Chapter 8

(c) In the same way, ourLord'simportant saying,—“Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of: for the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them”(S. Luke ix. 55, 56), has disappeared from our“Revised”Version; although Manuscripts, Versions, Fathers from thesecond centurydownwards, (as Tischendorf admits,) witness eloquently in its favour.V. In conclusion, we propose to advert, just for a moment, to those five several mis-representations of S. Luke's“Title on the Cross,”which were rehearsed above, viz. in page86. At so gross an exhibition of licentiousness, it is the mere instinct of Natural Piety to exclaim,—But then, could not those men even set down so sacred a record asthat, correctly? They could, had they been so minded, no doubt, (we answer): but, marvellous to relate, theTranspositionof words,—no matter how significant, sacred, solemn;—of short clauses,—even of whole sentences of Scripture;—was anciently accounted an allowable, even a graceful exercise of the critical faculty.The thing alluded to is incredible at first sight; being so often done, apparently, without any reason whatever,—or rather in defiance of all reason. Letcandidus lectorbe the judge whether we speak truly or not. Whereas S. Luke (xxiv. 41) says,“And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered,”the scribe of codexa(by way of improving upon the Evangelist) transposes his sentence into this,“And while they yet disbelieved Him,and wondered for joy:”342which is almost nonsense, or quite.But take a less solemn example. Instead of,—“And His[pg 094]disciples pluckedthe ears of corn, and ate them, (τοὺς στάχυας, καὶ ἤσθιον,) rubbing them in their hands”(S. Luke vi. 1),—b c l r, bytransposingfour Greek words, present us with,“And His disciples plucked,and ate the ears of corn, (καὶ ἤσθιον τοὺς στάχυας,) rubbing them,”&c. Now this might have been an agreeable occupation for horses and for another quadruped, no doubt; but hardly for men. This curiosity, which (happily) proved indigestible to our Revisionists, is nevertheless swallowed whole by Drs. Westcott and Hort as genuine and wholesome Gospel. (O dura Doctorum ilia!)—But to proceed.Then further, these preposterous Transpositions are of such perpetual recurrence,—are so utterly useless or else so exceedingly mischievous,alwaysso tasteless,—that familiarity with the phenomenon rather increases than lessens our astonishment. Whatdoesastonish us, however, is to find learned men in the year of grace 1881, freely resuscitating these long-since-forgottenbêtisesof long-since-forgotten Critics, and seeking to palm them off upon a busy and a careless age, as so many new revelations. That we may not be thought to have shown undue partiality for the xxiind, xxiiird, and xxivth chapters of S. Luke's Gospel by selecting our instances ofMutilationfrom those three chapters, we will now look for specimens ofTranspositionin the xixth and xxth chapters of the same Gospel. The reader is invited to collate the Text of the oldest uncials, throughout these two chapters, with the commonly Received Text. He will find that within the compass of 88 consecutive verses,343codices אa b c d qexhibit no less than 74 instances of Transposition:—for 39 of which,dis responsible:—אb, for 14:—א and אb d, for 4 each:—a band אa b, for 3 each:—a, for[pg 095]2:—b,c,q, א A, andad, each for 1.—In other words, he will find that in no less than 44 of these instances of Transposition,dis implicated:—א, in 26:—b, in 25:—a, in 10:—whilecandqare concerned in only one a-piece.... It should be added that Drs. Westcott and Hort have adoptedevery one of the 25 in which codexbis concerned—a significant indication of the superstitious reverence in which they hold that demonstrably corrupt and most untrustworthy document.344Every other case of Transposition they have rejected. By their own confession, therefore, 49 out of the 74 (i.e.two-thirds of the entire number) are instances of depravation. We turn with curiosity to the Revised Version; and discover that out of the 25 so retained, the Editors in question were only able to persuade the Revisionists to adopt 8. So that, in the judgment of the Revisionists, 66 out of 74, oreleven-twelfths,[pg 096]are instances of licentious tampering with the deposit.... O to participate in the verifying faculty which guided the teachers to discern in 25 cases of Transposition out of 74, the genuine work of theHoly Ghost! O, far more, to have been born with that loftier instinct which enabled the pupils (Doctors Roberts and Milligan, Newth and Moulton, Vance Smith and Brown, Angus and Eadie) to winnow out from the entire lot exactly 8, and to reject the remaining 66 as nothing worth!According to our own best judgment, (and we have carefully examined them all,)every oneof the 74 is worthless. But thenwemake it our fundamental rule to reason always from grounds of external Evidence,—never from postulates of the Imagination. Moreover, in the application of our rule, we begrudge no amount of labour: reckoning a long summer's day well spent if it has enabled us to ascertain the truth concerning one single controverted word of Scripture. Thus, when we find that our Revisionists, at the suggestion of Dr. Hort, have transposed the familiar Angelic utterance (in S. Luke xxiv. 7), λέγων ὅτι δεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παραδοθῆναι,—into this, λέγων τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὅτι δεῖ, &c., we at once enquire forthe evidence. And when we find that no single Father,nosingle Version, and no Codex—except the notorious אb c l—advocates the proposed transposition; but on the contrary that every Father (froma.d.150 downwards) who quotes the place, quotes it as it stands in the Textus receptus;345—we have no hesitation whatever in rejecting it. It is found in the midst of a very thicket of fabricated readings. It has nothing whatever to recommend it. It is condemned by the consentient voice of Antiquity.[pg 097]It is advocated only by four copies,—whichnevercombine exclusively, except to misrepresent the truth of Scripture and to seduce the simple.But the foregoing, which is a fair typical sample of countless other instances of unauthorized Transposition, may not be dismissed without a few words of serious remonstrance. Our contention is that, inasmuch as the effect of such transpositionis incapable of being idiomatically represented in the English language,—(for, in all such cases, the Revised Version retains the rendering of the Authorized,)—our Revisionists have violated the spirit as well as the letter of their instructions, in putting fortha new Greek Text, and silently introducing into it a countless number of these and similar depravations of Scripture. These Textual curiosities (for they are nothing more) are absolutely out of place in aRevision of the English Version: achieve no lawful purpose: are sure to mislead the unwary. This first.—Secondly, we submit that,—strong as, no doubt, the temptation must have been, to secure the sanction of the N. T. Revisionists for their own private Recension of the Greek, (printed long since, but published simultaneously with the“Revised Version”)—it is to be regretted that Drs. Westcott and Hort should have yielded thereto. Man's impatience never promotesGod'sTruth. The interests of Textual Criticism would rather have suggested, that the Recension of that accomplished pair of Professors should have been submitted to public inspection in the first instance. The astonishing Text which it advocates might have been left with comparative safety to take its chance in the Jerusalem Chamber, after it had undergone the searching ordeal of competent Criticism, and been freely ventilated at home and abroad for a decade of years. But on the contrary. It was kept close. It might be seen only by the Revisers: and eventheywere tied down to secrecy as[pg 098]to the letter-press by which it was accompanied.... All this strikes us as painful in a high degree.VI. Hitherto we have referred almost exclusively to the Gospels. In conclusion, we invite attention to our Revisionists' treatment of 1 Tim. iii. 16—thecrux criticorum, as Prebendary Scrivener styles it.346We cannot act more fairly than by inviting a learned member of the revising body to speak on behalf of his brethren. We shall in this way ascertain the amount of acquaintance with the subject enjoyed by some of those who have been so obliging as to furnish the Church with a new Recension of the Greek of the New Testament. Dr. Roberts says:—“The English reader will probably be startled to find that the familiar text,—‘And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:Godwas manifest in the flesh,’has been exchanged in the Revised Version for the following,—‘And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh.’A note on the margin states that‘the wordGod, in place ofHe who, rests on no sufficient ancient evidence;’and it may be well that, in a passage of so great importance, the reader should be convinced that such is the case.“What, then, let us enquire, is the amount of evidence which can be produced in support of the reading‘God’? This is soon stated. Not one of the early Fathers can be certainly quoted for it. None of the very ancient versions support it. No uncial witnesses to it, with the doubtful exception ofa.... But even granting that the weighty suffrage of the Alexandrian manuscript is in favour of‘God,’far more evidence can be produced in support of‘who.’א and probablycwitness to this reading, and it has also powerful testimony from the versions and Fathers. Moreover, the relative‘who’is a far more difficult reading than‘God,’and could hardly have been substituted for the latter. On every ground, therefore, we conclude that[pg 099]this interesting and important passage must stand as it has been given in the Revised Version.”347And now, having heard the learned Presbyterian on behalf of his brother-Revisionists, we request that we may be ourselves listened to in reply.The place of Scripture before us, the Reader is assured, presents a memorable instance of the mischief which occasionally resulted to the inspired Text from the ancient practice of executing copies of the Scriptures in uncial characters. S. Paulcertainlywrote μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον; Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, (“Great is the mystery of godliness:Godwas manifested in the flesh”) But it requires to be explained at the outset, that the holy Name when abbreviated (which it always was), thus,—ΘΣ(“God”), is only distinguishable from the relative pronoun“who”(ΟΣ), by two horizontal strokes,—which, in manuscripts of early date, it was often the practice to trace so faintly that at present they can scarcely be discerned.348Need we go on? An archetypal copy in which one or both of these slight strokes had vanished from the wordΘΣ(“God”), gave rise to the reading ΟΣ (“who”),—of which nonsensical substitute, traces survive inonly two349manuscripts,—א and 17: not, for certain, inone singleancient Father,—no, nor for certain inone singleancient Version. So transparent, in fact, is the absurdity of writing τὸ μυστέριον ὅς (“the mysterywho”), that copyists promptly substituted ὅ (“which”): thus furnishing another illustration of the well-known property of[pg 100]a fabricated reading, viz. sooner or later inevitably to become the parent of a second. Happily, to this second mistake the sole surviving witness is the Codex Claromontanus, of the VIth century (d): the only Patristic evidence in its favour being Gelasius of Cyzicus,350(whose date isa.d.476): and the unknown author of a homily in the appendix to Chrysostom.351The Versions—all but the Georgian and the Slavonic, which agree with the Received Text—favour it unquestionably; for they are observed invariably to make the relative pronoun agree in gender with the word which represents μυστήριον (“mystery”) which immediately precedes it. Thus, in the Syriac Versions, ὅς (“who”) is found,—but only because the Syriac equivalent for μυστήριον is of the masculine gender: in the Latin,quod(“which”)—but only becausemysteriumin Latin (like μυστήριον in Greek) is neuter. Over this latter reading, however, we need not linger; seeing that ὅ does not find a single patron at the present day. And yet, this was the reading which was eagerly upheld during the last century: Wetstein and Sir Isaac Newton being its most strenuous advocates.It is time to pass under hasty review the direct evidence for the true reading.aandcexhibitedΘΣuntil ink, thumbing, and the injurious use of chemicals, obliterated what once was patent. It is too late, by full 150 years, to contend on the negative side ofthisquestion.—fandg, which exhibitΟΣandΟΣrespectively, were confessedly derived from a common archetype: in which archetype, it is evident that the horizontal stroke which distinguishes Θ from Ο must have been so faintly traced as to be scarcely discernible. The supposition that, in this place, the stroke in question representsthe aspirate, is scarcely admissible.There is no single example ofὅςwrittenΟΣin any part of[pg 101]either Cod.for Cod.g. On the other hand, in the only place where ΟΣ representsΘΣ, it is writtenΟΣin both. Prejudice herself may be safely called upon to accept the obvious and only lawful inference.To come to the point,—Θεός is the reading ofall the uncial copies extant but two(viz. א which exhibits ὅς, anddwhich exhibits ὅ), and of all the cursivesbut one(viz. 17). The universal consent of the Lectionaries proves that Θεός has been read in all the assemblies of the faithful from the IVth or Vth century of our era. At what earlier period of her existence is it supposed then that the Church (“the witness and keeper of Holy Writ,”) availed herself of her privilege to substitute Θεός for ὅς or ὅ,—whether in error or in fraud? Nothing short of a conspiracy, to which every region of the Eastern Church must have been a party, would account for the phenomenon.We enquire next for the testimony of the Fathers; and we discover that—(1) Gregory of Nyssa quotes Θεόςtwenty-two times:352—that Θεός is also recognized by (2) his namesake of Nazianzus in two places;353—as well as by (3) Didymus of Alexandria;354—(4) by ps.-Dionysius Alex.;355—and (5) by Diodorus of Tarsus.356—(6) Chrysostom quotes 1 Tim. iii. 16 in conformity with the received text at least three times;357—and[pg 102](7) Cyril Al. as often:358—(8) Theodoret, four times:359—(9) an unknown author of the age of Nestorius (a.d.430), once:360—(10) Severus, Bp. of Antioch (a.d.512), once.361—(11) Macedonius (a.d.506) patriarch of CP.,362of whom it has been absurdly related that heinventedthe reading, is a witness for Θεός perforce; so is—(12) Euthalius, and—(13) John Damascene on two occasions.363—(14) An unknown writer who has been mistaken for Athanasius,364—(15) besides not a few ancient scholiasts, close the list: for we pass by the testimony of—(16) Epiphanius at the 7th Nicene Council (a.d.787),—of (17) Œcumenius,—of (18) Theophylact.It will be observed that neither has anything been said about the many indirect allusions of earlier Fathers to this place of Scripture; and yet some of these are too striking to be overlooked: as when—(19) Basil, writing of ourSaviour, says αὐτὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί:365—and (20) Gregory Thaum., καὶ ἔστι Θεὸς ἀληθινὸς ὁ ἄσαρκος ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς:366—and before him, (21) Hippolytus, οὗτος προελθὼν εἰς κόσμον, Θεὸς ἐν σώματι ἐφανερώθη:367—and (22) Theodotus the Gnostic, ὁ Σωτὴρ ὤφθη κατιὼν τοῖς[pg 103]ἀγγέλοις:368—and (23) Barnabas, Ἰησοῦς ... ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ τύπῳ καὶ ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς:369—and earlier still (24) Ignatius: Θεοῦ ἀνθρωπίνως φανερουμένον:—ἐν σαρκὶ γενόμενος Θεός:—εἶς Θεὸς ἔστιν ὁ φανερώσοας ἑαυτὸν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ.370—Are we to suppose thatnoneof these primitive writers read the place as we do?Against this array of Testimony, the only evidence which the unwearied industry of 150 years has succeeded in eliciting, is as follows:—(1) The explodedLatinfable that Macedonius (a.d.506)inventedthe reading:371—(2) the fact that Epiphanius,—professing to transcribe372from an earlier treatise of his own373(in which ἐφανερώθη standswithout a nominative), prefixes ὅς:—(3) the statement of an unknown scholiast, that in one particular place of Cyril's writings where the Greek is lost, Cyril wrote ὅς,—(which seems to be an entire mistake; but which, even if it were a fact, would be sufficiently explained by the discovery that in two other places of Cyril's writings the evidencefluctuatesbetween ὅς and Θεός):—(4) a quotation in an epistle of Eutherius of Tyana (it exists only in Latin) where“qui”is found:—(5) a casual reference (in Jerome's commentary on Isaiah) to ourLord, as One“qui apparuit in carne, justificatus est in spiritu,”—which Bp. Pearson might have written.—Lastly, (6) a passage of Theodorus Mopsuest. (quoted at the Council of Constantinople,a.d.553), where the reading is“qui,”—which is balanced by the discovery that in another place of his writings quoted at the same Council, the original is translated“quod.”And this closes the evidence. Will any unprejudiced person, on reviewing the premisses, seriously declare that ὅς is the better sustained reading of the two?[pg 104]For ourselves, we venture to deem it incredible that a Reading which—(a) Is not to be found in more than two copies (א and 17) of S. Paul's Epistles: which—(b) Is not certainly supported by a single Version:—(c) Nor is clearly advocated by a single Father,—canbe genuine. It does not at all events admit of question, that untilfarstronger evidence can be produced in its favour, ὅς (“who”) may on no account be permitted to usurp the place of the commonly received Θεός (“God”) of 1 Tim. iii. 16. But the present exhibits in a striking and instructive way all the characteristic tokens of a depravation of the text. (1st) At an exceedingly early period it resulted inanotherdeflection. (2nd) It is without the note ofContinuity; having died out of the Church's memory well-nigh 1400 years ago. (3rd) It is deficient inUniversality; having been all along denied the Church's corporate sanction. As a necessary consequence, (4th) It rests at this day on whollyinsufficient Evidence: Manuscripts, Versions, Fathers beingallagainst it. (5th) It carries on its front its own refutation. For, as all must see,ΘΣmight easily be mistaken for ΟΣ: but in order to make ΟΣ intoΘΣ,two horizontal lines must of set purpose be added to the copy. It is therefore a vast dealmore likelythatΘΣbecame ΟΣ, than that ΟΣ becameΘΣ. (6th) Lastly, it is condemned by internal considerations. Ὅς is in truth so grossly improbable—rather, soimpossible—a reading, that under any circumstances we must have anxiously enquired whether no escape from it was discoverable: whether there exists no way of explaininghowso patent an absurdity as μυστέριον ὅςmayhave arisen? And on being reminded that the disappearance of two faint horizontal strokes,or even of one, would fully account for the impossible reading,—(and thus much, at least, all admit,)—should we not have felt that it required an overwhelming consensus of authorities in favour of ὅς, to render such an alternative deserving of serious[pg 105]attention? It is a mere abuse of Bengel's famous axiom to recal it on occasions like the present. We shall be landed in a bathos indeed if we allowgross improbabilityto become a constraining motive with us in revising the sacred Text.And thus much for the true reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. We invite the reader to refer back374to a Reviser's estimate of the evidence in favour of Θεός and ὅς respectively, and to contrast it with our own. If he is impressed with the strength of the cause of our opponents,—their mastery of the subject,—and the reasonableness of their contention,—we shall be surprised. And yetthatis not the question just now before us. Theonlyquestion (be it clearly remembered) which has to be considered, isthis:—Can it be said with truth that the“evidence”for ὅς (as against Θεός) in 1 Tim. iii. 16 is“clearly preponderating”? Can it be maintained that Θεός is a“plain and clear error”? Unless this can be affirmed—cadit quæstio. The traditional reading of the place ought to have been let alone. May we be permitted to say without offence that, in our humble judgment, if the Church of England, at the Revisers' bidding, were to adopt this and thousands of other depravations of the sacred page,375—with which the Church Universal was once well acquainted, but which in her corporate character she has long since unconditionally condemned and abandoned,—she would deserve to be pointed at with scorn by the rest of Christendom? Yes, and to havethatopenly said of her[pg 106]which S. Peter openly said of the false teachers of his day who fell back into the very errors which they had already abjured. The place will be found in 2 S. Peter ii. 22. So singularly applicable is it to the matter in hand, that we can but invite attention to the quotation on our title-page and p. 1.And here we make an end.1. Those who may have taken up the present Article in expectation of being entertained with another of those discussions (of which we suspect the public must be already getting somewhat weary), concerning the degree of ability which the New Testament Revisionists have displayed in their rendering into English of the Greek, will at first experience disappointment. Readers of intelligence, however, who have been at the pains to follow us through the foregoing pages, will be constrained to admit that we have done more faithful service to the cause of Sacred Truth by the course we have been pursuing, than if we had merely multiplied instances of incorrect and unsatisfactoryTranslation. There is (and this we endeavoured to explain at the outset) a question of prior interest and far graver importance which has to be settledfirst, viz. the degree of confidence which is due to the underlyingnew Greek textwhich our Revisionists have constructed. In other words, before discussing theirnew Renderings, we have to examine theirnew Readings.376The silence which Scholars have hitherto maintained on this part[pg 107]of the subject is to ourselves scarcely intelligible. But it makes us the more anxious to invite attention to this neglected aspect of the problem; the rather, because we have thoroughly convinced ourselves that the“new Greek Text”put forth by the Revisionists of our Authorized Version isutterly inadmissible. The traditional Text has been departed from by them nearly 6000 times,—almost invariablyfor the worse.2. Fully to dispose ofallthese multitudinous corruptions would require a bulky Treatise. But the reader is requested to observe that, if we are right in the few instances we have culled out from the mass,—then we are right in all. If we have succeeded in proving that the little handful of authorities on which the“new Greek Text”depends, are the reverse of trustworthy,—are absolutely misleading,—then, we have cut away from under the Revisionists the very ground on which they have hitherto been standing. And in that case, the structure which they have built up throughout a decade of years, with such evident self-complacency, collapses“like the baseless fabric of a vision.”3. For no one may flatter himself that, by undergoing afurtherprocess of“Revision,”the“Revised Version”may after all be rendered trustworthy. The eloquent and excellent Bishop of Derry is“convinced that, with all its undeniable merits, it will have to be somewhat extensively revised.”And so perhaps are we. But (what is a far more important circumstance) we are further convinced that a prior act of penance to be submitted to by the Revisers would be the restoration of the underlying Greek Text to very nearly—not quite—the state in which they found it when they entered upon their ill-advised undertaking.“Very nearly—not quite:”for, in not a few particulars, the“Textus receptus”doescall for Revision, certainly; although Revision on entirely different principles from those which are found to have prevailed in the Jerusalem Chamber. To mention a[pg 108]single instance:—When ourLordfirst sent forth His Twelve Apostles, it was certainly no part of His ministerial commission to them to“raise the dead”(νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε, S. Matthew x. 8). This is easily demonstrable. Yet is the spurious clause retained by our Revisionists; because it is found in those corrupt witnesses—אb c d, and the Latin copies.377When will men learn unconditionally to put away from themselves the weak superstition which is for investing with oracular authority the foregoing quaternion of demonstrably depraved Codices?4.“It may be said”—(to quote again from Bp. Alexander's recent Charge),—“that there is a want of modesty in dissenting from the conclusions of a two-thirds majority of a body so learned. But the rough process of counting heads imposes unduly on the imagination. One could easily nameeightin that assembly, whoseunanimitywould be practically almost decisive; but we have no means of knowing that these did notform the minorityin resisting the changes which we most regret.”The Bishop is speaking of theEnglishRevision. Having regard to the Greek Text exclusively,wealso (strange to relate) had singled outexactly eightfrom the members of the New Testament company—Divines of undoubted orthodoxy, who for their splendid scholarship and proficiency in the best learning, or else for their refined taste and admirable judgment, might (as we humbly think), under certain safeguards, have been safely entrusted even with the responsibility of revising the Sacred Text. Under the guidance of Prebendary Scrivener (who among living Englishmen isfacile princepsin these pursuits) it is scarcely to be anticipated that,when unanimous, such Divines would ever[pg 109]have materially erred. But then, of course, a previous life-long familiarity with the Science ofTextual Criticism, or at least leisure for prosecuting it now, for ten or twenty years, with absolutely undivided attention,—would be the indispensable requisite for the success of such an undertaking; and this, undeniably, is a qualification rather to be desiderated than looked for at the hands of English Divines of note at the present day. On the other hand, (loyalty to our Master constrains us to make the avowal,) the motley assortment of names, twenty-eight in all, specified by Dr. Newth, at p. 125 of his interesting little volume, joined to the fact that the average attendancewas not so many as sixteen,—concerning whom, moreover, the fact has transpired that some of the most judicious of their number oftendeclined to give any vote at all,—is by no means calculated to inspire any sort of confidence. But, in truth, considerable familiarity with these pursuits may easily co-exist with a natural inaptitude for their successful cultivation, which shall prove simply fatal. In support of this remark, one has but to refer to the instance supplied by Dr. Hort. The Sacred Text has none to fear so much as those whofeelrather than think: whoimaginerather than reason: who rely on a supposedverifying facultyof their own, of which they are able to render no intelligible account; and who, (to use Bishop Ellicott's phrase,) have the misfortune to conceive themselves possessed of a“power of divining the Original Text,”—which would be even diverting, if the practical result of their self-deception were not so exceedingly serious.5. In a future number, we may perhaps enquire into the measure of success which has attended the Revisers'Revision of the Englishof our Authorized Version of 1611. We have occupied ourselves at this time exclusively with a survey of the seriously mutilated and otherwise grossly depravednew Greek text, on which their edifice has been reared.[pg 110]And the circumstance which, in conclusion, we desire to impress upon our Readers, is this,—that the insecurity of that foundation is so alarming, that, except as a concession due to the solemnity of the undertaking just now under review, further Criticism might very well be dispensed with, as a thing superfluous. Even could it be proved concerning the superstructure, that“it had been [ever so] well builded,”378(to adopt another of our Revisionists' unhappy perversions of Scripture,) the fatal objection would remain, viz. that it is not“founded upon the rock.”379It has been the ruin of the present undertaking—as far as the Sacred Text is concerned—that the majority of the Revisionist body have been misled throughout by the oracular decrees and impetuous advocacy of Drs. Westcott and Hort; who, with the purest intentions and most laudable industry, have constructed a Text demonstrably more remote from the Evangelic verity, than any which has ever yet seen the light.“The old is good,”380say the Revisionists: but we venture solemnly to assure them that“the old is better;”381and that this remark holds every bit as true of their Revision of the Greek throughout, as of their infelicitous exhibition of S. Luke v. 39. To attempt, as they have done, to build the Text of the New Testament on a tissue of unproved assertions and the eccentricities of a single codex of bad character, is about as hopeful a proceeding as would be the attempt to erect an Eddystone lighthouse on the Goodwin Sands.

V. In conclusion, we propose to advert, just for a moment, to those five several mis-representations of S. Luke's“Title on the Cross,”which were rehearsed above, viz. in page86. At so gross an exhibition of licentiousness, it is the mere instinct of Natural Piety to exclaim,—But then, could not those men even set down so sacred a record asthat, correctly? They could, had they been so minded, no doubt, (we answer): but, marvellous to relate, theTranspositionof words,—no matter how significant, sacred, solemn;—of short clauses,—even of whole sentences of Scripture;—was anciently accounted an allowable, even a graceful exercise of the critical faculty.

The thing alluded to is incredible at first sight; being so often done, apparently, without any reason whatever,—or rather in defiance of all reason. Letcandidus lectorbe the judge whether we speak truly or not. Whereas S. Luke (xxiv. 41) says,“And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered,”the scribe of codexa(by way of improving upon the Evangelist) transposes his sentence into this,“And while they yet disbelieved Him,and wondered for joy:”342which is almost nonsense, or quite.

But take a less solemn example. Instead of,—“And His[pg 094]disciples pluckedthe ears of corn, and ate them, (τοὺς στάχυας, καὶ ἤσθιον,) rubbing them in their hands”(S. Luke vi. 1),—b c l r, bytransposingfour Greek words, present us with,“And His disciples plucked,and ate the ears of corn, (καὶ ἤσθιον τοὺς στάχυας,) rubbing them,”&c. Now this might have been an agreeable occupation for horses and for another quadruped, no doubt; but hardly for men. This curiosity, which (happily) proved indigestible to our Revisionists, is nevertheless swallowed whole by Drs. Westcott and Hort as genuine and wholesome Gospel. (O dura Doctorum ilia!)—But to proceed.

Then further, these preposterous Transpositions are of such perpetual recurrence,—are so utterly useless or else so exceedingly mischievous,alwaysso tasteless,—that familiarity with the phenomenon rather increases than lessens our astonishment. Whatdoesastonish us, however, is to find learned men in the year of grace 1881, freely resuscitating these long-since-forgottenbêtisesof long-since-forgotten Critics, and seeking to palm them off upon a busy and a careless age, as so many new revelations. That we may not be thought to have shown undue partiality for the xxiind, xxiiird, and xxivth chapters of S. Luke's Gospel by selecting our instances ofMutilationfrom those three chapters, we will now look for specimens ofTranspositionin the xixth and xxth chapters of the same Gospel. The reader is invited to collate the Text of the oldest uncials, throughout these two chapters, with the commonly Received Text. He will find that within the compass of 88 consecutive verses,343codices אa b c d qexhibit no less than 74 instances of Transposition:—for 39 of which,dis responsible:—אb, for 14:—א and אb d, for 4 each:—a band אa b, for 3 each:—a, for[pg 095]2:—b,c,q, א A, andad, each for 1.—In other words, he will find that in no less than 44 of these instances of Transposition,dis implicated:—א, in 26:—b, in 25:—a, in 10:—whilecandqare concerned in only one a-piece.... It should be added that Drs. Westcott and Hort have adoptedevery one of the 25 in which codexbis concerned—a significant indication of the superstitious reverence in which they hold that demonstrably corrupt and most untrustworthy document.344Every other case of Transposition they have rejected. By their own confession, therefore, 49 out of the 74 (i.e.two-thirds of the entire number) are instances of depravation. We turn with curiosity to the Revised Version; and discover that out of the 25 so retained, the Editors in question were only able to persuade the Revisionists to adopt 8. So that, in the judgment of the Revisionists, 66 out of 74, oreleven-twelfths,[pg 096]are instances of licentious tampering with the deposit.... O to participate in the verifying faculty which guided the teachers to discern in 25 cases of Transposition out of 74, the genuine work of theHoly Ghost! O, far more, to have been born with that loftier instinct which enabled the pupils (Doctors Roberts and Milligan, Newth and Moulton, Vance Smith and Brown, Angus and Eadie) to winnow out from the entire lot exactly 8, and to reject the remaining 66 as nothing worth!

According to our own best judgment, (and we have carefully examined them all,)every oneof the 74 is worthless. But thenwemake it our fundamental rule to reason always from grounds of external Evidence,—never from postulates of the Imagination. Moreover, in the application of our rule, we begrudge no amount of labour: reckoning a long summer's day well spent if it has enabled us to ascertain the truth concerning one single controverted word of Scripture. Thus, when we find that our Revisionists, at the suggestion of Dr. Hort, have transposed the familiar Angelic utterance (in S. Luke xxiv. 7), λέγων ὅτι δεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παραδοθῆναι,—into this, λέγων τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὅτι δεῖ, &c., we at once enquire forthe evidence. And when we find that no single Father,nosingle Version, and no Codex—except the notorious אb c l—advocates the proposed transposition; but on the contrary that every Father (froma.d.150 downwards) who quotes the place, quotes it as it stands in the Textus receptus;345—we have no hesitation whatever in rejecting it. It is found in the midst of a very thicket of fabricated readings. It has nothing whatever to recommend it. It is condemned by the consentient voice of Antiquity.[pg 097]It is advocated only by four copies,—whichnevercombine exclusively, except to misrepresent the truth of Scripture and to seduce the simple.

But the foregoing, which is a fair typical sample of countless other instances of unauthorized Transposition, may not be dismissed without a few words of serious remonstrance. Our contention is that, inasmuch as the effect of such transpositionis incapable of being idiomatically represented in the English language,—(for, in all such cases, the Revised Version retains the rendering of the Authorized,)—our Revisionists have violated the spirit as well as the letter of their instructions, in putting fortha new Greek Text, and silently introducing into it a countless number of these and similar depravations of Scripture. These Textual curiosities (for they are nothing more) are absolutely out of place in aRevision of the English Version: achieve no lawful purpose: are sure to mislead the unwary. This first.—Secondly, we submit that,—strong as, no doubt, the temptation must have been, to secure the sanction of the N. T. Revisionists for their own private Recension of the Greek, (printed long since, but published simultaneously with the“Revised Version”)—it is to be regretted that Drs. Westcott and Hort should have yielded thereto. Man's impatience never promotesGod'sTruth. The interests of Textual Criticism would rather have suggested, that the Recension of that accomplished pair of Professors should have been submitted to public inspection in the first instance. The astonishing Text which it advocates might have been left with comparative safety to take its chance in the Jerusalem Chamber, after it had undergone the searching ordeal of competent Criticism, and been freely ventilated at home and abroad for a decade of years. But on the contrary. It was kept close. It might be seen only by the Revisers: and eventheywere tied down to secrecy as[pg 098]to the letter-press by which it was accompanied.... All this strikes us as painful in a high degree.

VI. Hitherto we have referred almost exclusively to the Gospels. In conclusion, we invite attention to our Revisionists' treatment of 1 Tim. iii. 16—thecrux criticorum, as Prebendary Scrivener styles it.346We cannot act more fairly than by inviting a learned member of the revising body to speak on behalf of his brethren. We shall in this way ascertain the amount of acquaintance with the subject enjoyed by some of those who have been so obliging as to furnish the Church with a new Recension of the Greek of the New Testament. Dr. Roberts says:—

“The English reader will probably be startled to find that the familiar text,—‘And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:Godwas manifest in the flesh,’has been exchanged in the Revised Version for the following,—‘And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh.’A note on the margin states that‘the wordGod, in place ofHe who, rests on no sufficient ancient evidence;’and it may be well that, in a passage of so great importance, the reader should be convinced that such is the case.“What, then, let us enquire, is the amount of evidence which can be produced in support of the reading‘God’? This is soon stated. Not one of the early Fathers can be certainly quoted for it. None of the very ancient versions support it. No uncial witnesses to it, with the doubtful exception ofa.... But even granting that the weighty suffrage of the Alexandrian manuscript is in favour of‘God,’far more evidence can be produced in support of‘who.’א and probablycwitness to this reading, and it has also powerful testimony from the versions and Fathers. Moreover, the relative‘who’is a far more difficult reading than‘God,’and could hardly have been substituted for the latter. On every ground, therefore, we conclude that[pg 099]this interesting and important passage must stand as it has been given in the Revised Version.”347

“What, then, let us enquire, is the amount of evidence which can be produced in support of the reading‘God’? This is soon stated. Not one of the early Fathers can be certainly quoted for it. None of the very ancient versions support it. No uncial witnesses to it, with the doubtful exception ofa.... But even granting that the weighty suffrage of the Alexandrian manuscript is in favour of‘God,’far more evidence can be produced in support of‘who.’א and probablycwitness to this reading, and it has also powerful testimony from the versions and Fathers. Moreover, the relative‘who’is a far more difficult reading than‘God,’and could hardly have been substituted for the latter. On every ground, therefore, we conclude that[pg 099]this interesting and important passage must stand as it has been given in the Revised Version.”347

And now, having heard the learned Presbyterian on behalf of his brother-Revisionists, we request that we may be ourselves listened to in reply.

The place of Scripture before us, the Reader is assured, presents a memorable instance of the mischief which occasionally resulted to the inspired Text from the ancient practice of executing copies of the Scriptures in uncial characters. S. Paulcertainlywrote μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον; Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, (“Great is the mystery of godliness:Godwas manifested in the flesh”) But it requires to be explained at the outset, that the holy Name when abbreviated (which it always was), thus,—ΘΣ(“God”), is only distinguishable from the relative pronoun“who”(ΟΣ), by two horizontal strokes,—which, in manuscripts of early date, it was often the practice to trace so faintly that at present they can scarcely be discerned.348Need we go on? An archetypal copy in which one or both of these slight strokes had vanished from the wordΘΣ(“God”), gave rise to the reading ΟΣ (“who”),—of which nonsensical substitute, traces survive inonly two349manuscripts,—א and 17: not, for certain, inone singleancient Father,—no, nor for certain inone singleancient Version. So transparent, in fact, is the absurdity of writing τὸ μυστέριον ὅς (“the mysterywho”), that copyists promptly substituted ὅ (“which”): thus furnishing another illustration of the well-known property of[pg 100]a fabricated reading, viz. sooner or later inevitably to become the parent of a second. Happily, to this second mistake the sole surviving witness is the Codex Claromontanus, of the VIth century (d): the only Patristic evidence in its favour being Gelasius of Cyzicus,350(whose date isa.d.476): and the unknown author of a homily in the appendix to Chrysostom.351The Versions—all but the Georgian and the Slavonic, which agree with the Received Text—favour it unquestionably; for they are observed invariably to make the relative pronoun agree in gender with the word which represents μυστήριον (“mystery”) which immediately precedes it. Thus, in the Syriac Versions, ὅς (“who”) is found,—but only because the Syriac equivalent for μυστήριον is of the masculine gender: in the Latin,quod(“which”)—but only becausemysteriumin Latin (like μυστήριον in Greek) is neuter. Over this latter reading, however, we need not linger; seeing that ὅ does not find a single patron at the present day. And yet, this was the reading which was eagerly upheld during the last century: Wetstein and Sir Isaac Newton being its most strenuous advocates.

It is time to pass under hasty review the direct evidence for the true reading.aandcexhibitedΘΣuntil ink, thumbing, and the injurious use of chemicals, obliterated what once was patent. It is too late, by full 150 years, to contend on the negative side ofthisquestion.—fandg, which exhibitΟΣandΟΣrespectively, were confessedly derived from a common archetype: in which archetype, it is evident that the horizontal stroke which distinguishes Θ from Ο must have been so faintly traced as to be scarcely discernible. The supposition that, in this place, the stroke in question representsthe aspirate, is scarcely admissible.There is no single example ofὅςwrittenΟΣin any part of[pg 101]either Cod.for Cod.g. On the other hand, in the only place where ΟΣ representsΘΣ, it is writtenΟΣin both. Prejudice herself may be safely called upon to accept the obvious and only lawful inference.

To come to the point,—Θεός is the reading ofall the uncial copies extant but two(viz. א which exhibits ὅς, anddwhich exhibits ὅ), and of all the cursivesbut one(viz. 17). The universal consent of the Lectionaries proves that Θεός has been read in all the assemblies of the faithful from the IVth or Vth century of our era. At what earlier period of her existence is it supposed then that the Church (“the witness and keeper of Holy Writ,”) availed herself of her privilege to substitute Θεός for ὅς or ὅ,—whether in error or in fraud? Nothing short of a conspiracy, to which every region of the Eastern Church must have been a party, would account for the phenomenon.

We enquire next for the testimony of the Fathers; and we discover that—(1) Gregory of Nyssa quotes Θεόςtwenty-two times:352—that Θεός is also recognized by (2) his namesake of Nazianzus in two places;353—as well as by (3) Didymus of Alexandria;354—(4) by ps.-Dionysius Alex.;355—and (5) by Diodorus of Tarsus.356—(6) Chrysostom quotes 1 Tim. iii. 16 in conformity with the received text at least three times;357—and[pg 102](7) Cyril Al. as often:358—(8) Theodoret, four times:359—(9) an unknown author of the age of Nestorius (a.d.430), once:360—(10) Severus, Bp. of Antioch (a.d.512), once.361—(11) Macedonius (a.d.506) patriarch of CP.,362of whom it has been absurdly related that heinventedthe reading, is a witness for Θεός perforce; so is—(12) Euthalius, and—(13) John Damascene on two occasions.363—(14) An unknown writer who has been mistaken for Athanasius,364—(15) besides not a few ancient scholiasts, close the list: for we pass by the testimony of—(16) Epiphanius at the 7th Nicene Council (a.d.787),—of (17) Œcumenius,—of (18) Theophylact.

It will be observed that neither has anything been said about the many indirect allusions of earlier Fathers to this place of Scripture; and yet some of these are too striking to be overlooked: as when—(19) Basil, writing of ourSaviour, says αὐτὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί:365—and (20) Gregory Thaum., καὶ ἔστι Θεὸς ἀληθινὸς ὁ ἄσαρκος ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς:366—and before him, (21) Hippolytus, οὗτος προελθὼν εἰς κόσμον, Θεὸς ἐν σώματι ἐφανερώθη:367—and (22) Theodotus the Gnostic, ὁ Σωτὴρ ὤφθη κατιὼν τοῖς[pg 103]ἀγγέλοις:368—and (23) Barnabas, Ἰησοῦς ... ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ τύπῳ καὶ ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς:369—and earlier still (24) Ignatius: Θεοῦ ἀνθρωπίνως φανερουμένον:—ἐν σαρκὶ γενόμενος Θεός:—εἶς Θεὸς ἔστιν ὁ φανερώσοας ἑαυτὸν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ.370—Are we to suppose thatnoneof these primitive writers read the place as we do?

Against this array of Testimony, the only evidence which the unwearied industry of 150 years has succeeded in eliciting, is as follows:—(1) The explodedLatinfable that Macedonius (a.d.506)inventedthe reading:371—(2) the fact that Epiphanius,—professing to transcribe372from an earlier treatise of his own373(in which ἐφανερώθη standswithout a nominative), prefixes ὅς:—(3) the statement of an unknown scholiast, that in one particular place of Cyril's writings where the Greek is lost, Cyril wrote ὅς,—(which seems to be an entire mistake; but which, even if it were a fact, would be sufficiently explained by the discovery that in two other places of Cyril's writings the evidencefluctuatesbetween ὅς and Θεός):—(4) a quotation in an epistle of Eutherius of Tyana (it exists only in Latin) where“qui”is found:—(5) a casual reference (in Jerome's commentary on Isaiah) to ourLord, as One“qui apparuit in carne, justificatus est in spiritu,”—which Bp. Pearson might have written.—Lastly, (6) a passage of Theodorus Mopsuest. (quoted at the Council of Constantinople,a.d.553), where the reading is“qui,”—which is balanced by the discovery that in another place of his writings quoted at the same Council, the original is translated“quod.”And this closes the evidence. Will any unprejudiced person, on reviewing the premisses, seriously declare that ὅς is the better sustained reading of the two?

For ourselves, we venture to deem it incredible that a Reading which—(a) Is not to be found in more than two copies (א and 17) of S. Paul's Epistles: which—(b) Is not certainly supported by a single Version:—(c) Nor is clearly advocated by a single Father,—canbe genuine. It does not at all events admit of question, that untilfarstronger evidence can be produced in its favour, ὅς (“who”) may on no account be permitted to usurp the place of the commonly received Θεός (“God”) of 1 Tim. iii. 16. But the present exhibits in a striking and instructive way all the characteristic tokens of a depravation of the text. (1st) At an exceedingly early period it resulted inanotherdeflection. (2nd) It is without the note ofContinuity; having died out of the Church's memory well-nigh 1400 years ago. (3rd) It is deficient inUniversality; having been all along denied the Church's corporate sanction. As a necessary consequence, (4th) It rests at this day on whollyinsufficient Evidence: Manuscripts, Versions, Fathers beingallagainst it. (5th) It carries on its front its own refutation. For, as all must see,ΘΣmight easily be mistaken for ΟΣ: but in order to make ΟΣ intoΘΣ,two horizontal lines must of set purpose be added to the copy. It is therefore a vast dealmore likelythatΘΣbecame ΟΣ, than that ΟΣ becameΘΣ. (6th) Lastly, it is condemned by internal considerations. Ὅς is in truth so grossly improbable—rather, soimpossible—a reading, that under any circumstances we must have anxiously enquired whether no escape from it was discoverable: whether there exists no way of explaininghowso patent an absurdity as μυστέριον ὅςmayhave arisen? And on being reminded that the disappearance of two faint horizontal strokes,or even of one, would fully account for the impossible reading,—(and thus much, at least, all admit,)—should we not have felt that it required an overwhelming consensus of authorities in favour of ὅς, to render such an alternative deserving of serious[pg 105]attention? It is a mere abuse of Bengel's famous axiom to recal it on occasions like the present. We shall be landed in a bathos indeed if we allowgross improbabilityto become a constraining motive with us in revising the sacred Text.

And thus much for the true reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. We invite the reader to refer back374to a Reviser's estimate of the evidence in favour of Θεός and ὅς respectively, and to contrast it with our own. If he is impressed with the strength of the cause of our opponents,—their mastery of the subject,—and the reasonableness of their contention,—we shall be surprised. And yetthatis not the question just now before us. Theonlyquestion (be it clearly remembered) which has to be considered, isthis:—Can it be said with truth that the“evidence”for ὅς (as against Θεός) in 1 Tim. iii. 16 is“clearly preponderating”? Can it be maintained that Θεός is a“plain and clear error”? Unless this can be affirmed—cadit quæstio. The traditional reading of the place ought to have been let alone. May we be permitted to say without offence that, in our humble judgment, if the Church of England, at the Revisers' bidding, were to adopt this and thousands of other depravations of the sacred page,375—with which the Church Universal was once well acquainted, but which in her corporate character she has long since unconditionally condemned and abandoned,—she would deserve to be pointed at with scorn by the rest of Christendom? Yes, and to havethatopenly said of her[pg 106]which S. Peter openly said of the false teachers of his day who fell back into the very errors which they had already abjured. The place will be found in 2 S. Peter ii. 22. So singularly applicable is it to the matter in hand, that we can but invite attention to the quotation on our title-page and p. 1.

And here we make an end.

1. Those who may have taken up the present Article in expectation of being entertained with another of those discussions (of which we suspect the public must be already getting somewhat weary), concerning the degree of ability which the New Testament Revisionists have displayed in their rendering into English of the Greek, will at first experience disappointment. Readers of intelligence, however, who have been at the pains to follow us through the foregoing pages, will be constrained to admit that we have done more faithful service to the cause of Sacred Truth by the course we have been pursuing, than if we had merely multiplied instances of incorrect and unsatisfactoryTranslation. There is (and this we endeavoured to explain at the outset) a question of prior interest and far graver importance which has to be settledfirst, viz. the degree of confidence which is due to the underlyingnew Greek textwhich our Revisionists have constructed. In other words, before discussing theirnew Renderings, we have to examine theirnew Readings.376The silence which Scholars have hitherto maintained on this part[pg 107]of the subject is to ourselves scarcely intelligible. But it makes us the more anxious to invite attention to this neglected aspect of the problem; the rather, because we have thoroughly convinced ourselves that the“new Greek Text”put forth by the Revisionists of our Authorized Version isutterly inadmissible. The traditional Text has been departed from by them nearly 6000 times,—almost invariablyfor the worse.

2. Fully to dispose ofallthese multitudinous corruptions would require a bulky Treatise. But the reader is requested to observe that, if we are right in the few instances we have culled out from the mass,—then we are right in all. If we have succeeded in proving that the little handful of authorities on which the“new Greek Text”depends, are the reverse of trustworthy,—are absolutely misleading,—then, we have cut away from under the Revisionists the very ground on which they have hitherto been standing. And in that case, the structure which they have built up throughout a decade of years, with such evident self-complacency, collapses“like the baseless fabric of a vision.”

3. For no one may flatter himself that, by undergoing afurtherprocess of“Revision,”the“Revised Version”may after all be rendered trustworthy. The eloquent and excellent Bishop of Derry is“convinced that, with all its undeniable merits, it will have to be somewhat extensively revised.”And so perhaps are we. But (what is a far more important circumstance) we are further convinced that a prior act of penance to be submitted to by the Revisers would be the restoration of the underlying Greek Text to very nearly—not quite—the state in which they found it when they entered upon their ill-advised undertaking.“Very nearly—not quite:”for, in not a few particulars, the“Textus receptus”doescall for Revision, certainly; although Revision on entirely different principles from those which are found to have prevailed in the Jerusalem Chamber. To mention a[pg 108]single instance:—When ourLordfirst sent forth His Twelve Apostles, it was certainly no part of His ministerial commission to them to“raise the dead”(νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε, S. Matthew x. 8). This is easily demonstrable. Yet is the spurious clause retained by our Revisionists; because it is found in those corrupt witnesses—אb c d, and the Latin copies.377When will men learn unconditionally to put away from themselves the weak superstition which is for investing with oracular authority the foregoing quaternion of demonstrably depraved Codices?

4.“It may be said”—(to quote again from Bp. Alexander's recent Charge),—“that there is a want of modesty in dissenting from the conclusions of a two-thirds majority of a body so learned. But the rough process of counting heads imposes unduly on the imagination. One could easily nameeightin that assembly, whoseunanimitywould be practically almost decisive; but we have no means of knowing that these did notform the minorityin resisting the changes which we most regret.”The Bishop is speaking of theEnglishRevision. Having regard to the Greek Text exclusively,wealso (strange to relate) had singled outexactly eightfrom the members of the New Testament company—Divines of undoubted orthodoxy, who for their splendid scholarship and proficiency in the best learning, or else for their refined taste and admirable judgment, might (as we humbly think), under certain safeguards, have been safely entrusted even with the responsibility of revising the Sacred Text. Under the guidance of Prebendary Scrivener (who among living Englishmen isfacile princepsin these pursuits) it is scarcely to be anticipated that,when unanimous, such Divines would ever[pg 109]have materially erred. But then, of course, a previous life-long familiarity with the Science ofTextual Criticism, or at least leisure for prosecuting it now, for ten or twenty years, with absolutely undivided attention,—would be the indispensable requisite for the success of such an undertaking; and this, undeniably, is a qualification rather to be desiderated than looked for at the hands of English Divines of note at the present day. On the other hand, (loyalty to our Master constrains us to make the avowal,) the motley assortment of names, twenty-eight in all, specified by Dr. Newth, at p. 125 of his interesting little volume, joined to the fact that the average attendancewas not so many as sixteen,—concerning whom, moreover, the fact has transpired that some of the most judicious of their number oftendeclined to give any vote at all,—is by no means calculated to inspire any sort of confidence. But, in truth, considerable familiarity with these pursuits may easily co-exist with a natural inaptitude for their successful cultivation, which shall prove simply fatal. In support of this remark, one has but to refer to the instance supplied by Dr. Hort. The Sacred Text has none to fear so much as those whofeelrather than think: whoimaginerather than reason: who rely on a supposedverifying facultyof their own, of which they are able to render no intelligible account; and who, (to use Bishop Ellicott's phrase,) have the misfortune to conceive themselves possessed of a“power of divining the Original Text,”—which would be even diverting, if the practical result of their self-deception were not so exceedingly serious.

5. In a future number, we may perhaps enquire into the measure of success which has attended the Revisers'Revision of the Englishof our Authorized Version of 1611. We have occupied ourselves at this time exclusively with a survey of the seriously mutilated and otherwise grossly depravednew Greek text, on which their edifice has been reared.[pg 110]And the circumstance which, in conclusion, we desire to impress upon our Readers, is this,—that the insecurity of that foundation is so alarming, that, except as a concession due to the solemnity of the undertaking just now under review, further Criticism might very well be dispensed with, as a thing superfluous. Even could it be proved concerning the superstructure, that“it had been [ever so] well builded,”378(to adopt another of our Revisionists' unhappy perversions of Scripture,) the fatal objection would remain, viz. that it is not“founded upon the rock.”379It has been the ruin of the present undertaking—as far as the Sacred Text is concerned—that the majority of the Revisionist body have been misled throughout by the oracular decrees and impetuous advocacy of Drs. Westcott and Hort; who, with the purest intentions and most laudable industry, have constructed a Text demonstrably more remote from the Evangelic verity, than any which has ever yet seen the light.“The old is good,”380say the Revisionists: but we venture solemnly to assure them that“the old is better;”381and that this remark holds every bit as true of their Revision of the Greek throughout, as of their infelicitous exhibition of S. Luke v. 39. To attempt, as they have done, to build the Text of the New Testament on a tissue of unproved assertions and the eccentricities of a single codex of bad character, is about as hopeful a proceeding as would be the attempt to erect an Eddystone lighthouse on the Goodwin Sands.

Back to Index Next