My Reaction to Dean Burgon's "The Revision Revised"
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 січ 2024
- An important note for nerds that I learned after writing and shooting this video: Maurice Robinson has shown that it isn't right to say that Scrivener was closer in his viewpoint to Westcott and Hort than he was to Burgon: rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol07/R.... But I read through Robinson's careful work, and I would not say that it undercuts my points in this video or in my Henry Ambrose lecture. Robinson is defending his appeal to Scrivener as a proponent of a Byzantine Priority view; Robinson is NOT defending KJV-Onlyism's use of Burgon or of Scrivener. Robinson's piece is well worth a read, if only to demonstrate quite how complex these matters are-mixing as they do the complexities of history with the already highly complex field of New Testament textual criticism.
🎁 Help me bring the Bible to the plow boy in his own English!
✅ / @markwardonwords
✅ / mlward
✅ buymeacoffee.com/mlward
👏 Many, many thanks to the UA-cam channel members and Patreon supporters who make my work possible!
▶ UA-cam:
Caleb Richardson, PAClassic87 95, James Duly, Deep Dive Discipleship, Todd Bryant, M.A. Moreno, whubertx, Joel Richardson, Thomas Balzamo, Orlando Vergel Jr, ojntk, Eric Couture, Bryon Self, Average Gun Guy, Brad Dixon, Kalah Gonzalez, Derek Ralston, Brent Zenthoefer, Reid Ferguson, Dale Buchanan, James Goering, David Saxon, Travis Manhart, Josiah Dennis, judy couchman, Kimberly Miller, Jonathan Clemens, Tim Gresham, Robert Daniels, Tiny Bibles, ThatLittleBrownDog, Gregory Chase, Robert Gifford, GEN_Lee_Accepted, Lanny Faulkner, Benjamin Randolph
▶ PATREON:
Andy B, Meghan, Deborah Reinhardt, Desert Cross Tortoise Fox, Robert Daniels, Rick Erickson, Lanny M Faulkner, Lucas Key, Dave Thawley, William McAuliff, Razgriz, James Goering, Edward Woods, Thomas Balzamo, Brent M Zenthoefer, Tyler Rolfe, Ruth Lammert, Gregory Nelson Chase, Caleb Farris, Jess English, Aaron Spence, John Day, Brent Karding, Steve McDowell, A.A., James Allman, Steven McDougal, Henry Jordan, Nathan Howard, Rich Weatherly, Joshua Witt, M.L., Luc + Eileen Shannon, Easy_Peasy, Jeremy Steinhart, Steve Groom, Corey Henley, Larry Castle, Luke Burgess, Joel, Joshua Bolch, Tyler Harrison, Angela Ruckman, Nathan N, Bryan Wilson, David Peterson, Eric Mossman, Jeremiah Mays, Caleb Dugan, Donna Ward, James D Leeper, Dennis Kendall, Michelle Lewis, Lewis Kiger, Dustin Burlet, Michael Butera, Miguel Lopez, CRB, Dean C Brown, MICHAEL L DUNAVANT, Jess Mainous, Joshua Barzon, Benjamin Randolph
▶ BUY ME A COFFEE:
Someone (5x), Caleb, Scott, Darlene, Kayla, Sarah, Adam, Cody, Phil, Alan, John, Anirudh, Ben, Papa D, Robert
"This video is very nerdy". I'm in! 😎
I have been going through a transitional phase of my own to the NKJV (preference of the KJV flow). I was KJVO from the age of 18 (when I was saved and started going to church) until about 24, mostly due to the church I attend (and still do). From the age of 24 until about 26, so 2021-2023, I have still used the KJV but have appreciation of other translations and I have refused to speak badly of them and those who use them. I am currently still 26, but over the last few months I have came to the conclusion it’s time for me to use a different Bible in my personal life, that being the NKJV.
My church is your standard Baptist KJVO church. We’re not over the top like Ruckmanism, or even Sam Gipp (although he does visit us every year or two).
My biggest worry are some of my closest friends are huge KJVO supporters, insistence on using and quoting only the AV1611 (even though nobody uses the AV1611, the Revised 1769 is what is used, including by them). They attend a different KJVO church, but they’re definitely more over the top.
I definitely need to remember to have Grace. I don’t feel any sort of bitterness, and videos like this just help me further educate and dive a little deeper into the subject. The KJV is the word of God. But so is the NKJV. So is the ESV. So on and so forth.
Right! Stay humble, but stand true, my friend.
AV1611 is good to identify the original words and notes in the margin. Some KJBs have margins that include publisher's notes. Irony, a man taught off that and claimed that it is from KJV translators themselves
One thing I've learned in these sorts of debates: when you have absolutely nothing good to say about your opponent's position, within the fellowship of believers, you have become imbalanced, and you risk doing more damage to your side than if you had left it alone. It's a violation of Phil 4:8,9 - “if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, consider these things.” Within the TR / KJV Only circles I find the inability to "consider these things" to cross-pollinate to other areas of Christian life and it creates a brittle, sterile, stagnant atmosphere of heaviness and condemnation. Thanks for this video Mark, and for giving Burgon credit where he is due. That lends credibility to your critique.
Thank you. I was pretty negative! But the positives were easy to see, they really were.
Well said @tinybibles! When someone goes too extreme, they loose credibility pretty fast. I have an analytical bend and when someone is not willing to or simply skips the various options, I tend to ignore them. There are plenty of good scholars, so why waste your time on the sloppy ones.
I worked at a call-center more than 10 years ago, and there was a woman who worked with me who was the KJV-only type. She showed me this sheet that listed all the verses and parts of verses that are in the KJV but are not found in the NIV or are bracketed in other modern translations. I asked her for a copy of that sheet and she abliged. Anyway, over a number of years, on and off, I went through that list to see if any doctrine was affected by the absence of those verses.
What I found was that most of those verses were just copies of verses elsewhere in the Bible or they carried the same idea as other verses. The verses listed were all from the New Testament, and most of them were from one of the Synoptic Gospels and had the same phrase in one or more of the other Gospels. The rest either carried a theme or doctrine that is repeated elsewhere in the Bible or it contained a detail (usually a purportedly historical detail) that didn't affect any doctrine in the Bible. Some passages were on doctrine, but the doctrine at question was either repeated elsewhere in the Bible (King David said something similar to the KJV ending of the Lord's Prayer in one of his prayer) or can be logically deduced through a thorough study of the Bible (like the Trinity).
Anyway, there are things I like about the KJV and other or similar things I like about other translations or versions of the Bible. It really bothers me when people limit themselves to only one translation when no translation is perfect.
@@Skadagisgi You did right. And you are right!
It is sinful nature to want to win. Sadly, many KJV scholars don't represent KJV camp well. They are sensitive that any alleged errors of the KJV is like a nerve touched
Given the level of commitment some KJVO ministers have, it seems very inconsistent for them not to preach in early modern/middle English. My high school English teacher said irony was the difference between appearance and reality. KJVO ministers give the appearance of belief that a particular form of language is inspired. Only when its written? By not preaching in early modern English they fatally undermine their own position.
I really think this is a powerful point, but I've never gotten anywhere with it.
A related point: KJVO preachers constantly explain KJV words, just instinctively and intuitively. Even the extremists do this.
I think you're onto something. I think of the old Harrison Ford movie "Witness" where it seems that they try to do something similiar by having the Amish calling it "the gun of the hand"
Thank you for a cliff notes summary! I won't likely read this book, so you've exposed me to so much more knowledge than I could ever hope to acquire. Also, the occasional nerdy humor is greatly appreciated.
You're very welcome!
I maintain that one needs to read Burgon's works in the order they were written to understand/ascertain his thought development (A process known to historians as historiography.). He wrote "The Last Twelve Veres of Mark" in 1871 when the Revised Committee was first getting underway. He did so to sound the alarm regarding the text-critical methodologies and text that were being used by the Committee under the guidance of Westcott & Hort. The Revision Revised was written 10 years later in 1881, after the process of producing the Revised Version was complete. There is a historical context that one needs to bear in mind when reading Burgon's works. I am not raising this point to justify Burgon's tone/tenor carte blanche but point out that there is possibly much more behind his comments than one might realize on the surface.
That's fair, Bryan. I'm particularly open, as I said, to constructive feedback on this one. I have so much more to learn.
This makes sense to me with respect to the whole DEFCON 1 thing. I think of Stanley E. Porter's work or even Douglas J. Moo "We Still Don't Get it" - fifty years after James Barr. After one has done everything they think that they can do people start nailing things to doors to get their voice(s) heard 🙂
NB: I am not a KJV only person. I just think that what you have said makes sense
@@dustinburlet7249 Understood regarding the KJV. I agree with your comparison. Burgon was not writing in a vacuum in 1881. He had reasons for writing as he did.
Just based on this video, Dean Burgon seems extremely rhetorically effective in his eloquent and bombastic style, but in terms of the most substantive issues he is simply wrong. Nevertheless rhetoric often goes a long way. I suppose it's similar to why, for example, someone like Christopher Hitchens is so persuasive to many on religion despite his near ignorance of theological and philosophical matters. They're wooed by his rhetorical flourishes and commanding voice, but what good is beauty without truth?
That is my current feeling toward Burgon, yes. I'm open to moderating that picture.
I enjoy your channel... I now enjoy listening to God's Word Heard (Steven Johnson), NIV (David Suchet), and ESV (Max McLean). For example, I create a playlist for Matthew chapter one, each version, back to back and repeated seven or more times to pickup on the differences and similarities. You started me on a new path to understanding the Word. Thank you.
So awesome! And I'm no hypocrite: I recommend that path of Bible study because I have gone down it over and over for more than 20 years now.
Coming from a small KJVO church, I used to think it was God's very own ONLY version of the Bible ever. After some education over the years, I can see how uneducated I was in how we got the Bible in the first place, and how it was passed down, translated into various languages, and etc... There are so many things that we still have to learn. Thank you for your videos. They have truly been a blessing. - ALSO, I would love to see a few examples of actual texts of the translation changes down through the years, side by side, if anyone has any idea on that. Since I don't have all the Bibles in each change it would be hard for one like me to lay my eyes on and share.
I'm not sure what exactly you're asking for here. Are you wanting to see changes that were made to a translation over time (i.e. different editions of the same translation), changes between revisions in the same line of translations (such as the changes made from the RSV to the ESV by the revisers), or something else?
For instance, is this what you mean?
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1%3A1-18&version=AKJV;ASV;RSV;ESVUK
As I read Burgon, he was not against the revision of the King James Version of the Bible. He believed the KJV needed revision. What he rejected was the textual methodology that Westcott and Hort were using. I recommend that people read his original Quarterly Review articles. I have to say that Burgon, to me, often makes much more sense than B Metzger and his committee. See John 9:4 for and example of their nonsense. It might be useful to read his later books (which he did not live to complete himself) _The Traditional Text_ and _Causes of Corruption_
great video. very enlightenting. Thank you for sharing. I respect your reservations and think that is wise.
I appreciate that!
Thanks Mark. As in one of the comments below, your videos take me to a depth of the Word that I would have trouble attaining on my own.
I too very much appreciate his work :-)
1.) Dr. Pepper, man. Always Dr. Pepper
2.) What is the deal with Wescott and Hort? Have you addressed these two in a previous video, because I do not understand the animosity toward these names.
If you stick with the channel, you'll hear a lot more about them soon!
It’s been a while since I read Burgon. But I’m quite sure he claimed the copies will have agreement with either versions or fathers. That is to say the copies are to be verified by early versions or early fathers 11:20
Hi Mark, thanks for another good video.
Wasnt sure of the best place to ask this question, its nothing to do with this topic but is KJV/Translation related.
Have you written or made a video about the differences in the Lords prayer in the KJV and other modern translations?
If so, could you point me towards them 😊.
Do you mean the variant that is Matt 6:13? Or translation issues?
@@markwardonwords thanks for replying. In Luke 11:2, the KJV and NKJV translations both have "your will be done on earth as it is in heaven" but the modern translations omit this part. A quick look on Bible Hub interlinear has the extra part in it. Is this because earlier manuscripts have been discovered that didn't have this section included in them?
@@pastorandrewbrady The text of the Lord's Prayer in a fair number of mss. in Luke seems to be a lot shorter than in the TR. For example, the Vulgate tradition has the shorter reading in Lk 11.2-4, the same as the Critical Text; i.e., "Father, thy name be sanctified; thy kingdom come; our daily bread give us today; and forgive us our sins as we also forgive all who are indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation." (Literal translation from the Clementine Vulgate.)
@@pastorandrewbrady Yes. This is the kind of thing that happens in the Gospels: later manuscripts pick up phrases from parallel passages in other Gospels.
Thank you both for your helpful comments 🙏
I sometimes carry the Revised Version to Bible studies that I'm not conducting and enjoyed using it as my devotional bible for a short time. I was thinking of either trying to read it or the NASB 77 this year. I think I'll go with RV. Thanks, Mark.
✔
I'd give the ASV and the Brenton Septuagint a consideration as well.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I appreciate the reference to ,ene, mene, tekel, upharsin.
My pleasure.
I found Burgon to be a fascinating writer. His mother was Greek, and so Greek was his mother's tongue, literally. He knew the fathers far better than most textual critics. He demonstrates that Tischendorf's Patristic notes are seriously flawed... and they continue to be used in the USB despite that fact. On Matthew 10:8, there actually is a lot textual evidence for what he said. The Majority Text omits it, and his reading agrees with several important Fathers, like St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Athanasius the Great.
Mark, a general question for you. I just finished Dave Brunn's "One Bible, Many Versions". I think you may have mentioned this, but do KJV-onlyists expect people who do not speak a language other than from the Indo-European language family to learn to speak English? For example, the Lamogai people (PNG).
In my experience, they mostly don't think in detail about what the implications of their views are for translations of the Bible into other languages. In particular, they don't clearly address what it means when foreign KJV equivalents (like the Dutch Statenvertaling of 1637, revered there like the KJV is here) differ from the KJV on translational and textual issues. But one sort of litmus test to use is this: the more a KJV-Onlyist says that people just need to learn English to have God's word, or says that the KJV itself needs to be translated into other languages, the more extreme they are.
Thanks Mark. @@markwardonwords
@@markwardonwords I'm a missionary in the Philippines. For most people in my city, if they speak English at all, English is their third language. Sadly, there are KJV-only folks in my city! 😵💫
@markwardonwords This has always been my argument to a certain KJO person in my life. Clearly, on the day of pentecost, God made it evident that he wanted his message to be given in the peoples' own tongue. The other huge point they miss, according to John1, is that Jesus is the word...not King James. He is alive and active in making sure that His Word doesn't return void. Im not saying that you don't have to be concerned with how things are translated. On the contrary, I believe it to be of utmost importance. Along the lines of he who teaches will be held to higher account. I'm just saying that The Spirit does have a role to play when someone is prayerfully seeking the truth!
One of my favorite books on the topic of EVV - great choice :-)
Always appreciate your work, brother!
And apparently, at some point, I downloaded that book on Kindle. Now I'm not sure I want it! J/K, I'll probably skim it meself. God bless!
I can't recommend it. =(
Mark, I wish you would tell us what you REALLY think!😅
Now I need to do two things: listen to the beginning of this post at half speed, and find a copy of Burgon.
Thanks for sharing your very interesting take on this root of KJVO.
Ha! Will do! ;)
I would be nice to hear a response to the like of John Owen/Francis Turretin
I've got some notes on Owen, but he wrote so much… I just didn't want to wade in. Maybe I should have said the same to myself about Burgon!
Hi Mark - really appreciated your points in this video. Burgon's RR is like reading 100s of pages of ALL CAPS writing. Your humor surrounding is approach is well said and a good preface.
I'm not a KJVO proponent but I have tried to listen to both sides of the discussion. That's one reason I've been so intrigued by your discussion of the KJV topic over the last several years.
My main questions surround what I think lit one of the many fires under Burgon's excursive loops in his writing: how is it that a project which was focused on just removing false friends in the 1800s ended up completely replacing the Greek text of the AV? Am I incorrect to understand their Greek NT was a construction of their own design which they brought to the committee? I think it's here that Burgon is saying in all caps that this was a bit of a red card maneuver by academic standards and the mission of that particular Revision effort?
Modern scholarship does seem to be directly impacted by their rules. Metzger and Ehrman for example in The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (4th Edition), 2005, in chapter 9 go into quite a bit of detail on rules of criticism, many of which are taken directly from W&H (in fact they seem to mix their (Metzger/Ehrman) rules into W&H's rules to form a superset of rules). I sort of took "the rules" to relate to the "Restoration" in the title of the book (Restoration of the Corruption Bart Ehrman frequently infers?)
Other questions abound... hope these two are not off track.
This excellent question is one for my colleague and friend, Tim Berg. He's the history guy. But my next video addresses one bit of your terminology: "completely replacing the Greek text of the AV." And I also know that the ERV is not "based on" the Westcott-Hort text. The relationship is more complicated than that.
That was informative and useful, thank you brother Mark Ward
Very welcome.
Have you or anybody you recommend ever done a video on the origins of the King James only movement
I imagine someone may have. That's just not really been my interest. I don't think people take the views they do because of history but because of currently powerful ideas.
What I don't understand is that every KJVO church I have been to "corrupts" the KJV by explaining difficult words and passages. A good translation does the same thing.
Have the book, skimmed over it occasionally, now I must read it.
Sounds like an interesting book. I downloaded from Project Gutenberg and saved it in Accordance. I will definitely skim it.
The ERV/ASV text base is actually well and alive today in the CUV which is the main Chinese version in use.
Good thoughts, Mark. Back when I was first looking at the arguments of the TR proponents, they pointed me to Burgon and I came to the same conclusion: he's not really what you think he is. Isn't it a bit ironic that the three biggest authors in "Reformed" TR defense from the past (Burgon, Letis, Hill) really don't have much in common other than the KJV? Very different ecclesiastical traditions, very different views on even how things were preserved, but they all ended up with the same conclusion on this one issue which apparently makes them reliable!
Yes, an excellent point. Their respective means of getting to the KJV are different.
Good stuff! Thanks for sharing
Thanks for watching!
I read a bit of Burgon back when I was trying to get a handle on the textual issue and had the same type of reaction. Having been in or adjacent to aggressively KJVO circles, I recognized and reacted strongly to the off-putting style of rhetoric (albeit with a much deeper knowledge of the issues). Many popular KJVO speakers/authors are like exaggerated cartoon villain versions of Burgon, similar aesthetic but lacking any depth whatsoever.
I must agree. There are KJV proponents with depth, but none I know of that approach that of Burgon.
I am no expert in Biblical studies, but couldn't it be that God has allowed various differing ancient Biblical texts to survive for a reason? Maybe He wanted to provide a way that we could delve deeper into the richness of Scripture and think, pray and love our way through it to acquire understanding. Couldn't it be that He wanted to remind us that He used fallible men, although inspired, to deliver His Word to us? Maybe He provides us with varying modern translations so that each and all can find a path that connects us to Him. Maybe one size does not fit all, but God wants all and so in His own way leads us to Him.
At about 11:15 you say the modern Translators are using the same logic as Burgon proposed for determining the correct reading. Maybe I am misunderstanding, but I though that they were truly using a different “grading” scale entirely. That the Eclectic method that produces the Critical Text does not at all match the method that produced the Majority Text. So, oldest is best, etc etc is very different then majority rules (Catholicity.)
Thank you for the videos, this is very interesting stuff.
I'm only saying that contemporary critics appeal to all the same categories of textual evidence-fathers, versions, etc.-that Burgon appeals to. You're right: they weigh the evidence differently.
Leaving aside the issue of 'tone' (which is difficult, I know), do you think that Burgon was a victim of history i.e. of not being in possession of the wealth of textual material and analysis that we have today? I wonder, for example, what he might have thought about the prophecy of Christ's resurrection in Isaiah 53:11 found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and added (and footnoted) in some modern versions (e,g, NIV, EHV)?
I have to defer to people like Tim Berg here. He's the historian. But this sounds very reasonable to me. He's writing pre-papyri.
@@markwardonwords Thanks, Mark. I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that textual analysis isn't a finished science. There's still more work to do - and sometimes the results are just glorious. Isaiah 53:11 was my verse of 2023!!
@alanhowe7659 amen!
Complete equivalence is
1. As literal as possible, as free as necessary
2. With some attention to the target language to differ from surface structure of the source language.
3. Try to express Beauty of literature
4. Contextual, not just translating one verse at a time without considering the whole context. Choice of words here matters a lot.
Do all reasonable people agree on the meaning of the phrase "As literal as possible?" How about the meaning of "as free as necessary?"
From what little I've read of Burgon, I've not understood him to be a textual absolutist, but someone who thought the TR was close to perfect and could frequently sound like textual absolutist.
Agreed.
11:58 "Nothing may be rejected from the commonly received Text, except on evidence which shall clearly outweigh the evidence for retaining it." So Burgon would agree that the _Comma Johanneum_ doesn't belong in the scriptural text, right? And that the KVJ/TR reading at Revelation 16:5 is incorrect?
It's accurate to say that Burgon didn't bother to make a strong defense for 1 John 5.7. In the second chapter of his book-length defense of the long ending of Mark, he mentions this verse to set up his argument:
*The question at issue being simply this,-Whether it is reasonable to suspect that the last twelve verses of S. Mark are a spurious accretion and unauthorized supplement to his Gospel, or not?-the whole of our business clearly resolves itself into an examination of what has been urged in proof that the former alternative is the correct one. Our opponents maintain that these verses did not form part of the original autograph of the Evangelist. But it is a known rule in the Law of Evidence that the burthen of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue. We have therefore to ascertain in the present instance what the supposed proof is exactly worth; remembering always that in this subject-matter a high degree of probability is the only kind of proof which is attainable. When, for example, it is contended that the famous words in S. John's first Epistle (1 S. John v. 7, 8,) are not to be regarded as genuine, the fact that they are away from almost every known Codex is accepted as a proof that they were also away from the autograph of the Evangelist. On far less weighty evidence, in fact, we are at all times prepared to yield the hearty assent of our understanding in this department of sacred science.*
(from The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to Mark Vindicated Against Recent Critical Objectors and Established by John W. Burgon B.D., 1871)
So he brings up the Comma Johanneum to demonstrate a perceived inconsistency in his opponents' methods. They will point at the dearth of evidence for this reading to affirm that the text is a later addition, but they will also point to a miniscule amount of evidence in order to scrap the post-resurrection passages in Mark. He doesn't flat out say that the comma isn't genuine, but he sees it as an example of where the methods of textual criticism at least have some logic behind them.
@@MAMoreno Then it appears my skepticism about him may have been unjustified. Thanks for the correction.
What is the issue at Revelation 16:5? It looks the same in every version I check. Thanks in advance.
@@clarkcoleman8143 The KJV renders, "Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, *and shalt be."* No Greek manuscript--not a single one--reads that way. Without exception, they read (using the NASB) "Righteous are You, the One who is and who was, *O Holy One."* Sometimes it's rendered "the Holy One," sometimes that phrase is put before "who is and who was," but the difference is between "and shall be" and "Holy One."
I came for the textual criticism; I stayed for the kidnapped-and-forced- to-read-the-KJV-as-torture storyline. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Yes! But don't forget "exclusively"! I don't mind reading the KJV; I'm doing it again this year!
Dear Brother, I really like your videos. But would you, for the love of God, consider to insert page numbers in your quotes!?
Ha! I get it! Unfortunately, I read this on a poor Kindle copy without page numbers. =|
So which is it? Coke or Pepsi?😮😮😮
Water! I almost never drink soda. Blech. I've never really liked the stuff.
@@markwardonwords I agree with you there. Water is my go to - along with coffee. If I had to pick a soda I would go with coke as it tastes less sweet to me.
My favourite "poison" at the moment is a no-sugar version of Pepsi, with occasional recourse to instant coffee. No doubt we could find credible reasons for avoiding coffee, Pepsi and Coke, if we looked hard enough, but I'm not in a hurry to let that spoil my enjoyment of any of them.
Coffee! ☕
Your intro 🤣🤣 I’m cracking up!
;)
Oh dear! Burgon was far from being a KJVOnlyist! He is explicit that neither Greek TR nor English AV/KJV is not in need of correction. Was such explicit comment missed in the skimming? And was there also missed the publication of the sample of intended revision, from the papers of Burgon and published by Miller, of the first twelve chapters of Matthew - showing that Burgon was in the Byzantine Text camp rather than in that of the Received Text?
I know he didn’t believe that “the TR” is perfect. I know he didn’t hold the same views as contemporary KJVOs. But his tone and his argument style- and the fact that he is repeatedly cited by KJVOs-mark him as a major fountainhead of KJV-Onlyism. That’s my claim.
@@markwardonwords I am glad that you - unlike several academics who should / should have known better - recognise that he was neither a TROnlyist nor a KJVOnlyist. A man is not responsible for other later individuals’ misusing of his material. As to his style of argument, it is vigorous; but such vigour was not unknown in argumentation. I do think that you need to withdraw your claim against Burgon.
@@alex-qe8qn I mentioned at the beginning of this video that I'm particularly open to critical feedback on this one. I'd have to read more Burgon to be able to say yea or nay to your appeal.
Much like Keanu Reeves of HollyWood fame - I see Mark Ward - I like :-)
Ha! I'm honored, Dustin! Thank you for your consistent and hearty support!
Is there a clear and unambiguous occurrence of "harpagmos", not "harpagma" or any [actual or alleged] synonym, meaning other than "robbery / act of robbing/seizing/snatching - or such."?
If there is no such evidence, then the known and admitted active sense of “harpagmos” must stand, and those who claim that it can be a word with a passive sense must be wrong.
Perhaps in Plutarch. From Robinson's Word Pictures in the New Testament: "The few examples of harpagmos (Plutarch, etc.) allow it to be understood as equivalent to harpagma, like baptismos and baptisma. "
Steve Hackett (Biblical Studies and Reviews) ran across an interesting quote where F H A Scrivener stated that he was between Dean Burgnon and Westcott & Hort, but closer to Burgnon. ua-cam.com/video/h4icevZsYFE/v-deo.html (13:30- 14:40) .
Yes-same quote is linked to in my video description, I think! Got it from Tim Berg. That was Tim’s one quibble with this video, he told me.
Why does Burgon cite Scrivener as an ally though Scrivener supports the work and scholarship of the very people Burgon is criticizing? Is he just looking for other proponents of Byzantine superiority?
Also, are there examples of actual KJVO scholars prior to the twentieth century? Seems like if Burgon is the most closely aligned to modern KJVOnlyists, their position is very extreme and very very recent.
Scrivener’s views were ultimately closer to Burgon’s than to those of Westcott and Hort. But on the matters I now take to be crucial for the current KJV debate, it sure seems to me that they stood apart. Tone is actually huge here: if brothers must have this disagreement, how should we treat it? Burgon treated it like World War X. Scrivener was a gentleman and a scholar, not just a scholar. And I read Scrivener’s Plain Introduction, and he uses text-critical canons that are more developed than what Burgon articulates-and more like those of Westcott and Hort. It seems it was more on his explanation of the likely history of the text that Scrivener was closer to Burgon, and that is not a small point.
Mark, I surely don’t see pride as your moving force in this issue. For we know that God hates pride😔
Pray for me!
I just want to put this out there. I wonder why the KJV hasn’t been revised since 1769?!?!
It actually has been updated since 1769, but the two major updates (in 1873 and 2005) were not universally adopted for every subsequent printing of the KJV. There's a very likely reason for that: these editions were produced for Cambridge and were given certain copyright restrictions. (The 2005 text is still under copyright, even in the United States.) The 1769 edition, by contrast, was regarded by Americans as being in the public domain once the colonies broke away from Great Britain.
On top of that, the 1873 edition came out barely over a decade before the complete Revised Version of 1885 was released, so if people were looking to update their KJVs, they were more likely to go for the extensive revision rather than the minor revision. Zondervan tried to adopt the 1873 text for their KJVs a couple of decades ago, but they received backlash from KJVOs who preferred the 1769 text, so they reversed the decision. A few editions from Hendrickson use that text, including the Matthew Henry Study Bible.
Because it’s inspired, so perfect in every way that it can’t possibly be improved upon?!?!
It's hard to reason with herd mentality. To your parting remark, no doubt most do not understand or get beyond a superficial word, name, or phrase they've heard someone use that they will then defend to the death without further understanding of it. Once it devolves into personal attack, the argument is lost. I do note a striking absence of an article in the KJV in John 1:1... 🤔🤓 Blessings to you in your persistent and grueling endeavors!
It's been a bit grueling lately! But still fun! And the recent outpouring of financial and prayer support from folks has been heartening!
I'm enjoying the American Standard Version (ERV to the USA), or more specifically, the gentle revision known as the American Literary Standard by Bibliotheca.
Yes! I hope to finally read through this starting in 2024.
Have you read Luther haha, I think that kind of aggressive language was normal.
Yes. But by Burgon's time, things had moderated, in my opinion!
@@markwardonwords he was hundreds of years later; realized that once I looked at the date.
The thing that I hate so much is when people will say that anything but the KJV is of Satan. Good people will disagree on translational text, and if they differ they are not being led by satan.
Every time you say "Burgon" I think bergens in Trolls.
Never did see that one…
@@markwardonwords It's worth finding a clip real quick
The actual citations with references would be most helpful
I read a poor Kindle copy. =|
@@markwardonwords
So I have to stop being lazy and read it :)
Plenty of King James Bible defenders do not say that the TR is perfect. They stand with Burgon because Burgon was focused on a more providentialist approach. He believed in the authority of the Church-leaders through history. He also believed that the people of God would be using something which would be right in history. Whereas, the modernist with their anti-supernaturalism has a naturalistic view of the text and its transmission. Mark Ward reveals which philosophy he adheres to in his strong reaction against Dean Burgon's traditionalist and belief-based system.
Being a "belief-based system" does not make something true. Otherwise, we'd have to affirm any number of superstitions.
@@MAMoreno You know full well I was meaning a Biblically sound and consistent belief-based system. Of course, wrong philosophical assumptions are beliefs too, but they are unbelief beliefs. The entire construction of most of today's Christian thinking related to modern versions (their texts, their translations and even their interpretation) is based on a system laced with unbelief. I would not call it entirely wrong, in that your side has plenty of good beliefs too.
I also think that Mark Ward isn't being fair when he says King James Bible only people believe XYZ, for example, that "the TR is perfect", some King James Bible supporters believe that, but not generally ones I see. On the other side, you might not like it that I say that unbelief is at the root of modern Bible-ism, but I am carefully delineating between the fact that these same people may be born again Christians who have accepted or assumed various wrong doctrines/views/opinions.
I don't know who you are MAMoreno, but one thing about the whole debate is that I think we start from very different poles of reference, philosophically speaking. Your side debates from an adherence to empiricism and rationalism, whereas our side appeals from the interpretation of Scripture doctrine, providence and ecclesiastical continuationism. I've never seen any meeting in the middle because it would represent a migration of belief-matrices.
@@bibleprotector Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza were coming from a place of empiricism and rationalism. If they were all "Bible believers" and not "Bible correctors," we would all be using the Douay-Rheims or some equivalent of it. The Vulgate has legitimate ecclesiastical continuationism in a way that the Reformation-era revisionist scholarship does not.
And the problem of appealing to providence is that you have no irrefutable evidence that there was providence behind the textual criticism that produced the KJV. It ends up being nothing more than a biased assumption: the Protestant Reformation was good, even though it led to vicious, bloody wars; the reign of King James was good, even though it led to civil war and the short-term abolition of the monarchy shortly afterward; British colonialism is good, even though it has led to so many of the world's political problems today.
And at the same time, it ignores things that could be providential. For instance, the lingua franca of the modern world is more in line with American English, not British English. It just so happens that the KJV was mostly superseded by American English translations just as the United States became a superpower. And you might insist that my perspective of this event as providence is colored by my nationalist prejudices, but I could say the same thing about you as a citizen of the Commonwealth. Of course you'll think that the English version used during the heyday of the British empire is the truly providential one.
Thus, we have to be empirical at some point. Otherwise, all we are showing is our own confirmation bias.
@@MAMoreno Ultimately you seem to be saying that people (of the Church on Earth) are subjective, and that everything comes down to interpretation of factual realities as evidence for one or other view. The absolute factual reality is, therefore, just something that we mere mortals are trying to ascertain to the best of our limited abilities, and apparently we should try to be objective in order to best judge what is most probable, hence, you would ultimately become a sort of "scientific confidence" type of person rather than a "faith-based absolutist".
There is a place for science, but it must be practiced underneath faith. That's how Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza and a host of others practiced science. It is not science versus faith, but science by faith. Men of faith are reasonable: "And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith." (2 Thess. 3:2).
But I really think you actually have another belief system, and that is Deism. I think you act as if, and approach the whole transmission of Scripture and how we receive it, as though it is more natural than with any immanent or outworking of God. And though people can say they believe in things like divine sovereignty, in practice they are assuming just natural processes and use methods based on assumptions around the distance of God from Biblical transmission, etc.
You wrongly assume that a believing approach would just "go with the flow" and be non-interventionist in transmission. Yet we see Jerome, scriptoriums, Erasmus' new instrument and different editions of the Vulgate from Catholics, so likewise we see in the Protestant world a similar work. However, that does not include the Enlightenment-based approach. We can therefore divide between Catholic and Protestant Reformation scholarship(s) and modern Infidelity's scholarship. The divide is about some sort of supernaturalism/human-divine agency versus some sort of deism/stone cold atheism.
What you also seem to miss is that scholarship and "change" (sound correction) occurred in history, even into the twentieth century, with the King James Bible itself. Else how did Adoni-zedec get changed back to Adoni-zedek at Joshua 10:3, Jahaza get changed back to Jahazah at Joshua 13:18, Haphraim back to Hapharaim at Joshua 19:19, etc.? Even Dean Burgon himself allowed for that eventuality, because he said, “Whatever may be urged in favour of Biblical Revision”, meaning that we could use science as the servant of belief and actually bring about improvements. In fact, we see careful scholarship so that "Geba" now, not "Gaba", stands at Ezra 2:26, as based on proper editing, which also happened to be found in a London edition of 1626, another of 1750 and besides in the Bishops' Bible and the (English) Revised Version.
Ecclesiastical continuationism means God's use of His church/His people in history. That's how the doctrine of the Trinity and the deity of Christ were understood and articulated in common form (Nicaea), how the 66 Book Canon was established, how vernacular and appointed translations were made, etc. The Reformation and Protestant Evangelicalism is indeed right ecclesiastical continuationism, because such things have been always the authority and right to "revise" and "correct" as that is what a shepherd did with his sheep. That true authority was perverted on one side by Trent Romanism and on the other, later, by Enlightenment-based Infidelity coming within the fold.
As for providence, I understand someone could point to the "embarrassment of riches" of modern scholarship and say how the "consensus" and the current "reality" are with going beyond and leaving behind the KJB. But providence isn't walking by sight. Providence is about vindicating Scriptural promises. And while there are Scriptural promises for a believing tradition and the presence of truth, those on the modernist side of the Bible version/translation divide don't use or point to any scriptures to justify or explain their position within a prophetic-scriptural, doctrinal or Biblically consistent continuum. The best we might hear is that "we ought to speak words easily to be understood" or some other such verse, but there is nothing from Scripture used to say, "this is how and why we must leave behind the KJB" or any such thing about coming to some future light or better thing ... "by our works". Yet there are dozens of Scriptures and a way to interpret Bible prophecies which points to the KJB. (The issue is obviously not just about verses pointing to how the Scripture would be present today, but the issue is also how to interpret such verses, because the battle between the sides here is a battle between a divine-absolutist belief versus infidelity.)
Good Job, tough topic
super educated for real guy yep.
Grace be to You always...
second thought
I've studied his book ...
super intelligent giant...
Open mindedness is important yes ?
Really have to watch several times to follow, but your on track.
Grateful....
Thanks
i read erv everyday
to verify its errors lol
Too bad we can't have a KJV, NKJV, MEV and WEB paralel Bible
But the internet makes that possible! Or Logos! Right? Maybe not the WEB.
@@markwardonwords yes but all four tr/majority text versions in AP print edition when internet isn't available or when conversing with a KJO person. Good video as always.
7:35, Yes, the heavenly side is Pepsi. Coke drinkers are loathsome heretics. Lol. 😂
Finally, someone who affirms the truth. Coke tastes like it was bottled in Laodicea.
Hi Mark, Perhaps you should be giving Burgon the same amount of grace that you've requested from your audience?
To cut to the chase (and given the format for interaction i.e. the UA-cam comment section -and that your reaction is tentative): what are your greatest concerns, questions, etc. in regards to Burgon and (more specifically) "The Revision Revised?" You state or imply several in the video, but it would be appreciated if you could narrow them down to the two or three most important ones from your perspective. Thanks
1. Burgon helped create a frenzy due to his overblown statements and "bombastic" (to use a word I believe Warfield used) tone.
2. Burgon did not use just weights; he found nothing good in the text or translation choices of the ERV translators.
3. Burgon did not advance in this, his most-read-today book, a positive and usable method of New Testament textual criticism.
@@markwardonwords re: (1) Could you provide some examples of these, "overblown statements?"
@@matthewmurphyrose4793 I provided multiple examples in the video.
@@markwardonwords thanks. Perhaps I'll wait to rewatch the video until you have actually read Burgon carefully, as opposed to your recent half-assed attempt that is.
@@matthewmurphyrose4793 Here is one sample of his tone:
*It is, however, the systematic depravation of the underlying Greek which does so grievously offend me: for this is nothing else but a poisoning of the River of Life at its sacred source. Our Revisers, (with the best and purest intentions, no doubt,) stand convicted of having deliberately rejected the words of Inspiration in every page, and of having substituted for them fabricated Readings which the Church has long since refused to acknowledge, or else has rejected with abhorrence; and which only survive at this time in a little handful of documents of the most depraved type.*
And here is another:
*Even so, however, the whole amount of the mischief which has been effected by our Revisionists has not been stated. For the Greek Text which they have invented proves to be so hopelessly depraved throughout, that if it were to be thrust upon the Church's acceptance, we should be a thousand times worse off than we were with the Text which Erasmus and the Complutensian,-Stephens, and Beza, and the Elzevirs,-bequeathed to us upwards of three centuries ago.)*
Dean was kjvo but seemed to be what you ask the TBS to be updste and revise girth a kjv in true modern English grammar abd he was not tr only as saw it as corrupt and wrong many places
I have been forever convinced of the K.J.V. and need only daily help from the spirit to be built up on my most holy faith. I have looked at the counterfeits, and am a convert
The KJV is an excellent translation-but if you're going to read it exclusively, you need to understand that it was translated into a form of English no one quite speaks or writes anymore. So there are going to be some places where you think you understand but, because of language change, you're going to miss the intent of the KJV translators. For help discerning when this is the case, I encourage you to check out my "Fifty False Friends in the KJV" series on UA-cam for help reading the KJV! ua-cam.com/play/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc.html
@@markwardonwords What you say may be true in some cases for some people who were brought up with the new versions. But for myself, the hurdle of the antiquated language was gotten over in a matter of months reading the king's English. I have always had an interest in archeology, and the language of the A.V. is no exception. It has richly paid off in 40 years of sticking with the good ol K.J.V.. God requires both the "old paths" and "the things that are past". The use of thee, thou, ye, etc. ,are not to be dispensed with because the first two signifying a singular person, while "ye" designates more than one person. The new versions lose this distinction.
@@ralphowen3367 But, my friend, what if people don't realize that thee/thy/thine are singular and ye/you/your are plural? See my site here, especially the first video: kjbstudyproject.com.
@@markwardonwords They can learn the meaning of the antiquated pronouns and the language of yesteryear in the K.J.V. if they have the annointing and are seriously seeking the truth.
@@ralphowen3367 Many people have claimed to understand the KJV English and been proven wrong when asked about particular verses. Mark has videos addressing this, using KJVO partisans who use no other versions. I guess they don't receive guidance from the Holy Spirit as you do?