The Revision Revised by John William Burgon
From Textus Receptus
The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Revision Revised by John William Burgon
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at http://www.gutenberg.org/license
Title: The Revision Revised
Author: John William Burgon
Release Date: July 13, 2011 [Ebook #36722]
Language: English
Character set encoding: UTF‐8
- START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE REVISION REVISED***
The Revision Revised.
Three Articles
Reprinted From The “Quarterly Review.”
I. The New Greek Text.
II. The New English Version.
III. Westcott and Hort’s New Textual Theory.
To Which is Added A
Reply to Bishop Ellicott’s Pamphlet
In Defence Of
The Revisers and Their Greek Text of the New Testament:
Including a Vindication of the Traditional Reading of 1 Timothy III. 16.
By John William Burgon, B.D.
Dean of Chichester.
“Little children,—Keep yourselves from idols.”—1 John v. 21.
Dover Publications, Inc.
New York
1971
CONTENTS
Dedication.
Preface.
Article I. The New Greek Text.
Article II. The New English Version.
Article III. Westcott And Hort’s New Textual Theory.
Letter To Bishop Ellicott, In Reply To His Pamphlet.
Appendix Of Sacred Codices.
Index I, of Texts of Scripture,—quoted, discussed, or only referred to in
this volume.
Index II, of Fathers.
Index III, Persons, Places, and Subjects.
Footnotes
[Transcriber’s Note: This book contains much Greek text, which will not be
well-rendered in plain text versions of this E-book. Also, there is much
use of Greek characters with a vertical bar across the tops of the letters
to indicate abbreviations; because the coding system used in this e-book
does not have such an “overline”, they are rendered here with underlines.
It also contains some text in Syriac, which is written right-to-left; for
the sake of different transcription methods, it is transcribed here in
both right-to-left and left-to-rights, so that regardless of the medium of
this E-book, one or the other should be readable.]
The following is PREBENDARY SCRIVENER’S recently published estimate of the System on which DRS. WESTCOTT AND HORT have constructed their “_Revised Greek Text of the New Testament_” (1881).—That System, the Chairman of the Revising Body (BISHOP ELLICOTT) has entirely adopted (see below, pp. 391 to 397), and made the basis of his Defence of THE REVISERS and their “_New Greek Text._”
(1.) “There is little hope for the stability of their imposing structure, if _its foundations have been laid on the sandy ground of ingenious conjecture_. And, since barely the smallest vestige of historical evidence has ever been alleged in support of the views of these accomplished Editors, their teaching must either be received as intuitively true, or _dismissed from our consideration as precarious and even visionary_.”
(2.) “DR. HORT’S System _is entirely destitute of historical foundation_.”
(3.) “We are compelled to repeat as emphatically as ever our strong conviction that the Hypothesis to whose proof he has devoted so many laborious years, _is destitute not only of historical foundation, but of all probability, resulting from the internal goodness of the Text which its adoption would force upon us_.”
(4.) “ ‘We cannot doubt’ (says DR. HORT) ‘that S. Luke xxiii. 34 comes from an extraneous source.’ [_Notes_, p. 68.]—_Nor can we, on our part, doubt_,” (rejoins DR. SCRIVENER,) “_that the System which entails such consequences is hopelessly self-condemned_.”
SCRIVENER’S “Plain Introduction,” &c. [ed. 1883]: pp. 531, 537, 542, 604.
DEDICATION.
To The
Right Hon. Viscount Cranbrook, G.C.S.I.,
&c., &c., &c.
MY DEAR LORD CRANBROOK,
_Allow me the gratification of dedicating the present Volume to yourself; but for whom—(I reserve the explanation for another day)—it would never have been written._
_This is not, (as you will perceive at a glance,) the Treatise which a few years ago I told you I had in hand; and which, but for the present hindrance, might by this time have been completed. It has however_ grown out _of that other work in the manner explained at the beginning of my Preface. Moreover it contains not a few specimens of the argumentation of which the work in question, when at last it sees the light, will be discovered to be full._
_My one object has been to defeat the mischievous attempt which was made in 1881 to thrust upon this Church and Realm a Revision of the Sacred Text, which—recommended though it be by eminent names—I am thoroughly convinced, and am able to prove, is untrustworthy from beginning to end._
_The reason is plain. It has been constructed throughout on an utterly erroneous hypothesis. And I inscribe this Volume to you, my friend, as a conspicuous member of that body of faithful and learned Laity by whose deliberate verdict, when the whole of the evidence has been produced and the case has been fully argued out, I shall be quite willing that my contention may stand or fall._
_The_ English _(as well as the Greek) of the newly __“__Revised Version__”__ is hopelessly at fault. It is to me simply unintelligible how a company of Scholars can have spent ten years in elaborating such a very unsatisfactory production. Their uncouth phraseology and their jerky sentences, their pedantic obscurity and their unidiomatic English, contrast painfully with __“__the happy turns of expression, the music of the cadences, the felicities of the rhythm__”__ of our Authorized Version. The transition from one to the other, as the Bishop of Lincoln remarks, is like exchanging a well-built carriage for a vehicle without springs, in which you get jolted to death on a newly-mended and rarely-traversed road. But the __“__Revised Version__”__ is inaccurate as well; exhibits defective scholarship, I mean, in countless places._
_It is, however, the_ systematic depravation of the underlying Greek _which does so grievously offend me: for this is nothing else but a poisoning of the River of Life at its sacred source. Our Revisers, (with the best and purest intentions, no doubt,) stand convicted of having deliberately rejected the words of __ Inspiration in every page, and of having substituted for them fabricated Readings which the Church has long since refused to acknowledge, or else has rejected with abhorrence; and which only survive at this time in a little handful of documents of the most depraved type._
_As Critics they have had abundant warning. Twelve years ago (1871) a volume appeared on_ the “last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark,”—_of which the declared object was to vindicate those Verses against certain critical objectors, and to establish them by an exhaustive argumentative process. Up to this hour, for a very obvious reason, no answer to that volume has been attempted. And yet, at the end of ten years (1881),—not only in the Revised English but also in the volume which professes to exhibit the underlying Greek, (which at least is indefensible,)—the Revisers are observed to separate off those Twelve precious Verses from their context, in token that they are no part of the genuine Gospel. Such a deliberate preference of_ “mumpsimus” _to_ “sumpsimus” _is by no means calculated to conciliate favour, or even to win respect. The Revisers have in fact been the dupes of an ingenious Theorist, concerning whose extraordinary views you are invited to read what Dr. Scrivener has recently put forth. The words of the last-named writer (who is_ facile princeps _in Textual Criticism) will be found facing the beginning of the present Dedication._
_If, therefore, any do complain that I have sometimes hit my opponents rather hard, I take leave to point out that __“__to everything __ there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the sun__”__: __“__a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embracing__”__: a time for speaking smoothly, and a time for speaking sharply. And that when the words of Inspiration are seriously imperilled, as now they are, it is scarcely possible for one who is determined effectually to preserve the Deposit in its integrity, to hit either too straight or too hard. In handling certain recent utterances of Bishop Ellicott, I considered throughout that it was the_ “Textual Critic”—_not the Successor of the Apostles,—with whom I had to do._
_And thus I commend my Volume, the fruit of many years of incessant anxious toil, to your indulgence: requesting that you will receive it as a token of my sincere respect and admiration; and desiring to be remembered, my dear Lord Cranbrook, as_
_Your grateful and affectionate_ _ Friend and Servant,_ _ John W. Burgon._
DEANERY, CHICHESTER, All Saints’ Day., 1883.
PREFACE.
The ensuing three Articles from the “Quarterly Review,”—(wrung out of me
by the publication [May 17th, 1881] of the “Revision” of our “Authorized
Version of the New Testament,”)—appear in their present form in compliance
with an amount of continuous solicitation that they should be separately
published, which it would have been alike unreasonable and ungracious to
disregard. I was not prepared for it. It has caused me—as letter after
letter has reached my hands—mixed feelings; has revived all my original
disinclination and regret. For, gratified as I cannot but feel by the
reception my labours have met with,—(and only the Author of my being knows
what an amount of antecedent toil is represented by the ensuing pages,)—I
yet deplore more heartily than I am able to express, the injustice done to
the cause of Truth by handling the subject in this fragmentary way, and by
exhibiting the evidence for what is most certainly true, in such a very
incomplete form. A systematic Treatise is the indispensable condition for
securing cordial assent to the view for which I mainly contend. The
cogency of the argument lies entirely in the cumulative character of the
proof. It requires to be demonstrated by induction from a large collection
of particular instances, as well as by the complex exhibition of many
converging lines of evidence, that the testimony of one small group of
documents, or rather, of one particular manuscript,—(namely the Vatican
Codex B, which, for some unexplained reason, it is just now the fashion to
regard with superstitious deference,)—is the reverse of trustworthy.
Nothing in fact but a considerable Treatise will ever effectually break
the yoke of that iron tyranny to which the excellent Bishop of Gloucester
and Bristol and his colleagues have recently bowed their necks; and are
now for imposing on all English-speaking men. In brief, if I were not, on
the one hand, thoroughly convinced of the strength of my position,—(and I
know it to be absolutely impregnable);—yet more, if on the other hand, I
did not cherish entire confidence in the practical good sense and fairness
of the English mind;—I could not have brought myself to come before the
public in the unsystematic way which alone is possible in the pages of a
Review. I must have waited, at all hazards, till I had finished “my Book.”
But then, delay would have been fatal. I saw plainly that unless a sharp blow was delivered immediately, the Citadel would be in the enemy’s hands. I knew also that it was just possible to condense into 60 or 70 closely-printed pages what must _logically_ prove fatal to the “Revision.” So I set to work; and during the long summer days of 1881 (June to September) the foremost of these three Articles was elaborated. When the October number of “the Quarterly” appeared, I comforted myself with the secret consciousness that enough was by this time on record, even had my life been suddenly brought to a close, to secure the ultimate rejection of the “Revision” of 1881. I knew that the “New Greek Text,” (and therefore the “New English Version”), had received its death-blow. It might for a few years drag out a maimed existence; eagerly defended by some,—timidly pleaded for by others. But such efforts could be of no avail. Its days were already numbered. The effect of more and yet more learned investigation,—of more elaborate and more extended inquiry,—_must_ be to convince mankind more and yet more thoroughly that the principles on which it had been constructed were radically unsound. In the end, when partisanship had cooled down, and passion had evaporated, and prejudice had ceased to find an auditory, the “Revision” of 1881 must come to be universally regarded as—what it most certainly is,—_the most astonishing, as well as the most calamitous literary blunder of the Age_.
I. I pointed out that “the NEW GREEK TEXT,”—which, in defiance of their instructions,(1) the Revisionists of “the Authorized English Version” had been so ill-advised as to spend ten years in elaborating,—was a wholly untrustworthy performance: was full of the gravest errors from beginning to end: had been constructed throughout on an entirely mistaken Theory. Availing myself of the published confession of one of the Revisionists,(2) I explained the nature of the calamity which had befallen the Revision. I traced the mischief home to its true authors,—Drs. Westcott and Hort; a copy of whose unpublished Text of the N. T. (the most vicious in existence) had been confidentially, and under pledges of the strictest secrecy, placed in the hands of every member of the revising Body.(3) I called attention to the fact that, unacquainted with the difficult and delicate science of Textual Criticism, the Revisionists had, in an evil hour, surrendered themselves to Dr. Hort’s guidance: had preferred his counsels to those of Prebendary Scrivener, (an infinitely more trustworthy guide): and that the work before the public was the piteous—but _inevitable_—result. All this I explained in the October number of the “Quarterly Review” for 1881.(4)
II. In thus demonstrating the worthlessness of the “New Greek Text” of the Revisionists, I considered that I had destroyed the key of their position. And so perforce I had: for if the underlying Greek Text be mistaken, what else but incorrect must the English Translation be? But on examining the so-called “Revision of the Authorized Version,” I speedily made the further discovery that the Revised English would have been in itself intolerable, even had the Greek been let alone. In the first place, to my surprise and annoyance, it proved to be a _New Translation_ (rather than a Revision of the Old) which had been attempted. Painfully apparent were the tokens which met me on every side that the Revisionists had been supremely eager not so much to correct none but “plain and clear errors,”—as to introduce as many changes into the English of the New Testament Scriptures as they conveniently could.(5) A skittish impatience of the admirable work before them, and a strange inability to appreciate its manifold excellences:—a singular imagination on the part of the promiscuous Company which met in the Jerusalem Chamber that they were competent to improve the Authorized Version in every part, and an unaccountable forgetfulness that the fundamental condition under which the task of Revision had been by themselves undertaken, was that they should abstain from all but “_necessary_” changes:—_this_ proved to be only part of the offence which the Revisionists had committed. It was found that they had erred through _defective Scholarship_ to an extent, and with a frequency, which to me is simply inexplicable. I accordingly made it my business to demonstrate all this in a second Article which appeared in the next (the January) number of the “Quarterly Review,” and was entitled “THE NEW ENGLISH TRANSLATION.”(6)
III. Thereupon, a pretence was set up in many quarters, (_but only by the Revisionists and their friends_,) that all my labour hitherto had been thrown away, because I had omitted to disprove the principles on which this “New Greek Text” is founded. I flattered myself indeed that quite enough had been said to make it logically certain that the underlying “Textual Theory” _must be_ worthless. But I was not suffered to cherish this conviction in quiet. It was again and again cast in my teeth that I had not yet grappled with Drs. Westcott and Hort’s “arguments.” “Instead of condemning _their Text_, why do you not disprove _their Theory_?” It was tauntingly insinuated that I knew better than to cross swords with the two Cambridge Professors. This reduced me to the necessity of either leaving it to be inferred from my silence that I had found Drs. Westcott and Hort’s “arguments” unanswerable; or else of coming forward with their book in my hand, and demonstrating that in their solemn pages an attentive reader finds himself encountered by nothing but a series of unsupported assumptions: that their (so called) “Theory” is in reality nothing else but a weak effort of the Imagination: that the tissue which these accomplished scholars have been thirty years in elaborating, proves on inspection to be as flimsy and as worthless as any spider’s web.
I made it my business in consequence to expose, somewhat in detail, (in a third Article, which appeared in the “Quarterly Review” for April 1882), the absolute absurdity,—(I use the word advisedly)—of “WESTCOTT AND HORT’S NEW TEXTUAL THEORY;”(7) and I now respectfully commend those 130 pages to the attention of candid and unprejudiced readers. It were idle to expect to convince any others. We have it on good authority (Dr. Westcott’s) that “he who has long pondered over a train of Reasoning, _becomes unable to detect its weak points_.”(8) A yet stranger phenomenon is, that those who have once committed themselves to an erroneous Theory, seem to be incapable of opening their eyes to the untrustworthiness of the fabric they have erected, even when it comes down in their sight, like a child’s house built with playing-cards,—and presents to every eye but their own the appearance of a shapeless ruin.
§ 1. Two full years have elapsed since the first of these Essays was published; and my Criticism—for the best of reasons—remains to this hour unanswered. The public has been assured indeed, (in the course of some hysterical remarks by Canon Farrar(9)), that “the ‘Quarterly Reviewer’ can be refuted as fully as he desires as soon as any scholar has the leisure to answer him.” The “Quarterly Reviewer” can afford to wait,—if the Revisers can. But they are reminded that it is no answer to one who has demolished their master’s “Theory,” for the pupils to keep on reproducing fragments of it; and by their mistakes and exaggerations, to make both themselves and him, ridiculous.
§ 2. Thus, a writer in the “Church Quarterly” for January 1882, (whose knowledge of the subject is entirely derived from what Dr. Hort has taught him,)—being evidently much exercised by the first of my three Articles in the “Quarterly Review,”—gravely informs the public that “it is useless to parade such an array of venerable witnesses,” (meaning the enumerations of Fathers of the IIIrd, IVth, and Vth centuries which are given below, at pp. 42-4: 80-1: 84: 133: 212-3: 359-60: 421: 423: 486-90:)—“_for they have absolutely nothing to say which deserves a moment’s hearing_.”(10)—What a pity it is, (while he was about it), that the learned gentleman did not go on to explain that the moon is made of green cheese!
§ 3. Dr. Sanday,(11) in a kindred spirit, delivers it as his opinion, that “the one thing” I lack “is a grasp on the central condition of the problem:”—that I do “not seem to have the faintest glimmering of the principle of ‘Genealogy:’ ”—that I am “all at sea:”—that my “heaviest batteries are discharged at random:”—and a great deal more to the same effect. The learned Professor is quite welcome to think such things of me, if he pleases. Οὐ φροντὶς Ἱπποκλείδῃ.
§ 4. At the end of a year, a Reviewer of quite a different calibre made his appearance in the January number (1883) of the “Church Quarterly:” in return for whose not very encouraging estimate of my labours, I gladly record my conviction that if he will seriously apply his powerful and accurate mind to the department of Textual Criticism, he will probably produce a work which will help materially to establish the study in which he takes such an intelligent interest, on a scientific basis. But then, he is invited to accept the friendly assurance that the indispensable condition of success in this department is, that a man should give to the subject, (which is a very intricate one and abounds in unexplored problems), his undivided attention for an extended period. I trust there is nothing unreasonable in the suggestion that one who has not done this, should be very circumspect when he sits in judgment on a neighbour of his who, for very many years past, has given to Textual Criticism the whole of his time;—has freely sacrificed health, ease, relaxation, even necessary rest, to this one object;—has made it his one business to acquire such an independent mastery of the subject as shall qualify him to do battle successfully for the imperilled letter of GOD’S Word. My friend however thinks differently. He says of me,—
“In his first Article there was something amusing in the simplicity with which ‘Lloyd’s Greek Testament’ (which is only a convenient little Oxford edition of the ordinary kind) was put forth as the final standard of appeal. It recalled to our recollection Bentley’s sarcasm upon the text of Stephanus, which ‘your learned Whitbyus’ takes for the sacred original in every syllable.” (P. 354.)
§ 5. On referring to the passage where my “simplicity” has afforded
amusement to a friend whose brilliant conversation is always a delight to
_me_, I read as follows,—
“It is discovered that in the 111 (out of 320) pages of a copy of Lloyd’s Greek Testament, in which alone these five manuscripts are collectively available for comparison in the Gospels,—the serious deflections of A from the _Textus Receptus_ amount in all to only 842: whereas in C they amount to 1798: in B, to 2370: in א, to 3392: in D, to 4697. The readings _peculiar to_ A within the same limits are 133: those peculiar to C are 170. But those of B amount to 197: while א exhibits 443: and the readings peculiar to D (within the same limits), are no fewer than 1829.... We submit that these facts are not altogether calculated to inspire confidence in codices B א C D.”(12)
§ 6. But how (let me ask) does it appear from this, that I have “put forth
Lloyd’s Greek Testament as the _final standard of Appeal_”? True, that, in
order to exhibit clearly their respective divergences, I have referred
five famous codices (A B א C D)—certain of which are found to have turned
the brain of Critics of the new school—_to one and the same familiar
exhibition of the commonly received Text of the New Testament_: but by so
doing I have not by any means assumed _the Textual purity_ of that common
standard. In other words I have not made it “_the final standard of
Appeal_.” _All_ Critics,—wherever found,—at all times, have collated with
the commonly received Text: but only as the most convenient _standard of
Comparison_; not, surely, as the absolute _standard of Excellence_. The
result of the experiment already referred to,—(and, I beg to say, it was
an exceedingly laborious experiment,)—has been, to demonstrate that the
five Manuscripts in question stand apart from one another in the following
proportions:—
842 (A) : 1798 (C) : 2370 (B) : 3392 (א) : 4697 (D).
But would not the same result have been obtained if the “five old uncials” had been _referred to any other common standard which can be named_? In the meantime, what else is the inevitable inference from this phenomenon but that four out of the five _must_ be—while all the five _may_ be—outrageously depraved documents? instead of being fit to be made our exclusive guides to the Truth of Scripture,—as Critics of the school of Tischendorf and Tregelles would have us believe that they are?
§ 7. I cited a book which is in the hands of every schoolboy, (Lloyd’s “Greek Testament,”) _only_ in order to facilitate reference, and to make sure that my statements would be at once understood by the least learned person who could be supposed to have access to the “Quarterly.” I presumed every scholar to be aware that Bp. Lloyd (1827) professes to reproduce Mill’s text; and that Mill (1707) reproduces the text of Stephens;(13) and that Stephens (1550) exhibits with sufficient accuracy the Traditional text,—which is confessedly at least 1530 years old.(14) Now, if a tolerable approximation to the text of A.D. 350 may _not_ be accepted as _a standard of Comparison_,—will the writer in the “Church Quarterly” be so obliging as to inform us _which_ exhibition of the sacred Text _may_?
§ 8. A pamphlet by the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol,(15) which appeared in April 1882, remains to be considered. Written expressly in defence of the Revisers and their New Greek Text, this composition displays a slenderness of acquaintance with the subject now under discussion, for which I was little prepared. Inasmuch however as it is the production of the Chairman of the Revisionist body, and professes to be a reply to my first two Articles, I have bestowed upon it an elaborate and particular rejoinder extending to an hundred-and-fifty pages.(16) I shall in consequence be very brief concerning it in this place.
§ 9. The respected writer does nothing else but reproduce Westcott and Hort’s theory _in Westcott and Hort’s words_. He contributes nothing of his own. The singular infelicity which attended his complaint that the “Quarterly Reviewer” “censures their [Westcott and Hort’s] Text,” but, “has not attempted _a serious examination of the arguments which they allege in its support_,” I have sufficiently dwelt upon elsewhere.(17) The rest of the Bishop’s contention may be summed up in two propositions:—The first, (I.) That if the Revisionists are wrong in their “New Greek Text,” then (not only Westcott and Hort, but) Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles must be wrong also,—a statement which I hold to be incontrovertible.—The Bishop’s other position is also undeniable: viz. (II.) That in order to pass an equitable judgment on ancient documents, they are to be carefully studied, closely compared, and tested by a more scientific process than rough comparison with the _Textus Receptus_.(18)... Thus, on both heads, I find myself entirely at one with Bp. Ellicott.
§ 10. And yet,—as the last 150 pages of the present volume show,—I have the misfortune to be at issue with the learned writer on almost every particular which he proposes for discussion. Thus,
§ 11. At page 64 of his pamphlet, he fastens resolutely upon the famous problem whether “GOD” (Θεός), or “who” (ὅς), is to be read in 1 Timothy iii. 16. I had upheld the former reading in eight pages. He contends for the latter, with something like acrimony, in twelve.(19) I have been at the pains, in consequence, to write a “DISSERTATION” of seventy-six pages on this important subject,(20)—the preparation of which (may I be allowed to record the circumstance in passing?) occupied me closely for six months,(21) and taxed me severely. Thus, the only point which Bishop Ellicott has condescended to discuss argumentatively with me, will be found to enjoy full half of my letter to him in reply.
The “Dissertation” referred to, I submit with humble confidence to the judgment of educated Englishmen. It requires no learning to understand the case. And I have particularly to request that those who will be at the pains to look into this question, will remember,—(1) That the place of Scripture discussed (viz. 1 Tim. iii. 16) was deliberately selected for a trial of strength by the Bishop: (I should not have chosen it myself):—(2) That on the issue of the contention which he has thus himself invited, we have respectively staked our critical reputation. The discussion exhibits very fairly our two methods,—his and mine; and “is of great importance as an example,” “illustrating in a striking manner” our respective positions,—as the Bishop himself has been careful to remind his readers.(22)
§ 12. One merely desirous of taking a general survey of this question, is invited to read from page 485 to 496 of the present volume. To understand the case thoroughly, he must submit to the labour of beginning at p. 424 and reading down to p. 501.
§ 13. A thoughtful person who has been at the pains to do this, will be apt on laying down the book to ask,—“But is it not very remarkable that so many as five of the ancient Versions should favour the reading ‘which,’ (μυστήριον; ὃ ἐφανερώθη,) instead of ‘GOD’ (Θεός)”?—“Yes, it is very remarkable,” I answer. “For though the Old Latin and the two Egyptian Versions are constantly observed to conspire in error, they rarely find allies in the Peschito and the Æthiopic. On the other hand, you are to remember that besides VERSIONS, the FATHERS have to be inquired after: while more important than either is the testimony of the COPIES. Now, the combined witness to ‘GOD’ (Θεός),—so multitudinous, so respectable, so varied, so unequivocal,—of the Copies and of the Fathers (in addition to three of the Versions) is simply overwhelming. It becomes undeniable that Θεός is by far the best supported reading of the present place.”
§ 14. When, however, such an one as Tischendorf or Tregelles,—Hort or Ellicott,—would put me down by reminding me that half-a-dozen of the oldest Versions are against me,—“_That_ argument” (I reply) “is not allowable on _your_ lips. For if the united testimony of _five_ of the Versions really be, in your account, decisive,—Why do you deny the genuineness of the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel, _which are recognized by every one of the Versions_? Those Verses are besides attested _by every known Copy_, except two of bad character: _by a mighty chorus of Fathers_: _by the unfaltering Tradition of the Church universal_. First remove from S. Mark xvi. 20, your brand of suspicion, and then come back to me in order that we may discuss together how 1 Tim. iii. 16 is to be read. And yet, when you come back, it must not be to plead in favour of ‘who’ (ὅσ), in place of ‘GOD’ (Θεός). For _not_ ‘who’ (ὅς), remember, but ‘which’ (ὅ) is the reading advocated by those five earliest Versions.” ... In other words,—the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16, which the Revisers have adopted, enjoys, (as I have shown from page 428 to page 501), _the feeblest attestation of any_; besides being condemned by internal considerations and the universal Tradition of the Eastern Church.
§ 15. I pass on, after modestly asking,—Is it too much to hope, (I covet no other guerdon for my labour!) that we shall hear no more about substituting “who” for “GOD” in 1 Tim. iii. 16? We may not go on disputing for ever: and surely, until men are able to produce some more cogent evidence than has yet come to light in support of “the mystery of godliness, _who_” (τὸ τῆς εὐσβείας μυστήριον: ὅς),—all sincere inquirers after Truth are bound to accept _that_ reading which has been demonstrated to be by far the best attested. Enough however on this head.
§ 16. It was said just now that I cordially concur with Bp. Ellicott in the second of his two propositions,—viz. That “no equitable judgment can be passed on ancient documents until they are carefully studied, and closely compared with each other, and tested by a more scientific process than rough comparison with” the _Textus Receptus_. I wish to add a few words on this subject: the rather, because what I am about to say will be found as applicable to my Reviewer in the “Church Quarterly” as to the Bishop. Both have misapprehended this matter, and in exactly the same way. Where such accomplished Scholars have erred, what wonder if ordinary readers should find themselves all a-field?
§ 17. In Textual Criticism then, “rough comparison” can seldom, if ever, be of any real use. On the other hand, the exact _Collation_ of documents whether ancient or modern with the received Text, is the necessary foundation of all scientific Criticism. I employ that Text,—(as Mill, Bentley, Wetstein; Griesbach, Matthæi, Scholz; Tischendorf, Tregelles, Scrivener, employed it before me,)—not as a criterion of _Excellence_, but as a standard of _Comparison_. All this will be found fully explained below, from page 383 to page 391. Whenever I would judge of _the authenticity_ of any particular reading, I insist on bringing it, wherever found,—whether in Justin Martyr and Irenæus, on the one hand; or in Stephens and Elzevir, on the other;—to the test of _Catholic Antiquity_. If that witness is consentient, or very nearly so, whether for or against any given reading, I hold it to be decisive. To no other system of arbitration will I submit myself. I decline to recognise any other criterion of Truth.
§ 18. What compels me to repeat this so often, is the impatient self-sufficiency of these last days, which is for breaking away from the old restraints; and for erecting the individual conscience into an authority from which there shall be no appeal. I know but too well how laborious is the scientific method which _I_ advocate. A long summer day disappears, while the student—with all his appliances about him—is resolutely threshing out some minute textual problem. Another, and yet another bright day vanishes. Comes Saturday evening at last, and a page of illegible manuscript is all that he has to show for a week’s heavy toil. _Quousque tandem?_ And yet, it is the indispensable condition of progress in an unexplored region, that a few should thus labour, until a path has been cut through the forest,—a road laid down,—huts built,—a _modus vivendi_ established. In this department of sacred Science, men have been going on too long inventing their facts, and delivering themselves of oracular decrees, on the sole responsibility of their own inner consciousness. There is great convenience in such a method certainly,—a charming simplicity which is in a high degree attractive to flesh and blood. It dispenses with proof. It furnishes no evidence. It asserts when it ought to argue.(23) It reiterates when it is called upon to explain.(24) “I am sir Oracle.” ... This,—which I venture to style the _unscientific_ method,—reached its culminating point when Professors Westcott and Hort recently put forth their Recension of the Greek Text. Their work is indeed quite a psychological curiosity. Incomprehensible to me is it how two able men of disciplined understandings can have seriously put forth the volume which they call “INTRODUCTION—APPENDIX.” It is the very _Reductio ad absurdum_ of the uncritical method of the last fifty years. And it is especially in opposition to this new method of theirs that I so strenuously insist that _the consentient voice of Catholic Antiquity_ is to be diligently inquired after and submissively listened to; for that _this_, in the end, will prove our _only_ safe guide.
§ 19. Let this be a sufficient reply to my Reviewer in the “Church Quarterly”—who, I observe, notes, as a fundamental defect in my Articles, “the want of a consistent working Theory, such as would enable us to weigh, as well as count, the suffrages of MSS., Versions, and Fathers.”(25) He is reminded that it was no part of my business to propound a “Theory.” My _method_ I have explained often and fully enough. My business was to prove that the theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort,—which (as Bp. Ellicott’s pamphlet proves) has been mainly adopted by the Revisionists,—is not only a worthless, but an utterly absurd one. And I have proved it. The method I persistently advocate in every case of a supposed doubtful Reading, (I say it for the last time, and request that I may be no more misrepresented,) is, that _an appeal shall be unreservedly made to Catholic Antiquity_; and that the combined verdict of Manuscripts, Versions, Fathers, shall be regarded as decisive.
§ 20. I find myself, in the mean time, met by the scoffs, jeers, misrepresentations of the disciples of this new School; who, instead of producing historical facts and intelligible arguments, appeal to the decrees of their teachers,—which _I_ disallow, and which _they_ are unable to substantiate. They delight in announcing that Textual Criticism made “_a fresh departure_” with the edition of Drs. Westcott and Hort: that the work of those scholars “_marks an era_,” and is spoken of in Germany as “_epoch-making_.” My own belief is, that the Edition in question, if it be epoch-making at all, marks _that_ epoch at which the current of critical thought, reversing its wayward course, began once more to flow in its ancient healthy channel. “Cloud-land” having been duly sighted on the 14th September 1881,(26) “a fresh departure” was insisted upon by public opinion,—and a deliberate return was made,—to _terra firma_, and _terra cognita_, and common sense. So far from “its paramount claim to the respect of future generations,” being “the restitution of a more ancient and a purer Text,”—I venture to predict that the edition of the two Cambridge Professors will be hereafter remembered as indicating the furthest point ever reached by the self-evolved imaginations of English disciples of the school of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles. The recoil promises to be complete. English good sense is ever observed to prevail in the long run; although for a few years a foreign fashion may acquire the ascendant, and beguile a few unstable wits.
§ 21. It only remains to state that in republishing these Essays I have availed myself of the opportunity to make several corrections and additions; as well as here and there to expand what before had been too briefly delivered. My learned friend and kind neighbour, the Rev. R. Cowley Powles, has ably helped me to correct the sheets. Much valuable assistance has been zealously rendered me throughout by my nephew, the Rev. William F. Rose, Vicar of Worle, Somersetshire. But the unwearied patience and consummate skill of my Secretary (M. W.) passes praise. Every syllable of the present volume has been transcribed by her for the press; and to her I am indebted for two of my Indices.—The obligations under which many learned men, both at home and abroad, have laid me, will be found faithfully acknowledged, in the proper place, at the foot of the page. I am sincerely grateful to them all.
§ 22. It will be readily believed that I have been sorely tempted to recast the whole and to strengthen my position in every part: but then, the work would have no longer been,—“Three Articles reprinted from the Quarterly Review.” Earnestly have I desired, for many years past, to produce a systematic Treatise on this great subject. My aspiration all along has been, and still is, in place of the absolute Empiricism which has hitherto prevailed in Textual inquiry to exhibit the logical outlines of what, I am persuaded, is destined to become a truly delightful Science. But I more than long,—I fairly _ache_ to have done with Controversy, and to be free to devote myself to the work of Interpretation. My apology for bestowing so large a portion of my time on Textual Criticism, is David’s when he was reproached by his brethren for appearing on the field of battle,—“Is there not a cause?”
§ 23. For,—let it clearly be noted,—it is no longer the case that critical doubts concerning the sacred Text are confined to critical Editions of the Greek. So long as scholars were content to ventilate their crotchets in a little arena of their own,—however mistaken they might be, and even though they changed their opinions once in every ten years,—no great harm was likely to come of it. Students of the Greek Testament were sure to have their attention called to the subject,—which must always be in the highest degree desirable; and it was to be expected that in this, as in every other department of learning, the progress of Inquiry would result in gradual accessions of certain Knowledge. After many years it might be found practicable to put forth by authority a carefully considered Revision of the commonly received Greek Text.
§ 24. But instead of all this, a Revision of the _English Authorised Version_ having been sanctioned by the Convocation of the Southern Province in 1871, the opportunity was eagerly snatched at by two irresponsible scholars of the University of Cambridge for obtaining the general sanction of the Revising body, and thus indirectly of Convocation, for a private venture of their own,—their own privately devised Revision of the _Greek Text_. On that Greek Text of theirs, (which I hold to be the most depraved which has ever appeared in print), with some slight modifications, our Authorised English Version has been silently revised: silently, I say, for in the margin of the English no record is preserved of the underlying Textual changes which have been introduced by the Revisionists. On the contrary. Use has been made of that margin to insinuate suspicion and distrust in countless particulars as to the authenticity of the Text which has been suffered to remain unaltered. In the meantime, the country has been flooded with two editions of the New Greek Text; and thus the door has been set wide open for universal mistrust of the Truth of Scripture to enter.
§ 25. Even schoolboys, it seems, are to have these crude views thrust upon them. Witness the “Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools,” edited by Dean Perowne,—who informs us at the outset that “_the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press_ have not thought it desirable to reprint the text in common use.” A consensus of Drs. Tischendorf and Tregelles,—who confessedly employed _the self-same mistaken major premiss_ in remodelling the Sacred Text,—seems, in a general way, to represent those Syndics’ notion of Textual purity. By this means every most serious deformity in the edition of Drs. Westcott and Hort, becomes promoted to honour, and is being thrust on the unsuspecting youth of England as the genuine utterance of the HOLY GHOST. Would it not have been the fairer, the more faithful as well as the more judicious course,—seeing that in respect of this abstruse and important question _adhuc sub judice lis est_,—to wait patiently awhile? Certainly not to snatch an opportunity “while men slept,” and in this way indirectly to prejudge the solemn issue! Not by such methods is the cause of GOD’S Truth on earth to be promoted. Even this however is not all. Bishop Lightfoot has been informed that “the Bible Society has permitted its Translators to adopt the Text of the Revised Version _where it commends itself to their judgment_.”(27) In other words, persons wholly unacquainted with the dangers which beset this delicate and difficult problem are invited to determine, by the light of Nature and on the “_solvere ambulando_” principle, what _is_ inspired Scripture, what _not_: and as a necessary consequence are encouraged to disseminate in heathen lands Readings which, a few years hence,—(so at least I venture to predict,)—will be universally recognized as worthless.
§ 26. If all this does not constitute a valid reason for descending into the arena of controversy, it would in my judgment be impossible to indicate an occasion when the Christian soldier _is_ called upon to do so:—the rather, because certain of those who, from their rank and station in the Church, ought to be the champions of the Truth, are at this time found to be among its most vigorous assailants.
§ 27. Let me,—(and with this I conclude),—in giving the present Volume to the world, be allowed to request that it may be accepted as a sample of how Deans employ their time,—the use they make of their opportunities. Nowhere but under the shadow of a Cathedral, (or in a College,) can such laborious endeavours as the present _pro Ecclesiâ_ DEI be successfully prosecuted.
J. W. B.
DEANERY, CHICHESTER, ALL SAINTS’ DAY, 1883.
ARTICLE I. THE NEW GREEK TEXT.
“One question in connexion with the Authorized Version I have purposely neglected. It seemed useless to discuss its REVISION. _The Revision of the original Texts must precede the Revision of the Translation_: and _the time for this, even in the New Testament, has not yet fully come_.”—DR. WESTCOTT.(28)
“It is my honest conviction that for any authoritative REVISION, we are not yet mature; _either in Biblical learning or Hellenistic scholarship_. There is good scholarship in this country, ... but _it has certainly not yet been sufficiently directed to the study of the New Testament_ ... to render any national attempt at REVISION either hopeful or lastingly profitable.”—BISHOP ELLICOTT.(29)
“I am persuaded that a REVISION ought to come: I am convinced that it will come. 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 feared, be wanting alike_.”—ARCHBISHOP TRENCH.(30)
“It is happened unto them according to the true proverb, Κύων ἐπιστρέψας ἐπὶ τὸ ἴδιον ἐξέραμα; and Ὕς λουσαμένη εἰς κύλισμα βορβόρου.”—2 PETER ii. 22.
“Little children,—Keep yourselves from idols.”—1 JOHN v. 21.
At a period of extraordinary intellectual activity like the present, it
can occasion no surprise—although it may reasonably create anxiety—if the
most sacred and cherished of our Institutions are constrained each in turn
to submit to the ordeal of hostile scrutiny; sometimes even to bear the
brunt of actual attack. When however at last the very citadel of revealed
Truth is observed to have been reached, and to be undergoing systematic
assault and battery, lookers-on may be excused if they show themselves
more than usually solicitous, “ne quid detrimenti Civitas DEI capiat.” A
Revision of the Authorized Version of the New Testament,(31) purporting to
have been executed by authority of the Convocation of the Southern
Province, and declaring itself the exclusive property of our two ancient
Universities, has recently (17th May, 1881) appeared; of which the
essential feature proves to be, that it is founded on an _entirely New
Recension of the Greek Text_.(32) A claim is at the same time set up on
behalf of the last-named production that it exhibits a closer
approximation to the inspired Autographs than the world has hitherto seen.
Not unreasonable therefore is the expectation entertained by its Authors
that the “New English Version” founded on this “New Greek Text” is
destined to supersede the “Authorized Version” of 1611. _Quæ cum ita
sint_, it is clearly high time that every faithful man among us should
bestir himself: and in particular that such as have made Greek Textual
Criticism in any degree their study should address themselves to the
investigation of the claims of this, the latest product of the combined
Biblical learning of the Church and of the sects.
For it must be plain to all, that the issue which has been thus at last raised, is of the most serious character. The Authors of this new Revision of the Greek have either entitled themselves to the Church’s profound reverence and abiding gratitude; or else they have laid themselves open to her gravest censure, and must experience at her hands nothing short of stern and well-merited rebuke. No middle course presents itself; since assuredly _to construct a new Greek Text_ formed no part of the Instructions which the Revisionists received at the hands of the Convocation of the Southern Province. Rather were they warned against venturing on such an experiment; the fundamental principle of the entire undertaking having been declared at the outset to be—That “a Revision of the _Authorized Version_” is desirable; and the terms of the original Resolution of Feb. 10th, 1870, being, that the removal of “PLAIN AND CLEAR ERRORS” was alone contemplated,—“whether in the Greek Text originally adopted by the Translators, or in the Translation made from the same.” Such were in fact _the limits formally imposed by Convocation_, (10th Feb. and 3rd, 5th May, 1870,) _on the work of Revision_. Only NECESSARY changes were to be made. The first Rule of the Committee (25th May) was similar in character: viz.—“_To introduce as few alterations as possible into the Text of the Authorized Version_, consistently with faithfulness.”
But further, we were reconciled to the prospect of a Revised Greek Text, by noting that a limit was prescribed to the amount of licence which could by possibility result, by the insertion of a proviso, which however is now discovered to have been entirely disregarded by the Revisionists. The condition was enjoined upon them that whenever “_decidedly preponderating evidence_” constrained their adoption of some change in “the Text from which the Authorized Version was made,” _they should indicate such alteration in the margin_. Will it be believed that, this notwithstanding, _not one_ of the many alterations which have been introduced into the original Text is so commemorated? On the contrary: singular to relate, the Margin is disfigured throughout with ominous hints that, had “Some ancient authorities,” “Many ancient authorities,” “Many very ancient authorities,” been attended to, a vast many more changes might, could, would, or should have been introduced into the Greek Text than have been actually adopted. And yet, this is precisely the kind of record which we ought to have been spared:—
(1) First,—Because it was plainly external to the province of the Revisionists to introduce any such details into their margin _at all_: their very function being, on the contrary, to investigate Textual questions in conclave, and to present the ordinary Reader with _the result_ of their deliberations. Their business was to correct “_plain and clear errors_;” not, certainly, to invent a fresh crop of unheard-of doubts and difficulties. This first.—Now,
(2) That a diversity of opinion would sometimes be found to exist in the revising body was to have been expected, but when once two-thirds of their number had finally “settled” any question, it is plainly unreasonable that the discomfited minority should claim the privilege of evermore parading their grievance before the public; and in effect should be allowed to represent _that_ as a corporate doubt, which was in reality the result of individual idiosyncrasy. It is not reasonable that the echoes of a forgotten strife should be thus prolonged for ever; least of all in the margin of “the Gospel of peace.”
(3) In fact, the privilege of figuring in the margin of the N. T., (instead of standing in the Text,) is even attended by a fatal result: for, (as Bp. Ellicott remarks,) “the judgment commonly entertained in reference to our present margin,” (_i.e._ the margin of the A. V.) is, that _its contents are_ “exegetically or critically _superior to the Text_.”(33) It will certainly be long before this popular estimate is unconditionally abandoned. But,
(4) Especially do we deprecate the introduction into the margin of all this strange lore, because we insist on behalf of unlearned persons that they ought not to be molested with information which cannot, by possibility, be of the slightest service to them: with vague statements about “ancient authorities,”—of the importance, or unimportance, of which they know absolutely nothing, nor indeed ever can know. Unlearned readers on taking the Revision into their hands, (_i.e._ at least 999 readers out of 1000,) will _never_ be aware whether these (so-called) “Various Readings” are to be scornfully scouted, as nothing else but ancient perversions of the Truth; or else are to be lovingly cherished, as “_alternative_” [see the Revisers’ _Preface_ (iii. 1.)] exhibitions of the inspired Verity,—to their own abiding perplexity and infinite distress.
Undeniable at all events it is, that the effect which these ever-recurring announcements produce on the devout reader of Scripture is the reverse of edifying: is never helpful: is always bewildering. A man of ordinary acuteness can but exclaim,—“Yes, very likely. _But what of it_? My eye happens to alight on ‘Bethesda’ (in S. John v. 2); against which I find in the margin,—‘Some ancient authorities read _Bethsaida_, others _Bethzatha_.’ Am I then to understand that in the judgment of the Revisionists it is uncertain _which_ of those three names is right?”... Not so the expert, who is overheard to moralize concerning the phenomena of the case after a less ceremonious fashion:—“ ‘_Bethsaida_’! Yes, the old Latin(34) and the Vulgate,(35) countenanced by _one_ manuscript of bad character, so reads. _‘__Bethzatha__’__!_ Yes, the blunder is found in _two_ manuscripts, both of bad character. Why do you not go on to tell us that _another_ manuscript exhibits ‘_Belzetha_’?—another (supported by Eusebius(36) and [in one place] by Cyril(37)), ‘_Bezatha_’? Nay, why not say plainly that there are found to exist _upwards of thirty_ blundering representations of this same word; but that ‘_Bethesda_’—(the reading of sixteen uncials and the whole body of the cursives, besides the Peschito and Cureton’s Syriac, the Armenian, Georgian and Slavonic Versions,—Didymus,(38) Chrysostom,(39) and Cyril(40)),—is the only reasonable way of exhibiting it? To speak plainly, _Why encumber your margin with such a note at all?_”... But we are moving forward too fast.
It can never be any question among scholars, that a fatal error was committed when a body of Divines, appointed _to revise the Authorized English Version_ of the New Testament Scriptures, addressed themselves to the solution of an entirely different and far more intricate problem, namely _the re-construction of the Greek Text_. We are content to pass over much that is distressing in the antecedent history of their enterprise. We forbear at this time of day to investigate, by an appeal to documents and dates, certain proceedings in and out of Convocation, on which it is known that the gravest diversity of sentiment still prevails among Churchmen.(41) This we do, not by any means as ourselves “halting between two opinions,” but only as sincerely desirous that the work before us may stand or fall, judged by its own intrinsic merits. Whether or no Convocation,—when it “nominated certain of its own members to undertake the work of Revision,” and authorized them “to refer when they considered it desirable to Divines, Scholars, and Literary men, at home or abroad, _for their opinion_;”—whether Convocation intended thereby to sanction the actual _co-optation_ into the Company appointed by themselves, of members of the Presbyterian, the Wesleyan, the Baptist, the Congregationalist, the Socinian body; _this_ we venture to think may fairly be doubted.—Whether again Convocation can have foreseen that of the ninety-nine Scholars in all who have taken part in this work of Revision, only forty-nine would be Churchmen, while the remaining fifty would belong to the sects:(42)—_this_ also we venture to think may be reasonably called in question.—Whether lastly, the Canterbury Convocation, had it been appealed to with reference to “the Westminster-Abbey scandal” (June 22nd, 1870), would not have cleared itself of the suspicion of complicity, by an unequivocal resolution,—we entertain no manner of doubt.—But we decline to enter upon these, or any other like matters. Our business is exclusively with the _result_ at which the Revisionists of the New Testament have arrived: and it is to this that we now address ourselves; with the mere avowal of our grave anxiety at the spectacle of an assembly of scholars, appointed to revise _an English Translation_, finding themselves called upon, as every fresh difficulty emerged, to develop the skill requisite for _critically revising the original Greek Text_. What else is implied by the very endeavour, but a singular expectation that experts in one Science may, at a moment’s notice, show themselves proficients in another,—and _that_ one of the most difficult and delicate imaginable?
Enough has been said to make it plain why, in the ensuing pages, we propose to pursue a different course from that which has been adopted by Reviewers generally, since the memorable day (May 17th, 1881) when the work of the Revisionists was for the first time submitted to public scrutiny. The one point which, with rare exceptions, has ever since monopolized attention, has been the merits or demerits of _their English rendering_ of certain Greek words and expressions. But there is clearly a question of prior interest and infinitely greater importance, which has to be settled first: namely, the merits or demerits of _the changes which the same Scholars have taken upon themselves to introduce into the Greek Text_. Until it has been ascertained that the result of their labours exhibits a decided improvement upon what before was read, it is clearly a mere waste of time to enquire into the merits of their work as _Revisers of a __ Translation_. But in fact it has to be proved that the Revisionists have restricted themselves to the removal of “plain and clear _errors_” from the commonly received Text. We are distressed to discover that, on the contrary, they have done something quite different. The treatment which the N. T. has experienced at the hands of the Revisionists recals the fate of some ancient edifice which confessedly required to be painted, papered, scoured,—with a minimum of masons’ and carpenters’ work,—in order to be inhabited with comfort for the next hundred years: but those entrusted with the job were so ill-advised as to persuade themselves that it required to be to a great extent rebuilt. Accordingly, in an evil hour they set about removing foundations, and did so much structural mischief that in the end it became necessary to proceed against them for damages.
Without the remotest intention of imposing views of our own on the general Reader, but only to enable him to give his intelligent assent to much that is to follow, we find ourselves constrained in the first instance,—before conducting him over any part of the domain which the Revisionists have ventured uninvited to occupy,—to premise a few ordinary facts which lie on the threshold of the science of Textual Criticism. Until these have been clearly apprehended, no progress whatever is possible.
(1) The provision, then, which the Divine Author of Scripture is found to have made for the preservation in its integrity of His written Word, is of a peculiarly varied and highly complex description. First,—By causing that a vast multiplication of COPIES should be required all down the ages,—beginning at the earliest period, and continuing in an ever-increasing ratio until the actual invention of Printing,—He provided the most effectual security imaginable against fraud. True, that millions of the copies so produced have long since perished: but it is nevertheless a plain fact that there survive of the Gospels alone upwards of one thousand copies to the present day.
(2) Next, VERSIONS. The necessity of translating the Scriptures into divers languages for the use of different branches of the early Church, procured that many an authentic record has been preserved of the New Testament as it existed in the first few centuries of the Christian era. Thus, the Peschito Syriac and the old Latin version are believed to have been executed in the IInd century. “It is no stretch of imagination” (wrote Bp. Ellicott in 1870,) “to suppose that portions of the Peschito might have been in the hands of S. John, or that the Old Latin represented the current views of the Roman Christians of the IInd century.”(43) The two Egyptian translations are referred to the IIIrd and IVth. The Vulgate (or revised Latin) and the Gothic are also claimed for the IVth: the Armenian, and possibly the Æthiopic, belong to the Vth.
(3) Lastly, the requirements of assailants and apologists alike, the business of Commentators, the needs of controversialists and teachers in every age, have resulted in a vast accumulation of additional evidence, of which it is scarcely possible to over-estimate the importance. For in this way it has come to pass that every famous Doctor of the Church in turn has quoted more or less largely from the sacred writings, and thus has borne testimony to the contents of the codices with which he was individually familiar. PATRISTIC CITATIONS accordingly are a third mighty safeguard of the integrity of the deposit.
To weigh these three instruments of Criticism—COPIES, VERSIONS, FATHERS—one against another, is obviously impossible on the present occasion. Such a discussion would grow at once into a treatise.(44) Certain explanatory details, together with a few words of caution, are as much as may be attempted.
I. And, first of all, the reader has need to be apprised (with reference to the first-named class of evidence) that most of our extant COPIES of the N. T. Scriptures are comparatively of recent date, ranging from the Xth to the XIVth century of our era. That these are in every instance copies of yet older manuscripts, is self-evident; and that in the main they represent faithfully the sacred autographs themselves, no reasonable person doubts.(45) Still, it is undeniable that they _are_ thus separated by about a thousand years from their inspired archetypes. Readers are reminded, in passing, that the little handful of copies on which we rely for the texts of Herodotus and Thucydides, of Æschylus and Sophocles, are removed from _their_ originals by full 500 years more: and that, instead of a thousand, or half a thousand copies, we are dependent for the text of certain of these authors on as many copies as may be counted on the fingers of one hand. In truth, the security which the Text of the New Testament enjoys is altogether unique and extraordinary. To specify one single consideration, which has never yet attracted nearly the amount of attention it deserves,—“Lectionaries” abound, which establish the Text which has been publicly read in the churches of the East, from _at least_ A.D. 400 until the time of the invention of printing.
But here an important consideration claims special attention. We allude to the result of increased acquaintance with certain of the oldest extant codices of the N. T. Two of these,—viz. a copy in the Vatican technically indicated by the letter B, and the recently-discovered Sinaitic codex, styled after the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet א,—are thought to belong to the IVth century. Two are assigned to the Vth, viz. the Alexandrian (A) in the British Museum, and the rescript codex preserved at Paris, designated C. One is probably of the VIth, viz. the codex Bezæ (D) preserved at Cambridge. Singular to relate, the first, second, fourth, and fifth of these codices (B א C D), but especially B and א, have within the last twenty years established a tyrannical ascendency over the imagination of the Critics, which can only be fitly spoken of as a blind superstition. It matters nothing that all four are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant MSS. besides, but even _from one another_. This last circumstance, obviously fatal to their corporate pretensions, is unaccountably overlooked. And yet it admits of only one satisfactory explanation: viz. that _in different degrees_ they all five exhibit a fabricated text. Between the first two (B and א) there subsists an amount of sinister resemblance, which proves that they must have been derived at no very remote period from the same corrupt original. Tischendorf insists that they were partly written by the same scribe. Yet do they stand asunder in every page; as well as differ widely from the commonly received Text, with which they have been carefully collated. On being referred to this standard, in the Gospels alone, B is found to omit at least 2877 words: to add, 536: to substitute, 935: to transpose, 2098: to modify, 1132 (in all 7578):—the corresponding figures for א being severally 3455, 839, 1114, 2299, 1265 (in all 8972). And be it remembered that the omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, _are by no means the same_ in both. It is in fact _easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two MSS. differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree_.
But by far the most depraved text is that exhibited by codex D. “No known manuscript contains so many bold and extensive interpolations. Its variations from the sacred Text are beyond all other example.”(46) This, however, is not the result of its being the most recent of the five, but (singular to relate) is due to quite an opposite cause. It is thought (not without reason) to exhibit a IInd-century text. “When we turn to the Acts of the Apostles,” (says the learned editor of the codex in question, Dr. Scrivener,(47))—
“We find ourselves confronted with a text, the like to which we have no experience of elsewhere. It is hardly an exaggeration to assert that codex D reproduces the _Textus receptus_ much in the same way that one of the best Chaldee Targums does the Hebrew of the Old Testament: so wide are the variations in the diction, so constant and inveterate the practice of expounding the narrative by means of interpolations which seldom recommend themselves as genuine by even a semblance of internal probability.”
“_Vix dici potest_” (says Mill) “_quam supra omnem modum licenter se
gesserit, ac plane lasciverit Interpolator_.” Though a large portion of
the Gospels is missing, in what remains (tested by the same standard) we
find 3704 words omitted: no less than 2213 added, and 2121 substituted.
The words transposed amount to 3471: and 1772 have been modified: the
deflections from the Received Text thus amounting in all to 13,281.—Next
to D, the most untrustworthy codex is א, which bears on its front a
memorable note of the evil repute under which it has always laboured: viz.
it is found that at least _ten_ revisers between the IVth and the XIIth
centuries busied themselves with the task of correcting its many and
extraordinary perversions of the truth of Scripture.(48)—Next in impurity
comes B:—then, the fragmentary codex C: our own A being, beyond all doubt,
disfigured by the fewest blemishes of any.
What precedes admits to some extent of further numerical illustration. It is discovered that in the 111 (out of 320) pages of an ordinary copy of the Greek Testament, in which alone these five manuscripts are collectively available for comparison in the Gospels,—the serious deflections of A from the _Textus receptus_ amount in all to only 842: whereas in C they amount to 1798: in B, to 2370: in א, to 3392: in D, to 4697. The readings _peculiar to_ A within the same limits are 133: those peculiar to C are 170. But those of B amount to 197: while א exhibits 443: and the readings peculiar to D (within the same limits), are no fewer than 1829.... We submit that these facts—_which result from merely referring five manuscripts to one and the same common standard_—are by no means calculated to inspire confidence in codices B א C D:—codices, be it remembered, which come to us without a character, without a history, in fact without antecedents of _any_ kind.
But let the learned chairman of the New Testament company of Revisionists (Bp. Ellicott) be heard on this subject. He is characterizing these same “old uncials,” which it is just now the fashion—or rather, the _craze_—to hold up as oracular, and to which his lordship is as devotedly and blindly attached as any of his neighbours:—
“The _simplicity and dignified conciseness_” (he says) “of the Vatican manuscript (B): the _greater expansiveness_ of our own Alexandrian (A): the _partially mixed characteristics_ of the Sinaitic (א): the _paraphrastic tone_ of the _singular_ codex Bezæ (D), are now brought home to the student.”(49)
Could ingenuity have devised severer satire than such a description of
four professing _transcripts_ of a book; and _that_ book, the everlasting
Gospel itself?—transcripts, be it observed in passing, on which it is just
now the fashion to rely implicitly for the very orthography of proper
names,—the spelling of common words,—the minutiæ of grammar. What (we ask)
would be thought of four such “_copies_” of Thucydides or of Shakspeare?
Imagine it gravely proposed, by the aid of four such conflicting
documents, to re-adjust the text of the funeral oration of Pericles, or to
re-edit “Hamlet.” _Risum teneatis amici?_ Why, some of the poet’s most
familiar lines would cease to be recognizable: _e.g._ A,—“_Toby or not
Toby; that is the question_:” B,—“_Tob or not, is the question_:” א,—“_To
be a tub, or not to be a tub; the question is that_:” C,—“_The question
is, to beat, or not to beat Toby?_”: D (the “singular codex”),—“_The only
question is this: to beat that Toby, or to be a tub?_”
And yet—without by any means subscribing to the precise terms in which the judicious Prelate characterizes those _ignes fatui_ which have so persistently and egregiously led his lordship and his colleagues astray—(for indeed one seems rather to be reading a description of four styles of composition, or of as many fashions in ladies’ dress, than of four copies of the Gospel)—we have already furnished indirect proof that his estimate of the codices in question is in the main correct. Further acquaintance with them does but intensify the bad character which he has given them. Let no one suppose that we deny their extraordinary value,—their unrivalled critical interest,—nay, their actual _use_ in helping to settle the truth of Scripture. What we are just now insisting upon is only the _depraved text_ of codices א A B C D,—especially of א B D. And because this is a matter which lies at the root of the whole controversy, and because we cannot afford that there shall exist in our reader’s mind the slightest doubt on _this_ part of the subject, we shall be constrained once and again to trouble him with detailed specimens of the contents of א B, &c., in proof of the justice of what we have been alleging. We venture to assure him, without a particle of hesitation, that א B D are _three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant_:—exhibit _the most shamefully mutilated_ texts which are anywhere to be met with:—have become, by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of _fabricated readings_, ancient _blunders_, and _intentional perversions of Truth_,—which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of GOD.
But in fact take a single page of any ordinary copy of the Greek Testament,—Bp. Lloyd’s edition, suppose. Turn to page 184. It contains ten verses of S. Luke’s Gospel, ch. viii. 35 to 44. Now, proceed to collate those ten verses. You will make the notable discovery that, within those narrow limits, by codex D alone the text has been depraved 53 times, resulting in no less than 103 corrupt readings, 93 _of which are found only in_ D. The words omitted by D are 40: the words added are 4. Twenty-five words have been substituted for others, and 14 transposed. Variations of case, tense, &c., amount to 16; and the phrase of the Evangelist has been departed from 11 times. Happily, the other four “old uncials” are here available. And it is found that (within the same limits, and referred to the same test,) A exhibits 3 omissions, 2 of which are _peculiar to_ A.—B omits 12 words, 6 of which are _peculiar to_ B: substitutes 3 words: transposes 4: and exhibits 6 lesser changes—2 of them being its own peculiar property.—א has 5 readings (affecting 8 words) _peculiar to itself_. Its omissions are 7: its additions, 2: its substitutions, 4: 2 words are transposed; and it exhibits 4 lesser discrepancies.—C has 7 readings (affecting 15 words) _peculiar to itself_. Its omissions are 4: its additions, 7: its substitutions, 7: its words transposed, 7. It has 2 lesser discrepancies, and it alters the Evangelist’s phrase 4 times.
But (we shall be asked) what amount of _agreement_, in respect of “Various Readings,” is discovered to subsist between these 5 codices? for _that_, after all, is the practical question. We answer,—A has been already shown to stand alone twice: B, 6 times: א, 8 times: C, 15 times; D, 93 times.—We have further to state that A B stand together by themselves once: B א, 4 times: B C, 1: B D, 1: א C, 1: C D, 1.—A א C conspire 1: B א C, 1: B א D, 1: A B א C, _once_ (viz. in reading ἐρώτησεν, which Tischendorf admits to be a corrupt reading): B א C D, also _once_.—The 5 “old uncials” therefore (A B א C D) combine, and again stand apart, with singular impartiality.—Lastly, they are _never once_ found to be in accord in respect of _any single _“various Reading”.—Will any one, after a candid survey of the premisses, deem us unreasonable, if we avow that such a specimen of the _concordia discors_ which everywhere prevails between the oldest uncials, but which especially characterizes א B D, indisposes us greatly to suffer their unsupported authority to determine for us the Text of Scripture?
Let no one at all events obscure the one question at issue, by asking,—“Whether we consider the _Textus Receptus_ infallible?” The merit or demerit of the Received Text has absolutely _nothing whatever to do with the question_. We care nothing about it. _Any_ Text would equally suit our present purpose. _Any_ Text would show the “old uncials” perpetually at discord _among themselves_. To raise an irrelevant discussion, at the outset, concerning the _Textus Receptus_:—to describe the haste with which Erasmus produced the first published edition of the N. T.:—to make sport about the copies which he employed:—all this kind of thing is the proceeding of one who seeks to mislead his readers:—to throw dust into their eyes:—to divert their attention from the problem actually before them:—_not_—(as we confidently expect when we have to do with such writers as these)—the method of a sincere lover of Truth. To proceed, however.
II. and III. Nothing has been said as yet concerning the Text exhibited by the earliest of the VERSIONS and by the most ancient of the FATHERS. But, for the purpose we have just now in hand, neither are such details necessary. We desire to hasten forward. A somewhat fuller review of certain of our oldest available materials might prove even more discouraging. But _that_ would only be because it is impossible, within such narrow limits as the present, to give the reader any idea at all of the wealth of our actual resources; and to convince him of the extent to which the least trustworthy of our guides prove in turn invaluable helps in correcting the exorbitances of their fellows. The practical result in fact of what has been hitherto offered is after all but this, that we have to be on our guard against pinning our faith exclusively on two or three,—least of all on one or two ancient documents; and of adopting _them_ exclusively for our guides. We are shown, in other words, that it is utterly out of the question to rely on any single _set_ or _group_ of authorities, much less on any single document, for the determination of the Text of Scripture. Happily, our MANUSCRIPTS are numerous: most of them are in the main trustworthy: _all_ of them represent far older documents than themselves. Our VERSIONS (two of which are more ancient by a couple of centuries than any sacred codex extant) severally correct and check one another. Lastly, in the writings of a host of FATHERS,—the principal being Eusebius, Athanasius, Basil, the Gregories, Didymus, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, the Cyrils, Theodoret,—we are provided with contemporaneous evidence which, whenever it can be had, becomes an effectual safeguard against the unsupported decrees of our oldest codices, A B א C D, as well as the occasional vagaries of the Versions. In the writings of Irenæus, Clemens Alex., Origen, Dionysius Alex., Hippolytus, we meet with older evidence still. No more precarious foundation for a reading, in fact, can be named, than the unsupported advocacy of a single Manuscript, or Version, or Father; or even of two or three of these combined.
But indeed the principle involved in the foregoing remarks admits of being far more broadly stated. It even stands to reason that we may safely reject any reading which, out of the whole body of available authorities,—Manuscripts, Versions, Fathers,—finds support nowhere save in one and the same little handful of suspicious documents. For we resolutely maintain, that _external Evidence_ must after all be our best, our only safe guide; and (to come to the point) we refuse to throw in our lot with those who, disregarding the witness of _every other_ known Codex—_every other_ Version—_every other_ available Ecclesiastical Writer,—insist on following the dictates of a little group of authorities, of which nothing whatever is known with so much certainty as that often, when they concur exclusively, it is to mislead. We speak of codices B or א or D; the IXth-century codex L, and such cursives(50) as 13 or 33; a few copies of the old Latin and one of the Egyptian versions: perhaps Origen.—Not theory therefore:—not prejudice:—not conjecture:—not unproved assertion:—not any single codex, and _certainly_ not codex B:—not an imaginary “Antiochene Recension” of another imaginary “Pre-Syrian Text:”—not antecedent fancies about the affinity of documents:—neither “the [purely arbitrary] method of genealogy,”—nor one man’s notions (_which may be reversed by another man’s notions_) of “Transcriptional Probability:”—not “instinctive processes of Criticism,”—least of all “the individual mind,” with its “supposed power of divining the Original Text”—of which no intelligible account can be rendered:—nothing of this sort,—(however specious and plausible it may sound, especially when set forth in confident language; advocated with a great show of unintelligible learning; supported by a formidable array of cabalistic symbols and mysterious contractions; above all when recommended by justly respected names,)—nothing of this sort, we say, must be allowed to determine for us the Text of Scripture. The very proposal should set us on our guard against the _certainty_ of imposition.
We deem it even axiomatic, that, in every case of doubt or difficulty—supposed or real—our critical method must be the same: namely, after patiently collecting _all_ the available evidence, then, without partiality or prejudice, to adjudicate between the conflicting authorities, and loyally to accept that verdict for which there is clearly the preponderating evidence. _The best supported Reading_, in other words, must always be held to be _the true Reading_: and nothing may be rejected from the commonly received Text, except on evidence which shall _clearly_ outweigh the evidence for retaining it. We are glad to know that, so far at least, we once had Bp. Ellicott with us. He announced (in 1870) that the best way of proceeding with the work of Revision is, “_to make the Textus Receptus the standard_,—departing from it _only when_ critical or grammatical considerations _show that it is clearly necessary_.”(51) We ourselves mean no more. Whenever the evidence is about evenly balanced, few it is hoped will deny that the Text which has been “in possession” for three centuries and a half, and which rests on infinitely better manuscript evidence than that of any ancient work which can be named,—should, for every reason, be let alone.(52)
But, (we shall perhaps be asked,) has any critical Editor of the N. T. seriously taught the reverse of all this? Yes indeed, we answer. Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf,—the most recent and most famous of modern editors,—have all three adopted a directly opposite theory of textual revision. With the first-named, fifty years ago (1831), virtually originated the principle of recurring exclusively to a few ancient documents to the exclusion of the many. “LACHMANN’S text seldom rests on more than four Greek codices, very often on three, not unfrequently on two, _sometimes on only one_.”(53) Bishop Ellicott speaks of it as “a text composed _on the narrowest and most exclusive principles_.”(54) Of the Greek Fathers (Lachmann says) he employed _only Origen_.(55) Paying extraordinary deference to the Latin Version, he entirely disregarded the coëval Syriac translation. The result of such a system must needs prove satisfactory to no one except its author.
Lachmann’s leading fallacy has perforce proved fatal to the value of the text put forth by DR. TREGELLES. Of the scrupulous accuracy, the indefatigable industry, the pious zeal of that estimable and devoted scholar, we speak not. All honour to his memory! As a specimen of conscientious labour, his edition of the N. T. (1857-72) passes praise, and will _never_ lose its value. But it has only to be stated, that Tregelles effectually persuaded himself that “_eighty-nine ninetieths_” of our extant manuscripts and other authorities may safely be rejected and lost sight of when we come to amend the text and try to restore it to its primitive purity,(56)—to make it plain that in Textual Criticism he must needs be regarded as an untrustworthy teacher. _Why_ he should have condescended to employ no patristic authority later than Eusebius [fl. A.D. 320], he does not explain. “His critical principles,” (says Bishop Ellicott,) “especially his general principles of estimating and regarding modern manuscripts, are now perhaps justly called in question.”(57)
“The case of DR. TISCHENDORF” (proceeds Bp. Ellicott) “is still more easily disposed of. _Which_ of this most inconstant Critic’s texts are we to select? Surely not the last, in which an exaggerated preference for a single Manuscript which he has had the good fortune to discover, has betrayed him into an almost child-like infirmity of critical judgment. Surely also not his seventh edition, which ... exhibits all the instability which a comparatively recent recognition of the authority of cursive manuscripts might be supposed likely to introduce.”(58) With Dr. Tischendorf,—(whom one vastly his superior in learning, accuracy, and judgment, has generously styled “the first Biblical Critic in Europe”(59))—“_the evidence of codex_ א, supported or even unsupported by one or two other authorities of any description, is sufficient to outweigh any other witnesses,—whether Manuscripts, Versions, or ecclesiastical Writers.”(60) We need say no more. Until the foregoing charge has been disproved, Dr. Tischendorf’s last edition of the N. T., however precious as a vast storehouse of materials for criticism,—however admirable as a specimen of unwearied labour, critical learning, and first-rate ability,—must be admitted to be an utterly unsatisfactory exhibition of the inspired Text. It has been ascertained that his discovery of codex א caused his 8th edition (1865-72) to differ from his 7th in no less than 3505 places,—“to the scandal of the science of Comparative Criticism, as well as to his own grave discredit for discernment and consistency.”(61) But, in fact, what is to be thought of a Critic who,—because the last verse of S. John’s Gospel, in א, seemed to himself to be _written with a different pen_ from the rest,—has actually _omitted that verse_ (xxi. 25) entirely, in defiance of _every known Copy, every known Version_, and the explicit testimony of _a host of Fathers_? Such are Origen (in 11 places),—Eusebius (in 3),—Gregory Nyss. (in 2),—Gregory Nazian.,—ps.-Dionys. Alex.,(62)—Nonnus,—Chrysostom (in 6 places),—Theodoras Mops. (in 2),—Isidorus,—Cyril Alex. (in 2),—Victor Ant.,—Ammonius,—Severus,—Maximus,—Andreas Cretensis,—Ambrose,—Gaudentius,—Philastrius,— Sedulius,—Jerome,—Augustine (in 6 places). That Tischendorf was a critic of amazing research, singular shrewdness, indefatigable industry; and that he enjoyed an unrivalled familiarity with ancient documents; no fair person will deny. But (in the words of Bishop Ellicott,(63) whom we quote so perseveringly for a reason not hard to divine,) his “great inconstancy,”—his “natural want of sobriety of critical judgment,”—and his “unreasonable deference to the readings found in his own codex Sinaiticus;”—to which should be added “_the utter absence in him of any intelligible fixed critical principles_;”—all this makes Tischendorf one of the worst of guides to the true Text of Scripture.
The last to enter the field are DRS. WESTCOTT and HORT, whose beautifully-printed edition of “the New Testament in the original Greek”(64) was published _within five days_ of the “Revised Authorized Version” itself; a “confidential” copy of their work having been already entrusted to every member of the New Test. company of Revisionists to guide them in their labours,—under pledge that they should neither show nor communicate its contents to any one else.—The learned Editors candidly avow, that they “have deliberately chosen on the whole to rely for documentary evidence on the stores accumulated by their predecessors, and to confine themselves to their proper work of editing the text itself.”(65) Nothing therefore has to be enquired after, except the critical principles on which they have proceeded. And, after assuring us that “the study of Grouping is the foundation of all enduring Criticism,”(66) they produce their secret: viz. That in “every one of our witnesses” _except codex_ B, the “corruptions are innumerable;”(67) and that, in the Gospels, the one “group of witnesses” _of _“incomparable value”, is codex B in “combination with another primary Greek manuscript, as א B, B L, B C, B T, B D, B Ξ, A B, B Z, B 33, and in S. Mark B Δ.”(68) This is “Textual Criticism made easy,” certainly. Well aware of the preposterous results to which such a major premiss must inevitably lead, we are not surprised to find a plea straightway put in for “_instinctive processes of Criticism_” of which _the foundation _“needs perpetual correction and recorrection”. But our confidence fairly gives way when, in the same breath, the accomplished Editors proceed as follows:—“But _we are obliged to come to the individual mind_ at last; and canons of Criticism are useful only as warnings against _natural illusions_, and aids to circumspect consideration, not as absolute rules to prescribe the final decision. It is true that no _individual mind_ can ever work with perfect uniformity, or free itself completely from _its own idiosyncrasies_. Yet a clear sense of the danger of _unconscious caprice_ may do much towards excluding it. We trust also that the present Text has escaped some risks of this kind by being the joint production of two Editors of different habits of mind”(69) ... A somewhat insecure safeguard surely! May we be permitted without offence to point out that the “idiosyncrasies” of an “individual mind” (to which we learn with astonishment “we are obliged to come at last”) are probably the very worst foundation possible on which to build the recension of an inspired writing? With regret we record our conviction, that these accomplished scholars have succeeded in producing a Text vastly more remote from the inspired autographs of the Evangelists than any which has appeared since the invention of printing. When full Prolegomena have been furnished we shall know more about the matter;(70) but to judge from the Remarks (in pp. 541-62) which the learned Editors (Revisionists themselves) have subjoined to their elegantly-printed volume, it is to be feared that the fabric will be found to rest too exclusively on vague assumption and unproved hypothesis. In other words, a painful apprehension is created that their edition of “The New Testament in the original Greek” will be found to partake inconveniently of the nature of a work of the Imagination. As codex א proved fatal to Dr. Tischendorf, so is codex B evidently the rock on which Drs. Westcott and Hort have split. Did it ever occur to those learned men to enquire how the Septuagint Version of the _Old_ Testament has fared at the hands of codex B? They are respectfully invited to address themselves to this very damaging enquiry.
But surely (rejoins the intelligent Reader, coming fresh to these studies), the oldest extant Manuscripts (B א A C D) _must_ exhibit the purest text! Is it not so?
It _ought_ to be so, no doubt (we answer); but it certainly _need not_ be the case.
We know that Origen in Palestine, Lucian at Antioch, Hesychius in Egypt, “revised” the text of the N. T. Unfortunately, they did their work in an age when such fatal misapprehension prevailed on the subject, that each in turn will have inevitably imported a fresh assortment of _monstra_ into the sacred writings. Add, the baneful influence of such spirits as Theophilus (sixth Bishop of Antioch, A.D. 168), Tatian, Ammonius, &c., of whom we know there were very many in the primitive age,—some of whose productions, we further know, were freely multiplied in every quarter of ancient Christendom:—add, the fabricated Gospels which anciently abounded; notably the _Gospel of the Hebrews_, about which Jerome is so communicative, and which (he says) he had translated into Greek and Latin:—lastly, freely grant that here and there, with well-meant assiduity, the orthodox themselves may have sought to prop up truths which the early heretics (Basilides, A.D. 134, Valentinus, A.D. 140, with his disciple Heracleon, Marcion, A.D. 150, and the rest,) most perseveringly assailed;—and we have sufficiently explained how it comes to pass that not a few of the codices of primitive Christendom must have exhibited Texts which were even scandalously corrupt. “It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound,” writes the most learned of the Revisionist body,
“that the worst corruptions, to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed: that Irenæus [A.D. 150] and the African Fathers, and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus Receptus.”(71)
And what else are codices א B C D but _specimens_—_in vastly_ _different
degrees_—_of the class thus characterized_ by Prebendary Scrivener? Nay,
who will venture to deny that those codices are indebted for their
preservation _solely_ to the circumstance, that they were long since
recognized as the depositories of Readings which rendered them utterly
untrustworthy?
Only by singling out some definite portion of the Gospels, and attending closely to the handling it has experienced at the hands of A א B C D,—to the last four of which it is just now the fashion to bow down as to an oracular voice from which there shall be no appeal,—can the student become aware of the hopelessness of any attempt to construct the Text of the N. T. out of the materials which those codices exclusively supply. Let us this time take S. Mark’s account of the healing of “the paralytic borne of four” (ch. ii. 1-12),—and confront their exhibition of it, with that of the commonly received Text. In the course of those 12 verses, (not reckoning 4 blunders and certain peculiarities of spelling,) there will be found to be 60 variations of reading,—of which 55 are nothing else but depravations of the text, the result of inattention or licentiousness. Westcott and Hort adopt 23 of these:—(18, in which א B conspire to vouch for a reading: 2, where א is unsupported by B: 2, where B is unsupported by א: 1, where C D are supported by neither א nor B). Now, in the present instance, the “five old uncials” _cannot be_ the depositories of a tradition,—whether Western or Eastern,—because they render inconsistent testimony _in every verse_. It must further be admitted, (for this is really not a question of opinion, but a plain matter of fact,) that it is unreasonable to place confidence in such documents. What would be thought in a Court of Law of five witnesses, called up 47 times for examination, who should be observed to bear contradictory testimony _every time_?
But the whole of the problem does not by any means lie on the surface. All that _appears_ is that the five oldest uncials are not trustworthy witnesses; which singly, in the course of 12 verses separate themselves from their fellows 33 times: viz. A, twice;—א, 5 times;—B, 6 times;—C, thrice;—D, 17 times: and which also enter into the 11 following combinations with one another in opposition to the ordinary Text:—A C, twice;—א B, 10 times;—א D, once;—C D, 3 times;—א B C, once;—א B D, 5 times;—א C D, once;—B C D, once;—A א C D, once;—A B C D, once;—A א B C D, once. (Note, that on this last occasion, which is the _only_ time when they all 5 agree, _they are certainly all 5 wrong_.) But this, as was observed before, lies on the surface. On closer critical inspection, it is further discovered that their testimony betrays the baseness of their origin by its intrinsic worthlessness. Thus, in Mk. ii, 1, the delicate precision of the announcement ἠκούσθη ὅτι ΕἸΣ ΟἾΚΟΝ ἘΣΤΙ (that “_He has gone in_”), disappears from א B D:—as well as (in ver. 2) the circumstance that it became the signal for many “_immediately_” (א B) to assemble about the door.—In ver. 4, S. Mark explains his predecessor’s concise statement that the paralytic was “brought to” our SAVIOUR,(72) by remarking that the thing was “_impossible_” by the ordinary method of approach. Accordingly, his account of the expedient resorted to by the bearers fills one entire verse (ver. 4) of his Gospel. In the mean time, א B by exhibiting (in S. Mark ii. 3,) “bringing unto Him one sick of the palsy” (φέροντες πρὸς αὐτὸν παραλυτικόν,—which is but a senseless transposition of πρὸς αὐτόν, παραλυτικὸν φέροντες), do their best to obliterate the exquisite significance of the second Evangelist’s method.—In the next verse, the perplexity of the bearers, who, because they could not “_come nigh_ Him” (προσεγγίσαι αὐτῷ), unroofed the house, is lost in א B,—whose προσενέγκαι has been obtained either from Matt. ix. 2, or else from Luke v. 18, 19 (εἰσενεγκεῖν, εἰσενέγκωσιν). “The bed WHERE WAS the paralytic” (τὸν κράββατον ὍΠΟΥ ἮΝ ὁ παραλυτικός), in imitation of “the roof WHERE WAS” Jesus (τὴν στέγην ὍΠΟΥ ἮΝ [ὁ Ἰησοῦς], which had immediately preceded), is just one of those tasteless depravations, for which א B, and especially D, are conspicuous among manuscripts.—In the last verse, the _instantaneous rising_ of the paralytic, noticed by S. Mark (ἠγέρθη εὐθέως), and insisted upon by S. Luke (“_and immediately he rose up_ before them,”—καὶ παραχρῆμα ἀναστὰς ἐνώπιον αὐτῶν), is obliterated by shifting εὐθέως in א B and C to a place where εὐθέως is not wanted, and where its significancy disappears.
Other instances of Assimilation are conspicuous. All must see that, in ver. 5, καὶ ἰδών (א B C) is derived from Matt. ix. 2 and Luke v. 20: as well as that “Son, _be of good cheer_” (C) is imported hither from Matt. ix. 2. “_My_ son,” on the other hand (א), is a mere effort of the imagination. In the same verse, σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαι (א B D) is either from Matt. ix. 5 (_sic_); or else from ver. 9, lower down in S. Mark’s narrative. Λέγοντες, in ver. 6 (D), is from S. Luke v. 21. Ὕπαγε (א) in ver. 9, and ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου (D), are clearly importations from ver 11. The strange confusion in ver. 7,—“_Because this man thus speaketh, he blasphemeth_” (B),—and “_Why doth this man thus speak? He blasphemeth_” (א D),—is due solely to Mtt. ix. 3:—while the appendix proposed by א as a substitute for “We never saw it on this fashion” (οὐδέποτε οὕτως εἴδομεν), in ver 12 (viz. “It was never so seen in Israel,” οὐδέποτε οὕτως ἐφάνη ἐν τῷ Ἰσραήλ), has been transplanted hither from S. Matt. ix. 33.
We shall perhaps be told that, scandalously corrupt as the text of א B C D hereabouts may be, no reason has been shown as yet for suspecting that _heretical_ depravation ever had anything to do with such phenomena. _That_ (we answer) is only because the writings of the early depravers and fabricators of Gospels have universally perished. From the slender relics of their iniquitous performances which have survived to our time, we are sometimes able to lay our finger on a foul blot and to say, “_This_ came from Tatian’s Diatessaron; and _that_ from Marcion’s mutilated recension of the Gospel according to S. Luke.” The piercing of our SAVIOUR’S side, transplanted by codices א B C from S. John xix. 34 into S. Matt, xxvii. 49, is an instance of the former,—which it may reasonably create astonishment to find that Drs. Westcott and Hort (_alone among Editors_) have nevertheless admitted into their text, as equally trustworthy with the last 12 verses of S. Mark’s Gospel. But it occasions a stronger sentiment than surprise to discover that this, “the gravest interpolation yet laid to the charge of B,”—this “sentence which neither they nor any other competent scholar can possibly believe that the Evangelist ever wrote,”(73)—has been actually foisted into the margin of _the Revised Version_ of S. Matthew xxvii. 49. Were not the Revisionists aware that such a disfigurement must prove fatal to their work? _For whose_ benefit is the information volunteered that “many ancient authorities” are thus grossly interpolated?
An instructive specimen of depravation follows, which can be traced to Marcion’s mutilated recension of S. Luke’s Gospel. We venture to entreat the favour of the reader’s sustained attention to the license with which the LORD’S Prayer as given in S. Luke’s Gospel (xi. 2-4), is exhibited by codices א A B C D. For every reason one would have expected that so precious a formula would have been found enshrined in the “old uncials” in peculiar safety; handled by copyists of the IVth, Vth, and VIth centuries with peculiar reverence. Let us ascertain exactly what has befallen it:—
(_a_) D introduces the LORD’S Prayer by interpolating the following paraphrase of S. Matt. vi. 7:—“_Use not vain repetitions as the rest: for some suppose that they shall be heard by their much speaking. But when ye pray_” ... After which portentous exordium,
(_b_) B א omit the 5 words, “_Our_” “_which art in heaven_,” Then,
(_c_) D omits the article (τό) before “name:” and supplements the first petition with the words “upon us” (ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς). It must needs also transpose the words “_Thy Kingdom_” (ἡ βασιλεία σου).
(_d_) B in turn omits the third petition,—“_Thy will be done, as in heaven, also on the earth;_” which 11 words א retains, but adds “_so_” before “_also_,” and omits the article (τῆς); finding for once an ally in A C D.
(_e_) א D for δίδου write δός (from Matt.).
(_f_) א omits the article (τό) before “_day by day._” And,
(_g_) D, instead of the 3 last-named words, writes “_this day_” (from Matt.): substitutes “_debts_” (τὰ ὀφειλήματα) for “_sins_” (τὰ ἁμαρτήματα,—also from Matt.): and in place of “_for [we] ourselves_” (καὶ γὰρ αὐτοί) writes “_as also we_” (ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς, again from Matt.).—But,
(_h_) א shows its sympathy with D by accepting two-thirds of this last blunder: exhibiting “_as also [we] ourselves_” (ὡς καὶ αὐτοί).
(_i_) D consistently reads “_our debtors_” (τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν) in place of “_every one that is indebted to us_” (παντὶ ὀφείλοντι ἡμῖν).—Finally,
(_j_) B א omit the last petition,—“_but deliver us from evil_” (ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ)—unsupported by A C or D. Of lesser discrepancies we decline to take account.
So then, these five “first-class authorities” are found to throw themselves into _six different combinations_ in their departures from S. Luke’s way of exhibiting the LORD’S Prayer,—which, among them, they contrive to falsify in respect of no less than 45 words; and yet _they are never able to agree among themselves as to any single various reading:_ while _only once_ are more than two of them observed to stand together,—viz. in the unauthorized omission of the article. In respect of 32 (out of the 45) words, _they bear in turn solitary evidence_. What need to declare that it is _certainly false_ in every instance? Such however is the infatuation of the Critics, that the vagaries of Bare all taken for gospel. Besides omitting the 11 words which B omits jointly with א, Drs. Westcott and Hort erase from the Book of Life those other 11 precious words which are omitted by B only. And in this way it comes to pass that the mutilated condition to which the scalpel of Marcion the heretic reduced the LORD’S Prayer some 1730 years ago,(74) (for the mischief can all be traced back to _him!_), is palmed off on the Church of England by the Revisionists as the work of the HOLY GHOST!
(A) We may now proceed with our examination of their work, beginning—as Dr. Roberts (one of the Revisionists) does, when explaining the method and results of their labours—with what we hold to be the gravest blot of all, viz. the marks of serious suspicion which we find set against the last Twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel. Well may the learned Presbyterian anticipate that—
“The reader will be struck by the appearance which this long paragraph presents in the Revised Version. Although inserted, it is marked off by a considerable space from the rest of the Gospel. A note is also placed in the margin containing a brief explanation of this.”(75)
A _very_ brief “explanation” certainly: for the note _explains_ nothing.
Allusion is made to the following words—
“The two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities, omit from ver. 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel.”
But now,—For the use of _whom_ has this piece of information been
volunteered? Not for learned readers certainly: it being familiarly known
to all, that codices B and א _alone of manuscripts_ (to their own
effectual condemnation) omit these 12 verses. But then scholars know
something more about the matter. They also know that these 12 verses have
been made the subject of a separate treatise extending to upwards of 300
pages,—which treatise has now been before the world for a full decade of
years, and for the best of reasons has never yet been answered. Its
object, stated on its title-page, was to vindicate against recent critical
objectors, and to establish “the last Twelve Verses” of S. Mark’s
Gospel.(76) Moreover, competent judges at once admitted that the author
had succeeded in doing what he undertook to do.(77) _Can_ it then be right
(we respectfully enquire) still to insinuate into unlearned minds distrust
of twelve consecutive verses of the everlasting Gospel, which yet have
been demonstrated to be as trustworthy as any other verses which can be
named?
The question arises,—But how did it come to pass that such evil counsels were allowed to prevail in the Jerusalem Chamber? Light has been thrown on the subject by two of the New Test. company. And first by the learned Congregationalist, Dr. Newth, who has been at the pains to describe the method which was pursued on every occasion. The practice (he informs us) was as follows. The Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, as chairman, asks—
“Whether any _Textual_ Changes are proposed? The evidence for and against is briefly stated, and the proposal considered. The duty of stating this evidence is by tacit consent devolved upon (_sic_) two members of the Company, who from their previous studies are specially entitled to speak with authority upon such questions,—Dr. Scrivener and _Dr. Hort_,—and who come prepared to enumerate particularly the authorities on either side. Dr. Scrivener opens up the matter by stating the facts of the case, and by giving his judgment on the bearings of the evidence. Dr. Hort follows, and mentions any additional matters that may call for notice; and, if differing from Dr. Scrivener’s estimate of the weight of the evidence, gives his reasons and states his own view. After discussion, the vote of the Company is taken, and the proposed Reading accepted or rejected. _The Text being thus settled_, the Chairman asks for proposals on the Rendering.”(78)
And thus, the men who were appointed to improve _the English Translation_
are exhibited to us remodelling _the original Greek_. At a moment’s
notice, as if by intuition,—by an act which can only be described as the
exercise of instinct,—these eminent Divines undertake to decide which
shall be deemed the genuine utterances of the HOLY GHOST,(79)—which _not_.
Each is called upon to give his vote, and he gives it. “_The Text being
thus settled_” they proceed to do the only thing they were originally
appointed to do; viz. to try their hands at improving our Authorized
Version. But we venture respectfully to suggest, that by no such “rough
and ready” process is that most delicate and difficult of all critical
problems—the truth of Scripture—to be “settled.”
Sir Edmund Beckett remarks that if the description above given “of the process by which the Revisionists ‘settled’ the Greek alterations, is not a kind of joke, it is quite enough to ‘settle’ this Revised Greek Testament in a very different sense.”(80) And so, in truth, it clearly is.—“Such a proceeding appeared to me so strange,” (writes the learned and judicious Editor of the _Speaker’s Commentary_,) “that I fully expected that the account would be corrected, or that some explanation would be given which might remove the very unpleasant impression.”(81) We have since heard on the best authority, _that_ namely of Bishop Ellicott himself,(82) that Dr. Newth’s account of the method of “settling” the text of the N. T., pursued in the Jerusalem Chamber, is correct.
But in fact, it proves to have been, from the very first, a definite part of the Programme. The chairman of the Revisionist body, Bishop Ellicott,—when he had “to consider the practical question,”—whether “(1), to construct a critical Text first: or (2), to use preferentially, though not exclusively, some current Text: or (3), _simply to proceed onward_ with the work of Revision, whether of Text or Translation, making the current _Textus Receptus_ the standard, and departing from it only when critical or grammatical considerations show that it is clearly necessary,—in fact, _solvere ambulando_;” announces, at the end of 19 pages,—“We are driven then to the third alternative.”(83)
We naturally cast about for some evidence that the members of the New Testament company possess that mastery of the subject which alone could justify one of their number (Dr. Milligan) in asserting roundly that these 12 verses are “_not from the pen of S. Mark himself_;”(84) and another (Dr. Roberts) in maintaining that “the passage is _not the immediate production of S. Mark_.”(85) Dr. Roberts assures us that—
“Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of Antioch, Severus of Antioch, Jerome, as well as other writers, especially Greeks, testify that these verses were not written by S. Mark, or not found in the best copies.”(86)
Will the learned writer permit us to assure him in return that he is
entirely mistaken? He is requested to believe that Gregory of Nyssa says
nothing of the sort—_says __ nothing at all_ concerning these verses: that
Victor of Antioch vouches emphatically for their _genuineness_: that
Severus does but copy, while Jerome does but translate, a few random
expressions of Eusebius: and that Eusebius himself _nowhere_ “testifies
that these verses were not written by S. Mark.” So far from it, Eusebius
actually _quotes the verses_, quotes them as _genuine_. Dr. Roberts is
further assured that there are _no_ “other writers” whether Greek or
Latin, who insinuate doubt concerning these verses. On the contrary,
besides _both_ the Latin and _all_ the Syriac—besides the Gothic and the
_two_ Egyptian versions—there exist four authorities of the IInd
century;—as many of the IIIrd;—five of the Vth;—four of the VIth;—as many
of the VIIth;—together with _at least ten_ of the IVth(87)
(_contemporaries therefore of codices_ B _and_ א);—which actually
_recognize_ the verses in question. Now, when to _every known Manuscript
but two_ of bad character, besides _every ancient Version, some
one-and-thirty Fathers_ have been added, 18 of whom must have used copies
at least as old as either B or א,—Dr. Roberts is assured that an amount of
external authority has been accumulated which is simply overwhelming in
discussions of this nature.
But the significance of a single feature of the Lectionary, of which up to this point nothing has been said, is alone sufficient to determine the controversy. We refer to the fact that _in every part of Eastern Christendom_ these same 12 verses—neither more nor less—have been from the earliest recorded period, and still are, a _proper lesson both for the Easter season and for Ascension Day_.
We pass on.
(B) A more grievous perversion of the truth of Scripture is scarcely to be found than occurs in the proposed revised exhibition of S. Luke ii. 14, in the Greek and English alike; for indeed not only is the proposed Greek text (ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας) impossible, but the English of the Revisionists (“_peace among men in whom he is well pleased_”) “can be arrived at” (as one of themselves has justly remarked) “only through some process which would make any phrase bear almost any meaning the translator might like to put upon it.”(88) More than that: the harmony of the exquisite three-part hymn, which the Angels sang on the night of the Nativity, becomes hopelessly marred, and its structural symmetry destroyed, by the welding of the second and third members of the sentence into one. Singular to relate, the addition of _a single final letter_ (ς) has done all this mischief. Quite as singular is it that we should be able at the end of upwards of 1700 years to discover what occasioned its calamitous insertion. From the archetypal copy, by the aid of which the old Latin translation was made, (for the Latin copies _all_ read “_pax hominibus bonæ voluntatis_,”) the preposition ἐν was evidently away,—absorbed apparently by the ἀν which immediately follows. In order therefore to make a sentence of some sort out of words which, without ἐν, are simply unintelligible, εὐδοκία was turned into εὐδοκίας. It is accordingly a significant circumstance that, whereas there exists _no_ Greek copy of the Gospels which _omits_ the ἐν, there is scarcely a Latin exhibition of the place to be found which contains it.(89) To return however to the genuine clause,—“Good-will towards men” (ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία).
Absolutely decisive of the true reading of the passage—irrespectively of internal considerations—ought to be the consideration that it is vouched for _by every known copy_ of the Gospels of whatever sort, excepting only א A B D: the first and third of which, however, were anciently corrected and brought into conformity with the Received Text; while the second (A) is observed to be so inconstant in its testimony, that in the primitive “Morning-hymn” (given in another page of the same codex, and containing a quotation of S. Luke ii. 14), the correct reading of the place is found. D’s complicity in error is the less important, because of the ascertained sympathy between that codex and the Latin. In the meantime the two Syriac Versions are a full set-off against the Latin copies; while the hostile evidence of the Gothic (which this time sides with the Latin) is more than neutralized by the unexpected desertion of the Coptic version from the opposite camp. The Armenian, Georgian, Æthiopic, Slavonic and Arabian versions, are besides all with the Received Text. It therefore comes to this:—We are invited to make our election between every other copy of the Gospels,—every known Lectionary,—and (not least of all) the ascertained ecclesiastical usage of the Eastern Church from the beginning,—on the one hand: and the testimony of four Codices without a history or a character, which concur in upholding a patent mistake, on the other. Will any one hesitate as to which of these two parties has the stronger claim on his allegiance?
Could doubt be supposed to be entertained in any quarter, it must at all events be borne away by the torrent of Patristic authority which is available on the present occasion:—
In the IInd century,—we have the testimony of (1) Irenæus.(90)
In the IIIrd,—that of (2) Origen(91) in 3 places,—and of (3) the _Apostolical Constitutions_(92) in 2.
In the IVth,—(4) Eusebius,(93)—(5) Aphraates the Persian,(94)—(6) Titus of Bostra,(95) each twice;—(7) Didymus(96) in 3 places;—(8) Gregory of Nazianzus,(97)—(9) Cyril of Jerusalem,(98)—(10) Epiphanius(99) twice;—(11) Gregory of Nyssa(100) 4 times,—(12) Ephraem Syrus,(101)—(13) Philo bishop of Carpasus,(102)—(14) Chrysostom,(103) in 9 places,—and (15) a nameless preacher at Antioch,(104)—all these, _contemporaries (be it remembered) of_ B _and_ א, are found to bear concurrent testimony in favour of the commonly received text.
In the Vth century,—(16) Cyril of Alexandria,(105) on no less than 14 occasions, vouches for it also;—(17) Theodoret(106) on 4;—(18) Theodotus of Ancyra(107) on 5 (once(108) in a homily preached before the Council of Ephesus on Christmas-day, A.D. 431);—(19) Proclus(109) archbishop of Constantinople;—(20) Paulus(110) bishop of Emesa (in a sermon preached before Cyril of Alexandria on Christmas-day, A.D. 431);—(21) the Eastern bishops(111) at Ephesus collectively, A.D. 431 (an unusually weighty piece of evidence);—and lastly, (22) Basil of Seleucia.(112) Now, let it be remarked that _these were contemporaries of codex_ A.
In the VIth century,—the Patristic witnesses are (23) Cosmas, the voyager,(113) 5 times,—(24) Anastasius Sinaita,(114)—(25) Eulogius(115) archbishop of Alexandria: _contemporaries, be it remembered, of codex_ D.
In the VIIth,—(26) Andreas of Crete(116) twice.
And in the VIIIth,—(27) Cosmas(117) bishop of Maiuma near Gaza,—and his pupil (28) John Damascene,(118)—and (29) Germanus(119) archbishop of Constantinople.
To these 29 illustrious names are to be added unknown writers of uncertain date, but _all_ of considerable antiquity; and some(120) are proved by internal evidence to belong to the IVth or Vth century,—in short, to be of the date of the Fathers whose names 16 of them severally bear, but among whose genuine works their productions are probably _not_ to be reckoned. One of these was anciently mistaken for (30) Gregory Thaumaturgus:(121) a second, for (31) Methodius:(122) a third, for (32) Basil.(123) Three others, with different degrees of reasonableness, have been supposed to be (33, 34, 35) Athanasius.(124) One has passed for (36) Gregory of Nyssa;(125) another for (37) Epiphanius;(126) while no less than eight (38 to 45) have been mistaken for Chrysostom,(127) some of them being certainly his contemporaries. Add (46) one anonymous Father,(128) and (47) the author of the apocryphal _Acta Pilati_,—and it will be perceived that 18 ancient authorities have been added to the list, every whit as competent to witness what was the text of S. Luke ii. 14 at the time when A B א D were written, as Basil or Athanasius, Epiphanius or Chrysostom themselves.(129) _For our present purpose_ they are _Codices_ of the IVth, Vth, and VIth centuries. In this way then, far more than _forty-seven_ ancient witnesses have come back to testify to the men of this generation that the commonly received reading of S. Luke ii. 14 is _the true reading_, and that the text which the Revisionists are seeking to palm off upon us is _a fabrication and a blunder_. Will any one be found to maintain that the authority of B and א is appreciable, when confronted by the first 15 _contemporary Ecclesiastical Writers_ above enumerated? or that A can stand against the 7 which follow?
This is not all however. Survey the preceding enumeration geographically, and note that, besides 1 name from Gaul,—at least 2 stand for Constantinople,—while 5 are dotted over Asia Minor:—10 at least represent Antioch; and—6, other parts of Syria:—3 stand for Palestine, and 12 for other Churches of the East:—at least 5 are Alexandrian,—2 are men of Cyprus, and—1 is from Crete. If the articulate voices of so many illustrious Bishops, coming back to us in this way from every part of ancient Christendom and all delivering the same unfaltering message,—if _this_ be not allowed to be decisive on a point of the kind just now before us, then pray let us have it explained to us,—What amount of evidence _will_ men accept as final? It is high time that this were known.... The plain truth is, that a case has been established against א A B D and the Latin version, which amounts to _proof_ that those documents, even when they conspire to yield the self-same evidence, are not to be depended on as witnesses to the text of Scripture. The history of the reading advocated by the Revisionists is briefly this:—_It emerges into notice in the IInd century; and in the Vth, disappears from sight entirely._
Enough and to spare has now been offered concerning the true reading of S. Luke ii. 14. But because we propose to ourselves that _no uncertainty whatever_ shall remain on this subject, it will not be wasted labour if at parting we pour into the ruined citadel just enough of shot and shell to leave no dark corner standing for the ghost of a respectable doubt hereafter to hide in. Now, it is confessedly nothing else but the high estimate which Critics have conceived of the value of the testimony of the old uncials (א A B C D), which has occasioned any doubt at all to exist in this behalf. Let the learned Reader then ascertain for himself the character of codices א A B C D hereabouts, by collating _the context in which S. Luke ii. 14 is found_, viz. the 13 verses which precede and the one verse (ver. 15) which immediately follows. If the old uncials are observed all to sing in tune throughout, hereabouts, well and good: but if on the contrary, their voices prove utterly discordant, _who_ sees not that the last pretence has been taken away for placing _any confidence at all_ in their testimony concerning the text of ver. 14, turning as it does on the presence or absence of _a single letter_?... He will find, as the result of his analysis, that within the space of those 14 verses, the old uncials are responsible for 56 “various readings” (so-called): singly, for 41; in combination with one another, for 15. So diverse, however, is the testimony they respectively render, that they are found severally to differ from the Text of the cursives no less than 70 times. Among them, besides twice varying the phrase,—they contrive to omit 19 words:—to add 4:—to substitute 17:—to alter 10:—to transpose 24.—Lastly, these five codices are observed (within the same narrow limits) to fall into _ten_ different combinations: viz. B א, for 5 readings;—B D, for 2;—א C, א D, A C, א B D, A א D, A B א D, B א C D, A B א C D, for 1 each. A therefore, which stands alone _twice_, is found in combination 4 times;—C, which stands alone _once_, is found in combination 4 times;(130)—B, which stands alone 5 times, is found in combination 6 times;—א, which stands alone 11 times, is found in combination 8 times;—D, which stands alone 22 times, is found in combination 7 times.... And now,—for the last time we ask the question,—With what show of reason can the unintelligible εὐδοκίας (of א A B D) be upheld as genuine, in defiance of _the whole body of Manuscripts_, uncial and cursive,—the great bulk of the Versions,—and the mighty array of (upwards of fifty) Fathers exhibited above?
(C) We are at last able to proceed, with a promise that we shall rarely prove so tedious again. But it is absolutely necessary to begin by clearing the ground. We may not go on doubting for ever. The “Angelic hymn” and “The last 12 Verses” of S. Mark’s Gospel, are convenient places for a trial of strength. _It has now been proved_ that the commonly received text of S. Luke ii. 14 is the true text,—the Revisionists’ emendation of the place, a palpable mistake. On behalf of the second Gospel, we claim to have also established that an important portion of the sacred narrative has been unjustly branded with a note of ignominy; from which we solemnly call upon the Revisionists to set the Evangelist free. The pretence that no harm has been done him by the mere statement of what is an undeniable fact,—(viz. that “the two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities, omit from verse 9 to the end;” and that “some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel,”)—will not stand examination. Pin to the shoulder of an honourable man a hearsay libel on his character, and see what he will have to say to you! Besides,—_Why have the 12 verses been further separated off from the rest of the Gospel?_ This at least is unjustifiable.
Those who, with Drs. Roberts and Milligan,(131) have been taught to maintain “_that the passage is not the immediate production of S. Mark_,”—“_can hardly be regarded as a part of the original Gospel_; but is rather an addition made to it at a very early age, whether in the lifetime of the Evangelist or not, it is impossible to say:”—such Critics are informed that they stultify themselves when they proceed in the same breath to assure the offended reader that the passage “is nevertheless _possessed of full canonical authority_.”(132) Men who so write show that they do not understand the question. For if these 12 verses _are_ “canonical Scripture,”—as much inspired as the 12 verses which precede them, and as worthy of undoubting confidence,—then, whether they be “the production of S. Mark,” or of some other, is a purely irrelevant circumstance. The _Authorship_ of the passage, as every one must see, is not the question. The last 12 verses of Deuteronomy, for instance, were probably not written by Moses. Do we therefore separate them off from the rest of Deuteronomy, and encumber the margin with a note expressive of our opinion? Our Revisionists, so far from holding what follows to be “canonical Scripture,” are careful to state that a rival ending to be found elsewhere merits serious attention. S. Mark xvi. 9-20, therefore (_according to them_), is _not certainly_ a genuine part of the Gospel; _may_, after all, be nothing else but a spurious accretion to the text. And as long as such doubts are put forth by our Revisionists, they publish to the world that, _in their account_ at all events, these verses are _not_ “possessed of full canonical authority.” If “the two oldest Greek manuscripts” _justly_ “omit from verse 9 to the end” (as stated in the margin), will any one deny that our printed Text ought to omit them also?(133) On the other hand, if the circumstance is a mere literary curiosity, will any one maintain that it is entitled to abiding record in the margin of the _English Version_ of the everlasting page?—_affords any warrant whatever for separating _“the last Twelve Verses”_ from their context_?
(D) We can probably render ordinary readers no more effectual service, than by offering now to guide them over a few select places, concerning the true reading of which the Revisionists either entertain such serious doubts that they have _recorded_ their uncertainty in the margin of their work; or else, entertaining no doubts at all, have deliberately thrust a new reading into the body of their text, and _that_, without explanation, apology, or indeed record of any kind.(134) One remark should be premised, viz. that “various Readings” as they are (often most unreasonably) called, are seldom if ever the result of conscious _fraud_. An immense number are to be ascribed to sheer accident. It was through erroneous judgment, we repeat, not with evil intent, that men took liberties with the deposit. They imported into their copies whatever readings they considered highly recommended. By some of these ancient Critics it seems to have been thought allowable _to abbreviate_, by simply leaving out whatever did not appear to themselves strictly necessary: by others, to _transpose_ the words—even the members—of a sentence, almost to any extent: by others, to _substitute_ easy expressions for difficult ones. In this way it comes to pass that we are often presented, and in the oldest documents of all, with Readings which stand self-condemned; are clearly fabrications. That it was held allowable to assimilate one Gospel to another, is quite certain. Add, that as early as the IInd century there abounded in the Church documents,—“Diatessarons” they were sometimes called,—of which the avowed object was to weave one continuous and connected narrative “out of the four;”—and we shall find that as many heads have been provided, as will suffice for the classification of almost every various reading which we are likely to encounter in our study of the Gospels.
I. TO ACCIDENTAL CAUSES then we give the foremost place, and of these we have already furnished the reader with two notable and altogether dissimilar specimens. The first (viz. the omission of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 from certain ancient copies of the Gospel) seems to have originated in an unique circumstance. According to the Western order of the four, S. Mark occupies _the last_ place. From the earliest period it had been customary to write τέλος (“END”) after the 8th verse of his last chapter, in token that _there_ a famous ecclesiastical lection comes to a close. _Let the last leaf of one very ancient archetypal copy have begun at ver. 9; and let that last leaf have perished;—and all is plain._ A faithful copyist will have ended the Gospel perforce—as B and א have done—at S. Mark xvi. 8.... Our other example (S. Luke ii. 14) will have resulted from an accident of the most ordinary description,—as was explained at the outset.—To the foregoing, a few other specimens of erroneous readings resulting from Accident shall now be added.
(_a_) Always instructive, it is sometimes even entertaining to trace the history of a mistake which, dating from the IInd or IIIrd century, has remained without a patron all down the subsequent ages, until at last it has been suddenly taken up in our own times by an Editor of the sacred Text, and straightway palmed off upon an unlearned generation as the genuine work of the HOLY GHOST. Thus, whereas the Church has hitherto supposed that S. Paul’s company “were in all in the ship _two hundred threescore and sixteen souls_” (Acts xxvii. 37), Drs. Westcott and Hort (relying on the authority of B and the Sahidic version) insist that what S. Luke actually wrote was “_about seventy-six_.” In other words, instead of διακόσιαι ἑβδομηκονταέξ, we are invited henceforth to read ὩΣ ἑβδομηκονταέξ. What can have given rise to so formidable a discrepancy? Mere accident, we answer. First, whereas S. Luke certainly wrote ἦμεν δὲ ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ αἱ πᾶσαι ψυχαί, his last six words at some very early period underwent the familiar process of Transposition, and became, αἱ πᾶσαι ψυχαὶ ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ; whereby the _word_ πλοίῳ and the _numbers_ διακόσιαι ἑβδομηκονταέξ were brought into close proximity. (It is thus that Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, &c., wrongly exhibit the place.) But since “276” when represented in Greek numerals is ΣΟΣ, the inevitable consequence was that the words (written in uncials) ran thus: ΨΥΧΑΙΕΝΤΩΠΛΟΙΩΣΟΣ. Behold, the secret is out! Who sees not what has happened? There has been no intentional falsification of the text. There has been no critical disinclination to believe that “a corn-ship, presumably heavily laden, would contain so many souls,”—as an excellent judge supposes.(135) The discrepancy has been the result of sheer accident: is the merest blunder. Some IInd-century copyist connected the last letter of ΠΛΟΙΩ with the next ensuing numeral, which stands for 200 (viz. Σ); and made an _independent word_ of it, viz. ὡς—_i.e._ “about.” But when Σ (_i.e._ 200) has been taken away from ΣΟΣ (_i.e._ 276), 76 is perforce all that remains. In other words, the result of so slight a blunder has been that instead of “_two hundred_ and seventy-six” (ΣΟΣ), some one wrote ὡς ος´—_i.e._ “_about_ seventy-six.” His blunder would have been diverting had it been confined to the pages of a codex which is _full_ of blunders. When however it is adopted by the latest Editors of the N. T. (Drs. Westcott and Hort),—and by their influence has been foisted into the margin of our revised English Version—it becomes high time that we should reclaim against such a gratuitous depravation of Scripture.
All this ought not to have required explaining: the blunder is so gross,—its history so patent. But surely, had its origin been ever so obscure, the most elementary critical knowledge joined to a little mother-wit ought to convince a man that the reading ὡς ἑβδομηκονταέξ _cannot_ be trustworthy. A reading discoverable only in codex B and one Egyptian version (which was evidently executed from codices of the same corrupt type as codex B) _may always be dismissed as certainly spurious_. But further,—Although a man might of course say “about _seventy_” or “about _eighty_,” (which is how Epiphanius(136) quotes the place,) _who_ sees not that “about seventy-_six_” is an impossible expression? Lastly, the two false witnesses give divergent testimony even while they seem to be at one: for the Sahidic (or Thebaic) version arranges the words in an order _peculiar to itself_.
(_b_) Another corruption of the text, with which it is proposed henceforth to disfigure our Authorized Version, (originating like the last in sheer accident,) occurs in Acts xviii. 7. It is related concerning S. Paul, at Corinth, that having forsaken the synagogue of the Jews, “he entered into a certain man’s house _named Justus_” (ὀνόματι Ἰούστου). That this is what S. Luke wrote, is to be inferred from the fact that it is found in almost every known copy of the Acts, beginning with A D G H L P. Chrysostom—the only ancient Greek Father who quotes the place—_so_ quotes it. This is, in consequence, the reading of Lachmann, Tregelles, and Tischendorf in his 7th edition. But then, the last syllable of “name” (ΟΝΟΜΑΤΙ) and the first three letters of “Justus” (ΙΟΥΣΤΟΥ), in an uncial copy, may easily get mistaken for an independent word. Indeed it only wants a horizontal stroke (at the summit of the second Ι in ΤΙΙΟΥ) to produce “Titus” (ΤΙΤΟΥ). In the Syriac and Sahidic versions accordingly, “Titus” actually stands _in place of_ “Justus,”—a reading no longer discoverable in any extant codex. As a matter of fact, the error resulted _not_ in the _substitution_ of “Titus” for “Justus,” but in the introduction of _both_ names where S. Luke wrote but one. א and E, the Vulgate, and the Coptic version, exhibit “_Titus Justus_.” And that the foregoing is a true account of the birth and parentage of “Titus” is proved by the tell-tale circumstance, that in B the letters ΤΙ and ΙΟΥ are all religiously retained, and a supernumerary letter (Τ) has been thrust in between,—the result of which is to give us one more imaginary gentleman, viz. “_Titius_ Justus;” with whose appearance,—(and he is found _nowhere_ but in codex B,)—Tischendorf in his 8th ed., with Westcott and Hort in theirs, are so captivated, that they actually give him a place in their text. It was out of compassion (we presume) for the friendless stranger “_Titus_ Justus” that our Revisionists have, in preference, promoted _him_ to honour: in which act of humanity they stand alone. Their “new Greek Text” is _the only one in existence_ in which the imaginary foreigner has been advanced to citizenship, and assigned “a local habitation and a name.” ... Those must have been wondrous drowsy days in the Jerusalem Chamber when such manipulations of the inspired text were possible!
(_c_) The two foregoing depravations grew out of the ancient practice of writing the Scriptures in uncial characters (_i.e._ in capital letters), no space being interposed between the words. Another striking instance is supplied by S. Matthew xi. 23 and S. Luke x. 15, where however the error is so transparent that the wonder is how it can ever have imposed upon any one. What makes the matter serious is, that it gives a turn to a certain Divine saying, of which it is incredible that either our SAVIOUR or His Evangelists knew anything. We have hitherto believed that the solemn words ran as follows:—“And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted (ἡ ... ὑψωθεῖσα) unto heaven, shalt be brought down (καταβιβασθήσῃ) to hell.” For this, our Revisionists invite us to substitute, in S. Luke as well as in S. Matthew,—“And thou, Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted (μὴ ... ὑψωθήσῃ;) unto heaven?” And then, in S. Matthew, (but not in S. Luke,)—“Thou shalt go down (καταβήσῃ) into Hades.” Now, what can have happened to occasion such a curious perversion of our LORD’S true utterance, and to cause Him to ask an unmeaning _question_ about the future, when He was clearly announcing a _fact_, founded on the history of the past?
A stupid blunder has been made (we answer), of which traces survive (as usual) only in the same little handful of suspicious documents. The final letter of Capernaum (Μ) by cleaving to the next ensuing letter (Η) has made an independent word (ΜΗ); which new word necessitates a change in the construction, and causes the sentence to become interrogative. And yet, fourteen of the uncial manuscripts and the whole body of the cursives know nothing of this: neither does the Peschito—nor the Gothic version: no,—nor Chrysostom,—nor Cyril,—nor ps.-Cæsarius,—nor Theodoret,—the only Fathers who quote either place. The sole witnesses for μὴ ... ὑψωθήσῃ in _both_ Gospels are א B, copies of the old Latin, Cureton’s Syriac, the Coptic, and the Æthiopic versions,—a consensus of authorities which ought to be held fatal to any reading. C joins the conspiracy in Matthew xi. 23, but not in Luke x. 15: D L consent in Luke, but not in Matthew. The Vulgate, which sided with א B in S. Matthew, forsakes them in S. Luke. In writing _both_ times καταβήσῃ (“thou shalt go down”), codex B (forsaken this time by א) is supported by a single manuscript, viz. D. But because, in Matthew xi. 23, B obtains the sanction of the Latin copies, καταβήσῃ is actually introduced into the Revised Text, and we are quietly informed in the margin that “Many ancient authorities read _be brought down_:” the truth being (as the reader has been made aware) that there are _only two manuscripts in existence which read anything else_. And (what deserves attention) those two manuscripts are convicted of having _borrowed their quotation from the Septuagint_,(137) and therefore stand self-condemned.... Were the occupants of the Jerusalem Chamber all—saving the two who in their published edition insist on reading (with B and D) καταβήσῃ in both places—_all_ fast asleep when they became consenting parties to this sad mistake?
II. It is time to explain that, if the most serious depravations of Scripture are due to Accident, a vast number are unmistakably the result of DESIGN, and are very clumsily executed too. The enumeration of a few of these may prove instructive: and we shall begin with something which is found in S. Mark xi. 3. With nothing perhaps will each several instance so much impress the devout student of Scripture, as with the exquisite structure of a narrative in which corrupt readings stand self-revealed and self-condemned, the instant they are ordered to come to the front and show themselves. But the point to which we especially invite his attention is, the sufficiency of the _external evidence_ which Divine Wisdom is observed to have invariably provided for the establishment of the truth of His written Word.
(_a_) When our LORD was about to enter His capital in lowly triumph, He is observed to have given to “two of His disciples” directions well calculated to suggest the mysterious nature of the incident which was to follow. They were commanded to proceed to the entrance of a certain village,—to unloose a certain colt which they would find tied there,—and to bring the creature straightway to JESUS. Any obstacle which they might encounter would at once disappear before the simple announcement that “the LORD hath need of him.”(138) But, singular to relate, this transaction is found to have struck some third-rate IIIrd-century Critic as not altogether correct. The good man was evidently of opinion that the colt,—as soon as the purpose had been accomplished for which it had been obtained,—ought in common fairness to have been returned to “the owners thereof.” (S. Luke xix. 33.) Availing himself therefore of there being no nominative before “will send” (in S. Mark xi. 3), he assumed that it was _of Himself_ that our LORD was still speaking: feigned that the sentence is to be explained thus:—“say ye, ‘that the LORD hath need of him _and will straightway send him hither_.’ ” According to this view of the case, our SAVIOUR instructed His two Disciples to convey to the owner of the colt an undertaking from Himself _that He would send the creature back as soon as He had done with it_: would treat the colt, in short, _as a loan_. A more stupid imagination one has seldom had to deal with. But in the meantime, by way of clenching the matter, the Critic proceeded on his own responsibility to thrust into the text the word “_again_” (πάλιν). The fate of such an unauthorized accretion might have been confidently predicted. After skipping about in quest of a fixed resting-place for a few centuries (see the note at foot(139)), πάλιν has shared the invariable fate of all such spurious adjuncts to the truth of Scripture, viz.: It has been effectually eliminated from the copies. Traces of it linger on only in those untrustworthy witnesses א B C D L Δ, and about twice as many cursive copies, also of depraved type. So transparent a fabrication ought in fact to have been long since forgotten. Yet have our Revisionists not been afraid to revive it. In S. Mark xi. 3, they invite us henceforth to read, “And if any one say unto you, Why do ye this? say ye, The LORD hath need of him, and straightway _He_ (_i.e._ the LORD) _will send him_ BACK _hither_.” ... Of what can they have been dreaming? They cannot pretend that they have _Antiquity_ on their side: for, besides the whole mass of copies with A at their head, _both_ the Syriac, _both_ the Latin, and _both_ the Egyptian versions, the Gothic, the Armenian,—all in fact except the Æthiopic,—are against them. Even Origen, who twice inserts πάλιν,(140) twice leaves it out.(141) _Quid plura?_
(_b_) No need to look elsewhere for our next instance. A novel statement arrests attention five verses lower down: viz. that “Many spread their garments upon the way” [and why not “_in_ the way”? εἰς does not mean “upon”]; “and others, branches _which they had cut from the fields_” (S. Mark xi. 8). But how in the world could they have done _that_? They must have been clever people certainly if they “cut _branches_ from” anything except _trees_. Was it because our Revisionists felt this, that in the margin they volunteer the information, that the Greek for “branches” is in strictness “_layers of leaves_”? But what _are_ “layers of leaves”? and what _proof_ is there that στοιβάδες has that meaning? and how could “_layers of leaves_” have been suddenly procured from such a quarter? We turn to our Authorized Version, and are refreshed by the familiar and intelligible words: “And others cut down branches off the trees and strawed them in the way.” Why then has this been changed? In an ordinary sentence, consisting of 12 words, we find that 2 words have been substituted for other 2; that 1 has undergone modification; that 5 have been ejected. _Why_ is all this? asks the unlearned Reader. He shall be told.
An instance is furnished us of the perplexity which a difficult word sometimes occasioned the ancients, as well as of the serious consequences which have sometimes resulted therefrom to the text of Scripture itself. S. Matthew, after narrating that “a very great multitude spread their garments in the way,” adds, “others cut branches (κλάδους) from the trees and strawed them in the way.”(142) But would not branches of any considerable size have impeded progress, inconveniently encumbering the road? No doubt they would. Accordingly, as S. Mark (with S. Matthew’s Gospel before him) is careful to explain, they were _not_ “branches of any considerable size,” but “leafy twigs”—“_foliage_,” in fact it was—“cut from the trees and strawed in the way.” The word, however, which he employs (στοιβάδας) is an unique word—very like another of similar sound (στιβάδας), yet distinct from it in sense, if not in origin. Unfortunately, all this was not understood in a highly uncritical and most licentious age. With the best intentions, (for the good man was only seeking to reconcile two inconvenient parallel statements,) some Revisionist of the IInd century, having convinced himself that the latter word (στιβάδας) might with advantage take the place of S. Mark’s word (στοιβάδας), substituted this for that. In consequence, it survives to this day in nine uncial copies headed by א B. But then, στιβάς does not mean “a branch” _at all_; no, nor a “layer of leaves” either; but _a pallet_—_a floor-bed_, in fact, of the humblest type, constructed of grass, rushes, straw, brushwood, leaves, or any similar substance. On the other hand, because such materials are not obtainable _from trees_ exactly, the ancient Critic judged it expedient further to change δένδρων into ἀγρῶν (“_fields_”). Even this was not altogether satisfactory. Στιβάς, as explained already, in strictness means a “bed.” Only by a certain amount of license can it be supposed to denote the materials of which a bed is composed; whereas the Evangelist speaks of something “strawn.” _The self-same copies_, therefore, which exhibit “_fields_” (in lieu of “_trees_”), by introducing a slight change in the construction (κόψαντες for ἔκοπτον), and _omitting_ the words “and strawed them in the way,” are observed—after a summary fashion of their own, (with which, however, readers of B א D are only too familiar)—to dispose of this difficulty by putting it nearly out of sight. The only result of all this misplaced officiousness is a miserable travestie of the sacred words:—ἄλλοι δὲ στιβάδας, κόψαντες ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν: 7 words in place of 12!
But the calamitous circumstance is that the Critics have all to a man fallen into the trap. True, that Origen (who once writes στοιβάδας and once στιβάδας), as well as the two Egyptian versions, side with א B C L Δ in reading ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν: but then _both versions_ (with C) _decline to alter the construction_ of the sentence; and (with Origen) _decline to omit the clause_ ἐστρώννυον εἰς τὴν ὁδόν: while, against this little band of disunited witnesses, are marshalled all the remaining fourteen uncials, headed by A D—the Peschito and the Philoxenian Syriac; the Italic, the Vulgate, the Gothic, the Armenian, the Georgian, and the Æthiopic as well as the Slavonic versions, besides the whole body of the cursives. Whether therefore Antiquity, Variety, Respectability of witnesses, numbers, or the reason of the thing be appealed to, the case of our opponents breaks hopelessly down. Does any one seriously suppose that, if S. Mark had written the common word στΙβάδας, so vast a majority of the copies at this day would exhibit the improbable στΟΙβάδας? Had the same S. Mark expressed nothing else but ΚΌΨΑΝΤΕΣ ἐκ τῶν ἈΓΡΩ´Ν, will any one persuade us that _every copy in existence but five_ would present us with ἜΚΟΠΤΟΝ ἐκ τῶν ΔΈΝΔΡΩΝ, καὶ ἘΣΤΡΏΝΝΥΟΝ ἘΙΣ ΤῊΝ ὉΔΌΝ? And let us not be told that there has been Assimilation here. There has been none. S. Matthew (xxi. 8) writes ἈΠῸ τῶν δένδρον ... ἘΝ τῇ ὡδῷ: S. Mark (xi. 8), ἘΚ τῶν δένδρων ... ἘΙΣ τὴν ὁδόν. The types are distinct, and have been faithfully retained all down the ages. The common reading is certainly correct. The Critics are certainly in error. And we exclaim (surely not without good reason) against the hardship of thus having an exploded corruption of the text of Scripture furbished up afresh and thrust upon us, after lying deservedly forgotten for upwards of a thousand years.
(_c_) Take a yet grosser specimen, which has nevertheless imposed just as completely upon our Revisionists. It is found in S. Luke’s Gospel (xxiii. 45), and belongs to the history of the Crucifixion. All are aware that as, at the typical redemption out of Egypt, there had been a preternatural darkness over the land for three days,(143) so, preliminary to the actual Exodus of “the Israel of GOD,” “there was darkness over all the land” for three hours.(144) S. Luke adds the further statement,—“_And the sun was darkened_” (καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος). Now the proof that this is what S. Luke actually wrote, is the most obvious and conclusive possible. Ἐσκοτίσθη is found in all the most ancient documents. Marcion(145) (whose date is A.D. 130-50) so exhibits the place:—besides the old Latin(146) and the Vulgate:—the Peschito, Cureton’s, and the Philoxenian Syriac versions:—the Armenian,—the Æthiopic,—the Georgian,—and the Slavonic.—Hippolytus(147) (A.D. 190-227),—Athanasius,(148)—Ephraem Syr.,(149)—Theodore Mops.,(150)—Nilus the monk,(151)—Severianus, (in a homily preserved in Armenian, p. 439,)—Cyril of Alexandria,(152)—the apocryphal _Gospel of Nicodemus_—and the _Anaphora Pilati_,(153)—are all witnesses to the same effect. Add the _Acta Pilati_(154)—and the Syriac _Acts of the Apostles_.(155)—Let it suffice of the Latins to quote Tertullian.(156)—But the most striking evidence is the consentient testimony of the manuscripts, viz. _all the uncials_ but 3 and-a-half, and _every known Evangelium_.
That the darkness spoken of was a divine portent—_not_ an eclipse of the sun, but an incident wholly out of the course of nature—the ancients clearly recognize. Origen,(157)—Julius Africanus(158) (A.D. 220),—Macarius Magnes(159) (A.D. 330),—are even eloquent on the subject. Chrysostom’s evidence is unequivocal.(160) It is, nevertheless, well known that this place of S. Luke’s Gospel was tampered with from a very early period; and that Origen(161) (A.D. 186-253), and perhaps Eusebius,(162) employed copies which had been depraved. In some copies, writes Origen, instead of “and the sun was darkened” (καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος), is found “the sun having become eclipsed” (τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος). He points out with truth that the thing spoken of is a physical impossibility, and delivers it as his opinion that the corruption of the text was due either to some friendly hand in order to _account for_ the darkness; or else, (which he,(163) and Jerome(164) after him, thought more likely,) to the enemies of Revelation, who sought in this way to provide themselves with a pretext for cavil. Either way, Origen and Jerome elaborately assert that ἐσκοτίσθη is the only true reading of S. Luke xxiii. 45. Will it be believed that this gross fabrication—for no other reason but because it is found in א B L, and probably once existed in C(165)—has been resuscitated in 1881, and foisted into the sacred Text by our Revisionists?
It would be interesting to have this proceeding of theirs explained. _Why_ should the truth dwell exclusively(166) with א B L? It cannot be pretended that between the IVth and Vth centuries, when the copies א B were made, and the Vth and VIth centuries, when the copies A Q D R were executed, this corruption of the text arose: for (as was explained at the outset) the reading in question (καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος) is found in all the oldest and most famous documents. Our Revisionists cannot take their stand on “Antiquity,”—for as we have seen, _all the Versions_ (with the single exception of the Coptic(167)),—and the oldest Church writers, (Marcion, Origen, Julius Africanus, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Gregory Naz., Ephraem, &c.,) are _all_ against them.—They cannot advance the claim of “clearly preponderating evidence;” for they have but a single Version,—_not_ a single Father,—and but three-and-a-half Evangelia to appeal to, out of perhaps three hundred and fifty times that number.—They cannot pretend that essential probability is in favour of the reading of א B; seeing that the thing stated is astronomically impossible.—They will not tell us that critical opinion is with them: for their judgment is opposed to that of every Critic ancient and modern, except Tischendorf since his discovery of codex א.—Of what nature then will be their proof?... _Nothing_ results from the discovery that א reads τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος, B ἐκλείποντος,—except that those two codices are of the same corrupt type as those which Origen deliberately condemned 1650 years ago. In the meantime, with more of ingenuity than of ingenuousness, our Revisionists attempt to conceal the foolishness of the text of their choice by translating it unfairly. They present us with, “_the sun’s light failing_.” But this is a gloss of their own. There is no mention of “the sun’s _light_” in the Greek. Nor perhaps, if the rationale of the original expression were accurately ascertained, would such a paraphrase of it prove correct(168). But, in fact, the phrase ἔκλειψις ἡλίου means “an eclipse of the sun” and _no other thing_. In like manner, τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλείποντος(169) (as our Revisionists are perfectly well aware) means “_the sun becoming eclipsed_,” or “_suffering eclipse_.” It is easy for Revisionists to “emphatically deny that there is anything in the Greek word ἐκλείπειν, when associated with the sun, which involves necessarily the notion of an eclipse.”(170) The _fact_ referred to may not be so disposed of. It lies outside the province of “emphatic denial.” Let them ask any Scholar in Europe what τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος means; and see if he does not tell them that it can _only_ mean, “the sun _having become eclipsed_”! They know this every bit as well as their Reviewer. And they ought either to have had the manliness to render the words faithfully, or else the good sense to let the Greek alone,—which they are respectfully assured was their only proper course. Καί ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος is, in fact, clearly above suspicion. Τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλείποντος, which these learned men (with the best intentions) have put in its place, is, to speak plainly, a transparent fabrication. That it enjoys “_clearly preponderating evidence_,” is what no person, fair or unfair, will for an instant venture to pretend.
III. Next, let us produce an instance of depravation of Scripture resulting from the practice of ASSIMILATION, which prevailed anciently to an extent which baffles arithmetic. We choose the most famous instance that presents itself.
(_a_) It occurs in S. Mark vi. 20, and is more than unsuspected. The substitution (on the authority of א B L and the Coptic) of ἠπόρει for ἐποίει in that verse, (_i.e._ the statement that Herod “was much _perplexed_,”—instead of Herod “_did_ many things,”) is even vaunted by the Critics as the recovery of the true reading of the place—long obscured by the “very singular expression” ἐποίει. To ourselves the only “very singular” thing is, how men of first-rate ability can fail to see that, on the contrary, the proposed substitute is simply fatal to the SPIRIT’S teaching in this place. “Common sense is staggered by such a rendering,” (remarks the learned Bishop of Lincoln). “People are not wont to _hear gladly_ those by whom they are _much perplexed_.”(171) But in fact, the sacred writer’s object clearly is, to record the striking circumstance that Herod was so moved by the discourses of John, (whom he used to “listen to with pleasure,”) that he even “_did many things_” (πολλὰ ἐποίει) _in conformity with the Baptist’s teaching_.(172)... And yet, if this be so, how (we shall be asked) has “he was much perplexed” (πολλὰ ἠπόρει) contrived to effect a lodgment in _so many as three_ copies of the second Gospel?
It has resulted from nothing else, we reply, but the determination to assimilate a statement of S. Mark (vi. 20) concerning Herod and John the Baptist, with another and a distinct statement of S. Luke (ix. 7), having reference to Herod and our LORD. S. Luke, speaking of the fame of our SAVIOUR’S miracles at a period subsequent to the Baptist’s murder, declares that when Herod “heard _all things that were done_ BY HIM” (ἤκουσε τὰ γινόμενα ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ πάντα), “he _was much perplexed_” (διηπόρει).—Statements so entirely distinct and diverse from one another as _this_ of S. Luke, and _that_ (given above) of S. Mark, might surely (one would think) have been let alone. On the contrary. A glance at the foot of the page will show that in the IInd century S. Mark’s words were solicited in all sorts of ways. A persistent determination existed to make him say that Herod having “heard of _many things which _THE BAPTIST_ did_,” &c.(173)—a strange perversion of the Evangelist’s meaning, truly, and only to be accounted for in one way.(174)
Had this been _all_, however, the matter would have attracted no attention. One such fabrication more or less in the Latin version, which abounds in fabricated readings, is of little moment. But then, the Greek scribes had recourse to a more subtle device for assimilating Mark vi. 20 to Luke ix. 7. They perceived that S. Mark’s ἐποίει might be almost identified with S. Luke’s διηπόρει, by _merely changing two of the letters_, viz. by substituting η for ε and ρ for ι. From this, there results in S. Mk. vi. 20: “and having heard many things of him, _he was perplexed_;” which is very nearly identical with what is found in S. Lu. ix. 7. This fatal substitution (of ἠπόρει for ἐποίει) survives happily only in codices א B L and the Coptic version—all of bad character. But (calamitous to relate) the Critics, having disinterred this long-since-forgotten fabrication, are making vigorous efforts to galvanize it, at the end of fifteen centuries, into ghastly life and activity. We venture to assure them that they will not succeed. Herod’s “perplexity” did not begin until John had been beheaded, and the fame reached Herod of the miracles which our SAVIOUR wrought. The apocryphal statement, now for the first time thrust into an English copy of the New Testament, may be summarily dismissed. But the marvel will for ever remain that a company of distinguished Scholars (A.D. 1881) could so effectually persuade themselves that ἐποίει (in S. Mark vi. 20) is a “_plain and clear error_,” and that there is “_decidedly preponderating evidence_” in favour of ἠπόρει,—as to venture to _substitute the latter word for the former_. This will for ever remain a marvel, we say; seeing that _all the uncials_ except three of bad character, together with _every known cursive without exception_;—the old Latin and the Vulgate, the Peschito and the Philoxenian Syriac, the Armenian, Æthiopic, Slavonian and Georgian versions,—are with the traditional Text. (The Thebaic, the Gothic, and Cureton’s Syriac are defective here. The ancient Fathers are silent.)
IV. More serious in its consequences, however, than any other source of mischief which can be named, is the process of MUTILATION, to which, from the beginning, the Text of Scripture has been subjected. By the “Mutilation” of Scripture we do but mean the intentional Omission—_from whatever cause proceeding_—of genuine portions. And the causes of it have been numerous as well as diverse. Often, indeed, there seems to have been at work nothing else but a strange passion for getting rid of whatever portions of the inspired Text have seemed to anybody superfluous,—or at all events have appeared capable of being removed without manifest injury to the sense. But the estimate of the tasteless IInd-century Critic will never be that of the well-informed Reader, furnished with the ordinary instincts of piety and reverence. This barbarous mutilation of the Gospel, by the unceremonious excision of a multitude of little words, is often attended by no worse consequence than that thereby an extraordinary baldness is imparted to the Evangelical narrative. The removal of so many of the coupling-hooks is apt to cause the curtains of the Tabernacle to hang wondrous ungracefully; but often _that_ is all. Sometimes, however, (as might have been confidently anticipated,) the result is calamitous in a high degree. Not only is the beauty of the narrative effectually marred, (as _e.g._ by the barbarous excision of καί—εὐθέως—μετὰ δακρύων—Κύριε, from S. Mark ix. 24):(175)—the doctrinal teaching of our SAVIOUR’S discourses in countless places, damaged, (as _e.g._ by the omission of καὶ νηστείᾳ from verse 29):—absurd expressions attributed to the Holy One which He certainly never uttered, (as _e.g._ by truncating of its last word the phrase τό, Εἰ δύνασαι πιστεῦσαι in verse 23):—but (I.) The narrative is often rendered in a manner unintelligible; or else (II.), The entire point of a precious incident is made to disappear from sight; or else (III.), An imaginary incident is fabricated: or lastly (IV.), Some precious saying of our Divine LORD is turned into absolute nonsense. Take a single short example of what has last been offered, from each of the Gospels in turn.
(I.) In S. Matthew xiv. 30, we are invited henceforth to submit to the information concerning Simon Peter, that “_when he saw the wind_, he was afraid.” The sight must have been peculiar, certainly. So, indeed, is the expression. But Simon Peter was as unconscious of the one as S. Matthew of the other. Such curiosities are the peculiar property of codices א B—the Coptic version—and the Revisionists. The predicate of the proposition (viz. “_that it was strong_,” contained in the single word ἰσχυρόν) has been wantonly excised. That is all!—although Dr. Hort succeeded in persuading his colleagues to the contrary. A more solemn—a far sadder instance, awaits us in the next Gospel.
(II.) The first three Evangelists are careful to note “the _loud_ cry” with which the Redeemer of the World expired. But it was reserved for S. Mark (as Chrysostom pointed out long since) to record (xv. 39) the memorable circumstance that _this particular portent_ it was, which wrought conviction in the soul of the Roman soldier whose office it was to be present on that terrible occasion. The man had often witnessed death by Crucifixion, and must have been well acquainted with its ordinary phenomena. Never before had he witnessed anything like this. He was stationed where he could see and hear all that happened: “standing” (S. Mark says) “near” our SAVIOUR,—“_over against Him_.” “Now, when the Centurion saw that it was _after so crying out_ (κράξας), that He expired” (xv. 39) he uttered the memorable words, “Truly this man _was_ the SON OF GOD!” “What chiefly moved him to make that confession of his faith was that our SAVIOUR evidently died _with power_.”(176) “The miracle” (says Bp. Pearson) “was not in the death, but _in the voice_. The strangeness was not that He should die, but that at the point of death He should _cry out so loud_. He died not by, but with a Miracle.”(177) ... All this however is lost in א B L, which literally _stand alone_(178) in leaving out the central and only important word, κράξας. Calamitous to relate, they are followed herein by our Revisionists: who (misled by Dr. Hort) invite us henceforth to read,—“Now when the Centurion saw _that He so gave up the ghost_.”
(III.) In S. Luke xxiii. 42, by leaving out two little words (τω and _κε_), the same blind guides, under the same blind guidance, effectually misrepresent the record concerning the repentant malefactor. Henceforth they would have us believe that “he said, ‘JESUS, remember me when thou comest in thy Kingdom.’ ” (Dr. Hort was fortunately unable to persuade the Revisionists to follow him in further substituting “_into_ thy kingdom” for “_in_ thy kingdom;” and so converting what, in the A. V., is nothing worse than a palpable mistranslation,(179) into what would have been an indelible blot. The record of his discomfiture survives in the margin). Whereas none of the Churches of Christendom have ever yet doubted that S. Luke’s record is, that the dying man “said _unto _JESUS, LORD, remember me,” &c.
(IV.) In S. John xiv. 4, by eliminating the second καί and the second οἴδατε, our SAVIOUR is now made to say, “And whither I go, _ye know the way_;” which is really almost nonsense. What He actually said was, “And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know;” _in consequence of which_ (as we all remember) “Thomas saith unto Him, LORD, we know not ‘whither’ Thou goest, and how can we know ‘the way’?” ... Let these four samples suffice of a style of depravation with which, at the end of 1800 years, it is deliberately proposed to disfigure every page of the everlasting Gospel; and for which, were it tolerated, the Church would have to thank no one so much as Drs. Westcott and Hort.
We cannot afford, however, so to dismiss the phenomena already opened up to the Reader’s notice. For indeed, this astonishing taste for mutilating and maiming the Sacred Deposit, is perhaps the strangest phenomenon in the history of Textual Criticism.
It is in this way that a famous expression in S. Luke vi. 1 has disappeared from codices א B L. The reader may not be displeased to listen to an anecdote which has hitherto escaped the vigilance of the Critics:—
“I once asked my teacher, Gregory of Nazianzus,”—(the words are Jerome’s in a letter to Nepotianus),—“to explain to me the meaning of S. Luke’s expression σάββατον δευτερόπρωτον, literally the ‘_second-first_ sabbath.’ ‘I will tell you all about it in church,’ he replied. ‘The congregation shall shout applause, and you shall have your choice,—either to stand silent and look like a fool, or else to pretend you understand what you do not.’ ” But “_eleganter lusit_,” says Jerome(180). The point of the joke was this: Gregory, being a great rhetorician and orator, would have descanted so elegantly on the signification of the word δευτερόπρωτον that the congregation would have been borne away by his mellifluous periods, quite regardless of the sense. In other words, Gregory of Nazianzus [A.D. 360] is found to have no more understood the word than Jerome did [370].
Ambrose(181) of Milan [370] attempts to explain the difficult expression, but with indifferent success. Epiphanius(182) of Cyprus [370] does the same;—and so, Isidorus(183) [400] called “Pelusiota” after the place of his residence in Lower Egypt.—Ps.-Cæsarius(184) also volunteers remarks on the word [A.D. 400?].—It is further explained in the _Paschal Chronicle_,(185)—and by Chrysostom(186) [370] at Antioch.—“_Sabbatum secundo-primum_” is found in the old Latin, and is retained by the Vulgate. Earlier evidence on the subject does not exist. We venture to assume that a word so attested must at least be entitled to _its place in the Gospel_. Such a body of first-rate positive IVth-century testimony, coming from every part of ancient Christendom, added to the significant fact that δευτερόπρωτον is found in _every codex extant_ except א B L, and half a dozen cursives of suspicious character, ought surely to be regarded as decisive. That an unintelligible word should have got _omitted_ from a few copies, requires no explanation. Every one who has attended to the matter is aware that the negative evidence of certain of the Versions also is of little weight on such occasions as the present. They are observed constantly to leave out what they either failed quite to understand, or else found untranslateable. On the other hand, it would be inexplicable indeed, that an unique expression like the present should have _established itself universally_, if it were actually spurious. This is precisely an occasion for calling to mind the precept _proclivi scriptioni præstat ardua_. Apart from external evidence, it is a thousand times more likely that such a peculiar word as this should be genuine, than the reverse. Tischendorf accordingly retains it, moved by this very consideration.(187) It got excised, however, here and there from manuscripts at a very early date. And, incredible as it may appear, it is a fact, that in consequence of its absence from the mutilated codices above referred to, S. Luke’s famous “second-first Sabbath” has been _thrust out of his Gospel by our Revisionists_.
But indeed, Mutilation has been practised throughout. By codex B (collated with the traditional Text), no less than 2877 words have been excised from the four Gospels alone: by codex א,—3455 words: by codex D,—3704 words.(188)
As interesting a set of instances of this, as are to be anywhere met with, occurs within the compass of the last three chapters of S. Luke’s Gospel, from which about 200 words have been either forcibly ejected by our Revisionists, or else served with “notice to quit.” We proceed to specify the chief of these:—
(1) S. Luke xxii. 19, 20. (Account of the Institution of the Sacrament of the LORD’S Supper,—from “which is given for you” to the end,—32 words.)
(2) _ibid._ 43, 44. (Our SAVIOUR’S Agony in the garden,—26 words.)
(3) xxiii. 17. (The custom of releasing one at the Passover,—8 words.)
(4) _ibid._ 34. (Our LORD’S prayer on behalf of His murderers,—12 words.)
(5) _ibid._ 38. (The record that the title on the Cross was written in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew,—7 words.)
(6) xxiv. 1. (“and certain with them,”—4 words.)
(7) _ibid._ 3. (“of the LORD JESUS,”—3 words.)
(8) _ibid._ 6. (“He is not here, but He is risen,”—5 words.)
(9) _ibid._ 9. (“from the sepulchre,”—3 words.)
(10) _ibid._ 12. (The mention of S. Peter’s visit to the sepulchre,—22 words.)
(11) _ibid._ 36. (“and saith unto them, Peace be unto you!”—5 words.)
(12) _ibid._ 40. (“and when He had thus spoken, He showed them His hands and His feet,”—10 words.)
(13) _ibid._ 42. (“and of an honeycomb,”—4 words.)
(14) _ibid._ 51. (“and was carried up into Heaven,”—5.)
(15) _ibid._ 52. (“worshipped Him,”—2 words.)
(16) _ibid._ 53. (“praising and,”—2 words.)
On an attentive survey of the foregoing sixteen instances of unauthorized Omission, it will be perceived that the 1st passage (S. Luke xxii. 19, 20) must have been eliminated from the Text because the mention of _two_ Cups seemed to create a difficulty.—The 2nd has been suppressed because (see p. 82) the incident was deemed derogatory to the majesty of GOD Incarnate.—The 3rd and 5th were held to be superfluous, because the information which they contain has been already conveyed by the parallel passages.—The 10th will have been omitted as apparently inconsistent with the strict letter of S. John xx. 1-10.—The 6th and 13th are certainly instances of enforced Harmony.—Most of the others (the 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 11th, 12th, 14th, 15th, 16th) seem to have been excised through mere wantonness,—the veriest licentiousness.—In the meantime, so far are Drs. Westcott and Hort from accepting the foregoing account of the matter, that they even style the 1st “a _perverse interpolation_:” in which view of the subject, however, they enjoy the distinction of standing entirely alone. With the same “moral certainty,” they further proceed to shut up within double brackets the 2nd, 4th, 7th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 14th, 15th: while the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 13th, and 16th, they exclude from their Text as indisputably spurious matter.
Now, we are not about to abuse our Readers’ patience by an investigation of the several points raised by the foregoing statement. In fact, all should have been passed by in silence, but that unhappily the “Revision” of our Authorized Version is touched thereby very nearly indeed. So intimate (may we not say, _so fatal_?) proves to be the sympathy between the labours of Drs. Westcott and Hort and those of our Revisionists, _that whatever the former have shut up within double brackets, the latter are discovered to have branded with a note of suspicion_, conceived invariably in the same terms: viz., “Some ancient authorities omit.” And further, _whatever those Editors have rejected from their Text, these Revisionists have rejected also_. It becomes necessary, therefore, briefly to enquire after the precise amount of manuscript authority which underlies certain of the foregoing changes. And happily this may be done in a few words.
The _sole_ authority for just half of the places above enumerated(189) is _a single Greek codex_,—and that, the most depraved of all,—viz. Beza’s D.(190) It should further be stated that the only allies discoverable for D are a few copies of the old Latin. What we are saying will seem scarcely credible: but it is a plain fact, of which any one may convince himself who will be at the pains to inspect the critical apparatus at the foot of the pages of Tischendorf’s last (8th) edition. Our Revisionists’ notion, therefore, of what constitutes “weighty evidence” is now before the Reader. If, in _his_ judgment, the testimony of _one single manuscript_, (and _that_ manuscript the Codex Bezæ (D),)—does really invalidate that of _all other Manuscripts and all other Versions_ in the world,—then of course, the Greek Text of the Revisionists will in his judgment be a thing to be rejoiced over. But what if he should be of opinion that such testimony, in and by itself, is simply worthless? We shrewdly suspect that the Revisionists’ view of what constitutes “weighty Evidence” will be found to end where it began, viz. in the Jerusalem Chamber.
For, when we reach down codex D from the shelf, we are reminded that, within the space of the three chapters of S. Luke’s Gospel now under consideration, there are in all no less than 354 words omitted; _of which_, 250 _are omitted by_ D _alone_. May we have it explained to us why, of those 354 words, only 25 are singled out by Drs. Westcott and Hort for permanent excision from the sacred Text? Within the same compass, no less than 173 words have been _added by_ D to the commonly Received Text,—146, _substituted_,—243, _transposed_. May we ask how it comes to pass that of those 562 words _not one_ has been promoted to their margin by the Revisionists?... Return we, however, to our list of the changes which they actually _have_ effected.
(1) Now, that ecclesiastical usage and the parallel places would seriously affect such precious words as are found in S. Luke xxii. 19, 20,—was to have been expected. Yet has the type been preserved all along, from the beginning, with singular exactness; except in one little handful of singularly licentious documents, viz. in D a ff2 i l, which _leave all out_;—in b e, which substitute verses 17 and 18;—and in “the singular and sometimes rather wild Curetonian Syriac Version,”(191) which, retaining the 10 words of ver. 19, substitutes verses 17, 18 for ver. 20. Enough for the condemnation of D survives in Justin,(192)—Basil,(193)—Epiphanius,(194)—Theodoret,(195)—Cyril,(196)—Maximus,(197)—Jerome.(198) But why delay ourselves concerning a place vouched for _by every known copy of the Gospels except_ D? Drs. Westcott and Hort entertain “_no moral doubt_ that the [32] words [given at foot(199)] were absent from the original text of S. Luke;” in which opinion, happily, _they stand alone_. But why did our Revisionists suffer themselves to be led astray by such blind guidance?
The next place is entitled to far graver attention, and may on no account be lightly dismissed, seeing that these two verses contain the sole record of that “Agony in the Garden” which the universal Church has almost erected into an article of the Faith.
(2) That the incident of the ministering Angel, the Agony and bloody sweat of the world’s Redeemer (S. Luke xxii. 43, 44), was anciently absent from certain copies of the Gospels, is expressly recorded by Hilary,(200) by Jerome,(201) and others. Only necessary is it to read the apologetic remarks which Ambrose introduces when he reaches S. Luke xxii. 43,(202) to understand what has evidently led to this serious mutilation of Scripture,—traces of which survive at this day exclusively in _four_ codices, viz. A B R T. Singular to relate, in the Gospel which was read on Maundy-Thursday these two verses of S. Luke’s Gospel are thrust in between the 39th and the 40th verses of S. Matthew xxvi. Hence, 4 cursive copies, viz. 13-69-124-346—(confessedly derived from a common ancient archetype,(203) and therefore not four witnesses but only one),—actually exhibit these two Verses in that place. But will any unprejudiced person of sound mind entertain a doubt concerning the genuineness of these two verses, witnessed to as they are by _the whole body of the Manuscripts_, uncial as well as cursive, and _by every ancient Version_?... If such a thing were possible, it is hoped that the following enumeration of ancient Fathers, who distinctly recognize the place under discussion, must at least be held to be decisive:—viz.
Justin M.,(204)—Irenæus(205) in the IInd century:—
Hippolytus,(206)—Dionysius Alex.,(207)—ps. Tatian,(208) in the IIIrd.—
Arius,(209)—Eusebius,(210)—Athanasius,(211)—Ephraem Syr.,(212)—Didymus,(213)—Gregory Naz.,(214)—Epiphanius,(215)—Chrysostom,(216)—ps.-Dionysius Areop.,(217) in the IVth:—
Julian the heretic,(218)—Theodoras Mops.,(219)—Nestorius,(220)—Cyril Alex.,(221)—Paulus, bishop of Emesa,(222)—Gennadius,(223)—Theodoret,(224)—and several Oriental Bishops (A.D. 431),(225) in the Vth:—besides Ps.-Cæsarius,(226)—Theodosius Alex.,(227)—John Damascene,(228)—Maximus,(229)—Theodorus hæret.,(230)—Leontius Byz.,(231)—Anastasius Sin.,(232)—Photius:(233) and of the Latins, Hilary,(234)—Jerome,(235)—Augustine,(236)—Cassian,(237)—Paulinus,(238)—Facundus.(239)
It will be seen that we have been enumerating _upwards of forty famous personages from every part of ancient Christendom_, who recognize these verses as genuine; fourteen of them being as old,—some of them, a great deal older,—than our oldest MSS.—_Why_ therefore Drs. Westcott and Hort should insist on shutting up these 26 precious words—this article of the Faith—in double brackets, in token that it is “morally certain” that verses 43 and 44 are of spurious origin, we are at a loss to divine.(240) We can but ejaculate (in the very words they proceed to disallow),—“FATHER, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” But our especial concern is with _our Revisionists_; and we do not exceed our province when we come forward to reproach them sternly for having succumbed to such evil counsels, and deliberately branded these Verses with their own corporate expression of doubt. For unless _that_ be the purpose of the marginal Note which they have set against these verses, we fail to understand the Revisers’ language and are wholly at a loss to divine what purpose that note of theirs can be meant to serve. It is prefaced by a formula which, (as we learn from their own Preface,) offers to the reader the “alternative” of _omitting_ the Verses in question: implies that “_it would not be safe_” any longer to accept them,—as the Church has hitherto done,—with undoubting confidence. In a word,—_it brands them with suspicion_.... We have been so full on this subject,—(not half of our references were known to Tischendorf,)—because of the unspeakable preciousness of the record; and because we desire to see an end at last to expressions of doubt and uncertainty on points which really afford not a shadow of pretence for either. These two Verses were excised through mistaken piety by certain of the orthodox,—jealous for the honour of their LORD, and alarmed by the use which the impugners of His GODhead freely made of them.(241) Hence Ephraem [_Carmina Nisibena_, p. 145] puts the following words into the mouth of Satan, addressing the host of Hell:—“One thing I witnessed in Him which especially comforts me. I saw Him praying; and I rejoiced, for His countenance changed and He was afraid. _His sweat was drops of blood_, for He had a presentiment that His day had come. This was the fairest sight of all,—unless, to be sure, He was practising deception on me. For verily if He hath deceived me, then it is all over,—both with me, and with you, my servants!”
(4) Next in importance after the preceding, comes the Prayer which the SAVIOUR of the World breathed from the Cross on behalf of His murderers (S. Luke xxiii. 34). These twelve precious words,—(“Then said JESUS, FATHER, forgive them; for they know not what they do,”)—like those twenty-six words in S. Luke xxii. 43, 44 which we have been considering already, Drs. Westcott and Hort enclose within double brackets in token of the “moral certainty” they entertain that the words are spurious.(242) And yet these words are found in _every known uncial_ and in _every known cursive Copy_, except four; besides being found _in every ancient Version_. And _what_,—(we ask the question with sincere simplicity,)—_what_ amount of evidence is calculated to inspire undoubting confidence in any existing Reading, if not such a concurrence of Authorities as this?... We forbear to insist upon the probabilities of the case. The Divine power and sweetness of the incident shall not be enlarged upon. We introduce no considerations resulting from Internal Evidence. True, that “few verses of the Gospels bear in themselves a surer witness to the Truth of what they record, than this.” (It is the admission of the very man(243) who has nevertheless dared to brand it with suspicion.) But we reject his loathsome patronage with indignation. “Internal Evidence,”—“Transcriptional Probability,”—and all such “chaff and draff,” with which he fills his pages _ad nauseam_, and mystifies nobody but himself,—shall be allowed no place in the present discussion. Let this verse of Scripture stand or fall as it meets with sufficient external testimony, or is forsaken thereby. How then about the _Patristic_ evidence,—for this is all that remains unexplored?
Only a fraction of it was known to Tischendorf. We find our SAVIOUR’S Prayer attested,—
In the IInd century by Hegesippus,(244)—and by Irenæus:(245)—
In the IIIrd, by Hippolytus,(246)—by Origen,(247)—by the _Apostolic Constitutions_,(248)—by the _Clementine Homilies_,(249)—by ps.-Tatian,(250)—and by the disputation of Archelaus with Manes:(251)—
In the IVth, by Eusebius,(252)—by Athanasius,(253)—by Gregory Nyss.,(254)—by Theodoras Herac.,(255)—by Basil,(256)—by Chrysostom,(257)—by Ephraem Syr.,(258)—by ps.-Ephraim,(259)—by ps.-Dionysius Areop.,(260)—by the Apocryphal _Acta Pilati_,(261)—by the _Acta Philippi_,(262)—and by the Syriac _Acts of the App._,(263)—by ps.-Ignatius,(264)—and ps.-Justin:(265)—
In the Vth, by Theodoret,(266)—by Cyril,(267)—by Eutherius:(268)
In the VIth, by Anastasius Sin.,(269)—by Hesychius:(270)—
In the VIIth, by Antiochus mon.,(271)—by Maximus,(272)—by Andreas Cret.:(273)—
In the VIIIth, by John Damascene,(274)—besides ps.-Chrysostom,(275)—ps. Amphilochius,(276)—and the _Opus imperf._(277)
Add to this, (since Latin authorities have been brought to the front),—Ambrose,(278)—Hilary,(279)—Jerome,(280)—Augustine,(281)—and other earlier writers.(282)
We have thus again enumerated _upwards of forty_ ancient Fathers. And again we ask, With what show of reason is the brand set upon these 12 words? Gravely to cite, as if there were anything in it, such counter-evidence as the following, to the foregoing torrent of Testimony from every part of ancient Christendom:—viz: “B D, 38, 435, a b d and one Egyptian version”—might really have been mistaken for a _mauvaise plaisanterie_, were it not that the gravity of the occasion effectually precludes the supposition. How could our Revisionists _dare_ to insinuate doubts into wavering hearts and unlearned heads, where (as here) they were _bound_ to know, there exists _no manner of doubt at all_?
(5) The record of the same Evangelist (S. Luke xxiii. 38) that the Inscription over our SAVIOUR’S Cross was “written ... in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew,” _disappears entirely_ from our “Revised” version; and this, for no other reason, but because the incident is omitted by B C L, the corrupt Egyptian versions, and Cureton’s depraved Syriac: the text of which (according to Bp. Ellicott(283)) “is of a very composite nature,—_sometimes inclining to the shortness and simplicity of the Vatican manuscript_” (B): _e.g._ on the present occasion. But surely the negative testimony of this little band of disreputable witnesses is entirely outweighed by the positive evidence of א A D Q R with 13 other uncials,—the evidence of _the entire body of the cursives_,—the sanction of the Latin,—the Peschito and Philoxenian Syriac,—the Armenian,—Æthiopic,—and Georgian versions; besides Eusebius—whose testimony (which is express) has been hitherto strangely overlooked(284)—and Cyril.(285) Against the threefold plea of Antiquity, Respectability of witnesses, Universality of testimony,—what have our Revisionists to show? (_a_) They cannot pretend that there has been Assimilation here; for the type of S. John xix. 20 is essentially different, and has retained its distinctive character all down the ages. (_b_) Nor can they pretend that the condition of the Text hereabouts bears traces of having been jealously guarded. We ask the Reader’s attention to this matter just for a moment. There may be some of the occupants of the Jerusalem Chamber even, to whom what we are about to offer may not be altogether without the grace of novelty:—
That the Title on the Cross is diversely set down by each of the four Evangelists,—all men are aware. But perhaps all are not aware that _S. Luke’s record_ of the Title (in ch. xxiii. 38) is exhibited in _four different ways_ by codices A B C D:—
A exhibits—ΟΥΤΟΣ ΕΣΤΙΝ Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ
B (with א L and a) exhibits—Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ ΟΥΤΟΣ
C exhibits—Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ (which is Mk. xv. 26).
D (with e and ff2) exhibits—Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ ΟΥΤΟΣ ΕΣΤΙΝ (which is the words of the Evangelist transposed).
We propose to recur to the foregoing specimens of licentiousness by-and-by.(286) For the moment, let it be added that codex X and the Sahidic version conspire in a fifth variety, viz., ΟΥΤΟΣ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΙΗΣΟΥΣ Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ (which is S. Matt. xxvii. 37); while Ambrose(287) is found to have used a Latin copy which represented ΙΗΣΟΥΣ Ο ΝΑΖΩΡΑΙΟΣ Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ (which is S. John xix. 18). We spare the reader any remarks of our own on all this. He is competent to draw his own painful inferences, and will not fail to make his own damaging reflections. He shall only be further informed that 14 uncials and the whole body of the cursive copies side with codex A in upholding the Traditional Text; that the Vulgate,(288)—the Peschito,—Cureton’s Syriac,—the Philoxenian;—besides the Coptic,—Armenian,—and Æthiopic versions—are all on the same side: lastly, that Origen,(289)—Eusebius,—and Gregory of Nyssa(290) are in addition consentient witnesses;—and we can hardly be mistaken if we venture to anticipate (1st),—That the Reader will agree with us that the Text with which we are best acquainted (as usual) is here deserving of all confidence; and (2ndly),—That the Revisionists who assure us “that they did not esteem it within their province to construct a continuous and complete Greek Text;” (and who were never authorized to construct _a new Greek Text at all_;) were not justified in the course they have pursued with regard to S. Luke xxiii. 38. “THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS” is the only idiomatic way of rendering into English the title according to S. Luke, whether the reading of A or of B be adopted; but, in order to make it plain that they _reject the Greek of_ A _in favour of_ B, the Revisionists have gone out of their way. They have instructed the two Editors of “_The Greek Testament with the __ Readings adopted by the Revisers of the Authorized Version_”(291) to exhibit S. Luke xxiii. 38 _as it stands in the mutilated recension of Drs. Westcott and Hort_.(292) And if _this_ procedure, repeated many hundreds of times, be not constructing a “new Greek Text” of the N. T., we have yet to learn what _is_.
(6) From the first verse of the concluding chapter of S. Luke’s Gospel, is excluded the familiar clause—“_and certain others with them_” (καί τινες σὺν αὐταῖς). And pray, why? For no other reason but because א B C L, with some Latin authorities, omit the clause;—and our Revisionists do the like, on the plea that they have only been getting rid of a “harmonistic insertion.”(293) But it is nothing of the sort, as we proceed to explain.
Ammonius, or some predecessor of his early in the IInd century, saw fit (with perverse ingenuity) to seek to _force_ S. Luke xxiii. 55 into agreement with S. Matt. xxvii. 61 and S. Mark xv. 47, by turning κατακολουθήσασαι δὲ καὶ γυναῖκες,—into κατηκολούθησαν δὲ ΔΎΟ γυναῖκες. This done, in order to produce “harmonistic” agreement and to be thorough, the same misguided individual proceeded to run his pen through the words “and certain with them” (καί τινες σὺν αὐταῖς) as inopportune; and his work was ended. 1750 years have rolled by since then, and—What traces remain of the man’s foolishness? Of his _first_ feat (we answer), Eusebius,(294) D and Evan. 29, besides five copies of the old Latin (a b e ff2 q), are the sole surviving Witnesses. Of his _second_ achievement, א B C L, 33, 124, have preserved a record; besides seven copies of the old Latin (a b c e ff2 g-1 1), together with the Vulgate, the Coptic, and Eusebius in one place(295) though not in another.(296) The Reader is therefore invited to notice that the tables have been unexpectedly turned upon our opponents. S. Luke introduced the words “and certain with them,” in order to prepare us for what he will have to say in xxiv. 10,—viz. “It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and _other women with them_, which told these things unto the Apostles.” Some stupid harmonizer in the IInd century omitted the words, because they were in his way. Calamitous however it is that a clause which the Church has long since deliberately reinstated should, in the year 1881, be as deliberately banished for the second time from the sacred page by our Revisionists; who under the plea of _amending our English Authorized Version_ have (with the best intentions) _falsified the Greek Text_ of the Gospels in countless places,—often, as here, without notice and without apology.
(10) We find it impossible to pass by in silence the treatment which S. Luke xxiv. 12 has experienced at their hands. They have branded with doubt S. Luke’s memorable account of S. Peter’s visit to the sepulchre. And why? Let the evidence _for_ this precious portion of the narrative be first rehearsed. Nineteen uncials then, with א A B at their head, supported by _every known cursive_ copy,—all these vouch for the genuineness of the verse in question. The Latin,—the Syriac,—and the Egyptian versions also contain it. Eusebius,(297)—Gregory of Nyssa,(298)—Cyril,(299)—Severus,(300)—Ammonius,(301) and others(302) refer to it: while _no ancient writer_ is found to impugn it. Then, _why_ the double brackets of Drs. Westcott and Hort? and _why_ the correlative marginal note of our Revisionists?—Simply because D and 5 copies of the old Latin (a b e l fu) leave these 22 words out.
(11) On the same sorry evidence—(viz. D and 5 copies of the old Latin)—it is proposed henceforth to omit our SAVIOUR’S greeting to His disciples when He appeared among them in the upper chamber on the evening of the first Easter Day. And yet the precious words (“_and saith unto them, Peace be unto you_” [Lu. xxiv. 36],) are vouched for by 18 uncials (with א A B at their head), and _every known cursive copy_ of the Gospels: by all the Versions: and (as before) by Eusebius,(303)—and Ambrose,(304)—by Chrysostom,(305)—and Cyril,(306)—and Augustine.(307)
(12) The same remarks suggest themselves on a survey of the evidence for S. Luke xxiv. 40:—“_And when He had thus spoken, He showed them His hands and His feet._” The words are found in 18 uncials (beginning with א A B), and in every known cursive: in the Latin,(308)—the Syriac,—the Egyptian,—in short, _in all the ancient Versions_. Besides these, ps.-Justin,(309)—Eusebius,(310)—Athanasius,(311)—Ambrose (in Greek),(312)—Epiphanius,(313)—Chrysostom,(314)—Cyril,(315)—Theodoret,(316)—Ammonius,(317)—and John Damascene(318)—quote them. What but the veriest trifling is it, in the face of such a body of evidence, to bring forward the fact that D and 5 copies of the old Latin, with Cureton’s Syriac (of which we have had the character already(319)), _omit_ the words in question?
The foregoing enumeration of instances of Mutilation might be enlarged to almost any extent. Take only three more short but striking specimens, before we pass on:—
(_a_) Thus, the precious verse (S. Matthew xvii. 21) which declares that “_this kind_ [of evil spirit] _goeth not out but by prayer and fasting_,” is expunged by our Revisionists; although it is vouched for by every known uncial _but two_ (B א), every known cursive _but one_ (Evan. 33); is witnessed to by the Old Latin and the Vulgate,—the Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Æthiopic, and Slavonic versions; by Origen,(320)—Athanasius,(321)—Basil,(322)—Chrysostom,(323)—the _Opus imperf._,(324)—the Syriac Clement,(325)—and John Damascene;(326)—by Tertullian,—Ambrose,—Hilary,—Juvencus,—Augustine,—Maximus Taur.,—and by the Syriac version of the _Canons of Eusebius_: above all by the Universal East,—having been read in all the churches of Oriental Christendom on the 10th Sunday after Pentecost, from the earliest period. Why, in the world, then (our readers will ask) have the Revisionists left those words out?... For no other reason, we answer, but because Drs. Westcott and Hort place them among the interpolations which they consider unworthy of being even “exceptionally retained in association with the true Text.”(327) “Western and Syrian” is their oracular sentence.(328)
(_b_) The blessed declaration, “_The Son of Man is come to save that which was lost_,”—has in like manner been expunged by our Revisionists from S. Matth. xviii. 11; although it is attested by every known uncial except B א L, and every known cursive _except three_: by the old Latin and the Vulgate: by the Peschito, Cureton’s and the Philoxenian Syriac: by the Coptic, Armenian, Æthiopic, Georgian and Slavonic versions:(329)—by Origen,(330)—Theodoras Heracl.,(331)—Chrysostom(332)—and Jovius(333) the monk;—by Tertullian,(334)—Ambrose,(335)—Hilary,(336)—Jerome,(337)—pope Damasus(338)—and Augustine:(339)—above all, by the Universal Eastern Church,—for it has been read in all assemblies of the faithful on the morrow of Pentecost, from the beginning. Why then (the reader will again ask) have the Revisionists expunged this verse? We can only answer as before,—because Drs. Westcott and Hort consign it to the _limbus_ of their _Appendix_; class it among their “Rejected Readings” of the most hopeless type.(340) As before, _all_ their sentence is “Western and Syrian.” They add, “Interpolated either from Lu. xix. 10, or from an independent source, written or oral.”(341)... Will the English Church suffer herself to be in this way defrauded of her priceless inheritance,—through the irreverent bungling of well-intentioned, but utterly misguided men?
(_c_) In the same way, our LORD’S important saying,—“_Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of: for the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them_” (S. Luke ix. 55, 56), has disappeared from our “Revised” Version; although Manuscripts, Versions, Fathers from the _second century_ downwards, (as Tischendorf admits,) witness eloquently in its favour.
V. In conclusion, we propose to advert, just for a moment, to those five several mis-representations of S. Luke’s “Title on the Cross,” which were rehearsed above, viz. in page 86. At so gross an exhibition of licentiousness, it is the mere instinct of Natural Piety to exclaim,—But then, could not those men even set down so sacred a record as _that_, correctly? They could, had they been so minded, no doubt, (we answer): but, marvellous to relate, the TRANSPOSITION of words,—no matter how significant, sacred, solemn;—of short clauses,—even of whole sentences of Scripture;—was anciently accounted an allowable, even a graceful exercise of the critical faculty.
The thing alluded to is incredible at first sight; being so often done, apparently, without any reason whatever,—or rather in defiance of all reason. Let _candidus lector_ be the judge whether we speak truly or not. Whereas S. Luke (xxiv. 41) says, “_And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered_,” the scribe of codex A (by way of improving upon the Evangelist) transposes his sentence into this, “And while they yet disbelieved Him, _and wondered for joy_:”(342) which is almost nonsense, or quite.
But take a less solemn example. Instead of,—“And His disciples plucked _the ears of corn, and ate them_, (τοὺς στάχυας, καὶ ἤσθιον,) rubbing them in their hands” (S. Luke vi. 1),—B C L R, by _transposing_ four Greek words, present us with, “And His disciples plucked, _and ate the ears of corn_, (καὶ ἤσθιον τοὺς στάχυας,) rubbing them,” &c. Now this might have been an agreeable occupation for horses and for another quadruped, no doubt; but hardly for men. This curiosity, which (happily) proved indigestible to our Revisionists, is nevertheless swallowed whole by Drs. Westcott and Hort as genuine and wholesome Gospel. (_O dura Doctorum ilia!_)—But to proceed.
Then further, these preposterous Transpositions are of such perpetual recurrence,—are so utterly useless or else so exceedingly mischievous, _always_ so tasteless,—that familiarity with the phenomenon rather increases than lessens our astonishment. What _does_ astonish us, however, is to find learned men in the year of grace 1881, freely resuscitating these long-since-forgotten _bêtises_ of long-since-forgotten Critics, and seeking to palm them off upon a busy and a careless age, as so many new revelations. That we may not be thought to have shown undue partiality for the xxiind, xxiiird, and xxivth chapters of S. Luke’s Gospel by selecting our instances of _Mutilation_ from those three chapters, we will now look for specimens of _Transposition_ in the xixth and xxth chapters of the same Gospel. The reader is invited to collate the Text of the oldest uncials, throughout these two chapters, with the commonly Received Text. He will find that within the compass of 88 consecutive verses,(343) codices א A B C D Q exhibit no less than 74 instances of Transposition:—for 39 of which, D is responsible:—א B, for 14:—א and א B D, for 4 each:—A B and א A B, for 3 each:—A, for 2:—B, C, Q, א A, and A D, each for 1.—In other words, he will find that in no less than 44 of these instances of Transposition, D is implicated:—א, in 26:—B, in 25:—A, in 10:—while C and Q are concerned in only one a-piece.... It should be added that Drs. Westcott and Hort have adopted _every one of the 25 in which codex_ B _is concerned_—a significant indication of the superstitious reverence in which they hold that demonstrably corrupt and most untrustworthy document.(344) Every other case of Transposition they have rejected. By their own confession, therefore, 49 out of the 74 (_i.e._ two-thirds of the entire number) are instances of depravation. We turn with curiosity to the Revised Version; and discover that out of the 25 so retained, the Editors in question were only able to persuade the Revisionists to adopt 8. So that, in the judgment of the Revisionists, 66 out of 74, or _eleven-twelfths_, are instances of licentious tampering with the deposit.... O to participate in the verifying faculty which guided the teachers to discern in 25 cases of Transposition out of 74, the genuine work of the HOLY GHOST! O, far more, to have been born with that loftier instinct which enabled the pupils (Doctors Roberts and Milligan, Newth and Moulton, Vance Smith and Brown, Angus and Eadie) to winnow out from the entire lot exactly 8, and to reject the remaining 66 as nothing worth!
According to our own best judgment, (and we have carefully examined them all,) _every one_ of the 74 is worthless. But then _we_ make it our fundamental rule to reason always from grounds of external Evidence,—never from postulates of the Imagination. Moreover, in the application of our rule, we begrudge no amount of labour: reckoning a long summer’s day well spent if it has enabled us to ascertain the truth concerning one single controverted word of Scripture. Thus, when we find that our Revisionists, at the suggestion of Dr. Hort, have transposed the familiar Angelic utterance (in S. Luke xxiv. 7), λέγων ὅτι δεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παραδοθῆναι,—into this, λέγων τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὅτι δεῖ, &c., we at once enquire for _the evidence_. And when we find that no single Father, _no_ single Version, and no Codex—except the notorious א B C L—advocates the proposed transposition; but on the contrary that every Father (from A.D. 150 downwards) who quotes the place, quotes it as it stands in the Textus receptus;(345)—we have no hesitation whatever in rejecting it. It is found in the midst of a very thicket of fabricated readings. It has nothing whatever to recommend it. It is condemned by the consentient voice of Antiquity. It is advocated only by four copies,—which _never_ combine exclusively, except to misrepresent the truth of Scripture and to seduce the simple.
But the foregoing, which is a fair typical sample of countless other instances of unauthorized Transposition, may not be dismissed without a few words of serious remonstrance. Our contention is that, inasmuch as the effect of such transposition _is incapable of being idiomatically represented in the English language_,—(for, in all such cases, the Revised Version retains the rendering of the Authorized,)—our Revisionists have violated the spirit as well as the letter of their instructions, in putting forth _a new Greek Text_, and silently introducing into it a countless number of these and similar depravations of Scripture. These Textual curiosities (for they are nothing more) are absolutely out of place in a _Revision of the English Version_: achieve no lawful purpose: are sure to mislead the unwary. This first.—Secondly, we submit that,—strong as, no doubt, the temptation must have been, to secure the sanction of the N. T. Revisionists for their own private Recension of the Greek, (printed long since, but published simultaneously with the “Revised Version”)—it is to be regretted that Drs. Westcott and Hort should have yielded thereto. Man’s impatience never promotes GOD’S Truth. The interests of Textual Criticism would rather have suggested, that the Recension of that accomplished pair of Professors should have been submitted to public inspection in the first instance. The astonishing Text which it advocates might have been left with comparative safety to take its chance in the Jerusalem Chamber, after it had undergone the searching ordeal of competent Criticism, and been freely ventilated at home and abroad for a decade of years. But on the contrary. It was kept close. It might be seen only by the Revisers: and even _they_ were tied down to secrecy as to the letter-press by which it was accompanied.... All this strikes us as painful in a high degree.
VI. Hitherto we have referred almost exclusively to the Gospels. In conclusion, we invite attention to our Revisionists’ treatment of 1 Tim. iii. 16—the _crux criticorum_, as Prebendary Scrivener styles it.(346) We cannot act more fairly than by inviting a learned member of the revising body to speak on behalf of his brethren. We shall in this way ascertain the amount of acquaintance with the subject enjoyed by some of those who have been so obliging as to furnish the Church with a new Recension of the Greek of the New Testament. Dr. Roberts says:—
“The English reader will probably be startled to find that the familiar text,—‘_And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness_: GOD _was manifest in the flesh_,’ has been exchanged in the Revised Version for the following,—‘_And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh._’ A note on the margin states that ‘the word GOD, in place of _He who_, rests on no sufficient ancient evidence;’ and it may be well that, in a passage of so great importance, the reader should be convinced that such is the case.
“What, then, let us enquire, is the amount of evidence which can be produced in support of the reading ‘GOD’? This is soon stated. Not one of the early Fathers can be certainly quoted for it. None of the very ancient versions support it. No uncial witnesses to it, with the doubtful exception of A.... But even granting that the weighty suffrage of the Alexandrian manuscript is in favour of ‘GOD,’ far more evidence can be produced in support of ‘who.’ א and probably C witness to this reading, and it has also powerful testimony from the versions and Fathers. Moreover, the relative ‘who’ is a far more difficult reading than ‘GOD,’ and could hardly have been substituted for the latter. On every ground, therefore, we conclude that this interesting and important passage must stand as it has been given in the Revised Version.”(347)
And now, having heard the learned Presbyterian on behalf of his
brother-Revisionists, we request that we may be ourselves listened to in
reply.
The place of Scripture before us, the Reader is assured, presents a memorable instance of the mischief which occasionally resulted to the inspired Text from the ancient practice of executing copies of the Scriptures in uncial characters. S. Paul _certainly_ wrote μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον; Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, (“_Great is the mystery of godliness_: GOD _was manifested in the flesh_”) But it requires to be explained at the outset, that the holy Name when abbreviated (which it always was), thus,—_ΘΣ_ (“GOD”), is only distinguishable from the relative pronoun “who” (ΟΣ), by two horizontal strokes,—which, in manuscripts of early date, it was often the practice to trace so faintly that at present they can scarcely be discerned.(348) Need we go on? An archetypal copy in which one or both of these slight strokes had vanished from the word _ΘΣ_ (“GOD”), gave rise to the reading ΟΣ (“who”),—of which nonsensical substitute, traces survive in _only two_(349) manuscripts,—א and 17: not, for certain, in _one single_ ancient Father,—no, nor for certain in _one single_ ancient Version. So transparent, in fact, is the absurdity of writing τὸ μυστέριον ὅς (“the mystery _who_”), that copyists promptly substituted ὅ (“_which_”): thus furnishing another illustration of the well-known property of a fabricated reading, viz. sooner or later inevitably to become the parent of a second. Happily, to this second mistake the sole surviving witness is the Codex Claromontanus, of the VIth century (D): the only Patristic evidence in its favour being Gelasius of Cyzicus,(350) (whose date is A.D. 476): and the unknown author of a homily in the appendix to Chrysostom.(351) The Versions—all but the Georgian and the Slavonic, which agree with the Received Text—favour it unquestionably; for they are observed invariably to make the relative pronoun agree in gender with the word which represents μυστήριον (“mystery”) which immediately precedes it. Thus, in the Syriac Versions, ὅς (“_who_”) is found,—but only because the Syriac equivalent for μυστήριον is of the masculine gender: in the Latin, _quod_ (“_which_”)—but only because _mysterium_ in Latin (like μυστήριον in Greek) is neuter. Over this latter reading, however, we need not linger; seeing that ὅ does not find a single patron at the present day. And yet, this was the reading which was eagerly upheld during the last century: Wetstein and Sir Isaac Newton being its most strenuous advocates.
It is time to pass under hasty review the direct evidence for the true reading. A and C exhibited _ΘΣ_ until ink, thumbing, and the injurious use of chemicals, obliterated what once was patent. It is too late, by full 150 years, to contend on the negative side of _this_ question.—F and G, which exhibit _ΟΣ_ and _ΟΣ_ respectively, were confessedly derived from a common archetype: in which archetype, it is evident that the horizontal stroke which distinguishes Θ from Ο must have been so faintly traced as to be scarcely discernible. The supposition that, in this place, the stroke in question represents _the aspirate_, is scarcely admissible. _There is no single example of_ ὅς _written_ _ΟΣ_ _in any part of __ either Cod._ F _or Cod._ G. On the other hand, in the only place where ΟΣ represents _ΘΣ_, it is written _ΟΣ_ _in both_. Prejudice herself may be safely called upon to accept the obvious and only lawful inference.
To come to the point,—Θεός is the reading of _all the uncial copies extant but two_ (viz. א which exhibits ὅς, and D which exhibits ὅ), and of all the cursives _but one_ (viz. 17). The universal consent of the Lectionaries proves that Θεός has been read in all the assemblies of the faithful from the IVth or Vth century of our era. At what earlier period of her existence is it supposed then that the Church (“the witness and keeper of Holy Writ,”) availed herself of her privilege to substitute Θεός for ὅς or ὅ,—whether in error or in fraud? Nothing short of a conspiracy, to which every region of the Eastern Church must have been a party, would account for the phenomenon.
We enquire next for the testimony of the Fathers; and we discover that—(1) Gregory of Nyssa quotes Θεός _twenty-two times_:(352)—that Θεός is also recognized by (2) his namesake of Nazianzus in two places;(353)—as well as by (3) Didymus of Alexandria;(354)—(4) by ps.-Dionysius Alex.;(355)—and (5) by Diodorus of Tarsus.(356)—(6) Chrysostom quotes 1 Tim. iii. 16 in conformity with the received text at least three times;(357)—and (7) Cyril Al. as often:(358)—(8) Theodoret, four times:(359)—(9) an unknown author of the age of Nestorius (A.D. 430), once:(360)—(10) Severus, Bp. of Antioch (A.D. 512), once.(361)—(11) Macedonius (A.D. 506) patriarch of CP.,(362) of whom it has been absurdly related that he _invented_ the reading, is a witness for Θεός perforce; so is—(12) Euthalius, and—(13) John Damascene on two occasions.(363)—(14) An unknown writer who has been mistaken for Athanasius,(364)—(15) besides not a few ancient scholiasts, close the list: for we pass by the testimony of—(16) Epiphanius at the 7th Nicene Council (A.D. 787),—of (17) Œcumenius,—of (18) Theophylact.
It will be observed that neither has anything been said about the many indirect allusions of earlier Fathers to this place of Scripture; and yet some of these are too striking to be overlooked: as when—(19) Basil, writing of our SAVIOUR, says αὐτὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί:(365)—and (20) Gregory Thaum., καὶ ἔστι Θεὸς ἀληθινὸς ὁ ἄσαρκος ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς:(366)—and before him, (21) Hippolytus, οὗτος προελθὼν εἰς κόσμον, Θεὸς ἐν σώματι ἐφανερώθη:(367)—and (22) Theodotus the Gnostic, ὁ Σωτὴρ ὤφθη κατιὼν τοῖς ἀγγέλοις:(368)—and (23) Barnabas, Ἰησοῦς ... ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ τύπῳ καὶ ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς:(369)—and earlier still (24) Ignatius: Θεοῦ ἀνθρωπίνως φανερουμένον:—ἐν σαρκὶ γενόμενος Θεός:—εἶς Θεὸς ἔστιν ὁ φανερώσοας ἑαυτὸν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ.(370)—Are we to suppose that _none_ of these primitive writers read the place as we do?
Against this array of Testimony, the only evidence which the unwearied industry of 150 years has succeeded in eliciting, is as follows:—(1) The exploded _Latin_ fable that Macedonius (A.D. 506) _invented_ the reading:(371)—(2) the fact that Epiphanius,—_professing to transcribe_(372) from an earlier treatise of his own(373) (in which ἐφανερώθη stands _without a nominative_), prefixes ὅς:—(3) the statement of an unknown scholiast, that in one particular place of Cyril’s writings where the Greek is lost, Cyril wrote ὅς,—(which seems to be an entire mistake; but which, even if it were a fact, would be sufficiently explained by the discovery that in two other places of Cyril’s writings the evidence _fluctuates_ between ὅς and Θεός):—(4) a quotation in an epistle of Eutherius of Tyana (it exists only in Latin) where “qui” is found:—(5) a casual reference (in Jerome’s commentary on Isaiah) to our LORD, as One “qui apparuit in carne, justificatus est in spiritu,”—which Bp. Pearson might have written.—Lastly, (6) a passage of Theodorus Mopsuest. (quoted at the Council of Constantinople, A.D. 553), where the reading is “qui,”—which is balanced by the discovery that in another place of his writings quoted at the same Council, the original is translated “quod.” And this closes the evidence. Will any unprejudiced person, on reviewing the premisses, seriously declare that ὅς is the better sustained reading of the two?
For ourselves, we venture to deem it incredible that a Reading which—(_a_) Is not to be found in more than two copies (א and 17) of S. Paul’s Epistles: which—(_b_) Is not certainly supported by a single Version:—(_c_) Nor is clearly advocated by a single Father,—_can_ be genuine. It does not at all events admit of question, that until _far_ stronger evidence can be produced in its favour, ὅς (“who”) may on no account be permitted to usurp the place of the commonly received Θεός (“GOD”) of 1 Tim. iii. 16. But the present exhibits in a striking and instructive way all the characteristic tokens of a depravation of the text. (1st) At an exceedingly early period it resulted in _another_ deflection. (2nd) It is without the note of _Continuity_; having died out of the Church’s memory well-nigh 1400 years ago. (3rd) It is deficient in _Universality_; having been all along denied the Church’s corporate sanction. As a necessary consequence, (4th) It rests at this day on wholly _insufficient Evidence_: Manuscripts, Versions, Fathers being _all_ against it. (5th) It carries on its front its own refutation. For, as all must see, _ΘΣ_ might easily be mistaken for ΟΣ: but in order to make ΟΣ into _ΘΣ_, _two horizontal lines must of set purpose be added to the copy_. It is therefore a vast deal _more likely_ that _ΘΣ_ became ΟΣ, than that ΟΣ became _ΘΣ_. (6th) Lastly, it is condemned by internal considerations. Ὅς is in truth so grossly improbable—rather, so _impossible_—a reading, that under any circumstances we must have anxiously enquired whether no escape from it was discoverable: whether there exists no way of explaining _how_ so patent an absurdity as μυστέριον ὅς _may_ have arisen? And on being reminded that the disappearance of two faint horizontal strokes, _or even of one_, would fully account for the impossible reading,—(and thus much, at least, all admit,)—should we not have felt that it required an overwhelming consensus of authorities in favour of ὅς, to render such an alternative deserving of serious attention? It is a mere abuse of Bengel’s famous axiom to recal it on occasions like the present. We shall be landed in a bathos indeed if we allow _gross improbability_ to become a constraining motive with us in revising the sacred Text.
And thus much for the true reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. We invite the reader to refer back(374) to a Reviser’s estimate of the evidence in favour of Θεός and ὅς respectively, and to contrast it with our own. If he is impressed with the strength of the cause of our opponents,—their mastery of the subject,—and the reasonableness of their contention,—we shall be surprised. And yet _that_ is not the question just now before us. The _only_ question (be it clearly remembered) which has to be considered, is _this_:—Can it be said with truth that the “evidence” for ὅς (as against Θεός) in 1 Tim. iii. 16 is “_clearly preponderating_”? Can it be maintained that Θεός is a “_plain and clear error_”? Unless this can be affirmed—_cadit quæstio_. The traditional reading of the place ought to have been let alone. May we be permitted to say without offence that, in our humble judgment, if the Church of England, at the Revisers’ bidding, were to adopt this and thousands of other depravations of the sacred page,(375)—with which the Church Universal was once well acquainted, but which in her corporate character she has long since unconditionally condemned and abandoned,—she would deserve to be pointed at with scorn by the rest of Christendom? Yes, and to have _that_ openly said of her which S. Peter openly said of the false teachers of his day who fell back into the very errors which they had already abjured. The place will be found in 2 S. Peter ii. 22. So singularly applicable is it to the matter in hand, that we can but invite attention to the quotation on our title-page and p. 1.
And here we make an end.
1. Those who may have taken up the present Article in expectation of being entertained with another of those discussions (of which we suspect the public must be already getting somewhat weary), concerning the degree of ability which the New Testament Revisionists have displayed in their rendering into English of the Greek, will at first experience disappointment. Readers of intelligence, however, who have been at the pains to follow us through the foregoing pages, will be constrained to admit that we have done more faithful service to the cause of Sacred Truth by the course we have been pursuing, than if we had merely multiplied instances of incorrect and unsatisfactory _Translation_. There is (and this we endeavoured to explain at the outset) a question of prior interest and far graver importance which has to be settled _first_, viz. the degree of confidence which is due to the underlying NEW GREEK TEXT which our Revisionists have constructed. In other words, before discussing their _new Renderings_, we have to examine their _new Readings_.(376) The silence which Scholars have hitherto maintained on this part of the subject is to ourselves scarcely intelligible. But it makes us the more anxious to invite attention to this neglected aspect of the problem; the rather, because we have thoroughly convinced ourselves that the “new Greek Text” put forth by the Revisionists of our Authorized Version is _utterly inadmissible_. The traditional Text has been departed from by them nearly 6000 times,—almost invariably _for the worse_.
2. Fully to dispose of _all_ these multitudinous corruptions would require a bulky Treatise. But the reader is requested to observe that, if we are right in the few instances we have culled out from the mass,—_then we are right in all_. If we have succeeded in proving that the little handful of authorities on which the “new Greek Text” depends, are the reverse of trustworthy,—are absolutely misleading,—then, we have cut away from under the Revisionists the very ground on which they have hitherto been standing. And in that case, the structure which they have built up throughout a decade of years, with such evident self-complacency, collapses “like the baseless fabric of a vision.”
3. For no one may flatter himself that, by undergoing a _further_ process of “Revision,” the “Revised Version” may after all be rendered trustworthy. The eloquent and excellent Bishop of Derry is “convinced that, with all its undeniable merits, it will have to be somewhat extensively revised.” And so perhaps are we. But (what is a far more important circumstance) we are further convinced that a prior act of penance to be submitted to by the Revisers would be the restoration of the underlying Greek Text to very nearly—_not quite_—the state in which they found it when they entered upon their ill-advised undertaking. “Very nearly—not quite:” for, in not a few particulars, the “Textus receptus” _does_ call for Revision, certainly; although Revision on entirely different principles from those which are found to have prevailed in the Jerusalem Chamber. To mention a single instance:—When our LORD first sent forth His Twelve Apostles, it was certainly no part of His ministerial commission to them to “_raise the dead_” (νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε, S. Matthew x. 8). This is easily demonstrable. Yet is the spurious clause retained by our Revisionists; because it is found in those corrupt witnesses—א B C D, and the Latin copies.(377) When will men learn unconditionally to put away from themselves the weak superstition which is for investing with oracular authority the foregoing quaternion of demonstrably depraved Codices?
4. “It may be said”—(to quote again from Bp. Alexander’s recent Charge),—“that there is a want of modesty in dissenting from the conclusions of a two-thirds majority of a body so learned. But the rough process of counting heads imposes unduly on the imagination. One could easily name _eight_ in that assembly, whose _unanimity_ would be practically almost decisive; but we have no means of knowing that these did not _form the minority_ in resisting the changes which we most regret.” The Bishop is speaking of the _English_ Revision. Having regard to the Greek Text exclusively, _we_ also (strange to relate) had singled out _exactly eight_ from the members of the New Testament company—Divines of undoubted orthodoxy, who for their splendid scholarship and proficiency in the best learning, or else for their refined taste and admirable judgment, might (as we humbly think), under certain safeguards, have been safely entrusted even with the responsibility of revising the Sacred Text. Under the guidance of Prebendary Scrivener (who among living Englishmen is _facile princeps_ in these pursuits) it is scarcely to be anticipated that, WHEN UNANIMOUS, such Divines would ever have materially erred. But then, of course, a previous life-long familiarity with the Science of _Textual Criticism_, or at least leisure for prosecuting it now, for ten or twenty years, with absolutely undivided attention,—would be the indispensable requisite for the success of such an undertaking; and this, undeniably, is a qualification rather to be desiderated than looked for at the hands of English Divines of note at the present day. On the other hand, (loyalty to our Master constrains us to make the avowal,) the motley assortment of names, twenty-eight in all, specified by Dr. Newth, at p. 125 of his interesting little volume, joined to the fact that the average attendance _was not so many as sixteen_,—concerning whom, moreover, the fact has transpired that some of the most judicious of their number often _declined to give any vote at all_,—is by no means calculated to inspire any sort of confidence. But, in truth, considerable familiarity with these pursuits may easily co-exist with a natural inaptitude for their successful cultivation, which shall prove simply fatal. In support of this remark, one has but to refer to the instance supplied by Dr. Hort. The Sacred Text has none to fear so much as those who _feel_ rather than think: who _imagine_ rather than reason: who rely on a supposed _verifying faculty_ of their own, of which they are able to render no intelligible account; and who, (to use Bishop Ellicott’s phrase,) have the misfortune to conceive themselves possessed of a “_power of divining the Original Text_,”—which would be even diverting, if the practical result of their self-deception were not so exceedingly serious.
5. In a future number, we may perhaps enquire into the measure of success which has attended the Revisers’ _Revision of the English_ of our Authorized Version of 1611. We have occupied ourselves at this time exclusively with a survey of the seriously mutilated and otherwise grossly depraved NEW GREEK TEXT, on which their edifice has been reared. And the circumstance which, in conclusion, we desire to impress upon our Readers, is this,—that the insecurity of that foundation is so alarming, that, except as a concession due to the solemnity of the undertaking just now under review, further Criticism might very well be dispensed with, as a thing superfluous. Even could it be proved concerning the superstructure, that “_it had been [ever so] well builded_,”(378) (to adopt another of our Revisionists’ unhappy perversions of Scripture,) the fatal objection would remain, viz. that it is not “_founded upon the rock_.”(379) It has been the ruin of the present undertaking—as far as the Sacred Text is concerned—that the majority of the Revisionist body have been misled throughout by the oracular decrees and impetuous advocacy of Drs. Westcott and Hort; who, with the purest intentions and most laudable industry, have constructed a Text demonstrably more remote from the Evangelic verity, than any which has ever yet seen the light. “The old is good,”(380) say the Revisionists: but we venture solemnly to assure them that “_the old is better_;”(381) and that this remark holds every bit as true of their Revision of the Greek throughout, as of their infelicitous exhibition of S. Luke v. 39. To attempt, as they have done, to build the Text of the New Testament on a tissue of unproved assertions and the eccentricities of a single codex of bad character, is about as hopeful a proceeding as would be the attempt to erect an Eddystone lighthouse on the Goodwin Sands.
ARTICLE II. THE NEW ENGLISH VERSION.
“Such is the time-honoured Version which we have been called upon to revise! We have had to study this great Version carefully and minutely, line by line; and the longer we have been engaged upon it the more we have learned to admire _its simplicity_, _its dignity_, _its power_, _its happy turns of expression_, _its general accuracy_, and we must not fail to add, _the music of its cadences, and the felicities of its rhythm_. To render a work that had reached this high standard of excellence, still more excellent; to increase its fidelity, without destroying its charm; was the task committed to us.”—PREFACE TO THE REVISED VERSION.
“To pass from the one to the other, is, as it were, to alight from a well-built and well-hung carriage which glides easily over a macadamized road,—and to get into one _which has bad springs or none at all_, and in which you are _jolted in ruts with aching bones over the stones of a newly-mended and rarely traversed road_, like some of the roads in our North Lincolnshire villages.”—BISHOP WORDSWORTH.(382)
“No Revision at the present day could hope to meet with an hour’s acceptance if it failed to preserve the tone, rhythm, and diction of the present Authorized Version.”—BISHOP ELLICOTT.(383)
“I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this Book,—If any man shall add unto these things, GOD shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this Book.
“And if any man shall take away from the words of the Book of this prophecy, GOD shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy City, and from the things which are written in this Book.”—REVELATION xxii. 18, 19.
Whatever may be urged in favour of Biblical Revision, it is at least
undeniable that the undertaking involves a tremendous risk. Our Authorized
Version is the one religious link which at present binds together ninety
millions of English-speaking men scattered over the earth’s surface. Is it
reasonable that so unutterably precious, so sacred a bond should be
endangered, for the sake of representing certain words more
accurately,—here and there translating a tense with greater
precision,—getting rid of a few archaisms? It may be confidently assumed
that no “Revision” of our Authorized Version, however judiciously
executed, will ever occupy the place in public esteem which is actually
enjoyed by the work of the Translators of 1611,—the noblest literary work
in the Anglo-Saxon language. We shall in fact never have _another_
“Authorized Version.” And this single consideration may be thought
absolutely fatal to the project, except in a greatly modified form. To be
brief,—As a companion in the study and for private edification: as a book
of reference for critical purposes, especially in respect of difficult and
controverted passages:—we hold that a revised edition of the Authorized
Version of our English Bible, (if executed with consummate ability and
learning,) would at any time be a work of inestimable value. The method of
such a performance, whether by marginal Notes or in some other way, we
forbear to determine. But certainly only as a handmaid is it to be
desired. As something _intended to supersede_ our present English Bible,
we are thoroughly convinced that the project of a rival Translation is not
to be entertained for a moment. For ourselves, we deprecate it entirely.
On the other hand, _who_ could have possibly foreseen what has actually come to pass since the Convocation of the Southern Province (in Feb. 1870) declared itself favourable to “a Revision of the Authorized Version,” and appointed a Committee of Divines to undertake the work? _Who_ was to suppose that the Instructions given to the Revisionists would be by them systematically disregarded? _Who_ was to imagine that an utterly untrustworthy “new Greek Text,” constructed on mistaken principles,—(say rather, on _no principles at all_,)—would be the fatal result? To speak more truly,—_Who_ could have anticipated that the opportunity would have been adroitly seized to inflict upon the Church the text of Drs. Westcott and Hort, in all its essential features,—a text which, as will be found elsewhere largely explained, we hold to be _the most vicious Recension of the original Greek in existence_? Above all,—_Who_ was to foresee that instead of removing “_plain_ and _clear errors_” from our Version, the Revisionists,—(besides systematically removing out of sight so many of the genuine utterances of the SPIRIT,)—would themselves introduce a countless number of blemishes, unknown to it before? Lastly, how was it to have been believed that the Revisionists would show themselves industrious in sowing broadcast over four continents doubts as to the Truth of Scripture, which it will never be in their power either to remove or to recal? _Nescit vox missa reverti._
For, the ill-advised practice of recording, in the margin of an English Bible, certain of the blunders—(such things cannot by any stretch of courtesy be styled “Various Readings”)—which disfigure “some” or “many” “ancient authorities,” can only result in hopelessly unsettling the faith of millions. It cannot be defended on the plea of candour,—the candour which is determined that men shall “know the worst.” “The worst”_ has_ NOT _been told_: and it were dishonesty to insinuate that _it has_. If all the cases were faithfully exhibited where “a few,” “some,” or “many ancient authorities” read differently from what is exhibited in the actual Text, not only would the margin prove insufficient to contain the record, but _the very page itself_ would not nearly suffice. Take a single instance (the first which comes to mind), of the thing referred to. Such illustrations might be multiplied to any extent:—
In S. Luke iii. 22, (in place of “Thou art my beloved Son; _in Thee I am well pleased_,”) the following authorities of the IInd, IIIrd and IVth centuries, read,—“_this day have I begotten Thee_:” viz.—codex D and the most ancient copies of the old Latin (a, b, c, ff-2, 1),—Justin Martyr in three places(384) (A.D. 140),—Clemens Alex.(385) (A.D. 190),—and Methodius(386) (A.D. 290) among the Greeks. Lactantius(387) (A.D. 300),—Hilary(388) (A.D. 350),—Juvencus(389) (A.D. 330),—Faustus(390) (A.D. 400), and—Augustine(391) amongst the Latins. The reading in question was doubtless derived from the _Ebionite Gospel_(392) (IInd cent.). Now, we desire to have it explained to us _why_ an exhibition of the Text supported by such an amount of first-rate primitive testimony as the preceding, obtains _no notice whatever_ in our Revisionists’ margin,—if indeed it was the object of their perpetually recurring marginal annotations, to put the unlearned reader on a level with the critical Scholar; to keep nothing back from him; and so forth?... It is the gross one-sidedness, the patent _unfairness_, in a critical point of view, of this work, (which professes to be nothing else but _a Revision of the English Version of_ 1611,)—which chiefly shocks and offends us.
For, on the other hand, of what possible use can it be to encumber the margin of S. Luke x. 41, 42 (for example), with the announcement that “A few ancient authorities read _Martha, Martha, thou art troubled: Mary hath chosen_ &c.” (the fact being, that D _alone_ of MSS. omits “_careful and ... about many things. But one thing is needful, and_” ...)? With the record of this circumstance, is it reasonable (we ask) to choke up our English margin,—to create perplexity and to insinuate doubt? The author of the foregoing marginal Annotation was of course aware that the same “singular codex” (as Bp. Ellicott styles cod. D) omits, in S. Luke’s Gospel alone, no less than 1552 words: and he will of course have ascertained (by counting) that the words in S. Luke’s Gospel amount to 19,941. Why then did he not tell _the whole_ truth; and instead of “_&c._,” proceed as follows?—“But inasmuch as cod. D is so scandalously corrupt that about _one word in thirteen_ is missing throughout, the absence of nine words in this place is of no manner of importance or significancy. The precious saying omitted is above suspicion, and the first half of the present Annotation might have been spared.”... We submit that a Note like that, although rather “singular” in style, really _would_ have been to some extent helpful,—if not to the learned, at least to the unlearned reader.
In the meantime, unlearned and learned readers alike are competent to see that the foregoing perturbation of S. Luke x. 41, 42 rests on _the same_ manuscript authority as the perturbation of ch. iii. 22, which immediately preceded it. The _Patristic_ attestation, on the other hand, of the reading which has been promoted to the margin, is almost _nil_: whereas _that_ of the neglected place has been shown to be considerable, very ancient, and of high respectability.
But in fact,—(let the Truth be plainly stated; for, when GOD’S Word is at stake, circumlocution is contemptible, while concealment would be a crime;)—“_Faithfulness_” towards the public, a stern resolve that the English reader “shall know the worst,” and all that kind of thing,—such considerations have had nothing whatever to do with the matter. A vastly different principle has prevailed with the Revisionists. Themselves the dupes of an utterly mistaken Theory of Textual Criticism, their supreme solicitude has been _to impose that same Theory_,—(_which is Westcott and Hort’s_,)—with all its bitter consequences, on the unlearned and unsuspicious public.
We shall of course be indignantly called upon to explain what we mean by so injurious—so damning—an imputation? For all reply, we are content to refer to the sample of our meaning which will be found below, in pp. 137-8. The exposure of what has there been shown to be the method of the Revisionists in respect of S. Mark vi. 11, might be repeated hundreds of times. It would in fact _fill a volume_. We shall therefore pass on, when we have asked the Revisionists in turn—_How they have dared_ so effectually to blot out those many precious words from the Book of Life, that no mere English reader, depending on the Revised Version for his knowledge of the Gospels, can by possibility suspect their existence?... Supposing even that it _was_ the calamitous result of their mistaken principles that they found themselves constrained on countless occasions, to omit from their Text precious sayings of our LORD and His Apostles,—what possible excuse will they offer for not having preserved a record of words so amply attested, _at least in their margin_?
Even so, however, the whole amount of the mischief which has been effected by our Revisionists has not been stated. For the Greek Text which they have invented proves to be so hopelessly depraved throughout, that if it were to be thrust upon the Church’s acceptance, we should be a thousand times worse off than we were with the Text which Erasmus and the Complutensian,—Stephens, and Beza, and the Elzevirs,—bequeathed to us upwards of three centuries ago. On this part of the subject we have remarked at length already [pp. 1-110]: yet shall we be constrained to recur once and again to the underlying Greek Text of the Revisionists, inasmuch as it is impossible to stir in any direction with the task before us, without being painfully reminded of its existence. Not only do the familiar Parables, Miracles, Discourses of our LORD, trip us up at every step, but we cannot open the first page of the Gospel—no, nor indeed read _the first line_—without being brought to a standstill. Thus,
1. S. Matthew begins,—“The book of the generation of JESUS CHRIST” (ver. 1).—Good. But here the margin volunteers two pieces of information: first,—“Or, _birth_: as in ver. 18.” We refer to ver. 18, and read—“Now the birth of JESUS CHRIST was on this wise.” Good again; but the margin says,—“Or, _generation_: as in ver. 1.” Are we then to understand that _the same Greek word_, diversely rendered in English, occurs in both places? We refer to the “_new_ Greek Text:” and there it stands,—γένεσις in either verse. But if the word be the same, why (on the Revisers’ theory) is it diversely rendered?
In the meantime, _who_ knows not that there is all the difference in the world between S. Matthew’s γέΝΕσις, in ver. 1,—and the same S. Matthew’s γέΝΝΗσις, in ver. 18? The latter, the Evangelist’s announcement of the circumstances of the human Nativity of CHRIST: the former, the Evangelist’s unobtrusive way of recalling the Septuagintal rendering of Gen. ii. 4 and v. 1:(393) the same Evangelist’s calm method of guiding the devout and thoughtful student to discern in the Gospel the History of the “new Creation,”—by thus providing that when first the Gospel opens its lips, it shall syllable the name of the first book of the elder Covenant? We are pointing out that it more than startles—it supremely offends—one who is even slenderly acquainted with the treasures of wisdom hid in the very diction of the N. T. Scriptures, to discover that a deliberate effort has been made to get rid of the very foremost of those notes of Divine intelligence, by confounding two words which all down the ages have been carefully kept distinct; and that this effort is the result of an exaggerated estimate of a few codices which happen to be written in the uncial character, viz. two of the IVth century (B א); one of the Vth (C); two of the VIth (P Z); one of the IXth (Δ); one of the Xth (S).
The Versions(394)—(which are our _oldest_ witnesses)—are perforce only partially helpful here. Note however, that _the only one which favours_ γένεσις is the heretical Harkleian Syriac, executed in the VIIth century. The Peschito and Cureton’s Syriac distinguish between γένεσις in ver. 1 and γέννησις in ver. 18: as do the Slavonic and the Arabian Versions. The Egyptian, Armenian, Æthiopic and Georgian, have only one word for both. Let no one suppose however that _therefore_ their testimony is ambiguous. It is γέννησις (_not_ γένεσις) which they exhibit, both in ver. 1 and in ver. 18.(395) The Latin (“_generatio_”) is an equivocal rendering certainly: but the earliest Latin writer who quotes the two places, (viz. Tertullian) employs the word “_genitura_” in S. Matth. i. 1,—but “_nativitas_” in ver. 18,—which no one seems to have noticed.(396) Now, Tertullian, (as one who sometimes wrote in Greek,) is known to have been conversant with the Greek copies of his day; and “his day,” be it remembered, is A.D. 190. He evidently recognized the parallelism between S. Matt. i. 1 and Gen. ii. 4,—where the old Latin exhibits “liber _creaturæ_” or “_facturæ_,” as the rendering of βίβλος γενέσεως. And so much for the testimony of the Versions.
But on reference to Manuscript and to Patristic authority(397) we are encountered by an overwhelming amount of testimony for γέννησις in ver. 18: and this, considering the nature of the case, is an extraordinary circumstance. Quite plain is it that the Ancients were wide awake to the difference between spelling the word with one N or with two,—as the little dissertation of the heretic Nestorius(398) in itself would be enough to prove. Γέννησις, in the meantime, is the word employed by Justin M.,(399)—by Clemens Alex.,(400)—by Athanasius,(401)—by Gregory of Nazianzus,(402)—by Cyril Alex.,(403)—by Nestorius,(404)—by Chrysostom,(405)—by Theodorus Mopsuest.,(406)—and by three other ancients.(407) Even more deserving of attention is it that Irenæus(408) (A.D. 170)—(whom Germanus(409) copies at the end of 550 years)—calls attention to the difference between the spelling of ver. 1 and ver. 18. So does Didymus:(410)—so does Basil:(411)—so does Epiphanius.(412)—Origen(413) (A.D. 210) is even eloquent on the subject.—Tertullian (A.D. 190) we have heard already.—It is a significant circumstance, that the only Patristic authorities discoverable on the other side are Eusebius, Theodoret, and the authors of an heretical Creed(414)—whom Athanasius holds up to scorn.(415) ... Will the Revisionists still pretend to tell us that γέννησις in verse 18 is a “_plain and clear error_”?
2. This, however, is not all. Against the words “of JESUS CHRIST,” a further critical annotation is volunteered; to the effect that “Some ancient authorities read _of the Christ_.” In reply to which, we assert that _not one single known MS._ omits the word “JESUS:” whilst its presence is vouched for by ps.-Tatian,(416)—Irenæus,—Origen,—Eusebius,—Didymus,— Epiphanius,—Chrysostom,—Cyril,—in addition to _every known Greek copy of the Gospels_, and not a few of the Versions, including the Peschito and both the Egyptian. What else but nugatory therefore is such a piece of information as this?
3. And so much for the first, second, and third Critical annotations, with which the margin of the revised N. T. is disfigured. Hoping that the worst is now over, we read on till we reach ver. 25, where we encounter a statement which fairly trips us up: viz.,—“And knew her not _till she had brought forth a son_.” No intimation is afforded of what has been here effected; but in the meantime every one’s memory supplies the epithet (“her first-born”) which has been ejected. Whether something very like indignation is not excited by the discovery that these important words have been surreptitiously withdrawn from their place, let others say. For ourselves, when we find that only א B Z and two cursive copies can be produced for the omission, we are at a loss to understand of what the Revisionists can have been dreaming. Did they know(417) that,—besides the Vulgate, the Peschito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Æthiopic, Armenian, Georgian, and Slavonian Versions,(418)—a whole torrent of Fathers are at hand to vouch for the genuineness of the epithet they were so unceremoniously excising? They are invited to refer to ps.-Tatian,(419)—to Athanasius,(420)—to Didymus,(421)—to Cyril of Jer.,(422)—to Basil,(423)—to Greg. Nyss.,(424)—to Ephraem Syr.,(425)—to Epiphanius,(426)—to Chrysostom,(427)—to Proclus,(428)—to Isidorus Pelus.,(429)—to John Damasc.,(430)—to Photius,(431)—to Nicetas:(432)—besides, of the Latins, Ambrose,(433)—the _Opus imp._,—Augustine,—and not least to Jerome(434)—eighteen Fathers in all. And how is it possible, (we ask,) that two copies of the IVth century (B א) and one of the VIth (Z)—all three without a character—backed by a few copies of the old Latin, should be supposed to be any counterpoise at all for such an array of first-rate contemporary evidence as the foregoing?
Enough has been offered by this time to prove that an authoritative 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.)
To the “_rule_” thus introduced to our notice, we shall recur by and by
[pp. 152-4: also pp. 187-202]. We proceed to remark on each of the five
principal Classes of alterations indicated by the Revisionists: and
first,—“Alterations positively required by change of reading in the Greek
Text” (_Ibid._).
(1) Thus, in S. John xii. 7, we find “_Suffer her to keep it_ against the day of my burying;” and in the margin (as an alternative), “Let her alone: _it was that she might keep it_.”—Instead of “as soon as JESUS heard the word,”—we are invited to choose between “_not heeding_,” and “_overhearing_ the word” (S. Mk. v. 36): these being intended for renderings of παρακούσας,—an expression which S. Mark certainly never employed.—“On earth, peace among men _in whom he is well pleased_” (S. Lu. ii. 14): where the margin informs us that “many ancient authorities read, _good pleasure among men_.” (And why not “_good will_,”—the rendering adopted in Phil. i. 15?) ... Take some more of the alterations which have resulted from the adoption of a corrupt Text:—“Why _askest thou me concerning that which is good_?” (Matth. xix. 17,—an absurd fabrication).—“He would fain _have been filled_ with the husks,” &c.... “and I perish _here_ with hunger!” (χορτασθῆναι, borrowed from Lu. xvi. 21: and εγΩΔΕωδε, a transparent error: S. Luke xv. 16, 17).—“When _it shall fail_, they may receive you into the eternal tabernacles” (xvi. 9).——Elizabeth “lifted up her voice _with a loud cry_” (κραυγή—the private property of three bad MSS. and Origen: Lu. i. 42).—“And _they stood still looking sad_” (xxiv. 17,—a foolish transcriptional blunder).—“The multitude _went up_ and began to ask him,” &c. (ἀναβάς for ἀναβοήσας, Mk. xv. 8).—“But is guilty of _an eternal sin_” (iii. 29).—“And the officers _received Him_ with blows of their hands,”—marg. “or _strokes of rods_:” ΕΛΑΒΟΝ for ΕΒΑΛΟΝ (xiv. 65).—“Else, that which should fill it up taketh from it, _the new from the old_” (ii. 21): and “No man _rendeth a piece from a new garment_ and putteth it upon an old garment; else _he will rend the new_,” &c. (Lu. v. 36).—“What is this? _a new teaching!_” (Mk. i. 27).—“JESUS saith unto him, _If thou canst!_” (Mk. ix. 23).—“Because of your _little __ faith_”(Matth. xvii. 20).—“_We must_ work the works of Him that sent Me, while it is day” (Jo. ix. 4).—“_The man that is called_ JESUS made clay” (ver. 11).—“If ye shall ask _Me anything in My name_” (xiv. 14).—“The Father abiding in Me _doeth His works_” (xiv. 10).—“If ye shall ask anything of the Father, _He will give it you in My name_” (xvi. 23).—“I glorified Thee on the earth, _having accomplished the work_ which Thou hast given Me to do” (xvii. 4).—“Holy Father, keep them _in Thy Name which_ Thou hast given Me ... I kept them _in Thy Name which_ Thou hast given me” (ver. 11, 12).—“She ... saith unto Him _in Hebrew_, Rabboni” (xx. 16).—“These things said Isaiah, _because_ he saw his glory” (xii. 41,—ΟΤΙ for ΟΤΕ, a common itacism).—“In tables _that are hearts of flesh_” (ἐν πλαξὶ καρδίαις σαρκίναις, a “perfectly absurd reading,” as Scrivener remarks, p. 442: 2 Cor. iii. 3).—“_Now if_ we put the horses’ bridles [and pray, why not ‘the horses’ _bits_’?] into their mouths” (ΕΙΔΕ, an ordinary itacism for ΙΔΕ, James iii. 3).—“Unto the sick were _carried away from his body_ handkerchiefs,” &c. (Acts xix. 12).—“_Ye know all things once for all_” (Jude ver. 5).—“_We love_ because he first loved us” (1 Jo. iv. 19).—“I have found _no work of thine fulfilled_ before my GOD” (Rev. iii. 2).—“Seven Angels _arrayed with [precious] stone_” (xv. 6), instead of “clothed in linen,” λίθον for λίνον. (Fancy the Angels “_clothed in stone_”! “Precious” is an interpolation of the Revisers).—“_Dwelling in_ the things which he hath seen:” for which the margin offers as an alternative, “_taking his stand upon_” (Colossians ii. 18). But ἐμβατεύων (the word here employed) clearly means neither the one nor the other. S. Paul is delivering a warning against unduly “_prying into_ the things _not_ seen.”(477) A few MSS. of bad character omit the “_not_.” That is all!... These then are a handful of the less conspicuous instances of a change in the English “positively required by a change of reading in the Greek Text:” every one of them being either a pitiful blunder or else a gross fabrication.—Take only two more: “I neither know, nor understand: _thou, what sayest thou?_” (Mk. xiv. 68 margin):—“And _whither I go, ye know the way_” (Jo. xiv. 4).... The A. V. is better in every instance.
(2) and (3) Next, alterations made because the A. V. “appeared to be incorrect” or else “obscure.” They must needs be such as the following:—“He that _is bathed_ needeth not save to wash his feet” (S. John xiii. 10).—“LORD, if he is fallen asleep _he will recover_” (σωθήσεται, xi. 12).—“Go ye therefore into _the partings of the highways_” (Matth. xxii. 9).—“Being grieved at _the hardening_ of their heart” (Mk. iii. 5).—“Light _a lamp_ and put it _on the stand_” (Matt. v. 15).—“Sitting at _the place of toll_” (ix. 9).—“The supplication of a righteous man availeth much _in its working_” (James v. 16).—“Awake up _righteously_” (1 Cor. xv. 34).—“_Guarded_ through faith unto _a salvation_” (1 Pet. i. 5).—“Wandering in ... _the holes of the earth_” (Heb. xi. 38—very queer places certainly to be “wandering” in).—“_She that is in Babylon_, elect together with you, saluteth you” (1 Pet. v. 13).—“Therefore do _these powers work in Him_” (Matth. xiv. 2).—“In danger of the _hell of fire_” (v. 22).—“_Put out_ into the deep” (Luke v. 4).—“The tomb that Abraham bought for _a price in silver_” (Acts vii. 16).
With reference to every one of these places, (and they are but samples of what is to be met with in every page,) we venture to assert that they are either _less_ intelligible, or else _more_ inaccurate, than the expressions which they are severally intended to supersede; while, in some instances, they are _both_. Will any one seriously contend that “_the hire of wrong-doing_” is better than “_the wages of unrighteousness_” (2 Pet. ii. 15)? or, will he venture to deny that, “Come and _dine_”—“so when they _had dined_,”—is a hundred times better than “Come and _break your fast_”—“so when they _had broken their fast_” (Jo. xxi. 12, 15)?—expressions which are only introduced because the Revisionists were ashamed (as well they might be) to write “breakfast” and “breakfasted.” The seven had not been “_fasting_.” Then, why introduce so incongruous a notion here,—any more than into S. Luke xi. 37, 38, and xiv. 12?
Has the reader any appetite for more specimens of “incorrectness” _remedied_ and “obscurity” _removed_? Rather, as it seems, have _both_ been largely imported into a Translation which was singularly intelligible before. Why darken Rom. vii. 1 and xi. 2 by introducing the interrogative particle, and then, by mistranslating it “_Or_”?—Also, why translate γένος “_race_”? (“a man of Cyprus _by race_,” “a man of Pontus _by race_,” “an Alexandrian _by race_,” Acts iv. 36: xviii. 2, 24).—“_If_ there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body,” say the Revisionists: “O death, where is thy victory? O _death_ where is thy sting?” (Could they not let even 1 Cor. xv. 44 and 55 alone?)—Why alter “For the bread of GOD is _He_,” into “For the bread of GOD is _that_ which cometh down from Heaven”? (Jo. vi. 33).—“_As long as I am_ in the world,” was surely better than “_When I am_ in the world, I am the light of the world” (ix. 5).—Is “_He went forth out of_ their hand” supposed to be an improvement upon “_He escaped out of_ their hand”? (x. 39): and is “They loved _the glory_ of men more than _the glory_ of GOD” an improvement upon “the _praise_”? (xii. 43).—“Judas saith unto Him, LORD, _what is come to pass_ that Thou wilt manifest Thyself to us”? Is _that_ supposed to be an improvement upon xiv. 22?—How is “_If then_” an improvement on “Forasmuch then” in Acts xi. 17?—or how is this endurable in Rom. vii. 15,—“For that which I do, I _know_ not: for _not what I would, that do I practise_:”—or this, in xvi. 25, “The mystery which hath been _kept in silence through times eternal_, but now is manifested,” &c.—“Thou therefore, _my child_,”—addressing the Bishop of Ephesus (2 Tim. ii. 1): and “Titus, _my true child_,”—addressing the Bishop of Crete (Tit. i. 4).
Are the following deemed improvements? “Every one that _doeth_ sin doeth also _lawlessness: and sin is lawlessness_” (1 Jo. iii. 4): “I will _move_ thy candlestick out of its place” (Rev. ii. 5):—“a _glassy_ sea” (iv. 6):—“a _great_ voice” (v. 12):—“Verily, not of Angels _doth He take hold_, but _He taketh hold_ of the seed of Abraham:”—“He _took hold of_ the blind man by _the hand_:”—“They _took hold of him_ and brought him unto the Areopagus” (Heb. ii. 16: S. Mk. viii. 23: Acts xvii. 19):—“wherefore GOD is not _ashamed of them_, to be called their GOD” (Acts xi. 16):—“_Counted it not a prize_ to be on an equality with GOD” (Phil. ii. 6).—Why are we to substitute “_court_” for “palace” in Matth. xxvi. 3 and Lu. xi. 21? (Consider Matth. xii. 29 and Mk. iii. 27).—“Women received their dead _by a resurrection_” (Heb. xi. 35):—“If ye forgive not every one _his brother from their hearts_” (Matth. xviii. 35):—“If _because of meat_ thy brother is grieved, thou walkest _no longer in love_” (Rom. xiv. 15):—“which GOD, who cannot lie, promised _before times eternal_; but _in his own seasons_ manifested _his word in the message_” (Tit. i. 2, 3):—“Your _pleasures_ [and why not ‘lusts’?] that war in your members” (James iv. 1):—“Behold _how much wood_ is kindled by _how small a fire_!” (iii. 5).—Are these really supposed to be less “obscure” than the passages they are intended to supersede?
(_a_) Not a few of the mistaken renderings of the Revisionists can only be established by an amount of illustration which is at once inconvenient to the Reviewer and unwelcome probably to the general Reader. Thus, we take leave to point out that,—“And _coming up_ at that very hour” (in Lu. ii. 38),—as well as “she _came up_ to Him” (in Lu. x. 40), are inexact renderings of the original. The verb ἐφιστάναι, which etymologically signifies “to stand upon,” or “over,” or “by,”—(but which retains its literal signification on only four out of the eighteen occasions(478) when the word occurs in the Gospels and Acts,)—is found almost invariably to denote the “_coming suddenly upon_” a person. Hence, it is observed to be used five times to denote the sudden appearance of friendly visitants from the unseen world:(479) and seven times, the sudden hostile approach of what is formidable.(480) On the two remaining occasions, which are those before us,—(namely, the sudden coming of Anna into the Temple(481) and of Martha into the presence of our LORD,(482))—“_coming suddenly in_” would probably represent S. Luke’s ἐπιστᾶσα exactly. And yet, one would hesitate to import the word “suddenly” into the narrative. So that “_coming in_” would after all have to stand in the text, although the attentive student of Scripture would enjoy the knowledge that something more is _implied_. In other words,—the Revisionists would have done better if they had left both places alone.... These are many words; yet is it impossible to explain such matters at once satisfactorily and briefly.
(_b_) But more painful by far it is to discover that a morbid striving after etymological accuracy,—added to a calamitous preference for a depraved Text,—has proved the ruin of one of the most affecting scenes in S. John’s Gospel. “Simon Peter beckoneth to him, _and saith unto him, Tell us who it is of whom He speaketh_” [a fabulous statement evidently; for Peter beckoned, because he might _not_ speak]. “He _leaning back, as he was_,”—[a very bad rendering of οὕτως, by the way; and sure to recal inopportunely the rendering of ὡς ἦν in S. Mark iv. 36, instead of suggesting (as it obviously ought) the original of S. John iv. 6:]—“on JESUS’ breast, saith unto Him, LORD who is it?” (S. John xiii. 24-5). Now, S. John’s word concerning himself in this place is certainly ἐπιπεσών. He “_just sank_”—let his head “_fall_”—on his Master’s breast, and whispered his question. For this, a few corrupt copies substitute ἀναπεσών. But ἀναπεσών _never_ means “_leaning back_.” It is descriptive of the posture of one _reclining at a meal_ (S. Jo. xiii. 12). Accordingly, it is 10 times rendered by the Revisionists to “_sit down_.” Why, in this place, and in chapter xxi. 20, _a new meaning_ is thrust upon the word, it is for the Revisionists to explain. But they must explain the matter a vast deal better than Bp. Lightfoot has done in his interesting little work on Revision (pp. 72-3), or they will fail to persuade any,—except one another.
(_c_) Thus it happens that we never spend half-an-hour over the unfortunate production before us without exclaiming (with one in the Gospel), “_The old is better_.” Changes of _any_ sort are unwelcome in such a book as the Bible; but the discovery that changes have been made _for the worse_, offends greatly. To take instances at random:—’Ὁ πλεῖστος ὄχλος (in Matth. xxi. 8) is rightly rendered in our A. V. “a _very great_ multitude.”(483) Why then has it been altered by the R. V. into “_the most part of_ the multitude”?—Ὁ πολὺς ὄχλος (Mk. xii. 37), in like manner, is rightly rendered “_the common people_,” and ought not to have been glossed in the margin “_the great multitude_.”—In the R. V. of Acts x. 15, we find “_Make_ thou not common,” introduced as an improvement on, “_That call_ not thou common.” But “the old is better:” for, besides its idiomatic and helpful “_That_,”—the old alone states the case truly. Peter did not “_make_,” he only “_called_,” something “common.”—“All the _male_ children,” as a translation of πάντας τοὺς παῖδας (in Matth. ii. 16) is an unauthorized statement. There is no reason for supposing that the female infants of Bethlehem were spared in the general massacre: and the Greek certainly conveys no such information.—“When he came into the house, JESUS _spake first_ to him”—is really an incorrect rendering of Matth. xvii. 25: at least, it imports into the narrative a notion which is not found in the Greek, and does not exhibit faithfully what the Evangelist actually says. “_Anticipated_,” in modern English,—“_prevented_,” in ancient phraseology,—“_was beforehand with him_” in language neither new nor old,—conveys the sense of the original exactly.—In S. Lu. vi. 35, “Love your enemies, ... and lend, _never despairing_,” is simply a mistaken translation of ἀπελπίζοντες, as the context sufficiently proves. The old rendering is the true one.(484) And so, learnedly, the Vulgate,—_nihil inde sperantes_. (Consider the use of ἀποβλέπειν [Heb. xi. 26]: ἀφορᾶν [Phil. ii. 23: Heb. xii. 2]: _abutor_, as used by Jerome for _utor_, &c.)—“Go with them _making no distinction_” is not the meaning of Acts xi. 12: which, however, was correctly translated before, viz. “nothing doubting.”—The mischievous change (“_save_” in place of “but”) in Gal. ii. 16 has been ably and faithfully exposed by Bp. Ollivant. In the words of the learned and pious Bp. of Lincoln, “it is illogical and erroneous, and _contradicts the whole drift of S. Paul’s Argument_ in that Epistle, and in the Epistle to the Romans.”
(_d_) We should be dealing insincerely with our Readers were we to conceal our grave dissatisfaction at not a few of the novel _expressions_ which the Revisionists have sought to introduce into the English New Testament. That the malefactors between whom “the LORD of glory” was crucified were not ordinary “_thieves_” is obvious; yet would it have been wiser, we think, to leave the old designation undisturbed. We shall never learn to call them “_robbers_.”—“The king sent forth _a soldier of his guard_” is a gloss—not a translation of S. Mark vi. 27. “_An executioner_” surely is far preferable as the equivalent for σπεκουλάτωρ!(485)—“_Assassins_” (as the rendering of σικάριοι) is an objectionable substitute for “murderers.” A word which “belongs probably to a romantic chapter in the history of the Crusades”(486) has no business in the N. T.—And what did these learned men suppose they should gain by substituting “_the twin brothers_” for “_Castor and Pollux_” in Acts xxviii. 11? The Greek (Διόσκουροι) is neither the one nor the other.—In the same spirit, instead of, “they that received _tribute-money_” (in S. Matth. xvii. 24), we are now presented with “they that received _the half-shekel_:” and in verse 27,—instead of “when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find _a piece of money_,” we are favoured with “thou shalt find _a shekel_.” But _why_ the change has been made, we fail to see. The margin is _still_ obliged to explain that not one of these four words is found in the original: the Greek in the former place being τὰ δίδραχμα,—in the latter, στατήρ.—“_Flute-players_” (for “minstrels”) in S. Matthew ix. 23, is a mistake. An αὐλητής played _the pipe_ (αὐλός, 1 Cor. xiv. 7),—hence “pipers” in Rev. xviii. 22; (where by the way μουσικοί [“musicians”] is perversely and less accurately rendered “_minstrels_”).—Once more. “_Undressed_ cloth” (Mk. ii. 21), because it is an expression popularly understood only in certain districts of England, and a _vox artis_, ought not to have been introduced into the Gospels. “_New_” is preferable.—“_Wine-skins_” (Mtt. ix. 17: Mk. ii. 22: Lu. v. 37) is a term unintelligible to the generality; as the Revisionists confess, for they explain it by a note,—“That is, _skins used as bottles_.” What else is this but substituting a new difficulty for an old one?—“_Silver_,” now for the first time thrust into Acts viii. 20, is unreasonable. Like “argent” in French, ἀργύριον as much means “money,” here as in S. Matthew xxv. 18, 27, &c.—In S. James ii. 19, we should like to know what is gained by the introduction of the “_shuddering_” devils.—To take an example from a different class of words,—Who will say that “Thou _mindest_ not the things of GOD” is a better rendering of οὐ φρονεῖς, than the old “Thou _savourest_ not,”—which at least had no ambiguity about it?... A friend points out that Dr. Field (a “master in Israel”) has examined 104 of the changes _made_ in the Revised Version; and finds 8 questionable: 13 unnecessary: 19 faulty (_i.e._ cases in which the A. V. required amendment, but which the R. V. has not succeeded in amending): 64 _changes for the worse_.(487)... This is surely a terrible indictment for such an one as Dr. Field to bring against the Revisers,—_who were directed only to correct_ “PLAIN AND CLEAR ERRORS.”
(_e_) We really fail to understand how it has come to pass that, notwithstanding the amount of scholarship which sometimes sat in the Jerusalem Chamber, so many novelties are found in the present Revision which betoken a want of familiarity with the refinements of the Greek language on the one hand; and (what is even more inexcusable) only a slender acquaintance with the resources and proprieties of English speech, on the other. A fair average instance of this occurs in Acts xxi. 37, where (instead of “_Canst_ thou _speak_ Greek?”) Ἑλληνιστὶ γινώσκεις? is rendered “_Dost_ thou _know_ Greek?” That γινώσκειν means “to know” (and not “to speak”) is undeniable: and yet, in the account of all, except the driest and stupidest of pedagogues, Ἑλληνιστὶ γινώσκεις; must be translated “Canst thou _speak_ Greek?” For (as every schoolboy is aware) Ἑλληνιστί is an adverb, and signifies “_in Greek fashion_:” so that something has to be supplied: and the full expression, if it must needs be given, would be, “Dost thou know [how to talk] in Greek?” But then, this condensation of phrase proves to be the established idiom of the language:(488) so that the rejection of the learned rendering of Tyndale, Cranmer, the Geneva, the Rheims, and the Translators of 1611 (“_Canst thou speak_ Greek?”)—the rejection of this, at the end of 270 years, in favour of “_Dost thou know_ Greek?” really betrays ignorance. It is worse than bad Taste. It is a stupid and deliberate _blunder_.
(_f_) The substitution of “_they weighed unto him_” (in place of “_they covenanted with him for_”) “thirty pieces of silver” (S. Matth. xxvi. 15) is another of those plausible mistakes, into which a little learning (proverbially “a dangerous thing”) is for ever conducting its unfortunate possessor; but from which it was to have been expected that the undoubted attainments of some who frequented the Jerusalem Chamber would have effectually preserved the Revisionists. That ἔστησαν is intended to recal Zech. xi. 12, is obvious; as well as that _there_ it refers to the ancient practice of _weighing_ uncoined money. It does not, however, by any means follow, that it was customary to _weigh_ shekels in the days of the Gospel. Coined money, in fact, was never weighed, but always counted; and these were shekels, _i.e._ _didrachms_ (Matth. xvii. 24). The truth (it lies on the surface) is, that there exists a happy ambiguity about the word ἔστησαν, of which the Evangelist has not been slow to avail himself. In the particular case before us, it is expressly recorded that in the first instance money did _not_ pass,—only a bargain was made, and a certain sum promised. S. Mark’s record is that the chief priests were glad at the proposal of Judas, “_and promised_ to give him money” (xiv. 11): S. Luke’s, that “_they covenanted_” to do so (xxii. 5, 6). And with this, the statement of the first Evangelist is found to be in strictest agreement. The chief Priests “set” or “appointed”(489) him a certain sum. The perfectly accurate rendering of S. Matth. xxvi. 15, therefore, exhibited by our Authorized Version, has been set aside to make way for _a misrepresentation of the Evangelist’s meaning_. “In the judgment of the most competent scholars,” was “such change NECESSARY”?
(_g_) We respectfully think that it would have been more becoming in such a company as that which assembled in the Jerusalem Chamber, as well as more consistent with their Instructions, if _in doubtful cases_ they had abstained from touching the Authorized Version, but had recorded their own conjectural emendations _in the margin_. How rash and infelicitous, for example, is the following rendering of the famous words in Acts xxvi. 28, 29, which we find thrust upon us without apology or explanation; without, in fact, any marginal note at all:—“And Agrippa said unto Paul, _With but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me_ a Christian. And Paul said, I would to GOD, that whether _with little or with much_,” &c. Now this is indefensible. For, in the first place, to get any such meaning out of the words, our Revisionists have been obliged to substitute the fabricated ποιῆσαι (the peculiar property of א A B and a few cursives) for γενέσθαι in ver. 28. Moreover, even so, the words do not yield the required sense. We venture to point out, that this is precisely one of the occasions where the opinion of a first-rate Greek Father is of paramount importance. The moderns confess themselves unable to discover a single instance of the phrase ἐν ὀλίγῳ in the sense of “_within a little_.” Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 350) and Chrysostom (A.D. 400), on the contrary, evidently considered that here the expression can mean nothing else; and they were competent judges, seeing that Greek was their native language: far better judges (be it remarked in passing) on a point of this kind than the whole body of Revisionists put together. “Such an amount of victorious grace and wisdom did Paul derive from the HOLY SPIRIT” (says Cyril), “that even King Agrippa at last exclaimed,”(490) &c. From which it is evident that Cyril regarded Agrippa’s words as an avowal that he was well-nigh overcome by the Apostle’s argument. And so Chrysostom,(491) who says plainly that ἐν ὀλίγῳ means “within a little,”(492) and assumes that “within a little” S. Paul had persuaded his judge.(493) He even puts παρ᾽ ὀλίγον into Agrippa’s mouth.(494) So also, in effect, Theodoret.(495) From all which it is reasonable, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, to infer that our A. V. reflects faithfully what was the Church’s traditionary interpretation of Acts xxvi. 28 in the first half of the fourth century. Let it only be added that a better judge of such matters than any who frequented the Jerusalem Chamber—the late President of Magdalen, Dr. Routh,—writes: “_Vertendum esse sequentia suadent, Me fere Christianum fieri suades. Interp. Vulgata habet, In modico suades me Christianum fieri._”(496) Yes, the Apostle’s rejoinder fixes the meaning of what Agrippa had said before.—And this shall suffice. We pass on, only repeating our devout wish that what the Revisionists failed to understand, or were unable _materially and certainly_ to improve, they would have been so obliging as to let alone. In the present instance the A. V. is probably right; the R. V., probably wrong. No one, at all events, can pretend that the rendering with which we are all familiar is “_a plain and clear error_.” And confessedly, unless it was, it should have been left unmolested. But to proceed.
(4) and (5) There can be no question as to the absolute duty of rendering identical expressions _in strictly parallel places of the Gospels_ by strictly identical language. So far we are wholly at one with the Revisionists. But “alterations [supposed to be] rendered necessary _by consequence_” (_Preface_, iii. 2.), are quite a different matter: and we venture to think that it is precisely in their pursuit of a mechanical uniformity of rendering, that our Revisionists have most often as well as most grievously lost their way. We differ from them in fact _in limine_. “When a particular word” (say they) “is found to recur with characteristic frequency in any one of the Sacred Writers, it is obviously desirable to adopt for it some uniform rendering” (iii. 2). “Desirable”! Yes, but in what sense? It is much to be desired, no doubt, that the English language always contained _the exact counterparts_ of Greek words: and of course, if it did, it would be in the highest degree “desirable” that a Translator should always employ those words and no other. But then it happens unfortunately that _precisely equivalent words do not exist_. Τέκνον, nine times out of ten signifies nothing else but “_child_.” On the tenth occasion, however, (_e.g._ where Abraham is addressing the rich man in Hades,) it would be absurd so to render it. We translate “_Son_.” We are in fact without choice.—Take another ordinary Greek term, σπλάγχνα, which occurs 11 times in the N. T., and which the A. V. uniformly renders “bowels.” Well, and “bowels” confessedly σπλάγχνα are. Yet have our Revisionists felt themselves under the “necessity” of rendering the word “_heart_,” in Col. iii. 12,—“_very heart_,” in Philemon, ver. 12,—“affections” in 2 Cor. vi. 12,—“_inward affection_,” in vii. 15,—“_tender mercies_” in Phil. i. 8,—“_compassion_” in 1 Jo. iii. 17,—“_bowels_” only in Acts i. 18.—These learned men, however, put forward in illustration of their own principle of translation, the word εὐθέως,—which occurs about 80 times in the N. T.: nearly half the instances being found in S. Mark’s Gospel. We accept their challenge; and assert that it is tasteless barbarism to seek to impose upon εὐθέως,—no matter _what_ the context in which it stands,—the sense of “_straightway_,”—only because εὐθύς, the adjective, generally (not always) means “straight.” Where a miracle of healing is described (as in S. Matth. viii. 3: xx. 34. S. Lu. v. 13), since the benefit was no doubt instantaneous, it is surely the mere instinct of “faithfulness” to translate εὐθέως “_immediately_.” So, in respect of the sudden act which saved Peter from sinking (S. Matth. xiv. 31); and that punctual cock-crow (xxvi. 74), which (S. Luke says) did not so much follow, as _accompany_ his denial (xxii. 60). But surely not so, when _the growth of a seed_ is the thing spoken of (Matth. xiii. 5)! Acts again, which must needs have occupied some little time in the doing, reasonably suggest some such rendering as “_forthwith_” or “_straightway_,”—(_e.g._ S. Matth. xiv. 22: xxi. 2: and S. John vi. 21): while, in 3 John ver. 14, the meaning (as the Revisionists confess) can only be “_shortly_.”... So plain a matter really ought not to require so many words. We repeat, that the Revisionists set out with a mistaken Principle. They clearly _do not understand their Trade_.
They invite our attention to their rendering of certain of the Greek Tenses, and of the definite Article. We regret to discover that, in both respects, their work is disfigured throughout by changes which convict a majority of their body alike of an imperfect acquaintance with the genius of the Greek language, and of scarcely a moderate appreciation of the idiomatic proprieties of their own. Such a charge must of necessity, when it has been substantiated, press heavily upon such a work as the present; for it is not as when a solitary error has been detected, which may be rectified. A vicious _system_ of rendering Tenses, and representing the Greek Article, is sure to crop up in every part of the undertaking, and must occasionally be attended by consequences of a serious nature.
1. Now, that we may not be misunderstood, we admit at once that, in teaching _boys_ how to turn Greek into English, we insist that every tense shall be marked by its own appropriate sign. There is no telling how helpful it will prove in the end, that every word shall at first have been rendered with painful accuracy. Let the Article be [mis-]represented—the Prepositions caricatured—the Particles magnified,—let the very order of the words at first, (however impossible,) be religiously retained. Merciless accuracy having been in this way acquired, a youth has to be _un_taught these servile habits. He has to be reminded of the requirements of the _English idiom_, and speedily becomes aware that the idiomatic rendering of a Greek author into English, is a higher achievement by far, than his former slavish endeavour always to render the same word and tense in the same slavish way.
2. But what supremely annoys us in the work just now under review is, that the schoolboy method of translation already noticed is therein exhibited in constant operation throughout. It becomes oppressive. We are never permitted to believe that we are in the company of Scholars who are altogether masters of their own language. Their solicitude ever seems to be twofold:—(1) To exhibit a singular indifference to the proprieties of English speech, while they maintain a servile adherence (etymological or idiomatic, as the case may be) to the Greek:—(2) Right or wrong, to part company from William Tyndale and the giants who gave us our “Authorized Version.”
Take a few illustrations of what precedes from the second chapter of S. Matthew’s Gospel:—
(1.) Thus, in ver. 2, the correct English rendering “_we have seen_” is made to give place to the incorrect “_we saw_ his star in the east.”—In ver. 9, the idiomatic “_when they had heard the king_, they departed,” is rejected for the unidiomatic “And they, _having heard the king_, went their way.”—In ver. 15, we are treated to “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the LORD _through_ the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt _did I call_ my son.” And yet who sees not, that in both instances the old rendering is better? Important as it may be, _in the lecture-room_, to insist on what is implied by τὸ ῥηθὲν ὙΠῸ τοῦ κυρίου ΔΙᾺ τοῦ προφήτου, it is simply preposterous to _come abroad_ with such refinements. It is to stultify oneself and to render one’s author unintelligible. Moreover, the attempt to be so wondrous literal is safe to break down at the end of a few verses. Thus, if διά is “_through_” in verse 15,—why not in verse 17 and in verse 23?
(2.) Note how infelicitously, in S. Matth. ii. 1, “there came wise men from the east” is changed into “_wise men from the east came_.”—In ver. 4, the accurate, “And when [Herod] had gathered together” (συναγαγών) &c., is displaced for the inaccurate, “And _gathering together_” &c.—In ver. 6, we are presented with the unintelligible, “And thou _Bethlehem, land of Judah_:” while in ver. 7, “Then Herod _privily called_ the wise men, and _learned of them carefully_,” is improperly put in the place of “Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently” (ἠκρίβωσε παρ᾽ αὐτῶν).—In ver. 11, the familiar “And when they were come into the house, they saw” &c., is needlessly changed into “They _came into the house_, and saw:” while “and when they had opened (ἀνοίξαντες) their treasures,” is also needlessly altered into “and _opening_ their treasures.”—In ver. 12, the R. V. is careful to print “_of _GOD” in italics, where italics are not necessary: seeing that χρηματισθέντες implies “being warned of GOD” (as the translators of 1611 were well aware(497)): whereas in countless other places the same Revisionists reject the use of italics where italics are absolutely required.—Their “until I _tell thee_” (in ver. 13) is a most unworthy substitute for “until I _bring thee word_.”—And will they pretend that they have improved the rendering of the concluding words of the chapter? If Ναζωραῖος κληθήσεται does not mean “He shall be called a Nazarene,” what in the world _does_ it mean? The ὅτι of quotation they elsewhere omit. Then why, here,—“_That_ it might be fulfilled ... _that_”?—Surely, every one of these is an alteration made for alteration’s sake, and in every instance _for the worse_.
We began by surveying _the Greek_ of the first chapter of S. Matthew’s Gospel. We have now surveyed _the English_ of the second chapter. What does the Reader think of the result?
IV. Next, the Revisionists invite attention to certain points of detail: and first, to their rendering of THE TENSES OF THE VERB. They begin with the Greek Aorist,—(in their account) “perhaps the most important” detail of all:—
“We have not attempted to violate the idiom of our language by forms of expression which it would not bear. But we have often ventured to represent the Greek aorist by the English preterite, even when the reader may find some passing difficulty in such a rendering, because we have felt convinced that the true meaning of the original was obscured by the presence of the familiar auxiliary. A remarkable illustration may be found in the seventeenth chapter of S. John’s Gospel.”—_Preface_, iii. 2,—(_latter part_).
(_a_) We turn to the place indicated, and are constrained to assure these
well-intentioned men, that the phenomenon we there witness is absolutely
fatal to their pretensions as “_Revisers_” of our Authorized Version. Were
it only “some passing difficulty” which their method occasions us, we
might have hoped that time would enable us to overcome it. But since it is
_the genius of the English language_ to which we find they have offered
violence; the fixed and universally-understood idiom of our native tongue
which they have systematically set at defiance; the matter is absolutely
without remedy. The difference between the A. V. and the R. V. seems to
ourselves to be simply this,—that the renderings in the former are the
idiomatic English representations of certain well-understood Greek tenses:
while the proposed substitutes are nothing else but the pedantic efforts
of mere grammarians to reproduce in another language idioms which it
abhors. But the Reader shall judge for himself: for _this_ at least is a
point on which every educated Englishman is fully competent to pass
sentence.
When our Divine LORD, at the close of His Ministry,—(He had in fact reached the very last night of His earthly life, and it wanted but a few hours of His Passion,)—when He, at such a moment, addressing the Eternal FATHER, says, ἐγώ σε ἐδόξασα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς; τὸ ἔργον ἐτελείωσα ... ἐφανέρωσά σου τὸ ὄνομα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, &c. [Jo. xvii. 4, 6], there can be no doubt whatever that, had He pronounced those words in English, He would have said (with our A. V.) “I _have glorified_ Thee on the earth: I _have finished_ the work:” “I _have manifested_ Thy Name.” The pedantry which (on the plea that the Evangelist employs the aorist, not the perfect tense,) would twist all this into the indefinite past,—“I glorified” ... “I finished” ... “I manifested,”—we pronounce altogether insufferable. We absolutely refuse it a hearing. Presently (in ver. 14) He says,—“I have given them Thy word; and the world _hath hated them_.” And in ver. 25,—“O righteous FATHER, the world _hath not known_ Thee; but I _have known_ Thee, and these _have known_ that Thou _hast sent_ Me.” _Who_ would consent to substitute for these expressions,—“the world hated them:” and “the world knew Thee not, but I knew Thee; and these knew that Thou didst send Me”?—Or turn to another Gospel. _Which_ is better,—“Some one hath touched Me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of Me,” (S. Lu. viii. 46):—or,—“Some one _did touch_ Me: for _I perceived_ that power _had gone forth_ from Me”?
When the reference is to an act so extremely recent, _who_ is not aware that the second of these renderings is abhorrent to the genius of the English language? As for ἔγνων, it is (like _novi_ in Latin) present in _sense_ though past in _form_,—here as in S. Lu. xvi. 3.—But turn to yet another Gospel. _Which_ is better in S. Matth. xvi. 7:—“_we took_ no bread,” or “It is because _we have taken_ no bread”?—Again. When Simon Peter (in reply to the command that he should thrust out into deep water and let down his net for a draught,) is heard to exclaim,—“Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at Thy word I will let down the net” (Lu. v. 5),—_who_ would tolerate the proposal to put in the place of it,—“Master, _we toiled all night_, and _took_ nothing: but at Thy word,” &c. It is not too much to declare that the idiom of the English language refuses peremptorily to submit to such handling. Quite in vain is it to encounter us with reminder that κοπιάσαντες and ἐλάβομεν are aorists. The answer is,—We know it: but we deny that it follows that the words are to be rendered “we _toiled_ all night, and _took_ nothing.” There are laws of English Idiom as well as laws of Greek Grammar: and when these clash in what is meant to be a translation into English out of Greek, the latter must perforce give way to the former,—or we make ourselves ridiculous, and misrepresent what we propose to translate.
All this is so undeniable that it ought not to require to be insisted upon. But in fact our Revisionists by their occasional practice show that they fully admit _the Principle_ we are contending for. Thus, ἧραν (in S. Jo. xx. 2 and 13) is by them translated “_they have taken_:”—ἱνατί με ἐγκατέλιπες; (S. Matt. xxvii. 46) “Why _hast Thou forsaken Me_?”(498):—ἔδειξα (S. Jo. x. 32) “_have I showed_:”—ἀπέστειλε (vi. 29) “_He hath sent_:”—ἠτιμάσατε (James ii. 6) “_ye have dishonoured_:”—ἐκαθάρισε (Acts x. 15) “_hath cleansed_:”—ἔστησεν (xvii. 31) “He _hath appointed_.” But indeed instances abound everywhere. In fact, the requirements of the case are often observed to _force_ them to be idiomatic. Τί ἐποίησας; (in Jo. xviii. 35), they rightly render “What _hast_ thou done?”:—and ἔγραψα (in 1 Jo. ii. 14, 21), “I _have_ written;”—and ἤκουσα (in Acts ix. 13), “I _have_ heard.”—On the other hand, by translating οὐκ εἴασεν (in Acts xxviii. 4), “_hath not suffered_,” they may be thought to have overshot the mark. They seem to have overlooked the fact that, when once S. Paul had been bitten by the viper, “the barbarians” looked upon him as _a dead man_; and therefore discoursed about what Justice “_did not_ suffer,” as about an entirely past transaction.
But now, _Who_ sees not that the admission, once and again deliberately made, that sometimes it is not only lawful, but even _necessary_, to accommodate the Greek aorist (when translated into English) with the sign of the perfect,—reduces the whole matter (of the signs of the tenses) to a mere question of _Taste_? In view of such instances as the foregoing, where severe logical necessity has compelled the Revisionists to abandon their position and fly, it is plain that their contention is at an end,—so far as _right_ and _wrong_ are concerned. They virtually admit that they have been all along unjustly forcing on an independent language an alien yoke.(499) Henceforth, it simply becomes a question to be repeated, as every fresh emergency arises,—Which then is _the more idiomatic_ of these two English renderings?... Conversely, twice at least (Heb. xi. 17 and 28), the Revisionists have represented the _Greek perfect_ by the English indefinite preterite.
(_b_) Besides this offensive pedantry in respect of the Aorist, we are often annoyed by an _unidiomatic_ rendering of the Imperfect. True enough it is that “the servants and the officers _were standing_ ... and _were warming_ themselves:” Peter also “_was standing_ with them and _was warming_ himself” (S. Jo. xviii. 18). But we do not so express ourselves in English, unless we are about to add something which shall _account for_ our particularity and precision. Any one, for example, desirous of stating what had been for years his daily practice, would say—“_I left_ my house.” Only when he wanted to explain that, on leaving it for the 1000th time, he met a friend coming up the steps to pay him a visit, would an Englishman think of saying, “_I was leaving_ the house.” A Greek writer, on the other hand, would not _trust_ this to the imperfect. He would use the present participle in the dative case, (“_To me, leaving my house_,”(500) &c.). One is astonished to have to explain such things.... “If therefore thou _art offering_ thy gift at the altar” (Matt. v. 23), may seem to some a clever translation. To ourselves, it reads like a senseless exaggeration of the original.(501) It sounds (and _is_) as unnatural as to say (in S. Lu. ii. 33) “And His father [a depravation of the text] and His mother _were marvelling_ at the things which were spoken concerning Him:”—or (in Heb. xi. 17) “yea, he that had received the promises _was offering up_ his only-begotten son:”—or, of the cripple at Lystra (Acts xiv. 9), “the same heard Paul _speaking_.”
(_c_) On the other hand, there are occasions confessedly when the Greek Aorist absolutely demands to be rendered into English by the sign of the _Pluperfect_. An instance meets us while we write: ὡς δὲ ἐπαύσατο λαλῶν (S. Lu. v. 4),—where our Revisionists are found to retain the idiomatic rendering of our Authorized Version,—“When He _had left_ speaking.” Of what possible avail could it be, on such an occasion, to insist that, because ἐπαύσατο is not in the pluperfect tense, it may not be accommodated with _the sign_ of the pluperfect when it is being translated into English?—The R. V. has shown less consideration in S. Jo. xviii. 24,—where “Now Annas _had sent_ Him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest,” is right, and wanted no revision.—Such places as Matth. xxvii. 60, Jo. xxi. 15, Acts xii. 17, and Heb. iv. 8, on the other hand, simply defy the Revisionists. For perforce Joseph “_had hewn_ out” (ἐλατόμησε) the new tomb which became our LORD’S: and the seven Apostles, confessedly, “_had dined_” (ἠρίστησαν): and S. Peter, of course, “declared unto them how the LORD _had brought him out_ of the prison” (ἐξήγαγεν): and it is impossible to substitute anything for “If Jesus [Joshua] _had given_ them rest” (κατέπαυσεν).—Then of course there are occasions, (not a few,) where the Aorist (often an indefinite present in Greek) claims to be Englished by the sign of the present tense: as where S. John says (Rev. xix. 6), “The LORD GOD Omnipotent reigneth” (ἐβασίλευσε). There is no striving against such instances. They _insist_ on being rendered according to the genius of the language into which it is proposed to render them:—as when ἔκειτο (in S. Jo. xx. 12) exacts for its rendering “_had lain_.”
(_d_) It shall only be pointed out here in addition, for the student’s benefit, that there is one highly interesting place (viz. S. Matth. xxviii. 2), which in every age has misled Critics and Divines (as Origen and Eusebius); Poets (as Rogers); Painters (as West);—yes, and will continue to mislead readers for many a year to come:—and all because men have failed to perceive that the aorist is used there for the pluperfect. Translate,—“There _had been_ a great earthquake:” [and so (1611-1881) our margin,—until in short “the Revisionists” interfered:] “for the Angel of the LORD _had_ descended from heaven, and _come and rolled away_ (ἀπεκύλισε) the stone from the door, and sat upon it.” Strange, that for 1800 years Commentators should have failed to perceive that the Evangelist is describing what terrified “_the keepers_.” “_The women_” saw no Angel sitting upon the stone!—though Origen,(502)—Dionysius of Alexandria,(503)—Eusebius,(504)—ps.-Gregory Naz.,(505)—Cyril Alex.,(506)—Hesychius,(507)—and so many others—have taken it for granted that they _did_.
(_e_) Then further, (to dismiss the subject and pass on,)—There are occasions where the Greek _perfect_ exacts the sign of the _present_ at the hands of the English translator: as when Martha says,—“Yea LORD, I _believe_ that Thou art the CHRIST” (S. Jo. xi. 27).(508) What else but the veriest pedantry is it to thrust in there “_I have believed_,” as the English equivalent for πεπίστευκα?—Just as intolerable is the officiousness which would thrust into the LORD’S prayer (Matt. vi. 12), “as we also _have forgiven_ (ἀφήκαμεν) our debtors.”(509)—On the other hand, there are Greek _presents_ (whatever the Revisionists may think) which are just as peremptory in requiring _the sign of the future_, at the hands of the idiomatic translator into English. Three such cases are found in S. Jo. xvi. 16, 17, 19. Surely, the future is _inherent_ in the present ἔρχομαι! In Jo. xiv. 18 (and many similar places), who can endure, “I will not leave you desolate: _I come unto you_”?
(_f_) But instances abound. How does it happen that the inaccurate rendering of ἐκκόπτεται—ἐκβάλλεται—has been retained in S. Matth. iii. 10, S. Lu. iii. 9?
V. Next, concerning the DEFINITE ARTICLE; in the case of which, (say the Revisionists,)
“many changes have been made.” “We have been careful to observe the use of the Article wherever it seemed to be idiomatically possible: where it did not seem to be possible, we have yielded to necessity.”—(_Preface_, iii. 2,—_ad fin._)
In reply, instead of offering counter-statements of our own we content
ourselves with submitting a few specimens to the Reader’s judgment; and
invite him to decide between the Reviewer and the Reviewed ... “_The_
sower went forth to sow” (Matth. xiii. 3).—“It is greater than _the_
herbs” (ver. 32).—“Let him be to thee as _the_ Gentile and _the_ publican”
(xviii. 17).—“The unclean spirit, when he is gone out of _the_ man” (xii.
43).—“Did I not choose you _the_ twelve?” (Jo. vi. 70).—“If I then, _the_
Lord and _the_ master” (xiii. 14).—“For _the_ joy that a man is born into
the world” (xvi. 21).—“But as touching Apollos _the_ brother” (1 Cor. xvi.
12).—“_The_ Bishop must be blameless ... able to exhort in _the_ sound
doctrine” (Titus i. 7, 9).—“_The_ lust when it hath conceived, beareth
sin: and _the_ sin, when it is full grown” &c. (James i. 15).—“Doth _the_
fountain send forth from the same opening sweet water and bitter?” (iii.
11).—“Speak thou the things which befit _the_ sound doctrine” (Titus ii.
1).—“The time will come when they will not endure _the_ sound doctrine” (2
Tim. iv. 3).—“We had _the_ fathers of our flesh to chasten us” (Heb. xii.
9).—“Follow after peace with all men, and _the_ sanctification” (ver.
14).—“Who is _the_ liar but he that denieth that JESUS is the CHRIST?” (1
Jo. ii. 22).—“Not with _the_ water only, but with _the_ water and with
_the_ blood” (v. 6).—“He that hath the SON, hath _the_ life: he that hath
not the SON of GOD hath not _the_ life” (ver. 12).
To rejoin, as if it were a sufficient answer, that the definite Article is found in all these places in the original Greek,—is preposterous. In French also we say “Telle est _la_ vie:” but, in translating from the French, we do not _therefore_ say “Such is _the_ life.” May we, without offence, suggest the study of Middleton _On the Doctrine of the Greek Article_ to those members of the Revisionists’ body who have favoured us with the foregoing crop of mistaken renderings?
So, in respect of the indefinite article, we are presented with,—“_An_ eternal” (for “_the_ everlasting”) “gospel to proclaim” (Rev. xiv. 6):—and “one like unto _a_ son of man,” for “one like unto _the_ Son of Man” in ver. 14.—Why “_a_ SAVIOUR” in Phil. iii. 20? There is but one! (Acts iv. 12).—On the other hand, Κρανίον is rendered “_The_ skull” in S. Lu. xxiii. 33. It is hard to see why.—These instances taken at random must suffice. They might be multiplied to any extent. If the Reader considers that the idiomatic use of the English Article is understood by the authors of these specimen cases, we shall be surprised, and sorry—_for him_.
VI. The Revisionists announce that they “have been particularly careful” as to THE PRONOUNS [iii. 2 _ad fin._] We recal with regret that this is also a particular wherein we have been specially annoyed and offended. Annoyed—at their practice of _repeating the nominative_ (_e.g._ in Mk. i. 13: Jo. xx. 12) to an extent unknown, abhorrent even, to our language, except indeed when a fresh substantive statement is made: offended—at their license of translation, _when it suits them_ to be licentious.—Thus, (as the Bp. of S. Andrews has well pointed out,) “_it is He that_” is an incorrect translation of αὐτός in S. Matth. i. 21,—a famous passage. Even worse, because it is unfair, is “_He who_” as the rendering of ὅς in 1 Tim. iii. 16,—another famous passage, which we have discussed elsewhere.(510)
VII. ’In the case of the PARTICLES’ (say the Revisionists),
“we have been able to maintain a reasonable amount of _consistency_. The Particles in the Greek Testament are, as is well known, comparatively few, and they are commonly used with precision. It has therefore been the more necessary here to preserve a general _uniformity of rendering_.”—(iii. 2 _ad fin._)
Such an announcement, we submit, is calculated to occasion nothing so much
as uneasiness and astonishment. Of all the parts of speech, the Greek
Particles,—(especially throughout the period when the Language was in its
decadence,)—are the least capable of being drilled into “a general
uniformity of rendering;” and he who tries the experiment ought to be the
first to be aware of the fact. The refinement and delicacy which they
impart to a narrative or a sentiment, are not to be told. But then, from
the very nature of the case, “_uniformity of rendering_” is precisely the
thing they will not submit to. They take their colour from their context:
often mean two quite different things in the course of two successive
verses: sometimes are best rendered by a long and formidable word;(511)
sometimes cannot (without a certain amount of impropriety or
inconvenience) be rendered _at all_.(512) Let us illustrate what we have
been saying by actual appeals to Scripture.
(1) And first, we will derive our proofs from the use which the sacred Writers make of the particle of most frequent recurrence—δέ. It is said to be employed in the N. T. 3115 times. As for its meaning, we have the unimpeachable authority of the Revisionists themselves for saying that it may be represented by any of the following words:—“but,”—“and,”(513)—“yea,”(514)—“what,”(515)—“now,”(516)—“and that”,(517)—“howbeit,”(518)—“even,”(519)—“therefore,”(520)—“I say,”(521)—“also,”(522)—“yet,”(523)—“for.”(524) To which 12 renderings, King James’s translators (mostly following Tyndale) are observed to add at least these other 12:—“wherefore,”(525)—“so,”(526)—“moreover,”(527)—“yea and,”(528)—“furthermore,”(529)—“nevertheless,”(530)—“notwithstanding,”(531)—“yet but,”(532)—“truly,”(533)—“or,”(534)—“as for,”(535)—“then,”(536)—“and yet.”(537) It shall suffice to add that, by the pitiful substitution of “but” or “and” on _most_ of the foregoing occasions, the freshness and freedom of almost every passage has been made to disappear: the plain fact being that the men of 1611—above all, that William Tyndale 77 years before them—produced a work of real genius; seizing with generous warmth the meaning and intention of the sacred Writers, and perpetually varying the phrase, as they felt, or fancied that Evangelists and Apostles would have varied it, had they had to express themselves in English: whereas the men of 1881 have fulfilled their task in what can only be described as _a spirit of servile pedantry_. The Grammarian (pure and simple) crops up everywhere. We seem never to rise above the atmosphere of the lecture-room,—the startling fact that μέν means “indeed,” and δέ “but.”
We subjoin a single specimen of the countless changes introduced in the rendering of Particles, and then hasten on. In 1 Cor. xii. 20, for three centuries and a half, Englishmen have been contented to read (with William Tyndale), “But now are they many members, YET BUT one body.” Our Revisionists, (overcome by the knowledge that δέ means “but,” and yielding to the supposed “necessity for preserving a general uniformity of rendering,”) substitute,—“_But_ now they are many members, _but_ one body.” Comment ought to be superfluous. We neither overlook the fact that δέ occurs here twice, nor deny that it is fairly represented by “but” in the first instance. We assert nevertheless that, on the second occasion, “YET BUT” ought to have been let alone. And this is a fair sample of the changes which have been effected _many times in every page_. To proceed however.
(2) The interrogative particle ἤ occurs at the beginning of a sentence at least 8 or 10 times in the N. T.; first, in S. Matth. vii. 9. It is often scarcely translateable,—being apparently invested with with no more emphasis than belongs to our colloquial interrogative “_Eh?_” But sometimes it would evidently bear to be represented by “Pray,”(538)—being at least equivalent to φέρε in Greek or _age_ in Latin. Once only (viz. in 1 Cor. xiv. 36) does this interrogative particle so eloquently plead for recognition in the text, that both our A. V. and the R. V. have rendered it “What?”—by which word, by the way, it might very fairly have been represented in S. Matth. xxvi. 53 and Rom. vi. 3: vii. 1. In five of the places where the particle occurs. King James’s Translators are observed to have give it up in despair.(539) But what is to be thought of the adventurous dulness which (with the single exception already indicated) has _invariably_ rendered ἤ by the conjunction “_or_”? The blunder is the more inexcusable, because the intrusion of such an irrelevant conjunction into places where it is without either use or meaning cannot have failed to attract the notice of every member of the Revising body.
(3) At the risk of being wearisome, we must add a few words.—Καί, though no particle but a conjunction, may for our present purpose be reasonably spoken of under the same head; being diversely rendered “and,”—“and yet,”(540)—“then,”(541)—“or,”(542)—“neither,”(543)—“though,”(544)—“so,”(545)—“but,”(546)—“for,”(547)—“that,”(548)—in conformity with what may be called the genius of the English language. The last six of these renderings, however, our Revisionists disallow; everywhere thrusting out the word which the argument seems rather to require, and with mechanical precision thrusting into its place every time the (perfectly safe, but often palpably inappropriate) word, “and.” With what amount of benefit this has been effected, one or two samples will sufficiently illustrate:—
(_a_) The Revisionists inform us that when “the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth,”—S. Paul exclaimed, “GOD shall smite thee, thou whited wall: AND sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?”(549)... Do these learned men really imagine that they have improved upon the A. V. by their officiousness in altering “FOR” into “AND”?
(_b_) The same Apostle, having ended his argument to the Hebrews, remarks,—“_So_ we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief” (Heb. iii. 19): for which, our Revisionists again substitute “And.” Begin the sentence with “AND,” (instead of “So,”) and, in compensation for what you have clearly _lost_, what have you _gained_?... Once more:—
(_c_) Consider what S. Paul writes concerning Apollos (in 1 Cor. xvi. 12), and then say what possible advantage is obtained by writing “AND” (instead of “BUT”) “his will was not at all to come at this time”.... Yet once more; and on _this_ occasion, scholarship is to some extent involved:—
(_d_) When S. James (i. 11) says ἀνέτειλε γὰρ ὁ ἥλιος ... καὶ ἐξήρανε τὸν χόρτον,—_who_ knows not that what his language strictly means in idiomatic English, is,—“_No sooner_ does the sun arise,” “_than_ it withereth the grass”? And so in effect our Translators of 1611. What possible improvement on this can it be to substitute, “For the sun ariseth ... AND withereth the grass”?—Only once more:—
(_e_) Though καί undeniably means “and,” and πῶς, “how,”—_who_ knows not that καὶ πῶς means “_How then?_” And yet, (as if a stupid little boy had been at work,) in two places,—(namely, in S. Mark iv. 13 and S. Luke xx. 44,)—“AND HOW” is found mercilessly thrust in, to the great detriment of the discourse; while in other two,—(namely, in S. John xiv. 5 and 9,)—the text itself has been mercilessly deprived of its characteristic καί by the Revisionists.—Let this suffice. One might fill many quires of paper with such instances of tasteless, senseless, vexatious, and _most unscholarlike_ innovation.
VIII. “Many changes” (we are informed) “have been introduced in the rendering of the PREPOSITIONS.” [_Preface_, iii. 2, _ad fin._]:—and we are speedily reminded of the truth of the statement, for (as was shown above [pp. 155-6]) the second chapter of S. Matthew’s Gospel exhibits the Revisionists “all a-field” in respect of διά. “We have rarely made any change” (they add) “where the true meaning of the original would be apparent to _a Reader of ordinary intelligence_.” It would of course ill become such an one as the present Reviewer to lay claim to the foregoing flattering designation: but really, when he now for the first time reads (in Acts ix. 25) that the disciples of Damascus let S. Paul down “_through the wall_,” he must be pardoned for regretting the absence of a marginal reference to the history of Pyramus and Thisbe in order to suggest _how_ the operation was effected: for, as it stands, the R. V. is to him simply unintelligible. Inasmuch as the basket (σπυρίς) in which the Apostle effected his escape was of considerable size, do but think what an extravagantly large hole it must have been to enable them _both_ to get through!... But let us look further.
Was it then in order to bring Scripture within the _captus_ of “a Reader of ordinary intelligence” that the Revisers have introduced no less than _thirty changes_ into _eight-and-thirty words_ of S. Peter’s 2nd Epistle? Particular attention is invited to the following interesting specimen of “_Revision_.” It is the only one we shall offer of the many _contrasts_ we had marked for insertion. We venture also to enquire, whether the Revisers will consent to abide by it as a specimen of their skill in dealing with the Preposition ἐν?
A. V. R. V. “And beside all this, “Yea (1), and for (2) giving all diligence, add this very (3) cause (4) to your faith virtue; and adding (5) on (6) your to virtue knowledge; and part (7) all diligence, to knowledge temperance; in (8) your faith supply and to temperance (9) virtue; and in (10) patience; and to patience your (11) virtue godliness; and to knowledge; and in (12) godliness brotherly your (13) knowledge kindness; and to temperance; and in (14) brotherly kindness your (15) temperance charity.”—[2 Pet. i. patience; and in (16) 5-7.] your (17) patience
godliness; and in (18)
your (19) godliness love
(20) of (21) the (22)
brethren (23); and in
(24) your (25) love (26)
of (27) the (28) brethren
(29) love (30).”
The foregoing strikes us as a singular illustration of the Revisionists’ statement (_Preface_, iii. 2),—“We made _no_ change _if the meaning was fairly expressed_ by the word or phrase that was before us in the Authorized Version.” To ourselves it appears that _every one of those 30 changes is a change for the worse_; and that one of the most exquisite passages in the N. T. has been hopelessly spoiled,—rendered in fact well-nigh unintelligible,—by the pedantic officiousness of the Revisers. Were they—(if the question be allowable)—bent on removing none but “_plain and clear errors_,” when they substituted those 30 words? Was it in token of their stern resolve “to introduce into the Text _as few alterations as possible_,” that they spared the eight words which remain out of the eight-and-thirty?
As for their _wooden_ rendering of ἐν, it ought to suffice to refer them to S. Mk. i. 23, S. Lu. xiv. 31, to prove that sometimes ἐν can only be rendered “_with_”:—and to S. Luke vii. 17, to show them that ἐν sometimes means “_throughout_”:—and to Col. i. 16, and Heb. i. 1, 2, in proof that sometimes it means “_by_.”—On the other hand, their suggestion that ἐν may be rendered “_by_” in S. Luke i. 51, convicts them of not being aware that “the proud-in-the-imagination-of-their-hearts” is _a phrase_—in which perforce “_by_” has no business whatever. One is surprised to have to teach professed Critics and Scholars an elementary fact like this.
In brief, these learned men are respectfully assured that there is not one of the “Parts of Speech” which will consent to be handled after the inhumane fashion which seems to be to themselves congenial. Whatever they may think of the matter, it is nothing else but absurd to speak of an Angel “casting his sickle _into the earth_” (Rev. xiv. 19).—As for his “pouring out his bowl _upon the air_” (xvi. 17),—we really fail to understand the nature of the operation.—And pray, What is supposed to be the meaning of “the things _upon the heavens_”—in Ephesians i. 10?
Returning to the preposition διά followed by the genitive,—(in respect of which the Revisionists challenge Criticism by complaining in their Preface [iii. 3 _ad fin._] that in the A. V. “ideas of instrumentality or of mediate agency, distinctly marked in the original, have been _confused or obscured in the Translation_,”)—we have to point out:—
(1st) That these distinguished individuals seem not to be aware that the proprieties of English speech forbid the use of “_through_” (as a substitute for “_by_”) in certain expressions where instrumentality is concerned. Thus, “the Son of man” was not betrayed “_through_” Judas, but “_by_” him (Matt. xxvi. 24: Luke xxii. 22).—Still less is it allowable to say that a prophecy was “spoken,” nay “_written_,” “_through_ the Prophet” (Matth. i. 22 and margin of ii. 5). “Who spake BY_ the Prophets_,” is even an article of the Faith.
And (2ndly),—That these scholars have in consequence adopted a see-saw method of rendering διά,—sometimes in one way, sometimes in the other. First, they give us “wonders and signs done _by_ the Apostles” (Acts ii. 43; but in the margin, “Or, _through_”): presently, “a notable miracle hath been wrought _through_ them” (iv. 16: and this time, the margin withholds the alternative, “Or, _by_”). Is then “the true meaning” of “_by_,” in the former place, “apparent to a Reader of ordinary intelligence”? but so obscure in the latter as to render _necessary_ the alteration to “_through_”? Or (_sit venia verbo_),—Was it a mere “toss-up” with the Revisionists _what_ is the proper rendering of διά?
(3rdly), In an earlier place (ii. 22), we read of “miracles, wonders, and signs” which “GOD did _by_” JESUS of Nazareth. Was it reverence, which, on that occasion, forbad the use of “_through_”—even in the margin? We hope so: but the preposition is still the same—διά not ὑπό.
Lastly (4thly),—The doctrine that Creation is the work of the Divine WORD, all Scripture attests. “All things were made _by_ Him” (S. Jo. i. 3):—“the world was made _by_ Him” (ver. 10).—Why then, in Col. i. 16, where the same statement is repeated,—(“all things were created _by_ Him and for Him,”)—do we find “_through_” substituted for “_by_”? And why is the same offence repeated in 1 Cor. vii. 6,—(where we _ought_ to read,—“one GOD, the FATHER, of whom are all things ... and one LORD JESUS CHRIST, _by_ whom are all things”)?—Why, especially, in Heb. i. 2, in place of “_by_ whom also [viz. by THE SON] He made the worlds,” do we find substituted “_through_ whom”?... And why add to this glaring inconsistency the wretched vacillation of giving us the choice of “_through_” (in place of “_by_”) in the margin of S. John i. 3 and 10, and not even offering us the alternative of “_by_” (in place of “_through_”) in any of the other places,—although the preposition is διά on every occasion?
And thus much for the Revisers’ handling of the Prepositions. We shall have said all that we can find room for, when we have further directed attention to the uncritical and unscholarlike Note with which they have disfigured the margin of S. Mark i. 9. We are there informed that, according to the Greek, our SAVIOUR “was baptized _into the Jordan_,”—an unintelligible statement to English readers, as well as a misleading one. Especially on their guard should the Revisers have been hereabouts,—seeing that, in a place of vital importance on the opposite side of the open page (viz. in S. Matth. xxviii. 19), they had already substituted “_into_” for “_in_.” This latter alteration, one of the Revisers (Dr. Vance Smith) rejoices over, because it obliterates (in his account) the evidence for Trinitarian doctrine. That the Revisionists, as a body, intended nothing less,—_who_ can doubt? But then, if they really deemed it necessary to append a note to S. Mark i. 9 in order to explain to the public that the preposition εἰς signifies “_into_” rather than “_in_,”—why did they not at least go on to record the elementary fact that εἰς has here (what grammarians call) a “pregnant signification”? that it implies—(every schoolboy knows it!)—_and that it is used in order to imply_—that the Holy One “_went down_ INTO,” and so, “_was baptized_ IN the _Jordan_”?(550)... But _why_, in the name of common sense, _did not the Revisionists let the Preposition alone_?
IX. The MARGIN of the Revision is the last point to which our attention is invited, and in the following terms:—
“The subject of the Marginal Notes deserves special attention. They represent the results of _a large amount of careful and elaborate discussion_, and will, perhaps, by their very presence, indicate to some extent the intricacy of many of the questions that have almost daily come before us for decision. These Notes fall into four main groups:—_First_, Notes specifying such differences of reading as were judged to be of sufficient importance to require a particular notice;—_Secondly_, Notes indicating the exact rendering of words to which, for the sake of English idiom, we were obliged to give a less exact rendering in the text;—_Thirdly_, Notes, very few in number, affording some explanation which the original appeared to require;—_Fourthly_, Alternative Renderings in difficult or debateable passages. The Notes of this last group are numerous, and largely in excess of those which were admitted by our predecessors. In the 270 years that have passed away since their labours were concluded, the Sacred Text has been minutely examined, discussed in every detail, and analysed with a grammatical precision unknown in the days of the last Revision. There has thus been accumulated a large amount of materials that have prepared the way for different renderings, which necessarily came under discussion.”—(_Preface_, iii. 4.)
When a body of distinguished Scholars bespeak attention to a certain part
of their work in such terms as these, it is painful for a Critic to be
obliged to declare that he has surveyed this department of their
undertaking with even less satisfaction than any other. So long, however,
as he assigns _the grounds_ of his dissatisfaction, the Reviewed cannot
complain. The Reviewer puts himself into their power. If he is mistaken in
his censure, his credit is gone. Let us take the groups in order:—
(1) Having already stated our objections against the many Notes which specify _Textual errors_ which the Revisionists declined to adopt,—we shall here furnish only two instances of the mischief we deplore:—
(_a_) Against the words, “And while they _abode_ in Galilee” (S. Matthew xvii. 22), we find it stated,—“Some ancient authorities read _were gathering themselves together_.” The plain English of which queer piece of information is that א and B exhibit in this place an impossible and untranslatable Reading,—the substitution of which for ἀναστρεφομένων δὲ ἀυτῶν can only have proceeded from some Western critic, who was sufficiently unacquainted with the Greek language to suppose that ΣΥΝ-στρεφομένων δὲ αὐτῶν, might possibly be the exact equivalent for CON_-versantibus autem illis_. This is not the place for discussing a kind of hallucination which prevailed largely in the earliest age, especially in regions where Greek was habitually read through Latin spectacles. (Thus it was, obviously, that the preposterous substitution of EURAQUILO for “Euroclydon,” in Acts xxvii. 14, took its rise.) Such blunders would be laughable if encountered anywhere except on holy ground. Apart, however, from the lamentable lack of critical judgment which a marginal note like the present displays, what is to be thought of the scholarship which elicits “_While they were gathering themselves together_” out of συστρεφομένων δὲ αὐτῶν? Are we to suppose that the clue to the Revisers’ rendering is to be found in (συστρέψαντος) Acts xxviii. 3? We should be sorry to think it. They are assured that the source of the _Textual_ blunder which they mistranslate is to be found, instead, in Baruch iii. 38.(551)
(_b_) For what conceivable reason is the world now informed that, instead of _Melita_,—“some ancient authorities read _Melitene_,” in Acts xxviii. 1? Is every pitiful blunder of cod. B to live on in the margin of every Englishman’s copy of the New Testament, for ever? Why, _all_ other MSS.—the Syriac and the Latin versions,—Pamphilus of Cæsarea(552) (A.D. 294), the friend of Eusebius,—Cyril of Jerusalem,(553)—Chrysostom,(554)—John Damascene,(555)—all the Fathers in short who quote the place;—the coins, the ancient geographers;—_all_ read Μελίτη; which has also been acquiesced in by every critical Editor of the N. T.—(_excepting always Drs. Westcott and Hort_), from the invention of Printing till now. But because these two misguided men, without apology, explanation, note or comment of any kind, have adopted “_Melitene_” into their text, is the Church of England to be dragged through the mire also, and made ridiculous in the eyes of Christendom? This blunder moreover is “gross as a mountain, open, palpable.” One glance at the place, written in uncials, explains how it arose:—ΜελιτηΗΝΗσοσκαλειται. Some stupid scribe (as the reader sees) has connected the first syllable of νῆσος with the last syllable of Μελίτη.(556) _That_ is all! The blunder—(for a blunder it most certainly is)—belongs to the age and country in which “_Melitene_” was by far the more familiar word, being the name of the metropolitan see of Armenia;(557) mention of which crops up in the _Concilia_ repeatedly.(558)
(2) and (4) The second and the fourth group may be considered together. The former comprises those words of which the _less exact_ rendering finds place in the Text:—the latter, “_Alternative renderings_ in difficult and debateable passages.”
We presume that here our attention is specially invited to such notes as the following. Against 1 Cor. xv. 34,—“_Awake out of drunkenness righteously_”:—against S. John i. 14,—“_an only begotten from a father_”:—against 1 Pet. iii. 20,—“_into which few, that is, eight souls, were brought safely through water_”:—against 2 Pet. iii. 7,—“_stored with fire_”:—against S. John xviii. 37,—“_Thou sayest it, because I am a king_”:—against Ephes. iii. 21,—“_All the generations of the age of the ages_”:—against Jude ver. 14,—“_His holy myriads_”:—against Heb. xii. 18,—“_a palpable and kindled fire_”:—against Lu. xv. 31,—“_Child_, thou art ever with me”:—against Matth. xxi. 28,—“_Child_, go work to-day in my vineyard”:—against xxiv. 3,—“What shall be the sign of Thy _presence_, and of _the consummation of the age_?”—against Tit. i. 2,—“_before times eternal_”: against Mk. iv. 29,—“When the fruit _alloweth_ [and why not ‘_yieldeth_ itself’?], straightway _he sendeth forth_ the sickle”:—against Ephes. iv. 17,—“_through every joint of the supply_”:—against ver. 29,—“_the building up of the need_”:—against Lu. ii. 29,—“_Master_, now lettest thou Thy _bondservant_ depart in peace”:—against Acts iv. 24,—“O _Master_, thou that didst make the heaven and the earth”:—against Lu. i. 78,—“Because of _the heart of mercy_ of our GOD.” Concerning all such renderings we will but say, that although they are unquestionably better in the Margin than in the Text; it also admits no manner of doubt that they would have been best of all in neither. Were the Revisionists serious when they suggested as the more “exact” rendering of 2 Pet. i. 20,—“No prophecy of Scripture is of _special_ interpretation”? And what did they mean (1 Pet. ii. 2) by “_the spiritual milk which is without guile_”?
Not a few marginal glosses might have been dispensed with. Thus, against διδάσκαλος, upwards of 50 times stands the Annotation, “Or, _teacher_.”—Ἄρτος, (another word of perpetual recurrence,) is every time explained to mean “_a loaf_.” But is this reasonable? seeing that φαγεῖν ἄρτον (Luke xiv. 1) can mean nothing else but “to eat _bread_”: not to mention the petition for “_daily bread_” in the LORD’S prayer. These learned men, however, do not spare us even when mention is made of “taking the children’s _bread_ and casting it to the dogs” (Mk. vii. 27): while in the enquiry,—“If a son shall ask _bread_ of any of you that is a father” (Lu. xi. 11), “_loaf_” is actually thrust into the text.—We cannot understand why such marked favour has been shown to similar easy words. Δοῦλος, occurring upwards of 100 times in the New Testament, is invariably honoured (sometimes [as in Jo. xv. 15] _twice in the course of the same verse_) with 2 lines to itself, to explain that in Greek it is “_bondservant_.”—About 60 times, δαιμόνιον is explained in the margin to be “_demon_” in the Greek.—It has been deemed necessary 15 times to devote _three lines_ to explain the value of “a penny.”—Whenever τέκνον is rendered “_Son_,” we are molested with a marginal annotation, to the effect that the Greek word means “_child_.” Had the Revisionists been consistent, the margins would not nearly have sufficed for the many interesting details of this nature with which their knowledge of Greek would have furnished them.
May we be allowed to suggest, that it would have been better worth while to explain to the unlearned that ἀρχαι in S. Peter’s vision (Acts x. 11; xi. 5) in strictness means not “corners,” but “_beginnings_” [cf. Gen. ii. 10]:—that τὴν πρώτην (in Lu. xv. 22) is literally “_the first_” [cf. Gen. iii. 7] (not “the best”) “robe”:—that ἀληθινός (_e.g._ in Lu. xvi. 11: Jo. i. 9: vi. 32; and especially in xv. 1 and Heb. viii. 2 and ix. 24) means “_very_” or “_real_,” rather than “true”?—And when two different words are employed in Greek (as in S. Jo. xxi. 15, 16, 17:—S. Mk. vii. 33, 35, &c. &c.), would it not have been as well to try to _represent_ them in English? For want of such assistance, no unlearned reader of S. Matth. iv. 18, 20, 21: S. Mk. i. 16, 18, 19: S. Lu. v. 2,—will ever be able to understand the precise circumstances under which the first four Apostles left their “_nets_.”
(3) The third group consists of _Explanatory Notes_ required by the obscurity of the original. Such must be the annotation against S. Luke i. 15 (explanatory of “strong drink”),—“Gr. sikera.” And yet, the word (σίκερα) happens to be _not_ Greek, but Hebrew.—On the other hand, such must be the annotation against μωρέ, in S. Matth. v. 22:—“Or, _Moreh_, a Hebrew expression of condemnation;” which statement is incorrect. The word proves to be _not_ Hebrew, but Greek.—And this, against “Maran atha” in 1 Cor. xvi. 22,—“That is, _Our _LORD_ cometh_:” which also proves to be a mistake. The phrase means “_Our _LORD_ is come_,”—which represents a widely different notion.(559)—Surely a room-full of learned men, volunteering to put the N. T. to-rights, ought to have made more sure of their elementary _facts_ before they ventured to compromise the Church of England after this fashion!—Against “_the husks_ which the swine did eat” (Lu. xv. 16), we find, “Gr. _the pods of the carob tree_,”—which is really not true. The Greek word is κεράτια,—which only signifies “the pods of the carob tree,” as “French beans” signifies “the pods of the _Phaseolus vulgaris_.”—By the way, it is _quite_ certain that μύλος ὀνικός [in Matth. xviii. 6 and Lu. xvii. 2 (not Mk. xi. 42)] signifies “_a mill-stone turned by an ass_”? Hilary certainly thought so: but is that thing at all likely? What if it should appear that μύλος ὀνικός merely denotes the _upper_ mill-stone (λίθος μυλικός, as S. Mark calls it,—_the stone that grinds_), and which we know was called ὄνος by the ancients?(560)—Why is “the brook Cedron” (Jo. xviii. 1) first spelt “Kidron,” and then explained to mean “_ravine of the cedars_”? which “_Kidron_” no more means that “_Kishon_” means “_of the ivies_,”—(though the Septuagintal usage [Judges iv. 13: Ps. lxxxiii. 9] shows that τῶν κισσῶν was in its common Hellenistic designation). As for calling the Kidron “_a ravine_,” you might as well call “Mercury” in “Tom quad” “_a lake_.” “Infelictious” is the mildest epithet we can bestow upon marginal annotations crude, questionable,—even _inaccurate_ as these.
Then further, “Simon, the son of _Jona_” (in S. John i. 42 and xxi. 15), is for the first time introduced to our notice by the Revisionists as “the son of _John_:” with an officious marginal annotation that in Greek the name is written “_Ioanes_.” But is it fair in the Revisers (we modestly ask) to thrust in this way the _bêtises_ of their favourite codex B upon us? _In no codex in the world except the Vatican codex_ B, is “Ioannes” spelt “_Ioanes_” in this place. Besides, the name of Simon Peter’s father was _not_ “John” at all, but “_Jona_,”—as appears from S. Matth. xvi. 17, and the present two places in S. John’s Gospel; where the evidence _against_ “Ioannes” is overwhelming. This is in fact the handy-work of Dr. Hort. But surely the office of marginal notes ought to be to assist, not to mislead plain readers: honestly, to state _facts_,—not, by a side-wind, to commit the Church of England to _a new (and absurd) Textual theory_! The _actual Truth_, we insist, should be stated in the margin, whenever unnecessary information is gratuitously thrust upon unlearned and unsuspicious readers.... Thus, we avow that we are offended at reading (against S. John i. 18)—“Many very ancient authorities read ‘GOD_ only begotten_’ ”: whereas the “authorities” alluded to read μονογενὴς Θεός,—(whether with or without the article [ὁ] prefixed,)—which (as the Revisionists are perfectly well aware) means “_the only-begotten _GOD,” and no other thing. Why then did they not say so? _Because_ (we answer)—_they were ashamed of the expression_. But to proceed.—The information is volunteered (against Matth. xxvi. 36 and Mk. xiv. 32) that χωρίον means “_an enclosed piece of ground_,”—which is not true. The statement seems to have proceeded from the individual who translated ἄμφοδον (in Mk. xi. 4) the “_open street_:” whereas the word merely denotes the “highway,”—literally the “_thoroughfare_.”
A very little real familiarity with the Septuagint would have secured these Revisers against the perpetual exposure which they make of themselves in their marginal Notes.—(_a_) Πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας, for instance, is quite an ordinary expression for “always,” and therefore should not be exhibited (in the margin of S. Matth. xxviii. 20) as a curiosity,—“Gr. _all the days_.”—So (_b_) with respect to the word αἰών, which seems to have greatly exercised the Revisionists. What need, _every time it occurs_, to explain that εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων means literally “_unto the ages of the ages_”? Surely (as in Ps. xlv. 6, quoted Heb. i. 8,) the established rendering (“for ever and ever”) is plain enough and needs no gloss!—Again, (_c_) the numeral εἰς, representing the Hebrew substitute for the indefinite article, prevails throughout the Septuagint. Examples of its use occur in the N. T. in S. Matth. viii. 19 and ix. 18;-xxvi. 69 (μία παιδίσκη), Mk. xii. 42: and in Rev. viii. 13: ix. 13: xviii. 21 and xix. 17;—where “_one_ scribe,” “_one_ ruler,” “_one_ widow,” “_one_ eagle,” “_one_ voice,” “_one_ angel,” are really nothing else but mistranslations. True, that εἶς is found in the original Greek: but what then? Because “_une_” means “_one_,” will it be pretended that “_Tu es une bête_” would be properly rendered “_Thou art one beast_”?
(_d_) Far more serious is the substitution of “having _a great_ priest over the house of GOD” (Heb. x. 21), for “having _an high_ priest:” inasmuch as this obscures “the pointed reference to our LORD as the antitype of the Jewish high priest,”—who (except in Lev. iv. 3) is designated, not ἀρχιερεύς, but either ὁ ἱερεὺς ὁ μέγας, or else ὁ ἱερεύς only,—as in Acts v. 24(561).... And (_e_) why are we presented with “For _no word from _GOD_ shall be void of power_” (in S. Luke i. 37)? Seeing that the Greek of that place has been fashioned on the Septuagintal rendering of Gen. xviii. 14 (“_Is anything too hard for the _LORD_?_”(562)), we venture to think that the A. V. (“_for with _GOD_ nothing shall be impossible_”(563)) ought to have been let alone. It cannot be mended. One is surprised to discover that among so many respectable Divines there seems not to have been _one_ sufficiently familiar with the Septuagint to preserve his brethren from perpetually falling into such mistakes as the foregoing. We really had no idea that the Hellenistic scholarship of those who represented the Church and the Sects in the Jerusalem Chamber, was so inconsiderable.
Two or three of the foregoing examples refer to matters of a recondite nature. Not so the majority of the Annotations which belong to this third group; which we have examined with real astonishment—and in fact have remarked upon already. Shall we be thought hard to please if we avow that we rather desiderate “Explanatory Notes” on matters which really _do_ call for explanation? as, to be reminded of what kind was the “net” (ἀμφίβληστρον) mentioned in Matth. iv. 18 (_not_ 20), and Mk. i. 16 (_not_ 18):—to see it explained (against Matth. ii. 23) that _netser_ (the root of “Nazareth”) denotes “Branch:”—and against Matth. iii. 5; Lu. iii. 3, that ἡ περίχωρος τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, signifies “the _depressed valley of the Jordan_,” as the usage of the LXX. proves.(564) We should have been glad to see, against S. Lu. ix. 31,—“Gr. _Exodus_.”—At least in the margin, we might have been told that “_Olivet_” is the true rendering of Lu. xix. 29 and xxi. 37: (or were the Revisionists not aware of the fact? They are respectfully referred to the Bp. of Lincoln’s note on the place last quoted.)—Nay, why not tell us (against Matth. i. 21) that “JESUS” means [not “_Saviour_,” but] “_JEHOVAH__ is Salvation_”?
But above all, surely so many learned men ought to have spared us the absurd Annotation set against “_ointment of spikenard_” (νάρδου πιστικῆς,) in S. Mark xiv. 3 and in S. John xii. 3. Their marginal Note is as follows:—
“Gr. _pistic_ nard, pistic being perhaps a local name. Others take it to mean _genuine_; others _liquid_.”
Can Scholars require to be told that “_liquid_” is an _impossible_ sense
of πιστική in this place? The epithet so interpreted must be derived (like
πιστός [_Prom._ V. v. 489]) from πίνω, and would mean _drinkable_: but
since ointment _cannot_ be drunk, it is certain that we must seek the
etymology of the word elsewhere. And why should the weak ancient
conjecture be retained that it is “perhaps a _local_ name”? Do Divines
require to have it explained to them that the one “locality” which
effectually fixes the word’s meaning, is _its place in the everlasting
Gospel_?... Be silent on such lofty matters if you will, by all means; but
“who are these that darken counsel by words without knowledge?” S. Mark
and S. John (whose narratives by the way never touch exclusively except in
this place(565)) are observed here to employ an ordinary word with lofty
spiritual purpose. The _pure faith_ (πίστις) in which that offering of the
ointment was made, determines the choice of an unusual epithet (πιστικός)
which shall signify “faithful” rather than “genuine,”—shall suggest a
_moral_ rather than a _commercial_ quality: just as, presently, Mary’s
“breaking” the box (συντρίψασα) is designated by a word which has
reference to a broken heart.(566) She “_contrited_” it, S. Mark says; and
S. John adds a statement which implies that the Church has been rendered
fragrant by her act for ever.(567) (We trust to be forgiven for having
said a little more than the occasion absolutely requires.)
(5) Under which of the four previous “groups” certain Annotations which disfigure the margin of the first chapter of S. Matthew’s Gospel, should fall,—we know not. Let them be briefly considered by themselves.
So dull of comprehension are we, that we fail to see on what principle it is stated that—“Ram,” “Asa,” “Amon,” “Shealtiel,” are in Greek (“Gr.”) “_Aram_,” “_Asaph_,” “_Amos_,” “_Salathiel_.” For (1),—Surely it was just as needful (or just as needless) to explain that “Perez,” “Zarah,” “Hezron,” “Nahson,” are in Greek “_Phares_,” “_Zara_,” “_Esrom_,” “_Naasson_.”—But (2), Through what “necessity” are the names, which we have been hitherto contented to read as the Evangelist wrote them, now exhibited on the first page of the Gospel in any other way?(568)—(3) Assuming, however, the O. T. spelling _is_ to be adopted, then _let us have it explained to us why _“Jeconiah”_ in ver. 11 is not written_ “Jehoiakim”? (As for “Jeconiah” in ver. 12,—it was for the Revisionists to settle whether they would call him “Jehoiachin,” “Jeconiah,” or “Coniah.” [By the way,—Is it lawful to suppose that _they did not know_ that “Jechonias” here represents two different persons?])—On the other hand, (4) “_Amos_” probably,—“_Asaph_” certainly,—are corrupt exhibitions of “Amon” and “Asa:” and, if noticed at all, should have been introduced to the reader’s notice with the customary formula, “some ancient authorities,” &c.—To proceed—(5), Why substitute “Immanuel” (for “Emmanuel”) in ver. 23,—only to have to state in the margin that S. Matthew writes it “_Emmanuel_”? By strict parity of reasoning, against “Naphtali” (in ch. iv. 13, 15), the Revisionists ought to have written “Gr. _Nephthaleim_.”—And (6), If this is to be the rule, then why are we not told that “Mary is in ‘Gr. _Mariam_’ ”? and why is not Zacharias written “_Zachariah_”?... But (to conclude),—What is the object of all this officiousness? and (its unavoidable adjunct) all this inconsistency? Has the spelling of the 42 names been revolutionized, in order to sever with the Past and to make “a fresh departure”? Or were the four marginal notes added _only for the sake of obtaining, by a side-wind, the (apparent) sanction of the Church_ to the preposterous notion that “Asa” was written “_Asaph_” by the Evangelist—in conformity with six MSS. of bad character, but in defiance of History, documentary Evidence, and internal Probability? Canon Cook [pp. 23-24] has some important remarks on this.
X. We must needs advert again to the ominous admission made in the Revisionists’ _Preface_ (iii. 2 _init._), that to some extent they recognized the duty of a “_rigid adherence to the rule of translating_, as far as possible, the _same Greek word by the same English word_.” This mistaken principle of theirs lies at the root of so much of the mischief which has befallen the Authorized Version, that it calls for fuller consideration at our hands than it has hitherto (viz. at pp. 138 and 152) received.
The “Translators” of 1611, towards the close of their long and quaint Address “to the Reader,” offer the following statement concerning what had been their own practice:—“We have not _tied ourselves_” (say they) “_to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words_, as some peradventure would wish that we had done.” On this, they presently enlarge. We have been “especially careful,” have even “made a conscience,” “not to vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places.” But then, (as they shrewdly point out in passing,) “_there be some words that be not of the __ same sense everywhere_.” And had this been the sum of their avowal, no one with a spark of Taste, or with the least appreciation of what constitutes real Scholarship, would have been found to differ from them. Nay, even when they go on to explain that they have not thought it desirable to insist on invariably expressing “the same notion” by employing “the same particular word;”—(which they illustrate by instancing terms which, in their account, may with advantage be diversely rendered in different places;)—we are still disposed to avow ourselves of their mind. “If” (say they,) “we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once _purpose_, never to call it _intent_; if one where _journeying_, never _travelling_; if one where _think_, never _suppose_; if one where _pain_, never _ache_; if one where _joy_, never _gladness_;—thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour more of curiosity than of wisdom.” And yet it is plain that a different principle is here indicated from that which went before. The remark “that niceness in words was always counted the next step to trifling,” suggests that, in the Translators’ opinion, it matters little _which_ word, in the several pairs of words they instance, is employed; and that, for their own parts, they rather rejoice in the ease and freedom which an ample vocabulary supplies to a Translator of Holy Scripture. Here also however, as already hinted, we are disposed to go along with them. Rhythm, subtle associations of thought, proprieties of diction which are rather to be felt than analysed,—any of such causes may reasonably determine a Translator to reject “purpose,” “journey,” “think,” “pain,” “joy,”—in favour of “intent,” “travel,” “suppose,” “ache,” “gladness.”
But then it speedily becomes evident that, at the bottom of all this, there existed in the minds of the Revisionists of 1611 a profound (shall we not rather say a _prophetic_?) consciousness, that the fate of the English Language itself was bound up with the fate of their Translation. _Hence_ their reluctance to incur the responsibility of tying themselves “to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words.” We should be liable to censure (such is their plain avowal), “if we should say, as it were, unto certain words, Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible always; and to others of like quality, Get you hence, be banished for ever.” But this, to say the least, is to introduce a distinct and a somewhat novel consideration. We would not be thought to deny that there is some—perhaps a great deal—of truth in it: but by this time we seem to have entirely shifted our ground. And we more than suspect that, if a jury of English scholars of the highest mark could be impanelled to declare their mind on the subject thus submitted to their judgment, there would be practical unanimity among them in declaring, that these learned men,—with whom all would avow hearty sympathy, and whose taste and skill all would eagerly acknowledge,—have occasionally pushed the license they enunciate so vigorously, a little—perhaps a great deal—too far. For ourselves, we are glad to be able to subscribe cordially to the sentiment on this head expressed by the author of the _Preface_ of 1881:
“They seem”—(he says, speaking of the Revisionists of 1611)—“to have been guided by the feeling that their Version would secure for the words they used a lasting place in the language; and they express a fear lest they should ‘be charged (by scoffers) with some unequal dealing towards a great number of good English words,’ which, without this liberty on their part, would not have a place in the pages of the English Bible. Still it cannot be doubted that their studied avoidance of uniformity in the rendering of the same words, even when occurring in the same context, is one of the blemishes in their work.”—_Preface_, (i. 2).
Yes, it cannot be doubted. When S. Paul, in a long and familiar passage (2
Cor. i. 3-7), is observed studiously to linger over the same word
(παράκλησις namely, which is generally rendered “_comfort_”);—to harp upon
it;—to reproduce it _ten times_ in the course of those five verses;—it
seems unreasonable that a Translator, as if in defiance of the Apostle,
should on four occasions (viz. when the word comes back for the 6th, 7th,
9th, and 10th times), for “_comfort_” substitute “_consolation_.” And this
one example may serve as well as a hundred. It would really seem as if the
Revisionists of 1611 had considered it a graceful achievement to vary the
English phrase even on occasions where a marked identity of expression
characterizes the original Greek. When we find them turning “goodly
apparel,” (in S. James ii. 2,) into “gay clothing,” (in ver. 3,)—we can
but conjecture that they conceived themselves at liberty to act exactly as
S. James himself would (possibly) have acted had he been writing English.
But if the learned men who gave us our A. V. may be thought to have erred on the side of excess, there can be no doubt whatever, (at least among competent judges,) that our Revisionists have sinned far more grievously and with greater injury to the Deposit, by their slavish proclivity to the opposite form of error. We must needs speak out plainly: for the question before us is not, What defects are discoverable in our Authorized Version?—but, What amount of gain would be likely to accrue to the Church if the present Revision were accepted as a substitute? And we assert without hesitation, that the amount of certain loss would so largely outweigh the amount of possible gain, that the proposal may not be seriously entertained for a moment. As well on grounds of Scholarship and Taste, as of Textual Criticism (as explained at large in our former Article), the work before us is immensely inferior. To speak plainly, it is an utter failure.
XI. For the respected Authors of it practically deny the truth of the principle enunciated by their predecessors of 1611, viz. that “_there be some words that be not of the same sense everywhere_.” On such a fundamental truism we are ashamed to enlarge: but it becomes necessary that we should do so. We proceed to illustrate, by two familiar instances,—the first which come to hand,—the mischievous result which is inevitable to an enforced uniformity of rendering.
(_a_) The verb αἰτεῖν confessedly means “to ask.” And perhaps no better general English equivalent could be suggested for it. But then, _in a certain context_, “ask” would be an inadequate rendering: in another, it would be improper: in a third, it would be simply intolerable. Of all this, the great Scholars of 1611 showed themselves profoundly conscious. Accordingly, when this same verb (in the middle voice) is employed to describe how the clamorous rabble, besieging Pilate, claimed their accustomed privilege, (viz. to have the prisoner of their choice released unto them,) those ancient men, with a fine instinct, retain Tyndale’s rendering “_desired_”(569) in S. Mark (xv. 8),—and his “_required_” in S. Luke (xxiii. 23).—When, however, the humble entreaty, which Joseph of Arimathea addressed to the same Pilate (viz. that he might be allowed to take away the Body of JESUS), is in question, then the same Scholars (following Tyndale and Cranmer), with the same propriety exhibit “_begged_.”—King David, inasmuch as he only “_desired_ to find a habitation for the GOD of Jacob,” of course may not be said to have “_asked_” to do so; and yet S. Stephen (Acts vii. 46) does not hesitate to employ the verb ᾐτήσατο.—So again, when they of Tyre and Sidon approached Herod whom they had offended: they did but “_desire_” peace.(570)—S. Paul, in like manner, addressing the Ephesians: “I _desire_ that ye faint not at my tribulations for you.”(571)
But our Revisionists,—possessed with the single idea that αἰτεῖν means “to _ask_” and αἰτεῖσθαι “to _ask for_,”—have proceeded mechanically to inflict that rendering on every one of the foregoing passages. In defiance of propriety,—of reason,—even (in David’s case) of historical truth,(572)—they have thrust in “_asked_” everywhere. At last, however, they are encountered by two places which absolutely refuse to submit to such iron bondage. The terror-stricken jailer of Philippi, when _he_ “asked” for lights, must needs have done so after a truly imperious fashion. Accordingly, the “_called for_”(573) of Tyndale and all subsequent translators, is _pro hâc vice_ allowed by our Revisionists to stand. And to conclude,—When S. Paul, speaking of his supplications on behalf of the Christians at Colosse, uses this same verb (αἰτούμενοι) in a context where “_to ask_” would be intolerable, our Revisionists render the word “_to make request_;”(574)—though they might just as well have let alone the rendering of _all_ their predecessors,—viz. “_to desire_.”
These are many words, but we know not how to make them fewer. Let this one example, (only because it is the first which presented itself,) stand for a thousand others. Apart from the grievous lack of Taste (not to say of Scholarship) which such a method betrays,—_who_ sees not that the only excuse which could have been invented for it has disappeared by the time we reach the end of our investigation? If αἰτέω, αἰτοῦμαι had been _invariably_ translated “ask,” “ask for,” it might at least have been pretended that “the English Reader is in this way put entirely on a level with the Greek Scholar;”—though it would have been a vain pretence, as all must admit who understand the power of language. _Once_ make it apparent that just in a single place, perhaps in two, the Translator found himself forced to break through his rigid uniformity of rendering,—and _what_ remains but an uneasy suspicion that then there must have been a strain put on the Evangelists’ meaning in a vast proportion of the other seventy places where αἰτεῖν occurs? An unlearned reader’s confidence in his guide vanishes; and he finds that he has had not a few deflections from the Authorized Version thrust upon him, of which he reasonably questions alike the taste and the necessity,—_e.g._ at S. Matth. xx. 20.
(_b_) But take a more interesting example. In S. Mark i. 18, the A. V. has, “and straightway they _forsook_” (which the Revisionists alter into “_left_”) “their nets.” Why? Because in verse 20, the same word ἀφέντες will recur; and because the Revisionists propose to let the statement (“they _left_ their father Zebedee”) stand. They “level up” accordingly; and plume themselves on their consistency.
We venture to point out, however, that the verb ἀφιέναι is one of a large family of verbs which,—always retaining their own essential signification,—yet depend for their English rendering entirely on the context in which they occur. Thus, ἀφιέναι is rightly rendered “_to suffer_,” in S. Matth. iii. 15;—“_to leave_,” in iv. 11;—“_to let have_,” in v. 40;—“_to forgive_,” in vi. 12, 14, 15;—“_to let_,” in vii. 4;—“_to yield up_,” in xxvii. 50;—“_to let go_,” in S. Mark xi. 6;—“_to let alone_,” in xiv. 6. Here then, by the admission of the Revisionists, are eight diversities of meaning in the same word. But they make the admission grudgingly; and, in order to render ἀφιέναι as often as possible “_leave_,” they do violence to many a place of Scripture where some other word would have been more appropriate. Thus “_laying aside_” might have stood in S. Mark vii. 8. “_Suffered_” (or “let”) was preferable in S. Luke xii. 39. And, (to return to the place from which we started,) in S. Mark i. 18, “forsook” was better than “left.” And why? Because men “_leave_ their father,” (as the Collect for S. James’s Day bears witness); but “_forsake_ all covetous desires” (as the Collect for S. Matthew’s Day aptly attests). For which reason,—“And they all _forsook_ Him” was infinitely preferable to “and they all _left_ Him, and fled,” in S. Mark xiv. 50. We insist that a vast deal more is lost by this perpetual disregard of the idiomatic proprieties of the English language, than is gained by a pedantic striving after uniformity of rendering, only because the Greek word happens to be the same.
For it is sure sometimes to happen that what seems mere licentiousness proves on closer inspection to be unobtrusive Scholarship of the best kind. An illustration presents itself in connection with the word just now before us. It is found to have been our SAVIOUR’S practice to “_send away_” the multitude whom He had been feeding or teaching, in some formal manner,—whether with an act of solemn benediction, or words of commendatory prayer, or both. Accordingly, on the memorable occasion when, at the close of a long day of superhuman exertion, His bodily powers succumbed, and the Disciples were fain to take Him “as He was” in the ship, and at once He “fell asleep;”—on that solitary occasion, _the Disciples_ are related to have “_sent away_ the multitudes,”—_i.e._ to have formally dismissed them on His behalf, as they had often seen their Master do. The word employed to designate this practice on two memorable occasions is ἀπολύειν:(575) on the other two, ἀφιέναι.(576) This proves to have been perfectly well understood as well by the learned authors of the Latin Version of the N. T., as by the scholars who translated the Gospels into the vernacular of Palestine. It has been reserved for the boasted learning of the XIXth century to misunderstand this little circumstance entirely. The R. V. renders S. Matth. xiii. 36,—not “Then JESUS _sent the multitude away_” (“_dimissis turbis_” in every Latin copy,) but—“Then He _left_ the multitudes.” Also S. Mark iv. 36,—not “And when they had _sent away the multitude_,” (which the Latin always renders “_et dimittentes turbam_,”) but—“And _leaving_ the multitude.” Would it be altogether creditable, we respectfully ask, if at the end of 1800 years the Church of England were to put forth with authority such specimens of “Revision” as these?
(_c_) We will trouble our Readers with yet another illustration of the principle for which we are contending.—We are soon made conscious that there has been a fidgetty anxiety on the part of the Revisionists, everywhere to substitute “_maid_” for “_damsel_” as the rendering of παιδίσκη. It offends us. “A damsel named Rhoda,”(577)—and the “damsel possessed with a spirit of divination,”(578)—might (we think) have been let alone. But out of curiosity we look further, to see what these gentlemen will do when they come to S. Luke xii. 45. Here, because παῖδας has been (properly) rendered “menservants,” παιδίσκας, they (not unreasonably) render “_maid-servants_,”—whereby _they break their rule_. The crucial place is behind. What will they do with the Divine “Allegory” in Galatians, (iv. 21 to 31,)—where all turns on the contrast(579) between the παιδίσκη and the ἐλευθέρα,—the fact that Hagar was a “_bondmaid_” whereas Sarah was a “_free woman_”? “Maid” clearly could not stand here. “Maid-servant” would be intolerable. What is to be done? The Revisionists adopt _a third_ variety of reading,—_thus surrendering their principle entirely_. And what reader with a spark of taste, (we confidently ask the question,) does not resent their substitution of “_handmaid_” for “bondmaid” throughout these verses? _Who_ will deny that the mention of “_bondage_” in verses 24 and 25 claims, at the hands of an intelligent English translator, that he shall avail himself of the admirable and helpful equivalent for παιδίσκη which, as it happens, the English language possesses? More than that. _Who_—(except one who is himself “in bondage—with his children”)—_who_ does not respond gratefully to the exquisite taste and tact with which “_bondmaid_” itself has been exchanged for “_bondwoman_” by our translators of 1611, in verses 23, 30 and 31?... Verily, those men understood their craft! “There were giants in those days.” As little would they submit to be bound by the new cords of the Philistines as by their green withes. Upon occasion, they could shake themselves free from either. And why? For the selfsame reason: viz. because the SPIRIT of their GOD was mightily upon them.
Our contention, so far, has been but this,—that it does not by any means follow that identical Greek words and expressions, _wherever occurring_, are to be rendered by identical words and expressions in English. We desire to pass on to something of more importance.
Let it not be supposed that we make light of the difficulties which our Revisionists have had to encounter; or are wanting in generous appreciation of the conscientious toil of many men for many years; or that we overlook the perils of the enterprise in which they have seen fit to adventure their reputation. If ever a severe expression escapes us, it is because our Revisionists themselves seem to have so very imperfectly realized the responsibility of their undertaking, and the peculiar difficulties by which it is unavoidably beset. The truth is,—as all who have given real thought to the subject must be aware,—the phenomena of Language are among the most subtle and delicate imaginable: the problem of Translation, one of the most manysided and difficult that can be named. And if this holds universally, in how much greater a degree when the book to be translated is THE BIBLE! Here, anything like a mechanical _levelling up_ of terms, every attempt to impose a pre-arranged system of uniform rendering on words,—every one of which has a history and (so to speak) _a will_ of its own,—is inevitably destined to result in discomfiture and disappointment. But what makes this so very serious a matter is that, because HOLY SCRIPTURE is the Book experimented upon, the loftiest interests that can be named become imperilled; and it will constantly happen that what is not perhaps in itself a very serious mistake may yet inflict irreparable injury. We subjoin an humble illustration of our meaning—the rather, because it will afford us an opportunity for penetrating a little deeper into the proprieties of Scriptural Translation:—
(_d_) The place of our LORD’S Burial, which is mentioned upwards of 30 times in the Gospels, is styled in the original, μνημεῖον. This appellation is applied to it three times by S. Matthew;—six times by S. Mark;—eight times by S. Luke;(580)—eleven times by S. John. Only on four occasions, in close succession, does the first Evangelist call it by another name, viz. τάφος.(581) King James’s translators (following Tyndale and Cranmer) decline to notice this diversity, and uniformly style it the “_sepulchre_.” So long as it belonged to Joseph of Arimathea, they call it a “tomb” (Matth. xxvii. 60): when once it has been appropriated by “the LORD of Glory,” _in the same verse_ they give it a different English appellation. But our Revisionists of 1881, as if bent on “making a fresh departure,” _everywhere_ substitute “_tomb_” for “sepulchre” as the rendering of μνημεῖον.
Does any one ask,—And why should they _not_? We answer, Because, in connection with “_the Sepulchre_” of our LORD, there has grown up such an ample literature and such a famous history, that we are no longer _able_ to sever ourselves from those environments of the problem, even if we desired to do so. In all such cases as the present, we have to balance the Loss against the Gain. Quite idle is it for the pedant of 1881 to insist that τάφος and μνημεῖον are two different words. We do not dispute the fact. (Then, if he _must_, let him represent τάφος in some other way.) It remains true, notwithstanding, that the receptacle of our SAVIOUR’S Body after His dissolution will have to be spoken of as “_the Holy Sepulchre_” till the end of time; and it is altogether to be desired that its familiar designation should be suffered to survive unmolested on the eternal page, in consequence. There are, after all, mightier laws in the Universe than those of grammar. In the quaint language of our Translators of 1611: “For is the Kingdom of GOD become words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free?”... As for considerations of etymological propriety, the nearest English equivalent for μνημεῖον (be it remembered) is _not_ “tomb,” but “_monument_.”
(_e_) Our Revisionists seem not to be aware that 270 years of undisturbed possession have given to certain words rights to which they could not else have pretended, but of which it is impossible any more to dispossess them. It savours of folly as well as of pedantry even to make the attempt. Διδαχή occurs 30,—διδασκαλία 21 times,—in the N. T. Etymologically, both words alike mean “_teaching_;” and are therefore indifferently rendered “_doctrina_” in the Vulgate,(582)—for which reason, “_doctrine_” represents both words indifferently in our A. V.(583) But the Revisers have well-nigh extirpated “DOCTRINE” from the N. T.: (1st), By making “_teaching_,” the rendering of διδαχή,(584)—(reserving “_doctrine_” for διδασκαλία(585)): and (2ndly), By 6 times substituting “_teaching_” (once, “_learning_”) for “_doctrine_,” in places where διδασκαλία occurs.(586) This is to be lamented every way. The word cannot be spared so often. The “_teachings_” of our LORD and of His Apostles were _the _“doctrines”_ of Christianity_. When S. Paul speaks of “the _doctrine_ of baptisms” (Heb. vi. 2), it is simply incomprehensible to us why “the _teaching_ of baptisms” should be deemed a preferable expression. And if the warning against being “carried about with every wind of _doctrine_,” may stand in Ephes. iv. 14, why may it not be left standing in Heb. xiii. 9?
(_f_) In the same spirit, we can but wonder at the extravagant bad taste which, at the end of 500 years, has ventured to substitute “_bowls_” for “vials” in the Book of Revelation.(587) As a matter of fact, we venture to point out that φιάλη no more means “_a bowl_” than “saucer” means “a cup.” But, waiving this, we are confident that our Revisers would have shown more wisdom if they had _let alone_ a word which, having no English equivalent, has passed into the sacred vocabulary of the language, and has acquired a conventional signification which will cleave to it for ever. “_Vials of wrath_” are understood to signify the outpouring of GOD’S wrathful visitations on mankind: whereas “bowls” really conveys no meaning at all, except a mean and unworthy, not to say an inconveniently ambiguous one. What must be the impression made on persons of very humble station,—labouring-men,—when they hear of “the seven Angels that had _the seven bowls_”? (Rev. xvii. 1.) The φιάλη,—if we must needs talk like Antiquaries—is a circular, almost flat and very shallow vessel,—of which the contents can be discharged in an instant. It was used in pouring out libations. There is, at that back of it, in the centre, a hollow for the first joint of the forefinger to rest in. _Patera_ the Latins called it. Specimens are to be seen in abundance.
The same Revisionists have also fallen foul of the “alabaster _box_ of ointment.”—for which they have substituted “an alabaster _cruse_ of ointment.”(588) But what _is_ a “cruse”? Their marginal note says, “Or, ‘_a flask_:’ ” but once more, what _is_ “a flask”? Certainly, the receptacles to which that name is now commonly applied, (_e.g._ a powder-flask, a Florence flask, a flask of wine, &c.) bear no resemblance whatever to the vase called ἀλάβαστρον. The probability is that the receptacle for the precious ointment with which the sister of Lazarus provided herself, was likest of all to a small medicine-bottle (_lecythus_ the ancients called it), made however of alabaster. Specimens of it abound. But why not let such words alone? The same Critics have had the good sense to leave standing “the bag,” for what was confessedly a _box_(589) (S. John xii. 6: xiii. 29); and “your purses” for what in the Greek is unmistakably “your _girdles_”(590) (S. Matth. x. 9). We can but repeat that possession for _five centuries_ conveys rights which it is always useless, and sometimes dangerous, to dispute. “Vials” will certainly have to be put back into the Apocalypse.
(_g_) Having said so much about the proposed rendering of such unpromising vocables as μνημεῖον—διδαχή—φιάλη, it is time to invite the Reader’s attention to the calamitous fate which has befallen certain other words of infinitely greater importance.
And first for Ἀγάπη—a substantive noun unknown to the heathen, even as the sentiment which the word expresses proves to be a grace of purely Christian growth. What else but a real calamity would be the sentence of perpetual banishment passed by our Revisionists on “that most excellent gift, the gift of _Charity_,” and the general substitution of “Love” in its place? Do not these learned men perceive that “Love” is not an equivalent term? Can they require to be told that, because of S. Paul’s exquisite and life-like portrait of “CHARITY,” and the use which has been made of the word in sacred literature in consequence, it has come to pass that the word “_Charity_” connotes many ideas to which the word “Love” is an entire stranger? that “Love,” on the contrary, has come to connote many unworthy notions which in “_Charity_” find no place at all? And if this be so, how can our Revisionists expect that we shall endure the loss of the name of the very choicest of the Christian graces,—and which, if it is nowhere to be found in Scripture, will presently come to be only traditionally known among mankind, and will in the end cease to be a term clearly understood? Have the Revisionists of 1881 considered how firmly this word “_Charity_” has established itself in the phraseology of the Church,—ancient, mediæval, modern,—as well as in our Book of Common Prayer? how thoroughly it has vindicated for itself the right of citizenship in the English language? how it has entered into our common vocabulary, and become one of the best understood of “household words”? Of what can they have been thinking when they deliberately obliterated from the thirteenth chapter of S. Paul’s 1st Epistle to the Corinthians the ninefold recurrence of the name of “that most excellent gift, the gift of CHARITY”?
(_h_) With equal displeasure, but with even sadder feelings, we recognize in the present Revision a resolute elimination of “MIRACLES” from the N. T.—Not so, (we shall be eagerly reminded,) but only of their _Name_. True, but the two perforce go together, as every thoughtful man knows. At all events, the getting rid of _the Name_,—(except in the few instances which are enumerated below,)—will in the account of millions be regarded as the getting rid of _the thing_. And in the esteem of all, learned and unlearned alike, the systematic obliteration of the signifying word from the pages of that Book to which we refer exclusively for our knowledge of the remarkable thing signified,—cannot but be looked upon as a memorable and momentous circumstance. Some, it may be, will be chiefly struck by the foolishness of the proceeding: for at the end of centuries of familiarity with such a word, we are no longer _able_ to part company with it, even if we were inclined. The term has struck root firmly in our Literature: has established itself in the terminology of Divines: has grown into our common speech. But further, even were it possible to get rid of the words “Miracle” and “Miraculous,” what else but abiding inconvenience would be the result? for we must still desire to speak about _the things_; and it is a truism to remark that there are no other words in the language which connote the same ideas. What therefore has been gained by substituting “_sign_” for “_miracle_” on some 19 or 20 occasions—(“this beginning of _his signs_ did JESUS,”—“this is again the _second sign_ that JESUS did”)—we really fail to see.
That the word in the original is σημεῖον, and that σημεῖον means “a sign,” we are aware. But what then? Because ἄγγελος, in strictness, means “a messenger,”—γραφή, “a writing,”—ὑποκριτής, “an actor,”—ἐκκλησία, “an assembly,”—εὐαγγέλιον, “good tidings,”—ἐπίσκοπος, “an overseer,”—βαπτιστής, “one that dips,”—παράδεισος, “a garden,”—μαθητής, “a learner,”—χἁρις, “favour:”—are we to forego the established English equivalents for these words, and never more to hear of “grace,” “disciple,” “Paradise,” “Baptist,” “Bishop,” “Gospel,” “Church,” “hypocrite,” “Scripture,” “Angel”? Is it then desired to revolutionize our sacred terminology? or at all events to sever with the Past, and to translate the Scriptures into English on etymological principles? We are amazed that the first proposal to resort to such a preposterous method was not instantly scouted by a large majority of those who frequented the Jerusalem Chamber.
The words under consideration are not only not equivalent, but they are quite dissimilar. All “_signs_” are not “_Miracles_,”(591) though all “_Miracles_” are undeniably “_signs_.” Would not a marginal annotation concerning the original word, as at S. Luke xxiii. 8, have sufficed? And _why_ was the term “_Miracle_” as the rendering of σημεῖον(592) spared only on _that_ occasion in the Gospels; and _only_ in connection with S. Peter’s miracle of healing the impotent man, in the Acts?(593) We ask the question not caring for an answer. We are merely bent on submitting to our Readers, whether,—especially in an age like the present of wide-spread unbelief in the Miraculous,—it was a judicious proceeding in our Revisionists almost everywhere to substitute “Sign” for “Miracle” as the rendering of σημεῖον.
(_i_) Every bit as offensive, in its way, is a marginal note respecting the Third Person in the Trinity, which does duty at S. Matth. i. 18: S. Mark i. 8: S. Luke i. 15: Acts i. 2: Rom. v. 5: Heb. ii. 4. As a rule, in short, against every fresh first mention of “the HOLY GHOST,” five lines are punctually devoted to the remark,—“_Or_, Holy Spirit: _and so throughout this book_.” Now, as Canon Cook very fairly puts the case,—
“Does this imply that the marginists object to the word ‘GHOST’? If so, it must be asked, On what grounds? Certainly not as an archaism. The word is in every Churchman’s mouth continually. For the sake of consistency? But Dr. Vance Smith complains bitterly of the _inconsistency_ of his colleagues in reference to this very question,—see his _Texts and Margins_, pp. 7, 8, 45. I would not suggest a doctrinal bias: but to prove that it had no influence, a strong, if not unanimous, declaration on the part of the Revisers is called for. Dr. Vance Smith alleges this notice as one of the clearest proofs that the Revisers ought in consistency to discard the word as ‘_a poor and almost obsolete_ equivalent for Spirit.’ ”(594)
But in fact when one of the Revisionists openly claims, on behalf of the
Revision, that “in the most substantial sense,” (whatever _that_ may
happen to mean,) it is “contrary to fact” “that the doctrines of popular
Theology remain unaffected, untouched by the results of the
Revision,”(595)—Charity itself is constrained to use language which by a
certain school will be deemed uncharitable. If doctrinal prepossession had
no share in the production under review,—why is no protest publicly put
forth against such language as the foregoing, when employed by a
conspicuous Member of the Revisionist body?
(_j_) In a similar spirit to that which dictated our remarks on the attempted elimination of “_Miracles_” from the N. T. of the future,—we altogether disapprove of the attempt to introduce “is _Epileptic_,” as the rendering of σεληνιάζεται, in S. Matth. xvii. 15. The miracle performed on “_the lunatic child_” may never more come abroad under a different name. In a matter like this, 500 years of occupation, (or rather 1700, for “_lunaticus_” is the reading of all the Latin copies,) constitute a title which may not be disputed. “EPILEPTIC” is a sorry _gloss_—not a translation. Even were it demonstrable that Epilepsy exclusively exhibits every feature related in connection with the present case;(596) and that sufferers from Epilepsy are specially affected by the moon’s changes, (neither of which things are _certainly_ true): even so, the Revisionists would be wholly unwarranted in doing violence to the Evangelist’s language, in order to bring into prominence their own private opinion that what is called “_Lunacy_” here (and in ch. iv. 24) is to be identified with the ordinary malady called “Epilepsy.” This was confessedly an extraordinary case of _demoniacal possession_(597) besides. The Revisionists have in fact gone out of their way in order to introduce us to a set of difficulties with which before we had no acquaintance. And after all, the English reader desires to know—_not_, by any means, what two-thirds of the Revisionists _conjecture_ was the matter with the child, but—_what the child’s Father actually said_ was the matter with him. Now, the Father undeniably did _not_ say that the child was “Epileptic,” but that he was “_Lunatic_.” The man employed a term which (singular to relate) has its own precise English equivalent;—a term which embodies to this hour (as it did anciently) the popular belief that the moon influences certain forms of disease. With the advance of Science, civilized nations surrender such Beliefs; but they do not _therefore_ revolutionize their Terminology. “The advance of Science,” however, has nothing whatever to do with _the Translation of the word_ before us. The Author of this particular rendering (begging his pardon) is open to a process “_de lunatico inquirendo_” for having imagined the contrary.
(_k_) The foregoing instances suggest the remark, that the Ecclesiastical Historian of future years will point with concern to the sad evidences that the Church had fallen on evil days when the present Revision was undertaken. With fatal fidelity does it, every here and there, reflect the sickly hues of “modern Thought,” which is too often but another name for the latest phase of Unfaithfulness. Thus, in view of the present controversy about the Eternity of Future Punishment, which has brought into prominence a supposed distinction between the import of the epithets “ETERNAL” and “EVERLASTING,”—how painful is it to discover that the latter epithet, (which is the one objected to by the unbelieving school,) has been by our Revisionists diligently excluded(598) _every time it occurs_ as the translation of αἰώνιος, in favour of the more palatable epithel “eternal”! King James’s Translators showed themselves impartial to a fault. As if to mark that, in their account, the words are of identical import, they even introduced _both words into the same verse_(599) of Scripture. Is it fair that such a body of men as the Revisionists of 1881, claiming the sanction of the Convocation of the Southern Province, should, in a matter like the present, throw all their weight into the scale of Misbelief? They were authorized only to remove “plain and clear _errors_.” They were instructed to introduce “as few changes _as possible_.” Why have they needlessly gone out of their way, on the contrary, indirectly to show their sympathy with those who deny what has been the Church’s teaching for 1800 years? Our Creeds, Te Deum, Litany, Offices, Articles,—our whole Prayer Book, breathes a different spirit and speaks a different language.... Have our Revisionists persuaded the Old Testament company to follow their example? It will be calamitous if they _have_. There will be serious discrepancy of teaching between the Old and the New Testament if they have _not_.
(_l_) What means also the fidgetty anxiety manifested throughout these pages to explain away, or at least to evacuate, expressions which have to do with ETERNITY? _Why_, for example, is “the _world_ (αἰών) to come,” invariably glossed “the _age_ to come”? and εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας so persistently explained in the margin to mean, “_unto the ages_”? (See the margin of Rom. ix. 5. Are we to read “GOD blessed _unto the ages_”?) Also εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, “_unto the ages of the ages_”? Surely we, whose language furnishes expressions of precisely similar character (viz. “for ever,” and “for ever and ever”), might dispense with information hazy and unprofitable as this!
(_m_) Again. At a period of prevailing unbelief in the INSPIRATION of Scripture, nothing but real necessity could warrant any meddling with such a testimony on the subject as is found in 2 Tim. iii. 16. We have hitherto been taught to believe that “_All Scripture is given by inspiration of_ GOD and is profitable,” &c. The ancients(600) clearly so understood S. Paul’s words: and so do the most learned and thoughtful of the moderns. Πᾶσα γραφή, even if it be interpreted “every Scripture,” can only mean every portion of those ἱερὰ γράμματα of which the Apostle had been speaking in the previous verse; and therefore must needs signify _the whole of Scripture_.(601) So that the expression “_all Scripture_” expresses S. Paul’s meaning exactly, and should not have been disturbed.
But—“It is very difficult” (so at least thinks the Right Rev. Chairman of the Revisers) “to decide whether θεόπνευστος is a part of the predicate, καί being the simple copula; or whether it is a part of the subject. Lexicography and grammar contribute but little to a decision.” Not so thought Bishop Middleton. “I do not recollect” (he says) “any passage in the N. T. in which two Adjectives, apparently connected by the copulative, were intended by the writer to be so unnaturally disjoined. He who can produce such an instance, will do much towards establishing the plausibility of a translation, which otherwise must appear, to say the least of it, to be forced and improbable.”—And yet it is proposed to thrust this “forced and improbable” translation on the acceptance of all English-speaking people, wherever found, on the plea of _necessity_! Our Revisionists translate, “Every Scripture inspired of GOD _is also profitable_,” &c.,—which of course may be plausibly declared to imply that a distinction is drawn by the Apostle himself between inspired and uninspired Scripture. And pray, (we should be presently asked,) is not many a Scripture (or writing) “profitable for teaching,” &c. which is _not_ commonly held to be “inspired of GOD”?... But in fact the proposed rendering is inadmissible, being without logical coherence and consistency. The utmost that could be pretended would be that S. Paul’s assertion is that “every portion of Scripture _being inspired_” (_i.e._ inasmuch as it is—because it is—inspired); “is _also_ profitable,” &c. Else there would be no meaning in the καί. But, in the name of common sense, if this be so, _why_ have the blessed words been meddled with?
(_n_) All are unhappily familiar with the avidity with which the disciples of a certain School fasten upon a mysterious expression in S. Mark’s Gospel (xiii. 32), which seems to predicate concerning the Eternal SON, limitation in respect of Knowledge. This is not the place for vindicating the Catholic Doctrine of the SON’S “equality with the FATHER as touching His GODhead;” or for explaining that, in consequence, all things that the FATHER hath, (_the knowledge of _“that Day and Hour”_ included_,) the SON hath likewise.(602) But this is the place for calling attention to the deplorable circumstance that the clause “_neither the_ SON,” which has an indisputable right to its place in S. Mark’s Gospel, has on insufficient authority by our Revisionists been thrust into S. Matth. xxvi. 36, where it has no business whatever, and from which the word “only” effectually excludes it.(603) We call attention to this circumstance with sincere sorrow: but it is sorrow largely mixed with indignation. What else but the betrayal of a sacred trust is it when Divines appointed to correct manifest errors in _the English_ of the N. T. go out of their way to introduce an error like this into the _Greek_ Text which Catholic Antiquity would have repudiated with indignation, and for which certainly the plea of “necessity” cannot be pretended?
(_o_) A MARGINAL ANNOTATION set over against Romans ix. 5 is the last thing of this kind to which we shall invite attention. S. Paul declares it to be Israel’s highest boast and glory that of them, “as concerning the flesh [came] CHRIST, _who is over all_ [things], GOD_ blessed for ever_! Amen.” A grander or more unequivocal testimony to our LORD’S eternal GODhead is nowhere to be found in Scripture. Accordingly, these words have been as confidently appealed to by faithful Doctors of the Church in every age, as they have been unsparingly assailed by unbelievers. The dishonest shifts by which the latter seek to evacuate the record which they are powerless to refute or deny, are paraded by our ill-starred Revisionists in the following terms:—
“Some modern Interpreters place a full stop after _flesh_, and translate, _He who is God over all be (is) blessed for ever_: or, _He who is over all is God, blessed for ever_. Others punctuate, _flesh, who is over all. God be (is) blessed for ever._”
Now this is a matter,—let it be clearly observed,—which, (as Dr. Hort is
aware,) “belongs to _Interpretation_,—and _not to Textual
Criticism_.”(604) What business then has it in these pages at all? Is it
then the function of Divines appointed to revise the _Authorized Version_,
to give information to the 90 millions of English-speaking Christians
scattered throughout the world as to the unfaithfulness of “_some modern
Interpreters_”?(605) We have hitherto supposed that it was “_Ancient_
authorities” exclusively,—(whether “a few,” or “some,” or “many,”)—to
which we are invited to submit our judgment. How does it come to pass that
_the Socinian gloss_ on this grand text (Rom. ix. 5) has been brought into
such extraordinary prominence? Did our Revisionists consider that their
marginal note would travel to earth’s remotest verge,—give universal
currency to the view of “some modern Interpreters,”—and in the end “tell
it out among the heathen” also? We refer to
Manuscripts,—Versions,—Fathers: and what do we find? (1) It is
demonstrable that _the oldest __ Codices, besides the whole body of the
cursives_, know nothing about the method of “some modern
Interpreters.”(606)—(2) “There is absolutely not a shadow, _not a tittle
of evidence, in any of the ancient Versions_, to warrant what they
do.”(607)—(3) How then, about the old Fathers? for the sentiments of our
best modern Divines, as Pearson and Bull, we know by heart. We find that
the expression “_who is over all_ [things], GOD_ blessed for ever_” is
expressly acknowledged to refer to our SAVIOUR by the following 60
illustrious names:—
Irenæus,(608)—Hippolytus in 3 places,(609)—Origen,(610)—Malchion, in the name of six of the Bishops at the Council of Antioch, A.D. 269,(611)—ps.-Dionysius Alex., twice,(612)—the _Constt. App._,(613)—Athanasius in 6 places,(614)—Basil in 2 places,(615)—Didymus in 5 places,(616)—Greg. Nyssen. in 5 places,(617)—Epiphanius in 5 places,(618)—Theodoras Mops.,(619)—Methodius,(620)—Eustathius,(621)—Eulogius, twice,(622)—Cæsarius, 3 times,(623)—Theophilus Alex., twice,(624)—Nestorius,(625)—Theodotus of Ancyra,(626)—Proclus, twice,(627)—Severianus Bp. of Gabala,(628)—Chrysostom, 8 times,(629)—Cyril Alex., 15 times,(630)—Paulus Bp. of Emesa,(631)—Theodoret, 12 times,(632)—Gennadius, Abp. of C. P.,(633)—Severus, Abp. of Antioch,(634)—Amphilochius,(635)—Gelasius Cyz.,(636)—Anastasius Ant.,(637)—Leontius Byz., 3 times,(638)—Maximus,(639)—J. Damascene, 3 times.(640) Besides of the Latins, Tertullian, twice,(641)—Cyprian,(642)—Novatian, twice,(643)—Ambrose, 5 times,(644)—Palladius the Arian at the Council of Aquileia,(645)—Hilary, 7 times,(646)—Jerome, twice,(647)—Augustine, about 30 times,—Victorinus,(648)—the _Breviarium_, twice,(649)—Marius Mercator,(650)—Cassian, twice,(651)—Alcimus Avit.,(652)—Fulgentius, twice,(653)—Leo, Bp. of Rome, twice,(654)—Ferrandus, twice,(655)—Facundus:(656)—to whom must be added 6 ancient writers, of whom 3(657) have been mistaken for Athanasius,—and 3(658) for Chrysostom. All these see in Rom. ix. 5, a glorious assertion of the eternal GODhead of CHRIST.
Against such an overwhelming torrent of Patristic testimony,—for we have enumerated _upwards of sixty_ ancient Fathers—it will not surely be pretended that the Socinian interpretation, to which our Revisionists give such prominence, can stand. But why has it been introduced _at all_? We shall have every Christian reader with us in our contention, that such perverse imaginations of “modern Interpreters” are not entitled to a place in the margin of the N. T. For our Revisionists to have even given them currency, and thereby a species of sanction, constitutes in our view a very grave offence.(659) A public retraction and a very humble Apology we claim at their hands. Indifferent Scholarship, and mistaken views of Textual Criticism, are at least venial matters. But _a Socinian gloss gratuitously thrust into the margin of every Englishman’s N. T._ admits of no excuse—is not to be tolerated on _any_ terms. It would by itself, in our account, have been sufficient to determine the fate of the present Revision.
XII. Are we to regard it as a kind of _set-off_ against all that goes before, that in an age when the personality of Satan is freely called in question, “THE EVIL ONE” has been actually _thrust into the Lord’s Prayer_? A more injudicious and unwarrantable innovation it would be impossible to indicate in any part of the present unhappy volume. The case has been argued out with much learning and ability by two eminent Divines, Bp. Lightfoot and Canon Cook. The Canon remains master of the field. That _the change ought never to have been made_ is demonstrable. The grounds of this assertion are soon stated. To begin, (1) It is admitted on all hands that it must for ever remain a matter of opinion only whether in the expression ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ, the nominative case is τὸ πονηρόν (as in S. Matth. v. 37, 39: Rom. xii. 9), or ὁ πονηρός (as in S. Matth. xiii. 19, 38: Eph. vi. 16),—either of which yields a good sense. But then—(2) The Church of England in her formularies having emphatically declared that, for her part, she adheres to the former alternative, it was in a very high degree unbecoming for the Revisionists to pretend to the enjoyment of _certain_ knowledge that the Church of England in so doing was mistaken: and unless “from evil” be “_a clear and plain error_,” the Revisionists were bound to let it alone. Next—(3), It can never be right to impose the narrower interpretation on words which have always been understood to bear the larger sense: especially when (as in the present instance) the larger meaning distinctly includes and covers the lesser: witness the paraphrase in our Church Catechism,—“and that He will keep us (_a_) from all sin and wickedness, and (_b_) _from our ghostly enemy_, and (_c_) from everlasting death.”—(4) But indeed Catholic Tradition claims to be heard in this behalf. Every Christian at his Baptism renounces not only “the Devil,” but also “_all his works_, the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all covetous desires of the same, and the carnal desires of the flesh.”(660) And at this point—(5), The voice of an inspired Apostle interposes in attestation that this is indeed the true acceptation of the last petition in the LORD’S Prayer: for when S. Paul says—“the LORD will deliver me _from every evil work_ and will preserve me unto His heavenly kingdom; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen,”(661)—what else is he referring to but to the words just now under consideration? He explains that in the LORD’S Prayer it is “_from every evil work_” that we pray to be “delivered.” (Note also, that he retains _the Doxology_.) Compare the places:—
S. Matth. vi. 13.—ἀλλὰ ῬΎΣΑΙ ἩΜΆΣ ἈΠῸ ΤΟΎ ΠΟΝΗΡΟΎ. ὍΤΙ ΣΟΎ ἘΣΤΙΝ Ἡ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΊΑ ... καὶ Ἡ ΔΌΞΑ ἘΙΣ ΤΟΎΣ ἈΙΏΝΑΣ. ἈΜΉΝ.
2 Tim. iv. 18.—καὶ ῬΎΣΕΤΑΊ ΜΕ ὁ Κύριος ἈΠῸ ΠΑΝΤῸΣ ἜΡΓΟΥ ΠΟΝΗΡΟΥ καὶ σώσει εἰς ΤῊΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΊΑΝ ἈΥΤΟΥ ... ᾧ Ἡ ΔΌΞΑ ΕΊΣ ΤΟΥΣ ἈΙΏΝΑΣ.... ἈΜΉΝ.
Then further—(6), What more unlikely than that our LORD would end with giving such prominence to that rebel Angel whom by dying He is declared to have “destroyed”? (Heb. ii. 14: 1 John iii. 8.) For, take away the Doxology (as our Revisionists propose), and we shall begin the LORD’S Prayer with “OUR FATHER,” and literally end it with—_the Devil_!—But above all,—(7) Let it never be forgotten that this is _the pattern Prayer_, a portion of every Christian child’s daily utterance,—the most sacred of all our formularies, and by far the most often repeated,—into which it is attempted in this way to introduce a startling novelty. Lastly—(8), When it is called to mind that nothing short of _necessity_ has warranted the Revisionists in introducing a single change into the A. V.,—“_clear and plain errors_”—and that no such plea can be feigned on the present occasion, the liberty which they have taken in this place must be admitted to be absolutely without excuse.... Such at least are the grounds on which, for our own part, we refuse to entertain the proposed introduction of the Devil into the LORD’S Prayer. From the position we have taken up, it will be found utterly impossible to dislodge us.
XIII. It is often urged on behalf of the Revisionists that over not a few dark places of S. Paul’s Epistles their labours have thrown important light. Let it not be supposed that we deny this. Many a Scriptural difficulty vanishes the instant a place is accurately translated: a far greater number, when the rendering is idiomatic. It would be strange indeed if, at the end of ten years, the combined labours of upwards of twenty Scholars, whose _raison d’être_ as Revisionists was to do this very thing, had not resulted in the removal of many an obscurity in the A. V. of Gospels and Epistles alike. What offends us is the discovery that, for every obscurity which has been removed, at least half a dozen others have been introduced: in other words, that the result of this Revision has been the planting in of a _fresh crop of difficulties_, before undreamed of; so that a perpetual wrestling with _these_ is what hereafter awaits the diligent student of the New Testament.
We speak not now of passages which have been merely altered for the worse: as when, (in S. James i. 17, 18,) we are invited to read,—“Every good gift and every _perfect boon_ is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom _can be no variation_, neither _shadow that is cast by turning_. Of his own will _he brought us forth_.” Grievous as such blemishes are, it is seen at a glance that they must be set down to nothing worse than tasteless assiduity. What we complain of is that, misled by a depraved Text, our Revisers have often made nonsense of what before was perfectly clear: and have not only thrust many of our LORD’S precious utterances out of sight, (_e.g._ Matt. xvii. 21: Mark x. 21 and xi. 26: Luke ix. 55, 56); but have attributed to Him absurd sayings which He certainly never uttered, (_e.g._ Matt. xix. 17); or else, given such a twist to what He actually said, that His blessed words are no longer recognizable, (as in S. Matt. xi. 23: S. Mark ix. 23: xi. 3). Take a sample:—
(1.) The Church has always understood her LORD to say,—“FATHER, I will that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am; that they may behold My glory.”(662) We reject with downright indignation the proposal henceforth to read instead,—“FATHER_, that which Thou hast given Me I will that, where I am, they also may be with Me_,” &c. We suspect a misprint. The passage reads like nonsense. Yes, and nonsense it is,—in Greek as well as in English: (ὅ has been written for οὕς—one of the countless _bêtises_ for which א B D are exclusively responsible; and which the weak superstition of these last days is for erecting into a new Revelation). We appeal to the old Latin and to the Vulgate,—to the better Egyptian and to all the Syriac versions: to _every known Lectionary_: to Clemens Alex.,(663)—to Eusebius,(664)—to Nonnus,(665)—to Basil,(666)—to Chrysostom,(667)—to Cyril,(668)—to Cælestinus,(669)—to Theodoret:(670) not to mention Cyprian,(671)—Ambrose,(672)—Hilary,(673) &c.:(674) and above all, 16 uncials, beginning with A and C,—and the whole body of the cursives. So many words ought not to be required. If men prefer _their_ “mumpsimus” to _our_ “sumpsimus,” let them by all means have it: but pray let them keep their rubbish to themselves,—and at least leave our SAVIOUR’S words alone.
(2.) We shall be told that the foregoing is an outrageous instance. It is. Then take a few milder cases. They abound, turn whichever way we will. Thus, we are invited to believe that S. Luke relates concerning our SAVIOUR that He “_was led by the Spirit in the wilderness during forty days_” (iv. 1). We stare at this new revelation, and refer to the familiar Greek. It proves to be the Greek of _all the copies in the __ world but four_; the Greek which supplied the Latin, the Syrian, the Coptic Churches, with the text of their respective Versions; the Greek which was familiar to Origen,(675)—to Eusebius,(676)—to Basil,(677)—to Didymus,(678)—to Theodoret,(679)—to Maximus,(680)—and to two other ancient writers, one of whom has been mistaken for Chrysostom,(681) the other for Basil.(682) It is therefore quite above suspicion. And it informs us that JESUS “was led by the Spirit _into the wilderness_;” and there was “_forty days tempted of the Devil_.” What then has happened to obscure so plain a statement? Nothing more serious than that—(1) Four copies of bad character (א B D L) exhibit “in” instead of “into:” and that—(2) Our Revisionists have been persuaded to believe that _therefore_ S. Luke must needs have done the same. Accordingly they invite us to share their conviction that it was the _leading about_ of our LORD, (and not His _Temptation_,) which lasted for 40 days. And this sorry misconception is to be thrust upon the 90 millions of English-speaking Christians throughout the world,—under the plea of “necessity”!... But let us turn to a more interesting specimen of the mischievous consequences which would ensue from the acceptance of the present so-called “Revision.”
(3.) What is to be thought of _this_, as a substitute for the familiar 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.
Proposing to ourselves (May 17th, 1881) to enquire into the merits of the
recent Revision of the Authorized Version of the New Testament Scriptures,
we speedily became aware that an entirely different problem awaited us and
demanded preliminary investigation. We made the distressing discovery,
that the underlying Greek Text had been completely refashioned throughout.
It was accordingly not so much a “_Revised English Version_” as a “_New
Greek Text_,” which was challenging public acceptance. Premature
therefore,—not to say preposterous,—would have been any enquiry into the
degree of ability with which the original Greek had been rendered into
English by our Revisionists, until we had first satisfied ourselves that
it was still “the original Greek” with which we had to deal: or whether it
had been the supreme infelicity of a body of Scholars claiming to act by
the authority of the sacred Synod of Canterbury, to put themselves into
the hands of some ingenious theory-monger, and to become the dupes of any
of the strange delusions which are found unhappily still to prevail in
certain quarters, on the subject of Textual Criticism.
The correction of known Textual errors of course we eagerly expected: and on every occasion when the Traditional Text was altered, we as confidently depended on finding a record of the circumstance inserted with religious fidelity into the margin,—as agreed upon by the Revisionists at the outset. In both of these expectations however we found ourselves sadly disappointed. The Revisionists have _not_ corrected the “known Textual errors.” On the other hand, besides silently adopting most of those wretched fabrications which are just now in favour with the German school, they have encumbered their margin with those other Readings which, after due examination, _they had themselves deliberately rejected_. For why? Because, in their collective judgment, “for the present, it would not be safe to accept one Reading to the absolute exclusion of others.”(705) A fatal admission truly! What are found in the margin are therefore “_alternative Readings_,”—in the opinion of these self-constituted representatives of the Church and of the Sects.
It becomes evident that, by this ill-advised proceeding, our Revisionists would convert every Englishman’s copy of the New Testament into a one-sided Introduction to the Critical difficulties of the Greek Text; a labyrinth, out of which they have not been at the pains to supply him with a single hint as to how he may find his way. On the contrary. By candidly avowing that they find themselves enveloped in the same Stygian darkness with the ordinary English Reader, they give him to understand that there is absolutely no escape from the difficulty. What else must be the result of all this but general uncertainty, confusion, distress? A hazy mistrust of all Scripture has been insinuated into the hearts and minds of countless millions, who in this way have been _forced_ to become doubters,—yes, doubters in the Truth of Revelation itself. One recals sorrowfully the terrible woe denounced by the Author of Scripture on those who minister occasions of falling to others:—“It must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!”
For ourselves, shocked and offended at the unfaithfulness which could so deal with the sacred Deposit, we made it our business to expose, somewhat in detail, what had been the method of our Revisionists. In our October number(706) we demonstrated, (as far as was possible within such narrow limits,) the utterly untrustworthy character of not a few of the results at which, after ten years of careful study, these distinguished Scholars proclaim to the civilized world that they have deliberately arrived. In our January number(707) also, we found it impossible to avoid extending our enumeration of Textual errors and multiplying our proofs, while we were making it our business to show that, even had their _Text_ been faultless, their _Translation_ must needs be rejected as intolerable, on grounds of defective Scholarship and egregious bad Taste. The popular verdict has in the meantime been pronounced unmistakably. It is already admitted on all hands that the Revision has been a prodigious blunder. How it came about that, with such a first-rate textual Critic among them as Prebendary Scrivener,(708) the Revisers of 1881 should have deliberately gone back to those vile fabrications from which the good Providence of GOD preserved Erasmus and Stunica,—Stephens and Beza and the Elzevirs,—three centuries ago:—how it happened that, with so many splendid Scholars sitting round their table, they should have produced a Translation which, for the most part, reads like a first-rate school-boy’s _crib_,—tasteless, unlovely, harsh, unidiomatic;—servile without being really faithful,—pedantic without being really learned;—an unreadable Translation, in short; the result of a vast amount of labour indeed, but of wondrous little skill:—how all this has come about, it were utterly useless at this time of day to enquire.
Unable to disprove the correctness of our Criticism on the Revised Greek Text, even in a single instance, certain partizans of the Revision,—singular to relate,—have been ever since industriously promulgating the notion, that the Reviewer’s great misfortune and fatal disadvantage all along has been, that he wrote his first Article before the publication of Drs. Westcott and Hort’s Critical “_Introduction_.” Had he but been so happy as to have been made aware by those eminent Scholars of the critical principles which have guided them in the construction of their Text, how differently must he have expressed himself throughout, and to what widely different conclusions must he have inevitably arrived! This is what has been once and again either openly declared, or else privately intimated, in many quarters. Some, in the warmth of their partizanship, have been so ill-advised as to insinuate that it argues either a deficiency of moral courage, or else of intellectual perception, in the Reviewer, that he has not long since grappled definitely with the Theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort,—and either published an Answer to it, or else frankly admitted that he finds it unanswerable.
(_a_) All of which strikes us as queer in a high degree. First, because as a matter of fact we were careful to make it plain that the _Introduction_ in question had duly reached us _before the first sheet_ of our earlier Article had left our hands. To be brief,—we made it our business to procure a copy and read it through, the instant we heard of its publication: and on our fourteenth page (see above, pp. 26-8) we endeavoured to compress into a long foot-note some account of a Theory which (we take leave to say) can appear formidable only to one who either lacks the patience to study it, or else the knowledge requisite to understand it. We found that, from a diligent perusal of the _Preface_ prefixed to the “limited and private issue” of 1870, we had formed a perfectly correct estimate of the contents of the _Introduction_; and had already characterized it with entire accuracy at pp. 24 to 29 of our first Article. Drs. Westcott and Hort’s _New Testament in the original Greek_ was discovered to “partake inconveniently of the nature of a work of the Imagination,”—as we had anticipated. We became easily convinced that “those accomplished Scholars had succeeded in producing a Text vastly more remote from the inspired autographs of the Evangelists and Apostles of our LORD, than any which has appeared since the invention of Printing.”
(_b_) But the queerest circumstance is behind. How is it supposed that any amount of study of _the last new Theory_ of Textual Revision can seriously affect a Reviewer’s estimate of the evidential value of the historical _facts_ on which he relies for his proof that a certain exhibition of the Greek Text is untrustworthy? The _onus probandi_ rests clearly not with _him_, but with those who call those proofs of his in question. More of this, however, by and by. We are impatient to get on.
(_c_) And then, lastly,—What have _we_ to do with the _Theory_ of Drs. Westcott and Hort? or indeed with the Theory of _any other person who can be named_? We have been examining the new Greek Text _of the Revisionists_. We have condemned, after furnishing detailed proof, _the results_ at which—by whatever means—that distinguished body of Scholars has arrived. Surely it is competent to us to upset their _conclusion_, without being constrained also to investigate in detail the illicit logical processes by which two of their number in a separate publication have arrived at far graver results, and often even stand hopelessly apart, the one from the other! We say it in no boastful spirit, but we have an undoubted right to assume, that unless the Revisionists are able by a stronger array of authorities to set aside the evidence we have already brought forward, the calamitous destiny of their “Revision,” so far as the New Testament is concerned, is simply a thing inevitable.
Let it not be imagined, however, from what goes before, that we desire to shirk the proposed encounter with the advocates of this last new Text, or that we entertain the slightest intention of doing so. We willingly accept the assurance, that it is only because Drs. Westcott and Hort are virtually responsible for the Revisers’ Greek Text, that it is so imperiously demanded by the Revisers and their partizans, that the Theory of the two Cambridge Professors may be critically examined. We can sympathize also with the secret distress of certain of the body, who now, when it is all too late to remedy the mischief, begin to suspect that they have been led away by the hardihood of self-assertion;—overpowered by the _facundia præceps_ of one who is at least a thorough believer in his own self-evolved opinions;—imposed upon by the seemingly consentient pages of Tischendorf and Tregelles, Westcott and Hort.—Without further preface we begin.
It is presumed that we shall be rendering acceptable service in certain quarters if,—before investigating the particular Theory which has been proposed for consideration,—we endeavour to give the unlearned English Reader some general notion, (it must perforce be a very imperfect one,) of the nature of the controversy to which the Theory now to be considered belongs, and out of which it has sprung. Claiming to be an attempt to determine the Truth of Scripture on scientific principles, the work before us may be regarded as the latest outcome of that violent recoil from the Traditional Greek Text,—that strange impatience of its authority, or rather denial that it possesses any authority at all,—which began with Lachmann just 50 years ago (viz. in 1831), and has prevailed ever since; its most conspicuous promoters being Tregelles (1857-72) and Tischendorf (1865-72).
The true nature of the Principles which respectively animate the two parties in this controversy is at this time as much as ever,—perhaps _more_ than ever,—popularly misunderstood. The common view of the contention in which they are engaged, is certainly the reverse of complimentary to the school of which Dr. Scrivener is the most accomplished living exponent. We hear it confidently asserted that the contention is nothing else but an irrational endeavour on the one part to set up the many modern against the few ancient Witnesses;—the later cursive copies against the “old Uncials;”—inveterate traditional Error against undoubted primitive Truth. The disciples of the new popular school, on the contrary, are represented as relying exclusively _on Antiquity_. We respectfully assure as many as require the assurance, that the actual contention is of an entirely different nature. But, before we offer a single word in the way of explanation, let the position of our assailants at least be correctly ascertained and clearly established. We have already been constrained to some extent to go over this ground: but we will not repeat ourselves. The Reader is referred back, in the meantime, to pp. 21-24.
Lachmann’s ruling principle then, was exclusive reliance on a very few ancient authorities—_because_ they are “ancient.” He constructed his Text on three or four,—not unfrequently on _one or two_,—Greek codices. Of the Greek Fathers, he relied on Origen. Of the oldest Versions, he cared only for the Latin. To the Syriac (concerning which, see above, p. 9), he paid no attention. We venture to think his method _irrational_. But this is really a point on which the thoughtful reader is competent to judge for himself. He is invited to read the note at foot of the page.(709)
Tregelles adopted the same strange method. He resorted to a very few out of the entire mass of “ancient Authorities” for the construction of his Text. His proceeding is exactly that of a man, who—in order that he may the better explore a comparatively unknown region—begins by putting out both his eyes; and resolutely refuses the help of the natives to show him the way. _Why_ he rejected the testimony of _every Father of the IVth century, except Eusebius_,—it were unprofitable to enquire.
Tischendorf, the last and by far the ablest Critic of the three, knew better than to reject “_eighty-nine ninetieths_” of the extant witnesses. He had recourse to the ingenious expedient of _adducing_ all the available evidence, but _adopting_ just as little of it as he chose: and he _chose_ to adopt those readings only, which are vouched for by the same little band of authorities whose partial testimony had already proved fatal to the decrees of Lachmann and Tregelles. Happy in having discovered (in 1859) an uncial codex (א) second in antiquity only to the oldest before known (B), and strongly resembling that famous IVth-century codex in the character of its contents, he suffered his judgment to be overpowered by the circumstance. He at once (1865-72) remodelled his 7th edition (1856-9) in 3505 places,—“to the scandal of the science of Comparative Criticism, as well as to his own grave discredit for discernment and consistency.”(710) And yet he knew concerning Cod. א, that at least ten different Revisers from the Vth century downwards had laboured to remedy the scandalously corrupt condition of a text which, “as it proceeded from the first scribe,” even Tregelles describes as “_very rough_.”(711) But in fact the infatuation which prevails to this hour in this department of sacred Science can only be spoken of as incredible. Enough has been said to show—(the only point we are bent on establishing)—that the one distinctive tenet of the three most famous Critics since 1831 has been a superstitious reverence for whatever is found in the _same little handful_ of early,—but _not_ the earliest,—_nor yet of necessity the purest_,—documents.
Against this arbitrary method of theirs we solemnly, stiffly remonstrate. “Strange,” we venture to exclaim, (addressing the living representatives of the school of Lachmann, and Tregelles, and Tischendorf):—“Strange, that you should not perceive that you are the dupes of a fallacy which is even transparent. You _talk_ of ‘Antiquity.’ But you must know very well that you actually _mean_ something different. You fasten upon three, or perhaps four,—on two, or perhaps three,—on _one, or perhaps two_,—documents of the IVth or Vth century. But then, confessedly, these are one, two, three, or four _specimens only_ of Antiquity,—not ‘Antiquity’ itself. And what if they should even prove to be _unfair samples_ of Antiquity? Thus, you are observed always to quote cod. B or at least cod. א. Pray, why may not the Truth reside instead with A, or C, or D?—You quote the old Latin or the Coptic. Why may not the Peschito or the Sahidic be right rather?—You quote either Origen or else Eusebius,—but why not Didymus and Athanasius, Epiphanius and Basil, Chrysostom and Theodoret, the Gregories and the Cyrils?... It will appear therefore that we are every bit as strongly convinced as you can be of the paramount claims of ‘Antiquity:’ but that, eschewing prejudice and partiality, we differ from you only in _this_, viz. that we absolutely refuse to bow down before the _particular specimens of Antiquity_ which you have arbitrarily selected as the objects of your superstition. You are illogical enough to propose to include within your list of ‘ancient Authorities,’ codd. 1, 33 and 69,—which are severally MSS. of the Xth, XIth, and XIVth centuries. And why? Only because the Text of those 3 copies is observed to bear a sinister resemblance to that of codex B. But then why, in the name of common sense, do you not show corresponding favour to the remaining 997 cursive Copies of the N. T.,—seeing that these are observed to bear _the same general resemblance to codex_ A?... You are for ever talking about ‘old Readings.’ Have you not yet discovered that ALL ‘Readings’ are ‘OLD’?”
The last contribution to this department of sacred Science is a critical edition of the New Testament by Drs. WESTCOTT and HORT. About this, we proceed to offer a few remarks.
I. The first thing here which unfavourably arrests attention is the circumstance that this proves to be the only Critical Edition of the New Testament since the days of Mill, which does not even pretend to contribute something to our previous critical knowledge of the subject. Mill it was (1707) who gave us the great bulk of our various Readings; which Bengel (1734) slightly, and Wetstein (1751-2) very considerably, enlarged.—The accurate Matthæi (1782-8) acquainted us with the contents of about 100 codices more; and was followed by Griesbach (1796-1806) with important additional materials.—Birch had in the meantime (1788) culled from the principal libraries of Europe a large assortment of new Readings: while truly marvellous was the accession of evidence which Scholz brought to light in 1830.—And though Lachmann (1842-50) did wondrous little in this department, he yet furnished the critical authority (such as it is) for his own unsatisfactory Text.—Tregelles (1857-72), by his exact collations of MSS. and examination of the earliest Fathers, has laid the Church under an abiding obligation: and what is to be said of Tischendorf (1856-72), who has contributed more to our knowledge than any other editor of the N. T. since the days of Mill?—Dr. Scrivener, though he has not independently edited the original Text, is clearly to be reckoned among those who _have_, by reason of his large, important, and accurate contributions to our knowledge of ancient documents. Transfer his collections of various Readings to the foot of the page of a copy of the commonly Received Text,—and “_Scrivener’s New Testament_”(712) might stand between the editions of Mill and of Wetstein. Let the truth be told. C. F. Matthæi and he are _the only two Scholars who have collated any considerable number of sacred Codices with the needful amount of accuracy_.(713)
Now, we trust we shall be forgiven if, at the close of the preceding enumeration, we confess to something like displeasure at the oracular tone assumed by Drs. Westcott and Hort in dealing with the Text of Scripture, though they admit (page 90) that they “rely for documentary evidence on the stores accumulated by their predecessors.” Confident as those distinguished Professors may reasonably feel of their ability to dispense with the ordinary appliances of Textual Criticism; and proud (as they must naturally be) of a verifying faculty which (although they are able to give no account of it) yet enables them infallibly to discriminate between the false and the true, as well as to assign “a local habitation and a name” to every word,—inspired or uninspired,—which purports to belong to the N. T.:—they must not be offended with us if we freely assure them at the outset that we shall decline to accept a single argumentative assertion of theirs for which they fail to offer sufficient proof. Their wholly unsupported decrees, at the risk of being thought uncivil, we shall unceremoniously reject, as soon as we have allowed them a hearing.
This resolve bodes ill, we freely admit, to harmonious progress. But it is inevitable. For, to speak plainly, we never before met with such a singular tissue of magisterial statements, unsupported by a particle of rational evidence, as we meet with here. The abstruse gravity, the long-winded earnestness of the writer’s manner, contrast whimsically with the utterly inconsequential character of his antecedents and his consequents throughout. Professor Hort—(for “the writing of the volume and the other accompaniments of the Text devolved” on _him_,(714))—Dr. Hort seems to mistake his Opinions for facts,—his Assertions for arguments,—and a Reiteration of either for an accession of evidence. There is throughout the volume, apparently, a dread of _Facts_ which is even extraordinary. An actual illustration of the learned Author’s meaning,—a concrete case,—seems as if it were _never_ forthcoming. At last it comes: but the phenomenon is straightway discovered to admit of at least two interpretations, and therefore never to prove the thing intended. In a person of high education,—in one accustomed to exact reasoning,—we should have supposed all this impossible.... But it is high time to unfold the _Introduction_ at the first page, and to begin to read.
II. It opens (p. 1-11) with some unsatisfactory Remarks on “Transmission by Writing;” vague and inaccurate,—unsupported by one single Textual reference,—and labouring under the grave defect of leaving the most instructive phenomena of the problem wholly untouched. For, inasmuch as “Transmission by writing” involves two distinct classes of errors, (1st) Those which are the result of _Accident_,—and (2ndly) Those which are the result of _Design_,—it is to use a Reader badly not to take the earliest opportunity of explaining to him that what makes codd. B א D such utterly untrustworthy guides, (except when supported by a large amount of extraneous evidence,) is the circumstance that _Design_ had evidently so much to do with a vast proportion of the peculiar errors in which they severally abound. In other words, each of those codices clearly exhibits a fabricated Text,—is the result of arbitrary and reckless _Recension_.
Now, this is not a matter of opinion, but of fact. In S. Luke’s Gospel alone (collated with the traditional Text) the _transpositions_ in codex B amount to 228,—affecting 654 words: in codex D, to 464,—affecting 1401 words. Proceeding with our examination of the same Gospel according to S. Luke, we find that the words _omitted_ in B are 757,—in D, 1552. The words _substituted_ in B amount to 309,—in D, to 1006. The readings _peculiar_ to B are 138, and affect 215 words;—those peculiar to D, are 1731, and affect 4090 words. Wondrous few of these _can_ have been due to accidental causes. The Text of one or of both codices must needs be depraved. (As for א, it is so frequently found in accord with B, that out of consideration for our Readers, we omit the corresponding figures.)
We turn to codd. A and C—(executed, suppose, a hundred years _after_ B, and a hundred years _before_ D)—and the figures are found to be as follows:—
In A. In C.
The transpositions are 75 67 affecting 199 words 197 The words omitted are 208 175 The words substituted 111 115 The peculiar readings 90 87 affecting 131 words 127
Now, (as we had occasion to explain in a previous page,(715)) it is entirely to misunderstand the question, to object that the preceding Collation has been made with the Text of Stephanus open before us. Robert Etienne in the XVIth century was not _the cause_ why cod. B in the IVth, and cod. D in the VIth, are so widely discordant from one another; A and C, so utterly at variance with both. The simplest explanation of the phenomena is the truest; namely, that B and D exhibit grossly depraved Texts;—a circumstance of which it is impossible that the ordinary Reader should be too soon or too often reminded. But to proceed.
III. Some remarks follow, on what is strangely styled “Transmission by printed Editions:” in the course of which Dr. Hort informs us that Lachmann’s Text of 1831 was “the first founded on documentary authority.”(716)... On _what_ then, pray, does the learned Professor imagine that the Texts of Erasmus (1516) and of Stunica (1522) were founded? His statement is incorrect. The actual difference between Lachmann’s Text and those of the earlier Editors is, that _his_ “documentary authority” is partial, narrow, self-contradictory; and is proved to be untrustworthy by a free appeal to Antiquity. _Their_ documentary authority, derived from independent sources,—though partial and narrow as that on which Lachmann relied,—exhibits (_under the good Providence of _GOD,) a Traditional Text, the general purity of which is demonstrated by all the evidence which 350 years of subsequent research have succeeded in accumulating; and which is confessedly the Text of A.D. 375.
IV. We are favoured, in the third place, with the “History of this Edition:” in which the point that chiefly arrests attention is the explanation afforded of the many and serious occasions on which Dr. Westcott (“W.”) and Dr. Hort (“H.”), finding it impossible to agree, have set down their respective notions separately and subscribed them with their respective initial. We are reminded of what was wittily said concerning Richard Baxter: viz. that even if no one but himself existed in the Church, “Richard” would still be found to disagree with “Baxter,”—and “Baxter” with “Richard”.... We read with uneasiness that
“no individual mind can ever act with perfect uniformity, or free itself completely from _its own Idiosyncrasies_;” and that “the danger of _unconscious Caprice_ is inseparable from personal judgment.”—(p. 17.)
All this reminds us painfully of certain statements made by the same
Editors in 1870:—
“We are obliged to come to the _individual mind_ at last; and Canons of Criticism are useful only as warnings against _natural illusions_, and aids to circumspect consideration, not as absolute rules to prescribe the final decision.”—(pp. xviii., xix.)
May we be permitted without offence to point out (not for the first time)
that “idiosyncrasies” and “unconscious caprice,” and the fancies of the
“individual mind,” can be allowed _no place whatever_ in a problem of such
gravity and importance as the present? Once admit such elements, and we
are safe to find ourselves in cloud-land to-morrow. A weaker foundation on
which to build, is not to be named. And when we find that the learned
Professors “venture to hope that the present Text has escaped some risks
of this kind by being the production of two Editors of different habits of
mind, working independently and to a great extent on different plans,”—we
can but avow our conviction that the safeguard is altogether inadequate.
When two men, devoted to the same pursuit, are in daily confidential
intercourse on such a subject, the “_natural illusions_” of either have a
marvellous tendency to communicate themselves. Their Reader’s only
protection is rigidly to _insist_ on the production of _Proof_ for
everything which these authors say.
V. The dissertation on “Intrinsic” and “Transcriptional Probability” which follows (pp. 20-30),—being _unsupported by one single instance or illustration_,—we pass by. It ignores throughout the fact, that the most serious corruptions of MSS. are due, _not_ to “Scribes” or “Copyists,” (of whom, by the way, we find perpetual mention every time we open the page;) but to the persons who employed them. So far from thinking with Dr. Hort that “the value of the evidence obtained from Transcriptional Probability is incontestable,”—for that, “without its aid, Textual Criticism could rarely obtain a high degree of security,” (p. 24,)—we venture to declare that inasmuch as one expert’s notions of what is “transcriptionally probable” prove to be the diametrical reverse of another expert’s notions, the supposed evidence to be derived from this source may, with advantage, be neglected altogether. Let the study of _Documentary Evidence_ be allowed to take its place. Notions of “Probability” are the very pest of those departments of Science which admit of an appeal to _Fact_.
VI. A signal proof of the justice of our last remark is furnished by the plea which is straightway put in (pp. 30-1) for the superior necessity of attending to “the relative antecedent credibility of Witnesses.” In other words, “The comparative trustworthiness of documentary Authorities” is proposed as a far weightier consideration than “Intrinsic” and “Transcriptional Probability.” Accordingly we are assured (in capital letters) that “Knowledge of Documents should precede final judgment upon readings” (p. 31).
“Knowledge”! Yes, but how acquired? Suppose two rival documents,—cod. A and cod. B. May we be informed how you would proceed with respect to them?
“Where one of the documents is found habitually to contain _morally certain, or at least strongly preferred, Readings_,—and the other habitually to contain their rejected rivals,—we [_i.e._ _Dr. Hort_] can have no doubt that the Text of the first has been transmitted in comparative purity; and that the Text of the second has suffered comparatively large corruption.”—(p. 32.)
But can such words have been written seriously? Is it gravely pretended
that Readings become “_morally certain_,” because they are “_strongly
preferred_”? Are we (in other words) seriously invited to admit that the
“STRONG PREFERENCE” of “the individual mind” is to be the ultimate
standard of appeal? If so, though _you_ (Dr. Hort) may “_have no doubt_”
as to which is the purer manuscript,—see you not plainly that a man of
different “idiosyncrasy” from yourself, may just as reasonably claim to
“have no doubt”—_that you are mistaken_?... One is reminded of a passage
in p. 61: viz.—
“If we find in any group of documents a succession of Readings exhibiting an exceptional purity of text, that is,—_Readings which the fullest consideration of Internal Evidence pronounces to be right, in opposition to formidable arrays of Documentary Evidence_; the cause must be that, as far at least as these Readings are concerned, some one exceptionally pure MS. was the common ancestor of all the members of the group.”
But how does _that_ appear? “The cause” _may_ be _the erroneous judgment
of the Critic_,—may it not?... Dr. Hort is for setting up what his own
inner consciousness “pronounces to be right,” against “Documentary
Evidence,” however multitudinous. He claims that his own verifying faculty
shall be supreme,—shall settle every question. Can he be in earnest?
VII. We are next introduced to the subject of “Genealogical Evidence” (p. 39); and are made attentive: for we speedily find ourselves challenged to admit that a “total change in the bearing of the evidence” is “made by the introduction of the factor of Genealogy” (p. 43). Presuming that the _meaning_ of the learned Writer must rather be that _if we did but know_ the genealogy of MSS., we should be in a position to reason more confidently concerning their Texts,—we read on: and speedily come to a second axiom (which is again printed in capital letters), viz. that “All trustworthy restoration of corrupted Texts is founded on the study of their History” (p. 40). We really read and wonder. Are we then engaged in _the _“restoration of corrupted Texts”? If so,—which be they? We require—(1) To be shown the “_corrupted Texts_” referred to: and then—(2) To be convinced that “the study of _their History_”—(as distinguished from an examination of the evidence for or against _their Readings_)—is a thing feasible.
“A simple instance” (says Dr. Hort) “will show at once the practical bearing” of “the principle here laid down.”—(p. 40.)
But (as usual) Dr. Hort produces _no_ instance. He merely proceeds to
“suppose” a case (§ 50), which he confesses (§ 53) does not exist. So that
we are moving in a land of shadows. And this, he straightway follows up by
the assertion that
“it would be difficult to insist too strongly on the transformation of the superficial aspects of numerical authority effected by recognition of Genealogy.”—(p. 43.)
Presently, he assures us that
“a few documents are not, by reason of their mere paucity, appreciably less likely to be right than a multitude opposed to them.” (p. 45.)
On this head, we take leave to entertain a somewhat different opinion.
_Apart from the character of the Witnesses_, when 5 men say one thing, and
995 say the exact contradictory, we are apt to regard it even as axiomatic
that, “by reason of their mere paucity,” the few “are appreciably far less
likely to be right than the multitude opposed to them.” Dr. Hort seems to
share our opinion; for he remarks,—
“A presumption indeed remains that a majority of extant documents is more likely to represent a majority of ancestral documents, than _vice versâ_.”
Exactly so! We meant, and we mean _that_, and no other thing. But then, we
venture to point out, that the learned Professor considerably understates
the case: seeing that the “_vice versâ presumption_” is absolutely
non-existent. On the other hand, apart from _Proof to the contrary_, we
are disposed to maintain that “a majority of extant documents” in the
proportion of 995 to 5,—and sometimes of 1999 to 1,—creates more than “a
presumption.” It amounts to _Proof of _“a majority of ancestral
documents”.
Not so thinks Dr. Hort. “This presumption,” (he seems to have persuaded himself,) may be disposed of by his mere assertion that it “is too minute to weigh against the smallest tangible evidence of other kinds” (_Ibid._). As usual, however, he furnishes us with _no evidence at all_,—“tangible” or “intangible.” Can he wonder if we smile at his unsupported _dictum_, and pass on?... The argumentative import of his twenty weary pages on “Genealogical Evidence” (pp. 39-59), appears to be resolvable into the following barren truism: viz. That if, out of 10 copies of Scripture, 9 _could be proved_ to have been executed from one and the same common original (p. 41), those 9 would cease to be regarded as 9 independent witnesses. But does the learned Critic really require to be told that we want no diagram of an imaginary case (p. 54) to convince us of _that_?
The one thing here which moves our astonishment, is, that Dr. Hort does not seem to reflect that _therefore_ (indeed _by his own showing_) codices B and א, having been _demonstrably_ “executed from one and the same common original,” are not to be reckoned as _two_ independent witnesses to the Text of the New Testament, but as little more than _one_. (See p. 257.)
High time however is it to declare that, in strictness, all this talk about “Genealogical evidence,” when applied to Manuscripts, is—_moonshine_. The expression is metaphorical, and assumes that it has fared with MSS. as it fares with the successive generations of a family; and so, to a remarkable extent, no doubt, it _has_. But then, it happens, unfortunately, that we are unacquainted with _one single instance_ of a known MS. copied from another known MS. And perforce all talk about “Genealogical evidence,” where _no single step in the descent_ can be produced,—in other words, _where no Genealogical evidence exists_,—is absurd. The living inhabitants of a village, congregated in the churchyard where the bodies of their forgotten progenitors for 1000 years repose without memorials of any kind,—is a faint image of the relation which subsists between extant copies of the Gospels and the sources from which they were derived. That, in either case, there has been repeated mixture, is undeniable; but since the Parish-register is lost, and not a vestige of Tradition survives, it is idle to pretend to argue on _that_ part of the subject. It may be reasonably assumed however that those 50 yeomen, bearing as many Saxon surnames, indicate as many remote _ancestors_ of some sort. That they represent as many _families_, is at least a _fact_. Further we cannot go.
But the illustration is misleading, because inadequate. Assemble rather an Englishman, an Irishman, a Scot; a Frenchman, a German, a Spaniard; a Russian, a Pole, an Hungarian; an Italian, a Greek, a Turk. From Noah these 12 are all confessedly descended; but if _they_ are silent, and _you_ know nothing whatever about their antecedents,—your remarks about their respective “genealogies” must needs prove as barren—as Dr. Hort’s about the “genealogies” of copies of Scripture. “_The factor of Genealogy_,” in short, in this discussion, represents a mere phantom of the brain: is the name of an imagination—not of a fact.
The nearest approximation to the phenomenon about which Dr. Hort writes so glibly, is supplied—(1) by Codd. F and G of S. Paul, which are found to be independent transcripts of the same venerable lost original:—(2) by Codd. 13, 69, 124 and 346, which were confessedly derived from one and the same queer archetype: _and especially_—(3) by Codd. B and א. These two famous manuscripts, because they are disfigured exclusively by the self-same mistakes, are convicted of being descended (and not very remotely) from the self-same very corrupt original. By consequence, the combined evidence of F and G is but that of a single codex. Evan. 13, 69, 124, 346, when they agree, would be conveniently designated by a symbol, or a single capital letter. Codd. B and א, as already hinted (p. 255), are not to be reckoned as two witnesses. Certainly, they have not nearly the Textual significancy and importance of B in conjunction with A, or of A in conjunction with C. At best, they do but equal 1-½ copies. Nothing of this kind however is what Drs. Westcott and Hort intend to convey,—or indeed seem to understand.
VIII. It is not until we reach p. 94, that these learned men favour us with a single actual appeal to Scripture. At p. 90, Dr. Hort,—who has hitherto been skirmishing over the ground, and leaving us to wonder what in the world it can be that he is driving at,—announces a chapter on the “Results of Genealogical evidence proper;” and proposes to “determine the Genealogical relations of the chief ancient Texts.” Impatient for argument, (at page 92,) we read as follows:—
“The fundamental Text of _late extant Greek MSS._ generally is _beyond all question identical_ with the dominant Antiochian or Græco-Syrian Text of the _second half of the fourth century_.”
We request, in passing, that the foregoing statement may be carefully
noted. The Traditional Greek Text of the New Testament,—the TEXTUS
RECEPTUS, in short,—is, according to Dr. Hort, “BEYOND ALL QUESTION” the
“TEXT OF THE SECOND HALF OF THE FOURTH CENTURY.” We shall gratefully avail
ourselves of his candid admission, by and by.
Having thus _assumed_ a “dominant Antiochian or Græco-Syrian text of the second half of the IVth century,” Dr. H. attempts, by an analysis of what he is pleased to call “_conflate_ Readings,” to prove the “posteriority of ‘Syrian’ to ‘Western’ and other ‘Neutral’ readings.”... Strange method of procedure! seeing that, of those second and third classes of readings, we have not as yet so much as heard the names. Let us however without more delay be shown those specimens of “Conflation” which, in Dr. Hort’s judgment, supply “the clearest evidence” (p. 94) that “Syrian” are posterior alike to “Western” and to “Neutral readings.” Of these, after 30 years of laborious research, Dr. Westcott and he flatter themselves that they have succeeded in detecting _eight_.
IX. Now because, on the one hand, it would be unreasonable to fill up the space at our disposal with details which none but professed students will care to read;—and because, on the other, we cannot afford to pass by anything in these pages which pretends to be of the nature of proof;—we have consigned our account of Dr. Hort’s 8 instances of _Conflation_ (which prove to be less than 7) to the foot of the page.(717)
And, after an attentive survey of the Textual phenomena connected with these 7 specimens, we are constrained to assert that the interpretation put upon them by Drs. Westcott and Hort, is purely arbitrary: a baseless imagination,—a dream and nothing more. Something has been attempted analogous to the familiar fallacy, in Divinity, of building a false and hitherto unheard-of doctrine on a few isolated places of Scripture, divorced from their context. The actual _facts_ of the case shall be submitted to the judgement of learned and unlearned Readers alike: and we promise beforehand to abide by the unprejudiced verdict of either:—
(_a_) S. Mark’s Gospel is found to contain in all 11,646 words: of which (collated with the Traditional Text) A omits 138: B, 762: א, 870: D, 900.—S. Luke contains 19,941 words: of which A omits 208: B, 757; א, 816: D, no less than 1552. (Let us not be told that the traditional Text is itself not altogether trustworthy. _That_ is a matter entirely beside the question just now before the Reader,—as we have already, over and over again, had occasion to explain.(718) Codices must needs all alike be compared _with something_,—must perforce all alike be referred to _some one common standard_: and we, for our part, are content to employ (as every Critic has been content before us) the traditional Text, as the most convenient standard that can be named. So employed, (viz. as a standard of _comparison_, not of _excellence_,) the commonly Received Text, more conveniently than any other, _reveals_—certainly does not _occasion_—different degrees of discrepancy. And now, to proceed.)
(_b_) Dr. Hort has detected _four_ instances in S. Mark’s Gospel, only _three_ in S. Luke’s—_seven_ in all—where Codices B א and D happen to concur in making an omission _at the same place_, but not _of the same words_. We shall probably be best understood if we produce an instance of the thing spoken of: and no fairer example can be imagined than the last of the eight, of which Dr. Hort says,—“This simple instance needs no explanation” (p. 104). Instead of αἰνοῦντες καὶ εὐλογοῦντες,—(which is the reading of _every known copy_ of the Gospels _except five_,)—א B C L exhibit only εὐλογοῦντες: D, only αἰνοῦντες. (To speak quite accurately, א B C L omit αἰνοῦντες καί and are followed by Westcott and Hort: D omits καὶ εὐλογοῦντες, and is followed by Tischendorf. Lachmann declines to follow either. Tregelles doubts.)
(_c_) Now, upon this (and the six other instances, which however prove to be a vast deal less apt for their purpose than the present), these learned men have gratuitously built up the following extravagant and astonishing theory:—
(_d_) They assume,—(they do not attempt to _prove_: in fact they _never_ prove _anything_:)—(1) That αἰνοῦντες καί—and καὶ εὐλογοῦντες—are respectively fragments of two independent Primitive Texts, which they arbitrarily designate as “Western” and “Neutral,” respectively:—(2) That the latter of the two, [_only_ however because it is vouched for by B and א,] must needs exhibit what the Evangelist actually wrote: [though _why_ it must, these learned men forget to explain:]—(3) That in the middle of the IIIrd and of the IVth century the two Texts referred to were with design and by authority welded together, and became (what the same irresponsible Critics are pleased to call) the “Syrian text.”—(4) That αἰνοῦντες καὶ εὐλογοῦντες, being thus shown [?] to be “a Syrian _Conflation_,” may be rejected at once. (_Notes_, p. 73.)
X. But we demur to this weak imagination, (which only by courtesy can be called “_a Theory_,”) on every ground, and are constrained to remonstrate with our would-be Guides at every step. They assume everything. They prove nothing. And the facts of the case lend them no favour at all. For first,—We only find εὐλογοῦντες standing alone, in two documents of the IVth century, in two of the Vth, and in one of the VIIIth: while, for αἰνοῦντες standing alone, the only Greek voucher producible is a notoriously corrupt copy of the VIth century. True, that here a few copies of the old Latin side with D: but then a few copies _also_ side with the traditional Text: and Jerome is found to have adjudicated between their rival claims _in favour of the latter_. The probabilities of the case are in fact simply overwhelming; for, since D omits 1552 words out of 19,941 (_i.e._ about one word in 13), _why_ may not καὶ εὐλογοῦντες _be two of the words it omits_,—in which case there has been no “Conflation”?
Nay, look into the matter a little more closely:—(for surely, before we put up with this queer illusion, it is our duty to look it very steadily in the face:)—and note, that in this last chapter of S. Luke’s Gospel, which consists of 837 words, no less than 121 are omitted by cod. D. To state the case differently,—D is observed to leave out _one word in seven_ in the very chapter of S. Luke which supplies the instance of “Conflation” under review. What possible significance therefore can be supposed to attach to its omission of the clause καὶ εὐλογοῦντες? And since, _mutatis mutandis_, the same remarks apply to the 6 remaining cases,—(for one, viz. the [7th], is clearly an oversight,)—will any Reader of ordinary fairness and intelligence be surprised to hear that we reject the assumed “Conflation” unconditionally, as a silly dream? It is founded entirely upon the omission of 21 (or at most 42) words out of a total of 31,587 from Codd. B א D. And yet it is demonstrable that out of that total, B omits 1519: א, 1686: D, 2452. The occasional _coincidence in Omission_ of B + א and D, was in a manner inevitable, and is undeserving of notice. If,—(which is as likely as not,)—on _six_ occasions, B + א and D have but _omitted different words in the same sentence_, then _there has been no _“Conflation”; and the (so-called) “Theory,” which was to have revolutionized the Text of the N. T., is discovered to rest absolutely _upon nothing_. It bursts, like a very thin bubble: floats away like a film of gossamer, and disappears from sight.
But further, as a matter of fact, _at least five_ out of the eight instances cited,—viz. the [1st], [2nd], [5th], [6th], [7th],—_fail to exhibit the alleged phenomena_: conspicuously ought never to have been adduced. For, in the [1st], D merely _abridges_ the sentence: in the [2nd], it _paraphrases_ 11 words by 11; and in the [6th], it _paraphrases_ 12 words by 9. In the [5th], B D merely _abridge_. The utmost _residuum_ of fact which survives, is therefore as follows:—
[3rd]. In a sentence of 11 words, B א omit 4: D other 4. [4th]. " " 9 words, B א omit 5: D other 5. [8th]. " " 5 words, B א omit 2: D other 2.
But if _this_ be “the clearest Evidence” (p. 94) producible for “the Theory of Conflation,”—then, the less said about the “Theory,” the better for the credit of its distinguished Inventors. How _any_ rational Textual Theory is to be constructed out of the foregoing Omissions, we fail to divine. But indeed the whole matter is demonstrably a weak imagination,—_a dream_, and nothing more.
XI. In the meantime, Drs. Westcott and Hort, instead of realizing the insecurity of the ground under their feet, proceed gravely to build upon it, and to treat their hypothetical assumptions as well-ascertained facts. They imagine that they have already been led by “independent Evidence” to regard “the longer readings as conflate each from the two earlier readings:”—whereas, up to p. 105 (where the statement occurs), they have really failed to produce a single particle of evidence, direct or indirect, for their opinion. “We have found reason to believe” the Readings of א B L, (say they,) “to be the original Readings.”—But why, if this is the case, have they kept their “finding” so entirely to themselves?—_No reason whatever_ have they assigned for their belief. The Reader is presently assured (p. 106) that “_it is certain_” that the Readings exhibited by the traditional Text in the eight supposed cases of “Conflation” are all posterior in date to the fragmentary readings exhibited by B and D. But, once more, What is _the ground_ of this “certainty”?—Presently (viz. in p. 107), the Reader meets with the further assurance that
“_the proved_ actual use of [shorter] documents in the conflate Readings renders their use elsewhere a _vera causa_ in the Newtonian sense.”
But, once more,—_Where_ and _what_ is the “proof” referred to? May a plain
man, sincerely in search of Truth,—after wasting many precious hours over
these barren pages—be permitted to declare that he resents such solemn
trifling? (He craves to be forgiven if he avows that “_Pickwickian_”—not
“Newtonian”—was the epithet which solicited him, when he had to transcribe
for the Printer the passage which immediately precedes.)
XII. Next come 8 pages (pp. 107-15) headed—“Posteriority of ‘Syrian’ to ‘Western’ and other (neutral and ‘Alexandrian’) Readings, shown by Ante-Nicene Patristic evidence.”
In which however we are really “shown” nothing of the sort. _Bold Assertions_ abound, (as usual with this respected writer,) but _Proof_ he never attempts any. Not a particle of “Evidence” is adduced.—Next come 5 pages headed,—“Posteriority of Syrian to Western, Alexandrian, and other (neutral) Readings, shown by Internal evidence of Syrian readings” (p. 115).
But again we are “_shown_” absolutely nothing: although we are treated to the assurance that we have been shown many wonders. Thus, “the Syrian conflate Readings _have shown_ the Syrian text to be posterior to at least two ancient forms still extant” (p. 115): which is the very thing they have signally failed to do. Next,
“Patristic evidence _has shown_ that these two ancient Texts, and also a third, must have already existed early in the third century, and suggested very strong grounds for believing that in the middle of the century the Syrian Text had not yet been formed.”
Whereas _no single appeal_ has been made to the evidence supplied by _one
single ancient Father_!—
“Another step is gained by a close examination of all Readings distinctively Syrian.”—(_Ibid._)
And yet we are never told which the “Readings distinctively Syrian”
_are_,—although they are henceforth referred to in every page. Neither are
we instructed how to recognize them when we see them; which is
unfortunate, since “it follows,”—(though we entirely fail to see from
_what_,)—“that all distinctively Syrian Readings may be set aside at once
as certainly originating after the middle of the third century.” (p. 117)
... Let us hear a little more on the subject:—
“The same _Facts_”—(though Dr. Hort has not hitherto favoured us with _any_)—“lead to another conclusion of equal or even greater importance respecting non-distinctive Syrian Readings ... Since the Syrian Text is only a modified eclectic combination of earlier Texts independently attested,”—
(for it is in this confident style that these eminent Scholars handle the
problem they undertook to solve, but as yet have failed even _to touch_),—
“existing documents descended from it can attest nothing but itself.”—(p. 118.)
Presently, we are informed that “it follows from what has been said
above,”—(though _how_ it follows, we fail to see,)—“that all Readings in
which the Pre-Syrian texts concur, _must be accepted at once as the
Apostolic Readings_:” and that “all distinctively Syrian Readings _must be
at once rejected_.”—(p. 119.)
Trenchant decrees of this kind at last arrest attention. It becomes apparent that we have to do with a Writer who has discovered a summary way of dealing with the Text of Scripture, and who is prepared to impart his secret to any who care to accept—without questioning—his views. We look back to see where this accession of confidence began, and are reminded that at p. 108 Dr. Hort announced that for convenience he should henceforth speak of certain “groups of documents,” by the conventional names “Western”—“Pre-Syrian”—“Alexandrian”—and so forth. Accordingly, ever since, (sometimes eight or ten times in the course of a single page,(719)) we have encountered this arbitrary terminology: have been required to accept it as the expression of ascertained facts in Textual Science. Not till we find ourselves floundering in the deep mire, do we become fully aware of the absurdity of our position. Then at last, (and high time too!), we insist on knowing what on earth our Guide is about, and whither he is proposing to lead us?... More considerate to our Readers than he has been to us, we propose before going any further, (instead of mystifying the subject as Dr. Hort has done,) to state in a few plain words what the present Theory, divested of pedantry and circumlocution, proves to be; and what is Dr. Hort’s actual contention.
XIII. The one great Fact, which especially troubles him and his joint Editor,(720)—(as well it may)—is _The Traditional Greek Text_ of the New Testament Scriptures. Call this Text Erasmian or Complutensian,—the Text of Stephens, or of Beza, or of the Elzevirs,—call it the “Received,” or the _Traditional Greek Text_, or whatever other name you please;—the fact remains, that a Text _has_ come down to us which is attested by a general consensus of ancient Copies, ancient Fathers, ancient Versions. This, at all events, is a point on which, (happily,) there exists entire conformity of opinion between Dr. Hort and ourselves. Our Readers cannot have yet forgotten his virtual admission that,—_Beyond all question the Textus Receptus_ is _the dominant Græco-Syrian Text of_ A.D. 350 _to_ A.D. 400.(721)
Obtained from a variety of sources, this Text proves to be essentially _the same_ in all. That it requires Revision in respect of many of its lesser details, is undeniable: but it is at least as certain that it is an excellent Text as it stands, and that the use of it will never lead critical students of Scripture seriously astray,—which is what no one will venture to predicate concerning any single Critical Edition of the N. T. which has been published since the days of Griesbach, by the disciples of Griesbach’s school.
XIV. In marked contrast to the Text we speak of,—(which is identical with the Text of every extant Lectionary of the Greek Church, and may therefore reasonably claim to be spoken of as the _Traditional_ Text,)—is _that_ contained in a little handful of documents of which the most famous are codices B א, and the Coptic Version (as far as it is known), on the one hand,—cod. D and the old Latin copies, on the other. To magnify the merits of these, as helps and guides, and to ignore their many patent and scandalous defects and blemishes:—_per fas et nefas_ to vindicate their paramount authority wherever it is in any way possible to do so; and when _that_ is clearly impossible, then to treat their errors as the ancient Egyptians treated their cats, dogs, monkeys, and other vermin,—namely, to embalm them, and pay them Divine honours:—_such_ for the last 50 years has been the practice of the dominant school of Textual Criticism among ourselves. The natural and even necessary correlative of this, has been the disparagement of the merits of the commonly Received Text: which has come to be spoken of, (we know not why,) as contemptuously, almost as bitterly, as if it had been at last ascertained to be untrustworthy in every respect: a thing undeserving alike of a place and of a name among the monuments of the Past. Even to have “used the Received Text _as a basis for correction_” (p. 184) is stigmatized by Dr. Hort as one “great cause” why Griesbach went astray.
XV. Drs. Westcott and Hort have in fact outstripped their predecessors in this singular race. Their absolute contempt for the Traditional Text,—their superstitious veneration for a few ancient documents; (which documents however they freely confess _are not more ancient_ than the “Traditional Text” which they despise;)—knows no bounds. But the thing just now to be attended to is the argumentative process whereby they seek to justify their preference.—LACHMANN avowedly took his stand on a very few of the oldest known documents: and though TREGELLES slightly enlarged the area of his predecessor’s observations, his method was practically identical with that of Lachmann.—TISCHENDORF, appealing to every known authority, invariably shows himself regardless of the evidence he has himself accumulated. Where certain of the uncials are,—_there_ his verdict is sure also to be.... Anything more unscientific, more unphilosophical, more transparently _foolish_ than such a method, can scarcely be conceived: but it has prevailed for 50 years, and is now at last more hotly than ever advocated by Drs. WESTCOTT and HORT. Only, (to their credit be it recorded,) they have had the sense to perceive that it must needs be recommended by _Arguments_ of some sort, or else it will inevitably fall to pieces the first fine day any one is found to charge it, with the necessary knowledge of the subject, and with sufficient resoluteness of purpose, to make him a formidable foe.
XVI. Their expedient has been as follows.—Aware that the Received or Traditional Greek Text (to quote their own words,) “_is virtually identical with that used by Chrysostom and other Antiochian Fathers in the latter part of the IVth century_:” and fully alive to the fact that it “_must therefore have been represented by Manuscripts as old as any which are now surviving_” (_Text_, p. 547),—they have invented an extraordinary Hypothesis in order to account for its existence:—
They assume that the writings of Origen “establish the prior existence of at least three types of Text:”—the most clearly marked of which, they call the “Western:”—another, less prominent, they designate as “Alexandrian:”—the third holds (they say) a middle or “Neutral” position. (That all this is mere _moonshine_,—a day-dream and no more,—we shall insist, until some proofs have been produced that the respected Authors are moving amid material forms,—not discoursing with the creations of their own brain.) “The priority of two at least of these three Texts just noticed to the Syrian Text,” they are confident has been established by the eight “_conflate_” Syrian Readings which they flatter themselves they have already resolved into their “Western” and “Neutral” elements (_Text_, p. 547). This, however, is a part of the subject on which we venture to hope that our Readers by this time have formed a tolerably clear opinion for themselves. The ground has been cleared of the flimsy superstructure which these Critics have been 30 years in raising, ever since we blew away (pp. 258-65) the airy foundation on which it rested.
At the end of some confident yet singularly hazy statements concerning the characteristics of “Western” (pp. 120-6), of “Neutral” (126-30), and of “Alexandrian” Readings (130-2), Dr. Hort favours us with the assurance that—
“The Syrian Text, to which the order of time now brings us,” “is the chief monument of a new period of textual history.”—(p. 132.)
“Now, the three great lines were brought together, and made to contribute to the formation of a new Text different from all.”—(p. 133.)
Let it only be carefully remembered that it is of something virtually
identical with the _Textus Receptus_ that we are just now reading an
imaginary history, and it is presumed that the most careless will be made
attentive.
“The Syrian Text must in fact be the result of a ‘_Recension_,’ ... performed deliberately by Editors, and not merely by Scribes.”—(_Ibid._)
But _why_ “must” it? Instead of “_must in fact_,” we are disposed to read
“_may—in fiction_.” The learned Critic can but mean that, on comparing the
Text of Fathers of the IVth century with the Text of cod. B, it becomes to
himself self-evident that _one of the two_ has been fabricated. Granted.
Then,—Why should not _the solitary Codex_ be the offending party? For what
imaginable reason should cod. B,—which comes to us without a character,
and which, when tried by the test of primitive Antiquity, stands convicted
of “_universa vitiositas_,” (to use Tischendorf’s expression);—_why_ (we
ask) should _codex_ B be upheld “contra mundum”?... Dr. Hort
proceeds—(still speaking of “_the_ [imaginary] _Syrian Text_”),—
“It was probably initiated by the distracting and inconvenient currency of at least three conflicting Texts in the same region.”—(p. 133.)
Well but,—Would it not have been more methodical if “the currency of at
least three conflicting Texts in the same region,” had been first
_demonstrated_? or, at least, shown to be a thing probable? Till this
“distracting” phenomenon has been to some extent proved to have any
existence in _fact_, what possible “probability” can be claimed for the
history of a “Recension,”—which very Recension, up to this point, _has not
been proved to have ever taken place at all_?
“Each Text may perhaps have found a Patron in some leading personage or see, and thus have seemed to call for a conciliation of rival claims.”—(p. 134.)
Why yes, to be sure,—“each Text [_if it existed_] may perhaps [_or perhaps
may not_] have found a Patron in some leading personage [as Dr. Hort or
Dr. Scrivener in our own days]:” but then, be it remembered, this will
only have been possible,—(_a_) If the Recension _ever took place_:
and—(_b_) If it was conducted after the extraordinary fashion which
prevailed in the Jerusalem Chamber from 1870 to 1881: for which we have
the unimpeachable testimony of an eye-witness;(722) confirmed by the
Chairman of the Revisionist body,—by whom in fact it was deliberately
invented.(723)
But then, since not a shadow of proof is forthcoming that _any such Recension as Dr. Hort imagines ever took place at all_,—what else but a purely gratuitous exercise of the imaginative faculty is it, that Dr. Hort should proceed further to invent the method which might, or could, or would, or should have been pursued, if it _had_ taken place?
Having however in this way (1) Assumed a “Syrian Recension,”—(2) Invented the cause of it,—and (3) Dreamed the process by which it was carried into execution,—the Critic hastens, _more suo_, to characterize _the historical result_ in the following terms:—
“The qualities which THE AUTHORS OF THE SYRIAN TEXT seem to have most desired to impress on it are lucidity and completeness. They were evidently anxious to remove all stumbling-blocks out of the way of the ordinary reader, so far as this could be done without recourse to violent measures. They were apparently equally desirous that he should have the benefit of instructive matter contained in all the existing Texts, provided it did not confuse the context or introduce seeming contradictions. New Omissions accordingly are rare, and where they occur are usually found to contribute to apparent simplicity. New Interpolations, on the other hand, are abundant, most of them being due to harmonistic or other assimilation, fortunately capricious and incomplete. Both in matter and in diction THE SYRIAN TEXT is conspicuously a full Text. It delights in Pronouns, Conjunctions, and Expletives and supplied links of all kinds, as well as in more considerable Additions. As distinguished from the _bold vigour_ of the ‘Western’ scribes, and _the refined scholarship_ of the ‘Alexandrians,’ the spirit of its own corrections is at once sensible and feeble. Entirely blameless, on either literary or religious grounds, as regards vulgarized or unworthy diction, yet _shewing no marks of either Critical or Spiritual insight, it presents the New Testament in a form smooth and attractive, but appreciably impoverished in sense and force; more fitted for cursory perusal or recitation than for repeated and diligent study_.”—(pp. 134-5.)
XVII. We forbear to offer any remarks on this. We should be thought
uncivil were we to declare our own candid estimate of “the critical and
spiritual” perception of the man who could permit himself so to write. We
prefer to proceed with our sketch of the Theory, (of _the Dream_ rather,)
which is intended to account for the existence of the Traditional Text of
the N. T.: only venturing again to submit that surely it would have been
high time to discuss the characteristics which “the Authors of the Syrian
Text” impressed upon their work, when it had been first established—or at
least rendered probable—that the supposed Operators and that the assumed
Operation have any existence except in the fertile brain of this
distinguished and highly imaginative writer.
XVIII. Now, the first consideration which strikes us as fatal to Dr. Hort’s unsupported conjecture concerning the date of the Text he calls “Syrian” or “Antiochian,” is the fact that what he so designates bears a most inconvenient resemblance to the Peschito or ancient Syriac Version; which, like the old Latin, is (by consent of the Critics) generally assigned to the second century of our era. “It is at any rate no stretch of imagination,” (according to Bp. Ellicott,) “to suppose that portions of it might have been in the hands of S. John.” [p. 26.] Accordingly, these Editors assure us that—
“the only way of explaining the whole body of facts is _to suppose_ that the Syriac, like the Latin Version, underwent Revision long after its origin; and that our ordinary Syriac MSS. represent not the primitive but the altered Syriac Text.”—(p. 136.)
“A Revision of the old Syriac Version _appears_ to have taken place in the IVth century, or sooner; and _doubtless in some connexion with the Syrian Revision of the Greek Text_, the readings being to a very great extent coincident.”—(_Text_, 552.)
“Till recently, the Peschito has been known only in the form which it finally received by _an evidently authoritative Revision_,”—_a Syriac _“Vulgate”_ answering to the Latin _“Vulgate.”—(p. 84.)
“Historical antecedents render it _tolerably certain_ that the locality of such an authoritative Revision”—(which Revision however, be it observed, still rests wholly on unsupported conjecture)—“would be either Edessa or Nisibis.”—(p. 136.)
In the meantime, the abominably corrupt document known as “Cureton’s
Syriac,” is, by another bold hypothesis, assumed to be the only surviving
specimen of the unrevised Version, and is henceforth _invariably_
designated by these authors as “the old Syriac;” and referred to, as “syr.
vt.,”—(in imitation of the Latin “_vetus_”): the venerable Peschito being
referred to as the “Vulgate Syriac,”—“syr. vg.”
“When therefore we find large and peculiar coincidences between the _revised Syriac Text_ and the Text of the Antiochian Fathers of the latter part of the IVth century,”—[of which coincidences, (be it remarked in passing,) the obvious explanation is, that the Texts referred to are faithful traditional representations of the inspired autographs;]—“and _strong indications_ that the Revision _was deliberate and in some way authoritative_ in both cases,—_it becomes natural to suppose_ that the two operations had some historical connexion.”—(pp. 136-7.)
XIX. But how does it happen—(let the question be asked without
offence)—that a man of good abilities, bred in a University which is
supposed to cultivate especially the Science of exact reasoning, should
habitually allow himself in such slipshod writing as this? The very _fact_
of a “Revision” of the Syriac has all to be proved; and until it has been
_demonstrated_, cannot of course be reasoned upon as a fact. Instead of
demonstration, we find ourselves invited (1)—“_To suppose_” that such a
Revision took place: and (2)—“_To suppose_” that all our existing
Manuscripts represent it. But (as we have said) not a shadow of reason is
produced why we should be so complaisant as “to suppose” either the one
thing or the other. In the meantime, the accomplished Critic hastens to
assure us that there exist “strong indications”—(why are we not _shown_
them?)—that the Revision he speaks of was “deliberate, and in some way
authoritative.”
Out of this grows a “natural supposition” that “two [purely imaginary] operations,” “had some _historical connexion_.” Already therefore has the shadow thickened into a substance. “The _Revised_ Syriac Text” has by this time come to be spoken of as an admitted fact. The process whereby it came into being is even assumed to have been “deliberate and authoritative.” These Editors henceforth style the Peschito the “_Syriac_ Vulgate,”—as confidently as Jerome’s Revision of the old Latin is styled the “_Latin_ Vulgate.” They even assure us that “Cureton’s Syriac” “renders the comparatively late and ‘revised’ character of the Syriac Vulgate _a matter of certainty_” (p. 84). The very city in which the latter underwent Revision, can, it seems, be fixed with “_tolerable certainty_” (p. 136).... Can Dr. Hort be serious?
At the end of a series of conjectures, (the foundation of which is the hypothesis of an Antiochian Recension of the Greek,) the learned writer announces that—“The textual elements of each principle document _having being thus ascertained, it now becomes possible to determine the Genealogy of a much larger number of individual readings than before_” (_Text_, p. 552).—We read and marvel.
So then, in brief, the Theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort is this:—that, somewhere between A.D. 250 and A.D. 350,
“(1) The growing diversity and confusion of Greek Texts led to an authoritative Revision at Antioch:—which (2) was then taken as standard for a similar authoritative Revision of the Syriac text:—and (3) was itself at a later time subjected to a second authoritative Revision”—this “final process” having been “apparently completed by [A.D.] 350 or thereabouts.”—(p. 137.)
XX. Now, instead of insisting that this entire Theory is made up of a
series of purely gratuitous assumptions,—destitute alike of attestation
and of probability: and that, as a mere effort of the Imagination, it is
entitled to no manner of consideration or respect at our hands:—instead of
dealing _thus_ with what precedes, we propose to be most kind and
accommodating to Dr. Hort. We proceed _to accept his Theory in its
entirety_. We will, with the Reader’s permission, assume that _all_ he
tells us is historically true: is an authentic narrative of what actually
did take place. We shall in the end invite the same Reader to recognize
the inevitable consequences of our admission: to which we shall inexorably
pin the learned Editors—bind them hand and foot;—of course reserving to
ourselves the right of disallowing _for ourselves_ as much of the matter
as we please.
Somewhere between A.D. 250 and 350 therefore,—(“it is impossible to say with confidence” [p. 137] what was the actual date, but these Editors evidently incline to the latter half of the IIIrd century, _i.e._ _circa_ A.D. 275);—we are to believe that the Ecclesiastical heads of the four great Patriarchates of Eastern Christendom,—Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople,—had become so troubled at witnessing the prevalence of depraved copies of Holy Scripture in their respective churches, that they resolved by common consent on achieving an authoritative Revision which should henceforth become the standard Text of all the Patriarchates of the East. The same sentiment of distress—(by the hypothesis) penetrated into Syria proper; and the Bishops of Edessa or Nisibis, (“great centres of life and culture to the Churches whose language was Syriac,” [p. 136,]) lent themselves so effectually to the project, that a single fragmentary document is, at the present day, the only vestige remaining of the Text which before had been universally prevalent in the Syriac-speaking Churches of antiquity. “The _almost total extinction of Old Syriac MSS._, contrasted with the great number of extant _Vulgate Syriac MSS._,”—(for it is thus that Dr. Hort habitually exhibits evidence!),—is to be attributed, it seems, to the power and influence of the Authors of the imaginary Syriac Revision. [_ibid._] Bp. Ellicott, by the way (an unexceptionable witness), characterizes Cureton’s Syriac as “_singular and sometimes rather wild_.” “_The text, of a very composite nature_; sometimes _inclining to the shortness and simplicity of the Vatican manuscript, but more commonly presenting the same paraphrastic character of text as the Codex Bezæ_.” [p. 42.] (It is, in fact, an _utterly depraved_ and _fabricated_ document.)
We venture to remark in passing that Textual matters must have everywhere reached a very alarming pass indeed to render intelligible the resort to so extraordinary a step as a representative Conference of the “leading Personages or Sees” (p. 134) of Eastern Christendom. The inference is at least inevitable, that men in high place at that time deemed themselves competent to grapple with the problem. Enough was familiarly known about the character and the sources of these corrupt Texts to make it certain that they would be recognizable when produced; and that, when condemned by authority, they would no longer be propagated, and in the end would cease to molest the Church. Thus much, at all events, is legitimately to be inferred from the hypothesis.
XXI. Behold then from every principal Diocese of ancient Christendom, and in the Church’s palmiest days, the most famous of the ante-Nicene Fathers repair to Antioch. They go up by authority, and are attended by skilled Ecclesiastics of the highest theological attainment. Bearers are they perforce of a vast number of Copies of the Scriptures: and (by the hypothesis) _the latest possible dates_ of any of these Copies must range between A.D. 250 and 350. But the Delegates of so many ancient Sees will have been supremely careful, before starting on so important and solemn an errand, to make diligent search for the oldest Copies anywhere discoverable: and when they reach the scene of their deliberations, we may be certain that they are able to appeal to not a few codices _written within a hundred years of the_ date of the _inspired Autographs_ themselves. Copies of the Scriptures authenticated as having belonged to the most famous of their predecessors,—and held by them in high repute for the presumed purity of their Texts—will have been freely produced: while, in select receptacles, will have been stowed away—for purposes of comparison and avoidance—specimens of those dreaded Texts whose existence has been the sole cause why (by the hypothesis) this extraordinary concourse of learned Ecclesiastics has taken place.
After solemnly invoking the Divine blessing, these men address themselves assiduously to their task; and (by the hypothesis) they proceed to condemn every codex which exhibits a “strictly Western,” or a “strictly Alexandrian,” or a “strictly Neutral” type. In plain English, if codices B, א, and D had been before them, they would have unceremoniously rejected all three; but then, (by the hypothesis) neither of the two first-named had yet come into being: while 200 years at least must roll out before Cod. D would see the light. In the meantime, the _immediate ancestors_ of B א and D will perforce have come under judicial scrutiny; and, (by the hypothesis,) they will have been scornfully rejected by the general consent of the Judges.
XXII. Pass an interval—(are we to suppose of fifty years?)—and the work referred to is “_subjected to a second authoritative Revision_.” _Again_, therefore, behold the piety and learning of the four great Patriarchates of the East, formally represented at Antioch! The Church is now in her palmiest days. Some of her greatest men belong to the period of which we are speaking. Eusebius (A.D. 308-340) is in his glory. One whole generation has come and gone since the last Textual Conference was held, at Antioch. Yet is no inclination manifested to reverse the decrees of the earlier Conference. This second Recension of the Text of Scripture does but “carry out more completely the purposes of the first;” and “the final process was apparently completed by A.D. 350” (p. 137).—So far the Cambridge Professor.
XXIII. But the one important fact implied by this august deliberation concerning the Text of Scripture has been conveniently passed over by Dr. Hort in profound silence. We take leave to repair his omission by inviting the Reader’s particular attention to it.
We request him to note that, _by the hypothesis_, there will have been submitted to the scrutiny of these many ancient Ecclesiastics _not a few codices of exactly the same type as codices_ B _and_ א: especially as codex B. We are able even to specify with precision certain features which the codices in question will have all concurred in exhibiting. Thus,—
(1) From S. Mark’s Gospel, those depraved copies will have omitted THE LAST TWELVE VERSES (xvi. 9-20).
(2) From S. Luke’s Gospel the same corrupt copies will have omitted our SAVIOUR’S AGONY IN THE GARDEN (xxii. 43, 44).
(3) His PRAYER ON BEHALF OF HIS MURDERERS (xxiii. 34), will have also been away.
(4) The INSCRIPTION ON THE CROSS, in GREEK, LATIN, AND HEBREW (xxiii. 38), will have been partly, misrepresented,—partly, away.
(5) And there will have been no account discoverable of S. PETER’S VISIT TO THE SEPULCHRE (xxiv. 12).
(6) Absent will have been also the record of our LORD’S ASCENSION INTO HEAVEN (_ibid._ 51).
(7) Also, from S. John’s Gospel, the codices in question will have omitted the incident of THE TROUBLING OF THE POOL OF BETHESDA (v. 3, 4).
Now, we request that it may be clearly noted that, _according to Dr. Hort_, against every copy of the Gospels so maimed and mutilated, (_i.e._ _against every copy of the Gospels of the same type as codices_ B _and_ א,)—the many illustrious Bishops who, (_still_ according to Dr. Hort,) assembled at Antioch, first in A.D. 250 and then in A.D. 350,—by common consent set a mark of _condemnation_. We are assured that those famous men,—those Fathers of the Church,—were emphatic in their sanction, instead, of codices of the type of Cod. A,—in which all these seven omitted passages (and many hundreds besides) are duly found in their proper places.
When, therefore, at the end of a thousand and half a thousand years, Dr. Hort (guided by his inner consciousness, and depending on an intellectual illumination of which he is able to give no intelligible account) proposes to reverse the deliberate sentence of Antiquity,—his position strikes us as bordering on the ludicrous. Concerning the seven places above referred to, which the assembled Fathers pronounce to be genuine Scripture, and declare to be worthy of all acceptation,—Dr. Hort expresses himself in terms which—could they have been heard at Antioch—must, it is thought, have brought down upon his head tokens of displeasure which might have even proved inconvenient. But let the respected gentleman by all means be allowed to speak for himself:—
(1) THE LAST TWELVE VERSES of S. Mark (he would have been heard to say) are a “very early interpolation.” “Its authorship and precise date must remain unknown.” “It manifestly cannot claim any Apostolic authority.” “It is doubtless founded on some tradition of the Apostolic age.”—(_Notes_, pp. 46 and 51.)
(2) THE AGONY IN THE GARDEN (he would have told them) is “an early Western interpolation,” and “can only be a fragment from traditions, written or oral,”—“rescued from oblivion by the scribes of the second century.”—(pp. 66-7.)
(3) THE PRAYER OF OUR LORD FOR HIS MURDERERS (Dr. Hort would have said),—“I cannot doubt comes from an extraneous source.” It is “a Western interpolation.”—(p.68.)
(4) TO THE INSCRIPTION ON THE CROSS, IN GREEK, LATIN, AND HEBREW [S. Luke xxiii. 38], he would not have allowed so much as a hearing.
(5) The spuriousness of the narrative of S. PETER’S VISIT TO THE SEPULCHRE [S. Luke xxiv. 12] (the same Ante-Nicene Fathers would have learned) he regards as a “moral certainty.” He would have assured them that it is “a Western non-interpolation.”—(p. 71.)
(6) They would have learned that, in the account of the same Critic, S. Luke xxiv. 51 is another spurious addition to the inspired Text: another “Western non-interpolation.” Dr. Hort would have tried to persuade them that OUR LORD’S ASCENSION INTO HEAVEN “_was evidently inserted from an assumption_ that a separation from the disciples at the close of a Gospel _must be the Ascension_,” (_Notes_, p. 73).... (What the Ante-Nicene Fathers would have thought of their teacher we forbear to conjecture.)—(p. 71.)
(7) THE TROUBLING OF THE POOL OF BETHESDA [S. John v. 3, 4] is not even allowed a bracketed place in Dr. Hort’s Text. How the accomplished Critic would have set about persuading the Ante-Nicene Fathers that they were in error for holding it to be genuine Scripture, it is hard to imagine.
XXIV. It is plain therefore that Dr. Hort is in direct antagonism with the collective mind of Patristic Antiquity. _Why_, when it suits him, he should appeal to the same Ancients for support,—we fail to understand. “If Baal be GOD, then follow _him_!” Dr. Hort has his codex B and his codex א to guide him. He informs us (p. 276) that “the fullest consideration does but increase the conviction that the _pre-eminent relative purity_” of those two codices “is approximately _absolute_,—_a true approximate reproduction of the Text of the Autographs_.” On the other hand, he has discovered that the Received Text is virtually the production of the Fathers of the Nicene Age (A.D. 250-A.D. 350),—exhibits a Text fabricated throughout by the united efforts of those well-intentioned but thoroughly misguided men. What is it to _him_, henceforth, how Athanasius, or Didymus, or Cyril exhibits a place?
Yes, we repeat it,—Dr. Hort is in direct antagonism with the Fathers of the IIIrd and the IVth Century. His own fantastic hypothesis of a “Syrian Text,”—the solemn expression of the collective wisdom and deliberate judgment of the Fathers of the Nicene Age (A.D. 250-A.D. 350),—is the best answer which can by possibility be invented to his own pages,—is, in our account, the one sufficient and conclusive refutation of his own Text.
Thus, his prolix and perverse discussion of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 (viz. from p. 28 to p. 51 of his _Notes_),—which, carefully analysed, is found merely to amount to “Thank you for showing us our mistake; but we mean to stick to our _Mumpsimus_!”:—those many inferences as well from what the Fathers do _not_ say, as from what they _do_;—are all effectually disposed of by his own theory of a “Syrian text.” A mighty array of forgotten Bishops, Fathers, Doctors of the Nicene period, come back and calmly assure the accomplished Professor that the evidence on which he relies is but an insignificant fraction of the evidence which was before themselves when they delivered their judgment. “Had you known but the thousandth part of what we knew familiarly,” say they, “you would have spared yourself this exposure. You seem to have forgotten that Eusebius was one of the chief persons in our assembly; that Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius, Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus, as well as his namesake of Nyssa,—were all living when we held our Textual Conference, and some of them, though young men, were even parties to our decree.”... Now, as an _argumentum ad hominem_, this, be it observed, is decisive and admits of no rejoinder.
XXV. How then about those “Syrian _Conflations_” concerning which a few pages back we heard so much, and for which Dr. Hort considers the august tribunal of which we are now speaking to be responsible? He is convinced that the (so-called) Syrian Text (which he regards as the product of their deliberations), is “an eclectic text _combining Readings from the three principal Texts_” (p. 145): which Readings in consequence he calls “_conflate_.” How then is it to be supposed that these “Conflations” arose? The answer is obvious. As “Conflations,” _they have no existence_,—save in the fertile brain of Dr. Hort. Could the ante-Nicene fathers who never met at Antioch have been interrogated by him concerning this matter,—(let the Hibernian supposition be allowed for argument sake!)—they would perforce have made answer,—“You quite mistake the purpose for which we came together, learned sir! You are evidently thinking of your Jerusalem Chamber and of the unheard-of method devised by your Bishop” [see pp. 37 to 39: also p. 273] “for ascertaining the Truth of Scripture. Well may the resuscitation of so many forgotten blunders have occupied you and your colleagues for as long a period as was expended on the Siege of Troy! _Our_ business was not to _invent_ readings whether by ‘Conflation’ or otherwise, but only to distinguish between spurious Texts and genuine,—families of fabricated MSS., and those which we knew to be trustworthy,—mutilated and unmutilated Copies. Every one of what _you_ are pleased to call ‘Conflate Readings,’ learned sir, we found—just as you find them—in 99 out of 100 of our copies: and we gave them our deliberate approval, and left them standing in the Text in consequence. We believed them to be,—we are confident that they _are_,—the very words of the Evangelists and Apostles of the LORD: the _ipsissima verba_ of the SPIRIT: ‘_the true sayings of the_ HOLY GHOST.’ ” [See p. 38, note 2.]
All this however by the way. The essential thing to be borne in mind is that, according to Dr. Hort,—_on two distinct occasions between_ A.D. 250 _and_ 350—the whole Eastern Church, meeting by representation in her palmiest days, deliberately put forth _that_ Traditional Text of the N. T. with which we at this day are chiefly familiar. That this is indeed his view of the matter, there can at least be no doubt. He says:—
“_An authoritative Revision_ at Antioch ... was itself subjected to _a second authoritative Revision_ carrying out more completely the purposes of the first.” “At what date between A.D. 250 and 350 _the first process_ took place, it is impossible to say with confidence.” “_The final process_ was apparently completed by A.D. 350 or thereabouts.”—(p. 137.)
“The fundamental text of late extant Greek MSS. generally _is beyond all question_ identical with the dominant Antiochian or Græco-Syrian text of _the second half of the IVth century_.”—(p. 92.)
Be it so. It follows that the Text exhibited by such codices as B and א
_was deliberately condemned_ by the assembled piety, learning, and
judgment of the four great Patriarchates of Eastern Christendom. At a
period when there existed _nothing more modern_ than Codices B and
א,—nothing _so_ modern as A and C,—all specimens of the former class were
_rejected_: while such codices as bore a general resemblance to A were by
common consent pointed out as deserving of confidence and _recommended for
repeated Transcription_.
XXVI. Pass _fifteen hundred_ years, and the Reader is invited to note attentively what has come to pass. Time has made a clean sweep, it may be, of every Greek codex belonging to either of the two dates above indicated. Every tradition belonging to the period has also long since utterly perished. When lo, in A.D. 1831, under the auspices of Dr. Lachmann, “a new departure” is made. Up springs what may be called the new German school of Textual Criticism,—of which the fundamental principle is a superstitious deference to the decrees of cod. B. The heresy prevails for fifty years (1831-81) and obtains many adherents. The practical result is, that its chief promoters make it their business to throw discredit on the result of the two great Antiochian Revisions already spoken of! The (so-called) “Syrian Text”—although assumed by Drs. Westcott and Hort to be the product of the combined wisdom, piety, and learning of the great Patriarchates of the East from A.D. 250 to A.D. 350; “a ‘Recension’ in the proper sense of the word; a work of attempted Criticism, performed deliberately by Editors and not merely by Scribes” (p. 133):—this “Syrian Text,” Doctors Westcott and Hort denounce as “_showing no marks of either critical or spiritual insight:_”—
It “presents” (say they) “the New Testament in a form smooth and attractive, but _appreciably impoverished in sense and force_; more fitted for cursory perusal or recitation than for repeated and diligent study.”—(p. 135.)
XXVII. We are content to leave this matter to the Reader’s judgment. For ourselves, we make no secret of the grotesqueness of the contrast thus, for the second time, presented to the imagination. On _that_ side, by the hypothesis, sit the greatest Doctors of primitive Christendom, assembled in solemn conclave. Every most illustrious name is there. By ingeniously drawing a purely arbitrary hard-and-fast line at the year A.D. 350, and so anticipating many a “_floruit_” by something between five and five-and-twenty years, Dr. Hort’s intention is plain: but the expedient will not serve his turn. Quite content are we with the names secured to us within the proposed limits of time. On _that_ side then, we behold congregated choice representatives of the wisdom, the piety, the learning of the Eastern Church, from A.D. 250 to A.D. 350.—On this side sits—Dr. Hort! ... An interval of 1532 years separates these two parties.
XXVIII. And first,—How may the former assemblage be supposed to have been occupying themselves? The object with which those distinguished personages came together was the loftiest, the purest, the holiest imaginable: viz. to purge out from the sacred Text the many corruptions by which, in their judgments, it had become depraved during the 250 (or at the utmost 300) years which have elapsed since it first came into existence; to detect the counterfeit and to eliminate the spurious. Not unaware by any means are they of the carelessness of Scribes, nor yet of the corruptions which have been brought in through the officiousness of critical “Correctors” of the Text. To what has resulted from the misdirected piety of the Orthodox, they are every bit as fully alive as to what has crept in through the malignity of Heretical Teachers. Moreover, while the memory survives in all its freshness of the depravations which the inspired Text has experienced from these and other similar corrupting influences, the _means abound_ and _are at hand_ of _testing_ every suspected place of Scripture. Well, and next,—How have these holy men prospered in their holy enterprise?
XXIX. According to Dr. Hort, by a strange fatality,—a most unaccountable and truly disastrous proclivity to error,—these illustrious Fathers of the Church have been at every instant substituting the spurious for the genuine,—a fabricated Text in place of the Evangelical Verity. Miserable men! In the Gospels alone they have interpolated about 3100 words: have omitted about 700: have substituted about 1000; have transposed about 2200: have altered (in respect of number, case, mood, tense, person, &c.) about 1200.(724) This done, they have amused themselves with the give-and-take process of mutual accommodation which we are taught to call “_Conflation_:” in plain terms, _they have been manufacturing Scripture_. The Text, as it comes forth from their hands,—
(a) “_Shews no marks of either critical or spiritual insight:_”—
(b) “Presents the New Testament in a form smooth and attractive, but _appreciably impoverished in sense and force_:”—
(c) “_Is more fitted for cursory perusal or recitation, than for repeated and diligent study._”
Moreover, the mischief has proved infectious,—has spread. In Syria also, at Edessa or Nisibis,—(for it is as well to be circumstantial in such matters,)—the self-same iniquity is about to be perpetrated; of which the Peschito will be the abiding monument: _one_ solitary witness only to the pure Text being suffered to escape. Cureton’s fragmentary Syriac will alone remain to exhibit to mankind the outlines of primitive Truth. (The reader is reminded of the character already given of the document in question at the summit of page 279. Its extravagance can only be fully appreciated by one who will be at the pains to read it steadily through.)
XXX. And pray, (we ask,)—_Who_ says all this? _Who_ is it who gravely puts forth all this egregious nonsense?... It is Dr. Hort, (we answer,) at pp. 134-5 of the volume now under review. In fact, according to _him_, those primitive Fathers have been the great falsifiers of Scripture; have proved the worst enemies of the pure Word of GOD; have shamefully betrayed their sacred trust; have done the diametrical reverse of what (by the hypothesis) they came together for the sole purpose of doing. They have depraved and corrupted that sacred Text which it was their aim, their duty, and their professed object to purge from its errors. And (by the hypothesis) Dr. Hort, at the end of 1532 years,—aided by codex B and his own self-evolved powers of divination,—has found them out, and now holds them up to the contempt and scorn of the British public.
XXXI. In the meantime the illustrious Professor invites us to believe that the mistaken textual judgment pronounced at Antioch in A.D. 350 had an immediate effect on the Text of Scripture throughout the world. We are requested to suppose that it resulted in the instantaneous extinction of codices the like of B א, wherever found; and caused codices of the A type to spring up like mushrooms in their place, and _that_, in every library of ancient Christendom. We are further required to assume that this extraordinary substitution of new evidence for old—the false for the true—fully explains why Irenæus and Hippolytus, Athanasius and Didymus, Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa, Basil and Ephraem, Epiphanius and Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Isidore of Pelusium, Nilus and Nonnus, Proclus and Severianus, the two Cyrils and Theodoret—_one and all_—show themselves strangers to the text of B and א.... We read and marvel.
XXXII. For, (it is time to enquire,)—Does not the learned Professor see that, by thus getting rid of the testimony of the whole body of the Fathers, he leaves the Science which he is so good as to patronize in a most destitute condition,—besides placing himself in a most inconvenient state of isolation? If clear and consentient Patristic testimony to the Text of Scripture is not to be deemed forcible witness to its Truth,—_whither_ shall a man betake himself for constraining Evidence? Dr. Hort has already set aside the Traditional Text as a thing of no manner of importance. The venerable Syriac Version he has also insisted on reducing very nearly to the level of the despised cursives. As for the copies of the old Latin, they had confessedly become so untrustworthy, at the time of which he speaks, that a modest Revision of the Text they embody, (the “_Vulgate_” namely,) became at last a measure of necessity. What remains to him therefore? Can he seriously suppose that the world will put up with the “idiosyncrasy” of a living Doctor—his “personal instincts” (p. xi.)—his “personal discernment” (p. 65),—his “instinctive processes of Criticism” (p. 66),—his “individual mind,”—in preference to articulate voices coming to us across the gulf of Time from every part of ancient Christendom? How—with the faintest chance of success—does Dr. Hort propose to remedy the absence of External Testimony? If mankind can afford to do without either consent of Copies or of Fathers, why does mankind any longer adhere to the ancient methods of proof? Why do Critics of every school _still_ accumulate references to MSS., explore the ancient Versions, and ransack the Patristic writings in search of neglected citations of Scripture? That the ancients were indifferent Textual Critics, is true enough. The mischief done by Origen in this department,—through his fondness for a branch of Learning in which his remarks show that he was all unskilled,—is not to be told. But then, these men lived within a very few hundred years of the Apostles of the LORD JESUS CHRIST: and when they witness to the reading of their own copies, their testimony on the point, to say the least, is worthy of our most respectful attention. _Dated codices,_ in fact are they, _to all intents and purposes,_ as often as they bear clear witness to the Text of Scripture:—a fact, (we take leave to throw out the remark in passing,) which has not yet nearly attracted the degree of attention which it deserves.
XXXIII. For ourselves, having said so much on this subject, it is fair that we should add,—We devoutly wish that Dr. Hort’s hypothesis of an authoritative and deliberate Recension of the Text of the New Testament achieved at Antioch first, about A.D. 250, and next, about A.D. 350, were indeed an historical fact. We desire no firmer basis on which to rest our confidence in the Traditional Text of Scripture than the deliberate verdict of Antiquity,—the ascertained sanction of the collective Church, in the Nicene age. The _Latin_ “Vulgate” [A.D. 385] is the work of a single man—Jerome. The _Syriac_ “Vulgate” [A.D. 616] was also the work of a single man—Thomas of Harkel. But this _Greek_ “Vulgate” was (by the hypothesis) the product of the Church Catholic, [A.D. 250-A.D. 350,] in her corporate capacity. Not only should we hail such a monument of the collective piety and learning of the Church in her best days with unmingled reverence and joy, were it introduced to our notice; but we should insist that no important deviation from such a “_Textus Receptus_” as _that_ would deserve to be listened to. In other words, if Dr. Hort’s theory about the origin of the _Textus Receptus_ have _any foundation at all_ in fact, it is “all up” with Dr. Hort. He is absolutely _nowhere._ He has most ingeniously placed himself on the horns of a fatal dilemma.
For,—(let it be carefully noted,)—the entire discussion becomes, in this way, brought (so to speak) within the compass of a nutshell. To state the case briefly,—We are invited to make our election between the Fathers of the Church, A.D. 250 and A.D. 350,—and Dr. Hort, A.D. 1881. The issue is really reduced to _that._ The general question of THE TEXT OF SCRIPTURE being the matter at stake; (not any particular passage, remember, but _the Text of Scripture as a whole;_)—and the _conflicting parties_ being but _two_;—_Which_ are we to believe? the _consentient Voice of Antiquity,_—or the solitary modern Professor? Shall we accept the august Testimony of the whole body of the Fathers? or shall we prefer to be guided by the self-evolved imaginations of one who confessedly has nothing to offer but conjecture? The question before us is reduced to that single issue. But in fact the alternative admits of being yet more concisely stated. We are invited to make our election between FACT and—FICTION.... All this, of course, on the supposition that there is _any truth at all_ in Dr. Hort’s “New Textual Theory.”
XXXIV. Apart however from the gross intrinsic improbability of the supposed Recension,—the utter absence of one particle of evidence, traditional or otherwise, that it ever did take place, must be held to be fatal to the hypothesis that it _did._ It is simply incredible that an incident of such magnitude and interest would leave no trace of itself in history. As a conjecture—(and it only professes to be a conjecture)—Dr. Hort’s notion of how the Text of the Fathers of the IIIrd, IVth, and Vth centuries,—which, as he truly remarks, is in the main identical with our own _Received Text_,—came into being, must be unconditionally abandoned. In the words of a learned living Prelate,—“_the supposition_” on which Drs. Westcott and Hort have staked their critical reputation, “_is a manifest absurdity_.”(725)
XXXV. We have been so full on the subject of this imaginary “Antiochian” or “Syrian text,” not (the reader may be sure) without sufficient reason. Scant satisfaction truly is there in scattering to the winds an airy tissue which its ingenious authors have been industriously weaving for 30 years. But it is clear that with this hypothesis of a “Syrian” text,—the immediate source and actual prototype of the commonly received Text of the N. T.,—_stands or falls their entire Textual theory_. Reject it, and the entire fabric is observed to collapse, and subside into a shapeless ruin. And with it, of necessity, goes the “New Greek Text,”—and therefore the “_New English Version_” of our Revisionists, which in the main has been founded on it.
XXXVI. In the meantime the phenomena upon which this phantom has been based, remain unchanged; and fairly interpreted, will be found to conduct us to the diametrically opposite result to that which has been arrived at by Drs. Westcott and Hort. With perfect truth has the latter remarked on the practical “identity of the Text, more especially in the Gospels and Pauline Epistles, in all the known cursive MSS., except a few” (p. 143). We fully admit the truth of his statement that—
“_Before the close of the IVth century_, a Greek Text not materially differing from the almost universal Text of the IXth,”—[and why not of the VIth? of the VIIth? of the VIIIth? or again of the Xth? of the XIth? of the XIIth?]—“century, was dominant at Antioch.”—(p. 142.)
And why not throughout the whole of Eastern Christendom? _Why_ this continual mention of “_Antioch_”—this perpetual introduction of the epithet “_Syrian_”? Neither designation applies to Irenæus or to Hippolytus,—to Athanasius or to Didymus,—to Gregory of Nazianzus or to his namesake of Nyssa,—to Basil or to Epiphanius,—to Nonnus or to Macarius,—to Proclus or to Theodoras Mops.,—to the earlier or to the later Cyril.—In brief,
“The fundamental text of the late extant Greek MSS. generally is, beyond all question, identical with [what Dr. Hort chooses to call] the dominant Antiochian or Græco-Syrian text of the second half of the IVth century.... The Antiochian [and other] Fathers, and the bulk of extant MSS. written from about three or four, to ten or eleven centuries later, must have had, in the greater number of extant variations, a common original _either contemporary with, or older than, our oldest extant MSS._”—(p. 92.)
XXXVII. So far then, happily, we are entirely agreed. The only question
is,—How is this resemblance to be accounted for? _Not_, we answer,—_not_,
certainly, by putting forward so violent and improbable—so _irrational_ a
conjecture as that, first, about A.D. 250,—and then again about A.D.
350,—an authoritative standard Text was fabricated at Antioch; of which
all other known MSS. (except a very little handful) are nothing else but
transcripts:—but rather, by loyally recognizing, in the practical identity
of the Text exhibited by 99 out of 100 of our extant MSS., the probable
general fidelity of those many transcripts _to the inspired exemplars
themselves from which remotely they are confessedly descended_. And
surely, if it be allowable to assume (with Dr. Hort) that for 1532 years,
(viz. from A.D. 350 to A.D. 1882) the _Antiochian_ standard has been
faithfully retained and transmitted,—it will be impossible to assign any
valid reason why the inspired Original itself, the _Apostolic_ standard,
should not have been as faithfully transmitted and retained from the
Apostolic age to the Antiochian,(726)—_i.e._ throughout an interval of
less than 250 years, or _one-sixth_ of the period.
XXXVIII. Here, it will obviously occur to enquire,—But what has been Drs. Westcott and Hort’s _motive_ for inventing such an improbable hypothesis? and why is Dr. Hort so strenuous in maintaining it?... We reply by reminding the Reader of certain remarks which we made at the outset.(727) The _Traditional Text_ of the N. T. is a phenomenon which sorely exercises Critics of the new school. To depreciate it, is easy: to deny its critical authority, is easier still: to cast ridicule on the circumstances under which Erasmus produced his first (very faulty) edition of it (1516), is easiest of all. But _to ignore_ the “Traditional Text,” is impossible. Equally impossible is it to overlook its practical identity with the Text of Chrysostom, who lived and taught _at Antioch_ till A.D. 398, when he became Abp. of _Constantinople_. Now this is a very awkward circumstance, and must in some way be got over; for it transports us, at a bound, from the stifling atmosphere of Basle and Alcala,—from Erasmus and Stunica, Stephens and Beza and the Elzevirs,—to Antioch and Constantinople in the latter part of the IVth century. What is to be done?
XXXIX. Drs. Westcott and Hort assume that this “Antiochian text”—found in the later cursives and the Fathers of the latter half of the IVth century—must be an _artificial_, an _arbitrarily invented_ standard; a text _fabricated_ between A.D. 250 and A.D. 350. And if they may but be so fortunate as to persuade the world to adopt their hypothesis, then all will be easy; for they will have reduced the supposed “consent of Fathers” to the reproduction of one and the same single “primary documentary witness:”(728)—and “it is hardly necessary to point out the total change in the bearing of the evidence by the introduction of _the factor of Genealogy_” (p. 43) at this particular juncture. _Upset_ the hypothesis on the other hand, and all is reversed in a moment. Every attesting Father is perceived to be a dated MS. and an independent authority; and the combined evidence of several of these becomes simply unmanageable. In like manner, “the approximate consent of the cursives” (see the foot-note), is perceived to be equivalent _not_ to “A PRIMARY DOCUMENTARY WITNESS,”—_not_ to “ONE ANTIOCHIAN ORIGINAL,”—but to be tantamount to the articulate speech of _many_ witnesses _of high character_, coming to us _from every quarter_ of primitive Christendom.
XL. But—(the further enquiry is sure to be made)—In favour of which document, or set of documents, have all these fantastic efforts been made to disparage the commonly received standards of excellence? The ordinary English Reader may require to be reminded that, prior to the IVth century, our Textual helps are few, fragmentary, and—to speak plainly—insufficient. As for sacred Codices of that date, we possess NOT ONE. Of our two primitive Versions, “the Syriac and the old Latin,” the second is grossly corrupt; owing (says Dr. Hort) “to a perilous confusion between transcription and _reproduction_;” “the preservation of a record and _its supposed improvement_” (p. 121). “Further acquaintance with it only increases our distrust” (_ibid._). In plainer English, “the earliest readings which can be fixed chronologically” (p. 120) belong to a Version which is licentious and corrupt to an incredible extent. And though “there is no reason to doubt that the Peschito [or ancient Syriac] is at least as old as the Latin Version” (p. 84), yet (according to Dr. Hort) it is “impossible”—(he is nowhere so good as to explain to us wherein this supposed “impossibility” consists),—to regard “_the present form_ of the Version as a true representation of the original Syriac text.” The date of it (according to _him_) _may_ be as late as A.D. 350. Anyhow, we are assured (but only by Dr. Hort) that important “evidence for the Greek text is hardly to be looked for from _this_ source” (p. 85).—The Fathers of the IIIrd century who have left behind them considerable remains in Greek are but two,—Clemens Alex. and Origen: and there are considerations attending the citations of either, which greatly detract from their value.
XLI. The question therefore recurs with redoubled emphasis,—In favour of _which_ document, or set of documents, does Dr. Hort disparage the more considerable portion of that early evidence,—so much of it, namely, as belongs to the IVth century,—on which the Church has been hitherto accustomed confidently to rely? He asserts that,—
“Almost all Greek Fathers after Eusebius have texts so deeply affected by mixture that” they “cannot at most count for more than so many secondary Greek uncial MSS., _inferior in most cases to the better sort of secondary uncial MSS. now existing_.”—(p. 202.)
And thus, at a stroke, behold, “almost _all Greek Fathers after
Eusebius_”—(who died A.D. 340)—are disposed of! washed overboard! put
clean out of sight! Athanasius and Didymus—the 2 Basils and the 2
Gregories—the 2 Cyrils and the 2 Theodores—Epiphanius and Macarius and
Ephraem—Chrysostom and Severianus and Proclus—Nilus and Nonnus—Isidore of
Pelusium and Theodoret: not to mention at least as many more who have left
scanty, yet most precious, remains behind them:—all these are pronounced
_inferior_ in authority to as many IXth- or Xth-century copies!... We
commend, in passing, the foregoing _dictum_ of these accomplished Editors
to the critical judgment of all candid and intelligent Readers. _Not_ as
dated manuscripts, therefore, at least equal in Antiquity to the oldest
which we now possess:—_not_ as the authentic utterances of famous Doctors
and Fathers of the Church, (instead of being the work of unknown and
irresponsible Scribes):—_not_ as sure witnesses of what was accounted
Scripture in a known region, by a famous personage, at a well-ascertained
period, (instead of coming to us, as our codices _universally_ do, without
a history and without a character):—in no such light are we henceforth to
regard Patristic citations of Scripture:—but only “as so many secondary
MSS., _inferior to the better sort of secondary uncials now existing_.”
XLII. That the Testimony of the Fathers, in the lump, must perforce in some such way either be ignored or else flouted, if the Text of Drs. Westcott and Hort is to stand,—we were perfectly well aware. It is simply fatal to them: _and they know it_. But we were hardly prepared for such a demonstration as _this_. Let it all pass however. The question we propose is only the following,—If the Text “used by _great Antiochian theologians_ not long after the middle of the IVth century” (p. 146) is undeserving of our confidence:—if we are to believe that a systematic depravation of Scripture was universally going on till about the end of the IIIrd century; and if at that time, an authoritative and deliberate recension of it—conducted on utterly erroneous principles—took place at Antioch, and resulted in the vicious “traditional Constantinopolitan” (p. 143), or (as Dr. Hort prefers to call it) the “eclectic Syrian Text:”—_What remains to us_? Are we henceforth to rely on our own “inner consciousness” for illumination? Or is it seriously expected that for the restoration of the inspired Verity we shall be content to surrender ourselves blindfold to the _ipse dixit_ of an unknown and irresponsible nineteenth-century guide? If neither of these courses is expected of us, will these Editors be so good as to give us the names of the documents on which, in their judgment, we _may_ rely?
XLIII. We are not suffered to remain long in a state of suspense. The assurance awaits us (at p. 150), that the Vatican codex,
“B—is found to hold a unique position. Its text is throughout _Pre-Syrian_, perhaps _purely Pre-Syrian_.... From distinctively Western readings it seems to be all but entirely free.... We have not been able to recognize as _Alexandrian_ any readings of B in any book of the New Testament.... So that ... neither of the early streams of innovation has touched it to any appreciable extent.”—(p. 150.)
“The text of the Sinaitic codex (א)” also “seems to be entirely, or all but entirely, _Pre-Syrian_. A very large part of the text is in like manner free from _Western_ or _Alexandrian_ elements.”—(p. 151.)
“_Every other_ known Greek manuscript has either a mixed or a Syrian text.”—(p. 151.)
Thus then, at last, at the end of exactly 150 weary pages, the secret
comes out! The one point which the respected Editors are found to have
been all along driving at:—the one aim of those many hazy disquisitions of
theirs about “Intrinsic and Transcriptional Probability,”—“Genealogical
evidence, simple and divergent,”—and “the study of Groups:”—the one reason
of all their vague terminology,—and of their baseless theory of
“Conflation,”—and their disparagement of the Fathers:—the one _raison
d’être_ of their fiction of a “Syrian” and a “Pre-Syrian” and a “Neutral”
text:—the secret of it all comes out at last! A delightful, a truly
Newtonian simplicity characterizes the final announcement. All is summed
up in the curt formula—_Codex_ B!
Behold then the altar at which Copies, Fathers, Versions, are all to be ruthlessly sacrificed:—the tribunal from which there shall be absolutely no appeal:—the Oracle which is to silence every doubt, resolve every riddle, smooth away every difficulty. All has been stated, where the name has been pronounced of—codex B. One is reminded of an enegmatical epitaph on the floor of the Chapel of S. John’s College, “_Verbum non amplius—Fisher_”! To codex B all the Greek Fathers after Eusebius must give way. Even Patristic evidence _of the ante-Nicene period_ “requires critical sifting” (p. 202),—must be distrusted, may be denied (pp. 202-5),—if it shall be found to contradict Cod. B! “B very far exceeds all other documents in neutrality of Text.”—(p. 171.)
XLIV. “At a long interval after B, but hardly a less interval before all other MSS., stands א” (p. 171).—Such is the sum of the matter!... A coarser,—a clumsier,—a more unscientific,—a more _stupid_ expedient for settling the true Text of Scripture was surely never invented! _But_ for the many foggy, or rather unreadable disquisitions with which the _Introduction_ is encumbered, “Textual Criticism made easy,” might well have been the title of the little volume now under Review; of which at last it is discovered that _the general Infallibility of Codex_ B is the fundamental principle. Let us however hear these learned men out.
XLV. They begin by offering us a chapter on the “General relations of B and א to other documents:” wherein we are assured that,—
“_Two striking facts_ successively come out with especial clearness. Every group containing both א and B, _is found_ ... to have _an apparently more original Text_ than every opposed group containing neither; and every group containing B ... _is found_ in a large preponderance of cases ... to have _an apparently more original Text_ than every opposed group containing א.”—(p. 210.)
“_Is found_”! but pray,—_By whom?_ And “_apparently_”! but pray,—_To
whom?_ and _On what grounds of Evidence_? For unless it be on _certain_
grounds of Evidence, how can it be pretended that we have before us “two
striking _facts_”?
Again, with what show of reason can it possibly be asserted that these “two striking facts” “come out with _especial clearness_”? so long as their very existence remains _in nubibus_,—has never been established, and is in fact emphatically denied? Expressions like the foregoing _then_ only begin to be tolerable when it has been made plain that the Teacher has some solid foundation on which to build. Else, he occasions nothing but impatience and displeasure. Readers at first are simply annoyed at being trifled with: presently they grow restive: at last they become clamorous for demonstration, and will accept of nothing less. Let us go on however. We are still at p. 210:—
“We found א and B to stand alone in their almost complete immunity from distinctive Syriac readings ... and B to stand far above א in its _apparent_ freedom from either Western or Alexandrian readings.”—(p. 210.)
But pray, gentlemen,—_Where_ and _when_ did “we find” either of these two
things? We have “found” nothing of the sort hitherto. The Reviewer is
disposed to reproduce the Duke of Wellington’s courteous reply to the
Prince Regent, when the latter claimed the arrangements which resulted in
the victory of Waterloo:—“_I have heard your Royal Highness say so_.”...
At the end of a few pages,
“_Having found_ א B the constant element in groups of every size, distinguished by internal excellence of readings, _we found_ no less excellence in the readings in which they concur without other attestations of Greek MSS., or even of Versions or Fathers.”—(p. 219.)
What! again? Why, we “_have found_” nothing as yet but Reiteration. Up to
this point we have not been favoured with one particle of Evidence!... In
the meantime, the convictions of these accomplished Critics,—(but not,
unfortunately, those of their Readers,)—are observed to strengthen as they
proceed. On reaching p. 224, we are assured that,
“The independence [of B and א] can be carried back so far,”—(not a hint is given _how_,)—“that their concordant testimony may be treated as equivalent to that of a MS. older than א and B themselves by at least two centuries,—_probably_ by a generation or two more.”
How _that_ “independence” was established, and how _this_ “probability”
has been arrived at, we cannot even imagine. The point to be attended to
however, is, that by the process indicated, some such early epoch as A.D.
100 has been reached. So that now we are not surprised to hear that,
“The respective ancestries of א and B must have diverged from a common parent _extremely near the Apostolic autographs_.”—(p. 220. See top of p. 221.)
Or that,—“_The close approach to the time of the autographs_ raises the
presumption of purity to an unusual strength.”—(p. 224.)
And lo, before we turn the leaf, this “presumption” is found to have ripened into certainty:—
“This general immunity from substantive error ... in the common original of א B, in conjunction with its very high antiquity, provides in a multitude of cases _a safe criterion of genuineness, not to be distrusted_ except on very clear internal evidence. Accordingly ... it is our belief, (1) That Readings of א B _should be accepted as the true Readings_ until strong internal evidence is found to the contrary; and (2), _That no Readings of_ א B _can be safely rejected absolutely_.”—(p. 225.)
XLVI. And thus, by an unscrupulous use of the process of Reiteration,
accompanied by a boundless exercise of the Imaginative faculty, we have
reached the goal to which all that went before has been steadily tending:
viz. the absolute supremacy of codices B and א above all other
codices,—and, when they differ, then of codex B.
And yet, the “immunity from substantive error” of a _lost_ Codex of _imaginary_ date and _unknown_ history, cannot but be a pure imagination,—(a mistaken one, as we shall presently show,)—of these respected Critics: while their proposed practical inference from it,—(viz. to regard two remote and confessedly depraved Copies of that original, as “_a safe criterion of genuineness_,”)—this, at all events, is the reverse of logical. In the meantime, the presumed proximity of the Text of א and B to the Apostolic age is henceforth discoursed of as if it were no longer matter of conjecture:—
“The ancestries of both MSS. having started from a common source _not much later than the Autographs_,” &c.—(p. 247.)
And again:—
“_Near as the divergence_ of the respective ancestries of B and א _must have been to the Autographs_,” &c.—(p. 273.)
Until at last, we find it announced as a “moral certainty:”—
“_It is morally certain_ that the ancestries of B and א _diverged from a point near the Autographs_, and never came into contact subsequently.”—(_Text_, p. 556.)
After which, of course, we have no right to complain if we are assured
that:—
“The fullest comparison does but increase the conviction that their pre-eminent relative _purity_ is approximately _absolute_,—_a true approximate reproduction of the Text of the Autographs_”—(p. 296.)
XLVII. But how does it happen—(we must needs repeat the enquiry, which
however we make with unfeigned astonishment,)—How does it come to pass
that a man of practised intellect, addressing persons as cultivated and
perhaps as acute as himself, can handle a confessedly obscure problem like
the present after this strangely incoherent, this foolish and wholly
inconclusive fashion? One would have supposed that Dr. Hort’s mathematical
training would have made him an exact reasoner. But he writes as if he had
no idea at all of the nature of demonstration, and of the process
necessary in order to carry conviction home to a Reader’s mind. Surely,
(one tells oneself,) a minimum of “pass” Logic would have effectually
protected so accomplished a gentleman from making such a damaging
exhibition of himself! For surely he must be aware that, as yet, he has
produced _not one particle of evidence_ that his opinion concerning B and
א is well founded. And yet, how can he possibly overlook the circumstance
that, unless he is able to _demonstrate_ that those two codices, and
especially the former of them, has “preserved not only a very ancient
Text, but _a very pure line of ancient Text_” also (p. 251), his entire
work, (inasmuch as it reposes on that one assumption,) on being critically
handled, crumbles to its base; or rather melts into thin air before the
first puff of wind? He cannot, surely, require telling that those who look
for Demonstration will refuse to put up with Rhetoric:—that, with no
thoughtful person will Assertion pass for Argument:—nor mere Reiteration,
however long persevered in, ever be mistaken for accumulated Proof.
“When I am taking a ride with Rouser,”—(quietly remarked Professor Saville to Bodley Coxe,)—“I observe that, if I ever demur to any of his views, Rouser’s practice always is, to repeat the same thing over again in the same words,—_only in a louder tone of voice_” ... The delicate rhetorical device thus indicated proves to be not peculiar to Professors of the University of Oxford; but to be familiarly recognized as an instrument of conviction by the learned men who dwell on the banks of the Cam. To be serious however.—Dr. Hort has evidently failed to see that nothing short of a careful induction of particular instances,—a system of laborious footnotes, or an “Appendix” bristling with impregnable facts,—could sustain the portentous weight of his fundamental position, viz. that Codex B is so exceptionally pure a document as to deserve to be taken as a chief guide in determining the Truth of Scripture.
It is related of the illustrious architect, Sir Gilbert Scott,—when he had to rebuild the massive central tower of a southern Cathedral, and to rear up thereon a lofty spire of stone,—that he made preparations for the work which astonished the Dean and Chapter of the day. He caused the entire area to be excavated to what seemed a most unnecessary depth, and proceeded to lay a bed of concrete of fabulous solidity. The “wise master-builder” was determined that his work should last for ever. Not so Drs. Westcott and Hort. They are either troubled with no similar anxieties, or else too clear-sighted to cherish any similar hope. They are evidently of opinion that a cloud or a quagmire will serve their turn every bit as well as granite or Portland-stone. Dr. Hort (as we have seen already, namely in p. 252,) considers that his individual “STRONG PREFERENCE” of one set of Readings above another, is sufficient to determine whether the Manuscript which contains those Readings is pure or the contrary. “_Formidable arrays of_ [hostile] _Documentary evidence_,” he disregards and sets at defiance, when once his own “_fullest consideration of Internal Evidence_” has “pronounced certain Readings to be right” [p. 61].
The only indication we anywhere meet with of the actual _ground_ of Dr. Hort’s certainty, and reason of his preference, is contained in his claim that,—
“Every binary group [of MSS.] _containing_ B is found to offer a large proportion of Readings, which, on the closest scrutiny, have THE RING OF GENUINENESS: while it is difficult to find any Readings so attested which LOOK SUSPICIOUS after full consideration.”—(p. 227. Also vol. i. 557—where the dictum is repeated.)
XLVIII. And thus we have, at last, an honest confession of the ultimate
principle which has determined the Text of the present edition of the N.
T. “_The ring of genuineness_”! _This_ it must be which was referred to
when “_instinctive processes of Criticism_” were vaunted; and the candid
avowal made that “the experience which is their foundation needs perpetual
correction and recorrection.”(729)
“We are obliged” (say these accomplished writers) “to _come to the individual mind at last_.”(730)
And thus, behold, “at last” we _have_ reached the goal!... _Individual
idiosyncrasy_,—_not_ external Evidence:—Readings “_strongly
preferred_,”—_not_ Readings _strongly attested_:—“_personal discernment_”
(self! still self!) _conscientiously exercising __ itself upon Codex_
B;—this is a true account of the Critical method pursued by these
accomplished Scholars. They deliberately claim “_personal discernment_” as
“the surest ground for confidence.”(731) Accordingly, they judge of
Readings by their _looks_ and by their _sound_. When, in _their_ opinion,
words “look suspicious,” words are to be rejected. If a word has “the ring
of genuineness,”—(_i.e._ _if it seems to them_ to have it,)—they claim
that the word shall pass unchallenged.
XLIX. But it must be obvious that such a method is wholly inadmissible. It practically dispenses with Critical aids altogether; substituting individual caprice for external guidance. It can lead to no tangible result: for Readings which “look suspicious” to one expert, may easily _not_ “look” so to another. A man’s “inner consciousness” cannot possibly furnish trustworthy guidance in this subject matter. Justly does Bp. Ellicott ridicule “the easy method of ... _using a favourite Manuscript_,” combined with “_some supposed power of divining the Original Text_;”(732)—unconscious apparently that he is thereby aiming a cruel blow at certain of his friends.
As for the proposed test of Truth,—(the enquiry, namely, whether or no a reading has “the ring of genuineness”)—it is founded on a transparent mistake. The coarse operation alluded to may be described as a “rough and ready” expedient practised by _receivers of money_ in the way of self-defence, and _only_ for their own protection, lest base metal should be palmed off upon them unawares. But Dr. Hort is proposing an analogous test for the exclusive satisfaction of _him who utters_ the suspected article. We therefore disallow the proposal entirely: not, of course, because we suppose that so excellent and honourable a man as Dr. Hort would attempt to pass off as genuine what he suspects to be fabricated; but because we are fully convinced—(for reasons “plenty as blackberries”)—that through some natural defect, or constitutional inaptitude, he is not a competent judge. The man who finds “_no marks of either Critical or Spiritual insight_” (p. 135) in the only Greek Text which was known to scholars till A.D. 1831,—(although he confesses that “the text of Chrysostom and other Syrian Fathers of the IVth century is substantially identical with it”(733)); and vaunts in preference “_the bold vigour_” and “_refined scholarship_” which is exclusively met with in certain depraved uncials of the same or later date:—the man who thinks it not unlikely that the incident of the piercing of our SAVIOUR’S side (ἄλλος δὲ λαβῶν λόγχην κ.τ.λ.) was actually found in the genuine Text of S. Matt. xxvii. 49, _as well as_ in S. John xix. 34:(734)—the man who is of opinion that the incident of the Woman taken in Adultery (filling 12 verses), “presents serious differences from the diction of S. John’s Gospel,”—treats it as “an insertion in a comparatively late Western text”(735) and declines to retain it even within brackets, on the ground that it “would fatally interrupt” the course of the narrative if suffered to stand:—the man who can deliberately separate off from the end of S. Mark’s Gospel, and print separately, S. Mark’s last 12 verses, (on the plea that they “manifestly cannot claim any apostolic authority; but are doubtless founded on some tradition of the Apostolic age;”(736))—yet who straightway proceeds to annex, _as an alternative Conclusion_ (ἄλλως), “the wretched supplement derived from codex L:”(737)—the man (lastly) who, in defiance of “solid reason and pure taste,” finds music in the “utterly marred” “rhythmical arrangement” of the Angels’ Hymn on the night of the Nativity:(738)—such an one is not entitled to a hearing when he talks about “_the ring of genuineness_.” He has already effectually put himself out of Court. He has convicted himself of a natural infirmity of judgment,—has given proof that he labours under a peculiar Critical inaptitude for this department of enquiry,—which renders his decrees nugatory, and his opinions worthless.
L. But apart from all this, the Reader’s attention is invited to a little circumstance which Dr. Hort has unaccountably overlooked: but which, the instant it has been stated, is observed to cause his picturesque theory to melt away—like a snow-wreath in the sunshine.
On reflexion, it will be perceived that the most signal deformities of codices B א D L are _instances of Omission_. In the Gospels alone, B omits 2877 words.
How,—(we beg to enquire,)—How will you apply your proposed test to a _Non-entity_? How will you ascertain whether something which _does not exist in the Text_ has “the ring of genuineness” or not? There can be _no_ “ring of genuineness,” clearly, where there is nothing to ring with! Will any one pretend that _the omission_ of the incident of the troubling of the pool has in it any “ring of genuineness”?—or dare to assert that “the ring of genuineness” is imparted to the history of our SAVIOUR’S Passion, by the omission of His Agony in the Garden?—or that the narrative of His Crucifixion becomes more musical, when our Lord’s Prayer for His murderers has been _omitted_?—or that ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ (“for they were afraid”), has “the ring of genuineness” as the conclusion of the last chapter of the Gospel according to S. Mark?
But the strangest circumstance is behind. It is notorious that, on the contrary, Dr. Hort is frequently constrained to admit that _the omitted words_ actually _have_ “the ring of genuineness.” The words which he insists on thrusting out of the Text are often conspicuous _for the very quality_ which (by the hypothesis) was the warrant for their exclusion. Of this, the Reader may convince himself by referring to the note at foot of the present page.(739) In the meantime, the matter discoursed of may be conveniently illustrated by a short apologue:—
Somewhere in the fens of Ely diocese, stood a crazy old church (dedicated to S. Bee, of course,) the bells of which—according to a learned Cambridge Doctor—were the most musical in the world. “I have listened to those bells,” (he was accustomed to say,) “for 30 years. All other bells are cracked, harsh, out of tune. Commend me, for music, to the bells of S. Bee’s! _They_ alone have _the ring of genuineness_.” ... Accordingly, he published a treatise on Campanology, founding his theory on the musical properties of the bells of S. Bee’s.—At this juncture, provokingly enough, some one directed attention to the singular fact that S. Bee’s is one of the few churches in that district _without_ bells: a discovery which, it is needless to add, pressed inconveniently on the learned Doctor’s theory.
LI. But enough of this. We really have at last, (be it observed,) reached the end of our enquiry. Nothing comes after Dr. Hort’s extravagant and unsupported estimate of Codices B and א. On the contrary. Those two documents are caused to cast their sombre shadows a long way ahead, and to darken all our future. Dr. Hort takes leave of the subject with the announcement that, whatever uncertainty may attach to the evidence for particular readings,
“_The general course of future Criticism must be shaped by the happy circumstance that the fourth century has bequeathed to us two MSS._ [B and א], of which even the less incorrupt [א] must have been of exceptional purity among its contemporaries: and which rise into greater pre-eminence of character the better the early history of the Text becomes known.”—(p. 287.)
In other words, our guide assures us that in a dutiful submission to codices B and א,—(which, he naïvely remarks, “_happen likewise to be the oldest extant_ Greek MSS. of the New Testament” [p. 212],)—lies all our hope of future progress. (Just as if we should ever have _heard_ of these two codices, had their contents come down to us written in the ordinary cursive character,—in a dated MS. (suppose) of the XVth century!)... Moreover, Dr. Hort “must not hesitate to express” his own robust conviction,
“That no trustworthy improvement can be effected, _except in accordance with the leading Principles of method which we have endeavoured to explain_.”—(p. 285.)
LII. And this is the end of the matter. Behold our fate therefore:—(1)
Codices B and א, with—(2) Drs. Westcott and Hort’s _Introduction and Notes
on Select Readings_ in vindication of their contents! It is proposed to
shut us up within those limits!... An uneasy suspicion however secretly
suggests itself that perhaps, as the years roll out, something may come to
light which will effectually dispel every dream of the new School, and
reduce even prejudice itself to silence. So Dr. Hort hastens to frown it
down:—
“It would be an illusion to anticipate important changes of Text [_i.e._ of the Text advocated by Drs. Westcott and Hort] _from any acquisition of new Evidence_.”—(p. 285.)
And yet, _why_ the anticipation of important help from the acquisition of
fresh documentary Evidence “would be an illusion,”—does not appear. That
the recovery of certain of the exegetical works of Origen,—better still,
of Tatian’s _Diatessaron_,—best of all, of a couple of MSS. of the date of
Codices B and א; but not, (like those two corrupt documents) derived from
one and the same depraved archetype;—That any such windfall, (and it will
come, some of these days,) would infallibly disturb Drs. Westcott and
Hort’s equanimity, as well as scatter to the winds not a few of their most
confident conclusions,—we are well aware. _So indeed are they._ Hence,
what those Critics earnestly deprecate, _we_ as earnestly desire. We are
therefore by no means inclined to admit, that
“Greater possibilities of improvement lie in a more exact study of the relations between the documents that we already possess;”—(_Ibid._)
knowing well that “_the documents_” referred to are chiefly, (if not
solely,) _Codices_ B _and_ א: knowing also, that it is further meant, that
in estimating other evidence, of whatever kind, the only thing to be
enquired after is whether or no the attesting document _is generally in
agreement with codex_ B.
For, according to these writers,—tide what tide,—codex B is to be the standard: itself not absolutely requiring confirmation from _any_ extraneous quarter. Dr. Hort asserts, (but it is, as usual, _mere_ assertion,) that,
“_Even when_ B _stands quite alone_, its readings must never be lightly rejected.”—(p. 557.)
And yet,—_Why_ a reading found _only in codex_ B should experience greater
indulgence than another reading found _only in codex_ A, we entirely fail
to see.
On the other hand, “_an unique criterion_ is supplied by the concord of the independent attestation of B and א.”—(_Notes_, p. 46.)
But pray, how does _that_ appear? Since B and א are derived from one and
the same original—Why should not “the concord” spoken of be rather “an
unique criterion”_ of the utter depravity of the archetype_?
LIII. To conclude. We have already listened to Dr. Hort long enough. And now, since confessedly, a chain is no stronger than it is at its weakest link; nor an edifice more secure than the basis whereon it stands;—we must be allowed to point out that we have been dealing throughout with a dream, pure and simple; from which it is high time that we should wake up, now that we have been plainly shown on what an unsubstantial foundation these Editors have been all along building. A child’s house, several stories high, constructed out of playing-cards,—is no unapt image of the frail erection before us. We began by carefully lifting off the topmost story; and then, the next: but we might as well have saved ourselves the trouble. The basement-story has to be removed bodily, which must bring the whole edifice down with a rush. In reply to the fantastic tissue of unproved assertions which go before, we assert as follows:—
(1) The impurity of the Texts exhibited by Codices B and א is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact.(740) These are two of the least trustworthy documents in existence. So far from allowing Dr. Hort’s position that—“A Text formed” by “taking Codex B as the sole authority,” “would be incomparably nearer the Truth than a Text similarly taken from any other Greek or other single document” (p. 251),—we venture to assert that it would be, on the contrary, _by far the foulest Text that had ever seen the light_: worse, that is to say, even than the Text of Drs. Westcott and Hort. And that is saying a great deal. In the brave and faithful words of Prebendary Scrivener (_Introduction_, p. 453),—words which deserve to become famous,—
“It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed: that Irenæus [A.D. 150], and the African Fathers, and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus Receptus.”
And Codices B and א are, demonstrably, nothing else but _specimens of the
depraved class thus characterized_.
Next—(2), We assert that, so manifest are the disfigurements jointly and _exclusively_ exhibited by codices B and א,(741) that instead of accepting these codices as two “independent” Witnesses to the inspired Original, we are constrained to regard them as little more than a single reproduction of one and the same scandalously corrupt and (_comparatively_) late Copy. By consequence, we consider their joint and exclusive attestation of any particular reading, “_an unique criterion_” of its worthlessness; a sufficient reason—_not_ for adopting, but—for unceremoniously rejecting it.
Then—(3), As for the origin of these two curiosities, it can perforce only be divined from their contents. That they exhibit fabricated Texts is demonstrable. No amount of honest _copying_,—persevered in for any number of centuries,—could by possibility have resulted in two such documents. Separated from one another in actual date by 50, perhaps by 100 years,(742) they must needs have branched off from a common corrupt ancestor, and straightway become exposed continuously to fresh depraving influences. The result is, that codex א, (which evidently has gone through more adventures and fallen into worse company than his rival,) has been corrupted to a far graver extent than codex B, and is even more untrustworthy. Thus, whereas (in the Gospels alone) B has 589 Readings _quite peculiar to itself_, affecting 858 words,—א has 1460 such Readings, affecting 2640 words.
One _solid fact_ like the preceding, (let it be pointed out in passing,) is more helpful by far to one who would form a correct estimate of the value of a Codex, than any number of such “reckless and unverified assertions,” not to say peremptory and baseless decrees, as abound in the highly imaginative pages of Drs. Westcott and Hort.
(4) Lastly,—We suspect that these two Manuscripts are indebted for their preservation, _solely to their ascertained evil character_; which has occasioned that the one eventually found its way, four centuries ago, to a forgotten shelf in the Vatican library: while the other, after exercising the ingenuity of several generations of critical Correctors, eventually (viz. in A.D. 1844(743)) got deposited in the waste-paper basket of the Convent at the foot of Mount Sinai. Had B and א been copies of average purity, they must long since have shared the inevitable fate of books which are freely _used_ and highly prized; namely, they would have fallen into decadence and disappeared from sight. But in the meantime, behold, their very Antiquity has come to be reckoned to their advantage; and (strange to relate) is even considered to constitute a sufficient reason why they should enjoy not merely extraordinary consideration, but the actual surrender of the critical judgment. Since 1831, Editors have vied with one another in the fulsomeness of the homage they have paid to these “two false Witnesses,”—for such B and א _are_, as the concurrent testimony of Copies, Fathers and Versions abundantly proves. Even superstitious reverence has been claimed for these two codices: and Drs. Westcott and Hort are so far in advance of their predecessors in the servility of their blind adulation, that they must be allowed to have easily won the race.
LIV. With this,—so far as the Greek Text under review is concerned,—we might, were we so minded, reasonably make an end. We undertook to show that Drs. Westcott and Hort, in the volumes before us, have built up an utterly worthless Textual fabric; and we consider that we have already sufficiently shown it. The Theory,—the Hypothesis rather, on which their Text is founded, we have _demonstrated_ to be _simply absurd_. Remove that hypothesis, and a heap of unsightly ruins is all that is left behind,—except indeed astonishment (not unmingled with concern) at the simplicity of its accomplished Authors.
Here then, we might leave off. But we are unwilling so to leave the matter. Large consideration is due to ordinary English Readers; who must perforce look on with utter perplexity—not to say distress—at the strange spectacle presented by _that_ Text (which is in the main _the Text of the Revised English Version_) on the one hand,—and _this_ Review of it, on the other:—
(1) “And pray, which of you am I to believe?”—will inevitably be, in homely English, the exclamation with which not a few will lay down the present number of the “_Quarterly_.” “I pretend to no learning. I am not prepared to argue the question with you. But surely, the oldest Manuscript _must_ be the purest! It even stands to reason: does it not?—Then further, I admit that you _seem_ to have the best of the argument so far; yet, since the three most famous Editors of modern times are against you,—Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf,—excuse me if I suspect that you _must_ be in the wrong, after all.”
LV. With unfeigned humility, the Reviewer [_Q. R._] proceeds to explain the matter to his supposed Objector [_S. O._], in briefest outline, as follows:—
_Q. R._ “You are perfectly right. The oldest Manuscript _must_ exhibit the purest text: _must_ be the most trustworthy. But then, unfortunately, it happens that _we do not possess it_. ‘The oldest Manuscript’ is lost. You speak, of course, of the inspired Autographs. These, I say, have long since disappeared.”
(2) _S. O._ “No, I meant to say that the _oldest Manuscript we possess_, if it be but a very ancient one, must needs be the purest.”
_Q. R._ “O, but _that_ is an entirely different proposition. Well, _apart from experience_, the probability that the oldest copy extant will prove the purest is, if you please, considerable. Reflection will convince you however that it is _but_ a probability, at the utmost: a probability based upon more than one false assumption,—with which nevertheless you shall not be troubled. But in fact it clearly does not by any means follow that, _because_ a MS. is very ancient, _therefore_ the Text, which it exhibits will be very pure. That you may be thoroughly convinced of this,—(and it is really impossible for your mind to be too effectually disabused of a prepossession which has fatally misled so many,)—you are invited to enquire for a recent contribution to the learned French publication indicated at the foot of this page,(744) in which is exhibited a fac-simile of 8 lines of the _Medea_ of Euripides (ver. 5-12), written about B.C. 200 in small uncials (at Alexandria probably,) on papyrus. Collated with any printed copy, the verses, you will find, have been penned with scandalous, with incredible inaccuracy. But on this head let the learned Editor of the document in question be listened to, rather than the present Reviewer:—
“On voit que le texte du papyrus est hérissé des fautes les plus graves. _Le plus récent et le plus mauvais de nos manuscrits d’Euripide vaut infiniment mieux que cette copie,—faite, il y a deux mille ans, dans le pays où florissaient l’érudition hellénique et la Critique des textes._”(745)—(p. 17.)
“Why, the author of the foregoing remarks might have been writing
concerning Codex B!”
(3) _S. O._ “Yes: but I want _Christian_ evidence. The author of that scrap of papyrus _may_ have been an illiterate slave. What if it should be a _school-boy’s exercise_ which has come down to us? The thing is not impossible.”
_Q. R._ “Not ‘impossible’ certainly: but surely highly improbable. However, let it drop. You insist on Christian evidence. You shall have it. What think you then of the following statement of a very ancient Father (Caius(746)) writing against the heresy of Theodotus and others who denied the Divinity of CHRIST? He is bearing his testimony to the liberties which had been freely taken with the Text of the New Testament in his own time, viz. about A.D. 175-200:—
“The Divine Scriptures,” he says, “these heretics have audaciously _corrupted_: ... laying violent hands upon them under pretence of _correcting_ them. That I bring no false accusation, any one who is disposed may easily convince himself. He has but to collect the copies belonging to these persons severally; then, to compare one with another; and he will discover that their discrepancy is extraordinary. Those of Asclepiades, at all events, will be found discordant from those of Theodotus. Now, plenty of specimens of either sort are obtainable, inasmuch as these men’s disciples have industriously multiplied the (so-called) ‘_corrected_’ copies of their respective teachers, which are in reality nothing else but ‘_corrupted_’ copies. With the foregoing copies again, those of Hermophilus will be found entirely at variance. As for the copies of Apollonides, they even contradict one another. Nay, let any one compare the fabricated text which these persons put forth in the first instance, with that which exhibits their _latest_ perversions of the Truth, and he will discover that the disagreement between them is even excessive.
“Of the enormity of the offence of which these men have been guilty, they must needs themselves be fully aware. Either they do not believe that the Divine Scriptures are the utterance of the HOLY GHOST,—in which case they are to be regarded as unbelievers: or else, they account themselves wiser than the HOLY GHOST,—and what is that, but to have the faith of devils? As for their denying their guilt, the thing is impossible, seeing that the copies under discussion are their own actual handywork; and they know full well that not such as these are the Scriptures which they received at the hands of their catechetical teachers. Else, let them produce the originals from which they made their transcripts. Certain of them indeed have not even condescended to falsify Scripture, but entirely reject Law and Prophets alike.”(747)
“Now, the foregoing statement is in a high decree suggestive. For here is
an orthodox Father _of the IInd century_ inviting attention to four
well-known families of falsified manuscripts of the Sacred
Writings;—complaining of the hopeless divergences which they exhibit
(being not only inconsistent with one another, but _with themselves_);—and
insisting that such _corrected_, are nothing else but shamefully
_corrupted_ copies. He speaks of the phenomenon as being in his day
notorious: and appeals to Recensions, the very names of whose
authors—Theodotus, Asclepiades, Hermophilus, Apollonides—have (all but the
first) long since died out of the Church’s memory. You will allow
therefore, (will you not?), that by this time the claim of the _oldest
existing copies_ of Scripture to be the purest, has been effectually
disposed of. For since there once prevailed such a multitude of corrupted
copies, we have no security whatever that the oldest of our extant MSS.
are not derived—remotely if not directly—from some of _them_.”
(4) _S. O._ “But at all events the chances are even. Are they not?”
_Q. R._ “By no means. A copy like codex B, once _recognized_ as belonging to a corrupt family,—once _known_ to contain a depraved exhibition of the Sacred Text,—was more likely by far to remain unused, and so to escape destruction, than a copy highly prized and in daily use.—As for Codex א, it carries on its face its own effectual condemnation; aptly illustrating the precept _fiat experimentum in corpore vili_. It exhibits the efforts of many generations of men to restore its Text,—(which, ‘as proceeding from the first scribe,’ is admitted by one of its chief admirers to be ‘_very rough_,(748)’)—to something like purity. ‘_At least ten different Revisers_,’ from the IVth to the XIIth century, are found to have tried their hands upon it.(749)—Codex C, after having had ‘at least three correctors very busily at work upon it’(750) (in the VIth and IXth centuries), finally (in the XIIth) was fairly _obliterated_,—literally _scraped out_,—to make room for the writings of a Syrian Father.—I am therefore led by _à priori_ considerations to augur ill of the contents of B א C. But when I find them hopelessly at variance _among themselves_: above all, when I find (1) _all other Manuscripts_ of whatever date,—(2) the _most ancient Versions_,—and (3), the _whole body of the primitive Fathers_, decidedly opposed to them,—I am (to speak plainly) at a loss to understand how any man of sound understanding, acquainted with all the facts of the case and accustomed to exact reasoning, can hesitate to regard the unsupported (or the _slenderly_ supported) testimony of one or other of them as _simply worthless_. The craven homage which the foremost of the three habitually receives at the hands of Drs. Westcott and Hort, I can only describe as a weak superstition. It is something more than unreasonable. It becomes even ridiculous.—Tischendorf’s preference (in his last edition) for the _bêtises_ of his own codex א, can only be defended on the plea of parental partiality. But it is not on that account the less foolish. His ‘exaggerated preference for the single manuscript which he had the good fortune to discover, _has betrayed him_’—(in the opinion of Bishop Ellicott)—‘_into an almost child-like infirmity of critical judgment_’ ”(751)
(5) _O. S._ “Well but,—be all _that_ as it may,—Caius, remember, is speaking of _heretical_ writers. When I said ‘I want Christian evidence,’ I meant _orthodox_ evidence, of course. You would not assert (would you?) that B and א exhibit traces of _heretical_ depravation?”
_Q. R._ “Reserving my opinion on that last head, good Sir, and determined to enjoy the pleasure of your company on any reasonable terms,—(for convince you, I both can and will, though you prolong the present discussion till tomorrow morning,)—I have to ask a little favour of you: viz. that you will bear me company in an imaginary expedition.
“I request that the clock of history may be put back seventeen hundred years. This is A.D. 183, if you please: and—(indulge me in the supposition!)—you and I are walking in Alexandria. We have reached the house of one Clemens,—a learned Athenian, who has long been a resident here. Let us step into his library,—he is from home. What a queer place! See, he has been reading his Bible, which is open at S. Mark x. Is it not a well-used copy? It must be at least 50 or 60 years old. Well, but suppose only 30 or 40. It was executed therefore _within fifty years of the death of S. John the Evangelist_. Come, let us transcribe two of the columns(752) (σελίδες) as faithfully as we possibly can, and be off.... We are back in England again, and the clock has been put right. Now let us sit down and examine our curiosity at leisure.(753)... It proves on inspection to be a transcript of the 15 verses (ver. 17 to ver. 31) which relate to the coming of the rich young Ruler to our LORD.
“We make a surprising discovery. There are but 297 words in those 15 verses,—according to the traditional Text: of which, in the copy which belonged to Clemens Alexandrinus, 39 prove to have been left out: 11 words are added: 22, substituted: 27, transposed: 13, varied; and the phrase has been altered at least 8 times. Now, 112 words out of a total of 297, is 38 per cent. What do you think of _that_?”
(6) _S. O._ “Think? O but, I disallow your entire proceeding! You have no business to collate with ‘a text of late and degenerate type, such as is the Received Text of the New Testament.’ When _this_ ‘is taken as a standard, any document belonging to a purer stage of the Text must by the nature of the case have the appearance of being guilty of omissions: and the nearer the document stands to the autograph, the more numerous must be the omissions laid to its charge.’ I learnt that from Westcott and Hort. See page 235 of their luminous _Introduction_.”
_Q. R._ “Be it so! Collate the passage then for yourself with the Text of Drs. Westcott and Hort: which, (remember!) aspires to reproduce ‘the autographs themselves’ ‘with the utmost exactness which the evidence permits’ (pp. 288 and 289).(754) You will find that _this_ time the words omitted amount to 44. The words added are 13: the words substituted, 23: the words transposed, 34: the words varied 16. And the phrase has been altered 9 times at least. But, 130 on a total of 297, is 44 per cent. You will also bear in mind that Clement of Alexandria is one of our principal authorities for the Text of the Ante-Nicene period.(755)
“And thus, I venture to presume, the imagination has been at last effectually disposed of, that _because_ Codices B and א are the two oldest Greek copies in existence, the Text exhibited by either must _therefore_ be the purest Text which is anywhere to be met with. _It is impossible to produce a fouler exhibition of S. Mark x. 17-31 than is contained in a document full two centuries older than either _B_ or א,—itself the property of one of the most famous of the ante-Nicene Fathers._”
LVI.—(7) At this stage of the argument, the Reviewer finds himself taken aside by a friendly Critic [_F. C._], and privately remonstrated with somewhat as follows:—
_F. C._ “Do you consider, Sir, what it is you are about? Surely, you have been proving a vast deal too much! If the foregoing be a fair sample of the Text of the N. T. with which Clemens Alex. was best acquainted, it is plain that the testimony to the Truth of Scripture borne by one of the most ancient and most famous of the Fathers, is absolutely worthless. Is _that_ your own deliberate conviction or not?”
_Q. R._ “Finish what you have to say, Sir. After that, you shall have a full reply.”
(8) _F. C._ “Well then. Pray understand, I nothing doubt that in your main contention you are right; but I yet cannot help thinking that this bringing in of a famous ancient Father—_obiter_—is a very damaging proceeding. What else is such an elaborate exposure of the badness of the Text which Clemens (A.D. 150) employed, but the hopeless perplexing of a question which was already sufficiently thorny and difficult? You have, as it seems to me, imported into these 15 verses an entirely fresh crop of ‘Various Readings.’ Do you seriously propose them as a contribution towards ascertaining the _ipsissima verba_ of the Evangelist,—the true text of S. Mark x. 17-31?”
_Q. R._ “Come back, if you please, Sir, to the company. Fully appreciating the friendly spirit in which you just now drew me aside, I yet insist on so making my reply that all the world shall hear it. Forgive my plainness: but you are evidently profoundly unacquainted with the problem before you,—in which however you do not by any means enjoy the distinction of standing alone.
“The foulness of a Text which must have been penned within 70 or 80 years of the death of the last of the Evangelists, is a matter of fact—which must be loyally accepted, and made the best of. The phenomenon is surprising certainly; and may well be a warning to all who (like Dr. Tregelles) regard as oracular the solitary unsupported dicta of a Writer,—provided only he can claim to have lived in the IInd or IIIrd century. To myself it occasions no sort of inconvenience. You are to be told that the exorbitances of a _single_ Father,—as Clemens; a _single_ Version,—as the Egyptian: a _single_ Copy,—as cod. B, are of no manner of significancy or use, except as warnings: are of no manner of interest, except as illustrating the depravation which systematically assailed the written Word in the age which immediately succeeded the Apostolic: _are, in fact, of no __ importance whatever_. To make them the basis of an induction is preposterous. It is not allowable to infer the universal from the particular. If the bones of Goliath were to be discovered to-morrow, would you propose as an induction therefrom that it was the fashion to wear four-and-twenty fingers and toes on one’s hands and feet in the days of the giant of Gath? All the wild readings of the lost Codex before us may be unceremoniously dismissed. The critical importance and value of this stray leaf from a long-since-vanished Copy is entirely different, and remains to be explained.
“You are to remember then,—perhaps you have yet to learn,—that there are but 25 occasions in the course of these 15 verses, on which either Lachmann (L.), or Tischendorf (T.), or Tregelles (Tr.), or Westcott and Hort (W. H.), or our Revisionists (R. T.), advocate a departure from the Traditional Text. To those 25 places therefore our attention is now to be directed,—on them, our eyes are to be riveted,—exclusively. And the first thing which strikes us as worthy of notice is, that the 5 authorities above specified fall into no fewer than _twelve_ distinct combinations in their advocacy of certain of those 25 readings: holding all 5 together _only 4 times_.(756) The one question of interest therefore which arises, is this,—What amount of sanction do any of them experience at the hands of Clemens Alexandrinus?
“I answer,—_Only on 3 occasions does he agree with any of them._(757) The result of a careful analysis shows further that _he sides with the Traditional Text_ 17 _times:—witnessing against Lachmann, 9 times: against Tischendorf, 10 times: against Tregelles, 11 times: against Westcott and Hort, 12 times._(758)
“So far therefore from admitting that ‘the Testimony of Clemens Al.—one of the most ancient and most famous of the Fathers—is absolutely worthless,’—I have proved it to be _of very great value_. Instead of ‘hopelessly perplexing the question,’ his Evidence is found to have _simplified matters considerably_. So far from ‘importing into these 15 verses a fresh crop of Various Readings,’ he has _helped us to get rid of no less than_ 17 of the existing ones.... ‘Damaging’ his evidence has certainly proved: but _only to Lachmann_, _Tischendorf_, _Tregelles_, _Westcott and Hort and our ill-starred Revisionists_. And yet it remains undeniably true, that ‘it is impossible to produce a fouler exhibition of S. Mark x. 17-31 than is met with in a document full two centuries older than either B or א,—the property of one of the most famous of the Fathers.’(759) ... Have you anything further to ask?”
(9) _F. C._ “I should certainly like, in conclusion, to be informed whether we are to infer that the nearer we approach to the date of the sacred Autographs, the more corrupt we shall find the copies. For, if so, pray—Where and when did purity of Text begin?”
_Q. R._ “You are not at liberty, logically, to draw any such inference from the premisses. The purest documents of all existed perforce in the first century: _must_ have then existed. The spring is perforce purest at its source. My whole contention has been, and is,—That there is nothing at all unreasonable in the supposition that two stray copies of the IVth century,—coming down to our own times without a history and without a character,—_may_ exhibit a thoroughly depraved text. _More_ than this does not follow lawfully from the premisses. At the outset, remember, you delivered it as your opinion that ‘_the oldest Manuscript we possess, if it be but a very ancient one, must needs be the purest_.’ I asserted, in reply, that ‘it does not by any means follow, _because_ a manuscript is very ancient, that _therefore_ its text will be very pure’ (p. 321); and all that I have been since saying, has but had for its object to prove the truth of my assertion. Facts have been incidentally elicited, I admit, calculated to inspire distrust, rather than confidence, in very ancient documents generally. But I am neither responsible for these facts; nor for the inferences suggested by them.
“At all events, I have to request that you will not carry away so entirely erroneous a notion as that I am the advocate for _Recent_, in preference to _Ancient_, Evidence concerning the Text of Scripture. Be so obliging as not to say concerning me that I ‘_count_’ instead of ‘_weighing_’ my witnesses. If you have attended to the foregoing pages, and have understood them, you must by this time be aware that _in every instance_ it is to ANTIQUITY that I persistently make my appeal. I abide by its sentence, and I require that you shall do the same.
“You and your friends, on the contrary, reject _the Testimony of Antiquity_. You set up, instead, some idol of your own. Thus, Tregelles worshipped ‘codex B.’ But ‘codex B’ is not ‘Antiquity’!—Tischendorf assigned the place of honour to ‘codex א.’ But once more, ‘codex א’ is not ‘Antiquity’!—You rejoice in the decrees of the VIth-century-codex D,—and of the VIIIth-century-codex L,—and of the Xth, XIth, and XIVth century codices, 1, 33, 69. But will you venture to tell me that any of these are ‘Antiquity’? _Samples_ of Antiquity, at best, are any of these. No more! But then, it is demonstrable that they are _unfair_ samples. Why are you regardless of _all other_ COPIES?—So, with respect to VERSIONS, and FATHERS. You single out one or two,—the one or two which suit your purpose; and you are for rejecting all the rest. But, once more,—The _Coptic_ version is not ‘Antiquity,’—neither is _Origen_ ‘Antiquity.’ The _Syriac_ Version is a full set-off against the former,—_Irenæus_ more than counterbalances the latter. Whatever is found in one of these ancient authorities must confessedly be AN ‘ancient Reading:’ but it does not therefore follow that it is THE ancient Reading of the place. Now, it is THE _ancient Reading_, of which we are always in search. And he who sincerely desires to ascertain what actually is _the Witness of Antiquity_,—(_i.e._, what is the prevailing testimony of all the oldest documents,)—will begin by casting his prejudices and his predilections to the winds, and will devote himself conscientiously to an impartial survey of the whole field of Evidence.”
_F. C._ “Well but,—you have once and again admitted that the phenomena before us are extraordinary. Are you able to explain how it comes to pass that such an one as Clemens Alexandrinus employed such a scandalously corrupt copy of the Gospels as we have been considering?”
_Q. R._ “You are quite at liberty to ask me any question you choose. And I, for my own part, am willing to return you the best answer I am able. You will please to remember however, that the phenomena will remain,—however infelicitous my attempts to explain them may seem to yourself. My view of the matter then—(think what you will about it!)—is as follows:—
LVII. “Vanquished by THE WORD_ Incarnate_, Satan next directed his subtle malice against _the Word written_. Hence, as I think,—_hence_ the extraordinary fate which befel certain early transcripts of the Gospel. First, heretical assailants of Christianity,—then, orthodox defenders of the Truth,—lastly and above all, self-constituted Critics, who (like Dr. Hort) imagined themselves at liberty to resort to ‘instinctive processes’ of Criticism; and who, at first as well as ‘at last,’ freely made their appeal ‘to the individual mind:’—_such_ were the corrupting influences which were actively at work throughout the first hundred and fifty years after the death of S. John the Divine. Profane literature has never known anything approaching to it,—can show nothing at all like it. Satan’s arts were defeated indeed through the Church’s faithfulness, because,—(the good Providence of GOD had so willed it,)—the perpetual multiplication, in every quarter, of copies required for Ecclesiastical use,—not to say the solicitude of faithful men in diverse regions of ancient Christendom to retain for themselves unadulterated specimens of the inspired Text,—proved a sufficient safeguard against the grosser forms of corruption. But this was not all.
“The Church, remember, hath been from the beginning the ‘Witness and Keeper of Holy Writ.’(760) Did not her Divine Author pour out upon her, in largest measure, ‘the SPIRIT of Truth;’ and pledge Himself that it should be that SPIRIT’S special function to ‘guide’_ her children _‘into all the Truth’(761)?... That by a perpetual miracle, Sacred Manuscripts would be protected all down the ages against depraving influences of whatever sort,—was not to have been expected; certainly, was never promised. But the Church, in her collective capacity, hath nevertheless—as a matter of fact—been perpetually purging herself of those shamefully depraved copies which once everywhere abounded within her pale: retaining only such an amount of discrepancy in her Text as might serve to remind her children that they carry their ‘treasure in earthen vessels,’—as well as to stimulate them to perpetual watchfulness and solicitude for the purity and integrity of the Deposit. Never, however, up to the present hour, hath there been any complete eradication of all traces of the attempted mischief,—any absolute getting rid of every depraved copy extant. These are found to have lingered on anciently in many quarters. _A few such copies linger on to the present day._ The wounds were healed, but the scars remained,—nay, the scars are discernible still.
“What, in the meantime, is to be thought of those blind guides—those deluded ones—who would now, if they could, persuade us to go back to those same codices of which the Church hath already purged herself? to go back in quest of those very Readings which, 15 or 1600 years ago, the Church _in all lands_ is found to have rejected with loathing? Verily, it is ‘happening unto them according to the true proverb’—which S. Peter sets down in his 2nd Epistle,—chapter ii. verse 22. To proceed however.
“As for Clemens,—he lived at the very time and in the very country where the mischief referred to was most rife. For full two centuries after his era, heretical works were so industriously multiplied, that in a diocese consisting of 800 parishes (viz. Cyrus in Syria), the Bishop (viz. Theodoret, who was appointed in A.D. 423,) complains that he found no less than 200 copies of the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian the heretic,—(Tatian’s date being A.D. 173,)—honourably preserved in the Churches of his (Theodoret’s) diocese, and mistaken by the orthodox for an authentic performance.(762) Clemens moreover would seem to have been a trifle too familiar with the works of Basilides, Marcion, Valentinus, Heracleon, and the rest of the Gnostic crew. He habitually mistakes apocryphal writings for inspired Scripture:(763) and—with corrupted copies always at hand and before him—he is just the man to present us with a quotation like the present, and straightway to volunteer the assurance that he found it ‘so written in the Gospel according to S. Mark.’(764) The archetype of Codices B and א,—especially the archetype from which Cod. D was copied,—is discovered to have experienced adulteration largely from the same pestilential source which must have corrupted the copies with which Clement (and his pupil Origen after him) were most familiar.—And thus you have explained to you the reason of the disgust and indignation with which I behold in these last days a resolute attempt made to revive and to palm off upon an unlearned generation the old exploded errors, under the pretence that they are the inspired Verity itself,—providentially recovered from a neglected shelf in the Vatican,—rescued from destruction by a chance visitor to Mount Sinai.”
_F. C._ “Will you then, in conclusion, tell us how _you_ would have us proceed in order to ascertain the Truth of Scripture?”
_Q. R._ “To answer that question fully would require a considerable Treatise. I will not, however, withhold a slight outline of what I conceive to be the only safe method of procedure. I could but _fill up_ that outline, and _illustrate_ that method, even if I had 500 pages at my disposal.
LVIII. “On first seriously applying ourselves to these studies, many years ago, we found it wondrous difficult to divest ourselves of prepossessions very like your own. Turn which way we would, we were encountered by the same confident terminology:—‘the best documents,’—‘primary manuscripts,’—‘first-rate authorities,’—‘primitive evidence,’—‘ancient readings,’—and so forth: and we found that thereby cod. A. or B,—cod. C or D—were _invariably and exclusively meant_. It was not until we had laboriously collated these documents (including א) for ourselves, that we became aware of their true character. Long before coming to the end of our task (and it occupied us, off and on, for eight years) we had become convinced that the supposed ‘best documents’ and ‘first-rate authorities’ are in reality among _the worst_:—that these Copies deserve to be called ‘primary,’ only because in any enumeration of manuscripts, they stand foremost;—and that their ‘Evidence,’ whether ‘primitive’ or not, is _contradictory_ throughout.—_All_ Readings, lastly, we discovered are ‘ancient.’
“A diligent inspection of a vast number of later Copies scattered throughout the principal libraries of Europe, and the exact Collation of a few, further convinced us that the deference generally claimed for B, א, C, D is nothing else but a weak superstition and a vulgar error:—that the date of a MS. is not of its essence, but is a mere accident of the problem:—and that later Copies, so far from ‘crumbling down salient points, softening irregularities, conforming differences,’(765) and so forth,—on countless occasions, _and as a rule_,—preserve those delicate lineaments and minute refinements which the ‘old uncials’ are constantly observed to obliterate. And so, rising to a systematic survey of the entire field of Evidence, we found reason to suspect more and more the soundness of the conclusions at which Lachmann, Tregelles, and Tischendorf had arrived: while we seemed led, as if by the hand, to discern plain indications of the existence for ourselves of a far ‘more excellent way.’
LIX. “For, let the ample and highly complex provision which Divine Wisdom hath made for the effectual conservation of that crowning master-piece of His own creative skill,—THE WRITTEN WORD,—be duly considered; and surely a recoil is inevitable from the strange perversity which in these last days would shut us up within the limits of a very few documents to the neglect of all the rest,—as though a revelation from Heaven had proclaimed that the Truth is to be found exclusively in _them_. The good Providence of the Author of Scripture is discovered to have furnished His household, the Church, with (speaking roughly) 1000 copies of the Gospels:—with twenty Versions—two of which go back to the beginning of Christianity: and with the writings of a host of ancient Fathers. _Why_ out of those 1000 MSS. _two_ should be singled out by Drs. Westcott and Hort for special favour,—to the practical disregard of all the rest: _why_ Versions and Fathers should by them be similarly dealt with,—should be practically set aside in fact in the lump,—we fail to discover. Certainly the pleas urged by the learned Editors(766) can appear satisfactory to no one but to themselves.
LX. “For our method then,—It is the direct contradictory to that adopted by the two Cambridge Professors. Moreover, it conducts us throughout to directly opposite results. We hold it to be even axiomatic that a Reading which is supported by only one document,—out of the 1100 (more or less) already specified,—whether that solitary unit be a FATHER, a VERSION, or a COPY,—stands self-condemned; may be dismissed at once, without concern or enquiry.
“Nor is the case materially altered if (as generally happens) a few colleagues of bad character are observed to side with the else solitary document. Associated with the corrupt B, is often found the more corrupt א. Nay, six leaves of א are confidently declared by Tischendorf to have been written by the scribe of B. The sympathy between these two, and the Version of Lower Egypt, is even notorious. That Origen should sometimes join the conspiracy,—and that the same Reading should find allies in certain copies of the unrevised Latin, or perhaps in Cureton’s Syriac:—all _this_ we deem the reverse of encouraging. The attesting witnesses are, in our account, of so suspicious a character, that the Reading cannot be allowed. On such occasions, we are reminded that there is truth in Dr. Hort’s dictum concerning the importance of noting the tendency of certain documents to fall into ‘groups:’ though his assertion that ‘it cannot be too often repeated that the study of grouping is _the foundation of all enduring Criticism_,’(767) we hold to be as absurd as it is untrue.
LXI. “So far negatively.—A safer, the _only_ trustworthy method, in fact, of ascertaining the Truth of Scripture, we hold to be the method which,—without prejudice or partiality,—simply ascertains WHICH FORM OF THE TEXT ENJOYS THE EARLIEST, THE FULLEST, THE WIDEST, THE MOST RESPECTABLE, AND—above all things—THE MOST VARIED ATTESTATION. That a Reading should be freely recognized alike by the earliest and by the latest available evidence,—we hold to be a prime circumstance in its favour. That Copies, Versions, and Fathers, should all three concur in sanctioning it,—we hold to be even more conclusive. If several Fathers, living in different parts of ancient Christendom, are all observed to recognize the words, or to quote them in the same way,—we have met with all the additional confirmation we ordinarily require. Let it only be further discoverable _how_ or _why_ the rival Reading came into existence, and our confidence becomes absolute.
LXII. “An instance which we furnished in detail in a former article,(768) may be conveniently appealed to in illustration of what goes before. Our LORD’S ‘Agony and bloody sweat,’—first mentioned by Justin Martyr (A.D. 150), is found _set down in every MS. in the world except four_. It is duly exhibited _by every known Version_. It is recognized by _upwards of forty famous Fathers_ writing without concert in remote parts of ancient Christendom. Whether therefore Antiquity,—Variety of testimony,—Respectability of witnesses,—or Number,—is considered, the evidence in favour of S. Luke xxii. 43, 44 is simply overwhelming. And yet out of superstitious deference to _two_ Copies of bad character, Drs. Westcott and Hort (followed by the Revisionists) set the brand of spuriousness on those 26 precious words; professing themselves ‘morally certain’ that this is nothing else but a ‘Western Interpolation:’ whereas, mistaken zeal for the honour of Incarnate JEHOVAH alone occasioned the suppression of these two verses in a few early manuscripts. This has been explained already,—namely, in the middle of page 82.
LXIII. “Only one other instance shall be cited. The traditional reading of S. Luke ii. 14 is vouched for by _every __ known copy of the Gospels but four_—3 of which are of extremely bad character, viz. א B D. The Versions are divided: but _not_ the Fathers: of whom _more than forty-seven_ from every part of ancient Christendom,—(Syria, Palestine, Alexandria, Asia Minor, Cyprus, Crete, Gaul,)—come back to attest that the traditional reading (as usual) is the true one. Yet such is the infatuation of the new school, that Drs. Westcott and Hort are content to make _nonsense_ of the Angelic Hymn on the night of the Nativity, rather than admit the possibility of complicity in error in א B D: error in respect of _a single letter!_... The Reader is invited to refer to what has already been offered on this subject, from p. 41 to p. 47.
LXIV. “It will be perceived therefore that the method we plead for consists merely in a loyal recognition of the whole of the Evidence: setting off one authority against another, laboriously and impartially; and adjudicating fairly between them _all_. Even so hopelessly corrupt a document as Clement of Alexandria’s copy of the Gospels proves to have been—(described at pp. 326-31)—is by no means without critical value. Servilely followed, it would confessedly land us in hopeless error: but, judiciously employed, as a set-off against _other_ evidence; regarded rather as a check upon the exorbitances of _other_ foul documents, (_e.g._ B א C and especially D); resorted to as a protection against the prejudice and caprice of modern Critics;—that venerable document, with all its faults, proves invaluable. Thus, in spite of its own aberrations, it witnesses to _the truth of the Traditional Text_ of S. Mark x. 17-31—(the place of Scripture above referred to(769))—in several important particulars; siding with it against Lachmann, 9 times;—against Tischendorf, 10 times;—against Tregelles, 11 times;—against Westcott and Hort, 12 times.
“We deem this laborious method the only true method, in our present state of imperfect knowledge: the method, namely, of _adopting that Reading which has the fullest, the widest, and the most varied attestation. Antiquity, and Respectability of Witnesses,_ are thus secured. How men can persuade themselves that 19 Copies out of every 20 may be safely disregarded, if they be but written in minuscule characters,—we fail to understand. To ourselves it seems simply an irrational proceeding. But indeed we hold this to be no _seeming_ truth. The fact is absolutely demonstrable. As for building up a Text, (as Drs. Westcott and Hort have done,) with special superstitious deference to a _single codex,_—we deem it about as reasonable as would be the attempt to build up a pyramid from its apex; in the expectation that it would stand firm on its extremity, and remain horizontal for ever.”
And thus much in reply to our supposed Questioner. We have now reached the end of a prolonged discussion, which began at page 320; more immediately, at page 337.
LXV. In the meantime, _a pyramid balanced on its apex_ proves to be no unapt image of the Textual theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort. When we reach the end of their _Introduction_ we find we have reached the point to which all that went before has been evidently converging: but we make the further awkward discovery that it is the point on which all that went before absolutely _depends_ also. _Apart from_ codex B, the present theory could have no existence. _But for_ codex B, it would never have been excogitated. _On_ codex B, it entirely rests. _Out of_ codex B, it has _entirely sprung._
Take away this one codex, and Dr. Hort’s volume becomes absolutely without coherence, purpose, meaning. _One-fifth_ of it(770) is devoted to remarks on B and א. The fable of “the _Syrian_ text” is invented solely for the glorification of B and א,—which are claimed, of course, to be “_Pre_-Syrian.” This fills 40 pages more.(771) And thus it would appear that the Truth of Scripture has run a very narrow risk of being lost for ever to mankind. Dr. Hort contends that it more than half lay _perdu_ on a forgotten shelf in the Vatican Library;—Dr. Tischendorf, that it had been deposited in a waste-paper basket(772) in the convent of S. Catharine at the foot of Mount Sinai,—from which he rescued it on the 4th February, 1859:—neither, we venture to think, a very likely circumstance. We incline to believe that the Author of Scripture hath not by any means shown Himself so unmindful of the safety of the Deposit, as these distinguished gentlemen imagine.
Are we asked for the ground of our opinion? We point without hesitation to the 998 COPIES which remain: to the many ancient VERSIONS: to the many venerable FATHERS,—_any one_ of whom we hold to be _a more trustworthy authority_ for the Text of Scripture, _when he speaks out plainly,_ than either Codex B or Codex א,—aye, or than both of them put together. Behold, (we say,) the abundant provision which the All-wise One hath made for the safety of the Deposit: the “threefold cord” which “is not quickly broken”! We hope to be forgiven if we add, (not without a little warmth,) that we altogether wonder at the perversity, the infatuation, the blindness,—which is prepared to make light of all these precious helps, in order to magnify two of the most corrupt codices in existence; and _that_, for no other reason but because, (as Dr. Hort expresses it,) they “_happen_ likewise to be the oldest extant Greek MSS. of the New Testament.” (p. 212.)
LXVI. And yet, had what precedes been the sum of the matter, we should for our own parts have been perfectly well content to pass it by without a syllable of comment. So long as nothing more is endangered than the personal reputation of a couple of Scholars—at home or abroad—we can afford to look on with indifference. Their private ventures are their private concern. What excites our indignation is the spectacle of the _Church of England_ becoming to some extent involved in their discomfiture, because implicated in their mistakes: dragged through the mire, to speak plainly, at the chariot-wheels of these two infelicitous Doctors, and exposed with them to the ridicule of educated Christendom. Our Church has boasted till now of learned sons in abundance within her pale, ready at a moment’s notice to do her right: to expose shallow sciolism, and to vindicate that precious thing which hath been committed to her trust.(773) Where are the men _now?_ What has come to her, that, on the contrary, certain of her own Bishops and Doctors have not scrupled to enter into an irregular alliance with Sectarians,—yes, have even taken into partnership with themselves one who openly denies the eternal Godhead of our LORD JESUS CHRIST,—in order, as it would seem, to give proof to the world of the low ebb to which Taste, Scholarship, and Sacred Learning have sunk among us?
LXVII. Worse yet. We are so distressed, because the true sufferers after all by this ill-advised proceeding, are the 90 millions of English-speaking Christian folk scattered over the surface of the globe. These have had the title-deeds by which they hold their priceless birthright, shamefully tampered with. _Who_ will venture to predict the amount of mischief which must follow, if the “_New Greek Text_” which has been put forth by the men who were appointed _to revise the English Authorized Version,_ should become used in our Schools and in our Colleges,—should impose largely on the Clergy of the Church of England?... But to return from this, which however will scarcely be called a digression.
A pyramid poised on its apex then, we hold to be a fair emblem of the Theory just now under review. Only, unfortunately, its apex is found to be constructed of brick without straw: say rather _of straw—without brick._
LXVIII. _Why_ such partiality has been evinced latterly for Cod. B, none of the Critics have yet been so good as to explain; nor is it to be expected that, satisfactorily, any of them ever will. _Why_ again Tischendorf should have suddenly transferred his allegiance from Cod. B to Cod. א,—unless, to be sure, he was the sport of parental partiality,—must also remain a riddle. If _one_ of the “old uncials” must needs be taken as a guide,—(though we see no sufficient reason why _one_ should be appointed to lord it over the rest,)—we should rather have expected that Cod. A would have been selected,(774)—the text of which “Stands in broad contrast to those of either B or א, though the interval of years [between it and them] is probably small.” (p. 152.) “By a curious and apparently unnoticed coincidence,” (proceeds Dr. Hort,) “its Text in several books agrees with the Latin Vulgate in so many peculiar readings devoid of old Latin attestation, as to leave little doubt that a Greek MS. largely employed by Jerome”—[and why not “THE_ Greek copies_ employed by Jerome”?]—“in his Revision of the Latin version must have had to a great extent a common original with A.” (_Ibid_.)
Behold a further claim of this copy on the respectful consideration of the Critics! What would be thought of the Alexandrian Codex, if some attestation were discoverable in its pages that it actually _had belonged_ to the learned Palestinian father? According to Dr. Hort,
“Apart from this individual affinity, A—both in the Gospels and elsewhere—may serve as _a fair example of the Manuscripts that,_ to judge by Patristic quotations, _were commonest in the IVth century._”—(p. 152.)
O but, the evidence in favour of Codex A thickens apace! Suppose then,—(for, after this admission, the supposition is at least allowable,)—suppose the discovery were made tomorrow of half-a-score of codices of the _same date as Cod._ B, but exhibiting the _same Text as Cod._ A. What a complete revolution would be thereby effected in men’s minds on Textual matters! How impossible would it be, henceforth, for B and its henchman א, to obtain so much as a hearing! Such “an eleven” would safely defy the world! And yet, according to Dr. Hort, the supposition may any day become a fact; for he informs us,—(and we are glad to be able for once to declare that what he says is perfectly correct,)—that such manuscripts once abounded or rather _prevailed;_—“_were commonest_ in the IVth century,” when codices B and א were written. We presume that then, as now, such codices prevailed universally, in the proportion of 99 to 1.
LXIX. But—what need to say it?—we entirely disallow any such narrowing of the platform which Divine Wisdom hath willed should be at once very varied and very ample. Cod. A is sometimes in error: sometimes even _conspires in error exclusively with Cod._ B. An instance occurs in 1 S. John v. 18,—a difficult passage, which we the more willingly proceed to remark upon, because the fact has transpired that it is one of the few places in which _entire unanimity_ prevailed among the Revisionists,—who yet (as we shall show) have been, one and all, mistaken in substituting “_him_” (αὐτόν) for “_himself_” (ἑαυτόν).... We venture to bespeak the Reader’s attention while we produce the passage in question, and briefly examine it. He is assured that it exhibits a fair average specimen of what has been the Revisionists’ fatal method in every page:—
LXX. S. John in his first Epistle (v. 18) is distinguishing between the mere recipient of the new birth (ὁ ΓΕΝΝΗΘΕῚΣ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ),—and the man who retains the sanctifying influences of the HOLY SPIRIT which he received when he became regenerate (ὁ ΓΕΓΕΝΝΗΜΈΝΟΣ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ). The latter (he says) “_sinneth not_:” the former, (he says,) “_keepeth himself, and the Evil One toucheth him not_.” So far, all is intelligible. The nominative is the same in both cases. Substitute however “keepeth _him_ (αὐτόν),” for “keepeth _himself_ (ἑαυτόν),” and (as Dr. Scrivener admits(775)), ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ can be none other than the Only Begotten SON of GOD. And yet our LORD is _nowhere_ in the New Testament designated as ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ.(776) Alford accordingly prefers to make nonsense of the place; which he translates,—“he that hath been begotten of GOD, _it keepeth him_.”
LXXI. Now, on every occasion like the present,—(instead of tampering with the text, _as Dr. Hort and our Revisionists have done without explanation or apology,_)—our safety will be found to consist in enquiring,—But (1) What have the Copies to say to this? (2) What have the Versions? and (3) What, the Fathers?... The answer proves to be—(1) _All the copies except three,_(777) read “himself.”—(2) So do the Syriac and the Latin;(778)—so do the Coptic, Sahidic, Georgian, Armenian, and Æthiopic versions.(779)—(3) So, Origen clearly thrice,(780)—Didymus clearly 4 times,(781)—Ephraem Syrus clearly twice,(782)—Severus also twice,(783)—Theophylact expressly,(784)—and Œcumenius.(785)—So, indeed, Cod. A; for the original Scribe is found to have corrected himself.(786) The sum of the adverse attestation therefore which prevailed with the Revisionists, is found to have been—_Codex_ B _and a single cursive copy_ at Moscow.
This does not certainly seem to the Reviewer, (as it seemed to the Revisionists,) “decidedly preponderating evidence.” In his account, “_plain and clear error_” dwells with their Revision. But this may be because,—(to quote words recently addressed by the President of the Revising body to the Clergy and Laity of the Diocese of Gloucester and Bristol,)—the “Quarterly Reviewer” is “_innocently ignorant of the now established principles of Textual Criticism._”(787)
LXXII. “It is easy,”—(says the learned Prelate, speaking on his own behalf and that of his co-Revisionists,)—“to put forth to the world a sweeping condemnation of many of our changes of reading; and yet all the while to be _innocently ignorant of the now established principles of Textual Criticism._”
May we venture to point out, that it is easier still to denounce adverse Criticism in the lump, instead of trying to refute it in any one particular:—to refer vaguely to “established principles of Textual Criticism,” instead of stating which they be:—to sneer contemptuously at endeavours, (which, even if unsuccessful, one is apt to suppose are entitled to sympathy at the hands of a successor of the Apostles,) instead of showing _wherein_ such efforts are reprehensible? We are content to put the following question to any fair-minded man:—Whether of these two is the more facile and culpable proceeding;—(1) _Lightly to blot out an inspired word from the Book of Life, and to impose a wrong sense on Scripture_, as in this place the Bishop and his colleagues are found to have done:—or, (2) To fetch the same word industriously back: to establish its meaning by diligent and laborious enquiry: to restore both to their rightful honours: and to set them on a basis of (_hitherto unobserved_) evidence, from which (_faxit DEUS!_) it will be found impossible henceforth to dislodge them?
This only will the Reviewer add,—That if it be indeed one of the “now established principles of Textual Criticism,” that the evidence of _two manuscripts and-a-half_ outweighs the evidence of (1) All _the remaining_ 997-½,—(2) The whole body of the Versions,—(3) _Every Father who quotes the place, from_ A.D. 210 to A.D. 1070,—and (4) _The strongest possible internal Evidence_:—if all this _indeed_ be so,—he devoutly trusts that he may be permitted to retain his “Innocence” to the last; and in his “Ignorance,” when the days of his warfare are ended, to close his eyes in death.—And now to proceed.
LXXIII. The Nemesis of Superstition and Idolatry is ever the same. Phantoms of the imagination henceforth usurp the place of substantial forms. Interminable doubt,—wretched misbelief,—childish credulity,—judicial blindness,—are the inevitable sequel and penalty. The mind that has long allowed itself in a systematic trifling with Evidence, is observed to fall the easiest prey to Imposture. It has doubted what is _demonstrably_ true: has rejected what is _indubitably_ Divine. Henceforth, it is observed to mistake its own fantastic creations for historical facts: to believe things which rest on insufficient evidence, or on no evidence at all. Thus, these learned Professors,—who condemn the “last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark;” which have been accounted veritable Scripture by the Church Universal for more than 1800 years;—nevertheless accept as the genuine “_Diatessaron of Tatian_” [A.D. 170], a production which was discovered yesterday, and which _does not even claim to be_ the work of that primitive writer.(788)
Yes, the Nemesis of Superstition and Idolatry is ever the same. General mistrust of _all_ evidence is the sure result. In 1870, Drs. Westcott and Hort solemnly assured their brother-Revisionists that “the prevalent assumption that throughout the N. T. the true Text is to be found _somewhere_ among recorded Readings, _does not stand the test of experience_.” They are evidently still haunted by the same spectral suspicion. They invent a ghost to be exorcised in every dark corner. Accordingly, Dr. Hort favours us with a chapter on the Art of “removing Corruptions of the sacred Text _antecedent to extant documents_” (p. 71). We are not surprised (though we _are_ a little amused) to hear that,—
“The _Art of Conjectural Emendation_ depends for its success so much on personal endowments, fertility of resource in the first instance, and even more an appreciation of language too delicate to acquiesce in merely plausible corrections, that it is easy to forget its true character as a critical operation founded on knowledge and method.”—(p. 71.)
LXXIV. _Very_ “easy,” certainly. One sample of Dr. Hort’s skill in this department, (it occurs at page 135 of his _Notes on Select Readings_,) shall be cited in illustration. We venture to commend it to the attention of our Readers:—
(a) S. Paul [2 Tim. i. 13] exhorts Timothy, (whom he had set as Bp. over the Church of Ephesus,) to “_hold fast_” a certain “_form_” or “pattern” (ὑποτύπωσιν) “_of sound words_, _which_” (said he) “_thou hast heard of me_.” The flexibility and delicate precision of the Greek language enables the Apostle to indicate exactly what was the prime object of his solicitude. It proves to have been the safety of _the very words_ which he had syllabled, (ὑγιαινόντων λόγων ὯΝ παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἤκουσασ). As learned Bp. Beveridge well points out,—“_which words_, not _which form_, thou hast heard of me. So that it is not so much the _form_, as the _words_ themselves, which the Apostle would have him to hold fast.”(789)
All this however proves abhorrent to Dr. Hort. “This sense” (says the learned Professor) “cannot be obtained from the text except by treating ὧν as put in the genitive by _an unusual and inexplicable attraction_. It seems more probable that ὧν is a _primitive corruption_ of ὅν after πάντων.”
Now, this is quite impossible, since neither ὅν nor πάντων occurs anywhere in the neighbourhood. And as for the supposed “unusual and inexplicable attraction,” it happens to be one of even common occurrence,—as every attentive reader of the New Testament is aware. Examples of it may be seen at 2 Cor. i. 4 and Ephes. iv. 1,—also (in Dr. Hort’s text of) Ephes. i. 6 (ἧς in all 3 places). Again, in S. Luke v. 9 (whether ᾗ or ὧν is read): and vi. 38 (ῷ):—in S. Jo. xv. 20 (οὗ):—and xvii. 11 (ᾧ): in Acts ii. 22 (οἷς): vii. 17 (ἧς) and 45 (ὧν): in xxii. 15 (ὧν),&c.... But why entertain the question? There is absolutely _no room_ for such Criticism in respect of a reading which is found _in every known MS.,—in every known Version,—in every Father who quotes the place_: a reading which Divines, and Scholars who were not Divines,—Critics of the Text, and grammarians who were without prepossessions concerning Scripture,—Editors of the Greek and Translators of the Greek into other languages,—all alike have acquiesced in, from the beginning until now.
We venture to assert that it is absolutely unlawful, in the entire absence of evidence, to call such a reading as the present in question. There is absolutely no safeguard for Scripture—no limit to Controversy—if a place like this may be solicited at the mere suggestion of individual caprice. (For it is worth observing that _on this, and similar occasions, Dr. Hort is forsaken by Dr. Westcott_. Such notes are enclosed in brackets, and subscribed “H.”) In the meantime, who can forbear smiling at the self-complacency of a Critic who puts forth remarks like those which precede; and yet congratulates himself on “_personal endowments, fertility of resource, and a too delicate appreciation of language_”?
(b) Another specimen of conjectural extravagance occurs at S. John vi. 4, where Dr. Hort labours to throw suspicion on “the Passover” (τὸ πάσχα),—in defiance of _every known Manuscript,—every known Version_,—and _every Father who quotes or recognizes the place_.(790) We find _nine columns_ devoted to his vindication of this weak imagination; although so partial are his _Notes_, that countless “various Readings” of great interest and importance are left wholly undiscussed. Nay, sometimes entire Epistles are dismissed with a single weak annotation (_e.g._ 1 and 2 Thessalonians),—_or with none_, as in the case of the Epistle to the Philippians.
(c) We charitably presume that it is in order to make amends for having conjecturally thrust out τὸ πάσχα from S. John vi. 4,—that Dr. Hort is for conjecturally thrusting into Acts xx. 28, Υἱοῦ (after τοῦ ἰδίου),—an imagination to which he devotes a column and-a-half, but _for which he is not able to produce a particle of evidence_. It would result in our reading, “to feed the Church of GOD, which He purchased”—(not “with _His own_ blood,” but)—“with the _blood of His own_ SON:” which has evidently been suggested by nothing so much as by the supposed necessity of getting rid of a text which unequivocally asserts that CHRIST is GOD.(791)
LXXV. Some will be chiefly struck by the conceit and presumption of such suggestions as the foregoing. A yet larger number, as we believe, will be astonished by their essential foolishness. For ourselves, what surprises us most is the fatal misapprehension they evince of the true office of Textual Criticism as applied to the New Testament. It _never is to invent new Readings_, but only to adjudicate between existing and conflicting ones. He who seeks to thrust out “THE PASSOVER” from S. John vi. 4, (where it may on no account be dispensed with(792)); and to thrust “THE SON” into Acts xx. 28, (where His Name cannot stand without evacuating a grand Theological statement);—will do well to consider whether he does not bring himself directly under the awful malediction with which the beloved Disciple concludes and seals up the Canon of Scripture:—“I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this Book,—If any man shall _add unto_ these things, GOD shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this Book. And if any man shall _take away from_ the words of the Book of this prophecy, GOD shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy City, and from the things which are written in this Book.”(793)
May we be allowed to assure Dr. Hort that “CONJECTURAL EMENDATION” CAN BE ALLOWED NO PLACE WHATEVER IN THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT? He will no doubt disregard our counsel. May Dr. Scrivener then [p. 433] be permitted to remind him that “it is now agreed among competent judges that _Conjectural emendation_ must _never_ be resorted to,—even in passages of acknowledged difficulty”?
There is in fact no need for it,—nor can be: so very ample, as well as so very varied, is the evidence for the words of the New Testament.
LXXVI. Here however we regret to find we have _both_ Editors against us. They propose “the definite question,”—
“ ‘Are there, as a matter of fact, places in which we are _constrained by overwhelming evidence_ to recognize the existence of Textual error in _all_ extant documents?’ To this question we have no hesitation in replying in the affirmative.”—(p. 279.)
Behold then the deliberate sentence of Drs. Westcott and Hort. They
flatter themselves that they are able to produce “_overwhelming evidence_”
in proof that there are places where _every extant document_ is in error.
The instance on which they both rely, is S. Peter’s prophetic announcement
(2 Pet. iii. 10), that in “the day of the LORD,” “the earth and the works
that are therein _shall be burned up_” (κατακαήσεται).
This statement is found to have been glossed or paraphrased in an age when men knew no better. Thus, Cod. C substitutes—“_shall vanish away_:”(794) the Syriac and one Egyptian version,—“_shall not be found_,” (apparently in imitation of Rev. xvi. 20). But, either because the “not” was accidentally omitted(795) in some very ancient exemplar;—or else because it was deemed a superfluity by some Occidental critic who in his simplicity supposed that εὑρεθήσεται might well represent the Latin _urerentur_,—(somewhat as Mrs. Quickly warranted “_hang hog_” to be Latin for “bacon,”)—codices א and B (with four others of later date) exhibit “_shall be found_,”(796)—which obviously makes utter nonsense of the place. (Εὑρεθήσεται appears, nevertheless, in Dr. Hort’s text: _in consequence of which_, the margin of our “Revised Version” is disfigured with the statement that “The most ancient manuscripts read _discovered_.”) But what is there in all this to make one distrust the Traditional reading?—supported as it is by the whole mass of Copies: by the Latin,(797)—the Coptic,—the Harkleian,—and the Æthiopic Versions:—besides the only Fathers who quote the place; viz. Cyril seven times,(798) and John Damascene(799) once?... As for pretending, at the end of the foregoing enquiry, that “we are _constrained by overwhelming evidence_ to recognize the existence of textual error _in all extant documents_,”—it is evidently a mistake. Nothing else is it but a misstatement of facts.
LXXVII. And thus, in the entire absence of proof, Dr. Hort’s view of “the existence of corruptions” of the Text “antecedent to all existing authority,”(800)—falls to the ground. His confident prediction, that such corruptions “will sooner or later have to be acknowledged,” may be dismissed with a smile. So indifferent an interpreter of the Past may not presume to forecast the Future.
The one “matter of fact,” which at every step more and more impresses an attentive student of the Text of Scripture, is,—(1st), The utterly depraved character of Codices B and א: and (2nd), The singular infatuation of Drs. Westcott and Hort in insisting that those 2 Codices “_stand alone in their almost complete immunity from error:_”(801)—that “the fullest comparison does but increase the conviction that _their pre-eminent relative purity is approximately absolute_.”(802)
LXXVIII. Whence is it,—(we have often asked ourselves the question, while studying these laborious pages,)—How does it happen that a scholar like Dr. Hort, evidently accomplished and able, should habitually mistake the creations of his own brain for material forms? the echoes of his own voice while holding colloquy with himself, for oracular responses? We have not hitherto expressed our astonishment,—but must do so now before we make an end,—that a writer who desires to convince, can suppose that his own arbitrary use of such expressions as “Pre-Syrian” and “Neutral,”—“Western” and “Alexandrian,”—“Non-Western” and “Non-Alexandrian,”—“Non-Alexandrian Pre-Syrian” and “Pre-Syrian Non-Western,”—will produce any (except an irritating) effect on the mind of an intelligent reader.
The delusion of supposing that by the free use of such a vocabulary a Critic may dispense with the ordinary processes of logical proof, might possibly have its beginning in the retirement of the cloister, where there are few to listen and none to contradict: but it can only prove abiding if there has been no free ventilation of the individual fancy. Greatly is it to be regretted that instead of keeping his Text a profound secret for 30 years, Dr. Hort did not freely impart it to the public, and solicit the favour of candid criticism.
Has no friend ever reminded him that assertions concerning the presence or absence of a “Syrian” or a “Pre-Syrian,” a “Western” or a “Non-Western _element_,” are but wind,—the merest chaff and draff,—_apart from proof_? Repeated _ad nauseam_, and employed with as much peremptory precision as if they were recognized terms connoting distinct classes of Readings,—(whereas they are absolutely without significancy, except, let us charitably hope, to him who employs them);—such expressions would only be allowable on the part of the Critic, if he had first been at the pains to _index every principal Father_,—and _to reduce Texts to families_ by a laborious process of Induction. Else, they are worse than foolish. More than an impertinence are they. They bewilder, and mislead, and for a while encumber and block the way.
LXXIX. This is not all however. Even when these Editors notice hostile evidence, they do so after a fashion which can satisfy no one but themselves. Take for example their note on the word εἰκῆ (“_without a cause_”) in S. Matthew v. 22 (“But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother _without a cause_”). The Reader’s attention is specially invited to the treatment which this place has experienced at the hands of Drs. Westcott and Hort:—
(_a_) They unceremoniously eject the word from S. Matthew’s Gospel with their oracular sentence, “_Western and Syrian._”—Aware that εἰκῆ is recognized by “Iren. lat-3; Eus. _D. E._ Cyp.,” they yet claim for omitting it the authority of “Just. Ptolem. (? Iren. 242 _fin_.), Tert.; and certainly” (they proceed) “Orig. on Eph. iv. 31, noticing both readings, and similarly Hier. _loc._, who probably follows Origen: also Ath. _Pasch._ Syr. 11: Ps.-Ath. _Cast._ ii. 4; and others”.... Such is their “_Note_” on S. Matthew v. 22. It is found at p. 8 of their volume. In consequence, εἰκῆ (“_without a cause_”) disappears from their Text entirely.
(_b_) But these learned men are respectfully informed that neither Justin Martyr, nor Ptolemæus the Gnostic, nor Irenæus, no, nor Tertullian either,—that _not one of these four writers_,—supplies the wished-for evidence. As for Origen,—they are assured that _he_—_not_ “probably” but _certainly_—is the cause of all the trouble. They are reminded that Athanasius(803) quotes (_not_ S. Matt. v. 22, but) 1 Jo. iii. 15. They are shown that what they call “ps.-Ath. _Cast._” is nothing else but a paraphrastic translation (by _Græculus quidam_) of John Cassian’s _Institutes_,—“ii. 4” in the Greek representing viii. 20 in the Latin.... And now, how much of the adverse Evidence remains?
(_c_) Only this:—Jerome’s three books of Commentary on the Ephesians, are, in the main, a translation of Origen’s lost 3 books on the same Epistle.(804) Commenting on iv. 31, Origen says that εἰκῆ has been improperly added to the Text,(805)—_which shows that in Origen’s copy_ εἰκῆ _was found there_. A few ancient writers in consequence (but only in consequence) of what Jerome (or rather Origen) thus delivers, are observed to omit εἰκῆ.(806) That is all!
(_d_) May we however respectfully ask these learned Editors why, besides Irenæus,(807)—Eusebius,(808)—and Cyprian,(809)—they do not mention that εἰκῆ is _also_ the reading of Justin Martyr,(810)—of Origen himself,(811)—of the _Constitutiones App._,(812)—of Basil three times,(813)—of Gregory of Nyssa,(814)—of Epiphanius,(815)—of Ephraem Syrus twice,(816)—of Isidorus twice,(817)—of Theodore of Mops.,—of Chrysostom 18 times,—of the _Opus imp._ twice,(818)—of Cyril(819)—and of Theodoret(820)—(each in 3 places). It was also the reading of Severus, Abp. of Antioch:(821)—as well as of Hilary,(822)—Lucifer,(823)—Salvian,(824)—Philastrius,(825)—Augustine, and—Jerome,(826)—(although, when translating from Origen, he pronounces against εἰκῆ(827)):—not to mention Antiochus mon.,(828)—J. Damascene,(829)—Maximus,(830)—Photius,(831)—Euthymius,—Theophylact,—and others?(832)... We have adduced no less than _thirty_ ancient witnesses.
(_e_) Our present contention however is but this,—that a Reading which is attested by _every uncial Copy of the Gospels except_ B _and_ א; by a whole _torrent of Fathers_; by _every known copy_ of the old Latin,—by _all_ the Syriac, (for the Peschito inserts [not translates] the word εἰκῆ,)—by the Coptic,—as well as by the Gothic—and Armenian versions;—that such a reading is not to be set aside by the stupid dictum, “WESTERN AND SYRIAN.” By no such methods will the study of Textual Criticism be promoted, or any progress ever be made in determining the Truth of Scripture. There really can be no doubt whatever,—(that is to say, if we are to be guided by _ancient Evidence_,)—that εἰκῆ (“_without a cause_”) was our SAVIOUR’S actual word; and that our Revisers have been here, as in so many hundred other places, led astray by Dr. Hort. So true is that saying of the ancient poet,—“Evil company doth corrupt good manners.” “And if the blind lead the blind,”—(a greater than Menander hath said it,)—“_both shall fall into the ditch_.”(833)
(_f_) In the meantime, we have exhibited somewhat in detail, Drs. Westcott and Hort’s Annotation on εἰκῆ, [S. Matth. v. 22,] in order to furnish our Readers with at least _one definite specimen_ of the Editorial skill and Critical ability of these two accomplished Professors. Their general practice, as exhibited in the case of 1 Jo. v. 18, [see above, pp. 347-9,] is to tamper with the sacred Text, without assigning their authority,—indeed, without offering apology of any kind.
(_g_) The _sum_ of the matter proves to be as follows: Codd. B and א (the “two false Witnesses”),—B and א, _alone of MSS._—omit εἰκῆ. On the strength of this, Dr. Hort persuaded his fellow Revisers to omit “_without a cause_” from their Revised Version: and it is proposed, in consequence, that every Englishman’s copy of S. Matthew v. 22 shall be mutilated in the same way for ever.... _Delirant reges, plectuntur Achivi._
(_h_) But the question arises—Will the Church of England submit to have her immemorial heritage thus filched from her? We shall be astonished indeed if she proves so regardless of her birthright.
LXXX. Lastly, the intellectual habits of these Editors have led them so to handle evidence, that the sense of proportion seems to have forsaken them. “He who has long pondered over a train of Reasoning,”—(remarks the elder Critic,)—“_becomes unable to detect its weak points_.”(834) Yes, the “idols of the den” exercise at last a terrible ascendency over the Critical judgment. It argues an utter want of mental perspective, when we find “the Man working on the Sabbath,” put on the same footing with “the Woman taken in Adultery,” and conjectured to have “_come from the same source_:”—the incident of “the Angel troubling the pool of Bethesda” dismissed, as having “_no claim to any kind of association with the true Text_:”(835)—and “the _two_ Supplements” to S. Mark’s Gospel declared to “_stand on equal terms_ as independent attempts to fill up a gap;” and allowed to be possibly “_of equal antiquity._”(836) How can we wonder, after this, to find _anything_ omitted,—_anything_ inserted,—_anything_ branded with suspicion? And the brand is very freely applied by Drs. Westcott and Hort. Their notion of the Text of the New Testament, is certainly the most extraordinary ever ventilated. It has at least the merit of entire originality. While they eagerly insist that many a passage is but “a Western interpolation” after all; is but an “Evangelic Tradition,” “rescued from oblivion by the Scribes of the second century;”—they yet _incorporate those passages with the Gospel_. Careful enough to clap them into fetters first, they then, (to use their own queer phrase,)—“_provisionally associate them with the Text_.”
LXXXI. We submit, on the contrary, that Editors who “_cannot doubt_” that a certain verse “comes from an extraneous source,”—“_do not believe_ that it belonged originally to the Book in which it is now included,”—are unreasonable if they proceed to assign to it _any_ actual place there at all. When men have once thoroughly convinced themselves that two Verses of S. Luke’s Gospel are _not Scripture_, but “only a fragment from the Traditions, written or oral, which were for a while locally current;”(837)—what else is it but the merest trifling with sacred Truth, to promote those two verses to a place in the inspired context? Is it not to be feared, that the conscious introduction of _human Tradition_ into GOD’S _written Word_ will in the end destroy the soul’s confidence in Scripture itself? opening the door for perplexity, and doubt, and presently for Unbelief itself to enter.
LXXXII. And let us not be told that the Verses stand there “provisionally” only; and for that reason are “enclosed within double brackets.” Suspected felons are “provisionally” locked up, it is true: but after trial, they are either convicted and removed out of sight; or else they are acquitted and suffered to come abroad like other men. Drs. Westcott and Hort have _no right_ at the end of thirty years of investigation, _still_ to encumber the Evangelists with “provisional” fetters. Those fetters either signify that the Judge is _afraid to carry out his own righteous sentence_: or else, that he _entertains a secret suspicion that he has made a terrible mistake after all,—has condemned the innocent_. Let these esteemed Scholars at least have “the courage of their own convictions,” and be throughout as consistent as, in two famous instances (viz. at pages 113 and 241), they have been. Else, in GOD’S Name, let them have the manliness to avow themselves in error: abjure their πρῶτον ψεῦδος; and cast the fantastic Theory, which they have so industriously reared upon it, unreservedly, to the winds!
LXXXIII. To conclude.—It will be the abiding distinction of the Revised Version (_thanks to Dr. Hort,_) that it brought to the front a question which has slept for about 100 years; but which may not be suffered now to rest undisturbed any longer. It might have slumbered on for another half-century,—a subject of deep interest to a very little band of Divines and Scholars; of perplexity and distrust to all the World besides;—_but_ for the incident which will make the 17th of May, 1881, for ever memorable in the Annals of the Church of England.
LXXXIV. The Publication on that day of the “Revised English Version of the New Testament” instantly concentrated public attention on the neglected problem: for men saw at a glance that the Traditional Text of 1530 years’ standing,—(the exact number is Dr. Hort’s, not ours,)—had been unceremoniously set aside in favour of _an entirely different Recension_. The true Authors of the mischief were not far to seek. Just five days before,—under the editorship of Drs. Westcott and Hort, (Revisionists themselves,)—had appeared the most extravagant Text which has seen the light since the invention of Printing. No secret was made of the fact that, under pledges of strictest secrecy,(838) a copy of this wild performance (marked “Confidential”) had been entrusted to every member of the Revising body: and it has since transpired that Dr. Hort advocated his own peculiar views in the Jerusalem Chamber with so much volubility, eagerness, pertinacity, and plausibility, that in the end—notwithstanding the warnings, remonstrances, entreaties of Dr. Scrivener,—his counsels prevailed; and—the utter shipwreck of the “Revised Version” has been, (as might have been confidently predicted,) the disastrous consequence. Dr. Hort is calculated to have _talked for three years_ out of the ten.
But in the meantime there has arisen _this_ good out of the calamity,—namely, that men will at last require that the Textual problem shall be fairly threshed out. They will insist on having it proved to their satisfaction,—(1) That Codices B and א are indeed the oracular documents which their admirers pretend; and—(2) That a narrow selection of ancient documents is a secure foundation on which to build the Text of Scripture. Failing this,—(and the _onus probandi_ rests wholly with those who are for setting aside the Traditional Text in favour of another, _entirely dissimilar in character_,)—failing this, we say, it is reasonable to hope that the counsels of the “_Quarterly Review_” will be suffered to prevail. In the meantime, we repeat that this question has now to be fought out: for to ignore it any longer is impossible. Compromise of any sort between the two conflicting parties, is impossible also; for they simply contradict one another. Codd. B and א are either among the purest of manuscripts,—or else they are among the very foulest. The Text of Drs. Westcott and Hort is either the very best which has ever appeared,—or else it is the very worst; the nearest to the sacred Autographs,—or the furthest from them. There is no room for _both_ opinions; and there cannot exist any middle view.
The question will have to be fought out; and it must be fought out fairly. It may not be magisterially settled; but must be advocated, on either side, by the old logical method. If Continental Scholars join in the fray, England,—which in the last century took the lead in these studies,—will, it is to be hoped, maintain her ancient reputation and again occupy the front rank. The combatants may be sure that, in consequence of all that has happened, the public will be no longer indifferent spectators of the fray; for the issue concerns the inner life of the whole community,—touches men’s very heart of hearts. Certain it is that—“GOD defend _the Right_!” will be the one aspiration of every faithful spirit among us. THE TRUTH,—(we avow it on behalf of Drs. Westcott and Hort as eagerly as on our own behalf,)—GOD’S TRUTH will be, as it has been throughout, the one object of all our striving. Αἴλινον αἴλινον εἰπέ, τὸ δ᾽ εὖ νικάτω.
- I HAVE BEEN VERY JEALOUS FOR THE LORD GOD OF HOSTS.*
LETTER TO BISHOP ELLICOTT, IN REPLY TO HIS PAMPHLET.
“Nothing is more satisfactory at the present time than the evident feelings of veneration for our Authorized Version, and the very generally-felt desire for _as little change as possible_.”—BISHOP ELLICOTT.(839)
“We may be satisfied with the attempt to correct _plain and clear errors_, but _there it is our duty to stop_.”—BISHOP ELLICOTT.(840)
“We have now, at all events, no fear of _an over-corrected Version_.”—BISHOP ELLICOTT.(841)
“I fear we must say in candour that in the Revised Version we meet in every page with small _changes, which are vexatious, teasing, and irritating, even the more so because they are small; which seem almost to be made for the sake of change_.”—BISHOP WORDSWORTH.(842)
[The question arises,]—“Whether the Church of England,—which in her Synod, so far as this Province is concerned, sanctioned a Revision of her Authorized Version _under the express condition_, which she most wisely imposed, that _no Changes should be made in it except what were absolutely necessary_,—could consistently accept a Version in which 36,000 changes have been made; _not a fiftieth of which can be shown to be needed, or even desirable_.”—BISHOP WORDSWORTH.(843)
Letter To
The Right Rev. Charles John Ellicott, D.D.,
Bishop Of Gloucester And Bristol,
In Reply To His Pamphlet In Defence Of
The Revisers And Their Greek Text Of
The New Testament.
“WHAT COURSE WOULD REVISERS HAVE US TO FOLLOW?... WOULD IT BE WELL FOR THEM TO AGREE ON A CRITICAL GREEK TEXT? _TO THIS QUESTION WE VENTURE TO ANSWER VERY UNHESITATINGLY IN THE NEGATIVE._
“THOUGH WE HAVE MUCH CRITICAL MATERIAL, AND A VERY FAIR AMOUNT OF CRITICAL KNOWLEDGE, _WE HAVE CERTAINLY NOT YET ACQUIRED SUFFICIENT CRITICAL JUDGMENT_ FOR ANY BODY OF REVISERS HOPEFULLY TO UNDERTAKE SUCH A WORK AS THIS.”
BISHOP ELLICOTT.(844)
MY LORD BISHOP,
Last May, you published a pamphlet of seventy-nine pages(845) in vindication of the Greek Text recently put forth by the New Testament Company of Revisers. It was (you said) your Answer to the first and second of my Articles in the _Quarterly Review_:(846)—all three of which, corrected and enlarged, are now submitted to the public for the second time. See above, from page 1 to page 367.
[1] Preliminary Statement.
You may be quite sure that I examined your pamphlet as soon as it
appeared, with attention. I have since read it through several times:
and—I must add—with ever-increasing astonishment. First, because it is so
evidently the production of one who has never made Textual Criticism
seriously his study. Next, because your pamphlet is no refutation whatever
of my two Articles. You flout me: you scold me: you lecture me. But I do
not find that you ever _answer_ me. You reproduce the theory of Drs.
Westcott and Hort,—which I claim to have demolished.(847) You seek to put
me down by flourishing in my face the decrees of Lachmann, Tischendorf and
Tregelles,—which, as you are well aware, I entirely disallow.
Denunciation, my lord Bishop, is not Argument; neither is Reiteration,
Proof. And then,—Why do you impute to me opinions which I do not hold? and
charge me with a method of procedure of which I have never been guilty?
Above all, why do you seek to prejudice the question at issue between us
by importing irrelevant matter which can only impose upon the ignorant and
mislead the unwary? Forgive my plainness, but really you are so
conspicuously unfair,—and at the same time so manifestly unacquainted,
(except at second-hand and only in an elementary way,) with the points
actually under discussion,—that, were it not for the adventitious
importance attaching to any utterance of yours, deliberately put forth at
this time as Chairman of the New Testament body of Revisers, I should have
taken no notice of your pamphlet.
[2] The Bishop’s pamphlet was anticipated and effectually disposed of,
three weeks before it appeared, by the Reviewer’s Third Article.
I am bound, at the same time, to acknowledge that you have been singularly
unlucky. While _you_ were penning your Defence, (namely, throughout the
first four months of 1882,) _I_ was making a fatal inroad into your
position, by showing how utterly without foundation is the “Textual
Theory” to which you and your co-Revisers have been so rash as to commit
yourselves.(848) This fact I find duly recognized in your “Postscript.”
“Since the foregoing pages were in print” (you say,) “a third article has
appeared in the _Quarterly Review_, entitled ‘Westcott and Hort’s Textual
Theory.’ ”(849) Yes. _I_ came before the public on the 16th of April;
_you_ on the 4th of May, 1882. In this way, your pamphlet was
anticipated,—had in fact been fully disposed of, three weeks before it
appeared. “The Reviewer,” (you complain at page 4,) “censures their
[Westcott and Hort’s] Text: _in neither Article has he attempted a serious
examination of the arguments which they allege in its support_.” But, (as
explained,) the “serious examination” which you reproach me with having
hitherto failed to produce,—had been already three weeks in the hands of
readers of the _Quarterly_ before your pamphlet saw the light. You would,
in consequence, have best consulted your own reputation, I am persuaded,
had you instantly recalled and suppressed your printed sheets. _What_, at
all events, you can have possibly meant, while publishing them, by adding
(in your “Postscript” at page 79,)—“_In this controversy it is not for us
to interpose:_” and again,—“_We find nothing in the Reviewer’s third
article to require further answer from us:_”—passes my comprehension;
seeing that your pamphlet (page 11 to page 29) is an elaborate avowal that
you have made Westcott and Hort’s theory entirely your own. The Editor of
the _Speaker’s Commentary_, I observe, takes precisely the same view of
your position. “The two Revisers” (says Canon Cook) “actually add a
Postscript to their pamphlet of a single short page noticing their
unexpected anticipation by the third _Quarterly Review_ article; with the
remark that ‘in this controversy (between Westcott and Hort and the
Reviewer) it is not for us to interfere:’—as if Westcott and Hort’s theory
of Greek Revision could be refuted, or seriously damaged, without _cutting
the ground from under the Committee of Revisers on the whole of this
subject_.”(850)
[3] Bp. Ellicott remonstrated with for his unfair method of procedure.
I should enter at once on an examination of your Reply, but that I am
constrained at the outset to remonstrate with you on the exceeding
unfairness of your entire method of procedure. Your business was to make
it plain to the public that you have dealt faithfully with the Deposit:
have strictly fulfilled the covenant into which you entered twelve years
ago with the Convocation of the Southern Province: have corrected only
“_plain and clear errors_.” Instead of this, you labour to enlist vulgar
prejudice against me:—partly, by insisting that I am for determining
disputed Readings by an appeal to the “Textus Receptus,”—which (according
to you) I look upon as faultless:—partly, by exhibiting me in disagreement
with Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles. The irrelevancy of this latter
contention,—the groundlessness of the former,—may not be passed over
without a few words of serious remonstrance. For I claim that, in
discussing the Greek Text, I have invariably filled my pages as full of
_Authorities_ for the opinions I advocate, as the limits of the page would
allow. I may have been tediously demonstrative sometimes: but no one can
fairly tax me with having shrunk from the severest method of evidential
proof. To find myself therefore charged with “mere
denunciation,”(851)—with substituting “strong expressions of individual
opinion” for “arguments,”(852)—and with “attempting to cut the cord by
reckless and unverified assertions,” (p. 25,)—astonishes me. Such language
is in fact even ridiculously unfair.
The misrepresentation of which I complain is not only conspicuous, but systematic. It runs through your whole pamphlet: is admitted by yourself at the close,—(viz. at p. 77,)—_to be half the sum of your entire contention_. Besides cropping up repeatedly,(853) it finds deliberate and detailed expression when you reach the middle of your essay,—viz. at p. 41: where, with reference to certain charges which I not only bring against codices א B C L, but laboriously substantiate by a free appeal to the contemporary evidence of Copies, Versions, and Fathers,—you venture to express yourself concerning me as follows:—
“To attempt to sustain such charges by a rough comparison of these ancient authorities with the TEXTUS RECEPTUS, and to measure the degree of their depravation _by the amount of their divergence from such a text as we have shown this Received Text really to be_, is to trifle with the subject of sacred Criticism.”—p. 41.
You add:—
“Until the depravation of these ancient Manuscripts has been demonstrated in a manner more consistent with _the recognized principles of Criticism_, such charges as those to which we allude must be regarded as expressions of passion, or prejudice, and set aside by every impartial reader as assertions for which no adequate evidence has yet been produced.”—pp. 41-2.
[4] (Which be “the recognized principles of Textual Criticism”?—a question
asked in passing.)
But give me leave to ask in passing,—_Which_, pray, _are_ “the recognized
principles of Criticism” to which you refer? I profess I have never met
with them yet; and I am sure it has not been for want of diligent enquiry.
You have publicly charged me before your Diocese with being “innocently
ignorant of the _now established principles_ of Textual Criticism.”(854)
But why do you not state which those principles _are_? I am surprised. You
are for ever vaunting “_principles_ which have been established by the
investigations and reasonings” of Lachmann, Tischendorf and
Tregelles:(855)—“the _principles_ of Textual Criticism which are accepted
and recognized by the great majority of modern Textual Critics:”(856)—“the
_principles_ on which the Textual Criticism of the last fifty years has
been based:”(857)—but you never condescend to explain _which be_ the
“principles” you refer to. For the last time,—_Who_ established those
“Principles”? and, _Where_ are they to be seen “established”?
I will be so candid with you as frankly to avow that the _only two_ “principles” with which I am acquainted as held, with anything like consent, by “the modern Textual Critics” to whom you have surrendered your judgment, are—(1st) A robust confidence in the revelations of their own inner consciousness: and (2ndly) A superstitious partiality for two codices written in the uncial character,—for which partiality they are able to assign no intelligible reason. You put the matter as neatly as I could desire at page 19 of your Essay,—where you condemn, with excusable warmth, “those who adopt the easy method of _using some favourite Manuscript_,”—or of exercising “_some supposed power of divining the original Text;_”—as if those were “the only necessary agents for correcting the Received Text.” _Why_ the evidence of codices B and א,—and perhaps the evidence of the VIth-century codex D,—(“the singular codex” as you call it; and it is certainly a very singular codex indeed:)—_why_, I say, the evidence of these two or three codices should be thought to outweigh the evidence of all other documents in existence,—whether Copies, Versions, or Fathers,—I have never been able to discover, nor have their admirers ever been able to tell me.
[5] Bp. Ellicott’s and the Reviewer’s respective methods, contrasted.
Waiving this however, (for it is beside the point,) I venture to ask,—With
what show of reason can you pretend that I “_sustain my charges_” against
codices א B C L, “_by a rough comparison of these ancient authorities with
the_ Textus Receptus”?(858)... Will you deny that it is a mere
misrepresentation of the plain facts of the case, to say so? Have I not,
on the contrary, _on every occasion_ referred Readings in dispute,—the
reading of א B C L on the one hand, the reading of the _Textus Receptus_
on the other,—simultaneously to one and the same external standard? Have I
not persistently enquired for the verdict—so far as it has been
obtainable—of CONSENTIENT ANTIQUITY? If I have sometimes spoken of certain
famous manuscripts (א B C D namely,) as exhibiting fabricated Texts, have
I not been at the pains to establish the reasonableness of my assertion by
showing that they yield divergent,—that is _contradictory_, testimony?
The task of laboriously collating the five “old uncials” throughout the Gospels, occupied me for five-and-a-half years, and taxed me severely. But I was rewarded. I rose from the investigation profoundly convinced that, however important they may be as instruments of Criticism, codices א B C D are among the most corrupt documents extant. It was a conviction derived from exact _Knowledge_ and based on solid grounds of _Reason_. You, my lord Bishop, who have never gone deeply into the subject, repose simply on _Prejudice_. Never having at any time collated codices א A B C D for yourself, you are unable to gainsay a single statement of mine by a counter-appeal to _facts_. Your textual learning proves to have been all obtained at second-hand,—taken on trust. And so, instead of marshalling against me a corresponding array of ANCIENT AUTHORITIES,—you invariably attempt to put me down by an appeal to MODERN OPINION. “The _majority of modern Critics_” (you say) have declared the manuscripts in question “not only to be wholly undeserving of such charges, but, on the contrary, to exhibit a text of comparative purity.”(859)
The sum of the difference therefore between our respective methods, my lord Bishop, proves to be this:—that whereas _I_ endeavour by a laborious accumulation of _ancient Evidence_ to demonstrate that the decrees of Lachmann, of Tischendorf and of Tregelles, _are untrustworthy_; _your_ way of reducing me to silence, is to cast Lachmann, Tregelles and Tischendorf at every instant in my teeth. You make your appeal exclusively to _them_. “It would be difficult” (you say) “to find a recent English Commentator of any considerable reputation who has not been influenced, more or less consistently, by _one or the other of these three Editors_:”(860) (as if _that_ were any reason why I should do the same!) Because I pronounce the Revised reading of S. Luke ii. 14, “a grievous perversion of the truth of Scripture,” you bid me consider “that in so speaking I am _censuring Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles_.” You seem in fact to have utterly missed the point of my contention: which is, that the ancient Fathers collectively (A.D. 150 to A.D. 450),—inasmuch as they must needs have known far better than Lachmann, Tregelles, or Tischendorf, (A.D. 1830 to A.D. 1880,) what was the Text of the New Testament in the earliest ages,—are perforce far more trustworthy guides than they. And further, that whenever it can be clearly shown that the Ancients as a body say one thing, and the Moderns another, the opinion of the Moderns may be safely disregarded.
When therefore I open your pamphlet at the first page, and read as follows:—“A bold assault has been made in recent numbers of the _Quarterly Review_ upon the whole fabric of Criticism which has been built up _during the last fifty years_ by the patient labour of successive editors of the New Testament,”(861)—I fail to discover that any practical inconvenience results to myself from your announcement. The same plaintive strain reappears at p. 39; where, having pointed out “that the text of the Revisers is, in all essential features, the same as that text in which the best critical editors, _during the past fifty years_, are generally agreed,”—you insist “that thus, any attack made on the text of the Revisers is really an attack on the critical principles that have been carefully and laboriously established _during the last half-century_.” With the self-same pathetic remonstrance you conclude your labours. “If,” (you say) “the Revisers are wrong in the principles which they have applied to the determination of the Text, _the principles_ on which the Textual Criticism of _the last fifty years_ has been based, are wrong also.”(862)... Are you then not yet aware that the alternative which seems to you so alarming is in fact my whole contention? What else do you imagine it is that I am proposing to myself throughout, but effectually to dispel the vulgar prejudice,—say rather, to plant my heel upon the weak superstition,—which “_for the last fifty years_” has proved fatal to progress in this department of learning; and which, if it be suffered to prevail, will make _a science_ of Textual Criticism impossible? A shallow empiricism has been the prevailing result, up to this hour, of the teaching of Lachmann, and Tischendorf, and Tregelles.
[6] Bp. Ellicott in May 1870, and in May 1882.
A word in your private ear, (by your leave) in passing. You seem to have
forgotten that, at the time when you entered on the work of Revision,
_your own_ estimate of the Texts put forth by these Editors was the
reverse of favourable; _i.e._ was scarcely distinguishable from that of
your present correspondent. Lachmann’s you described as “a text composed
on _the narrowest and most exclusive_ principles,”—“really based on
_little more than four manuscripts_.”—“The case of Tischendorf” (you said)
“is still more easily disposed of. Which of this most inconstant Critic’s
texts are we to select? Surely not the last, in which an exaggerated
preference for a single manuscript has betrayed him into _an almost
childlike infirmity of judgment_. Surely also not the seventh edition,
which exhibits all the instability which a comparatively recent
recognition of the authority of cursive manuscripts might be supposed
likely to introduce.”—As for poor Tregelles, you said:—“His critical
principles ... are now, perhaps justly, called in question.” His text “is
rigid and mechanical, and sometimes fails to disclose _that critical
instinct and peculiar scholarly sagacity which_”(863) have since evidently
disclosed themselves in perfection in those Members of the Revising body
who, with Bp. Ellicott at their head, systematically outvoted Prebendary
Scrivener in the Jerusalem Chamber. But with what consistency, my lord
Bishop, do you to-day vaunt “the principles” of the very men whom
yesterday you vilipended precisely because _their _“principles” then
seemed to yourself so utterly unsatisfactory?
[7] “The fabric of modern Textual Criticism” (1831-81) rests on an
insecure basis.
I have been guilty of little else than sacrilege, it seems, because I have
ventured to send a shower of shot and shell into the flimsy decrees of
these three Critics which now you are pleased grandiloquently to designate
and describe as “_the whole fabric of Criticism which has been built up
within the last fifty years_.” Permit me to remind you that the “fabric”
you speak of,—(confessedly a creation of yesterday,)—rests upon a
foundation of sand; and has been already so formidably assailed, or else
so gravely condemned by a succession of famous Critics, that as “_a
fabric_,” its very existence may be reasonably called in question.
Tischendorf insists on the general depravity (“_universa vitiositas_”) of
codex B; on which codex nevertheless Drs. Westcott and Hort chiefly
rely,—regarding it as unique in its pre-eminent purity. The same pair of
Critics depreciate the Traditional Text as “beyond all question identical
with the dominant [Greek] Text _of the second half of the fourth
century_:”—whereas, “_to bring the sacred text back to the condition in
which it existed during the fourth century_,”(864) was Lachmann’s one
object; the sum and substance of his striving. “The fancy of a
Constantinopolitan text, and every inference that has been grounded on its
presumed existence,”(865) Tregelles declares to have been “swept away at
once and for ever,” by Scrivener’s published Collations. And yet, what
else but _this_ is “the fancy,” (as already explained,) on which Drs.
Westcott and Hort have been for thirty years building up their visionary
Theory of Textual Criticism?—What Griesbach attempted [1774-1805], was
denounced [1782-1805] by C. F. Matthæi;—disapproved by
Scholz;—demonstrated to be untenable by Abp. Laurence. Finally, in 1847,
the learned J. G. Reiche, in some Observations prefixed to his Collations
of MSS. in the Paris Library, eloquently and ably exposed the
unreasonableness of _any_ theory of “Recension,”—properly so called;(866)
thereby effectually anticipating Westcott and Hort’s weak imagination of a
“_Syrian_ Text,” while he was demolishing the airy speculations of
Griesbach and Hug. “There is no royal road” (he said) “to the Criticism of
the N. T.: no plain and easy method, at once reposing on a firm
foundation, and conducting securely to the wished for goal.”(867)...
Scarcely therefore in Germany had the basement-story been laid of that
“fabric of Criticism which has been built up during the last fifty years,”
and which _you_ superstitiously admire,—when a famous German scholar was
heard denouncing the fabric as insecure. He foretold that the “_regia
via_” of codices B and א would prove a deceit and a snare: which thing, at
the end of four-and-thirty years, has punctually come to pass.
Seven years after, Lachmann’s method was solemnly appealed from by the same J. G. Reiche:(868) whose words of warning to his countrymen deserve the attention of every thoughtful scholar among ourselves at this day. Of the same general tenor and purport as Reiche’s, are the utterances of those giants in Textual Criticism, Vercellone of Rome and Ceriani of Milan. Quite unmistakable is the verdict of our own Scrivener concerning the views of Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles, and the results to which their system has severally conducted them.—If Alford adopted the prejudices of his three immediate predecessors, his authority has been neutralized by the far different teaching of one infinitely his superior in judgment and learning,—the present illustrious Bishop of Lincoln.—On the same side with the last named are found the late Philip E. Pusey and Archd. Lee,—Canon Cook and Dr. Field,—the Bishop of S. Andrews and Dr. S. C. Malan. Lastly, at the end of fifty-one years, (viz. in 1881,) Drs. Westcott and Hort have revived Lachmann’s unsatisfactory method,—superadding thereto not a few extravagances of their own. That their views have been received with expressions of the gravest disapprobation, no one will deny. Indispensable to their contention is the grossly improbable hypothesis that the Peschito is to be regarded as the “Vulgate” (_i.e._ the _Revised_) Syriac; Cureton’s, as the “Vetus” or _original_ Syriac version. And yet, while I write, the Abbé Martin at Paris is giving it as the result of his labours on this subject, that Cureton’s Version cannot be anything of the sort.(869) Whether Westcott and Hort’s theory of a “_Syrian_” Text has not received an effectual quietus, let posterity decide. Ἁμέραι δ᾽ ἐπίλοιποι μάρτυρες σοφώτατοι.
From which it becomes apparent that, at all events, “the fabric of Criticism which has been built up within the last fifty years” has not arisen without solemn and repeated protest,—as well from within as from without. It may not therefore be spoken of by you as something which men are bound to maintain inviolate,—like an Article of the Creed. It is quite competent, I mean, for any one to denounce the entire system of Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles,—_as I do now_,—as an egregious blunder; if he will but be at the pains to establish on a severe logical basis the contradictory of not a few of their most important decrees. And you, my lord Bishop, are respectfully reminded that your defence of their system,—if you must needs defend what I deem worthless,—must be conducted, not by sneers and an affectation of superior enlightenment; still less by intimidation, scornful language, and all those other bad methods whereby it has been the way of Superstition in every age to rivet the fetters of intellectual bondage: but by severe reasoning, and calm discussion, and a free appeal to ancient Authority, and a patient investigation of all the external evidence accessible. I request therefore that we may hear no more of _this_ form of argument. The Text of Lachmann and Tischendorf and Tregelles,—of Westcott and Hort and Ellicott, (_i.e._ _of the Revisers_,)—is just now on its trial before the world.(870)
[8] Bp. Ellicott’s strange notions about the “Textus Receptus.”
Your strangest mistakes and misrepresentations however are connected with
the “Textus Receptus.” It evidently exercises you sorely that “with the
Quarterly Reviewer, the Received Text is a standard, by comparison with
which all extant documents, _however indisputable their antiquity,_ are
measured.”(871) But pray,—
(1) By comparison with what _other_ standard, if not by the Received Text, would you yourself obtain the measure of “all extant documents,” however ancient?... This first. And next,
(2) Why should the “_indisputable antiquity_” of a document be supposed to disqualify it from being measured by the same standard to which (_but only for convenience_) documents of whatever date,—by common consent of scholars, at home and abroad,—are invariably referred? And next,
(3) Surely, you cannot require to have it explained to you that a standard _of _COMPARISON, is not _therefore_ of necessity a standard _of _EXCELLENCE. Did you ever take the trouble to collate a sacred manuscript? If you ever did, pray with _what_ did you make your collation? In other words, what “standard” did you employ?... Like Walton and Ussher,—like Fell and Mill,—like Bentley, and Bengel, and Wetstein,—like Birch, and Matthæi, and Griesbach, and Scholz,—like Lachmann, and Tregelles, and Tischendorf, and Scrivener,—I venture to assume that you collated your manuscript,—whether it was of “disputable” or of “indisputable antiquity,”—with _an ordinary copy of the Received Text_. If you did not, your collation is of no manner of use. But, above all,
(4) How does it come to pass that you speak so scornfully of the Received Text, seeing that (at p. 12 of your pamphlet) you assure your readers that _its pedigree may be traced back to a period perhaps antecedent to the oldest of our extant manuscripts_? Surely, a traditional Text which (_according to you_) dates from about A.D. 300, is good enough for the purpose of _Collation_!
(5) At last you say,—
“If there were reason to suppose that the Received Text represented _verbatim et literatim_ the text which was current at Antioch in the days of Chrysostom, it would still be impossible to regard it as a standard from which there was no appeal.”(872)
Really, my lord Bishop, you must excuse me if I declare plainly that the
more I attend to your critical utterances, the more I am astonished. From
the confident style in which you deliver yourself upon such matters, and
especially from your having undertaken to preside over a Revision of the
Sacred Text, one would suppose that at some period of your life you must
have given the subject a considerable amount of time and attention. But
indeed the foregoing sentence virtually contains two propositions neither
of which could possibly have been penned by one even moderately acquainted
with the facts of Textual Criticism. For first,
(_a_) You speak of “representing _verbatim et literatim_ THE Text which was current at Antioch in the days of Chrysostom.” Do you then really suppose that there existed at Antioch, at any period between A.D. 354 and A.D. 407, _some one definite Text of the N. T. _CAPABLE_ of being so represented_?—If you do, pray will you indulge us with the grounds for such an extraordinary supposition? Your “acquaintance” (Dr. Tregelles) will tell you that such a fancy has long since been swept away “at once and for ever.” And secondly,
(_b_) You say that, even if there were reason to suppose that the “Received Text” were such-and-such a thing,—“it would still be impossible to regard it as _a standard from which there was no appeal_.”
But pray, who in his senses,—what sane man in Great Britain,—ever dreamed of regarding the “Received,”—aye, _or any other known _“Text,”—as “a standard _from which there shall be no appeal_”? Have I ever done so? Have I ever _implied_ as much? If I have, show me _where_. You refer your readers to the following passage in my first Article:—
“What precedes admits to some extent of further numerical illustration. It is discovered that, in 111 pages, ... the serious deflections of A from the _Textus Receptus_ amount in all to only 842: whereas in C they amount to 1798: in B, to 2370: in א, to 3392: in D, to 4697. The readings _peculiar to_ A within the same limits are 133: those peculiar to C are 170. But those of B amount to 197: while א exhibits 443: and the readings peculiar to D (within the same limits), are no fewer than 1829.... We submit that these facts are not altogether calculated to inspire confidence in codices B א C D.”—p. 14.
But, do you really require to have it explained to you that it is entirely
to misunderstand the question to object to such a comparison of codices as
is found above, (viz. in pages 14 and 17,) on the ground that it was made
with the text of Stephanus lying open before me? Would not _the self-same
phenomenon_ have been evolved by collation with _any other_ text? If you
doubt it, sit down and try the experiment for yourself. Believe me, Robert
Etienne in the XVIth century was not _the cause_ why cod. B in the IVth
and cod. D in the VIth are so widely discordant and divergent from one
another: A and C so utterly at variance with both.(873) We _must_ have
_some_ standard whereby to test,—wherewith to compare,—Manuscripts. What
is more, (give me leave to assure you,) _to the end of time_ it will
probably be the practice of scholars to compare MSS. of the N. T. with the
“Received Text.” The hopeless discrepancies between our five “old
uncials,” can in no more convenient way be exhibited, than by referring
each of them in turn to one and the same common standard. And,—_What_
standard more reasonable and more convenient than the Text which, by the
good Providence of GOD, was universally employed throughout Europe for the
first 300 years after the invention of printing? being practically
_identical_ with the Text which (as you yourself admit) was in popular use
at the end of three centuries from the date of the sacred autographs
themselves: in other word, being more than 1500 years old.
[9] The Reviewer vindicates himself against Bp. Ellicott’s misconceptions.
But you are quite determined that I shall mean something essentially
different. The Quarterly Reviewer, (you say,) is one who “contends that
the Received Text needs but little emendation; and _may be used without
emendation as a standard_.”(874) I am, (you say,) one of “those who adopt
the easy method of making the Received Text a standard.”(875) My
“Criticism,” (it seems,) “often rests ultimately upon the notion that it
is little else but sacrilege to impugn the tradition of the last three
hundred years.”(876) (“_The last three hundred years_:” as if the
Traditional Text of the N. Testament dated from the 25th of Queen
Elizabeth!)—I regard the “Textus Receptus” therefore, according to you, as
the Ephesians regarded the image of the great goddess Diana; namely, as a
thing which, one fine morning, “fell down from Jupiter.”(877) I mistake
the Received Text, (you imply,) for the Divine Original, the Sacred
Autographs,—and erect it into “a standard from which there shall be no
appeal,”—“a tradition which it is little else but sacrilege to impugn.”
That is how you state my case and condition: hopelessly _confusing_ the
standard of _Comparison_ with the standard of _Excellence_.
By this time, however, enough has been said to convince any fair person that you are without warrant in your present contention. Let _any_ candid scholar cast an impartial eye over the preceding three hundred and fifty pages,—open the volume where he will, and read steadily on to the end of any textual discussion,—and then say whether, on the contrary, my criticism does not invariably rest on the principle that the Truth of Scripture is to be sought in that form of the Sacred Text which has _the fullest_, _the widest_, _and the most varied attestation_.(878) Do I not invariably make _the consentient __ voice of Antiquity_ my standard? If I do _not_,—if, on the contrary, I have ever once appealed to the “Received Text,” and made _it_ my standard,—why do you not prove the truth of your allegation by adducing in evidence that one particular instance? instead of bringing against me a charge which is utterly without foundation, and which can have no other effect but to impose upon the ignorant; to mislead the unwary; and to prejudice the great Textual question which hopelessly divides you and me?... I trust that at least you will not again confound the standard _of Comparison_ with the standard _of Truth_.
[10] Analysis of contents of Bp. Ellicott’s pamphlet.
You state at page 6, that what you propose to yourself by your pamphlet,
is,—
“_First_, to supply accurate information, in a popular form, concerning the Greek text of the Now Testament:
“_Secondly_, to establish, by means of the information so supplied, the soundness of the principles on which the Revisers have acted in their choice of readings; and by consequence, the importance of the ‘New Greek Text:’ ”—[or, as you phrase it at p. 29,]—“to enable the reader to form a fair judgment on the question of _the trustworthiness of the readings adopted by the Revisers_.”
To the former of these endeavours you devote twenty-three pages: (viz. p.
7 to p. 29):—to the latter, you devote forty-two; (viz. p. 37 to p. 78).
The intervening eight pages are dedicated,—(_a_) To the constitution of
the Revisionist body: and next, (_b_) To the amount of good faith with
which you and your colleagues observed the conditions imposed upon you by
the Southern Houses of Convocation. I propose to follow you over the
ground in which you have thus entrenched yourself, and to drive you out of
every position in turn.
[11] Bp. Ellicott’s account of the “TEXTUS RECEPTUS.”
First then, for your strenuous endeavour (pp. 7-10) to prejudice the
question by pouring contempt on the humblest ancestor of the _Textus
Receptus_—namely, the first edition of Erasmus. You know very well that
the “Textus Receptus” is _not_ the first edition of Erasmus. Why then do
you so describe its origin as to imply that _it is_? You ridicule the
circumstances under which a certain ancestor of the family first saw the
light. You reproduce with evident satisfaction a silly witticism of
Michaelis, viz. that, in his judgment, the Evangelium on which Erasmus
chiefly relied was not worth the two florins which the monks of Basle gave
for it. Equally contemptible (according to you) were the copies of the
Acts, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse which the same scholar employed for
the rest of his first edition. Having in this way done your best to
blacken a noble house by dilating on the low ebb to which its fortunes
were reduced at a critical period of its history, some three centuries and
a half ago,—you pause to make your own comment on the spectacle thus
exhibited to the eyes of unlearned readers, lest any should fail to draw
therefrom the injurious inference which is indispensable for your
argument:—
“We have entered into these details, because we desire that the general reader should know fully the true pedigree of that printed text of the Greek Testament which has been in common use for the last three centuries. It will be observed that its documentary origin is not calculated to inspire any great confidence. Its parents, as we have seen, were two or three late manuscripts of little critical value, which accident seems to have brought into the hands of their first editor.”—p. 10.
Now, your account of the origin of the “Textus Receptus” shall be suffered
to stand uncontradicted. But the important _inference_, which you intend
that inattentive or incompetent readers should draw therefrom, shall be
scattered to the winds by the unequivocal testimony of no less
distinguished a witness than yourself. Notwithstanding all that has gone
before, you are constrained to confess _in the very next page_ that:—
“The manuscripts which Erasmus used differ, for the most part, _only in small and insignificant details from the bulk of the cursive manuscripts_. The general character of their text is the same. By this observation the pedigree of the Received Text is carried up beyond the individual manuscripts used by Erasmus.... _That_ pedigree stretches back to a remote antiquity. _The first ancestor of the Received Text was at least contemporary with the oldest of our extant manuscripts, if not older than any one of them._”—pp. 11, 12.
By your own showing therefore, the Textus Receptus is, “_at least_,” 1550
years old. Nay, we will have the fact over again, in words which you adopt
from p. 92 of Westcott and Hort’s _Introduction_ [see above, p. 257], and
clearly make your own:—
“The fundamental text of late extant Greek MSS. generally is _beyond all question identical_ with the dominant Antiochian or Græco-Syrian _Text of the second half of the fourth century_.”—p. 12.
But, if this be so,—(and I am not concerned to dispute your statement in a
single particular,)—of what possible significancy can it be to your
present contention, that the ancestry of the WRITTEN WORD (like the
ancestors of the WORD INCARNATE) had at one time declined to the wondrous
low estate on which you enlarged at first with such evident satisfaction?
Though the fact be admitted that Joseph “the carpenter” was “the husband
of Mary, of whom was born JESUS, who is called CHRIST,”—what possible
inconvenience results from that circumstance so long as the only thing
contended for be loyally conceded,—namely, that the descent of MESSIAH is
lineally traceable back to the patriarch Abraham, through David the King?
And the genealogy of the written, no less than the genealogy of the
Incarnate WORD, is traceable back by _two distinct lines of descent_,
remember: for the “Complutensian,” which was printed in 1514, exhibits the
“Traditional Text” with the same general fidelity as the “Erasmian,” which
did not see the light till two years later.
[12] Bp. Ellicott derives his estimate of the “TEXTUS RECEPTUS” from
Westcott and Hart’s fable of a “SYRIAN TEXT.”
Let us hear what comes next:—
“At this point a question suggests itself which we cannot refuse to consider. If the pedigree of the Received Text may be traced back to so early a period, does it not deserve the honour which is given to it by the Quarterly Reviewer?”—p. 12.
A very pertinent question truly. We are made attentive: the more so,
because you announce that your reply to this question shall “go to the
bottom of the controversy with which we are concerned.”(879) That reply is
as follows:—
“If there were reason to suppose that the Received Text represented _verbatim et literatim_ the text which was current at Antioch in the days of Chrysostom, it would still be impossible to regard it as a standard _from which there was no appeal_. The reason why this would be impossible may be stated briefly as follows. In the ancient documents which have come down to us,—amongst which, as is well known, are manuscripts written in the fourth century,—we possess evidence that other texts of the Greek Testament existed in the age of Chrysostom, materially different from the text which he and the Antiochian writers generally employed. Moreover, a rigorous examination of extant documents shows that the Antiochian or (as we shall henceforth call it with Dr. Hort) the Syrian text did not represent an earlier tradition than those other texts, but was in fact of later origin than the rest. We cannot accept it therefore as _a final standard_.”—pp. 13, 14.
“A _final_ standard”!... Nay but, why do you suddenly introduce this
unheard-of characteristic? _Who_, pray, since the invention of Printing
was ever known to put forward _any_ existing Text as “a final standard”?
Not the Quarterly Reviewer certainly. “The honour which is given to the
_Textus Receptus_ by the Quarterly Reviewer” is no other than the honour
which it has enjoyed at the hands of scholars, by universal consent, for
the last three centuries. That is to say, he uses it as a standard of
comparison, and employs it for habitual reference. _So do you._ You did
so, at least, in the year 1870. You did more; for you proposed “to proceed
with the work of Revision, whether of text or translation, _making the
current _‘Textus Receptus’_ the standard_.”(880) We are perfectly agreed
therefore. For my own part, being fully convinced, like yourself, that
essentially the Received Text is full 1550 years old,—(yes, and a vast
deal older,)—I esteem it quite good enough for all ordinary purposes. And
yet, so far am I from pinning my faith to it, that I eagerly make my
appeal _from_ it to the threefold witness of Copies, Versions, Fathers,
whenever I find its testimony challenged.—And with this renewed
explanation of my sentiments,—(which one would have thought that no
competent person could require,)—I proceed to consider the reply which you
promise shall “go to the bottom of the controversy with which we are
concerned.” I beg that you will not again seek to divert attention from
that which is the real matter of dispute betwixt you and me.
What kind of argumentation then is this before us? You assure us that,—
(_a_) “A rigorous examination of extant documents,”—“shows” Dr. Hort—“that the Syrian text”—[which for all practical purposes may be considered as only another name for the “Textus Receptus”]—was of later origin than “other texts of the Greek Testament” which “existed in the age of Chrysostom.”
(_b_) “We cannot accept it therefore as a final standard.”
But,—Of what nature is the logical process by which you have succeeded in convincing yourself that _this_ consequent can be got out of _that_ antecedent? Put a parallel case:—“A careful analysis of herbs ‘shows’ Dr. Short that the only safe diet for Man is a particular kind of rank grass which grows in the Ely fens. We must therefore leave off eating butcher’s meat.”—Does _that_ seem to you altogether a satisfactory argument? To me, it is a mere _non sequitur_. Do but consider the matter for a moment. “A rigorous examination of extant documents shows” Dr. Hort—such and such things. “A rigorous examination of the” same “documents shows” _me_—that Dr. Hort _is mistaken_. A careful study of his book convinces _me_ that his theory of a Syrian Recension, manufactured between A.D. 250 and A.D. 350, is a dream, pure and simple—_a mere phantom of the brain_. Dr. Hort’s course is obvious. Let him _first_ make his processes of proof intelligible, and _then_ public. You cannot possibly suppose that the fable of “a Syrian text,” though it has evidently satisfied _you_, will be accepted by thoughtful Englishmen without proof. What prospect do you suppose you have of convincing the world that Dr. Hort is competent to assign _a date_ to this creature of his own imagination; of which he has hitherto failed to demonstrate so much as the probable existence?
I have, for my own part, established by abundant references to his writings that he is one of those who, (through some intellectual peculiarity,) are for ever mistaking conjectures for facts,—assertions for arguments,—and reiterated asseveration for accumulated proof. He deserves sympathy, certainly: for,—(like the man who passed his life in trying to count how many grains of sand will exactly fill a quart pot;—or like his unfortunate brother, who made it his business to prove that nothing, multiplied by a sufficient number of figures, amounts to something;)—he has evidently taken a prodigious deal of useless trouble. The spectacle of an able and estimable man exhibiting such singular inaptitude for a province of study which, beyond all others, demands a clear head and a calm, dispassionate judgment,—creates distress.
[13] Bp. Ellicott has completely adopted Westcott and Hort’s Theory.
But in the meantime, so confident are _you_ of the existence of a “Syrian
text,”—(_only however because Dr. Hort is_,)—that you inflict upon your
readers all the consequences which “the Syrian text” is supposed to carry
with it. Your method is certainly characterized by humility: for it
consists in merely serving up to the British public a _réchauffé_ of
Westcott and Hort’s Textual Theory. I cannot discover that you contribute
anything of your own to the meagre outline you furnish of it. Everything
is assumed—as before. Nothing is proved—as before. And we are referred to
Dr. Hort for the resolution of every difficulty which Dr. Hort has
created. “According to Dr. Hort,”—“as Dr. Hort observes,”—“to use Dr.
Hort’s language,”—“stated by Dr. Hort,”—“as Dr. Hort notices,”—“says Dr.
Hort:” yes, from p. 14 of your pamphlet to p. 29 you do nothing else but
reproduce—Dr. Hort!
First comes the fabulous account of the contents of the bulk of the cursives:(881)—then, the imaginary history of the “Syriac Vulgate;” which (it seems) bears “indisputable traces” of being a revision, of which you have learned _from Dr. Hort_ the date:(882)—then comes the same disparagement of the ancient Greek Fathers,—“for reasons which have been _stated by Dr. Hort_ with great clearness and cogency:”(883)—then, the same depreciatory estimate of writers subsequent to Eusebius,—whose evidence is declared to “stand at best on no higher level than the evidence of inferior manuscripts in the uncial class:”(884) but _only_ because it is discovered to be destructive of the theory _of Dr. Hort_.
Next comes “the Method of Genealogy,”—which you declare is the result of “vast research, unwearied patience, great critical sagacity;”(885) but which I am prepared to prove is, on the contrary, a shallow expedient for dispensing with scientific Induction and the laborious accumulation of evidence. This same “Method of Genealogy,” you are not ashamed to announce as “the great contribution of our own times to a mastery over materials.” “For the full explanation of it, _you must refer your reader to Dr. Hort’s Introduction_.”(886) Can you be serious?
Then come the results to which “the application of this method _has 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._
How serious, in the meantime, _the consequences_ have been, _they_ only 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.)
And now, once more, my lord Bishop,—Pray which of us is it,—_you_ or _I_,—who seeks for the truth of Scripture “in _the consentient testimony of the most ancient authorities_”? On _my_ side there have been adduced in evidence _six_ witnesses of the IInd century:—_six_ of the IIIrd:—_fifteen_ of the IVth:—_nine_ of the Vth:—_eight_ of the VIth and VIIth,—(44 in all): while _you_ are found to rely on codices B and א (as before), supported by a single _obiter dictum_ of Eusebius. I have said nothing as yet about _the whole body of the Copies_: nothing about _universal, immemorial, Liturgical use_. Do you seriously imagine that the testimony on your side is “decidedly preponderating”? Above all, will you venture again to exhibit our respective methods as in your pamphlet you have done? I protest solemnly that, in your pages, I recognize neither myself nor you.
Permit me to declare that I hold your disallowance of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 to be the gravest and most damaging of all the many mistakes which you and your friends have committed. “The textual facts,” (say you, speaking of the last 12 Verses,)—“have been placed before the reader, because Truth itself demanded it.” This (with Canon Cook(918)) I entirely deny. It is because “the textual facts have” NOT “been placed before the reader,” that I am offended. As usual, you present your readers with a one-sided statement,—a partial, and therefore inadmissible, exhibition of the facts,—facts which, fully stated and fairly explained, would, (as you cannot fail to be aware,) be fatal to your contention.
But, I forbear to state so much as _one_ of them. The evidence has already filled a volume.(919) Even if I were to allow that in your marginal note, “the textual facts _have been_ [fully and fairly] _placed before the reader_”—what possible pretence do you suppose they afford for severing the last 12 Verses from the rest of S. Mark, in token that they form no part of the genuine Gospel?... This, however, is only by the way. I have proved to you that it is _I_—not _you_—who rest my case on an appeal to CATHOLIC ANTIQUITY: and this is the only thing I am concerned just now to establish.
I proceed to contribute something to the Textual Criticism of a famous place in S. Paul’s first Epistle to Timothy,—on which you have challenged me to a trial of strength.
[19] “GOD was manifested in the flesh” Shown To Be The True Reading Of 1
Timothy III. 16.
_A Dissertation._
In conclusion, you insist on ripping up the discussion concerning 1 Tim. iii. 16. I had already devoted eight pages to this subject.(920) You reply in twelve.(921) That I may not be thought wanting in courtesy, the present rejoinder shall extend to seventy-six. I propose, without repeating myself, to follow you over the ground you have re-opened. But it will be convenient that I should define at the outset what is precisely the point in dispute between you and me. I presume it to be undeniably _this_:—That whereas the Easterns from time immemorial, (and we with them, since Tyndale in 1534 gave us our English Version of the N. T.,) have read the place thus:—(I set the words down in plain English, because the issue admits of being every bit as clearly exhibited in the vernacular, as in Greek: and because I am determined that all who are at the pains to read the present DISSERTATION shall understand it also:)—Whereas, I say, we have hitherto read the place thus,
“GREAT IS THE MYSTERY OF GODLINESS:—GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH, JUSTIFIED IN THE SPIRIT, SEEN OF ANGELS, PREACHED UNTO THE GENTILES, BELIEVED ON IN THE WORLD, RECEIVED UP INTO GLORY:”
_You_ insist that this is a “_plain and clear error_.” You contend that there is “_decidedly preponderating evidence_” for reading instead,
“GREAT IS THE MYSTERY OF GODLINESS, WHO WAS MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH, JUSTIFIED IN THE SPIRIT,” &C.:
Which contention of yours I hold to be demonstrably incorrect, and proceed to prove is a complete misconception.
(_A_) _Preliminary explanations and cautions._
But English readers will require to have it explained to them at the outset, that inasmuch as ΘΕΟΣ (GOD) is invariably written _ΘΣ_ in manuscripts, the only difference between the word “GOD” and the word “_who_” (ΟΣ) consists of two horizontal strokes,—one, which distinguishes Θ from Ο; and another similar stroke (above the letters ΘΣ) which indicates that a word has been contracted. And further, that it was the custom to trace these two horizontal lines so wondrous faintly that they sometimes actually elude observation. Throughout cod. A, in fact, the letter Θ is often scarcely distinguishable from the letter Ο.
It requires also to be explained for the benefit of the same English reader,—(and it will do learned readers no harm to be reminded,)—that “_mystery_” (μυστήριον) being a neuter noun, _cannot_ be followed by the masculine pronoun (ὅς),—“_who_.” Such an expression is abhorrent alike to Grammar and to Logic,—is intolerable, in Greek as in English. By consequence, ὅς (“_who_”) is found to have been early exchanged for ὅ (“_which_”). From a copy so depraved, the Latin Version was executed in the second century. Accordingly, every known copy or quotation(922) of _the Latin_ exhibits “quod.” _Greek_ authorities for this reading (ὅ) are few enough. They have been specified already, viz. at page 100. And with this brief statement, the reading in question might have been dismissed, seeing that it has found no patron since Griesbach declared against it. It was however very hotly contended for during the last century,—Sir Isaac Newton and Wetstein being its most strenuous advocates; and it would be unfair entirely to lose sight of it now.
The two rival readings, however, in 1 Tim. iii. 16, are,—Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη (“GOD _was manifested_”), on the one hand; and τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον, ὅς (“_the mystery of godliness, who_”), on the other. _These_ are the two readings, I say, between whose conflicting claims we are to adjudicate. For I request that it may be loyally admitted at the outset,—(though it has been conveniently overlooked by the Critics whom _you_ follow,)—that the expression ὂς ἐφανερώθη in Patristic quotations, _unless it be immediately preceded by_ the word μυστήριον, is nothing to the purpose; at all events, does not prove the thing which _you_ are bent on proving. English readers will see this at a glance. An Anglican divine,—with reference to 1 Timothy iii. 16,—may surely speak of our SAVIOUR as One “_who_ was manifested in the flesh,”—without risk of being straightway suspected of employing a copy of the English Version which exhibits “_the mystery of godliness who_.” “Ex hujusmodi locis” (as Matthæi truly remarks) “nemo, nisi mente captus, in contextu sacro probabit ὅς.”(923)
When Epiphanius therefore,—_professing to transcribe_(924) from an earlier treatise of his own(925) where ἐφανερώθη stands _without a nominative_,(926) writes (if he really does write) ὂς ἐφανερώθη,(927)—we are not at liberty to infer therefrom that Epiphanius is opposed to the reading Θεός.—Still less is it lawful to draw the same inference from the Latin Version of a letter of Eutherius [A.D. 431] in which the expression “_qui manifestatus est in carne_,”(928) occurs.—Least of all should we be warranted in citing Jerome as a witness for reading ὅς in this place, because (in his Commentary on Isaiah) he speaks of our SAVIOUR as One who “was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit.”(929)
As for reasoning thus concerning Cyril of Alexandria, it is demonstrably inadmissible: seeing that at the least on two distinct occasions, this Father exhibits Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη. I am not unaware that in a certain place, apostrophizing the Docetæ, he says,—“Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor indeed the _great mystery of godliness_, that is CHRIST, who (ὅς) _was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit_,”(930) &c. &c. And presently, “I consider _the mystery of godliness_ to be no other thing but the Word of GOD the FATHER, who (ὅς) Himself _was manifested in the flesh_.”(931) But there is nothing whatever in this to invalidate the testimony of those other places in which Θεός actually occurs. It is logically inadmissible, I mean, to set aside the places where Cyril is found actually to write Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη, because in other places he employs 1 Tim. iii. 16 less precisely; leaving it to be inferred—(which indeed is abundantly plain)—that Θεός is always his reading, from the course of his argument and from the nature of the matter in hand. But to proceed.
_(B) Bp. Ellicott invited to state the evidence for reading ὅς in_ 1 Tim. iii. 16.
[a] _“__The state of the evidence,__”__ as declared by Bp. Ellicott._
When last the evidence for this question came before us, I introduced it by inviting a member of the Revising body (Dr. Roberts) to be spokesman on behalf of his brethren.(932) This time, I shall call upon a more distinguished, a wholly unexceptionable witness, viz. _yourself_,—who are, of course, greatly in advance of your fellow-Revisers in respect of critical attainments. The extent of your individual familiarity with the subject when (in 1870 namely) you proposed to revise the Greek Text of the N. T. for the Church of England on the _solvere-ambulando_ principle,—may I presume be lawfully inferred from the following annotation in your “_Critical and Grammatical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles_.” I quote from the last Edition of 1869; only taking the liberty—(1) To break it up into short paragraphs: and—(2) To give _in extenso_ the proper names which you abbreviate. Thus, instead of “Theod.” (which I take leave to point out to you might mean either Theodore of Heraclea or his namesake of Mopsuestia,—either Theodotus the Gnostic or his namesake of Ancyra,) “Euthal.,” I write “Theodoret, Euthalius.” And now for the external testimony, as _you_ give it, concerning 1 Timothy iii. 16. You inform your readers that,—
“The state of the evidence is briefly as follows:—
(1) Ὅς is read with A1 [_indisputably_; after minute personal inspection; see note, p. 104.] C1 [Tischendorf _Prol. Cod. Ephraemi_, § 7, p. 39.] F G א (see below); 17, 73, 181; Syr.-Philoxenian, Coptic, Sahidic, Gothic; also (ὅς or ὅ) Syriac, Arabic (Erpenius), Æthiopic, Armenian; Cyril, Theodorus Mopsuest., Epiphanius, Gelasius, Hieronymus _in Esaiam_ liii. 11.
(2) ὅ, with D1 (Claromontanus), Vulgate; nearly all Latin Fathers.
(3) Θεός, with D3 K L; nearly all MSS.; Arabic (Polyglott), Slavonic; Didymus, Chrysostom (? see Tregelles, p. 227 note), Theodoret, Euthalius, Damascene, Theophylact, Œcumenius,—Ignatius _Ephes_. 29, (but very doubtful). A hand of the 12th century has prefixed θε to ος, the reading of א; see Tischendorf _edit. major_, Plate xvii. of Scrivener’s Collation of א, facsimile (13).
On reviewing this evidence, as not only the most important uncial MSS., but _all_ the Versions older than the 7th century are distinctly in favour of a _relative_,—as ὅ seems only a Latinizing variation of ὅς,—and lastly, as ὅς is the more difficult, though really the more intelligible, reading (Hofmann, _Schriftb._ Vol. I. p. 143), and on every reason more likely to have been changed into Θεός (Macedonius is actually said to have been expelled for making the change, _Liberati Diaconi Breviarium_ cap. 19) than _vice versâ_, we unhesitatingly decide in favour of ὅς.”—(_Pastoral Epistles_, ed. 1869, pp. 51-2.)
Such then is your own statement of the evidence on this subject. I proceed
to demonstrate to you that you are completely mistaken:—mistaken as to
what you say about ὅς,—mistaken as to ὅ,—mistaken as to Θεός:—mistaken in
respect of Codices,—mistaken in respect of Versions,—mistaken in respect
of Fathers. Your slipshod, inaccurate statements, (_all_ obtained at
second-hand,) will occasion me, I foresee, a vast deal of trouble; but I
am determined, now at last, if the thing be possible, to set this question
at rest. And that I may not be misunderstood, I beg to repeat that all I
propose to myself is to _prove_—beyond the possibility of denial—that the
evidence for Θεός (in 1 Timothy iii. 16) _vastly preponderates over the
evidence for either_ ὅς _or_ ὅ. It will be for _you_, afterwards, to come
forward and prove that, on the contrary, Θεός is a “_plain and clear
error_:” _so_ plain and _so_ clear that you and your fellow-Revisers felt
yourselves constrained to thrust it out from the place it has confessedly
occupied in the New Testament for at least 1530 years.
You are further reminded, my lord Bishop, that unless you do this, you will be considered by the whole Church to have dealt unfaithfully with the Word of GOD. For, (as I shall remind you in the sequel,) it is yourself who have invited and provoked this enquiry. You devote twelve pages to it (pp. 64 to 76),—“compelled to do so by the Reviewer.” “Moreover” (you announce) “this case is of great importance as an example. It illustrates in a striking manner the complete isolation of the Reviewer’s position. If he is right all other Critics are wrong,” &c., &c., &c.—Permit me to remind you of the warning—“Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off.”
[b] _Testimony of the __MANUSCRIPTS__ concerning_ 1 Tim. iii. 16: _and first as to the testimony of __CODEX_ A.
You begin then with the _Manuscript_ evidence; and you venture to assert that ΟΣ is “indisputably” the reading of Codex A. I am at a loss to understand how a “professed Critic,”—(who must be presumed to be acquainted with the facts of the case, and who is a lover of Truth,)—can permit himself to make such an assertion. Your certainty is based, you say, on “minute personal inspection.” In other words, you are so good as to explain that you once tried a coarse experiment,(933) by which you succeeded in convincing yourself that the suspected diameter of the Ο is exactly coincident with the sagitta of an _epsilon_ (Ε) which happens to stand _on the back of the page_. But do you not see that unless you start with _this_ for your major premiss,—“_Theta_ cannot exist on one side of a page if _epsilon_ stands immediately behind it on the other side,”—your experiment is _nihil ad rem_, and proves absolutely nothing?
Your “inspection” happens however to be _inaccurate_ besides. You performed your experiment unskilfully. A man need only hold up the leaf to the light on a very brilliant day,—as Tregelles, Scrivener, and many besides (including your present correspondent) have done,—to be aware that the sagitta of the _epsilon_ on fol. 145_b_ does not cover much more than a third of the area of the _theta_ on fol. 145_a_. Dr. Scrivener further points out that it cuts the circle _too __ high_ to have been reasonably mistaken by a careful observer for the diameter of the _theta_ (Θ). The experiment which you describe with such circumstantial gravity was simply nugatory therefore.
How is it, my lord Bishop, that you do not perceive that the way to ascertain the reading of Codex A at 1 Tim. iii. 16, is,—(1) To investigate _not_ what is found at _the back_ of the leaf, but what is written on _the front_ of it? and (2), Not so much to enquire what can be deciphered of the original writing by the aid of a powerful lens _now_, as to ascertain what was apparent to the eye of competent observers when the Codex was first brought into this country, viz. 250 years ago? That Patrick Young, the first custodian and collator of the Codex [1628-1652], read _ΘΣ_, is certain.—Young communicated the “various Readings” of A to Abp. Ussher:—and the latter, prior to 1653, communicated them to Hammond, who clearly knew nothing of ΟΣ.—It is plain that _ΘΣ_ was the reading seen by Huish—when he sent his collation of the Codex (made, according to Bentley, with great exactness,(934)) to Brian Walton, who published the fifth volume of his Polyglott in 1657.—Bp. Pearson, who was very curious in such matters, says “we find not ὅς _in any copy_,”—a sufficient proof how _he_ read the place in 1659.—Bp. Fell, who published an edition of the N. T. in 1675, certainly considered _ΘΣ_ the reading of Cod. A.—Mill, who was at work on the Text of the N. T. from 1677 to 1707, expressly declares that he saw the remains of _ΘΣ_ in this place.(935) Bentley, who had himself (1716) collated the MS. with the utmost accuracy (“_accuratissime ipse contuli_”), knew nothing of any other reading.—Emphatic testimony on the subject is borne by Wotton in 1718:—“There can be no doubt” (he says) “that this MS. always exhibited _ΘΣ_. Of this, _any one may easily convince himself who will be at the pains to examine the place with attention_.”(936)—Two years earlier,—(we have it on the testimony of Mr. John Creyk, of S. John’s Coll., Cambridge,)—“the old line in the letter θ was plainly to be seen.”(937)—It was “much about the same time,” also, (viz. about 1716) that Wetstein acknowledged to the Rev. John Kippax,—“who took it down in writing from his own mouth,—that though the middle stroke of the θ has been evidently retouched, yet the fine stroke which was originally in the body of the θ is discoverable at each end of the fuller stroke of the corrector.”(938)—And Berriman himself, (who delivered a course of Lectures on the true reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16, in 1737-8,) attests emphatically that he had seen it also. “_If therefore_” (he adds) “_at any time hereafter the old line should become altogether undiscoverable, there will never be just cause to doubt but that the genuine, and original reading of the MS. was_ _ΘΣ_: and that the new strokes, added at the top and in the middle by the corrector were not designed to corrupt and falsify, but to preserve and perpetuate the true reading, which was in danger of being lost by the decay of Time.”(939)—Those memorable words (which I respectfully commend to your notice) were written in A.D. 1741. How _you_ (A.D. 1882), after surveying all this accumulated and consistent testimony (borne A.D. 1628 to A.D. 1741) by eye-witnesses as competent to observe a fact of this kind as yourself; and fully as deserving of credit, when they solemnly declare what they have seen:—how _you_, I say, after a survey of this evidence, can gravely sit down and inform the world that “_there is no sufficient evidence that there was ever a time when this reading was patent as the reading which came from the original scribe_” (p. 72):—_this_ passes my comprehension.—It shall only be added that Bengel, who was a very careful enquirer, had already cited the Codex Alexandrinus as a witness for Θεός in 1734:(940)—and that Woide, the learned and conscientious editor of the Codex, declares that so late as 1765 he had seen traces of the θ which twenty years later (viz. in 1785) were visible to him no longer.(941)
That Wetstein subsequently changed his mind, I am not unaware. He was one of those miserable men whose visual organs return a false report to their possessor whenever they are shown a text which witnesses inconveniently to the GOD-head of JESUS CHRIST.(942) I know too that Griesbach in 1785 announced himself of Wetstein’s opinion. It is suggestive however that ten years before, (N. T. ed. 1775,) he had rested the fact _not_ on the testimony borne by the MS. itself, but on “_the consent of Versions, Copies, and Fathers_ which exhibit the Alexandrian Recension.”(943)—Since Griesbach’s time, Davidson, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and Ellicott have announced their opinion that _ΘΣ_ was never written at 1 Tim. iii. 16: confessedly only because _ΘΣ_ is to them invisible _one hundred years after_ _ΘΣ_ _has disappeared from sight_. The fact remains for all _that_, that the original reading of A is attested so amply, that no sincere lover of Truth can ever hereafter pretend to doubt it. “Omnia testimonia,” (my lord Bishop,) “omnemque historicam veritatem in suspicionem adducere non licet; nec mirum est nos ea nunc non discernere, quæ, antequam nos Codicem vidissemus, evanuerant.”(944)
The sum of the matter, (as I pointed out to you on a former occasion,(945)) is this,—That it is too late by 150 years to contend on the negative side of this question. Nay, a famous living Critic (long may he live!) assures us that when his eyes were 20 years younger (Feb. 7, 1861) he actually discerned, _still lingering_, a faint trace of the diameter of the Θ which Berriman in 1741 had seen so plainly. “I have examined Codex A at least twenty times within as many years” (wrote Prebendary Scrivener in 1874(946)), “and ... seeing (as every one must) with my own eyes, I have always felt convinced that it reads _ΘΣ_”.... For _you_ to assert, in reply to all this mass of positive evidence, that the reading is “indisputably” ΟΣ,—and to contend that what makes this indisputable, is the fact that behind part of the _theta_ (Θ), [but too high to mislead a skilful observer,] an _epsilon_ stands on the reverse side of the page;—strikes me as bordering inconveniently on the ridiculous. If _this_ be your notion of what does constitute “sufficient evidence,” well may the testimony of so many _testes oculati_ seem to you to lack sufficiency. Your notions on these subjects are, I should think, peculiar to yourself. You even fail to see that your statement (in Scrivener’s words) is “_not relevant to the point at issue._”(947) The plain fact concerning cod. A is _this_:—That at 1 Tim. iii. 16, two delicate horizontal strokes in _ΘΣ_ which were thoroughly patent in 1628,—which could be seen plainly down to 1737,—and which were discernible by an expert (Dr. Woide) so late as A.D. 1765,(948)—have for the last hundred years entirely disappeared; which is precisely what Berriman (in 1741) predicted would be the case. Moreover, he solemnly warned men against drawing from this circumstance the mistaken inference which _you_, my lord Bishop, nevertheless _insist_ on drawing, and representing as an “indisputable” fact.
I have treated so largely of the reading of the Codex Alexandrinus, not because I consider the testimony of a solitary copy, whether uncial or cursive, a matter of much importance,—certainly not the testimony of Codex A, which (in defiance of every other authority extant) exhibits “_the body of _GOD” in S. John xix. 40:—but because _you_ insist that A is a witness on your side: whereas it is demonstrable, (and I claim to have demonstrated,) that you cannot honestly do so; and (I trust) you will never do so any more.
[c] _Testimony of_ CODICES א _and_ C _concerning_ 1 Tim. iii. 16.
That א reads ΟΣ is admitted.—Not so Codex C, which the excessive application of chemicals has rendered no longer decipherable in this place. Tischendorf (of course) insists, that the original reading was ΟΣ.(949) Wetstein and Griesbach (just as we should expect,) avow the same opinion,—Woide, Mill, Weber and Parquoi being just as confident that the original reading was _ΘΣ_. As in the case of cod. A, it is too late by full 100 years to re-open this question. Observable it is that the witnesses yield contradictory evidence. Wetstein, writing 150 years ago, before the original writing had become so greatly defaced,—(and Wetstein, inasmuch as he collated the MS. for Bentley [1716], must have been thoroughly familiar with its contents,)—only “_thought_” that he read ΟΣ; “because the delicate horizontal stroke which makes Θ out of Ο,” was to him “_not apparent_.”(950) Woide on the contrary was convinced that _ΘΣ_ had been written by the first hand: “for” (said he) “though there _exists no vestige_ of the delicate stroke which out of Ο makes Θ, _the stroke written above the letters is by the first hand_.” What however to Wetstein and to Woide was not apparent, was visible enough to Weber, Wetstein’s contemporary. And Tischendorf, so late as 1843, expressed his astonishment that the stroke in question had hitherto escaped the eyes of every one; “_having been repeatedly seen by himself_.”(951) He attributes it, (just as we should expect) to a corrector of the MS.; partly, because of _its colour_, (“_subnigra_”); partly, because of _its inclining upwards to the right_. And yet, _who_ sees not that an argument derived from _the colour_ of a line which is already well-nigh invisible, must needs be in a high degree precarious? while Scrivener aptly points out that the cross line in Θ,—the ninth letter further on, (which has never been questioned,)—_also_ “ascends towards the right.” The hostile evidence collapses therefore. In the meantime, what at least is certain is, that the subscribed musical notation indicates that _a thousand years ago, a word of two syllables_ was read here. From a review of all of which, it is clear that the utmost which can be pretended is that some degree of uncertainty attaches to the testimony of cod. C. Yet, _why_ such a plea should be either set up or allowed, I really see not—except indeed by men who have made up their minds beforehand that ΟΣ _shall be_ the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. Let the sign of uncertainty however follow the notation of C for this text, if you will. That cod. C is an indubitable witness for ΟΣ, I venture at least to think that no fair person will ever any more pretend.
[d] _Testimony of_ CODICES F _and_ G _of S. Paul, concerning_ 1 Tim. iii. 16.
The next dispute is about the reading of the two IXth-century codices, F and G,—concerning which I propose to trouble you with a few words in addition to what has been already offered on this subject at pp. 100-1: the rather, because you have yourself devoted one entire page of your pamphlet to the testimony yielded by these two codices; and because you therein have recourse to what (if it proceeded from any one but a Bishop,) I should designate the _insolent_ method of trying to put me down by authority,—instead of seeking to convince me of my error by producing some good reasons for your opinion. You seem to think it enough to hurl Wetstein, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, and (cruellest of all) my friend Scrivener, at my head. Permit me to point out that this, _as an argument_, is the feeblest to which a Critic can have recourse. He shouts so lustily for help only because he is unable to take care of himself.
F and G then are confessedly independent copies of one and the same archetype: and “both F and G” (you say) “exhibit _ΟΣ_.”(952) Be it so. The question arises,—What does the stroke above the _ΟΣ_ signify? I venture to believe that these two codices represent a copy which originally exhibited _ΘΣ_, but from which the diameter of the Θ had disappeared—(as very often is the case in codex A)—through tract of time. The effect of this would be that F and G are in reality witnesses for Θεός. Not so, you say. _That_ slanting stroke represents the aspirate, and proves that these two codices are witnesses for ὅς.(953) Let us look a little more closely into this matter.
Here are two documents, of which it has been said that they “were separately derived from some early codex, in which there was probably no interval between the words.”(954) They were _not immediately_ derived from such a codex, I remark: it being quite incredible that two independent copyists could have hit on the same extravagantly absurd way of dividing the uncial letters.(955) The common archetype which both employed must have been the work of a late Western scribe every bit as licentious and as unacquainted with Greek as themselves.(956) _That_ archetype however may very well have been obtained from a primitive codex of the kind first supposed, in which the words were written continuously, as in codex B. Such Manuscripts were furnished with neither breathings nor accents: accordingly, “of the ordinary breathings or accents there are no traces”(957) in either F or G.
But then, cod. F occasionally,—G much oftener,—exhibits a little straight stroke, nearly horizontal, over the initial vowel of certain words. Some have supposed that this was designed to represent the aspirate: but it is not so. The proof is, that it is found _consistently_ introduced over the same vowels _in the interlinear Latin_. Thus, the Latin preposition “a” _always_ has the slanting stroke above it:(958) and the Latin interjection “o” is furnished with the same appendage,—alike in the Gospels and in the Epistles.(959) This observation evacuates the supposed significance of the few instances where ἃ is written _Α_:(960) as well as of the much fewer places where ὁ or ὃ are written _Ο_:(961) especially when account is taken of the many hundred occasions, (often in rapid succession,) when nothing at all is to be seen above the “ο.”(962) As for the fact that ἵνα is always written _Ι_ΝΑ (or ΪΝΑ),—let it only be noted that besides ιδωμεν, ιχθυς, ισχυρος, &c., Ιακωβος, Ιωαννης, Ιουδας, &c., (which are all distinguished in the same way,)—_Latin words also beginning with an_ “I” are similarly adorned,—and we become convinced that the little stroke in question is to be explained on some entirely different principle. At last, we discover (from the example of “sī,” “sīc,” “etsī,” “servītus,” “saeculīs,” “idolīs,” &c.) that the supposed sign of the rough breathing _is nothing else but an ancient substitute for the modern dot over the _“I.”—We may now return to the case actually before us.
It has been pointed out that the line above the ΟΣ in both F and G “is not horizontal, but rises a little towards the right.” I beg to call attention to the fact that there are 38 instances of the slight super-imposed “line” here spoken of, in the page of cod. F where the reading under discussion appears: 7 in the Greek, 31 in the Latin. In the corresponding page of cod. G, the instances are 44: 8 in the Greek, 36 in the Latin.(963) These short horizontal strokes (they can hardly be called _lines_) generally—not by any means always—slant upwards; and _they are invariably the sign of contraction_.
The problem before us has in this way been divested of a needless encumbrance. The suspicion that the horizontal line above the word ΟΣ may possibly represent the aspirate, has been disposed of. It has been demonstrated that throughout these two codices a horizontal line slanting upwards, set over a vowel, is either—(1) The sign of contraction; or else—(2) A clerical peculiarity. In the place before us, then, _which_ of the two is it?
_The sign of contraction_, I answer: seeing that whereas there are, in the page before us, 9 aspirated, and (including _ΟΣ_) 8 contracted Greek words, not one of those _nine_ aspirated words has _any mark at all_ above its initial letter; while every one of the _eight_ contracted words is duly furnished with the symbol of contraction. I further submit that inasmuch as ὅς is _nowhere_ else written _ΟΣ_ in either codex, it is unreasonable to assume that it is so written in this place. Now, that almost every codex in the world reads _ΘΣ_ in 1 Tim. iii. 16,—is a plain fact; and that _ΟΣ_ (in verse 16) _would be_ Θεός if the delicate horizontal stroke which distinguishes Θ from Ο, were not away,—no one denies. Surely, therefore, the only thing which remains to be enquired after, is,—Are there _any other_ such substitutions of one letter for another discoverable in these two codices? And it is notorious that instances of the phenomenon abound. The letters Σ, Ε, Ο, Θ are confused throughout.(964) And what else are ΠΕΝΟΟΥΝΤΕΣ for πενθουντες (Matth. v. 4),—ΕΚΡΙΖΩΟΗΤΙ for εκριζωθητι (Luc. xvii. 16),—ΚΑΤΑΒΗΟΙ for καταβηθι (xix. 6),—but instances of the _self-same mistake_ which (as I contend) has in this place turned _ΘΣ_ into _ΟΣ_?
My lord Bishop, I have submitted to all this painful drudgery, not, you may be sure, without a sufficient reason. _Never any more must we hear of _“breathings”_ in connexion with codices_ F _and_ G. The stroke above the ΟΣ in 1 Tim. iii. 16 has been proved to be _probably the sign of contraction_. I forbear, of course, to insist that the two codices are witnesses _on my side_. I require that you, in the same spirit of fairness, will abstain from claiming them as certainly witnessing _on yours_. The Vth-century codex C, and the IXth-century codex F-G must be regarded as equivocal in the testimony they render, and are therefore not to be reckoned to either of the contending parties.
These are many words about the two singularly corrupt IXth-century documents, concerning which so much has been written already. But I sincerely desire,—(and so I trust do you, as a Christian Bishop,)—to see the end of a controversy which those only have any right to re-open (_pace tuâ dixerim_) who have _something new to offer on the subject_: and certain it is that the bearing of F and G on this matter has never before been fully stated. I dismiss those two codices with the trite remark that they are, at all events, but one codex: and that against them are to be set K L P,—_the only uncials which remain_; for D (of “Paul”) exhibits ὅ, and the Vatican codex B no longer serves us.
[fe] _Testimony of the_ CURSIVE COPIES: _and specially of_ “Paul 17,” “73” _and_ “181,” _concerning_ 1 Tim. iii. 16.
Next, for the cursive Copies. You claim without enquiry,—and _only because you find that men have claimed them before you_,—Nos. 17, 73, 181, as witnesses for ὅς. Will you permit me to point out that no progress will ever be made in these studies so long as “professed Critics” will persevere in the evil practice of transcribing one another’s references, and thus appropriating one another’s blunders?
About the reading of “Paul 17,” (the notorious “33” of the Gospels,) there is indeed no doubt.—Mindful however of President Routh’s advice to me always “to verify my references,”—concerning “Paul 73” I wrote a letter of enquiry to Upsala (July 28, 1879), and for all answer (Sept. 6th) received a beautiful tracing of what my correspondent called the “1 Thim. iii. 16 _paraphe_.” It proved to be an abridged exhibition of 21 lines of Œcumenius. I instantly wrote to enquire whether this was really all that the codex in question has to say to 1 Tim. iii. 16? but to this I received no reply. I presumed therefore that I had got to the bottom of the business. But in July 1882, I addressed a fresh enquiry to Dr. Belsheim of Christiania, and got his answer last October. By that time he had visited Upsala: had verified for me readings in other MSS., and reported that the reading here is ὅς. I instantly wrote to enquire whether he had seen the word with his own eyes? He replied that he desired to look further into _this_ matter on some future occasion,—the MS. in question being (he says) a difficult one to handle. I am still awaiting his final report, which he promises to send me when next he visits Upsala. (“Aurivillius” says nothing about it.) Let “Paul 73” in the meantime stand with a note of interrogation, or how you will.
About “Paul 181,” (which Scholz describes as “vi. 36” in the Laurentian library at Florence,) I take leave to repeat (in a foot-note) what (in a letter to Dr. Scrivener) I explained in the “Guardian” ten years ago.(965) In consequence however of your discourteous remarks (which you will be gratified to find quoted at foot,(966)) I have written (not for the first time) to the learned custos of the Laurentian library on the subject; stating the entire case and reminding him of my pertinacity in 1871. He replies,—“Scholz fallitur huic bibliothecæ tribuendo codicem sign. ‘plut. vi. n. 36.’ Nec est in præsenti, nec fuit antea, neque exstat in aliâ bibliothecâ apud nos.”... On a review of what goes before, I submit that one who has taken so much pains with the subject does not deserve to be flouted as I find myself flouted by the Bp. of Gloucester and Bristol,—who has not been at the pains to verify _one single point_ in this entire controversy for himself.
_Every other known copy of S. Paul’s Epistles_, (written in the cursive character,) I have ascertained (by laborious correspondence with the chiefs of foreign libraries) concurs in exhibiting Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί. The importance of this testimony ought to be supremely evident to yourself who contend so strenuously for the support of Paul 73 and 181. But because, in my judgment, this practical unanimity of the manuscripts is not only “important” but _conclusive_, I shall presently recur to it (viz. at pages 494-5,) more in detail. For do but consider that these copies were one and all derived from yet older MSS. than themselves; and that the remote originals of those older MSS. were perforce of higher antiquity still, and were executed in every part of primitive Christendom. How is it credible that they should, one and all, conspire to mislead? I cannot in fact express better than Dr. Berriman did 140 years ago, the logical result of such a concord of the copies:—“From whence can it be supposed that this general, I may say this universal consent of the Greek MSS. should arise, but from hence,—That Θεός is the genuine original reading of this Text?” (p. 325.)
In the meantime, you owe me a debt of gratitude: for, in the course of an enquiry which I have endeavoured to make exhaustive, I have discovered _three_ specimens of the book called “_Apostolus_,” or “_Praxapostolus_” (_i.e._ Lections from the Epistles and Acts) which also exhibit ὅς in this place. One of these is Reg. 375 (our “Apost. 12”) in the French collection, a _Western_ codex, dated A.D. 1022.(967) The story of the discovery of the other two (to be numbered “Praxapost.” 85, 86,) is interesting, and will enliven this dull page.
At Tusculum, near Rome,—(the locality which Cicero rendered illustrious, and where he loved to reside surrounded by his books,)—was founded early in the XIth century a Christian library which in process of time became exceedingly famous. It retains, in fact, its ancient reputation to this day. Nilus “Rossanensis” it was, who, driven with his monks from Calabria by invading hordes, established in A.D. 1004 a monastery at Tusculum, to which either he, or his successors, gave the name of “Crypta Ferrata.” It became the headquarters of the Basilian monks in the XVIIth century. Hither habitually resorted those illustrious men, Sirletus, Mabillon, Zacagni, Ciampini, Montfaucon,—and more lately Mai and Dom Pitra. To Signor Cozza-Luzi, the present learned and enlightened chief of the Vatican library, (who is himself “Abbas Monachorum Basiliensium Cryptæ Ferratæ,”) I am indebted for my copy of the Catalogue (now in process of publication(968)) of the extraordinary collection of MSS. belonging to the society over which he presides.
In consequence of the information which the Abbate Cozza-Luzi sent me, I put myself in communication with the learned librarian of the monastery, the “Hieromonachus” D. Antonio Rocchi, (author of the Catalogue in question,) whom I cannot sufficiently thank for his courtesy and kindness. The sum of the matter is briefly this:—There are still preserved in the library of the Basilian monks of Crypta Ferrata,—(notwithstanding that many of its ancient treasures have found their way into other repositories,(969))—4 manuscripts of S. Paul’s Epistles, which I number 290, -1, -2, -3: and 7 copies of the book called “Praxapostolus,” which I number 83, -4, -5, -6, -7, -8, -9. Of these eleven, 3 are defective hereabouts: 5 read Θεός: 2 (Praxapost.) exhibit ὅς; and 1 (Apost. 83) contains an only not unique reading, to be mentioned at p. 478. Hieromonachus Rocchi furnishes me with references besides to 3 Liturgical Codices out of a total of 22, (Ἀποστολοευαγγέλια), which also exhibit Θεός.(970) I number them Apost. 106, 108, 110.
And now, we may proceed to consider the VERSIONS.
[f] _Testimony of the_ VERSIONS _to the reading of_ 1 Tim. iii. 16.
“Turning to the ancient Versions” (you assert) “we find them almost unanimous against Θεός” (p. 65). But your business, my lord Bishop, was to show that some of them witness _in favour of_ ὅς. If you cannot show that several ancient Versions,—besides a fair proportion of ancient Fathers,—are clearly on your side, your contention is unreasonable as well as hopeless. What then do the VERSIONS say?
(_a_) Now, it is allowed on all hands that the LATIN Version was made from copies which must have exhibited μυστήριον ὅ ἐφανερώθη. The agreement of the Latin copies is absolute. The Latin Fathers also conspire in reading “_mysterium quod_:” though some of them seem to have regarded “quod” as a conjunction. Occasionally, (as by the Translator of Origen,(971)) we even find “quia” substituted _for_ “quod.” Estius conjectures that “quod” _is_ a conjunction in this place. But in fact the reasoning of the Latin Fathers is observed invariably to proceed as if they had found nothing else but “DEUS” in the text before them. They bravely assume that the Eternal WORD, the second Person in the Trinity, is _designated_ by the expression “_magnum pietatis sacramentum_.”
(_b_) It is, I admit, a striking circumstance that such a mistake as this in the old Latin should have been retained in the VULGATE. But if you ever study this subject with attention, you will find that Jerome,—although no doubt he “professedly corrected the old Latin Version by the help of ancient Greek manuscripts,” (p. 69,)—on many occasions retains readings which it is nevertheless demonstrable that he individually disapproved. No certain inference therefore as to what Jerome _found_ in ancient Greek MSS. can be safely drawn from the text of the Vulgate.
(_c_) Next, for the _Syriac_ (PESCHITO) Version. I beg to subjoin the view of the late loved and lamented P. E. Pusey,—the editor of Cyril, and who at the time of his death was engaged in re-editing the Peschito. He says,—“In 1 Tim. iii. 16, the Syriac has ‘_qui manifestatus est_.’ The relative is indeterminate, but the verb is not. In Syriac however μυστήριον is masculine; and thus, the natural way would be to take μυστήριον as the antecedent, and translate ‘_quod manifestatum est_.’ _No one would have thought of any other way of translating the Syriac_—but for the existence of the various reading ὅς in the Greek, and the _possibility_ of its affecting the translation into Syriac. But the Peschito is so really a translation into good Syriac, (not into word-for-word Syriac,) that if the translator had wanted to express the Greek ὅς, in so difficult a passage, _he would have turned it differently_.”(972)—The Peschito therefore yields the same testimony as the Latin; and may not be declared (as you declare it) to be indeterminate. Still less may it be represented as witnessing to ὅς.
(_d_) It follows to enquire concerning the rendering of 1 Tim. iii. 16 in the PHILOXENIAN, or rather the HARKLEIAN Version (VIIth cent.), concerning which I have had recourse to the learned Editor of that Version. He writes:—“There can be no doubt that the authors of this Version had either Θεός or Θεοῦ before them: while their marginal note shows that they were aware of the reading ὅς. They exhibit,—‘_Great is the mystery of the goodness of the fear_ (feminine) _of _GOD_, who-was-manifested_ (masculine) _in the flesh_.’ The marginal addition [ܗܘ before ܕܐܬܓܠܝ (or ܘܗ before ܝܠܓܬܐܕ)] makes the reference to GOD all the plainer.”(973) See more below, at p. 489.
Now this introduction of the word Θεός into the text, however inartistic it may seem to you and to me, is a fatal circumstance to those who would contend on your side. It shows translators divided between two rival and conflicting readings: but determined to give prominence to the circumstance which constituted the greatness of the mystery: viz. GOD INCARNATE. “May I suggest” (adds the witty scholar in his Post-script) “that there would be no mystery in ‘a man being manifested in the flesh’?”
The facts concerning the Harkleian Version being such, you will not be surprised to hear me say that I am at a loss to understand how, without a syllable expressive of doubt, you should claim this version (the “Philoxenian” you call it—but it is rather the Harkleian), as a witness on your side,—a witness for ὅς.(974) It not only witnesses _against_ you, (for the Latin and the Peschito do _that_,) but, as I have shown you, it is a witness on _my_ side.
(_e_) and (_f_). Next, for the Versions of LOWER and UPPER EGYPT.
“We are content” (you say) to “refer our readers to Tischendorf and Tregelles, who unhesitatingly claim the Memphitic [or Coptic] and the Thebaic [or Sahidic] for ὅς.”(975) But surely, in a matter of this kind, my lord Bishop—(I mean, when we are discussing some nicety of a language of which personally we know absolutely nothing,)—we may never “be content to refer our readers” to individuals who are every bit as ignorant of the matter as ourselves. Rather should we be at the pains to obtain for those whom we propose to instruct the deliberate verdict of those who have made the subject their special study. Dr. Malan (who must be heartily sick of me by this time), in reply to my repeated enquiries, assures me that in Coptic and in Sahidic alike, “the relative pronoun always takes the gender of the Greek antecedent. But, inasmuch as there is properly speaking no neuter in either language, the masculine does duty _for_ the neuter; the gender of the definite article and relative pronoun being determined by the gender of the word referred to. Thus, in S. John xv. 26, the Coptic ‘_pi_’ and ‘_phè_’ respectively represent the definite article and the relative, alike in the expression ὁ Παράκλητος ὅν, and in the expression τὸ Πνεῦμα ὅ: and so throughout. In 1 Tim. iii. 16, therefore, ‘_pi mustèrion phè_,’ must perforce be rendered, τὸ μυστήριον ὅ:—not, surely, ὁ μυστήριον ὅς. And yet, if _the relative_ may be masculine, why not _the article_ also? But in fact, we have no more right to render the Coptic (or the Sahidic) relative by ὅς in 1 Tim. iii. 16, than in any other similar passage where a neuter noun (_e.g._ πνεῦμα or σῶμα) has gone before. _In this particular case_, of course a pretence may be set up that the gender of the relative shall be regarded as an open question: but in strictness of grammar, it is far otherwise. No Coptic or Sahidic scholar, in fact, having to translate the Coptic or Sahidic back into Greek, would ever dream of writing anything else but τὸ μυστήριον ὅ.”(976) And now I trust I have made it plain to you that _you are mistaken_ in your statement (p. 69),—that “Ὅς is _supported by the two Egyptian Versions_.” It is supported by _neither_. You have been shown that they both witness against you. You will therefore not be astonished to hear me again declare that I am at a loss to understand how you can cite the “Philoxenian, _Coptic and Sahidic_,”(977)—as witnesses on your side. It is not in this way, my lord Bishop, that GOD’S Truth is to be established.
(_g_) As for the GOTHIC Version,—dissatisfied with the verdict of De Gabelentz and Loebe,(978) I addressed myself to Dr. Ceriani of Milan, the learned and most helpful chief of the Ambrosian Library: in which by the way is preserved _the only known copy_ of Ulphilas for 1 Tim. iii. 16. He inclines to the opinion that “_saei_” is to be read,—the rather, because Andreas Uppström, the recent editor of the codex, a diligent and able scholar, has decided in favour of that “_obscure_” reading.(979) The Gothic therefore must be considered to witness to the (more than) extraordinary combination;—μέγΑΣ ... μυστήριον ... ὍΣ. (See the footnote 4 p. 452.)
I obtain at the same time, the same verdict, and on the same grounds, from that distinguished and obliging scholar, Dr. John Belsheim of Christiania. “But” (he adds) “the reading is a little dubious. H. F. Massmann, in the notes to his edition,(980) at page 657, says,—‘_saei_ [qui] is altogether obliterated.’ ”—In claiming the Gothic therefore as a witness for ὅς, you will (I trust) agree with me that a single _scarcely legible copy_ of a Version is not altogether satisfactory testimony:—while certainly “_magnus_ est pietatis sacramentum, _qui_ manifestat_us_ est in corpore”—is not a rendering of 1 Tim. iii. 16 which you are prepared to accept.
(_h_) For the ÆTHIOPIC. Version,—Dr. Hoerning, (of the British Museum,) has at my request consulted six copies of 1 Timothy, and informs me that they present no variety of text. _The antecedent, as well as the relative, is masculine in all._ The Æthiopic must therefore be considered to favour the reading μυστήριον; ὅ ἐφανερώθη, and to represent the same Greek text which underlies the Latin and the Peschito Versions. The Æthiopic therefore is against you.
(_i_) “The ARMENIAN Version,” (writes Dr. Malan) “from the very nature of the language, is indeterminate. There is _no grammatical distinction of genders_ in Armenian.”
(_j_) The ARABIC Version, (so Dr. Ch. Rieu(981) informs me,) exhibits,—“In _truth the mystery of this justice is great. It is that he_” (or “_it_,” for the Arabic has no distinction between masculine and neuter) “_was manifested in the body, and was justified in the spirit_” &c.—This version therefore witnesses for neither “who,” “which,” nor “GOD.”
(_k_) and (_l_). There only remain the GEORGIAN Version, which is of the VIth century,—and the SLAVONIC, which is of the IXth. Now, both of these (Dr. Malan informs me) _unequivocally witness to_ Θεός.
Thus far then for the testimony yielded by ancient MANUSCRIPTS and VERSIONS of S. Paul’s Epistles.
[_g_] _Review of the progress which has been hitherto made in the present Enquiry._
Up to this point, you must admit that wondrous little sanction has been obtained for the reading for which _you_ contend, (viz. μυστήριον; ὅς ἐφανερώθη,) as the true reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. Undisturbed in your enjoyment of the testimony borne by Cod. א, you cannot but feel that such testimony is fully counterbalanced by the witness of Cod. A: and further, that the conjoined evidence of the HARKLEIAN, the GEORGIAN, and the SLAVONIC Versions outweighs the single evidence of the GOTHIC.
But what is to be said about the consent of the manuscripts of S. Paul’s Epistles for reading Θεός in this place, _in the proportion of_ 125 _to_ 1? You must surely see that, (as I explained above at pp. 445-6,) such multitudinous testimony is absolutely decisive of the question before us. At p. 30 of your pamphlet, you announce it as a “lesson of primary importance, often reiterated but often forgotten, _ponderari debere testes, non numerari_.” You might have added with advantage,—“_and oftenest of all, misunderstood_.” For are you not aware that, generally speaking, “Number” _constitutes_ “Weight”? If you have discovered some “regia via” which renders the general consent of COPIES,—the general consent of VERSIONS,—the general consent of FATHERS, a consideration of secondary importance, why do you not at once communicate the precious secret to mankind, and thereby save us all a world of trouble?
You will perhaps propose to fall back on Hort’s wild theory of a “_Syrian Text_,”—executed by authority at Antioch somewhere between A.D. 250 and A.D. 350.(982) Be it so. Let that fable be argued upon as if it were a fact. And what follows? That _at a period antecedent to the date of any existing copy_ of the Epistle before us, the Church in her corporate capacity declared Θεός (not ὅς) to be the true reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16.
Only one other head of Evidence (the PATRISTIC) remains to be explored; after which, we shall be able to sum up, and to conclude the present Dissertation.
[h] _Testimony of the_ FATHERS _concerning the true reading of_ 1 _Tim._ iii. 16:—GREGORY OF NYSSA,—DIDYMUS,—THEODORET,—JOHN DAMASCENE,—CHRYSOSTOM,—GREGORY NAZ.,—SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH,—DIODORUS OF TARSUS.
It only remains to ascertain what the FATHERS have to say on this subject. And when we turn our eyes in this direction, we are encountered by a mass of evidence which effectually closes this discussion. You contended just now as eagerly for the Vth-century Codex A, as if its witness were a point of vital importance to you. But I am prepared to show that GREGORY OF NYSSA (a full century before Codex A was produced), in at least 22 places, knew of no other reading but Θεός.(983) Of his weighty testimony you appear to have been wholly unaware in 1869, for you did not even mention Gregory by name (see p. 429). Since however you now admit that his evidence is unequivocally against you, I am willing to hasten forward,—only supplying you (at foot) with the means of verifying what I have stated above concerning the testimony of this illustrious Father.
You are besides aware that DIDYMUS,(984) another illustrious witness, is against you; and that he delivers unquestionable testimony.
You are also aware that THEODORET,(985) in _four_ places, is certainly to be reckoned on the same side:
And further, that JOHN DAMASCENE(986) _twice_ adds his famous evidence to the rest,—and is also against you.
CHRYSOSTOM(987) again, whose testimony you called in question in 1869, you now admit is another of your opponents. I will not linger over his name therefore,—except to remark, that how you can witness a gathering host of ancient Fathers illustrious as these, without misgiving, passes my comprehension. Chrysostom is _three_ times a witness.
Next come two quotations from GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS,—which I observe you treat as “inconclusive.” I retain them all the same.(988) You are reminded that this most rhetorical of Fathers is seldom more precise in quoting Scripture.
And to the same century which Gregory of Nazianzus adorned, is probably to be referred,—(it cannot possibly be later than A.D. 350, though it may be a vast deal more ancient,)—THE TITLE bestowed, in the way of summary, on that portion of S. Paul’s first Epistle to Timothy which is contained between chap. iii. 16 and chap. iv. 7,—viz., Περὶ ΘΕΊΑΣ ΣΑΡΚώσεως. We commonly speak of this as the seventh of the “_Euthalian_” κεφάλαια or chapters: but Euthalius himself declares that those 18 titles were “devised by a certain very wise and pious Father;”(989) and this particular title (Περὶ θείας σαρκώσεως) is freely employed and discussed in Gregory of Nyssa’s treatise against Apolinaris,(990)—which latter had, in fact, made it part of the title of his own heretical treatise.(991) That the present is a very weighty attestation of the reading, ΘΕῸΣ ἐφανερώθη ἐν ΣΑΡΚΊ no one probably will deny: a memorable proof moreover that Θεός(992) must have been universally read in 1 Tim. iii. 16 throughout the century which witnessed the production of codices B and א.
SEVERUS, BP. OF ANTIOCH, you also consider a “not unambiguous” witness. I venture to point out to you that when a Father of the Church, who has been already insisting on the GODhead of CHRIST (καθ᾽ ὅ γὰρ ὑπῆρχε Θεός,) goes on to speak of Him as τὸν ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθέντα Θεόν, there is no “ambiguity” whatever about the fact that he is quoting from 1 Tim. iii. 16.(993)
And why are we only “_perhaps_” to add the testimony of DIODORUS OF TARSUS; seeing that Diodorus adduces S. Paul’s actual words (Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί), and expressly says that he finds them in _S. Paul’s Epistle to Timothy_?(994) How—may I be permitted to ask—would you have a quotation made plainer?
[i] _Bp. Ellicott as a controversialist. The case of_ EUTHALIUS.
Forgive me, my lord Bishop, if I declare that the _animus_ you display in conducting the present critical disquisition not only astonishes, but even shocks me. You seem to say,—_Non persuadebis, etiamsi persuaseris_. The plainest testimony you reckon doubtful, if it goes against you: an unsatisfactory quotation, if it makes for your side, you roundly declare to be “evidence” which “stands the test of examination.”(995)... “We have examined his references carefully” (you say). “Gregory of Nyssa, Didymus of Alexandria, Theodoret and John Damascene (_who died_ severally about 394, 396, 457 and 756A.D.) _seem_ unquestionably to have read Θεός.”(996) Excuse me for telling you that this is not the language of a candid enquirer after Truth. Your grudging admission of the _unequivocal_ evidence borne by these four illustrious Fathers:—your attempt to detract from the importance of their testimony by screwing down their date “to the sticking place:”—your assertion that the testimony of a fifth Father “_is not unambiguous_:”—your insinuation that the emphatic witness of a sixth may “_perhaps_” be inadmissible:—all this kind of thing is not only quite unworthy of a Bishop when he turns disputant, but effectually indisposes his opponent to receive his argumentation with that respectful deference which else would have been undoubtedly its due.
Need I remind you that men do not write their books when they are _in articulo mortis_? Didymus _died_ in A.D. 394, to be sure: but he was then 85 years of age. He was therefore born in A.D. 309, and is said to have flourished in 347. How old do you suppose were the sacred codices he had employed _till then_? See you not that such testimony as his to the Text of Scripture must in fairness be held to belong to _the first quarter of the IVth century_?—is more ancient in short (and infinitely more important) than that of any written codex with which we are acquainted?
Pressed by my “cloud of witnesses,” you seek to get rid of _them_ by insulting _me_. “We pass over” (you say) “_names brought in to swell the number, such as Euthalius_,—_for whom no reference is given_.”(997) Do you then suspect me of the baseness,—nay, do you mean seriously to impute it to me,—of introducing “names” “to swell the number” of witnesses on my side? Do you mean further to insinuate that I prudently gave no reference in the case of “Euthalius,” because I was unable to specify any place where his testimony is found?... I should really pause for an answer, but that a trifling circumstance solicits me, which, if it does not entertain the Bp. of Gloucester and Bristol, will certainly entertain every one else who takes the trouble to read these pages.
“Such as _Euthalius_”! You had evidently forgotten when you penned that offensive sentence, that EUTHALIUS is one of the few Fathers _adduced by yourself_(998) (but for whom you “gave no reference,”) in 1869,—when you were setting down the Patristic evidence in favour of Θεός.... This little incident is really in a high degree suggestive. Your practice has evidently been to appropriate Patristic references(999) without thought or verification,—prudently to abstain from dropping a hint how you came by them,—but to use them like dummies, for show. At the end of a few years, (naturally enough,) you entirely forget the circumstance,—and proceed vigorously to box the ears of the first unlucky Dean who comes in your way, whom you suspect of having come by his learning (such as it is) in the same slovenly manner. Forgive me for declaring (while my ears are yet tingling) that if you were even moderately acquainted with this department of Sacred Science, you would see at a glance that my Patristic references are _never_ obtained at second hand: for the sufficient reason that elsewhere they are not to be met with. But waiving this, you have made it _luce clarius_ to all the world that so late as the year 1882, to _you_ “Euthalius” was nothing else but “a name.” And this really does astonish me: for not only was he a famous Ecclesiastical personage, (a Bishop like yourself,) but his work (the date of which is A.D. 458,) is one with which no Author of a “_Critical_ Commentary” on S. Paul’s Epistles can afford to be unacquainted. Pray read what Berriman has written concerning Euthalius (pp. 217 to 222) in his admirable “_Dissertation on_ 1 _Tim._ iii. 16.” Turn also, if you please, to the _Bibliotheca_ of Gallandius (vol. x. 197-323), and you will recognize the plain fact that the _only_ reason why, in the “Quarterly Review,” “no reference is given for Euthalius,” is because the only reference possible is—1 Tim. iii. 16.
[j] _The testimony of the letter ascribed to_ DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA. _Six other primitive witnesses to_ 1 Tim. iii. 16, _specified_.
Then further, you absolutely take no notice of the remarkable testimony which I adduced (p. 101) from a famous Epistle purporting to have been addressed by DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA (A.D. 264) to Paul of Samosata. That the long and interesting composition in question(1000) was not actually the work of the great Dionysius, is inferred—(whether rightly or wrongly I am not concerned to enquire)—from the fact that the Antiochian Fathers say expressly that Dionysius did not deign to address Paul personally. But you are requested to remember that the epistle must needs have been written by _somebody_:(1001) that it may safely be referred to the IIIrd century; and that it certainly witnesses to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη,(1002)—which is the only matter of any real importance to my argument. Its testimony is, in fact, as express and emphatic as words can make it.
And here, let me call your attention to the circumstance that there are at least SIX OTHER PRIMITIVE WITNESSES, _some_ of whom must needs have recognized the reading for which I am here contending, (viz. Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί,) though not one of them quotes the place _in extenso_, nor indeed refers to it in such a way as effectually to bar the door against reasonable dispute. The present is in fact just the kind of text which, from its undeniable grandeur,—its striking rhythm,—and yet more its dogmatic importance,—was sure to attract the attention of the earliest, no less than the latest of the Fathers. Accordingly, the author of the Epistle _ad Diognetum_(1003) clearly refers to it early in the IInd century; though not in a way to be helpful to us in our present enquiry. I cannot feel surprised at the circumstance.
The yet earlier references in the epistles of (1) IGNATIUS (three in number) _are_ helpful, and may not be overlooked. They are as follows:—Θεοῦ ἀνθρωπίνως φανερουμένου:—ἐν σαρκὶ γενόμενος Θεός—εἶς Θεός ἐστιν ὁ φανερώσας ἑαυτὸν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, ὅς ἐστιν αὐτοῦ Λόγος ἀΐδιος.(1004) It is to be wished, no doubt, that these references had been a little more full and explicit: but the very early Fathers are ever observed to quote Scripture thus partially,—allusively,—elliptically.
(2) BARNABAS has just such another allusive reference to the words in dispute, which seems to show that he must have read Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί: viz. Ἰησοῦς ... ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ τύπῳ καὶ ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς.(1005)—(3) HIPPOLYTUS, on two occasions, even more unequivocally refers to this reading. Once, while engaged in proving that CHRIST is GOD, he says:—Οὗτος προελθὼν εἰς κόσμον Θεὸς ἐν σώματι ἐφανερώθη:(1006)—and again, in a very similar passage which Theodoret quotes from the same Father’s lost work on the Psalms:—Οὗτος ὁ προελθὼν εἰς τὸν κόσμον, Θεὸς καὶ ἄνθρωπος ἐφανερώθη.(1007)—(4) GREGORY THAUMATURGUS, (if it really be he,) seems also to refer directly to this place when he says (in a passage quoted by Photius(1008)),—καὶ ἔστι Θεὸς ἀληθινὸς ὁ ἄσαρκος ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς.—Further, (5) in the APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS, we meet with the expression,—Θεὸς Κύριος ὁ ἐπιφανεὶς ἡμῖν εν σαρκί.(1009)
And when (6) BASIL THE GREAT [A.D. 377], writing to the men of Sozopolis whose faith the Arians had assailed, remarks that such teaching “subverts the saving Dispensation of our LORD JESUS CHRIST;” and, blending Rom. xvi. 25, 26 with “the great mystery” of 1 Tim. iii. 16,—(in order to afford himself an opportunity of passing in review our SAVIOUR’S work for His Church in ancient days,)—viz. “After all these, at the end of the day, αὐτὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, γενόμενος ἐκ γυναικός:”(1010)—_who_ will deny that such an one probably found neither ὅς nor ὅ, but Θεός, in the copy before him?
I have thought it due to the enquiry I have in hand to give a distinct place to the foregoing evidence—such as it is—of Ignatius, Barnabas, Hippolytus, Gregory Thaumaturgus, the Apostolical Constitutions, and Basil. But I shall not _build_ upon such foundations. Let me go on with what is indisputable.
[k] _The testimony of_ CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA.
Next, for CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA, whom you decline to accept as a witness for Θεός. You are prepared, I trust, to submit to the logic of _facts_?
In a treatise addressed to the Empresses Arcadia and Marina, Cyril is undertaking to prove that our LORD is very and eternal GOD.(1011) His method is to establish several short theses all tending to this one object, by citing from the several books of the N. T., in turn, the principal texts which make for his purpose. Presently, (viz. at page 117,) he announces as his thesis,—“_Faith in_ CHRIST _as_ GOD;” and when he comes to 1 Timothy, _he quotes_ iii. 16 _at length_; reasons upon it, and points out that Θεὸς ἐν σαρκί is here spoken of.(1012) There can be no doubt about this quotation, which exhibits no essential variety of reading;—a quotation which Euthymius Zigabenus reproduces in his “_Panoplia_,”—and which C. F. Matthæi has with painful accuracy edited from that source.(1013)—Once more. In a newly recovered treatise of Cyril, 1 Tim. iii. 16 is again _quoted at length with_ Θεός,—followed by the remark that “our Nature was justified, by GOD _manifested in Him_.”(1014) I really see not how you would have Cyril more distinctly recognize Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί as the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16.(1015)
You are requested to observe that in order to prevent cavil, I forbear to build on two other famous places in Cyril’s writings where the evidence for reading Θεός is about balanced by a corresponding amount of evidence which has been discovered for reading ὅς. Not but what the _context_ renders it plain that Θεός must have been Cyril’s word on both occasions. Of this let the reader himself be judge:—
(1) In a treatise, addressed to the Empresses Eudocia and Pulcheria, Cyril quotes 1 Tim. iii. 16 _in extenso_.(1016) “If” (he begins)—“the Word, being GOD, could be said to inhabit Man’s nature (ἐπανθρωπῆσαι) without yet ceasing to be GOD, but remained for ever what He was before,—then, great indeed is the mystery of Godliness.”(1017) He proceeds in the same strain at much length.(1018) Next (2) the same place of Timothy is just as fully quoted in Cyril’s _Explanatio xii. capitum_: where not only the Thesis,(1019) but also the context constrains belief that Cyril wrote Θεός:—“What then means ‘was manifested in the flesh’? It means that the Word of GOD the FATHER was made flesh.... In this way therefore we say that He was both GOD and Man.... Thus” (Cyril concludes) “is He GOD and LORD of all.”(1020)
But, as aforesaid, I do not propose to rest my case on either of these passages; but on those two other places concerning which there exists no variety of tradition as to the reading. Whether the passages in which the reading is _certain_ ought not to be held to determine the reading of the passages concerning which the evidence is about evenly balanced;—whether in doubtful cases, the requirements of the context should not be allowed to turn the scale;—I forbear to enquire. I take my stand on what is clear and undeniable. On the other hand you are challenged to produce a single instance in Cyril of μυστηριον; ὅς ἐφανερώθη, where the reading is not equally balanced by μυστήριον Θεός. And (as already explained) of course it makes nothing for ὅς that Cyril should sometimes say that “the mystery” here spoken of is CHRIST who “was manifested in the flesh,” &c. A man with nothing else but the A. V. of the “Textus Receptus” before him might equally well say _that_. See above, pages 427-8.
Not unaware am I of a certain brief Scholium(1021) which the Critics freely allege in proof that Cyril wrote ὅς (not Θεός), and which _as they quote it_, (viz. so mutilated as effectually to conceal its meaning,) certainly seems to be express in its testimony. But the thing is all a mistake. Rightly understood, the Scholium in question renders no testimony at all;—as I proceed to explain. The only wonder is that such critics as Bentley,(1022) Wetstein,(1023) Birch,(1024) Tischendorf,(1025) or even Tregelles,(1026) should not have seen this for themselves.
The author, (whether Photius, or some other,) is insisting on our LORD’S absolute exemption from sin, although for our sakes He became very Man. In support of this, he quotes Is. liii. 9, (or rather, 1 Pet. ii. 22)—“_Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth_.” “S. Cyril” (he proceeds) “in the 12th ch. of his Scholia says,—‘_Who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit_;’ for He was in no way subject to our infirmities,” and so on. Now, every one must see at a glance that it is entirely to misapprehend the matter to suppose that it is any part of the Scholiast’s object, in what precedes, to invite attention to so irrelevant a circumstance as that Cyril began his quotation of 1 Tim. iii. 16, with ὅς instead of Θεός.(1027) As Waterland remarked to Berriman 150 years ago,(1028) the Scholiast’s one object was to show how Cyril interpreted the expression “_justified in the Spirit_.” Altogether misleading is it to quote _only the first line_, beginning at ὅς and ending at πνεύματι, as the Critics _invariably_ do. The point to which in this way prominence is exclusively given, was clearly, to the Commentator, a matter of no concern at all. He quotes from Cyril’s “_Scholia de Incarnatione Unigeniti_,”(1029) in preference to any other of Cyril’s writings, for a vastly different reason.(1030) And yet _this_—(viz. Cyril’s supposed substitution of ὅς for Θεός)—is, in the account of the Critics, the one thing which the Scholiast was desirous of putting on record.
In the meanwhile, on referring to the place in Cyril, we make an important discovery. The Greek of the Scholium in question being lost, we depend for our knowledge of its contents on the Latin translation of Marius Mercator, Cyril’s contemporary. And in that translation, no trace is discoverable of either ὅς or ὅ.(1031) The quotation from Timothy begins abruptly at ἐφανερώθη. The Latin is as follows:—“Divinus Paulus _magnum quidem_ ait _esse mysterium pietatis_. Et vere ita se res habet: _manifestatus est_ enim _in carne_, cum sit DEUS Verbum.”(1032) The supposed hostile evidence from this quarter proves therefore to be non-existent. I pass on.
[l] _The argument_ e silentio _considered._
The argument _e silentio_,—(of all arguments the most precarious,)—has not been neglected.—“But we cannot stop here,” you say:(1033) “Wetstein observed long ago that Cyril does not produce this text when he does produce Rom. ix. 5 in answer to the allegation which he quotes from Julian that S. Paul never employed the word Θεός of our LORD.”(1034) Well but, neither does Gregory of Nyssa produce this text when he is writing a Treatise expressly to prove the GODhead of the SON and of the HOLY GHOST. “_Grave est_,”—says Tischendorf.(1035) No, not “_grave_” at all, I answer: but whether “_grave_” or not, that _Gregory of Nyssa_ read Θεός in this place, is at least certain. As for Wetstein, you have been reminded already, that “_ubi de Divinitate_ CHRISTI _agitur, ibi profecto sui dissimilior deprehenditur_.”(1036) Examine the place in Cyril Alex. for yourself, reading steadily on from p. 327 a to p. 333 b. Better still, read—paying special attention to his Scriptural proofs—Cyril’s two Treatises “_De rectâ Fide_.”(1037) But in fact attend to the method of Athanasius, of Basil, or of whomsoever else you will;(1038) and you will speedily convince yourself that the argument _e silentio_ is next to valueless on occasions like the present.
Certain of the Critics have jumped to the conclusion that the other Cyril cannot have been acquainted with S. Mark xvi. 19 (and therefore with the “last Twelve Verses” of his Gospel), because when, in his Catechetical Lectures, he comes to the “Resurrection,” “Ascension,” and “Session at the Right Hand,”—he does not quote S. Mark xvi. 19. And yet,—(as it has been elsewhere(1039) fully shown, and in fact the reason is assigned by Cyril himself,)—this is only because, on the previous day, being Sunday, Cyril of Jerusalem had enlarged upon the Scriptural evidence for those august verities, (viz. S. Mark xvi. 19,—S. Luke xxiv. 51,—Acts i. 9); and therefore was unwilling to say over again before the same auditory what he had so recently delivered.
But indeed,—(the remark is worth making in passing,)—many of our modern Critics seem to forget that the heretics with whom Athanasius, Basil, the Gregories, &c., were chiefly in conflict, did not by any means deny the Godhead of our LORD. Arians and Apolinarians alike admitted that CHRIST _was_ GOD. This, in fact, has been pointed out already. Very differently indeed would the ancient Fathers have expressed themselves, could they have imagined the calamitous use which, at the end of 1500 years, perverse wits would make of their writings,—the astonishing inferences they would propose to extract from their very silence. I may not go further into the subject in this place.
[m] _The story about_ MACEDONIUS. _His testimony._
It follows to say a few words concerning MACEDONIUS II., patriarch of Constantinople [A.D. 496-511], of whom it has been absurdly declared that he was _the inventor_ of the reading for which I contend. I pointed out on a former occasion that it would follow from that very circumstance, (as far as it is true,) that Macedonius “_is a witness for_ Θεός—_perforce_.”(1040)
Instead of either assenting to this, (which is surely a self-evident proposition!),—or else disproving it,—you are at the pains to furbish up afresh, as if it were a novelty, the stale and stupid figment propagated by Liberatus of Carthage, that Macedonius was expelled from his see by the Emperor Anastasius for falsifying 1 Timothy iii. 16. This exploded fable you preface by announcing it as “_a remarkable fact_,” that “it was the _distinct belief of Latin writers_ as early as the VIth century that the reading of this passage had been corrupted by the Greeks.”(1041) How you get your “remarkable fact,” out of your premiss,—“the distinct belief of Latin writers,” out of the indistinct rumour [“_dicitur_”] vouched for by a single individual,—I see not. But let that pass.
“The story shows” (you proceed) “that the Latins in the sixth century believed ὅς to be the reading of the older Greek manuscripts, and regarded Θεός as a false reading made out of it.” (p. 69.)—My lord Bishop, I venture to declare that the story shows nothing of the sort. The Latins in the VIth (and _every other_) century believed that—_not_ ὅς, but—ὅ, was the right reading of the Greek in this place. Their belief on this subject however has nothing whatever to do with the story before us. Liberatus was not the spokesman of “the Latins of the VIth,” (or any other bygone) “century:” but (as Bp. Pearson points out) a singularly ill-informed Archdeacon of Carthage; who, had he taken ever so little pains with the subject, would have become aware that for no such reason as he assigns was Macedonius [A.D. 511] thrust out of his bishopric. If, however, there were at least thus much of truth in the story,—namely, that one of the charges brought against Macedonius was his having corrupted Scripture, and notably his having altered ὅς into Θεός in 1 Tim. iii. 16;—surely, the most obvious of all inferences would be, that Θεός _was found in copies of S. Paul’s epistles put forth at Constantinople by archiepiscopal authority between_ A.D. 496 _and_ A.D. 511. To say the least,—Macedonius, by his writings or by his discourses, certainly by his influence, _must have shown himself favourable to_ Θεός (_not_ ὅς) ἐφανερώθη. Else, with what show of reason could the charge have been brought against him? “I suppose” (says our learned Dr. John Mill) “that the fable before us arose out of the fact that Macedonius, on hearing that in several MSS. of the Constantinopolitan Church the text of 1 Tim. iii. 16 (which witnesses expressly to the Godhead of CHRIST) had been depraved, was careful that those copies should be corrected in conformity with the best exemplars.”(1042)
But, in fact, I suspect you completely misunderstand the whole matter. You speak of “_the_ story.” But pray,—_Which_ “story” do you mean? “The story” which Liberatus told in the VIth century? or the ingenious gloss which Hincmar, Abp. of Rheims, put upon it in the IXth? You _mention_ the first,—you _reason from_ the second. Either will suit me equally well. But—_una la volta, per carità!_
Hincmar, (whom the critics generally follow,) relates that Macedonius turned ΟΣ into ΘΕΟΣ (_i.e._ _ΘΣ_).(1043) _If Macedonius did, he preferred_ Θεός _to_ ὅς.... But the story which Liberatus promulgated is quite different.(1044) Let him be heard:—
“At this time, Macedonius, bp. of CP., is said to have been deposed by the emperor Anastasius on a charge of having falsified the Gospels, and notably that saying of the Apostle, ‘_Quia apparuit in carne, justificatus est in spiritu._’ He was charged with having turned the Greek monosyllable ΟΣ (_i.e._ ‘_qui_’), by the change of a single letter (Ω for Ο) into ΩΣ: _i.e._ ‘_ut esset Deus apparuit per carnem._’ ”
Now, that this is a very lame story, all must see. In reciting the passage
in Latin, Liberatus himself exhibits neither “_qui_,” nor “_quod_,” nor
“_Deus_,”—but “QUIA _apparuit in carne_.” (The translator of Origen, by
the way, does the same thing.(1045)) And yet, Liberatus straightway adds
(as the effect of the change) “_ut esset Deus apparuit per carnem_:” as if
that were possible, unless “_Deus_” stood in the text already! Quite plain
in the meantime is it, that, according to Liberatus, ὡς was the word which
Macedonius introduced into 1 Tim. iii. 16. And it is worth observing that
the scribe who rendered into Greek Pope Martin I.’s fifth Letter (written
on the occasion of the Lateran Council A.D. 649),—having to translate the
Pope’s quotation from the Vulgate (“_quod manifestatus est_,”)—exhibits ὡς
ἐφανερώθη in this place.(1046)
High time it becomes that I should offer it as my opinion that those Critics are right (Cornelius à Lapide [1614] and Cotelerius [1681]) who, reasoning from what Liberatus actually says, shrewdly infer that there must have existed codices in the time of Macedonius which exhibited ΟΣ ΘΕΟΣ in this place; and that _this_ must be the reading to which Liberatus refers.(1047) _Such codices exist still._ One, is preserved in the library of the Basilian monks at Crypta Ferrata, already spoken of at pp. 446-8: another, is at Paris. I call them respectively “Apost. 83” and “Paul 282.”(1048) This is new.
Enough of all this however. Too much in fact. I must hasten on. The entire fable, by whomsoever fabricated, has been treated with well-merited contempt by a succession of learned men ever since the days of Bp. Pearson.(1049) And although during the last century several writers of the unbelieving school (chiefly Socinians(1050)) revived and embellished the silly story, in order if possible to get rid of a text which witnesses inconveniently to the GODHEAD of CHRIST, one would have hoped that, in these enlightened days, a Christian Bishop of the same Church which the learned, pious, and judicious John Berriman adorned a century and a-half ago, would have been ashamed to rekindle the ancient strife and to swell the Socinian chorus. I shall be satisfied if I have at least convinced you that Macedonius is a witness for Θεός in 1 Tim. iii. 16.
[n] _The testimony of an_ ANONYMOUS _writer_ (A.D. 430),—_of_ EPIPHANIUS (A.D. 787),—_of_ THEODORUS STUDITA (A.D. 795?),—_of_ SCHOLIA,—_of_ ŒCUMENIUS,—_of_ THEOPHYLACT,—_of_ EUTHYMIUS.
The evidence of an ANONYMOUS Author who has been mistaken for Athanasius,—you pass by in silence. That this writer lived in the days when the Nestorian Controversy was raging,—namely, in the first half of the Vth century,—is at all events evident. He is therefore at least as ancient a witness for the text of Scripture as codex A itself: and Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη is clearly what he found written in this place.(1051) Why do you make such a fuss about Cod. A, and yet ignore this contemporary witness? We do not know _who wrote_ the Epistle in question,—true. Neither do we know who wrote Codex A. What _then_?
Another eminent witness for Θεός, whom also you do not condescend to notice, is EPIPHANIUS, DEACON OF CATANA in Sicily,—who represented Thomas, Abp. of Sardinia, at the 2nd Nicene Council, A.D. 787. A long discourse of this Ecclesiastic may be seen in the Acts of the Council, translated into Latin,—which makes his testimony so striking. But in fact his words are express,(1052) and the more valuable because they come from a region of Western Christendom from which textual utterances are rare.
A far more conspicuous writer of nearly the same date, THEODORUS STUDITA of CP, [A.D. 759-826,] is also a witness for Θεός.(1053) How does it happen, my lord Bishop, that you contend so eagerly for the testimony of codices F and G, which are but _one_ IXth-century witness after all,—and yet entirely disregard living utterances like these, of known men,—who belonged to known places,—and wrote at a known time? Is it because they witness unequivocally against you?
Several ancient SCHOLIASTS, expressing themselves diversely, deserve enumeration here, who are all witnesses for Θεός exclusively.(1054) Lastly,—
ŒCUMENIUS(1055) (A.D. 990),—THEOPHYLACT(1056) (A.D. 1077),—EUTHYMIUS(1057) (A.D. 1116),—close this enumeration. They are all three clear witnesses for reading not ὅς but Θεός.
[o] _The testimony of_ ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION.
Nothing has been hitherto said concerning the Ecclesiastical usage with respect to this place of Scripture. 1 Tim. iii. 16 occurs in a lection consisting of nine verses (1 Tim. iii. 13-iv. 5), which used to be publicly read in almost all the Churches of Eastern Christendom on the Saturday before Epiphany.(1058) It was also read, in not a few Churches, on the 34th Saturday of the year.(1059) Unfortunately, the book which contains lections from S. Paul’s Epistles, (“_Apostolus_” it is technically called,) is of comparatively rare occurrence,—is often found in a mutilated condition,—and (for this and other reasons) is, as often as not, without this particular lesson.(1060) Thus, an analysis of 90 copies of the “Apostolus” (No. 1 to 90), is attended by the following result:—10 are found to have been set down in error;(1061) while 41 are declared—(sometimes, I fear, through the unskilfulness of those who profess to have examined them),—not to contain 1 Tim. iii. 16.(1062) Of 7, I have not been able to obtain tidings.(1063) Thus, there are but 32 copies of the book called “Apostolus” available for our present purpose.
But of these thirty-two, _twenty-seven_ exhibit Θεός.(1064) You will be interested to hear that _one_ rejoices in the unique reading Θεοῦ:(1065) while another Copy of the ’Apostolus’ keeps “Paul 282” in countenance by reading ὅς Θεός.(1066) In other words, “GOD” is found in 29 copies out of 32: while “who” (ὅς) is observed to survive in only 3,—and they, Western documents of suspicious character. Two of these were produced in one and the same Calabrian monastery; and they still stand, side by side, in the library of Crypta Ferrata:(1067) being exclusively in sympathy with the very suspicious Western document at Paris, already described at page 446.
ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION is therefore clearly against _you_, in respect of the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. How _you_ estimate this head of Evidence, I know not. For my own part, I hold it to be of superlative importance. It transports us back, at once, to the primitive age; and is found to be infinitely better deserving of attention than the witness of any extant uncial documents which can be produced. And why? For the plain reason that it must needs have been once attested by _an indefinitely large number of codices more ancient by far than any which we now possess_. In fact, ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION, when superadded to the testimony of Manuscripts and Fathers, becomes an overwhelming consideration.
And now we may at last proceed to sum up. Let me gather out the result of the foregoing fifty pages; and remind the reader briefly of the amount of external testimony producible in support of each of these rival readings:—ὅ,—ὅς—Θεός.
[I.] _Sum of the Evidence of_ VERSIONS, COPIES, FATHERS, _in favour of reading_ μυστήριον; ὅ ἐφανερώθη _in_ 1 Tim. iii. 16.
(α) The reading μυστήριον; ὅ ἐφανερώθη,—(which Wetstein strove hard to bring into favour, and which was highly popular with the Socinian party down to the third quarter of the last century,)—enjoys, as we have seen, (pp. 448-53,) the weighty attestation of the Latin and of the Peschito,—of the Coptic, of the Sahidic, and of the Æthiopic Versions.
No one may presume to speak slightingly of such evidence as this. It is the oldest which can be produced for the truth of anything in the inspired Text of the New Testament; and it comes from the East as well as from the West. Yet is it, in and by itself, clearly inadequate. Two characteristics of Truth are wanting to it,—two credentials,—unfurnished with which, it cannot be so much as seriously entertained. It demands _Variety_ as well as _Largeness of attestation_. It should be able to exhibit in support of its claims the additional witness of COPIES and FATHERS. But,
(β) On the contrary, ὅ is found besides in _only one Greek Manuscript_,—viz. the VIth-century codex Claromontanus, D. And further,
(γ) _Two ancient writers_ alone bear witness to this reading, viz. GELASIUS OF CYZICUS,(1068) whose date is A.D. 476;(1069) and the UNKNOWN AUTHOR of a homily of uncertain date in the Appendix to Chrysostom(1070).... It is scarcely intelligible how, on such evidence, the Critics of the last century can have persuaded themselves (with Grotius) that μυστήριον; ὅ ἐφανερώθη is the true reading of 1 Timothy iii. 16. And yet, in order to maintain this thesis, Sir Isaac Newton descended from the starry sphere and tried his hand at Textual Criticism. Wetstein (1752) freely transferred the astronomer’s labours to his own pages, and thus gave renewed currency to an opinion which the labours of the learned Berriman (1741) had already _demonstrated_ to be untenable.
Whether THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA (in his work “_de Incarnatione_”) wrote ὅς or ὅ, must remain uncertain till a sight has been obtained of his Greek together with its context. I find that he quotes 1 Tim iii. 16 at least three times:—Of the first place, there is only a Latin translation, which begins “QUOD _justificat_US _est in spiritu_.”(1071) The second place comes to us in Latin, Greek, and Syriac: but unsatisfactorily in all three:—(_a_) The Latin version introduces the quotation thus,—“Consonantia et Apostolus dicit, _Et manifeste magnum est pietatis mysterium_, QUI(1072) (or QUOD(1073)) _manifestat_US (or TUM) _est in carne, justificat_US (or TUM) _est in spiritu_:”—(_b_) The Greek, (for which we are indebted to Leontius Byzantinus, A.D. 610,) reads,—Ὅς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι(1074)—divested of all preface.(1075) Those seven words, thus isolated from their context, are accordingly printed by Migne as _a heading_ only:—(_c_) The Syriac translation unmistakably reads, “Et Apostolus dixit, _Vere sublime est hoc mysterium_, QUOD,”—omitting τῆς εὐσεβείας.(1076) The third quotation, which is found only in Syriac,(1077) begins,—“_For truly great is the-mystery of-the-fear-of_ GOD, _who was manifested in-the-flesh and-was-justified in-the-spirit_.” This differs from the received text of the Peschito by substituting a different word for εὐσέβεια, and by employing the emphatic state “the-flesh,” “the-spirit” where the Peschito has the absolute state “flesh,” “spirit.” The two later clauses agree with the Harkleian or Philoxenian.(1078)—I find it difficult from all this to know what precisely to do with Theodore’s evidence. It has a truly oracular ambiguity; wavering between ὅ—ὅς—and even Θεός. You, I observe, (who are only acquainted with the second of the three places above cited, and but imperfectly with _that_,) do not hesitate to cut the knot by simply claiming the heretic’s authority for the reading you advocate,—viz. ὅς. I have thought it due to my readers to tell them all that is known about the evidence furnished by Theodore of Mopsuestia. At all events, the utmost which can be advanced in favour of reading μυστήριον; ὅ in 1 Timothy iii. 16, has now been freely stated. I am therefore at liberty to pass on to the next opinion.
[II.] _Sum of the Evidence of_ VERSIONS, COPIES, FATHERS _in favour of reading_ μυστήριον; ὅς ἐφανερώθη _in_ 1 Timothy iii. 16.
Remarkable it is how completely Griesbach succeeded in diverting the current of opinion with respect to the place before us, into a new channel. At first indeed (viz. in 1777) he retained Θεός in his Text, timidly printing ὅς in small type above it; and remarking,—“_Judicium de hâc lectionis varietate lectoribus liberum relinquere placuit_.” But, at the end of thirty years (viz. in 1806), waxing bolder, Griesbach substituted ὅς for Θεός,—“_ut ipsi_” (as he says) “_nobis constaremus_.” Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers, under your guidance, have followed him: which is to me unaccountable,—seeing that even less authority is producible for ὅς, than for ὅ, in this place. But let the evidence for μυστήριον; ὅς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί be briefly recapitulated:—
(α) It consists of _a single uncial copy_, viz. the corrupt cod. א,—(for, as was fully explained above,(1079) codd. C and F-G yield uncertain testimony): and _perhaps two cursive copies_, viz. Paul 17, (the notorious “33” of the Gospels,)—and a copy at Upsala (No. 73), which is held to require further verification.(1080) To these, are to be added three other liturgical witnesses in the cursive character—being Western copies of the book called “_Apostolus_,” which have only recently come to light. Two of the codices in question are of Calabrian origin.(1081) A few words more on this subject will be found above, at pages 477 and 478.
(β) _The only Version_ which certainly witnesses in favour of ὅς, is the Gothic: which, (as explained at pp. 452-3) exhibits a hopelessly obscure construction, and rests on the evidence of a single copy in the Ambrosian library.
(γ) Of Patristic testimonies (to μυστήριον; ὅς ἐφανερώθη) _there exists not one_. That EPIPHANIUS [A.D. 360] _professing to transcribe_ from an early treatise of his own, in which ἐφανερώθη stands _without a nominative_, should prefix ὅς—proves nothing, as I have fully explained elsewhere.(1082)—The equivocal testimony rendered by THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA [A.D. 390] is already before the reader.(1083)
And this exhausts the evidence for a reading which came in,—and (I venture to predict) will go out,—with the present century. My only wonder is, how an exhibition of 1 Tim. iii. 16 so feebly attested,—so almost _without_ attestation,—can have come to be seriously entertained by any. “Si,”—(as Griesbach remarks concerning 1 John v. 7)—“si tam pauci ... testes ... sufficerent ad demonstrandam lectionis cujusdam γνησιότητα, licet obstent tam multa tamque gravia et testimonia et argumenta; _nullum prorsus superesset in re criticâ veri falsique criterium_, et _textus Novi Testamenti universus plane incertus esset atque dubius_.”(1084)
Yet _this_ is the Reading which you, my lord Bishop, not only stiffly maintain, but which you insist is no longer so much as “_open to reconsideration_.” You are, it seems, for introducing the _clôture_ into Textual debate. But in fact you are for inflicting pains and penalties as well, on those who have the misfortune to differ in opinion from yourself. You discharge all the vials of the united sees of Gloucester and Bristol on _me_ for my presumption in daring to challenge the verdict of “the Textual Criticism of the last fifty years,”—of the Revisers,—and of yourself;—my folly, in venturing to believe that the traditional reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16, (which you admit is at least 1530 years old,) is the right reading after all. You hold me up to public indignation. “He has made” (you say) “an elaborate effort to shake conclusions _about which no professed Scholar has any doubt whatever_; but which an ordinary reader (and to such we address ourselves) might regard as _still open to reconsideration_.”—“Moreover” (you proceed) “this case is of great importance as an example. It illustrates in a striking manner the complete isolation of the Reviewer’s position. If he is right, all other Critics are wrong.”(1085)
Will you permit me, my lord Bishop, as an ordinary writer, addressing (like yourself) “ordinary readers,”—respectfully to point out that you entirely mistake the problem in hand? The Greek Text of the N. T. is not to be settled by MODERN OPINION, but by ANCIENT AUTHORITY.(1086) In this department of enquiry therefore, “_complete isolation_” is his, and _his only_, who is forsaken by COPIES, VERSIONS, FATHERS. The man who is able, on the contrary, to point to an overwhelming company of Ancient Witnesses, and is contented modestly to take up his station at their feet,—such an one can afford to disregard “_The Textual Criticism of the last fifty years_,” if it presumes to contradict _their_ plain decrees; can even afford to smile at the confidence of “professed Scholars” and “Critics,” if they are so ill advised as to set themselves in battle array against that host of ancient men.
To say therefore of such an one, (as _you_ now say of _me_,) “If he is right, all other Critics are wrong,”—is to present an irrelevant issue, and to perplex a plain question. The business of Textual Criticism (as you state at page 28 of your pamphlet) is nothing else but to ascertain “_the consentient testimony of the most ancient Authorities_.” The office of the Textual Critic is none other but to interpret rightly _the solemn verdict of Antiquity_. Do _I_ then interpret that verdict rightly,—or do I not? The whole question resolves itself into _that_! If I do _not_,—pray show me wherein I have mistaken the facts of the case. But if I _do_,—why do you not come over instantly to my side? “_Since_ he is right,” (I shall expect to hear you say,) “it stands to reason that the ‘professed Critics’ whom he has been combating,—myself among the number,—must be wrong.”... I am, you see, loyally accepting the logical issue you have yourself raised. I do but seek to reconcile your dilemma with the actual facts of the problem.
And now, will you listen while I state the grounds on which I am convinced that your substitution of ὅς for Θεός in 1 Tim. iii. 16 is nothing else but a calamitous perversion of the Truth? May I be allowed at least to exhibit, in the same summary way as before, the evidence for reading in this place neither ὅ nor ὅς,—but Θεός?
[III.] _Sum of the Evidence of_ VERSIONS, COPIES, FATHERS, _in favour of reading_ Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη _in_ 1 Tim. iii 16.
Entirely different,—in respect of variety, of quantity and of quality,—from what has gone before, is the witness of Antiquity to the Received Text of 1 Timothy iii. 16: viz. καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον; ΘΕῸΣ ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, κ.τ.λ.... I proceed to rehearse it in outline, having already dwelt in detail upon so much of it as has been made the subject of controversy.(1087) The reader is fully aware(1088) that I do not propose to make argumentative use of the first six names in the ensuing enumeration. To those names, [enclosed within square brackets,] I forbear even to assign numbers; not as entertaining doubt concerning the testimony they furnish, but as resolved to build exclusively on facts which are incontrovertible. Yet is it but reasonable that the whole of the Evidence for Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη should be placed before the reader: and _he_ is in my judgment a wondrous unfair disputant who can attentively survey the evidence which I thus forego, without secretly acknowledging that its combined Weight is considerable; while its Antiquity makes it a serious question whether it is not simply contrary to reason that it should be dispensed with in an enquiry like the present.
[(_a_) In the Ist century then,—it has been already shown (at page 463) that IGNATIUS (A.D. 90) probably recognized the reading before us in three places.]
[(_b_) The brief but significant testimony of BARNABAS will be found in the same page.]
[(_c_) In the IInd century,—HIPPOLYTUS [A.D. 190] (as was explained at page 463,) twice comes forward as a witness on the same side.]
[(_d_) In the IIIrd century,—GREGORY THAUMATURGUS, (if it be indeed he) has been already shown (at page 463) probably to testify to the reading Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη.]
[(_e_) To the same century is referred the work entitled CONSTITUTIONES APOSTOLICÆ: which seems also to witness to the same reading. See above, p. 463.]
[(_f_) BASIL THE GREAT also [A.D. 355], as will be found explained at page 464, must be held to witness to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη in 1 Tim. iii. 16: though his testimony, like that of the five names which go before, being open to cavil, is not here insisted on.]—And now to get upon _terra firma_.
(1) To the IIIrd century then [A.D. 264?], belongs the Epistle ascribed to DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA, (spoken of above, at pages 461-2,) in which 1 Tim. iii. 16 is distinctly quoted in the same way.
(2) In the next, (the IVth) century, unequivocal Patristic witnesses to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη abound. Foremost is DIDYMUS, who presided over the Catechetical School of Alexandria,—the teacher of Jerome and Rufinus. Born A.D. 309, and becoming early famous, he clearly witnesses to what was the reading of the first quarter of the IVth century. His testimony has been set forth at page 456.
(3) GREGORY, BISHOP OF NAZIANZUS [A.D. 355], a contemporary of Basil, in _two_ places is found to bear similar witness. See above page 457.
(4) DIODORUS, (or “Theodorus” as Photius writes his name,) the teacher of Chrysostom,—first of Antioch, afterwards the heretical BISHOP OF TARSUS in Cilicia,—is next to be cited [A.D. 370]. His testimony is given above at pages 458-9.
(5) The next is perhaps our most illustrious witness,—viz. GREGORY, BISHOP OF NYSSA in Cappadocia [A.D. 370]. References to at least _twenty-two_ places of his writings have been already given at page 456.
(6) Scarcely less important than the last-named Father, is CHRYSOSTOM [A.D. 380], first of Antioch,—afterwards PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE,—who in _three_ places witnesses plainly to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη. See above, page 457.
(7) And to this century, (not later certainly than the last half of it,) is to be referred the title of that κεφάλαιον, or chapter, of St. Paul’s First Epistle to Timothy which contains chap. iii. 16,—(indeed, which _begins_ with it,) viz. Περὶ θείας σαρκώσεως. Very eloquently does that title witness to the fact that Θεός was the established reading of the place under discussion, before either cod. B or cod. א was produced. See above, pages 457-8.
(8) In the Vth century,—besides the CODEX ALEXANDRINUS (cod. A,) concerning which so much has been said already (page 431 to page 437),—we are able to appeal for the reading Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη, to,
(9) CYRIL, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, [A.D. 410,] who in _at least two_ places witnesses to it unequivocally. See above, pp. 464 to 470. So does,
(10) THEODORET, BISHOP OF CYRUS in Syria, [A.D. 420]: who, in at least _four_ places, (see above, page 456) renders unequivocal and important witness on the same side.
(11) Next, the ANONYMOUS AUTHOR claims notice [A.D. 430], whose composition is found in the Appendix to the works of Athanasius. See above, page 475.
(12) You will be anxious to see your friend EUTHALIUS, BISHOP OF SULCA, duly recognized in this enumeration. He comes next. [A.D. 458.] The discussion concerning him will be found above, at page 459 to page 461.
(13) MACEDONIUS II, PATRIARCH OF CP. [A.D. 496] must of necessity be mentioned here, as I have very fully explained at page 470 to page 474.
(14) To the VIth century belongs the GEORGIAN Version, as already noted at page 454.
(15) And hither is to be referred the testimony of SEVERUS, BISHOP OF ANTIOCH [A.D. 512], which has been already particularly set down at page 458.
(16) To the VIIth century [A.D. 616] belongs the HARKLEIAN (or PHILOXENIAN) Version; concerning which, see above, page 450. “That Θεός was the reading of the manuscripts from which this Version was made, is put beyond reach of doubt by the fact that in twelve of the other places where εὐσέβεια occurs,(1089) the words ܩܦܝܕܘܐ ܕܗܬܐ (or ܐܬܗܕ ܐܘܕܝܦܩ) (‘_beauty-of-fear_’) are found _without_ the addition of ܐܠܚܐ (or ܐܚܠܐ) (‘GOD’). It is noteworthy, that on the thirteenth occasion (1 Tim. ii. 2), where the Peschito reads ‘_fear of_ GOD,’ the Harkleian reads ‘_fear_’ only. On the other hand, the Harkleian margin of Acts iii. 12 expressly states that εὐσέβια is the Greek equivalent of ܩܦܝܕܘܐ ܕܗܬܐ (or ܐܬܗܕ ܐܘܕܝܦܩ) (‘_beauty-of-fear_’). This effectually establishes the fact that the author of the Harkleian recension found Θεός in his Greek manuscript of 1 Tim. iii. 16.”(1090)
(17) In the VIIIth century, JOHN DAMASCENE [A.D. 730] pre-eminently claims attention. He is _twice_ a witness for Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη, as was explained at page 457.
(18) Next to be mentioned is EPIPHANIUS, DEACON OF CATANA; whose memorable testimony at the 2nd Nicene Council [A.D. 787] has been set down above, at page 475. And then,
(19) THEODORUS STUDITA of CP. [A.D. 790],—concerning whom, see above, at pages 475-6.
(20), (21) _and_ (22). To the IXth century belong the three remaining uncial codices, which alike witness to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί:—viz. the “COD. MOSQUENSIS” (K); the “COD. ANGELICUS” (L); and the “COD. PORPHYRIANUS” (P).
(23) The SLAVONIC VERSION belongs to the same century, and exhibits the same reading.
(24) Hither also may be referred several ancient SCHOLIA which all witness to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, as I explained at page 476.
(25) To the Xth century belongs ŒCUMENIUS [A.D. 990], who is also a witness on the same side. See page 476.
(26) To the XIth century, THEOPHYLACT [A.D. 1077], who bears express testimony to the same reading. See page 476.
(27) To the XIIth century, EUTHYMIUS [A.D. 1116], who closes the list with his approving verdict. See page 476.
And thus we reach a period when there awaits us a mass of testimony which transports us back (_per saltum_) to the Church’s palmiest days; testimony, which rightly understood, is absolutely decisive of the point now under discussion. I allude to the testimony of EVERY KNOWN COPY OF S. PAUL’S EPISTLES except the three, or four, already specified, viz. D of S. Paul; א, 17, and perhaps 73. A few words on this last head of Evidence may not be without the grace of novelty even to yourself. They are supplementary to what has already been offered on the same subject from page 443 to page 446.
The copies of S. Paul’s Epistles (in cursive writing) supposed to exist in European libraries,—not including those in the monasteries of Greece and the Levant,(1091)—amount to at least 302.(1092) Out of this number, 2 are fabulous:(1093)—1 has been destroyed by fire:(1094)—and 6 have strayed into unknown localities.(1095) Add, that 37 (for various reasons) are said not to contain the verse in question;(1096) while of 2, I have been hitherto unsuccessful in obtaining any account:(1097)—and it will be seen that the sum of the available cursive copies of S. Paul’s Epistles is exactly 254.
Now, that 2 of these 254 cursive copies (viz. Paul 17 and 73)—exhibit ὅς,—you have been so eager (at pp. 71-2 of your pamphlet) to establish, that I am unwilling to do more than refer you back to pages 443, -4, -5, where a few words have been already offered in reply. Permit me, however, to submit to your consideration, as a set-off against those _two copies_ of S. Paul’s Epistles which read ὅς,—the following _two-hundred and fifty-two copies_ which read Θεός.(1098) To speak with perfect accuracy,—4 of these (252) exhibit ὁ Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη;(1099)—1, ὅς Θεός;(1100)—and 247, Θεός absolutely. The numbers follow:—
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 16. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 52. 55. 56. 57. 59. 62. 63. 65. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 74. 75. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 120. 121. 122. 123. 125. 126. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 149. 150. 151. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 188. 189. 190. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 211. 212. 213. 215. 216. 217. 218.(1101) 219. 220. 221. 222. 223. 224. 226. 227. 228. 229. 230. 231. 232. 233. 234. 235. 236. 237. 238. 239. 240. 241. 242. 243. 244. 245. 246. 247. 249. 250. 251. 252. 253. 255. 256. 257. 258. 260. 262. 264. 265. 266. 267. 268. 269. 270. 272. 273. 274. 276. 277. 278. 279. 280. 281. 282.(1102) 283. 285. 288. 289. 290. 291. 292. 294. 295. 296. 297. 298. 299. 300. 301.
Behold then the provision which THE AUTHOR of Scripture has made for the effectual conservation in its integrity of this portion of His written Word! Upwards of eighteen hundred years have run their course since the HOLY GHOST by His servant, Paul, rehearsed the “mystery of Godliness;” declaring _this_ to be the great foundation-fact,—namely, that “GOD WAS MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH.” And lo, out of _two hundred and fifty-four_ copies of S. Paul’s Epistles no less than _two hundred and fifty-two_ are discovered to have preserved that expression. Such “Consent” amounts to _Unanimity_; and, (as I explained at pp. 454-5,) unanimity in this subject-matter, is conclusive.
The copies of which we speak, (you are requested to observe,) were produced in every part of ancient Christendom,—being derived in every instance from copies older than themselves; which again were transcripts of copies older still. They have since found their way, without design or contrivance, into the libraries of every country of Europe,—where, for hundreds of years they have been jealously guarded. And,—(I repeat the question already hazarded at pp. 445-6, and now respectfully propose it to _you_, my lord Bishop; requesting you at your convenience to favour me publicly with an answer;)—For what conceivable reason can this multitude of witnesses be supposed to have entered into a wicked conspiracy to deceive mankind?
True, that no miracle has guarded the sacred Text in this, or in any other place. On the other hand, for the last 150 years, Unbelief has been carping resolutely at this grand proclamation of the Divinity of CHRIST,—in order to prove that not this, but some other thing, it must have been, which the Apostle wrote. And yet (as I have fully shown) the result of all the evidence procurable is to establish that the Apostle must be held to have written no other thing but _this_.
To the overwhelming evidence thus furnished by 252 out of 254 cursive _Copies_ of S. Paul’s Epistles,—is to be added the evidence supplied by the _Lectionaries_. It has been already explained (viz. at pp. 477-8) that out of 32 copies of the “Apostolus,” 29 concur in witnessing to Θεός. I have just (May 7th) heard of another in the Vatican.(1103) To these 30, should be added the 3 Liturgical codices referred to at pp. 448 and 474, _note_ 1. Now this is emphatically the voice of _ancient Ecclesiastical Tradition_. The numerical result of our entire enquiry, proves therefore to be briefly this:—
(I.) In 1 TIMOTHY iii. 16, the reading Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, is witnessed to by 289 MANUSCRIPTS:(1104)—by 3 VERSIONS:(1105)—by upwards of 20 Greek FATHERS.(1106)
(II) The reading ὅ (in place of Θεός) is supported by a single MS. (D):—by 5 ancient VERSIONS:(1107)—by 2 late Greek FATHERS.(1108)
(III.) The reading ὅς (also in place of Θεός) is countenanced by 6 MANUSCRIPTS in all (א, Paul 17, 73: Apost. 12, 85, 86):—by _only one_ VERSION for certain (viz. the Gothic(1109)):—_not for certain by a single Greek_ FATHER.(1110)
I will not repeat the remarks I made before on a general survey of the evidence in favour of ὅς ἐφανερώθη: but I must request you to refer back to those remarks, now that we have reached the end of the entire discussion. They extend from the middle of p. 483 to the bottom of p. 485.
The unhappy Logic which, on a survey of what goes before, can first persuade itself, and then seek to persuade others, that Θεός is a “_plain and clear error_;” and that there is “_decidedly preponderating evidence_,” in favour of reading ὅς in 1 Timothy iii. 16;—must needs be of a sort with which I neither have, nor desire to have, any acquaintance. I commend the case between you and myself to the judgment of Mankind; and trust you are able to await the common verdict with the same serene confidence as I am.
Will you excuse me if I venture, in the homely vernacular, to assure you that in your present contention you “have not a leg to stand upon”? “Moreover” (to quote from your own pamphlet [p. 76],) “_this case is of great importance as an example_.” You made deliberate choice of it in order to convict me of error. I have accepted your challenge, you see. Let the present, by all means, be regarded by the public as a trial-place,—a test of our respective methods, yours and mine. I cheerfully abide the issue,
(p) INTERNAL EVIDENCE _for reading_ Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη _in_ 1 Tim. iii. 16, _absolutely overwhelming_.
In all that precedes, I have abstained from pleading the _probabilities_ of the case; and for a sufficient reason. Men’s notions of what is “probable” are observed to differ so seriously. “Facile intelligitur” (says Wetstein) “lectiones ὅς et Θεός esse interpretamenta pronominis ὅ: sed nec ὅ nec ὅς posse esse interpretamentum vocis Θεός.” Now, I should have thought that the exact reverse is as clear as the day. _What_ more obvious than that _ΘΣ_, by exhibiting indistinctly either of its delicate horizontal strokes, (and they were often so traced as to be scarcely discernible,(1111)) would become mistaken for ΟΣ? What more natural again than that the masculine relative should be forced into agreement with its neuter antecedent? Why, _the thing has actually happened_ at Coloss. i. 27; where ὍΣ ἐστι Χριστός has been altered into ὅ, only because μυστήριον is the antecedent. But waiving this, the internal evidence in favour of Θεός must surely be admitted to be overwhelming, by all save one determined that the reading _shall be_ ὅς or ὅ. I trust we are at least agreed that the maxim “_proclivi lectioni præstat ardua_,” does not enunciate so foolish a proposition as that in choosing between two or more conflicting readings, we are to prefer _that_ one which has the feeblest external attestation,—provided it be but in itself almost unintelligible?
And yet, in the present instance,—How (give me leave to ask) will you translate? To those who acquiesce in the notion that the μέγα μυστήριον τῆς εὐσεβείας means our SAVIOUR CHRIST Himself, (consider Coloss. i. 27,) it is obvious to translate “_who_:” yet how harsh, or rather how intolerable is this! I should have thought that there could be no real doubt that “_the mystery_” here spoken of must needs be that complex exhibition of Divine condescension which the Apostle proceeds to rehearse in outline: and of which the essence is that it was very and eternal GOD who was the subject of the transaction. Those who see this, and yet adopt the reading ὅς, are obliged to refer it to the remote antecedent Θεός. _You_ do not advocate this view: neither do I. For reasons of their own, Alford(1112) and Lightfoot(1113) both translate “_who_.”
Tregelles (who always shows to least advantage when a point of taste or scholarship is under discussion) proposes to render:—
“He who was manifested in the flesh, (he who) was justified in the spirit, (he who) was seen by angels, (he who) was preached among Gentiles, (he who) was believed on in the world, (he who) was received up in glory.”(1114)
I question if his motion will find _a seconder_. You yourself lay it down
magisterially that ὅς “is _not emphatic_ (‘He who,’ &c.): nor, by a
_constructio ad sensum_, is it the relative to μυστήριον; but is a
relative to an _omitted_ though easily recognized antecedent, viz.
CHRIST.” You add that it is not improbable “that the words are quoted from
some known _hymn_, or probably from some familiar _Confession of Faith_.”
Accordingly, in your Commentary you venture to exhibit the words within
inverted commas _as a quotation_:—“And confessedly great is the mystery of
godliness: ‘who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit,’ ”
&c.,(1115)—for which you are without warrant of any kind, and which you
have no right to do. Westcott and Hort (the “chartered libertines”) are
even more licentious. Acting on their own suggestion that these clauses
are “a quotation from _an early Christian hymn_,” they proceed to print
the conclusion of 1 Tim. iii. 16 stichometrically, as if it were a
_six-line stanza_.
This notwithstanding, the Revising body _have adopted_ “He who,” as the rendering of ὅς; a mistaken rendering as it seems to me, and (I am glad to learn) to yourself also. Their translation is quite a curiosity in its way. I proceed to transcribe it:—
“He who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, received up in glory.”
But this does not even pretend to be a sentence: nor do I understand what
the proposed construction is. Any arrangement which results in making the
six clauses last quoted part of the subject, and “great” the predicate of
one long proposition,—is unworthy.—Bentley’s wild remedy testifies far
more eloquently to his distress than to his aptitude for revising the text
of Scripture. He suggests,—“CHRIST _was put to death_ in the flesh,
justified in the spirit, ... seen _by Apostles_.”(1116)—“According to the
ancient view,” (says the Rev. T. S. Green,) “the sense would be: ‘and
confessedly great is the mystery of godliness [in the person of him], who
[mystery notwithstanding] was manifested in the flesh, &c.’ ”(1117)...
But, with submission, “the ancient view” was not this. The
Latins,—calamitously shut up within the limits of their “_pietatis
sacramentum, quod_,”—are found to have habitually broken away from that
iron bondage, and to have discoursed of our SAVIOUR CHRIST, as being
Himself the “sacramentum” spoken of. The “sacramentum,” in their view, was
the incarnate WORD.(1118)—Not so the Greek Fathers. These all, without
exception, understood S. Paul to say,—what Ecclesiastical Tradition hath
all down the ages faithfully attested, and what to this hour the copies of
his Epistles prove that he actually wrote,—viz. “_And confessedly great is
the mystery of godliness_:—GOD _was manifested in the flesh, justified in
the spirit_,” and so on. Moreover this is the view of the matter in which
all the learning and all the piety of the English Church has thankfully
acquiesced for the last 350 years. It has commended itself to Andrewes and
Pearson, Bull and Hammond, Hall and Stillingfleet, Ussher and Beveridge,
Mill and Bengel, Waterland and Berriman. The enumeration of names is
easily brought down to our own times. Dr. Henderson, (the learned
non-conformist commentator,) in 1830 published a volume with the following
title:—
“The great mystery of godliness incontrovertible: or, Sir Isaac Newton and the Socinians foiled in the attempt to prove a corruption in the text 1 Tim. iii. 16: containing a review of the charges brought against the passage; an examination of the various readings; and a confirmation of that in the received text on principles of general and biblical criticism.”
And,—to turn one’s eyes in quite a different direction,—“Veruntamen,”
wrote venerable President Routh, at the end of a life-long critical study
of Holy Writ,—(and his days were prolonged till he reached his hundredth
year,)—
“Veruntamen, quidquid ex sacri textûs historia, illud vero haud certum, critici collegerunt, me tamen interna cogunt argumenta præferre lectionem Θεός, quem quidem agnoscunt veteres interpretes, Theodoretus cæterique, duabus alteris ὅς et ὅ.”(1119)
And here I bring my DISSERTATION on 1 TIM. iii. 16 to a close. It began at
p. 424, and I little thought would extend to seventy-six pages. Let it be
clearly understood that I rest my contention not at all on Internal, but
entirely on External Evidence; although, to the best of my judgment, they
are alike conclusive as to the matter in debate.—Having now
incontrovertibly, as I believe, established ΘΕΌΣ as the best attested
Reading of the place,—I shall conclude the present LETTER as speedily as I
can.
(1) _“__Composition of the Body which is responsible for the __‘__New Greek Text.__’__ ”_
There remains, I believe, but one head of discourse into which I have not yet followed you. I allude to your “few words about the composition of the body which is responsible for the ‘New Greek Text,’ ”(1120)—which extend from the latter part of p. 29 to the beginning of p. 32 of your pamphlet. “Among the sixteen most regular attendants at your meetings,” (you say) “were to be found most of those persons who were presumably best acquainted with the subject of Textual Criticism.”(1121) And with this insinuation that you had “all the talents” with you, you seek to put me down.
But (as you truly say) “the number of living Scholars in England who have connected their names with the study of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament is exceedingly small.”(1122) And, “of that exceedingly small number,” you would be puzzled to name so much as _one_, besides the three you proceed to specify (viz. Dr. Scrivener, Dr. Westcott, and Dr. Hort,)—who were members of the Revision company. On the other hand,—(to quote the words of the most learned of our living Prelates,)—“it is well known that there are _two opposite Schools_ of Biblical Criticism among us, _with very different opinions as to the comparative value of our Manuscripts of the Greek Testament_.”(1123) And in proof of his statement, the Bishop of Lincoln cites “on the one side”—_Drs. Westcott and Hort_; “and on the other”—_Dr. Scrivener_.
Now, let the account be read which Dr. Newth gives (and which you admit to be correct) of the extraordinary method by which the “New Greek Text” was “_settled_,”(1124) “for the most part at the First Revision,”(1125)—and it becomes plain that it was not by any means the product of the independently-formed opinions of 16 experts, (as your words imply); but resulted from the aptitude of 13 of your body to be guided by the sober counsels of Dr. Scrivener on the one hand, or to be carried away by the eager advocacy of Dr. Hort, (supported as he ever was by his respected colleague Dr. Westcott,) on the other. As Canon Cook well puts it,—“The question really is, Were the members competent to form a correct judgment?”(1126) “In most cases,” “_a __ simple majority_”(1127) determined what the text should be. But _ponderari debent testes_, my lord Bishop, _non numerari_.(1128) The vote of the joint Editors should have been reckoned practically as only _one_ vote. And whenever Dr. Scrivener and they were irreconcilably opposed, the existing Traditional Text ought to have been let alone. All pretence that it was _plainly and clearly erroneous_ was removed, when the only experts present were hopelessly divided in opinion. As for the rest of the Revising Body, inasmuch as they extemporized their opinions, they were scarcely qualified to vote at all. Certainly they were not entitled individually to an equal voice with Dr. Scrivener in determining what the text should be. Caprice or Prejudice, in short, it was, not Deliberation and Learning, which prevailed in the Jerusalem Chamber. A more unscientific,—to speak truly, a coarser and a clumsier way of manipulating the sacred Deposit, than that which you yourself invented, it would be impossible, in my judgment, to devise.
(2) _An Unitarian Revisionist intolerable._—_The Westminster-Abbey Scandal._
But this is not nearly all. You invite attention to the constituent elements of the Revising body, and congratulate yourself on its miscellaneous character as providing a guarantee that it has been impartial.
I frankly avow, my lord Bishop, that the challenge you thus deliberately offer, surprises me greatly. To have observed severe silence on this part of the subject, would have seemed to me your discreeter course. Moreover, had you not, in this marked way, invited attention to the component elements of the Revising body, I was prepared to give the subject the go-by. The “_New Greek Text_,” no less than the “_New __ English Version_,” must stand or fall on its own merits; and I have no wish to prejudice the discussion by importing into it foreign elements. Of this, you have had some proof already; for, (with the exception of what is offered above, in pages 6 and 7,) the subject has been, by your present correspondent, nowhere brought prominently forward.
Far be it from me, however, to decline the enquiry which you evidently court. And so, I candidly avow that it was in my account a serious breach of Church order that, on engaging in so solemn an undertaking as the Revision of the Authorized Version, a body of Divines professing to act under the authority of the Southern Convocation should spontaneously associate with themselves Ministers of various denominations,(1129)—Baptists, Congregationalists, Wesleyan Methodists, Independents, and the like: and especially that a successor of the Apostles should have presided over the deliberations of this assemblage of Separatists. In my humble judgment, we shall in vain teach the sinfulness of Schism, if we show ourselves practically indifferent on the subject, and even set an example of irregularity to our flocks. My Divinity may appear unaccommodating and old-fashioned: but I am not prepared to unlearn the lessons long since got by heart in the school of Andrewes and Hooker, of Pearson and Bull, of Hammond and Sanderson, of Beveridge and Bramhall. I am much mistaken, moreover, if I may not claim the authority of a greater doctor than any of these,—I mean S. Paul,—for the fixed views I entertain on this head.
All this, however, is as nothing in comparison of the scandal occasioned by the co-optation into your body of Dr. G. Vance Smith, the Unitarian Minister of S. Saviour’s Gate Chapel, York. That, while engaged in the work of interpreting the everlasting Gospel, you should have knowingly and by choice associated with yourselves one who, not only openly denies the eternal Godhead of our LORD, but in a recent publication is the avowed assailant of that fundamental doctrine of the Christian Religion, as well as of the Inspiration of Holy Scripture itself,(1130)—filled me (and many besides myself) with astonishment and sorrow. You were respectfully memorialized on the subject;(1131) but you treated the representations which reached you with scornful indifference.
Now therefore that you re-open the question, I will not scruple publicly to repeat that it seems to me nothing else but an insult to our Divine Master and a wrong to the Church, that the most precious part of our common Christian heritage, the pure Word of GOD, should day by day, week by week, month by month, year after year, have been thus handled; for the avowed purpose of producing a Translation which should supersede our Authorized Version. That the individual in question contributed aught to your deliberations has never been pretended. On the contrary. No secret has been made of the fact that he was, (as might have been anticipated from his published writings,) the most unprofitable member of the Revising body. Why then was he at first surreptitiously elected? and why was his election afterwards stiffly maintained? The one purpose achieved by his continued presence among you was that it might be thereby made to appear that the Church of England no longer insists on Belief in the eternal Godhead of our LORD, as essential; but is prepared to surrender her claim to definite and unequivocal dogmatic teaching in respect of Faith in the Blessed TRINITY.
But even if this Unitarian had been an eminent Scholar, my objection would remain in full force; for I hold, (and surely so do you!), that the right Interpretation of GOD’S Word may not be attained without the guidance of the HOLY SPIRIT, whose aid must first be invoked by faithful prayer.
In the meantime, this same person was invited to communicate with his fellow-Revisers in Westminster-Abbey, and did accordingly, on the 22nd of June, 1870, receive the Holy Communion, in Henry VII.’s Chapel, at the hands of Dean Stanley: declaring, next day, that he received the Sacrament on this occasion without “joining in reciting the Nicene Creed” and without “compromise” (as he expressed it,) of his principles as an “Unitarian.”(1132) So conspicuous a sacrilege led to a public Protest signed by some thousands of the Clergy.(1133) It also resulted, in the next ensuing Session of Convocation, in a Resolution whereby the Upper House cleared itself of complicity in the scandal.(1134)...
How a good man like you can revive the memory of these many painful incidents without anguish, is to me unintelligible. That no blessing from Him, “_sine Quo nihil validum, nihil sanctum_,” could be expected to attend an undertaking commenced under such auspices,—was but too plain. The Revision was a foredoomed thing—in the account of many besides myself—from the outset.
(3) _The probable Future of the Revision of_ 1881.
Not unaware am I that it has nevertheless been once and again confidently predicted in public Addresses, Lectures, Pamphlets, that ultimate success is in store for the Revision of 1881. I cannot but regard it as a suspicious circumstance that these vaticinations have hitherto invariably proceeded from members of the Revising body.
It would ill become such an one as myself to pretend to skill in forecasting the future. But of _this_ at least I feel certain:—that if, in an evil hour, (quod absit!), the Church of England shall ever be induced to commit herself to the adoption of the present Revision, she will by so doing expose herself to the ridicule of the rest of Christendom, as well as incur irreparable harm and loss. And such a proceeding on her part will be inexcusable, for she has been at least faithfully forewarned. Moreover, in the end, she will most certainly have to retrace her steps with sorrow and confusion.
Those persons evidently overlook the facts of the problem, who refer to what happened in the case of the Authorized Version when it originally appeared, some 270 years ago; and argue that as the Revision of 1611 at first encountered opposition, which yet it ultimately overcame, so must it fare in the end with the present Revised Version also. Those who so reason forget that the cases are essentially dissimilar.
If the difference between the Authorized Version of 1611 and the Revision of 1881 were only this.—That the latter is characterized by a mechanical, unidiomatic, and even repulsive method of rendering; which was not only unattempted, but repudiated by the Authors of the earlier work;—there would have been something to urge on behalf of the later performance. The plea of zeal for GOD’S Word,—a determination at all hazards to represent with even servile precision the _ipsissima verba_ of Evangelists and Apostles,—_this_ plea might have been plausibly put forward: and, to some extent, it must have been allowed,—although a grave diversity of opinion might reasonably have been entertained as to _what constitutes_ “accuracy” and “fidelity” of translation.
But when once it has been made plain that _the underlying Greek_ of the Revision of 1881 is an entirely new thing,—_is a manufactured article throughout_,—all must see that the contention has entirely changed its character. The question immediately arises, (and it is the _only_ question which remains to be asked,)—Were then the Authors of this “New Greek Text” _competent_ to undertake so perilous an enterprise? And when, in the words of the distinguished Chairman of the Revising body—(words quoted above, at page 369,)—“_To this question, we venture to answer very unhesitatingly in the negative_,”—What remains but, with blank astonishment, not unmingled with disgust, to close the volume? Your own ingenuous admission,—(volunteered by yourself a few days before you and your allies “proceeded to the actual details of the Revision,”)—that “_we have certainly not acquired sufficient Critical Judgment_ for any body of Revisers hopefully to undertake such a work as this,”—is decisive on the subject.
The gravity of the issue thus raised, it is impossible to over-estimate. We find ourselves at once and entirely lifted out of the region originally proposed for investigation. It is no longer a question of the degree of skill which has been exhibited in translating the title-deeds of our heavenly inheritance out of Greek into English. Those title-deeds themselves have been empirically submitted to a process which, _rightly or wrongly_, seriously affects their integrity. Not only has a fringe of most unreasonable textual mistrust been tacked on to the margin of every inspired page, (as from S. Luke x. 41 to xi. 11):—not only has many a grand doctrinal statement been evacuated of its authority, (as, by the shameful mis-statement found in the margin against S. John iii. 13,(1135) and the vile Socinian gloss which disfigures the margin of Rom. ix. 5(1136)):—but we entirely miss many a solemn utterance of the SPIRIT,—as when we are assured that verses 44 and 46 of S. Mark ix. are omitted by “_the best ancient authorities_,” (whereas, on the contrary, the MSS. referred to are _the worst_). Let the thing complained of be illustrated by a few actual examples. Only five shall be subjoined. The words in the first column represent what _you_ are pleased to designate as among “the most certain conclusions of modern Textual Criticism” (p. 78),—but what _I_ assert to be nothing else but mutilated exhibitions of the inspired Text. The second column contains the indubitable Truth of Scripture,—the words which have been read by our Fathers’ Fathers for the last 500 years, and which we propose, (GOD helping us,) to hand on unimpaired to our Children, and to our Children’s Children, for many a century to come:—
REVISED (1881). AUTHORIZED (1611). “And come, follow me.” “And come, _take up the
cross and_ follow
me.”(1137)
“And they blindfolded “And when they had him, and asked him, blindfolded him, _they saying, Prophesy.” struck him on the face_,
and asked him, saying,
Prophesy.”(1138)
“And there was also a “And a superscription superscription over him, also was _written_ over This is the King of the him _in letters of Greek, Jews.” and Latin, and Hebrew_,
This is the King of the
Jews.”(1139)
“And they gave him a “And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish.” piece of a broiled fish,
_and of an
honeycomb_.”(1140)
But the next (S. Luke ix. 54-6,) is a far more serious loss:—
“ ‘Lord, wilt thou that “ ‘Lord, wilt thou that we bid fire to come down we command fire to come from heaven, and consume down from heaven, and them?’ But he turned and consume them, _even as rebuked them. And they Elias did_?’ But he went to another village.” turned and rebuked them,
_and said, _‘Ye know not
what manner of spirit ye
are of. For the Son of
man is not come to
destroy men’s lives, but
to save them’. And they
went to another village.”
The unlearned reader sees at a glance that the only difference of _Translation_ here is the substitution of “bid” for “command.”—which by the way, is not only uncalled for, but is a change _for the worse_.(1141) On the other hand, how grievous an injury has been done by the mutilation of the blessed record in respect of those (3 + 5 + 7 + 4 + 24 = ) _forty-three_ (in English _fifty-seven_) undoubtedly inspired as well as most precious words,—even “ordinary Readers” are competent to discern.
I am saying that the systematic, and sometimes serious,—_always_ inexcusable,—liberties which have been taken with the Greek Text by the Revisionists of 1881, constitute a ground of offence against their work for which no pretext was afforded by the Revision of 1611. To argue therefore from what has been the fate of the one, to what is likely to be the fate of the other, is illogical. The cases are not only not parallel: they are even wholly dissimilar.
The cheapest copies of our Authorized Version at least exhibit the Word of GOD faithfully and helpfully. Could the same be said of a cheap edition of the work of the Revisionists,—destitute of headings to the Chapters, and containing no record of the extent to which the Sacred Text has undergone depravation throughout?
Let it be further recollected that the greatest Scholars and the most learned Divines of which our Church could boast, conducted the work of Revision in King James’ days; and it will be acknowledged that the promiscuous assemblage which met in the Jerusalem Chamber cannot urge any corresponding claim on public attention. _Then_, the Bishops of Lincoln of 1611 were Revisers: the Vance Smiths stood without and found fault. But in the affair of 1881, Dr. Vance Smith revises, and ventilates heresy from within:(1142) the Bp. of Lincoln stands outside, and is one of the severest Critics of the work.—Disappointed men are said to have been conspicuous among the few assailants of our “Authorized Version,”—Scholars (as Hugh Broughton) who considered themselves unjustly overlooked and excluded. But on the present occasion, among the multitude of hostile voices, there is not a single instance known of a man excluded from the deliberations of the Jerusalem Chamber, who desired to share them.
To argue therefore concerning the prospects of the Revision of 1881 from the known history of our Authorized Version of 1611, is to argue concerning things essentially dissimilar. With every advance made in the knowledge of the subject, it may be confidently predicted that there will spring up increased distrust of the Revision of 1881, and an ever increasing aversion from it.
(4) _Review of the entire subject, and of the respective positions of Bp. Ellicott and myself._
Here I lay down my pen,—glad to have completed what (because I have endeavoured to do my work _thoroughly_) has proved a very laborious task indeed. The present rejoinder to your Pamphlet covers all the ground you have yourself traversed, and will be found to have disposed of your entire contention.
I take leave to point out, in conclusion, that it places you individually in a somewhat embarrassing predicament. For you have now no alternative but to come forward and disprove my statements as well as refute my arguments: or to admit, by your silence, that you have sustained defeat in the cause of which you constituted yourself the champion. You constrained me to reduce you to this alternative when you stood forth on behalf of the Revising body, and saw fit to provoke me to a personal encounter.
But you must come provided with something vastly more formidable, remember, than denunciations,—which are but wind: and vague generalities,—which prove nothing and persuade nobody: and appeals to the authority of “Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles,”—which I disallow and disregard. You must produce a counter-array of well-ascertained facts; and you must build thereupon irrefragable arguments. In other words, you must conduct your cause with learning and ability. Else, believe me, you will make the painful discovery that “the last error is worse than the first.” You had better a thousand times, even now, ingenuously admit that you made a grievous mistake when you put yourself into the hands of those ingenious theorists, Drs. Westcott and Hort, and embraced their arbitrary decrees,—than persevere in your present downward course, only to sink deeper and deeper in the mire.
(5) _Anticipated effect of the present contention on the Text of_ 1 Timothy iii. 16.
I like to believe, in the meantime, that this passage of arms has resulted in such a vindication(1143) of the traditional Reading of 1 TIMOTHY iii. 16, as will effectually secure that famous place of Scripture against further molestation. _Faxit __DEUS__!_... In the margin of the Revision of 1881, I observe that you have ventured to state as follows,—
“The word GOD, in place of _He who_, rests on no sufficient ancient evidence.”
In the words of your Unitarian ally, Dr. Vance Smith,—
“The old reading is pronounced untenable by the Revisers, as it has long been known to be by all careful students of the New Testament.... It is in truth another example of the facility with which ancient copiers could introduce the word God into their manuscripts,—a reading which was the natural result of the growing tendency in early Christian times ... to look upon the humble Teacher as the incarnate Word, and therefore as ‘God manifested in the flesh’ ” (p. 39).
Such remarks proceeding from such a quarter create no surprise. But, pray,
my lord Bishop, of what were _you_ thinking when you permitted yourself to
make the serious mis-statement which stands in the margin? You must needs
have meant thereby that,—“The word _He who_ in place of GOD, on the
contrary, _does_ rest on sufficient ancient evidence.” I solemnly call
upon you, in the Name of Him by whose Spirit Holy Scripture was given, to
prove the truth of your marginal Note of which the foregoing 70 pages are
a refutation.—You add,
“Some ancient authorities read _which_.”
But why did you suppress the fact, which is undeniable, viz.: that a great
many “_More_ ancient authorities” read “which” (ὅ), than read “who” (ὅς)?
(6) _The nature of this contention explained._
And yet, it was no isolated place which I was eager to establish, when at first I took up my pen. It was the general trustworthiness of the Traditional Text,—(the Text which you admit to be upwards of 1500 years old,)—which I aimed at illustrating: the essential rottenness of the foundation on which the Greek Text of the Revision of 1881 has been constructed by yourself and your fellow Revisers,—which I was determined to expose. I claim to have proved not only that your entire superstructure is tasteless and unlovely to a degree,—but also that you have reared it up on a foundation of sand. In no vaunting spirit, (GOD is my witness!), but out of sincere and sober zeal for the truth of Scripture I say it,—your work, whether you know it or not, has been so handled in the course of the present volume of 500 pages that its essential deformity must be apparent to every unprejudiced beholder. It can only be spoken of at this time of day as a shapeless ruin.
A ruin moreover it is which does not admit of being repaired or restored. And why? Because the mischief, which extends to every part of the edifice, takes its beginning, as already explained, in every part of the foundation.
And further, (to speak without a figure,) it cannot be too plainly stated that no compromise is possible between our respective methods,—yours and mine: between the NEW GERMAN system in its most aggravated and in fact intolerable form, to which you have incautiously and unconditionally given in your adhesion; and the OLD ENGLISH school of Textual Criticism, of which I humbly avow myself a disciple. Between the theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort (which you have made your own) and the method of your present Correspondent, there can be no compromise, because the two are antagonistic throughout. We have, in fact, nothing in common,—except certain documents; which _I_ insist on interpreting by the humble Inductive process: while you and your friends insist on your right of deducing your estimate of them from certain antecedent imaginations of your own,—every one of which I disallow, and some of which I am able to disprove.
Such, my lord Bishop, is your baseless imagination—(1) That the traditional Greek Text (which, without authority, you style “_The Syrian text_,”) is the result of a deliberate Recension made at Antioch, A.D. 250 and 350:(1144)—(2) That the Peschito, in like manner, is the result of a Recension made at Edessa or Nisibis about the same time:(1145)—(3) That Cureton’s is the Syriac “Vetus,” and the Peschito the Syriac “Vulgate:”(1146)—(4) That the respective ancestries of our only two IVth-century Codices, B and א, “diverged from a common parent extremely near the apostolic autographs:”(1147)—(5) That this common original enjoyed a “general immunity from substantive error;” and by consequence—(6) That B and א provide “a safe criterion of genuineness,” so that “no readings of א B can be safely rejected absolutely.”(1148)—(7) Similar wild imaginations you cherish concerning C and D,—which, together with B and א _you_ assume to be among the most trustworthy guides in existence; whereas _I_ have convinced myself, by laborious collation, that they are _the most corrupt of all_. We are thus diametrically opposed throughout. Finally,—(8) _You_ assume that you possess a power of divination which enables you to dispense with laborious processes of Induction; while I, on the contrary, insist that the Truth of the Text of Scripture is to be elicited exclusively from the consentient testimony of the largest number of the best COPIES, FATHERS, VERSIONS.(1149) There is, I am persuaded, no royal road to the attainment of Truth in this department of Knowledge. Only through the lowly portal of humility,—only by self-renouncing labour,—may we ever hope to reach the innermost shrine. _They_ do but go astray themselves and hopelessly mislead others, who first _invent their facts_, and then proceed to build thereupon their premisses.
Such builders are Drs. Westcott and Hort,—with whom (by your own avowal) you stand completely identified.(1150) I repeat, (for I wish it to be distinctly understood and remembered,) that what I assert concerning those Critics is,—_not_ that their superstructure rests upon an insecure foundation; but that it rests on _no foundation at all_. My complaint is,—_not_ that they are _somewhat_ and _frequently_ mistaken; but that they are mistaken _entirely_, and that they are mistaken _throughout_. There is no possibility of approximation between _their_ mere assumptions and the results of _my_ humble and laborious method of dealing with the Text of Scripture. We shall only _then_ be able to begin to reason together with the slightest prospect of coming to any agreement, when they have unconditionally abandoned all their preconceived imaginations, and unreservedly scattered every one of their postulates to the four winds.
(7) _Parting Counsels._
Let me be allowed, in conclusion, to recommend to your attention and that of your friends,—(I.) “THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF S. MARK’S GOSPEL:”—(II.) THE ANGELIC HYMN on the night of the Nativity:—(III.) The text of 1 TIMOTHY iii. 16,—these three,—(in respect of which up to this hour, you and I find ourselves to be hopelessly divided,)—as convenient _Test places_. When you are prepared frankly to admit,—(I.) That there is no reason whatever for doubting the genuineness of S. MARK xvi. 9-20:(1151)—(II.) That ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία is unquestionably the Evangelical text of S. LUKE ii. 14:(1152)—and (III.) That Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί is what the great Apostle must be held to have written in 1 TIMOTHY iii 16,(1153)—we shall be in good time to proceed to something else. _Until_ this happy result has been attained, it is a mere waste of time to break up fresh ground, and to extend the area of our differences.
I cannot however disguise from you the fact that such an avowal on your part will amount to an admission that “the whole fabric of Textual Criticism which has been built up during the last fifty years by successive editors of the New Testament,”—Lachmann namely, Tischendorf, and Tregelles,—is worthless. Neither may the inevitable consequence of this admission be concealed: viz. that your own work as Revisionists has been, to speak plainly, one gigantic blunder, from end to end.
(8) _The subject dismissed._
The issue of this prolonged contention I now commend, with deep humility, to ALMIGHTY GOD. The SPIRIT OF TRUTH will, (I know,) take good care of His own masterpiece,—the Written Word. May He have compassion on my ignorance, and graciously forgive me, if, (intending nothing less,) I shall prove to have anywhere erred in my strenuous endeavour to maintain the integrity of Scripture against the rashness of an impatient and unlearned generation.
But if, (as I humbly believe and confidently hope,) my conclusions are sound throughout, then may He enable men freely to recognize the Truth; and thus, effectually avert from our Church the supreme calamity with which, for a few months in 1881, it seemed threatened; namely, of having an utterly depraved Recension of the Greek Text of the New Testament thrust upon it, as the basis of a very questionable ’Revision’ of the English.
My lord Bishop,—I have the honour to wish you respectfully farewell.
J. W. B.
DEANERY, CHICHESTER, _July, 1883_.
THE GRASS WITHERETH: THE FLOWER FADETH: BUT THE WORD OF OUR GOD SHALL STAND FOR EVER.
APPENDIX OF SACRED CODICES.
The inquiries into which I was led (January to June 1883) by my
DISSERTATION in vindication of the Traditional Reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16,
have resulted in my being made aware of the existence of a vast number of
Sacred Codices which had eluded the vigilance of previous Critics.
I had already assisted my friend Prebendary Scrivener in greatly enlarging Scholz’s list. We had in fact raised the enumeration of “_Evangelia_” to 621: of “_Acts and Catholic Epistles_” to 239: of “_Paul_” to 281: of “_Apocalypse_” to 108: of “_Evangelistaria_” to 299: of the book called “_Apostolus_” to 81:—making a total of 1629.—But at the end of a protracted and somewhat laborious correspondence with the custodians of not a few great Continental Libraries, I am able to state that our available “_Evangelia_” amount to at least 739(1154): our “_Acts and Cath. Epp._” to 261: our “_Paul_” to 338: our “_Apoc._” to 122: our “_Evstt._” to 415(1155): our copies of the “_Apostolus_” to 128(1156): making a total of 2003. This shows an increase of _three hundred and seventy-four_.
My original intention had been to publish this enumeration of Sacred Codices in its entirety as an APPENDIX to the present volume: but finding that the third edition of Dr. Scrivener’s “Introduction” would appear some months before my own pages could possibly see the light, I eagerly communicated my discoveries to my friend. I have indeed proposed to myself no other object throughout but the advancement of the study of Textual Criticism: and it was reasonable to hope that by means of his widely circulated volume, the great enlargement which our previously ascertained stores have suddenly experienced would become more generally known to scholars. I should of course still have it in my power to reproduce here the same enumeration of Sacred Codices.
The great bulk however which the present volume has acquired, induces me to limit myself in this place to some account of those Codices which have been expressly announced and discoursed about in my Text (as at pp. 474 and 492-5). Some other occasion must be found for enlarging on the rest of my budget.
It only remains to state that for most of my recent discoveries I am indebted to the Abbate Cozza-Luzi, Prefect of the Vatican; who on being informed of the object of my solicitude, with extraordinary liberality and consideration at once set three competent young men to work in the principal libraries of Rome. To him I am further indebted for my introduction to the MS. treasures belonging to the Basilian monks of Crypta-Ferrata, the ancient Tusculum. Concerning the precious library of that monastery so much has been offered already (viz. at pp. 446-448, and again at pp. 473-4), as well as concerning its learned chief, the Hieromonachus Antonio Rocchi, that I must be content to refer my readers to those earlier parts of the present volume. I cannot however sufficiently acknowledge the patient help which the librarian of Crypta Ferrata has rendered me in the course of these researches.
For my knowledge of the sacred Codices preserved at Messina, I am indebted to the good offices and learning of Papas Filippo Matranga. In respect of those at Milan, my learned friend Dr. Ceriani has (not for the first time) been my efficient helper. M. Wescher has kindly assisted me at Paris; and Dr. C. de Boor at Berlin. It must suffice, for the rest, to refer to the Notes at foot of pp. 491-2 and 477-8.
ADDITIONAL CODICES OF S. PAUL’S EPISTLES.
282. ( = Act. 240. Apoc. 109). Paris, “Arménien 9” (_olim_ Reg. 2247). _membr._ foll. 323. This bilingual codex (Greek and Armenian) is described by the Abbé Martin in his _Introduction à la Critique Textuelle du N. T._ (1883), p. 660-1. See above, p. 474, note 1. An Italian version is added from the Cath. Epp. onwards. _Mut._ at beginning (Acts iv. 14) and end. (For its extraordinary reading at 1 Tim. iii. 16, see above, p. 473-4.)
283. ( = Act. 241). Messina P K Z (_i.e._ 127) [xii.], _chart._ foll. 224. _Mut._ begins at Acts viii. 2,—ends at Hebr. viii. 2; also a leaf is lost between foll. 90 and 91. Has ὑποθθ. and Commentary of an unknown author.
284. ( = Act. 195). Modena, ii. A. 13 [xiii.?], _Mut._ at the end.
285. ( = Act. 196), Modena, ii. Cf. 4 [xi. or xii.]. Sig. Ant. Cappelli (sub-librarian) sends me a tracing of 1 Tim. iii. 16.
286. Ambrosian library, E. 2, _inf._the Catena of Nicetas. “Textus particulatim præmittit Commentariis.”
287. Ambrosian A. 241, _inf._, “est Catena ejusdem auctoris ex initio, sed non complectitur totum opus.”
288. Ambrosian D. 541 _inf._ [x. or xi.] _membr._ Text and Catena on all S. Paul’s Epp. “Textus continuatus. Catena in marginibus.” It was brought from Thessaly.
289. Milan C. 295 _inf._ [x. or xi.] _membr._ with a Catena. “Textus continuatus. Catena in marginibus.”
290. ( = Evan. 622. Act. 242. Apoc. 110). Crypta Ferrata, A. α. i. [xiii. or xiv.] foll. 386: _chart._ a beautiful codex of the entire N. T. described by Rocchi, p. 1-2. Menolog. _Mut._ 1 Nov. to 16 Dec.
291. ( = Act. 243). Crypta Ferrata, A. β. i. [x.] foll. 139: in two columns,—letters almost uncial. Particularly described by Rocchi, pp. 15, 16. Zacagni used this codex when writing about Euthalius. _Mut._, beginning with the argument for 1 S. John and ending with 2 Tim.
†292. ( = Act. 244). Crypta Ferrata, A. β. iii. [xi. or xii.]. _Membr._, foll. 172. in 2 columns beautifully illuminated: described by Rocchi, p. 18-9. Zacagni employed this codex while treating of Euthalius. _Menolog._
293. ( = Act. 245). Crypta Ferrata, A. β. vi. [xi.], foll. 193. _Mut._ at the end, Described by Rocchi, p. 22-3.
294. ( = Act. 246). Vat. 1208. Abbate Cozzi-Luzi confirms Berriman’s account [p. 98-9] of the splendour of this codex. It is written in gold letters, and is said to have belonged to Carlotta, Queen of Jerusalem, Cyprus, and Armenia, who died at Rome A.D. 1487, and probably gave the book to Pope Innocent VIII., whose arms are printed at the beginning. It contains effigies of S. Luke, S. James, S. Peter, S. John, S. Jude, S. Paul.
295. ( = Act 247). Palatino-Vat. 38 [xi.] _membr._ foll. 35. Berriman (p. 100) says it is of quarto size, and refers it to the IXth cent.
296. Barberini iv. 85 (_olim_ 19), dated A.D. 1324. For my knowledge of this codex I am entirely indebted to Berriman, who says that it contains “the arguments and marginal scholia written” (p. 102).
297. Barberini, vi. 13 (_olim_ 229), _membr._ [xi.] foll. 195: contains S. Paul’s 14 Epp. This codex also was known to Berriman, who relates (p. 102), that it is furnished “with the old marginal scholia.”
298. (= Act. 248), Berlin (Hamilton: No 625 in the English printed catalogue, where it is erroneously described as a “Lectionarium.”) It contains Acts, Cath. Epp. and S. Paul,—as Dr. C. de Boor informs me.
299. (= Act. 249), Berlin, 4to. 40 [xiii.]: same contents as the preceding.
300. (= Act. 250), Berlin, 4to. 43 [xi.], same contents as the preceding, but commences with the Psalms.
301. (= Act. 251), Berlin, 4to. 57 [xiv.], _chart._ Same contents as Paul 298.
302. (= Evan. 642. Act. 252.) Berlin, 8vo. 9 [xi.], probably once contained all the N. T. It now begins with S. Luke XXIV. 53, and is _mut._ after 1 Thess.
303. Milan, N. 272 _inf._ “Excerpti loci.”
304. (= Act. 253) Vat. 369 [xiv.] foll. 226, _chart._
305. Vat. 549, _membr._ [xii.] foll. 380. S. Paul’s Epistles, with Theophylact’s Commentary.
306. Vat. 550, _membr._ [xii.] foll. 290; contains Romans with Comm. of Chrysostom.
307. Vat 551, _membr._ [x.] foll. 283. A large codex, containing some of S. Paul’s Epp. with Comm. of Chrysostom.
308. Vat. 552, _membr._ [xi.] foll. 155. Contains Hebrews with Comm. of Chrysostom.
309. Vat. 582, _membr._ [xiv.] foll. 146. S. Paul’s Epistles with Comm. of Chrysostom.
310. Vat. 646 [xiv.], foll. 250: “cum supplementis.” _Chart._ S. Paul’s Epp. with Comm. of Theophylact and Euthymius. Pars I. et II.
311. (= Evan. 671). Vat. 647. _Chart._ foll. 338 [xv.]. S. Paul’s Epistles and the Gospels, with Theophylact’s Commentary.
312. Vat. 648, written A.D. 1232, at Jerusalem, by Simeon, “qui et Saba dicitur:” foll. 338, _chart._ S. Paul’s Epistles, with Comm. of Theophylact.
313. (= Act. 239). Vat. 652, _chart._ [xv.] foll. 105. The Acts and Epistles with Commentary. See the _Preface_ to Theophylact, ed. 1758, vol. iii. p. v.-viii., also “Acts 239” in Scrivener’s 3rd. edit. (p. 263).
314. Vat. 692, _membr._ [xii.] foll. 93, _mut._ Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, with Commentary.
315. Vat. 1222, _chart._ [xvi.] foll. 437. S. Paul’s Epp. with Theophylact’s Comm.
316. (= Act. 255). Vat. 1654, _membr._ [x. or xi.], foll. 211. Acts and Epistles of S. Paul with Chrysostom’s Comm.
317. Vat. 1656, _membr._ [xii.], foll. 182. Hebrews with Comm. of Chrysostom, _folio_.
318. Vat. 1659, _membr._ [xi.] foll. 444. S. Paul’s Epp. with Comm. of Chrysostom.
319. Vat. 1971 (Basil 10) _membr._ [x.] foll. 247. Ἐπιστολαὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων σὺν τοῖς τοῦ Εὐθαλίου.
320. Vat. 2055 (Basil 94), _membr._ [x.] foll. 292. S. Paul’s Epp. with Comm. of Chrysostom.
321. Vat. 2065 (Basil 104), [x.] _membr._ foll. 358. Romans with Comm. of Chrysostom.
322. (= Act. 256) Vat. 2099 (Basil 138) _membr._ foll. 120 [x.]. Note that though numbered for the Acts, this code only contains ἐπιστολαὶ ιδ᾽ καὶ καθολικαὶ, σὺν ταῖς σημειώσεσι λειτουργικαῖς περὶ τῶν ἡμερῶν ἐν αἷς λεκτέαι.
323. Vat. 2180 [xv.] foll. 294, _chart._ With Comm. of Theophylact.
324. Alexand. Vat. 4 [x.] foll. 256, _membr._ “Optimæ notæ.” Romans with Comm. of Chrysostom, λογ. κβ᾽. “Fuit monasterii dicti τοῦ Περιβλέπτου.”
325. (= Evan. 698. Apoc. 117). Alexand. Vat. 6. _chart._ foll. 336 [xvi.], a large codex. The Gospels with Comm. of Nicetas: S. Paul’s Epp. with Comm. of Theophylact: Apocalypse with an anonymous Comm.
326. Vat. Ottob. 74 [xv.] foll. 291, _chart._ Romans with Theodoret’s Comm.
327. Palatino-Vat. 10 [x.] _membr._ foll. 268. S. Paul’s Epp. with a Patristic Commentary. “Felkman adnotat.”
328. Palatino-Vat. 204 [x.] foll. 181, cum additamentis. With the interpretation of Œcumenius.
329. Palatino-Vat. 325 [x.] _membr._ foll. 163, _mut._ Inter alia adest εἰς ἐπιστ. πρὸς Τιμόθεον ὁμιλεῖαι τινες Χρυσοστόμου.
330. Palatino-Vat. 423 [xii.], partly _chart._ Codex miscell. habet ἐπιστολῶν πρὸς Κολασσαεῖς καὶ Θεσσαλονικεῖς περικοπὰς σὺν τῇ ἑρμηνείᾳ.
331. Angelic. T. 8, 6 [xii.] foll. 326. S. Paul’s Epp. with Comm. of Chrysostom.
332. (= Act. 259). Barberini iii. 36 (_olim_ 22): _membr._ foll. 328 [xi.]. Inter alia ἐπιτομαὶ κεφαλ. τῶν Πράξεων καὶ ἐπιστολῶν τῶν ἁγ. ἀποστόλων.
333. (= Act. 260). Barberini iii. 10 (_olim_ 259) _chart._ foll. 296 [xiv.]. Excerpta ἐκ Πράξ. (f. 152): Ἰακώβου (f. 159): Πέτρου (f. 162): Ἰωάνν. (f. 165): Ἰούδ. (f. 166): πρὸς Ρωμ. (f. 167): πρὸς Κορ. (f. 179): πρὸς Κολ. (fol. 189): πρὸς Θεσς. (f. 193): πρὸς Τιμ. α᾽ (def. infin.).
334. Barb. V. 38 (_olim_ 30) [xi.] foll. 219, _mut._ Hebrews with Comm. of Chrysostom.
335. Vallicell. F. [xv.], _chart._ miscell. Inter alia, εἰς τὰς ἐπιστολὰς τῶν Ἀποστόλων ἐξηγήσεις τινες.
336. (= Act. 261), Casanatensis, G. 11, 6.—Note, that though numbered for “Acts,” it contains only the Catholic Epp. and those of S. Paul with a Catena.
337. Ottob. 328. [All I know as yet of this and of the next codex is that Θεός is read in both at 1 Tim. iii. 16].
338. Borg. F. vi. 16. [See note on the preceding.]
ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THE “APOSTOLUS.”
82. Messina ΠΓ (_i.e._ 83) foll. 331, 8vo. Perfect.
83. Crypta Ferrata, A. β. iv. [x.] _membr._ foll. 139, Praxapostolus. Rocchi gives an interesting account of this codex, pp. 19-20. It seems to be an adaptation of the liturgical use of C P. to the requirements of the Basilian monks in the Calabrian Church. This particular codex is _mut._ in the beginning and at the end. (For its extraordinary reading at 1 Tim. iii. 16, see above, p. 473-4).
84. Crypta Ferrata, Α. β. v. [xi.], _membr._ foll. 245, a most beautiful codex. Rocchi describes it carefully, pp. 20-2. At the end of the Menology is some liturgical matter. “Patet Menologium esse merum ἀπόγραφον alicujus Menologii CPtani, in usum. si velis, forte redacti Ecclesiae Rossanensis in Calabria.” A suggestive remark follows that from this source “rituum rubricarumque magnum segetem colligi posse, nec non Commemorationem _Sanctorum_ mirum sane numerum, quas in aliis Menologiis vix invenies.”
85. Crypta Ferrata Α. β. vii. [xi.] _membr._ foll. 64, Praxapostolus. This codex and the next exhibit ὅς ἐφανερώθη in 1 Tim. iii. 16. The Menology is _mut._ after 17 Dec.
86. Crypta Ferrata Α. β. viii. [xii. or xiii.] fragments of foll. 127. _membr._ Praxapostolus. (See the preceding.) Interestingly described by Rocchi, p. 23-4.
87. Crypta Ferrata Α. β. ix. [xii.], foll. 104, _membr._ Praxapostolus. Interestingly described by Rocchi, p. 24-5. The Menology is unfortunately defective after 9th November.
88. Crypta Ferrata, Α. β. x. [xiii.?] _membr._ 16 fragmentary leaves. “Vere lamentanda est quæ huic Eclogadio calamitas evenit” (says the learned Rocchi, p. 25), “quoniam ex ejus residuis, multa Sanctorum nomina reperies quæ alibi frustra quæsieris.”
89. Crypta Ferrata Α. β. xi. [xi.] _membr._ foll. 291, _mut._, written in two columns. The Menology is defective after 12 June, and elsewhere. Described by Rocchi, p. 26.
90. (= Evst. 322) Crypta Ferrata, Α. β. ii. [xi.] _membr._ foll. 259, with many excerpts from the Fathers, fully described by Rocchi, p. 17-8, fragmentary and imperfect.
91. (= Evst. 323) Crypta Ferrata, Α. δ. ii. [x.] _membr._ foll. 155, a singularly full lectionary. Described by Rocchi, p. 38-40.
92. (= Evst. 325) Crypta Ferrata, Α. δ. iv. [xiii.] _membr._ foll. 257, a beautiful and interesting codex, “Calligrapho Joanne Rossanensi Hieromonacho Cryptæferratæ”: fully described by Rocchi, p. 40-3. Like many other in the same collection, it is a palimpsest.
93. (= Evst. 327) Crypta Ferrata, Α. δ. vi. [xiii.] _membr._ foll. 37, _mut._ at beginning and end, and otherwise much injured: described by Rocchi, p. 45-6.
94. (= Evst. 328) Crypta Ferrata, Α. δ. ix. [xii.], _membr._ foll. 117, _mut._ at beginning and end.
95. (= Evst. 334) Crypta Ferrata, Α. δ. xx. [xii.] _membr._ foll. 21, a mere fragment. (Rocchi, p. 51.)
96. (= Evst. 337) Crypta Ferrata, Α. δ. xxiv. A collection of fragments. (Rocchi, p. 53.)
97. (= Evst. 339) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. ii. [xi.] _membr._ foll. 151, elaborately described by Rocchi, p. 244-9. This codex once belonged to Thomasius.
98. (= Evst. 340) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β iii. [xiv.] _membr._ foll. 201. Goar used this codex: described by Rocchi, p. 249-51.
99. (= Evst. 341) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. vi. [xiii. or xiv.], _membr._ foll. 101: described by Rocchi, p. 255-7.
100. (= Evst. 344) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. ix. [xvi.], _membr._ foll. 95, _mut._ at beginning and end, and much injured.
101. (= Evst. 346) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xii. [xiv.], _membr._ foll. 98, _mut._ at beginning and end.
102. (= Evst. 347) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xiii. [xiii.] _membr._ foll. 188: written by John of Rossano, Hieromonachus of Cryptaferrata, described by Rocchi, p. 265-7.
103. (= Evst. 349) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xv. [xi. to xiv.] _membr._ foll. 41.—Described p. 268-9.
104. (= Evst. 350) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xvii. [xvi.]. _Chart._ foll. 269. Described, p. 269-70.
105. (= Evst. 351), Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xviii. [xiv.] _chart._ foll. 54.
106. (= Evst. 352) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xix. [xvi.] _chart._, foll. 195, described p. 271.
107. (= Evst. 353) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xxiii. [xvii.], _membr._ foll. 75,—the work of Basilius Falasca, Hieromonachus, and head of the monastery, A.D. 1641,—described p. 273-4.
108. (= Evst. 354) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xxiv. [xvi.] _chart._ foll. 302,—the work of Lucas Felix, head of the monastery; described, p. 274-5.
109. (= Evst. 356) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xxxviii. [xvii.]. _chart._ foll. 91, the work of “Romanus Vasselli” and “Michael Lodolinus.”
110. (= Evst. 357) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xlii. [xvi.] _chart._ foll. 344.
111. (= Evst. 358) Crypta Ferrata, Δ. β. xxii. [xviii.] _chart._ foll. 77,—described foll. 365-6.
112. (= Evst. 312) Messina, _membr._ in 8vo. foll. 60 [xiii.],—“fragmentum parvi momenti.”
113. Syracuse (“Seminario”) _chart._ foll. 219, _mut._ given by the Cav. Landolina.
114. (= Evan. 155) Alex. Vat.
115. [I have led Scrivener into error by assigning this number (Apost. 115) to “Vat. 2068 (Basil 107).” See above, p. 495, note 1. I did not advert to the fact that “Basil 107” had _already_ been numbered “Apost. 49.”]
116. Vat. 368 (Praxapostolus) [xiii.] foll. 136, _membr._
117. (= Evst. 381) Vat. 774 [xiii.], foll. 160, _membr._
118. (= Evst. 387) Vat. 2012 (Basil 51), foll. 211 [xv.] _chart._
119. Vat. 2116 (Basil 155) [xiii.] foll. 111.
120. Alexand. Vat. 11 (Praxapostolus), [xiv.] _membr._ foll. 169.
121. (= Evst. 395) Alexand. Vat. 59 [xii.] foll. 137.
122. Alexand. Vat. 70, A.D. 1544, foll. 18: “in fronte pronunciatio Græca Latinis literis descripta.”
123. (= Evst. 400) Palatino-Vat. 241 [xv.] _chart._ foll. 149.
124. (= Evst. 410) Barb. iii. 129 (_olim_ 234) _chart._ [xiv.] foll. 189.
125. Barb. iv. 11 (_olim_ 193), A.D. 1566, _chart._ foll. 158, Praxapostolus.
126. Barb. iv. 60 (_olim_ 116) [xi.] foll. 322, a fine codex with _menologium_. Praxapostolus.
127. Barb. iv. 84 (_olim_ 117) [xiii.] foll. 185, with menologium. _Mut._
128. Paris, _Reg. Greek_, 13, _membr._ [xiii. or xiv.], a huge folio of Liturgical Miscellanies, consisting of between 6 and 900 unnumbered leaves. (At the σαββ. πρὸ των φωτων, line 11, θς ἐφα.) Communicated by the Abbé Martin.
POSTSCRIPT (NOV. 1883.)
It will be found stated at p. 495 (line 10 from the bottom) that the Codices (of “Paul” and “Apost.”) which exhibit Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη amount in all to 289.
From this sum (for the reason already assigned above), _one_ must be deducted, viz., “Apost. 115.”
On the other hand, 8 copies of “PAUL” (communicated by the Abbate Cozza-Luzi) are to be added: viz. _Vat._ 646 (Paul 310): 647 (Paul 311): 1971 (Paul 319). _Palat. Vat._ 10 (Paul 327): 204 (Paul 328). _Casanat._ G. 11, 16 (Paul 336). _Ottob._ 328 (Paul 337). _Borg._ F. vi. 16 (Paul 338). So that no less than 260 out of 262 cursive copies of St. Paul’s Epistle,—[not 252 out of 254, as stated in p. 495 (line 21 from the bottom)],—are found to witness to the Reading here contended for. The enumeration of Codices at page 494 is therefore to be continued as follows:—310, 311, 319, 327, 328, 336, 337, 338.
To the foregoing are also to be added 4 copies of the “APOSTOLUS,” viz. _Vat._ 2116 (Apost. 119). _Palat. Vat._ 241 (Apost. 123). _Barb._ iv. 11 [_olim_ 193] (Apost. 125). Paris, _Reg. Gr._ 13 (Apost. 128).
From all which, it appears that, (including copies of the “Apostolus,”) THE CODICES WHICH ARE KNOWN TO WITNESS TO ΘΕῸΣ ἘΦΑΝΕΡΏΘΗ IN 1 Tim. iii. 16, AMOUNT [289-1+8+4] TO EXACTLY THREE HUNDRED.
INDEX I, OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE,—QUOTED, DISCUSSED, OR ONLY REFERRED TO IN THIS VOLUME.
Note, that an asterisk (*) distinguishes references to the Greek Text from
references to the English Translation. [Where either the Reading of the
Original, or the English Translation is largely discussed, the sign is
doubled (** or ++).]
Genesis ii. 4, 119
10, 180 iii. 7, 180 v. 1, 119 xviii. 14, 183
Exodus x. 21-23, 61
Leviticus iv. 3, 183
Deut. xxxiv. 1-12, 48
Judges iv. 13, 181
2 Sam. vii. 2, 3, 192
1 Kings viii. 17, 18, 192
1 Chron. xvii. 1, 2, 192
2 Chron. xxiv. 8, 10, 11, 201
Job xxxviii. 2, 235
Psalms xxxiii. 18, 185
xlv. 6, 182 lxxxiii. 9, 181
Isaiah xiv. 15, 56
lvii. 15, 185 liii. 9, 467
Jeremiah xv. 9, 64
Amos viii. 9, 64
Zecharia xi. 12, 150
Apocrypha—Baruch iii. 38 [or 37] 177*
S. Matt. i. (genealogy), 167+
1, 119-21+ 3, 7, 10, 12, 186+ 18, 119-22+**, 204+, 224+ 21, 165+, 184+ 22, 173+ 23, 186 25, 123-4**+, 311*, 315*, 416*, 417 ii. 1, 156+ 2, 155+ 4, 156+ 5, 173+ 6, 7, 156+ 9, 155+ 11, 12, 13, 156+ 15, 155+ 16, 146+ 17, 156+ 22, 167+ 23, 156+, 157+, 184+ iii. 5, 184+ 6, 175+ 10, 164+ 15, 193+ 16, 175+ iv. 3, 511+ 11, 193+ 13, 15, 186 18, 184+ 18, 20, 21, 180+ v. 15, 141+ 22, 141+, 180+, 317*, 358-61** 23, 161+ 37, 214+ 39, 129+, 214+ 40, 193+ 44, 410-1**, 412 vi. 8, 317* 12, 163+ 12, 14, 15, 193+ 13, 105, 311*, 316* vi. 29, 167+ 30, 167+ vii. 4, 193+ 9, 168+ 28, 199+ viii. 3, 153+ 4, 259 8, 511+ 13, 316* 19, 183+ ix. 2, 32 3, 33 5, 32 6, 259 9, 141+ 17, 148+ ix. 18, 183+ 23, 148+ 33, 33 x. 8, 108* 9, 201+ 21, 511+ 35, 317* xi. 11, 128+, 166+ 23, 54-56**, 217* 29, 317* xii. 24, 27, 317* 29, 143+, 168+ 38, 204+ 40, 128+ 43, 164+ 47, 311*, 315* xiii. 3, 164+ 5, 154+ 19, 38, 214+ 32, 164+ 35, 316* 36, 195++ xiv. 2, 141+ 2, 3, 13, 68 15, 22, 23, 195+ 22, 154+ 30, 71*, 317* 31, 153+ xv. 14, 361 32, 39, 195+ xvi. 2, 3, 105, 311*, 316* 7, 159+ 12, 199+ 17, 181 21, 317* xvii. 15, 205++ 20, 139*+, 317* 21, 91-2**, 206**, 217+, 311*, 317*, 417 22, 176*+, 317* 24, 147+, 150 25, 146+ 27, 128+, 147+ xviii. 6, 181+ 11, 92**, 311*, 315*, 417 17, 164+ 35, 143+ xix. 17, 105, 139*+, 217, 316* xx. 15, 168+ 20, 193+, 512+ 21, 512+ 34, 153+ xxi. 1-3, 57 2, 154+ 8, 59, 61, 145+ 28, 178+ 31, 316* xxii. 9, 141+ 33, 199+ xxiii. 35, 316* xxiv. 3, 178+ xxv. 18, 27, 148+ 39, 167+ 46, 207+ xxvi. 3, 143+ 7, 200++ 15, 149-150++ 22, 128+ 24, 173+ 36, 182+, 210* 48, 203+ 53, 168+ 69, 183+ 74, 154 xxvii. 34, 315* 37, 87 45, 61, 64 46, 159+ 49, 33-4*, 309*, 315* 50, 193+ 60, 162+, 198++ 61, 88 xxvii. 61, 64, 66, 198+ xxviii. 1, 198+ 2, 162+ 19, 174+, 316* 20, 182+
S. Mark i. 1, 132**, 135, 316*
8, 204+
9, 174+, 175+
13, 165+
16, 184+
16, 18, 19, 180+
18, 193+, 194+
22, 199+
23, 172+
27, 105, 139+
28, 316*
44, 259
ii. 1-12, 30-33**
11, 259
21, 139*+, 148+
22, 148+
iii. 5, 141+
14, 16, 316*
27, 143+
29, 139*+
iv. 13, 170+
29, 178+
36, 145+, 195+
v. 31, 402*
36, 139*+, 316*
43, 511*
vi. 11, 118, 137-8**, 409-10**, 412*
14, 16, 68
16, 70
17, 68
20, 66-69**, 315*, 417
22, 68, 315*
24, 25, 68
27, 147+
29, 167+
30, 32, 68
33, 258*
36, 45, 195+
vii. 8, 194+
27, 179+
31, 315*
33, 35, &c., 180+
viii. 7, 511+
viii. 9, 195+
23, 143+
26, 259*
ix. 1, 316*
18, 20, 22, 26, 205+
23, 139*+, 217*
23, 24, 29, 69-71*
38, 260*
39, 169+
42, 181
44, 46, 510
49, 260*
x. 17-31, 326-31**
21, 217*, 510*
35, 37, 512*
44, 46, 105
xi. 1-6, 57
3, 56-58**, 217*, 417
4, 182+
6, 193+
8, 58-61**, 418, 439*
26, 217*
xii. 37, 146+
42, 183+
xiii. 19, 160+
32, 210**
xiv. 3, 200++, 184-5++*
6, 193+
8, 185
11, 150
30, 71**
30, 68, 72, 316*
32, 182+
50, 194+
65, 139*
68, 141+, 316*
72, 316*
xv. 8, 139*, 191+
31, 167+
33, 61
39, 71-2**
47, 89
xvi. 9-20, 33, 36-40**, 47-9**, 51*, 281-4*, 311*, 317*, 418, 419,
422-4**, 519*
17, 20, 204+
19, 470
S. Luke i. 15, 180+, 204+
26, 316* 37, 183+ 42, 139*+ 51, 172+ 78, 179+ ii. 9, 144+ 12, 203+ 14, 41-7**, 51, 139+, 316*, 340-1**, 418, 419, 420-2**, 519* 29, 178+ 33, 161+ 38, 144+ iii. 3, 184+ 9, 164+ 20, 68 22, 115** iv. 1, 218-219*+ 3, 403*+, 511+ 7, 8, 17, 18, 21, 23, 27, 35, 403*+ 29, 129+, 403+* 32, 199+ 38, 43, 404*+ 39, 144 44, 315*, 404*+ v. 2, 180+ 4, 141+, 162+ 5, 159+ 9, 128+, 352 13, 153+ 18, 19, 32 20, 32 21, 33 36, 139+ 37, 148+ 39, 110 vi. 1 (δευτ.) 73-5**, 311*, 316* 1 (ἤσθ.) 93-4* 6, 129+ 35, 146+ 38, 352 39, 235 48, 110, 315* vii. 7, 511* 17, 172+ 37, 200++ viii. 35-44, 16-7** 45-6, 401-3**+ 46, 158+ ix. 7, 66-9**, 405* 7, 8, 68 10, 68, 260-1* 12, 195+ 31, 184+ 39, 42, 205+ 54-6, 311*, 315*, 511* 55, 56, 93*, 217, 418 x. 1, 316* 10, 68 11, 128+ 15, 54-6**, 418 20, 128+ 40, 144+ 41, 42, 116-117* , 311* 41 to xi. 11, 510* 42, 315* xi. 2-4, 34-6**, 418 4, 163+, 317* 11, 179+ 15, 18, 19, 317* 21, 143+ 54, 261* xii. 2, 169+ 18, 261* 39, 194+ 45, 195-6++ xiv. 1, 179+ 21, 169+ xv. 16, 181+ 16, 17, 139+* 17, 407*+ 21, 315* 22, 180+ 23, 405* 31, 178+ xvi. 3, 159+ 9, 139+* 11, 180+ 12, 316* 21, 139+* xvii. 2, 181+ xviii. 7, 169+ xix. 10, 92 18, 406*+ 23, 169+ 29, 184+ 29-34, 33, 57 xix., xx., 94-5** xx. 1, 144+ 25, 406*+ 44, 170+ xxi. 24, 316* 34, 144+ 37, 184+ xxii. 5, 6, 150 19, 20 to xxiv. 53 75-7* 19, 20, 78-9** 22, 173+ 43-4, 75, 76, 79-82**, 131, 281*, 311*, 316*, 340**, 411* 60, 154 64, 511* xxiii. 8, 204+ 17, 75, 76, 311* 23, 25, 191+ 32, 317* 33, 165+ 34, reverse of title, 75, 76, 82-5**, 131, 281-3*, 311*, 316*, 411* 38, 75, 76, 85-8**, 281-3, 311*, 418, 511* 42, 72* 45, 61-5**, 315* 419 55, 88-9** xxiv. 1, 75, 76, 88-9** 3, 76 4, 144+ 6, 76 7, 96-7** 9, 76 10, 89 12, 76, 89-90**, 281-3*, 311* 13, 316* 17, 105, 139*+ 36, 40, 76, 90-1** 41, 93* 42, 76, 511* 44, 407*+ 51, 76, 281-3*, 470 52, 76 53, 76, 261-2*
S. John i. 1, 469
3, 132*+, 135, 174+ 3, 10, 174 4, 316* 9, 180+ 10, 174+ 13, 347 14, 178+ 18, 182+, 315* 34, 316* 42, 181+* ii. 3, 316* iii. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 347 13, 132-5**, 311*, 315*, 510* iv. 6, 145 15, 407-8**+ v. 2, 5-6** 3, 4, 282-3, 311*, 316* 34, 105 vi. 4, 353**, 354* 21, 154+ 29, 160+ 32, 180+ 33, 142+ 51, 316* 70, 164+ vii. 39, 316* 53 to viii. 11, 311* ix. 4, 139+*, 316* 5, 142+ 11, 140+*, 316* 35, 315* 38, 316* x. 14, 220-1**+, 315* 32, 160+ 39, 142+ xi. 12, 141+ 27, 163+ xii. 3, 184-5*++ 6, 201+ 7, 139*+, 185 41, 140*+ 43, 142+ xiii. 10, 141+, 316* 12, 145+ 14, 164+ 21-6, 105 24, 316* 24-5, 145*+ 29, 201+ xiv. 4, 72-3*+, 141+, 419 5, 9, 170+ 10, 14, 140+* 18, 163+ 22, 142+ xv. 1, 180+ 15, 179+ 20, 352 26, 451* xvi. 13, 335 15, 210 16, 17, 19, 163+ 21, τ 164+ 23, 140*+ 32, 169+ xvii. 4, 140*+ 4, 6, 158+ 11, 352 11, 12, 140*+ 14, 158+ 24, 217-8**+ 25, 158+ xviii. 1, 181+ 5, 316* 18, 161+ 24, 162+ 27, 128+ 35, 160+ 37, 178+ xix. 16, 128+ 18, 87 20, 86 29, 128+ 34, 33, 309* 39, 317* 40, 128+, 436 41, 317* 42, 129+ xx. 2, 159+ 4, 167+ 12, 162+, 165+ 13, 159+ 16, 140+ 28, 469 30, 204+ xxi. 1, 9, 128+ xxi. 12, 15, 142+ 15, 162+, 181*+ 15, 16, 17, 180+ 25, 23-4**, 317
Acts i. 2, 204+
3, 128+ 5, 317* 9, 470 18, 153+ 19, 316* 23, 150 ii. 22, 173+, 352 43, 173+ iii. 6, 316* 14, 191+ iv. 1, 144+ 6, 129+ 16, 173+ 16, 22, 204+ 24, 178+ 36, 142+ v. 24, 183+ vi. 7, 129+ 12, 144+ 15, 129+ vii. 13, 129+ 16, 141+ 17, 352 45, 186+, 352 46, 191+ viii. 3, 167+ 5, 316* 20, 148+ ix. 13, 160+ 25, 171+ x. 11, 180+ 15, 146+, 160+ 17, 144 19, 316* xi. 5, 180+ 11, 144+ 12, 146+ 16, 143+ 17, 142+ xii. 7, 144+ 13, 195+ 17, 162+ 20, 192+ 25, 316* xiii. 28, 191+ xiv. 9, 161+ xvi. 16, 195+ 29, 192+ xvii. 5, 144+ 19, 143+ 28, 316* 29, 128+ 31, 150+, 160+ xviii. 2, 24, 142+ 7, 53-4** xix. 12, 140+ xx. 28, 353-4* xxi. 37, 149++ xxii. 13, 144+ 15, 352 20, 144+ xxiii. 1, 129+ 3, 169+ 11, 27, 144+ xxv. 13, 316* xxvi. 28, 29, 151-2*++ xxvii. 14, 176+ 26, 167+ 37, 51-3**, 316* xxviii. 1, 177-8**+ 2, 144+ 3, 177+ 4, 160+ 11, 147+ 13, 317*
Rom. i. 7, 127*
7-xiii. 1, 440* 20, 207+ iii. 22, 167+ 29, 168+ iv. 8, 315* v. 5, 204+ vi. 2, 160 3, 168+ vii. 1, 142+, 168+ 15, 142-3+ ix. 5., 208++, 210-4**++, 354*, 412*, 469, 510 13, 160 22, 167+ xi. 2, 142+ 4, 156+ xii. 6, 167+ xii. 9, 214+ xiv. 4, 167+ 15, 143+ xv. 20, 167+ xvi. 23, 127+ 25, 143+ 25, 26, 464
1 Cor. i. 27, 160
iv. 21, 441* vi. 20, 160 viii. 6, 174+ ix. 11, 160 x. 1, 167+ xii. 8-10, 166+ 20, 167+, 168+ 27, 167+ xiii., 201-2++ 3, 316* xiv. 7, 148+ 36, 168+ xv. 34, 141+, 178+ 44, 142+ 55, 142+, 440* xvi. 12, 164*, 170+ 22, 180+
2 Cor. i. 3-7, 189+
4, 352 23, 167+ ii. 12, 167+ iii. 3, 140*+ v. 8, 167+ 17, 19, 440* vi. 11, 440* 12, 153+ 13, 167+ 15, 153+ viii. 11, 14, 441* xii. 7, 219-20**+ xiii. 1, 169+
Gal. ii. 4, 167+
16, 146+ iii. 1, 440* iv. 21-31, 196++
Eph. i. 1., 317*
6, 352 10, 173+ iii. 13, 192+ 21, 178+ iv. 1, 167+, 352 14, 199+ 17, 178+ 20, 160 29, 178+ vi. 16, 214+
Phil. i. 1, 129+
8, 153+ 15, 139+ 18, 128+ ii. 6, 143+ 10, 513* 23, 146+ iii. 16, 128+ iv. 3, 440*
Col. i. 9, 192+
16, 172+, 174+ 23, 441* 27, 497-8* ii. 8, 128+ 18, 355-6**, 140+ 22, 23, 441* iii. 2, 441* 12, 153+
1 Thess. i. 9, 441*
iv. 15, 127+
2 Thess. i. 3, 127+
1 Tim. ii. 2, 489*
10, 440* 17, 440* 19, 439* iii. 1, 441* 13 to iv. 5, 476 16, 98-106***, 165+, 316*, 353, 419, 424-501***, 515, 519* iv. 1, 2, 440* 10, 439* 14, 441* v. 13, 441* vi. 15, 441* 20, 344 20, 440*
2 Tim. i. 13, 28, 351*
ii. 1, 143+ 17, 25, 440* iii. 6, 441* 16, 208-9++ iv. 3, 164+ 17, 166+ 18, 215
Titus i. 2, 178+*
2, 3, 143+ 4, 143+ 7, 128+ 7, 9, 164+ 13, 439* ii. 1, 164+
Philemon, ver. 12, 153+
Heb. i. 1, 2, 172+
2, 174+ 8, 182 ii. 4, 204+ 14, 216 16, 143+ iii. 19, 169+ iv. 8, 162+, 186+ vi. 2, 199+ viii. 2, 180+ ix. 24, 180+ x. 21, 183+ xi. 17, 160+, 161+ 17, 28, 163+ 26, 146+ 28, 160+ 35, 143+ 38, 141+ xii. 2, 146+ 9, 164+ 14, 164+ 18, 178+ xiii. 9, 199+
S. James i. 11, 163+, 170+
15, 164+ 17, 317* 17, 18, 217+ ii. 2, 3, 190+ 6, 160+ 11, 511* 16, 128+ 19, 148+ iii. 3, 140+ 5, 143+ 11, 164+ iv. 1, 143+ 7, 129+ v. 16, 141+
1 S. Peter i. 5, 141+
23, 216* ii. 2, 179+ 22, 467 iii. 20, 178+ v. 9, 129+ 13, 129+, 141+
2 S. Peter i. 5-7, 174+, 400
20, 179+ ii. 15, 142 22, 106, 335 iii. 7, 178+ 10, 355-6** 13, 167+
1 S. John i. 2, 169+
3, 167+ ii. 14, 160* 22, 164+ 27, 169+ 29, 347 iii. 4, 143+ 8, 129+, 216 9, 347 15, 359 17, 153+ iv. 3, 6, 127+ 7, 347 14, 129+ 19, 140+ v. 1, 347 2, 127+, 129+ 4, 347 6, 164+ 7, 483 12, 164+ 18, 347-50** 20, 469
3 S. John 1, 129+
14, 154+
S. Jude 1, 129+
5, 140+ 6, 207+ 14, 178+ 18, 129+
Rev. ii. 5, 143+
iii. 2, 140+ iv. 6, 143+ v. 12, 143+ vi. 9, 127+ viii. 13, 183+ ix. 13, 183+ xiii. 18, 135-7** xiv. 6, 165+ 14, 165+ 19, 172+ xv. 6, 140+ xvi. 17, 172+, 199++ xvii. 1, 200++ xviii. 21, 183+ 22, 148+ xix. 6, 129+, 162+ 17, 183+ 21, 129+ xxii. 18, 19, 1 19, 409
INDEX II, OF FATHERS.
Fathers referred to, or else quoted(*), in this volume. For the chief
Editions employed, see the note at p. 121.
_Acta Apostt._ (Syriac), 40, 62, 84, 423
_Philippi_, 84 _Pilati_, 45, 62, 84, 423
Alcimus Avit., 213
Ambrosius, 24, 40, 73, 79, 85, 87, 90, 91, 92, 123, 132, 133, 213, 215*,
218, 410, 423
Ammonius, 23, 29, 88*, 89, 91
Amphilochius, 133, 213 [_ed._ Combefis]
ps. ----, 85
_Anaphora Pilati_, 62
Anastasius Ant., 213 [_ed._ Migne]
Sin., 44, 81, 84, 421 [_ed._ Migne]
Andreas Cret., 23, 44, 84, 421 [_ed._ Combefis]
Anonymous, 43, 100, 102
Antiochus mon., 84, 360 [_ed._ Migne]
Aphraates, 40, 43, 133, 421, 423
_Apostolical_, see “_Constitutiones_.”
Archelaus (with Manes), 84
Arius, 80
Athenagoras, 410
Athanasius, 44, 62, 64, 80, 84, 90, 91, 121, 122, 123, 133, 212, 220, 359
ps. ——, 133, 402, 475
Augustinus, 24, 40, 81, 85, 90, 91, 92, 116*, 123, 132, 133, 213, 356,
360, 410, 423, 500*
Barnabas, 103*, 463*
Basilius M., 44, 79, 84, 91, 102*, 108, 122, 123, 133, 210*, 212, 218,
219, 360, 402, 464* —— Cil., 133 —— Sel., 43, 421
_Breviarium_, 213
Capreolus, 133
Cassianus, 81, 133, 213, 348, 411 [_ed._ 1611]
Cælestinus, 218
Cæsarius, 212, 215*
ps. ——, 55, 74, 81
_Catena_ (Cramer’s), 353
Chromatius, 348
_Chronicon Paschale_, 40, 74, 353 [_ed._ Du Fresne]
Chrysostomus, 5, 23, 26, 27, 40, 43, 44, 53, 55, 62*, 71*, 72, 74, 80, 84,
90, 91, 92, 99, 101*, 108, 121, 122, 123, 133, 151*, 152*,
177, 212, 218, 219, 220, 353, 356, 360, 402, 410, 421, 423,
457
ps. ——, 85, 90, 133, 218, 360, 402, 427
Clemens, Alex., 115, 121, 208*, 218, 327, 336*, 410
—— Rom, 38* —— —— (Syriac), 91
_Clementina_, 84
_Concilia_ [_ed._ Labbe et Cossart] _passim._
_Constitutiones Apostolicæ_, 43, 84, 212, 360, 410, 421, 423, 463*
Cosmas Indicopleustes, 44, 63, 133, 421 [_ed._ Montfaucon]
—— ep. Maiumæ, 44, 421
_Cramer_, see _Catena_.
Cyprianus, 213, 218, 359
Cyrillus Alex., 5, 23, 43, 55, 62, 79, 80, 84, 86, 89, 90, 96, 102*, 103,
121, 122, 132, 133, 163, 213, 218, 219, 220, 353, 356, 360,
402, 410, 421, 423, 427, 428*, 464-469**
—— Hieros, 43, 62, 72, 123, 151*, 177, 421, 470
Damascenus, _see_ “Johannes.”
Damasus, P. 92
_Dialogus_, 208*, 402
Didymus, 5, 40, 43, 80, 101, 122, 123, 133, 212, 219, 348, 402, 421, 423,
427, 456
Diodorus Tars., 101, 458
Dionysius Alex., 163
ps. —— ——, 23, 80, 101, 133, 212, 462* ps. —— —— Areop., 80, 84
_Eastern Bishops at Ephesus collectively_ (A.D. 431), 43, 80, 421
Epiphanius, 40, 43, 44, 74, 79, 80, 90, 96, 116, 122, 123, 133, 212, 360,
402, 421, 423, 427 ps. ——, 427 —— diac. Catan. [A.D. 787], 102, 103, 475
Ephraemus Syrus, 43, 62, 64, 80, 82*, 84, 122, 123, 215*, 348, 360, 421
ps. —— ——, 84, 353, 423
Eulogius, 44, 212, 421
Eusebius Cæs., 5, 23, 40, 43, 62*, 72, 80, 84, 86, 87, 88*, 89, 90, 96,
108, 122, 136, 163, 218, 219, 323-324**, 353, 359, 410, 421,
423
—— His _Canons_, 91
Eustathius, 133, 212
Euthalius, 102, 458, 459-461**
Eutherius, 84, 103, 427
Euthymius Zig., 360, 410, 465, 476* [_ed._ Matthæi]
Facundus, 81, 213
Faustus, 115
Ferrandus, 213, 500*
Fulgentius, 213, 500*
Gaudentius, 24
Gelasius Cyzic., 100, 213, 479
Gennadius, 80, 213
Germanus CP., 44, 122, 421
_Gospel of Nicodemus_, 62
Gregentius, 423
Gregorius Nazianz., 23, 43, 73*, 80, 101*, 121, 134, 421, 457
ps —— ——, 163, 220
—— Nyssen., 23, 40, 43, 44, 84, 87, 89, 101*, 123, 134, 208*, 212, 360,
410, 421, 456, 458
—— Thaum., 44, 45, 102*, 463*
Hegesippus, 84
Hesychius, 84, 163, 423
Hieronymus, 24, 40, 41, 63*, 64*, 73*, 79*, 81, 85, 90, 92, 103*, 108,
123*, 133, 213, 348, 356, 359, 360*, 423, 427
Hilarius, 79, 81, 85, 91, 92, 115, 133, 213, 218, 281, 360, 410
Hippolytus, 62, 64, 80, 84, 102*, 133, 136, 212, 353, 423, 463*
Ignatius, 103*, 463*
ps. ——, 84
Johannes Damascenus, 44, 81, 85, 91, 102, 123, 133, 177, 213, 220, 356,
360, 421, 457 —— Thessal., 96, 423
Irenæus, 42, 64*, 80, 84, 122, 132, 212, 220, 353, 356, 359, 409, 420, 423
Isidorus, 23, 74, 123*, 360, 410
Jovius mon., 92
Julian hæret., 80
Julius Africanus, 62*, 64
Justinus Mart., 79, 80, 115, 121, 360, 410, 423
ps. —— ——, 84, 90
Juvencus, 91, 108, 115
Lactantius, 115
Leo ep., 213, 423
—— _ap._ Sabatier, 41
Leontius Byz., 81, 213, 423, 480
Liberatus of Carthage, 471-3
Lucifer Calarit, 133, 360, 410
Macarius Magnes, 40, 62*, 220, 423 [_ed._ 1876]
Macedonius, 470-475**, 102, 103
Malchion, 212
Marcion, 34, 35, 61, 64, 96, 402
Marius Mercator, 133, 213, 423, 468
—— Victorinus, 500*
Martinus P., 421, 473
Maximus, 23, 79, 81, 84
—— Taurin, 91, 133, 213, 219, 220, 360
Methodius, 44, 115, 212 [_ed._ Combefis]
Modestus Hier., 423
Nestorius, 80, 121, 212, 423, 427
Nicetas, 123
Nilus mon., 62, 359, 410
Nonnus, 23, 133, 218, 353
Novatianus, 133, 213
Œcumenius, 102, 348, 476
Origenes, 23, 41, 43, 58, 60, 62*, 63**, 64, 72, 84, 87, 92, 122*, 133,
136, 163, 208*, 212, 219, 220, 348, 353, 356, 359, 360, 402,
410, 421, 427
_Opus imperf._, 85, 91
Pacianus, 410
Palladius, the Arian, 213
Pamphilus Cæs., 177
Papias, 423
_Paschale_, see “_Chronicon._”
Patricius, 423
Paulinus, 81
Paulus Emes., 43, 80, 133, 213, 421
Philastrius, 24, 360
Philo, 43, 421
Photius CP., 81, 123, 360
Porphyrius, 132
Proclus CP., 43, 123
Prosper, 423
Salvianus, 360
Sedulius, 24
Severianus Gabal., 132, 212
Severus Ant., 23, 40, 89, 102*, 133, 213, 348, 360, 458
ps. Tatianus, 80, 84, 122, 123, 402 [_ed._ Moesinger, 1876]
Tertullianus, 62*, 90*, 91, 92, 120, 122, 208*, 213*, 215*, 410, 423
Titus Bostr., 43, 421
Theodoretus, 43, 55, 79, 80, 84, 91, 102, 122, 133, 152*, 213, 218, 219,
220, 336, 356, 360, 410, 421, 456, 458*
Theodorus Herac., 84, 92, 133
—— hæret., 81 —— Mops., 23, 62, 80, 103, 121, 133, 212, 356, 360, 480-482* —— Studita [_ed._ Sirmondi], 475
Theodosius Alex., 81
Theodotus Ancyr., 43, 212, 421
—— Gnosticus, 102*
Theophilus Alex., 212
—— Ant., 410
Theophylactus, 102, 147, 348, 360, 410, 476 [_ed._ Venet. 1755]
Victor Antioch., 23, 40, 66*, 132, 409, 423
Victorinus, 133, 213
Victricius, 218
Vigilius, 133, 348
Vincentius, 423
Zeno, 133
INDEX III, PERSONS, PLACES, AND SUBJECTS.
_General Index of_ Persons, Places, _and_ Subjects _referred to in this
Volume. But_ Scriptural References _are to be sought in_ INDEX I.; _and_
Patristic References, _in_ INDEX II. ’New Codices’ _will be found
enumerated in the_ APPENDIX.
“A,” _see_ “Alexandrinus.”
א and B: _see_ “B,” _and_ “Antiquity.”
א A B C D, in conflict, 12, 13, 14, 16-7, 30-1, 46-7, 75-8, 94-5, 117,
249, 262, 265, 289, 386
“Abutor”, 146
Acacius, Bp. of Melitene, 178
Accident, 50-6
Æthiopic, _see_ “Version.”
ἀγάπη, 201-2
ἀΐδιος, 207
αἰτεῖν, 191-3
αἰών, 182, 208
αἰώνιος, 207
ἀλάβαστρον, 200-1
Alexander (Dr.), Bp. of Derry, 107-8
“Alexandrian” readings, 271-2, 357
Alexandrinus (cod.) (A), 11-17, 345-347, 431-7
ἀληθινός, 180
Alford (Dean), 381, 456, 498
Allocution, 413-5
Alterations, yet not improvements, 139-143
Ammonius, 29
Amos (in S. Matt, i.), 186
ἀμφίβληστρον, 184
Amphilochius, 210
ἄμφοδον, 182
ἀναβάς, 139
ἀναπεσών, 145
Anastasius (Imp.), 472-3
Ancient Authority, _see_ “Ellicott.”
“Ancoratus”, 427
Andrewes, Bp., 500
Antioch, 385, 391
“Antiochian,” _see_ “Syrian.”
“Antiquity”, 333
ἀντίστητε, 129
Anziani (Dr.), 445, 492
Aorist, 158-60, 162
ἀπελπίζοντες, 146
ἀφιέναι, 193-5
Apolinaris, 456, 458
Apollonides, 323-4
ἀπολύειν, 195
ἀποστολοευαγγέλια, 448
“Apostolus”, 446-8, 476-8, 482, 491. _See the_ APPENDIX.
Aram (in S. Matt. i.), 186
Argument _e silentio_, 469
Armenian, _see_ Version.
Article, the, 164-5
Articles (Three) in the “Quarterly Review,” their history _pref._ ix-xiv
ἄρτος, 179
ἀρχαί, 180
Asaph (in S. Matt. i.), 186-7
Asclepiades, 323-4
“Ask” (αἰτεῖν), 171-3
“Assassins”, 147
Assimilation, 32, 65-69
——, proofs of, 66
ἀτενίσαντες, 129
“Attraction”, 351-2
αὐληταί, 148
Authority, (ancient) _see_ “Ellicott.”
αὐτός, 165
“B,” _see_ “Vaticanus.”
B and א (codd.), sinister resemblance, 12
B and א, 12, 255-7, 315-20, 333, 357, 361, 365, 408, 410
Bandinel (Dr.), 445
“Baptist” Revisers, 504-5
Baptismal Renunciation, 215
Basil to Amphilochius, 210
Basilides, 29
Beckett, Sir Edmund, 38, 222
Belsheim, Dr. J., 444, 453, 493
Bengel (J. A.), 246, 500
Bentley, Dr. R., 432, 467, 499
Berlin (_see_ “De Boor”), 492, 493
Berriman, Dr. J., 432, 433, 446, 468, 474, 480, 500
Bethesda, 5
Beveridge (Bp.), 351, 500
Beyer (Dr.), 477
Bezæ, cod. (D), 11-7, 77-9, 117, 264-5
Birch (Andreas), 246, 383, 467
Blunders, 149, 150, 180, 181;—172, 176, 177, &c.
Bois (John), 228
“Bondmaid”, 196
“Boon”, 217
“Bowls”, 200
“Branch”, 184
Broughton (Hugh), 513
Bull (Bp.), 212, 500
“C,” _see_ “Ephraemi.”
Caius (A.D. 175) on the Text, 323-4
Cambridge, Codex (D), _see,_ Bezæ.
“—— Greek Text”, _Pref._ xxviii
Capper (S. Herbert), Esq., 492
Cappilli (Sig.), 491-2
Carob tree, 181
Castan (M.), 477
Castiglione, 452
Catalogue of Crypta Ferrata, 447
Cedron, 181
Ceriani (Dr.), 381, 452, 477, 491-2-3. _See the_ APPENDIX.
Changes (licentious), 127, 403-7
“Charity”, 201-2
χωρίον, 182
Chronicle of Convocation, 507
“_Church Quarterly_” (1882), _Pref._ xvi
“_Church Quarterly_,” (1883), _Pref._ xvi-xx., xxiv-vii.
Citations, _see_ “Fathers.”
Clemens, Alex., 326-7, 327-31
Codd. B—א—A—C—D, 11-17, 30, 108, 249, 262, 269-71
—— F and G, 438-43 —— Paul 73, 444 —— —— 181, 444-5 —— new, _see the_ APPENDIX.
Collation of MSS., 125, 246-7;
with the Received Text, 249-50, 262
Complutensian, 391
“Conflate readings”, 258-65
“Conflation” examined, 258-65, 285
“Congregationalist” Revisers, 504-5
Conjectural emendation, 351-7
Consent of copies (_see_ “Fathers”), 454-5
“_Conversantibus_”, 176
Cook, (Canon), 204-5, 214, 234, 372, 381, 470, 502
Cornelius à Lapide, 473
Corruptions in the N. T., 334-5
Cotelerius, 473
Coxe (Rev. H. O.), 306, 445, 491
Cozza-Luzi (Abbate), 447, 477, 491-2-3, _see the_ APPENDIX.
Cranbrook, Viscount, page v-viii
Creyk (John), 433
“Crib”, 238
Cross, title on, 85-8
_Crux criticorum_, the, 98
Crypta Ferrata, 447, 473-4, 478, 521
“D,” _see_ “Bezæ.”
δαιμόνιον, 179
Darkness, 62-4
Dartige (M.), 493
Dated codices, 292
δέ, 167-8
Deane (Rev. H.), 450, 481, 489
De Boor (Dr. C.), 492-3
Definite, _see_ Article.
Delicate distinction, 402
Demoniacal possession, 206
Denis (M.), 493
Derry (Bp. of), _see_ Alexander.
Design, 56-65
δευτερόπρωτον, 73
“Devil”, 214-6
διά, 170, 173-4, _see_ ὑπό
Dialogue (supposed), 320-8, 328-42
Diatessaron, _see_ “Tatian.”
διδασκαλία, 199
διδάσκαλος, 179
διδαχή, 199
διέρχωμαι, 407
Dionysius Alex., 461-2
Διόσκουροι, 147
Dissertation on 1 Tim. iii. 16 _Pref._ xxi-iv, 424-501
Divination. _See_ “Verifying faculty.”
“Doctrine” extirpated, 199
δοῦλος, 179
δύναμις, 204
Dublin (Abp. of), _see_ Trench.
ἤ interrogative, 168-9
Ebionite Gospel, 116
Ecclesiastical Tradition, 495
Eclipse, 63-5
Editions of Fathers, 121
ἔγνων, 159
Egyptian, _see_ Version.
ειδε for ιδε, 140
εἰκῆ, 359-61
εἰπεῖν, 511-2
εἶς, 183
ἐκλείποντος, 63-5
ἔλαβον, 139
ἑλληνιστί, 149
Ellicott (Bp. of Gloucester), on the “old uncials”, 14-5
—— on the A. V., 112, 368 —— on “Revision” xlii, 112, 124, 126, 226-8, 368 —— on “Marginal Readings”, 136-7 —— on “Textus Receptus”, 383-8, 389-91 —— on 1 Tim. iii. 16, 428-31 —— on 2 Tim. iii. 16, 209 —— on Textual Criticism, 234 —— on “innocent Ignorance”, 349-50 —— on the Greek Text, 369, 509 —— on “Euthalius”, 460-1 —— his jaunty proposal, 216 —— his Pamphlet _Pref._ xx-xxii, 369 _seq._
Ellicott, his critical knowledge, 370, 376, 385, 430, 457, 459-61, 471-2,
_Dedication_ p. viii
—— his requirement anticipated, 371, 397
—— his method of procedure, 372-4, 419-24, 459-61
—— method of his Reviewer, 375-383, 496-7, 517, _Pref._ xxiv-vii
—— appeals to _Modern Opinion_, instead of to _Ancient Authority_,
376-8, 415-6, 438-9, 483-5, 514-5
—— follows Dr. Hort, 391-8, 455, 517-8
—— complains of Injustice, 399, 400-13
—— suggested Allocution, 413-5
—— his defence of the “New Greek Text,” examined 415-9, 419-24
ἐμβατεύων, 140
ἐν, its different renderings, 171-2
ἐν ὀλίγῳ, 151-2
English idiom, 154-5, 158-75
ἐφανερώθη, 427, 468
ἐφιστάναι, 144
Ephraemi cod. (C), 11-17, 325
“Epileptic”, 205-6
ἐπιπεσών, 145
Epiphanius, 427
ἐπιστᾶσα, 144
ἠπόρει [_see_ Scrivener, _ed._ 3, pp. 581-2], 66-9
Errors (plain and clear), 3, 4, 105, 148, 172, 216, 222-3, 228, 348,
400-1, 430, 496, 512
Escher (Dr.), 493
ἐσκοτίσθη, 61
ἔστησαν, 150
“Eternal”, 207
Eternity, 208
Ethiopic, _see_ “Version.”
Eudocia, 465
“Euraquilo”, 176
εὐρεθήσεται, 356
Euripides (papyrus of), 321-2
“Euroclydon”, 176
Euthalius, 429, 460-1
Eutherius, 427
εὐθέως, 153-4
Euthymius Zigabenus. _See_ INDEX II.
“Everlasting”, 207
“Evil One”, 214-6
ἐξελθοῦσαν, 402
ἔξοδος, 184
Exodus, 184
External evidence, 19-20
“F” and “G” (codd.), 257
“Factor of Genealogy”, 256
Farrar, Canon (now Archd.), _Pref._ xv
Fathers, 121, 125-6, _see_ INDEX II.
Fell (Bp.), 432
Field (Dr.), 146, 148, 163, 177, 180, 382
Florence, _see_ “Anziani.”
Flute-players, 148
Forstemann (Dr.), 441, 493
Future sense, 163-4
Gabelentz and Loebe, 452
Gandell (Professor), 184
Gardiani (Sig.), 492
γεγεννημένος, 347
Gelasius of Cyzicus, 479, _see_ INDEX II.
“Genealogical Evidence”, 253
γένεσις and γέννησις, 119-22
γεννηθείς, 347
γένος, 142
Geographical distribution of Patristic Testimony, 45, 134
Gifford (Dr.), 214
γινώσκεις, 149
Gloucester (Bp. of), _see_ “Ellicott.”
γλωσσόκομον, 201
“GOD blessed for ever”!, 211
Gorresio (Sig.), 492
Gospel incident, 194-5
—— (the Ebionite), 116 —— of the Hebrews, 29
Gothic, _see_ Version.
“Græco-Syrian,” _see_ “Syrian.”
“_Great_ priest”, 182
Green, Rev. T. S., 499
Gregory (Dr. C. R.), 477
Gregory Naz., 73
Griesbach (J. J.), 380, 456, 482, 483
Hall, Bp., 500
Hammond (Dr.), 432, 500
Headings of the Chapters, 223, 412
Hellenistic Greek, 182-4, _See_ “Septuagint.”
Henderson (Dr.), 500
Heracleon, 29
Hermophilus, 323-4
Herodotus, 65
Hesychius, 29, 163
Hilary on μύλος ὀνικός, 281
Hincmar, Abp. of Rheims, 472
Hoerning (Dr.), 453
’HOLY GHOST’, 204
Hort, Dr., 37, 135, 182, 211, 248, 394, (_see_ Westcott and Hort).
—— hypothesis and system, _see reverse of Title-page_.
—— his “Introduction” analyzed, 246-69
—— “strong preference” for codd. B and א, 252, 269-271, 298-305, 307-8,
312-14
—— mistaken estimate of B and א, 315-20
—— divining and verifying faculty, 253, 290, 291, 307-8
—— imaginary history of the Traditional Greek Text, 271-88, 296-8
—— antagonism with Patristic Antiquity, 283-5, 298-300
—— fatal dilemma, 292-3
—— Reiteration, 306
—— ultimate appeal to his own individual mind, 307-8
—— “Art of Conjectural Emendation”, 351-7
—— absurd Textual hypothesis, 293-4
—— intellectual peculiarity, 362
—— method of editing the Greek Text, 363
—— Text of the N. T., 364-5
—— often forsaken by Dr. Westcott, 352
Hug (J. L.), 381
Huish (Alex.), 432
Idiom, _see_ “English.”
ἱερεὺς (ὁ μέγας), 182
Imperfect tense, 161
Incident (unsuspected), 194-5
“Independent” Reviewers, 504-5
“Innocent ignorance” of the Reviewer, 347-9, 411
Inspiration, 208
“Instructions,” _see_ “Revisers.”
Instrumentality (ideas of), 173
Internal Evidence, 253
Interpreters, (modern), 211
“Intrinsic probability”, 251-2
Jacobson (Dr. W.) Bp. of Chester, 37
Jechonias (in Matt. i.), 186
Jerome, 73, 427, 449
“JESUS”, 184
“Joanes”, 181
John (S.) and S. Mark, 185
Jona (son of), 181-2
Josephus, 52
καί, 169-70
—— its force, 209
καὶ πῶς, 170
Kaye (Bp.) on Clemens Al., 336
κέδρων, 181
κενεμβατεύων, 356
κεράτια, 181
Kidron, 181
Kippax (Rev. John), 433
Kishon, 181
κισσῶν, 181
Knowledge of CHRIST not limited, 210
κράξας, 71-2
Lachmann’s Text, 21, 242-3, 246, 270, 380-1
Lagarde (P. A. de), 493
—— _Analecta Syr._, 481
Latin Version, 9
Laubmann (Dr.), 493
Lawrence (Abp.), 380
“Layers of leaves”, 58-61
“Lecythus”, 201
Lee (Archd.) _on Inspiration_, 208, 230, 382
Leontius Byzantinus, 480, _see_ INDEX II.
Liberatus of Carthage, 471-3
Licentious, _see_ “Changes.”
Lightfoot (Dr.) Bp. of Durham, 145, 498, _Pref._ xxxi.
Limitation of our SAVIOUR’s knowledge, 210
Lincoln (Bp. of), _see_ Wordsworth.
λίθος μυλικός, 181
Lloyd (Bp.) ed. of N. T., _Pref._ xvii-ix, 16
LORD’s Prayer, 34-6, 214-6
“Love”, 201-2
Lucian, 29
Luke (Gospel according to S.), 16, 34-5, 75-91, 249, 403-7
“Lunaticus”, 205-6
Macedonius, 103, 470-5, 489
Mai (Card.), 121
Malan (Dr. S. C.), 67, 120, 123, 124, 348, 356, 382, 451, 453-4
Manichæan depravation, 220
“Maranatha”, 180
Marcion, 29, 34-5, 61
Margin, 3-6, 33, 115, 130, 131, 137, 175, 236-7
Marginal References, 223, 412
Marius Mercator, 468
Mark (Gospel according to S.), 30, 262
—— collation of 15 verses, 327-31
—— last Twelve Verses, 36-7, 39-40, 48, 49, 51, _Ded._ vii, _Pref._
xxiii
—— and S. John, 185
Martin (Abbé), 382, 446, 474, 477, 478, 492, 528
Martin I. (Pope), 421, 473
Massmann (H. F.), 453
Matranga (Papas Filippo), 477, 492, _see the_ APPENDIX, p. 522-3
Matthæi (C. F.), 246
—— —— Scholia, 348, 380, 427, 434, 465, 468
Matthew (S.) chap. i. (Greek), 119-24, 186
—— —— (English), 156-7, 186
Medial agency, 173
Melita and Melitene, 177-8
Menander, 361
Merivale (Dean), 230
Messina, _see_ “Matranga”: and p. 523
μία, 183
Middleton (Bp.), 165, 209
Milan (_see_ “Ceriani”), 452, 477, 491-2-3
Mill (Dr. John), 245, 383, 432, 437, 472, 500
—— on cod. D, 13 —— (Dr. W. H.), 354
Milligan (Dr.), 39, 48
“Miracle”, 202-4
μνημεῖον, 197-9
Moberly (Dr.) Bp. of Salisbury, 106, 228-9
Modena, _see_ “Cappilli”: and p. 523
Modern Interpreters, 411
—— Opinion, _see_ “Ellicott.”
μονογενὴς Θεύς, 182
Montfaucon, 121
“Moreh”, 180
Morier (Sir Robert), 492
μωρέ, 180
μύλος ὀνικός, 181
Mutilation, 69-93
Mystical interpretation, 185
νάρδου πιστικῆς, 184-5
Nazareth, 184
“Necessity” of Revision, 127, 150, 223, 228
Needless changes, 87-8, 224-5; 97, 224-5, 399, 403-7
νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε, 108
Nemesis of superstition, 350
“Netser”, 184
“Neutral” readings, 271-2, 357
“New English Version”, 225-6
“New Greek Text”, 130, 224-5
Newth (Dr.), 37-9, 109, 126, 369, 502
Newton (Sir Isaac), 426, 480, 500
Nilus Rossanensis, 447
Nineteen changes in 34 words, 401
Nominative repeated, 165
“Non-Alexandrian” readings, 357
“Non-Alexandrian Pre-Syrian”, 357
Nonsensical rendering, 218
“Non-Western”, 357-8
Notes in the margin, 175
Numerals in MSS., 52-3
“Number of the Beast”, 135
ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, 133
Occupation (Right of), 199-206
ωδε, 139
“Olivet”, 184
Ollivant (Bp.), 146
Omission, intentional, 69-93
ὄνος, 181
“Or” not meant by ἤ, 168-9
Opinion, (modern) _see_ “Ellicott.”
Origen, as a textual critic, 292
ὅς, 165
ὅς and θεός, in MSS., 99-105
ὅτι for ὅτε, 140
“_Otium Norvicense_,” _see_ “Field.”
οὕτως, 145
παιδίσκη, 195-6
πάλιν, 57
Palmer (Archd.), 49, 126
Papyrus, 321-2
παραδῷ, 178
παράκλησις, 190
Paralytic borne of four, 30-3
Paris cod., _see_ “Ephraemi.”
——, _see_ “Wescher,” “Martin.”
Parquoi (M.), 437
Particles (Greek), 166
πᾶσα γραφή, 208-9
πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας, 152
πάσχα, τὸ, 353
Paul “17,” “73,” “181”, 443-8
—— (S.), Codd., 493-4 —— New Codd., _see the_ APPENDIX.
Pearson (Bp.), 212, 432, 471, 500
Peckover (Alex.), Esq., 493
Penerino (Sig.), 492
Perfect (English), 158-60
—— (Greek), 163
περίχωρος, 184
Perowne, (Dean), _Pref._ xxx
Perverted sense, 218-9
“_Phaseolus vulgaris_”, 181
Phavorinus, 140
Photius, 467
φιάλη, 200
“Pistic nard”, 184
“Plain and clear,” _see_ “Errors.”
πλεῖστος ὄχλος, 145
Pluperfect sense of Aorist, 162
_Ponderari debent testes_, 455
πονηροῦ, (ἀπὸ τοῦ), 214-6
Possession (Demoniacal), 206
Possession (right of), 199-206
Powles (Rev. R. Cowley), _Pref._ xxviii, 322
“Praxapostolus,” _see_ “Apostolus.”
“Pre-Syrian”, 357-8
“Pre-Syrian Non-Western”, 357
Preface of 1611, 187-91, 198-9
—— 1881, 189
Preponderating evidence, 411, 496
Prepositions, 170-5
“Present” (Greek), sometimes a Future, 163-4
—— sense of “perfect”, 163
Principle of translation, mistaken, 187-96
“Principles of Textual Criticism”, 125-6, 227, 349-50, 374-5, 411
Probability, 497
Proper names in S. Matt. i. 186
“Proud-in-the-imagination-of-their-hearts”, 172
Provision (GOD’s) for the safety of His Word, 8, 9, 338, 494
προέφθασεν, 146
Pronouns, 165
πρώτη, 180
Pulcheria, 465
Pusey (P. E.), 345, 382, 449, 468
Pyramus and Thisbe, 171
Pyramid poised on its apex, 342-5
“_Quarterly Review_”, _Pref._ ix-xiv
_Quia_, 448, 473
_Quod_ (in 1 Tim. iii. 16), 448
Quotations, _see_ “Fathers.”
Randell (Rev. T.), 481, 493
“Ravine”, 181
“Readings,” _see_ “Various.”
—— before “Renderings”, 106, 225
Received Text, _see_ “Textus.”
Recension (imaginary), 271-88
Reiche (J. G.), 380-1
Reiteration not Proof, 306-7
Rendering of the same word, 138, 152-4, 187-202
Result of acquaintance with documents, 337
Rettig (H. C. M.), 442
“Revised Version,” _see_ “Revision.”
Revisers exceeded their Instructions:—
(1) In respect of the English, 112, 127-30, 155-7, 225-6, 368, 400-3 (2) In respect of the Greek, 57-8, 97, 118-26, 224, 399, 403-6
Revising body (composition of), 504-5
Revision, original Resolution and Rules concerning, 3, 97, 114, 127, 130
—— of 1611, 167, 508-14 —— of 1881, how it was conducted, 37, 117-8, 369 —— unfair in its method, 116, 131-8 —— essentially different from that of 1611, 508-14 —— rests on a foundation of sand, 110, 516 —— incapable of being further revised, 107 —— its case hopeless, 226-7 —— characterized, 238 —— its probable fate, 508-14 —— unfavourable to Orthodoxy, 513 —— interesting specimens, 171, 401
Rhythm in translation, 188
Rieu (Dr.), 453
Right of possession, 199
“Ring of genuineness”, 307, 309-12
Roberts (Dr.), 36, 39-40, 48, 98, 230
Rocchi (Hieromonachus), 447-8, 474, 492, _see the_ APPENDIX.
Rogers, the poet, 162
Romans ix. 5, 210-4
Rome, (_See_ “Cozza Luzi,” “Escher”), 521
Rose, (Rev. W. F.), of Worle, Somersetshire, _Pref._ xxviii
Rouser (Professor), 306
Routh (President), 152, 211, 444, 452, 501
Sachau, 481
S. Andrews (Bp. of), _see_ “Wordsworth.”
Salisbury (Bp. of), _see_ “Moberly.”
Samaria, (woman of), 407-8
Sanday, (Dr.), _Pref._ xvi
Saville (Prof.), 306
Scholium misunderstood, 467, 468
Scholz (Dr.), 246, 380, 445, 456
Scott (Sir Gilbert), 306
Scripture, God’s provision for its safety 8, 9, 338, 494
—— depraved by heretics, 336
Scrivener (Prebendary), 13, 30, 37, 49, 106, 108, 126, 231, 237-8, 243,
246, 317, 381, 405, 431, 474, 477, 493, 502-3, _see back of
Title._
Septuagint, 182, 183, 184, 228
“Sepulchre,” the Holy, 198
σημεῖον, 203-4
σικάριοι, 147
Sieber (M.), 493
σίκερα, 180
Sinaiticus, cod. (א), 11-17, 265, 286,,289, 291, 314-5, 325-6, 343-5
Sixteen places, 415-9
Smith (Dr. Vance), 174, 204-5, 503-8, 513, 515
Socinian gloss, 210-4
“_Solvere ambulando_”, 126, 228, xxxi
σπεκουλάτωρ, 147
Spelling of proper names, 186-7
σπλάγχνα, 153
σπυρίς, 171, 180
Stanley (Dean), 135, 507
Stillingfleet (Bp.), 500
στιβάς and στοιβάδες, 58-60
συντρίψασα, 185
συστρεφομένων, 176-7
Syndics of Cambridge Press, xxx-i
Syracuse, 494
Syriac Version, 9
“Syrian,” “Antiochian,” “Græco-Syrian,”—Dr. Hort’s designations of the
Traditional Greek Text 257-65, 269 —— its assumed origin, 272-88 —— and history, 290-1 —— characterized, 87, 288-290
τάφος, 298
Tatian (_see_ INDEX II.) 29, 336, 350
“Teaching”, 199
τέκνον, 153, 179
τέλος, 51
Tenses, 157-64, _see_ “Aorist,” “Imperfect,” “Perfect,” “Pluperfect,”
“Present.” —— unidiomatically rendered, 402
Test-places (three), 47, 519
Text to be determined by external evidence, 19-20, 45
—— provision for its security, 10 —— (Received), _see_ “Textus Receptus” and “Syrian.”
Texts, _see_ INDEX I.
’Textus Receptus’, 12-3, 17-8, 107, 118
—— (Bp. Ellicott on), 388 —— needs correction 21, 107 —— _see_ “Syrian,” “Traditional.”
Theodore of Mopsuestia, 480, _see_ INDEX II.
Theodotus, the Gnostic, 323-4
Theophilus, Bp. of Antioch, 29
θεόπνευστος, 208-9
Θεός and ὅς in MSS., 99-105, 425-6
—— , not ὅς, to be read in 1 Tim. iii. 16, _Pref._ xxi-iv, 424-501
Thierry (M.), 493
Thirty changes in 38 words, 171
1 Timothy iii. 16. _See_ Θεός
Tischendorf (Dr.) 22-4, 45, 243-4, 246, 270-1, 370, 383, 437-8, 451, 467
Title on the Cross, 85-8
“Titus Justus”, 53-4
“Tomb”, 198
Tradition (Ecclesiastical), 495
Traditional Text departed from 6000 times, 107
—— _see_ “Syrian.” —— meaning of S. Mark xiii. 32, 209-10
“Transcriptional probability”, 251-2
Translators of 1611, 187-91, 207
—— of 1881, mistaken principle of 138, 187-96
Transposition, 93-7
Tregelles (Dr.), 22, 45, 243, 246, 270, 370, 380, 383, 431, 451, 467, 498
Trench (Abp.), xlii, 106, 229
Trinitarian doctrine, 174-5
True Text, (only safe way of ascertaining), 339-42
Tusculum, 446
Tyndale (William), 167, 191, 192
Uncials (depravity of the old), 12-17, 30-5, 46-7, 75-6, 94-5
Uniformity of rendering, 166, 187
“Unitarian” Reviser, intolerable, 503-8
ὑπό and διά, 156
ὑποτύπωσις, 351
Uppström (Andr.), 452
Upsala, 444, _see_ “Belsheim.”
Ussher (Abp.), 432, 469, 500
Valckenaer, 228
Valentinus, 29
Various Readings, 49-50, 56, 65, 130-1
Vaticanus, codex (B), 11-17, 265, 273, 286, 289, 291, 314-5, 325, 342-5,
_see_ “B and א.”
Veludo (Sig.), 492
Vercellone (C.), 381
Verifying faculty, 95-6, 109, 253, 290-1, 307-8
Version (Authorized), 112-4
—— (old Latin), 9, 448 —— (Vulgate), 9, 419 —— (Peschito), 9, 449-50 —— (Harkleian), 450 —— (Coptic), 9, 451-2 —— (Sahidic), 9, 451-2 —— (Gothic), 9, 452-3 —— (Armenian), 9, 453 —— (Æthiopic), 9, 453 —— (Georgian), 454 —— (Arabic), 453-4 —— (Slavonian), 454
“Vials”, 200
Von Heinemann (Dr.), 493
Vulgate, _see_ “Version.”
W. (M.), _Pref._ xxviii
Walton (Bp. Brian), 432
Waterland (Dr.), 500
Way (only safe) of ascertaining the True Test, 339-42
Weber (M.), 437
Wescher (M.), 492
“Wesleyan Methodist” Revisers, 504-5
West the painter, 162
Westcott (Dr.), xlii, 124, _see_ “Hort.”
Westcott and Hort (Drs.), 24-9, 33, 49, 51, 72, 83, 91, 92, 94, 95, 97,
110, 114, 125, 134-5, 177, 239-41, 245, 247, 370, 380, 382,
499, 502, 518-9, _See reverse of Title-page, and Pref._ xi-iv,
xxvi-viii, xxxi
“Western,”, 357
—— readings, 271-2 —— and “Syrian”, 361
“Westminster Abbey scandal”, 507
Wetstein (J. J.), 246, 383, 426, 456, 467, 469, 480, 497
Wilberforce (Bp.), 229, 415, 505, 507
Woide (C. G.), 434-7
Wolfii _Anecd. Græca_, 458
Wood (C. F. B.), 183
Word, incarnate and written, 334-5, 390-1
Wordsworth (Dr. Charles), Bp. of S. Andrews, 106, 165, 229-30, 382
—— (Dr. Christopher), Bp. of Lincoln, 37, 112, 147, 184, 226, 368, 382,
400, 502, 505, 513, _Ded._ vi
Wotton (Henry), 433
Xenophon, 149
Young (Patrick), 432
—— (Dr.), of Glasgow, 477
ζώνη, 201
FOOTNOTES
1 Any one who desires to see this charge established, is invited to
read from page 399 to page 413 of what follows.
2 Dr. Newth. See pp. 37-9.
3 See pp. 24-9: 97, &c.
4 See below, pp. 1 to 110.
5 This will be found more fully explained from pp. 127 to 130: pp. 154
to 164: also pp. 400 to 403. See also the quotations on pp. 112 and
368.
6 See below, pp. 113 to 232.
7 See below, pp. 235 to 366.
_ 8 Gospel of the Resurrection_, p. viii.
9 Reference is made to a vulgar effusion in the “_Contemporary
Review_” for March 1882: from which it chiefly appears that Canon
(now Archdeacon) Farrar is unable to forgive S. Mark the Evangelist
for having written the 16th verse of his concluding chapter. The
Venerable writer is in consequence for ever denouncing those “_last
Twelve Verses_.” In March 1882, (pretending to review my Articles in
the “Quarterly,”) he says:—“In spite of Dean Burgon’s Essay on the
subject, the minds of most scholars are _quite unalterably made up_
on such questions as the authenticity of the last twelve verses of
S. Mark.” [_Contemporary Review_, vol. xli. p. 365.] And in the
ensuing October,—“If, among _positive results_, any one should set
down such facts as that ... Mark xvi. 9-20 ... _formed no part of
the original apostolic autograph_ ... He, I say, who should
enumerate these points as being _beyond the reach of serious
dispute_ ... would be expressing the views which are _regarded as
indisputable_ by the vast majority of such recent critics as have
established any claim to serious attention.” [_Expositor_, p. 173.]
It may not be without use to the Venerable writer that he should be
reminded that critical questions, instead of being disposed of by
such language as the foregoing, are not even touched thereby. One is
surprised to have to tell a “fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge,”
so obvious a truth as that by such writing he does but effectually
put himself out of court. By proclaiming that his mind is “_quite
unalterably made up_” that the end of S. Mark’s Gospel is not
authentic, he admits that he is impervious to argument and therefore
incapable of understanding proof. It is a mere waste of time to
reason with an unfortunate who announces that he is beyond the reach
of conviction.
10 No. xxviii., page 436. If any one cares to know what the teaching
was which the writer in the “Church Quarterly” was intending to
reproduce, he is invited to read from p. 296 to p. 300 of the
present volume.
_ 11 Contemporary Review_, (Dec. 1881),—p. 985 seq.
12 Q. R. (No. 304,) p. 313.—The passage referred to will be found below
(at p. 14),—slightly modified, in order to protect myself against
the risk of _future_ misconception. My Reviewer refers to four other
places. He will find that my only object in them all was to prove
that codices A B א C D _yield divergent testimony_; and therefore,
so habitually _contradict_ one another, as effectually to invalidate
their own evidence throughout. This has never been _proved_ before.
It can _only_ be proved, in fact, by one who has laboriously
collated the codices in question, and submitted to the drudgery of
exactly tabulating the result.
13 “Damus tibi in manus Novum Testamentum _idem profecto_, quod ad
textum attinet, cum ed. Millianâ,”—are the well known opening words
of the “Monitum” prefixed to Lloyd’s N. T.—And Mill, according to
Scrivener, [_Introduction_, p. 399,] “only aims at reproducing
Stephens’ text of 1550, though in a few places he departs from it,
whether by accident or design.” Such places are found to amount in
all to _twenty-nine_.
14 See below, pp. 257-8: also p. 390.
_ 15 The Revisers and the Greek Text of the New Testament_,
&c.—Macmillan, pp. 79.
16 See below, pp. 369 to 520.
17 Pages 371-2.
_ 18 Pamphlet_, pp. 77: 39, 40, 41.
19 See below, p. 425.
20 Pages 424-501.
21 From January till June 1883.
_ 22 Pamphlet_, p. 76.
_ 23 E.g._ pages 252-268: 269-277: 305-308.
_ 24 E.g._ pages 302-306.
25 Page 354.
26 On that day appeared Dr. Hort’s “_Introduction and Appendix_” to the
N. T. as edited by himself and Dr. Westcott.
27 “_Charge_,” published in the _Guardian_, Dec. 20, 1882, p. 1813.
28 Preface to _History of the English Bible_ (p. ix.),—1868.
29 Preface to _Pastoral Epistles_ (p. xiv.),—1861.
_ 30 The Authorized Version of the N. T._ (p. 3),—1858.
_ 31 The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour __JESUS CHRIST__
translated out of the Greek: being the Version set forth __A.D.__
1611, compared with the most ancient Authorities, and Revised
__A.D.__ 1881._ Printed for the Universities of Oxford and
Cambridge, 1881.
_ 32 The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to the Text
followed in the Authorized Version, together with the Variations
adopted in the Revised Version._ Edited for the Syndics of the
Cambridge University Press, by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L.,
LL.D., Prebendary of Exeter and Vicar of Hendon. Cambridge, 1881.
Ἡ ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ. _The Greek Testament, with the Readings adopted by
the Revisers of the Authorized Version._ [Edited by the Ven.
Archdeacon Palmer, D.D.] Oxford, 1881.
_ 33 On Revision_,—pp. 215-6.
34 Tertullian, _bis._
35 Hieron. _Opp._ ii. 177 c (see the note).
36 Apud Hieron. iii. 121.
37 iv. 617 c (ed. Pusey).
38 P. 272.
39 i. 548 c; viii. 207 a.
40 iv. 205.
41 A reference to the _Journal of Convocation_, for a twelvemonth after
the proposal for a Revision of the Authorized Version was seriously
entertained, will reveal more than it would be convenient in this
place even to allude to.
42 We derive our information from the learned Congregationalist, Dr.
Newth,—_Lectures on Bible Revision_ (1881), p. 116.
_ 43 On Revision_, pp. 26-7.
44 Dr. Scrivener’s _Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New
Testament_, 2nd edition, 1874 (pp. 607), may be confidently
recommended to any one who desires to master the outlines of Textual
Criticism under the guidance of a judicious, impartial, and
thoroughly competent guide. A new and revised edition of this
excellent treatise will appear shortly.
45 Studious readers are invited to enquire for Dr. Scrivener’s _Full
and exact Collation of about Twenty Greek Manuscripts of the Holy
Gospels (hitherto unexamined), deposited in the British Museum, the
Archiepiscopal Library at Lambeth, &c., with a Critical
Introduction_. (Pp. lxxiv. and 178.) 1853. The introductory matter
deserves very attentive perusal.—With equal confidence we beg to
recommend his _Exact Transcript of the Codex Augiensis, a
Græco-Latin Manuscript of S. Paul’s Epistles, deposited in the
Library of Trinity College, Cambridge; to which is added a full
Collation of Fifty Manuscripts, containing various portions of the
Greek New Testament, in the Libraries of Cambridge, Parham,
Leicester, Oxford, Lambeth, the British Museum, &c. With a Critical
Introduction_ (which must also be carefully studied). (Pp. lxxx. and
563.) 1859.—Learned readers can scarcely require to be told of the
same learned scholar’s _Novum Testamentum Textûs Stephanici,
__A.D.__ 1550. Accedunt variæ Lectiones Editionum Bezæ, Elzeviri,
Lachmanni, Tischendorfii, Tregellesii._ Curante F. H. A. Scrivener,
A.M., D.C.L., LL.D. [1860.] Editio auctior et emendatior.
1877.—Those who merely wish for a short popular Introduction to the
subject may be grateful to be told of Dr. Scrivener’s Six _Lectures
on the Text of the N. T. and the Ancient MSS. which contain it,
chiefly addressed to those who do not read Greek_. 1875.
46 Scrivener’s _Plain Introduction_,—p. 118.
_ 47 Bezæ Codex Cantabrigiensis: being an exact Copy, in ordinary Type,
of the celebrated Uncial Græco-Latin Manuscript of the Four Gospels
and Acts of the Apostles, written early in the Sixth Century, and
presented to the University of Cambridge by Theodore Beza_, A.D.
1581. Edited, with a Critical Introduction, Annotations, and
Facsimiles, by Frederick H. Scrivener, M.A., Rector of S. Gerrans,
Cornwall. (Pp. lxiv. and 453.) Cambridge, 1864. No one who aspires
to a competent acquaintance with Textual Criticism can afford to be
without this book.
48 On the subject of codex א we beg (once for all) to refer scholars to
Scrivener’s _Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the
Received Text of the New Testament. To which is prefixed a Critical
Introduction._ [1863.] 2nd Edition, revised. (Pp. lxxii. and 163.)
1867.
49 Bishop Ellicott’s _Considerations on Revision_, &c. (1870), p. 40.
50 The epithet “_cursive_,” is used to denote manuscripts written in
“running-hand,” of which the oldest known specimens belong to the
IXth century. “_Uncial_” manuscripts are those which are written in
capital letters. A “_codex_” popularly signifies a _manuscript_. A
“version” is _a translation_. A “recension” is _a revision_. (We
have been requested to explain these terms.)
_ 51 Considerations on Revision_, p. 30.
52 Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do
not, by any means, claim _perfection_ for the Received Text. We
entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we
shall have occasion to point out (_e.g._ at page 107) that the
_Textus Receptus_ needs correction. We do but insist, (1) That it is
an incomparably better text than that which either Lachmann, or
Tischendorf, or Tregelles has produced: infinitely preferable to the
“New Greek Text” of the Revisionists. And, (2) That to be improved,
the _Textus Receptus_ will have to be revised on entirely different
“principles” from those which are just now in fashion. Men must
begin by unlearning the _German prejudices_ of the last fifty years;
and address themselves, instead, to the stern logic of _facts_.
53 Scrivener’s _Introduction_, pp. 342-4.
_ 54 Ut suprà_, p. 46. We prefer to quote the indictment against
Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, from the pages of Revisionists.
55 “Ex scriptoribus Græcis _tantisper Origene solo_ usi
sumus.”—_Præfatio_, p. xxi.
56 Scrivener’s _Plain Introd._ p. 397.
_ 57 Ut suprà_, p. 48.
_ 58 Ut suprà_, p. 47.
59 Prebendary Scrivener, _ibid._ (ed. 1874), p. 429.
_ 60 Ibid._ p. 470.
_ 61 Ibid._
_ 62 Concilia_, i. 852.
_ 63 Ut suprà_, p. 47.
_ 64 The New Testament in the Original Greek._ The Text revised by
Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., and Fenton John Anthony Hort, D.D.
Cambridge and London, 1881.
65 From the Preface prefixed to the “limited and private issue” of
1870, p. vi.
_ 66 Ut suprà_, p. xv.
_ 67 Ibid._ p. xviii.
_ 68 Ibid._ p. xvi.
_ 69 Ibid._ pp. xviii., xix.
70 [_Note,—that I have thought it best, for many reasons, to retain the
ensuing note as it originally appeared; merely restoring [within
brackets] those printed portions of it for which there really was no
room. The third Article in the present volume will be found to
supply an ample exposure of the shallowness of Drs. Westcott and
Hort’s Textual Theory._]
While these sheets are passing through the press, a copy of the
long-expected volume reaches us. The theory of the respected authors
proves to be the shallowest imaginable. It is briefly
_this_:—Fastening on the two oldest codices extant (B and א, both of
the IVth century), they invent the following hypothesis:—“That the
ancestries of those two manuscripts _diverged from a point near the
autographs, and never came into contact subsequently_.” [No reason
is produced for this opinion.]
Having thus secured two independent witnesses of what was in the
sacred autographs, the Editors claim that the _coincidence_ of א and
B must “mark those portions of text in which two primitive and
entirely separate lines of transmission had not come to differ from
each other through independent corruption:” and therefore that, “in
the absence of specially strong internal evidence to the contrary,”
“the readings of א and B combined _may safely be accepted as
genuine_.”
But what is to be done when the same two codices diverge _one from
the other_?—In all such cases (we are assured) the readings of any
“binary combination” of B are to be preferred; because “on the
closest scrutiny,” they generally “have the _ring of genuineness_;”
hardly ever “_look suspicious_ after full consideration.” “Even when
B stands quite alone, its readings must never be lightly rejected.”
[We are not told why.]
But, (rejoins the student who, after careful collation of codex B,
has arrived at a vastly different estimate of its character,)—What
is to be done when internal and external evidence alike condemn a
reading of B? How is “_mumpsimus_” for example to be
treated?—“_Mumpsimus_” (the Editors solemnly reply) as “the better
attested reading”—(by which they mean the reading attested by B,)—we
place in our margin. “_Sumpsimus_,” apparently the _right_ reading,
we place in the text within ††; in token that it is probably “_a
successful ancient conjecture_.”
We smile, and resume:—But how is the fact to be accounted for that
the text of Chrysostom and (in the main) of the rest of the
IVth-century Fathers, to whom we are so largely indebted for our
critical materials, and who must have employed codices fully as old
as B and א: how is it, we ask, that the text of all these, including
codex A, differs essentially from the text exhibited by codices B
and א?—The editors reply,—The text of Chrysostom and the rest, we
designate “Syrian,” and assume to have been the result of an
“editorial Revision,” which we conjecturally assign to the second
half of the IIIrd century. It is the “_Pre-Syrian_” text that we are
in search of; and we recognize the object of our search in codex B.
We stare, and smile again. But how then does it come to pass (we
rejoin) that the Peschito, or primitive _Syriac_, which is older by
full a century and a half than the last-named date, is practically
still the same text?—This fatal circumstance (not overlooked by the
learned Editors) they encounter with another conjectural assumption.
“_A Revision_” (say they) “of the Old Syriac version appears to have
taken place early in the IVth century, or sooner; and doubtless in
some connexion with the Syrian revision of the Greek text, the
readings being to a very great extent coincident.”
And pray, where _is_ “the _Old Syriac_ version” of which you
speak?—It is (reply the Editors) our way of designating the
fragmentary Syriac MS. commonly known as “Cureton’s.”—Your way (we
rejoin) of manipulating facts, and disposing of evidence is
certainly the most convenient, as it is the most extraordinary,
imaginable: yet is it altogether inadmissible in a grave enquiry
like the present. Syriac scholars are of a widely different opinion
from yourselves. Do you not perceive that you have been drawing upon
your imagination for every one of your facts?
We decline in short on the mere conjectural _ipse dixit_ of these
two respected scholars to admit either that the Peschito is a
Revision of Cureton’s Syriac Version;—or that it was executed about
A.D. 325;—or that the text of Chrysostom and the other principal
IVth-century Fathers is the result of an unrecorded “Antiochian
Revision” which took place about the year A.D. 275.
[But instead of troubling ourselves with removing the upper story of
the visionary structure before us,—which reminds us painfully of a
house which we once remember building with playing-cards,—we begin
by removing the basement-story, which brings the entire
superstructure in an instant to the ground.]
For we decline to admit that the texts exhibited by B א can have
“diverged from a point near the sacred autographs, and never come
into contact subsequently.” We are able to show, on the contrary,
that the readings they jointly embody afford the strongest
presumption that the MSS. which contain them are nothing else but
specimens of those “corrected,” _i.e._ _corrupted_ copies, which are
known to have abounded in the earliest ages of the Church. From the
prevalence of identical depravations in either, we infer that they
are, on the contrary, derived from the same not very remote depraved
original: and therefore, that their coincidence, when they differ
from all (or nearly all) other MSS., so far from marking “two
primitive and entirely separate lines of transmission” of the
inspired autographs, does but mark what was derived from the same
corrupt common ancestor; whereby the supposed two independent
witnesses to the Evangelic verity become resolved into _a single
witness to a fabricated text of the IIIrd century_.
It is impossible in the meantime to withhold from these learned and
excellent men (who are infinitely better than their theory) the
tribute of our sympathy and concern at the evident perplexity and
constant distress to which their own fatal major premiss has reduced
them. The Nemesis of Superstition and Idolatry is ever the same.
Doubt,—unbelief,—credulity,—general mistrust of _all_ evidence, is
the inevitable sequel and penalty. In 1870, Drs. Westcott and Hort
solemnly assured their brother Revisionists that “the prevalent
assumption, that throughout the N. T. the true text is to be found
_somewhere_ among recorded readings, _does not stand the test of
experience_;”[P. xxi.] and they are evidently still haunted by the
same spectral suspicion. They see a ghost to be exorcised in every
dark corner. “The Art of _Conjectural Emendation_” (says Dr. Hort)
“depends for its success so much on personal endowments, fertility
of resource in the first instance, and even more an appreciation of
language too delicate to acquiesce in merely plausible corrections,
that it is easy to forget its true character as a critical operation
founded on knowledge and method.”[_Introd._ p. 71.] Specimens of the
writer’s skill in this department abound. _One_ occurs at p. 135
(_App._) where, _in defiance of every known document_, he seeks to
evacuate S. Paul’s memorable injunction to Timothy (2 Tim. i. 13) of
all its significance. [A fuller exposure of Dr. Hort’s handling of
this important text will be found later in the present volume.] May
we be allowed to assure the accomplished writer that IN BIBLICAL
TEXTUAL CRITICISM, “CONJECTURAL EMENDATION” HAS NO PLACE?
71 Scrivener, _Introduction_, p. 453.—Stunica, it will be remembered,
was the chief editor of the Complutensian, or _first printed_
edition of the New Testament, (1514).
72 προσέφορον αὐτῷ,—S. Matt. ix. 2.
73 Scrivener, _Plain Introd_. p. 472.
74 The words omitted are therefore the following 22:—ἡμῶν, ὁ ἐν τοῖς
οὐρανοῖς ... γενηθήτω τὸ θελημά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ, καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς
... ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ.
_ 75 Companion to the Revised Version_, p. 61.
_ 76 The last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark,
vindicated against recent critical Objectors and established_, by
the Rev. J. W. Burgon,—pp. 334, published by Parker, Oxford, 1871.
77 As Dr. Jacobson and Dr. Chr. Wordsworth,—the learned Bishops of
Chester and Lincoln. It is right to state that Bp. Ellicott
“_considers the passage doubtful_.” (_On Revision_, p. 36.) Dr.
Scrivener (it is well known) differs entirely from Bp. Ellicott on
this important point.
_ 78 Lectures on Bible Revision_, pp. 119-20.
79 τὰς ἀληθεῖς ῥήσεις Πνεύματος τοῦ Ἁγίου.—Clemens Rom., c. 45.
_ 80 Should the Revised New Testament be authorized?_—p. 42.
_ 81 Revised Version of the first three Gospels, considered,_—by Canon
Cook,—pp. 221-2.
82 At p. 34 of his pamphlet in reply to the first two of the present
Articles.
_ 83 On Revision_, pp. 30 and 49.
_ 84 Words of the N. T._ p. 193.
_ 85 Companion to the Revised Version_, p. 63.
_ 86 Ibid._ p. 62.
87 Viz. Eusebius,—Macarius Magnes,—Aphraates,—Didymus,—the Syriac _Acts
of the App._,—Epiphanius,—Ambrose,—Chrysostom,—Jerome,—Augustine. It
happens that the disputation of Macarius Magnes (A.D. 300-350) with
a heathen philosopher, which has recently come to light, contains an
elaborate discussion of S. Mark xvi. 17, 18. Add the curious story
related by the author of the _Paschal Chronicle_ (A.D. 628)
concerning Leontius, Bishop of Antioch (A.D. 348),—p. 289. This has
been hitherto overlooked.
88 Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 515.
89 Tisch. specifies 7 Latin copies. Origen (iii. 946 _f._), Jerome
(vii. 282), and Leo (ap. Sabatier) are the only patristic quotations
discoverable.
90 i. 459
91 i. 374; ii. 714; iv. 15.
92 vii. 47; viii. 13.
_ 93 Dem. Ev._ pp. 163, 342.
94 i. 180, 385.
95 In loc. Also _in Luc._ xix. 29 (_Cat. Ox._ 141).
_ 96 De Trin._ p. 84; Cord. _Cat. in Ps._ ii. 450, 745.
97 i. 845,—which is reproduced in the _Paschal Chronicle_, p. 374.
98 P. 180; cf. p. 162.
99 i. 154, 1047.
100 i. 355, 696, 6; 97 iii. 346.
101 Gr. iii. 434.
102 Ap. Galland. ix. 754.
103 i. 587; ii. 453, 454; vi. 393; vii. 311, 674; viii. 85; xi. 347.
Also _Cat. in Ps._ iii. 139.
104 Ap. Chrys. vi. 424; cf. p. 417.
_ 105 In Luc._ pp. 12, 16, 502 ( = Mai, ii. 128). Also Mai, ii. 343,
_Hom. de Incarn._ p. 109. _Opp._ ii. 593; v.1 681, 30, 128, 380,
402, 154; vi. 398. Maii, iii.2 286.
106 i. 290, 1298; ii. 18; iii. 480.
107 Ap. Galland. ix. 446, 476. _Concil._ iii. 1001, 1023.
_ 108 Concil._ iii. 1002.
109 Ap. Galland. ix. 629.
_ 110 Concil._ iii. 1095.
_ 111 Concil._ iii. 829 = Cyr. _Opp._ vi. 159.
_ 112 Nov. Auctar._ i. 596.
113 Montf. ii. 152, 160, 247, 269.
_ 114 Hexaem._ ed. Migne, vol. 89, p. 899.
115 Ap. Galland. xii. 308.
116 Ed. Combefis, 14, 54; ap. Galland. xiii. 100, 123.
117 Ap. Galland. xiii. 235.
118 ii. 836.
119 Ap. Galland. xiii. 212.
_ 120 E.g._ Chrys. _Opp._ viii.; _Append._ 214.
121 P. 6 D.
122 Ap. Galland. iii. 809.
123 ii. 602.
124 ii. 101, 122, 407.
125 iii. 447.
126 ii. 298.
127 ii. 804; iii. 783; v. 638, 670, 788; viii. 214, 285; x. 754, 821.
128 Cord. _Cat. in Ps._ ii. 960.
129 Of the ninety-two places above quoted, Tischendorf knew of only
_eleven_, Tregelles adduces only _six_.—Neither critic seems to have
been aware that “Gregory Thaum.” is not the author of the citation
they ascribe to him. And why does Tischendorf quote as Basil’s what
_is known_ not to have been his?
130 But then, note that C is only available for comparison down to the
end of ver. 5. In the 9 verses which have been lost, who shall say
how many more eccentricities would have been discoverable?
_ 131 Companion to the Revised Version_, pp. 62, 63. _Words of the N. T._
p. 193.
_ 132 Words of the N. T._ p. 193.
133 Drs. Westcott and Hort (consistently enough) put them _on the
self-same footing_ with the evidently spurious ending found in L.
134 True, that a separate volume of Greek Text has been put forth,
showing every change which has been either actually accepted, or
else suggested for future possible acceptance. But (in the words of
the accomplished editor), “the _Revisers are not responsible for its
publication_.” Moreover, (and this is the chief point,) it is a
sealed book to all but Scholars.
It were unhandsome, however, to take leave of the learned labours of
Prebendary Scrivener and Archdeacon Palmer, without a few words of
sympathy and admiration. Their volumes (mentioned at the beginning
of the present Article) are all that was to have been expected from
the exquisite scholarship of their respective editors, and will be
of abiding interest and value. _Both_ volumes should be in the hands
of every scholar, for neither of them supersedes the other. Dr.
Scrivener has (with rare ability and immense labour) set before the
Church, _for the first time, the Greek Text which was followed by
the Revisers of 1611_, viz. Beza’s N. T. of 1598, supplemented in
above 190 places from other sources; every one of which the editor
traces out in his _Appendix_, pp. 648-56. At the foot of each page,
he shows what changes have been introduced into the Text by the
Revisers of 1881.—Dr. Palmer, taking the _Text of Stephens_ (1550)
as his basis, presents us with the Readings adopted by the Revisers
of the “Authorized Version,” and relegates the displaced Readings
(of 1611) to the foot of each page.—We cordially congratulate them
both, and thank them for the good service they have rendered.
135 The number is not excessive. There were about 600 persons aboard the
ship in which Josephus traversed the same waters. (_Life_, c. III.)
136 ii. 61 and 83.
137 Isaiah xiv. 15.
138 S. Matthew xxi. 1-3. S. Mark xi. 1-6. S. Luke xix. 29-34.
139 א D L read—αὐτον ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ ὡδε: C*,—αὐτον ΠΑΛΙΝ ἀποστελλει
ὡδε: B,—ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ αὐτον ὡδε: Δ,—ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ ὡδε:
yscr—αὐτον ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ.
140 iii. 722, 740.
141 iii. 737, iv. 181.
142 S. Matt. xxi. 8.
143 Exod. x. 21-23.
144 S. Matth. xxvii. 45; S. Mark xv. 33; S. Lu. xxiii. 44.
145 Ap. Epiphan. i. 317 and 347.
_ 146 Intenebricatus est sol_—a: _obscuratus est sol_—b: _tenebricavit
sol_—c.
147 Ap. Routh, _Opusc._ i. 79.
148 i. 90, 913; ap. Epiph. i. 1006.
_ 149 Syr._ ii. 48. So also _Evan. Conc._ pp. 245, 256, 257.
150 Mai, _Scriptt. Vett._ vi. 64.
151 i. 305.
152 Ap. Mai, ii. 436; iii. 395. Also _Luc._ 722.
153 i. 288, 417.
154 P. 233.
155 Ed. by Wright, p. 16.
156 “Sol mediâ die _tenebricavit_.” _Adv. Jud._ c. xiii.
157 iii. 922-4. Read the whole of cap. 134. See also ap. Galland. xiv.
82, append., which by the way deserves to be compared with Chrys.
vii. 825 a.
158 ἀλλ᾽ ἦν σκότος θεοποίητον, διότι τὸν Κύριον συνέβη παθεῖν.—Routh,
ii. 298.
159 εἶτ᾽ ἐξαίφνης κατενεχθὲν ψηλαφητὸν σκότος, ἡλίου τὴν οἰκείαν αὐγὴν
ἀποκρύψαντος, p. 29.
160 ὅτι γὰρ οὐκ ἠν ἔκλειψις [sc. τὸ σκότος ἐκεῖνο] οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν μόνον
δῆλον ἦν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ καιροῦ. τρεῖς γὰρ ὥρας παρέμεινιν; ἡ δὲ
ἔκλειψις ἐν μιᾷ καιροῦ γίνεται ῥοπῇ.—vii. 825 a.
161 i. 414, 415; iii. 56.
162 Ap. Mai, iv. 206. But further on he says: αὐτίκα γοῦν ἐπὶ τῷ πάθει
οὐχ ἥλιος μόνον ἐσκότασεν κ.τ.λ.—Cyril of Jerusalem (pp. 57, 146,
199, 201, 202) and Cosmas (ap. Montf. ii. 177 _bis_) were apparently
acquainted with the same reading, but neither of them actually
quotes Luke xxiii. 45.
163 “In quibusdam exemplaribus non habetur _tenebræ factæ sunt, et
obscuratus est sol_: sed ita, _tenebræ factæ sunt super omnem
terram, sole deficiente_. Et forsitan ausus est aliquis quasi
manifestius aliquid dicere volens, pro, _et obscuratus est sol_,
ponere _deficiente sole_, existimans quod non aliter potuissent
fieri tenebræ, nisi sole deficiente. Puto autem magis quod
insidiatores ecclesiæ Christi mutaverunt hoc verbum, quoniam
_tenebræ factæ sunt sole deficiente_, ut verisimiliter evangelia
argui possint secundum adinventiones volentium arguere illa.” (iii.
923 f. a.)
164 vii. 235. “_Qui scripserunt contra Evangelia_, suspicantur deliquium
solis,” &c.
165 This rests on little more than conjecture. Tisch. _Cod. Ephr. Syr._
p. 327.
166 Ἐκλείποντος is only found besides in eleven lectionaries.
167 The Thebaic represents “the sun _setting_;” which, (like the mention
of “_eclipse_,”) is only another _interpretation_ of the
darkness,—derived from Jer. xv. 9 or Amos viii. 9 (“_occidit_ sol
meridie”). Compare Irenæus iv. 33. 12, (p. 273,) who says that these
two prophecies found fulfilment in “eum _occasum_ solis qui,
crucifixo eo, fuit ab horâ sextâ.” He alludes to the same places in
iv. 34. 3 (p. 275). So does Jerome (on Matt. xxvii. 45),—“Et hoc
factum reor, ut compleatur prophetia,” and then he quotes Amos and
Jeremiah; finely adding (from some ancient source),—“Videturque mihi
clarissimum lumen mundi, hoc est luminare majus, retraxisse radios
suos, ne aut pendentem videret Dominum; aut impii blasphemantes suâ
luce fruerentur.”
168 Our old friend of Halicarnassus (vii. 37), speaking of an eclipse
which happened B.C. 481, remarks: ὁ ἥλιος ἐκλιπὼν τὴν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ
ἕδρην.
169 For it will be perceived that our Revisionists have adopted the
reading vouched for _only by codex_ B. What c* once read is as
uncertain as it is unimportant.
170 Bp. Ellicott’s pamphlet, p. 60.
_ 171 On the Revised Version_, p. 14.
172 πολλὰ κατὰ γνώμην αὐτοῦ διεπράττετο, as (probably) Victor of Antioch
(_Cat._ p. 128), explains the place. He cites some one else (p. 129)
who exhibits ἠπόρει; and who explains it of Herod’s difficulty
_about getting rid of Herodias_.
173 καὶ ἀκούσας αὐτοῦ πολλὰ ἂ ἐποίει, καὶ ἡδέως αὐτοῦ ἤκουεν, will have
been the reading of that lost venerable codex of the Gospels which
is chiefly represented at this day by Evann. 13-69-124-346,—as
explained by Professor Abbott in his Introduction to Prof. Ferrar’s
_Collation of four important MSS._, etc. (Dublin 1877). The same
reading is also found in Evann. 28 : 122 : 541 : 572, and Evst. 196.
Different must have been the reading of that other venerable
exemplar which supplied the Latin Church with its earliest Text. But
of this let the reader judge:—“_Et cum audisset illum multa facere,
libenter_,” &c. (c: also “Codex Aureus” and γ, both at Stockholm):
“_et audito eo quod multa faciebat, et libenter_,” &c. (g2 q): “_et
audiens illum quia multa faciebat, et libenter_,” &c. (b). The
Anglo-Saxon, (“_and he heard that he many wonders wrought, and he
gladly heard him_”) approaches nearest to the last two.
The Peschito Syriac (which is without variety of reading here) in
strictness exhibits:—“_And many things he was hearing [from] him and
doing; and gladly he was hearing him._” But this, by competent
Syriac scholars, is considered to represent,—καὶ πολλὰ ἀκούων αὐτοῦ,
ἐποίει; καὶ ἡδέως ἤκουεν αὐτοῦ.—Cod. Δ is peculiar in exhibiting καὶ
ἀκούσας αὐτοῦ πολλά, ἡδέως αὐτοῦ ἤκουεν,—omitting ἐποίει, καί.—The
Coptic also renders, “_et audiebat multa ab eo, et anxio erat
corde_.” From all this, it becomes clear that the actual _intention_
of the blundering author of the text exhibited by א B L was, to
connect πολλά, _not_ with ἠπόρει, but with ἀκούσας. So the Arabian
version: but not the Gothic, Armenian, Sclavonic, or Georgian,—as
Dr. S. C. Malan informs the Reviewer.
174 Note, that tokens abound of a determination anciently to assimilate
the Gospels hereabouts. Thus, because the first half of Luke ix. 10
(ϟα / η) and the whole of Mk. vi. 30 (ξα / η) are bracketed together
by Eusebius, the former place in codex A is found brought into
conformity with the latter by the unauthorized insertion of the
clause καὶ ὅσα ἐδίδαξαν.—The parallelism of Mtt. xiv. 13 and Lu. ix.
10 is the reason why D exhibits in the latter place ἀν- (instead of
ὑπ)εχώρησε.—In like manner, in Lu. ix. 10, codex A exhibits εἰς
ἔρημον τόπον, instead of εἰς τόπον ἔρημον; only because ἔρημον τόπον
is the order of Mtt. xiv. 13 and Mk. vi. 32.—So again, codex א, in
the same verse of S. Luke, entirely omits the final clause πόλεως
καλουμένης Βηθσαῖδά, only in order to assimilate its text to that of
the two earlier Gospels.—But there is no need to look beyond the
limits of S. Mark vi. 14-16, for proofs of Assimilation. Instead of
ἐκ νεκρῶν ἠγέρθη (in ver. 14), B and א exhibit ἐγήγερται ἐκ
νεκρῶν—only because those words are found in Lu. ix. 7. A
substitutes ἀνέστη (for ἠγέρθη)—only because that word is found in
Lu. ix. 8. For ἠγέρθη ἐκ νεκρῶν, C substitutes ἠγέρθη ἀπὸ τῶν
νεκρῶν—only because S. Matth. so writes in ch. xiv. 2. D inserts καὶ
ἔβαλεν εἰς φυλακήν into ver. 17—only because of Mtt. xiv. 3 and Lu.
iii. 20. In א B L Δ, βαπτίζοντος (for βαπτιστοῦ) stands in ver.
24—only by Assimilation with ver. 14. (L is for assimilating ver. 25
likewise), Κ Δ Π, the Syr., and copies of the old Latin, transpose
ἐνεργοῦσιν αἱ δυνάμεις (in ver. 14)—only because those words are
transposed in Mtt. xiv. 2.... If facts like these do not open men’s
eyes to the danger of following the fashionable guides, it is to be
feared that nothing ever will. The foulest blot of all remains to be
noticed. Will it be believed that in ver. 22, codices א B D L Δ
conspire in representing the dancer (whose name is _known_ to have
been “Salome”) as _another _“Herodias”—_Herod’s own daughter_? This
gross perversion of the truth, alike of Scripture and of history—a
reading as preposterous as it is revolting, and therefore rejected
hitherto by _all_ the editors and _all_ the critics—finds undoubting
favour with Drs. Westcott and Hort. Calamitous to relate, _it also
disfigures the margin of our Revised Version of S. Mark_ vi. 22, _in
consequence_.
_ 175 i.e._ “_And_” is omitted by B L Δ: “_immediately_” by א C: “_with
tears_” by א A B C L Δ: “_Lord_” by א A B C D L.—In S. Mark vi.
16—(viz. “But when Herod heard thereof, he said [This is] John whom
I beheaded. He is risen [from the dead],”)—the five words in
brackets are omitted by our Revisers on the authority of א B (D) L
Δ. But א D further omit Ἰωάννην: C D omit ὁ: א B D L omit ὅτι. To
enumerate and explain the effects of all the barbarous Mutilations
which the Gospels alone have sustained at the hands of א, of B, and
of D—_would fill many volumes like the present_.
176 Chrysostom, vii. 825.
_ 177 On the Creed_, Art. iv. “Dead:” about half-way through.
178 The Coptic represents ὅτι ἐξέπνευσε.
179 Namely, of ἘΝ τῇ Βας. σου, which is the reading of _every known copy
but two_; besides Origen, Eusebius, Cyril Jer., Chrysostom, &c. Only
B L read ΕἸΣ,—which Westcott and Hort adopt.
180 i. 261.
181 i. 936, 1363.
182 i. 158.
183 P. 301.
184 Ap. Galland. vi. 53.
185 P. 396.
186 vii. 431.
187 “Ut ab additamenti ratione alienum est, ita cur omiserint in promptu
est.”
188 But then, 25 (out of 320) pages of D are lost: D’s omissions in the
Gospels may therefore be estimated at 4000. Codex A does not admit
of comparison, the first 24 chapters of S. Matthew having perished;
but, from examining the way it exhibits the other three Gospels, it
is found that 650 would about represent the number of words omitted
from its text.—The discrepancy between the texts of B א D, thus _for
the first time brought distinctly into notice_, let it be distinctly
borne in mind, is a matter wholly irrespective of the merits or
demerits of the Textus Receptus,—which, for convenience only, is
adopted as a standard: not, of course, of _Excellence_ but only of
_Comparison_.
189 Viz. the 1st, the 7th to 12th inclusive, and the 15th.
190 Concerning “the _singular codex_ D,”—as Bp. Ellicott phrases it,—see
back, pages 14 and 15.
191 Bp. Ellicott _On Revision_,—p. 42. Concerning the value of the
last-named authority, it is a satisfaction to enjoy the deliberate
testimony of the Chairman of the Revisionist body. See below, p. 85.
192 i. 156.
193 ii. 254.
194 i. 344
195 iv. 220, 1218.
_ 196 In Luc._ 664 (Mai, iv. 1105).
197 ii. 653.
198 “In Lucâ legimus _duos calices_, quibus discipulis propinavit,” vii.
216.
199 Τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον; τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.
ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λέγων, Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον,
ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνόμενον.
200 P. 1062.
201 ii. 747.
202 i. 1516. See below, p. 82.
203 Abbott’s _Collation of four important Manuscripts_, &c., 1877.
204 ii. 354.
205 Pp. 543 and 681 ( = ed. Mass. 219 and 277).
_ 206 Contra Noet._ c. 18; also ap. Theodoret iv. 132-3.
207 Ap. Galland. xix.; _Append._ 116, 117.
_ 208 Evan. Conc._ pp. 55, 235.
209 Ap. Epiph. i. 742, 785.
210 It is § 283 in his sectional system.
211 P. 1121.
212 ii. 43; v. 392; vi. 604. Also _Evan. Conc._ 235. And see below, p.
82.
213 Pp. 394, 402.
214 i. 551.
215 [i. 742, 785;] ii. 36, 42.
216 v. 263; vii. 791; viii. 377.
217 ii. 39.
218 Ap. Theod. Mops.
219 In loc. bis; ap. Galland. xii. 693; and Mai, _Scriptt. Vett._ vi.
306.
_ 220 Concilia_, iii. 327 a.
221 Ap. Mai, iii. 389.
_ 222 Concilia_, iii. 1101 d.
223 Schol. 34.
224 i. 692; iv. 271, 429; v. 23. _Conc._ iii. 907 e.
_ 225 Concilia_, iii. 740 d.
226 Ap. Galland. vi. 16, 17, 19.
227 Ap. Cosmam, ii. 331.
228 i. 544.
229 In Dionys. ii. 18, 30.
230 Ap. Galland. xii. 693.
_ 231 Ibid._ 688.
232 Pp. 108, 1028, 1048.
_ 233 Epist._ 138
234 P. 1061.
235 ii. 747.
236 iv. 901, 902, 1013, 1564.
237 P. 373.
238 Ap. Galland. ix. 40.
_ 239 Ibid._ xi. 693.
240 Let their own account of the matter be heard:—“The documentary
evidence clearly designates [these verses] as _an early Western
interpolation_, adopted in eclectic texts.”—“They can only be _a
fragment from the Traditions_, written or oral, which were for a
while at least _locally current_:”—an “evangelic Tradition,”
therefore, “_rescued from oblivion by the Scribes of the second
century_.”
241 Consider the places referred to in Epiphanius.
242 The Editors shall speak for themselves concerning this, the first of
the “Seven last Words:”—“We cannot doubt that _it comes from an
extraneous source_:”—“need not have belonged originally _to the book
in which it is now included_:”—is “_a Western interpolation_.”
Dr. Hort,—unconscious apparently that he is _at the bar_, not _on
the bench_,—passes sentence (in his usual imperial style)—“Text,
Western and Syrian” (p. 67).—But then, (1st) It happens that our
LORD’S intercession on behalf of His murderers is attested by
upwards of forty Patristic witnesses _from every part of ancient
Christendom_: while, (2ndly) On the contrary, the places in which it
is _not found_ are certain copies of the old Latin, and codex D,
which is supposed to be our great “Western” witness.
243 Dr. Hort’s _N. T._ vol. ii. _Note_, p. 68.
244 Ap. Eus. _Hist. Eccl._ ii. 23.
245 P. 521 and ... [Mass. 210 and 277.]
246 Ed. Lagarde, p. 65 _line_ 3.
247 ii. 188. _Hær._ iii. 18 p. 5.
248 Ap. Gall. iii. 38, 127.
_ 249 Ibid._ ii. 714. (_Hom._ xi. 20.)
_ 250 Evan. Conc._ 275.
251 Ap. Routh, v. 161.
252 He places the verses in _Can._ x.
253 i. 1120.
254 iii. 289.
_ 255 Cat. in Ps._ iii. 219.
256 i. 290.
257 15 times.
258 ii. 48, 321, 428; ii. (_syr._) 233.
_ 259 Evan. Conc._ 117, 256.
260 i. 607.
261 Pp. 232, 286.
262 P. 85.
263 Pp. 11, 16. Dr. Wright assigns them to the IVth century.
_ 264 Eph._ c. x.
265 ii. 166, 168, 226.
266 6 times.
267 Ap. Mai, ii. 197 ( = Cramer 52); iii. 392.—Dr. Hort’s strenuous
pleading for the authority of Cyril on this occasion (who however is
plainly against him) is amusing. So is his claim to have the cursive
“82” on his side. He is certainly reduced to terrible straits
throughout his ingenious volume. Yet are we scarcely prepared to
find an upright and honourable man contending so hotly, and almost
on any pretext, for the support of those very Fathers which, when
they are against him, (as, 99 times out of 100, they are,) he treats
with utter contumely. He is observed to put up with any ally,
however insignificant, who even _seems_ to be on his side.
268 Ap. Theod. v. 1152.
269 Pp. 423, 457.
_ 270 Cat. in Ps._ i. 768; ii. 663.
271 Pp. 1109, 1134.
272 i. 374.
273 P. 93.
274 ii. 67, 747.
275 i. 814; ii. 819; v. 735.
276 P. 88.
277 Ap. Chrys. vi. 191.
278 11 times.
279 P. 782 f.
280 12 times.
281 More than 60 times.
282 Ap. Cypr. (ed. Baluze), &c. &c.
_ 283 On Revision_,—p. 42 _note_. See above, p. 78 _note_.
_ 284 Eclog. Proph._ p. 89.
_ 285 In Luc._ 435 and 718.
286 See pages 93 to 97.
287 i. 1528.
288 So Sedulius Paschalis, ap. Galland. ix. 595.
289 iii. 2.
290 Euseb. _Ecl. Proph._ p. 89: Greg. Nyss. i. 570.—These last two
places have hitherto escaped observation.
291 See above, pp. 49-50, note 2.
292 Viz., thus:—ἦν δὲ καὶ ἐπιγραφὴ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ, Ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων
οὗτος.
293 Dean Alford, _in loc._
294 ὁ Λουκᾶς μιᾷ λέγει τῶν σαββάτων ὄρθρου βαθέος φέρειν ἀρώματα
γυναῖκας ΔΎΟ τὰς ἀκολουθησάσας ἀυτῷ, αἵ τινες ἦσαν ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας
συνακολουθήσασαι, ὅτε ἔθαπτον αὐτὸν ἐλθοῦσαι ἐπὶ τὸ μνῆμα; αἵτινες
ΔΎΟ, κ.τ.λ.,—_ad Marinum_, ap. Mai, iv. 266.
295 Ps. i. 79.
_ 296 Dem._ 492.
297 Ap. Mai, iv. 287, 293.
298 i. 364.
299 Ap. Mai, ii. 439.
300 Ap. Galland. xi. 224.
_ 301 Cat. in Joann._ p. 453.
302 Ps.-Chrys. viii. 161-2. Johannes Thessal. ap. Galland. xiii. 189.
303 Ap. Mai, iv. 293 _bis_; 294 _diserte_.
304 i. 506, 1541.
305 iii. 91.
306 iv. 1108, and _Luc._ 728 ( = Mai, ii. 441).
307 iii.2 142; viii. 472.
308 So Tertullian:—“_Manus et pedes suos inspiciendos offert_” (_Carn._
c. 5). “_Inspectui eorum manus et pedes suos offert_” (_Marc._ iv.
c. 43). Also Jerome i. 712.
_ 309 De Resur._ 240 (quoted by J. Damascene, ii. 762).
310 Ap. Mai, iv. 294.
311 i. 906, quoted by Epiph. i. 1003.
312 Ap. Theodoret, iv. 141.
313 i. 49.
314 i. 510; ii. 408, 418; iii. 91.
315 iv. 1108; vi. 23 (_Trin._). Ap. Mai, ii. 442 _ter._
316 iv. 272.
_ 317 Cat. in Joan._ 462, 3.
318 i. 303.
319 See above, pp. 78 and 85.
320 iii. 579.
321 ii. 114 (ed. 1698).
322 ii. 9, 362, 622.
323 ii. 309; iv. 30; v. 531; vii. 581.
324 vi. 79.
_ 325 Ep._ i. (ap. Gall. i. p. xii.)
326 ii. 464.
_ 327 Text_, pp. 565 and 571.
_ 328 Append._ p. 14.
329 We depend for our Versions on Dr. S. C. Malan: pp. 31, 44.
330 ii. 147. _Conc._ v. 675.
331 Cord. _Cat._ i. 376.
332 vii. 599, 600 _diserte_.
333 Ap. Photium, p. 644.
334 Three times.
335 i. 663, 1461, ii. 1137.
336 Pp. 367, 699.
337 vii. 139.
338 Ap. Galland. vi. 324.
339 iii. P. i. 760.
_ 340 Text_, p. 572.
_ 341 Append._ p. 14.
342 ἔτι δὲ ἀπιστούντων αὐτῷ, καὶ θαυμαζόντων ἀπὸ τῆς χαρᾶς.
343 Viz. from ch. xix. 7 to xx. 46.
344 We take leave to point out that, however favourable the estimate
Drs. Westcott and Hort may have personally formed of the value and
importance of the Vatican Codex (B), nothing can excuse their
summary handling, not to say their contemptuous disregard, of all
evidence adverse to that of their own favourite guide. They _pass
by_ whatever makes against the reading they adopt, with the oracular
announcement that the rival reading is “_Syrian_,” “_Western_,”
“_Western and Syrian_,” as the case may be.
But we respectfully submit that “_Syrian_,” “_Western_,” “_Western
and Syrian_,” as Critical expressions, are absolutely without
meaning, as well as without use to a student in this difficult
department of sacred Science. They supply no information. They are
never supported by a particle of intelligible evidence. They are
often demonstrably wrong, and _always_ unreasonable. They are
_Dictation_, not _Criticism_. When at last it is discovered that
they do but signify that certain words _are not found in codex_
B,—they are perceived to be the veriest _foolishness_ also.
Progress is impossible while this method is permitted to prevail. If
these distinguished Professors have enjoyed a Revelation as to what
the Evangelists actually wrote, they would do well to acquaint the
world with the fact at the earliest possible moment. If, on the
contrary, they are merely relying on their own inner consciousness
for the power of divining the truth of Scripture at a glance,—they
must be prepared to find their decrees treated with the contumely
which is due to imposture, of whatever kind.
345 Marcion (Epiph. i. 317);—Eusebius (Mai, iv. 266);—Epiphanius (i.
348);—Cyril (Mai, ii. 438);—John Thessal. (Galland. xiii. 188).
346 [The discussion of this text has been left very nearly as it
originally stood,—the rather, because the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16
will be found fully discussed at the end of the present volume. See
_Index of Texts_.]
_ 347 Companion to the Revised Version_, &c., by Alex. Roberts, D.D. (2nd
edit.), pp. 66-8.
348 Of this, any one may convince himself by merely inspecting the 2
pages of codex A which are exposed to view at the British Museum.
349 For, of the 3 cursives usually cited for the same reading (17, 73,
181), the second proves (on enquiry at Upsala) to be merely an
abridgment of Œcumenius, who certainly read Θεός; and the last is
non-existent.
_ 350 Concilia_, ii. 217 c.
351 viii. 214 b.
352 A single quotation is better than many references. Among a multitude
of proofs that CHRIST is GOD, Gregory says:—Τιμοθέῳ δὲ διαῤῥήδῃν
βοᾷ; ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι. ii. 693.
353 Τοῦτο ἡμῖν τὸ μέγα μυστήριον ... ὁ ἐνανθρωπήσας δι᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ
πτωχεύσας Θεός, ἵνα ἀναστήσῃ τὴν σάρκα. (i. 215 a.)—Τί τὸ μέγα
μυστήριον?... Θεὸς ἄνθρωπος γίνεται. (i. 685 b.)
_ 354 De Trin._ p. 83—where the testimony is express.
355 Θεὸς γὰρ ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί.—_Concilia_, i. 853 d.
356 Cramer’s _Cat. in Rom._ p. 124.
357 One quotation may suffice:—Τὸ δὲ Θεὸν ὄντα, ἄνθρωπον θελῆσαι
γενέσθαι καὶ ἀνεσχέσθαι καταβῆναι τοσοῦτον ... τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ
ἐκπλήξεως γέμον. ὂ δὴ καὶ Παῦλος θαυμάζων ἔλεγεν; καὶ ὁμολογουμένως
μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστέριον; ποῖον μέγα; Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν
σαρκί; καὶ πάλιν ἀλλαχοῦ; οὐ γὰρ ἀγγέλων ἐπιλαμβάνεται ὁ Θεός,
κ.τ.λ. i. 497. = Galland. xiv. 141.
358 The following may suffice:—μέγα γὰρ τότε τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον;
πεφανέρωται γὰρ ἐν σαρκὶ Θεὸς ὢν καὶ ὁ Λόγος; ἐδικαιώθη δὲ καὶ ἐν
πνεύματι. v. p. ii.; p. 154 c d.—In a newly-recovered treatise of
Cyril, 1 Tim. iii. 16 is quoted at length with Θεός, followed by a
remark on the ἐν ἀυτῷ φανερωθεὶς Θεός. This at least is decisive.
The place has been hitherto overlooked.
359 i. 92; iii. 657; iv. 19, 23.
360 Apud Athanasium, _Opp._ ii. 33, where see Garnier’s prefatory note.
361 Καθ᾽ ὂ γὰρ ὑπῆρχε Θεὸς [sc. ὁ Χριστὸς] τοῦτον ᾔτει τὸν νομοθέτην
δοθῆναι πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσι ... τοιγαροῦν καὶ δεξάμενα τὰ ἔθνη τὸν
νομοθέτην, τὸν ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθέντα Θεόν. Cramer’s _Cat._ iii. 69.
The quotation is from the lost work of Severus against Julian of
Halicarnassus.
362 Galland. xii. 152 e, 153 e, with the notes both of Garnier and
Gallandius.
363 i. 313; ii. 263.
364 Ap. Athanas. i. 706.
365 iii. 401-2.
366 Ap. Phot. 230.
_ 367 Contra Hær. Noet._ c. 17.
368 Ap. Clem. Al. 973.
369 Cap. xii.
_ 370 Ad Eph._ c. 19, 7; _ad Magn._ c. 8.
371 See Scrivener’s _Plain Introd._ pp. 555-6, and Berriman’s
_Dissertation_, pp. 229-263. Also the end of this volume.
372 i. 887 c.
373 ii. 74 b.
374 See above, p. 98.
375 As, that stupid fabrication, Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; (in S.
Matth. xix. 17):—the new incidents and sayings proposed for
adoption, as in S. Mark i. 27 (in the Synagogue of Capernaum): in S.
John xiii. 21-6 (at the last supper): in S. Luke xxiv. 17 (on the
way to Emmaus):—the many proposed omissions, as in S. Matth. vi. 13
(the Doxology): in xvi. 2, 3 (the signs of the weather): in S. Mark
ix. 44 & 46 (the words of woe): in S. John v. 3, 4 (the Angel
troubling the pool), &c. &c. &c.
376 It cannot be too plainly or too often stated that learned Prebendary
Scrivener is _wholly guiltless_ of the many spurious “Readings” with
which a majority of his co-Revisionists have corrupted the Word of
GOD. He pleaded faithfully,—but he pleaded in vain.—It is right also
to state that the scholarlike Bp. of S. Andrews (Dr. Charles
Wordsworth) has fully purged himself of the suspicion of complicity,
by his printed (not published) remonstrances with his
colleagues.—The excellent Bp. of Salisbury (Dr. Moberly) attended
only 121 of their 407 meetings; and that judicious scholar, the Abp.
of Dublin (Dr. Trench) only 63. The reader will find more on this
subject at the close of Art. II.,—pp. 228-30.
377 Eusebius,—Basil,—Chrysostom (_in loc._),—Jerome,—Juvencus,—omit the
words. P. E. Pusey found them in _no_ Syriac copy. But the
conclusive evidence is supplied by the Manuscripts; not more than 1
out of 20 of which contain this clause.
378 “Revised Text” of S. Luke vi. 48.
379 “Authorized Version,” supported by A C D and 12 other uncials, the
whole body of the cursives, the Syriac, Latin, and Gothic versions.
380 “Revised Text” of S. Luke v. 39.
381 “Authorized Version,” supported by A C and 14 other uncials, the
whole body of the cursives, and _all_ the versions except the
Peschito and the Coptic.
_ 382 Address at Lincoln Diocesan Conference_,—p. 16.
_ 383 On Revision_,—p. 99.
_ 384 Dial._ capp. 88 and 103 (pp. 306, 310, 352).
385 P. 113.
386 Ap. Galland. iii. 719, c d.
387 iv. 15 (ap. Gall. iv. 296 b).
388 42 b, 961 e, 1094 a.
389 Ap. Galland. iv. 605 (ver. 365-6).
390 Ap. Aug. viii. 423 e.
391 “Vox illa Patris, quæ super baptizatum facta est _Ego hodie genui
te_,” (_Enchirid._ c. 49 [_Opp._ vi. 215 a]):—
“Illud vero quod nonnulli codices habent secundum Lucam, hoc illa
voce sonuisse quod in Psalmo scriptum est, _Filius meus es tu: ego
hodie genui te_, quanquam in antiquioribus codicibus Græcis non
inveniri perhibeatur, tamen si aliquibus fide dignis exemplaribus
confirmari possit, quid aliud quam utrumque intelligendum est
quolibet verborum ordine de cælo sonuisse?” (_De Cons. Ev._ ii. c.
14 [_Opp._ iii. P. ii. 46 d e]). Augustine seems to allude to what
is found to have existed in the _Ebionite Gospel_.
392 Epiphanius (i. 138 b) quotes the passage which contains the
statement.
393 Αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως—οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς: also—ἀνθρώπων.
394 For my information on this subject, I am entirely indebted to one
who is always liberal in communicating the lore of which he is
perhaps the sole living depositary in England,—the Rev. Dr. S. C.
Malan. See his _Seven Chapters of the Revision of 1881, revised_,—p.
3. But especially should the reader be referred to Dr. Malan’s
learned dissertation on this very subject in his _Select Readings in
Westcott and Hort’s Gr. Text of S. Matth._,—pp. 1 to 22.
395 So Dr. Malan in his _Select Readings_ (see above note 1),—pp. 15,
17, 19.
396 “Liber _genituræ_ Jesu Christi filii David, filii Abraham” ...
“Gradatim ordo deducitur ad Christi _nativitatem_.”—_De Carne
Christi_, c. 22.
397 A friendly critic complains that we do not specify which editions of
the Fathers we quote. Our reply is—This [was] a Review, not a
Treatise. We are _constrained_ to omit such details. Briefly, we
always quote _the best Edition_. Critical readers can experience
_no_ difficulty in verifying our references. A few details shall
however be added: Justin (_Otto_): Irenæus (_Stieren_): Clemens Al.
(_Potter_): Tertullian (_Oehler_): Cyprian (_Baluze_): Eusebius
(_Gaisford_): Athanas. (1698): Greg. Nyss. (1638): Epiphan. (1622):
Didymus (1769): Ephraem Syr. (1732): Jerome (_Vallarsi_): Nilus
(1668-73): Chrysostom (_Montfaucon_): Cyril (_Aubert_): Isidorus
(1638): Theodoret (_Schulze_): Maximus (1675): John Damascene
(_Lequien_): Photius (1653). Most of the others (as Origen, Greg.
Nazianz., Basil, Cyril of Jer., Ambrose, Hilary, Augustine), are
quoted from the Benedictine editions. When we say “Mai,” we always
mean his _Nova Biblioth. PP._ 1852-71. By “Montfaucon,” we mean the
_Nov. Coll. PP._ 1707. It is necessity that makes us so brief.
_ 398 Concilia_, iii. 521 a to d.
399 i.2 340.
400 P. 889 line 37 (γένησιν).
401 i. 943 c.
402 i. 735.
403 v.1 363, 676.
_ 404 Concil._ iii. 325 ( = Cyril v.2 28 a).
405 vii. 48; viii. 314.
406 In Matth. ii. 16.
407 Ps.-Athanas. ii. 306 and 700: ps.-Chrysost. xii. 694.
408 P. 470.
409 Gall. ix. 215.
_ 410 Trin._ 188.
411 i. 250 b.
412 i. 426 a (γένησις).
413 Διαφέρει γένεσις καὶ γέννησις; γένεσις μὲν γάρ ἐστι παρὰ Θεοῦ πρώτη
πλάσις, γέννησις δὲ ἡ ἐκ καταδίκης τοῦ θανάτου διὰ τὴν παράβασιν ἐξ
ἀλλήλων διαδοχή.—Galland. xiv. _Append._ pp. 73, 74.
414 [dated 22 May A.D. 359] ap. Athan. i. 721 d.
415 i. 722 c.
416 P. 20 of the newly-recovered _Diatessaron_, translated from the
Armenian. The Exposition is claimed for Ephraem Syrus.
417 Dr. Malan, _Seven Chapters of the Revision, revised_, p. 7.
418 See below, note 13.
419 See p. 122, note 11.
420 i. 938, 952. Also ps.-Athan. ii. 409, excellently.
_ 421 Trin._ 349.
422 P. 116.
423 i. 392; ii. 599, 600.
424 ii. 229.
425 See p. 122, note 11.
426 i. 426, 1049 (5 times), 1052-3.
427 vii. 76.
428 Galland. ix. 636.
429 P. 6 (τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς: which is also the reading of Syrev and of the
Sahidic. The Memphitic version represents τὸν υἱόν.)
430 i. 276.
431 Gal. xiii. 662.
_ 432 In Cat._
433 ii. 462.
434 “_Ex hoc loco quidam perversissime suspicantur et alios filios
habuisse Mariam, dicentes primogenitum non dici nisi qui habeat et
fratres_” (vii. 14). He refers to his treatise against Helvidius,
ii. 210.
_ 435 Preface to Pastoral Epistles_,—more fully quoted facing p. 1.
436 The Preface (quoted above facing p. 1,) is dated 3rd Nov. 1868.
_ 437 Lectures on Biblical Revision_, (1881) pp. 116 seqq. See above, pp.
37-9.
_ 438 On Revision_, pp. 30 and 49.
_ 439 The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST, translated
out of the Greek: being the Version set forth_ A.D. _1611, compared
with the most ancient Authorities, and Revised_ A.D. _1881_. Printed
for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, 1881.
_The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to the Text
followed in the Authorized Version, together with the Variations
adopted in the Revised Version._ Edited for the Syndics of the
Cambridge University Press, by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L.,
LL.D., Prebendary of Exeter and Vicar of Hendon. Cambridge, 1881.
Ἡ ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ. _The Greek Testament, with the Readings adopted by
the Revisers of the Authorized Version._ [Edited by the Ven.
Archdeacon Palmer, D.D.] Oxford, 1881.
_The New Testament in the Original Greek._ The Text revised by
Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., and Fenton John Anthony Hort, D.D.
Cambridge and London, 1881.
440 Malan’s _Gospel of S. John translated from the Eleven oldest
Versions_.
441 Int. ii. 72; iv. 622 dis.
_ 442 C. Noet._ § 4.
443 i. 1275.
_ 444 Trin._ 363.
445 Ap. Gall. v. 67.
446 i. 282.
447 i. 486.
_ 448 Ep. ad Paul. Sam. Concil._ i. 872 e; 889 e.
449 Ap. Galland. iv. 563.
450 vii. 546; viii. 153, 154, 277.
451 iii. 570; iv. 226, 1049, 1153.
452 iv. 150 (text); vi. 30, 169. Mai, ii. 69.
_ 453 Concilia_, iii. 1102 d.
454 Quoted by Leontius (Gall. xii. 693).
_ 455 In Cat._ Cord. 96.
_ 456 Ibid._ p. 94.
_ 457 Cat. in Ps._ ii. 323 and 343.
458 Ap. Photium, p. 281.
459 Montf. ii. 286.
460 i. 288, 559, 567.
461 Ps.-Athan. ii. 464. Another, 625. Another, 630. Ps.-Epiphan. ii.
287.
462 i. 863, 903, 1428.
463 Gall. iii. 296.
464 32 dis.; 514; 1045 dis.
465 Gall. vi. 192.
466 iv. 679.
467 Ap. Athan. ii. 646.
468 Gall. v. 124.
_ 469 Ibid._ iii. 628, 675.
_ 470 Ibid._ ix. 367.
_ 471 Ibid._ ix. 493.
472 Let the Reader, with a map spread before him, survey the whereabouts
of the several VERSIONS above enumerated, and mentally assign each
FATHER to his own approximate locality: then let him bear in mind
that 995 out of 1000 of the extant MANUSCRIPTS agree with those
Fathers and Versions; and let him further recognize that those MSS.
(executed at different dates in different countries) must severally
represent independent remote originals, inasmuch as _no two of them
are found to be quite alike_.—Next, let him consider that, _in all
the Churches of the East_, these words from the earliest period were
read as _part of the Gospel for the Thursday in Easter week_.—This
done, let him decide whether it is reasonable that two worshippers
of codex B—A.D. 1881—should attempt to thrust all this mass of
ancient evidence clean out of sight by their peremptory sentence of
exclusion,—“WESTERN AND SYRIAN.”
Drs. Westcott and Hort inform us that “_the character of the
attestation_ marks” the clause (ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ), “as a WESTERN
GLOSS.” But the “attestation” for retaining that clause—(_a_) Comes
demonstrably from every quarter of ancient Christendom:—(_b_) Is
more ancient (by 200 years) than the evidence for omitting it:—(_c_)
Is more numerous, in the proportion of 99 to 1:—(_d_) In point of
respectability, stands absolutely alone. For since we have _proved_
that Origen and Didymus, Epiphanius and Cyril, Ambrose and Jerome,
_recognize_ the words in dispute, of what possible Textual
significancy can it be if presently (_because it is sufficient for
their purpose_) the same Fathers are observed to quote S. John iii.
13 _no further than down to the words _“Son of Man”? No person,
(least of all a professed Critic,) who adds to his learning a few
grains of common sense and a little candour, can be misled by such a
circumstance. Origen, Eusebius, Proclus, Ephraim Syrus, Jerome,
Marius, when they are only insisting on the doctrinal significancy
of the earlier words, naturally end their quotation at this place.
The two Gregories (Naz. [ii. 87, 168]: Nyss. [Galland. vi. 522]),
writing against the Apolinarian heresy, of course quoted the verse
no further than Apolinaris himself was accustomed (for his heresy)
to adduce it.... About the _internal_ evidence for the clause,
nothing has been said; but _this_ is simply overwhelming. We make
our appeal to _Catholic Antiquity_; and are content to rest our
cause on _External Evidence_;—on COPIES, on VERSIONS, on FATHERS.
473 Pp. 798, 799.
474 iii. 414.
_ 475 Ant._ c. 50; _Consum._ c. 28.
_ 476 Hist. Eccl._ v. 8.
477 Ἐμβατεῦσαι;—Ἐπιβῆναι τὰ ἔνδον ἐξερευνῆσαι ἣ σκοπῆσαι. Phavorinus,
quoted by Brüder.
478 Viz. S. Luke iv. 39: Acts x. 17: xi. 11: xxii. 20.
479 S. Luke ii. 9 (where “_came upon_” is better than “_stood by_ them,”
and should have been left): xxiv. 4: Acts xii. 7: xxii. 13: xxiii.
11.
480 S. Luke xx. 1: xxi. 34 (last Day): Acts iv. 1: vi. 12: xvii. 5
(“assault”): xxiii. 27: xxviii. 2 (a rain-storm,—which, by the way,
suggests for τὸν ἐφεστῶτα a different rendering from “_the
present_”).
481 S. Luke ii. 38.
482 S. Luke x. 40.
483 Cf. ch. xi. 20. So in Latin, _Illa plurima sacrificia_. (Cic. _De
Fin._ 2. 20. 63.)
484 “The context” (says learned Dr. Field) “is too strong for
philological quibbles.” The words “_can by no possibility bear any
other meaning_.”—_Otium Norvicense_, p. 40.
485 Στρατιώτης ὂς πρὸς τὸ φονεύειν τέτακται,—Theophylact, i. 201 e. Boys
quotes Seneca _De Irá_:—_Tunc centurio supplicio præpositus condere
gladium_ speculatorem _jussit_.
486 Trench, _Study of Words_, p. 106.
_ 487 Otium Norvicense_, pars tertia, 1881, pp. 155.
488 Compare Xenophon (_Cyrop._ vii. 6. 8), τοὺς Συριστὶ ἐπισταμένους.
The _plena locutio_ is found in Nehem. xiii. 24,—οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτῶν ἥμισυ
λαλοῦντες Ἁζωτιστί, καὶ οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐπιγινώσκοντες λαλεῖν Ἰουδαιστί
(quoted by Wetstein).
489 Cf. Acts i. 23; xvii. 31. The Latin is “_statuerunt_” or
“_constituerunt_.” The Revisionists give “appointed” in the second
of these places, and “put forward” in the first. In both,—What
becomes of their uniformity?
490 P. 279.
491 καὶ τὸν δικαστὴν εἷλεν ὁ τέως κατάδικος εἶναι νομιζόμενος καὶ τὴν
νίκην αὐτὸς ὁ χειρωθεὶς ὁμολογεῖ λαμπρᾷ τῇ φωνῇ παρόντων ἁπάντων
λέγων, ἐν ὀλίγῳ κ.τ.λ. x. 307 b. (= xii. 433 a).
492 ἐν ὀλίγῳ; τουτέστι παρὰ μικρόν. ix. 391 a.
493 καὶ τὸν δικάζοντα μικροῦ μεταπεῖσαι, ὡς καὶ αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνον λέγειν, ἐν
ὀλίγῳ κ.τ.λ. ii. 516 d.
494 iii. 399 d.
495 v. 930 (παρ᾽ ὀλίγον).
496 MS. Note in his copy of the N. T.
497 And the Revisionists: for see Rom. xi. 4.
498 Yet even here they cannot abstain from putting in the margin the
peculiarly infelicitous alternative,—“_Why didst thou forsake Me?_”
499 As in Rom. vi. 2: ix. 13. 1 Cor. i. 27: vi. 20: ix. 11. Ephes. iv.
20, &c. &c.
500 Comp. S. Matth. viii. 1, 5, 23, 28; ix. 27, 28; xxi. 23.
501 Ἐὰν οὖν προσφέρῃς.
502 ii. 155.
503 Routh, _Rell_. iii. 226 _ad calc._
504 Ap. Mai, iv. 266.
505 ii. 1324.
506 ii. 380.
507 Ap. Greg. Nyss. iii. 403.
508 So also Heb. xi. 17, 28. And see the Revision of S. James i. 11.
509 Comp. ἀφίεμεν in S. Lu. xi. 4. In the case of certain Greek verbs,
the _preterite_ in form is invariably _present_ in signification.
See Dr. Field’s delightful _Otium Norvicense_, p. 65.
510 See above, pp. 98-106. Also _infra_, towards the end.
511 As in S. Matth. xi. 11 and 2 Tim. iv. 17, where δέ is rendered
“notwithstanding:”—Phil. i. 24 and Heb. xii. 11, where it is
“nevertheless.”
_ 512 Eight_ times in succession in 1 Cor. xii. 8-10, δέ is not
represented in the A. V. The ancients _felt_ so keenly what Tyndale,
Cranmer, the Geneva, the Rheims, and the A. V. ventured to exhibit,
that as often as not they leave out the δέ,—in which our
Revisionists twice follow them. The reader of taste is invited to
note the precious result of inserting “and,” as the Revisionists
have done six times, where according to the genius of the English
language it is not wanted at all.
513 38 times in the Genealogy, S. Matth. i.
514 Rom. xiv. 4: xv. 20.
515 Rom. ix. 22.
516 1 Cor. xii. 27.
517 Gal. ii. 4.
518 Act xxvii. 26.
519 Rom. iii. 22.
520 Ephes. iv. 1.
521 2 Cor. v. 8.
522 S. Mark xv. 31.
523 S. Mark vi. 29.
524 1 Cor. x. 1.
525 S. Matth. vi. 30.
526 S. John xx. 4.
527 2 Cor. i. 23.
528 2 Cor. vii. 13.
529 2 Cor. ii. 12.
530 2 Pet. iii. 13.
531 S. Matth. ii. 22.
532 1 Cor. xii. 20.
533 1 S. John i. 3.
534 S. Matth. xxv. 39.
535 Acts viii. 3.
536 Rom. xii. 6.
537 S. Matth. vi. 29.
538 As in S. Matth. vii. 9: xii. 29: xx. 15. Rom. iii. 29.
539 S. Matth. xx. 15: xxvi. 53. Rom. iii. 29: vi. 3: vii. 1.
540 S. John xvi. 32.
541 S. Luke xix. 23.
542 2 Cor. xiii. 1.
543 S. Luke xii. 2.
544 S. Luke xviii. 7.
545 S Luke xiv. 21.
546 1 S. John ii. 27.
547 1 S. John i. 2.
548 S. Mark ix. 39.
549 Acts xxiii. 3.
550 Consider S. Matth. iii. 16,—ἀνέβη ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος: and ver.
6,—ἐβαπτίζοντο ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ.
551 ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις συνανεστράφη.
552 Galland. iv. 6 b _bis_.
553 P. 279.
554 ix. 400.
555 ii. 707.
556 The circumstance is noticed and explained in the same way by Dr.
Field in his delightful _Otium Norvicense_.
_ 557 Concilia_, iv. 79 e.
558 Thus Cyril addresses one of his Epistles to Acacius Bp. of
Melitene,—_Concilia_, iii. 1111.
559 See Dr. Field’s delightful _Otium Norvicense_ (Pars tertia), 1881,
pp. 1-4 and 110, 111. This masterly contribution to Sacred Criticism
ought to be in the hands of every student of Scripture.
560 See Hesychius, and the notes on the place.
_ 561 Notes designed to illustrate some expressions in the Gk. Test. by a
reference to the_ LXX., &c. By C. F. B. Wood, Præcentor of
Llandaff,—Rivingtons, 1882, (pp. 21,)—p. 17:—an admirable
performance, only far too brief.
562 Μὴ ἀδυνατήσει παρὰ τῷ θεῷ ῥῆμα?
563 Οὐκ ἀδυνατήσει παρὰ τῷ θεῷ πᾶν ῥῆμα.
564 [Pointed out to me by Professor Gandell,—whose exquisite familiarity
with Scripture is only equalled by his readiness to communicate his
knowledge to others.]
565 μύρου νάρδου πιστικῆς and ἐνταφιασμός,—S. Mark xiv. 3 and 8: S. John
xii. 3 and 7. Hear Origen (apud Hieron. iii. 517):—“Non de nardo
propositum est nunc Spiritui Sancto dicere, neque de hoc quod oculis
intuemur, Evangelista scribit, unguento; sed _de nardo spirituali_.”
And so Jerome himself, vii. 212.
566 Ps. xxxiii. 18 (ἐγγὺς Κύριος τοῖς συντετριμμένοις τὴν καρδίαν): Is.
lvii. 15.
567 Consider Ignatius, _ad Ephes._ c. xvii. Also, the exquisite remark
of Theod. Heracl. in Cramer’s _Cat._
568 We prefer that readers should be reminded, by the varied form, of
the _Greek_ original. In the extreme case (Acts vii. 45: Hebr. iv.
8), is it not far more edifying that attention should be in this way
directed to the identity of the names “_Joshua_” and “_Jesus_,” than
that the latter word should be entirely obliterated by the
former;—and this, only for the sake of unmistakeably proclaiming,
(what yet must needs be perfectly manifest, viz.) that “_Joshua_” is
the personage spoken of?
569 So, in S. Luke xxiii. 25, and Acts iii. 14: xiii. 28,—still
following Tyndale.
570 Acts xii. 20.
571 Eph. iii. 13.
572 For, as the story plainly shows (2 Sam. vii. 2, 3; 1 Chron. xvii. 1,
2), it was only “_in his heart_” to build GOD an house (1 Kings
viii. 17, 18). Hence Cranmer’s “_he would fain_” have done so.
573 Acts xvi. 29.
574 Col. i. 9.
575 S. Matth. xiv. 15, 22, 23 (= S. Mark vi. 36, 45, [and note the
substitution of ἀποταξάμενος in ver. 46]: S. Luke ix. 12): and xv.
32, 39 (= S. Mark viii. 9).
576 S. Matt. xiii. 36: and S. Mark iv. 36.
577 Acts xii. 13.
578 Acts xvi. 16.
579 Verses 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31.
580 Twice he calls it μνῆμα.
581 Ch. xxvii. 61, 64, 66; xxviii. 1.
582 Except in 2 Tim. iii. 16,—where πρὸς διδασκαλίαν is rendered _ad
docendum_.
583 Except in Rom. xii. 7,—where ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ is rendered “_on
teaching_.”
584 Except in Rom. xvi. 17, where they render it “_doctrine_.”
585 And yet, since upwards of 50 times we are molested with a marginal
note to inform us that διδάσκαλος means “_Teacher_”—διδασκαλία
(rather than διδαχή) might have claimed to be rendered “_teaching_.”
586 Viz. Rom. xii. 7: 1 Tim. iv. 13, 16: v. 17: 2 Tim. iii. 10, 16.—Rom.
xv. 4.
587 Eight times in Rev. xvi.
588 S. Matth. xxvi. 7. S. Mark xiv. 3. S. Luke vii. 37.
589 γλωσσόκομον. Consider the LXX. of 2 Chron. xxiv. 8, 10, 11.
590 ζώνας.
_ 591 E.g._ S. Matth. xxvi. 48. S. Luke ii. 12.
592 Δύναμις is rendered “miracle” in the R. V. about half-a-dozen times.
593 Acts iv. 16, 22.—On the other hand, “sign” was allowed to represent
σημεῖον repeatedly in the A. V., as in S. Matth. xii. 38, &c., and
the parallel places: S. Mark xvi. 17, 20: S. John xx. 30.
594 Canon Cook’s _Revised Version of the first three Gospels
considered_, &c.—p. 26: an admirable performance,—unanswered,
because _unanswerable_.
595 Dr. Vance Smith’s _Revised Texts and Margins_,—p. 45.
596 S. Matth. xvii. 15: S. Mk. ix. 18, 20, 22, 26: S. Lu. ix. 39, 42.
597 Consider our LORD’S solemn words in Mtt. xvii. 21,—“_But this kind
goeth not out save by prayer and fasting_,”—12 words left out by the
R. V., though witnessed to by _all the Copies but_ 3: by the Latin,
Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian Versions: and by the following
Fathers:—(1) Origen, (2) Tertullian, (3) the Syriac Clement, (4) the
Syriac _Canons of Eusebius_, (5) Athanasius, (6) Basil, (7) Ambrose,
(8) Juvencus, (9) Chrysostom, (10) _Opus imp._, (11) Hilary, (12)
Augustine, (13) J. Damascene, and others. Then (it will be asked),
why have the Revisionists left them out? Because (we answer) they
have been misled by B and א, Cureton’s Syriac and the Sahidic,—as
untrustworthy a quaternion of witnesses to the text of Scripture as
could be named.
598 The word is only not banished entirely from the N. T. It occurs
twice (viz. in Rom. i. 20, and Jude ver. 6), but only as the
rendering of ἀῖδιος.
599 S. Matth. xxv. 46.
600 Clemens Al. (p. 71) says:—τὰσ γραφὰς ὁ Ἀπόστολος Θεοπνεύστους καλεῖ,
ὠφελίμους οὔσας. Tertullian,—_Legimus omnem Scripturam ædificationi
habilem, divinitus inspirari._ Origen (ii. 443),—πᾶσα γραφὴ
θεόπνευστος οὖσα ὠφελιμός ἐστι. Gregory Nyss. (ii. 605),—πᾶσα γραφὴ
θεόπνευστος λέγεται. Dial. (ap. Orig. i. 808),—πᾶσα γραφὴ
θεόπνευστος λέγεται παρὰ τοῦ Ἀποστόλου. So Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril,
Theodoret, &c.
601 See Archdeacon Lee _on Inspiration_, pp. 261-3, reading his notes.
602 S. John xvi. 15.
603 Study by all means Basil’s letter to Amphilochius, (vol. iii. p. 360
to 362.)—Ἔστιν οὖν ὁ νοῦς ὁ παρὰ τῷ Μάρκῳ τοιοῦτος; Περὶ δὲ τῆς
ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ἢ ὥρας, οὐδεὶς οἶδεν, οὔτε οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀλλ᾽
οὐδ᾽ ἄν ὁ Υἱὸς ἔγνω, εἰ μὴ ὁ Πατέρ; ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ Πατρὸς αὐτῷ ὑπῆρχε
δεδομένη ἡ γνῶσις ... τουτέστιν, ἡ αἰτία τοῦ εἰδέναι τὸν Υἱὸν παρὰ
τοῦ Πατρός; καὶ ἀβίαστός ἐστι τῷ εὐγνωμόνως ἀκούοντι ἡ ἐξήγησις
αὕτη. ἐπειδὴ οὐ πρόσκειται τὸ μόνος; ὡς καὶ παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ.—(p. 362
c.) Basil says of this interpretation—ἂ τοίνυν ἐκ παιδὸς παρὰ τῶν
πατέρων ἠκούσαμεν.
_ 604 Notes_, p. 109.
_ 605 Celebre effugium_, (as Dr. Routh calls it,) _quod ex falsâ verborum
constructione Critici quidam hæreticis pararunt._ _Reliqq._ iii.
322-3.
606 C alone has a point between ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων and Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς
τους αἰῶνας. But this is an entirely different thing from what is
noted in the margin.
607 MS. communication from the Rev. S. C. Malan.
608 i. 506.
_ 609 Opusc._ i. 52, 58; _Phil._ 339.
610 iv. 612.
611 Routh, _Reliqq. Sac._ iii. 292, and 287. (_Concil._ i. 845 b. c.)
_ 612 Concilia_, i. 873 d: 876 a.
613 vi. c. 26.
614 i. 414, 415, 429, 617, 684, 908.
615 i. 282. And in _Cat._ 317.
_ 616 Trin._ 21, 29, 327, 392. Mai, vii. 303.
617 ii. 596 a, (quoted by the Emp. Justinian [_Concil._ v. 697] and the
_Chronicon Paschale_, 355), 693, 697; iii. 287. Galland. vi. 575.
618 i. 481, 487, 894, 978; ii. 74.
619 Ap. Cyril (ed. Pusey), v. 534.
620 Ap. Gall. iii. 805.
621 Ap. Gall. iv. 576.
622 Ap. Phot. col. 761, 853.
623 Ap. Gall. vi. 8, 9, 80.
624 Ap. Gall. vii. 618, and ap. Hieron. i. 560.
_ 625 Concilia_, iii. 522 e ( = iv. 297 d = ap. Gall. viii. 667). Also,
_Concilia_ (Harduin), i. 1413 a.
626 Ap. Gall. ix. 474.
627 Ap. Gall. ix. 690, 691 ( = _Concil._ iii. 1230, 1231).
_ 628 Homilia_ (Arm.), p. 165 and 249.
629 i. 464, 483; vi. 534; vii. 51; viii. 191; ix. 604, 653; x. 172.
630 v.1 20, 503, 765, 792; v.2 58, 105, 118, 148; vi. 328. Ap. Mai, ii.
70, 86, 96, 104; iii. 84 _in Luc._ 26.
_ 631 Concilia_, iii. 1099 b.
632 i. 103; ii. 1355; iii. 215, 470; iv. 17, 433, 1148, 1264, 1295,
1309; v. 67, 1093.
633 Cramer’s _Cat._ 160.
_ 634 Ibid. in Act._ 40.
635 P. 166.
_ 636 Concilia_, ii. 195.
637 Ap. Gall. xii. 251.
638 Ap. Gall. xii. 682.
639 ii. 64.
640 i. 557; ii. 35, 88.
641 Prax. 13, 15—“Christum autem et ipse Deum cognominavit, _Quorum
patres, et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui est super omnia
Deus benedictus in ævum_.”
642 P. 287.
643 Ap. Gall. iii. 296, 313.
644 i. 1470; ii. 457, 546, 609, 790.
_ 645 Concilia_, ii. 982 c.
646 78, 155, 393, 850, 970, 1125, 1232.
647 i. 870, 872.
648 Ap. Gall. viii. 157.
649 Ap. Gall. vii. 589, 590.
650 Ap. Gall. viii. 627.
651 709, 711.
652 Ap. Gall. x. 722.
653 Ap. Gall. xi. 233, 237.
_ 654 Concilia_, iii. 1364, 1382.
655 Ap. Gall. 352, 357.
_ 656 Ibid._ 674.
657 ii. 16, 215, 413.
658 i. 839; v. 769; xii. 421.
659 Those of our readers who wish to pursue this subject further may
consult with advantage Dr. Gifford’s learned note on the passage in
the _Speaker’s Commentary_. Dr. Gifford justly remarks that “it is
the natural and simple construction, which every Greek scholar would
adopt without hesitation, if no question of doctrine were involved.”
660 Note, that this has been the language of the Church from the
beginning. Thus Tertullian,—“Aquam adituri ... contestamur nos
renuntiare diabolo, _et pompæ et angelis ejus_” (i. 421): and
Ambrose,—“Quando te interrogavit, Abrenuntias diabolo _et operibus
ejus_, quid respondisti? Abrenuntio. Abrenuntias _sæculo et
voluptatibus ejus_, quid respondisti? Abrenuntio” (ii. 350 c): and
Ephraem Syrus,—Ἀποτάσσομαι τῷ Σατανᾷ καὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ
(ii. 195 and iii. 399). And Cæsarius of Arles,—“Abrenuntias diabolo,
_pompis et operibus ejus_ ... Abrenuntio” (Galland. xi. 18 e).
661 2 Tim. iv. 18.
662 S. John xvii. 24.
663 P. 140.
664 Marcell. p. 192.
_ 665 In loc. diserte._
_ 666 Eth._ ii. 297.
667 viii. 485.
_ 668 Text_, iv. 1003; _Comm._ 1007, which are _two distinct
authorities_, as learned readers of Cyril are aware.
_ 669 Concilia_, iii. 356 d.
670 iv. 450.
671 Pp. 235, 321.
672 i. 412; ii. 566, 649.
673 Pp. 1017, 1033.
674 Victricius ap. Gall. viii. 230. Also ps.-Chrys. v. 680.
675 iii. 966 _dis._
_ 676 Dem._ 92.
677 i. 319.
_ 678 Trin._ 190.
679 v. 1039, 1069.
680 ii. 460.
681 v. 615.
682 ii. 584. Cyril read the place both ways:—v.2 156, and _in Luc._ p.
52.
683 i. 720.
684 ii. 381; iii. 962; iv. 601.
685 Ap. Galland. vii. 183.
686 Ap. Montf. ii. 67.
687 iii. 333; v. 444; x. 498, 620; xii. 329.
688 ii. 77; iii. 349.
689 ii. 252.
690 “Deseruimus fere quos sequi solemus codices.”
691 P. 38 ( = Gall. vii. 26).
692 i. 298, 613.
693 viii. 351, 352.
694 iv. 652 c, 653 a, 654 d.
695 i. 748; iv. 274, 550.
_ 696 In Dionys. Ar._ ii. 192.
697 As these sheets are passing through the press, we have received a
book by Sir Edmund Beckett, entitled, _Should the Revised New
Testament be Authorized?_ In four Chapters, the author discusses
with characteristic vigour, first, the principles and method of the
Revisers, and then the Gospel of S. Matthew, the Epistle to the
Hebrews, and the Apocalypse, as fair samples of their work, with a
union of sound sense, forensic skill, and scholarship more skilful
than to deserve his cautious disclaimer. Amidst details open, of
course, to discussion, abundant proofs are set forth, in a most
telling style, that the plea of “necessity” and “faithfulness”
utterly fails, in justification of a mass of alterations, which, in
point of English composition, carry their condemnation on their
face, and, to sum up the great distinction between the two Versions,
illustrate “the difference between working by _discretion_ and by
_rules_—by which no great thing was ever done or ever will be.” Sir
Edmund Beckett is very happy in his exposure of the abuse of the
famous canon of preferring the stranger reading to the more obvious,
as if copyists never made stupid blunders or perpetrated wilful
absurdities. The work deserves the notice of all English readers.
698 It has been objected by certain of the Revisionists that it is not
fair to say that “they were appointed to do one thing, and have done
another.” We are glad of this opportunity to explain.
That _some_ corrections of the Text were necessary, we are well
aware: and had those _necessary_ changes been made, we should only
have had words of commendation and thanks to offer. But it is found
that by Dr. Hort’s eager advocacy two-thirds of the Revisionists
have made a vast number of _perfectly needless changes_:—(1) Changes
which _are incapable of being represented in a Translation_: as ἐμοῦ
for μου,—πάντες for ἅπαντες,—ὅτε for ὁπότε. Again, since γέννησις,
at least as much as γένεσις, means “_birth_,” _why_ γένεσις in S.
Matth. i. 18? Why, also, inform us that instead of ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι
αὐτοῦ πεφυτευμένην, they prefer πεφυτευμένην ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι αὐτοῦ?
and instead of καρπὸν ζητῶν,—ζητῶν καρπόν? Now this they have done
_throughout_,—at least 341 times in S. Luke alone. But (what is far
worse), (2) They suggest in the margin changes which yet they _do
not adopt_. These numerous changes are, _by their own confession_,
not “necessary:” and yet they are of a most serious character. In
fact, it is of these we chiefly complain.—But, indeed (3), _How
many_ of their _other_ alterations of the Text will the Revisionists
undertake to defend publicly on the plea of “_Necessity_”?
[A vast deal more will be found on this subject towards the close of
the present volume. In the meantime, see above, pages 87-88.]
699 “We meet in every page” (says Dr. Wordsworth, the learned Bishop of
Lincoln,) “with small changes which are vexatious, teasing, and
irritating; even the more so because they are small (as small
insects sting most sharply), _which seem almost to be made merely
for the sake of change_.”—p. 25.
_ 700 On the Revision of the English Version_, &c. (1870), p. 99.
701 Bp. Ellicott, _Diocesan Progress_, Jan. 1882,—p. 19.
702 Bp. Ellicott, _On Revision_,—p. 49.
703 “_Qui_ LXX _interpretes non legit, aut minus legit accurate, is
sciat se non adeo idoneum, qui Scripta Evangelica Apostolica de
Græco in Latinum, aut alium aliquem sermonem transferat, ut ut in
aliis Græcis scriptoribus multum diuque fuerit versatus_.” (John
Bois, 1619.)—“_Græcum N. T. contextum rite intellecturo nihil est
utilius quam diligenter versasse Alexandrinam antiqui Fœderis
interpretationem_, E QUÂ UNÂ PLUS PETI POTERIT AUXILII, QUAM EX
VETERIBUS SCRIPTORIBUS GRÆCIS SIMUL SUMTIS. _Centena reperientur in
N. T. nusquam obvia in scriptis Græcorum veterum, sed frequentata in
Alexandrinâ versione._” (Valcknaer, 1715-85.)
_ 704 On the Authorized Version_,—p. 3.
_ 705 Preface_, p. xiv.
_ 706 Quarterly Review_, No. 304.
_ 707 Quarterly Review_, No. 305.
708 At the head of the present Article, as it originally appeared, will
be found enumerated Dr. Scrivener’s principal works. It shall but be
said of them, that they are wholly unrivalled, or rather
unapproached, in their particular department. Himself an exact and
elegant Scholar,—a most patient and accurate observer of Textual
phenomena, as well as an interesting and judicious expositor of
their significance and value;—guarded in his statements, temperate
in his language, fair and impartial (even kind) to all who come in
his way:—Dr. Scrivener is the very best teacher and guide to whom a
beginner can resort, who desires to be led by the hand, as it were,
through the intricate mazes of Textual Criticism. His _Plain
Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament for the use of
Biblical Students_, (of which a third edition is now in the press,)
is perforce the most generally useful, because the most
comprehensive, of his works; but we strenuously recommend the three
prefatory chapters of his _Full and Exact Collation of about twenty
Greek Manuscripts of the Gospels_ [pp. lxxiv. and 178,—1853], and
the two prefatory chapters of his _Exact Transcript of the Codex
Augiensis_, &c., to which is added a full Collation of Fifty
Manuscripts, [pp. lxxx. and 563,—1859,] to the attention of
students. His Collation of _Codex Bezæ_ (D) is perhaps the greatest
of his works: but whatever he has done, he has done best. It is
instructive to compare his collation of Cod. א with Tischendorf’s.
No reader of the Greek Testament can afford to be without his
reprint of Stephens’ ed. of 1550: and English readers are reminded
that Dr. Scrivener’s is the only _classical_ edition of the English
Bible,—_The Cambridge Paragraph Bible_, &c., 1870-3. His Preface or
“Introduction” (pp. ix.-cxx.) passes praise. Ordinary English
readers should enquire for his _Six Lectures on the Text of the N.
T._, &c., 1875,—which is in fact an attempt to popularize the _Plain
Introduction_. The reader is referred to note 1 at the foot of page
243.
709 “Agmen ducit Carolus Lachmannus (_N. T. Berolini_ 1842-50), ingenii
viribus et elegantiâ doctrinæ haud pluribus impar; editor N. T.
audacior quam limatior: cujus textum, a recepto longè decedentem,
tantopere judicibus quibusdam subtilioribus placuisse jamdudum
miramur: quippe qui, abjectâ tot cæterorum codicum Græcorum ope,
perpaucis antiquissimis (nec iis integris, nec per eum satis
accuratè collatis) innixus, libros sacros ad sæculi post Christum
quarti normam restituisse sibi videatur; versionum porrò (cujuslibet
codicis ætatem facilè superantium) Syriacæ atque Ægyptiacarum
contemptor, neutrius linguæ peritus; Latinarum contrà nimius fautor,
præ Bentleio ipso Bentleianus.”—Scrivener’s Preface to _Nov. Test,
textûs Stephanici_, &c. See above, p. 238, _note_.
710 Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 429.
711 N. T. Part II. p. 2.
712 No one who attends ever so little to the subject can require to be
assured that “_The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to
the text followed in the Authorized Version, together with the
variations adopted in the Revised Version_,” edited by Dr. Scrivener
for the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, 1881, does not by
any means represent his own views. The learned Prebendary merely
edited the decisions of the two-thirds majority of the
Revisionists,—_which were not his own_.
713 Those who have never tried the experiment, can have no idea of the
strain on the attention which such works as those enumerated in p.
238 (_note_) occasion. At the same time, it cannot be too clearly
understood that it is chiefly by the multiplication of _exact_
collations of MSS. that an abiding foundation will some day be laid
on which to build up the _Science_ of Textual Criticism. We may
safely keep our “_Theories_” back till we have collated our
MSS.,—re-edited our Versions,—indexed our Fathers. They will be
abundantly in time _then_.
_ 714 Introduction_, p. 18.
715 See lower part of page 17. Also note at p. 75 and middle of p. 262.
716 P. 13, cf. p. viii.
717 They are as follows:—
[1st] S. Mark (vi. 33) relates that on a certain occasion the
multitude, when they beheld our SAVIOUR and His Disciples departing
in order to cross over unto the other side of the lake, ran on foot
thither,—(α) “_and outwent them_—(β) _and came together unto Him_”
(_i.e._ on His stepping out of the boat: not, as Dr. Hort strangely
imagines [p. 99], on His emerging from the scene of His “retirement”
in “some sequestered nook”).
Now here, A substitutes συνέδραμον [_sic_] for συνῆλθον.—א B with
the Coptic and the Vulg. omit clause (β).—D omits clause (α), but
substitutes “_there_” (αὐτοῦ) for “_unto Him_” in clause
(β),—exhibits therefore a fabricated text.—The Syriac condenses the
two clauses thus:—“_got there before Him_.”—L, Δ, 69, and 4 or 5 of
the old Latin copies, read diversely from all the rest and from one
another. The present is, in fact, one of those many places in S.
Mark’s Gospel where all is contradiction in those depraved witnesses
which Lachmann made it his business to bring into fashion. Of
_Confusion_ there is plenty. “Conflation”—as the Reader sees—there
is none.
[2nd] In S. Mark viii. 26, our SAVIOUR (after restoring sight to the
blind man of Bethsaida) is related to have said,—(α) “_Neither enter
into the village_”—(β) “_nor tell it to any one_—(γ) _in the
village_.” (And let it be noted that the trustworthiness of this way
of exhibiting the text is vouched for by A C N Δ and 12 other
uncials: by the whole body of the cursives: by the Peschito and
Harklensian, the Gothic, Armenian, and Æthiopic Versions: and by the
only Father who quotes the place—Victor of Antioch. [Cramer’s _Cat._
p. 345, lines 3 and 8.])
But it is found that the “two false witnesses” (א B) omit clauses
(β) and (γ), retaining only clause (α). One of these two however
(א), aware that under such circumstances μηδέ is intolerable, [Dr.
Hort, on the contrary, (only because he finds it in B,) considers
μηδέ “_simple and vigorous_” as well as “unique” and “peculiar” (p.
100).] substitutes μή. As for D and the Vulg., they substitute and
paraphrase, importing from Matt. ix. 6 (or Mk. ii. 11), “_Depart
unto thine house_.” D proceeds,—“_and tell it to no one_ [μηδενὶ
εἴπῃς, from Matth. viii. 4,] _in the village_.” Six copies of the
old Latin (b f ff-2 g-1-2 l), with the Vulgate, exhibit the
following paraphrase of the entire place:—“_Depart unto thine house,
and if thou enterest into the village, tell it to no one._” The same
reading exactly is found in Evan. 13-69-346: 28, 61, 473, and i,
(except that 28, 61, 346 exhibit “_say nothing_ [from Mk. i. 44] _to
no one_.”) All six however add at the end,—“_not even in the
village_.” Evan. 124 and a stand alone in exhibiting,—“_Depart unto
thine house; and enter not into the village; neither tell it to any
one_,”—to which 124 [not a] adds,—“_in the village_.”... _Why_ all
this contradiction and confusion is now to be called
“Conflation,”—and what “clear evidence” is to be elicited therefrom
that “Syrian” are posterior alike to “Western” and to “neutral”
readings,—passes our powers of comprehension.
We shall be content to hasten forward when we have further informed
our Readers that while Lachmann and Tregelles abide by the Received
Text in this place; Tischendorf, _alone of Editors_, adopts the
reading of א (μη εις την κωμην εισελθης): while Westcott and Hort,
_alone of Editors_, adopt the reading of B (μηδε εις την κωμην
εισελθης),—so ending the sentence. What else however but calamitous
is it to find that Westcott and Hort have persuaded their fellow
Revisers to adopt the same mutilated exhibition of the Sacred Text?
The consequence is, that henceforth,—instead of “_Neither go into
the town, nor tell it to any in the town_,”—we are invited to read,
“_Do not even enter into the village_.”
[3rd] In S. Mk. ix. 38,—S. John, speaking of one who cast out devils
in CHRIST’S Name, says—(α) “_who followeth not us, and we forbad
him_—(β) _because he followeth not us_.”
Here, א B C L Δ the Syriac, Coptic, and Æthiopic, omit clause (α),
retaining (β). D with the old Latin and the Vulg. omit clause (β),
but retain (α).—Both clauses are found in A N with 11 other uncials
and the whole body of the cursives, besides the Gothic, and the only
Father who quotes the place,—Basil [ii. 252].—Why should the
pretence be set up that there has been “Conflation” here? Two
Omissions do not make one Conflation.
[4th] In Mk. ix. 49,—our SAVIOUR says,—“_For_ (α) _every one shall
be salted with fire_—_and_ (β) _every sacrifice shall be salted with
salt_.”
Here, clause (α) is omitted by D and a few copies of the old Latin;
clause (β) by א B L Δ.
But such an ordinary circumstance as the omission of half-a-dozen
words by Cod. D is so nearly without textual significancy, as
scarcely to merit commemoration. And do Drs. Westcott and Hort
really propose to build their huge and unwieldy hypothesis on so
flimsy a circumstance as the concurrence in error of א B L
Δ,—especially in S. Mark’s Gospel, which those codices exhibit more
unfaithfully than any other codices that can be named? Against them,
are to be set on the present occasion A C D N with 12 other uncials
and the whole body of the cursives: the Ital. and Vulgate; both
Syriac; the Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, and Æthiopic Versions; besides
the only Father who quotes the place,—Victor of Antioch. [Also
“Anon.” p. 206: and see Cramer’s _Cat._ p. 368.]
[5th] S. Luke (ix. 10) relates how, on a certain occasion, our
SAVIOUR “_withdrew to a desert place belonging to the city called
Bethsaida_:” which S. Luke expresses in six words: viz. [1] εἰς [2]
τόπον [3] ἔρημον [4] πόλεως [5] καλουμένης [6] Βηθσαϊδά: of which
six words,—
(_a_)—א and Syrcu retain but three,—1, 2, 3.
(_b_)—The Peschito retains but four,—1, 2, 3, 6.
(_c_)—B L X Ξ D and the 2 Egyptian versions retain other four,—1, 4,
5, 6: but for πόλεως καλουμένης D exhibits κώμην λεγομένην.
(_d_)—The old Latin and Vulg. retain five,—1, 2, 3, 5, 6: but for
“_qui_ (or _quod_) _vocabatur_,” the Vulg. _b_ and _c_ exhibit
“_qui_ (or _quod_) est.”
(_e_)—3 cursives retain other five, viz. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6: while,
(_f_)—A C Δ E, with 9 more uncials and the great bulk of the
cursives,—the Harklensian, Gothic, Armenian, and Æthiopic
Versions,—retain _all the six words_.
In view of which facts, it probably never occurred to any one before
to suggest that the best attested reading of all is the result of
“conflation,” _i.e._ of _spurious mixture_. Note, that א and D have,
this time, changed sides.
[6th] S. Luke (xi. 54) speaks of the Scribes and Pharisees as (α)
“_lying in wait for Him_,” (β) _seeking_ (γ) _to catch something out
of His mouth_ (δ) “_that they might accuse Him_.” This is the
reading of 14 uncials headed by A C, and of the whole body of the
cursives: the reading of the Vulgate also and of the Syriac. What is
to be said against it?
It is found that א B L with the Coptic and Æthiopic Versions omit
clauses (β) and (δ), but retain clauses (α) and (γ).—Cod. D, in
conjunction with Cureton’s Syriac and the old Latin, retains clause
(β), and _paraphrases all the rest of the sentence_. How then can it
be pretended that there has been any “Conflation” here?
In the meantime, how unreasonable is the excision from the Revised
Text of clauses (β) and (δ)—(ζητοῦντες ... ἵνα κατηγορήσωσιν
αὐτόν)—which are attested by A C D and 12 other uncials, together
with the whole body of the cursives; by all the Syriac and by all
the Latin copies!... Are we then to understand that א B, and the
Coptic Version, outweigh every other authority which can be named?
[7th] The “rich fool” in the parable (S. Lu. xii. 18), speaks of (α)
πάντα τὰ γενήματά μου, καὶ (β) τὰ ἀγαθά μου. (So A Q and 13 other
uncials, besides the whole body of the cursives; the Vulgate, Basil,
and Cyril.)
But א D (with the old Latin and Cureton’s Syriac [which however
drops the πάντα]), retaining clause (α), omit clause (β).—On the
other hand, B T, (with the Egyptian Versions, the Syriac, the
Armenian, and Æthiopic,) retaining clause (β), substitute τὸν σῖτον
(a gloss) for τὰ γενήματα in clause (α). Lachmann, Tisch., and
Alford, accordingly retain the traditional text in this place. So
does Tregelles, and so do Westcott and Hort,—only substituting τὸν
σῖτον for τὰ γενήματα. Confessedly therefore there has been no
“Syrian conflation” _here_: for all that has happened has been _the
substitution_ by B of τὸν σῖτον for τὰ γενήματα; and the omission of
4 words by א D. This instance must therefore have been an
oversight.—Only once more.
[8th] S. Luke’s Gospel ends (xxiv. 53) with the record that the
Apostles were continually in the Temple, “(α) _praising and_ (β)
_blessing _GOD.” Such is the reading of 13 uncials headed by A and
every known cursive: a few copies of the old Lat., the Vulg.,
Syraic, Philox., Æthiopic, and Armenian Versions. But it is found
that א B C omit clause (α): while D and seven copies of the old
Latin omit clause (β).
And this completes the evidence for “Conflation.” We have displayed
it thus minutely, lest we should be suspected of unfairness towards
the esteemed writers on _the only occasion_ which they have
attempted argumentative proof. Their theory has at last _forced
them_ to make an appeal to Scripture, and to produce some actual
specimens of their meaning. After ransacking the Gospels for 30
years, they have at last fastened upon _eight_: of which (as we have
seen), several have really no business to be cited,—as not
fulfilling the necessary conditions of the problem. To prevent cavil
however, let _all but one_, the [7th], pass unchallenged.
718 The Reader is referred to pp. 17, 75, 249.
_ 719 E.g._ pp. 115, 116, 117, 118, &c.
720 Referred to below, p. 296.
721 See above, pages 257 (bottom) and 258 (top).
722 See above, pp. 37 to 38.
_ 723 Ibid._ p. 39.
724 To speak with entire accuracy, Drs. Westcott and Hort require us to
believe that the Authors of the [imaginary] Syrian Revisions of A.D.
250 and A.D. 350, interpolated the genuine Text of the Gospels, with
between 2877 (B) and 3455 (א) spurious words; mutilated the genuine
Text in respect of between 536 (B) and 839 (א) words:—substituted
for as many genuine words, between 935 (B) and 1114 (א) uninspired
words:—licentiously transposed between 2098 (B) and 2299 (א):—and in
respect of number, case, mood, tense, person, &c., altered without
authority between 1132 (*B*) and 1265 (א) words.
725 Quoted by Canon Cook, _Revised Version Considered_,—p. 202.
_ 726 i.e._ say from A.D. 90 to A.D. 250-350.
727 See above, p. 269.
728 “If,” says Dr. Hort, “an editor were for any purpose to make it his
aim to restore as completely as possible the New Testament of
Antioch in A.D. 350, he could not help taking the approximate
consent of the cursives as equivalent to _a primary documentary
witness_. And he would not be the less justified in so doing for
being unable to say precisely by what historical agencies THE ONE
ANTIOCHIAN ORIGINAL”—[note the fallacy!]—“_was multiplied into the
cursive hosts of the later ages_.”—Pp. 143-4.
729 Preface to the “limited and private issue” of 1870, p. xviii.:
reprinted in the _Introduction_ (1881), p. 66.
_ 730 Ibid._
731 P. 65 (§ 84). In the Table of Contents (p. xi.), “_Personal
instincts_” are substituted for “_Personal discernment_.”
_ 732 The Revisers and the Greek Text_,—p. 19.
_ 733 Introduction_,—p. xiii.
_ 734 Notes_, p. 22.
_ 735 Notes_, p. 88.
_ 736 Notes_,—p. 51.
737 Scrivener’s _Plain Introduction_,—pp. 507-8.
738 Scrivener’s “_Introduction_,” pp. 513-4.
739 In S. MATTH. i. 25,—the omission of “_her first-born_:”—in vi. 13,
the omission of the _Doxology_:—in xii. 47, the omission of _the
whole verse_:—in xvi. 2, 3, the omission of our LORD’S memorable
words concerning the _signs of the weather_:—in xvii. 21, the
omission of the mysterious statement, “_But this kind goeth not out
save by prayer and fasting_:”—in xviii. 11, the omission of the
precious words “_For the Son of man came to save that which was
lost_.”
In S. MARK xvi. 9-20, the omission of the “_last Twelve
Verses_,”—(“the contents of which are _not such as could have been
invented_ by any scribe or editor of the Gospel,”—W. and H. p. 57).
All admit that ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ is an impossible ending.
In S. LUKE vi. 1, the suppression of the unique δευτεροπρώτῳ; (“the
very obscurity of the expression attesting strongly to its
genuineness,”—Scrivener, p. 516, and so W. and H. p. 58):—ix. 54-56,
the omitted _rebuke to the_ “_disciples James and John_:”—in x. 41,
42, the omitted _words concerning Martha and Mary_:—in xxii. 43, 44,
the omission of the _Agony in the Garden_,—(which nevertheless, “_it
would be impossible to regard_ as a product of the inventiveness of
scribes,”—W. and H. p. 67):—in xxiii. 17, a memorable clause
omitted:—in xxiii. 34, the omission of our Lord’s _prayer for His
murderers_,—(concerning which Westcott and Hort remark that “_few
verses of the Gospels bear in themselves a surer witness to the
truth of what they record than this_”—p. 68):—in xxiii. 38, the
statement that the Inscription on the Cross was “_in letters of
Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew_:”—in xxiv. 12, _the visit of S. Peter
to the Sepulchre_. Bishop Lightfoot remarks concerning S. Luke ix.
56: xxii. 43, 44: and xxiii. 34,—“_It seems impossible to believe
that these incidents are other than authentic_,”—(p. 28.)
In S. JOHN iii. 13, the solemn clause “_which is in heaven_:”—in v.
3, 4, the omitted incident of _the troubling of the pool_:—in vii.
53 to viii. 11, _the narrative concerning the woman taken in
adultery_ omitted,—concerning which Drs. W. and H. remark that “_the
argument which has always told most in its favour in modern times is
its own internal character_. The story itself has justly seemed _to
vouch for its own substantial truth_, and the words in which it is
clothed to harmonize with those of other Gospel narratives”—(p. 87).
Bishop Lightfoot remarks that “_the narrative bears on its face the
highest credentials of authentic history_”—(p. 28).
740 To some extent, even the unlearned Reader may easily convince
himself of this, by examining the rejected “alternative” Readings in
the margin of the “Revised Version.” The “Many” and the “Some
ancient authorities,” there spoken of, _almost invariably
include_—sometimes _denote_—codd. B א, one or both of them. These
constitute the merest fraction of the entire amount of corrupt
readings exhibited by B א; but they will give English readers some
notion of the problem just now under consideration.
Besides the details already supplied [see above, pages 16 and 17:—30
and 31:—46 and 47:—75:—249:—262:—289:—316 to 319] concerning B and
א,—(the result of laborious collation,)—some particulars shall now
be added. The piercing of our SAVIOUR’S side, thrust in after Matt.
xxvii. 49:—the eclipse of the sun when the moon was full, in Lu.
xxiii. 45:—the monstrous figment concerning Herod’s daughter, thrust
into Mk. vi. 22:—the precious clauses omitted in Matt. i. 25 and
xviii. 11:—in Lu. ix. 54-6, and in Jo. iii. 13:—the wretched glosses
in Lu. vi. 48: x. 42: xv. 21: Jo. x. 14 and Mk. vi. 20:—the
substitution of οινον (for οξος) in Matt. xxvii. 34,—of Θεος (for
υιος) in Jo. i. 18,—of ανθρωπου (for Θεου) in ix. 35,—of οὑ (for ῷ)
in Rom. iv. 8:—the geographical blunder in Mk. vii. 31: in Lu. iv.
44:—the omission in Matt. xii. 47,—and of two important verses in
Matt. xvi. 2, 3:—of ιδια in Acts i. 19:—of εγειραι και in iii.
6;—and of δευτεροπρωτω in Lu. vi. 1:—the two spurious clauses in Mk.
iii. 14, 16:—the obvious blunders in Jo. ix. 4 and 11:—in Acts xii.
25—besides the impossible reading in 1 Cor. xiii. 3,—make up a heavy
indictment against B and א jointly—which are here found in company
with just a very few disreputable allies. Add, the plain error at
Lu. ii. 14:—the gloss at Mk. v. 36:—the mere fabrication at Matt.
xix. 17:—the omissions at Matt. vi. 13: Jo. v. 3, 4.
B (in company with others, but apart from א) by exhibiting
βαπτισαντες in Matt. xxviii. 19:—ὡδε των in Mk. ix.
1:—“seventy-_two_,” in Lu. x. 1:—the blunder in Lu. xvi. 12:—and the
grievous omissions in Lu. xxii. 43, 44 (CHRIST’S Agony in the
Garden),—and xxiii. 34 (His prayer for His murderers),—enjoys
unenviable distinction.—B, singly, is remarkable for an obvious
blunder in Matt. xxi. 31:—Lu. xxi. 24:—Jo. xviii. 5:—Acts x. 19—and
xvii. 28:—xxvii. 37:—not to mention the insertion of δεδομενον in
Jo. vii. 39.
א (in company with others, but apart from B) is conspicuous for its
sorry interpolation of Matt. viii. 13:—its substitution of εστιν
(for ην) in S. John i. 4:—its geographical blunder in S. Luke xxiv.
13:—its textual blunder at 1 Pet. i. 23.—א, singly, is remarkable
for its sorry paraphrase in Jo. ii. 3:—its addition to i. 34:—its
omissions in Matt. xxiii. 35:—Mk. i. 1:—Jo. ix. 38:—its insertion of
Ησαιου in Matt. xiii. 35:—its geographical blunders in Mk. i.
28:—Lu. i. 26:—Acts viii. 5:—besides the blunders in Jo. vi. 51—and
xiii. 10:—1 Tim. iii. 16:—Acts xxv. 13:—and the clearly fabricated
narrative of Jo. xiii. 24. Add the fabricated text at Mk. xiv. 30,
68, 72; of which the object was “so far to assimilate the narrative
of Peter’s denials with those of the other Evangelists, as to
suppress the fact, vouched for by S. Mark only, that the cock crowed
twice.”
741 Characteristic, and fatal beyond anything that can be named are, (1)
The _exclusive_ omission by B and א of Mark xvi. 9-20:—(2) The
omission of εν Εφεσῳ, from Ephes. i. 1:—(3) The blunder,
αποσκιασματος, in James i. 17:—(4) The nonsensical συστρεφομενων in
Matt. xvii. 22:—(5) That “vile error,” (as Scrivener calls it,)
περιελοντες, in Acts xxviii. 13:—(6) The impossible order of words
in Lu. xxiii. 32; and (7) The extraordinary order in Acts i. 5:—(8)
The omission of the last clause of the LORD’S prayer, in Lu. xi. 4;
and (9) Of that solemn verse, Matt. xvii. 21; and (10) Of ισχυρον in
Matt. xiv. 30:—(11) The substitution of εργων (for τεκνων) in Matt.
xi. 29:—(12) Of ελιγμα (for μιγμα) in Jo. xix. 39,—and (13) of ην
τεθειμενος (for ετεθη) in John xix. 41. Then, (14) The thrusting of
Χριστος into Matt. xvi. 21,—and (15) Of ὁ Θεος into vi. 8:—besides
(16) So minute a peculiarity as Βεεζεβουλ in Matt. x. 35: xii. 24,
27: Lu. xi. 15, 18, 19. (17) Add, the gloss at Matt. xvii. 20, and
(18) The omissions at Matt. v. 22: xvii. 21.—It must be admitted
that such peculiar blemishes, taken collectively, constitute a proof
of affinity of origin,—community of descent from one and the same
disreputable ancestor. But space fails us.
The Reader will be interested to learn that although, in the
Gospels, B combines exclusively with A, but 11 times; and with C,
but 38 times: with D, it combines exclusively 141 times, and with א,
239 times: (viz. in Matt. 121,—in Mk. 26,—in Lu. 51,—in Jo. 41
times).
Contrast it with A:—which combines exclusively with D, 21 times:
with א 13 times: with B, 11 times: with C, 4 times.
742 The Reviewer speaks from actual inspection of both documents. They
are essentially dissimilar. The learned Ceriani assured the Reviewer
(in 1872) that whereas the Vatican Codex must certainly have been
written _in Italy_,—the birthplace of the Sinaitic was [_not_ Egypt,
but] _either Palestine or Syria_. Thus, considerations of time and
place effectually dispose of Tischendorf’s preposterous notion that
the Scribe of Codex B wrote _six leaves_ of א: an imagination which
solely resulted from the anxiety of the Critic to secure for his own
cod. א the same antiquity which is claimed for the vaunted cod. B.
This opinion of Dr. Tischendorf’s rests on the same fanciful basis
as his notion that _the last verse_ of S. John’s Gospel in א was not
written by the same hand which wrote the rest of the Gospel. There
is _no manner of difference_: though of course it is possible that
the scribe took a new pen, preliminary to writing that last verse,
and executing the curious and delicate ornament which follows.
Concerning S. Jo. xxi. 25, see above, pp. 23-4.
743 Tischendorf’s narrative of the discovery of the Sinaitic manuscript
(“_When were our Gospels written?_”), [1866,] p. 23.
744 “Papyrus Inédit de la Bibliothèque de M. Ambroise Firmin-Didot.
Nouveaux fragments d’Euripide et d’autres Poètes Grecs, publiés par
M. Henri Weil. (Extrait des _Monumens Grecs publiés par
l’Association pour l’encouragement des Etudes Grecques en France_.
Année 1879.)” Pp. 36.
745 The rest of the passage may not be without interest to classical
readers:—“Ce n’est pas à dire qu’elle soit tout à fait sans intérêt,
sans importance: pour la constitution du texte. Elle nous apprend
que, au vers 5, ἀρίστων, pour ἀριστέων (correction de Wakefield)
était déjà l’ancienne vulgate; et que les vers 11 et 12, s’ils sont
altérés, comme l’assurent quelques éditeurs d’Euripide, l’étaient
déjà dans l’antiquité.
“L’homme ... était aussi ignorant que négligent. Je le prends pour
un Egyptien n’ayant qu’une connoissance très imparfaite de la langue
grecque, et ne possédant aucune notion ni sur l’orthographe, ni sur
les règles les plus élémentaires du trimètre iambique. Le plus
singulier est qu’il commence sa copie au milieu d’un vers et qu’il
la finisse de même. Il oublie des lettres nécessaires, il en ajoute
de parasites, il les met les unes pour les autres, il tronque les
mots ou il les altère, au point de détruire quelquefois la suite de
la construction et le sens du passage.” A faithful copy of the
verses in minuscule characters is subjoined for the gratification of
Scholars. We have but divided the words and inserted capital
letters:—
“ανδρων αριστων οι δε πανχρυσον δερος
Πελεια μετηλθον ου γαρ τον δεσπονα εμην
Μηδια πυργους γης επλευσε Ειολκιας
ερωτι θυμωδ εγπλαγις Ιανοσονος
οτ αν κτανει πισας Πελειαδας κουρας
πατερα κατοικη τηνδε γην Κορινθιαν
συν ανδρι και τεκνοισιν ανδανοισα μεν
φυγη πολιτων ων αφηκετο χθονος.”
An excellent scholar (R. C. P.) remarks,—“The fragment must have
been written from dictation (of small parts, as it seems to me); and
by an illiterate scribe. It is just such a result as one might
expect from a half-educated reader enunciating Milton for a
half-educated writer.”
746 See p. 324 _note_ 1.—Photius [cod. 48] says that “Gaius” was a
presbyter of Rome, and ἐθνῶν ἐπίσκοπος. See Routh’s _Reliqq._ ii.
125.
747 Eusebius, _Hist. Ecol._ v. 28 (ap. Routh’s _Reliqq._ ii. 132-4).
748 Tregelles, Part ii. p. 2.
749 Scrivener’s prefatory _Introduction_,—p. xix.
_ 750 Ibid._ p. iii.
_ 751 On Revision_,—p. 47.
752 Singular to relate, S. Mark x. 17 to 31 _exactly_ fills two columns
of cod. א. (See Tischendorf’s reprint, 4to, p. 24*.)
753 Clemens Al. (ed. Potter),—pp. 937-8.... Note, how Clemens begins §
v. (p. 938, line 30). This will be found noticed below, viz. at p.
336, note 3.
754 “This Text” (say the Editors) “is _an attempt to reproduce at once
the autograph Text_.”—_Introduction_, p. xxviii.
755 Westcott and Hort’s _Introduction_, pp. 112-3.
756 Besides,—All but L. conspire 5 times.
All but T. 3 times.
All but Tr. 1 time.
Then,—T. Tr. WH. combine 2 times
T. WH. RT. 1 time
Tr. WH. RT. 1 time
L. Tr. WH. 1 time
Then,—L. T. stand by themselves 1 time
L. Tr. 1 time
T. WH. 1 time
Lastly,—L. stands alone 4 times.
Total: 21.
_ 757 Twice_ he agrees with all 5: viz. omitting ἄρας τὸν σταυρόν in ver.
21; and in omitting ῆ γυναῖκα (in ver. 29):—_Once_ he agrees with
only Lachmann: viz. in transposing ταῦτα πάντα (in ver. 20).
758 On the remaining 5 occasions (17 + 3 + 5 = 25), Clemens exhibits
peculiar readings of his own,—sides with _no one_.
_ 759 Q. R._ p. 360.
760 Article xx. § 1.
761 Εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν.—S. John xvi. 13.
762 Theodoret, _Opp._ iv. 208.—Comp. Clinton, _F. R._ ii. _Appendix_, p.
473.
763 The reader is invited to enquire for Bp. Kaye (of Lincoln)’s
_Account of the writings of Clement of Alexandria_,—and to read the
vith and viiith chapters.
764 Ταῦτα μὲν ἐν τῷ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίῳ γέγραπται. (§ v.),—p. 938.
765 Alford’s N. T. vol. i. proleg. p. 92.
766 See p. 197 (§ 269): and p. 201 (§ 275-9):—and p. 205 (§ 280).
_ 767 Preface_ (1870), p. xv.
768 See above, pp. 79 to 85.
769 Pp. 359-60.
770 P. 210 to p. 287. See the Contents, pp. xxiii.-xxviii.
771 Pp. 91-119 and pp. 133-146.
772 “I perceived _a large and wide basket_ full of old parchments; and
the librarian told me that two heaps like this had been already
_committed to the flames._ What was my surprise to find amid this
heap of papers,” &c.—(_Narrative of the discovery of the Sinaitic
Manuscript,_ p. 23.)
773 τὴν παρακαταθήκην.—1 Tim. vi. 20.
774 [While this sheet is passing through the press, I find among my
papers a note (written in 1876) by the learned, loved, and lamented
Editor of Cyril,—Philip E. Pusey,—with whom I used to be in constant
communication:—“It is not obvious to me, looking at the subject from
outside, why B C L, constituting a class of MSS. allied to each
other, and therefore nearly = 1-½ MSS., are to be held to be
superior to A. It is still less obvious to me why —— showing up (as
he does) very many grave faults of B, should yet consider B superior
in character to A.”]
_ 775 Introduction_, p. 567.
776 Let the following places be considered: S. Jo. i. 13; iii. 3, 5, 6,
7, 8; 1 Jo. ii. 29; iii. 9 _bis_, iv. 7; v. 1 _bis_, 4, 18 _bis_.
_Why_ is it to be supposed that on this last occasion THE ETERNAL
SON should be intended?
777 A*, B, 105.
778 The paraphrase is interesting. The Vulgate, Jerome [ii. 321, 691],
Cassian [p. 409],—“_Sed generatio Dei conservat eum_:” Chromatius
[Gall. viii. 347], and Vigilius Taps. [ap. Athanas. ii. 646],—“_Quia
(quoniam) nativitas Dei custodit (servat) illum._” In a letter of 5
Bishops to Innocentius I. (A.D. 410) [Galland. viii. 598 b], it
is,—“_Nativitas quæ ex Deo est._” Such a rendering (viz. “_his
having been born of_ GOD”) amounts to an _interpretation_ of the
place.
779 From the Rev. S. C. Malan, D.D.
780 iv. 326 b c.
781 Gall. viii. 347,—of which the Greek is to be seen in Cramer’s _Cat._
pp. 143-4. Many portions of the lost Text of this Father, (the
present passage included [p. 231]) are to be found in the Scholia
published by C. F. Matthæi [N. T. xi. 181 to 245-7].
782 i. 94, 97.
783 In _Cat._ p. 124, repeated p. 144.
784 iii. 433 c.
785 ii. 601 d.
786 By putting a small uncial Ε above the Α.
_ 787 Diocesan Progress_, Jan. 1882.—[pp. 20] p. 19.
_ 788 Introduction_, p. 283. _Notes_, pp. 3, 22, and _passim_.
789 Sermons, vol. i. 132,—(“_A form of sound words to be used by
Ministers._”)
790 Quoted by ps.-Ephraem _Evan. Conc._ p. 135 l. 2:—Nonnus:—Chrys.
viii. 248:—Cyril iv. 269 e, 270 a, 273:—Cramer’s _Cat._ p. 242 l. 25
(which is _not_ from Chrys.):—_Chron. Paschale_ 217 a
(_diserte_).—Recognized by Melito (A.D. 170):—Irenæus (A.D.
177):—Hippolytus (A.D. 190):—Origen:—Eusebius:—Apollinarius Laod.,
&c.
791 This is the _true_ reason of the eagerness which has been displayed
in certain quarters to find ὅς, (not Θεός) in 1 Tim. iii. 16:—just
as nothing else but a determination that CHRIST shall not be spoken
of as ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός, has occasioned the supposed doubt as to
the construction of Rom. ix. 5,—in which we rejoice to find that Dr.
Westcott refuses to concur with Dr. Hort.
792 See Dr. W. H. Mill’s _University Sermons_ (1845),—pp. 301-2 and
305:—a volume which should be found in every clergyman’s library.
793 Rev. xxii. 18, 19.
794 ἀφανισθήσονται.
795 This happens not unfrequently in codices of the type of א and B. A
famous instance occurs at Col. ii. 18, (ἂ μὴ ἑώρακεν
ἐμβατεύων,—“_prying into the things he hath not seen_”); where א* A
B D* and a little handful of suspicious documents leave out the
“_not_.” Our Editors, rather than recognize this blunder (so obvious
and ordinary!), are for conjecturing Α ΕΟΡΑΚΕΝ ΕΜΒΑΤΕΥΩΝ into ΑΕΡΑ
ΚΕΝΕΜΒΑΤΕΥΩΝ; which (if it means anything at all) may as well
mean,—“proceeding on an airy foundation to offer an empty
conjecture.” Dismissing that conjecture as worthless, we have to set
off the whole mass of the copies—against some 6 or 7:—Irenæus (i.
847), Theodoras Mops, (in _loc_.), Chrys. (xi. 372), Theodoret (iii.
489, 490), John Damascene (ii. 211)—against no Fathers at all (for
Origen once has μή [iv. 665]; once, has it not [iii. 63]; and once
is doubtful [i. 583]). Jerome and Augustine both take notice of the
diversity of reading, _but only to reject it_.—The Syriac versions,
the Vulgate, Gothic, Georgian, Sclavonic, Æthiopic, Arabic and
Armenian—(we owe the information, as usual, to Dr. Malan)—are to be
set against the suspicious Coptic. All these then are with the
Traditional Text: which cannot seriously be suspected of error.
796 εὑρεθήσεται.
797 Augustin, vii. 595.
798 ii. 467: iii. 865:—ii. 707: iii. 800:—ii. 901. _In Luc_. pp. 428,
654.
799 ii. 347.
800 Preface to “Provisional issue,” p. xxi.
_ 801 Introduction_, p. 210.
_ 802 Ibid_. p. 276.
803 Apud Mai, vi. 105.
_ 804 Opp._ vii. 543. Comp. 369.
805 Ap. Cramer, _Cat._ vi. 187.
806 So, Nilus, i. 270.
_ 807 Interp._ 595: 607.
_ 808 Dem. Evan._ p. 444.
809 P. 306.
_ 810 Epist. ad Zen._ iii. 1. 78. Note, that our learned Cave considered
this to be a _genuine_ work of Justin M. (A.D. 150).
_ 811 Cantic._ (an early work) _interp._ iii. 39,—though elsewhere (i.
112, 181 [?]: ii. 305 _int._ [but _not_ ii. 419]) he is for leaving
out εἰκῆ.
812 Gall. iii. 72 and 161.
813 ii. 89 b and e (partly quoted in the _Cat._ of Nicetas) _expressly_:
265.
814 i. 818 _expressly_.
815 ii. 312 (preserved in Jerome’s Latin translation, i. 240).
816 i. 132; iii. 442.
817 472, 634.
818 Ap. Chrys.
819 iii. 768: _apud Mai_, ii. 6 and iii. 268.
820 i. 48, 664; iv. 946.
821 Cramer’s _Cat._ viii. 12, line 14.
822 128, 625.
823 Gall. vi. 181.
824 Gall. x. 14.
825 Gall. vii. 509.
826 i. 27, written when he was 42; and ii. 733, 739, written when he was
84.
827 vii. 26,—“_Radendum est ergo_ sine causâ.” And so, at p. 636.
828 1064.
829 ii. 261.
830 ii. 592.
_ 831 Amphilochia_, (Athens, 1858,)—p. 317. Also in _Cat._
_ 832 Apophthegm. PP._ [ap. Cotel. _Eccl. Gr. Mon._ i. 622].
833 S. Matth. xv. 14.
_ 834 Gospel of the Resurrection_,—p. vii.
_ 835 Introduction_, pp. 300-2.
_ 836 Ibid._ p. 299.
_ 837 Appendix_, p. 66.
838 See Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 432.
_ 839 On Revision_,—p. 99.
_ 840 Speech in Convocation_, Feb. 1870, (p. 83.)
_ 841 On Revision_,—p. 205.
_ 842 Address to Lincoln Diocesan Conference_,—p. 25.
_ 843 Ibid._,—p. 27.
_ 844 Considerations on Revision_,—p. 44. The Preface is dated 23rd May,
1870. The Revisers met on the 22nd of June.
We learn from Dr. Newth’s _Lectures on Bible Revision_ (1881),
that,—“As the general Rules under which the Revision was to be
carried out had been carefully prepared, no need existed for any
lengthened discussion of preliminary arrangements, and the Company
upon its first meeting was able to enter at once upon its work” (p.
118) ... “The portion prescribed for the first session was Matt. i.
to iv.” (p. 119) ... “The question of the spelling of proper names
... being settled, the Company proceeded to the actual details of
the Revision, and in a surprisingly short time settled down to an
established method of procedure.”—“All proposals made at the first
Revision were decided by simple majorities” (p. 122) ... “_The
questions which concerned the Greek Text were decided for the most
part at the First Revision._” (Bp. Ellicott’s _Pamphlet_, p. 34.)
_ 845 The Revisers and the Greek Text of the New Testament, by two
Members of the New Testament Company_,—1882. Macmillan, pp. 79,
price two shillings and sixpence.
846 “To these two articles—so far, at least, as they are concerned with
the Greek Text adopted by the Revisers—our Essay is intended for an
answer.”—p. 79.
847 See above, pages 235 to 366.
848 Article III.,—see last note.
_ 849 Pamphlet_, p. 79.
_ 850 The Revised Version of the first three Gospels, considered in its
bearings upon the record of our __LORD’S__ Words and of incidents in
His Life_,—(1882. pp. 250. Murray,)—p. 232. Canon Cook’s temperate
and very interesting volume will be found simply unanswerable.
851 P. 40.
_ 852 Ibid._
853 As at p. 4, and p. 12, and p. 13, and p. 19, and p. 40.
854 See above, pp. 348-350.
855 P. 40.
856 P. 40.
857 P. 77.
858 P. 41, and so at p. 77.
859 P. 41.
860 P. 5.
861 P. 3.
862 P. 77.
_ 863 On Revision_, pp. 47-8.
864 Scrivener’s _Introduction_,—p. 423.
_ 865 Ibid._ p. 421.
866 “Non tantum totius Antiquitatis altum de tali opere suscepto
silentium,—sed etiam frequentes Patrum, usque ad quartum seculum
viventium, de textu N. T. liberius tractato, impuneque corrupto,
deque summâ Codicum dissonantiâ querelæ, nec non ipsæ corruptiones
inde a primis temporibus continuo propagatæ,—satis sunt documento,
neminem opus tam arduum, scrupulorum plenum, atque invidiæ et
calumniis obnoxium, aggressum fuisse; etiamsi doctiorum Patrum de
singulis locis disputationes ostendant, eos non prorsus rudes in
rebus criticis fuisse.”—_Codd. MSS. N. T. Græcorum &c. nova
descriptio, et cum textu vulgo recepto Collatio, &c._ 4to. Gottingæ,
1847. (p. 4.)
867 He proceeds:—“Hucusque nemini contigit, nec in posterum, puto,
continget, monumentorum nostrorum, tanquam totidem testium
singulorum, ingens agmen ad tres quatuorve, e quibus omnium
testimonium pendeat, testes referre; aut e testium grege innumero
aliquot duces auctoresque secernere, quorum testimonium tam plenum,
certum firmumque sit, ut sine damno ceterorum testimonio
careamus.”—_Ibid._ (p. 19.)
_ 868 Commentarius Criticus in N. T._ (in his Preface to the Ep. to the
Hebrews). We are indebted to Canon Cook for calling attention to
this. See by all means his _Revised Text of the first three
Gospels_,—pp. 4-8.
869 It requires to be stated, that, (as explained by the Abbé to the
present writer,) the “Post-scriptum” of his Fascic. IV., (viz. from
p. 234 to p. 236,) is a _jeu d’esprit_ only,—intended to enliven a
dry subject, and to entertain his pupils.
870 It seems to have escaped Bishop Ellicott’s notice, (and yet the fact
well deserves commemoration) that the claims of Tischendorf and
Tregelles on the Church’s gratitude, are not by any means founded on
_the Texts_ which they severally put forth. As in the case of Mill,
Wetstein and Birch, their merit is that they _patiently accumulated
evidence_. “Tischendorf’s reputation as a Biblical scholar rests
less on his critical editions of the N. T., than on the texts of the
chief uncial authorities which in rapid succession he gave to the
world.” (Scrivener’s _Introduction_,—p. 427.)
871 P. 12.
872 P. 13.
873 See above, pp. 12: 30-3: 34-5: 46-7: 75: 94-6: 249: 262: 289: 319.
874 P. 40.
875 P. 19.
876 P. 4.
877 Acts xix. 35.
_ 878 Suprà_, pp. 339-41.
879 P. 13.
880 Bp. Ellicott, _On Revision_, &c.—p. 30.
881 P. 15.
882 P. 16.
883 P. 17.
884 P. 18.
885 P. 19.
886 P. 19.
887 P. 20.
888 P. 21.
889 Pp. 23-4.
_ 890 Supra_, pp. 258-266.
891 Pp. 25-7.
892 See _Art._ III.,—viz. from p. 235 to p. 366.
893 You refer to such places as pp. 87-8 and 224, where see the Notes.
_ 894 Chronicle of Convocation_, Feb. 1870, p. 83.
895 See above, p. 368.
896 The clause (“and sayest thou, Who touched me?”) is witnessed to by A
C D P R X Γ Δ Λ Ξ Π and _every other known uncial except three of
bad character: by every known cursive but four_:—by the Old Latin
and Vulgate: by all the four Syriac: by the Gothic and the Æthiopic
Versions; as well as by ps.-Tatian (_Evan. Concord_, p. 77) and
Chrysostom (vii. 359 a). It cannot be pretended that the words are
derived from S. Mark’s Gospel (as Tischendorf coarsely
imagined);—for the sufficient reason that _the words are not found
there_. In S. Mark (v. 31) it is,—καὶ λέγεις, Τίς μου ἥψατο; in S.
Luke (viii. 45), καὶ λέγεις, Τίς ὁ ἁψάμενός μου. Moreover, this
delicate distinction has been maintained all down the ages.
897 Page 154 to p. 164.
898 You will perhaps remind me that you do not read ἐξελθοῦσαν. I am
aware that you have tacitly substituted ἐξεληλυθυῖαν,—which is only
supported by _four_ manuscripts of bad character: being disallowed
by _eighteen uncials_, (with A C D at their head,) and _every known
cursive but one_; besides the following Fathers:—Marcion (Epiph. i.
313 a, 327 a.) (A.D. 150),—Origen (iii. 466 e.),—the author of _the
Dialogus_ (Orig. i. 853 d.) (A.D. 325),—Epiphanius (i. 327
b.),—Didymus (pp. 124, 413.), in two places,—Basil (iii. 8
c.),—Chrysostom (vii. 532 a.),—Cyril (Opp. vi. 99 e. Mai, ii. 226.)
in two places,—ps.-Athanasius (ii. 14 c.) (A.D. 400),—ps.-Chrysostom
(xiii. 212 e f.).... Is it tolerable that the Sacred Text should be
put to wrongs after this fashion, by a body of men who are avowedly
(for see page 369) unskilled in Textual Criticism, and who were
appointed only to revise the authorized _English Version_?
899 This I make the actual sum, after deducting for marginal notes and
variations in stops.
900 I mean such changes as ἠγέρθη for ἐγήγερται (ix. 7),—φέρετε for
ἐνένκαντες (xv. 23), &c. These are generally the result of a change
of construction.
901 MS. communication from my friend, the Editor
902 I desire to keep out of sight the _critical impropriety_ of such
corrections of the text. And yet, it is worth stating that א B L are
_the only witnesses discoverable_ for the former, and _almost the
only_ witnesses to be found for the latter of these two utterly
unmeaning changes.
903 Characteristic of these two false-witnesses is it, that they are not
able to convey even _this_ short message correctly. In reporting the
two words ἔρχωμαι ἐνθάδε, they contrive to make two blunders. B
substitutes διέρχομαι for διέρχωμαι: א, ὦδε for ἐνθάδε,—which latter
eccentricity Tischendorf (characteristically) does not allude to in
his note ... “These be thy gods, O Israel!”
904 Rev. xxii. 19.
905 iv. 28, c. 1 (p. 655 = Mass. 265). Note that the reference is _not_
to S. Matt. x. 15.
906 P. 123.
907 Viz. vi. 7-13.
908 i. 199 and 200.
_ 909 In loc._
910 See above, pp. 347-9.
911 See above, pp. 79-85.
912 See above, pp. 409-411.
913 See above, p. 399.
914 Bp. Ellicott _on Revision_, p. 30.
915 The Bp. attended _only one meeting_ of the Revisers. (Newth, p.
125.)
916 Page 4.
917 See above, pp. 41 to 47.
918 Pages 17, 18.
919 See above, p. 37, note 1.
920 Pages 98-106.
921 Pages 64-76.
922 The exceptions are not worth noticing _here_.
923 N. T. ed. 2da. 1807, iii. 442-3.
924 i. 887 c.
925 Called _Ancoratus_, written in Pamphylia, A.D. 373. The extract in
_Adv. Hær._ extends from p. 887 to p. 899 (= _Ancor._ ii. 67-79).
926 ii. 74 b. Note, that to begin the quotation at the word ἐφανερώθη
was a frequent practice with the ancients, especially when enough
had been said already to make it plain that it was of the SON they
were speaking, or when it would have been nothing to the purpose to
begin with Θεός. Thus Origen, iv. 465 c:—Didymus on 1 John _apud_
Galland. vi. 301 a:—Nestorius, _apud_ Cyril, vi. 103 e:—ps-Chrysost.
x. 763 c, 764 c:—and the Latin of Cyril v.1 785. So indeed
ps-Epiphanius, ii. 307 c.
927 i. 894 c.
_ 928 Apud_ Theodoret, v. 719.
929 iv. 622 a,—_qui apparuit in carne, justificatus est in spiritu_.
_ 930 De incarn. Unig._ v. part i. 680 d e = _De rectâ fide_, v. part ii.
b c.
_ 931 Ibid._ 681 a = _ibid._ 6 d e.
932 Page 98.
933 Note at the end of Bishop Ellicott’s Commentary on 1 Timothy.
934 Berriman’s MS. Note in the British Museum copy of his
_Dissertation_,—p. 154. Another annotated copy is in the Bodleian.
935 “Certe quidem in exemplari Alexandrino nostro, linea illa transversa
quam loquor, adeo exilis ac plane evanida est, ut primo intuitu haud
dubitarim ipse scriptum _ΟΣ_, quod proinde in variantes lectiones
conjeceram.... Verum postea perlustrato attentius loco, lineolæ, quæ
primam aciem fugerat, ductus quosdam ac vestigia satis certa
deprehendi, præsertim ad partem sinistram, quæ peripheriam literæ
pertingit,” &c.—_In loco._
_ 936 Clem. Rom._ ed. Wotton, p. 27.
937 Berriman, pp. 154-5.
_ 938 Ibid._ (_MS. Note._) Berriman adds other important testimony, p.
156.
_ 939 Dissertation_, p. 156. Berriman refers to the fact that some one in
recent times, with a view apparently to establish the actual reading
of the place, has clumsily thickened the superior stroke with common
black ink, and introduced a rude dot into the middle of the θ. There
has been no attempt at fraud. Such a line and such a dot could
deceive no one.
940 “Quanquam lineola, quæ Θεός compendiose scriptum ab ὅς distinguitur,
sublesta videtur nonnullis.”—N. T. p. 710.
941 Griesbach in 1785 makes the same report:—“Manibus hominum inepte
curiosorum ea folii pars quæ dictum controversum continet, adeo
detrita est, ut nemo mortalium hodie certi quidquam discernere
possit ... Non oculos tantum sed digitos etiam adhibuisse videntur,
ut primitivam illius loci lectionem eruerent et velut exsculperent.”
(_Symb. Crit._ i. p. x.) The MS. was evidently in precisely the same
state when the Rev. J. C. Velthusen (_Observations on Various
Subjects_, pp. 74-87) inspected it in 1773.
942 As C. F. Matthæi [N. T. m. xi. _Præfat._ pp. lii.-iii.]
remarks:—“_cum de Divinitate_ CHRISTI _agitur, ibi profecto sui
dissimilior deprehenditur_.” Woide instances it as an example of the
force of prejudice, that Wetstein “apparitionem lineolæ alii causæ
adscripsisse, _quia eam abesse volebat_.” [_Præfat._ p. xxxi.]
943 “Patet, ut alia mittamus, e consensu Versionum,” &c.—ii. 149.
944 Woide, _ibid._
_ 945 Supra_, p. 100.
_ 946 Introduction_, p. 553.
_ 947 Introd._ p. 553.
948 Any one desirous of understanding this question fully, should
(besides Berriman’s admirable _Dissertation_) read Woide’s
_Præfatio_ to his edition of Codex A, pp. xxx. to xxxii. (§
87).—“Erunt fortasse quidam” (he writes in conclusion) “qui
suspicabuntur, nonnullos hanc lineolam diametralem in medio Θ
vidisse, quoniam eam videre volebant. Nec negari potest præsumptarum
opinionum esse vim permagnam. Sed idem, etiam Wetstenio, nec
immerito, objici potest, eam apparitionem lineolæ alii causæ
adscripsisse, quia eam abesse volebat. Et eruditissimis placere
aliquando, quæ vitiosa sunt, scio: sed omnia testimonia, omnemque
historicam veritatem in suspicionem adducere non licet: nec mirum
est nos ea nunc non discernere, quæ, antequam nos Codicem
vidissemus, evanuerant.”
_ 949 Prolegomena_ to his ed. of Cod. C,—pp. 39-42.
950 “Ος habet codex C, ut puto; nam lineola illa tenuis, quæ ex Ο facit
Θ, non apparet.” (_In loc._) And so Griesbach, _Symb. Crit._ i. p.
viii. (1785).
951 “Quotiescunque locum inspiciebam (inspexi autem per hoc biennium
sæpissime) mihi prorsus apparebat.” “Quam [lineolam] miror hucusque
omnium oculos fugisse.” [_Prolegg._ p. 41].... Equidem miror sane.
952 Page 75.
953 Pages 64, 69, 71, 75.—Some have pointed out that opposite _ΟΣ_ in
F—above _ΟΣ_ in G,—is written “quod.” Yes, but not “_qui_.” The
Latin version is independent of the Greek. In S. Mark xi. 8, above
ΑΓΡΩΝ is written “_arboribus_;” and in 1 Tim. iv. 10, ΑΓΩΝΙΖΟΜΕΘΑ is
translated by F “_maledicimur_,”—by G, “_exprobramur vel
maledicimur_.”
_ 954 Introduction to_ Cod. Augiensis, p. xxviij.
_ 955 E.g._ Out of ΟΜΕΝΤΟΙΣΤΕΡΕΟΣ [2 Tim. ii. 19], they both make Ο · μεν
· το · ισ · τεραιος. For ὑγιαίνωσιν [Tit. i. 13], both write υγει ·
ενωσειν:—for καινὴ κτίσις [2 Cor. v. 17] both give και ·
νηκτισις:—for ἀνέγκλητοι ὄντες [1 Tim. iii. 10], both exhibit ανευ ·
κλητοιον · εχοντες (“nullum crimen habentes”):—for ὡς γάγγραινα
νομὴν ἕξει [2 Tim. ii. 17], both exhibit ως · γανγρα · ινα · (F G)
νομηνεξει, (G, who writes above the words “_sicut cancer ut
serpat_”).
956 He must be held responsible for ὝΠΟΚΡΙΣΙ in place of ὑποκρίσει [1
Tim. iv. 2]: ΑΣΤΙΖΟΜΕΝΟΣ instead of λογιζόμενος [2 Cor. v. 19]:
ΠΡΙΧΟΤΗΤΙ instead of πραότητι [2 Tim. ii. 25]. And he was the author
of ΓΕΡΜΑΝΕ in Phil. iv. 3: as well as of Ο δε πνευμα in 1 Tim. iv.
1.
But the scribes of F and G also were curiously innocent of Greek. G
suggests that γυναιξειν (in 1 Tim. ii. 10) may be “infinitivus”—(of
course from γυναίκω).
_ 957 Introduction_, p. 155.
958 Thirteen times between Rom. i. 7 and xiii. 1.
_ 959 E.g._ Gal. iii. 1; 1 Cor. xv. 55; 2 Cor. vi. 11 (_ο_ς and _ο_).
Those who have Matthæi’s reprint of G at hand are invited to refer
to the last line of fol. 91: (1 Tim. vi. 20) where Ὦ Τιμόθεε is
exhibited thus:—_Ο_ Ὦ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΕ.
960 Col. ii. 22, 23: iii. 2.
961 As 1 Tim. iii. 1: iv. 14: vi. 15. Consider the practice of F in 1
Thess. i. 9 (_Ο_; ΠΟΙΑΝ): in 2 Cor. viii. 11, 14 (_Ο_; ΠΩΣ).
962 Rarest of all are instances of this mark over the Latin “e”: but we
meet with “_spē_” (Col. i. 23): “_sē_” (ii. 18): _rēpēntes_ (2 Tim.
iii. 6), &c. So, in the Greek, ἡ or ᾗ written _Η_ are most
unusual.—A few instances are found of “u” with this appendage, as
“_domūs_” (1 Tim. v. 13): “_spiritū_” (1 Cor. iv. 21), &c.
963 This information is obtained from a photograph of the page procured
from Dresden through the kindness of the librarian, Counsellor Dr.
Forstemann.
964 See Rettig’s _Prolegg._ pp. xxiv.-v.
965 “You will perceive that I have now succeeded in identifying every
Evangelium hitherto spoken of as existing in Florence, with the
exception of Evan 365 [Act. 145, Paul 181] (Laurent vi. 36), &c.,
which is said to ‘contain also the Psalms.’ I assure you no such
Codex exists in the Laurentian Library; no, nor ever did exist
there. Dr. Anziani devoted full an hour to the enquiry, allowing me
[for I was very incredulous] to see the process whereby he convinced
himself that Scholz is in error. It was just such an intelligent and
exhaustive process as Coxe of the Bodleian, or dear old Dr. Bandinel
before him, would have gone through under similar circumstances.
Pray strike that Codex off your list; and with it ‘Acts 145’ and
‘Paul 181.’ I need hardly say that Bandini’s Catalogue knows nothing
of it. It annoys me to be obliged to add that I cannot even find out
the history of Scholz’s mistake.”—_Guardian_, August 27, 1873.
966 “_Whose_ word on such matters is entitled to most credit,—the word
of the Reviewer, or the word of the most famous manuscript collators
of this century?... Those who have had occasion to seek in public
libraries for manuscripts which are not famous for antiquity or
beauty or completeness (_sic_), know that the answer ‘_non est
inventus_’ is no conclusive reason for believing that the object of
their quest has not been seen and collated in former years by those
who profess to have actually seen and collated it. That 181 ‘is
non-existent’ must be considered unproven.”—Bp. Ellicott’s
_Pamphlet_, p. 72.
967 The learned Abbé Martin, who has obligingly inspected for me the 18
copies of the “Praxapostolus” in the Paris library, reports as
follows concerning “Apost. 12” ( = Reg. 375),—“A very foul MS. of
small value, I believe: but a curious specimen of bad Occidental
scholarship. It was copied for the monks of S. Denys, and exhibits
many Latin words; having been apparently revised on the Latin. The
lection is assigned to Σαββάτῳ λ᾽ (not λδ᾽) in this codex.”
968 “_Codices Cryptenses seu Abbatiæ Cryptæ Ferratæ in Tusculano,
digesti et illustrati cura et studio_ D. Antonii Rocchi,
Hieromonachi Basiliani Bibliothecæ custodis,”—_Tusculani_, fol.
1882.—I have received 424 pages (1 May, 1883).
969 Not a few of the Basilian Codices have been transferred to the
Vatican.
970 In an APPENDIX to the present volume, I will give fuller
information. I am still (3rd May, 1883) awaiting replies to my
troublesome interrogatories addressed to the heads of not a few
continental libraries.
971 Rufinus, namely (_fl._ A.D. 395). _Opp._ iv. 465
972 MS. letter to myself, August 11, 1879.
973 MS. letter from the Rev. Henry Deane, of S. John’s College, Oxford.
974 See above, page 429.
975 Page 71. And so p. 65 and 69.
976 MS. letter to myself.
977 See above, page 429.
_ 978 Ulfilas. Veteris et Novi Test. Versionis Goth. fragmenta quæ
supersunt_, &c. 4to. 1843.
979 “Si tamen Uppström ‘_obscurum_’ dixit, non ‘_incertum_,’ fides illi
adhiberi potest, quia diligentissime apices omnes investigabat; me
enim præsente in aula codicem tractabat.”—(Private letter to
myself.)
Ceriani proceeds,—“Quæris quomodo componatur cum textu 1 Tim. iii.
16, nota 54 _Proleg._ Gabelentz Gothicam versionem legens Θεός.
Putarem ex loco Castillionæi in notis ad Philip. ii. 6, locutos
fuisse doctos illos Germanos, oblitos illius Routh præcepti ‘_Let me
recommend to you the practice of always verifying your references,
sir_.’ ”
The reader will be interested to be informed that Castiglione, the
former editor of the codex, was in favour of “GOD” in 1835, and of
“_soei_” (_quæ_ [ = ὅ], to agree with “_runa_,” _i.e._ “mystery,”
which is feminine in Gothic) in 1839. Gabelentz, in 1843, ventured
to print “_saei_” = ὅς. “Et ‘saei’ legit etiam diligentissimus
Andreas Uppström nuperus codicis Ambrosiani investigator et editor,
in opere _Codicis Gothici Ambrosiani sive Epist. Pauli, &c._ Holmiæ
et Lipsiæ, 1868.”
980 Stuttgard, 1857.
981 Of the department of Oriental MSS. in the Brit. Mus., who derives
his text from “the three Museum MSS. which contain the Arabic
Version of the Epistles: viz. _Harl._ 5474 (dated A.D.
1332):—_Oriental_ 1328 (Xth cent.):—_Arundel Orient._ 19 (dated A.D.
1616).”—Walton’s Polyglott, he says, exhibits “a garbled version,
quite distinct from the genuine Arabic: viz. ‘_These glories
commemorate them in the greatness of the mystery of fair piety.
_GOD_ appeared in the flesh_,’ ” &c.
982 See above, pp. 271 to 294.
983 i. 387 a: 551 a: 663 a _bis_.—ii. 430 a: 536 c: 581 c: 594 a, 595 b
(these two, of the 2nd pagination): 693 d [ = ii. 265, ed. 1615,
from which Tisch. quotes it. The place may be seen in full, _supra_,
p. 101.]—iii. 39 b _bis_: 67 a b.—_Ap. Galland._ vi. 518 c: 519 d:
520 b: 526 d: 532 a: 562 b: 566 d: 571 a. All but five of these
places, I believe, exhibit ὁ Θεός,—which seems to have been the
reading of this Father. The article is seldom seen in MSS. Only four
instances of it,—(they will be found distinctly specified below,
page 493, _note_ 1),—are known to exist. More places must have been
overlooked.
Note, that Griesbach only mentions Gregory of Nyssa (whose name
Tregelles omits entirely) to remark that he is not to be cited for
Θεός; seeing that, according to him, 1 Tim. iii. 16 is to be read
thus:—τὸ μυστήριον ἐν σαρκὶ ἐφανερώθη. Griesbach borrowed that
quotation and that blunder from Wetstein; to be blindly followed in
turn by Scholz and Alford. And yet, the words in question are _not
the words of Gregory Nyss. at all_; but of Apolinaris, against whom
Gregory is writing,—as Gregory himself explains. [_Antirrh. adv.
Apol._ apud Galland. vi. 522 d.]
_ 984 De Trin._ p. 83. The testimony is express.
985 i. 92: iii. 657.-iv. 19, 23.
986 i. 313:—ii. 263.
987 i. 497 c d e.—viii. 85 e: 86 a.—xi. 605 f: 606 a b d e.—(The first
of these places occurs in the Homily _de Beato Philogonio_, which
Matthæi in the main [viz. from p. 497, line 20, to the end] edited
from an independent source [_Lectt. Mosqq._ 1779]. Gallandius [xiv.
_Append._ 141-4] reprints Matthæi’s labours).—Concerning this place
of Chrysostom (_vide suprà_, p. 101), Bp. Ellicott says (p.
66),—“The passage which he [the Quarterly Reviewer] does allege,
deserves to be placed before our readers in full, as an illustration
of the precarious character of patristic evidence. If this passage
attests the reading θεός in 1 Tim. iii. 16, does it not also attest
the reading ὁ θεός in Heb. ii. 16, where no copyist or translator
has introduced it?”... I can but say, in reply,—“No, certainly not.”
May I be permitted to add, that it is to me simply unintelligible
how Bp. Ellicott can show himself so _planè hospes_ in this
department of sacred Science as to be capable of gravely asking such
a very foolish question?
988 i. 215 a: 685 b. The places may be seen quoted _suprà_, p. 101.
989 The place is quoted in Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 59.
_ 990 Antirrheticus_, ap. Galland. vi. 517-77.
991 The full title was,—Ἀπόδειξις περὶ τῆς θείας σαρκώσεως τῆς καθ᾽
ὁμοίωσιν ἀνθρώπου. _Ibid._ 518 b, c: 519 a.
992 Apolinaris did not deny that CHRIST was very GOD. His heresy (like
that of Arius) turned upon the nature of the conjunction of the
Godhead with the Manhood. Hear Theodoret:—Α. Θεὸς Λόγος σαρκὶ
ἑνωθεὶς ἄνθρωπον ἀπετέλεσεν Θεόν. Ο. Τοῦτο οὖν λέγεις θείαν
ἐμψυχίαν? Α. Καὶ πάνυ. Ο. Ἀντὶ ψυχῆς οὖν ὁ Λόγος? Α. Ναί. _Dial._
vi. _adv. Apol._ (_Opp._ v. 1080 = Athanas. ii. 525 d.)
993 Cramer’s _Cat. in Actus_, iii. 69. It is also met with in the Catena
on the Acts which J. C. Wolf published in his _Anecdota Græca_, iii.
137-8. The place is quoted above, p. 102.
994 Cramer’s _Cat. in Rom._ p. 124.
995 P. 67.
996 P. 65.
997 P. 65.
998 See above, p. 429.
999 Bentley, Scholz, Tischendorf, Alford and others adduce
“_Euthalius_.”
_ 1000 Concilia_, i. 849-893. The place is quoted below in note 3.
1001 “Verum ex illis verbis illud tantum inferri debet false eam
epistolam Dionysio Alexandrino attribui: non autem scriptum non
fuisse ab aliquo ex Episcopis qui Synodis adversus Paulum
Antiochenum celebratis interfuerant. Innumeris enim exemplis constat
indubitatæ antiquitatis Epistolas ex Scriptorum errore falsos
titulos præferre.”—(Pagi ad A.D. 264, apud Mansi, _Concil._ i.
1039.)
1002 εἶς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός, ὁ ῶν ἐν τῷ Πατρι συναΐδιος λόγος, ἕν αὐτοῦ
πρόσωπον, ἀόρατος Θεός, καὶ ὁρατὸς γενόμενος; ΘΕῸΣ ΓᾺΡ ἘΦΑΝΕΡΏΘΗ ἘΝ
ΣΑΡΚΊ, γενόμενος ἐκ γυναικός, ὁ ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθεὶς ἐκ γαστρὸς
πρὸ ἑωσφόρου—_Concilia_, i. 853 a.
1003 Cap. xi.
_ 1004 Ad Ephes._ c. 19: c. 7. _Ad Magnes._ c. 8.
1005 Cap. xii.
_ 1006 Contra Hæresim Noeti_, c. xvii. (Routh’s _Opuscula_, i. 76.) Read
the antecedent chapters.
_ 1007 Dialog._ ii. ’_Inconfusus._’—_Opp._ iv. 132.
1008 Cod. 230,—p. 845, line 40.
1009 vii. 26, _ap. Galland_. iii. 182 a.
1010 iii. 401-2, _Epist._ 261 ( = 65). A quotation from Gal. iv. 4
follows.
1011 μαθήσεται γὰρ ὅτι φύσει μὲν καὶ ἀληθείᾳ Θεός ἐστιν ὁ Ἐμμανουήλ,
θεοτόκος δὲ δι᾽ αὐτὸν καὶ ἡ τεκοῦσα παρθένος.—Vol. v. Part ii. 48 e.
1012 καὶ οὔτι που φαμὲν ὅτι καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἄνθρωπος ἁπλῶς, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς Θεὸς ἐν
σαρκὶ καὶ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς γεγονώς.—_Opp._ V. Part 2, p. 124 c d. (=
_Concilia_, iii. 221 c d.)
1013 N. T. vol. xi. _Præfat._ p. xli.
1014 διὰ τοῦ ἐν ἀυτῷ φανερωθέντος Θεοῦ.—_De Incarnatione Domini_, Mai,
_Nov. PP. Bibliotheca_, ii. 68.
1015 Earlier in the same Treatise, Cyril thus grandly paraphrases 1 Tim.
iii. 16:—τότε δὴ τότε τὸ μέγα καὶ ἄῤῥητον γίνεται τῆς οἰκονομίας
μυστήριον; αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁ δημιουργὸς ἁπάσης τῆς
κτίσεως, ὁ ἀχώρητος, ὁ ἀπερίγραπτος, ὁ ἀναλλοίωτος, ἡ πηγὴ τῆς ζωῆς,
τὸ ἐκ τοῦ φωτὸς φῶς, ἡ ζῶσα τοῦ Πατρὸς εἰκών, τὸ ἀπαύγασμα τῆς
δόξης, ὁ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως, τὴν ἀνθρωπείαν φύσιν
ἀναλαμβάνει.—_Ibid._ p. 37.
1016 P. 153 d. (= _Concilia_, iii. 264 c d.)
_ 1017 Ibid_, d e.
1018 εἰ μὲν γὰρ ὡς ἕνα τῶν καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς, ἄνθρωπον ἁπλῶς, καὶ οὐχὶ δὴ μᾶλλον
Θεὸν ἐνηνθρωπηκότα διεκήρυξαν οἰ μαθηταί κ.τ.λ. Presently,—μέγα γὰρ
τότε τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας ἐστὶ μυστήριον, πεφανέρωται γὰρ ἐν σαρκὶ Θεὸς
ὢν ὁ Λόγος. p. 154 a b c.—In a subsequent page,—ὅ γε μὴν
ἐνανθρωπήσας Θεός, καίτοι νομισθεὶς οὐδὲν ἕτερον εἶναι πλὴν ὅτι
μόνον ἄνθρωπος ... ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ,
τετίμηται δὲ καὶ ὡς Υἱὸς ἀληθῶς τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρός ... Θεὸς εἶναι
πεπιστευμένος.—_Ibid._ p. 170 d e.
1019 Ἀναθεματισμὸς β᾽.—Εἴ τις οὐχ ὁμολογεῖ σαρκὶ καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν ἡνῶσθαι
τὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς Λόγον, ἕνα τε εἶναι Χριστὸν μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας
σαρκός, τὸν αὐτὸν δηλονότι Θεόν τε ὁμοῦ καὶ ἄνθρωπον, ἀνάθεμα
ἔστω.—vi. 148 a.
_ 1020 Ibid._ b, c, down to 149 a. (= _Concilia_, iii. 815 b-e.)
1021 Preserved by Œcumenius in his _Catena_, 1631, ii. 228.
1022 Ellis, p. 67.
1023 In loc.
_ 1024 Variæ Lect._ ii. 232. He enumerates ten MSS. in which he found
it,—but he only quotes down to ἐφανερώθη.
1025 In loc.
1026 P. 227 _note_.
1027 Pointed out long since by Matthæi, _N. T._ vol. xi. _Præfat._ p.
xlviii. Also in his ed. of 1807,—iii. 443-4. “Nec ideo laudatus est,
ut doceret Cyrillum loco Θεός legisse ὅς, sed ideo, ne quis si Deum
factum legeret hominem, humanis peccatis etiam obnoxium esse
crederet.”
1028 See Berriman’s _Dissertation_, p. 189.—(MS. note of the Author.)
1029 Not from the 2nd article of his _Explanatio xii. capitum_, as
Tischendorf supposes.
1030 See how P. E. Pusey characterizes the “Scholia,” in his _Preface_ to
vol. vi. of his edition,—pp. xii. xiii.
1031 Cyril’s Greek, (to judge from Mercator’s Latin,) must have run
somewhat as follows:—Ὁ θεσπέσιος Παῦλος ὁμολογουμένως μέγα φησὶν
εἶναι τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον. Καὶ ὄντως οὔτως ἔξει; ἐφανερώθη
γὰρ ἐν σαρκί, Θεὸς ὢν ὁ Λόγος.
_ 1032 Opp._ vol. v. P. i. p. 785 d.—The original scholium (of which the
extant Greek proves to be only a garbled fragment, [see Pusey’s ed.
vi. p. 520,]) abounds in expressions which imply, (if they do not
require,) that Θεός went before: _e.g._ ___quasi Deus homo
factus:____—____erant ergo gentes in mundo sine Deo, cum absque
Christo essent:____—____Deus enim erat incarnatus:____—____in
humanitate tamen Deus remansit: Deus enim Verbum, carne assumptâ,
non deposuit quod erat; intelligitur tamen idem Deus simul et
homo,___ &c.
1033 P. 67.
_ 1034 Opp._ vi. 327.
1035 ii. 852.
1036 Matthæi, N. T. xi. _Præfat._ pp. lii.-iii.
1037 Vol. V. P. ii. pp. 55-180.
1038 “How is the Godhead of Christ proved?” (asks Ussher in his _Body of
Divinity_, ed. 1653, p. 161). And he adduces out of the N. T. only
Jo. i. 1, xx. 28; Rom. ix. 5; 1 Jo. v. 20.—He _had_ quoted 1 Tim.
iii. 16 in p. 160 (with Rom. ix. 5) to prove the union of the two
natures.
1039 Burgon’s _Last Twelve Verses_, &c., p. 195 and note. See Canon Cook
on this subject,—pp. 146-7.
_ 1040 Suprà_, p. 102.
1041 Pp. 68-9.
_ 1042 Proleg. in N. T._,—§ 1013.
_ 1043 Opp._ (ed. 1645) ii. 447.
_ 1044 Concilia_, v. 772 a. I quote from Garnier’s ed. of the
_Breviarium_, reprinted by Gallandius, xii. 1532.
1045 iv. 465 c.
_ 1046 Concilia_, vi. 28 e [= iii. 645 c (ed. Harduin)].
1047 “Ex sequentibus colligo quædam exemplaria tempore Anastasii et
Macedonii habuisse ὅς Θεός; ut, mutatione factâ ὅς in ὡς,
intelligeretur _ut esset Deus_.” (Cotelerii, _Eccl. Gr. Mon._ iii.
663)—“Q. d. Ut hic homo, qui dicitur Jesus, esset et dici posset
Deus,” &c. (Cornelius, _in loc._ He declares absolutely “olim
legerunt ... ὅς Θεός.”)—All this was noticed long since by Berriman,
pp. 243-4.
1048 “Apost. 83,” is “_Crypta-Ferrat._ A. β. iv.” described in the
APPENDIX. I owe the information to the learned librarian of Crypta
Ferrata, the Hieromonachus A. Rocchi. It is a pleasure to transcribe
the letter which conveyed information which the writer knew would be
acceptable to me:—“Clme Rme Domine. Quod erat in votis, plures loci
illius Paulini non modo in nostris codd. lectiones, sed et in his
ipsis variationes, adsequutus es. Modo ego operi meo finem imponam,
descriptis prope sexcentis et quinquaginta quinque vel codicibus vel
MSS. Tres autem, quos primum nunc notatos tibi exhibeo, pertinent ad
Liturgicorum ordinem. Jam felici omine tuas prosoquere
elucubrationes, cautus tantum ne studio et labore nimio valetudinem
tuam defatiges. Vale. De Tusculano, xi. kal. Maias, an. R. S.
MDCCCLXXXIII. ANTONIUS ROCCHI, Hieromonachus Basilianus.”
For “Paul 282,” (a bilingual MS. at Paris, known as “Arménien 9,”) I
am indebted to the Abbé Martin, who describes it in his
_Introduction à la Critique Textuelle du N. T._, 1883,—pp. 660-1.
See APPENDIX.
1049 Prebendary Scrivener (p. 555) ably closes the list. Any one desirous
of mastering the entire literature of the subject should study the
Rev. John Berriman’s interesting and exhaustive _Dissertation_,—pp.
229-263.
1050 The reader is invited to read what Berriman, (who was engaged on his
“_Dissertation_” while Bp. Butler was writing the “Advertisement”
prefixed to his “_Analogy_” [1736],) has written on this part of the
subject,—pp. 120-9, 173-198, 231-240, 259-60, 262, &c.
1051 Apud Athanasium, _Opp_. ii. 33; and see Garnier’s introductory Note.
1052 “Audi Paulum magnâ voce clamantem: _Deus manifestatus est in carne_
[down to] _assumptus est in gloriâ_. O magni doctoris affatum!
_Deus_, inquit, _manifestatus est in carne_,” &c.—_Concilia_, vii.
p. 618 e.
1053 Theodori Studitæ, _Epistt_. lib. ii. 36, and 156. (Sirmondi’s _Opera
Varia_, vol. v. pp. 349 e and 498 b,—Venet. 1728.)
1054 Paul 113, (Matthæi’s a) contains two Scholia which witness to Θεὸς
ἐφανερώθη:—Paul 115, (Matthæi’s d) also contains two Scholia.—Paul
118, (Matthæi’s h).—Paul 123, (Matthæi’s n). See Matthæi’s N. T.
vol. xi. _Præfat._ pp. xlii.-iii.
1055 ii. 228 a.
1056 ii. 569 e: 570 a.
_ 1057 Panoplia_,—Tergobyst, 1710, fol. ρκγ᾽. p. 2, col. 1.
1058 Σαββάτῳ πρὸ τῶν φώτων.
1059 But in Apost. 12 (Reg. 375) it is the lection for the 30th (λ᾽)
Saturday.—In Apost. 33 (Reg. 382), for the 31st (λα᾽).—In Apost. 26
(Reg. 320), the lection for the 34th Saturday begins at 1 Tim. vi.
11.—Apostt. 26 and 27 (Regg. 320-1) are said to have a peculiar
order of lessons.
1060 For convenience, many codices are reckoned under this head (viz. of
“Apostolus”) which are rather Ἀπόστολο-εὐαγγέλια. Many again which
are but fragmentary, or contain only a very few lessons from the
Epistles: such are Apostt. 97 to 103. See the APPENDIX.
1061 No. 21, 28, 31 are said to be Gospel lessons (“Evstt.”). No. 29, 35
and 36 are Euchologia; “the two latter probably Melchite, for the
codices exhibit some Arabic words” (Abbé Martin). No. 43 and 48 must
be erased. No. 70 and 81 are identical with 52 (B. M. _Addit._
32051).
1062 Viz. Apost. 1: 3: 6: 9 & 10 (which are Menologies with a few Gospel
lections): 15: 16: 17: 19: 20: 24: 26: 27: 32: 37: 39: 44: 47: 50:
53: 55: 56: 59: 60: 61: 63: 64: 66: 67: 68: 71: 72: 73: 75: 76: 78:
79: 80: 87: 88: 90.
1063 Viz. Apost. 4 at Florence: 8 at Copenhagen: 40, 41, 42 at Rome: 54
at St. Petersburg: 74 in America.
1064 Viz. Apost. 2 and 52 (Addit. 32051) in the B. Mus., also 69 (Addit.
29714 verified by Dr. C. R. Gregory): 5 at Gottingen: 7 at the
Propaganda (verified by Dr. Beyer): 11, 22, 23, 25, 30, 33 at Paris
(verified by Abbé Martin): 13, 14, 18 at Moscow: 38, 49 in the
Vatican (verified by Signor Cozza-Luzi): 45 at Glasgow (verified by
Dr. Young): 46 at Milan (verified by Dr. Ceriani): 51 at Besançon
(verified by M. Castan): 57 and 62 at Lambeth, also 65 B-C (all
three verified by Scrivener): 58 at Ch. Ch., Oxford: 77 at Moscow:
82 at Messina (verified by Papas Matranga): 84 and 89 at Crypta
Ferrata (verified by Hieromonachus Rocchi).
1065 Viz. Apost. 34 (Reg. 383), a XVth-century Codex. The Abbé Martin
assures me that this copy exhibits μυστήριον; | θῢ ἐφανερώθη. Note
however that the position of the point, as well as the accentuation,
proves that nothing else but θς was intended. This is very
instructive. What if the same slip of the pen had been found in Cod.
B?
1066 Viz. Apost 83 (Crypta Ferrata, A. β. iv.)
1067 Viz. Praxapost. 85 and 86 (Crypta Ferrata, A. β. vii. which exhibits
μυστήριον; ὅς ἐφα | νερώθη ἐν σαρκί; and A. β. viii., which exhibits
μυστίριον; ὅς ἐ ... νερώθη | ἐν σαρκύ. [_sic._]). Concerning these
codices, see above, pp. 446 to 448.
_ 1068 Concilia_, ii. 217 c ( = ed. Hard. i. 418 b).
1069 He wrote a history of the Council of Nicæa, in which he introduces
the discussions of the several Bishops present,—all the product (as
Cave thinks) of his own brain.
1070 viii. 214 b.
1071 Cited at the Council of CP. (A.D. 553). [_Concilia_, ed. Labbe et
Cossart, v. 447 b c = ed. Harduin, iii. 29 c and 82 e.]
_ 1072 Concilia_, Labbe, v. 449 a, and Harduin, iii. 84 d.
1073 Harduin, iii. 32 d.
1074 A Latin translation of the work of Leontius (_Contra Nestor. et
Eutych._), wherein it is stated that the present place was found in
_lib._ xiii., may be seen in Gallandius [xii. 660-99: the passage
under consideration being given at p. 694 c d]: but Mai (_Script.
Vett._ vi. 290-312), having discovered in the Vatican the original
text of the excerpts from Theod. Mops., published (from the xiith
book of Theod. _de Incarnatione_) the Greek of the passage [vi.
308]. From this source, Migne [_Patr. Gr._ vol. 66, col. 988] seems
to have obtained his quotation.
1075 Either as given by Mai, or as represented in the Latin translation
of Leontius (obtained from a different codex) by Canisius [_Antiquæ
Lectt._, 1601, vol. iv.], from whose work Gallandius simply
reprinted it in 1788.
_ 1076 Theodori Mops. Fragmenta Syriaca, vertit_ Ed. Sachau, Lips.
1869,—p. 53.—I am indebted for much zealous help in respect of these
Syriac quotations to the Rev. Thomas Randell of Oxford,—who, I
venture to predict, will some day make his mark in these studies.
_ 1077 Ibid._ p. 64. The context of the place (which is derived from
Lagarde’s _Analecta Syriaca_, p. 102, top,) is as follows: “Deitas
enim inhabitans hæc omnia gubernare incepit. Et in hac re etiam
gratia Spiritus Sancti adjuvabat ad hunc effectum, ut beatus quoque
Apostolus dixit: ‘_Vere grande ... in spiritu_;’ quoniam nos quoque
auxilium Spiritûs accepturi sumus ad perfectionem justitiæ.” A
further reference to 1 Tim. iii. 16 at page 69, does not help us.
1078 I owe this, and more help than I can express in a foot-note, to my
learned friend the Rev. Henry Deane, of S. John’s.
1079 Pages 437-43.
1080 See above, p. 444.
1081 See above, pp. 446-8; also the _Appendix_.
1082 See pp. 426-8.
1083 See pp. 480-2.
1084 N. T. 1806 ii. _ad calcem_, p. [25].
1085 Page 76.
1086 See above, pp. 376-8.
1087 Viz. from p. 431 to p. 478.
1088 See above, pp. 462-4.
1089 Viz. Acts iii. 12; 1 Tim. iv. 7, 8; vi. 3, 5, 6; 2 Tim. iii. 5; Tit.
i. 1; 2 Pet. i. 3, 6, 7; iii. 11.
1090 From the friend whose help is acknowledged at foot of pp. 450, 481.
1091 Scholz enumerates 8 of these copies: Coxe, 15. But there must exist
a vast many more; as, at M. Athos, in the convent of S. Catharine,
at Meteora, &c., &c.
1092 In explanation of this statement, the reader is invited to refer to
the APPENDIX at the end of the present volume. [Since the foregoing
words have been in print I have obtained from Rome tidings of about
34 more copies of S. Paul’s Epistles; raising the present total to
336. The known copies of the book called “_Apostolus_” now amount to
127.]
1093 Viz. Paul 61 (see Scrivener’s _Introduction_, 3rd ed. p. 251): and
Paul 181 (see above, at pp. 444-5).
1094 Viz. Paul 248, at Strasburg.
1095 Viz. Paul 8 (see Scrivener’s _Introduction_): 15 (which is not in
the University library at Louvain): 50 and 51 (in Scrivener’s
_Introduction_): 209 and 210 (which, I find on repeated enquiry, are
no longer preserved in the Collegio Romano; nor, since the
suppression of the Jesuits, is any one able to tell what has become
of them).
1096 Viz. Paul 42: 53: 54: 58 (_Vat._ 165,—from Sig. Cozza-Luzi): 60: 64:
66: 76: 82: 89: 118: 119: 124: 127: 146: 147: 148: 152: 160: 161:
162: 163: 172: 187: 191: 202: 214: 225 (_Milan_ N. 272 _sup._,—from
Dr. Ceriani): 259: 263: 271: 275: 284 (_Modena_ II. A. 13,—from Sig.
Cappilli [Acts, 195—_see Appendix_]): 286 (_Milan_ E. 2 _inf._—from
Dr. Ceriani [_see Appendix_]): 287 (_Milan_ A. 241 _inf._—from Dr.
Ceriani [_see Appendix_]): 293 (_Crypta Ferrata_, A. β. vi.—from the
Hieromonachus A. Rocchi [_see Appendix_]): 302 (_Berlin, MS. Græc._
8vo. No. 9.—from Dr. C. de Boor [_see Appendix_]).
1097 Viz. Paul 254 (restored to CP., see Scrivener’s _Introduction_): and
Paul 261 (Muralt’s 8: Petrop. xi. 1. 2. 330).
1098 I found the reading of 150 copies of S. Paul’s Epistles at 1 Tim.
iii. 16, ascertained ready to my hand,—chiefly the result of the
labours of Mill, Kuster, Walker, Berriman, Birch, Matthæi, Scholz,
Reiche, and Scrivener. The following 102 I am enabled to contribute
to the number,—thanks to the many friendly helpers whose names
follow:—
In the VATICAN (Abbate Cozza-Luzi, keeper of the library, whose
friendly forwardness and enlightened zeal I cannot sufficiently
acknowledge. See the _Appendix_) No. 185, 186, 196, 204, 207, 294,
295, 296, 297.—PROPAGANDA (Dr. Beyer) No. 92.—CRYPTA FERRATA (the
Hieromonachus A. Rocchi. See the _Appendix_,) No. 290, 291,
292.—VENICE (Sig. Veludo) No. 215.—MILAN (Dr. Ceriani, the most
learned and helpful of friends,) No. 173, 174, 175, 176, 223, 288,
289.—FERRARA, (Sig. Gennari) No. 222.—MODENA (Sig. Cappilli) No.
285.—BOLOGNA (Sig. Gardiani) No. 105.—TURIN (Sig. Gorresio) No. 165,
168.—FLORENCE (Dr. Anziani) No. 182, 226, 239.—MESSINA (Papas
Filippo Matranga. See the _Appendix_,) No. 216, 283.—PALERMO (Sig.
Penerino) No. 217.—The ESCURIAL (S. Herbert Capper, Esq., of the
British Legation. He executed a difficult task with rare ability, at
the instance of his Excellency, Sir Robert Morier, who is requested
to accept this expression of my thanks,) No. 228, 229.—PARIS (M.
Wescher, who is as obliging as he is learned in this department,)
No. 16, 65, 136, 142, 150, 151, 154, 155, 156, 157, 164.—(L’Abbé
Martin. See the _Appendix_) No. 282. ARSENAL (M. Thierry) No.
130.—S. GENEVIEVE (M. Denis) No. 247.—POICTIERS (M. Dartige) No.
276.—BERLIN (Dr. C. de Boor) No. 220, 298, 299, 300, 301.—DRESDEN
(Dr. Forstemann) No. 237.—MUNICH (Dr. Laubmann) No. 55, 125, 126,
128.—GOTTINGEN (Dr. Lagarde) No. 243.—WOLFENBUTTEL (Dr. von
Heinemann) No. 74, 241.—BASLE (Mons. Sieber) No. 7.—UPSALA (Dr.
Belsheim) No. 273, 274.—LINCOPING (the same) No. 272.—ZURICH (Dr.
Escher) No. 56.—Prebendary Scrivener verified for me Paul 252: 253:
255: 256: 257: 258: 260: 264: 265: 277.—Rev. T. Randell, has
verified No. 13.—Alex. Peckover, Esq., No. 278.—Personally, I have
inspected No. 24: 34: 62: 63: 224: 227: 234: 235: 236: 240: 242:
249: 250: 251: 262: 266: 267: 268: 269: 270: 279: 280: 281.
1099 Viz. Paul 37 (the _Codex Leicest._, 69 of the Gospels):—Paul 85
(Vat. 1136), observed by Abbate Cozza-Luzi:—Paul 93 (Naples 1. B.
12) which is 83 of the Acts,—noticed by Birch:—Paul 175 (Ambros. F.
125 _sup._) at Milan; as I learn from Dr. Ceriani. See above, p. 456
_note_ 1.
1100 Viz. Paul 282,—concerning which, see above, p. 474, note 1.
1101 The present locality of this codex (Evan. 421 = Acts 176 = Paul 218)
is unknown. The only Greek codices in the public library of the
“Seminario” at Syracuse are an “Evst.” and an “Apost.” (which I
number respectively 362 and 113). My authority for Θεός in Paul 218,
is Birch [_Proleg._ p. xcviii.], to whom Munter communicated his
collations.
1102 For the ensuing codices, see the APPENDIX.
1103 Vat. 2068 (Basil. 107),—which I number “Apost. 115” (see APPENDIX.)
1104 Viz. by 4 uncials (A, K, L, P), + (247 Paul + 31 Apost. = ) 278
cursive manuscripts reading Θεός: + 4 (Paul) reading ὁ Θεός: + 2 (1
Paul, 1 Apost.) reading ὅς Θεός: + 1 (Apost.) reading Θῢ = 289. (See
above, pp. 473-4: 478.)
1105 The Harkleian (see pp. 450, 489): the Georgian, and the Slavonic (p.
454).
1106 See above, pp. 487-490,—which is the summary of what will be found
more largely delivered from page 455 to page 476.
1107 See above, pp. 448-453: also p. 479.
1108 See above, pp. 479-480.
1109 See above, pp. 452-3.
1110 See above, pp. 482, 483.
1111 See above, page 436, and middle of page 439.
1112 See his long and singular note.
_ 1113 Fresh Revision_, p. 27.
_ 1114 Printed Text_, p. 231.
1115 P. 226.
1116 “_Forte_ μυστήριον; ὁ _χς_ ἐθανατώθη ἐν σαρκί ... ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη
ἀποστόλοις.”—Bentleii _Critica Sacra_, p. 67.
_ 1117 Developed Criticism_, p. 160.
1118 Thus Augustine (viii. 828 f.) paraphrases,—“_In carne manifestatus
est_ FILIUS DEI.”—And Marius Victorinus, A.D. 390 (ap. Galland.
viii. 161),—“_Hoc enim est magnum sacramentum, quod_ DEUS
_exanimavit semet ipsum cum esset in_ DEI _formá:_” “_fuit ergo
antequam esset in carne, sed manifestatum dixit in carne_.”—And
Fulgentius, A.D. 513, thus expands the text (ap. Galland. xi.
232):—“_quia scilicet Verbum quod in principio erat, et apud_ DEUM
_erat, et_ DEUS _erat, id est_ DEI _unigenitus Filius_, DEI _virtus
et sapientia, per quem et in quo facta sunt omnia, ... idem_ DEUS
_unigenitus_,” &c. &c.—And Ferrandus, A.D. 356 (_ibid._ p.
356):—“_ita pro redemtione humani generis humanam naturam credimus
suscepisse, ut ille qui Trinitate perfecta_ DEUS _unigenitus
permanebat ac permanet, ipse ex Maria fieret primogenitus in multis
fratribus_,” &c.
_ 1119 MS. note in his interleaved copy of the N. T._ He adds, “Hæc
addenda posui Notis ad S. Hippolytum contra Noetum p. 93, vol. i.
_Scriptor. Ecclesiast. Opusculorum._”
1120 Page 29.
1121 P. 29.
1122 P. 30.
_ 1123 Address_, on the Revised Version, p. 10.
1124 See above, pp. 37 to 39.
1125 Bp. Ellicott’s pamphlet, p. 34.
1126 P. 231.
1127 Fifth Rule of the Committee.
1128 Bp. Ellicott’s pamphlet, p. 30.
1129 No fair person will mistake the spirit in which the next ensuing
paragraphs (in the Text) are written. But I will add what shall
effectually protect me from being misunderstood.
Against the respectability and personal worth of any member of the
Revisionist body, let me not be supposed to breathe a syllable. All,
(for aught I know to the contrary,) may be men of ability and
attainment, as well as of high moral excellence. I will add that, in
early life, I numbered several professing Unitarians among my
friends. It were base in me to forget how wondrous kind I found
them: how much I loved them: how fondly I cherish their memory.
Further. That in order to come at the truth of Scripture, we are
bound to seek help at the hands of _any_ who are able to render
help,—_who_ ever doubted? If a worshipper of the false prophet,—if a
devotee of Buddha,—could contribute anything,—_who_ would hesitate
to sue to him for enlightenment? As for Abraham’s descendants,—they
are our very brethren.
But it is quite a different thing when Revisionists appointed by the
Convocation of the Southern Province, co-opt Separatists and even
Unitarians into their body, where they shall determine the sense of
Scripture and vote upon its translation on equal terms. Surely, when
the Lower House of Convocation accepted the 5th “Resolution” of the
Upper House,—viz., that the Revising body “shall be at liberty to
invite the co-operation of any eminent for scholarship, to whatever
nation or religious body they may belong;”—the Synod of Canterbury
did not suppose that it was pledging itself to sanction _such_
“co-operation” as is implied by actual _co-optation_!
It should be added that Bp. Wilberforce, (the actual framer of the
5th fundamental Resolution,) has himself informed us that “in
framing it, it never occurred to him that it would apply to the
admission of any member of the Socinian body.” _Chronicle of
Convocation_ (Feb. 1871,) p. 4.
“I am aware,” (says our learned and pious bishop of Lincoln,) “that
the ancient Church did not scruple to avail herself of the
translation of a renegade Jew, like Aquila; and of Ebionitish
heretics, like Symmachus and Theodotion; and that St. Augustine
profited by the expository rules of Tychonius the Donatist. But I
very much doubt whether the ancient Church would have looked for a
large outpouring of a blessing from GOD on a work of translating His
Word, where the workmen were not all joined together in a spirit of
Christian unity, and in the profession of the true Faith; and in
which the opinions of the several translators were to be counted and
not weighed; and where everything was to be decided by numerical
majorities; and where the votes of an Arius or a Nestorius were to
be reckoned as of equal value with those of an Athanasius or a
Cyril.” (_Address on the Revised Version_, 1881, pp. 38.)
_ 1130 The Bible and Popular Theology_, by G. Vance Smith, 1871.
_ 1131 An Unitarian Reviser of our Authorized Version, intolerable: an
earnest Remonstrance and Petition_,—addressed to yourself by your
present correspondent:—Oxford, Parker, 1872, pp. 8.
1132 See letter of “One of the Revisionists, G. V. S.” in _the Times_ of
July 11, 1870.
_ 1133 Protest against the Communion of an Unitarian in Westminster Abbey
on June_ 22nd, 1870:—Oxford, 1870, pp. 64.
1134 See the _Chronicle of Convocation_ (Feb. 1871), pp. 3-28,—when a
Resolution was moved and carried by the Bp. (Wilberforce) of
Winchester,—“That it is the judgment of this House that no person
who denies the Godhead of our LORD JESUS CHRIST ought to be invited
to join either company to which is committed the Revision of the
Authorized Version of Holy Scripture: and that it is further the
judgment of this House that any such person now on either Company
should cease to act therewith.
“And that this Resolution be communicated to the Lower House, and
their concurrence requested:”—which was done. See p. 143.
1135 The Reader is invited to refer back to pp. 132-135.
1136 The Reader is requested to refer back to pp. 210-214.
1137 S. Mark x. 21.
1138 S. Luke xxii. 64.
1139 S. Luke xxiii. 38.
1140 S. Luke xxiv. 42.
1141 Εἰπεῖν is “_to command_” in S. Matth. (and S. Luke) iv. 3: in S.
Mark v. 43: viii. 7, and in many other places. On the other hand,
the Revisers have thrust “_command_” into S. Matth. xx. 21, where
“_grant_” had far better have been let alone: and have overlooked
other places (as S. Matth. xxii. 24, S. James ii. 11), where
“_command_” might perhaps have been introduced with advantage. (I
nothing doubt that when the Centurion of Capernaum said to our Lord
μόνον εἰπὲ λόγῳ [Mtt. viii. 8 = Lu. vii. 7], he entreated Him “only
to give _the word of command_.”)
We all see, of course, that it was because Δός is rendered “_grant_”
in the (very nearly) parallel place to S. Matth. xx. 21 (viz. S.
Mark x. 37), that the Revisers thought it incumbent on them to
represent Εἰπέ in the earlier Gospel differently; and so they
bethought themselves of “_command_.” (Infelicitously enough, as I
humbly think. “_Promise_” would evidently have been a preferable
substitute: the word in the original (εἰπεῖν) being one of that
large family of Greek verbs which vary their shade of signification
according to their context.) But it is plainly impracticable to
_level up_ after this rigid fashion,—to translate in this mechanical
way. Far more is lost than is gained by this straining after an
impossible closeness of rendering. The spirit becomes inevitably
sacrificed to the letter. All this has been largely remarked upon
above, at pp. 187-206.
Take the case before us in illustration. S. James and S. John with
their Mother, have evidently agreed together to “_ask a favour_” of
their LORD (cf. Mtt. xx. 20, Mk. x. 35). The Mother begins Εἰπέ,—the
sons begin, Δός. Why are we to assume that the request is made by
the Mother in _a different spirit_ from the sons? Why are we to
impose upon her language the imperious sentiment which the very
mention of “_command_” unavoidably suggests to an English ear?
A prior, and yet more fatal objection, remains in full force. The
Revisers, (I say it for the last time,) were clearly going beyond
their prescribed duty when they set about handling the Authorized
Version after this merciless fashion. Their business was to correct
“_plain and clear errors_,”—_not_ to produce a “New English
Version.”
1142 Take the following as a sample, which is one of the Author’s proofs
that the “Results of the Revision” are “unfavourable to
Orthodoxy:”—“The only instance in the N. T. in which the religious
worship or adoration of CHRIST was apparently implied, has been
_altered_ by the Revision: ‘_At_ the name of JESUS every knee shall
bow,’ [Philipp. ii. 10] is now to be read ‘_in_ the name.’ Moreover,
no alteration of text or of translation will be found anywhere to
make up for this loss; as indeed it is well understood that the N.
T. contains neither precept nor example which really sanctions the
religious worship of JESUS CHRIST.”—_Texts and Margins_,—p. 47.
_ 1143 Supra_, p. 424 to p. 501.
1144 See above, pp. 272-275, pp. 278-281.
1145 See above, p. 275.
1146 See above, pp. 276-7.
1147 See above, pp. 303-305.
1148 See above, p. 304.
1149 See above, pp. 339-42; also pp. 422, 423.
1150 See above, pp. 391-7.
1151 See above, pp. 36-40: 47-9: 422-4.
1152 See above, pp. 41-7: 420-2.
1153 See above, pp. 98-106: 424-501.
1154 Evan. 738 belongs to Oriel College, Oxford, [xii.], small 4to. of
130 foll. slightly _mut._ Evan. 739, Bodl. Greek Miscell. 323
[xiii.], 8vo. _membr._ foll. 183, _mut._ Brought from Ephesus, and
obtained for the Bodleian in 1883.
1155 Evst. 415 belongs to Lieut. Bate, [xiii.], _chart._ foll. 219,
mutilated throughout. He obtained it in 1878 from a Cyprus villager
at Kikos, near Mount Trovodos (_i.e._ Olympus.) It came from a
monastery on the mountain.
1156 Apost. 128 will be found described, for the first time, below, at p.
528.
- FINIS***
�
