language of 2 Cor. xii. 7?—“_And by reason of the exceeding greatness of
the revelations—wherefore, that I should not be exalted overmuch_, there
was given to me a thorn in the flesh.” The word “wherefore” (διό), which
occasions all the difficulty—(breaking the back of the sentence and
necessitating the hypothesis of a change of construction)—is due solely to
the influence of א A BB. The ordinary Text is recognized by almost every
other copy; by the Latin,—Syriac,—Gothic,—Armenian Versions;—as well as by
Irenæus,(683)—Origen,(684)—Macarius,(685)—Athanasius,(686)—Chrysostom,(687)—Theodoret,(688)—John
Damascene.(689) Even Tischendorf here makes a stand and refuses to follow
his accustomed guides.(690) In plain terms, the text of 2 Cor. xii. 7 is
beyond the reach of suspicion. Scarcely intelligible is the infatuation of
which our Revisers have been the dupes.—_Quousque tandem?_
(4.) Now this is the method of the Revising body throughout: viz. so
seriously to maim the Text of many a familiar passage of Holy Writ as
effectually to mar it. Even where they remedy an inaccuracy in the
rendering of the A. V., they often inflict a more grievous injury than
mistranslation on the inspired Text. An instance occurs at S. John x. 14,
where the good Shepherd says,—“I know Mine own _and am known of Mine_,
even as the FATHER knoweth Me and I know the Father.” By thrusting in here
the Manichæan depravation (“_and Mine own know Me_”), our Revisionists
have obliterated the exquisite diversity of expression in the
original,—which implies that whereas the knowledge which subsists between
the FATHER and the SON is identical on either side, not such is the
knowledge which subsists between the creature and the Creator. The
refinement in question has been faithfully retained all down the ages by
every copy in existence except four of bad character,—א B D L. It is
witnessed to by the Syriac,—by Macarius,(691)—Gregory
Naz.,(692)—Chrysostom,(693)—Cyril
Alex.,(694)—Theodoret,(695)—Maximus.(696)
But why go on? Does any one in his sober senses suppose that if S. John
had written “_Mine own know Me_,” 996 manuscripts out of 1000, at the end
of 1800 years, would be found to exhibit “_I am known of Mine_”?
(5.) The foregoing instances must suffice. A brief enumeration of many
more has been given already, at pp. 144(_b_)-152.
Now, in view of the phenomenon just discovered to us,—(viz. for one crop
of deformities weeded out, an infinitely larger crop of far grosser
deformities as industriously planted in,)—we confess to a feeling of
distress and annoyance which altogether indisposes us to accord to the
Revisionists that language of congratulation with which it would have been
so agreeable to receive their well-meant endeavours. The serious question
at once arises,—Is it to be thought that upon the whole we are gainers, or
losers, by the Revised Version? And there seems to be no certain way of
resolving this doubt, but by opening a “Profit and Loss account” with the
Revisers,—crediting them with every item of _gain_, and debiting them with
every item of _loss_. But then,—(and we ask the question with sanguine
simplicity,)—Why should it not be _all_ gain and _no_ loss, when, at the
end of 270 years, a confessedly noble work, a truly unique specimen of
genius, taste and learning, is submitted to a body of Scholars, equipped
with every external advantage, _only_ in order that they may improve upon
it—_if they are able_? These learned individuals have had upwards of ten
years wherein to do their work. They have enjoyed the benefit of the
tentative labours of a host of predecessors,—some for their warning, some
for their help and guidance. They have all along had before their eyes the
solemn injunction that, whatever they were not able _certainly_ to
improve, they were to be _supremely careful to let alone_. They were
warned at the outset against any but “_necessary_” changes. Their sole
business was to remove “_plain and clear errors_.” They had pledged
themselves to introduce “_as few alterations as possible_.” Why then, we
again ask,—_Why_ should not every single innovation which they introduced
into the grand old exemplar before them, prove to be a manifest, an
undeniable change for the better?(697)
XIV. The more we ponder over this unfortunate production, the more
cordially do we regret that it was ever undertaken. Verily, the Northern
Convocation displayed a far-sighted wisdom when it pronounced against the
project from the first. We are constrained to declare that could we have
conceived it possible that the persons originally appointed by the
Southern Province would have co-opted into their body persons capable of
executing their work with such extravagant licentiousness as well as such
conspicuous bad taste, we should never have entertained one hopeful
thought on the subject. For indeed every characteristic feature of the
work of the Revisionists offends us,—as well in respect of what they have
left undone, as of what they have been the first to venture to do:—
(_a_) Charged “to introduce _as few_ alterations as possible into the Text
of the Authorized Version,” they have on the contrary evidently acted
throughout on the principle of making _as many_ changes in it as they
conveniently could.
(_b_) Directed “to limit, _as far as possible_, the expression of such
alterations to the language of the Authorized and earlier English
Versions,”—they have introduced such terms as “assassin,” “apparition,”
“boon,” “disparagement,” “divinity,” “effulgence,” “epileptic,”
“fickleness,” “gratulation,” “irksome,” “interpose,” “pitiable,”
“sluggish,” “stupor,” “surpass,” “tranquil:” such compounds as
“self-control,” “world-ruler:” such phrases as “_draw up_ a narrative:”
“_the impulse_ of the steersman:” “_in lack_ of daily food:” “_exercising_
oversight.” These are but a very few samples of the offence committed by
our Revisionists, of which we complain.
(_c_) Whereas they were required “to _revise_ the Headings of the
Chapters,” they have not even _retained_ them. We demand at least to have
our excellent “Headings” back.
(_d_) And what has become of our time-honoured “Marginal References,”—_the
very best Commentary_ on the Bible, as we believe,—certainly the very best
help for the right understanding of Scripture,—which the wit of man hath
ever yet devised? The “Marginal References” would be lost to the Church
for ever, if the work of the Revisionists were allowed to stand: the space
required for their insertion having been completely swallowed up by the
senseless, and worse than senseless, Textual Annotations which at present
infest the margin of every sacred page. We are beyond measure amazed that
the Revisionists have even deprived the reader of the _essential aid_ of
references to the places of the Old Testament which are quoted in the New.
(_e_) Let the remark be added in passing, that we greatly dislike the
affectation of printing certain quotations from the Old Testament after
the strange method adopted by our Revisers from Drs. Westcott and Hort.
(_f_) The further external _assimilation of the Sacred Volume to an
ordinary book_ by getting rid of the division into Verses, we also hold to
be a great mistake. In the Greek, by all means let the verses be merely
noted in the margin: but, for more than one weighty reason, in the
_English_ Bible let the established and peculiar method of printing the
Word of GOD, tide what tide, be scrupulously retained.
(_g_) But incomparably the gravest offence is behind. By far the most
serious of all is _that_ Error to the consideration of which we devoted
our former Article. THE NEW GREEK TEXT which, in defiance of their
Instructions,(698) our Revisionists have constructed, has been proved to
be utterly undeserving of confidence. Built up on a fallacy which since
1831 has been dominant in Germany, and which has lately found but too much
favour among ourselves, it is in the main a reproduction of the recent
labours of Doctors Westcott and Hort. But we have already recorded our
conviction, that the results at which those eminent Scholars have arrived
are wholly inadmissible. It follows that, in our account, the “New English
Version,” has been all along a foredoomed thing. If the “New Greek Text”
be indeed a tissue of fabricated Readings, the translation of these into
English must needs prove lost labour. It is superfluous to enquire into
the merits of the English rendering of words which Evangelists and
Apostles demonstrably never wrote.
(_h_) Even this, however, is not nearly all. As Translators, full
two-thirds of the Revisionists have shown themselves singularly
deficient,—alike in their critical acquaintance with the language out of
which they had to translate, and in their familiarity with the idiomatic
requirements of their own tongue. They had a noble Version before them,
which they have contrived to spoil in every part. Its dignified simplicity
and essential faithfulness, its manly grace and its delightful rhythm,
they have shown themselves alike unable to imitate and unwilling to
retain. Their queer uncouth phraseology and their jerky sentences:—their
pedantic obscurity and their stiff, constrained manner:—their fidgetty
affectation of accuracy,—and their habitual achievement of English which
fails to exhibit the spirit of the original Greek;—are sorry substitutes
for the living freshness, and elastic freedom, and habitual fidelity of
the grand old Version which we inherited from our Fathers, and which has
sustained the spiritual life of the Church of England, and of all
English-speaking Christians, for 350 years. Linked with all our holiest,
happiest memories, and bound up with all our purest aspirations: part and
parcel of whatever there is of good about us: fraught with men’s hopes of
a blessed Eternity and many a bright vision of the never-ending Life;—the
Authorized Version, wherever it was possible, _should have been jealously
retained_. But on the contrary. Every familiar cadence has been
dislocated: the congenial flow of almost every verse of Scripture has been
hopelessly marred: so many of those little connecting words, which give
life and continuity to a narrative, have been vexatiously displaced, that
a perpetual sense of annoyance is created. The countless minute
alterations which have been needlessly introduced into every familiar page
prove at last as tormenting as a swarm of flies to the weary traveller on
a summer’s day.(699) To speak plainly, the book has been made
_unreadable_.
But in fact the distinguished Chairman of the New Testament Company
(Bishop Ellicott,) has delivered himself on this subject in language which
leaves nothing to be desired, and which we willingly make our own. “No
Revision” (he says) “in 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.”(700)—What else is this but a vaticination,—of
which the uninspired Author, by his own act and deed, has ensured the
punctual fulfilment?
We lay the Revisers’ volume down convinced that the case of their work is
simply hopeless. _Non ego paucis offendar maculis._ Had the blemishes been
capable of being reckoned up, it might have been worth while to try to
remedy some of them. But when, instead of being disfigured by a few weeds
scattered here and there, the whole field proves to be sown over in every
direction with thorns and briars; above all when, deep beneath the
surface, roots of bitterness to be counted by thousands, are found to have
been silently planted in, which are sure to produce poisonous fruit after
many days:—under _such_ circumstances only one course can be prescribed.
Let the entire area be ploughed up,—ploughed deep; and let the ground be
left for a decent space of time without cultivation. It is idle—worse than
idle—to dream of revising, _with a view to retaining_, this Revision.
Another generation of students must be suffered to arise. Time must be
given for Passion and Prejudice to cool effectually down. Partizanship,
(which at present prevails to an extraordinary extent, but which is
wondrously out of place in _this_ department of Sacred
Learning,)—_Partizanship_ must be completely outlived,—before the Church
can venture, with the remotest prospect of a successful issue, to organize
another attempt at revising the Authorized Version of the New Testament
Scriptures.
Yes, and in the meantime—(let it in all faithfulness be added)—the Science
of Textual Criticism will have to be prosecuted, _for the first time_, in
a scholarlike manner. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES,—sufficiently axiomatic to
ensure general acceptance,—will have to be laid down for men’s guidance.
The time has quite gone by for vaunting “_the now established Principles
of Textual Criticism_,”(701)—as if they had an actual existence. Let us be
shown, instead, _which those Principles be_. As for the weak superstition
of these last days, which—_without proof of any kind_—would erect two
IVth-century Copies of the New Testament, (demonstrably derived from one
and the same utterly depraved archetype,) into an authority from which
there shall be no appeal,—it cannot be too soon or too unconditionally
abandoned. And, perhaps beyond all things, men must be invited to disabuse
their minds of the singular imagination that it is in their power, when
addressing themselves to that most difficult and delicate of
problems,—_the improvement of the Traditional Text_,—“solvere
ambulando.”(702) They are assured that they may not take to Textual
Criticism as ducks take to the water. They will be drowned inevitably if
they are so ill-advised as to make the attempt.
Then further, those who would interpret the New Testament Scriptures, are
reminded that a thorough acquaintance with the Septuagintal Version of the
Old Testament is one indispensable condition of success.(703) And finally,
the Revisionists of the future (if they desire that their labours should
be crowned), will find it their wisdom to practise a severe self-denial;
to confine themselves to the correction of “_plain and clear errors_;” and
in fact to “introduce into the Text _as few alterations as possible_.”
On a review of all that has happened, from first to last, we can but feel
greatly concerned: greatly surprised: most of all, disappointed. We had
expected a vastly different result. It is partly (not quite) accounted
for, by the rare attendance in the Jerusalem Chamber of some of the names
on which we had chiefly relied. Bishop Moberly (of Salisbury) was present
on only 121 occasions: Bishop Wordsworth (of S. Andrews) on only 109:
Archbishop Trench (of Dublin) on only 63: Bishop Wilberforce on only
_one_. The Archbishop, in his Charge, adverts to “the not unfrequent
sacrifice of grace and ease to the rigorous requirements of a literal
accuracy;” and regards them “as pushed to a faulty excess” (p. 22). Eleven
years before the scheme for the present “Revision” had been matured, the
same distinguished and judicious Prelate, (then Dean of Westminster,)
persuaded as he was that a Revision _ought_ to come, and convinced that in
time it _would_ come, deprecated its being attempted _yet_. His words
were,—“Not however, I would trust, as yet: for we are not as yet _in any
respect prepared for it. The Greek, and the English_ which should enable
us to bring this to a successful end might, it is to be feared, be wanting
alike.”(704) Archbishop Trench, with wise after-thought, in a second
edition, explained himself to mean “_that special Hellenistic Greek, here
required_.”
The Bp. of S. Andrews has long since, in the fullest manner, cleared
himself from the suspicion of complicity in the errors of the work before
us,—as well in respect of the “New Greek Text” as of the “New English
Version.” In the Charge which he delivered at his Diocesan Synod, (22nd
Sept. 1880,) he openly stated that two years before the work was finally
completed, he had felt obliged to address a printed circular to each
member of the Company, in which he strongly remonstrated against the
excess to which changes had been carried; and that the remonstrance had
been, for the most part, unheeded. Had this been otherwise, there is good
reason to believe that the reception which the Revision has met with would
have been far less unfavourable, and that many a controversy which it has
stirred up, would have been avoided. We have been assured that the Bp. of
S. Andrews would have actually resigned his place in the Company at that
time, if he had not been led to expect that some opportunity would have
been taken by the Minority, when the work was finished, to express their
formal dissent from the course which had been followed, and many of the
conclusions which had been adopted.
Were certain other excellent personages, (Scholars and Divines of the best
type) who were often present, disposed at this late hour to come forward,
they too would doubtless tell us that they heartily regretted what was
done, but were powerless to prevent it. It is no secret that Dr. Lee,—the
learned Archdeacon of Dublin,—(one of the few really competent members of
the Revising body,)—found himself perpetually in the minority.
The same is to be recorded concerning Dr. Roberts, whose work on the
Gospels (published in 1864) shows that he is not by any means so entirely
a novice in the mysteries of Textual Criticism as certain of his
colleagues.—One famous Scholar and excellent Divine,—a Dean whom we
forbear to name,—with the modesty of real learning, often withheld what
(had he given it) would have been an adverse vote.—Another learned and
accomplished Dean (Dr. Merivale), after attending 19 meetings of the
Revising body, withdrew in disgust from them entirely. He disapproved _the
method_ of his colleagues, and was determined to incur no share of
responsibility for the probable result of their deliberations.—By the
way,—What about a certain solemn Protest, by means of which the Minority
had resolved _liberare animas suas_ concerning the open disregard shown by
the Majority for the conditions under which they had been entrusted with
the work of Revision, but which was withheld at the last moment? Inasmuch
as their reasons for the course they eventually adopted seemed sufficient
to those high-minded and honourable men, we forbear to challenge it.
Nothing however shall deter us from plainly avowing our own opinion that
human regards scarcely deserve a hearing when GOD’S Truth is imperilled.
And that the Truth of GOD’S Word in countless instances _has been_
ignorantly sacrificed by a majority of the Revisionists—(out of deference
to a worthless Theory, newly invented and passionately advocated by two of
their body),—has been already demonstrated; as far, that is, as
demonstration is _possible_ in this subject matter.
As for Prebendary Scrivener,—_the only really competent Textual Critic of
the whole party_,—it is well known that he found himself perpetually
outvoted by two-thirds of those present. We look forward to the
forthcoming new edition of his _Plain Introduction_, in the confident
belief that he will there make it abundantly plain that he is in no degree
responsible for the monstrous Text which it became his painful duty to
conduct through the Press on behalf of the entire body, of which he
continued to the last to be a member. It is no secret that, throughout,
Dr. Scrivener pleaded in vain for the general view we have ourselves
advocated in this and the preceding Article.
All alike may at least enjoy the real satisfaction of knowing that,
besides having stimulated, to an extraordinary extent, public attention to
the contents of the Book of Life, they have been instrumental in awakening
a living interest in one important but neglected department of Sacred
Science, which will not easily be again put to sleep. It may reasonably
prove a solace to them to reflect that they have besides, although perhaps
in ways they did not anticipate, rendered excellent service to mankind. A
monument they have certainly erected to themselves,—though neither of
their Taste nor yet of their Learning. Their well-meant endeavours have
provided an admirable text-book for Teachers of Divinity,—who will
henceforth instruct their pupils to beware of the Textual errors of the
Revisionists of 1881, as well as of their tasteless, injudicious, and
unsatisfactory essays in Translation. This work of theirs will discharge
the office of a warning beacon to as many as shall hereafter embark on the
same perilous enterprise with themselves. It will convince men of the
danger of pursuing the same ill-omened course: trusting to the same
unskilful guidance: venturing too near the same wreck-strewn shore.
Its effect will be to open men’s eyes, as nothing else could possibly have
done, to the dangers which beset the Revision of Scripture. It will teach
faithful hearts to cling the closer to the priceless treasure which was
bequeathed to them by the piety and wisdom of their fathers. It will
dispel for ever the dream of those who have secretly imagined that a more
exact Version, undertaken with the boasted helps of this nineteenth
century of ours, would bring to light something which has been hitherto
unfairly kept concealed or else misrepresented. Not the least service
which the Revisionists have rendered has been the proof their work
affords, how very seldom our Authorized Version is materially wrong: how
faithful and trustworthy, on the contrary, it is throughout. Let it be
also candidly admitted that, even where (in our judgment) the Revisionists
have erred, they have never had the misfortune _seriously_ to obscure a
single feature of Divine Truth; nor have they in any quarter (as we hope)
inflicted wounds which will be attended with worse results than to leave a
hideous scar behind them. It is but fair to add that their work bears
marks of an amount of conscientious (though misdirected) labour, which
those only can fully appreciate who have made the same province of study
to some extent their own.
ARTICLE III. WESTCOTT AND HORT’S NEW TEXTUAL THEORY.
“In the determination of disputed readings, these Critics avail
themselves of so small a portion of existing materials, or allow
so little weight to others, that the Student who follows them has
positively _less ground for his convictions than former Scholars
had at any period in the history of modern Criticism_.”—CANON
COOK, p. 16.
“We have no right, doubtless, to assume that our Principles are
infallible: but we _have_ a right to claim that any one who
rejects them ... should confute the Arguments and rebut the
Evidence on which the opposite conclusion has been founded.
_Strong expressions of Individual Opinion are not Arguments._”—BP.
ELLICOTT’S Pamphlet, (1882,) p. 40.
Our “method involves vast research, unwearied patience.... It will
therefore find but little favour with _those who adopt the easy
method_ ... _of using some favourite Manuscript_, or _some
supposed power of divining the Original Text_.”—BP. ELLICOTT,
_Ibid._ p. 19.
“Non enim sumus sicut plurimi, adulterantes (καπηλεύοντες) verbum
DEI.”—2 Cor. ii. 17.
“Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without
knowledge?”—JOB xxxviii. 2.
“Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the
ditch?”—S. LUKE vi. 39.