“The wordGod, in place ofHe who, rests on no sufficient ancient evidence.”In the words of your Unitarian ally, Dr. Vance Smith,—“The old reading is pronounced untenable by the Revisers, as it has long been known to be by all careful students of the New Testament.... It is in truth another example of the facility with which ancient copiers could introduce the word God into their manuscripts,—a reading which was the natural result of the growing tendency in early Christian times ... to look upon the humble Teacher as the incarnate Word, and therefore as‘God manifested in the flesh’”(p. 39).Such remarks proceeding from such a quarter create no surprise. But, pray, my lord Bishop, of what wereyouthinking when you permitted yourself to make the serious[pg 516]mis-statement which stands in the margin? You must needs have meant thereby that,—“The wordHe whoin place ofGod, on the contrary,doesrest on sufficient ancient evidence.”I solemnly call upon you, in the Name of Him by whose Spirit Holy Scripture was given, to prove the truth of your marginal Note of which the foregoing 70 pages are a refutation.—You add,“Some ancient authorities readwhich.”But why did you suppress the fact, which is undeniable, viz.: that a great many“Moreancient authorities”read“which”(ὅ), than read“who”(ὅς)?(6)The nature of this contention explained.And yet, it was no isolated place which I was eager to establish, when at first I took up my pen. It was the general trustworthiness of the Traditional Text,—(the Text which you admit to be upwards of 1500 years old,)—which I aimed at illustrating: the essential rottenness of the foundation on which the Greek Text of the Revision of 1881 has been constructed by yourself and your fellow Revisers,—which I was determined to expose. I claim to have proved not only that your entire superstructure is tasteless and unlovely to a degree,—but also that you have reared it up on a foundation of sand. In no vaunting spirit, (Godis my witness!), but out of sincere and sober zeal for the truth of Scripture I say it,—your work, whether you know it or not, has been so handled in the course of the present volume of 500 pages that its essential deformity must be apparent to every unprejudiced beholder. It can only be spoken of at this time of day as a shapeless ruin.A ruin moreover it is which does not admit of being repaired or restored. And why? Because the mischief,[pg 517]which extends to every part of the edifice, takes its beginning, as already explained, in every part of the foundation.And further, (to speak without a figure,) it cannot be too plainly stated that no compromise is possible between our respective methods,—yours and mine: between thenew Germansystem in its most aggravated and in fact intolerable form, to which you have incautiously and unconditionally given in your adhesion; and theold Englishschool of Textual Criticism, of which I humbly avow myself a disciple. Between the theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort (which you have made your own) and the method of your present Correspondent, there can be no compromise, because the two are antagonistic throughout. We have, in fact, nothing in common,—except certain documents; whichIinsist on interpreting by the humble Inductive process: while you and your friends insist on your right of deducing your estimate of them from certain antecedent imaginations of your own,—every one of which I disallow, and some of which I am able to disprove.Such, my lord Bishop, is your baseless imagination—(1) That the traditional Greek Text (which, without authority, you style“The Syrian text,”) is the result of a deliberate Recension made at Antioch,a.d.250 and 350:1144—(2) That the Peschito, in like manner, is the result of a Recension made at Edessa or Nisibis about the same time:1145—(3) That Cureton's is the Syriac“Vetus,”and the Peschito the Syriac“Vulgate:”1146—(4) That the respective ancestries of our only two IVth-century Codices,band א,“diverged from a common parent extremely near the apostolic autographs:”1147—(5) That this common[pg 518]original enjoyed a“general immunity from substantive error;”and by consequence—(6) Thatband א provide“a safe criterion of genuineness,”so that“no readings of אbcan be safely rejected absolutely.”1148—(7) Similar wild imaginations you cherish concerningcandd,—which, together withband אyouassume to be among the most trustworthy guides in existence; whereasIhave convinced myself, by laborious collation, that they arethe most corrupt of all. We are thus diametrically opposed throughout. Finally,—(8)Youassume that you possess a power of divination which enables you to dispense with laborious processes of Induction; while I, on the contrary, insist that the Truth of the Text of Scripture is to be elicited exclusively from the consentient testimony of the largest number of the bestCopies,Fathers,Versions.1149There is, I am persuaded, no royal road to the attainment of Truth in this department of Knowledge. Only through the lowly portal of humility,—only by self-renouncing labour,—may we ever hope to reach the innermost shrine.Theydo but go astray themselves and hopelessly mislead others, who firstinvent their facts, and then proceed to build thereupon their premisses.Such builders are Drs. Westcott and Hort,—with whom (by your own avowal) you stand completely identified.1150I repeat, (for I wish it to be distinctly understood and remembered,) that what I assert concerning those Critics is,—notthat their superstructure rests upon an insecure foundation; but that it rests onno foundation at all. My complaint is,—notthat they aresomewhatandfrequentlymistaken; but that they are mistakenentirely, and that they are mistakenthroughout. There is no possibility of approximation[pg 519]betweentheirmere assumptions and the results ofmyhumble and laborious method of dealing with the Text of Scripture. We shall onlythenbe able to begin to reason together with the slightest prospect of coming to any agreement, when they have unconditionally abandoned all their preconceived imaginations, and unreservedly scattered every one of their postulates to the four winds.(7)Parting Counsels.Let me be allowed, in conclusion, to recommend to your attention and that of your friends,—(I.)“The last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel:”—(II.)the Angelic Hymnon the night of the Nativity:—(III.) The text of 1Timothyiii. 16,—these three,—(in respect of which up to this hour, you and I find ourselves to be hopelessly divided,)—as convenientTest places. When you are prepared frankly to admit,—(I.) That there is no reason whatever for doubting the genuineness of S.Markxvi. 9-20:1151—(II.) That ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία is unquestionably the Evangelical text of S.Lukeii. 14:1152—and (III.) That Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί is what the great Apostle must be held to have written in 1Timothyiii 16,1153—we shall be in good time to proceed to something else.Untilthis happy result has been attained, it is a mere waste of time to break up fresh ground, and to extend the area of our differences.I cannot however disguise from you the fact that such an avowal on your part will amount to an admission that“the whole fabric of Textual Criticism which has been built up during the last fifty years by successive editors of the New Testament,”—Lachmann namely, Tischendorf, and Tregelles,—is worthless. Neither may the inevitable consequence[pg 520]of this admission be concealed: viz. that your own work as Revisionists has been, to speak plainly, one gigantic blunder, from end to end.(8)The subject dismissed.The issue of this prolonged contention I now commend, with deep humility, toAlmighty God. TheSpirit of Truthwill, (I know,) take good care of His own masterpiece,—the Written Word. May He have compassion on my ignorance, and graciously forgive me, if, (intending nothing less,) I shall prove to have anywhere erred in my strenuous endeavour to maintain the integrity of Scripture against the rashness of an impatient and unlearned generation.But if, (as I humbly believe and confidently hope,) my conclusions are sound throughout, then may He enable men freely to recognize the Truth; and thus, effectually avert from our Church the supreme calamity with which, for a few months in 1881, it seemed threatened; namely, of having an utterly depraved Recension of the Greek Text of the New Testament thrust upon it, as the basis of a very questionable 'Revision' of the English.My lord Bishop,—I have the honour to wish you respectfully farewell.J. W. B.Deanery, Chichester,July, 1883.THE GRASS WITHERETH: THE FLOWER FADETH: BUT THE WORD OF OUR GOD SHALL STAND FOR EVER.
“The wordGod, in place ofHe who, rests on no sufficient ancient evidence.”In the words of your Unitarian ally, Dr. Vance Smith,—“The old reading is pronounced untenable by the Revisers, as it has long been known to be by all careful students of the New Testament.... It is in truth another example of the facility with which ancient copiers could introduce the word God into their manuscripts,—a reading which was the natural result of the growing tendency in early Christian times ... to look upon the humble Teacher as the incarnate Word, and therefore as‘God manifested in the flesh’”(p. 39).Such remarks proceeding from such a quarter create no surprise. But, pray, my lord Bishop, of what wereyouthinking when you permitted yourself to make the serious[pg 516]mis-statement which stands in the margin? You must needs have meant thereby that,—“The wordHe whoin place ofGod, on the contrary,doesrest on sufficient ancient evidence.”I solemnly call upon you, in the Name of Him by whose Spirit Holy Scripture was given, to prove the truth of your marginal Note of which the foregoing 70 pages are a refutation.—You add,“Some ancient authorities readwhich.”But why did you suppress the fact, which is undeniable, viz.: that a great many“Moreancient authorities”read“which”(ὅ), than read“who”(ὅς)?(6)The nature of this contention explained.And yet, it was no isolated place which I was eager to establish, when at first I took up my pen. It was the general trustworthiness of the Traditional Text,—(the Text which you admit to be upwards of 1500 years old,)—which I aimed at illustrating: the essential rottenness of the foundation on which the Greek Text of the Revision of 1881 has been constructed by yourself and your fellow Revisers,—which I was determined to expose. I claim to have proved not only that your entire superstructure is tasteless and unlovely to a degree,—but also that you have reared it up on a foundation of sand. In no vaunting spirit, (Godis my witness!), but out of sincere and sober zeal for the truth of Scripture I say it,—your work, whether you know it or not, has been so handled in the course of the present volume of 500 pages that its essential deformity must be apparent to every unprejudiced beholder. It can only be spoken of at this time of day as a shapeless ruin.A ruin moreover it is which does not admit of being repaired or restored. And why? Because the mischief,[pg 517]which extends to every part of the edifice, takes its beginning, as already explained, in every part of the foundation.And further, (to speak without a figure,) it cannot be too plainly stated that no compromise is possible between our respective methods,—yours and mine: between thenew Germansystem in its most aggravated and in fact intolerable form, to which you have incautiously and unconditionally given in your adhesion; and theold Englishschool of Textual Criticism, of which I humbly avow myself a disciple. Between the theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort (which you have made your own) and the method of your present Correspondent, there can be no compromise, because the two are antagonistic throughout. We have, in fact, nothing in common,—except certain documents; whichIinsist on interpreting by the humble Inductive process: while you and your friends insist on your right of deducing your estimate of them from certain antecedent imaginations of your own,—every one of which I disallow, and some of which I am able to disprove.Such, my lord Bishop, is your baseless imagination—(1) That the traditional Greek Text (which, without authority, you style“The Syrian text,”) is the result of a deliberate Recension made at Antioch,a.d.250 and 350:1144—(2) That the Peschito, in like manner, is the result of a Recension made at Edessa or Nisibis about the same time:1145—(3) That Cureton's is the Syriac“Vetus,”and the Peschito the Syriac“Vulgate:”1146—(4) That the respective ancestries of our only two IVth-century Codices,band א,“diverged from a common parent extremely near the apostolic autographs:”1147—(5) That this common[pg 518]original enjoyed a“general immunity from substantive error;”and by consequence—(6) Thatband א provide“a safe criterion of genuineness,”so that“no readings of אbcan be safely rejected absolutely.”1148—(7) Similar wild imaginations you cherish concerningcandd,—which, together withband אyouassume to be among the most trustworthy guides in existence; whereasIhave convinced myself, by laborious collation, that they arethe most corrupt of all. We are thus diametrically opposed throughout. Finally,—(8)Youassume that you possess a power of divination which enables you to dispense with laborious processes of Induction; while I, on the contrary, insist that the Truth of the Text of Scripture is to be elicited exclusively from the consentient testimony of the largest number of the bestCopies,Fathers,Versions.1149There is, I am persuaded, no royal road to the attainment of Truth in this department of Knowledge. Only through the lowly portal of humility,—only by self-renouncing labour,—may we ever hope to reach the innermost shrine.Theydo but go astray themselves and hopelessly mislead others, who firstinvent their facts, and then proceed to build thereupon their premisses.Such builders are Drs. Westcott and Hort,—with whom (by your own avowal) you stand completely identified.1150I repeat, (for I wish it to be distinctly understood and remembered,) that what I assert concerning those Critics is,—notthat their superstructure rests upon an insecure foundation; but that it rests onno foundation at all. My complaint is,—notthat they aresomewhatandfrequentlymistaken; but that they are mistakenentirely, and that they are mistakenthroughout. There is no possibility of approximation[pg 519]betweentheirmere assumptions and the results ofmyhumble and laborious method of dealing with the Text of Scripture. We shall onlythenbe able to begin to reason together with the slightest prospect of coming to any agreement, when they have unconditionally abandoned all their preconceived imaginations, and unreservedly scattered every one of their postulates to the four winds.(7)Parting Counsels.Let me be allowed, in conclusion, to recommend to your attention and that of your friends,—(I.)“The last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel:”—(II.)the Angelic Hymnon the night of the Nativity:—(III.) The text of 1Timothyiii. 16,—these three,—(in respect of which up to this hour, you and I find ourselves to be hopelessly divided,)—as convenientTest places. When you are prepared frankly to admit,—(I.) That there is no reason whatever for doubting the genuineness of S.Markxvi. 9-20:1151—(II.) That ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία is unquestionably the Evangelical text of S.Lukeii. 14:1152—and (III.) That Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί is what the great Apostle must be held to have written in 1Timothyiii 16,1153—we shall be in good time to proceed to something else.Untilthis happy result has been attained, it is a mere waste of time to break up fresh ground, and to extend the area of our differences.I cannot however disguise from you the fact that such an avowal on your part will amount to an admission that“the whole fabric of Textual Criticism which has been built up during the last fifty years by successive editors of the New Testament,”—Lachmann namely, Tischendorf, and Tregelles,—is worthless. Neither may the inevitable consequence[pg 520]of this admission be concealed: viz. that your own work as Revisionists has been, to speak plainly, one gigantic blunder, from end to end.(8)The subject dismissed.The issue of this prolonged contention I now commend, with deep humility, toAlmighty God. TheSpirit of Truthwill, (I know,) take good care of His own masterpiece,—the Written Word. May He have compassion on my ignorance, and graciously forgive me, if, (intending nothing less,) I shall prove to have anywhere erred in my strenuous endeavour to maintain the integrity of Scripture against the rashness of an impatient and unlearned generation.But if, (as I humbly believe and confidently hope,) my conclusions are sound throughout, then may He enable men freely to recognize the Truth; and thus, effectually avert from our Church the supreme calamity with which, for a few months in 1881, it seemed threatened; namely, of having an utterly depraved Recension of the Greek Text of the New Testament thrust upon it, as the basis of a very questionable 'Revision' of the English.My lord Bishop,—I have the honour to wish you respectfully farewell.J. W. B.Deanery, Chichester,July, 1883.THE GRASS WITHERETH: THE FLOWER FADETH: BUT THE WORD OF OUR GOD SHALL STAND FOR EVER.
“The wordGod, in place ofHe who, rests on no sufficient ancient evidence.”In the words of your Unitarian ally, Dr. Vance Smith,—“The old reading is pronounced untenable by the Revisers, as it has long been known to be by all careful students of the New Testament.... It is in truth another example of the facility with which ancient copiers could introduce the word God into their manuscripts,—a reading which was the natural result of the growing tendency in early Christian times ... to look upon the humble Teacher as the incarnate Word, and therefore as‘God manifested in the flesh’”(p. 39).Such remarks proceeding from such a quarter create no surprise. But, pray, my lord Bishop, of what wereyouthinking when you permitted yourself to make the serious[pg 516]mis-statement which stands in the margin? You must needs have meant thereby that,—“The wordHe whoin place ofGod, on the contrary,doesrest on sufficient ancient evidence.”I solemnly call upon you, in the Name of Him by whose Spirit Holy Scripture was given, to prove the truth of your marginal Note of which the foregoing 70 pages are a refutation.—You add,“Some ancient authorities readwhich.”But why did you suppress the fact, which is undeniable, viz.: that a great many“Moreancient authorities”read“which”(ὅ), than read“who”(ὅς)?(6)The nature of this contention explained.And yet, it was no isolated place which I was eager to establish, when at first I took up my pen. It was the general trustworthiness of the Traditional Text,—(the Text which you admit to be upwards of 1500 years old,)—which I aimed at illustrating: the essential rottenness of the foundation on which the Greek Text of the Revision of 1881 has been constructed by yourself and your fellow Revisers,—which I was determined to expose. I claim to have proved not only that your entire superstructure is tasteless and unlovely to a degree,—but also that you have reared it up on a foundation of sand. In no vaunting spirit, (Godis my witness!), but out of sincere and sober zeal for the truth of Scripture I say it,—your work, whether you know it or not, has been so handled in the course of the present volume of 500 pages that its essential deformity must be apparent to every unprejudiced beholder. It can only be spoken of at this time of day as a shapeless ruin.A ruin moreover it is which does not admit of being repaired or restored. And why? Because the mischief,[pg 517]which extends to every part of the edifice, takes its beginning, as already explained, in every part of the foundation.And further, (to speak without a figure,) it cannot be too plainly stated that no compromise is possible between our respective methods,—yours and mine: between thenew Germansystem in its most aggravated and in fact intolerable form, to which you have incautiously and unconditionally given in your adhesion; and theold Englishschool of Textual Criticism, of which I humbly avow myself a disciple. Between the theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort (which you have made your own) and the method of your present Correspondent, there can be no compromise, because the two are antagonistic throughout. We have, in fact, nothing in common,—except certain documents; whichIinsist on interpreting by the humble Inductive process: while you and your friends insist on your right of deducing your estimate of them from certain antecedent imaginations of your own,—every one of which I disallow, and some of which I am able to disprove.Such, my lord Bishop, is your baseless imagination—(1) That the traditional Greek Text (which, without authority, you style“The Syrian text,”) is the result of a deliberate Recension made at Antioch,a.d.250 and 350:1144—(2) That the Peschito, in like manner, is the result of a Recension made at Edessa or Nisibis about the same time:1145—(3) That Cureton's is the Syriac“Vetus,”and the Peschito the Syriac“Vulgate:”1146—(4) That the respective ancestries of our only two IVth-century Codices,band א,“diverged from a common parent extremely near the apostolic autographs:”1147—(5) That this common[pg 518]original enjoyed a“general immunity from substantive error;”and by consequence—(6) Thatband א provide“a safe criterion of genuineness,”so that“no readings of אbcan be safely rejected absolutely.”1148—(7) Similar wild imaginations you cherish concerningcandd,—which, together withband אyouassume to be among the most trustworthy guides in existence; whereasIhave convinced myself, by laborious collation, that they arethe most corrupt of all. We are thus diametrically opposed throughout. Finally,—(8)Youassume that you possess a power of divination which enables you to dispense with laborious processes of Induction; while I, on the contrary, insist that the Truth of the Text of Scripture is to be elicited exclusively from the consentient testimony of the largest number of the bestCopies,Fathers,Versions.1149There is, I am persuaded, no royal road to the attainment of Truth in this department of Knowledge. Only through the lowly portal of humility,—only by self-renouncing labour,—may we ever hope to reach the innermost shrine.Theydo but go astray themselves and hopelessly mislead others, who firstinvent their facts, and then proceed to build thereupon their premisses.Such builders are Drs. Westcott and Hort,—with whom (by your own avowal) you stand completely identified.1150I repeat, (for I wish it to be distinctly understood and remembered,) that what I assert concerning those Critics is,—notthat their superstructure rests upon an insecure foundation; but that it rests onno foundation at all. My complaint is,—notthat they aresomewhatandfrequentlymistaken; but that they are mistakenentirely, and that they are mistakenthroughout. There is no possibility of approximation[pg 519]betweentheirmere assumptions and the results ofmyhumble and laborious method of dealing with the Text of Scripture. We shall onlythenbe able to begin to reason together with the slightest prospect of coming to any agreement, when they have unconditionally abandoned all their preconceived imaginations, and unreservedly scattered every one of their postulates to the four winds.(7)Parting Counsels.Let me be allowed, in conclusion, to recommend to your attention and that of your friends,—(I.)“The last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel:”—(II.)the Angelic Hymnon the night of the Nativity:—(III.) The text of 1Timothyiii. 16,—these three,—(in respect of which up to this hour, you and I find ourselves to be hopelessly divided,)—as convenientTest places. When you are prepared frankly to admit,—(I.) That there is no reason whatever for doubting the genuineness of S.Markxvi. 9-20:1151—(II.) That ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία is unquestionably the Evangelical text of S.Lukeii. 14:1152—and (III.) That Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί is what the great Apostle must be held to have written in 1Timothyiii 16,1153—we shall be in good time to proceed to something else.Untilthis happy result has been attained, it is a mere waste of time to break up fresh ground, and to extend the area of our differences.I cannot however disguise from you the fact that such an avowal on your part will amount to an admission that“the whole fabric of Textual Criticism which has been built up during the last fifty years by successive editors of the New Testament,”—Lachmann namely, Tischendorf, and Tregelles,—is worthless. Neither may the inevitable consequence[pg 520]of this admission be concealed: viz. that your own work as Revisionists has been, to speak plainly, one gigantic blunder, from end to end.(8)The subject dismissed.The issue of this prolonged contention I now commend, with deep humility, toAlmighty God. TheSpirit of Truthwill, (I know,) take good care of His own masterpiece,—the Written Word. May He have compassion on my ignorance, and graciously forgive me, if, (intending nothing less,) I shall prove to have anywhere erred in my strenuous endeavour to maintain the integrity of Scripture against the rashness of an impatient and unlearned generation.But if, (as I humbly believe and confidently hope,) my conclusions are sound throughout, then may He enable men freely to recognize the Truth; and thus, effectually avert from our Church the supreme calamity with which, for a few months in 1881, it seemed threatened; namely, of having an utterly depraved Recension of the Greek Text of the New Testament thrust upon it, as the basis of a very questionable 'Revision' of the English.My lord Bishop,—I have the honour to wish you respectfully farewell.J. W. B.Deanery, Chichester,July, 1883.THE GRASS WITHERETH: THE FLOWER FADETH: BUT THE WORD OF OUR GOD SHALL STAND FOR EVER.
“The wordGod, in place ofHe who, rests on no sufficient ancient evidence.”In the words of your Unitarian ally, Dr. Vance Smith,—“The old reading is pronounced untenable by the Revisers, as it has long been known to be by all careful students of the New Testament.... It is in truth another example of the facility with which ancient copiers could introduce the word God into their manuscripts,—a reading which was the natural result of the growing tendency in early Christian times ... to look upon the humble Teacher as the incarnate Word, and therefore as‘God manifested in the flesh’”(p. 39).Such remarks proceeding from such a quarter create no surprise. But, pray, my lord Bishop, of what wereyouthinking when you permitted yourself to make the serious[pg 516]mis-statement which stands in the margin? You must needs have meant thereby that,—“The wordHe whoin place ofGod, on the contrary,doesrest on sufficient ancient evidence.”I solemnly call upon you, in the Name of Him by whose Spirit Holy Scripture was given, to prove the truth of your marginal Note of which the foregoing 70 pages are a refutation.—You add,“Some ancient authorities readwhich.”But why did you suppress the fact, which is undeniable, viz.: that a great many“Moreancient authorities”read“which”(ὅ), than read“who”(ὅς)?(6)The nature of this contention explained.And yet, it was no isolated place which I was eager to establish, when at first I took up my pen. It was the general trustworthiness of the Traditional Text,—(the Text which you admit to be upwards of 1500 years old,)—which I aimed at illustrating: the essential rottenness of the foundation on which the Greek Text of the Revision of 1881 has been constructed by yourself and your fellow Revisers,—which I was determined to expose. I claim to have proved not only that your entire superstructure is tasteless and unlovely to a degree,—but also that you have reared it up on a foundation of sand. In no vaunting spirit, (Godis my witness!), but out of sincere and sober zeal for the truth of Scripture I say it,—your work, whether you know it or not, has been so handled in the course of the present volume of 500 pages that its essential deformity must be apparent to every unprejudiced beholder. It can only be spoken of at this time of day as a shapeless ruin.A ruin moreover it is which does not admit of being repaired or restored. And why? Because the mischief,[pg 517]which extends to every part of the edifice, takes its beginning, as already explained, in every part of the foundation.And further, (to speak without a figure,) it cannot be too plainly stated that no compromise is possible between our respective methods,—yours and mine: between thenew Germansystem in its most aggravated and in fact intolerable form, to which you have incautiously and unconditionally given in your adhesion; and theold Englishschool of Textual Criticism, of which I humbly avow myself a disciple. Between the theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort (which you have made your own) and the method of your present Correspondent, there can be no compromise, because the two are antagonistic throughout. We have, in fact, nothing in common,—except certain documents; whichIinsist on interpreting by the humble Inductive process: while you and your friends insist on your right of deducing your estimate of them from certain antecedent imaginations of your own,—every one of which I disallow, and some of which I am able to disprove.Such, my lord Bishop, is your baseless imagination—(1) That the traditional Greek Text (which, without authority, you style“The Syrian text,”) is the result of a deliberate Recension made at Antioch,a.d.250 and 350:1144—(2) That the Peschito, in like manner, is the result of a Recension made at Edessa or Nisibis about the same time:1145—(3) That Cureton's is the Syriac“Vetus,”and the Peschito the Syriac“Vulgate:”1146—(4) That the respective ancestries of our only two IVth-century Codices,band א,“diverged from a common parent extremely near the apostolic autographs:”1147—(5) That this common[pg 518]original enjoyed a“general immunity from substantive error;”and by consequence—(6) Thatband א provide“a safe criterion of genuineness,”so that“no readings of אbcan be safely rejected absolutely.”1148—(7) Similar wild imaginations you cherish concerningcandd,—which, together withband אyouassume to be among the most trustworthy guides in existence; whereasIhave convinced myself, by laborious collation, that they arethe most corrupt of all. We are thus diametrically opposed throughout. Finally,—(8)Youassume that you possess a power of divination which enables you to dispense with laborious processes of Induction; while I, on the contrary, insist that the Truth of the Text of Scripture is to be elicited exclusively from the consentient testimony of the largest number of the bestCopies,Fathers,Versions.1149There is, I am persuaded, no royal road to the attainment of Truth in this department of Knowledge. Only through the lowly portal of humility,—only by self-renouncing labour,—may we ever hope to reach the innermost shrine.Theydo but go astray themselves and hopelessly mislead others, who firstinvent their facts, and then proceed to build thereupon their premisses.Such builders are Drs. Westcott and Hort,—with whom (by your own avowal) you stand completely identified.1150I repeat, (for I wish it to be distinctly understood and remembered,) that what I assert concerning those Critics is,—notthat their superstructure rests upon an insecure foundation; but that it rests onno foundation at all. My complaint is,—notthat they aresomewhatandfrequentlymistaken; but that they are mistakenentirely, and that they are mistakenthroughout. There is no possibility of approximation[pg 519]betweentheirmere assumptions and the results ofmyhumble and laborious method of dealing with the Text of Scripture. We shall onlythenbe able to begin to reason together with the slightest prospect of coming to any agreement, when they have unconditionally abandoned all their preconceived imaginations, and unreservedly scattered every one of their postulates to the four winds.(7)Parting Counsels.Let me be allowed, in conclusion, to recommend to your attention and that of your friends,—(I.)“The last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel:”—(II.)the Angelic Hymnon the night of the Nativity:—(III.) The text of 1Timothyiii. 16,—these three,—(in respect of which up to this hour, you and I find ourselves to be hopelessly divided,)—as convenientTest places. When you are prepared frankly to admit,—(I.) That there is no reason whatever for doubting the genuineness of S.Markxvi. 9-20:1151—(II.) That ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία is unquestionably the Evangelical text of S.Lukeii. 14:1152—and (III.) That Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί is what the great Apostle must be held to have written in 1Timothyiii 16,1153—we shall be in good time to proceed to something else.Untilthis happy result has been attained, it is a mere waste of time to break up fresh ground, and to extend the area of our differences.I cannot however disguise from you the fact that such an avowal on your part will amount to an admission that“the whole fabric of Textual Criticism which has been built up during the last fifty years by successive editors of the New Testament,”—Lachmann namely, Tischendorf, and Tregelles,—is worthless. Neither may the inevitable consequence[pg 520]of this admission be concealed: viz. that your own work as Revisionists has been, to speak plainly, one gigantic blunder, from end to end.(8)The subject dismissed.The issue of this prolonged contention I now commend, with deep humility, toAlmighty God. TheSpirit of Truthwill, (I know,) take good care of His own masterpiece,—the Written Word. May He have compassion on my ignorance, and graciously forgive me, if, (intending nothing less,) I shall prove to have anywhere erred in my strenuous endeavour to maintain the integrity of Scripture against the rashness of an impatient and unlearned generation.But if, (as I humbly believe and confidently hope,) my conclusions are sound throughout, then may He enable men freely to recognize the Truth; and thus, effectually avert from our Church the supreme calamity with which, for a few months in 1881, it seemed threatened; namely, of having an utterly depraved Recension of the Greek Text of the New Testament thrust upon it, as the basis of a very questionable 'Revision' of the English.My lord Bishop,—I have the honour to wish you respectfully farewell.J. W. B.Deanery, Chichester,July, 1883.THE GRASS WITHERETH: THE FLOWER FADETH: BUT THE WORD OF OUR GOD SHALL STAND FOR EVER.
“The wordGod, in place ofHe who, rests on no sufficient ancient evidence.”
In the words of your Unitarian ally, Dr. Vance Smith,—
“The old reading is pronounced untenable by the Revisers, as it has long been known to be by all careful students of the New Testament.... It is in truth another example of the facility with which ancient copiers could introduce the word God into their manuscripts,—a reading which was the natural result of the growing tendency in early Christian times ... to look upon the humble Teacher as the incarnate Word, and therefore as‘God manifested in the flesh’”(p. 39).
Such remarks proceeding from such a quarter create no surprise. But, pray, my lord Bishop, of what wereyouthinking when you permitted yourself to make the serious[pg 516]mis-statement which stands in the margin? You must needs have meant thereby that,—“The wordHe whoin place ofGod, on the contrary,doesrest on sufficient ancient evidence.”I solemnly call upon you, in the Name of Him by whose Spirit Holy Scripture was given, to prove the truth of your marginal Note of which the foregoing 70 pages are a refutation.—You add,
“Some ancient authorities readwhich.”
But why did you suppress the fact, which is undeniable, viz.: that a great many“Moreancient authorities”read“which”(ὅ), than read“who”(ὅς)?
(6)The nature of this contention explained.
And yet, it was no isolated place which I was eager to establish, when at first I took up my pen. It was the general trustworthiness of the Traditional Text,—(the Text which you admit to be upwards of 1500 years old,)—which I aimed at illustrating: the essential rottenness of the foundation on which the Greek Text of the Revision of 1881 has been constructed by yourself and your fellow Revisers,—which I was determined to expose. I claim to have proved not only that your entire superstructure is tasteless and unlovely to a degree,—but also that you have reared it up on a foundation of sand. In no vaunting spirit, (Godis my witness!), but out of sincere and sober zeal for the truth of Scripture I say it,—your work, whether you know it or not, has been so handled in the course of the present volume of 500 pages that its essential deformity must be apparent to every unprejudiced beholder. It can only be spoken of at this time of day as a shapeless ruin.
A ruin moreover it is which does not admit of being repaired or restored. And why? Because the mischief,[pg 517]which extends to every part of the edifice, takes its beginning, as already explained, in every part of the foundation.
And further, (to speak without a figure,) it cannot be too plainly stated that no compromise is possible between our respective methods,—yours and mine: between thenew Germansystem in its most aggravated and in fact intolerable form, to which you have incautiously and unconditionally given in your adhesion; and theold Englishschool of Textual Criticism, of which I humbly avow myself a disciple. Between the theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort (which you have made your own) and the method of your present Correspondent, there can be no compromise, because the two are antagonistic throughout. We have, in fact, nothing in common,—except certain documents; whichIinsist on interpreting by the humble Inductive process: while you and your friends insist on your right of deducing your estimate of them from certain antecedent imaginations of your own,—every one of which I disallow, and some of which I am able to disprove.
Such, my lord Bishop, is your baseless imagination—(1) That the traditional Greek Text (which, without authority, you style“The Syrian text,”) is the result of a deliberate Recension made at Antioch,a.d.250 and 350:1144—(2) That the Peschito, in like manner, is the result of a Recension made at Edessa or Nisibis about the same time:1145—(3) That Cureton's is the Syriac“Vetus,”and the Peschito the Syriac“Vulgate:”1146—(4) That the respective ancestries of our only two IVth-century Codices,band א,“diverged from a common parent extremely near the apostolic autographs:”1147—(5) That this common[pg 518]original enjoyed a“general immunity from substantive error;”and by consequence—(6) Thatband א provide“a safe criterion of genuineness,”so that“no readings of אbcan be safely rejected absolutely.”1148—(7) Similar wild imaginations you cherish concerningcandd,—which, together withband אyouassume to be among the most trustworthy guides in existence; whereasIhave convinced myself, by laborious collation, that they arethe most corrupt of all. We are thus diametrically opposed throughout. Finally,—(8)Youassume that you possess a power of divination which enables you to dispense with laborious processes of Induction; while I, on the contrary, insist that the Truth of the Text of Scripture is to be elicited exclusively from the consentient testimony of the largest number of the bestCopies,Fathers,Versions.1149There is, I am persuaded, no royal road to the attainment of Truth in this department of Knowledge. Only through the lowly portal of humility,—only by self-renouncing labour,—may we ever hope to reach the innermost shrine.Theydo but go astray themselves and hopelessly mislead others, who firstinvent their facts, and then proceed to build thereupon their premisses.
Such builders are Drs. Westcott and Hort,—with whom (by your own avowal) you stand completely identified.1150I repeat, (for I wish it to be distinctly understood and remembered,) that what I assert concerning those Critics is,—notthat their superstructure rests upon an insecure foundation; but that it rests onno foundation at all. My complaint is,—notthat they aresomewhatandfrequentlymistaken; but that they are mistakenentirely, and that they are mistakenthroughout. There is no possibility of approximation[pg 519]betweentheirmere assumptions and the results ofmyhumble and laborious method of dealing with the Text of Scripture. We shall onlythenbe able to begin to reason together with the slightest prospect of coming to any agreement, when they have unconditionally abandoned all their preconceived imaginations, and unreservedly scattered every one of their postulates to the four winds.
(7)Parting Counsels.
Let me be allowed, in conclusion, to recommend to your attention and that of your friends,—(I.)“The last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel:”—(II.)the Angelic Hymnon the night of the Nativity:—(III.) The text of 1Timothyiii. 16,—these three,—(in respect of which up to this hour, you and I find ourselves to be hopelessly divided,)—as convenientTest places. When you are prepared frankly to admit,—(I.) That there is no reason whatever for doubting the genuineness of S.Markxvi. 9-20:1151—(II.) That ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία is unquestionably the Evangelical text of S.Lukeii. 14:1152—and (III.) That Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί is what the great Apostle must be held to have written in 1Timothyiii 16,1153—we shall be in good time to proceed to something else.Untilthis happy result has been attained, it is a mere waste of time to break up fresh ground, and to extend the area of our differences.
I cannot however disguise from you the fact that such an avowal on your part will amount to an admission that“the whole fabric of Textual Criticism which has been built up during the last fifty years by successive editors of the New Testament,”—Lachmann namely, Tischendorf, and Tregelles,—is worthless. Neither may the inevitable consequence[pg 520]of this admission be concealed: viz. that your own work as Revisionists has been, to speak plainly, one gigantic blunder, from end to end.
(8)The subject dismissed.
The issue of this prolonged contention I now commend, with deep humility, toAlmighty God. TheSpirit of Truthwill, (I know,) take good care of His own masterpiece,—the Written Word. May He have compassion on my ignorance, and graciously forgive me, if, (intending nothing less,) I shall prove to have anywhere erred in my strenuous endeavour to maintain the integrity of Scripture against the rashness of an impatient and unlearned generation.
But if, (as I humbly believe and confidently hope,) my conclusions are sound throughout, then may He enable men freely to recognize the Truth; and thus, effectually avert from our Church the supreme calamity with which, for a few months in 1881, it seemed threatened; namely, of having an utterly depraved Recension of the Greek Text of the New Testament thrust upon it, as the basis of a very questionable 'Revision' of the English.
My lord Bishop,—I have the honour to wish you respectfully farewell.
J. W. B.
Deanery, Chichester,July, 1883.
THE GRASS WITHERETH: THE FLOWER FADETH: BUT THE WORD OF OUR GOD SHALL STAND FOR EVER.