# Question concerning Burgon's The Revision Revised



## DTK (Aug 18, 2009)

This question is for someone who is very familiar with Burgon's works. Can Someone tell me why it is in the one volume edition of John William Burgon's works, as published by Sovereign Grace Trust Fund (1990), many of his footnotes, if not all, have been omitted?

For instance, the following footnote, #2 on page 21 of _The Revision Revised_ (London: John Murray, 1883), has been omitted in the edition published by Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, where Burgon 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. We do but insist, (1) That it is an incomparably better text than that which either Lachmann, or Tischendorf, or Tregelles has produced: infinitely preferable to the ‘New Greek Text’ of the Revisionists. And, (2) That to be improved, the _Textus Receptus_ will have to be revised on entirely different ‘principles’ from those which are just now in fashion. Men must begin by unlearning the _German prejudices_ of the last fifty years; and address themselves, instead, to the stern logic of _facts_.


If I am reading him correctly, Burgon seems to be distancing himself somewhat from the _Textus Receptus_ in favor of what he terms the _Traditional Text_, and I am wondering why such footnotes have been omitted in the edition as published by the Sovereign Grace Trust Fund.

Thanks,
DTK


----------



## MW (Aug 18, 2009)

That is probably because many of the modern adherents to the TR have come from a fundamentalist background which tends to start with the premise that the TR dropped out of heaven, and do not take into account the kinds of historical processes which men from the comparative school (like Scrivener and Burgon) accounted for.


----------



## Romans 8 Verse 28 (Aug 18, 2009)

I don't have an answer regarding the footnotes. But I am pretty sure Sovereign Grace Trust Fund was the business of the late Jay P. Green, Sr. He passed away last year and it seems his son Jay P. Green, Jr. is running things now. See SGPBooks.com for more information.

That said, I did business with them a number of times over the years. They seemed quite often to be struggling for funds to publish books. But I really liked the Interlinear Bibles I bought from them. Plus, I bought a number of books from them by Reformed writers at affordable prices too. I also have the LITV (which is now promoted as KJ3) and the MKJV with e-sword.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 18, 2009)

Hello David,

That edition by SGTF, put together by Jay P. Green, is sort of an abbreviated / condensed version. I gave my edition of it away to someone who didn't have any of Burgon's stuff and I had almost all of it in good editions. I don't think the footnotes were omitted with an agenda in mind, for it's common knowledge among students of Burgon that he was more Majority Text than TR / KJV; yet even though he thought the KJV could be profitably revised (in minor instances) he was loath to have it done lest it detract from its excellencies, or even suffer a hatchet job, as it did by the 1881 revisers. 

E.F. Hills analyzes Burgon's view of the TR here (just a little ways down), in the section, "A High Anglican's View of the TR".

Maurice Robinson calls himself a "true Burgonian" — applying Burgon's seven tests of authenticity to texts.

I also did not use the Green compendium due to its lack of footnotes, though it could be valuable for someone new to Burgon to see the range of his work. Green's books also have a lot of typos.


----------



## DTK (Aug 18, 2009)

I am grateful for the responses. It does seem to me that Burgon himself is ready to depart from the TR in some instances, such as he indicates in the quote below, which is also lacking (at least I can't find it) in the Sovereign Grace Trust Fund (1990) edition (reprint) of Burgon's _The Revision Revised_. Maybe it's simply me, but it seems to be an inconsistency between the position of Burgon and the Dean Burgon Society itself, which is named after him...



> *Burgon: *For no one may flatter himself that, by undergoing a further process of ‘Revision,’ the ‘Revised Version’ may after all be rendered trustworthy. The eloquent and excellent Bishop of Derry is ‘convinced that, with all its undeniable merits, it will have to be somewhat extensively revised.’ And so perhaps are we. 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 prevailed in the Jerusalem Chamber. To mention a single instance:—When our Lord first sent forth His Twelve Apostles, it was certainly no part of His ministerial commission to them to ‘_raise the dead_’ (νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε, S. Matthew x. 8). This is easily demonstrable. Yet is the spurious clause retained by our Revisionists; because it is found in those corrupt witnesses— א B C D, and the Latin copies. When will men learn unconditionally to put away from themselves the weak superstition which is for investing with oracular authority the foregoing quaternion of demonstrably depraved Codices? See John William Burgon, _The Revision Revised_ (London: John Murray, 1883), pp. 107-108.



I'm trying to look for consistency between Burgon and TR advocates who look and appeal to him in defense of their position.

DTK


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 18, 2009)

David, you said,

I'm trying to look for consistency between Burgon and TR advocates who look and appeal to him in defense of their position.​
That's easy. It's somewhat similar to our appeal to the excellent historical reconstruction (hypotheses) of the Byzantine Text advocates. We walk the same ground, and are on the same page in many particulars. Some of Burgon's defenses of Byz / TR readings are so thorough and well put, and in accord with our views, that we gladly use him. Did you see the note of Hills on Burgon noted above?

I'm not saying everyone who uses Burgon would really agree with all his views. I think Hills points that out.


----------



## DTK (Aug 18, 2009)

Do you men agree with Dean Burgon's correction of the _Textus Receptus_, with respect to Matthew 10:8 in the example I cited from him above, his principles and methodology in doing so?

Thanks,
DTK


----------



## MW (Aug 18, 2009)

DTK said:


> I'm trying to look for consistency between Burgon and TR advocates who look and appeal to him in defense of their position.



Rev. King, it really will depend on which TR advocates are in view. Those who consider the historical processes involved in the transmission of the text are going to take basically the same view as Burgon and Dabney, which looks at the TR as the starting point for comparative criticism. Those who follow a fundamentalist viewpoint will disagree with Burgon, but then they are also bound to disagree with the few variants which are to be found in the text and margin of the AV.

I don't think Burgon's example is a particularly good one, and it seems to me he pitches upon it precisely because it was included in the Revisers' text. If all families agree, then, even if there is no account of the disciples raising the dead on their mission to Israel, it is not a strong enough internal consideration to constrain one to depart from the external evidence.


----------



## DTK (Aug 18, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> I don't think Burgon's example is a particularly good one, and it seems to me he pitches upon it precisely because it was included in the Revisers' text.



Thanks, my thoughts precisely.

DTK


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 19, 2009)

No, David, I don't agree with Burgon here. Hills' point (noted via link in post #4 above) that the High Anglican view of Scripture and its preservation (per Burgon, Scrivener, Miller) is closely related to the idea of Apostolic Succession through bishops; Erasmus wasn't a bishop, nor were the Reformation editors of the TR (and Beza was a Calvinist!), so Burgon prefers the readings preserved in the early Fathers, many of whom were bishops, and in the Greek Church, also ruled by bishops.

On page 200 of TKJVD, Hills introduces the few Latin vulgate readings in the TR (of which Matt 10:8's "raise the dead" is one): 

There are, however, a few places in which the Textus Receptus differs from the Traditional text found in the majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts. The most important of these differences are due to the fact that Erasmus, influenced by the usage of the Latin-speaking Church in which he was reared, sometimes followed the Latin Vulgate rather than the Traditional Greek text.

Are the readings which Erasmus thus introduced into the Textus Receptus necessarily erroneous'? By no means ought we to infer this. For it is inconceivable that the divine providence which had preserved the New Testament text during the long ages of the manuscript period should blunder when at last this text was committed to the printing press. According to the analogy of faith, then, we conclude that the Textus Receptus was a further step in God's providential preservation of the New Testament text and that these few Latin Vulgate readings which were incorporated into the Textus Receptus were genuine readings which had been preserved in the usage of the Latin-speaking Church. Erasmus, we may well believe, was guided providentially by the common faith to include these readings in his printed Greek New Testament text. In the Textus Receptus God corrected the few mistakes of any consequence which yet remained in the Traditional New Testament text of the majority of the Greek manuscripts.

The following are some of the most familiar and important of those relatively few Latin Vulgate readings which, though not part of the Traditional Greek text, seem to have been placed in the Textus Receptus by the direction of God's special providence and therefore are to be retained. The reader will note that these Latin Vulgate readings are also found in other ancient witnesses, namely, old Greek manuscripts, versions, and Fathers. (p. 200)​
I see in his commentary on Matthew that Calvin retains "raise the dead", assuming its authenticity without comment.


----------



## DTK (Aug 19, 2009)

I see, Mr. Rafalsky, thanks.

DTK


----------

