The Revision Revised Part 35

But you must come provided with something vastly more formidable, remember, than denunciations,-which are but wind: and vague generalities,-which prove nothing and persuade n.o.body: and appeals to the authority of "Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles,"-which I disallow and disregard. You must produce a counter-array of well-ascertained facts; and you must build thereupon irrefragable arguments. In other words, you must conduct your cause with learning and ability. Else, believe me, you will make the painful discovery that "the last error is worse than the first."

You had better a thousand times, even now, ingenuously admit that you made a grievous mistake when you put yourself into the hands of those ingenious theorists, Drs. Westcott and Hort, and embraced their arbitrary decrees,-than persevere in your present downward course, only to sink deeper and deeper in the mire.

(5) _Antic.i.p.ated effect of the present contention on the Text of_ 1 Timothy iii. 16.

I like to believe, in the meantime, that this pa.s.sage of arms has resulted in such a vindication(1143) of the traditional Reading of 1 TIMOTHY iii.

16, as will effectually secure that famous place of Scripture against further molestation. _Faxit __DEUS__!_... In the margin of the Revision of 1881, I observe that you have ventured to state as follows,-

"The word G.o.d, in place of _He who_, rests on no sufficient ancient evidence."

In the words of your Unitarian ally, Dr. Vance Smith,-

"The old reading is p.r.o.nounced untenable by the Revisers, as it has long been known to be by all careful students of the New Testament.... It is in truth another example of the facility with which ancient copiers could introduce the word G.o.d into their ma.n.u.scripts,-a reading which was the natural result of the growing tendency in early Christian times ... to look upon the humble Teacher as the incarnate Word, and therefore as 'G.o.d manifested in the flesh' " (p. 39).

Such remarks proceeding from such a quarter create no surprise. But, pray, my lord Bishop, of what were _you_ thinking when you permitted yourself to make the serious mis-statement which stands in the margin? You must needs have meant thereby that,-"The word _He who_ in place of G.o.d, on the contrary, _does_ rest on sufficient ancient evidence." I solemnly call upon you, in the Name of Him by whose Spirit Holy Scripture was given, to prove the truth of your marginal Note of which the foregoing 70 pages are a refutation.-You add,

"Some ancient authorities read _which_."

But why did you suppress the fact, which is undeniable, viz.: that a great many "_More_ ancient authorities" read "which" (?), than read "who" (??)?

(6) _The nature of this contention explained._

And yet, it was no isolated place which I was eager to establish, when at first I took up my pen. It was the general trustworthiness of the Traditional Text,-(the Text which you admit to be upwards of 1500 years old,)-which I aimed at ill.u.s.trating: the essential rottenness of the foundation on which the Greek Text of the Revision of 1881 has been constructed by yourself and your fellow Revisers,-which I was determined to expose. I claim to have proved not only that your entire superstructure is tasteless and unlovely to a degree,-but also that you have reared it up on a foundation of sand. In no vaunting spirit, (G.o.d is my witness!), but out of sincere and sober zeal for the truth of Scripture I say it,-your work, whether you know it or not, has been so handled in the course of the present volume of 500 pages that its essential deformity must be apparent to every unprejudiced beholder. It can only be spoken of at this time of day as a shapeless ruin.

A ruin moreover it is which does not admit of being repaired or restored.

And why? Because the mischief, which extends to every part of the edifice, takes its beginning, as already explained, in every part of the foundation.

And further, (to speak without a figure,) it cannot be too plainly stated that no compromise is possible between our respective methods,-yours and mine: between the NEW GERMAN system in its most aggravated and in fact intolerable form, to which you have incautiously and unconditionally given in your adhesion; and the OLD ENGLISH school of Textual Criticism, of which I humbly avow myself a disciple. Between the theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort (which you have made your own) and the method of your present Correspondent, there can be no compromise, because the two are antagonistic throughout. We have, in fact, nothing in common,-except certain doc.u.ments; which _I_ insist on interpreting by the humble Inductive process: while you and your friends insist on your right of deducing your estimate of them from certain antecedent imaginations of your own,-every one of which I disallow, and some of which I am able to disprove.

Such, my lord Bishop, is your baseless imagination-(1) That the traditional Greek Text (which, without authority, you style "_The Syrian text_,") is the result of a deliberate Recension made at Antioch, A.D. 250 and 350:(1144)-(2) That the Peschito, in like manner, is the result of a Recension made at Edessa or Nisibis about the same time:(1145)-(3) That Cureton's is the Syriac "Vetus," and the Peschito the Syriac "Vulgate:"(1146)-(4) That the respective ancestries of our only two IVth-century Codices, B and ?, "diverged from a common parent extremely near the apostolic autographs:"(1147)-(5) That this common original enjoyed a "general immunity from substantive error;" and by consequence-(6) That B and ? provide "a safe criterion of genuineness," so that "no readings of ? B can be safely rejected absolutely."(1148)-(7) Similar wild imaginations you cherish concerning C and D,-which, together with B and ? _you_ a.s.sume to be among the most trustworthy guides in existence; whereas _I_ have convinced myself, by laborious collation, that they are _the most corrupt of all_. We are thus diametrically opposed throughout. Finally,-(8) _You_ a.s.sume that you possess a power of divination which enables you to dispense with laborious processes of Induction; while I, on the contrary, insist that the Truth of the Text of Scripture is to be elicited exclusively from the consentient testimony of the largest number of the best COPIES, FATHERS, VERSIONS.(1149) There is, I am persuaded, no royal road to the attainment of Truth in this department of Knowledge. Only through the lowly portal of humility,-only by self-renouncing labour,-may we ever hope to reach the innermost shrine.

_They_ do but go astray themselves and hopelessly mislead others, who first _invent their facts_, and then proceed to build thereupon their premisses.

Such builders are Drs. Westcott and Hort,-with whom (by your own avowal) you stand completely identified.(1150) I repeat, (for I wish it to be distinctly understood and remembered,) that what I a.s.sert concerning those Critics is,-_not_ that their superstructure rests upon an insecure foundation; but that it rests on _no foundation at all_. My complaint is,-_not_ that they are _somewhat_ and _frequently_ mistaken; but that they are mistaken _entirely_, and that they are mistaken _throughout_.

There is no possibility of approximation between _their_ mere a.s.sumptions and the results of _my_ humble and laborious method of dealing with the Text of Scripture. We shall only _then_ be able to begin to reason together with the slightest prospect of coming to any agreement, when they have unconditionally abandoned all their preconceived imaginations, and unreservedly scattered every one of their postulates to the four winds.

(7) _Parting Counsels._

Let me be allowed, in conclusion, to recommend to your attention and that of your friends,-(I.) "THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF S. MARK'S GOSPEL:"-(II.) THE ANGELIC HYMN on the night of the Nativity:-(III.) The text of 1 TIMOTHY iii. 16,-these three,-(in respect of which up to this hour, you and I find ourselves to be hopelessly divided,)-as convenient _Test places_. When you are prepared frankly to admit,-(I.) That there is no reason whatever for doubting the genuineness of S. MARK xvi.

9-20:(1151)-(II.) That ?? ?????p??? e?d???a is unquestionably the Evangelical text of S. LUKE ii. 14:(1152)-and (III.) That Te?? ?fa?e????

?? sa??? is what the great Apostle must be held to have written in 1 TIMOTHY iii 16,(1153)-we shall be in good time to proceed to something else. _Until_ this happy result has been attained, it is a mere waste of time to break up fresh ground, and to extend the area of our differences.

I cannot however disguise from you the fact that such an avowal on your part will amount to an admission that "the whole fabric of Textual Criticism which has been built up during the last fifty years by successive editors of the New Testament,"-Lachmann namely, Tischendorf, and Tregelles,-is worthless. Neither may the inevitable consequence of this admission be concealed: viz. that your own work as Revisionists has been, to speak plainly, one gigantic blunder, from end to end.

(8) _The subject dismissed._

The issue of this prolonged contention I now commend, with deep humility, to ALMIGHTY G.o.d. The SPIRIT OF TRUTH will, (I know,) take good care of His own masterpiece,-the Written Word. May He have compa.s.sion on my ignorance, and graciously forgive me, if, (intending nothing less,) I shall prove to have anywhere erred in my strenuous endeavour to maintain the integrity of Scripture against the rashness of an impatient and unlearned generation.

But if, (as I humbly believe and confidently hope,) my conclusions are sound throughout, then may He enable men freely to recognize the Truth; and thus, effectually avert from our Church the supreme calamity with which, for a few months in 1881, it seemed threatened; namely, of having an utterly depraved Recension of the Greek Text of the New Testament thrust upon it, as the basis of a very questionable 'Revision' of the English.

My lord Bishop,-I have the honour to wish you respectfully farewell.

J. W. B.

DEANERY, CHICHESTER, _July, 1883_.

THE GRa.s.s WITHERETH: THE FLOWER FADETH: BUT THE WORD OF OUR G.o.d SHALL STAND FOR EVER.

APPENDIX OF SACRED CODICES.

The inquiries into which I was led (January to June 1883) by my DISSERTATION in vindication of the Traditional Reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16, have resulted in my being made aware of the existence of a vast number of Sacred Codices which had eluded the vigilance of previous Critics.

I had already a.s.sisted my friend Prebendary Scrivener in greatly enlarging Scholz's list. We had in fact raised the enumeration of "_Evangelia_" to 621: of "_Acts and Catholic Epistles_" to 239: of "_Paul_" to 281: of "_Apocalypse_" to 108: of "_Evangelistaria_" to 299: of the book called "_Apostolus_" to 81:-making a total of 1629.-But at the end of a protracted and somewhat laborious correspondence with the custodians of not a few great Continental Libraries, I am able to state that our available "_Evangelia_" amount to at least 739(1154): our "_Acts and Cath.

Epp._" to 261: our "_Paul_" to 338: our "_Apoc._" to 122: our "_Evstt._"

to 415(1155): our copies of the "_Apostolus_" to 128(1156): making a total of 2003. This shows an increase of _three hundred and seventy-four_.

My original intention had been to publish this enumeration of Sacred Codices in its entirety as an APPENDIX to the present volume: but finding that the third edition of Dr. Scrivener's "Introduction" would appear some months before my own pages could possibly see the light, I eagerly communicated my discoveries to my friend. I have indeed proposed to myself no other object throughout but the advancement of the study of Textual Criticism: and it was reasonable to hope that by means of his widely circulated volume, the great enlargement which our previously ascertained stores have suddenly experienced would become more generally known to scholars. I should of course still have it in my power to reproduce here the same enumeration of Sacred Codices.

The great bulk however which the present volume has acquired, induces me to limit myself in this place to some account of those Codices which have been expressly announced and discoursed about in my Text (as at pp. 474 and 492-5). Some other occasion must be found for enlarging on the rest of my budget.

It only remains to state that for most of my recent discoveries I am indebted to the Abbate Cozza-Luzi, Prefect of the Vatican; who on being informed of the object of my solicitude, with extraordinary liberality and consideration at once set three competent young men to work in the princ.i.p.al libraries of Rome. To him I am further indebted for my introduction to the MS. treasures belonging to the Basilian monks of Crypta-Ferrata, the ancient Tusculum. Concerning the precious library of that monastery so much has been offered already (viz. at pp. 446-448, and again at pp. 473-4), as well as concerning its learned chief, the Hieromonachus Antonio Rocchi, that I must be content to refer my readers to those earlier parts of the present volume. I cannot however sufficiently acknowledge the patient help which the librarian of Crypta Ferrata has rendered me in the course of these researches.

For my knowledge of the sacred Codices preserved at Messina, I am indebted to the good offices and learning of Papas Filippo Matranga. In respect of those at Milan, my learned friend Dr. Ceriani has (not for the first time) been my efficient helper. M. Wescher has kindly a.s.sisted me at Paris; and Dr. C. de Boor at Berlin. It must suffice, for the rest, to refer to the Notes at foot of pp. 491-2 and 477-8.

ADDITIONAL CODICES OF S. PAUL'S EPISTLES.

282. ( = Act. 240. Apoc. 109). Paris, "Armenien 9" (_olim_ Reg. 2247).

_membr._ foll. 323. This bilingual codex (Greek and Armenian) is described by the Abbe Martin in his _Introduction a la Critique Textuelle du N. T._ (1883), p. 660-1. See above, p. 474, note 1. An Italian version is added from the Cath. Epp. onwards. _Mut._ at beginning (Acts iv. 14) and end.

(For its extraordinary reading at 1 Tim. iii. 16, see above, p. 473-4.)

283. ( = Act. 241). Messina P K Z (_i.e._ 127) [xii.], _chart._ foll. 224.

_Mut._ begins at Acts viii. 2,-ends at Hebr. viii. 2; also a leaf is lost between foll. 90 and 91. Has ?p???. and Commentary of an unknown author.

284. ( = Act. 195). Modena, ii. A. 13 [xiii.?], _Mut._ at the end.

285. ( = Act. 196), Modena, ii. Cf. 4 [xi. or xii.]. Sig. Ant. Cappelli (sub-librarian) sends me a tracing of 1 Tim. iii. 16.

286. Ambrosian library, E. 2, _inf._the Catena of Nicetas. "Textus particulatim praemitt.i.t Commentariis."