Two friends were discussing the nature of Charlie the square over a coffee one afternoon. Both had a picture of Charlie with them at the discussion. Charlie had four equal length sides that intersected at ninety degree angles. Both pictures of Charlie that each friend brought were congruent.
Friend 1: I wanted to ask you about the idea that Charlie is a circle without error called Lola. I am looking at my picture of Charlie and your picture of Charlie and I have to say that no matter how you look at it, Charlie is square. In fact, I have never seen any evidence that Charlie is a circle called Lola. Can you help me understand where you get the idea that Charlie is Lola?
Friend 2: I agree that what we both see is Charlie the Square. However, in order for us to trust Charlie's Squareness, that Charlie is reliable and has authority as a Square, you have to understand that in Charlie's original form, Charlie was a perfect circle without any error at all. In other words, if Charlie was never Lola the Circle without Error, then we cannot trust that Charlie the Square is reliable or has any authority with respect to Squareness.
Friend 1: That's the part I don't understand. Why must there be a Lola the Circle without Error in order for us to trust that Charlie the square is what we both agree it is; that it is reliable as a Square? First, we have never seen Lola and second, if Charlie faithfully represents Lola, why do we need to talk about Lola at all?
Friend 2: If Charlie the Square was never Lola the Circle without Error then we have to admit that there is no error-free source for Charlie the Square. If there is no source for Charlie that is without error, namely Lola the Circle, then how can we say that we can measure anything accurately with Charlie the Square? That makes no sense.
Friend 1: What makes no sense to me is that we need a Circle in order to say that the square we have by which to measure things is accurate and authoritative in matters of Squareness. Both of us have Charlie the Square and both of us use that Square in the essentially the same way to measure things accurately. Isn't it therefore a matter of faith that Charlie the Square is the best thing that we have to make the most accurate measurements? It doesn't mean that we should not keep trying to make Charlie the Square as accurate as possible by continuing to calibrate it, but it makes no sense to say that we need to imagine a Lola the Circle without Error in order to be sure that Charlie the Square is the most accurate tool with which to measure things, especially when we will simply never have access to Lola the Circle without Error with which to measure or re-calibrate Charlie!
Friend 2: I can see how you want to believe that, but Charlie the Square must have a source without error in order to be reliable much less authoritative. What you are saying is that anyone could have made Charlie the Square one day and if anyone made it, how do we know it has any authority? Even if we cannot access Lola the Circle without Error directly, it must have existed in order for us to continue to rely on Charlie the Square for any measurement. Further, we must therefore assume that Charlie is a faithful representation of that error-free source.
Friend 1: But aren't all representations by nature imperfect? Otherwise all representations would not actually represent anything, they would be the same exact thing as that which the represent! So how is the text we have inerrant as a representation of something?
Friend 2: Because it is a faithful representation of Lola the Circle without Error. Would you rather it represent something with error? Then what Charlie the Square has no authority or reliability with which to measure anything!
Let Charlie the Square be the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic manuscripts and fragments of the Old and New Testaments to which we currently have access. Let Lola the Circle without Error be the postulation of the Original Autographs. It is a contradiction in terms to suggest that there must be such innerrant/infallible autographs in order for the text to have authority while at the same time admitting that current manuscripts and translations "faithfully represent the original". However, any faithful representation is an admission that we are simply trusting that Scripture is inerrant not that it actually is. It is like admitting that we are all looking at a square, but trusting that this square faithfully represents a circle.
Related posts:
