Van Til and Textual Criticism
In his unpublished Reformed Textual Criticism,1 Moises Silva brings up an interesting point regarding the Van Tilian aversion to probabilistic methods and the discipline of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
People always say classical apologetics had no place in him system as well, another caricature and erroneous call by his critics.
Comment on December 15, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
I can’t tell, in reading this blog, whether you yourself have this worry that your citing Silva in order to assuage. I don’t think anyone who knows their Van Til would have a worry raised in their mind as to whether they need abandon their interest in textual criticism. It seems like a non-issue from the outset. Why use Silva to calm their fears rather than just referring them back to Van Til’s work which they clearly didn’t read too closely (if at all) the first time around?
More importantly though,
it’s even false to say (as you said) that -
“He found no room for probabilistic reasoning within the Christian epistemology.”
Look at the statement again. It seems like it would only appear true to such an one as would think that Van Til would be intolerant to textual criticism. Which is why, again, I can’t tell where you stand from this blog.
The truth of the matter is that Van Til found no room for probabilistic reasoning without the Christian epistemology.
See the difference?
Comment on December 21, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
Where can I obtain a copy of Reformed Textual Criticism?
I like your site.
ECR
Comment on January 15, 2008 @ 3:13 pm