Chapter XXV: Appendix: Of Sacred Codices (5)

But it is quite a different thing when Revisionists appointed by the
Convocation of the Southern Province, co-opt Separatists and even
Unitarians into their body, where they shall determine the sense of
Scripture and vote upon its translation on equal terms. Surely, when
the Lower House of Convocation accepted the 5th “Resolution” of the
Upper House,—viz., that the Revising body “shall be at liberty to
invite the co-operation of any eminent for scholarship, to whatever
nation or religious body they may belong;”—the Synod of Canterbury
did not suppose that it was pledging itself to sanction _such_
“co-operation” as is implied by actual _co-optation_!

It should be added that Bp. Wilberforce, (the actual framer of the
5th fundamental Resolution,) has himself informed us that “in
framing it, it never occurred to him that it would apply to the
admission of any member of the Socinian body.” _Chronicle of
Convocation_ (Feb. 1871,) p. 4.

“I am aware,” (says our learned and pious bishop of Lincoln,) “that
the ancient Church did not scruple to avail herself of the
translation of a renegade Jew, like Aquila; and of Ebionitish
heretics, like Symmachus and Theodotion; and that St. Augustine
profited by the expository rules of Tychonius the Donatist. But I
very much doubt whether the ancient Church would have looked for a
large outpouring of a blessing from GOD on a work of translating His
Word, where the workmen were not all joined together in a spirit of
Christian unity, and in the profession of the true Faith; and in
which the opinions of the several translators were to be counted and
not weighed; and where everything was to be decided by numerical
majorities; and where the votes of an Arius or a Nestorius were to
be reckoned as of equal value with those of an Athanasius or a
Cyril.” (_Address on the Revised Version_, 1881, pp. 38.)

_ 1130 The Bible and Popular Theology_, by G. Vance Smith, 1871.

_ 1131 An Unitarian Reviser of our Authorized Version, intolerable: an
earnest Remonstrance and Petition_,—addressed to yourself by your
present correspondent:—Oxford, Parker, 1872, pp. 8.

1132 See letter of “One of the Revisionists, G. V. S.” in _the Times_ of
July 11, 1870.

_ 1133 Protest against the Communion of an Unitarian in Westminster Abbey
on June_ 22nd, 1870:—Oxford, 1870, pp. 64.

1134 See the _Chronicle of Convocation_ (Feb. 1871), pp. 3-28,—when a
Resolution was moved and carried by the Bp. (Wilberforce) of
Winchester,—“That it is the judgment of this House that no person
who denies the Godhead of our LORD JESUS CHRIST ought to be invited
to join either company to which is committed the Revision of the
Authorized Version of Holy Scripture: and that it is further the
judgment of this House that any such person now on either Company
should cease to act therewith.

“And that this Resolution be communicated to the Lower House, and
their concurrence requested:”—which was done. See p. 143.

1135 The Reader is invited to refer back to pp. 132-135.

1136 The Reader is requested to refer back to pp. 210-214.

1137 S. Mark x. 21.

1138 S. Luke xxii. 64.

1139 S. Luke xxiii. 38.

1140 S. Luke xxiv. 42.

1141 Εἰπεῖν is “_to command_” in S. Matth. (and S. Luke) iv. 3: in S.
Mark v. 43: viii. 7, and in many other places. On the other hand,
the Revisers have thrust “_command_” into S. Matth. xx. 21, where
“_grant_” had far better have been let alone: and have overlooked
other places (as S. Matth. xxii. 24, S. James ii. 11), where
“_command_” might perhaps have been introduced with advantage. (I
nothing doubt that when the Centurion of Capernaum said to our Lord
μόνον εἰπὲ λόγῳ [Mtt. viii. 8 = Lu. vii. 7], he entreated Him “only
to give _the word of command_.”)

We all see, of course, that it was because Δός is rendered “_grant_”
in the (very nearly) parallel place to S. Matth. xx. 21 (viz. S.
Mark x. 37), that the Revisers thought it incumbent on them to
represent Εἰπέ in the earlier Gospel differently; and so they
bethought themselves of “_command_.” (Infelicitously enough, as I
humbly think. “_Promise_” would evidently have been a preferable
substitute: the word in the original (εἰπεῖν) being one of that
large family of Greek verbs which vary their shade of signification
according to their context.) But it is plainly impracticable to
_level up_ after this rigid fashion,—to translate in this mechanical
way. Far more is lost than is gained by this straining after an
impossible closeness of rendering. The spirit becomes inevitably
sacrificed to the letter. All this has been largely remarked upon
above, at pp. 187-206.

Take the case before us in illustration. S. James and S. John with
their Mother, have evidently agreed together to “_ask a favour_” of
their LORD (cf. Mtt. xx. 20, Mk. x. 35). The Mother begins Εἰπέ,—the
sons begin, Δός. Why are we to assume that the request is made by
the Mother in _a different spirit_ from the sons? Why are we to
impose upon her language the imperious sentiment which the very
mention of “_command_” unavoidably suggests to an English ear?

A prior, and yet more fatal objection, remains in full force. The
Revisers, (I say it for the last time,) were clearly going beyond
their prescribed duty when they set about handling the Authorized
Version after this merciless fashion. Their business was to correct
“_plain and clear errors_,”—_not_ to produce a “New English
Version.”

1142 Take the following as a sample, which is one of the Author’s proofs
that the “Results of the Revision” are “unfavourable to
Orthodoxy:”—“The only instance in the N. T. in which the religious
worship or adoration of CHRIST was apparently implied, has been
_altered_ by the Revision: ‘_At_ the name of JESUS every knee shall
bow,’ [Philipp. ii. 10] is now to be read ‘_in_ the name.’ Moreover,
no alteration of text or of translation will be found anywhere to
make up for this loss; as indeed it is well understood that the N.
T. contains neither precept nor example which really sanctions the
religious worship of JESUS CHRIST.”—_Texts and Margins_,—p. 47.

_ 1143 Supra_, p. 424 to p. 501.

1144 See above, pp. 272-275, pp. 278-281.

1145 See above, p. 275.

1146 See above, pp. 276-7.

1147 See above, pp. 303-305.

1148 See above, p. 304.

1149 See above, pp. 339-42; also pp. 422, 423.

1150 See above, pp. 391-7.

1151 See above, pp. 36-40: 47-9: 422-4.

1152 See above, pp. 41-7: 420-2.

1153 See above, pp. 98-106: 424-501.

1154 Evan. 738 belongs to Oriel College, Oxford, [xii.], small 4to. of
130 foll. slightly _mut._ Evan. 739, Bodl. Greek Miscell. 323
[xiii.], 8vo. _membr._ foll. 183, _mut._ Brought from Ephesus, and
obtained for the Bodleian in 1883.

1155 Evst. 415 belongs to Lieut. Bate, [xiii.], _chart._ foll. 219,
mutilated throughout. He obtained it in 1878 from a Cyprus villager
at Kikos, near Mount Trovodos (_i.e._ Olympus.) It came from a
monastery on the mountain.

1156 Apost. 128 will be found described, for the first time, below, at p.
528.

<pre id="pg-footer">