24 chapters
10 hour read
Selected Chapters
24 chapters
Dedication.
Dedication.
To The Right Hon. Viscount Cranbrook, G.C.S.I., &c., &c., &c. My dear Lord Cranbrook , Allow me the gratification of dedicating the present Volume to yourself; but for whom—(I reserve the explanation for another day)—it would never have been written. This is not, (as you will perceive at a glance,) the Treatise which a few years ago I told you I had in hand; and which, but for the present hindrance, might by this time have been completed. It has however grown out of that
34 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
Preface.
Preface.
But then, delay would have been fatal. I saw plainly that unless a sharp blow was delivered immediately, the Citadel would be in the enemy's hands. I knew also that it was just possible to condense into 60 or 70 closely-printed pages what must logically prove fatal to the “Revision.” So I set to work; and during the long summer days of 1881 (June to September) the foremost of these three Articles was elaborated. When the October number of “the Quarterly” appeared, I comforted myself with the sec
2 hour read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
Article I. The New Greek Text.
Article I. The New Greek Text.
“ It is my honest conviction that for any authoritative Revision , we are not yet mature; either in Biblical learning or Hellenistic scholarship . There is good scholarship in this country, ... but it has certainly not yet been sufficiently directed to the study of the New Testament ... to render any national attempt at Revision either hopeful or lastingly profitable. ” — Bishop Ellicott. 29 “ I am persuaded that a Revision ought to come: I am convinced that it will come. Not however, I would tr
2 hour read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
Article II. The New English Version.
Article II. The New English Version.
“ To pass from the one to the other, is, as it were, to alight from a well-built and well-hung carriage which glides easily over a macadamized road,—and to get into one which has bad springs or none at all , and in which you are jolted in ruts with aching bones over the stones of a newly-mended and rarely traversed road , like some of the roads in our North Lincolnshire villages. ” — Bishop Wordsworth. 382 “ No Revision at the present day could hope to meet with an hour's acceptance if it failed
59 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
Article III. Westcott And Hort's New Textual Theory.
Article III. Westcott And Hort's New Textual Theory.
“ We have no right, doubtless, to assume that our Principles are infallible: but we have a right to claim that any one who rejects them ... should confute the Arguments and rebut the Evidence on which the opposite conclusion has been founded. Strong expressions of Individual Opinion are not Arguments. ” — Bp. Ellicott's Pamphlet, (1882,) p. 40. Our “ method involves vast research, unwearied patience.... It will therefore find but little favour with those who adopt the easy method ... of using so
47 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
[1] Preliminary Statement.
[1] Preliminary Statement.
You may be quite sure that I examined your pamphlet as soon as it appeared, with attention. I have since read it through several times: and—I must add—with ever-increasing astonishment. First, because it is so evidently the production of one who has never made Textual Criticism seriously his study. Next, because your pamphlet is no refutation whatever of my two Articles. You flout me: you scold me: you lecture me. But I do not find that you ever answer me. You reproduce the theory of Drs. Westco
1 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
[2] The Bishop's pamphlet was anticipated and effectually disposed of, three weeks before it appeared, by the Reviewer's Third Article.
[2] The Bishop's pamphlet was anticipated and effectually disposed of, three weeks before it appeared, by the Reviewer's Third Article.
I am bound, at the same time, to acknowledge that you have been singularly unlucky. While you were penning your Defence, (namely, throughout the first four months of 1882,) I was making a fatal inroad into your position, by showing how utterly without foundation is the “Textual Theory” to which you and your co-Revisers have been so rash as to commit yourselves. 848 This fact I find duly recognized in your “Postscript.” “Since the foregoing pages were in print” (you say,) “a third article has app
2 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
[3] Bp. Ellicott remonstrated with for his unfair method of procedure.
[3] Bp. Ellicott remonstrated with for his unfair method of procedure.
I should enter at once on an examination of your Reply, but that I am constrained at the outset to remonstrate with you on the exceeding unfairness of your entire method of procedure. Your business was to make it plain to the public that you have dealt faithfully with the Deposit: have strictly fulfilled the covenant into which you entered twelve years ago with the Convocation of the Southern Province: have corrected only “ plain and clear errors .” Instead of this, you labour to enlist vulgar p
3 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
[4] (Which be “the recognized principles of Textual Criticism”?—a question asked in passing.)
[4] (Which be “the recognized principles of Textual Criticism”?—a question asked in passing.)
But give me leave to ask in passing,— Which , pray, are “the recognized principles of Criticism” to which you refer? I profess I have never met with them yet; and I am sure it has not been for want of diligent enquiry. You have publicly charged me before your Diocese with being “innocently ignorant of the now established principles of Textual Criticism.” 854 But why do you not state which those principles are ? I am surprised. You are for ever vaunting “ principles which have been established by
3 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
[5] Bp. Ellicott's and the Reviewer's respective methods, contrasted.
[5] Bp. Ellicott's and the Reviewer's respective methods, contrasted.
Waiving this however, (for it is beside the point,) I venture to ask,—With what show of reason can you pretend that I “ sustain my charges ” against codices א b c l , “ by a rough comparison of these ancient authorities with the Textus Receptus” ? 858 ... Will you deny that it is a mere misrepresentation of the plain facts of the case, to say so? Have I not, on the contrary, on every occasion referred Readings in dispute,—the reading of א b c l on the one hand, the reading of the Textus Receptus
8 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
[6] Bp. Ellicott in May 1870, and in May 1882.
[6] Bp. Ellicott in May 1870, and in May 1882.
A word in your private ear, (by your leave) in passing. You seem to have forgotten that, at the time when you entered on the work of Revision, your own estimate of the Texts put forth by these Editors was the reverse of favourable; i.e. was scarcely distinguishable from that of your present correspondent. Lachmann's you described as “a text composed on the narrowest and most exclusive principles,” — “really based on little more than four manuscripts .” — “The case of Tischendorf” (you said) “is
1 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
[7] “The fabric of modern Textual Criticism” (1831-81) rests on an insecure basis.
[7] “The fabric of modern Textual Criticism” (1831-81) rests on an insecure basis.
I have been guilty of little else than sacrilege, it seems, because I have ventured to send a shower of shot and shell into the flimsy decrees of these three Critics which now you are pleased grandiloquently to designate and describe as “ the whole fabric of Criticism which has been built up within the last fifty years .” Permit me to remind you that the “fabric” you speak of,—(confessedly a creation of yesterday,)—rests upon a foundation of sand; and has been already so formidably assailed, or
30 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
[8] Bp. Ellicott's strange notions about the “Textus Receptus.”
[8] Bp. Ellicott's strange notions about the “Textus Receptus.”
(1) By comparison with what other standard, if not by the Received Text, would you yourself obtain the measure of “all extant documents,” however ancient?... This first. And next, (2) Why should the “ indisputable antiquity ” of a document be supposed to disqualify it from being measured by the same standard to which ( but only for convenience ) documents of whatever date,—by common consent of scholars, at home and abroad,—are invariably referred? And next, (3) Surely, you cannot require to have
5 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
[9] The Reviewer vindicates himself against Bp. Ellicott's misconceptions.
[9] The Reviewer vindicates himself against Bp. Ellicott's misconceptions.
But you are quite determined that I shall mean something essentially different. The Quarterly Reviewer, (you say,) is one who “contends that the Received Text needs but little emendation; and may be used without emendation as a standard .” 874 I am, (you say,) one of “those who adopt the easy method of making the Received Text a standard.” 875 My “Criticism,” (it seems,) “often rests ultimately upon the notion that it is little else but sacrilege to impugn the tradition of the last three hundred
3 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
[11] Bp. Ellicott's account of the “Textus Receptus.”
[11] Bp. Ellicott's account of the “Textus Receptus.”
First then, for your strenuous endeavour (pp. 7-10) to prejudice the question by pouring contempt on the humblest ancestor of the Textus Receptus —namely, the first edition of Erasmus. You know very well that the “Textus Receptus” is not the first edition of Erasmus. Why then do you so describe its origin as to imply that it is ? You ridicule the circumstances under which a certain ancestor of the family first saw the light. You reproduce with evident satisfaction a silly witticism of Michaelis,
6 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
[12] Bp. Ellicott derives his estimate of the “Textus Receptus” from Westcott and Hart's fable of a “Syrian Text.”
[12] Bp. Ellicott derives his estimate of the “Textus Receptus” from Westcott and Hart's fable of a “Syrian Text.”
Let us hear what comes next:— A very pertinent question truly. We are made attentive: the more so, because you announce that your reply to this question shall “go to the bottom of the controversy with which we are concerned.” 879 That reply is as follows:— “A final standard” !... Nay but, why do you suddenly introduce this unheard-of characteristic? Who , pray, since the invention of Printing was ever known to put forward any existing Text as “a final standard” ? Not the Quarterly Reviewer certa
9 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
[13] Bp. Ellicott has completely adopted Westcott and Hort's Theory.
[13] Bp. Ellicott has completely adopted Westcott and Hort's Theory.
But in the meantime, so confident are you of the existence of a “Syrian text,” —( only however because Dr. Hort is ,)—that you inflict upon your readers all the consequences which “the Syrian text” is supposed to carry with it. Your method is certainly characterized by humility: for it consists in merely serving up to the British public a réchauffé of Westcott and Hort's Textual Theory. I cannot discover that you contribute anything of your own to the meagre outline you furnish of it. Everything
36 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
[14] The Question modestly proposed,—Whether Bp. Ellicott's adoption of Westcott and Hort's “new Textual Theory” does not amount to (what lawyers call) “Conspiracy”?
[14] The Question modestly proposed,—Whether Bp. Ellicott's adoption of Westcott and Hort's “new Textual Theory” does not amount to (what lawyers call) “Conspiracy”?
But, my lord Bishop, when I reach the end of your laborious avowal that you entirely accept “Westcott and Hort's new Textual Theory,” —I find it impossible to withhold the respectful enquiry,—Is such a proceeding on your part altogether allowable? I frankly confess that to me the wholesale adoption by the Chairman of the Revising body, of the theory of two of the Revisers,—and then, his exclusive reproduction and vindication of that theory , when he undertakes, all this, my lord Bishop, I frankl
1 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
[15] Proofs that the Revisers have outrageously exceeded the Instructions they received from the Convocation of the Southern Province.
[15] Proofs that the Revisers have outrageously exceeded the Instructions they received from the Convocation of the Southern Province.
It follows next to enquire whether your work as Revisers was conducted in conformity with the conditions imposed upon you by the Southern House of Convocation, or not. “ Nothing ” (you say)— “The Reviewer,” my lord Bishop, proceeds to demonstrate that you “exceeded your Instructions,” even to an extraordinary extent. But it will be convenient first to hear you out. You proceed,— But you seem to have forgotten that the “Rule” which you quote formed no part of the “ Instructions ” which were impos
41 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
[16] The calamity of the “New Greek Text” traced to its source.
[16] The calamity of the “New Greek Text” traced to its source.
There is no difficulty in accounting for the most serious of the foregoing phenomena. They are the inevitable consequence of your having so far succumbed at the outset to Drs. Westcott and Hort as to permit them to communicate bit by bit, under promise of secrecy, their own outrageous Revised Text of the N. T. to their colleagues, accompanied by a printed disquisition in advocacy of their own peculiar critical views. One would have expected in the Chairman of the Revising body, that the instant
20 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
[17] Bp. Ellicott's defence of the “New Greek Text,” in sixteen particulars, examined.
[17] Bp. Ellicott's defence of the “New Greek Text,” in sixteen particulars, examined.
To prolong a discussion of this nature with you, were plainly futile. Instead of repeating what I have already delivered—briefly indeed, yet sufficiently in detail,—I will content myself with humbly imitating what, if I remember rightly, was Nelson's plan when he fought the battle of the Nile. He brought his frigates, one by one, alongside those of the enemy;—lashed himself to the foe;—and poured in his broadsides. We remember with what result. The sixteen instances which you have yourself selec
4 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
[18] Bp. Ellicott's claim that the Revisers were guided by “the consentient testimony of the most ancient Authorities,”—disproved by an appeal to their handling of S. Luke ii. 14 and of S. Mark xvi. 9-20. The self-same claim,—(namely, of abiding by the verdict of Catholic Antiquity,)—vindicated, on the contrary, for the “Quarterly Reviewer.”
[18] Bp. Ellicott's claim that the Revisers were guided by “the consentient testimony of the most ancient Authorities,”—disproved by an appeal to their handling of S. Luke ii. 14 and of S. Mark xvi. 9-20. The self-same claim,—(namely, of abiding by the verdict of Catholic Antiquity,)—vindicated, on the contrary, for the “Quarterly Reviewer.”
You labour hard throughout your pamphlet to make it appear that the point at which our methods, (yours and mine,) respectively diverge,—is, that I insist on making my appeal to the “ Textus Receptus ;” you , to Ancient Authority . But happily, my lord Bishop, this is a point which admits of being brought to issue by an appeal to fact. You shall first be heard: and you are observed to express yourself on behalf of the Revising body, as follows: “ It was impossible to mistake the conviction upon w
48 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
[19] “GOD was manifested in the flesh” Shown To Be The True Reading Of 1 Timothy III. 16.
[19] “GOD was manifested in the flesh” Shown To Be The True Reading Of 1 Timothy III. 16.
In conclusion, you insist on ripping up the discussion concerning 1 Tim. iii. 16. I had already devoted eight pages to this subject. 920 You reply in twelve. 921 That I may not be thought wanting in courtesy, the present rejoinder shall extend to seventy-six. I propose, without repeating myself, to follow you over the ground you have re-opened. But it will be convenient that I should define at the outset what is precisely the point in dispute between you and me. I presume it to be undeniably thi
54 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
Appendix Of Sacred Codices.
Appendix Of Sacred Codices.
My original intention had been to publish this enumeration of Sacred Codices in its entirety as an Appendix to the present volume: but finding that the third edition of Dr. Scrivener's “Introduction” would appear some months before my own pages could possibly see the light, I eagerly communicated my discoveries to my friend. I have indeed proposed to myself no other object throughout but the advancement of the study of Textual Criticism: and it was reasonable to hope that by means of his widely
16 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter