He seemed to be a strong MT, so would liked the Nkjv!Curious that Burgon cannot be used to address the current critical text, since he never saw or knew of its existence, while he can be used to address his approval of the NKJV which he never saw or knew of its existence. You like to have your cake and eat it, too.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Dean Burgon and KJVO
- Thread starter rlvaughn
- Start date
You just don't get it, do you? Sometimes I think you are just trying to see how many one or two line messages you can put up on the Baptist Board in order to have the most posts of all time. I hope I am not correct.
Actually, your conclusion does not follow. A person can be a strong Majority Text proponent, and yet might not like a particular translation of the Majority Text. You are simply asserting something we cannot know. And there really is no need to know.
He would not be a KJVO if alive today!
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
probably the best textual scholar Christianity has ever had!
Given that the current critical text (NA28/UBS5) remains 99.9% identical to WH (there are only about 500-600 actual differences between the two out of 17000+ words), I suggest Burgon would react similarly in addressing the current texts and text-critical trends.
Burgon *might* like some of the NKJV changes, but still would be critical of its underlying TR text (though approving of the M-text notes). I expect he would still remain a staunch traditionalist, continuing to prefer the KJV for public worship.
To be clear, I was addressing the inconsistency in Yeshua1's "logic," and not specifically what conclusions someone who has studied Dean Burgon might draw, based on what is known of Burgon's beliefs compared to current facts.
Peter Ruckman asserted that “Burgon claimed the AV has several corrupt readings in it” (Ruckman’s Battlefield Notes, p. 100).
John William Burgon referred to “what, in the A. V. is nothing worse than a palpable mistranslation” (Revision Revised, p. 72). Burgon suggested that “the inaccurate rendering” of two Greek words in the KJV at Matthew 3:10 and Luke 3:9 was “retained” in the Revised Version (p. 164). John William Burgon indicated that there are some places where the Revisionists remedy “an inaccuracy in the rendering of the A. V.“ (p. 220). Burgon wrote: “It is often urged on behalf of the Revisionists that over not a few dark places of S. Paul’s Epistles their labours have thrown important light. Let it not be supposed that we deny this. Many a Scriptural difficulty vanishes the instant a place is accurately translated: a far greater number, when the rendering is idiomatic” (pp. 216-217).
Concerning Luke 5:2, Burgon as edited by Miller asserted: “The translators of the 1611, not understanding the incident, were content, as Tyndale, following the Vulgate, had been before them, to render [the Greek words]--’were washing their nets” (Traditional Text, p. 212). Burgon then maintained that the Revisers of 1881 retained “the incorrect translation” found in the 1611 KJV at this verse (Ibid.).
John William Burgon referred to “what, in the A. V. is nothing worse than a palpable mistranslation” (Revision Revised, p. 72). Burgon suggested that “the inaccurate rendering” of two Greek words in the KJV at Matthew 3:10 and Luke 3:9 was “retained” in the Revised Version (p. 164). John William Burgon indicated that there are some places where the Revisionists remedy “an inaccuracy in the rendering of the A. V.“ (p. 220). Burgon wrote: “It is often urged on behalf of the Revisionists that over not a few dark places of S. Paul’s Epistles their labours have thrown important light. Let it not be supposed that we deny this. Many a Scriptural difficulty vanishes the instant a place is accurately translated: a far greater number, when the rendering is idiomatic” (pp. 216-217).
Concerning Luke 5:2, Burgon as edited by Miller asserted: “The translators of the 1611, not understanding the incident, were content, as Tyndale, following the Vulgate, had been before them, to render [the Greek words]--’were washing their nets” (Traditional Text, p. 212). Burgon then maintained that the Revisers of 1881 retained “the incorrect translation” found in the 1611 KJV at this verse (Ibid.).
Interesting. Looks like almost all but The Voice thought they were washing their nets.
One of the best of the time!
Just think that he would not be as pro KJVO as those holding to that would assume him as being!
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
And Scrivener and Kenyon. Makes Wallace look like a a school kid
DR Wallace is still on the Varsity team!
Agreed. Before doing a turnabout, he promoted and sold Riplinger's junk. And DBS authors like Jack Moorman quote Ruckman favorably but still get published. (Cf Forever Settled, 15 different places according to the index.)
Glenn Conjurske contended that “in our own generation there are a great many who suppose that they hold Burgon’s view, but who in fact hold a view which Burgon had nothing to do with” (The Bible Version Controversy, p. 165).
Glenn Conjurske maintained that “Burgon never applied his doctrine to any printed Greek New Testament, nor to any single manuscript, but held that the true text was dispersed in all the manuscripts, to be ferreted out and established by patient and painstaking labor, to which he gave much of his life” (Ibid., p. 166).
Glenn Conjurske maintained that “Burgon never applied his doctrine to any printed Greek New Testament, nor to any single manuscript, but held that the true text was dispersed in all the manuscripts, to be ferreted out and established by patient and painstaking labor, to which he gave much of his life” (Ibid., p. 166).
Glenn Conjurske wrote: "The Dean Burgon Society would of course like to persuade itself that Dean Burgon is one with themselves. They would like to persuade others of this also. But how is this to be done, except by pulling the wool over our eyes? It is certain, from many of his own statements, that Burgon did not believe the King James translation to be without error" (Olde Paths, March, 1999, p. 68).
Glenn Conjurske claimed: "It is a plain fact that Burgon did not use only the King James Version in his public ministry. He used the liturgy of the Church of England, which did not always employ the King James Version, but retained the Great Bible in the whole book of Psalms" (p. 69).
Glenn Conjurske claimed that in his dedication to The Revision Revised that "Burgon quotes from Eccl. 3:5, but not from the common King James Version. He quotes from the margin of the original King James Version" (p. 69).
Glenn Conjurske wrote: "Burgon wrote a commentary on the Gospels also [Plain Commentary on the Four Holy Gospels]. He based his comments on the King James Version, but very often corrected it, in a manner which has long been roundly condemned by the King James Only movement" (p. 70).
Glenn Conjurske gave an example from John 10:16 where after the verse, Burgon stated:
"Rather, 'And it shall become one Flock, one Shepherd."
Glenn Conjurske claimed: "It is a plain fact that Burgon did not use only the King James Version in his public ministry. He used the liturgy of the Church of England, which did not always employ the King James Version, but retained the Great Bible in the whole book of Psalms" (p. 69).
Glenn Conjurske claimed that in his dedication to The Revision Revised that "Burgon quotes from Eccl. 3:5, but not from the common King James Version. He quotes from the margin of the original King James Version" (p. 69).
Glenn Conjurske wrote: "Burgon wrote a commentary on the Gospels also [Plain Commentary on the Four Holy Gospels]. He based his comments on the King James Version, but very often corrected it, in a manner which has long been roundly condemned by the King James Only movement" (p. 70).
Glenn Conjurske gave an example from John 10:16 where after the verse, Burgon stated:
"Rather, 'And it shall become one Flock, one Shepherd."
Last edited:
Did not seem to be a TR only guy!
A Plain Commentary on the Four Holy Gospels, Intended Chiefly for Devotional Reading can be found online, in several variations (one volume, more than one volume). The link above is the one volume edition published by Herman Hooker of Philadelphia in 1856.
Dr. Thomas Cassidy, an Admin. here until his death, was once a member of the Dean Burgon Society until he studied Burgon's life & works closely & saw the DBS had drifted more into a KJVO club than one promoting the study of The Dean's works & his actual ideas & ideals. Dr. Cassidy once told me by PM that he believed Burgon viewed the KJV as the best &nglish Bible translation at that time, but that he would've welcomed a new revision of the TR and a new English Bible translation made from a newly-revised TR. Dr. Cassidy added that he could only guess at what The Dean would've actually done.
But he re-iterated that the Society had gotten away from its purpose of the study of Burgon's life & works.
But he re-iterated that the Society had gotten away from its purpose of the study of Burgon's life & works.
I can't speak to all of that about the "drift" in the Burgon Society. I do not have any historical documents about the founding of the Dean Burgon Society. However, I understand that D. A. Waite led in founding it, and I am not aware that he has changed his views on either the TR or the KJV. On the other hand, I have known of Thomas Cassidy since we were on the old Baptist Board together. He did change a good bit in his views about King James Only. A number of earlier things he wrote can still be found on the internet, so his change can be documented.
In my opinion, Brother Cassidy was once part of the "KJVO club" and left it, rather than it being the other way around.
None of this, of course, addresses Burgon's personal views.
I think the good Dean would be very perturbed by the quality of academic rigor of the KJVOs.