Featured Dean Burgon and KJVO

He seemed to be a strong MT, so would liked the Nkjv!

 

He would not be a KJVO if alive today!

 

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.

 

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.).

 

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!

 

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 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."

 

Did not seem to be a TR only guy!

 

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.