 |  |
#33. The Greek Text of the Revised Version.
The Revisers' Text, and the Voice of Antiquity.
pp. 230 - 233
Before we proceed to a consideration of one or two specimens of the Revisers'
Greek Text, it may perhaps be advisable to give some idea of the methods adopted by
Drs. Westcott and Hort in establishing their "Revised Greek Text of the New
Testament". We should justly expose ourselves to a charge of presumption were we to
attempt our own criticism of the theory adopted by these two Revisers, and we shall
therefore quote instead from the writings of one whose name stands as high as any man's
in the field of textual criticism--Prebendary Scrivener. Dr. Scrivener, who was himself
one of the Revision Committee and a continual opponent of Drs. Westcott and Hort, has
given an estimate of their theory that should cause all who value the truth, to hesitate very
much before accepting the many alterations and omissions presented to us in the R.V.
The following are some of his comments with reference to the system used by
Drs. Westcott and Hort in constructing their "Revised Greek Text of the New
Testament" (1881).
(1)
"There is little hope for the stability of their imposing structure, if its foundations
have been laid on the sandy ground of conjecture. And since barely the smallest
vestige of historical evidence has ever been alleged in support of the views of
these accomplished Editors, their teaching must either be received as intuitively
true, or dismissed from our consideration as precarious and visionary."
(2)
"Dr. Hort's system is entirely destitute of historical foundation."
(3)
"We are compelled to repeat as emphatically as ever our strong conviction that the
Hypothesis to whose proof he has devoted so many laborious years, is destitute not
only of historical foundation, but of all probability."
(4)
"We cannot doubt" (says Dr. Hort) "that S. Luke 23: 34 comes from an
extraneous source". "Nor can we on our part doubt" (rejoins Dr. Scrivener) "that
the system which entails such consequences is hopelessly self-condemned."
(Scrivener's "Plain Introduction", etc., Ed. 1883).
Let us weigh these words carefully. "The sandy ground of conjecture." Is this
sufficient warrant for the change from the A.V. to the R.V. in I Tim. 3: 16? "Destitute
of historical foundation." Is this the ground upon which our knowledge of the Word of
God must rest? The Revisers were instructed not to meddle with the Greek Text except
where the error was "plain and clear". Inasmuch as Dr. Scrivener was one of the
Revisers together with Drs. Westcott and Hort, his sweeping condemnation should
make us think carefully before accepting such a text as true. Others also of the
Revision Committee have publicly repudiated any complicity in this matter, including
Canon Cook, and Archdeacon Wordsworth. Dean Burgon, in the Dedication of his work
on the Revisers' Text, writes as follows:
"It is, however, the systematic depravation of the underlying Greek which does so
grievously offend me: for this is nothing else but a poisoning of the River of Life at its
sacred source."