Mon Feb 12 16:56:32 1996
From majordom Mon Feb 12 16:56:32 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA07239; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 16:56:32 +0500
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 16:53:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: "Majority Text"
In-Reply-To: <9602121850.AA10444@Np.nosc.mil>
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 4376
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Vincent Broman wrote:
> If projected on a spectrum, I might fall somewhere between Sturz
> and Robinson, but my theory of Biblical authority is very distant
> from inerrancy.
At least to a degree, here is one non-inerrantist who leans in this
direction. *:-)
> In fact, the desperate pleading of many Burgonites
> has been a turn-off to me; their need for an inerrant KJV really shows.
I cite the above quote as a perfect illustration of what I was getting
at: the KJV-Only crowd indeed has muddied the waters on this issue so
much that the guilt-by-association is almost automatic.
Additionally, the term "Burgonite" is symptomatic. Wallace called me a
"true Burgonite" (which term I accept, so long as it applies to
text-critical theory!) in his critique of majority text theory. But I
accept the term only in its correct meaning, i.e. the detailed application
of text-critical principles in the manner Burgon advocated. If
"Burgonite" is taken to mean KJV-Onlyists, or those whose pen drips blood
and brimstone, then I certainly do not accept the term.
Burgon was NOT a KJV-Only defender, nor even a TR defender. Burgon's own
text-critical notes (published only for Matthew 1-14, though his
unpublished papers in the Bodleian in Oxford cover the entire NT) show
where he would have corrected the TR, and it was not insignificant.
In the section covering Matthew 1-14, Burgon would have altered the TR in
around 160 places, and his resultant text would very closely approximate
either the Hodges/Farstad edition or the Robinson/Pierpont edition (this I
have checked). Wherever the changes were translatable, Burgon also urged
changes in the KJV text, and he even notes a dozen or so such places
within his published works.
Burgon was opposed to the English Revision of the KJV for various reasons,
and his vituperation spilled over far too much in his writings. He openly
admitted he was not opposed to revision, but was opposed to one which was
as radical as the ERV 1881. Certain items he opposed were theological
(e.g. having a Unitarian on the revision committee); others textual (the
committee's instructions were charged not to alter the text underlying the
KJV apart from exceptional evidence; Burgon did not consider Aleph/B or
the draft copies of the Westcott-Hort text privately circulated to the
committee as "exceptional" in itself).
Burgon was not a KJV-Only type person. The problem today is that the
KJV-Only crowd basically have canonized Burgon as one of their own, and
who can utter nothing false. Yet in many instances Burgon is now known to
have been wrong due to subsequent discoveries. Example: Burgon thought
Origen responsible for creating the Alexandrian text; P75 alone squashes
that nonsense. But the KJV-Only crowd (especially Ruckman, Riplinger, and
Waite) continues to quote Burgon on that point as if he has "never been
answered"). Rubbish. Burgon is not infallible, and never was.
As a text critical scholar and collator of MSS, however, Burgon was
considered one of the experts of that day, and even Scrivener acknowledges
his expertise in that area. Too bad his rhetoric was so harsh, or others
might have listened more carefully to him.
Edward Miller's little "Guide to Textual Criticism" (1886) clearly
reflects a solid Byzantine-priority method based upon Burgon's seven
"notes of truth" without all the bombast and rhetoric. Those interested
in the "majority text" theory should consult that before reading Burgon
in order to see such a position calmly presented. Miller himself even
had a formal debate in 1897 with Wm. Sanday (among others) at Oxford over
the differing theories of textual criticism. Had Burgon been yet alive,
he likely would not have been invited to participate, due to his virulent
nature.
I do hope this little excursion helps somewhat. As a "true Burgonite," I
felt I had to write something to explain my position. *:-)
=========================================================================
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Wake Forest, North Carolina
=========================================================================
Back