Re: Dean John Burgon's collection of citations
- View SourceI did not see any textual information in the volumes, let alone a collation.
Someone had clearly gone through certain passages (such as John 7:53-8:11) and made small ink marks in the margin, which I took as an indication that the references had been checked against an edition (and were perhaps being classified in some way), but that was all I noticed.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, schmuel <schmuel@...> wrote:
> Steven Avery
> Thanks Hugh for the fascinating information about the British Library
> volumes. Did you check and see if there are any notations or
> collations on the verses that Dean John Burgon spoke about with some
> nuance, especially Acts 8:37 and the heavenly witnesses ? Verses
> which come up here and there in his writings but never have a textual
> analysis ?
- View Source
> Steven AveryThat'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).
> Even today on many verses Dean John Burgon is often the best starting
> point in correcting the many errors in the apparatuses.
> Technically John Burgon was not exactly a TR defender. Although he
> actually attacked no major verses (the quote re: Griesbach about the
> heavenly witnesses has more of a "turnabout" feel) in the Textus
> Receptus and has a quote that no major verses are wrong, Dean Burgon
> clearly had some verses where he felt the TR could be "corrected" and
> did talk about the possibility of such a revision sometime in time and space.
- View SourceReply 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 ?
Eaton Bray, Dunstable
South Beds. UK
- View SourceOn Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 08:54:36PM +0000, Richard Mallett wrote:
> Going back to the question of patristic citations, how valuable areAs Lorenzo de Valla pointed out with Jerome's commentaries on the
> 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 ?
Vulgate, they have often been copied fewer times than the Biblical
text, and therefore have had less chance for errors to be made.
They can be very valuable as indications for presence/absence of
a particular verse or passage (regardless of the exact reading, if
someone mentions a verse, or mentions its absence in their commentary,
you have a pretty good indicator). Frequently the original text
of the patristic author is older than any of our manuscripts.
Mentions such as "most codexes have reading X" or "a few codexes
have reading Y", while necessarily impressionistic, are very
useful for probing the state of the text at particular periods.
You are correct about the need to examine the patristic text
carefully to see what they originally wrote and what variants
have crept into _their_ text over the years. As far as I know
this is still a largely incomplete process.
The arithmetic average of a bimodal distribution is not a useful number.