Chapter I: TO ACCIDENTAL CAUSES then we give the foremost place, and of these we (2)

(5) The record of the same Evangelist (S. Luke xxiii. 38) that the Inscription over our SAVIOUR’S Cross was “written ... in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew,” _disappears entirely_ from our “Revised” version; and this, for no other reason, but because the incident is omitted by B C L, the corrupt Egyptian versions, and Cureton’s depraved Syriac: the text of which (according to Bp. Ellicott(283)) “is of a very composite nature,—_sometimes inclining to the shortness and simplicity of the Vatican manuscript_” (B): _e.g._ on the present occasion. But surely the negative testimony of this little band of disreputable witnesses is entirely outweighed by the positive evidence of א A D Q R with 13 other uncials,—the evidence of _the entire body of the cursives_,—the sanction of the Latin,—the Peschito and Philoxenian Syriac,—the Armenian,—Æthiopic,—and Georgian versions; besides Eusebius—whose testimony (which is express) has been hitherto strangely overlooked(284)—and Cyril.(285) Against the threefold plea of Antiquity, Respectability of witnesses, Universality of testimony,—what have our Revisionists to show? (_a_) They cannot pretend that there has been Assimilation here; for the type of S. John xix. 20 is essentially different, and has retained its distinctive character all down the ages. (_b_) Nor can they pretend that the condition of the Text hereabouts bears traces of having been jealously guarded. We ask the Reader’s attention to this matter just for a moment. There may be some of the occupants of the Jerusalem Chamber even, to whom what we are about to offer may not be altogether without the grace of novelty:—

That the Title on the Cross is diversely set down by each of the four Evangelists,—all men are aware. But perhaps all are not aware that _S. Luke’s record_ of the Title (in ch. xxiii. 38) is exhibited in _four different ways_ by codices A B C D:—

A exhibits—ΟΥΤΟΣ ΕΣΤΙΝ Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ

B (with א L and a) exhibits—Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ ΟΥΤΟΣ

C exhibits—Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ (which is Mk. xv. 26).

D (with e and ff2) exhibits—Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ ΟΥΤΟΣ ΕΣΤΙΝ (which is the words of the Evangelist transposed).

We propose to recur to the foregoing specimens of licentiousness by-and-by.(286) For the moment, let it be added that codex X and the Sahidic version conspire in a fifth variety, viz., ΟΥΤΟΣ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΙΗΣΟΥΣ Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ (which is S. Matt. xxvii. 37); while Ambrose(287) is found to have used a Latin copy which represented ΙΗΣΟΥΣ Ο ΝΑΖΩΡΑΙΟΣ Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ (which is S. John xix. 18). We spare the reader any remarks of our own on all this. He is competent to draw his own painful inferences, and will not fail to make his own damaging reflections. He shall only be further informed that 14 uncials and the whole body of the cursive copies side with codex A in upholding the Traditional Text; that the Vulgate,(288)—the Peschito,—Cureton’s Syriac,—the Philoxenian;—besides the Coptic,—Armenian,—and Æthiopic versions—are all on the same side: lastly, that Origen,(289)—Eusebius,—and Gregory of Nyssa(290) are in addition consentient witnesses;—and we can hardly be mistaken if we venture to anticipate (1st),—That the Reader will agree with us that the Text with which we are best acquainted (as usual) is here deserving of all confidence; and (2ndly),—That the Revisionists who assure us “that they did not esteem it within their province to construct a continuous and complete Greek Text;” (and who were never authorized to construct _a new Greek Text at all_;) were not justified in the course they have pursued with regard to S. Luke xxiii. 38. “THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS” is the only idiomatic way of rendering into English the title according to S. Luke, whether the reading of A or of B be adopted; but, in order to make it plain that they _reject the Greek of_ A _in favour of_ B, the Revisionists have gone out of their way. They have instructed the two Editors of “_The Greek Testament with the __ Readings adopted by the Revisers of the Authorized Version_”(291) to exhibit S. Luke xxiii. 38 _as it stands in the mutilated recension of Drs. Westcott and Hort_.(292) And if _this_ procedure, repeated many hundreds of times, be not constructing a “new Greek Text” of the N. T., we have yet to learn what _is_.

(6) From the first verse of the concluding chapter of S. Luke’s Gospel, is excluded the familiar clause—“_and certain others with them_” (καί τινες σὺν αὐταῖς). And pray, why? For no other reason but because א B C L, with some Latin authorities, omit the clause;—and our Revisionists do the like, on the plea that they have only been getting rid of a “harmonistic insertion.”(293) But it is nothing of the sort, as we proceed to explain.

Ammonius, or some predecessor of his early in the IInd century, saw fit (with perverse ingenuity) to seek to _force_ S. Luke xxiii. 55 into agreement with S. Matt. xxvii. 61 and S. Mark xv. 47, by turning κατακολουθήσασαι δὲ καὶ γυναῖκες,—into κατηκολούθησαν δὲ ΔΎΟ γυναῖκες. This done, in order to produce “harmonistic” agreement and to be thorough, the same misguided individual proceeded to run his pen through the words “and certain with them” (καί τινες σὺν αὐταῖς) as inopportune; and his work was ended. 1750 years have rolled by since then, and—What traces remain of the man’s foolishness? Of his _first_ feat (we answer), Eusebius,(294) D and Evan. 29, besides five copies of the old Latin (a b e ff2 q), are the sole surviving Witnesses. Of his _second_ achievement, א B C L, 33, 124, have preserved a record; besides seven copies of the old Latin (a b c e ff2 g-1 1), together with the Vulgate, the Coptic, and Eusebius in one place(295) though not in another.(296) The Reader is therefore invited to notice that the tables have been unexpectedly turned upon our opponents. S. Luke introduced the words “and certain with them,” in order to prepare us for what he will have to say in xxiv. 10,—viz. “It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and _other women with them_, which told these things unto the Apostles.” Some stupid harmonizer in the IInd century omitted the words, because they were in his way. Calamitous however it is that a clause which the Church has long since deliberately reinstated should, in the year 1881, be as deliberately banished for the second time from the sacred page by our Revisionists; who under the plea of _amending our English Authorized Version_ have (with the best intentions) _falsified the Greek Text_ of the Gospels in countless places,—often, as here, without notice and without apology.

(10) We find it impossible to pass by in silence the treatment which S. Luke xxiv. 12 has experienced at their hands. They have branded with doubt S. Luke’s memorable account of S. Peter’s visit to the sepulchre. And why? Let the evidence _for_ this precious portion of the narrative be first rehearsed. Nineteen uncials then, with א A B at their head, supported by _every known cursive_ copy,—all these vouch for the genuineness of the verse in question. The Latin,—the Syriac,—and the Egyptian versions also contain it. Eusebius,(297)—Gregory of Nyssa,(298)—Cyril,(299)—Severus,(300)—Ammonius,(301) and others(302) refer to it: while _no ancient writer_ is found to impugn it. Then, _why_ the double brackets of Drs. Westcott and Hort? and _why_ the correlative marginal note of our Revisionists?—Simply because D and 5 copies of the old Latin (a b e l fu) leave these 22 words out.

(11) On the same sorry evidence—(viz. D and 5 copies of the old Latin)—it is proposed henceforth to omit our SAVIOUR’S greeting to His disciples when He appeared among them in the upper chamber on the evening of the first Easter Day. And yet the precious words (“_and saith unto them, Peace be unto you_” [Lu. xxiv. 36],) are vouched for by 18 uncials (with א A B at their head), and _every known cursive copy_ of the Gospels: by all the Versions: and (as before) by Eusebius,(303)—and Ambrose,(304)—by Chrysostom,(305)—and Cyril,(306)—and Augustine.(307)

(12) The same remarks suggest themselves on a survey of the evidence for S. Luke xxiv. 40:—“_And when He had thus spoken, He showed them His hands and His feet._” The words are found in 18 uncials (beginning with א A B), and in every known cursive: in the Latin,(308)—the Syriac,—the Egyptian,—in short, _in all the ancient Versions_. Besides these, ps.-Justin,(309)—Eusebius,(310)—Athanasius,(311)—Ambrose (in Greek),(312)—Epiphanius,(313)—Chrysostom,(314)—Cyril,(315)—Theodoret,(316)—Ammonius,(317)—and John Damascene(318)—quote them. What but the veriest trifling is it, in the face of such a body of evidence, to bring forward the fact that D and 5 copies of the old Latin, with Cureton’s Syriac (of which we have had the character already(319)), _omit_ the words in question?

The foregoing enumeration of instances of Mutilation might be enlarged to almost any extent. Take only three more short but striking specimens, before we pass on:—

(_a_) Thus, the precious verse (S. Matthew xvii. 21) which declares that “_this kind_ [of evil spirit] _goeth not out but by prayer and fasting_,” is expunged by our Revisionists; although it is vouched for by every known uncial _but two_ (B א), every known cursive _but one_ (Evan. 33); is witnessed to by the Old Latin and the Vulgate,—the Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Æthiopic, and Slavonic versions; by Origen,(320)—Athanasius,(321)—Basil,(322)—Chrysostom,(323)—the _Opus imperf._,(324)—the Syriac Clement,(325)—and John Damascene;(326)—by Tertullian,—Ambrose,—Hilary,—Juvencus,—Augustine,—Maximus Taur.,—and by the Syriac version of the _Canons of Eusebius_: above all by the Universal East,—having been read in all the churches of Oriental Christendom on the 10th Sunday after Pentecost, from the earliest period. Why, in the world, then (our readers will ask) have the Revisionists left those words out?... For no other reason, we answer, but because Drs. Westcott and Hort place them among the interpolations which they consider unworthy of being even “exceptionally retained in association with the true Text.”(327) “Western and Syrian” is their oracular sentence.(328)

(_b_) The blessed declaration, “_The Son of Man is come to save that which was lost_,”—has in like manner been expunged by our Revisionists from S. Matth. xviii. 11; although it is attested by every known uncial except B א L, and every known cursive _except three_: by the old Latin and the Vulgate: by the Peschito, Cureton’s and the Philoxenian Syriac: by the Coptic, Armenian, Æthiopic, Georgian and Slavonic versions:(329)—by Origen,(330)—Theodoras Heracl.,(331)—Chrysostom(332)—and Jovius(333) the monk;—by Tertullian,(334)—Ambrose,(335)—Hilary,(336)—Jerome,(337)—pope Damasus(338)—and Augustine:(339)—above all, by the Universal Eastern Church,—for it has been read in all assemblies of the faithful on the morrow of Pentecost, from the beginning. Why then (the reader will again ask) have the Revisionists expunged this verse? We can only answer as before,—because Drs. Westcott and Hort consign it to the _limbus_ of their _Appendix_; class it among their “Rejected Readings” of the most hopeless type.(340) As before, _all_ their sentence is “Western and Syrian.” They add, “Interpolated either from Lu. xix. 10, or from an independent source, written or oral.”(341)... Will the English Church suffer herself to be in this way defrauded of her priceless inheritance,—through the irreverent bungling of well-intentioned, but utterly misguided men?

(_c_) In the same way, our LORD’S important saying,—“_Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of: for the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them_” (S. Luke ix. 55, 56), has disappeared from our “Revised” Version; although Manuscripts, Versions, Fathers from the _second century_ downwards, (as Tischendorf admits,) witness eloquently in its favour.

V. In conclusion, we propose to advert, just for a moment, to those five several mis-representations of S. Luke’s “Title on the Cross,” which were rehearsed above, viz. in page 86. At so gross an exhibition of licentiousness, it is the mere instinct of Natural Piety to exclaim,—But then, could not those men even set down so sacred a record as _that_, correctly? They could, had they been so minded, no doubt, (we answer): but, marvellous to relate, the TRANSPOSITION of words,—no matter how significant, sacred, solemn;—of short clauses,—even of whole sentences of Scripture;—was anciently accounted an allowable, even a graceful exercise of the critical faculty.

The thing alluded to is incredible at first sight; being so often done, apparently, without any reason whatever,—or rather in defiance of all reason. Let _candidus lector_ be the judge whether we speak truly or not. Whereas S. Luke (xxiv. 41) says, “_And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered_,” the scribe of codex A (by way of improving upon the Evangelist) transposes his sentence into this, “And while they yet disbelieved Him, _and wondered for joy_:”(342) which is almost nonsense, or quite.

But take a less solemn example. Instead of,—“And His disciples plucked _the ears of corn, and ate them_, (τοὺς στάχυας, καὶ ἤσθιον,) rubbing them in their hands” (S. Luke vi. 1),—B C L R, by _transposing_ four Greek words, present us with, “And His disciples plucked, _and ate the ears of corn_, (καὶ ἤσθιον τοὺς στάχυας,) rubbing them,” &c. Now this might have been an agreeable occupation for horses and for another quadruped, no doubt; but hardly for men. This curiosity, which (happily) proved indigestible to our Revisionists, is nevertheless swallowed whole by Drs. Westcott and Hort as genuine and wholesome Gospel. (_O dura Doctorum ilia!_)—But to proceed.

Then further, these preposterous Transpositions are of such perpetual recurrence,—are so utterly useless or else so exceedingly mischievous, _always_ so tasteless,—that familiarity with the phenomenon rather increases than lessens our astonishment. What _does_ astonish us, however, is to find learned men in the year of grace 1881, freely resuscitating these long-since-forgotten _bêtises_ of long-since-forgotten Critics, and seeking to palm them off upon a busy and a careless age, as so many new revelations. That we may not be thought to have shown undue partiality for the xxiind, xxiiird, and xxivth chapters of S. Luke’s Gospel by selecting our instances of _Mutilation_ from those three chapters, we will now look for specimens of _Transposition_ in the xixth and xxth chapters of the same Gospel. The reader is invited to collate the Text of the oldest uncials, throughout these two chapters, with the commonly Received Text. He will find that within the compass of 88 consecutive verses,(343) codices א A B C D Q exhibit no less than 74 instances of Transposition:—for 39 of which, D is responsible:—א B, for 14:—א and א B D, for 4 each:—A B and א A B, for 3 each:—A, for 2:—B, C, Q, א A, and A D, each for 1.—In other words, he will find that in no less than 44 of these instances of Transposition, D is implicated:—א, in 26:—B, in 25:—A, in 10:—while C and Q are concerned in only one a-piece.... It should be added that Drs. Westcott and Hort have adopted _every one of the 25 in which codex_ B _is concerned_—a significant indication of the superstitious reverence in which they hold that demonstrably corrupt and most untrustworthy document.(344) Every other case of Transposition they have rejected. By their own confession, therefore, 49 out of the 74 (_i.e._ two-thirds of the entire number) are instances of depravation. We turn with curiosity to the Revised Version; and discover that out of the 25 so retained, the Editors in question were only able to persuade the Revisionists to adopt 8. So that, in the judgment of the Revisionists, 66 out of 74, or _eleven-twelfths_, are instances of licentious tampering with the deposit.... O to participate in the verifying faculty which guided the teachers to discern in 25 cases of Transposition out of 74, the genuine work of the HOLY GHOST! O, far more, to have been born with that loftier instinct which enabled the pupils (Doctors Roberts and Milligan, Newth and Moulton, Vance Smith and Brown, Angus and Eadie) to winnow out from the entire lot exactly 8, and to reject the remaining 66 as nothing worth!

According to our own best judgment, (and we have carefully examined them all,) _every one_ of the 74 is worthless. But then _we_ make it our fundamental rule to reason always from grounds of external Evidence,—never from postulates of the Imagination. Moreover, in the application of our rule, we begrudge no amount of labour: reckoning a long summer’s day well spent if it has enabled us to ascertain the truth concerning one single controverted word of Scripture. Thus, when we find that our Revisionists, at the suggestion of Dr. Hort, have transposed the familiar Angelic utterance (in S. Luke xxiv. 7), λέγων ὅτι δεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παραδοθῆναι,—into this, λέγων τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὅτι δεῖ, &c., we at once enquire for _the evidence_. And when we find that no single Father, _no_ single Version, and no Codex—except the notorious א B C L—advocates the proposed transposition; but on the contrary that every Father (from A.D. 150 downwards) who quotes the place, quotes it as it stands in the Textus receptus;(345)—we have no hesitation whatever in rejecting it. It is found in the midst of a very thicket of fabricated readings. It has nothing whatever to recommend it. It is condemned by the consentient voice of Antiquity. It is advocated only by four copies,—which _never_ combine exclusively, except to misrepresent the truth of Scripture and to seduce the simple.

But the foregoing, which is a fair typical sample of countless other instances of unauthorized Transposition, may not be dismissed without a few words of serious remonstrance. Our contention is that, inasmuch as the effect of such transposition _is incapable of being idiomatically represented in the English language_,—(for, in all such cases, the Revised Version retains the rendering of the Authorized,)—our Revisionists have violated the spirit as well as the letter of their instructions, in putting forth _a new Greek Text_, and silently introducing into it a countless number of these and similar depravations of Scripture. These Textual curiosities (for they are nothing more) are absolutely out of place in a _Revision of the English Version_: achieve no lawful purpose: are sure to mislead the unwary. This first.—Secondly, we submit that,—strong as, no doubt, the temptation must have been, to secure the sanction of the N. T. Revisionists for their own private Recension of the Greek, (printed long since, but published simultaneously with the “Revised Version”)—it is to be regretted that Drs. Westcott and Hort should have yielded thereto. Man’s impatience never promotes GOD’S Truth. The interests of Textual Criticism would rather have suggested, that the Recension of that accomplished pair of Professors should have been submitted to public inspection in the first instance. The astonishing Text which it advocates might have been left with comparative safety to take its chance in the Jerusalem Chamber, after it had undergone the searching ordeal of competent Criticism, and been freely ventilated at home and abroad for a decade of years. But on the contrary. It was kept close. It might be seen only by the Revisers: and even _they_ were tied down to secrecy as to the letter-press by which it was accompanied.... All this strikes us as painful in a high degree.

VI. Hitherto we have referred almost exclusively to the Gospels. In conclusion, we invite attention to our Revisionists’ treatment of 1 Tim. iii. 16—the _crux criticorum_, as Prebendary Scrivener styles it.(346) We cannot act more fairly than by inviting a learned member of the revising body to speak on behalf of his brethren. We shall in this way ascertain the amount of acquaintance with the subject enjoyed by some of those who have been so obliging as to furnish the Church with a new Recension of the Greek of the New Testament. Dr. Roberts says:—

“The English reader will probably be startled to find that the
familiar text,—‘_And without controversy great is the mystery of
godliness_: GOD _was manifest in the flesh_,’ has been exchanged
in the Revised Version for the following,—‘_And without
controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was
manifested in the flesh._’ A note on the margin states that ‘the
word GOD, in place of _He who_, rests on no sufficient ancient
evidence;’ and it may be well that, in a passage of so great
importance, the reader should be convinced that such is the case.

“What, then, let us enquire, is the amount of evidence which can
be produced in support of the reading ‘GOD’? This is soon stated.
Not one of the early Fathers can be certainly quoted for it. None
of the very ancient versions support it. No uncial witnesses to
it, with the doubtful exception of A.... But even granting that
the weighty suffrage of the Alexandrian manuscript is in favour of
‘GOD,’ far more evidence can be produced in support of ‘who.’ א
and probably C witness to this reading, and it has also powerful
testimony from the versions and Fathers. Moreover, the relative
‘who’ is a far more difficult reading than ‘GOD,’ and could hardly
have been substituted for the latter. On every ground, therefore,
we conclude that this interesting and important passage must stand
as it has been given in the Revised Version.”(347)

And now, having heard the learned Presbyterian on behalf of his brother-Revisionists, we request that we may be ourselves listened to in reply.

The place of Scripture before us, the Reader is assured, presents a memorable instance of the mischief which occasionally resulted to the inspired Text from the ancient practice of executing copies of the Scriptures in uncial characters. S. Paul _certainly_ wrote μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον; Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, (“_Great is the mystery of godliness_: GOD _was manifested in the flesh_”) But it requires to be explained at the outset, that the holy Name when abbreviated (which it always was), thus,—_ΘΣ_ (“GOD”), is only distinguishable from the relative pronoun “who” (ΟΣ), by two horizontal strokes,—which, in manuscripts of early date, it was often the practice to trace so faintly that at present they can scarcely be discerned.(348) Need we go on? An archetypal copy in which one or both of these slight strokes had vanished from the word _ΘΣ_ (“GOD”), gave rise to the reading ΟΣ (“who”),—of which nonsensical substitute, traces survive in _only two_(349) manuscripts,—א and 17: not, for certain, in _one single_ ancient Father,—no, nor for certain in _one single_ ancient Version. So transparent, in fact, is the absurdity of writing τὸ μυστέριον ὅς (“the mystery _who_”), that copyists promptly substituted ὅ (“_which_”): thus furnishing another illustration of the well-known property of a fabricated reading, viz. sooner or later inevitably to become the parent of a second. Happily, to this second mistake the sole surviving witness is the Codex Claromontanus, of the VIth century (D): the only Patristic evidence in its favour being Gelasius of Cyzicus,(350) (whose date is A.D. 476): and the unknown author of a homily in the appendix to Chrysostom.(351) The Versions—all but the Georgian and the Slavonic, which agree with the Received Text—favour it unquestionably; for they are observed invariably to make the relative pronoun agree in gender with the word which represents μυστήριον (“mystery”) which immediately precedes it. Thus, in the Syriac Versions, ὅς (“_who_”) is found,—but only because the Syriac equivalent for μυστήριον is of the masculine gender: in the Latin, _quod_ (“_which_”)—but only because _mysterium_ in Latin (like μυστήριον in Greek) is neuter. Over this latter reading, however, we need not linger; seeing that ὅ does not find a single patron at the present day. And yet, this was the reading which was eagerly upheld during the last century: Wetstein and Sir Isaac Newton being its most strenuous advocates.

It is time to pass under hasty review the direct evidence for the true reading. A and C exhibited _ΘΣ_ until ink, thumbing, and the injurious use of chemicals, obliterated what once was patent. It is too late, by full 150 years, to contend on the negative side of _this_ question.—F and G, which exhibit _ΟΣ_ and _ΟΣ_ respectively, were confessedly derived from a common archetype: in which archetype, it is evident that the horizontal stroke which distinguishes Θ from Ο must have been so faintly traced as to be scarcely discernible. The supposition that, in this place, the stroke in question represents _the aspirate_, is scarcely admissible. _There is no single example of_ ὅς _written_ _ΟΣ_ _in any part of __ either Cod._ F _or Cod._ G. On the other hand, in the only place where ΟΣ represents _ΘΣ_, it is written _ΟΣ_ _in both_. Prejudice herself may be safely called upon to accept the obvious and only lawful inference.

To come to the point,—Θεός is the reading of _all the uncial copies extant but two_ (viz. א which exhibits ὅς, and D which exhibits ὅ), and of all the cursives _but one_ (viz. 17). The universal consent of the Lectionaries proves that Θεός has been read in all the assemblies of the faithful from the IVth or Vth century of our era. At what earlier period of her existence is it supposed then that the Church (“the witness and keeper of Holy Writ,”) availed herself of her privilege to substitute Θεός for ὅς or ὅ,—whether in error or in fraud? Nothing short of a conspiracy, to which every region of the Eastern Church must have been a party, would account for the phenomenon.

We enquire next for the testimony of the Fathers; and we discover that—(1) Gregory of Nyssa quotes Θεός _twenty-two times_:(352)—that Θεός is also recognized by (2) his namesake of Nazianzus in two places;(353)—as well as by (3) Didymus of Alexandria;(354)—(4) by ps.-Dionysius Alex.;(355)—and (5) by Diodorus of Tarsus.(356)—(6) Chrysostom quotes 1 Tim. iii. 16 in conformity with the received text at least three times;(357)—and (7) Cyril Al. as often:(358)—(8) Theodoret, four times:(359)—(9) an unknown author of the age of Nestorius (A.D. 430), once:(360)—(10) Severus, Bp. of Antioch (A.D. 512), once.(361)—(11) Macedonius (A.D. 506) patriarch of CP.,(362) of whom it has been absurdly related that he _invented_ the reading, is a witness for Θεός perforce; so is—(12) Euthalius, and—(13) John Damascene on two occasions.(363)—(14) An unknown writer who has been mistaken for Athanasius,(364)—(15) besides not a few ancient scholiasts, close the list: for we pass by the testimony of—(16) Epiphanius at the 7th Nicene Council (A.D. 787),—of (17) Œcumenius,—of (18) Theophylact.

It will be observed that neither has anything been said about the many indirect allusions of earlier Fathers to this place of Scripture; and yet some of these are too striking to be overlooked: as when—(19) Basil, writing of our SAVIOUR, says αὐτὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί:(365)—and (20) Gregory Thaum., καὶ ἔστι Θεὸς ἀληθινὸς ὁ ἄσαρκος ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς:(366)—and before him, (21) Hippolytus, οὗτος προελθὼν εἰς κόσμον, Θεὸς ἐν σώματι ἐφανερώθη:(367)—and (22) Theodotus the Gnostic, ὁ Σωτὴρ ὤφθη κατιὼν τοῖς ἀγγέλοις:(368)—and (23) Barnabas, Ἰησοῦς ... ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ τύπῳ καὶ ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς:(369)—and earlier still (24) Ignatius: Θεοῦ ἀνθρωπίνως φανερουμένον:—ἐν σαρκὶ γενόμενος Θεός:—εἶς Θεὸς ἔστιν ὁ φανερώσοας ἑαυτὸν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ.(370)—Are we to suppose that _none_ of these primitive writers read the place as we do?

Against this array of Testimony, the only evidence which the unwearied industry of 150 years has succeeded in eliciting, is as follows:—(1) The exploded _Latin_ fable that Macedonius (A.D. 506) _invented_ the reading:(371)—(2) the fact that Epiphanius,—_professing to transcribe_(372) from an earlier treatise of his own(373) (in which ἐφανερώθη stands _without a nominative_), prefixes ὅς:—(3) the statement of an unknown scholiast, that in one particular place of Cyril’s writings where the Greek is lost, Cyril wrote ὅς,—(which seems to be an entire mistake; but which, even if it were a fact, would be sufficiently explained by the discovery that in two other places of Cyril’s writings the evidence _fluctuates_ between ὅς and Θεός):—(4) a quotation in an epistle of Eutherius of Tyana (it exists only in Latin) where “qui” is found:—(5) a casual reference (in Jerome’s commentary on Isaiah) to our LORD, as One “qui apparuit in carne, justificatus est in spiritu,”—which Bp. Pearson might have written.—Lastly, (6) a passage of Theodorus Mopsuest. (quoted at the Council of Constantinople, A.D. 553), where the reading is “qui,”—which is balanced by the discovery that in another place of his writings quoted at the same Council, the original is translated “quod.” And this closes the evidence. Will any unprejudiced person, on reviewing the premisses, seriously declare that ὅς is the better sustained reading of the two?

For ourselves, we venture to deem it incredible that a Reading which—(_a_) Is not to be found in more than two copies (א and 17) of S. Paul’s Epistles: which—(_b_) Is not certainly supported by a single Version:—(_c_) Nor is clearly advocated by a single Father,—_can_ be genuine. It does not at all events admit of question, that until _far_ stronger evidence can be produced in its favour, ὅς (“who”) may on no account be permitted to usurp the place of the commonly received Θεός (“GOD”) of 1 Tim. iii. 16. But the present exhibits in a striking and instructive way all the characteristic tokens of a depravation of the text. (1st) At an exceedingly early period it resulted in _another_ deflection. (2nd) It is without the note of _Continuity_; having died out of the Church’s memory well-nigh 1400 years ago. (3rd) It is deficient in _Universality_; having been all along denied the Church’s corporate sanction. As a necessary consequence, (4th) It rests at this day on wholly _insufficient Evidence_: Manuscripts, Versions, Fathers being _all_ against it. (5th) It carries on its front its own refutation. For, as all must see, _ΘΣ_ might easily be mistaken for ΟΣ: but in order to make ΟΣ into _ΘΣ_, _two horizontal lines must of set purpose be added to the copy_. It is therefore a vast deal _more likely_ that _ΘΣ_ became ΟΣ, than that ΟΣ became _ΘΣ_. (6th) Lastly, it is condemned by internal considerations. Ὅς is in truth so grossly improbable—rather, so _impossible_—a reading, that under any circumstances we must have anxiously enquired whether no escape from it was discoverable: whether there exists no way of explaining _how_ so patent an absurdity as μυστέριον ὅς _may_ have arisen? And on being reminded that the disappearance of two faint horizontal strokes, _or even of one_, would fully account for the impossible reading,—(and thus much, at least, all admit,)—should we not have felt that it required an overwhelming consensus of authorities in favour of ὅς, to render such an alternative deserving of serious attention? It is a mere abuse of Bengel’s famous axiom to recal it on occasions like the present. We shall be landed in a bathos indeed if we allow _gross improbability_ to become a constraining motive with us in revising the sacred Text.

And thus much for the true reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. We invite the reader to refer back(374) to a Reviser’s estimate of the evidence in favour of Θεός and ὅς respectively, and to contrast it with our own. If he is impressed with the strength of the cause of our opponents,—their mastery of the subject,—and the reasonableness of their contention,—we shall be surprised. And yet _that_ is not the question just now before us. The _only_ question (be it clearly remembered) which has to be considered, is _this_:—Can it be said with truth that the “evidence” for ὅς (as against Θεός) in 1 Tim. iii. 16 is “_clearly preponderating_”? Can it be maintained that Θεός is a “_plain and clear error_”? Unless this can be affirmed—_cadit quæstio_. The traditional reading of the place ought to have been let alone. May we be permitted to say without offence that, in our humble judgment, if the Church of England, at the Revisers’ bidding, were to adopt this and thousands of other depravations of the sacred page,(375)—with which the Church Universal was once well acquainted, but which in her corporate character she has long since unconditionally condemned and abandoned,—she would deserve to be pointed at with scorn by the rest of Christendom? Yes, and to have _that_ openly said of her which S. Peter openly said of the false teachers of his day who fell back into the very errors which they had already abjured. The place will be found in 2 S. Peter ii. 22. So singularly applicable is it to the matter in hand, that we can but invite attention to the quotation on our title-page and p. 1.

And here we make an end.

1. Those who may have taken up the present Article in expectation of being entertained with another of those discussions (of which we suspect the public must be already getting somewhat weary), concerning the degree of ability which the New Testament Revisionists have displayed in their rendering into English of the Greek, will at first experience disappointment. Readers of intelligence, however, who have been at the pains to follow us through the foregoing pages, will be constrained to admit that we have done more faithful service to the cause of Sacred Truth by the course we have been pursuing, than if we had merely multiplied instances of incorrect and unsatisfactory _Translation_. There is (and this we endeavoured to explain at the outset) a question of prior interest and far graver importance which has to be settled _first_, viz. the degree of confidence which is due to the underlying NEW GREEK TEXT which our Revisionists have constructed. In other words, before discussing their _new Renderings_, we have to examine their _new Readings_.(376) The silence which Scholars have hitherto maintained on this part of the subject is to ourselves scarcely intelligible. But it makes us the more anxious to invite attention to this neglected aspect of the problem; the rather, because we have thoroughly convinced ourselves that the “new Greek Text” put forth by the Revisionists of our Authorized Version is _utterly inadmissible_. The traditional Text has been departed from by them nearly 6000 times,—almost invariably _for the worse_.

2. Fully to dispose of _all_ these multitudinous corruptions would require a bulky Treatise. But the reader is requested to observe that, if we are right in the few instances we have culled out from the mass,—_then we are right in all_. If we have succeeded in proving that the little handful of authorities on which the “new Greek Text” depends, are the reverse of trustworthy,—are absolutely misleading,—then, we have cut away from under the Revisionists the very ground on which they have hitherto been standing. And in that case, the structure which they have built up throughout a decade of years, with such evident self-complacency, collapses “like the baseless fabric of a vision.”

3. For no one may flatter himself that, by undergoing a _further_ process of “Revision,” the “Revised Version” may after all be rendered trustworthy. The eloquent and excellent Bishop of Derry is “convinced that, with all its undeniable merits, it will have to be somewhat extensively revised.” And so perhaps are we. But (what is a far more important circumstance) we are further convinced that a prior act of penance to be submitted to by the Revisers would be the restoration of the underlying Greek Text to very nearly—_not quite_—the state in which they found it when they entered upon their ill-advised undertaking. “Very nearly—not quite:” for, in not a few particulars, the “Textus receptus” _does_ call for Revision, certainly; although Revision on entirely different principles from those which are found to have prevailed in the Jerusalem Chamber. To mention a single instance:—When our LORD first sent forth His Twelve Apostles, it was certainly no part of His ministerial commission to them to “_raise the dead_” (νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε, S. Matthew x. 8). This is easily demonstrable. Yet is the spurious clause retained by our Revisionists; because it is found in those corrupt witnesses—א B C D, and the Latin copies.(377) When will men learn unconditionally to put away from themselves the weak superstition which is for investing with oracular authority the foregoing quaternion of demonstrably depraved Codices?

4. “It may be said”—(to quote again from Bp. Alexander’s recent Charge),—“that there is a want of modesty in dissenting from the conclusions of a two-thirds majority of a body so learned. But the rough process of counting heads imposes unduly on the imagination. One could easily name _eight_ in that assembly, whose _unanimity_ would be practically almost decisive; but we have no means of knowing that these did not _form the minority_ in resisting the changes which we most regret.” The Bishop is speaking of the _English_ Revision. Having regard to the Greek Text exclusively, _we_ also (strange to relate) had singled out _exactly eight_ from the members of the New Testament company—Divines of undoubted orthodoxy, who for their splendid scholarship and proficiency in the best learning, or else for their refined taste and admirable judgment, might (as we humbly think), under certain safeguards, have been safely entrusted even with the responsibility of revising the Sacred Text. Under the guidance of Prebendary Scrivener (who among living Englishmen is _facile princeps_ in these pursuits) it is scarcely to be anticipated that, WHEN UNANIMOUS, such Divines would ever have materially erred. But then, of course, a previous life-long familiarity with the Science of _Textual Criticism_, or at least leisure for prosecuting it now, for ten or twenty years, with absolutely undivided attention,—would be the indispensable requisite for the success of such an undertaking; and this, undeniably, is a qualification rather to be desiderated than looked for at the hands of English Divines of note at the present day. On the other hand, (loyalty to our Master constrains us to make the avowal,) the motley assortment of names, twenty-eight in all, specified by Dr. Newth, at p. 125 of his interesting little volume, joined to the fact that the average attendance _was not so many as sixteen_,—concerning whom, moreover, the fact has transpired that some of the most judicious of their number often _declined to give any vote at all_,—is by no means calculated to inspire any sort of confidence. But, in truth, considerable familiarity with these pursuits may easily co-exist with a natural inaptitude for their successful cultivation, which shall prove simply fatal. In support of this remark, one has but to refer to the instance supplied by Dr. Hort. The Sacred Text has none to fear so much as those who _feel_ rather than think: who _imagine_ rather than reason: who rely on a supposed _verifying faculty_ of their own, of which they are able to render no intelligible account; and who, (to use Bishop Ellicott’s phrase,) have the misfortune to conceive themselves possessed of a “_power of divining the Original Text_,”—which would be even diverting, if the practical result of their self-deception were not so exceedingly serious.

5. In a future number, we may perhaps enquire into the measure of success which has attended the Revisers’ _Revision of the English_ of our Authorized Version of 1611. We have occupied ourselves at this time exclusively with a survey of the seriously mutilated and otherwise grossly depraved NEW GREEK TEXT, on which their edifice has been reared. And the circumstance which, in conclusion, we desire to impress upon our Readers, is this,—that the insecurity of that foundation is so alarming, that, except as a concession due to the solemnity of the undertaking just now under review, further Criticism might very well be dispensed with, as a thing superfluous. Even could it be proved concerning the superstructure, that “_it had been [ever so] well builded_,”(378) (to adopt another of our Revisionists’ unhappy perversions of Scripture,) the fatal objection would remain, viz. that it is not “_founded upon the rock_.”(379) It has been the ruin of the present undertaking—as far as the Sacred Text is concerned—that the majority of the Revisionist body have been misled throughout by the oracular decrees and impetuous advocacy of Drs. Westcott and Hort; who, with the purest intentions and most laudable industry, have constructed a Text demonstrably more remote from the Evangelic verity, than any which has ever yet seen the light. “The old is good,”(380) say the Revisionists: but we venture solemnly to assure them that “_the old is better_;”(381) and that this remark holds every bit as true of their Revision of the Greek throughout, as of their infelicitous exhibition of S. Luke v. 39. To attempt, as they have done, to build the Text of the New Testament on a tissue of unproved assertions and the eccentricities of a single codex of bad character, is about as hopeful a proceeding as would be the attempt to erect an Eddystone lighthouse on the Goodwin Sands.

ARTICLE II. THE NEW ENGLISH VERSION.

“Such is the time-honoured Version which we have been called upon
to revise! We have had to study this great Version carefully and
minutely, line by line; and the longer we have been engaged upon
it the more we have learned to admire _its simplicity_, _its
dignity_, _its power_, _its happy turns of expression_, _its
general accuracy_, and we must not fail to add, _the music of its
cadences, and the felicities of its rhythm_. To render a work that
had reached this high standard of excellence, still more
excellent; to increase its fidelity, without destroying its charm;
was the task committed to us.”—PREFACE TO THE REVISED VERSION.

“To pass from the one to the other, is, as it were, to alight from
a well-built and well-hung carriage which glides easily over a
macadamized road,—and to get into one _which has bad springs or
none at all_, and in which you are _jolted in ruts with aching
bones over the stones of a newly-mended and rarely traversed
road_, like some of the roads in our North Lincolnshire
villages.”—BISHOP WORDSWORTH.(382)

“No Revision at the present day could hope to meet with an hour’s
acceptance if it failed to preserve the tone, rhythm, and diction
of the present Authorized Version.”—BISHOP ELLICOTT.(383)

“I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy
of this Book,—If any man shall add unto these things, GOD shall
add unto him the plagues that are written in this Book.

“And if any man shall take away from the words of the Book of this
prophecy, GOD shall take away his part out of the Book of Life,
and out of the holy City, and from the things which are written in
this Book.”—REVELATION xxii. 18, 19.

Whatever may be urged in favour of Biblical Revision, it is at least undeniable that the undertaking involves a tremendous risk. Our Authorized Version is the one religious link which at present binds together ninety millions of English-speaking men scattered over the earth’s surface. Is it reasonable that so unutterably precious, so sacred a bond should be endangered, for the sake of representing certain words more accurately,—here and there translating a tense with greater precision,—getting rid of a few archaisms? It may be confidently assumed that no “Revision” of our Authorized Version, however judiciously executed, will ever occupy the place in public esteem which is actually enjoyed by the work of the Translators of 1611,—the noblest literary work in the Anglo-Saxon language. We shall in fact never have _another_ “Authorized Version.” And this single consideration may be thought absolutely fatal to the project, except in a greatly modified form. To be brief,—As a companion in the study and for private edification: as a book of reference for critical purposes, especially in respect of difficult and controverted passages:—we hold that a revised edition of the Authorized Version of our English Bible, (if executed with consummate ability and learning,) would at any time be a work of inestimable value. The method of such a performance, whether by marginal Notes or in some other way, we forbear to determine. But certainly only as a handmaid is it to be desired. As something _intended to supersede_ our present English Bible, we are thoroughly convinced that the project of a rival Translation is not to be entertained for a moment. For ourselves, we deprecate it entirely.

On the other hand, _who_ could have possibly foreseen what has actually come to pass since the Convocation of the Southern Province (in Feb. 1870) declared itself favourable to “a Revision of the Authorized Version,” and appointed a Committee of Divines to undertake the work? _Who_ was to suppose that the Instructions given to the Revisionists would be by them systematically disregarded? _Who_ was to imagine that an utterly untrustworthy “new Greek Text,” constructed on mistaken principles,—(say rather, on _no principles at all_,)—would be the fatal result? To speak more truly,—_Who_ could have anticipated that the opportunity would have been adroitly seized to inflict upon the Church the text of Drs. Westcott and Hort, in all its essential features,—a text which, as will be found elsewhere largely explained, we hold to be _the most vicious Recension of the original Greek in existence_? Above all,—_Who_ was to foresee that instead of removing “_plain_ and _clear errors_” from our Version, the Revisionists,—(besides systematically removing out of sight so many of the genuine utterances of the SPIRIT,)—would themselves introduce a countless number of blemishes, unknown to it before? Lastly, how was it to have been believed that the Revisionists would show themselves industrious in sowing broadcast over four continents doubts as to the Truth of Scripture, which it will never be in their power either to remove or to recal? _Nescit vox missa reverti._

For, the ill-advised practice of recording, in the margin of an English Bible, certain of the blunders—(such things cannot by any stretch of courtesy be styled “Various Readings”)—which disfigure “some” or “many” “ancient authorities,” can only result in hopelessly unsettling the faith of millions. It cannot be defended on the plea of candour,—the candour which is determined that men shall “know the worst.” “The worst”_ has_ NOT _been told_: and it were dishonesty to insinuate that _it has_. If all the cases were faithfully exhibited where “a few,” “some,” or “many ancient authorities” read differently from what is exhibited in the actual Text, not only would the margin prove insufficient to contain the record, but _the very page itself_ would not nearly suffice. Take a single instance (the first which comes to mind), of the thing referred to. Such illustrations might be multiplied to any extent:—

In S. Luke iii. 22, (in place of “Thou art my beloved Son; _in Thee I am well pleased_,”) the following authorities of the IInd, IIIrd and IVth centuries, read,—“_this day have I begotten Thee_:” viz.—codex D and the most ancient copies of the old Latin (a, b, c, ff-2, 1),—Justin Martyr in three places(384) (A.D. 140),—Clemens Alex.(385) (A.D. 190),—and Methodius(386) (A.D. 290) among the Greeks. Lactantius(387) (A.D. 300),—Hilary(388) (A.D. 350),—Juvencus(389) (A.D. 330),—Faustus(390) (A.D. 400), and—Augustine(391) amongst the Latins. The reading in question was doubtless derived from the _Ebionite Gospel_(392) (IInd cent.). Now, we desire to have it explained to us _why_ an exhibition of the Text supported by such an amount of first-rate primitive testimony as the preceding, obtains _no notice whatever_ in our Revisionists’ margin,—if indeed it was the object of their perpetually recurring marginal annotations, to put the unlearned reader on a level with the critical Scholar; to keep nothing back from him; and so forth?... It is the gross one-sidedness, the patent _unfairness_, in a critical point of view, of this work, (which professes to be nothing else but _a Revision of the English Version of_ 1611,)—which chiefly shocks and offends us.

For, on the other hand, of what possible use can it be to encumber the margin of S. Luke x. 41, 42 (for example), with the announcement that “A few ancient authorities read _Martha, Martha, thou art troubled: Mary hath chosen_ &c.” (the fact being, that D _alone_ of MSS. omits “_careful and ... about many things. But one thing is needful, and_” ...)? With the record of this circumstance, is it reasonable (we ask) to choke up our English margin,—to create perplexity and to insinuate doubt? The author of the foregoing marginal Annotation was of course aware that the same “singular codex” (as Bp. Ellicott styles cod. D) omits, in S. Luke’s Gospel alone, no less than 1552 words: and he will of course have ascertained (by counting) that the words in S. Luke’s Gospel amount to 19,941. Why then did he not tell _the whole_ truth; and instead of “_&c._,” proceed as follows?—“But inasmuch as cod. D is so scandalously corrupt that about _one word in thirteen_ is missing throughout, the absence of nine words in this place is of no manner of importance or significancy. The precious saying omitted is above suspicion, and the first half of the present Annotation might have been spared.”... We submit that a Note like that, although rather “singular” in style, really _would_ have been to some extent helpful,—if not to the learned, at least to the unlearned reader.

In the meantime, unlearned and learned readers alike are competent to see that the foregoing perturbation of S. Luke x. 41, 42 rests on _the same_ manuscript authority as the perturbation of ch. iii. 22, which immediately preceded it. The _Patristic_ attestation, on the other hand, of the reading which has been promoted to the margin, is almost _nil_: whereas _that_ of the neglected place has been shown to be considerable, very ancient, and of high respectability.

But in fact,—(let the Truth be plainly stated; for, when GOD’S Word is at stake, circumlocution is contemptible, while concealment would be a crime;)—“_Faithfulness_” towards the public, a stern resolve that the English reader “shall know the worst,” and all that kind of thing,—such considerations have had nothing whatever to do with the matter. A vastly different principle has prevailed with the Revisionists. Themselves the dupes of an utterly mistaken Theory of Textual Criticism, their supreme solicitude has been _to impose that same Theory_,—(_which is Westcott and Hort’s_,)—with all its bitter consequences, on the unlearned and unsuspicious public.

We shall of course be indignantly called upon to explain what we mean by so injurious—so damning—an imputation? For all reply, we are content to refer to the sample of our meaning which will be found below, in pp. 137-8. The exposure of what has there been shown to be the method of the Revisionists in respect of S. Mark vi. 11, might be repeated hundreds of times. It would in fact _fill a volume_. We shall therefore pass on, when we have asked the Revisionists in turn—_How they have dared_ so effectually to blot out those many precious words from the Book of Life, that no mere English reader, depending on the Revised Version for his knowledge of the Gospels, can by possibility suspect their existence?... Supposing even that it _was_ the calamitous result of their mistaken principles that they found themselves constrained on countless occasions, to omit from their Text precious sayings of our LORD and His Apostles,—what possible excuse will they offer for not having preserved a record of words so amply attested, _at least in their margin_?

Even so, however, the whole amount of the mischief which has been effected by our Revisionists has not been stated. For the Greek Text which they have invented proves to be so hopelessly depraved throughout, that if it were to be thrust upon the Church’s acceptance, we should be a thousand times worse off than we were with the Text which Erasmus and the Complutensian,—Stephens, and Beza, and the Elzevirs,—bequeathed to us upwards of three centuries ago. On this part of the subject we have remarked at length already [pp. 1-110]: yet shall we be constrained to recur once and again to the underlying Greek Text of the Revisionists, inasmuch as it is impossible to stir in any direction with the task before us, without being painfully reminded of its existence. Not only do the familiar Parables, Miracles, Discourses of our LORD, trip us up at every step, but we cannot open the first page of the Gospel—no, nor indeed read _the first line_—without being brought to a standstill. Thus,

1. S. Matthew begins,—“The book of the generation of JESUS CHRIST” (ver. 1).—Good. But here the margin volunteers two pieces of information: first,—“Or, _birth_: as in ver. 18.” We refer to ver. 18, and read—“Now the birth of JESUS CHRIST was on this wise.” Good again; but the margin says,—“Or, _generation_: as in ver. 1.” Are we then to understand that _the same Greek word_, diversely rendered in English, occurs in both places? We refer to the “_new_ Greek Text:” and there it stands,—γένεσις in either verse. But if the word be the same, why (on the Revisers’ theory) is it diversely rendered?

In the meantime, _who_ knows not that there is all the difference in the world between S. Matthew’s γέΝΕσις, in ver. 1,—and the same S. Matthew’s γέΝΝΗσις, in ver. 18? The latter, the Evangelist’s announcement of the circumstances of the human Nativity of CHRIST: the former, the Evangelist’s unobtrusive way of recalling the Septuagintal rendering of Gen. ii. 4 and v. 1:(393) the same Evangelist’s calm method of guiding the devout and thoughtful student to discern in the Gospel the History of the “new Creation,”—by thus providing that when first the Gospel opens its lips, it shall syllable the name of the first book of the elder Covenant? We are pointing out that it more than startles—it supremely offends—one who is even slenderly acquainted with the treasures of wisdom hid in the very diction of the N. T. Scriptures, to discover that a deliberate effort has been made to get rid of the very foremost of those notes of Divine intelligence, by confounding two words which all down the ages have been carefully kept distinct; and that this effort is the result of an exaggerated estimate of a few codices which happen to be written in the uncial character, viz. two of the IVth century (B א); one of the Vth (C); two of the VIth (P Z); one of the IXth (Δ); one of the Xth (S).