The Revision Revised Part 1

The Revision Revised.

by John William Burgon.

DEDICATION.

To The Right Hon. Viscount Cranbrook, G.C.S.I., &c., &c., &c.

MY DEAR LORD CRANBROOK,

_Allow me the gratification of dedicating the present Volume to yourself; but for whom-(I reserve the explanation for another day)-it would never have been written._

_This is not, (as you will perceive at a glance,) the Treatise which a few years ago I told you I had in hand; and which, but for the present hindrance, might by this time have been completed. It has however_ grown out _of that other work in the manner explained at the beginning of my Preface. Moreover it contains not a few specimens of the argumentation of which the work in question, when at last it sees the light, will be discovered to be full._

_My one object has been to defeat the mischievous attempt which was made in 1881 to thrust upon this Church and Realm a Revision of the Sacred Text, which-recommended though it be by eminent names-I am thoroughly convinced, and am able to prove, is untrustworthy from beginning to end._

_The reason is plain. It has been constructed throughout on an utterly erroneous hypothesis. And I inscribe this Volume to you, my friend, as a conspicuous member of that body of faithful and learned Laity by whose deliberate verdict, when the whole of the evidence has been produced and the case has been fully argued out, I shall be quite willing that my contention may stand or fall._

_The_ English _(as well as the Greek) of the newly __"__Revised Version__"__ is hopelessly at fault. It is to me simply unintelligible how a company of Scholars can have spent ten years in elaborating such a very unsatisfactory production. Their uncouth phraseology and their jerky sentences, their pedantic obscurity and their unidiomatic English, contrast painfully with __"__the happy turns of expression, the music of the cadences, the felicities of the rhythm__"__ of our Authorized Version.

The transition from one to the other, as the Bishop of Lincoln remarks, is like exchanging a well-built carriage for a vehicle without springs, in which you get jolted to death on a newly-mended and rarely-traversed road.

But the __"__Revised Version__"__ is inaccurate as well; exhibits defective scholarship, I mean, in countless places._

_It is, however, the_ systematic depravation of the underlying Greek _which does so grievously offend me: for this is nothing else but a poisoning of the River of Life at its sacred source. Our Revisers, (with the best and purest intentions, no doubt,) stand convicted of having deliberately rejected the words of __ Inspiration in every page, and of having subst.i.tuted for them fabricated Readings which the Church has long since refused to acknowledge, or else has rejected with abhorrence; and which only survive at this time in a little handful of doc.u.ments of the most depraved type._

_As Critics they have had abundant warning. Twelve years ago (1871) a volume appeared on_ the "last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S.

Mark,"-_of which the declared object was to vindicate those Verses against certain critical objectors, and to establish them by an exhaustive argumentative process. Up to this hour, for a very obvious reason, no answer to that volume has been attempted. And yet, at the end of ten years (1881),-not only in the Revised English but also in the volume which professes to exhibit the underlying Greek, (which at least is indefensible,)-the Revisers are observed to separate off those Twelve precious Verses from their context, in token that they are no part of the genuine Gospel. Such a deliberate preference of_ "mumpsimus" _to_ "sumpsimus" _is by no means calculated to conciliate favour, or even to win respect. The Revisers have in fact been the dupes of an ingenious Theorist, concerning whose extraordinary views you are invited to read what Dr. Scrivener has recently put forth. The words of the last-named writer (who is_ facile princeps _in Textual Criticism) will be found facing the beginning of the present Dedication._

_If, therefore, any do complain that I have sometimes. .h.i.t my opponents rather hard, I take leave to point out that __"__to everything __ there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the sun__"__: __"__a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embracing__"__: a time for speaking smoothly, and a time for speaking sharply. And that when the words of Inspiration are seriously imperilled, as now they are, it is scarcely possible for one who is determined effectually to preserve the Deposit in its integrity, to hit either too straight or too hard. In handling certain recent utterances of Bishop Ellicott, I considered throughout that it was the_ "Textual Critic"-_not the Successor of the Apostles,-with whom I had to do._

_And thus I commend my Volume, the fruit of many years of incessant anxious toil, to your indulgence: requesting that you will receive it as a token of my sincere respect and admiration; and desiring to be remembered, my dear Lord Cranbrook, as_

_Your grateful and affectionate_ _ Friend and Servant,_ _ John W. Burgon._

DEANERY, CHICHESTER, All Saints' Day., 1883.

PREFACE.

The ensuing three Articles from the "Quarterly Review,"-(wrung out of me by the publication [May 17th, 1881] of the "Revision" of our "Authorized Version of the New Testament,")-appear in their present form in compliance with an amount of continuous solicitation that they should be separately published, which it would have been alike unreasonable and ungracious to disregard. I was not prepared for it. It has caused me-as letter after letter has reached my hands-mixed feelings; has revived all my original disinclination and regret. For, gratified as I cannot but feel by the reception my labours have met with,-(and only the Author of my being knows what an amount of antecedent toil is represented by the ensuing pages,)-I yet deplore more heartily than I am able to express, the injustice done to the cause of Truth by handling the subject in this fragmentary way, and by exhibiting the evidence for what is most certainly true, in such a very incomplete form. A systematic Treatise is the indispensable condition for securing cordial a.s.sent to the view for which I mainly contend. The cogency of the argument lies entirely in the c.u.mulative character of the proof. It requires to be demonstrated by induction from a large collection of particular instances, as well as by the complex exhibition of many converging lines of evidence, that the testimony of one small group of doc.u.ments, or rather, of one particular ma.n.u.script,-(namely the Vatican Codex B, which, for some unexplained reason, it is just now the fashion to regard with superst.i.tious deference,)-is the reverse of trustworthy.

Nothing in fact but a considerable Treatise will ever effectually break the yoke of that iron tyranny to which the excellent Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol and his colleagues have recently bowed their necks; and are now for imposing on all English-speaking men. In brief, if I were not, on the one hand, thoroughly convinced of the strength of my position,-(and I know it to be absolutely impregnable);-yet more, if on the other hand, I did not cherish entire confidence in the practical good sense and fairness of the English mind;-I could not have brought myself to come before the public in the unsystematic way which alone is possible in the pages of a Review. I must have waited, at all hazards, till I had finished "my Book."

But then, delay would have been fatal. I saw plainly that unless a sharp blow was delivered immediately, the Citadel would be in the enemy's hands.

I knew also that it was just possible to condense into 60 or 70 closely-printed pages what must _logically_ prove fatal to the "Revision."

So I set to work; and during the long summer days of 1881 (June to September) the foremost of these three Articles was elaborated. When the October number of "the Quarterly" appeared, I comforted myself with the secret consciousness that enough was by this time on record, even had my life been suddenly brought to a close, to secure the ultimate rejection of the "Revision" of 1881. I knew that the "New Greek Text," (and therefore the "New English Version"), had received its death-blow. It might for a few years drag out a maimed existence; eagerly defended by some,-timidly pleaded for by others. But such efforts could be of no avail. Its days were already numbered. The effect of more and yet more learned investigation,-of more elaborate and more extended inquiry,-_must_ be to convince mankind more and yet more thoroughly that the principles on which it had been constructed were radically unsound. In the end, when partisanship had cooled down, and pa.s.sion had evaporated, and prejudice had ceased to find an auditory, the "Revision" of 1881 must come to be universally regarded as-what it most certainly is,-_the most astonishing, as well as the most calamitous literary blunder of the Age_.

I. I pointed out that "the NEW GREEK TEXT,"-which, in defiance of their instructions,(1) the Revisionists of "the Authorized English Version" had been so ill-advised as to spend ten years in elaborating,-was a wholly untrustworthy performance: was full of the gravest errors from beginning to end: had been constructed throughout on an entirely mistaken Theory.

Availing myself of the published confession of one of the Revisionists,(2) I explained the nature of the calamity which had befallen the Revision. I traced the mischief home to its true authors,-Drs. Westcott and Hort; a copy of whose unpublished Text of the N. T. (the most vicious in existence) had been confidentially, and under pledges of the strictest secrecy, placed in the hands of every member of the revising Body.(3) I called attention to the fact that, unacquainted with the difficult and delicate science of Textual Criticism, the Revisionists had, in an evil hour, surrendered themselves to Dr. Hort's guidance: had preferred his counsels to those of Prebendary Scrivener, (an infinitely more trustworthy guide): and that the work before the public was the piteous-but _inevitable_-result. All this I explained in the October number of the "Quarterly Review" for 1881.(4)

II. In thus demonstrating the worthlessness of the "New Greek Text" of the Revisionists, I considered that I had destroyed the key of their position.

And so perforce I had: for if the underlying Greek Text be mistaken, what else but incorrect must the English Translation be? But on examining the so-called "Revision of the Authorized Version," I speedily made the further discovery that the Revised English would have been in itself intolerable, even had the Greek been let alone. In the first place, to my surprise and annoyance, it proved to be a _New Translation_ (rather than a Revision of the Old) which had been attempted. Painfully apparent were the tokens which met me on every side that the Revisionists had been supremely eager not so much to correct none but "plain and clear errors,"-as to introduce as many changes into the English of the New Testament Scriptures as they conveniently could.(5) A skittish impatience of the admirable work before them, and a strange inability to appreciate its manifold excellences:-a singular imagination on the part of the promiscuous Company which met in the Jerusalem Chamber that they were competent to improve the Authorized Version in every part, and an unaccountable forgetfulness that the fundamental condition under which the task of Revision had been by themselves undertaken, was that they should abstain from all but "_necessary_" changes:-_this_ proved to be only part of the offence which the Revisionists had committed. It was found that they had erred through _defective Scholarship_ to an extent, and with a frequency, which to me is simply inexplicable. I accordingly made it my business to demonstrate all this in a second Article which appeared in the next (the January) number of the "Quarterly Review," and was ent.i.tled "THE NEW ENGLISH TRANSLATION."(6)

III. Thereupon, a pretence was set up in many quarters, (_but only by the Revisionists and their friends_,) that all my labour hitherto had been thrown away, because I had omitted to disprove the principles on which this "New Greek Text" is founded. I flattered myself indeed that quite enough had been said to make it logically certain that the underlying "Textual Theory" _must be_ worthless. But I was not suffered to cherish this conviction in quiet. It was again and again cast in my teeth that I had not yet grappled with Drs. Westcott and Hort's "arguments." "Instead of condemning _their Text_, why do you not disprove _their Theory_?" It was tauntingly insinuated that I knew better than to cross swords with the two Cambridge Professors. This reduced me to the necessity of either leaving it to be inferred from my silence that I had found Drs. Westcott and Hort's "arguments" unanswerable; or else of coming forward with their book in my hand, and demonstrating that in their solemn pages an attentive reader finds himself encountered by nothing but a series of unsupported a.s.sumptions: that their (so called) "Theory" is in reality nothing else but a weak effort of the Imagination: that the tissue which these accomplished scholars have been thirty years in elaborating, proves on inspection to be as flimsy and as worthless as any spider's web.

I made it my business in consequence to expose, somewhat in detail, (in a third Article, which appeared in the "Quarterly Review" for April 1882), the absolute absurdity,-(I use the word advisedly)-of "WESTCOTT AND HORT'S NEW TEXTUAL THEORY;"(7) and I now respectfully commend those 130 pages to the attention of candid and unprejudiced readers. It were idle to expect to convince any others. We have it on good authority (Dr. Westcott's) that "he who has long pondered over a train of Reasoning, _becomes unable to detect its weak points_."(8) A yet stranger phenomenon is, that those who have once committed themselves to an erroneous Theory, seem to be incapable of opening their eyes to the untrustworthiness of the fabric they have erected, even when it comes down in their sight, like a child's house built with playing-cards,-and presents to every eye but their own the appearance of a shapeless ruin.

-- 1. Two full years have elapsed since the first of these Essays was published; and my Criticism-for the best of reasons-remains to this hour unanswered. The public has been a.s.sured indeed, (in the course of some hysterical remarks by Canon Farrar(9)), that "the 'Quarterly Reviewer' can be refuted as fully as he desires as soon as any scholar has the leisure to answer him." The "Quarterly Reviewer" can afford to wait,-if the Revisers can. But they are reminded that it is no answer to one who has demolished their master's "Theory," for the pupils to keep on reproducing fragments of it; and by their mistakes and exaggerations, to make both themselves and him, ridiculous.

-- 2. Thus, a writer in the "Church Quarterly" for January 1882, (whose knowledge of the subject is entirely derived from what Dr. Hort has taught him,)-being evidently much exercised by the first of my three Articles in the "Quarterly Review,"-gravely informs the public that "it is useless to parade such an array of venerable witnesses," (meaning the enumerations of Fathers of the IIIrd, IVth, and Vth centuries which are given below, at pp. 42-4: 80-1: 84: 133: 212-3: 359-60: 421: 423: 486-90:)-"_for they have absolutely nothing to say which deserves a moment's hearing_."(10)-What a pity it is, (while he was about it), that the learned gentleman did not go on to explain that the moon is made of green cheese!

-- 3. Dr. Sanday,(11) in a kindred spirit, delivers it as his opinion, that "the one thing" I lack "is a grasp on the central condition of the problem:"-that I do "not seem to have the faintest glimmering of the principle of 'Genealogy:' "-that I am "all at sea:"-that my "heaviest batteries are discharged at random:"-and a great deal more to the same effect. The learned Professor is quite welcome to think such things of me, if he pleases. ?? f???t?? ?pp???e?d?.

-- 4. At the end of a year, a Reviewer of quite a different calibre made his appearance in the January number (1883) of the "Church Quarterly:" in return for whose not very encouraging estimate of my labours, I gladly record my conviction that if he will seriously apply his powerful and accurate mind to the department of Textual Criticism, he will probably produce a work which will help materially to establish the study in which he takes such an intelligent interest, on a scientific basis. But then, he is invited to accept the friendly a.s.surance that the indispensable condition of success in this department is, that a man should give to the subject, (which is a very intricate one and abounds in unexplored problems), his undivided attention for an extended period. I trust there is nothing unreasonable in the suggestion that one who has not done this, should be very circ.u.mspect when he sits in judgment on a neighbour of his who, for very many years past, has given to Textual Criticism the whole of his time;-has freely sacrificed health, ease, relaxation, even necessary rest, to this one object;-has made it his one business to acquire such an independent mastery of the subject as shall qualify him to do battle successfully for the imperilled letter of G.o.d'S Word. My friend however thinks differently. He says of me,-

"In his first Article there was something amusing in the simplicity with which 'Lloyd's Greek Testament' (which is only a convenient little Oxford edition of the ordinary kind) was put forth as the final standard of appeal. It recalled to our recollection Bentley's sarcasm upon the text of Stepha.n.u.s, which 'your learned Whitbyus' takes for the sacred original in every syllable." (P. 354.)

-- 5. On referring to the pa.s.sage where my "simplicity" has afforded amus.e.m.e.nt to a friend whose brilliant conversation is always a delight to _me_, I read as follows,-

"It is discovered that in the 111 (out of 320) pages of a copy of Lloyd's Greek Testament, in which alone these five ma.n.u.scripts are collectively available for comparison in the Gospels,-the serious deflections of A from the _Textus Receptus_ amount in all to only 842: whereas in C they amount to 1798: in B, to 2370: in ?, to 3392: in D, to 4697. The readings _peculiar to_ A within the same limits are 133: those peculiar to C are 170. But those of B amount to 197: while ? exhibits 443: and the readings peculiar to D (within the same limits), are no fewer than 1829.... We submit that these facts are not altogether calculated to inspire confidence in codices B ? C D."(12)

-- 6. But how (let me ask) does it appear from this, that I have "put forth Lloyd's Greek Testament as the _final standard of Appeal_"? True, that, in order to exhibit clearly their respective divergences, I have referred five famous codices (A B ? C D)-certain of which are found to have turned the brain of Critics of the new school-_to one and the same familiar exhibition of the commonly received Text of the New Testament_: but by so doing I have not by any means a.s.sumed _the Textual purity_ of that common standard. In other words I have not made it "_the final standard of Appeal_." _All_ Critics,-wherever found,-at all times, have collated with the commonly received Text: but only as the most convenient _standard of Comparison_; not, surely, as the absolute _standard of Excellence_. The result of the experiment already referred to,-(and, I beg to say, it was an exceedingly laborious experiment,)-has been, to demonstrate that the five Ma.n.u.scripts in question stand apart from one another in the following proportions:-

842 (A) : 1798 (C) : 2370 (B) : 3392 (?) : 4697 (D).

But would not the same result have been obtained if the "five old uncials"

had been _referred to any other common standard which can be named_? In the meantime, what else is the inevitable inference from this phenomenon but that four out of the five _must_ be-while all the five _may_ be-outrageously depraved doc.u.ments? instead of being fit to be made our exclusive guides to the Truth of Scripture,-as Critics of the school of Tischendorf and Tregelles would have us believe that they are?

-- 7. I cited a book which is in the hands of every schoolboy, (Lloyd's "Greek Testament,") _only_ in order to facilitate reference, and to make sure that my statements would be at once understood by the least learned person who could be supposed to have access to the "Quarterly." I presumed every scholar to be aware that Bp. Lloyd (1827) professes to reproduce Mill's text; and that Mill (1707) reproduces the text of Stephens;(13) and that Stephens (1550) exhibits with sufficient accuracy the Traditional text,-which is confessedly at least 1530 years old.(14) Now, if a tolerable approximation to the text of A.D. 350 may _not_ be accepted as _a standard of Comparison_,-will the writer in the "Church Quarterly" be so obliging as to inform us _which_ exhibition of the sacred Text _may_?

-- 8. A pamphlet by the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol,(15) which appeared in April 1882, remains to be considered. Written expressly in defence of the Revisers and their New Greek Text, this composition displays a slenderness of acquaintance with the subject now under discussion, for which I was little prepared. Inasmuch however as it is the production of the Chairman of the Revisionist body, and professes to be a reply to my first two Articles, I have bestowed upon it an elaborate and particular rejoinder extending to an hundred-and-fifty pages.(16) I shall in consequence be very brief concerning it in this place.

-- 9. The respected writer does nothing else but reproduce Westcott and Hort's theory _in Westcott and Hort's words_. He contributes nothing of his own. The singular infelicity which attended his complaint that the "Quarterly Reviewer" "censures their [Westcott and Hort's] Text," but, "has not attempted _a serious examination of the arguments which they allege in its support_," I have sufficiently dwelt upon elsewhere.(17) The rest of the Bishop's contention may be summed up in two propositions:-The first, (I.) That if the Revisionists are wrong in their "New Greek Text,"

then (not only Westcott and Hort, but) Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles must be wrong also,-a statement which I hold to be incontrovertible.-The Bishop's other position is also undeniable: viz. (II.) That in order to pa.s.s an equitable judgment on ancient doc.u.ments, they are to be carefully studied, closely compared, and tested by a more scientific process than rough comparison with the _Textus Receptus_.(18)... Thus, on both heads, I find myself entirely at one with Bp. Ellicott.

-- 10. And yet,-as the last 150 pages of the present volume show,-I have the misfortune to be at issue with the learned writer on almost every particular which he proposes for discussion. Thus,

-- 11. At page 64 of his pamphlet, he fastens resolutely upon the famous problem whether "G.o.d" (Te??), or "who" (??), is to be read in 1 Timothy iii. 16. I had upheld the former reading in eight pages. He contends for the latter, with something like acrimony, in twelve.(19) I have been at the pains, in consequence, to write a "DISSERTATION" of seventy-six pages on this important subject,(20)-the preparation of which (may I be allowed to record the circ.u.mstance in pa.s.sing?) occupied me closely for six months,(21) and taxed me severely. Thus, the only point which Bishop Ellicott has condescended to discuss argumentatively with me, will be found to enjoy full half of my letter to him in reply.

The "Dissertation" referred to, I submit with humble confidence to the judgment of educated Englishmen. It requires no learning to understand the case. And I have particularly to request that those who will be at the pains to look into this question, will remember,-(1) That the place of Scripture discussed (viz. 1 Tim. iii. 16) was deliberately selected for a trial of strength by the Bishop: (I should not have chosen it myself):-(2) That on the issue of the contention which he has thus himself invited, we have respectively staked our critical reputation. The discussion exhibits very fairly our two methods,-his and mine; and "is of great importance as an example," "ill.u.s.trating in a striking manner" our respective positions,-as the Bishop himself has been careful to remind his readers.(22)

-- 12. One merely desirous of taking a general survey of this question, is invited to read from page 485 to 496 of the present volume. To understand the case thoroughly, he must submit to the labour of beginning at p. 424 and reading down to p. 501.