Deterioration of Biblical Scholarship the necessary result of the acceptance of the 1881 Greek and English texts

I've often asserted that Biblical scholarship in the last century has most likely declined terribly since the acceptance of the work of the revising committee of 1881 -- to the point that errors in Biblical Greek are accepted as good Greek instead, and bad English translation is regarded as the most accurate. I deduce this from Burgon's criticism of the Revision and its underlying Greek texts, from his claim that the majority of the revisers were incompetent in textual criticism -- which they themselves admitted -- and in Greek scholarship, and from the fact that the majority prevailed over those who were competent, and that it is their work that has been passed down in the seminaries, while Burgon has been relegated to silence.

If it is true that what is being taught is error and not accurate Greek or English it wouldn't be a criticism of any particular scholar to suggest that his scholarship is deficient because of this. He could be the most industrious and knowledgeable student of Greek and nevertheless have learned error instead of true Greek.

Simply because that is now what is taught, the BAD Greek of Westcott and Hort.

Burgon makes a poignant remark in Revision Revised that implies this is unfortunately what must have happened. He makes this remark after criticizing the revisers' promotion of what he calls a well-known blunder in the Greek text, a blunder they nevertheless accepted as authentic instead and used to change the reading of John 4:15. But I'd say the occasion is incidental; I think his remark sadly applies to ALL their errors which he wrote book after book documenting:

Ordinary readers, in the meantime, will of course assume that the change results from the Revisers' skill in translating, -- the advances which have been made in the study of Greek; for no trace of the textual vagary before us survives in the English margin. [RR, p. 408]

Sure sounds like what is generally accepted today, a high assessment of the skill of the scholars behind the modern versions, the advances in Greek study, the discovery of better texts, all in the service of demoting the KJV and promoting the versions that are based on the Critical Texts which incorporate Westcott and Hort's false Greek texts. Today's scholars are even held to be better than those who worked on the KJV, though they have been trained on those same suspect Greek texts and in the principles of translation that come down from W and H that Burgon's laborious work SHOULD have sent to oblivion.

They left no record so there is nothing that could prove them wrong. Throughout their work there is little to prove them wrong. There is Burgon and there are other critics, but somehow his greater wisdom was buried while their incompetence survived and became the authoritative foundation for all Biblical scholarship after them, and most of their other critics now have been relegated to the dismissible category of "KJV-Only" by the defenders of the modern versions.

Who are the "ordinary readers" Burgon refers to? These must include not only the sheep in the congregations but all the shepherds as well, some of the very best of the shepherds too, who have accepted the modern versions as superior to the KJV, having no training that would enable them to see through such a deception if it occurred, and nobody EVER reads Burgon. But today's scholars must also be included since they have only the arguments in favor of the Alexandrian texts and the modern versions to go on, plus the din of discrediting smears against Burgon along with other critics.

Of course I'm criticized for my dependence on Burgon about these things, but a nonexpert has to depend on someone, and Burgon's qualifications and obvious demonstrable knowledge make him a solid source, the very best. I have found that here and there I am likely to disagree with him about a particular translational choice nevertheless, but the time hasn't come to get into all that yet. Meanwhile as long as I have the time and the energy I hope to go on producing quotes from him to show up the fraud that he spent the last years of his life trying to expose.

[Later: Relevant to this topic I note that Burgon often takes his critics to task for merely parroting Hort instead of addressing the criticism of him. Since that was happening then and being used against Burgon then, so much the more it would be happening now when Burgon's arguments are no longer heard. The way they are automatically dismissed by people who know of them only by hearsay evidences the acceptance of the W-H framework as the standard. What he feared was happening then has happened -- the inferior scholarship of Hort and the stupidities of the W-H English translation have become the standard.]