The Revision Revised

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.

By John William Burgon, B.D.

Dean of Chichester.

“Little children,—Keep yourselves from idols.”—1 John v. 21.

Dover Publications, Inc.

New York

1971





CONTENTS


Dedication.
Preface.
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.
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






[Transcriber’s Note: This book contains much Greek text, which will not be
well-rendered in plain text versions of this E-book. Also, there is much
use of Greek characters with a vertical bar across the tops of the letters
to indicate abbreviations; because the coding system used in this e-book
does not have such an “overline”, they are rendered here with underlines.
It also contains some text in Syriac, which is written right-to-left; for
the sake of different transcription methods, it is transcribed here in
both right-to-left and left-to-rights, so that regardless of the medium of
this E-book, one or the other should be readable.]

The following is PREBENDARY SCRIVENER’S recently published estimate of the
System on which DRS. WESTCOTT AND HORT have constructed their “_Revised
Greek Text of the New Testament_” (1881).—That System, the Chairman of the
Revising Body (BISHOP ELLICOTT) has entirely adopted (see below, pp. 391
to 397), and made the basis of his Defence of THE REVISERS and their “_New
Greek Text._”


(1.) “There is little hope for the stability of their imposing
structure, if _its foundations have been laid on the sandy ground
of ingenious conjecture_. And, since barely the smallest vestige
of historical evidence has ever been alleged in support of the
views of these accomplished Editors, their teaching must either be
received as intuitively true, or _dismissed from our consideration
as precarious and even visionary_.”

(2.) “DR. HORT’S System _is entirely destitute of historical
foundation_.”

(3.) “We are compelled to repeat as emphatically as ever our
strong conviction that the Hypothesis to whose proof he has
devoted so many laborious years, _is destitute not only of
historical foundation, but of all probability, resulting from the
internal goodness of the Text which its adoption would force upon
us_.”

(4.) “ ‘We cannot doubt’ (says DR. HORT) ‘that S. Luke xxiii. 34
comes from an extraneous source.’ [_Notes_, p. 68.]—_Nor can we,
on our part, doubt_,” (rejoins DR. SCRIVENER,) “_that the System
which entails such consequences is hopelessly self-condemned_.”


SCRIVENER’S “Plain Introduction,” &c. [ed. 1883]: pp. 531, 537, 542, 604.





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 other work in the manner explained at the beginning of my
Preface. Moreover it contains not a few specimens of the argumentation of
which the work in question, when at last it sees the light, will be
discovered to be full._