John Broadus (1827–1895) on New Testament Textual Criticism

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.

For the last two centuries a succession of great scholars, first English, afterwards German, and recently both, have been working to gain a better text. They have almost always been devout and usually orthodox men. Not to go over the long list of famous names, it may be mentioned that of the two leaders in that department at present, Tischendorf is looked upon in Germany as ultra evangelical, and Tregelles, said to be an English Independent (Congregationalist), is a firm believer in the full inspiration of Scripture and a devotedly pious man. If others have spent years of toil in striving to correct the errors of early printed editions of the classics, and get nearer to the true text of Greek and Roman poets and historians, why should not these men labor all their life to perform a like work, and far more thoroughly, for the most precious books which have come down through the ages, the books which holy men of old wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost? And if we who inherit these labors are not satisfied with what some early editor chanced to pick up and print for Plato or Horace, but gladly receive a text which comes nearer to the words they really wrote, shall we not feel a thousand times more desirous to escape from the errors into which Erasmus and his followers fell, and come just as near as these great and devout scholars have been able to bring us, to the exact words of the inspired writers? Why, we who most heartily believe that the Bible is fully inspired, thoroughly divine, ought to do this with the greatest readiness and delight.

True, the text cannot in all cases be determined with absolute certainty; there have always been various readings, and passages more or less uncertain, since the earliest times at which we know anything of the text in the second century—and possibly some questions never will be definitely settled; but what of that? The same thing is true, though in a less degree, as to the meaning of some Greek words; shall we therefore stop studying the Greek? True, the mass of Bible readers will thus have to depend on a comparatively small number of scholars to determine for them the text; but so it has always been as to the meaning. True, these scholars do not always agree as to what text is best supported; but so as to the meaning. True, many saints of the Lord have been converted and sanctified by the use of the common text in the common English version; but the most corrupt text in existence, in the most faulty translation that has been made, might (let us thank God for it) teach to an humble soul substantially the same precious doctrines, and work by the grace of the Spirit the same blessed work of conversion and sanctification; shall we therefore say that Wiclif’s version, taken from the Latin and now antiquated English, or the Douay version which the Romanists have made from the Latin, would be just as good as that of King James?

Is is not surprising that, before becoming acquainted with the true state of the case, we should look upon one who proposes to strike out some sentence of what we have been accustomed to consider Scripture, as committing a kind of sacrilege. And some persons at once conclude that he who does this certainly cannot be sound as to Inspiration—a notion encouraged by the fact that men who hold loose views on that subject often vainly try to draw an argument from the existence of various readings and doubtful passages. But if I am reading your pocket Bible, the one you have carried and read for many years, and presently point out to you a misprint—if, when you doubt, insisting that it makes good sense so, and that you have often dwelt with pleasure on that very sentence, I am able to prove by the comparison of many copies from different presses and periods, that it is a misprint, would you say that I show lack of reverence for Scripture, or of believe in its complete inspiration, and that I am trying to unsettle your faith? So soon as convinced that it was a misprint, you would correct it, and feel that I had done you a service. So, too, as to errors of translation. Now, whether mistakes can be shown to exist in the common text of the Greek Testament, is a question of evidence. But supposing it fairly proven that there is an error in some case, should we not be willing to correct it? Does your faith in the inspiration of Scripture depend upon the supposition that your copy contains no mistake in printing? Why then should it depend upon the supposition that Erasmus made no mistakes when he hurried up his Greek Testament to get ahead of Cardinal Ximenes? Or that there had been no mistakes made in copying the Greek manuscripts from which they printed? As originally written, the inspired books were free from error of every kind. But if there were to be inspired books in the world, they must be circulated and transmitted in substantially the same way as other books, and though preserved by special Providence, it was not to be expected that they should be preserved by an innumerable succession of minute miracles, from any such accidental or other chances as have occurred in the transmission of other books. And certainly the fact is that from these they have not escaped.

How far these exist, and how far they can now be corrected, is, as already said, a matter of evidence. This evidence is very peculiar, extensive, and sometimes complicated; but it has been so far collected and classified, and is now so fully and closely presented in accessible works, that any man of fair abilities, well acquainted with Greek, and who will give the subject much attention for a number of years, can become prepared to form satisfactory judgments in the great mass of cases. One who undertakes to judge without some such preparation does himself a great injustice. The most admirable common sense cannot enable one to judge of matters which lie quite beyond the range of his experience and observation; it would rather lead him not to attempt it. We are naturally inclined, and to a certain extent it is proper, to be decidedly conservative about changes in translation or in a text. But even conservatism must have a limit, or it no longer deserves so honorable a name.

Broadus then spends a few paragraphs discussing some of the editions and resources available in his day. He concludes:

The circulation of the Revised New Testament among ministers and others makes it inevitable that curiosity should be felt as to changes in the text. I have therefore not shrunk from the surpassingly difficult task of discussing a subject so vast, so little understood and so liable to be misunderstood in a newspaper article; and it is lawful to ask that all shall be taken in good part. Those persons who seem to attach some little value to my statements and opinions, may accept the assurance that there is in all this matter no cause for uneasiness. For my part, the more I study of criticism and exegesis, the higher rise my confidence and delight in the sacred and sure word of God.

___

For accountability purposes, here are screenshots of what I transcribed. Please don't judge me too harshly for the deplorable quality of these images. I had no idea what I was doing, and at the time, all I was concerned with was getting something that I would be able to read (even with difficulty) later. Originally, I took a single photo of a huge page with an iPhone that was already old and outdated 10 years ago; the following are screenshots of blown-up sections from that single image.

The intro section, which I didn't transcribe.

__

Some remarks from myself: I do appreciate the way Broadus compared uncertainty of meaning to uncertainty of text. Without meaning, the text is just ink on a page—the Bible isn’t a ‘magic’ book that only works if you have all the right letters—the text means something. Yet, it doesn’t seem to bother people all that much when they come to passages they don’t fully understand—places where the meaning is uncertain. I’d suggest that this is actually more significant than textual uncertainties, because in the cases of textual uncertainties, we are almost always dealing with the choice between two or at most (and rarely at that) three possibilities that don’t always even change the meaning. But for some verses, there are as many interpretations as there are interpreters. On my more cynical days, I am tempted to think that this suggests that for some people, it’s not actually the uncertainties that bothers them, it’s that they don’t get to be the person who tells people how to deal with the uncertainties. If it really was a problem of uncertainties, we’d see a lot more people worked up because even with the Holy Spirit teaching us all truth, we still can’t always be certain that our interpretation of every passage is perfectly correct.

But (I think, most) Christians still intuitively know that those uncertainties of interpretation aren’t a significant problem because of the things we can be certain about—not only what we can be certain about, but the sufficiency of what we can be certain about. You don’t need to get the thousand-year-reign correct to be saved; you just need to repent of your sins and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. (See a fantastic illustration of this concept here.) It would be nice to have certainty about the correct interpretation of the thousand years, or “because of the angels” (1 Cor 11.10), etc., but certainty with regard to the interpretation of those passages is not necessary. In the same way, I don’t get worked up over places in the text where I’m not confident about what the original reading is because of all the places where I am confident about what the original reading is.

I also appreciate that Broadus addressed head-on the “just trust the scholars” issue. [Here is an excellent book on that subject.] It really is unavoidable (I do wonder—of all who are outraged that they are asked to simply trust the scholars when it comes to the New Testament text, how many of them refuse to go to the doctor?) What’s amazing to me is that I’ve seen some of the same people who say we shouldn’t trust the scholars when it comes to the New Testament text seem to say that we should trust them instead. It’s hard to avoid the suspicion that the problem for some people isn’t that people just need to trust the scholars, it’s that they aren’t the scholars people are trusting on those issues. It would be much, much simpler to say with humility “I really don’t understand modern textual criticism, and in the course of doing ministry, I haven’t had the time to devote to it to learn it well enough to have an informed opinion. What I do know though is that the version I have is sufficient because I’m really trusting the God whose Word it is, not my own ability to pick the right text or translation (the same concept with a different application illustrated here). Because I can't devote the time to study this issue well enough to answer all the questions I have, I will simply trust every word of the Bible I received; go ye and do likewise—be that the KJV, the ESV, the NIV, etc.”

___

Unrelated: as almost anyone who works with archives, manuscripts, physical libraries, etc. will tell you, one of the wonderful things about this kind of research is stumbling across something that is just *amazing* that you weren’t looking for. Do enjoy this little treasure from a concerned Baptist in the 1860s (note: I am fairly confident that Broadus was not the author of this letter to the editors):