What Version Authorised Or Revised

35 1. The commonest of all mistakes in copying manuscripts, or in repeating a matter, are mistakes of omission, or lapses of memory, or the results of inattention. Hence it is an accepted principle of evidence that the testimony of one competent witness, who says he saw or heard a certain thing, carries more weight than that of a dozen who, though on the spot, can only say that they did not see or hear it, or that they do not remember it. Therefore, other things being equal, the affirmative evidence of the other three ancient Codices and Versions, and that of the “fathers” who quote those verses as unquestioned Scripture, is an hundred fold more worthy of credence than the negative testimony of the two which were allowed to control in settling the text of the R. V. 2. As we have already stated, a superstitious deference was paid to the Sinai and Vatican Mss. Because of their (supposed) greater antiquity, the assumption being that the older the Ms. the more likely is it to be correct.

But that assumption is wholly unwarrantable. In the concrete case before us, we have, in support of the Text of the A. V., the concurrent testimony of many manuscripts, from many different parts of the world; and though these were copies of older copies no longer in existence, yet, upon the soundest principles of the law of evidence, their concurrent testimony serves to establish conclusively the various disputed pas sages, where the two ancient Codices present variances.

The question of the authenticity of the last twelve verses of the Gospel by Mark is of such importance that we propose to cite the testimony in regard thereto more fully in a subsequent chapter. We are referring to it here only as an impressive illustration of a general principle. That principle (the causes of errors of omission) is of exceptional importance in this case because, as we have seen, the original scribe of the Sinaitic Codex was peculiarly given to errors of that sort.

A Test of the Principle of “Ancient Evidence” Let us take an illustration of what we are here seeking to establish, namely, that the concur rent testimony of the manuscripts which sup port the Received Text conclusively establish its authenticity in parts where it differs from the *’New Greek Text” of Westcott and Hort. For this purpose let us suppose that a hundred copies of a certain original document in a central business office were made by different copyists and sent to as many different branch-offices in various parts of the world; and suppose that, since the document contained directions for the carrying on of the business for many generations, it had to be copied again and again as the individual Mss. Were worn out through usage. Suppose further that, after centuries of