ART. I.-1. The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, translated out of the Greek: being the Version set forth A.D. 1611, compared with the most ancient Authorities, and Revised A.D. 1881. Printed for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, 1881. 2. The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to the Text followed in the Authorized Version, together with the Variations adopted in the Revised Version. Edited for the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D., Prebendary of Exeter and Vicar of Hendon. Cambridge, 1881. 3. 'H KAINH AIAOHKH, The Greek Testament, with the Readings adopted by the Revisers of the Authorized Version. [Edited by the Ven. Archdeacon Palmer, D.D.] Oxford, 1881. 4. The New Testament in the Original Greek. The Text revised by Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., and Fenton John. Anthony Hort, D.D. Cambridge and London, 1881. WHATEVER may be urged in favour of Biblical Revision, WH 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 Englishspeaking men scattered over the earth's surface. Is it reasonable that so precious a bond should be endangered, for the sake of representing certain words more accurately, here and there translating the tenses 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. And this single consideration may be thought absolutely fatal to the project, except in a 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 Vol. 153.-No. 305. B and 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 as a handmaid only is it to be desired. We are thoroughly convinced that a rival Translation is a project not to be seriously entertained. 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 May 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 Greek Text, constructed on mistaken principles, would be the fatal result? Who was to foresee that, instead of removing the 'plain and clear errors' of our Version, the Revisionists would themselves introduce a countless number of blemishes, unknown to it before? Above all, how was it to have been imagined that they would have sown 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 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 suffice. In the meantime, 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 to choke up the margin of our English Bible,-to create perplexity and to insinuate doubt? The learned author of 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 only, 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. 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 utterly untrustworthy, that if it were to be thrust upon the Church to-morrow, we should be a thousand times worse off than we were with the text which Erasmus and Stephens and the Elzevirs bequeathed to us upwards of three centuries ago. On this part of the subject we have remarked at some length already1: 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. 1. S. Matthew begins,-"The book of the generation of JESUS CHRIST.' 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 invited to believe that the same Greek word, diversely rendered in English, occurs in both places? We refer to the new Greek Text: and there it stands,-yéveo is in either verse. But who knows not that there is all the difference in the world between S. Matthew's yéNEσus, in ver. 1,—and the same S. Matthew's yéNNHous, in ver. 18? The latter, the Evangelist's announcement of the circumstances of the human Birth of CHRIST: the former, the Evangelist's unobtrusive way of 16 'Quarterly Review,' No. 304, pp. 307-68. 2 S. Matth. i. 1. recalling recalling the Septuagintal rendering of Gen. ii. 4 and v. 1:1 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 saying 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 a superstitious veneration for a few corrupt codices which happen to be written in the uncial character. For, on reference to manuscript and to patristic authority 2 (the Versions perforce are only partially helpful here3), an overwhelming amount of testimony is producible for yévvnois in ver. 18: and this, considering the nature of the case, is an extraordinary circumstance. It is the word employed by Justin M., by Clemens Alex.," by Athanasius, by Epiphanius, by Cyril Alex.,8 by Nestorius, by Chrysostom,10 by Theodorus Mopsuest.,11 and by three other ancients.12 Irenæus 13 (whom Germanus 14 copies at the end of 550 years) calls attention to the difference of the spelling. So does Didymus.15 So does Basil.16 Origen 17 is even eloquent on the subject. It is a sig 7 9 1 Αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως—οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς : also—ἀνθρώπων. 6 13 A friendly critic complains that we do not specify which editions of the Fathers we quote. Our reply is-This is a Review, not a treatise. We are constrained to omit such details. Briefly, we always quote the best Edition. Experts can experience no difficulty in verifying our references. A few details shall however be added:-Justin (Otto): Irenæus (Stieren): Clemens Al. (Potter): Tertullian (Oehler): Cyprian (Baluzc): Eusebius (Gaisford): Athanas. (1698): Greg. Nyss. (1638): Epiphan. (1622): Didymus (1769): Ephraem Syr. (1732); Jerome (Vallarsi): Nilus (1668-73): Chrysostom (Montfaucon): Cyril (Aubert): Isidorus (1638): Theodoret (Schulze): Maximus (1675): John Damascene (Lequien) Photius (1653). Most of the others (as Origen, Greg. Nazianz., Basil, Cyril of Jer., Ambrose, Hilary, Augustine), are quoted from the Benedictine editions. When we say 'Mai,' we always mean his Nova Biblioth. PP. 1852–71. By Montfaucon,' we mean the Nov. Coll. PP. 1707. 6 3 The Syriac, Memphitic, Slavonic, and Arabian Versions distinguish between the two words: the Armenian, Sahidic, Ethiopic, and Georgian, have only one word for both. We owe the information to one who is always liberal in communicating the lore of which he is perhaps the sole living depositary in England, the Rev. Dr. S. C. Malan. See his Seven Chapters of the Revision of 1881, revised, p. 3. 12. 340. 5 6 p. 889 (γένησιν). • i. 943 c. 8 v1. 363, 676. Concil. iii. 325 (= Cyril v2. 28 a). 11 in Matth. ii. 16. 12 ps.-Athanas. ii. 306 and 700: 14 Gall. ix. 215. 15 Trin. 188. p. 13 470. 17 7 i. 426. 10 vii. 48; viii. 314. ps.-Chrysost. xii. 691. 16 i. 250 b. Διαφέρει γένεσις καὶ γέννησις· γένεσις μὲν γάρ ἐστι παρὰ Θεοῦ πρώτη πλάσις, γέννησις δὲ ἡ ἐκ καταδίκης τοῦ θανάτου διὰ τὴν παράβασιν ἐξ ἀλλήλων διαδοχή. -Galland. xiv. Append. pp. 73, 74. nificant nificant circumstance, that the only authorities discoverable on the other side are Eusebius and Theodoret. Will the Revisionists still pretend to tell us that yéveσis in verse 18 is right? 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:' while its presence is vouched for by Tatian, 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 Syriac and both the Egyptian. What else but nugatory therefore is such a piece of information as this? 1 3. And so much for the first, second, and third Critical annotations, with which the margin of the revised N. T.lis 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 displaced. 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 NB 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 thinking. Did they know that, besides the Vulgate, Syriac, Ethiopic, Armenian, Šlavonian, Georgian, and the two Egyptian Versions, a whole torrent of Fathers are at hand to attest the genuineness of the reading which they were so unceremoniously excising? They are invited to refer to Tatian,3 Athanasius, Didymus, Cyril of Jer., Basil, Greg. Nyss., Ephraem Syr., Epiphanius,10 Chrysostom," Proclus,12 Isidorus Pelus., 13 John Damascene, 14 Photius, 15 Nicetas: 16 besides, of the Latins, Ambrose, the Opus imp., Augustine, and not least to 5 6 8 1 P. 20 of the newly recovered Diatessaron, translated from the Armenian. The Exposition is by Ephraem Syrus. Dr. Malan, ibid. i. p. 7. * i. 938, 952. Also ps.-Athan. ii. 409, excellently. 6 p. 116. i. 392; ii. 599, 600. 19 See above, note. i. 426, 1049 (5 times), 1052-3. 12 Galland. ix. 636. 3 See above, note 1. 8 ii. 229. 5 Trin. 349. 16 In cat. 1: ii. 462. Jerome 13 p. 6 (Tdy vídy avts: which is also the reading of Syren and the Egyptian). 14 i. 276. 13 Gall. xiii. 662. |