Burgon's Damning Facts

I've been putting off posting more from John Burgon's Revision Revised because I wanted to do a thoroughgoing organized job of it, but since I haven't arrived at that desired state of things I've decided I'm going to content myself with a spotty, random and unorganized job of it. He says so much of importance it's hard to rank what he says as more or less of value for posting anyway, so instead of my current habit of pondering possible selections to the point of never posting anything from him at all, here come quotations that merely popped out at me for whatever reason, at whatever length seems necessary to convey the full idea.

[Burgon's italics, my boldings and other emphases throughout.]

=========================

The marginal readings, which our Revisers have been so ill-advised as to put prominently forward, and to introduce to the Reader's notice with the vague statement that they are sanctioned by "Some' (or by "Many')'ancient authorities,' -- are specimens arbitrarily selected out of an immense mass; are magisterially recommended to public attention and favour; seem to be invested with the sanction and authority of Convocation itself. And this becomes a very serious matter indeed. No hint is given which be the 'ancient Authorities' so referred to: -- nor what proportion they bear to the 'ancient Authorities' producible on the opposite side: -- nor whether they are the most 'ancient Authorities' obtainable: -- nor what amount of attention their testimony may reasonably claim. But in the meantime a fatal assertion is hazarded in the Preface (iii. 1.), to the effect that in cases where 'it would not be safe to accept one Reading to the absolute exclusion of others,' 'alternative Readings' have been given 'in the margin.' So that the 'Agony and bloody sweat' of the World's REDEEMER (Lu. xxii. 43, 44), -- and His Prayer for His murderers (xxiii. 34), --and much beside of transcendent importance and inestimable value, may, according to our Revisionists, prove to rest upon no foundation whatever. At all events, 'it would not be safe,' (i.e. it is not safe) to place absolute reliance on them. Alas, how many a deady blow at Revealed Truth hath been in this way aimed with fatal adroitness, which no amount of orthodox learning will ever be able hereafter to heal, much less to undo! Thus, --(a) From the first verse of S. Mark's Gospel we are informed that 'Some ancient authorities omit the Son of God.' Why are we not informed that every known uncial Copy except one of bad character, -- every cursive but two, -- every Version [translation], -- and the following Fathers, -- all contain the precious clause: viz. Irenaeus, -- Porphyry, -- Severianus of Gabala, -- Cyril Alex., -- Victor Ant.,--and others, --besides Ambrose and Augustine among the Latins:--while the supposed adverse testimony of Serapion and Titus, Basil and Victorinus, Cyril of Jer. and Epiphanius, proves to be all a mistake? To speak plainly, since the clause is above suspicion, Why are we not rather told so? [pp. 131-2.].

Why indeed? Shouldn't this make you wonder, all you who accept the "scholarly" conclusions in defense of such omissions and changes?

(b) In the 3rd verse of the first chapter of S. John's Gospel, we are left to take our choice between,--'without Him was not anything made that hath been made. In him was life; and the life,' &c., -- and the following absurd alternative,--'Without him was not anything made. That which hath been made was life in him; and the life,' &c. But we are not informed that this latter monstrous figment is known to have been the importation of the Gnostic heretics in the IInd century, to be as destitute of authority as it is of sense. Why is prominence given only to the lie? [p. 132]

Well, why?

(c) At S. John iii. 13, we are informed that the last clause of that famous verse ('No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man--which is in heaven'), is not found in 'many ancient authorities.' But why, in the name of common fairness, are we not also reminded that this, (as will be found more fully explained in the note overleaf,) is a circumstance of no Textual significancy whatever?Why, above all, are we not assured that the precious clause in question ... is found in every MS. in the world, except five of bad character?--is recognized by all the Latin and all the Syriac versions; as well as by the Coptic,--Aethiopic,--Georgian,--and Armenian?--is either quoted or insisted upon by Origen,--Hippolytus,--Athansius, --Didymus,--Aphraates the Persian,--Basic the Great,--Epiphanius,--Nonnus,-ps.-Dionysius Alex., --Eustathius;==by Chrysostom,--Theodoret,--and Cyril, each 4 times; --by Paulus, Bishop of Emesa (in a sermon on Christmas Day, A.D. 431); --by Theodorus Mops., --Amphilochius,--Severus,--Theodorus Heracl.,--Basilius Cil., --Cosman,--John Damascene, in 3 places,--and 4 other ancient Greek writers;--besides Ambrose,--Novatian,--Hilary,--Lucifer,--Victorinus,--Jerome,--Cassian,--Vigilius,--Zeno,--Marius,--Maximus Taur., --Capreolus,--Augustine &c.:--is acknowledged by Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf: in short is quite above suspicion: why are we not told that? Those 10 Versions, those 38 Fathers, that host of Copies in the proportion of 995 to 5,--why, concerning all these is there not so much as a hint let fall that such a mass of counter-evidence exists? . . . Shame,--yes, shame on the learning which comes abroad only to perplex the weak, and to unsettle the doubting, and to mislead the blind! Shame,--yes, shame on that two-third majority of well-intentioned but most incompetent men, who,--finding themselves (in an evil hour) appointed to correct "plain and clear errors" in the English 'Authorized Version,' --occupied themselves instead with falsifying the inspired Greek Text in countless places, and branding with suspicion some of the most precious utterances of the SPIRIT. Shame,--yes, shame upon them! [pp 132-5]

Can those who dismiss Burgon as simply overreacting have actually read him? Why has no one ever answered his actual facts?