I would like to point out, with all respect to Greg Bahnsen's protestations, that the idea of the inerrant autograph first formulated by Warfield, et al did not exist prior to the 19th c.
I would be interested if anyone can show pre-19th c. evidence of this concept that the autographs are inerrant, but that body of Scriptural text that we actually have received cannot be said to be so. I don't think that it existed anywhere in Protestantism or in any pre-Protestant Christianity.
Warfield, et al came up with this idea because of the pressures put on them by the weight of liberal Protestant textual criticism. This criticism had come to the conclusion in the 19th c. that the text of the New Testament as we had received it (i.e. as the Greek Orthodox had preserved it for two millenia) was hopelessly corrupt, and that only then, in the 19th c. did mankind have the tools to determine what the more original texts had to say.
The Westminster Divines retreated behind a position that was, they felt, impregnable. After all, this way they could both believe in Biblical inerrancy, as their Presbyterian faith required, and at the same time not be accused of ignorance by their liberal counterparts.
By claiming that only the original autographs are the "real" Bible, it would never be necessary to give up the idea of inerrancy, since we will never have a copy of the original autographs, and since such autographs can never be reconstructed using modern techniques of textual criticism.
To the extent that attempts have been made to "reconstruct the autographs," one is left with the inescapable conclusion that until the 19th century, the Bible was never faithfully copied, since modern critical editions reconstruct the text based on scores of widely-flung and divergent manuscripts. This doesn't say much for the preservation of Scripture by the Holy Spirit.
Perhaps this is related, but I think this concept of humanism came about just before the Protestant Reformation - that man could figure out what God wanted written based on their own study. This "purifying" of the Scriptures was the driving force behind Luther's use of the Masoretic OT text - as he thought it to be closer to the original than the Vulgate. I wonder if he was aware that the Masoretic text is based on an oral tradition - of where the vowels go when translating ...
Regards
I would disagree. There is no greater evidence, as Bahnsen pointed out, than the scriptures themselves. Our Lord Jesus, who referred to the writings and scriptures many times throughout the gospel never called into question the inerrant of the word of God. Yet He referenced the Greek version floating around-the very document some here are saying is in error. In fact, while talking to the crowd, our Lord Jesus most likely recited from the Aramaic version-not the Hebrew or Greek. I'm not sure. However, it wasn't the original Hebrew and He didn't seem to have a problem with "discrepancies". It should also be pointed out that some of the most questionable people of scripture (Noah, Jonah, Daniel, etc), our Lord Jesus talked about as prophets and events such as the Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah as actual occurances.
Nowhere in scripture is there an argument that any of these various translations were considered suspect or in error. Our Lord Jesus, and certainly Paul, was familiar with the differences between the Hebrew and Greek versions. This didn't seem to trouble them in saying that "ALL scripture is inspired by God and profitable...".
Rather than a "Protestant invention" I would say there is more historical evidence that the Catholic Church came up with this idea to reinforced their dictates and authority. Inerrancy is a biblical concept-not a Protestant invention. I'm not familiar with any early church fathers who questioned the word of God. Bahnsen, Warfield, et al simply took the position our Lord Jesus and Paul took.