Francis Turretin explicitly acknowledged that minor scribal errors, copyist slips, and variant readings existed in the manuscript tradition.
Turretin explicitly distinguished between textual imperfections in existing manuscripts—including “irregularities of spelling and punctuation” and “variant readings” caused by scribal negligence—and errors in the original autographs themselves.[1] He maintained that God “dictated and inspired each and every word” while simultaneously acknowledging that the text might contain “minor errors resulting from careless transcription of the Hebrew manuscripts.”[2] This wasn’t a contradiction for him because such errors “do not affect faith and practice, and they may be resolved through comparison of the whole of Scripture and other manuscripts.”[2]
What’s particularly instructive is how Turretin positioned himself within broader Reformed orthodoxy. He recognized that some scholars—including Scaliger, Cappellus, and Vossius—believed “a few very slight errors have crept into the Scriptures,” though Turretin himself defended the integrity of Scripture by arguing apparent contradictions were only apparent, not real.[3] Significantly, he “recognized the former as orthodox”[3]—meaning he didn’t treat the acknowledgment of minor copyist errors as heretical.
The crucial question for Turretin was whether extant texts had lost the “genuine meaning” of the originals or whether they remained our “rule of faith and practice.” He insisted there were no “universal untruths” that couldn’t be resolved through textual comparison.[1] His framework prioritized functional reliability over absolute textual perfection, distinguishing between the inspired originals and the necessarily imperfect transmission of those originals through human copying.
[2] Norman R. Gulley, Systematic Theology: Prolegomena (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2003), 332.
[3] D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge, Scripture and Truth (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992), 241.
No comments:
Post a Comment