> 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
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
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
>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
> 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
> 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.
> 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?
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.