Part 13 (1/2)
All these see in Rom. ix. 5, a glorious a.s.sertion of the eternal G.o.dhead of CHRIST.
Against such an overwhelming torrent of Patristic testimony,-for we have enumerated _upwards of sixty_ ancient Fathers-it will not surely be pretended that the Socinian interpretation, to which our Revisionists give such prominence, can stand. But why has it been introduced _at all_? We shall have every Christian reader with us in our contention, that such perverse imaginations of ”modern Interpreters” are not ent.i.tled to a place in the margin of the N. T. For our Revisionists to have even given them currency, and thereby a species of sanction, const.i.tutes in our view a very grave offence.(659) A public retraction and a very humble Apology we claim at their hands. Indifferent Scholars.h.i.+p, and mistaken views of Textual Criticism, are at least venial matters. But _a Socinian gloss gratuitously thrust into the margin of every Englishman's N. T._ admits of no excuse-is not to be tolerated on _any_ terms. It would by itself, in our account, have been sufficient to determine the fate of the present Revision.
XII. Are we to regard it as a kind of _set-off_ against all that goes before, that in an age when the personality of Satan is freely called in question, ”THE EVIL ONE” has been actually _thrust into the Lord's Prayer_? A more injudicious and unwarrantable innovation it would be impossible to indicate in any part of the present unhappy volume. The case has been argued out with much learning and ability by two eminent Divines, Bp. Lightfoot and Canon Cook. The Canon remains master of the field. That _the change ought never to have been made_ is demonstrable. The grounds of this a.s.sertion are soon stated. To begin, (1) It is admitted on all hands that it must for ever remain a matter of opinion only whether in the expression ?p? t?? p??????, the nominative case is t? p?????? (as in S.
Matth. v. 37, 39: Rom. xii. 9), or ? p?????? (as in S. Matth. xiii. 19, 38: Eph. vi. 16),-either of which yields a good sense. But then-(2) The Church of England in her formularies having emphatically declared that, for her part, she adheres to the former alternative, it was in a very high degree unbecoming for the Revisionists to pretend to the enjoyment of _certain_ knowledge that the Church of England in so doing was mistaken: and unless ”from evil” be ”_a clear and plain error_,” the Revisionists were bound to let it alone. Next-(3), It can never be right to impose the narrower interpretation on words which have always been understood to bear the larger sense: especially when (as in the present instance) the larger meaning distinctly includes and covers the lesser: witness the paraphrase in our Church Catechism,-”and that He will keep us (_a_) from all sin and wickedness, and (_b_) _from our ghostly enemy_, and (_c_) from everlasting death.”-(4) But indeed Catholic Tradition claims to be heard in this behalf. Every Christian at his Baptism renounces not only ”the Devil,” but also ”_all his works_, the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all covetous desires of the same, and the carnal desires of the flesh.”(660) And at this point-(5), The voice of an inspired Apostle interposes in attestation that this is indeed the true acceptation of the last pet.i.tion in the LORD'S Prayer: for when S. Paul says-”the LORD will deliver me _from every evil work_ and will preserve me unto His heavenly kingdom; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen,”(661)-what else is he referring to but to the words just now under consideration? He explains that in the LORD'S Prayer it is ”_from every evil work_” that we pray to be ”delivered.” (Note also, that he retains _the Doxology_.) Compare the places:-
S. Matth. vi. 13.-???? ??S?? ???S ??? ??? ???????. ??? S?? ?S??? ?
??S????? ... ?a? ? ???? ??S ???S ?????S. ????.
2 Tim. iv. 18.-?a? ??S???? ?? ? ?????? ??? ?????S ??G?? ??????? ?a? s?se?
e?? ??? ??S?????? ????? ... ? ? ???? ??S ???S ?????S.... ????.
Then further-(6), What more unlikely than that our LORD would end with giving such prominence to that rebel Angel whom by dying He is declared to have ”destroyed”? (Heb. ii. 14: 1 John iii. 8.) For, take away the Doxology (as our Revisionists propose), and we shall begin the LORD'S Prayer with ”OUR FATHER,” and literally end it with-_the Devil_!-But above all,-(7) Let it never be forgotten that this is _the pattern Prayer_, a portion of every Christian child's daily utterance,-the most sacred of all our formularies, and by far the most often repeated,-into which it is attempted in this way to introduce a startling novelty. Lastly-(8), When it is called to mind that nothing short of _necessity_ has warranted the Revisionists in introducing a single change into the A. V.,-”_clear and plain errors_”-and that no such plea can be feigned on the present occasion, the liberty which they have taken in this place must be admitted to be absolutely without excuse.... Such at least are the grounds on which, for our own part, we refuse to entertain the proposed introduction of the Devil into the LORD'S Prayer. From the position we have taken up, it will be found utterly impossible to dislodge us.
XIII. It is often urged on behalf of the Revisionists that over not a few dark places of S. Paul's Epistles their labours have thrown important light. Let it not be supposed that we deny this. Many a Scriptural difficulty vanishes the instant a place is accurately translated: a far greater number, when the rendering is idiomatic. It would be strange indeed if, at the end of ten years, the combined labours of upwards of twenty Scholars, whose _raison d'etre_ as Revisionists was to do this very thing, had not resulted in the removal of many an obscurity in the A. V.
of Gospels and Epistles alike. What offends us is the discovery that, for every obscurity which has been removed, at least half a dozen others have been introduced: in other words, that the result of this Revision has been the planting in of a _fresh crop of difficulties_, before undreamed of; so that a perpetual wrestling with _these_ is what hereafter awaits the diligent student of the New Testament.
We speak not now of pa.s.sages which have been merely altered for the worse: as when, (in S. James i. 17, 18,) we are invited to read,-”Every good gift and every _perfect boon_ is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom _can be no variation_, neither _shadow that is cast by turning_. Of his own will _he brought us forth_.” Grievous as such blemishes are, it is seen at a glance that they must be set down to nothing worse than tasteless a.s.siduity. What we complain of is that, misled by a depraved Text, our Revisers have often made nonsense of what before was perfectly clear: and have not only thrust many of our LORD'S precious utterances out of sight, (_e.g._ Matt. xvii. 21: Mark x. 21 and xi. 26: Luke ix. 55, 56); but have attributed to Him absurd sayings which He certainly never uttered, (_e.g._ Matt. xix. 17); or else, given such a twist to what He actually said, that His blessed words are no longer recognizable, (as in S. Matt. xi. 23: S. Mark ix. 23: xi. 3). Take a sample:-
(1.) The Church has always understood her LORD to say,-”FATHER, I will that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am; that they may behold My glory.”(662) We reject with downright indignation the proposal henceforth to read instead,-”FATHER_, that which Thou hast given Me I will that, where I am, they also may be with Me_,” &c. We suspect a misprint. The pa.s.sage reads like nonsense. Yes, and nonsense it is,-in Greek as well as in English: (? has been written for ???-one of the countless _betises_ for which ? B D are exclusively responsible; and which the weak superst.i.tion of these last days is for erecting into a new Revelation). We appeal to the old Latin and to the Vulgate,-to the better Egyptian and to all the Syriac versions: to _every known Lectionary_: to Clemens Alex.,(663)-to Eusebius,(664)-to Nonnus,(665)-to Basil,(666)-to Chrysostom,(667)-to Cyril,(668)-to Caelestinus,(669)-to Theodoret:(670) not to mention Cyprian,(671)-Ambrose,(672)-Hilary,(673) &c.:(674) and above all, 16 uncials, beginning with A and C,-and the whole body of the cursives. So many words ought not to be required. If men prefer _their_ ”mumpsimus” to _our_ ”sumpsimus,” let them by all means have it: but pray let them keep their rubbish to themselves,-and at least leave our SAVIOUR'S words alone.
(2.) We shall be told that the foregoing is an outrageous instance. It is.
Then take a few milder cases. They abound, turn whichever way we will.
Thus, we are invited to believe that S. Luke relates concerning our SAVIOUR that He ”_was led by the Spirit in the wilderness during forty days_” (iv. 1). We stare at this new revelation, and refer to the familiar Greek. It proves to be the Greek of _all the copies in the __ world but four_; the Greek which supplied the Latin, the Syrian, the Coptic Churches, with the text of their respective Versions; the Greek which was familiar to Origen,(675)-to Eusebius,(676)-to Basil,(677)-to Didymus,(678)-to Theodoret,(679)-to Maximus,(680)-and to two other ancient writers, one of whom has been mistaken for Chrysostom,(681) the other for Basil.(682) It is therefore quite above suspicion. And it informs us that JESUS ”was led by the Spirit _into the wilderness_;” and there was ”_forty days tempted of the Devil_.” What then has happened to obscure so plain a statement? Nothing more serious than that-(1) Four copies of bad character (? B D L) exhibit ”in” instead of ”into:” and that-(2) Our Revisionists have been persuaded to believe that _therefore_ S. Luke must needs have done the same. Accordingly they invite us to share their conviction that it was the _leading about_ of our LORD, (and not His _Temptation_,) which lasted for 40 days. And this sorry misconception is to be thrust upon the 90 millions of English-speaking Christians throughout the world,-under the plea of ”necessity”!... But let us turn to a more interesting specimen of the mischievous consequences which would ensue from the acceptance of the present so-called ”Revision.”
(3.) What is to be thought of _this_, as a subst.i.tute for the familiar language of 2 Cor. xii. 7?-”_And by reason of the exceeding greatness of the revelations-wherefore, that I should not be exalted overmuch_, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh.” The word ”wherefore” (d??), which occasions all the difficulty-(breaking the back of the sentence and necessitating the hypothesis of a change of construction)-is due solely to the influence of ? A BB. The ordinary Text is recognized by almost every other copy; by the Latin,-Syriac,-Gothic,-Armenian Versions;-as well as by Irenaeus,(683)-Origen,(684)-Macarius,(685)-Athanasius,(686)-Chrysostom,(687)-Theodoret,(688)-John Damascene.(689) Even Tischendorf here makes a stand and refuses to follow his accustomed guides.(690) In plain terms, the text of 2 Cor. xii. 7 is beyond the reach of suspicion. Scarcely intelligible is the infatuation of which our Revisers have been the dupes.-_Quousque tandem?_
(4.) Now this is the method of the Revising body throughout: viz. so seriously to maim the Text of many a familiar pa.s.sage of Holy Writ as effectually to mar it. Even where they remedy an inaccuracy in the rendering of the A. V., they often inflict a more grievous injury than mistranslation on the inspired Text. An instance occurs at S. John x. 14, where the good Shepherd says,-”I know Mine own _and am known of Mine_, even as the FATHER knoweth Me and I know the Father.” By thrusting in here the Manichaean depravation (”_and Mine own know Me_”), our Revisionists have obliterated the exquisite diversity of expression in the original,-which implies that whereas the knowledge which subsists between the FATHER and the SON is identical on either side, not such is the knowledge which subsists between the creature and the Creator. The refinement in question has been faithfully retained all down the ages by every copy in existence except four of bad character,-? B D L. It is witnessed to by the Syriac,-by Macarius,(691)-Gregory Naz.,(692)-Chrysostom,(693)-Cyril Alex.,(694)-Theodoret,(695)-Maximus.(696)
But why go on? Does any one in his sober senses suppose that if S. John had written ”_Mine own know Me_,” 996 ma.n.u.scripts out of 1000, at the end of 1800 years, would be found to exhibit ”_I am known of Mine_”?
(5.) The foregoing instances must suffice. A brief enumeration of many more has been given already, at pp. 144(_b_)-152.
Now, in view of the phenomenon just discovered to us,-(viz. for one crop of deformities weeded out, an infinitely larger crop of far grosser deformities as industriously planted in,)-we confess to a feeling of distress and annoyance which altogether indisposes us to accord to the Revisionists that language of congratulation with which it would have been so agreeable to receive their well-meant endeavours. The serious question at once arises,-Is it to be thought that upon the whole we are gainers, or losers, by the Revised Version? And there seems to be no certain way of resolving this doubt, but by opening a ”Profit and Loss account” with the Revisers,-crediting them with every item of _gain_, and debiting them with every item of _loss_. But then,-(and we ask the question with sanguine simplicity,)-Why should it not be _all_ gain and _no_ loss, when, at the end of 270 years, a confessedly n.o.ble work, a truly unique specimen of genius, taste and learning, is submitted to a body of Scholars, equipped with every external advantage, _only_ in order that they may improve upon it-_if they are able_? These learned individuals have had upwards of ten years wherein to do their work. They have enjoyed the benefit of the tentative labours of a host of predecessors,-some for their warning, some for their help and guidance. They have all along had before their eyes the solemn injunction that, whatever they were not able _certainly_ to improve, they were to be _supremely careful to let alone_. They were warned at the outset against any but ”_necessary_” changes. Their sole business was to remove ”_plain and clear errors_.” They had pledged themselves to introduce ”_as few alterations as possible_.” Why then, we again ask,-_Why_ should not every single innovation which they introduced into the grand old exemplar before them, prove to be a manifest, an undeniable change for the better?(697)
XIV. The more we ponder over this unfortunate production, the more cordially do we regret that it was ever undertaken. Verily, the Northern Convocation displayed a far-sighted wisdom when it p.r.o.nounced against the project from the first. We are constrained to declare that could we have conceived it possible that the persons originally appointed by the Southern Province would have co-opted into their body persons capable of executing their work with such extravagant licentiousness as well as such conspicuous bad taste, we should never have entertained one hopeful thought on the subject. For indeed every characteristic feature of the work of the Revisionists offends us,-as well in respect of what they have left undone, as of what they have been the first to venture to do:-
(_a_) Charged ”to introduce _as few_ alterations as possible into the Text of the Authorized Version,” they have on the contrary evidently acted throughout on the principle of making _as many_ changes in it as they conveniently could.
(_b_) Directed ”to limit, _as far as possible_, the expression of such alterations to the language of the Authorized and earlier English Versions,”-they have introduced such terms as ”a.s.sa.s.sin,” ”apparition,”
”boon,” ”disparagement,” ”divinity,” ”effulgence,” ”epileptic,”
”fickleness,” ”gratulation,” ”irksome,” ”interpose,” ”pitiable,”
”sluggish,” ”stupor,” ”surpa.s.s,” ”tranquil:” such compounds as ”self-control,” ”world-ruler:” such phrases as ”_draw up_ a narrative:”
”_the impulse_ of the steersman:” ”_in lack_ of daily food:” ”_exercising_ oversight.” These are but a very few samples of the offence committed by our Revisionists, of which we complain.
(_c_) Whereas they were required ”to _revise_ the Headings of the Chapters,” they have not even _retained_ them. We demand at least to have our excellent ”Headings” back.