There was scholar who studied all the languages and dialects up to the year 600 AD and found there is only one accurate translation of Bible. When the Bible was first written the writers wrote as the Holy Spirit Guided them. Here is a testament to the studies of this absolute genius of this man.
By WAYNE JACKSON
Robert Dick Wilson was truly a remarkable gentleman. Bible students are indebted to him for the masterful work he did in helping to confirm the credibility of the Old Testament.
Robert Wilson was born in 1856; he graduated from Princeton University at the age of twenty. He went on to earn both a Masters degree and a PhD. He then did further post-graduate work in Germany for two years. He was a brilliant language student; when he was still in college he could read his New Testament in nine languages.
Wilson was but twenty-five years of age when he determined that he would invest years of careful study in the text of the Old Testament so that he could speak with authority as to whether or not it has been preserved in an accurate format.
The body of Old Testament literature was completed by 400 B.C., and yet prior to 1946 (when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered), the oldest copies of the Old Testament Scriptures we possessed dated to about the tenth century A.D. There was, therefore, a gap of some twelve hundred years between the last of the Old Testament books and the extant manuscripts.
Could we be sure that the writings at our disposal had been faithfully preserved? After all, even if one is confident that the original Scriptures were inspired of God, that would amount to little if they have been grossly corrupted across the centuries. This was the task, therefore, to which young Wilson dedicated himself. And he was a wonderfully disciplined person.
Based upon the longevity of his immediate ancestors, Robert Wilson estimated that he might live to about seventy years of age. Since he was twenty-five at the time, that would give him about forty-five years remaining to accomplish his goal. Accordingly, he divided his projected remaining years into three periods of fifteen years each. Here is how he would pursue his plan:
For the first fifteen years, he would study every language that had a bearing on the text of the Old Testament. He set himself to the task. During that time he mastered forty-five languages! He not only became an expert in Hebrew and its kindred tongues, but he learned all the languages into which the Scriptures had been translated down to the year A.D. 600.
During the next fifteen years Wilson dedicated himself to studying the text of the Old Testament itself. He looked at every consonant in the Old Testament text (the Hebrew Old Testament has no vowels)—about one and a quarter million of them. He made a thorough scientific investigation of the Old Testament text, as compared to other writings of antiquity.
Wilson noted that there are twenty-nine ancient, pagan kings of various nations which are mentioned in the Bible. Their names are also found in the writings of their own lands. The names of these kings consist of 195 consonants. He discovered that in the Old Testament there are only two or three letters—of the entire 195—that are in question as to spelling. By way of contrast, in the secular literature of the same period, the names of those rulers frequently are so garbled that one can scarcely identify the person.
For example, Ptolemy, an ancient writer, drew up a list of eighteen Babylonian kings, and not a one of them is spelled correctly. The text of the Bible was amazingly precise.
Wilson then spent his remaining years writing down the results of his long research. He authored a marvelous book titled, A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament, in which he confidently affirmed “we are scientifically certain that we have substantially the same [Old Testament] text that was in the possession of Christ and the apostles and, so far as anybody knows, the same as that written by the original composers of the Old Testament documents.”
We ought to be grateful for those who have gone before us, and who have provided us with evidence for the integrity of the biblical text. By the way, Wilson died at the age of seventy-four.
Some quotes of Dr. Wilson from The Christian Expositor
“Most of our students used to go to Germany, and they heard professors give lectures which were the results of their own labours. The students took everything because the professor said it. I went there to study so that there would be no professor on earth that could lay down the law for me, or say anything without my being able to investigate the evidence on which he said it.
“Now I consider that what was necessary in order to investigate the evidence was, first of all, to know the languages in which the evidence is given. So I … determined that I would learn all the languages that throw light upon the Hebrew, and also the languages into which the Bible had been translated down to 600 A.D., so that I could investigate the text myself.
‘Having done this I claim to be an expert. I defy any man to make an attack upon the Old Testament on the ground of evidence that I cannot investigate. I can get at the facts if they are linguistic. If you know any language that I do not know, I will learn it.”
Wilson challenged other so-called “experts” in the Old Testament field demanding that they prove their qualifications before making statements concerning its history and text. “If a man is called an expert, the first thing to be done is to establish the fact that he is such. One expert may be worth more than a million other witnesses that are not experts. Before a man has the right to speak about the history, the language, and the paleography of the Old Testament, the Christian church has the right to demand that such a man establish his ability to do so.”
INAUGURAL ADDRESS.
[delivered on 21 September 1900]
MR. PRESIDENT AND GENTLEMEN OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS:
Let me thank you for the great honor which you have
conferred upon me in calling me to take a part in the suc-
cession to the labors of those illustrious men who, in their
day, made the name of Princeton known and revered
throughout the world, and whose memory still is blessed.
May the portion of their mantle which has fallen upon
me, cause me to be filled with the same spirit which was
in them, and make me worthy of a place among my
learned and distinguished confr?res in the present faculty
of this mother of Presbyterian Seminaries.
It gives me especial pleasure and comfort, in leav-
ing a city which for nearly a quarter of a century has
been my home, to see among you here so many of the old
familiar faces of those who in College and Seminary were
my professors or fellow students, and to receive a charge
from one whom I have always deemed one of the dearest
of my Seminary friends.
Will you pardon my for expressing the hope that
those of you who have known me for so many years and
yet have esteemed me fitted for this place, may never be
disappointed in your choice.
Before discussing the subject which I have chosen
for my inaugural address, a few definitions may be neces-
sary. By Lower Criticism I mean grammar, lexicogra-
phy and textual criticism ; by Higher Criticism, any liter-
ary criticism of the text or any systematic statements of
truth, which may be derived from the purest possible
text, in strict accordance with the rules of grammar and
the most probably results of lexicography. Following these
definitions, we restate the theme of our discourse as fol-
lows: A thorough knowledge of the principles of gram-
mar, lexicography and textual criticism is necessary as a
preparation for the critical study of the Scriptures along
any line of thought, literary, historical or theological.
Before passing to the discussion of our subject, let
us remark that the three branches of Lower Criticism are
not mutually exclusive nor logically distinct. Indeed, there
is a sense in which both lexicography and textual criticism
may be looked upon as parts of grammar, while on the
other hand, no part of grammar or lexicography can be
considered without reference to the criticism of the text.
After these preliminary remarks by way of defini-
tion and limitation, I proceed to the discussion of the
kind and amount of lower criticism which are demanded
by the times, and which it shall be the endeavor of the
incumbent of the Chair of Semitic Philology and Old
Testament Criticism to impart. The first department of
Lower Criticism is that which is commonly called gram-
mar. For convenience of treatment Hebrew Grammar
may be divided into three parts, Phonics, Graphics and
Morphics, or sounds, signs and forms. The study of
sounds, in their relation to Higher Criticism, is import-
ant only because of its bearing upon the derivation and
the variations of the forms of words, and upon the errors
of text arising from the confusion of consonants of simi-
lar sound. The study of Graphics, especially in MSS.
and in palaeography, is necessary in order to understand
the transmission of the text, and in particular the varia-
tions arising from mistakes in reading letters which, at
some time, have been similar in form. And when we
come to the first part of Morphics, which is commonly
called etymology, it is not sufficient to study the forms
of words as they are embodied in the traditional punctua-
tion of the Massoretes. The origin of the sounds back
of the written forms, the inflection and meaning of the
forms, the ability to change forms in accordance with the
demands of exegesis, this must be thoroughly learned
before one is prepared to advance with steady tread by
the paths of syntax and textual criticism to the higher
regions of history, theology and literary criticism. But
if the origin, inflection and meaning of single words is
indispensable, what shall we say of the more complex
forms of syntax? You will agree with me, that this is
one of the most difficult tasks in the learning of any
language. You will agree with me, further, in my belief
that no part of a theological education was formerly
more neglected than the study of Hebrew Syntax. In
fact, it was scarcely taught at all in our theological sem-
inaries a generation ago. If you will look at an old
Hebrew grammar, you will find that very little space is
given to it. One was expected to know it by intuition,
or to pick it up. The advance in the importance attrib-
uted to a special knowledge of Hebrew syntax, may be
gauged by comparing the different editions of Gesenius?
Grammar which have appeared in the last fifty years, or
the translation of Conant with the last editions of the
English version of Kautzsch?s Gesenius. We are con-
vinced that the reason why so many of our ministers
have neglected the independent exegesis of the Old Tes-
tament, has been that they were ignorant of syntax.
Certainly no one acquainted with the subject would
suppose for an instant that a knowledge of that difficult
and varied instrument for the expression of thought,
the Semitic verb, could be gained otherwise than by
thorough and protracted study. The Hebrew imperfect
is as varied in its usage as the Greek Aorist, the Hebrew
genitive and article as the Greek, and the exegete who
attempts to expound the Old Testament, without being
master of these, is just as insensible to the requirements
of the case as is he who would try in like ignorance to
expound the Greek of the New.
The second division of Lower Criticism is lexicog-
raphy, the science or art of determining the meaning of
words. By most students of the Old Testament, this
department of research is given over entirely to the dic-
tionary makers. What appears in a standard current
dictionary is considered final and decisive. I remember
that when I was in the Seminary two great theologians
carried on an important discussion, which depended upon
the meaning of a single word, and neither of them thought
it necessary to appeal to other authorities than the Eng-
lish edition of Gesenius. Who was Gesenius, that our
Presbyterian ministers and professors should appeal to
his dictionary as the final court in linguistic matters?
Should a rationalist of his type, whose opinions in
Higher Criticism would be rejected as untenable, shall
the work of such a man be accepted as the standard in
the field of lexicography? Do a man?s views of God
not enter into his definition of miracles and prophecy
and holiness and sin? Those of you who are conversant
with Gesenius? dictionary will remember the frequently
recurring note: See my Commentary on Isaiah, in loco;
and there we find the discussion of the reasons for defin-
ing the word as it is given in the dictionary. In short, a
dictionary is but the dicta of the writer on the words
defined. The exegete should be prepared to go back of
the dictionary so as to examine the reasons for the defini-
tion. As my learned colleague, in his masterly review of
the meaning of the word qeo,pneustoj (inspired), so every
searcher after truth should, so far as possible, be prepared
to search out the meaning of any disputed term and to
thoroughly investigate his premises before arriving at a
conclusion. But it is a pertinent question here to ask,
whether this is ever in the range of possibility for the ordi-
nary theological student? To which I answer : Yes; in
large part.
Every theological student learns enough Hebrew to
use a concordance. Now, a concordance of a language like
the ancient Hebrew, whose entire literature is found in a
single book, gives a comprehensive survey of the usage
of a given word. If the construction in which the word
occurs is always exactly the same, little information can
be gained in this way ; but if the word is of frequent
occurrence, and is found in several or many different con-
nections, a tolerably accurate definition of most words
may be made without further help than a concordance.
If there is profit in using Cruden?s and Young?s con-
cordances in the explication of the text, much more might
one argue the utility of using those in the original lan-
guages in which the Word of God was written, as ?The
final appeal in all questions of faith and practice.? The
Greek and Hebrew concordances are the airbrakes on
hasty conclusions, the safety-valves of the Church against
the rash judgments of professional dictators or ignorant
enthusiasts.
A second aid which the ordinary student may find
in determining the meaning of words, is that to be
derived from the meaning of forms. If it be true
that forms have meaning, then a knowledge of the usual
meaning of these forms will enable the student to demand
that the lexicon shall give a sufficient reason for any
departure from the customary meaning of a form.
A third aid which the ordinary student can use in the
control of the dictionary is to be found in the ancient ver-
sions into Greek and Latin. These versions are fortu-
nately within the reach of all, and their daily use in the
interpretation of the original is to be most highly com-
mended. It will not merely keep up and increase a
knowledge of those languages upon which so much time
has been expended, but it will certainly call attention to
matters of grammar and exegesis which would otherwise
be entirely overlooked. But as to the point in question,
it will be immediately perceived that when there is a dif-
ference between one or more of the ancient versions and
the lexicon as to the meaning of a word, that there is a
subject worthy of the investigation of the exegete. To
my mind no better method for mastering the ancient He-
brew, and at the same time for retaining and perfecting
our knowledge of the classics, can be found than the study
of the ancient versions in connection with the original
text, discovering and seeking to explain every slightest
variation of thought or expression. As tests of diction-
aries and suggesters of new ideas they are invaluable and
unsurpassed. While ordinary students must remain satis-
fied with the study of the Greek and Latin versions, the
extraordinary student will acquire Syriac and Aramaic in
order to make use of the other great primary versions,
that he may derive a full benefit from these great master-
pieces of interpretation of the word of God which have
been handed down from antiquity.
A fourth aid in the control of lexicons is not open to
the ordinary student. It is that to be derived from the
cognate languages. Its value in correcting the errors of
citation and logic on the part of lexicographers can
scarcely be overestimated. I shall never forget the shock
which went through my frame when upon looking at an
Arabic dictionary in confirmation of a statement made by
that imperial scholar, Ewald, with regard to the meaning
of a word, I found the facts to be the very opposite to
that which he had stated to be the case. It caused a rev-
olution in my methods ; I have never since accepted the
references to the cognate languages in the commentaries
and dictionaries without first making an investigation
for myself, and even then often with the admission to my-
self that the inductions of meanings in the dictionaries at
hand may be incomplete or misunderstood. Some of the
commentaries and lexicons cannot be comprehended with-
out a partial knowledge of Arabic and Syriac at least.
Would that every one who had the opportunity of per-
fecting himself in the use of all the means which God has
given us for ascertaining with as much fulness as possible
the meaning of every word which the Holy Scriptures
contain would avail himself of the advantages which this
institution may afford of learning these sister tongues of
the inspired.
The third department of Lower Criticism is Textual
Criticism, the purpose of which is to discover the original
text. One would suppose that the first endeavor of all
students of the Bible would be to discover the very words
which were written through the inspiration of God. It is
only lately, however, that any critical apparatus, approx-
imating in any suitable degree what it should be, has been
prepared. The publication of the Polychrome edition of
the Hebrew bible and the amount of textual changes sug-
gested in many of the latest commentaries, such as Klos-
termann?s, and in religious magazines, like the Expository
Times, have rendered it necessary for the intelligent and
conscientious reader to gain as good as possible a knowl-
edge of the correct principles of Old Testament textual
criticism. While Old Testament books are costly, every
man can have at least one polyglot which will give most
of the data upon which the conclusions of the critics are
based. As to the methods of textual criticism, this is
neither the time nor the place to enter into a full state-
ment of what they are. Let it suffice to say that they
should be objective rather than subjective. The purpose
of the critic should be to find out what the author said,
not what he would like him to have said, nor what he
thinks he ought to have said. Such a method, moreover,
must be scientific, i.e., it must seek to secure a complete
induction of the facts without selection or exclusion,
because of preconceived opinions or tendency theories of
any kind whatsoever. What the men of God wrote, that
is the task of the critic to discover and to pass on to the
exegete, the historian and the theologian, that they may
have correct premises on which to base the conclusions in
their commentaries, histories and theologies.
Here let me guard against two common misconcep-
tions. One is the supposition that the Hebrew original
of the Old Testament has been so preserved as to render
all revision objectless. No one can hold such a theory
in view of the evidences of the Hebrew MSS. and the
parallel passages alone. No more will any one who ac-
cepts the evidences of the New Testament quotations in
their bearing upon the text of the Old, and who recognizes
the need for a revision of the New Testament, have a locus
standi in defending the impeccability of the text of the Old.
The other error is that the ancient translators or the
later revisers of their versions were so characterized by
prejudices and tendencies that their translations were
intentionally inaccurate and biased from the start, so as
to render them largely useless in enabling us to re-estab-
lish any original Hebrew text. In answer to this it may
be said that (except in isolated instances and books) no
sufficient proof of these intentional variations from the
original text has as yet been produced. My own conviction
is (and this is a conviction based upon a more or less ex-
tensive study of all the versions), that all of them, primary
and secondary, by whomsoever made, bear undeniable
evidence of having been designed to be faithful to their
original. Had we the original texts of the versions, we
could doubtless, with the aid of the Hebrew textus receptus,
reconstruct in most instances the originals from which
they were translated. As it is, the first question to be
asked when we find a variation in a version is, why this
variation? Was the original of it different from the textus
receptus? Did the translators misunderstand the original?
Do we misunderstand either the original or the transla-
tion, or is either one or other text corrupt? It will be
seen that before one is fitted to answer these questions
with anything like accuracy, he must be acquainted with
all the departments of grammar and lexicography men-
tioned above. Phonics, palaeography, the concordances,
versions and cognates will all contribute their portion
toward the settlement of every question of text. The
failure to use any one of these factors may cause an error
in the result.
Such, then, are the three great divisions of Lower
Criticism?text, grammar, lexicon?and knowledge of all
three is indispensable to any one who will rightly divide
the Word of Truth. A correct view of the possibilities
and attainments of textual criticism, a thorough know-
ledge of all the parts of grammar, an intelligent control
of lexicography ? these must be the possession of him
who would understand the biblical literature of the day ;
these give the logical premises for all conclusions based
upon the Word of God. These are the foundations upon
which are to be built the stately structure of literary
criticism, history and theology.
We shall seek to lay the foundations deep and broad
and firm in the minds of our students, that all men may
admire the uprightness and strength and beauty of the
superstructures which they shall build.
You will all have noticed that throughout this dis-
course I have emphasized the study of the cognates, and
of the primary versions, at least, for those who would
fully master the details of Lower Criticism. Only after
having learned these will they be fully furnished for the
more attractive but not more important work of Higher
Criticism. Not forgetting that the primary object of the
Theological Seminary is to train men for the Gospel min-
istry, I should like to see Princeton, and I think that the
Church would like to see Princeton, offer to young men
of the Presbyterian faith facilities for the acquisition of
any branch of knowledge that will help them to discover
and defend, in its full meaning, every word of God. It
shall be my aim and ambition, with the hoped for hearty
aid of the faculty and directors of this institution, and of
our Alma Mater across the way, to present to every
student the opportunity of acquiring any language which,
as cognate to the Hebrew, throws light upon its gram-
mar and lexicon, or any language in which a version of
the Bible was made before the Sixth Century, A.D.
Some of my fellow professors have kindly offered to
assist in this plan, which is only an extension of what has
hitherto been offered. With the assistance which the
University can render, and which we are happy to believe it
will be glad to render, we hope that soon it will not be
necessary for any of our students to go abroad to perfect
themselves in any branch of theological science.
In my plans for the offering of increased facilities for
the more thorough understanding of the Old Testament,
I have projected a number of works and series of works
which seem necessary to fill out the apparatus criticus.
In the completing of these works, I shall invoke the
assistance of the students whom I expect to train, the
advice of my fellow professors, and, when needed, the
financial aid of the friends of this Seminary.
And may God grant His grace and His strength that all
our labors may be well done and fully done, to the increase
of knowledge and faith, to the honor of His Word and the
glory of His name.
Linkback: You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login
http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,2790.msg85077.html#msg85077
|
|
Logged
|
Registered Linux user #447237
We can never achieve perfection.. but if we chase perfection we will catch excellence.
Vince Lombardi
We have forty million reasons for failure but not a single excuse.
Rudyard Kipling
|
