know who have been at the pains to examine your work with close attention.
Not only have you, on countless occasions, thrust out words, clauses,
entire sentences of genuine Scripture,—but you have been careful that no
trace shall survive of the fatal injury which you have inflicted. I wonder
you were not afraid. Can I be wrong in deeming such a proceeding in a high
degree sinful? Has not the SPIRIT pronounced a tremendous doom(904)
against those who do such things? Were you not afraid, for instance, to
leave out (from S. Mark vi. 11) those solemn words of our SAVIOUR,—“Verily
I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the
day of judgment, than for that city”? Surely you will not pretend to tell
me that those fifteen precious words, witnessed to as they are by _all the
known copies but nine_,—by the Old Latin, the Peschito and the Philoxenian
Syriac, the Coptic, the Gothic and the Æthiopic Versions,—besides
Irenæus(905) and Victor(906) of Antioch:—you will not venture to say (will
you?) that words so attested are so evidently a “plain and clear error,”
as not to deserve even a marginal note to attest to posterity “that such
things were”! I say nothing of the witness of the Liturgical usage of the
Eastern Church,—which appointed these verses to be read on S. Mark’s
Day:(907) nor of Theophylact,(908) nor of Euthymius.(909) I appeal to _the
consentient testimony of Catholic antiquity_. Find me older witnesses, if
you can, than the “Elders” with whom Irenæus held converse,—men who must
have been contemporaries of S. John the Divine: or again, than the old
Latin, the Peschito, and the Coptic Versions. Then, for the MSS.,—Have you
studied S. Mark’s Text to so little purpose as not to have discovered that
the six uncials on which you rely are the depositories of an abominably
corrupt Recension of the second Gospel?
But you committed a yet more deplorable error when,—without leaving behind
either note or comment of any sort,—you obliterated from S. Matth. v. 44,
the solemn words which I proceed to underline:—“_Bless them that curse
you_, _do good to them that hate you_, and pray for them which
_despitefully use you and_ persecute you.” You relied almost exclusively
on those two false witnesses, of which you are so superstitiously fond, B
and א: regardless of the testimony of almost all the other COPIES
besides:—of almost all the VERSIONS:—and of a host of primitive FATHERS:
for the missing clauses are more or less recognized by Justin Mart. (A.D.
140),—by Theophilus Ant. (A.D. 168),—by Athenagoras (A.D. 177),—by Clemens
Alexan. (A.D. 192),—by Origen (A.D. 210),—by the Apostolic Constt. (IIIrd
cent.),—by Eusebius,—by Gregory Nyss.,—by Chrysostom,—by Isidorus,—by
Nilus,—by Cyril,—by Theodoret, and certain others. Besides, of the Latins,
by Tertullian,—by Lucifer,—by Ambrose,—by Hilary,—by Pacian,—by
Augustine,—by Cassian, and many more.... Verily, my lord Bishop, your
notion of what constitutes “_clearly preponderating Evidence_” must be
freely admitted to be at once original and peculiar. I will but
respectfully declare that if it be indeed one of “_the now established
Principles of Textual Criticism_” that a bishop is at liberty to blot out
from the Gospel such precepts of the Incarnate WORD, as these: to reject,
on the plea that they are “plain and clear errors,” sayings attested by
twelve primitive Fathers,—half of whom lived and died before our two
oldest manuscripts (B and א) came into being:—If all this be so indeed,
permit me to declare that I would not exchange MY “_innocent
ignorance_”(910) of those “Principles” for YOUR _guilty knowledge_ of
them,—no, not for anything in the wide world which yonder sun shines down
upon.
As if what goes before had not been injury enough, you are found to have
adopted the extraordinary practice of encumbering your margin with doubts
as to the Readings which after due deliberation you had, as a body,
_retained_. Strange perversity! You could not find room to retain a record
in your margin of the many genuine words of our Divine LORD,—His
Evangelists and Apostles,—to which Copies, Versions, Fathers lend the
fullest attestation; but you _could_ find room for an insinuation that His
“Agony and bloody sweat,”—together with His “Prayer on behalf of His
murderers,”—_may_ after all prove to be nothing else but spurious
accretions to the Text. And yet, the pretence for so regarding either S.
Luke xxii. 43, 44, or xxiii. 34, is confessedly founded on a minimum of
documentary evidence: while, as has been already shown elsewhere,(911) an
overwhelming amount of ancient testimony renders it _certain_ that not a
particle of doubt attaches to the Divine record of either of those
stupendous incidents.... Room could not be found, it seems, for a _hint_
in the margin that such ghastly wounds as those above specified had been
inflicted on S. Mark vi. 11 and S. Matth. v. 44;(912) but _twenty-two
lines_ could be spared against Rom. ix. 5 for the free ventilation of the
vile Socinian gloss with which unbelievers in every age have sought to
evacuate one of the grandest assertions of our SAVIOUR’S GODHEAD. May I be
permitted, without offence, to avow myself utterly astonished?
Even this however is not all. The 7th of the Rules under which you
undertook the work of Revision, was, that “_the Headings of Chapters
should be revised_.” This Rule you have not only failed to comply with;
but you have actually deprived us of those headings entirely. You have
thereby done us a grievous wrong. We demand to have the headings of our
chapters back.
You have further, without warrant of any sort, deprived us of our
_Marginal References_. These we cannot afford to be without. We claim that
_they_ also may be restored. The very best Commentary on Holy Scripture
are they, with which I am acquainted. They call for learned and judicious
Revision, certainly; and they might be profitably enlarged. But they may
never be taken away.
And now, my lord Bishop, if I have not succeeded in convincing you that
the Revisers not only “_exceeded their Instructions_ in the course which
they adopted with regard to the Greek Text,” but even acted in open
defiance of their Instructions; did both a vast deal _more_ than they were
authorized to do, and also a vast deal _less_;—it has certainly been no
fault of mine. As for your original contention(913) that “_nothing can be
more unjust_” than THE CHARGE brought against the Revisers of having
exceeded their Instructions,—I venture to ask, on the contrary, whether
anything can be more unreasonable (to give it no harsher name) than THE
DENIAL?
[16] The calamity of the “New Greek Text” traced to its source.
There is no difficulty in accounting for the most serious of the foregoing
phenomena. They are the inevitable consequence of your having so far
succumbed at the outset to Drs. Westcott and Hort as to permit them to
communicate bit by bit, under promise of secrecy, their own outrageous
Revised Text of the N. T. to their colleagues, accompanied by a printed
disquisition in advocacy of their own peculiar critical views. One would
have expected in the Chairman of the Revising body, that the instant he
became aware of any such _manœuvre_ on the part of two of the society, he
would have remonstrated with them somewhat as follows, or at least to this
effect:—
“This cannot be permitted, Gentlemen, on any terms. We have not been
appointed to revise the _Greek Text_ of the N. T. Our one business is to
revise the _Authorized English Version_,—introducing such changes only as
are absolutely necessary. The Resolutions of Convocation are express on
this head: and it is my duty to see that they are faithfully carried out.
True, that we shall be obliged to avail ourselves of our skill in Textual
Criticism—(such as it is)—to correct ‘_plain and clear errors_’ in the
Greek: but _there_ we shall be obliged to stop. I stand pledged to
Convocation on this point by my own recent utterances. That two of our
members should be solicitous (by a side-wind) to obtain for their own
singular Revision of the Greek Text the sanction of our united body,—is
intelligible enough: but I should consider myself guilty of a breach of
Trust were I to lend myself to the promotion of their object. Let me hope
that I have you all with me when I point out that on every occasion when
Dr. Scrivener, on the one hand, (who in matters of Textual Criticism is
_facile princeps_ among us,) and Drs. Westcott and Hort on the other,
prove to be irreconcileably opposed in their views,—_there_ the Received
Greek Text must by all means be let alone. We have agreed, you will
remember, to ‘make _the current Textus Receptus the standard; departing
from it only when critical or grammatical considerations show that it is
clearly necessary_.’(914) It would be unreasonable, in my judgment, that
anything in the Received Text should be claimed to be ‘a clear and plain
error,’ on which those who represent the two antagonistic schools of
Criticism find themselves utterly unable to come to any accord. In the
meantime, Drs. Westcott and Hort are earnestly recommended to submit to
public inspection that Text which they have been for twenty years
elaborating, and which for some time past has been in print. Their labours
cannot be too freely ventilated, too searchingly examined, too generally
known: but I strongly deprecate their furtive production _here_. All too
eager advocacy of the novel Theory of the two accomplished Professors, I
shall think it my duty to discourage, and if need be to repress. A printed
volume, enforced by the suasive rhetoric of its two producers, gives to
one side an unfair advantage. But indeed I must end as I began, by
respectfully inviting Drs. Westcott and Hort to remember that we meet
here, _not_ in order _to fabricate a new Greek Text_, but in order to
_revise our _‘Authorized English Version.’”... Such, in substance, is the
kind of Allocution which it was to have been expected that the Episcopal
Chairman of a Revising body would address to his fellow-labourers the
first time he saw them enter the Jerusalem chamber furnished with the
sheets of Westcott and Hort’s N. T.; especially if he was aware that those
Revisers had been individually talked over by the Editors of the work in
question, (themselves Revisionists); and perceived that the result of the
deliberations of the entire body was in consequence, in a fair way of
becoming a foregone conclusion,—unless indeed, by earnest remonstrance, he
might be yet in time to stave off the threatened danger.
But instead of saying anything of this kind, my lord Bishop, it is clear
from your pamphlet that you made the Theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort
_your own Theory_; and their Text, by necessary consequence, in the main
_your own Text_. You lost sight of all the pledges you had given in
Convocation. You suddenly became a partizan. Having secured the precious
advocacy of Bp. Wilberforce,—whose sentiments on the subject you had
before adopted,—you at once threw him and them overboard.(915)... I can
scarcely imagine, in a good man like yourself, conduct more reckless,—more
disappointing,—more unintelligible. But I must hasten on.
[17] Bp. Ellicott’s defence of the “New Greek Text,” in sixteen
particulars, examined.
It follows to consider the strangest feature of your pamphlet: viz. those
two-and-thirty pages (p. 43 to p. 75) in which, descending from generals,
you venture to dispute in sixteen particulars the sentence passed upon
your new Greek Text by the _Quarterly Review_. I call this part of your
pamphlet “strange,” because it displays such singular inaptitude to
appreciate the force of Evidence. But in fact, (_sit venia verbo_) your
entire method is quite unworthy of you. Whereas I appeal throughout to
_Ancient Testimony_, you seek to put me down by flaunting in my face
_Modern Opinion_. This, with a great deal of Reiteration, proves to be
literally the sum of your contention. Thus, concerning S. Matth. i. 25,
the Quarterly Reviewer pointed out (_suprà_ pp. 123-4) that the testimony
of B א, together with that of the VIth-century fragment Z, and two cursive
copies of bad character,—cannot possibly stand against the testimony of
ALL OTHER copies. You plead in reply that on “those two oldest manuscripts
_the vast majority of Critics set a high value_.” Very likely: but for all
_that_, you are I suppose aware that B and א are two of the most corrupt
documents in existence? And, inasmuch as they are confessedly derived from
one and the same depraved original, you will I presume allow that they may
not be adduced as two independent authorities? At all events, when I
further show you that almost all the Versions, and literally _every one_
of the Fathers who quote the place, (they are _eighteen_ in number,) are
against you,—how can you possibly think there is any force or relevancy
whatever in your self-complacent announcement,—“We cannot hesitate to
_express our agreement with Tischendorf and Tregelles_ who see in these
words an interpolation derived from S. Luke. _The same appears to have
been the judgment of Lachmann._” Do you desire that _that_ should pass for
argument?
To prolong a discussion of this nature with you, were plainly futile.
Instead of repeating what I have already delivered—briefly indeed, yet
sufficiently in detail,—I will content myself with humbly imitating what,
if I remember rightly, was Nelson’s plan when he fought the battle of the
Nile. He brought his frigates, one by one, alongside those of the
enemy;—lashed himself to the foe;—and poured in his broadsides. We
remember with what result. The sixteen instances which you have yourself
selected, shall now be indicated. First, on every occasion, reference
shall be made to the place in the present volume where my own Criticism on
your Greek Text is to be found in detail. Readers of your pamphlet are
invited next to refer to your own several attempts at refutation, which
shall also be indicated by a reference to your pages. I am quite contented
to abide by the verdict of any unprejudiced person of average
understanding and fair education:—
(1) _Four words omitted in_ S. Matth. i. 25,—complained of, above, pp.
122-4.—You defend the omission in your pamphlet at pages 43-4,—falling
back on Tischendorf, Tregelles and Lachmann, as explained on the opposite
page. (p. 416.)
(2) _The omission of_ S. Matth. xvii. 21,—proved to be indefensible,
above, pp. 91-2.—The omission is defended by you at pp. 44-5,—on the
ground, that although Lachmann retains the verse, and Tregelles only
places it in brackets, (Tischendorf alone of the three omitting it
entirely,)—“it must be remembered that here Lachmann and Tregelles were
not acquainted with א.”
(3) _The omission of_ S. Matth. xviii. 11,—shown to be unreasonable,
above, p. 92.—You defend the omission in your pp. 45-7,—remarking that
“here there is even less room for doubt than in the preceding cases. The
three critical editors are all agreed in rejecting this verse.”
(4) _The substitution of_ ἠπόρει for ἐποίει, in S. Mark vi. 20,—strongly
complained of, above, pp. 66-9.—Your defence is at pp. 47-8. You urge that
“in this case again the Revisers have Tischendorf only on their side, and
not Lachmann nor Tregelles: but it must be remembered that these critics
had not the reading of א before them.”
(5) _The thrusting of_ πάλιν (after ἀποστελεῖ) into S. Mark xi.
3,—objected against, above, pp. 56-8.—You defend yourself at pp. 48-9,—and
“cannot doubt that the Revisers were perfectly justified” in doing “as
Tischendorf and Tregelles had done before them,”—viz. _inventing_ a new
Gospel incident.
(6) _The mess you have made_ of S. Mark xi. 8,—exposed by the Quarterly
Reviewer, above, pp. 58-61,—you defend at pp. 49-52. You have “preferred
to read with Tischendorf and Tregelles.” About,
(7) S. Mark xvi. 9-20,—and (8) S. Luke ii. 14,—I shall have a few serious
words to say immediately. About,
(9) the 20 _certainly genuine_ words you have omitted from S. Luke ix. 55,
56,—I promise to give you at no distant date an elaborate lecture. “Are we
to understand” (you ask) “that the Reviewer honestly believes the added
words to have formed part of the Sacred Autograph?” (“The _omitted_
words,” you mean.) To be sure you are!—I answer.
(10) _The amazing blunder_ endorsed by the Revisers in S. Luke x. 15;
which I have exposed above, at pp. 54-6.—You defend the blunder (as usual)
at pp. 55-6, remarking that the Revisers, “_with Lachmann_, _Tischendorf_,
_and Tregelles_, adopt the interrogative form.” (This seems to be a part
of your style.)
(11) _The depraved exhibition of the _LORD’S_ Prayer_ (S. Luke xi. 2-4)
which I have commented on above, at pp. 34-6,—you applaud (as usual) at
pp. 56-8 of your pamphlet, “with Tischendorf and Tregelles.”
(12) _The omission_ of 7 important words in S. Luke xxiii. 38, I have
commented on, above, at pp. 85-8.—You defend the omission, and “the texts
of Tischendorf and Tregelles,” at pp. 58-9.
(13) _The gross fabrication_ in S. Luke xxiii. 45, I have exposed, above,
at pp. 61-5.—You defend it, at pp. 59-61.
(14) _A plain omission_ in S. John xiv. 4, I have pointed out, above, at
pp. 72-3.—You defend it, at pp. 61-2 of your pamphlet.
(15) “_Titus Justus_,” thrust by the Revisers into Acts xviii. 7, I have
shown to be an imaginary personage, above, at pp. 53-4.—You stand up for
the interesting stranger at pp. 62-4 of your pamphlet. Lastly,
(16) My discussion of 1 Tim. iii. 16 (_suprà_ pp. 98-106),—you contend
against from p. 64 to p. 76.—The true reading of this important place,
(which is not _your_ reading,) you will find fully discussed from p. 424
to p. 501.
I have already stated why I dismiss _thirteen_ out of your sixteen
instances in this summary manner. The remaining _three_ I have reserved
for further discussion for a reason I proceed to explain.
[18] Bp. Ellicott’s claim that the Revisers were guided by “the
consentient testimony of the most ancient Authorities,”—disproved by an
appeal to their handling of S. Luke ii. 14 and of S. Mark xvi. 9-20. The
self-same claim,—(namely, of abiding by the verdict of Catholic
Antiquity,)—vindicated, on the contrary, for the “Quarterly Reviewer.”
You labour hard throughout your pamphlet to make it appear that the point
at which our methods, (yours and mine,) respectively diverge,—is, that _I_
insist on making my appeal to the “_Textus Receptus_;” _you_, to _Ancient
Authority_. But happily, my lord Bishop, this is a point which admits of
being brought to issue by an appeal to fact. _You_ shall first be heard:
and you are observed to express yourself on behalf of the Revising body,
as follows:
“It was impossible to mistake the conviction upon which its
Textual decisions were based.
“It was a conviction that (1) THE TRUE TEXT WAS NOT TO BE SOUGHT
IN THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS; or (2) In the bulk of the Cursive
Manuscripts; or (3) In the Uncials (with or without the support of
the _Codex Alexandrinus_;) or (4) In the Fathers who lived after
Chrysostom; or (5) In Chrysostom himself and his contemporaries;
BUT (6) IN THE CONSENTIENT TESTIMONY OF THE MOST ANCIENT
AUTHORITIES.”—(p. 28.)
In such terms you venture to contrast our respective methods. You want the
public to believe that I make the “Textus Receptus” “_a standard from
which there shall be no appeal_,”—entertain “the notion that it is _little
else than sacrilege to impugn the tradition of the last 300
years_,”(916)—and so forth;—while _you_ and your colleagues act upon the
conviction that the Truth is rather to be sought “_in the consentient
testimony of the most ancient Authorities_.” I proceed to show you, by
appealing to an actual instance, that neither of these statements is
correct.
(_a_) And first, permit me to speak for myself. Finding that you challenge
the Received reading of S. LUKE ii. 14, (“_good will towards men_”);—and
that, (on the authority of 4 Greek Codices [א A B D], all _Latin_
documents, and the Gothic Version,) you contend that “_peace among men in
whom he is well pleased_” ought to be read, instead;—I make my appeal
unreservedly to ANTIQUITY.(917) I request the _Ancients_ to adjudicate
between you and me by favouring us with their verdict. Accordingly, I find
as follows:
That, in the IInd century,—the Syriac Versions and Irenæus _support the
Received Text_:
That, in the IIIrd century,—the Coptic Version,—Origen in 3 places,
and—the Apostolical Constitutions in 2, do the same:
That, in the IVth century, (_to which century_, you are invited to
remember, _codices_ B _and_ א _belong_,)—Eusebius,—Aphraates the
Persian,—Titus of Bostra,—each in 2 places:—Didymus in 3:—Gregory of
Nazianzus,—Cyril of Jer.,—Epiphanius 2—and Gregory of Nyssa—4 times:
Ephraem Syr.,—Philo bp. of Carpasus,—Chrysostom 9 times,—and an unknown
Antiochian contemporary of his:—these eleven, I once more find, are _every
one against you_:
That, in the Vth century,—besides the Armenian Version, Cyril of Alex. in
14 places:—Theodoret in 4:—Theodotus of Ancyra in 5:—Proclus:—Paulus of
Emesa:—the Eastern bishops of Ephesus collectively, A.D. 431;—and Basil of
Seleucia:—_these contemporaries of cod._ A I find are _all eight against
you_:
That, in the VIth century,—besides the Georgian—and Æthiopic
Versions,—Cosmas, 5 times:—Anastasius Sinait. and Eulogius,
(_contemporaries of cod._ D,) are _all three with the Traditional Text_:
That, in the VIIth and VIIIth centuries,—Andreas of Crete, 2:—pope
Martinus at the Lat. Council:—Cosmas, bp. of Maiume near Gaza,—and his
pupil John Damascene;—together with Germanus, abp. of Constantinople:—are
again _all five with the Traditional Text_.
To these 35, must be added 18 other ancient authorities with which the
reader has been already made acquainted (viz. at pp. 44-5): all of which
bear the self-same evidence.
Thus I have enumerated _fifty-three_ ancient Greek authorities,—of which
_sixteen_ belong to the IInd, IIIrd, and IVth centuries: and
_thirty-seven_ to the Vth, VIth, VIIth, and VIIIth.
And now, which of us two is found to have made the fairer and the fuller
appeal to “the consentient testimony of the most ancient authorities:”
_you_ or _I_?... This first.
And next, since the foregoing 53 names belong to some of the most famous
personages in Ecclesiastical antiquity: are dotted over every region of
ancient Christendom: in many instances are _far more ancient than codices_
B _and_ א:—with what show of reason will you pretend that the evidence
concerning S. Luke ii. 14 “_clearly preponderates_” in favour of the
reading which you and your friends prefer?
I claim at all events to have demonstrated that _both_ your statements are
unfounded: viz. (1) That _I_ seek for the truth of Scripture in the
“Textus Receptus:” and (2) That _you_ seek it in “the consentient
testimony of the _most ancient authorities_.”—(Why not frankly avow that
you believe the Truth of Scripture is to be sought for, and found, in
“_the consentient testimony of codices_ א _and_ B”?)
(_b_) Similarly, concerning THE LAST 12 VERSES OF S. MARK, which you brand
with suspicion and separate off from the rest of the Gospel, in token
that, in your opinion, there is “a breach of continuity” (p. 53),
(whatever _that_ may mean,) between verses 8 and 9. _Your_ ground for thus
disallowing the last 12 Verses of the second Gospel, is, that B and א omit
them:—that a few late MSS. exhibit a wretched alternative for them:—and
that Eusebius says they were often away. Now, _my_ method on the contrary
is to refer all such questions to “_the consentient testimony of the most
ancient authorities_.” And I invite you to note the result of such an
appeal in the present instance. The Verses in question I find are
recognized,
In the IInd century,—By the Old Latin—and Syriac Verss.:—by Papias;—Justin
M.;—Irenæus;—Tertullian.
In the IIIrd century,—By the Coptic—and the Sahidic Versions:—by
Hippolytus;—by Vincentius at the seventh Council of Carthage;—by the “Acta
Pilati;”—and by the “Apostolical Constitutions” in two places.
In the IVth century,—By Cureton’s Syr. and the Gothic Verss.:—besides the
Syriac Table of Canons;—Eusebius;—Macarius Magnes;—Aphraates;—Didymus;—the
Syriac “Acts of the
Ap.;”—Epiphanius;—Leontius;—ps.-Ephraem;—Ambrose;—Chrysostom;—Jerome;—Augustine.
In the Vth century,—Besides the Armenian Vers.,—by codices A and C;—by
Leo;—Nestorius;—Cyril of Alexandria;—Victor of Antioch;—Patricius;—Marius
Mercator.
In the VIth and VIIth centuries,—Besides cod. D,—the Georgian and Æthiopic
Verss.:—by Hesychius;—Gregentius;—Prosper;—John, abp. of Thessalonica;—and
Modestus, bishop of Jerusalem.... (See above, pages 36-40.)