Revision Revised and it's implications on modern critical texts.

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Jordan Kurecki, Nov 28, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    60
    How many of you have read Revision Revise by Dean Burgon? http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36722/36722-h/36722-h.html

    Extremely Factual and puts a nail in the coffin of critical greek texts, it destroys the Wescott and Hort theory.

    I've also been going through the NIV as i have been reading this book and I have been marking places where I find that the NIV has a reading with extremely little manuscript evidence, the NIV follows the R.V. of 1881 in many places, I have seen quotes of scholars that much of the "Accepted theories" of textual criticism lean heavily on Wescott and Hort, and my study and research on the NIV is confirming much of this independently.
    Here is an example.

    Luke 6:1 (KJV) And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.

    Luke 6:1 (NIV) One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and his disciples began to pick some heads of grain, rub them in their hands and eat the kernels.
    the next portion is from Revision Revised pg 73-74:

    "It is in this way that a famous expression in S. Luke vi. 1 has disappeared from codices א b l. The reader may not be displeased to listen to an anecdote which has hitherto escaped the vigilance of the Critics:—

    “I once asked my teacher, Gregory of Nazianzus,”—(the words are Jerome's in a letter to Nepotianus),—“to explain to me the meaning of S. Luke's expression σάββατον δευτερόπρωτον, literally the ‘second-first sabbath.’ ‘I will tell you all about it in church,’ he replied. ‘The congregation shall shout applause, and you shall have your choice,—either to stand silent and look like a fool, or else to pretend you understand what you do not.’ ” But “eleganter lusit,” says Jerome180. The point of the joke was this: Gregory, being a great rhetorician and orator, would have descanted so elegantly on the signification of the word δευτερόπρωτον that the congregation would have been borne away by his mellifluous periods, quite regardless of the sense. In other words, Gregory of Nazianzus [a.d. 360] is found to have no more understood the word than Jerome did [370].

    Ambrose181 of Milan [370] attempts to explain the difficult [pg 074] expression, but with indifferent success. Epiphanius182 of Cyprus [370] does the same;—and so, Isidorus183 [400] called “Pelusiota” after the place of his residence in Lower Egypt.—Ps.-Cæsarius184 also volunteers remarks on the word [a.d. 400?].—It is further explained in the Paschal Chronicle,185—and by Chrysostom186 [370] at Antioch.—“Sabbatum secundo-primum” is found in the old Latin, and is retained by the Vulgate. Earlier evidence on the subject does not exist. We venture to assume that a word so attested must at least be entitled to its place in the Gospel. Such a body of first-rate positive IVth-century testimony, coming from every part of ancient Christendom, added to the significant fact that δευτερόπρωτον is found in every codex extant except א b l, and half a dozen cursives of suspicious character, ought surely to be regarded as decisive. That an unintelligible word should have got omitted from a few copies, requires no explanation. Every one who has attended to the matter is aware that the negative evidence of certain of the Versions also is of little weight on such occasions as the present. They are observed constantly to leave out what they either failed quite to understand, or else found untranslateable. On the other hand, it would be inexplicable indeed, that an unique expression like the present should have established itself universally, if it were actually spurious. This is precisely an occasion for calling to mind the precept proclivi scriptioni præstat ardua. Apart from external evidence, it is a thousand times more likely that such a peculiar word as this should be genuine, than the reverse. Tischendorf accordingly retains it, moved by this very consideration.187 It got excised, however, here and there from manuscripts at a very early date. And, incredible as it may appear, it is a fact, that in consequence of its absence from [pg 075] the mutilated codices above referred to, S. Luke's famous “second-first Sabbath” has been thrust out of his Gospel by our Revisionists.

    But indeed, Mutilation has been practised throughout. By codex b (collated with the traditional Text), no less than 2877 words have been excised from the four Gospels alone: by codex א,—3455 words: by codex d,—3704 words.188"
     
    #1 Jordan Kurecki, Nov 28, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 28, 2013
  2. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    60
    Heres another example:

    1 Timothy 3:16
    New International Version (NIV)
    16 Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:

    He appeared in the flesh,
    was vindicated by the Spirit,[a]
    was seen by angels,
    was preached among the nations,
    was believed on in the world,
    was taken up in glory.

    1Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

    According to pg 486-496 Revision Revised
    The Evidence for Theos "God" is the following:
    N.T. Greek Manuscripts-289
    Ancient N.T. versions-2
    Greek Church Fathers- 20

    Evidence for Ho "Which"
    N.T. Greek manuscripts-1
    Ancient N.T. versions-5
    Greek Church Fathers-2

    Evidence for HOS "Who":
    N.T. Greek Manuscripts-6
    Ancient N.T. Versions-1
    Greek Church Fathers-0
     
    #2 Jordan Kurecki, Nov 28, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 28, 2013
  3. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    60
    Here's one more:
    Matthew 18:11(NIV): Non Existent
    Footnote reads: Some manuscripts include here the words of Luke 19:10.

    Matthew 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

    Revision Revised pg 92
    "The blessed declaration, “The Son of Man is come to save that which was lost,”—has in like manner been expunged by our Revisionists from S. Matth. xviii. 11; although it is attested by every known uncial except b א l, and every known cursive except three: by the old Latin and the Vulgate: by the Peschito, Cureton's and the Philoxenian Syriac: by the Coptic, Armenian, Æthiopic, Georgian and Slavonic versions:329—by Origen,330—Theodoras Heracl.,331—Chrysostom332—and Jovius333 the monk;—by Tertullian,334—Ambrose,335—Hilary,336—Jerome,337—pope Damasus338—and Augustine:339—above all, by the Universal Eastern Church,—for it has been read in all assemblies of the faithful on the morrow of Pentecost, from the beginning. Why then (the reader will again ask) have the Revisionists expunged this verse?"

    Since when does some mean all except 6? this is an outright lie.


    Modern Critical Greek Texts and the translations from them are full of readings based on little and unreliable manuscript evidence such as the above instances.

    much readings come from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus whose corruption is exhibited by the fact that they have so much disagreement even with eachother.
     
    #3 Jordan Kurecki, Nov 28, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 28, 2013
  4. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,972
    Likes Received:
    128
    John Burgon wrote some fine scholarly works but time has passed him by.

    There have been so many ancient manuscripts added to the textual base since the times when Burgon wrote that his scholarship is significantly weakened and outdated.

    While Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are often vilified by proponents of the 'received text', they are often strongly supported by still earlier manuscripts that were found not so long after Burgon's death.

    Modern bibles more than often include these disputed passages, differences and modifications in their textual notes.

    A young believer should be taught that if there is a question about a certain text and its importance in teaching or doctrine, they should look for additional support from other passages in scripture.

    These two passages you cite do not alter doctrine and are relatively insignificant in the way the passages are understood.

    Rob
     
  5. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    You conveniently skip over some other stuff Burgon wrote in that same book:
    (p. 21, footnote 2).

    And about the KJV:
    (p. 114).

    "Revivion Revised" is a rather-boring book, if one doesn't have access to the same mss. that Burgon did. it wasn't written to be entertainment, but to express Burgon's opinions on certain Scriptural mss. he considered corrupt, as well as the RV translation.


    Let us remember that Dean Burgon died in 1888, and some 5K Scriptural mss. or fragments thereof have been found since then, including the Dead Sea scrolls. Also, the only modern English BV available to him was the British RV, which is a rather-groddy translation, which no one blames Burgon for dissing.
    My familiarity with the RV is that it was the main version re-written by the JWs to make their "New World Translation".

    The KJVO myth came about long after Burgon's death, but there's no doubt that, had he lived to have seen it, he certainly would NOT have joined it.
     
    #5 robycop3, Nov 29, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 29, 2013
  6. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,080
    Likes Received:
    49
    what is interesting in this is that we have all of the time this 'expert" being quoted by received texts advocates, that "expert" by critical texts advocates etc

    truth on all of this is that very few here would be qualified to be able to actually have valid reasons why one expert is to be superior to another!

    truth is that regardless which you prefer, TR/MT/CT ALL those are to be seen as being word of God to us in original language, and that any bible version translated correctly of any of them would be the Bible to us now!
     
  7. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    60
    you take Burgon out of context at pg 114:

    We shall in fact never have another “Authorized Version.” And this single consideration may be thought absolutely fatal to the project, except in a greatly modified form. To be brief,—As a companion in the study and for private edification: as a book of reference for critical purposes, especially in respect [pg 114] of difficult and controverted passages:—we hold that a revised edition of the Authorized Version of our English Bible, (if executed with consummate ability and learning,) would at any time be a work of inestimable value. The method of such a performance, whether by marginal Notes or in some other way, we forbear to determine. But certainly only as a handmaid is it to be desired. As something intended to supersede our present English Bible, we are thoroughly convinced that the project of a rival Translation is not to be entertained for a moment. For ourselves, we deprecate it entirely.
     
  8. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    I have read it, and it does not support a modern KJV-only theory.


    Have you marked the places in the KJV where it has readings found in no original language manuscripts or where it has readings with little manuscript evidence or minority manuscript evidence?

    Perhaps you are using unscriptural, unrighteous divers measures [double standards], using a different measure as a standard for some translations than the original language standard that you would use for the KJV.
     
  9. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    John William Burgon actually supported revision of the Textus Receptus and KJV (The Revision Revised, pp. 21, 107, 114, 224, 236, 269). For example, Dean Burgon wrote: "Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, by any means, claim perfection for the Received Text. We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we shall have occasion to point out that the Textus Receptus needs correction" (p. 21, footnote 3). Burgon maintained that “in not a few particulars, the ‘Textus receptus’ does call for Revision” (p. 107). Burgon wrote: “That some corrections of the Text were necessary, we are well aware” (p. 224, footnote 1). Burgon asserted: “If, on the contrary, I have ever once appealed to the ‘Received Text,‘ and made it my standard, --why do you not prove the truth of your allegation by adducing in evidence that one particular instance?“ (p. 388). Burgon asked: “Who, pray, since the invention of printing was ever known to put forward any existing Text as ‘a final standard’?“ (p. 392). In 1864, Burgon asserted that “the accumulated evidence of the last two centuries has enabled us to correct it [the Textus Receptus] with confidence in hundreds of places” (Treatise on the Pastoral Office, p. 69).

    In his introduction to Burgon’s book, Edward Miller wrote: “In the Text left behind by Dean Burgon, about 150 corrections have been suggested by him in St. Matthew‘s Gospel alone“ (Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, p. 5). Burgon and Miller advocated “the Traditional Text,“ not the Textus Receptus (p. 5). Burgon as edited by Miller asserted: “I am not defending the ‘Textus Receptus’” (p. 15). Burgon added: “That it is without authority to bind, nay, that it calls for skillful revision in every part, is freely admitted. I do not believe it to be absolutely identical with the true Traditional Text” (Ibid.). Burgon asserted: “Where any part of it conflicts with the fullest evidence attainable, there I believe that it calls for correction” (Ibid.). Edward Miller suggested that the Traditional Text advocated by Dean Burgon would differ “in many passages” from the Textus Receptus (p. 96).


    Edward Miller maintained that Burgon thought that there were “additions to the Received Text” at Matthew 6:18, Matthew 25:13, and Matthew 27:35 (Burgon, Causes of the Corruptions of the Traditional Text, p. 171). Burgon as edited by Miller noted: “An instance where an error from an Itacism has crept into the Textus Receptus may be seen in St. Luke 16:25” (p. 60). Under the heading “Burgon and Miller’s system,” Edward Miller asserted that “The Textus Receptus, which was adopted in the revival of Greek learning, though it agrees substantially with our Canons, fails under the first, which is the virtual embodiment of them all; because some of its readings are condemned by the balance struck upon all the evidence which as been assembled under the unprecedented advantage afforded in this century” (Oxford Debate, p. xiii). Burgon asked: “See you not that the state of the text of the Bible has no more to do with the Inspiration of the Bible, then the stains on yonder windows have to do with the light of God’s sun?” (Inspiration and Interpretation, p. 119).


    Kevin James also noted that "Burgon did not view the Greek text underlying the King James as closest to the originals, but advocated a revision" (The Corruption of the Word, p. 242). KJV-only author Peter Ruckman asserted that “Burgon claimed the AV has several corrupt readings in it” (Ruckman’s Battlefield Notes, p. 100). John William Burgon referred to “what, in the A. V. is nothing worse than a palpable mistranslation” (Revision Revised, p. 72). Burgon suggested that “the inaccurate rendering” of two Greek words in the KJV at Matthew 3:10 and Luke 3:9 was “retained” in the Revised Version (p. 164). Burgon indicated that there are some places where the Revisionists remedy “an inaccuracy in the rendering of the A. V.“ (p. 220). Burgon wrote: “It is often urged on behalf of the Revisionists that over not a few dark places of S. Paul’s Epistles their labours have thrown important light. Let it not be supposed that we deny this. Many a Scriptural difficulty vanishes the instant a place is accurately translated: a far greater number, when the rendering is idiomatic” (pp. 216-217). Concerning Luke 5:2, Burgon as edited by Miller asserted: “The translators of the 1611, not understanding the incident, were content, as Tyndale, following the Vulgate, had been before them, to render [the Greek words]--’were washing their nets” (Traditional Text, p. 212). Burgon then maintained that the Revisers of 1881 retained “the incorrect translation” found in the 1611 KJV at this verse (Ibid.).


    Pastor Glenn Conjurske, a defender of the KJV, documented that "Burgon held the King James Version to be the imperfect work of fallible men, containing numerous errors, mistranslations, mistakes, or call them what you will" (Olde Paths and Ancient Landmarks, May, 1996, p. 100). Conjurske again observed: "Burgon held neither the King James Version nor the Textus Receptus to be without error, but believed that both of them required correction" (March, 1999, p. 69). Conjurske asserted that “John W. Burgon, then, did accept the absence of 1 John 5:7 from almost every known manuscript as proof that it was absent from the original autograph” (Feb., 1996, p. 42).
     
    #9 Logos1560, Nov 29, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 29, 2013
  10. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    60
    Dean Burgon Felt the "Textus Receptus" Does "Call for Revision" But That Must Be Based Upon "Entirely Different Principles" From Those of Westcott and Hort's Text. Dean Burgon wrote: But (what is a far more important circumstance) we are further convinced that a prior act of penance to be submitted to by the revisers would be the restoration of the underlying Greek text to very nearly--not quite--the state in which they found it when they entered upon their ill-advised undertaking. "Very nearly--not quite:--for, in not a few particulars, the "Textus Receptus" does call for revision, certainly although revision on entirely different principles from those which are found to have pre- vailed in the Jerusalem Chamber. [the location of Westcott and Hort's English Revised Version revision of Greek & English in 1881]. [Dean Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 107.] Though Dean Burgon agreed that the "Textus Receptus" did "call for revision," he said the "principles" on which such revision should be based were diametrically opposite to those used by Westcott and Hort in their revised Greek text which was used as the basis for the English Revised Version of 1881 (E.R.V.). He further stated that it was his firm belief that the "revisers" should do "penance" by "restoring" the "underlying Greek text to very nearly--not quite--the state in which they found it when they entered upon their ill-advised undertaking." In part, such a "restoration" has been made possible by the Trinitarian Bible Society in 1976, by their printing of the New Testament--the Greek text underlying the English Authorized Bible of 1611.
     
  11. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    60
    Dean Burgon Felt the "Textus Receptus" Needed "Revision" in "Many of its Lesser Details," But That It Was "an Excellent Text as it Stands" That Will "Never Lead Critical Students of Scripture Seriously Astray." Dean Burgon wrote: Obtained from a variety of sources [that is, the Textus Receptus or the Traditional Greek Text] this text proves to be essentially the same in all. That it requires revision in respect of many of its lesser details is undeniable: but it is at least as certain that it is an excellent text as it stands, and that the use of it will never lead critical students of Scripture seriously astray,--which is what no one will venture to predicate concerning any single critical edition of the N.T. which has been published since the days of Griesbach, by the disciples of Griesbach's school. [Dean Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 269.] What Dean Burgon is saying very clearly here, is that if he had a choice between using the Textus Receptus or the Traditional Text in its present state, and of using "any single critical" Greek text which has been published since the days of Griesbach. It must be remembered that John James Griesbach was a pupil of Semler, who died in 1812, [cf. Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament by Edward Miller, pp. 17-18, available as B.F.T. #743 for a gift of $7.00 + S&H]. This would therefore urge our present students in the colleges, Bible institutes, and seminaries of our world to forsake their "critical editions" of the Greek New Testament such as those of (1) Nestle/Aland; (2) Souter; (3) United Bible Society; (4) Westcott and Hort; or any other Griesbachian monstrosity. Dean Burgon was for a return to "square one" in the Greek New Testament for starters. Revision would come later, but for now, he would return to the Textus Receptus.
     
  12. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    60
    Burgon Demanded at Least Six Prerequisites Before Any Authoritative Revision of the Textus Receptus Could Be Successfully Completed. Burgon was writing on page 124 of his book, Revision Revised, as quoted in paragraph "(5)" above. After stating that "for such an undertaking we are not yet mature: either in Biblical learning or Hellenistic scholarship," Burgon went on to tell why they were "not yet mature" in his day [1883]. It was for the same reasons, we are not yet mature in our day either. These six prerequisites rule out the Nestle-Aland Greek Text (ether the 26th or 27th editions). They also rule out the so-called "Majority Greek Text" of Hodges and Farstad, published by Nelson as we will show later as well as the "Majority Greek Text" of Robinson and Pierpont!

    (a) Prerequisite #1: We Need at Least "500 More Copies" of the New Testament "Diligently Collated." Burgon wrote:

    "Let 500 more copies. of the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles be diligently collated." [Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 125].

    This has not yet been done!

    (b) Prerequisite #2: We Need at Least "100" "Ancient Lectionaries" "Very Exactly Collated." Burgon wrote:

    "Let at least 100 of the ancient Lectionaries be very exactly collated also." [Burgon, Revision Revised, p.12 5].

    This has not yet been done!

    (c) Prerequisite #3: We Need, "Above All," the Church "Fathers" to Yield "Their Precious Secrets" by "Ransacking" Them, "Indexing" Them, and "Diligently Inspecting" Them. Burgon wrote:

    "Above all, let the Fathers, be called upon to give up their precious secrets. Let their writings be ransacked and indexed, and (where needful) let the MSS. of their works be diligently inspected in order that we may know what actually is the evidence they afford." [Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 125].

    This has not yet been done!

    (d) Prerequisite #4: We Need the "Most Important of the Ancient Versions" to Be "Edited Afresh" and Let Their "'Languages" Be "Really Mastered by Englishmen." Burgon Wrote:

    "Let the most important of the Ancient Versions be edited afresh, and let the languages in which these are written be for the first time really mastered by Englishmen." [Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 125].

    This has not yet been done!

    (e) Prerequisite #5: We Need "Whatever Unpublished Works of the Ancient Greek Fathers' to be "Printed." Burgon wrote:

    "Nay, let whatever unpublished works of the Ancient Greek Fathers are anywhere known to exist,--(and not a few precious remains of theirs are lying hid in great national libraries, both at home and abroad,)--let these be printed. The men could easily be found: the money, far more easily . . . ." [Burgon, Revision Revised, pp. 125-26].

    This has not yet been done!

    (f) Prerequisite #6: We Need "For the First Time" the "Science of Textual Criticism" to Be Prosecuted "In a Scholarlike Manner." Burgon wrote:

    "Yes, and in the meantime--(let it in all faithfulness be added)--the science of textual criticism will have to be prosecuted for the first time in a scholarlike manner. Fundamental principles.--sufficiently axiomatic to ensure general acceptance,--will have to be laid down for mans guidance. . . ." [Burgon, Revision Revised p.227].

    This has not yet been done!
     
  13. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    60
    The "Nestle-Aland Greek Text--26th or 27th Edition Refused To Follow Burgon's Six Prerequisites and Therefore Is Not What Burgon Would Call an "Authoritative Revision" of the Textus Receptus. If you examine closely the Nestle-Aland Greek Text--26th or 27th edition--in the Preface, you will find out a number of things. Using Kurt Alands 1967 totals for extant Greek manuscript evidence, the edition explains what evidence was used in making up its Greek text. In the first place, there are about 20 Ancient Versions. This figure is derived from the research of Dr. Jack Moorman in his Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version--a Closer Look! [ #1825 for a gift of $15.00+S&H], pp. 28-48. The total number of Church Fathers who wrote extensively during the first six centuries was 300, as Burgon has estimated. Here is the evidence used by Nestle-Aland.

    The Nestle-Aland Greek Text--26th Edition

    1. Papyrus Fragments-- 81 out of 81 = 100% of the evidence

    2. Uncials-- 246 out of 267 = 92% of the evidence

    3. Cursives-- 202 out of 2764 = 7% of the evidence

    4. Lectionaries-- 5 out of 2143 = 0.23% of the evidence

    Total MSS: 534 out of 5,255 = 10% of the MSS evidence

    5. Ancient Versions-- 3 out of 20 = 15% of the evidence

    6. Church Fathers-- 72 out of 300 = 24% of the evidence

    Total Non-MSS: 75 out of 320 = 23% non-MSS evidence

    Grand Total: **609 Out of 5,575 = 11% of ALL evidence**

    In the above statistics you will notice that Dean Burgons prerequisite #1 was not followed. Prerequisite #2 was not followed. Prerequisite #3 was not followed. Prerequisite #4 was not followed. Prerequisite #5 was not followed. Prerequisite #6 was not followed. In fact, Nestle-Aland consistenly follows the false principles of Westcott and Hort. Because of this, they group all the so-called Byzantine texts as just one witness. They reject entirely Dean Burgon's methodology in textual criticism. The use of a mere 10% of the manuscript evidence is also decidedly against Burgon's sound principles. Nothing short of 100% of the evidence must be used for any major revision of the Textus Receptus that underlies the King James Bible! The same is true of their handling of the non-manuscript evidence of Ancient Versions and Church Fathers. 23% of that evidence is also woefully defective. Dean Burgon would demand 100% of the evidence to be used.
     
  14. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    60
    The So-called "Majority Greek Text" of Hodges & Farstad Also Refused to Follow Burgon's Six Prerequisites and Therefore Is Not What Burgon Would Call an "Authoritative Revision" of the Textus Receptus. If you examine closely the so-called Majority Greek Text of Hodges and Farstad, in the Preface, you will find out the following things. Using Kurt Aland's 1967 totals for extant Greek manuscript evidence, the edition makes use of the following evidence. As I said earlier, there are about 20 Ancient Versions according to the research of Dr. Jack Moorman in his Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version--a Closer Look! [ #1825 for a gift of $15.00+S&H], pages 28-48. The total number of Church Fathers who wrote extensively during the first six centuries was 300, as Burgon has estimated. Here is the evidence used by Hodges and Farstad.

    The So-Called "Majority Greek Text of Hodges-Farstad"

    1. Papyrus Fragments-- 8 out of 81 = 10% of the evidence

    2. Uncials-= 4 out of 267 = 1% of the evidence

    3. Cursives- 414 out of 2764 = 15% of the evidence

    4. Lectionaries-- 0 out of 2143 = 0% of the evidence

    Total MSS: 426 out of 5,255 = 8% of the MSS evidence

    5. Ancient Versions-- 0 out of 20 = 0% of the evidence

    6. Church Fathers-- 0 out of 300 = 0% of the evidence

    Total Non-MSS: 0 out of 320 = 0% of the non-MSS evidence*

    Grand Total: **426 out of 5,575 = 7% of ALL evidence**

    In the above statistics you will notice that Dean Burgons prerequisite #1 was not followed. Prerequisite #2 was not followed. Prerequisite #3 was not followed. Prerequisite #4 was not followed. Prerequisite #5 was not followed. Prerequisite #6 was not followed. In fact, the so-called Majority Greek Text of Hodges & Farstad follows the false principles of Westcott and Hort when they refer to "intrinsic and transcriptional probabilities" [Preface, p. xxii]. The same is true when they make use of the "genealogical method" [Preface, p. xii] for John 7:53--8:11 and for the book of Revelation. The editors refused to follow completely Dean Burgon's methodology in textual criticism. The use of a mere 8% of the manuscript evidence is also decidedly against Burgon's sound principles. Nothing short of 100% of the evidence must be used for any major revision of the Textus Receptus that underlies the King James Bible! The same is true of their handling of the non-manuscript evidence of Ancient Versions and Church Fathers. 0% of that evidence is preposterous! Dean Burgon would demand 100% of this evidence to be used.
     
  15. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    60
    Burgon Was Against Any "Future Revision" of the English New Testament until an "Authoritative Revision of the Greek Text Had Been Completed. He wrote:

    "Enough has been offered by this time to prove that an authoritative revision of the Greek Text will have to precede any future revision of the English of the New Testament." [Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 124].
     
  16. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,972
    Likes Received:
    128
    John Burgon's work is close to 150 years old.

    His prerequisites were dreams.

    To read his work and assume that were he alive today, he would accept a Greek text developed 500 years ago is absurd! Your quote shows this well.

    I presume that you read and follow his life-works simply because they seem to agree with your final standard of the KJV text… I'd suggest you move on.

    His dreams are being fulfilled today!

    At this time, the work on the NT Greek text continues, greatly assisted by digital technology which opens a gateway to the ancient sources, allowing the development of modern methods of textual criticism that were not even considered in Burgon's lifetime.

    The end result, as John Burgon anticipated, is a greater certainty about the wording of the original autographs.

    You've chosen to ignore any revisions and remain in the past.

    Rob
     
  17. Bro. James

    Bro. James
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,643
    Likes Received:
    15
    Revising the revised revision

    I have a tattered copy of John 3, 10 and 14; also Ephesians 2, all in Modern English. Can God call me out to salvation?

    More revisions usually mean confict between the Word of God and lifestyle.

    We usually choose a religion which conforms to our lifestyle, instead of vice versa.

    Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

    Bro. James
     
  18. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Since these six prerequisites or measures were not actually used and applied in the making of the twenty or more varying editions of the Textus Receptus to start with, it seems that Burgon was being inconsistent or was guilty of the use of divers measures in his demand. Does that fact counter Burgon's inconsistent reasoning?

    According to a consistent application of Burgon's own tests or measures, were the Textus Receptus editions properly made?

    The actual collating of the few [less than 100 Greek NT manuscripts] Greek manuscripts using in the making of the Textus Receptus editions was imperfectly and incompletely done in the 1500's. The TR editions were thus based on imperfect and incomplete information.
     
    #18 Logos1560, Nov 30, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 30, 2013
  19. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,080
    Likes Received:
    49
    You are assuming that textual criticism and scholarship ended 150 years ago, and also assuming that your preconceived notions regarding the superority of the TR comopared to either MT/CT are assurred, but the truth is that far more scholars would prefer either of them as the textual basis to translate off from than the TR!
     
  20. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,645
    Likes Received:
    311
    What Dean Burgon stood against was the idea that the NT text "evolved" over time. Using the word "prerequisite" is probably a bit of hybebole. However, they do lay out a fairly objective method of determing the NT text.
    That they haven't been used on a widespread basis does not mean they are not valid. It only means Burgon plays Tesla to W&H's Edison.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...