Contents
« Prev | [17] Bp. Ellicott's defence of the 'New Greek… | Next » |
[17] Bp. Ellicott's defence of the New Greek Text,
in sixteen particulars, examined.
It follows to consider the strangest feature of your pamphlet: viz. those two-and-thirty pages (p. 43 to p. 75) in which, descending from generals, you venture to dispute in sixteen particulars the sentence passed upon your new Greek Text by the Quarterly Review. I call this part of your pamphlet strange,
because it displays such singular inaptitude to appreciate the force of Evidence. But in fact, (sit venia verbo) your entire method is quite unworthy of you. Whereas I appeal throughout to Ancient Testimony, you seek 416 to put me down by flaunting in my face Modern Opinion. This, with a great deal of Reiteration, proves to be literally the sum of your contention. Thus, concerning S. Matth. i. 25, the Quarterly Reviewer pointed out (suprà pp. 123-4) that the testimony of b א, together with that of the VIth-century fragment z, and two cursive copies of bad character,—cannot possibly stand against the testimony of all other copies. You plead in reply that on those two oldest manuscripts the vast majority of Critics set a high value.
Very likely: but for all that, you are I suppose aware that b and א are two of the most corrupt documents in existence? And, inasmuch as they are confessedly derived from one and the same depraved original, you will I presume allow that they may not be adduced as two independent authorities? At all events, when I further show you that almost all the Versions, and literally every one of the Fathers who quote the place, (they are eighteen in number,) are against you,—how can you possibly think there is any force or relevancy whatever in your self-complacent announcement,—We cannot hesitate to express our agreement with Tischendorf and Tregelles who see in these words an interpolation derived from S. Luke. The same appears to have been the judgment of Lachmann.
Do you desire that that should pass for argument?
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 selected, shall now be indicated. First, on every occasion, reference shall be 417 made to the place in the present volume where my own Criticism on your Greek Text is to be found in detail. Readers of your pamphlet are invited next to refer to your own several attempts at refutation, which shall also be indicated by a reference to your pages. I am quite contented to abide by the verdict of any unprejudiced person of average understanding and fair education:—
(1) Four words omitted in S. Matth. i. 25,—complained of, above, pp. 122-4.—You defend the omission in your pamphlet at pages 43-4,—falling back on Tischendorf, Tregelles and Lachmann, as explained on the opposite page. (p. 416.)
(2) The omission of S. Matth. xvii. 21,—proved to be indefensible, above, pp. 91-2.—The omission is defended by you at pp. 44-5,—on the ground, that although Lachmann retains the verse, and Tregelles only places it in brackets, (Tischendorf alone of the three omitting it entirely,)—it must be remembered that here Lachmann and Tregelles were not acquainted with א.
(3) The omission of S. Matth. xviii. 11,—shown to be unreasonable, above, p. 92.—You defend the omission in your pp. 45-7,—remarking that here there is even less room for doubt than in the preceding cases. The three critical editors are all agreed in rejecting this verse.
(4) The substitution of ἠπόρει for ἐποίει, in S. Mark vi. 20,—strongly complained of, above, pp. 66-9.—Your defence is at pp. 47-8. You urge that in this case again the Revisers have Tischendorf only on their side, and not Lachmann nor Tregelles: but it must be remembered that these critics had not the reading of א before them.
(5) The thrusting of πάλιν (after ἀποστελεῖ) into S. Mark xi. 3,—objected against, above, pp. 56-8.—You defend yourself 418 at pp. 48-9,—and cannot doubt that the Revisers were perfectly justified
in doing as Tischendorf and Tregelles had done before them,
—viz. inventing a new Gospel incident.
(6) The mess you have made of S. Mark xi. 8,—exposed by the Quarterly Reviewer, above, pp. 58-61,—you defend at pp. 49-52. You have preferred to read with Tischendorf and Tregelles.
About,
(7) S. Mark xvi. 9-20,—and (8) S. Luke ii. 14,—I shall have a few serious words to say immediately. About,
(9) the 20 certainly genuine words you have omitted from S. Luke ix. 55, 56,—I promise to give you at no distant date an elaborate lecture. Are we to understand
(you ask) that the Reviewer honestly believes the added words to have formed part of the Sacred Autograph?
(The omitted words,
you mean.) To be sure you are!—I answer.
(10) The amazing blunder endorsed by the Revisers in S. Luke x. 15; which I have exposed above, at pp. 54-6.—You defend the blunder (as usual) at pp. 55-6, remarking that the Revisers, with Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles, adopt the interrogative form.
(This seems to be a part of your style.)
(11) The depraved exhibition of the Lord's Prayer (S. Luke xi. 2-4) which I have commented on above, at pp. 34-6,—you applaud (as usual) at pp. 56-8 of your pamphlet, with Tischendorf and Tregelles.
(12) The omission of 7 important words in S. Luke xxiii. 38, I have commented on, above, at pp. 85-8.—You defend the omission, and the texts of Tischendorf and Tregelles,
at pp. 58-9.
(13) The gross fabrication in S. Luke xxiii. 45, I have exposed, above, at pp. 61-5.—You defend it, at pp. 59-61.
(14) A plain omission in S. John xiv. 4, I have pointed out, above, at pp. 72-3.—You defend it, at pp. 61-2 of your pamphlet.
(15) Titus Justus,
thrust by the Revisers into Acts xviii. 7, I have shown to be an imaginary personage, above, at pp. 53-4.—You stand up for the interesting stranger at pp. 62-4 of your pamphlet. Lastly,
(16) My discussion of 1 Tim. iii. 16 (suprà pp. 98-106),—you contend against from p. 64 to p. 76.—The true reading of this important place, (which is not your reading,) you will find fully discussed from p. 424 to p. 501.
I have already stated why I dismiss thirteen out of your sixteen instances in this summary manner. The remaining three I have reserved for further discussion for a reason I proceed to explain.
« Prev | [17] Bp. Ellicott's defence of the 'New Greek… | Next » |