xi. 23, B obtains the sanction of the Latin copies, καταβήσῃ is actually

introduced into the Revised Text, and we are quietly informed in the margin that “Many ancient authorities read _be brought down_:” the truth being (as the reader has been made aware) that there are _only two manuscripts in existence which read anything else_. And (what deserves attention) those two manuscripts are convicted of having _borrowed their quotation from the Septuagint_,(137) and therefore stand self-condemned.... Were the occupants of the Jerusalem Chamber all—saving the two who in their published edition insist on reading (with B and D) καταβήσῃ in both places—_all_ fast asleep when they became consenting parties to this sad mistake?

II. It is time to explain that, if the most serious depravations of Scripture are due to Accident, a vast number are unmistakably the result of DESIGN, and are very clumsily executed too. The enumeration of a few of these may prove instructive: and we shall begin with something which is found in S. Mark xi. 3. With nothing perhaps will each several instance so much impress the devout student of Scripture, as with the exquisite structure of a narrative in which corrupt readings stand self-revealed and self-condemned, the instant they are ordered to come to the front and show themselves. But the point to which we especially invite his attention is, the sufficiency of the _external evidence_ which Divine Wisdom is observed to have invariably provided for the establishment of the truth of His written Word.

(_a_) When our LORD was about to enter His capital in lowly triumph, He is observed to have given to “two of His disciples” directions well calculated to suggest the mysterious nature of the incident which was to follow. They were commanded to proceed to the entrance of a certain village,—to unloose a certain colt which they would find tied there,—and to bring the creature straightway to JESUS. Any obstacle which they might encounter would at once disappear before the simple announcement that “the LORD hath need of him.”(138) But, singular to relate, this transaction is found to have struck some third-rate IIIrd-century Critic as not altogether correct. The good man was evidently of opinion that the colt,—as soon as the purpose had been accomplished for which it had been obtained,—ought in common fairness to have been returned to “the owners thereof.” (S. Luke xix. 33.) Availing himself therefore of there being no nominative before “will send” (in S. Mark xi. 3), he assumed that it was _of Himself_ that our LORD was still speaking: feigned that the sentence is to be explained thus:—“say ye, ‘that the LORD hath need of him _and will straightway send him hither_.’ ” According to this view of the case, our SAVIOUR instructed His two Disciples to convey to the owner of the colt an undertaking from Himself _that He would send the creature back as soon as He had done with it_: would treat the colt, in short, _as a loan_. A more stupid imagination one has seldom had to deal with. But in the meantime, by way of clenching the matter, the Critic proceeded on his own responsibility to thrust into the text the word “_again_” (πάλιν). The fate of such an unauthorized accretion might have been confidently predicted. After skipping about in quest of a fixed resting-place for a few centuries (see the note at foot(139)), πάλιν has shared the invariable fate of all such spurious adjuncts to the truth of Scripture, viz.: It has been effectually eliminated from the copies. Traces of it linger on only in those untrustworthy witnesses א B C D L Δ, and about twice as many cursive copies, also of depraved type. So transparent a fabrication ought in fact to have been long since forgotten. Yet have our Revisionists not been afraid to revive it. In S. Mark xi. 3, they invite us henceforth to read, “And if any one say unto you, Why do ye this? say ye, The LORD hath need of him, and straightway _He_ (_i.e._ the LORD) _will send him_ BACK _hither_.” ... Of what can they have been dreaming? They cannot pretend that they have _Antiquity_ on their side: for, besides the whole mass of copies with A at their head, _both_ the Syriac, _both_ the Latin, and _both_ the Egyptian versions, the Gothic, the Armenian,—all in fact except the Æthiopic,—are against them. Even Origen, who twice inserts πάλιν,(140) twice leaves it out.(141) _Quid plura?_

(_b_) No need to look elsewhere for our next instance. A novel statement arrests attention five verses lower down: viz. that “Many spread their garments upon the way” [and why not “_in_ the way”? εἰς does not mean “upon”]; “and others, branches _which they had cut from the fields_” (S. Mark xi. 8). But how in the world could they have done _that_? They must have been clever people certainly if they “cut _branches_ from” anything except _trees_. Was it because our Revisionists felt this, that in the margin they volunteer the information, that the Greek for “branches” is in strictness “_layers of leaves_”? But what _are_ “layers of leaves”? and what _proof_ is there that στοιβάδες has that meaning? and how could “_layers of leaves_” have been suddenly procured from such a quarter? We turn to our Authorized Version, and are refreshed by the familiar and intelligible words: “And others cut down branches off the trees and strawed them in the way.” Why then has this been changed? In an ordinary sentence, consisting of 12 words, we find that 2 words have been substituted for other 2; that 1 has undergone modification; that 5 have been ejected. _Why_ is all this? asks the unlearned Reader. He shall be told.

An instance is furnished us of the perplexity which a difficult word sometimes occasioned the ancients, as well as of the serious consequences which have sometimes resulted therefrom to the text of Scripture itself. S. Matthew, after narrating that “a very great multitude spread their garments in the way,” adds, “others cut branches (κλάδους) from the trees and strawed them in the way.”(142) But would not branches of any considerable size have impeded progress, inconveniently encumbering the road? No doubt they would. Accordingly, as S. Mark (with S. Matthew’s Gospel before him) is careful to explain, they were _not_ “branches of any considerable size,” but “leafy twigs”—“_foliage_,” in fact it was—“cut from the trees and strawed in the way.” The word, however, which he employs (στοιβάδας) is an unique word—very like another of similar sound (στιβάδας), yet distinct from it in sense, if not in origin. Unfortunately, all this was not understood in a highly uncritical and most licentious age. With the best intentions, (for the good man was only seeking to reconcile two inconvenient parallel statements,) some Revisionist of the IInd century, having convinced himself that the latter word (στιβάδας) might with advantage take the place of S. Mark’s word (στοιβάδας), substituted this for that. In consequence, it survives to this day in nine uncial copies headed by א B. But then, στιβάς does not mean “a branch” _at all_; no, nor a “layer of leaves” either; but _a pallet_—_a floor-bed_, in fact, of the humblest type, constructed of grass, rushes, straw, brushwood, leaves, or any similar substance. On the other hand, because such materials are not obtainable _from trees_ exactly, the ancient Critic judged it expedient further to change δένδρων into ἀγρῶν (“_fields_”). Even this was not altogether satisfactory. Στιβάς, as explained already, in strictness means a “bed.” Only by a certain amount of license can it be supposed to denote the materials of which a bed is composed; whereas the Evangelist speaks of something “strawn.” _The self-same copies_, therefore, which exhibit “_fields_” (in lieu of “_trees_”), by introducing a slight change in the construction (κόψαντες for ἔκοπτον), and _omitting_ the words “and strawed them in the way,” are observed—after a summary fashion of their own, (with which, however, readers of B א D are only too familiar)—to dispose of this difficulty by putting it nearly out of sight. The only result of all this misplaced officiousness is a miserable travestie of the sacred words:—ἄλλοι δὲ στιβάδας, κόψαντες ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν: 7 words in place of 12!

But the calamitous circumstance is that the Critics have all to a man fallen into the trap. True, that Origen (who once writes στοιβάδας and once στιβάδας), as well as the two Egyptian versions, side with א B C L Δ in reading ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν: but then _both versions_ (with C) _decline to alter the construction_ of the sentence; and (with Origen) _decline to omit the clause_ ἐστρώννυον εἰς τὴν ὁδόν: while, against this little band of disunited witnesses, are marshalled all the remaining fourteen uncials, headed by A D—the Peschito and the Philoxenian Syriac; the Italic, the Vulgate, the Gothic, the Armenian, the Georgian, and the Æthiopic as well as the Slavonic versions, besides the whole body of the cursives. Whether therefore Antiquity, Variety, Respectability of witnesses, numbers, or the reason of the thing be appealed to, the case of our opponents breaks hopelessly down. Does any one seriously suppose that, if S. Mark had written the common word στΙβάδας, so vast a majority of the copies at this day would exhibit the improbable στΟΙβάδας? Had the same S. Mark expressed nothing else but ΚΌΨΑΝΤΕΣ ἐκ τῶν ἈΓΡΩ´Ν, will any one persuade us that _every copy in existence but five_ would present us with ἜΚΟΠΤΟΝ ἐκ τῶν ΔΈΝΔΡΩΝ, καὶ ἘΣΤΡΏΝΝΥΟΝ ἘΙΣ ΤῊΝ ὉΔΌΝ? And let us not be told that there has been Assimilation here. There has been none. S. Matthew (xxi. 8) writes ἈΠῸ τῶν δένδρον ... ἘΝ τῇ ὡδῷ: S. Mark (xi. 8), ἘΚ τῶν δένδρων ... ἘΙΣ τὴν ὁδόν. The types are distinct, and have been faithfully retained all down the ages. The common reading is certainly correct. The Critics are certainly in error. And we exclaim (surely not without good reason) against the hardship of thus having an exploded corruption of the text of Scripture furbished up afresh and thrust upon us, after lying deservedly forgotten for upwards of a thousand years.

(_c_) Take a yet grosser specimen, which has nevertheless imposed just as completely upon our Revisionists. It is found in S. Luke’s Gospel (xxiii. 45), and belongs to the history of the Crucifixion. All are aware that as, at the typical redemption out of Egypt, there had been a preternatural darkness over the land for three days,(143) so, preliminary to the actual Exodus of “the Israel of GOD,” “there was darkness over all the land” for three hours.(144) S. Luke adds the further statement,—“_And the sun was darkened_” (καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος). Now the proof that this is what S. Luke actually wrote, is the most obvious and conclusive possible. Ἐσκοτίσθη is found in all the most ancient documents. Marcion(145) (whose date is A.D. 130-50) so exhibits the place:—besides the old Latin(146) and the Vulgate:—the Peschito, Cureton’s, and the Philoxenian Syriac versions:—the Armenian,—the Æthiopic,—the Georgian,—and the Slavonic.—Hippolytus(147) (A.D. 190-227),—Athanasius,(148)—Ephraem Syr.,(149)—Theodore Mops.,(150)—Nilus the monk,(151)—Severianus, (in a homily preserved in Armenian, p. 439,)—Cyril of Alexandria,(152)—the apocryphal _Gospel of Nicodemus_—and the _Anaphora Pilati_,(153)—are all witnesses to the same effect. Add the _Acta Pilati_(154)—and the Syriac _Acts of the Apostles_.(155)—Let it suffice of the Latins to quote Tertullian.(156)—But the most striking evidence is the consentient testimony of the manuscripts, viz. _all the uncials_ but 3 and-a-half, and _every known Evangelium_.

That the darkness spoken of was a divine portent—_not_ an eclipse of the sun, but an incident wholly out of the course of nature—the ancients clearly recognize. Origen,(157)—Julius Africanus(158) (A.D. 220),—Macarius Magnes(159) (A.D. 330),—are even eloquent on the subject. Chrysostom’s evidence is unequivocal.(160) It is, nevertheless, well known that this place of S. Luke’s Gospel was tampered with from a very early period; and that Origen(161) (A.D. 186-253), and perhaps Eusebius,(162) employed copies which had been depraved. In some copies, writes Origen, instead of “and the sun was darkened” (καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος), is found “the sun having become eclipsed” (τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος). He points out with truth that the thing spoken of is a physical impossibility, and delivers it as his opinion that the corruption of the text was due either to some friendly hand in order to _account for_ the darkness; or else, (which he,(163) and Jerome(164) after him, thought more likely,) to the enemies of Revelation, who sought in this way to provide themselves with a pretext for cavil. Either way, Origen and Jerome elaborately assert that ἐσκοτίσθη is the only true reading of S. Luke xxiii. 45. Will it be believed that this gross fabrication—for no other reason but because it is found in א B L, and probably once existed in C(165)—has been resuscitated in 1881, and foisted into the sacred Text by our Revisionists?

It would be interesting to have this proceeding of theirs explained. _Why_ should the truth dwell exclusively(166) with א B L? It cannot be pretended that between the IVth and Vth centuries, when the copies א B were made, and the Vth and VIth centuries, when the copies A Q D R were executed, this corruption of the text arose: for (as was explained at the outset) the reading in question (καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος) is found in all the oldest and most famous documents. Our Revisionists cannot take their stand on “Antiquity,”—for as we have seen, _all the Versions_ (with the single exception of the Coptic(167)),—and the oldest Church writers, (Marcion, Origen, Julius Africanus, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Gregory Naz., Ephraem, &c.,) are _all_ against them.—They cannot advance the claim of “clearly preponderating evidence;” for they have but a single Version,—_not_ a single Father,—and but three-and-a-half Evangelia to appeal to, out of perhaps three hundred and fifty times that number.—They cannot pretend that essential probability is in favour of the reading of א B; seeing that the thing stated is astronomically impossible.—They will not tell us that critical opinion is with them: for their judgment is opposed to that of every Critic ancient and modern, except Tischendorf since his discovery of codex א.—Of what nature then will be their proof?... _Nothing_ results from the discovery that א reads τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος, B ἐκλείποντος,—except that those two codices are of the same corrupt type as those which Origen deliberately condemned 1650 years ago. In the meantime, with more of ingenuity than of ingenuousness, our Revisionists attempt to conceal the foolishness of the text of their choice by translating it unfairly. They present us with, “_the sun’s light failing_.” But this is a gloss of their own. There is no mention of “the sun’s _light_” in the Greek. Nor perhaps, if the rationale of the original expression were accurately ascertained, would such a paraphrase of it prove correct(168). But, in fact, the phrase ἔκλειψις ἡλίου means “an eclipse of the sun” and _no other thing_. In like manner, τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλείποντος(169) (as our Revisionists are perfectly well aware) means “_the sun becoming eclipsed_,” or “_suffering eclipse_.” It is easy for Revisionists to “emphatically deny that there is anything in the Greek word ἐκλείπειν, when associated with the sun, which involves necessarily the notion of an eclipse.”(170) The _fact_ referred to may not be so disposed of. It lies outside the province of “emphatic denial.” Let them ask any Scholar in Europe what τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος means; and see if he does not tell them that it can _only_ mean, “the sun _having become eclipsed_”! They know this every bit as well as their Reviewer. And they ought either to have had the manliness to render the words faithfully, or else the good sense to let the Greek alone,—which they are respectfully assured was their only proper course. Καί ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος is, in fact, clearly above suspicion. Τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλείποντος, which these learned men (with the best intentions) have put in its place, is, to speak plainly, a transparent fabrication. That it enjoys “_clearly preponderating evidence_,” is what no person, fair or unfair, will for an instant venture to pretend.

III. Next, let us produce an instance of depravation of Scripture resulting from the practice of ASSIMILATION, which prevailed anciently to an extent which baffles arithmetic. We choose the most famous instance that presents itself.

(_a_) It occurs in S. Mark vi. 20, and is more than unsuspected. The substitution (on the authority of א B L and the Coptic) of ἠπόρει for ἐποίει in that verse, (_i.e._ the statement that Herod “was much _perplexed_,”—instead of Herod “_did_ many things,”) is even vaunted by the Critics as the recovery of the true reading of the place—long obscured by the “very singular expression” ἐποίει. To ourselves the only “very singular” thing is, how men of first-rate ability can fail to see that, on the contrary, the proposed substitute is simply fatal to the SPIRIT’S teaching in this place. “Common sense is staggered by such a rendering,” (remarks the learned Bishop of Lincoln). “People are not wont to _hear gladly_ those by whom they are _much perplexed_.”(171) But in fact, the sacred writer’s object clearly is, to record the striking circumstance that Herod was so moved by the discourses of John, (whom he used to “listen to with pleasure,”) that he even “_did many things_” (πολλὰ ἐποίει) _in conformity with the Baptist’s teaching_.(172)... And yet, if this be so, how (we shall be asked) has “he was much perplexed” (πολλὰ ἠπόρει) contrived to effect a lodgment in _so many as three_ copies of the second Gospel?

It has resulted from nothing else, we reply, but the determination to assimilate a statement of S. Mark (vi. 20) concerning Herod and John the Baptist, with another and a distinct statement of S. Luke (ix. 7), having reference to Herod and our LORD. S. Luke, speaking of the fame of our SAVIOUR’S miracles at a period subsequent to the Baptist’s murder, declares that when Herod “heard _all things that were done_ BY HIM” (ἤκουσε τὰ γινόμενα ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ πάντα), “he _was much perplexed_” (διηπόρει).—Statements so entirely distinct and diverse from one another as _this_ of S. Luke, and _that_ (given above) of S. Mark, might surely (one would think) have been let alone. On the contrary. A glance at the foot of the page will show that in the IInd century S. Mark’s words were solicited in all sorts of ways. A persistent determination existed to make him say that Herod having “heard of _many things which _THE BAPTIST_ did_,” &c.(173)—a strange perversion of the Evangelist’s meaning, truly, and only to be accounted for in one way.(174)

Had this been _all_, however, the matter would have attracted no attention. One such fabrication more or less in the Latin version, which abounds in fabricated readings, is of little moment. But then, the Greek scribes had recourse to a more subtle device for assimilating Mark vi. 20 to Luke ix. 7. They perceived that S. Mark’s ἐποίει might be almost identified with S. Luke’s διηπόρει, by _merely changing two of the letters_, viz. by substituting η for ε and ρ for ι. From this, there results in S. Mk. vi. 20: “and having heard many things of him, _he was perplexed_;” which is very nearly identical with what is found in S. Lu. ix. 7. This fatal substitution (of ἠπόρει for ἐποίει) survives happily only in codices א B L and the Coptic version—all of bad character. But (calamitous to relate) the Critics, having disinterred this long-since-forgotten fabrication, are making vigorous efforts to galvanize it, at the end of fifteen centuries, into ghastly life and activity. We venture to assure them that they will not succeed. Herod’s “perplexity” did not begin until John had been beheaded, and the fame reached Herod of the miracles which our SAVIOUR wrought. The apocryphal statement, now for the first time thrust into an English copy of the New Testament, may be summarily dismissed. But the marvel will for ever remain that a company of distinguished Scholars (A.D. 1881) could so effectually persuade themselves that ἐποίει (in S. Mark vi. 20) is a “_plain and clear error_,” and that there is “_decidedly preponderating evidence_” in favour of ἠπόρει,—as to venture to _substitute the latter word for the former_. This will for ever remain a marvel, we say; seeing that _all the uncials_ except three of bad character, together with _every known cursive without exception_;—the old Latin and the Vulgate, the Peschito and the Philoxenian Syriac, the Armenian, Æthiopic, Slavonian and Georgian versions,—are with the traditional Text. (The Thebaic, the Gothic, and Cureton’s Syriac are defective here. The ancient Fathers are silent.)

IV. More serious in its consequences, however, than any other source of mischief which can be named, is the process of MUTILATION, to which, from the beginning, the Text of Scripture has been subjected. By the “Mutilation” of Scripture we do but mean the intentional Omission—_from whatever cause proceeding_—of genuine portions. And the causes of it have been numerous as well as diverse. Often, indeed, there seems to have been at work nothing else but a strange passion for getting rid of whatever portions of the inspired Text have seemed to anybody superfluous,—or at all events have appeared capable of being removed without manifest injury to the sense. But the estimate of the tasteless IInd-century Critic will never be that of the well-informed Reader, furnished with the ordinary instincts of piety and reverence. This barbarous mutilation of the Gospel, by the unceremonious excision of a multitude of little words, is often attended by no worse consequence than that thereby an extraordinary baldness is imparted to the Evangelical narrative. The removal of so many of the coupling-hooks is apt to cause the curtains of the Tabernacle to hang wondrous ungracefully; but often _that_ is all. Sometimes, however, (as might have been confidently anticipated,) the result is calamitous in a high degree. Not only is the beauty of the narrative effectually marred, (as _e.g._ by the barbarous excision of καί—εὐθέως—μετὰ δακρύων—Κύριε, from S. Mark ix. 24):(175)—the doctrinal teaching of our SAVIOUR’S discourses in countless places, damaged, (as _e.g._ by the omission of καὶ νηστείᾳ from verse 29):—absurd expressions attributed to the Holy One which He certainly never uttered, (as _e.g._ by truncating of its last word the phrase τό, Εἰ δύνασαι πιστεῦσαι in verse 23):—but (I.) The narrative is often rendered in a manner unintelligible; or else (II.), The entire point of a precious incident is made to disappear from sight; or else (III.), An imaginary incident is fabricated: or lastly (IV.), Some precious saying of our Divine LORD is turned into absolute nonsense. Take a single short example of what has last been offered, from each of the Gospels in turn.

(I.) In S. Matthew xiv. 30, we are invited henceforth to submit to the information concerning Simon Peter, that “_when he saw the wind_, he was afraid.” The sight must have been peculiar, certainly. So, indeed, is the expression. But Simon Peter was as unconscious of the one as S. Matthew of the other. Such curiosities are the peculiar property of codices א B—the Coptic version—and the Revisionists. The predicate of the proposition (viz. “_that it was strong_,” contained in the single word ἰσχυρόν) has been wantonly excised. That is all!—although Dr. Hort succeeded in persuading his colleagues to the contrary. A more solemn—a far sadder instance, awaits us in the next Gospel.

(II.) The first three Evangelists are careful to note “the _loud_ cry” with which the Redeemer of the World expired. But it was reserved for S. Mark (as Chrysostom pointed out long since) to record (xv. 39) the memorable circumstance that _this particular portent_ it was, which wrought conviction in the soul of the Roman soldier whose office it was to be present on that terrible occasion. The man had often witnessed death by Crucifixion, and must have been well acquainted with its ordinary phenomena. Never before had he witnessed anything like this. He was stationed where he could see and hear all that happened: “standing” (S. Mark says) “near” our SAVIOUR,—“_over against Him_.” “Now, when the Centurion saw that it was _after so crying out_ (κράξας), that He expired” (xv. 39) he uttered the memorable words, “Truly this man _was_ the SON OF GOD!” “What chiefly moved him to make that confession of his faith was that our SAVIOUR evidently died _with power_.”(176) “The miracle” (says Bp. Pearson) “was not in the death, but _in the voice_. The strangeness was not that He should die, but that at the point of death He should _cry out so loud_. He died not by, but with a Miracle.”(177) ... All this however is lost in א B L, which literally _stand alone_(178) in leaving out the central and only important word, κράξας. Calamitous to relate, they are followed herein by our Revisionists: who (misled by Dr. Hort) invite us henceforth to read,—“Now when the Centurion saw _that He so gave up the ghost_.”

(III.) In S. Luke xxiii. 42, by leaving out two little words (τω and _κε_), the same blind guides, under the same blind guidance, effectually misrepresent the record concerning the repentant malefactor. Henceforth they would have us believe that “he said, ‘JESUS, remember me when thou comest in thy Kingdom.’ ” (Dr. Hort was fortunately unable to persuade the Revisionists to follow him in further substituting “_into_ thy kingdom” for “_in_ thy kingdom;” and so converting what, in the A. V., is nothing worse than a palpable mistranslation,(179) into what would have been an indelible blot. The record of his discomfiture survives in the margin). Whereas none of the Churches of Christendom have ever yet doubted that S. Luke’s record is, that the dying man “said _unto _JESUS, LORD, remember me,” &c.

(IV.) In S. John xiv. 4, by eliminating the second καί and the second οἴδατε, our SAVIOUR is now made to say, “And whither I go, _ye know the way_;” which is really almost nonsense. What He actually said was, “And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know;” _in consequence of which_ (as we all remember) “Thomas saith unto Him, LORD, we know not ‘whither’ Thou goest, and how can we know ‘the way’?” ... Let these four samples suffice of a style of depravation with which, at the end of 1800 years, it is deliberately proposed to disfigure every page of the everlasting Gospel; and for which, were it tolerated, the Church would have to thank no one so much as Drs. Westcott and Hort.

We cannot afford, however, so to dismiss the phenomena already opened up to the Reader’s notice. For indeed, this astonishing taste for mutilating and maiming the Sacred Deposit, is perhaps the strangest phenomenon in the history of Textual Criticism.

It is in this way that a famous expression in S. Luke vi. 1 has disappeared from codices א B L. The reader may not be displeased to listen to an anecdote which has hitherto escaped the vigilance of the Critics:—

“I once asked my teacher, Gregory of Nazianzus,”—(the words are Jerome’s in a letter to Nepotianus),—“to explain to me the meaning of S. Luke’s expression σάββατον δευτερόπρωτον, literally the ‘_second-first_ sabbath.’ ‘I will tell you all about it in church,’ he replied. ‘The congregation shall shout applause, and you shall have your choice,—either to stand silent and look like a fool, or else to pretend you understand what you do not.’ ” But “_eleganter lusit_,” says Jerome(180). The point of the joke was this: Gregory, being a great rhetorician and orator, would have descanted so elegantly on the signification of the word δευτερόπρωτον that the congregation would have been borne away by his mellifluous periods, quite regardless of the sense. In other words, Gregory of Nazianzus [A.D. 360] is found to have no more understood the word than Jerome did [370].

Ambrose(181) of Milan [370] attempts to explain the difficult expression, but with indifferent success. Epiphanius(182) of Cyprus [370] does the same;—and so, Isidorus(183) [400] called “Pelusiota” after the place of his residence in Lower Egypt.—Ps.-Cæsarius(184) also volunteers remarks on the word [A.D. 400?].—It is further explained in the _Paschal Chronicle_,(185)—and by Chrysostom(186) [370] at Antioch.—“_Sabbatum secundo-primum_” is found in the old Latin, and is retained by the Vulgate. Earlier evidence on the subject does not exist. We venture to assume that a word so attested must at least be entitled to _its place in the Gospel_. Such a body of first-rate positive IVth-century testimony, coming from every part of ancient Christendom, added to the significant fact that δευτερόπρωτον is found in _every codex extant_ except א B L, and half a dozen cursives of suspicious character, ought surely to be regarded as decisive. That an unintelligible word should have got _omitted_ from a few copies, requires no explanation. Every one who has attended to the matter is aware that the negative evidence of certain of the Versions also is of little weight on such occasions as the present. They are observed constantly to leave out what they either failed quite to understand, or else found untranslateable. On the other hand, it would be inexplicable indeed, that an unique expression like the present should have _established itself universally_, if it were actually spurious. This is precisely an occasion for calling to mind the precept _proclivi scriptioni præstat ardua_. Apart from external evidence, it is a thousand times more likely that such a peculiar word as this should be genuine, than the reverse. Tischendorf accordingly retains it, moved by this very consideration.(187) It got excised, however, here and there from manuscripts at a very early date. And, incredible as it may appear, it is a fact, that in consequence of its absence from the mutilated codices above referred to, S. Luke’s famous “second-first Sabbath” has been _thrust out of his Gospel by our Revisionists_.

But indeed, Mutilation has been practised throughout. By codex B (collated with the traditional Text), no less than 2877 words have been excised from the four Gospels alone: by codex א,—3455 words: by codex D,—3704 words.(188)

As interesting a set of instances of this, as are to be anywhere met with, occurs within the compass of the last three chapters of S. Luke’s Gospel, from which about 200 words have been either forcibly ejected by our Revisionists, or else served with “notice to quit.” We proceed to specify the chief of these:—

(1) S. Luke xxii. 19, 20. (Account of the Institution of the Sacrament of the LORD’S Supper,—from “which is given for you” to the end,—32 words.)

(2) _ibid._ 43, 44. (Our SAVIOUR’S Agony in the garden,—26 words.)

(3) xxiii. 17. (The custom of releasing one at the Passover,—8 words.)

(4) _ibid._ 34. (Our LORD’S prayer on behalf of His murderers,—12 words.)

(5) _ibid._ 38. (The record that the title on the Cross was written in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew,—7 words.)

(6) xxiv. 1. (“and certain with them,”—4 words.)

(7) _ibid._ 3. (“of the LORD JESUS,”—3 words.)

(8) _ibid._ 6. (“He is not here, but He is risen,”—5 words.)

(9) _ibid._ 9. (“from the sepulchre,”—3 words.)

(10) _ibid._ 12. (The mention of S. Peter’s visit to the sepulchre,—22 words.)

(11) _ibid._ 36. (“and saith unto them, Peace be unto you!”—5 words.)

(12) _ibid._ 40. (“and when He had thus spoken, He showed them His hands and His feet,”—10 words.)

(13) _ibid._ 42. (“and of an honeycomb,”—4 words.)

(14) _ibid._ 51. (“and was carried up into Heaven,”—5.)

(15) _ibid._ 52. (“worshipped Him,”—2 words.)

(16) _ibid._ 53. (“praising and,”—2 words.)

On an attentive survey of the foregoing sixteen instances of unauthorized Omission, it will be perceived that the 1st passage (S. Luke xxii. 19, 20) must have been eliminated from the Text because the mention of _two_ Cups seemed to create a difficulty.—The 2nd has been suppressed because (see p. 82) the incident was deemed derogatory to the majesty of GOD Incarnate.—The 3rd and 5th were held to be superfluous, because the information which they contain has been already conveyed by the parallel passages.—The 10th will have been omitted as apparently inconsistent with the strict letter of S. John xx. 1-10.—The 6th and 13th are certainly instances of enforced Harmony.—Most of the others (the 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 11th, 12th, 14th, 15th, 16th) seem to have been excised through mere wantonness,—the veriest licentiousness.—In the meantime, so far are Drs. Westcott and Hort from accepting the foregoing account of the matter, that they even style the 1st “a _perverse interpolation_:” in which view of the subject, however, they enjoy the distinction of standing entirely alone. With the same “moral certainty,” they further proceed to shut up within double brackets the 2nd, 4th, 7th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 14th, 15th: while the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 13th, and 16th, they exclude from their Text as indisputably spurious matter.

Now, we are not about to abuse our Readers’ patience by an investigation of the several points raised by the foregoing statement. In fact, all should have been passed by in silence, but that unhappily the “Revision” of our Authorized Version is touched thereby very nearly indeed. So intimate (may we not say, _so fatal_?) proves to be the sympathy between the labours of Drs. Westcott and Hort and those of our Revisionists, _that whatever the former have shut up within double brackets, the latter are discovered to have branded with a note of suspicion_, conceived invariably in the same terms: viz., “Some ancient authorities omit.” And further, _whatever those Editors have rejected from their Text, these Revisionists have rejected also_. It becomes necessary, therefore, briefly to enquire after the precise amount of manuscript authority which underlies certain of the foregoing changes. And happily this may be done in a few words.

The _sole_ authority for just half of the places above enumerated(189) is _a single Greek codex_,—and that, the most depraved of all,—viz. Beza’s D.(190) It should further be stated that the only allies discoverable for D are a few copies of the old Latin. What we are saying will seem scarcely credible: but it is a plain fact, of which any one may convince himself who will be at the pains to inspect the critical apparatus at the foot of the pages of Tischendorf’s last (8th) edition. Our Revisionists’ notion, therefore, of what constitutes “weighty evidence” is now before the Reader. If, in _his_ judgment, the testimony of _one single manuscript_, (and _that_ manuscript the Codex Bezæ (D),)—does really invalidate that of _all other Manuscripts and all other Versions_ in the world,—then of course, the Greek Text of the Revisionists will in his judgment be a thing to be rejoiced over. But what if he should be of opinion that such testimony, in and by itself, is simply worthless? We shrewdly suspect that the Revisionists’ view of what constitutes “weighty Evidence” will be found to end where it began, viz. in the Jerusalem Chamber.

For, when we reach down codex D from the shelf, we are reminded that, within the space of the three chapters of S. Luke’s Gospel now under consideration, there are in all no less than 354 words omitted; _of which_, 250 _are omitted by_ D _alone_. May we have it explained to us why, of those 354 words, only 25 are singled out by Drs. Westcott and Hort for permanent excision from the sacred Text? Within the same compass, no less than 173 words have been _added by_ D to the commonly Received Text,—146, _substituted_,—243, _transposed_. May we ask how it comes to pass that of those 562 words _not one_ has been promoted to their margin by the Revisionists?... Return we, however, to our list of the changes which they actually _have_ effected.

(1) Now, that ecclesiastical usage and the parallel places would seriously affect such precious words as are found in S. Luke xxii. 19, 20,—was to have been expected. Yet has the type been preserved all along, from the beginning, with singular exactness; except in one little handful of singularly licentious documents, viz. in D a ff2 i l, which _leave all out_;—in b e, which substitute verses 17 and 18;—and in “the singular and sometimes rather wild Curetonian Syriac Version,”(191) which, retaining the 10 words of ver. 19, substitutes verses 17, 18 for ver. 20. Enough for the condemnation of D survives in Justin,(192)—Basil,(193)—Epiphanius,(194)—Theodoret,(195)—Cyril,(196)—Maximus,(197)—Jerome.(198) But why delay ourselves concerning a place vouched for _by every known copy of the Gospels except_ D? Drs. Westcott and Hort entertain “_no moral doubt_ that the [32] words [given at foot(199)] were absent from the original text of S. Luke;” in which opinion, happily, _they stand alone_. But why did our Revisionists suffer themselves to be led astray by such blind guidance?

The next place is entitled to far graver attention, and may on no account be lightly dismissed, seeing that these two verses contain the sole record of that “Agony in the Garden” which the universal Church has almost erected into an article of the Faith.

(2) That the incident of the ministering Angel, the Agony and bloody sweat of the world’s Redeemer (S. Luke xxii. 43, 44), was anciently absent from certain copies of the Gospels, is expressly recorded by Hilary,(200) by Jerome,(201) and others. Only necessary is it to read the apologetic remarks which Ambrose introduces when he reaches S. Luke xxii. 43,(202) to understand what has evidently led to this serious mutilation of Scripture,—traces of which survive at this day exclusively in _four_ codices, viz. A B R T. Singular to relate, in the Gospel which was read on Maundy-Thursday these two verses of S. Luke’s Gospel are thrust in between the 39th and the 40th verses of S. Matthew xxvi. Hence, 4 cursive copies, viz. 13-69-124-346—(confessedly derived from a common ancient archetype,(203) and therefore not four witnesses but only one),—actually exhibit these two Verses in that place. But will any unprejudiced person of sound mind entertain a doubt concerning the genuineness of these two verses, witnessed to as they are by _the whole body of the Manuscripts_, uncial as well as cursive, and _by every ancient Version_?... If such a thing were possible, it is hoped that the following enumeration of ancient Fathers, who distinctly recognize the place under discussion, must at least be held to be decisive:—viz.

Justin M.,(204)—Irenæus(205) in the IInd century:—

Hippolytus,(206)—Dionysius Alex.,(207)—ps. Tatian,(208) in the IIIrd.—

Arius,(209)—Eusebius,(210)—Athanasius,(211)—Ephraem Syr.,(212)—Didymus,(213)—Gregory Naz.,(214)—Epiphanius,(215)—Chrysostom,(216)—ps.-Dionysius Areop.,(217) in the IVth:—

Julian the heretic,(218)—Theodoras Mops.,(219)—Nestorius,(220)—Cyril Alex.,(221)—Paulus, bishop of Emesa,(222)—Gennadius,(223)—Theodoret,(224)—and several Oriental Bishops (A.D. 431),(225) in the Vth:—besides Ps.-Cæsarius,(226)—Theodosius Alex.,(227)—John Damascene,(228)—Maximus,(229)—Theodorus hæret.,(230)—Leontius Byz.,(231)—Anastasius Sin.,(232)—Photius:(233) and of the Latins, Hilary,(234)—Jerome,(235)—Augustine,(236)—Cassian,(237)—Paulinus,(238)—Facundus.(239)

It will be seen that we have been enumerating _upwards of forty famous personages from every part of ancient Christendom_, who recognize these verses as genuine; fourteen of them being as old,—some of them, a great deal older,—than our oldest MSS.—_Why_ therefore Drs. Westcott and Hort should insist on shutting up these 26 precious words—this article of the Faith—in double brackets, in token that it is “morally certain” that verses 43 and 44 are of spurious origin, we are at a loss to divine.(240) We can but ejaculate (in the very words they proceed to disallow),—“FATHER, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” But our especial concern is with _our Revisionists_; and we do not exceed our province when we come forward to reproach them sternly for having succumbed to such evil counsels, and deliberately branded these Verses with their own corporate expression of doubt. For unless _that_ be the purpose of the marginal Note which they have set against these verses, we fail to understand the Revisers’ language and are wholly at a loss to divine what purpose that note of theirs can be meant to serve. It is prefaced by a formula which, (as we learn from their own Preface,) offers to the reader the “alternative” of _omitting_ the Verses in question: implies that “_it would not be safe_” any longer to accept them,—as the Church has hitherto done,—with undoubting confidence. In a word,—_it brands them with suspicion_.... We have been so full on this subject,—(not half of our references were known to Tischendorf,)—because of the unspeakable preciousness of the record; and because we desire to see an end at last to expressions of doubt and uncertainty on points which really afford not a shadow of pretence for either. These two Verses were excised through mistaken piety by certain of the orthodox,—jealous for the honour of their LORD, and alarmed by the use which the impugners of His GODhead freely made of them.(241) Hence Ephraem [_Carmina Nisibena_, p. 145] puts the following words into the mouth of Satan, addressing the host of Hell:—“One thing I witnessed in Him which especially comforts me. I saw Him praying; and I rejoiced, for His countenance changed and He was afraid. _His sweat was drops of blood_, for He had a presentiment that His day had come. This was the fairest sight of all,—unless, to be sure, He was practising deception on me. For verily if He hath deceived me, then it is all over,—both with me, and with you, my servants!”

(4) Next in importance after the preceding, comes the Prayer which the SAVIOUR of the World breathed from the Cross on behalf of His murderers (S. Luke xxiii. 34). These twelve precious words,—(“Then said JESUS, FATHER, forgive them; for they know not what they do,”)—like those twenty-six words in S. Luke xxii. 43, 44 which we have been considering already, Drs. Westcott and Hort enclose within double brackets in token of the “moral certainty” they entertain that the words are spurious.(242) And yet these words are found in _every known uncial_ and in _every known cursive Copy_, except four; besides being found _in every ancient Version_. And _what_,—(we ask the question with sincere simplicity,)—_what_ amount of evidence is calculated to inspire undoubting confidence in any existing Reading, if not such a concurrence of Authorities as this?... We forbear to insist upon the probabilities of the case. The Divine power and sweetness of the incident shall not be enlarged upon. We introduce no considerations resulting from Internal Evidence. True, that “few verses of the Gospels bear in themselves a surer witness to the Truth of what they record, than this.” (It is the admission of the very man(243) who has nevertheless dared to brand it with suspicion.) But we reject his loathsome patronage with indignation. “Internal Evidence,”—“Transcriptional Probability,”—and all such “chaff and draff,” with which he fills his pages _ad nauseam_, and mystifies nobody but himself,—shall be allowed no place in the present discussion. Let this verse of Scripture stand or fall as it meets with sufficient external testimony, or is forsaken thereby. How then about the _Patristic_ evidence,—for this is all that remains unexplored?

Only a fraction of it was known to Tischendorf. We find our SAVIOUR’S Prayer attested,—

In the IInd century by Hegesippus,(244)—and by Irenæus:(245)—

In the IIIrd, by Hippolytus,(246)—by Origen,(247)—by the _Apostolic Constitutions_,(248)—by the _Clementine Homilies_,(249)—by ps.-Tatian,(250)—and by the disputation of Archelaus with Manes:(251)—

In the IVth, by Eusebius,(252)—by Athanasius,(253)—by Gregory Nyss.,(254)—by Theodoras Herac.,(255)—by Basil,(256)—by Chrysostom,(257)—by Ephraem Syr.,(258)—by ps.-Ephraim,(259)—by ps.-Dionysius Areop.,(260)—by the Apocryphal _Acta Pilati_,(261)—by the _Acta Philippi_,(262)—and by the Syriac _Acts of the App._,(263)—by ps.-Ignatius,(264)—and ps.-Justin:(265)—

In the Vth, by Theodoret,(266)—by Cyril,(267)—by Eutherius:(268)

In the VIth, by Anastasius Sin.,(269)—by Hesychius:(270)—

In the VIIth, by Antiochus mon.,(271)—by Maximus,(272)—by Andreas Cret.:(273)—

In the VIIIth, by John Damascene,(274)—besides ps.-Chrysostom,(275)—ps. Amphilochius,(276)—and the _Opus imperf._(277)

Add to this, (since Latin authorities have been brought to the front),—Ambrose,(278)—Hilary,(279)—Jerome,(280)—Augustine,(281)—and other earlier writers.(282)

We have thus again enumerated _upwards of forty_ ancient Fathers. And again we ask, With what show of reason is the brand set upon these 12 words? Gravely to cite, as if there were anything in it, such counter-evidence as the following, to the foregoing torrent of Testimony from every part of ancient Christendom:—viz: “B D, 38, 435, a b d and one Egyptian version”—might really have been mistaken for a _mauvaise plaisanterie_, were it not that the gravity of the occasion effectually precludes the supposition. How could our Revisionists _dare_ to insinuate doubts into wavering hearts and unlearned heads, where (as here) they were _bound_ to know, there exists _no manner of doubt at all_?

(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).

The Versions(394)—(which are our _oldest_ witnesses)—are perforce only partially helpful here. Note however, that _the only one which favours_ γένεσις is the heretical Harkleian Syriac, executed in the VIIth century. The Peschito and Cureton’s Syriac distinguish between γένεσις in ver. 1 and γέννησις in ver. 18: as do the Slavonic and the Arabian Versions. The Egyptian, Armenian, Æthiopic and Georgian, have only one word for both. Let no one suppose however that _therefore_ their testimony is ambiguous. It is γέννησις (_not_ γένεσις) which they exhibit, both in ver. 1 and in ver. 18.(395) The Latin (“_generatio_”) is an equivocal rendering certainly: but the earliest Latin writer who quotes the two places, (viz. Tertullian) employs the word “_genitura_” in S. Matth. i. 1,—but “_nativitas_” in ver. 18,—which no one seems to have noticed.(396) Now, Tertullian, (as one who sometimes wrote in Greek,) is known to have been conversant with the Greek copies of his day; and “his day,” be it remembered, is A.D. 190. He evidently recognized the parallelism between S. Matt. i. 1 and Gen. ii. 4,—where the old Latin exhibits “liber _creaturæ_” or “_facturæ_,” as the rendering of βίβλος γενέσεως. And so much for the testimony of the Versions.

But on reference to Manuscript and to Patristic authority(397) we are encountered by an overwhelming amount of testimony for γέννησις in ver. 18: and this, considering the nature of the case, is an extraordinary circumstance. Quite plain is it that the Ancients were wide awake to the difference between spelling the word with one N or with two,—as the little dissertation of the heretic Nestorius(398) in itself would be enough to prove. Γέννησις, in the meantime, is the word employed by Justin M.,(399)—by Clemens Alex.,(400)—by Athanasius,(401)—by Gregory of Nazianzus,(402)—by Cyril Alex.,(403)—by Nestorius,(404)—by Chrysostom,(405)—by Theodorus Mopsuest.,(406)—and by three other ancients.(407) Even more deserving of attention is it that Irenæus(408) (A.D. 170)—(whom Germanus(409) copies at the end of 550 years)—calls attention to the difference between the spelling of ver. 1 and ver. 18. So does Didymus:(410)—so does Basil:(411)—so does Epiphanius.(412)—Origen(413) (A.D. 210) is even eloquent on the subject.—Tertullian (A.D. 190) we have heard already.—It is a significant circumstance, that the only Patristic authorities discoverable on the other side are Eusebius, Theodoret, and the authors of an heretical Creed(414)—whom Athanasius holds up to scorn.(415) ... Will the Revisionists still pretend to tell us that γέννησις in verse 18 is a “_plain and clear error_”?

2. This, however, is not all. Against the words “of JESUS CHRIST,” a further critical annotation is volunteered; to the effect that “Some ancient authorities read _of the Christ_.” In reply to which, we assert that _not one single known MS._ omits the word “JESUS:” whilst its presence is vouched for by ps.-Tatian,(416)—Irenæus,—Origen,—Eusebius,—Didymus,— Epiphanius,—Chrysostom,—Cyril,—in addition to _every known Greek copy of the Gospels_, and not a few of the Versions, including the Peschito and both the Egyptian. What else but nugatory therefore is such a piece of information as this?

3. And so much for the first, second, and third Critical annotations, with which the margin of the revised N. T. is disfigured. Hoping that the worst is now over, we read on till we reach ver. 25, where we encounter a statement which fairly trips us up: viz.,—“And knew her not _till she had brought forth a son_.” No intimation is afforded of what has been here effected; but in the meantime every one’s memory supplies the epithet (“her first-born”) which has been ejected. Whether something very like indignation is not excited by the discovery that these important words have been surreptitiously withdrawn from their place, let others say. For ourselves, when we find that only א B Z and two cursive copies can be produced for the omission, we are at a loss to understand of what the Revisionists can have been dreaming. Did they know(417) that,—besides the Vulgate, the Peschito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Æthiopic, Armenian, Georgian, and Slavonian Versions,(418)—a whole torrent of Fathers are at hand to vouch for the genuineness of the epithet they were so unceremoniously excising? They are invited to refer to ps.-Tatian,(419)—to Athanasius,(420)—to Didymus,(421)—to Cyril of Jer.,(422)—to Basil,(423)—to Greg. Nyss.,(424)—to Ephraem Syr.,(425)—to Epiphanius,(426)—to Chrysostom,(427)—to Proclus,(428)—to Isidorus Pelus.,(429)—to John Damasc.,(430)—to Photius,(431)—to Nicetas:(432)—besides, of the Latins, Ambrose,(433)—the _Opus imp._,—Augustine,—and not least to Jerome(434)—eighteen Fathers in all. And how is it possible, (we ask,) that two copies of the IVth century (B א) and one of the VIth (Z)—all three without a character—backed by a few copies of the old Latin, should be supposed to be any counterpoise at all for such an array of first-rate contemporary evidence as the foregoing?

Enough has been offered by this time to prove that an authoritative Revision of the Greek Text will have to precede any future Revision of the English of the New Testament. Equally certain is it that for such an undertaking the time has not yet come. “It is my honest conviction,”—(remarks Bp. Ellicott, the Chairman of the Revisionists,)—“that for any authoritative Revision, we are not yet mature: either in Biblical learning or Hellenistic scholarship.”(435) The same opinion precisely is found to have been cherished by Dr. Westcott till _within about a year-and-a-half_(436) of the first assembling of the New Testament Company in the Jerusalem Chamber, 22nd June, 1870. True, that we enjoy access to—suppose from 1000 to 2000—more MANUSCRIPTS than were available when the Textus Recept. was formed. But nineteen-twentieths of those documents, for any use which has been made of them, might just as well be still lying in the monastic libraries from which they were obtained.—True, that four out of our five oldest uncials have come to light since the year 1628; but, _who knows how to use them_?—True, that we have made acquaintance with certain ancient VERSIONS, about which little or nothing was known 200 years ago: but,—(with the solitary exception of the Rev. Solomon Cæsar Malan, the learned Vicar of Broadwindsor,—who, by the way, is always ready to lend a torch to his benighted brethren,)—what living Englishman is able to tell us what they all contain? A smattering acquaintance with the languages of ancient Egypt,—the Gothic, Æthiopic, Armenian, Georgian and Slavonian Versions,—is of no manner of avail. In no department, probably, is “a little learning” more sure to prove “a dangerous thing.”—True, lastly, that the FATHERS have been better edited within the last 250 years: during which period some fresh Patristic writings have also come to light. But, with the exception of Theodoret among the Greeks and Tertullian among the Latins, _which of the Fathers has been satisfactorily indexed_?

Even what precedes is not nearly all. _The fundamental Principles_ of the Science of Textual Criticism are not yet apprehended. In proof of this assertion, we appeal to the new Greek Text of Drs. Westcott and Hort,—which, beyond all controversy, is more hopelessly remote from the inspired Original than any which has yet appeared. Let a generation of Students give themselves entirely up to this neglected branch of sacred Science. Let 500 more COPIES of the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, be diligently collated. Let at least 100 of the ancient _Lectionaries_ be very exactly collated also. Let the most important of the ancient VERSIONS be edited afresh, and let the languages in which these are written be for the first time really _mastered_ by Englishmen. _Above all, let the _FATHERS_ he called upon to give up their precious secrets._ Let their writings be ransacked and indexed, and (where needful) let the MSS. of their works be diligently inspected, in order that we may know what actually is the evidence which they afford. Only so will it ever be possible to obtain a Greek Text on which absolute reliance may be placed, and which may serve as the basis for a satisfactory Revision of our Authorized Version. Nay, let whatever unpublished works of the ancient Greek Fathers are anywhere known to exist,—(and not a few precious remains of theirs are lying hid in great national libraries, both at home and abroad,)—let these be printed. The men could easily be found: the money, far more easily.—When all this has been done,—_not before_—then in GOD’S Name, let _the Church_ address herself to the great undertaking. Do but revive the arrangements which were adopted in King James’s days: and we venture to predict that less than a third part of ten years will be found abundantly to suffice for the work. How the coming men will smile at the picture Dr. Newth(437) has drawn of what was the method of procedure in the reign of Queen Victoria! Will they not peruse with downright merriment Bp. Ellicott’s jaunty proposal “_simply to proceed onward with the work_”—[to wit, of constructing a new Greek Text,]—“in fact, _solvere ambulando_,” [_necnon in laqueum cadendo_]?(438)

I. We cannot, it is presumed, act more fairly by the Revisers’ work,(439) than by following them over some of the ground which they claim to have made their own, and which, at the conclusion of their labours, their Right Reverend Chairman evidently surveys with self-complacency. First, he invites attention to the Principle and Rule for their guidance agreed to by the Committee of Convocation (25th May, 1870), viz. “TO INTRODUCE AS FEW ALTERATIONS AS POSSIBLE INTO THE TEXT OF THE AUTHORIZED VERSION, CONSISTENTLY WITH FAITHFULNESS.” Words could not be more emphatic. “PLAIN AND CLEAR ERRORS” were to be corrected. “NECESSARY emendations” were to be made. But (in the words of the Southern Convocation) “We do not contemplate any new Translation, _or any alteration of the language_, EXCEPT WHERE, in the judgment of the most competent Scholars, SUCH CHANGE IS NECESSARY.” The watchword, therefore, given to the company of Revisionists was,—“NECESSITY.” _Necessity_ was to determine whether they were to depart from the language of the Authorized Version, or not; for the alterations were to be AS FEW AS POSSIBLE.

(_a_) Now it is idle to deny that this fundamental Principle has been utterly set at defiance. To such an extent is this the case, that even an unlettered Reader is competent to judge them. When we find “_to_” substituted for “unto” (_passim_):—“_hereby_” for “by this” (1 Jo. v. 2):—“all that _are_,” for “all that be” (Rom. i. 7):—“_alway_” for “always” (2 Thess. i. 3):—“we _that_,” “them _that_,” for “we _which_,” “them _which_” (1 Thess. iv. 15); and yet “every spirit _which_,” for “every spirit that” (1 Jo. iv. 3), and “he _who_ is not of GOD,” for “he that is not of GOD” (ver. 6,—although “he _that_ knoweth GOD” had preceded, in the same verse):—“_my_ host” for “mine host” (Rom. xvi. 23); and “_underneath_” for “_under_” (Rev. vi. 9):—it becomes clear that the Revisers’ notion of NECESSITY is not that of the rest of mankind. But let the plain Truth be stated. Certain of them, when remonstrated with by their fellows for the manifest disregard they were showing to the Instructions subject to which they had undertaken the work of Revision, are reported to have even gloried in their shame. The majority, it is clear, have even ostentatiously set those Instructions at defiance.

Was the course they pursued,—(we ask the question respectfully,)—strictly _honest_? To decline the work entirely under the prescribed Conditions, was always in their power. But, first to accept the Conditions, and straightway to act in defiance of them,—_this_ strikes us as a method of proceeding which it is difficult to reconcile with the high character of the occupants of the Jerusalem Chamber. To proceed however.

“Nevertheless” and “notwithstanding” have had a sad time of it. One or other of them has been turned out in favour of “_howbeit_” (S. Lu. x. 11, 20),—of “_only_” (Phil. iii. 16),—of “_only that_” (i. 18),—of “_yet_” (S. Matth. xi. 11),—of “_but_” (xvii. 27),—of “_and yet_” (James ii. 16).... We find “_take heed_” substituted for “beware” (Col. ii. 8):—“_custom_” for “manner” (S. Jo. xix. 40):—“he was _amazed_,” for “he was astonished:” (S. Lu. v. 9):—“_Is it I, _LORD_?_” for “LORD, is it I?” (S. Matth. xxvi. 22):—“_straightway_ the cock crew,” for “immediately the cock crew” (S. Jo. xviii. 27):—“Then _therefore he delivered Him_,” for “Then delivered he Him therefore” (xix. 16):—“_brought_ it to His mouth,” for “put it to His mouth” (ver. 29):—“_He manifested Himself on this wise_,” for “on this wise shewed He Himself” (xxi. 1):—“_So when they got out upon the land_,” for “As soon then as they were come to land” (ver. 9):—“the things _concerning_,” for “the things pertaining to the kingdom of GOD” (Acts i. 3):—“as GOD’S_ steward_,” for “as the steward of God” (Tit. i. 7): but “the _belly of the whale_” for “the whale’s belly” (S. Matth. xii. 40), and “_device of man_” for “man’s device” in Acts xvii. 29.—These, and hundreds of similar alterations have been evidently made out of the merest wantonness. After substituting “_therefore_” for “then” (as the rendering of οὖν) a score of times,—the Revisionists quite needlessly substitute “_then_” for “therefore” in S. Jo. xix. 42.—And why has the singularly beautiful greeting of “the elder unto the well-beloved Gaius,” been exchanged for “unto _Gaius the beloved_”? (3 John, ver. 1).

(_b_) We turn a few pages, and find “he that _doeth_ sin,” substituted for “he that committeth sin;” and “_To this end_” put in the place of “For this purpose” (1 Jo. iii. 8):—“_have beheld_” and “_bear witness_,” for “have seen and do testify” (iv. 14):—“_hereby_” for “by this” (v. 2):—“_Judas_” for “Jude” (Jude ver. 1), although “_Mark_” was substituted for “Marcus” (in 1 Pet. v. 13), and “_Timothy_” for “Timotheus” (in Phil. i. 1):—“how that they _said to_ you,” for “how that they told you” (Jude ver. 18).—But why go on? The substitution of “_exceedingly_” for “greatly” in Acts vi. 7:—“_the birds_” for “the fowls,” in Rev. xix. 21:—“_Almighty_” for “Omnipotent” in ver. 6:—“_throw down_” for “cast down,” in S. Luke iv. 29:—“_inner chamber_” for “closet,” in vi. 6:—these are _not_ “necessary” changes.... We will give but three instances more:—In 1 S. Pet. v. 9, “whom _resist_, stedfast in the faith,” has been altered into “whom _withstand_.” But how is “withstand” a better rendering for ἀντίστητε, than “resist”? “Resist,” at all events, _was the Revisionists’ word in S. Matth._ v. 39 _and S. James_ iv. 7.—Why also substitute “the _race_” (for “the kindred”) “of Joseph” in Acts vii. 13, although γένος was rendered “kindred” in iv. 6?—Do the Revisionists think that “_fastening their_ eyes on him” is a better rendering of ἀτενίσαντες εἰς αὐτόν (Acts vi. 15) than “_looking stedfastly_ on him”? They certainly did not think so when they got to xxiii. 1. There, because they found “_earnestly beholding_ the council,” they must needs alter the phrase into “_looking stedfastly_.” It is clear therefore that _Caprice_, not _Necessity_,—an _itching impatience_ to introduce changes into the A. V., not the discovery of “_plain and clear errors_”—has determined the great bulk of the alterations which molest us in every part of the present unlearned and tasteless performance.

II. The next point to which the Revisionists direct our attention is their NEW GREEK TEXT,—“the necessary foundation of” their work. And here we must renew our protest against the wrong which has been done to English readers by the Revisionists’ disregard of the IVth Rule laid down for their guidance, viz. that, whenever they adopted a new Textual reading, such alteration was to be “_indicated in the margin_.” This “proved inconvenient,” say the Revisionists. Yes, we reply: but only because you saw fit, in preference, to choke up your margin with a record of the preposterous readings you did _not_ admit. Even so, however, the thing might to some extent have been done, if only by a system of signs in the margin wherever a change in the Text had been by yourselves effected. And, at whatever “inconvenience,” you were bound to do this,—partly because the Rule before you was express: but chiefly in fairness to the English Reader. How comes it to pass that you have _never_ furnished him with the information you stood pledged to furnish; but have instead, volunteered in every page information, worthless in itself, which can only serve to unsettle the faith of unlettered millions, and to suggest unreasonable as well as miserable doubts to the minds of all?

For no one may for an instant imagine that the marginal statements of which we speak are a kind of equivalent for the _Apparatus Criticus_ which is found in every principal edition of the Greek Testament—excepting always that of Drs. Westcott and Hort. So far are we from deprecating (with Daniel Whitby) the multiplication of “Various Readings,” that we rejoice in them exceedingly; knowing that they are the very foundation of our confidence and the secret of our strength. For this reason we consider Dr. Tischendorf’s last (8th) edition to be furnished with not nearly enough of them, though he left all his predecessors (and himself in his 7th edition) far behind. Our quarrel with the Revisionists is _not_ by any means that they have commemorated _actual_ “alternative Readings” in their margin: but that, while they have given prominence throughout to _patent Errors_, they _have unfairly excluded all mention of,—have not made the slightest allusion to,—hundreds of Readings which ought in fact rather to have stood in the Text_.

The marginal readings, which our Revisers have been so ill-advised as to put prominently forward, and to introduce to the Reader’s notice with the vague statement that they are sanctioned by “Some” (or by “Many”) “ancient authorities,”—are specimens _arbitrarily selected_ out of an immense mass; are magisterially recommended to public attention and favour; _seem_ to be invested with the sanction and authority of Convocation itself. And this becomes a very serious matter indeed. No hint is given _which_ be the “ancient Authorities” so referred to:—nor what proportion they bear to the “ancient Authorities” producible on the opposite side:—nor whether they are the _most_ “ancient Authorities” obtainable:—nor what amount of attention their testimony may reasonably claim. But in the meantime a fatal assertion is hazarded in the Preface (iii. 1.), to the effect that _in cases where _“it would not be safe to accept one Reading to the absolute exclusion of others,”_ _“alternative Readings” have been given “in the margin.” So that the “Agony and bloody sweat” of the World’s REDEEMER (Lu. xxii. 43, 44),—and His Prayer for His murderers (xxiii. 34),—and much beside of transcendent importance and inestimable value, may, _according to our Revisionists_, prove to rest upon no foundation whatever. At all events, “_it would not be safe_,” (_i.e._ _it is not safe_) to place absolute reliance on them. Alas, how many a deadly blow at Revealed Truth hath been in this way aimed with fatal adroitness, which no amount of orthodox learning will ever be able hereafter to heal, much less to undo! Thus,—

(_a_) From the first verse of S. Mark’s Gospel we are informed that “Some ancient authorities omit _the Son of _GOD.” Why are we _not_ informed that every known uncial Copy _except one of bad character_,—every cursive _but two_,—_every Version_,—and the following Fathers,—all _contain_ the precious clause: viz. Irenæus,—Porphyry,—Severianus of Gabala,—Cyril Alex.,—Victor Ant.,—and others,—besides Ambrose and Augustine among the Latins:—while the supposed adverse testimony of Serapion and Titus, Basil and Victorinus, Cyril of Jer. and Epiphanius, proves to be all a mistake? To speak plainly, since the clause is above suspicion, _Why are we not rather told so?_

(_b_) In the 3rd verse of the first chapter of S. John’s Gospel, we are left to take our choice between,—“without Him was not anything made that hath been made. In him was life; and the life,” &c.,—and the following absurd alternative,—“Without him was not anything made. _That which hath been made was life in him_; and the life,” &c. But we are _not_ informed that this latter monstrous figment is known to have been the importation of the Gnostic heretics in the IInd century, and to be as destitute of authority as it is of sense. _Why is prominence given only to the lie?_

(_c_) At S. John iii. 13, we are informed that the last clause of that famous verse (“No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man—_which is in heaven_”), is not found in “many ancient authorities.” But why, in the name of common fairness, are we not _also_ reminded that this, (as will be found more fully explained in the note overleaf,) is _a circumstance of no Textual significancy whatever_?

Why, above all, are we not assured that the precious clause in question (ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ) _is_ found in every MS. in the world, except five of bad character?—is recognized by _all_ the Latin and _all_ the Syriac versions; as well as by the Coptic,—Æthiopic,—Georgian,—and Armenian?(440)—is either quoted or insisted upon by Origen,(441)—Hippolytus,(442)—Athanasius,(443)—Didymus,(444)—Aphraates the Persian,(445)—Basil the Great,(446)—Epiphanius,(447)—Nonnus,—ps.-Dionysius Alex.,(448)—Eustathius;(449)—by Chrysostom,(450)—Theodoret,(451)—and Cyril,(452) each 4 times;—by Paulus, Bishop of Emesa(453) (in a sermon on Christmas Day, A.D. 431);—by Theodoras Mops.,(454)—Amphilochius,(455)—Severus,(456)—Theodorus Heracl.,(457)—Basilius Cil.,(458)—Cosmas,(459)—John Damascene, in 3 places,(460)—and 4 other ancient Greek writers;(461)—besides Ambrose,(462)—Novatian,(463)—Hilary,(464)—Lucifer,(465)—Victorinus,—Jerome,(466)—Cassian,—Vigilius,(467)—Zeno,(468)—Marius,(469)—Maximus Taur.,(470)—Capreolus,(471)—Augustine, &c.:—is acknowledged by Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf: in short, is _quite above suspicion_: why are we not told _that_? Those 10 Versions, those 38 Fathers, that host of Copies in the proportion of 995 to 5,—_why_, concerning all these is there not so much as a hint let fall that such a mass of counter-evidence exists?(472)... Shame,—yes, _shame_ on the learning which comes abroad only to perplex the weak, and to unsettle the doubting, and to mislead the blind! Shame,—yes, _shame_ on that two-thirds majority of well-intentioned but most incompetent men, who,—finding themselves (in an evil hour) appointed to correct “_plain and clear errors_” in the _English_ “Authorized Version,”—occupied themselves instead with _falsifying the inspired Greek Text_ in countless places, and branding with suspicion some of the most precious utterances of the SPIRIT! Shame,—yes, _shame_ upon them!

Why then, (it will of course be asked,) is the margin—(_a_) of S. Mark i. 1 and—(_b_) of S. John i. 3, and—(_c_) of S. John iii. 13, encumbered after this discreditable fashion? It is (we answer) only because _the Text of Drs. Westcott and Hort_ is thus depraved in all three places. Those Scholars enjoy the unenviable distinction of having dared to expel from S. John iii. 13 the words ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, which Lachmann, Tregelles and Tischendorf were afraid to touch. Well may Dean Stanley have bestowed upon Dr. Hort the epithet of “_fearless_”!... If report speaks truly, it is by the merest accident that the clause in question still retains its place in _the Revised Text_.

(_d_) Only once more. And this time we will turn to the very end of the blessed volume. Against Rev. xiii. 18—

“Here is wisdom. He that hath understanding, let him count the number of the Beast; for it is the number of a Man: and his number is six hundred and sixty and six.”

Against this, we find noted,—“Some ancient authorities read _six hundred and sixteen_.”

But why is not the _whole_ Truth told? viz. why are we not informed that _only one_ corrupt uncial (C):—_only one_ cursive copy (11):—_only one_ Father (Tichonius): and _not one_ ancient Version—advocates this reading?—which, on the contrary, Irenæus (A.D. 170) knew, but rejected; remarking that 666, which is “found in all the best and oldest copies and is attested by men who saw John face to face,” is unquestionably the true reading.(473) Why is not the ordinary Reader further informed that the same number (666) is expressly vouched for by Origen,(474)—by Hippolytus,(475)—by Eusebius:(476)—as well as by Victorinus—and Primasius,—not to mention Andreas and Arethas? To come to the moderns, as a matter of fact the established reading is accepted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles,—even by Westcott and Hort. _Why_ therefore—for what possible reason—at the end of 1700 years and upwards, is this, which is so clearly nothing else but an ancient slip of the pen, to be forced upon the attention of 90 millions of English-speaking people?

Will Bishop Ellicott and his friends venture to tell us that it has been done because “it would not be safe to accept” 666, “to the absolute exclusion of” 616?... “We have given _alternative Readings_ in the margin,” (say they,) “wherever they seem to be of sufficient importance or interest to deserve notice.” Will they venture to claim either “interest” or “importance” for _this_? or pretend that it is an “alternative Reading” _at all_? Has it been rescued from oblivion and paraded before universal Christendom in order to perplex, mystify, and discourage “those that have understanding,” and would fain “count the number of the Beast,” if they were able? Or was the intention only to insinuate one more wretched doubt—one more miserable suspicion—into minds which have been taught (_and rightly_) to place absolute reliance in the textual accuracy of all the gravest utterances of the SPIRIT: minds which are utterly incapable of dealing with the subtleties of Textual Criticism; and, from a one-sided statement like the present, will carry away none but entirely mistaken inferences, and the most unreasonable distrust?... Or, lastly, was it only because, in their opinion, the margin of every Englishman’s N. T. is the fittest place for reviving the memory of obsolete blunders, and ventilating forgotten perversions of the Truth?... We really pause for an answer.

(_e_) But serious as this is, _more_ serious (if possible) is the unfair _Suppression systematically practised_ throughout the work before us. “We have given alternative Readings in the margin,”—(says Bishop Ellicott on behalf of his brother-Revisionists,)—“_wherever they seem to be of sufficient importance or interest to deserve notice._” [iii. 1.] From which statement, readers have a right to infer that whenever “alternative Readings” are _not_ “given in the margin,” it is because such Readings do _not_ “seem to be of _sufficient importance or interest to deserve notice_.” Will the Revisionists venture to tell us that,—(to take the first instance of unfair Suppression which presents itself,)—our LORD’s saying in S. Mark vi. 11 is not “of sufficient importance or interest to deserve notice”? We allude to the famous words,—“Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city:”—words which are not only omitted from the “New English Version,” but _are not suffered to leave so much as a trace of themselves in the margin_. And yet, the saying in question is attested by the Peschito and the Philoxenian Syriac Versions: by the Old Latin: by the Coptic, Æthiopic and Gothic Versions:—by 11 uncials and by the whole bulk of the cursives:—by Irenæus and by Victor of Antioch. So that whether Antiquity, or Variety of Attestation is considered,—whether we look for Numbers or for Respectability,—the genuineness of the passage may be regarded as _certain_. Our complaint however is _not_ that the Revisionists entertain a different opinion on this head from ourselves: but that they give the reader to understand that the state of the Evidence is such, that it is quite “safe to accept” the shorter reading,—“to the _absolute exclusion_ of the other.”—So vast is the field before us, that this single specimen of what we venture to call “unfair Suppression,” must suffice. (Some will not hesitate to bestow upon it a harsher epithet.) It is in truth by far the most damaging feature of the work before us, that its Authors should have so largely and so seriously _falsified the Deposit_; and yet, (in clear violation of the IVth Principle or Rule laid down for their guidance at the outset,) have suffered no trace to survive in the margin of the deadly mischief which they have effected.

III. From the Text, the Revisionists pass on to the TRANSLATION; and surprise us by the avowal, that “the character of the Revision was determined for us from the outset by the first Rule,—‘to introduce as few alterations as possible, consistently with faithfulness.’ Our task was Revision, not Retranslation.” (This is _naïve_ certainly.) They proceed,—

“If the meaning was fairly expressed by the word or phrase that was before us in the Authorized Version, we made no change, even where rigid adherence to _the rule of Translating, as far as possible, the same Greek word by the same English word_ might have prescribed some modification.”—[iii. 2 _init._] (The italics are our own.)

To the “_rule_” thus introduced to our notice, we shall recur by and by [pp. 152-4: also pp. 187-202]. We proceed to remark on each of the five principal Classes of alterations indicated by the Revisionists: and first,—“Alterations positively required by change of reading in the Greek Text” (_Ibid._).

(1) Thus, in S. John xii. 7, we find “_Suffer her to keep it_ against the day of my burying;” and in the margin (as an alternative), “Let her alone: _it was that she might keep it_.”—Instead of “as soon as JESUS heard the word,”—we are invited to choose between “_not heeding_,” and “_overhearing_ the word” (S. Mk. v. 36): these being intended for renderings of παρακούσας,—an expression which S. Mark certainly never employed.—“On earth, peace among men _in whom he is well pleased_” (S. Lu. ii. 14): where the margin informs us that “many ancient authorities read, _good pleasure among men_.” (And why not “_good will_,”—the rendering adopted in Phil. i. 15?) ... Take some more of the alterations which have resulted from the adoption of a corrupt Text:—“Why _askest thou me concerning that which is good_?” (Matth. xix. 17,—an absurd fabrication).—“He would fain _have been filled_ with the husks,” &c.... “and I perish _here_ with hunger!” (χορτασθῆναι, borrowed from Lu. xvi. 21: and εγΩΔΕωδε, a transparent error: S. Luke xv. 16, 17).—“When _it shall fail_, they may receive you into the eternal tabernacles” (xvi. 9).——Elizabeth “lifted up her voice _with a loud cry_” (κραυγή—the private property of three bad MSS. and Origen: Lu. i. 42).—“And _they stood still looking sad_” (xxiv. 17,—a foolish transcriptional blunder).—“The multitude _went up_ and began to ask him,” &c. (ἀναβάς for ἀναβοήσας, Mk. xv. 8).—“But is guilty of _an eternal sin_” (iii. 29).—“And the officers _received Him_ with blows of their hands,”—marg. “or _strokes of rods_:” ΕΛΑΒΟΝ for ΕΒΑΛΟΝ (xiv. 65).—“Else, that which should fill it up taketh from it, _the new from the old_” (ii. 21): and “No man _rendeth a piece from a new garment_ and putteth it upon an old garment; else _he will rend the new_,” &c. (Lu. v. 36).—“What is this? _a new teaching!_” (Mk. i. 27).—“JESUS saith unto him, _If thou canst!_” (Mk. ix. 23).—“Because of your _little __ faith_”(Matth. xvii. 20).—“_We must_ work the works of Him that sent Me, while it is day” (Jo. ix. 4).—“_The man that is called_ JESUS made clay” (ver. 11).—“If ye shall ask _Me anything in My name_” (xiv. 14).—“The Father abiding in Me _doeth His works_” (xiv. 10).—“If ye shall ask anything of the Father, _He will give it you in My name_” (xvi. 23).—“I glorified Thee on the earth, _having accomplished the work_ which Thou hast given Me to do” (xvii. 4).—“Holy Father, keep them _in Thy Name which_ Thou hast given Me ... I kept them _in Thy Name which_ Thou hast given me” (ver. 11, 12).—“She ... saith unto Him _in Hebrew_, Rabboni” (xx. 16).—“These things said Isaiah, _because_ he saw his glory” (xii. 41,—ΟΤΙ for ΟΤΕ, a common itacism).—“In tables _that are hearts of flesh_” (ἐν πλαξὶ καρδίαις σαρκίναις, a “perfectly absurd reading,” as Scrivener remarks, p. 442: 2 Cor. iii. 3).—“_Now if_ we put the horses’ bridles [and pray, why not ‘the horses’ _bits_’?] into their mouths” (ΕΙΔΕ, an ordinary itacism for ΙΔΕ, James iii. 3).—“Unto the sick were _carried away from his body_ handkerchiefs,” &c. (Acts xix. 12).—“_Ye know all things once for all_” (Jude ver. 5).—“_We love_ because he first loved us” (1 Jo. iv. 19).—“I have found _no work of thine fulfilled_ before my GOD” (Rev. iii. 2).—“Seven Angels _arrayed with [precious] stone_” (xv. 6), instead of “clothed in linen,” λίθον for λίνον. (Fancy the Angels “_clothed in stone_”! “Precious” is an interpolation of the Revisers).—“_Dwelling in_ the things which he hath seen:” for which the margin offers as an alternative, “_taking his stand upon_” (Colossians ii. 18). But ἐμβατεύων (the word here employed) clearly means neither the one nor the other. S. Paul is delivering a warning against unduly “_prying into_ the things _not_ seen.”(477) A few MSS. of bad character omit the “_not_.” That is all!... These then are a handful of the less conspicuous instances of a change in the English “positively required by a change of reading in the Greek Text:” every one of them being either a pitiful blunder or else a gross fabrication.—Take only two more: “I neither know, nor understand: _thou, what sayest thou?_” (Mk. xiv. 68 margin):—“And _whither I go, ye know the way_” (Jo. xiv. 4).... The A. V. is better in every instance.

(2) and (3) Next, alterations made because the A. V. “appeared to be incorrect” or else “obscure.” They must needs be such as the following:—“He that _is bathed_ needeth not save to wash his feet” (S. John xiii. 10).—“LORD, if he is fallen asleep _he will recover_” (σωθήσεται, xi. 12).—“Go ye therefore into _the partings of the highways_” (Matth. xxii. 9).—“Being grieved at _the hardening_ of their heart” (Mk. iii. 5).—“Light _a lamp_ and put it _on the stand_” (Matt. v. 15).—“Sitting at _the place of toll_” (ix. 9).—“The supplication of a righteous man availeth much _in its working_” (James v. 16).—“Awake up _righteously_” (1 Cor. xv. 34).—“_Guarded_ through faith unto _a salvation_” (1 Pet. i. 5).—“Wandering in ... _the holes of the earth_” (Heb. xi. 38—very queer places certainly to be “wandering” in).—“_She that is in Babylon_, elect together with you, saluteth you” (1 Pet. v. 13).—“Therefore do _these powers work in Him_” (Matth. xiv. 2).—“In danger of the _hell of fire_” (v. 22).—“_Put out_ into the deep” (Luke v. 4).—“The tomb that Abraham bought for _a price in silver_” (Acts vii. 16).

With reference to every one of these places, (and they are but samples of what is to be met with in every page,) we venture to assert that they are either _less_ intelligible, or else _more_ inaccurate, than the expressions which they are severally intended to supersede; while, in some instances, they are _both_. Will any one seriously contend that “_the hire of wrong-doing_” is better than “_the wages of unrighteousness_” (2 Pet. ii. 15)? or, will he venture to deny that, “Come and _dine_”—“so when they _had dined_,”—is a hundred times better than “Come and _break your fast_”—“so when they _had broken their fast_” (Jo. xxi. 12, 15)?—expressions which are only introduced because the Revisionists were ashamed (as well they might be) to write “breakfast” and “breakfasted.” The seven had not been “_fasting_.” Then, why introduce so incongruous a notion here,—any more than into S. Luke xi. 37, 38, and xiv. 12?

Has the reader any appetite for more specimens of “incorrectness” _remedied_ and “obscurity” _removed_? Rather, as it seems, have _both_ been largely imported into a Translation which was singularly intelligible before. Why darken Rom. vii. 1 and xi. 2 by introducing the interrogative particle, and then, by mistranslating it “_Or_”?—Also, why translate γένος “_race_”? (“a man of Cyprus _by race_,” “a man of Pontus _by race_,” “an Alexandrian _by race_,” Acts iv. 36: xviii. 2, 24).—“_If_ there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body,” say the Revisionists: “O death, where is thy victory? O _death_ where is thy sting?” (Could they not let even 1 Cor. xv. 44 and 55 alone?)—Why alter “For the bread of GOD is _He_,” into “For the bread of GOD is _that_ which cometh down from Heaven”? (Jo. vi. 33).—“_As long as I am_ in the world,” was surely better than “_When I am_ in the world, I am the light of the world” (ix. 5).—Is “_He went forth out of_ their hand” supposed to be an improvement upon “_He escaped out of_ their hand”? (x. 39): and is “They loved _the glory_ of men more than _the glory_ of GOD” an improvement upon “the _praise_”? (xii. 43).—“Judas saith unto Him, LORD, _what is come to pass_ that Thou wilt manifest Thyself to us”? Is _that_ supposed to be an improvement upon xiv. 22?—How is “_If then_” an improvement on “Forasmuch then” in Acts xi. 17?—or how is this endurable in Rom. vii. 15,—“For that which I do, I _know_ not: for _not what I would, that do I practise_:”—or this, in xvi. 25, “The mystery which hath been _kept in silence through times eternal_, but now is manifested,” &c.—“Thou therefore, _my child_,”—addressing the Bishop of Ephesus (2 Tim. ii. 1): and “Titus, _my true child_,”—addressing the Bishop of Crete (Tit. i. 4).

Are the following deemed improvements? “Every one that _doeth_ sin doeth also _lawlessness: and sin is lawlessness_” (1 Jo. iii. 4): “I will _move_ thy candlestick out of its place” (Rev. ii. 5):—“a _glassy_ sea” (iv. 6):—“a _great_ voice” (v. 12):—“Verily, not of Angels _doth He take hold_, but _He taketh hold_ of the seed of Abraham:”—“He _took hold of_ the blind man by _the hand_:”—“They _took hold of him_ and brought him unto the Areopagus” (Heb. ii. 16: S. Mk. viii. 23: Acts xvii. 19):—“wherefore GOD is not _ashamed of them_, to be called their GOD” (Acts xi. 16):—“_Counted it not a prize_ to be on an equality with GOD” (Phil. ii. 6).—Why are we to substitute “_court_” for “palace” in Matth. xxvi. 3 and Lu. xi. 21? (Consider Matth. xii. 29 and Mk. iii. 27).—“Women received their dead _by a resurrection_” (Heb. xi. 35):—“If ye forgive not every one _his brother from their hearts_” (Matth. xviii. 35):—“If _because of meat_ thy brother is grieved, thou walkest _no longer in love_” (Rom. xiv. 15):—“which GOD, who cannot lie, promised _before times eternal_; but _in his own seasons_ manifested _his word in the message_” (Tit. i. 2, 3):—“Your _pleasures_ [and why not ‘lusts’?] that war in your members” (James iv. 1):—“Behold _how much wood_ is kindled by _how small a fire_!” (iii. 5).—Are these really supposed to be less “obscure” than the passages they are intended to supersede?

(_a_) Not a few of the mistaken renderings of the Revisionists can only be established by an amount of illustration which is at once inconvenient to the Reviewer and unwelcome probably to the general Reader. Thus, we take leave to point out that,—“And _coming up_ at that very hour” (in Lu. ii. 38),—as well as “she _came up_ to Him” (in Lu. x. 40), are inexact renderings of the original. The verb ἐφιστάναι, which etymologically signifies “to stand upon,” or “over,” or “by,”—(but which retains its literal signification on only four out of the eighteen occasions(478) when the word occurs in the Gospels and Acts,)—is found almost invariably to denote the “_coming suddenly upon_” a person. Hence, it is observed to be used five times to denote the sudden appearance of friendly visitants from the unseen world:(479) and seven times, the sudden hostile approach of what is formidable.(480) On the two remaining occasions, which are those before us,—(namely, the sudden coming of Anna into the Temple(481) and of Martha into the presence of our LORD,(482))—“_coming suddenly in_” would probably represent S. Luke’s ἐπιστᾶσα exactly. And yet, one would hesitate to import the word “suddenly” into the narrative. So that “_coming in_” would after all have to stand in the text, although the attentive student of Scripture would enjoy the knowledge that something more is _implied_. In other words,—the Revisionists would have done better if they had left both places alone.... These are many words; yet is it impossible to explain such matters at once satisfactorily and briefly.

(_b_) But more painful by far it is to discover that a morbid striving after etymological accuracy,—added to a calamitous preference for a depraved Text,—has proved the ruin of one of the most affecting scenes in S. John’s Gospel. “Simon Peter beckoneth to him, _and saith unto him, Tell us who it is of whom He speaketh_” [a fabulous statement evidently; for Peter beckoned, because he might _not_ speak]. “He _leaning back, as he was_,”—[a very bad rendering of οὕτως, by the way; and sure to recal inopportunely the rendering of ὡς ἦν in S. Mark iv. 36, instead of suggesting (as it obviously ought) the original of S. John iv. 6:]—“on JESUS’ breast, saith unto Him, LORD who is it?” (S. John xiii. 24-5). Now, S. John’s word concerning himself in this place is certainly ἐπιπεσών. He “_just sank_”—let his head “_fall_”—on his Master’s breast, and whispered his question. For this, a few corrupt copies substitute ἀναπεσών. But ἀναπεσών _never_ means “_leaning back_.” It is descriptive of the posture of one _reclining at a meal_ (S. Jo. xiii. 12). Accordingly, it is 10 times rendered by the Revisionists to “_sit down_.” Why, in this place, and in chapter xxi. 20, _a new meaning_ is thrust upon the word, it is for the Revisionists to explain. But they must explain the matter a vast deal better than Bp. Lightfoot has done in his interesting little work on Revision (pp. 72-3), or they will fail to persuade any,—except one another.

(_c_) Thus it happens that we never spend half-an-hour over the unfortunate production before us without exclaiming (with one in the Gospel), “_The old is better_.” Changes of _any_ sort are unwelcome in such a book as the Bible; but the discovery that changes have been made _for the worse_, offends greatly. To take instances at random:—’Ὁ πλεῖστος ὄχλος (in Matth. xxi. 8) is rightly rendered in our A. V. “a _very great_ multitude.”(483) Why then has it been altered by the R. V. into “_the most part of_ the multitude”?—Ὁ πολὺς ὄχλος (Mk. xii. 37), in like manner, is rightly rendered “_the common people_,” and ought not to have been glossed in the margin “_the great multitude_.”—In the R. V. of Acts x. 15, we find “_Make_ thou not common,” introduced as an improvement on, “_That call_ not thou common.” But “the old is better:” for, besides its idiomatic and helpful “_That_,”—the old alone states the case truly. Peter did not “_make_,” he only “_called_,” something “common.”—“All the _male_ children,” as a translation of πάντας τοὺς παῖδας (in Matth. ii. 16) is an unauthorized statement. There is no reason for supposing that the female infants of Bethlehem were spared in the general massacre: and the Greek certainly conveys no such information.—“When he came into the house, JESUS _spake first_ to him”—is really an incorrect rendering of Matth. xvii. 25: at least, it imports into the narrative a notion which is not found in the Greek, and does not exhibit faithfully what the Evangelist actually says. “_Anticipated_,” in modern English,—“_prevented_,” in ancient phraseology,—“_was beforehand with him_” in language neither new nor old,—conveys the sense of the original exactly.—In S. Lu. vi. 35, “Love your enemies, ... and lend, _never despairing_,” is simply a mistaken translation of ἀπελπίζοντες, as the context sufficiently proves. The old rendering is the true one.(484) And so, learnedly, the Vulgate,—_nihil inde sperantes_. (Consider the use of ἀποβλέπειν [Heb. xi. 26]: ἀφορᾶν [Phil. ii. 23: Heb. xii. 2]: _abutor_, as used by Jerome for _utor_, &c.)—“Go with them _making no distinction_” is not the meaning of Acts xi. 12: which, however, was correctly translated before, viz. “nothing doubting.”—The mischievous change (“_save_” in place of “but”) in Gal. ii. 16 has been ably and faithfully exposed by Bp. Ollivant. In the words of the learned and pious Bp. of Lincoln, “it is illogical and erroneous, and _contradicts the whole drift of S. Paul’s Argument_ in that Epistle, and in the Epistle to the Romans.”

(_d_) We should be dealing insincerely with our Readers were we to conceal our grave dissatisfaction at not a few of the novel _expressions_ which the Revisionists have sought to introduce into the English New Testament. That the malefactors between whom “the LORD of glory” was crucified were not ordinary “_thieves_” is obvious; yet would it have been wiser, we think, to leave the old designation undisturbed. We shall never learn to call them “_robbers_.”—“The king sent forth _a soldier of his guard_” is a gloss—not a translation of S. Mark vi. 27. “_An executioner_” surely is far preferable as the equivalent for σπεκουλάτωρ!(485)—“_Assassins_” (as the rendering of σικάριοι) is an objectionable substitute for “murderers.” A word which “belongs probably to a romantic chapter in the history of the Crusades”(486) has no business in the N. T.—And what did these learned men suppose they should gain by substituting “_the twin brothers_” for “_Castor and Pollux_” in Acts xxviii. 11? The Greek (Διόσκουροι) is neither the one nor the other.—In the same spirit, instead of, “they that received _tribute-money_” (in S. Matth. xvii. 24), we are now presented with “they that received _the half-shekel_:” and in verse 27,—instead of “when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find _a piece of money_,” we are favoured with “thou shalt find _a shekel_.” But _why_ the change has been made, we fail to see. The margin is _still_ obliged to explain that not one of these four words is found in the original: the Greek in the former place being τὰ δίδραχμα,—in the latter, στατήρ.—“_Flute-players_” (for “minstrels”) in S. Matthew ix. 23, is a mistake. An αὐλητής played _the pipe_ (αὐλός, 1 Cor. xiv. 7),—hence “pipers” in Rev. xviii. 22; (where by the way μουσικοί [“musicians”] is perversely and less accurately rendered “_minstrels_”).—Once more. “_Undressed_ cloth” (Mk. ii. 21), because it is an expression popularly understood only in certain districts of England, and a _vox artis_, ought not to have been introduced into the Gospels. “_New_” is preferable.—“_Wine-skins_” (Mtt. ix. 17: Mk. ii. 22: Lu. v. 37) is a term unintelligible to the generality; as the Revisionists confess, for they explain it by a note,—“That is, _skins used as bottles_.” What else is this but substituting a new difficulty for an old one?—“_Silver_,” now for the first time thrust into Acts viii. 20, is unreasonable. Like “argent” in French, ἀργύριον as much means “money,” here as in S. Matthew xxv. 18, 27, &c.—In S. James ii. 19, we should like to know what is gained by the introduction of the “_shuddering_” devils.—To take an example from a different class of words,—Who will say that “Thou _mindest_ not the things of GOD” is a better rendering of οὐ φρονεῖς, than the old “Thou _savourest_ not,”—which at least had no ambiguity about it?... A friend points out that Dr. Field (a “master in Israel”) has examined 104 of the changes _made_ in the Revised Version; and finds 8 questionable: 13 unnecessary: 19 faulty (_i.e._ cases in which the A. V. required amendment, but which the R. V. has not succeeded in amending): 64 _changes for the worse_.(487)... This is surely a terrible indictment for such an one as Dr. Field to bring against the Revisers,—_who were directed only to correct_ “PLAIN AND CLEAR ERRORS.”

(_e_) We really fail to understand how it has come to pass that, notwithstanding the amount of scholarship which sometimes sat in the Jerusalem Chamber, so many novelties are found in the present Revision which betoken a want of familiarity with the refinements of the Greek language on the one hand; and (what is even more inexcusable) only a slender acquaintance with the resources and proprieties of English speech, on the other. A fair average instance of this occurs in Acts xxi. 37, where (instead of “_Canst_ thou _speak_ Greek?”) Ἑλληνιστὶ γινώσκεις? is rendered “_Dost_ thou _know_ Greek?” That γινώσκειν means “to know” (and not “to speak”) is undeniable: and yet, in the account of all, except the driest and stupidest of pedagogues, Ἑλληνιστὶ γινώσκεις; must be translated “Canst thou _speak_ Greek?” For (as every schoolboy is aware) Ἑλληνιστί is an adverb, and signifies “_in Greek fashion_:” so that something has to be supplied: and the full expression, if it must needs be given, would be, “Dost thou know [how to talk] in Greek?” But then, this condensation of phrase proves to be the established idiom of the language:(488) so that the rejection of the learned rendering of Tyndale, Cranmer, the Geneva, the Rheims, and the Translators of 1611 (“_Canst thou speak_ Greek?”)—the rejection of this, at the end of 270 years, in favour of “_Dost thou know_ Greek?” really betrays ignorance. It is worse than bad Taste. It is a stupid and deliberate _blunder_.

(_f_) The substitution of “_they weighed unto him_” (in place of “_they covenanted with him for_”) “thirty pieces of silver” (S. Matth. xxvi. 15) is another of those plausible mistakes, into which a little learning (proverbially “a dangerous thing”) is for ever conducting its unfortunate possessor; but from which it was to have been expected that the undoubted attainments of some who frequented the Jerusalem Chamber would have effectually preserved the Revisionists. That ἔστησαν is intended to recal Zech. xi. 12, is obvious; as well as that _there_ it refers to the ancient practice of _weighing_ uncoined money. It does not, however, by any means follow, that it was customary to _weigh_ shekels in the days of the Gospel. Coined money, in fact, was never weighed, but always counted; and these were shekels, _i.e._ _didrachms_ (Matth. xvii. 24). The truth (it lies on the surface) is, that there exists a happy ambiguity about the word ἔστησαν, of which the Evangelist has not been slow to avail himself. In the particular case before us, it is expressly recorded that in the first instance money did _not_ pass,—only a bargain was made, and a certain sum promised. S. Mark’s record is that the chief priests were glad at the proposal of Judas, “_and promised_ to give him money” (xiv. 11): S. Luke’s, that “_they covenanted_” to do so (xxii. 5, 6). And with this, the statement of the first Evangelist is found to be in strictest agreement. The chief Priests “set” or “appointed”(489) him a certain sum. The perfectly accurate rendering of S. Matth. xxvi. 15, therefore, exhibited by our Authorized Version, has been set aside to make way for _a misrepresentation of the Evangelist’s meaning_. “In the judgment of the most competent scholars,” was “such change NECESSARY”?

(_g_) We respectfully think that it would have been more becoming in such a company as that which assembled in the Jerusalem Chamber, as well as more consistent with their Instructions, if _in doubtful cases_ they had abstained from touching the Authorized Version, but had recorded their own conjectural emendations _in the margin_. How rash and infelicitous, for example, is the following rendering of the famous words in Acts xxvi. 28, 29, which we find thrust upon us without apology or explanation; without, in fact, any marginal note at all:—“And Agrippa said unto Paul, _With but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me_ a Christian. And Paul said, I would to GOD, that whether _with little or with much_,” &c. Now this is indefensible. For, in the first place, to get any such meaning out of the words, our Revisionists have been obliged to substitute the fabricated ποιῆσαι (the peculiar property of א A B and a few cursives) for γενέσθαι in ver. 28. Moreover, even so, the words do not yield the required sense. We venture to point out, that this is precisely one of the occasions where the opinion of a first-rate Greek Father is of paramount importance. The moderns confess themselves unable to discover a single instance of the phrase ἐν ὀλίγῳ in the sense of “_within a little_.” Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 350) and Chrysostom (A.D. 400), on the contrary, evidently considered that here the expression can mean nothing else; and they were competent judges, seeing that Greek was their native language: far better judges (be it remarked in passing) on a point of this kind than the whole body of Revisionists put together. “Such an amount of victorious grace and wisdom did Paul derive from the HOLY SPIRIT” (says Cyril), “that even King Agrippa at last exclaimed,”(490) &c. From which it is evident that Cyril regarded Agrippa’s words as an avowal that he was well-nigh overcome by the Apostle’s argument. And so Chrysostom,(491) who says plainly that ἐν ὀλίγῳ means “within a little,”(492) and assumes that “within a little” S. Paul had persuaded his judge.(493) He even puts παρ᾽ ὀλίγον into Agrippa’s mouth.(494) So also, in effect, Theodoret.(495) From all which it is reasonable, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, to infer that our A. V. reflects faithfully what was the Church’s traditionary interpretation of Acts xxvi. 28 in the first half of the fourth century. Let it only be added that a better judge of such matters than any who frequented the Jerusalem Chamber—the late President of Magdalen, Dr. Routh,—writes: “_Vertendum esse sequentia suadent, Me fere Christianum fieri suades. Interp. Vulgata habet, In modico suades me Christianum fieri._”(496) Yes, the Apostle’s rejoinder fixes the meaning of what Agrippa had said before.—And this shall suffice. We pass on, only repeating our devout wish that what the Revisionists failed to understand, or were unable _materially and certainly_ to improve, they would have been so obliging as to let alone. In the present instance the A. V. is probably right; the R. V., probably wrong. No one, at all events, can pretend that the rendering with which we are all familiar is “_a plain and clear error_.” And confessedly, unless it was, it should have been left unmolested. But to proceed.

(4) and (5) There can be no question as to the absolute duty of rendering identical expressions _in strictly parallel places of the Gospels_ by strictly identical language. So far we are wholly at one with the Revisionists. But “alterations [supposed to be] rendered necessary _by consequence_” (_Preface_, iii. 2.), are quite a different matter: and we venture to think that it is precisely in their pursuit of a mechanical uniformity of rendering, that our Revisionists have most often as well as most grievously lost their way. We differ from them in fact _in limine_. “When a particular word” (say they) “is found to recur with characteristic frequency in any one of the Sacred Writers, it is obviously desirable to adopt for it some uniform rendering” (iii. 2). “Desirable”! Yes, but in what sense? It is much to be desired, no doubt, that the English language always contained _the exact counterparts_ of Greek words: and of course, if it did, it would be in the highest degree “desirable” that a Translator should always employ those words and no other. But then it happens unfortunately that _precisely equivalent words do not exist_. Τέκνον, nine times out of ten signifies nothing else but “_child_.” On the tenth occasion, however, (_e.g._ where Abraham is addressing the rich man in Hades,) it would be absurd so to render it. We translate “_Son_.” We are in fact without choice.—Take another ordinary Greek term, σπλάγχνα, which occurs 11 times in the N. T., and which the A. V. uniformly renders “bowels.” Well, and “bowels” confessedly σπλάγχνα are. Yet have our Revisionists felt themselves under the “necessity” of rendering the word “_heart_,” in Col. iii. 12,—“_very heart_,” in Philemon, ver. 12,—“affections” in 2 Cor. vi. 12,—“_inward affection_,” in vii. 15,—“_tender mercies_” in Phil. i. 8,—“_compassion_” in 1 Jo. iii. 17,—“_bowels_” only in Acts i. 18.—These learned men, however, put forward in illustration of their own principle of translation, the word εὐθέως,—which occurs about 80 times in the N. T.: nearly half the instances being found in S. Mark’s Gospel. We accept their challenge; and assert that it is tasteless barbarism to seek to impose upon εὐθέως,—no matter _what_ the context in which it stands,—the sense of “_straightway_,”—only because εὐθύς, the adjective, generally (not always) means “straight.” Where a miracle of healing is described (as in S. Matth. viii. 3: xx. 34. S. Lu. v. 13), since the benefit was no doubt instantaneous, it is surely the mere instinct of “faithfulness” to translate εὐθέως “_immediately_.” So, in respect of the sudden act which saved Peter from sinking (S. Matth. xiv. 31); and that punctual cock-crow (xxvi. 74), which (S. Luke says) did not so much follow, as _accompany_ his denial (xxii. 60). But surely not so, when _the growth of a seed_ is the thing spoken of (Matth. xiii. 5)! Acts again, which must needs have occupied some little time in the doing, reasonably suggest some such rendering as “_forthwith_” or “_straightway_,”—(_e.g._ S. Matth. xiv. 22: xxi. 2: and S. John vi. 21): while, in 3 John ver. 14, the meaning (as the Revisionists confess) can only be “_shortly_.”... So plain a matter really ought not to require so many words. We repeat, that the Revisionists set out with a mistaken Principle. They clearly _do not understand their Trade_.

They invite our attention to their rendering of certain of the Greek Tenses, and of the definite Article. We regret to discover that, in both respects, their work is disfigured throughout by changes which convict a majority of their body alike of an imperfect acquaintance with the genius of the Greek language, and of scarcely a moderate appreciation of the idiomatic proprieties of their own. Such a charge must of necessity, when it has been substantiated, press heavily upon such a work as the present; for it is not as when a solitary error has been detected, which may be rectified. A vicious _system_ of rendering Tenses, and representing the Greek Article, is sure to crop up in every part of the undertaking, and must occasionally be attended by consequences of a serious nature.

1. Now, that we may not be misunderstood, we admit at once that, in teaching _boys_ how to turn Greek into English, we insist that every tense shall be marked by its own appropriate sign. There is no telling how helpful it will prove in the end, that every word shall at first have been rendered with painful accuracy. Let the Article be [mis-]represented—the Prepositions caricatured—the Particles magnified,—let the very order of the words at first, (however impossible,) be religiously retained. Merciless accuracy having been in this way acquired, a youth has to be _un_taught these servile habits. He has to be reminded of the requirements of the _English idiom_, and speedily becomes aware that the idiomatic rendering of a Greek author into English, is a higher achievement by far, than his former slavish endeavour always to render the same word and tense in the same slavish way.

2. But what supremely annoys us in the work just now under review is, that the schoolboy method of translation already noticed is therein exhibited in constant operation throughout. It becomes oppressive. We are never permitted to believe that we are in the company of Scholars who are altogether masters of their own language. Their solicitude ever seems to be twofold:—(1) To exhibit a singular indifference to the proprieties of English speech, while they maintain a servile adherence (etymological or idiomatic, as the case may be) to the Greek:—(2) Right or wrong, to part company from William Tyndale and the giants who gave us our “Authorized Version.”

Take a few illustrations of what precedes from the second chapter of S. Matthew’s Gospel:—

(1.) Thus, in ver. 2, the correct English rendering “_we have seen_” is made to give place to the incorrect “_we saw_ his star in the east.”—In ver. 9, the idiomatic “_when they had heard the king_, they departed,” is rejected for the unidiomatic “And they, _having heard the king_, went their way.”—In ver. 15, we are treated to “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the LORD _through_ the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt _did I call_ my son.” And yet who sees not, that in both instances the old rendering is better? Important as it may be, _in the lecture-room_, to insist on what is implied by τὸ ῥηθὲν ὙΠῸ τοῦ κυρίου ΔΙᾺ τοῦ προφήτου, it is simply preposterous to _come abroad_ with such refinements. It is to stultify oneself and to render one’s author unintelligible. Moreover, the attempt to be so wondrous literal is safe to break down at the end of a few verses. Thus, if διά is “_through_” in verse 15,—why not in verse 17 and in verse 23?

(2.) Note how infelicitously, in S. Matth. ii. 1, “there came wise men from the east” is changed into “_wise men from the east came_.”—In ver. 4, the accurate, “And when [Herod] had gathered together” (συναγαγών) &c., is displaced for the inaccurate, “And _gathering together_” &c.—In ver. 6, we are presented with the unintelligible, “And thou _Bethlehem, land of Judah_:” while in ver. 7, “Then Herod _privily called_ the wise men, and _learned of them carefully_,” is improperly put in the place of “Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently” (ἠκρίβωσε παρ᾽ αὐτῶν).—In ver. 11, the familiar “And when they were come into the house, they saw” &c., is needlessly changed into “They _came into the house_, and saw:” while “and when they had opened (ἀνοίξαντες) their treasures,” is also needlessly altered into “and _opening_ their treasures.”—In ver. 12, the R. V. is careful to print “_of _GOD” in italics, where italics are not necessary: seeing that χρηματισθέντες implies “being warned of GOD” (as the translators of 1611 were well aware(497)): whereas in countless other places the same Revisionists reject the use of italics where italics are absolutely required.—Their “until I _tell thee_” (in ver. 13) is a most unworthy substitute for “until I _bring thee word_.”—And will they pretend that they have improved the rendering of the concluding words of the chapter? If Ναζωραῖος κληθήσεται does not mean “He shall be called a Nazarene,” what in the world _does_ it mean? The ὅτι of quotation they elsewhere omit. Then why, here,—“_That_ it might be fulfilled ... _that_”?—Surely, every one of these is an alteration made for alteration’s sake, and in every instance _for the worse_.

We began by surveying _the Greek_ of the first chapter of S. Matthew’s Gospel. We have now surveyed _the English_ of the second chapter. What does the Reader think of the result?

IV. Next, the Revisionists invite attention to certain points of detail: and first, to their rendering of THE TENSES OF THE VERB. They begin with the Greek Aorist,—(in their account) “perhaps the most important” detail of all:—

“We have not attempted to violate the idiom of our language by forms of expression which it would not bear. But we have often ventured to represent the Greek aorist by the English preterite, even when the reader may find some passing difficulty in such a rendering, because we have felt convinced that the true meaning of the original was obscured by the presence of the familiar auxiliary. A remarkable illustration may be found in the seventeenth chapter of S. John’s Gospel.”—_Preface_, iii. 2,—(_latter part_).

(_a_) We turn to the place indicated, and are constrained to assure these well-intentioned men, that the phenomenon we there witness is absolutely fatal to their pretensions as “_Revisers_” of our Authorized Version. Were it only “some passing difficulty” which their method occasions us, we might have hoped that time would enable us to overcome it. But since it is _the genius of the English language_ to which we find they have offered violence; the fixed and universally-understood idiom of our native tongue which they have systematically set at defiance; the matter is absolutely without remedy. The difference between the A. V. and the R. V. seems to ourselves to be simply this,—that the renderings in the former are the idiomatic English representations of certain well-understood Greek tenses: while the proposed substitutes are nothing else but the pedantic efforts of mere grammarians to reproduce in another language idioms which it abhors. But the Reader shall judge for himself: for _this_ at least is a point on which every educated Englishman is fully competent to pass sentence.

When our Divine LORD, at the close of His Ministry,—(He had in fact reached the very last night of His earthly life, and it wanted but a few hours of His Passion,)—when He, at such a moment, addressing the Eternal FATHER, says, ἐγώ σε ἐδόξασα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς; τὸ ἔργον ἐτελείωσα ... ἐφανέρωσά σου τὸ ὄνομα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, &c. [Jo. xvii. 4, 6], there can be no doubt whatever that, had He pronounced those words in English, He would have said (with our A. V.) “I _have glorified_ Thee on the earth: I _have finished_ the work:” “I _have manifested_ Thy Name.” The pedantry which (on the plea that the Evangelist employs the aorist, not the perfect tense,) would twist all this into the indefinite past,—“I glorified” ... “I finished” ... “I manifested,”—we pronounce altogether insufferable. We absolutely refuse it a hearing. Presently (in ver. 14) He says,—“I have given them Thy word; and the world _hath hated them_.” And in ver. 25,—“O righteous FATHER, the world _hath not known_ Thee; but I _have known_ Thee, and these _have known_ that Thou _hast sent_ Me.” _Who_ would consent to substitute for these expressions,—“the world hated them:” and “the world knew Thee not, but I knew Thee; and these knew that Thou didst send Me”?—Or turn to another Gospel. _Which_ is better,—“Some one hath touched Me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of Me,” (S. Lu. viii. 46):—or,—“Some one _did touch_ Me: for _I perceived_ that power _had gone forth_ from Me”?

When the reference is to an act so extremely recent, _who_ is not aware that the second of these renderings is abhorrent to the genius of the English language? As for ἔγνων, it is (like _novi_ in Latin) present in _sense_ though past in _form_,—here as in S. Lu. xvi. 3.—But turn to yet another Gospel. _Which_ is better in S. Matth. xvi. 7:—“_we took_ no bread,” or “It is because _we have taken_ no bread”?—Again. When Simon Peter (in reply to the command that he should thrust out into deep water and let down his net for a draught,) is heard to exclaim,—“Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at Thy word I will let down the net” (Lu. v. 5),—_who_ would tolerate the proposal to put in the place of it,—“Master, _we toiled all night_, and _took_ nothing: but at Thy word,” &c. It is not too much to declare that the idiom of the English language refuses peremptorily to submit to such handling. Quite in vain is it to encounter us with reminder that κοπιάσαντες and ἐλάβομεν are aorists. The answer is,—We know it: but we deny that it follows that the words are to be rendered “we _toiled_ all night, and _took_ nothing.” There are laws of English Idiom as well as laws of Greek Grammar: and when these clash in what is meant to be a translation into English out of Greek, the latter must perforce give way to the former,—or we make ourselves ridiculous, and misrepresent what we propose to translate.

All this is so undeniable that it ought not to require to be insisted upon. But in fact our Revisionists by their occasional practice show that they fully admit _the Principle_ we are contending for. Thus, ἧραν (in S. Jo. xx. 2 and 13) is by them translated “_they have taken_:”—ἱνατί με ἐγκατέλιπες; (S. Matt. xxvii. 46) “Why _hast Thou forsaken Me_?”(498):—ἔδειξα (S. Jo. x. 32) “_have I showed_:”—ἀπέστειλε (vi. 29) “_He hath sent_:”—ἠτιμάσατε (James ii. 6) “_ye have dishonoured_:”—ἐκαθάρισε (Acts x. 15) “_hath cleansed_:”—ἔστησεν (xvii. 31) “He _hath appointed_.” But indeed instances abound everywhere. In fact, the requirements of the case are often observed to _force_ them to be idiomatic. Τί ἐποίησας; (in Jo. xviii. 35), they rightly render “What _hast_ thou done?”:—and ἔγραψα (in 1 Jo. ii. 14, 21), “I _have_ written;”—and ἤκουσα (in Acts ix. 13), “I _have_ heard.”—On the other hand, by translating οὐκ εἴασεν (in Acts xxviii. 4), “_hath not suffered_,” they may be thought to have overshot the mark. They seem to have overlooked the fact that, when once S. Paul had been bitten by the viper, “the barbarians” looked upon him as _a dead man_; and therefore discoursed about what Justice “_did not_ suffer,” as about an entirely past transaction.

But now, _Who_ sees not that the admission, once and again deliberately made, that sometimes it is not only lawful, but even _necessary_, to accommodate the Greek aorist (when translated into English) with the sign of the perfect,—reduces the whole matter (of the signs of the tenses) to a mere question of _Taste_? In view of such instances as the foregoing, where severe logical necessity has compelled the Revisionists to abandon their position and fly, it is plain that their contention is at an end,—so far as _right_ and _wrong_ are concerned. They virtually admit that they have been all along unjustly forcing on an independent language an alien yoke.(499) Henceforth, it simply becomes a question to be repeated, as every fresh emergency arises,—Which then is _the more idiomatic_ of these two English renderings?... Conversely, twice at least (Heb. xi. 17 and 28), the Revisionists have represented the _Greek perfect_ by the English indefinite preterite.

(_b_) Besides this offensive pedantry in respect of the Aorist, we are often annoyed by an _unidiomatic_ rendering of the Imperfect. True enough it is that “the servants and the officers _were standing_ ... and _were warming_ themselves:” Peter also “_was standing_ with them and _was warming_ himself” (S. Jo. xviii. 18). But we do not so express ourselves in English, unless we are about to add something which shall _account for_ our particularity and precision. Any one, for example, desirous of stating what had been for years his daily practice, would say—“_I left_ my house.” Only when he wanted to explain that, on leaving it for the 1000th time, he met a friend coming up the steps to pay him a visit, would an Englishman think of saying, “_I was leaving_ the house.” A Greek writer, on the other hand, would not _trust_ this to the imperfect. He would use the present participle in the dative case, (“_To me, leaving my house_,”(500) &c.). One is astonished to have to explain such things.... “If therefore thou _art offering_ thy gift at the altar” (Matt. v. 23), may seem to some a clever translation. To ourselves, it reads like a senseless exaggeration of the original.(501) It sounds (and _is_) as unnatural as to say (in S. Lu. ii. 33) “And His father [a depravation of the text] and His mother _were marvelling_ at the things which were spoken concerning Him:”—or (in Heb. xi. 17) “yea, he that had received the promises _was offering up_ his only-begotten son:”—or, of the cripple at Lystra (Acts xiv. 9), “the same heard Paul _speaking_.”

(_c_) On the other hand, there are occasions confessedly when the Greek Aorist absolutely demands to be rendered into English by the sign of the _Pluperfect_. An instance meets us while we write: ὡς δὲ ἐπαύσατο λαλῶν (S. Lu. v. 4),—where our Revisionists are found to retain the idiomatic rendering of our Authorized Version,—“When He _had left_ speaking.” Of what possible avail could it be, on such an occasion, to insist that, because ἐπαύσατο is not in the pluperfect tense, it may not be accommodated with _the sign_ of the pluperfect when it is being translated into English?—The R. V. has shown less consideration in S. Jo. xviii. 24,—where “Now Annas _had sent_ Him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest,” is right, and wanted no revision.—Such places as Matth. xxvii. 60, Jo. xxi. 15, Acts xii. 17, and Heb. iv. 8, on the other hand, simply defy the Revisionists. For perforce Joseph “_had hewn_ out” (ἐλατόμησε) the new tomb which became our LORD’S: and the seven Apostles, confessedly, “_had dined_” (ἠρίστησαν): and S. Peter, of course, “declared unto them how the LORD _had brought him out_ of the prison” (ἐξήγαγεν): and it is impossible to substitute anything for “If Jesus [Joshua] _had given_ them rest” (κατέπαυσεν).—Then of course there are occasions, (not a few,) where the Aorist (often an indefinite present in Greek) claims to be Englished by the sign of the present tense: as where S. John says (Rev. xix. 6), “The LORD GOD Omnipotent reigneth” (ἐβασίλευσε). There is no striving against such instances. They _insist_ on being rendered according to the genius of the language into which it is proposed to render them:—as when ἔκειτο (in S. Jo. xx. 12) exacts for its rendering “_had lain_.”

(_d_) It shall only be pointed out here in addition, for the student’s benefit, that there is one highly interesting place (viz. S. Matth.