The Revision Revised.
Three Articles
Reprinted From The “Quarterly Review.”
I. The New Greek Text.
II. The New English Version.
III. Westcott and Hort’s New Textual Theory.
To Which is Added A
Reply to Bishop Ellicott’s Pamphlet
In Defence Of
The Revisers and Their Greek Text of the New Testament:
Including a Vindication of the Traditional Reading of 1 Timothy III. 16.
By John William Burgon, B.D.
Dean of Chichester.
“Little children,—Keep yourselves from idols.”—1 John v. 21.
Dover Publications, Inc.
New York
1971
CONTENTS
Dedication.
Preface.
Article I. The New Greek Text.
Article II. The New English Version.
Article III. Westcott And Hort’s New Textual Theory.
Letter To Bishop Ellicott, In Reply To His Pamphlet.
Appendix Of Sacred Codices.
Index I, of Texts of Scripture,—quoted, discussed, or only referred to in
this volume.
Index II, of Fathers.
Index III, Persons, Places, and Subjects.
Footnotes
[Transcriber’s Note: This book contains much Greek text, which will not be
well-rendered in plain text versions of this E-book. Also, there is much
use of Greek characters with a vertical bar across the tops of the letters
to indicate abbreviations; because the coding system used in this e-book
does not have such an “overline”, they are rendered here with underlines.
It also contains some text in Syriac, which is written right-to-left; for
the sake of different transcription methods, it is transcribed here in
both right-to-left and left-to-rights, so that regardless of the medium of
this E-book, one or the other should be readable.]
The following is PREBENDARY SCRIVENER’S recently published estimate of the
System on which DRS. WESTCOTT AND HORT have constructed their “_Revised
Greek Text of the New Testament_” (1881).—That System, the Chairman of the
Revising Body (BISHOP ELLICOTT) has entirely adopted (see below, pp. 391
to 397), and made the basis of his Defence of THE REVISERS and their “_New
Greek Text._”
(1.) “There is little hope for the stability of their imposing
structure, if _its foundations have been laid on the sandy ground
of ingenious conjecture_. And, since barely the smallest vestige
of historical evidence has ever been alleged in support of the
views of these accomplished Editors, their teaching must either be
received as intuitively true, or _dismissed from our consideration
as precarious and even visionary_.”
(2.) “DR. HORT’S System _is entirely destitute of historical
foundation_.”
(3.) “We are compelled to repeat as emphatically as ever our
strong conviction that the Hypothesis to whose proof he has
devoted so many laborious years, _is destitute not only of
historical foundation, but of all probability, resulting from the
internal goodness of the Text which its adoption would force upon
us_.”
(4.) “ ‘We cannot doubt’ (says DR. HORT) ‘that S. Luke xxiii. 34
comes from an extraneous source.’ [_Notes_, p. 68.]—_Nor can we,
on our part, doubt_,” (rejoins DR. SCRIVENER,) “_that the System
which entails such consequences is hopelessly self-condemned_.”
SCRIVENER’S “Plain Introduction,” &c. [ed. 1883]: pp. 531, 537, 542, 604.
DEDICATION.
To The
Right Hon. Viscount Cranbrook, G.C.S.I.,
&c., &c., &c.
MY DEAR LORD CRANBROOK,
_Allow me the gratification of dedicating the present Volume to yourself;
but for whom—(I reserve the explanation for another day)—it would never
have been written._
_This is not, (as you will perceive at a glance,) the Treatise which a few
years ago I told you I had in hand; and which, but for the present
hindrance, might by this time have been completed. It has however_ grown
out _of that other work in the manner explained at the beginning of my
Preface. Moreover it contains not a few specimens of the argumentation of
which the work in question, when at last it sees the light, will be
discovered to be full._
_My one object has been to defeat the mischievous attempt which was made
in 1881 to thrust upon this Church and Realm a Revision of the Sacred
Text, which—recommended though it be by eminent names—I am thoroughly
convinced, and am able to prove, is untrustworthy from beginning to end._
_The reason is plain. It has been constructed throughout on an utterly
erroneous hypothesis. And I inscribe this Volume to you, my friend, as a
conspicuous member of that body of faithful and learned Laity by whose
deliberate verdict, when the whole of the evidence has been produced and
the case has been fully argued out, I shall be quite willing that my
contention may stand or fall._
_The_ English _(as well as the Greek) of the newly __“__Revised
Version__”__ is hopelessly at fault. It is to me simply unintelligible how
a company of Scholars can have spent ten years in elaborating such a very
unsatisfactory production. Their uncouth phraseology and their jerky
sentences, their pedantic obscurity and their unidiomatic English,
contrast painfully with __“__the happy turns of expression, the music of
the cadences, the felicities of the rhythm__”__ of our Authorized Version.
The transition from one to the other, as the Bishop of Lincoln remarks, is
like exchanging a well-built carriage for a vehicle without springs, in
which you get jolted to death on a newly-mended and rarely-traversed road.
But the __“__Revised Version__”__ is inaccurate as well; exhibits
defective scholarship, I mean, in countless places._
_It is, however, the_ systematic depravation of the underlying Greek
_which does so grievously offend me: for this is nothing else but a
poisoning of the River of Life at its sacred source. Our Revisers, (with
the best and purest intentions, no doubt,) stand convicted of having
deliberately rejected the words of __ Inspiration in every page, and of
having substituted for them fabricated Readings which the Church has long
since refused to acknowledge, or else has rejected with abhorrence; and
which only survive at this time in a little handful of documents of the
most depraved type._
_As Critics they have had abundant warning. Twelve years ago (1871) a
volume appeared on_ the “last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S.
Mark,”—_of which the declared object was to vindicate those Verses against
certain critical objectors, and to establish them by an exhaustive
argumentative process. Up to this hour, for a very obvious reason, no
answer to that volume has been attempted. And yet, at the end of ten years
(1881),—not only in the Revised English but also in the volume which
professes to exhibit the underlying Greek, (which at least is
indefensible,)—the Revisers are observed to separate off those Twelve
precious Verses from their context, in token that they are no part of the
genuine Gospel. Such a deliberate preference of_ “mumpsimus” _to_
“sumpsimus” _is by no means calculated to conciliate favour, or even to
win respect. The Revisers have in fact been the dupes of an ingenious
Theorist, concerning whose extraordinary views you are invited to read
what Dr. Scrivener has recently put forth. The words of the last-named
writer (who is_ facile princeps _in Textual Criticism) will be found
facing the beginning of the present Dedication._
_If, therefore, any do complain that I have sometimes hit my opponents
rather hard, I take leave to point out that __“__to everything __ there is
a season, and a time to every purpose under the sun__”__: __“__a time to
embrace, and a time to be far from embracing__”__: a time for speaking
smoothly, and a time for speaking sharply. And that when the words of
Inspiration are seriously imperilled, as now they are, it is scarcely
possible for one who is determined effectually to preserve the Deposit in
its integrity, to hit either too straight or too hard. In handling certain
recent utterances of Bishop Ellicott, I considered throughout that it was
the_ “Textual Critic”—_not the Successor of the Apostles,—with whom I had
to do._
_And thus I commend my Volume, the fruit of many years of incessant
anxious toil, to your indulgence: requesting that you will receive it as a
token of my sincere respect and admiration; and desiring to be remembered,
my dear Lord Cranbrook, as_
_Your grateful and affectionate_
_ Friend and Servant,_
_ John W. Burgon._
DEANERY, CHICHESTER,
All Saints’ Day., 1883.
PREFACE.
The ensuing three Articles from the “Quarterly Review,”—(wrung out of me
by the publication [May 17th, 1881] of the “Revision” of our “Authorized
Version of the New Testament,”)—appear in their present form in compliance
with an amount of continuous solicitation that they should be separately
published, which it would have been alike unreasonable and ungracious to
disregard. I was not prepared for it. It has caused me—as letter after
letter has reached my hands—mixed feelings; has revived all my original
disinclination and regret. For, gratified as I cannot but feel by the
reception my labours have met with,—(and only the Author of my being knows
what an amount of antecedent toil is represented by the ensuing pages,)—I
yet deplore more heartily than I am able to express, the injustice done to
the cause of Truth by handling the subject in this fragmentary way, and by
exhibiting the evidence for what is most certainly true, in such a very
incomplete form. A systematic Treatise is the indispensable condition for
securing cordial assent to the view for which I mainly contend. The
cogency of the argument lies entirely in the cumulative character of the
proof. It requires to be demonstrated by induction from a large collection
of particular instances, as well as by the complex exhibition of many
converging lines of evidence, that the testimony of one small group of
documents, or rather, of one particular manuscript,—(namely the Vatican
Codex B, which, for some unexplained reason, it is just now the fashion to
regard with superstitious deference,)—is the reverse of trustworthy.
Nothing in fact but a considerable Treatise will ever effectually break
the yoke of that iron tyranny to which the excellent Bishop of Gloucester
and Bristol and his colleagues have recently bowed their necks; and are
now for imposing on all English-speaking men. In brief, if I were not, on
the one hand, thoroughly convinced of the strength of my position,—(and I
know it to be absolutely impregnable);—yet more, if on the other hand, I
did not cherish entire confidence in the practical good sense and fairness
of the English mind;—I could not have brought myself to come before the
public in the unsystematic way which alone is possible in the pages of a
Review. I must have waited, at all hazards, till I had finished “my Book.”
But then, delay would have been fatal. I saw plainly that unless a sharp
blow was delivered immediately, the Citadel would be in the enemy’s hands.
I knew also that it was just possible to condense into 60 or 70
closely-printed pages what must _logically_ prove fatal to the “Revision.”
So I set to work; and during the long summer days of 1881 (June to
September) the foremost of these three Articles was elaborated. When the
October number of “the Quarterly” appeared, I comforted myself with the
secret consciousness that enough was by this time on record, even had my
life been suddenly brought to a close, to secure the ultimate rejection of
the “Revision” of 1881. I knew that the “New Greek Text,” (and therefore
the “New English Version”), had received its death-blow. It might for a
few years drag out a maimed existence; eagerly defended by some,—timidly
pleaded for by others. But such efforts could be of no avail. Its days
were already numbered. The effect of more and yet more learned
investigation,—of more elaborate and more extended inquiry,—_must_ be to
convince mankind more and yet more thoroughly that the principles on which
it had been constructed were radically unsound. In the end, when
partisanship had cooled down, and passion had evaporated, and prejudice
had ceased to find an auditory, the “Revision” of 1881 must come to be
universally regarded as—what it most certainly is,—_the most astonishing,
as well as the most calamitous literary blunder of the Age_.
I. I pointed out that “the NEW GREEK TEXT,”—which, in defiance of their
instructions,(1) the Revisionists of “the Authorized English Version” had
been so ill-advised as to spend ten years in elaborating,—was a wholly
untrustworthy performance: was full of the gravest errors from beginning
to end: had been constructed throughout on an entirely mistaken Theory.
Availing myself of the published confession of one of the Revisionists,(2)
I explained the nature of the calamity which had befallen the Revision. I
traced the mischief home to its true authors,—Drs. Westcott and Hort; a
copy of whose unpublished Text of the N. T. (the most vicious in
existence) had been confidentially, and under pledges of the strictest
secrecy, placed in the hands of every member of the revising Body.(3) I
called attention to the fact that, unacquainted with the difficult and
delicate science of Textual Criticism, the Revisionists had, in an evil
hour, surrendered themselves to Dr. Hort’s guidance: had preferred his
counsels to those of Prebendary Scrivener, (an infinitely more trustworthy
guide): and that the work before the public was the piteous—but
_inevitable_—result. All this I explained in the October number of the
“Quarterly Review” for 1881.(4)
II. In thus demonstrating the worthlessness of the “New Greek Text” of the
Revisionists, I considered that I had destroyed the key of their position.
And so perforce I had: for if the underlying Greek Text be mistaken, what
else but incorrect must the English Translation be? But on examining the
so-called “Revision of the Authorized Version,” I speedily made the
further discovery that the Revised English would have been in itself
intolerable, even had the Greek been let alone. In the first place, to my
surprise and annoyance, it proved to be a _New Translation_ (rather than a
Revision of the Old) which had been attempted. Painfully apparent were the
tokens which met me on every side that the Revisionists had been supremely
eager not so much to correct none but “plain and clear errors,”—as to
introduce as many changes into the English of the New Testament Scriptures
as they conveniently could.(5) A skittish impatience of the admirable work
before them, and a strange inability to appreciate its manifold
excellences:—a singular imagination on the part of the promiscuous Company
which met in the Jerusalem Chamber that they were competent to improve the
Authorized Version in every part, and an unaccountable forgetfulness that
the fundamental condition under which the task of Revision had been by
themselves undertaken, was that they should abstain from all but
“_necessary_” changes:—_this_ proved to be only part of the offence which
the Revisionists had committed. It was found that they had erred through
_defective Scholarship_ to an extent, and with a frequency, which to me is
simply inexplicable. I accordingly made it my business to demonstrate all
this in a second Article which appeared in the next (the January) number
of the “Quarterly Review,” and was entitled “THE NEW ENGLISH
TRANSLATION.”(6)
III. Thereupon, a pretence was set up in many quarters, (_but only by the
Revisionists and their friends_,) that all my labour hitherto had been
thrown away, because I had omitted to disprove the principles on which
this “New Greek Text” is founded. I flattered myself indeed that quite
enough had been said to make it logically certain that the underlying
“Textual Theory” _must be_ worthless. But I was not suffered to cherish
this conviction in quiet. It was again and again cast in my teeth that I
had not yet grappled with Drs. Westcott and Hort’s “arguments.” “Instead
of condemning _their Text_, why do you not disprove _their Theory_?” It
was tauntingly insinuated that I knew better than to cross swords with the
two Cambridge Professors. This reduced me to the necessity of either
leaving it to be inferred from my silence that I had found Drs. Westcott
and Hort’s “arguments” unanswerable; or else of coming forward with their
book in my hand, and demonstrating that in their solemn pages an attentive
reader finds himself encountered by nothing but a series of unsupported
assumptions: that their (so called) “Theory” is in reality nothing else
but a weak effort of the Imagination: that the tissue which these
accomplished scholars have been thirty years in elaborating, proves on
inspection to be as flimsy and as worthless as any spider’s web.
I made it my business in consequence to expose, somewhat in detail, (in a
third Article, which appeared in the “Quarterly Review” for April 1882),
the absolute absurdity,—(I use the word advisedly)—of “WESTCOTT AND HORT’S
NEW TEXTUAL THEORY;”(7) and I now respectfully commend those 130 pages to
the attention of candid and unprejudiced readers. It were idle to expect
to convince any others. We have it on good authority (Dr. Westcott’s) that
“he who has long pondered over a train of Reasoning, _becomes unable to
detect its weak points_.”(8) A yet stranger phenomenon is, that those who
have once committed themselves to an erroneous Theory, seem to be
incapable of opening their eyes to the untrustworthiness of the fabric
they have erected, even when it comes down in their sight, like a child’s
house built with playing-cards,—and presents to every eye but their own
the appearance of a shapeless ruin.
§ 1. Two full years have elapsed since the first of these Essays was
published; and my Criticism—for the best of reasons—remains to this hour
unanswered. The public has been assured indeed, (in the course of some
hysterical remarks by Canon Farrar(9)), that “the ‘Quarterly Reviewer’ can
be refuted as fully as he desires as soon as any scholar has the leisure
to answer him.” The “Quarterly Reviewer” can afford to wait,—if the
Revisers can. But they are reminded that it is no answer to one who has
demolished their master’s “Theory,” for the pupils to keep on reproducing
fragments of it; and by their mistakes and exaggerations, to make both
themselves and him, ridiculous.
§ 2. Thus, a writer in the “Church Quarterly” for January 1882, (whose
knowledge of the subject is entirely derived from what Dr. Hort has taught
him,)—being evidently much exercised by the first of my three Articles in
the “Quarterly Review,”—gravely informs the public that “it is useless to
parade such an array of venerable witnesses,” (meaning the enumerations of
Fathers of the IIIrd, IVth, and Vth centuries which are given below, at
pp. 42-4: 80-1: 84: 133: 212-3: 359-60: 421: 423: 486-90:)—“_for they have
absolutely nothing to say which deserves a moment’s hearing_.”(10)—What a
pity it is, (while he was about it), that the learned gentleman did not go
on to explain that the moon is made of green cheese!
§ 3. Dr. Sanday,(11) in a kindred spirit, delivers it as his opinion, that
“the one thing” I lack “is a grasp on the central condition of the
problem:”—that I do “not seem to have the faintest glimmering of the
principle of ‘Genealogy:’ ”—that I am “all at sea:”—that my “heaviest
batteries are discharged at random:”—and a great deal more to the same
effect. The learned Professor is quite welcome to think such things of me,
if he pleases. Οὐ φροντὶς Ἱπποκλείδῃ.
§ 4. At the end of a year, a Reviewer of quite a different calibre made
his appearance in the January number (1883) of the “Church Quarterly:” in
return for whose not very encouraging estimate of my labours, I gladly
record my conviction that if he will seriously apply his powerful and
accurate mind to the department of Textual Criticism, he will probably
produce a work which will help materially to establish the study in which
he takes such an intelligent interest, on a scientific basis. But then, he
is invited to accept the friendly assurance that the indispensable
condition of success in this department is, that a man should give to the
subject, (which is a very intricate one and abounds in unexplored
problems), his undivided attention for an extended period. I trust there
is nothing unreasonable in the suggestion that one who has not done this,
should be very circumspect when he sits in judgment on a neighbour of his
who, for very many years past, has given to Textual Criticism the whole of
his time;—has freely sacrificed health, ease, relaxation, even necessary
rest, to this one object;—has made it his one business to acquire such an
independent mastery of the subject as shall qualify him to do battle
successfully for the imperilled letter of GOD’S Word. My friend however
thinks differently. He says of me,—
“In his first Article there was something amusing in the
simplicity with which ‘Lloyd’s Greek Testament’ (which is only a
convenient little Oxford edition of the ordinary kind) was put
forth as the final standard of appeal. It recalled to our
recollection Bentley’s sarcasm upon the text of Stephanus, which
‘your learned Whitbyus’ takes for the sacred original in every
syllable.” (P. 354.)
§ 5. On referring to the passage where my “simplicity” has afforded
amusement to a friend whose brilliant conversation is always a delight to
_me_, I read as follows,—
“It is discovered that in the 111 (out of 320) pages of a copy of
Lloyd’s Greek Testament, in which alone these five manuscripts are
collectively available for comparison in the Gospels,—the serious
deflections of A from the _Textus Receptus_ amount in all to only
842: whereas in C they amount to 1798: in B, to 2370: in א, to
3392: in D, to 4697. The readings _peculiar to_ A within the same
limits are 133: those peculiar to C are 170. But those of B amount
to 197: while א exhibits 443: and the readings peculiar to D
(within the same limits), are no fewer than 1829.... We submit
that these facts are not altogether calculated to inspire
confidence in codices B א C D.”(12)
§ 6. But how (let me ask) does it appear from this, that I have “put forth
Lloyd’s Greek Testament as the _final standard of Appeal_”? True, that, in
order to exhibit clearly their respective divergences, I have referred
five famous codices (A B א C D)—certain of which are found to have turned
the brain of Critics of the new school—_to one and the same familiar
exhibition of the commonly received Text of the New Testament_: but by so
doing I have not by any means assumed _the Textual purity_ of that common
standard. In other words I have not made it “_the final standard of
Appeal_.” _All_ Critics,—wherever found,—at all times, have collated with
the commonly received Text: but only as the most convenient _standard of
Comparison_; not, surely, as the absolute _standard of Excellence_. The
result of the experiment already referred to,—(and, I beg to say, it was
an exceedingly laborious experiment,)—has been, to demonstrate that the
five Manuscripts in question stand apart from one another in the following
proportions:—
842 (A) : 1798 (C) : 2370 (B) : 3392 (א) : 4697 (D).
But would not the same result have been obtained if the “five old uncials”
had been _referred to any other common standard which can be named_? In
the meantime, what else is the inevitable inference from this phenomenon
but that four out of the five _must_ be—while all the five _may_
be—outrageously depraved documents? instead of being fit to be made our
exclusive guides to the Truth of Scripture,—as Critics of the school of
Tischendorf and Tregelles would have us believe that they are?
§ 7. I cited a book which is in the hands of every schoolboy, (Lloyd’s
“Greek Testament,”) _only_ in order to facilitate reference, and to make
sure that my statements would be at once understood by the least learned
person who could be supposed to have access to the “Quarterly.” I presumed
every scholar to be aware that Bp. Lloyd (1827) professes to reproduce
Mill’s text; and that Mill (1707) reproduces the text of Stephens;(13) and
that Stephens (1550) exhibits with sufficient accuracy the Traditional
text,—which is confessedly at least 1530 years old.(14) Now, if a
tolerable approximation to the text of A.D. 350 may _not_ be accepted as
_a standard of Comparison_,—will the writer in the “Church Quarterly” be
so obliging as to inform us _which_ exhibition of the sacred Text _may_?
§ 8. A pamphlet by the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol,(15) which
appeared in April 1882, remains to be considered. Written expressly in
defence of the Revisers and their New Greek Text, this composition
displays a slenderness of acquaintance with the subject now under
discussion, for which I was little prepared. Inasmuch however as it is the
production of the Chairman of the Revisionist body, and professes to be a
reply to my first two Articles, I have bestowed upon it an elaborate and
particular rejoinder extending to an hundred-and-fifty pages.(16) I shall
in consequence be very brief concerning it in this place.
§ 9. The respected writer does nothing else but reproduce Westcott and
Hort’s theory _in Westcott and Hort’s words_. He contributes nothing of
his own. The singular infelicity which attended his complaint that the
“Quarterly Reviewer” “censures their [Westcott and Hort’s] Text,” but,
“has not attempted _a serious examination of the arguments which they
allege in its support_,” I have sufficiently dwelt upon elsewhere.(17) The
rest of the Bishop’s contention may be summed up in two propositions:—The
first, (I.) That if the Revisionists are wrong in their “New Greek Text,”
then (not only Westcott and Hort, but) Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles
must be wrong also,—a statement which I hold to be incontrovertible.—The
Bishop’s other position is also undeniable: viz. (II.) That in order to
pass an equitable judgment on ancient documents, they are to be carefully
studied, closely compared, and tested by a more scientific process than
rough comparison with the _Textus Receptus_.(18)... Thus, on both heads, I
find myself entirely at one with Bp. Ellicott.
§ 10. And yet,—as the last 150 pages of the present volume show,—I have
the misfortune to be at issue with the learned writer on almost every
particular which he proposes for discussion. Thus,
§ 11. At page 64 of his pamphlet, he fastens resolutely upon the famous
problem whether “GOD” (Θεός), or “who” (ὅς), is to be read in 1 Timothy
iii. 16. I had upheld the former reading in eight pages. He contends for
the latter, with something like acrimony, in twelve.(19) I have been at
the pains, in consequence, to write a “DISSERTATION” of seventy-six pages
on this important subject,(20)—the preparation of which (may I be allowed
to record the circumstance in passing?) occupied me closely for six
months,(21) and taxed me severely. Thus, the only point which Bishop
Ellicott has condescended to discuss argumentatively with me, will be
found to enjoy full half of my letter to him in reply.
The “Dissertation” referred to, I submit with humble confidence to the
judgment of educated Englishmen. It requires no learning to understand the
case. And I have particularly to request that those who will be at the
pains to look into this question, will remember,—(1) That the place of
Scripture discussed (viz. 1 Tim. iii. 16) was deliberately selected for a
trial of strength by the Bishop: (I should not have chosen it myself):—(2)
That on the issue of the contention which he has thus himself invited, we
have respectively staked our critical reputation. The discussion exhibits
very fairly our two methods,—his and mine; and “is of great importance as
an example,” “illustrating in a striking manner” our respective
positions,—as the Bishop himself has been careful to remind his
readers.(22)
§ 12. One merely desirous of taking a general survey of this question, is
invited to read from page 485 to 496 of the present volume. To understand
the case thoroughly, he must submit to the labour of beginning at p. 424
and reading down to p. 501.
§ 13. A thoughtful person who has been at the pains to do this, will be
apt on laying down the book to ask,—“But is it not very remarkable that so
many as five of the ancient Versions should favour the reading ‘which,’
(μυστήριον; ὃ ἐφανερώθη,) instead of ‘GOD’ (Θεός)”?—“Yes, it is very
remarkable,” I answer. “For though the Old Latin and the two Egyptian
Versions are constantly observed to conspire in error, they rarely find
allies in the Peschito and the Æthiopic. On the other hand, you are to
remember that besides VERSIONS, the FATHERS have to be inquired after:
while more important than either is the testimony of the COPIES. Now, the
combined witness to ‘GOD’ (Θεός),—so multitudinous, so respectable, so
varied, so unequivocal,—of the Copies and of the Fathers (in addition to
three of the Versions) is simply overwhelming. It becomes undeniable that
Θεός is by far the best supported reading of the present place.”
§ 14. When, however, such an one as Tischendorf or Tregelles,—Hort or
Ellicott,—would put me down by reminding me that half-a-dozen of the
oldest Versions are against me,—“_That_ argument” (I reply) “is not
allowable on _your_ lips. For if the united testimony of _five_ of the
Versions really be, in your account, decisive,—Why do you deny the
genuineness of the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel, _which are
recognized by every one of the Versions_? Those Verses are besides
attested _by every known Copy_, except two of bad character: _by a mighty
chorus of Fathers_: _by the unfaltering Tradition of the Church
universal_. First remove from S. Mark xvi. 20, your brand of suspicion,
and then come back to me in order that we may discuss together how 1 Tim.
iii. 16 is to be read. And yet, when you come back, it must not be to
plead in favour of ‘who’ (ὅσ), in place of ‘GOD’ (Θεός). For _not_ ‘who’
(ὅς), remember, but ‘which’ (ὅ) is the reading advocated by those five
earliest Versions.” ... In other words,—the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16,
which the Revisers have adopted, enjoys, (as I have shown from page 428 to
page 501), _the feeblest attestation of any_; besides being condemned by
internal considerations and the universal Tradition of the Eastern Church.
§ 15. I pass on, after modestly asking,—Is it too much to hope, (I covet
no other guerdon for my labour!) that we shall hear no more about
substituting “who” for “GOD” in 1 Tim. iii. 16? We may not go on disputing
for ever: and surely, until men are able to produce some more cogent
evidence than has yet come to light in support of “the mystery of
godliness, _who_” (τὸ τῆς εὐσβείας μυστήριον: ὅς),—all sincere inquirers
after Truth are bound to accept _that_ reading which has been demonstrated
to be by far the best attested. Enough however on this head.
§ 16. It was said just now that I cordially concur with Bp. Ellicott in
the second of his two propositions,—viz. That “no equitable judgment can
be passed on ancient documents until they are carefully studied, and
closely compared with each other, and tested by a more scientific process
than rough comparison with” the _Textus Receptus_. I wish to add a few
words on this subject: the rather, because what I am about to say will be
found as applicable to my Reviewer in the “Church Quarterly” as to the
Bishop. Both have misapprehended this matter, and in exactly the same way.
Where such accomplished Scholars have erred, what wonder if ordinary
readers should find themselves all a-field?
§ 17. In Textual Criticism then, “rough comparison” can seldom, if ever,
be of any real use. On the other hand, the exact _Collation_ of documents
whether ancient or modern with the received Text, is the necessary
foundation of all scientific Criticism. I employ that Text,—(as Mill,
Bentley, Wetstein; Griesbach, Matthæi, Scholz; Tischendorf, Tregelles,
Scrivener, employed it before me,)—not as a criterion of _Excellence_, but
as a standard of _Comparison_. All this will be found fully explained
below, from page 383 to page 391. Whenever I would judge of _the
authenticity_ of any particular reading, I insist on bringing it, wherever
found,—whether in Justin Martyr and Irenæus, on the one hand; or in
Stephens and Elzevir, on the other;—to the test of _Catholic Antiquity_.
If that witness is consentient, or very nearly so, whether for or against
any given reading, I hold it to be decisive. To no other system of
arbitration will I submit myself. I decline to recognise any other
criterion of Truth.
§ 18. What compels me to repeat this so often, is the impatient
self-sufficiency of these last days, which is for breaking away from the
old restraints; and for erecting the individual conscience into an
authority from which there shall be no appeal. I know but too well how
laborious is the scientific method which _I_ advocate. A long summer day
disappears, while the student—with all his appliances about him—is
resolutely threshing out some minute textual problem. Another, and yet
another bright day vanishes. Comes Saturday evening at last, and a page of
illegible manuscript is all that he has to show for a week’s heavy toil.
_Quousque tandem?_ And yet, it is the indispensable condition of progress
in an unexplored region, that a few should thus labour, until a path has
been cut through the forest,—a road laid down,—huts built,—a _modus
vivendi_ established. In this department of sacred Science, men have been
going on too long inventing their facts, and delivering themselves of
oracular decrees, on the sole responsibility of their own inner
consciousness. There is great convenience in such a method certainly,—a
charming simplicity which is in a high degree attractive to flesh and
blood. It dispenses with proof. It furnishes no evidence. It asserts when
it ought to argue.(23) It reiterates when it is called upon to
explain.(24) “I am sir Oracle.” ... This,—which I venture to style the
_unscientific_ method,—reached its culminating point when Professors
Westcott and Hort recently put forth their Recension of the Greek Text.
Their work is indeed quite a psychological curiosity. Incomprehensible to
me is it how two able men of disciplined understandings can have seriously
put forth the volume which they call “INTRODUCTION—APPENDIX.” It is the
very _Reductio ad absurdum_ of the uncritical method of the last fifty
years. And it is especially in opposition to this new method of theirs
that I so strenuously insist that _the consentient voice of Catholic
Antiquity_ is to be diligently inquired after and submissively listened
to; for that _this_, in the end, will prove our _only_ safe guide.
§ 19. Let this be a sufficient reply to my Reviewer in the “Church
Quarterly”—who, I observe, notes, as a fundamental defect in my Articles,
“the want of a consistent working Theory, such as would enable us to
weigh, as well as count, the suffrages of MSS., Versions, and
Fathers.”(25) He is reminded that it was no part of my business to
propound a “Theory.” My _method_ I have explained often and fully enough.
My business was to prove that the theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort,—which
(as Bp. Ellicott’s pamphlet proves) has been mainly adopted by the
Revisionists,—is not only a worthless, but an utterly absurd one. And I
have proved it. The method I persistently advocate in every case of a
supposed doubtful Reading, (I say it for the last time, and request that I
may be no more misrepresented,) is, that _an appeal shall be unreservedly
made to Catholic Antiquity_; and that the combined verdict of Manuscripts,
Versions, Fathers, shall be regarded as decisive.
§ 20. I find myself, in the mean time, met by the scoffs, jeers,
misrepresentations of the disciples of this new School; who, instead of
producing historical facts and intelligible arguments, appeal to the
decrees of their teachers,—which _I_ disallow, and which _they_ are unable
to substantiate. They delight in announcing that Textual Criticism made
“_a fresh departure_” with the edition of Drs. Westcott and Hort: that the
work of those scholars “_marks an era_,” and is spoken of in Germany as
“_epoch-making_.” My own belief is, that the Edition in question, if it be
epoch-making at all, marks _that_ epoch at which the current of critical
thought, reversing its wayward course, began once more to flow in its
ancient healthy channel. “Cloud-land” having been duly sighted on the 14th
September 1881,(26) “a fresh departure” was insisted upon by public
opinion,—and a deliberate return was made,—to _terra firma_, and _terra
cognita_, and common sense. So far from “its paramount claim to the
respect of future generations,” being “the restitution of a more ancient
and a purer Text,”—I venture to predict that the edition of the two
Cambridge Professors will be hereafter remembered as indicating the
furthest point ever reached by the self-evolved imaginations of English
disciples of the school of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles. The recoil
promises to be complete. English good sense is ever observed to prevail in
the long run; although for a few years a foreign fashion may acquire the
ascendant, and beguile a few unstable wits.
§ 21. It only remains to state that in republishing these Essays I have
availed myself of the opportunity to make several corrections and
additions; as well as here and there to expand what before had been too
briefly delivered. My learned friend and kind neighbour, the Rev. R.
Cowley Powles, has ably helped me to correct the sheets. Much valuable
assistance has been zealously rendered me throughout by my nephew, the
Rev. William F. Rose, Vicar of Worle, Somersetshire. But the unwearied
patience and consummate skill of my Secretary (M. W.) passes praise. Every
syllable of the present volume has been transcribed by her for the press;
and to her I am indebted for two of my Indices.—The obligations under
which many learned men, both at home and abroad, have laid me, will be
found faithfully acknowledged, in the proper place, at the foot of the
page. I am sincerely grateful to them all.
§ 22. It will be readily believed that I have been sorely tempted to
recast the whole and to strengthen my position in every part: but then,
the work would have no longer been,—“Three Articles reprinted from the
Quarterly Review.” Earnestly have I desired, for many years past, to
produce a systematic Treatise on this great subject. My aspiration all
along has been, and still is, in place of the absolute Empiricism which
has hitherto prevailed in Textual inquiry to exhibit the logical outlines
of what, I am persuaded, is destined to become a truly delightful Science.
But I more than long,—I fairly _ache_ to have done with Controversy, and
to be free to devote myself to the work of Interpretation. My apology for
bestowing so large a portion of my time on Textual Criticism, is David’s
when he was reproached by his brethren for appearing on the field of
battle,—“Is there not a cause?”
§ 23. For,—let it clearly be noted,—it is no longer the case that critical
doubts concerning the sacred Text are confined to critical Editions of the
Greek. So long as scholars were content to ventilate their crotchets in a
little arena of their own,—however mistaken they might be, and even though
they changed their opinions once in every ten years,—no great harm was
likely to come of it. Students of the Greek Testament were sure to have
their attention called to the subject,—which must always be in the highest
degree desirable; and it was to be expected that in this, as in every
other department of learning, the progress of Inquiry would result in
gradual accessions of certain Knowledge. After many years it might be
found practicable to put forth by authority a carefully considered
Revision of the commonly received Greek Text.
§ 24. But instead of all this, a Revision of the _English Authorised
Version_ having been sanctioned by the Convocation of the Southern
Province in 1871, the opportunity was eagerly snatched at by two
irresponsible scholars of the University of Cambridge for obtaining the
general sanction of the Revising body, and thus indirectly of Convocation,
for a private venture of their own,—their own privately devised Revision
of the _Greek Text_. On that Greek Text of theirs, (which I hold to be the
most depraved which has ever appeared in print), with some slight
modifications, our Authorised English Version has been silently revised:
silently, I say, for in the margin of the English no record is preserved
of the underlying Textual changes which have been introduced by the
Revisionists. On the contrary. Use has been made of that margin to
insinuate suspicion and distrust in countless particulars as to the
authenticity of the Text which has been suffered to remain unaltered. In
the meantime, the country has been flooded with two editions of the New
Greek Text; and thus the door has been set wide open for universal
mistrust of the Truth of Scripture to enter.
§ 25. Even schoolboys, it seems, are to have these crude views thrust upon
them. Witness the “Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools,” edited by Dean
Perowne,—who informs us at the outset that “_the Syndics of the Cambridge
University Press_ have not thought it desirable to reprint the text in
common use.” A consensus of Drs. Tischendorf and Tregelles,—who
confessedly employed _the self-same mistaken major premiss_ in remodelling
the Sacred Text,—seems, in a general way, to represent those Syndics’
notion of Textual purity. By this means every most serious deformity in
the edition of Drs. Westcott and Hort, becomes promoted to honour, and is
being thrust on the unsuspecting youth of England as the genuine utterance
of the HOLY GHOST. Would it not have been the fairer, the more faithful as
well as the more judicious course,—seeing that in respect of this abstruse
and important question _adhuc sub judice lis est_,—to wait patiently
awhile? Certainly not to snatch an opportunity “while men slept,” and in
this way indirectly to prejudge the solemn issue! Not by such methods is
the cause of GOD’S Truth on earth to be promoted. Even this however is not
all. Bishop Lightfoot has been informed that “the Bible Society has
permitted its Translators to adopt the Text of the Revised Version _where
it commends itself to their judgment_.”(27) In other words, persons wholly
unacquainted with the dangers which beset this delicate and difficult
problem are invited to determine, by the light of Nature and on the
“_solvere ambulando_” principle, what _is_ inspired Scripture, what _not_:
and as a necessary consequence are encouraged to disseminate in heathen
lands Readings which, a few years hence,—(so at least I venture to
predict,)—will be universally recognized as worthless.
§ 26. If all this does not constitute a valid reason for descending into
the arena of controversy, it would in my judgment be impossible to
indicate an occasion when the Christian soldier _is_ called upon to do
so:—the rather, because certain of those who, from their rank and station
in the Church, ought to be the champions of the Truth, are at this time
found to be among its most vigorous assailants.
§ 27. Let me,—(and with this I conclude),—in giving the present Volume to
the world, be allowed to request that it may be accepted as a sample of
how Deans employ their time,—the use they make of their opportunities.
Nowhere but under the shadow of a Cathedral, (or in a College,) can such
laborious endeavours as the present _pro Ecclesiâ_ DEI be successfully
prosecuted.
J. W. B.
DEANERY, CHICHESTER,
ALL SAINTS’ DAY, 1883.
ARTICLE I. THE NEW GREEK TEXT.
“One question in connexion with the Authorized Version I have
purposely neglected. It seemed useless to discuss its REVISION.
_The Revision of the original Texts must precede the Revision of
the Translation_: and _the time for this, even in the New
Testament, has not yet fully come_.”—DR. WESTCOTT.(28)
“It is my honest conviction that for any authoritative REVISION,
we are not yet mature; _either in Biblical learning or Hellenistic
scholarship_. There is good scholarship in this country, ... but
_it has certainly not yet been sufficiently directed to the study
of the New Testament_ ... to render any national attempt at
REVISION either hopeful or lastingly profitable.”—BISHOP
ELLICOTT.(29)
“I am persuaded that a REVISION ought to come: I am convinced that
it will come. Not however, I would trust, as yet; for _we are not
as yet in any respect prepared for it_. _The Greek and the
English_ which should enable us to bring this to a successful end,
_might, it is feared, be wanting alike_.”—ARCHBISHOP TRENCH.(30)
“It is happened unto them according to the true proverb, Κύων
ἐπιστρέψας ἐπὶ τὸ ἴδιον ἐξέραμα; and Ὕς λουσαμένη εἰς κύλισμα
βορβόρου.”—2 PETER ii. 22.
“Little children,—Keep yourselves from idols.”—1 JOHN v. 21.
At a period of extraordinary intellectual activity like the present, it
can occasion no surprise—although it may reasonably create anxiety—if the
most sacred and cherished of our Institutions are constrained each in turn
to submit to the ordeal of hostile scrutiny; sometimes even to bear the
brunt of actual attack. When however at last the very citadel of revealed
Truth is observed to have been reached, and to be undergoing systematic
assault and battery, lookers-on may be excused if they show themselves
more than usually solicitous, “ne quid detrimenti Civitas DEI capiat.” A
Revision of the Authorized Version of the New Testament,(31) purporting to
have been executed by authority of the Convocation of the Southern
Province, and declaring itself the exclusive property of our two ancient
Universities, has recently (17th May, 1881) appeared; of which the
essential feature proves to be, that it is founded on an _entirely New
Recension of the Greek Text_.(32) A claim is at the same time set up on
behalf of the last-named production that it exhibits a closer
approximation to the inspired Autographs than the world has hitherto seen.
Not unreasonable therefore is the expectation entertained by its Authors
that the “New English Version” founded on this “New Greek Text” is
destined to supersede the “Authorized Version” of 1611. _Quæ cum ita
sint_, it is clearly high time that every faithful man among us should
bestir himself: and in particular that such as have made Greek Textual
Criticism in any degree their study should address themselves to the
investigation of the claims of this, the latest product of the combined
Biblical learning of the Church and of the sects.
For it must be plain to all, that the issue which has been thus at last
raised, is of the most serious character. The Authors of this new Revision
of the Greek have either entitled themselves to the Church’s profound
reverence and abiding gratitude; or else they have laid themselves open to
her gravest censure, and must experience at her hands nothing short of
stern and well-merited rebuke. No middle course presents itself; since
assuredly _to construct a new Greek Text_ formed no part of the
Instructions which the Revisionists received at the hands of the
Convocation of the Southern Province. Rather were they warned against
venturing on such an experiment; the fundamental principle of the entire
undertaking having been declared at the outset to be—That “a Revision of
the _Authorized Version_” is desirable; and the terms of the original
Resolution of Feb. 10th, 1870, being, that the removal of “PLAIN AND CLEAR
ERRORS” was alone contemplated,—“whether in the Greek Text originally
adopted by the Translators, or in the Translation made from the same.”
Such were in fact _the limits formally imposed by Convocation_, (10th Feb.
and 3rd, 5th May, 1870,) _on the work of Revision_. Only NECESSARY changes
were to be made. The first Rule of the Committee (25th May) was similar in
character: viz.—“_To introduce as few alterations as possible into the
Text of the Authorized Version_, consistently with faithfulness.”