(!tnurnr~tu m~tnlngirul tlnut41y Continuing LEHRE UND VVEHRE MAGAZIN FUER EV.-LuTH. HOMILETIK THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY-THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY Vol. V August, 1934 No.8 CONTENTS Pap The Chief Prinoiples of New Testament Textual Critioism. W. Arndt. • • • • • • • • • • •• 577 Zur Lehre von der Reue. Th. Engelder ..•••••••••••••.• " 584 The Catechism in the Christian Home. T. Laetach ••••••• 596 Der Gottesdienst in der alten Kirohe. P. E. Kretzmann ••••• 604 The Story of loseph in the Light of Reoent Researoh. P. E. Kretzmann. • • • • • • •• 611 Sermons and Outlines.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . .. 81lS lliscellanea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 826 Theological Observer. - Kirchlich.Zeitgeschiohtliches .•• " 630 Book Review. - Literatur. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . • . .. 644 Ein Predlger mugs n1cht alleln wf!iden, also dasa er die Schafe unterwelse, me 8i8 rechte Ohrieten aollen aeiD, sondern auch daneben den Woelfen wehre,., dll/lll sle die Schafe nfcht angrellen und mit talscher Lehre vertuebren und Irrtum eln· tnehren. - Lu,her. Es lot keto Diog, daa die Leute mehr bel der Kirchc behaelt df1lD die gute Predigt. - .Apologie, Arl.2J. If the trumpet give an oncertaiD lOund, who ohall prepare h1mle1f to the battle f 1 Oor. ,lJ, 8. Published for the Ev. Luth. Synod of lIIIissouri, Ohio, and Other States CONCORDIA PUlJLISBIlfG :S:OlJ'SlI:, St. Louf!l, lIIto. OH Concordia Theological Monthly Vol. V AUGUST. 1934 The Chief Principles of New Testament Textual Criticism. No.8 In making the somewhat ambitious attempt of presenting in a brief article an account of the fundamental principles of textual crit- icism with respect to the New Testament, I am aware that many a reader will find some things not touched on which he would like to see treated; but considerations of space simply make it unavoidable that some material be omitted. All who would like to give this matter further study will find excellent guides in the following books: The New Testament in the Original Greek (Vol. II. Introduction and Appendix by B. F. Westcott and J. F. O. Hort); Einfuehrung in das griechische Neue Testament, by E. Nestle, rewritten by von Dob- schuetz; Textual Oriticism of the New Testament, by B. Warfield; Textkritik des N euen Testaments, by O. R. Gregory; Inf1'oduction to the Textual Oriticism of the New Testament, by A. T. Robertson; and The FOU1' Gospels, by B. H. Streeter. If we had the autographs of the apostles and evangelists, this article would be as superfluous as a dissertation on the topic that man is a living being. Again, if there were only one manuscript extant in which the text has come to us, textual criticism would playa very unimportant role, if it would be called for at all. We should merely carefully print this one manuscript and the task would be finished. Both conditions do not obtain. The autographs are lost; most likely they consisted of papyrus, which is fragile, and were, as has been said, literally "read to pieces" by their possessors. But we have thousands of manuscripts, written before the age of printing, in which the text of the New Testament has come down to us. How different is the situation for the New Testament if we compare it, e. g., with that of the works of the Greek poet Aeschylus. The oldest manuscript of his works which we have dates from the tenth century of our era (the Medicean at Florence). There are other manuscripts containing his extant works, but they are much later, and, what must be carefully 37 578 The Chief Principles of Kew Testament Textnal Criticism. noted, they are simply copies of said tenth-century manuscript (al- though some critics are willing> to give them a more independent status). Aeschylus is held to have died about 450 B. O. Think of the vast span of time from his death to the copying of the oldest manu- script which we have of his tragedies. In the New Testament field we meet not only a truly amazing number of manuscripts, but we find that some of them are very old, separated from the age of the apostles by less than a century> I have here in mind especially the so-called Beatty Oollection of papyri, which was lately brought to England and is said to contain manuscripts written in the third century, while one of them, we are told, was written as early as the first half of the second century, that is, only a few decades after the death of John the Apostle. The great number and the great variety of manuscripts of the New Testament, together with the versions in other tongues than the Greek and the quotations of the sacred text by early writers, have placed us in a very happy position, but constitute also our problem. The old copies differ from each other in some respects, as is simply unavoidable, unless God performed a miracle every time the text of the New Testament was transcribed. What is surprising is not that there are many different readings, but that most of them are merely due to faulty copying, introducing errors which can at once be detected as such, and that but very few of these variant readings have any bearing on doctrine. It has been well said that we should have all the doctrines of the New Testament left intact even if we had to follow the most imperfectly written manuscript. In general, we must remember that this discussion has nothing to do with the doc- trine of inspiration, because it was only the original autographs that were inspired and covered by the divine promise of infallibility. The copies present the inspired text to the extent to which they reproduce the original. Naturally it is very important that, as we read our Greek New Testament and notice that the manuscripts differ in a number of passages, we should be able to determine which is the original reading. In most cases we shall be able to reach definite conclusions. Here and there, owing to human weakness, to lack of acumen and insight, we shall have to be satisfied with probabilities. When we engage in studies of this nature, we have to thank a small group of scholars for putting at our disposal the material enabling us to reach positive decisions. Thcse men are chiefly Tischendorf, Gregory (an American who, however, became professor at Leipzig), Weiss, and von Soden, of Germany, and Tregelles, Scrivener, and Westcott and Hort, of En- gland. The labors of the textual critics are not invested with the glamor attaching to works in which interesting new theories are pro- pounded and defended. These scholars carefully list the readings of the various manuscripts and then endeavor to decide which are the The Chief Principles of New Testament Textual Criticism. 579 correct ones; and when they have finished and put the New Testa- ment on our desk, we hardly notice the tremendous amount of patient labor which they spent on their task. But they, and not the higher critics with their often fantastic suggestions, arrived at not so much by dint of hard work as through enticing :flights of the imagination, are the real benefactors of the theologian, anxious, as he is. to obtain the genuine text of the New Testament. When we come to view the principles which must guide us in choosing between several variant readings, the first thing to do is to see in which manuscripts the respective readings are found. The principle which has to do with this point can be worded thus, "That reading is likely to be correct which is found in the best manuscripts." The question at once presents itself, Which are the best manuscripts ~ By common consent Oodex Vaticanus (B) is one of them. It is, for one thing, a very carefully written manuscript, containing fewer errors due to neglect and haste than most other manuscripts. Again, it is the oldest one of the so-called great uncials which we poSSpgs. Uncial manuscripts are those which are written in capital letters, often called "majuscules." While the exact date of its writing is not known, experts hold that it originated around 330. There is no manu- script of the New Testament which commands our respect quite in the same degree as this famous codex. It is, however, not correct in every detail. Here and there a palpable error occurs, and hence it would be wrong for us simply to follow this codex. But in determining which reading to adopt, we at once ascertain the reading of B. A close second to B in value is Oodex Sinaiticus, discovered by Tischendorf in 1859. Its siglum is N. As to its precise date, opinions differ somewhat. Some critics think it was written at the same time as B, although by a different scribe; others would date its origin half a century 01' more later. But at any rate it is a carefully written manuscript, and its readings must be given gi'eat weight. Oritics nowadays give special prominence to Oodex Bezae CD) for the Gospels and Acts (these are the only books it contains), saying that it represents the readings of the so-called Western text, which, it is held, is the text that obtained quite universally in the second century. For the sake of simplicity I am here leaving other great MSS., such as Oodex Ephraemi (0) and Oodex Washington (W), out of consideration. This, then, should be our first concern in making our choice as to the correct reading, to find what the three great manuscripts men- tioned say on the passage in question. If they agree, there is one good piece of evidence that the reading they pTesent is the Tight one. If they do not agree, it may be difficult for us to apply the principle under consideration. The peculiar cITcumstances of the case will have to decide. Naturally if Band D oppose ~, the preference lies 580 The Chief Principles of New Testament Textual Criticism. with their reading; if ~ and D oppose B, we may likewise let the majority rule. But if B and ~ are Tanged together against D, we are in a quandary and had better leave the point undecided. The same advice holds for the situation where each one of the three has a reading differing from that of the others. The second principle to be applied has to do with the territory or territories in which a certain reading is found. It has long been recognized that the extant MSS. must be grouped in classes. West- cott and Hort assumed four of them, the Neutral, the Alexandrian, the Syrian, and the Western. They gave most weight to the Neutral and least to the Syrian, or Byzantine, class. A more scientific and helpful rule has been submitted by Streeter in his book The F01tr Gospels. He tells us that we must think of five centers or territories from which manuscripts have come, namely, Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, Italy and Gaul (taken together), and Carthage. Having determined in which of these localities the various readings were cir- culated and adopted, we shall be able to decide which one of them was most universally followed in the ancient Ohurch. The rule can be worded thus, "That reading which was most wide-spread is en- titled to our approva1." This of course does not apply to the so-called Textus Receptus, which was the almost universally accepted text dur- ing the Middle Ages. It really represents the text as it was found in Byzantium in the fifth century, and because Byzantium was the capital of the Roman Empire at the time, the text there in vogue came to be the generally accepted one. We must, says Dr. Streeter, go back to the time before the Byzantium text ovel'l'an the Ohristian world and see what the situation was in the early centuries. But how are we to determine which readings obtained in the given localities ~ Streeter mentions the authorities. For Alexandria our best witness is B; for Antioch the Sinaitic Syriac; for Oaesarea the Koridethi manuscript (19); for Italy and Gaul D, and for Carthage the old Latin manuscripts (Vetus Latina, often called Itala). Here I have given the manuscripts which Streeter calls "primary authority." His list next submits manuscripts that are a "secondary authority"; then such as are tertiary; furthermore, such as are supplementary; and, finally, the patristic evidence for the readings in the various localities. Of. op. cit., p. 108. I have to add that the table of Streeter from which I have quoted pertains to the texts of our gospels. The Acts and the Epistles are not included in that particular study. It may interest my readers to know which manuscripts Streeter regards as possessing secondary authority: for Alexandria they are Oodices ~ and L and the early Egyptian translations (Sahidic and Bohairic); for Antioch, the Ouretonian Syriac; for Oaesarea, a number of minuscule (cur- sive) manuscripts: 1 and its family, 13 and its family, 28, 565, and 700; £or Italy and Gaul, the old Latin manuseripts which are desig- The Chief Principles of New Testament Textual Criticism. 581 nated b and a; and for Carthage, the old Latin manuscript e, and Codex W in the Gospel according to St. Mark. The readings of the Beatty Papyri are not yet available for us. Experts who have exam- ined them declare that the form of the text is that of Caesarea, which Professor Sanders of the University of Michigan calls one of the varieties of the Western text. Cf. Zeitschrift fv,er die neutestament- liche Wissenschaft, 1933, Heft 4. It should be added that the papyri of the collection are fragments giving us only a small part of the New Testament. Cf. P. E. Kretzmann, The New Testament in the Light of a Believer's Research (1934), p. 47 fl. In the third place, a principle must be considered which has to do with transcription, that is, with the copying itself. When we have to choose between variant readings, it is important that we attempt to see the situation from the point of view of the scribe or copyist. The third principle, then, which I submit is, "That reading is likely to be correct which cannot easily be traced back to the unintentional altera- tion of a copyist." Most of our variant reading's, as was mdlltioued before, were due to an oversight on the part of the scribe, who was not careful enough or for some reason was not sufficiently well qualified for the important work he was doing. In comparing the various read- ings, I ask myself, Which one has all the earmarks of being due to a mere slip of the scribe? Naturally I conclude that such a reading is not the genuine one. The fourth principle likewise has to do with transcriptional evi- dence. We know that scribes often were a=ious to improve the text, correcting what they thought were evident errors of their predecessors. Having the good intention of preserving the Word of God unimpaired, they introduced changes, thinking that they were actually restoring the text to its pristine purity. That their course, whenever they made changes, ,vas usually a mistaken one we can well see; but this ten- dency of theirs to correct what they considered erroneous is a factor with which we have to reckon. It would have been far better if they had followed the system of the editors of the Hebrew text, who care- fully distinguished between ketib and qere, scriptum et legendum, putting the latter on the margin. But the early Greek copyists had no such system, and if they thought a change was necessary, they at once introduced it in the text. Thus in Matt. 13, 22, where the best manuscripts read: "the care of the world," some scribe felt that the expression was not clear enough and that undoubtedly Jesus had employed greater perspicuity, and so he added a pronoun, making the expression read: «the care of this world." A harmless addition, of course, it is, but he altered the text, and, moreover, altered it un- necessarily, the original being perfectly clear. The principle which we arrive at on the basis of this observation is, "That reading is likely to be the correct one of which it seems clear that it has not arisen 582 The Chief Principles of New Testament Textual Criticism. through the intentional alteration of a copyist." Since in making alterations the scribes thought they were improving the text, making it more easy to understand and to interpret, r~moving difficulties, apparent harshnesses, seeming contradictions, or doctrinal errors, this principle has been expressed thus, "The harder reading is likely to be the correct one" (lectio difficilior praefe'ratur vulgatiori or pro- clivi scriptioni praestat aJ·dua). There is a fifth principle which can be employed. It may be ex- pressed thus, "That reading is likely to be the correct one which best agrees with the style and diction and other characteristics of the author in question." This point has to do with what is called intrinsic evidence. It is but fair to assume that an author is consistent in his use of idioms and of striking expressions and that ceteris paribus he will not without special reason deviate from his accustomed ter- minology. If we, then, are confronted with variant readings between which we have to choose, we try to determine which one of them agrees best with the usual mode of thOllght and speech of the author, and the one which can thus qualify will receive our vote. A simple example to illustrate this rule can be taken from Luke 1, 25, where the question is whether the word Kyrios (Lord) should be given the article or not. Some manuscripts have it, others omit it. A careful reading of Luke's Gospel will reveal that, when he is speaking of God (without the dis- tinction of Persons), he often uses Kyrios without the article, while the article is invariably present when he refers to our Lord Jesus Christ. (Of. Luke 10, 1; 19,34, etc.) We shall conclude therefore that the reading without the article is to be preferred in this case. The example is interesting because here we have an instance in which we shall not accept the reading of B, but rather follow that of ~ and D. Quite naturally, however, this fifth rule is one which we shall invoke with great moderation and hesitancy, because of the difficulty of say- ing in a given instance whether or not a certain expression is in keep- ing with the writer's accustomed habits of expression. We have now stated five principles which may guide us in choos- ing between variant readings. They are not all of equal importance, nor can we say that in all cases that come before us we should give the same weight to one particular rule. It may be that at times the second rule will be stressed more by us than the :first, and in another case the situation may be just the reverse. Everything depends on the circumstances of the individual case. There may be instances where merely the third or the fourth of the rules given can be em- ployed. In such a case we shall simply ignore the others, although it will be done regretfully. But it is quite safe to say that by careful application of the rules given it will be po~sible to determine which reading should be adopted. In conclusion, it may be serviceable if I present an example show- The Chief Principles of New Testament Textual Criticism. 583 ing how I conceive of the application of the principles submitted above. Let the reader, if he please, open his New Testament at Luke 10, 1. The question here is whether St. Luke wrote "seventy" or "seventy-two" when he gave the number of the other disciples whom our Lord sent out to prepare the people for His coming. The Nestle text, following Westcott and Hort, puts "two" in brackets. We shall now apply our five principles as far as we can. The first question is, What do the best manuscripts say? A glance at the critical apparatus in Nestle's text tells us that Band D contain the numeral two; hence from the point of view of the best manuscripts "seventy-two" is the right reading. In the second place, we ask, Which reading was the more wide-spread? By means of the CTitical apparatus we can state that the reading- "seventy" was found in Egypt (Oodex B here occu- pies an isolated position among the Alexandrian, or Egyptian, MSS.), in Oarthage, and apparently in Oaesarea, while the reading "seventy- two" is quite definitely established for Rome and Antioch. This rule fp-vrn·s thn ~Aadi:r::~ "seve:::;." ~'p'plying our third lJl'llLciple, which has to do with unintention3l alterations, it seems that it was more easy for the scribe, being not overcareful, to omit the "two" than to add it; hence this rule rather speaks for "seventy-two." When we apply the fourth rule, we are confronted with a real difficulty. vVas the scribe more inclined to change the "seventy" to "seventy-two" or vice versa? It is difficult to see why anyone should have intentionally here made a change. Some critics have thought the number 70 would appeal to scribes and appear correct to them because in Gen. 10 seventy nations are mentioned. Others again have held that the number 72 would have special attraction because that would mean six messengers for each one of the twelve tribes of Israel. We shall be compelled to ad- mit that it is impossible for us to apply rule number four in this case. Th. Zahn is of a different opinion. "Entscheidend fuer die Ursprueng- lichkeit von 72 d1wrfte sein, dass eine Abrundung der Zahl 72 auf 70 ebenso begreiflich, wie die Veraenderung der solennen Zahl 70 in 72 befremdlich waere." (Das Ev. des Lukas, p. 408.) Now how about the fifth rule? Very clearly, the style of the author cannot have any bearing on this question at all. Luke could just as well have written "seventy" as "seventy-two." Some commentatOTs hold that Luke, as a pupil of St. Paul and an eloquent exponent of the doctrine of uni- versal grace, must have written "seventy," because this number repre- sents all the nations of the world according to Gen. 10; but this view we have to reject because it attributes to the holy writer motives in telling the story of the life of Jesus which are not in keeping with historical truthfulness. 'Ve have to say, then, that this fifth prin- ciple likewise does not yield any results for us. See, then, what we have. Rules one and three favor seventy-two, rule two seventy, while application of the others has merely yielded negative results. On the 584 Sur £t9re bon ber meue. basis of the evidence we shall, so it seems to me, have to give the preference to the reading "seventy-two." This example, chosen alto- gether at random, undoubtedly is not the best one that could have been presented, but I trust that the application of the rules as I have at- tempted it will give an idea of how the priuciples of textual criticism can be used. The above technique, as I intimated before, really applies only to the gospels. For the other books of the New Testament a different classification of manuscripts would have to be drawn up, which I shall not attempt in this article. Everybody can see that this subject is beset with some difficulties, but it should be apparent, too, that it is well possible for us to reach certainty as to the right reading in the various passages of the New Testament where we meet val"iae lectio- nes and that the grand promise stands secure: Verbum Dei manet in aet81·num. W. ARNDT. ~ , ~ IV. ®eljort ber morfat, bon ber @liinbe aUi3ufteljen unb ®o±t au [euen, au ber bem ®Iauuen borljergeljenben meue? l8iele Iutljerif dje 52eljr" uiidjer uejaljen bief e ?Srage. )Bet 52utljarbt ljeif3t efl: ,,~er bon ®o±t ge" roidi:e innere l80rgang ber )Befcljrung ueginni: mit bem @:ieluftgeridji: ber muf3e, roefdje in ber @:iinnefliinberung lieftelji:, bie fidj bollaielji: in @liin~ benedenn±nifl, @:iiinbenfdjmerB unb im ernftIidjen m3iIIen, mit ber @liinbe au liredjen, um ®o±t au relien." (52utljarb±~~eIfe, ~oml:J. ber ~og., 394.) 52u±ljarb± tebet ljier bon ber meue. @r ljatte Iura borljer gefagi:: ,,~ie 3 e i dj en einer roafjren meue finb (bie inneren): UnterIaffen befl )Bofen unb l8erIangen nadj ~eiIigung." mofjnert bertritt biefellie ~nfidji:: ,,~afl IDW±er alier, burdj roeIdjefl ber ~eiIige ®eift bie )Bdefjrung Buroege liringt, ift ... bafl m3 0 r ± ® 0 ± ± e fl, unb Broat 3uniidjf± ba§ befl ®e~ fetefl, fob ann ba0 befl @bangeIium§. ~Utdj bie !lS reb i 9 t be fl ® e ~ f e 13 e fl roitll bem IDCenfdjen bie ®rof3e feincr @ldjulb, fein ganaefl fiinb" Iidjefl l8erberuen aufgebecH unb ®otte§ 30rn iilier bie @liinbe, f 0 baE er fie mit innerem @n±feten e r fen nt, in feinem ®eroiffen llatiiuer er" f djridt unb f dj m e ra Ii dj e m e u e eml:Jfinbe± (contritio cordis, ter- rores incussi conscientiae). @r fiifjIt jett fetne ganse ?Sfudjl1Jiirbigfeit, fiiljIt bie 5tobe01djmeraen ber @:iiinbe, fiiIJrt bafl UntJCtl11ogen, lidj feluft au iinbern unb bor ®o±t ilU e!;iftieren. ~a ift fein ~etil bOrr ~ngft unb 52eib, boll ®ram unb @:idjam, boll giittHdjer 5traurigfeit (J.iNl1) bO'V fJeov), 2 ~or. 7, 10, boll ~lifdjeu unb ~af3 gegen bie @:iiinbe (!lSf. 97,10; 6,9), bie ifjn in ein f oIdjefl @Ienb geuradjt ljat. ~arum roenbe! er lidj bon iljr ali, fagt fidj bon iljr [ofl. ?Sern bon arrer @leIIJf±enifcljuIbigung IJ e " hnnt et rcumiitig feine @ldjufb (1131.32,8.5; @lPL28, 13; lSjofjeI.