My Reviewers have accused me of "frequent misuse and misquotation of authorities"; and of me they say, he "includes only a part of a sentence or paragraph that suits his one-sided argument". (Section II, p. 16). They further accuse me of "ignoring the context" and also of unfair deduction from the quotations". (I, p. 17). And particularly they hold me up the public gaze as "even splitting paragraphs and often sentences so as to omit what would nullify 'my' purpose if left in". (Conclusion-2)

I now wish to submit to this body, who heard these charges against me read in your ears, how my Reviewers have handled their material. I will submit some facts drawn from their document, which will speak for themselves. We will then see whether I am guilty of these charges, and we shall see how they stand. He who brings another into court of equity must himself have clean hands.

Before giving example #1, notice the Reviewers partiality against Erasmus. They begin their discussion of MSS in general with four counts against Erasmus, which, of course, hits the Authorized and seven counts in favor of the Revisers, which, of course, exalts the Revised. Let me quote one sentence from Section II, p. 3. "That is, was not the textual work of Catholic Erasmus, working single-handed in the sixteenth century, with a small number of MSS available, as accurate and reliable as that of 37 of the best Protestant scholars in England and America, working for ten years with 4000 MSS available to check and compare?"

Against Erasmus: (1) Catholic (2) single-handed (3) 16th century (4) small number of MSS.

For Revisers: (1) accurate and reliable (2) 37 (3) best (4) Protestant (5) scholars (6) ten years (7) 4000 MSS available.

EXAMPLE NO. I: On page 3, Section II of their document, my Reviewers read to you these words:

"Again, the author has much to say in defense of the meager MSS used by Erasmus. He seriously overstates himself when, admitting that Erasmus 'used only a few,' he exclaims, 'What matters?... If the few Erasmus used were typical... did he not, with all the problems before him arrive at practically the same results which only could be arrived at today by fair and comprehensive investigation?' (p. 54)."

Now, brethren, notice that there are two sets of dots here to show that twice something was omitted in their quoting from my book. Why were those two portions omitted? The parts omitted would nullify their argument, if left in. Their opening quotation from my book in this connection consists of only four words, "used only a few." In the sentence from which these four words are taken, there are 18 words in the whole sentence, and they quote only four, "used only a few." If they had quoted the other fourteen words of the sentence, the complete sentence would utterly have demolished the proposition they endeavor to make you believe, and would have shown that I said a very different thing front the impression given by the four words they quoted.

Now listen to the complete sentence they should have quoted, the full 18 words. They read as follows:

Also, I want you to notice what they left out in the place indicated by the first three dots, and what was left out in the place of the second three dots. Here is the complete quotation.

"What matters? The vast bulk of manuscripts in Greek are practically all the Received Text." (This is the first sentence they left out). "that is , after he had thoroughly balanced the evidence of man and used a few which displayed that balance, did he not, with all the problems before him, arrive at practically the same result which only could be arrived at today by a fair and comprehensive investigation?"

They omit the first 14 words of a sentence, quote the last four; then they quote 2 words; leave out 13; quote 7, omit l9 and quote 28. In view of the full quotations they should have drawn from my book, now notice what they go on to make me say. They make me represent,

"Catholic Erasmus working single-handed in the 16th century, with a small number of MSS available."

So whereas, I said that there were hundreds of MSS available, and I stated that Erasmus examined them and had balanced the evidence of many, they make me say that only a small number of manuscripts were available I said the very opposite.

I respectfully submit that my Reviewers here have split sentences, so as to entirely contradict the thought of the writer; that is, they have done exactly what they accused me of doing.

EXAMPLE NO. 2: I am accused of "untrustworthy manipulation". This is a serious charge. Who of you would like to stand up here and be accused of "untrustworthy manipulation". My Reviewers say that they will give "four typical examples of this. We shall examine all four.

Would you be surprised to learn that in the first example I bring before you, their argument (charge against me) was based upon their using a wrong footnote. Must I be pilloried because the eyes of my Reviewers, who are great sticklers for accuracy, wandered to a wrong footnote?

On page 22, Section I, of their document, my Reviewers bring to our attention footnote No. 36 of my book, (page 171) which was a reference to Dr. Salmon's book, "Some Criticism",: p. 11,12. Then on the next page of their document, they represent me as quoting "from the same citation" that is, from Dr. Salmon, concerning Westcott and Hort's Greek N.T. being, "portion by portion secretly committed into the hands of the Revision Committee". Now, the truth is, that my footnote on "secretly committed into the hands of the Revision Committee" was not number 36, but was number 35, and refers not to Dr. Salmon at all, but to Dr. Ellicott's book, Addresses, etc." p 118. Therefore their gratuitous observation on my "untrustworthy manipulation" of Dr. Salmon falls to the ground; because I was not talking about Dr. Salmon, I was talking about Dr. Ellicott. It would be well the next time before they accuse a writer of "untrustworthy manipulation" on the basis of a footnote, to be sure they have the right footnote, and thus obviate a false accusation as well as a mistake on their own part.

But as to the fact that Westcott and Hort's Greek Text was "secretly committed" and "in advance" I will now quote from three authorities.

"Just five days before,--under the editorship of Drs. Westcott and Hort, (Revisionists themselves,)--had appeared the most extravagant Text which has seen the light since the invention of printing. No secret was made of the fact that under pledges of strictest secrecy, a copy of this wild performance (marked "confidential") had been intrusted to every member of the Revising Body." Burgon, "Revision Revised", p. 364.

"But it is certain that the edition and the textual theories of Drs. Westcott and Hort, which were communicated to the Revisers in advance of the publication of their volumes, had a great influence on the text ultimately adopted, while very many of their readings which were not admitted into the text of the Revised Version, yet find a place in the margin." Kenyon, "Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts," p. 239.

"A fifth blunder was the secret sessions. There was no attempt to conciliate the public. No samples of the work were sent out for examination and criticism. The public was compelled to receive what the Revisers thought best to give them. Similar secrecy was maintained as to the Greek text which had been adopted. The Westcott and Hort text, which was confidentially laid before the Revisers, was not published until five days before the revision was issued." Wm. Evarets. "Bibliotheca Sacra," January 1921.

What then becomes of the argument they tried to make against the fact that the Westcott and Hort Greek N.T. was secretly committed in advance to the Revisers? This argument against me they draw from a wrong footnote. I submit that the authority of a document based on the inexcusable mistakes of my Reviewers is a decidedly minus quantity.

EXAMPLE NO. 3: We will now consider a worse case. Under this same first count of "untrustworthy manipulation" my Reviewers felt justified in pressing this charge against me because their eyes were holden and they did not see the point Dr. Salmon was making.

At the bottom of page 21; Section I, they quote, as they turn to page 22, what I said of Westcott and Hort's Greek Text, that it was strongly radical and revolutionary". My footnote, number 36, refers this time not to Ellicott's book, but to Salmon.

My Reviewers turned to read Salmon, and at once issued forth with the statement that the expression "radical and revolutionary" had been wrongly applied. They claim that instead of Salmon indicating that Westcott and Hort were "radical and revolutionary" in an unrelated sense, Salmon really "states that their radical and revolutionary attitude was in increased carefulness and conservatism as compared with Lachmann, who preceded them." Salmon did not say this. In fact he said precisely the opposite, in the first place he never used the expression "increased carefulness and conservatism". Neither did he express the thought, even if he did not use those words. My Reviewers state that Dr. Salmon "pays remarkable tribute to the trustworthy scholarship and conservatism" of Westcott and Hort. The tribute which Salmon pays to Westcott and Hort he clearly indicates as belonging to them BEFORE they brought out their Greek N.T. and so, since they had this previous reputation, Salmon exclaims

"It was all the more surprising, when these critics, who, with regard to the authority of the books, proved to be in respect to the criticism of the text, strongly radical and revolutionary."

In other words, the reputation of Westcott and Hort for conservatism previous to the publication of their Greek text was overthrown when they published their New Testament Greek text. I now quote the passage in full from Salmon's "Some Criticism", pp. 10,11:

"If the leaders of the Cambridge school deserved the gratitude of church men who knew them only by their published works, much more was due to them from those who came within range of their personal influence. By their honesty, sincerity, piety, zeal, and the absence of all self-seeking, they gained the love, as well as the admiration of successive generations of students; and it is hard to say whether they benefitted the church more by their own works or by the learned scholars whom they trained, and who possibly may still outdo the performance of their masters. Surely these were men to whom the most timidly conservative of theologians might have trusted the work of textual revision in full confidence that its results would be such as they would gladly accept. So it was all the more surprising when these critics, who with regard to the authority of the books, belonging to the conservative school, proved to be, in respect of the criticism of the Text, strongly radical and revolutionary. Authorities which Lachmann had admitted into his scanty list were depressed to an inferior place; readings which Tischendorf had received into his text were bracketed or removed altogether. Possibly it may be found on investigation that the strict orthodoxy of the Reviewers had something to do with the stringency of their conditions for admission into their text." (Emphasis mine)

Nevertheless, with regard to the authority of the books they were loose. The Revision Committee announced that they would translate the Apocrypha.

"Another suspicious circumstance was the declaration that the Apocrypha would be included in the Revision. The exclusion of the Apocrypha from all issues of the British and Foreign Bible Society had been in force for nearly fifty years. This was a reactionary move, which was sure to arouse the opposition of all who were devoted to the circulation of an unadulterated Bible." "Bibliotheca Sacra" January 1921

The only redeeming feature which Dr. Salmon can see, in this quotation, in Westcott and Hort, is this,--namely, that, being churchmen, they were limited. The whole tenor of Dr. Salmon's book is a condemnation of the theories of Westcott and Hort and of their Greek N.T. which was like the Greek Text of the Revisers from which the Revised Version was translated. If you do not believe it, read Salmon's book. I will quote to show how indignant Dr. Salmon was on the stringency or narrowness of Dr. Hort:

"But if we desire to solve the literary problem determining what readings can claim to have belonged to the earliest form of the Gospels, it does not seem that success is likely to be attained if we begin by setting aside half of the witnesses. Hort's method of casting aside Western readings as worthless has certainly the advantage of much simplifying the problem; but it reminds me too strongly of the Irish juryman who, after he had heard counsel on one side, decided that it only perplexed his judgment to listen to what the other side had to say. When we have rejected the 'Syrian' witnesses, that is to say the overwhelming majority of all the less ancient MSS, and all the Western witnesses, that is to say, a majority of all ancient ones, we find criticism made very easy. We have to follow B, (Vatican MS), and are only embarrassed when that MS fails us, or in the rare cases where its readings are clearly inadmissable." Salmon, " Some Criticism, pp. 130,131.

Anyone who knows anything about Dr. Samon's opinion of Westcott and Hort's theories would never attempt to make him say what my Reviewers claim he meant.

To further substantiate the matter I will here bring up what Dr. Hemphill says of Salmon's "Criticism". You will then understand the expression of Dr. Salmon, whose meaning my Reviewers failed to grasp, and upon such failure peremptorily charged me with " untrusworthy manipulation". Note the high rating given Dr. Salmon, who held the Revisers and their theory of MSS as unworthy of confidence:

"Simultaneously with this republication of Westcott's defence of the Revised Version appeared a truly merciless dissection of his and Hort's textual theories, by Dr. George Salmon, Provost of Trinity College, Dublin. This book caused quite a flutter of excitement amongst the scholars who had too hastily and unthinkingly adopted the fascinating, but gossamer theories of the Cambridge Dons. The writer, having long been one of the foremost theologians of the world, and being perhaps superior in reasoning powers to any of the Revisers, touched weak points in those theories which he had long noticed, and the knowledge of which he did not wish to carry unspoken to his grave. He doubted the finality of Hort's work, and plead for a new trial by well-qualified judges'. He objected to the 'whole tone and method' of the two editors, as being, 'that of teachers instructing disciples,' who in too many cases seemed to adopt the motto 'Rest and be thankful! Speaking of the Horatian theory of a Syrian recension, he thinks it was hit upon by 'scientific divination, and was only 'a probably hypothesis' which Hort had been obliged to 'shore up' by a new hypothesis, that the Peshitto was a revised form of a Curetonian Syriac. On the 'voluntary poverty' of Dr. Hort, in his disregard of vast masses of documentary evidence, the Provost quaintly remarks: 'I had thought of comparing this successful elimination of untrustworthy witnesses to the process by which Gideon weeded out his army of the soldiers on whom he could not rely; but even Gideon's reduced army is too large to represent the forces on which WH depend. I ought rather to have thought of the victory won by Jonathan and his armour bearer;' with a sly glance at B (Vaticanus) and Aleph (Sinaiticus)! Then, alluding to Dr. Host's opinion, that 'it is not safe to reject B' even where it stands alone, he remarks, 'At present I will only say I believe it to be far too extreme a rule to lay down that in the admission of a verse into the New Testament text a single black bean shall exclude.'" Hemphill, "History of Revised Version, pp. 130,131.

Surely this shows very plainly Dr. Salmon's opinion of Westcott and Hort and their revision, and that my Reviewers wholly misunderstood him, and that their charges against me are entirely without foundation. If they had carefully read the entire quotation they could not have made the bitter and unjust charges against me.

EXAMPLE NO. 4- My Reviewers again produce a second example upon which to charge me with "untrustworthy manipulation". As in the three previous instances, again they failed. They fail here, not because they caught a wrong footnote as in the first instance, nor because they did not seize the idea of the writer, as in the second instance, but because they failed to read on to the end of the paragraph they were quoting. If they had, they would never have made Bishop Westcott, the author, discuss a subject he was not discussing, and so would have been able to charge me with "untrustworthy manipulation".

I will now re-quote a portion of the quotation they used from Bishop Westcott's "Some Lessons", pages 184-185. I had pointed out in my book that Bishop Westcott was claiming that the Revised Version, by repeated changes, affected the articles of faith. These are my Reviewer's words; "Surely there is a fundamental difference between a deliberate attempt to alter articles of faith, as alleged, and the full effect of repetition that strengthens and supports faith." (Section I,p. 24). Please listen now to what Bishop Westcott says:

"The illustrations of the work of Revision, hitherto given, have been taken for the most part from isolated words and phrases. Such changes as have been noticed unquestionably increase the vividness and the force of the verse. They enable the English reader to weigh the significance of identity and differences in the parallel passages of the N.T. with a confidence which was before impossible. But the value of the Revision is most clearly seen when the student considers together a considerable group of passages, which bear upon some article of Faith. The accumulation of small details then produces the full effect. Points on which it might seemed pedantic to insist in a single passage become impressive by repetition." Westcott's, "Some Lessons, pp.184-5

And now I will quote the rest of this paragraph which Reviewers left out, but before doing so, please notice even in what I have quoted, the Bishop said "article of Faith", and not "faith in general"; for let me state here the Creed of the Church of England is contained in the Thirty nine Articles of Faith. If that is not a change of doctrine, what is? I now quote the rest of the Bishop's words:

"I wish, therefore, now to call attention to some places in which the close rendering in the original Greek in the Revised Version appears to suggest ideas of creation and life and providence, of the course and end of finite being, and of the Person of the Lord, who is the source of all truth and hope, which are of the deepest interest at the present time." Westcott", "Some Lessons", p. 185

Are (1) "creation," (2) "life", (3)"providence", (4)"course and end of finite being", (5) "the Person of the Lord" articles of faith, or faith in general? what could be the Reviewers' purpose in charging me with "untrustworthy manipulation" by substituting a subject which Westcott did not use for one which he did use; by making him say that revision affected "faith" in general and not "Articles of Faith"? And, in passing, let me press home again the evidence as found in the words of this dominating Reviser, that the Revised Version of the Bible, by repetitive details, made changes affecting doctrines of great and serious import. Thus the three charges of "untrustworthy manipulation" made against my book are seen to be based wholly on the mistakes of the Reviewers.

EXAMPLE NO. 5: The mistakes of my Reviewers in the next example I now cite, (Section I, p.24) was not because they seized a wrong footnote, but because they substituted another subject of the verb, in the sentence they criticized, for the subject I used.

They called attention to my statement (page 248 in my book) "The Spirit of the Revisionists on both sides of the ocean was an effort to find the Word of God by the study of comparative religions."

They take exception to my referring, on this occasion, to G. F. Nolloth's book, "The Person of Our Lord" because they say that Nolloth makes "absolutely no reference to the Revisionists and their work". In the first place, what I did say was, "The Spirit of the Revisionists". I made no claim that Nolloth mentions the Revisionists by name; and in the second place, to the work of whom could Nolloth be referring when he said, "The other is the critical study of the original Christian documents?" Was not that the work of the Revisionists on both sides of the ocean? Is this then an "untrustworthy manipulation" as they claim?

Since these three examples of their charges against me of "untrustworthy manipulation" are based upon their mistaken appreciation of the facts I have used, I ask to be exonerated. What kind of verdict should be laid at their door I leave my hearers to decide.

As to their fourth and last example of "untrustworthy manipulation", that concerns my quotation from the Catholic Encylopedia on the relation of Origen and the Vatican MSS. I will leave this until I treat the larger problem they raised concerning Origen's Hexapla and the Vaticanus axed Sinaiticus. This also will give us some interesting yields.

EXAMPLE NO. 6: In order to make me appear as having no real foundation to claim that Westcott and Hort were dominating mentalities on the Revision Committee, my Reviewers use a quotation from Scrivener. (Section I, 18,19) They say that it is enlightening to note that Scrivener, who was recognized by the author as an outstanding scholar, and who in general opposed the textual criticism of Westcott and Hort, testifies that the influence of these men over the text adopted by the Revisionists was "by no means a preponderating one".

In replying I will call attention to the fact that my Reviewers have often used Hemphill, in fact they lead us to believe (in Section I, p.4) that they had read Hemphill's book thoroughly. If so, their mistake is all the greater. Hemphill takes up at length what Scrivener meant when he made the statement concerning the "preponderating influence" of Westcott and Hort. Hemphill shows that Scrivener was talking about the text, but when the margin of the Revised Version is taken into account, then Scrivener meant that Westcott and Hort did have a preponderating influence. Hemphill says:

"The third edition of Scrivener's 'Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament' came out in the summer of 1883, and it takes full account of Westcott and Hort's theories. Scrivener, as has been already stated, dissents intoto from these, holding that they have their foundations 'laid on the sands ground of ingenious conjecture'; but, while he admits that the Cambridge Professors 'had a real influence' in their deliberations of the Revision Company he thinks that 'a comparison of their text with that adopted by the Revisionists might easily have shown'-that the influence was 'by no means a preponderating one'. It is noteworthy, however, that Scrivener, in thus writing about the Text, says nothing about the Margin of the Revised Version. The truth is that, mainly through his own vigilance, entrance into the text of the Revised Version was denied to many of Westcott and Hort's readings, and that these had as it were, to take a back seat in the margin. So that if we regard the margin as distinct and seperable from the body of the work, as being in fact an (?) for rejected readings and contemplate its elimination from the Revised Version in the future, we can understand the drift of Dr. Scrivener's evidently carefully balanced words.

"In his twelfth chapter he gives us a series of critical discussions on some controverted passages, and it is from the instances recorded in that chapter and in the Appendix and the tenth chapter that we can best learn the manner in which the critical battle in the Jerusalem Chamber surged to and fro between Scrivener and his antagonist. A full knowledge of Dr. Scrivener's third edition is therefore a necessary equipment for one who would rightly appreciate the true questions at issue." Samuel Hemphill, "History of the Revised Version", pp. 120,121.

My Reviewers, as you see, simply do not understand Scrivener because they have not sufficiently studied his position and the work of the Revisionists. People who make such charges against me ought to be better informed and they will escape the embarrassment which the facts force upon them.

You will thus see that Scirivener is "talking about the text of the Revised Version, not about the margin or about the work as a whole. He indicates that he fought with all his powers, and with tremendous persistence to keep Westcott and Hort from mutilating the text. In this he held them down to some extent. But though he was able to keep them from doing all they wanted to the text, he was obliged to submit when it came to putting it in the margin. Therefore, Scrivener's idea was like that of most other writers, that the influence of Westcott and Hort on the Revised Version as a whole was a preponderating influence." Why did not my Reviewers in this instance tell the whole truth?

Let me refer back to what I have already quoted (Section I,p.4) from Kenyon to this effect.

Further, when my Reviewers took exceptions to my use of Salmon on the expression "radical and revolutionary" if they had turned the page they would have found this statement about Westcott and Hort's dominating influence:

"Westcott and Hort were members of the Committee which prepared the Revised Version, and on the question of various readings they exercised a dominating influence." Dr. G. Salmon, "Some Criticism",p. 12. ( Emphasis mine)

Dr. Frederick Field who became famous because of his life long work on the Greek O.T. wrote a letter to Dr. Philip Schaff to say that the Revised Version was a failure because the N.T. Revision Committee isolated itself and was dominated by three or four leading minds. (Schaff's Companion" p.IX)

A word from Burgon on this:

"I pointed out that 'the New Greek text', which, in defiance of their instructions, the Revisionists of 'the Authorized English Version' had been so ill-advised as to spend ten years in elaborating, was a wholly untrustworthy performance; was full of the gravest errors from beginning to end... I traced the mischief home to its true authors, Drs. Westcott and Hort; a copy of whose unpublished Text of the N.T. (the most vicious in existence) had been confidentially, and under pledges of strictest secrecy, placed in the hands of every member of the Revising Body. I called attention to the fact that, unacquainted with the difficult and delicate science of textual criticism, the Revisionists had, in an evil hour, surrendered themselves to Dr. Hort's guidance." Burgon, "Revision Revised", Preface, pp. XI,XII. (Emphasis mine).

I quote also Hemphill's testimony:

"Yet here we find, on the Chairman's own admission, that in no fewer than sixty-four instances the Revisers outdistanced Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles in their revolt from the traditional text" (This is what Salmon meant by "radical and revolutionary", B.G.W.); "and that, in those identical sixty-four instances, Westcott and Hort, their fellow-workers, had previously done precisely the same on the proof sheets which they had communicated to the Company. Surely this amounts to almost a demonstration that the Revisers were following the guidance of the Cambridge editors, who were constantly at their elbow, and whose edition, still in embryo, contained these sixty-four new departures." Hemphill, "History of the Revised Version", p. 53 (Emphasis mine)

Why did not my Reviewers in this instance tell you the whole truth? Why did they not cite Scrivener in this instance as referring to the text only? Why therefore, insist that my previous statement is correct that Drs. Westcott and Hort exercised upon the Revised Version, a deciding influence. Is any more needed to prove that my statement was entirely correct?

EXAMPLE NO. 7: (Review Sec. I, pp. 18.19) As in the preceding instance, so now we find that my Reviewers endeavor to make Scrivener testify to some extent before he died against the Received Text. The author they refer to does not say what they make him say. My Reviewers claim that did not tell that the great Scrivener "came to see before he died that the Received Text could not be supported unconditionally as he once taught." For their authority they refer to Caspar Rene Gregory, "Canon and Text", p. 462. In referring to Gregory they left out the word "so" and if they had read a little further on, they would have seen what Gregory meant by "so". I will give the quotation from Gregory:

"Scrivener came to see before he passed away that the Received Text could not be supported so unconditionally as he once thought. But he expressed himself less distinctly in public moved I think, largely by a kind consideration for his friend and staunch adherent, John William Burgon, whose devotion to that text scarcely knew any bounds. Burgon did a great deal of work in searching out manuscripts, and he published a very learned treatise upon the closing verses attached to the Gospel of Mark. It was a pity that he only published his notes about manuscripts in the "Guardian Newspaper". Would that more of the clergy could be induced to work as Scrivener and Burgon worked in furthering the text of the New Testament." Gregory, "Canon and Text", p. 462. (Emphasis mine.)

Of course I did not tell you what Gregory said of Scrivener, because it was simply a private opinion of Gregory's. He has given us no authority of any kind for this opinion, On the contrary he goes on to say very distinctly that Scrivener did not let this be known publicly. Gregory thinks this is because of Scrivener's great love for Burgon. But that there is no public evidence for this opinion advanced by Gregory, is proof enough that Scrivener did not express himself publicly. Why did not my Reviewers tell us just what Gregory said, and we would have seen that this statement rested on no foundation whatever.

EXAMPLE NO. 8: Scrivener misrepresented as to the value of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Since it is on the basis of a quotation from Hemphill which my Reviewers give (Section I, p. 19) that they try to indict my stand on the two manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as "silly", let us see how large a foundation they have for their conclusion. Would you be surprised to learn that their seizing the chance to use the word "silly" was based on about six lines from Hemphill, whereas, if they had read on to the bottom of the page they would have seen that Hemphill was telling another story.

By not giving us all the quotation, the Reviewers made two mistakes.

One, they tried to make out that my aspersions on the manuscripts were silly; whereas, the quotation shows that those who think Scrivener did not know that those two manuscripts had some value, were silly. A vast difference. Second, they present Hemphill as making Scrivener hold a greater value for these two manuscripts than Hemphill was trying to do. A man may be a very good witness on the stand, but he, himself, may not be a very good man. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are good witnesses to the state of the Greek New Testament in the early centuries; but that does not say that in themselves they are good manuscripts or represent the original text; they may be a witness to corruptions. I will give you the full quotation to show you that it was this very point- not whether the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus had some value, but how much value- caused the stormy battle for ten years around the Revision table:

"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. But, while, he had been taught, by the actual work of collation, to use those MSS as only two of many helps to the reconstruction of the primitive text, Hort and Westcott had persuaded themselves to regard their consentient voice as the one virtually final and infallible authority. And, seeing that their consentient voice differed from the Traditional Text in thousands of places, it is easy to perceive that a pair of critics, holding that consensus to be decisive, would be in perpetual conflict with another who wished to accord it a less exclusive supremacy. Probably nine-tenths of the textual struggles and 'countless divisions' at the table in that old Jerusalem Chamber were about that very question, as to the proper amount of weight to be accorded to the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS., Hort and Westcott claiming pre-eminence for their consensus, while Scrivener pleaded caution." Hemphill, "History of the Revised Version",pp-. 55, 56. (Emphasis mine)

Why did not my Reviewers read on to the end of the paragraph; then they would have understood what Hemphill said about Scrivener and would have saved themselves the trouble of making this mistake. Moreover, Scrivener himself says in his "Introduction" Vol. II, p. 283:

"We have no right to regard Codex B, as a second Infallible Voice proceeding from the Vatican, which, when it has once spoken, must put an end to all strife."

EXAMPLE NO. 9: Mis statements about Erasmus and his Vulgate. (I have still another mishandling of Scrivener. But to rest your minds a few minutes on him, we will go back to Erasmus)

In order to make the Textus Receptus of Erasmus a Catholic Text, my Reviewers give among other evidence this statement about Erasmus, (Section II p. 1)

"His own Bible was the Catholic Vulgate, both before and after he issued his Greek New Testament, and he printed the Vulgate along with his Greek Testament in the second edition."

Erasmus put out five editions. The fifth edition has no Vulgate, but the fourth edition showed what Erasmus was aiming at. It contained not two but three columns. The three columns contained (1) his Greek New Testament, (2) the Catholic Vulgate, and (3) the Catholic Vulgate revised by Erasmus. How then can my Reviewers claim that the Catholic Vulgate was Erasmus' own Bible "both before and after he issued his Greek Testament" which would take in all editions?

I could quote from many authors in support of the fact that I am presenting, but, to spare you, I will give only this one from Dr. Edward Miller:

"A fourth edition exhibited the text in three parallel columns the Greek, the Latin Vulgate, and a recension of the Latter by Erasmus." Miller, "Textual Guide", p. 9. (Read also Great Controversy, p. 245)

In other words the Vulgate not only contained spurious books; not only contained spurious readings in the genuine books, but it also contained papal translations of the genuine readings. Erasmus brought out a revised Catholic Vulgate. I ask my hearers if the Vulgate, revised by Erasmus after he was overwhelming convinced that his Greek Textus Receptus was the original New Testament, was not really Erasmus' idea of a true Vulgate? Did the Reviewers know that the terrible storm which broke from all over Europe on the head of Erasmus came, not because he had published the Greek Textus Receptus, but because he had revised the Catholic Vulgate? This statement of my Reviewers is consequently misleading. Why did they not put the whole case and the true case before us? They would then have been without a case against me.

EXAMPLE NO. 10: (Section II, pp. 11,12) In this example we will present how my Reviewers have again misrepresented the thought of Scrivener by snatching only a part of what Scrivener said in quoting from him. They charge me with making an unsupported statement, when I indicated the corrupt nature of the Vatican Manuscript, its uncertain history, and suspicious character. The part of the sentence which they pick out for emphasis and quote from reads:

"We accord to Codex B (the Vatican Manuscript) at least as much weight as to any single document in existence."(Sec. II, p. 11).

This part of a sentence they used, endeavoring to make you see something in it which was not there. Notice that they omitted the introductory word, "while". Let me give you the sentence in full:

"Without anticipating what must be discussed hereafter, we may say at once, that, while we accord to Codex B (Vaticanus MS) at least as much weight as to any single document in existence, we ought never to forget that it is but one out of many," etc., Scrivener, "Introduction", Vol. I p. 120 (Emphasis mine)

I will now proceed to continue the quotation from the point where they left off

"One marked feature, characteristic of this copy, is the great number of its omissions, which has induced Dr. Dobbin to speak of it as presenting 'an abbreviated text of the New Testament': and certainly the facts he states on this point are startling enough. He calculates that Codex B leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 330 times in Matt., 365 in Mark, 439 in Luke, and 357 in John, 384 in Acts, 681 in the surviving Epistles; or 2,556 times in all. That no small proportion of these are mere oversights of the scribe seems evident from the circumstance that this same scribe has repeatedly written words and clauses twice over, a class of mistakes which Mai and the collectors have seldom thought fit to notice, inasmuch as the false addition has not been retraced by the second hand, but which by no means enhances an estimate of the care employed in copying this venerable record of primitive Christianity," -Scrivener, "Introduction", Vol. I, p. 120. (Emphasis mine)

My Reviewers left off the preliminary statement - "Without anticipating what must be discussed hereafter." What did he discuss afterwards? He showed that the Codex B (Vatican Manuscript) was punctured with 2,556 mistakes. Scrivener says these 2,556 mistakes are startling. Then he concludes with "which by no means enhances our estimate of the care employed in copying this venerable record of primitive Christianity." So you see that Dr. Scrivener did not say at all what the Reviewers represented to you.

EXAMPLE NO. 11, (Review Section II, p. 15) We regret that it is necessary to call your attention to a serious misapplication of a quotation brought forth to make us believe that the Authorized Version was influenced by the Rheims of the Jesuit New Testament of 1582. My Reviewers cited a part of a quotation from Kenyon again, but they have given us only enough of the author's words, so that the idea of the author is not what they make it out to be, Kenyon, while admitting the valuelessness of the Douay Bible in interpreting Scripture, recognizes that through a systematic use of words and technical phrases, it has considerable influence in a literary way on our Authorized Version, I will now give the paragraph, on the same page, from Kenyon, which shows (1) that this influence was wholly literary, and not in any way of a doctrinal character, and (2) was transmitted not direct, but in the hands of the great defender- of the Received Text, Dr, William Fulke, who exposed the corruptions of the Rheims and Douay Bible, I now quote from Kenyon:

"The Romanist Bible had no general success, and its circulation was not large, The New Testament was reprinted thrice between 1582 and 1750; the Old Testament only once. Curiously enough, the greater part of its circulation was in the pages of a Protestant Controversialist, Fulke, who printed the Rheims and the Bishop's New Testament side by side, and also appended to the Rheims commentary a refutation by himself. Fulke's work had a considerable popularity, and it is possibly to the wider knowledge of the Rheims Version thus produced that we owe the use made of it by the scholars who prepared the Authorized Version; to which Version, after our long and varied wanderings, we are now at last come." - Kenyon, "Our Bible in the Ancient Manuscript.", p. 229 (emphasis mine)

My Reviewers tried to make us believe in their review of my book that because of its natural goodness the Jesuit Bible of 1582 directly influences the Authorized. The quotation they use did not say this. They stopped too short. Had they gone on, the truth of the matter is, further quoting would have informed us that whatever influence the Rheims had, was due to the familiarity with it, which had been gained through Fulke's masterly exposure of its corruptions. It is a matter of deep regret to me that my Reviewers so repeatedly have hidden from us the real unfavorable testimony which an author would present had they not stopped short with a favorable prelude.

EXAMPLE NO. 12 - It now becomes my duty to notice the repeated aspersions cast on me by my Reviewers on my use of the margin. I was informed by a leading brother that those who heard the review of my book went away with the impression that I had frequently quoted the margin as the text without any reference to it as the margin. This is not so. I challenge any one to find any place in my book where I used the margin in discussing texts without indicating in brackets that it was from the margin. We will now bring into relief a number of expressions found in the "review", touching this item:

Section III, chapter 6, p. 9. -The Reviewers say of me - "The author not very commendably substitutes in the text a reading from the marginal note, and then criticizes the result as if it were the original reading preferred by the Revisers,"

Section III, Chapter 11, p, 5, - "In this passage the author again injects the literal reading of the margin into the Scriptural text, and then criticizes it,"

Section III, chapter 11, p, 8, - "Here again the author brings the marginal reading 'maiden' into the text of the ARV and makes it read,"

Section III, chapter 12, p, 4, - "Once more the author places the marginal reading in the text, and criticizes the text as if there were no other reading,"

Review Conclusion, page 3, - "When it serves his purpose, he disregards an alternative reading or an informative note in the margin. But when it serves his purpose, he incorporates into the text a reading from the margin, and criticizes that text as if it were the translators' preferred reading,"

The Revisionists themselves, placed great emphasis upon the marginal readings. In the preface of the New Testament of both Revised Versions, (Section III,) we read:

"Many places still remain in which, for the present, it would not be safe to accept one reading to the absolute exclusion of others. In these cases we have given alternative readings in the margin, wherever they seem to be of sufficient importance or interest to deserve notice."

This officially published description of the margin proves its value in three different ways: First, these were to be alternative readings which could not be excluded absolutely for others; Second, there were of sufficient importance or interest to deserve notice; Third, they were put there simply "for the present"; the Revisers awaiting the day when perhaps in another revision their great importance would be seen sufficiently to have them supplant the alternative reading in the test.

Two great differences stand out prominently between the marginal readings of the King James and the Revised. First, the marginal readings of the Authorized Version are few compared with the host of them in the margin of the Revised Version, Secondly, what few there are in the margin of the Authorized simply say in another way the same thing found in the text; while in the Revised there are hundreds of readings in the margin, many of which are opposite and contradictory to the readings in the text.

Moreover, looking back upon the history of the selection of the Revision Committees and the instructions given to them, we see how important to this revision was the margin, both to Convocation,--the authorizing body, --and to the committees,---the authorized body.

Convocation of Canterbury, May 6, 1870, amongst others, took the following action with respect to their voting revision, Action 2,

"That the Revision be so conducted as to comprise both marginal renderings and such emendations as it may be found necessary to insert in the text of the Authorized Version."

Then a Committee consisting of eight Bishops, and eight Presbyters, was appointed to take the necessary steps for carrying out the resolutions. At the first meeting of this Committee, the Bishop of Winchester, presiding, the following resolutions, among others were taken;

VIII-4. "That the text to be adopted be that for which the evidence is decidedly preponderating; and that when the text so adopted differs from that from which the Authorized Version was made, the alteration be indicted in the margin"

IX-2. "To place all the corrections due to textual considerations on the left hand margin, and all other corrections on the right hand margin." Philip Schaff, "The Revision of English Version," Introduction, pp. IX, XI

These resolutions, both that of Convocation, and those of the full Revising Committee, betray the fact that the margin was intended to play a big part in the Revision. However, with respect to the resolution that wherever the Greek text adopted differs from that from which the Authorized Version was made, the alteration should be indicated in the margin, it is certain that this was never carried out. In this vital matter the Revisers entirely set this provision at defiance from the very first. They never indicated in their margin the alterations that had been introduced into the Greek text. They entirely betrayed their pledge and compact, the very condition upon which they had been called into existence. Instead of that they encumbered their margin with doubts as to the readings which after due deliberations they had as a matter of fact retained.

A study of my Reviewers' document reveals the fact that the margin of the Revised Version was of great value to them. While they arraigned me severely for making too much of the margin, as if in reality the margin was of little importance, behold how they fled repeatedly to the margin for refuge and clung to the horns of this alter! To illustrate: They are obliged (Sec. III, Chapter 6, page 7) to defend the mutilation of the secondary account of the Lord's Prayer, Luke 11:2-4, by saying, "All the parts of the Lord's Prayer omitted here in the ARV are given in the margin." They claim the same protection elsewhere. Therefore, the Reviewers desperately defend a charge of a change of doctrine by what was done in the text by seizing the horns of the altar in the margin.

Furthermore, God, through the 1260 years of tribulation gave to the Sacred Words of Holy Writ established usages. By the sufferings, the tortures, the death, the blood of the martyrs, God settled his Truth and gave confirmed meanings to the words of Inspiration. I protest against the margin of the Revised Version tearing down these meanings established by the Holy Ghost and by centuries of suffering. I reject the margin of Matt. 24:3 which says, "consummation of the ages" for "end of the world". Shall a fatal thrust at the established usages of words be any less a fatal thrust because it is in the margin and not in the text? Discuss these matters in commentaries, if you will, which do not pass as Inspiration; but do not give them to the people as the equivalent of Inspiration. Shall the margin be permitted to throw its unholy mantle around the ruin of words? My Reviewers seem more interested in defending the Revisers than in defending the doctrines of our Message.

My Reviewers did not say in so many words that I had quoted the margin as if it were the text, without indicating that it was the margin; they did say repeatedly that I used the margin as the text and criticized it as if I were criticizing the text. But they did use such strong expressions that to my knowledge certain hearers and readers got the impression that I was guilty of this deception. I deny the allegation.

I am branded as an imposter and of thrusting upon others an intolerable odium because my Reviewers failed to see that they had torn a sentence loose from its setting in my book, and out of this divorced sentence they lifted one word and substituted therefore another of entirely different meaning. Upon such procedures they base their argument.

They said, "Our laity should be protected from such imposition" and again they said, "Such a thrust places an intolerable odium upon any one who desires to quote publicly from the ARV."

What was the sentence which they tore loose? It is this: "Can we escape His (God's) condemnation, if we choose to exalt any version containing proved corruptions?", O.A.B.V. p. 250

Now, brethren, of what was I talking? Read page 250 and you will see that I had just shown that the Douay Bible sanctioned both idolatry and Mariolatry. Can you sanction these things? Would you dare to exalt a version containing proved corruptions like this? Please tell me what is wrong with my position in this matter?

Now notice how they handle this sentence. I said "exalt" any version containing proved corruptions. What did they say? (1) "The implication of divine disapproval is placed upon all who use the ARV." (Section I,. p. 6)

(2) "This condemnation must logically include Sister White for she frequently used the Revised." (Section I, p. 6)

(3) "A trustful laity. ...is led to look askance at any one who who might desire to use the Revised." (Section I, p. 6)

(4) "Such a thrust places an intolerable odium on any one who desires to quote publicly from the ARV." (Section I, p.6)

Thus four different times they have singled me out as condemning the users of the ARV when I raised the question concerning those who exalt any version containing proved corruptions. Is there not a great difference between "exalting" "using" and "quoting"? The Unitarian Bible was so translated as to support the Unitarian doctrine which denies the divinity of Christ. Could this denomination "exalt" this version to the level of the Authorized?

Nevertheless, in some passages the Unitarian Version might have a so much clearer translation, that it might be profitable for us to quote those passages. I emphatically say now that I said nothing against anyone using any version where he can find a clearer rendering of certain passages. But I do not approve of exalting those versions which contain proved corruptions. Do you? The danger is that such versions may contain grave errors which far outweigh the clearer renderings. I cast no odium whatever upon Sister White or any other person for using in this way any version they wish.

How can my Reviewers clear themselves when they handle this page with such a serious departure from the context, and when four times they substituted another word that was found in the quotation? Will you brethren stand for such procedure?

Please read the Forward of my book where I recognized that all had full liberty to use or quote any passage from any version which would give a clearer rendering to the original. Moreover, in my little leaflet about the relationship of Sister White to Bible Versions, I agreed in her use of these.

EXAMPLE NO.14: (Section III, chapter ll, p.7) Again, by covering up marks of identification given in my book, they, charge me with relying upon the quotation of a Unitarian minister to prove the damage wrought by the Revised Version in Col. 1:15,16. This is what they say:

"By quoting from a Unitarian minister, the author seeks to make it appear that by changing the little word 'by'-in the Authorized Version to the little word 'in' in the ARV the Revisers have limited creation to 'a spiritual application to Christianity', instead of its including the material creation."

Why did they hide the fact that this Unitarian minister was a Reviser? Why have us believe that he was just an ordinary minister, which sometime, somewhere delivered the testimony that I just used? If they were going to face fairly and squarely, the damaging weight of evidence of what went on in the English New Testament Committee, why did they not tell us that because of the presence of this Unitarian Minister on that Committee all England was stirred to indignation. Why did they not tell us that the regular chairman, the silver-tongued Bishop Wilberforce, whose sympathy with the project of a remedial revision had led the public to have confidence in the attempt, was so indignant with the presence of this man, and with the practices and the pressure of liberalistic members towards a Unitarian type revision, that he never attended the meeting of the Committee? He absented himself in disgust, writing a friend, "What can be done in this most miserable business".

Evidently disturbed by the strong evidence which this fact imposes, my Reviewers return to it again a little later, saying, "Some man's interpretation of the ARV rendering of Col. 1:15,16 has no bearing upon its correct translation or true meaning, particularly if that interpreter is a Unitarian, who does not believe in the trinity at all."

But it does have very much bearing on the case; this Unitarian sat in that Committee, he exercised a strong influence; because Dr. Hort also ran all too readily in that direction, of which we have abundant testimony. When we seek to escape the damaging influence wrought upon God's sacred Word, why do they throw up a smoke screen and lead us away from the real perpetrator and from the mischievous theory which he used? The Bible did not hesitate to point out who it was that made God's Word prophecy 1260 years in sackcloth and ashes. If the damage wrought upon the Revision was nothing, as they claimed, why did they resort to concealing the facts in the case? Unless of course, they were of damaging nature? I quoted this man's testimony in my book to show the pantheistic change which had been made by the Revisers upon Col. 1:15,16. I quoted him to show the interest and interpretation that this Reviser himself put upon this text. I said he was a Reviser; my Reviewers said he was "some man".

Was it right for my Reviewers to cover up the marks which would identify the agents who wrought the evil upon the Revised Version, and leave you to infer that he was a stranger who had nothing to do with revision?

EXAMPLE NO. 15: My Reviewers all through their document assume that they are fair and just, and that I am inaccurate and unfair. The next charge which I bring against them is not they cover damaging testimony, as in the previous case, but that they unjustly represent me as making claims Authorized Version is inerrant and perfect, and the Greek Text upon which it is built as "flawless". They say, (Section III, chapter 6,p.1) :

"To this end, attempt is made also to show that the King James Authorized Version is an inerrant, perfect translation of the only genuine, flawless Greek Text that has come down to us, the Textus Receptus".

They have proved that they cannot make this claim because of ignorance. They well know otherwise. In their Review (Section I,p.5) they say:

"The comparison of the blemishes in the Authorized Version to the five scars on the resurrection body of Christ, (pages 180-181) is a travesty upon our divine Sacrifice for sin".

By turning to those pages indicated, one will read in my book:

"But, they say, there are errors in the Received Text. Yes, 'plain and clear errors', as their instructions informed the Revisers. It is to the glory of the Textus Receptus that, its errors are 'plain and clear'. When God showed us those errors were 'plain and clear' we recognized them as errors of copyists and therefore, like printers' errors, they can be promptly and certainly corrected. They are not errors of the Author. Man made them and man can correct them. Neither are they 'errors' which man made and only God can correct. They do not enter into the core of any question." O.A.B.V. p. 180

I say that my Reviewers have misrepresented me. They have represented me as standing for a theory for which I did not stand. How would any of you here like to have someone publishing that you stood for a teaching for which you did not stand, especially when you had made your position clear in print? This is not the first time that they have held me up to ridicule for presenting the Textus Receptus as the pure Greek Text of Erasmus.

My Reviewers say, (Section I, page 42);

"Critical and cumulative evidence is presented completely, and we believe conclusively, covering the basically fallacious argument on the "pure Greek Text of Erasmus'."

(Sec. II, page 4) "These facts are cited here to show the fallacy of the author's unreasonable contention that the New Testament of Erasmus was 'a pure Greek Text'.'

(Sec. II, page 6) "The fundamental question in the matter of versions is whether the Textus Receptus... used by the translators of the AV is an absolutely correct text, as the author affirms."

I will show that I made it clear in my book that I did not make the contention which my Reviewers press home; and which they have brought up again and again as if they had some substantial thing to use as a weapon of ridicule I will now proceed to give only two of several places in my book where I made my position clear with reference to the Received Text. I quote from page 161.

"The friends and devotees of the King James Version Bible, naturally wished that certain retouches might be given the book which would replace words counted obsolete, bring about conformity to more modern rules of spelling and grammar and correct what they considered a few plain and clear blemishes in the Received Text, so that its bitter opponents, who made use of these minor disadvantages to discredit the whole might be answered."

Again, on page 245, I indicate that it would be an excellent thing for certain changes to be made in the King James Version in order to bring it up to date, by my quotation from the "Herald and Presbyter" of July 16, 1924,page 10, which runs as follows:

"The Revisers had a wonderful opportunity. They might have made a few changes and removed a few archaic expressions, and made the Authorized Version the most acceptable and beautiful and, wonderful book of all time to come. But they wished ruthlessly to meddle. Some of them wanted to change the doctrine."

Scrivener, Miller, Nolan, Burgon, Cook, Hoskier, and others, all eminent textual critics of the first rank, and outstanding defenders of the Textus Receptus, have indicated that there were plain and clear errors in the Received text which should be corrected, and that there were improvements which could be made in the English of the King James Version to bring it up to date. However, in my book, while I recognized this fact, I claimed that that which ought to be done was a far different thing from the ruthless work which was done by the Reviewers. Is it fair of my Reviewers to represent me as claiming that a building is perfect because I indict the men who wrecked it when they were authorized simply to repair it?

These questions from my book prove to you that I did not say what my Reviewers claim that I said the Textus Receptus." Scrivener, "Introduction" Vol.2, pp. 264-265. (Emphasis mine)

I will now quote from Dean Burgon:

"And the genealogy of the written, no less than the genealogy of the Incarnate Word, is traceable back by two distinct lines of descent, remember: for the 'Complutensian, 'which was printed in 1514, exhibits the Traditional Text' with the same general fidelity as the 'Erasmian,' which did not see the light till two years later." Burgon, "Revision Revised," pp. 390,391

This quotation proves that the Complutensian Text, as well as the Text of Erasmus exhibits in general lines the "traditional text", a term which Burgon uses interchangeably with the Recieved Text. I will give another quotation from Burgon which will bring all these points together:

"The one great FACT which especially troubles him, (Dr. Hort), and his joint editor, (as well it may be), is the traditional Greek text of the New Testament Scriptures. Call this text Erasmian or Complutensian, the Text of Stephens, or Beza, or of the Elzevers, call it the 'Recieved' or the Traditional Greek Text, or whatever other name you please; the fact remains that a text has come down to us which is attested by the general concensus of ancient copies, ancient fathers, ancient versions. Our readers cannot have yet forgotten his (Dr. Hort's) virtual admission that, beyond all question the Textus Receptus is the dominant GreecoSyrian Text of A.D. 350 to A.D. 400." Burgon, "Revision Revised." p. 269

Where then was my "deliberate perversion of fact" in calling the Complutensian Edition the Received Text? I have quoted two outstanding text critics to prove that it was, but I could give you others. In face of these statements from textual critics agreeing with me that the Complutensian Edition was the Received Text, what right had those who wrote this document, to accuse me, in your hearing of a deliberate perversion of facts? Please note the word "deliberate". But I am not through with this yet.

They tried to make out that the Complutensian Edition was a Roman Catholic text; later that the text of Erasmus was. So then the Catholic Church gave us our Greek N.T. from which the AV was translated, did it? Do they then have the Catholic Church give us the Vaticanus, the Textus Receptus, and the Vulgate? Then the papists really were the preservers of the Bible after all? This is glorifying the Roman Catholic Church. In my next example I will answer this charge that the Complutensian Edition was a Roman Catholic text and in my Section II, I will answer completely at length, their charge that the text of Erasmus was a Roman Catholic text. But notice that the text of Erasmus and that of the Complutensian are of the Textus Receptus type.

Why is it that my Reviewers could copy this quotation from the learned Dr. Nolan, and never notice that he said that it was "indisputable" that Erasmus was acquainted with every variety of manuscript which is known to us? What does indisputable mean? It means it cannot be disputed. Then why do my Reviewers occupy page after page, and page after page of their document to try and make out that Erasmus knew only six or seven manuscripts. Secondly, why did they not also notice in this same quotation that Erasmus was acquainted with the Vatican Manuscript? Is it because they do not like to have the public know that when that gigantic mind of Erasmus laid the foundations of the Received Text, he knew the Vaticanus MS, and rejected it?

Why did they not notice in this quotation that Erasmus had done exactly what I have done in my book, divided all manuscripts into two principal classes; one class with the Textus Receptus, and the other with the Vaticanus MS? They challenge my parallel streams of Bibles, I will notice that particularly later on, but for the present kindly mark it down that Erasmus had come to precisely the same conclusion. With the above incontestable evidence what becomes of the uncharitable, and unbrotherly charge of a "deliberate perversion of fact", in other words, an, intention to utter a falsehood?

EXAMPLE NO. 17. (Section I, p. 29). I come back again, however, to another act of an outstanding nature in connection with their handling of a quotation from Dr. Nolan. In Dr. Nolan's quotation he said concerning Erasmus.

"Having distributed them into two principle classes, one of which corresponds with the Complutensian Edition, the other with the Vatican manuscript."

Did they handle this quotation fairly? I leave it to you to judge. Listen now to what they say Erasmus did and see how it compares with what Dr. Nolan says he did. Dr. Nolan says he "DISTRIBUTED". My Reviewers say this:

"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 manuscripts and the great Vatican manuscript.".(Section 1, p. 29) (Emphasis mine)

It looks as if the Reviewers did not know that the Complutensian New Testament was of the Textus Receptus type and thought it was a Vatican MS.

Dr. Nolan presents "distribution"; my Reviewers present "comparison". Why did not my Reviewers use the word "distribute" of Dr. Nolan? Because they did not believe that the Complutensian Edition was the Received Text. That would have made perfect nonsense to say that Erasmus distributed all the varieties of manuscripts in the world into the Vatican Manuscripts on the left hand, and into the great Vatican Manuscript on the right hand. Therefore, my Reviewers substitute "comparison" for Dr. Nolan's "distribute". Was this fair?

I will now give another reason why my Reviewers were forced to this, what shall I call it? They claim that Stunica, in getting out the Complutensian Edition, used only, manuscripts from the Vatican. You may be surprised to learn that Dr. Scrivener says that all Stunica received from the Vatican was probably only two manuscripts, and neither one of them had the New Testament: Dr. Scrivener says:

"It has long been debated among critics, what manuscripts were used by the Complutensian editors, especially in the New Testament. Ximenes is reported to have spent four thousand ducats in the purchase of such manuscripts. Add to this that (Cardinal) Vercellone, whose services to sacred literature have been spoken of above, brought to light the fact that only two manuscripts are recorded as having been sent to the Cardinal (Ximenes) from the Vatican in the first year of Leo, and neither of them (Vat. 330, 346) contained any part of the New Testament." Scrivener, "Introduction", Vol.2, pp.178,179.

In view of the fact, then, that Cardinal Ximenes purchased most all of his manuscripts, and the two which he received from the Vatican did not contain the New Testament, why were my Reviewers so pressed in spirit to claim the Complutensian New Testament as a Catholic Edition? Why did they change the word "distribute" of Dr. Nolan into "comparison" and further why did they change "Complutensian Edition" into Vatican Manuscripts"? Simply because they thought; they supposed; they actually did not know; they either had not taken the trouble to find out, or if they had, they did not comprehend what they found out, that the Complutensian Edition of the New Testament was not welded out of Vatican Manuscripts. I will now ask my hearers who have formed opinions on hearing these half dozen mistakes and misstatements on this point in this Review, to bring their conclusions and judgments back to the level of actual facts.

EXAMPLE NO. 18. (Section I, p. 32). I wish to present a short example of where my Reviewers made me say exactly the opposite of what you will find printed on the page they cite. On page 246 of my book, I said,

"The new theology taught that Christianity was not "a system of truth divinely revealed, recorded in the Scriptures in a definite and a complete form for all ages, 'but Christianity is Christ."

Notice what I said plainly in indicting this new pantheistic modernism which passes for Christianity on their claim that "Christianity is Christ" Mark the expression "Christianity is Christ". But in Section I, p. 32 of my Reviewers' document they quote this very page (246) as an example of how perverters pour a wrong content into the words, "Christ is Christianity". The expression on page 246 of my book, and to which I object is "Christianity is Christ". They turn it completely around and say that the expression on this page is "Christ is Christianity". Is this fair? If I say "God is light", that is not saying "Light is God." How correct a conclusion could hearers of this document draw concerning my book, when the expression on the page is turned completely around? How would you like to have your fate depend upon such an example of accuracy as this? What treatment would this handling of material receive in a common court of justice of our land?

EXAMPLE NO. 19: (Section III, chapter 6. p. 12) Misrepresentation of Scrivener on 1 Tim. 3:16. Here again I indict my Reviewers for stopping short their quotation form Dr. Scrivener in their effort to find support for the damage which the Revised Version did to 1 Tim. 3:16. 1 here give the final words from their quotation from Dr. Scrivener upon which they reply:

"...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." Scrivener "A Plain introduction to the Criticism of the N.T.", Vol. II, p. 394.

I will now finish the quotation from Dr. Scrivener and you will see that he says the opposite from what they make him say. Wouldn't you brethren be surprised if I gave you the rest of the quotation from Dr. Scrivener and you found that Scrivener's final conclusion disagreed with my Reviewers and agree with me? Let me now finish the quotation from Dr. Scrivener:

"Yet even then the force of the Patristic testimony remains untouched. Were we to concede to Dr. Hort's unproved hypothesis tha Didymus, de Trinita abounds in what he calls Syrian readings, and that they are not rare with Gregory Myssen (Notes, p. 133), the clear references of Ignatius and Hippolytus are not thus to be disposed of. I dare not pronounce rheas a corruption." Scrivener, "Introduction" Vol.II,pp. 394,395.

Following this, Dr. Miller, who edited Dr. Scrivener's work adds:

"This decision of Dr. Scrivener would probably have been considerably strengthened in favour of Theos, if the above passage had been written after instead of before, the composition and appearance of Dean Burgon's elaborate and patient examination of all the evidence, which occupies seventy-seven pages in his 'Revision Revised'." Scrivener's "Introduction", p. 394.

 

EXAMPLE NO. 20: (Section I, p. 36) I have still another example, in stating which, my Reviewers lay aside every weight and soar high. Two pages are devoted to revealing the uncompromising position of the author. They claim that I said that the King James Version was translated into over 800 languages. Deeply stirred on this, they write a letter to the British and Foreign Bible Society. The reply from this Society is given in full. The reply is heavily underlined. Many conclusions are drawn from it. And then as if to heap one mountain upon another, my Reviewers want to know whether I "would commission Seventh-day Adventists to bring forth their own translation in every current language and dialect in order to be in literal conformity to the "Textus Receptus "'.

Well now, what is the cause of all this furor? Just four words in my book. After talking on the widespread translations of the King James Version, I use these four words, "One writer claims 886," (page 257), Would you like to know who this writer is? He is an outsider, not an Adventist, hired by the Pacific Press Publishing Company to write a book for the Pacific Press Publishing Company, which book the Pacific Press Publishing Company has widely advertised in certain of our publications, under the title, "The World's Best Book," Here is the quotation from the: WORLD' S BEST BOOK, p. 71:

"Second, the Authorized Version has become a world book. It has the largest circulation of any modern book. It is now published in total or in part in 886 languages and dialects."

So I am reined up before this Committee of the General Conference because I, in my book, refer to a statement given in a book published and widely advertised by the Pacific Press Publishing Company, It is all right for the Pacific Press Publishing Company to use this fact; but for me it was all wrong. If I am pilloried for an uncompromising position because of this statement, what then shall we say of our publishing house which publishes it? If it is demanded of me whether I would commission Seventh-day Adventists to translate the Textus Receptus into all languages and dialects because I refer to this statement in the book published by the Pacific Press Publishing Company, will my Reviewers now turn around and lay the implication of this demand at the door of the originators--the Pacific Press Publishing Company? All the weight of criticism that was hurled at me, must now Be transferred to "The World's Best Book" and its advocates.

Before upbraiding me so severely, I suggest that it would have been well for my Reviewers to have become familiar with their own current literature. Arid I trust that before the next edition of "The World's Best Book" is published that the information so laboriously obtained will be forwarded to the Pacific Press so that this statement may be duly corrected.

After this recital of these twenty instances where the authors of this document have so seriously erred, I trust that I may humbly suggest that a more careful study of the real facts would have saved them much loss of time and effort and the expression of unjust and severe statements against a brother.

ANSWERS-TOC

NEXT