The Revision Revised Part 23

" 'Are there, as a matter of fact, places in which we are _constrained by overwhelming evidence_ to recognize the existence of Textual error in _all_ extant doc.u.ments?' To this question we have no hesitation in replying in the affirmative."-(p. 279.)

Behold then the deliberate sentence of Drs. Westcott and Hort. They flatter themselves that they are able to produce "_overwhelming evidence_"

in proof that there are places where _every extant doc.u.ment_ is in error.

The instance on which they both rely, is S. Peter's prophetic announcement (2 Pet. iii. 10), that in "the day of the LORD," "the earth and the works that are therein _shall be burned up_" (?ata?a?seta?).

This statement is found to have been glossed or paraphrased in an age when men knew no better. Thus, Cod. C subst.i.tutes-"_shall vanish away_:"(794) the Syriac and one Egyptian version,-"_shall not be found_," (apparently in imitation of Rev. xvi. 20). But, either because the "not" was accidentally omitted(795) in some very ancient exemplar;-or else because it was deemed a superfluity by some Occidental critic who in his simplicity supposed that e??e??seta? might well represent the Latin _urerentur_,-(somewhat as Mrs. Quickly warranted "_hang hog_" to be Latin for "bacon,")-codices ? and B (with four others of later date) exhibit "_shall be found_,"(796)-which obviously makes utter nonsense of the place. (???e??seta? appears, nevertheless, in Dr. Hort's text: _in consequence of which_, the margin of our "Revised Version" is disfigured with the statement that "The most ancient ma.n.u.scripts read _discovered_.") But what is there in all this to make one distrust the Traditional reading?-supported as it is by the whole ma.s.s of Copies: by the Latin,(797)-the Coptic,-the Harkleian,-and the aethiopic Versions:-besides the only Fathers who quote the place; viz. Cyril seven times,(798) and John Damascene(799) once?... As for pretending, at the end of the foregoing enquiry, that "we are _constrained by overwhelming evidence_ to recognize the existence of textual error _in all extant doc.u.ments_,"-it is evidently a mistake. Nothing else is it but a misstatement of facts.

LXXVII. And thus, in the entire absence of proof, Dr. Hort's view of "the existence of corruptions" of the Text "antecedent to all existing authority,"(800)-falls to the ground. His confident prediction, that such corruptions "will sooner or later have to be acknowledged," may be dismissed with a smile. So indifferent an interpreter of the Past may not presume to forecast the Future.

The one "matter of fact," which at every step more and more impresses an attentive student of the Text of Scripture, is,-(1st), The utterly depraved character of Codices B and ?: and (2nd), The singular infatuation of Drs. Westcott and Hort in insisting that those 2 Codices "_stand alone in their almost complete immunity from error:_"(801)-that "the fullest comparison does but increase the conviction that _their pre-eminent relative purity is approximately absolute_."(802)

LXXVIII. Whence is it,-(we have often asked ourselves the question, while studying these laborious pages,)-How does it happen that a scholar like Dr. Hort, evidently accomplished and able, should habitually mistake the creations of his own brain for material forms? the echoes of his own voice while holding colloquy with himself, for oracular responses? We have not hitherto expressed our astonishment,-but must do so now before we make an end,-that a writer who desires to convince, can suppose that his own arbitrary use of such expressions as "Pre-Syrian" and "Neutral,"-"Western"

and "Alexandrian,"-"Non-Western" and "Non-Alexandrian,"-"Non-Alexandrian Pre-Syrian" and "Pre-Syrian Non-Western,"-will produce any (except an irritating) effect on the mind of an intelligent reader.

The delusion of supposing that by the free use of such a vocabulary a Critic may dispense with the ordinary processes of logical proof, might possibly have its beginning in the retirement of the cloister, where there are few to listen and none to contradict: but it can only prove abiding if there has been no free ventilation of the individual fancy. Greatly is it to be regretted that instead of keeping his Text a profound secret for 30 years, Dr. Hort did not freely impart it to the public, and solicit the favour of candid criticism.

Has no friend ever reminded him that a.s.sertions concerning the presence or absence of a "Syrian" or a "Pre-Syrian," a "Western" or a "Non-Western _element_," are but wind,-the merest chaff and draff,-_apart from proof_?

Repeated _ad nauseam_, and employed with as much peremptory precision as if they were recognized terms connoting distinct cla.s.ses of Readings,-(whereas they are absolutely without significancy, except, let us charitably hope, to him who employs them);-such expressions would only be allowable on the part of the Critic, if he had first been at the pains to _index every princ.i.p.al Father_,-and _to reduce Texts to families_ by a laborious process of Induction. Else, they are worse than foolish. More than an impertinence are they. They bewilder, and mislead, and for a while enc.u.mber and block the way.

LXXIX. This is not all however. Even when these Editors notice hostile evidence, they do so after a fashion which can satisfy no one but themselves. Take for example their note on the word e??? ("_without a cause_") in S. Matthew v. 22 ("But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother _without a cause_"). The Reader's attention is specially invited to the treatment which this place has experienced at the hands of Drs. Westcott and Hort:-

(_a_) They unceremoniously eject the word from S. Matthew's Gospel with their oracular sentence, "_Western and Syrian._"-Aware that e??? is recognized by "Iren. lat-3; Eus. _D. E._ Cyp.," they yet claim for omitting it the authority of "Just. Ptolem. (? Iren. 242 _fin_.), Tert.; and certainly" (they proceed) "Orig. on Eph. iv. 31, noticing both readings, and similarly Hier. _loc._, who probably follows Origen: also Ath. _Pasch._ Syr. 11: Ps.-Ath. _Cast._ ii. 4; and others".... Such is their "_Note_" on S. Matthew v. 22. It is found at p. 8 of their volume.

In consequence, e??? ("_without a cause_") disappears from their Text entirely.

(_b_) But these learned men are respectfully informed that neither Justin Martyr, nor Ptolemaeus the Gnostic, nor Irenaeus, no, nor Tertullian either,-that _not one of these four writers_,-supplies the wished-for evidence. As for Origen,-they are a.s.sured that _he_-_not_ "probably" but _certainly_-is the cause of all the trouble. They are reminded that Athanasius(803) quotes (_not_ S. Matt. v. 22, but) 1 Jo. iii. 15. They are shown that what they call "ps.-Ath. _Cast._" is nothing else but a paraphrastic translation (by _Graeculus quidam_) of John Ca.s.sian's _Inst.i.tutes_,-"ii. 4" in the Greek representing viii. 20 in the Latin....

And now, how much of the adverse Evidence remains?

(_c_) Only this:-Jerome's three books of Commentary on the Ephesians, are, in the main, a translation of Origen's lost 3 books on the same Epistle.(804) Commenting on iv. 31, Origen says that e??? has been improperly added to the Text,(805)-_which shows that in Origen's copy_ e??? _was found there_. A few ancient writers in consequence (but only in consequence) of what Jerome (or rather Origen) thus delivers, are observed to omit e???.(806) That is all!

(_d_) May we however respectfully ask these learned Editors why, besides Irenaeus,(807)-Eusebius,(808)-and Cyprian,(809)-they do not mention that e??? is _also_ the reading of Justin Martyr,(810)-of Origen himself,(811)-of the _Const.i.tutiones App._,(812)-of Basil three times,(813)-of Gregory of Nyssa,(814)-of Epiphanius,(815)-of Ephraem Syrus twice,(816)-of Isidorus twice,(817)-of Theodore of Mops.,-of Chrysostom 18 times,-of the _Opus imp._ twice,(818)-of Cyril(819)-and of Theodoret(820)-(each in 3 places). It was also the reading of Severus, Abp. of Antioch:(821)-as well as of Hilary,(822)-Lucifer,(823)-Salvian,(824)-Philastrius,(825)-Augustine, and-Jerome,(826)-(although, when translating from Origen, he p.r.o.nounces against e???(827)):-not to mention Antiochus mon.,(828)-J.

Damascene,(829)-Maximus,(830)-Photius,(831)-Euthymius,-Theophylact,-and others?(832)... We have adduced no less than _thirty_ ancient witnesses.

(_e_) Our present contention however is but this,-that a Reading which is attested by _every uncial Copy of the Gospels except_ B _and_ ?; by a whole _torrent of Fathers_; by _every known copy_ of the old Latin,-by _all_ the Syriac, (for the Peschito inserts [not translates] the word e???,)-by the Coptic,-as well as by the Gothic-and Armenian versions;-that such a reading is not to be set aside by the stupid dictum, "WESTERN AND SYRIAN." By no such methods will the study of Textual Criticism be promoted, or any progress ever be made in determining the Truth of Scripture. There really can be no doubt whatever,-(that is to say, if we are to be guided by _ancient Evidence_,)-that e??? ("_without a cause_") was our SAVIOUR'S actual word; and that our Revisers have been here, as in so many hundred other places, led astray by Dr. Hort. So true is that saying of the ancient poet,-"Evil company doth corrupt good manners." "And if the blind lead the blind,"-(a greater than Menander hath said it,)-"_both shall fall into the ditch_."(833)

(_f_) In the meantime, we have exhibited somewhat in detail, Drs. Westcott and Hort's Annotation on e???, [S. Matth. v. 22,] in order to furnish our Readers with at least _one definite specimen_ of the Editorial skill and Critical ability of these two accomplished Professors. Their general practice, as exhibited in the case of 1 Jo. v. 18, [see above, pp. 347-9,]

is to tamper with the sacred Text, without a.s.signing their authority,-indeed, without offering apology of any kind.

(_g_) The _sum_ of the matter proves to be as follows: Codd. B and ? (the "two false Witnesses"),-B and ?, _alone of MSS._-omit e???. On the strength of this, Dr. Hort persuaded his fellow Revisers to omit "_without a cause_" from their Revised Version: and it is proposed, in consequence, that every Englishman's copy of S. Matthew v. 22 shall be mutilated in the same way for ever.... _Delirant reges, plectuntur Achivi._

(_h_) But the question arises-Will the Church of England submit to have her immemorial heritage thus filched from her? We shall be astonished indeed if she proves so regardless of her birthright.

Lx.x.x. Lastly, the intellectual habits of these Editors have led them so to handle evidence, that the sense of proportion seems to have forsaken them.

"He who has long pondered over a train of Reasoning,"-(remarks the elder Critic,)-"_becomes unable to detect its weak points_."(834) Yes, the "idols of the den" exercise at last a terrible ascendency over the Critical judgment. It argues an utter want of mental perspective, when we find "the Man working on the Sabbath," put on the same footing with "the Woman taken in Adultery," and conjectured to have "_come from the same source_:"-the incident of "the Angel troubling the pool of Bethesda"

dismissed, as having "_no claim to any kind of a.s.sociation with the true Text_:"(835)-and "the _two_ Supplements" to S. Mark's Gospel declared to "_stand on equal terms_ as independent attempts to fill up a gap;" and allowed to be possibly "_of equal antiquity._"(836) How can we wonder, after this, to find _anything_ omitted,-_anything_ inserted,-_anything_ branded with suspicion? And the brand is very freely applied by Drs.

Westcott and Hort. Their notion of the Text of the New Testament, is certainly the most extraordinary ever ventilated. It has at least the merit of entire originality. While they eagerly insist that many a pa.s.sage is but "a Western interpolation" after all; is but an "Evangelic Tradition," "rescued from oblivion by the Scribes of the second century;"-they yet _incorporate those pa.s.sages with the Gospel_. Careful enough to clap them into fetters first, they then, (to use their own queer phrase,)-"_provisionally a.s.sociate them with the Text_."

Lx.x.xI. We submit, on the contrary, that Editors who "_cannot doubt_" that a certain verse "comes from an extraneous source,"-"_do not believe_ that it belonged originally to the Book in which it is now included,"-are unreasonable if they proceed to a.s.sign to it _any_ actual place there at all. When men have once thoroughly convinced themselves that two Verses of S. Luke's Gospel are _not Scripture_, but "only a fragment from the Traditions, written or oral, which were for a while locally current;"(837)-what else is it but the merest trifling with sacred Truth, to promote those two verses to a place in the inspired context? Is it not to be feared, that the conscious introduction of _human Tradition_ into G.o.d'S _written Word_ will in the end destroy the soul's confidence in Scripture itself? opening the door for perplexity, and doubt, and presently for Unbelief itself to enter.

Lx.x.xII. And let us not be told that the Verses stand there "provisionally"

only; and for that reason are "enclosed within double brackets." Suspected felons are "provisionally" locked up, it is true: but after trial, they are either convicted and removed out of sight; or else they are acquitted and suffered to come abroad like other men. Drs. Westcott and Hort have _no right_ at the end of thirty years of investigation, _still_ to enc.u.mber the Evangelists with "provisional" fetters. Those fetters either signify that the Judge is _afraid to carry out his own righteous sentence_: or else, that he _entertains a secret suspicion that he has made a terrible mistake after all,-has condemned the innocent_. Let these esteemed Scholars at least have "the courage of their own convictions,"

and be throughout as consistent as, in two famous instances (viz. at pages 113 and 241), they have been. Else, in G.o.d'S Name, let them have the manliness to avow themselves in error: abjure their p??t?? ?e?d??; and cast the fantastic Theory, which they have so industriously reared upon it, unreservedly, to the winds!

Lx.x.xIII. To conclude.-It will be the abiding distinction of the Revised Version (_thanks to Dr. Hort,_) that it brought to the front a question which has slept for about 100 years; but which may not be suffered now to rest undisturbed any longer. It might have slumbered on for another half-century,-a subject of deep interest to a very little band of Divines and Scholars; of perplexity and distrust to all the World besides;-_but_ for the incident which will make the 17th of May, 1881, for ever memorable in the Annals of the Church of England.

Lx.x.xIV. The Publication on that day of the "Revised English Version of the New Testament" instantly concentrated public attention on the neglected problem: for men saw at a glance that the Traditional Text of 1530 years'

standing,-(the exact number is Dr. Hort's, not ours,)-had been unceremoniously set aside in favour of _an entirely different Recension_.

The true Authors of the mischief were not far to seek. Just five days before,-under the editorship of Drs. Westcott and Hort, (Revisionists themselves,)-had appeared the most extravagant Text which has seen the light since the invention of Printing. No secret was made of the fact that, under pledges of strictest secrecy,(838) a copy of this wild performance (marked "Confidential") had been entrusted to every member of the Revising body: and it has since transpired that Dr. Hort advocated his own peculiar views in the Jerusalem Chamber with so much volubility, eagerness, pertinacity, and plausibility, that in the end-notwithstanding the warnings, remonstrances, entreaties of Dr. Scrivener,-his counsels prevailed; and-the utter shipwreck of the "Revised Version" has been, (as might have been confidently predicted,) the disastrous consequence. Dr.

Hort is calculated to have _talked for three years_ out of the ten.

But in the meantime there has arisen _this_ good out of the calamity,-namely, that men will at last require that the Textual problem shall be fairly threshed out. They will insist on having it proved to their satisfaction,-(1) That Codices B and ? are indeed the oracular doc.u.ments which their admirers pretend; and-(2) That a narrow selection of ancient doc.u.ments is a secure foundation on which to build the Text of Scripture. Failing this,-(and the _onus probandi_ rests wholly with those who are for setting aside the Traditional Text in favour of another, _entirely dissimilar in character_,)-failing this, we say, it is reasonable to hope that the counsels of the "_Quarterly Review_" will be suffered to prevail. In the meantime, we repeat that this question has now to be fought out: for to ignore it any longer is impossible. Compromise of any sort between the two conflicting parties, is impossible also; for they simply contradict one another. Codd. B and ? are either among the purest of ma.n.u.scripts,-or else they are among the very foulest. The Text of Drs.

Westcott and Hort is either the very best which has ever appeared,-or else it is the very worst; the nearest to the sacred Autographs,-or the furthest from them. There is no room for _both_ opinions; and there cannot exist any middle view.

The question will have to be fought out; and it must be fought out fairly.

It may not be magisterially settled; but must be advocated, on either side, by the old logical method. If Continental Scholars join in the fray, England,-which in the last century took the lead in these studies,-will, it is to be hoped, maintain her ancient reputation and again occupy the front rank. The combatants may be sure that, in consequence of all that has happened, the public will be no longer indifferent spectators of the fray; for the issue concerns the inner life of the whole community,-touches men's very heart of hearts. Certain it is that-"G.o.d defend _the Right_!" will be the one aspiration of every faithful spirit among us. THE TRUTH,-(we avow it on behalf of Drs. Westcott and Hort as eagerly as on our own behalf,)-G.o.d'S TRUTH will be, as it has been throughout, the one object of all our striving. ??????? a?????? e?p?, t?

d? e? ????t?.

*I HAVE BEEN VERY JEALOUS FOR THE LORD G.o.d OF HOSTS.*

LETTER TO BISHOP ELLICOTT, IN REPLY TO HIS PAMPHLET.

"Nothing is more satisfactory at the present time than the evident feelings of veneration for our Authorized Version, and the very generally-felt desire for _as little change as possible_."-BISHOP ELLICOTT.(839)

"We may be satisfied with the attempt to correct _plain and clear errors_, but _there it is our duty to stop_."-BISHOP ELLICOTT.(840)

"We have now, at all events, no fear of _an over-corrected Version_."-BISHOP ELLICOTT.(841)

"I fear we must say in candour that in the Revised Version we meet in every page with small _changes, which are vexatious, teasing, and irritating, even the more so because they are small; which seem almost to be made for the sake of change_."-BISHOP WORDSWORTH.(842)

[The question arises,]-"Whether the Church of England,-which in her Synod, so far as this Province is concerned, sanctioned a Revision of her Authorized Version _under the express condition_, which she most wisely imposed, that _no Changes should be made in it except what were absolutely necessary_,-could consistently accept a Version in which 36,000 changes have been made; _not a fiftieth of which can be shown to be needed, or even desirable_."-BISHOP WORDSWORTH.(843)

Letter To The Right Rev. Charles John Ellicott, D.D., Bishop Of Gloucester And Bristol, In Reply To His Pamphlet In Defence Of The Revisers And Their Greek Text Of The New Testament.

"WHAT COURSE WOULD REVISERS HAVE US TO FOLLOW?... WOULD IT BE WELL FOR THEM TO AGREE ON A CRITICAL GREEK TEXT? _TO THIS QUESTION WE VENTURE TO ANSWER VERY UNHESITATINGLY IN THE NEGATIVE._

"THOUGH WE HAVE MUCH CRITICAL MATERIAL, AND A VERY FAIR AMOUNT OF CRITICAL KNOWLEDGE, _WE HAVE CERTAINLY NOT YET ACQUIRED SUFFICIENT CRITICAL JUDGMENT_ FOR ANY BODY OF REVISERS HOPEFULLY TO UNDERTAKE SUCH A WORK AS THIS."

BISHOP ELLICOTT.(844)

MY LORD BISHOP,