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.

Textual Criticism in the 1970s and 1980s

Was there an interlude in the discipline of NT textual criticism in the mid-20th century? Eldon Epp thought so. Kurt Aland disagreed. Whichever side you take, I noticed an interest contrast today in an article by Georg Luck published in 1981 on the state of classical textual criticism. 

Writing shortly after Epp made his provocative claim about an interlude, Luck wrote these words introducing an extended review of several books: “Above all, these works show that textual criticism today is as an essential tool of classical scholarship as it has ever been.” 

That’s an interesting contrast. At roughly the same period of time, a NT scholar was suggesting the discipline was in a lull on his side of things while a classicist was saying it was thriving on his. I have no grand conclusion to draw. Just an observation.

William Eyre: Neglected Figure in the History of Textual Criticism?

I recently acquired access to the substantial three-volume collection of James Ussher’s correspondence edited by Elizabethanne Boran. Ussher is most famous today for his very specific dating of creation. I’m no expert on him, but I can safely say that this was hardly his greatest contribution. He was, according to one recent biographer, “formidably learned” and kept a wide correspondence with great lights of hisday. He wrote on a wide range of subjects, including those of interest to this blog (see here). 

The particular letter I’m interested in, however, is not from Ussher but to him from a man named William Eyre (or Eyres, Aiers). Eyre was a Fellow at Emmanuel College and, according to Gordon Campbell, an overseer of the first Cambridge company of KJV translators who were assigned 1 Chronicles to Song of Solomon (more here).

Emmanuel College, where Eyre was a fellow

Before introducing the letter, it’s important to remember that, at this time, the dating of the Hebrew Masoretic vowel points was hotly contested. The issue was hardly arcane as it touched on a much larger debate between Catholics and Protestants on which versions of the Bible were “authentic” and therefore authoritative for settling doctrinal debate. If the Jews added the vowel points after both the Septuagint and the Vulgate, then it was easier to argue that the Hebrew text of the 16th century was inferior to either of those translations. From this Catholics could ground their preference for the Vulgate since, it was argued, Jerome had access to a purer Hebrew text than the one Protestants claimed. (If you want a great example, take a close look at Gen. 3.15 in the Douay-Rheims vs. KJV and think about its potential to influence Mariology.)

This is the backdrop to a long and fascinating letter that Eyre sent to Ussher on 24 March, 1608. (You can find the Latin online here.) The main subject of the letter is a proposed two-volume work that would contribute to the debate by showing that “only the Hebrew edition of the Old Testament, just as the Greek of the New, is authentic and pure.” The OT seems to occupy his special attention, but the NT is not left out.

What’s fascinating is the amount of detail he provides Ussher for his plan.

...here is the method of the things that I have begun to prepare — and indeed shortly (with the Lord’s help) I shall complete this work for private use. It can be called סיג התורה ‘fence around the law, or ‘Massoreth’ ’ or (as others read) ‘Masorah’, for preserving the purity of the sources, or removing corruption from the text of the sacred scriptures, and consequently for proving their authority; it is contained in two books, of which: 

1. The first, will contain general introductory material. 
2. The second, an index of variant readings, in the whole of scripture. 

The chief material of the first book (after the state of the controversy about the authentic edition of the scriptures and purity of the sources) I have covered in six propositions, which I could confirm with the firmest of reasoning, if they are rightly understood: 

• 1st proposition: only that edition of the scriptures is authentic which was divinely inspired, and written down by the prophets and apostles. 
• 2nd proposition: that prophetic scripture which was first written down is still preserved in the Church in a pure and whole state. 
• 3rd proposition: the Hebrew scripture of the Old Testament was handed down in antiquity with the same notes of vowels and accents that we use today. 
• 4th proposition: the Greek scripture of the New Testament (which was divinely inspired) still remains whole and pure in the Church. 
• 5th proposition: the Greek translation of the Old Testament is neither divinely inspired, nor pure and whole. 
• 6th proposition: the Vulgate Latin edition of the Bible is not faithful nor authentic, nor yet divinely written down.

Where are they now? New Testament text-critics’ libraries

Eb. Nestle’s library (photo credit)

Occasionally, one buys a book on Amazon or at a used book store and discovers with delight that it was owned by a famous scholar from times past. When I was at Tyndale I managed to get a copy formerly owned by F. F. Bruce, many of which float around the stacks there.

Much better than a one-off copy, however, is to discover a past scholar’s entire library. Aside from the insight this can give of a scholar’s interests and abilities (for example), there are often many hidden gems to be found either in correspondences, in the margins of the books, or simply in the books themselves if they are rare.

To further this benefit, I thought it might be worth trying to compile a list of New Testament textual critics’ libraries. Here is what I have come up with so far, with the help of a few of my fellow bloggers. I would like to add to this, so if you know of any corrections or additions, please let me know.

• Richard Bentley – Trinity College CB (per P. M. Head)
• J. J. Wettstein – scattered across Europe (see Jan Krans here)
• S. P. Tregelles ­– papers and correspondence at various British libraries (see here)
• C. von Tischendorf – University of Glasgow
• B. F. Westcott – Some at Westcott House (Cambridge), some with Bible Society in the CUL. A PDF catalogue from the British National Archives is here
• F. J. A. Hort – Sold at auction. See here. PMH mentions Hort’s books here. Stephen Neill (Interpretation, 66 n. 1) says that Hort’s copy of Mill ended up with Archdeacon Naylor of Montreal.
• Hermann Hoskier – some books at Duke Divinity School Library
• Caspar René Gregory – papers at Harvard Divinity School (see here)
• Eberhard Nestle – Sold to Cambridge after 1913, now with the Van Kampen collection at the Scriptorium; papers, letters, and other memorobilia of Eberhard and Erwin are at FTH Giessen (see here)
• Kirsopp and Silva Lake – ?
• J. Rendel Harris – Woodbrooke Study Center in Birmingham, UK (see PDF here) and some at University of Birmingham library
• E. C. Colwell – Library sold by his son (per Maurice Robinson)
• Eric Turner – University of Western Australia. See Hixson’s comment below.
• Kenneth W. Clark – Duke Divinity School Library, mixed among the main collection
• Kurt and Barbara Aland – First part (up to 1959) of Kurt’s is held at Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg (info) and the second part (1959–1994) is at the Archive of the University of Münster available now with the family’s permission and to the public starting in 2030. Barbara’s library is still being used.
• Neville Birdsall – University of Birmingham (info)
• Bruce M. Metzger – Sold on the internet if my memory is right
• Gordon Fee – New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary (info)
• Jacob Geerlings – CSNTM (see here)
• Eldon J. Epp – Baylor University (see here)