Misquotation of Authorities

A flagrant example is found in the note on page 42, “The two great families of Greek Bibles are well illustrated in the work of that outstanding scholar Erasmus. Before he gave to the Reformation the New Testament in Greek, he divided all Greek MSS. into two classes: Those which agreed with the Received Text and those which agreed with the Vaticanus MS.” In justification of this remarkable assertion reference is made to “An Inquiry Into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate,” by Frederick Nolan, p. 413. But the following is the statement found in Nolan’s book, which was printed in 1815, before the most valuable manuscripts were available:RABV 28.5

“With reference to manuscripts, it is indisputable that he [Erasmus] was acquainted with every variety which is known to us; having distributed them into two principal classes, one of which corresponds with the Complutensian edition, the other with the Vatican manuscript.” (Italics ours.)RABV 29.1

It will be noted that in the quotation from the book under review the words “the Received Text” are substituted for “the Complutensian edition,” as found in the work to which reference is given. The significance of this change will be better appreciated when it is remembered that the Complutensian edition was a Roman Catholic text edited by Cardinal Ximenes, based upon MSS. loaned to him by the Pope, and printed just before the first edition of Erasmus was given to the public, but not circulated until a little later. It appears, then, according to the facts, as will be shown in Section II, that the comparison made by Erasmus was between one set of Vatican MSS. and the great Vatican MS. “B.” Such a deliberate perversion of fact is without excuse, and could only be made through gross carelessness, or under the pressure of the need of further authority to establish the claims of the author concerning the Received Text.RABV 29.2

On page 95 the author refers to Romans 5:1, using in an absolutely unwarranted way a mere marginal note in the A.R.V. (to the effect that some ancient authorities read “Let us have peace”), giving the impression that it is an alternative marginal reading,—which it is not,—and utterly ignoring the reading of the text itself which is the same as in the Authorized Version. The author then infers that the A.R.V. is here in harmony with the Rheims Version which reads, “Let us have peace,” and refers to “Where Did We Get Our Bible?” (p. 182), by D. G. L. Robinson, as authority for the fact that the rendering, “Let us have peace,” “is a serious error of doctrine.”RABV 30.1

This is perhaps as striking a perversion of an authority as is found in this book. The chapter in the Robinson volume, in which the indicated paragraph is found, is devoted to justifying the claim made in the opening sentence that, “The last, the most important, and in many particulars the best English Version is that known as ‘The American Standard Revision,’” As one of the reasons for this claim, Dr. Robinson refers to the rendering of Romans 5:1 as found in the text of the American Revised Version, “We have peace,” in contras with the rendering, “Let us have peace,” as found in the Rheims Version. It is unnecessary to characterize such an unfair handling of an authority.RABV 30.2

We shall not carry this phase of review further, as no attempt has been made to completely survey the inaccuracies and misstatements that abound, but merely to cite examples.RABV 30.3