Saturday, December 24, 2016 Grace Life School of Theology From This Generation For Ever Lesson 41 Preservation the Corollary of Inspiration

Transcription

1 1 Saturday, December 24, 2016 Grace Life Schl f Thelgy Frm This Generatin Fr Ever Lessn 41 Preservatin the Crllary f Inspiratin Intrductin In Lessn 30 after discussing the Cre Issue f Preservatin versus Restratin, we studied hw the TEXTUAL FACTS presented in Lessn 28 and 29 have given birth t the fllwing three views n the dctrine f preservatin: View 1 Denial f a Dctrine f Preservatin View 2 Preservatin in the KJV/TR/MT Traditin View 3 Preservatin in the Ttality f Manuscripts Tw weeks ag, in Lessn 39 we cncluded that View 1 is false and the Bible des prmise preservatin as a thelgical reality. In ther wrds, preservatin is the Bible s dctrinal/thelgical claim fr itself. Last week in Lessn 40 we cnsidered Why Preservatin Matters by using Bart Ehrman as a case in pint t demnstrate the high cst assciated with denying preservatin. This mrning, having duly established that preservatin is a Bible dctrine, we want t begin a secndary cnsideratin that will help distinguish between the truthfulness f Views 2 and 3. That cnsideratin is the extent r nature f preservatin. After giving much thught t where/hw t begin this discussin I have elected t cmmence with a cnsideratin f whether preservatin is the crllary f inspiratin. Much has been said in the schlarly literature regarding this questin. Fr rganizatinal purpses, we will study this tpic by tackling the fllwing pints: What is a Crllary? Preservatin is the Crllary f Inspiratin Prblems Created by a Denial f a Crllary Lastly, an Appendix at the end has been prvided utlining the psitin f Dr. Daniel B. Wallace n the Crllary. Pastr Bryan Rss

2 2 What is a Crllary? Nah Webster s American Dictinary f the English Language defines the English wrd crllary as fllws: A cnclusin r cnsequence drawn frm premises, r frm what is advanced r demnstrated. If it is demnstrated that a triangle which has equal sides, has als equal angles, it fllws as a crllary that a triangle which has three equal sides, has its three angles equal. Ggle defines a crllary as: Nun a prpsitin that fllws frm (and is ften appended t) ne already prved. direct r natural cnsequence r result. Adjective frming a prpsitin that fllws frm ne already prved. assciated; supplementary. Dr. William W. Cmbs explains hw the term crllary is used in the cnversatin regarding inspiratin and preservatin. Webster defines crllary as 1) a prpsitin inferred immediately frm a prved prpsitin with little r n additinal prf, (2a) smething that incidentally r naturally accmpanies r parallels, and (2b) smething that incidentally r naturally accmpanies r parallels. Thus t say that preservatin is the crllary f inspiratin means that preservatin is a dctrine that can be inferred immediately frm the prved psitin f inspiratin; preservatin naturally fllws r parallels inspiratin. T say that there is a crrelatin r parallel between inspiratin and preservatin des nt reveal anything abut the exact nature f preservatin. (Cmbs, 27) Edward F. Hills asserts that preservatin is the crllary f inspiratin in the King James Versin Defended when he writes: If the dctrine f divine inspiratin f the Old and New Testament Scripture is a true dctrine, the dctrine f the prvidential preservatin f the Scriptures must als be a true dctrine. It must be that dwn thrugh the centuries Gd has exercised a special prvidential cntrl ver the cpying f the Scriptures and the preservatin and use f the cpies, s that trustwrthy representatives f the riginal text have been available t Gd s peple in every age. Gd must have dne this, fr if He gave the Scriptures t His Church by inspiratin as the perfect and final revelatin f His will, then it is bvius that He wuld nt allw this revelatin t disappear r underg any alteratin f its fundamental character. (Hills, 2) Pastr Bryan Rss

3 3 Preservatin is the Crllary Inspiratin While Cmbs wuld nt agree with Edward F. Hills as t the extent f the crllary, he des nne the less assert that a crllary exists. It is perfectly reasnable t assert a crllary between inspiratin and preservatin withut asserting that preservatin be in every way equal t inspiratin... (Cmbs, 27) Cmbs qutes Jhn H. Skiltn s essay n The Transmissin f the Scriptures t supprt the ntin that, A right understanding f the crllary suggests that there is n real purpse r value in inspiring a dcument that is nt preserved. (Cmbs, 27) Skiltn bserves: But we must maintain that the Gd wh gave the Scriptures, wh wrks all things after the cunsel f his will, has exercised a remarkable care ver his Wrd, has preserved it in all ages in a state f essential purity, and has enabled it t accmplish the purpse fr which he gave it. It is incnceivable that the svereign Gd wh was pleased t give his Wrd as a vital and necessary instrument in the salvatin f his peple wuld permit his Wrd t becme cmpletely marred in its transmissin and unable t accmplish its rdained end. Rather, as surely as that he is Gd, we wuld expect t find him exercising a singular care in the preservatin f his written revelatin. (Skiltn in TIW, 143) After quting Skiltn, Cmbs ffers the fllwing strng evidence in favr f a crllary between inspiratin and preservatin. T illustrate, we might ask, what wuld be the purpse f prducing an authritative recrd (inspiratin) and letting it perish? Why, fr instance, let Paul write an inspired letter t the Rmans and then have it perish n the way t Rme? Of curse, that did nt happen, but culd it have happened? If ne denies a crllary between inspiratin and preservatin, Paul s letter culd have perished befre it gt t Rme. The purpse f inspiratin was t prduce γραφή (2 Tim 3:16), a written recrd, a depsit f divine truth fr the readers, nt the writer. Withut preservatin the purpse f inspiratin wuld be invalidated. Since it was clearly Gd s intentin that Paul s inspired letter t the Rmans be read by the Rmans it culd nt have perished there must have been a divine wrk f preservatin at wrk fr at least a few weeks r mnths until the letter was received by the Rmans. This suggests that there is sme degree f crrelatin between inspiratin and preservatin. And the letter t the Rmans was nt meant just fr the Rmans. N Scripture was intended fr just the riginal recipients Fr whatever was written in earlier times was written fr ur instructin, that thrugh perseverance and the encuragement f the Scriptures we might have hpe (Rm 15:4). Similarly, Paul warns the Crinthians using the example f Israel s failure: Nw these things happened t them as an example, and they were written fr ur instructin, upn whm the ends f the ages have cme (1 Cr 10:11). If the Old Testament Scriptures ( these things ) were written, that is, inspired fr the purpse f instructing future Pastr Bryan Rss

4 4 believers ( ur instructin ) that purpse fr the inspired writings demands their preservatin. (Cmbs, 27-28) Prblems Created by a Denial f a Crllary In the main bdy f his essay The Preservatin f Scripture, Dr. W. Edward Glenny f Central Baptist Thelgical Seminary denies the ntin that preservatin is the crllary f inspiratin. The first histrical prblem mentined abve is the assumptin that preservatin is a necessary crllary f inspiratin and that fr inspiratin t be true Gd must have preserved the NT text inerrantly. The difficulty with this assumptin becmes bvius when it is carried t its lgical cnclusin. (Glenney, 77) Glenny, like Bart Ehrman, Harry A. Sturz, and Daniel B. Wallace (see Appendix A) befre him, denies any crllary between preservatin and inspiratin n the grunds that there is nt verbatim identically r exact same wrding in the extant manuscript witnesses. Glenny s main cncern in denying the crllary in the main bdy f his essay n preservatin is t disprve the ntin f perfect preservatin r the idea that all the wrds were preserved exactly/identically as they were given under inspiratin. As we have seen in previus lessns, this is the standard f preservatin advcated fr by preservatinists Thmas M. Struse, David Suttn, and Kent Brandenburg. By denying any crllary between preservatin and inspiratin in rder t answer the TR/King James psitin f perfect preservatin, even Prfessr Cmbs believes that Glenny has verstated his case. T prve this, Cmbs cites ftnte thirty six frm Glenny s essay n The Preservatin f Scripture in which Glenny recants his denial f the crllary fund in the main bdy f the essay. (Cmbs, 28) Cmbs writes the fllwing regarding Glenny s denial f the crllary, since this denial creates an untenable prblem fr his dctrine f the cann, Glenny permits the crllary t enter thrugh the back dr. (Cmbs, 28) After denying a crllary in the bdy f the essay, Glenny states the fllwing in ftnte thirty six: The criteria fr determining whether Gd s wrd has been preserved are self-evident, i.e., des it still exist? Our belief in the preservatin f Gd s Wrd is different frm ur belief in the cann in that preservatin des nt fllw directly frm inspiratin nr are given criteria in Scripture by which we are t determine r prve the preservatin f scripture. But there is a similarity between preservatin f Scripture and the dctrine f the cann in that, the recgnitin f the exact bks which are t be included in the cann des nt fllw directly frm the biblical teaching n inspiratin frm the criteria given in Scripture t identify them. These criteria must be applied t the histrical evidence... Based n the histrical evidence we believe certain bks are included in the cann just as we believe n the basis f histrical evidence that Gd has preserved His wrd. My pint is that just as we use histrical evidence t recgnize which bks meet the criteria Pastr Bryan Rss

5 5 necessary t be included in the cann, in the same way we use histrical evidence t recgnize the fact that Gd has preserved His Wrd. An bvius truth is that a dcument which is t be included in the cann must be preserved. Therefre, since inspiratin implies cannicity, in an indirect way inspiratin is related t the preservatin f the dcuments which are included in the cann. Hwever, the preservatin I have addressed and evaluated in this chapter is nt the preservatin f the dcuments which are in the cann, but rather the perfect preservatin f the wrds f the text f all f the dcuments. (Glenny, ) Please nte that Glenny, based upn his dctrine f the Cann is frced t admit at least an indirect crllary between inspiratin and preservatin. Cmbs pints this ut in his essay when he states: Why is it that a dcument that is t be included in the cann must be preserved? (emphasis added) Obviusly, it is because Gd wanted the dcuments he inspired t be in the cann, and if he wanted his inspired dcuments t be in the cann, he must have preserved them. This line f reasning ultimately is based n a crllary between inspiratin and preservatin. (Cmbs, 28-29) In ther wrds, withut the preservatin f what was inspired, hw is ne t knw histrically what bks shuld be included in the Cann? Furthermre, by s arguing, Glenny is admitting that preservatin must be a histrical reality while at the same time nt believing it t be a thelgical necessity. Recall that Glenny des nt believe that the Bible teaches its wn preservatin. Mrever, Glenny has Gd preserving the dcuments r the material bjects themselves upn which Gd s wrds were written; withut at the same time preserving the wrds fund n/in thse dcuments. Des this even make any sense at all? Hw is it that preservatin can be a histrical reality necessary fr determining cannicity yet at the same time nt be a thelgical necessity? Wrks Cited Cmbs, William W. The Preservatin f Scripture? in Detrit Baptist Seminary Jurnal. Fall Glenny, W. Edward. The Preservatin f Scripture in The Bible Versin Debate: The Perspective f Central Baptist Thelgical Seminary. Minneaplis, MN: Central Baptist Thelgical Seminary, Hills, Edward F. The King James Versin Defended. Des Mines, IA: Christian Research Press, Skiltn, Jhn H. The Transmissin f the Scriptures in The Infallible Wrd. Pastr Bryan Rss

6 6 Appendix A The psitin f Daniel B. Wallace n the Crllary Intrductin As we saw in the main bdy f Lessn 41, Dr. W. Edward Glenny denies a crllary between preservatin and inspiratin in the main bdy f his essay The Preservatin f Scripture. Yet, in ftnte thirty six, Glenny allws a crllary in thrugh the back dr due t histrical cnsideratins and his psitin n cannicity. Glenny argues fr the preservatin f the dcuments but nt the wrds written n thse dcuments. Dr. Glenny was preceded by Dr. Daniel B. Wallace in denying that the scriptures teach a dctrine f preservatin as well as a crllary between preservatin and inspiratin. Bth Wallace and Glenny put frth tw majr arguments against preservatin. First, preservatin is nt a necessary crllary f inspiratin; that is, while inspiratin is a true dctrine, there is nthing in the dctrine itself that demands that what Gd inspired he was bund t preserve. Secnd, the biblical texts that are used t supprt a dctrine f preservatin have been misinterpreted and, in fact, d nt teach such a dctrine. (Cmbs, 8) S, we have seen Drs. Wallace and Glenny deny the dctrine f preservatin n tw grunds: 1) while inspiratin is true it des nt demand preservatin and 2) the Biblical texts used t assert preservatin have been misinterpreted and d nt assert said dctrine (see Lessns 31-38). Daniel B. Wallace n the Crllary In 1992, Dr. Daniel B. Wallace authred an essay in the Grace Thelgical Jurnal called Inspiratin, Preservatin, and New Testament Textual Criticism. In a sectin titled The Critique, Wallace ffers his critique f preservatinists such as Jasper James Ray, David Otis Fuller, Jhn William Burgn, Wilbur Pickering, Edward F. Hills, and Thedre Letis. Wallace s critique f the dctrine f preservatin as enunciated by these men is made alng the fllwing three lines f argumentatin: 1) a questin-begging apprach, 2) faulty assumptins, and 3) a nn-biblical dctrinal basis. The third pint cincides with what we have seen s far in Lessns 31 thrugh 38, that n Biblical text supprts the dctrine f preservatin, accrding t Wallace. Wallace deals with the questin f the crllary between inspiratin and preservatin under pint tw, faulty assumptins. After quting the passage abve frm Edward F. Hills (see page 3), Wallace states the fllwing: In ther wrds, preservatin prceeds frm and is a necessary cnsequence f inspiratin. Or, in the wrds f Jasper James Ray, the writing f the Wrd f Gd by Pastr Bryan Rss

7 7 inspiratin is n greater miracle than the miracle f preservatin... (Wallace in GTJ, 31) Wallace then qutes Bart Ehrman t buttress his pint. It is imprtant t nte that Dr. Glenny, writing in 1997, qutes the same passage frm Ehrman as well as prviding virtually identical argumentatin t what Wallace presented in Parties dubting this fact are encuraged t cmpare Wallace s essay frm 1992 (pages 31-33) with Glenny s piece frm 1997 (see pages 77-78). The Ehrman qute reads as fllws: Any claim that Gd preserved the New Testament text intact, giving His church actual, nt theretical, pssessin f it, must mean ne f three things either 1) Gd preserved it in all the extant manuscripts s that nne f them cntain any textual crruptins, r 2) He preserved it in grups f manuscripts, nne f which cntain any crruptins, r 3) He preserved it in a slitary manuscript which alne cntains n crruptins. (quted by Wallace in GTJ, 32) As fllw-up t Ehrman, Wallace writes (als see Glenny page 77): The prblem with these first and secnd pssibilities is that neither ne f them is true: n tw NT manuscripts agree cmpletely in fact, there are between six and ten variatins per chapter fr the clsest tw manuscripts. Is it pssible that the NT text was preserved intact in a single manuscript? N ne argues this particular pint, because it is easily demnstrable that every manuscript has scribal errrs in it. (Wallace in GTJ, 32) Ntice nce again what the standard is fr this discussin. It is nne ther than exact sameness. Fr Wallace, the lack f exact sameness r identical wrding acrss the manuscript witnesses is enugh t negate preservatin as the crllary f inspiratin. Mrever, Wallace is pleased t allw TR advcates t take n exact sameness as their standard fr preservatin because he can then pint ut histrically that identical wrding des nt exist. In this sense pr-tr preservatins have played int the hands f their critics by verstating the case with respect t preservatin. Tw years later, in June f 1994, Wallace authred an even mre aggressive diatribe against TR preservatins in the Jurnal f the Evangelical Thelgical Sciety. In an article titled The Majrity-Text Thery: Histry, Methds, and Critique Wallace addresses the dctrinal underpinning f the traditinal-text thery, by denuncing thse wh believe in the dgma f preservatin as a starting pint fr discussing the matter. First, and mst imprtantly, I must speak t the thelgical a priri. MT advcates need the dgma f preservatin at all pints where the evidence will nt easily yield t their interpretatin. (Wallace in JETS, 201) Pastr Bryan Rss

8 8 Wallace qutes Thedre P. Leits essay, In Reply t D.A. Carsn s The King James Versin Debate t illustrate his pint. When reviewing the defense f the Majrity Text, ne dminating cnsideratin emerges: a prir cmmitment t what the Bible has t say cncerning itself with regard t inspiratin and preservatin. Fr the Majrity Text aplgists, this is an all-cnsuming cnsideratin t which everything else must be subrdinated. Their arguments, therefre, are nt directed t sme neutral bar f determinatin (as if such a thing existed) but are cnsciusly directed t thse wh als have the same pririty. (Leits, 192) After quting Letis, Wallace states the fllwing regarding the crllary between inspiratin and preservatin. T them, verbal inspiratin necessitates preservatin. Pickering tells us that the dctrine f Divine Preservatin f the New Testament depends upn the interpretatin f the evidence which recgnizes the Traditinal Text t be the cntinuatin f the autgrapha. In rder t make preservatin supprt the MT it must infer accessibility: Gd has preserved the text f the New Testament in a very pure frm and it has been readily available t His fllwers in every age thrughut 1900 years. Hence the MT psitin is based n a crllary (accessibility) f a crllary (preservatin) f a particular dgmatic stance (verbal inspiratin). (Wallace in JETS, 201) Preservatin: Histrical nt Thelgical Wallace denies the scriptures a dctrine f preservatin while at the same time arguing that preservatin is a histrical reality, nt a thelgical necessary. In ther wrds, Wallace denies that preservatin is the crllary f inspiratin because the relevant verses d nt teach preservatin. Yet, at the same time, in the face f agnstic bjectins against the wrd f Gd leveled by Bart Ehramn, Wallace argues fr the histrical reality f preservatin. While Wallace denies a dctrine f preservatin, he cannt deny the histrical reality f the surviving manuscript cpies. Fr Wallace, these cpies exist nt because f Gd's prmise f preservatin but are the prduct f a mere circumstantial histrical reality. In ther wrds, the histrical reality is nt the result f Gd's fundamental prmise f preservatin but circumstantial happenings in the same manner that wuld affect any ther ancient dcuments. Wallace s view maintains that any bk f antiquity fr which we still pssess manuscript cpies is preserved because Gd exercises svereign cntrl ver the universe. This standard wuld apply equally t secular writings such as Caesar s Cmmentaries n the Gallic War r the Bible. On this view, any ancient dcument that is extant tday wes its present existence t Gd s preservatin. Mrever, n this view there is n difference between the Bible and Caesar s Pastr Bryan Rss

9 9 Cmmentaries. Gd is under n bligatin t preserve the ne ver the ther. Rather, it just s happens that cpies have survived. In his bk Myths abut the Mdern Bible Versins David W. Clud states the fllwing abut circumstantial preservatin. Anther ppular myth surrunding the mdern Bible versins is the idea that while Gd inspired the Scriptures infallibly, He has preserved the Scriptures nly in a mre general sense. T put this anther way, while inspiratin was miraculus, preservatin has been merely circumstantial... The dctrine f preservatin lies at the very heart f the Bible text debate. The Bible cannt be treated as any ther bk. It is Gd s Wrd. Gd gave it and Gd has prmised t preserve it. The underlying thesis, thugh, f mdern textual criticism is that the Bible became crrupted thrugh the centuries and it is the task f textual criticism t restre it in riginal purity... The bttm line is that the same Bible that claims t be infallibly inspired als claims t be infallibly preserved. My faith in this is nt based n cmmn sense (thugh it is sensible t believe that if Gd gave a perfect Bible He wuld preserve that very Bible). My faith in this matter is based n the prmises f a Gd that cannt lie. (Clud, ) Cnclusin In summatin, Wallace rejects any crllary between inspiratin and preservatin because he des nt believe the scriptures teach their wn preservatin. That being said, he argues ratinally that preservatin must be a histrical reality r else we wuld nt have any extant cpies. The reasn Wallace s psitin n preservatin is s cnfusing t sme is because Wallace is trying t have his cake and eat it t. Gd did nt prmise t preserve his wrd yet He did, circumstantially, in a histrical sense. Pastr Bryan Rss

10 10 Wrks Cited fr Appendix A Clud, David W. Myths Abut the Mdern Bible Versins. Oak Harbr, WA: Way f Life Literature, Cmbs, William W. The Preservatin f Scripture? in Detrit Baptist Seminary Jurnal. Fall Hills, Edward F. The King James Versin Defended. Des Mines, IA: Christian Research Press, Letis, Thedre P. The Majrity Text: Essays and Reviews in the Cntinuing Debate. Institute fr Biblical and Textual Studies, Wallace, Daniel B. Inspiratin, Preservatin, And New Testament Textual Criticism in Grace Thelgical Jurnal Wallace, Daniel B. The Majrity-Text Thery: Histry, Methds, and Critique in Jurnal f the Evangelical Thelgical Sciety. June Westctt, Brke Fss & Fentn Jhn Anthny Hrt. The New Testament in The Original Greek. Lndn: Macmillan and Cmpany LTD, Pastr Bryan Rss