Tradition vs. Revelation: Assessing Simon’s Preference for Ecclesiastical Authority over Scripture
Introduction
Richard Simon’s Critical History of the Text of the New Testament is most often remembered for its pioneering contributions to textual criticism. Yet, beyond his meticulously documented manuscript variants, Simon also carried a broader polemical aim: to show that Scripture on its own, lacking an infallible ecclesiastical authority, offered an insufficiently firm basis for Christian faith. Put differently, Simon believed that “tradition”—the living, official teaching authority of the Church—had to trump “revelation” if that revelation were subject to interpretive uncertainties arising from textual corruption or disputes over meaning.
In the post-Reformation age, Sola Scriptura remained the bedrock principle for Protestants, emphasizing that Scripture is the supreme authority in matters of faith and doctrine. It rests on the conviction that God’s Word is both clear and self-authenticating. By contrast, Roman Catholic theology integrated Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium (the Church’s teaching office) to guarantee correct understanding of the Bible. Simon’s textual studies became a critical tool to combat the notion that Scripture alone could function as the final word on truth.
This article will examine Simon’s specific arguments for the supremacy of ecclesiastical tradition, weigh them against the Reformed principle of Scripture alone, and deploy a presuppositional analysis to highlight how these two worldviews fundamentally diverge. Simon’s preference for Church authority over biblical revelation does more than merely alter a theological detail—it touches on the foundational question of who or what stands as the ultimate arbiter of Christian truth.
I. Simon’s Arguments for Tradition
1. The Insufficiency of Scripture Alone?
From a historical vantage point, the Reformation’s principle of Sola Scriptura threatened Catholic claims of infallible teaching authority. If the Bible itself were perspicuous and inerrant, with no need for external interpretive guardians, the Catholic hierarchy lost considerable theological ground. Richard Simon sought to demonstrate that Scripture, riddled with textual variants and interpretive ambiguities, could never stand alone as a uniform, unwavering foundation.
- A Text in Need of an Interpreter: In Simon’s view, the complexities of the manuscript tradition required an institution with the authority to pronounce which variant was the valid reading in each case. Without that authority, he argued, Christians would be left with endless debates, culminating in a lack of definitive biblical certainty.
- Supposed Chaos in Early Centuries: Highlighting potential scribal changes from the earliest periods, Simon portrayed the formation of the New Testament canon and its transmission as a messy, human process—a process that could not be reliably navigated apart from the decisions and oversight of the Church.
For Simon, the idea of a stable, accessible text, capable of self-interpretation under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, was neither historically justified nor practically workable. Tradition, in his telling, became the indispensable arbiter to manage the text’s perceived instability.
2. Appeals to Patristic and Conciliar Sources
Another hallmark of Simon’s apologetic lay in referencing early church fathers, councils, and communal practices. He suggested that the “tradition” of the Church had always involved some kind of authorized body discerning which books were truly Scripture and which readings were authentic.
- Patristic Citations: Church fathers such as Augustine, Jerome, and others occasionally expressed concern over textual corruption in certain manuscripts. Simon amplified these concerns to emphasize the ongoing oversight of Church authorities as essential.
- Conciliar Decrees and Canon Formation: Simon leveraged the narrative that it was Church councils—rather than Scripture’s inherent clarity—that ultimately defined which books belonged in the New Testament. If these same councils judged the canonicity of books, they also, presumably, had the prerogative to determine the correct text and right interpretation.
By marshalling these historical precedents, he argued that the Church, not Scripture alone, had always held the final interpretive word. For him, this system was not something extraneous to the faith but the historical continuity ensuring orthodoxy through the centuries.
3. Fostering a Sense of “Historical Realism”
Simon liked to present his conclusions as realistic concessions to historical complexity. While Protestants maintained that God’s providence secured the essential transmission of the biblical text, Simon posited that church traditions and ecclesiastical decisions inevitably shaped which readings were adopted and taught. If one accepts that humans, not angels, performed every act of copying and compilation, then, in Simon’s logic, one must also accept that only a higher ecclesiastical power could keep error at bay.
- Human Fallibility Necessitates Hierarchical Authority: Even if scribes were devout, in Simon’s telling, they could make mistakes or intentionally alter passages to align with certain doctrinal perspectives. Therefore, he insisted that only a definitive Church structure, endowed with authority from Christ, could sift these variations properly.
- Questioning the Reliability of Private Judgment: Simon criticized the Reformation’s emphasis on individual believers’ ability to interpret the Bible. If the text was uncertain at a manuscript level, then how much less could individuals rely on their own discernment to settle doctrinal disputes?
In effect, these arguments aligned with the broader Counter-Reformation pushback against Protestant claims that the Bible was clear and could stand on its own, needing only the Spirit’s illumination in the minds of believers.
II. Presuppositional Analysis
1. Competing Authority Structures
A presuppositional lens brings us to ask: Which authority stands as final—the text of Scripture itself or the ecclesial tradition that interprets it? For confessional Protestants, Scripture transcends all human institutions and bears divine authority that judges even the Church (cf. Galatians 1:8–9). For Simon, the Church determines and authenticates Scripture, so the text is subordinate to ecclesiastical pronouncements.
- Self-Attestation of Scripture: Reformed theology underscores that Scripture attests to its own divine origin (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:19–21). Hence, the Church is recognized insofar as it affirms Scripture, not vice versa. Simon’s perspective inverts this logic, making Scripture reliant on ecclesial validation.
- Providential Preservation vs. Institutional Oversight: Confessional bibliology posits that the Holy Spirit superintends the Scripture’s preservation across history. Simon, while acknowledging divine oversight in broad strokes, effectively places the tangible day-to-day guardianship in the hands of the Catholic Magisterium, overshadowing the direct role of the Spirit in preserving clarity for the common believer.
Thus, from the start, Simon’s approach conflicts with a confessional worldview that presupposes Scripture’s final authority. His contentions about scribal corruption and manifold textual variants serve primarily to bolster the argument that an ultimate ecclesiastical judge is needed.
2. Authority vs. Revelation
By framing tradition as the final arbiter, Simon steers the conversation away from Scripture’s inherent revelatory authority. From a presuppositional standpoint, the Word of God is both content (the revelation itself) and the functional “means of grace,” shaping the Church, not being shaped by it. Simon’s preference for Church tradition signals that for him, revelation is insufficiently lucid unless institutional authority clarifies it.
- The Reformation’s Charge of Circularity: The Reformers frequently pointed out that Catholic theology tends to argue: “We know which books are Scripture because the Church tells us so, and we know that the Church is infallible because Scripture affirms the Church’s authority.” Presuppositional apologetics highlights how each side employs a self-referential argument. Yet, in the Reformed position, Scripture’s self-attestation is explicitly confirmed by God’s Spirit, whereas in Simon’s Catholic stance, the Church becomes the external confirmatory agent.
- Dependency and Mutual Validation: Simon’s viewpoint merges Scripture and Church so seamlessly that it becomes nearly impossible to see where the text itself might challenge ecclesiastical tradition. A presuppositional critique suggests that if the Church is the supreme authority over Scripture, how can Scripture ever perform the sola scriptura role of reforming the Church should she err?
3. Historical vs. Theological Priority
Another dimension emerges in Simon’s argument: by focusing on the historical process—scribal copying, patristic arguments, councils—he attempts to subordinate theological claims about Scripture to a purely historical narrative. Presuppositional apologetics counters that theological truths about revelation and preservation do not collapse simply because the historical data is complex. Scripture, being God’s Word, retains theological priority over any human institution, no matter how venerable.
- The Ecclesial Role in History: Confessional Protestants agree the Church historically recognized the New Testament canon. But recognizing a book as Scripture differs from conferring that status upon it. The latter notion implies that the Church’s authority can override or “create” Scripture’s authority, a proposition deeply at odds with Reformation teaching.
- The Necessity of Faith Presuppositions: Ultimately, the way we interpret the same historical events—like the decisions of councils or the use of manuscripts—depends on our initial faith commitments. If one believes that God’s Word is inherently supreme and self-authenticating, the Church’s role remains secondary. If, like Simon, one presumes that Scripture must have an authoritative institution to be recognized at all, the Church’s role is primary.
III. Assessing the Outcome
1. Reliability and Clarity of Scripture
Simon’s arguments rest on the notion that Scripture alone—without a church-provided interpretive lens—breeds confusion. Protestant confessions dispute that claim by pointing out that while textual variants exist, they do not impede essential doctrines or undermine the foundational message of the gospel. The Holy Spirit guides believers to understand the core truths of salvation (John 16:13). Meanwhile, the Church’s job is to serve as a witness and custodian, not the ultimate source of truth.
- Presuppositional Answer to Simon’s Doubts: A confessional bibliology approach acknowledges scribal changes but does not interpret them as irredeemable. Instead, God’s providence ensures that across the broad manuscript tradition, the text is available in clarity. This position trusts that the Spirit, working through the means of textual scholarship and the collective witness of faithful churches, preserves the core content without requiring an infallible institutional authority.
2. Undermining or Enhancing Faith?
Simon’s stance effectively places a wedge between the average believer and Scripture. By encouraging the notion that no one can be assured of the correct text or the right interpretation unless sanctioned by the magisterium, he fosters dependency on the Church’s hierarchical structure. For Reformed Christians, however, this approach risks undermining a believer’s direct confidence that the Spirit testifies in their hearts to the truth of God’s Word (Romans 8:16; 1 John 2:20, 27). The potential result: a form of ecclesiastical paternalism that stifles the believer’s direct engagement with Scripture.
From a purely Roman Catholic perspective, that paternalism is pastoral care, guaranteeing orthodoxy. But from a Protestant vantage point, it can appear as a subtle usurpation of the Holy Spirit’s role, making the Church the gatekeeper of revelation. In other words, tradition overshadows the immediacy of Scripture’s authority in the believer’s life. Presuppositional apologetics sees this as a fundamental misplacement of trust, for Scripture should evaluate and refine church tradition, not the other way around.
3. The Impact on Modern Debates
Simon’s preference for ecclesiastical authority over the biblical text has become a perennial flashpoint in ecumenical and theological discussions. Even modern textual critics, whether Catholic, Protestant, or secular, inevitably face the question: Does the data point to a need for an authoritative institution, or can Scripture be self-authenticating and self-consistent?
- Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Circles: Still emphasize the tradition as coequal or superior to Scripture in many practical applications.
- Protestant and Evangelical Spheres: Tend to maintain that Scripture judges tradition, seeking to confirm that the text’s essential integrity holds apart from centralized authority structures.
- Secular Scholarship: Might observe the tradition vs. revelation debate but typically steers toward rationalistic or historical-critical approaches that treat Scripture as one religious artifact among many. Ironically, Simon’s textual scholarship also laid groundwork for such skepticism, though his intended solution was robustly Catholic.
So the tension remains: if historical or textual complexities outstrip the capacity for “lay interpretation,” is a “Magisterium” necessary? Or can confessional believers rest assured in God’s providential supervision, as the Reformers taught?
IV. Conclusion
Richard Simon’s orientation toward ecclesiastical authority—rather than Scripture alone—must be read in the broader context of his life’s work: a Counter-Reformation scholar determined to expose what he saw as fatal flaws in the Protestant reliance on Sola Scriptura. By heavily emphasizing the textual variations and alleged uncertainties surrounding the biblical manuscripts, he sought to illustrate that only the Roman Church could adjudicate matters of interpretation. That apologetic thrust resonates clearly through his arguments, which inevitably lean on the necessity of an authoritative institution to vouch for the text’s reliability.
From a confessional Protestant perspective, Simon’s position not only challenges specific doctrines or textual readings but assaults the fundamental principle that Scripture stands supreme, sufficient, and perspicuous by the Holy Spirit’s power. A presuppositional analysis reveals how Simon’s ultimate trust was in the Church’s capacity to manage Scripture, whereas Reformed theology invests ultimate trust in Scripture as God’s self-authenticating revelation that judges all ecclesial structures. In the Reformed view, the Church is an instrument, subject to ongoing reformation by the Word—a Word that, while stewarded by fallible humans, is itself a product of divine providence and remains trustworthy in all that truly matters for faith and salvation.
Thus, the confrontation between “tradition” and “revelation” in Simon’s writings emerges as a microcosm of the broader Catholic-Protestant divide. Is the Bible sufficiently clear to stand as the final court of appeal, or does it require an institution to clarify what is muddy and rectify what is corrupted? Simon’s preference for ecclesiastical tradition was part of a centuries-old Catholic apologetic. Yet, for confessional Protestants, that preference misunderstands the very nature of Scripture’s God-breathed authority, implying that the final source of certainty is not God’s Word itself but an institution that claims oversight of it.
In sum, Richard Simon’s textual scholarship and his emphasis on ecclesiastical authority serve as a stark reminder that textual disputes are rarely just about words on a page; they are about deeper issues of epistemology, authority, and the interplay between divine revelation and human institutions. When weighed under a presuppositional framework that begins with Scripture’s own claims about itself, the inherent priority of Scripture over tradition remains unshaken. For those who hold confessional bibliology dear, Scripture’s sufficiency and clarity testify that the Word needs no final validation beyond its divine Author. Hence, Simon’s attempt to subordinate Scripture to ecclesiastical tradition stands as a cautionary tale of what happens when human institutions are allowed to overshadow the self-authenticating voice of God in Scripture.
