Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

On the Revised Version of 1881/1885

Expand Messages
  • forisraelssake
    ... Holy Gospels, or ... was fabricated (Burgon s own word) by Westcott and Hort (Aleph and B being its sole foundation) was the most untrustworthy and
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 22, 2004
      > I must ask you, Chris: have you read Dean Burgon's
      > a.. Revision Revised,
      > b.. The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels,
      > c.. The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the
      Holy Gospels, or
      > d.. The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to St. Mark?
      > Burgon not only proves in those works that the Greek Text that
      was "fabricated" (Burgon's own word) by Westcott and Hort (Aleph and
      B being its sole foundation) was the most untrustworthy and corrupt
      text to ever exist, but that the English "revision" that was
      produced from it was equally corrupt, due to the fanciful theories
      of genealogy and conflation that guided Westcott and Hort in their
      translating...theories that even Prebendary Scrivener (fellow ERV
      translator) rejected!
      >

      Keith, I am sorry for my harsh tone last email to you.

      I've read significant portions of "The Last Twelve Verses" as well
      as "The Traditional Text". I've also read F.J.A. Hort, Bruce
      Metzger, Kurt Aland, Frederick Kenyon, B.B. Warfield, Edward Hills,
      Harold Greenlee, Joseph Lightfoot, Philip Schaff, Richard Trench,
      Vincent Taylor, and Daniel Wallace. In general, while I am open-
      minded to Burgon's and Robinson's defence of the Byzantine text
      type, I tend to think Hort-Aland-Wallace et al. have offered serious
      arguments that deeply problematize the position that the modern
      eclectic text was "fabricated" (whether it was you or Burgon saying
      it, the world is still totally false) from two totally idiosyncratic
      uncials. Nonetheless it is a serious and interesting debate, but it
      was you who wanted to paint the dispute in terms of the Protestant
      position versus the Roman Catholic position which is what I was
      specifically rejecting.

      Not only did Scrivener reject Hort's Alexandrian-priority thesis,
      but he also rejected Burgon's central tenant of Byzantine-only.

      > I have tried not to make this a "KJV only" issue. I only wanted
      to show the glaring shift that has taken place over the last 200
      years...a shift away from ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH THE
      REFORMATION, including the texts and Bibles of that time! Do you

      There are around 5,000 Greek manuscripts and 9,000 Latin manuscripts
      of the New Testament that we have catalogued today, many of which
      still remain uncollated. You do acknowledge that when the texts of
      the Reformation were crafted, only around 4 or 5 late miniscules
      were used to created the Erasmian New Testament, the basis for all
      other editions of the 'textus receptus' (TR). When the KJV was
      published in 1611, this number had been brought up to at best 25
      manuscripts, most of which were only partially collated to the TR.
      This included only two manuscripts dating prior to the 10th century,
      the very weird (and nearly useless for text-criticism) uncial
      manuscripts Codex Bezae and Codex Claromonanus (now known as Codex D
      and D2), which embodied the inferior Western text-type.

      The third uncial manuscript to come to scholarly light was Codex
      Alexdrinus (now known as A) in the 1630s, around 25 years after the
      KJV was made and the work of bible translation ended in the English
      speaking world. Even then, it was clear to scholars that Codex A
      contained many plausible authentic readings that differed from the
      main TR editions. So text-criticism of the NT mostly began in
      earnest in the latter half of the 17th century.

      It is not a big conspiracy to overthrow the TR for doctrinal
      reasons, but I believe because the TR has many grave deficiencies in
      readings that need to be corrected given how we have found so many
      more NT manuscripts from all periods in church history.

      Burgon rejected the Alexandrian-text entirely on grounds that
      virtually everyone who is a lettered scholar has since rejected as
      spurious (though I think a lot of us Reformed people have some
      sympathy to based more on the theological preservation argument than
      anything to do with his specific evidentiary proofs). Contrariwise,
      most textual critics relegate the Byzantine text type to a secondary
      position based on arguments Burgon totally rejected. The debate is
      truly interesting, but your unsubstantiated assertions that there is
      an agenda among all non-Burgonian textual scholars to overthrow the
      Protestant Reformation really do not help unless you can get beyond
      the level of ad-hominem and criticize specifics of the reasoned
      eclecticism position.


      >really not see what has happened? Not only has there been a shift
      away from any and all Reformation texts, but
      > a.. Futurism,
      > b.. Preterism,
      > c.. Idealism,
      > d.. Arminianism,
      > e.. Dispensationalism,
      > f.. Chilaism,
      > g.. the exclusion of infants from baptism,
      > h.. as well as the Baptist doctrine that baptizo always
      means "full immersion," which they claim is the only true mode of
      baptism
      > have all crept into the professing Church, and have been heartily
      embraced today by all who just can't bring themselves to believe
      anything the Reformers and Puritans believed - as if they were
      ignorant, Biblically illiterate infidels!
      >
      > All of the above doctrines have been accepted by professing
      Christians today, in direct opposition TO THE ENTIRE REFORMATION!
      >

      This would seem a bad argument. I can accept that the TR underlying
      the KJV is the ecclessiastical text of the faithful church, since we
      Covenanters ourselves haven't directly, in a formal judicial
      capacity, evaluated how we ought to revise the Reformation's Greek
      New Testament. Yet your argument seems to say whatever is new is
      bad. So Van Tilian presuppositionalism, Theonomy, covenant renewals
      that specify how our covenant obligations apply in new circumstance,
      or any other further refining and making more precise the
      implications of Christianity have to be rejected, because new is bad.


      > I don't have a problem with a single Reformation Bible - from
      Tyndale's to the KJV. From the ERV of 1881 to the present, however,
      all Bibles have been produced from the very same text that Burgon
      spent countless THOUSANDS OF HOURS exposing as corrupt!
      >

      Actually the NKJV is based on the same Greek and Hebrew texts as the
      1611 KJV. The Analytical-Literal Translation is a revision of
      Young's Literal Translation except it is based on the Majority text
      of Pierpont and Robinson, two people who accept Burgon's refutation
      of the eclectic text based heavily on the Alexandrian text.

      I appreciate Burgon's effort to disprove the theory of Byzantine-
      lateness that he lived to see nearly everyone accept and the
      thousands of manhours he invested to this task, but his arguments
      are not THAT convincing or totally persuasive that he is beyond
      suspicion that he wasted that time trying to prove something false.
      After all, W & H spend thousands of manhours proving the exact
      opposite.

      >
      > Chris writes: I agree, Rome is still the diabolical enemy of the
      two witnesses for as long as we are in the 1260 days (read: years),
      until she is finally destroyed at a yet future time and the
      millennium arrives and all nations covenant to serve the Lord God.
      (emphasis mine)
      >
      >
      > So you're a chilaist?
      >

      Eh heh, no. I am a postmillennial historicist. I believe we are not
      living in the millennium now (contra the preterists) but that we are
      in the 1260 day-years prior to the millennium, at the end of which
      Christ will return to judge the world.


      > Do I know you from another club, Chris? Do you know ME? What
      makes you think the above?
      >
      >
      > Keith


      No I don't believe I do. I apologize for my presumption. I thought
      you were saying the revised Greek New Testaments, which Burgon can
      fatuously claim were fabricated from readings that never had
      currency anywhere, was entirely a Popish plot. I also erringly
      thought you would not be as reasonable and as gracious as you have
      been, and were trying to stir up some KJV-Onlyism.

      Good day,

      Chris
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.