From  the  book  “THE  REVISION  REVISED”  by  John  William  Burgon


GREEK  TO  ENGLISH  BY  THE  REVISIONISTS  OF  1881



(m) Again. At a period of prevailing unbelief in the Inspiration of Scripture, nothing but real necessity could warrant any meddling with such a testimony on the subject as is found in 2 Tim. iii. 16. We have hitherto been taught to believe that ‘All Scripture is given by inspiration of GOD, and is profitable’ &c. The ancients1 clearly so understood S. Paul's words: and so do the most learned and thoughtful of the moderns. [Greek], even if it be interpreted ‘every Scripture’ can only mean every portion of those [Greek] of which the Apostle had been speaking in the previous verse; and therefore must needs signify the whole of Scripture.2   So that the expression ‘all Scripture’ expresses S. Paul's meaning exactly, and should not have been disturbed.


But—'It is very difficult' (so at least thinks the Right Rev. Chairman of the Revisers) 'to decide whether[Greek] is a part of the predicate, kai being the simple copula; or whether it is a part of the subject. Lexicography and grammar contribute but little towards a decision.' 


Not so thought Bishop Middleton. 'I do not recollect' (he says) 'any passage in the N. T. in which two Adjectives, apparently connected by the copulative, were intended by the writer to be so unnaturally disjoined. He who can produce such an instance, will do much towards establishing the plausibility of a translation, which otherwise must appear, to say the least of it, to be forced and improbable.'—


And yet it is proposed to thrust this 'forced and improbable' translation on the acceptance of all English-speaking people, wherever found, on the plea of necessity! Our Revisionists translate, ‘Every Scripture inspired of God is also profitable’ &c,— which of course may be plausibly declared to imply that a distinction is drawn by the Apostle himself between inspired and uninspired Scripture. And pray, (we should be presently asked,) is not many a Scripture (or writing) 'profitable for teaching,' &c. which is not commonly held to be 'inspired of God'? . . . But in fact the proposed rendering is inadmissible, being without logical coherence and consistency. The utmost that could be pretended would be that S. Paul's assertion is that 'every portion of Scripture being inspired' (i.e. inasmuch as it is—because it is—inspired); 'is also profitable,' &c. Else there would be no meaning in the kai, But, in the name of common sense, if this be so, why have the blessed words been meddled with?

……….


ARE  YOU  SEEING  WHAT  UTTER  FOOLISH  NONSENSE  THE  REVISIONISTS  UNDER  VERY  STRONG  INFLUENCE  OF  WESTCOTT  AND  HORT, DID  TO  THE  ENGLISH  TRANSLATION  IN  1881.


IT’S  LIKE  A  BUNCH  OF  KIDS  SMASHING  APART  A  VERY  NICE  BIRTHDAY  CAKE;  THEN  TRYING  TO  REMAKING  IT  AND  SAYING  IT  IS  BETTER  THAN  THE  ORIGINAL  WELL  FORMED,  AND  BAKED  CAKE.


ANOTHER  EXAMPLE  FROM  BURGON……


(n) All are unhappily familiar with the avidity with which the disciples of a certain School fasten upon a mysterious expression in S. Mark's Gospel (xiii. 32), which seems to predicate concerning the Eternal Son, limitation in respect of Knowledge. This is not the place for vindicating the Catholic Doctrine of the Son's ‘equality with the Father as touching His GODhead;' or for explaining that, in consequence, all things that the Father hath, (the knowledge of ‘that Day and Hour’ included,) the Son hath likewise. But this is the place for calling attONLYich the word 'only' effectually excludes it. We call attention to this circumstance with sincere sorrow: but it is sorrow largely mixed with indignation. What else but the betrayal of a sacred trust is it when Divines appointed to correct manifest errors in the English of the N. T. go out of their way to introduce an error like this into the Greek Text which Catholic Antiquity would have repudiated with indignation, and for which certainly the plea of 'necessity' cannot be pretended?

……….


AS  FOR  SOME  “CONTRADICTION”  SUPPOSED  FOR  “ALL THINGS THAT THE FATHER HAS, THE SON HAS LIKEWISE.”  IS  SIMPLY  ANSWERED  IN  ALL  THINGS  THE  FATHER  HAS  CHOSEN  THE  SON  TO  HAVE [ INCLUDING  KNOWLEDGE]  IS  TRUE,  EXCEPT  IN  ANY  KNOWLEDGE  THE  FATHER  HAS  RESERVED  FOR  HIMSELF  ONLY.  THE  ONLY  THAT  THE  SON  DOES  NOT  HAVE  THE  KNOWLEDGE  ON

[AND  IN  THIS  ONE  INSTANT,  THE  ANGELS  ALSO]  IS  THE  DAY  AND  HOUR  THAT  THE  SON  WILL  BE  SENT  BACK  TO  RULE  THE  EARTH.  THAT  IS  THE  ONLY  “KNOWLEDGE”  TOLD  US  IN  THE  BIBLE,  THAT  THE  SON  JESUS  CHRIST,  DOES  NOT  HAVE  THE  KNOWLEDGE  CONCERNING;  THE  FATHER  HAS  RESERVED  THAT  KNOWLEDGE  FOR  HIMSELF.


ANY  VERSE  IN  THE  BIBLE  MUST  BE  UNDERSTOOD  IN  THE  CONTEXT  OF  THE  REST  OF  THE  VERSES  IN  THE  BIBLE.


THERE  ARE  AND  CAN  BE  “EXCEPTIONS”  TO  THE  RULE.


THAT  IS  WHY  WE  MUST  LIVE [AS  JESUS  TAUGHT]  BY  EVERY  WORD  OF  GOD [MAT.4:4].


ALL  KINDS  OF  MISTAKES  CAN  BE  MADE  CONCERNING  TRUTH  AND  DOCTRINE  FROM  GOD,  IF  WE  DO  NOT  READ  ALL  THE  BIBLE.  TAKING  PHRASES  OUT  OF  CONTEXT  LEADS  TO  THE  ATHEIST  SAYING “OH  YOU  CAN  PROVE  ANYTHING  FROM  THE  BIBLE.”


THE  TRUTH  OF  THE  MATTER  IS  THAT  THERE  ARE  NO  CONTRADICTIONS  IN  THE  BIBLE.  BUT  YOU  MUST  READ  ALL  OF  THE  BIBLE  IN  CONTEXT  TO  THE  IMMEDIATE  CONTEXT,  THE  CONTEXT  OF  THE  BOOK,  AND  THE  CONTEXT  OF  THE  WHOLE  BIBLE.


Keith Hunt