Dean Burgon Quote

Concerning manuscripts and the Critical Text:

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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