In his discussion of Luke 1:78 Godet makes an interesting
observation on the tense of the verb episkeptomai,
“to visit,” in this verse. In the
traditional text, the reading is in the aorist as epeskepsato (thus, “hath visited” in the AV), but in the modern
critical text the reading is in the future as episkepsetai (thus, “shall visit” in the NASB).
The modern critical reading (which Godet refers to as the “Alexandrian”)
is supported by the twin heavyweights of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, the traditional
by the vast majority of other witnesses.
Godet observes:
The future episkepsetai, will visit, in some Alex., is evidently a correction
suggested by the consideration that Christ was not born at the time Zacharias
was speaking. Yet even such instances as
these do not disturb the faith of critics in the authority of the Alexandrine
MSS.! (p. 72).
His point is that it is the reading represented by Sinaiticus
and Vaticanus would here give evidence of a harmonizing tendency. A scribe would have wanted to make the verb a
future tense in anticipation of the coming birth and life of Jesus. The traditional text, in the past tense, would,
therefore, be the more difficult reading, since it speaks of a visitation that
is already an assured fact. Under the
standard canons of modern critical study, this would make the traditional reading
the preferred one. Godet’s final comment
pokes at “the faith of critics” in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, exposing the bias
of modern text critics to favor these manuscripts despite the critical canons formulated by them
which supposedly lead to the overthrow of the traditional text.
Why don’t modern NT exegetes make observations like this one?
JTR
No comments:
Post a Comment