Presuppositions at War: Why Simon’s Starting Point Rejects Confessional Bibliology
Introduction
Every scholar—whether Catholic, Protestant, or secular—approaches Scripture with certain foundational assumptions. In the late seventeenth century, Richard Simon, a Catholic priest of the Oratory of Jesus (the Oratorians), brought those assumptions into sharp focus by championing a textual criticism that, while “historical” in method, was unmistakably driven by a theological aim: namely, to expose the Protestant reliance on Sola Scriptura as untenable. In other words, beneath his painstaking work of collating manuscripts and tracking the history of scribal variations lay a deeper set of commitments—presuppositions—that shaped his conclusions about the Bible’s origin, transmission, and final authority.
On the other side of the theological divide, confessional bibliology, especially within Reformed circles, operates on a contrasting set of presuppositions. It begins with Scripture’s own testimony of divine inspiration and providential preservation, trusting that God has sovereignly overseen the Bible’s transmission and that no external institution stands above the Word itself. Richard Simon’s approach, by contrast, began from the premise that a living ecclesiastical authority (the Roman Church) is essential to guarantee Scripture’s authenticity and interpretive stability.
This article will examine how the clash of presuppositions between Richard Simon and confessional bibliology manifests in their respective interpretations of the biblical text. We will see why Simon’s stance effectively rejects Reformed convictions about the self-authenticating nature of Scripture. In so doing, we will delve into the deep theological rift underlying historical-critical projects that seemingly revolve around textual data—but in reality, reflect profound questions about God, revelation, and authority.
I. Contrasting Worldviews
1. The Nature of Presuppositions
A “presupposition” is not merely an opinion or preference; it is an underlying assumption about reality, knowledge, and authority that shapes how a person interprets evidence. In biblical scholarship, presuppositions determine whether one views Scripture as a purely human artifact subject to every whim of scribal alteration or as a divinely superintended revelation ultimately safeguarded from fatal corruption.
- Simon’s Presupposition: The text itself is not self-authenticating but depends on an external authority—the Roman Catholic Church—to define and defend its authenticity. Though he considered historical and manuscript evidence, his ultimate trust lay in ecclesiastical pronouncement.
- Confessional Bibliology’s Presupposition: Scripture is God’s inspired Word (2 Timothy 3:16), possessing an inherent authority and clarity that does not rely on human institutions. God uses ordinary means (scribes, translators, churches) to preserve the biblical text across centuries, but the text does not obtain its authority from them.
Thus, from the outset, these two worldviews are bound to collide whenever the topic of textual certainty arises.
2. Collision Over the Role of Reason
The Reformed confessions, in line with classical Protestant theology, maintain that human reason is a tool under Scripture’s authority. While confessional Protestants by no means dismiss scholarly inquiry, they do not grant reason the power to overturn the claims of God’s Word about itself. Simon’s approach, shaped by Catholic theology’s reliance on the Church, elevates historical and textual study to a final court of appeal—only to then assert that the Church must settle what reason alone cannot. In this model, Scripture becomes the object of the Church’s scrutiny and is effectively placed under reason and ecclesiastical authority.
From a presuppositional standpoint, such an arrangement reverses the biblical principle that the Word judges all human authorities (cf. Galatians 1:8–9). This is not a mere academic dispute but a question of whether the text stands supreme or sits below an institution that claims to correct and clarify it.
II. Confessional Bibliology’s Presuppositions
To understand why Simon’s stance rejects Reformed convictions, it helps to articulate the core assumptions of confessional bibliology.
God Has Spoken in Scripture
The Reformed tradition affirms that the Bible is not merely a human record; it is God’s self-revelation, breathed out by the Holy Spirit through human authors (2 Peter 1:20–21). Because it is from God, Scripture carries intrinsic authority over human teachings and institutions (Isaiah 55:11).Scripture Interprets Itself
Confessional statements often speak of Scripture’s “perspicuity” in matters of salvation. This is not to say everything is equally plain, but that the essential truths are accessible to any believer who reads it, aided by the Spirit (Psalm 119:130). It does not hinge on a supreme Church authority to become comprehensible.Providential Preservation
While acknowledging that scribes can make small errors, confessional bibliology holds that God, in His providence, preserves the text such that no essential doctrine is lost or fatally corrupted (Matthew 24:35). The Church, therefore, recognizes rather than creates the biblical canon and text.The Priority of the Text Over Institutions
From a Reformed vantage point, ecclesiastical bodies are subordinate to Scripture, existing to safeguard and apply God’s Word rather than define or authenticate it. The impetus of the Reformation was precisely that any church structure failing to align with Scripture’s teaching must be reformed in light of the Word, not vice versa.
Given these foundational beliefs, the notion that Scripture is so uncertain or incomplete that only an authoritative Church can rescue it appears entirely foreign. It is precisely this stance, however, that Simon’s textual criticism was designed to inculcate.
III. Simon’s Presuppositions in Action
1. Distrusting Scripture’s Self-Testimony
At the heart of Simon’s project was the view that Scripture cannot stand alone as a reliable witness to itself. He cataloged variants, emphasized scribal alterations, and concluded that laypeople—and even most scholars—cannot judge between conflicting readings without deferring to a recognized ecclesiastical arbitrator.
For confessional bibliology, this approach denies Scripture’s power to bear witness about itself (cf. John 10:35). The biblical text claims it is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword (Hebrews 4:12). Richard Simon, in effect, implied that the sword is dull without the Church to sharpen it. He was not a secular skeptic—he believed in divine revelation—but he located that revelation’s clarity and authenticity primarily within the institution of the Catholic Church.
2. Relegating the Holy Spirit’s Role
Relatedly, Simon’s method leaves scant room for the Holy Spirit to guide the corporate body of believers in recognizing the genuine text. In Reformed theology, the Spirit not only inspired the original writings but also illumines the hearts of believers to discern truth amid potential textual confusion (1 John 2:20, 27). While many Catholic scholars, including Simon, also affirm the Spirit’s guidance, the difference lies in how that guidance is mediated: for Simon, it primarily occurs through the Magisterium, effectively overshadowing the idea of Scripture’s self-authenticating presence among the universal church.
A confessional bibliologist might respond that God does use ordinary means—manuscripts, councils, textual critics—but He also works through the priesthood of all believers to test doctrines and readings. Simon’s approach stifled that perspective, asserting that, left to itself, the text simply has too many divergent witnesses for any ordinary believer to handle.
3. Conflating Historical Probability with Theological Necessity
In Simon’s logic, the historical “realities” of widespread textual variants become grounds to claim that an institutional authority must intervene. Yet presuppositional analysis shows that the existence of variants is perfectly compatible with a doctrine of preservation; indeed, multiple manuscript lines can preserve the text more effectively than a single chain of copies. Simon’s presupposition frames any variation as a crisis, whereas confessional bibliology sees variations as entirely surmountable through comparisons guided by God’s providence.
Thus, for Simon, it is a theological necessity that the Roman Church define correct readings, because a purely textual approach seems insufficient. For confessional Protestants, textual comparison under the Spirit’s superintendence remains not only possible but fruitful, revealing no crippling threat to Scripture’s integrity.
IV. The Impact on Key Doctrines
1. Authority and Canon
Simon’s presupposition that the Church’s authority surpasses that of the text has direct implications for the doctrine of the canon—which books belong in Scripture. Reformed theology generally teaches that the Church recognized the canonical books, but did not make them canonical. The authority lies in God’s act of inspiration, not in ecclesial decree.
By contrast, if the Church’s authority is fundamental even to establishing which manuscripts and readings are valid, the lines between Church and Scripture blur. Richard Simon and others in his vein would argue that the Church effectively “finalized” the canon in late antiquity; confessional bibliology responds that the Church merely discerned what was already God-breathed. The difference is subtle yet massive: is the church subordinate to Scripture, or is Scripture subordinate to the church?
2. Salvation and Christian Living
Sola Scriptura implies that Scripture provides a clear and direct message of salvation, accessible to believers without needing a supreme institutional interpreter (2 Timothy 3:15). If, as Simon contends, the text is too uncertain or too manipulated to be grasped apart from the Church’s binding decisions, then the laity’s direct approach to the Bible is compromised. Some might never be sure they are reading the genuine words of Christ or the apostles.
Reformed confessions hold that, yes, textual scholarship is prudent, but the essential truths about salvation are not hanging by a thread of variant readings. The Spirit testifies to believers’ hearts, confirming the truth of Scripture’s message about Christ’s life, death, and resurrection (Romans 8:16). A radical shift happens if that reassurance is replaced by the pronouncements of an institution to declare, “This is indeed God’s Word.”
V. Evaluating Simon’s Approach Through a Presuppositional Lens
1. Hidden Circularities
From a presuppositional vantage point, every worldview has a self-referential structure. Reformed Christians acknowledge that their ultimate standard is the Word of God, tested and affirmed by the Spirit. Roman Catholics, including Simon, similarly have a self-referential structure: the Church is guaranteed by apostolic succession, and it in turn guarantees Scripture’s authenticity.
What presuppositional analysis reveals is that Simon’s approach is not neutral or purely historical: it is built on the Catholic assumption that an institution can declare a text valid. Meanwhile, the text’s own testimony to its divine origin (Isaiah 55:11, Matthew 5:18) is downplayed or viewed as insufficient without ecclesial endorsement. The resulting circle is that the Church validates the Bible, the Bible testifies to the Church, and so on. Confessional bibliology identifies that circle and counters with a different circle in which Scripture’s self-attestation is the starting point.
2. Prioritizing Revelation Over Historical Reconstruction
In Reformed thought, no amount of textual variation or historical complexity can override Scripture’s own assertions about its divine preservation and authority. This is not a naive dismissal of scholarship; it is a statement about the hierarchy of authorities. God’s Word stands above human intellect and institutions. Simon’s presupposition invests historical data with a normative power to question Scripture’s clarity, effectively reversing that hierarchy.
When confessional Protestants engage in textual criticism, they do so confident that research will demonstrate the text’s substantial consistency, precisely because they trust God’s promise to keep His Word. Simon sees the variants first and then infers the necessity of the Magisterium. Thus, the fundamental interpretive lens differs: confessional biblicists interpret the variants in light of God’s preservation; Simon interprets Scripture’s reliability in light of the variants.
3. The Theological Cost of Rejecting the Scriptural Presupposition
If one accepts Simon’s premise, the result is not merely a “smaller role for Scripture,” but a radical reordering of Christian epistemology. The text no longer holds supreme position; the Church does. In Catholic circles, this may seem consistent with centuries of tradition, but in Reformed theology it represents a fracturing of the biblical principle that the Word of God stands above all human tradition (Mark 7:13).
Moreover, historically, such a position inadvertently fueled the rise of Enlightenment skepticism among those who refused to place faith in a Church hierarchy. Once people recognized that the text was “uncertain,” they saw no reason to trust a magisterium they perceived as equally human. In that sense, Simon’s presupposition backfired, giving impetus to the broader rationalist movement, which dismissed not only Protestant claims but Catholic ones as well.
VI. Considering the Legacy
1. Past and Present Disputes
The tension between “Scripture alone” and “Scripture plus an authoritative Church” remains a dividing line in Christian dialogue. Simon’s textual method, while historically significant, rests on a Catholic worldview that invests interpretive power in the Magisterium. Confessional bibliology contends that such a stance denies Scripture’s sufficiency, sets an institution over God’s Word, and ultimately fails to account for the Holy Spirit’s role in guiding the people of God to recognize the truth within the text.
In present-day contexts, textual criticism is often pursued within secular academia, where neither Catholic tradition nor Protestant confessionalism is presupposed. Yet the seeds of conflict remain: do we approach the manuscript data believing that God ensures a reliable text, or do we see it as a puzzle for experts to solve with no guarantee of theological unity?
2. Presuppositional Incompatibility
Fundamentally, Richard Simon’s vantage point and confessional bibliology stand in irreconcilable opposition because they start from mutually exclusive premises. Simon insists that the biblical text is insufficiently clear and stable on its own, hence the Church must function as arbiter. Confessional bibliology sees the text as sufficiently trustworthy in the hands of the Spirit-guided community, with no final authority standing above Scripture.
Hence the phrase “presuppositions at war” fits well: it is not so much that the data or the technique of collation differs, but the underlying assumptions about the nature of revelation and authority. Data can be interpreted in line with a Catholic, rationalist, or confessional lens—but none is strictly neutral. Simon’s “starting point” denies the confessional premise that Scripture testifies reliably about itself.
3. The Practical Difference for Believers
For confessional Protestants, the practical outcome is that the average Christian can read, study, and understand the Bible under the Spirit’s illumination. Variants and textual criticism do not dismantle faith, but rather confirm that God has preserved His Word despite human frailties. For those who adopt Simon’s stance, reliance on a centralized Church authority becomes paramount. Faith in a direct, unmediated reading of Scripture wanes, replaced by faith in the institution that supposedly stands behind the text.
Conclusion
Richard Simon’s approach to biblical manuscripts was never just about data; it reflected a deeper worldview rooted in Catholic tradition that the Church holds ultimate sway over Scripture. The flipside—confessional bibliology—builds on the Reformed presupposition that God’s Word is not only inspired but also sovereign, self-authenticating, and providentially preserved for His people. These rival assumptions have profound repercussions for how one interprets textual variations, how one understands the role of church institutions, and ultimately how one conceives the believer’s confidence in the Bible.
By tracing the “presuppositions at war,” we see that the question of biblical authority hinges less on the existence of manuscript variants than on the fundamental beliefs about God’s promise to guard His revelation and the rightful place of human institutions in the economy of grace. Simon’s starting point effectively rejects Reformed confessional bibliology’s claim that Scripture reigns supreme and remains stable under the Holy Spirit’s guidance. Instead, it posits an ecclesial gatekeeper, overshadowing Scripture’s own declarations of sufficiency.
For today’s believers, the ramifications remain stark: Shall we trust in the text God has breathed out, believing it to be providentially overseen and illuminated by His Spirit? Or shall we rely on an institutional authority to pronounce what is genuine, thereby subordinating the text to external confirmation? The Reformed tradition stands by the former, while Richard Simon’s Catholic worldview insists upon the latter. In that sense, the war of presuppositions remains ongoing. For those convinced that Scripture ultimately testifies to its own divine origin, no accumulation of variants—or claim of an absolute ecclesiastical voice—can overturn what the Spirit of God inwardly confirms: that His Word stands forever (Psalm 119:89).
