W and H

Interesting that 5 days later no one has raised any objections. Either people have no idea what's wrong with their approach, or people would rather just try to throw some mud in their direction.

 

What was wrong with their approach was they thought textual critisism should be done in the first place. Wait . . . didn't Erasmus do textual critisism . . .No must not of. Wait . . . didn't the KJV translators decide between different variants (and often margin the ones they didn't choose) . . .No . . . that is a lie by those alexandrian cults: my KJV 1611 (which for some reason has 1769 as the publisher date?) doesn't have it so it is a lie.

 

Perhaps people don't want to be pummeled (it happens).

Here is a really short summary:

According to Dean Burgon, W&H did what they were not commissioned to do. They were to revise the English of the AV, not the texts of the original languages.

Burgon called Aleph and B "corrupt" because they differed among themselves to a degree found nowhere else in the mss world. W&H did not base their text on these MSS in a singular manner but they based their text upon the TR which they ammended with selected words from Aleph/B.
If they had used the texts in an singular manner, the outcry would have been great because of the departure from the TR.

He was critical that they had left off from using the Traditional Text that dated back to 4th century, was directly attributed to the apostolic Church and had nourished the Church for 15 consecutive centuries thereafter.

He was also critical of the W&H theory "the older and/or shorter reading is better" (in essence).

Later Papyri (older that Aleph/B) discoveries have added evidence that suggest Burgon might have been right with Papyri-TR "conflated" readings in over 50% of the papyri variants in some studies.

Some question these studies of the papyri but even the Alands have admitted to papyri support of the TR.

Intellectual dishonesty seems to abound in this area.
Too bad, it's a fascinating study to me and unworthy of Christians
to put this fly in the ointment.
So, normally, I just do my reading and keep quiet (with obvious exceptions on the BB).

I really don't want to get into an emotional shoot out about this. Use a good search engine with +p66 +papyr* to get started finding books and material for a self study.

Rather than concentrating on these men and their persona who even Burgon said had the "best of intentions", I would question their basic premise of variant readings "oldest is best", "shortest is best" and prove it to your own satisfaction one way or the other or at least balance your point of view with information from both sides.


Peace to all,

HankD

 

These may be of help.

Ps 50:16, But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to doto declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth?

1 Sam 24:13, As saith the proverb of the ancients, Wickedness proceedeth from the wicked: but mine hand shall not be uponthee.

From all that I've read about W&H I cannot accept them as anything but ministers of Satan - 1 Cor 11:13-15.

As such I find it impossible to believe they would have or could have handled the Scriptures.

Because He lives, Howard

 

Yes, Burgon is probably the best place to go for arguments against W&H's methods, and his "The Revision Revised" is probably the best place to start for those interested. Alas it too has more than it's fair share of arrogance and mud-slinging, but at least their wrapped around some actual arguments instead of air. I've yet to finish reading my copy - it's a long, heavy, dry book.

And what have you read, besides the dishonest, hacked "Heresies..."? I know you've read that chapter I provided (would a "minister of Satan" say those things???), but have you actually read any of their books?