ARV omits “For thine is the kingdom and power and glory, forever. Amen.” The author calls this twice, a mutilation of the Lord’s Prayer, stating that the Reformers protested against it, but that the Jesuits and the Revisers accepted it. The textual facts are that the omitted part is not found in the oldest Greek MSS, but since it is found in many of the later ones, the ARV places this note in the margin: “Many authorities, some ancient, but with variation add ‘For Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory, forever. Amen,’” which reading is exactly as it appears in AV. No one seeking to mutilate a passage would be as fair as this. Moreover the part omitted is in the nature of a doxology, and affects no doctrine, The two following quotations taken from conservative authors are to the point:RABV 66.3

“Matthew 6:13. A liturgical ending, no part of the original prayer.”—The Expositor’s Greek Testament,” Vol. I, p. 122.RABV 66.4

“It is right to say that I can no longer regard this doxology (Matthew 6:13) as certainly an integral part of St. Matthew’s Gospel; but (notwithstanding its rejection of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort) I am not yet absolutely convinced of its spuriousness ....RABV 66.5

[Review Sec. III Ch. 6, p. 5]RABV 66.6

“It is probable that the doxology was interpolated from the Liturgies, and the variation of reading renders this all the more likely; it is just as probable that it was cast out of St. Matthew’s Gospel to bring it into harmony with St. Luke’s ....RABV 67.1

“It is vain to dissemble the pressure of the adverse case, though it ought not to be looked upon as conclusive.”—“A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament,” Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, Vol. II, pp. 323, 324, 325.RABV 67.2

92—IIRABV 67.3

Matthew 5:44. On praying for enemies.RABV 67.4

ARV omits the middle part of this verse reading, “bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and also which despitefully use you.” On the strength of this one omission the author declares “that the Revised Version is not a revision in any sense whatever, but a new Bible based on different manuscripts from the KJ, on Catholic manuscripts in fact.”RABV 67.5

Two facts should be pointed out in this connection. First, that the two MSS Aleph and B, that is, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus respectively, are the two oldest MSS among all that have been collected by scholars over the centuries, from the time of Erasmus at the beginning of the 16th century down to the latest discoveries. They are dated by all scholars back as early as the 4th century, while no other MS that is in the nature of anything more than a few fragments is dated earlier than the 5th century. Those of importance dating back to the 5th century are the Alexandrian and some fragments at Paris, while one, the Codex Beza, is of the 5th to the 6th century.RABV 67.6

It is a sweeping charge that the ARV is not a revision, but a new Bible, because its translators are guided by the oldest and most complete MSS, the two oldest of which have been made available since the AV was issued. Because these two oldest MSS came to us directly from Catholic sources, the author calls any version that is influenced by these MSS “a Catholic version.” He neglects to state that Erasmus, who prepared the text which the author calls “the pure Greek text” was himself a Catholic, that his work on the Greek text was dedicated to Pope Leo X and received the written endorsement of the Pope,RABV 67.7

[Review Sec. III Ch. 6, p. 6] and that in one of his editions of the text, Erasmus printed both the Pope’s letter of endorsement and in parallel columns the official Roman Catholic text in Latin, the Vulgate of Jerome. There is no historical proof that any Greek text was more directly influenced by Catholic hands, a Catholic version, and Catholic approval than was that of Erasmus, yet the text of Erasmus was the basis of what has since been called the Textus Receptus, which the author lauds so highly as a pure, uncorrupted text. There is no direct proof that either the Vaticanus or Sinaiticus was handled in any such way as was the text of Erasmus, which brought us the Textus Receptus. It is not fair therefore to charge a version with being Catholic because it is influenced by the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus unless one is willing to call the AV a Catholic version also because it was based upon a text approved by the Pope.RABV 67.8

Moreover, the ARV shows its fidelity to authenticated texts and its freedom from the charge of mutilation, in the fact that the very parts omitted in Matthew 5:44 are all retained in ARV in Luke 6:27, 28. When these omissions, which according to the author constitute the Revised Version a new Bible, are fully retained in a parallel passage, where is the consistency in making such a charge?RABV 68.1

92—IIIRABV 68.2

Luke 2:33. On Joseph’s being father of Jesus.RABV 68.3

The charge here is that the Jesuits and the AR “give Jesus a human father or at least failed to make the distinction” by changing the Joseph of AV to His father in ARV. Whatever charge may be brought on the corrupting of this text, the fact remains that in verse 48 of the same chapter, Mary definitely calls Joseph the father of Jesus in the phrase “Thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing,” while in verses 27 and 41 Joseph and Mary are called His “parents” in both AV and ARV. If any one tried to mutilate this passage, he fell far short by failing to mutilate these other three verses. The factRABV 68.4

[Review Sec. III, Ch. 6, p. 7] that the three verses read as they do frees the Revisers from any such charge. Moreover, the word Joseph appears only in the Alexandrian and some later secondary MSS, while the other major copies read “His father.”RABV 68.5

93—IVRABV 69.1

Luke 4:8. On get thee behind me Satan.RABV 69.2

ARV omits the clause “Get thee behind me Satan” in this passage, and because the Douay does the same the author finds a “fatal parallel between the Jesuit and the Revised Versions”, and says that “we were revised backwards.” The reason he gives is that “The papal corrupters of the MSS did not wish Peter and Satan to stand on the same basis.” Two facts should be noted. The first is that the testimony of the MSS is so positively against including this omitted clause in this verse that no notation is made of any exception to its omission, with the one exception that one editor cites it as occurring in the Alexandrian. The omission of the clause “Get thee behind me Satan” for textual reasons in Luke 4:8 is fully compensated for in Matthew. The ARV reads in Matthew 4:10, addressed to Satan: “Get thee hence, Satan.” and in Matthew 16:23: “Get thee behind me, Satan.” The only difference in the two Greek texts lies in the two words, “behind me,” and could in no sense affect the doctrine, or make any appreciable difference in the meaning as applied to Satan directly, or to Satan through Peter.RABV 69.3

93—VRABV 69.4

Luke 11:2-4. On the Lord’s Prayer in Luke.RABV 69.5

The author’s only comment here is that again “The Jesuit Version and the American Revised agree,” and that is sufficient for him to reject the Revised regardless of whether or not it agrees with the best attested MSS. The parts of this secondary record of the Lord’s Prayer, to whose omission the author objects, are “which art in heaven” after the word Father, and “Thy will be done as in heaven so in earth,” and “but deliver us from evil.” All the parts of the Lord’s Prayer omitted here in ARV are given in the margin as variant readings in the MSS, and they are also included in the text in theRABV 69.6

[Review Sec. III, Ch. 6, p. 8] ARV of this prayer in Matthew. If omitting the phrase “which art in heaven,” opens the way for us to pray to any man-made god, as the author declares on page 201, what shall we say about the form of address used by Jesus Himself several times in John 17, and also on the Cross? Moreover, ARV gives a cross reference to Matthew 6:9 where the phrase “who art in heaven,” is retained.RABV 69.7

94—VIRABV 70.1

Acts 13:42. On the Sabbath of the Jews.RABV 70.2

In this text ARV omits two phrases, “the Jews”, and “the Gentiles.” The author objects to this, and says that in the AV reading “it is clear that the Sabbath was the day on which the Jews worshipped” while he evidently does not think it clear in the ARV reading; whereas if he had looked back to verses 14, 15, and forward to verse 43, he would have found that the context of this scripture makes it perfectly clear that the Jews and Gentiles worshipped in a synagogue of the Jews on the Sabbath day. The request to meet the next Sabbath can refer to nothing else but the sane synagogue of the Jews. Definite mention of the Jews and Gentiles in verse 42 is found only in the Received Text and three secondary MSS. How could any discord be created or any fundamental doctrine affected by omitting the repetition of the words Jews and Gentile s in this verse when the context makes it all clear? If there is any embarrassment to us on this verse, it is found in the AV marginal reading “in the week between” or “in the Sabbath between,” which ARV removes.RABV 70.3

95—VIIRABV 70.4

Acts 15:23. On the clergy and the laity.RABV 70.5

In this passage the author objects to the omission of the little word and between elders and brethren as found in the Revised, and bids us notice that the “clergy is set off from the laity.” First of all, three major MSS besides Vaticanus and Sinaiticus read the same as ARV has rendered it, that is, without the and, while one later editing of Sinaiticus includes and. That this matter is a pointless one is clear from two facts, (1) That according toRABV 70.6

[Review Sec. III. Ch. 6, p. 9] verse 2 the messengers from Antioch were appointed to go up to Jerusalem “unto the apostles and elders about this question”—not to them and the laity. (2) That nevertheless the decision to send messengers back to Antioch is mentioned definitely in verse 22 as made by “the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men.” Evidently the whole church authorized the apostles and elders to send the messengers, if not to write and send the communication. This is a thing that happens in every democratic church organization, including the Seventh-day Adventist. How often do our own officers and elders send out messages to the church scattered abroad, that have been authorized in some conference, or council, or church assembly? Yet no one presumes that they are separating the clergy from the laity.RABV 70.7

95—VIIIRABV 71.1

Acts 16:7. On the Spirit of Jesus.RABV 71.2

Here the author criticises the addition of the phrase “of Jesus” to the word “Spirit” as is done in ARV, and interprets it as implying “that the Holy Spirit had so taken possession of the Person of the Exalted Jesus that He could be spoken of as ‘the Spirit of Jesus,’” quoting this sentiment from Milligan, who the author says echoed the theology of the Revisers. It is strange that the author should accept such an interpretation, for the phrase “Spirit of Jesus” is in full harmony with equivalent passages in Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6; 2 Corinthians 3:17, and elsewhere. Incidentally, the phrase “of Jesus” is found in 9 other MSS besides Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.RABV 71.3

95—IXRABV 71.4

Romans 5:1. On we have or let us have peace.RABV 71.5

This passage is one of quite a number in which the author not very commendably substitutes in the text a reading from the marginal note, and then criticises the result as if it were the original reading preferred by the Revisers. As a matter of fact the ARV text says we have, with a marginal note, “many ancient authorities read let us have.” Observe here that the author criticises an informing note as if it were in the text. The difference in theRABV 71.6

[Review Sec. III, Ch. 6, p. 10] Greek text between the two renderings is only between the simple o (short) and compound o (long). Either rendering of the phrase is entirely orthodox. We frequently exhort ourselves to lay hold of what is available.RABV 71.7

95—XRABV 72.1

1 Corinthians 5:7. On omission of the phrase for us.RABV 72.2

The criticism here is on omitting the phrase “for us” from the passage “For Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us,” which omission by ARV the author says “strikes at the doctrine of the atonement.” The rage of a certain Reverend Sir, and of a Unitarian minister, has no bearing on the meaning of this passage as translated in either AV or ARV. Moreover, six other MSS besides Vaticanus and Sinaiticus omit the phrase “for us.” In both AV and ARV renderings occurs the phrase our Passover, identifying it in each case with Christ. If Christ our Passover was sacrificed, for whom could He have been sacrificed, except for us? Moreover, other scriptures, like Romans 5:8, 1 Peter l:17-21, definitely state in both ARV and AV that Christ died for us. How could the author declare that by taking out the phrase for us in this verse “there is no gospel left,” when no primary MS contains it, and when ARV retains it in other passages where the MSS justify it?RABV 72.3

95—XIRABV 72.4

1 Corinthians 15:47. On omission of the Lord.RABV 72.5

In this verse the phrase the Lord is omitted in ARV. To this the author objects because it does not tell specifically who the man from heaven is, as does the AV. Six other MSS besides Vaticanus and Sinaiticus omit the phrase, the Lord. The use of the phrase in this verse is not vital to understanding who is meant, since the context and the declaration in this verse that the second man is “of heaven” make it sufficiently clear who the second Adam is.RABV 72.6

96—XIIRABV 72.7

Ephesians 3:9. On omission of the phrase, “by Jesus Christ.”RABV 72.8

Because the phrase “by Jesus Christ” is omitted here, the author thinks that a blow is struck at the great truth that Jesus is Creator. As a matter of fact only three amended Greek texts contain the phrase “by Jesus Christ”RABV 72.9

[Review Sec. III, Ch. 6, p. 11] in this verse. That all things were created by Christ is clearly stated in ARV in John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16; and Hebrews 1:2, which invalidates the criticism on its omission here for ulterior purposes.RABV 72.10

96—XIIIRABV 73.1

Colossians 1:14. On omission of the phrase, his blood.RABV 73.2

In the omission of this phrase in ARV the author again sees a “fatal parallel between the Jesuit Version and the American Revised Version.... in full accord with modern liberalism” and says that it “strikes at the very heart of the gospel.” If the author is to be guided by the parallelism between the Douay Version and the ARV and conclude that because the two agree therefore the ARV is influenced by the Jesuit Version, he would have to reject most of the New Testament. On the other hand, if we were dependent upon this single passage for the information that our redemption was obtained “through His blood,” the omission would indeed be serious, but the fact that it is included in many other scriptures in ARV such as 1 Peter 1:17-19; 1 John 1:7; Acts 20:28, prevents any difficulty whatever. In Ephesians 1:7, ARV uses almost exactly the some language as the AV uses here. As to the testimony of the MSS, only three secondary texts include the phrase in Colossians 1:14; while all of the major MSS and a considerable number of secondary ones omit the phrase in this particular passage. In the face of such testimony what should a translator do but follow the best attested reading, and why should the Revisers be charged with modernism for omitting it?RABV 73.3

97—XIVRABV 73.4

1 Timothy 3:16. On substitution of he who for God.RABV 73.5

In this passage ARV reads “he who was manifested in the flesh” instead of “God was manifest in the flesh” as in AV. The author says that this change destroys the teaching of the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, since “‘He who’ might have been an angel or even a good man like Elijah,” as if Elijah or any other good man was ever preached unto the Gentiles as a means of salvation or ever exemplified the mystery of godliness by an incarnation thatRABV 73.6

[Review Sec. III, Ch. 6, p. 12] was efficacious for salvation! Altogether apart from this verse, the identity of Christ as our divine Saviour is made plain in numerous other scriptures such as John 1:14 1 John 1:2, 3; Philippians 2:6-8. On the reading of the MSS it may be stated that the two words for God and for he who are sufficiently similar in the Greek so that any hand-copyist might easily mis-copy one for the other, but nothing can be said to be essentially lost whichever reading is followed. On the textual authority, Dr. Scrivener, who is often cited by the author as an eminent scholar, bears the following testimony:RABV 73.7

1 Timothy 3:16: “Codex A [the Alexandrian manuscript], however, I have examined at least twenty times within as many years, and yet am not quite able to assent to the conclusion of Mr. Cowper when he says ‘we hope that no one will think it possible, either with or without a lens, to ascertain the truth of the matter by any inspection of the Codex’ (Cod. Alex., Introd. P. xviii). On the contrary, seeing (as every one must see for himself) with my own eyes, I have always felt convinced with Berriman and the earlier collators that Cod. A read [Theos, God] and, so far as I am shaken in my conviction at all, it is less by the adverse opinion even of Bp. Ellicott, than by the more recently discovered fact that OC [Hos, He who] (which is adopted by Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Davidson, Tregelles, Alford, Ellicott, Wordsworth, Hort and Westcott), was read in Aleph [the Sinaitic manuscript] as early as the fourth century ....RABV 74.1

“On a review of the whole mass of external proof, bearing in mind too that OC (from which 8 of D* is an evident corruption) is grammatically much the harder reading after [musterion] (Canon I), and that it might easily pass into [Theos], we must consider it probable (indeed, if we were sure of the testimony of the first-rate uncials, we might regard it as certain) that the second of our rules of Comparative Criticism must here be applied, and [Theos] of the more recent many yield place to [Hos] of the ancient few.—“A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament,” Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, Vol. II, pages 391, 392.RABV 74.2

97—XVRABV 74.3

2 Timothy 4:1. On the judgment and appearing of Christ.RABV 74.4

The author’s contention is that AV “fixes the great day of judgment as occurring at the time of His appearing and His kingdom,” while “the Jesuit and Revised place it in the indefinite future.” Strictly speaking, the judgment does not occur at the time of Christ’s appearing, but before it. The rendering of the ARV is therefore more accurate in time and sequence than AV, and is justified by the reading of five principal and several secondary MSS. It may be added here, however, that the difference in the reading turns on whether the original word is kai, meaning and, or kata, meaning at. Four major MSS give kai. A later revision of two of these gives kata. If the author desires to place the time of the judgment strictly at Christ’s second coming, it is well that “the time of the judgment is obliterated in this passage” (p. 203) as he declares.RABV 74.5

97—XVIRABV 75.1

Hebrews 7:21. On omitting “after the order of Melchisedec.”RABV 75.2

Though ARV omits the phrase “after the order of Melchisedec” in this verse in the passage quoted from the Old Testament, it definitely includes it in Hebrews 6:20, and in 7:17. It is also definitely implied in Hebrews 7:15.RABV 75.3

98—XVIIRABV 75.4

Revelation 22:14. On the robes and the commandments.RABV 75.5

The testimony of the MSS is so strong against the genuineness of the clause “that do His commandments” in this verse, that no variant reading is cited in the margin of either ARV or ERV. This clause is found in only one Greek uncial of the tenth century at Rome. The Greek spelling of the two clauses in question is so much alike that we give the two, first in English, then in Greek:RABV 75.6

1. “that wash their robes.”RABV 75.7

2. “that do his commandments.”RABV 75.8

1. hoi plunontes tas stolas autoon.RABV 75.9

2. hoi poiountes tas entolas auton.RABV 75.10

Error in copying language so similar might account for the two readings. But either reading is orthodox and disturbs no doctrine. Our duty to keep the commandments is clearly stated many times elsewhere in the New Testament as well as in the Old. The theology of washing their robes as a preparation for access to the tree of life and entering in through the gates into the city, is entirely orthodox, as the figure is used also in Revelation 7:14 in reference to a company of overcomers seen before the throne of God, of whom it is testifiedRABV 75.11

[Review Sec. III, Ch. 6, p. 14] that they “washed their robes” as a necessary condition of victory and access to heaven. It does not in any sense imply or hint that the washing of the robes takes place during the entrance into the city, as is so loosely argued by the author on page 198, for a purpose clause is sequential and future, not contemporaneous in meaning.RABV 75.12

Section III: Review of the Scripture Texts Cited in Chapters Six, Eleven and Twelve

CHAPTER XI “Blow After Blow Against The Truth”