4. Owen’s Response to Walton’s Emphasis on Variants
One of the most significant challenges to John Owen’s doctrine of Scriptural preservation came from Brian Walton’s Biblia Polyglotta. Walton’s work, published in the mid-seventeenth century, included extensive textual notes and comparisons of various manuscript traditions. The Biblia Polyglotta introduced a critical apparatus that aimed to collate and harmonize variant readings across multiple languages and manuscript traditions. This approach reflected the rising influence of Enlightenment rationalism, which emphasized empirical methods and historical-critical analysis to resolve textual discrepancies.
Owen’s response to Walton reveals his deep concern over the implications of prioritizing human reason and textual variants over the providential preservation of Scripture. In his Vindication of the Purity and Integrity of the Hebrew and Greek Texts, Owen not only critiques Walton’s approach but also reinforces his confessional commitment to the sufficiency of the received text.
Walton’s Critical Methodology and Emphasis on Variants
Brian Walton’s Biblia Polyglotta aimed to provide a comprehensive comparison of biblical manuscripts across different languages and traditions. By including critical notes that highlighted textual variants, Walton sought to provide scholars with the necessary tools to assess and potentially reconstruct the biblical text. This approach reflected a growing trend within Enlightenment scholarship that viewed the resolution of textual discrepancies as essential for establishing the integrity and reliability of Scripture.
Walton’s work implied that the authority of the biblical text depended on the ability of scholars to identify and correct variants. By prioritizing textual variants and introducing a critical apparatus, Walton’s methodology challenged the traditional belief in the sufficiency and integrity of the received text. This rationalist emphasis on resolving discrepancies through empirical investigation was a clear departure from the pre-modern confessional view that prioritized divine providence over human analysis.
Owen’s Critique of Walton’s Approach
Owen recognized the potential dangers inherent in Walton’s methodology. He saw Walton’s critical apparatus as an unnecessary and harmful intrusion that risked undermining confidence in the received text. In response, Owen asserted that the integrity of the Scriptures had been preserved through God’s providential care, despite the existence of minor textual variations. He argued that emphasizing these variants and subjecting the text to human judgment would lead to endless disputes and doubts.
Owen’s critique of Walton is sharp and pointed. He writes:
“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).
In this statement, Owen challenges the very premise of Walton’s critical method. By suggesting that God’s providence would fail to preserve His Word intact, Walton’s methodology implicitly calls into question either God’s power or His faithfulness. For Owen, such an implication was unacceptable and contradicted the clear teaching of Scripture regarding God’s sovereign preservation of His Word.
Owen’s Perspective on Variants
While Owen acknowledged the existence of textual variants, he did not see these as fundamentally threatening the integrity of Scripture. He argued that the minor variations found in manuscripts did not affect the substance of biblical doctrine or the core message of the Scriptures. In fact, Owen believed that the agreement among the various manuscript traditions testified to the sufficiency of God’s providential preservation.
Owen’s concern was not with the existence of variants but with the undue weight that Walton’s methodology placed on resolving them. By prioritizing human reason and judgment, Walton’s approach risked destabilizing the church’s confidence in the received text. Owen saw this as a betrayal of the confessional belief in the self-authenticating nature of Scripture and God’s ongoing care for His Word.
Owen expresses his perspective clearly when he writes:
“What ground there can be for any to suppose that the whole copy we have, or any part of it, is corrupted, I know not… It is no difficult matter to produce five hundred mistakes in Walton’s translations, and yet I will not say, ‘the translations are corrupt,’ as he would have men believe of the originals” (Vindication of the Integrity of the Hebrew and Greek Texts, p. 398).
Here, Owen defends the integrity of the received text against Walton’s implications of corruption. He argues that the existence of mistakes in translations does not warrant accusations of corruption in the original manuscripts. By drawing this distinction, Owen reaffirms his belief in the sufficiency of the Hebrew and Greek texts as preserved by God.
Brash’s Reinterpretation and the Treatment of Variants
In his reinterpretation of Owen’s doctrine, Brash acknowledges the importance of textual variants but seeks to present Owen as accommodating these issues in light of emerging critical methods. Brash writes:
“Owen’s doctrine of providential preservation did not deny the existence of textual variations, but he did reject the idea that these variations undermined the overall integrity of the biblical text. For Owen, the essential content of Scripture remained secure despite minor discrepancies” (The Reformed Doctrine of the Providential Preservation of Scripture, p. 88).
While Brash’s statement captures some of Owen’s perspective, it fails to adequately address Owen’s rejection of Walton’s emphasis on human efforts to resolve variants. Owen’s critique of Walton goes beyond a simple acknowledgment of textual variations; it challenges the very premise of prioritizing human judgment over divine providence.
Conclusion of Section 4
Owen’s response to Walton’s emphasis on textual variants highlights a key theological divide between the pre-modern confessional view and the emerging Enlightenment methodologies. Owen’s doctrine of providential preservation affirmed that God had preserved His Word in the received text, and that the existence of minor variants did not warrant human attempts to reconstruct the original. In contrast, Walton’s critical approach prioritized empirical investigation and human reason, undermining confidence in the sufficiency of the received text.
Brash’s reinterpretation, while acknowledging Owen’s concern for the integrity of Scripture, fails to fully capture the depth of Owen’s critique of Walton. By placing undue emphasis on the role of human efforts to resolve variants, Brash’s reinterpretation risks misrepresenting Owen’s confessional commitment to divine preservation and the sufficiency of the received text.
5. Inspiration and Preservation as Intertwined
For John Owen, the doctrines of divine inspiration and providential preservation are not merely related but are fundamentally intertwined. Owen held that if God inspired the Scriptures, He also necessarily preserved them for the benefit of His church. Any notion that Scripture could be inspired but not preserved intact was, for Owen, unthinkable. This understanding stands in contrast to Enlightenment-influenced approaches that tended to separate the idea of an original, inspired text from the ongoing process of textual transmission and preservation.
Owen’s Integration of Inspiration and Preservation
Owen’s doctrine of inspiration asserts that God is the ultimate author of Scripture, working through human writers to produce His infallible Word. However, Owen did not see God’s work as stopping there. He believed that the same God who inspired the Scriptures would also ensure their faithful preservation throughout history. Owen’s conviction in this regard is evident when he writes:
“As the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were immediately and entirely given out by God himself… 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” (Divine Original, p. 350).
Owen’s integration of inspiration and preservation was based on the belief that God’s purpose in inspiring Scripture was to provide a trustworthy and authoritative revelation of His will. For this purpose to be fulfilled, the Scriptures had to be preserved intact and free from substantial corruption. Owen argued that it would be inconsistent to believe that God inspired the Scriptures only to allow them to be lost or corrupted over time.
The Enlightenment’s Tendency to Separate Inspiration and Preservation
Enlightenment rationalism introduced a tendency to treat the inspiration of Scripture as a historical event, separate from the ongoing process of textual preservation. Enlightenment scholars like Brian Walton emphasized the empirical investigation of the biblical text and the resolution of textual discrepancies, often treating preservation as a human responsibility rather than a divine act. Walton’s Biblia Polyglotta, with its emphasis on collating and harmonizing textual variants, reflects this approach.
In contrast to Owen’s integrated doctrine, Walton’s methodology implied that the original, inspired text could be reconstructed through human efforts based on historical-critical analysis. This shift in emphasis from divine preservation to human reconstruction marked a significant departure from the pre-modern confessional view. It suggested that the integrity of the Scriptures was not guaranteed by divine providence but depended on the abilities of scholars to identify and correct textual variants.
Owen’s Rejection of a Divided View of Inspiration and Preservation
Owen recognized the implications of separating inspiration from preservation and rejected this approach as inconsistent with the nature of God. For Owen, it was unthinkable that God would inspire His Word without also ensuring its preservation. He argued that any attempt to separate these two doctrines would undermine the authority and reliability of Scripture. Owen states:
“The preservation of the Scriptures, whole and entire, as a result of divine inspiration, is fundamental to our faith… It is not possible that any should believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God if they do not also believe that God has preserved them from substantial corruption” (Vindication of the Integrity of the Hebrew and Greek Texts, p. 384).
In this statement, Owen makes it clear that belief in the divine inspiration of Scripture necessarily entails belief in its preservation. He contends that denying the preservation of Scripture would lead to a fundamental crisis of faith, as it would cast doubt on the reliability of God’s revelation.
Brash’s Reinterpretation of Owen’s Doctrine
In his reinterpretation, Brash acknowledges that Owen held a high view of preservation, but he suggests that Owen’s views developed in response to the increasing awareness of textual variations. Brash writes:
“Owen insists that this doctrine is ‘fundamental’ to the faith, and that each part of it—rightly understood—is essential to the whole… preservation is fulfilled by the work begun through inspiration” (The Reformed Doctrine of the Providential Preservation of Scripture, p. 62).
While Brash’s summary captures Owen’s emphasis on the importance of preservation, it implies that Owen’s views evolved as a response to external pressures rather than as a consistent extension of his theology of inspiration. This portrayal risks undermining Owen’s commitment to the integrated nature of these doctrines by suggesting that his position on preservation was shaped by the need to accommodate textual variations and critical methodologies.
The Implications of Owen’s Integrated Doctrine
Owen’s insistence on the integration of inspiration and preservation has significant implications for how the church understands and trusts the Scriptures. By affirming that God not only inspired the biblical text but also preserved it, Owen provided a basis for unwavering confidence in the authority and reliability of Scripture. This confidence did not depend on the efforts of scholars to reconstruct an “original” text but on the assurance that God had faithfully preserved His Word throughout history.
Owen’s integrated doctrine also serves as a corrective to Enlightenment methodologies that prioritize human reason and empirical investigation over divine action. By emphasizing the unity of inspiration and preservation, Owen challenged the notion that the authority of Scripture is contingent upon the success of human efforts to verify its transmission.
Conclusion of Section 5
The integration of inspiration and preservation in John Owen’s theology is a critical aspect of his confessional commitment to the authority and reliability of Scripture. For Owen, these two doctrines are inseparably linked, with preservation serving as the necessary corollary of inspiration. In contrast, Enlightenment approaches like those represented by Walton tended to separate these doctrines, emphasizing human reconstruction and empirical investigation as essential for establishing the integrity of the biblical text.
Brash’s reinterpretation of Owen’s doctrine, while acknowledging the importance of preservation, fails to fully capture the depth of Owen’s integrated approach. By presenting preservation as a response to external pressures rather than as a consistent extension of divine inspiration, Brash’s portrayal risks misrepresenting Owen’s confessional commitments and theological consistency.
[PART 1][PART 2][PART 4][PART 5]
