Is it inconsistent...

[HankD]

Thanks for the interesting source. My position on this level of textual criticism is the same as the primary qualification for singing in the choir. I know when to keep my moth shut and let the experts take over (well at least in that area).

If you are interested here is a way to download (or read online) 5 of John Burgon's books FREE.

Books by Burgon, John William (sorted by popularity)

Some people (including KJVO folk) think Burgon was KJVO but that is not true at all.
Evident by reading any of his books.
He called for a revision to the KJV but was very unhappy with the Wescott and Hort results.

A true scholar IMO.

 

[Deacon]

It’s a cause of wonder to me that we are so adamant about the “original” text in the NT but so easily accept additions within the text of our OT.

• If one so dogmatically asserts that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch, is the ending of Deuteronomy Scripture? (or do we explain them as “inspired additions”, c.f. Joshua 24:26)
• Are the “updated” place names in the Pentateuch an abomination? (Genesis 14:14 , 37:14)
• Should we delete explanatory additions such as “…before there were kings in Israel”? Genesis 36:31
• Is Numbers 12:3 an enigma? “Moses the most humble man on the face of the earth.”

My opinion (for what little its worth), is the observation that even among translators that suspect the text of the woman caught in adultery, most all include it in the text in one way or another.

IMO, it would be negligent to not mention the controversy when preaching but one need not dwell upon it.

The passage is certainly does not contain any controversial doctrine.
And presenting it as its weakest point, it’s a valuable addition.

Rob

 

[OnlyaSinner]

Just responding to the top bullet:
Would be far from the first autobiography (though Deut. is far more than that) in which a postmortem epigraph was penned by another - in this case, almost certainly by Joshua.

 

[Yeshua1]

Just responding to the top bullet:
Would be far from the first autobiography (though Deut. is far more than that) in which a postmortem epigraph was penned by another - in this case, almost certainly by Joshua.

That would be the common conservative viewpoint... Joshua added that in, but the entire book until than was under Moses Himself!

 

[Yeshua1]

If you are interested here is a way to download (or read online) 5 of John Burgon's books FREE.

Books by Burgon, John William (sorted by popularity)

Some people (including KJVO folk) think Burgon was KJVO but that is not true at all.
Evident by reading any of his books.
He called for a revision to the KJV but was very unhappy with the Wescott and Hort results.

A true scholar IMO.

What did he think of the 1881 revision?

 

[HankD]

What did he think of the 1881 revision?

Don't know. Probably didn't like it as it followed the CT. He was a mortal enemy of Vaticanus, Siniaticus and many other uncials.

 

[Yeshua1]

Don't know. Probably didn't like it as it followed the CT. He was a mortal enemy of Vaticanus, Siniaticus and many other uncials.

He would have not like most of the modern version then, and maybe not even the Nkjv itself!

 

[HankD]

He would have not like most of the modern version then, and maybe not even the Nkjv itself!

The underlying text would be OK, some of the translation choices - who knows.

 

[Yeshua1]

The underlying text would be OK, some of the translation choices - who knows.

For the Nkjv?

 

[TCassidy]

The underlying text would be OK, some of the translation choices - who knows.

Probably not. John Burgon was not a great fan of the TR of his day. In fact he stated, "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 (e.g. at page 107) that the Textus Receptus needs correction” (Revision Revised, p. 21, footnote 2).

Page 107 reads, in part, "In not a few particulars, the 'Textus receptus' does call for Revision, certainly;"

What Burgon championed was what he called "The Traditional Text." What we would call "The Byzantine Textform" today.

He said, It "might be found practicable to put forth by authority a carefully considered Revision of the commonly received Greek Text." (p. xxix, preface).

It is common knowledge that Burgon proposed over 150 changes in the Textus Receptus in the Gospel of Matthew alone.

And, in fact, he did not believe the RV of 1881 did any damage to bible doctrine. He said, “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).

He even called for a revision of the KJV, "--we hold that a revised edition of the Authorized Version of our English Bible, (if executed with consummate ability and learning,) would at any time be a work of inestimable value." (p. 114).

Most KJVOs who claim Burgon as their champion have never actually read what he wrote.

He is much more in my corner (Byzantine Preferred) than in the KJVO corner.

 

[HankD]

Probably not. John Burgon was not a great fan of the TR of his day. In fact he stated, "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 (e.g. at page 107) that the Textus Receptus needs correction” (Revision Revised, p. 21, footnote 2).

Page 107 reads, in part, "In not a few particulars, the 'Textus receptus' does call for Revision, certainly;"

What Burgon championed was what he called "The Traditional Text." What we would call "The Byzantine Textform" today.

He said, It "might be found practicable to put forth by authority a carefully considered Revision of the commonly received Greek Text." (p. xxix, preface).

It is common knowledge that Burgon proposed over 150 changes in the Textus Receptus in the Gospel of Matthew alone.

And, in fact, he did not believe the RV of 1881 did any damage to bible doctrine. He said, “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).

He even called for a revision of the KJV, "--we hold that a revised edition of the Authorized Version of our English Bible, (if executed with consummate ability and learning,) would at any time be a work of inestimable value." (p. 114).

Most KJVOs who claim Burgon as their champion have never actually read what he wrote.

He is much more in my corner (Byzantine Preferred) than in the KJVO corner.

He would probably be OK with the Scrivener Greek New Testament (1894) over the many W&H clones with the omitted texts.

Yes, i remember the shock of the KJVO folks here at the BB who found out he was not KJVO.

 

[TCassidy]

He would probably be OK with the Scrivener Greek New Testament (1894) over the many W&H clones with the omitted texts.

He may have been, at least over the W&H text.

I wrote a paper on that about 20 years ago. However, remember, Scrivener's text was not really intended to be a revision of the TR. It was intended to be a critical text with a critical apparatus showing the origin of the TR readings changed by the text of Westcott and Hort. But even then Scrivener was forced to admit there were about a dozen TR readings he could not find manuscript evidence to support.

Yes, i remember the shock of the KJVO folks here at the BB who found out he was not KJVO.

Yes. Hearing the truth is often a shock to KJVOs. After all, they hear it so seldom!

 

[Yeshua1]

Probably not. John Burgon was not a great fan of the TR of his day. In fact he stated, "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 (e.g. at page 107) that the Textus Receptus needs correction” (Revision Revised, p. 21, footnote 2).

Page 107 reads, in part, "In not a few particulars, the 'Textus receptus' does call for Revision, certainly;"

What Burgon championed was what he called "The Traditional Text." What we would call "The Byzantine Textform" today.

He said, It "might be found practicable to put forth by authority a carefully considered Revision of the commonly received Greek Text." (p. xxix, preface).

It is common knowledge that Burgon proposed over 150 changes in the Textus Receptus in the Gospel of Matthew alone.

And, in fact, he did not believe the RV of 1881 did any damage to bible doctrine. He said, “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).

He even called for a revision of the KJV, "--we hold that a revised edition of the Authorized Version of our English Bible, (if executed with consummate ability and learning,) would at any time be a work of inestimable value." (p. 114).

Most KJVOs who claim Burgon as their champion have never actually read what he wrote.

He is much more in my corner (Byzantine Preferred) than in the KJVO corner.

Would he have accepted the Nkjv, or any of the modern versions then?

 

[rlvaughn]

Yes, i remember the shock of the KJVO folks here at the BB who found out he [Burgon] was not KJVO.

Yes. Hearing the truth is often a shock to KJVOs. After all, they hear it so seldom!

While mistaking Burgon for some sort of Ruckmanite is all too common, in Beginning of the KJVO Movement, W. W. Combs (who is anti-KJVO) dates KJVO as a movement from the time of the RV and Dean Burgon.

Like many movements, theological and otherwise, there is usually never a specific beginning date that one can point to. They begin slowly over time, pick up steam, and often peter out. But if I had to pick a specific date for the beginning of the KJV-only movement, it would be May 17, 1881.

The NT of the Revised Version was, as I noted, published in England on May 17, 1881...There was immediate opposition to the RV and this newer Greek text on which it was based. The chief opponent of the textual changes was John William Burgon, Dean of Chichester...It is primarily with the writings of Burgon that the KJV-only movement finds its origins.

There is some merit in the point that Combs makes. Opposition to the 1881 revision supplied fuel for a "Bible versions" controversy (though it had perhaps largely died down until the RSV of 1952, which dumped wagon-loads of new fuel on the smouldering fire). IMO, Westcott, Hort, & Company probably possessed a lot of academic brilliance, but were somewhat slow and dull in practical matters -- and therefore botched a perfect opportunity to produce an acceptable revision of the KJV. This group of revisers in the late 1800s, had they not become overly enamored with Vaticanus and Sinaiticus might have produced a modest and reasonable vernacular revision of the King James Bible that would have moved the churches along in a continuum of modern language that could have been updated again at a later date. Instead they produced a Bible that took people where they didn’t want to go.

 

[rlvaughn]

As to the OP, I would never personally think of teaching any of the verses that are overwhelmingly considered to be later additions as scripture in my books or personal teaching. I just have a problem with my conscience to do so, since I would never consider the section of scripture you mention as authoritative for my own life.

While I would disagree that John 7:53-8:11, Mark 16:9-20, et al. are later additions rather than inspired scripture, I nevertheless think your position is a consistent one.

 

[TCassidy]

I agree. 1881 was the date that the first real competition to the KJV was published in sufficient numbers to cut into KJV bible sales.

As there were no real challenges to the KJV until the RV, it makes sense simply because there was no other bible to attack.

In 1901 with the publication of the ASV the opposition grew.

And I think it became full blown in 1948/1952 when the RSV was published. And that coincides with Peter Ruckman's conversion in 1949. That was followed in 1955 when J. J. Ray, published his little book, God Wrote Only One Bible, which was, for the most part, plagiarized from Benjamin Wilkinson's Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, which had been ignored since its publication in 1930.

 

[rlvaughn]

I've documented two cases of competition that precede the RV chronologically -- but they were more localized, and re Bibles that were more limited to specific denominations. Some Tennessee Baptists were upset by the use of John Wesley's Bible in 1817, and (a little more widespread) Kentucky Baptists were troubled by Alexander Campbell and his followers circa 1825-1833, which included the promotion of Campbell's Living Oracles New Testament. But the RV was the first significant challenge to the KJV across Protestant Christianity generally.

An anti-KJVO friend wrote the following in response to something I wrote like what is found the last part of post #54: "It seems to me that the 1880s revisers gave insufficient care to how the Bible-reading English public would react to their work. The RSV did the same in its uncareful and dismissive (even incendiary) comments on the KJV."

 

[John of Japan]

This one is actually even easier to answer. It can be shown that everything contained within the 'questionable' text of Mark 16:9-20 is actually taught somewhere else in scripture. In fact, it presents no unique teachings. That being the case, it is hardly a matter of vital importance whether it is 'original' or not. Everything it states is already "scripturally sound".

One might, therefore, teach from it even if one thought it was not original to Mark because it offers a concise collection of Biblical Truths that would require jumping around to cover from other passages.

I do not preach from it, but only because I do not preach at all. On the other hand, I have no problem including it as scripture, either.

I do not agree that there is nothing unique in Mark 16:9-20. In general that may be true, but there are details and nuances specific to Mark. The "every creature" mandate is unique to this Great Commission. The phrase "these signs shall follow" is unique to Mark. The serpent and poison references are unique to Mark, with the serpent promise being fulfilled by Paul when the viper bit him on Melita.

I remember hearing a preacher from the old Soviet Bloc telling how he was commanded to drink poison by the Communist guard who referenced this passage. Knowing the passage, with faith in God he drank and was not harmed.

 

[John of Japan]

Here is a plot of the use of the word "diadem" over time. I think it is just a word fading from common usage. [Sorry.]

Funny--a Google search of "diadem" gets "About 10,600,000 results." And the first two entries are not Bible references, but companies which use the word in their name, apparently not having gotten the word that no one knows the word anymore.

P. S. Please give the source for your chart.

 

[atpollard]

P. S. Please give the source for your chart.

Sorry, I don't remember the exact site ... it was from a Google search of dictionaries.

Here is another site that has similar data:

Diadem definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary