The Revision Revised

Оглавление

John William Burgon. The Revision Revised

The Revision Revised

Table of Contents

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

[1] Preliminary Statement

[2] The Bishop's pamphlet was anticipated and effectually disposed of, three weeks before it appeared, by the Reviewer's Third Article

[3] Bp. Ellicott remonstrated with for his unfair method of procedure

[4] (Which be “the recognized principles of Textual Criticism”?—a question asked in passing.)

[5] Bp. Ellicott's and the Reviewer's respective methods, contrasted

[6] Bp. Ellicott in May 1870, and in May 1882

[7] “The fabric of modern Textual Criticism” (1831–81) rests on an insecure basis

[8] Bp. Ellicott's strange notions about the “Textus Receptus.”

[9] The Reviewer vindicates himself against Bp. Ellicott's misconceptions

[10] Analysis of contents of Bp. Ellicott's pamphlet

[11] Bp. Ellicott's account of the “Textus Receptus.”

[12] Bp. Ellicott derives his estimate of the “Textus Receptus” from Westcott and Hart's fable of a “Syrian Text.”

[13] Bp. Ellicott has completely adopted Westcott and Hort's Theory

[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”?

[15] Proofs that the Revisers have outrageously exceeded the Instructions they received from the Convocation of the Southern Province

[16] The calamity of the “New Greek Text” traced to its source

[17] Bp. Ellicott's defence of the “New Greek Text,” in sixteen particulars, examined

[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.”

[19] “GOD was manifested in the flesh” Shown To Be The True Reading Of 1 Timothy III. 16

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

Отрывок из книги

John William Burgon

Published by Good Press, 2020

.....

And yet—without by any means subscribing to the precise terms in which the judicious Prelate characterizes those ignes fatui which have so persistently and egregiously led his lordship and his colleagues astray—(for indeed one seems rather to be reading a description of four styles of composition, or of as many fashions in ladies' dress, than of four copies of the Gospel)—we have already furnished indirect proof that his estimate of the codices in question is in the main correct. Further acquaintance with them does but intensify the bad character which he has given them. Let no one suppose that we deny their extraordinary value—their unrivalled critical interest—nay, their actual use in helping to settle the truth of Scripture. What we are just now insisting upon is only the depraved text of codices א a b c d—especially of א b d. And because this is a matter which lies at the root of the whole controversy, and because we cannot afford that there shall exist in our reader's mind the slightest doubt on [pg 016] this part of the subject, we shall be constrained once and again to trouble him with detailed specimens of the contents of א b, &c., in proof of the justice of what we have been alleging. We venture to assure him, without a particle of hesitation, that א b d are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant:—exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with:—have become, by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of Truth—which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of God.

But in fact take a single page of any ordinary copy of the Greek Testament—Bp. Lloyd's edition, suppose. Turn to page 184. It contains ten verses of S. Luke's Gospel, ch. viii. 35 to 44. Now, proceed to collate those ten verses. You will make the notable discovery that, within those narrow limits, by codex d alone the text has been depraved 53 times, resulting in no less than 103 corrupt readings, 93 of which are found only in d. The words omitted by d are 40: the words added are 4. Twenty-five words have been substituted for others, and 14 transposed. Variations of case, tense, &c., amount to 16; and the phrase of the Evangelist has been departed from 11 times. Happily, the other four “old uncials” are here available. And it is found that (within the same limits, and referred to the same test,) a exhibits 3 omissions, 2 of which are peculiar to a.—b omits 12 words, 6 of which are peculiar to b: substitutes 3 words: transposes 4: and exhibits 6 lesser changes—2 of them being its own peculiar property.—א has 5 readings (affecting 8 words) peculiar to itself. Its omissions are 7: its additions, 2: its substitutions, 4: 2 words are transposed; and it exhibits 4 lesser discrepancies.—c has 7 readings (affecting 15 words) peculiar to itself. Its omissions are 4: [pg 017] its additions, 7: its substitutions, 7: its words transposed, 7. It has 2 lesser discrepancies, and it alters the Evangelist's phrase 4 times.

.....