Image: A. T. Robertson (1863-1934)
I’ve begun reading through A. T. Robertson’s An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of
the New Testament (Broadman Press, 1925). Robertson (1863-1934) was
Professor of New Testament at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, a
scholarly giant in his generation. Perhaps best known for his massive Greek
grammar, he probably remains the most respected academic scholar ever to come
from Southern Baptist life.
The book is dedicated to Robertson’s friend B. B.
Warfield. Indeed, Warfield and Robertson
may have done more than any others to introduce modern text criticism into the
mainstream for otherwise conservative Reformed and evangelical Christians. In
this regard, what Warfield did for Presbyterians, Robertson did for Baptists.
In the opening chapter Robertson reviews the Textus Receptus. In his discussion of Erasmus, he shows the
same tendency of that age to diminish the Novum
Instrumentum.
Here is Robertson’s summary of the Greek mss. of which Erasmus
made use:
He based his printed text on 2, a poor
minuscule of the twelfth century and corrected it by the cursive (minuscule)
Greek manuscript 1 (a tenth century MS. kin in source to 118, 131, 209, and of
considerable value). He also used 2 (fifteenth century) for Gospels, 2 ap
(thirteenth century) for Acts and Paul, and 1r (twelfth century) alone for
Apocalypse” (p. 18).
Note: I am finding
that there is little agreement among scholars on this question of which and how
many Greek mss. Erasmus used in compiling his Greek NT. The number
usually suggested is seven (see Roland Bainton, Erasmus of Christendom, p. 133). In his 1923 biography of Erasmus, Preserved Smith suggests he used ten (Erasmus: A Study of His Life, Ideals, and
Place in History, p. 163).
Robertson also makes the standard charge of Erasmus having
back-translated the final verses of Revelation, but provides no footnote directing
the reader to Erasmus’ writings to substantiate the claim:
It is probable that he had Latin
manuscripts of the Vulgate which he occasionally put into Greek. He confessed
doing this for the last six verses of the Apocalypse save verse 20, which had
been already translated by Laurentius Valla (p. 18).
Though Robertson does not relay the “rush to print” anecdote
regarding Erasmus’ 1516 Greek NT, he does convey the “rash wager” anecdote with
regard to the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum
in the third edition (1522). He writes:
The third edition of 1522 introduced
the passage in 1 John v:7 because of a foolish promise made to Stunica … that
he would insert it if he found it in any Greek mss. (p. 19).
Later, he adds that when Codex 61 was produced “he put it in
because of his rash promise and thus it got into the Textus Receptus” (p. 19).
Note: For my analysis
and challenge of both the “rush to print” and “rash wager’ anecdotes, listen here.
It should be added, however, that although Robertson
thoroughly embraced the modern critical text, he does express some admiration
for the Textus Receptus (Did he think
that he might need to placate his more conservative SB constituency?). So, he writes:
It should be stated at once that the Textus Receptus is not a bad text. It is
not a heretical text. It is substantially
correct (p. 21).
And later:
It is clear, therefore, that the Textus Receptus has preserved for us a
substantially accurate text in spite of the long centuries preceding the age of
printing when copying by hand was the only method of reproducing the New
Testament (p. 21).
In the end, however, with the rise of modern text criticism,
Robertson concludes, “But its days were numbered” (p. 26).
JTR
No comments:
Post a Comment