Chapter LXX: S. John in his first Epistle (v. 18) is distinguishing between the (2)

(2) Why should the “_indisputable antiquity_” of a document be supposed to disqualify it from being measured by the same standard to which (_but only for convenience_) documents of whatever date,—by common consent of scholars, at home and abroad,—are invariably referred? And next,

(3) Surely, you cannot require to have it explained to you that a standard _of _COMPARISON, is not _therefore_ of necessity a standard _of _EXCELLENCE. Did you ever take the trouble to collate a sacred manuscript? If you ever did, pray with _what_ did you make your collation? In other words, what “standard” did you employ?... Like Walton and Ussher,—like Fell and Mill,—like Bentley, and Bengel, and Wetstein,—like Birch, and Matthæi, and Griesbach, and Scholz,—like Lachmann, and Tregelles, and Tischendorf, and Scrivener,—I venture to assume that you collated your manuscript,—whether it was of “disputable” or of “indisputable antiquity,”—with _an ordinary copy of the Received Text_. If you did not, your collation is of no manner of use. But, above all,

(4) How does it come to pass that you speak so scornfully of the Received Text, seeing that (at p. 12 of your pamphlet) you assure your readers that _its pedigree may be traced back to a period perhaps antecedent to the oldest of our extant manuscripts_? Surely, a traditional Text which (_according to you_) dates from about A.D. 300, is good enough for the purpose of _Collation_!

(5) At last you say,—

“If there were reason to suppose that the Received Text
represented _verbatim et literatim_ the text which was current at
Antioch in the days of Chrysostom, it would still be impossible to
regard it as a standard from which there was no appeal.”(872)

Really, my lord Bishop, you must excuse me if I declare plainly that the more I attend to your critical utterances, the more I am astonished. From the confident style in which you deliver yourself upon such matters, and especially from your having undertaken to preside over a Revision of the Sacred Text, one would suppose that at some period of your life you must have given the subject a considerable amount of time and attention. But indeed the foregoing sentence virtually contains two propositions neither of which could possibly have been penned by one even moderately acquainted with the facts of Textual Criticism. For first,

(_a_) You speak of “representing _verbatim et literatim_ THE Text which was current at Antioch in the days of Chrysostom.” Do you then really suppose that there existed at Antioch, at any period between A.D. 354 and A.D. 407, _some one definite Text of the N. T. _CAPABLE_ of being so represented_?—If you do, pray will you indulge us with the grounds for such an extraordinary supposition? Your “acquaintance” (Dr. Tregelles) will tell you that such a fancy has long since been swept away “at once and for ever.” And secondly,

(_b_) You say that, even if there were reason to suppose that the “Received Text” were such-and-such a thing,—“it would still be impossible to regard it as _a standard from which there was no appeal_.”

But pray, who in his senses,—what sane man in Great Britain,—ever dreamed of regarding the “Received,”—aye, _or any other known _“Text,”—as “a standard _from which there shall be no appeal_”? Have I ever done so? Have I ever _implied_ as much? If I have, show me _where_. You refer your readers to the following passage in my first Article:—

“What precedes admits to some extent of further numerical
illustration. It is discovered that, in 111 pages, ... 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 א, 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 א 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 א C D.”—p. 14.

But, do you really require to have it explained to you that it is entirely to misunderstand the question to object to such a comparison of codices as is found above, (viz. in pages 14 and 17,) on the ground that it was made with the text of Stephanus lying open before me? Would not _the self-same phenomenon_ have been evolved by collation with _any other_ text? If you doubt it, sit down and try the experiment for yourself. Believe me, Robert Etienne in the XVIth century was not _the cause_ why cod. B in the IVth and cod. D in the VIth are so widely discordant and divergent from one another: A and C so utterly at variance with both.(873) We _must_ have _some_ standard whereby to test,—wherewith to compare,—Manuscripts. What is more, (give me leave to assure you,) _to the end of time_ it will probably be the practice of scholars to compare MSS. of the N. T. with the “Received Text.” The hopeless discrepancies between our five “old uncials,” can in no more convenient way be exhibited, than by referring each of them in turn to one and the same common standard. And,—_What_ standard more reasonable and more convenient than the Text which, by the good Providence of GOD, was universally employed throughout Europe for the first 300 years after the invention of printing? being practically _identical_ with the Text which (as you yourself admit) was in popular use at the end of three centuries from the date of the sacred autographs themselves: in other word, being more than 1500 years old.

[9] The Reviewer vindicates himself against Bp. Ellicott’s misconceptions.

But you are quite determined that I shall mean something essentially different. The Quarterly Reviewer, (you say,) is one who “contends that the Received Text needs but little emendation; and _may be used without emendation as a standard_.”(874) I am, (you say,) one of “those who adopt the easy method of making the Received Text a standard.”(875) My “Criticism,” (it seems,) “often rests ultimately upon the notion that it is little else but sacrilege to impugn the tradition of the last three hundred years.”(876) (“_The last three hundred years_:” as if the Traditional Text of the N. Testament dated from the 25th of Queen Elizabeth!)—I regard the “Textus Receptus” therefore, according to you, as the Ephesians regarded the image of the great goddess Diana; namely, as a thing which, one fine morning, “fell down from Jupiter.”(877) I mistake the Received Text, (you imply,) for the Divine Original, the Sacred Autographs,—and erect it into “a standard from which there shall be no appeal,”—“a tradition which it is little else but sacrilege to impugn.” That is how you state my case and condition: hopelessly _confusing_ the standard of _Comparison_ with the standard of _Excellence_.

By this time, however, enough has been said to convince any fair person that you are without warrant in your present contention. Let _any_ candid scholar cast an impartial eye over the preceding three hundred and fifty pages,—open the volume where he will, and read steadily on to the end of any textual discussion,—and then say whether, on the contrary, my criticism does not invariably rest on the principle that the Truth of Scripture is to be sought in that form of the Sacred Text which has _the fullest_, _the widest_, _and the most varied attestation_.(878) Do I not invariably make _the consentient __ voice of Antiquity_ my standard? If I do _not_,—if, on the contrary, I have ever once appealed to the “Received Text,” and made _it_ my standard,—why do you not prove the truth of your allegation by adducing in evidence that one particular instance? instead of bringing against me a charge which is utterly without foundation, and which can have no other effect but to impose upon the ignorant; to mislead the unwary; and to prejudice the great Textual question which hopelessly divides you and me?... I trust that at least you will not again confound the standard _of Comparison_ with the standard _of Truth_.

[10] Analysis of contents of Bp. Ellicott’s pamphlet.

You state at page 6, that what you propose to yourself by your pamphlet, is,—

“_First_, to supply accurate information, in a popular form,
concerning the Greek text of the Now Testament:

“_Secondly_, to establish, by means of the information so
supplied, the soundness of the principles on which the Revisers
have acted in their choice of readings; and by consequence, the
importance of the ‘New Greek Text:’ ”—[or, as you phrase it at p.
29,]—“to enable the reader to form a fair judgment on the question
of _the trustworthiness of the readings adopted by the Revisers_.”

To the former of these endeavours you devote twenty-three pages: (viz. p. 7 to p. 29):—to the latter, you devote forty-two; (viz. p. 37 to p. 78). The intervening eight pages are dedicated,—(_a_) To the constitution of the Revisionist body: and next, (_b_) To the amount of good faith with which you and your colleagues observed the conditions imposed upon you by the Southern Houses of Convocation. I propose to follow you over the ground in which you have thus entrenched yourself, and to drive you out of every position in turn.

[11] Bp. Ellicott’s account of the “TEXTUS RECEPTUS.”

First then, for your strenuous endeavour (pp. 7-10) to prejudice the question by pouring contempt on the humblest ancestor of the _Textus Receptus_—namely, the first edition of Erasmus. You know very well that the “Textus Receptus” is _not_ the first edition of Erasmus. Why then do you so describe its origin as to imply that _it is_? You ridicule the circumstances under which a certain ancestor of the family first saw the light. You reproduce with evident satisfaction a silly witticism of Michaelis, viz. that, in his judgment, the Evangelium on which Erasmus chiefly relied was not worth the two florins which the monks of Basle gave for it. Equally contemptible (according to you) were the copies of the Acts, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse which the same scholar employed for the rest of his first edition. Having in this way done your best to blacken a noble house by dilating on the low ebb to which its fortunes were reduced at a critical period of its history, some three centuries and a half ago,—you pause to make your own comment on the spectacle thus exhibited to the eyes of unlearned readers, lest any should fail to draw therefrom the injurious inference which is indispensable for your argument:—

“We have entered into these details, because we desire that the
general reader should know fully the true pedigree of that printed
text of the Greek Testament which has been in common use for the
last three centuries. It will be observed that its documentary
origin is not calculated to inspire any great confidence. Its
parents, as we have seen, were two or three late manuscripts of
little critical value, which accident seems to have brought into
the hands of their first editor.”—p. 10.

Now, your account of the origin of the “Textus Receptus” shall be suffered to stand uncontradicted. But the important _inference_, which you intend that inattentive or incompetent readers should draw therefrom, shall be scattered to the winds by the unequivocal testimony of no less distinguished a witness than yourself. Notwithstanding all that has gone before, you are constrained to confess _in the very next page_ that:—

“The manuscripts which Erasmus used differ, for the most part,
_only in small and insignificant details from the bulk of the
cursive manuscripts_. The general character of their text is the
same. By this observation the pedigree of the Received Text is
carried up beyond the individual manuscripts used by Erasmus....
_That_ pedigree stretches back to a remote antiquity. _The first
ancestor of the Received Text was at least contemporary with the
oldest of our extant manuscripts, if not older than any one of
them._”—pp. 11, 12.

By your own showing therefore, the Textus Receptus is, “_at least_,” 1550 years old. Nay, we will have the fact over again, in words which you adopt from p. 92 of Westcott and Hort’s _Introduction_ [see above, p. 257], and clearly make your own:—

“The fundamental text of late extant Greek MSS. generally is
_beyond all question identical_ with the dominant Antiochian or
Græco-Syrian _Text of the second half of the fourth century_.”—p.
12.

But, if this be so,—(and I am not concerned to dispute your statement in a single particular,)—of what possible significancy can it be to your present contention, that the ancestry of the WRITTEN WORD (like the ancestors of the WORD INCARNATE) had at one time declined to the wondrous low estate on which you enlarged at first with such evident satisfaction? Though the fact be admitted that Joseph “the carpenter” was “the husband of Mary, of whom was born JESUS, who is called CHRIST,”—what possible inconvenience results from that circumstance so long as the only thing contended for be loyally conceded,—namely, that the descent of MESSIAH is lineally traceable back to the patriarch Abraham, through David the King? And the genealogy of the written, no less than the genealogy of the Incarnate WORD, is traceable back by _two distinct lines of descent_, remember: for the “Complutensian,” which was printed in 1514, exhibits the “Traditional Text” with the same general fidelity as the “Erasmian,” which did not see the light till two years later.

[12] Bp. Ellicott derives his estimate of the “TEXTUS RECEPTUS” from Westcott and Hart’s fable of a “SYRIAN TEXT.”

Let us hear what comes next:—

“At this point a question suggests itself which we cannot refuse
to consider. If the pedigree of the Received Text may be traced
back to so early a period, does it not deserve the honour which is
given to it by the Quarterly Reviewer?”—p. 12.

A very pertinent question truly. We are made attentive: the more so, because you announce that your reply to this question shall “go to the bottom of the controversy with which we are concerned.”(879) That reply is as follows:—

“If there were reason to suppose that the Received Text
represented _verbatim et literatim_ the text which was current at
Antioch in the days of Chrysostom, it would still be impossible to
regard it as a standard _from which there was no appeal_. The
reason why this would be impossible may be stated briefly as
follows. In the ancient documents which have come down to
us,—amongst which, as is well known, are manuscripts written in
the fourth century,—we possess evidence that other texts of the
Greek Testament existed in the age of Chrysostom, materially
different from the text which he and the Antiochian writers
generally employed. Moreover, a rigorous examination of extant
documents shows that the Antiochian or (as we shall henceforth
call it with Dr. Hort) the Syrian text did not represent an
earlier tradition than those other texts, but was in fact of later
origin than the rest. We cannot accept it therefore as _a final
standard_.”—pp. 13, 14.

“A _final_ standard”!... Nay but, why do you suddenly introduce this unheard-of characteristic? _Who_, pray, since the invention of Printing was ever known to put forward _any_ existing Text as “a final standard”? Not the Quarterly Reviewer certainly. “The honour which is given to the _Textus Receptus_ by the Quarterly Reviewer” is no other than the honour which it has enjoyed at the hands of scholars, by universal consent, for the last three centuries. That is to say, he uses it as a standard of comparison, and employs it for habitual reference. _So do you._ You did so, at least, in the year 1870. You did more; for you proposed “to proceed with the work of Revision, whether of text or translation, _making the current _‘Textus Receptus’_ the standard_.”(880) We are perfectly agreed therefore. For my own part, being fully convinced, like yourself, that essentially the Received Text is full 1550 years old,—(yes, and a vast deal older,)—I esteem it quite good enough for all ordinary purposes. And yet, so far am I from pinning my faith to it, that I eagerly make my appeal _from_ it to the threefold witness of Copies, Versions, Fathers, whenever I find its testimony challenged.—And with this renewed explanation of my sentiments,—(which one would have thought that no competent person could require,)—I proceed to consider the reply which you promise shall “go to the bottom of the controversy with which we are concerned.” I beg that you will not again seek to divert attention from that which is the real matter of dispute betwixt you and me.

What kind of argumentation then is this before us? You assure us that,—

(_a_) “A rigorous examination of extant documents,”—“shows” Dr. Hort—“that the Syrian text”—[which for all practical purposes may be considered as only another name for the “Textus Receptus”]—was of later origin than “other texts of the Greek Testament” which “existed in the age of Chrysostom.”

(_b_) “We cannot accept it therefore as a final standard.”

But,—Of what nature is the logical process by which you have succeeded in convincing yourself that _this_ consequent can be got out of _that_ antecedent? Put a parallel case:—“A careful analysis of herbs ‘shows’ Dr. Short that the only safe diet for Man is a particular kind of rank grass which grows in the Ely fens. We must therefore leave off eating butcher’s meat.”—Does _that_ seem to you altogether a satisfactory argument? To me, it is a mere _non sequitur_. Do but consider the matter for a moment. “A rigorous examination of extant documents shows” Dr. Hort—such and such things. “A rigorous examination of the” same “documents shows” _me_—that Dr. Hort _is mistaken_. A careful study of his book convinces _me_ that his theory of a Syrian Recension, manufactured between A.D. 250 and A.D. 350, is a dream, pure and simple—_a mere phantom of the brain_. Dr. Hort’s course is obvious. Let him _first_ make his processes of proof intelligible, and _then_ public. You cannot possibly suppose that the fable of “a Syrian text,” though it has evidently satisfied _you_, will be accepted by thoughtful Englishmen without proof. What prospect do you suppose you have of convincing the world that Dr. Hort is competent to assign _a date_ to this creature of his own imagination; of which he has hitherto failed to demonstrate so much as the probable existence?

I have, for my own part, established by abundant references to his writings that he is one of those who, (through some intellectual peculiarity,) are for ever mistaking conjectures for facts,—assertions for arguments,—and reiterated asseveration for accumulated proof. He deserves sympathy, certainly: for,—(like the man who passed his life in trying to count how many grains of sand will exactly fill a quart pot;—or like his unfortunate brother, who made it his business to prove that nothing, multiplied by a sufficient number of figures, amounts to something;)—he has evidently taken a prodigious deal of useless trouble. The spectacle of an able and estimable man exhibiting such singular inaptitude for a province of study which, beyond all others, demands a clear head and a calm, dispassionate judgment,—creates distress.

[13] Bp. Ellicott has completely adopted Westcott and Hort’s Theory.

But in the meantime, so confident are _you_ of the existence of a “Syrian text,”—(_only however because Dr. Hort is_,)—that you inflict upon your readers all the consequences which “the Syrian text” is supposed to carry with it. Your method is certainly characterized by humility: for it consists in merely serving up to the British public a _réchauffé_ of Westcott and Hort’s Textual Theory. I cannot discover that you contribute anything of your own to the meagre outline you furnish of it. Everything is assumed—as before. Nothing is proved—as before. And we are referred to Dr. Hort for the resolution of every difficulty which Dr. Hort has created. “According to Dr. Hort,”—“as Dr. Hort observes,”—“to use Dr. Hort’s language,”—“stated by Dr. Hort,”—“as Dr. Hort notices,”—“says Dr. Hort:” yes, from p. 14 of your pamphlet to p. 29 you do nothing else but reproduce—Dr. Hort!

First comes the fabulous account of the contents of the bulk of the cursives:(881)—then, the imaginary history of the “Syriac Vulgate;” which (it seems) bears “indisputable traces” of being a revision, of which you have learned _from Dr. Hort_ the date:(882)—then comes the same disparagement of the ancient Greek Fathers,—“for reasons which have been _stated by Dr. Hort_ with great clearness and cogency:”(883)—then, the same depreciatory estimate of writers subsequent to Eusebius,—whose evidence is declared to “stand at best on no higher level than the evidence of inferior manuscripts in the uncial class:”(884) but _only_ because it is discovered to be destructive of the theory _of Dr. Hort_.

Next comes “the Method of Genealogy,”—which you declare is the result of “vast research, unwearied patience, great critical sagacity;”(885) but which I am prepared to prove is, on the contrary, a shallow expedient for dispensing with scientific Induction and the laborious accumulation of evidence. This same “Method of Genealogy,” you are not ashamed to announce as “the great contribution of our own times to a mastery over materials.” “For the full explanation of it, _you must refer your reader to Dr. Hort’s Introduction_.”(886) Can you be serious?

Then come the results to which “the application of this method _has conducted Drs. Westcott and Hort_.”(887) And first, the fable of the “Syrian Text”—which “_Dr. Hort considers_ to have been the result of a deliberate Recension,” conducted on erroneous principles. This fabricated product of the IIIrd and IVth centuries, (you say,) rose to supremacy,—became dominant at Antioch,—passed thence to Constantinople,—and once established there, soon vindicated its claim to be the N. T. of the East: whence it overran the West, and for 300 years as the “Textus Receptus,” has held undisputed sway.(888) Really, my lord Bishop, you describe imaginary events in truly Oriental style. One seems to be reading not so much of the “Syrian Text” as of the Syrian Impostor. One expects every moment to hear of some feat of this fabulous Recension corresponding with the surrender of the British troops and Arabi’s triumphant entry into Cairo with the head of Sir Beauchamp Seymour in his hand!

All this is followed, of course, by the weak fable of the “Neutral” Text, and of the absolute supremacy of Codex B,—which is “_stated in Dr. Hort’s own words_:”(889)—viz. “B very far exceeds all other documents in neutrality of text, being in fact always, or nearly always, neutral.” (The _fact_ being that codex B is demonstrably one of the most corrupt documents in existence.) The posteriority of the (imaginary) “Syrian,” to the (imaginary) “Neutral,” is insisted upon next in order, as a matter of course: and declared to rest upon three other considerations,—each one of which is found to be pure fable: viz. (1) On the fable of “Conflation,” which “_seems_ to supply a proof” that Syrian readings are posterior both to Western and to Neutral readings—but, (as I have elsewhere(890) shown, at considerable length,) most certainly _does_ not:—(2) On Ante-Nicene Patristic evidence,—of which however not a syllable is produced:—(3) On “_Transcriptional probability_”—which is about as useful a substitute for proof as a sweet-pea for a walking-stick.

Widely dissimilar of course is your own view of the importance of the foregoing instruments of conviction. To _you_, “these three reasons taken together seem to make up an argument for the posteriority of the Syrian Text, which it is impossible to resist. They form” (you say) “a threefold cord of evidence which [you] believe will bear any amount of argumentative strain.” You rise with your subject, and at last break out into eloquence and vituperation:—“Writers like the Reviewer may attempt to cut the cord _by reckless and unverified assertions_: but _the knife has not yet been fabricated that can equitably separate any one of its strands_.”(891)... So effectually, as well as so deliberately, have you lashed yourself—for better or for worse—to Westcott and Hort’s New Textual Theory, that you must now of necessity either share its future triumphs, or else be a partaker in its coming humiliation. Am I to congratulate you on your prospects?

For my part, I make no secret of the fact that I look upon the entire speculation about which you are so enthusiastic, as an excursion into cloud-land: a _dream_ and nothing more. My contention is,—_not_ that the Theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort rests on an _insecure_ foundation, but, that it rests on _no foundation at all_. Moreover, I am greatly mistaken if this has not been _demonstrated_ in the foregoing pages.(892) On one point, at all events, there cannot exist a particle of doubt; namely, that so far from its “_not being for you to interpose in this controversy_”—you are without alternative. You must either come forward at once, and bring it to a successful issue: or else, you must submit to be told that you have suffered defeat, inasmuch as you are inextricably involved in Westcott and Hort’s discomfiture. You are simply without remedy. _You_ may “_find nothing in the Reviewer’s third article to require a further answer_:” but readers of intelligence will tell you that your finding, since it does not proceed from stupidity, can only result from your consciousness that you have made a serious blunder: and that now, the less you say about “Westcott and Hort’s new textual Theory,” the better.

[14] The Question modestly proposed,—Whether Bp. Ellicott’s adoption of Westcott and Hort’s “new Textual Theory” does not amount to (what lawyers call) “CONSPIRACY”?

But, my lord Bishop, when I reach the end of your laborious avowal that you entirely accept “Westcott and Hort’s new Textual Theory,”—I find it impossible to withhold the respectful enquiry,—Is such a proceeding on your part altogether allowable? I frankly confess that to _me_ the wholesale adoption by the Chairman of the Revising body, of the theory of two of the Revisers,—and then, his exclusive reproduction and vindication of _that theory_, when he undertakes,

“to supply the reader with a few broad outlines of Textual
Criticism, so as to enable him to form _a fair judgment_ on the
question of the trustworthiness of _the readings adopted by the
Revisers_,”—p. 29,

all this, my lord Bishop, I frankly avow, to _me_, looks very much indeed like what, in the language of lawyers, is called “Conspiracy.” It appears then that instead of presiding over the deliberations of the Revisionists as an impartial arbiter, you have been throughout, heart and soul, an eager partizan. You have learned to employ freely Drs. Westcott and Hort’s peculiar terminology. You adopt their scarcely-intelligible phrases: their wild hypotheses: their arbitrary notions about “Intrinsic” and “Transcriptional Probability:” their baseless theory of “Conflation:” their shallow “Method of Genealogy.” You have, in short, evidently swallowed their novel invention whole. I can no longer wonder at the result arrived at by the body of Revisionists. Well may Dr. Scrivener have pleaded in vain! He found Drs. Ellicott and Westcott and Hort too many for him.... But it is high time that I should pass on.

[15] Proofs that the Revisers have outrageously exceeded the Instructions they received from the Convocation of the Southern Province.

It follows next to enquire whether your work as Revisers was conducted in conformity with the conditions imposed upon you by the Southern House of Convocation, or not. “_Nothing_” (you say)—

“_can be more unjust_ on the part of the Reviewer than to suggest,
as he has suggested in more than one passage,(893) that the
Revisers _exceeded their Instructions_ in the course which they
adopted with regard to the Greek Text. On the contrary, as we
shall show, they adhered most closely to their Instructions; and
did neither more nor less than they were required to do.”—(p. 32.)

“The Reviewer,” my lord Bishop, proceeds to _demonstrate_ that you “exceeded your Instructions,” even to an extraordinary extent. But it will be convenient first to hear you out. You proceed,—

“Let us turn to the Rule. It is simply as follows:—‘That the text
to be adopted be that for which the Evidence _is decidedly
preponderating_: and that when the text so adopted differs from
that from which the Authorized Version was made, the alteration be
indicated in the margin.’ ”—(_Ibid._)

But you seem to have forgotten that the “Rule” which you quote formed no part of the “_Instructions_” which were imposed upon you by Convocation. It was one of the “Principles _agreed to by the Committee_” (25 May, 1870),—a Rule _of your own making_ therefore,—for which Convocation neither was nor is responsible. The “fundamental Resolutions adopted by the Convocation of Canterbury” (3rd and 5th May, 1870), five in number, contain no authorization whatever for making changes in the Greek Text. They have reference only to the work of revising “_the Authorized Version_:” an undertaking which the first Resolution declares to be “desirable.” “In order to ascertain what were the Revisers’ _Instructions_ with regard to the Greek Text,” we must refer to the original Resolution of Feb. 10th, 1870: in which the removal of “_plain and clear errors_, whether in the Greek Text originally adopted by the Translators, or in the Translation made from the same,”—is for the first and last time mentioned. That you yourself accepted this as the limit of your authority, is proved by your Speech in Convocation. “We may be satisfied” (you said) “with the attempt to correct _plain and clear errors_: but _there, it is our duty to stop_.”(894)

Now I venture to assert that not one in a hundred of the alterations you have actually made, “whether in the Greek Text originally adopted by the Translators, or in the Translation made from the same,” are corrections of “_plain and clear errors_.” Rather,—(to adopt the words of the learned Bishop of Lincoln,)—“I fear we must say in candour that in the Revised Version we meet in every page with changes _which seem almost to be made for the sake of change_.”(895) May I trouble you to refer back to p. 112 of the present volume for a few words more on this subject from the pen of the same judicious Prelate?

(_a_) _And first_,—_In respect of the New English Version_.

For my own part, (see above, pp. 171-2,) I thought the best thing I could do would be to illustrate the nature of my complaint, by citing and commenting on an actual instance of your method. I showed how, in revising eight-and-thirty words (2 Pet. i. 5-7), you had contrived to introduce no fewer than _thirty changes_,—every one of them being clearly a change for the worse. You will perhaps say,—Find me another such case! I find it, my lord Bishop, in S. Luke viii. 45, 46,—where you have made _nineteen changes_ in revising the translation of four-and-thirty words. I proceed to transcribe the passage; requesting you to bear in mind your own emphatic protestation,—“We made _no_ change _if the meaning was fairly expressed_ by the word or phrase before us.”

A.V. R.V. “Peter and they that were “Peter said [1], and they with him said, Master, that were with him, the multitude throng thee Master the multitudes [2] and press thee, and press [3] thee and crush sayest thou, Who touched thee [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.] me? And Jesus said, But [11] Jesus said, Some Somebody hath touched me: one [12] did touch [14] for I perceive that me: for I perceived [15] virtue is gone out of that power [16] had [17] me.” gone forth [18] from [19] me.”

Now pray,—Was not “the meaning _fairly expressed_” before? Will you tell me that in revising S. Luke viii. 45-6, you “_made as few alterations as possible_”? or will you venture to assert that you have removed none but “_plain and clear errors_”? On the contrary. I challenge any competent scholar in Great Britain to say _whether every one of these changes_ be not either absolutely useless, or else _decidedly a change for the worse_: six of them being downright _errors_.

The transposition in the opening sentence is infelicitous, to say the least. (The English language will not bear such handling. Literally, no doubt, the words mean, “said Peter, and they that were with him.” But you may not so _translate_.)—The omission of the six interesting words, indicated within square brackets, is a serious blunder.(896) The words are _undoubtedly_ genuine. I wonder how you can have ventured thus to mutilate the Book of Life. And why did you not, out of common decency and reverence, _at least in the margin_, preserve a record of the striking clause which you thus,—with well-meant assiduity, but certainly with deplorable rashness,—forcibly ejected from the text? To proceed however.—“Multitudes,”—“but,”—“one,”—“did,”— “power,”—“forth,”—“from:”—are all seven either needless changes, or improper, or undesirable. “_Did touch_,”—“_perceived_,”—“_had gone forth_,”—are unidiomatic and incorrect expressions. I have already explained this elsewhere.(897) The aorist (ἥψατο) has here a perfect signification, as in countless other places:—ἔγνων, (like “_novi_,”) is frequently (as here) to be Englished by the present (“_I perceive_”): and “_is gone out of me_” is the nearest rendering of ἐξελθοῦσαν(898) ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ which our language will bear.—Lastly, “_press_” and “_crush_,” as renderings of συνέχουσι and ἀποθλίβουσι, are inexact and unscholarlike. Συνέχειν, (literally “to encompass” or “hem in,”) is here to “throng” or “crowd:” ἀποθλίβειν, (literally “to squeeze,”) is here to “press.” But in fact the words were perfectly well rendered by our Translators of 1611, and ought to have been let alone.—This specimen may suffice, (and it is a very fair specimen,) of what has been your calamitous method of revising the A. V. throughout.

So much then for the Revised _English_. The fate of the Revised _Greek_ is even more extraordinary. I proceed to explain myself by instancing what has happened in respect of the GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE.

(_b_) _Next_,—_In respect of the New Greek Text._

On examining the 836(899) Greek Textual corrections which you have introduced into those 1151 verses, I find that at least 356 of them _do not affect the English rendering at all_. I mean to say that those 356 (supposed) emendations are either _incapable_ of being represented in a Translation, or at least are _not_ represented. Thus, in S. Luke iv. 3, whether εἶπε δέ or καὶ εἶπεν is read:—in ver. 7, whether ἐμοῦ or μου:—in ver. 8, whether Κύριον τὸν Θεόν σου προσκυνήσες, or Προσκυνήσεις Κ. τὸν Θ. σου; whether ἤγαγε δέ or καὶ ἤγαγεν; whether υἱός or ὁ υἱός:—in ver. 17, whether τοῦ προφήτου Ἡσαïου or Ἡ. τοῦ προφήτου; whether ἀνοίξας or ἀναπτύξας:—in ver. 18, whether εὐαγγελίσασθαι or εὐαγγελίζεσθαι:—in ver. 20, whether οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ or ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ οἱ ὀφθαλμοί:—in ver. 23, whether εἰς τήν or ἐν τῇ:—in ver. 27, whether ἐν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ ἐπὶ Ἐλισσαίου τοῦ προφήτου or ἐπὶ Ἐλισσ., τοῦ π. ἐν τῷ Ἰ.:—in ver. 29, whether ὀφρύος or τῆς ὀφρύος; whether ὥστε or εἰς τό:—in ver. 35, whether ἀπ᾽ or ἐξ:—in ver. 38, whether ἀπό or ἐκ; whether πενθερά or ἡ πενθερά:—in ver. 43, whether ἐπί or εἰς; whether ἀπεστάλην or ἀπέσταλμαι:—in ver. 44, whether εἰς τὰς συναγωγάς or ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς:—in every one of these cases, _the English remains the same_, whichever of the alternative readings is adopted. At least 19 therefore out of the 33 changes which you introduced into the Greek Text of S. Luke iv. are plainly gratuitous.

_Thirteen_ of those 19, (or about two-thirds,) are also in my opinion changes _for_ the _worse_: are nothing else, I mean, but substitutions of _wrong for right_ Readings. But _that_ is not my present contention. The point I am just now contending for is this:—That, since it certainly was no part of your “Instructions,” “Rules,” or “Principles” _to invent a new Greek Text_,—or indeed to meddle with the original Greek at all, _except so far as was absolutely necessary for the Revision of the English Version_,—it is surely a very grave form of inaccuracy to assert (as you now do) that you “adhered most closely to your Instructions, and did neither more nor less than you were required.”—You _know_ that you did a vast deal more than you had any authority or right to do: a vast deal more than you had the shadow of a pretext for doing. Worse than that. You deliberately forsook the province to which you had been exclusively appointed by the Southern Convocation,—and you ostentatiously invaded another and a distinct province; viz. _That_ of the critical Editorship of the Greek Text: for which, _by your own confession_,—(I take leave to remind you of your own honest avowal, quoted above at page 369,)—you and your colleagues _knew_ yourselves to be incompetent.

For, when those 356 wholly gratuitous and uncalled-for changes in the Greek of S. Luke’s Gospel come to be examined in detail, they are found to affect far more than 356 words. By the result, 92 words have been omitted; and 33 added. No less than 129 words have been substituted for others which stood in the text before; and there are 66 instances of Transposition, involving the dislocation of 185 words. The changes of case, mood, tense, &c., amount in addition to 123.(900) The sum of the words which you have _needlessly_ meddled with in the Greek Text of the third Gospel proves therefore to be 562.

At this rate,—(since, [excluding marginal notes and variations in stops,] Scrivener(901) counts 5337 various readings in his Notes,)—the number of alterations _gratuitously and uselessly introduced by you into the Greek Text of the entire N. T._, is to be estimated at 3590.

And if,—(as seems probable,)—the same general proportion prevails throughout your entire work,—it will appear that the words which, without a shadow of excuse, you have _omitted_ from the Greek Text of the N. T., must amount to about 590: while you have _added_ in the same gratuitous way about 210; and have needlessly _substituted_ about 820. Your instances of uncalled-for _transposition_, (about 420 in number,) will have involved the gratuitous dislocation of full 1190 words:—while the occasions on which, at the bidding of Drs. Westcott and Hort, you have altered case, mood, tense, &c., must amount to about 780. In this way, the sum of the changes you have effected in the Greek Text of the N. T. _in clear defiance of your Instructions_,—would amount, as already stated, to 3590.

Now, when it is considered that _not one_ of those 3590 changes _in the least degree affects the English Revision_,—it is undeniable, not only that you and your friends did what you were without authority for doing:—but also that you violated as well the spirit as the letter of your Instructions. As for your present assertion (at p. 32) that you “adhered _most closely_ to the Instructions you received, and _did neither more nor less than you were required to do_,”—you must submit to be reminded that it savours strongly of the nature of pure fable. The history of the new Greek Text is briefly this:—A majority of the Revisers—_including yourself, their Chairman_,—are found to have put yourselves almost unreservedly into the hands of Drs. Westcott and Hort. The result was obvious. When the minority, headed by Dr. Scrivener, appealed to the chair, they found themselves confronted by a prejudiced Advocate. They ought to have been listened to by an impartial Judge. _You_, my lord Bishop, are in consequence (I regret to say) responsible for all the mischief which has occurred. The blame of it rests at _your_ door.

And pray disabuse yourself of the imagination that in what precedes I have been _stretching_ the numbers in order to make out a case against you. It would be easy to show that in estimating the amount of needless changes at 356 out of 836, I am greatly under the mark. I have not included such cases, for instance, as your substitution of ἡ μνᾶ σου, Κύριε for Κύριε, ἡ μνᾶ σου (in xix. 18), and of Τοίνυν ἀπόδοτε for Ἀπόδοτε τοίνυν (in xx. 25),(902)—only lest you should pretend that the transposition affects the English, and therefore _was_ necessary. Had I desired to swell the number I could have easily shown that fully _half_ the changes you effected in the Greek Text were wholly superfluous for the Revision of the English Translation, and therefore were entirely without excuse.

_This_, in fact,—(give me leave to remind you in passing,)—is the _true_ reason why, at an early stage of your proceedings, you resolved that _none_ of the changes you introduced into the Greek Text should find a record in your English margin. Had _any_ been recorded, _all_ must have appeared. And had this been done, you would have stood openly convicted of having utterly disregarded the “Instructions” you had received from Convocation. With what face, for example, _could_ you, (in the margin of S. Luke xv. 17,) against the words “he said,”—have printed “ἔφη not εἶπε”? or, (at xxiv. 44,) against the words “unto them,”—must you not have been ashamed to encumber the already overcrowded margin with such an irrelevant statement as,—“πρὸς αὐτούς _not_ αὐτοῖς”?

Now, if this were all, you might reply that by my own showing the Textual changes complained of, if they do no good, at least do no harm. But then, unhappily, you and your friends have not confined yourselves to colourless readings, when silently up and down every part of the N. T. you have introduced innovations. I open your New English Version at random (S. John iv. 15), and invite your attention to the first instance which catches my eye.

You have made the Woman of Samaria _complain of the length of the walk_ from Sychar to Jacob’s well:—“Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither _come all the way_ hither to draw.”—What has happened? For ἔρχωμαι, I discover that you have silently substituted ΔΙέρχωμαι. (Even διέρχωμαι has no such meaning: but let _that_ pass.) What then was your authority for thrusting διέρχωμαι (which by the way is a patent absurdity) into the Text? The word is found (I discover) _in only two Greek MSS. of had character_(903) (B א), which, being derived from a common corrupt original, can only reckon for _one_: and the reasoning which is supposed to justify this change is thus supplied by Tischendorf:—“If the Evangelist had written ἔρχ-, who would ever have dreamed of turning it into δι-έρχωμαι?”... No one, of course, (is the obvious answer,) except the inveterate blunderer who, some 1700 years ago, seeing ΜΗΔΕΕΡΧΩΜΑΙ before him, _reduplicated the antecedent_ ΔΕ. The sum of the matter is _that_!... Pass 1700 years, and the long-since-forgotten blunder is furbished up afresh by Drs. Westcott and Hort,—is urged upon the wondering body of Revisers as the undoubted utterance of THE SPIRIT,—is accepted by yourself;—finally, (in spite of many a remonstrance from Dr. Scrivener and his friends,) is thrust upon the acceptance of 90 millions of English-speaking men throughout the world, as the long-lost-sight-of, but at last happily recovered, utterance of the “Woman of Samaria!”... Ἄπαγε.

Ordinary readers, in the meantime, will of course assume that the change results from the Revisers’ skill in translating,—the advances which have been made in the study of Greek; for no trace of the textual vagary before us survives in the English margin.

And thus I am reminded of what I hold to be your gravest fault of all. The rule of Committee subject to which you commenced operations,—the Rule which re-assured the public and reconciled the Church to the prospect of a Revised New Testament,—expressly provided that, whenever the underlying Greek Text was altered, _such alteration should be indicated in the margin_. This provision you entirely set at defiance from the very first. You have _never_ indicated in the margin the alterations you introduced into the Greek Text. In fact, you made so many changes,—in other words, you seem to have so entirely lost sight of your pledge and your compact,—that compliance with this condition would have been simply impossible. I see not how your body is to be acquitted of a deliberate breach of faith.

_(c) Fatal consequences of this mistaken officiousness._

How serious, in the meantime, _the consequences_ have been, _they_ only know who have been at the pains to examine your work with close attention. Not only have you, on countless occasions, thrust out words, clauses, entire sentences of genuine Scripture,—but you have been careful that no trace shall survive of the fatal injury which you have inflicted. I wonder you were not afraid. Can I be wrong in deeming such a proceeding in a high degree sinful? Has not the SPIRIT pronounced a tremendous doom(904) against those who do such things? Were you not afraid, for instance, to leave out (from S. Mark vi. 11) those solemn words of our SAVIOUR,—“Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city”? Surely you will not pretend to tell me that those fifteen precious words, witnessed to as they are by _all the known copies but nine_,—by the Old Latin, the Peschito and the Philoxenian Syriac, the Coptic, the Gothic and the Æthiopic Versions,—besides Irenæus(905) and Victor(906) of Antioch:—you will not venture to say (will you?) that words so attested are so evidently a “plain and clear error,” as not to deserve even a marginal note to attest to posterity “that such things were”! I say nothing of the witness of the Liturgical usage of the Eastern Church,—which appointed these verses to be read on S. Mark’s Day:(907) nor of Theophylact,(908) nor of Euthymius.(909) I appeal to _the consentient testimony of Catholic antiquity_. Find me older witnesses, if you can, than the “Elders” with whom Irenæus held converse,—men who must have been contemporaries of S. John the Divine: or again, than the old Latin, the Peschito, and the Coptic Versions. Then, for the MSS.,—Have you studied S. Mark’s Text to so little purpose as not to have discovered that the six uncials on which you rely are the depositories of an abominably corrupt Recension of the second Gospel?

But you committed a yet more deplorable error when,—without leaving behind either note or comment of any sort,—you obliterated from S. Matth. v. 44, the solemn words which I proceed to underline:—“_Bless them that curse you_, _do good to them that hate you_, and pray for them which _despitefully use you and_ persecute you.” You relied almost exclusively on those two false witnesses, of which you are so superstitiously fond, B and א: regardless of the testimony of almost all the other COPIES besides:—of almost all the VERSIONS:—and of a host of primitive FATHERS: for the missing clauses are more or less recognized by Justin Mart. (A.D. 140),—by Theophilus Ant. (A.D. 168),—by Athenagoras (A.D. 177),—by Clemens Alexan. (A.D. 192),—by Origen (A.D. 210),—by the Apostolic Constt. (IIIrd cent.),—by Eusebius,—by Gregory Nyss.,—by Chrysostom,—by Isidorus,—by Nilus,—by Cyril,—by Theodoret, and certain others. Besides, of the Latins, by Tertullian,—by Lucifer,—by Ambrose,—by Hilary,—by Pacian,—by Augustine,—by Cassian, and many more.... Verily, my lord Bishop, your notion of what constitutes “_clearly preponderating Evidence_” must be freely admitted to be at once original and peculiar. I will but respectfully declare that if it be indeed one of “_the now established Principles of Textual Criticism_” that a bishop is at liberty to blot out from the Gospel such precepts of the Incarnate WORD, as these: to reject, on the plea that they are “plain and clear errors,” sayings attested by twelve primitive Fathers,—half of whom lived and died before our two oldest manuscripts (B and א) came into being:—If all this be so indeed, permit me to declare that I would not exchange MY “_innocent ignorance_”(910) of those “Principles” for YOUR _guilty knowledge_ of them,—no, not for anything in the wide world which yonder sun shines down upon.

As if what goes before had not been injury enough, you are found to have adopted the extraordinary practice of encumbering your margin with doubts as to the Readings which after due deliberation you had, as a body, _retained_. Strange perversity! You could not find room to retain a record in your margin of the many genuine words of our Divine LORD,—His Evangelists and Apostles,—to which Copies, Versions, Fathers lend the fullest attestation; but you _could_ find room for an insinuation that His “Agony and bloody sweat,”—together with His “Prayer on behalf of His murderers,”—_may_ after all prove to be nothing else but spurious accretions to the Text. And yet, the pretence for so regarding either S. Luke xxii. 43, 44, or xxiii. 34, is confessedly founded on a minimum of documentary evidence: while, as has been already shown elsewhere,(911) an overwhelming amount of ancient testimony renders it _certain_ that not a particle of doubt attaches to the Divine record of either of those stupendous incidents.... Room could not be found, it seems, for a _hint_ in the margin that such ghastly wounds as those above specified had been inflicted on S. Mark vi. 11 and S. Matth. v. 44;(912) but _twenty-two lines_ could be spared against Rom. ix. 5 for the free ventilation of the vile Socinian gloss with which unbelievers in every age have sought to evacuate one of the grandest assertions of our SAVIOUR’S GODHEAD. May I be permitted, without offence, to avow myself utterly astonished?

Even this however is not all. The 7th of the Rules under which you undertook the work of Revision, was, that “_the Headings of Chapters should be revised_.” This Rule you have not only failed to comply with; but you have actually deprived us of those headings entirely. You have thereby done us a grievous wrong. We demand to have the headings of our chapters back.

You have further, without warrant of any sort, deprived us of our _Marginal References_. These we cannot afford to be without. We claim that _they_ also may be restored. The very best Commentary on Holy Scripture are they, with which I am acquainted. They call for learned and judicious Revision, certainly; and they might be profitably enlarged. But they may never be taken away.

And now, my lord Bishop, if I have not succeeded in convincing you that the Revisers not only “_exceeded their Instructions_ in the course which they adopted with regard to the Greek Text,” but even acted in open defiance of their Instructions; did both a vast deal _more_ than they were authorized to do, and also a vast deal _less_;—it has certainly been no fault of mine. As for your original contention(913) that “_nothing can be more unjust_” than THE CHARGE brought against the Revisers of having exceeded their Instructions,—I venture to ask, on the contrary, whether anything can be more unreasonable (to give it no harsher name) than THE DENIAL?

[16] The calamity of the “New Greek Text” traced to its source.

There is no difficulty in accounting for the most serious of the foregoing phenomena. They are the inevitable consequence of your having so far succumbed at the outset to Drs. Westcott and Hort as to permit them to communicate bit by bit, under promise of secrecy, their own outrageous Revised Text of the N. T. to their colleagues, accompanied by a printed disquisition in advocacy of their own peculiar critical views. One would have expected in the Chairman of the Revising body, that the instant he became aware of any such _manœuvre_ on the part of two of the society, he would have remonstrated with them somewhat as follows, or at least to this effect:—