(h) Even this, however, is not nearly all. As Translators, full two-thirds of the Revisionists have shown themselves singularly deficient,—alike in their critical acquaintance with the language out of which they had to translate, and in their familiarity with the idiomatic requirements of their own tongue. They had a noble Version before them, which they have contrived to spoil in every part. Its dignified simplicity and essential faithfulness, its manly grace and its delightful rhythm, they have shown themselves alike unable to imitate and unwilling to retain. Their queer uncouth phraseology and their jerky sentences:—their pedantic obscurity and their stiff, constrained manner:—their fidgetty affectation of accuracy,—and their habitual achievement of English which fails to exhibit the spirit of the original Greek;—are sorry substitutes for the living freshness, and elastic freedom, and habitual fidelity of the grand old Version which we inherited from our Fathers, and which has sustained the spiritual life of the Church of England, and of all English-speaking Christians, for 350 years. Linked with all our holiest, happiest memories, and bound up with all our purest aspirations: part and parcel of[pg 226]whatever there is of good about us: fraught with men's hopes of a blessed Eternity and many a bright vision of the never-ending Life;—the Authorized Version, wherever it was possible,should have been jealously retained. But on the contrary. Every familiar cadence has been dislocated: the congenial flow of almost every verse of Scripture has been hopelessly marred: so many of those little connecting words, which give life and continuity to a narrative, have been vexatiously displaced, that a perpetual sense of annoyance is created. The countless minute alterations which have been needlessly introduced into every familiar page prove at last as tormenting as a swarm of flies to the weary traveller on a summer's day.699To speak plainly, the book has been madeunreadable.But in fact the distinguished Chairman of the New Testament Company (Bishop Ellicott,) has delivered himself on this subject in language which leaves nothing to be desired, and which we willingly make our own.“No Revision”(he says)“in the present daycould hope to meet with an hour's acceptanceif it failed to preserve the tone, rhythm, and diction of the present Authorized Version.”700—What else is this but a vaticination,—of which the uninspired Author, by his own act and deed, has ensured the punctual fulfilment?We lay the Revisers' volume down convinced that the case of their work is simply hopeless.Non ego paucis offendar maculis.Had the blemishes been capable of being reckoned up, it might have been worth while to try to remedy some of them. But when, instead of being disfigured[pg 227]by a few weeds scattered here and there, the whole field proves to be sown over in every direction with thorns and briars; above all when, deep beneath the surface, roots of bitterness to be counted by thousands, are found to have been silently planted in, which are sure to produce poisonous fruit after many days:—undersuchcircumstances only one course can be prescribed. Let the entire area be ploughed up,—ploughed deep; and let the ground be left for a decent space of time without cultivation. It is idle—worse than idle—to dream of revising,with a view to retaining, this Revision. Another generation of students must be suffered to arise. Time must be given for Passion and Prejudice to cool effectually down. Partizanship, (which at present prevails to an extraordinary extent, but which is wondrously out of place inthisdepartment of Sacred Learning,)—Partizanshipmust be completely outlived,—before the Church can venture, with the remotest prospect of a successful issue, to organize another attempt at revising the Authorized Version of the New Testament Scriptures.Yes, and in the meantime—(let it in all faithfulness be added)—the Science of Textual Criticism will have to be prosecuted,for the first time, in a scholarlike manner.Fundamental Principles,—sufficiently axiomatic to ensure general acceptance,—will have to be laid down for men's guidance. The time has quite gone by for vaunting“the now established Principles of Textual Criticism,”701—as if they had an actual existence. Let us be shown, instead,which those Principles be. As for the weak superstition of these last days, which—without proof of any kind—would erect two IVth-century Copies of the New Testament, (demonstrably derived from one and the same utterly depraved archetype,)[pg 228]into an authority from which there shall be no appeal,—it cannot be too soon or too unconditionally abandoned. And, perhaps beyond all things, men must be invited to disabuse their minds of the singular imagination that it is in their power, when addressing themselves to that most difficult and delicate of problems,—the improvement of the Traditional Text,—“solvere ambulando.”702They are assured that they may not take to Textual Criticism as ducks take to the water. They will be drowned inevitably if they are so ill-advised as to make the attempt.Then further, those who would interpret the New Testament Scriptures, are reminded that a thorough acquaintance with the Septuagintal Version of the Old Testament is one indispensable condition of success.703And finally, the Revisionists of the future (if they desire that their labours should be crowned), will find it their wisdom to practise a severe self-denial; to confine themselves to the correction of“plain and clear errors;”and in fact to“introduce into the Textas few alterations as possible.”On a review of all that has happened, from first to last, we can but feel greatly concerned: greatly surprised: most of all, disappointed. We had expected a vastly different result. It is partly (not quite) accounted for, by the rare attendance in the Jerusalem Chamber of some of the names on which we had chiefly relied. Bishop Moberly (of Salisbury) was[pg 229]present on only 121 occasions: Bishop Wordsworth (of S. Andrews) on only 109: Archbishop Trench (of Dublin) on only 63: Bishop Wilberforce on onlyone. The Archbishop, in his Charge, adverts to“the not unfrequent sacrifice of grace and ease to the rigorous requirements of a literal accuracy;”and regards them“as pushed to a faulty excess”(p. 22). Eleven years before the scheme for the present“Revision”had been matured, the same distinguished and judicious Prelate, (then Dean of Westminster,) persuaded as he was that a Revisionoughtto come, and convinced that in time itwouldcome, deprecated its being attemptedyet. His words were,—“Not however, I would trust, as yet: for we are not as yetin any respect prepared for it. The Greek, and the Englishwhich should enable us to bring this to a successful end might, it is to be feared, be wanting alike.”704Archbishop Trench, with wise after-thought, in a second edition, explained himself to mean“that special Hellenistic Greek, here required.”The Bp. of S. Andrews has long since, in the fullest manner, cleared himself from the suspicion of complicity in the errors of the work before us,—as well in respect of the“New Greek Text”as of the“New English Version.”In the Charge which he delivered at his Diocesan Synod, (22nd Sept. 1880,) he openly stated that two years before the work was finally completed, he had felt obliged to address a printed circular to each member of the Company, in which he strongly remonstrated against the excess to which changes had been carried; and that the remonstrance had been, for the most part, unheeded. Had this been otherwise, there is good reason to believe that the reception which the Revision has met with would have been far less unfavourable, and that many a controversy which it has stirred up, would have been avoided. We have been assured that the[pg 230]Bp. of S. Andrews would have actually resigned his place in the Company at that time, if he had not been led to expect that some opportunity would have been taken by the Minority, when the work was finished, to express their formal dissent from the course which had been followed, and many of the conclusions which had been adopted.Were certain other excellent personages, (Scholars and Divines of the best type) who were often present, disposed at this late hour to come forward, they too would doubtless tell us that they heartily regretted what was done, but were powerless to prevent it. It is no secret that Dr. Lee,—the learned Archdeacon of Dublin,—(one of the few really competent members of the Revising body,)—found himself perpetually in the minority.The same is to be recorded concerning Dr. Roberts, whose work on the Gospels (published in 1864) shows that he is not by any means so entirely a novice in the mysteries of Textual Criticism as certain of his colleagues.—One famous Scholar and excellent Divine,—a Dean whom we forbear to name,—with the modesty of real learning, often withheld what (had he given it) would have been an adverse vote.—Another learned and accomplished Dean (Dr. Merivale), after attending 19 meetings of the Revising body, withdrew in disgust from them entirely. He disapprovedthe methodof his colleagues, and was determined to incur no share of responsibility for the probable result of their deliberations.—By the way,—What about a certain solemn Protest, by means of which the Minority had resolvedliberare animas suasconcerning the open disregard shown by the Majority for the conditions under which they had been entrusted with the work of Revision, but which was withheld at the last moment? Inasmuch as their reasons for the course they eventually adopted seemed sufficient to those high-minded and[pg 231]honourable men, we forbear to challenge it. Nothing however shall deter us from plainly avowing our own opinion that human regards scarcely deserve a hearing whenGod'sTruth is imperilled. And that the Truth ofGod'sWord in countless instanceshas beenignorantly sacrificed by a majority of the Revisionists—(out of deference to a worthless Theory, newly invented and passionately advocated by two of their body),—has been already demonstrated; as far, that is, as demonstration ispossiblein this subject matter.As for Prebendary Scrivener,—the only really competent Textual Critic of the whole party,—it is well known that he found himself perpetually outvoted by two-thirds of those present. We look forward to the forthcoming new edition of hisPlain Introduction, in the confident belief that he will there make it abundantly plain that he is in no degree responsible for the monstrous Text which it became his painful duty to conduct through the Press on behalf of the entire body, of which he continued to the last to be a member. It is no secret that, throughout, Dr. Scrivener pleaded in vain for the general view we have ourselves advocated in this and the preceding Article.All alike may at least enjoy the real satisfaction of knowing that, besides having stimulated, to an extraordinary extent, public attention to the contents of the Book of Life, they have been instrumental in awakening a living interest in one important but neglected department of Sacred Science, which will not easily be again put to sleep. It may reasonably prove a solace to them to reflect that they have besides, although perhaps in ways they did not anticipate, rendered excellent service to mankind. A monument they have certainly erected to themselves,—though neither of their Taste nor yet of their Learning. Their well-meant endeavours have provided an admirable text-book for[pg 232]Teachers of Divinity,—who will henceforth instruct their pupils to beware of the Textual errors of the Revisionists of 1881, as well as of their tasteless, injudicious, and unsatisfactory essays in Translation. This work of theirs will discharge the office of a warning beacon to as many as shall hereafter embark on the same perilous enterprise with themselves. It will convince men of the danger of pursuing the same ill-omened course: trusting to the same unskilful guidance: venturing too near the same wreck-strewn shore.Its effect will be to open men's eyes, as nothing else could possibly have done, to the dangers which beset the Revision of Scripture. It will teach faithful hearts to cling the closer to the priceless treasure which was bequeathed to them by the piety and wisdom of their fathers. It will dispel for ever the dream of those who have secretly imagined that a more exact Version, undertaken with the boasted helps of this nineteenth century of ours, would bring to light something which has been hitherto unfairly kept concealed or else misrepresented. Not the least service which the Revisionists have rendered has been the proof their work affords, how very seldom our Authorized Version is materially wrong: how faithful and trustworthy, on the contrary, it is throughout. Let it be also candidly admitted that, even where (in our judgment) the Revisionists have erred, they have never had the misfortuneseriouslyto obscure a single feature of Divine Truth; nor have they in any quarter (as we hope) inflicted wounds which will be attended with worse results than to leave a hideous scar behind them. It is but fair to add that their work bears marks of an amount of conscientious (though misdirected) labour, which those only can fully appreciate who have made the same province of study to some extent their own.
(h) Even this, however, is not nearly all. As Translators, full two-thirds of the Revisionists have shown themselves singularly deficient,—alike in their critical acquaintance with the language out of which they had to translate, and in their familiarity with the idiomatic requirements of their own tongue. They had a noble Version before them, which they have contrived to spoil in every part. Its dignified simplicity and essential faithfulness, its manly grace and its delightful rhythm, they have shown themselves alike unable to imitate and unwilling to retain. Their queer uncouth phraseology and their jerky sentences:—their pedantic obscurity and their stiff, constrained manner:—their fidgetty affectation of accuracy,—and their habitual achievement of English which fails to exhibit the spirit of the original Greek;—are sorry substitutes for the living freshness, and elastic freedom, and habitual fidelity of the grand old Version which we inherited from our Fathers, and which has sustained the spiritual life of the Church of England, and of all English-speaking Christians, for 350 years. Linked with all our holiest, happiest memories, and bound up with all our purest aspirations: part and parcel of[pg 226]whatever there is of good about us: fraught with men's hopes of a blessed Eternity and many a bright vision of the never-ending Life;—the Authorized Version, wherever it was possible,should have been jealously retained. But on the contrary. Every familiar cadence has been dislocated: the congenial flow of almost every verse of Scripture has been hopelessly marred: so many of those little connecting words, which give life and continuity to a narrative, have been vexatiously displaced, that a perpetual sense of annoyance is created. The countless minute alterations which have been needlessly introduced into every familiar page prove at last as tormenting as a swarm of flies to the weary traveller on a summer's day.699To speak plainly, the book has been madeunreadable.But in fact the distinguished Chairman of the New Testament Company (Bishop Ellicott,) has delivered himself on this subject in language which leaves nothing to be desired, and which we willingly make our own.“No Revision”(he says)“in the present daycould hope to meet with an hour's acceptanceif it failed to preserve the tone, rhythm, and diction of the present Authorized Version.”700—What else is this but a vaticination,—of which the uninspired Author, by his own act and deed, has ensured the punctual fulfilment?We lay the Revisers' volume down convinced that the case of their work is simply hopeless.Non ego paucis offendar maculis.Had the blemishes been capable of being reckoned up, it might have been worth while to try to remedy some of them. But when, instead of being disfigured[pg 227]by a few weeds scattered here and there, the whole field proves to be sown over in every direction with thorns and briars; above all when, deep beneath the surface, roots of bitterness to be counted by thousands, are found to have been silently planted in, which are sure to produce poisonous fruit after many days:—undersuchcircumstances only one course can be prescribed. Let the entire area be ploughed up,—ploughed deep; and let the ground be left for a decent space of time without cultivation. It is idle—worse than idle—to dream of revising,with a view to retaining, this Revision. Another generation of students must be suffered to arise. Time must be given for Passion and Prejudice to cool effectually down. Partizanship, (which at present prevails to an extraordinary extent, but which is wondrously out of place inthisdepartment of Sacred Learning,)—Partizanshipmust be completely outlived,—before the Church can venture, with the remotest prospect of a successful issue, to organize another attempt at revising the Authorized Version of the New Testament Scriptures.Yes, and in the meantime—(let it in all faithfulness be added)—the Science of Textual Criticism will have to be prosecuted,for the first time, in a scholarlike manner.Fundamental Principles,—sufficiently axiomatic to ensure general acceptance,—will have to be laid down for men's guidance. The time has quite gone by for vaunting“the now established Principles of Textual Criticism,”701—as if they had an actual existence. Let us be shown, instead,which those Principles be. As for the weak superstition of these last days, which—without proof of any kind—would erect two IVth-century Copies of the New Testament, (demonstrably derived from one and the same utterly depraved archetype,)[pg 228]into an authority from which there shall be no appeal,—it cannot be too soon or too unconditionally abandoned. And, perhaps beyond all things, men must be invited to disabuse their minds of the singular imagination that it is in their power, when addressing themselves to that most difficult and delicate of problems,—the improvement of the Traditional Text,—“solvere ambulando.”702They are assured that they may not take to Textual Criticism as ducks take to the water. They will be drowned inevitably if they are so ill-advised as to make the attempt.Then further, those who would interpret the New Testament Scriptures, are reminded that a thorough acquaintance with the Septuagintal Version of the Old Testament is one indispensable condition of success.703And finally, the Revisionists of the future (if they desire that their labours should be crowned), will find it their wisdom to practise a severe self-denial; to confine themselves to the correction of“plain and clear errors;”and in fact to“introduce into the Textas few alterations as possible.”On a review of all that has happened, from first to last, we can but feel greatly concerned: greatly surprised: most of all, disappointed. We had expected a vastly different result. It is partly (not quite) accounted for, by the rare attendance in the Jerusalem Chamber of some of the names on which we had chiefly relied. Bishop Moberly (of Salisbury) was[pg 229]present on only 121 occasions: Bishop Wordsworth (of S. Andrews) on only 109: Archbishop Trench (of Dublin) on only 63: Bishop Wilberforce on onlyone. The Archbishop, in his Charge, adverts to“the not unfrequent sacrifice of grace and ease to the rigorous requirements of a literal accuracy;”and regards them“as pushed to a faulty excess”(p. 22). Eleven years before the scheme for the present“Revision”had been matured, the same distinguished and judicious Prelate, (then Dean of Westminster,) persuaded as he was that a Revisionoughtto come, and convinced that in time itwouldcome, deprecated its being attemptedyet. His words were,—“Not however, I would trust, as yet: for we are not as yetin any respect prepared for it. The Greek, and the Englishwhich should enable us to bring this to a successful end might, it is to be feared, be wanting alike.”704Archbishop Trench, with wise after-thought, in a second edition, explained himself to mean“that special Hellenistic Greek, here required.”The Bp. of S. Andrews has long since, in the fullest manner, cleared himself from the suspicion of complicity in the errors of the work before us,—as well in respect of the“New Greek Text”as of the“New English Version.”In the Charge which he delivered at his Diocesan Synod, (22nd Sept. 1880,) he openly stated that two years before the work was finally completed, he had felt obliged to address a printed circular to each member of the Company, in which he strongly remonstrated against the excess to which changes had been carried; and that the remonstrance had been, for the most part, unheeded. Had this been otherwise, there is good reason to believe that the reception which the Revision has met with would have been far less unfavourable, and that many a controversy which it has stirred up, would have been avoided. We have been assured that the[pg 230]Bp. of S. Andrews would have actually resigned his place in the Company at that time, if he had not been led to expect that some opportunity would have been taken by the Minority, when the work was finished, to express their formal dissent from the course which had been followed, and many of the conclusions which had been adopted.Were certain other excellent personages, (Scholars and Divines of the best type) who were often present, disposed at this late hour to come forward, they too would doubtless tell us that they heartily regretted what was done, but were powerless to prevent it. It is no secret that Dr. Lee,—the learned Archdeacon of Dublin,—(one of the few really competent members of the Revising body,)—found himself perpetually in the minority.The same is to be recorded concerning Dr. Roberts, whose work on the Gospels (published in 1864) shows that he is not by any means so entirely a novice in the mysteries of Textual Criticism as certain of his colleagues.—One famous Scholar and excellent Divine,—a Dean whom we forbear to name,—with the modesty of real learning, often withheld what (had he given it) would have been an adverse vote.—Another learned and accomplished Dean (Dr. Merivale), after attending 19 meetings of the Revising body, withdrew in disgust from them entirely. He disapprovedthe methodof his colleagues, and was determined to incur no share of responsibility for the probable result of their deliberations.—By the way,—What about a certain solemn Protest, by means of which the Minority had resolvedliberare animas suasconcerning the open disregard shown by the Majority for the conditions under which they had been entrusted with the work of Revision, but which was withheld at the last moment? Inasmuch as their reasons for the course they eventually adopted seemed sufficient to those high-minded and[pg 231]honourable men, we forbear to challenge it. Nothing however shall deter us from plainly avowing our own opinion that human regards scarcely deserve a hearing whenGod'sTruth is imperilled. And that the Truth ofGod'sWord in countless instanceshas beenignorantly sacrificed by a majority of the Revisionists—(out of deference to a worthless Theory, newly invented and passionately advocated by two of their body),—has been already demonstrated; as far, that is, as demonstration ispossiblein this subject matter.As for Prebendary Scrivener,—the only really competent Textual Critic of the whole party,—it is well known that he found himself perpetually outvoted by two-thirds of those present. We look forward to the forthcoming new edition of hisPlain Introduction, in the confident belief that he will there make it abundantly plain that he is in no degree responsible for the monstrous Text which it became his painful duty to conduct through the Press on behalf of the entire body, of which he continued to the last to be a member. It is no secret that, throughout, Dr. Scrivener pleaded in vain for the general view we have ourselves advocated in this and the preceding Article.All alike may at least enjoy the real satisfaction of knowing that, besides having stimulated, to an extraordinary extent, public attention to the contents of the Book of Life, they have been instrumental in awakening a living interest in one important but neglected department of Sacred Science, which will not easily be again put to sleep. It may reasonably prove a solace to them to reflect that they have besides, although perhaps in ways they did not anticipate, rendered excellent service to mankind. A monument they have certainly erected to themselves,—though neither of their Taste nor yet of their Learning. Their well-meant endeavours have provided an admirable text-book for[pg 232]Teachers of Divinity,—who will henceforth instruct their pupils to beware of the Textual errors of the Revisionists of 1881, as well as of their tasteless, injudicious, and unsatisfactory essays in Translation. This work of theirs will discharge the office of a warning beacon to as many as shall hereafter embark on the same perilous enterprise with themselves. It will convince men of the danger of pursuing the same ill-omened course: trusting to the same unskilful guidance: venturing too near the same wreck-strewn shore.Its effect will be to open men's eyes, as nothing else could possibly have done, to the dangers which beset the Revision of Scripture. It will teach faithful hearts to cling the closer to the priceless treasure which was bequeathed to them by the piety and wisdom of their fathers. It will dispel for ever the dream of those who have secretly imagined that a more exact Version, undertaken with the boasted helps of this nineteenth century of ours, would bring to light something which has been hitherto unfairly kept concealed or else misrepresented. Not the least service which the Revisionists have rendered has been the proof their work affords, how very seldom our Authorized Version is materially wrong: how faithful and trustworthy, on the contrary, it is throughout. Let it be also candidly admitted that, even where (in our judgment) the Revisionists have erred, they have never had the misfortuneseriouslyto obscure a single feature of Divine Truth; nor have they in any quarter (as we hope) inflicted wounds which will be attended with worse results than to leave a hideous scar behind them. It is but fair to add that their work bears marks of an amount of conscientious (though misdirected) labour, which those only can fully appreciate who have made the same province of study to some extent their own.
(h) Even this, however, is not nearly all. As Translators, full two-thirds of the Revisionists have shown themselves singularly deficient,—alike in their critical acquaintance with the language out of which they had to translate, and in their familiarity with the idiomatic requirements of their own tongue. They had a noble Version before them, which they have contrived to spoil in every part. Its dignified simplicity and essential faithfulness, its manly grace and its delightful rhythm, they have shown themselves alike unable to imitate and unwilling to retain. Their queer uncouth phraseology and their jerky sentences:—their pedantic obscurity and their stiff, constrained manner:—their fidgetty affectation of accuracy,—and their habitual achievement of English which fails to exhibit the spirit of the original Greek;—are sorry substitutes for the living freshness, and elastic freedom, and habitual fidelity of the grand old Version which we inherited from our Fathers, and which has sustained the spiritual life of the Church of England, and of all English-speaking Christians, for 350 years. Linked with all our holiest, happiest memories, and bound up with all our purest aspirations: part and parcel of[pg 226]whatever there is of good about us: fraught with men's hopes of a blessed Eternity and many a bright vision of the never-ending Life;—the Authorized Version, wherever it was possible,should have been jealously retained. But on the contrary. Every familiar cadence has been dislocated: the congenial flow of almost every verse of Scripture has been hopelessly marred: so many of those little connecting words, which give life and continuity to a narrative, have been vexatiously displaced, that a perpetual sense of annoyance is created. The countless minute alterations which have been needlessly introduced into every familiar page prove at last as tormenting as a swarm of flies to the weary traveller on a summer's day.699To speak plainly, the book has been madeunreadable.But in fact the distinguished Chairman of the New Testament Company (Bishop Ellicott,) has delivered himself on this subject in language which leaves nothing to be desired, and which we willingly make our own.“No Revision”(he says)“in the present daycould hope to meet with an hour's acceptanceif it failed to preserve the tone, rhythm, and diction of the present Authorized Version.”700—What else is this but a vaticination,—of which the uninspired Author, by his own act and deed, has ensured the punctual fulfilment?We lay the Revisers' volume down convinced that the case of their work is simply hopeless.Non ego paucis offendar maculis.Had the blemishes been capable of being reckoned up, it might have been worth while to try to remedy some of them. But when, instead of being disfigured[pg 227]by a few weeds scattered here and there, the whole field proves to be sown over in every direction with thorns and briars; above all when, deep beneath the surface, roots of bitterness to be counted by thousands, are found to have been silently planted in, which are sure to produce poisonous fruit after many days:—undersuchcircumstances only one course can be prescribed. Let the entire area be ploughed up,—ploughed deep; and let the ground be left for a decent space of time without cultivation. It is idle—worse than idle—to dream of revising,with a view to retaining, this Revision. Another generation of students must be suffered to arise. Time must be given for Passion and Prejudice to cool effectually down. Partizanship, (which at present prevails to an extraordinary extent, but which is wondrously out of place inthisdepartment of Sacred Learning,)—Partizanshipmust be completely outlived,—before the Church can venture, with the remotest prospect of a successful issue, to organize another attempt at revising the Authorized Version of the New Testament Scriptures.Yes, and in the meantime—(let it in all faithfulness be added)—the Science of Textual Criticism will have to be prosecuted,for the first time, in a scholarlike manner.Fundamental Principles,—sufficiently axiomatic to ensure general acceptance,—will have to be laid down for men's guidance. The time has quite gone by for vaunting“the now established Principles of Textual Criticism,”701—as if they had an actual existence. Let us be shown, instead,which those Principles be. As for the weak superstition of these last days, which—without proof of any kind—would erect two IVth-century Copies of the New Testament, (demonstrably derived from one and the same utterly depraved archetype,)[pg 228]into an authority from which there shall be no appeal,—it cannot be too soon or too unconditionally abandoned. And, perhaps beyond all things, men must be invited to disabuse their minds of the singular imagination that it is in their power, when addressing themselves to that most difficult and delicate of problems,—the improvement of the Traditional Text,—“solvere ambulando.”702They are assured that they may not take to Textual Criticism as ducks take to the water. They will be drowned inevitably if they are so ill-advised as to make the attempt.Then further, those who would interpret the New Testament Scriptures, are reminded that a thorough acquaintance with the Septuagintal Version of the Old Testament is one indispensable condition of success.703And finally, the Revisionists of the future (if they desire that their labours should be crowned), will find it their wisdom to practise a severe self-denial; to confine themselves to the correction of“plain and clear errors;”and in fact to“introduce into the Textas few alterations as possible.”On a review of all that has happened, from first to last, we can but feel greatly concerned: greatly surprised: most of all, disappointed. We had expected a vastly different result. It is partly (not quite) accounted for, by the rare attendance in the Jerusalem Chamber of some of the names on which we had chiefly relied. Bishop Moberly (of Salisbury) was[pg 229]present on only 121 occasions: Bishop Wordsworth (of S. Andrews) on only 109: Archbishop Trench (of Dublin) on only 63: Bishop Wilberforce on onlyone. The Archbishop, in his Charge, adverts to“the not unfrequent sacrifice of grace and ease to the rigorous requirements of a literal accuracy;”and regards them“as pushed to a faulty excess”(p. 22). Eleven years before the scheme for the present“Revision”had been matured, the same distinguished and judicious Prelate, (then Dean of Westminster,) persuaded as he was that a Revisionoughtto come, and convinced that in time itwouldcome, deprecated its being attemptedyet. His words were,—“Not however, I would trust, as yet: for we are not as yetin any respect prepared for it. The Greek, and the Englishwhich should enable us to bring this to a successful end might, it is to be feared, be wanting alike.”704Archbishop Trench, with wise after-thought, in a second edition, explained himself to mean“that special Hellenistic Greek, here required.”The Bp. of S. Andrews has long since, in the fullest manner, cleared himself from the suspicion of complicity in the errors of the work before us,—as well in respect of the“New Greek Text”as of the“New English Version.”In the Charge which he delivered at his Diocesan Synod, (22nd Sept. 1880,) he openly stated that two years before the work was finally completed, he had felt obliged to address a printed circular to each member of the Company, in which he strongly remonstrated against the excess to which changes had been carried; and that the remonstrance had been, for the most part, unheeded. Had this been otherwise, there is good reason to believe that the reception which the Revision has met with would have been far less unfavourable, and that many a controversy which it has stirred up, would have been avoided. We have been assured that the[pg 230]Bp. of S. Andrews would have actually resigned his place in the Company at that time, if he had not been led to expect that some opportunity would have been taken by the Minority, when the work was finished, to express their formal dissent from the course which had been followed, and many of the conclusions which had been adopted.Were certain other excellent personages, (Scholars and Divines of the best type) who were often present, disposed at this late hour to come forward, they too would doubtless tell us that they heartily regretted what was done, but were powerless to prevent it. It is no secret that Dr. Lee,—the learned Archdeacon of Dublin,—(one of the few really competent members of the Revising body,)—found himself perpetually in the minority.The same is to be recorded concerning Dr. Roberts, whose work on the Gospels (published in 1864) shows that he is not by any means so entirely a novice in the mysteries of Textual Criticism as certain of his colleagues.—One famous Scholar and excellent Divine,—a Dean whom we forbear to name,—with the modesty of real learning, often withheld what (had he given it) would have been an adverse vote.—Another learned and accomplished Dean (Dr. Merivale), after attending 19 meetings of the Revising body, withdrew in disgust from them entirely. He disapprovedthe methodof his colleagues, and was determined to incur no share of responsibility for the probable result of their deliberations.—By the way,—What about a certain solemn Protest, by means of which the Minority had resolvedliberare animas suasconcerning the open disregard shown by the Majority for the conditions under which they had been entrusted with the work of Revision, but which was withheld at the last moment? Inasmuch as their reasons for the course they eventually adopted seemed sufficient to those high-minded and[pg 231]honourable men, we forbear to challenge it. Nothing however shall deter us from plainly avowing our own opinion that human regards scarcely deserve a hearing whenGod'sTruth is imperilled. And that the Truth ofGod'sWord in countless instanceshas beenignorantly sacrificed by a majority of the Revisionists—(out of deference to a worthless Theory, newly invented and passionately advocated by two of their body),—has been already demonstrated; as far, that is, as demonstration ispossiblein this subject matter.As for Prebendary Scrivener,—the only really competent Textual Critic of the whole party,—it is well known that he found himself perpetually outvoted by two-thirds of those present. We look forward to the forthcoming new edition of hisPlain Introduction, in the confident belief that he will there make it abundantly plain that he is in no degree responsible for the monstrous Text which it became his painful duty to conduct through the Press on behalf of the entire body, of which he continued to the last to be a member. It is no secret that, throughout, Dr. Scrivener pleaded in vain for the general view we have ourselves advocated in this and the preceding Article.All alike may at least enjoy the real satisfaction of knowing that, besides having stimulated, to an extraordinary extent, public attention to the contents of the Book of Life, they have been instrumental in awakening a living interest in one important but neglected department of Sacred Science, which will not easily be again put to sleep. It may reasonably prove a solace to them to reflect that they have besides, although perhaps in ways they did not anticipate, rendered excellent service to mankind. A monument they have certainly erected to themselves,—though neither of their Taste nor yet of their Learning. Their well-meant endeavours have provided an admirable text-book for[pg 232]Teachers of Divinity,—who will henceforth instruct their pupils to beware of the Textual errors of the Revisionists of 1881, as well as of their tasteless, injudicious, and unsatisfactory essays in Translation. This work of theirs will discharge the office of a warning beacon to as many as shall hereafter embark on the same perilous enterprise with themselves. It will convince men of the danger of pursuing the same ill-omened course: trusting to the same unskilful guidance: venturing too near the same wreck-strewn shore.Its effect will be to open men's eyes, as nothing else could possibly have done, to the dangers which beset the Revision of Scripture. It will teach faithful hearts to cling the closer to the priceless treasure which was bequeathed to them by the piety and wisdom of their fathers. It will dispel for ever the dream of those who have secretly imagined that a more exact Version, undertaken with the boasted helps of this nineteenth century of ours, would bring to light something which has been hitherto unfairly kept concealed or else misrepresented. Not the least service which the Revisionists have rendered has been the proof their work affords, how very seldom our Authorized Version is materially wrong: how faithful and trustworthy, on the contrary, it is throughout. Let it be also candidly admitted that, even where (in our judgment) the Revisionists have erred, they have never had the misfortuneseriouslyto obscure a single feature of Divine Truth; nor have they in any quarter (as we hope) inflicted wounds which will be attended with worse results than to leave a hideous scar behind them. It is but fair to add that their work bears marks of an amount of conscientious (though misdirected) labour, which those only can fully appreciate who have made the same province of study to some extent their own.
(h) Even this, however, is not nearly all. As Translators, full two-thirds of the Revisionists have shown themselves singularly deficient,—alike in their critical acquaintance with the language out of which they had to translate, and in their familiarity with the idiomatic requirements of their own tongue. They had a noble Version before them, which they have contrived to spoil in every part. Its dignified simplicity and essential faithfulness, its manly grace and its delightful rhythm, they have shown themselves alike unable to imitate and unwilling to retain. Their queer uncouth phraseology and their jerky sentences:—their pedantic obscurity and their stiff, constrained manner:—their fidgetty affectation of accuracy,—and their habitual achievement of English which fails to exhibit the spirit of the original Greek;—are sorry substitutes for the living freshness, and elastic freedom, and habitual fidelity of the grand old Version which we inherited from our Fathers, and which has sustained the spiritual life of the Church of England, and of all English-speaking Christians, for 350 years. Linked with all our holiest, happiest memories, and bound up with all our purest aspirations: part and parcel of[pg 226]whatever there is of good about us: fraught with men's hopes of a blessed Eternity and many a bright vision of the never-ending Life;—the Authorized Version, wherever it was possible,should have been jealously retained. But on the contrary. Every familiar cadence has been dislocated: the congenial flow of almost every verse of Scripture has been hopelessly marred: so many of those little connecting words, which give life and continuity to a narrative, have been vexatiously displaced, that a perpetual sense of annoyance is created. The countless minute alterations which have been needlessly introduced into every familiar page prove at last as tormenting as a swarm of flies to the weary traveller on a summer's day.699To speak plainly, the book has been madeunreadable.
But in fact the distinguished Chairman of the New Testament Company (Bishop Ellicott,) has delivered himself on this subject in language which leaves nothing to be desired, and which we willingly make our own.“No Revision”(he says)“in the present daycould hope to meet with an hour's acceptanceif it failed to preserve the tone, rhythm, and diction of the present Authorized Version.”700—What else is this but a vaticination,—of which the uninspired Author, by his own act and deed, has ensured the punctual fulfilment?
We lay the Revisers' volume down convinced that the case of their work is simply hopeless.Non ego paucis offendar maculis.Had the blemishes been capable of being reckoned up, it might have been worth while to try to remedy some of them. But when, instead of being disfigured[pg 227]by a few weeds scattered here and there, the whole field proves to be sown over in every direction with thorns and briars; above all when, deep beneath the surface, roots of bitterness to be counted by thousands, are found to have been silently planted in, which are sure to produce poisonous fruit after many days:—undersuchcircumstances only one course can be prescribed. Let the entire area be ploughed up,—ploughed deep; and let the ground be left for a decent space of time without cultivation. It is idle—worse than idle—to dream of revising,with a view to retaining, this Revision. Another generation of students must be suffered to arise. Time must be given for Passion and Prejudice to cool effectually down. Partizanship, (which at present prevails to an extraordinary extent, but which is wondrously out of place inthisdepartment of Sacred Learning,)—Partizanshipmust be completely outlived,—before the Church can venture, with the remotest prospect of a successful issue, to organize another attempt at revising the Authorized Version of the New Testament Scriptures.
Yes, and in the meantime—(let it in all faithfulness be added)—the Science of Textual Criticism will have to be prosecuted,for the first time, in a scholarlike manner.Fundamental Principles,—sufficiently axiomatic to ensure general acceptance,—will have to be laid down for men's guidance. The time has quite gone by for vaunting“the now established Principles of Textual Criticism,”701—as if they had an actual existence. Let us be shown, instead,which those Principles be. As for the weak superstition of these last days, which—without proof of any kind—would erect two IVth-century Copies of the New Testament, (demonstrably derived from one and the same utterly depraved archetype,)[pg 228]into an authority from which there shall be no appeal,—it cannot be too soon or too unconditionally abandoned. And, perhaps beyond all things, men must be invited to disabuse their minds of the singular imagination that it is in their power, when addressing themselves to that most difficult and delicate of problems,—the improvement of the Traditional Text,—“solvere ambulando.”702They are assured that they may not take to Textual Criticism as ducks take to the water. They will be drowned inevitably if they are so ill-advised as to make the attempt.
Then further, those who would interpret the New Testament Scriptures, are reminded that a thorough acquaintance with the Septuagintal Version of the Old Testament is one indispensable condition of success.703And finally, the Revisionists of the future (if they desire that their labours should be crowned), will find it their wisdom to practise a severe self-denial; to confine themselves to the correction of“plain and clear errors;”and in fact to“introduce into the Textas few alterations as possible.”
On a review of all that has happened, from first to last, we can but feel greatly concerned: greatly surprised: most of all, disappointed. We had expected a vastly different result. It is partly (not quite) accounted for, by the rare attendance in the Jerusalem Chamber of some of the names on which we had chiefly relied. Bishop Moberly (of Salisbury) was[pg 229]present on only 121 occasions: Bishop Wordsworth (of S. Andrews) on only 109: Archbishop Trench (of Dublin) on only 63: Bishop Wilberforce on onlyone. The Archbishop, in his Charge, adverts to“the not unfrequent sacrifice of grace and ease to the rigorous requirements of a literal accuracy;”and regards them“as pushed to a faulty excess”(p. 22). Eleven years before the scheme for the present“Revision”had been matured, the same distinguished and judicious Prelate, (then Dean of Westminster,) persuaded as he was that a Revisionoughtto come, and convinced that in time itwouldcome, deprecated its being attemptedyet. His words were,—“Not however, I would trust, as yet: for we are not as yetin any respect prepared for it. The Greek, and the Englishwhich should enable us to bring this to a successful end might, it is to be feared, be wanting alike.”704Archbishop Trench, with wise after-thought, in a second edition, explained himself to mean“that special Hellenistic Greek, here required.”
The Bp. of S. Andrews has long since, in the fullest manner, cleared himself from the suspicion of complicity in the errors of the work before us,—as well in respect of the“New Greek Text”as of the“New English Version.”In the Charge which he delivered at his Diocesan Synod, (22nd Sept. 1880,) he openly stated that two years before the work was finally completed, he had felt obliged to address a printed circular to each member of the Company, in which he strongly remonstrated against the excess to which changes had been carried; and that the remonstrance had been, for the most part, unheeded. Had this been otherwise, there is good reason to believe that the reception which the Revision has met with would have been far less unfavourable, and that many a controversy which it has stirred up, would have been avoided. We have been assured that the[pg 230]Bp. of S. Andrews would have actually resigned his place in the Company at that time, if he had not been led to expect that some opportunity would have been taken by the Minority, when the work was finished, to express their formal dissent from the course which had been followed, and many of the conclusions which had been adopted.
Were certain other excellent personages, (Scholars and Divines of the best type) who were often present, disposed at this late hour to come forward, they too would doubtless tell us that they heartily regretted what was done, but were powerless to prevent it. It is no secret that Dr. Lee,—the learned Archdeacon of Dublin,—(one of the few really competent members of the Revising body,)—found himself perpetually in the minority.
The same is to be recorded concerning Dr. Roberts, whose work on the Gospels (published in 1864) shows that he is not by any means so entirely a novice in the mysteries of Textual Criticism as certain of his colleagues.—One famous Scholar and excellent Divine,—a Dean whom we forbear to name,—with the modesty of real learning, often withheld what (had he given it) would have been an adverse vote.—Another learned and accomplished Dean (Dr. Merivale), after attending 19 meetings of the Revising body, withdrew in disgust from them entirely. He disapprovedthe methodof his colleagues, and was determined to incur no share of responsibility for the probable result of their deliberations.—By the way,—What about a certain solemn Protest, by means of which the Minority had resolvedliberare animas suasconcerning the open disregard shown by the Majority for the conditions under which they had been entrusted with the work of Revision, but which was withheld at the last moment? Inasmuch as their reasons for the course they eventually adopted seemed sufficient to those high-minded and[pg 231]honourable men, we forbear to challenge it. Nothing however shall deter us from plainly avowing our own opinion that human regards scarcely deserve a hearing whenGod'sTruth is imperilled. And that the Truth ofGod'sWord in countless instanceshas beenignorantly sacrificed by a majority of the Revisionists—(out of deference to a worthless Theory, newly invented and passionately advocated by two of their body),—has been already demonstrated; as far, that is, as demonstration ispossiblein this subject matter.
As for Prebendary Scrivener,—the only really competent Textual Critic of the whole party,—it is well known that he found himself perpetually outvoted by two-thirds of those present. We look forward to the forthcoming new edition of hisPlain Introduction, in the confident belief that he will there make it abundantly plain that he is in no degree responsible for the monstrous Text which it became his painful duty to conduct through the Press on behalf of the entire body, of which he continued to the last to be a member. It is no secret that, throughout, Dr. Scrivener pleaded in vain for the general view we have ourselves advocated in this and the preceding Article.
All alike may at least enjoy the real satisfaction of knowing that, besides having stimulated, to an extraordinary extent, public attention to the contents of the Book of Life, they have been instrumental in awakening a living interest in one important but neglected department of Sacred Science, which will not easily be again put to sleep. It may reasonably prove a solace to them to reflect that they have besides, although perhaps in ways they did not anticipate, rendered excellent service to mankind. A monument they have certainly erected to themselves,—though neither of their Taste nor yet of their Learning. Their well-meant endeavours have provided an admirable text-book for[pg 232]Teachers of Divinity,—who will henceforth instruct their pupils to beware of the Textual errors of the Revisionists of 1881, as well as of their tasteless, injudicious, and unsatisfactory essays in Translation. This work of theirs will discharge the office of a warning beacon to as many as shall hereafter embark on the same perilous enterprise with themselves. It will convince men of the danger of pursuing the same ill-omened course: trusting to the same unskilful guidance: venturing too near the same wreck-strewn shore.
Its effect will be to open men's eyes, as nothing else could possibly have done, to the dangers which beset the Revision of Scripture. It will teach faithful hearts to cling the closer to the priceless treasure which was bequeathed to them by the piety and wisdom of their fathers. It will dispel for ever the dream of those who have secretly imagined that a more exact Version, undertaken with the boasted helps of this nineteenth century of ours, would bring to light something which has been hitherto unfairly kept concealed or else misrepresented. Not the least service which the Revisionists have rendered has been the proof their work affords, how very seldom our Authorized Version is materially wrong: how faithful and trustworthy, on the contrary, it is throughout. Let it be also candidly admitted that, even where (in our judgment) the Revisionists have erred, they have never had the misfortuneseriouslyto obscure a single feature of Divine Truth; nor have they in any quarter (as we hope) inflicted wounds which will be attended with worse results than to leave a hideous scar behind them. It is but fair to add that their work bears marks of an amount of conscientious (though misdirected) labour, which those only can fully appreciate who have made the same province of study to some extent their own.