apparently, without any reason whatever,—or rather in defiance of all
reason. Let _candidus lector_ be the judge whether we speak truly or not.
Whereas S. Luke (xxiv. 41) says, “_And while they yet believed not for
joy, and wondered_,” the scribe of codex A (by way of improving upon the
Evangelist) transposes his sentence into this, “And while they yet
disbelieved Him, _and wondered for joy_:”(342) which is almost nonsense,
or quite.
But take a less solemn example. Instead of,—“And His disciples plucked
_the ears of corn, and ate them_, (τοὺς στάχυας, καὶ ἤσθιον,) rubbing them
in their hands” (S. Luke vi. 1),—B C L R, by _transposing_ four Greek
words, present us with, “And His disciples plucked, _and ate the ears of
corn_, (καὶ ἤσθιον τοὺς στάχυας,) rubbing them,” &c. Now this might have
been an agreeable occupation for horses and for another quadruped, no
doubt; but hardly for men. This curiosity, which (happily) proved
indigestible to our Revisionists, is nevertheless swallowed whole by Drs.
Westcott and Hort as genuine and wholesome Gospel. (_O dura Doctorum
ilia!_)—But to proceed.
Then further, these preposterous Transpositions are of such perpetual
recurrence,—are so utterly useless or else so exceedingly mischievous,
_always_ so tasteless,—that familiarity with the phenomenon rather
increases than lessens our astonishment. What _does_ astonish us, however,
is to find learned men in the year of grace 1881, freely resuscitating
these long-since-forgotten _bêtises_ of long-since-forgotten Critics, and
seeking to palm them off upon a busy and a careless age, as so many new
revelations. That we may not be thought to have shown undue partiality for
the xxiind, xxiiird, and xxivth chapters of S. Luke’s Gospel by selecting
our instances of _Mutilation_ from those three chapters, we will now look
for specimens of _Transposition_ in the xixth and xxth chapters of the
same Gospel. The reader is invited to collate the Text of the oldest
uncials, throughout these two chapters, with the commonly Received Text.
He will find that within the compass of 88 consecutive verses,(343)
codices א A B C D Q exhibit no less than 74 instances of
Transposition:—for 39 of which, D is responsible:—א B, for 14:—א and א B
D, for 4 each:—A B and א A B, for 3 each:—A, for 2:—B, C, Q, א A, and A D,
each for 1.—In other words, he will find that in no less than 44 of these
instances of Transposition, D is implicated:—א, in 26:—B, in 25:—A, in
10:—while C and Q are concerned in only one a-piece.... It should be added
that Drs. Westcott and Hort have adopted _every one of the 25 in which
codex_ B _is concerned_—a significant indication of the superstitious
reverence in which they hold that demonstrably corrupt and most
untrustworthy document.(344) Every other case of Transposition they have
rejected. By their own confession, therefore, 49 out of the 74 (_i.e._
two-thirds of the entire number) are instances of depravation. We turn
with curiosity to the Revised Version; and discover that out of the 25 so
retained, the Editors in question were only able to persuade the
Revisionists to adopt 8. So that, in the judgment of the Revisionists, 66
out of 74, or _eleven-twelfths_, are instances of licentious tampering
with the deposit.... O to participate in the verifying faculty which
guided the teachers to discern in 25 cases of Transposition out of 74, the
genuine work of the HOLY GHOST! O, far more, to have been born with that
loftier instinct which enabled the pupils (Doctors Roberts and Milligan,
Newth and Moulton, Vance Smith and Brown, Angus and Eadie) to winnow out
from the entire lot exactly 8, and to reject the remaining 66 as nothing
worth!
According to our own best judgment, (and we have carefully examined them
all,) _every one_ of the 74 is worthless. But then _we_ make it our
fundamental rule to reason always from grounds of external Evidence,—never
from postulates of the Imagination. Moreover, in the application of our
rule, we begrudge no amount of labour: reckoning a long summer’s day well
spent if it has enabled us to ascertain the truth concerning one single
controverted word of Scripture. Thus, when we find that our Revisionists,
at the suggestion of Dr. Hort, have transposed the familiar Angelic
utterance (in S. Luke xxiv. 7), λέγων ὅτι δεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
παραδοθῆναι,—into this, λέγων τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὅτι δεῖ, &c., we at
once enquire for _the evidence_. And when we find that no single Father,
_no_ single Version, and no Codex—except the notorious א B C L—advocates
the proposed transposition; but on the contrary that every Father (from
A.D. 150 downwards) who quotes the place, quotes it as it stands in the
Textus receptus;(345)—we have no hesitation whatever in rejecting it. It
is found in the midst of a very thicket of fabricated readings. It has
nothing whatever to recommend it. It is condemned by the consentient voice
of Antiquity. It is advocated only by four copies,—which _never_ combine
exclusively, except to misrepresent the truth of Scripture and to seduce
the simple.
But the foregoing, which is a fair typical sample of countless other
instances of unauthorized Transposition, may not be dismissed without a
few words of serious remonstrance. Our contention is that, inasmuch as the
effect of such transposition _is incapable of being idiomatically
represented in the English language_,—(for, in all such cases, the Revised
Version retains the rendering of the Authorized,)—our Revisionists have
violated the spirit as well as the letter of their instructions, in
putting forth _a new Greek Text_, and silently introducing into it a
countless number of these and similar depravations of Scripture. These
Textual curiosities (for they are nothing more) are absolutely out of
place in a _Revision of the English Version_: achieve no lawful purpose:
are sure to mislead the unwary. This first.—Secondly, we submit
that,—strong as, no doubt, the temptation must have been, to secure the
sanction of the N. T. Revisionists for their own private Recension of the
Greek, (printed long since, but published simultaneously with the “Revised
Version”)—it is to be regretted that Drs. Westcott and Hort should have
yielded thereto. Man’s impatience never promotes GOD’S Truth. The
interests of Textual Criticism would rather have suggested, that the
Recension of that accomplished pair of Professors should have been
submitted to public inspection in the first instance. The astonishing Text
which it advocates might have been left with comparative safety to take
its chance in the Jerusalem Chamber, after it had undergone the searching
ordeal of competent Criticism, and been freely ventilated at home and
abroad for a decade of years. But on the contrary. It was kept close. It
might be seen only by the Revisers: and even _they_ were tied down to
secrecy as to the letter-press by which it was accompanied.... All this
strikes us as painful in a high degree.
VI. Hitherto we have referred almost exclusively to the Gospels. In
conclusion, we invite attention to our Revisionists’ treatment of 1 Tim.
iii. 16—the _crux criticorum_, as Prebendary Scrivener styles it.(346) We
cannot act more fairly than by inviting a learned member of the revising
body to speak on behalf of his brethren. We shall in this way ascertain
the amount of acquaintance with the subject enjoyed by some of those who
have been so obliging as to furnish the Church with a new Recension of the
Greek of the New Testament. Dr. Roberts says:—
“The English reader will probably be startled to find that the
familiar text,—‘_And without controversy great is the mystery of
godliness_: GOD _was manifest in the flesh_,’ has been exchanged
in the Revised Version for the following,—‘_And without
controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was
manifested in the flesh._’ A note on the margin states that ‘the
word GOD, in place of _He who_, rests on no sufficient ancient
evidence;’ and it may be well that, in a passage of so great
importance, the reader should be convinced that such is the case.
“What, then, let us enquire, is the amount of evidence which can
be produced in support of the reading ‘GOD’? This is soon stated.
Not one of the early Fathers can be certainly quoted for it. None
of the very ancient versions support it. No uncial witnesses to
it, with the doubtful exception of A.... But even granting that
the weighty suffrage of the Alexandrian manuscript is in favour of
‘GOD,’ far more evidence can be produced in support of ‘who.’ א
and probably C witness to this reading, and it has also powerful
testimony from the versions and Fathers. Moreover, the relative
‘who’ is a far more difficult reading than ‘GOD,’ and could hardly
have been substituted for the latter. On every ground, therefore,
we conclude that this interesting and important passage must stand
as it has been given in the Revised Version.”(347)
And now, having heard the learned Presbyterian on behalf of his
brother-Revisionists, we request that we may be ourselves listened to in
reply.
The place of Scripture before us, the Reader is assured, presents a
memorable instance of the mischief which occasionally resulted to the
inspired Text from the ancient practice of executing copies of the
Scriptures in uncial characters. S. Paul _certainly_ wrote μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ
τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον; Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, (“_Great is the mystery
of godliness_: GOD _was manifested in the flesh_”) But it requires to be
explained at the outset, that the holy Name when abbreviated (which it
always was), thus,—_ΘΣ_ (“GOD”), is only distinguishable from the relative
pronoun “who” (ΟΣ), by two horizontal strokes,—which, in manuscripts of
early date, it was often the practice to trace so faintly that at present
they can scarcely be discerned.(348) Need we go on? An archetypal copy in
which one or both of these slight strokes had vanished from the word _ΘΣ_
(“GOD”), gave rise to the reading ΟΣ (“who”),—of which nonsensical
substitute, traces survive in _only two_(349) manuscripts,—א and 17: not,
for certain, in _one single_ ancient Father,—no, nor for certain in _one
single_ ancient Version. So transparent, in fact, is the absurdity of
writing τὸ μυστέριον ὅς (“the mystery _who_”), that copyists promptly
substituted ὅ (“_which_”): thus furnishing another illustration of the
well-known property of a fabricated reading, viz. sooner or later
inevitably to become the parent of a second. Happily, to this second
mistake the sole surviving witness is the Codex Claromontanus, of the VIth
century (D): the only Patristic evidence in its favour being Gelasius of
Cyzicus,(350) (whose date is A.D. 476): and the unknown author of a homily
in the appendix to Chrysostom.(351) The Versions—all but the Georgian and
the Slavonic, which agree with the Received Text—favour it unquestionably;
for they are observed invariably to make the relative pronoun agree in
gender with the word which represents μυστήριον (“mystery”) which
immediately precedes it. Thus, in the Syriac Versions, ὅς (“_who_”) is
found,—but only because the Syriac equivalent for μυστήριον is of the
masculine gender: in the Latin, _quod_ (“_which_”)—but only because
_mysterium_ in Latin (like μυστήριον in Greek) is neuter. Over this latter
reading, however, we need not linger; seeing that ὅ does not find a single
patron at the present day. And yet, this was the reading which was eagerly
upheld during the last century: Wetstein and Sir Isaac Newton being its
most strenuous advocates.
It is time to pass under hasty review the direct evidence for the true
reading. A and C exhibited _ΘΣ_ until ink, thumbing, and the injurious use
of chemicals, obliterated what once was patent. It is too late, by full
150 years, to contend on the negative side of _this_ question.—F and G,
which exhibit _ΟΣ_ and _ΟΣ_ respectively, were confessedly derived from a
common archetype: in which archetype, it is evident that the horizontal
stroke which distinguishes Θ from Ο must have been so faintly traced as to
be scarcely discernible. The supposition that, in this place, the stroke
in question represents _the aspirate_, is scarcely admissible. _There is
no single example of_ ὅς _written_ _ΟΣ_ _in any part of __ either Cod._ F
_or Cod._ G. On the other hand, in the only place where ΟΣ represents
_ΘΣ_, it is written _ΟΣ_ _in both_. Prejudice herself may be safely called
upon to accept the obvious and only lawful inference.
To come to the point,—Θεός is the reading of _all the uncial copies extant
but two_ (viz. א which exhibits ὅς, and D which exhibits ὅ), and of all
the cursives _but one_ (viz. 17). The universal consent of the
Lectionaries proves that Θεός has been read in all the assemblies of the
faithful from the IVth or Vth century of our era. At what earlier period
of her existence is it supposed then that the Church (“the witness and
keeper of Holy Writ,”) availed herself of her privilege to substitute Θεός
for ὅς or ὅ,—whether in error or in fraud? Nothing short of a conspiracy,
to which every region of the Eastern Church must have been a party, would
account for the phenomenon.
We enquire next for the testimony of the Fathers; and we discover that—(1)
Gregory of Nyssa quotes Θεός _twenty-two times_:(352)—that Θεός is also
recognized by (2) his namesake of Nazianzus in two places;(353)—as well as
by (3) Didymus of Alexandria;(354)—(4) by ps.-Dionysius Alex.;(355)—and
(5) by Diodorus of Tarsus.(356)—(6) Chrysostom quotes 1 Tim. iii. 16 in
conformity with the received text at least three times;(357)—and (7) Cyril
Al. as often:(358)—(8) Theodoret, four times:(359)—(9) an unknown author
of the age of Nestorius (A.D. 430), once:(360)—(10) Severus, Bp. of
Antioch (A.D. 512), once.(361)—(11) Macedonius (A.D. 506) patriarch of
CP.,(362) of whom it has been absurdly related that he _invented_ the
reading, is a witness for Θεός perforce; so is—(12) Euthalius, and—(13)
John Damascene on two occasions.(363)—(14) An unknown writer who has been
mistaken for Athanasius,(364)—(15) besides not a few ancient scholiasts,
close the list: for we pass by the testimony of—(16) Epiphanius at the 7th
Nicene Council (A.D. 787),—of (17) Œcumenius,—of (18) Theophylact.
It will be observed that neither has anything been said about the many
indirect allusions of earlier Fathers to this place of Scripture; and yet
some of these are too striking to be overlooked: as when—(19) Basil,
writing of our SAVIOUR, says αὐτὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί:(365)—and (20)
Gregory Thaum., καὶ ἔστι Θεὸς ἀληθινὸς ὁ ἄσαρκος ἐν σαρκὶ
φανερωθείς:(366)—and before him, (21) Hippolytus, οὗτος προελθὼν εἰς
κόσμον, Θεὸς ἐν σώματι ἐφανερώθη:(367)—and (22) Theodotus the Gnostic, ὁ
Σωτὴρ ὤφθη κατιὼν τοῖς ἀγγέλοις:(368)—and (23) Barnabas, Ἰησοῦς ... ὁ υἱὸς
τοῦ Θεοῦ τύπῳ καὶ ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς:(369)—and earlier still (24)
Ignatius: Θεοῦ ἀνθρωπίνως φανερουμένον:—ἐν σαρκὶ γενόμενος Θεός:—εἶς Θεὸς
ἔστιν ὁ φανερώσοας ἑαυτὸν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ.(370)—Are we to
suppose that _none_ of these primitive writers read the place as we do?
Against this array of Testimony, the only evidence which the unwearied
industry of 150 years has succeeded in eliciting, is as follows:—(1) The
exploded _Latin_ fable that Macedonius (A.D. 506) _invented_ the
reading:(371)—(2) the fact that Epiphanius,—_professing to
transcribe_(372) from an earlier treatise of his own(373) (in which
ἐφανερώθη stands _without a nominative_), prefixes ὅς:—(3) the statement
of an unknown scholiast, that in one particular place of Cyril’s writings
where the Greek is lost, Cyril wrote ὅς,—(which seems to be an entire
mistake; but which, even if it were a fact, would be sufficiently
explained by the discovery that in two other places of Cyril’s writings
the evidence _fluctuates_ between ὅς and Θεός):—(4) a quotation in an
epistle of Eutherius of Tyana (it exists only in Latin) where “qui” is
found:—(5) a casual reference (in Jerome’s commentary on Isaiah) to our
LORD, as One “qui apparuit in carne, justificatus est in spiritu,”—which
Bp. Pearson might have written.—Lastly, (6) a passage of Theodorus
Mopsuest. (quoted at the Council of Constantinople, A.D. 553), where the
reading is “qui,”—which is balanced by the discovery that in another place
of his writings quoted at the same Council, the original is translated
“quod.” And this closes the evidence. Will any unprejudiced person, on
reviewing the premisses, seriously declare that ὅς is the better sustained
reading of the two?
For ourselves, we venture to deem it incredible that a Reading which—(_a_)
Is not to be found in more than two copies (א and 17) of S. Paul’s
Epistles: which—(_b_) Is not certainly supported by a single
Version:—(_c_) Nor is clearly advocated by a single Father,—_can_ be
genuine. It does not at all events admit of question, that until _far_
stronger evidence can be produced in its favour, ὅς (“who”) may on no
account be permitted to usurp the place of the commonly received Θεός
(“GOD”) of 1 Tim. iii. 16. But the present exhibits in a striking and
instructive way all the characteristic tokens of a depravation of the
text. (1st) At an exceedingly early period it resulted in _another_
deflection. (2nd) It is without the note of _Continuity_; having died out
of the Church’s memory well-nigh 1400 years ago. (3rd) It is deficient in
_Universality_; having been all along denied the Church’s corporate
sanction. As a necessary consequence, (4th) It rests at this day on wholly
_insufficient Evidence_: Manuscripts, Versions, Fathers being _all_
against it. (5th) It carries on its front its own refutation. For, as all
must see, _ΘΣ_ might easily be mistaken for ΟΣ: but in order to make ΟΣ
into _ΘΣ_, _two horizontal lines must of set purpose be added to the
copy_. It is therefore a vast deal _more likely_ that _ΘΣ_ became ΟΣ, than
that ΟΣ became _ΘΣ_. (6th) Lastly, it is condemned by internal
considerations. Ὅς is in truth so grossly improbable—rather, so
_impossible_—a reading, that under any circumstances we must have
anxiously enquired whether no escape from it was discoverable: whether
there exists no way of explaining _how_ so patent an absurdity as
μυστέριον ὅς _may_ have arisen? And on being reminded that the
disappearance of two faint horizontal strokes, _or even of one_, would
fully account for the impossible reading,—(and thus much, at least, all
admit,)—should we not have felt that it required an overwhelming consensus
of authorities in favour of ὅς, to render such an alternative deserving of
serious attention? It is a mere abuse of Bengel’s famous axiom to recal it
on occasions like the present. We shall be landed in a bathos indeed if we
allow _gross improbability_ to become a constraining motive with us in
revising the sacred Text.
And thus much for the true reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. We invite the reader
to refer back(374) to a Reviser’s estimate of the evidence in favour of
Θεός and ὅς respectively, and to contrast it with our own. If he is
impressed with the strength of the cause of our opponents,—their mastery
of the subject,—and the reasonableness of their contention,—we shall be
surprised. And yet _that_ is not the question just now before us. The
_only_ question (be it clearly remembered) which has to be considered, is
_this_:—Can it be said with truth that the “evidence” for ὅς (as against
Θεός) in 1 Tim. iii. 16 is “_clearly preponderating_”? Can it be
maintained that Θεός is a “_plain and clear error_”? Unless this can be
affirmed—_cadit quæstio_. The traditional reading of the place ought to
have been let alone. May we be permitted to say without offence that, in
our humble judgment, if the Church of England, at the Revisers’ bidding,
were to adopt this and thousands of other depravations of the sacred
page,(375)—with which the Church Universal was once well acquainted, but
which in her corporate character she has long since unconditionally
condemned and abandoned,—she would deserve to be pointed at with scorn by
the rest of Christendom? Yes, and to have _that_ openly said of her which
S. Peter openly said of the false teachers of his day who fell back into
the very errors which they had already abjured. The place will be found in
2 S. Peter ii. 22. So singularly applicable is it to the matter in hand,
that we can but invite attention to the quotation on our title-page and p.
1.
And here we make an end.
1. Those who may have taken up the present Article in expectation of being
entertained with another of those discussions (of which we suspect the
public must be already getting somewhat weary), concerning the degree of
ability which the New Testament Revisionists have displayed in their
rendering into English of the Greek, will at first experience
disappointment. Readers of intelligence, however, who have been at the
pains to follow us through the foregoing pages, will be constrained to
admit that we have done more faithful service to the cause of Sacred Truth
by the course we have been pursuing, than if we had merely multiplied
instances of incorrect and unsatisfactory _Translation_. There is (and
this we endeavoured to explain at the outset) a question of prior interest
and far graver importance which has to be settled _first_, viz. the degree
of confidence which is due to the underlying NEW GREEK TEXT which our
Revisionists have constructed. In other words, before discussing their
_new Renderings_, we have to examine their _new Readings_.(376) The
silence which Scholars have hitherto maintained on this part of the
subject is to ourselves scarcely intelligible. But it makes us the more
anxious to invite attention to this neglected aspect of the problem; the
rather, because we have thoroughly convinced ourselves that the “new Greek
Text” put forth by the Revisionists of our Authorized Version is _utterly
inadmissible_. The traditional Text has been departed from by them nearly
6000 times,—almost invariably _for the worse_.
2. Fully to dispose of _all_ these multitudinous corruptions would require
a bulky Treatise. But the reader is requested to observe that, if we are
right in the few instances we have culled out from the mass,—_then we are
right in all_. If we have succeeded in proving that the little handful of
authorities on which the “new Greek Text” depends, are the reverse of
trustworthy,—are absolutely misleading,—then, we have cut away from under
the Revisionists the very ground on which they have hitherto been
standing. And in that case, the structure which they have built up
throughout a decade of years, with such evident self-complacency,
collapses “like the baseless fabric of a vision.”
3. For no one may flatter himself that, by undergoing a _further_ process
of “Revision,” the “Revised Version” may after all be rendered
trustworthy. The eloquent and excellent Bishop of Derry is “convinced
that, with all its undeniable merits, it will have to be somewhat
extensively revised.” And so perhaps are we. But (what is a far more
important circumstance) we are further convinced that a prior act of
penance to be submitted to by the Revisers would be the restoration of the
underlying Greek Text to very nearly—_not quite_—the state in which they
found it when they entered upon their ill-advised undertaking. “Very
nearly—not quite:” for, in not a few particulars, the “Textus receptus”
_does_ call for Revision, certainly; although Revision on entirely
different principles from those which are found to have prevailed in the
Jerusalem Chamber. To mention a single instance:—When our LORD first sent
forth His Twelve Apostles, it was certainly no part of His ministerial
commission to them to “_raise the dead_” (νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε, S. Matthew x.
8). This is easily demonstrable. Yet is the spurious clause retained by
our Revisionists; because it is found in those corrupt witnesses—א B C D,
and the Latin copies.(377) When will men learn unconditionally to put away
from themselves the weak superstition which is for investing with oracular
authority the foregoing quaternion of demonstrably depraved Codices?