time before borne witness of him. Neither yet is the authority therefore greater, no not of all other witnesses, then of Christ alone. In like sort the Church witnesseth that the holy Scripture, which we have, is the word of God. The Scripture itself also doth witness of itself the same, but with the kind of witness that is more certain and sure than all the others of angels and men.

Zacharias Ursinus, The Sum of the Christian Religion: Wherein are debated and resolved the Questions of whatsoever points of moment, which have been or are controversed in Divinity. Translated into English by Henry Parrie, out of the last and best Latin Editions (Oxford: Printed at Joseph Barnes and are to be sold in Pauls Churchyard at the sign of the Tigers head, 1587), 16.