Article I. The New Greek Text.

Article I. The New Greek Text.“One question in connexion with the Authorized Version I have purposely neglected. It seemed useless to discuss itsRevision.The Revision of the original Texts must precede the Revision of the Translation: andthe time for this, even in the New Testament, has not yet fully come.”—Dr. Westcott.28“It is my honest conviction that for any authoritativeRevision, we are not yet mature;either in Biblical learning or Hellenistic scholarship. There is good scholarship in this country, ... butit has certainly not yet been sufficiently directed to the study of the New Testament... to render any national attempt atRevisioneither hopeful or lastingly profitable.”—Bishop Ellicott.29“I am persuaded that aRevisionought to come: I am convinced that it will come. Not however, I would trust, as yet; forwe are not as yet in any respect prepared for it.The Greek and the Englishwhich 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.”—2Peterii. 22.“Little children,—Keep yourselves from idols.”—1Johnv. 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,31purporting 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[pg 002]entirely New Recension of the Greek Text.32A 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 assuredlyto construct a new Greek Textformed 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[pg 003]“a Revision of theAuthorized 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 factthe limits formally imposed by Convocation, (10th Feb. and 3rd, 5th May, 1870,)on the work of Revision. Onlynecessarychanges 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 oneof 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 marginat all: their very function being, on the contrary, to[pg 004]investigate Textual questions in conclave, and to present the ordinary Reader withthe resultof 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 representthatas 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, thatits contents are“exegetically or criticallysuperior to the Text.”33It 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,) willneverbe[pg 005]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 readBethsaida, othersBethzatha.’Am I then to understand that in the judgment of the Revisionists it is uncertainwhichof 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 Latin34and the Vulgate,35countenanced byonemanuscript of bad character, so reads.‘Bethzatha’!Yes, the blunder is found intwomanuscripts, both of bad character. Why do you not go on to tell us thatanothermanuscript exhibits‘Belzetha’?—another (supported by Eusebius36and [in one place] by Cyril37),‘Bezatha’? Nay, why not say plainly that there are found to existupwards of thirtyblundering 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,38Chrysostom,39and Cyril40),—is the only reasonable way of exhibiting it? To[pg 006]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, appointedto revise the Authorized English Versionof the New Testament Scriptures, addressed themselves to the solution of an entirely different and far more intricate problem, namelythe 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.41This 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 actualco-optationinto the Company appointed by themselves, of members of the Presbyterian, the Wesleyan, the Baptist, the Congregationalist, the Socinian body;thiswe 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—thisalso we[pg 007]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 theresultat 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 revisean English Translation, finding themselves called upon, as every fresh difficulty emerged, to develop the skill requisite forcritically 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,—andthatone 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 oftheir English renderingof 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 ofthe 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 asRevisers of a[pg 008]Translation. But in fact it has to be proved that the Revisionists have restricted themselves to the removal of“plain and clearerrors”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 ofCopiesshould 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[pg 009]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.”43The 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 Citationsaccordingly 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[pg 010]on the present occasion. Such a discussion would grow at once into a treatise.44Certain 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 extantcopiesof 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.45Still, it is undeniable that[pg 011]theyarethus 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 fromtheiroriginals 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, fromat leasta.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 letterb, 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, designatedc. 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 (bאc d), but especiallyband 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[pg 012]the whole body of extant MSS. besides, but evenfrom one another. This last circumstance, obviously fatal to their corporate pretensions, is unaccountably overlooked. And yet it admits of only one satisfactory explanation: viz. thatin different degreesthey all five exhibit a fabricated text. Between the first two (band 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,bis 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 samein both. It is in facteasier 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 codexd.“No known manuscript contains so many bold and extensive interpolations. Its variations from the sacred Text are beyond all other example.”46This, 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[pg 013]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 codexdreproduces theTextus receptusmuch 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 tod, 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 leasttenrevisers 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[pg 014]impurity comesb:—then, the fragmentary codexc: our ownabeing, 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 ofafrom theTextus receptusamount in all to only 842: whereas incthey amount to 1798: inb, to 2370: in א, to 3392: ind, to 4697. The readingspeculiar toawithin the same limits are 133: those peculiar tocare 170. But those ofbamount to 197: while א exhibits 443: and the readings peculiar tod(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 codicesbאc d:—codices, be it remembered, which come to us without a character, without a history, in fact without antecedents ofanykind.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, thecraze—to hold up as oracular, and to which his lordship is as devotedly and blindly attached as any of his neighbours:—“Thesimplicity and dignified conciseness”(he says)“of the Vatican manuscript (b): thegreater expansivenessof our own Alexandrian (a): thepartially mixed characteristicsof the Sinaitic (א): theparaphrastic toneof thesingularcodex Bezæ (d), are now brought home to the student.”49Could ingenuity have devised severer satire than such a[pg 015]description of four professingtranscriptsof a book; andthatbook, 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 thoseignes fatuiwhich 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 actualusein helping to settle the truth of Scripture. What we are just now insisting upon is only thedepraved textof codices אa b c d,—especially of אb 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[pg 016]thispart of the subject, we shall be constrained once and again to trouble him with detailed specimens of the contents of אb, &c., in proof of the justice of what we have been alleging. We venture to assure him, without a particle of hesitation, that אb darethree of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant:—exhibitthe most shamefully mutilatedtexts which are anywhere to be met with:—have become, by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount offabricated readings, ancientblunders, andintentional perversions of Truth,—which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word ofGod.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 codexdalone the text has been depraved 53 times, resulting in no less than 103 corrupt readings, 93of which are found only ind. The words omitted bydare 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,)aexhibits 3 omissions, 2 of which arepeculiar toa.—bomits 12 words, 6 of which arepeculiar tob: 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.—chas 7 readings (affecting 15 words)peculiar to itself. Its omissions are 4:[pg 017]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 ofagreement, in respect of“Various Readings,”is discovered to subsist between these 5 codices? forthat, after all, is the practical question. We answer,—ahas been already shown to stand alone twice:b, 6 times: א, 8 times:c, 15 times;d, 93 times.—We have further to state thata bstand together by themselves once:bא, 4 times:b c, 1:b d, 1: אc, 1:c d, 1.—aאcconspire 1:bאc, 1:bאd, 1:a bאc,once(viz. in reading ἐρώτησεν, which Tischendorf admits to be a corrupt reading):bאc d, alsoonce.—The 5“old uncials”therefore (a bאcd) combine, and again stand apart, with singular impartiality.—Lastly, they arenever oncefound to be in accord in respect ofany single“various Reading”.—Will any one, after a candid survey of the premisses, deem us unreasonable, if we avow that such a specimen of theconcordia discorswhich everywhere prevails between the oldest uncials, but which especially characterizes אb 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 theTextus Receptusinfallible?”The merit or demerit of the Received Text has absolutelynothing whatever to do with the question. We care nothing about it.AnyText would equally suit our present purpose.AnyText would show the“old uncials”perpetually at discordamong themselves. To raise an irrelevant discussion, at the outset, concerning theTextus Receptus:—to describe the haste with which Erasmus produced the first published edition of the N. T.:—to make sport about the[pg 018]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 theVersionsand by the most ancient of theFathers. 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. Butthatwould 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 adoptingthemexclusively for our guides. We are shown, in other words, that it is utterly out of the question to rely on any singlesetorgroupof authorities, much less on any single document, for the determination of the Text of Scripture. Happily, ourManuscriptsare numerous: most of them are in the main trustworthy:allof them represent far older documents than themselves. OurVersions(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 ofFathers,—the principal being Eusebius, Athanasius, Basil, the Gregories, Didymus,[pg 019]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 bאc 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, thatexternal Evidencemust 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 ofevery otherknown Codex—every otherVersion—every otheravailable 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 codicesbor א ord; the IXth-century codexl, and such cursives50as 13 or 33; a few copies of the old Latin and one of the Egyptian versions: perhaps Origen.—Not theory[pg 020]therefore:—not prejudice:—not conjecture:—not unproved assertion:—not any single codex, andcertainlynot codexb:—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 thecertaintyof 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 collectingallthe 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 bethe true Reading: and nothing may be rejected from the commonly received Text, except on evidence which shallclearlyoutweigh 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[pg 021]only whencritical or grammatical considerationsshow that it is clearly necessary.”51We 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.52But, (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'stext seldom rests on more than four Greek codices, very often on three, not unfrequently on two,sometimes on only one.”53Bishop Ellicott speaks of it as“a text composedon the narrowest and most exclusive principles.”54Of the Greek[pg 022]Fathers (Lachmann says) he employedonly Origen.55Paying 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 byDr. 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 willneverlose 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.Whyhe 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 ofDr. Tischendorf”(proceeds Bp. Ellicott)“is still more easily disposed of.Whichof 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[pg 023]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.”58With 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 codexא, 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.”60We 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.”61But, 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 bewritten with a different penfrom the rest,—has actuallyomitted that verse(xxi. 25) entirely, in defiance ofevery known Copy, every known Version, and the explicit testimony ofa 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[pg 024]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,63whom 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 areDrs. WestcottandHort, whose beautifully-printed edition of“the New Testament in the original Greek”64was publishedwithin five daysof 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.”65Nothing therefore has to be enquired after, except the critical principles on which they have proceeded. And, after assuring[pg 025]us that“the study of Grouping is the foundation of all enduring Criticism,”66they produce their secret: viz. That in“every one of our witnesses”except codexb, the“corruptions are innumerable;”67and that, in the Gospels, the one“group of witnesses”of“incomparable value”, is codexbin“combination with another primary Greek manuscript, as אb,b l,b c,b t,b d,bΞ,a b,b z,b33, and in S. MarkbΔ.”68This 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 whichthe foundation“needs perpetual correction and recorrection”. But our confidence fairly gives way when, in the same breath, the accomplished Editors proceed as follows:—“Butwe are obliged to come to the individual mindat last; and canons of Criticism are useful only as warnings againstnatural illusions, and aids to circumspect consideration, not as absolute rules to prescribe the final decision. It is true that noindividual mindcan ever work with perfect uniformity, or free itself completely fromits own idiosyncrasies. Yet a clear sense of the danger ofunconscious capricemay 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[pg 026]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;70but to[pg 027]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[pg 028]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[pg 029]of the nature of a work of the Imagination. As codex א proved fatal to Dr. Tischendorf, so is codexbevidently 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 theOldTestament has fared at the hands of codexb? They are respectfully invited to address themselves to this very damaging enquiry.

Article I. The New Greek Text.“One question in connexion with the Authorized Version I have purposely neglected. It seemed useless to discuss itsRevision.The Revision of the original Texts must precede the Revision of the Translation: andthe time for this, even in the New Testament, has not yet fully come.”—Dr. Westcott.28“It is my honest conviction that for any authoritativeRevision, we are not yet mature;either in Biblical learning or Hellenistic scholarship. There is good scholarship in this country, ... butit has certainly not yet been sufficiently directed to the study of the New Testament... to render any national attempt atRevisioneither hopeful or lastingly profitable.”—Bishop Ellicott.29“I am persuaded that aRevisionought to come: I am convinced that it will come. Not however, I would trust, as yet; forwe are not as yet in any respect prepared for it.The Greek and the Englishwhich 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.”—2Peterii. 22.“Little children,—Keep yourselves from idols.”—1Johnv. 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,31purporting 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[pg 002]entirely New Recension of the Greek Text.32A 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 assuredlyto construct a new Greek Textformed 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[pg 003]“a Revision of theAuthorized 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 factthe limits formally imposed by Convocation, (10th Feb. and 3rd, 5th May, 1870,)on the work of Revision. Onlynecessarychanges 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 oneof 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 marginat all: their very function being, on the contrary, to[pg 004]investigate Textual questions in conclave, and to present the ordinary Reader withthe resultof 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 representthatas 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, thatits contents are“exegetically or criticallysuperior to the Text.”33It 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,) willneverbe[pg 005]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 readBethsaida, othersBethzatha.’Am I then to understand that in the judgment of the Revisionists it is uncertainwhichof 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 Latin34and the Vulgate,35countenanced byonemanuscript of bad character, so reads.‘Bethzatha’!Yes, the blunder is found intwomanuscripts, both of bad character. Why do you not go on to tell us thatanothermanuscript exhibits‘Belzetha’?—another (supported by Eusebius36and [in one place] by Cyril37),‘Bezatha’? Nay, why not say plainly that there are found to existupwards of thirtyblundering 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,38Chrysostom,39and Cyril40),—is the only reasonable way of exhibiting it? To[pg 006]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, appointedto revise the Authorized English Versionof the New Testament Scriptures, addressed themselves to the solution of an entirely different and far more intricate problem, namelythe 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.41This 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 actualco-optationinto the Company appointed by themselves, of members of the Presbyterian, the Wesleyan, the Baptist, the Congregationalist, the Socinian body;thiswe 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—thisalso we[pg 007]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 theresultat 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 revisean English Translation, finding themselves called upon, as every fresh difficulty emerged, to develop the skill requisite forcritically 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,—andthatone 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 oftheir English renderingof 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 ofthe 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 asRevisers of a[pg 008]Translation. But in fact it has to be proved that the Revisionists have restricted themselves to the removal of“plain and clearerrors”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 ofCopiesshould 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[pg 009]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.”43The 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 Citationsaccordingly 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[pg 010]on the present occasion. Such a discussion would grow at once into a treatise.44Certain 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 extantcopiesof 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.45Still, it is undeniable that[pg 011]theyarethus 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 fromtheiroriginals 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, fromat leasta.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 letterb, 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, designatedc. 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 (bאc d), but especiallyband 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[pg 012]the whole body of extant MSS. besides, but evenfrom one another. This last circumstance, obviously fatal to their corporate pretensions, is unaccountably overlooked. And yet it admits of only one satisfactory explanation: viz. thatin different degreesthey all five exhibit a fabricated text. Between the first two (band 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,bis 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 samein both. It is in facteasier 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 codexd.“No known manuscript contains so many bold and extensive interpolations. Its variations from the sacred Text are beyond all other example.”46This, 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[pg 013]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 codexdreproduces theTextus receptusmuch 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 tod, 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 leasttenrevisers 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[pg 014]impurity comesb:—then, the fragmentary codexc: our ownabeing, 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 ofafrom theTextus receptusamount in all to only 842: whereas incthey amount to 1798: inb, to 2370: in א, to 3392: ind, to 4697. The readingspeculiar toawithin the same limits are 133: those peculiar tocare 170. But those ofbamount to 197: while א exhibits 443: and the readings peculiar tod(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 codicesbאc d:—codices, be it remembered, which come to us without a character, without a history, in fact without antecedents ofanykind.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, thecraze—to hold up as oracular, and to which his lordship is as devotedly and blindly attached as any of his neighbours:—“Thesimplicity and dignified conciseness”(he says)“of the Vatican manuscript (b): thegreater expansivenessof our own Alexandrian (a): thepartially mixed characteristicsof the Sinaitic (א): theparaphrastic toneof thesingularcodex Bezæ (d), are now brought home to the student.”49Could ingenuity have devised severer satire than such a[pg 015]description of four professingtranscriptsof a book; andthatbook, 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 thoseignes fatuiwhich 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 actualusein helping to settle the truth of Scripture. What we are just now insisting upon is only thedepraved textof codices אa b c d,—especially of אb 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[pg 016]thispart of the subject, we shall be constrained once and again to trouble him with detailed specimens of the contents of אb, &c., in proof of the justice of what we have been alleging. We venture to assure him, without a particle of hesitation, that אb darethree of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant:—exhibitthe most shamefully mutilatedtexts which are anywhere to be met with:—have become, by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount offabricated readings, ancientblunders, andintentional perversions of Truth,—which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word ofGod.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 codexdalone the text has been depraved 53 times, resulting in no less than 103 corrupt readings, 93of which are found only ind. The words omitted bydare 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,)aexhibits 3 omissions, 2 of which arepeculiar toa.—bomits 12 words, 6 of which arepeculiar tob: 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.—chas 7 readings (affecting 15 words)peculiar to itself. Its omissions are 4:[pg 017]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 ofagreement, in respect of“Various Readings,”is discovered to subsist between these 5 codices? forthat, after all, is the practical question. We answer,—ahas been already shown to stand alone twice:b, 6 times: א, 8 times:c, 15 times;d, 93 times.—We have further to state thata bstand together by themselves once:bא, 4 times:b c, 1:b d, 1: אc, 1:c d, 1.—aאcconspire 1:bאc, 1:bאd, 1:a bאc,once(viz. in reading ἐρώτησεν, which Tischendorf admits to be a corrupt reading):bאc d, alsoonce.—The 5“old uncials”therefore (a bאcd) combine, and again stand apart, with singular impartiality.—Lastly, they arenever oncefound to be in accord in respect ofany single“various Reading”.—Will any one, after a candid survey of the premisses, deem us unreasonable, if we avow that such a specimen of theconcordia discorswhich everywhere prevails between the oldest uncials, but which especially characterizes אb 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 theTextus Receptusinfallible?”The merit or demerit of the Received Text has absolutelynothing whatever to do with the question. We care nothing about it.AnyText would equally suit our present purpose.AnyText would show the“old uncials”perpetually at discordamong themselves. To raise an irrelevant discussion, at the outset, concerning theTextus Receptus:—to describe the haste with which Erasmus produced the first published edition of the N. T.:—to make sport about the[pg 018]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 theVersionsand by the most ancient of theFathers. 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. Butthatwould 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 adoptingthemexclusively for our guides. We are shown, in other words, that it is utterly out of the question to rely on any singlesetorgroupof authorities, much less on any single document, for the determination of the Text of Scripture. Happily, ourManuscriptsare numerous: most of them are in the main trustworthy:allof them represent far older documents than themselves. OurVersions(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 ofFathers,—the principal being Eusebius, Athanasius, Basil, the Gregories, Didymus,[pg 019]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 bאc 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, thatexternal Evidencemust 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 ofevery otherknown Codex—every otherVersion—every otheravailable 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 codicesbor א ord; the IXth-century codexl, and such cursives50as 13 or 33; a few copies of the old Latin and one of the Egyptian versions: perhaps Origen.—Not theory[pg 020]therefore:—not prejudice:—not conjecture:—not unproved assertion:—not any single codex, andcertainlynot codexb:—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 thecertaintyof 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 collectingallthe 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 bethe true Reading: and nothing may be rejected from the commonly received Text, except on evidence which shallclearlyoutweigh 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[pg 021]only whencritical or grammatical considerationsshow that it is clearly necessary.”51We 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.52But, (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'stext seldom rests on more than four Greek codices, very often on three, not unfrequently on two,sometimes on only one.”53Bishop Ellicott speaks of it as“a text composedon the narrowest and most exclusive principles.”54Of the Greek[pg 022]Fathers (Lachmann says) he employedonly Origen.55Paying 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 byDr. 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 willneverlose 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.Whyhe 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 ofDr. Tischendorf”(proceeds Bp. Ellicott)“is still more easily disposed of.Whichof 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[pg 023]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.”58With 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 codexא, 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.”60We 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.”61But, 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 bewritten with a different penfrom the rest,—has actuallyomitted that verse(xxi. 25) entirely, in defiance ofevery known Copy, every known Version, and the explicit testimony ofa 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[pg 024]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,63whom 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 areDrs. WestcottandHort, whose beautifully-printed edition of“the New Testament in the original Greek”64was publishedwithin five daysof 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.”65Nothing therefore has to be enquired after, except the critical principles on which they have proceeded. And, after assuring[pg 025]us that“the study of Grouping is the foundation of all enduring Criticism,”66they produce their secret: viz. That in“every one of our witnesses”except codexb, the“corruptions are innumerable;”67and that, in the Gospels, the one“group of witnesses”of“incomparable value”, is codexbin“combination with another primary Greek manuscript, as אb,b l,b c,b t,b d,bΞ,a b,b z,b33, and in S. MarkbΔ.”68This 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 whichthe foundation“needs perpetual correction and recorrection”. But our confidence fairly gives way when, in the same breath, the accomplished Editors proceed as follows:—“Butwe are obliged to come to the individual mindat last; and canons of Criticism are useful only as warnings againstnatural illusions, and aids to circumspect consideration, not as absolute rules to prescribe the final decision. It is true that noindividual mindcan ever work with perfect uniformity, or free itself completely fromits own idiosyncrasies. Yet a clear sense of the danger ofunconscious capricemay 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[pg 026]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;70but to[pg 027]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[pg 028]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[pg 029]of the nature of a work of the Imagination. As codex א proved fatal to Dr. Tischendorf, so is codexbevidently 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 theOldTestament has fared at the hands of codexb? They are respectfully invited to address themselves to this very damaging enquiry.

Article I. The New Greek Text.“One question in connexion with the Authorized Version I have purposely neglected. It seemed useless to discuss itsRevision.The Revision of the original Texts must precede the Revision of the Translation: andthe time for this, even in the New Testament, has not yet fully come.”—Dr. Westcott.28“It is my honest conviction that for any authoritativeRevision, we are not yet mature;either in Biblical learning or Hellenistic scholarship. There is good scholarship in this country, ... butit has certainly not yet been sufficiently directed to the study of the New Testament... to render any national attempt atRevisioneither hopeful or lastingly profitable.”—Bishop Ellicott.29“I am persuaded that aRevisionought to come: I am convinced that it will come. Not however, I would trust, as yet; forwe are not as yet in any respect prepared for it.The Greek and the Englishwhich 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.”—2Peterii. 22.“Little children,—Keep yourselves from idols.”—1Johnv. 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,31purporting 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[pg 002]entirely New Recension of the Greek Text.32A 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 assuredlyto construct a new Greek Textformed 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[pg 003]“a Revision of theAuthorized 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 factthe limits formally imposed by Convocation, (10th Feb. and 3rd, 5th May, 1870,)on the work of Revision. Onlynecessarychanges 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 oneof 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 marginat all: their very function being, on the contrary, to[pg 004]investigate Textual questions in conclave, and to present the ordinary Reader withthe resultof 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 representthatas 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, thatits contents are“exegetically or criticallysuperior to the Text.”33It 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,) willneverbe[pg 005]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 readBethsaida, othersBethzatha.’Am I then to understand that in the judgment of the Revisionists it is uncertainwhichof 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 Latin34and the Vulgate,35countenanced byonemanuscript of bad character, so reads.‘Bethzatha’!Yes, the blunder is found intwomanuscripts, both of bad character. Why do you not go on to tell us thatanothermanuscript exhibits‘Belzetha’?—another (supported by Eusebius36and [in one place] by Cyril37),‘Bezatha’? Nay, why not say plainly that there are found to existupwards of thirtyblundering 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,38Chrysostom,39and Cyril40),—is the only reasonable way of exhibiting it? To[pg 006]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, appointedto revise the Authorized English Versionof the New Testament Scriptures, addressed themselves to the solution of an entirely different and far more intricate problem, namelythe 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.41This 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 actualco-optationinto the Company appointed by themselves, of members of the Presbyterian, the Wesleyan, the Baptist, the Congregationalist, the Socinian body;thiswe 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—thisalso we[pg 007]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 theresultat 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 revisean English Translation, finding themselves called upon, as every fresh difficulty emerged, to develop the skill requisite forcritically 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,—andthatone 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 oftheir English renderingof 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 ofthe 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 asRevisers of a[pg 008]Translation. But in fact it has to be proved that the Revisionists have restricted themselves to the removal of“plain and clearerrors”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 ofCopiesshould 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[pg 009]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.”43The 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 Citationsaccordingly 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[pg 010]on the present occasion. Such a discussion would grow at once into a treatise.44Certain 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 extantcopiesof 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.45Still, it is undeniable that[pg 011]theyarethus 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 fromtheiroriginals 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, fromat leasta.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 letterb, 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, designatedc. 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 (bאc d), but especiallyband 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[pg 012]the whole body of extant MSS. besides, but evenfrom one another. This last circumstance, obviously fatal to their corporate pretensions, is unaccountably overlooked. And yet it admits of only one satisfactory explanation: viz. thatin different degreesthey all five exhibit a fabricated text. Between the first two (band 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,bis 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 samein both. It is in facteasier 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 codexd.“No known manuscript contains so many bold and extensive interpolations. Its variations from the sacred Text are beyond all other example.”46This, 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[pg 013]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 codexdreproduces theTextus receptusmuch 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 tod, 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 leasttenrevisers 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[pg 014]impurity comesb:—then, the fragmentary codexc: our ownabeing, 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 ofafrom theTextus receptusamount in all to only 842: whereas incthey amount to 1798: inb, to 2370: in א, to 3392: ind, to 4697. The readingspeculiar toawithin the same limits are 133: those peculiar tocare 170. But those ofbamount to 197: while א exhibits 443: and the readings peculiar tod(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 codicesbאc d:—codices, be it remembered, which come to us without a character, without a history, in fact without antecedents ofanykind.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, thecraze—to hold up as oracular, and to which his lordship is as devotedly and blindly attached as any of his neighbours:—“Thesimplicity and dignified conciseness”(he says)“of the Vatican manuscript (b): thegreater expansivenessof our own Alexandrian (a): thepartially mixed characteristicsof the Sinaitic (א): theparaphrastic toneof thesingularcodex Bezæ (d), are now brought home to the student.”49Could ingenuity have devised severer satire than such a[pg 015]description of four professingtranscriptsof a book; andthatbook, 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 thoseignes fatuiwhich 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 actualusein helping to settle the truth of Scripture. What we are just now insisting upon is only thedepraved textof codices אa b c d,—especially of אb 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[pg 016]thispart of the subject, we shall be constrained once and again to trouble him with detailed specimens of the contents of אb, &c., in proof of the justice of what we have been alleging. We venture to assure him, without a particle of hesitation, that אb darethree of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant:—exhibitthe most shamefully mutilatedtexts which are anywhere to be met with:—have become, by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount offabricated readings, ancientblunders, andintentional perversions of Truth,—which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word ofGod.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 codexdalone the text has been depraved 53 times, resulting in no less than 103 corrupt readings, 93of which are found only ind. The words omitted bydare 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,)aexhibits 3 omissions, 2 of which arepeculiar toa.—bomits 12 words, 6 of which arepeculiar tob: 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.—chas 7 readings (affecting 15 words)peculiar to itself. Its omissions are 4:[pg 017]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 ofagreement, in respect of“Various Readings,”is discovered to subsist between these 5 codices? forthat, after all, is the practical question. We answer,—ahas been already shown to stand alone twice:b, 6 times: א, 8 times:c, 15 times;d, 93 times.—We have further to state thata bstand together by themselves once:bא, 4 times:b c, 1:b d, 1: אc, 1:c d, 1.—aאcconspire 1:bאc, 1:bאd, 1:a bאc,once(viz. in reading ἐρώτησεν, which Tischendorf admits to be a corrupt reading):bאc d, alsoonce.—The 5“old uncials”therefore (a bאcd) combine, and again stand apart, with singular impartiality.—Lastly, they arenever oncefound to be in accord in respect ofany single“various Reading”.—Will any one, after a candid survey of the premisses, deem us unreasonable, if we avow that such a specimen of theconcordia discorswhich everywhere prevails between the oldest uncials, but which especially characterizes אb 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 theTextus Receptusinfallible?”The merit or demerit of the Received Text has absolutelynothing whatever to do with the question. We care nothing about it.AnyText would equally suit our present purpose.AnyText would show the“old uncials”perpetually at discordamong themselves. To raise an irrelevant discussion, at the outset, concerning theTextus Receptus:—to describe the haste with which Erasmus produced the first published edition of the N. T.:—to make sport about the[pg 018]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 theVersionsand by the most ancient of theFathers. 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. Butthatwould 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 adoptingthemexclusively for our guides. We are shown, in other words, that it is utterly out of the question to rely on any singlesetorgroupof authorities, much less on any single document, for the determination of the Text of Scripture. Happily, ourManuscriptsare numerous: most of them are in the main trustworthy:allof them represent far older documents than themselves. OurVersions(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 ofFathers,—the principal being Eusebius, Athanasius, Basil, the Gregories, Didymus,[pg 019]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 bאc 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, thatexternal Evidencemust 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 ofevery otherknown Codex—every otherVersion—every otheravailable 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 codicesbor א ord; the IXth-century codexl, and such cursives50as 13 or 33; a few copies of the old Latin and one of the Egyptian versions: perhaps Origen.—Not theory[pg 020]therefore:—not prejudice:—not conjecture:—not unproved assertion:—not any single codex, andcertainlynot codexb:—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 thecertaintyof 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 collectingallthe 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 bethe true Reading: and nothing may be rejected from the commonly received Text, except on evidence which shallclearlyoutweigh 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[pg 021]only whencritical or grammatical considerationsshow that it is clearly necessary.”51We 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.52But, (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'stext seldom rests on more than four Greek codices, very often on three, not unfrequently on two,sometimes on only one.”53Bishop Ellicott speaks of it as“a text composedon the narrowest and most exclusive principles.”54Of the Greek[pg 022]Fathers (Lachmann says) he employedonly Origen.55Paying 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 byDr. 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 willneverlose 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.Whyhe 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 ofDr. Tischendorf”(proceeds Bp. Ellicott)“is still more easily disposed of.Whichof 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[pg 023]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.”58With 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 codexא, 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.”60We 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.”61But, 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 bewritten with a different penfrom the rest,—has actuallyomitted that verse(xxi. 25) entirely, in defiance ofevery known Copy, every known Version, and the explicit testimony ofa 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[pg 024]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,63whom 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 areDrs. WestcottandHort, whose beautifully-printed edition of“the New Testament in the original Greek”64was publishedwithin five daysof 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.”65Nothing therefore has to be enquired after, except the critical principles on which they have proceeded. And, after assuring[pg 025]us that“the study of Grouping is the foundation of all enduring Criticism,”66they produce their secret: viz. That in“every one of our witnesses”except codexb, the“corruptions are innumerable;”67and that, in the Gospels, the one“group of witnesses”of“incomparable value”, is codexbin“combination with another primary Greek manuscript, as אb,b l,b c,b t,b d,bΞ,a b,b z,b33, and in S. MarkbΔ.”68This 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 whichthe foundation“needs perpetual correction and recorrection”. But our confidence fairly gives way when, in the same breath, the accomplished Editors proceed as follows:—“Butwe are obliged to come to the individual mindat last; and canons of Criticism are useful only as warnings againstnatural illusions, and aids to circumspect consideration, not as absolute rules to prescribe the final decision. It is true that noindividual mindcan ever work with perfect uniformity, or free itself completely fromits own idiosyncrasies. Yet a clear sense of the danger ofunconscious capricemay 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[pg 026]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;70but to[pg 027]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[pg 028]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[pg 029]of the nature of a work of the Imagination. As codex א proved fatal to Dr. Tischendorf, so is codexbevidently 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 theOldTestament has fared at the hands of codexb? They are respectfully invited to address themselves to this very damaging enquiry.

“One question in connexion with the Authorized Version I have purposely neglected. It seemed useless to discuss itsRevision.The Revision of the original Texts must precede the Revision of the Translation: andthe time for this, even in the New Testament, has not yet fully come.”—Dr. Westcott.28“It is my honest conviction that for any authoritativeRevision, we are not yet mature;either in Biblical learning or Hellenistic scholarship. There is good scholarship in this country, ... butit has certainly not yet been sufficiently directed to the study of the New Testament... to render any national attempt atRevisioneither hopeful or lastingly profitable.”—Bishop Ellicott.29“I am persuaded that aRevisionought to come: I am convinced that it will come. Not however, I would trust, as yet; forwe are not as yet in any respect prepared for it.The Greek and the Englishwhich 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.”—2Peterii. 22.“Little children,—Keep yourselves from idols.”—1Johnv. 21.

“One question in connexion with the Authorized Version I have purposely neglected. It seemed useless to discuss itsRevision.The Revision of the original Texts must precede the Revision of the Translation: andthe time for this, even in the New Testament, has not yet fully come.”—Dr. Westcott.28

“It is my honest conviction that for any authoritativeRevision, we are not yet mature;either in Biblical learning or Hellenistic scholarship. There is good scholarship in this country, ... butit has certainly not yet been sufficiently directed to the study of the New Testament... to render any national attempt atRevisioneither hopeful or lastingly profitable.”—Bishop Ellicott.29

“I am persuaded that aRevisionought to come: I am convinced that it will come. Not however, I would trust, as yet; forwe are not as yet in any respect prepared for it.The Greek and the Englishwhich 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.”—2Peterii. 22.

“Little children,—Keep yourselves from idols.”—1Johnv. 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,31purporting 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[pg 002]entirely New Recension of the Greek Text.32A 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 assuredlyto construct a new Greek Textformed 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[pg 003]“a Revision of theAuthorized 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 factthe limits formally imposed by Convocation, (10th Feb. and 3rd, 5th May, 1870,)on the work of Revision. Onlynecessarychanges 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 oneof 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 marginat all: their very function being, on the contrary, to[pg 004]investigate Textual questions in conclave, and to present the ordinary Reader withthe resultof 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 representthatas 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, thatits contents are“exegetically or criticallysuperior to the Text.”33It 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,) willneverbe[pg 005]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 readBethsaida, othersBethzatha.’Am I then to understand that in the judgment of the Revisionists it is uncertainwhichof 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 Latin34and the Vulgate,35countenanced byonemanuscript of bad character, so reads.‘Bethzatha’!Yes, the blunder is found intwomanuscripts, both of bad character. Why do you not go on to tell us thatanothermanuscript exhibits‘Belzetha’?—another (supported by Eusebius36and [in one place] by Cyril37),‘Bezatha’? Nay, why not say plainly that there are found to existupwards of thirtyblundering 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,38Chrysostom,39and Cyril40),—is the only reasonable way of exhibiting it? To[pg 006]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, appointedto revise the Authorized English Versionof the New Testament Scriptures, addressed themselves to the solution of an entirely different and far more intricate problem, namelythe 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.41This 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 actualco-optationinto the Company appointed by themselves, of members of the Presbyterian, the Wesleyan, the Baptist, the Congregationalist, the Socinian body;thiswe 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—thisalso we[pg 007]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 theresultat 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 revisean English Translation, finding themselves called upon, as every fresh difficulty emerged, to develop the skill requisite forcritically 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,—andthatone 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 oftheir English renderingof 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 ofthe 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 asRevisers of a[pg 008]Translation. But in fact it has to be proved that the Revisionists have restricted themselves to the removal of“plain and clearerrors”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 ofCopiesshould 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[pg 009]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.”43The 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 Citationsaccordingly 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[pg 010]on the present occasion. Such a discussion would grow at once into a treatise.44Certain 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 extantcopiesof 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.45Still, it is undeniable that[pg 011]theyarethus 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 fromtheiroriginals 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, fromat leasta.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 letterb, 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, designatedc. 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 (bאc d), but especiallyband 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[pg 012]the whole body of extant MSS. besides, but evenfrom one another. This last circumstance, obviously fatal to their corporate pretensions, is unaccountably overlooked. And yet it admits of only one satisfactory explanation: viz. thatin different degreesthey all five exhibit a fabricated text. Between the first two (band 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,bis 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 samein both. It is in facteasier 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 codexd.“No known manuscript contains so many bold and extensive interpolations. Its variations from the sacred Text are beyond all other example.”46This, 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[pg 013]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 codexdreproduces theTextus receptusmuch 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 tod, 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 leasttenrevisers 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[pg 014]impurity comesb:—then, the fragmentary codexc: our ownabeing, 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 ofafrom theTextus receptusamount in all to only 842: whereas incthey amount to 1798: inb, to 2370: in א, to 3392: ind, to 4697. The readingspeculiar toawithin the same limits are 133: those peculiar tocare 170. But those ofbamount to 197: while א exhibits 443: and the readings peculiar tod(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 codicesbאc d:—codices, be it remembered, which come to us without a character, without a history, in fact without antecedents ofanykind.

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, thecraze—to hold up as oracular, and to which his lordship is as devotedly and blindly attached as any of his neighbours:—

“Thesimplicity and dignified conciseness”(he says)“of the Vatican manuscript (b): thegreater expansivenessof our own Alexandrian (a): thepartially mixed characteristicsof the Sinaitic (א): theparaphrastic toneof thesingularcodex Bezæ (d), are now brought home to the student.”49

Could ingenuity have devised severer satire than such a[pg 015]description of four professingtranscriptsof a book; andthatbook, 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 thoseignes fatuiwhich 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 actualusein helping to settle the truth of Scripture. What we are just now insisting upon is only thedepraved textof codices אa b c d,—especially of אb 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[pg 016]thispart of the subject, we shall be constrained once and again to trouble him with detailed specimens of the contents of אb, &c., in proof of the justice of what we have been alleging. We venture to assure him, without a particle of hesitation, that אb darethree of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant:—exhibitthe most shamefully mutilatedtexts which are anywhere to be met with:—have become, by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount offabricated readings, ancientblunders, andintentional perversions of Truth,—which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word ofGod.

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 codexdalone the text has been depraved 53 times, resulting in no less than 103 corrupt readings, 93of which are found only ind. The words omitted bydare 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,)aexhibits 3 omissions, 2 of which arepeculiar toa.—bomits 12 words, 6 of which arepeculiar tob: 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.—chas 7 readings (affecting 15 words)peculiar to itself. Its omissions are 4:[pg 017]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 ofagreement, in respect of“Various Readings,”is discovered to subsist between these 5 codices? forthat, after all, is the practical question. We answer,—ahas been already shown to stand alone twice:b, 6 times: א, 8 times:c, 15 times;d, 93 times.—We have further to state thata bstand together by themselves once:bא, 4 times:b c, 1:b d, 1: אc, 1:c d, 1.—aאcconspire 1:bאc, 1:bאd, 1:a bאc,once(viz. in reading ἐρώτησεν, which Tischendorf admits to be a corrupt reading):bאc d, alsoonce.—The 5“old uncials”therefore (a bאcd) combine, and again stand apart, with singular impartiality.—Lastly, they arenever oncefound to be in accord in respect ofany single“various Reading”.—Will any one, after a candid survey of the premisses, deem us unreasonable, if we avow that such a specimen of theconcordia discorswhich everywhere prevails between the oldest uncials, but which especially characterizes אb 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 theTextus Receptusinfallible?”The merit or demerit of the Received Text has absolutelynothing whatever to do with the question. We care nothing about it.AnyText would equally suit our present purpose.AnyText would show the“old uncials”perpetually at discordamong themselves. To raise an irrelevant discussion, at the outset, concerning theTextus Receptus:—to describe the haste with which Erasmus produced the first published edition of the N. T.:—to make sport about the[pg 018]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 theVersionsand by the most ancient of theFathers. 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. Butthatwould 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 adoptingthemexclusively for our guides. We are shown, in other words, that it is utterly out of the question to rely on any singlesetorgroupof authorities, much less on any single document, for the determination of the Text of Scripture. Happily, ourManuscriptsare numerous: most of them are in the main trustworthy:allof them represent far older documents than themselves. OurVersions(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 ofFathers,—the principal being Eusebius, Athanasius, Basil, the Gregories, Didymus,[pg 019]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 bאc 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, thatexternal Evidencemust 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 ofevery otherknown Codex—every otherVersion—every otheravailable 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 codicesbor א ord; the IXth-century codexl, and such cursives50as 13 or 33; a few copies of the old Latin and one of the Egyptian versions: perhaps Origen.—Not theory[pg 020]therefore:—not prejudice:—not conjecture:—not unproved assertion:—not any single codex, andcertainlynot codexb:—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 thecertaintyof 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 collectingallthe 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 bethe true Reading: and nothing may be rejected from the commonly received Text, except on evidence which shallclearlyoutweigh 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[pg 021]only whencritical or grammatical considerationsshow that it is clearly necessary.”51We 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'stext seldom rests on more than four Greek codices, very often on three, not unfrequently on two,sometimes on only one.”53Bishop Ellicott speaks of it as“a text composedon the narrowest and most exclusive principles.”54Of the Greek[pg 022]Fathers (Lachmann says) he employedonly Origen.55Paying 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 byDr. 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 willneverlose 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.Whyhe 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 ofDr. Tischendorf”(proceeds Bp. Ellicott)“is still more easily disposed of.Whichof 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[pg 023]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.”58With 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 codexא, 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.”60We 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.”61But, 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 bewritten with a different penfrom the rest,—has actuallyomitted that verse(xxi. 25) entirely, in defiance ofevery known Copy, every known Version, and the explicit testimony ofa 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[pg 024]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,63whom 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 areDrs. WestcottandHort, whose beautifully-printed edition of“the New Testament in the original Greek”64was publishedwithin five daysof 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.”65Nothing therefore has to be enquired after, except the critical principles on which they have proceeded. And, after assuring[pg 025]us that“the study of Grouping is the foundation of all enduring Criticism,”66they produce their secret: viz. That in“every one of our witnesses”except codexb, the“corruptions are innumerable;”67and that, in the Gospels, the one“group of witnesses”of“incomparable value”, is codexbin“combination with another primary Greek manuscript, as אb,b l,b c,b t,b d,bΞ,a b,b z,b33, and in S. MarkbΔ.”68This 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 whichthe foundation“needs perpetual correction and recorrection”. But our confidence fairly gives way when, in the same breath, the accomplished Editors proceed as follows:—“Butwe are obliged to come to the individual mindat last; and canons of Criticism are useful only as warnings againstnatural illusions, and aids to circumspect consideration, not as absolute rules to prescribe the final decision. It is true that noindividual mindcan ever work with perfect uniformity, or free itself completely fromits own idiosyncrasies. Yet a clear sense of the danger ofunconscious capricemay 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[pg 026]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;70but to[pg 027]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[pg 028]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[pg 029]of the nature of a work of the Imagination. As codex א proved fatal to Dr. Tischendorf, so is codexbevidently 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 theOldTestament has fared at the hands of codexb? They are respectfully invited to address themselves to this very damaging enquiry.

Back to IndexNext