Introduction
We have discussed that Scripture is divine through the operation of the Spirit called inspiration. Inspiration is the way in which Scripture is made divine; however, are the writings we consider to be Scripture truly from God? This question addresses the authenticity of Scripture. If something is authentic, it is truly from the person it claims to be from. Asserting that Scripture is authentic, means it is truly from God. But, this question can be asked in two different ways. Firstly, is Scripture authentic? And, how do we know this Scripture is authentic? The former question is a question about the ontology, or very nature, of the thing itself, while the latter addresses the epistemic foundation from which we assuredly know Scripture to be authentic. If Scripture is authentic, it is then divine and attains the most principal attribute of Scripture, namely divine authority. Thus, demonstrating that Scripture is authentic proves by necessity the divinity, authority, infallibility, truth, efficacy, etc. of Scripture. All of the attributes of Scripture flow from the divinity thereof. So, the discussion of attributes necessarily follows. In this article, we will address the ontological question of whether Scripture is truly authentic.
‘Proof’ of the Authenticity of Scripture
Proving the authenticity of Scripture may be a false way to put it. For proof can be divided into mathematical or demonstrable proof and moral or probable proof. In the first category, proof attains a conclusion of certainty. For example, that two plus two equals four attains the conclusion four with necessity and certainty. On the other hand, moral proof only provides probable evidence to elicit a conclusion, e.g., proving that Aristotle wrote Posterior Analytics is done from history, archeology, witnesses, etc., but nothing actually necessitates that Aristotle wrote it with certainty. The proof of Scripture only falls into the latter category. Nothing truly necessitates with certainty that these writings must be from God, but only probable arguments can be drawn out. Furthermore, the moral proof of Scripture can be divided into external and internal evidence. Regarding the cogency of each type of evidence, external is of lesser value than the internal, but still contributes to the probability of authenticity.
There are many more than I have but I will address four: writers and their circumstances, worldwide success of the gospel, miraculous confirmation, and antiquity. 1) Firstly, the writers that Scripture claims to be written by actually exist. No sane person denies the existence of Paul or Isaiah. Secondly, what these persons wrote had to be true. If not, then they were deceived; however, they were eyewitnesses. Or, they were insane which does not coincide well due to the consistency of doctrine within their teachings and the large following that they gained. Another possibility is that they intended to deceive but there are three reasons why this cannot be the case. Firstly, they had no gain in deceiving, whether that be political or economical, but only persecution. The only thing they gained was suffering and no sane person would intentionally deceive with the purpose to suffer. Secondly, the holiness shown by the writers is also contrary to intentional deception. Finally, people during their own times could have easily discounted their writings which did not occur. On the contrary, the adversaries themselves admitted to the truth of certain things (ex. Jesus performing miracles attested to by the Pharisees [Jn. 11:47]). 2) Next, the truth contained in these writings pervaded throughout the whole world, affecting men of different races, genders, ages, social classes, and occupations. And, all of this was in spite of persecution and the mysteries contained in them which is aberrant to the human mind. 3) Furthermore, the miraculous confirmation of Scripture proves the same. Le Blanc puts it amazingly saying, “the miracles which are narrated in the Scriptures are true, or not true; if true, the doctrine and Scripture for whose confirmation they were used are also true. But if they are not true, it is more than a miracle that a doctrine so abhorrent to the sense of men, and full of so many lies which it was easy for anyone to convict, was nevertheless embraced with such ardor without any divine or human aid, and retained with such constancy through exiles, through crosses, through torments, with those who were eminent in the world for power and prudence raging and indignant.” 4) Finally, the great antiquity and the preservation of it through times where every powerful man sought the destruction of it proves the same.
Applying internal evidence to prove the authenticity of Scripture looks at the divine marks within Scripture itself. Due to these inherent marks, Scripture is self-authenticating. The internal evidence can be divided into what applies to the form, matter, or end of Scripture. Concerning the form or manner of speaking, the writers of Scripture plainly recount things by not removing things offensive to the audience or removing faults of the writer, nor does it add things to achieve a more honorable position among its audience. The utter sincerity of Scripture points to the divine authorship. Regarding the matter of Scripture or what is spoken of, the history given conforms to the previous evidence. The prophecies given are all fulfilled throughout the course of human history. Moreover, the dogma given is of the highest mysteries which ascends above the human intellect and the precepts give are indicative of the most virtuous man. Finally, the effect which Scripture brings can only be of divine origin by bringing about a sense of damnable guilt (which no human can do) and cultivating in man the highest of virtues. The self-authenticating nature of Scripture does not mean that this divine light is equally shown forth in all books. Like how stars shine to different degrees, so it is with the books of Scripture. Taking all of this evidence into account, that Scripture is from God is very probable.
Conclusion
In light of external and internal evidence, it is probable that Scripture is truly from God which shows that it is authentic. Many attributes thereby follow from such divinity which will be addressed in the next article. When I first started writing this article, I thought that it would be concerning the authority of Scripture. However, I have decided to order the bibliology in a way that moves from inspiration as the way in which Scripture is made divine from God and the evidence for Scripture being from God (authenticity). The next part concerns the attributes that follow, the principal of which is the authority of Scripture. If you have read any of the polemics surrounding this topic, you will know that the orthodox have issue with the papists on this issue. Also, there is controversy surrounding the attribute of perspicuity or clarity. Thus, I will present a positive presentation of all the attributes of Scripture and then address the polemics surrounding the authority and perspicuity of Scripture. Furthermore, I have found that the polemics surrounding the authority is intimately tied within the topics of the relationship of faith and Scripture and the rule of faith.