A Deliberate Attack on Sola Scriptura
Richard Simon, a 17th-century Catholic priest, published A Critical History of the Text of the New Testament in 1689. This work is often heralded as pioneering in the field of modern biblical criticism. Simon’s Critical History, however, was not merely an academic exercise; it was a direct and calculated attack on the Reformed doctrine of Sola Scriptura, a foundational principle of the Protestant Reformation that asserts the Scriptures alone as the ultimate authority for faith and practice. Simon’s methodology and conclusions represent a conscious effort to elevate ecclesiastical and human authority over the sufficiency and finality of the biblical text.
In this article, we will reevaluate Richard Simon’s work, emphasizing his philosophical presuppositions, his treatment of major textual variants, and his attempts to undermine Sola Scriptura. This reevaluation is crucial for understanding how Simon’s work laid the groundwork for subsequent developments in biblical criticism and posed a significant challenge to the Reformed view of scriptural preservation and authority.
The Purpose of A Critical History: Undermining the Reformed Doctrine of Sola Scriptura
Richard Simon’s Critical History was published during a period of intense theological conflict between Roman Catholics and Reformed Protestants. Central to this conflict was the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which asserts that the Scriptures alone are the final authority for faith and practice. The Reformers held that Scripture is self-authenticating and that God has providentially preserved His Word through the received text. This doctrine posed a significant threat to the Roman Catholic Church’s claim to authority, which included its role in defining and interpreting the Scriptures.
Simon, who was part of the counter-reformation, had as his purpose in writing A Critical History to challenge this Reformed principle. By questioning the integrity of the biblical text and emphasizing the role of the Catholic Church in establishing and preserving the canon, Simon sought to discredit Sola Scriptura and elevate ecclesiastical authority over the authority of Scripture itself. His work aimed to demonstrate that the biblical text could not be understood or preserved apart from the Church’s critical intervention—a claim that directly opposed the Reformed view of divine preservation.
Enlightenment Influence on Simon’s Approach
While Simon’s work was framed as a defense of the New Testament, his methodology and conclusions reveal the profound influence of Enlightenment philosophy. The Enlightenment emphasized reason, empirical evidence, and skepticism toward traditional authorities. Simon’s Critical History exemplifies these intellectual currents:
- Rational Examination Over Scriptural Sufficiency: Simon’s insistence on textual criticism reflects a shift away from accepting the Scriptures as sufficient and authoritative in themselves. His work reveals an Enlightenment-inspired belief that human reason and historical scrutiny are necessary to determine the authenticity of the biblical text.
- Focus on Historical and Critical Inquiry: Simon approached the Scriptures as historical documents subject to the same critical scrutiny as any other ancient text. He examined manuscripts, questioned authorship claims, and emphasized the need for scholarly investigation. This focus on historical inquiry reflects an Enlightenment tendency to seek empirical and historical grounding for knowledge claims, even in matters of divine revelation.
- Skepticism Toward Traditional Religious Claims: Simon’s approach is marked by a cautious attitude toward claims of textual purity and authenticity that are not backed by critical evidence. This skepticism extended to the received text, which the Reformers had upheld as the divinely preserved and authoritative Word of God.
Rejection of Sola Scriptura in Favor of Ecclesiastical Authority
Simon’s approach to textual criticism and his conclusions reveal a clear rejection of the Reformed doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Instead of viewing Scripture as self-authenticating and divinely preserved, Simon placed greater authority in the Church’s role as the guardian and interpreter of the biblical text. His work aimed to demonstrate that the integrity of the Scriptures depended not on divine preservation, but on the Church’s critical intervention.
- Elevation of Human Reason and Critical Methods: Simon’s emphasis on textual criticism and his reliance on historical documents and scholarly traditions suggest that he placed greater confidence in human reason and critical scholarship than in the authority of Scripture itself. This method reflects a belief that human faculties, rather than the self-authenticating nature of Scripture, are necessary to arrive at truth.
- Dependence on Ecclesiastical Authority: Throughout A Critical History, Simon emphasizes the role of the Catholic Church in establishing and preserving the canon. He frequently appeals to Church Fathers, councils, and ecclesiastical traditions as the primary means of determining textual authenticity. By doing so, Simon implicitly rejected the Reformed principle that Scripture alone is the final authority for evaluating truth claims.
Treatment of Major Textual Variants
A key feature of Simon’s work is his detailed examination of major textual variants within the New Testament. Simon’s treatment of these variants reflects both his rejection of Sola Scriptura and his efforts to undermine the Reformed view of divine preservation.
- The Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8): Simon was critical of the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum, the Trinitarian formula found in 1 John 5:7-8. He argued that this passage was not part of the original text and was likely a later addition, based on the lack of early Greek manuscript evidence. By questioning the authenticity of this passage, Simon sought to cast doubt on the sufficiency of the received text, which the Reformers held as divinely preserved.
From a Reformed perspective, the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum in the Textus Receptus and its consistent presence in the Latin Vulgate are viewed as strong evidence of its authenticity. The Reformed tradition affirms that God has providentially preserved His Word throughout history, trusting that the received text faithfully reflects the original Scriptures, even if some early Greek manuscripts do not contain the passage. Critics relying solely on a limited selection of early Greek manuscripts overlook the fact that we do not have access to the entire body of early Greek texts, leaving gaps in our understanding of their full contents. Simon’s dismissal of this passage reflects a broader effort to undermine the Reformed doctrine of divine preservation, challenging the sufficiency and reliability of the received text.
- The Ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20): Simon also addressed the longer ending of Mark’s Gospel (Mark 16:9-20), arguing that it was not part of the original text. He based his conclusion on the absence of this passage in certain early manuscripts and the writings of some Church Fathers. By questioning the authenticity of the longer ending, Simon sought to undermine the authority of the received text and the Reformed belief in the sufficiency of Scripture.
Reformed scholars, by contrast, uphold the longer ending of Mark as part of the divinely preserved text, based on its inclusion in the majority of manuscripts and its acceptance by the Church throughout history. Simon’s skepticism toward this passage reflects his broader rejection of the Reformed view of divine preservation.
- The Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11): Simon addressed the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11), another well-known textual variant. He argued that this passage was likely not part of the original Gospel of John, pointing to its absence in some early manuscripts and its varying placement within the Gospel in other manuscripts. Simon’s treatment of this passage reveals his broader aim of challenging the integrity of the received text.
From a Reformed perspective, the Pericope Adulterae is part of the divinely preserved text and has been recognized as such by the Church for centuries. Simon’s skepticism toward this passage reflects his underlying goal of undermining Sola Scriptura and elevating the role of critical scholarship and ecclesiastical authority.
The Broader Implications for Biblical Preservation and Authority
Richard Simon’s rejection of Sola Scriptura and his reliance on critical methods have significant implications for the doctrine of biblical preservation. His work represents a deliberate attempt to undermine the Reformed view of preservation and elevate the authority of the Catholic Church in determining the authenticity of the biblical text.
- Denial of Divine Preservation: Simon’s emphasis on critical methods and his rejection of the received text suggest that he did not believe in the divine preservation of Scripture. Instead, he viewed the biblical text as a human product that required critical examination and reconstruction. This perspective contrasts sharply with the Reformed view, which holds that God has faithfully preserved His Word through the received text, despite the presence of minor variations.
- Undermining the Sufficiency of Scripture: By rejecting Sola Scriptura and relying on critical methods, Simon effectively undermined the sufficiency of Scripture. His emphasis on the role of the Church in establishing and preserving the canon suggests that he viewed ecclesiastical authority as greater than the authority of Scripture itself. This approach stands in stark contrast to the Reformed principle that Scripture alone is the final authority for faith and practice.
Conclusion: Simon’s Conscious Attack on Reformed Theology
Richard Simon’s Critical History of the New Testament was not a neutral academic work; it was a deliberate and calculated attempt to undermine the Reformed doctrine of Sola Scriptura. His Enlightenment-influenced methodology, emphasis on human reason, and reliance on ecclesiastical authority reveal a conscious effort to discredit the sufficiency and authority of the biblical text. By questioning the integrity of the received text and challenging key passages such as the Comma Johanneum, the longer ending of Mark, and the Pericope Adulterae, Simon sought to elevate the Catholic Church’s role in preserving and interpreting Scripture.
Today, Simon’s spiritual descendants have continued his legacy by replacing the authority of the Church and her councils with a new Magisterium of Textual Critics who likewise reject Scripture as their final authority. These modern scholars often act as gatekeepers, determining which passages should be considered authentic based on a selective and ever-changing set of critical principles. They subject the Scriptures to ongoing revisions and reconstructions, treating the biblical text as a mutable document rather than the providentially preserved Word of God. This new authority structure mirrors Simon’s approach, but instead of appealing to the Church’s tradition, it defers to the consensus of critical scholarship—ultimately placing human reason and academic judgment above the divine authority of the Scriptures.
For confessional Reformed scholars, Simon’s work serves as a reminder of the importance of upholding the sufficiency and authority of God’s Word. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura asserts that Scripture alone is the final authority for faith and practice and that God has providentially preserved His Word through the received text. In contrast, Simon’s work represents a conscious rejection of these principles in favor of Enlightenment ideals and ecclesiastical authority.
In light of Simon’s deliberate attack on Sola Scriptura, believers must remain steadfast in their commitment to the authority and preservation of God’s Word. The challenges posed by Enlightenment philosophy and critical scholarship should drive us to reaffirm our confidence in the divine preservation and sufficiency of the Scriptures as the ultimate standard of truth.