Many years ago (when I was still in seminary), I spent some time looking into John Broadus’ approach to textual criticism. Nothing ever materialized (I became too busy), but I still think it would be a worthy endeavor.
Broadus was one of the ‘founding fathers’ of Southern Seminary and its second president. He was a part of SBTS even before its move from Greenville, SC to Louisville, KY in 1877. Westcott and Hort’s New Testament came out during his years there, and as professor of
both New Testament and preaching, I was very interested to know how he might approach textual variants. Interestingly, Broadus was also
A.T. Robertson’s father-in-law.
 |
John Broadus, looking suspicious of people who try to claim
that textual criticism undermines the Scriptures |
I remember spending some time in the archives at SBTS and came across a series of articles Broadus wrote for the
Religious Herald, a Baptist paper out of Virginia in which he reviewed the Revised New Testament from the American Bible Union (2nd ed., 1865) [
not this Revised Version]. I took some photos of some of the articles and just came across them recently. The photos were, ahem, not my best work. This was several years before I worked for CSNTM, and they most certainly do
not meet archival standards. Still, I have been able to read most of what I need from them.
I want to share some of Broadus’ words that were published in the Herald on Thursday, March 19, 1868. Broadus touches on some interesting topics—uncertainties of readings, “just trust the scholars”, and the sufficiency of an imperfect text “to an humble soul.” The following text is my best attempt of a transcription made from my very sub-par iPhone photo. Broadus writes:
The sources from which is to be determined the true text of the New Testament, are incomparably richer and more reliable than exist for any classical work. But it is well known that the Greek Testament as first printed (Erasmus, 1st ed., published A.D. 1516), was hurriedly taken from some late manuscripts, with no careful comparison of such others as were then accessible, and that subsequent editors, such as Robert Stephens (3rd ed., A.D. 1550), and Beza (principal edition, 1589), though they made a good many improvements, has still comparatively a very small stock of manuscripts—including scarcely a single one of those great manuscripts from early centuries which are now known—and made no very diligent use of those they had. The scholars appointed by King James to prepare a revision of the English Scriptures (published in 1611), had first to revise the Greek text, just as has to be done now. They made up a text from the editions of Stephens and Beza just mentioned, in a very few cases departing from both. Now that a great mass of additional and much of it far better material for ascertaining the true text has been slowly gathered and at least partially worked up, we look back with gratitude to see that a text prepared under such circumstances was comparatively so correct; and we need not at all wonder that it should be found to contain a great number of errors, some of them important.
.jpeg)
