Review of Scripture Texts
Cited in Chapters VI, XI, XII
When the Reviewers brought against my various statements such high-sounding expressions as these: "The authenticated texts"', "The major MSS", "The best of all Greek MSS", "The best attested MSS", etc. it must have almost overwhelmed you with the thought that my book was being demolished by these outstanding authoritative MSS.
In their reply to many of the scripture texts which were handled, they largely attempted to vindicate their opposition to what I said by appealing to manuscripts under the titles just given. However, this method involves six serious difficulties:
(1) They did not tell us what manuscripts they are: (2) they did not tell us how many there are; (3) they did not exhibit what right they had to apply these approving titles to the manuscripts; (4) they did not tell how many manuscripts were on the opposite side; (5) neither did they tell us what manuscripts were on the other side; and (6) finally, they have offered us no justifying reason why they grouped all the thousands of manuscripts on the opposite side under the name of Textus Receptus and counted them as one witness. Evarts in the Bibliotheca Sacra of January 1921 quotes a textual critic to say that John 8:1-11 on the woman taken in adultery is witnessed to in 1650 codices. Since less than 1/10 of these are unicials, this authority must reckon the remaining 1490 cursives as each an independent witness. What right then, have my Reviewers to take a handful of manuscripts on their side, whose voice discounts from thousands of manuscripts on the other side of the question and count each one of this small handful of theirs a separate witness; while they counted the thousands of manuscripts on the other side as simply one witness. When their repeated appeals to those high-sounding but meaningless terms to justify their defense of the following texts are shown to mean nothing, when each one must stand or, the poverty of the other reasons they offer. An examination of this poverty makes very interesting reading.
But what are the facts? Which are those wonderful manuscripts to which they refer - "the authenticated, "the major", "the noted", "the most valuable", "the best," the best attested?" Would you be surprised to find that generally, they are just two principal manuscripts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus?
What right have they to describe them by all these high-sounding adjectives when they know and told you (on page 12, Section II of their Document) that authorities were divided in their estimate of their value -- one side regarding the Vaticanus, the better of the two, as the most vicious manuscript in existence.
What right had they to try to overwhelm your thinking with the idea that the great authorities were against me? This is some new logic. They prove the AV wrong and prove me in error, mainly two witnesses, the better of the two even being held as the most vicious MS in the world. Do you prove that the Prohibitionists are wrong by bringing in anti-prohibition witnesses, by calling the witnesses most noted, major, best, best attested, best authenticated?
Does anyone think that the AV and my position relative to it can be set aside by such witnesses, witnesses without ancestry, without history, by witnesses which are rejected as corrupt and unreliable?
They are condemned by their own internal evidence and by 99 witnesses out of every 100, condemned by the overwhelming testimony of the patristic writings, the MSS, and he Versions. My Reviewers' wise assertions that they are the best, major, best attested, etc. will not convince those who think fairly.
Their nine (9) indictments of my methods (Section III, chapter II, pp. 2, 3) were built upon their unjustifiable use of these high-sounding but meaningless terms about MSS; (2) their endorsement of doctrine-changing mistranslations; (3) their acceptance of the ruin of the established usages of words; (4) their unjustifiable claim upon parallel passages, on the ground that because God had said a thing once, there was no harm to cut out where he said it in another place; (5) upon their own self-made theological arguments . When all these questionable procedures are duly shown to be valueless these nine (9) indictments of my methods mean just nothing at all. They will stand or fall upon my examination of the individual texts.
In order that his document may not be too long, I propose not to notice, at length, a number of the scripture texts which are argued by my Reviewers. In fact, I am under no obligation to notice their arguments about doctrine with reference texts used in Chapter 6 of my book. Chapter 6 was not given to show how the Revisers changed doctrine. It was given to show the similarity, if not identity, of many passages in the ARV with the same passages in the Jesuit Bible of 1582, and how these two versions are leagued together on one side of the gulf between and the AV on the other side.
The accumulative argument produced by the totality of these comparisons is tremendous. This accumulative argument my Reviewers ignored. It was easier for them to notice the compared passages, one by one, on the basis that they were arguing a change of doctrine; thus the main effect of Chapter 6 they missed. Nevertheless, I wish to discuss in reply a number of these compared passages which they reviewed.
Let us first notice my Reviewers' defense of the Revised Version in 2.Sam.21:19, which declares that Elhanan killed Goliath. My Reviewers indict the translators of the AV because they supplied certain words in italics and so made the Bible consistent with itself. They approved the ARV which translated the Hebrew text without italics and so made the Bible contradict itself.
By this argument the ARV is convicted, because in 2.Thess.2:3 it supplied the four words, "it will not be"; for supplying which, they had no justification, except that internal evidence demanded these words to be supplied. The AV, therefore, stands justified because it supplied the proper words which a powerful internal evidence supported, in the case of the killing of Goliath, while the Revisers here side-stepped. This deplorable act of the Revisers has rocked two continents with needless and doubt scattering debate.
The King James translators made the Hebrew agree with itself, while the ARV made it contradict itself. Then the Revisers emphasized the contradiction, by reading into the margin the AV reading. Modernists, at once, seize the contradiction and claim to prove that David did not kill Goliath. Then, and we have proof for this in the "Literary Digest" of March 9,1929, modernists take the contradiction as the most historical. They actually claim that Elhanan did kill Goliath. Where now is your acid text? Where now are your primal laws of evidence? Do sincerity and fairness mean that we should make the Bible contradict itself? If the Revisers were justified in supplying the four words in 2.Thess.2:3 by internal evidence which made common sense , how can they escape the charge of deliberately playing into the hands of skeptics, critics, and atheists by failing again to take advantage of what was the strongest kind of internal evidence. The famous Dr. Frederick Field, who spent his life on the Old Testament in Greek, brings as one of his strongest indictments against the Revisers that they ignored the great law of internal evidence, under the pretense of being obliged to be exactly literal.
Matt. 6:13 - On the Abbreviation of the Lord's Prayer.
We now come to the famous omission of the last part of the standard account of the Lord's Prayer. My Reviewers, in line with the Revisers and the Jesuits of 1582, defend this omission. Against it, the great Reformers indignantly protested. Have you ever noticed that the King James, or Authorized Version, make the Lord's Prayer begin with the Lord and end with the Lord? But the ARV makes the Lord's Prayer begin with the Lord and end with the evil one. Sister White did not agree with the ARV, for she said:
"The last like the first sentence of the Lord's Prayer, points to Our Father." "Mount of Blessing", p. 174.
This puts the AV and Sister White on one side; and on the other side it puts my Reviewers, the Revisers, and the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS.
In defense, it is claimed that "the omitted part is not found in the oldest Greek MSS". The truth is it is lacking only in the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and three unicials and five cursives; while on the other hand the other remaining uncials and the thousands of cursives are for it. Dr. Cook says: "in support of the rejected clause I have noticed the immense perponderance of authorities." "Revised Version", p. 57. This is proof enough that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are corrupted. The probable reason why they are the oldest MSS is because they were so corrupted, they were not used or worn out in the hands of the people who studied or copied them. My bible is worn out. To quote as my Reviewers did, that the Expositor's Greek Testament" says it was a liturigical ending, and no part of the Lord's Prayer, means nothing. How comes the Expositor's NT to be authority, especially greater than Sister White?
The "Expositor's Greek N.T." work does not purport to enter the field of textual criticism; it is no authority therein, and simply repeats parrot like what the critics furnished. My Reviewers give also, as additional evidence, a quotation from Dr. Scrivener which says "yes" and "no" on the question, therefore nothing.
"Prophets and Kings" page 69, and "Mount of Blessing" pages 174-176 quote this portion of the Lord's Prayer which the ARV omitted, and therefore it should be in the text, the place of honor. It has been dishonored, it was placed in the margin. Now where is your acid test? Who says that the changes of the Revisers did not affect doctrine? What is doctrine? Why didn't my Reviewers , recognize sister White?
Matt.5:44 On Praying for Enemies
Here again my Reviewers fail in catching the argument in my book. The claim that because the ARV omits, "bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you," and also "which despitefully use you," that I declare on the strength of this omission that the Revised Version is not a revision in any sense whatever, but a new Bible based on different MSS from the King James, on Catholic MSS in fact."
This is not true. I quoted Canon Cook, that well-known scholar who had been invited to sit on the Revision Committee but who refused. My Reviewers ignored his quotation. He said: "Yet this enormous omission rests on the sole Authority of Aleph (Sinaiticus) and B (Vaticanus)." And since my Reviewers admit on this same passage that these two oldest MSS came to us directly from Catholic sources, I had a right to claim that the Revised Version was based on Catholic MSS, unless they could present some mitigating circumstances. What mitigating circumstances did they present? They brought up again Erasmus, that he was Catholic, that his new Greek Testament was dedicated to the Pope and received the written endorsement of the Pope; and that further, Erasmus printed in parallel columns the official Roman Catholic Testament in Latin with Greek Text. Thus they sought to parry the indictment of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as Catholic MSS by trying to make us believe, that the Textus Receptus of Erasmus' was just as Catholic.
Now notice the facts in the case. Was Erasmus a Catholic in reality? Was he in submission to the Pope as all really and truly Catholics virtually are? No. His work shook the Roman Catholic Church, and his books were put on the Index. Luther and Erasmus were at first Catholic in name, but Protestants at heart. Erasmus was protesting. The Revisers, on the other hand, were Protestants in name, but ceased protesting; were Catholics at heart, and headed toward ritualism and Romanism.
Erasmus was driving the world toward Protestantism, it was toward Catholicism that the Revisers were driving the world.
Why tell the world again that all Erasmus printed in parallel columns was the Greek Testament and the Catholic Vulgate? Why not tell the whole truth? Why not tell the world and our dear people that he printed in a third column his revised Vulgate which brought down upon him the storm of Catholic Europe. Why not tell everybody, everywhere, that later the Pope put all his books on the Index Expurgatorius? Will somebody please tell me when the Pope put all his books on the Index Expurgatorius? Will somebody please tell me when the Pope put the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus on the Index Expurgatorius? Thus Putnam speaks of it:
"In the Index of 1559, the name of Erasmus is placed under the class of Auctores quorum libri et scripta omnia prohibentur. After the entry of the name however, comes the following specification: cum universis Commantariis, Annotationibus, Schollis, Dialogis, Epistolis, Censuris, Persionibus, Libris et Scriptis suis, etian si nil ponitus contra Religionem, vei di Reliqione contineant." "The Censorship of the Church of Rome," Vol. I, p.335.
But there is another angle to this proposition. How many Protestant Versions have been influenced by these two MSS? None but the Revised over which the discussion now is. You might include the individual versions, but they are not recognized, either by the Reviewers or by the authorities they quoted. My Reviewers say in so many words, speaking of the ARV, "Because its translators are guided by the oldest and most complete MSS". If my Reviewers mean by these words that the ARV translators were guided by the two oldest and most complete MSS which is virtually the truth then the ARV is built on Catholic MSS.
My Reviewers next claim that, "There is no historical proof that any Greek text was more directly influenced by Catholic hands, a Catholic version, and Catholic approval than was that of Erasmus, yet the text of Erasmus was the basis of what has since been called the Textus Receptus, which the author lauds so highly as a pure, uncorrupted text."
What are my Reviewers trying to do? Are they trying to make out the AV, the Protestant Bible, as taken from the Textus Receptus to be in fact: a Catholic Bible? My astonishment knows no bounds. The Pope put the Textus Receptus on the Index, condemned it, and condemned (as well) the AV. Faber, one of the perverts from Protestantism to Catholicism in (the Oxford Movement called the Authorized Version "one of the greatest strongholds of heresy". Eedie, "English Bible," p. 158). And the Catholic Bishop of Eric calls it "their own vile version." Probably the Bishop learned it from Dr. Hort, who at the age of 23 called the Textus Receptus "vile" and "villainous". Cardinal Wiseman attempts to show that the rush of certain Protestants to the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, proves that the Vulgate was taken from the best MSS. (Wiseman's Essays, Vol. I, p. 104). Do my Reviewers then arrange themselves alongside of Faber, Cardinal Wiseman, and the Catholic Bishop of Eric? Do they also try to make out that our great Protestant Bible is, in fact, a Catholic one? I protest, in the name of Protestantism and Seventh-day Adventism, and in the name of truth. Might as well brand Luther, and the Reformation also Catholic. See to what lengths the defenders of the Revised Version are driven.
My Reviewers next defend this "enormous omission" from Matt.5:44 by declaring that the ARV, with great fidelity, has retained in Luke 6:27, 28, the words omitted in Matt.5:44. This is the old story. On that principle you could leave out all the gospels but one making a composite gospel and thus improve on what the Lord has done. My Reviewers talk about an "imposition on the laity". What would the people in the field think if you went out and gave them such principle as this namely: Because the Revisers did not corrupt every text therefore they are at liberty to corrupt this one? Will my Reviewers claim because the Revisers did not knock the whole wall down, therefore they did not make any breaches in the wall? Do they mean to imply that it is not necessary for the Lord to say a thing twice because He said it once? Did He not repeat the story of taking of Israel out of the land of Egypt many, many, times? Will my Reviewers say that once was enough? Would not taking this position make the Bible out as being full, of redundancies and superfluities and repetitions? Why have four gospels; why not be satisfied with one? Why have parallel readings? Why tell the story of the Cross so often? Is not once enough? Why not have an abbreviated Bible? Do they really mean to defend the Revisers in omitting a passage of Scripture, because it is found elsewhere in the Bible? Are they defending the Word of God or the Work of the Revisers?
Did not Sister White plainly say in "Great Controversy", page 245, speaking of Erasmus and his Greek and Latin Versions of the New Testament:
"In this work many errors of former version: were corrected, and the same more clearly rendered."
She also said:
"He (Tyndale) had received the gospel from the Greek Testament of Erasmus. He fearlessly preached his convictions, urging that all doctrines be tested by the Scriptures. To the papist claim that the church had given the Bible, and the Church alone could explain: it, Tyndale responded... 'far from having given us the Scriptures, it is you who have hidden them from us; it is you who burn those who teach them, and if you could, you would burn the Scriptures themselves.'" Great Controversy", pp. 245, 246.
In the face of this ringing testimony from the Spirit of Prophecy, how can my Reviewers claim that the Greek New Testament of Erasmus was Catholic?
My Reviewers have spoken about imposing on the people. How long shall we stand to have these things told to the people the way they are here telling them? How long shall we line ourselves up with this campaign against Erasmus and his Greek Text; and consequently against Tyndale and the Authorized Version, and the Spirit of Prophecy? Do you think that our own dear people should be saved from hearing these things in the wrong way and should be given the correct information? That is why I wrote my book. I wrote my book in order that the world at large and our own dear people should have the correct information on this whole situation.
Luke 2:33. on Joseph's being the Father of Jesus.
Here again the Reviewers neglected to answer a telling witness. I showed that Helvidius, the devoted scholar of Northern Italy (400 A.D.) who had the pure MSS, accused Jerome of using corrupt manuscripts on this very text. I gave my authority for this, which authority is indisputable. By looking at the Vulgate, we know that in Luke 2:33, Jerome did exactly what the American Revised and Jesuit Bibles did, that is, they gave Jesus a human father. How could Helvidius accuse Jerome of using corrupt Greek Manuscripts if Helvidius did not have the true manuscripts? Moreover, Dean Burgon says that his rendering is a "depravation of the text". ("Revision Revised", p. 161.) All the answer my Reviewers give is a theological argument. They bring forth Luke 2:48 where Mary says to the child Jesus, "Thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing." Well, these are the words of Mary, they are not the words of inspiration. Nevertheless, the record of what Mary said is inspired, but we are not told that what Mary said was inspired.
My Reviewers make a further appeal to verses 27 and 41 where the word "parents" is used. My Reviewers ought to know that the word "parents" is an omnibus term; it includes the father and the mother. It is so used that it might refer to a mother and a foster-father. Therefore no argument can be grounded upon any of the three texts which my Reviewers offer in opposition to the testimony of Helvidius and of Burgon. Why did not my Reviewers call attention to Luke 2:43 which also was changed from Joseph and his mother" in the AV to "his parents" in the RV, a change in the direction of the text under discussion?
Luke 4:8. On Get Thee behind Me Satan
My Reviewers commit three errors in discussing the omission in the Revised of the words, "Get thee behind me, Satan". First, they claim that the testimony of the MSS is so positively against including this omitted clause. On the contrary, Burgon and Miller say:
"It is plain, from the consent of (so to speak) all the copies, that our Saviour rejected the Temptation which stands second in St. Luke's Gospel with the words, 'Get thee behind me Satan."' "The traditional Text", p. 169.
The second error of my Reviewers is in leading us to believe that the omission of the clause in Luke 4:8 is fully compensated for in Matthew 4:10. This is not the fact. The clause in Matthew reads, "Get thee hence, Satan". Quite a difference as I will now proceed to explain.
The third error of my Reviewers is in their attempt to say that doctrine is not affected. It is evident that they are not acquainted with the testimony either of Origen or Jerome on this text. Origen distinctly says that the reason why Jesus said to Peter "Get thee behind Me, Satan;" while to the devil he said "Get thee hence" without the addition, "behind me", was, that to be behind Jesus is a good thing. Jerome follows Origen in his reasonings. This omission was made evidently to point out that to put Peter directly behind the Lord was to put him in a good place in line, following Jesus, to receive apostolic succession, The argument of my Reviewers seems to be in harmony with this doctrine of Peter receiving apostolic succession because they support the change. In fact my Reviewers appear to me to be more anxious to support the Revisers than they are to support the text. My reason for saying this is that the Spirit of Prophecy quotes Luke 4:8 just as it reads in the AV. Thus the AV and Sister White again are on the same side of the question. Volume V, page 409 reads:
"They will meet the adversary with the simple weapon that Christ used, 'It is written,' or will repulse him with, 'Get thee behind me, Satan.'"
Luke 11:2-4. On the Lord's Prayer in Luke.
This shocking mutilation of the Lord's Prayer in Luke 11:2-4 is accepted and justified by my Reviewers on the ground that it agrees with "the best attested manuscripts". What are the facts? Besides one phrase being omitted in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, it is omitted in only one other uncial and two cursives. What about all the other unicials and all the thousands of cursives? (See Dr. Cook, p. 85). The other phrase is omitted in the five uncials only, Aleph ABCD. The perponderance of authorities in favor "is immense". p. 86. On this depravation Dean Burgon says:
"An instructive specimen of depravation follows, which can be traced to Marcion's mutilated recension of St. Luke's Gospel."
Then, after noticing the blundering mutilations, he says:
"So then these five 'first class authorities' are found to throw themselves into six different combinations in their departures from S. Luke's way of exhibiting the Lord's Prayer, which, among them, they contrive to falsify in respect of no less than 45 words; and yet they are never able to agree among themselves as to any single various reading;... What need to declare that it is certainly false in every instance? Such however is the infatuation of the Critics, that the vagaries of B are all taken for gospel." "The Revision Revised", pp. 34, 35.
The testimonies of many other eminent critics could be given here, who are shocked beyond measure at this mutilation of the Lord's Prayer.
Again the Reviewers attempt to parry the thrust of this mutilation by calling attention to the Authorized readings in the margin. Here again my Reviewers flee to the margin for refuge. They make a good deal of the fact that I use the margin as evidence in certain things. But they have no right to relegate constituent parts of the Lord's Prayer to the margin.
Acts 13:42. On the Sabbath of the Jews
We are asked to notice verses 14, 15 and 43 to solve the difficulty here. They fail to solve the difficulty. The authorized Version in verse 42 has *the Jews leaving; the Gentiles are then left in the synagogue with Paul; and request that these words be spoken again to them the next Sabbath. In the AV the Gentiles and the Sabbath are put together, not so in the ARV. The only excuse the Reviewers have again, is to fall back upon the manuscripts. They confess, however, that this text is found in the Textus Receptus MSS. If so, I want to tell you it is found in 950 out of every 1,000 MSS. Right here I desire to take special notice of the last sentence of the comment of my Reviewers, which seemed to say that the AV creates more embarrassment with regard to the Sabbath than the ARV.
*(the Jews leaving the synagogue)
If so, why did the American Revised make such an astounding change in Col. 2:16. Notice the difference:
King James: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days:"
ARV: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new moon or of a sabbath day:"
Why did the Revisers in Col.2:16 translate a plural noun in the Greek meaning "sabbath days" by a single noun, "a sabbath day"? Do you not see how Seventh-day Adventists, by this translation are reduced to embarrassment when they put this verse to comparison with the other damaging way that the ARV translates the Sabbath command:
Exodus 20:8-10 ARV: "Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is a sabbath unto Jehovah thy God"...
The AV makes the Sabbath commanded in Exodus, singular and definite,... "the Sabbath day"; but in Col.2:16, the AV makes the sabbaths abolished, plural and indefinite. On the other hand, the Revised Version makes both the Sabbath commandment in Exodus 20:8 singular and indefinite; and that which is abolished in Col.2:16 also singular and indefinite. That is, according to the Revised Version the identical thing which is commanded in the law of God, "a sabbath" is abolished in Col.2:16, "a sabbath day". And this, in spite of the fact that the Greek noun of Col.2:16 is in the plural.
Where now is the boasted accuracy of the ARV, and that on a vital point of doctrine? How many can the claim of being literal be sustained? In this rendering we have neither the literal, nor the accurate, nor yet a translation. Where now is the acid test? The document talks about our being a laughing stock. By this fatal combination in translation between Exodus 20:10 and Col.2:16, Seventh-day Adventists are now where they cannot protect themselves on the doctrine of the abolition of the Sabbath. I say that this is systematic depravation. As proof of my contention, I have ample evidence that our enemies have not been slow to use against us this very systematic depravation. In the newspaper debate between MacLennan (Seventh-day Adventist) and Brewer (Christian Disciple) as issued from the General Conference Press Bureau, we read these words from our antagonist the Disciple minister.
"There is no authority at all for Christians to keep the Sabbath. Rather we are strictly admonished to allow no man to judge us with reference to the Sabbath. (Col.2:16.7" (ARV).
Again he says:
"There is no excuse for saying 'sabbath DAYS' in this passage. A 'sabbath day', the Revised Version says, and that gets all of them."
Brethren, I would not know how, in view of this, to defend the Sabbath if I were totally dependent upon the ARV. I thank the Lord for the King James Version as an anchor to our faith in such difficult situations as this. In fact our ministers in the field have been greatly troubled to know how to meet an opponent on the Sabbath question who faced them with the Revised Version. This demonstrates the close affinity between the King James Bible and the fundamentals of our message.
For over 80 years it has been possible ably to defend the third angel's message with the AV. The AV is a complete whole, its teachings are clear. On doctrinal points we find in it no contradictions. All its parts form a complete harmony and it leads us to the truth by the authority of the fitness of things. The united appeal to its consistent testimony is irresistible. It is not a Greek N.T. put together by scissors and paste. It is the Textus Receptus witnessed to by thousands of MSS, having the highest antiquity, harmoniously witnessed to by various nations and various centuries, and has been since the beginning, the generally accepted Bible of God's people. It is an eternal bulwark of the church and the truth of the Living God.
Acts 15:23 On the Clergy and the Laity.
Again I must protest against my Reviewers' ignoring the evidence of the change in Acts 15:23, by leaving out the two Greek words which stand for "and the"; ignoring, I say, that this opened the way for Romanizers to claim that the clergy ruled the church without the presence of the laity. I gave sufficient evidence in my book that battles on this text raged in the Reformation period. I will give additional evidence from later writers. Dr. Meyers' "Commentary on the New Testament," (Acts p. 282) says:
"The omission of kai oi is on hierarchical grounds."
This is just what I said in my book. The only manuscripts he quotes in favor of this, are the usual five unicials which are found together, the greatest ones of which are the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
Another quotation on this point from Dr. G.T. Stokes , whose work on "The Acts of The Apostles" is one of to latest and most up-to-date. His words are very directly to the point:
"A great battle indeed has raged round the words of the Authorized Version of the twenty-third verse. 'The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles,' which are otherwise rendered in the Revised Version. The presence or the absence of the 'and' between elders and brethren has formed the battle ground between two parties, the one upholding, the other opposing the right of the laity to take part in Church synods and councils." "The Acts of the Apostles", p. 236.
So you see my position on Acts 15:23 is correct. My Reviewers have certainly not studied and informed themselves as to the real meaning underlying the Revised reading.
Acts 16:7. On the Spirit of Jesus
I will simply call attention to the fact that the Revisers broke the higher critics' rule by taking the larger reading for the shorter. This is one of the places where the Revisers added to the Textus Receptus. There is more involved, however than this. Kindly read my book, page. 192.
Romans 5:1 On We have or Let us have Peace.
My Reviewers endeavor to make out quite a case on the way I handle the marginal reading from Romans 5:1. Wherein does the difference between my Reviewers and me lie? The difference is this; they say that what I treated of was a mere marginal note and not an alternative reading. The truth of the matter is that I used the English Revised Version which plainly in the text (not in the margin), says, "let us have peace"; whereas the margin of the ARV says, 'many ancient authorities read "let us have"'. Why were not my Reviewers frank enough to tell you that the expression "let us have peace" is in the text of the English Revised. And in chapters 11 and 12 of my book where I compared texts from the standpoint of doctrine I usually used the English Revised, especially noting whenever I used the ARV. But in chapter 6 now under consideration I was not primarily comparing texts from the standpoint of doctrine; I was showing the similarity if not identity of the American Revised with the Jesuit Bible of 1582 in the passages under consideration.
Nevertheless, considering the strength of what is said in the margin of the ARV the Reviewers were not entitled to say that this was not an alternative marginal reading but a mere marginal note. Why should not the charge which they brought against me of perversion really lie against them?
Moreover... I deny that, in any way, whatever, I misrepresented Dr. G.L. Robinson. They say (Section I, p. 30) "This is perhaps as striking a perversion of authority as is found in this book." I was not reviewing Dr. Robinson. I was not endeavoring to show he was anti-Revised Version, nor was I under any obligation to say that he endorsed the ARV. I simply used him as a witness when he said that the reading "let us have peace" is a serious error of doctrine.
And so it is. If we start out as Paul does in Romans 5:1 to say "Being justified by faith", and then add, "let us have peace" this is plainly a Catholic doctrine, that is justification by works. Dr. Robinson is right; moreover, the constant belittling of Protestant Versions on the ground that they are based on faulty and recent manuscripts turns the hearts of the people to ancient manuscripts. The margin of the Revised Version is full of references to the ancient manuscripts. In the AV you cannot find ten marginal references to other MSS; while in Matthew alone in the Revised there are over fifty. The Revised Version choked its margin with alternative readings from other MSS. Here is one in the margin of the ARV of Romans 5:1. Of course the most ancient and most eminent manuscript used by all the higher critics for the last one hundred years is the Vatican Manuscript, then which there is none other in the world more Catholic.
I noticed that my Reviewers are glad to get the help of the margin in other cases where they were ashamed of the text, the shorter account of the Lord's Prayer in Luke 11, for instance. My Reviewers say that in the expression "let us have" the difference is just between the long "a" and the short "o" of the Greek word. It is a vast difference; it is exactly the same difference between the two versions in translating Col.2:16 where a blow against the Sabbath is felt by Seventh-day Adventists. I am surprised that the Reviewers would indicate to you that the difference between omicron and omega is so slight, whereas in this very text it is the difference between the indicative and imperative modes.
OABV- 95- X
1.Cor.5:7. On omission of the phrase "for us".
My Reviewers defend the omission of the words, "for us" from the passage "for Christ our passover was sacrificed for us" by saying that six other manuscripts besides the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus omit it. Well, what about the thousands that contain it?
Is not this a pivotal text? Is not this one of the most important for the Protestant doctrine of atonement? Suppose the next time they revise the Bible they change another one. Very soon the changed ones, affecting a great doctrine get in a majority and the unchanged ones are in a minority. Is not this a sinister change? If they changed all these texts at once, everybody would rise up and protest. I do not think we can brush aside the protest which I have quoted in my book, from a Protestant minister on this text.
My Reviewers offer other Scriptures such as Romans 5:8, 1.Peter 1:17, 21, as if we could find the same expression there. Not so. The first one does not say that Christ was sacrificed for us; while the second one does not even use the expression "for us". "Precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little." (Isa. 28:10). So does God teach us. It is the reverse of God's teaching when we begin to weaken one of these precepts or lines. Who is to say that it is not dangerous to mutilate one of these verses because there is another verse left somewhere which contains a truth like it?
Catholics teach that any one act of Christ's life would have atoned for us. We do not agree with this. We point to the act of eternal consequence, his death on the cross. We say "Behold the Lamb of God". It is most unfortunate that this outstanding text of 1.Cor.5:7 has been so changed in the Revised that it is adaptable to the Catholic doctrine of atonement. In a few moments we will see that another text has been changed so as to leave out this expression, "through his blood".
Sister White referring to this text says;
"The slaying of the Passover lamb was a shadow of the death of Christ. Says Paul, 'Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.'' "Great Controversy", p. 399, (See also P.P. p. 277)
1.Cor.15:47 On the omission of "the Lord".
All we will do, is only emphasize once again that this Chapter 6 was given principally to show the similarity if not the identity of these passages in the Revised and Jesuit Bible of 1582, both agreeing between themselves and disagreeing with the King James. I will say here, however, that considerable use is made of this text as it now stands in the ARV to advance the new 'Person of Christ' theory. Notice this, as a little further on I discuss the change in 1.Tim. 3:16.
Eph. 3:9 On omission of the phrase, "by Jesus Christ"
My Reviewers endeavor to defend the omission of the phrase "by Jesus Christ" on the grounds that the truth that Jesus is creator, can be found in three other Texts in the ARV; namely, John 1:1-3, Col. 1:16 and Heb. 1:2. My Reviewers claim that the inclusion of the thought in these three other texts exonerates the Revisers from displaying ulterior purposes in this omission. Quite the contrary. My Reviewers failed to call attention to the fact that I have these three very same texts under indictment elsewhere for revealing these same ulterior purposes. In fact my Reviewers forget that they confessed that I had just grounds for criticism against the first of these texts (John 1:1-3) as handled by the Revisers.
Col.1:14 on omission of the phrase, "his blood".
My Reviewers attempt to evade the force of the parallelism between the ARV and the Jesuit Bible of 1582 on the omission of the phrase "his blood". It is beside the point for them to say that if I am seeking for parallelisms of this nature I would have to reject the most of the New Testament. Because we are not arguing about where the Jesuit and the Revised agree; but where the Jesuit and the Revised agree in opposition to the AV. What kind of reasoning do you call this? Nobody ever doubted that the great bulk of the verses of all Versions are practically alike. It is where the Jesuit and Revised agree with each. other, but differ from the AV that we must determine our estimation of the Version. My Reviewers again fall back on 1.Peter 1:17-19. So this verse must do double duty. It must bolster us up for the omission of the words "through his blood" in Col. 1:14. Perhaps we shall have to use it again to bolster us up for other omissions from the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. If we remove, one by one, the strands from which the suspension bridge is hung, very soon we shall have the whole super-structure supported by only one strand. And what is the need of all this? The Authorized Version is sufficient for all needs. It has been with us in the Protestant world for three hundred years, and for eighty years in the third angel's message. What then is the need of all these omissions defended by such explaining and arguing?
1.Tim.3:16. On the substitution of He who for God.
Before bringing the evidence from the Spirit of Prophecy forward on this question, let me say that this text has been the battle-ground for the ages. As it now stands, in the AV it is both a cause and a bulwark of Protestantism. As it now stands in the Revised it becomes one of the great texts for propaganda by Romanizing Protestants and Catholics. To illustrate: on the change of "he who" for "God" Bishop Westcott says:
"The reader may easily miss the real character of this deeply instructive change. The passage now becomes a description of the essential character of the gospel, and not simply a series of historical statements. The gospel is personal. The gospel 'the revelation of godliness' is, in a word, Christ Himself, and not any propositions about Christ". Westcott, "Some lessons", p. 198.
The Revisers made this change which confounds Christ with the movement He instituted, the gospel, and leads our minds away from Christ the person on His heavenly throne, to Christ, the bread of the Lord's Supper, (mass), on the ritualistic altar-throne. What is this, if not a change of doctrine? Bishop Westcott was conscious of the change the Revisers were making in this reading. On this the "Princeton Review" says;
"Making Christianity a life, the divine human life of Christ has far reaching consequences. It confounds and contradicts the Scriptures and church doctrine as to the Person of Christ." "Princeton Review", Jan. 1854
In the great tremendous stirs made the last 100 years by trials of Protestant clergymen for heresy, none was more widely followed than the trial of Dr. Briggs of Union Theological Seminary, New York. He believed this new doctrine of the person of Christ, as did Dr. Schaff here in America, like Dr. Westcott in England, and like the majority of those who were, and are, active in promoting the revision of the bible. By some it is called Christology; by others The Development Theory. Its dangerous possibility can be shown by the following quotation concerning Dr. Briggs:
"Dr. Briggs, now a member of the Episcopal Church, has from time to time brought into expression certain ideals in regard to the development of the Church Universal. If one understands him aright, he looks forward to the reconstruction under the new conditions of the twentieth century, of a world's Church or Church Universal, which was so nearly realized under the very different conditions of the fifteenth century. He is, therefore, sympathetically interested in the policy of the Church of Rome and he is in close personal relations with not a few of the scholarly leaders of the church." "The Censorship of the Church of Rome", Vol. II, pp. 470, 471.
This new theory concerning the person of Christ or the Development theory which gives Christ two bodies, one in heaven and another, his church, on earth, was aimed at the Bible. It gives a personality to the church and to the Holy Spirit in the church in such a real way, that the church is self-sufficient, of herself to develop doctrine and to meet the changing problems of the age. How does it affect the doctrine of the second coming of Christ? Let me quote from "The Mercerburg Theology" by Dr. Swander:
"The only question remaining to be touched upon is, when shall the last physical change take place in the history of each second-Adamite? Down to this time, the weight of theological sentiment, as formulated in the confessions and taught in the divinity schools, had favored its postponement to some unknown future period, when the dethronement of death and the aggregate rising of the dead are to constitute the grand and final act in time's great theater. There is now, however, a gradual breaking away from all such interpretation of the Scripture. Many believe that the doctrine never had any fellowship with the truth. As soon as an individual becomes a member of the second Adam, there is a beginning of the process by which 'this mortal shall put on immortality.'" "The Mercersburg Theology", p. 300.
Sister White says:
"The union of the divine with the human nature is one of the most precious and most mysterious truths of the plan of redemption. It is this of which Paul speaks when he says, 'Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifest in the flesh.'"
"This truth has been to many a cause of doubt and unbelief. When Christ came into the world, the Son of God and the Son of man, he was not understood by the people of his time." "Testimonies for the Church" Vol. V, p. 746. (See also "Counsels to Teachers" p. 262).
As usual the Reviewers fall back on a little circle of unmutilated texts found elsewhere to assure us that we still can find a fundamental doctrine which has been destroyed in the mutilated text. Nevertheless, by ten references to the Spirit of Prophecy we find the Authorized Version and the "Testimonies to the Church" in agreement on this point, while the Reviewers uphold the Revisers and others on the other side.
My Reviewers (on Section III, chapter 6, page 12) say: "But nothing can be said to be essentially lost whichever reading is followed." What am I to think? Must I believe that the Reviewers are not sufficiently informed about the Mercersburg Theology and the Development Theory to see in the changed reading what is there and what others see who know this theory?
2.Tim.4:1 On the judgment and appearing of Christ.
Can anybody get anything out of the incomprehensible wordiness into which 2.Tim.4:1 has been changed in the Revised? My Reviewers claim that it does not refer to the executive judgment but that it refers to the investigative judgment. If my Reviewers had taken pains to read all the verses which follow down to verse 8 they would have seen that the Apostle Paul is talking of "THAT DAY". It is the same "that day" spoken of in Luke 21:31, the great day of rewards. My Reviewers talk about my interpreting passages out of their context. What have they done here? Of what value is their discussion between the two Greek words kai and kata? The executive judgment of Christ takes place at His coming; I quote:
"And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him." Jude 14, 15.
My Reviewers do not believe that 2.Tim.4:1 refers to this executive judgment. I submit the evidence to the decision of my hearers without argument.
Heb. 7:21. On omitting "after the order of Melchisedec."
Here again I will desist from doctrinal argument on this point . These passages were compared to show the similarity, if not the identity, which the Revised Versions and the Jesuit Bible or 1582 exhibit, as against the Authorized version of 1611.
Rev. 22:14 On the robes and the commandments.
I must contend again for the Authorized Version reading "blessed are they that do His commandments" instead of "blessed are they that wash their robes". Why do my Reviewers claim that the testimony of the MSS is so strong against the genuineness of the clause "that do His commandments", when the "Expositor's Greek Testament" Vol. 5, page 490, in discussing the MSS and versions on this text calls it "the well supported Hoi poiountes tas entolas autou" (that do His commandments)?
It is further surprising to note that this same authority, while giving the preference to the Greek of the Revisers, informs us that the clause ("that do His commandments") was "possibly due to the feeling that some moral characteristic was needed after verse 11". This is good Adventist doctrine. My Reviewers think that the Greek will not permit the implication that the saints are washing their robes during the entrance into the city. They say that either reading is orthodox and disturbs no doctrine. We certainly would insist that we shall be keeping His commandments during the entrance into the city, but as equally strong do we insist that we will NOT be washing our robes during the entrance into the city.
For a whole year during the plagues we will NOT be washing our robes that is sinning and being forgiven because there is no blood atoning.
But for a whole year we will be keeping His commandments and for eternity ever after. In the light of the message of verses 11 and 12 even as discerned by this non-Adventist commentator, it is impossible for the construction "wash their robes" to stand the test. Hina, according to my dictionary, after the word "do", has the sense of causing or affecting. The verb here is the verb "do", poieo. Hence the sentence would then read, "Blessed are they, doing His commandments, causing them to have the right to the tree of life and to enter into the city." In other words it is not purpose. They do not do His commandments in order that they may have right, but because they are doing His commandments they do have the right.
"Great Controversy", (page 466) says:
"And the Revelator, half a century after the crucifixion, pronounces a blessing upon them 'that do His commandments, they that have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.'"
(See also Volume 5, p. 628, 693; Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 133, 235; P.P. p. 208; A.A. p. 592; Volume 9, p. 130).
Here again the Spirit of Prophecy lines up with the AV on this not insignificant passage; in this great Adventist passage, which belongs to no other people so peculiarly as to Adventist. We regret to say that the Reviewers, and the Rheims New Testament of 1582 are on the other side.
Blow After Blow Against the Truth
You will recall that in Section I, example 4, on the mistakes of citations by the Reviewers, I proved anew that Bishop Westcott confesses that by repetitive changes, by changing here a little and there a little, the Revisers effected changes in articles of faith. To refresh your mind about this matter I will quote again from Bishop Westcott's book:
"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 the Faith. The accumulation of small details then produces its full effect. Points on which it might have seemed pedantic to insist in a single passage become impressive by repetition, the close rendering of 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 deepest interest at the present time." "Some lessons", pp. 184, 185.
And further I will give a quotation from Bishop Ellicott, who for ten years was Chairman of the English Revision Committee. This is what he said in his book entitled, "Consideration on the Revision," which he wrote two years after the Revision Committee began its work. He said:
"Passages involving doctrinal error. Here our duty is obvious. Faithfulness, and loyalty to God's truth, require that the correction should be made unhesitatingly. This class of cases, will, however, embrace many different instances; some of real and primary importance, some in which the sense will be little affected, when the error, grammatically great as it may be, is removed, and the true rendering substituted. For instance, we shall have in the class we are now considering, passages in which the error is one of a doctrinal nature, or, to use the most guarded language, involves some degree of liability to doctrinal misconception." "Considerations", p.88.
This proves the Revisers were not only translating but considering doctrines. Surely it is not the business of translators to consider the theology of the text to be translated. My Reviewers are again shown to be wrong.
2.Tim.3:16. On the Inspiration of the Scriptures.
My Reviewers say, "Though this rendering by the Revisers is much to be regretted, it does not state an untruth, but only part of the truth, fully explained elsewhere in the same Version."
I agree with my Reviewers that the Revised Version gives only a part of the truth. I prefer the Authorized which gives the whole truth.
This Scripture, as in the Revised Version, is quoted once in the writing of Sister White, not in the book itself, but in the introductions and it is not listed in the Index. In the immediate connection with it, however, she speaks of the Bible as the "infallible" Word of God. In Vol. 5, p. 747, she affirms when quoting this text as in the AV, thus indicating a very decided preference for the AV.
John 5:39 On searching the Scriptures.
This text, now under consideration, is not so glaring an example as some. There is not as square a contradiction between the two renderings as there is in some others. The preponderating balance of evidence as we find it, both in the ranks of commentators and the Spirit of Prophecy indicates that the fundamental idea of what Jesus says was a direction, a command. The famous Dr. Frederick Field, who spent all his life in researches, reconstructing the Greek Old Testament, and became famous therein, tells us that the mistake of the Revisers in adopting the affirmatory view instead of the command or direction, was because they placed too much stress upon the parenthetical clause, "for in them ye think ye have eternal life." ("Notes on Translation" p. 90) Leaving out the parenthetical clause, what then do you think is the more clear rendering, the AV, which says, "Search the scriptures for they are they which testify of me", or the Revised rendering "Ye search the scriptures for they are they which testify of me." We do not think that the Jews actually searched the scriptures when Jesus was, speaking because the scriptures testified of him. In other words, the underlying idea of the passage is a command, or direction, or, as Sister White says: (Vol. 2, p. 633);
"The followers of Jesus are not meeting the mind and will of God, if they are content to remain in ignorance of his word. All should become Bible students. Christ commanded his followers, 'Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me.'" (Emphasis mine)
And also Volume 5, p. 388,
"Repeat to all the Saviour's command, 'Search the scripture.'"
Twice this text is quoted by Sister White as in the RV. In Vol. 5, I find these words, "Repeat to all the Saviour's Command - Search the Scriptures." Several times it is directly stated that it is a "command" and a "duty". This is consistent with the AV not the RV. Twenty-three times it is quoted in the Spirit of Prophecy as in the AV, thus it must be evident that Sister White very much preferred the AV on this text to the RV.
John 2:11. On the question of miracles.
My Reviewers see nothing wrong in the fact that the Revisers have struck out from the N.T. the word miracle in 23 of the 32 instances where it is used, or that in the case of the other nine, if they use the term in the text they robbed it of its authority by a weakening substitute in the margin; or that in the Old Testament they drove it out entirely in the five instances where it occurred in the AV.
THEY SAY: "There are two different words rendering miracle in the New Testament. One is semeion, meaning sign, which is the base of signify, signification, and significance, The other is dynamis, which means power."
I REPLY: Do my Reviewers mean to say that it is simply by their grace or the grace of the translators that they allow the idea of miracle or miraculous to enter into these words? If so, there is this against them; (1) the word of God (2) the history of the words; (3) common sense. Hebrews 2:4. "God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with diverse miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?" Here the word semeion is placed right along side of "wonders" and "miracles" and "gifts" of the Holy spirit; inspiration declaring that God used all these four things by which to "bear witness". This text specifically shows that semeion is not just an ordinary sign, but is equivalent to wonders, miracles and the works of the Holy Ghost; therefore, inspiration itself has put the supernatural into the word semeion .
With regard to the history of the word, it may be said that the word "miracle" comes from the Latin word mirabilia from which, in English, we get the words "marvel", "marvelous," "miracle", and "miraculous", etc.; also in the French, merveille; and lastly common sense would tell us that the authority of the fitness of things would show that this word has in it the miraculous and the supernatural when it is used in circumstances that in themselves betoken the supernatural and miraculous, and when used in connection with the manifestation of God's power. The word "sign," alone, would be utterly insufficient for the proper translation from the Greek. So here both the Revisers and the Reviewers fail to discern the fitness of things regarding the meaning of the word.
My Reviewers attempt grouping of instances; and right here I may say, let none be misled by grouping of the uses of a Greek word. It is a striking fact that, the word "miracle" singular or plural is found 37 times in the AV and only, 9 times in the RV. The Greek word semeion, the one in the text under consideration, is used 75 times and out of that is translated 22 times as "miracle" in the AV. Only three times in the ARV is this same word translated "miracle"; and then because they were compelled to do it; for it would have made utter nonsense to translate it any other way. I will now give these 3 times and let you judge for yourself. This is proof positive that the Greek word semeion has an intrinsic meaning in itself of a "miracle."
(1) Luke 23:8 "And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad; for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracles done by him."
See how ridiculous it would be to translate the word semeion by "sign," as: "he hoped to have some sign done by him." This is why the ARV was compelled to put miracle here.
(2) Acts 4:16. "Saying what shall we do to these men? For what indeed a notable miracle bath been done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem and we cannot deny it."
(3) To further get the force of this we will now read the 22nd verse. "For the man was above forty years old on whom this miracle of healing was shewed." Please substitute the word "sign" here and see how ridiculous it would be. This is the last of the three instances in which the Revisers translated the word semeion as "miracle" and in each of the three they were obliged to do so because of the utter nonsense, otherwise.
So I still maintain, as in my book, that to change the sentence, "This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee", shows a radical change of doctrine. Added to it is the fact that the word "miracle" used 32 times in the N.T., 5 times in the O.T. or 37 times in the AV, has been reduced down to nine times in the ARV, only three of which are translated from semeion. Is not this a great step in the direction of modernism and away from the supernatural? Is not this tantamount to a change of doctrine? Can we not say that the doctrine of the Authorized is the supernatural; while the doctrine of the RV is the natural?
But I am not through with this case yet:
1. The Greek word angelos strictly means a messenger. Then why, on this theory of literalism, advanced by the Revisers, and followed by my Reviewers, should we not translate, -
Hebrews 1:7 (RV) "Who maketh his angels winds", by, "Who maketh his messengers winds".
There is a closing note in my Reviewers' comment on this question of miracles which says that they are giving the opinion of a member of the 1611 Revision Committee, namely, Dr. Trench. (Sec. III-11-4). What do my Reviewers mean? Dr. Trench died about 1886. How then could he have been a member of the 1611 Revision Committee. And since Dr. Trench, according to the quotation, would prefer always to translate semeion by sign, this would be a natural procedure for him for he also was a member of the 1881 Revision Committee. Then why in the name of all that is right, make him a member of the 1611 Committee?
2. In Greek the word hypocrites strictly means "actor". In strict literalism why not translate, -
Matt. 23:23 "Woe unto you, scribes, and Pharisees, hypocrites" by "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, actors"?
3. And further graphe literally means "writing". Then why not translate,
2.Tim.3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" by "All writing is given by inspiration of God"? What do you think of this, brethren, would this be correct? And so I might go on and on with other Greek N.T. words which have established use different from the Greek use., Greek words have gathered up established English equivalents. Shall we now, after 300 years say "messenger," "actor", writing", when the established use is "angel", "Hypocrite", and " scripture"? In other words, has not the ARV begun a campaign to tear down established truth by uprooting established usage of words? Also is there not a further disastrous result to our beautiful English language? Let me exhort you in the words of Jude, "Beloved... it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." Jude 3. What can be the purpose of the Reviewers' defense of the Revisers in uprooting the established usage in the New Testament language?
Matt. 18:2, 3. On Conversion.
The arguments of my Reviewers in their objection to what I have said on the matter of "Conversion" in my book is just another specimen of wrong grouping and re-grouping of the different instances in which a Greek word is used.
THEY SAY, "But the author overlooks the fact that these same men (two writers) could have found in the AV at least 9 times as many passages rendered with turn in the sense of conversion, and could have used these to bolster up their false doctrine that a man can convert himself."
I REPLY: This is not the case. And I will proceed to show you from their own arguments on the two words (1) Strepho and (2) epistrepho that their groupings are wrong and that their conclusions are wrong. Here we will see the beautiful sense of the fitness of things which resides in the Authorized translation as well as in its more skillful handling of the Greek than in the Revised Version.
MY REVIEWERS SAY on strepho "Here are the facts in the case; Matt. 18:2,3, is the one N.T. passage using the simple form of the word strepho meaning turn in the sense of conversion. In the AV this same simple verb form is rendered 14 times in the passive, 11 times in the active, and 3 times in the reflexive."
I REPLY: This is not the truth. It is contrary to fact. (1) Strepho is not used 28 times in the Greek. "The Englishman's Greek Concordance" gives it only 18 times. It is barely possible that my Reviewers, when they said "is rendered 14 times in the passive, 11 times in the active, and 3 times in the reflexive" meant to say. 14 times in the passive of which 11 times was in the active; but of course that would be nonsense. It is barely possible they meant 4 times in the passive instead of 14 times, which would make it 17 times and would check nearly with the Greek Concordance of 18 times. In either case there is inaccuracy or bad reasoning in these figures; one or the other. Then (2) in the other 17 times it is used "turned and said" and "turned and saw"; none of which could, of course, have been conversion; and only twice:
Acts 7:39 "And in their hearts turned back to Egypt," no conversion and Acts 7:42 "Then God turned, and gave them up" no conversion there. Which examination shows that in all the instances in which strepho is used, only once could it possibly used of conversion, which is Matt. 18:2,3, and on which the Revised Version fell down.
You will probably here raise this question of strepho; Since the substantial meaning of the word is turn, how then can you get out of it "conversion"? Here now is where the wonderful mastery of the subject by the King James Translation springs at once to view, which I will bring out when I finish epistrepho.
In further defense of the Revised Version's elimination of "be converted" my Reviewers say of the verb epistrepho that it is used 41 times in the N.T. 17 times of which are in the sense of conversion; and further, that both the AV and the ARV render nine of these by turn. This is not the fact. These 9 times do not need to handle the word "convert" or "be converted", because the verb turn is used with an objective, such as, "turn to the Lord,'" or "turn from your idols unto the living God"; so that the word "convert" or "be converted" is not necessary. But there are 7 times in the N.T. clearly outstanding where the other application by "be converted" would answer the situation, and on these the Revised Version fell down. Take as an example:
Luke 22:31,32. King James Version
"And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you that he may sift you as wheat:... And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren."
"Simon, Simon, behold Satan asked to have you... When once thou hast turned again, establish thy brethren."
I ask this audience if this is not a clear case where the ARV makes conversion possible through the human agency and not dependent upon God.
Acts 3:19 King James Version
"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out..."
"Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out."
I submit it to you brethren, is not this a clear case where the ARV makes conversion possible through the human agency and not dependent on God? And so on through the 7 texts. Now here is where the King James translators discerned the fact that conversion is an event dependent upon God alone. This they saw because 4 of the times, in which "be converted" is used in the A.V. N.T. in the sense of conversion, came over from Isa. 6:10, so that in the divine providence of God, at the time when Jesus announced the new birth from above to Nicodemus, epistrepho used passively without any qualifying clause, being a verb for turn in the Greek must have had the meaning of "be converted". The Revisers confess that they made this change for a purpose and were glad they did. I read from Westcott, "Some Lessons," page 172:
"The change of a single word brings out the responsibility of man from the first. Thus, when we read in Acts 3:19, 'Repent ye and be converted,' the passive form of the second clause puts out of sight the thought of man's willing action, which lies in the original 'Repent ye, and turn again'."
And again on pages 191 and 192:
"And the time of the fulfilment of the counsel of God depends on human effort: 'Repent and turn again', is St. Peter's plea to the Jews."
Also from Dr. Milligan:
"Thus in Matt. 18:3, the opening verb, though passive in form, is properly rendered actively, and the popular error of man being mere passive instruments in the hands of God thereby exploded." "Expository Value of the R.V." p. 130.
Again I repeat that those changes in these 7 texts, made where they should not be, were consciously and intentionally made to throw conversion back upon man's human effort.
Heb. 11-3 On world for age.
My Reviewers write one and one-half pages about the use of the word aion, and how the word aion in Greek is translated. They show how the AV and the ARV handle it in Hebrews, in Ephesians, in Revelation, etc. But what does it all amount to? Her is a significant fact: The word aion occurs, according to my Reviewers, 122 times in the N.T.; according to my "Englishman's Concordance", 125 times. Would it surprise you to learn that the ARV translates it "age" or "ages" 61 times out of 122 in the text or margin while the AV translates it as such only 3 times, text and margin.
My Reviewers claim that the literal use of this Greek word is age or ages: then why were not the Revisers always literal in the case of this word, seeing that my Reviewers claim literalness as a great tribute to them? Suppose they had been literal in the case of:
Luke 16:8 AV "The children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light." Suppose we had there substituted "age" as in the margin of the ARV; it would then read, "The children of this age are in their generation wiser than the children of light."
This virtually would have said that all the children of the present evil age are wiser that the children of the redeemed world to come. Or that all the people that have ever lived since this age began are wiser then the redeemed members of the human race in Heaven.
My Reviewers complained because I said that Westcott and Hort injected evolution into the ARV. First, I will show that they intended to do it; and secondly, I will show that they did it, and you can see it with your own eyes. To show that they intended to do it, I quote from Westcott:
"In this connection we see the full meaning of the words used of creation in Hebrews 11:3: 'By faith we understand that the worlds (the ages i.e., the universe under the aspect of time) have been formed by the Word of God.... The whole sequence of life in time, which we call the world' has been 'fitted together' by God. His one creative word includes the harmonious unfolding on one plan of the last issues of all that was made. That which is in relation to Him 'one act at once' is in relation to us an evolution apprehended in orderly succession." "Some Lessons", p. 187. (Emphasis mine)
When Westcott said of creation that "the ages, i.e. the universe under the aspect of time have been formed by the word of God," and "His one creative word included the harmonious unfolding on one plan of the last issues of all that was made," or what was to Him "one act at once, is in relation to us an Evolution apprehended in orderly succession," he virtually said that Jesus Christ made not the physical world but he made the ages. Now you cannot make an age in a moment of time. It takes an age to make an age. And several ages cannot dwell together at the same time; they must succeed one another in single file. Therefore Bishop Westcott claims that the Revisers by the use of this word intended to present creation under the aspect of evolution.
We will now notice how we can see evolution by the repeated translation of "age" for aion instead of "worlds". The common people do not know much about evolution and would not see evolution in the translation if it were there in terms of evolution. But the intelligent people and these are the ones who concern us here, who have studied evolution more or less, or even if they have not, would be confirmed, by the prodical use of this word 'ages' in this error; for a world can be made at once and age can not. Moreover if the Son of God made the ages, which would be the meaning if we substituted the margin for the text in Hebrews 1:2, what would we have when he got through making it? nothing visible, simply the past and gone forever. Let us read one of these texts from Ferrar Fenton:
Hebrews 1:2 Fenton "Whom He appointed Inheritor of all; and through whom he made the ages;" also
Hebrews 11:3 Fenton "By faith we comprehend that the periods were arranged by the continuous intention of God, so that from the unseen the visible appeared."
In other words, the only way the visible could appear from the unseen, here was because the periods were arranged by the continuous intention of God. According the AV the "worlds were framed by the word of God" and from them we could understand how the visible appeared. But if it is no longer worlds but periods, or ages, which were framed by the word of God, then how from those which are invisible, can you understand that the visible appeared; for there was not anything visible there. What is there to look at? This is evolution. This is something developing out of nothing; through long periods. This is evolution.. Even a wayfarer can see this. While of course, we use Ferrar Fenton here, nevertheless, the ARV by inserting "ages" systematically in the margin opens the way logically for this arrangement as given by Ferrar Fenton.
Goodspeed, 20th Century, and Ferrar Fenton all translate the last part of Matt. 24:3 as "the close of the age". The ARV here in the margin gives "the consummation of the age".
The King James translators studiously avoided this word; the Revisers used it copiously, (61 out of 122 times), getting it into the margin when not possible to get it into the text. Here is where repetition is impressive as Westcott said; it emphasizes the unfolding ages. But with what are you impressed? Acts of creation? No, unfolding of evolving ages, which is Evolution. I am not talking theory and fancy, our ministers are meeting this difficulty in the field.
Col. 1:15, 16. On creation in Him, or by Him
I regret very much to say that my Reviewers assailed my claim that the Revisers in this text change the doctrine, and concealed from their hearers in their first sentence an essential fact which I gave in my book. THEY SAY: "By quoting from a Unitarian minister the author seeks to make it appear.." Why do they hide the fact that this Unitarian minister was a Reviser, a member of the English N.T. Revision Committee? Why make believe he is a Unitarian minister at random without connection with this situation? He sat on the Committee, he knew what was intended by this charge. The Reviewers talk of unfairness, is this fairness for them to represent one of the Revision Committee as a Unitarian Minister taken up at random?
My Reviewers cannot see that it makes any difference whether all things were created in Him or by Him. They admit that the "all things" referred to include the visible and material. But notice the little word "by" implies that the agent is external to the thing acted upon; while "in" might identify the actor with the thing acted upon; and so without any great strain would really mean pantheism. If not pantheism, it would then be vague, indefinite, and mystic.
My Reviewers, by admitting that the "all things" created in Him include the visible and material, identify the totality of creation with the creator. What is this if not pantheism? In the AV we are protected in the little word "by"; but if you use "in" then when we look at all things - do we see Him? Or when we look at Him, do we see them? The sun and the moon were not made "in Him"; they were made "by Him". Were all the heavenly worlds made "in" Him? If when we look at the visible creation, we see Him, and if when we look at Him we see the visible creation, the Reviewers are but justifying the charge that the Revisers were pantheists.
My Reviewers attempt to justify this construction by quoting Ephesians 2:10, "We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus". The reasoning fails because Eph. 2:10 refers to a spiritual creation. They take a material creation and make it spiritual; and then they take a spiritual creation and make it spiritual; and then they take a spiritual creation and make it material. Is such confusion justifiable?
My Reviewers, referring back again to the Unitarian Reviser, say, "Some man's interpretation of the ARV rendering of Col. 1:15, 16 has no bearing on its correct translation or true meaning,..." They say, "Some man". I say "One of the Revisers". They imply that I took some man, somewhere. He was a duly appointed Reviser, had a powerful influence in mounding the text, and in fact, the regular chairman withdrew and there was a national upheaval because this "some man" was retained on the Committee despite public indignation. (See "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated", pp. 168-169).
Why did Westcott and Hort stand for his being appointed on the Committee. Why did they defend him when public indignation demanded his removal? No one can read the life of Doctor Hort without knowing how powerfully he was under influence of Maurice, who was a regular descendant from Unitarian ancestry and was dismissed from the presidency of Kings College for heresy.
You will be interested to know that this phrase is translated in the Unitarian Bible just as it is in the ARV.
Col. 1:15, 16 Wakefield Version
"Who is an image of the invisible God, a first born of the whole creation for in Him were created all the things in the heavens and upon the earth."
1.Tim. 3:16 On God or He Who. See answer in Chapter VI, Section VI.
Acts 16:7 On the Spirit of Jesus. See answer in Chapter VI, Section VI.
Isa. 7:14 On Virgin or Maiden
The Revisers put the word "maiden" in the margin of Isa. 7:14 as synonymous with "virgin". My Reviewers defend this action and claim I have no right to criticize it. Let us see.
The deity of Christ is proven by his Virgin birth; and the weight of the proof hangs on Isa. 7:14. There was a Unitarian on the English Revision Committee (as there also was on the American) and there were those of Unitarian leanings on the Old Testament Committee. Unitarians do not believe in deity, or Virgin Birth of Christ; therefore a strong probability was created beforehand that something would be done to weaken the force of Isa. 7:14.
That the Deity of Christ is proven by his virgin birth, I quote, from William Jennings Bryan:
"If the Virgin Birth be rejected how shall the deity of Christ be proven. It is quite common for modernists to affirm that the deity of Christ is entirely independent of the manner of his birth... If Christ's deity was not demonstrated by His birth, and was not proved by the manner of His birth the modernist will experience great embarrassment in convincing a questioner that there was any other time or way in which the deity of Christ became manifest." "Seven Questions in Dispute," pp. 57,59.
The weight of proof for the Virgin Birth of Christ hangs on the great prophecy of it in Isa. 7:14, just as the greatest evidence for all outstanding plans of God usually is grounded upon the prophecy therof. On the point in question, Dr. Howard Kelly, M.D., L.L.D., of Baltimore, says:
"Matthew is most explicit in his first chapter, and quotes Isaiah and tells us that the word Almah (Virgin) in the Hebrew of Isaiah (7:14) in his day meant a virgin, and that Jesus was conceived by the Virgin Mary of the Holy Spirit. Every time I call him 'Lord' I mean by that 'God' the Son of God, and proclaim his Virgin Birth." Ibid. 56,57.
By the alternative reading in the Revised Version, we can now talk not only of the Virgin Birth, but also of the Maiden Birth.
To show how the Unitarian views of the Unitarian scholar on the Revision Committee as well as the strong Unitarian leanings of Dr. Hort and other Revisers on both the Old and New Testament Committees, would reject a clear cut convincing doctrine of the Virgin birth, I quote from a recent advertisement in a Unitarian Book-room in one of our large cities as given in this book by Williams Jennings Bryan:
"During the life of Jesus he was understood by all to be the son of Joseph and Mary born in holy wedlock. This is clear from a study of the Gospels in their early and most authentic form. But long after the death of Jesus unknown hands added to the copies of the Gospels, they were making those introductory chapters in Matthew and Luke, which relate the legends of a miraculous birth. These legends... are as manifestly the product of an irrational point of view as are other tales of miracles. Miracles do not happen." Ibid. pp. 50,51.
Why did they play into the hands of those who belittle the Virgin birth by using this word "maiden" in the margin? What was the necessity of adding this word "maiden" which lacks the strict thought of absolute chastity or virginity as in the word "virgin", while it contains additional shades of meaning not proper to the word "virgin"?
To show how the Bible constantly couples the thought of purity with virginity and with the birth of Christ, we refer to Paul's thought of the church, "I have espoused you to one husband that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." (2.Cor.11:2); and Isaiah's contrast between the purity of God's people and the heathen, "The Virgin, the daughter of Zion, hath despised thee." (Isa. 37:22); and in Revelation, chapter XII, the picture of the pure woman, the Church, travailing with the birth of Christ, as she is about to bring forth the man child. It is certainly adding an unnecessary complication to put in the margin a variant word, which lends itself to questions on so great a doctrine as the Virgin birth of Christ.
1.Cor.5:7 On the Passover for us. See answer Chapter VI, Section VI.
Job 19:25,26 On the Resurrection.
My Reviewers justify the fact that the ARV presents Job rejoicing that if this present body is destroyed he shall, without his flesh see God. My Reviewers in defending the ARV have ceased, in so doing, to represent the Adventist doctrine. They are obliged to take this position because they follow and justify the ARV which in this instance has changed the doctrine of the resurrection. Then in this surrender of grand old Adventist doctrine to the, in their mind, overpowering authority of the ARV, my Reviewers have entangled themselves in three inexplicable and fatal positions.
1. They flee for refuge to Dr. Philip Schaff, president of both American Committees of Revision. Did they expect that Dr. Schaff would abandon his own child, the ARV, by failing to testify in his own and my Reviewers behalf? Moreover, Dr. Schaff was not a Hebrew authority. His remarks about the AV in this passage abandoning the Hebrew text to translate from the Septuagint of Vulgate are neither clear nor of any weight. Over against Dr. Schaff I will put Dr. Kinnicott, and greater authority in Hebrew it is not possible to find. He is recognised as one of the two outstanding Hebrew authorities on Hebrew manuscripts and their variations. Dr. Kennicott, as you will find in the commentaries of Dr. Adam Clark on this verse, translates it as in the AV.
2. The second count against my Reviewers, and the most serious to Seventh day Adventists, is that they say, "It is not difficult to understand from the ARV translation that Job's sustaining hope was that though his body of flesh might be destroyed in the grave, yet in spite of that fact he was sure to see God. Moreover, Paul says 'Thou sowest not that body which shall be." (Sec. III-11-9). It is a matter of profound regret to me that my Reviewers allowed these words either to be said or to be printed, conveying to the hearers or readers the idea that Job meant according to the ARV to say that without his worm-destroyed body he would see God and nothing more. Why did not my Reviewers make it clear that in both the AV and the ARV Job states that his mortal body, obtained in birth, will be worm-destroyed before he states he shall see God? Why did not my Reviewers make it clear that in the AV Job presents his mortal body as worm-destroyed, but yet in another flesh shall he see God; while the ARV also presents his mortal-body-worm destroyed, but yet without the immortal flesh of which the AV speaks, he shall see God? I feel very disappointed that my Reviewers would permit themselves to stand in any way connected with such an exposition as this.
3. I notice now their third species of reasoning. If argument Number 2 is fatal to an outstanding Seventh-day Adventist doctrine, their argument Number 3 is seriously depressing to belief in the inspiration of the Scriptures. They say, "if this were the only passage we had on the resurrection of the body, we might be in a more difficult situation." In other words, relying upon Job 19:26 ARV we are in a ship that is sinking us in the bottom of the sea, but be of good cheer, there are four squadrons of vessels which will hasten to our rescue:
Paul's great discourse on the resurrection.
The bodily state of Adam and Eve in Eden.
The future state of the righteous.
Other scriptural teachings.
In other words, these four groups of scriptures plainly contradict Job 19:26 in the ARV. These four sets of texts, therefore, destroy the bad influence of Job 19:26 ARV. Blessed be the fact there are plenty of contradictions to this text. This text will not hurt us because there are plenty of others to contradict it: Not so. If all the rest of the Bible teaches the resurrection of the body, all the more reason why the Revisers should have squared this passage with the generality of the Bible teaching. They have no business to impose its teaching on the rest of the Bible on the ground of textual difficulty. If 1.Cor.15 teaches one thing and Job 19:25 another, which are we to believe? The translators of (?) happily were not under the influence of the modern rules of textual criticism which fact prevents them from exalting these above the harmony of the Bible. Certain of the members of the Revision Committee were spiritualists, Unitarians, and believers in purgatory. Therefore, our Protestant Bible received wounds in the house of friends. Job in the AV is clear, definite, conclusive. The only interpretation is that body and intelligence will again function together at the last day, and it definitely compels a resurrection. Job in the ARV is equally clear, definite conclusive. The only interpretation is that his intelligence will function apart from his body, which was destroyed by worms, and necessitates no resurrection before seeing God at the last day. This reading makes possible purgatory, prayers for the dead, disembodied spirits and spiritualism.
When I proved in my book that some of the Revisers were higher critics, others favorable to Rome, modernists and Unitarians, my Reviewers charged me with using the illogical argument ad hominem; but the issue can not be so easily brushed aside. I showed that they held these theological views. Consequently that they were thus personally biased. Then I showed by their correspondence that they proposed to consider doctrinal questions in their revision. Next I showed that their revised readings lent themselves to these doctrines and that they commented upon their own translations accordingly. And finally, I showed that other prominent men used their readings to defend these doctrines. What more evidence do you want? It is not sufficient that my Reviewers give us critical technicalities upon which the authorities disagree.
How much better it would have been if my Reviewers, after reviewing my book, had openly acknowledged that the ARV was wrong on this passage and had here changed doctrine. Why did they not hold in this instance to the Spirit of Prophecy? From "Prophets and Kings," pp. 163 and 164, I read:
"From the depths of discouragement and despondency Job rose to the heights of implicit trust in the mercy and saving power of God. Triumphant he declared:... I know that my Redeemer liveth, And that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth; And though after my skin worms destroy this body, Yet in my flesh shall I see God."
In five other places besides this, the Spirit of Prophecy refers to this same text, always in the sense of the AV. Does this mean anything to us as Seventh-day Adventists?
Acts 24:15 On the question of the resurrection.
The only answer my Reviewers can give to the indictment of the ARV in omitting the phrase "of the dead", is, "textual reasons". The fact is, the omission has only 8 manuscripts in favor of it and 2,000 or more against it. If you call these "textual reasons" I do not. It is clear that they have chosen the reading of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus MSS and a few others to the exclusion of overwhelming testimony on the other side, to settle what is the true word of God and what is not. By reading 2.Tim.2:16-18 we see that if there was one heresy more prominent than another in the early days of the mystery of iniquity it was spiritualizing away the resurrection.
My Reviewers claim that there are 13 other instances in the ARV of the phrase "of the dead". I say this is all the more reason why it should be here. What do you think of such an argument? The phrase "of the dead" is found in 13 other scriptures, hence leave it out here. It is found in the passage in thousands of MSS but omitted in a few MSS! On what ground of reason would you leave it out here, in the face of its being found in 13 other scriptures and in 2000 or more manuscripts. This, then is good evidence that the text under consideration in the AV is good doctrine. How can we say that when God has said a thing 13 times, it is enough; that he does not need to say it the 14th time. Evidently my Reviewers do not hold to Isaiah, "Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little there a little." Are they heading toward the shorter Bible?
Matt. 24:3 On the Second Coming of Christ.
My Reviewers here defend the marginal reading of the ARV by flatly contradicting me. I said in my book that "the consummation of the age" in no sense means the same thing as the "end of the world". They reply that I criticize the ARV reading although it gives in the margin the literal meaning of the original of the phrase "end of the world". I submit it to my hearers to judge whether "end of the world" means the same thing as "the consummation of the age".
If they do not mean the same thing then the margin and the text contradict one another. If they do mean the same thing then the Russellites and Unitarians have been right all along in claiming that Christians look forward to such a consummation of the age, which supports the Russellites' idea; namely, change from one human dispensation to another, as the closing of the Roman age; or the Age of Revolutions; or the stone Age; of the Ice Age; or the Electric Age. I quote here from two modern Bibles:
Matt. 24:3 Unitarian Bible
"What will be the sign of thy coming and the end of the age?"
Matt. 24:3 20th Century N.T.
"What will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?"
Matt. 24:3 Goodspeed's N.T.
"What will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?"
If "what the original means" is consummation of the age," then why did the Revisers not put it into the text as the preferred reading? The only excuse for sometimes putting the literal meaning of the Greek into the margin is in order to give an explanation of what is not very well grasped by the English rendering, but that is not needed in this case. The "Consummation of the age" naturally indicates the finishing of a period as the running out of the sands of an hourglass, without fore-shadowing great physical convulsions of nature. These convulsions were in the disciples' minds according to the prophecy of Isaiah and other prophets, as accompanying the end of the world and so they meant to ask that of the Saviour, namely, when would the convulsed end of the world come? The Russellites rejoice in, this ARV marginal translation so they put 1874 as the consummation of the age. There was no need to confuse good, plain, simple doctrine by putting in the margin the "consummation of the age."
I must again insist that when the ARV put "presence" in the margin of Matt. 24:3, for "coming" it is indicative of a change of doctrine. My reviewers say, no; they say that without knowing the literal meaning of parous we would miss the vividness in describing the return of Christ and the restoration of that marvelous presence. All this then is missed in the AV. But by putting "presence" in the margin of the ARV it is restored.
You ask a child about the return of its father. The child may reply, "His coming will be tomorrow", or "His presence will be tomorrow". There is an entirely different thought, the last has no sense. "Presence" makes us think of a spiritualistic seance; all of a sudden a "presence" is there. Can't you feel his presence? But "coming" has a start, a sweep, and an arrival. "Presence" in place of "coming" fits in with "consummation"- for "end". Jesus said "I will come again and receive you unto myself, that where I am..." My Reviewers underline "where I am" they should have underlined I will come again. The coming is necessary in order to produce the presence. The coming is first. His presence does not appear until after His coming. If "coming" means presence" then why expect the future advent of Jesus if we have His presence now. "Presence" is a continuous relationship; "coming" means an event. The question, "What is the sign of thy presence", would mean, what is the sign of thy fellowship with us, as now; the "sign of thy coming" would demand forerunning events which show he is not here now, but will come.
Jesus went on to tell of the darkening of the sun and falling of the stars; they were signs; they were not to be signs of His presence, they were precursors of His coming. We hold that "presence" is not the same as "coming". The "presence" of Jesus will be true 10,000 years after his coming, but his "coming" will be one event, once in the end of the world, also not a continuous process. I cannot admit that the words "presence" and "coming" are synonymous. If "presence" and "coming" do not mean the same thing, then the margin and the text of the ARV contradict each other, which is a change of doctrine.
Phil. 3:30, 21 On our vile body.
King James Version: "Who shall change our vile body that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body."
Revised: "Who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation that it may be conformed to the body of His glory."
My Reviewers defend the change in translation from "His glorious body" in the AV to "the body of His glory" in the ARV, by again claiming that the Revisers gave the literal meaning. As I pointed out in my book, this is a Hebraism or an idiomatic structure in the Hebrew language, which often used two nouns in place of a noun modified by an adjective. This Hebriac construction of Phil. 3:20, 21 is found in the Vulgate. Therefore, Wycliffe in 1380 and the Jesuits in 1582 followed this construction. Beginning in 1534, however, it was rejected by the outstanding English Versions, Tyndale, Crammer and Geneva, as well as the AV; so that it is not because this translation was so wonderful and so new or that is was unknown to the Revisers that they adopted it. They rather took their stand with the Vulgate and the Rheims of 1582. If the excuse for so translating this was that they should be literal then why (in Luke 18:6) did they not translate the "judge of unrighteousness" instead of the "unrighteous judge" or "wonders of falsehood" instead of "lying wonders" (2.Thes. 2:9). Why this inconsistency? Could they not see that changing "His glorious body" into "the body of His glory" was weakening the second coming of Christ? Why did the Revisers choose a second coming of Christ passage to emphasize transliterating, not translating a Hebraism?
What does "the body of His glory" mean? Sister White says that "it is the glory of God to pardon the chiefest of sinners." A body of glory might mean the sum of total virtues. The change in the King James Version is physical: the ARV may be a spiritual change. It may be like this, "Who shall fashion our sinful body that it may conform to His perfect life or to the sum total of His virtues." If it is a spiritual change, it is possible for this spiritual change to take place now. Then so far as this version is concerned, the physical coming of Christ is not necessary to execute the glorious physical change. This is another proof that the Revisers have dimmed and blurred the second coming of Christ. If this translation is literal, why not put the two other places I just mentioned; and I could cite many more, into the text?
What does Sister White say on this passage:
"As the antitype of the wave-sheaf, our Lord was raised from the dead on the third day, 'the first-fruits of them that slept,' a sample of all the resurrected just, whose 'vile body' shall be changed, and 'fashioned like unto His glorious body.'" "Great Controversy," p. 399
"Who shall change our vile body, that it may be like unto His glorious body." "Early Writings," p. 31
I am willing to accept Sister White and the AV on this text.
2.Thess.2:2 On the day of Christ at hand or now present.
King James; "That ye be not soon shaken in mind... as that day of Christ is at hand."
Revised: "That ye be not quickly shaken from your mind... as that the day of the Lord is now present."
My Reviewers refer us to Heb. 9:9; also Romans 8:36, 1.Cor.3:22; and Gal.1:4 where a form of the same Greek verb is rendered with the meaning, "present". They omitted to tell us that in the places referred to we have a participle used as an adjective, whereas in the text under discussion we have a verb. Also they did not refer us to the well known 2.Tim. 3:1 where the same verb is used with future meaning in the expression, "grievous times shall come". The verb used in the text under discussion is in the perfect tense and can mean, "to stand in sight"; "to impend,"' and "to threaten," and "to be close at hand". My authority is Thayer's Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament". Thayer was an American Reviser.
The Century Dictionary is quoted by my Reviewers to define the phrase "at hand" as meaning "within reach, nearby, present." We would simply (ask?) Which of these three meanings would you use if you were talking of the day of the Lord? You certainly would not use the meaning "present". You might use "they were all present in the room with you"; but you would not use it of the day of the Lord, unless you believe as the Russellites do that the day of Christ is now present. Therefore the citation from the Century Dictionary does not apply
Titus 2:13 On the glorious appearing.
King James: "Looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ."
The change from "the glorious appearing of the great God" in the AV to the "appearing of the glory of the great God", I contend does not give a picture of Christ's personal, visible, bodily return. As usual, my Reviewers plead the fact that the original gives two nouns. I have already criticized this literal bringing over of a Hebraism found in the Greek, into the English. If my Reviewers are textual critics, they know I am right on this point. Suppose we translated into English the idioms of other languages on this same plea of following the original literally; where would we come out? Mark Twain said that if he had invented the German language he would have put the verb where you could find it at the end of at least two or three pages. I do not need to give here many German expressions familiar to you, to show you that that what is a splendid language to the German, if turned literally word for word into the English would make nonsense. Here is an example "Do you see that barn? Will you go that barn around?' Or as the father said to his son, "Fritzie, run the stairs up, and look the window out." Any one who has studied language to any extent whatever, ought to know that it is absurd to translate the idiom of a language literally.
Just a remark here from the grammar by Dr. Blass which says something about the Hebrew idioms found in New Testament Greek:
"The national Hebrew or Aramaic element influenced Greek-writing Jews in a threefold manner. In the first place it is probable that the speaker or writer quite involuntarily and unconsciously rendered a phrase from his mother tongue by an accurately corresponding phrase; again, that the reading and hearing of the Old Testament in the Greek version coloured the writer's style, especially if he desired to write in a solemn and dignified manner. Third and last, a great part of the N.T. writings (the three first Gospels and the first half of the Acts) is in all probability a direct working over of Hebrew or Aramaic materials. This was not a translation like that executed by the LXX rendered word for word with the utmost fidelity, and almost without any regard to intelligibility; but it was convenient to adhere to the originals even in expression instead of looking for a form of expression which was good Greek." "Grammar of New Testament Greek." p. 4.
The foregoing quotation points out the fact that both by the influence of LXX and by translations not influenced by the LXX, but nevertheless as literal as the LXX, a good many Hebraisms were put into the New Testament Greek.
But the question which astonishes us most of all is, why did the Revisers avoid this fault in other places but used it with a serious effect in the two N.T. passages I have handled in the last few pages, touching the coming of Jesus Christ; therefore, I must quote again the citation I gave on this point in my book, from one of the Revisers. G. Vance Smith, a Reviser, says:
"This idea of the Second Coming ought now to be passed by as a merely temporary incident of early Christian belief. Like many another error, it has answered its transitory purpose in the providential plan, and may well, at length, be left to rest in peace." "Bible and Theology", p. 281.
Dr. Hort held practically the same view; so did Westcott. How could a body of Revisers among whom haziness and confusion marked their idea of the second coming of Christ do differently than to change strong passages on that subject into their own way of thinking. As a matter of fact they did, and I for one, decline to accept the false theology of their unwarranted translation.
Rev. 1:7 On wailing because of Him or over Him.
King James; "He cometh with clouds.... and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of Him."
Revised: "He cometh with the clouds..., and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn over Him."
Since Bishop Westcott, dominant Reviser, stated, as I quoted him in my book to state, that the change from "shall wail because of him" in the AV to "shall mourn over Him" in the Revised, was intended to express penitential sorrow, I think he knew more than my Reviewers do what this change was intended for.
My Reviewers talk much over the different uses of the preposition in the Greek in order to explain away the damaging force of Bishop Westcott's testimony.
Moreover, as I have already pointed out, the majority of the members of this N. T. Revision Committee believed in the Larger Hope or Universal Salvation. The arguments by my Reviewers are no protection against the damaging meaning which can be secured at once by the common people from Revised rendings.
Again the plea is here produced that if this text opens the way to fall into false doctrine, the true doctrine is safe-guarded by other scriptures. Such a plea has been made so often in this document in defense of the very questionable translations of the Revisers, we wonder how many passages the Revisers can transfer over on to the side of false doctrine and still leave us a Bible capable of defending the Third Angel's message. The Reviewers argue that if the whole wall has not been thrown down you must not be alarmed because there are many breaches in the wall. The very fact that many other scriptures do teach a certain thing makes it the more evident that any other single scripture should agree with the many, especially when numerous MSS and versions so testify. I am glad that my Reviewers wish that the King James rendering had been retained. Nevertheless they think there is no danger, because, other scriptures take care of the doctrine by giving the opposite view. Are you ready to accept such reasoning?
Acts 3:19,20 On times of refreshing.
King James: "Repent ye therefore, and be converted that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; and he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you."
Revised: "Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that so there may come seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord; and that he may send the Christ who hath been appointed for you, even Jesus."
We now take up that famous passage, Acts 3:19, concerning the blotting out of sins, the times of refreshing, the sending of Jesus, and the restitution of all things. On this my Reviewers say, "This passage is an outstanding example of the help to the Bible student in a more accurate rendering of the original language." It is neither necessarily an accurate rendering of the Greek, nor is it a common sense adjustment to the internal evidence both in this passage and in the Bible as a whole; nor is it in harmony with the Spirit of Prophecy. We will first pay attention to the grammar which is the battlehorse of my Reviewers, and to the quotation they take from the Greek grammar of Dr. A.T. Robertson, a devoted follower of Westcott and Hort, and a member of the present Revision Committee which is now sitting to revise the ARV.
Will my hearers notice in this passage that there are three "thats" in the Revised against one in the Authorized. The Authorized says "that", "where", and "and"; but the Revised says "that", "that so", and "that". The argument turns on the little word "an" in Greek which follows the word Hopos after the expression "that your sins may be blotted out." Now the question arises, are our sins blotted out in order to bring the times of refreshing, or are our sins blotted out when the times of refreshing come. It depends whether the expression Hopos an means purpose (in order that) or means time (when). The quotation from Dr. Robertson, given by my Reviewers, claims, in substance, that purpose and not time is intended here. The view of this scholar accords here with the Catholic and modernistic view that this text means that as soon as we repent our sins are blotted out. On the other hand I will bring in opposition to this rendering, four famous Greek scholars, Beza, Castalio, Erasmus Schmid, Eckermann and others mentioned by Dr. Myers in his "Commentary on the New Testament,"...on this text... who consider that the expression Hopos an is a particle of time and equals "when". Even Winer, the great idol of the Reviewers, deserts them in this place. He says, "When the final particle, Hopos is joined with an it indicates a purpose, the possibility of attainment of which is still doubtful; or the attainment of which is viewed as depending upon circumstances.", "Grammar," p. 389. (Emphasis mine)
In a foot-note Winer quotes from another authority to say,
"When the final sentence expresses an eventual conclusion, i.e. one in which an additional hypothesis is virtually contained, we may subjoin an to Hopos or Hopos; thus... in order that you may, as by going there you will, etc., Compare Jelf 810, Green p. 169."
Winer gives (Latin phrases); examples of rendering as does Meyers to indicate the use in a rendering of this kind so that this passage we would say:
"Repent and be converted thatsoever, or whensover, the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord."
Thus it will be seen that we have outstanding Greek grammarians to support the Authorized rendering "when".
The internal evidence also forbids the rendering given key the Revised Version. Peter brings before us four great events, not national nor international, but inter-stellar or inter-planetary, if you please:
1. The blotting of our sins
2. The times of refreshing
3. The sending of Jesus
4. The restitution of all things.
Not one of these events comes repetitively to each individual at different times; they each indicate a great universal event, overtaking all concerned at one time. This is the Adventist's view; the other is the Catholic or modernistic view.
In my book I quoted from Dr. Roberts, a member of the Revision Committee who said that they changed the rendering of the Authorized for "eschatological reasons"; that is, for reasons springing from their view of the events at the end. He considered this change most important. I put this in my book but it made no impression upon my Reviewers. Now in hopes that I may make an impression, I will quote from Dr. Westcott what he says about this change:
"And the time of the fulfillment of the council of God depends on human effort: 'Repent and turn again' is St. Peter's plea to the Jews, 'that your sins may be blotted out, that so there may come season... of refreshing from the presence of the Lord.' (Acts 3:19). Here the horizon of Faith is immeasurably extended. The immediate forgiveness of the sins of believers is shown to have a wider influence than on their own salvation. 'Seasons of refreshing' are placed in dependence on their personal faith." "Some lessons" pp. 191, 192. (Emphasis mine)
Adventists believe nothing of the sort. They believe that the prophetic times of refreshing depend upon the plan of God and not upon our personal faith.
What does the Spirit of Prophecy have to say about this? My Reviewers claim that the times of refreshing come either at the coming of Christ or following personal repentance or forgiveness, or both; at least that construction is possible to their wording and punctuation. The Spirit of Prophecy places it at neither of these times, but immediately prior to the close of probation. I quote from "Great Controversy," pp. 611, 612:
"The prophecies which were fulfilled in the outpouring of the former rain at the opening of the gospel, are again to be fulfilled in the latter rain at its close. Here are 'the times of refreshing' (to which the apostle Peter looked forward when he said) 'Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come form the presence of the Lord; and He shall send Jesus."'
Notice also here that the Spirit of Prophecy used the AV. In the two pages of (the) Great Controversy which follow, Sister White points out that this time of refreshing brings in the final converts just before the close of probation. Apparently my Reviewers disagree with the Spirit of Prophecy on this point.
Rev. 22:14. On the robes and commandment. See answer Chapter VI
Acts 13:42. On the Sabbath of the Jews. See answer Chapter VI.
Mark 7:19 On Clean foods.
King James; "Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out in the draught, purging all meats?"
Revised; "Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught? This he said, making all meats clean."
In a strained effort to make "purging all meats" in the AV mean the same as "This he said, making all meats clean", my Reviewers tell us that by leaving out the supplied words, "this he said", the two readings have exactly the same meaning. But the supplied words are already there. What business had the Revisers to supply these words? Wither they mean something, or they mean nothing. If they mean nothing the Revisers are unworthy of having any confidence put in them, to take such liberties with the scripture. And if they mean anything, they cause the Lord Jesus to be the agent here of making all meats clean. They cause him to break down the ceremonial distinctions between meats as given in Leviticus. This interpretation was given to it by Origen anciently, and is followed by some modern commentators. When the Revised Version says, "This he said, making all meats clean", it makes a statement of fact that is no fact. No such idea can be taken from the original. It makes the Lord Jesus the author of a law which the Saviour never ordered. This is serious.
My Reviewers say that I endeavor to make it appear that the Lord was dealing here with the distinction between animal meats. Why do they misrepresent me? It is very strange that any reader of my book should get such an idea. I never said a word about the Lord Jesus doing that. I said that this is the interpretation injected into the scripture by the Revised Version. Their mistranslation where is what makes it appear that the Lord Jesus was breaking down the distinction between the clean and unclean meats.
I feel that I cannot leave this case without summoning my Reviewers to a reckoning. They say, "By strange reasoning the author endeavors to make it appear that the Lord Jesus was here dealing with the distinction between animal meats..." I challenge them to produce one scintilla of evidence that I put forth any such endeavor. How do my Reviewers expect to get away with such statements as this? Over and over again they make such random charges against me, charges without foundation, do they expect that people will believe they are so, simply because they say so? I gave a strong quotation from Dr. Milligan, who proves that the Revisers intended to do the very same thing which I pointed out that they did do. My Reviewers find only one fact, bearing on the point from Dr. Milligan, and that is that the "little Change in one Greek letter makes possible the connecting of the phrase 'making all meats-clean' directly with the Lord Jesus as speaker..." Precisely, this little point is not so little as my Reviewers make it. It is the crux of the whole matter. If the participle, "purging" is changed from a neuter construction, referring to the process of the body, to a masculine construction, referring to the Lord Jesus, by the changing of the vowel, then Christ becomes the agent of changing, by law, a thing which he never yet changed in nature. This is impossible; this is unscientific.
The examination of the above passage, in the light of my Reviewers remarks, confirms more than ever that the Revisers intended a change of doctrine.
Luke 23:44, 45 On the darkening of the sun.
King James: "And there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. And the sun was darkened."
Revised: "A darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour, the sun's light failing."
Moffatt: "And darkness covered the whole land until three o'clock, owing to an eclipse of the sun."
Concerning the darkness which overspread the land at the time of the crucifixion, we will now take up the astounding change from the King James, which says, "and the sun was darkened" to the ARV which says, "the sun's light failing." I called attention to the great difference in the Greek words used. The Revised Version used eklipontos from which we get our word eclipse. The AV used an entirely different word. My Reviewers demand, "What difference can there really be between the sun's failing to shine as usual, and the sun's being darkened?" That is not the point at all. The Greek word in the ARV says that the sun underwent an eclipse. I will now quote from Field says:
"In answer to a remark of the Quarterly Reviewers (No. CCIV. p. 343): 'In like manner tou eliou ekleipontos, as our Revisionists are perfectly well aware, means, "the sun becoming eclipsed," or "suffering an eclipse,"' the Two Revisers 9, p.60) reply: 'we emphatically deny that there is anything in the Greek word ekleipein when associated with the sun which involves necessarily the notion of an eclipse.' This is a most rash assertion. There can be no doubt that the phrases ekelipen o elios... whenever they occur in the Greek historians, necessarily describe the phenomenon of an astronomical eclipse and nothing else. If, therefore, St. Luke really wrote tou eliou ekleipontos and his Greek is to be construed like that of any other Greek author, it can only be by rendering, 'the sun being eclipsed', and the version adopted by the revisers, 'the sun's light failing,' does NOT convey to the mind of an English reader what the original does to that of a Greek." "Notes on the translation of the N.T." pp. 79, 80.
Now let us hear from Salmon:
"I will not lay over-much stress on such cases... as the WH make St. Mark say... that the girl who danced before Herod, was not, as Josephus and other authorities tell us, the daughter of Herodias, by a former husband, but Herod's own daughter, Herodias; that it makes St. Luke call the miraculous darkness at the crucifixion an eclipse of the sun, a thing impossible at the time of full moon." "Some Criticism of the Text of the N.T." pp. 27, 28. (Emphasis mine)
"Luke 23:45. After this it is but a minor, though in itself a serious matter, that the Revised Version should make St. Luke relate a physical impossibility, an eclipse of the sun at the full moon."
"This, is, however, somewhat disguised in the English rendering, which gives as 'the sun's light failing', a phrase which, perplexing as it is to the English reader, might leave him unconscious of the meaning, even with the marginal comment, Gr. 'the sun failing', but which in the Greek, which is rendered thus oddly is without ambiguity, 'the sun undergoing an eclipse.' This is effected by substituting tou eliop ekleipontos for eskotisthe o elios."
"Observe also that the Revised Version goes somewhat further then Westcott and Hort. They give the other reading in their margin. The Revised Version implies that it is the true and only Greek rendering."
"For the alteration the responsibility lies with Aleph, B, and L (C is marked by Tischendorf as doubtful), and some few cursives, against all other MSS., nine uncial, nearly all cursives, the best Italic MSS, the Vulgate, the Syraic of Cureton, and others, followed by Tregelles." "Revised Version of the First Three Gospels." pp. 110, 111.
From Burgon we read:
"In the meantime, with more of ingenuity than of ingeniousness, our Revisionists attempt to conceal the foolishness of the text of their choice by translating unfairly. They present us with, 'the sun's light failing.' This is a gloss of their own. There is no mention of 'the sun's light' in the Greek. Nor perhaps, if the rationale of the original expression were accurately ascertained, would such a paraphrase of it prove correct. But, in fact, the phrase ekleipsis eliou means 'an eclipse of the sun,' and no other thing. In like manner tou eliou ekleipontos (as our Revisionists are perfectly well aware) means 'the sun becoming eclipsed,' or 'suffering eclipse.' It is easy for Revisionists to emphatically deny that there is anything in the Greek word ekleipein, when associated with the sun, which involves necessarily the notion of an eclipse. The fact referred to may not be so disposed of. It lies outside the province of 'emphatic denial.' Let them ask any Scholar in Europe what tou eliou ekleipentos means; and see if he does not tell them that it can only mean, 'the sun having become eclipsed'! They know this every bit as well as their Reviewer. And they ought either to have had the manliness to render the words faithfully, or else the good sense to let the Greek alone, which they are respectfully assured was their only proper course." "The Revised Version," pp. 64, 65.
And then from Beckett:
"The Revisers knew better than to give us an eclipse at full moon, though the MS man, like not a few modern people, forget the impossibility, or the technical meaning of that Greek phrase; and so they ride over their own Greek with the flat and dull evasion of 'the sun's light failing'! Which is the most likely, that Luke the physician, the best educated of the Evangelists, apart from inspiration, should record a solar eclipse at full moon, or a MS copier make a blunder in attempting an improvement? The revisers are pleased to say the former; and expect the world to agree with them, but I hardly think it will: or on hundreds, if not thousands, of their other bringings up of the AV 'to a-full standard of correction' both of Greek and English." "Revised N.T." p. 47.
These quotations from outstanding scholars show you how that Greek text used by the Revisers required that the Revisers translate "eclipse" and that they dodged the issue. Finally, what does the Spirit of Prophecy say on this?
"With amazement angels witnessed the Saviour's despairing agony. The hosts of heaven veiled their faces from the fearful sight. Inanimate nature expressed sympathy with its insulted and dying Author. The sun refused to look upon the awful scene. Its full, bright rays were illuminating the earth at midday, when suddenly it seemed to be blotted out. Complete darkness, like a funeral pall, enveloped the cross. 'There was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour.' There was no eclipse or other natural cause for this darkness, which was as deep as midnight without moon or stars. It was a miraculous testimony given by God that the faith of after generations might be confirmed." "Desire of Ages", p. 753. (Emphasis mine)
Here as usual in these crucial passages the Spirit of Prophecy takes its stand with the AV.
Mark 16:9-20 On the ascension
Here is a portion of Scripture where the handling is most serious. My Reviewers take me to task because I object to the Revisers setting off the last 12 verses of Mark's gospel to one side, as suspicious. My Reviewers wonder what justice can be found in my saying that this either indicts the church of past ages as a poor keeper and teacher of Holy Writ, or indicts the Revisers as exercising an extreme and unwarrantable license. They say, "from the viewpoint of the MSS." How many MSS?
How do my Reviewers answer the note in the margin of the ARV? It reads: "The two oldest Greek MSS, and some other authorities, omit from verse 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a different ending to the gospel." They ask if I would have the Revisers cover up the truth, or is it more fair to Biblical students to know the truth concerning this passage.
My Reviewers call the Revisers' treatment of this question, "Fair"; fair to what? Fair to God; fair to the truth; fair to the believers, or fair to what? What are the other authorities which omit verses 9 to the end according to the Revisers? Of course we know which are the two oldest Greek manuscripts meant, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Which MSS gave the other ending? What is the other ending? Who are the authorities who support the present ending? Please tell us. Which of the three endings to Mark's gospel is the one to get our vote, (1) The ending before us; (2) the other ending supported by other authorities or (3) the ending which does not exist?- What kind of verses 9-20 shall we tack on to the first eight verses of Mark 16, (1) the twelve verses that we now have here; or (2) the unknown 12 verses referred to by the Revisers in the margin or (3) no verses at all?
The Spirit of Prophecy gives 45 references to the last twelve verses of Mark as we now have them in the King James Version. Does this have any weight with us in deciding whether the 16th chapter of Mark as in the King James Version is God's word, or are the uncertainties of the Revised Version God's word? My Reviewers called the Revisers' treatment of the last twelve verses of Mark, "FAIR". Is it fair to God's word to us to publish in it the good, bad and indifferent, casting doubt upon the good? Do you call it fair treatment of God's word when a doubt on a portion of it is published in the margin? Why did not the Revisers introduce the Bible with a "fair" note, saying, "Much of this Bible is different in different manuscripts; we cannot be sure of much of it." Is not that fair? This is just what the higher critics did to the Old Testament.
Where is there a scripture on which there has been no doubting commentator? Why not be fair? Why not publish a Bible with a big margin and be fair by giving in it all that doubting commentators have found wrong with that passage? Fair! Fair to what? Fair to God, fair to the truth, fair to the saints, or fair to the corruptors of God's word?
But I have something more to say on this. My Reviewers say, (Section III, 11-17), "But it is a fact that in Westcott and Hort's own Greek Testament they include verses 9-20 along with the rest of the chapter without any question in a footnote or elsewhere." I would like to ask my Reviewers where did they get this information? I would like to ask my Reviewers why did they not read the select notes by Hort at the end of the second volume of the WH Greek N.T.? If they had, they would have seen that Hort devotes 21 pages to the condemnation of these last 12 verses. Here are two statements he makes in these select notes:
"Its authorship and its precise date must remain unknown; it is however apparently older than the time when the Canonical Gospels were generally received; for, though it has points of contact with them all, it contains no attempt to harmonize their various representations of the course of events. I manifestly cannot claim any apostolic authority; but it is doubtless founded on some tradition of the apostolic age." "The New Testament in Greek", Vol. II, Note p.51.
Also in the Greek text itself these verses are closed in brackets. Their statement here is untrue to fact. Do my Reviewers call 21 pages of condemnation on the inclusion of the verses, "Without any question in a footnote or elsewhere"?
Finally, I want to ask my Reviewers if it is really their best judgment that the evidence against verses 9-20 was sufficient to justify the Revisers in casting doubt upon their authenticity by the way they handle them? Do they really endorse such treatment of the Word of God?
Matt. 17:21 On fasting.
In answering the charge that the whole verse, Matt. 17:21 has been left out in the Revised Version, my Reviewers pass it up by calling attention to the margin of the ARV. They have fastened their eyes on only one word in the omitted verse, the word "fasting"; then calling our attention to Mark 9:29 and 1.Cor.7:5, that these two verses omit' "fasting", they make some statements which could easily be misleading. They say: "An examination of the MSS shows that ten of them, including all of the major ones omit the word 'fasting' here, while only three secondary ones retain it."
Well that might answer for the two references alluded to following the main text under discussion, but it does not answer the main argument.
It still remains unanswered. The truth of the matter is only two uncials omit Matt. 17:21, namely, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, (See Expositor's Greek New Testament, Matt. 17:21) Then my Reviewers ask, "What should the translator do in such a case?" Of course, if the blind follow the blind and the blind fall into a ditch, you might just as well ask the same question, what was the translator to do in such a case? I think we all should see the point and decline as blind, to follow the blind.
This verse is vouched for by every known uncial but 2, every known cursive but 1, and is witnessed to by 8 ancient versions, by 14 of the fathers and above all, by the Universal East. Why then was it left out? (See Burgon, pp. 91,92)
John 8:1-11 On the woman taken in adultery.
I certainly must insist again on the fact that the ARV sets off to one side and brands with suspicion, the account of the woman taken in adultery, John 8:1-11. My Reviewers claim that it is not set off to one side because it is written in full, though enclosed in brackets. I wonder what setting off to one side is, if putting 11 verses in brackets with a big gulf in between them and the rest of the text, and a note in the margin branding them with suspicion does not do it. Nevertheless, modern textual critics condemn this rejection of John 8:1-11. Professor Burkett says:
"The passage in the Gospel of John concerning the woman taken in adultery was one of the regular church lessons. Jerome found it in many Latin and Greek codices, and preserved it in his Vulgate. It is found in 1,650 codices. It seems difficult to account for such a blunder of omission.'" "Bibliotheca Sacra," pp. 32,33.
Sister White uses and refers to this case no less than 12 times; but my Reviewers say that "Westcott and Hort in their Greek Testament place this passage in the list of both suspected and rejected readings," and "scholars must deal with facts as they find them in the best evidence available." Will my hearers agree that Westcott and Hort are the best evidence available over and against the Spirit of Prophecy?
Luke 9:55,56 On another abbreviation.
King James: "But He turned and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy man's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village."
Revised: "But He turned and rebuked them. And then went to another village."
My Reviewers defend the omission in Luke 9:55,56 of these words, "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them". Their defense is "for lack of textus evidence". Dean Burgon, on this verse, says, "Manuscripts, Versions, Fathers from the second century downwards, (as Tischendorf admits,) witness eloquently in its favour."
Sister White quotes it:
"They were surprised to see that Jesus was pained by their words, and still more surprised as His rebuke fell upon their ears: "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.'" "Acts of the Apostles," p. 541.
It is marvelous how accurately Erasmus put together the sum total of the Textus Receptus, when after 400 years of most furious attacks we find that verses which a host of people following textual critics left out, must be restored by later and more thorough research.
Acts 8:37 on Philip and the eunuch
My Reviewers justify the omission of this verse because besides the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, they have the help of six other MSS, but above all, they think they have the help of Dr. Scrivener. On the other hand, Sister White gives this verse fully, as follows:
"Then Philip . . . began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Vol. 8, p.58.
Here as in many places elsewhere the Spirit of Prophecy shows that the Revised version in not the true, complete, authoritative word of God by quoting a text which the Revised omits as spurious. Other verses she quotes from the Authorized Version, which though included in the Revised, are so treated as to cast doubt upon their authenticity.
Eph. 5:30 On His flesh and His bones.
King James: "For we are members of his body, of His flesh, and of His bones."
Revised: "Because we are members of His body;"
Because I noticed that the AV says, "we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones" while the ARV says only, "we are members of His body my Reviewers wonder how this effects the meaning, and virtually tell us that the Lord did not need to add "and of his flesh, and of His bones ". An atheist protested to me once about putting in Revelation 7, all the names of the twelve tribes of Israel in a repetitive fashion, when one general summary would have done. But a close study reveals glorious truths in the Lord's doing it this way. I hold that there is a vast difference between saying, "We are members of His body", and saying "We are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones". In the change in this text doctrine is affected.
It is peculiar that my Reviewers do not use here this generally used argument on textual attestation. They use a theological argument to sustain them in the cutting down of this verse. On the genuineness of these words Burgon and Miller say:
"Yet are the words genuine. They are found in DFGKLP and the whole body of the cursives; in the Old Latin and Vulgate and the two Syriac Versions:" and then they name many Fathers.
Thus by theological arguments sometimes, mainly by an appeal to the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus MSS, (which are sometimes supported by a few other authorities), verses of Holy Writ, which for 400 years have led the great Protestant world forward in magnificent triumph, are cut down. Brethren, I appeal to you, if we start on this road, where will it end?
Rev. 13:10 On captivity
King James: "He that leadeth into captivity, shall go into captivity."
ARV: "If any man is for captivity, into captivity he goeth."
I claim that the ARV had changed it from a prophecy to an axiomatic statement and in the margin put a black mark against it. My Reviewers completely passed over this damaging evidence. "A straight line is the shortest distance between two points" is axiomatic; so is, "if any man is for captivity, into captivity he goeth." Well, I am not for captivity, who is? Thus a glorious prophecy of the papacy going into captivity is changed into an axiomatic statement. Since Rev. 13:10 is a verse Adventist preachers greatly use in their sermons on the United States in Prophecy, would you like to know what is said of it in the margin? The margin brands it this way: "The Greek text in this verse is somewhat uncertain." Do you call this enlightening? Sister White did not think it was uncertain. She quoted the verse entire in "Great Controversy" page 439, just as it is in the King James Version. Does this not mean anything to us as Seventh-day Adventists?
Blow After Blow in Favor of Rome
John 1:3,4 On Creation
My Reviewers agree with me, I see, that the marginal reading which I brought to notice here is unjustifiable. How many unjustifiable records must be written on the eternal pages, either in the text or in the margin, before my Reviewers will recognize that any part of the Revised Version is unjustifiable which threatens the standing of the Authorized. They inform us that this dangerous piece of Gnosticism was not taken from the Vaticanus or Sinaiticus, a fact which my reviewers bring into relief. Right here I might say that those authorities of first rank in the field of textual criticism, who have been shocked over the changes in the Revised Version, long recognized that when the Revisers failed to secure from the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, unjustifiable phrases which lent themselves to their theological bent of mind, then they used another manuscript. This is but another indication of the Gnosticism of the Revisers.
1.Cor.11:29 On the Sacraments.
My Reviewers admit, at least they do not oppose the conclusion I advanced that the omission of the two words "unworthily" and "Lord" would turn this verse into an Anti-Protestant verse, if the same words were not found in verse 27. In other words, they offer again their oft-repeated argument, that because expressions are found once, there is no great danger if they are struck out in other instances. They failed to mention that the chief witnesses for these omissions are B and Aleph; two other of the manuscripts justify the King James. I reject the theory of my Reviewers that because a truth occurs in some other scripture, it makes little or no difference whether we leave it in the particular scripture under consideration.
James 5:16 On faults and sins.
The Revised Version made a serious change here when it told us to "confess therefore your sins to one another" instead of "Confess your faults one to another." The first reason given by the Reviewers for this change is that "the testimony of the best MSS requires the change." The truth of the matter is, that the change is found in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, supported by two other uncials, three Old Latin MSS and one cursive; with an overwhelming host of MSS witnessing on the other side. Of course they can justify any of these startling changes on their assumption that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the best MSS.
Then they launch into a discussion about the change from the Greek word paraptoma for faults in the AV, to the Greek word harmartia for sins in the Revised Version. Consider what a serious change this is. The Greek word for sin in the Revised, is the same word found in 1.John 3:4, which in the AV reads:
"Whosoever committeth sin trangresseth also the law; for sin is the transgression of the law."
(Right here to show how the Revised has weakened the force of our standard definition for sin in 1.John 3:4, I give how it reads in the Revised:
"Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness."
SIN, hamartia, is the trangression of the law. It is the same word used for "the man of sin" (2.Thess.2:3) in the Textus Receptus.
This word for sin, hamartia, is translated in the AV 171 out of 172 times as "sin"; only once as offense. This shows that the word is so serious that "offense" is not the underlying idea. Whereas, paraptoma the new Greek word displayed by the ARV is used 23 times and translated "sin" only 3 times, 20 times as "trespasses", and "faults", and NEVER "sin as in the meaning of hamartia. John said, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive our sins..." Did Jesus here mean that we should confess our sins one to another? Absolutely not. We might tell to one another our sins asking for prayer, but never to confess one to another for forgiveness. For as Dean Alford says on this text:
"It might appear astonishing, were it not notorious, that on this passage among others, is built the Romish doctrine of the necessity of confessing sins to a priest." "Greek Testament." Vol. IV, p. 328.
Therefore, with centuries behind us showing the danger of this change, the Revisers took upon themselves considerable liberty to change "faults" to "sins" in James 5:16. One by one the rings which hang the curtains of the sanctuary have been removed until the curtains hang dangerously near to fall. And yet my Reviewers are trying to defend these changes. They do not seem to see the danger in this verse. But Dean Alford saw it, and others outside of Seventh-day Adventists see it, and my Reviewers ought to see it. Are we going to surrender the very gospel to Rome rather than relinquish the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus?
What has the Spirit of Prophecy to say on this? From "Ministry of Healing" pages 228,229:
"The Scripture bids us, 'Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed! To the one asking for prayer, let thoughts like these be presented: 'We cannot read the heart, or know the secrets of your life. These are known only to yourself and to God. If you repent of your sins, it is your duty to make confession of them.' Sin of a private character is to be confessed to Christ, the only mediator between God and man... Every sin is an offense against God, and is to be confessed to Him through Christ."
My Reviewers ask, "What bearing does the interpretation of the Catholic Dublin Review have on the translation"? I wonder if my Reviewers will accept the authority of Sister White on this point. She says:
"Confess your sins to God, who only can forgive them, and your faults to one another." "Testimonies", Vol. V, p. 539. (Emphasis mine)
This is the very position I take in my book. My Reviewers took exception to it.
Thus we see Sister White endorses the reading as in the AV. Sister White uses sixteen other references in the Spirit of Prophecy, all throwing the weight on the side of the AV.
Does this mean anything to us? Do we not here again see the Spirit of Prophecy lined up on the side of the AV; while on the other side the Reviewers, the Revisers, and Rheims of 1582 stand together?
Hebrews 10:21 On the Priesthood.
In the translating of this text the Revisers have nowhere else more clearly shown their inferiority to the translators of the Authorized Version, in the handling of the Greek, than here. In defending the Revisers, my Reviewers say, "Undoubtedly." This is my Reviewers opinion. I expect to give you something more than an opinion, something more in the old Testament than simply Zechariah 6:11.
The expression "house of God" as found in this text is used only one other time outside of the Gospels in the New Testament, and that is in 1.Tim 3:15 where this "house of God" is distinctly said to be the church. It is used in the Gospels in connection with only one incident, referring to the temple. Likewise the Greek word, megan for "high" referring to the high priest is used nowhere else in the New Testament with the word "priest". Is it not remarkable that two exceptional expressions, used nowhere else in combination in the New Testament, come together in this verse? The Protestant scholars of 1611 saw that Jesus Christ in this verse was more emphatically referred to as "high" priest, than in any other verse in the New Testament.
In other words, all through the Greek Old Testament, the word used for "high" in referring to the high priest, was not the Greek word "arch" which is generally used in the New Testament, but another Greek word "mega". Thus, by not translating "megan" as "high", is obscured this direct reference to our Lord as the antitype of the Jewish high priest. In the 20 references in the Old Testament, where the word "high priest" is used, the Septuagint translators always used the word "mega"! Therefore, if there was any verse at all in the New Testament in which the Greek word going with priest should distinctively have been translated "high", it is in this verse. Why did the Revisers not do it? There are two reasons which I now offer.
First, the scholars on the Revision committee of 1871-1881 were deficient in their knowledge of the Septuagint, or of the Greek Old Testament. As Dean Burgon says, speaking of these same men:
"One is surprised to discover that among so many respectable Divines there seems to have been one sufficiently familiar with the Septuagint to preserve his brethren from perpetually falling into such mistakes as the foregoing. We really had no idea that the Hellenistic scholarship of those who represented the Church and the sects in the Jerusalem Chamber, was so inconsiderable." "Revision Revised", pp. 183,184.
The second reason is that this verse, Hebrews 10:21, is a rare verse in the New Testament. It is composed of two rare expressions. The first is "the house of God" which is used outside of the Gospels only twice in the New Testament; once here, and once before, where it is defined as the church of the Living God. (1.Tim.3:15) The second, is that the word for "high" here, as in the Authorized Version, is never used elsewhere in the New Testament for "high priest". The other Greek word "arch" the "chief" priest, is more generally used, and is also more often used for other priests than the high priest. But the word megan in the verse under consideration could never be used for other priests than the high priest, therefore it is a special word. So the Revisers of 1881 saw that to put the high priest over the church (house of God) would point to Jesus only. Here was a good chance to put a "great priest" and not a "high priest" over the church. Since Dr. Hort, dominating Reviser, constantly and persistently complained of Protestants' horror of priesthood, here was a good chance to give the church "the house of God", a human priest whom they would call great. Dr. Hort wrote to Westcott,
"But this last error can hardly be expelled until Protestants unlearn the crazy horror of priesthood." "Life of Hort". Vol. II, p. 51. (Emphasis mine)
My Reviewers have acknowledged (Section III, Chapter 12, page 8) that the Revisers did color the translation of Revelation 13:8 to the upholding of their theological views, and the Revisers have likewise, as well as the Reviewers confessed the same thing. Now if they did it once, why should they not do it here? In other words, the oft, repeated claim that the Revisers were true to the original Greek in its rendering, is not so.
Acts 15:23 On the Clergy and the Laity.
See my answer to this Section VI, Chapter 6, p. 12.
Hebrews 9:27 On the judgment.
My Reviewers defend the omission of the article "the" from Heb.9:27, making the passage read "after this cometh judgment" instead of as in the AV, "But after this, the judgment." And this in spite of the quotation I gave from Canon Farrar, who points out that the change in the Revised opened the way for the great doctrine of the "intermediate state". It will not answer for my Reviewers to make light of this statement by Canon Farrar. The Canon was a member of the Apostles Club, an organization in Cambridge University, frequented by the Revisers, who were members thereof, so that Canon Farrar was well aware of the principles believed by these men; for they discussed them at the Club.
On this verse in the Greek, Dr. Middleton, who is an authority on the Greek article, having written a book under the title, says of the omission of the Greek articles:
"Verse 27, Krisis. This word, though used of the final judgment, very properly wants the Greek Article in this place; the proposition not asserting the notoriety or magnitude of the event, but only that it will happen." "The Greek Article", p. 418.
Another quotation from Sir Edmund Beckett, L.L.D., Q.C.F.R.A.S.
"Heb. 9:27. Here again they go out of their way to destroy a famous and solemn sentence, foisting in a dull prosaic word of their own which does not even profess to have any word for it in the original, and is not the least required. We are no longer to hear 'It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment', but... 'after this (cometh) judgment' evidently because they were determined to expunge 'the' on account of krisis there having no Greek article, as if there could be the smallest doubt that it meant THE judgment; and secondly, I suppose they thought the Authorized Version not grammatical enough for their precision, and did not see, or care, that it is all the more striking for the sudden change and break of the grammar, which is still more common in Greek" "Should the Revised N.T. be Authorized" pp. 138,139.
It is surprising how the Reviewers can defend in this text, it's rendering as being literal when the Revisers have supplied the word "cometh". My Reviewers try to defend this liberty taken by the Revisers on the ground that it is "to ease reading". What startling changes could not translators make if they were allowed to operate under this excuse. There is only one judgment which comes to men after death, and it is the general. Of course the Catholics and Romanizers teach that there is an individual judgment coming by repetition to each man at the death of each. In the blessed words of inspiration, freighted as they are with immortal importance what right had the Revisers here to omit the word which would designate this judgment as THE judgment, the judgment par excellence, the general judgment, and take an unwarranted liberty to supply another word which would sustain their purpose. What is this but to change doctrine?
John 14:2 On Mansions. Author's Title:
The Larger Hope - Another Chance After Death
It is evident that the Revisers saw in these "mansions", as they say in their margin, "abiding places" or stations on the road in the intermediate state, if my Reviewers did not. Read the quotations in my book from Bishop Westcott and Mr. Cox. These prove that the Revisers intended to breathe their doctrine into the margin, whether my Reviewers get it out of the margin or not.
Luke 1:72 On Mercy to our Father.
Probably in no other passage in the New Testament did the translators of 1611 show their splendid skill, delicate touch, and strong arrangement in translating, as they did in handling Luke 1:72. To effect this result the AV supplies the word "promised" which my Reviewers condemn, regardless of the great results achieved, forgetting how often the Revisers supplied words, not only effecting disastrous results, but sometimes to change God's immortal doctrines.
My Reviewers say of me, "He lauds the AV for putting into the text a word that is not there, and then wanders off into a digression on limbo and purgatory". I do not like that, "he wanders off". The fact of the matter is, I am not the originator of the purgatory exposition for this text in the Revised; I have no less an authority than the Catholic Bishop of Erie PA., who shows plainly that the Revised version is so like the Jesuit New Testament of 1582, that the Catholic doctrine has been restored. The Catholic Bishop says:
"For the text was one which, if rendered literally, no one could read without being convinced, or at least suspecting, that the 'fathers' already dead needed 'mercy'; and that 'the Lord God of Israel' was prepared 'to perform' it to them. But where were those fathers? Not in heaven, where mercy is swallowed up in joy. And assuredly not in the hell of the damned, where mercy could not reach them. They must therefore have been in a place between both, or neither the one or the other. What? In Limbo or Purgatory? Why, certainly. In one or the other." "Mullen, Canon," p. 332.
Will it lessen the indictment of the Revised Version to say that I was wandering off into digression, when I used statements made by Catholic scholars affirming the change in their favor by the Revised? Are you going to brush aside and ignore as evidence, the exultation of Catholic scholars, that the Revised Version has helped in restoring to Scriptural authority Catholic doctrines, which cannot be sustained by the Authorized Version?
My Reviewers and the Revisers make three mistakes here. In the first place, the Revised Version, as usual in the crucial cases I have been handling, does not agree with the context. Dr. Field has truly said of the Revised Version, it neglects the great testimony of Internal Evidence. Let us notice the triple alignment of these verses here and as found in the words of Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist. I quote Luke 1:70-73.
"70. As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:
71. That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
72. To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant."
Thus Zacharias brings into relief three if not four of God's promises made in the past: A - What he predicted by the mouth of his holy prophets: B - His holy covenant which was to be remembered; C - the oath which he aware to our father Abraham. All these going before and after, proclaim that it was mercy promised. Therefore the AV rightly inserted the word promised. But to make assurance doubly sure, notice that Mary also covered the same ground in her beautiful hymn that follows! Luke 1:54,55.
"54. He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his his mercy;
55. As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever."
Thus the words of Mary in the same chapter definitely show that the subject under consideration was mercy promised to the fathers who long since were dead. This makes all the distinction in the world. It makes a great difference whether God is to show to us, their children, the mercy promised to the fathers; or to perform mercy not to us, but to the dead fathers. The argument is complete. The scholars of 1611 clearly saw through these two triple chains of statements and translated the verse so true to divine utterances that the doctrine of purgatory was shut out. Whereas the Revisers, most all of whom believed in purgatory, either failed to see the evidence, or did not wish to see the evidence plainly manifest as to what should be the right translation, and so left the verse open, as the Catholic Bishop says, to teach the doctrine of purgatory.
As to the second mistake of the Revisers, is there any one who can defend them, when here they translate the Greek verb poieo, meaning "to do," as, "to show", when the commonest knowledge of Greek teaches that this verb means "to do" or "to perform". What was their motive in so translating it?
The third mistake of the Revisers was substituting in the translation "toward" for "to". What is the difference between the King James translation "to perform the mercy promised to our fathers" and that of the Revised "to show mercy towards our fathers"? What is the use of stretching your imagination to understand it as in the Revised when you have it clearly in the AV, the difference is that the thought is clearly expressed in the AV while the ARV throws us back into the arms of the Jesuit Bible of 1582. Here again we need the King James Version to protect us from the Romish tendencies of the Revised. Here again my Reviewers criticize the King James for its righteous principles and approve the ARV for its unwarranted translation which favors Rome. Is not this a change of doctrine?
Job 26:5 On the Shades
My Reviewers, when they seek to defend the spiritualistic translation of the ARV in Job 26:5, in my humble judgment, say just nothing at all.
They say that the only difference between the two verses is that the subject of the AV is "dead things", while the subject of the ARV is "They that are deceased", which they would let us believe mean the same thing. Pardon me. We are not talking about the subject of the sentence; please notice that we are talking about the predicate. Why did not my Reviewers notice that this is the point between the two renderings in the text. It makes a vast difference whether dead things "are formed under the waters" as in the AV, or whether they that are deceased "tremble beneath the waters", as in the ARV. But I have another point at issue here. The margin of the ARV substitutes the expression "the shades" for "they that are deceased" in the text. Let me read you from the International Dictionary, the definition of the word "shade":
"Shade, the soul after its separation from the body; so called because the ancients supposed it to be perceptible to the sight, though not to the touch; spirit; ghost; 'the shades', the nether world; Hades, supposed by the ancients to be the abode of disembodied spirits."
I ask my hearers to judge fairly if the margin, as well as the text, of the ARV does not give us a spiritualistic rendering. Is not this a change of doctrine?
But I have still a further point at issue with my Reviewers in this matter. They want to know what bearing has the comment of a Reviser on this matter, who plainly told us that the Revised Version changed this text so as to give "a vivid reference to God's control over departed spirits". I would answer that it indicates that some of the Revisers had a spiritualistic mentality.
2.Peter 2:9 On Punishment.
I am very glad to notice that my Reviewers have acknowledged that I was right in my objection to the Revised for its inacceptable translation of 2.Peter 2:9. This teaches the doctrine of Purgatory and I am happy that my Reviewers agree with me in saying that this text was colored by the theology of the Revisers. The Reviewers here rightly acknowledge, what they should always acknowledge that the context must be taken into consideration.
Rev.13:8 On Names in the Book of Life.
Here again my Reviewers admit that I have found a just ground for my complaint against the inacceptable translation of Rev.13:8. However, let it not be forgotten that I plainly pointed out that this text was the battleground for decades between the Jesuits and the Reformers. The Jesuits claimed in their day, a translation such as now appears in the ARV, because they knew it favored their doctrine. On the other hand, the Reformers contested this translation every step of the way. Do you think that the Revisers translated it wrong here, in view of these facts, am I not right in claiming that they translated it to suit their own doctrine, which was practically a Jesuitical doctrine? It is not fair for my Reviewers to claim that I said the Revisers rendered this passage in order to side with the Jesuits. I claim then as I claim now, that their doctrine was similar.
Rev.13:18 On the number of the Beast.
We now come to the all important question of the number of the Beast, or the number of his name. Five times in the book of Revelation, this all-important expression "the number of his name" is brought to our attention, but only once are we told the number. Moreover serious consequences hang upon our knowing what that number is. We are to drink of the wine of the wrath of God, if we have it; if we got the victory over it, we are to stand on the sea of glass. How important it is then, that that information be correct. Yes, and more than correct, it must not be confusing or contradictory. 'Consider then with how great a shock it comes to find that the margin of the Revised Version reads "616", and to us who for 300 years have been led to believe that the number was "666", and that only.
Yet my Reviewers dismiss the whole problem with a toss of the hand, saying, "On the whole, however, we need not be disturbed by the harmless marginal note." I protest against this effort to convert one of the most shocking deeds committed by the ARV, into a mere matter of no importance. Shall one of the most precious portions of inspired Revelation be cut down before our eyes, on the pretext that nothing great has happened.
I do not need to go further than this point here, to declare that the world at large, and our people in particular, need same pamphlet or book about safe and dangerous translations in order to protect them from just such dangers as this.
Five times divine Revelation solicits us to learn the number of the Beast. It is important then that we rightly locate this great apostatizing system, whose name we are solemnly warned to discover with God's help. We shall then learn that its name is the name of blasphemy. We shall arise astonished, and have a commission appointed to publish that the Beast has a name unlike any other name in the world. But to locate, to discover, to learn that name, we must know the number of it. We go to the Revised Version to obtain this coveted information, and alas! We discover that the beast has two numbers. Whither shall we turn in our confusion and distress?
Which of the two numbers is correct, 666 or 616? They both cannot be correct. Am I to understand that down through the ages, God was not able to protect the right number, and to transmit to me one marked with certainty? If He did, then what business had the Revisers to throw it into confusion and uncertainty? I reject with indignation their marginal reading. And unless they have some "preponderating evidence", as their appointing body charged them to have, to justify this other number of the Beast, I charge them with high-handed adding to the sacred word of God.
I gave in my book, a quotation from Dean Burgon on this deed of the Revisers. It was correct; it showed the seriousness to the saints of the change; it uttered a grave indictment against the Revisers. My Reviewers acknowledged the correctness of Dean Burgon's conclusion. But that was all. Why did they fail to tell us also of the seriousness of the Dean's facts and of the gravity of his indictment? In order that my audience may hear all, I will produce again the quotation of Dean Burgon. Kindly note that the Dean recognized the margin, "616", as an "alternative reading" and protested against it, my Reviewers to the contrary notwithstanding. To prove that it is an "alternative reading", Burgon uses the Reviser's Preface, describing "alternative readings". Why did my Reviewers seek to make of it a "harmless marginal note"? Dean Burgon said:
"But why is not the whole truth told? viz., why are we not informed that only one corrupt uncial (C): - only one cursive copy (11): - only one Father (Tichonius): and not one ancient Version - advocates this reading? which, on the contrary, Irenaeus (A.D. 170) knew, but rejected: remarking that 666, which is 'found in all the best and oldest copies and is attested by men who saw John face to face,' is unquestionably the true reading. Why is not the ordinary reader further informed that the same number (666) is expressly vouched for by Origen, Hippolytus, by Eusebius: as well as by Victorinus and Primasius, not to mention Andreas and Arethas? To come to the moderns, as a matter of fact, the established reading is accepted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, even by Westcott and Hort. WHY therefore for what possible reason at the end 1700 years and upwards, is this which is, so clearly nothing else but an ancient slip of the pen, to be forced upon the attention of 90 millions of English speaking people?"
"Will Bishop Ellicott and his friends venture to tell us that it has been done because 'it would not be safe to accept' 666, 'to the absolute exclusion of ' 616?... 'we have given alternative readings in the margin,' (say they) 'whereever they seem to be of sufficient importance or interest to deserve notice.' Will they venture to claim either 'interest' or 'importance' for THIS?
Or pretend that it is an 'alternative reading' at all? Has it been rescued from oblivion and paraded before universal Christendom in order to perplex, mystify, and discourage 'those that have understanding,' and would fain 'count the number of the beast,' if they were able? Or was the intention only to insinuate one more wretched doubt, one more miserable suspicion into minds which have been taught (and rightly) to place absolute reliance in the textual accuracy of all the gravest utterances of the SPIRIT; minds which are utterly incapable of dealing with the subtleties of Textual Criticism; and, from a one-sided statement like the present, will carry away none but entirely mistaken inferences, and the most unreasonable distrust? ...Or, lastly, was it only because, in their opinion, the margin of every Englishman's N.T. is the fittest place for reviving the memory of obsolete blunders, and ventilating forgotten perversions of the Truth?...To really pause for an answer." Burgon, "Revision Revised", pp. 135,137
You have been listening to this ringing, serious utterance of Dean Burgon on the number "616". Shall we seek to tone down the seriousness? My Reviewers call it a 'harmless marginal note'. Is a doubt about the number of the name of the Beast a harmless thing? Dean Burgon did not so regard it, yet he was only a critic of manuscripts. He was not an Adventist; he was not facing the Beast and the number of his name in the last great conflict as we are. We have a thousand reasons to make this substitute marginal reading a more serious matter than he did.
The forces in the world, working in favor of the Beast seek earnestly to blur all the identification marks which will fasten upon the Roman Catholic Church her identity with the Beast of the Bible. This substitute number "616" in the ARV blurs the number "666". God has branded the Beast with the number 666. Did the Revisers seek to put another brand upon it? To Adventists further argument is superfluous.
Authorized and Revised Differ Profoundly.
To show how misleading is the statement that there is no great difference between Versions, I will give two quotations from the 28 pages which Dr. Schaff devotes to his estimate of Luther's Version, Vol. V, of his "History of the Christian Church";
"A Roman Catholic version must be closely conformed to the Latin Vulgate, which the Council of Trent puts on an equal footing with the original text. A Protestant version is bound only by the original text, and breathes an air of freedom from traditional restraint. The Roman Church will never use Luther's Version or King James version, and could not do so without endangering her creed; nor will German Protestants use Enser's and Eck's Versions, or English Protestants, the Douay Version." p. 365.
"It (the Anglo-American Revision) involves a reconstruction of the original text, which the German Revision leaves almost untouched, as if all the pains-taking labors of critics since the days of Bengel and Griesbach down to Lachmann and Tischendorf (not to speak of the equally important labors of English scholars from Mill and Bently to Westcott and Hort) had been in vain.
"As to translation, the English Revision removes not only misleading errors, but corrects the far more numerous inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the-minor details of grammar and vocabulary; while the German Revision of the New Testament numbers only about two hundred changes, the Anglo-American thirty-six thousand." p. 367
Even though Germany was the home of destructive higher criticism, her Revisers never dared, because of the people, to take the shocking liberties with the German Revision that Westcott and Hort, followed by Schaff, did with the Anglo-American revisions.
Matt. 2:15 On being called out of Egypt.
My Reviewers committed an error in their endeavor to answer the claims of my book respecting the change in Matt. 2:15. I took this change as typical of hundreds of others. Farrar, Milligan, Westcott, Vaughn, and other writers acknowledge that the entire meaning of hundreds of texts in the New Testament relating to Old Testament prophecies have been changed.
One of the instruments of this change is the new rule for handling the tense form, the "aorist". I note that my Reviewers' definition of this tense form is that it "is employed to denote the simple occurrence of an act in past time, without indicating whether the act is instantaneous, progressive, or in a completed state." This definition would give a great deal of latitude in translating the aorist, then why did they not abide by it? Evidently my Reviewers do not agree with the Revisers in their understanding of the aorist. Neither do I.
My Reviewers seek to interpret Dean Farrar's comment as giving "added light in the study of the Scriptures", and criticize me for indicating that those changes were extensive and revolutionary. They failed to notice the remark from Dean Farrar, quoted on page 209 in my book, where he says,
"The Revisers help, as they have done in so many other places, silently to remove deep seated errors."
If this is not extensive and revolutionary, then please tell, me what is extensive and revolutionary. Please note the word, "silently".
1.Cor.15:3,4 On Tense change affecting Great Crises of Christian Life.
My Reviewers seek to parry the indictment that the Revisers change tense forms so as to throw the meaning of the great crises in Christian life, towards the teachings of Rome. But did I not (1) quote Dean Farrar when he truly claims that the Revisers' change of tense form did change the meaning of the crises in Christian life; (2) and did I not quote Westcott, and other Revisers, that they sought to permeate Christendom with their conception of doctrines whose meaning to them was neither Presbyterian or Episcopalian, but whose meaning I showed to be Romish? I wish now to give a quotation from one of the learned nobility of England to the effect that the Apostles never made such distinction of tense forms as both the Reviewers and the Revisers claim they did. I now quote from Lord Edmund Beckett:
"The same may be said about the modern rules for construing aorists and perfect tenses, to which are due another multitude of alterations. Such rules are probably right enough generally (in the sense of usually), so far that there is a presumption in favor of observing them, but certainly no more, as we shall see continually. And as all such rules can only be a matter of induction from experience in the books to which they are intended to be applied, and cannot be deduced from any axioms or necessary truths, as in mathematics, the assertion that any such rule is universal is at once refuted by finding that it would sometimes produce absurd or manifestly wrong results...The English speaking people of the world want the English Bible to express the full and substantial meaning of the writers of the original in the best way, and not in the way that is used to test school boys; knowledge of the parsing of every word. It is nothing to us whether Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, Jude and the uncertain writer of Hebrews, all mind their aorists and articles, participles, and particles, as good scholars may expect them to have done, but as it is clear that they did not; because we find it sometimes makes nonsense or confusion to assume that they did." Beckett, "Revised N.T." pp. 14,15.
My Reviewers emphasize the fact that the Greek verb here is in the present perfect passive form. Well what of it? It is used intransitively here, and when so used can be translated to awake, to arise, which is not passive. (See Robinson's Greek and English Lexicon, p. 218.) If then, it could be translated the way it now is in the King James Version, and so fits in with the two other verbs, why did they not do it? Why did they not leave it alone as it was in the AV, and in there correctly? Why make the change, I repeat? Dean Farrar revealed that it was in this very verse THAT they made the change to minimise the death of Christ, and to magnify his resurrection, which is the doctrine of triumvirate. Westcott, Hort and Lightfoot, who had fully determined ten years before Revision began to find expressions to their convictions. Rome and Romanizers also minimize the death and magnify the resurrection of Christ. Such a belief strikes both at the Atonement and at the seventh day Sabbath, bringing in Sunday.
Matt. 27:46 A gain on the Tense Forms
Here again Sister White agrees with the Authorized Version. Christ was dying when he cried out, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" She says:
"No eye could pierce the gloom that surrounded the cross, and none could penetrate the deeper gloom that enshrouded the suffering soul of Christ. The angry lightenings seemed to be hurled at Him as He hung upon the cross. Then 'Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying Eloi, Eloi, lama Sabachthani?' 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken Me?'... The spotless Son of God hung upon the cross, His flesh lacerated with stripes...Amid the awful darkness, apparently forsaken of God, Christ had drained the last dregs in the cup of human woe." "Desire of Ages". pp. 754-756.
The ARV margin says, "Why didst thou forsake me". This would mean that God has forsaken him for a moment in the past, but now as Christ was speaking God had returned to him. In other words, the Revisers would seem to teach that Christ's death was not accompanied by terrible sufferings and therefore that our redemption came not so much by His sufferings and death. As I will show in handling my next text, the change in the Revised Version was to teach that thought.
The Revisers in their doctrines, minimized the death of Christ, but magnified His incarnation and His resurrection. They used their "self-imposed rules" to bring this about. Did they have a purpose in it?
My Reviewers feel constrained to ask this question, "Does the author want it to appear that the apparent forsaking of Christ by the Father at the time of His agony should be supreme and continuous in effect?" No ! I said nothing of the kind. I said that evidently the Revisers thought, that they feared, that the AV made the death of Christ too strong. This fear is a Catholic fear. Protestants make the death of Christ the supreme act of the Atonement. Romanists and Romanizers minimize the act. Sr. White says: "In consequence of limited ideas of the sufferings of Christ, many place a low estimate upon the great work of the Atonement." Vol. II, p. 200.
I protest against the weakening of this doctrine whether it is in the text, or in the margin. Bishop Westcott teaches this weakening, as I showed in my book, using this passage as his evidence. Evidently at the Revision table he failed to get it into the text, but succeeded in putting it into the margin.
1.Cor.11:24 The Jesuitical Doctrines of the Sacraments Favored by the Revised.
Reviewers justify the omission of "take eat" in this text because these words ARE found in Matt. 26:26. Then they justify the omission of "broken" because they are NOT found in Matt., Mark, Luke. In other words I am justified in having an account of $1,000.00 in the Takoma Park Bank, because I have a similar account of $1,000.00 in the Riggs Bank in the City. Then I am justified in having another account of $500.00 in the Takoma Park Bank because I DO NOT have an account of $500.00 in the Riggs Bank. What kind of reasoning is that? What has Riggs Bank to do with Takoma Park Bank? Why does not each case stand on its own merits? Especially when they use the argument both ways.
The problem here which I present was the omission of the word "broken". This omission permits the ritualistic Protestants, to enforce their argument for sacramental salvation. I presented the quotation from Dr. Milligan who said very distinctly:
"The doctrine of the Sacraments may next engage our attention, and here again the variations in the renderings of familiar texts, though they may not appear at first of great importance, involve far-reaching truths.. .The Bread that is the body of Christ, recalls more particularly His incarnation apart from His sufferings." Milligan, "Expository Value." 120, 122.
The author of the above quotation, as well as the Revisers, who for ten years or more were in steady contact with this problem, and who knew much more than my Reviewers what happened, have no hesitation on declaring that if the changes made in the Revision were important on other subjects, with regard to the doctrine of the sacraments, they "involve far reaching truths".
As power lay in the locks of Samson, so in the doctrine of Sacramental Salvation lay the power of Rome. Especially is this true of the sacrament, the mass. Through this she commands to her priests to rule the spirits of men. Through this she buys the choicest lands, erects magnificent buildings, and orders kings to put their neck under her foot on penalty of losing their crowns.
Only one help existed to keep the people from this awful tyranny - that is the Bible. Yet it is from the bible that Rome claims to secure her authority for her doctrine of the sacraments. How important then that we have the correct words of Gad in those four accounts of how Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper.
But would you be surprised to learn that the Revised Version could not keep its hands off any one of these four accounts? Would it interest you to know that it changed either in the text or in the margin each one of these accounts? The change is not serious, to be sure, in some instances, as in other. Nevertheless, each change is Romeward. It changed the account in 1.Cor.11 in five places. It changed in three places (text and margin) the account in Luke. It changed in two places, the account in Mark, and in Matthew it changed the account in one place, 11 changes in all.
Consider how serious this is. The whole Christina Protestant world is drifting toward Rome. Brethren, do you want also to see our bible so doctored up that it also is drifting towards Rome? Once our good old Protestant Bible spake out in clear definite utterances; it gave the trumpet a certain sound. Do you want to see it speak with stammering lips and faltering tones? "Oh! the manuscripts, the manuscripts," they say. What manuscripts? Why a certain few, especially the one in the Vatican, which they choose by their own arguments to call ancient, to the exclusion of 3,000 or more other MSS which are against them and which we believe carry a Bible more ancient, more true and more apostolic than those MSS which are Catholic, not simply because the Catholics possess them, but because Rome needs them, uses them, and relies on them.
This word "broken" found in the text under consideration in the AV, but omitted in the RV is a barrier in the way of new theology touching on the Lord's Supper and on the Person of Christ. Romanists and Romanizing Protestants claim that, in the Lord's Supper, the sufferings of Christ are represented in the cup only. The bread should not be "broken" as that represents the incarnation, apart from Christ's sufferings. We are redeemed, they teach, not by the death and sufferings of Christ, but by his being made flesh and thus raising humanity from condemnation to fellowship with God.
When the priest puts the wafer on the tongue, when the Protestant ritualist gives the communicant the bread, Christ is (they claim) really and truly present. They partake of the Person of Christ. The church then is instilled with heavenly life. The church now becomes the body of Christ. This heavenly life, this light permeates the church and in the light of it we rate the Scriptures. In fact the impartation of this life puts the church above the Bible and salvation is acquired by the sacrament. The wafer must be whole not "broken" so certain MSS omit the word "broken". Emphasis must not be placed upon "Take, eat", but upon "this is my body." Therefore, certain MSS omit the words, "take, eat."
Why should this information be withheld from the public? When I seek to show the background of the theology of the Revisers and how that would interest them to favor these eleven (11) changes in the four accounts of the Lord's Supper, my Reviewers make a few general statements, which I consider have no bearing on the problems, as sufficient reason why I should not expose the modernistic, ritualistic doctrine of "The Person of Christ" the chief inspiration of ritualists and Romanizers today.
One of the eleven changes favors the Catholic doctrine of Communion in one kind. The good old Protestant doctrine of Communion in two kinds points to the atoning death of Christ in both the wine and the bread; but communion in one kind points to the wine only as representing the blood of Christ, while the wafer points, not to His death, but to His incarnation. Thus step by step, the later changes in the Bible, whether based on the Greek text, or the English text, or the English margin, favor the drift towards Romanism.
THE ACID TEST
My Reviewers say; "The author has utterly failed in the acid test of proving his contention by the results actually seen in the Revised translations submitted in evidence." (Conclusion, p. 1).
My Reviewers seem pressed in spirit to single out certain propositions upon which they make stand or fall my book. Thus (Section I, p.13) they say: "The decisive consideration is "whether the Itala originated in N. Africa or not; and again, (Section I, p. 17) they make bold to declare: "when this claim (i.e. that the Waldenses had a pure text Bible, the foundation of the Textus Receptus, etc.) is overthrown, the very foundation of the book under review is removed." Finally, they chose to make the discussion over the bible passages compared in Chapters 6, 11 and 12 of my book, "the acid test".
They charge me (Section III, pp. 2,3) with:
I. Ignoring the context; II. Disregarding parallel texts; III. Alternative readings in the margin; IV. Criticizing the marginal reading; V. Criticizing the Literal Reading; VI. Disregarding Greek forms; VII. Disregarding Greek MSS; VIII. Looseness of reasoning and assertion; and place opposite to each of the charges the example which they choose to consider as having, because of their treatment of those examples, supported those charges.
However, I have conclusively exposed their false reasoning on practically every one of the texts. Therefore, the charges based upon them, fall and their acid test vanishes. Likewise their eight pages of summary of scripture texts are answered. Manuscripts, authorities, history, and the Spirit of Prophecy are against them.
They especially charge me (Section III-Chapter 6, p.3) with using quotations from questionable sources and of questionable kind. To the arguments used and the four (4) examples cited I reply: Since a Catholic of the most dangerous type, Cardinal Newman, was invited to sit with the Revisers; Since a Unitarian was of member of the Committee; Since Revisers of Gnostic tendencies, and Protestants of faulty theological tendencies were in abundance on all Revision Committees, I had a right to quote these all. Moreover, since quotations of fact from the ranks of enemies constitute the highest kind of evidence, I had a right to quote authorities from the class mentioned. Of the four examples given, three refer to the "Dublin Review", of which Cardinal Newman was sometimes editor, and the fourth is from the renowned Canon Farrar, always closely associated with the Revisers. Pray tell us what is questionable about these authorities?
[previous chapter] [book - index] [next chapter]
In some chapters certain text portions appear colored.
This feature is not part of the paperback available from
the publisher Leaves of Autmn but was added for
internet viewers to emphasize important facts.