The Revision Revised. Three Articles Reprinted From The “Quarterly Review.” I. The New Greek Text. II. The New English Version. III. Westcott and Hort’s New Textual Theory. To Which is Added A Reply to Bishop Ellicott’s Pamphlet In Defence Of The Revisers and Their Greek Text of the New Testament: Including a Vindication of the Traditional Reading of 1 Timothy III. 16. By John William Burgon, B.D. Dean of Chichester. “Little children,—Keep yourselves from idols.”—1 John v. 21. Dover Publications, Inc. New York 1971 CONTENTS Dedication. Preface. Article I. The New Greek Text. Article II. The New English Version. Article III. Westcott And Hort’s New Textual Theory. Letter To Bishop Ellicott, In Reply To His Pamphlet. Appendix Of Sacred Codices. Index I, of Texts of Scripture,—quoted, discussed, or only referred to in this volume. Index II, of Fathers. Index III, Persons, Places, and Subjects. Footnotes [Transcriber’s Note: This book contains much Greek text, which will not be well-rendered in plain text versions of this E-book. Also, there is much use of Greek characters with a vertical bar across the tops of the letters to indicate abbreviations; because the coding system used in this e-book does not have such an “overline”, they are rendered here with underlines. It also contains some text in Syriac, which is written right-to-left; for the sake of different transcription methods, it is transcribed here in both right-to-left and left-to-rights, so that regardless of the medium of this E-book, one or the other should be readable.] The following is PREBENDARY SCRIVENER’S recently published estimate of the System on which DRS. WESTCOTT AND HORT have constructed their “_Revised Greek Text of the New Testament_” (1881).—That System, the Chairman of the Revising Body (BISHOP ELLICOTT) has entirely adopted (see below, pp. 391 to 397), and made the basis of his Defence of THE REVISERS and their “_New Greek Text._” (1.) “There is little hope for the stability of their imposing structure, if _its foundations have been laid on the sandy ground of ingenious conjecture_. And, since barely the smallest vestige of historical evidence has ever been alleged in support of the views of these accomplished Editors, their teaching must either be received as intuitively true, or _dismissed from our consideration as precarious and even visionary_.” (2.) “DR. HORT’S System _is entirely destitute of historical foundation_.”