conducted Drs. Westcott and Hort_.”(887) And first, the fable of the
“Syrian Text”—which “_Dr. Hort considers_ to have been the result of a
deliberate Recension,” conducted on erroneous principles. This fabricated
product of the IIIrd and IVth centuries, (you say,) rose to
supremacy,—became dominant at Antioch,—passed thence to
Constantinople,—and once established there, soon vindicated its claim to
be the N. T. of the East: whence it overran the West, and for 300 years as
the “Textus Receptus,” has held undisputed sway.(888) Really, my lord
Bishop, you describe imaginary events in truly Oriental style. One seems
to be reading not so much of the “Syrian Text” as of the Syrian Impostor.
One expects every moment to hear of some feat of this fabulous Recension
corresponding with the surrender of the British troops and Arabi’s
triumphant entry into Cairo with the head of Sir Beauchamp Seymour in his
hand!
All this is followed, of course, by the weak fable of the “Neutral” Text,
and of the absolute supremacy of Codex B,—which is “_stated in Dr. Hort’s
own words_:”(889)—viz. “B very far exceeds all other documents in
neutrality of text, being in fact always, or nearly always, neutral.” (The
_fact_ being that codex B is demonstrably one of the most corrupt
documents in existence.) The posteriority of the (imaginary) “Syrian,” to
the (imaginary) “Neutral,” is insisted upon next in order, as a matter of
course: and declared to rest upon three other considerations,—each one of
which is found to be pure fable: viz. (1) On the fable of “Conflation,”
which “_seems_ to supply a proof” that Syrian readings are posterior both
to Western and to Neutral readings—but, (as I have elsewhere(890) shown,
at considerable length,) most certainly _does_ not:—(2) On Ante-Nicene
Patristic evidence,—of which however not a syllable is produced:—(3) On
“_Transcriptional probability_”—which is about as useful a substitute for
proof as a sweet-pea for a walking-stick.
Widely dissimilar of course is your own view of the importance of the
foregoing instruments of conviction. To _you_, “these three reasons taken
together seem to make up an argument for the posteriority of the Syrian
Text, which it is impossible to resist. They form” (you say) “a threefold
cord of evidence which [you] believe will bear any amount of argumentative
strain.” You rise with your subject, and at last break out into eloquence
and vituperation:—“Writers like the Reviewer may attempt to cut the cord
_by reckless and unverified assertions_: but _the knife has not yet been
fabricated that can equitably separate any one of its strands_.”(891)...
So effectually, as well as so deliberately, have you lashed yourself—for
better or for worse—to Westcott and Hort’s New Textual Theory, that you
must now of necessity either share its future triumphs, or else be a
partaker in its coming humiliation. Am I to congratulate you on your
prospects?
For my part, I make no secret of the fact that I look upon the entire
speculation about which you are so enthusiastic, as an excursion into
cloud-land: a _dream_ and nothing more. My contention is,—_not_ that the
Theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort rests on an _insecure_ foundation, but,
that it rests on _no foundation at all_. Moreover, I am greatly mistaken
if this has not been _demonstrated_ in the foregoing pages.(892) On one
point, at all events, there cannot exist a particle of doubt; namely, that
so far from its “_not being for you to interpose in this controversy_”—you
are without alternative. You must either come forward at once, and bring
it to a successful issue: or else, you must submit to be told that you
have suffered defeat, inasmuch as you are inextricably involved in
Westcott and Hort’s discomfiture. You are simply without remedy. _You_ may
“_find nothing in the Reviewer’s third article to require a further
answer_:” but readers of intelligence will tell you that your finding,
since it does not proceed from stupidity, can only result from your
consciousness that you have made a serious blunder: and that now, the less
you say about “Westcott and Hort’s new textual Theory,” the better.
[14] The Question modestly proposed,—Whether Bp. Ellicott’s adoption of
Westcott and Hort’s “new Textual Theory” does not amount to (what lawyers
call) “CONSPIRACY”?
But, my lord Bishop, when I reach the end of your laborious avowal that
you entirely accept “Westcott and Hort’s new Textual Theory,”—I find it
impossible to withhold the respectful enquiry,—Is such a proceeding on
your part altogether allowable? I frankly confess that to _me_ the
wholesale adoption by the Chairman of the Revising body, of the theory of
two of the Revisers,—and then, his exclusive reproduction and vindication
of _that theory_, when he undertakes,
“to supply the reader with a few broad outlines of Textual
Criticism, so as to enable him to form _a fair judgment_ on the
question of the trustworthiness of _the readings adopted by the
Revisers_,”—p. 29,
all this, my lord Bishop, I frankly avow, to _me_, looks very much indeed
like what, in the language of lawyers, is called “Conspiracy.” It appears
then that instead of presiding over the deliberations of the Revisionists
as an impartial arbiter, you have been throughout, heart and soul, an
eager partizan. You have learned to employ freely Drs. Westcott and Hort’s
peculiar terminology. You adopt their scarcely-intelligible phrases: their
wild hypotheses: their arbitrary notions about “Intrinsic” and
“Transcriptional Probability:” their baseless theory of “Conflation:”
their shallow “Method of Genealogy.” You have, in short, evidently
swallowed their novel invention whole. I can no longer wonder at the
result arrived at by the body of Revisionists. Well may Dr. Scrivener have
pleaded in vain! He found Drs. Ellicott and Westcott and Hort too many for
him.... But it is high time that I should pass on.
[15] Proofs that the Revisers have outrageously exceeded the Instructions
they received from the Convocation of the Southern Province.
It follows next to enquire whether your work as Revisers was conducted in
conformity with the conditions imposed upon you by the Southern House of
Convocation, or not. “_Nothing_” (you say)—
“_can be more unjust_ on the part of the Reviewer than to suggest,
as he has suggested in more than one passage,(893) that the
Revisers _exceeded their Instructions_ in the course which they
adopted with regard to the Greek Text. On the contrary, as we
shall show, they adhered most closely to their Instructions; and
did neither more nor less than they were required to do.”—(p. 32.)
“The Reviewer,” my lord Bishop, proceeds to _demonstrate_ that you
“exceeded your Instructions,” even to an extraordinary extent. But it will
be convenient first to hear you out. You proceed,—
“Let us turn to the Rule. It is simply as follows:—‘That the text
to be adopted be that for which the Evidence _is decidedly
preponderating_: and that when the text so adopted differs from
that from which the Authorized Version was made, the alteration be
indicated in the margin.’ ”—(_Ibid._)
But you seem to have forgotten that the “Rule” which you quote formed no
part of the “_Instructions_” which were imposed upon you by Convocation.
It was one of the “Principles _agreed to by the Committee_” (25 May,
1870),—a Rule _of your own making_ therefore,—for which Convocation
neither was nor is responsible. The “fundamental Resolutions adopted by
the Convocation of Canterbury” (3rd and 5th May, 1870), five in number,
contain no authorization whatever for making changes in the Greek Text.
They have reference only to the work of revising “_the Authorized
Version_:” an undertaking which the first Resolution declares to be
“desirable.” “In order to ascertain what were the Revisers’ _Instructions_
with regard to the Greek Text,” we must refer to the original Resolution
of Feb. 10th, 1870: in which the removal of “_plain and clear errors_,
whether in the Greek Text originally adopted by the Translators, or in the
Translation made from the same,”—is for the first and last time mentioned.
That you yourself accepted this as the limit of your authority, is proved
by your Speech in Convocation. “We may be satisfied” (you said) “with the
attempt to correct _plain and clear errors_: but _there, it is our duty to
stop_.”(894)
Now I venture to assert that not one in a hundred of the alterations you
have actually made, “whether in the Greek Text originally adopted by the
Translators, or in the Translation made from the same,” are corrections of
“_plain and clear errors_.” Rather,—(to adopt the words of the learned
Bishop of Lincoln,)—“I fear we must say in candour that in the Revised
Version we meet in every page with changes _which seem almost to be made
for the sake of change_.”(895) May I trouble you to refer back to p. 112
of the present volume for a few words more on this subject from the pen of
the same judicious Prelate?
(_a_) _And first_,—_In respect of the New English Version_.
For my own part, (see above, pp. 171-2,) I thought the best thing I could
do would be to illustrate the nature of my complaint, by citing and
commenting on an actual instance of your method. I showed how, in revising
eight-and-thirty words (2 Pet. i. 5-7), you had contrived to introduce no
fewer than _thirty changes_,—every one of them being clearly a change for
the worse. You will perhaps say,—Find me another such case! I find it, my
lord Bishop, in S. Luke viii. 45, 46,—where you have made _nineteen
changes_ in revising the translation of four-and-thirty words. I proceed
to transcribe the passage; requesting you to bear in mind your own
emphatic protestation,—“We made _no_ change _if the meaning was fairly
expressed_ by the word or phrase before us.”
A.V. R.V.
“Peter and they that were “Peter said [1], and they
with him said, Master, that were with him,
the multitude throng thee Master the multitudes [2]
and press thee, and press [3] thee and crush
sayest thou, Who touched thee [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.]
me? And Jesus said, But [11] Jesus said, Some
Somebody hath touched me: one [12] did touch [14]
for I perceive that me: for I perceived [15]
virtue is gone out of that power [16] had [17]
me.” gone forth [18] from [19]
me.”
Now pray,—Was not “the meaning _fairly expressed_” before? Will you tell
me that in revising S. Luke viii. 45-6, you “_made as few alterations as
possible_”? or will you venture to assert that you have removed none but
“_plain and clear errors_”? On the contrary. I challenge any competent
scholar in Great Britain to say _whether every one of these changes_ be
not either absolutely useless, or else _decidedly a change for the worse_:
six of them being downright _errors_.
The transposition in the opening sentence is infelicitous, to say the
least. (The English language will not bear such handling. Literally, no
doubt, the words mean, “said Peter, and they that were with him.” But you
may not so _translate_.)—The omission of the six interesting words,
indicated within square brackets, is a serious blunder.(896) The words are
_undoubtedly_ genuine. I wonder how you can have ventured thus to mutilate
the Book of Life. And why did you not, out of common decency and
reverence, _at least in the margin_, preserve a record of the striking
clause which you thus,—with well-meant assiduity, but certainly with
deplorable rashness,—forcibly ejected from the text? To proceed
however.—“Multitudes,”—“but,”—“one,”—“did,”— “power,”—“forth,”—“from:”—are
all seven either needless changes, or improper, or undesirable. “_Did
touch_,”—“_perceived_,”—“_had gone forth_,”—are unidiomatic and incorrect
expressions. I have already explained this elsewhere.(897) The aorist
(ἥψατο) has here a perfect signification, as in countless other
places:—ἔγνων, (like “_novi_,”) is frequently (as here) to be Englished by
the present (“_I perceive_”): and “_is gone out of me_” is the nearest
rendering of ἐξελθοῦσαν(898) ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ which our language will
bear.—Lastly, “_press_” and “_crush_,” as renderings of συνέχουσι and
ἀποθλίβουσι, are inexact and unscholarlike. Συνέχειν, (literally “to
encompass” or “hem in,”) is here to “throng” or “crowd:” ἀποθλίβειν,
(literally “to squeeze,”) is here to “press.” But in fact the words were
perfectly well rendered by our Translators of 1611, and ought to have been
let alone.—This specimen may suffice, (and it is a very fair specimen,) of
what has been your calamitous method of revising the A. V. throughout.
So much then for the Revised _English_. The fate of the Revised _Greek_ is
even more extraordinary. I proceed to explain myself by instancing what
has happened in respect of the GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE.
(_b_) _Next_,—_In respect of the New Greek Text._
On examining the 836(899) Greek Textual corrections which you have
introduced into those 1151 verses, I find that at least 356 of them _do
not affect the English rendering at all_. I mean to say that those 356
(supposed) emendations are either _incapable_ of being represented in a
Translation, or at least are _not_ represented. Thus, in S. Luke iv. 3,
whether εἶπε δέ or καὶ εἶπεν is read:—in ver. 7, whether ἐμοῦ or μου:—in
ver. 8, whether Κύριον τὸν Θεόν σου προσκυνήσες, or Προσκυνήσεις Κ. τὸν Θ.
σου; whether ἤγαγε δέ or καὶ ἤγαγεν; whether υἱός or ὁ υἱός:—in ver. 17,
whether τοῦ προφήτου Ἡσαïου or Ἡ. τοῦ προφήτου; whether ἀνοίξας or
ἀναπτύξας:—in ver. 18, whether εὐαγγελίσασθαι or εὐαγγελίζεσθαι:—in ver.
20, whether οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ or ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ οἱ ὀφθαλμοί:—in
ver. 23, whether εἰς τήν or ἐν τῇ:—in ver. 27, whether ἐν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ ἐπὶ
Ἐλισσαίου τοῦ προφήτου or ἐπὶ Ἐλισσ., τοῦ π. ἐν τῷ Ἰ.:—in ver. 29, whether
ὀφρύος or τῆς ὀφρύος; whether ὥστε or εἰς τό:—in ver. 35, whether ἀπ᾽ or
ἐξ:—in ver. 38, whether ἀπό or ἐκ; whether πενθερά or ἡ πενθερά:—in ver.
43, whether ἐπί or εἰς; whether ἀπεστάλην or ἀπέσταλμαι:—in ver. 44,
whether εἰς τὰς συναγωγάς or ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς:—in every one of these
cases, _the English remains the same_, whichever of the alternative
readings is adopted. At least 19 therefore out of the 33 changes which you
introduced into the Greek Text of S. Luke iv. are plainly gratuitous.
_Thirteen_ of those 19, (or about two-thirds,) are also in my opinion
changes _for_ the _worse_: are nothing else, I mean, but substitutions of
_wrong for right_ Readings. But _that_ is not my present contention. The
point I am just now contending for is this:—That, since it certainly was
no part of your “Instructions,” “Rules,” or “Principles” _to invent a new
Greek Text_,—or indeed to meddle with the original Greek at all, _except
so far as was absolutely necessary for the Revision of the English
Version_,—it is surely a very grave form of inaccuracy to assert (as you
now do) that you “adhered most closely to your Instructions, and did
neither more nor less than you were required.”—You _know_ that you did a
vast deal more than you had any authority or right to do: a vast deal more
than you had the shadow of a pretext for doing. Worse than that. You
deliberately forsook the province to which you had been exclusively
appointed by the Southern Convocation,—and you ostentatiously invaded
another and a distinct province; viz. _That_ of the critical Editorship of
the Greek Text: for which, _by your own confession_,—(I take leave to
remind you of your own honest avowal, quoted above at page 369,)—you and
your colleagues _knew_ yourselves to be incompetent.
For, when those 356 wholly gratuitous and uncalled-for changes in the
Greek of S. Luke’s Gospel come to be examined in detail, they are found to
affect far more than 356 words. By the result, 92 words have been omitted;
and 33 added. No less than 129 words have been substituted for others
which stood in the text before; and there are 66 instances of
Transposition, involving the dislocation of 185 words. The changes of
case, mood, tense, &c., amount in addition to 123.(900) The sum of the
words which you have _needlessly_ meddled with in the Greek Text of the
third Gospel proves therefore to be 562.
At this rate,—(since, [excluding marginal notes and variations in stops,]
Scrivener(901) counts 5337 various readings in his Notes,)—the number of
alterations _gratuitously and uselessly introduced by you into the Greek
Text of the entire N. T._, is to be estimated at 3590.
And if,—(as seems probable,)—the same general proportion prevails
throughout your entire work,—it will appear that the words which, without
a shadow of excuse, you have _omitted_ from the Greek Text of the N. T.,
must amount to about 590: while you have _added_ in the same gratuitous
way about 210; and have needlessly _substituted_ about 820. Your instances
of uncalled-for _transposition_, (about 420 in number,) will have involved
the gratuitous dislocation of full 1190 words:—while the occasions on
which, at the bidding of Drs. Westcott and Hort, you have altered case,
mood, tense, &c., must amount to about 780. In this way, the sum of the
changes you have effected in the Greek Text of the N. T. _in clear
defiance of your Instructions_,—would amount, as already stated, to 3590.
Now, when it is considered that _not one_ of those 3590 changes _in the
least degree affects the English Revision_,—it is undeniable, not only
that you and your friends did what you were without authority for
doing:—but also that you violated as well the spirit as the letter of your
Instructions. As for your present assertion (at p. 32) that you “adhered
_most closely_ to the Instructions you received, and _did neither more nor
less than you were required to do_,”—you must submit to be reminded that
it savours strongly of the nature of pure fable. The history of the new
Greek Text is briefly this:—A majority of the Revisers—_including
yourself, their Chairman_,—are found to have put yourselves almost
unreservedly into the hands of Drs. Westcott and Hort. The result was
obvious. When the minority, headed by Dr. Scrivener, appealed to the
chair, they found themselves confronted by a prejudiced Advocate. They
ought to have been listened to by an impartial Judge. _You_, my lord
Bishop, are in consequence (I regret to say) responsible for all the
mischief which has occurred. The blame of it rests at _your_ door.
And pray disabuse yourself of the imagination that in what precedes I have
been _stretching_ the numbers in order to make out a case against you. It
would be easy to show that in estimating the amount of needless changes at
356 out of 836, I am greatly under the mark. I have not included such
cases, for instance, as your substitution of ἡ μνᾶ σου, Κύριε for Κύριε, ἡ
μνᾶ σου (in xix. 18), and of Τοίνυν ἀπόδοτε for Ἀπόδοτε τοίνυν (in xx.
25),(902)—only lest you should pretend that the transposition affects the
English, and therefore _was_ necessary. Had I desired to swell the number
I could have easily shown that fully _half_ the changes you effected in
the Greek Text were wholly superfluous for the Revision of the English
Translation, and therefore were entirely without excuse.
_This_, in fact,—(give me leave to remind you in passing,)—is the _true_
reason why, at an early stage of your proceedings, you resolved that
_none_ of the changes you introduced into the Greek Text should find a
record in your English margin. Had _any_ been recorded, _all_ must have
appeared. And had this been done, you would have stood openly convicted of
having utterly disregarded the “Instructions” you had received from
Convocation. With what face, for example, _could_ you, (in the margin of
S. Luke xv. 17,) against the words “he said,”—have printed “ἔφη not εἶπε”?
or, (at xxiv. 44,) against the words “unto them,”—must you not have been
ashamed to encumber the already overcrowded margin with such an irrelevant
statement as,—“πρὸς αὐτούς _not_ αὐτοῖς”?
Now, if this were all, you might reply that by my own showing the Textual
changes complained of, if they do no good, at least do no harm. But then,
unhappily, you and your friends have not confined yourselves to colourless
readings, when silently up and down every part of the N. T. you have
introduced innovations. I open your New English Version at random (S. John
iv. 15), and invite your attention to the first instance which catches my
eye.
You have made the Woman of Samaria _complain of the length of the walk_
from Sychar to Jacob’s well:—“Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not,
neither _come all the way_ hither to draw.”—What has happened? For
ἔρχωμαι, I discover that you have silently substituted ΔΙέρχωμαι. (Even
διέρχωμαι has no such meaning: but let _that_ pass.) What then was your
authority for thrusting διέρχωμαι (which by the way is a patent absurdity)
into the Text? The word is found (I discover) _in only two Greek MSS. of
had character_(903) (B א), which, being derived from a common corrupt
original, can only reckon for _one_: and the reasoning which is supposed
to justify this change is thus supplied by Tischendorf:—“If the Evangelist
had written ἔρχ-, who would ever have dreamed of turning it into
δι-έρχωμαι?”... No one, of course, (is the obvious answer,) except the
inveterate blunderer who, some 1700 years ago, seeing ΜΗΔΕΕΡΧΩΜΑΙ before
him, _reduplicated the antecedent_ ΔΕ. The sum of the matter is _that_!...
Pass 1700 years, and the long-since-forgotten blunder is furbished up
afresh by Drs. Westcott and Hort,—is urged upon the wondering body of
Revisers as the undoubted utterance of THE SPIRIT,—is accepted by
yourself;—finally, (in spite of many a remonstrance from Dr. Scrivener and
his friends,) is thrust upon the acceptance of 90 millions of
English-speaking men throughout the world, as the long-lost-sight-of, but
at last happily recovered, utterance of the “Woman of Samaria!”... Ἄπαγε.
Ordinary readers, in the meantime, will of course assume that the change
results from the Revisers’ skill in translating,—the advances which have
been made in the study of Greek; for no trace of the textual vagary before
us survives in the English margin.
And thus I am reminded of what I hold to be your gravest fault of all. The
rule of Committee subject to which you commenced operations,—the Rule
which re-assured the public and reconciled the Church to the prospect of a
Revised New Testament,—expressly provided that, whenever the underlying
Greek Text was altered, _such alteration should be indicated in the
margin_. This provision you entirely set at defiance from the very first.
You have _never_ indicated in the margin the alterations you introduced
into the Greek Text. In fact, you made so many changes,—in other words,
you seem to have so entirely lost sight of your pledge and your
compact,—that compliance with this condition would have been simply
impossible. I see not how your body is to be acquitted of a deliberate
breach of faith.
_(c) Fatal consequences of this mistaken officiousness._