Dean Burgon Quote

[ReformedBaptist]

Concerning manuscripts and the Critical Text:

I am utterly disinclined to believe, so grossly improbable does it seem — that at the end of 1800 years, 995 copies out of every thousand, I suppose, will prove untrustworthy, and that one, two, three, four, or five which remain, whose contents were till yesterday as good as unknown, will be found to have the secret of what the Holy Spirit originally inspired. I am utterly unable to believe, in short, that God’s promise has so entirely failed, that at the end of 1800 years, much of the text of the Gospel had in point of fact to be picked by a German critic out of a waste paper basket in the convent of St. Catherine.

I have to agree with his logic here.

I know this subject gets hotly debated, and my attention is upon it again because it has personally affected me, but this is something Christians need to be serious about.

Last night I attended a men's Bible study and as we went through the greek text, one man on a print out of the greek words of the text, and me using what was on my iphone through Blue Letter Bible, we bumped into two different words...in the GREEK TEXT. I am not talking about a difference in translation, but a difference in the actual Greek Text.

For some this may be no big deal. For me it is. Why? Because EVERY WORD of God is precious to me. So which is it? WHich word is God's Word? And what has brought this confusion? It was the Critical Text that brought it. And why do we have a Critical Text?

These thigns MUST be addressed seriously, prayerfully, soberly, patiently and with much earnest for the love of GOd's Holy Word who WITHOUT QUESTION has preserved His word throughout all generations.

 

[Deacon]

If we could find only one early manuscript from... say the 6th century or earlier... that agreed with the textus receptus I might agree...
...but you can't even find one from the 12-15th centuries.

Fact: every significant handwritten Greek manuscript varies to some degree or another.

The Greek texts we hold today were compiled from hundreds and thousands of different documents.

The whole idea of a critical text is to critically examine the differences in these thousands of different Greeks manuscripts handed down over the centuries.

The same process was done in the 1500 thought 1600’s with the development of the textus receptus albeit with a vastly smaller group of manuscripts.

So.. whas yer problem now?

Rob

 

[robycop3]

We see many differences between the Four Gospels in their narrations of the same events. For example, none of them agree with what was written on the sign above Jesus' head on His cross. However, these Gospels have been accepted as Scripture almost from the days of their writings.

I believe the MESSAGE is often more important than the exact words. For example, while the Gospels disagree upon the exact wording of Jesus' sign, they all agree that "King of the Jews" was written upon it.

 

[annsni]

It would be interesting to know what the two texts were and what the words were. I'm SOOO not up on my Greek but I wonder if we could find out some information on the two variants.

 

[Deacon]

I believe the MESSAGE is often more important than the exact words.

And yet the WORDs are important!
They were inspired after all.

It’s the mature believer’s duty to determine the text,
…and when there is a variant,
…to compare Scripture to Scripture looking for support
…and not be so dogmatic about the conclusion.


Personally I believe the APPLICATION of the words and message of either text base will be the same!

Rob

 

[ReformedBaptist]

If we could find only one early manuscript from... say the 6th century or earlier... that agreed with the textus receptus I might agree...
...but you can't even find one from the 12-15th centuries.

Fact: every significant handwritten Greek manuscript varies to some degree or another.

The Greek texts we hold today were compiled from hundreds and thousands of different documents.

The whole idea of a critical text is to critically examine the differences in these thousands of different Greeks manuscripts handed down over the centuries.

The same process was done in the 1500 thought 1600’s with the development of the textus receptus albeit with a vastly smaller group of manuscripts.

So.. whas yer problem now?

Rob

My problem tends to be with those who arrogantly ask me what my problem is. :laugh: I will assume you meant no haughtiness.

I begin with a theological presupposition(s). One is that Scripture is God-breathed. Both of the OT and NT, God moved holy men to pen the words of Scripture. These Scriptures were regarded by God Himself as His very speaking and men are accountable to them.

Second, every Word of God is important and essential.

Third, God will have preserved His Word throughout all generations.

It is my understanding that over 5,000 manuscripts have survived to this day. The majority of these manuscripts fall into the Byzantine text type. And the best representation of this text-type family is the Recieved Text, or Textus Receptus. It is also my understanding that from the use of the NT by the early Church fathers, we conclude they had this text-type family. It is what they used.

In the last 100-200 years the use of the Critical Text came into play. It is different from the Traditional Text and omits many words. One author, Burgon, report that in the NT alone 7,000 words were not translated.

It is my understanding that the variants among the TR versions are miniscule, limited to breathing marks, spellings, et. Where the variants between the Alexandrian Text, or Critical Text, has vast and impactful variants that even wtih our English copies we can see the error.

For example, if you look at the translation of Mark 1:1-4 you will see the modern translations saying it is Isaiah that prophesied, when in fact it was Malachi and Isaiah. Why do the modern versions say Isaiah and the TR says "prophets" ? It is a matter of the underlying Greek text that is used.

Now, I do not have to be a scholar nor an expert in Greek to see this mistake. The NIV, NASB, et. are not correct in their words in Mark here. This is an error, not in the translation, but in the Greek text itself. So why would I NOT question the manuscript?

And as I found in my Bible study last night a similar issue, and it gave rise to the question...which is the proper word? Which Greek MSS is the right one? What is God's Word!

Like Burgon I find inconcieveable that God would leave His people without a trustworthy Greek text for 1800 years.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

It would be interesting to know what the two texts were and what the words were. I'm SOOO not up on my Greek but I wonder if we could find out some information on the two variants.

This is what I am after. I wish I had much, much more time to devote to this. In my previous study of this subject I concluded with the TR/MT (Textus Receptus and Majority Text).

But since it has come up again, I may need to give more attention to it. Perhaps there would be a paper I could write on it next year in seminary.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

We see many differences between the Four Gospels in their narrations of the same events. For example, none of them agree with what was written on the sign above Jesus' head on His cross. However, these Gospels have been accepted as Scripture almost from the days of their writings.

I believe the MESSAGE is often more important than the exact words. For example, while the Gospels disagree upon the exact wording of Jesus' sign, they all agree that "King of the Jews" was written upon it.

Matthew 27:37
And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Mark 15:26
And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Luke 23:38
And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

John 19:19
And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

I think it is improper to say the texts disagree. The texts agree and are not contradictory.

 

[annsni]

In the last 100-200 years the use of the Critical Text came into play. It is different from the Traditional Text and omits many words. One author, Burgon, report that in the NT alone 7,000 words were not translated.

I do know that there was quite a bit of harmonization that occurred in some of the texts and maybe that's why it seems that there is 7,000 words not translated? That many of the 7,000 words were actually not originally there? Colossians 1:2 is a likely example. So if the scribe added in "and the Lord Jesus Christ" because that was a common greeting and he just kept writing, we can see how there are 5 words right there that are orthodox but quite possibly not original.

What I'd like to see is a list of the 7,000 words. I've seen KJVOnlyests cry out "They removed _____ from the Word of God! Here's a verse to prove it!" and when you look, we can see that it's just a matter of a change in wording but the words and meaning are still there (like changing "God" to "He" or something like that).

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I do know that there was quite a bit of harmonization that occurred in some of the texts and maybe that's why it seems that there is 7,000 words not translated? That many of the 7,000 words were actually not originally there? Colossians 1:2 is a likely example. So if the scribe added in "and the Lord Jesus Christ" because that was a common greeting and he just kept writing, we can see how there are 5 words right there that are orthodox but quite possibly not original.

What I'd like to see is a list of the 7,000 words. I've seen KJVOnlyests cry out "They removed _____ from the Word of God! Here's a verse to prove it!" and when you look, we can see that it's just a matter of a change in wording but the words and meaning are still there (like changing "God" to "He" or something like that).

I agree. It's an astounding number. I think it needs to be verified. But would someone compile that information? Can you imagine the immense work it would take to compare the Greek texts to do that? Wow.

The stat I pulled from a book written by John William Burgon which a pastor recommened to me, and I read a large potion of it. It is very good. I did a little digging on Mr. Burgon and, of course, wiki was there with a brief biographical sketch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_William_Burgon

He is definately not KJVonly. Not in in the sense that KJVonly folks are today. I am going to check my works I have of his to see if I have the work he did on the Revised Version and Westcott and Hort. Burgon was contemporary to these men.

Burgon: 21 August 1813 – 4 August 1888
Brooke Foss Westcott (12 January 1825 – 27 July 1901)
Fenton John Anthony Hort (April 23, 1828–November 30, 1892)

It is certainly interesting that Burgon wrote and preached against the new version at its advent.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I do know that there was quite a bit of harmonization that occurred in some of the texts and maybe that's why it seems that there is 7,000 words not translated? That many of the 7,000 words were actually not originally there? Colossians 1:2 is a likely example. So if the scribe added in "and the Lord Jesus Christ" because that was a common greeting and he just kept writing, we can see how there are 5 words right there that are orthodox but quite possibly not original.

What I'd like to see is a list of the 7,000 words. I've seen KJVOnlyests cry out "They removed _____ from the Word of God! Here's a verse to prove it!" and when you look, we can see that it's just a matter of a change in wording but the words and meaning are still there (like changing "God" to "He" or something like that).

Also, I showed above from Mark 1:1-3 that the word Isaiah was used, instead of prophets, as the Traditional Text uses. Why? Well, the difference is between the Traditional Text and the Critical Text.

But which is correct? They actually can't both be correct.

 

[Deacon]

My problem tends to be with those who arrogantly ask me what my problem is. :laugh: I will assume you meant no haughtiness.

I guess I should have snipped that last part.
I was just asking you to critically examine your beliefs.

You give three propositions,

One, is that Scripture is God-breathed...

Second, every Word of God is important and essential.

Third,[.b] God will have preserved His Word throughout all generations

Show me from Scripture that every word is essential – meaning absolutely necessary.

And show me that God preserved his word for all believers in past generations.


Re: Mark 1:2 (Isaiah vs. the prophets)
Our dilemma is that there is no real way to prove what variant is correct.
We all use theories that others have developed to try to come to a conclusion…
…and we grade our own paper.

That’s why I believe the APPLICATION of God’s word is what matters.
I’d suggest struggling less with the first part of 2 Timothy and working on the second part.

All Scripture is … profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness

What did Paul consider "Scripture"? Did he ever quote scripture loosely?
What did Timothy use for Scripture?
What did the early believers use for when they read Scripture?

Rob

 

[Mexdeaf]

He is definately not KJVonly. Not in in the sense that KJVonly folks are today. I am going to check my works I have of his to see if I have the work he did on the Revised Version and Westcott and Hort. Burgon was contemporary to these men.

Burgon: 21 August 1813 – 4 August 1888
Brooke Foss Westcott (12 January 1825 – 27 July 1901)
Fenton John Anthony Hort (April 23, 1828–November 30, 1892)

It is certainly interesting that Burgon wrote and preached against the new version at its advent.

I could be very well mistaken but I do not think that W&H did any translation (version) work, only textual criticism work.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I guess I should have snipped that last part.
I was just asking you to critically examine your beliefs.

You give three propositions,


Show me from Scripture that every word is essential – meaning absolutely necessary.

And show me that God preserved his word for all believers in past generations.


Re: Mark 1:2 (Isaiah vs. the prophets)
Our dilemma is that there is no real way to prove what variant is correct.
We all use theories that others have developed to try to come to a conclusion…
…and we grade our own paper.

That’s why I believe the APPLICATION of God’s word is what matters.
I’d suggest struggling less with the first part of 2 Timothy and working on the second part.

All Scripture is … profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness

What did Paul consider "Scripture"? Did he ever quote scripture loosely?
What did Timothy use for Scripture?
What did the early believers use for when they read Scripture?

Rob

Rob, thank you for your reply. I kindly ask you to make your point and I will respond to it. I am not interested in a leading question/answer session with you.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I could be very well mistaken but I do not think that W&H did any translation (version) work, only textual criticism work.

Perhaps I am mistaken. It seemed to me that the work of Wescott and Hort were related to the Revised Versions, et.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Perhaps I am mistaken. It seemed to me that the work of Wescott and Hort were related to the Revised Versions, et.

It appears that you are correct and that I am wrong. According to Wiki (not the most reliable source, I know) W&H were on the translation committee for the RV 1881 NT. My apologies.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Here is an interesting site or two that are contemporary to the time that W&H were involved with the RV translation. Some very fine American scholars were on the American NT translating committee.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/ervhistory.html

And here is a link to the Preface of the ERV (1881 and 1885) which makes for fascinating reading. It includes a great deal of the history of the AV at the beginning, also.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/ervpreface.html

 

[TCassidy]

And show me that God preserved his word for all believers in past generations.

One of the rules of textual criticism in use for well over 300 years is the idea of historicity. I would not be too quick to cavalierly dismiss it.

 

[TCassidy]

Re: Mark 1:2 (Isaiah vs. the prophets)
Our dilemma is that there is no real way to prove what variant is correct.
We all use theories that others have developed to try to come to a conclusion…
…and we grade our own paper.

Other than, of course, the critical application of the rational rules of textual criticism, which point, with overwhelming evidence, to the "prophets" reading.

 

[Mexdeaf]

And here is a link to the actual Greek Testament which underlies the ERV-

http://books.google.com/books?id=jQQVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA26&output=html