In his unpublished Reformed Textual Criticism,¹ Moises Silva brings up an interesting point regarding the Van Tilian aversion to probabilistic methods and the discipline of textual criticism. One need not spend much time in order to uncover Van Til’s negativity toward probabilistic methods. He found no room for probability within the Christian epistemology. This leads the textual critic who has Van Tilian sympathies to question whether he needs to jettison one of his interests. The whole enterprise of textual criticism is based on mechanical methods designed to point out which textual variant is most likely original.

Silva assuages the apparent clash:

It would be misleading, I think, to suggest that Van Til disapproved of using the methods of probability in every respect. We may be quite sure that even he, upon hearing a weather forecast predicting a 90% probability of showers, would have canceled a Saturday picnic. […] What provoked Van Til, of course, was Bishop Butler’s transference of such day-by-day decisions to matters about which the Bible speaks unequivocally, including especially the existence of God (also such affirmations as the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the divine authority of the Scriptures). Many other things, however, do no belong in the same category. Even some matters having to do with our Christian life lack firm certainty.²

He then adds in a footnote:

Even more fundamentally, Van Til objected to the use of possibility and probability arguments when presenting the gospel to unbelievers, on account of conflicting epistemologies: “For the natural man the idea of possibility is on the one hand identical with chance and on the other hand with that which the natural man himself can rationalize. For him only that is practically possible which man can himself order by his logical faculties. But the word possibility means for the Christan that which may happen in accord with the plan of God” (The Defense of the Faith [3d ed.; Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1967] 144).³

Silva studied under Van Til in the late 1960s and to his knowledge, Van Til never brought up textual criticism “even during his most vigorous denunciations of ‘probabilistic apologetics.’”⁴

1. Silva, Moises. Reformed Textual Criticism (Philadelphia: Westminster Theological Seminary, 1990).↩
2. Ibid., 20.↩
3. Ibid.↩
4. Ibid., 19.↩

Boethius was an interesting and important character of the ancient church, but surprisingly does not receive as much attention as other figures. Boethius, a Roman noble in the 6th century, wrote an extremely influential treatise on an Augustinian formulation¹ of the Trinity which became the academic standard for the church of his day. Apparently, for anyone to be approved to a teaching post, they had to submit a commentary on Boethius’ treatise. Carl Trueman suggests² Boethius “falls between two stools” since he lived between the traditional division of the ancient and medieval churches. If he had been active earlier or later, perhaps he would receive more attention from scholars.

Boethius’ life-long work was the preservation of ancient classical knowledge. His goal was to translate the works of Aristotle and Plato into Latin. If he were successful, the achievement could have significantly altered the course of history. Arabic-speaking cultures received the works of Aristotle and Plato in their native tongue which catapulted them ahead of the West. If Boethius had accomplished his goal, Europe may have had a similar advancement earlier in their history.

Boethius however, was not able to give them Aristotle and Plato in Latin. Theodoric the Great suspected Boethius of conspiring with the Byzantine emperor Justin I and had him imprisoned. While awaiting his eventual execution, Boethius wrote his most well-known work, the Consolation of Philosophy, a dialogue between Boethius himself and the Lady Philosophy. The work is understandably centered around the perennial question “Why do bad things happen to good people?” In the work are several interesting philosophical contributions including linguistics and God’s relation to time.

Boethius’ contributions are many. Those interested in the ancient church and the development of Christian theology should study him. Perhaps in the future he will receive more attention.

1. Thanks to Jeff Waddington who passed on this bit of information.↩
2. November 29, 2007 class lecture.↩