by noting that a limit was prescribed to the amount of licence which could
by possibility result, by the insertion of a proviso, which however is now
discovered to have been entirely disregarded by the Revisionists. The
condition was enjoined upon them that whenever “_decidedly preponderating
evidence_” constrained their adoption of some change in “the Text from
which the Authorized Version was made,” _they should indicate such
alteration in the margin_. Will it be believed that, this notwithstanding,
_not one_ of the many alterations which have been introduced into the
original Text is so commemorated? On the contrary: singular to relate, the
Margin is disfigured throughout with ominous hints that, had “Some ancient
authorities,” “Many ancient authorities,” “Many very ancient authorities,”
been attended to, a vast many more changes might, could, would, or should
have been introduced into the Greek Text than have been actually adopted.
And yet, this is precisely the kind of record which we ought to have been
spared:—
(1) First,—Because it was plainly external to the province of the
Revisionists to introduce any such details into their margin _at all_:
their very function being, on the contrary, to investigate Textual
questions in conclave, and to present the ordinary Reader with _the
result_ of their deliberations. Their business was to correct “_plain and
clear errors_;” not, certainly, to invent a fresh crop of unheard-of
doubts and difficulties. This first.—Now,
(2) That a diversity of opinion would sometimes be found to exist in the
revising body was to have been expected, but when once two-thirds of their
number had finally “settled” any question, it is plainly unreasonable that
the discomfited minority should claim the privilege of evermore parading
their grievance before the public; and in effect should be allowed to
represent _that_ as a corporate doubt, which was in reality the result of
individual idiosyncrasy. It is not reasonable that the echoes of a
forgotten strife should be thus prolonged for ever; least of all in the
margin of “the Gospel of peace.”
(3) In fact, the privilege of figuring in the margin of the N. T.,
(instead of standing in the Text,) is even attended by a fatal result:
for, (as Bp. Ellicott remarks,) “the judgment commonly entertained in
reference to our present margin,” (_i.e._ the margin of the A. V.) is,
that _its contents are_ “exegetically or critically _superior to the
Text_.”(33) It will certainly be long before this popular estimate is
unconditionally abandoned. But,
(4) Especially do we deprecate the introduction into the margin of all
this strange lore, because we insist on behalf of unlearned persons that
they ought not to be molested with information which cannot, by
possibility, be of the slightest service to them: with vague statements
about “ancient authorities,”—of the importance, or unimportance, of which
they know absolutely nothing, nor indeed ever can know. Unlearned readers
on taking the Revision into their hands, (_i.e._ at least 999 readers out
of 1000,) will _never_ be aware whether these (so-called) “Various
Readings” are to be scornfully scouted, as nothing else but ancient
perversions of the Truth; or else are to be lovingly cherished, as
“_alternative_” [see the Revisers’ _Preface_ (iii. 1.)] exhibitions of the
inspired Verity,—to their own abiding perplexity and infinite distress.
Undeniable at all events it is, that the effect which these ever-recurring
announcements produce on the devout reader of Scripture is the reverse of
edifying: is never helpful: is always bewildering. A man of ordinary
acuteness can but exclaim,—“Yes, very likely. _But what of it_? My eye
happens to alight on ‘Bethesda’ (in S. John v. 2); against which I find in
the margin,—‘Some ancient authorities read _Bethsaida_, others
_Bethzatha_.’ Am I then to understand that in the judgment of the
Revisionists it is uncertain _which_ of those three names is right?”...
Not so the expert, who is overheard to moralize concerning the phenomena
of the case after a less ceremonious fashion:—“ ‘_Bethsaida_’! Yes, the
old Latin(34) and the Vulgate,(35) countenanced by _one_ manuscript of bad
character, so reads. _‘__Bethzatha__’__!_ Yes, the blunder is found in
_two_ manuscripts, both of bad character. Why do you not go on to tell us
that _another_ manuscript exhibits ‘_Belzetha_’?—another (supported by
Eusebius(36) and [in one place] by Cyril(37)), ‘_Bezatha_’? Nay, why not
say plainly that there are found to exist _upwards of thirty_ blundering
representations of this same word; but that ‘_Bethesda_’—(the reading of
sixteen uncials and the whole body of the cursives, besides the Peschito
and Cureton’s Syriac, the Armenian, Georgian and Slavonic
Versions,—Didymus,(38) Chrysostom,(39) and Cyril(40)),—is the only
reasonable way of exhibiting it? To speak plainly, _Why encumber your
margin with such a note at all?_”... But we are moving forward too fast.
It can never be any question among scholars, that a fatal error was
committed when a body of Divines, appointed _to revise the Authorized
English Version_ of the New Testament Scriptures, addressed themselves to
the solution of an entirely different and far more intricate problem,
namely _the re-construction of the Greek Text_. We are content to pass
over much that is distressing in the antecedent history of their
enterprise. We forbear at this time of day to investigate, by an appeal to
documents and dates, certain proceedings in and out of Convocation, on
which it is known that the gravest diversity of sentiment still prevails
among Churchmen.(41) This we do, not by any means as ourselves “halting
between two opinions,” but only as sincerely desirous that the work before
us may stand or fall, judged by its own intrinsic merits. Whether or no
Convocation,—when it “nominated certain of its own members to undertake
the work of Revision,” and authorized them “to refer when they considered
it desirable to Divines, Scholars, and Literary men, at home or abroad,
_for their opinion_;”—whether Convocation intended thereby to sanction the
actual _co-optation_ into the Company appointed by themselves, of members
of the Presbyterian, the Wesleyan, the Baptist, the Congregationalist, the
Socinian body; _this_ we venture to think may fairly be doubted.—Whether
again Convocation can have foreseen that of the ninety-nine Scholars in
all who have taken part in this work of Revision, only forty-nine would be
Churchmen, while the remaining fifty would belong to the sects:(42)—_this_
also we venture to think may be reasonably called in question.—Whether
lastly, the Canterbury Convocation, had it been appealed to with reference
to “the Westminster-Abbey scandal” (June 22nd, 1870), would not have
cleared itself of the suspicion of complicity, by an unequivocal
resolution,—we entertain no manner of doubt.—But we decline to enter upon
these, or any other like matters. Our business is exclusively with the
_result_ at which the Revisionists of the New Testament have arrived: and
it is to this that we now address ourselves; with the mere avowal of our
grave anxiety at the spectacle of an assembly of scholars, appointed to
revise _an English Translation_, finding themselves called upon, as every
fresh difficulty emerged, to develop the skill requisite for _critically
revising the original Greek Text_. What else is implied by the very
endeavour, but a singular expectation that experts in one Science may, at
a moment’s notice, show themselves proficients in another,—and _that_ one
of the most difficult and delicate imaginable?
Enough has been said to make it plain why, in the ensuing pages, we
propose to pursue a different course from that which has been adopted by
Reviewers generally, since the memorable day (May 17th, 1881) when the
work of the Revisionists was for the first time submitted to public
scrutiny. The one point which, with rare exceptions, has ever since
monopolized attention, has been the merits or demerits of _their English
rendering_ of certain Greek words and expressions. But there is clearly a
question of prior interest and infinitely greater importance, which has to
be settled first: namely, the merits or demerits of _the changes which the
same Scholars have taken upon themselves to introduce into the Greek
Text_. Until it has been ascertained that the result of their labours
exhibits a decided improvement upon what before was read, it is clearly a
mere waste of time to enquire into the merits of their work as _Revisers
of a __ Translation_. But in fact it has to be proved that the
Revisionists have restricted themselves to the removal of “plain and clear
_errors_” from the commonly received Text. We are distressed to discover
that, on the contrary, they have done something quite different. The
treatment which the N. T. has experienced at the hands of the Revisionists
recals the fate of some ancient edifice which confessedly required to be
painted, papered, scoured,—with a minimum of masons’ and carpenters’
work,—in order to be inhabited with comfort for the next hundred years:
but those entrusted with the job were so ill-advised as to persuade
themselves that it required to be to a great extent rebuilt. Accordingly,
in an evil hour they set about removing foundations, and did so much
structural mischief that in the end it became necessary to proceed against
them for damages.
Without the remotest intention of imposing views of our own on the general
Reader, but only to enable him to give his intelligent assent to much that
is to follow, we find ourselves constrained in the first instance,—before
conducting him over any part of the domain which the Revisionists have
ventured uninvited to occupy,—to premise a few ordinary facts which lie on
the threshold of the science of Textual Criticism. Until these have been
clearly apprehended, no progress whatever is possible.
(1) The provision, then, which the Divine Author of Scripture is found to
have made for the preservation in its integrity of His written Word, is of
a peculiarly varied and highly complex description. First,—By causing that
a vast multiplication of COPIES should be required all down the
ages,—beginning at the earliest period, and continuing in an
ever-increasing ratio until the actual invention of Printing,—He provided
the most effectual security imaginable against fraud. True, that millions
of the copies so produced have long since perished: but it is nevertheless
a plain fact that there survive of the Gospels alone upwards of one
thousand copies to the present day.
(2) Next, VERSIONS. The necessity of translating the Scriptures into
divers languages for the use of different branches of the early Church,
procured that many an authentic record has been preserved of the New
Testament as it existed in the first few centuries of the Christian era.
Thus, the Peschito Syriac and the old Latin version are believed to have
been executed in the IInd century. “It is no stretch of imagination”
(wrote Bp. Ellicott in 1870,) “to suppose that portions of the Peschito
might have been in the hands of S. John, or that the Old Latin represented
the current views of the Roman Christians of the IInd century.”(43) The
two Egyptian translations are referred to the IIIrd and IVth. The Vulgate
(or revised Latin) and the Gothic are also claimed for the IVth: the
Armenian, and possibly the Æthiopic, belong to the Vth.
(3) Lastly, the requirements of assailants and apologists alike, the
business of Commentators, the needs of controversialists and teachers in
every age, have resulted in a vast accumulation of additional evidence, of
which it is scarcely possible to over-estimate the importance. For in this
way it has come to pass that every famous Doctor of the Church in turn has
quoted more or less largely from the sacred writings, and thus has borne
testimony to the contents of the codices with which he was individually
familiar. PATRISTIC CITATIONS accordingly are a third mighty safeguard of
the integrity of the deposit.
To weigh these three instruments of Criticism—COPIES, VERSIONS,
FATHERS—one against another, is obviously impossible on the present
occasion. Such a discussion would grow at once into a treatise.(44)
Certain explanatory details, together with a few words of caution, are as
much as may be attempted.
I. And, first of all, the reader has need to be apprised (with reference
to the first-named class of evidence) that most of our extant COPIES of
the N. T. Scriptures are comparatively of recent date, ranging from the
Xth to the XIVth century of our era. That these are in every instance
copies of yet older manuscripts, is self-evident; and that in the main
they represent faithfully the sacred autographs themselves, no reasonable
person doubts.(45) Still, it is undeniable that they _are_ thus separated
by about a thousand years from their inspired archetypes. Readers are
reminded, in passing, that the little handful of copies on which we rely
for the texts of Herodotus and Thucydides, of Æschylus and Sophocles, are
removed from _their_ originals by full 500 years more: and that, instead
of a thousand, or half a thousand copies, we are dependent for the text of
certain of these authors on as many copies as may be counted on the
fingers of one hand. In truth, the security which the Text of the New
Testament enjoys is altogether unique and extraordinary. To specify one
single consideration, which has never yet attracted nearly the amount of
attention it deserves,—“Lectionaries” abound, which establish the Text
which has been publicly read in the churches of the East, from _at least_
A.D. 400 until the time of the invention of printing.
But here an important consideration claims special attention. We allude to
the result of increased acquaintance with certain of the oldest extant
codices of the N. T. Two of these,—viz. a copy in the Vatican technically
indicated by the letter B, and the recently-discovered Sinaitic codex,
styled after the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet א,—are thought to
belong to the IVth century. Two are assigned to the Vth, viz. the
Alexandrian (A) in the British Museum, and the rescript codex preserved at
Paris, designated C. One is probably of the VIth, viz. the codex Bezæ (D)
preserved at Cambridge. Singular to relate, the first, second, fourth, and
fifth of these codices (B א C D), but especially B and א, have within the
last twenty years established a tyrannical ascendency over the imagination
of the Critics, which can only be fitly spoken of as a blind superstition.
It matters nothing that all four are discovered on careful scrutiny to
differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the
whole body of extant MSS. besides, but even _from one another_. This last
circumstance, obviously fatal to their corporate pretensions, is
unaccountably overlooked. And yet it admits of only one satisfactory
explanation: viz. that _in different degrees_ they all five exhibit a
fabricated text. Between the first two (B and א) there subsists an amount
of sinister resemblance, which proves that they must have been derived at
no very remote period from the same corrupt original. Tischendorf insists
that they were partly written by the same scribe. Yet do they stand
asunder in every page; as well as differ widely from the commonly received
Text, with which they have been carefully collated. On being referred to
this standard, in the Gospels alone, B is found to omit at least 2877
words: to add, 536: to substitute, 935: to transpose, 2098: to modify,
1132 (in all 7578):—the corresponding figures for א being severally 3455,
839, 1114, 2299, 1265 (in all 8972). And be it remembered that the
omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications,
_are by no means the same_ in both. It is in fact _easier to find two
consecutive verses in which these two MSS. differ the one from the other,
than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree_.
But by far the most depraved text is that exhibited by codex D. “No known
manuscript contains so many bold and extensive interpolations. Its
variations from the sacred Text are beyond all other example.”(46) This,
however, is not the result of its being the most recent of the five, but
(singular to relate) is due to quite an opposite cause. It is thought (not
without reason) to exhibit a IInd-century text. “When we turn to the Acts
of the Apostles,” (says the learned editor of the codex in question, Dr.
Scrivener,(47))—
“We find ourselves confronted with a text, the like to which we
have no experience of elsewhere. It is hardly an exaggeration to
assert that codex D reproduces the _Textus receptus_ much in the
same way that one of the best Chaldee Targums does the Hebrew of
the Old Testament: so wide are the variations in the diction, so
constant and inveterate the practice of expounding the narrative
by means of interpolations which seldom recommend themselves as
genuine by even a semblance of internal probability.”
“_Vix dici potest_” (says Mill) “_quam supra omnem modum licenter se
gesserit, ac plane lasciverit Interpolator_.” Though a large portion of
the Gospels is missing, in what remains (tested by the same standard) we
find 3704 words omitted: no less than 2213 added, and 2121 substituted.
The words transposed amount to 3471: and 1772 have been modified: the
deflections from the Received Text thus amounting in all to 13,281.—Next
to D, the most untrustworthy codex is א, which bears on its front a
memorable note of the evil repute under which it has always laboured: viz.
it is found that at least _ten_ revisers between the IVth and the XIIth
centuries busied themselves with the task of correcting its many and
extraordinary perversions of the truth of Scripture.(48)—Next in impurity
comes B:—then, the fragmentary codex C: our own A being, beyond all doubt,
disfigured by the fewest blemishes of any.
What precedes admits to some extent of further numerical illustration. It
is discovered that in the 111 (out of 320) pages of an ordinary copy of
the 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—_which result from merely referring
five manuscripts to one and the same common standard_—are by no means
calculated to inspire confidence in codices B א C D:—codices, be it
remembered, which come to us without a character, without a history, in
fact without antecedents of _any_ kind.
But let the learned chairman of the New Testament company of Revisionists
(Bp. Ellicott) be heard on this subject. He is characterizing these same
“old uncials,” which it is just now the fashion—or rather, the _craze_—to
hold up as oracular, and to which his lordship is as devotedly and blindly
attached as any of his neighbours:—
“The _simplicity and dignified conciseness_” (he says) “of the
Vatican manuscript (B): the _greater expansiveness_ of our own
Alexandrian (A): the _partially mixed characteristics_ of the
Sinaitic (א): the _paraphrastic tone_ of the _singular_ codex Bezæ
(D), are now brought home to the student.”(49)
Could ingenuity have devised severer satire than such a description of
four professing _transcripts_ of a book; and _that_ book, the everlasting
Gospel itself?—transcripts, be it observed in passing, on which it is just
now the fashion to rely implicitly for the very orthography of proper
names,—the spelling of common words,—the minutiæ of grammar. What (we ask)
would be thought of four such “_copies_” of Thucydides or of Shakspeare?
Imagine it gravely proposed, by the aid of four such conflicting
documents, to re-adjust the text of the funeral oration of Pericles, or to
re-edit “Hamlet.” _Risum teneatis amici?_ Why, some of the poet’s most
familiar lines would cease to be recognizable: _e.g._ A,—“_Toby or not
Toby; that is the question_:” B,—“_Tob or not, is the question_:” א,—“_To
be a tub, or not to be a tub; the question is that_:” C,—“_The question
is, to beat, or not to beat Toby?_”: D (the “singular codex”),—“_The only
question is this: to beat that Toby, or to be a tub?_”
And yet—without by any means subscribing to the precise terms in which the
judicious Prelate characterizes those _ignes fatui_ which have so
persistently and egregiously led his lordship and his colleagues
astray—(for indeed one seems rather to be reading a description of four
styles of composition, or of as many fashions in ladies’ dress, than of
four copies of the Gospel)—we have already furnished indirect proof that
his estimate of the codices in question is in the main correct. Further
acquaintance with them does but intensify the bad character which he has
given them. Let no one suppose that we deny their extraordinary
value,—their unrivalled critical interest,—nay, their actual _use_ in
helping to settle the truth of Scripture. What we are just now insisting
upon is only the _depraved text_ of codices א A B C D,—especially of א B
D. And because this is a matter which lies at the root of the whole
controversy, and because we cannot afford that there shall exist in our
reader’s mind the slightest doubt on _this_ part of the subject, we shall
be constrained once and again to trouble him with detailed specimens of
the contents of א B, &c., in proof of the justice of what we have been
alleging. We venture to assure him, without a particle of hesitation, that
א B D are _three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant_:—exhibit
_the most shamefully mutilated_ texts which are anywhere to be met
with:—have become, by whatever process (for their history is wholly
unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of _fabricated readings_,
ancient _blunders_, and _intentional perversions of Truth_,—which are
discoverable in any known copies of the Word of GOD.
But in fact take a single page of any ordinary copy of the Greek
Testament,—Bp. Lloyd’s edition, suppose. Turn to page 184. It contains ten
verses of S. Luke’s Gospel, ch. viii. 35 to 44. Now, proceed to collate
those ten verses. You will make the notable discovery that, within those
narrow limits, by codex D alone the text has been depraved 53 times,
resulting in no less than 103 corrupt readings, 93 _of which are found
only in_ D. The words omitted by D are 40: the words added are 4.
Twenty-five words have been substituted for others, and 14 transposed.
Variations of case, tense, &c., amount to 16; and the phrase of the
Evangelist has been departed from 11 times. Happily, the other four “old
uncials” are here available. And it is found that (within the same limits,
and referred to the same test,) A exhibits 3 omissions, 2 of which are
_peculiar to_ A.—B omits 12 words, 6 of which are _peculiar to_ B:
substitutes 3 words: transposes 4: and exhibits 6 lesser changes—2 of them
being its own peculiar property.—א has 5 readings (affecting 8 words)
_peculiar to itself_. Its omissions are 7: its additions, 2: its
substitutions, 4: 2 words are transposed; and it exhibits 4 lesser
discrepancies.—C has 7 readings (affecting 15 words) _peculiar to itself_.
Its omissions are 4: its additions, 7: its substitutions, 7: its words
transposed, 7. It has 2 lesser discrepancies, and it alters the
Evangelist’s phrase 4 times.