 |  |
To quote Dean Burgon again:
"A grander or more unequivocal testimony to our Lord's eternal Godhead is nowhere
to be found in Scripture. Now this is a matter--let it be clearly observed--which (as
Dr. Hort is aware) belongs to Interpretation, and not to Textual Criticism. What business
has it then in these pages at all? Is it then the function of Divines appointed to revise the
Authorized Version, to give information to the 90 millions of English-speaking Christians
scattered throughout the world as to the unfaithfulness of `some modern Interpreters'?
We have hitherto supposed that it was `Ancient authorities' exclusively (whether `a few'
or `some' or `many') to which we are invited to submit our judgment. How does it come
to pass that the Socinian gloss on this grand text (Rom. 9: 5) has been brought into such
extraordinary prominence? Did our Revisionists consider that their marginal note would
travel to earth's remotest verge--give universal currency to the view of `some modern
Interpreters', and in the end `tell it out, among the heathen' also? We refer to
Manuscripts, Versions, Fathers: and what do we find?
(1) It is demonstrable that the oldest codices, besides the whole body of Cursives,
know nothing about the method of `some modern Interpreters'.
(2) There is absolutely not a shadow, nor a tittle of evidence, in any of the ancient
versions to warrant what they do.
(3) How, then, about the old Fathers? We find that the expression `Who is over all
(things), God blessed for ever' is expressly acknowledged to refer to our Saviour by the
following 60 illustrious names."
Here follow the names of 60 "Fathers", together with the number of times each has
cited Rom. 9: 5 as referring to the Saviour.
The Dean continues:
"Against such an overwhelming torrent of Patristic testimony, it will not surely be
pretended that the Socinian interpretation, to which our Revisionists give such
prominence, can stand. But why was it introduced at all? . . . . . Indifferent scholarship,
and mistaken views of Textual Criticism, are at least venial matters. But a Socinian gloss
gratuitously thrust into the margin of every Englishman's N.T. admits of no excuse--is
not to be tolerated on any terms.
Sufficient has now been said to suggest that the reader should treat the R.V. with care.
We are not blind to its excellencies, and in earlier articles we have endeavoured to do
them justice. On the other hand, we are also not blind to its extremely dangerous
tendencies, which attack both the living Word and the written Word (I Tim. 3: 16;
II Tim. 3: 16 R.V.). We have quoted very fully from the writings of Dean Burgon, and
we hope that those who need further evidence will be encouraged to give his witness a
careful hearing. His book "The Revision Revised", published by John Murray, can be
obtained second-hand at prices ranging from about five to ten shillings, according to
condition.
Let no one misunderstand our attitude with regard to this question of the Authorized
and Revised Versions. Because we reject, in certain cases, the text substituted by the
Revisers, this does not imply either a blind following of the A.V., or any lack of
appreciation of the undoubted merits of the R.V. We have endeavoured to put before the