 |  |
"My feeling is strong that the theory (Darwin's) is unanswerable. If so, it opens up a
new period" (Dr. Hort, 1860).
"I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness" (Dr. Westcott to
Archbishop Benson, 1865).
"You know I am a staunch sacerdotalist" (Hort to Lightfoot).
"The pure Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth
than the Evangelical . . . . . we dare not forsake the sacraments or God will forsake us"
(Dr. Hort, 1868).
These are the views of the men who have imposed upon us in the R.V. the text of the
Vatican Manuscript.
Bishop Wilberforce, the first Chairman of the Revision, wrote: "What can be done in
this most miserable business?" He absented himself and did not take part in the
proceedings.
Samuel Hemphill gives a vivid account of the dominating character of Westcott and
Hort and their ruthless methods.
"A strong and united group of Progressives quickly manifested the determination to
impress their principles, their ideals, and it may be added, their personalities fully upon
the work. Their motto was `Thorough', their goal was minute and detached perfection in
the textual and grammatical departments; and no consideration for the mind of the
outside public, if they ever seriously thought about feeling the throbbings of the public
pulse at all, could deflect them by one hair's breadth from the effort to reach that goal.
Deaf to the pleadings and remonstrances of the conservatives, who fondly hoped to
confine the company to the work of removing `plain and clear errors' and passionately
prophesied that the Revision if overdone would be a public failure, these zealous and
`fearless' men, pressed for an entire reconstruction of the Greek text on modern critical
principles . . . . . a new type of text was incidentally and in passing elaborated and what
was scarcely less serious, a new standard of `faithfulness' in translation was set up.
Scrivener was one of the most assiduous of the Revisers, and never failed to state his
case fully, but he found himself constantly in a minority, and was in truth very often
voted down by sheer force of numbers, when Hort and Westcott opposed him as they
generally did.
While he had been taught, by the actual work of collation to use these MSS (the
Vatican and the Sinaitic) as only two out of many helps to the reconstruction of the
primitive text, Hort and Westcott had persuaded themselves to regard their consentient
voice as the one virtual final and infallible authority."
The seriousness of our quest we trust is evident. Which version is more trustworthy?
We unhesitatingly say, the Authorized Version. We must reserve the examination of
specific instances of the Revisers' handling of the sacred text for another article.