Featured Revision Revised and it's implications on modern critical texts.

How many of you have read Revision Revise by Dean Burgon? http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36722/36722-h/36722-h.html

Extremely Factual and puts a nail in the coffin of critical greek texts, it destroys the Wescott and Hort theory.

I've also been going through the NIV as i have been reading this book and I have been marking places where I find that the NIV has a reading with extremely little manuscript evidence, the NIV follows the R.V. of 1881 in many places, I have seen quotes of scholars that much of the "Accepted theories" of textual criticism lean heavily on Wescott and Hort, and my study and research on the NIV is confirming much of this independently.
Here is an example.

Luke 6:1 (KJV) And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.

Luke 6:1 (NIV) One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and his disciples began to pick some heads of grain, rub them in their hands and eat the kernels.
the next portion is from Revision Revised pg 73-74:

"It is in this way that a famous expression in S. Luke vi. 1 has disappeared from codices א b l. The reader may not be displeased to listen to an anecdote which has hitherto escaped the vigilance of the Critics:—

“I once asked my teacher, Gregory of Nazianzus,”—(the words are Jerome's in a letter to Nepotianus),—“to explain to me the meaning of S. Luke's expression σάββατον δευτερόπρωτον, literally the ‘second-first sabbath.’ ‘I will tell you all about it in church,’ he replied. ‘The congregation shall shout applause, and you shall have your choice,—either to stand silent and look like a fool, or else to pretend you understand what you do not.’ ” But “eleganter lusit,” says Jerome180. The point of the joke was this: Gregory, being a great rhetorician and orator, would have descanted so elegantly on the signification of the word δευτερόπρωτον that the congregation would have been borne away by his mellifluous periods, quite regardless of the sense. In other words, Gregory of Nazianzus [a.d. 360] is found to have no more understood the word than Jerome did [370].

Ambrose181 of Milan [370] attempts to explain the difficult [pg 074] expression, but with indifferent success. Epiphanius182 of Cyprus [370] does the same;—and so, Isidorus183 [400] called “Pelusiota” after the place of his residence in Lower Egypt.—Ps.-Cæsarius184 also volunteers remarks on the word [a.d. 400?].—It is further explained in the Paschal Chronicle,185—and by Chrysostom186 [370] at Antioch.—“Sabbatum secundo-primum” is found in the old Latin, and is retained by the Vulgate. Earlier evidence on the subject does not exist. We venture to assume that a word so attested must at least be entitled to its place in the Gospel. Such a body of first-rate positive IVth-century testimony, coming from every part of ancient Christendom, added to the significant fact that δευτερόπρωτον is found in every codex extant except א b l, and half a dozen cursives of suspicious character, ought surely to be regarded as decisive. That an unintelligible word should have got omitted from a few copies, requires no explanation. Every one who has attended to the matter is aware that the negative evidence of certain of the Versions also is of little weight on such occasions as the present. They are observed constantly to leave out what they either failed quite to understand, or else found untranslateable. On the other hand, it would be inexplicable indeed, that an unique expression like the present should have established itself universally, if it were actually spurious. This is precisely an occasion for calling to mind the precept proclivi scriptioni præstat ardua. Apart from external evidence, it is a thousand times more likely that such a peculiar word as this should be genuine, than the reverse. Tischendorf accordingly retains it, moved by this very consideration.187 It got excised, however, here and there from manuscripts at a very early date. And, incredible as it may appear, it is a fact, that in consequence of its absence from [pg 075] the mutilated codices above referred to, S. Luke's famous “second-first Sabbath” has been thrust out of his Gospel by our Revisionists.

But indeed, Mutilation has been practised throughout. By codex b (collated with the traditional Text), no less than 2877 words have been excised from the four Gospels alone: by codex א,—3455 words: by codex d,—3704 words.188"

 

Heres another example:

1 Timothy 3:16
New International Version (NIV)
16 Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:

He appeared in the flesh,
was vindicated by the Spirit,[a]
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory.

1Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

According to pg 486-496 Revision Revised
The Evidence for Theos "God" is the following:
N.T. Greek Manuscripts-289
Ancient N.T. versions-2
Greek Church Fathers- 20

Evidence for Ho "Which"
N.T. Greek manuscripts-1
Ancient N.T. versions-5
Greek Church Fathers-2

Evidence for HOS "Who":
N.T. Greek Manuscripts-6
Ancient N.T. Versions-1
Greek Church Fathers-0

 

Here's one more:
Matthew 18:11(NIV): Non Existent
Footnote reads: Some manuscripts include here the words of Luke 19:10.

Matthew 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

Revision Revised pg 92
"The blessed declaration, “The Son of Man is come to save that which was lost,”—has in like manner been expunged by our Revisionists from S. Matth. xviii. 11; although it is attested by every known uncial except b א l, and every known cursive except three: by the old Latin and the Vulgate: by the Peschito, Cureton's and the Philoxenian Syriac: by the Coptic, Armenian, Æthiopic, Georgian and Slavonic versions:329—by Origen,330—Theodoras Heracl.,331—Chrysostom332—and Jovius333 the monk;—by Tertullian,334—Ambrose,335—Hilary,336—Jerome,337—pope Damasus338—and Augustine:339—above all, by the Universal Eastern Church,—for it has been read in all assemblies of the faithful on the morrow of Pentecost, from the beginning. Why then (the reader will again ask) have the Revisionists expunged this verse?"

Since when does some mean all except 6? this is an outright lie.


Modern Critical Greek Texts and the translations from them are full of readings based on little and unreliable manuscript evidence such as the above instances.

much readings come from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus whose corruption is exhibited by the fact that they have so much disagreement even with eachother.

 

you take Burgon out of context at pg 114:

We shall in fact never have another “Authorized Version.” And this single consideration may be thought absolutely fatal to the project, except in a greatly modified form. To be brief,—As a companion in the study and for private edification: as a book of reference for critical purposes, especially in respect [pg 114] of difficult and controverted passages:—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. The method of such a performance, whether by marginal Notes or in some other way, we forbear to determine. But certainly only as a handmaid is it to be desired. As something intended to supersede our present English Bible, we are thoroughly convinced that the project of a rival Translation is not to be entertained for a moment. For ourselves, we deprecate it entirely.

 

Dean Burgon Felt the "Textus Receptus" Does "Call for Revision" But That Must Be Based Upon "Entirely Different Principles" From Those of Westcott and Hort's Text. Dean Burgon wrote: But (what is a far more important circumstance) we are further convinced that a prior act of penance to be submitted to by the revisers would be the restoration of the underlying Greek text to very nearly--not quite--the state in which they found it when they entered upon their ill-advised undertaking. "Very nearly--not quite:--for, in not a few particulars, the "Textus Receptus" does call for revision, certainly although revision on entirely different principles from those which are found to have pre- vailed in the Jerusalem Chamber. [the location of Westcott and Hort's English Revised Version revision of Greek & English in 1881]. [Dean Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 107.] Though Dean Burgon agreed that the "Textus Receptus" did "call for revision," he said the "principles" on which such revision should be based were diametrically opposite to those used by Westcott and Hort in their revised Greek text which was used as the basis for the English Revised Version of 1881 (E.R.V.). He further stated that it was his firm belief that the "revisers" should do "penance" by "restoring" the "underlying Greek text to very nearly--not quite--the state in which they found it when they entered upon their ill-advised undertaking." In part, such a "restoration" has been made possible by the Trinitarian Bible Society in 1976, by their printing of the New Testament--the Greek text underlying the English Authorized Bible of 1611.

 

Dean Burgon Felt the "Textus Receptus" Needed "Revision" in "Many of its Lesser Details," But That It Was "an Excellent Text as it Stands" That Will "Never Lead Critical Students of Scripture Seriously Astray." Dean Burgon wrote: Obtained from a variety of sources [that is, the Textus Receptus or the Traditional Greek Text] this text proves to be essentially the same in all. That it requires revision in respect of many of its lesser details is undeniable: but it is at least as certain that it is an excellent text as it stands, and that the use of it will never lead critical students of Scripture seriously astray,--which is what no one will venture to predicate concerning any single critical edition of the N.T. which has been published since the days of Griesbach, by the disciples of Griesbach's school. [Dean Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 269.] What Dean Burgon is saying very clearly here, is that if he had a choice between using the Textus Receptus or the Traditional Text in its present state, and of using "any single critical" Greek text which has been published since the days of Griesbach. It must be remembered that John James Griesbach was a pupil of Semler, who died in 1812, [cf. Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament by Edward Miller, pp. 17-18, available as B.F.T. #743 for a gift of $7.00 + S&H]. This would therefore urge our present students in the colleges, Bible institutes, and seminaries of our world to forsake their "critical editions" of the Greek New Testament such as those of (1) Nestle/Aland; (2) Souter; (3) United Bible Society; (4) Westcott and Hort; or any other Griesbachian monstrosity. Dean Burgon was for a return to "square one" in the Greek New Testament for starters. Revision would come later, but for now, he would return to the Textus Receptus.

 

Burgon Demanded at Least Six Prerequisites Before Any Authoritative Revision of the Textus Receptus Could Be Successfully Completed. Burgon was writing on page 124 of his book, Revision Revised, as quoted in paragraph "(5)" above. After stating that "for such an undertaking we are not yet mature: either in Biblical learning or Hellenistic scholarship," Burgon went on to tell why they were "not yet mature" in his day [1883]. It was for the same reasons, we are not yet mature in our day either. These six prerequisites rule out the Nestle-Aland Greek Text (ether the 26th or 27th editions). They also rule out the so-called "Majority Greek Text" of Hodges and Farstad, published by Nelson as we will show later as well as the "Majority Greek Text" of Robinson and Pierpont!

(a) Prerequisite #1: We Need at Least "500 More Copies" of the New Testament "Diligently Collated." Burgon wrote:

"Let 500 more copies. of the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles be diligently collated." [Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 125].

This has not yet been done!

(b) Prerequisite #2: We Need at Least "100" "Ancient Lectionaries" "Very Exactly Collated." Burgon wrote:

"Let at least 100 of the ancient Lectionaries be very exactly collated also." [Burgon, Revision Revised, p.12 5].

This has not yet been done!

(c) Prerequisite #3: We Need, "Above All," the Church "Fathers" to Yield "Their Precious Secrets" by "Ransacking" Them, "Indexing" Them, and "Diligently Inspecting" Them. Burgon wrote:

"Above all, let the Fathers, be called upon to give up their precious secrets. Let their writings be ransacked and indexed, and (where needful) let the MSS. of their works be diligently inspected in order that we may know what actually is the evidence they afford." [Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 125].

This has not yet been done!

(d) Prerequisite #4: We Need the "Most Important of the Ancient Versions" to Be "Edited Afresh" and Let Their "'Languages" Be "Really Mastered by Englishmen." Burgon Wrote:

"Let the most important of the Ancient Versions be edited afresh, and let the languages in which these are written be for the first time really mastered by Englishmen." [Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 125].

This has not yet been done!

(e) Prerequisite #5: We Need "Whatever Unpublished Works of the Ancient Greek Fathers' to be "Printed." Burgon wrote:

"Nay, let whatever unpublished works of the Ancient Greek Fathers are anywhere known to exist,--(and not a few precious remains of theirs are lying hid in great national libraries, both at home and abroad,)--let these be printed. The men could easily be found: the money, far more easily . . . ." [Burgon, Revision Revised, pp. 125-26].

This has not yet been done!

(f) Prerequisite #6: We Need "For the First Time" the "Science of Textual Criticism" to Be Prosecuted "In a Scholarlike Manner." Burgon wrote:

"Yes, and in the meantime--(let it in all faithfulness be added)--the science of textual criticism will have to be prosecuted for the first time in a scholarlike manner. Fundamental principles.--sufficiently axiomatic to ensure general acceptance,--will have to be laid down for mans guidance. . . ." [Burgon, Revision Revised p.227].

This has not yet been done!

 

The "Nestle-Aland Greek Text--26th or 27th Edition Refused To Follow Burgon's Six Prerequisites and Therefore Is Not What Burgon Would Call an "Authoritative Revision" of the Textus Receptus. If you examine closely the Nestle-Aland Greek Text--26th or 27th edition--in the Preface, you will find out a number of things. Using Kurt Alands 1967 totals for extant Greek manuscript evidence, the edition explains what evidence was used in making up its Greek text. In the first place, there are about 20 Ancient Versions. This figure is derived from the research of Dr. Jack Moorman in his Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version--a Closer Look! [ #1825 for a gift of $15.00+S&H], pp. 28-48. The total number of Church Fathers who wrote extensively during the first six centuries was 300, as Burgon has estimated. Here is the evidence used by Nestle-Aland.

The Nestle-Aland Greek Text--26th Edition

1. Papyrus Fragments-- 81 out of 81 = 100% of the evidence

2. Uncials-- 246 out of 267 = 92% of the evidence

3. Cursives-- 202 out of 2764 = 7% of the evidence

4. Lectionaries-- 5 out of 2143 = 0.23% of the evidence

Total MSS: 534 out of 5,255 = 10% of the MSS evidence

5. Ancient Versions-- 3 out of 20 = 15% of the evidence

6. Church Fathers-- 72 out of 300 = 24% of the evidence

Total Non-MSS: 75 out of 320 = 23% non-MSS evidence

Grand Total: **609 Out of 5,575 = 11% of ALL evidence**

In the above statistics you will notice that Dean Burgons prerequisite #1 was not followed. Prerequisite #2 was not followed. Prerequisite #3 was not followed. Prerequisite #4 was not followed. Prerequisite #5 was not followed. Prerequisite #6 was not followed. In fact, Nestle-Aland consistenly follows the false principles of Westcott and Hort. Because of this, they group all the so-called Byzantine texts as just one witness. They reject entirely Dean Burgon's methodology in textual criticism. The use of a mere 10% of the manuscript evidence is also decidedly against Burgon's sound principles. Nothing short of 100% of the evidence must be used for any major revision of the Textus Receptus that underlies the King James Bible! The same is true of their handling of the non-manuscript evidence of Ancient Versions and Church Fathers. 23% of that evidence is also woefully defective. Dean Burgon would demand 100% of the evidence to be used.

 

The So-called "Majority Greek Text" of Hodges & Farstad Also Refused to Follow Burgon's Six Prerequisites and Therefore Is Not What Burgon Would Call an "Authoritative Revision" of the Textus Receptus. If you examine closely the so-called Majority Greek Text of Hodges and Farstad, in the Preface, you will find out the following things. Using Kurt Aland's 1967 totals for extant Greek manuscript evidence, the edition makes use of the following evidence. As I said earlier, there are about 20 Ancient Versions according to the research of Dr. Jack Moorman in his Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version--a Closer Look! [ #1825 for a gift of $15.00+S&H], pages 28-48. The total number of Church Fathers who wrote extensively during the first six centuries was 300, as Burgon has estimated. Here is the evidence used by Hodges and Farstad.

The So-Called "Majority Greek Text of Hodges-Farstad"

1. Papyrus Fragments-- 8 out of 81 = 10% of the evidence

2. Uncials-= 4 out of 267 = 1% of the evidence

3. Cursives- 414 out of 2764 = 15% of the evidence

4. Lectionaries-- 0 out of 2143 = 0% of the evidence

Total MSS: 426 out of 5,255 = 8% of the MSS evidence

5. Ancient Versions-- 0 out of 20 = 0% of the evidence

6. Church Fathers-- 0 out of 300 = 0% of the evidence

Total Non-MSS: 0 out of 320 = 0% of the non-MSS evidence*

Grand Total: **426 out of 5,575 = 7% of ALL evidence**

In the above statistics you will notice that Dean Burgons prerequisite #1 was not followed. Prerequisite #2 was not followed. Prerequisite #3 was not followed. Prerequisite #4 was not followed. Prerequisite #5 was not followed. Prerequisite #6 was not followed. In fact, the so-called Majority Greek Text of Hodges & Farstad follows the false principles of Westcott and Hort when they refer to "intrinsic and transcriptional probabilities" [Preface, p. xxii]. The same is true when they make use of the "genealogical method" [Preface, p. xii] for John 7:53--8:11 and for the book of Revelation. The editors refused to follow completely Dean Burgon's methodology in textual criticism. The use of a mere 8% of the manuscript evidence is also decidedly against Burgon's sound principles. Nothing short of 100% of the evidence must be used for any major revision of the Textus Receptus that underlies the King James Bible! The same is true of their handling of the non-manuscript evidence of Ancient Versions and Church Fathers. 0% of that evidence is preposterous! Dean Burgon would demand 100% of this evidence to be used.

 

Burgon Was Against Any "Future Revision" of the English New Testament until an "Authoritative Revision of the Greek Text Had Been Completed. He wrote:

"Enough has been offered by this time to prove that an authoritative revision of the Greek Text will have to precede any future revision of the English of the New Testament." [Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 124].