Featured Revision Revised and it's implications on modern critical texts.

Edward Hills, a KJV defender, observed that "in theology he [Dean Burgon] was a high church Anglican" (Believing Bible Study, p. 113).

KJV-only author David Cloud commented: “Burgon, being an Anglican, reads his ecclesiology back into the historical record” (Faith, p. 222).

Theodore Letis, a KJV defender, noted that "Burgon's high churchmanship far outreached that of those who have been ignorantly accused of Anglo-Catholic leanings by an irresponsible anabaptist press in North American. The very fact that Westcott and Hort could join in a company of non-conformists in this revision project is evidence of their low church leanings and complete incompatibility with Anglo-Catholic sentiments" (Ecclesiastical Text, p. 178).

One reason that Dean Burgon had opposed the Revised Version of 1881 was because Anabaptists and other non-conformists were allowed to participate in the project. He believed that allowing Baptists, Methodists, Congregationalists, Independents, etc., to help in revision would lead to the dissolution of the orthodoxy and exclusive authority of the Anglicans (The Revision Revised, pp. 6, 504-505).

 

different measures involved in making of TR

Burgon wanted any revision of the TR be done exclusively by only Church of England scholars scholars [Bible-believing Baptists and fundamentalists would be excluded].

Jordan, since these six prerequisites or measures of Burgon were not actually used and applied in the making of the twenty or more varying editions of the Textus Receptus to start with, it seems that Burgon and you would be very inconsistent or would be guilty of the use of divers measures [double standards] in this demand.

Do the known facts concerning the making of the varying Textus Receptus editions counter Burgon's inconsistent reasoning or demands?

According to a consistent application of Burgon's own tests or measures, were the Textus Receptus editions properly made?

The actual collating of the few [less than 100 Greek NT manuscripts] Greek manuscripts using in the making of the Textus Receptus editions was imperfectly and incompletely done in the 1500's. The TR editions were thus based on imperfect and incomplete information that did not measure up to Burgon's measures or tests.

F. H. A. Scrivener suggested that “the degree of accuracy attained in this collation may be estimated from the single instance of the Complutensian, a book printed in very clear type” (Introduction, II, p. 190). Scrivener then indicated that “forty-eight, or one in twelve [of Stephen’s citations of the Complutensian] are false” (p. 190, footnote 1). Tregelles maintained that “it may be said, that as the Complutensian text is often incorrectly cited in Stephen’s margin, we may conclude that the same thing is true of the MSS which were collated; for it would be remarkable if manuscripts were examined with greater accuracy than a printed book” (Account, p. 31). Smith’s Dictionary maintained that “while only 598 variants of the Complutensian are given, Mill calculates that 700 are omitted” (III, p. 2131). In a note, John Eadie commented: “The margin of the New Testament of Robert Stephens, 1550, is not of great value. He did not print all the various readings which his son Henry had gathered, nor did he fully collate all the sixteen MSS” (English Bible, II, p. 214). Samuel Newth maintained that the manuscripts used by Stephanus were “imperfectly collated” (Lectures, p. 86). Frederic Gardiner claimed that the collation in this edition “is neither complete nor accurate” (Principles, p. 5). Richard Porson (1759-1808) asserted that “Stephen’s margin is full of mistakes in the readings and numbers of the MSS” (Gentlemen’s Magazine, May, 1789, p. 386; Letters, p. 55). Porson maintained that Stephens “has favored us with only a part of the various readings, (probably less than half) and has frequently set down a reading as from one manuscript which belonged to another” (Letters, pp. 88-89). Charles Hudson reported that the “various readings collated by his son” . . . “are known to be given very inaccurately” (Greek and English Concordance, p. xiv).

 

There have been over 5K Scriptural manuscripts or fragments thereof found since Burgon's death. obviously, his work doesn't cover them. A great deal of them were collated by Herman C. Hoskier(1864-1938) who was also a Director of Guinness Brewery & from 1921-1924 was involved with the American Society for Psychical Research, an occult org. He never denoid nor recanted this involvement.

Now, of course, this does not disqualify any of Hoskier's work, but it DOES shed a great deal of doubt on his opinions.

Logos, perhaps you can shed some light on this: I've been told that Hoskier's work has been improved upon by someone named De Groot or similar. I don't know if this is true or not.

 

So he would have aq big problem with say the Nkjv bible, as those who translated that were in many regards baptists and fundamentalists also!

 

was the 1881 revision any more accurate to detail then?

 

well, would say there has been quite a bit advancement in the field of textual criticism and quite a lot of manuscripts/varients dug up, and that the CT is not really the Wescott and Hort text per say, and that BOTH the CT/MT greek texts superior to ole TR!

 

Jordon,thanks for the link to Thomas Cassidy's article. You know of course that he is a member of the BB.

But one thing in particular that I want to say is that he is entirely wrong about Erasmus having access to every reading we have today. That's utterly bogus. No New Testament scholar or textual critic would affirm that position. Cassidy would like to ignore all the finds that have been made in the last 500 or so years. Erasmus was a genius and he got around quite a bit --but he certainly did not have access to all the readings we have today. I'd like to know how he could have had access to Sanaiticus which was found more than three hundred years after his death! That's just one example.

That's not to say that he chose not to use some readings that he was made privy to. He knew of Vaticanus --but it was in Rome and not so handy.

 

LOL! Let's see Jordan use his little stats game for how much evidence was used in the preparation of the editions of Erasmus, or the Complutensian, or Estienne, or Beza, or Elzevir. This is too stinkin funny, cause in each category each edition would be less than 1 percent and thus far less than any edition of later times, such as that of Mill, or Bengel, or Wettstein, or Matthäi, or Griesbach, or Scholz, or Tischendorf (who dwarfs all previous editions), or von Soden, or any of the Nestle editions, or even the Hodges-Farstad or Robinson-Pierpont editions which were based primarily (if you had taken time to read their prefaces) not on the witnesses that they cite (if any) but on the hundreds of witnesses that von Soden collated for his own edition with corroboration from other witnesses. HAHA, come out of lala land my friend. Actually, go ahead and stay there and post your elaborate visions to us here on the BB. We need good laughs on a regular basis.

 

You've mentioned W&H's theory. I wonder if you could actually enunciate their theory? I think you might find that it is NOT very different to some Byzantine Prioritists view. Only the outcome is different, but the methodology in many respects is the same.

 

that points out the fallacy of much of this discussion involving the original languages texts used today by scholars, as how many of us here actually were and are well versed enough to really understand just what/why/how the differences between the texts are seen by thsoe hold to CT/MT/TR as best?

I can read and use the greek text, but cannot fully understand and realise what all of the critical apparatus's are trying to describe and tell me!

 

Yeshua, every critical aparatus I have seen has a full explanation of the words, symbols and abbreviations somewhere in the publication - usually in the first few pages.

Yes, it may be a struggle to familiarize yourself with the cryptic codes but don't give up.

HankD

 

That is true, just seems that there should be a manual to know exactle what all the symbols and insignia represent....

think there was one for the BHS at one time!

 

You just have to read the preface or introduction. Once you are familiar with them, the apparatus (at least for the NA) is quite good for a quick resource and easy to follow.

Perhaps what you should be more concerned about are the variants that they are not listing. You need some other books for that

 

Any suggestions?

And how much real diiference is there between the MT/CT texts, when the passages concerning essential doctrines and practices are in view?

 

You do realise that while there is very good textual scholarship on either Ct/Mt sides to support them as being the " right text", there is essentially none for the TR itself?