The Traditional Text of the Holy
Gospels
By Dean John William Burgon
About the Author
By reading this book, The Traditional
Text of the Holy Gospels, you will have powerful evidence to refute the false
notion that the traditional received text was not present until after the fifth
or sixth centuries. You will see that the traditional received text was from
the beginning. It was from the very New Testament autographs and was copied and
re-copied by hand accurately from the beginning until the invention of printing
when it was made permanent.
This present book is another of Dean John
William Burgon's masterpieces. It is loaded, as are all of his books, with
overwhelming evidence from manuscripts, lectionaries, ancient versions, and
church fathers. Dean Burgon does three things in this volume:
(1) He
outlines his seven tests of Scriptural truth;
(2) He proves the superiority
of the traditional received text; and
(3) He shows the inferiority of
Westcott and Hort's favorite manuscripts-Vatican and Sinai, that is, B and
Aleph.
His arguments are powerful and convincing! You will want to order
several copies of this book and distribute it widely! The Traditional Text has
now been traced, from the earliest years of Christianity of which any record of
the New Testament remains, to the period when it was enshrined in a large
number of carefully-written manuscripts in a main accord with one another.
Proof has been given from the writings of the early Fathers, that the idea that
the Traditional Text arose in the middle of the fourth century is a mere
hallucination, prompted by only a partial acquaintance with those writings. And
witness to the existence and predominance of that form of Text has been found
in the Peshitto Version and in the best of the Latin Versions, which themselves
also have been followed back to the beginning of the second century or the end
of the first.
We have also discovered the truth, that the settlement of the
Text, thought mainly made in the fourth century, was not finally accomplished
till the eighth century at the earliest; and that the later Uncials, not the
oldest, together with the cursives express, not singly, not in small batches or
companies, but in their main agreement, the decisions which had grown up in the
Church. In so doing, attention has been paid to all the existing evidence: none
has been omitted. "Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus", has been the
underlying principle. The foundations of the building have been laid as deeply
and as broadly as our power could allow. No other course would be in consonance
with scientific procedure. The seven notes of truth have been made as
comprehensive as possible. Antiquity, number, variety, weight, continuity,
context, and internal evidence, include all points of view and all methods of
examination, which are really sound.
The characters of the Vatican,
Sinatic, and Bezan manuscripts have been shewn to be bad, and the streams which
led to their production from Syrio-Old-Latin and Alexandrian sources to the
temporary school of Caesarea have been traced and explained. It has been also
shewn to be probable that corruption began and took root even before the
Gospels were written.
The general conclusion which has grown upon our minds
has been that the affections of Christians have not been misdirected; that the
strongest exercise of reason has proved their instincts to have been sound and
true; that the Text which we have used and loved rests upon a vast and varied
support; that the multiform record of Manuscripts, Versions, and Fathers, is
found to defend by large majorities in almost all instances those precious
words of Holy Writ, which have been called in question during the latter half
of this century.
We submit that it cannot be denied that we have presented
a strong case, and naturally we look to see what has been said against it,
since except in some features it has been before the World and the Church for
some years. We submit that it has not received due attention from opposing
critics. If indeed the opinions of the other School had been preceded by, or
grounded upon, a searching examination, such as we have made in the case of B
and Aleph, of the vast mass of evidence upon which we rest,- if this great body
of testimony had been proved to be bad from overbalancing testimony or
otherwise,- we should have found reason for doubt, or even for a reversal of
our decisions.
But Lachmann, Tregelles, and Tishendorf laid down principles
chiefly, if not exclusively, on the score of their intrinsic probability.
Westcott and Hort built up their own theory upon reasoning internal to it,
without clearing the ground first by any careful and detailed scrutiny. Besides
which, all of them constructed their buildings before travellers by railways
and steamships had placed within their reach the larger part of the materials
which are now ready for use. [Several paragraphs have been omitted.] We hear
constantly the proclamation made in dogmatic tones that they are right: no
proof adequate to the strength of our contention has been worked out to shew
that we are wrong. To conclude, the system which we advocate will be seen to
contrast strikingly with that which is upheld by the opposing school, in three
general ways:
I. We have with us width and depth against the narrowness on
their side. . . .
II. We oppose facts to their speculation . . . .
III.
Our opponents are gradually getting out of date: the world is drifting away
from them.
Thousands of manuscripts have been added to the known stores
since Tichendorf formed his system, and Hort begin to theorize, and their
handful of favourite documents has become by comparison less and less. Since
the deaths of both of those eminent critics, the treasures dug up in Egypt and
elsewhere have put back the date of the science of paleography from the fourth
century after the Christian era to at least the third century before, and
papyrus has sprung up into unexpected prominence in the ancient and medieval
history of writing. It is discovered that there was no uncial period through
which the genealogy of cursives has necessarily passed. Old theories on those
points must generally be reconstructed if they are to tally with known facts.
But this accession of knowledge which puts our opponents in the wrong, has no
effect on us except to confirm our position with new proof. Indeed, we welcome
the unlocking of the all but boundless treasury of ancient wealth, since our
theory, being as open as possible, and resting upon the visible and real,
remains not only uninjured but strengthened. If it were to require any
re-arrangement, that would be only a re-ordering of particulars, not of our
principles which are capacious enough to admit of any additions of materials of
judgment.
Back To FAQs?