This dissertation is an attempt to think to some philosophical effect about the Christian doctrine of Scripture. It explores, defends and develops an Incarnational model for the doctrine of Scripture. Such a model has been widely criticized, but these criticisms are not well-founded. Properly understood, the model provides a helpful heuristic for mapping the terrain in debates about the doctrine of Scripture.   I start by detailing the linguistic framework I will assume in the dissertation. In Chapter 1, I offer in some detail, an overview of a pair of programs called semantic minimalism and speech act pluralism (MSPAP). After situating MSPAP in its philosophical context, I defend it from one type of extant criticism, supplementing the defense with recent work on the concept of salience.   In Chapter 2, I turn to the Incarnational model itself and survey the kinds of critical responses it has drawn in contemporary theological discussion. The arguments one there finds, I argue, all fail. These criticisms, though unsuccessful, do highlight how poorly the model has been articulated, which suggests that a fresh statement of the model is in order. This I provide, arguing that the Incarnational model works the way all models work: by raising to salience shared structure. I then explain how the Incarnational model thus construed can be put to use in articulating an approach to the humanity and divinity of the text. The data that provides the basis for our understanding of the humanity of the Scriptural text comes primarily from critical biblical scholarship; the data that provides the basis for our understanding of the divinity of the Scriptural text comes from a largely conceptual approach to the attributes of Scripture. In the following two chapters, I discuss two of these attributes: authority (Chapter 3) and perspicuity (Chapter 4). In Chapter 3, I examine the most recent analysis of biblical authority, arguing for an alternative conception. The proposal for which I argue is consistent with several prominent theological discussions of Scripture's authority and can be extended so as to supplement them. In Chapter 4, I offer an interpretation of the traditional Reformed position on the perspicuity of the text in terms of salience (as introduced in Chapter 1) and authority (as defended in Chapter 3). I consider the most persistent objection to Scriptural perspicuity and argue that it fails.  In Chapter 5, I apply the findings of the previous chapters to develop an example of the Incarnational model: a kenotic model. Widely held (though not by that name) the kenotic approach to Scripture emphasizes the humanity of the text, accepting the findings of critical scholarship, opting instead to revise whatever pre-theoretic conceptions we might have the divinity of the text. I examine the implications of a kenotic approach for both authority and perspicuity and argue that, contrary to what is typically argued, the problems kenoticism faces are most serious when it comes to the perspicuity of the text. In the Conclusion, I draw the dissertation to a close by suggesting that a compositional model may fair better than its kenotic counterpart.