Review of Burgon's Revision Revised

Status
Not open for further replies.
It may well be that he took a stand on what the WCF and its framers actually stated, the alternative to which is the confusion and wrangling we find now in our land and churches, and even in this thread.
Steve, I wll make a few comments on my own accord although will not make lengthy comments in the future. I will leave it to the more gifted here.

I used to believe that the Received Text was the most reliable text. I used to be a New Zealand agent for the Trinitarian Bible Society. One of that Societies Directors examined me to ensure I had solid convictions re the Received Text!

But I have changed my position. I believe the WCF statement "kept pure in all ages" needs to reflect mss discoveries of the past 80-100 years.

Let me give an example. Rev 16:5 has been changed by Beza's conjectural emendation. The Received text of Erasmus 1522 and Stephanus 1555 have the correct reading. The Coverdale translation of 1538 "Holy One" has the correct translation. Yet the KJV has been changed by Beza's conjectural emendation! The WCF was written after this KJV change. The KJV has not been "kept pure". Further, in the KJV, the translations with footnotes make comments that Luke 10:22, Luke 17:36, and Acts 25:6 have some textual uncertainty. These footnotes in the KJV suggest textual variation was a issue even in the time of the Reformation. In fact the footnotes suggest the "text was not kept pure in all ages"!

I suggest the WCF would be best revised to consider the papyri discovered in the last 80-100 years. Scholars in the 15 and 16th centuries used the term "ad fontes" - to the sources. This means going back to the original documents as a standard of truth rather than relying on a preconceived theory.

Perhaps to tie this all together I will summarise James White's Excursus on New Testament transmission [ I mentioned this a few weeks ago. It is found in his King James Only Controversy Rev ed pp 79-88.] I will add a few of my own comments in [].

Early scribes sought to faithfully transmit the text faithfully. We can observe variants but only normal scribal errors. Further, the mss discovered in the past 80-100 years bring us back closer to the original text. Two key points:
1] Wholesale changes to the mss would require a centralised controlling authority. There is no evidence such an authority existed. Dr White gives evidence that such an authority DID exist for Islam which creates major problems re them checking they have the original text.
2] Any corruptions to the text would stand out like a "sore thumb". [When Dr White debated Dr DA Waite on this issue, Dr Waite argued that the critical text has been corrupted. Dr White said "prove it"! Dr Waite could not prove it and it made me personally realise the critical text was reliable]. The discovery of the papyri have moved our knowledge of the NT text back much closer to the original [James White, as a Muslim scholar, is aware how powerful argument for the critical text this is. The Muslim would say the text is corrupted so we cannot trust the Bible. Dr White can show the earliest mss are reliable and are closest in time to the originals. ]

Dr White concludes his argument by stating that he has had a lot of experience debating Muslim scholars and Liberal scholars. He says that those who defend the Received Text could not provide a consistent defense of scripture against Muslim scholars and Liberal scholars. White states "King James Onlyism cripples its adherents apologetically in a day when such can have devastating results."

It is interesting to note that when the Cannon of scripture was affirmed the church used the critical text. So why not use the text of scripture that was used when the Cannon was affirmed?

In terms of debates with Muslim scholars and Liberal scholars, Dr White gives another example in his book - the disputed passage 1 John 5:7. Dr White states that if the Greek mss tradition can be so corrupted that one can loose this intire reading without a trace, you esentially concede a point to the Muslim scholars and Liberal scholars. Therefore using the mss tradition that goes back the closest to the original text gives the evangelical position on the Scriptures more credibility.

Finally, if someone contacts Dr Milne, perhaps they could challange him to a debate with Dr White. I am not convinced Dr Milnes arguments could be upheld in cross-examination but I could be wrong :)

There was an interesting debate between James White and British pastor Jack Moorman done a few years ago. James White, In my humble opinion, gave a convincing presentation of the critical text.

I realise I have not tied up all the loose ends; I have tried to keep to the key points. Because of time constraints I will limit my discussion in the future.
 
It is interesting to note that when the Cannon of scripture was affirmed the church used the critical text. So why not use the text of scripture that was used when the Cannon was affirmed?

This is speculative at best, and yet you present it as undisputed fact. I am curious as to what evidence you have to prove the church was universally using an Alexandrian text type at the time the canon was affirmed.
 
This is speculative at best, and yet you present it as undisputed fact. I am curious as to what evidence you have to prove the church was universally using an Alexandrian text type at the time the canon was affirmed.
It is a fact. The critical text type was dominant for the first 6 centuries. See James Whites book (revised ed) pp 193-198. Also similar discussion in James Price's book.
 
It is a fact. The critical text type was dominant for the first 6 centuries. See James Whites book (revised ed) pp 193-198. Also similar discussion in James Price's book.

This is based merely on the fact that all of the surviving manuscripts that we have from this time frame are of the Alexandrian variety, however this is hardly conclusive. For one thing, the manuscripts from this period are very sparse, and further they all come from a very narrow geographical area. This hardly proves that the Alexandrian text type was exclusively in use during this period.
 
This is based merely on the fact that all of the surviving manuscripts that we have from this time frame are of the Alexandrian variety, however this is hardly conclusive. For one thing, the manuscripts from this period are very sparse, and further they all come from a very narrow geographical area. This hardly proves that the Alexandrian text type was exclusively in use during this period.
Your own argument is hardly conclusive :)
 
Hello Stephen,

I’ll get to Rev 16:5 in a moment.

Okay, I can see you’ve bought into Dr. White’s paradigm concerning the textual transmission. With regard to the transmission of the early NT text, here is an excerpt from Wilbur Pickering’s The Identity of the NT Text II; and it makes excellent sense (I'm providing links so as to keep from bloating the thread—those with a scholarly bent can follow them).

And since we are talking about the Byzantine or Majority Text and early transmission, here is a thread of great interest, Do Many Scholars Prefer the Majority Text?.

Stephen, I believe I heard that same debate between James White and D.A. Waite, and this before computers were popular, and before CDs existed. I listened to it on audio cassette. One difference between you and me: When I heard White’s challenge to Waite, I noted the verses that Waite couldn't give an answer for, and jotted them down, so I could look for answers to White’s challenge myself (I think I still have that paper somewhere), and I have been answering White’s challenges over the years. I didn’t fold just because one man couldn’t answer him at that point.

I also answered Dr. White on your 1 John 5:7 reference here.

Re the debate between Jack Moorman and White: Moorman is a brilliant and dogged scholar, he is just not White’s equal in verbal debate. Nor am I, for that matter. I am sort of slow at verbal repartee. I am better at studying and writing. Moorman should have known better than to try to debate him. Moorman's written work is sound. I might debate James concerning texts over a hamburger, but not in formal debate!

With respect to Revelation 16:5—there is a lot more to it than you might imagine. Clearly this is a minority reading, if it can be considered even that, as the sole appearance of it is in Beatus of Liebana, a Spanish theologian (circa 786 AD), in his compiling—in Latin—an earlier commentary on Revelation by Tyconius (circa 380 AD). Dr. Thomas Holland, in one of his lessons on manuscript evidence, says, “Dr. Edward Hills has correctly cited passage as a conjectural emendation” (cf. Hill’s KJVD, p 208). Very likely Beza, whose emendation it was, did not know of Beatus’ work, but had his own sound reasons for what he did.

Holland then quotes Bruce Metzger as saying, “The classical method of textual criticism . . . If the only reading, or each of several variant readings, which the documents of a text supply is impossible or incomprehensible, the editor's only remaining resource is to conjecture what the original reading must have been. A typical emendation involves the removal of an anomaly.” (Metzger, The Text Of The New Testament, p 182.)

Holland (see his article below) gives Beza's full reasoning for the emendation.

In the textual history there is chaos concerning what the reading is. Three of the four earliest witnesses to Rev 16:5 read (and all differing),

"ο ων και ος ην και οσιος" (P47)
"ο ων και ο ην ο οσιος" (Sinaiticus)
"ο ων και ο ην οσιος" (Alexandrinus)

They differ. Corruption had set in early. “Lord” is also missing in some mss, yet is present in many Reformation Bibles.

This is Dr. Thomas Holland’s view of the emendation (using your browser’s search feature, go to the 3rd appearance of 16:5, and down to Rev. 22:19).

And then a fuller examination of the matter (I don’t know who publishes this site, but it is scholarly and irenic): Beza and Revelation 16:5.

Stephen, the long and short of it is: Beza, following sound text-critical principles, has given the best rendering of this verse that there is. One may differ with his emendation, but one certainly cannot say he is wrong, or did wrong.

What I would suggest to you: you have given up your first love for a love of lesser worth. That’s my respectful take. Thanks for your well-thought-out remarks.
 
Okay, I can see you’ve bought into Dr. White’s paradigm concerning the textual transmission.
Steve, I said I would be brief. Actually I hardly get into textual debates these days.

I also answered Dr. White on your 1 John 5:7 reference
I am not onvinced. I was not convinced when I read Dr Hills on this some years ago. It is safer to use the earlier Greek mss. You will not find respected scholars like Dr Pickering, or Dr M Robinson defending 1 John 5:7!

Re the debate between Jack Moorman and White: Moorman is a brilliant and dogged scholar, he is just not White’s equal in verbal debate.
A more likely explanation is that his views on the Received text do not stand up to rigorous examination.

Stephen, the long and short of it is: Beza, following sound text-critical principles, has given the best rendering of this verse that there is. One may differ with his emendation, but one certainly cannot say he is wrong, or did wrong.
The safer method is to go bak to the sound mss tradition as modern translations have done and to say the KJV has an error. James White, in his book, provides a number of photos of the mss tradition showing the modern translations use a better textual foundation re this verse. You will not find respected scholars like Dr Pickering, or Dr M Robinson defending Beza's emendation.

What I would suggest to you: you have given up your first love for a love of lesser worth. That’s my respectful take.
Not at all. I have correspoded over the years with Dr Pickering, Dr DA Waite, and Dr M Robinson as I thought through my views. In fact I have encouraged Dr Robinson to publish a detailed but user friendly of his Byzantine priority view. It was also be great for Maurice Robinson and James White to have a debate. I remain a critical text supporter but personally think Maurice Robinson's influence may provide some "checks and balances".

But I do think James White's "two key points" noted above provide a better overall foundation fo texual criticism.
 
Stephen, you said,

I suggest the WCF would be best revised to consider the papyri discovered in the last 80-100 years. Scholars in the 15 and 16th centuries used the term "ad fontes" - to the sources. This means going back to the original documents as a standard of truth rather than relying on a preconceived theory.​

This in itself sends a red-flag warning signal to readers that a “progressive” agenda is at the door (be it understood that what you say applies to your 1689 Confession at 1:8 as well). Not merely “progressive”, but abdicating the Reformation’s stand against Rome by accepting the MSS Rome says are the best, to the overturning of its arch-enemy’s Sola Scriptura doctrine.

Surely you are aware that, in leaving the TBS some time ago, and cleaving to the United Bible Society which publishes the Nestle-Aland and UBS editions of the critical text underlying the new versions, you are tacitly ratifying the UBS operating principles: for the Nestle-Aland Greek NT 27th Ed. page 45 states that,

The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. This marks a significant step with regard to interconfessional relationships. [emphasis added] (see post 41 for source)​

Your brave new Bible is put together under the supervision of the Vatican? To further “interconfessional relationships”? What kind of Reformed are you to subscribe to such declarations?

I am aware you “will not be convinced” by anyone who veers from the path set forth by Dr. White. So be it. Yet you gloss over arguments as if they were negligible, not interacting with them, which seems to indicate you will adhere to your opinions no matter what is said.

Your interaction with Bill the Baptist above illustrates this, as when he said re your view that “when the Cannon of scripture was affirmed the church used the critical text.”,

This is speculative at best, and yet you present it as undisputed fact. I am curious as to what evidence you have to prove the church was universally using an Alexandrian text type at the time the canon was affirmed.​

And you replied,

It is a fact. The critical text type was dominant for the first 6 centuries. See James Whites book (revised ed) pp 193-198. Also similar discussion in James Price's book.​

Whereupon Bill said,

This is based merely on the fact that all of the surviving manuscripts that we have from this time frame are of the Alexandrian variety, however this is hardly conclusive. For one thing, the manuscripts from this period are very sparse, and further they all come from a very narrow geographical area. This hardly proves that the Alexandrian text type was exclusively in use during this period.​

And you said,

Your own argument is hardly conclusive :)

So your method of argumentation is that James White said it on page so-and-so, thus it is a fact. And you tell us to go to James Price’s book and he says something similar. Possibly you are not aware of the critical examinations of Dr. White’s book (or of Price’s writings), or of the fact that none of the autographic NT documents were sent to Alexandria or anywhere in Egypt.

In Wilbur Pickering’s chapter 5 of his, The Identity of the New Testament Text III (the history of the text), in discussing the “The strength of the Church” in places that received books of the NT, he quotes both Aland and Metzger on the trustworthiness of Egypt and Alexandria:

Although the Church evidently began in Jerusalem, the early persecutions and apostolic activity caused it to spread. The main line of advance seems to have been north into Asia Minor and west into Europe. If the selection of churches to receive the glorified Christ's "letters" (Rev. 2 and 3) is any guide, the center of gravity of the Church seems to have shifted from Palestine to Asia Minor by the end of the first century. (The destruction of Jerusalem by Rome's armies in A.D. 70 would presumably be a contributing factor.) Kurt Aland agrees with Adolf Harnack that "about 180 the greatest concentration of churches was in Asia Minor and along the Aegean coast of Greece." He continues: "The overall impression is that the concentration of Christianity was in the East. . . . Even around A.D. 325 the scene was still largely unchanged. Asia Minor continued to be the heartland of the Church."[24] "The heartland of the Church"—so who else would be in a better position to certify the correct text of the New Testament?

What about Egypt? C.H. Roberts, in a scholarly treatment of the Christian literary papyri of the first three centuries, seems to favor the conclusion that the Alexandrian church was weak and insignificant to the Greek Christian world in the second century.[25] Aland states: "Egypt was distinguished from other provinces of the Church, so far as we can judge, by the early dominance of gnosticism."[26] He further informs us that "at the close of the 2nd century" the Egyptian church was "dominantly gnostic" and then goes on to say: "The copies existing in the gnostic communities could not be used, because they were under suspicion of being corrupt."[27] Now this is all very instructive—what Aland is telling us, in other words, is that up to A.D. 200 the textual tradition in Egypt could not be trusted. Aland's assessment here is most probably correct. Notice what Bruce Metzger says about the early church in Egypt:

Among the Christian documents which during the second century either originated in Egypt or circulated there among both the orthodox and the Gnostics are numerous apocryphal gospels, acts, epistles, and apocalypses. . . . There are also fragments of exegetical and dogmatic works composed by Alexandrian Christians, chiefly Gnostics, during the second century. . . . In fact, to judge by the comments made by Clement of Alexandria, almost every deviant Christian sect was represented in Egypt during the second century; Clement mentions the Valentinians, the Basilidians, the Marcionites, the Peratae, the Encratites, the Docetists, the Haimetites, the Cainites, the Ophites, the Simonians, and the Eutychites. What proportion of Christians in Egypt during the second century were orthodox is not known.[28]​

It is almost enough to make one wonder whether Isaiah 30:1-3 might not be a prophecy about N.T. textual criticism!

But we need to pause to reflect on the implications of Aland's statements. He is a champion of the Egyptian ("Alexandrian") text-type, and yet he himself informs us that up to A.D. 200 the textual tradition in Egypt could not be trusted and that by 200 the use of Greek had virtually died out there. So on what basis can he argue that the Egyptian text subsequently became the best? Aland also states that in the 2nd century, 3rd century, and into the 4th century Asia Minor continued to be "the heartland of the Church." This means that the superior qualifications of the Aegean area to protect, transmit and attest the N.T. Text carry over into the 4th century! It happens that Hort, Metzger and Aland (along with many others) have linked the "Byzantine" text-type to Lucian of Antioch, who died in 311. Now really, wouldn't a text produced by a leader in "the heartland of the Church" be better than whatever evolved in Egypt?​

[End Pickering]
_____

Evidentally you have no problem blowing off Pickering's remarks, yet you will acknowledge that neither Aland nor Metzger were friends toward either the Byz text or the TR.

Stephen, you are not doing Dr. White or the CT cause any favour by arguing as you are.
 
Some background on how I think. I came out of the early 1960s counterculture with its sorcerous drugs and smokes, made quite vulnerable to the demonic realm. When converted to Jesus Christ in 1968, after I got my bearings to a small extent, and realizing that I was going to have to depend on the words of the Bible being exactly true when I stood against my spiritual adversaries the evil spirits—for uncertainty as regards their reliability would be disastrously exploited by them—I began to search for understanding concerning the true text. For I had already gotten hold of the first edition of the NASB with its margin notes indicating there were seriously differing readings of the NT. So I had my KJV, and the NASB. I also had the old Living Bible paraphrase to help me understand difficult passages.

Half a century later, after much inquiry and careful study, I have come to treasure that word I know is true. By God’s grace I will not be shaken, as He hath said, “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matt 5:18), and “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matt 24:35). Our Lord spoke plainly and profoundly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top