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


MORE  EXAMPLES  OF  GREEK  TO  ENGLISH  FROM  THE  REVISIONISTS  OF  1881



(2.) We shall be told that the foregoing is an outrageous instance. It is. Then take a few milder cases. They abound, turn whichever way we will. Thus, we are invited to believe that S. Luke relates concerning our Saviour that He ‘was led by the Spirit in the wilderness during forty days’ (iv. 1). We stare at this new revelation, and refer to the familiar Greek. 


It proves to be the Greek of all the copies in the world but four; the Greek which supplied the Latin, the Syrian, the Coptic Churches, with the text of their respective Versions; the Greek which was familiar to Origen,1—to Eusebius,3—to Basil,3 — to Didymus, 4 —- to Theodoret,5 — to Maximus,6— and to two other ancient writers, one of whom has been mistaken for Chrysostom,7 the other for Basil.8 


It is therefore quite above suspicion. And it informs us that Jesus ‘was led by the Spirit into the wilderness;’ and there was ‘forty days tempted of the Devil’! 


What then has happened to obscure so plain a statement? Nothing more serious than that—(1) Four copies of bad character (+ B D L) exhibit 'in' instead of 'into:' and that —(2) Our Revisionists have been persuaded to believe that therefore S. Luke must needs have done the same. Accordingly they invite us to share their conviction that it was the leading about of our Lord, (and not His Temptation,) which lasted for 40 days. And this sorry misconception is to be thrust upon the 90 millions of English-speaking Christians throughout the world,—under the plea of 'necessity'! . . . 


But let us turn to a more interesting specimen of the mischievous consequences which would ensue from the acceptance of the present so-called ' Revision.'


(3.) What is to be thought of this, as a substitute for the familiar language of 2 Cor. xii. 7 ?—'And by reason of the exceeding greatness of the revelations—wherefore, that I should not be exalted overmuch, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh.' The word ‘wherefore’ (dio), which occasions all the difficulty—(breaking the back of the sentence and necessitating the hypothesis of a change of construction)—is due solely to the influence of + A B.   The ordinary Text is recognized by almost every other copy; by the Latin,—Syriac,— Gothic,—Armenian Versions;—as well as by Irenaeus,1— Origen,2 — Macarius,3 —Athanasius,4—Chrysostom,5—Theodoret,6—John Damascene.7 Even Teschendorf here makes a stand and refuses to follow his accustomed guides.8 


In plain terms, the text of 2 Cor. xii. 7 is beyond the reach of suspicion. Scarcely intelligible is the infatuation of which our Revisers have been the dupes.—Quomque tandem ?


(4.) Now this is the method of the Revising body throughout: viz. so seriously to maim the Text of many a familiar passage of Holy Writ as effectually to mar it. Even where they remedy an inaccuracy in the rendering of the A. V., they often inflict a more grievous injury than mistranslation on the inspired Text. 


An instance occurs at S. John x. 14, where the good Shepherd says,—‘I know Mine own and am known of Mine, even as the Father knoweth Me and I know the Father.’ By thrusting in here the Manichsean depravation (‘and Mine own know Me’), our Revisionists have obliterated the exquisite diversity of expression in the original,—which implies that whereas the knowledge which subsists between the Father and the Son is identical on either side, not such is the knowledge which subsists between the creature and the Creator. The refinement in question has been faithfully retained all down the ages by every copy in existence except four of bad character,— + B D L. It is witnessed to by the Syriac,—by Macarius,—Gregory Naz., — Chrysostom,—Cyril  Alex.,—Theodoret,—Maximus.



But why go on? Does any one in his sober senses suppose that if S. John had written ‘Mine own know Me,’ 996 manuscripts out of 1000, at the end of 1800 years, would be found to exhibit ‘I am known of Mine’?

……….


THIS  IS  ENOUGH  TO  BRING  TO  YOU  OF  THE  STRANGE  AND  OUTRAGEOUS  GREEK  TRANSLATED  TO  ENGLISH,  THAT  BURGON  EXPOUNDS  IN  HIS  BOOK.


THE  FACTS  ON  THE  MENTALITY,  BIAS,  AND  PLANS  TO  ALTER  THE  GREEK;  AND  GREEK  TO  ENGLISH,  BY  WESTCOTT  AND  HORT,  ARE  SHOWN  IN  OTHER  ARTICLES  UNDER  THIS  SECTION  OF  MY  WEBSITE.


THEY [WESCOT  AND  HORT]  WERE  TWO  MEN  FROM  PLANET  PLUTO  THEOLOGY;  THEIR  INFLUENCE  STILL  EXTENDS  IN  THE  CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY  WORLD,  IN  A  LARGE  WAY.  MOST  OF  YOUR  MODERN  ENGLISH  NEW  TESTAMENTS  ARE  FOUNDED  UPON  THE  TWO  CORRUPT  MSS  -  VATICANUS  AND  SINAITICUS.


AGAIN  I  MUST  ASK  THE  QUESTION:  DID  WE  NOT  HAVE  THE  CORRECT  NEW  TESTAMENT  UNTIL  WESCOTT  AND  HORT  CAME  ALONG  TO  GIVE  IT  TO  US?


SUCH  IS  A  REDICULOUS,  FOOLHARDY,  ASININE,  AND  UNINTELLIGENT  IDEA.


Keith Hunt