Summary on Scriptures Examined

In summarizing this examination of Scripture passages, let it be said that it has not been the purpose of this review to make a defense of the American or English Revised Version as such, nor to compare in any systematic way its value and reliability as compared with the Authorized Version. That would be a separate, and withal a profitable task in itself.RABV 111.1

The purpose of this review has been to determine by an impartial examination of the facts bearing on the actual reading of the Versions, whether or not the author’s contention can be sustained that the Revised Versions are manipulated, mutilated, theologically—biased translations and therefore unreliable and unsafe for our use.RABV 111.2

It is only fair to both author and reader to leave our own conclusion on the matter to follow a summarizing of our findings in the examination of the proof texts brought forward by the author.RABV 111.3

Any one who reads through with an unbiased mind Chapters VI, XI, and XII of this book will readily discern the following facts:RABV 111.4

1. That in the title of Chapter VI, the author begs the question by assuming that whenever the same or similar reading occurs in ARV as is found in Douay, therefore ARV obtained it from Douay; in other words, that a Douay reading? in ARV by design, and this in spite of the fact that no Catholic sat on the Revision Committee, and that ARV is a revision of the AV by a large body of Protestant scholars in the light of the best Greek MSS, not in the light of Douay.RABV 111.5

2. That in his opening remarks in Chapter VI, the author allows no correction, improvement, or revision of the Greek text in the light of the older, more complete, and better attested MSS, and many more in number, that have come to light and been critically studied by a large number of expert scholars since the one man Erasmus made up his hasty text from a few MSS under pressure of competition with another printer than his employer, but which the author calls “a pure Greek text.”RABV 111.6

3. That because a considerable number of individually translated versions “all in the main agree with the change of thought in the Revised,” both these and the Revised “were the products of a common influence.” The influence plainly meant by the author is one outside the Bible and the MSS, namely, the Jesuit Influence; whereas, one would logically conclude that the influence bringing so uniform a result from scholars widely scattered and working individually, was that of a text so well perfected by devout scholars in the work of generations that little room for essential divergence was found by the translator. It surely does not make our Bible Catholic to say the same thing a Catholic version says if the Catholic version says the same thing the best attested MSS say.RABV 112.1

4. That summing up the examination of all the texts brought forward by the author to prove the laterad contention of the entire book, namely, that the product of the Revisers is a manipulated, mutilated, corrupted, Romanized, modernized, unreliable version of the Holy Scriptures, and that the changes in reading seriously affect fundamental doctrines of the gospel as we understand and teach them, and constitute “blow after blow against the truth” and “blow after blow in favor of Rome,” we find the following results:RABV 113.1

Out of 17 Scripture passages reviewed in Chapter VI to show that “the Jesuit Bible reappears in the ARV,” only 9 in the most liberal allowance can be said to touch doctrine at all. Out of these 9 passages, 8 do not mis-state any doctrine, and wherein they can be made to appear by omission of a word or phrase to stop short of expressing some added detail of doctrine, that same detail is expressed numerous times in other scriptures of the same version. In the one remaining instance of the 9, the author mis-states the doctrine on the time of the judgment when he criticises the change from the rendering of the AV where the latter mis-states it. See page 97.RABV 113.2

In every one of the remaining 8 of the 17 passages examined, the point omitted in 4 instances is fully expressed or made clear in parallel passages, in 2 instances in the context, and in 2 instances in the margin, and in some instance in two or all three of these ways,—all in the same version.RABV 113.3

5. That in the opening remarks of the author in Chapter XI, he allows no motive for placing alternative readings in the margin except “to sow, broadcast, doubts about the sacred utterances,” whereas seven of the very passages he brings forth for examination give in the margin the exact reading of the AV. If these AV readings “cast doubt on the sacred utterances” it is a pity they are found in its own text, and a good thing they have only a secondary place in the margin of ARV. In five other passages cited, the marginal reading simply gives the literal rendering of a textual reading exactly like the AV.RABV 113.4

6. That, again, the author allows no motive to the painstaking care to be exact that is obvious in his quotation from the Chairman of the English Revision Committee, but a “settled purpose... that doctrine should be changed,”—and of course in harmony with the Chairman’s theological views! Had not such painstaking care been taken to be true to the original, we should still have some of the obvious errors in AV to deal with.RABV 114.1

7. That summing up the examination of all the 31 scriptures brought forward by the author in Chapter XI to illustrate “blow after blow against the truth,” we find the following results:RABV 114.2

(a) Only one blow that can really be said to be “against the truth,” and that one not contrary to truth but stating only part of the truth, namely, the rendering of 2 Timothy 3:l6, “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable” rather than “all scripture is inspired of God and is profitable,” the meaning turning on where the is, not expressed in the original, is placed. The latter rendering by AV is given in the margin as an alternative reading.RABV 114.3

(b) Three of the blows cited are positively blows for the truth, namely, the more accurate rendering of John 5:39; Acts 3:19; 2 Timothy 4:l, thus correcting obvious errors in AV, involving no change whatever in the Greek text except the single instance in Timothy of substituting the better attested kai, and, for kata, at, thus relieving the text of an error on the time of the judgment.RABV 114.4

(c) Eight of the blows involve only change from a more free to a more literal rendering, and therefore instead of being “against the truth,” are for greater accuracy in expressing the truth, such as age for world, sign for miracl e, turn for convert, a noun for an adjective—all equally employed in other scriptures in AV.RABV 114.5

(d) Nine of the so-called blows might appear on first thought to affect the truth in the particular passage, but on second thought and investigation are fully compensated for in the context or in parallel passages in the same ARV, and therefore, such omission or change in the particular verse is not at all vital to understanding the truth.RABV 115.1

(e) Ten other so-called blows are purely matters of fidelity to the original reading in the particular passage, but in five instances giving the old reading in the margin, in two instances giving the old reading in the text with a marginal note indicating its textual status, and in three instances a modification of the text with no marginal note, but in not one of these affecting in any way the interpretation of the passage in the light of other scriptures in ARV where the textual authority is not in question.RABV 115.2

8. That in his opening remarks in Chapter XII, the author does not allow fidelity to authenticated Greek texts to govern any changes made in the passages of scripture he brings forward, but charges that these passages “the Revisers have changed to those Catholic readings which favor the doctrines of Rome,” clearly implying that this was the motive that prompted the changes.RABV 115.3

9. That by quoting a Catholic bishop’s fair statement of why one passage in the Revision does not differ materially from the Catholic version, the author again falls into the fallacy of concluding that because a Revised passage agrees substantially in wording with the Catholic version of the same, therefore the Revisers made the change from the AV to “favor the doctrines of Rome,” not because, as the Catholic Bishop states fairly, the translations were made from “substantially identical copies of the same document.”RABV 115.4

10. That, summing up examination of the 17 passages of scripture brought forward in Chapter XII as examples of “blows in favor of Rome,” we find the following results:RABV 115.5

(a) Only one change can really be said to “favor the doctrines of Rome,” but no more so than the generally accepted doctrine of Protestants on the same point, namely, that the punishment of the wicked is now going on somewhere, as the ARV rendering of 2 Peter 2:9 indicates—a rendering which can be shown to be absolutely wrong in the interpretation of a single Greek word with no variant reading in the MSS. If, however, the Revisers had any ulterior motive in rendering the word “under punishment,” they did not have to go to Rome to find the doctrine, and the author himself credits them with having “gone beyond even the Douay Version” to find their motive!RABV 116.1

(b) One other instance in which the Revisers came nearest to violating fidelity to the Greek text, is that in Revelation 13:8, in which the final phrase “from the foundation of the world” is taken far out of its normal grammatical setting back to the word “written” at almost the beginning of this long relative clause. The only reason one can think of why it was done, was the apparent incongruity with fact of making the Lamb appear literally slain from the foundation of the world, yet it is difficult indeed to see how this rendering struck any more of a blow in favor of Rome than any other body of religionists.RABV 116.2

(c) Of the other fifteen scriptures cited, five give the AV reading in the text, with a literal or alternative reading in the margin; in three the point in question is made clear in the context or a parallel scripture in the same version, and seven are rendered in fidelity to authenticated Greek texts without marginal note, two of these being only a change in tense form—all these fifteen without changing any doctrine if examined without bias.RABV 116.3

Systematic Depravation.—At the end of Chapter XII, the author gives a sort of summary of his findings. In sweeping style, so characteristic of his book, he declares:RABV 116.4

1. That in the work of translation the generalship of two men—Westcott and Hort—swept along with them 23 other ripe scholars on the Revision Committee. The ability and standing of these 23 who were so ruthlessly overruled in their decisions by two fellow members, is indicated in the fact that 21 of them had a doctor’s degree, 4 of them were bishops, 4 of them deans, 1 an archbishop, 5 were presidents, principals, or masters of colleges, 2 were college professors, and 3 were canons or vicars. The two men who outgeneraled them all were a Cambridge Fellow and a Cambridge Professor, who are variously styled by the author as “dominant mentalities,” “not prominently known at the time,” “evil genius”,” “Cambridge trio of Revisers.” (with Lightfoot)—albeit on another page he calls Ellicott, Lightfoot and Moulton the “triumvirate which constantly worked to bring things to a head.”RABV 117.1

2. He declares that the “generalship” of Westcott and Hort consisted of “changing the divine Word to bear the impress of their doctrines,” although there were on the committee with them 17 Doctors of Divinity and 9 high officials of the church bearing titles of Eight Reverend, Very Reverend, or Most Reverend, all of whom would naturally be expected to be experts and champions of doctrine.RABV 117.2

3. He declares that these two little-known Cambridge Professors “changed the Greek in 5,336 places” (“mutilations” he calls them), whereas, according to Kenyon, he should have said the still larger number of 5,778 improvements were made by the whole committee in order to correct the many glaring defects of Erasmus’ hastily assembled text, so obsequiously followed by Stephens and the Elzevirs in later editions.RABV 117.3

4. The author reckons up 36000 of what he calls “metamorphoses of the English,” whereas he should have said that 120,000 defects in the Authorized Version were “detected and noted.” Here is a published statement of this fact:RABV 117.4

[Review Sec. III, Sum. Scrips. p. 8]RABV 117.5

“Concerning existing defects it may be said briefly, that the variations already detected and noted as existing in various manuscripts, versions and editions, amount to about 120,000”—” Revised New Testament and History of Revision,” published by J. S Goodman & Co., Chicago, p. 54.RABV 118.1

5. The obvious purpose of the author in his sweeping charges on what two “little known” men could do by way of dominating a committee of 27 independent-thinking British scholars and church dignitaries, and in his flaunting two sets of figures twice in three lines for their cumulative effect, is to “stamp many of the readings of the Revised Version with the marks of systematic depravation,” as he himself states.RABV 118.2

These figures give the impression that the changes by way of improving the AV translation were of a radical and revolutionary nature. But what are the facts? The Revisers found 120,000 defects to be remedied. That was the nature of these defects? Here is reliable testimony:RABV 118.3

“But of this large number of errors it is probable that at least 90,000 are of small importance. President Chase, of the Revision Committee, recently said of these variations: ‘Ninety-nine in a hundred—nay, perhaps I may say nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine in ten thousand, are practically of no importance as involving any point of faith or practice. The majority of the different readings in this formidable enumeration are mere differences in spelling. Next some slight differences in grammatical form, not affecting the substantial sense; then differences in the greater or less fullness of writing the name of our Saviour;... then comes the use of synonymous expressions—(thus of the three Greek words, all meaning to say, one manuscript will use one, and another in the same passage another, and another the third); then we have a class of variations in which the effect is merely rhetorical, the same idea being expressed in different readings with greater or less force and vividness; and the whole number of texts in which the variations of reading would affect materially the doctrines conveyed can be counted by units—I had almost said upon the fingers of one hand.”—Idem.RABV 118.4

Where, then, can be found this loudly heralded “systematic depravation” of the Scriptures through the so-called connivance of two men, as revealed in the Revised Version itself?RABV 118.5