Francis Turretin on
The Holy Scriptures
http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/barnet95.htm
INTRODUCTION
FIRST QUESTION:
THE WORD OF GOD -- Was a verbal revelation necessary?
SECOND QUESTION:
THE NECESSITY OF SCRIPTURE
THIRD QUESTION:
Were the sacred Scriptures written only occasionally
and without the divine command?
FOURTH QUESTION:
THE AUTHORITY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
FIFTH QUESTION:
Do real contradictions occur in Scripture?
SIXTH QUESTION:
From what source does the divine authority of the
Scriptures become known to us?
SEVENTH QUESTION:
THE CANON -- Has any canonical book perished?
EIGHTH QUESTION:
Are the books of the Old Testament still a part of the
canon of faith and rule of practice?
NINTH QUESTION:
THE APOCRYPHAL BOOKS:
TENTH QUESTION:
THE PURITY OF THE SOURCES?
ELEVENTH QUESTION:
THE AUTHENTIC VERSION
TWELFTH QUESTION:
Is the present Hebrew text in things as well as words
so authentic and inspired?
THIRTEENTH
QUESTION: VERSIONS -- Are versions necessary?
FOURTEENTH
QUESTION: THE SEPTUAGINT -- Is the Septuagint
version of the Old Testament authentic?
FIFTEENTH
QUESTION: THE VULGATE -- Is the Vulgate authentic?
SIXTEENTH
QUESTION: THE PERFECTION OF THE SCRIPTURES
SEVENTEENTH
QUESTION: THE PERSPICUITY OF THE SCRIPTURES
EIGHTEENTH
QUESTION: THE READING OF THE SCRIPTURES
NINETEENTH
QUESTION: THE SENSE OF THE SCRIPTURES
TWENTIETH
QUESTION: THE SUPREME JUDGE OF CONTROVERSIES AND
INTERPRETER OF THE SCRIPTURES
The work of Francis Turretin in the 1600's predates
John William Burgon and his 19th century defense of
the orthodox text. Why introduce the work of Francis
Turretin at the Dean Burgon Society? By sharing
Turretin's faith in the Holy Scriptures, we illustrate
conformity to our position from both antiquity and
orthodoxy. The Holy Spirit has consistently taught and
strengthened us all for hundreds of years with the
same common faith in God's Holy Scriptures.
"Francis Turretin (1623-87) has been called 'the
best expounder of the doctrine of the Reformed Church'
(Samuel Alexander), 'a marvelous synthesizer' (Roger
Nicole), and 'a towering figure among the Genevan
Reformers' (Leon Morris). His Institutio
Theologicae Elencticae, first published in 1679-85
was the fruit of some thirty years' teaching at the
Academy of Geneva."
The English translation of Turretins's work by
George Musgrave Giger, classics professor at Princeton
University (then College of New Jersey), was
translated in response to a request from his friend
Professor Charles Hodge. This English translation of
the Institutio "spanned eight thousand
handwritten pages." Giger's "Turretin
manuscript was placed at the desk in the library of
the seminary (at Princeton) in order for students to
examine the appropriate pages assigned in Dr. Hodge's
systematic theology classes."
Our quotes of Francis Turretin are from Volume one
of Institutes of Elenctic Theology as
translated by George Musgrave Giger and Edited by
James T. Dennison, Jr. The Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Company, (Box 817, Phillipsburg,
New Jersey 18865), published the first complete
edition of the Institutes to be printed in the English
language in 1992.
"As an 'elenctic' theology - which aims at
affirming and demonstrating the truth, in refutation
of false doctrine - the Institutes contrasts Reformed
understandings of Scripture with conflicting
theological perspectives, particularly Roman Catholic,
Arminian, and Socinian."
The current paper is a brief review of the 112
pages of Turretin on The Holy Scriptures from the 685
page, Volume I of III. We have reproduced all 20
questions answered by Turretin and identify each
Turretin quote under the context of the appropriate
question. (We trust this review will encourage the
reading of the book.)
Turretin's answer to these 20 questions also give
support to the 10 articles of systematic theology of
Holy Scriptures found in chapter one of the
Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646, the Savoy
Confession of Faith of 1658, and the Baptist
Confession of Faith of 1689. Turretin not only adds
much commentary giving historical understanding to
these 10 articles, but further expands and strengthens
our present faith position in the divine providential
preservation of the received text.
Following are Turretin's 20 questions and his brief
statement of affirmation or denial to help present all
quotations from within the general context. Quotations
were selected under each question which seemed most
relevant to our topic of Bible Preservation. (Boldness
added for emphasis.)
"FIRST
QUESTION: THE WORD OF GOD -- Was a verbal
revelation necessary? We affirm."
"As the word of God is the sole principle
of theology, so the question concerning its
necessity deservedly comes before all things."
Rejecting false appeals to reason and nature, Turretin
says: "But the orthodox church has
always believed far otherwise, maintaining the
revelation of the word of God to man to be absolutely
and simply necessary for salvation. It is the 'seed'
of which we are born again (1 Pet.
1:23), the 'light' by which we are directed
(Ps. 119:105), the 'food'
upon which we feed (Heb. 5:13,14)
and the 'foundation' upon which we are built (Eph
2:20)"
"Although natural revelation may hand
over different things concerning God and his
attributes, will and works, yet it cannot teach us
things sufficient for the saving knowledge of God
without a supernatural verbal revelation."
"SECOND
QUESTION: THE NECESSITY OF SCRIPTURE -- Was it
necessary for the word of God to be committed to
writing? We affirm."
As Turretin reminded us of the necessity of God's
word unto salvation in question #1, so in question #2
he stresses the importance that this word of God be
written down in scripture. He reminds us that the
Papists "...endeavor studiously to weaken the
authority of Scripture in order the more easily to
establish their unwritten (agraphous)
traditions and the supreme tribunal of the pope
himself..." rendering the scriptures "useful"
but "not absolutely necessary."
Turretin said of Scripture "...We hold it to
be necessary simply and absolutely, so that the
church can never spare it....Since God has seen
fit for weighty reasons to commit his word to writing.
Hence the divine ordination being established, it
is made necessary to the church, so that it
pertains not only to the well-being (bene
esse) of the church, but also to its
very existence (esse). Without it the
church could not now stand. So God indeed was not
bound to the Scriptures, but he has bound us to them."
Turretin surely knew 1 Tim 3:15:
"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest
know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house
of God, which is the church of the living God, the
pillar and ground of the truth."
Turretin said, "Three things particularly
prove the necessity of the Scripture: (1) the
preservation of the word; (2) its vindication; (3) its
propagation. It was necessary for a written word to be
given to the church that the canon of true religious
faith might be constant and unmoved; that it might
easily be preserved pure and entire against the
weakness of memory, the depravity of men and the
shortness of life; that it might be more certainly
defended from the frauds and corruptions of Satan;
that it might more conveniently not only be sent to
the absent and widely separated, but also be
transmitted to posterity."
Turretin said the scripture is necessary for the
Holy Spirit to teach us. "The Holy Spirit (the
supplier (epichoregia), (Jer.
31:34; Jn. 6:45 and 1 Jn. 2:27) does not
render the Scripture less necessary. He is not given
to us in order to introduce new revelations, but to
impress the written word on our hearts; so that here the
word must never be separated from the Spirit (Is.
59:21). The former works objectively,
the latter efficiently; the former strikes the ears
from without, the latter opens the heart within. The
Spirit is the teacher; Scripture is the doctrine which
he teaches us."
Turretin said the scripture is necessary for Christ
to teach us, "Christ is our only teacher
(Mat. 23:8) in such a sense
as that the ministry of the word is not thereby
excluded, but necessarily included because now in
it only he addresses us and by it instructs us."
"THIRD
QUESTION: Were the sacred Scriptures written only
occasionally and without the divine command? We deny
against the papist."
"This question is agitated between us and
the papists. In order to lessen the authority and
perfection of the Scripture, they teach not only
that it is not so very necessary and that the church
could do without it, but also that it was not
delivered to the church by the express command of God,
but only in peculiar circumstances; that Christ
neither commanded the apostles to write nor did the
apostles think of writing the gospel with a primary
intention, but only with a secondary and occasional
intention(Bellarmine, VD 4.3,4, pp.116-122)."
"Hence Paul calls the Scriptures God-inspired
(theopneuston, 2 Tim. 3:16)
and Peter says that 'prophecy came not in old time
by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they
were moved by the Holy Ghost' (hypopheumatos hagiou
pheromenous, 2 Pet. 1:21).
Now it would be absurd (asystaton) to say
that the apostles wrote as God inspired and moved them
and yet that he did not command them. A command is not
more efficacious than the inspiration of the things to
be written; nor does a faithful ambassador ever depart
from his instructions."
"FOURTH
QUESTION: THE AUTHORITY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES --
Are the holy Scriptures truly authentic and divine? We
affirm."
"The first question may seem hardly necessary
among Christians who should consider as an
incontrovertible truth the fact that the Scriptures
are inspired of God (theopneuston) as the
primary foundation of faith."
Rather the question is whether in writing they
were so acted upon and inspired by the Holy Spirit (both
as to the things themselves and as to the words) as to
be kept free from all error and that their writings
are truly authentic and divine. Our adversaries deny
this; we affirm it."
Turretin makes a distinction between the things
and the words emphasizing both the words and
doctrinal truth presented by the words are inspired.
Earlier under question two he spoke of this division:
"...The word "Scripture" is used in two
senses: either materially, with regard to the
doctrine delivered; or formally with regard to the
writing and mode of delivery. In the former sense
(as we said before), we hold it to be
necessary simply and absolutely, so that the church
can never spar it." (More details later on
this.)
"The Bible proves itself divine, not only
authoritatively and in the manner of an artless
argument or testimony, when it proclaims itself
God-inspired (theopheuston). "
"FIFTH
QUESTION: Do real contradictions occur in
Scripture? Or are there any inexplicable (alyta)
passages which cannot be explained and made to
harmonize? We deny."
Turretin said "Papists" insisted "upon
the corruption of the original so as to
bring authority to their Vulgate version." He
also spoke of "Libertines who, living in the
bosom of the church, are constantly bringing forward
these various difficulties (apora) and apparent
contradictions (enantiophane) in order to
weaken the authority of the Scriptures." In
dealing with the charges of contradictions, Turretin
said, ""Finally others defend the integrity
of the Scriptures and say that these various
contradictions are only apparent, not real and true;
that certain passages are hard to be understood (dysnoeta),
but not altogether inexplicable (alyta). This is the more
common opinion of the orthodox, which we follow as
safer and truer."
Proving the scriptures are not corrupted, Turretin
said: "The reasons are:
(1) The
Scriptures are inspired of God (theopneutos,
2 Tim. 3:16). The word of
God cannot lie (Ps. 19:8,9); Heb.
6:18); cannot pass away and be destroyed (Mt.
5:18); shall endure forever (1
Pet. 1:25); and is truth itself (Jn.
17:17).
(2) Unless
unimpaired integrity characterize the Scriptures, they
could not be regarded as the sole rule of faith and
practice, and the door would be thrown wide open
to atheists, libertines, enthusiasts and other profane
persons like them for destroying its authenticity (authentian)
and overthrowing the foundation of salvation. For
since nothing false can be an object of faith, how
could the Scriptures be held as authentic and reckoned
divine if liable to contradictions....For if once the
authenticity (authentia) of the Scriptures is taken
away (which would result even from the incurable
corruption of one passage), how could our faith rest
on what remains? And if corruption is admitted in
those of lesser importance, why not in others of
greater?" "Nor can we readily believe that
God, who dictated and inspired each and every word to
these inspired (theopneustois) men, would not take
care of their entire preservation." Comparing
man's diligence to preserve their own words, Turretin
says of God, "...how much more, must we
suppose, would God take care of his word which he
intended as a testament and seal of his covenant with
us, so that it might not be corrupted; especially when
he could easily foresee and prevent such corruptions
in order to establish the faith of his church?"
Turretin explained how to reconcile copyists and
printer errors from divine preservation: "Although
we give to the Scriptures absolute integrity, we do
not therefore think that the copyists and printers
were inspired (theopneustous), but only that
the providence of God watched over the copying of the
sacred books, so that although many errors might have
crept in, it has not so happened (or they have not so
crept into the manuscripts) but that they can be
easily corrected by a collation of others (or with the
Scriptures themselves). Therefore the foundation
of the purity and integrity of the sources is not to
be placed in the freedom from fault (anamartesia)
of men, but in the providence of God which (however
men employed in transcribing the sacred books might
possibly mingle various errors) always diligently took
care to correct them, or that they might be corrected
easily either from a comparison with Scripture itself
or from more approve manuscripts." Before
explaining in many pages several charges of
contradictions in Bible passages, Turretin said,
"...it will be wiser to acknowledge our own
ignorance than to suppose any contradiction."
"SIXTH
QUESTION: From what source does the divine
authority of the Scriptures become known to us?"
Does it depend upon the testimony of the church either
as to itself or as to us? We deny against the papists."
"The object of the papists in
this and other controversies set forth by them
concerning the Scriptures, is obvious, viz., to
avoid the tribunal of Scripture (in which they do
not find sufficient help for the defense of their
errors) and to appeal to the church (i.e., to the pope
himself) and thus become judges in their own cause....we
must now inquire concerning the Scriptures themselves
whether it is proper that religious controversies
should be decided by their authority and testimony."
Turretin quoted Irenaeus, Against Heresies:
"When they are convicted from Scripture, they
turn round and accuse the Scripture as being corrupt,
and having no authority."
Turretin said, "....We maintain that
primarily and principally the Bible is believed by us
to be divine on account of itself (or the marks
impressed upon it), not on account of the church.....Hence
if the question is why, or on account of what, do I
believe the Bible to be divine, I will answer that I
do so on account of the Scripture itself which by its
marks proves itself to be such. If it is asked
whence or from what I believe, I answer from the Holy
Spirit who produces that belief in me. Finally, if I
am asked by what means or instrument I believe it, I
will answer through the church which God uses in
delivering the Scriptures to me." "We think
that revelation to be contained in the Bible itself
which is the first and infallible truth and rule of
faith. But papists maintain that it must be sought
in the voice and testimony of the church."
Turretin says: "That the authority of the
Scriptures either as to itself or as to us does
not depend upon the testimony of the church is
proved: (1) because the church is built upon the
Scripture (Eph. 2:20)
and borrows all authority from it. Our opponents
cannot deny this since, when we ask them about the
church, they quickly fly to the Scriptures to prove
it." "Thus Scripture, which is the first
principle in the supernatural order, is known by
itself and has no need of arguments derived from
without to prove and make itself known to us."
Turretin explains the function of the church in
relation to the Scriptures: "She is: (1) the
keeper of the oracles of God to whom they are
committed and who preserves the authentic tables of
the covenant of grace with the greatest fidelity, like
a notary (Rom 3:2); (2) the
guide, to point out the Scriptures and lead us to them
(Is. 30:21); (3)
the defender, to vindicate and defend them by
separating the genuine books from the spurious, in
which sense she may be called the ground (hedraioma)
of the truth (1 Tim 3:15);
(4) the herald who sets forth and promulgates them (2
Cor. 5:19; Rom. 10:16); (5) the
interpreter inquiring into the unfolding of the true
sense. But all these imply a ministerial only and not
a magisterial power."
Concerning the establishing of the canon, Turretin
quotes the French Confession: "We know that
the books of Scripture are canonical, not so much
from the common consent of the church, as from the
internal testimony and persuasion of the Holy Spirit....For
the same Spirit who acts objectively in the word by
presenting the truth, operates efficiently in the
heart also by impressing that truth upon our minds."
Concerning the common faith of the entire church or
body of believers produced by the Holy Spirit,
Turretin said, "For the Spirit that testifies in
us concerning the inspiration of the Scriptures is not
peculiar to individuals with regard to the principle
and origin. Rather he is common to the whole church
and so to all believers in whom he works the same
faith, although he is such subjectively with
regard to each individual because he is given
separately to each believer." Thus we are
reminded that the common faith which directed
the approval of the reformation Bible as taught by the
late Dr. Edward F. Hills is not some new doctrine of
the 20th century.
Turretin reminded us again that the Holy Scriptures
though proved by the work of the Holy Spirit, are also
self-authenticating. "Therefore since the
Bible is the first principle and the primary and
infallible truth, is it strange to say that it can be
proved by itself?" "The canon or
authenticity of the Bible comes from God the author
and not determined by the church." As Turretin
says, "...it can be known and believed as an
assembly of believers and the communion of saints by a
divine faith, only after the marks of the church which
Scripture supplies have become known."
Turretin brings the witness of the Scriptures and
of the Spirit together saying, "We prove the
Scriptures by the Spirit as the efficient cause by
which we believe. But we prove the Spirit from the
Scriptures as the object and argument on account of
which we believe."
Turretin said the church is called "the
pillar and ground of the truth" (Eph.
2:20) "...not because she supports and
gives authority to the truth." "So the
church is the pillar of the truth both by reason of
promulgating and making it known....and by reason of
guarding it. For she ought not only to set it forth,
but also to vindicate and defend it."
Turretin said, "Whatever is called the pillar
and stay of the truth is not therefore infallible....Whatever
is here ascribed to the church belongs to the
particular church at Ephesus to which, however, the
papists are not willing to give the prerogative of
infallibility."
"SEVENTH
QUESTION: THE CANON -- Has any canonical book
perished? We deny."
Turretin said, "Most papists contend that many
canonical books have been lost in order that thus they
may prove the imperfection of Scripture and the
necessity of tradition to supply its defects."
After describing a strict and wide use of the word
canon, Turretin spoke of the "two-fold aspect"
of the canon: "But as the word of God can be
considered in a two-fold aspect )either for the
doctrine divinely revealed or for the sacred
books in which it is contained), so there can be a
twofold canon: one of the doctrines, embracing
all the fundamental doctrines; and the other of the
books, containing all the inspired (theopneustous)
books." "The Scriptures are called
canonical for a double reason, both with regard to the
doctrines (because they are the canon and standard of
faith and practice, derived from the Hebrew QNH, which
signifies a "reed" or surveyor's pen and is
so used in (Gal. 6:16 and Phil.
3:16) and with respect to the books
(because it contains all the canonical books)."
Since the papists claim the same 27 book canon or
the New Testament we do, and add their apocryphal
books to the Old Testament, Turretin dealt at length
in defense of the 39 book canon of the Old Testament.
Arguing that no book has perished from the canon, he
quoted the testimony of Christ: "It is
easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle
of the law to fail" (Lk.
16:17; cf. Mat. 5:18). He quoted Paul,
"Whatsoever things were written aforetime were
written for our learning" (Rom
15:4), which supposed all the writings of
the Old Testament existed." He reminded us that
neither Christ or the apostles every accused the Jews
of altering scriptures, only their interpretation.
Finally, the practice of the Jews preserved the same
39 book canon we still accept. (Rom
3:2).
"EIGHTH
QUESTION: Are the books of the Old Testament still
a part of the canon of faith and rule of practice in
the church of the New Testament? We affirm against the
Anabaptists."
Many of Turretin's arguments in this section
presuppose the church originating as Israel in the Old
Testament, and also a rejection of dispensationalism.
All of us believe with Turretin in the inspiration of
the entire Bible, and it's profitability for doctrine,
reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.
Turretin made a good argument for evangelism: "If
the Old Testament is not important for Christians, it
could not be unexceptionably proved against the Jews
that Jesus Christ of Nazareth is the true Messiah."
"NINTH
QUESTION: THE APOCRYPHAL BOOKS:
"Ought Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus,
the first two books of the Maccabees, Baruch, the
additions to Esther and Daniel to be numbered among
the canonical books? We deny against the papists."
(We deliberately omitted comment on these four pages
of material because of our subject matter and not
because they are not good or important. We recommend
their reading.
"TENTH
QUESTION: THE PURITY OF THE SOURCES -- Have the
original texts of the Old and New Testaments come down
to us pure and uncorrupted? We affirm against the
papists."
"By the original texts, we do not mean the
autographs written by the hand of Moses, of the
prophets and of the apostles, which certainly do
not now exist. We mean their apographs which are so
called because they set forth to us the word of God in
the very words of those who wrote under the immediate
inspiration of the Holy Spirit."
"Rather the question is have the original
texts (or the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts) been so
corrupted either by copyists through carelessness
(or by the Jews and heretics through malice) that
they can no longer be regarded as the judge of
controversies and the rule to which all the versions
must be applied? The papists affirm, we deny
it."
Turretin says, "The providence of God proves
that the sources have not been corrupted." "The
following arguments prove that the sources have not
been corrupted. (1) The providence
of God which could not permit books which it
willed to be written by inspiration (theopneustois)
for the salvation of men (and to continue unto the end
of the world that they might draw from them waters of
salvation) to become so corrupted as to render them
unfit for this purpose.... (2) The
fidelity of the Christian church and unceasing
labor in preserving the manuscripts. (3)
The religion of the Jews who have bestowed upon
the sacred manuscripts great care and labor amounting
even to superstition.... (4) The
carefulness of the Masoretes not only about verses
and words, but also about single letters (which,
together with all the variations of punctuation and
writing, they not only counted, but also wrote down,
so that no ground or even suspicion of corruption
could arise). (5) The multitude of
copies; for as the manuscripts were scattered far
and wide, how could they all be corrupted either by
the carelessness of librarians or the wickedness of
enemies?... (6) If the sources had
been corrupted, it must have been done before Christ
or after, neither of which is true. Not before
because Christ would not have passed it over in
silence (for he does censure the various departures in
doctrine), nor could he bear to use corrupted
books....Not afterward, both because the copies
circulated among Christians would have rendered such
attempts futile, and because no trace of any such
corruption appears..... (7) The
Jews neither would nor could corrupt the sources...."
Turretin argues that if the Jews had corrupted any
scripture it would have been concerning the Messiah
and prophecy used by Christians. On the other hand,
Christians would immediately have noticed any changes
made by the Jews since the time of Christ.
Turretin made a difference between corruption and
variants: "A corruption differs from a variant
reading. We acknowledge that many variant readings
occur both in the old and New Testament arising from a
comparison of different manuscripts, but we deny
corruption (at least corruption that is universal)."
"ELEVENTH
QUESTION: THE AUTHENTIC VERSION -- Are the Hebrew
version of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New
the only authentic versions? We affirm against the
papists."
"Of the versions of the Scriptures;
some are prototypoi or archetypoi
("original" and "primary")
which the authors themselves used. Others are ektypoi
(or "secondary"), namely
versions flowing from them into other languages."
After explaining how the papist differed concerning
the degree of certainty in the Hebrew or Greek texts,
He quoted the Council of Trent Session 4, which says
that "the Latin Vulgate should be held as
authentic in the public reading, disputations,
preaching, and expositions, so that no one should dare
to reject it under any pretext" "Hence
Mariana complains that after this promulgation of the
Council of Trent, "the Greek and Hebrew fell
at one blow."
Turretin said, "Our opinion is that the
Hebrew of the Old and the Greek of the New Testament
have always been and still are the only authentic
versions by which all controversies of faith and
religion (and all versions) ought to be approved and
tested."
What is an authentic writing? "An authentic
writing is one in which all things are abundantly
sufficient to inspire confidence; one to which the
fullest credit is due in its own kind; one of which we
can be entirely sure that it has proceeded from the
author whose name it bears; one in which everything is
written just as he himself wished."
"However, a writing can be authentic in two
ways: either primarily and originally or secondarily
and derivatively. That writing is primarily authentic
which is autopiston ('of self-inspiring
confidence") and to which credit is and ought
to be given on its own account....The secondarily
authentic writings are all the copies
accurately and faithfully taken from the originals by
suitable men...."
"Again, the authority of an authentic
writing is twofold: the one is founded upon the
things themselves of which it treats and has
relation to the men to whom the writing is directed;
the other is occupied with the treatise itself
and the writing and refers to the copies and
translations made from it. Over all these this law
obtains - that they ought to be referred to the
authentic writing and if they vary from it, to be
corrected and emended."
"Finally, authenticity may be regarded
in two ways: either materially as to the
things announced or formally as to the words
and mode of annunciation. We do not speak here of
authenticity in the former sense for we do not deny
this to versions when they agree with the sources,
but only in the latter which belongs to the sources
alone. The reasons are: (1) because
the sources alone are inspired of God both as to
the things and words (2 Tim
3:16); hence they alone can be authentic.
For whatever the men of God wrote, they wrote under
the influence of the Holy Spirit (2
Pet 1:21), who, to keep them from error, dictated
not only the matter but also the words, which cannot
be said of any version..... (2) They
are the standard and rule to which all the versions
should be applied, just as the copy (ektypon)
should answer to the pattern (archetypon)
and the stream be distinguished from its source....
(3) These editions were authentic
from the very first and were always considered to be
so..... (4) If the Hebrew edition
of the Old Testament and the Greek edition of the New
Testament are not authentic (authentias), there
would be no authentic version, since none besides this
has a divine testimony of its own authenticity....
(5) Our opponents acknowledge that in
certain cases it is right to have recourse to the
sources."
Concerning the papist argument of Hebrew points
being added late by the Masoretes as an argument for
tradition, Turretin rejects, arguing that the points
were of divine origin.
"TWELFTH
QUESTION: Is the present Hebrew text in things as
well as words so authentic and inspired(theopneustos)
in such a sense that all the extant versions are to be
referred to it as a rule and, wherever they vary, to
be corrected by it? Or may we desert the reading it
supplies, if judged less appropriate, and correct it
either by comparison of ancient translators, or by
suitable(stochastike) judgment and conjecture,
and follow another more suitable reading? We affirm
the former and deny the latter."
"As the authority (authentia) of the
sacred text is the primary foundation of faith,
nothing ought to be held as more important than to
preserve it unimpaired against the attacks of those
who endeavor either to take it entirely away or in any
manner to weaken it." "Far different
however is the opinion held in common by our
churches; viz., that no other codex should be held as
authentic then the present Hebrew one, to which as to
a touchstone, all the ancient and modern versions
should be referred and if they differ from it to be
corrected by it, and not to be amended by them."
"That this has ever been the opinion of all
Protestants is perfectly clear. The controversy
carried on previously with the papists about the
authentic edition sufficiently confirms it. The
illustrious author in question cannot deny it, for in
the beginning of his Critica Sacra, he says, 'The
first and most ancient Protestants have said that all
things should be examined and corrected by the Hebrew
text, which they call the purest source..."
Turretin warns of the danger of conjectures on the
sacred text: "If it is lawful to make conjectures
on the sacred text, even when the Hebrew codices agree
with the versions (as the learned man (Cappel) says,
Critica sacra 6.8.17 (1650), p. 424), there could
no longer be any certainty of the authenticity (authentias)
of it, but all would be rendered doubtful and
unsettled and the sacred text would be subjected to
the will of each conjecturer. Whether this is not to
divest it of all authority anyone can readily tell....Now
who could be the judge whether these conjectures are
made rightly and truly?...But what will become of this
sacred book, if everyone is allowed to wield a
censorious pen and play the critic over it, just as
over any profane book?"
Turretin not only believed the original text was
still used at that time by both Jews and Christians,
but added: "And all the theologians who thus far
have in any way argued concerning the Hebrew text and
its authenticity have meant no other than the
common and now received text."
"THIRTEENTH
QUESTION: VERSIONS -- Are versions necessary, and
what ought to be their use and authority in the church?"
"This question has two parts. The first
relates to the necessity of versions;
the second to their authority..." The
arguments for the necessity of versions: (1) The
reading and contemplation of the Scriptures is
enjoined upon men of all languages, therefore the
translation of it into the native tongues is necessary...(2)The
gospel is preached in all languages; therefore it can
and ought to be translated into them. The
consequence holds good from the preached to the
written word because there is the same reason for both
and the same arguments (which induced the apostles to
preach in the native tongue) prove the necessity of
versions....(3) Vernacular
versions are necessary on account of the constant
practice of the church, according to which it is
certain that both the oriental and western churches
had their versions and performed their worship in the
vernacular tongue, as their liturgies evince...(4)
The numerous Greek versions of the Old
Testament follow these....Hence it is evident that
it has been the perpetual practice of the church to
use versions."
The arguments for the authority of the versions:
"Although the versions are not authentic
formally and as to the mode of enunciation,
yet they ought nevertheless to be used in the church
because if they are accurate and agree with the
sources, they are always authentic materially and as
to the things expressed."
"Hence we gather what the authority of the
versions is. Although their utility is great for the
instruction of believers, yet no version either can
or ought to be put on an equality with the original,
much less be preferred to it. (1) For
no version has anything important which the Hebrew or
Greek source does not have more fully, since in the
sources not only the matter and sentences, but even
the very words were directly dictated by the Holy
Spirit. (2) It is one thing to
be an interpreter, quite another to be a prophet....The
prophet as God-inspired (theopneustos) cannot
err, but the interpreter as a man lacks no human
quality since he is always liable to err. (3)
All versions are the streams; the original text
is the fountain whence they flow. The latter is the
rule, the former the thing ruled, having only human
authority."
"Nevertheless all authority must not be
denied to versions. Here we must carefully distinguish
a twofold divine authority: one of things, the other
of words. The former relates to the substance of
doctrine which constitutes the internal form of the
Scriptures. The latter relates to the accident of
writing, the external and accidental form. The source
has both, being God-inspired (theopneustos) both as to
the words and the things; but versions have only the
first, being expressed in human and not in divine
words."
"Hence it follows that the versions
as such are not authentic and canonical in themselves
(because made by human labor and talent). Therefore,
under this relation (schesei), they may be
exposed to errors and admit of corrections, but nevertheless
are authentic as to the doctrine they contain (which
is divine and infallible). Thus they do not, as
such, formally support divine faith as to the words,
but materially as to the substance of doctrine
expressed in them."
"There is one perfection of thing and truth
to which nothing can be added and from which nothing
can be taken away; another perfect ion of the version
itself. The former is strictly divine work
and is absolutely and in every way self-credible
(autopiston). Such perfection is in the word
carried over into the versions.. The latter is a
human work and there liable to error and correction -
to which indeed authority can belong, but only human (according
to the fidelity and conformity with the original text),
not divine."
"The certainty of the conformity of the
versions with the original is twofold: the one
merely grammatical and of human knowledge
apprehending the conformity of the words in
the versions with the original this belongs
to the learned, who know the languages); the other
spiritual and of divine faith, relating to the
agreement of things and doctrines (belonging to each
believer according to the measure of the gift of
Christ, as he himself says, "My sheep hear
my voice, Jn. 10:27;
and Paul, "he that is spiritual discerneth all
things," 1 Cor 2:15).
Although a private person may be ignorant of the
languages, he does not cease to gather the fidelity of
a version as to the things themselves from the analogy
of faith and the connection of the doctrines: 'If
any man will do his will, he shall know of the
doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of
myself'" (Jo. 7:17)
"Conformity to the original is different
from equality. Any version (provided it is
faithful) is indeed conformable to the original
because the same doctrine as to substance is set forth
there. But it is not on that account equal to it
because it is only a human and not a divine method of
setting it forth."
"Although any version made by fallible men
cannot be considered divine and infallible with
respect to the terms, yet it can well be considered
such with respect to the things, since it faithfully
expresses the divine truth of the sources even as
the word which the minister of the gospel preaches
does not cease to be divine and infallible and to
establish our faith, although it may be expressed by
him in human words. Thus faith depends not on the
authority of the interpreter or minister, but is built
upon the truth and authenticity (authentia) of
the things contained in the versions."
"If a version could contain the pure word of
God in divine words, no correction could take place.
For the sources neither can nor ought to be corrected
because they are God-inspired (theopneustoi) in
things as well as in words. But because it sets forth
to us in human words the word of God, it follows that
it can admit of correction, not with regard to the
doctrine itself (which still remains the same), but
with regard to the terms which especially in difficult
and obscure passages can be differently rendered by
different persons according to the measure of the gift
of Christ."
"FOURTEENTH
QUESTION: THE SEPTUAGINT -- Is the Septuagint
version of the Old Testament authentic? We deny."
"FIFTEENTH
QUESTION: THE VULGATE -- Is the Vulgate authentic?
We deny against the papist."
"SIXTEENTH
QUESTION: THE PERFECTION OF THE SCRIPTURES: Do the
Scriptures so perfectly contain all things necessary
to salvation that there is no need of unwritten (apraphois)
traditions after it? We affirm against the papists."
"In order to shun more easily the tribunal of
the Scriptures which they know to be opposed to them,
the papists endeavor not only to overthrow their
authentical (authentian) and integrity, but
also to impeach their perfection and perspicuity.
Hence arises this question concerning the perfection
of the Scriptures between us."
"The question relates only to things necessary
to salvation - whether they belong to faith or to
practice; whether all these things are so contained in
the Scriptures that they can be a total and adequate
rule of faith and practice (which we maintain and our
opponents deny)."
"The question then amounts to this - whether
the Scripture perfectly contains all (not absolutely),
but necessary to salvation; not expressly and in so
many words, but equivalently and by legitimate
inference, as to leave no place for any unwritten (agraphon)
word containing doctrinal or moral traditions. Is the
Scripture a complete and adequate rule of faith and
practice or only a partial and inadequate rule? We
maintain the former; the papists the latter, holding
that "unwritten traditions pertaining to faith
and practice are to be received with the same regard
and reverence as the Scriptures."
"....We give to the Scriptures such a
sufficiency and perfection as is immediate and
explicit. There is no need to have recourse to any
tradition independent of them."
"Finally, they were intended to be the
contract of the covenant between God and us."
"SEVENTEENTH
QUESTION: THE PERSPICUITY OF THE SCRIPTURES -- Are
the Scriptures so perspicuous in things necessary to
salvation that they can be understood by believers
without the external help of oral (aprophou)
tradition or ecclesiastical authority? We affirm
against the papists."
"EIGHTEENTH
QUESTION: THE READING OF THE SCRIPTURES -- Can the
Scriptures be profitably read by any believer, and
ought he to read them without permission? We affirm
against the papists."
"NINETEENTH
QUESTION: THE SENSE OF THE SCRIPTURES -- Whether
the Scriptures have a fourfold sense: literal,
allegorical, anagogical and tropological. We deny
against the papists."
"TWENTIETH
QUESTION: THE SUPREME JUDGE OF CONTROVERSIES AND
INTERPRETER OF THE SCRIPTURES -- Whether the
Scriptures (or God speaking in them) are the supreme
and infallible judge of controversies and the
interpreter of the Scriptures. Or whether the church
or the Roman pontiff is. We affirm the former and deny
the latter against the papists."
Francis Turretin (1623-87)
On The Scriptures Presented at:
The 1995 Annual Meeting of The Dean Burgon Society
Rev. D. A. Waite, Th.D., Ph.D. President
http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/barnet95.htm
|