Principium (Principle)

“principium: principle, fundamental or foundational principle

namely, that from which anything proceeds in whatever manner”

Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally From Protestant Scholastic Theology, Term: principium

In theological argumentation there are two principium: principium cognoscendi and principium essendi. The former is the ground and foundation of theological knowledge – Scripture, and the latter is the ground and foundation of being – God. As such, all logical argumentation for the Christian must begin either with the Triune God or with Holy Scripture. We will delve into this more in a later post. For now, let’s further consider principium in general. Muller writes,

“In logic, a principium is, by definition, both self-evidently true and indemonstrable, as in plane geometry, the principle that a straight line is the shortest distance between two points.”

Muller, Dictionary, Term: principium.

For a principium to be a principium it must be both self-evidently true [i.e., known through itself] and indemonstrable. Using Muller’s example of plane geometry, the only way you can prove the shortest distance between two points is a straight line is by referencing the straight line between two points. If a principium is not both self-evidently true and indemonstrable then it is not a principium. In conjunction with the idea of principium, Muller quotes the following scholastic maxim,

“Contra negantes principia non est disputandum, There is (or can be) no disputation (or argument) against those who deny foundational truths.”

Muller, Dictionary, Term: principium.

This of course has political, social, cultural, philosophical, and theological implications for the 21st century church. It seems there are many foundational truths being denied [e.g., biological male/female distinction]. Our focus will fall to theology of course, but that is for another post. Muller goes on to make a further distinction which sets the table for the next Essential Vocab. Muller writes,

“A further distinction can therefore be made between the principium quod, the ‘principle which,’ and the principium quo, the ‘principle by which’…Thus is the case of an action on the part of a human being, the person is the principium quod; the person’s will is the principium quo.”

Muller, Dictionary, Term: principium.

In theology and regarding the principium cognoscendi [i.e., Scripture], the principium quod is the words of Scripture and the principium quo is Spirit of God working in the believer by faith through the words of Scripture.

Are Versions Necessary? (Part 2)

As you recall for out last entry in this Bibliology Primer the question of the necessity of versions is divided into two main heads: the necessity of versions and the authority of versions. In this instalment we will look into the latter. Turretin begins and we here at StandardSacredText.com agree,

“Although their [the version’s] utility is great for the instruction of believers, yet no versions either can or ought to be put on an equality with the original much less be preferred to it.”

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 13, Sec. XIII.

And why is this? Why is it that the version cannot be equal with the original, with the Hebrew and Greek? Turretin gives three arguments:

“(1) For no version has anything important which the Hebrew and Greek source does not have more fully, since in the sources not only the matter and sentence, but even the very words were directly dictated by the Holy Spirit.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 13, Sec. XIII.

Frist, remember that Turretin has here in the view that the “sources” are the apographs, as specifically a combined Greek and Hebrew canon derived from the copies. The Reformers held to text composed of the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT as the originals, the sources, the very words directly dictated by the Holy Spirit. When you have a robust belief in the apographs, which so many do not now have, the next step to the authority of the version is a very small step. Second, the arguments that God immediately inspired the KJV or any version for that matter goes right out the window. While we can respect Ruckmann for his work and aim, the notion of double inspiration is not supported by either Scripture or historical orthodoxy as evidenced in the quote above.

“(2) It is one thing to be an interpreter, quite another to be a prophet…The prophet of God-inspired (theopneustos) cannot err, but the interpreter as a man lacks no human quality since he is always liable to err.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 13, Sec. XIII.

To cut to the chase, the KJV, because it is a version, may be revised. The nature, scope, and method of that revision is what comes into question and is not the subject of today’s post. Still, before you jump all over this point, which many of you will, please consider other posts to this point and our published work. If you do not, you will find our admission on this point to be a platform upon which our critique of textual criticism is strengthened and made more manifest.

“All versions are the streams; the original text is the foundation whence they flow. The latter is the rule, the former the thing ruled, having only human authority.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 13, Sec. XIII.

Put another way, an orthodox version is like orthodox theology. Like theology is ruled by the word of God, so the version is ruled by the apographs, the copies. Like theology is not Scripture but is derived from Scripture so also the version is not the original but is derived from the original. And before you jump on the “having only human authority” line, take a look at Turretin’s next line.

“Nevertheless all authority must not be denied to versions.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 13, Sec. XIII.

The authority of the version must be divided into two heads: “one of the thing, the other of the words.” Turretin explains,

“The former relates to the substance of doctrine which constitutes the internal form of the Scriptures. The latter relates to the accident of writing, the external and accidental form.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 13, Sec. XIV.

In short, we can construe authority in two ways: the substances/meaning of the words and the accidents/shape of the words. The original has both the meaning and shape of the words while the version only has the meaning. That is, the Protestant Scholastics treated the very Greek and Hebrew words to be the word of God in what they mean and in their very Greek and Hebrew shapes. In other words, God meant what He said it and He said it in Hebrew and Greek. Turretin puts it this way,

“The source has both, being God-inspired (theopneustos) both as to the words and things; but versions have only the first, being expressed in human and not divine words.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 13, Sec. XIV.

Because God spoke in Hebrew and Greek, all other languages are human languages when it comes to the presentation and translation of Scripture. The version has authority in that they possess the substance of the original though not the form. As such, they are open to revision, which the KJV tradition experienced in the Coverdale, Matthews, Great, and Geneva Bibles. Could the KJV be revised? Sure, but why and how that would come about is a topic worthy of considerable attention and discussion. Spoiler alert, the litmus test for revision is not false friends or corporate profits.

Theology and Hermeneutics

THE NEW HERMENEUTIC:

TOWARD THE FORMULATION OF A NEW EVANGELICAL ORTHODOXY

by Peter W. Van Kleeck, Sr.

A paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the course “Interpretation and Application in Expository Preaching,” Bob Jones University, March 2006

Introduction

            The multi-layered dialectic of biblical interpretation called the “new hermeneutic” properly is a radical departure from the old grammatical/historical hermeneutic that characterized pre-critical, Reformation era biblical interpretation.[1] Adopting the same hermeneutical principles designed to express the search for the historical Jesus, the Evangelical implementation of this interpretive methodology, in its present form, is presented as a scholarly interpretive improvement of what it deems the less enlightened historical/grammatical method of interpretation. Evangelicalism, at this stage of its theological and hermeneutical evolution, by accepting the new hermeneutic, displays a theological ambivalence and ambiguity that is both the expression and source of its departure from pre-critical exegesis. Historic orthodox theological formulation and grammatical/historical exegesis are inseparably connected. The churchly, exegetical rendering of the text determines the theology of the believing community and the theology of the believing community restrains the exegetical rendering of the text. The mutual reinforcement of exegesis and theology resides at the foundation of orthodox theological and exegetical codification.

Demonstrating continuity with the grammatical/historical methodology by borrowing the pre-critical template of mutual reinforcement, the historical Jesus, or the radically “this-worldly” Jesus, and the new hermeneutic are likewise inseparably connected. The historical criticism of the text determines the “theology” of its adherents, and this transcendentless search for historical Jesus sets the interpretive parameters for the new hermeneutic.[2] James M. Robinson, on the first major expression of the new hermeneutic, Hermeneutik, written in 1954 by D. Ernst Fuchs[3] remarks,

And perhaps nowhere more clearly than here does one hear the central role of language in a new theology that has its two foci in the historic Jesus and hermeneutics. For the ‘historic’ and ‘hermeneutic’ is heard not at ‘understanding in speechless profundity,’ but as ‘translation into language that speaks today.’ Thus hermeneutic is the method suited to the ‘historic Jesus,’ and the historic Jesus is the material point of departure for a recovery of valid hermeneutic.[4]

The new hermeneutic provides the correlative interpretive methodology to reflect the historical criticism’s Jesus, thus providing a post-critical parallel to the mutual reinforcement of pre-critical exegesis and interpretation.[5]

Pre- and post-critical hermeneutical discontinuity between the two methodologies is, however, manifested in the interpretive result. For the orthodox, churchly tradition, as said above, the correlative results in codified doctrine, a standard, authoritative theological statement of the exegetical findings. The confessions of the Church are specific references to this codification. The new hermeneutic, conversely, because of its design to interpret the evolving scholarly discipline of historic criticism can never provide a standard interpretation. Indeed, as will be shown, the notion of codification, for the new hermeneutic is considered an absurdity.

How one interprets the Bible depends wholly on one’s a priori acceptance of the Scripture as God’s Word or not. Scripture will be rendered in a fashion whereby the communicator is allowed to say only those things God has already said,[6] a methodology, as we will see, its advocates pejoratively call, dogmatics. Contrariwise, being freed from the confines of verbal, plenary inspiration, revelation is defined as “what every sincere religious man believes to be divine truth,” and which is “capable of as much variation as marks the life and thinking of different persons living under different conditions in various periods of history.”[7] Case succinctly encapsulates the quintessential existential factor of the new hermeneutic, the operative alternative to the historical/grammatical method. Although the full ramifications of modern hermeneutical developments have yet to be realized, revisiting the seminal factors of the present hermeneutical trajectory will give a likely indication of the condition of this kind of biblical hermeneutic when fully realized.

The Philosophical Basis for the New Hermeneutic

            Robert L. Thomas’ book Evangelical Hermeneutics sets the trajectory of modern hermeneutics away from the traditional hermeneutic, which is exegetically based grammatical/historical method of interpretation based upon a high view of Scripture’s verbal, plenary inspiration. Though written for a popular readership, Thomas briefly references the philosophical factors that generated the conceptual platform for the new hermeneutic. Being overly careful not to lay a summative template over the contemporary hermeneutical environment, Thomas raises key issues and concerns regarding the course of modern methods of biblical interpretation.

Thomas succinctly introduces the foundational philosophical underpinnings of the new hermeneutic and correctly identifies the writings of Immanuel Kant as the source.[8] The residual results of Kantian hermeneutics trickling down into Evangelicalism and the interpretation of Scripture distinctively and decisively separate pre-critical exegesis and the grammatical/historical interpretation of Scripture from the new hermeneutic. Thomas, however, does not take up the polemic against historic orthodoxy of this radically a-theistic groundwork. Consequently, a little more insight into the writings of new hermeneutic’s progenitor, Immanuel Kant, seems obligatory.

For the purposes of this paper, “The elusive quest to define the Enlightenment”[9] will find its measure in the writings of Kant. Kant rejects the historic, orthodox, churchly exegetical conclusions and theology as the basis for his hermeneutic. This a-theistic premise since Kant’s pronouncement has not changed though the philosophical expressions of this presupposition have.

In his three Critiques, [10] Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) worked out the matter of hermeneutics with “great care” and provided four rules of this interpretation. His first rule speaks “of human consciousness as sufficient in itself and therefore the source of the categories to be employed to determine what can and cannot exist in fact, must be taken as basic for the reinterpretation of any teaching of Scripture.”[11] Rule number one reflects the core principle of the Enlightenment: homo mensura; “man is the measure.”

Kant’s second rule states, “nothing is to be believed on the authority of Scripture as such; the standard of faith is what man’s practical reason regards as morally profitable.” [12] In keeping with the first rule, man’s practical reason will affirm those “concepts without which moral experience would be unintelligible or impossible” (the concept of “the highest good”) while also restraining “dogmatism and fanaticism that claim on moral grounds to have insights into ultimate metaphysical realities.”[13] Kant wholly rejected the authority of Scripture, traditionally accepted as the inspired revelation of God.

Moving beyond bibliology to theology proper, Kant’s third rule states that the idea of a “higher enabling power must be rejected.”[14] For Kant, God exists by “rational faith [faith derived from reason], and not in the form of a claim to metaphysical knowledge of the nature of ourselves and of the being of God.” [15] Kant argued that by making the subject’s perspective an intricate factor of the interpretive process, an unknowing projection of the subject’s perceptual template over the object was avoided.[16] Kant held that metaphysics, including the study of God, was the result of this unknowing projectionism. By refocusing philosophy on the pure and practical reason of man beginning with his own reason, Kant sought to free mankind from the authority of God’s Word.

Once God and God’s revelation to man was removed from the hermeneutic and replaced with reason, what man can know of Scripture can only be known within the limitations of history.[17] Inside this closed causal continuum, “He who observes these four hermeneutical rules may make the message of the New Testament acceptable to modern man. He can interpret Christianity to make it practicable and useful. He can interpret it so that it can be help to him in his desire to lead a true moral life. He has had revelation speak to us through the concepts of our understanding.” [18]

Observing the link from Kant to those that followed his philosophy, Van Til explains the,

reinterpretation of historic Christianity which Kant offers in terms of his hermeneutical rules is, accordingly, largely similar to that which recent philosophers of religion and recent theologians offer. A glance at the teachings of Barth, Bultmann and their followers (who seek to go beyond them) show that their program of an existential interpretation of Scripture follows closely in the direction suggested by Kant.” [19]

Beginning from a radically this-worldly perspective, the new hermeneutic’s purpose is to convey the text’s transcendentless of God’s Word. Once the Scripture is confined to a closed, causal, historic context, a suitable methodology to interpret such a text became necessary and thus the formulation of the new hermeneutic began.

The conspicuous heterodoxy of the new hermeneutic’s beginning raises or should raise some concerns as to the future of Evangelicalism.[20] For Thomas to write with such nuanced caution of Evangelical hermeneutics, warning of the new hermeneutic’s impact on Evangelicalism, says two things, both of which are regrettable. Evangelicalism is embracing a heterodox interpretive scheme and thus in this interpretive practice is heterodox, and its embracing appears to be welcomed by Evangelicalism.

Following Robinson’s definition, Van Til observes,

The method of the new hermeneutic is, accordingly, all comprehensive. Christian faith stands or falls with the historic Jesus. But we cannot know the historic Jesus except as a correlative to the method of the new hermeneutic. This interdependence of the historical Jesus and the new hermeneutic is built upon the presupposition that all reality is historic (Geschichtlich]).”[21]

Therefore, the question remains as to the degree this critical, transcendentless hermeneutic affects Evangelicalism.[22]

Thomas, throughout Evangelical Hermeneutics comes to one telling conclusion relating to the new hermeneutic that has direct significance upon the modern Evangelical tradition, a tradition that purports to hold to a high view of Scripture and in particular Scripture’s inspiration. Thomas concludes the new hermeneutic and verbal inspiration are incompatible with each other. He accents the demise of the churchly definition of plenary inspiration by advocates of the new hermeneutic and emphasizes the need to return to this pre-critical presupposition of the nature of the biblical text. He leans heavily upon the unifying character of verbal inspiration[23] as a backdrop for the hermeneutical discontinuity of the New Hermeneutic.[24] Thomas’ connection between the New Hermeneutic and the rejection of verbal inspiration is forcefully stated by Robert Funk in his article “The Hermeneutical Problem and Historical Criticism.” Supplying the critical basis for the popular expression of the new hermeneutic, Funk explains, “Biblical theology [historical criticism] began by having to challenge the very basis on which it rested, viz., the orthodox doctrine of verbal inspiration. The challenge was necessitated by the desire to break the effective control of dogmatics over the interpretation of Scripture and to establish biblical theology as a historical discipline.”[25] From positions both critical and accepting of the new hermeneutic, verbal, plenary inspiration is either the solution to implement or the problem to overcome. Either way, what one believes about verbal, plenary inspiration is at the crux of the hermeneutical question.[26]

Thomas is unquestionably correct when discussing the demise of inspiration at the hands of the new hermeneutic. He has identified the essential feature of Evangelical biblical interpretation, which is to say a departure from historic orthodoxy to embracing post-critical heterodoxy.

The Composition of the New Hermeneutic

Succinctly stated, three elements comprise the core of the new hermeneutic. The first is that of herald or spokesman, where

the language is itself interpretation and not just the object of interpretation. Hence, hermeneia can mean “linguistic formulation” or “expression” and it can be used to designate a work on logical formulation or artistic elocution, the discipline we today call “speech.” [27]

The second factor is that of transferring meaning, a distinctive of the new hermeneutic that “understand[s] its task of translating meaning from one culture to another, from one situation to the other.” [28] The third element of the new hermeneutic is that of commentary, “where no foreign language was involved but where the obscurity of an utterance or text called for some clarification.” [29]

Lest one think that this threefold hermeneutic reflects only the radical perspective of the historic critic, note the corresponding “fundamental sets of priorities” developed by the father of modern translation technique, Eugene Nida. For linguistic formulation or speech, Nida’s third priority is that, “the aural (heard) form of the language has priority over the written form.” Addressing the matter of translation, Nida’s first priority is that “contextual consistency has priority over verbal consistency (or word-for-word concordance).” Furthermore, the new hermeneutics emphasis upon the rendering also being commentary is reflected in Nida’s second fundamental priority: “dynamic equivalence has priority over formal correspondence.”[30] Of dynamic equivalence Thomas hedges, “Perhaps commentary is too strong a word to describe a D.E. product, but it seems that something such as ‘cultural translation’ or ‘interpretive translation’ would be more in keeping with the principles espoused by linguistic authorities.”[31] Dressed in Evangelical vestments, historic criticism and its surrogate, the new hermeneutic, has adopted a kinder, gentler, easier-to-read look. The goal, therefore, of the new hermeneutic is to replace the exegesis of an inspired text using a grammatical/historical hermeneutic with a self-proclaimed superior, more comprehensive, three-fold hermeneutic (speech, translation, commentary) of a radically this-worldly Scripture,[32] and which necessarily incorporates the receptor’s thought content into the interpretation.

The methodology for formulating this transcendentless text is based in historic criticism. “The rise of historical criticism brought with it the acknowledgment of the contingency of the word, and therefore of the relativity of the expression of every word. It is this proposition which must be affirmed over against theologies of transcendence which emphasize the giveness [intrinsic meaning] of the word.”[33] Funk plainly states his case:

As an antidote to the tyranny of dogmatic theology, historical criticism held up the dogmatic appropriation of the text against the integrity of the text and found the former wanting. As a result, dogmatics was denied the right, at least in principle, to base its claims on the text.[34]

Indeed, the sense of liberty the critical school maintains, having disposed of inspiration and dogmatic projections of the metaphysical, is by them considered a noble venture. What was once for the critic mere exegesis has, with the new hermeneutic, blossomed into a more proficient methodology for relaying meaning. Robinson, building on Funks analysis, adds, “The profound implication that these three functions belong together as interrelated aspects of a single hermeneutic was lost in traditional hermeneutics, which was the theory of but one aspect of hermeneia, exegesis,”and that,

This narrowing of the concept may suggest that some of the dimensions of the hermeneutical task had been lost from sight. Thus the rather explicit return to the breadth of hermeneia on the part of the new hermeneutic is to be seen not an etymological pedantry, but rather as a new grasp of the proportions and nature of the hermeneutical task. [35]

The new hermeneutic links together historical criticism, a reader/receptor conceptual translation technique and an optimistic spirit of making the hermeneutical task a genuinely utilitarian enterprise. This contemporary perspective of the benefits of the new hermeneutic casts the pre-critical grammatical/historical exegesis of orthodoxy in a uniformed, obstructionistic, light.

Having confined Scripture to a closed causal continuum, the new hermeneutic is designed to express the text within this radically historic context. Thus, authentic faith,

is therefore compelled to accept the full historicity of the word since it denies to itself any extrinsic basis. For this reason “faith is at the mercy of the complete questionableness and ambiguity of the historical.”[36]

Furthermore,

If the historian or exegete is engaged in the ruthless exposure of the text as a human word, he is opening the way for a fresh appropriation of the intention of the text because he is helping to let faith be what it is by exposing human pretension in all forms, and also because he is directing his criticism against the text from a locus occupied by himself…If it is understood that the church must renew its life at its source, historical criticism in this sense is not an option but a necessity.[37]

            The new hermeneutic is considered more honest, not projectionistic, and genuine because the critic, in criticizing the text, is criticizing himself, thus keeping both the text and his own preunderstanding in check. This straightforward openness, it is argued, will bring renewal to the church, but only if a radically historic text, conveying a radically historic Jesus is interpreted by critics committed to a radically historic hermeneutic that involves the critics thoughts as necessarily intrinsic to the rendering.

Conclusion

The theologian and statesman Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920), in commenting on the authority of Scripture, penned these words: “If Satan has brought us to the point where we are arguing about the infallibility of Scripture, then we are already out from under the authority of Scripture.”[38] As shown, this kind of pre-critical dogmatism is foreign to and rejected by the proponents of the new hermeneutic. Indeed, it could be argued that Evangelicals who uncritically espouse the principles of the new hermeneutic would agree with Kuyper. The synthesis of the new hermeneutic and pre-critical dogmatic theological confession highlights the noetic ambivalence of modern Evangelicalism.

            The remedy to maintaining the continuity of this contradictory set of principles is a return to a “Reformational philosophy and theology”and the “self-attesting Christ of the Scripture,”[39] but this change is not likely. Silva is correct when he says, “The development of biblical hermeneutics during the past two centuries cannot possibly be separated from the application of critical tools to the biblical text.”[40]

            Accepting the validity of Silva’s assessment, the only conclusion that remains is to admit Evangelicalism’s normative noetic ambivalence evidenced by the synthesis of the two contradictory factors: dogmatic, theological confessions and new hermeneutical practices. That theology and hermeneutic are correlative and given that the hermeneutical trajectory is away from the grammatical/historical exegesis of an inspired, sacred text, the presumption that Evangelicalism will become more secularized is not unwarranted, and without a return to pre-critical exegetical and interpretive methods, inevitable.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Carson, D. A, Woodbridge, John D., eds. Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986.

Case, S. J. The Christian Philosophy of History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1943.

Ebeling, Gerhard. “Word of God and Hermeneutic,” The New Hermeneutic, in New Frontiers in Theology, vol. 2. James M. Robinson and John B. Cobb, Jr., eds. (New York: Harper and Row, 1964).

Funk, Robert W. “The Hermeneutical Problem and Historical Criticism,” The New Hermeneutic in New Frontiers in Theology, vol. 2.James M. Robinson and John B. Cobb, Jr., eds. New York: Harper and Row, 1964.

Gaffin, Richard B. “Old Amsterdam and Inerrancy?.” Westminster Theological Journal 44 (1982).

Kant, Immanuel. The Critique of Practical Reason. Translated by Lewis White Beck. Third edition. New York: MacMillan, 1993.

Linnemann, Eta. Historical Criticism of the Bible. Translated by Robert W. Yarbrough. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990.

Mayers, Ronald B. Religious Ministry in a Transcendentless Culture. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, Inc., 1980.

Nida, Eugene A. and Taber, Charles R. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1974.

Nida, Eugene A. God’s Word in Man’s Language. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1952.

Robinson, James M. and Cobb, John B., eds. The New Hermeneutic in New Frontiers in Theology, vol. 2. New York: Harper and Row, 1964.

Robinson, James M. “Hermeneutics Since Barth,” The New Hermeneutic in New Frontiers in Theology,vol. 2. James M. Robinson and John B. Cobb, Jr., eds. New York: Harper and Row, 1964.

Silva, Moises. Has the Church Misread the Bible? Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987.

Thomas, Robert L. Evangelical Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2002.

Van Till, Cornelius. The New Hermeneutic. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1974.

[1] James M. Robinson, “Hermeneutics Since Barth,” The New Hermeneutic in New Frontiers in Theology, James M. Robinson and John B. Cobb, Jr., eds (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), 2-5.

[2] For the broader significance of the omission of the transcendent, see Ronald B. Mayers, Religious Ministry in a Transcendentless Culture (Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, Inc., 1980).

[3] Cornelius Van Til, The New Hermeneutic (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1974), 7.

[4] James M. Robinson, “Hermeneutics Since Barth,” The New Hermeneutic in New Frontiers in Theology, vol. 2,eds. James M. Robinson and John B. Cobb, Jr. (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), 61.

[5] Van Til, The New Hermeneutic, 12.

[6] Moises Silva, Has the Church Misread the Bible? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1987), 35: “…we can hardly claim to have developed a satisfactory approach if our exegesis is in essence incompatible with the way God’s people have read the Scriptures throughout the centuries.” [Italics in original]

[7] S. J. Case, The Christian Philosophy of History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1943), 170 as cited by Robert W. Funk, “The Hermeneutical Problem and Historical Criticism,” The New Hermeneutic in New Frontiers in Theology, vol. 2, eds.James M. Robinson and John B. Cobb, Jr. (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), 195.

[8] Robert L. Thomas, Evangelical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2002), 425: “Post-Kantian thinkers immediately dismiss this latter option [grammatical/historical hermeneutics]. We cannot, they say, return to pre-Kantian thinking and to a Descartes assumption regarding hermeneutics. They feel that humanity has ‘come of age’ with the advent of Kant’s dualistic philosophy and that to regress to how people thought before Kant would be a drastic mistake.”  Also see pages 41, 44, 53, 69, 124, and 128.

[9] John D. Woodbridge, “The Impact of the ‘Enlightenment’ on Scripture,” Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon, eds.,D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 246.

[10] Critique of Pure Reason, 1787; Critique of Practical Reason, 1788; Critique of Judgment, 1790.

[11] Cornelius Van Til, The New Hermeneutic (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1974), 58. Three of the four rules are cited. Kant’s fourth rule rings with hollow anticipation of the future as he prognosticates, “inasmuch as man is obviously unable to attain to the realization of his moral ideals, he may in faith expect their realization after this life.”

[12] Van Til, The New Hermeneutic, 58.

[13] Immanuel Kant: The Critique of Practical Reason, 3rd ed, trans.Lewis White Beck (New York: MacMillan, 1993), xix.

[14] Van Til, The New Hermeneutic, 58.

[15] Kant: The Critique of Practical Reason, xviii.

[16] Kant: The Critique of Practical Reason, xviii.  Note the presence of the seminal dialectic of modern reader-oriented hermeneutics already present in the late 18th c.

[17] Robert W. Funk, “The Hermeneutical Problem and Historical Criticism,” The New Hermeneutic in New Frontiers in Theology, vol. 2,ed. James M. Robinson and John B. Cobb, Jr., (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), 185.  Rudolph Bultmann’s repeated emphasis was on history as a “closed causal continuum as the presupposition for the historical method.”

[18] Van Til, The New Hermeneutic, 58-59.

[19] Van Til, The New Hermeneutic, 59.

[20] Van Til, The New Hermeneutic, 196, 198.  Van Til analyzed the philosophical/theological underpinnings of the new hermeneutic in light of the application of Kant’s ethical dualism and his “sharp antithesis between the world of science” and the “world of freedom and contingency.”  In summary, he concluded that what the adherents of the new hermeneutic must do is “to dispose of orthodox content and retain unorthodox content.  The orthodox teaching with respect to God’s miraculous redemptive work in history must be excluded.”

[21] Cornelius Van Til, The New Hermeneutic, 12.  Geschichtlich: the all reality is historic.

[22] Silva, Has the Church Misread the Bible?, 42-43: “The development of biblical hermeneutics during the past two centuries cannot possibly be separated from the application of critical tools to the biblical text.  This factor raises a series of major problems.  In the first place, the interpretation of the Bible now appears to require expertise in a number of highly specialized subdisciplines.  Does this qualification put the Scriptures out of reach of most believers?  Can we possibly claim that the Bible is clear? [Italics in original]

[23] Thomas never refers to the traditional formula of verbal plenary inspiration throughout the length of his volume. This may be due to his own evolutionary notion of the text of Scripture as noted on p. 438: “The more evidence we have, the higher the degree of probability we can attain for our interpretations. The practice of exegesis, therefore, is a continual search for greater probability and a more refined understanding of the Bible.”

[24] Thomas, New Hermeneutics, 252, 275, 287, 304, 326, 328, 363, 380, 388, 392, 412, 426, 481-82, 509. Thomas questions Eugene Nida’s and Moises Silva’s adherence to inspiration as the unifying nature of Scripture on pages 210 and 211.  Of Nida, Thomas surprisely writes, “Who would dare to say that words written by divine inspiration would show the same redundancy that allegedly characterizes modern communication?” 

[25] Funk, “The Hermeneutical Problem and Historical Criticism,” 193.

[26] See Eta Linnemann, Historical Criticism of the Bible, trans. Robert W. Yarbrough (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 142-149.

[27] James M. Robinson, “Hermeneutics Since Barth,” The New Hermeneutic in New Frontiers in Theology, eds. James M. Robinson and John B. Cobb, Jr. (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), 2-3.  Gerhard Ebeling holds that “in actual preaching God liberates himself from the fixed, presentable, objectified text of the past;” Gerhard Ebeling, “Word of God and Hermeneutic,” The New Hermeneutic, in New Frontiers in Theology, vol. 2,ed. James M. Robinson and John B. Cobb, Jr., (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), 109: Thus the text by means of sermon becomes a hermeneutical aid in the understanding of the present experience. [italics in original]

[28] Robinson, “Hermeneutics Since Barth,” 4.

[29] Robinson, “Hermeneutics Since Barth,” 5.

[30] Eugene A. Nida, Charles R. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation, (Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1974), 14.  Nida provides examples of these translational applications of these fundamental priorities in God’s Word in Man’s Language (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1952), 23: John 14:1, “Do not shiver in your livers; you believe in God, believe also in me”; 140-141: “The Eskimos in Barrow, Alaska, describe reconciliation in the simple terms of ‘making friends again.’  That is to say ‘God was in Christ making friends again with the world.’” 152: “In the Kabba-Laka language meekness consists in ‘having the inner being of a child.’”

[31] Thomas, Evangelical Hermeneutics, 95.  Italics in original.

[32] Funk, “The Hermeneutical Problem and Historical Criticism,” 182-183: “…it is necessary to recognize a basic premise without which the historical method is simply irrelevant.  The premise is the radical historicity of the word of God…Only if the word is regarded as fully human and therefore historically conditioned word can historical criticism be of service.”

[33] Funk, “The Hermeneutical Problem and Historical Criticism,” 182.

[34] Funk, “The Hermeneutical Problem and Historical Criticism,” 184.

[35] Robinson, “Hermeneutics Since Barth,” 6.

[36] Funk, “The Hermeneutical Problem and Historical Criticism,” 185-86.

[37] Funk, “The Hermeneutical Problem and Historical Criticism,” 186.

[38] Richard B. Gaffin, “Old Amsterdam and Inerrancy?,” Westminster Theological Journal 44 (1982), 271-272.

[39] Van Til, The New Hermeneutic, Preface.

[40] Silva, Has the Church Misread the Bible?, 42

Daniel Wallace

Welcome to the Brickyard. This is a place to find quotes for use in your own research. The bricks are free, but the building is up to you. The following quotes are from Daniel Wallace. I leave them to you to decide their meaning and worth to the reconstruction of the sacred scriptures of the Christian faith.

 “I would question whether it is an epistemologically sound principle to allow one’s presuppositions to dictate his text-critical methodology. This is neither honest to a historical investigation nor helpful to our evangelical heritage.”

Daniel B. Wallace, “Challenges in New Testament Textual Criticism for the Twenty-First Century” in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Vol. 52, Iss. 1 (March 2009): 79-100. 93.

 “A theological a priori has no place in textual criticism.”

Daniel B. Wallace, “Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism” in Grace Theological Journal 12 (1992): 21-51. 51.  

 “So if we do not have absolute certainty about the wording of the original, what do we have? We have overwhelming probability that the wording in our printed Bibles is pretty close.”

Wallace, Challenges, 86.

“Until the 1990s there was little question that the primary objective of NT textual criticism was to examine the copies of the NT for the purpose of determining the exact wording of the original.”

Wallace, Challenges, 80.

17th Century Textual Apparatus in the Commentaries of Andrew Willet (1562-1621), part 2.

Under the heading, “The text with its diverse readings,” Willet provides the reader with a thoroughly informed account of the churchly tradition as it relates to the subject at hand.  He begins by cataloging the textual variants and various renderings.  For example, in his commentary on Romans Willet cites (Vatabulus (V.), vulgar Latin (L.), Beza (Be.), Syriac (S.), Tremellius translation (T.), Great Bible (B.), Geneva (Ge), Greek (Gr.) and sometime Original (Or.).[1]  To briefly illustrate Willet’s method, four verses from Romans 1 are given:

1:4: Declared to be the sonne of God (not known, T. or predestinate, L. or destinate to bee the Sonne of God V.) in power, L. (not mightily, G.Be. or by power, V. according to the spirit of sanctification, G. Be.V. not according to the holy spirit, T. or the spirit of the sanctifieth, R.) by the resurrection of the dead: T.B.G.Be. (not of the dead) even Jesus Christ our Lord: Be.T. (not of Jesus Christ our Lord, L.V.R.B. for it must be referred to the beginning of the third verse and all that followeth must be enclosed in parenthesis: so the Genevens doe transpose it: but it is safest to put it in the last place, according to the original: with reference, as is said before.)

1:11: For I long to see you, that I might impart unto Be.L. (bestow among you, B.G.) some spiritual gift; that ye may be stablished, B.B. (or confirmed, T.V. to confirm you, L.R. but the word is in the passive.)

1:22: When they professed themselves to be wise: B.G. (saying themselves to be wise, L.R. counting, B. thinking, T. but faskonteV, is better translated professing) they became fools.

1:29: Being full of unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, (rather than, iniquitie, malice, fornication, and wickedness,  L.B. for the order is inverted: for the Greek copies, and the Syriak put fornication in the second place.  See qu. 23 following) full of enview, murder, debate, deceit, evil conditioned, V.B. (taking things in the worse part, G. full of evil thoughts, T. malignity, L. Be., the word is, kakonqeia, churlishness, morosity).[2]

          Noticeable weight is given by Willet to the renderings of the various versions. The version had already undergone the grammatical and syntactical scrutiny of exegetes and thus lent itself to a fuller explication of the apographa. To begin again with the raw data would be to reinvent the exegetical and interpretive wheel.

[1] HR, Preface. By “Original” Willet means the apographa.

[2] HR, pp. 29-30. “See qu. 23 following,” should read qu. 73.  Here Willet catalogs the words listed in verses 29 and 30.

Are Versions Necessary?

Continuing our trek through Francis Turretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology as a Bibliology Primer we now come to the question of the necessity of versions. For Turretin, this question is divided into two main heads: 1.) the necessity of the versions and 2.) the authority of the versions. Today’s post concerns the former. Turretin writes quoting the Roman Catholic, Arboreus,

“‘[T]he translation of the Scriptures into the vernacular tongue is one source of heresies.”

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 1 Second Topic, Q. 13, Sec. I.

He goes on to quote others as saying of the translation of Scripture as,

“a curious invention of heretics banished from orthodox religion, and therefore useless to the church, and impiously and iniquitously devised for the purpose of spreading heresy.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 13, Sec. I.

To these objections Turretin offers the following 3 arguments:

“(1) The reading and contemplation of the Scriptures is enjoined upon men of all languages, therefore the translation of it into the native tongue is necessary.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 13, Sec. II.

Don’t you think with all this talk about the necessity of versions that Turretin would address, indeed, call for, multiple versions of the Bible for a single native language? But, it’s not there. Certainly, there were multiple English versions by the time of Turretin, but what you won’t find is theologians and pastors arguing that all those versions are essentially the word of God at the same time and in the same way. Even the 1611 KJV Preface to the reader interprets “meanest” versions as virtuous in many forms and in that sense not the same word of God at the same time and in the same way.

“(2) The gospel is preached in all languages; therefore it can and ought to be translated into them.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 13, Sec. III

Here we have multiple versions translated from the Greek and Hebrew, but those versions are all in different languages.

“(3) Vernacular versions are necessary on account of the constant practice of the church, according to which it is certain that both the oriental and wester churches had their versions and performed their worship in the vernacular tongue, as their liturgies evince.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 13, Sec. IV.

Next time we meet on this topic we will tackle the authority of versions in the Church.

17th Century Textual Apparatus in the Commentaries of Andrew Willet (1562-1621)

Here Willet addresses both textual critical and alternative readings specifically as they address the Hebrew, Latin, Syriac, Greek and cognate languages. Willet utilized an extensive nomenclature and system for noting the diction, grammar, or syntax of the passage in question. In the preface of his commentary on Genesis, under the heading “Certain directions to the reader to be observed in the reading of this book” he informs the reader of his commentary’s continuity with past writers drawing from the commentaries of Mercerus and Pererius after the manner in which Jerome utilized the writings of Origen: “I have caused that our country men should know the best things, and be ignorant of his worst.”[1] Willet then describes the textual apparatus for the critical references he would cite throughout the work. First letters represent the various resources, and abbreviations represent grammatical or syntactical observations: S for Septuagint; H for the Latin thought to be Jerome’s; C for the Chaldee; P for Pagnius; A for Arius Montanus; B for the Great English Bible; G for the Geneva Bible; T for Tremellius, he for the Hebrew text and cat. For cateri, the rest.[2]

It is also important to note Willet’s detail in marginal notes. The full list follows: ad., addeth; differ. ver., different words; diver. Accep., divers takings; app. F. pr., appellative for proper; plu. f. sing., plural number for singular; de., detract or take away; cor., corrupt; div. sig., divers significations; nega. F. affir., negative for affirmative; invert., inverting of order; al, alt., altering of the text; differ. pron., difference of pronunciation; mut pers., change of person; differ temp., difference of the tense; simil. Voc., likeness of the words; interp., interpret, when the sense is kept and not the workds; transp., transposing of words; mut. Temp., change of the tense; mut. Voc., change of the voice, as when the active is put for the passive, or contrariwise; r., right; c., corrupt.[3]

In his commentary on Exodus, he provides this list of sources that span the scope of church history and cross confessional boundaries: Josephus, Origen, Cyprian, Cyril, Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine, Gregory, Theodoret, Damascene, Lyranus, Thomas Aquinas, Hugo Cardinalis, Isidore, Hugo de S. Victor, Burgensis, Rupertus, Rabanus, Luther, Calvin, Pagnine, Junium annot., Arias Montanus, Junius analysis, Pellican, Simlerus, Gallasius, Marbachius, Pelargus, Borrhaus, Osiander, Aretius, Zeiglerus, Cajetanus, Lippomanus, Tostatus, Ferus, Pereius, Vatablus, Oleaster, Piscator, Genevens.[4]

The reader will note the comprehensiveness of Willet’s resources representing the continuity of orthodox theology throughout the ages. Willet’s work is an expression of the historic ecclesiastical and exegetical tradition. His commentaries served a winnowing purpose for identifying orthodoxy in the labors of his patristic, medieval and Reformation counterparts.

  1. HR, title page.

2. HG, Preface.

3. HG, Preface.

4. The reference to the “Genevens” in the margin of the commentary is directly adjacent to Willet’s list including Luther, Calvin, Simlerus, Junius and Genevens and “other worthie writers among Protestants.” By “Genevens” Willet probably means the consensus of the Genevan exegetes.

Post-critical Theological Schizophrenia

Every epoch of time had it challenges to the validity of the Christian faith, and in every era, there were those who argued for orthodoxy against the heterodoxy of the day. “Earnestly contending for the faith once delivered unto the saints” is a never-ending act of obedience. The rise of Molinism and the rejection of Divine simplicity both attacks of Theology proper are the current heterodox issues today. The rejection of Scripture’s Divine authority by the infusion of rationalistic arguments and methods rounds out the contemporary attempt to dismantle the principium theologiae of the Christian Church. Dr. Ronald Mayers captures the nihilistic contemporary setting for theological study, writing that,

“The current zeitgeist [spirit of the time] is not so much a philosophy as it is the cultural milieu, the background for all philosophies and perspectives in existence. Life is no longer understood as dependent on a transcendent ruler of time and history. There is no infinite reference point…. Personal destiny is seen is beginning at birth and ending at death. In such a totally naturalistic world, theology herself adopts an ontological foundation that is so thoroughly secular that it too finds meaningless and undiscoverable any category of the transcendent.” Ronald B. Mayers, Religious Ministry in a Transcendentless Culture, 1980, 13-14.

Though written in 1980, Dr. Mayers’ assessment is spot on. It is as if there are no categories in the modern mind within which to place pre-critical theological formulation and articulation. What was once mainstream orthodoxy is considered a brief historical aberration, left for dead and ignored in the face of post-critical textual and theological development. So confident are the adherents of post-critical thought that one boldly asserts that if, “Calvin were alive today, he would not believe what he wrote any longer.” At least in this instance, even the Institutes have fallen prey to the arrogant post-critical reconstruction of pre-critical theological genius. The practical result of this milieu is that the Bible is considered a natural phenomenon to which all evolutionary scientific methods apply. Simply stated, the bible is a science project whose honored status has been replaced with a non-exegetically based, scholarly, and ecclesiastical theological consensus which maintains a shell of historic orthodoxy. For example, while holding to the inspiration of the Originals they support a textual critical system that denies the inspiration of the originals. For example, “Little is gained by speculating as to the precise point at which such corruptions came in. They may have been due to the original writer, or to his amanuensis if he wrote from dictation, or they may be due to one of the earliest transcribers.” Westcott and Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek, 208. This confusion is identified as Post-critical Theological Schizophrenia (PTS), or so-called “orthodoxy” based on a contradiction. The authority of scholarly theological consensus usurps exegesis, making the grammatical/historical defense of individual verses irrelevant. The expression, “the Bible is inspired,” is a theological statement, not a statement of fact. The same theological words are used, i.e., inspired, and theological textbooks, for the most part, teach the Doctrine of Inspiration, but the actual inspiration of the Scripture is rejected. Theological statements consistent with the scholarly consensus now possess the authority once held only by sound exegesis. Modern evangelical theology is not derived from the exegesis of an inspired text but is based upon theological, academic, consensus. As long as everyone says the same thing, an inspired, authoritative text is unnecessary for “Christianity” to appear normative and orthodox. Only a return to a pre-critical, exegetically based foundation and interpretation of Scripture will saved the Church and Academy from becoming increasingly feckless and irrelevant to the contemporary culture. After all, when it comes to Bibliology, the common perspective seems to be, “who cares?”

What is a False Friend?

If you think you know somebody but you really don’t there can be two reasons for this: 1.) They are lying to you and so you believe something about that person that is not true. For example, Judas Iscariot. 2.) They are telling the truth and acting consistent with who they are but you are not able to understand who they are by what they say and do. For example, a girl who believes a homeless meth addict who is obviously lazy and a self-professed liar is the kind of guy that she should marry. Certainly, the guy is in all kinds of moral trouble and in need of loving intervention is a host of ways, but the desire to marry this guy rest solely on the girl’s poor judgment and lack of understanding, at a minimum. She’s not really his friend if she won’t, at a minimum, call him out about his sin. As I’m sure you remember, “Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful” [Prov. 27:6].

So, let’s talk about words. Which of the two above scenarios makes a word a false friend? Which is it, is the word “halt” or “apt” lying to us? Is “halt” a ruthless terrorist organization determined to rule the world? COBRA!! No, of course not. The word is the word. Some people may use the word to harm or lie but the word itself is a specific series of inert English symbols with no desire to mislead, or rule the world for that matter.

The reason “halt” and “apt” may be false friends to us is because we do not understand them. We don’t hang out together at church or the homeschool co-op. When “apt” wants to go get drinks we don’t go because we are teetotalers. If we aren’t going to go hang out with “halt” and “apt” and the rest of their false friends how else could we get to know them? Well, by reading, of course. And here is the rub. We in America don’t read very much.

According to Statista the average time an American reads per day is 20.4 minutes with minors and young adult [ages 15-19] reading only 8.4 minutes per day. It’s hard to make true friends out of friends you don’t understand when you only hang out somewhere between 8 and 20 minutes per day, especially when you need to divide your attention between all your true friend words while mingling with some of those other friends you are trying to get to know. I mean, who has time to make new friends of misunderstood friends when you only hang out with your regular friends 8 minutes a day?

But you say, “We learn words not only through print but also through hearing these words spoken.” Agreed, but when it comes to Scripture can anyone just say some words and call those words Scripture? No, they may not. The Scripture words we get must come from Scripture, from the printed page. So, when we say there are some false friends in Scripture, we are saying that we haven’t been hanging out with the Bible. There are words in there that we could know but we don’t. They are strangers to us and they are strangers to us not because they cannot be known, but because we have not put forth the effort to know them.

Some say that we need to change them. “These friends can’t be friends” or “It’s too hard to be friends with these friends.” These false friends need to be updated and that will fix the problem. Of course, this is silly and stupid to conclude in part because it sounds like a part out Mean Girls: The Text Critical Version. If the problem is that people won’t acquaint themselves with the Bible then the mere changing of words is not going to heal their akrasia, their weakness of will.

Perhaps the Bible can help us with the false friends dilemma. The Scripture teaches us that if a man wants to have friends, he must himself be friendly [Proverbs 18:24]. If we want to reduce the number of false friends in Scripture, we should start being friendly with Scripture. Friendships are difficult to build. They take time and sometimes the relationship can be rough. The wounds of a friend are faithful, are they not? If you are to be a friend to Scripture and Scripture to you then you must spend time with Scripture, ask questions of Scripture, study Scripture, know what Scripture likes to drink with its steak. Scripture is ready to stick closer to you than a brother. It is the living word of Christ, and Christ is friend and brother to all Christians. The question is, are you ready to return the favor with your scanty 20 minutes?