 |  |
"It is not too much to say that in nine passages out of ten--nay to go further--in every
passage of vital importance as regards the integrity of Holy Scripture, the veracity of the
sacred writers, and the records of our Lord's sayings, nearly all ancient versions, and with
very few exceptions, all ancient Fathers, support the readings rejected by the Revisers."
Of the 36,000 alterations mentioned above, over 5,000 are definite changes of the
Greek Text, and not a revision of the A.V. translation.
"There is the idea in the minds of some people that scholarship demands the laying
aside of the Authorized Version of the Bible and taking up the latest Revised Version.
This is an idea, however, without any proper basis. The Revised Version is in large part
in line with what is known as Modernism, and is peculiarly acceptable to those who think
any change, anywhere or in anything, progress. Those who have investigated the matter,
and are in hearty sympathy with what is evangelical, realize that this Revised Version is a
part of the movement to `modernize' Christian thought and faith and do away with the
established truth" -
(The Herald and Presbyter, July 16, 1924).
The dramatic discovery of the Sinaitic Manuscript (see Volume XXI, pages 169-176)
gave it an importance that is not borne out by cool examination, and much the same can
be said of the famous Vatican Manuscript. These two, the Sinaitic and the Vatican
Manuscripts, practically dominate the R.V.
Dr. B. Warfield writes:
"I have been surprised, in comparing the R.V. with other versions, to find how many
changes, which are important and valuable, have been anticipated by the Rhemish
translation which now forms a part of what is known as the Douay Bible . . . . . And yet a
careful comparison of these new translations with the Rhemish Testament, shows them,
in many instances, to be simply a return to this old version, and leads us to think that
possibly there were as finished scholars 300 years ago as now, and nearly as good
apparatus for the proper rendering of the original text."
Before we commit ourselves to an unreserved acceptance of the Greek Text of the
R.V., we must pause and consider whether after all it may not be but the rising to the
surface of some of the errors perpetuated in the Romish Version, to the undermining of
truth. The veneration paid to the Vatican Manuscript may perhaps be the veneration, not
of truth, but of tradition. Hemphill writes:
"In fact nine tenths of the countless divisions and textual struggles around that table in
the Jerusalem Chamber arose over Hort's determination to base the Greek N.T. on the
Vatican Manuscript."
Cardinal Wiseman exulted openly that the A.V. had been thrust aside and the
pre-eminence of the Vulgate re-established through the influence of his attacks and those
of other textual critics (see Wiseman: Essays Vol. I, page 104).
We must devote a separate article to the question of Westcott and Hort's Greek Text.
In the present article we want to survey the subject from a wider angle.