When was the Westcott-Hort flimflam first recognized?
 

I have been wondering something about the history of the KJV versus modern versions situation, if anyone knows some details about it or can refer me to an article that covers it that I've missed.

That is, as I understand it, back when Westcott and Hort did their new "translation" in the 19th century they had originally told people they were merely going to update the King James, correct? Then they pulled a fast one, so to speak, and introduced this other set of Greek manuscripts and did their new translation from that instead of using the manuscripts the KJV had been based on. Also correct?

What I'd like to know is to what extent the people who first used their new version thought it was just an updating of the Authorized Version and did not understand that it was based on a different set of manuscripts? OR at least didn't understand just HOW different the different sets are from each other?

I'm asking because I have the impression that this whole story was not well known at first, maybe even until rather recently (a few decades?) and that many or most church leaders at first had accepted the new versions as just new translations of the same Greek texts, and I think some even today may still have that impression.

I guess the question could also be framed: When did the KJV-only position get started -- or get going in earnest -- to combat the claims of the new versions?

Anybody know about the timing of all this?

Thanks.

Various exposes already existed in the public consciousness during the time of the making of the Revised Version, such as the controversy surrounding having a Unitarian involved, etc. And while various people were known to pull out of the process, and criticise it, nothing was more devastating as Dean Burgon's articles in editions of the Quarterly Review. While there was some generated excitement during the release of the Revised Version, whatever enthusiasm was there quickly dwindled. The Revised Version New Testament came out in 1881 and the next year Burgon released the most devastating of his articles against it. Burgon and others recognised the value of staying with the King James Bible.

It seems that it was not until around the 1950s that the present King James Bible only movement really developed into what it is known today (e.g. Ray, Fuller and Hills). This came out of a general view that viewed modern versions with suspicion, and that the King James Bible was the best. The King James Bible only view proper, as an articulated defence of the King James Bible built upon a pre-existing sentiment, but further developed into the kind of views that might be expressed today by those who recognise the full purity of the King James Bible.

The highest form of King James Bible only now is not reactionary to modern versions, and is not primarily concerned with comparing the AV to modern versions. This is because more than enough has been shown to expose modern versions (and this knowledge should continue), without having to continually blast modern versions or make extreme claims for the King James Bible (e.g. inspiration, hidden codes). In fact, study into the very nature of the King James Bible yields its perfection, its exactness to the nullification of all other modern versions. To highlight the truth is better than to just be attacking error.

While there is a problem with many sincere Christians believing that the new Greek basis is superior to the King James Bible, those who are arguing for a continuing Majority Text or a Textus Receptus basis are not much better, because the battle in regard to the original languages is overtaken by an entirely wrong approach, namely, that arguing for one Greek text form over another seems to bypass that God has provided His full truth in English. While the Textus Receptus is superior, there is no authoritative immaculate Greek Textus Receptus document which exists right now. In other words, the present arguments and counter arguments concerning “which Greek text form is a better foundation?” is entirely the wrong field for the battle, since God promised that the Gospel would go forth to all nations, and that with another tongue would He speak to the Jews, etc. His working in history has been to abandon the field of Greek for the raising up of one final, full and perfect Bible in English for the world.

Read the book "The Revision Revised" put out by Waite's "Bible For Today" to see Burgon's view of the Revised Version.

There is presently little which describes development of the King James Bible only view.

Thank you very much for that helpful overview. I want to read Burgon's view so will look for that book.

Do you think I'm right or wrong that many church leaders have not understood that the new versions are based on a different set of manuscripts? It really bothers me that the likes of Spurgeon and Tozer and Ravenhill, and I think also Lloyd-Jones but I'm not sure, apparently accepted the new versions.

For the other point, I'll just say that I've read that argument about the finality of the KJV making it superior to the Greek texts over and over at this site, and tried to accept it and just can't. I still hold that it is perfect in itself but for a time when English was different than it is now, and now we need some (very minimal) updating done also by an authorized group. I still can't see it any other way. (I know of too many people who simply misread it because they read contemporary meanings into old words that look the same but aren't, solid believers, and KJV-onlyers.)

Anyway, thanks again.

Sorry, I see you did answer that already:

But apparently I didn't notice because it was a lead-in to your main point about the uselessness of the argument about the Greek texts.

Thinking further about it, I don't think I'm really interested in getting embroiled in the Textus Receptus controversy, I just don't see why whatever the KJV translators used wouldn't be taken as the standard. Well, I do have another thought, that if a lack of perfection in the text is going to throw off people's faith, then don't we have to assume that for something like 1500 years nobody had a trustworthy Bible and how can that be? How can we think that God would only provide the last few centuries of believers with His pure word? And didn't the KJV translators affirm that previous Bibles were also the word of God?

But since the English language has changed and does trip up some very sincere readers, I see the need for updating, and that throws me back on the question of the underlying texts, since the updaters would be seeking the modern equivalent for the Greek words.

But again, very minimal updating. Because this gets off into other things too. I did get a copy of the Defined King James and I don't like the bolding of words in order to define them -- it distracts me while I'm reading -- or the repetition of the principles of definition. I personally don't have a problem with the majority of the words they have chosen to define so that continually drawing my attention to them is merely distracting. I'm aware of a few words being a problem for people, words like "prevent" and "dumb" which simply don't mean now what they meant in 1611 and those do need to be defined. It turns out I actually like my old King James better with its tiny print marginal notes (though I end up crossing out most of them because they too are distractions and not useful), even though it was my aunt's and she got it from the Bakkers' PTL club and it has their logo on it which is very annoying. It has an excellent index and concordance and maps too.

This is not the case. The Bible words have not changed their meaning, nor has the meaning of the Bible words been lost, nor have they been erased from public consciousness. While many people may be ignorant of the meaning of a few words, this does not mean that we should change the Bible to suit modern tastes or modern usage.

It is a very slippery slope to even change one word. As soon as you allow this, you allow the idea that modern people can impose their present ideas onto God's Word. You see, if you changed a small thing like "marishes" to "marshes", you allow for any change. You would have just said that the Word of God is not fixed, but open to continual adjustment. That is exactly how the modern version thing came about. In the 1800s people talked about updating a few minor things, what they got was Westcott and Hort's work. Every now and again one or other publisher might bring out a slightly modernised King James Version, such as the KJ21 or the MKJV, but these kinds of things are often sinister in that they contain much more... they invariably contain meaning changes.

This is because people do not yet understand that a word like "glistering" does not mean "glistening". The Oxford English Dictionary shows that they are two different words from two different etymologies. "Glistering" is brilliant sparkling light, whereas "glistening" is twinkling sparkling light. The difference is in the intensity. Now, the well meaning reviser will come along and change something like "glistering" because he thinks it to be some archaic spelling, not realising that he has just altered the inerrant Word of God.

I do not agree with what Edward Hills said here concerning the "changing English", but he did show how his own position would fail if any ever tried to revise just the English of the King James Bible:

"It is possible, if the Lord tarry that in the future the English language will change so much that a new English translation of the Bible will become absolutely necessary. But in that case any version which we prepare today would be equally antiquated. Hence this is a matter which we must leave to God, who alone knows what is in store for us. For the present, however, and the foreseeable future no new translation is needed to take the place of the King James Version."

I will explain somewhat of my view that the English is master, and that a Christian cannot do better than to be acquainted with this, and accept and understand of what Burgon, Hills, Holland and other friends have shown regarding the Greek. (A great body of evidence now exists more than sufficient that nothing further need be said, but that it should be accepted and perpetuated by believers.)

What must be kept alive and well is the knowledge of the fact that the true text at the basis of the King James Bible has simply won, it had always won against the modern versionist warfare, and for many to think that there is still some kind of "case" or "issue" or "debate" concerning this is not the right view: the text as presented by the King James Bible in English is THE TEXT that links through all the proper tradition and sound view of history back to the very autographs. Therefore, since the text is in English today, there cannot yet be comparisons with Greek this versus Greek that, except in regard to observing the history of our Bible. There is no "Greek" authority today that sits at the basis of our King James Bible which can be yet utilised today to continue to fight a war which we won in 1611, and was gradually recognised to have been won over ensuing years, despite loud and antichrist speakings to the opposite beginning in more recent times. The battle in or about the Greek is waged from the basis that New Testament Greek has already served its purpose.

There is nothing wrong with talking about the Greek if it is done from the view that the King James Bible, which is not in Greek, is the authority, in that it has gathered from the variations of the Greek one final text, and is equal to that text, should it exist in one Greek form: for the English translation is perfect, sense for sense identical. There is no problem in mentioning how the English gives the exact meaning as was also in Greek, or in confounding the critics in the area of their attacks in Greek against the Scripture (e.g. 1 John 5:7, the adulteress, the end of Mark, etc.) but the ultimate basis must be that God has finally and certainly rendered these things in the King James Bible.

Whereas the translators of 1611 made their case on what was the most likely based on the evidence (and sometimes what is right is accused of being in minority), we do not yet argue or view from that perspective. We do not prove or find the King James Bible right because we have discovered that the textual evidence supports its readings, on the contrary, we accept the rightness of what God has supplied, and the witness of many saints, and any such believing researches in this regard, but on the basis of having the Word with us. Thus, our authority is not placed upon what can be interpreted or what we can discover in the underlying evidence, but our authority is placed upon that the Word must be present now. While the translators of 1611 did see the underlying evidence as being the Word of God to them then (the Word which was received from tradition), this was well and good, but while the same principle is used by us, we do not rely upon or look to the same source (the Greek), but we rely and look on the English. Altogether it is the same Spirit which has worked to get what we have today in English from what was finally fully gathered from Greek 400 years ago.

The real problem is that today knowing Greek is used as a badge of pride, and that this hermetic Greek knowedge is used to somehow correct, alter, misinterpret or think differently of the King James Bible. As long as someone uses Greek as a servant to the English master, there is not going to be a problem. In fact, it is important to know about the issue concerning the settling and certainty of the text, otherwise there would be with King James Bible people complete ignorance and uncertainty whether or not it really did present the Scripture properly as textually gathered and translated from Greek as far as its historical validity.

"Precept upon precept, line upon line..." applies to the perfection of Scripture in English. Yes, we should understand that the Scripture came to be in English via Greek, but we should also see that there does not need to be an unfit mediator between our Bible and God for the better understanding of our Bible, by which I mean, neither Greek document, nor Greek-delving scholar should have any authority or esteem placed with them as if they were able to yet bring us to a better understanding of our Bible as God has provided it.

“From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report. For the bed is shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it: and the covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it.” (Isaiah 28:19, 20).

Just an FYI, since there are some people using SwordSearcher here. I have made three of Burgon's books available in SwordSearcher format here:

• The Last Twelve Verses of Mark Vindicated
• Inspiration and Interpretation
• Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text

If you don't have SwordSearcher, you can read these online at CCEL here.

Thanks be unto Brandon for his readable gift!
.

Thank you, Diligent. I actually ordered a secondhand copy of Burgon's Revised Revision from Amazon and they just notified me that they discovered their only copy is missing some pages so they can't send it. God's providence I think, so I can read what you link to.

I do have Swordsearcher and use it quite a bit but I haven't learned all the things it can do and sometimes end up going back for some things to the online Blue Letter Bible I had been using before. In searching SS for Burgon's books today I couldn't find them and gave up.

The Revision Revised is here online:

http://www.archive.org/details/a549037300burguoft

I have some quotes here:

http://www.bibleprotector.com/Burgon_1882.pdf

A condensed version of the book can be viewed here:

http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/truefalse/index.html

(Look down the side bar to access the three parts of Burgon's book).

That's because they aren't included by default -- they are available as free add-ons on the web pages I linked in my earlier post. You just need to install them from the pages and then they will appear in the Book panel.

Thank you for these "priceless" additions, Diligent!

Oh, now I get it. I'm so low-tech that didn't register the first time around. Thanks Diligent.

And thanks to Bibleprotector too for all the links to the book. So glad I wasn't able to buy it. Thank you.

Thanks for your thoughts, Steven Avery. I'm not sure I follow what you are saying about the textual paradigms, I'll have to think about that more in order to understand it.

I may end up agreeing that there should be no changes of any kind made, but I don't yet have a firm foundation for that view, despite all that has been said on it here. I can say that personally my own reading of the Bible has become enormously easier, clearer, a joy, since I made the commitment to throw out my New King James and go with the KJV, but I don't feel I can say that for everyone else yet. I can argue up to a point of my limited knowledge that the modern versions are all corrupt and their underlying texts are corrupt but I can't yet argue that people need to overcome their balking at the old English of the KJV.

I really appreciate the historical information. I doubt I'm going to become very knowledgeable in this area, there's so much to know, but unfortunately we have to know a fair amount to discuss it with people. Yes, AW Pink is another of my favorites and I'd like to know his view on this subject along with the others I listed; I've read most of his books and don't recall his mentioning it. I hope you can find out about all their views on this subject if they are anywhere in print, and will pass them on here. I have been reading a lot of Leonard Ravenhill recently and was so sorry to hear him talk about his and Tozer's acceptance of a couple of the modern versions. And Spurgeon. To have so many of the well known men accepting the corrupted Bibles makes it especially hard to argue for the KJV.

Connie, with respect to those far-past Godly men whose writings and teachings were so strong, yet they seemed to embrace alterations to the Bible of their day without awareness:

I believe that this characteristic is true in many areas, tracing back to the Bible itself. There were honored men of the OT who did things that we today would find absolutely against Scripture (e.g. Abraham, Jacob, David with multiple wives) because in their day, the understanding was absent or hidden by customs of the day. The same was true in the NT. Peter was clearly given evidence of God's acceptance of the gentiles, yet he had trouble seeing the error of his bias against them until he was rebuked by Paul.

Today, there are similar behaviors. When my father was young, everyone smoked. I can remember him sitting in his study with a pipe in his mouth. We participated in halloween, and went along with santa claus at Christmas. But there came a time when his and our eyes were opened and we understood the contradicting behavior.

I believe it was the same with men like Spurgeon. They were caught up with the newness of the matter, and may have even innocently thought (like someone near and dear) that some slight changes would be beneficial. I would hope that if these men were transported to today's environment, they would have wisdom to see what has happened and that they would be on the forefront of the defense for the purity of the KJB.

I'm hoping that's true, I guess because I'd rather not have to doubt their spiritual discernment. But I'd like to know for sure and I wonder if there is any way to find out. Maybe Steven Avery will find some more information about these men's knowledge of the situation.

On the subject of the updating, just to try to be as clear as possible, I do fine with the old English myself, but nobody has yet convinced me that it's really necessary. I just don't see the argument that says a little updating must necessarily lead to all the corruptions, because what brought about the corruptions in the first place was Westcott and Hort's not sticking to the plan to update but introducing the corrupted Greek texts. ALL the new versions are now based on those corrupted texts and even some KJV's have been affected by them at least in footnotes. So we've never had a merely updated KJV. The New King James would have been fine with me, I think, if it had truly been only an updating of the English, but changes were made beyond updating and the constant footnote references to different sets of Greek texts are infuriating. SO I'd like to see a REAL update done by Godly men that absolutely ignores the corrupted Greek texts and sticks to the KJV alone.

As for the Defined King James I just think the definitions should be less in-your-face. Maybe simply a list of the terms they feel need defining should be put at the front or back of the Bible where anyone can go to look them up when they have a question without having to be constantly made aware of them during reading.

I'm still open to the argument that no updating should be done at all, but so far I'm not convinced.

As for old commentators: Having read many of them on many topics, I believe it's reasonable to assume that most of them would be utterly appalled at the modern state of things, which has given us 200+ English translations, with some truly Satanic ones like the TNIV and "The Message."

A broad view of the history of Textual Criticism shows that the debates were over issues like whether or not the book of Daniel even belonged in the Bible (since the book of Daniel contains predictions that nobody can deny came to pass, many critics used that as an excuse to question its authenticity!). Good preachers were unanimous in their defense of Daniel and Revelation as genuine Scripture. It seems to me that once this matter "lost steam" the critics moved on to a more nuanced approach to attacking the Bible, like Wescott and Hort did by getting their corrupt text into the revision committee. Burgon saw this for the corruption that it was, but the full extent of their unbelieving scholarship on Christian scholarship wasn't really revealed until much later. Christ's body has suffered greatly due to these subtle attacks on God's word.

I await the Lord's return. I do not look to the Church or any group of men to reverse these tides. God will have his remnant, and many of us grow stronger in God's word despite the majority of Christian scholarship that seeks to erase it from the face of the earth. As far as I am concerned, history shows me that the KJV is final and is "it" until Christ returns.

Amen, Brother Tim.

Amen, Brandon!

I've gotta say Burgon is a powerful writer, passionate, with all the right concerns, obviously up against devious opponents and ninnies. So glad I got pointed in his direction. I've only read some of the quotes at Dr. Cloud's site, and the Preface and some on the Greek Text and I don't see how anybody who has a sincere desire for the truth could have sided with his opponents after reading only that much. I'll keep reading but I don't expect to change my mind.

Double amen, Brandon!

I want to be so ready that I hear Gabriel breathe in before he blows the trumpet! I don't think it will be that long.

The book by Burgon is very useful to me, what a powerhouse. I'm also reading around in Will Kinney's website. I've started a blog of my own in which one of my topics is the Bible versions problem. I was inspired to do my own comparison a couple nights ago, of Psalms 91 and 23 and this became the basis of a few posts on the subject. It's just staggering what the new versions do to the text, willynilly changing words for no rational reason, changing them first of all from the KJV but then coming up with different words among the false versions too. Change for change's sake. Diabolical, truly! Yet Westcott and Hort were originally charged to make only the most necessary changes. What a con job they pulled! It's just astonishing what the devil has done with that, and how the churches have been confused and misled by his productions, and how hard it is to convince people.

It's crossed my mind that a major reason the Lord might not bring revival to His remnant before His return may well be the reliance of the churches on Bibles that are not His word. In reading Leonard Ravenhill I've been tremendously impressed and inspired by the man's fiery commitment to the cause of revival, and often wondered why the Lord never used him as kindling for the revival he so persistently sought. I can't know the answer for sure of course, but I look for doctrinal problems as a possible explanation, though he's a terrific man of God in any case. He didn't seem to catch the problems with Billy Graham for instance. And when I saw that he accepts a modern Bible version, that struck me as a sad possible explanation too. Not that there has to be an explanation but I have been wanting revival so much myself that I would love to know if there's a condition God is attaching to it that we aren't heeding. (I also think the current misreadings of 1 Cor 11:2-16, both the hair-as-covering reading and the covering-as-merely-cultural reading, may play a part in this, as it seems to me the last genuine revivals in the west were during the period when women still covered their heads, but this is just my personal ponderings at the moment).

On the side topic we also covered on this thread, Will Kinney has this great article on his site, and I agree with it completely:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/transinsp.html

He says there:

Yes, exactly! SO well said!

Let me assure you all that I am ready to defend the King James as is, it is now my Bible, and I know it is inspired and trustworthy. I would defend it for that and a variety of other reasons, but I do believe what Kinney says in this article can also be extended to the question of necessary updating (although --note well please -- I am NOT advocating that now, merely making a point about the principle involved). Yes, a translation done well IS inspired, as Kinney says, of COURSE it is inspired. That includes all the translations into English up to the KJV, and it would also include any updatings that were also done right! NOT what W&H did, NOT what the modern Bible mutilations have done, but done right! Done carefully, done with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Again, I'm only saying this as a matter of principle, not arguing in favor of actually doing it because I've given up on that. There is no reason whatever that a correctly updated version would not be inspired, BUT the last day is nearly upon us and it isn't going to happen, and I agree that as far as a compelling need goes, there is no such compelling need. The KJV is excellent as is.

I hope I got that said clearly.

There is a difference in claiming that the translators were inspired, and that the King James Bible is the inspired Word of God that has come out of the preserved lineage from the time of inspiration.

Revival of religion is based on the heart of the individual believer. There is no way there can be large and lasting conversions merely based on external signs and wonders. Since the heart of the individual must love the law of God, it is important that the Law of God, (i.e. the pure Word of God) be magnified. Without the law set up as honourable, as the standard, there cannot be a true revival of religion. I have heard lots of talk about "revival" for years by people who have little or no idea as to what it means. The modern version issue is really a huge blockage against true revival by many professing Christians. It seems to me that very few so-called "born again" Christians are really even born again.

The King James Bible should be chosen as "our Bible". It is not just a taste/preference thing. It must be because we are willing and ready to recognise that this is God's Word, and that it is written (with all those seeming old or strange word endings) exactly how God wants it. (If the King James Bible is a work of God, what right have we to continue to update it. If God's works are perfect, how is man's input going to be better?) Having a desire to yet alter this is not to defer to God's way, but to think to "change times and laws". The Holy Ghost is not guiding people, nor guiding the circumstances so that there can be a careful, godly new revision of the King James Bible. The Holy Ghost is able to teach and speak to people perfectly, and the language of the King James Bible is not a stumblingblock or hindrance to God's ability. After all, it is His Word.

The final of the last days are not yet upon us, because, as we see from examining the historicist interpretation of Bible Prophecy (continuing from the Reformers, Isaac Newton, etc.) we see that we are yet in an age of darkness. Numerous things must be fulfilled BEFORE Christ's return/the final tribulation period. For example, we are yet to see the fulfilment of pre-tribulation portions of Daniel (the full transgression of the Grecian line), Ezekiel (the first coming of Gog and Magog), Joel (darkness over Israel and the defeat of the northern army), Revelation (the destruction of Turkey/Islam), Isaiah (true revival), Romans (the beginning of the conversion of the Jews by true Christians) and Acts (great restitution blessing poured out by God). There are specific prophecies which require and/or indicate the raising up of the King James Bible, e.g. Isa. 59:19, Eze. 38:17, Hab. 2:14, etc.

I believe that we are and should advance forward from Burgon into greater power yet.

And why did God "allow" the revisionists to do their evil? "Its effect will be to open men's eyes, as nothing else could possibly have done, to the dangers which beset the Revision of Scripture. It will teach faithful hearts to cling the closer to the priceless treasure which was bequeathed to them by the piety and wisdom of their fathers. It will dispel for ever the dream of those who have secretly imagined that a more exact Version, undertaken with the boasted helps of this nineteenth century of ours, would bring to light something which has been hitherto unfairly kept concealed or else misrepresented."

You might think that Burgon's assessment and prediction is wrong, because you have seen so many good Christians, even ones you looked up to, using modern versions. But the Scripture stands sure, "But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was." (2 Tim. 3:9). The darkness cannot continue. Modern versions have a used by date. The light of the King James Bible cannot be hidden, no matter what. (Yes, there is a great process out there supporting and promoting modern versions, and all the wrong ideas, and darkness. But that cannot not quench the light of God, just as night cannot stop the sunrise.)

Yes, apparently we agree about the modern versions being a block to revival. It makes sense. I've read a LOT about revival and know that it usually comes when people are praying for it at length, perhaps only a few getting together at first, often praying all night. There are good books on the subject and some good sermons on it at Sermon Audio.com as well. Duncan Campbell on the Welsh revival is very inspiring. When revival comes it is a move of the Holy Spirit that can't be mistaken and He generally comes first with tremendous conviction of sin. This describes just about every genuine revival. People are bowed down with grief for their sins. In some revivals unbelievers may be drawn from the surrounding area by a power they can't explain. True revival is a move of God and it is wonderful. It has NOTHING to do with signs and wonders of the charismatic kind, and in fact when those occur it's often a sign of a counterfeit and it will bring a genuine revival to a halt, or it may be the devil's work on the fringes of a true revival.

Yes, I recognize the King James as God's word, I thought I was clear about that. No, it's not a matter of taste. I would assume an updating would be prompted by the Holy Spirit who wants the word to be accessible to all, and I also thought I'd been clear about that. I've tried hard to be clear that I know the difference between the profane alterations by the likes of W&H and a work done by God. Yes, there is not much in the King James that needs updating anyway. It is possible I will yet come to see this more as you see it, although I doubt I will go all the way in that direction, but please don't mischaracterize me at this point.

As I understand the scripture, what remains to be fulfilled before Jesus returns is the revelation of the Antichrist. I could be wrong about this too. There could be more, but your understanding of it sounds like something I haven't heard before.

Burgon is a powerful thinker it seems to me, and he is an expert in the field, and his writing was done when the problem was just getting started. I don't know what further power you might have in mind. The passage of time should allow others like yourself to improve the argument if that's what you mean.

But the power the church needs is the power of God Himself in revival, for God to come down and convict us of sin and change us into people who can do exploits in the last days. Blockages to a move of God need to be recognized. I have to suppose that a church that has women elders is a blockage for instance, as well as a church that allows the modern Bibles, as well possibly as women's not covering our heads in worship and prayer, as well as an equation of a move of the Holy Spirit with a certain kind of signs and wonders.

I appreciate the quote from Burgon. All things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

However, it's been over a century since then and the problem has spread throughout the church. Such a disaster comes as God's judgment, and judgment begins at the house of God. The new versions are part of the engine of the Great Apostasy it seems to me, a darkness that will probably continue and get worse until the last day. But for the called I hope the Lord will open the eyes of great numbers and soon.

That's a great explanation, Steven Avery. The degree of deception is staggering, isn't it? You are right, given the deception we shouldn't judge others who fall for it, should we? Even those today. Many good Christians are still in its thrall. It makes me very sad to see men like Spurgeon and Pink and Tozer and Ravenhill caught in it. It makes me especially sad to think their effectiveness might have been unknowingly restricted by it. It makes me even sadder to think that the church today might have to limp along in a state of weakness and confusion without revival until the Lord comes back.

Besides reading the Burgon excerpts at Pastor Cloud's site I've looked at other writings on the subject he has posted there. Whoever pointed me to this site really answered my questions, thanks.

Very interesting to see that by 1924 the new versions seemed to be losing in popularity, according to Philip Mauro. Also interesting that it seems to have been widely accepted that the AV needed some corrections although it was also recognized by some at least that the revisers had gone way beyond any such requirement.

Somewhere yesterday or today, not sure if it was on this page or not, I also read that it was Dean Burgon who first recognized that the revisers had not stuck to their promise to do a minimal revision but had in fact produced a completely new Bible. Apparently at first it passed as a mere revision. That's how sneaky this whole thing was. It really helps to know this history I think.

http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/truefalse/index.html

I didn't know the texts were corrected like that. Sounds like the White camp think whatever was corrected has to be the best. Kind of the way some people think the gnostic gospels have to be the truth just because the church suppressed them. Well, in fact the very way the revisionists figured if it's older and it contradicts the AV it has to be better. Weird assumption they have.

I'll eventually get to that in Burgon I suppose. Right now I'm reading around in a lot of things, probably not a good idea, makes the head spin.

Now I'm wondering what happened after 1924 when according to Mauro the new revision was not very popular. (Or is the AV still more popular than the revisions, seems unlikely but does anyone know?). Something happened after that to make them very popular it seems. Publishing companies doing their different versions maybe? Of course I'm continuing to read in my haphazard way and the question may be answered as I go.

Another question I'm looking to answer is exactly what they thought needed revising in the AV. I know that question is anathema for many here, or at least the idea itself that it needed revising is, but it seems important to know what they thought they wanted changed when they convened the revising body for that purpose.

Mauro concedes that the AV needed revising, so does Burgon I think though just for the purposes of private study or something like that? Exactly what did they think needed changing? Again, I may find the answer as I continue to read but if anyone simply knows it and would post it I'd appreciate it.

I've been praying by the way that the Lord would show me if it really is an affront to His word to think any revision at all is necessary, as so many here maintain. So far I continue to think that a revision done right would simply be a new container for the same word, to use Will Kinney's wonderful metaphor (although I'm not expecting or even wanting such a revision to happen any more).

I will quote two passages from my book. First, regarding the situation prior to the "Revised Version":

A. W. Pollard wrote, in the preface to the 1911 reprint of the First 1611 Edition, “It must be remembered that no copy of the version of 1611 had been ‘sealed’ as a standard ... and these attempts to increase consistency and to remove errors were wholly laudable. On the other hand it is obvious that under cover of such minor revisions more serious changes might be introduced.”

The need for a revision to the King James Bible. On one side, this was the door whereby Satan could enter, yet on the other, it seemed necessary, though just how much or what exactly was to be revised was uncertain. It was reported by Eyre and Strahan in 1806 after careful collation, that 116 errata were discovered to have existed in the 1769 Edition. Given the controversy that the neo-Puritans had stirred at the same time as the revitalisation of the Romanising movement around 1830, revision seemed to be both needful and desirable, yet impractical and possibly dangerous. Extremists would pull one way, while Romanisers would go fully another: what was needed was a conservative approach, which meant that those with good intentions decided to wait and see what Providence had in store.

Writers recognised that there was some kind of standard, such as the American scholar, Alexander McClure. In his 1858 book The Translators Revived, he stated that there was, to his understanding, “an immaculate text”, and that “It is quite certain that no portion of the work has been done over again since 1611, by any divine of England or America, in a way which, by general consent of the Christian community, could supplant the corresponding portion as it stands in our family and pulpit Bibles.” But there was a weakness in his reasoning that would allow for a supplanting, “Not that the utmost verbal perfection is claimed for the English Bible as it now stands.” And, “If ever the time shall come for a new revision of the Translation, let it be done ... by men who shall know what they are about, and how it ought to be done. It will be a vast undertaking, affecting the dearest interests of ages of time, and millions upon millions of immortals.”

Cambridge editor, Dean (later Archbishop) Trench wrote in his 1858 The Authorized Version of the New Testament, Cambridge: “I am persuaded that a REVISION ought to come: I am convinced that it will come. Not however, I would trust, as yet; for we are not as yet in any respect prepared for it. The Greek and the English which should enable us to bring this to a successful end, might, it is feared, be wanting alike.” (Trench was one of the pioneers of modernist attack on the King James Bible.) Just how much the Greek was to be revised was the most dangerous issue of all. But slight fixing seemed to be acceptable by many.

Even though several small changes had occurred in Cambridge Bibles, the Cambridge Bible of the latter half of the nineteenth century was still not quite perfect. Thus, there was a genuine need for a small revision, as Dr Christopher Wordsworth himself noted, that much less than 750 changes were needful or desirable.

Burgon spoke of the necessity of “the removal of many an obscurity in the AV”, which he laid out as, “representing certain words more accurately, — here and there translating a tense with greater precision, — getting rid of a few archaisms”.

Certainly, there were problems, such as the rendering in Joshua 19:2, where theologians and scholars knew that Beer-sheba and Sheba were one and the same, and therefore the verse should properly read “Beer-sheba or Sheba”, but such changes were not forthcoming in Victorian Bibles, simply because uncertainty and a touch-not-the-AV mentality prevailed. In fact, the King James Bible was recognised “to be the perfection of our English language”, where ideas of perfection of text and religion ran together, so that “to reform the text of the Bible would have appeared to the ignorant little less than a change in national religion”, which ultimately “would lead to resistance to any change to the received form of the text of the KJB.” And considering the turmoils Europe had passed through after the French Revolution, stability and tradition were the order of the day.

Alexander McClure wrote, “The work, though not absolutely perfect, nor incapable of amendment in detached places, is yet so well done, that the Christian public will not endure to have it tampered with. It would be impossible ... to collect at this day a body of professors and divines, from England and America together, which should be equal in numbers and in learning to those assembled by King James; and in whom the churches would feel enough of confidence to entrust them with a repetition of the work. The common version has become a permanent necessity, through its immense influence on the language, literature, manners, opinions, character, institutions, history, religion, and entire life and development of the Anglo-Saxon [nations]”. He concluded that, “The best fruits of Christianity have sprung from the seeds our translation has scattered.”

Second, I will quote in regard to how there was indeed a revision of the King James Bible which was needful, and accomplished, being the Pure Cambridge Edition of the King James Bible:

Despite imperfections, J. W. Burgon’s view of revising the King James Bible was somewhat prophetic. He said, “Whenever the time comes for the Church of England to revise her Authorized Version (1611)”. Of course, Burgon was not entirely correct in his view of revising the underlying texts, but he was correct that further work was required in the King James Bible. He also quoted the modernist Ellicott’s words, “‘No Revision’ (he [Ellicott] says) ‘in the present day could hope to meet with an hour’s acceptance if it failed to preserve the tone, rhythm, and dictation of the present Authorized Version.’” This was perfectly true, in that Ellicot’s own favoured Revised Version failed his own requirements, though what Burgon pointed out was that whatever change was to happen in the revision of the King James Bible would at the last be nothing less than a preservation of it. That the revision actually was only of some forty-eight words is a testimony of just how much the 1769 Edition as already presented by Cambridge was to meet acceptance.

Burgon made it very plain that the Revised Version could not be any factor in the work. “It is idle — worse than idle — to dream of revising, with a view to retaining, this Revision. Another generation of students must be suffered to arise. Time must be given for Passion and Prejudice to cool effectually down ... Partisanship must be completely outlived, — before the Church can venture, with the remotest prospect of a successful issue, to organise another attempt at revising the Authorized Version of the New Testament Scriptures.” Very little revision did take place in the New Testament Scriptures, and all work there was in line with the textual history of the King James Bible, mainly the 1611 Edition, and probably in reference to Scrivener’s book. There is no indication that the Revised Version was in any particular way an influence in the making of the Pure Cambridge Edition.

“Then further,” wrote Burgon, “those who would interpret the New Testament Scriptures, are reminded that a thorough acquaintance with the Septuagintal Version of the Old Testament is one indispensable condition of success.” This was a condition which was entirely lacking in the Revised Version, yet in the history of the Church, “the translation of the Seventy” had been set “forth openly to be considered of and perused by all.” (TTR, Section 12, Paragraph 2). There were two reasons why Burgon’s generally overlooked advice was actually heeded:

First, the changes to the spelling of names in the Old Testament and the affect on several nouns in the New Testament of the Pure Cambridge Edition are evidence of being done with an understanding of the original languages.

Second, the introduction of the pronunciation signs in the Pure Cambridge Edition, which would require extensive Biblical linguistic knowledge, were done by Henry A. Redpath, whose renowned work was none other than A Concordance to the Septuagint and Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament which was published in 1897–1906 by Clarendon, Oxford. Redpath, in his short statement at the front of the Bible, restricted all matter to internal considerations of the Authorized Version, stating, “so far as it is noted in the Authorized Version”, thus eliminating the introduction of external ideas onto the text. Redpath’s pronunciation system must have been adopted by Cambridge at an early stage, probably around 1900 or so.

“And finally,” Burgon concluded, “the Revisionists of the future [after 1884] (if they desire that their labours should be crowned), will find it their wisdom to practise a severe self-denial; to confine themselves to the correction of ‘plain and clear errors;’ and in fact to ‘introduce into the [English] Text as few alterations as possible.’” And that “the Authorized Version, wherever it was possible, should have been jealously retained.” It can be happily reported that the Pure Cambridge Edition does indeed commend itself in these points, and that the worthy editor brought about only those changes that were needful, which never required anything like the undertaking of a whole new version.

In summary: People in the 1800s saw the need for a revision, but to what extent was uncertain, indeed, a certain portion of people were open to far more "revision" than what was needful, and which manifested something of great harm. When the real revision occured, most never realised it, and did not understand the nature of it. That includes King James Bible supporting people right up to recent times.

Did Dean John Burgon speak of the necessity of revision, laying out plans ?
 

I noticed that the longer quote was out of context myself, but as I review Bibleprotector's post I think perhaps what he meant to be saying was that Burgon appears to concede that the revisions did result in the removal of many an obscurity in the AV (although in context he's pointing out that they added half a dozen for each removed). Burgon didn't speak of it as a "necessity" but I think in context of his post Bibleprotector merely meant to be pointing out that Burgon did recognize that some of the revisions were clarifying (even though he considered them not worth the damage done along with them). (Of course I'd really like to know exactly which changes Burgon considered useful and that information doesn't seem to be available.)

And although he did take the other quotation out of context as well, I believe his point was only to use it to define the sort of clarifying changes Burgon would have meant by the first quote: "representing certain words more accurately, — here and there translating a tense with greater precision, — getting rid of a few archaisms” Burgon is saying that the endangerment of the Bible read by millions for the sake of even such useful corrections is not worth it, but I think Bibleprotector only meant the quote to act as a clue to what kind of corrections Burgon would have considered useful. (Again I'd love to know which words needed to be represented more accurately, which tenses needed greater precision, which words were considered to be archaisms in those days).

I did have trouble with Bibleprotector's post just because there is so little specificity. I'm not sure I know any more about specific revisions the revision committee hoped to see done, but perhaps the point is it wasn't clearly spelled out because that information is hard to come by.

I am giving quotations of the Dean by an interpretative method, which views conference of passages and ideas as greater than mere context. (This, in its highest form, applies to Bible interpretation.) What I have stated is correct, and to take but a few lines is not to omit information (i.e. to neglect the context), but rather an attempt to give the broadest possible view of the Dean's position in the fewest possible or most pertinent of his own words. While this may be said to be making the Dean say something which he did not explicitly say in one place, in fact, it is what the Dean said, when giving the essence of his whole message.

The Scripture is full of examples of how this method may be employed honestly and truthfully. For example, James, in Acts 15:15–17 utalised the words and ideas of various passages of the Old Testament to make one statement concerning a particular doctrine: “And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.”

Upon examining Scripture, it speedily comes to light that there is a great difference between "wrest" and "rightly dividing". As for Burgon, I suspect that some folk may not agree with my view of interpreting him in a prophetic context.

To regard the context is proper. I disagree with deception, wilful misrepresentation and misquoting people, however, I maintain that it is entirely valid to take several quotations from authors and show connections between them, despite the so-called limitations of context.

It is dangerous to make people say things which they did not say, or to make them champions of personal opinions when they are not. Whether others have done this improper thing while attempting to defend the King James Bible does not mean that I am in the same position or predicament.

To pendant upon "contextualism" is out of order when viewing the greater matters. Note how the Holy Ghost has quite a different meaning concerning the oxen than the original context seemed to indicate: "For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written" (1 Cor. 9:9, 10a). Should we accuse the Holy Ghost of impropriety because He did not actually care so much for oxen? And should we doubt that God was really speaking about Christians, when no such meaning was evident when that law was written by Moses?

Therefore, it is a greater thing to give a whole or fuller meaning, and that to be chained to context is to restrict from the proper and higher use of conference of passages. However, such a thing must be done out of wisdom, learning and lawfulness. If I have misrepresented or been mistaken concerning whom I have quoted, I would seek to rectify that. This should be a sufficient and adequate explanation of the matter at hand.

While we cannot read a particular formal plan, we certainly find throughout his works the pieces of his plan of how a revision of the Bible should be executed. He rejected the Westcott/Hort work, all the while labouring for his own. He did not write the Revision Revised just because he disagreed with WH or because he loved the KJB. He wrote it because, while he was on the side of conserving the KJB, he honestly thought that there was a way to revise it. And if the Church of England was not going to accept his own revision method, he would do his best to promote the kind he wanted for the future.

“It is idle — worse than idle — to dream of revising, with a view to retaining, this Revision. Another generation of students must be suffered to arise. Time must be given for Passion and Prejudice to cool effectually down ... Partisanship must be completely outlived, — before the Church can venture, with the remotest prospect of a successful issue, to organise another attempt at revising the Authorized Version of the New Testament Scriptures.”

This leads to an important question: who or what follows Burgon?

1. No one. (Edward Miller accomplished nothing.)

2. It was manifested in another way, namely, through:
a. Hills and the KJBO movement as the defenders,
b. The English purification which took place in the PCE, as has consequently recognised

3. Burgon's disciples, or real the revisers, are yet to come.