Which, when viewed from our perspective, is rather humorous! In 1592, just 67 years after Erasmus published his 1st edition, the Clementine Vulgate was published, and declared by Pope Clement VIII to be the only authorized edition. And now the New Vulgate has replaced the "only authorized edition" of Clement!
What is wrong with the modern versions?
Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Askjo, Dec 7, 2003.
Page 5 of 5
-
-
"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 (e.g. at page 107) that the textus receptus needs correction." (p. 21, footnote 2).
On the need for the Textus Receptus to be corrected: ". . .n not a few particulars, the 'Textus receptus' does call for Revision, certainly;" (p. 107).
But, the KJVOs use only those statements of Burgon's that suit their agenda. -
Correct, John Burgon was definitely NOT KJVO.
Since this has been proven by challenges to KJVO claims in the form of public quotations from his re-publicized books, he has suffered a loss of popularity among the KJVO.
To me, Burgon's response to W&H is sane and scholarly (for the information they both had) and not based upon an unfounded fantasy (the "re-inspiration" of the KJV English words - 1611 or 1769? of which no KJVO is willing to give a simple non double-think answer).
Wescott and Hort offered a hypothesis, Burgon disagreed and I believe his challenge remains valid.
HankD -
Page 5 of 5