See a local listing for it here
AS TO TEXT-CRITICISM OP THE NEW TESTAMENT By John A. Broadus, D.D., Louisville, Ky.
A vague fear of Textual Criticism has often been widely felt. When the great English scholars of two centuries ago announced that they had collected some thirty thousand variations in the Greek text of the New Testament, the fact was quickly seized upon by English Deists as showing that the New Testament was utterly unreliable, and awakened great alarm among many timid Christian scholars. True, the unrivalled Bentley at once stated the matter correctly: "Make your 30,000 as many more, if numbers of copies can ever reach that sum; all the better to a knowing and a serious reader, who is thereby more richly furnished to select what he sees genuine. But even put them into the hands of a knave or fool, and yet, with the most sinistrous and absurd choice, he shall not extinguish the light of any one chapter, nor so disguise Christianity, but that every feature of it will still be the same." But it naturally required some time for scholars in general to understand the matter. To this day many good people will ask, Do you not think that probably Divine Providence has preserved the written word from corruption? The true answer is, Yes, but this has been done exactly by means of the numerous variations. When we find a classic writer, or an early Christian Father, preserved in only a single ancient copy, it is a hopeless task to remove all the inevitable corruptions of that copy. But the New Testament being preserved in a great number of Greek copies, in many early versions, and numerous citations by the Fathers, it is possible by the careful study of these to approximate very nearly the true text. Thus we have learned to be thankful for that great mass of variations which used to be thought so alarming, and which now we might raise to five or six times the number to which Bentley referred.
But the stubborn hostility to change, which unfairly calls itself conservatism, still makes an outcry of alarm whenever the fact becomes prominent that the commonly received text contains serious errors. Accordingly, when the Revised New Testament was published, and popular attention was drawn to its somewhat numerous changes of text, many well-meaning persons were really alarmed, and not a few are to this day neglecting the great benefits they might derive from this improved text and version, simply because they "do not like " the textual changes. There are many who regard textual critics as showing a lack of faith in the Bible, when, in fact, this kind of critical work has been mainly done at every period by men who were devout believers. In proportion as we really love the Bible, we must certainly wish to know just what constitutes the Bible, and exactly what it says in every passage. Scholars have repeatedly given general assurance of late years to the same effect as Bentley in the language above quoted. But it may be worth while to state the principal details.
Take now the more progressive school in Text-criticism applied to the New Testament, and let us see how far its results affect the theological or the ecclesiastical teachings of the New Testament.
As to the doctrine of the Trinity, we have certainly lost what used to seem a very clear and complete proof-text. The passage in 1 John 5:7, "There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one," is beyond all question spurious. It apparently arose from "spiritualizing" the three mentioned in the actual text, viz., the Spirit, the water, and the blood, so as to make them mean the Father, the Holy Ghost, and the atoning Savior. A passage of Augustine, quoted by Tischendorf, shows exactly how this may have taken place. But, at any rate, the passage is certainly spurious, and there would be no more propriety in using it as a proof-text for the Trinity than in so using our famous long-metre Doxology. But, then, ample proof of the doctrine of the Trinity remains.
A favorite proof-text for the divinity of Christ is not wholly lost, but seriously modified. In 1 Tim. 3:16 we cannot possibly any longer read, "God was manifest in the flesh," but "He who was manifested in the flesh." This distinctly implies our Lord's pre-existence, but does not at all affirm His divinity. By the way, Dr. C. J.Vaughan has an excellent sermon upon the true text of this passage in a volume published a few years ago upon texts altered in the Revised New Testament. In Acts 20:28, while the probabilities are in favor of the common text, "to feed the church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood," yet there are strong testimonies supporting "the church of the Lord," and the passage can no longer be used with very great confidence as a proof-text for the divinity of Christ. On the other hand, in John 1:18, "the only-begotten son" should probably give place (as in the margin of the Revised Version) to "God only-begotten." This adds something to the evidence of our Lord's divinity, but its force is lessened by uncertainty as to the text, and also by the fact that the phrase, "God only-begotten," would admit of being interpreted in an Arian sense, and Arius himself appears to have so used it. On the whole, then, something has been lost from familiar proof-texts as to this great point of theology, but there is an abundance of proof-passages which all acknowledge to be genuine. That this is not merely the judgment of a Trinitarian may be shown by the oft-quoted language of Dr. Ezra Abbot, the lamented Unitarian professor at Harvard: "It may be safely said that no Christian doctrine or duty rests on those portions of the text which are affected by differences in the manuscripts; still less is anything essential in Christianity touched by the various readings. They do, to be sure, affect the bearing of a few passages on the doctrine of the Trinity; but the truth or falsity of the doctrine by no means depends upon the reading of those passages."
As to the Holy Spirit, we lose from 1 Peter 1:22, which, instead of reading "in obeying the truth through the Spirit," is now without the last words; and we gain in Acts 16:7, where "the Spirit suffered them not," has become "the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not," corresponding to Romans 8:9, "if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."
We might not ourselves regard ecclesiastical questions as among "the essential doctrines of Christianity." But, as some persons think otherwise, it may be well to show what modification the more advanced Text-criticism makes in passages bearing upon these questions.
In Acts 2:47, we can no longer read "added to the Church," but "added to them." The word church does not occur in this book until v:11. In Acts 9:31, we read not the plural, "Then had the churches rest," etc., but the singular: "So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace, being edified; and .... was multiplied."
The last twelve verses of Mark must now be regarded, we think, as of doubtful genuineness. It is very easy to make positive assertions on one side or the other, but the combined external and internal evidence is curiously divided, and it is not possible to make a sober and confident decision. In this state of things one cannot greatly rely on Mark 16:16, "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but that he that disbelieveth shall be condemned," to prove whatever it may have heretofore been regarded as teaching; and so as to the promise in verses 17 and 18 as to healing the sick, taking up serpents, drinking poison, etc. In Mark 1:10, the correct Greek text, is "coming out of the water," while in Matt, 3:16, it. is "from the water."
In 1 Cor. 11:24, the word "broken" must undoubtedly be omitted, and we read, "This is my body, which is for you." Something seemed to be wanting here, and the term broken may have been suggested to early students or copyists by 10:16, " The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ?" So in 1 Cor. 11:29, we no longer read "he that eatheth and drinketh unworthily," etc., but "he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body." It may be quite a relief for pastors to be rid of this term "unworthily," which by sensitive and uninstructed persons has often been greatly misinterpreted.
If this list of passages seems meagre, that only makes plain the fact that modern Text-criticism has no alarming results as regards anything essential to Christianity.
No comments:
Post a Comment