 |
| B. B. Warfield |
“I believe that Warfield is second
only to Jonathan Edwards as
America’s
greatest theologian.” –
R.C.
Sproul
Let’s look into B. B. Warfield’s 1886
An Introduction to the Textual Criticism
of the New Testament.
Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield
(1851-1921) is usually remembered by his intellectual heirs (such as Daniel Wallace) on
account of his defense of the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy. Born in Kentucky,
Warfield graduated from Princeton Seminary in 1876, studied briefly in Germany, and served as pastor
at First Presbyterian Church in Baltimore
for two years. He then taught New
Testament at Western Theological Seminary for nine years. In 1886 he left Allegheny and began his prolific
career as Professor of Reformed Theology at Princeton, and served there until
his death. His writings include The
Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, The Significance of
the Westminster Standards as a Creed,
Counterfeit
Miracles, and Revelation
and Inspiration.
What
exactly is the New Testament text that Warfield considered inerrant? He almost answered that question in the
same year that he began his professorship at Princeton, at age 35, when he published
An Introduction to the
Textual Criticism of the New Testament preparing students to engage the
compilations made by Tischendorf (his eighth edition, which due to the impact
of Codex Sinaiticus differs from his seventh edition at 3,572 points),
Tregelles, and Westcott & Hort.
Warfield’s
approach to New Testament textual criticism closely echoed Hort’s. He had a direct and down-to-earth writing style,
and presented the case for Hort’s ideas with practical candor in four chapter: (1) The Matter of Criticism, (2) The Methods
of Criticism, (3) The Praxis of
Criticism, and (4) The History of Criticism.
After
sampling Tischendorf’s textual apparatus in Mark 1:11, Warfield lists and
briefly describes the major witnesses to the text of the New Testament – uncials,
minuscules, lectionaries, versions, and patristic quotations. He
acknowledged the lack of papyri, observing that “No very early papyrus
manuscripts of the New Testament have come down to us,” with trivial
exceptions.
Like John
Burgon, Warfield knew the shallowness of the research done on these materials. He lamented that “A critical edition of even
the Vulgate is, however, still a desideratum”
and acknowledged that “the versions are not even critically edited.” And he knew how relatively novel the
foundational discoveries were on which Hort’s transmission-model depended,
observing that “À
was not published until 1862; no satisfactory
edition of B existed until 1868;
C, Q, D, D2, N, P, R, Z, L, X, E2, P2,
S,
have all been issued since 1843.” Unlike Burgon, though, Warfield embraced Hort’s
approach enthusiastically.
Warfield
believed that the Peshitta had existed in 250 and went through a
standardization process that ended around 350, suggesting that a “late third or
early fourth century revision” is likely because of its non-inclusion of Second
Peter, Second John, Third John, Jude, and Revelation. He was misinformed about the age of some
Ethiopic manuscripts, stating that the Ethiopic version’s earliest extant MSS “appear
to be as late as the fifteenth century.”
The first chapter closes with a consideration of the textual contest in
John 7:8 between ουκ and ουπω. But he
declined to declare a winner, using the data to illustrate the precariousness
of simplistic reliance on the mere
quantity of witnesses, and on the age of the witnesses, and moves on.
In chapter
2, Warfield very openly dismisses traditionally accepted readings despite their
appearance in a super-majority of manuscripts in Matthew 6:4, Matthew 6:13, Mark
9:29, and Luke 8:31. He highlights the importance of internal
evidence, both intrinsic and transcriptional, which he summarizes beautifully on
page 84: “We are making use of two
separate methods of inquiry; one of which deals with the probability that the
author wrote this reading, and the other with the probability that the scribe
began with it.”
Warfield’s claims in the second chapter are initially
startling, but he follows up with
reasonable qualifications. He shows his
willingness to reject the reading favored by a super-majority of Greek MSS in
Matthew 6:1. Intrinsic evidence is
likewise decisive in Luke 15:21.
Additional examples are drawn from Acts 12:25 and 11:20. He states although internal evidence “is very
easy to abuse,” “no conclusion to which it does not give at least its consent
can be accepted as final in any case of textual criticism.” On one hand, this is normal caution; on the
other it guarantees that his New Testament text is perpetually tenuous where
reasonable critics reach opposite verdicts.
Although
Warfield repeatedly expresses his admiration for Codex Vaticanus as the best
manuscript of the New Testament, when investigating Matthew 27:49 he rules
against ÀB.
In the
course of illustrating transcriptional evidence, Warfield raises issues about
“the famous reading Θεος in I Tim iii.
16,” Romans 12:11, Acts 17:25, Acts 13:23, and even mentions that “Perhaps the
form Ἀσάφ in Matt. i. 7 has so come into the text from the influence of the
Ἰωσαφάτ which stands immediately beneath it.”
After touring various categories of transcriptional errors, following a
list of errors drawn from Codex Sinaiticus’ text of Hebrews, he reminds readers
(p. 107) that “All “canons of criticism” are only general averages.” Within this frame of caution he proceeds to
posit – as “general guides,” to which exceptions should be expected, three
valuable rules: (1) “the more difficult reading is to be
preferred” (2) “the shorter reading is to be preferred” and (3) “the more
characteristic reading is to be preferred” and above all these, he dictates
that “That reading is to be preferred from which the origin of all the others
can most safely be derived.”
In his presentation
of external evidence, Warfield repeatedly cautions against oversimplifications,
such as assuming that preference should always
be given to what is more ancient, or always
to the reading with the most abundant pieces of independent evidence in its
favor. He opposes the notion that if a
witness is late, its text must therefore be bad, and affirms candidly (like
Burgon) that “There is reason to believe that the very grossest errors that
have ever deformed the text had entered it already in the second century.”
He leans heavily on Tregelles’ analysis
of the variant-unit in Matthew 6:4 (the presence, or absence, of ἐν τῷ φανερω),
and follow up with a less detailed rejection of the doxology in Matthew
6:13. Then he revisits John 7:8 –and
again declines to issue a verdict.
Warfield
observed (p. 126) that “The discovery of a single manuscript (À)
revolutionized Tischendorf’s text.” Certainly:
according to Eberhard Nestle, Tischendorf’s eighth edition differed from
his seventh edition at 3,572 points, due primarily to the impact of Codex
Sinaiticus. Nevertheless Warfield seems
entirely undisturbed by the prospect of another major discover destabilizing
the compilation he supports (the readings about which Tischendorf, Tregelles,
and Hort agree).
On page
132-133 Warfield expresses his position very clearly: he endorses Hort’s approach, stating that
“his results may be safely accepted as sound,” and regards Vaticanus as
“plainly the best single codex known.”
Little by little, he reveals his confident adherence to Hort’s
transmission-model, including the Lucianic recension. At the same time he rejects the reading of ÀBCLUΓ
at Matthew 27:49.
His
definition of internal evidence of groups is worth remembering: “Internal evidence of groups is, therefore, simply internal
evidence of documents applied to lost documents, a list of the readings which
has come down to us, and nothing more.”
Another pithy
statement emphasizing the importance of considering evidence in terms of
groups, on p. 139: “MSS agree together
nor by accident but by inheritance.” And
then Warfield proceeds to consider, in more detail than Hort, genealogical
evidence – concluding that Hort was justified to set aside all that is distinct
in the Syriac (i.e., the Byzantine) text.
What Warfield writes on p. 157-170 is essentially a summary of what
Hort’s introduction presented more verbosely.
Warfield helpfully offers diagrams to illustrate the how the text of the
Gospels has been transmitted. He even
utilizes Hort’s slanted nomenclature without question.
By the time he has finished summarizing Hort, Warfield says
that “The proper procedure” for settling textual contests involves, as its
first step, “Sift out all Syrian
evidence from the mass of witnesses.” He
states outright (p. 171) “Any reading supported only by the Syriac class is
convicted of having originated after A.D. 250.”
When facing
Hort’s theory of “Western non-interpolations,” Warfield bypasses Luke 24, and
merely treats the “Neutral and Alexandrian” reading in Matthew 27:49 as an
error. He moves on to small
variant-units such as μᾶλλον in Second Corinthians 2:7 and διο in Second Corinthians
12:7 and the contest between ᾖλθεν versus ᾖλθον in Galatians 2:12. A hint of frustration seems to peek out in
his brief discussion of Hebrews 10:11 where he laments, “We long for B,” and he
admits that as far as the text of Revelation is concerned, “genealogical
evidence can as yet be scarcely employed at all, without the greatest doubt and
difficulty.” How the same mind could
make such an admission, and expect his readers to confidently regard their
newly printed compilations simultaneously as inerrant and tenuous, is
mystifying.
In his
third chapter,
The Praxis of Textual
Criticism, Warfield focuses on Acts 20:28, John 1:18, First Timothy 3:16, John
7:53-8:11, and Mark 16:9-20, and in each case he rejects the Syrian reading,
“sifting out the Syrian evidence.” He
favors Θεου in Acts 20:28 and fails to mention Hort’s conjecture that υιου has
dropped out of the text. Warfield does,
however, briefly delve into the subject of conjectural emendation, stating that
“The only test of a successful conjecture is that it shall approve itself as
inevitable” and mentioning proposed emendations in Colossians 2:18: Lightfoot’s ἐώρᾳ or αἰώρᾳ κενεμβατεύων and C.
Taylor’s ἀέρα κενεμβατεύων. (In the same verse Hort proposed ἐθελοταπεινοφροσύνῃ
where θέλων ἐν ταπεινοφροσύνῃ.)
Chapter
Four is brief and Warfield’s history adds nothing that later authors such as Bruce
Metzger have not presented other than to notice more prominently the work of
Simon Colinaeus (1534) and Edward Wells (1709-1719) (whose annotated Paraphrase of the New Testament is
available in Part
One and Part
Two). Warfield recognized that he
was in a generation of pioneers, not street-pavers; yet he was confidently
optimistic enough to state, “We have at least attained the position of having
evidence enough before us to render the sketching of the history of the text
possible, and to certify us that new discoveries will only enlighten dark places, and not overturn the
whole fabric.” He closes not by
declaring that the text of the New Testament has been established, but by point
to Tischendorf’s 8th edition (1864-1872), Tregelles’ compilation
(1857-1879) and Westcott & Hort’s compilation (1881) as “the high-water
mark of modern criticism, and states that where they differ, “future criticism
may find her especial task.” It does not
seem to have bothered him that he could never show exactly what was the New
Testament text that he considered inerrant.
