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

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

Expand Messages
  • Richard Mallett
    Reply to : socius72 ... I have only just started reading this, so I haven t reached page 21 yet ... translated by Errol F. Rhodes, paperback edition, 1995, p.
    Message 1 of 13 , Feb 5 12:54 PM
    • 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
      ramparts."

      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
    • Tony Zbaraschuk
      ... As Lorenzo de Valla pointed out with Jerome s commentaries on the Vulgate, they have often been copied fewer times than the Biblical text, and therefore
      Message 2 of 13 , Feb 6 7:13 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 08:54:36PM +0000, Richard Mallett wrote:
        > 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 ?

        As Lorenzo de Valla pointed out with Jerome's commentaries on the
        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.


        Tony Z

        --
        The arithmetic average of a bimodal distribution is not a useful number.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.