Charge),—“that there is a want of modesty in dissenting from the
conclusions of a two-thirds majority of a body so learned. But the rough
process of counting heads imposes unduly on the imagination. One could
easily name _eight_ in that assembly, whose _unanimity_ would be
practically almost decisive; but we have no means of knowing that these
did not _form the minority_ in resisting the changes which we most
regret.” The Bishop is speaking of the _English_ Revision. Having regard
to the Greek Text exclusively, _we_ also (strange to relate) had singled
out _exactly eight_ from the members of the New Testament company—Divines
of undoubted orthodoxy, who for their splendid scholarship and proficiency
in the best learning, or else for their refined taste and admirable
judgment, might (as we humbly think), under certain safeguards, have been
safely entrusted even with the responsibility of revising the Sacred Text.
Under the guidance of Prebendary Scrivener (who among living Englishmen is
_facile princeps_ in these pursuits) it is scarcely to be anticipated
that, WHEN UNANIMOUS, such Divines would ever have materially erred. But
then, of course, a previous life-long familiarity with the Science of
_Textual Criticism_, or at least leisure for prosecuting it now, for ten
or twenty years, with absolutely undivided attention,—would be the
indispensable requisite for the success of such an undertaking; and this,
undeniably, is a qualification rather to be desiderated than looked for at
the hands of English Divines of note at the present day. On the other
hand, (loyalty to our Master constrains us to make the avowal,) the motley
assortment of names, twenty-eight in all, specified by Dr. Newth, at p.
125 of his interesting little volume, joined to the fact that the average
attendance _was not so many as sixteen_,—concerning whom, moreover, the
fact has transpired that some of the most judicious of their number often
_declined to give any vote at all_,—is by no means calculated to inspire
any sort of confidence. But, in truth, considerable familiarity with these
pursuits may easily co-exist with a natural inaptitude for their
successful cultivation, which shall prove simply fatal. In support of this
remark, one has but to refer to the instance supplied by Dr. Hort. The
Sacred Text has none to fear so much as those who _feel_ rather than
think: who _imagine_ rather than reason: who rely on a supposed _verifying
faculty_ of their own, of which they are able to render no intelligible
account; and who, (to use Bishop Ellicott’s phrase,) have the misfortune
to conceive themselves possessed of a “_power of divining the Original
Text_,”—which would be even diverting, if the practical result of their
self-deception were not so exceedingly serious.
5. In a future number, we may perhaps enquire into the measure of success
which has attended the Revisers’ _Revision of the English_ of our
Authorized Version of 1611. We have occupied ourselves at this time
exclusively with a survey of the seriously mutilated and otherwise grossly
depraved NEW GREEK TEXT, on which their edifice has been reared. And the
circumstance which, in conclusion, we desire to impress upon our Readers,
is this,—that the insecurity of that foundation is so alarming, that,
except as a concession due to the solemnity of the undertaking just now
under review, further Criticism might very well be dispensed with, as a
thing superfluous. Even could it be proved concerning the superstructure,
that “_it had been [ever so] well builded_,”(378) (to adopt another of our
Revisionists’ unhappy perversions of Scripture,) the fatal objection would
remain, viz. that it is not “_founded upon the rock_.”(379) It has been
the ruin of the present undertaking—as far as the Sacred Text is
concerned—that the majority of the Revisionist body have been misled
throughout by the oracular decrees and impetuous advocacy of Drs. Westcott
and Hort; who, with the purest intentions and most laudable industry, have
constructed a Text demonstrably more remote from the Evangelic verity,
than any which has ever yet seen the light. “The old is good,”(380) say
the Revisionists: but we venture solemnly to assure them that “_the old is
better_;”(381) and that this remark holds every bit as true of their
Revision of the Greek throughout, as of their infelicitous exhibition of
S. Luke v. 39. To attempt, as they have done, to build the Text of the New
Testament on a tissue of unproved assertions and the eccentricities of a
single codex of bad character, is about as hopeful a proceeding as would
be the attempt to erect an Eddystone lighthouse on the Goodwin Sands.
ARTICLE II. THE NEW ENGLISH VERSION.
“Such is the time-honoured Version which we have been called upon
to revise! We have had to study this great Version carefully and
minutely, line by line; and the longer we have been engaged upon
it the more we have learned to admire _its simplicity_, _its
dignity_, _its power_, _its happy turns of expression_, _its
general accuracy_, and we must not fail to add, _the music of its
cadences, and the felicities of its rhythm_. To render a work that
had reached this high standard of excellence, still more
excellent; to increase its fidelity, without destroying its charm;
was the task committed to us.”—PREFACE TO THE REVISED VERSION.
“To pass from the one to the other, is, as it were, to alight from
a well-built and well-hung carriage which glides easily over a
macadamized road,—and to get into one _which has bad springs or
none at all_, and in which you are _jolted in ruts with aching
bones over the stones of a newly-mended and rarely traversed
road_, like some of the roads in our North Lincolnshire
villages.”—BISHOP WORDSWORTH.(382)
“No Revision at the present day could hope to meet with an hour’s
acceptance if it failed to preserve the tone, rhythm, and diction
of the present Authorized Version.”—BISHOP ELLICOTT.(383)
“I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy
of this Book,—If any man shall add unto these things, GOD shall
add unto him the plagues that are written in this Book.
“And if any man shall take away from the words of the Book of this
prophecy, GOD shall take away his part out of the Book of Life,
and out of the holy City, and from the things which are written in
this Book.”—REVELATION xxii. 18, 19.
Whatever may be urged in favour of Biblical Revision, it is at least
undeniable that the undertaking involves a tremendous risk. Our Authorized
Version is the one religious link which at present binds together ninety
millions of English-speaking men scattered over the earth’s surface. Is it
reasonable that so unutterably precious, so sacred a bond should be
endangered, for the sake of representing certain words more
accurately,—here and there translating a tense with greater
precision,—getting rid of a few archaisms? It may be confidently assumed
that no “Revision” of our Authorized Version, however judiciously
executed, will ever occupy the place in public esteem which is actually
enjoyed by the work of the Translators of 1611,—the noblest literary work
in the Anglo-Saxon language. We shall in fact never have _another_
“Authorized Version.” And this single consideration may be thought
absolutely fatal to the project, except in a greatly modified form. To be
brief,—As a companion in the study and for private edification: as a book
of reference for critical purposes, especially in respect of difficult and
controverted passages:—we hold that a revised edition of the Authorized
Version of our English Bible, (if executed with consummate ability and
learning,) would at any time be a work of inestimable value. The method of
such a performance, whether by marginal Notes or in some other way, we
forbear to determine. But certainly only as a handmaid is it to be
desired. As something _intended to supersede_ our present English Bible,
we are thoroughly convinced that the project of a rival Translation is not
to be entertained for a moment. For ourselves, we deprecate it entirely.
On the other hand, _who_ could have possibly foreseen what has actually
come to pass since the Convocation of the Southern Province (in Feb. 1870)
declared itself favourable to “a Revision of the Authorized Version,” and
appointed a Committee of Divines to undertake the work? _Who_ was to
suppose that the Instructions given to the Revisionists would be by them
systematically disregarded? _Who_ was to imagine that an utterly
untrustworthy “new Greek Text,” constructed on mistaken principles,—(say
rather, on _no principles at all_,)—would be the fatal result? To speak
more truly,—_Who_ could have anticipated that the opportunity would have
been adroitly seized to inflict upon the Church the text of Drs. Westcott
and Hort, in all its essential features,—a text which, as will be found
elsewhere largely explained, we hold to be _the most vicious Recension of
the original Greek in existence_? Above all,—_Who_ was to foresee that
instead of removing “_plain_ and _clear errors_” from our Version, the
Revisionists,—(besides systematically removing out of sight so many of the
genuine utterances of the SPIRIT,)—would themselves introduce a countless
number of blemishes, unknown to it before? Lastly, how was it to have been
believed that the Revisionists would show themselves industrious in sowing
broadcast over four continents doubts as to the Truth of Scripture, which
it will never be in their power either to remove or to recal? _Nescit vox
missa reverti._
For, the ill-advised practice of recording, in the margin of an English
Bible, certain of the blunders—(such things cannot by any stretch of
courtesy be styled “Various Readings”)—which disfigure “some” or “many”
“ancient authorities,” can only result in hopelessly unsettling the faith
of millions. It cannot be defended on the plea of candour,—the candour
which is determined that men shall “know the worst.” “The worst”_ has_ NOT
_been told_: and it were dishonesty to insinuate that _it has_. If all the
cases were faithfully exhibited where “a few,” “some,” or “many ancient
authorities” read differently from what is exhibited in the actual Text,
not only would the margin prove insufficient to contain the record, but
_the very page itself_ would not nearly suffice. Take a single instance
(the first which comes to mind), of the thing referred to. Such
illustrations might be multiplied to any extent:—
In S. Luke iii. 22, (in place of “Thou art my beloved Son; _in Thee I am
well pleased_,”) the following authorities of the IInd, IIIrd and IVth
centuries, read,—“_this day have I begotten Thee_:” viz.—codex D and the
most ancient copies of the old Latin (a, b, c, ff-2, 1),—Justin Martyr in
three places(384) (A.D. 140),—Clemens Alex.(385) (A.D. 190),—and
Methodius(386) (A.D. 290) among the Greeks. Lactantius(387) (A.D.
300),—Hilary(388) (A.D. 350),—Juvencus(389) (A.D. 330),—Faustus(390) (A.D.
400), and—Augustine(391) amongst the Latins. The reading in question was
doubtless derived from the _Ebionite Gospel_(392) (IInd cent.). Now, we
desire to have it explained to us _why_ an exhibition of the Text
supported by such an amount of first-rate primitive testimony as the
preceding, obtains _no notice whatever_ in our Revisionists’ margin,—if
indeed it was the object of their perpetually recurring marginal
annotations, to put the unlearned reader on a level with the critical
Scholar; to keep nothing back from him; and so forth?... It is the gross
one-sidedness, the patent _unfairness_, in a critical point of view, of
this work, (which professes to be nothing else but _a Revision of the
English Version of_ 1611,)—which chiefly shocks and offends us.
For, on the other hand, of what possible use can it be to encumber the
margin of S. Luke x. 41, 42 (for example), with the announcement that “A
few ancient authorities read _Martha, Martha, thou art troubled: Mary hath
chosen_ &c.” (the fact being, that D _alone_ of MSS. omits “_careful and
... about many things. But one thing is needful, and_” ...)? With the
record of this circumstance, is it reasonable (we ask) to choke up our
English margin,—to create perplexity and to insinuate doubt? The author of
the foregoing marginal Annotation was of course aware that the same
“singular codex” (as Bp. Ellicott styles cod. D) omits, in S. Luke’s
Gospel alone, no less than 1552 words: and he will of course have
ascertained (by counting) that the words in S. Luke’s Gospel amount to
19,941. Why then did he not tell _the whole_ truth; and instead of
“_&c._,” proceed as follows?—“But inasmuch as cod. D is so scandalously
corrupt that about _one word in thirteen_ is missing throughout, the
absence of nine words in this place is of no manner of importance or
significancy. The precious saying omitted is above suspicion, and the
first half of the present Annotation might have been spared.”... We submit
that a Note like that, although rather “singular” in style, really _would_
have been to some extent helpful,—if not to the learned, at least to the
unlearned reader.
In the meantime, unlearned and learned readers alike are competent to see
that the foregoing perturbation of S. Luke x. 41, 42 rests on _the same_
manuscript authority as the perturbation of ch. iii. 22, which immediately
preceded it. The _Patristic_ attestation, on the other hand, of the
reading which has been promoted to the margin, is almost _nil_: whereas
_that_ of the neglected place has been shown to be considerable, very
ancient, and of high respectability.
But in fact,—(let the Truth be plainly stated; for, when GOD’S Word is at
stake, circumlocution is contemptible, while concealment would be a
crime;)—“_Faithfulness_” towards the public, a stern resolve that the
English reader “shall know the worst,” and all that kind of thing,—such
considerations have had nothing whatever to do with the matter. A vastly
different principle has prevailed with the Revisionists. Themselves the
dupes of an utterly mistaken Theory of Textual Criticism, their supreme
solicitude has been _to impose that same Theory_,—(_which is Westcott and
Hort’s_,)—with all its bitter consequences, on the unlearned and
unsuspicious public.
We shall of course be indignantly called upon to explain what we mean by
so injurious—so damning—an imputation? For all reply, we are content to
refer to the sample of our meaning which will be found below, in pp.
137-8. The exposure of what has there been shown to be the method of the
Revisionists in respect of S. Mark vi. 11, might be repeated hundreds of
times. It would in fact _fill a volume_. We shall therefore pass on, when
we have asked the Revisionists in turn—_How they have dared_ so
effectually to blot out those many precious words from the Book of Life,
that no mere English reader, depending on the Revised Version for his
knowledge of the Gospels, can by possibility suspect their existence?...
Supposing even that it _was_ the calamitous result of their mistaken
principles that they found themselves constrained on countless occasions,
to omit from their Text precious sayings of our LORD and His
Apostles,—what possible excuse will they offer for not having preserved a
record of words so amply attested, _at least in their margin_?
Even so, however, the whole amount of the mischief which has been effected
by our Revisionists has not been stated. For the Greek Text which they
have invented proves to be so hopelessly depraved throughout, that if it
were to be thrust upon the Church’s acceptance, we should be a thousand
times worse off than we were with the Text which Erasmus and the
Complutensian,—Stephens, and Beza, and the Elzevirs,—bequeathed to us
upwards of three centuries ago. On this part of the subject we have
remarked at length already [pp. 1-110]: yet shall we be constrained to
recur once and again to the underlying Greek Text of the Revisionists,
inasmuch as it is impossible to stir in any direction with the task before
us, without being painfully reminded of its existence. Not only do the
familiar Parables, Miracles, Discourses of our LORD, trip us up at every
step, but we cannot open the first page of the Gospel—no, nor indeed read
_the first line_—without being brought to a standstill. Thus,
1. S. Matthew begins,—“The book of the generation of JESUS CHRIST” (ver.
1).—Good. But here the margin volunteers two pieces of information:
first,—“Or, _birth_: as in ver. 18.” We refer to ver. 18, and read—“Now
the birth of JESUS CHRIST was on this wise.” Good again; but the margin
says,—“Or, _generation_: as in ver. 1.” Are we then to understand that
_the same Greek word_, diversely rendered in English, occurs in both
places? We refer to the “_new_ Greek Text:” and there it stands,—γένεσις
in either verse. But if the word be the same, why (on the Revisers’
theory) is it diversely rendered?
In the meantime, _who_ knows not that there is all the difference in the
world between S. Matthew’s γέΝΕσις, in ver. 1,—and the same S. Matthew’s
γέΝΝΗσις, in ver. 18? The latter, the Evangelist’s announcement of the
circumstances of the human Nativity of CHRIST: the former, the
Evangelist’s unobtrusive way of recalling the Septuagintal rendering of
Gen. ii. 4 and v. 1:(393) the same Evangelist’s calm method of guiding the
devout and thoughtful student to discern in the Gospel the History of the
“new Creation,”—by thus providing that when first the Gospel opens its
lips, it shall syllable the name of the first book of the elder Covenant?
We are pointing out that it more than startles—it supremely offends—one
who is even slenderly acquainted with the treasures of wisdom hid in the
very diction of the N. T. Scriptures, to discover that a deliberate effort
has been made to get rid of the very foremost of those notes of Divine
intelligence, by confounding two words which all down the ages have been
carefully kept distinct; and that this effort is the result of an
exaggerated estimate of a few codices which happen to be written in the
uncial character, viz. two of the IVth century (B א); one of the Vth (C);
two of the VIth (P Z); one of the IXth (Δ); one of the Xth (S).
The Versions(394)—(which are our _oldest_ witnesses)—are perforce only
partially helpful here. Note however, that _the only one which favours_
γένεσις is the heretical Harkleian Syriac, executed in the VIIth century.
The Peschito and Cureton’s Syriac distinguish between γένεσις in ver. 1
and γέννησις in ver. 18: as do the Slavonic and the Arabian Versions. The
Egyptian, Armenian, Æthiopic and Georgian, have only one word for both.
Let no one suppose however that _therefore_ their testimony is ambiguous.
It is γέννησις (_not_ γένεσις) which they exhibit, both in ver. 1 and in
ver. 18.(395) The Latin (“_generatio_”) is an equivocal rendering
certainly: but the earliest Latin writer who quotes the two places, (viz.
Tertullian) employs the word “_genitura_” in S. Matth. i. 1,—but
“_nativitas_” in ver. 18,—which no one seems to have noticed.(396) Now,
Tertullian, (as one who sometimes wrote in Greek,) is known to have been
conversant with the Greek copies of his day; and “his day,” be it
remembered, is A.D. 190. He evidently recognized the parallelism between
S. Matt. i. 1 and Gen. ii. 4,—where the old Latin exhibits “liber
_creaturæ_” or “_facturæ_,” as the rendering of βίβλος γενέσεως. And so
much for the testimony of the Versions.
But on reference to Manuscript and to Patristic authority(397) we are
encountered by an overwhelming amount of testimony for γέννησις in ver.
18: and this, considering the nature of the case, is an extraordinary
circumstance. Quite plain is it that the Ancients were wide awake to the
difference between spelling the word with one N or with two,—as the little
dissertation of the heretic Nestorius(398) in itself would be enough to
prove. Γέννησις, in the meantime, is the word employed by Justin
M.,(399)—by Clemens Alex.,(400)—by Athanasius,(401)—by Gregory of
Nazianzus,(402)—by Cyril Alex.,(403)—by Nestorius,(404)—by
Chrysostom,(405)—by Theodorus Mopsuest.,(406)—and by three other
ancients.(407) Even more deserving of attention is it that Irenæus(408)
(A.D. 170)—(whom Germanus(409) copies at the end of 550 years)—calls
attention to the difference between the spelling of ver. 1 and ver. 18. So
does Didymus:(410)—so does Basil:(411)—so does
Epiphanius.(412)—Origen(413) (A.D. 210) is even eloquent on the
subject.—Tertullian (A.D. 190) we have heard already.—It is a significant
circumstance, that the only Patristic authorities discoverable on the
other side are Eusebius, Theodoret, and the authors of an heretical
Creed(414)—whom Athanasius holds up to scorn.(415) ... Will the
Revisionists still pretend to tell us that γέννησις in verse 18 is a
“_plain and clear error_”?
2. This, however, is not all. Against the words “of JESUS CHRIST,” a
further critical annotation is volunteered; to the effect that “Some
ancient authorities read _of the Christ_.” In reply to which, we assert
that _not one single known MS._ omits the word “JESUS:” whilst its
presence is vouched for by
ps.-Tatian,(416)—Irenæus,—Origen,—Eusebius,—Didymus,—
Epiphanius,—Chrysostom,—Cyril,—in addition to _every known Greek copy of
the Gospels_, and not a few of the Versions, including the Peschito and
both the Egyptian. What else but nugatory therefore is such a piece of
information as this?
3. And so much for the first, second, and third Critical annotations, with
which the margin of the revised N. T. is disfigured. Hoping that the worst
is now over, we read on till we reach ver. 25, where we encounter a
statement which fairly trips us up: viz.,—“And knew her not _till she had
brought forth a son_.” No intimation is afforded of what has been here
effected; but in the meantime every one’s memory supplies the epithet
(“her first-born”) which has been ejected. Whether something very like
indignation is not excited by the discovery that these important words
have been surreptitiously withdrawn from their place, let others say. For
ourselves, when we find that only א B Z and two cursive copies can be
produced for the omission, we are at a loss to understand of what the
Revisionists can have been dreaming. Did they know(417) that,—besides the
Vulgate, the Peschito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Æthiopic, Armenian,
Georgian, and Slavonian Versions,(418)—a whole torrent of Fathers are at
hand to vouch for the genuineness of the epithet they were so
unceremoniously excising? They are invited to refer to ps.-Tatian,(419)—to
Athanasius,(420)—to Didymus,(421)—to Cyril of Jer.,(422)—to Basil,(423)—to
Greg. Nyss.,(424)—to Ephraem Syr.,(425)—to Epiphanius,(426)—to
Chrysostom,(427)—to Proclus,(428)—to Isidorus Pelus.,(429)—to John
Damasc.,(430)—to Photius,(431)—to Nicetas:(432)—besides, of the Latins,
Ambrose,(433)—the _Opus imp._,—Augustine,—and not least to
Jerome(434)—eighteen Fathers in all. And how is it possible, (we ask,)
that two copies of the IVth century (B א) and one of the VIth (Z)—all
three without a character—backed by a few copies of the old Latin, should
be supposed to be any counterpoise at all for such an array of first-rate
contemporary evidence as the foregoing?