The Text of Scripture.

423

ART. IV.—A Treatise on Biblical Criticism, exhibiting a Systematic View of that Science. By SAMUEL DAVIDSON, D.D., LL.D. Two vols. Edinburgh, 1852.

OUR readers may recollect that in a late number we noticed Dr. Davidson's "Introduction to the New Testament." Meantime the indefatigable author has not been idle. He has recently presented us with a new and enlarged edition of his earliest volume, originally published in 1839. The edition before us is in two volumes-one being devoted to the Old Testament, and the other to the New. It is, however, in accordance with popular usage, that we call it another edition. In every respect it is a new work-not the old one re-written and re-modelled, but a distinct and independent publication. The whole subject has been carefully studied, in all its various departments, with the author's characteristic diligence and accuracy. An immense amount of labour must have been bestowed on these hosts of critical minutiæ. Criticism, in the technical sense of the term, refers to the text itself,-not to its exposition, but to its history and settlement. The subject in connexion with the New Testament embraces a wide circle of themes, such as these, the nature of the language in which the books have been written-the history of the text printed and unprinted, from the second century down to the present time-the causes of various readingsan account of the best manuscripts with their comparative value -a description of the ancient versions and of the quotations in the early fathers, and their relative authority-the general theory of criticism and its more peculiar canons-with an application of the science to the more important passages, the reading of which has been disputed. These topics involve a great variety of questions, and demand no ordinary research. The volumes of Dr. Davidson exhibit a laborious and conscientious use of all the materials and assistance within his reach. The various chapters place before us the results of a calm and candid investigation of many difficult and controverted points. While the book is a full and careful digest of all that has been written on the subject, it also contains the independent judgments and reasonings of the author. Extraneous matters of mere literary and antiquarian curiosity are anxiously excluded, though their introduction might have relieved the dryness of some of the details. We have no book in the English language that can be compared with this one in fulness and recency of authentic information, for no pains have been spared to make it a complete record of the present state of the science. Bishop Marsh is now, to a great extent,

antiquated; Horne is multifarious and discursive; and Scott Porter's theological views have apparently modified some of his statements and conclusions. Dr. Davidson is trustworthy-too candid to allow himself to be swayed by preconceptions, and too honest to conceal his convictions, as his recorded changes of opinion on several important points plainly testify. In his efforts to be lucid, he has fallen into a style that is plain even to baldness; and in his anxiety to be brief, he has given his curt declarations an air of dogmatism. Had a little flesh occasionally covered the "dry bones," more interest would have been thrown over the various discussions. By means of his "Criticism," "Hermeneutics," and "Introduction," Dr. Davidson has done good service to Christian truth, and laid the Church under great obligations.

We shall endeavour, in the following pages, to give our readers a concise view of the nature, necessity, history, and design of Biblical Criticism-stating the general principles and results of the science with familiar illustrations-avoiding, at the same time, technical terms and learned minutiæ, so that general readers may follow our disquisition with interest and advantage.

It is by means of Scripture that the Divine Being has made Himself known to the world as the Author of Redemption. We enter not at present into any vindication of the wisdom and benignity of this mode of self-revelation. But had we charged ourselves with such a plea, we might easily have illustrated the wisdom of God, in commissioning and selecting human deputies to speak to their fellow-men in their own tongue, and in qualifying them for this function, first, by pouring His truth into their minds, and then by enabling them to impart these communicated thoughts in words of perfect adaptation and fidelity. Jehovah, indeed, on one occasion, spoke in an audible voice and amidst clouds and darkness from the summit of Sinai. But the Israelites felt the scene to be so oppressive and intolerable that they shrank from a repetition of it. With an earnest unanimity, the nation exclaimed, "Let not God speak with us, lest we die." So far from being offended, God approved their request, and He who knows our frame said in reply, "They have well spoken that which they have spoken." "I will raise up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." The divine seal was thus solemnly placed upon instruction by means of inspiration. Divinity in its own majesty repulses and terrifies; and frail and paralyzed humanity cannot sympathize with its mighty utterances. But the lessons which proceed from human lips, and acquire a permanent form from a human pen, have special attractions,

Value of the Words of Scripture.

425

"Unto Him shall ye hearken." In accordance with this divine resolution, prophets were raised up from time to time to teach the Jewish people, and the succession reached its point of culmination in Him who spake as never man spake.

If therefore the Bible is divine truth conveyed in human language, all its words must be precious. Whether we hold verbal inspiration in its strictest sense, or simply maintain that prophets and apostles, while using their own style with conscious freedom, were under the infallible guidance of the Spirit of God, the same result presses upon us, that the meaning and authority of the revelation depend on the words originally employed and faithfully conveyed to us from ancient times. Honest interpretation and intelligent faith imply a genuine and uncorrupted text. If some momentous vocables have been lost and others have been interpolated,-if we have not the terms of the message transmitted with substantial fulness and correctness, perplexity and despair may drive us to conjecture, but we dare not preface any passage with the conclusive affirmation,-"Thus saith the Lord." There is no foundation for our faith, unless we of the present day are persuaded that we have Scripture essentially as pure as it was published at first by its various authors. A mutilated Bible with fragmentary clauses, and disfigured by numerous and dismal spaces, out of which precious words had dropped and disappeared, could neither entice us to its study, nor command us to do it homage. Alas! what melody could be struck from a harp with broken and missing chords.

Now, there is here a preliminary question. If God has given a perfect revelation to the world, will He not take effectual means to prevent its being injured in the course of transmission to distant ages? Will He not secure to the nineteenth century the very words of David's psalmody and Christ's sayings and discourses? Or are we to be placed at sad discount and disadvantage in having to take our Bible from the hands of copyists, whose aching fingers and drowsy eyes have produced serious descrepancies in the sacred text? May it not be anticipated that a book miraculously given, will be miraculously preserved from error? And will not its essence be vitiated, its purpose frustrated, and its heavenly origin discredited, if it be exposed to the certain hazards of ordinary literary productions? Has Heaven deserted its own offspring and left it like an orphan to be spoiled in helpless exposure?

We need not theorize when the fact is so apparent. There are numerous various readings both in the Old and New Testament, and these have been produced in consequence of frequent transcription. The inspired autographs have long ago perished, and the most ancient copies to which we have access exhibit

VOL. XIX. NO. XXXVIII.

2 E

many textual variations. No promise of infallibility was made to transcribers, and no pledge that the copy should be a perfect reflection of the original. No special class of pious and honest caligraphists was set apart to the enterprise of multiplying Bibles, and the Church had no Board of Supervision to take cognizance of their inks and parchment, discover and correct their various blunders, give authority to their revised and amended manuscripts, and throw such guaranteed copies into general circulation. The work was left, in a great measure, to individual effort. And thus scholars put themselves to the work of scribes, and, in the pride and pedantry of learning, rounded off the harder terminations, and smoothed the suspected solecisms of the sacred penmen. Critics with quill in hand could not resist the temptation of amending one gospel from another, or of inserting some explanatory terms in the margin, which their successors innocently introduced into the text. Theologians opened out the roll before them, and dipping their reed into the ink-horn, marked with the symbols of suspicion some clauses that wore the semblance of antagonism to their favourite creed, and he who next copied their manuscripts felt himself warranted to omit the branded words altogether. Heretics found that in transcription they possessed a speedy and secret power of proselytism-a defective canon being the best support of a defective faith-and for their own purposes they "handled the Word of God deceitfully." Men not accustomed to the art of copying might piously engage in the work, but with no aptitude for it, might execute it in slovenly and self-satisfied haste. The unpractised eye of an illiterate scribe might mistake one letter for another, and even from similarity of reading, one line for another, and his scrawl might be again abused by some one as stupid as himself, to whom he had lent it for a similar purpose. And it might, and did happen, that the Codex from which a copy was made, was misread,—the sense misunderstood, and the words wrongly divided. Or if one wrote while another read to him, word by word or clause by clause, then imperfect hearing, difference of pronunciation, refined or vulgar accent, originated varieties of spelling and yet grosser faults; while even the expert and " ready writer," trusting too much to his memory and dexterity, changed the position of words, added or omitted, and unconsciously substituted synonymes. The history of the English translation furnishes one marked illustration. The greatest care was taken of the sheets of Dr. Blayney's famous quarto edition as it was slowly passing through the press. It was thought to be an immaculate work, when it was discovered that no less than half a verse had been omitted in the Apocalypse (xviii. 22). The omission was evidently produced by the fact that the two parallel clauses of

Transcription-a solemn task.

427

the verse had a similar ending; the printer's eye was deceived by the double occurrence of the word "more," and he omitted all the intervening words. The text of Scripture has been liable to these usual hazards, and such sources of error, as those we have indicated, were long in operation. Now, in all this nothing has befallen the Bible but what is common to other books. But, as the Bible is distinguished from all other books in its origin, why, it may be asked, has it not been signalized also in its literary progress from age to age?

It may be answered, that faith in the divine origin of Scripture should have kept men from tampering with its contents. If the consciousness that they were writing out the book of God. had overshadowed their spirit as it ought-if they had felt that every word was sacred, and every letter an integral part of a supernatural record-if they could have realized, that in copying the Scriptures for others, they were standing to them in God's stead, speaking to them in God's name, and thus personating, as far as possible, the Prophets and Apostles of an earlier epoch -then surely that vast responsibility must have deterred the unqualified and checked the presumptuous, and thrown such an honour and sacredness over the work as should have excited the minute and skilful diligence, and sharpened the pious and prayerful scrupulosity, of the early churches. The function of the scribe must have felt itself hallowed and ennobled by its operation on the Word of God, as was the artistic genius of Bezaleel and Aholiab in the construction of the tabernacle and its sacred vessels and furniture. The exposure of Scripture to such danger is therefore no argument against its heavenly nature. God gave His oracles to the world in a perfect state, and left it in charge to men to preserve them immaculate. He works no superfluous miracles, but tests in this manner the faith and sincerity of the Church. Physical life is His gift too; but He has cast no mystic shield around it, to protect it from accident, danger, or self-destruction. It is entrusted to man himself to preserve and prolong it, and his abuse or neglect of this commission may be a very unworthy acknowledgment of the gift, but it is certainly no argument against the divinity of its origin.

If, then, no superhuman care has been taken of the words and letters of the inspired pages--if thousands of various readings do exist is it not a great duty to strive to have a text as nearly as possible in the condition in which its holy authors left it? How can we have faith in any doctrine, if there be doubts as to the very words on which it is based? Textual criticism, in this view, takes precedence of evidences as well as interpretation. It must be a Bible materially the same as when first published that we defend, and not the errors and deviations of patristic