6. Brash’s Reinterpretation in Light of Enlightenment Assumptions
In his work, Richard Fraser Brash attempts to reframe John Owen’s views on Scriptural preservation within the broader context of Enlightenment-era developments in textual criticism. Brash argues that Owen’s commitment to the doctrine of providential preservation was influenced and refined in response to the increasing awareness of textual variations and the rise of critical methodologies. However, this reinterpretation introduces several challenges and inconsistencies, as it risks distorting Owen’s theological commitments and presenting his views through an Enlightenment lens that emphasizes human reason and empirical investigation over divine action.
Brash’s Reinterpretation of Owen’s Doctrine
Brash’s primary claim is that Owen’s views on Scriptural preservation were not static but developed in response to external pressures. Brash suggests that as textual criticism advanced and awareness of textual variations grew, Owen and other Reformed theologians were compelled to adapt their understanding of preservation. He writes:
“Owen and his contemporaries did not deny the existence of textual variations but rather sought to affirm the overall integrity of the biblical text. Their emphasis on providential preservation reflects an evolving awareness of the complexities of the manuscript tradition” (The Reformed Doctrine of the Providential Preservation of Scripture, p. 45).
Brash’s portrayal implies that Owen’s doctrine of preservation was a reactive development—a response to emerging challenges rather than a consistent outworking of his theology of inspiration and authority. By emphasizing the influence of external factors, Brash suggests that Owen’s views on preservation were shaped by Enlightenment assumptions about the role of human reason and critical analysis in verifying the text.
Enlightenment Assumptions in Brash’s Reinterpretation
Brash’s reinterpretation aligns Owen’s doctrine with several key Enlightenment assumptions:
- The Primacy of Empirical Evidence and Critical Inquiry: Brash places significant weight on Owen’s acknowledgment of textual variations and suggests that this acknowledgment necessitated a nuanced approach to preservation. This emphasis reflects an Enlightenment tendency to prioritize empirical investigation and critical analysis as essential for establishing the reliability of the biblical text.
- An Evolving Understanding of Preservation: Brash presents Owen’s doctrine of preservation as an evolving concept that developed in response to new textual discoveries and critical methodologies. This portrayal implies that Owen’s views were fluid and subject to revision based on emerging scholarly trends, rather than being grounded in a consistent theological framework.
- A Focus on Human Responsibility in Preserving Scripture: Brash’s reinterpretation subtly shifts the emphasis from divine action to human responsibility in the preservation of Scripture. By highlighting Owen’s engagement with textual criticism, Brash suggests that Owen’s doctrine was shaped by a recognition of the need for scholarly efforts to maintain the integrity of the text.
Owen’s Rejection of Enlightenment Assumptions
In contrast to Brash’s reinterpretation, John Owen’s writings consistently emphasize the sufficiency of divine providence and the authority of Scripture as rooted in its divine origin. Owen did not see textual variations or the rise of critical methodologies as threats to the integrity of the Scriptures. Instead, he affirmed that God had providentially preserved His Word throughout history, independent of human efforts to verify or reconstruct the text. Owen’s critique of Enlightenment assumptions is evident in his rejection of Walton’s Biblia Polyglotta, where he states:
“The providence of God over his word is not to be judged by our conjectures, nor the variations of copyists to be esteemed as impairing the integrity of the text… Let no one suppose that the Word of God has lost any part of its truth or authority by these variations” (Vindication of the Integrity of the Hebrew and Greek Texts, p. 394).
Owen’s statement reflects a deep commitment to the sufficiency of divine providence in preserving the Scriptures. He does not deny the existence of textual variations, but he rejects the notion that these variations undermine the authority or reliability of the biblical text. Owen’s emphasis on God’s faithfulness and sovereignty serves as a corrective to Enlightenment assumptions that prioritize human judgment and empirical verification.
Inconsistencies in Brash’s Reinterpretation
Brash’s reinterpretation introduces several inconsistencies when compared with Owen’s original writings:
- The Nature of Preservation: Brash suggests that Owen’s views on preservation evolved in response to new textual challenges, but Owen’s writings consistently present preservation as a fundamental extension of divine inspiration. For Owen, preservation was not a reaction to external pressures but a necessary aspect of God’s purpose in inspiring the Scriptures.
- The Role of Human Effort: Brash’s emphasis on Owen’s engagement with textual criticism risks overstating the role of human effort in preserving Scripture. Owen acknowledged the value of scholarly work but firmly placed it under the authority of God’s providence. He did not see human efforts as essential for ensuring the integrity of the text but as a secondary means of supporting what God had already preserved.
- The Basis of Authority: Brash’s portrayal implies that empirical evidence and critical analysis played a significant role in Owen’s understanding of authority, but Owen consistently prioritized the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit and the self-authenticating nature of Scripture. Owen’s doctrine of authority was rooted in the belief that God had inspired and preserved His Word, not in the ability of scholars to resolve textual discrepancies.
Conclusion of Section 6
Brash’s reinterpretation of Owen’s doctrine in light of Enlightenment assumptions introduces a number of challenges and inconsistencies. By emphasizing the role of empirical evidence, critical inquiry, and human responsibility, Brash risks distorting Owen’s confessional commitments and presenting his views through a modern lens. In contrast, Owen’s writings consistently affirm the sufficiency of divine providence, the self-authenticating nature of Scripture, and the inseparability of inspiration and preservation.
Owen’s rejection of Enlightenment assumptions reflects his commitment to a pre-modern, confessional view that prioritizes God’s sovereignty and faithfulness over human efforts to verify the text. This distinction is critical for understanding the theological divide between Owen’s doctrine and the emerging critical methodologies of his time.
7. Implications for Confessional Bibliology
The contrast between John Owen’s confessional doctrine of Scriptural preservation and Enlightenment-influenced approaches has significant implications for contemporary discussions in confessional bibliology. Owen’s commitment to the doctrines of divine inspiration, providential preservation, and the self-authenticating nature of Scripture stands as a challenge to modern critical methodologies that emphasize human efforts to verify or reconstruct the biblical text. By examining Owen’s theology in light of contemporary debates, we can identify key principles that are essential for maintaining a confessional approach to Scripture.
The Sufficiency of Divine Preservation
One of the core tenets of confessional bibliology is the belief in the sufficiency of divine preservation. John Owen’s doctrine, which emphasizes that God has preserved His Word intact and without substantial corruption, serves as a foundational principle for this view. Owen’s writings reaffirm the idea that preservation is a divine act, not a human achievement. He 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).
For those in the confessional bibliology tradition, Owen’s doctrine provides a theological framework for understanding the integrity of the biblical text as guaranteed by God’s providence. This principle challenges modern critical approaches that prioritize human reconstruction and suggest that the authority of Scripture is contingent upon resolving textual discrepancies.
The Authority of Scripture and the Internal Testimony of the Spirit
Another key implication of Owen’s doctrine is the emphasis on the self-authenticating nature of Scripture and the role of the Holy Spirit in confirming its authority. Owen’s belief in autopistia—the inherent self-evidencing character of Scripture—aligns with the confessional commitment to the sufficiency of God’s Word and the Spirit’s testimony. He 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).
This confessional emphasis on the Spirit’s testimony contrasts sharply with Enlightenment methodologies that rely on external evidence and empirical validation to establish the authority of Scripture. In the context of confessional bibliology, Owen’s doctrine underscores the sufficiency of God’s revelation and the work of the Spirit in affirming the truth and integrity of the biblical text.
Rejection of Rationalist Assumptions
Owen’s critique of Enlightenment approaches, particularly his response to Brian Walton’s Biblia Polyglotta, provides a clear rejection of rationalist assumptions that elevate human reason over divine revelation. Walton’s critical apparatus, which sought to harmonize textual variants through scholarly judgment, implied that the authority of Scripture depended on human efforts to verify and correct the text. Owen rejected this approach, warning that it would lead to endless disputes and undermine confidence in the received text. He writes:
“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).
For confessional bibliology, Owen’s rejection of rationalist assumptions is crucial. It serves as a reminder that the authority of Scripture is not dependent on the success of human efforts to resolve textual discrepancies, but on God’s providential care and the self-authenticating nature of His Word. This principle challenges modern critical methodologies that seek to reconstruct an “original” text based on rational analysis and empirical investigation.
Reaffirming the Inseparability of Inspiration and Preservation
One of the most significant implications of Owen’s doctrine is the inseparability of inspiration and preservation. For Owen, God’s act of inspiring the Scriptures necessarily entailed their preservation throughout history. This integrated view provides a theological basis for confidence in the received text as both inspired and preserved by God. Owen 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).
In the context of confessional bibliology, this integrated doctrine challenges modern critical approaches that treat inspiration as a historical event and preservation as a human responsibility. By affirming that God’s inspiration and preservation are inseparable, Owen’s doctrine provides a theological foundation for trusting the received text without the need for ongoing critical reconstruction.
Implications for Contemporary Debates
Owen’s confessional commitment to the authority, inspiration, and preservation of Scripture has direct implications for contemporary debates within confessional bibliology. His emphasis on divine providence, the self-authenticating nature of Scripture, and the sufficiency of the received text provides a counterpoint to modern critical methodologies that prioritize human judgment and empirical verification. For those in the confessional bibliology tradition, Owen’s theology offers a robust framework for understanding and defending the integrity of the biblical text.
Moreover, Owen’s rejection of Enlightenment assumptions serves as a warning against adopting critical methodologies that undermine confidence in the authority of Scripture. His critique of Walton’s approach highlights the dangers of allowing rationalist principles to dictate the terms of Scriptural authority, and his emphasis on divine preservation reaffirms the sufficiency of God’s revelation for the life and faith of the church.
Conclusion of Section 7
John Owen’s doctrine of Scriptural preservation and authority has significant implications for confessional bibliology, offering a theological framework that prioritizes divine action over human reconstruction. By emphasizing the sufficiency of divine preservation, the self-authenticating nature of Scripture, and the inseparability of inspiration and preservation, Owen’s theology challenges modern critical methodologies and reaffirms the confessional commitment to the integrity of the received text.
For those engaged in contemporary debates about the preservation and authority of Scripture, Owen’s writings provide a valuable resource for defending the integrity of God’s Word against the rationalist assumptions of the Enlightenment. His rejection of critical methodologies that elevate human reason over divine providence serves as a reminder that the authority of Scripture is ultimately grounded in God’s faithfulness and the testimony of the Spirit.
[PART 1][PART 2][PART 3][PART 5]
