I found this interesting article by James May recently and thought to post
it.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
---
Dean Burgon: The Greatest Enemy Of King James Onlyism
by James May[1]
There are three false ideas which underlie King James Onlyism. First, KJVers
believe that God has promised a perfect preservation of the Bible. Second,
they believe that either by his providential guidance or direct inspiration
this promise has been fulfilled in the King James Version. Third, they
believe that God has placed his blessing upon the KJV in such a manner that
all right thinking, spiritual Christians recognize that while all modern
Bibles are perversions and corruptions of God's Word, the KJV is perfect.
Some advocates will hedge on the word "perfect" by saying that while the
King James is completely without error, it is not "perfect" in the same
sense as the Greek and Hebrew. Within the movement, a more extreme group
believes that the KJV is directly the product of inspiration, and in fact is
useful in correcting the Greek text of the New Testament. Members of this
more extreme element may often be identified by their foul language, crude
name-calling, boastful arrogance and interestingly, their attacks both upon
those who use modern versions and upon the less extreme members of the King
James Only movement.
KJVers of whatever stripe make a regular habit of misrepresenting the views
of various men of the past in order to support their false position. This
author, for example, has spent considerable time examining the many false,
vicious and wicked accusations that have been made against Brooke Foss
Westcott. The false accusers typically teach that he was an occult
practitioner and a deliberate corrupter of God's Word. Anyone willing to
examine the facts can observe that he was instead a conservative, orthodox
scholar who devoted much time and effort to the defense of the New Testament
and of the Person of Jesus Christ. KJVers not only misrepresent the views of
those whom they consider their enemies, but also of those whom they count as
friends. The inclusion by David Otis Fuller of writings by Robert *****
Wilson, the great Princeton scholar, in Fuller's book Which Bible? comes to
mind. Wilson never advocated King James Onlyism, but anyone reading his
material sandwiched between KJV propaganda might naturally suppose
otherwise. Fuller also included material from Benjamin Wilkinson's book, Our
Authorized Bible Vindicated, and deliberately hid the fact that the author
was a grace denying Seventh Day Adventist missionary and Bible college
teacher. One of the most interesting characters who is alleged to have
supported KJVism, and yet who clearly did not, is Dean John William Burgon.
A number of King James Only supporters, generally of the less extreme wing,
have even formed a society to which they have improperly attached Burgon's
name.
Burgon, Anglican Churchman and Greek scholar, was a contemporary and
vigorous opponent of Westcott and Hort. While Burgon spoke highly of their
character and ability, he opposed the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament
and the English Revised Version derived from it with very harsh language.
KJVers make a false assumption, however, when they assume that the enemy of
their enemy is their friend. Burgon differed with the Dean Burgon Society
first in regard to the process which led to the creation of the Textus
Receptus and the King James Bible, and secondly in regard to the alleged
perfection of the TR and KJV. In reality, the position and teachings of John
Burgon demonstrate him to be the greatest enemy of King James Onlyism.
KJVism and the Dean Burgon Society
Donald Waite is the president of both the Dean Burgon Society and of the
Bible for Today. If the two organizations are legally separate (I suspect
that they are), they are nonetheless very closely related. Their websites
are linked; they are both headquartered in Waite's house.[2] If publications
of the Bible for Today do not represent official positions of the Dean
Burgon Society, they certainly represent the thinking of many members of the
DBS. It may be safely assumed that both organizations speak with a single
voice.
From the Dean Burgon Society website, one may download the Articles of Faith
of the organization. Contained therein are the following two statements:
We believe that the Texts which are the closest to the original autographs
of the Bible are the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text for the Old
Testament, and the traditional Greek Text for the New Testament underlying
the King James Version (as found in "The Greek Text Underlying The English
Authorized Version of 1611").
We believe that all of the verses in the King James Version belong in the
Old and the New Testaments because they represent words we believe were in
the original texts, although there might be other renderings from the
original languages which could also be acceptable to us today.
The website also relays the objectives of the DBS, which include:
To defend the Traditional Received Greek Text of the New Testament which
underlies the King James Version (such as is found in The Greek Text
Underlying The English Authorized Version of 1611).
Further, it shall be our purpose to keep abreast of future bibliographic
offerings in order to criticize and warn against those deviating from the
Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text and the Traditional Received Greek Text
which underlie the King James Version.
It is this author's observation that King James Only writers, at their very
best, are frequently just a little sloppy. In the first sentence above, for
example, the word "Traditional" is capitalized when it appears in
"Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text," but not capitalized in "traditional
Greek Text." When Scrivener's edition of the Textus Receptus is first
mentioned above, it is enclosed in quotation marks: "The Greek Text
Underlying The English Authorized Version of 1611"; when it is referenced in
the list of objectives, the quotation marks are missing. Unfortunately, King
James Only authors are even far sloppier in their research.
The first question which we consider here is whether the Dean Burgon Society
believes in the perfection of the Textus Receptus, or perhaps we should say,
in the perfection of the particular expression of the Textus Receptus which
underlies the King James Bible. We should like to know if the Society and
its leaders believe that the edition of the TR compiled by F.H.A. Scrivener
and first published in 1894, contains all of the words of God and only the
words of God. The statement by the DBS that the Masoretic Hebrew text (which
is not a single, uniform text) and the 1894 TR of Scrivener are the "closest
to the original autographs of the Bible" may leave the reader wondering.
These words, by themselves, do not specify perfection in the TR. When,
however, the members claim that the KJV contains "all of the verses" that it
should because such verses "represent words we believe were in the original
texts" it seems that only a perfect TR would satisfy such an affirmation.
Further, under the organization's objectives, the defense of a precise form
of the TR, namely that which underlies the KJV, is required. They also seek
to warn against any deviations from the exact TR of 1894, which only makes
sense if that particular TR is beyond revision.
Other publications of the Bible for Today and of the Dean Burgon Society
fortify this conclusion. Dr. Waite, president of both organizations,
distributes an article by Jeffrey Khoo entitled "A Plea for a Perfect
Bible," (Bible For Today article B.F.T. #3094). In this article, Khoo
offers the following clarification of the DBS position:
It must be clarified that the word "closest" in the Dean Burgon Society
statement does not at all mean that we have an errant text or that the text
is not the same as the original writings. . . . Dr D A Waite [sic],
President of the Dean Burgon Society, likewise understands the statement to
mean "that the words of the Received Greek and Masoretic Hebrew texts that
underlie the King James Bible are the very words which God has preserved
down through the centuries, being the exact words of the originals
themselves," (Khoo, p. 4).
Although Khoo does not give a reference for this information from Waite, his
use of quotation marks indicates that he is reproducing Waite's words. Since
Waite himself distributes this material without objection, we must assume
that it is indeed an accurate statement of the position of the president of
the Dean Burgon Society as well as of the society itself. The only other
possibility is that Waite is allowing his position to be misstated by more
radical elements within the DBS. Khoo believes that God guided both Erasmus
and the King James translators in their selections of readings:
I believe God providentially guided the KJV translators to produce the
purest TR of all. . . . The KJV translators had all the various editions of
the TR to refer to, and they made their decisions with the help of the Holy
Spirit. I believe the Lord providentially guided the King James translators
to make the right textual decisions. As such, I do not believe we need to
improve on the TR underlying the KJV, (Khoo, p. 6).
Again, with no objection from Waite, we assume that this nonsense, which is
actually the brain-child of Edward Hills, represents the thinking of most of
the leadership of the DBS. Perhaps we should apply the same logic (?) to
John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. God must have led Calvin
to choose just the right words. Surely we cannot imagine that the most
influential theological document of the Protestant Reformation is the
product of a mere 26 year-old man with no divine intervention. We must see
the hand of God in this. With no objective foundation, there is no limit to
how such foolish reasoning can be misused.
Dr. Waite distributes another document which expresses the same position as
that taken by Khoo. The author, like Khoo, is a Bible Presbyterian from
Singapore. His name is the Rev Quek Suan Yew, and he has produced a paper
entitled, "We Have an Inerrant Bible . . . . Today!" (B.F.T. #3101). His
position, which Waite appears to support, is that:
When we speak of the perfect Bible we refer to God's Word in the original
languages, Hebrew and Aramaic in the Old Testament and Greek in the New
Testament. . . . When we begin with God and His Holy Wisdom we arrive
plainly and simply with a perfect Bible today. . . . The KJV translation is
the best translation in the English language because it uses the preserved
text (perfect like the original). It also has [sic] the best group of godly
translators gathered together by the providential hand of God, never to be
repeated again in the history of mankind, (Yew, pp. 1, 2, 12).
It is clearly stated by both Mr. Khoo and Rev. Yew that the Textus Receptus
is a perfect copy of the original text of the New Testament. A further
statement by Yew leaves us at an utter loss for words:
From church history this issue was ironed out and crystallized for us when
the early church fathers fought for the purity of God's Word in the English
language, (Yew, p. 8).
Yes, this is indeed the material that Dr. Donald Waite, Th.D., Ph.D.,
President of the Dean Burgon Society and of the Bible for Today, sends out
for our consumption. Can we somehow suppose that Yew does not really believe
what he says in this sentence? This is the "we believe what we want to
believe in spite of the evidence" position on the text of the New Testament.
A third document relating the position of the Burgon Society is a book
entitled When the KJV Departs from the "Majority Text". Written by Jack
Moorman, it is published by the Bible for Today, and is identified as B.F.T.
#1617. Any doubt that this publication of the Bible for Today represents the
position of the DBS is removed by a small tract authored by Dr. Waite. The
tract, entitled "Why Reject the 'Majority' Text", carries the emblem of the
Dean Burgon Society on its front cover, and is simply a summary of, and
piece of promotional literature for, Moorman's book. The book itself is an
attack upon the majority text of the New Testament as edited by Zane Hodges
and Arthur Farstad. Moorman quotes from page x of the Hodges/Farstad text as
follows:
The editors do not imagine that the text of this edition represents in all
particulars the exact form of the originals. . .[sic] It should therefore be
kept in mind that the present work. . .is both preliminary and provisional,
(Moorman, p. v, quoting Hodges/Farstad, p. x).
The provisional nature of the Hodges/Farstad text causes Mr. Moorman grave
difficulty, as indicated in the following words:
So we are bound to ask, if this isn't, if the AV-Received Text isn't, if the
Critical Text isn't; where must we go to get a Bible today? If after these
certuries [sic] we still have only a provisional, preliminary, tentative
Bible; what are we to do?
It is a common cry of the King James Only that if we do not have the Bible
in precisely perfect form, we do not have it at all; highly accurate,
sufficient for all practical matters of doctrine and life is not good
enough. Any doubt concerning Moorman's position is removed by the following
extreme words:
When a version has been the standard as long as the Authorized Version and
when that version has demonstrated its power in the conversion of sinners,
building up of believers, sending forth of preachers and missionaries on a
scale not achieved by all other versions and foreign language editions
combined; the hand of God is at work. Such a version must not be tampered
with. And in those comparatively few places where it seems to depart from
the majority reading, it would be far more honoring toward God's promises of
preservation to believe that the Greek and not the English had strayed from
the original! (Moorman, p. 28).
Here we find the truth about Moorman and the rest of the King James Only
crowd: What the Greek text says, when push comes to shove, does not mean a
thing if it contradicts the King James Version! As pious as Moorman tries to
make this sound, it is nothing but heresy and differs little from Pete
Ruckman's correction of the Greek by the King James Bible. This is man's
tradition, not God's truth, and demonstrates that Moorman's appeal to
majority readings is all smoke and mirrors. Moorman and friends are not in
the slightest governed by the manuscript evidence, but rather by the alleged
promise of perfect preservation. When they discuss the evidence that
supports a given reading, it is nothing but foolishness. It is important to
note, however, that when Moorman speaks of the Greek as straying from the
original, he means the Greek as contained in the majority of manuscripts. He
clearly does not mean that the Textus Receptus (at least the Textus Receptus
of 1894) has gone awry. For Moorman, the Textus Receptus is the
"God-honoured Textus Receptus," (p. 12) and is identical in text to the KJV.
Once again, and by a third author, we have the position of the Dean Burgon
Society.
So What about Burgon?
It has been clearly established that the Dean Burgon Society believes that
the King James translators where led by the Holy Spirit to select exactly
the right words and only the right words from the various editions of the
Textus Receptus for inclusion in the New Testament of the King James Bible.
Further, when F.H.A. Scrivener assembled those selections into a discrete
book and published it in 1894, he thereby produced a perfect Greek New
Testament. The society also believes that the KJV contains no errors
whatsoever, although some words could be translated differently provided
that the new words contained exactly the same information as the old. The
question now is whether Dean Burgon himself believed that both the Textus
Receptus and the King James Bible contained all of the words of God and only
the words of God. First we will examine ten passages about which Burgon
indicated that the Textus Receptus does not contain the correct words, the
first six of which are also commented upon by Jack Moorman in his above
mentioned book.
Matthew 6:18
Moorman brings to our attention the well-known fact that the last word of
this verse ("openly" = three words in Greek) as found in the TR and KJV, is
lacking in the majority of Greek manuscripts. In this example, as well as in
all the ones that follow, he then lists all of the support for the minority
reading. He does not list the evidence against the reading, and with good
reason;---the poverty of his argument would become immediately obvious.
Edward Miller, Burgon's understudy and editor, relays Burgon's analysis of
the variant:
The three most important additions to the Received Text occur, as Dean
Burgon thought, in St. Matt. vi. 18, where en to phanero [openly] has crept
in from v. 6 against the testimony of a large majority both of Uncial and of
Cursive MSS ; . . . ., (Edward Miller in John Burgon, The Causes of
Corruption of the Traditional Text, ed. Edward Miller (1896; rpt.
Collingswood, NJ: The Dean Burgon Society Press, 1998), p. 171).
Burgon agrees with Hodges and Farstad in this instance, against Waite,
Moorman, and the Dean Burgon Society. This one example, all by itself, is
sufficient to prove that he did not believe that all of the words in the TR
and KJV are the words of God. It also proves that he did not believe the
theory put forth by Edward Hills and adopted by many, if not most members of
the DBS, that God providentially directed Erasmus and the King James
translators to choose the correct words for the New Testament. Here, as
elsewhere, Burgon consistently followed the logic of his majority text
argument.
Matthew 10:8
Most of the hand-copied Greek manuscripts of the New Testament do not
contain the phrase "raise the dead" in Matthew 10:8. Waite, Moorman, and the
Dean Burgon Society believe that, in spite of this lack of support, the
words should be added, as they have been in the Textus Receptus and the King
James Bible. Dean Burgon agrees with the majority of manuscripts and with
Hodges and Farstad that the phrase is not part of Matthew Gospel:
'Very nearly--not quite:' for, in not a few particulars, the 'Textus
receptus' does call for Revision, certainly; although Revision on entirely
different principles from those which are found to have prevailed in the
Jerusalem Chamber. To mention a single instance;--When our Lord first sent
forth His Twelve Apostles, it was certainly no part of His ministerial
commission to them to 'raise the dead'(nekrous egeirete, S. Matthew x. 8).
This is easily demonstrable. Yet is the spurious clause retained by our
Revisionists; because it is found in those corrupt witnesses Aleph B C D,
and the Latin copies," (John Burgon, The Revision Revised (1883; rpt.
Collingswood, NJ: The Bible For Today, 1984), pp. 107-8, bold added).
It becomes very obvious that Burgon's method of determining the true text of
the New Testament was much different than the method followed by Waite,
Moorman, and others of their clan. Waite has written a booklet entitled
Burgon's Warnings on Revision. The gist of his argument is that no changes
whatsoever should be made to the Textus Receptus until a long list of
stringent conditions allegedly set forth by Burgon are met. I say
"allegedly" after comparing Waite's list to the actual words of Burgon. The
above quotation demonstrates the fallacy of Waite's booklet. Burgon believed
that it was "easily demonstrable" that this clause should be removed from
the Textus Receptus. Even if extensive preparations would be required for a
complete revision of the TR, it is obvious that in the meantime many errors
that are, as Burgon put it, "easily demonstrable" could be corrected. In
other words, there is no logical reason (for those who adopt a majority text
position) why the TR could not be corrected through a series of editions,
just as it was originally fabricated. In truth, however, Waite does not
believe that the TR should be revised at all. He simply wants to use Burgon's
material against the Westcott and Hort text without adopting Burgon's
position on the Textus Receptus.
Matthew 20:22
Moorman defends the TR/KJV reading "and to be baptized" in opposition to the
majority text reading "or to be baptized." The false reading (according to
Burgon) brings Matthew 20:22 into harmony with Mark 10:38. Burgon believed
the TR/KJV to be in error:
This delicate distinction between the first and the second Gospel,
obliterated in the Received Text, is faithfully maintained in nineteen out
of twenty of the Cursive Copies, (John Burgon, The Traditional Text of the
Holy Gospels, ed. Edward Miller (1896; rpt. Collingswood, NJ: The Dean
Burgon Society Press, 1998), p. 210).
Again Burgon stands in opposition to Waite, Moorman, and the Dean Burgon
Society. Surely no defender of the TR would want to retain a reading that is
not contained, as Burgon put it, in 95% of the cursive manuscripts. Well,
maybe they would.
Matthew 27:35
The rather lengthy dependent clause "that it might be fulfilled which was
spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my
vesture did they cast lots" is not found in the majority of Greek
manuscripts. Burgon's esteemed opinion of this situation is found in the
Dean Burgon Society's reprint of The Causes of Corruption of the Traditional
Text:
The three most important additions to the Received Text occur, as Dean
Burgon thought, in St. Matt. vi. 18 . . . : in St. Matt. xxv. 13, . . . :
and in St. Matt. xxvii. 35, where the quotation (ina plerothe . . . ebalon
klarpon) must be taken for similar reasons to have been originally a gloss,
(Edward Miller in John Burgon, The Causes of Corruption of the Traditional
Text, ed. Edward Miller, p. 171).
Are Donald Waite, Jack Moorman, and the rest of the Dean Burgon Society
willing to agree with Hodges and Farstad, with the majority of Greek
manuscripts, and with Dean Burgon himself, that these false words have no
place in Matthew's gospel?
John 9:36
Where the King James has "He answered and said, Who is he, Lord . . . ," the
majority of manuscripts read "He answered and said, And who is he Lord . . .
.." Burgon comments as follows:
The undoubtedly genuine expression kai tis esti, Kurie [and who is he,
Lord](which is the traditional reading of St. John ix. 36), loses its
characteristic KAI [and] in Cod. Aleph*AL,---though it retains it in the
rest of the uncials and in all the cursives. The kai [and] is found in the
Complutensian,---because the editors followed their copies: it is not found
in the Textus Receptus only because Erasmus did not as in cases before
mentioned follow his, (John Burgon, The Traditional Text of the Holy
Gospels, ed. Edward Miller, p. 191).
Once again Burgon follows the logic of his majority text argument and
thereby rejects the TR, the KJV, Waite, Moorman, and the Dean Burgon
Society. Notice that according to Burgon, there is no doubt that the Textus
Receptus is in error and can be corrected without a long list of conditions
first being met.
I John 5:7
No verse has received more attention from KJVers than I John 5:7; no verse
reveals more clearly the poverty and desperation of their position. In this
important case Moorman is not content to merely list the materials that
support the verse. Instead he devotes nine pages to defending the
indefensible. This is not the place for another rehash of the lack of
evidence in support of adding the words to John's epistle. Our concern here
is entirely with John Burgon's view of the reference. Moorman fails to
reproduce any comments from his champion in support of this most important
of minority readings. The simple reason is that Burgon, consistent with his
own principles, did not believe that I John 5:7 was part of the original
text of the New Testament, and he therefore never argued for its
genuineness.
Beginning on page 424 and extending through page 501 of The Revision
Revised, Burgon discussed the evidence in favor of the TR reading of I
Timothy 3:16. As is well known, the reading "theos" has strong majority
support. On a percentage basis, the support for "hos" is slim, so slim that
given Burgon's presuppositions, the Dean considers the critical text reading
to be not worth considering. In fact, the critical text reading has such
slight support that in Burgon's mind it is no more likely to be part of the
original text than is I John 5:7. To make his point, Burgon quotes, in
Latin, from Griesbach:
"'Si,'--(as Griesbach remarks concerning I John v. 7)--'si tam
pauci....testes....sufficerent ad demonstradam lectionis cujusdam gnesioteta
[gk.] licet obstent tam multa tamque gravia et testimonia et argumenta;
nullum prorsus superesset in re critica veri falsique criterium, et textus
Novi Testamenti universus plane incertus esset atque dublius" (Revision
Revised p. 483).
Translation: "If so few witnesses could suffice to demonstrate a given
reading to be genuine -- despite the opposition of numerous and weighty
witnesses and arguments against it -- then nothing certain can remain
regarding true or false in [textual] criteria, and the NT text becomes
completely uncertain as well as doubtful."[3]
Burgon believed that if I John 5:7 is to be accepted on the basis of the
meager evidence that supports the verse, there can be no certainty regarding
any reading in the New Testament. This is clearly not the position of Waite,
Moorman, or the Dean Burgon Society. On page 151 of his book, Defending the
King James Bible, Waite comments upon Bibles which omit I John 5:7: "At this
point, these Greek texts and these English versions are theologically
deficient, whereas the Textus Receptus and the KING JAMES BIBLE are
theologically superior." Dr. Waite forgot to tell us that Dean Burgon
himself is also "theologically deficient" on this verse. Moorman says that
"It is sad to observe how readily modern christians [sic] will surrender
this and other passages on 'textual grounds' without bothering to look more
closely at the evidence," (p. 115). Yes, we all wish that John Burgon had
studied this more closely.
Passages Overlooked by Moorman
Moorman's list of 375 passages in the King James Bible with readings which
lack majority support fails to include many references. While I have made no
attempt to determine its overall completeness vis-à-vis Burgon's materials,
I note four references which the list does not contain where Dean Burgon
rejected words found in the TR/KJV:
Luke 16:25
An instance where an error from an Itacism has crept into the Textus
Receptus may be seen in St. Luke xvi. 25. Some scribes needlessly changed
hwde[4] into hode, misinterpreting the letter which served often for both
the long and the short o, and thereby cast out some illustrative meaning,
since Abraham meant to lay stress upon the enjoyment 'in his bosom' of
comfort by Lazarus, (John Burgon, The Causes of Corruption of the
Traditional Text, ed. Edward Miller, p. 60).
Luke 18:14
This same particle (gar) has led to an extraordinary amount of confusion in
another place, where its idiomatic propriety has evidently been neither felt
nor understood,---viz. in St. Luke xviii. 14. 'This man' (says our LORD)
'went down to his house justified rather than' (h gar) 'the other.' Scholars
recognize here an exquisitely idiomatic expression, which in fact obtains so
universally in the Traditional Text that its genuineness is altogether above
suspicion. . . . The Complutensian has it, of course: and so would the
Textus Receptus have it, if Erasmus had followed his MS., (John Burgon, The
Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, ed. Edward Miller, p. 193).
John 13:25
Again, in St. John xiii. 25, outws has dropped out of many copies and so out
of the Received Text because by an Itacism it was written outos in many
manuscripts, (John Burgon, The Causes of Corruption of the Traditional Text,
ed. Edward Miller, p. 60).
John 14:22
The same refinement of expression recurs in the Traditional Text of [John]
ch. xiv. 22 (Kurie, KAI ti gegonen), and experienced precisely the same fate
at the hands of the two earliest editors of the printed Greek Text, (John
Burgon, The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, ed. Edward Miller, pp.
191-92).
The Name of Jesus
KJV Only writers frequently note that the Critical Text contains the name of
Jesus only about 90% as many times as the Textus Receptus (although they
seldom give it as a percentage). Burgon believed that the TR contained
"Jesus" too often:
Thus o Ihsous [Jesus] has often been inserted, and in some places remains
wrongly (in the opinion of Dean Burgon) in the pages of the Received Text,
(Edward Miller in John Burgon, The Causes of Corruption of the Traditional
Text, ed. Edward Miller, p. 171).
How many members of the Dean Burgon Society agree with this assessment?
Burgon and the Textus Receptus
Burgon's adherence to the majority text clearly represents a rejection of
the Textus Receptus in numerous variants, as demonstrated above. There are
several quotations where, without necessarily giving specific references,
the Dean rejected any thought that the TR is perfect.
First, be it understood, that we do not advocate perfection in the Textus
Receptus. We allow that 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,
(Edward Miller in John Burgon, The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, ed.
Edward Miller, p. 5, bold added).
I am not defending the 'Textus Receptus'; I am simply stating the fact of
its existence. That it is without authority to bind, nay, that it calls for
skilful revision in every part, is freely admitted. I do not believe it to
be absolutely identical with the true Traditional Text, (John Burgon, The
Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, ed. Edward Miller, p. 15, bold added).
.. . . where any part of it [the Textus Receptus] conflicts with the fullest
evidence attainable, there I believe that it calls for correction, (John
Burgon, The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, ed. Edward Miller, p. 15).
A standard of reference being absolutely necessary, I have kept before me a
copy of Dr. Scrivener's Cambridge Greek Testament, A.D. 1887, in which the
disputed passages are printed in black type, although the Text there
presented is the Textus Receptus from which the Traditional Text as revised
by Dean Burgon and hereafter to be published differs in many passages,
(Edward Miller in John Burgon, The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, ed.
Edward Miller, pp. 95-96, bold added).
.. . . the Traditional Text must be found, not in a mere transcript, but in a
laborious revision of the Received Text; and that on the other hand it must,
as far as we can judge, differ but slightly from the Text now generally in
vogue, which has been generally received during the last two and a half
centuries, (John Burgon, The Causes of Corruption of the Traditional Text,
ed. Edward Miller, p. 1, bold added).
True, that, in order to exhibit clearly their respective divergences, I have
referred five famous codices (A B Aleph C D)---certain of which are found to
have turned the brain of Critics of the new school---to one and the same
familiar exhibition of the commonly received Text of the New Testament: but
by so doing I have not by any means assumed the Textual purity of that
common standard. In other words I have not made it "the final standard of
Appeal," (John Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. xviii, bold added).
After many years it might be found practicable to put forth by authority a
carefully considered Revision of the commonly received Greek Text, (John
Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. xxix).
The discrepancy between the texts of B Aleph D, thus for the first time
brought distinctly into notice, let it be distinctly borne in mind, is a
matter wholly irrespective of the merits of demerits of the Textus
Receptus,---which, for convenience only, is adopted as a standard: not, of
course, of Excellence but only of Comparison, (John Burgon, The Revision
Revised, p. 75).
'Very nearly--not quite:' for, in not a few particulars, the 'Textus
receptus' does call for Revision, certainly; although Revision on entirely
different principles from those which are found to have prevailed in the
Jerusalem Chamber, (John Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 107).
But pray, who in his senses,---what sane man in Great Britain,---ever
dreamed of regarding the "Received,"---aye, or any other known "Text,"---as
"a standard from which there shall be no appeal"? Have I ever done so? Have
I ever implied as much? If I have, show me where, (John Burgon, The Revision
Revised, p. 385).
I regard the 'Textus Receptus' therefore, according to you, as the Ephesians
regarded the image of the great goddess Diana; namely, as a thing which, one
fine morning, "fell down from Jupiter." I mistake the Received Text, (you
imply,) for the Divine Original, the Sacred Autographs,---and erect it into
"a standard from which there shall be no appeal,"---"a tradition which it is
little else but sacrilege to impugn." That is how you state my case and
condition: hopelessly confusing the standard of Comparison with the standard
of Excellence. By this time, however, enough has been said to convince any
fair person that you are without warrant in your present contention. . . .
[T]he Truth of Scripture is to be sought in that form of the Sacred Text
which has the fullest, the widest, and the most varied attestation, (John
Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 387).
While the above material creates tremendous problems for the members of the
Dean Burgon Society, they seem oblivious to the whole matter. Yes, Dean
Burgon believed that there are errors in the Textus Receptus and that it is
in need of extensive revision, including at least 150 changes in the Gospel
of Matthew alone! Waite wrote a booklet, Burgon's Warnings on Revision, in
1980 to calm the fears of the faithful. In it he does his usual twisting of
facts to defend Burgon and once again attack Westcott and Hort. Waite
falsely equates the Traditional Text with the Received Text and then tells
his readers that "Dean Burgon praised this 'Traditional Text' as one which
'cannot seriously be suspected of error'," (Waite, Burgon's Warnings on
Revision, p. 10). First of all Burgon did not believe that the Textus
Receptus was identical to the Traditional Text: ". . . the Traditional Text
must be found, not in a mere transcript, but in a laborious revision of the
Received Text . . . ," (John Burgon, The Causes of Corruption of the
Traditional Text, p. 1, bold added). When we examine the material from
Burgon that Waite quotes (The Revision Revised, p. 356, footnote), we
discover that Burgon is not discussing the entire New Testament text, but
only one variant reading in Colossians 2:18! Burgon is merely stating that
the Traditional Text, not the Textus Receptus, cannot be suspected of error
in Colossians 2:18! He most clearly did not believe that the entire Textus
Receptus "cannot seriously be suspected of error"!
Burgon and the King James Bible
Most of Burgon's time and attention was devoted to attacking the Greek text
of Westcott and Hort and the English Revised Version of 1881. With some of
his opponents implying that he believed in the perfection of the Textus
Receptus, he also found it necessary to make it clear that he believed that
the TR was in need of much revision. No one, however, accused him of
believing that the King James was a perfect translation, and for that reason
he did not address the issue. Of course, the changes that Burgon would have
made in the TR would imply imperfection in the KJV as well. The theory held
by many KJVers of an absolutely perfect KJV only requires one error for its
refutation. Here it is from Burgon:
Now, it is plain that the key which unlocks this interesting story [Luke
5:1-2] is the graphic precision of the compound verb employed, and the
well-known usage of the language which gives to the aorist tense on such
occasions as the present a pluperfect signification. The Translators of
1611, not understanding the incident, were content, as Tyndale, following
the Vulgate, had been before them, to render apeplunan ta diktua,---'were
washing their nets.' (John Burgon, The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels,
ed. Edward Miller, p. 212).
Why not Burgon?
According to King James Only proponents, it is a grave error, if not a
wicked sin, to disagree with their opinion of the Textus Receptus and of the
King James Bible. Those who do not believe the TR and/or the KJV to be
absolutely free from even the most minor errors have abandoned the faith and
at the very least have started down the slippery slope that leads to
complete apostasy. They are "Alexandrian Apostates." There is, however, at
least for the members of the Dean Burgon Society, one notable exception to
this rule. John Burgon can deny the perfection of the TR and of the KJV, can
deny that the Church has in her possession a perfect Bible, can point out
numerous errors in the King James, and draw nary a word of criticism. It
should not be supposed that Donald Waite and the other members of the DBS
are ignorant of Burgon's position. As mentioned above, Waite has written a
booklet, Burgon's Warnings on Revision, in which he clearly recognizes
Burgon's belief in an imperfect TR. He simply chooses to ignore the
devastating implications of his champion's theory of the text. While Waite
and his myrmidons can do all of the ignoring that they want, the simple
facts do not change. We start with a quotation from page 1 of Moorman's
book, When the KJV Departs from the "Majority Text":
Notice the disturbing kind of statement Pickering is prepared to make:
We do not at this moment have the precise wording of the original text (INTT
p 153).
If Moorman and his clan are disturbed because Pickering goes not believe
that the precise wording of the text has been assembled into one particular
edition of the Greek NT, why are they not disturbed when Burgon says:
I will venture to make only one more postulate, viz. this: That hitherto we
have become acquainted with no single authority which is entitled to dictate
absolutely on all occasions, or even on one occasion, as to what shall or
shall not be regarded as the true Text of Scripture. We have no one
infallible witness, I say, whose solitary dictum is competent to settle
controversies, (John Burgon, The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, ed.
Edward Miller, p. 28, bold added).
Khoo believes that fundamentalists who do not accept his view of the TR/KJV
are no better than neo-evangelicals. Of course, Burgon was no
fundamentalist, but are Khoo and company willing to make the same accusation
against him that they make against non-KJV fundamentalists?
I submit that if they [fundamentalists who are not KJV Only] proceed with
this line of thinking and of judging the Bible, crying "error, error, error"
here and there, they are no better than the neo-evangelicals who say that
our Bible is only inerrant in a limited sense, (Khoo, p. 2).
Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, by any
means, claim perfection for the Received Text. We entertain no extravagant
notions on this subject. Again and again we shall have occasion to point out
(e.g. at page 107) that the Textus Receptus needs correction, (John Burgon,
The Revision Revised, p. 21, bold added).
In the next statement, Khoo sets up a straw man: What orthodox believer of
whatever stripe has ever said that God is incapable of first giving us a
perfect Bible and then of preserving it perfectly?
Can we afford to believe in a Bible that is less than perfect? If God is
incapable of giving us a perfect Bible, what makes us so sure that He is
capable of preserving our salvation to the very end? (Khoo, p. 13).
We are discussing what God has done or has not done, not what he is capable
of doing. We believe that God could have performed a miracle and made every
manuscript of the New Testament a perfect copy had he chosen to do so, and
we certainly believe that God can preserve every one of his children to the
very end. We also believe, however, that God can preserve the Bible with
such minor blemishes that the copies which we have are sufficient for all
practical matters of life and doctrine. Does Khoo believe that God is
capable of preserving the Bible in this manner? Khoo makes no contribution
to his position with such statements.
According to Yew, "fundamental churches, seminaries and Bible Colleges"
[sic] which do not espouse the KJV Only position "have died or have become
citadels of Satanic teachings," (Yew, p. 1). Was Burgon guilty of Satanic
teachings?
There has arisen with the B-P [Bible Presbyterian] churches a new movement
saying that we have a Bible with mistakes, albeit insignificant ones! This
is the teaching which many neo-evangelicals have learned and accepted from
the liberals and modernists, (Yew, p. 1).
Did Burgon learn and accept his teaching from the liberals and modernists?
He believed that the KJV has mistakes.
For us to say that there are mistakes or variants or errors in the Bible
that we have today, [sic] is to judge God and to attack and undermine His
Holy Word, (Yew, p. 11).
Burgon clearly said that there are errors in the Textus Receptus and the
King James Bible, the very forms of the text for which Yew and friends claim
absolute perfection. Was Burgon judging God and attacking and undermining
His Holy Word when he pointed out mistakes and variants and errors in the
Bible that we have today? Waite, Moorman, Khoo, Yew and the rest of the Dean
Burgon Society at the very least are terribly inconsistent and at the worst
are hypocritical when they claim Dean Burgon as an advocate of their
position.
Conclusion
If we accept the principles of textual criticism laid out by Dean John
William Burgon, we will not believe in the perfection of either the Received
Text nor of the King James Version of the Bible. We will not accept as part
of the Bible several verses, a handful of clauses and a variety of words
that have been included in both the TR and KJV. In contradistinction to the
Dean Burgon Society and to other KJVers, Dean Burgon had a consistent
methodology for establishing the text of the New Testament. The DBS follows
Burgon's method only where that method supports the KJV. Readings with broad
majority support are dismissed if they are not contained in the TR and KJV.
The men of the Dean Burgon Society have hijacked the name and writings of
John William Burgon to advocate that which he never advocated, namely the
textual perfection of both the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible.
[1] Copyright 2006, James Richard May. This paper may be reproduced in its
entirety for free distribution. All other rights reserved.
[2] Waite also pastors a very small church which meets in his living room.
[3]I am indebted to Dr. Maurice Robinson for supplying me with this
translation.
[4]I have allowed the English letter "w" to represent the Greek omega.
.
|
