Burgon and the TR and the KJV

[/QUOTE]

A perfect example of cherry picking Burgon out of context. Logos quotes Burgon as if he recommended altering the KJV and quotes something he said as a NEGATIVE reason for any attempt at a revision: Here's what Burgon said on page 114 in context:

"WHATEVER may be urged in favour of Biblical Revision, it is at least undeniable that the undertaking involves a tremendous risk. Our Authorized Version is the one religious link which at present binds together ninety millions of English-speaking men scattered over the earth’s surface. Is it reasonable that so unutterably precious, so sacred a bond should be endangered, for the sake of representing certain words more accurately, — here and there translating a sense with greater precision, — getting rid of a few archaisms?

"It may be confidently assumed that no ‘Revision’ of our Authorized Version, however judiciously executed, will ever occupy the place in public esteem which is actually enjoyed by the work of the Translators of 1611, — the noblest literary work in the Anglo-Saxon language. 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 purpose, especially in respect 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 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."

Furthermore, this is what Burgon says about the Sacred Text which he was clearly opposed to tampering with, not the revisions done to the Greek text there were carried out by others after Stephanus:

“My one object has been to defeat the mischievous attempt which was made in 1881 to thrust upon this Church and Realm a Revision of the Sacred Text, which–recommended though it be by eminentnames–I am thoroughly convinced, and am able to prove, is untrustworthy from beginning to end.” [Dean John W.Burgon, Revision Revised, p. v].

"“It is, however, the systematic depravation of the underlying Greek which does so grievously offend me: for this is nothing else but apoisoning of the River of Life at its sacred source. Our Revisers (with the best and purest
intentions, no doubt,) stand convicted of having deliberately rejected the words of Inspiration in every page, and of having substituted for them
fabricated Readings which the Church has long since refused to acknowledge, or else has rejected with abhorrence, and which only survive at this time in a little handful of documents of the most depraved type.” [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision Revised, pp. vi-vii]."

Dean Burgon frequently referred to the "Authorized Version Revised" by Westcott & Hort with references that would give a critic opportunity to claim that Burgon was referencing the King James Bible. Logos references are from repeating antiKVJO authors interpretations of what Burgon wrote.

Logos cites Edward Miller's introduction attempting to show examples of what Burgon believed about the Textus Receptus, but as stated above, Burgon was critical of the REVISIONS of the Textus Receptus, and when going back a few pages in the introdution, one can read where the term "Textus Receptus" had become a popular term that referred to several different works by other authors besides Stephanus including Cardinal Ximenes, Elzivir Brothers.

Burgon showed quite the bit of confidence in Stephens version of the TR. "‘It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, writes the most learned of the Revisionist body [that is, Dr. F. H. Scrivener],‘that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originatedwithin a hundred years after it was composed:that Irenaeus (A.D. 150), and the AfricanFathers, and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus Receptus" RR, page 30.

Burgon said about correcting "errors": "Shame, — yes, shame on the learning which comes abroad only to perplex the weak, and to unsettle the doubting, and to mislead the blind! Shame, — yes, shame on that two-thirds majority of well-intentioned but most incompetent men who, finding themselves (in an
evil hour) appointed to correct ‘plain and clear errors’ in the English Authorized Version,’ occupied themselves instead with falsifying the inspired Greek Text in countless places, and branding with suspicion some of the most precious utterances of the SPIRIT! Shame, —yes, shame upon them".

This is how Norris has quoted every source that I have seen, out of context and typically from the works of other antiKJVO authors and attempts to overwhelm readers with a plethora of quotes hoping they won't check the sources. Some of us have the time to actually check it, and Norris' work is found wanting and inaccurate.

 

In other words like any good politician, the good Dean was for it before he was against it. Pretty typical of the KJVO at any cost mindset.:smilewinkgrin:

 

Why does what John Burgon wrote even matter?
Why are his works are ignored by most scholars today?
Why are the principle people that reference his works those that are associated with the KJVO myth?

Burgon's OPINIONS about Westcott and Hort’s works may have been justified at the time he wrote them but are dated in light of archeological finds since his death.

His strong OPINIONS about Westcott and Hort’s works have to be moderated by the data collected from the number of ancient biblical manuscripts we have now that predate the smaller numbers that were available in his time.

So why are the works of Westcott and Hort held in higher esteem than those of Burgon?

It’s not that they presented a work without error – their theories have been shown to be over-reaching.

But they were able to offer a theory on the formation of the biblical text that was in-part supported by the ancient biblical manuscripts that have been discovered since their time.

John Burgon was a great scholar, I would guess that given the data we have today he would significantly adjust his opinions on the state of the text.

Rob

 

so Dean was really a KJVP person, and would have loved the NKJV!