Chapter 15

“Does this imply that the marginists object to the word‘Ghost’? If so, it must be asked, On what grounds? Certainly not as an archaism. The word is in every Churchman's mouth continually. For the sake of consistency? But Dr. Vance Smith complains bitterly of theinconsistencyof his colleagues in reference to this very question,—see hisTexts and Margins, pp. 7, 8, 45. I would not suggest a doctrinal bias: but to prove that it had no influence, a strong, if not unanimous, declaration on the part of the Revisers is called for. Dr. Vance Smith alleges this notice as one of the clearest proofs[pg 205]that the Revisers ought in consistency to discard the word as‘a poor and almost obsoleteequivalent for Spirit.’”594But in fact when one of the Revisionists openly claims, on behalf of the Revision, that“in the most substantial sense,”(whateverthatmay happen to mean,) it is“contrary to fact”“that the doctrines of popular Theology remain unaffected, untouched by the results of the Revision,”595—Charity itself is constrained to use language which by a certain school will be deemed uncharitable. If doctrinal prepossession had no share in the production under review,—why is no protest publicly put forth against such language as the foregoing, when employed by a conspicuous Member of the Revisionist body?(j) In a similar spirit to that which dictated our remarks on the attempted elimination of“Miracles”from the N. T. of the future,—we altogether disapprove of the attempt to introduce“isEpileptic,”as the rendering of σεληνιάζεται, in S. Matth. xvii. 15. The miracle performed on“the lunatic child”may never more come abroad under a different name. In a matter like this, 500 years of occupation, (or rather 1700, for“lunaticus”is the reading of all the Latin copies,) constitute a title which may not be disputed.“Epileptic”is a sorrygloss—not a translation. Even were it demonstrable that Epilepsy exclusively exhibits every feature related in connection with the present case;596and that sufferers from Epilepsy are specially affected by the moon's changes, (neither of which things arecertainlytrue): even so, the Revisionists would be wholly unwarranted in doing violence to the Evangelist's language, in order to bring into prominence[pg 206]their own private opinion that what is called“Lunacy”here (and in ch. iv. 24) is to be identified with the ordinary malady called“Epilepsy.”This was confessedly an extraordinary case ofdemoniacal possession597besides. The Revisionists have in fact gone out of their way in order to introduce us to a set of difficulties with which before we had no acquaintance. And after all, the English reader desires to know—not, by any means, what two-thirds of the Revisionistsconjecturewas the matter with the child, but—what the child's Father actually saidwas the matter with him. Now, the Father undeniably didnotsay that the child was“Epileptic,”but that he was“Lunatic.”The man employed a term which (singular to relate) has its own precise English equivalent;—a term which embodies to this hour (as it did anciently) the popular belief that the moon influences certain forms of disease. With the advance of Science, civilized nations surrender such Beliefs; but they do notthereforerevolutionize their Terminology.“The advance of Science,”however, has nothing whatever to do withthe Translation of the wordbefore us. The Author of this particular rendering (begging his pardon) is open to a process“de lunatico inquirendo”for having imagined the contrary.(k) The foregoing instances suggest the remark, that the Ecclesiastical Historian of future years will point with concern[pg 207]to the sad evidences that the Church had fallen on evil days when the present Revision was undertaken. With fatal fidelity does it, every here and there, reflect the sickly hues of“modern Thought,”which is too often but another name for the latest phase of Unfaithfulness. Thus, in view of the present controversy about the Eternity of Future Punishment, which has brought into prominence a supposed distinction between the import of the epithets“eternal”and“everlasting,”—how painful is it to discover that the latter epithet, (which is the one objected to by the unbelieving school,) has been by our Revisionists diligently excluded598every time it occursas the translation of αἰώνιος, in favour of the more palatable epithel“eternal”! King James's Translators showed themselves impartial to a fault. As if to mark that, in their account, the words are of identical import, they even introducedboth words into the same verse599of Scripture. Is it fair that such a body of men as the Revisionists of 1881, claiming the sanction of the Convocation of the Southern Province, should, in a matter like the present, throw all their weight into the scale of Misbelief? They were authorized only to remove“plain and clearerrors.”They were instructed to introduce“as few changesas possible.”Why have they needlessly gone out of their way, on the contrary, indirectly to show their sympathy with those who deny what has been the Church's teaching for 1800 years? Our Creeds, Te Deum, Litany, Offices, Articles,—our whole Prayer Book, breathes a different spirit and speaks a different language.... Have our Revisionists persuaded the Old Testament company to follow their example? It will be calamitous if theyhave. There will be serious[pg 208]discrepancy of teaching between the Old and the New Testament if they havenot.(l) What means also the fidgetty anxiety manifested throughout these pages to explain away, or at least to evacuate, expressions which have to do withEternity?Why, for example, is“theworld(αἰών) to come,”invariably glossed“theageto come”? and εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας so persistently explained in the margin to mean,“unto the ages”? (See the margin of Rom. ix. 5. Are we to read“Godblessedunto the ages”?) Also εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων,“unto the ages of the ages”? Surely we, whose language furnishes expressions of precisely similar character (viz.“for ever,”and“for ever and ever”), might dispense with information hazy and unprofitable as this!(m) Again. At a period of prevailing unbelief in theInspirationof Scripture, nothing but real necessity could warrant any meddling with such a testimony on the subject as is found in 2 Tim. iii. 16. We have hitherto been taught to believe that“All Scripture is given by inspiration ofGodand is profitable,”&c. The ancients600clearly so understood S. Paul's words: and so do the most learned and thoughtful of the moderns. Πᾶσα γραφή, even if it be interpreted“every Scripture,”can only mean every portion of those ἱερὰ γράμματα of which the Apostle had been speaking in the previous verse; and therefore must needs signifythe whole of Scripture.601So that the expression“all Scripture”[pg 209]expresses S. Paul's meaning exactly, and should not have been disturbed.But—“It is very difficult”(so at least thinks the Right Rev. Chairman of the Revisers)“to decide whether θεόπνευστος is a part of the predicate, καί being the simple copula; or whether it is a part of the subject. Lexicography and grammar contribute but little to a decision.”Not so thought Bishop Middleton.“I do not recollect”(he says)“any passage in the N. T. in which two Adjectives, apparently connected by the copulative, were intended by the writer to be so unnaturally disjoined. He who can produce such an instance, will do much towards establishing the plausibility of a translation, which otherwise must appear, to say the least of it, to be forced and improbable.”—And yet it is proposed to thrust this“forced and improbable”translation on the acceptance of all English-speaking people, wherever found, on the plea ofnecessity! Our Revisionists translate,“Every Scripture inspired ofGodis also profitable,”&c.,—which of course may be plausibly declared to imply that a distinction is drawn by the Apostle himself between inspired and uninspired Scripture. And pray, (we should be presently asked,) is not many a Scripture (or writing)“profitable for teaching,”&c. which isnotcommonly held to be“inspired ofGod”?... But in fact the proposed rendering is inadmissible, being without logical coherence and consistency. The utmost that could be pretended would be that S. Paul's assertion is that“every portion of Scripturebeing inspired”(i.e.inasmuch as it is—because it is—inspired);“isalsoprofitable,”&c. Else there would be no meaning in the καί. But, in the name of common sense, if this be so,whyhave the blessed words been meddled with?(n) All are unhappily familiar with the avidity with which the disciples of a certain School fasten upon a mysterious[pg 210]expression in S. Mark's Gospel (xiii. 32), which seems to predicate concerning the EternalSon, limitation in respect of Knowledge. This is not the place for vindicating the Catholic Doctrine of theSon's“equality with theFatheras touching HisGodhead;”or for explaining that, in consequence, all things that theFatherhath, (the knowledge of“that Day and Hour”included,) theSonhath likewise.602But this is the place for calling attention to the deplorable circumstance that the clause“neither theSon,”which has an indisputable right to its place in S. Mark's Gospel, has on insufficient authority by our Revisionists been thrust into S. Matth. xxvi. 36, where it has no business whatever, and from which the word“only”effectually excludes it.603We call attention to this circumstance with sincere sorrow: but it is sorrow largely mixed with indignation. What else but the betrayal of a sacred trust is it when Divines appointed to correct manifest errors inthe Englishof the N. T. go out of their way to introduce an error like this into theGreekText which Catholic Antiquity would have repudiated with indignation, and for which certainly the plea of“necessity”cannot be pretended?(o) Amarginal annotationset over against Romans ix. 5 is the last thing of this kind to which we shall invite attention. S. Paul declares it to be Israel's highest boast and glory that of them,“as concerning the flesh [came]Christ,[pg 211]who is over all[things],Godblessed for ever! Amen.”A grander or more unequivocal testimony to ourLord'seternalGodhead is nowhere to be found in Scripture. Accordingly, these words have been as confidently appealed to by faithful Doctors of the Church in every age, as they have been unsparingly assailed by unbelievers. The dishonest shifts by which the latter seek to evacuate the record which they are powerless to refute or deny, are paraded by our ill-starred Revisionists in the following terms:—“Some modern Interpreters place a full stop afterflesh, and translate,He who is God over all be (is) blessed for ever: or,He who is over all is God, blessed for ever. Others punctuate,flesh, who is over all. God be (is) blessed for ever.”Now this is a matter,—let it be clearly observed,—which, (as Dr. Hort is aware,)“belongs toInterpretation,—andnot to Textual Criticism.”604What business then has it in these pages at all? Is it then the function of Divines appointed to revise theAuthorized Version, to give information to the 90 millions of English-speaking Christians scattered throughout the world as to the unfaithfulness of“some modern Interpreters”?605We have hitherto supposed that it was“Ancientauthorities”exclusively,—(whether“a few,”or“some,”or“many,”)—to which we are invited to submit our judgment. How does it come to pass thatthe Socinian glosson this grand text (Rom. ix. 5) has been brought into such extraordinary prominence? Did our Revisionists consider that their marginal note would travel to earth's remotest verge,—give universal currency to the view of“some modern Interpreters,”—and in the end“tell it out among the heathen”also? We refer to Manuscripts,—Versions,—Fathers: and what do we find? (1) It is demonstrable thatthe oldest[pg 212]Codices, besides the whole body of the cursives, know nothing about the method of“some modern Interpreters.”606—(2)“There is absolutely not a shadow,not a tittle of evidence, in any of the ancient Versions, to warrant what they do.”607—(3) How then, about the old Fathers? for the sentiments of our best modern Divines, as Pearson and Bull, we know by heart. We find that the expression“who is over all[things],Godblessed for ever”is expressly acknowledged to refer to ourSaviourby the following 60 illustrious names:—Irenæus,608—Hippolytus in 3 places,609—Origen,610—Malchion, in the name of six of the Bishops at the Council of Antioch,a.d.269,611—ps.-Dionysius Alex., twice,612—theConstt. App.,613—Athanasius in 6 places,614—Basil in 2 places,615—Didymus in 5 places,616—Greg. Nyssen. in 5 places,617—Epiphanius in 5 places,618—Theodoras Mops.,619—Methodius,620—Eustathius,621—Eulogius, twice,622—Cæsarius, 3 times,623—Theophilus Alex., twice,624—Nestorius,625—Theodotus of Ancyra,626—Proclus, twice,627—Severianus Bp. of Gabala,628—Chrysostom, 8 times,629—Cyril[pg 213]Alex., 15 times,630—Paulus Bp. of Emesa,631—Theodoret, 12 times,632—Gennadius, Abp. of C. P.,633—Severus, Abp. of Antioch,634—Amphilochius,635—Gelasius Cyz.,636—Anastasius Ant.,637—Leontius Byz., 3 times,638—Maximus,639—J. Damascene, 3 times.640Besides of the Latins, Tertullian, twice,641—Cyprian,642—Novatian, twice,643—Ambrose, 5 times,644—Palladius the Arian at the Council of Aquileia,645—Hilary, 7 times,646—Jerome, twice,647—Augustine, about 30 times,—Victorinus,648—theBreviarium, twice,649—Marius Mercator,650—Cassian, twice,651—Alcimus Avit.,652—Fulgentius, twice,653—Leo, Bp. of Rome, twice,654—Ferrandus, twice,655—Facundus:656—to whom must be added 6 ancient writers, of whom 3657have been mistaken for Athanasius,—and 3658for Chrysostom. All these see in Rom. ix. 5, a glorious assertion of the eternalGodhead ofChrist.Against such an overwhelming torrent of Patristic testimony,—for we have enumeratedupwards of sixtyancient Fathers—it will not surely be pretended that the Socinian interpretation, to which our Revisionists give such prominence,[pg 214]can stand. But why has it been introducedat all? We shall have every Christian reader with us in our contention, that such perverse imaginations of“modern Interpreters”are not entitled to a place in the margin of the N. T. For our Revisionists to have even given them currency, and thereby a species of sanction, constitutes in our view a very grave offence.659A public retraction and a very humble Apology we claim at their hands. Indifferent Scholarship, and mistaken views of Textual Criticism, are at least venial matters. Buta Socinian gloss gratuitously thrust into the margin of every Englishman's N. T.admits of no excuse—is not to be tolerated onanyterms. It would by itself, in our account, have been sufficient to determine the fate of the present Revision.XII. Are we to regard it as a kind ofset-offagainst all that goes before, that in an age when the personality of Satan is freely called in question,“the evil one”has been actuallythrust into the Lord's Prayer? A more injudicious and unwarrantable innovation it would be impossible to indicate in any part of the present unhappy volume. The case has been argued out with much learning and ability by two eminent Divines, Bp. Lightfoot and Canon Cook. The Canon remains master of the field. Thatthe change ought never to have been madeis demonstrable. The grounds of this assertion are soon stated. To begin, (1) It is admitted on all hands that it must for ever remain a matter of opinion only whether in the expression ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ, the nominative case is τὸ πονηρόν (as in S. Matth. v. 37, 39: Rom. xii. 9), or ὁ πονηρός (as in S. Matth. xiii. 19, 38: Eph. vi.[pg 215]16),—either of which yields a good sense. But then—(2) The Church of England in her formularies having emphatically declared that, for her part, she adheres to the former alternative, it was in a very high degree unbecoming for the Revisionists to pretend to the enjoyment ofcertainknowledge that the Church of England in so doing was mistaken: and unless“from evil”be“a clear and plain error,”the Revisionists were bound to let it alone. Next—(3), It can never be right to impose the narrower interpretation on words which have always been understood to bear the larger sense: especially when (as in the present instance) the larger meaning distinctly includes and covers the lesser: witness the paraphrase in our Church Catechism,—“and that He will keep us (a) from all sin and wickedness, and (b)from our ghostly enemy, and (c) from everlasting death.”—(4) But indeed Catholic Tradition claims to be heard in this behalf. Every Christian at his Baptism renounces not only“the Devil,”but also“all his works, the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all covetous desires of the same, and the carnal desires of the flesh.”660And at this point—(5), The voice of an inspired Apostle interposes in attestation that this is indeed the true acceptation of the last petition in theLord'sPrayer: for when S. Paul says—“theLordwill deliver mefrom every evil workand will preserve me unto His heavenly kingdom; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen,”661—what else is he referring to but to the words just[pg 216]now under consideration? He explains that in theLord'sPrayer it is“from every evil work”that we pray to be“delivered.”(Note also, that he retainsthe Doxology.) Compare the places:—S. Matth. vi. 13.—ἀλλὰ ῬΎΣΑΙ ἩΜΆΣ ἈΠῸ ΤΟΎ ΠΟΝΗΡΟΎ. ὍΤΙ ΣΟΎ ἘΣΤΙΝ Ἡ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΊΑ ... καὶ Ἡ ΔΌΞΑ ἘΙΣ ΤΟΎΣ ἈΙΏΝΑΣ. ἈΜΉΝ.2 Tim. iv. 18.—καὶ ῬΎΣΕΤΑΊ ΜΕ ὁ Κύριος ἈΠῸ ΠΑΝΤῸΣ ἜΡΓΟΥ ΠΟΝΗΡΟΥ καὶ σώσει εἰς ΤῊΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΊΑΝ ἈΥΤΟΥ ... ᾧ Ἡ ΔΌΞΑ ΕΊΣ ΤΟΥΣ ἈΙΏΝΑΣ.... ἈΜΉΝ.Then further—(6), What more unlikely than that ourLordwould end with giving such prominence to that rebel Angel whom by dying He is declared to have“destroyed”? (Heb. ii. 14: 1 John iii. 8.) For, take away the Doxology (as our Revisionists propose), and we shall begin theLord'sPrayer with“Our Father,”and literally end it with—the Devil!—But above all,—(7) Let it never be forgotten that this isthe pattern Prayer, a portion of every Christian child's daily utterance,—the most sacred of all our formularies, and by far the most often repeated,—into which it is attempted in this way to introduce a startling novelty. Lastly—(8), When it is called to mind that nothing short ofnecessityhas warranted the Revisionists in introducing a single change into the A. V.,—“clear and plain errors”—and that no such plea can be feigned on the present occasion, the liberty which they have taken in this place must be admitted to be absolutely without excuse.... Such at least are the grounds on which, for our own part, we refuse to entertain the proposed introduction of the Devil into theLord'sPrayer. From the position we have taken up, it will be found utterly impossible to dislodge us.XIII. It is often urged on behalf of the Revisionists that over not a few dark places of S. Paul's Epistles their labours have thrown important light. Let it not be supposed[pg 217]that we deny this. Many a Scriptural difficulty vanishes the instant a place is accurately translated: a far greater number, when the rendering is idiomatic. It would be strange indeed if, at the end of ten years, the combined labours of upwards of twenty Scholars, whoseraison d'êtreas Revisionists was to do this very thing, had not resulted in the removal of many an obscurity in the A. V. of Gospels and Epistles alike. What offends us is the discovery that, for every obscurity which has been removed, at least half a dozen others have been introduced: in other words, that the result of this Revision has been the planting in of afresh crop of difficulties, before undreamed of; so that a perpetual wrestling withtheseis what hereafter awaits the diligent student of the New Testament.We speak not now of passages which have been merely altered for the worse: as when, (in S. James i. 17, 18,) we are invited to read,—“Every good gift and everyperfect boonis from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whomcan be no variation, neithershadow that is cast by turning. Of his own willhe brought us forth.”Grievous as such blemishes are, it is seen at a glance that they must be set down to nothing worse than tasteless assiduity. What we complain of is that, misled by a depraved Text, our Revisers have often made nonsense of what before was perfectly clear: and have not only thrust many of ourLord'sprecious utterances out of sight, (e.g.Matt. xvii. 21: Mark x. 21 and xi. 26: Luke ix. 55, 56); but have attributed to Him absurd sayings which He certainly never uttered, (e.g.Matt. xix. 17); or else, given such a twist to what He actually said, that His blessed words are no longer recognizable, (as in S. Matt. xi. 23: S. Mark ix. 23: xi. 3). Take a sample:—(1.) The Church has always understood herLordto say,—“Father, I will that they also, whom Thou hast given Me,[pg 218]be with Me where I am; that they may behold My glory.”662We reject with downright indignation the proposal henceforth to read instead,—“Father, that which Thou hast given Me I will that, where I am, they also may be with Me,”&c. We suspect a misprint. The passage reads like nonsense. Yes, and nonsense it is,—in Greek as well as in English: (ὅ has been written for οὕς—one of the countlessbêtisesfor which אb dare exclusively responsible; and which the weak superstition of these last days is for erecting into a new Revelation). We appeal to the old Latin and to the Vulgate,—to the better Egyptian and to all the Syriac versions: toevery known Lectionary: to Clemens Alex.,663—to Eusebius,664—to Nonnus,665—to Basil,666—to Chrysostom,667—to Cyril,668—to Cælestinus,669—to Theodoret:670not to mention Cyprian,671—Ambrose,672—Hilary,673&c.:674and above all, 16 uncials, beginning withaandc,—and the whole body of the cursives. So many words ought not to be required. If men prefertheir“mumpsimus”toour“sumpsimus,”let them by all means have it: but pray let them keep their rubbish to themselves,—and at least leave ourSaviour'swords alone.(2.) We shall be told that the foregoing is an outrageous instance. It is. Then take a few milder cases. They abound, turn whichever way we will. Thus, we are invited to believe that S. Luke relates concerning ourSaviourthat He“was led by the Spirit in the wilderness during forty days”(iv. 1). We stare at this new revelation, and refer to the familiar Greek. It proves to be the Greek ofall the copies in the[pg 219]world but four; the Greek which supplied the Latin, the Syrian, the Coptic Churches, with the text of their respective Versions; the Greek which was familiar to Origen,675—to Eusebius,676—to Basil,677—to Didymus,678—to Theodoret,679—to Maximus,680—and to two other ancient writers, one of whom has been mistaken for Chrysostom,681the other for Basil.682It is therefore quite above suspicion. And it informs us thatJesus“was led by the Spiritinto the wilderness;”and there was“forty days tempted of the Devil.”What then has happened to obscure so plain a statement? Nothing more serious than that—(1) Four copies of bad character (אb d l) exhibit“in”instead of“into:”and that—(2) Our Revisionists have been persuaded to believe thatthereforeS. Luke must needs have done the same. Accordingly they invite us to share their conviction that it was theleading aboutof ourLord, (and not HisTemptation,) which lasted for 40 days. And this sorry misconception is to be thrust upon the 90 millions of English-speaking Christians throughout the world,—under the plea of“necessity”!... But let us turn to a more interesting specimen of the mischievous consequences which would ensue from the acceptance of the present so-called“Revision.”(3.) What is to be thought ofthis, as a substitute for the familiar language of 2 Cor. xii. 7?—“And by reason of the exceeding greatness of the revelations—wherefore, that I should not be exalted overmuch, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh.”The word“wherefore”(διό), which occasions all the difficulty—(breaking the back of the sentence and necessitating the hypothesis of a change of construction)—is due solely to the influence of אa bb. The ordinary Text is recognized[pg 220]by almost every other copy; by the Latin,—Syriac,—Gothic,—Armenian Versions;—as well as by Irenæus,683—Origen,684—Macarius,685—Athanasius,686—Chrysostom,687—Theodoret,688—John Damascene.689Even Tischendorf here makes a stand and refuses to follow his accustomed guides.690In plain terms, the text of 2 Cor. xii. 7 is beyond the reach of suspicion. Scarcely intelligible is the infatuation of which our Revisers have been the dupes.—Quousque tandem?(4.) Now this is the method of the Revising body throughout: viz. so seriously to maim the Text of many a familiar passage of Holy Writ as effectually to mar it. Even where they remedy an inaccuracy in the rendering of the A. V., they often inflict a more grievous injury than mistranslation on the inspired Text. An instance occurs at S. John x. 14, where the good Shepherd says,—“I know Mine ownand am known of Mine, even as theFatherknoweth Me and I know the Father.”By thrusting in here the Manichæan depravation (“and Mine own know Me”), our Revisionists have obliterated the exquisite diversity of expression in the original,—which implies that whereas the knowledge which subsists between theFatherand theSonis identical on either side, not such is the knowledge which subsists between the creature and the Creator. The refinement in question has been faithfully retained all down the ages by every copy in existence except four of bad character,—אb d l. It is witnessed to by the Syriac,—by Macarius,691—Gregory Naz.,692—Chrysostom,693—Cyril Alex.,694—Theodoret,695—Maximus.696[pg 221]But why go on? Does any one in his sober senses suppose that if S. John had written“Mine own know Me,”996 manuscripts out of 1000, at the end of 1800 years, would be found to exhibit“I am known of Mine”?(5.) The foregoing instances must suffice. A brief enumeration of many more has been given already, at pp.144(b)-152.Now, in view of the phenomenon just discovered to us,—(viz. for one crop of deformities weeded out, an infinitely larger crop of far grosser deformities as industriously planted in,)—we confess to a feeling of distress and annoyance which altogether indisposes us to accord to the Revisionists that language of congratulation with which it would have been so agreeable to receive their well-meant endeavours. The serious question at once arises,—Is it to be thought that upon the whole we are gainers, or losers, by the Revised Version? And there seems to be no certain way of resolving this doubt, but by opening a“Profit and Loss account”with the Revisers,—crediting them with every item ofgain, and debiting them with every item ofloss. But then,—(and we ask the question with sanguine simplicity,)—Why should it not beallgain andnoloss, when, at the end of 270 years, a confessedly noble work, a truly unique specimen of genius, taste and learning, is submitted to a body of Scholars, equipped with every external advantage,onlyin order that they may improve upon it—if they are able? These learned individuals have had upwards of ten years wherein to do their work. They have enjoyed the benefit of the tentative labours of a host of predecessors,—some for their warning, some for their help and guidance. They have all along had before their eyes the solemn injunction that, whatever they were not ablecertainlyto improve, they were to besupremely careful to let alone.[pg 222]They were warned at the outset against any but“necessary”changes. Their sole business was to remove“plain and clear errors.”They had pledged themselves to introduce“as few alterations as possible.”Why then, we again ask,—Whyshould not every single innovation which they introduced into the grand old exemplar before them, prove to be a manifest, an undeniable change for the better?697XIV. The more we ponder over this unfortunate production, the more cordially do we regret that it was ever undertaken. Verily, the Northern Convocation displayed a far-sighted wisdom when it pronounced against the project from the first. We are constrained to declare that could we have conceived it possible that the persons originally appointed by the Southern Province would have co-opted into their body persons capable of executing their work with such extravagant licentiousness as well as such conspicuous bad taste, we should never have entertained one hopeful thought on the subject. For indeed every characteristic feature of the work of the Revisionists offends us,—as well[pg 223]in respect of what they have left undone, as of what they have been the first to venture to do:—(a) Charged“to introduceas fewalterations as possible into the Text of the Authorized Version,”they have on the contrary evidently acted throughout on the principle of makingas manychanges in it as they conveniently could.(b) Directed“to limit,as far as possible, the expression of such alterations to the language of the Authorized and earlier English Versions,”—they have introduced such terms as“assassin,”“apparition,”“boon,”“disparagement,”“divinity,”“effulgence,”“epileptic,”“fickleness,”“gratulation,”“irksome,”“interpose,”“pitiable,”“sluggish,”“stupor,”“surpass,”“tranquil:”such compounds as“self-control,”“world-ruler:”such phrases as“draw upa narrative:”“the impulseof the steersman:”“in lackof daily food:”“exercisingoversight.”These are but a very few samples of the offence committed by our Revisionists, of which we complain.(c) Whereas they were required“torevisethe Headings of the Chapters,”they have not evenretainedthem. We demand at least to have our excellent“Headings”back.(d) And what has become of our time-honoured“Marginal References,”—the very best Commentaryon the Bible, as we believe,—certainly the very best help for the right understanding of Scripture,—which the wit of man hath ever yet devised? The“Marginal References”would be lost to the Church for ever, if the work of the Revisionists were allowed to stand: the space required for their insertion having been completely swallowed up by the senseless, and worse than senseless, Textual Annotations which at present infest the margin of every sacred page. We are beyond measure amazed that the Revisionists have even deprived the reader of theessential aidof references to the places of the Old Testament which are quoted in the New.(e) Let the remark be added in passing, that we greatly[pg 224]dislike the affectation of printing certain quotations from the Old Testament after the strange method adopted by our Revisers from Drs. Westcott and Hort.(f) The further externalassimilation of the Sacred Volume to an ordinary bookby getting rid of the division into Verses, we also hold to be a great mistake. In the Greek, by all means let the verses be merely noted in the margin: but, for more than one weighty reason, in theEnglishBible let the established and peculiar method of printing the Word ofGod, tide what tide, be scrupulously retained.(g) But incomparably the gravest offence is behind. By far the most serious of all isthatError to the consideration of which we devoted our former Article.The New Greek Textwhich, in defiance of their Instructions,698our Revisionists have constructed, has been proved to be utterly undeserving of confidence. Built up on a fallacy which since[pg 225]1831 has been dominant in Germany, and which has lately found but too much favour among ourselves, it is in the main a reproduction of the recent labours of Doctors Westcott and Hort. But we have already recorded our conviction, that the results at which those eminent Scholars have arrived are wholly inadmissible. It follows that, in our account, the“New English Version,”has been all along a foredoomed thing. If the“New Greek Text”be indeed a tissue of fabricated Readings, the translation of these into English must needs prove lost labour. It is superfluous to enquire into the merits of the English rendering of words which Evangelists and Apostles demonstrably never wrote.

But in fact when one of the Revisionists openly claims, on behalf of the Revision, that“in the most substantial sense,”(whateverthatmay happen to mean,) it is“contrary to fact”“that the doctrines of popular Theology remain unaffected, untouched by the results of the Revision,”595—Charity itself is constrained to use language which by a certain school will be deemed uncharitable. If doctrinal prepossession had no share in the production under review,—why is no protest publicly put forth against such language as the foregoing, when employed by a conspicuous Member of the Revisionist body?

(j) In a similar spirit to that which dictated our remarks on the attempted elimination of“Miracles”from the N. T. of the future,—we altogether disapprove of the attempt to introduce“isEpileptic,”as the rendering of σεληνιάζεται, in S. Matth. xvii. 15. The miracle performed on“the lunatic child”may never more come abroad under a different name. In a matter like this, 500 years of occupation, (or rather 1700, for“lunaticus”is the reading of all the Latin copies,) constitute a title which may not be disputed.“Epileptic”is a sorrygloss—not a translation. Even were it demonstrable that Epilepsy exclusively exhibits every feature related in connection with the present case;596and that sufferers from Epilepsy are specially affected by the moon's changes, (neither of which things arecertainlytrue): even so, the Revisionists would be wholly unwarranted in doing violence to the Evangelist's language, in order to bring into prominence[pg 206]their own private opinion that what is called“Lunacy”here (and in ch. iv. 24) is to be identified with the ordinary malady called“Epilepsy.”This was confessedly an extraordinary case ofdemoniacal possession597besides. The Revisionists have in fact gone out of their way in order to introduce us to a set of difficulties with which before we had no acquaintance. And after all, the English reader desires to know—not, by any means, what two-thirds of the Revisionistsconjecturewas the matter with the child, but—what the child's Father actually saidwas the matter with him. Now, the Father undeniably didnotsay that the child was“Epileptic,”but that he was“Lunatic.”The man employed a term which (singular to relate) has its own precise English equivalent;—a term which embodies to this hour (as it did anciently) the popular belief that the moon influences certain forms of disease. With the advance of Science, civilized nations surrender such Beliefs; but they do notthereforerevolutionize their Terminology.“The advance of Science,”however, has nothing whatever to do withthe Translation of the wordbefore us. The Author of this particular rendering (begging his pardon) is open to a process“de lunatico inquirendo”for having imagined the contrary.

(k) The foregoing instances suggest the remark, that the Ecclesiastical Historian of future years will point with concern[pg 207]to the sad evidences that the Church had fallen on evil days when the present Revision was undertaken. With fatal fidelity does it, every here and there, reflect the sickly hues of“modern Thought,”which is too often but another name for the latest phase of Unfaithfulness. Thus, in view of the present controversy about the Eternity of Future Punishment, which has brought into prominence a supposed distinction between the import of the epithets“eternal”and“everlasting,”—how painful is it to discover that the latter epithet, (which is the one objected to by the unbelieving school,) has been by our Revisionists diligently excluded598every time it occursas the translation of αἰώνιος, in favour of the more palatable epithel“eternal”! King James's Translators showed themselves impartial to a fault. As if to mark that, in their account, the words are of identical import, they even introducedboth words into the same verse599of Scripture. Is it fair that such a body of men as the Revisionists of 1881, claiming the sanction of the Convocation of the Southern Province, should, in a matter like the present, throw all their weight into the scale of Misbelief? They were authorized only to remove“plain and clearerrors.”They were instructed to introduce“as few changesas possible.”Why have they needlessly gone out of their way, on the contrary, indirectly to show their sympathy with those who deny what has been the Church's teaching for 1800 years? Our Creeds, Te Deum, Litany, Offices, Articles,—our whole Prayer Book, breathes a different spirit and speaks a different language.... Have our Revisionists persuaded the Old Testament company to follow their example? It will be calamitous if theyhave. There will be serious[pg 208]discrepancy of teaching between the Old and the New Testament if they havenot.

(l) What means also the fidgetty anxiety manifested throughout these pages to explain away, or at least to evacuate, expressions which have to do withEternity?Why, for example, is“theworld(αἰών) to come,”invariably glossed“theageto come”? and εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας so persistently explained in the margin to mean,“unto the ages”? (See the margin of Rom. ix. 5. Are we to read“Godblessedunto the ages”?) Also εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων,“unto the ages of the ages”? Surely we, whose language furnishes expressions of precisely similar character (viz.“for ever,”and“for ever and ever”), might dispense with information hazy and unprofitable as this!

(m) Again. At a period of prevailing unbelief in theInspirationof Scripture, nothing but real necessity could warrant any meddling with such a testimony on the subject as is found in 2 Tim. iii. 16. We have hitherto been taught to believe that“All Scripture is given by inspiration ofGodand is profitable,”&c. The ancients600clearly so understood S. Paul's words: and so do the most learned and thoughtful of the moderns. Πᾶσα γραφή, even if it be interpreted“every Scripture,”can only mean every portion of those ἱερὰ γράμματα of which the Apostle had been speaking in the previous verse; and therefore must needs signifythe whole of Scripture.601So that the expression“all Scripture”[pg 209]expresses S. Paul's meaning exactly, and should not have been disturbed.

But—“It is very difficult”(so at least thinks the Right Rev. Chairman of the Revisers)“to decide whether θεόπνευστος is a part of the predicate, καί being the simple copula; or whether it is a part of the subject. Lexicography and grammar contribute but little to a decision.”Not so thought Bishop Middleton.“I do not recollect”(he says)“any passage in the N. T. in which two Adjectives, apparently connected by the copulative, were intended by the writer to be so unnaturally disjoined. He who can produce such an instance, will do much towards establishing the plausibility of a translation, which otherwise must appear, to say the least of it, to be forced and improbable.”—And yet it is proposed to thrust this“forced and improbable”translation on the acceptance of all English-speaking people, wherever found, on the plea ofnecessity! Our Revisionists translate,“Every Scripture inspired ofGodis also profitable,”&c.,—which of course may be plausibly declared to imply that a distinction is drawn by the Apostle himself between inspired and uninspired Scripture. And pray, (we should be presently asked,) is not many a Scripture (or writing)“profitable for teaching,”&c. which isnotcommonly held to be“inspired ofGod”?... But in fact the proposed rendering is inadmissible, being without logical coherence and consistency. The utmost that could be pretended would be that S. Paul's assertion is that“every portion of Scripturebeing inspired”(i.e.inasmuch as it is—because it is—inspired);“isalsoprofitable,”&c. Else there would be no meaning in the καί. But, in the name of common sense, if this be so,whyhave the blessed words been meddled with?

(n) All are unhappily familiar with the avidity with which the disciples of a certain School fasten upon a mysterious[pg 210]expression in S. Mark's Gospel (xiii. 32), which seems to predicate concerning the EternalSon, limitation in respect of Knowledge. This is not the place for vindicating the Catholic Doctrine of theSon's“equality with theFatheras touching HisGodhead;”or for explaining that, in consequence, all things that theFatherhath, (the knowledge of“that Day and Hour”included,) theSonhath likewise.602But this is the place for calling attention to the deplorable circumstance that the clause“neither theSon,”which has an indisputable right to its place in S. Mark's Gospel, has on insufficient authority by our Revisionists been thrust into S. Matth. xxvi. 36, where it has no business whatever, and from which the word“only”effectually excludes it.603We call attention to this circumstance with sincere sorrow: but it is sorrow largely mixed with indignation. What else but the betrayal of a sacred trust is it when Divines appointed to correct manifest errors inthe Englishof the N. T. go out of their way to introduce an error like this into theGreekText which Catholic Antiquity would have repudiated with indignation, and for which certainly the plea of“necessity”cannot be pretended?

(o) Amarginal annotationset over against Romans ix. 5 is the last thing of this kind to which we shall invite attention. S. Paul declares it to be Israel's highest boast and glory that of them,“as concerning the flesh [came]Christ,[pg 211]who is over all[things],Godblessed for ever! Amen.”A grander or more unequivocal testimony to ourLord'seternalGodhead is nowhere to be found in Scripture. Accordingly, these words have been as confidently appealed to by faithful Doctors of the Church in every age, as they have been unsparingly assailed by unbelievers. The dishonest shifts by which the latter seek to evacuate the record which they are powerless to refute or deny, are paraded by our ill-starred Revisionists in the following terms:—

“Some modern Interpreters place a full stop afterflesh, and translate,He who is God over all be (is) blessed for ever: or,He who is over all is God, blessed for ever. Others punctuate,flesh, who is over all. God be (is) blessed for ever.”

Now this is a matter,—let it be clearly observed,—which, (as Dr. Hort is aware,)“belongs toInterpretation,—andnot to Textual Criticism.”604What business then has it in these pages at all? Is it then the function of Divines appointed to revise theAuthorized Version, to give information to the 90 millions of English-speaking Christians scattered throughout the world as to the unfaithfulness of“some modern Interpreters”?605We have hitherto supposed that it was“Ancientauthorities”exclusively,—(whether“a few,”or“some,”or“many,”)—to which we are invited to submit our judgment. How does it come to pass thatthe Socinian glosson this grand text (Rom. ix. 5) has been brought into such extraordinary prominence? Did our Revisionists consider that their marginal note would travel to earth's remotest verge,—give universal currency to the view of“some modern Interpreters,”—and in the end“tell it out among the heathen”also? We refer to Manuscripts,—Versions,—Fathers: and what do we find? (1) It is demonstrable thatthe oldest[pg 212]Codices, besides the whole body of the cursives, know nothing about the method of“some modern Interpreters.”606—(2)“There is absolutely not a shadow,not a tittle of evidence, in any of the ancient Versions, to warrant what they do.”607—(3) How then, about the old Fathers? for the sentiments of our best modern Divines, as Pearson and Bull, we know by heart. We find that the expression“who is over all[things],Godblessed for ever”is expressly acknowledged to refer to ourSaviourby the following 60 illustrious names:—

Irenæus,608—Hippolytus in 3 places,609—Origen,610—Malchion, in the name of six of the Bishops at the Council of Antioch,a.d.269,611—ps.-Dionysius Alex., twice,612—theConstt. App.,613—Athanasius in 6 places,614—Basil in 2 places,615—Didymus in 5 places,616—Greg. Nyssen. in 5 places,617—Epiphanius in 5 places,618—Theodoras Mops.,619—Methodius,620—Eustathius,621—Eulogius, twice,622—Cæsarius, 3 times,623—Theophilus Alex., twice,624—Nestorius,625—Theodotus of Ancyra,626—Proclus, twice,627—Severianus Bp. of Gabala,628—Chrysostom, 8 times,629—Cyril[pg 213]Alex., 15 times,630—Paulus Bp. of Emesa,631—Theodoret, 12 times,632—Gennadius, Abp. of C. P.,633—Severus, Abp. of Antioch,634—Amphilochius,635—Gelasius Cyz.,636—Anastasius Ant.,637—Leontius Byz., 3 times,638—Maximus,639—J. Damascene, 3 times.640Besides of the Latins, Tertullian, twice,641—Cyprian,642—Novatian, twice,643—Ambrose, 5 times,644—Palladius the Arian at the Council of Aquileia,645—Hilary, 7 times,646—Jerome, twice,647—Augustine, about 30 times,—Victorinus,648—theBreviarium, twice,649—Marius Mercator,650—Cassian, twice,651—Alcimus Avit.,652—Fulgentius, twice,653—Leo, Bp. of Rome, twice,654—Ferrandus, twice,655—Facundus:656—to whom must be added 6 ancient writers, of whom 3657have been mistaken for Athanasius,—and 3658for Chrysostom. All these see in Rom. ix. 5, a glorious assertion of the eternalGodhead ofChrist.

Against such an overwhelming torrent of Patristic testimony,—for we have enumeratedupwards of sixtyancient Fathers—it will not surely be pretended that the Socinian interpretation, to which our Revisionists give such prominence,[pg 214]can stand. But why has it been introducedat all? We shall have every Christian reader with us in our contention, that such perverse imaginations of“modern Interpreters”are not entitled to a place in the margin of the N. T. For our Revisionists to have even given them currency, and thereby a species of sanction, constitutes in our view a very grave offence.659A public retraction and a very humble Apology we claim at their hands. Indifferent Scholarship, and mistaken views of Textual Criticism, are at least venial matters. Buta Socinian gloss gratuitously thrust into the margin of every Englishman's N. T.admits of no excuse—is not to be tolerated onanyterms. It would by itself, in our account, have been sufficient to determine the fate of the present Revision.

XII. Are we to regard it as a kind ofset-offagainst all that goes before, that in an age when the personality of Satan is freely called in question,“the evil one”has been actuallythrust into the Lord's Prayer? A more injudicious and unwarrantable innovation it would be impossible to indicate in any part of the present unhappy volume. The case has been argued out with much learning and ability by two eminent Divines, Bp. Lightfoot and Canon Cook. The Canon remains master of the field. Thatthe change ought never to have been madeis demonstrable. The grounds of this assertion are soon stated. To begin, (1) It is admitted on all hands that it must for ever remain a matter of opinion only whether in the expression ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ, the nominative case is τὸ πονηρόν (as in S. Matth. v. 37, 39: Rom. xii. 9), or ὁ πονηρός (as in S. Matth. xiii. 19, 38: Eph. vi.[pg 215]16),—either of which yields a good sense. But then—(2) The Church of England in her formularies having emphatically declared that, for her part, she adheres to the former alternative, it was in a very high degree unbecoming for the Revisionists to pretend to the enjoyment ofcertainknowledge that the Church of England in so doing was mistaken: and unless“from evil”be“a clear and plain error,”the Revisionists were bound to let it alone. Next—(3), It can never be right to impose the narrower interpretation on words which have always been understood to bear the larger sense: especially when (as in the present instance) the larger meaning distinctly includes and covers the lesser: witness the paraphrase in our Church Catechism,—“and that He will keep us (a) from all sin and wickedness, and (b)from our ghostly enemy, and (c) from everlasting death.”—(4) But indeed Catholic Tradition claims to be heard in this behalf. Every Christian at his Baptism renounces not only“the Devil,”but also“all his works, the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all covetous desires of the same, and the carnal desires of the flesh.”660And at this point—(5), The voice of an inspired Apostle interposes in attestation that this is indeed the true acceptation of the last petition in theLord'sPrayer: for when S. Paul says—“theLordwill deliver mefrom every evil workand will preserve me unto His heavenly kingdom; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen,”661—what else is he referring to but to the words just[pg 216]now under consideration? He explains that in theLord'sPrayer it is“from every evil work”that we pray to be“delivered.”(Note also, that he retainsthe Doxology.) Compare the places:—

S. Matth. vi. 13.—ἀλλὰ ῬΎΣΑΙ ἩΜΆΣ ἈΠῸ ΤΟΎ ΠΟΝΗΡΟΎ. ὍΤΙ ΣΟΎ ἘΣΤΙΝ Ἡ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΊΑ ... καὶ Ἡ ΔΌΞΑ ἘΙΣ ΤΟΎΣ ἈΙΏΝΑΣ. ἈΜΉΝ.

2 Tim. iv. 18.—καὶ ῬΎΣΕΤΑΊ ΜΕ ὁ Κύριος ἈΠῸ ΠΑΝΤῸΣ ἜΡΓΟΥ ΠΟΝΗΡΟΥ καὶ σώσει εἰς ΤῊΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΊΑΝ ἈΥΤΟΥ ... ᾧ Ἡ ΔΌΞΑ ΕΊΣ ΤΟΥΣ ἈΙΏΝΑΣ.... ἈΜΉΝ.

Then further—(6), What more unlikely than that ourLordwould end with giving such prominence to that rebel Angel whom by dying He is declared to have“destroyed”? (Heb. ii. 14: 1 John iii. 8.) For, take away the Doxology (as our Revisionists propose), and we shall begin theLord'sPrayer with“Our Father,”and literally end it with—the Devil!—But above all,—(7) Let it never be forgotten that this isthe pattern Prayer, a portion of every Christian child's daily utterance,—the most sacred of all our formularies, and by far the most often repeated,—into which it is attempted in this way to introduce a startling novelty. Lastly—(8), When it is called to mind that nothing short ofnecessityhas warranted the Revisionists in introducing a single change into the A. V.,—“clear and plain errors”—and that no such plea can be feigned on the present occasion, the liberty which they have taken in this place must be admitted to be absolutely without excuse.... Such at least are the grounds on which, for our own part, we refuse to entertain the proposed introduction of the Devil into theLord'sPrayer. From the position we have taken up, it will be found utterly impossible to dislodge us.

XIII. It is often urged on behalf of the Revisionists that over not a few dark places of S. Paul's Epistles their labours have thrown important light. Let it not be supposed[pg 217]that we deny this. Many a Scriptural difficulty vanishes the instant a place is accurately translated: a far greater number, when the rendering is idiomatic. It would be strange indeed if, at the end of ten years, the combined labours of upwards of twenty Scholars, whoseraison d'êtreas Revisionists was to do this very thing, had not resulted in the removal of many an obscurity in the A. V. of Gospels and Epistles alike. What offends us is the discovery that, for every obscurity which has been removed, at least half a dozen others have been introduced: in other words, that the result of this Revision has been the planting in of afresh crop of difficulties, before undreamed of; so that a perpetual wrestling withtheseis what hereafter awaits the diligent student of the New Testament.

We speak not now of passages which have been merely altered for the worse: as when, (in S. James i. 17, 18,) we are invited to read,—“Every good gift and everyperfect boonis from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whomcan be no variation, neithershadow that is cast by turning. Of his own willhe brought us forth.”Grievous as such blemishes are, it is seen at a glance that they must be set down to nothing worse than tasteless assiduity. What we complain of is that, misled by a depraved Text, our Revisers have often made nonsense of what before was perfectly clear: and have not only thrust many of ourLord'sprecious utterances out of sight, (e.g.Matt. xvii. 21: Mark x. 21 and xi. 26: Luke ix. 55, 56); but have attributed to Him absurd sayings which He certainly never uttered, (e.g.Matt. xix. 17); or else, given such a twist to what He actually said, that His blessed words are no longer recognizable, (as in S. Matt. xi. 23: S. Mark ix. 23: xi. 3). Take a sample:—

(1.) The Church has always understood herLordto say,—“Father, I will that they also, whom Thou hast given Me,[pg 218]be with Me where I am; that they may behold My glory.”662We reject with downright indignation the proposal henceforth to read instead,—“Father, that which Thou hast given Me I will that, where I am, they also may be with Me,”&c. We suspect a misprint. The passage reads like nonsense. Yes, and nonsense it is,—in Greek as well as in English: (ὅ has been written for οὕς—one of the countlessbêtisesfor which אb dare exclusively responsible; and which the weak superstition of these last days is for erecting into a new Revelation). We appeal to the old Latin and to the Vulgate,—to the better Egyptian and to all the Syriac versions: toevery known Lectionary: to Clemens Alex.,663—to Eusebius,664—to Nonnus,665—to Basil,666—to Chrysostom,667—to Cyril,668—to Cælestinus,669—to Theodoret:670not to mention Cyprian,671—Ambrose,672—Hilary,673&c.:674and above all, 16 uncials, beginning withaandc,—and the whole body of the cursives. So many words ought not to be required. If men prefertheir“mumpsimus”toour“sumpsimus,”let them by all means have it: but pray let them keep their rubbish to themselves,—and at least leave ourSaviour'swords alone.

(2.) We shall be told that the foregoing is an outrageous instance. It is. Then take a few milder cases. They abound, turn whichever way we will. Thus, we are invited to believe that S. Luke relates concerning ourSaviourthat He“was led by the Spirit in the wilderness during forty days”(iv. 1). We stare at this new revelation, and refer to the familiar Greek. It proves to be the Greek ofall the copies in the[pg 219]world but four; the Greek which supplied the Latin, the Syrian, the Coptic Churches, with the text of their respective Versions; the Greek which was familiar to Origen,675—to Eusebius,676—to Basil,677—to Didymus,678—to Theodoret,679—to Maximus,680—and to two other ancient writers, one of whom has been mistaken for Chrysostom,681the other for Basil.682It is therefore quite above suspicion. And it informs us thatJesus“was led by the Spiritinto the wilderness;”and there was“forty days tempted of the Devil.”What then has happened to obscure so plain a statement? Nothing more serious than that—(1) Four copies of bad character (אb d l) exhibit“in”instead of“into:”and that—(2) Our Revisionists have been persuaded to believe thatthereforeS. Luke must needs have done the same. Accordingly they invite us to share their conviction that it was theleading aboutof ourLord, (and not HisTemptation,) which lasted for 40 days. And this sorry misconception is to be thrust upon the 90 millions of English-speaking Christians throughout the world,—under the plea of“necessity”!... But let us turn to a more interesting specimen of the mischievous consequences which would ensue from the acceptance of the present so-called“Revision.”

(3.) What is to be thought ofthis, as a substitute for the familiar language of 2 Cor. xii. 7?—“And by reason of the exceeding greatness of the revelations—wherefore, that I should not be exalted overmuch, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh.”The word“wherefore”(διό), which occasions all the difficulty—(breaking the back of the sentence and necessitating the hypothesis of a change of construction)—is due solely to the influence of אa bb. The ordinary Text is recognized[pg 220]by almost every other copy; by the Latin,—Syriac,—Gothic,—Armenian Versions;—as well as by Irenæus,683—Origen,684—Macarius,685—Athanasius,686—Chrysostom,687—Theodoret,688—John Damascene.689Even Tischendorf here makes a stand and refuses to follow his accustomed guides.690In plain terms, the text of 2 Cor. xii. 7 is beyond the reach of suspicion. Scarcely intelligible is the infatuation of which our Revisers have been the dupes.—Quousque tandem?

(4.) Now this is the method of the Revising body throughout: viz. so seriously to maim the Text of many a familiar passage of Holy Writ as effectually to mar it. Even where they remedy an inaccuracy in the rendering of the A. V., they often inflict a more grievous injury than mistranslation on the inspired Text. An instance occurs at S. John x. 14, where the good Shepherd says,—“I know Mine ownand am known of Mine, even as theFatherknoweth Me and I know the Father.”By thrusting in here the Manichæan depravation (“and Mine own know Me”), our Revisionists have obliterated the exquisite diversity of expression in the original,—which implies that whereas the knowledge which subsists between theFatherand theSonis identical on either side, not such is the knowledge which subsists between the creature and the Creator. The refinement in question has been faithfully retained all down the ages by every copy in existence except four of bad character,—אb d l. It is witnessed to by the Syriac,—by Macarius,691—Gregory Naz.,692—Chrysostom,693—Cyril Alex.,694—Theodoret,695—Maximus.696

But why go on? Does any one in his sober senses suppose that if S. John had written“Mine own know Me,”996 manuscripts out of 1000, at the end of 1800 years, would be found to exhibit“I am known of Mine”?

(5.) The foregoing instances must suffice. A brief enumeration of many more has been given already, at pp.144(b)-152.

Now, in view of the phenomenon just discovered to us,—(viz. for one crop of deformities weeded out, an infinitely larger crop of far grosser deformities as industriously planted in,)—we confess to a feeling of distress and annoyance which altogether indisposes us to accord to the Revisionists that language of congratulation with which it would have been so agreeable to receive their well-meant endeavours. The serious question at once arises,—Is it to be thought that upon the whole we are gainers, or losers, by the Revised Version? And there seems to be no certain way of resolving this doubt, but by opening a“Profit and Loss account”with the Revisers,—crediting them with every item ofgain, and debiting them with every item ofloss. But then,—(and we ask the question with sanguine simplicity,)—Why should it not beallgain andnoloss, when, at the end of 270 years, a confessedly noble work, a truly unique specimen of genius, taste and learning, is submitted to a body of Scholars, equipped with every external advantage,onlyin order that they may improve upon it—if they are able? These learned individuals have had upwards of ten years wherein to do their work. They have enjoyed the benefit of the tentative labours of a host of predecessors,—some for their warning, some for their help and guidance. They have all along had before their eyes the solemn injunction that, whatever they were not ablecertainlyto improve, they were to besupremely careful to let alone.[pg 222]They were warned at the outset against any but“necessary”changes. Their sole business was to remove“plain and clear errors.”They had pledged themselves to introduce“as few alterations as possible.”Why then, we again ask,—Whyshould not every single innovation which they introduced into the grand old exemplar before them, prove to be a manifest, an undeniable change for the better?697

XIV. The more we ponder over this unfortunate production, the more cordially do we regret that it was ever undertaken. Verily, the Northern Convocation displayed a far-sighted wisdom when it pronounced against the project from the first. We are constrained to declare that could we have conceived it possible that the persons originally appointed by the Southern Province would have co-opted into their body persons capable of executing their work with such extravagant licentiousness as well as such conspicuous bad taste, we should never have entertained one hopeful thought on the subject. For indeed every characteristic feature of the work of the Revisionists offends us,—as well[pg 223]in respect of what they have left undone, as of what they have been the first to venture to do:—

(a) Charged“to introduceas fewalterations as possible into the Text of the Authorized Version,”they have on the contrary evidently acted throughout on the principle of makingas manychanges in it as they conveniently could.

(b) Directed“to limit,as far as possible, the expression of such alterations to the language of the Authorized and earlier English Versions,”—they have introduced such terms as“assassin,”“apparition,”“boon,”“disparagement,”“divinity,”“effulgence,”“epileptic,”“fickleness,”“gratulation,”“irksome,”“interpose,”“pitiable,”“sluggish,”“stupor,”“surpass,”“tranquil:”such compounds as“self-control,”“world-ruler:”such phrases as“draw upa narrative:”“the impulseof the steersman:”“in lackof daily food:”“exercisingoversight.”These are but a very few samples of the offence committed by our Revisionists, of which we complain.

(c) Whereas they were required“torevisethe Headings of the Chapters,”they have not evenretainedthem. We demand at least to have our excellent“Headings”back.

(d) And what has become of our time-honoured“Marginal References,”—the very best Commentaryon the Bible, as we believe,—certainly the very best help for the right understanding of Scripture,—which the wit of man hath ever yet devised? The“Marginal References”would be lost to the Church for ever, if the work of the Revisionists were allowed to stand: the space required for their insertion having been completely swallowed up by the senseless, and worse than senseless, Textual Annotations which at present infest the margin of every sacred page. We are beyond measure amazed that the Revisionists have even deprived the reader of theessential aidof references to the places of the Old Testament which are quoted in the New.

(e) Let the remark be added in passing, that we greatly[pg 224]dislike the affectation of printing certain quotations from the Old Testament after the strange method adopted by our Revisers from Drs. Westcott and Hort.

(f) The further externalassimilation of the Sacred Volume to an ordinary bookby getting rid of the division into Verses, we also hold to be a great mistake. In the Greek, by all means let the verses be merely noted in the margin: but, for more than one weighty reason, in theEnglishBible let the established and peculiar method of printing the Word ofGod, tide what tide, be scrupulously retained.

(g) But incomparably the gravest offence is behind. By far the most serious of all isthatError to the consideration of which we devoted our former Article.The New Greek Textwhich, in defiance of their Instructions,698our Revisionists have constructed, has been proved to be utterly undeserving of confidence. Built up on a fallacy which since[pg 225]1831 has been dominant in Germany, and which has lately found but too much favour among ourselves, it is in the main a reproduction of the recent labours of Doctors Westcott and Hort. But we have already recorded our conviction, that the results at which those eminent Scholars have arrived are wholly inadmissible. It follows that, in our account, the“New English Version,”has been all along a foredoomed thing. If the“New Greek Text”be indeed a tissue of fabricated Readings, the translation of these into English must needs prove lost labour. It is superfluous to enquire into the merits of the English rendering of words which Evangelists and Apostles demonstrably never wrote.

Back to Index Next