The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-07-27
Cur Contributors.
The Revised Version of the
New Testament.
BY REV. H. c. ALEXANDER, D. D..


particularly has reference to the tert.
The committee sets out with the aver
ment that revision of the Greek text
was the necessary foundation of their
work. The discussion of this statement
falls under the head of one of our re-
served questions. The next averment is,
that it did not fall within the province
of the committee to construct continu-
GUS and complete Greek text. This pro-
position will not be disputed and is, in
deed, incontrovertible. In many cases
the question of the text did not need to
be raised at all. These were cases where
the English was judged to represent Ger
rectly either one of two competing read
ings in the Greek original The body of
deviating readings Chat is deviating from
those supposed to underlle the Author
lied Version) will hereafter be printed
by the University presses in connexion
with complete Greek texts of the New
Testament.
On the assumption that the committee
was to revise the text we have nothing
material to advance in opposition to the
principles of textual criticism adopted as
laid down in the Preface to the Revision,
and as so admirably expounded and de-
tended by DIR. Roberts in his Companion.
The rule was imperative (and it could
not be bettered) "to follow the authority
of documentary evidence without defer
ence to any printed text of modern times,
and therefore to employ the best re-
sources of criticism for estimating the
value of evidence" The delicacy, the
difficulty, the Importance of these inves-
LEGATIONS are fully recognized by the COM
mittee. Textual criticism, like other
special sciences, can only be satisfactorily
dealt with at the hands (using the term
somewhat generously of special experts.
But any one possessing the requisite quail
iications can make himself an expert, and
it is precisely in this way that such men
as Tregelles and Scriyener came to be, in
preeminant sense, experts.
The committee also makes full recog-
milton of the existence and beneficial in
huence of different, and to some extent
rival, schools of criticism, even after dis
counting the value of schools that proceed
on basis that is manifestly erroneous.
The principal difference now that sepa-
rates one critic, or school of criticism,
from another, at least as it seems to your
correspondent, is not difference as to
the Importance to be attached to ancient
as distinguished from modern evidence,
or even as to the value of the ancient
documents considered as uncorrupted
witnesses to the ancient text; nor does
it relate to the general correctness Of the
practical working rules, in the form Of
maxims involving subjective critical iudg-
ments, which are used 10 aid in the re-
covery, or determination, of the ipSiSsimo
Oerbo Of the inspired oracles. On all
these matters there is, and with a few
important exceptions there has always
been, substantial agreement. Critics from
the beginning have insisted on the para
mount authority Of ancient evidence
Any other attitude in the premises would
be absurd. The only question that has
divided them on this point has been the
question as TO documents, which were to
be relied on in preference to others, those
of comparatively ancient or those of a
comparatively modern period, as in gen.
eral containing the most ancient testi-
mony to what was anciently regarded as
the genuine text The earlier critics
from Erasmus down, with the exception
of Wetstein, Matthaci, Sholtz, and few
others Of less note, together with certain
theologians and commentators who, how.
ever distinguished in other fields, were
not experts in this business did not diff
fer one iota even on this last head from
the most "stalwart" critics of our own
day-in other words agreed with them
in the conviction that in general the an.
Gent documents are the most trustwor.
thy vouchers for the ancient readings
The only difference as to this matter
between Erasmus, Stunica, Stephanus
Pa1o 81 H. Wy