Introduction and Overview
The Debate Over the Preservation and Authority of Scripture: John Owen, Enlightenment Critiques, and Modern Reinterpretations
In the ongoing conversation about the preservation and authority of Scripture, few figures are as pivotal as the seventeenth-century theologian John Owen. Renowned as a leading voice of Reformed orthodoxy, Owen’s writings addressed key issues regarding the integrity of the biblical text, its divine origin, and the assurance of its preservation. His theological framework stood in sharp contrast to the emerging Enlightenment approaches, which emphasized rationalism, human scrutiny, and empirical methods for understanding and verifying Scripture. This contrast becomes particularly evident in Owen’s polemical writings against Brian Walton’s Biblia Polyglotta, a multi-lingual Bible that introduced critical apparatus and textual variants.
In recent scholarship, interpretations of Owen’s views have often been reframed or reconsidered in light of Enlightenment assumptions. Dick Fraser Brash’s work, The Reformed Doctrine of the Providential Preservation of Scripture, seeks to reinterpret Owen’s doctrine by emphasizing shifts in theological and scholarly perspectives. However, this reinterpretation, when closely examined, seems to downplay or misrepresent Owen’s fundamental commitment to the self-authenticating nature of Scripture and God’s providential role in its preservation.
This article will explore Owen’s theological positions on the authority and preservation of Scripture and contrast them with the Enlightenment perspectives represented by Walton and echoed by Brash. It will examine key areas of divergence, such as the authority of Scripture, the role of divine providence in preservation, and the treatment of textual variants. By analyzing Owen’s original writings alongside Brash’s reinterpretations, this article seeks to reaffirm Owen’s pre-modern, confessional approach and highlight the inconsistencies introduced by later rationalist frameworks.
The following sections will address these themes in detail:
- Authority of Scripture vs. Rationalist Textual Analysis
- Providential Preservation vs. Human Reconstruction
- Self-Authenticating Nature of Scripture vs. Empirical Certainty
- Owen’s Response to Walton’s Emphasis on Variants
- Inspiration and Preservation as Intertwined
- Brash’s Reinterpretation in Light of Enlightenment Assumptions
- Implications for Confessional Bibliology
- Conclusion: Reaffirming Owen’s Legacy and the Doctrine of Preservation
1. Authority of Scripture vs. Rationalist Textual Analysis
One of the central differences between John Owen’s approach to the authority of Scripture and the Enlightenment-influenced perspectives lies in how these views conceive the basis of Scriptural authority. Owen’s understanding is rooted in the self-authenticating nature of Scripture and its divine origin, a position that he argued was fundamental to the Reformed faith. In contrast, the Enlightenment’s rise brought with it an emphasis on human reason, rationality, and empirical verification, which shaped how scholars like Brian Walton approached textual criticism and how later interpreters like Richard Fraser Brash reevaluated Owen’s doctrines.
Owen’s Emphasis on Divine Authority and Self-Authentication
John Owen held that the Scriptures derive their authority from their divine origin and inspiration, not from external corroboration or human endorsement. In his work Of the Divine Original, Authority, Self-Evidencing Light, and Power of the Scriptures, Owen firmly establishes that the Scriptures carry inherent authority because they are the very Word of God. He writes:
“The Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were immediately and entirely given out by God himself… They were left unto the church in the manner wherein they were given out, without addition, diminution, or alteration in any one tittle” (Of the Divine Original, p. 356).
For Owen, the authority of Scripture does not rest on empirical evidence, historical inquiry, or human rationality. Rather, the Scriptures testify to their own divine origin, a concept often referred to as autopistia. This self-authenticating nature of Scripture means that the Word of God is authoritative and reliable because God himself is the author, and the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit confirms this authority to the hearts and minds of believers.
Owen’s doctrine of self-authentication is crucial to understanding his rejection of Enlightenment rationalism. He consistently argued that external evidences or human critique cannot constitute the basis of confidence in the integrity and authority of the Scriptures. Instead, he maintained that the Spirit’s work within the believer aligns the heart to recognize and submit to the Scriptures as the ultimate authority.
Rationalist Textual Analysis and Its Impact
In contrast to Owen’s view, the Enlightenment ushered in a new era of critical scholarship that emphasized rational analysis and the resolution of textual discrepancies through empirical means. Brian Walton’s Biblia Polyglotta, which was published with extensive critical apparatus, exemplifies this shift. Walton’s work sought to harmonize textual variants by introducing critical notes and alternative readings. This approach, while groundbreaking in the history of textual criticism, shifted the basis of authority from the self-authenticating nature of the text to the empirical investigation of its historical transmission.
Owen was acutely aware of the implications of Walton’s methods and criticized them sharply. He saw Walton’s critical apparatus as an unwarranted intrusion that undermined confidence in the received text. Owen believed that emphasizing textual variants and proposing emendations based on human reason would lead to uncertainty about the integrity of Scripture, opening the door to endless revisions and disputes over what constitutes the true Word of God. In his Vindication of the Integrity of the Hebrew and Greek Texts, Owen states:
“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).
By framing his critique in this way, Owen underscores the dangers of allowing rationalist methodologies to dictate the terms of Scriptural authority. For Owen, the integrity of the original texts as received in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts was a matter of providential preservation, not human reconstruction or rational verification.
Brash’s Reinterpretation and Its Challenges
Richard Fraser Brash, in his reinterpretation of Owen’s doctrine, suggests that the increasing awareness of textual variants and the rise of critical methodologies required more nuanced definitions of terms like “error” and “original.” Brash writes:
“As the seventeenth century went on, this assertion had to be more nuanced. By the time of Turretin, there is an admission of significant variant readings which goes hand in hand with a denial of ‘corruption’ in the manuscript tradition as a whole” (The Reformed Doctrine of the Providential Preservation of Scripture, p. 54).
Brash’s portrayal implies that Owen and his contemporaries gradually adapted their understanding of Scriptural authority in response to the growing influence of critical scholarship. However, this reinterpretation risks misunderstanding Owen’s central commitment to the self-authenticating nature of Scripture. While Owen acknowledged the existence of textual variants, he did not see these as threatening the overall integrity or authority of the biblical text. His concern was to uphold the sufficiency and reliability of Scripture in light of God’s providential care, not to submit it to rationalist critique.
Conclusion of Section 1
The contrast between John Owen’s approach and the Enlightenment-influenced perspectives highlights a fundamental theological divide. Owen’s doctrine of the authority of Scripture is rooted in the belief that the Word of God testifies to its own divine origin and authority. In contrast, Enlightenment scholars like Walton emphasized rational inquiry and empirical methods to address textual discrepancies, leading to a shift in how authority was understood. Brash’s reinterpretation of Owen’s views reflects this shift, but ultimately misrepresents Owen’s central commitments to the divine origin, self-authenticating nature, and providential preservation of Scripture.
[PART 2][PART 3][PART 4][PART 5]
