The Revision Revised
by John William Burgon · English · Gutenberg #36722 · 1,143,877 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Revision Revised
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world 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 www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: The Revision Revised
Author: John William Burgon
Release date: July 13, 2011 [eBook #36722]
Most recently updated: June 17, 2020
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/36722
*** 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 com
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/36722