The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1882-07-05

advocate of baptism by immersion, stated
the fact that the Greek text of the Apoc-
alypse on which the Revised Version was
founded (meaning Westcott and Hort
work. gave the participle "TerantiSnle-
non" as the true original word, and that
this was correctly rendered "sprinkled
with" instead of dipped in" Which is
ali true, but it necessarily leads to the
question, on what authority have these
critics, Westcott and Hort, ventured to
strike out the Greek participle 6ebam-
me1aon" Of the tert,ls receptus and of all
other approved Greek texts of the Apoc-
alypse, and substitute a different parti-
ciple? Let us briefly examine the evil
dence pro and con.
These learned editors claim to have
presented the Greek text of their edition
entirely on the authority Of documentary
evidences, viz, Greek MSS. uncial or
cursive, ancient versions, and the quota
tions of the Greek and Latin fathers and
not to have followed the text of previous
editions. But, what is the comparative
weight of testimony in favor of the par
ticiple "6e60nlme7lo7 in the verse afore-
said To an intelligent mind acting nor
mally, it seems overwhelming. Even
Westcott and Hort are driven to make
an important admission on the subject,
for in the margin of their Greek text of
this verse they put the marks, APP. +,
which, in their elaborate note, they ex
plain as follows: " Wherever it has APP
peared to the editors or to either of them
that the text probably contains some
primitive error, that Isl has not been
quite rightly preserved in any existing
document, or at least many existing doc
ument of sufficient authority, Ap. + is
placed in the margin" And their in
closing marks here point only to the par
ticiple. Therefore, here, they indicate
the opinion of both or one of them, that
the participle adopted By them and in
serted by them in the text, has by some
primitive error not been rightly preserved
in any existing document, or at least not
in any document of sufficient authority!
And accordingly when we come to exam
inc their Notes on Select Readings in
their second volume with special refer
ence to this text, we find there the dis
tinct admission that the participle be-
6anen1eaao1e is sustained by the author
ity of two of the principal Uncial MSS.
(the only two which give continuously
the text of the apocalypse and of all
the cursive MSS. (about one hundred in
number) which contain the text of that
book. While on the other hand the par
ticiple rerGntiSmenon" $50 inconsider-
ately and mysteriously adopted by them)
is sustained only by the authority of one
Uncial MS, and that confessedly one OF
very little weight upon such q question.
For, it is the P 2-the Codex Porfrianus
known to be of no earlier date than the
ninth century, and moreover Pa55nspSest
that is MS. in which the original
Greek has been, in substance, obliterated
or bleared over by some superstitious
scribe of the dark ages who has wiped
out the precious original words in order
to write on the same lines some legend or
the saints or prayers to the Virgin Mary
How little weight is to be given to such
a document, and how impossible it is &C
curately to ascertain its original contents
need hardly be told. Yet this MS, thus
obliterated, and one cursive Ms. SO, OF
the smallest critical value, are permitted
IN the minds of Westcott and Hort Cor
one Of them) to weigh down two Uncial
MSS. of the most ancient date and high
est authority, and one hundred of the
best cursive MSS. containing the Apoca-
lypsel
1t is needless to say more on this point
The weight of evidence is decisively in
favor of the participle be5an1menon,
which is the reading given in the tertus
receptuS, and in the editions of Mill,
Griesbach, Wetstein, Matthaei, Knapp
and others of the most approved New
Testament critics
And now comes the explanation, at
least, in part, of the interest of this dis
cussion, and of the mystery attaching to
this perverted critical judgment. The
partioiple 5ebamn,enon" in this text
suggested and approved by the Holy
Spirit, comes from the Greek verb 6upto
which, in accord with it's derivative 6ap
ti2o,. exclusive immersionists insist, al
ways means to dip, and never to sprinkle
But it so happens that when the learned
father Origen, who certainly understood
his own language and who lived to A. D.
254, came to translate this participle " be-
banameno1," he rendered it by the word
" eyrantismenon, " Sprinkled-thus prov
ing by Greek authority itself that bapto