Revision of the Greek Text will have to precede any future Revision of the
English of the New Testament. Equally certain is it that for such an
undertaking the time has not yet come. “It is my honest
conviction,”—(remarks Bp. Ellicott, the Chairman of the
Revisionists,)—“that for any authoritative Revision, we are not yet
mature: either in Biblical learning or Hellenistic scholarship.”(435) The
same opinion precisely is found to have been cherished by Dr. Westcott
till _within about a year-and-a-half_(436) of the first assembling of the
New Testament Company in the Jerusalem Chamber, 22nd June, 1870. True,
that we enjoy access to—suppose from 1000 to 2000—more MANUSCRIPTS than
were available when the Textus Recept. was formed. But nineteen-twentieths
of those documents, for any use which has been made of them, might just as
well be still lying in the monastic libraries from which they were
obtained.—True, that four out of our five oldest uncials have come to
light since the year 1628; but, _who knows how to use them_?—True, that we
have made acquaintance with certain ancient VERSIONS, about which little
or nothing was known 200 years ago: but,—(with the solitary exception of
the Rev. Solomon Cæsar Malan, the learned Vicar of Broadwindsor,—who, by
the way, is always ready to lend a torch to his benighted brethren,)—what
living Englishman is able to tell us what they all contain? A smattering
acquaintance with the languages of ancient Egypt,—the Gothic, Æthiopic,
Armenian, Georgian and Slavonian Versions,—is of no manner of avail. In no
department, probably, is “a little learning” more sure to prove “a
dangerous thing.”—True, lastly, that the FATHERS have been better edited
within the last 250 years: during which period some fresh Patristic
writings have also come to light. But, with the exception of Theodoret
among the Greeks and Tertullian among the Latins, _which of the Fathers
has been satisfactorily indexed_?
Even what precedes is not nearly all. _The fundamental Principles_ of the
Science of Textual Criticism are not yet apprehended. In proof of this
assertion, we appeal to the new Greek Text of Drs. Westcott and
Hort,—which, beyond all controversy, is more hopelessly remote from the
inspired Original than any which has yet appeared. Let a generation of
Students give themselves entirely up to this neglected branch of sacred
Science. Let 500 more COPIES of the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, be
diligently collated. Let at least 100 of the ancient _Lectionaries_ be
very exactly collated also. Let the most important of the ancient VERSIONS
be edited afresh, and let the languages in which these are written be for
the first time really _mastered_ by Englishmen. _Above all, let the
_FATHERS_ he called upon to give up their precious secrets._ Let their
writings be ransacked and indexed, and (where needful) let the MSS. of
their works be diligently inspected, in order that we may know what
actually is the evidence which they afford. Only so will it ever be
possible to obtain a Greek Text on which absolute reliance may be placed,
and which may serve as the basis for a satisfactory Revision of our
Authorized Version. Nay, let whatever unpublished works of the ancient
Greek Fathers are anywhere known to exist,—(and not a few precious remains
of theirs are lying hid in great national libraries, both at home and
abroad,)—let these be printed. The men could easily be found: the money,
far more easily.—When all this has been done,—_not before_—then in GOD’S
Name, let _the Church_ address herself to the great undertaking. Do but
revive the arrangements which were adopted in King James’s days: and we
venture to predict that less than a third part of ten years will be found
abundantly to suffice for the work. How the coming men will smile at the
picture Dr. Newth(437) has drawn of what was the method of procedure in
the reign of Queen Victoria! Will they not peruse with downright merriment
Bp. Ellicott’s jaunty proposal “_simply to proceed onward with the
work_”—[to wit, of constructing a new Greek Text,]—“in fact, _solvere
ambulando_,” [_necnon in laqueum cadendo_]?(438)
I. We cannot, it is presumed, act more fairly by the Revisers’ work,(439)
than by following them over some of the ground which they claim to have
made their own, and which, at the conclusion of their labours, their Right
Reverend Chairman evidently surveys with self-complacency. First, he
invites attention to the Principle and Rule for their guidance agreed to
by the Committee of Convocation (25th May, 1870), viz. “TO INTRODUCE AS
FEW ALTERATIONS AS POSSIBLE INTO THE TEXT OF THE AUTHORIZED VERSION,
CONSISTENTLY WITH FAITHFULNESS.” Words could not be more emphatic. “PLAIN
AND CLEAR ERRORS” were to be corrected. “NECESSARY emendations” were to be
made. But (in the words of the Southern Convocation) “We do not
contemplate any new Translation, _or any alteration of the language_,
EXCEPT WHERE, in the judgment of the most competent Scholars, SUCH CHANGE
IS NECESSARY.” The watchword, therefore, given to the company of
Revisionists was,—“NECESSITY.” _Necessity_ was to determine whether they
were to depart from the language of the Authorized Version, or not; for
the alterations were to be AS FEW AS POSSIBLE.
(_a_) Now it is idle to deny that this fundamental Principle has been
utterly set at defiance. To such an extent is this the case, that even an
unlettered Reader is competent to judge them. When we find “_to_”
substituted for “unto” (_passim_):—“_hereby_” for “by this” (1 Jo. v.
2):—“all that _are_,” for “all that be” (Rom. i. 7):—“_alway_” for
“always” (2 Thess. i. 3):—“we _that_,” “them _that_,” for “we _which_,”
“them _which_” (1 Thess. iv. 15); and yet “every spirit _which_,” for
“every spirit that” (1 Jo. iv. 3), and “he _who_ is not of GOD,” for “he
that is not of GOD” (ver. 6,—although “he _that_ knoweth GOD” had
preceded, in the same verse):—“_my_ host” for “mine host” (Rom. xvi. 23);
and “_underneath_” for “_under_” (Rev. vi. 9):—it becomes clear that the
Revisers’ notion of NECESSITY is not that of the rest of mankind. But let
the plain Truth be stated. Certain of them, when remonstrated with by
their fellows for the manifest disregard they were showing to the
Instructions subject to which they had undertaken the work of Revision,
are reported to have even gloried in their shame. The majority, it is
clear, have even ostentatiously set those Instructions at defiance.
Was the course they pursued,—(we ask the question respectfully,)—strictly
_honest_? To decline the work entirely under the prescribed Conditions,
was always in their power. But, first to accept the Conditions, and
straightway to act in defiance of them,—_this_ strikes us as a method of
proceeding which it is difficult to reconcile with the high character of
the occupants of the Jerusalem Chamber. To proceed however.
“Nevertheless” and “notwithstanding” have had a sad time of it. One or
other of them has been turned out in favour of “_howbeit_” (S. Lu. x. 11,
20),—of “_only_” (Phil. iii. 16),—of “_only that_” (i. 18),—of “_yet_” (S.
Matth. xi. 11),—of “_but_” (xvii. 27),—of “_and yet_” (James ii. 16)....
We find “_take heed_” substituted for “beware” (Col. ii. 8):—“_custom_”
for “manner” (S. Jo. xix. 40):—“he was _amazed_,” for “he was astonished:”
(S. Lu. v. 9):—“_Is it I, _LORD_?_” for “LORD, is it I?” (S. Matth. xxvi.
22):—“_straightway_ the cock crew,” for “immediately the cock crew” (S.
Jo. xviii. 27):—“Then _therefore he delivered Him_,” for “Then delivered
he Him therefore” (xix. 16):—“_brought_ it to His mouth,” for “put it to
His mouth” (ver. 29):—“_He manifested Himself on this wise_,” for “on this
wise shewed He Himself” (xxi. 1):—“_So when they got out upon the land_,”
for “As soon then as they were come to land” (ver. 9):—“the things
_concerning_,” for “the things pertaining to the kingdom of GOD” (Acts i.
3):—“as GOD’S_ steward_,” for “as the steward of God” (Tit. i. 7): but
“the _belly of the whale_” for “the whale’s belly” (S. Matth. xii. 40),
and “_device of man_” for “man’s device” in Acts xvii. 29.—These, and
hundreds of similar alterations have been evidently made out of the merest
wantonness. After substituting “_therefore_” for “then” (as the rendering
of οὖν) a score of times,—the Revisionists quite needlessly substitute
“_then_” for “therefore” in S. Jo. xix. 42.—And why has the singularly
beautiful greeting of “the elder unto the well-beloved Gaius,” been
exchanged for “unto _Gaius the beloved_”? (3 John, ver. 1).
(_b_) We turn a few pages, and find “he that _doeth_ sin,” substituted for
“he that committeth sin;” and “_To this end_” put in the place of “For
this purpose” (1 Jo. iii. 8):—“_have beheld_” and “_bear witness_,” for
“have seen and do testify” (iv. 14):—“_hereby_” for “by this” (v.
2):—“_Judas_” for “Jude” (Jude ver. 1), although “_Mark_” was substituted
for “Marcus” (in 1 Pet. v. 13), and “_Timothy_” for “Timotheus” (in Phil.
i. 1):—“how that they _said to_ you,” for “how that they told you” (Jude
ver. 18).—But why go on? The substitution of “_exceedingly_” for “greatly”
in Acts vi. 7:—“_the birds_” for “the fowls,” in Rev. xix.
21:—“_Almighty_” for “Omnipotent” in ver. 6:—“_throw down_” for “cast
down,” in S. Luke iv. 29:—“_inner chamber_” for “closet,” in vi. 6:—these
are _not_ “necessary” changes.... We will give but three instances
more:—In 1 S. Pet. v. 9, “whom _resist_, stedfast in the faith,” has been
altered into “whom _withstand_.” But how is “withstand” a better rendering
for ἀντίστητε, than “resist”? “Resist,” at all events, _was the
Revisionists’ word in S. Matth._ v. 39 _and S. James_ iv. 7.—Why also
substitute “the _race_” (for “the kindred”) “of Joseph” in Acts vii. 13,
although γένος was rendered “kindred” in iv. 6?—Do the Revisionists think
that “_fastening their_ eyes on him” is a better rendering of ἀτενίσαντες
εἰς αὐτόν (Acts vi. 15) than “_looking stedfastly_ on him”? They certainly
did not think so when they got to xxiii. 1. There, because they found
“_earnestly beholding_ the council,” they must needs alter the phrase into
“_looking stedfastly_.” It is clear therefore that _Caprice_, not
_Necessity_,—an _itching impatience_ to introduce changes into the A. V.,
not the discovery of “_plain and clear errors_”—has determined the great
bulk of the alterations which molest us in every part of the present
unlearned and tasteless performance.
II. The next point to which the Revisionists direct our attention is their
NEW GREEK TEXT,—“the necessary foundation of” their work. And here we must
renew our protest against the wrong which has been done to English readers
by the Revisionists’ disregard of the IVth Rule laid down for their
guidance, viz. that, whenever they adopted a new Textual reading, such
alteration was to be “_indicated in the margin_.” This “proved
inconvenient,” say the Revisionists. Yes, we reply: but only because you
saw fit, in preference, to choke up your margin with a record of the
preposterous readings you did _not_ admit. Even so, however, the thing
might to some extent have been done, if only by a system of signs in the
margin wherever a change in the Text had been by yourselves effected. And,
at whatever “inconvenience,” you were bound to do this,—partly because the
Rule before you was express: but chiefly in fairness to the English
Reader. How comes it to pass that you have _never_ furnished him with the
information you stood pledged to furnish; but have instead, volunteered in
every page information, worthless in itself, which can only serve to
unsettle the faith of unlettered millions, and to suggest unreasonable as
well as miserable doubts to the minds of all?
For no one may for an instant imagine that the marginal statements of
which we speak are a kind of equivalent for the _Apparatus Criticus_ which
is found in every principal edition of the Greek Testament—excepting
always that of Drs. Westcott and Hort. So far are we from deprecating
(with Daniel Whitby) the multiplication of “Various Readings,” that we
rejoice in them exceedingly; knowing that they are the very foundation of
our confidence and the secret of our strength. For this reason we consider
Dr. Tischendorf’s last (8th) edition to be furnished with not nearly
enough of them, though he left all his predecessors (and himself in his
7th edition) far behind. Our quarrel with the Revisionists is _not_ by any
means that they have commemorated _actual_ “alternative Readings” in their
margin: but that, while they have given prominence throughout to _patent
Errors_, they _have unfairly excluded all mention of,—have not made the
slightest allusion to,—hundreds of Readings which ought in fact rather to
have stood in the Text_.
The marginal readings, which our Revisers have been so ill-advised as to
put prominently forward, and to introduce to the Reader’s notice with the
vague statement that they are sanctioned by “Some” (or by “Many”) “ancient
authorities,”—are specimens _arbitrarily selected_ out of an immense mass;
are magisterially recommended to public attention and favour; _seem_ to be
invested with the sanction and authority of Convocation itself. And this
becomes a very serious matter indeed. No hint is given _which_ be the
“ancient Authorities” so referred to:—nor what proportion they bear to the
“ancient Authorities” producible on the opposite side:—nor whether they
are the _most_ “ancient Authorities” obtainable:—nor what amount of
attention their testimony may reasonably claim. But in the meantime a
fatal assertion is hazarded in the Preface (iii. 1.), to the effect that
_in cases where _“it would not be safe to accept one Reading to the
absolute exclusion of others,”_ _“alternative Readings” have been given
“in the margin.” So that the “Agony and bloody sweat” of the World’s
REDEEMER (Lu. xxii. 43, 44),—and His Prayer for His murderers (xxiii.
34),—and much beside of transcendent importance and inestimable value,
may, _according to our Revisionists_, prove to rest upon no foundation
whatever. At all events, “_it would not be safe_,” (_i.e._ _it is not
safe_) to place absolute reliance on them. Alas, how many a deadly blow at
Revealed Truth hath been in this way aimed with fatal adroitness, which no
amount of orthodox learning will ever be able hereafter to heal, much less
to undo! Thus,—
(_a_) From the first verse of S. Mark’s Gospel we are informed that “Some
ancient authorities omit _the Son of _GOD.” Why are we _not_ informed that
every known uncial Copy _except one of bad character_,—every cursive _but
two_,—_every Version_,—and the following Fathers,—all _contain_ the
precious clause: viz. Irenæus,—Porphyry,—Severianus of Gabala,—Cyril
Alex.,—Victor Ant.,—and others,—besides Ambrose and Augustine among the
Latins:—while the supposed adverse testimony of Serapion and Titus, Basil
and Victorinus, Cyril of Jer. and Epiphanius, proves to be all a mistake?
To speak plainly, since the clause is above suspicion, _Why are we not
rather told so?_
(_b_) In the 3rd verse of the first chapter of S. John’s Gospel, we are
left to take our choice between,—“without Him was not anything made that
hath been made. In him was life; and the life,” &c.,—and the following
absurd alternative,—“Without him was not anything made. _That which hath
been made was life in him_; and the life,” &c. But we are _not_ informed
that this latter monstrous figment is known to have been the importation
of the Gnostic heretics in the IInd century, and to be as destitute of
authority as it is of sense. _Why is prominence given only to the lie?_
(_c_) At S. John iii. 13, we are informed that the last clause of that
famous verse (“No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down
from heaven, even the Son of Man—_which is in heaven_”), is not found in
“many ancient authorities.” But why, in the name of common fairness, are
we not _also_ reminded that this, (as will be found more fully explained
in the note overleaf,) is _a circumstance of no Textual significancy
whatever_?
Why, above all, are we not assured that the precious clause in question (ὁ
ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ) _is_ found in every MS. in the world, except five of bad
character?—is recognized by _all_ the Latin and _all_ the Syriac versions;
as well as by the Coptic,—Æthiopic,—Georgian,—and Armenian?(440)—is either
quoted or insisted upon by
Origen,(441)—Hippolytus,(442)—Athanasius,(443)—Didymus,(444)—Aphraates the
Persian,(445)—Basil the Great,(446)—Epiphanius,(447)—Nonnus,—ps.-Dionysius
Alex.,(448)—Eustathius;(449)—by Chrysostom,(450)—Theodoret,(451)—and
Cyril,(452) each 4 times;—by Paulus, Bishop of Emesa(453) (in a sermon on
Christmas Day, A.D. 431);—by Theodoras
Mops.,(454)—Amphilochius,(455)—Severus,(456)—Theodorus
Heracl.,(457)—Basilius Cil.,(458)—Cosmas,(459)—John Damascene, in 3
places,(460)—and 4 other ancient Greek writers;(461)—besides
Ambrose,(462)—Novatian,(463)—Hilary,(464)—Lucifer,(465)—Victorinus,—Jerome,(466)—Cassian,—Vigilius,(467)—Zeno,(468)—Marius,(469)—Maximus
Taur.,(470)—Capreolus,(471)—Augustine, &c.:—is acknowledged by Lachmann,
Tregelles, Tischendorf: in short, is _quite above suspicion_: why are we
not told _that_? Those 10 Versions, those 38 Fathers, that host of Copies
in the proportion of 995 to 5,—_why_, concerning all these is there not so
much as a hint let fall that such a mass of counter-evidence
exists?(472)... Shame,—yes, _shame_ on the learning which comes abroad
only to perplex the weak, and to unsettle the doubting, and to mislead the
blind! Shame,—yes, _shame_ on that two-thirds majority of well-intentioned
but most incompetent men, who,—finding themselves (in an evil hour)
appointed to correct “_plain and clear errors_” in the _English_
“Authorized Version,”—occupied themselves instead with _falsifying the
inspired Greek Text_ in countless places, and branding with suspicion some
of the most precious utterances of the SPIRIT! Shame,—yes, _shame_ upon
them!
Why then, (it will of course be asked,) is the margin—(_a_) of S. Mark i.
1 and—(_b_) of S. John i. 3, and—(_c_) of S. John iii. 13, encumbered
after this discreditable fashion? It is (we answer) only because _the Text
of Drs. Westcott and Hort_ is thus depraved in all three places. Those
Scholars enjoy the unenviable distinction of having dared to expel from S.
John iii. 13 the words ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, which Lachmann, Tregelles and
Tischendorf were afraid to touch. Well may Dean Stanley have bestowed upon
Dr. Hort the epithet of “_fearless_”!... If report speaks truly, it is by
the merest accident that the clause in question still retains its place in
_the Revised Text_.
(_d_) Only once more. And this time we will turn to the very end of the
blessed volume. Against Rev. xiii. 18—
“Here is wisdom. He that hath understanding, let him count the number of
the Beast; for it is the number of a Man: and his number is six hundred
and sixty and six.”
Against this, we find noted,—“Some ancient authorities read _six hundred
and sixteen_.”
But why is not the _whole_ Truth told? viz. why are we not informed that
_only one_ corrupt uncial (C):—_only one_ cursive copy (11):—_only one_
Father (Tichonius): and _not one_ ancient Version—advocates this
reading?—which, on the contrary, Irenæus (A.D. 170) knew, but rejected;
remarking that 666, which is “found in all the best and oldest copies and
is attested by men who saw John face to face,” is unquestionably the true
reading.(473) Why is not the ordinary Reader further informed that the
same number (666) is expressly vouched for by Origen,(474)—by
Hippolytus,(475)—by Eusebius:(476)—as well as by Victorinus—and
Primasius,—not to mention Andreas and Arethas? To come to the moderns, as
a matter of fact the established reading is accepted by Lachmann,
Tischendorf, Tregelles,—even by Westcott and Hort. _Why_ therefore—for
what possible reason—at the end of 1700 years and upwards, is this, which
is so clearly nothing else but an ancient slip of the pen, to be forced
upon the attention of 90 millions of English-speaking people?
Will Bishop Ellicott and his friends venture to tell us that it has been
done because “it would not be safe to accept” 666, “to the absolute
exclusion of” 616?... “We have given _alternative Readings_ in the
margin,” (say they,) “wherever they seem to be of sufficient importance or
interest to deserve notice.” Will they venture to claim either “interest”
or “importance” for _this_? or pretend that it is an “alternative Reading”
_at all_? Has it been rescued from oblivion and paraded before universal
Christendom in order to perplex, mystify, and discourage “those that have
understanding,” and would fain “count the number of the Beast,” if they
were able? Or was the intention only to insinuate one more wretched
doubt—one more miserable suspicion—into minds which have been taught (_and
rightly_) to place absolute reliance in the textual accuracy of all the
gravest utterances of the SPIRIT: minds which are utterly incapable of
dealing with the subtleties of Textual Criticism; and, from a one-sided
statement like the present, will carry away none but entirely mistaken
inferences, and the most unreasonable distrust?... Or, lastly, was it only
because, in their opinion, the margin of every Englishman’s N. T. is the
fittest place for reviving the memory of obsolete blunders, and
ventilating forgotten perversions of the Truth?... We really pause for an
answer.
(_e_) But serious as this is, _more_ serious (if possible) is the unfair
_Suppression systematically practised_ throughout the work before us. “We
have given alternative Readings in the margin,”—(says Bishop Ellicott on
behalf of his brother-Revisionists,)—“_wherever they seem to be of
sufficient importance or interest to deserve notice._” [iii. 1.] From
which statement, readers have a right to infer that whenever “alternative
Readings” are _not_ “given in the margin,” it is because such Readings do
_not_ “seem to be of _sufficient importance or interest to deserve
notice_.” Will the Revisionists venture to tell us that,—(to take the
first instance of unfair Suppression which presents itself,)—our LORD’s
saying in S. Mark vi. 11 is not “of sufficient importance or interest to
deserve notice”? We allude to the famous words,—“Verily I say unto you, It
shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment,
than for that city:”—words which are not only omitted from the “New
English Version,” but _are not suffered to leave so much as a trace of
themselves in the margin_. And yet, the saying in question is attested by
the Peschito and the Philoxenian Syriac Versions: by the Old Latin: by the
Coptic, Æthiopic and Gothic Versions:—by 11 uncials and by the whole bulk
of the cursives:—by Irenæus and by Victor of Antioch. So that whether
Antiquity, or Variety of Attestation is considered,—whether we look for
Numbers or for Respectability,—the genuineness of the passage may be
regarded as _certain_. Our complaint however is _not_ that the
Revisionists entertain a different opinion on this head from ourselves:
but that they give the reader to understand that the state of the Evidence
is such, that it is quite “safe to accept” the shorter reading,—“to the
_absolute exclusion_ of the other.”—So vast is the field before us, that
this single specimen of what we venture to call “unfair Suppression,” must
suffice. (Some will not hesitate to bestow upon it a harsher epithet.) It
is in truth by far the most damaging feature of the work before us, that
its Authors should have so largely and so seriously _falsified the
Deposit_; and yet, (in clear violation of the IVth Principle or Rule laid
down for their guidance at the outset,) have suffered no trace to survive
in the margin of the deadly mischief which they have effected.
III. From the Text, the Revisionists pass on to the TRANSLATION; and
surprise us by the avowal, that “the character of the Revision was
determined for us from the outset by the first Rule,—‘to introduce as few
alterations as possible, consistently with faithfulness.’ Our task was
Revision, not Retranslation.” (This is _naïve_ certainly.) They proceed,—
“If the meaning was fairly expressed by the word or phrase that
was before us in the Authorized Version, we made no change, even
where rigid adherence to _the rule of Translating, as far as
possible, the same Greek word by the same English word_ might have
prescribed some modification.”—[iii. 2 _init._] (The italics are
our own.)