rselves. For it must not be
forgotten that we had an eminent colleague (absent only eight times from
our 407 meetings) who took a very different view of the critical evidence
to that of Westcott and Hort, and never failed very fully, and often very
persuasively, to express it. I am of course alluding to my old friend
Dr. Scrivener. It was often a kind of critical duel between Dr. Hort and
Dr. Scrivener, in which everything that could be urged on either side was
placed before the Company, and the Company enabled to decide on a full
knowledge of the critical facts and reasonings in reference to the
reading under consideration.
Now it is also not correct to say of the Company that finally decided the
question, that more than half "had given no special attention to the
subject." If this refers to the matter _subsequently_ put forward by Dr.
Hort in the introductory volume to Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament,
to the clever and instructive genealogical method, and to the numberless
applications of it that have given their Greek Testament the pre-eminence
it deservedly holds--if this be the meaning of the Provost's estimate of
the critical knowledge of the Company, I should not have taken any
exception to the words. But if "the subject" refers to the general
critical knowledge at the time when the Company came together, then I
must gently protest against an estimate of the general critical
capabilities of the Company that is, really and truly, incorrect. All
but three or four are now resting with God, and among these twenty they
were not few who had a good and full knowledge of the New Testament
textual criticism of the generation that had just passed away. Among
them were not only the three experts whom I have mentioned, but editors
of portions of the New Testament such as Bishop Lightfoot and others,
principals of large educational colleges both in England and Scotland,
and scholars like Dean Scott, who were known to take great interest in
questions of textual criticism. A few of these might almost be
considered as definitely experts, but all taken together certainly made a
very competent body to whose independent judgement the settlement of
difficult critical questions could be safely committed.
And, as I venture to think, the text which has been constructed from
their decisions, their resultant text as it might be called, will show
that the Revisers' text is an independent text on which great reliance
can be
|