Timothy Tow betrayed Dr. J. Oliver Buswell, Jr.

Dr. J. Oliver Buswell, Jr. (1895–1977), a prominent theologian, philosopher, and president of Wheaton College, was a conservative evangelical scholar who engaged deeply with questions of biblical authority, inerrancy, and the nature of Scripture. His stance on the "perfect Bible" reflects a nuanced commitment to the inerrancy of the original autographs, combined with a cautious openness to textual criticism and modern scholarship. Here’s an overview of his position:

---

1. Affirmation of Biblical Inerrancy

Buswell firmly upheld the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, aligning with the Princeton Theological Seminary tradition (e.g., B.B. Warfield). He taught that the original manuscripts (autographs) of Scripture were free from error in all they affirmed, whether theological, historical, or scientific. This view was rooted in his belief that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, with God as its ultimate author.

• Key Quote:

"The Bible, as originally given, is in all its parts the Word of God written, and therefore in all its parts is free from error" (A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, 1962).

---

2. Distinction Between Autographs and Copies

Like Warfield, Buswell distinguished between the inerrancy of the original manuscripts and the reality of minor textual variations in copies. He acknowledged that scribal errors and variants exist in surviving manuscripts but argued these do not undermine the Bible’s overall reliability or doctrinal clarity.

• His View:
  Textual criticism is a legitimate tool to approximate the original text, and no doctrine hinges on disputed passages.

---

3. Rejection of KJV-Onlyism

Buswell did not support KJV-Onlyism or the idea that the Textus Receptus (TR) was a "perfect" text. He recognized the value of modern textual criticism and newer translations based on older, more reliable manuscripts (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus).

• Example:
  He endorsed the Revised Standard Version (RSV) despite criticism from some fundamentalists, arguing that modern translations could improve accuracy.

---

4. Engagement with Textual Criticism

Buswell accepted the findings of textual scholarship while maintaining confidence in Scripture’s preservation. He believed God’s providence ensured the essential integrity of the biblical text across history, even as scholars worked to resolve minor uncertainties.

• Key Point:
  He saw no conflict between rigorous scholarship and a high view of Scripture’s authority.

---

5. Opposition to Hyper-Fundamentalism

Buswell critiqued hyper-fundamentalist trends that rejected all critical scholarship or elevated traditional interpretations (e.g., KJV-Onlyism) over evidence-based study. He argued that such approaches risked undermining the credibility of biblical inerrancy by conflating human traditions with divine truth.

---

6. Emphasis on Practical Authority

For Buswell, the Bible’s perfection was not an abstract doctrine but a foundation for Christian life and practice. He stressed that Scripture’s authority and sufficiency guide believers in faith, ethics, and worship.

---

Comparison to Contemporaries

• B.B. Warfield: Buswell shared Warwell’s focus on the inerrancy of the autographs but was more willing to engage with modern scholarship.
• Cornelius Van Til: Both affirmed inerrancy, but Buswell avoided Van Til’s presuppositional apologetics, favoring evidentialist approaches.
• KJV-Only Advocates: Buswell explicitly rejected their claims, viewing them as anti-intellectual and theologically misguided.

---

Key Works Reflecting His Views

1. A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion (1962): Outlines his inerrancy stance.
2. The Bible Today (1940s–1950s): Addresses textual criticism and translation issues.
3. Articles in Christianity Today and The Evangelical Quarterly: Defend biblical authority against both liberal and fundamentalist extremes.

---

Conclusion

Dr. Buswell’s stand on the "perfect Bible" can be summarized as:

1. Inerrancy of the original autographs: The Bible is God’s errorless Word in its original form.
2. Openness to textual criticism: Variants in copies do not negate Scripture’s authority.
3. Rejection of KJV-Onlyism: Modern translations and scholarship are valid tools.
4. Balanced conservatism: A commitment to both biblical authority and intellectual integrity.

His approach sought to uphold the Bible’s divine inspiration while engaging constructively with scholarly advances—a stance that remains influential in evangelical theology today.