The chapter on “Westcott and Hort” is a manifest appeal to religious prejudice, and. an argumentum ad hominem, both unworthy of a fair, Christian scholar. The reference to Hort’s “anti Americanism” is wholly beside the point, having nothing to do with his textual criticism as an exacting scholar. The strained quotations alleged to prove Westcott’s spiritualistic tendencies, and his and Hort’s personal views on evolution are subjected to an unfair deduction as to their qualifying as experts in textual criticism. On counts like these, we might be compelled to reject the majority of the eight hundred translations of the Scriptures, or portions, into modern foreign languages, upon which our missionaries depend so continuously for the prosecution of their committed task.RABV 17.1

In the chapter “Blow After Blow Against the Truth,” there is a succession of charges to the effect that fundamental doctrines are changed in the Revised renderings on the basis of personal beliefs on the part of the revisers. But it is not a question of the theology of the men, but of What did the original Greek text say? If there is manifest honesty and fidelity in seeking to establish an authenticated text, the argument on the theology of the translators collapses. None of the translators of either 1611, 1881, or 1901 understood the intent of Revelation 14, the sanctuary truth, or the prophecies in general. All were Sunday keepers and believers in natural immortality. But that did not invalidate the work they did as translators of the Bible.RABV 18.1

If, however, some of the personal views of the committee of 1611 were disclosed, what a contrast might appear to the extravagant eulogium of the members of this committee by the author! But if the personal beliefs of the translators invalidate their labors, then verily we are indeed in a hard way, for men of every persuasion—Fundamentalists, Modernists, conservatives, liberals, ritualists, evangelicals, evolutionists, creationists, sprinklers, immersionists—have all engaged in the work of translation.RABV 18.2

The author appears to have undertaken his work on the basis that if he can discredit the work of Westcott and Hort he has effectually discredited the Revised Version. On this basis he attempts to show them as really Roman Catholic in their belief. In view of these facts, it is enlightening to note that Scrivener, who is recognized by the author as an outstanding scholar, and who in general opposed the textual criticism of Westcott and Hart, testifies that the influence of these men over the text adopted by the Revisionists was “by no means a preponderating one.”—“Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament,” fourth edition, Vol. II, page 284, note. And the author does not tell us that the great Scrivener, whom he so often quotes, came to see before he died that the Received Text could not be supported unconditionally as he once thought.—Caspar René Gregory, “Canon and Text of the New Test a ment,” p, 462, Scribner's, 1907.RABV 18.3

The scholarly Dr. Hemphill, before mentioned at some length, refers to Scrivener’s attitude toward the manuscripts used by the Revision Committee, especially the Vatican and Sinaitic, in these strong terms:RABV 19.1

“Not that Scrivener was prepared to give an unqualified support to the traditional text, or blind to the value of the great Vatican and Sinaitic Manuscripts. Indeed no one who has read his Introduction much less his Collation of the Sinaitic Manuscript, can make so silly an assertion.”—” A History of the Revised Version of the New Testament,” by Samuel Hemphill, D. D., Litt. D., p. 55.RABV 19.2

The author’s aspersions on these two ancient manuscripts would seem to be thus catalogued as “silly.”RABV 19.3

Matthew Brown Riddle, D. D., LL. D., Professor of New Testament Exegesis at Theological Seminary, Hartford, and later of Western Theological Seminary, Allegheny, Pa., was a member of the American Revision Committee end was one of the three who actually acted as editors of the A.R.V. New Testament. He has made available the intimate story of the Committee’s work, and has disclosed the principles that were operative. Surely he is qualified to speak, and he writes:RABV 19.4

“A copy [of Westcott and Hort’s Greek Testament] sent to America was entrusted to the present writer, who collated the readings and added notices of them to the footnotes in Scrivener’s edition. It was evident that the readings accepted by the English Revisers were quite as frequently those of Tregelles as those of Westcott and Hort. In the American Company the readings were carefully discussed. While in the vast majority of cases the preferences of the English Revisers were approved, this was due to independent judgment. Dr. Ezra Abbot was the foremost textual critic in America, and his opinion usually prevailed when questions of text were debated. It may be said that neither he nor any other member of the Company endorsed the peculiar theory of Westcott and Hort, in regard to what they call the ‘Neutral’ text, a theory which gives to the Codex Vaticanus (designated B) preponderating authority. So also the obvious partiality of Tischendorf for the readings of the Codex Sinaiticus (designated Aleph), which he had discovered, was carefully guarded against.”—” The Story of the Revised New Testament,” pp. 30, 31.RABV 20.1

Since the author also quotes quite extensively from “The Revision Revised,” by John William Burgon, Dean of Chichester, it may be in place to give an unbiased estimate of Burgon’s work as presented by Mr. Hemphill:RABV 20.2

“October 1881 contributed some remarkable criticisms. Foremost among these was the opening article in the Quarterly Review by John William Burgon, Dean of Chichester. Its style was regrettable, while its learning was profound. In this and the two succeeding numbers of the Revie w, Burgon wounded the Revisers deeply, spoke of them as if they had been almost imbeciles, and gave them no credit for any of the improvements which they had made. A less stinging style and a little fairness would have been more effective in the long run. As a specimen of controversial invective, this series of articles (since republished under the name of The Revision Revised) is unsurpassed; but they had the immediate and unfortunate result of casting other less amusing but more edifying criticisms too much into the shade, and of making it appear that all opposition to the new Revision proceeded from sheer undiluted prejudice.”—Idem., p. 101.RABV 20.3

Of the bitterness of Burgon, Kenyon says:RABV 20.4

“Dean Burgon tilted desperately against the text of Westcott and Hort, and even went so far as to argue that these two documents [Aleph and B] owed their preservation, not to the goodness of their text, but to its depravity, having been, so to speak, pilloried as examples of what a copy of the Scriptures ought net to be! In spite of the learning with which the Dean maintained his arguments, and of the support which equally eminent but more moderate scholars such as Dr. Scrivener gave to his conclusions, they have failed to hold their ground. Scholars in general believe B [the Vatican Manuscript] to be the chief evidence for the most ancient form of the New Testament text, and it is clear that the Revisers of our English Bible attached the greatest weight to its authority.”—” Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts,” F. G. Kenyon, p. 133.RABV 20.5

The Argument Upon the “Itala”

Misuse of Authorities