P.S. I think I've found and downloaded enough info to look into Burgon's supposed remarks, which I will now consider.

Steve

[Edited on 7-11-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]

__________________
Steve Rafalsky
Elder, International Evangelical Church (Reformed)
Limassol, Cyprus

"I am set for the defense of the gospel" (Philippians 1:17)

"Strengthened with all might, according to His glorious
power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness..." (Colossians 1:11)

As I am not near my library (I will visit my home city tomorrow, and pick up a copy of Burgon´s The Revision Revised), I have had to rely on the internet for research into our present "œJohn Burgon controversy."� I looked at Doug Kutilek´s online essay, "œWHAT DID JOHN WILLIAM BURGON REALLY BELIEVE ABOUT THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS AND THE KING JAMES VERSION?"�, and he makes some interesting points, though there was little documentation for some assertions. When I have my copy of Burgon´s book I will look at some of Kutilek´s quotes in their context. I like to examine the arguments of my opponents, so I may study them and see if there is some truth to what they say, or if they do not have the proper perspective.

[Incidentally, on another topic, I think it profitable to look at the Fundamentalist Baptists´ (FB) reasons for opposing Calvinist "“ i.e., Biblical "“ doctrine so as to understand their views, and how they misperceive ours. I am sure our Lord thoroughly comprehended the doctrines of the Pharisees and Sadducees so as to answer them as economically and devastatingly as He did. Of course we will never speak like Him, but we can strive to approach that conciseness.]

I found an excellent (and brief!) essay on "œThe Textual Position of Dean John William Burgon,"� by Dr. Thomas Cassidy, which I give the URL for as it is of value in explaining away a lot of confusion regarding what Burgon meant in the statements people love to attribute to his supposed disaffection with the TR: http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0556.htm This may be the best thing I have come across.

Another paper on Burgon´s statements regarding the TR from Dr. D.A. Waite, which gives a fuller picture: "œBurgon's Warnings on Revision of the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible"�: http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/Dea...0804.htm#start

This is the Dean Burgon Society´s statement regarding their position, and it is reasonable: "œThe Authorized King James Bible has been, and continues to be, the God honored, most accurate, and best English translation of the inspired, inerrant, infallible, and preserved original language words of God."�

At Sola Scriptura Ministries <http://thescripturealone.com/Resource.html>, I found this chapter of Dr. Hills´ on our question: The King James Version Defended, By Dr. Edward F. Hills; CHAPTER EIGHT, "œTHE TEXTUS RECEPTUS AND THE KING JAMES VERSION"�: http://thescripturealone.com/Hills-8.html This is an excellent view of the matters we are discussing, i.e., Burgon and the Textus Receptus, and seeing them in perspective. You might use your "œfind"� feature to locate the first use of Burgon´s name, and then go to Erasmus, to see what Hills says about them both. (SSM also has info on The Ancient Text of the New Testament, By Dr. Jakob van Bruggen, a masterful, scholarly review of the failure of textual criticism in the past century: http://thescripturealone.com/VanBrug.html)

An interesting article, "œHow Dr. Hills Became a KJV Believer,"� By Dr. E. F. Hills: http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/efhillsa.htm He recalls his days at Yale, and then at Westminster under Stonehouse, and the impact of Warfield´s thought on him. Scholarly reflections.

All of which is to say, if one is prayerful, patient, and diligent one may find treasures of understanding and wisdom to meet the need. Again I assert, those who place their trust in our mighty God´s design and accomplished work in providing us with His word kept intact will not be disappointed.

And let me say again, much respect and appreciation is due our FB brethren for their excellent painstaking historical and textual research as regards the preserved text. Far from the "œbackwoods hillbilly Bible-thumping ignoramuses"� who-can´t-think-for-themselves stereotype, these men have carried the ball on the field of top-notch believing scholarship, where many of us Reformed "œbrains"� had dropped it!

There is an article, I think by Dr. Waite (it's at home), on Chas. Hodge and B.B. Warfield, documenting their failure in the field of textual criticism, which has had a tremendous impact on the Reformed communions, for the thinking of these giants of the faith is too often taken without critical scrutiny. I've searched for it online but haven't found it.

This contention over "The Canon of Scripture and its Integrity" has raged even since the Reformation, at first between the Reformers and Rome, and then between the post-Reformation orthodox and Rome, as I am learning from Richard A. Muller's Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2, Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology (MI, Baker 1993). It is interesting, the issues that came up in those days, regarding both the Hebrew and the Greek texts, over against the Latin Vulgate of Rome, which latter the papists sought to establish as the superior and definitive Biblical text.

Today the situation between Rome and the Reformed and the texts has changed, especially with their throwing Vaticanus into the arena, as B differs more from the Vulgate than the Vulgate differs from the TR!

Steve

[Edited on 7-11-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]

[Edited on 7-12-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]

[Edited on 7-12-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]

[Edited on 7-12-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]

[Edited on 7-12-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]

[Edited on 7-12-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]

[Edited on 7-12-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]

__________________
Steve Rafalsky
Elder, International Evangelical Church (Reformed)
Limassol, Cyprus

"I am set for the defense of the gospel" (Philippians 1:17)

"Strengthened with all might, according to His glorious
power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness..." (Colossians 1:11)

Criticism, as it pertains to the TR, seems to be self-defeating. I am content to accept the traditional text, i.e., canonical text, as over against critical excisions of it. I have never really been fussed to know if the odd pronoun changes here and there, and would probably expound both readings if called upon to do so. I even think some of the so-called conflations which Alexandrians accuse the TR of are actually helpful. Even if I thought Luke 24:53 was a combination of readings, my sermon would not be any different; I would first expound one reading, "praising" and then the next, "blessing." The fundamental beauty of the TR is the fact that you are provided with a full text.

I say this with no intent to repudiate modern maintainers of the TR, but I don't think you will find a defender of the traditional text in the 19th century which denied the fact of slight variations. Even Edward Hills, in the 20th century, accepted variations, although he put it down to Erasmus following the Vulgate over the traditional text. I can't remember if that claim has been substantiated or repudiated.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

I think your last sentence is correct. I think Burgon (and perhaps Scrivener as well) and other critics of W & H attacked the W-H theory and the Revised Version but did not claim infallibility for the KJV and TR as do some in our day.

Here are a couple of articles I turned up with a quick Google search:

Why Dean Burgon would NOT join the "Dean Burgon Society"

Dean Burgon: The Greatest Enemy of King James Onlyism

[Edited on 7-12-2006 by Pilgrim]

__________________
Chris
OPC member
Now attending Grace Community Baptist Church
Mandeville, LA

"Faith alone saves, but it is a faith that works." - S. Lewis Johnson

I dislike the spirit in which these papers are written. One could as easily write a paper on why Westcott and Hort would not have joined the United Bible Society. Allowance is generally made for development and disagreement within a school of thought.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Dear Steve,

A couple of things here.

It is late tonight. I am sincerely sorry that it has taken me a day or two to get back to you. I work in a hospital laboratory and JCAHO showed up with a suprise inspection. So please do not think I'm igonring you.

For starters, I don't recall mentioning James White's book. Yes, I do have it. But please do not attempt to marginalize me as if I have read nothing on the subject. White's book is one that must be dealt with on the popular level while some others on both sides of the argument must be dealt with on a more scholarly level. (White concedes as much; he notes that Riplinger's book sold 130,000 copies - and all of the sales of some of those scholars' entire works would not total what Riplinger's one book sold). I have read on the issue and have no settled position at this time.

So let's deal with one of your important questions because I have it hand. You write, "What you say about Burgon and his 150 changes in Matthew of the TR, would you please provide some documentation for that?"

Yes sir.

"The leaders in the advocacy of this system have been Dr. Scrivener in a modified degree, and especially Dean Burgon. First, be it understood, that we do not advocate perfection in the Textus Receptus. We allow here and there it requires revision. In the text left behind by Dean Burgon, about 150 corrections have been suggested by him in St. Matthew's Gospel alone. What we maintain is the TRADITIONAL TEXT. And we trace it back to the earliest ages of which there is any record." (Edward Miller, Introduction, The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels by Dean Burgon, ibid., pg. 5.

And from a KJV defender, the late Dr. Theodore P. Letis, at this link:

http://www.truth.sg/resources/Theodo...sOnKJVonly.pdf

Notice this on page four of 11 of the PDF file:

"...but to date, perhaps his most important work of all has yet to see the light of day. His A Textual Commentary Upon the Holy Gospels, Largely from the Use of Materials, and Mainly Onthe Text, Left by the late Dean John William Burgon, Part I, St. Mathew, Division I, I-XIV."

Letis further notes that most of these changes were incorporated into the Majority Text of Hodges-Farstad.

You then make the following observation, quoting me and your quote follows:

Before signing off, I´d like answer a couple more of your points. You said of Dr. Hills,

(Maestroh)
Note Hills' words under 2f: In the Textus Receptus God corrected the few mistakes of any consequence which yet remained in the Traditional New Testament text of the majority of the Greek manuscripts.

One is inclined to wonder why it was okay for the Bible to have what by Hills' own words are MISTAKES in it - and in the same breath claim that we have always had a 'preserved Bible.'

(Steve)
I have addressed such phenomena in TBAS, but to briefly say here: remember when wicked queen Athaliah destroyed all the seed royal in Jerusalem, save only the infant Joash who was secretly rescued by his aunt Jehosheba and hidden away in the house of the LORD six years while the evil queen ruled supreme in Judah during that rather long period of time? Or during the reign of Emperor Diocletian, when his notorious informers, the traditores, apostates who came from the ranks of the church and went about sniffing out most copies of the Scriptures and their owners, so that they became exceeding scarce?

Such has been the case with a few portions of Scripture, the devil having hated some in particular and moved men to seek to destroy their testimony, but the Lord overruling him kept them safe in other quarters and later restored them to their rightful places of honor and witness.

REPLY:

Please understand, brother, that I have no problem with what you're saying. But when you argue from Hills' theological a priori - well, in essence, he is saying, "I believe in the doctrine of preservation of ALL AGES (WCF) - but not until 1611 (or 1516 if you prefer, TR)." In other words, all ages hardly means all ages.

I have no problem with 'restoration.' But one cannot argue restoration on one hand - and then get mad at 'restoration' by Westcott and Hort in terms of the issue of restoration. (One can, I concede, under such circumstances, argue against the THEORY of W/H - and solidly on many grounds, might I add).

But it rings hollow to say the Bible has always been preserved, but it wasn't preserved until 1611. Let me say that those who endorse the Traditional Text (Burgon, Scrivener, Hoskier, Farstad, Robinson, Oats) have a MUCH MORE solid ground on which to stand in regards to preservation. It disgusts me when people call Burgon forth as a witness in favor of 'King James Onlyism' when a simple read of his works proves he was not.

The quotes you reference - I have personally validated ALL of them. They DO accurately represent Burgon's views. I read Waite's book as well - a few of them actually - but Waite even admitted in his 1994 debate with James White (available online) that he was 'speculating' when he claimed 'heretics doctored the manuscripts.' Not once could he name any group (Arians, Ebionites, etc) who actually changed a specific passage.

Probably the better of the 19th century scholars in favor of the TT/MT was FHA Scrivener. But again, he was not KJVO, either. Scrivener pointed out in his "Plain Introduction" that one who thought I John 5:7 was authentic Scripture should have 'no weight' given to such an opinion. Scrivener was still more Burgonian than he was W/H - but he had to deal with the data he had.

I used to attend a FB fellowship. I would have less problem with what you cite if they actually TOLD THE TRUTH - about their opponents and about the KJV. We have NOTHING to fear from pursuit of the truth. But most of those folks are only calling forth Burgon as a supporter because they need 'a big name' to support them despite constantly 'deploring' scholarship.

Make no mistake: scholarship is not the be all and end all of anything. Not all scholarship is equally scholarly. And good men, good Christians, AND good scholars can disagree on some things without division.

But Letis' summation is right regarding the 20th century FBs in favor of the KJV. It is unfortunate, but it IS accurate.

I have rambled. I find your scriptural intellectual give and take stimulating. I hope that I have not said something that offended you or can be perceived as an attack on you personally or your beliefs. If I have done so, I humbly apologize now.

Note: I will interact with you in the godly manner. Please note that if I'm gone for a few days, it doesn't mean I did a 'hit and run." Also, I'm comfortable with who I am in Christ - I'm not one of those who has to have the 'last word' like we're having a 'put down contest' or something.

God bless you and thank you for your writing.

Maestroh Bill Brown

Matthew,

Out of curiosity, I will check out Luke 24:53 to see what I can find on it.

I maintain the TR/KJV defense as both a pastoral concern and an apologetic one; the former to assure believers we do have a reliable Scripture worthy of their trust, the latter to defend the Gospel of God at its foundation, which is His word.

Some feel confident to do this with the CT, but I don't, as I showed in TBAS.

---------

Chris,

I think this short paper <http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0556.htm> by Cassidy sheds much light on Burgon's (and Scrivener's) views on this exact matter of what I would call "a TR in flux" in their day, and why Burgon pressed Scrivener to construct the TR which the TBS now publishes. The loose ends seem to now fit together regarding Burgon's remarks about the TR.

I will look over those links you posted, and remark on them.

I am of the mind that the defense of 1 John 5:7 depends greatly on the matter of the old Latin manuscripts (not Jerome's Vulgate). There is a good bit of data available; people evidently put different spins on it. I am studying this now.

"some misgivings" about GAR's work is an understatement.

Steve

__________________
Steve Rafalsky
Elder, International Evangelical Church (Reformed)
Limassol, Cyprus

"I am set for the defense of the gospel" (Philippians 1:17)

"Strengthened with all might, according to His glorious
power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness..." (Colossians 1:11)

Just a couple of more points.

You made reference to Westcott and Hort's agenda. Fair enough.

Did not Burgon have an agenda in keeping the last 12 verses of Mark - since he believed in baptismal regeneration?

Whether Westcot or Hort could speak at my church is irrelevant. Burgon could not do so either - nor would he wish to do so given his emphasis on ecclesiastical authority. But that argument is completely irrelevant ON BOTH SIDES.

And which Edward Hills do we believe? The one who turned in his doctoral dissertation in 1946 IN FAVOR of Westcott-Hort; or the one who wrote "The KJV Defended" in 1954? And how did he change his mind THAT fast?

He seems to have made up his mind earlier but was willing to dissemble or misrepresent his views in order to get his doctorate (see Letis, "E.F. Hills Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text" - Letis claims - and no, I don't have it in front of me - but he pointed out that Hills rejected the notion of textual criticism long before he left school and that for Hills it did not exist).

The personal character and theologies of Westcott and Hort are irrelevant - mostly because the manuscripts precede them by at least 1,500 years. It's not like they actually WROTE them.

Steve,

Please note I am not saying it is a conflation. It is one of W&H's classic examples of conflation, Alexandrine and Western. I don't accept it is. I am just saying that on empirical evidence to date, if it could be shown to be a conflation, I still would not have any problem with preaching on both words, since both have a traditional witness.

Maestroh,

Are you willing to acknowledge that there is a difference between the kind of text criticism going on in the Confessional period, which has given us the classical statement on preservation, and the criticism of the 19th century which excised whole texts? I regard it as a diffeence between texts and readings. It is not simply that the W&H tradition are carrying on textual criticism to a greater degree, but they are engaging in a different kind of criticism.

Blessings!

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Generally speaking, do the CT defenders believe we have not had a reliable Bible with the KJV? And do the KJV/TR defenders believe the CT is not good because of W/H?

Just trying to clarify my thinking. And to boil it down to both camps suppositions.

__________________
Chris Mangum
Presbyterian Reformed Church of Charlotte
student, GPTS
.357 Mangum

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. James 1:27

Bill,

I certainly do not mean to marginalize you; the reason I mentioned James White´s book is because in your first post in the thread you said, "œWhite did a decent job in "˜KJVO Controversy´ of listing five different levels of "˜KJVO,´ but I assume we are only preoccupied with a couple of those"¦"� I have indicated a few times here and elsewhere I desire to know specifically what he was referring to when he stated (on one of our threads or on his own site responding to something here),

<blockquote> "œthe consistent application of their [i.e., 1 Jn 5:7 supporters] arguments would demand the utter overthrow of the TR as a Greek text of the New Testament. As I pointed out in my comments in The King James Only Controversy, there are all sorts of readings with similar manuscript support to the Comma that would, by logical necessity, have to be inserted into the TR."�</blockquote>

It is his "œcomments in The King James Only Controversy"� on this I wished to learn of so I might interact with him.

To the contrary, Bill, I see you have read a good deal on the subject. And White also must be dealt with on a scholarly level, to do him justice.

Re your quote of Edward Miller, his remarks in the Introduction to The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels are familiar to me. Twice above I referred folks (via a link) to an article by Dr. Thomas Cassidy dealing precisely with this issue. I realize reading all the links and referrals listed in these posts takes a bit of time, but it is important if we are taking, as you suggest, the scholarly as opposed to the popular approach in this discussion. At the commencement of Cassidy´s address he states,

<blockquote>There is no doubt that Dean Burgon made statements concerning the Textus Receptus, and its need for editing and revision. Edward Miller, writing in the Introduction (Page 5) of Dean Burgon's posthumously published The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels (Published by the Dean Burgon Society, 900 Park Avenue, Collingswood, New Jersey 08108) states, "œFirst, be it understood, that we do not advocate perfection in the Textus Receptus. We allow that here and there it requires revision."�

This statement, reiterated elsewhere in Dean Burgon's writings, begs the question, "œDid Dean John William Burgon advocate revising the Textus Receptus, and if so, on what basis?"� And, "œWhat Greek Text would Dean Burgon advocate today as the preserved Greek text?"�</blockquote>

During the course of this thread we have identified a number of Greek editions of the NT within what has been called the Textus Receptus "œfamily"�: Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and Elzevir (each of these having more than one edition), all of them similar but with variations. Clearly the translators of the 1611 King James picked and chose from these (and other MSS.) in the rendering of their English version.

Cassidy says of this,

<blockquote>So we must ask ourselves, "œIs the King James Bible based on the Textus Receptus, and if so, which edition?"�

The answer is, no. The King James Bible is not based on any single edition of the Textus Receptus, but is based on the Traditional Texts as they have been Providentially preserved down through the ages of church and ecclesiastical history.</blockquote>

He then goes into a discussion of Erasmus, as well as the texts he had access to, topics loaded with much disinformation. (As an aside here, David Cloud´s book, Myths About The Modern Versions, has excellent chapters on these topics, Erasmus and the manuscripts available both to the editors and to the translators, loaded with important historical data.) Cassidy continues,

<blockquote>Is the Textus Receptus identical to the Traditional Text?

Here is where the problem arises. No single edition of the Textus Receptus, available at the time of the translating of the King James Bible (1604-1611) is identical to the Traditional Text. Furthermore, no single edition of the Textus Receptus available to Dean Burgon was identical to the Traditional Text which underlies the King James Bible. And this is what produced the problem which Dean Burgon attempted to address. He believed, and rightly so, that no then-existing edition of the Textus Receptus conformed completely with the Traditional Text as embodied in the Byzantine Manuscript tradition. Thus, every Textus Receptus that the good Dean had available for his use was, in his opinion, in need of revision.</blockquote>

Which brings us to Dr. Cassidy´s concluding question:

<blockquote>Is the Traditional Text best represented today by any single "œTextus Receptus?"�

At the time of Dean Burgon's sudden death in 1888, no Textus Receptus was identical to the readings of the King James Bible, nor the Traditional or Byzantine Manuscript tradition. The Dean, in response to the need for an unassailable Greek Text in the Byzantine tradition, encouraged his colleague F.H.A. Scrivener, Prebendary of Exeter and Vicar of Hendon, to edit a Greek Text with textual apparatus which would show the textual basis for every word in the King James Bible New Testament. Mr. Scrivener began this work in 1881, largely spurred on by the publication of the Greek Text of the New Testament according to Westcott and Hort.

Scrivener's final edition appeared in 1894, and continues to be published by the Trinitarian Bible Society today as the "œTextus Receptus."� In this publication, Scrivener states that he has managed to trace the origin of almost every word of the King James New Testament where it departs from the Textus Receptus (about 190 instances of varying degree if we use Beza's 1598 edition as the base line). Of these 190 instances, Scrivener was able to trace, working from a copy of the Translation Committee's notes found in the private library of the Secretary to the Final Revision Committee, all but about a dozen variants. The official minutes of those historic meetings were apparently destroyed in the London fire of 1629. However, in 1964 Professor Ward Allen found the papers of William Fulman, a 17th century collector, including a handwritten copy of John Bois´s original notes in the Corpus Christi College Library at Oxford University, where they had lain since 1688. These notes have been published by Professor Allen under the title "œTranslating For King James,"� and are available from Vanderbilt University Press, 1969.

We must note that Burgon called for 150 changes in the Textus Receptus in the Gospel of Matthew alone, while Scrivener made only about 250 changes in the entire New Testament. Does this fact suggest that Burgon would not accept Scriveners text? Perhaps not. Burgon's suggestion of 150 changes in the Gospel of Matthew may have included changes in the chapter and verse structure which was added to the Greek New Testament by Stephens. The anecdote has often been told that Stephens did much of his work while traveling on horse back, and the jolting may have caused more than one slip of the pen! This can be easily demonstrated by looking at Acts chapter 21 and 22. Chapter 21 does not complete the paragraph, or even the sentence! The chapter division comes right in the middle of the sentence which begins in 21:40 and ends in 22:1! Perhaps it was just such chapter and verse divisions which Burgon included in his 150 suggested changes.

We can now see that even though Dean Burgon did call for a revision of the Textus Receptus as it existed in his day, the present Greek Text published by the Trinitarian Bible Society under the name "œTextus Receptus"� reflects the revision of the older Greek Texts which went by the same name, and now much more closely follows the manuscript tradition of the Traditional Texts of the Byzantine Manuscript Evidence.

Today, the Dean Burgon Society believes the Textus Receptus, as published by the Trinitarian Bible Society, which is Scrivener's Greek Text of 1894, is the embodiment of the Providentially preserved word of God in Greek. As this Greek Text is the direct result of Dean Burgon's desire to see the Textus Receptus revised to more closely reflect the Traditional Text of the Byzantine Manuscripts, it is my assertion that the Dean, were he alive today, would agree with our position, and deem the Textus Receptus of today to be the authoritative Greek Text.

Which brings us to our concluding point. What about those readings in the King James Bible which depart not only from the majority of Textus Receptus readings, but also from all known Greek manuscript evidence? Where do those readings come from, and how can their authority be confirmed?

The title page to the original King James Version of 1611 contains the following statement: "The Holy Bible, Conteyning the Old Teftament, AND THE NEW: Newly Tranflated out of the Originall tongues & with the former Tranflations diligently compared and reuifed by his Maiesties speciall Comandment."

It has been supposed that the reference to the "former translations" meant only the English translations of Tyndale and others. However, I believe, judging from the notes left by the Translation Committees, that this reference also includes the Vernaculars in Latin, Syriac, and the older European language Bibles used by the Waldenses, Vaudois, and other historic New Testament churches.

It is this reliance on the oldest known vernaculars that has made the King James Bible so reliable, and able to meet every test of accuracy. The Old Latin and Old Peshitta were very early translations of the New Testament dating to as early as the mid-second century (about 150 A.D.). It has been noted that readings occur in the King James Bible that are without Greek manuscript support, and I believe those readings can be traced to the earliest known vernaculars, the Old Latin and Old Syriac Peshitta.

Just because there is no Greek manuscript evidence available today does not mean such evidence never existed! The Old Latin and Old Syriac are strong indications that the readings in question are, in fact, authoritative, and being closest to the autographs, best reflect their readings. These vernacular readings are supported by the evidence from the early church Patriarchs, as well as from the Lexionaries, or daily scripture lessons read in the churches. It is unfortunate that the Critical Text proponents have failed to take this telling evidence into consideration, as it constitutes, in my opinion, the Best Evidence for the authority of these readings.

Think about it.</blockquote>

I quoted a good part of Dr. Cassidy´s address as it seemed it was being glossing over just when this information was most needed in our discussion. If anyone thinks this does not tie up the loose ends in our previous talking about the various editions comprising the TR and the KJV, and what amounts to Burgon´s concern for this "œunsettled"� Textus Receptus or Traditional Text, please bring forward your objections now.

------------

Bill, I do not have an internet connection at the time I am writing this, so I will have to get the Letis pdf you gave a link to and comment on it shortly.

You said,

<blockquote>Please understand, brother, that I have no problem with what you're saying. But when you argue from Hills' theological a priori - well, in essence, he is saying, "I believe in the doctrine of preservation of ALL AGES (WCF) - but not until 1611 (or 1516 if you prefer, TR)." In other words, all ages hardly means all ages.

I have no problem with 'restoration.' But one cannot argue restoration on one hand - and then get mad at 'restoration' by Westcott and Hort in terms of the issue of restoration. (One can, I concede, under such circumstances, argue against the THEORY of W/H - and solidly on many grounds, might I add).

But it rings hollow to say the Bible has always been preserved, but it wasn't preserved until 1611. Let me say that those who endorse the Traditional Text (Burgon, Scrivener, Hoskier, Farstad, Robinson, Oats) have a MUCH MORE solid ground on which to stand in regards to preservation. It disgusts me when people call Burgon forth as a witness in favor of 'King James Onlyism' when a simple read of his works proves he was not.</blockquote>

Thank you for saying that "œrestoration"� may well be part of the preservation process "“ I cannot see it as being any other way! "“ but I do not see how you can then say, "œone cannot argue restoration on one hand - and then get mad at "˜restoration´ by Westcott and Hort [W&H] in terms of the issue of restoration."� What W&H did was not restore, but replace, on a massive scale. And their replacing involved omissions of words that numbered in the many thousands.

You say,

<blockquote>But it rings hollow to say the Bible has always been preserved, but it wasn't preserved until 1611.</blockquote>

Is it unfair to say the readings of the genuine autographs have always been preserved "“ have never been lost "“ although a few of them were not restored until the compilation of the settled text by the 1611 translators, even as happened in Old Testament times under Ezra, who brought the text back into its intact form? (I do not equate the 1611 men with the same level of inspiration given Ezra!) This matter of preservation is a nuanced business, and I fear hasty hands have clouded things over, which you rightly object to. Nor can I presume to answer all the question involved in this, though I seek to unearth as much data as I can, even from the writings of the opponents of my position, for much knowledge is to be gained even from them.

I will post this now, download the Letis piece you reference, and will continue later.

Your brother in the Truth,

Steve

__________________
Steve Rafalsky
Elder, International Evangelical Church (Reformed)
Limassol, Cyprus

"I am set for the defense of the gospel" (Philippians 1:17)

"Strengthened with all might, according to His glorious
power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness..." (Colossians 1:11)

W/H were really only the final product of a movement that was being carried on throughout the 19th century. Nolan's "Integrity of the Greek Vulgate" was written to counter liberal criticism early in the century. If my research is correct, the impetus of this text criticial movement was derived from the 18th century Trinitarian/Unitarian debates, especially over the Johannine Comma. So basically the answer would be no, but some TR defenders have used the unorthodox beliefs of W/H to show why they might be inclined to have adopted the text they did.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Bill,

I will have to study more on the contention of Letis that in Burgon´s Commentary on Matthew 1-14 some of his readings support the MT over Scrivener´s 1894 TR; I have the commentary in the library, and will be in my city Sunday to preach and can pick it up then.

I also have Scrivener´s The Authorized Edition Of The English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints And Modern Representatives (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1910), and I am hoping the apparatus for his 1894 TR is in that volume (I haven´t heard of it being anywhere else).

At this point the best explanation for the data I have seen is, as I have said, Cassidy´s.

I will have to concede the point that Dean Burgon would neither want to join the Dean Burgon Society, nor, were he to want to, would he be allowed, save he changed some of his theological and ecclesiastical views!

I think the late Dr. Letis put many people under the umbrella of a type of Fundamentalism "“ that which has given rise to the stereotype "“ who do not belong there.

He seems to have some disdain for the uneducated who presume to study things in that domain usually reserved for the academicians, and if they get anything wrong, or take things by faith which appear to be contradicted by facts, he dismisses them with scorn. I am not familiar with his work, and he seems to have a lot on the ball, and I will seek to read as much of him as I can find on the internet (getting books is difficult for me being on a fixed retirement income; sometimes getting a laptop battery or antivirus software has the priority over books "“ though in earlier days I used to say with Erasmus, "œIf I have a little money I get books; if there is anything left over I get food and clothing"�).

I am well aware, there is a kind of "œfundamentalism"� which has a spiritual, emotional, and intellectual toxicity about it, but it is unfair to paint all of them with that brush. Some are quite other.

He speaks most unkindly of Jay P. Green Sr. (without mentioning his name) in his remarks on the latter´s book (Volume 1, I gather), Unholy Hands On The Bible (Sovereign Grace Trust). I will have to admit it is true the volume is fraught with typos, though I think he did a fair job in putting a good bit of Burgon´s work in one volume. Green´s remarks in the Introduction are sharp, for he sees damage being done to the sacred deposit of Scripture. Green is not mean-spirited, but he is spirited. As Burgon wrote in the Dedication to The Revision Revised,

<blockquote>If, therefore, any do complain that I have hit my opponents rather hard"¦when the words of Inspiration are seriously imperilled, as now they are, it is scarcely possible for one who is determined effectually to preserve the Deposit in its integrity, to hit either too straight or too hard. (Pp. vii, viii)</blockquote>

From this quote one may see why people contend so earnestly over this issue.

Bill, you said,

<blockquote>Did not Burgon have an agenda in keeping the last 12 verses of Mark - since he believed in baptismal regeneration?</blockquote>

I don´t think "œHe that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned"� gives much support per se to paedobaptism, especially not to "œbaptismal regeneration."�

One good thing about these discussions, people are hearing more about Burgon, Hills, etc, and are leaving the CT position, (some at least) seeing it is indefensible, and are moving over to the MT or TT position, which is far better.

Another remark of yours,

<blockquote>Whether Westcott or Hort could speak at my church is irrelevant. Burgon could not do so either - nor would he wish to do so given his emphasis on ecclesiastical authority. But that argument is completely irrelevant ON BOTH SIDES.</blockquote>

But the reasons for the former two not being invited in would be entirely different from the latter. Let it be put it on me: They would not be invited into the church I shepherd, due to flagrant violations of Biblical commandments, and for damnable heresies. Dr. Letis says "œargumentum ad hominem"� is unacceptable in these discussions of editing Biblical manuscripts, but I beg to differ. In the secular sphere of research and textual emendation he has a point, but in the precincts of the Temple of the Holy One of Israel such persons are prohibited entry by commandment, much less to put hands upon the Torah.

A person´s character and doctrine has everything to do with his being allowed to touch that which, in former days, the priesthood only had supervision of, and in these last days, only the priesthood of believers have supervision of. Yes, I realize this is the bone of contention between the CT and the TT & TR people.

You said,

<blockquote>And which Edward Hills do we believe? The one who turned in his doctoral dissertation in 1946 IN FAVOR of Westcott-Hort; or the one who wrote "The KJV Defended" in 1954? And how did he change his mind THAT fast?</blockquote>

Would you please provide some documentation "“ or perhaps a link "“ for this assertion? I would like to investigate it.

Lastly, you say,

<blockquote>The personal character and theologies of Westcott and Hort are irrelevant - mostly because the manuscripts precede them by at least 1,500 years. It's not like they actually WROTE them.</blockquote>

Well, it was in their positions as priests and professors of divinity in the Anglican Church they were allowed into the Jerusalem Chamber to work on the Church´s Holy Scripture, and they were under specific stipulations as to what was and was not allowed them in this work. If they secretly betrayed their appointments as overseers in the church by damnable heresy, and violated the injunctions laid upon them as regard the limits of the revision-work entrusted to them, do you think this lawlessness in the inner sanctuary of Scriptural emendation "œirrelevant"�?

They didn´t just publish a book, they wrought evil upon the Book!

Gotta quit for now. I need to leave this sphere for a couple of days, and live in the sermons I am preaching on Sunday.

Steve

__________________
Steve Rafalsky
Elder, International Evangelical Church (Reformed)
Limassol, Cyprus

"I am set for the defense of the gospel" (Philippians 1:17)

"Strengthened with all might, according to His glorious
power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness..." (Colossians 1:11)

Matthew,

Thanks for clarifying re Luke 24:53. At any rate, I looked into it. In his Revision Revised Burgon notes the many unwarranted omissions from Luke´s Gospel; after commenting on the removal of "œthe second"� Sabbath after the first in Luke 6:1, (p. 73 ff), he notes,

<blockquote>But indeed, mutilation has been practiced throughout. By codex B (collated with the Traditional Text), no less than 2,877 words have been excised from the four Gospels alone: by codex Aleph,"“3,455 words: by codex D,"“ 3,704 words.

An interesting set of instances of this, as are to be anywhere met with, occurs within the compass of the last three chapters of Luke´s Gospel, from which about 200 words have been either forcibly ejected by our Revisionists, or else served with "˜notice to quit.´ (p. 75 ff)</blockquote>

And he proceeds to list eight of the chief of these, 24:53 being the last. Later in the book, on page 261 ff. (in footnotes) he looks in detail at the attestations pro and con this verse:

<blockquote>Luke´s Gospel ends (xxiv.53) with the record that the Apostles were continually in the temple "˜(a) praising and (b) blessing God.´ Such is the reading of 13 uncials headed by A and every known cursive: a few copies of the old Lat., the Vulg., Syriac, Æthiopic, and Armenian Versions. But it is found that Aleph B C omit clause (a): while D and seven copies of the old Latin omit clause (b).</blockquote>

He has shown the overwhelming evidence for the retention of the cut portions of the verse, and the caprice of W&H, whose primary foundation is the fiction of the "œSyrian Recension"� of their main operating theory which finds no support in history. The verse in its entirety belongs.

Steve

__________________
Steve Rafalsky
Elder, International Evangelical Church (Reformed)
Limassol, Cyprus

"I am set for the defense of the gospel" (Philippians 1:17)

"Strengthened with all might, according to His glorious
power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness..." (Colossians 1:11)

See Whose Unholy H