In Part 1 we discussed the state of the case surrounding the existence or non-existence of contradictions and errors in Scripture. We saw that the Christian response was multifarious but concluded that the common orthodox understanding was that no real contradictions occur in Scripture and all minor errors were/are presently solvable. Now in Part 2 we discuss Turretin’s argument as to why there are neither real contradictions nor minor errors in the Greek and Hebrew texts. First he begins with what our question here is not.

“The question is not as to the particular corruption of some manuscripts or as to the errors which have crept into the books through the negligence of copyists or printers. All acknowledge the existence of many such small corruptions.”

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology Vol 1, Second Topic, Q. 5, Sec. 5.

Note that the Protestant orthodox were indeed very aware of the variant readings and “small corruptions” in the apographa [i.e., copies] of the originals. While we may have more NT documents in the twenty-first century than they had in the seventeenth, the objections to the purity of the present text remains the same. Turretin then goes on to state the question as,

“The question is whether there are universal corruptions and errors so diffused through all the copies (both manuscript and edited) as that they cannot be restored and corrected by any collation of various copies, or of Scripture itself and of parallel passages.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 5, Sec. 5.

There are two particular things worth pointing out in the above quote. First, there seems to be no indication that Turretin intends some distant future in which Scripture would be restored. In fact as we will see, Turretin’s emphasis seems to be on his present circumstance. Second, note that Turretin here advocates for the Scripture be an agent of restoration for the Scriptures. This of course goes back to the idea of the Scriptures being one of the principium [i.e., first principle] of Christianity. Scripture is self-attesting, self-authenticating, and self-interpreting. As such it is appropriate that it proves itself.

Turretin goes on to offer two reasons/arguments why the orthodox deny that the copies are so corrupted that they cannot be restored in his day. The first is exegetical and the second is logical invoking a cause and effect relation. Concerning the first, Turretin writes,

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

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 5, Sec. 6.

Note that Turretin’s first line of argumentation is to invoke Scripture to support the character of Scripture in his day. He did not invoke manuscript evidence though he had it and could have. He begins with the Bible as a witness to the Bible. He believes what the Bible says about the Bible first, and then he interprets the contradiction or “slight errors” in front of him. Second, I would like to point out that he does indeed employ Matthew 5:18 [jot and tittle] as an evidence for literal preservation. In other words, he does not understand Jesus’ words here to be a natural or oriental hyperbole. Jesus in the text says jot and tittle and so we believe it means jot and tittle. Turretin drives this home in his second reason/argument.

Regarding the second reason/argument he writes,

“Unless unimpaired integrity characterize the Scriptures, they could not be regarded as the sole rule of faith and practice, and the door would be thrown wide open to atheists, liberties, enthusiasts and other profane persons like them for destroying its authenticity (authentian) and overthrowing the foundation of salvation.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 5, Sec. 7.

Most Christians, indeed, learned Christians would say that it is highly probable that the integrity of the Scriptures is impaired maybe by two or three percent and maybe more. For Turretin, if this is the case, then Scripture is not the sole rule of faith and Christian practice. There is the Scriptures and something alongside it. At present, in most Protestant circles, it seems the thing that has come alongside the Scriptures is academia or scholarship. We need the Bible and the text critical apparatus if we really want to know what the Bible is.

Turretin goes further to argue a line that flies quite in the face of the current Protestant parlance; that minor errors do not affect major doctrine. Turretin and we here at StandardSacredText.com disagree. He clearly states that impaired integrity simpliciter can overthrow the foundation of salvation. In other words, minor errors don’t just affect major doctrine; minor errors may upend the whole of the Christian faith. Seems pretty austere doesn’t it. He goes on to ask a series of rhetorical questions in expressing this austerity.

First question –

“For since nothing false can be an object of faith, how could the Scriptures be held as authentic and reckoned divine if liable to contradictions and corruptions?

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 5, Sec. 7.

Second question –

“Nor can it be said that these corruptions are only in smaller things which do not affect the foundation of faith. For if once the authenticity (authentia) of the Scriptures is taken away (which would result even from the incurable corruption of one passage), how could our faith rest on what remains?

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 5, Sec. 7.

Third question –

“And if corruption is admitted in those of lesser importance, why not in others of greater?

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 5, Sec. 7.

Fourth question –

“Who could assure me that no error or blemish had crept into fundamental passages?

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 5, Sec. 7.

Fifth question –

“Or what reply could be given to at subtle atheist or heretic who should perniciously assert that this or that passage less in his favor had been corrupted?

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 5, Sec. 7.

Sound familiar? Confessional text advocates…KJV advocates….how many times have you used similar words? Multiple version only advocates, how many times have you heard a Confessional or KJV advocate ask similar questions like these spoken centuries ago in the third wave of the Reformation? Yet time and time again the Confessional group, the KJV church are the schismatics because they cling to historical Reformed argumentation. Ironic.

Turretin does not answer these questions directly. He simply makes the following statement,

“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 full credibility (autopistian) of Scripture itself. Nor can we readily believe that God, who dictated and inspired each and every word to these inspired (theopenustois) men, would not take care of their entire preservation.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 5, Sec. 7.

Continuing our Bibliology Primer we now come to the question of whether real contradictions appear in the Scriptures. This blog post will be divided into two section, maybe three. The first section will deal with the problems faced by the Reformers at there time which, interestingly enough, very closely resembles similar problems the Standard Sacred Text/Confessional Text/KJV community face today. The second section will address Turretin’s response to these problems. I may then write a third entry addressing the proposed “contradictions” which Turretin undertakes. For now, and beginning with our first section, Turretin writes,

“Although when the divinity of the Scriptures is proved (as in the preceding question), its infallibility necessarily follows, yet the enemies of true religion and of Scripture in every age flatter themselves that they have found not a few contradictions in it and boast of their discoveries in order to overthrow its authenticity.”

Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology Vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 5, Sec. 1. 70.

But Turretin does not limit his apologetic address to those outside the Church who care little for the word of God. No, he expands his response to those in the Church. It should not be surprising then that both people in the Church and outside the Church willingly or otherwise attempt to weaken the authority of Scripture in this or that part. Turretin observes,

“we have to deal here not only with declared atheists and Gentiles who do not receive the sacred Scriptures, but also with those who, seeming to receive them, indirectly oppose them.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 5, Sec. 2. 70.

While dealing specifically with supposed contradictions in Scripture, Turretin broadens the target a bit by including “Enthusiasts who allege the imperfection of the written word,” “papists… insisting on the corruption of the original,” “Libertines who, living in the bosom of the church, are constantly bringing forward these difficulties,” and all “in order to weaken the authority of the Scriptures” [ Second Topic, Q. 5, Sec. 2. 70]. Not much has changes since the 1600’s.

Turretin then gives a series of responses “the learned” have used over time to answer the accusations of the enthusiasts, papist, atheists, and libertines. Some say “the sacred writers could slip.” Others say the “Hebrew and Greek originals are corrupted.” But perhaps the most familiar, and the one used by most in the English-speaking Church to this very day is,

“Others again think that a few very slight errors have crept into the Scriptures and even now exist which cannot be corrected by any collation of manuscripts. These are not to be imputed however to the sacred writers themselves, but partly to the injuries of time, partly to the fault of copyists and librarians.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 5, Sec. 3. 70

Now pause for just a minute and try to guess what Turretin’s next line is going to be. I mean Turretin wrote nearly 400 years ago. What do you think the chances are that the next line is his text is a near direct quote from our present day? Turretin writes immediately after the quote above,

“Yet on this account, the authenticity (authentia) of the Scriptures cannot be weakened because they occur only in things less necessary and important.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 5, Sec. 3. 70

This is THE present day response of so many pastors, theologians, and laymen to the “slight errors” found in Scripture. Nearly every seminary, Reformed or otherwise, concludes with the above language. “Slight errors don’t matter because they don’t affect any major doctrine.” Sound familiar? Still, Turretin at the time of the Reformation states that this is not the majority position held by the orthodox or those of right thinking.

Turretin goes on to offer the orthodox prescription when he writes,

“Finally others defend the integrity of the Scriptures and say that these various contradictions are only apparent, not real and true; that certain passages are hard to be understood, but not altogether inexplicable. This is the more common opinion of the orthodox, which we follow as safer and truer.“

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 5, Sec. 3. 70 [Italics: Mine]

In short, Turretin lumps the Roman Catholics, Atheist, Charismatics, and the prevailing opinion of the present-day English-speaking Church into the same group in terms of “improperly defending the integrity of the Scriptures.” He then goes on to declare that all contradictions are apparent and infers that all “slight errors” are presently reconcilable rather than potentially reconcilable. It is this last part which we will deal with in greater deal in our second section.

For now, it is important to note that arguments against a standard sacred text are old. There is nothing new under the sun. It now falls to our generation to address these old failed arguments, and we need not go far. So much of the answer has already been laid out for us in examples like Francis Turretin. Study. Be gracious. Be compelling. Be bold.

As we continue our way through Francis Turretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology as a Bibliology Primer we come to the question, “Are the holy Scriptures truly authentic and divine?” Of course Turretin assumes the affirmative. He then goes on to say that the question could be divided into two sub-heads:

“(1) with atheists and the heathen, who attribute no higher authority to the Scriptures than to any other book; (2) with those Christians who, while acknowledging its authority, nevertheless wish to make it depend (at least as far as we are concerned) upon the testimony of the church.”

Turretin, Institutes, Section 2, Q. 4, Sec. I. 62.

Turretin goes on to clarify these statements and proceeds by first addressing the former of the two sub-heads. It is important to observe that Turretin in addressing the atheist does not begin with rational arguments for the existence of God followed by markedly Christian claims. Instead he begins with markedly Christian claims and then defends those, rather than seeking neutral ground, and then positing Christian dogma from there. Turretin, in identifying what the question is not about, writes,

“The question is not whether the sacred writers (as men simply and in a divided sense) could err (for we readily grant this); or whether as holy men influenced by the Holy Spirit and in a compound sense, they did in fact err (for I think no one of the adversaries, except a downright atheist, would dare to say this.)”

Turretin, Institutes, Section 2, Q. 4, Sec. IV. 62.

He then goes on to define the question as it is.

“Rather the question is whether in writing they were so acted upon and inspired by the Holy Spirit (both as to the things themselves and as to the words) as to be kept free from all error and that their writings are truly authentic and divine. Our adversaries deny this; we affirm it.”

Turretin, Institutes, Section 2, Q. 4, Sec. V. 62-63.

Note the tenses employed here by Turretin. He speaks of the act of inspiration in the past tense [kept] but speaks of their authenticity and divinity in the present [are/sunt]. He could have just as easily employed [were/erant]. If you continue to follow us here at StandardSacredText.com you will see among the Protestant scholastics an intentional and regular emphasis on the possession of the originals in their here-and-now. They held that the Greek and Hebrew Bible in their hand was equal to the original and here we see a glimpse of that confession.

Turretin’s first argument for the authenticity and divinity of the Scriptures is…the Scripture’s testimony of itself. He writes,

“The Bible proves itself divine, not only authoritatively and in the manner of an artless argument or testimony, when it proclaims itself God-inspired (theopneuston).”

Turretin, Institutes, Section 2, Q. 4, Sec. VI. 63.

He then goes on to offer four external proofs and five internal proofs. The external proofs are:

• Quoting Tertullian, “That which is most ancient is most true.” Because the Scriptures are ancient they are true. [Turretin, Institutes, Section 2, Q. 4, Sec. VII. 63].
• Concerning its longevity Turretin writes, “With regard to the duration; the wonderful preservation (even to this day) of the divine word by his providential care against powerful and hostile enemies who have endeavored by fire and by sword to destroy it, while so many other books, against which nothing of this kind has ever been attempted, have wholly perished” [Turretin, Institutes, Section 2, Q. 4, Sec. VII. 63].
• The candor and sincerity of writers in that they do not “conceal their own faults but ingenuously confess them” [Turretin, Institutes, Section 2, Q. 4, Sec. VII. 63].
• Finally, “the number, constancy and condition of the martyrs who sealed it with their blood.” [Turretin, Institutes, Section 2, Q. 4, Sec. VII. 63].

Of the five internal proofs, he writes,

• The mysteries contained therein [e.g., the Trinity, incarnation, Christ’s propitiation, and resurrection].
• The style of Scripture in that “the divine majesty, shinning forth no less from the simplicity than the weight of expression and the consummate boldness in commanding all without distinction, both the highest and the lowest.” [Turretin, Institutes, Section 2, Q. 4, Sec. IX. 64].
• “[T]he divine agreement and entire harmony of doctrine.” [Turretin, Institutes, Section 2, Q. 4, Sec. IX. 64].
• “[T]he direction of all things to the glory of God alone and the holiness and salvation of men.” [Turretin, Institutes, Section 2, Q. 4, Sec. IX. 64].
• “[T]he light and efficacy of the divine doctrine which is so great that, sharper than any two-edged sword, it pierces to the soul itself, generates faith and piety in the minds of its hearers, as well as invincible firmness in its professors, and always victoriously triumphs over the kingdom of Stan and false religion.” [Turretin, Institutes, Section 2, Q. 4, Sec. IX. 64].

This post is getting long so I will leave you with a couple quotes and comments from this question. First, Turretin acknowledges that other religions make the same claims concerning their “sacred texts.” He writes,

“Although false religions usually claim for their doctrine these criteria, the true religion may appropriate these criteria to herself because the vain and false opinions of men do not weaken the truth of the thing itself.”

Turretin, Institutes, Section 2, Q. 4, Sec. XII. 64.

Simply because false religions claim to be true or that their god is the living and true God is not grounds enough for a Christian to avoid or cease from making these claims. The same goes for the Christian’s claims of Scripture. Finally I leave you another hint from Turretin in affirming the priority of Presuppositional methodology.

“Although faith may be founded upon the authority of testimony and not upon scientific demonstration, it does not follow that it cannot be assisted by artificial arguments, especially in erecting the principles of faith.”

Turretin, Institutes, Section 2, Q. 4, Sec. XIII. 64.

First, faith cannot be founded on evidential demonstration, but evidence can assist in supporting “the principles of faith.” The conclusions of textual criticism count as scientific/evidential demonstration. It is the Reformed orthodox position that such demonstration cannot lead to faith, and, given evidentialism and the state of the evidence to date, it is unreasonable to believe textual criticism has yielded a document equal to the autographa. Rather, I submit to you that it is only reasonable to believe that textual criticism has yielding a document somewhat representative of the sources immediately behind the manuscript tradition we currently have.

Next time we will continue down this road with Turretin as he continues to give arguments for the authenticity and divinity of his Bible.