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

5508Re: [textualcriticism] Dean John Burgon's collection of citations

Expand Messages
  • Richard Mallett
    Feb 5, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Reply to : socius72
      > That's correct. Burgon did not hold a blind allegiance to the Textus Receptus. He admitted that the Textus Receptus needed correction for it was by no means perfect. However, he did state that the Textus Receptus was a better text than that of Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles. (J. W. Burgon, The Revision Revised, London: John Murray, 1883, 21 n. 2).
      I have only just started reading this, so I haven't reached page 21 yet
      :-) I was relying on Aland and Aland, The Text of the New Testament,
      translated by Errol F. Rhodes, paperback edition, 1995, p. 19 :-

      "Despite their clamorous rhetoric, the champions of the Textus Receptus
      (led primarily by Dean John William Burgon) were defending deserted

      Going back to the question of patristic citations, how valuable are
      they, given that (if I'm not putting my foot in it again) the
      manuscripts of their writings are much later than the earliest NT
      manuscripts, and also exhibit variant readings ?

      Richard Mallett
      Eaton Bray, Dunstable
      South Beds. UK
    • Show all 13 messages in this topic