Holy Scripture - Lesson 10

THE HOLY SCRIPTURE

2004-2005

LESSON TEN

I. The Integrity of the Biblical Text (p. 338., et.seq.)

A. Under prior discussion of “Objections to the Doctrine of Inspiration”.

1. We dealt with argument that the variant readings disproved the inspiration of Scripture.

2. We came to conclusion that the integrity of the text is assured both:

a. a priori, by the promise of Christ, and

b. a posteriori, by scientific investigation.

3. Now we add some particulars and emphasis to what has been said.

B. Question whether original Hebrew text contained the vowel points or was written only in consonants.

1. Older Lutheran dogmaticians assumed the vowel points present.

2. Luther emphatically asserted only in consonants.

3. Is a historical question which does not affect the inspiration or the integrity of the text.

4. e.g. Luther emphatic teaching of

a. Verbal Inspiration in the fullest form, and

b. Strong denial that the vowel points were in the original text.

C. We note particularly the manifest care with which God kept watch over the integrity of the text of the New Testament.

1. We face a miracle of divine preservation.

2. Look at things which endangered the transmission of the original text.

a. The negligence of copyists deplored by Cicero, Origen, et. al.

b. The variants are:

(1) Accidental, through negligence, since stress was not on it being literally God’s Word, or through misunderstanding of the dictation.

(2) Partly through misunderstanding of what was heard or read, e.g. the case of abbreviations.

(3) Some variants were intentional, to “improve” the language or to “clarify” dark passages by additions or changes.

(4) From learned transactions, there resulted glosses.

(a) First were place on the margin.

(b) Were later included into the text.

(c) Or from liturgical supplements of the lectionaries, where changes became necessary because of the unsuitable beginning or end of the pericopes.

(5) Sometimes, text was arbitrarily altered according to the established translations.

3. Yet, text was not corrupted “in essential points”.

4. We can use Textus Receptus next to Nestle’s.

D. Discussion of questions of textual criticism usually produces animosity.

1. Professional jealousy.

2. Racial prejudices.

3. Reliance on writings of fathers (e.g. Cyprian) which are older than oldest codices.

4. “Scientific” reputation not put at risk no matter what position is taken concerning disputed passages.

5. We can await “further evidence” without harm concerning passages genuinely disputed.

6. e.g. 1Jn 5:7-8.

a. Cyprian: Trinity is taught.

b. Scholars argue against this “veiled” reference.