[Gutenberg 36722] • The Revision Revised / Three Articles Reprinted from the "Quarterly Review." 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 Burgon, John William -- Read -- Imperial Library of Trantor

Index

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.

[1] Preliminary Statement. [2] The Bishop's pamphlet was anticipated and effectually disposed of, three weeks before it appeared, by the Reviewer's Third Article. [3] Bp. Ellicott remonstrated with for his unfair method of procedure. [4] (Which be “the recognized principles of Textual Criticism”?—a question asked in passing.) [5] Bp. Ellicott's and the Reviewer's respective methods, contrasted. [6] Bp. Ellicott in May 1870, and in May 1882. [7] “The fabric of modern Textual Criticism” (1831-81) rests on an insecure basis. [8] Bp. Ellicott's strange notions about the “Textus Receptus.” [9] The Reviewer vindicates himself against Bp. Ellicott's misconceptions. [10] Analysis of contents of Bp. Ellicott's pamphlet. [11] Bp. Ellicott's account of the “Textus Receptus.” [12] Bp. Ellicott derives his estimate of the “Textus Receptus” from Westcott and Hart's fable of a “Syrian Text.” [13] Bp. Ellicott has completely adopted Westcott and Hort's Theory. [14] The Question modestly proposed,—Whether Bp. Ellicott's adoption of Westcott and Hort's “new Textual Theory” does not amount to (what lawyers call) “Conspiracy”? [15] Proofs that the Revisers have outrageously exceeded the Instructions they received from the Convocation of the Southern Province. [16] The calamity of the “New Greek Text” traced to its source. [17] Bp. Ellicott's defence of the “New Greek Text,” in sixteen particulars, examined. [18] Bp. Ellicott's claim that the Revisers were guided by “the consentient testimony of the most ancient Authorities,”—disproved by an appeal to their handling of S. Luke ii. 14 and of S. Mark xvi. 9-20. The self-same claim,—(namely, of abiding by the verdict of Catholic Antiquity,)—vindicated, on the contrary, for the “Quarterly Reviewer.” [19] “GOD was manifested in the flesh” Shown To Be The True Reading Of 1 Timothy III. 16.

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 Credits A Word from Project Gutenberg The Full Project Gutenberg License

Section 1. General Terms of Use & Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A. 1.B. 1.C. 1.D. 1.E.

1.E.1. 1.E.2. 1.E.3. 1.E.4. 1.E.5. 1.E.6. 1.E.7. 1.E.8. 1.E.9.

1.F.

1.F.1. 1.F.2. 1.F.3. 1.F.4. 1.F.5. 1.F.6.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™ Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works.

← Prev
Back
Next →

← Prev
Back
Next →