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.