A LETTER TO THE BANNER OF TRUTH MAGAZINE CONCERNING TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT The following letter, to which I have made a couple of minor alterations for the sake of clarification, and added footnotes, was sent on August 18, 1974 to the Editor of The Banner of Truth Magazine, Iain Murray. He replied on August 23, saying, among other things, I appreciate your valuable letter received this morning..i have nothing at all to quarrel with you in your letter with regard to principles. The controversy over here centred very much on the issue, Are variant readings ever an improvement on the Received Text or is that text somehow a final authority? All we were concerned to contend for is the whole evidence 1 of which (David) Brown speaks and that when all that evidence is fairly considered there is still only minimal departure from the Received Text and that not affecting, or should I say not undermining, any doctrine of Scripture. But that view has been represented by friends here as opening the door to heresy etc. It seemed to us that no good would be done by prolonging the controversy here and I doubt if we should re-open it by publishing your letter at this stage..your detailed survey of David Brown I found particularly interesting. My letter I would hope indicates that it is an unfair misrepresentation of the friends of the Received Text, and of course a facile way to dispose of their position, for Iain Murray to state, as he has, that the point at issue is: Are variant readings ever an improvement on the Received Text or is that text somehow a final authority? 2 ******************** 1 It should be observed that Iain Murray s professed agreement with David Brown s contending for the whole evidence is unsustainable. It is a matter of some notoriety that those who favour a Greek New Testament Text of the form advocated by Donald Macleod in the Banner of Truth Magazine, with Iain Murray s support (see below), in fact have had to use a hypothetical or theoretical method, and not an evidential method, to uphold their position! If they were to follow David Brown, they would find, as he did, that the evidence supports the Received Text to a far greater extent than the modern texts which are clearly deferential to the so-called older uncial manuscripts. A theoretical method is a necessity for advocates of the modern texts. The Received Text exists without any historical testimony indicating that its origin was either spurious or questionable, it is represented by nearly 90 per cent of the manuscripts available, and was dominant as the Greek Vulgate in the churches for above 1500 years, until it was challenged just last century. In attempting to account for these circumstances, and to dispose of the other evidence in favour of the Received Text, supporters of modern texts have been forced to frame hypotheses. David Brown was well aware of these matters in his day. The fact that one party is evidential and the other necessarily and predominantly theoretical in its approach has counted against constructive debate on the whole subject. 2 Dean John Burgon long previously experienced the use of this technique which obscures the debate concerning the true text of the New Testament, remarking of it: Let no one at all events obscure the one question at issue, by asking, Whether we consider the Textus Receptus infallible? The merit or demerit of the Received Text has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the question. We care nothing about it. Any Text would show the old uncials perpetually at discord among themselves. To raise an irrelevant discussion, at the outset, concerning the Textus Receptus: to describe the haste with which Erasmus produced the first published edition of the N. T.: to make sport about the copies which he employed: all this kind of thing is the proceeding of one who seeks to mislead his readers: to throw dust into their eyes: to divert their attention from the problem actually before them: (it is) not..the method of a sincere lover of Truth. The Revision Revised, By John W. Burgon, pages 17-18, Conservative Classics, Paradise, Pa. USA, reprinted from the original edition of 1883.
2 I (Doug Trethewie) refer to our previous correspondence concerning the article The Bible and Textual Criticism by Donald Macleod in the June 1972 Issue (Number 105) of The Banner of Truth Magazine. I sent two letters dated August 5, 1972 and you replied on September 15, 1972. Since then of course Donald Macleod has written another article in the December, 1972 Issue (Number 111), in which you (Iain Murray) provided for him supportive editorial comment. From time to time I have considered the value of furnishing another letter and have now decided to do so. In your letter to me (of September 15, 1972) you said, The quotations you give (from Spurgeon) certainly indicate an important part of his mind but in the light of other things he wrote on the point at issue, i.e. whether the Received Text is always the final authority over against every variant reading, I think Mr. Macleod did not misrepresent Spurgeon. I had suggested he had. If you make the point at issue whether the Received Text is always the final authority etc. then you have too greatly simplified the problem that concerns me. I would not make that proposition the point at issue, and I had indicated that in my first letter, for I commented, neither would he (Robert L. Dabney) put it (the Received Text) above emendation, and I acknowledged that, It is certainly true that in individual cases Spurgeon did concede that the Revised Version (1881) had a better rendering than the Authorized Version (1611), and I would add that in some instances that this was for textual reasons which detracted from the Received Text. My concern is not for their comment upon isolated examples but to ascertain what their general attitude is. As far as Spurgeon is concerned I would like to illustrate the point at issue in my mind from the context in Macleod s first article where he introduces Spurgeon s comment. MacLeod quotes William Cunningham, for whom I have the greatest respect as a historian and commentator upon theology, as follows, Most of those who have examined this subject with attention have been of the opinion that, upon the whole Griesbach s text is more pure and correct, approaches nearer to the original text of the inspired authors than the textus receptus, and I am disposed to think that this opinion is correct (Theological Lectures, 1878, page 549). MacLeod continues immediately, In one of C. H. Spurgeon s sermons we see this principle (my emphasis) not only conceded but applied.. The point at issue in my mind therefore is does Spurgeon endorse the text of Griesbach? and further to this whether we should do so also? The materials I have to hand on this subject from Spurgeon are limited, however I would like to indicate one very significant area where I am confident Spurgeon would dissent from Griesbach. On page 213 of David Brown s commentary The Four Gospels, Banner of Truth, 1969, we are told, All the verses of this chapter (Mark 16), from the 9 th to the end, are regarded by Griesbach, Tischendorf, and Tregelles as no part of the original text of this Gospel. Yet the Textual Index to C. H. Spurgeon s Sermons on page 214 of Commenting and Commentaries, Banner of Truth, 1969, shows that Spurgeon preached eight times on verses selected from this area, and without giving specific references I am sure you will agree that in his sermons the quotation from Mark 16:16, He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, is frequent (if for no other reason than the fact that
3 Spurgeon was a strongly committed Baptist). As an additional point, I showed in my first letter that Spurgeon was quite firm in asserting that θεος is the correct reading in 1 Timothy 3:16, yet Griesbach s 2 nd Edition rejects this reading, Holding fast the Faithful Word, Trinitarian Bible Society Pamphlet. Before proceeding further with a discussion of Griesbach, I would like to make some observations upon the references to Dabney in MacLeod s December, 1972 article. In this article MacLeod gives the impression that not only Cunningham, Spurgeon, Warfield and Machen would support him, but that to a large extent also Dabney s position is in agreement with his (apart from Dabney s conviction that the B-Aleph text shows signs of Arian influence, or at least this point concerned Dabney more than it does MacLeod). For MacLeod says, I fear Dabney, too, has joined the Tractarians and the destroyers of the foundations! and Dabney believed that it (the Received Text) contained numerous errors. In view of what I will have to say about Dabney s attitude both to Griesbach and the Received Text in general, I would like to correct this last remark of MacLeod. For the question involved in my mind is all a matter of degree; not that the Received Text have absolute authority, but to what degree is it reliable? What Dabney said, as MacLeod quotes him, was, if it is confessedly erroneous in some places, and probably so in many. I think it is unfair to convert this into, Dabney believed that it contained numerous errors. (My emphases). Further to this point, in the context Dabney said, if the received text was confessedly printed from a few manuscripts and versions of inferior authority and age. The word if assumes some importance, for it would appear to me, from the other material given below on this point, that to some extent Dabney is presenting the comments of others by way of doubtful assertion, rather than giving his own settled convictions. I consider this to be so because he says at length in The Revised Version of the New Testament, Discussions Evangelical and Theological, Volume 1, pages 395-396, Banner of Truth, 1967: This over-innovating spirit as to the textus receptus is manifested by the unduly depreciating strain in which the revisers now represent its merits. The members of the last Assembly will recall a notable instance of this tone in the remarks made before it in commendation of the reviser s work. We were told that the textus receptus was virtually the text settled in Erasmus s latest edition, and that it was now known that he had collated but five or six cursive MSS of no antiquity and of small authority. Such was the whole showing made for it! And every member of the Assembly can bear witness that the popular impression made and apparently designed was, that our received text had all along been almost worthless as authority, and only right, as it were by chance! Now here we charge a suppressio veri. First it was not stated that the subsequent editors, as Stephens, who matured the textus receptus, had the advantage of collating the great Complutensian Polyglot, edited at royal expense, under the first scholar of his age, Cardinal Ximenes, from the collation of Spanish and Vatican MSS, and therefore checking or confirming the Erasmian text by independent witnesses from a different part of Christendom. Next, there was a suppression of this all-important fact, that since the development of the vast critical apparatus of our century, the textus receptus, whether by good fortune or by the critical sagacity of Erasmus or by the superintendence of a good providence, has been found to stand the ordeal amazingly well, has been accredited instead of discredited by the critical texts. So slight were the modifications in its readings clearly determined by the vast collations made by the critics of the immediately preceding generation (collations
4 embracing every one of the boasted uncials, except the Sinai MS), that of all the important various readings only one (1 John 5:7,) has been given up to excision by a unanimous consent of competent critics. Now, the state of facts is this: the question is, of the correctness of the textus receptus. The standard of comparison is the result of the most prudent and extensive collations. The evidence of correctness is simply in the agreement of that result with the received text. If there is that general agreement, as there is, the question of time, whether the text was printed before the result of the collation, does not touch the evidence. Now our charge is, that this history of the results of the critical work of the age is suppressed in order to disparage the received text. I consider that there is a significant difference between Dabney s remark above, So slight were the modifications in its readings clearly determined etc., and MacLeod s assessment, Dabney believed that it contained numerous errors, such that the overall opinion of Dabney is not as MacLeod has represented it. The above paragraph is also an effective counter to MacLeod s disparaging remarks made against the Received Text under 2. False Readings. on page 14 of the June, 1972 Banner of Truth Magazine, where he alleges, quite misleadingly, that the Received Text was based on something like a hundredth part of the Greek Manuscripts now at our disposal. Now to return to Griesbach. This is the main lead given by MacLeod as to the degree of alteration to the Received Text he would approve of. Well Dabney says of Griesbach, No respectable critic would now hazard his credit by proposing as many emendations as Griesbach; and it is said that Tischendorf, in his latest edition, restores a number of the received readings which he himself criticized in his earlier ones. Discussions, Volume 1, page 352. The acute and learned Irish divine, Nolan, in his Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, a work which defends the received text with matchless ingenuity and profound learning, also demolished Griesbach s system..he shows that Griesbach s preference for the Alexandrine codices, and for Origen their supposed editor, was utterly wrong.. Ibid., pages 353-354. It is well known that after Griesbach, a critic of revolutionary temper, had issued his text, departing widely from the received one, the steady tendency of later critics, as Hahn, Scholz, etc. guided by wider collations and better critical evidence, has been to return towards the textus receptus on many of the readings where Griesbach had departed from it. And now it is credibly stated that Tischendorf s latest edition, as compared with his earliest, exhibits the same tendency. Ibid., page 396. In this matter Dabney appears well informed, and yet he gives in an opinion quite contrary to William Cunningham. I consider therefore that it is quite reasonable to hesitate before committing oneself to Griesbach s position on the Greek text of the New Testament. Dabney s real opinion concerning the Received Text in general, which has been more than hinted at above, is not that it contains numerous errors, but as follows: But, after all, the weight of that probability brings back the critical conclusions to the theory of Nolan and Scholz, restoring the claims of the Κοινη Εκδοσις, or received text, to be a faithful one, and invalidating the claims of exclusive accuracy made by our recent critics in favour of the so-called oldest codices. Ibid., page 390.
5 A fairly conservative attitude to the Received Text, and certainly more so than Griesbach, is supported by David Brown s commentary The Four Gospels, to which you refer (us) in your Editorial Comment, A Necessary Controversy, in the December 1972 Issue (Number 111) of The Banner of Truth Magazine, page 9. I have made a survey of David Brown s critical comments upon the Greek text of the Gospels. In summary the following are the results: I found one hundred and two (102) such comments. Fifty five (55) are in favour of the Received Text with some definiteness. Four (4) are in favour of it diffidently. Twenty five (25) are against the Received Text with some definiteness. Eight (8) are against it diffidently. Four (4) suggest that the evidence for and against is equally balanced. Three (3) simply give a preference for a particular form of the Received Text. Two (2) refer to additions by Erasmus from the Latin Vulgate. One (1) is antagonistic to a Latin Vulgate rendering. To this list I could add an argument from silence in favour of the Received Text, David Brown leaving the Received Text as it stands in the remainder of his Commentary. For example at Matthew 6:4 openly is retained, at Luke 2:43 Joseph and Mary is retained, and at John 7:8 yet is retained. Of particular interest David Brown supports the Received Text at the following: Matthew 5:22, 19:17, Mark 9:44,46, 16:9-20, Luke 2:14, 9:54-56, 9:2,4, 23:34, John 1:18, 5:3,4, 7:53-8:11, 8:18, 17:24, and 21:1-25. Perhaps the only significant place where he goes against the Received Text is at Matthew 6:13. In his comment upon Matthew 19:17, on page 305, David Brown provides the following general remark: We have been the more full in our statement of this passage, because, while we hold that the true text of the New Testament must in every case be determined by the whole evidence which we possess, this passage affords a good example of the tendency of critics to be carried away, in opposition to their own principles, in favour of startling readings, and the necessity in such cases even though one should stand almost alone of expressing the result of the entire evidence in terms as strong as that evidence warrants. Thus I am not convinced that any one of Spurgeon, Dabney, or David Brown would follow Cunningham s endorsement of Griesbach s text and therefore to make the point at issue whether the Received Text is always the final authority over against every variant reading, is an oversimplification and obscures the real issue, which is to what degree do you recommend we depart from the Received Text? Griesbach is the name that has been given and the evidence that I have obtained suggests that this is too radical. It would appear that there is a spectrum of opinion upon this subject and that Griesbach, Wescott and Hort, and among the reformed Cunningham and Warfield, for example, represent a more radical opinion. Spurgeon, from what I have said above, is at least a little conservative, and after all he has made the following remarks: Do not needlessly amend our authorised version, page 31, Commenting and Commentaries, and He (John
6 Bunyan) had studied our Authorised Version, which will never be bettered, as I judge, till Christ shall come.., page 159, The Full Harvest, C. H. Spurgeon Autobiography: 2, Banner of Truth, 1973. The latter statement is indeed a stout challenge to translators and critical editors alike. David Brown is fairly conservative 3 and Dabney probably more so. My inclination is on the conservative side. Of course many more men have argued for and against the Received Text, but those who adopt the more radical line are not only contending with the ones who brook no alteration of the Received Text, but also with a conservative group who accept a limited emendation 4, based upon the whole evidence, as David Brown remarks. In presenting my opinion to you in this matter I acknowledge your position, though I differ from it, and that is why I have written. I would not question your orthodoxy or faithfulness to Christ because of this difference. As a parting observation I have noted that S. M. Houghton, who has written those delightful Personal Reminiscences in recent numbers of the Magazine, has written a Preface in the booklet, A Modern Defence of the Historic Christian Faith, The RSV challenged, by F. A. Rayner M.A. (Cantab.), B.A. Hons. (London), The Bible League, 1972. In the Preface Houghton warmly supports the author and remarks in support of the Authorised Version that, Second, it is widely claimed that the 1611 Version is based on documents that can now be proved in part faulty. On pages 29-32 Rayner presents a fairly standard outline defence of the Received Text 5. 3 Now, Dr. Brown, like all his Scottish brethren (in the New Testament Revision Company, 1870-1880), tended strongly towards the conservative side. The five members who originally represented Scotland the Bishop of St. Andrews, Drs. Eadie, Brown, Milligan, and Roberts, were, with a good deal of cross-voting for a time, to be ranked among the upholders of the text and translation as they stand. Rev. Professor Roberts, D.D., University of St. Andrews, cited in David Brown A Memoir, by W. G. Blaikie, Hodder and Stoughton, 1898, pages 218-219. (Emphasis mine). Although David Brown did see some merit in the Revised Version, the same writer affirms of him, On the very last occasion on which I saw him (then above his ninetieth year), he almost vehemently repudiated the principles maintained by Dr. Hort and his followers. Ibid. 4 In this vein Wilbur N Pickering remarks, When all the evidence has been fully assimilated so as to make possible a definitive decision for each variant, the Textus Receptus will probably be found to need correction in between 500 and 1,000 places throughout the whole New Testament, the great majority of the errors being of a minor sort many of them would not make a difference in a translation. By contrast, any of the (modern) critical editions will be found to differ some 5,000 times from the Traditional Text a large number being serious differences. True or False, edited by David Otis Fuller, Grand Rapids International Publications, 1973, page 295. 5 At a later date than my letter Iain Murray has written of S. M. Houghton, Virtually all books published by (The Banner of Truth) Trust in Britain since 1960 which had to be type-set passed through Mr Houghton s hands. In the case of new titles he often saw them first in manuscript form when suggestions and improvements could be proposed to the author. A Tribute to a Dear friend: S. M. Houghton, page 14, Banner of Truth Magazine, No. 290, November 1987. Iain Murray remarks later in the same article, In so far as Mr Houghton had specialist knowledge of any one field it could be said that this field was the text and transmission of the English Bible. He knew it thoroughly from Wycliffe onwards Caxton s Golden Legend, Tyndale s New Testament, The Bishops Bible, The Breeches Bible, The Geneva Bible and all else which preceded the Authorised Version of 1611 were thoroughly familiar to him.he held to the conviction that no 20 th century version deserved to take the place of the Authorised Version and it saddened him greatly to see that well of English undefiled disparaged and set aside. He did not reject all textual criticism (as some defenders of the Authorised Version have been prone to do) but he was unconvinced of the alleged greater accuracy of the eclectic Greek text underlying modern translations For more than
7 twenty years (his) scholarship (with respect to scripture) was clear enough for anyone to see in his work as Editor of The Bible League Quarterly. Ibid., page18. As I have tried to indicate in my letter, I would contend again that Iain Murray s reference here in parentheses to some defenders of the Authorised Version is unhelpful and misleading. It is clear as day that S. M. Houghton was extremely conservative, and all strength to him for it, with respect to the New Testament text.
8 Appendix 1 A Survey of David Brown s Critical Comments upon the Greek Text of The Gospels. Collected from The Four Gospels by David Brown, Banner of Truth 1969. Text Page Comment Matt 1:25 4 Fav Matt 5:4 26 Fav Matt 5:11 28 Fav Matt 5:22 32 Fav Matt 5:36 36 = Matt 6:4 38 Ag Matt 6:13 41 Ag Matt 7:14 49 Fav Matt 10:8 61 Ag LVE Mark 7:8 85 Fav Matt 19:17 305 Fav 6 Matt 19:19 98 Fav Matt 21:31 103 Fav Matt 22:7 106 Fav Matt 23:7 109 Fav Matt 25:13 117 Ag Matt 25:31 120 Fav Matt 27:24 466 Ag Sl Matt 27:64 130 Ag Mark1:2 137 = Mark 1:37 140 Fav Mark 1:38 140 Fav Mark 5:1 149 Fav Mark 5:11 150 Ag Mark 5:23 153 Ag Mark 5:27 157 Ag Mark 6:51 162 Fav Mark 7:15,16 85 Fav Mark 7:31 166 Fav Sl Mark 8:10 169 Fav Mark 9:26 184 Fav Mark 9:28 174 Fav Mark 9:44,46 176 Fav Mark 9:49 177 Fav Mark 11:8 317 Fav Sl Mark 12:23 186 Ag Sl Mark 12:29 187 Fav Mark 12:32 188 Ag Mark 12:38 189 Fav Mark 13:2 191 Fav Mark 13:5 191 Fav 6 See here for David Brown s general comment on Textual Criticism. Mark 14:1 198 Ag Text Page Comment Mark 14:51,52 460 Ag Sl Mark 15:28 470 Ag Mark: 16:9-20 213 Fav Luke 1:28 219 Ag LV Luke 1:28 219 Fav Luke 1:35 219 Fav Luke 1:75 223 Ag Luke 2:12 226 Ag Luke 2:14 227 Fav Luke 2:22 228 Ag Luke 2:38 231 Fav Luke 2:40 231 Fav Luke 7:19 250 Fav Luke 7:31 251 Ag Luke 9:54-56 264 Fav Luke 10:22 266 Rec Pref Luke 11:2 268 Fav Luke 11:2 269 Fav Luke 11:4 269 Fav Luke 15:26 290 Rec Pref Luke 16:9 293 Fav Sl Luke 17:36 301 Ag Sl Luke 18:1 301 Ag Sl Luke 19:40 316 Fav Luke 23:34 470 Fav Luke 24:53 344 Fav John 1:18 350 Fav John 1:28 352 Ag John 1:41 354 Ag John 1:51 355 Fav John 3:25 367 Ag LVE John 4:35 374 Fav John 5:1 379 Fav John 5:3,4 380 Fav John 5:16 381 Fav John 6:39 388 Ag John 6:40 388 Fav Sl John 7:26 395 Ag John 7:33 396 Ag John 7:40 397 Ag John 7:53-8:11 400,486 Fav John 8:18 406 =
9 Text Page Comment John 9:8 407 Ag John 10:14 412 Fav John 12:22 423 Ag Sl John 13:2 427 Fav John 14:2 433 Ag John 14:5 434 Fav John 14:14 435 Fav John 16:16 446 Fav John 17:1 449 Ag Text Page Comment John 17:11 451 Ag John 17:24 454 Fav John 19:14 468 Fav John 19:24 204 Rec Pref John 19:35 476 Ag John 20:16 479 Ag Sl John 21:1-25 482 Fav John 21:17 484 = John 21:25 486 Ag Sl Key Number Fav In favour of the Received text with some definiteness. 55 Fav Sl In favour of the Received text diffidently. 4 Ag Against the Received text with some definiteness. 25 Ag Sl Against the Received text diffidently. 8 = The evidence for and against is equally balanced. 4 Rec Pref Preference given to a particular form of the Received Text. 3 Ag LVE Against an addition from the Latin Vulgate by Erasmus. 2 Ag LV Against a Latin Vulgate rendering. 1 Total 102
10 Appendix 2 Remarks of C H Spurgeon For that Revised Version I have but little care as a general rule, holding it to be by no means an improvement upon our common Authorised Version. It is a useful thing to have it for private reference, but I trust it will never be regarded as the standard English translation of the New Testament. The Revised Version of the Old Testament is so excellent, that I am half afraid it may carry the Revised New Testament upon its shoulders into general use. I sincerely hope that this may not be the case, for the result would be a decided loss. Sermon on John 10:14,15, Treasury of the Bible, page 432, Volume 2, New Testament, Zondervan, 1968. Never did a translation of the New Testament fail more completely than this Revised Version has done as a book for general reading: but as an assistant to the student it deserves honourable mention, despite its faults. Sermon on 1 John 3:1, Ibid., page 519, Volume 4, New Testament. The first sentence is GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH. I believe that our version is the correct one, but the fiercest battlings have been held over this sentence. It is asserted that the word Theos is a corruption for Os ; so that, instead of reading God was manifest in the flesh, we should read, who was manifest in the flesh. There is very little occasion for fighting about this matter, for if the text does not say God was manifest in the flesh, who does it say was manifest in the flesh? Either a man, or an angel, or a devil. Does it tell us that a man was manifest in the flesh? Assuredly that cannot be its teaching, for every man is manifest in the flesh, and there is no sense whatever in making such a statement concerning any mere man, and then calling it a mystery. Was it an angel, then? But what angel was ever manifest in the flesh? And if he were, would it be at all a mystery that he should be seen of angels? Is it a wonder for an angel to see an angel? Can it be that the devil was manifest in the flesh? If so, he has been received up into glory, which, let us hope, is not the case. Well, if it was neither a man, nor an angel, nor a devil, who was manifest in the flesh, surely he must have been God; and so, if the word be not there, the sense must be there, or else nonsense. We believe that, if criticism should grind the text in a mill, it would get out of it no more and no less than the sense expressed by our grand old version. God himself was manifest in the flesh. Sermon on 1 Timothy 3:16, Ibid., page 788, Volume 3, New Testament.