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.Burgon, John William
Religion
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.
Burgon, John William
Bible. New Testament -- English -- Criticism, Textual; Bible. New Testament -- English -- Versions -- Revised -- Controversial literature; Bible. New Testament -- English -- Versions -- Revised -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.; Ellicott, C. J. (Charles John), 1819-1905
But the whole of the problem does not by any means lie on the surface. All
that _appears_ is that the five oldest uncials are not trustworthy
witnesses; which singly, in the course of 12 verses separate themselves
from their fellows 33 times: viz. A, twice;—א, 5 times;—B, 6 times;—C,
thrice;—D, 17 times: and which also enter into the 11 following
combinations with one another in opposition to the ordinary Text:—A C,
twice;—א B, 10 times;—א D, once;—C D, 3 times;—א B C, once;—א B D, 5
times;—א C D, once;—B C D, once;—A א C D, once;—A B C D, once;—A א B C D,
once. (Note, that on this last occasion, which is the _only_ time when
they all 5 agree, _they are certainly all 5 wrong_.) But this, as was
observed before, lies on the surface. On closer critical inspection, it is
further discovered that their testimony betrays the baseness of their
origin by its intrinsic worthlessness. Thus, in Mk. ii, 1, the delicate
precision of the announcement ἠκούσθη ὅτι ΕἸΣ ΟἾΚΟΝ ἘΣΤΙ (that “_He has
gone in_”), disappears from א B D:—as well as (in ver. 2) the circumstance
that it became the signal for many “_immediately_” (א B) to assemble about
the door.—In ver. 4, S. Mark explains his predecessor’s concise statement
that the paralytic was “brought to” our SAVIOUR,(72) by remarking that the
thing was “_impossible_” by the ordinary method of approach. Accordingly,
his account of the expedient resorted to by the bearers fills one entire
verse (ver. 4) of his Gospel. In the mean time, א B by exhibiting (in S.
Mark ii. 3,) “bringing unto Him one sick of the palsy” (φέροντες πρὸς
αὐτὸν παραλυτικόν,—which is but a senseless transposition of πρὸς αὐτόν,
παραλυτικὸν φέροντες), do their best to obliterate the exquisite
significance of the second Evangelist’s method.—In the next verse, the
perplexity of the bearers, who, because they could not “_come nigh_ Him”
(προσεγγίσαι αὐτῷ), unroofed the house, is lost in א B,—whose προσενέγκαι
has been obtained either from Matt. ix. 2, or else from Luke v. 18, 19
(εἰσενεγκεῖν, εἰσενέγκωσιν). “The bed WHERE WAS the paralytic” (τὸν
κράββατον ὍΠΟΥ ἮΝ ὁ παραλυτικός), in imitation of “the roof WHERE WAS”
Jesus (τὴν στέγην ὍΠΟΥ ἮΝ [ὁ Ἰησοῦς], which had immediately preceded), is
just one of those tasteless depravations, for which א B, and especially D,
are conspicuous among manuscripts.—In the last verse, the _instantaneous
rising_ of the paralytic, noticed by S. Mark (ἠγέρθη εὐθέως), and insisted
upon by S. Luke (“_and immediately he rose up_ before them,”—καὶ παραχρῆμα
ἀναστὰς ἐνώπιον αὐτῶν), is obliterated by shifting εὐθέως in א B and C to
a place where εὐθέως is not wanted, and where its significancy disappears.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account