Rogers-McKim Proposal on the Balance

Recent Interpretations of Biblical Authority Part 2:

The Rogers and McKim Proposal in the Balance

J o h n D. Woodbridge

Within recent years evangelical historians have devoted considerable energies to the task of determining the beliefs of earlier Christians regarding the authority of Holy Scripture. An assumption underlies this quest: The views that Christians advocated in the past, though not binding, may afford insights into the perspectives evangelicals should espouse. The Bible's self-attestive teaching about its authority is decisive; but if a doctrinad position is out of line with what the Reformers proposed, for example, then there are at least some grounds for wondering if the position is sound. In his courses at Princeton Theological Seminary, Charles Hodge noted that evangelicals should be interested in the teachings of earlier Christians about Holy Scripture without making those teachings determinative.l

A neoorthodox historiography regarding biblical authority has left a decisive imprint on the thinking of several historians who see themselves as evangelicals. These historians do not usually accept the neoorthodox historiography in its entirety. They generally argue that the central church tradition includes the motifs that the Bible is in fact the Word of God written but it is infallible only for matters of faith and practice. This stance distances its proponents from neoorthodox writers who argue that the Reformers in particular believed that the Bible witnesses to the Word of God without being the Word of God per se. It distances its proponents from those evangelicals who affirm that the central church tradition

99

100 Bibliotheca Sacra — April-June 1985

teaches that the Bible is infallible for all matters touched on in Scripture whether of history, science, geography, or salvation.

A widely discussed book which attempts to carve out a middle ground between a neoorthodox interpretation of Scripture sind what is defined as an orthodox evangelical position is The Authority and Interpretation ofthe Bible: An Historical Approach, written by Jack Rogers and Donald McKim.2 It finds much of its own contextual background in debates regarding the confessions of the United Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., and in a reaction against the views of Scripture proposed by Harold Lindsell and the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy.

In the authors' own words, the volume's purpose is "to document the fact that an historically accurate and biblically sound alternative exists"3 to the "Princeton theology's post-Reformation scholastic theory concerning the Bible."4 The authors attempt to demonstrate that the central tradition ofthe church emphasized a biblical infallibility limited to matters of faith and practice. They believe that this alternative can serve as a needed corrective to the neoorthodox emphases regarding Scripture found in the Confession of 1967 for the United Presbyterian Church, and that it can also serve as a substitute for the old Princeton viewpoint that influenced so significantly American evangelicals to their detriment. This interpretation denies the evangelical doctrine that the Scriptures are completely infallible. This view warrants careful consideration.

A Summary of the Rogers and McKim Proposal

Rogers and McKim make the following essential claims regarding the "central church tradition" about biblical authority.

1. God accommodated His Word to mankind so that people might understand it. He allowed the humanity (foibles) of the biblical authors to enter into their written product so that the Scriptures contain "technical errors."5 Moreover, the human authors of Scripture imported the viewpoints of their contemporaries into the Bible; these viewpoints do not correspond with what modern scientists and other scholars know to be true.

2. The purpose of Scripture is to reveal salvation truths to man,6 not to give information about the natural world and history.

3. The Bibles infallibility relates to its capacity to lead man infallibly to salvation, not to its status as a completely infallible book. When theologians in the Augustinian tradition declared that

The Rogers and McKim Proposal in trie Balance 101

the Bible was wi thout error, they simply meant that the Bible did not include any purposeful deceits; it could encompass technical mistakes, however, especially in the areas of science and history

4. The correct approach to Scripture is faith seeking understanding. "It is the way of accepting the Bible in faith, but proceeding through scholarly study to understanding. It is a way that distinguishes between the central saving message of Scripture and all of the difficult surrounding material that supports that message."7

5. Rogers and McKim aver that G. C. Berkouwer's views about Scripture recapture Reformation perspectives. According to them, an error in the Bible is especially equated with sin and deception;8

the authority of Scripture is associated with its soteriological function rather than with its form.9 In a word, the authors want to persuade their readers that the central tradition of the church reflects a commitment to a biblical infallibility limited to matters of faith and practice, bu t not a belief in its "scientific and historical inerrancy "

Relying essentially on a neoorthodox historiography, Rogers and McKim propose that the doctrine of biblical inerrancy was created after the Reformation. Whereas neoorthodox writers perceived its origins in the late 16th century, Rogers and McKim push its beginnings back to Francis Thrretin and the late 17th century They link its formulation to the impact of the thought of Newton and Locke on theological discourse.1 0 By making this move, Rogers and McKim can argue that the creators ofthe Westminster Confession in the 1640s did their theological reflection in a time before inerrancy had been fully crafted.x l As Presbyterians, Rogers and McKim do not want the Westminster Confession's statement about infallibility to be identified with biblical inerrancy, a belief that allegedly emerged a few decades later. In 1981, Rogers stated his viewpoint clearly: "In the late seventeenth century, the concept ofthe Bible's infallibility in religious matters was transmuted into a notion of Scripture's inerrancy in matters of science and history. "1 2

In a television program recorded in December 1981, Rogers further explained that when he said that the Bible was without errors, he simply meant that it did not encompass any purposeful deceits: "In that book I carefully... defined error as being deliberate deception from which the Bible is free. So I cam say there are no errors in the Bible by that definition of error which I think is a biblical definition of error."13


The Reception of the Rogers-McKim Proposal

The reception of the Rogers-McKim proposal began rather propitiously. Not only did reviewers ofEternity magazine judge this volume as the book of the year in 1980, but also a few commentators praised it as the book to direct evangelical thinking about the Bible in the 1980s.Then again, Rogers promoted his perception of the history of biblical authority through a piece entitled, "Perspectives on the Reformed Tradition Regarding the Inspiration of the Bible as Embodied in the UPCUSA Book of Confessions." This essay was a segment of a larger booklet received as a resource document by the 194th General Assembly in J u n e 1982.1 4 Russell H. Dilday Jr., president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary published a volume on biblical authority in 1982 which was distributed widely throughout Southern Baptist churches.1 5 Dilday relied heavily on the Rogers and McKim proposal for much of his analysis of the history of biblical authority. Donald Bloesch of Dubuque Seminary, a colleague of Donald McKim, approved the historical analysis as well in his study, The Future of Evangelical Christianity.13 The Rogers-McKim proposal made considerable inroads into evangelical circles. And even at the present time it retains a certain staying power.

The initial attractiveness of the Rogers and McKim proposal was probably due to several factors. First, the authors wrote with lively, clear prose. Second, their volume had the appearance of being a well-documented study blessed with hundreds of annotated footnotes and published by a reputable press, Harper and Row. Third, the proposal itself seemingly provided a solution to severed problems vexing the spirits of some evangelicals. If the Bible does not speak infallibly concerning history, then evangelical scholars may with more serenity utilize "higher critical methods"; their studies will never throw in doubt the authority ofthe Bible because its historical accounts were not intended to be read as infallible historical narratives. Or if the Bible does not speak infallibly about the natural world even in passing, then evangelical scholars may advocate developmental theories in science (macroevolution, for example), without fear that their theories contradict infallible biblical teachings (which are limited only to areas of faith and practice). The purpose of the Scriptures is to teach salvation truths, not to provide infallible information about history and the natural world.

The Rogers and McKim Proposal in the Balance 103

Rogers and McKim had scored a coup by allegedly demonstrating that this understanding of Scripture represented what Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and other wise evangelicals had believed in those centuries before Protestant scholasticism joined with Newtonian concepts of perfection, and a Lockean emphasis on reason had forged what would become the fundamentalist doctrine of biblical inerrancy. This was good news for theologians who dislike the doctrine of inerrancy but who also find the neo-orthodox perception of Scripture to be wanting.

Not all reviewers greeted the Rogers-McKim proposal with the same enthusiasm it encountered in certain circles. In 1980 and 1981, Gerald Sheppard, Roger Nicole, David Wells, JohnLeith, and others raised serious questions about the proposal.17 In 1982, Richard B. Gaffin of Westminster Theological Seminary published a two-part series in which he demonstrated that Rogers and McKim had presented a misleading interpretation of "Old Amsterdam," that is, the Dutch theologians in the Reformed tradition, Abraham Kuyper ( 1 8 3 7 - 1 9 2 0 ) and Herman Bavinck (1854-1921).18 In 1984 John D. Hannah of Dallas Theological Seminary edited the volume Inerrancy and the Church. In his introduction Hannah noted that the volume addresses the historical thesis of Rogers and McKim that the " 'central church tradition' has been to regard the Bible's message as genuine and authoritative but its words as fallible."19 The well-crafted articles in this volume make it abundantly clear that the Rogers-McKim proposal does not actually capture the beliefs of Augustine and Calvin, for example, about Holy Scripture.20

It would not be useful to review Biblical Authority, this writer's own response to the Rogers-McKim proposal, except to say that their definition of a biblical error as purposeful deceit cannot be sustained.21 The Augustine-Jerome correspondence from which Rogers and McKim try to extract this definition does not yield such a reading. Scholars with no theological axes to grind would probably concur with this judgment. Unfortunately the definition of a biblical error as purposeful deceit does serve as the linchpin holding the Rogers and McKim proposal together.22 Once this pin is pulled, the proposal collapses of its own weight. For many scholars, the pin has been pulled.

Though the basic proposal of Rogers and McKim will probably not survive except among the especially partisan, several theses of their work may develop a life of their own. Their interpretation of the doctrine of accommodation is one of these.23 According to


them, God accommodated Himself to man's lack of capacity to understand His ways. Rogers and McKim refer to Isaiah 55:8 as a scriptural proof text for this claim.24 But they misinterpret the passage. It speaks of God's ways of righteousness as different from mam's own. The passage does not treat the question of accommodation in the way they suggest.

Rogers and McKim also include under their interpretation of accommodation the idea that the humanness ofthe Bible's writers means that they necessarily erred in their writing task. Rogers and McKim apparently give credence to this syllogism, even for the biblical writers who were inspired by the Holy Spirit: To err is human; the Bible was written by human authors; therefore the Bible must be errant. The process of accommodation, therefore, partially accounts for the "technical errors" in the Bible. Because these errors were not purposefully designed, they do not count as strikes against the Bible's infallibility. For that matter, the Bible's infallibility resides in its function or its capacity to lead man to salvation, not in its form or its words.

Did Augustine, Luther, and Calvin uphold this interpretation of the doctrine of accommodation? No. They did believe that the Bible is accommodated to human weakness of comprehension. Like a father to his children, God speaks to man in simple but truthful language. Augustine and Calvin did propose that portions of the Scriptures are written in what might be called a language of appearances (see their treatment of Gen. 1:16).25 But they did not suggest that the Bible contains technical errors resulting from the human authors importing concepts from their contemporary culture into the Bible. For Augustine and Calvin, the fact that the Holy Spirit is the ultimate author of Scripture guarantees that the Word of God is wholly truthful.26 Augustine wrote, "I have learned to yield this respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error."27

The distinction between Rogers and McKim's position and that of Augustine and of Calvin is apparently this: Augustine and Calvin believed that accommodated language relays "truthful" concepts, whereas Rogers and McKim surmise that it must encompass "errors" due to the human conditioning the accommodated language has undergone. Rogers and McKim cannot apparently envision a doctrine of inspiration in which God, the Holy Spirit, superintended the human writers of Scripture so that the inspired words they wrote were without error while at the same time display-


ing the particularities of style and vocabulary of those writers.28

And yet this perception of inspiration was indeed the one held by Augustine, Calvin, William Ames, and others in the Reformed tradition that Rogers and McKim are trying to explicate.29 The Bible is a fully divine and human book.

If Augustine and the Reformers did not espouse this particular version of accommodation offered by Rogers and McKim, from whence does it come? Based on research still in progress, it appears that their viewpoint extends back to Faustus Socinus in the 16th century, that it was heralded by several theologians in the Remonstrant tradition in the 17th century (particularly Grotius and Jean Le Clerc), that it received fresh impetus from Johann Salomo Semler (often hailed as the father of historical criticism) and Van Hemert in the 18th century.30

Little wonder, then, that Charles Hodge could criticize Semler and Van Hemert in 1825 and complain about this faulty version of the doctrine of accommodation: "Perhaps few causes have operated more extensively and effectually, in promoting erroneous opinions than the problems of this doctrine [a false concept of accommodation]."31 Hodge astutely noted that those scholars who argued that the Bible s accommodated language encompassed errors were then obliged to pick and choose which sections of Holy Writ were truthful and which were not. That is, their reason judged Scripture: "It is evident that this doctrine is only a modification of the theory, which determines the sense of SS. [Sacred Scripture], by deciding what is, or is not reasonable; and which has as effectually excluded the doctrines of the Deity of Christ, and his atonement from the SS. [Sacred Scriptures], because, they are deemed inconsistent with reason "32

Without realizing what they were doing, Rogers and McKim took the rationalistic "Socinus/LeClerc/Semler" perception of accommodation and portrayed it as the Augustinian perspective. This historical reversal provided them with a means for claiming that the central tradition ofthe church allowed for technical errors to be found within Holy Scripture. However, their analysis simply does not correspond with the Augustinian tradition on this important matter.

A second argument deserves corrective commentary. Rogers and McKim argue that A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield created the idea of inerrancy of the "original autographs." According to their reconstruction of the history of biblical authority, Hodge and War-field, confronted by developments in higher criticism in the 1870s,


developed this thesis as a specific counter to these challenges. The Princetonians' article, "Inspiration" (1881), allegedly showcased the new apologetic gambit. Because the biblical autographs had been lost, no critic could ever show that they contained errors. In a word, Hodge and Warfield created the doctrine ofthe infallibility of the original autographs as a dodge against higher criticism.33

This component ofthe Rogers-McKim proposal resembles the influential interpretation of Ernest Sandeen who had earlier drafted a similar evaluation. Randall Balmer and this writer have argued elsewhere that the concept of the infallibility of the autographs was a common piece of theological furniture in Protestant circles within England and the United States in the early 19th century.34 A. A. Hodge and Warfield were by no means innovators of this doctrine. In fact the doctrine of the infallibility of the autographs has a long and distinguished history.

In the first decades of the 16th century Erasmus and other Christian humanists had advocated a program of lower criticism. They said Hebrew and Greek sources should be used to test the accuracy of the Vulgate's text and should be used as the bases for vernacular translations of the Bible. Many Protestant theologians agreed with this proposal. When the Council offrent ( 1545-1563) stipulated that the Vulgate edition ofthe Bible was the only authentic one, Protestant and Roman Catholic apologists picked up verbal cudgels to debate the validity of this doctrinal pronouncement.35

William Whitaker's Disputation on Holy Scripture (1588) and William Ames's Bellarminus enervatus (1628) specifically challenged the contention of the skillful Roman Catholic apologist Bellarmine that the Vulgate was a purer fount than the Greek and Hebrew texts.36 Even though Whi taker and Ames upheld the greater purity ofthe Hebrew and Greek texts, they understood that, due to copyist errors and the like, variant readings existed in these same texts.37 In the 17th century a number of orthodox Protestant theologians who, like Whitaker and Ames, defended the Bible's complete infallibility also practiced "Critica Sacra," which sometimes encompassed lower criticism.38 They desired to emend the texts they had in hand.

In a word, when the Westminster divines met in the 1640s, many of them were well aware of the textual problems in the Bible and spoke of infallibility in that light. James Ussher, whom Rogers and McKim describe as "one of the Westminster divines' chief proximate sources" for their view of Scripture, wrote the following in 1647:


Although in the Hebrew copies there hath been observed by the Masorites some very few differences of words, by similitude of letters and points; and by the learned in the Greek tongue there are like diversities of reading noted in the Greek text of the new Testament, which came by fault of writers; yet in most by circumstance of the place, and conference of other places, the true reading may be discerned.39

Ussher believed that diversities of readings in the Hebrew and Greek texts caused by copyists' mistakes could be corrected by emendation. The Westminster divines apparently understood very well that what they called the "originals" (the Greek and Hebrew texts they had in hand) contained variants which differed from the "originals" immediately inspired by the Holy Spirit. The premise of the infallibility of the original autographs was no foreign idea to some of these Christian scholars.

A number of Roman Catholic apologists had tried to exploit variants in the Hebrew and Greek texts as a means to overthrow the confidence of Protestants in the clarity and sufficiency of these same texts.40 However, deist free-thinker Anthony Collins at the beginning of the 18th century attempted to exploit the variants argument as a means of disparaging the Christian religion in general.41 Collins reasoned this way: If as the distinguished Cambridge scholar Richard Bently had argued, some 30,000 variants exist in the New Testament alone, how can one know with assurance anything about what the Bible teaches.42 Angered by this use of his philological work, Bentley responded to Collins with a gloves-off counterstroke. He wisely remarked that discovery of a great number of manuscripts since the 15th century had provided biblical scholars with greater means for emending obviously faulty readings in the Greek text than when they had fewer manuscripts.43 The infallible originals were scattered through the extant manuscripts.

In turning the tables on the free-thinker Collins, Bentley was not striking a new pose among evangelical scholars. Richard Baxter had argued much the same way earlier in that same century44

For that matter, in the Patristic era Augustine had recommended that students ofthe Scriptures should correct the mistakes in their copies. As the biblical critic Richard Simon observed in 1685, Augustine knew very well that the first originals had been lost and that copyists' errors had entered the various manuscripts extant in his own day45


In this context an otherwise strange linkage of Roman Catholics and deists as errantists becomes somewhat more understandable. A young Frenchman attended the French seminary in Lausanne, Switzerland, in the 1750s. In his class notebook he recorded 14 proofs that his professor gave to demonstrate the infallibility of the Bible.46 His professor apparently also indicated that the two parties which denied the infallibility of the Bible were Roman Catholics and deists.47 For certain 18th-century Protestants, the Roman Catholic apologetic attempt to exploit textual variants and difficult readings put them into the same camp as the dangerous errantists, the Socinians and deists. In reality many Roman Catholic scholars maintained the infallibility ofthe original Hebrew and Greek texts despite their church's declaration regarding the Vulgate's privileged status as the only authentic text.48

Theirs was a genuine balancing act of reconciling their church's doctrinal stance with their knowledge that Hebrew and Greek texts existed which were more reliable than the Vulgate.

It is clear, then, that locating the infallibility of the Bible in its original autographs is by no means a novel apologetic stratagem of Hodge and Warfield as Rogers and McKim suggest. Though Roman Catholics often believed that the Vulgate was a perfect translation of the original autographs, and though some Protestants defended the perfection of the Masoretic text,49 other believers at various epochs in the church's life understood that copyist errors and the like had entered into the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts through the transmission process. Several propounded the idea that the originals had been lost by Tertulliano day50 A definitive history of their quest to recover the lost originals has yet to be written. It would frequently mirror the history of developments in lower criticism.

Concluding Remarks

What may be concluded from this brief interaction with the Rogers-McKim proposal? On the positive side of the ledger, this view does represent a more conservative approach to the authority of Scripture than several positions widely advocated in their denomination. Moreover, its emphasis on the persuasive role ofthe Holy Spirit in convincing man of the authority of the Word of God does capture an important component of the Reformed tradition. Evangelicals today have all too frequently forgotten this important belief.

The Roger and McKim Proposal in the Balance 109

On the negative side of the ledger, and despite their sincere intentions, the authors have not constructed an adequate interpretation of the history of biblical authority. Not only is the linchpin thesis ofthe proposal defective, but its sub theses regarding accommodation and the original autographs qualification are not historically defensible. Other components of their proposal are also less than persuasive.

Evangelicals would be well advised not to espouse Rogers and McKim's proposal too quickly, despite several valued insights it does provide. Those authors have not been successful in demonstrating their thesis that the "central tradition" of the church promotes an infallibility of the Bible limited to matters of faith and practice. Ironically, the research that their proposal stimulated has reinforced in several historians' minds the validity of aspects ofthe interpretation they were trying to overthrow.

Editor's Note

This is the second in a series of four articles delivered by the author as the W. H. Griffith Thomas Lectures at Dallas Theological Seminary, November 6-9, 1984.

Notes

1 Basil Manley, J r , who became a major leader among Southern Baptists in the 19th century, took lecture notes in a class in systematic theology taught by Charles Hodge at Princeton Seminary in 1845 These sentiments are expressed in the lecture notes presently housed at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, MSS 230 51 H6625m ν 1/1353 Phil Hoffmann, who is studying the views of Scripture advocated by early Southern Baptists, shared a copy of these notes with the present author 2 Jack Rogers and Donald McKim, The Authority and Interpretation ofthe Bible An Historical Approach (New York Harper and Row, 1979) 3 Ibid , ρ 461 4 Ibid , ρ 460 5 Rogers and McKim, for example, describe Calvin's stance in this fashion "Given Calvin's understanding of the accommodated nature of God's communication in Scripture, it is not surprising that Calvin was unconcerned with normal, h u m a n inaccuracies in minor matters" (ibid , ρ 109) See J o h n Woodbndge, Biblical Authority A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House, 1982), pp 27-28 6 Rogers and McKim, The Authority and Interpretation ofthe Bible, ρ 461 7 Ibid 8 Ibid , ρ 431 9 Ibid , pp 428-30 10 Rogers and McKim describe the context for the creation of biblical inerrancy as follows "Scripture's message had to accord with Lockean reason and Scriptures


language had to conform to Newtonian notions of perfection ' [The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible, ρ 235) 11 On occasion neoorthodox historians had argued that the Westminster divines upheld biblical inerrancy Rogers and McKim could not countenance this viewpoint because they wanted to claim the Westminster divines as partisans for their own position So they attempted to find inerrancy's origins in the latter part ofthe 17th century 12 Jack Rogers, ' Biblical Authority and Confessional Change, Journal of Presbyterian History 59 (Summer 1981) 133 13 Cited in Woodbndge, Biblical Authority, pp 16-17 14 Biblical Authority and Interpretation (New York Advisory Council on Disci-pleship and Worship, U PC U S A , 1982) 15 Russell Dilday, J r , The Doctrine of Biblical Authority (Nashville Convention Press, 1982) 16 Donald G Bloesch, The Future of Evangelical Christianity A Call for Unity amid Diversity {Garúen City, NY Doubleday&Co , 1983), ρ 118 and ρ 159, η 16 17 See Gerald Τ Sheppard, "Recovering the Natural Sense, Theology Today 38 (October 1981) 330-37, Roger Nicole, Book Review, Christian Scholars Review 10 (1981) 161-65, David Wells, Westminster Theological Journal 4 3 (Fall 1980) 152-55, J o h n H Leith, "The Legacy of Hodge and Warfield, Interpretation 35 (January 1981) 75-78 These authors criticize Rogers and McKim from differing vantage points 18 Richard Β Gaffin, J r , "Old Amsterdam and Inerrancy 9 Westminster Theological Journal 44 (Fall 1982) 250-89, 45 (Fall 1983) 219-72 19 J o h n D Hannah, ed , Inerrancy and the Church (Chicago Moody Press, 1984), ρ vin 20 See, e g , Wayne R Spear, "Augustine's Doctrine of Biblical Infallibility, pp 37-65, and J a m e s I Packer, " J o h n Calvin and the Inerrancy of Holy Scripture, pp 143-88 21 The present author reviewed the Rogers and McKim volume in the Trinity Journal 1, New Series (Fall 1980) 165-236 Mark Branson, general secretary of the Theological Students Fellowship, published excerpts of the review in the TSF Bulletin of March 1981 Donald McKim wrote a rejoinder to the review in the TSF Bulletin of April 1981 Biblical Authority A Critique of the RogerslMcKim Proposal was published by Zondervan Publishing House in 1982 22 Rogers and McKim, The Authority and Interpretation ofthe Bible, ρ 31 For a discussion of the fact that Augustine does not limit his definition of a potential error in the Bible to a purposeful deceit, see Woodbndge, Biblical Authority, pp 43-45 23 Several interpretations of the doctrine of accommodation developed in the history ofthe Christian churches Consult D Albert Hauck, ed , "Accommodation, Realencyclopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche (Leipzig J C Hinnchs Buchhandlung, 1896), Band 1, pp 127-30 A detailed study of these varied interpretations would make a helpful contribution to understanding the history of biblical authority 24 Rogers and McKim, The Authority and Interpretation ofthe Bible, ρ xxii, and ρ xxiv, η 13 25 In discussing Genesis 1 1 6 Calvin acknowledged that there are planets larger than the moon even though the scriptural passage in question indicates that the s u n and the moon are the two great lights in the heavens But Calvin did not indicate that Moses was so caught u p in the scientific beliefs of his day that he erred in his statement as Rogers and McKim imply To the naked eye the moon and the sun are the largest lights in the sky Moreover, Calvin identified Moses comments with those of the Holy Spirit "Lastly, since the Spirit of God here opens a common school for all, it is not surprising that he should chiefly choose these subjects which would be intelligible to all " Rogers and McKim do not cite this passage of the


Reformer From Calvins perspective, to accuse Moses of making a n error here would be the equivalent of accusing the Holy Spirit of the same mistake See Woodbndge, Biblical Authority, ρ 61 26 So committed were Augustine and Calvin to the utter truthfulness of Scripture that they both devoted m u c h effort to the work of harmonizing biblical passages See, for example, Augustine's Harmony ofthe Gospels 1 7 10 27 Augustine Letters 82 3 28 For Rogers a n d McKim, a dictation theory of inspiration alone could apparently guarantee complete biblical infallibility 29 William Ames argued that the biblical writers did not err in their writing He also observed "In all things made known by supernatural inspiration, whether matters of right or fact, God inspired not only the subjects to be written about but dictated and suggested the very words in which they should be set forth But this was done with a subtle tempering so that every writer might use the manner of speaking which most suited his person and condition ' (William Ames, The Marrow of Theology, ed J o h n D Eusden [Boston Pilgrim Press, 1968], ρ 186 (Book 1, chap 34]) 30 See Glenn Sunshine's forthcoming M A thesis in Church History at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School regarding the "Socinian' doctrine of accommodation Calovius, a 17th-century Lutheran theologian, recorded Socinus's viewpoint of accommodation in this way "Christ and the apostles were influenced by the opinions of men, and in certain matters they are able to adapt and accommodate themselves to those opinions that flourished at that time As a result, some of the divine writers upheld the t ru th better t h a n others do, and sometimes in a minor way a writer has been mistaken about those things that only slightly deal with what we are to believe or do ' (cited in Robert Preus, The Theology of Post-Reformation Lutheranism A Study of Theological Prolegomena [St Louis Concordia Publishing House, 1970], ρ 190)

Concerning the career of J e a n Le Clerc, consult Annie Barnes, Jean Le Clerc (1657—1736) et la république des lettres (Pans Droz, 1938), Rene Voeltzel, "Jean Le Clerc ( 1657-1736) et la critique biblique, m Religion, erudition et critique a la

fin du XVII siècle et au debut du XVIIIe (Paris Presses Universitaires de France, 1968), pp 33-52

On Semlers doctrine of accommodation, see Gottfried Hornig, Die Anfange der historisch-kritischen Theologie Johann Salomo Semlers Schqftverstandnis und seine Stellung zu Luther (Gottingen Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1961 ), pp 20-22, 211-36 Hornig's thesis that Semler's views are compatible with Luther's should not be accepted too rapidly Semlers views on accommodation emphasize the time-bound character of some ofthe biblical writings, and the fallibility of these same texts eventually prepared the way for developments in higher criticism For the views of Paulus van Hemert on this issue, see his UeberAccommodationen im Neuen Testament (Dortmund Heinrich Blothe und Compagnie, 1797), pp 21-44, 140-44 31 Charles Hodge, ed , Biblical Repertory (Princeton, NJ Princeton Press, 1825), 1 125 32 Ibid , ρ 127 Hodge referred his readers to the article, 'Outlines of Her-meneutics,' by Beck, found in the same edition of the Biblical Repertory Beck wrote 'On the doctrine of accommodation, there is great diversity of opinion, whether it be considered in reference to the exposition and illustration of certain doctrines, to the mode of argument or narration, or to the manner in which the Ο Τ is quoted and employed in the New Some of the Greek Fathers appear to have favoured the idea that the Sacred Writers did accommodate themselves even in matters of doctrine, to popular opinions and modes of expression (ibid , pp 19-20) Beck observed that while "Socinians and Grotius are the advocates of such accommodation, most of those of our communion are opposed to the doctrine' (ibid , ρ 20) Between 1763 and 1817 no fewer t h a n 31 titles appeared which


focused on the question of accommodation (Hornig, Die Anfange der historisch-kritischen Theologie, ρ 211, η 1) 33 Rogers and McKim, The Authority and Interpretation ofthe Bible, ρ 347 34 J o h n Woodbndge and Randall Balmer, "The Pnncetonians and Biblical Authority An Assessment of the Ernest Sandeen Proposal, ' in Scripture and Truth, ta D A Carson and J o h n Woodbndge (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House, 1983), pp 251-79 35 Philip Schaff, ed , The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids Baker Book House, η d ), 2 77-78 (third session, February 4, 1546) 36 William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton (Cambridge University Press, 1849), ρ 161 37 Whitaker noted that no "mistakes have crept into the originals, but such as may be introduced into any book' {Disputation on Scripture, ρ 161) he recognized the possibility of copyist errors in the texts (ibid , ρ 160) For Whitaker, the fact that the Vulgate was textually corrupted indicated that it was not an authentic edition The Latin Vulgate edition is most certainly and most plainly corrupt And the

corruptions I speak of are not casual, or slight, or common errors, such as the carelessness of copyists often produces in books, but errors deeply rooted in the text itself, important and intolerable Hence is drawn the weightiest argument against the authority of this edition" (ibid , p 162) Consult Ames's Bellarminus enervatus (Amsterdam Ioannem IanBonium, 1628), pp 16-26 Ames noted that several Roman Catholic scholars did in fact correct the Vulgate using Hebrew and Greek texts See J o h n W Montgomery, "Sixtus of Siena and Roman Catholic Biblical Scholarship m the Reformation Period," in Ecumenicity, Evangelicals, and Rome (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House, 1969), pp 47-69 38 The expression "Critica Sacra' appears in the titles of several Protestant books For the Lutheran views of Scripture m the 17th century, see Robert Preus, The Inspiration of Scripture A Study of the Theology of the 17th-century Lutheran Dogmaticians (London Oliver and Boyd, 1957) 39 James Ussher, A Body of Divinine, or The Summe and Substance of Christian Religion, 2d ed (London Thomas Downes, 1647), ρ 24 Though often tagged unfairly as a n obscurantist for his 4004 Β C dating of creation, J a m e s Ussher was m fact one ofthe most sophisticated s tudents ofthe history of biblical texts in the first half of the 17th century (Richard Parr, The Life of James Ussher [London Nathaneal Ranew, 1686]) 40 Concerning the dispute over vowel points in the Hebrew text, see Richard A Müller, "The Debate over the Vowel Points and the Crisis in Orthodox Her-meneutics," Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 10(1980) 53-72 This article deserves a careful evaluation which cannot be given here Even so conservative a Roman Catholic as François Garasse had a fully developed program of attempting to recover the "originals" by emending extant texts {La doctnne curieuse des beaux esprits de ce temps (Pans Sebastien Chappelet, 1623], pp 572-96, 625) 41 For background on Anthony Colhnss view of Scripture, see Hans Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics (New Haven, CT Yale University Press, 1974), pp 66-85 42 Anthony Collins, Discours sur la liberte de penser et de raisonner, 2d ed (London Ν ρ , 1727), pp 131-32 43 Richard Bentley, La Friponniere laïque des prétendus esprits-forts dAngleterre (Amsterdam Ν ρ , 1738), pp 180-81 On the textual work of the classical scholar Bentley, see sections of E J Kenney, The Classical Text (Berkeley University of California Press, 1974) 44 Richard Baxter, The Saints' Everlasting Rest [ 1652] in the Practical Works of Richard Baxter (London George Virtue, 1838), 3 92-93 45 Richard Simon, Histoire critique du Vieux Testament (Rotterdam Reimer Leers, 1685), ρ 1 On Simon's own nuanced views of biblical authority, see J o h n


Woodbndge, "Richard S imons Reaction to Spinoza's "IVactatus Theologico-Pohticus, in Spinoza in der Fruhzeit seiner religiösen Wirkung, ed Karlfried Grunder and Wilhelm Schmid t -Biggemann (Heidelberg Verlag Lambert Schneider, 1984), pp 201-26 46 University of Geneva Public Library, Manuscript Room, Collection Antoine Court 23, fols 18-32 47 Ibid , fol 32 The free-thinker Anthony Collins had pointed out earlier in the century that textual difficulties raised by Roman Catholic scholars in their debate with Protestants had contributed to his own understanding ofthe variant problem (Collins, Discours sur la liberte de penser , pp 85-86) 48 On the other hand, some Roman Catholic apologists argued that the difficulty of recovering the "lost originals' constituted another reason why the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scnptura and the perspicuity of the Bible were misconceived See Jacques Le Brun, "Sens et portee du retour aux origines dans 1 oeuvre de Richard Simon, "XVII siècle, 33 (Avril-Juin 1981) 185-98 49 Richard Bentley also complained about those Protestants who believed that the edition of the Bible prepared by Robert Etienne in the 16th century was infallible and identical word for word to the writings ofthe Evangelists and Apostles {La Friponnerie laïque, ρ 193) 50 Ibid , ρ 184, note a

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author ofthe article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions ofthe copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property ofthe American Theological Library Association.

Documents

Rogers-McKim Proposal on the Balance