Bible Researcher Michael Marlowe's discussion of the New King James version.

Michael Marlowe, who calls himself The Bible Researcher, is a defender of the modern Bible versions, and his view is 180 degrees away from Dean J W Burgon's.

I do always wonder whether those who argue as he does have read Burgon, and I mean REALLY read him. I suppose it's possible they have but I have to guess that in most cases the answer is No, they really don't have any idea at all that there is such a completely opposite way of thinking about all this than their way, which supports the modern Bible versions.

Here is Bible Researcher Marlowe on The New King James Version.

The New King James Version is a conservative revision of the King James version that does not make any alterations on the basis of a revised Greek or Hebrew text, but adheres to the readings presumed to underlie the King James version. In the New Testament, this means that the Greek text followed is the Textus Receptus of the early printed editions of the sixteenth century. The ancient manuscripts, upon which critical editions of the Greek text have been based for nearly two centuries now, are ignored (except in the marginal notes). So, for example, the Johannine Comma is printed in the text of 1 John 5:7-8 just as it was in the King James Version (although a note informs the reader that "only 4 or 5 very late manuscripts contain these words in Greek").

His opinion is already clear here despite his neutral-sounding language, when he says "the ancient manuscripts ... are ignored (except in the marginal notes)." "Ignored" is the clue.

Burgon originally encountered in Westcott and Hort's Revised Bible marginal notes very similar to those in the NKJV, and his judgment was that they were an intrusion on the text, giving information that was of no use to the reader, often serving to instill doubt about the validity of a text that when examined in fact had very solid support in spite of the insinuating note. This is exactly the effect of the NKJV notes and in fact most of them are of exactly the same sort as Westcott and Hort's, saying such things as "Some ancient manuscripts say such and such." And of course ALL the notes reflect the readings of those "ancient manuscripts" that Marlowe takes as authoritative, as did Westcott and Hort, the same manuscripts that Burgon went to such pains to demonstrate were in fact corrupt, sometimes even by the hand of an early heretic, and recognized as unworthy by competent scholars in their day. He also showed in many cases that the preponderance of support for a particular reading that the "ancient manuscripts" excluded is in fact very strong, so that W&H, and the NKJV translators, are in fact giving credence to not only corrupt but very minimally attested readings, some of them even already known to have been scribal errors.

Whether the NKJV is in any real sense based on the Textus Receptus I haven't completely determined for myself yet. A great deal of the language in it has been changed to conform it to the Revised Bible and those choices could be influenced by the false texts indirectly. They may be merely translational choices of course, as opposed to textual choices, and the claim that the Textus Receptus underlies this version may be technically correct in that the "ancient texts" -- those false corrupted texts -- were not consulted. However, Westcott and Hort committed crimes of many sorts against our English Bible, not just introducing suspect Greek (and Hebrew) texts, but also introducing tens of thousands of changes in the English itself that Burgon also shows to be for the most part deplorable, especially considering that in doing so they had violated their agreement to make the absolutely most minimal changes to the text only when absolutely necessary.

However, Michael Marlowe is completely on the side of the Revision and the "ancient manuscripts."

Statements made in the Preface regarding this aspect of the version are somewhat misleading. The Preface points out that the few late medieval manuscripts upon which the Textus Receptus was based "were representative of many more" which constitute "the traditional text of the Greek-speaking churches" (also called the 'Byzantine Text'), and it further asserts that "it is now widely held that the Byzantine Text that largely supports the Textus Receptus has as much right as the Alexandrian or any other tradition to be weighed in determining the text of the New Testament." While this statement is true as far as it goes — all manuscripts and other witnesses to the text deserve to be weighed and are weighed by scholars — the reader should be told that nearly all competent scholars agree that the so-called Byzantine manuscript tradition of the middle ages can never be given the same evidential weight as the ancient manuscripts.

Yes, indeed they do, today's "competent scholars" do in fact side with Westcott and Hort in giving special weight to these "ancient manuscripts," the very same "ancient manuscripts" that are in fact so sparsely supported by the rest of the evidence, as Burgon laboriously demonstrates, and are also corrupt in many ways, as Burgon also demonstrates, even having in some cases been provably mutilated by known heretics, and that in general were a disastrous substitution in the place of the time-honored and highly attested Textus Receptus. Marlowe wants to be sure that we understand that these "ancient manuscripts" he believes to be authoritative, in sharp opposition to Burgon, have been slighted in the New King James translation. To me, of course, it's greatly in favor of that translation that this is so. It's too bad there are also so many indefensible changes in the text of other kinds.

The NKJV editors have provided information on the readings of the ancient manuscripts in the margin. Most of the significant differences between the underlying Greek text of the NKJV and the ancient manuscripts are indicated there, by notes which give the readings of the United Bible Societies' third edition (see Aland Black Metzger Wikren Martini 1975). Also indicated are significant differences from the "Majority Text" published by Hodges and Farstad in 1982. The Preface explains that with these notes the NKJV "benefits readers of all textual persuasions," and this is true. No other Bible version has such a complete set of text-critical notes.

I am going to have to put up some more quotes from Burgon to demonstrate that the marginal text-critical notes Marlowe is so appreciative of are for the most part everything from uselessly intrusive to falsely insinuating of doubts into the reader's mind, and are far from possessing any authority as implied. The NKJV notes are based on different versions of the Critical Text (Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies') from that of the original Revised Version, but are very similar in that they support the "ancient manuscripts" (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) over the Textus Receptus.

The notes in the NKJV are one of the most annoying things about it. You are always being informed that this or that reading does not occur in "some ancient manuscripts." The average reader has no way of judging these things and accepts that the scholarly wisdom is that the note would not be there if it were not important. Burgon objects to this very implication. "Some ancient manuscripts" often means only one or two that have been given extraordinary weight only because they are "ancient" while the manuscripts they have eclipsed, which the church made use of for 1700 years have genuine authority in ancient quotations and sheer amount of usage over the centuries. Just about the same notes were put in the margin of W&H's original Revised English Bible and Burgon goes into great detail discussing their uselessness, their insinuation of an authority that they do not possess, even their complete falseness. The "significant differences" Marlowe finds reflected in them are to Burgon significant only of the corruption of the "ancient manuscripts."

However, it is not true that the editors have presented this information minus "tendentious remarks," as is claimed in the Preface. The textual note on the Story of the Adulteress in the eighth chapter of John's Gospel reads, "NU brackets 7:53 through 8:11 as not in the original text. They are present in over 900 mss. of John." Obviously the purpose of the second sentence in this note is to give a 'Majority Text' rationale for the authenticity of the story. Students would have been better served by a note which indicated that the verses are absent from the ancient manuscripts and versions.

And again Marlowe sides with the "ancient manuscripts," as represented in this case by the particular forms of the Critical Text which represent those "ancient manuscripts," (based on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) known as the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Society's. He apparently thinks the Majority Text should not be given any credence at all despite its attestation of over 900 manuscripts that contain the story of the Adulteress, preferring the scanty evidence of the "most ancient" ones (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) that omit that story.

Well, obviously he has convinced himself that the more ancient the text the more valid, and he's doggedly insistent on that point of view. Unfortunately Burgon does not have a comment on this part of the text, to my great disappointment, because he's very thorough at showing where the Textus Receptus has huge support in ancient writings and ancient versions that quote the very passages the Critical Text / Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus (B), leave out, showing that it is the manuscripts themselves that have been altered, while the majority reading is authentic.

I continue to be convinced, even more and more, that Burgon is the only hope that the church might come to recognize the enormity of what Westcott and Hort did, the falseness of the "ancient texts" they imposed on our Bible, and the mutilation they performed on it as well with their inferior grasp of the requirements of translation into English. I don't know of any other source of the kind of information on these things that Burgon provides, and his having been a contemporary of Westcott and Hort and a scholar of the texts himself makes his work inestimable. How sad for the church that he is ignored.