_12_The Integrity of the Biblical Text

In the chapter “Objections to the Doctrine of Inspiration,” where we treated the argument that the variae lectiones disprove the inspiration of Scripture, we had come to the conclusion that the integrity of the Biblical text is assured both a priori, by the promise of Christ, and a posteriori, by scientific investigation. This chapter adds some particulars and emphasizes what has already been said.

1. Whether the original Hebrew text contained the vowel points, as most of the older Lutheran dogmaticians assume,140 or was written only in consonants, as Luther very emphatically asserts,141 is a historical question which does not affect either the inspiration of Scripture or the integrity of the text. It is no ingenious argument when modern theologians quite generally claim that the assumption of Verbal Inspiration necessarily drove the Lutheran dogmaticians to the further assumption of the original writing of the vowel points.142 Luther, as we have seen, emphatically teaches Verbal Inspiration in the fullest form and still denies just as emphatically that the vowel points were in the original text.

2. We would draw particular attention to the manifest care with which God kept watch over the integrity of the Biblical text of the New Testament. Verily, we are face to face with a miracle of divine preservation of the text if only half of that be true which, according to L. Schulze, endangered the transmission of the original text. He writes (Handbuch der Theol. Wissenschaften I, 489): “The negligence of the copyists, which Cicero already deplored in his day (Ad Quint., fr. 3, 5), Clemens Alexandrinus (Str. 4, 6) and Origen (In Matt. 19, 19, t. XV.) also deplore. The variants are: 1) accidental; since the fact that it was literally God’s Word was not stressed in those days 143 and particularly in private use precise exactness was not demanded, the variants occurred partly through the negligence of the copyists (omissions, reduplications, transposition of words, confounding of letters, the latter being favored by the uncials and the scriptio continua); partly through the misunderstanding of the dictation (iotacism, e. g., for , Rom. 2:17; for , 1 Tim. 5:21; in enumerations there occurred omissions or transposition or substitution of synonyms; e.g., Rom. 1:30-31 and Gal. 5:18-23); and partly through misunderstanding of what was heard or read, e. g., in the case of abbreviations. Add 2) the variants were intentional. Through the application of scientific methods the attempt was made to improve the language according to definite grammatical rules, or to clarify dark passages by additions or changes (particularly of unfamiliar expressions), or to guard against (dogmatic) misconceptions, or to correct statements held to be erroneous, or to harmonize passages by additions from oral tradition or from a comparison with the parallel passages (particularly in the Gospels and in the case of quotations from the LXX). This was done both by the copyists and often also by the correctors. From these learned transactions there resulted 3) glosses, which, first placed on the margin, later got into the text, either with or instead of the original words; likewise from the liturgical supplements of the lectionaries, where changes became necessary because of the unsuitable beginning or end of the pericopes. And, in addition, the text was 4) arbitrarily altered according to the established translations.” Now, if in spite of all this, as L. Schulze himself remarks, the original form of the text, often as it was copied, was not corrupted “in essential points,” we see in such preservation, as Philippi pointed out (Glaubenslehre I, 115 f.), a miracle of divine providence. The fact is that the changes in the text which occurred in the course of eighteen centuries are so insignificant that in the seminary we can use the various modern critical editions and the textus receptus side by side without any difficulty. Even if we did not have the results of modern textual criticism and had to rely solely on the textus receptus, on which practically all of Luther’s translation and the Authorized Version are based, the Christian Church would not be the poorer in the knowledge of the divine truth. What the Church lacks in our day is not a reliable text of the Bible, but the faith in the sufficiently reliable text.

3. The following remarks are intended to allay somewhat the animosity which the discussion of questions of textual criticism usually produces. In the case of professional textual critics, who disagree for “scientific reasons,” this animosity is readily explained. Even racial prejudices contribute toward such animosity. Tischendorf should not be blamed much for exaggerating somewhat the importance of his Sinaitic find (). Some belonging to other nationalities have acted similarly. Also the English text critics, and the text critics in general, disagree among themselves. Bruce says: “Experts in modern criticism … in many cases do not accord, and their results cannot be regarded as final.” 144 But also among the theologians who are considered to be “laymen” in textual criticism (Bruce counts himself as such, op. cit., p. 56), some have become unduly — and we think quite unnecessarily — perturbed, especially in connection with the passage 1 John 5:7-8. All are agreed that this passage is not needed to establish the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. There is more than ample proof for this doctrine in numerous other passages. Tischendorf himself says: “It is a very grave error if some imagine that what the Church of Christ teaches on the Holy Trinity depends for the most part on these veiled words of John” (quoted in The Exp. Greek Test., on our passage). In our opinion the decision as to the authenticity or spuriousness of these words depends on the understanding of certain words of Cyprian, which are about two hundred years older than our oldest codices. We find these words in Cyprian’s De Unitate Ecclesiae (in my edition: Erasmus, Basle, 1525, p. 164): “Dicit Dominus: ‘Ego et Pater unum sumus’ “ (“the Lord says: ‘I and the Father are One’ “). Cyprian is quoting John 10:30. And he immediately adds: “Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est: ‘Et tres unum sunt’ “ (“and again it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost: ‘And the Three are One’ “). Now, those who assert that Cyprian is here not quoting the words 1 John 5:7, are obliged to show that the words of Cyprian: “Et tres unum sunt,” applied to the three Persons of the Trinity, are found elsewhere in the Scriptures than 1 John 5. Griesbach counters that Cyprian is here not quoting from Scripture, but giving his own allegorical interpretation of the three witnesses on earth: “The Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.” That will hardly do. Cyprian states distinctly that he is quoting Bible passages, not only in the words: “I and the Father are one,” but also in the words: “And again it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.” These are, in our opinion, the objective facts.

Others, like Huther in Meyer’s Commentary, say that the words of Cyprian “appear” to refer to 1 John 5:7. But we obtain the right to speak of a mere “appearance” only by showing that the words referred to are found at some other place in Scripture. Huther offers no further proof for his assumption of an “appearance” than the bare statement: ‘The singular quotation in Cyprian finds its explanation in interpreting the words ‘The Spirit, the water, and the blood’ symbolically of the Trinity.” But no matter how much Cyprian otherwise allegorizes in the doctrine of the Trinity, in these words he does not allegorize, but he quotes Scripture: “Et iterum … scriptum est.” Now, since the words of Cyprian are about two hundred years older than the oldest preserved codices (B and ), it is not fair to say that those are out of date who consider the words referring to the three witnesses in heaven to be genuine (e. g., Besser, Stoeckhardt, Sander, Mayer, and others).

The further assertion has been made that when Cyprian used the words “Et itcrum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est: ‘et tres unum sunt’ “ he was quoting v. 8. But v. 8 does not have the words: , “‘unum sunt,” but , “‘in unum’ sunt,” “they agree in one.” But since Cyprian knew his Greek, the assumption that he might have rendered the with “they are one” is farfetched.

While we have always deplored the necessity of spending so much of the time of our regular dogmatical course on the textual discussion of 1 John 5:7-8, it has resulted in a twofold practical benefit. For one thing it gave us an opportunity to point out, with Tischendorf, that the doctrine of the Trinity is in no wise dependent on the genuineness of this passage, since there is more than enough proof for this doctrine in other passages. In the second place, it gave us the opportunity to inculcate the rule, never to attempt to use this passage in disputing with Unitarians. If this were done, the Unitarians would at once shift the discussion over to the field of textual criticism, with the result that the status controversiae, the doctrine of the Trinity, would be lost sight of and the public would receive the impression that the Scriptural foundation for this doctrine is rather weak.

May we be permitted to make a final remark that no theologian is risking his scientific reputation by whatever position he takes in the question of the genuineness of our passage. The “notoriously spurious,” which modern theologians are quick to use in connection with this passage, does not prove their scientific superiority; but rather the opposite. Whoever is somewhat familiar with the true state of affairs cultivates a more modest language. Bloomfield remarks in his commentary that on this passage “volumes have been written by some of the most eminent scholars.” He gives the names of the men who stand for the “pro” and the “contra” in this matter; then he comments, as Luther also did, on both versions; and finally he takes the well-known position of Bengel. He closes with the words: “On again examining, for this second edition of the present work, the evidence for and against the words, I still think that much of the mystery in which Bishop Middleton considers the passage as enveloped has yet to be cleared away; and my impression is … that, from the peculiar character of the evidence, external and internal (even after all that has been effected to strengthen the internal evidence, by the very learned Bishop Burgess),145 we are neither authorized to receive the passage as indubitably genuine, nor, on the other hand, to reject it indubitably as spurious, but to wait for further evidence.” But “waiting for further evidence” does not appeal to most modern theologians, including most of the recent textual critics. They want to consider the question as closed. But the hope voiced by Bengel that old documents might still be discovered that would throw further light on our text might not be so foolish in view of recent discoveries.

But whether new discoveries are made or not, the Church of God stands on a sufficiently firm Scripture text, as we know a priori from Christ’s promise (John 8:31-32; 17:20) and a posteriori by scientific investigation. In every age the Church of God, which is built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, had in its possession the Bible text which enabled it to carry out its commission to teach all nations all things that Christ had commanded. Luther could say in his day: “The Word they still shall let remain.” Athanasius and Augustine could say the same thing in their days. We say the same thing in our day. One is saddened by the frivolity, the product of ignorance, with which nowadays the results of modern textual criticism are made accessible to the general public in so-called “scientifico-popular” writings. We read in one such book:146 “We have been dwelling in the traditional text as in an ancient, comfortable house; the spirit of our fathers ruled there and made it comfortable and cozy. Now come the building inspectors and condemn the building and demand that it be vacated. But are the building inspectors responsible for its dilapidated and decayed condition? Should we not rather thank them for getting us out alive from the tumbledown building? Saving lives is the business of textual criticism.” When the old Bible text is thus compared to a dilapidated house, from which speedy flight is necessary to save the life of the Church, this must cause great confusion among the general public, which is not in a position to investigate the matter. It seems that the true state of affairs was entirely hidden from this writer. On occasion he calls the text on which Luther based his translation the “corrupted text of Erasmus.” He does not consider that the newer or the newest critical editions of the text differ so little from the “corrupted text of Erasmus” that both texts can be used side by side without any real conflict. We have grave misgivings about The Expositor’s Greek Testament, because its theology is thoroughly modern, but we take great satisfaction in these two things: First, that in this commentary of five volumes the textus receptus has been made the basis of the exposition. That will in a measure check the irresponsible talk that we must at once move out of the “dilapidated” house of the old text if we do not want to lose the foundation of our faith. The second is the declaration of the editor in chief that he would rather await the “final results” of modern textual criticism before he discards the textus receptus.