Westcott & Hort's Greek Text and Theory Refuted
I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
A. The purpose and
intention is to deal with the false and erroneous Greek New Testament Greek
text and theory promulgated by what Dean Burgon refers to as "two irresponsible
scholars of the University of Cambridge." These "irresponsible scholars" are
none other than Bishop Brooke Foss Westcott and Professor Fenton John Anthony
Hort, and their "invention" of the new Revised Greek Text that surfaced in
1881.
It is strange indeed that very few people saw as clearly as Dean John
William Burgon, their fellow Anglican clergyman, that Westcott and Hort were
indeed "irresponsible scholars." Instead, there has been, from that day to
this, a stampede of pastors, teachers, "scholars," lay people, students and
others who have followed their false lead into serious error. From the
quotations taken from Dean Burgon's Revision Revised, it is hoped that the
reader will turn from the errors of Westcott and Hort and enter into the truth
and acceptance of the Traditional Greek text.
Many of those who despise
the Textus Receptus today and are powerful advocates of the false Revised Greek
texts of Nestle-Aland or the United Bible Society have attempted to distance
themselves from the Westcott and Hort Greek Text of 1881. In reality, with some
minor changes, they are virtually identical. This fact is what makes this
present booklet and the entire Revision Revised so powerful and so necessary.
Here are some quotes from various writers about modern New Testament Greek
texts and theories compared with the Greek text and theories of Westcott and
Hort, showing the similarity between the two in both areas.
1. Seven
Testimonies By Writers from 1914 through 1990 Stating the Similarity between
the Westcott and Hort Text and Theory and that of the Current Greek Texts.
a. 1914-The Testimony of Herman Hoskier. "The text printed by Westcott and
Hort has been accepted as `the true text,' and grammars, works on the synoptic
problem, works on higher criticism, and others have been grounded on this
text." [Herman C. Hoskier, Codex B and Its Allies--a Study and an Indictment,
(1914), Vol I, p. 468
b. 1964-The Testimony of J. H. Greenlee. "The textual
theories of Westcott & Hort underlies virtually all subsequent work in NT
textual criticism." [J. H. Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual
Criticism, (1964), p. 78]
c. 1979-The Testimony of D. A. Carson. "The
theories of Westcott and Hort are almost universally accepted today. . . .
Subsequent textual critical work [since 1881] accepted the theories of Westcott
and Hort. The vast majority of evangelical scholars hold that the basic textual
theories of Westcott and Hort were right and the church stands greatly in their
debt." [D. A. Carson, The King James Version Debate, (1979), p. 75]
d.
1980-The Testimony of Wilbur N. Pickering. "The two most popular manual
editions of the text today, Nestles-Aland and U.B.S. (United Bible Society)
really vary little from the Westcott & Hort text." [Dr. Wilbur N.
Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, (1980), pp. 42
e.
1987-The Testimony of John R. Kohlenberger. "Westcott and Hort . . . all
subsequent versions from the Revised Version (1881) to those of the present . .
. have adopted their basic approach . . . [and] accepted the Westcott and Hort
[Greek] text." [John R. Kohlenberger, Words About the Word, (1987) p. 42]
f. 1990-The Testimony of Philip W. Comfort. "But textual critics have not
been able to advance beyond Hort in formalizing a theory . . . this has
troubled certain textual scholars. " [Philip W. Comfort, Early Manuscripts and
Modern Translations of the New Testament, (1990), p. 21]
g. 1990--The
Testimony of Bruce Metzger. In 1990, Dr. Kirk D. DiVietro, a Baptist Pastor,
wrote to Dr. Bruce Metzger about how he and the other members of the
Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies Committee began their work on their New
Testament Greek Texts. Dr. Metzger replied to him as follows: "We took as our
base at the beginning the text of Westcott and Hort (1881) and introduced
changes as seemed necessary on the basis of MSS evidence."
2. The
Conclusion and Importance to be Drawn from these Seven Testimonies. Have you
ever wondered just WHY the basic Greek text of Westcott and Hort dated in 1881
is virtually identical with the basic Greek text of the present critical
editions? The simple reason is that they are derived from the same basic,
corrupt Greek manuscripts, namely "B" (Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai) and a few
others that followed them. Do you remember the axiom we were taught in high
school plane geometry class: "Things equal to the same thing are equal to each
other"? This applies in this case as well. The conclusion drawn from this is
that when we attack the text and theory of Westcott and Hort, we are at the
same time attacking the text and theory behind the Nestle-Aland Greek text, the
United Bible Society text, and others that go along with them. What is said
against Westcott and Hort's text in these quotes can also be said against the
texts of Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Society!
Dr. Frederick
Scrivener Backed Dean Burgon's Attack on Westcott and Hort's New Testament
Greek Text. Dr. Frederick H. A. Scrivener was an Anglican clergyman who was a
contemporary of both Westcott and Hort and Dean Burgon. Dr. Scrivener was one
of the greatest and most exacting scholars of his day in the field of textual
criticism. He was quoted by Dean Burgon in his PREFACE.
1. Westcott and
Hort's Greek Text Was Based on "Ingenious Conjecture." Dr. Scrivener wrote:
"There is little hope for the stability of their [that is, Westcott &
Hort's] imposing structure, if its foundations have been laid on the sandy
ground of ingenious conjecture. And, since barely the smallest vestige of
historical evidence has ever been alleged in support of the views of these
accomplished editors, their teaching must either be received as intuitively
true, or dismissed from our consideration as precarious and even visionary."
[Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener's Plain Introduction, 1883, p. 531, quoted by Dean John
W. Burgon, Revision Revised, p. iv].
2. Dr. Hort's Greek Textual System Was
"Destitute of Historical Foundation." Dr. Scrivener again wrote: "Dr. Hort's
System is entirely destitute of historical foundation. . . We are compelled to
repeat as emphatically as ever our strong conviction that the Hypothesis to
whose proof he has devoted so many laborious years, is destitute not only of
historical foundation, but of all probability, revealing from the internal
goodness of the Text which its adoption would force upon us." [Dr. F. H. A.
Scrivener's Plain Introduction, 1883, pp. 537, 542,]
3. "Poisoning the
River of Life." Dean Burgon wrote: "It is, however, the systematic depravation
of the underlying Greek which does so grievously offend me: for this is nothing
else but a poisoning of the River of Life at its sacred source. Our Revisers
(with the best and purest intentions, no doubt,) stand convicted of having
deliberately rejected the words of Inspiration in every page, and of having
substituted for them fabricated Readings which the Church has long since
refused to acknowledge, or else has rejected with abhorrence, and which only
survive at this time in a little handful of documents of the most depraved
type." [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision Revised, pp. vi-vii]. He is referring to
"B" and "Aleph," the Vatican and Sinai manuscripts.
4. A Time for Hitting
His Opponents "Hard." Dean Burgon was often charged with hitting his opponents
"rather hard." This was his response: "If, therefore, any do complain that I
have sometimes hit my opponents rather hard, I take leave to point out that `to
everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the sun'; `a
time to embrace, and a time to be far from embracing'; a time for speaking
smoothly, and a time for speaking sharply. And that when the Words of
Inspiration are seriously imperiled, 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." [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision
Revised, pp. vii-viii].
5. This book Was Unanswered After Two Years while
Dean Burgon Was Still Alive, And Is Still Unanswered. Dean Burgon wrote: "Two
full years have elapsed since the first of these Essays was published; and my
Criticism--for the best of reasons--remains to this hour unanswered. The public
has been assured indeed, (in the course of some hysterical remarks by Canon
Farrar), that `the "Quarterly Reviewer" can be refuted as fully as he desires
as soon as any scholar has the leisure to answer him.' The `Quarterly Reviewer'
can afford to wait,--if the Revisers can. But they are reminded that it is no
answer to one who has demolished their master's `Theory,' for the pupils to
keep on reproducing fragments of it; and by their mistakes and exaggerations,
to make both themselves and him, ridiculous." [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision
Revised, p. xv].
6. Inventing Facts and "Oracular Decrees." Dean Burgon
wrote: "In this department of sacred Science, men have been going on too long
inventing their facts, and delivering themselves of oracular decrees, on the
sole responsibility of their own inner consciousness. There is great
convenience in such a method certainly,--a charming simplicity which is in a
high degree attractive to flesh and blood. It dispenses with proof. It
furnishes no evidence. [that is, Westcott and Hort's text and theory] It
asserts when it ought to argue. It reiterates when it is called upon to
explain. `I am sir Oracle.' . . . This,--which I venture to style the
unscientific method,--reached its culminating point when Professors Westcott
and Hort recently put forth their Recension of the Greek Text." "Their work is
indeed quite a psychological curiosity. Incomprehensible to me is it how two
able men of disciplined understandings can have seriously put forth the volume
which they have.
7. Dean Burgon Longed to Teach the Bible. Dean Burgon
would rather engage in Bible interpretation than needing to battle for the
Words of God. He wrote: "But I more than long,--I fairly ache to have done with
Controversy, and to be free to devote myself to the work of Interpretation. My
apology for bestowing so large a portion of my time on Textual Criticism, is
David's when he was reproached by his brethren for appearing on the field of
battle,--`Is there not a cause?'" [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision Revised, pp.
xxix]. Many of us would love to be able to "have done with controversy," but
the battle for the Words of God is there. I think we chose a good name for our
society--The Dean Burgon Society. As Dean Burgon did, we certainly have a
cause, don't we!
8. Westcott and Hort as "Irresponsible Scholars." Dean
Burgon characterized Westcott and Hort as two "irresponsible scholars." He
wrote: "But instead of all this, a Revision of the English Authorized Version
having been sanctioned by the Convocation of the Southern Province in 1871, the
opportunity was eagerly snatched at by two irresponsible scholars of the
University of Cambridge [He is talking about Westcott and Hort] for obtaining
the general sanction of the Revising body, and thus indirectly of Convocation,
for a private venture of their own,--their own privately devised Revision of
the Greek Text. On that Greek Text of theirs, (which I hold to be the most
depraved which has ever appeared in print), with some slight modifications, our
Authorized English Version has been silently revised: silently, I say, for in
the margin of the English no record is preserved of the underlying Textual
changes which have been introduced by the Revisionists." [Dean John W. Burgon,
Revision Revised, pp. xxx]. Though Westcott and Hort's Greek text is "the most
depraved which has ever appeared in print," this is virtually the same text
used by the new versions and perversions of today.
9. Why Dean Burgon
Descended into "the Arena of Controversy." Dean Burgon wrote: "If all this does
not constitute a valid reason for descending into the arena of controversy, it
would in my judgment be impossible to indicate an occasion when the Christian
soldier is called upon to do so:--the rather because certain of these who, from
their rank and station in the Church, ought to be the champions of the Truth,
are at this time found to be among its most vigorous assailants." [Dean John W.
Burgon, Revision Revised, pp. xxxi-xxxii]. Notice what he said about some of
the preachers of his day. We have this today do we not? Some claim to be
"champions," and "Fundamentalists," yet they are assailants of the truth. When
the Words of God are at stake, we must, at times, contend with even our own
Christian brethren. If our brethren are wrong on the Words of God, and don't
want to preserve the Words of our Lord Jesus Christ, then we must stand up as
David did and ask: "Is there not a cause?" We of course should also expose
those who are in error who are not "brethren." In so doing, we will no doubt
get into trouble from both of these groups.
II. ARTICLE I
THE NEW GREEK
TEXT-- Refuted by Dean John William Burgon (pages 1-110)
A. The Importance
of Dean Burgon's ARTICLE I on THE NEW GREEK TEXT.
In Dean Burgon's article
1 on The New Greek Text he totally destroyed the erroneous New Testament Greek
Text that was foisted upon an unsuspecting people in 1881 by Westcott and Hort.
Sad to say, this false Greek text was, in the main, the basis for the English
Revised Version (ERV). I have cited above, in Section I (pages 2-3), seven
critical scholars in the 20th century (from 1914 to 1990) who have proclaimed
that this false Greek text is STILL the primary basis for the modern Greek
texts of Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Society! When Dean Burgon destroyed
Westcott and Hort's Greek text, he also destroyed the present Greek texts that
form the basis of the modern New Testament versions and perversions. These
Westcott and Hort-type Greek texts are used, not only in the apostate schools,
colleges, and seminaries, and the New Evangelical schools, colleges, and
seminaries, but, sadly, also in entirely too many so-called "Fundamentalist"
schools, colleges and seminaries! I would urge you to pay close attention to
the quotations from this section of Dean Burgon's masterful book,
The
Revision Revised.
B. Important Quotations from Dean Burgon's ARTICLE I: THE
NEW GREEK TEXT (pages 1-110)
1. God's Threefold Means of Preservation of
His Written Words. a. God's Preservation Means #1: MANUSCRIPT COPIES. Dean
Burgon wrote of the manuscript COPIES: "(1) The provision, then, which the
Divine Author of Scripture is found to have made for the preservation of His
written Word, is of a peculiarly varied and highly complex description,
First--By causing that a vast multiplication of Copies should be required all
down the ages,--beginning at the earliest period, and continuing in an
ever-increasing ratio until the actual invention of Printing,--He provided the
most effectual security imaginable against fraud. True, that millions of the
copies so produced have long since perished; but it is nevertheless a plain
fact that there survive of the Gospels alone upwards of one thousand copies in
the present day."
2: ANCIENT NEW TESTAMENT VERSIONS. On the subject of the
VERSIONS, Dean Burgon wrote: "(2) Next, VERSIONS. The necessity of translating
the Scriptures into divers languages for the use of different branches of the
early Church, procured that many an authentic record has been preserved for the
New Testament as it existed in the first few centuries of the Christian era.
Thus, the Peschito Syriac and the Old Latin version are believed to have been
executed in the IInd century [Early versions show the text that the translators
had in their hands and were using.]. . . . The two Egyptian translations are
referred to the IIIrd and IVth. The Vulgate (or revised Latin) and the Gothic
are also claimed for the IVth; the Armenian and possibly the Aethiopic, belong
to the Vth."
3: Quotations From CHURCH FATHERS. Here's what Dean Burgon
wrote on the value of "patristic" quotations, or references to the Bible by the
Church Fathers: "(3) Lastly, the requirements of assailants and apologists
alike, the business of Commentators, the needs of controversialists and
teachers in every age, have resulted in a vast accumulation of additional
evidence, of which it is scarcely possible to over-estimate the importance. For
in this way it has come to pass that every famous Doctor of the Church in turn
has quoted more or less largely from the sacred writings, and thus has borne
testimony to the contents of the codices with which he was individually
familiar.
PATRISTIC CITATIONS." [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision Revised, p.
9] These "Church Fathers" were leaders in the early churches who either quoted
the New Testament directly, or made references to certain verses. What text did
they have in their hands when they referred to these verses? This evidence is
very important. Dean Burgon made an index of over 86,000 quotations from these
Church Fathers showing the text of Scripture they used. This is a third mighty
safeguard of the integrity of the deposit of the Words of God.
2. The Value
of "Lectionaries." Dean Burgon wrote: "In truth, the security which the Text of
the New Testament enjoys is altogether unique and extraordinary. To specify the
single consideration, which has never yet attracted nearly the amount of
attention it deserves. Lectionaries abound which establish the Text which has
been publicly read in the churches of the East, from at least A.D. 400 until
the time of the invention of printing."
"Lectionaries" were portions of the
New Testament that were read on certain feast days such as Christmas, Easter,
and so on. We have at least 2,143 of these Greek Lectionaries preserved for us
today. This evidence is very important.
3. The Blind Superstitious
Reverence for "B," "Aleph," and Others. Dean Burgon wrote: "Singular to relate,
the first, second, fourth and fifth of these codices (B, Aleph, C, D) but
especially B and Aleph have within the last twenty years established a
tyrannical ascendency over the imagination of the Critics which can only be
fitly spoken of as a blind superstition. It matters nothing that all four ["B",
"Aleph", "C", and "D"] are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ
essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of
extant MSS, besides, but even from one another." [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision
Revised, pp. 11-12].
Yet these same manuscripts, by "blind superstition"
are used as the very foundations of the versions and perversions of our day.
Even the ones that Bible- believing Christians are using such as: the New
International Version, the New American Standard Version, the New King James
Version in the footnotes, the New Berkeley, and others. 4. The Similarities
Between "B" (Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai) Manuscripts. Dean Burgon wrote:
"Between the first two (B and Aleph) 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. . . . It is in fact easier to find two
consecutive verses in which these two MSS differ the one from the other, than
two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree." [Dean John W. Burgon,
Revision Revised, p. 12]
5. The Unreliability of "Aleph" the Sinai
Manuscript. Dean Burgon wrote: "Next to "D," the most untrustworthy codex is
Aleph, which bears on its front a memorable note of the evil repute under which
it has always laboured:--viz. it is found that at least ten revisers between
the IVth and the XIIth centuries busied themselves with the task of correcting
its many and extraordinary perversions of the truth of Scripture."
6. The
Depravity of Manuscripts "Aleph," "B," and "D." Dean Burgon wrote: "We venture
to assure him, without a particle of hesitation, that "Aleph," "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." [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 16]. Dean Burgon knew what
these old ancient Uncials were. They were depraved, and mutilated. Yet these
are respected, revered, and put on a pedestal today.
7. The Worst
Corruptions of the New Testament Came Within the First 100 Years After They
Were Made. Dean Burgon wrote: "`It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in
sound,' writes the most learned of the Revisionist body [that is, Dr. Frederick
H. A. Scrivener], `that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has
ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed:
that Irenaeus (A.D. 150), and the African Fathers, and the whole Western, with
a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed
by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens thirteen centuries later, when moulding the
Textus Receptus.'" [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 30]. What he is
saying is that the corruptions in the Greek texts at the time of Irenaeus, the
African Church, the Western Church, and the early days of "B", and "Aleph" were
far worse than and inferior to the texts used to develop the Textus
Receptus.
8. Dean Burgon Defended the Traditional Greek Text Against the
False Westcott and Hort Type of Text in the Following Thirty Passages. Though
Dean Burgon defended the traditional text throughout the book, here is a
section which takes examples one after another in rapid succession.
Without
comment, these thirty passages are listed here with the pages in The Revision
Revised where they are taken up in detail: 1. Mark 2:1-12 (pp. 30-34) 2. Luke
11:2-4 (pp. 34-36) 3. Mark 16:9-20 (pp. 36-40) 4. Luke 2:14 (pp. 41-51) 5. Acts
27:37 (pp. 51-53) 6. Acts 18:7 (pp. 53-54) 7. Matthew 11:23 & Luke 10:15
(pp. 54-56) 8. Mark 11:3 (pp. 56-58) 9. Mark 11:8 (pp. 58-61) 10. Luke 23:45
(pp. 61-66) 11. Mark 6:20 (pp. 66-70) 12. Mark 9:24 (pp. 70-71) 13. Matthew
14:30 (p. 71) 14. Mark 15:39 (pp. 71-72) 15. Luke 23;42 (p. 72) 16. John 14:4
(pp. 72-73) 17. Luke 6:1 (pp. 73-75) 18. Luke 22:19-20--32 words (pp. 75-79)
19. Luke 22:43-44--26 words (pp. 79-83) 20. Luke 23:34--12 words (pp.82-85) 21.
Luke 23:38--7 words (pp. 85-88) 22. Luke 24:1,3,6,9,12--37 words (pp. 88-90)
23. Luke 24:40,42,51-53--23 words (pp. 90-91) 24. Matthew 27:21 (pp. 91-92) 25.
Matthew 28:11 (pp. 92-93) 26. Luke 9:55-56 (p. 93) 27. Luke 24:41 (p. 93) 28.
Luke 6:1 (pp. 93-98) 29. 1 Timothy 3:16 ("God was manifest in the flesh") (pp.
98-106, and pp. 424- 491) 30. 2 Peter 2:22 (p. 106)
9. Dean Burgon's
Conclusion About the False Type of Greek Text Adopted by Westcott and Hort.
Dean Burgon wrote: "It has been the ruin of the present undertaking--as far as
the Sacred Text is concerned--that the majority of the Revisionist body have
been misled throughout by the oracular decrees and impetuous advocacy of Drs.
Westcott and Hort, who, with the purest intentions and most laudable industry,
have constructed a Text demonstrably more remote from the Evangelic verity than
any which has ever yet seen the light." [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision Revised,
p. 110]. Did Dean Burgon name names? Yes, he did. He names Westcott and Hort.
Did he name names within his own denominational framework? Yes, he did. Both of
these men were Anglicans, that is, members of the clergy of the Church of
England. Dean Burgon was a fundamental, conservative Anglican. Westcott and
Hort, on the other hand, were apostate and heretical unbelievers. This is shown
in both of my booklets: The Theological Heresies of Westcott and Hort , and
Bishop Westcott's Clever Denial of the Bodily Resurrection of Christ. The
latter booklet shows clearly that Westcott denied the bodily resurrection of
Christ. Westcott and Hort have to be named and exposed, not only in textual
matters, but also in doctrinal matters. Dr. Stewart Custer of Bob Jones
University, in his booklet, The Truth About the King James Controversy, on page
26, stated of Westcott and Hort: ". . . these men have written in their mature
years book after book defending the CONSERVATIVE interpretation of Scripture, .
. ." The Theological Heresies of Westcott and Hort shows clearly that these men
have written books that do NOT defend "the CONSERVATIVE interpretation of
Scripture." There are about 125 quotations from five of their books to prove
this point.
Using the term, "conservative," to refer to such a man as
Westcott who clearly denied the bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ,
would require a complete redefinition of what is meant by the word,
"conservative." I don't want any part of that kind of "conservativism," do you?
Dean Burgon named names politely and gently. We can be gentlemen and, where
appropriate, still name names in the same manner.
III. ARTICLE
III--WESTCOTT & HORT'S NEW TEXTUAL THEORY-- Refuted by Dean Burgon (pages
233-366) A. The Importance of Dean Burgon's Refutation of Westcott and Hort's
NEW TEXTUAL THEORY.
In 1881, Westcott and Hort and the other members of the
translation committee of the English Revised Version (ERV) published their very
inferior work. At about the same time Westcott and Hort published an
Introduction to the Greek New Testament. This amazingly misleading book has
been answered fully by Dean Burgon. The BIBLE FOR TODAY has re-printed this
Introduction for those who wish to see their false theory for themselves. This
false THEORY behind the false Revised Greek text is as important as the Greek
text itself. Not only is the same basic false Greek text in use today by the
various versions and perversions, but also the same basic false THEORY
supporting this text is in use today by the same versions and perversions!!
B. Important Quotations from Dean Burgon
1. Dean Burgon's Massive
Evidence in Favour of the Reading "GOD Was Manifest in the Flesh" in 1 Timothy
3:16. Dean Burgon shows strong and irrefutable proof for the correctness of
"GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH." Evidence for THEOS ("God") N.T. Greek
Manuscripts (Lectionaries & Copies) = 289 Ancient N.T. Versions = 3 Greek
Church Fathers = c. 20 There is an abundance of evidence for this reading as
contained in the King James Bible. Theos or "God" is without any doubt the
original and proper reading. Evidence for HO ("which") N.T. Greek Manuscripts =
1 Ancient N.T. Versions = 5 Greek Church Fathers = 2 This evidence for ho, or
"which," is extremely scanty. It has no opportunity to succeed as the original
and proper reading. Evidence for HOS ("who") N.T. Greek Manuscripts = 6 Ancient
N.T. Versions = 1 Greek Church Fathers = 0 [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision
Revised, pp. 486-496].
Again, this is not sufficient evidence to favour
hos, or "who." It is unreasonable to have the modern versions favouring it, yet
they do. "GOD was manifest in the flesh" is the correct reading in the King
James Bible. Though it is entirely in error, HOS is what is used in the new
versions and perversions of our day. Here are a few of them: "HE WHO was
manifested in the flesh"--the American Standard Version. "HE was manifested in
the flesh"--the Revised Standard Version. "HE WHO was revealed in the
flesh"--New American Standard Version. "HE appeared in a body"--the New
International Version. "HE was shown to us in a human body"--the New Century
Version. "HE was revealed in flesh"--the New Revised Standard Version.
2.
The Error of "Alternative Readings." Dean Burgon wrote: "What are found in the
margin are therefore `alternative readings'--in the opinion of these
self-constituted representatives of the Church and of the Sects. It becomes
evident that by this ill-advised proceeding, our Revisionists would convert
every Englishman's copy of the New Testament into a one-sided Introduction to
the Critical difficulties of the Greek Text; a labyrinth, out of which they
have not been at the pains to supply him with a single hint as to how he may
find his way. . . . What else must be the result of all this but general
uncertainty, confusion, distress? A hazy mistrust of all Scripture has been
insinuated into the hearts and minds of countless millions, who in this way
have been forced to become doubters,--yea, doubters in the Truth of Revelation
itself." [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision Revised, pp. 236-237].
Dean Burgon
is opposed to alternative readings. These are what abound in the footnotes of
the study edition of the New King James Version. The reader doesn't know which
to believe, the words of the text or the words of the footnotes! This results
in a "hazy mistrust of all Scripture"!
3. The False Textual Theory of the
German Lachmann. Dean Burgon wrote: "Lachmann's ruling principle then, was
exclusive reliance on a very few ancient authorities--because they are
`ancient.' He constructed his text on three or four--not infrequently on one or
two--Greek codices. Of the Greek Fathers, he relied on Origen. Of the oldest
Versions, he cared only for the Latin. To the Syrian . . . he paid no
attention. We venture to think his method irrational." [Dean John W. Burgon,
Revision Revised, pp. 242-43].
4. The False Textual Theory of the Frenchman
Tregelles. Dean Burgon wrote: "Tregelles adopted the same strange method. He
resorted to a very few out of the entire mass of `ancient Authorities' for the
construction of his Text. His proceeding is exactly that of a man, who--in
order that he may the better explore a comparatively unknown region--begins by
putting out both his eyes; and resolutely refuses the help of the natives to
show him the way. Why he rejected the testimony of every Father of the IVth
century except Eusebius,--it were unprofitable to enquire." [Dean John W.
Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 243]. Dean Burgon's humour and picturesque figures
of speech add to his clear logic of argumentation.
5. The False Textual
Theory of German Tischendorf (1831 A.D.). Tischendorf was the man that found
the Sinai manuscript in the wastebasket on Mt. Sinai. The monks were getting
ready to burn it and Tischendorf was getting ready to buy it. Which one, do you
think, had the correct appreciation of the value of the Sinai manuscript? I
think it was the monks! Dean Burgon wrote: "Tischendorf, the last and by far
the ablest of the three, knew better than to reject `eighty-nine ninetieth' of
the extant witnesses. He had recourse to the ingenious expedient of adducing
all the available evidence, but adopting just as little of it as he chose; and
he chose to adopt those readings only, which are vouched for by the same little
band of authorities whose partial testimony had already proved fatal to the
decrees of Lachmann and Tregelles." [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision Revised, p.
243].
6. The False Textual Theories of Lachmann, Tregelles, and Tischendorf
Summarized. Dean Burgon wrote: "Enough has been said to show-(the only point we
are bent on establishing)-that the one distinctive tenet of the three most
famous Critics since 1831 has been a superstitious reverence for whatever is
found in the same little handful of early,--but not the earliest,--nor yet of
necessity the purest,--documents." [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision Revised, p.
244]. He is talking now about Westcott and Hort's almost exclusive use of "B"
and "Aleph." Notice he calls it "superstitious reverence." This is tantamount
to worship, is it not?
7. The Errors of the Last Three False Textual
Theories. Dean Burgon wrote: "`Strange,' we venture to exclaim, (addressing the
living representatives of the school of Lachmann, and Tregelles, and
Tischendorf):--`Strange, that you should not perceive that you are the dupes of
a fallacy which is even transparent. You talk of "Antiquity." But you must know
very well that you actually mean something different. You fasten upon three, or
perhaps four,--on two, or perhaps three,--on one, or perhaps two,--documents of
the IVth or Vth century. But then, confessedly, these are one, two, three, or
four specimens only of Antiquity,--not "Antiquity" itself. And what if they
should even prove to be unfair samples of Antiquity? . . .'" [Dean John W.
Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 244].
8. The Errors in Dr. Hort's False New
Testament Textual Theory. Dean Burgon wrote: ". . . Dr. Hort informs us that
Lachmann's Text of 1831 was `the first founded on documentary authority.' . . .
On what then, pray, does the learned Professor imagine that the Texts of
Erasmus (1516) and of Stunica (1522) were founded: His statement is incorrect.
The actual difference between Lachmann's Text and those of the earlier Editors
is that his `documentary authority' is partial, narrow, self-contradictory; and
is proved to be untrustworthy by a free appeal to Antiquity." "Their
documentary authority, derived from independent sources,--though partial and
narrow as that on which Lachmann relied,--exhibits (under the good Providence
of God,) a Traditional Text, the general purity of which is demonstrated by all
the evidence which 350 years of subsequent research have succeeded in
accumulating; and which is confessedly the Text of A.D. 375." [Dean John W.
Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 250]. What he is trying to say is that the
opposite of the Westcott and Hort text is a traditional text which has been the
text of A.D. 375. This is, of course, what Westcott and Hort have agreed, but
they have a false theory to explain it.
9. The Errors in Both "Intrinsic
Probability" and "Transcriptional Probability." The page references are to
Westcott and Hort's Introduction to the Greek New Testament. Dean Burgon wrote:
"The dissertation on `Intrinsic' and `Transcriptional Probability' which
follows (pp. 20-30)--being unsupported by one single instance or
illustration,--we pass by. It ignores throughout the fact, that the most
serious corruptions of MSS are due not to `Scribes' or `Copyists,' . . . but to
the persons who employed them . . . . We venture to declare that inasmuch as
one expert's notions of what is `transcriptionally probable,' prove to be the
diametrical reverse of another expert's notions, the supposed evidence to be
derived from this source may, with advantage, be neglected altogether. Let the
study of Documentary Evidence be allowed to take its place. Notions of
`Probability' are the very pest of these departments of Science which admit of
an appeal to Fact." [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision Revised, pp. 251-52].
"Intrinsic probability" refers to what the original might have been. With their
mind the textual critics try to figure out what might have been there in the
original text. "Transcriptional probability" refers to what changes the scribe
might have made to the document. Both forms of "probability" are evil and pure
guesswork! 10. The Errors in the Alleged "Genealogical Evidence" in the Greek
Manuscripts. Dean Burgon wrote: "High time however is it to declare that, in
strictness, all this talk about `Genealogical evidence' when applied to
Manuscripts is moonshine. . . .But then, it happens, unfortunately, that we are
unacquainted with one single instance of a known MS copied from another known
MS. And perforce all talk about `Genealogical evidence,' where no single step
in the descent can be produced,--in other words, where no Genealogical evidence
exists,--is absurd." [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision Revised, pp. 255-56].
Genealogy in documents refers to those that are clearly related, one to the
other just like a relation might exist between a father, a son, a grandson and
so on. Yet that is one of the errors that Westcott and Hort made up. It is this
false genealogy argument which is used by the so-called Majority Greek text for
John 7:53--8:11, and the entire book of Revelation.
11. The Errors of the
So-Called "Genealogical Evidence" Illustrated. Dean Burgon wrote: "The living
inhabitants of a village, congregated in the churchyard where the bodies of
their forgotten progenitors for 1000 years repose without memorials of any
kind, [In other words, there are no gravestones in this cemetery.]--is a faint
image of the relation which subsists between extant copies of the Gospels and
the sources from which they were derived." [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision
Revised, p. 256].
12. The False Argument of "Conflation" Answered. The
following eight verses are the only ones offered as alleged examples of
"conflation" in Westcott and Hort's Introduction: (1) Mark 6:33; (2) Mark 8:26;
(3) Mark 9:38; (4) Mark 9:49; (5) Luke 9:10; (6) Luke 11:54; (7) Luke 12:18;
(8) Luke 24:53. Dean Burgon shows clearly that the above ##1, 2, 5, 6, & 7
don't even exhibit the phenomenon. Dean Burgon wrote: "The interpretation put
upon them by Drs. Westcott and Hort, is purely arbitrary: a baseless
imagination,--a dream and nothing more." [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision
Revised, pp. 258-262]. Here is what Westcott and Hort mean by conflation. You
might take a car and a van someplace. In writing about this, you might have one
manuscript that reads "car" and another manuscript that reads "van." Then you
have a manuscript that combines the two of them and reads "car and van."
Westcott and Hort alleged that this is what the Textus Receptus did in the
preceding eight examples. They said there were two parts to some texts, one
part from "B" and "Aleph" their "true" text, and another part from some other
manuscript. They claimed that the Textus Receptus took both parts and added
them together. This is what Westcott and Hort called "conflation." If
"conflation" were true to fact, wouldn't they be able to produce more than
eight examples of it? Yet Westcott and Hort couldn't find any more than eight,
and only three have any possible hope of being proper examples.
13. The
False So-Called "Syrian Text Recension" of 250 and 350 A.D. Refuted. Westcott
and Hort wrote: "The Syrian Text [our Textus Receptus] must in fact be the
result of a `Recension,' . . . performed deliberately by Editors, and not
merely by Scribes." (Introduction, p. 133). Dean Burgon answered them as
follows: "But why `must' it? Instead of `must in fact,' we are disposed to read
`may--in fiction.' The learned Critic can but mean that, on comparing the Text
of Fathers of the IVth century with the Text of cod. B, it becomes to himself
self-evident that one of the two has been fabricated. Granted. Then,--Why
should not the solitary Codex be the offending party? . . . why (we ask) should
codex B be upheld `contra mundum'?" [Against the whole world] [Dean John W.
Burgon, Revision Revised, pp. 272-73]. It is Codex "B" (the Vatican manuscript)
versus the text of the Church Fathers of the 4th century. Both can't be right.
One of the two must be fabricated. Can you guess which one Dean Burgon believes
to be "fabricated"?
14. The False Alleged "Syrian Text Recension of 250 and
350 A.D. Only A Guess. Dean Burgon wrote: "Apart however from the gross
intrinsic improbability of the supposed Recension,--the utter absence of one
particle of evidence, traditional or otherwise, that it ever did take place,
must be laid to be fatal to the hypothesis that it did. It is simply incredible
that an incident of such magnitude and interest would leave no trace of itself
in history. As a conjecture--(and it only professes to be a conjecture)--Dr.
Hort's notion of how the Text of the Fathers of the IIIrd, IVth, and Vth
centuries,--which, as he truly remarks, is in the main identical with our own
Received Text,--came into being, must be unconditionally abandoned." [Dean John
W. Burgon, Revision Revised, pp. 293-94]. A "recension" of the Greek New
Testament Text would mean that this text was fabricated by editors. The editor
would throw out all the other contrary texts, and come up with just one text.
There is not a scrap of history that tells anything about this event. This is a
false theory, but they had to account for the fact that the Textus
Receptus-type manuscripts have over 99% of the manuscript evidence behind it.
Westcott and Hort had to say that someone made an editorial recension or
revision of the New Testament. They then said that all of the Textus
Receptus-type manuscripts were carbon copies of that original recension or
revision. This is their false, flawed, and unhistorical hypothesis to account
for 99% of the evidence.
15. The Importance of Refuting the False
"Recension Theory" of Westcott and Hort. Dean Burgon wrote: "We have been so
full on the subject of this imaginary `Antiochian' or `Syrian text,' not (the
reader may be sure) without sufficient reason. Scant satisfaction truly is
there in scattering to the winds an airy tissue which its ingenious authors
have been industriously weaving for 30 years; But it is clear that with this
hypothesis of a `Syrian' text,--the immediate source and actual prototype of
the commonly received Text of the N.T.,--stands or falls their entire Textual
theory. Reject it, and the entire fabric is observed to collapse, and subside
into a shapeless ruin. And with it, of necessity, goes the `New Greek
Text,'--and therefore the `New English Version' of our Revisionists, which in
the main has been founded on it." [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision Revised, p.
294]. Westcott and Hort's whole house of cards will fall if their hypothesis
falls. It does fall because there is no historical record that shows that
anybody ever destroyed the many thousands of New Testament documents and edited
the text down to just one document, a recension. This is absolutely false to
history and cannot be proven to be true by any facts. The theory falls, the
text falls, the English translation falls!
16. Westcott and Hort's
Admission that the Textus Receptus Is the Greek Text Found Abundantly in the
"Fourth Century." Many Westcott and Hort supporters claim that the text of our
Textus Receptus kind of manuscripts is of a more recent date than "B" and
"Aleph." Westcott and Hort admitted: "The fundamental text of the late extant
Greek MSS generally is, beyond all question, identical with (what Dr. Hort
chooses to call) the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian text of the second
half of the IVth century . . . The Antiochian (and other) Fathers, and the bulk
of extant MSS, written from about three or four, to ten or eleven centuries
later, must have had, in the greater number of extant variations, a common
original either contemporary with, or older than, our oldest extant MSS."
[Westcott & Hort, Introduction to the Greek N.T., p. 92. quoted by Dean
John W. Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 295]. Westcott and Hort admitted
forthrightly that the Textus Receptus text is a 4th century text. They
explained this fact by its being the result of a rescension/revision made in
250 A.D. and again in 350 A.D. Again, Westcott and Hort did not attempt to
prove this, nor could they. It is merely a false hypothesis.
17. Dean
Burgon Agrees Wholeheartedly with Westcott and Hort's Admission that the Textus
Receptus Was the Dominant Text of the Fourth Century A.D., But for Different
Reasons. Dean Burgon wrote: "So far then, happily, we are entirely agreed. The
only question is--How is this resemblance to be accounted for? Not, we
answer,--not, certainly, by putting forward so violent and improbable--as
irrational a conjecture as that, first, about A.D. 250,--and then again about
A.D. 350,--an authoritative standard Text was fabricated at Antioch; of which
all other known MSS. (except a very little handful) are nothing else but
transcripts; but rather, by loyally recognizing, in the practical identity of
the Text exhibited by 99 out of 100 of our extant MSS, the probable general
fidelity of those many manuscripts to the inspired exemplars themselves from
which remotely they are confessedly descended." "And surely, if it be allowable
to assume (with Dr. Hort) that for 1532 years, (viz. from A.D. 350 to A.D.
1882) the Antiochian standard has been faithfully retained and transmitted,--it
will be impossible to assign any valid reason why the inspired Original itself,
the Apostolic standard, should not have been as faithfully transmitted and
retained from the Apostolic age to the Antiochian (i.e. say, from A.D. 90 to
A.D. 250-350)--i.e. throughout an interval of less than 250 years, or one-sixth
of the period." [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision Revised, pp. 295-96]. Dean
Burgon is saying clearly that God has preserved His Words. 18. More Explanation
of the False "Recension" Theory of the Greek New Testament. Dean Burgon wrote:
"Drs. Westcott and Hort assume that this `Antiochian text'--found in the later
cursives and the Fathers of the latter half of the IVth century--must be an
artificial, an arbitrarily invented standard; a text fabricated between A.D.
250 and A.D. 350. And if they may but be so fortunate as to persuade the world
to adopt their hypothesis, then all will be easy; for they will have reduced
the supposed `consent of Fathers' to the reproduction of one and the same
single `primary documentary witness': . . ." "Upset the hypothesis on the other
hand, and all is reversed in a moment. Every attesting Father is perceived to
be a dated MS. and an independent authority; and the combined evidence of
several of these becomes simply unmanageable. In like manner, `the approximate
consent of the cursives' . . . is perceived to be equivalent not to `A PRIMARY
DOCUMENTARY WITNESS,'--not to `ONE ANTIOCHIAN ORIGINAL,'--but to be tantamount
to the articulate speech of many witnesses of high character, coming to us from
every quarter of primitive Christendom." [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision
Revised, pp. 296-97].
19. The Vatican ("B") Manuscript Described. Dean
Burgon wrote: "Behold then the altar at which Copies, Fathers, Versions, are
all to be ruthlessly sacrificed,--the tribunal from which there shall be
absolutely no appeal,--the Oracle which is to silence every doubt, resolve
every riddle, smooth away every difficulty. All has been stated, where the name
has been pronounced of--codex B." [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision Revised, p.
301]. Again, Dean Burgon uses the element of humor as he paints the picture of
this false "altar" of "B" and "Aleph" worshiped by Westcott and Hort and their
followers.
20. The Fallacy of Worshiping the "B" (Vatican) Greek
Manuscript. Dean Burgon wrote: "And then, by an unscrupulous use of the process
of Reiteration, accompanied by a boundless exercise of the imaginative faculty,
we have reached the goal to which all that went before has been steadily
tending; viz. the absolute supremacy of codices B and Aleph above all other
codices,--and when they differ, then of codex B. And yet, the `immunity from
substantive error' of a lost Codex of imaginary date and unknown history cannot
but be a pure imagination,--(a mistaken one, as we shall presently show,)--of
these respected Critics: while their proposed practical inference from
it,--(viz. to regard two remote and confessedly depraved Copies of that
original, as `a safe criterion of genuineness,')-- this, at all events, is the
reverse of logical. In the meantime, the presumed proximity of the Text of
Aleph and B to the Apostolic age is henceforth discoursed of as if it were no
longer a matter of conjecture." [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision Revised, p.
304].
21. An Explanation of Why the Vatican ("B) and the Sinai ("Aleph")
Greek Manuscripts Survived for so Long. Dean Burgon wrote: "Lastly,--We suspect
that these two Manuscripts are indebted for their preservation, solely to their
ascertained evil character; which has occasioned that the one eventually found
its way, four centuries ago, to a forgotten shelf in the Vatican library; while
the other, after exercising the ingenuity of several generations of critical
Correctors, eventually (viz. in A.D. 1844) got deposited in the waste-paper
basket of the Convent at the foot of Mount Sinai. Had B and Aleph been copies
of average purity, they must long since have shared the inevitable fate of
books which are freely used and highly prized; namely, they would have fallen
into decadence and disappeared from sight." [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision
Revised, p.319] This is a powerful argument. Dean Burgon here explains why it
is that "B" and "Aleph" were still in existence after so many centuries.
22. Previous Veneration of the Vatican ("B") and the Sinai ("Aleph") Greek
Manuscripts. Dean Burgon wrote: "Since 1881, Editors have vied with one another
in the fulsomeness of the homage they have paid to these `two false
Witnesses,'--for such B and Aleph are, as the concurrent testimony of Copies,
Fathers and Versions abundantly prove. Even superstitious reverence has been
claimed for these two codices; and Drs. Westcott and Hort are so far in advance
of their predecessors in the servility of their blind adulation; that they must
be allowed to have easily won the race." [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision
Revised, pp. 319-20] Westcott and Hort have won the race for being the leading
"worshipers" of both "B" and "Aleph."
23. The Preference for "B" (Vatican)
and "Aleph" (Sinai) Is A "Superstition." Dean Burgon wrote: "B Aleph C . . .
But when I find them hopelessly at variance among themselves: above all, when I
find (1) all other Manuscripts of whatever date,--(2) the most ancient
Versions,--and (3) the whole body of the primitive Fathers, decidedly opposed
to them,--I am (to speak plainly) at a loss to understand how any man of sound
understanding acquainted with all the facts of the case and accustomed to exact
reasoning, can hesitate to regard the unsupported (or the slenderly supported)
testimony of one or other of them as simply worthless. The craven homage which
the foremost of the three [that is, manuscript "B"] habitually receives at the
hands of Drs. Westcott and Hort. I can only describe as a weak superstition. It
is something more than unreasonable. It becomes even ridiculous." [Dean John W.
Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 325]
24. The Illogical Nature of Concluding a
Universal from a Very Few Particulars. Dean Burgon disagreed that Westcott and
Hort could take a very small number of particular examples of Antiquity and
conclude a UNIVERSAL about ALL Antiquity. He wrote: "To make them [that is,
manuscripts "B" and "Aleph"] the basis of an induction is preposterous. It is
not allowable to infer the universal from the particular. If the bones of
Goliath were to be discovered to-morrow, would you propose as an induction
therefrom that it was the fashion to wear four-and-twenty fingers and toes on
one's hands and feet in the days of the giant of Gath?" [Dean John W. Burgon,
Revision Revised, pp. 329-30] In logic, "induction" is the process whereby you
take many particulars and then arrive at a generalization or a universal drawn
from those many particulars. From just one, two, or a few specimens, you cannot
come to any valid generalization, universal, or conclusion.
25. Dean
Burgon's Firsthand Manuscript Comparisons of "B," "Aleph," "C," and "D." Dean
Burgon wrote: "On first seriously applying ourselves to these studies, many
years ago, we found it wondrous difficult to divest ourselves of prepossessions
very like your own. Turn which way we would, we were encountered by the same
confident terminology: [We hear similar sentiments today!]--`the best
documents,' [this is a reference to "B" and "Aleph" of course]--`primary
manuscripts,'--`first-rate authorities,'--`primitive evidence,'--`ancient
readings,'--and so forth: and we found that thereby cod. A or B,--cod. C or
D--were invariably and exclusively meant" "It was not until we had laboriously
collated these documents (including Aleph) for ourselves that we became aware
of their true character.
Long before coming to the end of our task (and it
occupied us, off and on, for eight years) we had become convinced that the
supposed `best documents' and `first-rate authorities' are in reality among the
worst:--. . . A diligent inspection of a vast number of later Copies scattered
throughout the principal libraries of Europe, and the exact Collation of a few,
further convinced us that the deference generally claimed for B, Aleph, C, D is
nothing else but a weak superstition and a vulgar error:--that the date of a
MS. is not of its essence, but is a mere accident of the problem." [Dean John
W. Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 337]
26. Dean Burgon's Best and Only Method
of Seeking Proper New Testament Greek Readings. Dean Burgon wrote: "We deem
this laborious method the only true method, in our present state of imperfect
knowledge: the method, namely, of adopting that Reading which has the fullest,
the widest, and the most varied attestation. Antiquity and Respectability of
Witnesses, are thus secured. How men can persuade themselves that 19 Copies out
of every 20 may be safely disregarded, if they be but written in minuscule
characters,--we fail to understand. To ourselves it seems simply an irrational
proceeding. . . . As for building up a Text, (as Drs. Westcott and Hort have
done) with special superstitious deference to a single codex,--we deem it about
as reasonable as would be the attempt to build up a pyramid from its apex; in
the expectation that it would stand firm on its extremity, and remain
horizontal for ever." [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 342]
27.
The Peculiar Mind-Set of the Westcott and Hort Followers--Even Those of Today.
Dean Burgon wrote: "Phantoms of the imagination [That's where they begin.]
henceforth usurp the place of substantial forms. Interminable doubt,--wretched
misbelief,--childish credulity,--judicial blindness,--are the inevitable sequel
and penalty. The mind that has long allowed itself in a systematic trifling
with Evidence, is observed to fall the easiest prey to Imposture. It has
doubted what is demonstrably true: has rejected what is indubitably Divine.
Henceforth, it is observed to mistake its own fantastic creations for
historical facts; to believe things which rest on insufficient evidence, or on
no evidence at all." [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 350] When you
begin the descent down the slippery slope of phantomizing, rationalizing, and
spiritualizing, this is where Dean Burgon stated it ends up. This is where
Westcott and Hort ended up. This is where their modern day followers have ended
up or will end up before long! It is a frightening prospect!
28. For Dean
Burgon, There Can Be No Compromise in the Battle for the Words of God. Dean
Burgon wrote: "Compromise of any sort between the two conflicting parties, is
impossible also; for they simply contradict one another. Codd. B and Aleph are
either among the purest of manuscripts,--or else they are among the very
foulest. The Text of Drs. Westcott and Hort is either the very best which has
ever appeared,--or else it is the very worst; the nearest to the sacred
Autographs,--or the furthest from them." "There is no room for both opinions;
and there cannot exist any middle ground. The question will have to be fought
out; and it must be fought out fairly. It may not be magisterially settled; but
must be advocated, on either side, by the old logical method. . . . The
combatants may be sure that, in consequence of all that has happened, the
public will be no longer indifferent spectators of the fray; for the issue
concerns the inner life of the whole community,--touches men's heart of hearts.
. . . GOD'S TRUTH will be, as it has been throughout, the one object of all our
striving." [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision Revised, pp. 365-66] a. Compromise
not possible. Some people might ask if this is going to divide the church and
separate us. Maybe it has come to that. Certainly, for Dean Burgon, there can
be no compromise. Was Dean Burgon a fighter? Yes he was. He was a fighter for
the right and for the very Words of God. Shouldn't we of the Dean Burgon
Society, get Dean Burgon's spirit and also be fighters? Should we not be
fighters for the right and for the very Words of God? Yes, yes we should. b.
The Question Will Have To Be "Fought Out." Was young David a fighter? Yes he
was. Did David want to fight? No. Did he come out to fight? No, he just came
out to bring his brothers some food when that giant, Goliath, came after him.
We have Goliaths coming after us. Our precious Textus Receptus, the
Masoretic Text, and our King James Bible are all under attack today. Yes, we do
have Goliaths coming after us. c. The Battle Must Be Fought "Fairly." There is
nothing in my constitution that wants to be unfair. I want to fight only with
truth. That's the only basis on which we can fight. I want to be kind, but I
want to be firm. I believe Dean Burgon's writings follow this path. The battle
cannot be decided by some judge who can declare one side or the other as the
winner. d. The "Public" Will Not Be "Indifferent Spectators." As Dean Burgon
predicted, the "public" has indeed become interested in the battle for their
Bible. This is important. The "public" was aroused in his day, and it is being
aroused today. As Dean Burgon reminded us, "GOD'S TRUTH" must be the object of
our striving in the Dean Burgon Society.
Consider some of the books that
have been written to alert the general public concerning this problem. Dr.
David Otis Fuller's books--Which Bible, True or False, and Counterfeit or
Genuine--greatly assisted in this project. D. A. Carson wrote against Dr.
Fuller's position My own book, Defending the King James Bible, has made an
impact as well. Mrs. Riplinger's book, New Age Bible Versions, which stands for
the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible, has sold over 100,000 copies The
BIBLE FOR TODAY has reprinted some 900 titles in defense of the Masoretic
Hebrew, the Textus Receptus, and the King James Bible in an effort to make
available the facts in this area. James White's recent book opposes these
positions.
Many other writers for the side of the Masoretic Text, the
Textus Receptus, and the King James Bible position have contributed to this
"public" educational mission, including, but not limited to the following: Rev.
David Cloud of the Way of Life Ministries; Dr. Jack Moorman, missionary in
Great Britain; Dr. Edward Hills; Mr. Everett Fowler; Mr. Cecil Carter; Dr. Bob
Barnett; Pastor Bob Steward; D. A. Waite, Jr.; and many others.
V.
CONCLUSION A. The Revision Revised Can Be Used to Combat Current False Greek
Texts. There is no one book that exposes Westcott and Hort's false Greek text
and false Greek theory behind that text any more thoroughly and convincingly
than The Revision Revised. Dean Burgon defends the traditional text of the New
Testament. He also shows clearly the defects in both manuscript "B" (Vatican)
and manuscript "Aleph" (Sinai). It is very important to see the arguments
contained in this historic volume. Virtually the same Greek text of Westcott
and Hort (1881) has been used for almost all of the modern versions and
perversions. As proof of this, you can turn back to pages 2-3 for seven quotes
that tie the Westcott and Hort's Greek text to that of Nestle-Aland and the
United Bible Society. Therefore, The Revision Revised forms a strong basis for
a refutation of the false Greek texts and theories rampant today which form the
basis for the modern English versions.
B. Why Westcott and Hort's Text Is
So Similar to Current Greek Texts. It is very easy to understand why the 1881
Greek Text of Westcott and Hort is almost the same as that of the modern
revised Greek Texts such as Nestle-Aland, United Bible Society and others. Both
groups (Westcott and Hort and modern textual revisers) draw largely, if not
exclusively, on the false readings of manuscripts "B" (Vatican) and "Aleph"
(Sinai). It is axiomatic that "things equal to the same thing are equal to each
other."
C. The Excellence of The Revision Revised. This present book, The
Revision Revised, is another of Dean John William Burgon's masterpieces. It
contains, as do all of his books, overwhelming evidence from manuscripts,
lectionaries, ancient versions, and church fathers showing clearly three
deficiencies: (1) The deficient Greek Text of Westcott and Hort; (2) The
deficient English translation based upon it; and (3) The deficient theory
underlying the Greek text. His arguments are powerful and convincing!
D.
The Revision Revised Can Be Used to Combat Current False Modern Versions. In
the way Dean Burgon repudiates the English Revised Version of 1881 and defends
the Authorized King James Bible, this book will also form a strong basis for
defending the King James Bible against the modern versions such as the ASV,
RSV, NASV, NIV, TEV, NIV, NRSV, CEV, the footnotes in the study edition of the
NKJV, and many others.
Back To FAQs?