Burgon the Perennial Footnote

I continue to be amazed at the near-absolute dismissal of Burgon by defenders of the modern versions. It's as if he doesn't exist. They have NO interest in reading him, they are content with what they've seen quoted from him -- from both sides.

Having spent some time in the last few weeks visiting anti-KJV-only websites, AND reading around in a couple of anti-KJV-only books, I find a near-total blackout on Burgon's contribution which is astonishing to me. Not that his name doesn't come up, but anything he actually argued is not discussed, he's really just ignored. I find footnotes about him, or his name is mentioned in passing in connection with some subject or other, along with others who also wrote on the same subject, while what Burgon himself wrote is known only through those who have quoted him -- or commented on him, sometimes unfairly. There are for instance some references to his "intemperate" manner rather than to anything he contributed to the discussion -- an "intemperate" manner I happen to think is appropriate to the enormity of the offense he is exposing, a passion for the glory of God and the wellbeing of His church against a destructive manhandling of the Bible, a context in which a neutral academic tone is out of tune.

Whatever the cause, Westcott and Hort's claims, which Burgon spent so much time criticizing, largely hold sway while Burgon is ignored.

What is it that happened? As the Revised Version and its new Greek text came out was it simply so rapidly accepted into the halls of academe that its critics were left behind in the dust? Apparently Burgon wasn't even addressed, his arguments weren't criticized, he WAS simply ignored, he simply disappeared from consideration. So W-H's propositions and arguments were studied by new generations without any exposure to their original critics? So whatever criticism came up was a product of that later study and never fed on the earlier?

Is that what happened?

Then perhaps the rise of the KJV-Only movement put the whole thing on such a different footing that their arguments became the focus instead of Burgon's, and that added to the eclipse of his work? He is loved by the KJV-Only movement but the bulk of their work doesn't overlap his. I just skimmed through the lengthy section on Burgon in David Cloud's For Love of the Bible and see that he reproduces mostly Burgon's polemics and his conclusions rather than his arguments themselves, although some of his evidence on the last twelve verses of Mark is included. He also shows the critics' unfairness to Burgon, partial quotes and that sort of thing, exposing the character assassination and lack of discussion of his arguments without himself presenting any of his arguments.

Burgon mustered a great deal of evidence against what Westcott and Hort did, against the Alexandrian texts both in general and with respect to specific verses, and against the English translation they did. He took years making comparisons among all the manuscripts then available in order to show the corruptions of the Alexandrian texts so favored by W-H. The Revision Revised is a collection of three articles he had first published in a scholarly journal, a 110-page critique of The New Greek Text including discussion of Greek terms that I can appreciate only indirectly, a 122-page article on The New English Version, and a 130-page article on Westcott and Hort's New Textual Theory, followed by a lengthy letter (150 pages) answering Bishop Ellicott who had written a pamphlet defending the revision. And this is only one book he wrote on the 1881 Revision. He also wrote a book completely addressed to exposing the corruptions in the Alexandrian texts, and another on the last twelve verses of Mark.

But when James White writes a book on the Bible versions he attacks the arguments of the extreme KJV-Only camp, that Burgon had nothing to do with. Here for instance is a whole page listing various criticisms of KJV and TR-only arguments, all by James White, none of which takes on Burgon. Burgon would not have aligned himself with the extremists like Ruckman and Riplinger and Marrs. (The likelihood that White has read Burgon is very slim; I would also doubt that he's read a book like David Cloud's For Love of the Bible either, but of course perhaps I'm wrong).

When D. A. Carson lists Fourteen Theses some of which were argued by Burgon he does not discuss what Burgon said about any of them; when he lists Seven Arguments in favor of the KJV they are arguments not defended by Burgon as far as I've found. He includes Burgon in quite a few footnotes but I get the impression that he may not have read Burgon himself. I get the same impression from most of the anti-KJV-only arguments I've read.

The controversy today is not the controversy as Burgon addressed it.

I don't know if reading Burgon would change minds of course, although personally I can hardly see how it could fail to do so -- probably not James White, but then who knows? However, I also appreciate other arguments such as DiVietro's which doesn't seem to have swayed anyone.

I hope I'll soon get back to posting quotes from Burgon.

Speaking of the fringey KJV-onlies, Gail Riplinger ...

...who DID do a good job on the Bible versions problem early on in spite of her tendency to get into the fringey stuff -- has really gone over the top lately in a dispute with Dr. D. A. Waite and his wife and son. The Waites are also KJV-only defenders, who do believe it doesn't need improvement but don't believe that it was inspired by God as it is only a man-made translation.

They and Mrs. Riplinger had had a cordial friendship until they felt obliged to check up on the persistent rumor, denied flatly by her, that she had been married three times and divorced twice. At first they believed her denial but then got proof from state records that the rumors were true and confronted her.

Even after being shown the evidence she continued to deny it, claiming the first two weren't true marriages. (If that were so, why did she need a divorce? -- an annulment is what you get when a marriage isn't really a marriage.) Besides that, she launched a lawsuit against the Waites and wrote a 61-page diatribe against them and their position on the King James Bible, which isn't radical enough for her.

I may put up some links eventually but the Waites' website is Bible for Today. They also have The Dean Burgon Society.

I do lose it in this argument sometimes. Thanks a lot, KJV-only extremists, for making this so difficult.

It does get frustrating arguing with people who don't pay attention to what I'm saying, but keep insisting on lumping me with the KJV-onlies. Granted, there are subtleties to this argument and people are used to the way it's generally misrepresented as a war between the KJV-onlies and Reason, but I do knock myself out trying to show that this is a straw man and STILL people don't get it. I'm referring now to another flap I just had elsewhere in cyberspace. Perhaps I need to preface every statement with a banner headline that says something like

I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE FRINGE KJV-ONLIES SUCH AS RIPLINGER AND RUCKMAN. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE KING JAMES OR THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARE INSPIRED OF GOD.

THIS IS NOT EVEN REALLY ABOUT THE KING JAMES, IT'S ABOUT WHAT WAS DONE TO THE BIBLE BACK IN 1881 THAT SPEWED INTO THE 20th AND 21st CENTURIES BIBLES BASED ON CORRUPTED GREEK TEXTS AND COMPROMISED BY THOUSANDS OF STUPID ENGLISH CHANGES AND MISREADINGS ALTHOUGH THE CHURCHES AND SEMINARIES UNFORTUNATELY THINK THEY'RE ALL LEGITIMATE.

Of course that won't do it either. Good grief.

I CAREFULLY distance myself from the KJV-onlies and IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. Man, people can't read!

Here's what I just got:

... many who believe in KJV onlyism are cultists, not all but many. The fact that it has it was spawned by a Seventh Day Adventist should give one pause.

But this is irrelevant. I'M NOT A KJV-ONLY AND I REJECT THEIR ARGUMENTS.

From Hip and Thigh blog:

A definition of King James Onlyism in three sentences or less.

WHY DO WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KJV-ONLYISM WHEN I'M NOT ARGUING FOR KJV-ONLYISM AND HAVE SPECIFICALLY ARGUED AGAINST IT?

The aberrant belief that the King James Bible, first published in 1611, is the only reliable language translation which adequately conveys God's written revelation.

Any language translation prior to and after the publication of the KJV 1611 is either insufficiently translated or is translated from original language manuscripts alleged to have been intentionally corrupted by heretical individuals.

Moreover, any revision of the KJV 1611 text by either updating the English language and re-translating verses and passages for the sake of accuracy and clarity is viewed as corrupting God's Word and in some cases, introducing error into the Bible.

I just hate how this discussion so easily becomes about the crazy KJV-onlies instead of about what it SHOULD be about, the horrific mutilation of the Bible that Westcott and Hort did in 1881. THIS IS PROVEN BY DEAN BURGON'S LABORIOUS STUDY OF THE TEXTS AND THE 1881 REVISION -- it is PROVEN, not merely "alleged."

KJV-onlies may agree with that but they ALSO think the KJV is some sort of God-inspired text which is ridiculous. You'd think if nobody argues from a KJV-only point of view we'd be spared this kind of stupidity, but I guess there's no way to be spared it.

The devil sure knew what he was doing on this one, getting the church to think all these bogus Bibles are legit AND getting those who know they aren't legit smeared with the fringe arguments.

========
Here are some links to the usual stuff that came up in the dispute:

Hank Hanegraaff's argument:

This King James Version would likely have remained preeminent among English Bible translations if it were not for three principle factors: the evolution of language, ...

The King James needed an updating in the 19th century and that's what the committee of which Westcott and Hort were a part was supposed to do, but instead they substituted corrupted Greek texts and 36,000 unnecessary and often stupid changes in the English in violation of their agreement. Their contemporary and superior textual scholar, Dean Burgon, is the best source of understanding of what they did to the Bible.

...progress in knowledge and understanding of original biblical languages,...

There have been some improvements but nothing to the extent implied here, mostly in minor things like the names of some animals, and the KJV translators were arguably more expert in the original languages than anyone since them. Burgon referred to Westcott and Hort's Greek as "schoolboy" level at one point. The KJV DID need some improvements, but this is no argument in favor of the destruction produced by the Westcott and Hort committee.

...and the discovery of earlier and better manuscripts....

This is what I've been arguing against all along. Those "earlier and better" manuscripts are "earlier" only in the sense that they were found intact -- in dark corners, even a wastebasket -- after some 1500 to 1600 years, which is more likely evidence that they were rejected by the churches than that they represent the earliest form of the Bible. Burgon argues that they were known in his day to have been corrupted by heretical cults in the 2nd century, and he spends much of his writing proving it -- proving especially that the readings in the KJV are found in the earliest writings of the church and therefore are the authentic ones. Unfortunately nobody hears about Burgon's arguments any more so the seminaries and churches go on believing in the false "earliest and best" description of those corrupted manuscripts.

And here's James White with the usual obfuscating red herring argument:

King James Version Only advocates argue that all modern translations of the New Testament are based on Greek manuscripts that contain intentional doctrinal corruptions. However, an examination of the most important manuscripts underlying these translations demonstrates that such charges are based more upon prejudice than fact. The papyri finds of the last century, together with the great uncial texts from the fourth and fifth centuries A.D., do not deprecate the deity of Christ, the Trinity, or salvation by grace through faith. Modern translations, such as the NIV and NASB, are not "corrupt" but instead trustworthy and useful translations of the Word of God.

This is typical garbage. They examine the corrupted texts to see if there's still SOME testimony to the gospel left in them, and finding that there is enough according to their lights, they completely ignore the fact that a great deal of it WAS removed in the early centuries and THIS CAN BE PROVED AND WAS PROVED BY DEAN BURGON. I document these things at my blog when I get the time.

It's OK by them if we no longer have lots of references to the deity of Christ or to such supernatural events as in the last twelve verses of Mark, or various other odd missing parts of the corrupted manuscripts? Shouldn't we want the CORRECT manuscripts with ALL the wording intact? The woman taken in adultery is not in the corrupted manuscripts for instance. Some modern versions stick it in anyway although their "better" manuscripts don't have it. There's something really rotten about all this manipulating that's going on.

And this doesn't even touch on the changes in the English that change the MEANING of what is still left of the UNcorrupted Greek.
=======

A list of those and other links for possible future reference:

http://www.equip.org/articles/bible-versions-part-one-

http://www.equip.org/articles/bible-versions-part-two-

http://www.equip.org/articles/is-your-modern-translation-corrupt-

http://www.amazon.com/review/R3F0U86BWBUP5