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
Absolutely decisive of the true reading of the passage—irrespectively of
internal considerations—ought to be the consideration that it is vouched
for _by every known copy_ of the Gospels of whatever sort, excepting only
א A B D: the first and third of which, however, were anciently corrected
and brought into conformity with the Received Text; while the second (A)
is observed to be so inconstant in its testimony, that in the primitive
“Morning-hymn” (given in another page of the same codex, and containing a
quotation of S. Luke ii. 14), the correct reading of the place is found.
D’s complicity in error is the less important, because of the ascertained
sympathy between that codex and the Latin. In the meantime the two Syriac
Versions are a full set-off against the Latin copies; while the hostile
evidence of the Gothic (which this time sides with the Latin) is more than
neutralized by the unexpected desertion of the Coptic version from the
opposite camp. The Armenian, Georgian, Æthiopic, Slavonic and Arabian
versions, are besides all with the Received Text. It therefore comes to
this:—We are invited to make our election between every other copy of the
Gospels,—every known Lectionary,—and (not least of all) the ascertained
ecclesiastical usage of the Eastern Church from the beginning,—on the one
hand: and the testimony of four Codices without a history or a character,
which concur in upholding a patent mistake, on the other. Will any one
hesitate as to which of these two parties has the stronger claim on his
allegiance?
Could doubt be supposed to be entertained in any quarter, it must at all
events be borne away by the torrent of Patristic authority which is
available on the present occasion:—
In the IInd century,—we have the testimony of (1) Irenæus.(90)
In the IIIrd,—that of (2) Origen(91) in 3 places,—and of (3) the
_Apostolical Constitutions_(92) in 2.
In the IVth,—(4) Eusebius,(93)—(5) Aphraates the Persian,(94)—(6) Titus of
Bostra,(95) each twice;—(7) Didymus(96) in 3 places;—(8) Gregory of
Nazianzus,(97)—(9) Cyril of Jerusalem,(98)—(10) Epiphanius(99) twice;—(11)
Gregory of Nyssa(100) 4 times,—(12) Ephraem Syrus,(101)—(13) Philo bishop
of Carpasus,(102)—(14) Chrysostom,(103) in 9 places,—and (15) a nameless
preacher at Antioch,(104)—all these, _contemporaries (be it remembered)
of_ B _and_ א, are found to bear concurrent testimony in favour of the
commonly received text.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
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