Bible Critics Revise Their Thinking
THE 20th century has seen great progress toward a more accurate Bible text. Discovery of many early manuscripts, especially the Chester Beatty and Bodmer Papyri and the Dead Sea Scrolls, has made possible a text much closer to the originals than many scholars hoped to achieve. Greater understanding of the original Hebrew and Greek languages has meant more precise translation of the Bible into many languages around the world. It would seem, therefore, that such progress must leave far behind the ideas of 200 years ago, even if it owes much to the work done during that time.
So it is perhaps surprising to find that the ideas of Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745-1812) are being discussed again in our day. In 1976 a conference was held in Münster, Federal Republic of Germany, devoted solely to the work of this scholar. Why is there a revival of his studies today?
After obtaining a master’s degree when he was 23, Griesbach toured Europe, visiting libraries to examine manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures. The fruits of this research were published in 1774 and 1775, and his Greek text (in later editions) was used by a number of Bible translators, including Archbishop Newcome, Abner Kneeland, Samuel Sharpe, Edgar Taylor and Benjamin Wilson (the latter in The Emphatic Diaglott).
For the first time, Griesbach included manuscript readings older than those that were used by Erasmus in his Greek text of 1516 C.E. The importance of this research is evident from the following comment: “Griesbach spent long hours in the attempt to find the best readings among the many variants in the New Testament. His work laid the foundations of modern text criticism and he is, in no small measure, responsible for the secure New Testament text which we enjoy today.”—J. J. Griesbach: Synoptic and Text-Critical Studies, 1776-1976, p. xi.
In 1776 Griesbach issued his Synopsis of the Gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke, with the text set out in parallel columns for easy comparison. Ever since, they have been called the “synoptic” Gospels because they present a “like view.” Griesbach firmly believed that these Gospels were written by the persons named, that Matthew was an eyewitness of the events he recorded, and that “the apostles were fitted through the Holy Spirit to both understand and transmit the doctrine without danger of error.”
From his studies Griesbach concluded that the first Gospel was written by Matthew, the second by Luke and the third by Mark. But even during Griesbach’s lifetime, the idea that Mark was the first Gospel to be written was suggested by G. S. Storr. Since then this theory has gained widespread support, together with the belief that behind the Gospels lies an unknown lost document labeled ‘Q.’ Later scholars added other strands and sources to this theory, and its discussion and elaboration have occupied scores of books and thousands of articles. So important did it become to many theologians that it even took on the nature of “an article of faith.” As a consequence, Griesbach was cast aside and often harshly criticized.
After dominating the field for such a long time, the ‘source document’ theory now is being criticized. As many scholars revise their thinking, they have ‘rediscovered’ the ideas of Griesbach. After being brought up to date with certain alterations, these ideas have been found to resolve more adequately existing questions regarding the Gospels.
The ‘source document’ idea has destroyed the faith of many persons in the divine inspiration of the Bible. (2 Tim. 3:16, 17) This tendency is not new, for the apostle Paul told Timothy to “command certain ones not to teach different doctrine, nor to pay attention to false stories and to genealogies, which end up in nothing, but which furnish questions for research [“promote speculations,” RS] rather than a dispensing of anything by God in connection with faith.”—1 Tim. 1:3, 4.
It is interesting that Bishop B. C. Butler, who defended the priority of Matthew almost alone some years ago, puts his finger on the key to the entire question, saying: “An unprejudiced enquirer, who wishes to discover the truth, will generally decide, if he reads and re-reads the Synoptic Gospels as whole books, that the authors were themselves honest men, setting down what they sincerely believed to be true. He will then realise that they could not have believed these things to be true unless the historical facts were, substantially, such as they represent them to have been.”—Searchings, p. 85.
No uninspired lost document served as a basis for the Gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They wrote under the influence of Jehovah God’s holy spirit. Of course, the mistaken theories of men may hold sway for a very long time, in this case some 200 years. Meanwhile, the faith of many persons in God’s Word is undermined. But if we are wise we will note all the evidence that has accumulated to show the reliability and divine inspiration of the Bible. And we will leave the critics to revise their thinking as often as they wish.