Newspaper Page Text
14 THE
Contributed
PROOF TEXT REVISION.
Having been in touch with the work
of the present Proof Text Committee from
the beginning, the writer feels a more
than common interest in the critical attitude
which has at last developed to
wards the decision of the committee on
a question which is preliminary and fundamental
to their work, a question which
they were left to decide for themselves
without the least help from the church
at large. We can not but feel a certain
amount of sympathy with the hesitant
attitude manifested towards making
what appears at first sight a specific endorsement
of the American Revision contained
in the announcement that the committee
"has followed the American Revised
Version as to genuineness, internrofatinn
on/1 rnlnvonev " Minntoe 1 QAQ
Jiivvouvu uuu ivivfUiiv/. m.uuiuo, x^vu,
p. 115. But it seems to the writer that
at the present stage of. the work the
criticism, if such it may be considered,
is premature, since the rule was never
intended to mean what it has been taken
to imply. Properly considered it means
no more than that (he text of the revised
version has been taken as a guide in deciding
whether or not a passage might
be properly applied as a proof of any particular
statement of the Confession. The
fact that they asked to be directed which
version to use in printing the texts, and
in the absence of such instruction have
decided to use the old version, shows that
this is all the rule can mean. There can
be no objection to such application of
the rule, for it is clearly demanded by
the requirements of accuracy, in the ef
fort to present unquestionable proofs.
The writer examined with considerable
care their work on the Confession of
Faith, and was gratified and highly pleased
with its superiority to the original
nrnnf.fovta TV>q m I* ? ao la I,? a?a.
|/1 uwi t,VAi uc VyUtlllilllice lO IU UC V/UIU"
mended for their painstaking care in the
fitting of texts. The work of the Westminster
Assembly's committee, hastily
done as it was, Will bear no comparison
with it, as one can determine for himself
by examination, noting how many
texts had to be rejected as irrelevant,
and others substituted. The church will
never know how much labor has been
involved in this work. But when the
church by examination of the finished
work comes to have some idea of its magnitude
and importance it can not fail to
appreciate that the committee has rendered
a great service to the church.
But while inclined to defend the committee
against any haqty or ill-considered
criticism, we can not but think that the
rule in question is open to a verbal criticism,
and that they should have said
noinieu version wim American' leu
off. The work of the revisers which
really underlies the questions of genuineness
and relevancy is one with which the
American company had little or nothing
to do, and therefore to speak of the
American Revised Version in such connection
gives the American revisers a
credit to which they are not entitled, de
PRESBYTERIAN OF THE SOUT
privlng those who are entitled to It, because
a list of readings to be followed
had of necessity to be prepared, and to
these belongs the credit of deciding what
the best scholarship demanded in the way
of departure from the commonly received
Greek text. The writer possesses an Oxford
edition of the Greek text which is
supposed to underlie the Revised Version,
and which was issued more than twentyfive
years ago as a companion of that
version, and it has been used by the
urrlfor V? 1 ? * ?
..tiwi citi oiin,c lie ii?o uecn in me ministry.
It deviates in only a few places
from the latest form of the critical text
by Westcott and Hort, as we know by
personal inspection. It is formed upon
the basis of Stephens' third edition, by
placing the revisers' adopted readings in
the text and the corresponding old readings
in the margin, so that both texts
can be. at once seen. The editor of this
text, E. Palmer, made free use of Scrivener's
edition of Stephens' text, which exhibits
the "points of difference from certain
texts put forth by Beza, Elzevir,
Lachman, Tregelles, and Tischendorf."
Thus it wll be seen how readily these
various readings, with the help of Westcott
and Hort, could be compared and
the necessary critical data looked up
from the large editions which contained
the critical apparatus and decide for
themselves which to adopt. A critical
commentary such as that of Meyer places
a good deal of this data in the hands
of the ordinary reader who is diligent
enough to look it up in his textual notes.
The Standard makes a statement
which is very liable to be misunderstood
when it asserts that the revisers "disclaimed
a textus receptus." The indefinite
article is erroneously substituted for
the definite. There is no tuch thing as
"a textus receptus," and has not been in
the estimation of textual critics for a
century and a half, or since Wetstein's
edition of the New Testament in two folio
volumes (1751-2) declared by Michaelis
to be "of all the editions of the New Testament
. . . the most important and
the most necessary to all who are engaged
in sacred criticism." The science
of textual criticism is usually dated from
Griesbach in 1770. It is therefore no new
science, and the labors of those who have
given their lives to the careful collation
of the various uncial manuscripts which
constitute the purest source for the determination
of the true text, can not be
ignored. It was an established science a
hundred years ago, for Thomas H. Horne
in the early part of the nineteenth century
described a formidable array of
manuscripts, and only one of very great
value, the Sinaitic, has been discovered
and collated since.
Again, the Standard says: "Internal evidences
were largely relied on in settling
conflicting views among leading authorities."
The American revisers have possibly
laid themselves liable to some such
charge, but it can hardly lie against the
English revisers who have so closely followed
Westcott's text, which professes
to be "based exclusively on documentary
evidence, and on the most careful comparison
of all the ancient feources of the
H. October 20, 1909..
text as they have been collected and
made available by the indefatigable diligence
of former editors, especially of
Lachman, Tischendorf and Tregelles."
The translation of "In" for "en" in connection
with baptism, by the American
revisers, is very likely a case of "purism"
and pedantry rather than denominational
bias. It is ignorance of Hellenistic Greek.
But the American revisers have doubtless
shown a rationalistic tendency, and in
nothing does it crop out more decidedly
than in the substitution of "Lord" for
"God" in Acts 20: 28. Horne has given
and carefully weighed all the critical
data on this text, and is decidedly in fa
iui ui lijc oiuiuary reaaing, ana tnis 18
adopted by Westcott and Hort and the
English Revision. This variation is especially
noticeable because this is one of
the few places where they have deviated
from the adopted text of the Revision.
Another such instance of deviation is the
retaining of the indicative mood instead
of the subjunctive in Rom. 5: 1, which is
the best attested reading. The internal
evidence of the context as well as the
double repetition of the word strongly
favor the reading which the English revisers
adopted.
Neither form of the Revision should
be followed in 2 Tim. 3: 16. The verbal
adjective surely can not be taken as a
participle (Winer) when standing for the
main predication. We do not believe
that the Proof Text Committee should be
deprived of this classic passage as a
proof of inspiration, because the Revised
Version in both forms has eviscerated
the passage by making it ambiguous in
disregard of the laws of language. This
shows that it is dangerous to lay down
any cast iron rule, and that as the Confession
itself holds,' the Greek and the
Hebrew must be the final appeal. The
cases would be rare indeed where the fitting
of texts in doctrinal matters would
be appreciably affected by the latest results
of sound textual criticism. We do
not remember to have met with any such
case in the work of the committee upon
the Confession. It might in rare instances
rule out a passage once used, but
this would cause no difficulty in the ample
support of any scripture doctrine.
We favor the striking out of the word
"American" from the rule in question, on
the ground of its false implication, allowing
Revised Version of stand.
Luther Link.
WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA.
(This city of colonial activity and note
is now assuming its winter bustle.
The Williamsburg Female Institute has
opened with increased number of boarding
pupils and the session bids fair to be
a prosperous one.
' William and Mary College has an unusual
number of new students and the
professors say they are remarkably well
prepared in their studies. This shows
the effect of high school improvement
throughout the state.
Thursday evening, September 23, the
Presbyterian pastor-elect, Rev. R. L. Walfnn
anil hln wlfa antortalnoil a* fhalr
home on Francis street, the Preabyteriap