2. Providential Preservation vs. Human Reconstruction
John Owen’s doctrine of providential preservation stands in stark contrast to Enlightenment methodologies that rely on human efforts to reconstruct an “original” text. For Owen, the integrity and authority of Scripture were not contingent upon the abilities of scholars to resolve textual discrepancies, but on God’s providential care over His Word. This perspective shaped his response to the rising influence of critical methodologies in the seventeenth century, especially those exemplified by Brian Walton’s Biblia Polyglotta.
Owen’s Doctrine of Providential Preservation
Owen firmly believed that God, in His sovereignty, had not only inspired the Scriptures but also preserved them through the ages. This preservation was, to Owen, an extension of divine providence. The integrity of the original texts, as received in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, was seen not as a result of meticulous human efforts but as evidence of God’s commitment to the church. Owen wrote:
“As the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were immediately and entirely given out by God himself… by his good and merciful providence, in his love to his word and church, his whole word, as first given out by him, is preserved unto us entire in the original languages” (Of the Divine Original, p. 350).
For Owen, the idea of preservation extended beyond the general transmission of the text. It meant that God actively safeguarded the Scriptures from substantial corruption. Variations in manuscripts did not, in Owen’s view, indicate an imperfect transmission process, but rather served as evidence of the faithfulness of God in preserving His Word amid human frailty. Owen’s emphasis on divine providence meant that even if minor variants existed, the core message and doctrines of the Scriptures remained intact, guaranteed by God’s protective care.
Human Reconstruction and Rationalist Approaches
In contrast, the Enlightenment emphasis on human reason and empirical inquiry led to new methods of textual criticism that sought to reconstruct the biblical text based on variant readings and external evidence. This approach assumed that the integrity of Scripture was subject to verification through rational investigation. Walton’s Biblia Polyglotta, with its critical apparatus, typifies this shift. Walton’s goal was to collate and reconcile textual variants across multiple manuscript traditions, allowing scholars to identify and presumably reconstruct an “original” text.
Walton’s methodology represented a significant departure from the pre-modern confessional view, which rested on divine providence as the ultimate guarantor of textual integrity. Instead of relying on the received manuscripts as faithful representations of the originals, Enlightenment scholars increasingly turned to human analysis and reasoned judgment. This new approach implied that the authority of the Scriptures was dependent on scholarly efforts to confirm and correct the text.
Owen’s Response to Human Reconstruction
Owen vehemently rejected the notion that Scripture’s integrity relied on critical reconstruction. He recognized the value of scholarly work, but he firmly placed such efforts under the authority of Scripture and divine providence. Owen believed that human attempts to alter or correct the text, based on supposed errors or conjectural emendations, would ultimately lead to uncertainty and confusion within the church. In his Vindication of the Integrity of the Hebrew and Greek Texts, he asserts:
“If any ground of corruption can be fancied or imagined in the providence of God over his word, it must be either from want of power or want of faithfulness to preserve it… The universal care and endeavor of all, in every age and place, to keep the Word of God free from corruption in any part, is sufficient evidence of its preservation” (Vindication of the Integrity of the Hebrew and Greek Texts, p. 386).
Owen’s words make clear that he saw any attempts to undermine or reconstruct the received text as undermining God’s faithfulness and power. To him, the preservation of Scripture was an act of divine fidelity, and the existence of textual variants did not warrant wholesale revisions or reconstructions. Owen argued that the consistency and widespread agreement among the manuscript traditions demonstrated the sufficiency of God’s providential care.
Brash’s Reinterpretation of Preservation
Brash’s reinterpretation of Owen’s doctrine suggests a gradual shift in the understanding of preservation to accommodate the emergence of textual criticism. He writes:
“Providence, as applied to the doctrine of Scripture, governed three main areas: the production, preservation, and reception of the Bible. While the Reformers had not been greatly troubled with the minutiae arising from these questions… their successors found themselves compelled to address them in greater detail” (The Reformed Doctrine of the Providential Preservation of Scripture, p. 40).
Brash’s analysis implies that Owen and his contemporaries felt pressured to refine their views on preservation in response to the growing awareness of textual variants. While it is true that discussions on the specifics of preservation developed over time, Brash’s portrayal risks underplaying the theological foundation that undergirded Owen’s doctrine. Owen did not see textual criticism as fundamentally necessary for preservation; instead, he affirmed that preservation was a divine act that could be trusted on the basis of God’s faithfulness.
Conclusion of Section 2
The distinction between providential preservation and human reconstruction highlights a significant theological divide between John Owen’s confessional view and the Enlightenment’s rationalist methodologies. Owen’s doctrine is grounded in the belief that God has actively preserved the integrity of His Word through the ages, independent of human efforts to identify and resolve textual discrepancies. This stands in contrast to the Enlightenment assumption that the integrity of the text is contingent upon empirical investigation and scholarly correction. Brash’s reinterpretation, by emphasizing the role of human analysis, risks distorting Owen’s commitment to divine providence and the sufficiency of the received text.
3. Self-Authenticating Nature of Scripture vs. Empirical Certainty
Central to John Owen’s theology is the belief that Scripture possesses a self-authenticating authority derived directly from its divine origin. This doctrine, known as autopistia, asserts that the Scriptures are inherently authoritative and trustworthy, and they bear within themselves the evidence of their divine origin. This confessional view stands in contrast to Enlightenment methodologies that emphasize the need for external evidence and empirical validation to establish the reliability of the biblical text.
Owen’s Doctrine of Self-Authentication
Owen’s belief in the self-authenticating nature of Scripture is grounded in his understanding of the relationship between the Word of God and the testimony of the Holy Spirit. He argued that the Scriptures do not require human validation or external evidences to establish their authority; instead, their divine character is revealed and confirmed by the Spirit to the hearts and minds of believers. Owen writes:
“The Word of God is self-evidencing; and by the testimony of the Spirit does it manifest itself unto the consciences of men, without requiring further human corroboration” (Of the Divine Original, Authority, Self-Evidencing Light, and Power of the Scriptures, p. 309).
Owen emphasizes that the Scriptures carry their own proof of authenticity and authority because they are the product of divine inspiration. This understanding does not diminish the role of external evidence entirely, but it prioritizes the internal testimony of the Spirit over empirical proofs. For Owen, the ultimate foundation for recognizing the truth and authority of Scripture lies in the work of the Holy Spirit, not in the findings of human inquiry.
Empirical Certainty in the Enlightenment Framework
The rise of Enlightenment rationalism brought a shift in how scholars approached the question of Scriptural authority. Empirical methodologies began to dominate textual criticism, as Enlightenment thinkers sought to establish the reliability of the biblical text through external evidences, historical analysis, and critical reconstructions. This approach placed a heavy emphasis on rational certainty and the verification of the text through human scrutiny.
Brian Walton’s Biblia Polyglotta epitomizes this shift. By introducing a critical apparatus and extensive notes on textual variants, Walton’s work implied that the authority of the Scriptures was contingent on resolving these discrepancies through scholarly means. Walton’s intent was to provide empirical grounds for establishing the integrity of the biblical text, appealing to the rising interest in rational inquiry and historical validation. This represented a departure from the pre-modern view that prioritized the self-authenticating character of Scripture.
Owen’s Critique of Empirical Approaches
Owen recognized the dangers inherent in relying on empirical methods to establish the authority of Scripture. He saw such approaches as undermining the sufficiency and reliability of the received text, ultimately placing human reason above divine revelation. In his critique of Walton’s approach, Owen contended that prioritizing external evidence and textual variants would lead to skepticism and instability in the church. He wrote:
“If the authority of the Scriptures must rest on human judgment and critical emendation, there will be no end of disputes, nor assurance of the truth of what we receive” (Vindication of the Integrity of the Hebrew and Greek Texts, p. 391).
Owen’s rejection of empirical methodologies did not stem from a fear of scholarly investigation but from a concern that human judgment would usurp the place of divine testimony. For Owen, the Scriptures were not merely a collection of ancient writings subject to historical scrutiny; they were the living and active Word of God, inherently authoritative and sufficient.
Brash’s Reinterpretation and the Role of Evidence
In his reinterpretation of Owen’s doctrine, Brash acknowledges Owen’s emphasis on the self-authenticating nature of Scripture but seeks to contextualize it within a broader, Enlightenment-influenced framework. Brash suggests that Owen’s view of self-authentication must be understood alongside an increasing awareness of textual variations and the need for external evidences to confirm the integrity of the text. He writes:
“The Reformers and their successors, including Owen, did not dismiss the importance of evidence in affirming the truth of Scripture. However, they insisted that such evidence could never be the foundation of its authority” (The Reformed Doctrine of the Providential Preservation of Scripture, p. 72).
While Brash’s observation is technically accurate, his emphasis on the role of external evidence risks downplaying Owen’s insistence on the priority of the Spirit’s testimony. For Owen, external evidence could support and corroborate the truth of Scripture, but it could never be the foundation of its authority. Owen’s writings make it clear that he viewed the Scriptures as possessing inherent authority by virtue of their divine origin, independent of empirical verification.
Conclusion of Section 3
The difference between Owen’s doctrine of self-authentication and the Enlightenment’s emphasis on empirical certainty reveals a key theological divide. Owen’s belief in the self-evidencing nature of Scripture affirms that the authority of the Bible is not dependent on human validation or critical methodologies. In contrast, the Enlightenment approach, represented by Walton and implicitly supported by Brash, places a greater emphasis on external evidence and empirical inquiry as the basis for confidence in the text.
By elevating rational analysis and historical verification, the Enlightenment methodologies risk undermining the confessional doctrine of Scripture’s self-authenticating authority. Owen’s critique of Walton’s critical methods and his emphasis on the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit serve as a reminder that the ultimate foundation for the authority of Scripture lies not in human reason, but in the work of God Himself.
[PART 1][PART 3][PART 4][PART 5]
