notes on the Revision of 1881 - Alan Cadwallader

[Steven Avery]

Heavenly Witnesses sister thread section is here:

sister threads
PBF
notes on the Revision of 1881 - Alan Cadwallader
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.1190/post-5068

Revision of 1881 - Alan Cadwallader- heavenly witnesses - Locke - Newton - Stillingfleet
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.1191

The Politics of the Revised Version: A Tale of Two New Testament Revision Companies (2018)
Alan Cadwallader
https://books.google.com/books?id=wnt7DwAAQBAJ

Some overlap with Scrivener and Palmer edition, issues, and what was distributed by Westcott and Hort, also my discussions with Maurice Robinson.

The Myth of the Scrivener 1894 AV Greek text as a pro-AV text - it was 1881 for the decrepit Revision
https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...y-it-was-1881-for-the-decrepit-revision.1330/

A Question for Cambridge Scholars
https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2008/06/question-for-cambridge-scholars.html

Methodology of the Revision Committee - "list of variants"
https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...-arise-after-march-2021.1772/page-2#post-7078

 

[Steven Avery]

Cadwallader p. 101

In 1872, the chair of the English New Testament Company, Charles Ellicott, sent through to Henry Thayer, secretary for the American New Testament Company, a copy of the first draft revision for the Synoptic Gospels. It bore an ominous injunction that ‘[t]his copy is for the use of Professor J. H. Thayer alone, and is not to be published or communicated to anyone beyond the body of American Revisers’. There was included a ‘List of changes provisionally made in the text of the Greek Testament by the Company of Revisers of the Authorized Version.'

Cadwallader p. 103-104

The Contribution of the Revision Company to the Westcott-Hort Greek Text

The printed copies of Westcott and Hort’s Greek New Testament did not supplant Scrivener's edition of Stephanus to become the text from which the Revisers worked.86 Rather their still-in-formation text was intended to join with the editions of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Beza and Elzevir to be factored into the apparatus in the Scrivener collation - precisely the adjustment Scrivener made in his new edition of 1887. The advent of the revision had prompted Westcott and Hort to isolate their work on the gospels and to publish it separately from the rest of the Greek New Testament.87 They no doubt reasoned that, like Tregelles, they could print their text of the New Testament privately in fascicles, keeping up with the pace of the revisers’ work.88 There was also the advantage to be gained by exposing their work before the eyes of two Companies, English and American, containing the worlds foremost scholars outside of Europe, and benefitting from the critical discussions that ensued.89

They discussed the options with Alexander Macmillan after a meeting of the Revision Company in November 1870. There were issues about stalling American piracy of the work to be considered (an ongoing concern, but one that was severely to impact the relations with the Americans over the Revision).90 They opted for a private printing, which was dated ‘Christmas 1870’ but was still not organized until the following year.91 Their Cambridge neighbour and fellow-reviser, William Moulton, read through the proofs and contributed a series of corrections.92 Hort requested that sixty copies be made, with fifty copies of the introduction.95 Macmillan must have been precipitous - he had after all been waiting for more than a decade for the manuscript. He rushed an advertisement into the cover of the Journal of Philology, only to receive a scolding from Hort that this was a draft private-printing only.94

The introduction provided twenty-three pages setting out the distinctive purpose and guiding principles of the edition, a prolegomenon that Hort described as ‘virtually meant only meant [sic] for experts ... We hope to be more explicit hereafter. Brevity for the time has its own advantages as to intelligibility’.95

86. Contra the suggestion of P. S. Thuesen, In Discordance with the Scriptures: American Protestant Battles over Translating the Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 46.
87. Hort to ‘A Friend’ 7/7/1870 (Hort, Life of Hort, vol. 2, 137).
88. Hort to Macmillan 17/1/1871 (BL Ms Add 55094, f. 51), signals the need for preparation of a printing of the Acts of the Apostles, but this did not occur until more than a year later (BL Ms 55094, ff. 51,53). The Catholic Epistles were to follow: Hort to Macmillan 21/11/1873 (BL Ms Add 55094, f. 57).
89. Hort had from the beginning recognized the importance of the Revision Companies for the advance of learning; Hort to Moulton 17/6/1870; Hort to Ellerton 19/7 and 10/8/1870 (Hort, Life of Hort, vol. 2, 135, 139).
90. Hort to Macmillan 9/11/1870 (BL Ms Add 55094, f. 41).
91. It did not eventuate until July 1871: Hort to Ellerton 13/10/1871 (Hort, Life of Hort, vol. 2, 148).
92. Westcott to Moulton November 1870 (W. F. and J. H. Moulton, William F. Moulton: A Memoir [London: Isbister, 1899], 176).
93. Hort to Macmillan 30/12/1870 (BL Ms Add 55094, f. 45).
94. Hort to Macmillan 3/5/1871 (BL Ms Add 55094, f. 47).
95. Hort to Lightfoot 27/8/1870 (DDC Lightfoot Letters).

Thuesen makes a lot more sense

In Discordance with the Scriptures: American Protestant Battles Over Translating the Bible (1999)
Peter Johannes Thuesen
https://books.google.com/books?id=I8GvBnqpa7EC&pg=PA46

Peter Johannes Theusen (b. 1951)
https://www.peterthuesen.com/biography

Using advance proof-sheets of Westcott and Hort’s version, Schaff and his translators largely conformed their English revision to the new Greek text, which was published simultaneously with the Revised Version on 17 May 1881.

Cadwallader p. 106

Because only two of Westcott s twenty-one exercise books of notes are extant,108

108. The number of Westcotts notebooks comes from Westcott, Life of Westcott, vol. 1,397.

 

[Steven Avery]

Confusion caused by wild W-H readings that were totally baseless - see Peter Gurry on ETC

Cadwallader - p. 107

Edwin Palmer and Charles Ellicott reckoned that overall there were no more than sixty-four readings adopted in the Greek text for the RV that were unique to Westcott and Horts text.114 In the Gospel of Matthew alone, there were approximately 470 changes to the Greek text considered to be the basis for the AV. Hort reckoned that the Westcott-Hort text of Matthew contained sixty-six ‘peculiar readings, that is, readings that they had adopted but were not found as the critical text in the three contemporary editions collated into Scriveners volume of Stephanus (i.e. Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles). Of these sixty-six, none were adopted into the constructed Greek text of the revisers and only nine secured a marginal note.115 Little wonder that Scrivener commented that the influence of the Westcott-Hort text ‘was by no means a predominating one’.116

114. Ellicott-Palmer, The Revisers and the Greek Text, 41.
115. ‘Notes by F. J. A. Hort on the Text of the English Bible’ (CUL Ms Add 6950, ff. 99-102).
116. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction, vol. 2,285 n297.

Cadwallader - p. 109
The discussions and the decisions within the Revision Company were sworn to secrecy.

The textcrit dupe Cadwallader, who clearly knows little about the NT text, calls the Mark ending "one of his (Burgon's) shibboleths" and "apparent learning". He then blunders, writing that Burgon was supporting the heavenly witnesses.

Lots of psycho-babble vented towards Burgon - "almost regardless of the history of the text".

Cadwallader even has a Mark ending writing.

“The Hermeneutical Potential of the Multiple Endings of Mark’s Gospel”,
https://www.academia.edu/8572263/_T...gs_of_Mark_s_Gospel_Colloquium_43_2011_129-46

==========================================

Peter Gurry tries to run with some Cadwallader material - and throws out sand and confusion

Peter Gurry - ETC
https://evangelicaltextualcriticism...howComment=1620665123146#c8544810463610344851

According to him (Cadwallader), Westcott-Hort text had sixty-six unique readings in Matthew and none were adopted by the RV. I discuss some of this in my chapter on WH’s edition available here.

‘A Book Worth Publishing’: The Making of Westcott and Hort’s Greek New Testament (1881)
Peter Gurry
https://www.academia.edu/38389444/_...tt_and_Hort_s_Greek_New_Testament_1881_Prepub

Peter Gurry
’This did eventually happen to Holt's apparent satisfaction81 with the publication of a defense by two members of the revision committee.82 They pointed out, among other things, that the Greek text behind the Revised Version stood with Westcott and Holt's against the textus receptus and against Lachmann, Tischendorf, or Tregelles in only sixty-four places.83 Given over 5,000 changes to the textus receptus, their text’s particular influence on the resultant text is obviously minimal how-ever much their personal influence may have been otherwise.84

81 Add. MS 6597, letter 186, dated May 24,1882. Of the actual influence of their text, Patrick says it was “relatively modest: the Company accepted their text before others in only 64 places” (Patrick, Miners’ Bishop, 28).

82 C.J. Ellicott and E. Palmer, The Revisers and the Greek Text of the New Testament by Two Members of the New Testament Committee (London: Macmillan, 1882) which was a response to three anonymous articles later published as John W. Burgon, The Revision Revised: Three Articles Reprinted from the Quarterly Review (London: John Murray, 1883). E. Palmer himself edited the Oxford edition of the Greek text behind the RV in Η Καινη Διαθηκη : The Greek Text with the Readings Adopted by the Revisers of the Authorised Version Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1881).
(SA correction: The Greek Testament, not Text - also as Hē Kainē Diathēkē )

83 Ellicott and Palmer, Revisers and the Greek Text, 41. For perspective, Cadwallader reports that the Westcott-Hort text had sixty-six unique readings just in Matthew and none were adopted by the RV (Politics of the Revised Version, chap. 4).

84 Much has been much interest in Westcott and Hort’s possible influence in swaying the committee against F. H. A. Scrivener who tended to defend the traditional readings of the textus receptus. See Cadwallader, “Politics of Translation,”424-26; Cadwallader, Politics of the Revised Version, chap. 4.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi Peter,

What you write above could be easily misunderstood.

Cadwallader was talking about variants from the TR, supported by Hort, that were NOT in Lachmann, Tischendorf or Tregelles!

His source is:
‘Notes by F. J. A. Hort on the Text of the English Bible’ (CUL Ms Add 6950, ff. 99-102).

And it might be interesting to find and study these 66 as an additional example of Hortian absurdities. And to see whether they made it to the 1881 GNT of W-H.

Readers could easily think there were only 66 differences from the Received Text in Matthew, and there the real number is c. 470, that were changes from the TR-AV text. Cadwallader p. 107-108

Cadwallader is not as helpful as you might expect in unraveling the question of the editions distributed. He seems to be a bit blinded by the Stephanus 1550 edition. And I have placed some of his relevant material on:

notes on the Revision of 1881 - Alan Cadwallader
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...sion-of-1881-alan-cadwallader.1190/#post-7098

 

[Steven Avery]

More planned

SA above
"Cadwallader is not as helpful as you might expect in unraveling the question of the editions distributed."

To be clear, this includes pages, sections, fascicles, the Westcott notes. Whatever was distributed to the Revision committee members.

What was distributed, when? ... and is it extant now? And is it available for copying or scholarship? Rather fundamental questions.

As far as I can tell Cadwallader really does not help on these questions, except on some Westcott notes.

How does their 1881 GNT, with the notes, compare to what was handed out to the Revision committee?

 

[Steven Avery]

unpublished text of the N.T. ... confidentially, and under pledges of strictest secrecy, placed in the hands of every member of the revising Body

==========================================

Notes on the secrecy question and the W-H text

==========================================

Andover Review
https://books.google.com/books?id=uewWAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA458

He alleges (p. xxx.) that the project of a Revision

“was eagerly snatched at by two irresponsible scholars of the University of Cambridge for obtaining the general sanction of the Revising body, and thus indirectly of Convocation, for a private venture of their own ; -- their own privately devised revision of the Greek Text ”
https://books.google.com/books?id=GglFAQAAMAAJ&pg=PR30

speaks of their action as an endeavor

“by a side-wind to obtain for their own singular revision of the Greek text the sanction of the united body"
https://books.google.com/books?id=nXkw1TAatV8C&pg=PA413

calls it

“a manoeuvre,” "a furtive production ” of their labors ; “a text which was kept close ; ”

“might be seen only by the Revisers, and even they were tied down to secrecy;“
https://books.google.com/books?id=nXkw1TAatV8C&pg=PA97

"under pledge that they should neither show nor communicate its contents to any one else;"
https://books.google.com/books?id=nXkw1TAatV8C&pg=PA24

and the Dean adds,

“all this strikes us as painful in a high degree.”
https://books.google.com/books?id=nXkw1TAatV8C&pg=PA98

==========================================

Response attempt by Joseph Henry Thayer -

Andover Review - 1884
Review of Revision Revised
https://books.google.com/books?id=uewWAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA458

To specify a few of the facts bearing on this point which may be presumed to be familiar to any biblical student. Facts which occur to the present writer without research and without conference: Drs. Westcott and Hort in their Introduction (p 323) acknowledge the correction of a certain number of misprints in the first or private issue to have been furnished them by “correspondents in England, Germany, and America; ” their text was known and publicly characterized in Germany at least as early as 1875;1 was “freely used” by Dr. Moulton in liis second edition of Winer, the preface of which is dated in 1870; yes, as far back as 1859, Dr. C. J. Vaughan, in his first edition of the “Epistle to the Romans with Notes,” is “allowed by Mr. Westcott to anticipate the publication of that complete recension of the text of the New Testament on which lie has been for some time engaged ” . . .

So Thayer acknowledges that they were trying to push their new Greek text, and not simply update the AV, more than a decade before the Revision began. The rest of his response is rather irrelevant.

St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans (1870 edition)
Charles John Vaughn from 1859 Preface
https://books.google.com/books?id=DuErAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR23

Mr Westcott has thus allowed me to anticipate (with regard to this Epistle) the publication of that complete recension of the text of the New Testament, on which he has been for some time engaged.

Followed by a convoluted Note by Westcott.

==========================================

“I traced the mischief home to its true authors - Drs. Westcott and Hort; a copy of whose unpublished text of the N.T. (the most vicious in existence) had been confidentially, and under pledges of strictest secrecy, placed in the hands of every member of the revising Body ... Unaquainted with the difficult and delicate science of Textual Criticism, the Revisionists had, in an evil hour, surrendered themselves to Dr Hort’s guidance: had preferred his counsel to those of Prependary Scrivener, (an infinitely more trustworthy guide)”
(The Revision Revised, Preface, pages xi and xii).
Geoff Dean
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/none-can-compare-kjv-translators-geoff-dean/
Revision Revised
https://books.google.com/books?id=nXkw1TAatV8C&pg=PR11

==========================================

Bibliotheca Sacra, Volume 78 (1921)
The Westcott and Hort Text Under Fire
William Wallace Everts
https://books.google.com/books?id=n8kaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA23

A fifth blunder was the secret sessions. There was no attempt to conciliate the public. No samples of the work were sent out for examination and criticism. The public was compelled to receive what the Revisers thought best to give them. Similar secrecy was maintained as to the Greek text which had been adopted. The Westcott and Hort text, which was confidentially laid before the Revisers, was not published until five days before the Revision was issued. Another suspicious circumstance was the declaration that the Apocrypha would be included in the Revision. The exclusion of the Apocrypha from all issues of the British and Foreign Bible Society had been in force for nearly fifty years. This was a reactionary move, which was sure to arouse the opposition of all who were devoted to the circulation of an unadulterated Bible.

==========================================

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi Professor Thuesen.

Greetings! - this is coming out of some discussions online on the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog.

And I noticed an irony when Alan Cadwallader disagreed with you as to the Revision committee decisions being based on the Westcott-Hort sections or sheets that were distributed. It is sort of an apples and oranges comparison.

====================

The Politics of the Revised Version (2018)
Alan Cadwallader
https://books.google.com/books?id=wnt7DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA103

The printed copies of Westcott and Horts Greek New Testament did not supplant Scrivener's edition of Stephanus to become the text from which the Revisers worked.86 Rather their still-in-formation text was intended to join with the editions of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Beza and Elzevir to be factored into the apparatus in the Scrivener collation - precisely the adjustment Scrivener made in his new edition of 1887. '

86. Contra the suggestion of P. S. Thuesen, In Discordance with the Scriptures: American Protestant Battles over Translating the Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 46.

======================

Cadwallader puts forth convoluted theories related to Stephanus 1550, while you were obviously right in what you wrote! My view, I do not think he understands the overall dynamic.

======================

Peter Thuesen
"Using advance proof-sheets of Westcott and Hort’s version, Schaff and his translators largely conformed their English revision to the new Greek text, which was published simultaneously with the Revised Version on 17 May 1881."

======================

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY, USA