Article II. The New English Version.

Article II. The New English Version.“Such is the time-honoured Version which we have been called upon to revise! We have had to study this great Version carefully and minutely, line by line; and the longer we have been engaged upon it the more we have learned to admireits simplicity,its dignity,its power,its happy turns of expression,its general accuracy, and we must not fail to add,the music of its cadences, and the felicities of its rhythm. To render a work that had reached this high standard of excellence, still more excellent; to increase its fidelity, without destroying its charm; was the task committed to us.”—Preface To the Revised Version.“To pass from the one to the other, is, as it were, to alight from a well-built and well-hung carriage which glides easily over a macadamized road,—and to get into onewhich has bad springs or none at all, and in which you arejolted in ruts with aching bones over the stones of a newly-mended and rarely traversed road, like some of the roads in our North Lincolnshire villages.”—Bishop Wordsworth.382“No Revision at the present day could hope to meet with an hour's acceptance if it failed to preserve the tone, rhythm, and diction of the present Authorized Version.”—Bishop Ellicott.383“I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this Book,—If any man shall add unto these things,Godshall add unto him the plagues that are written in this Book.“And if any man shall take away from the words of the Book of this prophecy, GOD shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy City, and from the things which are written in this Book.”—Revelationxxii. 18, 19.Whatever may be urged in favour of Biblical Revision, it is at least undeniable that the undertaking involves a tremendous risk. Our Authorized Version is the one religious link which at present binds together ninety millions of English-speaking men scattered over the earth's surface. Is it reasonable that so unutterably precious, so sacred a bond should be endangered, for the sake of representing certain words more accurately,—here and there translating a tense with greater precision,—getting rid of a few archaisms? It may be confidently assumed that no“Revision”of our Authorized Version, however judiciously executed, will ever occupy the place in public esteem which is actually enjoyed by the work of the Translators of 1611,—the noblest literary work in the Anglo-Saxon language. We shall in fact never haveanother“Authorized Version.”And this single consideration may be thought absolutely fatal to the project, except in a greatly modified form. To be brief,—As a companion in the study and for private edification: as a book of reference for critical purposes, especially in respect[pg 114]of difficult and controverted passages:—we hold that a revised edition of the Authorized Version of our English Bible, (if executed with consummate ability and learning,) would at any time be a work of inestimable value. The method of such a performance, whether by marginal Notes or in some other way, we forbear to determine. But certainly only as a handmaid is it to be desired. As somethingintended to supersedeour present English Bible, we are thoroughly convinced that the project of a rival Translation is not to be entertained for a moment. For ourselves, we deprecate it entirely.On the other hand,whocould have possibly foreseen what has actually come to pass since the Convocation of the Southern Province (in Feb. 1870) declared itself favourable to“a Revision of the Authorized Version,”and appointed a Committee of Divines to undertake the work?Whowas to suppose that the Instructions given to the Revisionists would be by them systematically disregarded?Whowas to imagine that an utterly untrustworthy“new Greek Text,”constructed on mistaken principles,—(say rather, onno principles at all,)—would be the fatal result? To speak more truly,—Whocould have anticipated that the opportunity would have been adroitly seized to inflict upon the Church the text of Drs. Westcott and Hort, in all its essential features,—a text which, as will be found elsewhere largely explained, we hold to bethe most vicious Recension of the original Greek in existence? Above all,—Whowas to foresee that instead of removing“plainandclear errors”from our Version, the Revisionists,—(besides systematically removing out of sight so many of the genuine utterances of theSpirit,)—would themselves introduce a countless number of blemishes, unknown to it before? Lastly, how was it to have been believed that the Revisionists would show themselves[pg 115]industrious in sowing broadcast over four continents doubts as to the Truth of Scripture, which it will never be in their power either to remove or to recal?Nescit vox missa reverti.For, the ill-advised practice of recording, in the margin of an English Bible, certain of the blunders—(such things cannot by any stretch of courtesy be styled“Various Readings”)—which disfigure“some”or“many”“ancient authorities,”can only result in hopelessly unsettling the faith of millions. It cannot be defended on the plea of candour,—the candour which is determined that men shall“know the worst.”“The worst”hasnotbeen told: and it were dishonesty to insinuate thatit has. If all the cases were faithfully exhibited where“a few,”“some,”or“many ancient authorities”read differently from what is exhibited in the actual Text, not only would the margin prove insufficient to contain the record, butthe very page itselfwould not nearly suffice. Take a single instance (the first which comes to mind), of the thing referred to. Such illustrations might be multiplied to any extent:—In S. Luke iii. 22, (in place of“Thou art my beloved Son;in Thee I am well pleased,”) the following authorities of the IInd, IIIrd and IVth centuries, read,—“this day have I begotten Thee:”viz.—codexdand the most ancient copies of the old Latin (a, b, c, ff-2, 1),—Justin Martyr in three places384(a.d.140),—Clemens Alex.385(a.d.190),—and Methodius386(a.d.290) among the Greeks. Lactantius387(a.d.300),—Hilary388(a.d.350),—Juvencus389(a.d.330),—Faustus390(a.d.400),[pg 116]and—Augustine391amongst the Latins. The reading in question was doubtless derived from theEbionite Gospel392(IInd cent.). Now, we desire to have it explained to uswhyan exhibition of the Text supported by such an amount of first-rate primitive testimony as the preceding, obtainsno notice whateverin our Revisionists' margin,—if indeed it was the object of their perpetually recurring marginal annotations, to put the unlearned reader on a level with the critical Scholar; to keep nothing back from him; and so forth?... It is the gross one-sidedness, the patentunfairness, in a critical point of view, of this work, (which professes to be nothing else buta Revision of the English Version of1611,)—which chiefly shocks and offends us.For, on the other hand, of what possible use can it be to encumber the margin of S. Luke x. 41, 42 (for example), with the announcement that“A few ancient authorities readMartha, Martha, thou art troubled: Mary hath chosen&c.”(the fact being, thatdaloneof MSS. omits“careful and ... about many things. But one thing is needful, and”...)? With the record of this circumstance, is it reasonable (we ask) to choke up our English margin,—to create perplexity and to insinuate doubt? The author of the foregoing[pg 117]marginal Annotation was of course aware that the same“singular codex”(as Bp. Ellicott styles cod.d) omits, in S. Luke's Gospel alone, no less than 1552 words: and he will of course have ascertained (by counting) that the words in S. Luke's Gospel amount to 19,941. Why then did he not tellthe wholetruth; and instead of“&c.,”proceed as follows?—“But inasmuch as cod.dis so scandalously corrupt that aboutone word in thirteenis missing throughout, the absence of nine words in this place is of no manner of importance or significancy. The precious saying omitted is above suspicion, and the first half of the present Annotation might have been spared.”... We submit that a Note like that, although rather“singular”in style, reallywouldhave been to some extent helpful,—if not to the learned, at least to the unlearned reader.In the meantime, unlearned and learned readers alike are competent to see that the foregoing perturbation of S. Luke x. 41, 42 rests onthe samemanuscript authority as the perturbation of ch. iii. 22, which immediately preceded it. ThePatristicattestation, on the other hand, of the reading which has been promoted to the margin, is almostnil: whereasthatof the neglected place has been shown to be considerable, very ancient, and of high respectability.But in fact,—(let the Truth be plainly stated; for, whenGod'sWord is at stake, circumlocution is contemptible, while concealment would be a crime;)—“Faithfulness”towards the public, a stern resolve that the English reader“shall know the worst,”and all that kind of thing,—such considerations have had nothing whatever to do with the matter. A vastly different principle has prevailed with the Revisionists. Themselves the dupes of an utterly mistaken Theory of Textual Criticism, their supreme solicitude has[pg 118]beento impose that same Theory,—(which is Westcott and Hort's,)—with all its bitter consequences, on the unlearned and unsuspicious public.We shall of course be indignantly called upon to explain what we mean by so injurious—so damning—an imputation? For all reply, we are content to refer to the sample of our meaning which will be found below, in pp.137-8. The exposure of what has there been shown to be the method of the Revisionists in respect of S. Mark vi. 11, might be repeated hundreds of times. It would in factfill a volume. We shall therefore pass on, when we have asked the Revisionists in turn—How they have daredso effectually to blot out those many precious words from the Book of Life, that no mere English reader, depending on the Revised Version for his knowledge of the Gospels, can by possibility suspect their existence?... Supposing even that itwasthe calamitous result of their mistaken principles that they found themselves constrained on countless occasions, to omit from their Text precious sayings of ourLordand His Apostles,—what possible excuse will they offer for not having preserved a record of words so amply attested,at least in their margin?Even so, however, the whole amount of the mischief which has been effected by our Revisionists has not been stated. For the Greek Text which they have invented proves to be so hopelessly depraved throughout, that if it were to be thrust upon the Church's acceptance, we should be a thousand times worse off than we were with the Text which Erasmus and the Complutensian,—Stephens, and Beza, and the Elzevirs,—bequeathed to us upwards of three centuries ago. On this part of the subject we have remarked at length already [pp.1-110]: yet shall we be constrained to recur once and again to the underlying Greek Text of the Revisionists,[pg 119]inasmuch as it is impossible to stir in any direction with the task before us, without being painfully reminded of its existence. Not only do the familiar Parables, Miracles, Discourses of ourLord, trip us up at every step, but we cannot open the first page of the Gospel—no, nor indeed readthe first line—without being brought to a standstill. Thus,1. S. Matthew begins,—“The book of the generation ofJesus Christ”(ver. 1).—Good. But here the margin volunteers two pieces of information: first,—“Or,birth: as in ver. 18.”We refer to ver. 18, and read—“Now the birth ofJesus Christwas on this wise.”Good again; but the margin says,—“Or,generation: as in ver. 1.”Are we then to understand thatthe same Greek word, diversely rendered in English, occurs in both places? We refer to the“newGreek Text:”and there it stands,—γένεσις in either verse. But if the word be the same, why (on the Revisers' theory) is it diversely rendered?In the meantime,whoknows not that there is all the difference in the world between S. Matthew's γέΝΕσις, in ver. 1,—and the same S. Matthew's γέΝΝΗσις, in ver. 18? The latter, the Evangelist's announcement of the circumstances of the human Nativity ofChrist: the former, the Evangelist's unobtrusive way of recalling the Septuagintal rendering of Gen. ii. 4 and v. 1:393the same Evangelist's calm method of guiding the devout and thoughtful student to discern in the Gospel the History of the“new Creation,”—by thus providing that when first the Gospel opens its lips, it shall syllable the name of the first book of the elder Covenant? We are pointing out that it more than startles—it supremely offends—one who is even slenderly acquainted[pg 120]with the treasures of wisdom hid in the very diction of the N. T. Scriptures, to discover that a deliberate effort has been made to get rid of the very foremost of those notes of Divine intelligence, by confounding two words which all down the ages have been carefully kept distinct; and that this effort is the result of an exaggerated estimate of a few codices which happen to be written in the uncial character, viz. two of the IVth century (bא); one of the Vth (c); two of the VIth (p z); one of the IXth (Δ); one of the Xth (s).The Versions394—(which are ouroldestwitnesses)—are perforce only partially helpful here. Note however, thatthe only one which favoursγένεσις is the heretical Harkleian Syriac, executed in the VIIth century. The Peschito and Cureton's Syriac distinguish between γένεσις in ver. 1 and γέννησις in ver. 18: as do the Slavonic and the Arabian Versions. The Egyptian, Armenian, Æthiopic and Georgian, have only one word for both. Let no one suppose however thatthereforetheir testimony is ambiguous. It is γέννησις (notγένεσις) which they exhibit, both in ver. 1 and in ver. 18.395The Latin (“generatio”) is an equivocal rendering certainly: but the earliest Latin writer who quotes the two places, (viz. Tertullian) employs the word“genitura”in S. Matth. i. 1,—but“nativitas”in ver. 18,—which no one seems to have noticed.396Now, Tertullian, (as one who sometimes[pg 121]wrote in Greek,) is known to have been conversant with the Greek copies of his day; and“his day,”be it remembered, isa.d.190. He evidently recognized the parallelism between S. Matt. i. 1 and Gen. ii. 4,—where the old Latin exhibits“libercreaturæ”or“facturæ,”as the rendering of βίβλος γενέσεως. And so much for the testimony of the Versions.But on reference to Manuscript and to Patristic authority397we are encountered by an overwhelming amount of testimony for γέννησις in ver. 18: and this, considering the nature of the case, is an extraordinary circumstance. Quite plain is it that the Ancients were wide awake to the difference between spelling the word with one N or with two,—as the little dissertation of the heretic Nestorius398in itself would be enough to prove. Γέννησις, in the meantime, is the word employed by Justin M.,399—by Clemens Alex.,400—by Athanasius,401—by Gregory of Nazianzus,402—by Cyril Alex.,403—by Nestorius,404—by Chrysostom,405—by Theodorus[pg 122]Mopsuest.,406—and by three other ancients.407Even more deserving of attention is it that Irenæus408(a.d.170)—(whom Germanus409copies at the end of 550 years)—calls attention to the difference between the spelling of ver. 1 and ver. 18. So does Didymus:410—so does Basil:411—so does Epiphanius.412—Origen413(a.d.210) is even eloquent on the subject.—Tertullian (a.d.190) we have heard already.—It is a significant circumstance, that the only Patristic authorities discoverable on the other side are Eusebius, Theodoret, and the authors of an heretical Creed414—whom Athanasius holds up to scorn.415... Will the Revisionists still pretend to tell us that γέννησις in verse 18 is a“plain and clear error”?2. This, however, is not all. Against the words“ofJesus Christ,”a further critical annotation is volunteered; to the effect that“Some ancient authorities readof the Christ.”In reply to which, we assert thatnot one single known MS.omits the word“Jesus:”whilst its presence is vouched for by ps.-Tatian,416—Irenæus,—Origen,—Eusebius,—Didymus,— Epiphanius,—Chrysostom,—Cyril,—in addition toevery known Greek copy of the Gospels, and not a few of the Versions, including the Peschito and both the Egyptian. What else but nugatory therefore is such a piece of information as this?3. And so much for the first, second, and third Critical annotations, with which the margin of the revised N. T. is[pg 123]disfigured. Hoping that the worst is now over, we read on till we reach ver. 25, where we encounter a statement which fairly trips us up: viz.,—“And knew her nottill she had brought forth a son.”No intimation is afforded of what has been here effected; but in the meantime every one's memory supplies the epithet (“her first-born”) which has been ejected. Whether something very like indignation is not excited by the discovery that these important words have been surreptitiously withdrawn from their place, let others say. For ourselves, when we find that only אb zand two cursive copies can be produced for the omission, we are at a loss to understand of what the Revisionists can have been dreaming. Did they know417that,—besides the Vulgate, the Peschito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Æthiopic, Armenian, Georgian, and Slavonian Versions,418—a whole torrent of Fathers are at hand to vouch for the genuineness of the epithet they were so unceremoniously excising? They are invited to refer to ps.-Tatian,419—to Athanasius,420—to Didymus,421—to Cyril of Jer.,422—to Basil,423—to Greg. Nyss.,424—to Ephraem Syr.,425—to Epiphanius,426—to Chrysostom,427—to Proclus,428—to Isidorus Pelus.,429—to John Damasc.,430—to Photius,431—to Nicetas:432—besides, of the Latins, Ambrose,433—theOpus imp.,—Augustine,—and not least to Jerome434—eighteen Fathers in all. And how is it possible, (we ask,)[pg 124]that two copies of the IVth century (bא) and one of the VIth (z)—all three without a character—backed by a few copies of the old Latin, should be supposed to be any counterpoise at all for such an array of first-rate contemporary evidence as the foregoing?Enough has been offered by this time to prove that an authoritative Revision of the Greek Text will have to precede any future Revision of the English of the New Testament. Equally certain is it that for such an undertaking the time has not yet come.“It is my honest conviction,”—(remarks Bp. Ellicott, the Chairman of the Revisionists,)—“that for any authoritative Revision, we are not yet mature: either in Biblical learning or Hellenistic scholarship.”435The same opinion precisely is found to have been cherished by Dr. Westcott tillwithin about a year-and-a-half436of the first assembling of the New Testament Company in the Jerusalem Chamber, 22nd June, 1870. True, that we enjoy access to—suppose from 1000 to 2000—moremanuscriptsthan were available when the Textus Recept. was formed. But nineteen-twentieths of those documents, for any use which has been made of them, might just as well be still lying in the monastic libraries from which they were obtained.—True, that four out of our five oldest uncials have come to light since the year 1628; but,who knows how to use them?—True, that we have made acquaintance with certain ancientVersions, about which little or nothing was known 200 years ago: but,—(with the solitary exception of the Rev. Solomon Cæsar Malan, the learned Vicar of Broadwindsor,—who, by the way, is always ready to lend a torch to his benighted brethren,)—what living Englishman is able to tell[pg 125]us what they all contain? A smattering acquaintance with the languages of ancient Egypt,—the Gothic, Æthiopic, Armenian, Georgian and Slavonian Versions,—is of no manner of avail. In no department, probably, is“a little learning”more sure to prove“a dangerous thing.”—True, lastly, that theFathershave been better edited within the last 250 years: during which period some fresh Patristic writings have also come to light. But, with the exception of Theodoret among the Greeks and Tertullian among the Latins,which of the Fathers has been satisfactorily indexed?Even what precedes is not nearly all.The fundamental Principlesof the Science of Textual Criticism are not yet apprehended. In proof of this assertion, we appeal to the new Greek Text of Drs. Westcott and Hort,—which, beyond all controversy, is more hopelessly remote from the inspired Original than any which has yet appeared. Let a generation of Students give themselves entirely up to this neglected branch of sacred Science. Let 500 moreCopiesof the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, be diligently collated. Let at least 100 of the ancientLectionariesbe very exactly collated also. Let the most important of the ancientVersionsbe edited afresh, and let the languages in which these are written be for the first time reallymasteredby Englishmen.Above all, let theFathershe called upon to give up their precious secrets.Let their writings be ransacked and indexed, and (where needful) let the MSS. of their works be diligently inspected, in order that we may know what actually is the evidence which they afford. Only so will it ever be possible to obtain a Greek Text on which absolute reliance may be placed, and which may serve as the basis for a satisfactory Revision of our Authorized Version. Nay, let whatever unpublished works of the ancient Greek Fathers are anywhere known to exist,—(and not a few precious remains[pg 126]of theirs are lying hid in great national libraries, both at home and abroad,)—let these be printed. The men could easily be found: the money, far more easily.—When all this has been done,—not before—then inGod'sName, letthe Churchaddress herself to the great undertaking. Do but revive the arrangements which were adopted in King James's days: and we venture to predict that less than a third part of ten years will be found abundantly to suffice for the work. How the coming men will smile at the picture Dr. Newth437has drawn of what was the method of procedure in the reign of Queen Victoria! Will they not peruse with downright merriment Bp. Ellicott's jaunty proposal“simply to proceed onward with the work”—[to wit, of constructing a new Greek Text,]—“in fact,solvere ambulando,”[necnon in laqueum cadendo]?438I. We cannot, it is presumed, act more fairly by the Revisers' work,439than by following them over some of the ground which they claim to have made their own, and which, at the conclusion of their labours, their Right[pg 127]Reverend Chairman evidently surveys with self-complacency. First, he invites attention to the Principle and Rule for their guidance agreed to by the Committee of Convocation (25th May, 1870), viz.“To introduce as few alterations as possible into the Text of the Authorized Version, consistently with faithfulness.”Words could not be more emphatic.“Plain and clear errors”were to be corrected.“Necessaryemendations”were to be made. But (in the words of the Southern Convocation)“We do not contemplate any new Translation,or any alteration of the language,except where, in the judgment of the most competent Scholars,such change is necessary.”The watchword, therefore, given to the company of Revisionists was,—“Necessity.”Necessitywas to determine whether they were to depart from the language of the Authorized Version, or not; for the alterations were to beas few as possible.(a) Now it is idle to deny that this fundamental Principle has been utterly set at defiance. To such an extent is this the case, that even an unlettered Reader is competent to judge them. When we find“to”substituted for“unto”(passim):—“hereby”for“by this”(1 Jo. v. 2):—“all thatare,”for“all that be”(Rom. i. 7):—“alway”for“always”(2 Thess. i. 3):—“wethat,”“themthat,”for“wewhich,”“themwhich”(1 Thess. iv. 15); and yet“every spiritwhich,”for“every spirit that”(1 Jo. iv. 3), and“hewhois not ofGod,”for“he that is not ofGod”(ver. 6,—although“hethatknowethGod”had preceded, in the same verse):—“myhost”for“mine host”(Rom. xvi. 23); and“underneath”for“under”(Rev. vi. 9):—it becomes clear that the Revisers' notion ofnecessityis not that of the rest of mankind. But let the plain Truth be stated. Certain of them, when remonstrated with by their fellows for the manifest disregard they were showing to the Instructions subject to which they had undertaken the work[pg 128]of Revision, are reported to have even gloried in their shame. The majority, it is clear, have even ostentatiously set those Instructions at defiance.Was the course they pursued,—(we ask the question respectfully,)—strictlyhonest? To decline the work entirely under the prescribed Conditions, was always in their power. But, first to accept the Conditions, and straightway to act in defiance of them,—thisstrikes us as a method of proceeding which it is difficult to reconcile with the high character of the occupants of the Jerusalem Chamber. To proceed however.“Nevertheless”and“notwithstanding”have had a sad time of it. One or other of them has been turned out in favour of“howbeit”(S. Lu. x. 11, 20),—of“only”(Phil. iii. 16),—of“only that”(i. 18),—of“yet”(S. Matth. xi. 11),—of“but”(xvii. 27),—of“and yet”(James ii. 16).... We find“take heed”substituted for“beware”(Col. ii. 8):—“custom”for“manner”(S. Jo. xix. 40):—“he wasamazed,”for“he was astonished:”(S. Lu. v. 9):—“Is it I,Lord?”for“Lord, is it I?”(S. Matth. xxvi. 22):—“straightwaythe cock crew,”for“immediately the cock crew”(S. Jo. xviii. 27):—“Thentherefore he delivered Him,”for“Then delivered he Him therefore”(xix. 16):—“broughtit to His mouth,”for“put it to His mouth”(ver. 29):—“He manifested Himself on this wise,”for“on this wise shewed He Himself”(xxi. 1):—“So when they got out upon the land,”for“As soon then as they were come to land”(ver. 9):—“the thingsconcerning,”for“the things pertaining to the kingdom ofGod”(Acts i. 3):—“asGod'ssteward,”for“as the steward of God”(Tit. i. 7): but“thebelly of the whale”for“the whale's belly”(S. Matth. xii. 40), and“device of man”for“man's device”in Acts xvii. 29.—These, and hundreds of similar alterations have been evidently made out of the[pg 129]merest wantonness. After substituting“therefore”for“then”(as the rendering of οὖν) a score of times,—the Revisionists quite needlessly substitute“then”for“therefore”in S. Jo. xix. 42.—And why has the singularly beautiful greeting of“the elder unto the well-beloved Gaius,”been exchanged for“untoGaius the beloved”? (3 John, ver. 1).(b) We turn a few pages, and find“he thatdoethsin,”substituted for“he that committeth sin;”and“To this end”put in the place of“For this purpose”(1 Jo. iii. 8):—“have beheld”and“bear witness,”for“have seen and do testify”(iv. 14):—“hereby”for“by this”(v. 2):—“Judas”for“Jude”(Jude ver. 1), although“Mark”was substituted for“Marcus”(in 1 Pet. v. 13), and“Timothy”for“Timotheus”(in Phil. i. 1):—“how that theysaid toyou,”for“how that they told you”(Jude ver. 18).—But why go on? The substitution of“exceedingly”for“greatly”in Acts vi. 7:—“the birds”for“the fowls,”in Rev. xix. 21:—“Almighty”for“Omnipotent”in ver. 6:—“throw down”for“cast down,”in S. Luke iv. 29:—“inner chamber”for“closet,”in vi. 6:—these arenot“necessary”changes.... We will give but three instances more:—In 1 S. Pet. v. 9,“whomresist, stedfast in the faith,”has been altered into“whomwithstand.”But how is“withstand”a better rendering for ἀντίστητε, than“resist”?“Resist,”at all events,was the Revisionists' word in S. Matth.v. 39and S. Jamesiv. 7.—Why also substitute“therace”(for“the kindred”)“of Joseph”in Acts vii. 13, although γένος was rendered“kindred”in iv. 6?—Do the Revisionists think that“fastening theireyes on him”is a better rendering of ἀτενίσαντες εἰς αὐτόν (Acts vi. 15) than“looking stedfastlyon him”? They certainly did not think so when they got to xxiii. 1. There, because they found“earnestly beholdingthe council,”they must needs alter the phrase into“looking stedfastly.”It is clear therefore thatCaprice, notNecessity,—an[pg 130]itching impatienceto introduce changes into the A. V., not the discovery of“plain and clear errors”—has determined the great bulk of the alterations which molest us in every part of the present unlearned and tasteless performance.II. The next point to which the Revisionists direct our attention is theirnew Greek text,—“the necessary foundation of”their work. And here we must renew our protest against the wrong which has been done to English readers by the Revisionists' disregard of the IVth Rule laid down for their guidance, viz. that, whenever they adopted a new Textual reading, such alteration was to be“indicated in the margin.”This“proved inconvenient,”say the Revisionists. Yes, we reply: but only because you saw fit, in preference, to choke up your margin with a record of the preposterous readings you didnotadmit. Even so, however, the thing might to some extent have been done, if only by a system of signs in the margin wherever a change in the Text had been by yourselves effected. And, at whatever“inconvenience,”you were bound to do this,—partly because the Rule before you was express: but chiefly in fairness to the English Reader. How comes it to pass that you haveneverfurnished him with the information you stood pledged to furnish; but have instead, volunteered in every page information, worthless in itself, which can only serve to unsettle the faith of unlettered millions, and to suggest unreasonable as well as miserable doubts to the minds of all?For no one may for an instant imagine that the marginal statements of which we speak are a kind of equivalent for theApparatus Criticuswhich is found in every principal edition of the Greek Testament—excepting always that of Drs. Westcott and Hort. So far are we from deprecating (with Daniel Whitby) the multiplication of“Various Readings,”[pg 131]that we rejoice in them exceedingly; knowing that they are the very foundation of our confidence and the secret of our strength. For this reason we consider Dr. Tischendorf's last (8th) edition to be furnished with not nearly enough of them, though he left all his predecessors (and himself in his 7th edition) far behind. Our quarrel with the Revisionists isnotby any means that they have commemoratedactual“alternative Readings”in their margin: but that, while they have given prominence throughout topatent Errors, theyhave unfairly excluded all mention of,—have not made the slightest allusion to,—hundreds of Readings which ought in fact rather to have stood in the Text.The marginal readings, which our Revisers have been so ill-advised as to put prominently forward, and to introduce to the Reader's notice with the vague statement that they are sanctioned by“Some”(or by“Many”)“ancient authorities,”—are specimensarbitrarily selectedout of an immense mass; are magisterially recommended to public attention and favour;seemto be invested with the sanction and authority of Convocation itself. And this becomes a very serious matter indeed. No hint is givenwhichbe the“ancient Authorities”so referred to:—nor what proportion they bear to the“ancient Authorities”producible on the opposite side:—nor whether they are themost“ancient Authorities”obtainable:—nor what amount of attention their testimony may reasonably claim. But in the meantime a fatal assertion is hazarded in the Preface (iii. 1.), to the effect thatin cases where“it would not be safe to accept one Reading to the absolute exclusion of others,”“alternative Readings”have been given“in the margin.”So that the“Agony and bloody sweat”of the World'sRedeemer(Lu. xxii. 43, 44),—and His Prayer for His murderers (xxiii. 34),—and much beside of transcendent importance and inestimable value, may,according to our Revisionists, prove to rest upon no foundation whatever.[pg 132]At all events,“it would not be safe,”(i.e.it is not safe) to place absolute reliance on them. Alas, how many a deadly blow at Revealed Truth hath been in this way aimed with fatal adroitness, which no amount of orthodox learning will ever be able hereafter to heal, much less to undo! Thus,—(a) From the first verse of S. Mark's Gospel we are informed that“Some ancient authorities omitthe Son ofGod.”Why are wenotinformed that every known uncial Copyexcept one of bad character,—every cursivebut two,—every Version,—and the following Fathers,—allcontainthe precious clause: viz. Irenæus,—Porphyry,—Severianus of Gabala,—Cyril Alex.,—Victor Ant.,—and others,—besides Ambrose and Augustine among the Latins:—while the supposed adverse testimony of Serapion and Titus, Basil and Victorinus, Cyril of Jer. and Epiphanius, proves to be all a mistake? To speak plainly, since the clause is above suspicion,Why are we not rather told so?(b) In the 3rd verse of the first chapter of S. John's Gospel, we are left to take our choice between,—“without Him was not anything made that hath been made. In him was life; and the life,”&c.,—and the following absurd alternative,—“Without him was not anything made.That which hath been made was life in him; and the life,”&c. But we arenotinformed that this latter monstrous figment is known to have been the importation of the Gnostic heretics in the IInd century, and to be as destitute of authority as it is of sense.Why is prominence given only to the lie?(c) At S. John iii. 13, we are informed that the last clause of that famous verse (“No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man—which is in heaven”), is not found in“many ancient authorities.”[pg 133]But why, in the name of common fairness, are we notalsoreminded that this, (as will be found more fully explained in the note overleaf,) isa circumstance of no Textual significancy whatever?Why, above all, are we not assured that the precious clause in question (ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ)isfound in every MS. in the world, except five of bad character?—is recognized byallthe Latin andallthe Syriac versions; as well as by the Coptic,—Æthiopic,—Georgian,—and Armenian?440—is either quoted or insisted upon by Origen,441—Hippolytus,442—Athanasius,443—Didymus,444—Aphraates the Persian,445—Basil the Great,446—Epiphanius,447—Nonnus,—ps.-Dionysius Alex.,448—Eustathius;449—by Chrysostom,450—Theodoret,451—and Cyril,452each 4 times;—by Paulus, Bishop of Emesa453(in a sermon on Christmas Day,a.d.431);—by Theodoras Mops.,454—Amphilochius,455—Severus,456—Theodorus Heracl.,457—Basilius Cil.,458—Cosmas,459—John Damascene, in 3 places,460—and 4 other ancient Greek writers;461—besides Ambrose,462—Novatian,463—Hilary,464—Lucifer,465—Victorinus,—Jerome,466—Cassian,—Vigilius,467—Zeno,468—Marius,469—Maximus Taur.,470—Capreolus,471—Augustine, &c.:—is acknowledged by Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf: in short, isquite above suspicion: why are we not toldthat? Those 10 Versions,[pg 134]those 38 Fathers, that host of Copies in the proportion of 995 to 5,—why, concerning all these is there not so much as a hint let fall that such a mass of counter-evidence exists?472... Shame,—yes,shameon the learning which comes abroad only to perplex the weak, and to unsettle the[pg 135]doubting, and to mislead the blind! Shame,—yes,shameon that two-thirds majority of well-intentioned but most incompetent men, who,—finding themselves (in an evil hour) appointed to correct“plain and clear errors”in theEnglish“Authorized Version,”—occupied themselves instead withfalsifying the inspired Greek Textin countless places, and branding with suspicion some of the most precious utterances of theSpirit! Shame,—yes,shameupon them!

“Such is the time-honoured Version which we have been called upon to revise! We have had to study this great Version carefully and minutely, line by line; and the longer we have been engaged upon it the more we have learned to admireits simplicity,its dignity,its power,its happy turns of expression,its general accuracy, and we must not fail to add,the music of its cadences, and the felicities of its rhythm. To render a work that had reached this high standard of excellence, still more excellent; to increase its fidelity, without destroying its charm; was the task committed to us.”—Preface To the Revised Version.“To pass from the one to the other, is, as it were, to alight from a well-built and well-hung carriage which glides easily over a macadamized road,—and to get into onewhich has bad springs or none at all, and in which you arejolted in ruts with aching bones over the stones of a newly-mended and rarely traversed road, like some of the roads in our North Lincolnshire villages.”—Bishop Wordsworth.382“No Revision at the present day could hope to meet with an hour's acceptance if it failed to preserve the tone, rhythm, and diction of the present Authorized Version.”—Bishop Ellicott.383“I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this Book,—If any man shall add unto these things,Godshall add unto him the plagues that are written in this Book.“And if any man shall take away from the words of the Book of this prophecy, GOD shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy City, and from the things which are written in this Book.”—Revelationxxii. 18, 19.

“To pass from the one to the other, is, as it were, to alight from a well-built and well-hung carriage which glides easily over a macadamized road,—and to get into onewhich has bad springs or none at all, and in which you arejolted in ruts with aching bones over the stones of a newly-mended and rarely traversed road, like some of the roads in our North Lincolnshire villages.”—Bishop Wordsworth.382

“No Revision at the present day could hope to meet with an hour's acceptance if it failed to preserve the tone, rhythm, and diction of the present Authorized Version.”—Bishop Ellicott.383

“I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this Book,—If any man shall add unto these things,Godshall add unto him the plagues that are written in this Book.

“And if any man shall take away from the words of the Book of this prophecy, GOD shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy City, and from the things which are written in this Book.”—Revelationxxii. 18, 19.

Whatever may be urged in favour of Biblical Revision, it is at least undeniable that the undertaking involves a tremendous risk. Our Authorized Version is the one religious link which at present binds together ninety millions of English-speaking men scattered over the earth's surface. Is it reasonable that so unutterably precious, so sacred a bond should be endangered, for the sake of representing certain words more accurately,—here and there translating a tense with greater precision,—getting rid of a few archaisms? It may be confidently assumed that no“Revision”of our Authorized Version, however judiciously executed, will ever occupy the place in public esteem which is actually enjoyed by the work of the Translators of 1611,—the noblest literary work in the Anglo-Saxon language. We shall in fact never haveanother“Authorized Version.”And this single consideration may be thought absolutely fatal to the project, except in a greatly modified form. To be brief,—As a companion in the study and for private edification: as a book of reference for critical purposes, especially in respect[pg 114]of difficult and controverted passages:—we hold that a revised edition of the Authorized Version of our English Bible, (if executed with consummate ability and learning,) would at any time be a work of inestimable value. The method of such a performance, whether by marginal Notes or in some other way, we forbear to determine. But certainly only as a handmaid is it to be desired. As somethingintended to supersedeour present English Bible, we are thoroughly convinced that the project of a rival Translation is not to be entertained for a moment. For ourselves, we deprecate it entirely.

On the other hand,whocould have possibly foreseen what has actually come to pass since the Convocation of the Southern Province (in Feb. 1870) declared itself favourable to“a Revision of the Authorized Version,”and appointed a Committee of Divines to undertake the work?Whowas to suppose that the Instructions given to the Revisionists would be by them systematically disregarded?Whowas to imagine that an utterly untrustworthy“new Greek Text,”constructed on mistaken principles,—(say rather, onno principles at all,)—would be the fatal result? To speak more truly,—Whocould have anticipated that the opportunity would have been adroitly seized to inflict upon the Church the text of Drs. Westcott and Hort, in all its essential features,—a text which, as will be found elsewhere largely explained, we hold to bethe most vicious Recension of the original Greek in existence? Above all,—Whowas to foresee that instead of removing“plainandclear errors”from our Version, the Revisionists,—(besides systematically removing out of sight so many of the genuine utterances of theSpirit,)—would themselves introduce a countless number of blemishes, unknown to it before? Lastly, how was it to have been believed that the Revisionists would show themselves[pg 115]industrious in sowing broadcast over four continents doubts as to the Truth of Scripture, which it will never be in their power either to remove or to recal?Nescit vox missa reverti.

For, the ill-advised practice of recording, in the margin of an English Bible, certain of the blunders—(such things cannot by any stretch of courtesy be styled“Various Readings”)—which disfigure“some”or“many”“ancient authorities,”can only result in hopelessly unsettling the faith of millions. It cannot be defended on the plea of candour,—the candour which is determined that men shall“know the worst.”“The worst”hasnotbeen told: and it were dishonesty to insinuate thatit has. If all the cases were faithfully exhibited where“a few,”“some,”or“many ancient authorities”read differently from what is exhibited in the actual Text, not only would the margin prove insufficient to contain the record, butthe very page itselfwould not nearly suffice. Take a single instance (the first which comes to mind), of the thing referred to. Such illustrations might be multiplied to any extent:—

In S. Luke iii. 22, (in place of“Thou art my beloved Son;in Thee I am well pleased,”) the following authorities of the IInd, IIIrd and IVth centuries, read,—“this day have I begotten Thee:”viz.—codexdand the most ancient copies of the old Latin (a, b, c, ff-2, 1),—Justin Martyr in three places384(a.d.140),—Clemens Alex.385(a.d.190),—and Methodius386(a.d.290) among the Greeks. Lactantius387(a.d.300),—Hilary388(a.d.350),—Juvencus389(a.d.330),—Faustus390(a.d.400),[pg 116]and—Augustine391amongst the Latins. The reading in question was doubtless derived from theEbionite Gospel392(IInd cent.). Now, we desire to have it explained to uswhyan exhibition of the Text supported by such an amount of first-rate primitive testimony as the preceding, obtainsno notice whateverin our Revisionists' margin,—if indeed it was the object of their perpetually recurring marginal annotations, to put the unlearned reader on a level with the critical Scholar; to keep nothing back from him; and so forth?... It is the gross one-sidedness, the patentunfairness, in a critical point of view, of this work, (which professes to be nothing else buta Revision of the English Version of1611,)—which chiefly shocks and offends us.

For, on the other hand, of what possible use can it be to encumber the margin of S. Luke x. 41, 42 (for example), with the announcement that“A few ancient authorities readMartha, Martha, thou art troubled: Mary hath chosen&c.”(the fact being, thatdaloneof MSS. omits“careful and ... about many things. But one thing is needful, and”...)? With the record of this circumstance, is it reasonable (we ask) to choke up our English margin,—to create perplexity and to insinuate doubt? The author of the foregoing[pg 117]marginal Annotation was of course aware that the same“singular codex”(as Bp. Ellicott styles cod.d) omits, in S. Luke's Gospel alone, no less than 1552 words: and he will of course have ascertained (by counting) that the words in S. Luke's Gospel amount to 19,941. Why then did he not tellthe wholetruth; and instead of“&c.,”proceed as follows?—“But inasmuch as cod.dis so scandalously corrupt that aboutone word in thirteenis missing throughout, the absence of nine words in this place is of no manner of importance or significancy. The precious saying omitted is above suspicion, and the first half of the present Annotation might have been spared.”... We submit that a Note like that, although rather“singular”in style, reallywouldhave been to some extent helpful,—if not to the learned, at least to the unlearned reader.

In the meantime, unlearned and learned readers alike are competent to see that the foregoing perturbation of S. Luke x. 41, 42 rests onthe samemanuscript authority as the perturbation of ch. iii. 22, which immediately preceded it. ThePatristicattestation, on the other hand, of the reading which has been promoted to the margin, is almostnil: whereasthatof the neglected place has been shown to be considerable, very ancient, and of high respectability.

But in fact,—(let the Truth be plainly stated; for, whenGod'sWord is at stake, circumlocution is contemptible, while concealment would be a crime;)—“Faithfulness”towards the public, a stern resolve that the English reader“shall know the worst,”and all that kind of thing,—such considerations have had nothing whatever to do with the matter. A vastly different principle has prevailed with the Revisionists. Themselves the dupes of an utterly mistaken Theory of Textual Criticism, their supreme solicitude has[pg 118]beento impose that same Theory,—(which is Westcott and Hort's,)—with all its bitter consequences, on the unlearned and unsuspicious public.

We shall of course be indignantly called upon to explain what we mean by so injurious—so damning—an imputation? For all reply, we are content to refer to the sample of our meaning which will be found below, in pp.137-8. The exposure of what has there been shown to be the method of the Revisionists in respect of S. Mark vi. 11, might be repeated hundreds of times. It would in factfill a volume. We shall therefore pass on, when we have asked the Revisionists in turn—How they have daredso effectually to blot out those many precious words from the Book of Life, that no mere English reader, depending on the Revised Version for his knowledge of the Gospels, can by possibility suspect their existence?... Supposing even that itwasthe calamitous result of their mistaken principles that they found themselves constrained on countless occasions, to omit from their Text precious sayings of ourLordand His Apostles,—what possible excuse will they offer for not having preserved a record of words so amply attested,at least in their margin?

Even so, however, the whole amount of the mischief which has been effected by our Revisionists has not been stated. For the Greek Text which they have invented proves to be so hopelessly depraved throughout, that if it were to be thrust upon the Church's acceptance, we should be a thousand times worse off than we were with the Text which Erasmus and the Complutensian,—Stephens, and Beza, and the Elzevirs,—bequeathed to us upwards of three centuries ago. On this part of the subject we have remarked at length already [pp.1-110]: yet shall we be constrained to recur once and again to the underlying Greek Text of the Revisionists,[pg 119]inasmuch as it is impossible to stir in any direction with the task before us, without being painfully reminded of its existence. Not only do the familiar Parables, Miracles, Discourses of ourLord, trip us up at every step, but we cannot open the first page of the Gospel—no, nor indeed readthe first line—without being brought to a standstill. Thus,

1. S. Matthew begins,—“The book of the generation ofJesus Christ”(ver. 1).—Good. But here the margin volunteers two pieces of information: first,—“Or,birth: as in ver. 18.”We refer to ver. 18, and read—“Now the birth ofJesus Christwas on this wise.”Good again; but the margin says,—“Or,generation: as in ver. 1.”Are we then to understand thatthe same Greek word, diversely rendered in English, occurs in both places? We refer to the“newGreek Text:”and there it stands,—γένεσις in either verse. But if the word be the same, why (on the Revisers' theory) is it diversely rendered?

In the meantime,whoknows not that there is all the difference in the world between S. Matthew's γέΝΕσις, in ver. 1,—and the same S. Matthew's γέΝΝΗσις, in ver. 18? The latter, the Evangelist's announcement of the circumstances of the human Nativity ofChrist: the former, the Evangelist's unobtrusive way of recalling the Septuagintal rendering of Gen. ii. 4 and v. 1:393the same Evangelist's calm method of guiding the devout and thoughtful student to discern in the Gospel the History of the“new Creation,”—by thus providing that when first the Gospel opens its lips, it shall syllable the name of the first book of the elder Covenant? We are pointing out that it more than startles—it supremely offends—one who is even slenderly acquainted[pg 120]with the treasures of wisdom hid in the very diction of the N. T. Scriptures, to discover that a deliberate effort has been made to get rid of the very foremost of those notes of Divine intelligence, by confounding two words which all down the ages have been carefully kept distinct; and that this effort is the result of an exaggerated estimate of a few codices which happen to be written in the uncial character, viz. two of the IVth century (bא); one of the Vth (c); two of the VIth (p z); one of the IXth (Δ); one of the Xth (s).

The Versions394—(which are ouroldestwitnesses)—are perforce only partially helpful here. Note however, thatthe only one which favoursγένεσις is the heretical Harkleian Syriac, executed in the VIIth century. The Peschito and Cureton's Syriac distinguish between γένεσις in ver. 1 and γέννησις in ver. 18: as do the Slavonic and the Arabian Versions. The Egyptian, Armenian, Æthiopic and Georgian, have only one word for both. Let no one suppose however thatthereforetheir testimony is ambiguous. It is γέννησις (notγένεσις) which they exhibit, both in ver. 1 and in ver. 18.395The Latin (“generatio”) is an equivocal rendering certainly: but the earliest Latin writer who quotes the two places, (viz. Tertullian) employs the word“genitura”in S. Matth. i. 1,—but“nativitas”in ver. 18,—which no one seems to have noticed.396Now, Tertullian, (as one who sometimes[pg 121]wrote in Greek,) is known to have been conversant with the Greek copies of his day; and“his day,”be it remembered, isa.d.190. He evidently recognized the parallelism between S. Matt. i. 1 and Gen. ii. 4,—where the old Latin exhibits“libercreaturæ”or“facturæ,”as the rendering of βίβλος γενέσεως. And so much for the testimony of the Versions.

But on reference to Manuscript and to Patristic authority397we are encountered by an overwhelming amount of testimony for γέννησις in ver. 18: and this, considering the nature of the case, is an extraordinary circumstance. Quite plain is it that the Ancients were wide awake to the difference between spelling the word with one N or with two,—as the little dissertation of the heretic Nestorius398in itself would be enough to prove. Γέννησις, in the meantime, is the word employed by Justin M.,399—by Clemens Alex.,400—by Athanasius,401—by Gregory of Nazianzus,402—by Cyril Alex.,403—by Nestorius,404—by Chrysostom,405—by Theodorus[pg 122]Mopsuest.,406—and by three other ancients.407Even more deserving of attention is it that Irenæus408(a.d.170)—(whom Germanus409copies at the end of 550 years)—calls attention to the difference between the spelling of ver. 1 and ver. 18. So does Didymus:410—so does Basil:411—so does Epiphanius.412—Origen413(a.d.210) is even eloquent on the subject.—Tertullian (a.d.190) we have heard already.—It is a significant circumstance, that the only Patristic authorities discoverable on the other side are Eusebius, Theodoret, and the authors of an heretical Creed414—whom Athanasius holds up to scorn.415... Will the Revisionists still pretend to tell us that γέννησις in verse 18 is a“plain and clear error”?

2. This, however, is not all. Against the words“ofJesus Christ,”a further critical annotation is volunteered; to the effect that“Some ancient authorities readof the Christ.”In reply to which, we assert thatnot one single known MS.omits the word“Jesus:”whilst its presence is vouched for by ps.-Tatian,416—Irenæus,—Origen,—Eusebius,—Didymus,— Epiphanius,—Chrysostom,—Cyril,—in addition toevery known Greek copy of the Gospels, and not a few of the Versions, including the Peschito and both the Egyptian. What else but nugatory therefore is such a piece of information as this?

3. And so much for the first, second, and third Critical annotations, with which the margin of the revised N. T. is[pg 123]disfigured. Hoping that the worst is now over, we read on till we reach ver. 25, where we encounter a statement which fairly trips us up: viz.,—“And knew her nottill she had brought forth a son.”No intimation is afforded of what has been here effected; but in the meantime every one's memory supplies the epithet (“her first-born”) which has been ejected. Whether something very like indignation is not excited by the discovery that these important words have been surreptitiously withdrawn from their place, let others say. For ourselves, when we find that only אb zand two cursive copies can be produced for the omission, we are at a loss to understand of what the Revisionists can have been dreaming. Did they know417that,—besides the Vulgate, the Peschito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Æthiopic, Armenian, Georgian, and Slavonian Versions,418—a whole torrent of Fathers are at hand to vouch for the genuineness of the epithet they were so unceremoniously excising? They are invited to refer to ps.-Tatian,419—to Athanasius,420—to Didymus,421—to Cyril of Jer.,422—to Basil,423—to Greg. Nyss.,424—to Ephraem Syr.,425—to Epiphanius,426—to Chrysostom,427—to Proclus,428—to Isidorus Pelus.,429—to John Damasc.,430—to Photius,431—to Nicetas:432—besides, of the Latins, Ambrose,433—theOpus imp.,—Augustine,—and not least to Jerome434—eighteen Fathers in all. And how is it possible, (we ask,)[pg 124]that two copies of the IVth century (bא) and one of the VIth (z)—all three without a character—backed by a few copies of the old Latin, should be supposed to be any counterpoise at all for such an array of first-rate contemporary evidence as the foregoing?

Enough has been offered by this time to prove that an authoritative Revision of the Greek Text will have to precede any future Revision of the English of the New Testament. Equally certain is it that for such an undertaking the time has not yet come.“It is my honest conviction,”—(remarks Bp. Ellicott, the Chairman of the Revisionists,)—“that for any authoritative Revision, we are not yet mature: either in Biblical learning or Hellenistic scholarship.”435The same opinion precisely is found to have been cherished by Dr. Westcott tillwithin about a year-and-a-half436of the first assembling of the New Testament Company in the Jerusalem Chamber, 22nd June, 1870. True, that we enjoy access to—suppose from 1000 to 2000—moremanuscriptsthan were available when the Textus Recept. was formed. But nineteen-twentieths of those documents, for any use which has been made of them, might just as well be still lying in the monastic libraries from which they were obtained.—True, that four out of our five oldest uncials have come to light since the year 1628; but,who knows how to use them?—True, that we have made acquaintance with certain ancientVersions, about which little or nothing was known 200 years ago: but,—(with the solitary exception of the Rev. Solomon Cæsar Malan, the learned Vicar of Broadwindsor,—who, by the way, is always ready to lend a torch to his benighted brethren,)—what living Englishman is able to tell[pg 125]us what they all contain? A smattering acquaintance with the languages of ancient Egypt,—the Gothic, Æthiopic, Armenian, Georgian and Slavonian Versions,—is of no manner of avail. In no department, probably, is“a little learning”more sure to prove“a dangerous thing.”—True, lastly, that theFathershave been better edited within the last 250 years: during which period some fresh Patristic writings have also come to light. But, with the exception of Theodoret among the Greeks and Tertullian among the Latins,which of the Fathers has been satisfactorily indexed?

Even what precedes is not nearly all.The fundamental Principlesof the Science of Textual Criticism are not yet apprehended. In proof of this assertion, we appeal to the new Greek Text of Drs. Westcott and Hort,—which, beyond all controversy, is more hopelessly remote from the inspired Original than any which has yet appeared. Let a generation of Students give themselves entirely up to this neglected branch of sacred Science. Let 500 moreCopiesof the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, be diligently collated. Let at least 100 of the ancientLectionariesbe very exactly collated also. Let the most important of the ancientVersionsbe edited afresh, and let the languages in which these are written be for the first time reallymasteredby Englishmen.Above all, let theFathershe called upon to give up their precious secrets.Let their writings be ransacked and indexed, and (where needful) let the MSS. of their works be diligently inspected, in order that we may know what actually is the evidence which they afford. Only so will it ever be possible to obtain a Greek Text on which absolute reliance may be placed, and which may serve as the basis for a satisfactory Revision of our Authorized Version. Nay, let whatever unpublished works of the ancient Greek Fathers are anywhere known to exist,—(and not a few precious remains[pg 126]of theirs are lying hid in great national libraries, both at home and abroad,)—let these be printed. The men could easily be found: the money, far more easily.—When all this has been done,—not before—then inGod'sName, letthe Churchaddress herself to the great undertaking. Do but revive the arrangements which were adopted in King James's days: and we venture to predict that less than a third part of ten years will be found abundantly to suffice for the work. How the coming men will smile at the picture Dr. Newth437has drawn of what was the method of procedure in the reign of Queen Victoria! Will they not peruse with downright merriment Bp. Ellicott's jaunty proposal“simply to proceed onward with the work”—[to wit, of constructing a new Greek Text,]—“in fact,solvere ambulando,”[necnon in laqueum cadendo]?438

I. We cannot, it is presumed, act more fairly by the Revisers' work,439than by following them over some of the ground which they claim to have made their own, and which, at the conclusion of their labours, their Right[pg 127]Reverend Chairman evidently surveys with self-complacency. First, he invites attention to the Principle and Rule for their guidance agreed to by the Committee of Convocation (25th May, 1870), viz.“To introduce as few alterations as possible into the Text of the Authorized Version, consistently with faithfulness.”Words could not be more emphatic.“Plain and clear errors”were to be corrected.“Necessaryemendations”were to be made. But (in the words of the Southern Convocation)“We do not contemplate any new Translation,or any alteration of the language,except where, in the judgment of the most competent Scholars,such change is necessary.”The watchword, therefore, given to the company of Revisionists was,—“Necessity.”Necessitywas to determine whether they were to depart from the language of the Authorized Version, or not; for the alterations were to beas few as possible.

(a) Now it is idle to deny that this fundamental Principle has been utterly set at defiance. To such an extent is this the case, that even an unlettered Reader is competent to judge them. When we find“to”substituted for“unto”(passim):—“hereby”for“by this”(1 Jo. v. 2):—“all thatare,”for“all that be”(Rom. i. 7):—“alway”for“always”(2 Thess. i. 3):—“wethat,”“themthat,”for“wewhich,”“themwhich”(1 Thess. iv. 15); and yet“every spiritwhich,”for“every spirit that”(1 Jo. iv. 3), and“hewhois not ofGod,”for“he that is not ofGod”(ver. 6,—although“hethatknowethGod”had preceded, in the same verse):—“myhost”for“mine host”(Rom. xvi. 23); and“underneath”for“under”(Rev. vi. 9):—it becomes clear that the Revisers' notion ofnecessityis not that of the rest of mankind. But let the plain Truth be stated. Certain of them, when remonstrated with by their fellows for the manifest disregard they were showing to the Instructions subject to which they had undertaken the work[pg 128]of Revision, are reported to have even gloried in their shame. The majority, it is clear, have even ostentatiously set those Instructions at defiance.

Was the course they pursued,—(we ask the question respectfully,)—strictlyhonest? To decline the work entirely under the prescribed Conditions, was always in their power. But, first to accept the Conditions, and straightway to act in defiance of them,—thisstrikes us as a method of proceeding which it is difficult to reconcile with the high character of the occupants of the Jerusalem Chamber. To proceed however.

“Nevertheless”and“notwithstanding”have had a sad time of it. One or other of them has been turned out in favour of“howbeit”(S. Lu. x. 11, 20),—of“only”(Phil. iii. 16),—of“only that”(i. 18),—of“yet”(S. Matth. xi. 11),—of“but”(xvii. 27),—of“and yet”(James ii. 16).... We find“take heed”substituted for“beware”(Col. ii. 8):—“custom”for“manner”(S. Jo. xix. 40):—“he wasamazed,”for“he was astonished:”(S. Lu. v. 9):—“Is it I,Lord?”for“Lord, is it I?”(S. Matth. xxvi. 22):—“straightwaythe cock crew,”for“immediately the cock crew”(S. Jo. xviii. 27):—“Thentherefore he delivered Him,”for“Then delivered he Him therefore”(xix. 16):—“broughtit to His mouth,”for“put it to His mouth”(ver. 29):—“He manifested Himself on this wise,”for“on this wise shewed He Himself”(xxi. 1):—“So when they got out upon the land,”for“As soon then as they were come to land”(ver. 9):—“the thingsconcerning,”for“the things pertaining to the kingdom ofGod”(Acts i. 3):—“asGod'ssteward,”for“as the steward of God”(Tit. i. 7): but“thebelly of the whale”for“the whale's belly”(S. Matth. xii. 40), and“device of man”for“man's device”in Acts xvii. 29.—These, and hundreds of similar alterations have been evidently made out of the[pg 129]merest wantonness. After substituting“therefore”for“then”(as the rendering of οὖν) a score of times,—the Revisionists quite needlessly substitute“then”for“therefore”in S. Jo. xix. 42.—And why has the singularly beautiful greeting of“the elder unto the well-beloved Gaius,”been exchanged for“untoGaius the beloved”? (3 John, ver. 1).

(b) We turn a few pages, and find“he thatdoethsin,”substituted for“he that committeth sin;”and“To this end”put in the place of“For this purpose”(1 Jo. iii. 8):—“have beheld”and“bear witness,”for“have seen and do testify”(iv. 14):—“hereby”for“by this”(v. 2):—“Judas”for“Jude”(Jude ver. 1), although“Mark”was substituted for“Marcus”(in 1 Pet. v. 13), and“Timothy”for“Timotheus”(in Phil. i. 1):—“how that theysaid toyou,”for“how that they told you”(Jude ver. 18).—But why go on? The substitution of“exceedingly”for“greatly”in Acts vi. 7:—“the birds”for“the fowls,”in Rev. xix. 21:—“Almighty”for“Omnipotent”in ver. 6:—“throw down”for“cast down,”in S. Luke iv. 29:—“inner chamber”for“closet,”in vi. 6:—these arenot“necessary”changes.... We will give but three instances more:—In 1 S. Pet. v. 9,“whomresist, stedfast in the faith,”has been altered into“whomwithstand.”But how is“withstand”a better rendering for ἀντίστητε, than“resist”?“Resist,”at all events,was the Revisionists' word in S. Matth.v. 39and S. Jamesiv. 7.—Why also substitute“therace”(for“the kindred”)“of Joseph”in Acts vii. 13, although γένος was rendered“kindred”in iv. 6?—Do the Revisionists think that“fastening theireyes on him”is a better rendering of ἀτενίσαντες εἰς αὐτόν (Acts vi. 15) than“looking stedfastlyon him”? They certainly did not think so when they got to xxiii. 1. There, because they found“earnestly beholdingthe council,”they must needs alter the phrase into“looking stedfastly.”It is clear therefore thatCaprice, notNecessity,—an[pg 130]itching impatienceto introduce changes into the A. V., not the discovery of“plain and clear errors”—has determined the great bulk of the alterations which molest us in every part of the present unlearned and tasteless performance.

II. The next point to which the Revisionists direct our attention is theirnew Greek text,—“the necessary foundation of”their work. And here we must renew our protest against the wrong which has been done to English readers by the Revisionists' disregard of the IVth Rule laid down for their guidance, viz. that, whenever they adopted a new Textual reading, such alteration was to be“indicated in the margin.”This“proved inconvenient,”say the Revisionists. Yes, we reply: but only because you saw fit, in preference, to choke up your margin with a record of the preposterous readings you didnotadmit. Even so, however, the thing might to some extent have been done, if only by a system of signs in the margin wherever a change in the Text had been by yourselves effected. And, at whatever“inconvenience,”you were bound to do this,—partly because the Rule before you was express: but chiefly in fairness to the English Reader. How comes it to pass that you haveneverfurnished him with the information you stood pledged to furnish; but have instead, volunteered in every page information, worthless in itself, which can only serve to unsettle the faith of unlettered millions, and to suggest unreasonable as well as miserable doubts to the minds of all?

For no one may for an instant imagine that the marginal statements of which we speak are a kind of equivalent for theApparatus Criticuswhich is found in every principal edition of the Greek Testament—excepting always that of Drs. Westcott and Hort. So far are we from deprecating (with Daniel Whitby) the multiplication of“Various Readings,”[pg 131]that we rejoice in them exceedingly; knowing that they are the very foundation of our confidence and the secret of our strength. For this reason we consider Dr. Tischendorf's last (8th) edition to be furnished with not nearly enough of them, though he left all his predecessors (and himself in his 7th edition) far behind. Our quarrel with the Revisionists isnotby any means that they have commemoratedactual“alternative Readings”in their margin: but that, while they have given prominence throughout topatent Errors, theyhave unfairly excluded all mention of,—have not made the slightest allusion to,—hundreds of Readings which ought in fact rather to have stood in the Text.

The marginal readings, which our Revisers have been so ill-advised as to put prominently forward, and to introduce to the Reader's notice with the vague statement that they are sanctioned by“Some”(or by“Many”)“ancient authorities,”—are specimensarbitrarily selectedout of an immense mass; are magisterially recommended to public attention and favour;seemto be invested with the sanction and authority of Convocation itself. And this becomes a very serious matter indeed. No hint is givenwhichbe the“ancient Authorities”so referred to:—nor what proportion they bear to the“ancient Authorities”producible on the opposite side:—nor whether they are themost“ancient Authorities”obtainable:—nor what amount of attention their testimony may reasonably claim. But in the meantime a fatal assertion is hazarded in the Preface (iii. 1.), to the effect thatin cases where“it would not be safe to accept one Reading to the absolute exclusion of others,”“alternative Readings”have been given“in the margin.”So that the“Agony and bloody sweat”of the World'sRedeemer(Lu. xxii. 43, 44),—and His Prayer for His murderers (xxiii. 34),—and much beside of transcendent importance and inestimable value, may,according to our Revisionists, prove to rest upon no foundation whatever.[pg 132]At all events,“it would not be safe,”(i.e.it is not safe) to place absolute reliance on them. Alas, how many a deadly blow at Revealed Truth hath been in this way aimed with fatal adroitness, which no amount of orthodox learning will ever be able hereafter to heal, much less to undo! Thus,—

(a) From the first verse of S. Mark's Gospel we are informed that“Some ancient authorities omitthe Son ofGod.”Why are wenotinformed that every known uncial Copyexcept one of bad character,—every cursivebut two,—every Version,—and the following Fathers,—allcontainthe precious clause: viz. Irenæus,—Porphyry,—Severianus of Gabala,—Cyril Alex.,—Victor Ant.,—and others,—besides Ambrose and Augustine among the Latins:—while the supposed adverse testimony of Serapion and Titus, Basil and Victorinus, Cyril of Jer. and Epiphanius, proves to be all a mistake? To speak plainly, since the clause is above suspicion,Why are we not rather told so?

(b) In the 3rd verse of the first chapter of S. John's Gospel, we are left to take our choice between,—“without Him was not anything made that hath been made. In him was life; and the life,”&c.,—and the following absurd alternative,—“Without him was not anything made.That which hath been made was life in him; and the life,”&c. But we arenotinformed that this latter monstrous figment is known to have been the importation of the Gnostic heretics in the IInd century, and to be as destitute of authority as it is of sense.Why is prominence given only to the lie?

(c) At S. John iii. 13, we are informed that the last clause of that famous verse (“No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man—which is in heaven”), is not found in“many ancient authorities.”[pg 133]But why, in the name of common fairness, are we notalsoreminded that this, (as will be found more fully explained in the note overleaf,) isa circumstance of no Textual significancy whatever?

Why, above all, are we not assured that the precious clause in question (ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ)isfound in every MS. in the world, except five of bad character?—is recognized byallthe Latin andallthe Syriac versions; as well as by the Coptic,—Æthiopic,—Georgian,—and Armenian?440—is either quoted or insisted upon by Origen,441—Hippolytus,442—Athanasius,443—Didymus,444—Aphraates the Persian,445—Basil the Great,446—Epiphanius,447—Nonnus,—ps.-Dionysius Alex.,448—Eustathius;449—by Chrysostom,450—Theodoret,451—and Cyril,452each 4 times;—by Paulus, Bishop of Emesa453(in a sermon on Christmas Day,a.d.431);—by Theodoras Mops.,454—Amphilochius,455—Severus,456—Theodorus Heracl.,457—Basilius Cil.,458—Cosmas,459—John Damascene, in 3 places,460—and 4 other ancient Greek writers;461—besides Ambrose,462—Novatian,463—Hilary,464—Lucifer,465—Victorinus,—Jerome,466—Cassian,—Vigilius,467—Zeno,468—Marius,469—Maximus Taur.,470—Capreolus,471—Augustine, &c.:—is acknowledged by Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf: in short, isquite above suspicion: why are we not toldthat? Those 10 Versions,[pg 134]those 38 Fathers, that host of Copies in the proportion of 995 to 5,—why, concerning all these is there not so much as a hint let fall that such a mass of counter-evidence exists?472... Shame,—yes,shameon the learning which comes abroad only to perplex the weak, and to unsettle the[pg 135]doubting, and to mislead the blind! Shame,—yes,shameon that two-thirds majority of well-intentioned but most incompetent men, who,—finding themselves (in an evil hour) appointed to correct“plain and clear errors”in theEnglish“Authorized Version,”—occupied themselves instead withfalsifying the inspired Greek Textin countless places, and branding with suspicion some of the most precious utterances of theSpirit! Shame,—yes,shameupon them!

Back to Index Next