A Note on Archibald Alexander’s Apologetic Motive in Positing “Errors” in the Autographs -- By: Ronald V. Huggins

Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 57:2 (Fall 1995)
Article: A Note on Archibald Alexander’s Apologetic Motive in Positing “Errors” in the Autographs
Author: Ronald V. Huggins


A Note on Archibald Alexander’s Apologetic Motive in Positing “Errors” in the Autographs

Ronald V. Huggins

I. Introduction

In his 1983 work on Archibald Alexander and the founding of Princeton Seminary, Lefferts A. Loetscher writes:

When Dr. Alexander turned to lecture on the text of the New Testament, he conceded, as he had done in the case of the Old Testament, “that it is even possible that some of the autographs, if we had them, might not be altogether free from such errors as arise from the slip of the pen, as the Apostles and [“had”] amanuensis [- es] who were not inspired.” Thus here, as in treating the Old Testament, Alexander avoided asserting the literal “inerrancy” of the original autographs of the New Testament. Trifling as it may seem to a later day, this was a concession that logically weakened his desire for an absolute base for theology, a concession which his successors, A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, in the process of tightening up the theology, declined to make. Alexander suggested that an interlinear correction by the author himself of such a pen slip would be impossible to distinguish from an emendation by a later scribe. He then sought deftly to turn this concession to advantage by arguing that “the loss of the autographs therefore need not be considered of so much importance as we know that they were copied with the utmost care.” For the later Old Princeton position, the argument at this point tended to be reversed. The loss of the unknown original autographs made it possible to blame existing discrepancies on supposed errors in transmission of the text.1

Here Loetscher wants to contrast Alexander, who, he says, avoided asserting literal inerrancy, and later Princetonians A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, who did not. This article argues, however, that in doing so Loetscher does justice neither to Alexander’s point nor to the later Princeton position. Alexander’s remark actually “conceded” nothing, but was framed to make an entirely positive (though perhaps poorly

conceived)2 apologetic point about the adequacy of current copies of the Bible. Further, in framing his amanuensis illustration Alexander shall be seen to share the same understanding of inspiration as the 1881 Hodge/ Warfield article with which Loetscher wishes to contrast it.3

The passage Loetscher discusses comes from the unpublished notes of Archibald Alexander on NT criticism, written in the teens of the nineteenth century. We now reproduce it in its larger context (portions quoted by Loetsche...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()