Prolegomena to Textual Criticism

I've written elsewhere on how I situate "textual criticism" within the apologetic context of epistemic foundationalism (see the tags for this subject here). What follows will be a prolegomena of sorts to textual criticism.

Based on John 5 and other such passages, there is, I think, a Trinitarian parallel one can make between metaphysics, epistemology, and soteriology. For instance, we are saved in the Spirit through the Word sent from the Father, which Word is the very revelation of God (John 1, Hebrews 1, Romans 8, etc.). Just so, we are come to knowledge and are saved through [faith in the] words from the Father in the Spirit's breathing (Psalm 119, Matthew 11, 2 Timothy 3, etc.).

From, through, in. Keep those words in mind.

How might we tease this out? Divine revelation is indeed propositional. For example, the Scriptures cannot be broken (John 10), so if it were the case that the Scriptures are merely physical words, I could tear up its pages, silence the mouths of those who speak, etc. This propositional revelation is from the Father (as Christ is from the Father) insofar as it (and He) is revealed to those whom it pleases Him to learn its truth (John 6, Matthew 16).

That said, the mode through which this word is revealed is inscripturation. Likewise, the mode through which God's Son was sent as Savior was the incarnation. It is through the enfleshed w/Word that people are saved (Romans 10). We are not gnostics, after all.

Yet while the way through which we are caused to learn God's truth is via sensation, it is still the case that the objects of knowledge are propositional. Physical words may be means through which we are caused to understand revelation, but such representations always beckon us back to the archetypal propositions to which they correspond in a manner analogous to the way in which the Son beckons us back to the archetypal Father in whose image He is (Col 1).

Thus, in our Trinitarian formulations, the metaphysical beginning is the Father. So too in our revelatory formulations: the epistemological beginning is the propositions.

Now, the Word of God, Jesus Christ, was only made manifest in the Spirit. Likewise, the word of God, the Scriptures, are only made manifest in the Spirit. Christ's birth and baptism inaugurated his earthly life and ministry. Our rebirth and baptism in the Spirit inaugurates our salvific life (such that we become true words of the True Word; cf. link), and the Spirit's breath inaugurated the manifestation of the propositional word in His speech in the prophets and apostles (2 Peter 1, Ephesians 2; there is potential for drawing out themes in terms of progressive-revelation and [new] covenant[al life] here, but I will leave that aside for now).

Our encounter with the metaphysical Trinity is through Christ the Word. At the same time, this very Word testifies of His being sent from the Father from whom we must begin if we are to understand the Son and His Spirit-wrought purpose for us.

Moreover, our encounter with Christ is through the inscripturated word. And Christ's words - for Scripture itself is the word of the Word - testifies of the archetypal propositions from which we must begin if we are to understand the physical creation and its Spirit-wrought purpose for us.

Those who begin with the physical text already evidence a faulty set of presuppositions - not that there is anything wrong with the inscripturated word, mind you. But people won't understand it aright unless they understand from whence it comes.

Likewise, those who begin with, say, the "historical Jesus" already evidence a faulty set of presuppositions - not that there is anything wrong with the incarnate Word, mind you. But people won't understand Him aright unless they understand from Whom He comes.

Textual criticism, then, can serve an apologetic role insofar as it beckons us back to the propositional truth from and with which we must epistemologically begin in order for the defense to be intelligible. A defense of the [written] Scripture presupposes knowledge of the revealed Scripture. A proper defense presupposes a proper epistemic starting point such that the former will confirm the latter.

One final, somewhat tangential observation: I've listened to enough Eastern Orthodox apologists to be aware of the emphasis they place on the ordo theologiae and the Father as the "starting point" (link, link). How amusing is it, then, when said apologists promote circular justification (link)? Whether or not one agrees with their metaphysics, there is an internal critique to be made here.