Featured Dean Burgon and KJVO

Not true at all. Burgon a was all for revision, until he was informed about the bad decisions the revised versions were making. Then he opposed the Revised Versions bad decisions it had made, and the Greek text of Westcott and Hort. He also revised the Textus Receptus in most of Matthew according to his principles. He was obviously a majority text type leaning person.

 

Burgon's proposed changes to the TR in Matthew 1-14 are noted posthumously by his understudy, Edward Miller, who meticulously recorded these along with much patristic citation in his "Textual Commentary" vol. 1 (the only one published before Miller's own death in 1901; Burgon died in 1888).

Burgon there is seen to agree at almost every cited point totally with the modern Majority Text editions (HF, RP).

Also, if Combs had consulted Burgon's other works (also edited and published posthumously by Miller), he would have seen many places where Burgon specifically rejected KJV/TR readings in favor of current Majority readings.

 

His Textual Criticism of Matthew was certainly towards the end of his life as he didnt even get to finnish Matthew. His later works were published by Edward Miller a follower or student of his. You should read the "Revision Revised" yourself instead of being misinformed by someone else. True I havent finnished it myself but if anyone intertains the idea he was an onlyist or anything close to it is fibing and dishonest. He was a scholar of the highest order who studied textual Criticism for many years.

 

A textual commentary upon the Holy Gospels largely from the use of materials, and mainly on the text, left by the late John William Burgon .. : Miller, Edward, 1825-1901 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

 

The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Revision Revised by John William Burgon

 

Burgon's work was actually finished when Miller began after 1888 to organize his findings in the Mt 1-14 textual commentary. It is well known that Burgon left behind "16 folio volumes" regarding 86,000 patristic NT quotations, which are now in the British library in a form which needs far more work to ever make them publishable (so no wonder Miller only had Mt 1-14 complete 13 years after Burgon's death).

Burgon also left behind to Miller all his unpublished materials, most of which have long since disappeared after Miller's death in 1901 (some people in Oxford have tried to locate such, with no good results).

Among the now-missing material, noted particularly by Miller) was a copy of Lloyd's TR Greek NT filled throughout with Burgon's notes regarding those places where Burgon would have departed from the TR. If only that would someday show up!

 

John William Burgon wrote: "Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, by any means, claim perfection for the Received Text. We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we shall have occasion to point out that the Textus Receptus needs correction" (The Revision Revised, p. 21, footnote 3). John William Burgon maintained that “in not a few particulars, the ‘Textus receptus’ does call for Revision” (p. 107). Burgon wrote: “That some corrections of the Text were necessary, we are well aware” (p. 224, footnote 1). Burgon himself asked: “who in his senses, --what sane man in Great Britain, --ever dreamed of regarding the ‘Received,‘ --aye, or any other known ‘Text,‘ --as a standard from which there shall be no appeal? Have I ever done so? Have I ever implied as much? If I have, show me where” (p. 385). Dean Burgon himself asserted: “If, on the contrary, I have ever once appealed to the ‘Received Text,‘ and made it my standard, --why do you not prove the truth of your allegation by adducing in evidence that one particular instance?“ instead of bringing against me a charge which is utterly without foundation (p. 388). Burgon asked: “Who, pray, since the invention of printing was ever known to put forward any existing Text as ‘a final standard’?“ (p. 392). Burgon asserted: “So far am I from pinning my faith to it [the Textus Receptus], that I eagerly make my appeal from it to the threefold witness of Copies, Versions, Fathers, whenever I find its testimony challenged” (Ibid.).

Burgon as edited by Edward Miller asserted: “I am not defending the ‘Textus Receptus’” (Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, p. 15). Burgon added: “That it is without authority to bind, nay, that it calls for skillful revision in every part, is freely admitted. I do not believe it to be absolutely identical with the true Traditional Text” (Ibid.). Burgon asserted: “Where any part of it conflicts with the fullest evidence attainable, there I believe that it calls for correction” (Ibid.). Edward Miller concluded that the Traditional Text advocated by Dean Burgon would differ “in many passages” from the Textus Receptus (p. 96). In the introduction to another of Burgon’s books, Edward Miller asserted: “The Traditional Text must be found, not in a mere transcript, but in a laborious revision of the Received Text” (Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text, p. 1).

In 1864, Burgon maintained that “the accumulated evidence of the last two centuries has enabled us to correct it [the Textus Receptus] with confidence in hundreds of places” (Treatise on the Pastoral Office, p. 69). Burgon noted: “GOD has not seen fit to work a succession of miracles for the protection even of His Word” (p. 64). Burgon claimed: “To some, it may seem a matter of regret that a perpetual miracle has not guarded the ispissma verba of the Spirit; but the wiser will judge differently” (p. 77). Burgon asserted: “From the very nature of the case, he who transcribes a MS. must fall into error sometimes” (p. 66).

John William Burgon maintained “that the number of various readings in the New Testament properly so called has been greatly exaggerated,” and he asserted that “in reality they are exceedingly few in number” (Causes of the Corruption, p. 16; Green, UnHoly Hands, I, p. B-5). Burgon asserted: "Let it be also candidly admitted that even where (in our judgment) the Revisionists have erred, they have never had the misfortune seriously to obscure a single feature of Divine Truth" (Revision Revised, p. 232). Burgon as edited by Edward Miller wrote: “It may be regarded as certain that most of the aberrations discoverable in the Codexes of the Sacred Text have arisen in the first instance from the merest inadvertency of the scribes” (Causes of the Corruption, p. 21). John William Burgon wrote: “The Greek text ordinarily in use is that of Stephens, put forth at Paris in 1550” (Treatise on the Pastoral Office, p. 69). Dean Burgon wrote: “The Greek text, as we have it in any ordinary edition, (that of Bp. Lloyd, for example, who reproduced that of Mill (1707), which is very nearly that of Stephens (1550),) is known to be generally correct, --quite correct enough for all practical purposes” (p. 70). Burgon wrote: “S. Luke’s history of the Temptation (4:8) contains five words which some ancient copyist must have inserted from remembering too well the parallel place in S. Matthew 4:10, and confounding it with the language of S. Matthew 16:23” (p. 76).

Glenn Conjurske maintained that KJV defenders “have read Burgon without half understanding him—though indeed he is not hard to understand—and have coupled his protest with the most invincible ignorance and the most arrogant prejudice. And they have crippled Burgon’s protest, by saddling it with a host of the most baseless of fictions” (Olde Paths, April, 1995, p. 75). Glenn Conjurske asserted that the stand of the Dean Burgon Society “is far away from anything which Burgon held” (May, 1996, p. 100). Glenn Conjurske observed that Burgon “believed that there were inaccuracies and mistranslations in the King James Version and that the Revised Version remedied some of them” (p. 102).

 

I don't really have a clue. But I would guess he never actually read Burgon for himself, or he wanted to aline Burgon with onlyist to discredit him in someway. Burgon should be read by everyone intrested in Textual Criticism.

 

It can be deduced from Burgon's writings that, while he believed the TR could stand a thorough new revision, that it wasn't his calling to undertake it. And it's easily understood that he didn't like the RV nor the W&H text.

However, he didn't live to see all the mss & fragments that Hoskier collated a few years later. And the main newer English translation he saw was the RV, which is considered a rather groddy version to this day.

However, it's doubtful that he would've opposed the NKJV or ESV today.

The late Admin. here,Dr. Thomas Cassidy, was once a member of the "John Burgon Society" until he found that was more of a KJVO-myth-supporting group than one interested in honoring supporting The Dean's work & promoting it to more of the general public. Upon seeing that, Doc Cas left that group.

 

Doc also told me he left due to Waite's heavy-handed control tactics, particularly his demand that no member could call the KJV the "inspired" word of God (as a form of "derivative inspiration"), lest it might lead the Society into Ruckmanism.

 

D. A. Waite himself seems to have led the Dean Burgon Society closer to Ruckmanism and further away from Burgon's views than when it was first founded although he may not have intended to do so.

 

If he had read Burgon's book, perhaps it was many years earlier so that he may not have remembered some things stated by him. In the article cited in this thread, he seems to have been interacting with Waite's biased presentation of Burgon's views rather than directly with all of Burgon's writings.

 

He would have approved of the Nkjv!

 

Also, his thunder against the Critical greek text of W& H cannot really be used to address current Critical text, as it is far from what it was he saw and knew it as being!