The Origin and Transmission of the New Testament

by L.D. Twilley

Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Mich.

This is a handy little volume of only 69 pages, aiming to provide in a nutshell the main facts with reference to the origin and transmission of the New Testament. It reminds me of D. R. Ap-Thomas’s A Primer of Old Testament Text Criticism.

Since many people have wondered about this question, “Just how did we get the Greek Testament from which our present English New Testament was translated?” there is surely room for such a little volume.

It presents in simple, understandable form, what may be regarded as the prevailing and most recent view of many present-day scholars.

In my opinion, however, we should be careful, especially in the light of the fact that textual criticism is not in a completely settled condition. Though many of the important conclusions to which it has arrived will probably stand, nevertheless there is plenty room for new light. Thus, while one may not at all agree with those who regard the Byzantine text, and the King James Version that is based upon it, as just about infallible, one need not go to the other extreme, represented in this little book by the words italicized in the next paragraph.

“The majority of Greek MSS in existence are of the Byzantine type. Being late, they arc far inferior to the few MSS which prCSCiVe the pre·Byzantine types of text. The Authorized Version was largely made from Byzantine-type MSS, and hence it suffers from all their defects.”

It is simply a fact that the relative value of the several text-families even today has not been fully determined, though among textual critics, other things being equal, the view that the Alexandrian text (represented by Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus) generally deserves the preference has not been seriously shaken. New evidence, however, is modifying certain positions which once were held to be well established.

This holds also with respect to canons for weighing evidence in order to determine the true text in any given case. The old rule which Twilley quotes on p. 59, namely, “Prefer the harder reading to an easier one,” is also a bit too simplistic and absolutistic. My own work in the field of exegesis has convinced me that this rule at least should be modified appreciably, and in the direction pointed out by several present-day textual critics, namely, to the effect that the context in any given case is even more important in deciding the issue as to what is the true text than is the difficulty or absence of difficulty inherent in the text.

So I would recommend this well-written little book only as a kind of Primer. It supplies much valuable material, many important statistics in summary-form. But as to the conclusions, these should be taken only as jumping off points for further investigation. The science of textual criticism is by no means static. It is wide-open to new views and modifications.

WM. HENDRIKSEN

The Last Twelve Verses of Mark

by J.W. Burgon

Published by The Sovereign Grace Book Club, 1959.

When Moses, Isaiah, Luke, Paul, and other wrote or dictated those infallible books or letter which, having at a later time been gathered together, we now call our Bible, these original manuscripts or autographa did not last forever. They had to be copied. After a while these copies, too, began to wear out, and before they were completely worn out or lost, copies had to be made of these copies, and again, similarly, copies of these secondary copies. Now, it is an indisputable fact that not all of these later copies arc identical in every respect. And so it has come about that textual critics distinguish between families of texts. We may like this or not like this. These are simply facts, recognized by everyone who has made a study of such matters. The area of “substantial variation” between the various text-families is slight when you compare it with the area of complete agreement, but its presence, however insignificant in percentage, cannot be denied.

Take, as an example, the CODEX VATICANUS, a Greek Bible dating from the fourth century A.D. I happen to own a facsimile of a few sheets from the close of Mark’s GospeL Mark’s sixteenth chapter closes with verse 8, with the words “for they were afraid.” However, at the right of the sheet a column is left blank. Just why this space is left blank we simply do not know. Similarly, Codex Sinaiticus omits verses 9–20. Now it so happens that these two are the oldest manuscripts of the Greek Bible in existence today. The other codices, dating from a later age and representing the Byzantine text, have verses 9–20. So the question that is discussed in the book which I am now reviewing is, Are the Last Twelve Verses Of Mark’s Gospel authentic?

According to J.W. Burgon they are definitely genuine. His book was written long, long ago, namely, in 1871. It has now been “photolithoprinted” by the Sovereign Grace Book Club. The one new feature of the present 1959 edition is an Introduction by Rev. Edward F. Hills, who defends Burgon’s position on Mark’s long ending, and the whole Byzantine text along with it. Rev. Hills expresses the following views:

“Thus the Byzantine text found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts must be the true text, since it was this text which was used by the whole Greek Church for many centuries before the Reformation and by the whole Protestant Church for at least three centuries thereafter.”

“For it is in the Byzantine text that Christ has fulfilled His promise always to preserve in His Church the true New Testament text.”

Along with Dean Burgon, Dr. Hills is also an uncompromising champion of the King James or Authorized Version (that is, translation) of the Bible, the translation that is based on the Byzantine text.

Not many present-day textual critics or New Testament scholars—even among those who give unqualified support to the doctrinal position that the autographa are infallible in every part—will go along with Dean Burgon and Dr. Hills in the defense of this unqualified support of the Byzantine text and the Authorized Version. And as to Mark 16:9–20, we notice that ellen the Berkeley Version places these verses between parentheses. Of course, that still leaves unexplained the very abrupt ending of Mark’s gospel if it closes with the words, “for they were afraid.”

Has any attempt ever been made to answer the detailed arguments of Dean Burgon that arc found in this book? Yes, there have been such attempts. Here I would refer especially to that which is found on pp. 86–118 of a book by Dr. N. Stonehouse, who is professor of New Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia. He refers several times to Burgon’s position, which he reject$. He states, “In our judgment, then, no really solid case can be built up in the defense of the genuineness of the long ending [of Mark’s Gospel].”

My main criticism, then, of the book under review is that it is rather out-of-date. What is needed today is a book which will discuss the entire question ill the light of the arguments of Dr. Stonehouse and others in opposition to Burgon’s view. Another very interesting study might concern the more basic question whether, in the light of recent papyri discoveries, etc., it is really a fact that the “Byzantine” text as a whole is as infallible as here presupposed. The result of such scholarly studies could easily be that (a) the rather absolutistic position of Burgon and of Hills with respect to the Byzantine text and King James Version will fail to receive unqualified support; but that, nevertheless, (b) the statement of F. V. Filson (article “Gospel and Gospels” in Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Religous Knowledge) will gain some support, namely, “It has long been held that Mark 16:9–20 was a much later addition; it is usually thought that the original ending was lost at an early date. Recently some have asserted that Mark 16:8 was the original ending. This is hardly convincing:’ And that, it would seem to me, may prove to be the strongest point in the position of Burgon and Hills.

WM. HENDRIKSEN

Daily Manna Calendar

We have been reviewing the Daily Manna Calendar practically every year since it was first published. There is very little we can say about it that we have not said before. But we arc still happy to recommend it to our readers and just as eager to use it in our own home as we have been since its first appearance. All the meditations are Scriptural and edifying.

The most pleasing feature of this Calendar is the great variety of authorship and consequently of content and style. Every week brings a new writer and another kind of approach to Scripture. However, since the same men, with few if any exceptions, furnish the meditations from year to year, the writes, generally speaking, become better skilled in this type of literary work. Perhaps few of the readers are aware of the fact that the production of such brief articles requires considerable skill. It is much easier to write an acceptable meditation of a 1000 words than one of from 300 to 375 words.

May the Daily Manna Calendar continue to be published for many years to come.

H. J. KUIPER

Bible Lessons (set no. 4)

For Calvinist Cadet Club

by Rev. R.L. Veenstra

This series of 30 lessons deals in a very personal way with as many aspects of our youths’ lives. The Rev. Veenstra has succeeded in coming close to the interests of our Christian young people. Illustrations as well as direct appeal to the readers make these lessons a source of inspiration and devotion. 111e young people arc gently guided by these lessons through the period of life of “sturm und drang.”

RITS TADEMA