Review of Burgon's Revision Revised

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have no interest in arguing with you over this matter. I agree that Dr. White is a fine apologist and a gift to the church. I also believe that there are objective standards by which to judge such matters and that one need not himself be an expert in order to deduce this. I find these things to be rather self-evident, and in fact if they were not, we would be hopelessly lost when it comes to seeking reliable sources of information. At any rate, I certainly did not intend to be churlish, and if I came off as such, then I apologize.
Bill,

I'm sorry but this response is utterly befuddling. You believe that there are objective standards by which these things can be judged and that we'd be utterly lost without them. Can you at least provide a link to these objective standards? Where someone might have written about these objective standards? I'm widely read and I'm not aware of any but I'd be happy to read them so I can judge for myself whether Dr. White possesses absolutely no expertise that anyone could possibly defend.
 
I fully agree with you on this issue, as my comments were directed towards the KJVO position period and only, as that position has really no scripture or textual support for it. One can be KJV preferred is fine, as I do use that version, as well as the Nas and the Esv .
Don't do me any favors by agreeing with me. I think you were taking a swipe at others and you would do better to post much less and read much more.

On this board, especially, it is obtuse to label people as KJVO. I may not agree with the men who argue in favor of the TR but they are not KJVO.
 
Don't do me any favors by agreeing with me. I think you were taking a swipe at others and you would do better to post much less and read much more.

On this board, especially, it is obtuse to label people as KJVO. I may not agree with the men who argue in favor of the TR but they are not KJVO.
I was not labeling anyone, and I apologize if any here felt that I was, as my position was directed towards JUST the KJVO position period.
 
Bill,

I'm sorry but this response is utterly befuddling. You believe that there are objective standards by which these things can be judged and that we'd be utterly lost without them. Can you at least provide a link to these objective standards? Where someone might have written about these objective standards? I'm widely read and I'm not aware of any but I'd be happy to read them so I can judge for myself whether Dr. White possesses absolutely no expertise that anyone could possibly defend.

Just to be clear, just because someone is not an expert does not mean they cannot speak authoritatively or correctly on a subject, and in fact many of us on this board do just that on a regular basis. But there is still an objective standard for being an expert in a field, and this is generally understood as constituting an earned Ph.D in the subject from a reputable institution and professional experience in the field as a primary occupation. I really don’t think this is all that controversial. As someone who has completed graduate degrees, I am sure you are aware of the standards required in order to qualify a particular writing as an academic source. I feel that any further discussion of this topic would be fruitless, and so I will bow out.
 
And to be clear...

James is not without sin but he is very clear where is "expertise" does and does not lie. He doesn't claim to be an "expert" on textual critical matters.

That said, he is competent to handle the arguments in textual critical matters. He is capable of reading the arguments that people put forward for their positions and presenting a case for/against the views presented. He accurately summarizes the relevant issues and makes clear what his view is on the matter. He shows people how he arrived at his conclusions by displaying the texts themselves and provides education to people to help them understand what the manuscripts look like and the difficulty associated with the practice of textual criticism.

For my own part, I took a few years of Greek to include some training on how to use textual apparatti. I was very grateful for the time I had spent listening to James describe those processes because it helpe me to understand those processes.

I've worked in many different disciplines over the years. I also have enough degrees under my belt at this point to have respect for scholars but also not to assume that their work is so inaccessible as to be immune to criticism. Were this not the case, this entire sub-area of the forum would be devoid of content as those who actually are not "experts" at textual criticism very frequently criticize the work of those whose scholarly work focuses upon it.

James White does a great job of exposing the assumptions behind those approaches so that we don't have to be over-awed by the "experts" telling us that Scribees did this or that or that textual transmission was like "... the phone game."
 
With regard to Rev. Lane’s “second major problem” with The Revision Revised, he states,

…although Burgon posits the TR as a standard for comparison only, not a standard for excellence (xviii-xix, 75), he does not avoid using the TR as a standard for excellence as well.​

This is more nuanced than the Rev. shows, for here is the view of Mr. Burgon:

§ 6. But how (let me ask) does it appear from this, that I have “put forth Lloyd's Greek [TR] Testament as the final standard of Appeal”? True, that, in order to exhibit clearly their respective divergences, I have referred five famous codices (a b א c d)—certain of which are found to have turned the brain of Critics of the new school—to one and the same familiar exhibition of the commonly received Text of the New Testament: but by so doing I have not by any means assumed the Textual purity of that common standard. In other words I have not made it “the final standard of Appeal.” All Critics,—wherever found,—at all times, have collated with the commonly received Text: but only as the most convenient standard of Comparison; not, surely, as the absolute standard of Excellence. The result of the experiment already referred to,—(and, I beg to say, it was an exceedingly laborious experiment,)—has been, to demonstrate that the five Manuscripts in question stand apart from one another in the following proportions:—

842 (a) : 1798 (c) : 2370 (b) : 3392 (א) : 4697 (d).

But would not the same result have been obtained if the “five old uncials” had been referred to any other common standard which can be named? In the meantime, what else is the inevitable inference from this phenomenon but that four out of the five must be—while all the five may be—outrageously depraved documents? instead of being fit to be made our exclusive guides to the Truth of Scripture,—as Critics of the school of Tischendorf and Tregelles would have us believe that they are? (pp xviii, xix)​

Burgon, on p xxv, gives another instance of how the “common version” (the AV) was used as a standard by all critics:

I employ that Text,—(as Mill, Bentley, Wetstein; Griesbach, Matthæi, Scholz; Tischendorf, Tregelles, Scrivener, employed it before me,)—not as a criterion of Excellence, but as a standard of Comparison.​

Burgon makes it clear, in the quote just above the last one, he does “not, surely, [think of it] as the absolute standard of Excellence.” [All italics in these quotes Burgon’s, unless otherwise noted.] On p 384 he states, “a standard of comparison, is not therefore of necessity a standard of excellence.” Note, please, the nuances: the Traditional Text (as he calls it) is not the “absolute standard of Excellence”, nor, because it is used as a standard of comparison is it “of necessity” a standard of excellence.

On pages 387 and 388, answering Bishop Ellicott’s misconceptions of his view, Burgon says,

I mistake the Received Text, (you imply,) for the Divine Original, the Sacred Autographs,—and erect it into “a standard from which there shall be no appeal,”—“a tradition which it is little else but sacrilege to impugn.” That is how you state my case and condition: hopelessly confusing the standard of Comparison with the standard of Excellence.

By this time, however, enough has been said to convince any fair person that you are without warrant in your present contention. Let any candid scholar cast an impartial eye over the preceding three hundred and fifty pages,—open the volume where he will, and read steadily on to the end of any textual discussion,—and then say whether, on the contrary, my criticism does not invariably rest on the principle that the Truth of Scripture is to be sought in that form of the Sacred Text which has the fullest, the widest, and the most varied attestation. Do I not invariably make the consentient voice of Antiquity my standard? If I do not,—if, on the contrary, I have ever once appealed to the “Received Text,” and made it my standard,—why do you not prove the truth of your allegation by adducing in evidence that one particular instance? instead of bringing against me a charge which is utterly without foundation, and which can have no other effect but to impose upon the ignorant; to mislead the unwary; and to prejudice the great Textual question which hopelessly divides you and me?... I trust that at least you will not again confound the standard of Comparison with the standard of Truth.​

As is generally understood, Burgon finds some small faults with the English Authorized Version (and even with the Greek underlying it). He is more a Majority or Byzantine Text man. Still, he considered it possessed of “manifold excellences” (p xiii).

Our intrepid Reviewer, Rev. Lane, is offended that Burgon thinks, “Deviations from the TR are even labeled ‘depraved’ (xxx).” But that is not what Burgon thinks at all! Rather, they are considered depraved by him, and elsewhere he considers them “sinister” (p 245) and “intentional perversions” (p 16) on their own demerits, not merely because they deviate.

Depraved? Intentional perversions? Really? What can he be talking about? There is an historical background to the 1881 Revision that Burgon examined.

It was the scandal of England at the time that the openly Arian, Unitarian pastor Dr. Vance Smith was on Westcott and Hort’s Revision Committee. When he was told by the Church of England he must resign his position Westcott threatened to resign himself if Smith were forced to leave.[1] Vance Smith caused an uproar when he attended a Communion Service and refused to say the Nicene Creed (affirming that Christ is God), although Hort loved it! He says,

…that marvelous Communion…It is, one can hardly doubt, the beginning of a new period in Church history. So far the angry objectors have reason for their astonishment. But it is strange that they should not ask themselves…what is really lost…by the union, for once, of all English Christians around the altar of the Church…[2]​

For the unregenerate Hort the Christ-denying Unitarian was a true “English Christian,” part of the good-ol’-boys’ religious club of academics and intellectuals who wear the frock, and not to be denied either the Lord’s Supper or a place in determining genuine Scripture. When Hort said, “So far the angry objectors have reason for their astonishment,” he wasn’t referring only to the Communion service, but to the results of the Unitarian on the Committee for Revision. There were many small but highly significant changes to the text they would eventually be publishing. Regarding the Revision, he said, “It is quite impossible to judge of the value of what appear to be trifling alterations merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have often important bearing which few would think of at first…the difference between a picture say of Raffaelle and a feeble copy of it is made up of a number of trivial differences.”[3]

One of these highly significant changes – “trifling alterations” Hort would say, perhaps – was the unwarranted deletion of the word “God” in the text of 1 Timothy 3:16, where the Scripture in speaking of Jesus talks of “the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh”. The Revisers replaced it with “who”. The Unitarian Dr. Smith later wrote,

The old reading is pronounced untenable by the Revisers, as it has long been known to be by all careful students of the New Testament…It is in truth another example of the facility with which ancient copiers could introduce the word God into their manuscripts,—a reading which was the natural result of the growing tendency in early Christian times…to look upon the humble Teacher as the incarnate Word, and therefore as “God manifested in the flesh”.[4] …It has been frequently said that the changes of translation…are of little importance from a doctrinal point of view…[A]ny such statement [is]…contrary to the facts.[5]

The only instance in the N.T. in which the religious worship or adoration of Christ was apparently implied, has been altered by the Revision: ‘At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow,’ [Philippians 2:10] is now to be read ‘in the name.’ Moreover, no alteration of text or of translation will be found anywhere to make up for this loss; as indeed it is well understood that the N.T. contains neither precept nor example which really sanctions the religious worship of Jesus Christ.[6] [Emphasis added]​

A.G. Hobbs, in his Forward to the reprint of Burgon’s The Revision Revised, wrote,

Here is a real shocker: Dean Stanley, Westcott, Hort, and Bishop Thirwall all refused to serve if Smith were dismissed [in the face of the public outcry at his presence on the Revision Committee]. Let us remember that the Bible teaches that those who uphold and bid a false teacher God speed are equally guilty. ‘For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds’ (2 John 9-11). No wonder that the Deity of Christ is played down in so many passages[7]​

______


1 Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, by his son Arthur Westcott (Macmillan, London, 1903) Reprint by the Bible for Today. Volume I, page 394.
2 Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, by his son, Arthur Fenton Hort (Macmillan, London, 1896) Reprint by the Bible for Today. Volume II, page 139.
3 Ibid.
4 Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly Reviewed, by Dr. Vance Smith (London: 1881), pages 39, 47. Cited in Revision Revised, by Burgon, pages 515, 513.
5 Ibid., page 45.
6 Texts and Margins, Smith, page 47. Cited in, For Love of the Bible: The Battle for the King James Version and the Received Text from 1800 to Present, by David W. Cloud (WA: Way of Life Literature, 1997), page 31.
7 The Revision Revised, by John William Burgon (Centennial Edition, Fifth printing, 1991), Forward [no page #]. See also, Life of Westcott, Vol I, page 394.​
____________

It is little wonder that the godly scholar, John William Burgon, was offended at, not only the underhanded goings-on of the Revision Committee, but also the work they produced. He considered it an attack not only on the sacred deposit – the Scripture – but on the God who wrote it, and the faith of the people of England.

Westcott and Hort’s original commission by the Church of England was to only make minor corrections in the English of the Authorized Version, but they had a secret agenda of their own, which was to supplant the AV’s Greek text with one of their own making, according to the text-critical principles of the German rationalist critics. And this they accomplished.

I will touch more on the actual character of codices b א in my next response.
 
Steve, a couple of points in response (always a pleasure to cross swords with you). Firstly, I have zero "distaste" for the TR. If a person operates off the TR, he has the Word of God. Period. That I think the same is true of the critical text does not lower my estimation of the TR. But as no doctrinal difference whatsoever hinges on the differences between the TR and the CT, and some estimates of the overlap put it around 90% overlap, some perspective on this debate is needed. What we can say is that the most differing manuscripts we have differ from each other in less than 10% of the text, and of that 10%, only about a tenth of those differences make any exegetical difference (and NO doctrinal difference). So, even between the TR and the CT, only about 1% makes any difference exegetically.

Secondly, the tu quoque will still stick for this reason: the reasoning behind Burgon's rejection of the genealogical method is that determining genealogical relationships per se is pure speculation. He says, "[W]e are unacquainted with one single instance of a known MS. copied from another known MS" (256). He then says "[A]ll talk about 'Genealogical evidence,' where no single step in the descent can be produced,-in other words, where no Genealogical evidence exists,-is absurd." Emphasis is original. Burgon is not just talking about the theory as a whole, but about every possible conceivable step in seeking to demonstrate that theory. If there is not one known instance of a known MS copied from another known MS, then how can he possibly posit the copying of Aleph and B from an unknown origin? Burgon would answer that they show the same corruptions. But that is precisely what the genealogical method does. The fact that Burgon's genealogical method is limited to Aleph and B (and F and G, p. 257) and that WH's theory is much more developed does not let Burgon off the hook for using the very same principle he condemns.

Thirdly, although I did not draw this out in the OP as much, what I wanted to show was that Burgon made his major case by means of many logical fallacies. This calls into question his major case. If the building blocks he uses to build his building are flawed, then isn't the final product also flawed?
 
Steve, a couple of points in response (always a pleasure to cross swords with you). Firstly, I have zero "distaste" for the TR. If a person operates off the TR, he has the Word of God. Period. That I think the same is true of the critical text does not lower my estimation of the TR. But as no doctrinal difference whatsoever hinges on the differences between the TR and the CT, and some estimates of the overlap put it around 90% overlap, some perspective on this debate is needed. What we can say is that the most differing manuscripts we have differ from each other in less than 10% of the text, and of that 10%, only about a tenth of those differences make any exegetical difference (and NO doctrinal difference). So, even between the TR and the CT, only about 1% makes any difference exegetically.

Secondly, the tu quoque will still stick for this reason: the reasoning behind Burgon's rejection of the genealogical method is that determining genealogical relationships per se is pure speculation. He says, "[W]e are unacquainted with one single instance of a known MS. copied from another known MS" (256). He then says "[A]ll talk about 'Genealogical evidence,' where no single step in the descent can be produced,-in other words, where no Genealogical evidence exists,-is absurd." Emphasis is original. Burgon is not just talking about the theory as a whole, but about every possible conceivable step in seeking to demonstrate that theory. If there is not one known instance of a known MS copied from another known MS, then how can he possibly posit the copying of Aleph and B from an unknown origin? Burgon would answer that they show the same corruptions. But that is precisely what the genealogical method does. The fact that Burgon's genealogical method is limited to Aleph and B (and F and G, p. 257) and that WH's theory is much more developed does not let Burgon off the hook for using the very same principle he condemns.

Thirdly, although I did not draw this out in the OP as much, what I wanted to show was that Burgon made his major case by means of many logical fallacies. This calls into question his major case. If the building blocks he uses to build his building are flawed, then isn't the final product also flawed?
This was what my main response to this OP has been, in that we can and should be accepting the various Greek texts such as CT/MT/TR , and that we can and should be accepting as legit English translations any that have been accurately translated off from those source texts.
Can prefer say the Nas, or KJV, or Esv, but there is no standard perfect only bible version that can be used today.
 
Hello Lane,

Likewise a pleasure for me as well to communicate with you again! (And to the folks watching I want to say that I hold the Rev. Lane Keister in high regard, and count Lane a friend. He is widely noted to be a scholarly and learned minister of the Gospel of our Lord, and a godly man. So this difference we are batting back and forth amounts, as he also views it, to sword-play among friends, as we discuss text-critical matters. If I sound a little tough at times it is because I vigorously argue my view, and it implies no disrespect toward my brother and fellow pastor. Obviously there is a lot at stake in such a discussion, to wit, the reliability of the Bible, both in the main and in the minutiae, and specifically regarding our respective textual choices.)

I do think, Lane, a basic difference between us, and I believe Burgon’s view is similar to mine, is I hold that the “genealogical method” – that is, distinguishing between a variety of manuscript families for text-critical (TC) purposes – is not a helpful or really valid method, as there is only one textual “family”, that being the vast majority of Greek minuscule / cursive manuscripts, or the Byzantine / Majority / or Traditional Text, as it is variously called. I will post an illustration of this from Wilbur Pickering’s The Identity of the New Testament Text (TINTT), though I did mention it above referencing Jack Moorman and his book. I’ll seek to post a chart and some of Pickering’s commentary on it here (and then continue after the three photos) :

Pickering, Stream of Transmission 01


Pickering, Stream of Transmission 02


Pickering, Stream of Transmission 03

As can be seen in the chart “Figure C” (he has an updated and more nuanced chart in his online versions of this book) the real and only “family” is comprised of the approximately 85-90% of the mss, while those outside the cone are the very few disagreeing-among-themselves aberrant forms of text.

The “doctrinal difference” arising from the CT vs. the TT (Traditional Text) is that of a providential preservation of the NT text in the minutiae. I will agree with you that in the main there is 90% agreement between our two text types, but 10% is not insignificant when it comes to the words of God being omitted, or in your preferred terminology, a non-value minus of 10%. With respect to Vaticanus, Dr. F.H.A. Scrivener writes,

“One marked feature characteristic of this copy, is the great number of its omissions, which has induced Dr. Dobbin to speak of it as presenting ‘an abbreviated text of the New Testament’: and certainly the facts he states on this point are startling enough. He calculates that Codex B leaves out words or clauses no less than 330 times in Matthew, 365, in Mark, 439 in Luke, 357 in John, 384 in the Acts, 681 in the surviving Epistles; or 2,556 times in all. That no small proportion of these are mere oversights of the scribe seems evident from the circumstance that this same scribe has repeatedly written words and clauses twice over, a class of mistakes which Mai and the collators have seldom thought fit to notice, inasmuch as the false addition has not been retraced by the second hand, but which by no means enhances our estimate of the care employed in copying this venerable record of primitive Christianity.” (A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Vol. I, p. 120.)​

In a number of places the LORD prohibits the diminishing by even a word His commandments (Jer 26:2, for one), and yet that has been accomplished by some in the name of textual criticism, and in some circles it is acceptable – because the text critics have done it.

I reckon part of the textual problem we are debating derives from the sheer audacity of some textual critics to devalue the mass of concurring Greek minuscule mss as resulting from an alleged official revision in Antioch in the 400s AD (with not even a hint of proof), and grossly over-value a minute segment of mss whose exemplars clearly came (so many CT-favoring critics hold) from Eusebius and the library of Origen and Pamphilus in either Caesarea or Alexandria. But then Hort and Westcott had ample audacity to proceed so. And if you think I am unfairly trashing these two men, I will trot out some of their remarks concerning the revision they foisted on the CoE and the TC world.

I will not concur with you that Burgon did what he criticized in Hort, as the confusion of terms and texts has notoriously clouded communication in this arena: still, I will reiterate, “genealogical method” is a misnomer in this TC discussion. Aleph and B are not part of a family, but instead aberrant texts representing a distorted archetype located in the library Eusebius worked in. Shall I document this also?

For those looking in on this discussion, I want to post some remarks of Burgon from his, The Traditional Text Of The Holy Gospels Vindicated And Established:

Before our Lord ascended up to Heaven, He told His disciples that He would send them the Holy Ghost, Who should supply His place and abide with His Church for ever. He added a promise that it should be the office of that inspiring Spirit not only ‘to bring to their remembrance all things whatsoever He had told them’ (John 16:26), but also to ‘guide’ His Church ‘into all the Truth,’ or, ‘the whole Truth (John 16:13). Accordingly, the earliest great achievement of those days was accomplished on giving to the Church the Scriptures of the New Testament, in which authorized teaching was enshrined in written form. And first, out of those many Gospels which incompetent persons had ‘taken in hand’ to write or to compile out of much floating matter of an oral or written nature, He guided them to discern that four were wholly unlike the rest—were the very Word of God.

There exists no reason for supposing that the Divine Agent, who in the first instance thus gave to mankind the Scriptures of Truth, straightway abdicated His office; took no further care of His work; abandoned those precious writings to their fate. That a perpetual miracle was wrought for their preservation that copyists were protected against the risk of error, or evil men prevented from adulterating shamefully copies of the Deposit no one, it is presumed, is so weak as to suppose. But it is quite a different thing to claim that all down the ages the sacred writings must needs have been God’s peculiar care; that the Church under Him has watched over them with intelligence and skill; has recognized which copies exhibit a fabricated, which an honestly transcribed text; has generally sanctioned the one, and generally disallowed the other. I am utterly disinclined to believe—so grossly improbable does it seem—that at the end of 1800 years 995 copies out of every thousand, suppose, will prove untrustworthy; and that the one, two, three, four or five which remain, whose contents were till yesterday as good as unknown, will be found to have retained the secret of what the Holy Spirit originally inspired. I am utterly unable to believe, in short, that God's promise has so entirely failed, that at the end of 1800 years much of the text of the Gospel had in point of fact to be picked by a German critic out of a waste-paper basket in the convent of St. Catherine; and that the entire text had to be remodelled after the pattern set by a couple of copies which had remained in neglect during fifteen centuries, and had probably owed their survival to that neglect; whilst hundreds of others had been thumbed to pieces, and had bequeathed their witness to copies made from them.

I have addressed what goes before to persons who sympathize with me in my belief. To others the argument would require to be put in a different way. Let it then be remembered, that a wealth of copies existed in early times; that the need of zealous care of the Holy Scriptures was always felt in the Church; that it is only from the Church that we have learnt which are the books of the Bible and which are not; that in the age in which the Canon was settled, and which is presumed by many critics to have introduced a corrupted text, most of the intellect of the Roman Empire was found within the Church, and was directed upon disputed questions; that in the succeeding ages the art of transcribing was brought to a high pitch of perfection; and that the verdict of all the several periods since the production of those two manuscripts has been given till a few years ago in favour of the Text which has been handed down: let it be further borne in mind that the testimony is not only that of all the ages, but of all the countries: and at the very least so strong a presumption will ensue on behalf of the Traditional Text, that a powerful case indeed must be constructed to upset it. It cannot be vanquished by theories grounded upon internal considerations often only another name for personal tastes, or for scholarly likes or dislikes, or upon fictitious recensions, or upon any arbitrary choice of favourite manuscripts, or upon a strained division of authorities into families or groups, or upon a warped application of the principle of genealogy. In the ascertainment of the facts of the Sacred Text, the laws of evidence must be strictly followed. In questions relating to the inspired Word, mere speculation and unreason have no place. In short, the Traditional Text, founded upon the vast majority of authorities and upon the Rock of Christ's Church, will, if I mistake not, be found upon examination to be out of all comparison superior to a text of the nineteenth century, whatever skill and ingenuity may have been expended upon the production or the defence of it. (pp 11-13)

[Online sources, various formats: https://archive.org/details/traditionaltexto00burgrich , or http://www.gutenberg.org/files/38960/38960-pdf.pdf]​

Actually, Lane, you did, in the OP, bring up substantially the issue of Burgon’s alleged logical fallacies, and I would like to address some of them, along with others the Tischendorf waste basket, and the library in the precincts of the murderous antichrists (who slaughtered multitudes of Bible-believing Christians), which housed the ‘Queen of manuscripts’, that Codex B / Vaticanus Rome used to overthrow Sola Scriptura. The very fact we are arguing this on Reformed turf proves that Rome did in fact succeed, at least in the main, though there are stalwart holdouts against the incursion, bearing that standard the Spirit lifts up against the enemy’s flood (Isa 59:19).

And I shall also post a reasonable criticism of John William Burgon, which yet continues to honor his labors and remarkable vision.
 
Last edited:
Hello, Lane, I have a few different responses in the works to your review, but here’s a short one:

You said,

Deviations from the TR are even labeled “depraved” (xxx). Furthermore, since the TR is assumed to be correct, any minuses from the TR are labeled as “omissions.”​

Some perspective on this matter: 1) Depravation in Burgon’s usage means: the act of corrupting, changing for the worse. 2) When you use the term “TR” you are making it sound like a single manuscript, when in fact it is a term for designating the 5,000+ majority text mss over against the very few minority mss, giving the impression you are comparing equals. This was Hort’s tactic in trying to delegitimize the massive preponderance of the traditional text, by positing the idea of an official Antiochian recension in the fourth century, which no one believes anymore as there is no record or even hint of evidence supporting that—it was only an imaginary figment of his mind. But that kind of delegitimization no longer washes.

Burgon addresses this on pp 254-255:

Apart from the character of the Witnesses, when 5 men say one thing, and 995 say the exact contradictory, we are apt to regard it even as axiomatic that, “by reason of their mere paucity,” the few “are appreciably far less likely to be right than the multitude opposed to them.” Dr. Hort seems to share our opinion; for he remarks,—

“A presumption indeed remains that a majority of extant documents is more likely to represent a majority of ancestral documents, than vice versâ.” [Intro to the NT in the Original Greek, by W&H… p 45]
[Burgon exclaims] Exactly so! We meant, and we mean that, and no other thing.”​

Hort reiterates this view:

p 257 “The fundamental Text of late extant Greek MSS. generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Græco-Syrian Text of the second half of the fourth century.” [Ibid, Intro., W&H p 92]​

His invention of the “Antiochian recension” sought to override this remark concerning the Byzantine Text, but Burgon would have none of it, seeing it is without any merit but a vivid imagination.

You are tilting at windmills, my friend. And more on what your review does, with respect to logic, follows shortly.
 
Last edited:
In your “fourth major problem with Burgon’s book”, in your scattershot “logical fallacies” #4 you say it is the,

Poisoned well fallacy—just because there might be a “thicket” of incorrect readings does not make a reading in the midst of them untrue (96). Similarly, the often-used poisoned-well fallacies of the discovery of א in a waste-paper basket, and the long housing of B in the Vatican find their way to Burgon's pen (343). Joseph came out of a prison. Does this mean he was guilty or wrong in something? We do not know the links in the chain of God's providence as to how א got to be in a monastery's waste-paper basket, or how B got to be housed in the Vatican library. It is highly unwise to speculate on such things, let alone cast doubt on the manuscripts' worth by such means.​

When a MS contains “a thicket” of incorrect readings it casts grave doubt on the integrity of the entire MS, just as when a witness is caught in a number of lies. A MS, as well as a person, my poison their own well with such obvious corruptions.

Similarly, “the long housing of B in the Vatican” library also reveals some telling characteristics of this MS:

Vaticanus has been in the Vatican Library at least since 1481, when it was catalogued (an earlier 1475 catalogue also notes it). Those with some historical knowledge will know that these were the years of the Inquisition in Spain during the reign of Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484). In 1481 some 2,000 believers dissenting with Rome were burned alive, with multitudes of others tortured (M’Crie, History of the Reformation in Spain, p. 104). When Pope Innocent VIII (1484-1492) sat in the royal “Throne of Peter,” he followed in the vein of his namesake Innocent III and commenced anew a persecution against the peaceful Waldensian Christians in the northern Italian Alps, commanding their destruction “like venomous snakes” if they would not repent and turn to Rome (Wylie, History of the Waldenses, pp. 27-29). Bloodbaths followed against these harmless mountain peoples, who had their own Scriptures from ancient times, and worshipped in Biblical simplicity and order.

It perplexes many that the Lord and Saviour of these many hundreds of thousands of Bible-believing saints who were tortured with unimaginable barbarity and slaughtered like dogs by the Roman Catholic “church” for centuries (it is no exaggeration to say for over a millennium) should have kept His choicest preserved manuscript in the safekeeping of the Library of the apostate murderers, designating it by their own ignominious name: Vaticanus.

It does not inspire confidence in Reformed persons that the publishers of the Critical Text, the United Bible Societies, unabashedly serve the Vatican and the Pope, of whom UBS General Secretary Michael Perreau said,

“Pope Francis embodies several ‘first ever’ aspects: he’s the first Jesuit pope, the first Latin American pope, and the first to choose St Francis of Assisi as the patron of his papacy. He combines modesty, not least in his lifestyle, with fervent engagement for the poor, and traditional Catholic theology with courageous advocacy for human rights.

“He is a man of the universal church with an ecumenical spirit and he is a pastor, who knows the reality of ‘simple’ people. The new Pope is a truly biblical person whose faith and actions are deeply rooted in the Bible and inspired by the Word of God.”

“As a long-time friend of the Bible Societies Pope Francis knows that our raison d’être is the call to collaborate in the incarnation of our Christian faith,” says Mr Perreau. “We assure Pope Francis of our renewed availability to serve the Catholic Church in her endeavours to make the Word of God the centre of new evangelisation.”

https://www.unitedbiblesocieties.org/united-bible-societies-welcomes-pope-francis/

Worse yet, the Nestle-Aland Greek NT 27th Ed. page 45 clearly 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. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text (in the sense of the century-long Nestle tradition): it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament. For many reasons, however, the present edition has not been deemed an appropriate occasion for introducing textual changes. [Emphasis added]​

Source document: Nestle-Aland Greek NT 27th Ed by Steve R., on Flickr

Produced under the supervision of the Vatican, this CT edition?! I don’t know about you, Lane, but these sorts of “pedigrees” inspire no confidence at all in me with respect to the Critical Text’s fidelity to the Bible. You talk about Burgon’s “poisoning the well” — what I am seeing is that he is rather exposing the poison well of Westcott and Hort’s corrupt textual work, and its progeny.

What amazes me is that good Reformed souls can fall for the Roman assault on Sola Scriptura through their prize MSS (the “Queen of the Uncials” Vaticanus is called), throwing into disarray the defense of the Reformation.

I think this may give many pause to think, What on earth are we doing siding with the arguments of Counter-Reformation Rome?

Little wonder, in my view, that an increasing number of Reformed persons are crossing the Tiber (turning to Rome) in an effort to find a line of unbroken tradition and of infallible authority. Where they find this in the papal system, we find it in the word of God providentially preserved by Him so that His children may stand against the world, the flesh, and the devil.

Your “logic” seems to me to be put to ill use.
 
Last edited:
A few points in response: arguments against WH will not work at all against my position, as I differ from WH in many respects. For example, while I do think it is theoretically possible to demonstrate genealogical relationships between manuscripts, it is a perilous enterprise fraught with many dangers, the most notable being overconfidence in one's results. While WH would devalue the entire Byzantine tradition on the basis of the genealogical hypothesis, in my opinion, their arguments are built on sand. Secondly, WH held that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus together outweighed everything else. I do not hold that position at all. I feel that you seem to think that answering WH is answering me. It won't work at all. My canons for textual criticism are quite different from WH. I see this kind of anachronistic argument happening all the time in KJV circles: answer WH and you've answered modern textual critics, too. It doesn't work at all.

Secondly, I do not refer to the TR as meaning only one text. I am not quite sure how you got that out of what I wrote. The TR is similar in most respects to the Majority Text, but it is not the same, as you seem to imply.

Your arguments about Vaticanus are continuing the poisoned well fallacy. Shift the topic over, for just a moment, to a person instead of a manuscript. Is it possible for a Christian to be "buried" (not dead, but well-concealed) in the Vatican? Is it possible for this to happen for quite a number of years? Can there be 7,000 who have not bowed the knee to Baal? Then why is it impossible for a manuscript to be housed in the devil's own library, and yet be virtuous? By your argument, Vaticanus is a tool of the devil, and has absolutely zero relationship to God's Word at all, which means the 90% overlap it has with TR has absolutely no weight at all, which means the NIV, the ESV, etc. are also tools of the devil. I think your argument proves WAY too much. No one knows the circumstances of Vaticanus's creation. Is it impossible that it was copied in a Bible-believing church, and then captured by Rome? There is almost a millennium between its manufacture and its cataloguing in Rome. Until you can fill that gap with knowledge, you cannot use a poisoned well fallacy against Vaticanus.

As to a thicket of problems, is it impossible that a scribe may have had a blistering headache one day from reading too many smooth breathing marks, and trying to distinguish between smooth and rough breathing marks such that he made mistakes? Why would that invalidate any other part of the manuscript where he might have been alert and well-rested? It is not legitimate at all to say that a "thicket" of problems in one place invalidates everything else the manuscript has to offer. I am not buying that for one single second. Modern publishing is the same. I have seen books that have a thicket of typos in just a few pages, but relatively no typos anywhere else. Does that call into question the entire work? Of course not. Every manuscript that we have has errors in it. You are merely committing another form of the argument of the beard. How many mistakes does it take to call into question a whole manuscript? On what basis could you possibly determine that?

Lastly, the numbers game is often played by exaggeration. Differences can be as tiny as a different spelling for a name, or a different word order (which usually makes little to no difference in the meaning of the passage, given the inflected nature of Greek). The vast majority of differences between Vaticanus/Sinaiticus and the TR are of this nature. The rhetoric you employ (and Burgon as well) targets texts that contain the Word of God in them. I would have hoped that such would temper your rhetoric, but it doesn't seem to have done so.
 
A few points in response: arguments against WH will not work at all against my position, as I differ from WH in many respects. For example, while I do think it is theoretically possible to demonstrate genealogical relationships between manuscripts, it is a perilous enterprise fraught with many dangers, the most notable being overconfidence in one's results. While WH would devalue the entire Byzantine tradition on the basis of the genealogical hypothesis, in my opinion, their arguments are built on sand. Secondly, WH held that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus together outweighed everything else. I do not hold that position at all. I feel that you seem to think that answering WH is answering me. It won't work at all. My canons for textual criticism are quite different from WH. I see this kind of anachronistic argument happening all the time in KJV circles: answer WH and you've answered modern textual critics, too. It doesn't work at all.

Secondly, I do not refer to the TR as meaning only one text. I am not quite sure how you got that out of what I wrote. The TR is similar in most respects to the Majority Text, but it is not the same, as you seem to imply.

Your arguments about Vaticanus are continuing the poisoned well fallacy. Shift the topic over, for just a moment, to a person instead of a manuscript. Is it possible for a Christian to be "buried" (not dead, but well-concealed) in the Vatican? Is it possible for this to happen for quite a number of years? Can there be 7,000 who have not bowed the knee to Baal? Then why is it impossible for a manuscript to be housed in the devil's own library, and yet be virtuous? By your argument, Vaticanus is a tool of the devil, and has absolutely zero relationship to God's Word at all, which means the 90% overlap it has with TR has absolutely no weight at all, which means the NIV, the ESV, etc. are also tools of the devil. I think your argument proves WAY too much. No one knows the circumstances of Vaticanus's creation. Is it impossible that it was copied in a Bible-believing church, and then captured by Rome? There is almost a millennium between its manufacture and its cataloguing in Rome. Until you can fill that gap with knowledge, you cannot use a poisoned well fallacy against Vaticanus.

As to a thicket of problems, is it impossible that a scribe may have had a blistering headache one day from reading too many smooth breathing marks, and trying to distinguish between smooth and rough breathing marks such that he made mistakes? Why would that invalidate any other part of the manuscript where he might have been alert and well-rested? It is not legitimate at all to say that a "thicket" of problems in one place invalidates everything else the manuscript has to offer. I am not buying that for one single second. Modern publishing is the same. I have seen books that have a thicket of typos in just a few pages, but relatively no typos anywhere else. Does that call into question the entire work? Of course not. Every manuscript that we have has errors in it. You are merely committing another form of the argument of the beard. How many mistakes does it take to call into question a whole manuscript? On what basis could you possibly determine that?

Lastly, the numbers game is often played by exaggeration. Differences can be as tiny as a different spelling for a name, or a different word order (which usually makes little to no difference in the meaning of the passage, given the inflected nature of Greek). The vast majority of differences between Vaticanus/Sinaiticus and the TR are of this nature. The rhetoric you employ (and Burgon as well) targets texts that contain the Word of God in them. I would have hoped that such would temper your rhetoric, but it doesn't seem to have done so.
The truth on this issue is that regardless of which Greek text one prefers, there is substantial agreement in all major areas, as much as 90-95 %, and the only differences are minor issues, none related to changing any essential doctrines.
One can feel confident that all of the Greek texts in use today reflect the very word of God to us, and any translation done correctly from them would be the English word of the Lord to us now.
 
Lane, you said,

I feel that you seem to think that answering WH is answering me. It won't work at all. My canons for textual criticism are quite different from WH. I see this kind of anachronistic argument happening all the time in KJV circles: answer WH and you've answered modern textual critics, too. It doesn't work at all.​

I have seen it said by Dr. White, and Alan Kurschner his AOMIN colleague, that “While modern Greek texts are not identical to that created by Westcott and Hort, one will still find defenders of the AV drawing in black and white, saying that all modern versions are based upon their work.” (The King James Only Controversy, by James White [Bethany, 1995], p. 99). Is not this equivalent to saying, “Modern versions are not based upon the W&H Greek text”?

You are saying something quite similar to Dr. White, Lane.

For those interested in looking at this issue, I suggest David Cloud’s book, Examining “The King James Only Controversy” part 3. An excerpt from that section:

White and many others attempting to discredit King James Bible defense also claim that Westcott and Hort are not important because (as they say) "the modern versions (NASV and NIV) are not based on the Alexandrian text or on the Westcott and Hort text. They are based on an eclectic text which sometimes favors the TR over Aleph or B."

This is true as far as it goes, but it ignores the heart of the issue. The fact is that the United Bible Societies (UBS) text is almost identical to the W-H text of 1881 in significant departures from the Received Text. For example, both the W-H and the UBS delete or question almost the same number of verses (WH–48, UBS–45). Both delete almost the same number of significant portions of verses (WH–193, UBS–185). Both delete almost the same number of names and titles of the Lord (WH–221, UBS–212). An extensive comparison of the TR against the WH text, the Nestle’s Text, the UBS text, and key English versions was done by the late Everett Fowler and can be seen in his book Evaluating Versions of the New Testament, available from Bible for Today.

The W-H text of 1881 and the latest edition of the United Bible Societies’ text differ only in relatively minor points. Both represent the same TYPE of text with the same TYPE of departures from the Received Text.

The fact is that the Westcott-Hort text represents the first widely-accepted departure from the TR in the post-Reformation era, and the modern English versions descend directly from it. It is a very significant text and its editors are highly significant to the history of textual criticism. Any man who discounts the continuing significance of Westcott-Hort in the field of Bible texts and versions is probably trying to throw up a smoke screen to hide something. (In the hardcopy book, this section is found on pp. 88-91]​

[End Cloud]
_______

The two MSS, א (Sinaiticus) and B (Vaticanus), are the basis of both Westcott and Hort’s Greek Revision supplanting the TR, and subsequently most all modern Bible versions.

This is to show the vital connection between the W&H text and the modern versions, a connection denied by both Alan Kurschner and Dr. White, among others. In 1928 textual critic and scholar, Professor Kirsopp Lake of Harvard, wrote:

…more important than anything else was the publication of the critical text and introduction of Drs. Westcott and Hort…This work is the foundation of nearly all modern criticism, and demands close attention.[1]​

In 1964 Greek scholar J. Harold Greenlee was still able to affirm,

The textual theories of W-H underlie virtually all subsequent work in NT criticism.[2]​

In 1990 Philip Wesley Comfort, textual critic and scholar, although lauding new manuscript discoveries (from Egypt), still builds upon the Hortian theory, maintains the foundational validity of his and Westcott’s text, and supports his “minority” readings.[3] In The NIV Interlinear Greek-English New Testament,[4] Alfred Marshall (editor) states (p. xix) that although the Greek text used in the interlinear is Nestle’s Novum Testamentum Graece (based essentially on W&H’s Greek Revision), the NIV uses “an eclectic” Greek text (i.e., the translators choose from various readings). But in practice the NIV – and modern versions generally – retain the distinctive readings which are found in the W&H text.

This connection between the WH critical text and the modern CT is seen in UBS 4th Ed. and the N/A 27th – and the modern versions deriving from them.

1 The Text of the New Testament, by Kirsopp Lake (London: Rivingtons, 1928), page 67.
2 Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, by J.H. Greenlee (MI: Wm. B. Erdmanns Publishers Co., 1964), page 78.
3 Early Manuscripts & Modern Translations of the New Testament, by Philip Wesley Comfort (MI: Baker Books, 1996 ed,), pages 12, 13, and 14.
4 (MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 1976).
_______

Lane, as long as you support the variant readings which find their basis in the Westcott and Hort exemplars, you are subject to the same critique they are. I am glad, however, to hear that you now receive the last twelve verses of Mark as authentic!

But then, Lane, you say,

Your arguments about Vaticanus are continuing the poisoned well fallacy.​

I think your comparing B to a virtuous person “buried” yet alive in the Vatican is silly. I realize afresh that in your mind you are solidly convinced of the CT paradigm concerning the NT MSS, and that I will not convince you no matter what I say. So I see my rebuttal of your review as, primarily, for the benefit of onlookers and for the truth.

That you do not interact with my remarks about the intimate relation between the UBS and the Vatican, with the latter “supervising” the continuing work on the Nestle-Aland Greek NT for the benefit of their “significant step with regard to interconfessional relationships”, and the UBS General Secretary Michael Perreau affirming,

“We assure Pope Francis of our renewed availability to serve the Catholic Church in her endeavours to make the Word of God the centre of new evangelisation.”​

That you do not interact, I say, with these things, is quite telling. I repeat, if not for your benefit (whose mind is made up), then for onlookers, Rome’s hand in all this is the source of the well being poisoned, not my arguing against their exemplar texts.

This reminds me of the old abortionist arguments that pro-lifers displaying the gruesome photos of dismembered aborted babies was obscene, whereas in fact it was but exposing the murders of the preborn children, and that it was not the exposures but the murderous acts that were the real obscenity. Rome and its Bible texts are the poison, and not my arguments exposing it!

Which is not to say that the CT-derived Bibles are poisonous, but only the false variant readings in it are, and that 90% of these Bibles are good and of great use to the Lord, and to His people.

You also avoid responding to my saying that the use of B and א with their variants has been the primary assault weapon against the Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura and the intact authoritative Greek and Hebrew Bible they had in hand over against the Catholic Church with its dictums being the supreme authority. With the variants—deriving from their own textual exemplars, B and א—they sought to undermine the validity of the Reformers infallible Bible by asserting it had many errors.

I could go on and on, but this is enough for now.
 
Last edited:
Steve, how do you explain the 1,000 (!!!!!!!) years between Vaticanus's manufacture and its cataloging in the Vatican? If you do not know the circumstances of Vaticanus's manufacture, then how can you possibly use its LATER location as some kind of weapon against Vaticanus as a (not THE) valid NT manuscript? You have yet to answer this point. That would be like saying that a Marine captured by North Korea is now somehow tainted by the fact that he is now in North Korea, and therefore his loyalty to the US is now suspect. It is a poisoned well fallacy, except that the well is now ex post facto, in being an intermediate location. You cannot possibly know that Vaticanus was copied in Rome. The likelihood is that it was copied in Egypt, not in Rome. From where I'm standing, you and every other KJV defender make this same mistake. Where it is housed now has NOTHING to do with its creation. Furthermore, if, as most people believe, Vaticanus really was a fourth century manuscript, then it was copied LONG before Rome went off the rails doctrinally speaking.

How the Vatican has used Vaticanus against the Reformation has nothing to do with whether Vaticanus is a valuable manuscript or not, either. They are abusing it (not using it legitimately) for doctrinal-twisting purposes. What Rome has done with Vaticanus is completely irrelevant to Vaticanus's value as a manuscript. The abuse of something does not equal the use of something. Reformed textual critics who use Vaticanus do not agree with Rome's abuse of it. So, your arguments are wide of the mark.

Since you seem intent on tarring me with WH's feathers, let me show you just how far from WH I am by laying out for you some canons I believe to be reasonable and with which WH would radically differ.

1. A reading that has wide geographical diversity has a greater likelihood of being original (WH ignored this completely in going wholesale after the Egyptian manuscripts).

2. The genealogical method is fundamentally flawed in several aspects, not least of which is the assumption that the errors always show genealogical relationship. Genealogical relationship can (at best!) be hinted at only, and not proven. This is radically different from WH, who believed that most manuscripts' genealogical relationships can be scientifically proven.

3. Older manuscripts only have a slightly higher likelihood of having an older reading. This is not always the case (WH would differ radically, saying that the older manuscripts almost always have the older reading). Sometimes a later manuscript can have the older reading.

4. Scribal probabilities are extremely difficult to decipher (WH were far more confident about this possibility of internal evidence).

5. Majority of manuscripts does have some weight (not as much as Majority Text advocates say, but considerably more than WH believe: WH say that manuscripts are NOT to be counted, but weighed).

6. Not only do I differ in these particular canons, but I also differ from WH in MANY choices they made in individual text-critical decisions. So, again, we have the argument of the beard problem. How many times would a text critic have to side with WH (and against the TR) before he is labelled a WH follower? I haven't counted, but I would say that I agree with the Majority Text about as often as I would agree with WH in places where they differ.

I could go on, but lumping me in with WH is something I regard to be a complete misrepresentation of my views. I would categorize myself as being in between CT and Majority Text opinions. The conversation is not likely to progress any further if you refuse to acknowledge this fact.

I haven't done the math, but the modern CT texts often disagree with WH. Again, how many times would they have to disagree with WH before you would distinguish between the two?
 
Last edited:
Steve, how do you explain the 1,000 (!!!!!!!) years between Vaticanus's manufacture and its cataloging in the Vatican? If you do not know the circumstances of Vaticanus's manufacture, then how can you possibly use its LATER location as some kind of weapon against Vaticanus as a (not THE) valid NT manuscript? You have yet to answer this point. That would be like saying that a Marine captured by North Korea is now somehow tainted by the fact that he is now in North Korea, and therefore his loyalty to the US is now suspect. It is a poisoned well fallacy, except that the well is now ex post facto, in being an intermediate location. You cannot possibly know that Vaticanus was copied in Rome. The likelihood is that it was copied in Egypt, not in Rome. From where I'm standing, you and every other KJV defender make this same mistake. Where it is housed now has NOTHING to do with its creation. Furthermore, if, as most people believe, Vaticanus really was a fourth century manuscript, then it was copied LONG before Rome went off the rails doctrinally speaking.

How the Vatican has used Vaticanus against the Reformation has nothing to do with whether Vaticanus is a valuable manuscript or not, either. They are abusing it (not using it legitimately) for doctrinal-twisting purposes. What Rome has done with Vaticanus is completely irrelevant to Vaticanus's value as a manuscript. The abuse of something does not equal the use of something. Reformed textual critics who use Vaticanus do not agree with Rome's abuse of it. So, your arguments are wide of the mark.

Since you seem intent on tarring me with WH's feathers, let me show you just how far from WH I am by laying out for you some canons I believe to be reasonable and with which WH would radically differ.

1. A reading that has wide geographical diversity has a greater likelihood of being original (WH ignored this completely in going wholesale after the Egyptian manuscripts).

2. The genealogical method is fundamentally flawed in several aspects, not least of which is the assumption that the errors always show genealogical relationship. Genealogical relationship can (at best!) be hinted at only, and not proven. This is radically different from WH, who believed that most manuscripts' genealogical relationships can be scientifically proven.

3. Older manuscripts only have a slightly higher likelihood of having an older reading. This is not always the case (WH would differ radically, saying that the older manuscripts almost always have the older reading). Sometimes a later manuscript can have the older reading.

4. Scribal probabilities are extremely difficult to decipher (WH were far more confident about this possibility of internal evidence).

5. Majority of manuscripts does have some weight (not as much as Majority Text advocates say, but considerably more than WH believe: WH say that manuscripts are NOT to be counted, but weighed).

6. Not only do I differ in these particular canons, but I also differ from WH in MANY choices they made in individual text-critical decisions. So, again, we have the argument of the beard problem. How many times would a text critic have to side with WH (and against the TR) before he is labelled a WH follower? I haven't counted, but I would say that I agree with the Majority Text about as often as I would agree with WH in places where they differ.

I could go on, but lumping me in with WH is something I regard to be a complete misrepresentation of my views. I would categorize myself as being in between CT and Majority Text opinions. The conversation is not likely to progress any further if you refuse to acknowledge this fact.

I haven't done the math, but the modern CT texts often disagree with WH. Again, how many times would they have to disagree with WH before you would distinguish between the two?
The KJVO position itself is greatly flawed, and once again, the common consensus among those who are real textual experts would be that there is such a substantial agreement between any of the Greek texts chosen to use, that any of them would be valid for use in studying and for translation purposes.
 
Lane, thanks for explaining your views more clearly. As you might discern, I have not been defending or promoting a KJV view, but a Majority / Byzantine Text position. Let me ask, what Bible version do you use and hold most reliable?
 
The reason I am writing, Lane, is because I hold that you have taken a very inaccurate view of Burgon's position, and are critiquing it on faulty grounds. By imposing an interpretive grid based on your own text-critical paradigm, you negate the validity of what he is bringing forth.

You say you do not hold with the Westcott-Hort view, yet the bone of contention between us is that the variant readings that characterize their critical edition, are likely the very same that characterize yours, with the exception of Mark 16:9-20. As I keep stressing, this is the issue most significant to me. Burgon's greatest value is his defense of particular readings, which are attested to by the vast majority of MSS from all the various parts of the world, i.e., not a cluster from just one locale.
 
Steve, as I believe I said in the original OP, on several particular textual issues, I am actually convinced by Burgon. For instance, it seems quite likely that his analysis of 1 Timothy 3:16 is correct. At the very least, he makes a very impressive case for it. I hold to the longer ending of Mark, along with Burgon. I am also completely open as to the pericope adulterae (haven't come to a decision, as there are varying and conflicting canons with regard to it). I do not hold that the comma Johanneum is original, but then the vast majority of Greek witnesses are against it. I quite agree with you that the best parts of Burgon's book are his particular defenses of individual readings. So, actually, I am not faulting him for those analyses. I am merely pointing out the areas in which he engaged in quite faulty reasoning, which usually appear in his intemperate bashings of WH. Those defending the KJ often seem quite willing to overlook these logical problems because Burgon defends the position near and dear to their hearts.

The thing is, Steve, that I don't hold with the idea that one must hold to a particular text or theory. I am quite willing to see value in many different texts, and many theories. I am quite as eclectic in my theories as I am in textual criticism practice itself. The world of textual criticism has been so long divided into TR versus (with a capital "V"!) the CT that any mediating positions are not acknowledged as even possible.

As to which version I regard as the most accurate, I like several, and would be happy with a number of them: KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, CSB are probably my top five, and of those, I like the CSB the most, currently. I have never liked the NIV much, even less now that their underhanded practice of publishing a gender-neutral revision with the same title as the original (and without any footnotes or preface explaining the differences) is firmly established. The CSB has BY FAR the best translation philosophy of any translation in history.
 
Steve, as I believe I said in the original OP, on several particular textual issues, I am actually convinced by Burgon. For instance, it seems quite likely that his analysis of 1 Timothy 3:16 is correct. At the very least, he makes a very impressive case for it. I hold to the longer ending of Mark, along with Burgon. I am also completely open as to the pericope adulterae (haven't come to a decision, as there are varying and conflicting canons with regard to it). I do not hold that the comma Johanneum is original, but then the vast majority of Greek witnesses are against it. I quite agree with you that the best parts of Burgon's book are his particular defenses of individual readings. So, actually, I am not faulting him for those analyses. I am merely pointing out the areas in which he engaged in quite faulty reasoning, which usually appear in his intemperate bashings of WH. Those defending the KJ often seem quite willing to overlook these logical problems because Burgon defends the position near and dear to their hearts.

The thing is, Steve, that I don't hold with the idea that one must hold to a particular text or theory. I am quite willing to see value in many different texts, and many theories. I am quite as eclectic in my theories as I am in textual criticism practice itself. The world of textual criticism has been so long divided into TR versus (with a capital "V"!) the CT that any mediating positions are not acknowledged as even possible.

As to which version I regard as the most accurate, I like several, and would be happy with a number of them: KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, CSB are probably my top five, and of those, I like the CSB the most, currently. I have never liked the NIV much, even less now that their underhanded practice of publishing a gender-neutral revision with the same title as the original (and without any footnotes or preface explaining the differences) is firmly established. The CSB has BY FAR the best translation philosophy of any translation in history.
Would you see the Csb as being more accurate to the original texts than the more formal versions such as NASB/NKJV then?
 
David, at this point, I would say yes. The problem with being as literal as the NASB is that accuracy is actually sacrificed when it comes to idioms. The NKJV is actually better at this than the NASB. The NASB is practically an interlinear, and winds up being inferior English to the CSB, and certainly inferior to the KJV. It is still reliable as a translation, of course.
 
David, at this point, I would say yes. The problem with being as literal as the NASB is that accuracy is actually sacrificed when it comes to idioms. The NKJV is actually better at this than the NASB. The NASB is practically an interlinear, and winds up being inferior English to the CSB, and certainly inferior to the KJV. It is still reliable as a translation, of course.
Interesting, so would you see the Csb as being much better for use then the Niv 2011 edition, as that version went overboard in gender issues, and the Csb avoided doing that?

I would see more important to the issue of having a reiable bible translation then the question of which Greek text used to translate off from, would be the translation philosophy of the team. Wether they went for a formal , Dynamic Equivalency, Mediating, position etc.
 
The CSB is far superior to the NIV 2011. As I have already said, the translation philosophy of the CSB is the best philosophy of any translation. It is self-designated "optimal equivalence," which means that the translators believe that there is meaning on every level of the text, and that the word and its context are not in competition, but in harmony, and equally important.
 
The CSB is far superior to the NIV 2011. As I have already said, the translation philosophy of the CSB is the best philosophy of any translation. It is self-designated "optimal equivalence," which means that the translators believe that there is meaning on every level of the text, and that the word and its context are not in competition, but in harmony, and equally important.

I would agree that the CSB is superior to the NIV, and also to the quirkier HCSB. I’m just not a fan of contractions and other informalities in Bible translations, and the CSB is full of such things.
 
The CSB is far superior to the NIV 2011. As I have already said, the translation philosophy of the CSB is the best philosophy of any translation. It is self-designated "optimal equivalence," which means that the translators believe that there is meaning on every level of the text, and that the word and its context are not in competition, but in harmony, and equally important.
That would be the same as the NKJV translation, but the NKJV uses a different Greek text source.
 
Lane, what’s the value of a good translation philosophy if the underlying Greek text has errors in it? The CSB uses the standard Critical Text, and the variant readings are basically the same in both. It is not the text of the Reformation, which is apparently not an issue for you – but rather indicative of a logical fallacy in reasoning in those who hold to it!

Why is it necessary for Burgon “to point out the agreement of א and B with the TR. He only points out the differences”? It is commonly understood there is agreement in approximately 90% of the text. The significance is the extent of the disagreement, that there are major omissions (using the 90% dominant Majority Text as a standard) and changes. And not only that, there are major disagreements between the two primary exemplars, א and B, 3,036 in the Gospels alone – according to the collation of H.C. Hoskier.

Lane, you say it is an “Ad hominem fallacy—the doctrinal position of a textual critic on the deity of Jesus Christ has nothing to do with how well he might be able to do his job as a textual critic…” And yet the Unitarian Dr. Vance Smith crowed, after having his say in the translation committee on Jesus definitely not being “God manifest in the flesh” as the TR has it, “It has been frequently said that the changes of translation…are of little importance from a doctrinal point of view…[A]ny such statement [is]…contrary to the facts.” I elaborate on this in my post #36.
 
Last edited:
Lane, you said, “Burgon does not hold back from judging the motivations of the scribes of א and B as being intentionally sinister (16, 245).”

Here are his actual words:

“Between the first two (b and א) there subsists an amount of sinister resemblance, which proves that they must have been derived at no very remote period from the same corrupt original” (page 12. cf p 245)

“What we are just now insisting upon is only the depraved text of codices א a b c d,—especially of א b d. And because this is a matter which lies at the root of the whole controversy, and because we cannot afford that there shall exist in our reader's mind the slightest doubt on this part of the subject, we shall be constrained once and again to trouble him with detailed specimens of the contents of א b, &c., in proof of the justice of what we have been alleging. We venture to assure him, without a particle of hesitation, that א b d are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant:—exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with:—have become, by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of Truth,—which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of God.” (p 16)​

I would actually commend to those looking on to see Burgon’s method of evaluating manuscripts in his The Revision Revised, and decide for themselves whether his or Rev. Lane’s approach to the NT text is to be preferred over Burgon’s. It is the LORD who says that the intentional altering of His word is a wickedness to be severely punished.

Is this the case with א b? Responsibility must be taken at at least one point in the transmission of the text, and likely more. Let’s look at the ancient first.

Origen, and mainly B, are not to be regarded as wholly independent authorities, but constitute a class. It shall be instructive to look at another of Burgon’s books, The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and Established, by the late John William Burgon, and edited by his friend and associate Edward Miller.

We will commence with Chapter IX. The Old Uncials. The Influence Of Origen.

[I ask those looking on to please bear with this following extensive material, but how else to show the soundness of Burgon’s method and results save by closely reviewing them, and showing Rev. Lane’s “logic” to be most illogical and misused!]

Commence Burgon [minus the important footnotes – please see the online version for those]:

§ 1.

Codex B was early enthroned on something like speculation, and has been maintained upon the throne by what has strangely amounted to a positive superstition. The text of this MS. was not accurately known till the edition of Tischendorf appeared in 1867: and yet long before that time it was regarded by many critics as the Queen of the Uncials. The collations of Bartolocci, of Mico, of Rulotta, and of Birch, were not trustworthy, though they far surpassed Mai's two first editions. Yet the prejudice in favour of the mysterious authority that was expected to issue decrees from the Vatican did not wait till the clear light of criticism was shed upon its eccentricities and its defalcations. The same spirit, biassed by sentiment not ruled by reason, has remained since more has been disclosed of the real nature of this Codex.

A similar course has been pursued with respect to Codex א. It was perhaps to be expected that human infirmity should have influenced Tischendorf in his treatment of the treasure-trove by him: though his character for judgment could not but be seriously injured by the fact that in his eighth edition he altered the mature conclusions of his seventh in no less than 3,572 instances, chiefly on account of the readings in his beloved Sinaitic guide.

Yet whatever may be advanced against B may be alleged even more strongly against א. It adds to the number of the blunders of its associate: it is conspicuous for habitual carelessness or licence: it often by itself deviates into glaring errors. The elevation of the Sinaitic into the first place, which was effected by Tischendorf as far as his own practice was concerned, has been applauded by only very few scholars: and it is hardly conceivable that they could maintain their opinion, if they would critically and impartially examine this erratic copy throughout the New Testament for themselves.

The fact is that B and א were the products of the school of philosophy and teaching which found its vent in Semi-Arian or Homoean opinions. The proof of this position is somewhat difficult to give, but when the nature of the question and the producible amount of evidence are taken into consideration, is nevertheless quite satisfactory.

In the first place, according to the verdict of all critics the date of these two MSS. coincides with the period when Semi-Arianism or some other form of Arianism were in the ascendant in the East, and to all outward appearance swayed the Universal Church. In the last years of his rule, Constantine was under the domination of the Arianizing faction; and the reign of Constantius II over all the provinces in the Roman Empire that spoke Greek, during which encouragement was given to the great heretical schools of the time, completed the two central decades of the fourth century. It is a circumstance that cannot fail to give rise to suspicion that the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. had their origin under a predominant influence of such evil fame. At the very least, careful investigation is necessary to see whether those copies were in fact free from that influence which has met with universal condemnation.

Now as we proceed further we are struck with another most remarkable coincidence, which also as has been before noticed is admitted on all hands, viz. that the period of the emergence of the Orthodox School from oppression and the settlement in their favour of the great Nicene controversy was also the time when the text of B and א sank into condemnation. The Orthodox side under St. Chrysostom and others became permanently supreme: so did also the Traditional Text. Are we then to assume with our opponents that in the Church condemnation and acceptance were inseparable companions? That at first heresy and the pure Text, and afterwards orthodoxy and textual corruption, went hand in hand? That such ill-matched couples graced the history of the Church? That upon so fundamental a matter as the accuracy of the written standard of reference, there was precision of text when heretics or those who dallied with heresy were in power, but that the sacred Text was contaminated when the Orthodox had things their own way? Is it indeed come to this, that for the pure and undefiled Word of God we must search, not amongst those great men who under the guidance of the Holy Spirit ascertained and settled for ever the main Articles of the Faith, and the Canon of Holy Scripture, but amidst the relics of those who were unable to agree with one another, and whose fine-drawn subtleties in creed and policy have been the despair of the historians, and a puzzle to students of Theological Science? It is not too much to assert, that Theology and History know no such unscientific conclusions.

It is therefore a circumstance full of significance that Codexes B and א were produced in such untoward times, and fell into neglect on the revival of orthodoxy, when the Traditional Text was permanently received. But the case in hand rests also upon evidence more direct than this.

The influence which the writings of Origen exercised on the ancient Church is indeed extraordinary. The fame of his learning added to the splendour of his genius, his vast Biblical achievements and his real insight into the depth of Scripture, conciliated for him the admiration and regard of early Christendom. Let him be freely allowed the highest praise for the profundity of many of his utterances, the ingenuity of almost all. It must at the same time be admitted that he is bold in his speculations to the verge, and beyond the verge, of rashness; unwarrantedly confident in his assertions; deficient in sobriety; in his critical remarks even foolish. A prodigious reader as well as a prodigious writer, his words would have been of incalculable value, but that he seems to have been so saturated with the strange speculations of the early heretics, that he sometimes adopts their wild method; and in fact has not been reckoned among the orthodox Fathers of the Church.

But (and this is the direction in which the foregoing remarks have tended) Origen's ruling passion is found to have been textual criticism. This was at once his forte and his foible. In the library of his friend Pamphilus at Caesarea were found many Codexes that had belonged to him, and the autograph of his Hexapla, which was seen and used by St. Jerome. In fact, the collection of books made by Pamphilus, in the gathering of which at the very least he was deeply indebted to Origen, became a centre from whence, after the destruction of copies in the persecution of Diocletian, authority as to the sacred Text radiated in various directions. Copying from papyrus on vellum was assiduously prosecuted there. Constantine applied to Eusebius for fifty handsome copies, amongst which it is not improbable that the manuscripts (σωματία) B and א were to be actually found. But even if that is not so, the Emperor would not have selected Eusebius for the order, if that bishop had not been in the habit of providing copies: and Eusebius in fact carried on the work which he had commenced under his friend Pamphilus, and in which the latter must have followed the path pursued by Origen. Again, Jerome is known to have resorted to this quarter, and various entries in MSS. prove that others did the same. It is clear that the celebrated library of Pamphilus exercised great influence in the province of Textual Criticism; and the spirit of Origen was powerful throughout the operations connected with it, at least till the Origenists got gradually into disfavour and at length were finally condemned at the Fifth General Council in ad 553.

But in connecting B and א with the Library at Caesarea we are not left only to conjecture or inference. In a well-known colophon affixed to the end of the book of Esther in א by the third corrector, it is stated that from the beginning of the book of Kings to the end of Esther the MS. was compared with a copy “corrected by the hand of the holy martyr Pamphilus,” which itself was written and corrected after the Hexapla of Origen. And a similar colophon may be found attached to the book of Ezra. It is added that the Codex Sinaiticus (τόδε τὸ τεῦχος) and the Codex Pamphili (τὸ αὐτὸ παλαιώτατον βιβλίον) manifested great agreement with one another. The probability that א was thus at least in part copied from a manuscript executed by Pamphilus is established by the facts that a certain “Codex Marchalianus” is often mentioned which was due to Pamphilus and Eusebius; and that Origen's recension of the Old Testament, although he published no edition of the Text of the New, possessed a great reputation. On the books of Chronicles, St. Jerome mentions manuscripts executed by Origen with great care, which were published by Pamphilus and Eusebius. And in Codex H of St. Paul it is stated that that MS. was compared with a MS. in the library of Caesarea “which was written by the hand of the holy Pamphilus.” These notices added to the frequent reference by St. Jerome and others to the critical (ἀκριβῆ) MSS., by which we are to understand those which were distinguished by the approval of Origen or were in consonance with the spirit of Origen, shew evidently the position in criticism which the Library at Caesarea and its illustrious founder had won in those days. And it is quite in keeping with that position that א should have been sent forth from that “school of criticism.”

But if א was, then B must have been;—at least, if the supposition certified by Tischendorf and Scrivener be true, that the six conjugate leaves of א were written by the scribe of B. So there is a chain of reference, fortified by the implied probability which has been furnished for us from the actual facts of the case.

Yet Dr. Hort is “inclined to surmise that B and א were both written in the West, probably at Rome; that the ancestors of B were wholly Western (in the geographical, not the textual sense) up to a very early time indeed; and that the ancestors of א were in great part Alexandrian, again in the geographical, not the textual sense.” For this opinion, in which Dr. Hort stands alone amongst authorities, there is nothing but “surmise” founded upon very dark hints. In contrast with the evidence just brought forward there is an absence of direct testimony: besides that the connexion between the Western and Syrian Texts or Readings, which has been recently confirmed in a very material degree, must weaken the force of some of his arguments.

§ 2.

The points to which I am anxious rather to direct attention are (1) the extent to which the works of Origen were studied by the ancients: and (2) the curious discovery that Codexes אB, and to some extent D, either belong to the same class as those with which Origen was chiefly familiar; or else have been anciently manipulated into conformity with Origen's teaching. The former seems to me the more natural supposition; but either inference equally satisfies my contention: viz. that Origen, and mainly BאD, are not to be regarded as wholly independent authorities, but constitute a class.

The proof of this position is to be found in various passages where the influence of Origen may be traced, such as in the omission of Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ—“The Son of God”—in Mark i. 1; and of ἐν Ἐφέσῳ—“at Ephesus”—in Eph. i. 1; in the substitution of Bethabara (St. John i. 28) for Bethany; in the omission of the second part of the last petition the Lord's Prayer in St. Luke, of ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν in John i. 27.

He is also the cause why the important qualification εἰκῆ (“without a cause”) is omitted by Bא from St. Matt. v. 22; and hence, in opposition to the whole host of Copies, Versions, Fathers, has been banished from the sacred Text by Lachmann, Tischendorf, W. Hort and the Revisers (See The Revision Revised, pp. 358-61). To the same influence, I am persuaded, is to be attributed the omission from a little handful of copies (viz. A, B-א, D*, F-G, and 17*) of the clause τῇ ἀληθείᾳ μὴ πείθεσθαι (“that you should not obey the truth”) Gal. iii. 1. Jerome duly acknowledges those words while commenting on St. Matthew's Gospel; but when he comes to the place in Galatians, he is observed, first to admit that the clause “is found in some copies,” and straightway to add that “inasmuch as it is not found in the copies of Adamantius, he omits it.” The clue to his omission is supplied by his own statement that in writing on the
Galatians he had made Origen his guide. And yet the words stand in the Vulgate.

[Here I pass over a number of his MSS both for and against the Vulgate reading, for brevity’s sake. -Steve]

In a certain place Origen indulges in a mystical exposition of our Lord's two miracles of feeding; drawing marvellous inferences, as his manner is, from the details of either miracle. We find that Hilary, that Jerome, that Chrysostom, had Origen's remarks before them when they in turn commented on the miraculous feeding of the 4000. At the feeding of the 5000, Origen points out that our Lord “commands the multitude to sit down” (St. Matt. xiv. 19): but at the feeding of the 4000, He does not “command” but only “directs” them to sit down. (St. Matt. xv. 35) ... From which it is plain that Origen did not read as we do in St. Matt. xv. 35, καὶ ἐκέλευσε τοῖς ὄχλοις—but παρήνγειλε τῷ ὄχλῳ ἀναπεσεῖν; which is the reading of the parallel place in St. Mark (viii. 6). We should of course have assumed a slip of memory on Origen's part; but that אBD are found to exhibit the text of St. Matt. xv. 35 in conformity with Origen. He is reasoning therefore from a MS. which he has before him; and remarking, as his unfortunate manner is, on what proves to be really nothing else but a palpable depravation of the text.

Speaking of St. John xiii. 26, Origen remarks,—“It is not written ‘He it is to whom I shall give the sop’; but with the addition of ‘I shall dip’: for it says, ‘I shall dip the sop and give it.’ ” This is the reading of BCL and is adopted accordingly by some Editors. But surely it is a depravation of the text which may be ascribed with confidence to the officiousness of Origen himself. Who, at all events, on such precarious evidence would surrender the established reading of the place, witnessed to as it is by every other known MS. and by several of the Fathers? The grounds on which Tischendorf reads βάψω το ψωμίον καὶ δώσω αὐτῷ, are characteristic, and in their way a curiosity.

Take another instance of the same phenomenon. It is plain, from the consent of (so to speak) all the copies, that our Saviour rejected the Temptation which stands second in St. Luke's Gospel with the words,—“Get thee behind Me, Satan.” But Origen officiously points out that this (quoting the words) is precisely what our Lord did not say. He adds a reason,—“He said to Peter, ‘Get thee behind Me, Satan’; but to the Devil, ‘Get thee hence,’ without the addition ‘behind Me’; for to be behind Jesus is a good thing.”

Our Saviour on a certain occasion (St. John viii. 38) thus addressed his wicked countrymen:—“I speak that which I have seen with My Father; and ye likewise do that which you have seen with your father.” He contrasts His own gracious doctrines with their murderous deeds; and refers them to their respective “Fathers,”—to “My Father,” that is, God; and to “your father,” that is, the Devil. That this is the true sense of the place appears plainly enough from the context. “Seen with” and “heard from” are the expressions employed on such occasions, because sight and hearing are the faculties which best acquaint a man with the nature of that whereof he discourses.

Origen, misapprehending the matter, maintains that God is the “Father” spoken of on either side. He I suspect it was who, in order to support this view, erased “My” and “your”; and in the second member of the sentence, for “seen with,” substituted “heard from”;—as if a contrast had been intended between the manner of the Divine and of the human knowledge,—which would be clearly out of place. In this way, what is in reality a revelation, becomes converted into a somewhat irrelevant precept: “I speak the things which I have seen with the Father.” “Do ye the things which ye have heard from the Father,”—which is how Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford exhibit the place. Cyril Alex. employed a text thus impaired. Origen also puts ver. 39 into the form of a precept (ἐστέ ... ποιεῖτε); but he has all the Fathers (including himself),—all the Versions,—all the copies against him, being supported only by B.

But the evidence against “the restored reading” to which Alford invites attention, (viz. omitting μου and substituting ἠκούσατε παρὰ τοῦ Πατρός for ἑωράκατε παρὰ τῷ Πατρὶ ὑμῶν.) is overwhelming. Only five copies (BCLTX) omit μου: only four (BLT, 13) omit ὑμῶν: a very little handful are for substituting ἠκούσατε with the genitive for ἑωράκατε. Chrys., Apolinaris, Cyril Jerus., Ammonius, as well as every ancient version of good repute, protest against such an exhibition of the text. In ver. 39, only five read ἐστέ (אBDLT): while ποιεῖτε is found only in Cod. B. Accordingly, some critics prefer the imperfect ἐποιεῖτε, which however is only found in אDLT. “The reading is remarkable” says Alford. Yes, and clearly fabricated. The ordinary text is right.

§ 3.

Besides these passages, in which there is actual evidence of a connexion subsisting between the readings which they contain and Origen, the sceptical character of the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts affords a strong proof of the alliance between them and the Origenistic School. It must be borne in mind that Origen was not answerable for all the tenets of the School which bore his name, even perhaps less than Calvin was responsible for all that Calvinists after him have held and taught. Origenistic doctrines came from the blending of philosophy with Christianity in the schools of Alexandria where Origen was the most eminent of the teachers engaged.

[End Burgon]
________

I apologize for the lengthy material! But I want to substantiate that “The influence which the writings of Origen exercised on the ancient Church is indeed extraordinary”, and the connection between him and the codices B and א – that is, their common origin.

The summary dismissal of Burgon’s method by our Rev. Lane on the basis of his cursory “logical” surmisings is rather extraordinary, though the Rev. seems to be fully persuaded of his own peculiar method.

Origen was culpable, per the instances noted above, of preferring his judgment over the Bible text given him on the basis of it not making proper sense to him. I would not want to be in his shoes when He stands before the Author of the Bible on the Day of Accounting.

Suffice these thoughts for now.
 
Last edited:
Lane, what’s the value of a good translation philosophy if the underlying Greek text has errors in it? The CSB uses the standard Critical Text, and the variant readings are basically the same in both. It is not the text of the Reformation, which is apparently not an issue for you – but rather indicative of a logical fallacy in reasoning in those who hold to it!

Why is it necessary for Burgon “to point out the agreement of א and B with the TR. He only points out the differences”? It is commonly understood there is agreement in approximately 90% of the text. The significance is the extent of the disagreement, that there are major omissions (using the 90% dominant Majority Text as a standard) and changes. And not only that, there are major disagreements between the two primary exemplars, א and B, 3,036 in the Gospels alone – according to the collation of H.C. Hoskier.

Lane, you say it is an “Ad hominem fallacy—the doctrinal position of a textual critic on the deity of Jesus Christ has nothing to do with how well he might be able to do his job as a textual critic…” And yet the Unitarian Dr. Vance Smith crowed, after having his say in the translation committee on Jesus definitely not being “God manifest in the flesh” as the TR has it, “It has been frequently said that the changes of translation…are of little importance from a doctrinal point of view…[A]ny such statement [is]…contrary to the facts.” I elaborate on this in my post #36. With respect to your logical prowess, I would not want to have you as my attorney if I were being tried for the crime of being a Christian!

Steve, every manuscript in existence has some errors in it. The manuscripts that make up the TR have errors in them. The manuscripts that make up the CT have errors in them. By careful comparison, we can eliminate the errors and come to the original readings in almost all cases. You say, "It is not the text of the Reformation, which is apparently not an issue for you – but rather indicative of a logical fallacy in reasoning in those who hold to it!" This is a complete caricature of what I have said. I don't recognize myself in this at all. It is not a logical fallacy to hold that the TR is the text of the Reformation and that it is the Word of God. I believe I have said over and over again that the TR is the Word of God. So is the CT. You continually exaggerate the differences among the manuscripts, like you do here between Aleph and B: "And not only that, there are major disagreements between the two primary exemplars, א and B, 3,036 in the Gospels alone – according to the collation of H.C. Hoskier." Have you examined these differences in detail? How many of them are spelling differences? How many of them are word order differences that make zero difference in the meaning? You seem to want to make the differences between Aleph and B great when it means it might discredit them, and yet when it comes to Burgon's argument that Aleph and B come from a single corrupt source, it is the similarities which are important. Which is it? Sounds like trying to eat one's cake and have it, too. The numbers game reminds me of the truth about statistics: numbers have to be interpreted, Steve. You can't just throw out numbers and expect people to believe that they are significant in some way without argumentation. Have you collated the differences among the manuscripts that make up the TR? Have you catalogued their differences so that you have a point of comparison between the differences between Aleph and B, on the one hand, and the differences among the TR manuscripts on the other? If you have not done this, then the number 3,036 means absolutely nothing, because it is completely lacking in context.

As to the logical argument concerning ad hominem, Vance Smith's interpretation of why he did what he did does not speak for everyone else who might have sided with him on this particular text-critical issue. Why should I believe Smith's interpretation of why WH went with "He" instead of "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16? Smith seems to have had an agenda. That does not mean everyone else did. And it doesn't mean that Smith always had an agenda, either.

As for this, "With respect to your logical prowess, I would not want to have you as my attorney if I were being tried for the crime of being a Christian!" this is unworthy of you, Steve. Disagree with my arguments, fine. But to call into question my entire logical processes (my father taught logic at Covenant College, and taught me, and I have taught logic as well) having to do with a completely unrelated topic hits with WAY too big a cannon, and more than borders on disrespecting a minister of the gospel.
 
Lane, what’s the value of a good translation philosophy if the underlying Greek text has errors in it? The CSB uses the standard Critical Text, and the variant readings are basically the same in both. It is not the text of the Reformation, which is apparently not an issue for you – but rather indicative of a logical fallacy in reasoning in those who hold to it!

Why is it necessary for Burgon “to point out the agreement of א and B with the TR. He only points out the differences”? It is commonly understood there is agreement in approximately 90% of the text. The significance is the extent of the disagreement, that there are major omissions (using the 90% dominant Majority Text as a standard) and changes. And not only that, there are major disagreements between the two primary exemplars, א and B, 3,036 in the Gospels alone – according to the collation of H.C. Hoskier.

Lane, you say it is an “Ad hominem fallacy—the doctrinal position of a textual critic on the deity of Jesus Christ has nothing to do with how well he might be able to do his job as a textual critic…” And yet the Unitarian Dr. Vance Smith crowed, after having his say in the translation committee on Jesus definitely not being “God manifest in the flesh” as the TR has it, “It has been frequently said that the changes of translation…are of little importance from a doctrinal point of view…[A]ny such statement [is]…contrary to the facts.” I elaborate on this in my post #36. With respect to your logical prowess, I would not want to have you as my attorney if I were being tried for the crime of being a Christian!
There was no real standard reformation bible text though, as many wanted to have the Geneva instead of the KJV, and the question of the Greek texts used in translation also was in flux, as the TR itself was never settles as to which one, as Erasmus used believe 5 different ones, and he also got some renderings from Latin Vulgate itself.
The doctrine of the preservation of the scriptures does not require to have either a perfect Greek/Hebrew source text, nor a perfect English version, as only the originals were that.
 
Steve, every manuscript in existence has some errors in it. The manuscripts that make up the TR have errors in them. The manuscripts that make up the CT have errors in them. By careful comparison, we can eliminate the errors and come to the original readings in almost all cases. You say, "It is not the text of the Reformation, which is apparently not an issue for you – but rather indicative of a logical fallacy in reasoning in those who hold to it!" This is a complete caricature of what I have said. I don't recognize myself in this at all. It is not a logical fallacy to hold that the TR is the text of the Reformation and that it is the Word of God. I believe I have said over and over again that the TR is the Word of God. So is the CT. You continually exaggerate the differences among the manuscripts, like you do here between Aleph and B: "And not only that, there are major disagreements between the two primary exemplars, א and B, 3,036 in the Gospels alone – according to the collation of H.C. Hoskier." Have you examined these differences in detail? How many of them are spelling differences? How many of them are word order differences that make zero difference in the meaning? You seem to want to make the differences between Aleph and B great when it means it might discredit them, and yet when it comes to Burgon's argument that Aleph and B come from a single corrupt source, it is the similarities which are important. Which is it? Sounds like trying to eat one's cake and have it, too. The numbers game reminds me of the truth about statistics: numbers have to be interpreted, Steve. You can't just throw out numbers and expect people to believe that they are significant in some way without argumentation. Have you collated the differences among the manuscripts that make up the TR? Have you catalogued their differences so that you have a point of comparison between the differences between Aleph and B, on the one hand, and the differences among the TR manuscripts on the other? If you have not done this, then the number 3,036 means absolutely nothing, because it is completely lacking in context.

As to the logical argument concerning ad hominem, Vance Smith's interpretation of why he did what he did does not speak for everyone else who might have sided with him on this particular text-critical issue. Why should I believe Smith's interpretation of why WH went with "He" instead of "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16? Smith seems to have had an agenda. That does not mean everyone else did. And it doesn't mean that Smith always had an agenda, either.

As for this, "With respect to your logical prowess, I would not want to have you as my attorney if I were being tried for the crime of being a Christian!" this is unworthy of you, Steve. Disagree with my arguments, fine. But to call into question my entire logical processes (my father taught logic at Covenant College, and taught me, and I have taught logic as well) having to do with a completely unrelated topic hits with WAY too big a cannon, and more than borders on disrespecting a minister of the gospel.
It seems that there is an issue here on what constitutes what a reliable word of God is to us today in either the Greek texts, or the English translations, as neither are perfect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top