12. The integrity of the biblical text.
This subject had already to be treated under the section "Objections to the Inspiration of Scripture" (pp. 286 ff.), because the fact of variae lectiones is asserted as a main ground against the inspiration of Scripture. We concluded there that the integrity of the biblical text is established both a priori, by Christ's promise, and a posteriori, by scientific research. Details need to be added here, and what has already been said needs to be emphasized.
1. Whether the original Hebrew text was punctuated, as most Lutheran dogmatists assume,1128) or not punctuated, as Luther very firmly insists,1129) is a historical question,
1128) Thus Gerhard, Loci, L. De Script. S., in great detail, § 334-353.
1129) Luther says of the puncta vocalia: sunt recens inventum unb fiigt tjinsu: Quare ergo non admodum moror superstitiones istas grammaticas, quanquam pro nobis stat grammatica, si recte punctetur. (Opp. exeg. Erl. XXIII, 410 sq. St. L. VI, 195.) In his Commentary on Genesis (op. cit., XI, 85; St. L. II, 1838) Luther says: Non multum curo supra et infra Rabbinorum; melius esset legere Scripturam iuxta intra. Ac Novum Testamentum praebet nobis intellectum intralem, non superiorem et inferiorem. Before Luther says: Tempore Hieronymi nondum sane videtur fuisse usus punctorum, sed absque illis tota Biblia lecta sunt. Luther obviously fears that by assuming that puncta vocalia esse textui coaeva, what is outside of Scripture would be made the principle of interpretation of Scripture.
409 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 338-339]
which has nothing to do either with the inspiration of Scripture or with the integrity of the text. It is not a witty argument when modern theologians rather generally assert that the Lutheran dogmatists, by their acceptance of verbal inspiration, must necessarily have been driven away to the adoption of the original spelling of the vowel points.1130) Luther teaches verbal inspiration in the most accomplished form and decisiveness, as we have seen, and yet just as decisively rejects the originality of the vowel points.
We would like to point out how clearly God's hand has watched over the integrity of the biblical text of the New Testament. We truly stand before a strange miracle of divine preservation of the text, if only half of what according to L. Schulze's account1131) threatened the transmission of the original text is true. L. Schulze writes: " The negligence of the copyists, which already Cicero complained about for his time (Ad Quint., fr. 3, 5), is also complained about by Clemens Alexandrinus (str. 4, 6) and Origen (In Matt. 19, 19, t. XV). The variants are: 1. accidental, since at first one did not strictly adhere to literalness of the divine word,1132) notably in private use did not see to great accuracy; they arose partly from negligence of the copyists (omissions, repetitions, dislocations of words, confusion of letters, the latter favored by the uncials and the scriptio continua); partly from errors of hearing in dictation (iotacism, e. g. ΐδέ for εΐ δέ, 1 Tim. 5:21; 1 Thess. 2:7; 2 Cor. 5:10; in enumerations there was omission or transposition or interchange with synonyms, e.g. Rom. 1:30-31 and Gal. 5:18-23); partly finally from wrong understanding of what was heard or read, e.g. in abbreviations. In addition, there were 2. intentional variants, especially since the scholarly treatment of the text, by improving the language according to certain grammatical
1130) Nitzsch-Stephan, p. 251; Cremer, RE. 2 VI, 755.
1131) Handbuch der theol. Wissenschaften I, 489.
1132) This is not historically correct. Just as the apostles claim divine authority for their orally proclaimed and honored written word, it is also sufficiently attested by the writings of the church fathers of the first centuries and also acknowledged by modern theologians (cf. e.g. Ihmels, Zentralfragen, p. 56) that the "first church" "identified" Scripture and the Word of God. This, after all, is what is blamed on the first church. Cf. Ihmels op. cit.
410 ><w:t>The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 339-340]
rules or clarifying dark passages by additions or changes (especially foreign expressions) or to guard against (dogmatic) misunderstanding or to correct supposedly false information or to make the passages consistent by additions from oral tradition or comparison of parallels (so especially in the Gospels and in quotations from LXX). This was done both by the copyists and often by the correctors. These learned proceedings resulted in 3. glosses, which, first placed in the margin, later came into the text, with and instead of the original reading; likewise from the liturgical additions to the lectionaries, which made changes necessary because of the inappropriate beginning and end of the pericopes. To this end, the text 4. was arbitrarily changed according to the naturalized translations." If, as L. Schulze himself remarks, the original form of the text was nevertheless changed by the many copies "but not in essential matters," then we stand, as has also been noted in more recent times,1133) before a miracle of divine providence. In fact, the textual changes in the course of eighteen hundred years are of so little importance that in theological teaching we can use not only the various recent text-critical editions, but also the textus receptus side by side without interference. We have already mentioned (p. 288 f.) that in The Expositor's Greek Testament the editor and contributors have thought it best to reprint the textus receptus, "representing the Greek text as known to Erasmus in the sixteenth century." We have already pointed out why we cannot ignore recent textual criticism in theological education. But in fact it stands like this: Even if we did not have all the newer text-critical work, but were only dependent on the textus receptus, which is essentially the basis of Luther's Bible translation as well as of the English Authorized Version, the Christian church of our time would not be poorer in the knowledge of divine truth. The church of our time does not lack a fixed text of the Bible, but the belief in the sufficiently fixed text.
3. If it were possible, we would like to do a little to ensure that the animosity that experience has shown
1133) Philippi, Glaubensl. I, 115 f.
411 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 340-341]
to be strong when dealing with text-critical questions is kept within appropriate limits. The animosity is easier to declare in the case of text critics who disagree for "scientific reasons". There even racial prejudices easily play into it. One should not have given Tischendorf credit for attaching a somewhat exaggerated significance to his Sinaitic finding (א֗ [HEBREW]). It has also happened similarly to those who belong to another nationality. English textual critics also disagree among themselves, as is evident, for example, from Bruce's remarks.1134) In general, Bruce says that the judgments of "experts in modern criticism ... in many cases do not accord, and their results cannot be regarded as final". This is one of the reasons why his and his colleagues' commentary takes the textus receptus as its basis. But even among the theologians who are considered "laymen" in textual criticism, to which Bruce also counts himself,1135) an agitation has not infrequently come to light, especially in the passage 1 John 5:7-8. The agitation seems unnecessary to us. For one thing, everyone agrees that the passage about the three witnesses in heaven is not necessary to prove the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. This doctrine has more than sufficient testimony in many passages of Scripture. This is precisely what Tischendorf says when he remarks: Error est longe gravissimus, si qui, quod de sancta trinitate ecclesia Christi praecepit, a verbis illis Iohanni obtrusis vel maxime pendere opinati sunt. [“ It is by far the gravest error if those who thought that what the church of Christ commanded concerning the holy Trinity were rejected by those words of John, or that they depended mainly on them.”]1136) In our judgment, the decision about the authenticity or falsity of the words of the three witnesses in heaven depends mainly on the understanding of certain words of Cyprian, which are about two hundred years older than our oldest codices. For we read in Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae (in my edition, Erasmus, Basel 1626, p. 164), the words, Dicit Dominus: "Ego et Pator unum sumus." "The Lord says, I and the Father are one." Here Cyprian quotes John 10:30: Έγώ και δ πατήρ εν έσ2μεν. Then Cyprian immediately continues, "Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est: 'Et tres unum sunt”, “And yet again it stands written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit: 'And the three are one.'" Those who now claim that the words 1 John 6:7 are not quoted here: δ πατήρ, δ λόγος καί.
1134) The Expositor's Greek Test. I, Introduction, p. 55, 4.
1135) op. cit., p. 56.
1136) Quoted in The Expositor's Greek Testament z. St.
412 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 340-341]
το άγιον πνεύμα, και οντοι οι τρεις εν είσι, undertake the obligation to prove that the words of Cyprian: "Et tres unum sunt", spoken of the three persons of the Godhead, stand elsewhere in Scripture than 1 John 5. In contrast, it has been said (Griesbach) that Cyprian is not quoting a scriptural word here, but is giving here his own allegorical interpretation of the three witnesses on earth: τό πνενμα και το νόωρ και το αίμα, και οι τρεις εις το εν είσιν. This objection does not seem valid because Cyprian expressly says that he quotes biblical passages, not merely in the words, Dicit Dominus: "Ego et Pater unum sumus," but also in the words, Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est [it stands written]: "Et tres unum sunt." These, in our judgment, are the objective facts. Even those who dispute the authenticity of the words of the three witnesses in heaven admit that Cyprian's words "seem" to refer to 1 John 5:7. So also Huther in Meyer's Commentary. But we can gain the right to speak of a mere "appearance" only by showing the words to stand elsewhere in Scripture. Even Huther knows how to justify his assumption of a "semblance" only thus: "The peculiar quotation in Cyprian finds its explanation in the symbolical interpretation of the words: τό πνενμα, τό, νόωρ και τό αίμα of the Trinity." But quite alike how Cyprian otherwise allegorizes in the doctrine of the Trinity: in the words quoted he does not allegorize, but quotes scriptural words: Et iterum ... scriptum est. Now, since the words of Cyprian are about two hundred years older than the oldest manuscripts preserved to us (B and א֗ [HEBREW]), it should not be said of those who consider the words of the three witnesses in heaven to be genuine (e.g. Besser, Stöckhardt, Sander, Mayer, and others) that they are scientifically backward. Against the quotation from Cyprian it has been objected that Cyprian quotes v. 8 in the words: Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est: "Et tres unum sunt". But v. 8 does not stand εν είσιν, "unum sunt," at all, but εις τό εν είσιν, "in unum sunt," "agree together." Now, since Cyprian is known to be knowledgeable of the Greek language, it is remote to suppose that he should have rendered εις τό εν είσιν as "unum sunt." — But enough of this in a dogmatic. Personally, we have always been sorry for the time we had to spend, of necessity, on the text-critical discussion of 1 John 5:7-8 in the regular dogmatic course. But a double
413 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 341-342]
practical advantage came out of it. Firstly, we had the opportunity, after Tischendorf's proceedings, to point out emphatically that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity does not depend in the least on the authenticity of this passage, because this doctrine has more than sufficient testimony in other scriptural passages. On the other hand, we have had the opportunity to inculcate the important polemical rule that in the struggle with the Unitarians, who surround us in this country on all sides, we should never want to use the passage 1 John 5:7-8. If this is done, the Unitarians transfer the disputation to the field of textual criticism, the status controversiae, the doctrine of the Trinity, is moved out of sight, and the audience gets the impression that the scriptural basis for the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is weak.
Finally, it should be noted that no theologian risks his scientific reputation, no matter which text-critical views he holds with regard to 1 John 5:7-8 according to his best conviction. With the "known to be inauthentic", which is so familiar to many newer theologians especially with regard to 1 John 5:7-8, they do not prove their scientific superiority, but the opposite. Those who have some knowledge of the real state of affairs use more modest language on this point. Bloomfield remarks in his commentary that on the passage "volumes have been written by some of the most eminent scholars." He lists the names of those who hold the pro and con; then he comments, as Luther is known to have done, on both readings, and finally retreats to Bengel's familiar position. Bloomfield concludes by saying, "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 Burgess1137) ), 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
1137) Bishop Burgeß belongs to the class of theologians who rely on text and context for the authenticity of the passage. Stöckhardt also belonged to these, while others from our narrower circle expressed the opposite opinion.
414 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 342-343]
for further evidence." But the "waiting for further evidence" does not want to enter the mind of most recent theologians, including most recent textual critics. They want the question to be considered closed. But Bengel's expressed hope that old documents might come to light that shed further light on the text of the Johannine passage might not be so unreasonable after all, in light of more recent finds. But, whether new findings or not: The Church of God stood and stands on a sufficiently fixed biblical text, as we know a priori from Christ's promise (Jn. 8:31-32; 17:20) and recognize a posteriori through scientific research. At all times, the Church of God, which is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, stood at the disposal of a biblical text through which it was enabled to carry out its mission, namely to teach all nations everything as Christ commanded it. Luther could say in his day, "Let the word stand." The same could be said by Athanasius and Augustine in their day. We can say the same in our time. Much to be deplored are the frivolous addresses about the biblical text, based on ignorance, as they are now found in writings that make the results of recent textual criticism accessible to the greater public in so-called "scientific-commonly understandable presentations." We read in such a writing:1138) "One has lived in the handed down text as in an ancient, comfortable house; the spirit of the fathers ruled there and made it homelike and trustworthy. Now the building commission comes, declares it dilapidated and demands that we move out. Yes, has the building commission made the house rotten and dilapidated? Is it not rather thanks to them that life was saved from the dilapidated house? And life-saving is what textual criticism wants to offer to faith." When the ancient text of the Bible is thus compared to a rotten house from which hasty escape is required in order to save the life of the church, this must necessarily cause great confusion among the large audience who cannot verify the matter. It seems that the writer of the words quoted was completely ignorant of the real facts. He occasionally calls the text from which Luther translated the "bad text of Erasmus." He knows or considers
1138) The text of the New Testament according to its historical development. By August Pott, divisional pastor. Teubner in Leipzig 1906, p. 14. The text belongs to the "Collection of scientific and general understanding from the world of nature and the spiritual world".
415 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 343-344]
not that the newer and newest critical text editions differ so little from the "bad text of Erasmus" (which we have essentially in the textus receptus) that these texts can be used side by side without real interference. We fear a bad influence from The Expositor's Greek Testament, because it is worked entirely in the modern-theological sense and has found a wide circulation. But we are happy about two things. First, that this five-volume commentary takes the textus receptus as its basis. This at least somewhat counteracts the wild talk that we would have to move out of the "rotten" house of the old text as soon as possible if we did not want to lose the foundation of faith. Then we are pleased that the editor declares that he would like to wait for the "final results" of the newer textual criticism before he gives the textus receptus its farewell.