The Historical Critical Infraction
Via Pieper’s Dogmatics Volume 1, p.366
A page from Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209 shows a medieval scribe (the marginal note between columns one and two) criticizing a predecessor for changing the text: "Fool and knave, leave the old reading, don't change it!"
In fact, we go astray in our exegesis of Scripture as soon as we think that the historical background given in Scripture needs to be supplemented by material from secular history and permit this supplementation to have any decisive influence on our exegesis. Such a procedure, too, would be an infraction of the truth that Scripture shines in its own light and would introduce also an element of uncertainty into the interpretation of Scripture, for who will guarantee he correctness of the background taken only from secular history? The Bible is the only book in the world in which no historical errors can occur. – The most flagrant misuse of contemporary history is committed when men undertake to correct, or cast doubt upon, the historical data of Scripture on the basis of “contemporary history.” We have pointed out above how modern theologians, who do not accept the Bible as God’s Word, correct, or at least cast doubt upon, the historical statements of Scripture by means of contemporary history furnished by Josephus. We close… with Luther’s oft-repeated admonition never to substitute a human interpretation for the “text,” i.e., for the words of Scripture themselves. He says: “With the text and from the foundation of the Holy Scriptures I have silenced and slain all my opponents. For whoever is well founded and practiced in the text will become a good and fine theologian, since a passage, or text, from the Bible has more weight than many commentators and glosses, which are not strong and sound and do not help in the controversy.” (Erl. 57, p.7.)