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
Other instances of Assimilation are conspicuous. All must see that, in
ver. 5, καὶ ἰδών (א B C) is derived from Matt. ix. 2 and Luke v. 20: as
well as that “Son, _be of good cheer_” (C) is imported hither from Matt.
ix. 2. “_My_ son,” on the other hand (א), is a mere effort of the
imagination. In the same verse, σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαι (א B D) is either from
Matt. ix. 5 (_sic_); or else from ver. 9, lower down in S. Mark’s
narrative. Λέγοντες, in ver. 6 (D), is from S. Luke v. 21. Ὕπαγε (א) in
ver. 9, and ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου (D), are clearly importations from ver
11. The strange confusion in ver. 7,—“_Because this man thus speaketh, he
blasphemeth_” (B),—and “_Why doth this man thus speak? He blasphemeth_” (א
D),—is due solely to Mtt. ix. 3:—while the appendix proposed by א as a
substitute for “We never saw it on this fashion” (οὐδέποτε οὕτως εἴδομεν),
in ver 12 (viz. “It was never so seen in Israel,” οὐδέποτε οὕτως ἐφάνη ἐν
τῷ Ἰσραήλ), has been transplanted hither from S. Matt. ix. 33.
We shall perhaps be told that, scandalously corrupt as the text of א B C D
hereabouts may be, no reason has been shown as yet for suspecting that
_heretical_ depravation ever had anything to do with such phenomena.
_That_ (we answer) is only because the writings of the early depravers and
fabricators of Gospels have universally perished. From the slender relics
of their iniquitous performances which have survived to our time, we are
sometimes able to lay our finger on a foul blot and to say, “_This_ came
from Tatian’s Diatessaron; and _that_ from Marcion’s mutilated recension
of the Gospel according to S. Luke.” The piercing of our SAVIOUR’S side,
transplanted by codices א B C from S. John xix. 34 into S. Matt, xxvii.
49, is an instance of the former,—which it may reasonably create
astonishment to find that Drs. Westcott and Hort (_alone among Editors_)
have nevertheless admitted into their text, as equally trustworthy with
the last 12 verses of S. Mark’s Gospel. But it occasions a stronger
sentiment than surprise to discover that this, “the gravest interpolation
yet laid to the charge of B,”—this “sentence which neither they nor any
other competent scholar can possibly believe that the Evangelist ever
wrote,”(73)—has been actually foisted into the margin of _the Revised
Version_ of S. Matthew xxvii. 49. Were not the Revisionists aware that
such a disfigurement must prove fatal to their work? _For whose_ benefit
is the information volunteered that “many ancient authorities” are thus
grossly interpolated?
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