Mauro - Revised or King James Version - Which Version

7/30/2019 Mauro - Revised or King James Version - Which Version

1/127

RevisedsmdarilWHICH VERSION ?KingJames

Philip MauroT'-"" -X,;,,,.:.,... '^i**^"

\.: VP

->' jiii- **

.'H ?'-

A LOOK AT THEK\IDENCE


2/127

VERSION?Authorized or Revised?

PHILIP MAUROAuthor ofThe World and Its God, The Number of Man, Life

in the Word, Evolution at the Bar, etc.


3/127


4/127

WHICH VEESION?


5/127

By HAMILTON BROS.


6/127

ContentsPag

The importance of the question discussed in thisvolume. The Bible as a Factor of Civilization.The Bible in the English Tongue.

I 1The several English Versions. The occasion forthe R. V. The widely recognized need for a Re-vision. The demand was not for a new Version,but for a revision of the A. V. The state of theoriginal Text. The many Greek Texts of theN. T. Only one Hebrew Text of the 0. T.

II 2The Various Editions of the Greek Text. That ofStephens of 1850. The Elzevir or Texttis Be-ceptus, Griesbach's Text. Lachmann led in a newdirection, followed by Tischendorf and Tregelles.Tisehendorf and the Mt. Sinai Ms. The principleof "Ancient Evidence Only." Alford's Text.

III 3Ancient Codices. The Vatican and the Sinaitic.How the latter was discovered, and how TextualCriticism was affected by it.


7/127

CONTENTSV

The principle of *' Ancient Evidence Only" ex-amined. Divine Safeguards to the Sacred Text.The Evidential Value of latex Mss. Errors ofOmission. An illustrative test of the compara-tive values of the earlier and the later Mss. Thestrength of the case for the Eeeeived Text.

VIThe Procedure of the Revision Committee. TheInstructions given them. How carried out. Howthe adoption of a New Greek Text (virtually thatof Westcott and Hort) was secured.

VIISpecific Examples of Textual Corruption. Thelast 12 Verses of Mark. The Angelic Message.The Lord 's Agony, and His Prayer on the Cross.**The Mystery of Godliness." Other importantpassages affected.

VIIIChanges in- Translation. The leaning towardsgreater literality not an improvement. Thou-sands of uncalled-for changes^mostly for theworse. Concerning 2 Timothy 3:16. The Ver-sion of 1911. Its value as a witness.IXThe strange uses made of the Margin in theR. V. The Name "Jesus." *' Thine is the King-dom." "The Son of God." "Which is inHeaven." "The Number of a Man." TheIsland of Melita.


8/127


9/127

Introductionpurpose of this book is to set fort

information concerning the Authorizeand Eevised Versions of the New Testainformation which should be shared b

Bible readers, but is in the possessiona few in our day.

Our present inquiry is in regard to the mansome of them quite serious, betwee"Authorized" or King James Version, fir

in 1611,' and the ''Eevised" Versio1881. The total number of the departurethe latter from the former is over thirty-sThis raises some serious questions.Why was such an enormous numbermade? On what authority? What

general character and effect? Briefly, dgive us a better Version, that is, one thus nearer to the original autographs


10/127

INTRODUCTIONan opinion lie must have knowledge of th

facts; for the experts, the textuaeditors, and Greek scholars, differ anamong themselves; and their discus

and dissertations abound in matters sand abstruse that ordinary person

follow them. Therefore the conflictinof the experts serve only to beclou

subject for the common people.The pertinent facts themselves are not diffto understand ; but they are inaccessible tBible readers. Therefore we are writinpages with the object mainly of settinsuch facts concerning the two rivathe sources whence they were respecderived, and the circumstances attendin

coming into existence of the Bevised Veras have served as a basis for the writer'judgment. Those facts are not only suimportant, but are also absorbinglSo it is not to a dry or a tediou

that we invite the reader of thibut to one of lively interest.

As to which is the better of the two Versionthe English Bible there is of


11/127

INTRODUCTIONin all departments of learning ; and to th

tliat the R. V. was the result of the laboreminent scholars, who spent ten years upoproduction. All this is true ; and other genfacts of like import could be mentioned, awhich served to prepare the minds o

glish-speaking people everywhere to givefavorable reception to the new Versioncomes it then that the King James Versio

not only maintained its place of supremacyof late years has forged further and furthe

of its rival? This surely is a matteof our thoughtful consideration.

But before we begin to inquire into it, we wisto direct the reader's attention to fact

great importance touching the Holy Scriin general, and the English Bible in par

The Bible as a Factor of Civelization-Everything pertaining to the Bible, and par

every change proposed in the Bible ahave had it in the English tongue, is a mattehigh consequence to all men ^whether the


12/127

INTRODUCTIONwithstand the mighty disruptive forces o

and anarchy by which the verof society has been always menaced

more so just now than ever before.The influence of the Bible has contributed

still contributes, far beyond all other forceto the maintenance of government

of all the principles of law, customs, usagesof ethics, education, and family lifmake for the welfare of nations, communi

and individuals.This we can assert without fear of contradic

For even so great an enemy of Christianas Mr. H. Gr. Wells acknowledges that civilowes both its origin and its preservatiothe Bible. He has recently declared in prin"the civilization we possess could not havinto existence, and could not have bee

without it." Again he admits thais the Book that has held together the fabriWestern civilization;" that it has ''unifiekept together great masses of people ; " tha

has been ''the hand book of life to countlesof men and women, it has explained th


13/127

INTRODUCTIONwonder how any man, wlio is capable of grasping the facts thus admitted hy Mr. Wells, cafail to see that a Book which has, through centuries of time, accomplished results so great imagnitude and so excellent in character, musneeds be of super-human origin. The factswhich Mr. Wells and other infidels are constrained to admit, concerning the influence othe Bible, and concerning the extent, durationand above all the character of that influencamong the peoples of the world, cannot he predicated, even in a small measure, of any othebook. So here we have, in the outstanding factwhich even the enemies of Christ are constrained to acknowledge, proof enough of thDivine authorship of the Holy Scriptures.

The Bible in EnglishBut what we wish specially to emphasize fo

our present purpose is that, when reference imade to the Bible and its influence, what imeant in most cases is the English Versiothereof. For the undeniable fact is that thEnglish Version of the Scriptures is th


14/127

INTRODUCTIONthe English Version of the Bible is of highesconsequence to all the people of the world, eveif we limit ourselves to the consideration merelof their temporal concerns. Therefore it behooves all of us who have at heart the purposefor which God has given us His holy Word, tacquaint ourselves, so far as we can, with thmerits of the several English Versions, in ordethat we may have an intelligently formed anwell grounded opinion upon the question whicof these Versions, as a whole, is best calculateto accomplish the purposes of God, and to secure the welfare of human beings, both for timand for eternity.For the thought of writing this book, and fo

some of the materials composing it, I aindebted to a pamphlet on ''The Revised Version," by L. E. B., published by Elliot StockLondon.


15/127

Chapteb IThe Several Versions

THE common Version of the Holy Bible ithe English tongue is more than three hundred years old; for it first appeared i1611. It is sometimes called the ''King JameVersion," but more commonly the ''AuthorizeVersion." It is usually designated by the letters A. V.In the year 1881 a new Version of the Bible i

English appeared; and a second and final edition thereof was issued in 1885. This Versiowas the result of the labors of a RevisioCommittee, composed of English and Americanscholars, well acquainted with the original languages. The labors of the Eevision Committeextended over a period of ten years. This Version is usually designated by the letters B. V.Twenty years later (1901) another Versionembodying the readings preferred by the Amer-ican members of the Revision Committee, waspublished in the United States. It is known a


16/127

WHICH VERSION?labors of the Eevision Committee.* For exam-ple, in the American Version the Name LORDis changed throughout the Old Testament tJEHOVAH, which is the recognized Englishequivalent of the Hebrew original. This changewe regard as a great improvement. But weshall not discuss herein the differences betweenthe two modern Versions.It should also be stated at the outset that ourobservations will be confined to the New Testa-ment. The reason is that the differences omajor importance which appear in the RevisedVersions of the New Testament, and their im-portance is in some cases very great indeed, arenot differences of translation, but are differences in the Greek text used as the basis of thetranslation, the text adopted by the Revisers othe 19th Century being different in many par-ticulars from that which, three centuries pre-vious, served as the basis of the A. V. In thecase, however, of the Old Testament, the sameHebrew text served as the basis of both Ver-sions. Therefore the changes made by theRevisers in the Old Testament are changes of


17/127

AUTHORIZED OR REVISED?text has been changed, he has no means of judg-ing whether or not the change was warranted.

The Occasion for the R. V.The Bible is the one Book in the world which

is constantly under scrutiny; and the scrutinyto which it is subject is of the most searchingkind, and from the keenest and best equippedminds in the worldand this, by the way, isanother strong, though indirect, proof that theBible is not a human book. This continuous andmicroscopical examination of the Bible, and ofall the circumstances and conditions connectedwith the origin of its various parts, has beencarried on both by its friends, who value all theinformation they can gather concerning it, andalso by its enemies, wh6 are unremitting in theirsearch for facts which might be used to discreditits statements or impugn its accuracy.

This unceasing scrutiny extends not only toevery word of the original text, but to the moreminute questions of prefix, termination, spell-ing, tense of verbs, and even to the very smallestmatters, such as the placing of an accent. Itwould seem as if every generation of men was


18/127

WHICH VERSION?increasingly evident that, notwithstanding thexcellencies of that great and admirable workthere were particulars wherein, for one causor another, it admitted of (and indeed callefor) correction. For those who translated itthough godly and scholarly, and though assisted, as we doubt not they were in large measure, by the Holy Spirit, were but human, antherefore compassed with infirmity. Moreoverin the course of the years following the completion of their labors, discoveries were madewhich affected the original text of the NewTestament, and other discoveries which threfresh light upon the meaning of obscure wordsand difficult passages. It was found also thacorrections in translation were demanded herand there, particularly in regard to the tenseof verbs.And beside all that, we have to take into consideration the fact (for which the translators o

the A. V. were in no wise responsible) thachanges had meanwhile occurred in the mean-ings of not a few English words and expressions.For all these reasons it appeared desirable


19/127

AUTHORIZED OR REVISED?of that Committee was simply a revision of thVersion of 1611; and had the Committee confined themselves to the task actually entrusteto them, and kept within the limits of the instructions given to them, the results of theilong labors would no doubt have been a gain ana blessing to all the English-speaking nationsand through them to all mankind. But insteaof a Revised Version of the long accepteEnglish Bible, the Committee brought forth (sfar at least as the New Testament was concerned) a New Version. This fact was not disclosed by them. The *' Preface to the Editioof A. D. 1885*' gives no indication of it; buthrough the vigilance of certain godly andscholarly men (Dean Burgon in particular) thimportant fact was discerned and brought tlight that the Committee had produced, not"Revised" Version (though that was the namegiven to it) but a New Version, which wastranslation of a **New Greek Text." The importance of this fact will be made evident as we


20/127

WHICH VERSION?The Present Situation-

It is now more tlian forty yearsthe Scripperiod of full probationsince the R. V

and as we contemplate the existin(in the year 1924) the most conspicu

fact that presents itself to our view is thaNew Version (in either or both its forms)not superseded the A. V., and that there ithe faintest indication that it will ever dIndeed it appears that the R. V. is declinrather than gaining, in favor, and that witusers of all classes, from the most schol

to the most unlearned.* This is a fact osignificance, and due consideration shoulgiven to it in any attempt one might makarrive at a just estimate of the relativ

of the rival Versions. What is the exof this fact? It is not that the Ol

did not and does not admit of correcand improvements. Nor is it that th

did not make them; for it cannot bthat the R. V. contains many improve

Yet for all that, as the experience owhole generation has now conclusively demon


21/127

AUTHORIZED OR REVISED?the supposed conservatism of people in gen-

and to their assumed reluctance to acceptof any sort. But we should say the

in this regard is rather that people in ourare unduly ready, and even eager, to welevery kind of a change. Eadical innova-are the order of the day. On every hand

see the * ' old " being discarded for the * 'new"the ** up-to-date;" and in no department oaffairs is this eagerness for change more

than in the field of literature (if thamay be properly applied to what peoplenow-a-days).Moreover, the generation of those who haonly the A. V., and who therefore migh

been disposed to cling to it for that reasolone, is now passed away; and the fact whiconfronts us is that whereas those living at thaime (1881-1885) seemed quite ready and wil

ling to welcome the E. V., fully expecting it ta real improvement upon the older Version

the almost unanimous judgment of the next succeeding generation is that the older Version ito be preferred.


22/127

WHICH VERSION?We will try, therefore, to point out some othose reasons.

The Original TextVery few of those who read the Scripture

have any idea how much depends upon the allimportant matter of settling the Greek Text othe New Testament, or how many and how greathe diflaculties involved therein. Of those whogive any thought at all to the matter the largenumber seem to suppose that there exists somewhere an acknowledged original Text of the NewTestament, and that the work of preparing aEnglish Version is merely a matter of the correct translation of that Greek Text. But thcase is far otherwise; for the first part of thwork is to settle the Greek Text from which thtranslation is to be made ; and this is a matteof immense difficulty, for the reason that thoriginal materials from which the Text must bconstructed embrace upwards of a thousanmanuscripts. Some of these contain the wholeor nearly the whole, of the New Testament ; anthe rest contain a part, some more, some lessthereof. Of these manuscripts a few are sup


23/127

AUTHORIZED OR REVISED?some of them are older than the earliest Greemanuscripts known to exist at the present timeThe most noted of these is the Peschito, oSyriac Version, which dates from very early ithe Christian era, probably from the seconcentury.The original materials for the making of

Greek Text embrace also numerous quotationof Scripture found in the copious writings othe "church fathers," which have survived tour day. This is an important source of information; for those quotations are so numerous,and they cover so much ground in the aggregate, that the greater part of the Text of thentire New Testament could be constituted fromthem alone.But no two of these thousands of manuscript

are exactly alike ; and every discrepancy raisea distinct question requiring separate investiation and a separate decision. While, how-

ever, the precise reading of thousands of passages is affected by these differences, it must

be supposed that there is any uncertainthatever as to the teaching and testimony of th


24/127

WHICH VERSION?taken together does not give ground

the slightest doubt as to any of the funda-points of faith and doctrine. In otherthe very worst Text that could be con-from the abundant materials available

not disturb any of the great truths of thefaith.

It will be seen, therefore, that the making ofGreek Text, as the first step in producing anVersion, involves the immense labor of

for every disputed word and pas-the numerous manuscripts, ancient Ver-and quotations now known to exist, and

the making of a decision in each case whereis a conflict between the various witnesses.

his is a highly complicated task; and for theperformance of it other qualities besides

reek and English scholarship are required.example, one must settle at the outset whategree of credibility is to be imputed to the

manuscripts; and this is where, inour opinion, the compilers of the Greek Text

as the basis for the E. V. went far astray,the result that the Text adopted by themmuch inferior to that used in the transla-


25/127

AUTHORIZED OR REVISED?Text; but that, on the contrary, the more faithful the translation the more effectually will therrors of the Text be carried into the resultinVersion.The EEvisioisr Committee Not Instructed to

Fashion?- a New Geeek TextMoreover, it is to be noted in this connectiothat the instructions under which the Reviser

acted did not contemplate the making of a NeGreek Text ; nor did they have the qualificationneeded for such a complicated task. The readewill be astonished, we venture to predict, whehe comes to learn (as we propose to show lateon) the mode of procedure whereby, in this casethat ''New Greek Text" was fashioned. Buat this point we merely direct attention to thfact that the Committee was instructed to undertake "A Revision of the Authorised Version,with a view to ''the removal of plain and cleaerrors," and that the first rule was "To introduce as few alterations as possible into the texof the Authorized."

This prompts us to ask, if 36,000 alteration


26/127

WHICH VERSION?of the R. V. is as a whole much inferior to thatof the A. V. (notwithstanding the many im-proved readings given in the R. V.) insomuchthat, as one competent authority has said, thelater version is characterized by "bad Englisheverywhere.''The Hebrew Text of the Old TestamentAs already stated, the diJ0S.culties attending

the Greek text of the New Testament do notexist in connection with the Old Testament, theoriginal of which is in the Hebrew tongue. Forthere is but a single Standard Hebrew text, the''Massoretic Text," which is recognized by bothJewish and Christian authorities as the trueText of the Hebrew Scriptures.


27/127


28/127

WHICH VERSION?endorf, Tregelles and Westcott and Hort. Butthe fact is, and this we hope to make quite plainthat the comparative excellence of the Text oStephens (and the Elzevir or Textus Receptusee next sub-heading below) is due in no smaldegree to the fact that in its composition thVatican and Sinaitic Mss. were not consultedThe comparatively late Mss., from which thStephens and Elzevir texts were mainly com

piled, were, of course, copies of older oneswhich were in time used up, and which themselves were copies of others still more ancientIn all this copying and re-copying, there woulinevitably have crept in the various errors twhich copyists are liable. Moreover, in somcases there were alterations purposely madefrom one motive or another. When an errocrept into a copy, or was purposely introducedit would naturally be perpetuated in copiemade from that one ; and thus variations frothe original would tend to multiplication. Therwas, however, a check upon this tendency. Fosuch was the reverence paid to the sacred Textand such the desire that copies used in thchurches should be pure, that every opportunit


29/127

AUTHORIZED OR REVISED?late manuscripts from widely sep

points, it would be possible to establishto a certainty, the original reading o

disputed passage, or, if it were a passagauthenticity as a whole was questioned

decide whether it were genuine Scripturnot.Elzevie oe **Texttjs Eboepttjs" (1624)

This edition, with which the name and famthe great Erasmus are associated, has beecenturies, and still is, the best known anwidely used of all the Greek Texts. Whiljustly famous edition is later by some yearthe publication of the A. V., the difference

it and its immediate predecessor,- thStephens edition, are so few and unimportanthat the two may be regarded for all practicapurposes as one and the same. Thus all thscholarship back of the Textus Receptus is aendorsement of the Text which served as thbasis for the translation of our A. V.

It is apparent from what has been said a


30/127

WHICH VERSION?that, if the Revisers had given us simply a corrected translation of the Textus Receptusinstead of a translation of an entirely **NeGreek Text," we should not have more thansmall fraction, say less than ten percent, of thchanges found in the E. V. And what is morenot one of those changes which are regarded aserious, and against which such a storm of protest has been raised (and that from men of thhighest scholarship and deepest piety) woulhave been made. In that case it is likely alsthat the changes would have commended themselves to the majority of discriminating Biblusers.

Therefore we should take careful note of thprinciples that were adopted, and of the materials that were used in the compilation of lateGreek Texts of the New Testament. Of thmost important of these we shall proceed now tspeak briefly.

Geiesbaoh's Edition (1805)This Text appeared about 150 years after th

Elzevir edition. In the meantime an enormou


31/127

AUTHORIZED OR REVISED 1question of the relative credibility of conflictingwitnesses.

Griesbach, in the compilation of his text, pro-ceeded upon a plan and principles of his own,which need not be here described. In cases ofdoubt and difficulty he seemed to follow theTextus Receptus. Hence his departures werenot serious; and in any case his Text is not regarded today as having any special authority.

Lachmann (1842-1850)This editor appears to have been the first t

act upon the theory or principle that the moreancient the manuscript the more worthy of credence. The extent to which this idea has beenallowed to control in the settling of disputereadings, without regard to other weighty considerations whereby the credibility of the contradictory witnesses should properly have beedetermined, is very extraordinary. This matter calls for special attention, not only becausof the important part it played in settling thText of the E. V., but because it seems to bquite generally taken for granted that the oldethe manuscript the more worthy to be believe


32/127


33/127

AUTHORIZED OR REVISED?been privately circulated among the Revisioists, and under injunctions of strictest secrecand in it they admitted that the Textus Receptis substantially identical with the Text usedthe Churches of Syria and elsewhere in aprior to the fourth century. To this importafeature of the case we will refer more in detalater on; for it proves that the authors of tText adopted by the Revisers, while appealito the principle of ** ancient evidence" as treason for their departures from the ReceivText, have made admissions which show ththey in fact acted directly contrary to that priciple.Now, as to the assumption that because

given Text or Ms. dated from the fourth ceiltuit would be purer than one of later date, wquote the following statement of one who wagenerally regarded as the ablest textual critof those days. Dr. Frederick H. A. Scrivenewho, in his ^'Introduction to the Text of tN. T." (3d ed. p. 511) says : ** It is no less trto fact than paradoxical in sound that the worcorruptions to which the New Testament h


34/127

WHICH VERSION?turies later, when moulding the Textus Receptus.*'But Lachmann proceeded in disregard of thifact, and no doubt because ignorant of it. He

thus set a bad example; and unfortunately hiexample has been followed by editors who camafter him, men of great learning unquestionably, and having accurate knowledge of earlGreek, but apparently knowing little of the history of the various Greek manuscripts, annothing at all of the laws of evidence, and howto deal with problems involving the investigation of a mass of conflicting testimony.

TiscHENDOBP (1865-1872)This scholar, whose great abilities and unre

mitting labors are widely recognized, has haddominating influence in the formation of thmodern Text. Tischendorf proceeded uponplan which we give in his own words: **Thtext is to be sought only from ancient evidenceand especially from Greek Mss., but withouneglecting the testimonies of Versions andFathers." From this we see that Tischendorthoroughly committed himself to the principl


35/127

AUTHORIZED OR REVISED?to speak more particularly later on

manuscript is reputed the most ancienone of all the now existing Greek manu

of the N. T., and which therefore, upoprinciple referred to, is entitled to the highdegree of credibility. But whether or noSinaitic Ms. is the most ancient of all no

to exist, it is, beyond any doubt whatthe most defective, corrupt, and untrustOur reasons for this assertion (re

which are ample to establish it) will blater on. We wish at this point merelythe fact (leaving the proof thereof forchapter) that the most seriousmany departures of the E. V. from the A. Vdue to the unhappy conjunction of an un

principle of evidence and the fortuitouby a scholar who had accepted thof a very ancient Greek Ms. of t

T., a Ms. which, despite its unquestioneturns out to be about the worst an

** scandalously corrupt" of all the Greenow known to exist.


36/127

WHICH VERSION?possible, the text commonly received in thfourth century."

This, it will be observed, is substantially thplan proposed by Lachmann ; and these are thprecedents which seem to have mainly influenceWestcott and Hort in the compilation of theiText, which is virtually the Text from which thE. V. was made.

Dr. Scrivener says (Introduction p. 342)'*Lachmann 's text seldom rests on more thafour Greek Codices, very often on three, noinfrequently on two, sometimes on only one.His fallacy, which was adopted by Tregellesnecessarily proved fatal to the text prepared bthe latter, who in fact acted upon the astounding assumption that "eighty-nine ninetieths" oour existing manuscripts and other authoritiemight safely be rejected, in order that we mighbe free to follow a few early documents of barepute.

This tendency in a wrong direction foundstill further development in Tischendorf, ancame to full fruition in Westcott and Hort, whwere allowed to fashion according to their owideas the Greek Text of the R. V.


37/127

AUTHORIZED OR REVISED?that of the two preceding editors. Concerntheir work he says that "If Tischendorf hainto a fault on the side of speculativ

concerning the origins of readingin those Mss., it must be confessed tha

has sometimes erred on the (certainlsafer) side of scrupulous adherence to thliteral evidence of the ancient Mss." Altext was Constructed^to state it in hi

words**by following in all ordinarthe united or preponderating testimony

the most ancient authorities." Later evwas taken into consideration by him onl"the most ancient authorities did noor preponderate. '

It seems not to have occurred to this learneany more than to the others, that mer

was not a safe test of reliability wherwere in conflict, and that a late copa correct origmal should be preferred to

Ms. of earlier date.


38/127

Chapteb III

The Ancient Codices. The VaticanCodex and the SinaiticTHIS brings us to the consideration of thos"ancient manuscripts" or ** codices,"* a

they are usually called, to which thmodern editors have attributed so high a degreof credibility, and by which their decisionsthe construction of a Grreek Text for the E. Vhave been so largely influenced; and especiallto the consideration of the two most venerablof all the existing witnesses to the sacred texnamely, the Codex Vaticanus, so called becausits repository is the papal palace (the Vaticanat Rome, and the Codex Sinaiticus, so called because it was discovered by Tischendorf inmonastery on Mt. Sinai in Arabia. These Mssare supposed, from the character of the writingand from other internal evidences, to date frothe fourth century. The next oldest are supposed to date from the fifth century. Henceupon the generally accepted theory to which w


39/127

AUTHORIZED OR REVISED?have referred above, the testimony of the twocodices just named is to be accepted as decisivin the case of disputed readings. Therefore, thEevisers of 1881 committed themselves to thleading of these two ''ancient witnesses." Didthey lead towards or away from the true texof the inspired Writings! That is the deeplyimportant matter into which we propose now tinquire.In addition to the Codex Vaticanus and th

Codex Sinaiticus, there are three other verancient Mss. These are

1. Codex Alexandrinus. This Ms. has beekept for a long time in the British Museum iLondon. It contains all the Gospels (excepsmall parts of Matthew and Johil) and all threst of the N. T. except 2 Cor. 4:13-12:6 (fiftcentury).

2. Codex EpJiraemi, kept in Paris, containing only portions of the Gospels, the ActsEpistles and Eevelation (fifth century).

3. Codex Bezae, kept at Cambridge, Englandcontaining nearly all the Gospels and nothinelse of the N. T. except portions of Acts (sixtcentury). It has a very bad reputation, as full


40/127

WHICH VEESION?is published in full in Dr. Scrivener'

entitled '*A Full Collation of the Codex(1864).

Constantine Tischendorf, a noted Germanwho was indefatigable in the quest omanuscripts, was visiting, in the year 1^4monastery on Mt. Sinai, and in the course ovisit he chanced to find one day, among thsome leaves of vellum which, upon in

were found to contain parts of thVersion of the 0. T. in a scrip

indicated that the Ms. was of great antiIn describing his famous discovery Tischen

says''I perceived in the middle of the great hall a larg

wide basket, full of old parchments; and thinformed me that two heaps of papers likmouldered by reason of age, had been alreadto the flames. What was my surprise tamong this heap of documents a considerabl

of sheets of a copy of the Old Testament iGreek, which seemed to me to be one of the mosancient I had ever seen."


41/127

AUTHORIZED OR REVISED?the Codex now known as the Sinaitic

Naturally enough Dr. Tischendorf was highlby his discovery. Indeed his enthusiasunbounded. He says, "I knew that I helmy hands the most precious Biblical treasur

existence;" and he considered this discoverbe *' greater than that of the Koh-i-nor of th

of England."As usual in such cases this important *'finda great stir, especially amongst those whthemselves to the study of antiquity

are all aware of the marked tendency onature to exaggerate the importance o*'find." Examples of this sort greet u

time to time. The discovery of the tomf an Egyptian king is regarded as a matter osuch supreme interest to all the world, that eve

details connected with it are communicated by cable to the ends of the earth, and argiven prominence in the daily newspapersThus an ancient article recently exhumed frothe rubbish of a long buried city will oftentimestart a wave of excitement throughout tworld; whereas an article of identical sor


42/127

WHICH VERSION?Dean Burgon, speaking of Tischendorf an

his discovery, aptly remarks''Happy in having discovered (in 1859) an unci

Codex, second in antiquity only to the oldest beforknown (the Vatican Codex), and strongly resemblinthat famous fourth century Codex, he suffered hjudgment to be overpowered by the circumstancHe at once remodelled his 7th edition (i. e., the 7tedition of his Greek Text of the New Testament)3,505 places, to the scandal of the Science of Comparative Criticism, as well as to his own grave dicredit for discernment and consistency."

Evidently then, Tischendorf was carried ohis feet by the subjective influence of his dicovery; for he at once surrendered his judgment to this particular Ms., easily persuadinhimself that, because of its apparent antiquityand without regard to any other considerationsit must needs be right in every instance wherediffered from later manuscripts.

Thus, having fully committed himself to thaview, he naturally adhered to it thereafter.

Unfortunately, however, the weight of h


43/127

AUTHORIZED OR REVISED?And lie proceeds to show, by proofs which f

pages ''that the one distinctive tenetthree most famous critics since 1831 (LachTregelles and Tischendorf) has been

reverence for what is found in thlittle handful of early (but not the earlies

yet of necessity the purest) documents."In this connection it should be always bornmind that those text-makers who profess

as their controlling principle the acceon disputed points of the testimony

most ancient manuscripts," have not actewith that principle. For the fa

that, in the compilation of their Greek Texthave not really followed the most ancie

but have been controlled hy twonly. Those two are followed eve

the counter evidence of all other avaimanuscripts, amounting to over a thousandof which are practically of equal age, an

the evidence also of Versions andfrom the writings of "fathers" muc

than the two Codices referred to. Butfeature of our subject we expect to retur


44/127

Chapteb IVCharacteristics of the Two Oldest

ManuscriptsTHE principle wMch the modern editorhave adopted, namely, that of followin

the oldest manuscripts in settling all questions of doubtful or disputed readings, throwsus back upon the two Codices (Vaticanus andSinaitic) which, though not dated, are regardedby all competent antiquarians as belonging tthe fourth century ; and its practical effect is tmake those two solitary survivors of the firsfour Christian centuries the final authoritieswhere they agree (which is not always the case)upon all questions of the true Text of Scripture

Therefore it behooves us to inquire with thutmost care into the character of these twancient witnesses, and to acquaint ourselvewith all available facts whereby their trustworthiness may be tested. And this inquiry inecessary, regardless of what may be our opinion concerning the principle of "ancient evidence only," which we propose to examine late


45/127

AUTHOEIZED OR REVISED?of the E. V. and are responsible for practicallall the departures from the Eeceived Text twhich serious objection has been made. ThusCanon Cook in his authoritative work on * * ThEevised Version of the First Three Gospelssays:

''The two oldest Mss. are responsible for nearly athe readings which we have brought under consierationreadings which, when we look at theindividually, and still more when we regard thecollectively, inflict most grievous damage upon ouLord 's words and works. '

And again"By far the greatest number of innovations, icluding those which give the severest shocks to ouminds, are adopted on the testimony of two manu

scripts, or even of one manuscript, against the ditinct testimony of all other manuscripts, uncial ancursive. . . . The Vatican Codex, sometimes alone, bugenerally in accord with the Sinaitic, is responsiblfor nine-tenths of the most striking innovationsthe R. V."


46/127

WHICH VERSION?"So manifest are the disfigurements jointly an

exhibited by the two codices (VaticaSinaitic) that, instead of accepting them as twwitnesses to the inspired original, weconstrained to regard them as little more than

reproduction of one and the same scandalousland comparatively late copy."The Many Coerections of the Sinaitic Ms.Turning our attention first to the Codewe would lay stress upon a matte

in our judgment, has a decisive bearinthe all-important question of the trust

of that ancient manuscript. And wethe more urgent to impress this particula

upon the consideration of our readernotwithstanding its controlling im^it has been practically ignored idiscussions of the subject as have comour eye.What we now refer to is the fact that, sinc

document was first inscribed, it has beethe subject of no less than ten differen

at revision and correction. The numof these attempts is witnessed by the differ


47/127

AUTHORIZED OR REVISED?introduction in wMch he states,

other facts of interest, that "The Codexcovered with such alterations" i. e., altera-of an obviously correctional characterbrought in by at least ten different revisers,

of them systematically spread over everypage, others occasional, or limited to separateortions of the Ms., many of these being con-emporaneous with the first writer, but for thegreater part belonging to the sixth or seventhcentury. 'We are sure that every intelligent reader milperceive, and with little effort, the immense sig-nificance of this feature of the Sinaitic Codex.Here is a document which the Revisers haveesteemed (and that solely because of its anti-quity) to be so pure that it should be taken as astandard whereby all other copies of the Scrip-tures are to be tested and corrected. Such isthe estimate of certain scholars of the 19th cen-tury. But it bears upon its face the proof thatthose in whose possession it had been, from thevery first, and for some hundreds of yearsthereafter, esteemed it to be so impure as tocorrection in every part.


48/127


49/127

AUTHORIZED OR REVISED?(as regards the Eeceived Text) shouldbeen so completely disregarded.The Wokk op an Incompetent Sceibe

But there are other characteristics of this oldwhich have to be taken into consideration i

correct estimate of its evidential value is to beThus, there are internal evidences that

to the conclusion that it was the work of acribe who was singularly careless, or incom-

or both. In this Ms. the arrangement oflines is peculiar, there being four columns

n each page, each line containing about twelveall capitals run together. There is noattempt to end a word at the end of a line, foreven words having only two letters as en, ek, aresplit in the middle, the last letter being carrieover to the beginning of the next line, thoughthere was ample room for it on the line preced-ing. This and other peculiarities give us anidea of the character and competence of thscribe.But more than that. Dr. Scrivener says

* ' This manuscript must have been derived from


50/127

WHICH VERSION?and others **where the copyist passed in th

of a line to the corresponding portion ohe line below.'*From this it is evident that the work of copywas done by a scribe who was both heedles

and incompetent. A carefnl copyist would nomade the above, and other, mistakes s

requently; and only the most incompetenhave failed to notice, upon reading ove

page, and to correct, omissions which utterldestroyed the sense.

Dr. Scrivener's judgment on this feature ocase is entitled to the utmost confidence, no

nly because of his great ability as a textuabut because, being impressed, as all anti

were, with the importance of Tischenorf's discovery, it was solely from a sheeense of duty and honesty, and with manifes

that he brought himself to point oudefects of the manuscript. Therefore, th

admission made by him carries much


51/127

AUTHORIZED OR REVISED?Speaking of the character of the two oldes

Dean Burgon says:"The impurity of the text exhibited by thes

is not a question of opinion but of fact. . .the Gospels alone Codex B (Vatican) leaves ou

or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times. Itraces of careless transcription on every pageSinaiticus 'abounds with errors of the eye anto an extent not indeed unparalleled, but happilunusual in documents of first-rate imporOn many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words arthrough very carelessness. Letters an

even whole sentences, are frequently writteover, or begun and immediately cancelledthat gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitte

it happens to end in the same words as thpreceding, occurs no less than 115 times in th

Testament."In enumerating and describing the five an

Codices now in existence, Dean Burgonthat four of these, and especially thand Sinaitic Mss. "have, within th

twenty years, established a tyrannicaover the imagination of the critic

can only be fitly spoken of as a blind su'


52/127

WHICH VERSION?said of the two false witnesses that came ttestify against Christ, so it may be said of theswitnesses who are brought forward at this latday to testify against the Eeceived Text, **Bnneither so did their witness agree together."

The Numbee and Kinds op DiPFEREisrcESAs a sufficient illustration of the many differ

ences between these two Codices and the greabody of other Mss. we note that, in the Gospelalone. Codex Vaticanus differs from the Eeceived Text in the following particulars: Iomits at least 2,877 words; it adds 536 words;it substitutes 935 words; it transposes 2,09words ; and it modifies 1,132 ; making a total o7,578 verbal divergences. But the Sinaitic Ms.is even worse, for its total divergences in thparticulars stated above amount to nearly ninthouscmd.Summing up the case against these two fourtcentury Codices (with which he includes thBeza, supposedly of the sixth) Dean Burgonsolemnly assures us, and **without a particle ohesitation, that they are three of the most scan


53/127

AUTHORIZED OE REVISED?which are discoverable in any known copies ofthe Word of God" (italics in the original).

These are strong statements, but the facts onwhich they are based seem fully to warrantthem. Therefore it matters not what specificexcellencies might be attributed to the EevisedVersion of the New Testament, the fact that theunderlying Greek Text was fashioned in con-formity to the Mss. referred to in the abovequoted paragraph is reason enough why ishould be shunned by Bible users.In describing the foregoing characteristics of

the two most ancient Codices, as revealed by aminute inspection thereof, and by careful com-parison with the Received Text, we are not los-ing sight of the fact that the many divergencesbetween the two do not of themselves tend toshow the corruption of the former, since thosedifferences may be explained equally well uponthe theory adopted by the Eevisionists, andsupported by the more modern Greek editors,namely, that the two ancient Codices are therepositories of the purer Text, and that the cor-ruptions and departures are with the ReceivedText and the sources from which it has been


54/127

WHICH VEBSION?It is for them to show, and by testimony wMchcarries thorough conviction, that God left Hispeople for fifteen centuries or more to the badeffects of a corrupt text, until, in fact, the chancdiscovery by Constantine Tischendorf, in thmiddle of the 19th century, of some leaves oparchment so slightly valued by their custodians that they had been thrown into the wastepaper basket, and until (for some mysteriousand as yet unexplained reason) the Codex Vaticanus was exhumed from its suspicious sleepinplace at the papal headquarters.* It is for themto explain, if they can, the concurrence ofthousand manuscripts, widely distributed geographically, and spread over a thousand yearof time, and of the many Versions and writingof * 'fathers" going back to the second centurof our era. That there were corrupt and defective copies in the early centuries^many of thalterations having been made with deliberatintentis well known; and to account for thsurvival of a few of these (three at the most) inot a difficult matter. Indeed there is gooreason to believe that they owe their prolongeexistence to the fact that they were knoA\Ti to be


55/127

AUTHORIZED OR REVISED?on the other hand, the fact (as is admitte

the existence everywhere of a Text reprnow by over a thousand extant manand agreeing with the Received Tex

be accounted for only upon the suppositithat is the true Text.

Furthermore, we have shown by what hpresented above that the two most ancieexhibit clear internal evidences of the

character; and we have shown alin case of the Sinaitic Ms., the thorough

and defective work of the origin(or scribes) was well known to gener

after generation of those through whoit passed.

SUMMAEYBriefly then to sum up the matter thus faobserve

1. That the most important and deplorabledepartures of the New Greek Text from t

Text have been made with the suppoless than one percent all the availab


56/127

WHICH VEESION?upon their face as to justify the cothat they owe their survival solely

bad reputation.With these facts before us, and in view althe leading part the English speaking pewere to play in shaping the destinies

during the eventful centuries follothe appearance of the Version of 1611, wjustified in believing that it was throug

providential ordering that the preparationVersion was not in anywise affected bcritical theories in general, or specifical

the two ancient Codices we have been diFor when we consider what the A. V

to be to the world, the incomparable iit was to exert in shaping the courseand in accomplishing those eternal pu

of God for which Christ died and roand the Holy Spirit came down fro^when we consider that this Versi

to be, more than all others combined, **tof the Spirit," and that all this was fulto God beforehand, we are fully warin the belief that it was not throu


57/127

Chapteb VThe Principle of, "Ancient Evidence

Only" ExaminedCOME now to the exammation of t

principle adopted by the various edtors of the Greek Text of the Bible,that was imposed upon the Eevisithough that imposition was acco

in such a way (as hereinafter pointthat many of them apparently were nof it until after they disbanded.We fully admit that the principle of follo

the most ancient manuscripts is, on its facand safe ; for it is indisputable th

things being equal) the copies nearestoriginal autographs are most likely tofrom errors. If therefore it were a que

whether or not we should follow, in tof a Greek Text, the earliest

later manuscripts, there would bequestion" at all; for all would agree. But,


58/127

WHICH VERSION?is known to exist to-day. We do hav

and patristic quotations that dato the second century, and these, accordi

the principle we are discussing, are entitlgreat weight. Is it not strange thereforthose who justify their course by appealiand by professing to follow blindly, th

should cast it aside and accept tof fourth century Codices, where the

in conflict with second century Versions an?

Seeing then that the earliest manuscripts alonger in existence, we cannot follow thehence it is clear that the problem which co

us is one that cannot be solved by applicof the simple rule we are discussin

the situation is this : We have on thand, the Greek Text of 1611 which serv

the basis for the A. V.a Text that reprand agrees with a thousand manuscriptback as far as the fifth century, and wi

and quotations going back to the seAs to this there is no dispute at all; fWestcott and Hort admit the existence


59/127

AUTHORIZED OE REVISED?thousands of divergences (omissions, addsubstitutions, transpositions, and modif

from the Received Text. Upon suchof things the question presented for decis this: Shall we stand by the Receive(accepting corrections thereof wherevecan be established by preponderatinand putting those ancient Codices on tof other witnesses, to be tested as to the

like all others) 1 Or shall we abandoTextus Receptus in favor of that of Westand Hort, or of some other of the half dozeprofess to be shaped by the principle

the ancient manuscripts ? This is twe propose to discuss in the preseIt should be observed, before we proceed wi

question, that the agreeing testimothey do agree) of the Vatican anMss. cannot be properly regarded

the force of two independent witnessethere are sufficient evidences, both internexternal, to warrant the conclusion thtwo Codices are very closely related, th


60/127

WHICH VERSION?and Old Latin Versions, corroborat

patristic quotations afford ample proofon the other hand it is not known that t

Codices we are discussing represent anbut copies of a bad original, made wor

the copying.Divine Safeguaeds to the Text

It is appropriate at this point to direct atteto the Divinely ordaiaed means which hafar protected the Sacred Text from serioHe who gave to men the Hol

to serve throughout the age as tfoundation of that * 'faith of the Sonwhich alone avails for personal salvatio

to be also the sufficient rule of life and cofor * * the household of faith, ' ' has not fail

devise effectual means for the preservatiHis written "Word. The means in questiaccording to God's usual way of continuiline of a living thing, incidental to and i

in the thing itself, and not somethithereto. For it is a part of the no

life of every individual to provide for t


61/127

AUTHORIZED OR REVISED?God increased" (Ac. 6;7) ; and again, "BnWord of God grew and multiplied" (A

; and once more, '*So mightily grew tof God and prevailed" (Ac. 19:20).

The means which mainly have served to athe purpose referred to, are these

1. The necessity that there should be a gresteadily increasing multiplication of copiethis provides automatically the most effesecurity imaginable against corruption

e Text.2. The necessity that the Scriptures shoutranslated into divers languages. This tran

of the Written Word into various tongubut a carrying out of that which the miracPentecost indicated as a distinctive chara

of this age, namely, that everyohear the saving truth of God in twherein he was horn. Thus, the agre

of two or more of the earliest Versiogo a long way towards the establishme

the true reading of any disputed passage.It is appropriate at this point to direct atte

to the very great value of a Version as


62/127

WHICH VBESION?Latin) of the second century is a clear wias to the Text recognized at that early da

the true Text.This point has an important bearing upon twe are now examining. For, remem

that "we have no actual * Copies* (i.Greek Texts) so old as the Syriac an

*Versions' (i. e., translations) b^ promore than 200 years" (The TraditionBurgon and Miller), and that "The oldeare far more ancient than the oldemanuscripts" (Canon Cook), and r

too that those venerable Versionthe existence in their day of a standaragreeing essentially with our Textus Reand it will be recognized that "the mos

evidence" is all in favor of the latte3. The activity of the earliest assailantschurch necessitated, on the part of the d

of the faith, and that from the very bthat they should quote extensively fro

part of the New Testament. In this waa vast amount of evidence of the highes

as to the true reading of dispute


63/127

AUTHORIZED OR REVISED?deciding voice in every dispute? Howevecan be trusted to see to it that all attemp

sweep away His protecting means should fas in this case.The Value op Compaeatively Late Mss.It is quite true that most of the extant copithe Greek New Testament date from the 10the 14th century. Thus they are separat

the inspired original Writings by a thoyears or more. Yet, that they faithful

those originals, and that the concuof a large majority of them would codecide every disputed reading, no reasoperson should ever doubt. The extaof secular writers of antiquity (as HerThucydides, and Sophocles) are but fcomparison with the thousand manuscrip

the Scriptures, and are separated from thby 500 additional years. Moreove

lack the extraordinary safeguards, meabove, whereby the integrity of t


64/127

WHICH VERSION fEreors of Omission

In considering the principle of following tancient manuscripts it is importanthow it works in the case of that commones

all errorserrors of omission; and in dithis point we would take as an exampl

question of the last twelve verses of tof Mark (referred to specifically latThose verses are absolutely necessary

completeness of the Gospel; yet becausare not in "the two most ancient Mss.

Revisionists have marked them as probablHere then we may propose a question upo

the merits of the B. V. may be decided,to a very large extent : Should the pure

testimony of those two Codices (i.fact that certain words and passages are nin them) be allowed to overthrow t

testimony of hundreds of othManuscripts, Versions, and quotatio

the * 'church fathers ? ' ' This is a questianyone of ordinary intelligence canto decide correctly when the followi


65/127

AUTHORIZED OR REVISED 1of inattention. Hence it is an accepte

of evidence that the testimony of onwitness, who says he saw or heard

thing, carries more weight than thatdozen who, though on the spot, can only sa

they did not see or hear it, or that they dremember it. Therefore, other things bein

the affirmative evidence of the other threCodices and Versions, and that of thwho quote those verses as unquesScripture, is an hundred fold morof credence than the negative testimon

the two which were allowed to control in sethe text of the B. V.

2. As we have already stated, a superstitiouwas paid to the Sinai and Vatica

because of their (supposed) greater antthe assumption being that the older th

the more likely is it to be correct. But thais wholly unwarrantable. In th

case before us, we have, in support oText of the A. V., the concurrent testimonmany manuscripts, from many differe

of the world; and though these wer


66/127

WHICH VERSION?verses of the Gospel by Mark is of suc

that we propose to cite the testin regard thereto more fully in a subschapter. We are referring to it here on

an impressive illustration of a general priThat principle (the causes of errors

is of exceptional importance in thbecause, as we have seen, the original scri

the Sinaitic Codex was peculiarly givenof that sort.

A Test of the Principle op "AncientEvidence"

Let us take an illustration of what wfe are heto establish, namely, that the concu

testimony of the manuscripts which suthe Received Text conclusively establi

authenticity in parts where it differs fro*'New Greek Text" of Westcott and Hortthis purpose let us suppose that a hundre

of a certain original document in a cebusiness office were made by different copand sent to as many different branch-offic

various parts of the world; and suppose tha


67/127

AUTHORIZED OB BEVISED?found in later copies in actual servic

that it were deemed important to settle tof the authenticity of that word or seSuppose further that, for the purpose

a dozen of the manuscripts then in actuin various and far distant parts of t

each one being a late copy of previousand worn-out copies, were examined, athe disputed word or sentence were fou

each of those late copies, is it not clear thauthenticity thereof would he establish

all reasonable dispute? Such mustconclusion, because the absence thereofancient copy could be easily accounted fo

its presence in a number of later copieof which came from a distinct source, cou

be accounted for except on the assumptiits genuineness.But let us suppose that, in addition to t

copies in use in various places, thecertain translations (versions in forei

which translations were earlier thvery earliest of the existing manuscriptsoriginal tongue; and also that many quot


68/127

WHICH VERSION?This supposititious case will give a good ideathe strength of the evidence in favor of the

of the A. V. For in the settling of that Textweight was given to the concurrent testi-of the numerous Mss. in actual use in dif-churches, widely separated from one an-and also to the corroborating testimony

the most ancient Versions and of the patristic; whereas, in the settling of the text of

E. V. the evidence of highest grade was uni-rejected in favor of that of the lowest

The Strength of the Case in Favor opTHE Eeceiv^ed Text3. But the case in favor of the Greek Text ofA. V. is far stronger than this. For whentwo Mss. which controlled the Westcott and

text are scrutinized, they are found to con-such internal proofs of their unreliability

to impeach their own testimony, and renderutterly unworthy of belief. They present

case of witnesses who have been caught inmany misstatements as to discredit their


69/127

AUTHOEIZED OR REVISED?the other Ms., discovered in the last century bTischendorf, allowed to lie in disuse for hundreds of years from the fourth century (as supposed) until the nineteenth? A reasonable iference would be that the Ms. was cast aside anultimately consigned to the waste paper basketbecause it was known to be permeated with erors of various sorts. And this inferenceraised to the level of practical certainty by thfact that, time and again, the work of correcing the entire manuscript was undertaken bsuccessive owners.But not to dwell longer upon mere circum

stances, the two Mss., when carefully examinedare found to bear upon their face clear evdences that they were derived from a commonand a very corrupt, source. The late DrEdward Vining of Cambridge, Mass., has gonthoroughly into this, and has produced evdence tending to show that they were copi(and most carelessly made) of an originbrought bv Origen out of Egvpt. where, aswell known, the Scriptures were corrupted amost from the beginning


70/127

WHICH VERSION?''IrenaBus and the African fathers used fainferior manuscripts to those employed bStunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens, thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus Receptus."In view of such facts as these, it is easy to se

what havoc would result to the sacred text if (aactually happened in the production of the RV.) its composition were controlled by two manuscripts of Egyptian origin, to the actual repudiation of the consensus of hundreds of latemanuscripts of good repute, of the most ancienand trustworthy of the Versions, and of thindependent witness of the earliest Christiawriters.

4. Bearing in mind that, as Dr. Kenyon othe British Museum says, **the manuscripts othe New Testament are counted by hundredsand even thousands," it is a cause for astonishment that credence should have been given iany instance to the Vatican or Sinai Ms. (oboth together in cases where they agree)against the agreeing testimony of the multitudof opposing witnesses. But such was the rulconsistently followed in compiling the Text fo


71/127

AUTHORIZED OR REVISED?scripts, or even of one manuscript, against the distinct testimony of all other manuscripts, uncial ancursive.* . . . The Vatican Codex, sometimes alonebut generally in accord with the Sinaitic, is responsible for nine-tenths of the most striking innovationintheR-V."

We have deemed it worth while to examinwith some care the principle whereby modereditors of the Greek Text of the New Testamenprofess to have been guided, and this for threasons, first, that the question here discussedand the facts whereby it must be determined, libeyond the reach of most of those for whosbenefit we are writing; and second, that if ware right in our view that the principle we ardiscussing is utterly unsound, is contrary to thrules of evidence, and is certain to lead astrathose who submit to its guidance, we have takethe foundation completely from under the Eevised Version of 1881 and of every other Version that rests upon the same corrupt GreeText, or one constructed upon the same principles. remarks under this heading t


72/127

WHICH VERSION?"Dr. Hort's system is entirely destitute of histor

foundation."And again"We are compelled to repeat as emphatically a

our strong conviction that the hypothesis the (Dr. Hort) has devoted so many laboriouis destitute not only of historical foundatio

of all probability resulting from the internaof the text which its adoption would forc

us. '

He quotes Dr. Hort as saying, *'We cannothat S. Luke 23:34 comes from an ex

source," and he replies, "Nor can weour part, doubt that the system which ensuch consequences is hopelessly self-con

We conclude therefore, from what has beeunder consideration up to this point in our inquiry, that the E. V. should be rejected, not onlbecause of the many unsupported departurefrom the A. V. it contains, but because the GreeText whereon it is based was constructed upoa principle so unsound that the resulting Tex


73/127

Chaptee VIThe Procedure of the Revision

CommitteeThe Insteuctions Given Them and How TheyWere Careied OutNo Authority Given toFashion a New Greek TextHow TheirSanction Was Seemingly Given to theWestcott and Hort TextSOME of our readers will perhaps be askinghow it was possible that the learned menwho composed the Eevision Committee

have allowed the great mass of testimonysustains the authenticity of the Eeceivedto be set aside upon the sole authority of

Codices so dubious as the two we have beenThe explanation is that the Eevi-did not consider these matters at all

were not supposed to undertake the re-of the Greek Text for that lay en-


74/127

WHICH VERSION?cient Mss. only; and the account of their proceedings (published by Dr. Newth, one of thRevisers) makes it quite plain that they did nohave before them, or give any consideration tthe weighty matters of fact, affecting the character of those two ''ancient witnesses," whicwe are now putting before our readers. Ittherefore to be noted (and it is an importanpoint) that, in regard to the underlying GreeText of the R. V. and the principles that controlled its formation, no appeal can properly bmade to the scholarship of the Committee, howsoever great it might be. In view of all the factit seems clear that, not until after the Committee had disbanded, and their work had comunder the scrutiny of able scholars and faithfmen, were they themselves aware that they haseemingly given their official sanction to thsubstitution of the ''New Greek Text" of Westcott and Hort for the Textus Beceptus. ThWestcott and Hort Text had not yet been published, and hence had never been subjectedscrutiny and criticism; nor had the principlupon which it was constructed been invest


75/127

AUTHORIZED OR REVISED?had been published was it know

the Westcott and Hort Text had beeimposed upon the Eevisers, and thatconformed to the two old Codices, Sinaitand Vaticanus.Dean Burgon was one of the first to call atteto the fact that the most radical departurethe R. V. were not new translations of t

Text, but were departures that aroschanges in the Greek Text itself. No a

of this important fact had beeby the Committee ; and indeed there waa disposition to throw a veil over thof the proceedings in Committee. *'ButDean Burgon, "I traced the mischief hom

its true authorsDrs. Westcott and Hortof whose unpublished text, the most vicio

existence, had been confidentially and undeof the strictest secrecy, placed in t

of every member of the revising body.Dean Burgon thereupon proceeded to publiof these facts in a series of articles whic

in the Quarterly Review in 1883 ; an


76/127

WHICH VEBSION?certainly isthe most astonishing, as wel

the most calamitous, literary blunder of thDean Burgon had undertaken the examina

of the E. V. upon the supposition that thawas what its name implies, and what ithad been charged to produce, namely,

of the Authorized Version." Buthe puts it, **we speedily found that an endifferent problem awaited us. We mad

distressing discovery that the underlyinText had been completely refashione

This is the more serious becausone, upon reading the preface to the R. Vfind any hint at such a thing. But, thank

the thorough investigations of scholars ofirst rank (some of whom are quoted in thi

it is now possible for all who are interin this great and solemn question, to satthemselves that Drs. Westcott and Horindeed, as Dean Burgon said, "succeede

producing a Text vastly more remote froinspired autographs of the evangelists an

of our Lord, than any which has ap


77/127


78/127


79/127

AUTHORIZED OR REVISED?the Greek Text was "settled" is quite

Sir Edmund Beckett has, we think, put thvery well when he said that Dr. Newth'sof the way the Committee on Revision

the Greek Text "is quite enough tsettle ^ the Revised Version in a very differen

For in the production of the "NewText" the Revisers have departed froTextus Receptus nearly 6,000 times. The

of every proposed change should havmade a matter of careful investigationand should have been reached according to theight of the evidence, for and against. Bufrom the published account of the proceedingsvouched for by the chairman (Bishop EUicottas correct, we understand that in no case wathere any examination of the question, or weighing of the evidence by the Committee.Upon this state of things Bishop Wordswortremarks

''The question arises whether the Church of England, which sanctioned a revision of her AuthorizeVersion UTider the express condition (which she mos


80/127

Chapter VIISpecific Examples of Textual

CorruptionENOUGH has been said, we think, to impeach successfully the credibility of th

two ''ancient witnesses'^ whose testimony was so largely relied upon in constructina Greek Text for the R. V. We will thereforproceed now to refer to some conspicuous instances wherein passages or clauses have beeeither corrupted or brought under unjust suspicion through their evidence, which is largelof a negative character. And this will throfurther light upon the character of those witnesses ; for an effectual way of discrediting theitestimony is to produce actual instances of thmischief that has been done by accepting it.

The Last Twelve Vekses of MarkIn his ''unanswered and unanswerable" wor

on this famous passage (published some yearbefore the R. V. appeared, so that the Reviser


81/127

AUTHOEIZED OR REVISED!imcial manuscripts whicli have just been named(Vatican and Sinaitic) there is not one Codex inexistence, uncial or cursive (and we are acquaintedwith at least eighteen other uncials and about sixhundred cursives of this Gospel), which leaves outthe last twelve verses of S. Mark. The omissionof these twelve verses, I repeat, in itself destroys ourconfidence in Codex B (Vaticanus) and Codex Sinaiti-cus. . . . Nothing whatever which has hitherto comebefore us lends the slightest countenance to themodern dream that S. Mark's Gospel, as it left thehands of its inspired author, ended abruptly atverse 8, . . , The notion is an invention, a pureimagiaation of the critics, ever since the days ofGriesbach."The fact that the Revisers have discredited a

passage so important as the ending of Mark'sGospel is enough in itself to arouse suspicionas to their entire work, and to create a feelingof uncertainty as to their fitness for the greattask entrusted to them. For the evidence infavor of the authenticity of that passage issimply overwhelming.

The Angelic Message (Luke 2 : 14)As another typical instance of the sort of


82/127

WHICH VERSION?rupt Mss. to which they superstitiously bowedhave substituted the uncouth and preposterouphrase, ''peace among men in whom he is welpleased. ' ^Now we should suppose that every one acquainted with the language of Scripture, anpossessed of spiritual discernment to evenmoderate extent, would unhesitatingly say thasuch a phrase could never have been part of thtrue Word of God. But, going back to the evidence, it is found that, with the exception ofour Codices of bad repute (two of which havbeen corrected as to this very passage in locoevery existing copy of the Gospels (amountinto many hundreds) has the reading of thReceived Text; and this reading has the support of five ancient Versions, and of quotationfrom more than a score of "fathers." It iscase where, upon the evidence, there is no roofor the smallest doubt. And this is a fair example of how the case stands with nearly athe changes of the Greek Text.The Loed's Agony in the Garden and His

Prayer for His Murderers


83/127

AUTHORIZED OE REVISED?the ''moral certainty" they entertained that thwords in question are spurious. The first othe above mentioned passages describes thLord's agony and bloody sweat in the gardenand the other is the vitally important prayer oChrist on the cross, "Father forgive them, fothey know not what they do. ' ' We have a special comment on this last passage below.Now the state of the evidence, as in the laspreceding instance, is such as to establish beyond all doubt that both these passages argenuine Scripture.

To Save That Which Was LostAs another example out of many we take thprecious words of the Lord Jesus, "The Son oman is come to save that which was lost, ' ' whicare expunged by the Revisionists from Matthe18:11, although they are attested by everknown uncial except three (the usual three obad character), by every known cursive excepthree, by numerous Versions, by the lectionaries of many churches, and by a large numbeof "fathers." In a word, the evidence overwhelmingly establishes the genuineness of th


84/127

WHICH VEESION?ere. The only warrant for this meddlesomechange, which spoils the sense of the passage, ithat Tischendorf (alone of all the editors) reects the word. And the Eevisers have madematters worse by putting in the margin thutterly misleading statement **many ancienauthorities add strong." The reader wouldcertainly understand from this that the major-ity of the authorities, especially the ** ancientones, omitted the word. But the truth of thmatter is that the Mss. which omit the word arbut two; and of them Sir E. Beckett says, "andthose two manuscripts appear also to be rathedistinguished for blunders than for excellence.Here we have a most unjustifiable alterationcoupled with an utterly misleading statement othe facts behind it.

The Mysteey of GodlinessAnother example of vicious and wholly unwarranted tampering with an important passage, is furnished by the alteration in 1 Timoth3:16, whereby the words, ''God was manifesin the flesh," are changed to ''he who was manifested in the flesh."


85/127

AUTHORIZED OE REVISED?is not clearly advocated by a single Father.In a word the evidence is overwhelminglagainst it. Dean Bnrgon, in his truly crushinreply to Bishop Ellicott, the chairman of thEevision Committee, has triumphantly vindicated the authenticity of the Eeceived Text iits reading of this vitally important passage.From that reply we extract the following"Behold then the provision which the Author oScripture has made for the effectual conservation i

its integrity of this portion of His Written WordUpwards of 1800 years have run their course since thHoly Ghost, by His servant Paul, rehearsed 'the Mystery of Godliness, ' declaring this to be the great foundation fact, namely, that 'God was manifest in thflesh. ' And lo ! out of 254 copies of St. Paul 's Epistlesno less than 252 are discovered to have preserved thaexpression. The copies whereof we speak were procured in every part of Christendom, being derived ievery instance from copies older than themselveswhich again were transcripts of copies older stillThey have since found their way, without design ocontrivance, into the libraries of every country iEurope, where they have been jealously guarded."


86/127

WHICH VERSION?original uncial Mss. between the conventionasymbol for *'God" and the relative pronou*'who." We submit, as a proper and just conclusion from these facts, that men who, uponsuch a state of the evidence before them, wouldcast out of the Scripture at this vital point, thword **God," and replace it by *'he who," havethereby demonstrated their unfitness for thwork of revising the Greek Text of the N. T.

The Omission of Mark 6 : 11The Revisionists have discarded as spurious

the words of Christ: ''Verily I say unto you ishall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomor-rah in the day of judgment than for that city"(Mk.6:ll).Referring to this mutilation. Dean Burgon, i

a letter addressed to the chairman of the Re-vision Committee, commented as follows:"How serious the consequences have been theyonly know who have been at pains to examine yourwork with close attention. Not only have you on

countless occasions thrust out words, clauses, andentire sentences of genuine Scripture, but you havebeen careful that no trace should survive of the fatainjury you have inflicted.


87/127

AUTHORIZED OR REVISED?be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah i

day of judgment than for that city'? Have yoS. Mark's Gospel to so little purpose as noknow that the six uncials on which you rely ar

depositories of an abominably corrupt recensiof the second Gospel?"

Them That Curse You'' (Matt. 5:44)In the same letter, referring to the omissioMatthew 5 : 44, Dean Bnrgon said''But you have committed a yet more deplorablwhenwithout leaving behind you eithe

or comment of any sortyou obliterated froMatthew 5 :44 the solemn words which I proceeunderline : ^Bless them that curse you, do good t

that hate you, and pray for them which despiteuse you and persecute you.' You relied almos

exclusively on those two false witnesses, of whicare so superstitiously fond. (Vatican and Sina

regardless of the testimony of almost all thther copies besides, of almost all the versions, anf a host of primitive fathers, half of whom livend died before our two oldest manuscripts camnto being."

"Fathee Foegive Them"We have already quoted Dr. Hort^s remar


88/127

WHICH VERSION?''These twelve precious words Drs. Westcott anHort enclose within double brackets in token of th

'moral certainty' they entertain that the words arspurious; and yet these words are found in everknown uncial and in every known cursive copy, except four ; besides being found in every ancient version; and what amount (we ask the question witsincere simplicity), what amount of evidence is calculated to inspire undoubted confidence in anexisting reading, if not such a concurrence of authorities as this?" As to the patristic evidence to thipassage"we find our Saviour's prayer attested bupwards of forty ancient fathers (of the second tthe eighth centuries) . . . How could our revisionistdare to insinuate doubts into wavering hearts anunlearned heads where (as here) they were hounto know there exists no manner of doubt at all?

**And Am Known op Mine"John 10 : 14 reads thus in the A. V., "7 am th

Good Shepherd, and know My Sheep, and aknown of Mine."For the last clause the R. V. substitutes **anMine own know Me. ' ' In view of the next succeeding words, *'As the Father knoweth meven so know I the Father," this change destroys the exquisite diversity of expression o


89/127

AUTHOEIZED OE REVISED?knowledge of the Father. Speaking of thiregrettable change Dean Burgon says

''The refinement in question has been faithfullretained all down the ages by every copy in existence, except the Vatican and the Sinaitic, antwo others of equally bad character. Does anyonin his sober senses suppose that, if S. John had written 'Mine own know Me,' 996 manuscripts out ofthousand at the end of 1800 years would be founto exhibit ' I am known of Mine ' ?

Dr. Malan sums up in the following words hiexamination of the first chapter of Matthew ait appears in the E. V.''The Eevisers havemade 60 changes in that chapter. Of these onis good, and one is admissible. All the rest (58)appear ill-judged or unnecessary."Canon Cook's verdict on the Eevisers' Text

of the first three Gospels is as follows"It is not too much to say that in nine passage

out of tennay, to go furtherin every passage ovital importance as regards the integrity of HolScripture, the veracity of the sacred writers, anthe records of our Lord's Sayings, nearly all ancient versions, and with very few exceptions, al


90/127

WHICH VERSION?"It would take a great many critical maximsme that the apostles wrote what can onfairly translated into nonsense ; which they somedid, if the Revisers' new readings are all righmoreover their adoption of them makes one su

about many other readings which cannot bunder that test."

Many other examples might be givenin the Greek Text made in deferencetwo ancient Codices (Vaticamis and Sina

and against the overwhelmingly prepontestimony of Greek Mss. Versions anchanges which inflict manifest injurthe Holy Scriptures ; but the foregoing ar

sufficient to warrant the conclusion tha''New Greek Text" underlying the E. V

(which is virtually that of Westcott and Hortvastly inferior to that of the A. V., and sp

that the witnesses whose testimony conin the construction of the former aruntrustworthy.


91/127

Chapter VIIIChanges in Translation

HAVING considered those departures othe E. V. from the A. V. that are due tthe use of a different Greek Text, wecome now to changes of another sort, namely,

changes of words and sentences where therewas no change in the corresponding part of theGreek Text. In speaking of this class ofchanges we do not fail to recognize, what iadmitted by all competent authorities, that theA. V. could be corrected in a number of pas-sages where the meaning is now obscured be-cause of changes which three centuries haverought about in the meaning of English words,or where diligent study or recent discoveriesave brought to light better readings. Suchnstances, however, are comparatively few,hereas the R. V. gives us about 36,000 de-

small and great, from the A. V. Whatshall we say of such a host of changes? SirEdmund Beckett writes about it as follows

''The two principal complaints of the work of the


92/127

WHICH VERSION?more serious one that they have hardly changedsentence without spoiling its English, sometimes by thsmallest touch or transposition of a word, and stimore by the larger alterations."The condemnation of a great deal of the Revisers' work, in real fidelity of translation, as welas in style, by such a scholar as the Bishop of Lincolhas been from his youth, is a blow from which thewill not easily recover. . . . Another dignitary anscholar of eminence has publicly declared that hdissented from one-third (which is 12,000) of the aterations the more ambitious majority persisted inand it is generally understood that another Dean rsigned for the same reason in despair."

In a great many instances changes were madin the tenses of verbs, upon the theory advocated by Drs. Westcott and Hort, that thproper rendering of the Greek aorist demandesuch changes. But this has since that time beeseriously called into question. Indeed a writein the London Times for January 17, 1920, remarks that "Some years ago Bishop "Westcottson told the readers of The Times that the vietaken by the Eevisers of the proper meaning othe Greek aorist, which led to so many alterations, was now known to be mistaken. '


93/127

AUTHORIZED OR REVISED?sions ; and if one has become at all used to theunapproachable style of the A. V. his ear mustneeds suffer continual offence and annoyanceas he listens to the rendering of familiar pas-sages in the R. V.Speaking to this point Dean Burgon (in his

Revision Revised) says"The English, as well as the Greek, of the newly

Revised Version, is hopelessly at fault. It is to mesimply unintelligible how a company of scholarscan have spent ten years in elaborating such a veryunsatisfactory production. Their uncouth phrase-ology and their jerky sentences, their pedantic ob-scurity and unidiomatic English, contrast painfullywith the happy turns of expression, the music othe cadences, the felicities of the rhythm of ourAuthorized Version. ... It is, however, the sy

Documents

Mauro - Revised or King James Version - Which Version