Introduction and Theological Foundations

Part 1: Introduction and Theological Foundations

Chapter 1: Theological Presuppositions in Biblical Interpretation

• Theological Framework: Expand on the theological assumptions Burgon brings to his critique, particularly the Calvinist framework. This section would discuss how theological convictions such as the sovereignty of God, divine preservation of Scripture, and predestination impact Burgon’s interpretation of the Textus Receptus and modern textual criticism.
• Burgon’s Theological Identity: Develop Burgon’s connection to 19th-century Reformed theology. This would include a historical overview of Calvinism’s impact on Protestant thought, especially in the context of biblical translation and textual authority.

Chapter 2: The Role of Tradition and Authority in Interpretation

• Tradition vs. Textual Criticism: Burgon’s critique focuses on the centrality of tradition, particularly in the form of the Textus Receptus (TR), as opposed to the emerging field of textual criticism. This chapter would explore how Burgon aligns with the belief that the TR represents the preserved word of God and critiques the methods of modern textual critics, who advocate for a more critical approach to manuscript evidence.
• Historical Context of Biblical Interpretation: Analyze how this debate fits within the broader history of biblical interpretation, considering the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Church’s view on scriptural authority.

Part 2: Burgon’s Critique of Modern Textual Criticism

Chapter 3: The Critique of Westcott and Hort

• Introduction to Westcott and Hort: Begin by exploring the historical context of Westcott and Hort’s textual criticism. Provide a detailed analysis of their method, particularly their reliance on earlier Alexandrian manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.
• Burgon’s Response: Discuss how Burgon argues that Westcott and Hort’s methodology was flawed and how their reliance on certain manuscripts led to the corruption of the biblical text. Expand on Burgon’s theological rationale for rejecting the “new” critical text and his belief in divine preservation through the TR.

Chapter 4: Manuscripts and the Development of the Text

• The Importance of Manuscripts: Delve into the significance of manuscript evidence in the debate over textual authenticity. Compare Burgon’s view of the TR with other textual traditions, focusing on the Alexandrian and Western text types.
• The Age of Manuscripts: Expand on Burgon’s concern that newer manuscripts (such as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) are inferior to the later Byzantine manuscripts on which the TR is based. Discuss how Burgon’s critique of early papyri and codices reflects his theological commitment to preserving the integrity of the Bible as understood by his tradition.
• Examples of Variations: Analyze specific textual variants that Burgon points to in his critique, such as omissions or additions found in early manuscripts that do not appear in the TR.

Part 3: Calvinism, Reformed Theology, and Biblical Translation

Chapter 5: Calvinism and the Preservation of Scripture

• Doctrine of Preservation: Burgon’s belief in the supernatural preservation of the Scriptures is a cornerstone of his theology. Expand on the Calvinist doctrine of the preservation of the Bible as part of God’s sovereign will. This belief impacts his interpretation of how the Bible was transmitted throughout history.
• Impact of Calvinist Doctrine on Translation: Explore how the belief in divine preservation influenced not only Burgon’s understanding of the TR but also the translation decisions made by the KJV translators, who were heavily influenced by Reformed theological convictions.

Chapter 6: The Role of the King James Version

• The KJV and Calvinism: Examine how the King James Version (KJV) is viewed as the pinnacle of biblical translation within Reformed circles. Expand on how Burgon and KJV-only advocates believe the KJV embodies theological purity.
• The KJV and Translation Philosophy: Investigate the translation principles of the KJV, including its emphasis on formal equivalence and adherence to the TR, compared to the more dynamic approach taken by modern translations. This section would involve a detailed look at specific translation choices in the KJV that are informed by Reformed theology.

Part 4: Theological and Textual Bias in Translation

Chapter 7: Bias in Translation and Textual Tradition

• Theological Bias in the KJV: Delve deeper into how theological assumptions influence translation choices, particularly in the KJV. Discuss instances where translators’ Calvinist views may have influenced the wording of key passages.
• Examples of Doctrinal Influence: Examine specific doctrinal points such as the doctrines of election and predestination, and explore how these might have influenced the translation of certain biblical passages. For instance, how verses on salvation, grace, and free will are treated in the TR and KJV compared to modern translations.

Chapter 8: Theological Divides and the KJV-Only Movement

• KJV-Onlyism and Theological Rejection: Analyze the rise of the KJV-only movement within Reformed and conservative evangelical circles. Explore how KJV-only advocates reject modern translations because they believe newer versions undermine the doctrinal purity upheld by the KJV.
• Theological Consequences: Discuss the theological ramifications of embracing the KJV-only view, particularly in relation to doctrinal unity in the Church. Investigate whether this position fosters division or unity among Christians from different traditions.

Part 5: Historical Development of Biblical Texts

Chapter 9: Church History and the Transmission of Scripture

• Early Church to Reformation: Expand on the historical journey of biblical manuscripts, from the early Church through the medieval period, and up to the Reformation. This will involve a detailed look at the textual variants and how the Bible was transmitted over centuries.
• The Role of Church Councils: Discuss the role of various church councils and theologians in preserving and standardizing the biblical text. Explore how theological debates about scriptural authority and inerrancy shaped the transmission of the New Testament.

Chapter 10: The Reformation and the Birth of the TR

• The Development of the TR: Delve into the life of Desiderius Erasmus and the creation of the TR. Provide a historical examination of how Erasmus compiled the TR, his access to manuscripts, and how his work laid the foundation for the KJV translation.
• Impact of the Reformation on Biblical Translation: Explore the influence of Reformation theology on biblical translation, particularly in England and the translation process for the KJV.

Part 6: The Role of Textual Criticism in Modern Translation

Chapter 11: Advances in Textual Criticism

• Modern Methods: Expand on the methodology of modern textual critics, especially those who embrace the Alexandrian textual tradition. Discuss how advances in archaeology, such as the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and early papyri, have reshaped textual scholarship.
• The Impact of New Manuscript Discoveries: Analyze how the discovery of new manuscripts has influenced modern Bible translations, including the NIV, ESV, and NASB. Explore how these translations use a broader range of manuscript evidence compared to the KJV.

Chapter 12: The Future of Biblical Translation

• Textual Trends: Discuss the future of biblical translation and how it may evolve. What role will theological presuppositions play in the development of future translations? Consider the ongoing tension between literal and dynamic translation approaches.
• Revisiting Burgon’s Legacy: Reevaluate the legacy of Burgon’s The Revision Revised. How do modern scholars view his work today? Explore whether his critiques of textual criticism are still relevant or if they have been overcome by new discoveries and methods.

Conclusion: Theological Objectivity and Scholarly Integrity

• Objectivity in Biblical Scholarship: Conclude by emphasizing the importance of approaching biblical interpretation with theological objectivity, acknowledging the role of tradition and manuscript evidence without being bound by a single theological framework.
• Engaging with a Diverse Range of Perspectives: Highlight the value of considering diverse theological perspectives and the importance of historical and textual scholarship in forming a well-rounded understanding of Scripture.

Flaws in Burgon’s Theological Assumptions in Biblical Interpretation

1. The Sovereignty of God and the Preservation of Scripture

In his writings, Burgon makes repeated references to the concept of divine preservation, specifically regarding the Textus Receptus, as the true text of the Bible. For example, in The Revision Revised (pp. 106-107), Burgon argues that God, in His sovereignty, preserved the true biblical text through the Byzantine text family. He states:

“It is simply incredible that, after so many centuries, God should have allowed the ‘authentic’ text of the New Testament to be lost or corrupted, and that the divine providence would have left us to depend on the uncertain evidence of ancient manuscripts and critical editions of Scripture. The Textus Receptus is the only trustworthy standard.”

This assertion about divine preservation, though rooted in his Calvinist convictions, is misleading for several reasons. First, it assumes that God’s preservation of Scripture was exclusively tied to the Byzantine tradition and the TR. However, as modern textual critics have shown, manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, which predate the Byzantine manuscripts, provide valuable evidence for the reconstruction of the original text. Burgon’s refusal to accept this evidence is rooted in his theological bias rather than objective textual analysis.

Burgon also downplays the complexities of textual transmission in favor of a simplistic view of divine preservation. His statement on page 106 of The Revision Revised that “the authentic text has been preserved unaltered in the Textus Receptus” is a theological assumption that disregards the historical reality of how biblical manuscripts evolved over time. The TR itself was not “unaltered”; it was based on Erasmus’ 16th-century compilation of available manuscripts, which were not always in agreement, and Erasmus himself had to make textual decisions based on imperfect or incomplete manuscript evidence.

---

2. Predestination and Textual Authority

In The Revision Revised, Burgon expresses his deep belief that the TR, as the preserved text of Scripture, is the only legitimate and authoritative version of the New Testament, citing his Calvinist view that God’s sovereignty extends even to the preservation of Scripture. On page 107, he writes:

“If we believe in the doctrine of the divine preservation of Scripture, then we must believe that the text God has preserved for His people, through His providence, is the Textus Receptus. For any other tradition to claim authenticity or authority is to cast doubt on God’s sovereignty over His Word.”

This passage reveals a clear theological bias. While Burgon’s conviction about divine sovereignty is commendable in theological discourse, his insistence that the TR is the only legitimate biblical text because of divine preservation ignores the presence of other ancient manuscripts, such as those from the Alexandrian family, which represent an earlier and, in some cases, more reliable textual tradition.

By framing his critique in the context of predestination and divine sovereignty, Burgon conflates his theological beliefs with his textual conclusions. The doctrine of divine preservation, while central to Calvinist thought, does not necessitate the preservation of a single textual tradition, especially not one compiled relatively late in the history of manuscript transmission. His view on predestination should not be used as the foundation for evaluating textual criticism, as it bypasses the necessity of engaging with manuscript evidence.

---

3. Reformed Theology’s Influence on Biblical Translation

Burgon’s identification with 19th-century Reformed theology is evident in his critique of modern textual criticism and his defense of the KJV and the TR. He views the KJV as an embodiment of the theological purity of the Reformation, aligning his views with those of the 16th and 17th-century reformers who rejected the Catholic Church’s authority over biblical translation. Burgon states on page 125 of The Revision Revised:

“The King James Bible stands as the crown of English translations, an instrument of the Protestant Reformation, a faithful reproduction of the Textus Receptus. The KJV represents the pinnacle of biblical scholarship, untainted by the corruption of modern critical texts.”

Burgon’s reverence for the KJV and its translation principles is based on his belief that it preserves doctrinal purity. While the KJV is indeed a remarkable translation, it should be understood within its historical context. The translators of the KJV did not have access to the full range of ancient manuscripts now available, such as the earlier Alexandrian texts like Codex Sinaiticus. The KJV was based primarily on the TR, which itself had limitations due to the manuscripts available at the time.

Burgon’s overestimation of the KJV’s textual authority, coupled with his refusal to engage with critical textual scholarship, misrepresents the history of biblical translation. As modern textual criticism has demonstrated, translation decisions made by the KJV translators were sometimes based on less-than-ideal manuscript evidence, which they did not have the benefit of later manuscript discoveries to revise.

---

Examples of Misleading Claims in Burgon’s Work

1. The Attack on Westcott and Hort’s Methodology

In The Revision Revised, Burgon strongly criticizes the methodology of Westcott and Hort, accusing them of deliberately distorting the biblical text. He writes on page 160:

“Westcott and Hort’s theory is based on the false assumption that the so-called ‘Alexandrian’ texts are superior to the Byzantine text. Their reliance on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, two corrupted manuscripts, has led to the corruption of the biblical text in modern translations.”

Burgon’s attack on Westcott and Hort is overstated and misleading. While their methodology did indeed prioritize earlier manuscripts like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, this was not done out of a desire to distort the text, but out of a scholarly commitment to recovering the most accurate representation of the New Testament text. Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are some of the oldest and most complete manuscripts available, and their inclusion in critical editions of the Bible reflects their historical significance. Burgon’s dismissal of these texts as “corrupted” fails to acknowledge the rigorous scholarly work behind their use in textual criticism.

2. Misunderstanding the Evolution of the Text

Burgon’s treatment of the development of the biblical text is often one-sided. For example, on page 139, he states:

“The Textus Receptus is the final and authoritative text, which has been preserved unchanged from the time of the apostles. There is no room for the variant readings found in ancient manuscripts like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, as they represent later, corruptions.”

This view, while consistent with Burgon’s theological convictions, overlooks the reality of how biblical texts evolved over centuries. The text of the New Testament was not a single, unchanging document but rather a tradition that developed over time through copying and transmission. The variant readings found in manuscripts such as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not necessarily represent corruptions but rather reflect different textual traditions that were used by early Christian communities.

Burgon’s rejection of these variants as “corruptions” misleads readers into thinking that textual differences are inherently problematic, when in fact they are an integral part of the history of biblical transmission.

---

Conclusion: Flaws in Burgon’s Theological Presuppositions

John Burgon’s theological presuppositions—particularly his Calvinist views on divine preservation, predestination, and textual authority—shaped his critique of modern textual criticism and the defense of the Textus Receptus. While his arguments are rooted in sincere theological convictions, they are misleading in several key areas:

1. His belief in the exclusive preservation of the TR ignores the rich variety of manuscript evidence, including the earlier and valuable Alexandrian manuscripts.
2. His conflation of theological doctrines like predestination with textual authority distorts the objective process of textual criticism.
3. His defense of the KJV, though well-intentioned, fails to account for the limitations of the manuscript evidence available to the translators.

By overlooking these complexities and presenting a one-sided view of textual history, Burgon misleads readers into accepting a simplistic and historically inaccurate narrative of biblical transmission. His theological convictions, while admirable in their faithfulness to Scripture, ultimately hindered his ability to engage with the full range of textual evidence in an objective manner.

Chapter 2: The Role of Tradition and Authority in Interpretation

Tradition vs. Textual Criticism

John William Burgon’s views on the role of tradition in biblical interpretation are critical to understanding his critique of modern textual criticism, particularly as it pertains to the Textus Receptus (TR). Burgon’s defense of the TR stems from his belief in the divine preservation of Scripture. In his work The Revision Revised (1896), Burgon argues that the TR is not only a reliable transmission of the original Greek New Testament but also a text divinely preserved by God throughout history. For Burgon, the TR is the preserved Word of God, and any departure from this tradition through the methods of modern textual criticism threatens the integrity of the Bible.

Burgon’s theological framework is based on the Calvinist doctrine of the sovereignty of God, and this conviction shapes his view of Scripture’s preservation. He writes:

“We are not left to the uncertainties of human will, nor to the whims of scholars. God has preserved His Word.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 121)

For Burgon, this belief in the divine preservation of Scripture necessitates that the TR is trustworthy and reflects the true text of the New Testament. He believes that the Textus Receptus accurately represents the Scriptures as they have been passed down through generations, with God actively preserving the text against corruption. Burgon’s critique of modern textual criticism is rooted in his rejection of the idea that older manuscripts—particularly those from the Alexandrian tradition, such as Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus—are superior to the Byzantine manuscripts that formed the TR.

Burgon’s critique of textual criticism and its reliance on older manuscripts is reflective of his skepticism towards the methodologies employed by scholars like Westcott and Hort. Burgon believes their use of earlier, less well-attested manuscripts undermines the theological integrity of Scripture. In The Revision Revised, Burgon argues:

“The method which has led men to corrupt the text of the Scriptures is one which forgets the true principle of the preservation of the text, and that principle is—tradition.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 153)

For Burgon, tradition, specifically the tradition represented by the TR, is paramount. He claims that textual criticism, by focusing on older manuscripts, disrupts the continuity of the text as understood and transmitted by the church throughout the centuries. Burgon’s rejection of modern critical texts reflects his belief that tradition—specifically the Byzantine tradition upon which the TR rests—represents the unbroken chain of divine preservation, which should not be altered by scholarly attempts to reconstruct the text.

This approach is problematic in light of modern textual criticism, which prioritizes manuscript evidence over tradition. Scholars such as Bruce Metzger and Eldon J. Epp have argued that earlier manuscripts, like Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, are more likely to reflect the original text due to their proximity in time to the autographs. They also point to the fact that the Byzantine text type, which underpins the TR, contains numerous later variants and textual expansions. Burgon’s unyielding defense of the TR disregards the evidence presented by these scholars, which points to the complexity of textual transmission and the influence of various theological, historical, and cultural factors on the development of the biblical text.

Burgon’s position is also rooted in a theological commitment to the preservation of Scripture. He views the TR as God’s providential preservation of His Word and warns that modern textual criticism, by introducing new variants and uncertainties, threatens this preservation. While Burgon’s commitment to the sovereignty of God and the divine preservation of Scripture is valid within his Calvinist framework, his insistence on the superiority of the TR and the rejection of modern textual criticism overlooks the complexities of manuscript transmission.

Historical Context of Biblical Interpretation

To fully appreciate Burgon’s critique, it is essential to understand the historical context of biblical interpretation, particularly in relation to the Protestant Reformation. The Reformation was a critical turning point in the history of biblical interpretation, as Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin emphasized the authority of Scripture over the authority of the Church. The principle of sola scriptura (Scripture alone) became central to Reformation thought, rejecting any authority that sought to place human tradition on equal footing with the Bible.

While the Reformers rejected the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, which had long viewed the Bible’s interpretation as the domain of the clergy and the magisterium, they did not reject the idea of tradition altogether. Instead, they sought to purge the Church of practices they believed were not based on Scripture. For the Reformers, Scripture was the sole authority, and the Bible must be interpreted according to its plain meaning. The Reformers also encouraged the translation of the Bible into the vernacular languages of the people, so that individuals could access Scripture directly, without relying on the priesthood to interpret it for them.

The early Reformers, particularly Martin Luther, also recognized the value of earlier manuscripts in understanding the text of Scripture. In the 16th century, Desiderius Erasmus compiled his Greek New Testament, which would become the foundation of the Textus Receptus. Erasmus’s work was foundational for the Protestant translations that followed, including the King James Version (KJV). However, despite Erasmus’s significant contributions, the critical work of textual criticism in subsequent centuries has revealed that the Textus Receptus is not without its flaws, such as reliance on later manuscripts that contain more variants than earlier manuscript traditions.

Burgon’s defense of the TR is situated within this ongoing struggle over biblical authority. While he is correct to stress the importance of the church’s historical understanding of Scripture, his staunch defense of the TR and rejection of newer textual evidence is not fully supported by the historical and textual realities of manuscript transmission. The rise of modern textual criticism, particularly the work of scholars like Westcott and Hort, is not an attempt to undermine the authority of Scripture but rather an effort to discern the most accurate text based on the available manuscript evidence.

While Burgon’s view reflects a strong theological commitment to the preservation of Scripture, it also reveals a lack of engagement with the complexities of textual transmission and the need for an updated understanding of the historical development of the biblical text. Modern textual criticism, despite its challenges, seeks to provide a more nuanced understanding of the biblical text by evaluating all available manuscript evidence—something Burgon’s approach fails to fully consider.

Examples and References

1. Burgon, John William. The Revision Revised. 3rd ed. London: George Bell & Sons, 1896.
   • “The method which has led men to corrupt the text of the Scriptures is one which forgets the true principle of the preservation of the text, and that principle is—tradition.” (p. 153)
2. Burgon, John William. The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark: An Examination of the Two Editions of the Greek Text of the Gospel of St. Mark. London: George Bell & Sons, 1881.
   • This work critiques the omission of the last twelve verses of Mark in certain manuscripts and defends their inclusion in the TR.
3. Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
   • Metzger provides an analysis of the historical development of the New Testament text, contrasting the Textus Receptus with modern critical texts.
4. Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. 5th ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1910.
   • Schaff offers historical context for understanding the Reformation’s impact on biblical authority and textual interpretation.

Bibliography

1. Burgon, John William. The Revision Revised. 3rd ed. London: George Bell & Sons, 1896.
2. Burgon, John William. The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark: An Examination of the Two Editions of the Greek Text of the Gospel of St. Mark. London: George Bell & Sons, 1881.
3. Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
4. Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. 5th ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1910.
5. Epp, Eldon J. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

---

Chapter 3: The Critique of Westcott and Hort

Introduction to Westcott and Hort’s Textual Criticism

The late 19th century saw a significant shift in the field of biblical textual criticism, particularly with the work of two scholars—B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort. In 1881, they published their Greek New Testament, which became a cornerstone of modern textual criticism. Their methodology focused heavily on the use of earlier, more “reliable” manuscripts from the Alexandrian tradition, such as Codices Sinaiticus (א) and Vaticanus (B). This approach was a stark contrast to the prevailing text of the time—the Textus Receptus (TR), which had been the foundation for many Protestant translations, including the King James Version (KJV).

Westcott and Hort’s methodology sought to reconstruct the original text of the New Testament by analyzing and comparing manuscripts. They employed a theory known as “the principles of genealogical method,” which classified the various manuscripts into families based on shared characteristics. The Alexandrian manuscripts, with their earlier dates, were regarded by Westcott and Hort as superior to later Byzantine manuscripts (the basis of the TR). They argued that the older a manuscript was, the closer it was to the autographs of the apostles, and therefore, the more trustworthy it was as a witness to the original text.

Their work was groundbreaking in many respects, and it led to the development of modern textual criticism, which considers a wider range of manuscripts, versions, and quotations than was previously acknowledged. However, it also sparked a significant controversy, particularly with those who defended the TR and opposed the use of these newer critical texts.

Burgon’s Response to Westcott and Hort

John William Burgon, a 19th-century scholar and theologian, was one of the most vocal critics of Westcott and Hort’s methodology. His response was rooted in his belief that God had divinely preserved His Word through the Textus Receptus, a view influenced by his Calvinist convictions regarding the sovereignty of God and the preservation of Scripture. For Burgon, the TR represented the true text of the New Testament, which had been passed down through generations of faithful believers.

Burgon’s critique of Westcott and Hort’s methodology in The Revision Revised (1896) is extensive and detailed. He argues that their reliance on Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus led to a corrupted and unreliable reconstruction of the New Testament text. Burgon’s central argument against the two scholars is that their selection of manuscripts was flawed, and their conclusions undermined the authority and purity of the Scripture. In his analysis, Burgon rejects the assumption that earlier manuscripts are automatically more authentic, a presupposition that was central to Westcott and Hort’s method. Burgon writes:

“The claim that a more ancient manuscript is inherently more reliable than one that is more recent is without foundation in fact.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 132)

Burgon’s theological presuppositions heavily influence his rejection of Westcott and Hort’s work. He viewed the TR as God’s divinely preserved text, and any deviation from it was seen as a direct challenge to God’s sovereignty over the transmission of His Word. He insists that the TR has been preserved through the Church’s history and reflects the true and accurate text of the New Testament:

“The Textus Receptus is the true text, the text preserved through the centuries by the faithful Church.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 121)

Burgon also critiques the Alexandrian manuscripts themselves. He argues that Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are not only defective but also corrupt, suggesting that they contain numerous textual variants and errors. In The Revision Revised, he states:

“These two manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) are manifestly inferior to the great majority of other manuscripts of the New Testament… They are laden with omissions, additions, and alterations of the text.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 154)

For Burgon, the idea that these manuscripts could serve as the basis for reconstructing the text of the New Testament was both theologically and academically unsound. He believed that Westcott and Hort’s overreliance on these two manuscripts represented a theological error—a fundamental misunderstanding of how God preserved His Word through the Church’s tradition. To Burgon, it was not simply a matter of textual scholarship but also of divine sovereignty: God’s preservation of the Scriptures was more reliable than the scholarly methods employed by Westcott and Hort.

Additionally, Burgon argues that Westcott and Hort’s theory of textual corruption is overly simplistic. In contrast to their view, Burgon contends that the variations in the manuscript tradition were not the result of deliberate corruption but were instead the natural product of transmission over time. He writes:

“The variations in manuscripts are the marks of the imperfect process of transmission, but not evidence of deliberate corruption.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 161)

While Burgon’s critique is driven by theological convictions, it also reflects a deep-seated skepticism towards the emerging field of modern textual criticism. He was not alone in this; other conservative scholars of the time also opposed the new critical methods. However, Burgon’s defense of the TR was rooted in a much stronger theological commitment to the idea of divine preservation than that of many of his contemporaries. To him, it was not simply an issue of textual variants or manuscript evidence but of God’s active preservation of His Word through the ages.

Theological Rationale and Burgon’s Belief in Divine Preservation

Burgon’s rejection of Westcott and Hort’s critical method can be understood within the broader context of his Calvinist theological framework, which emphasized the sovereignty of God in all aspects of life, including the preservation of Scripture. He believed that God, in His infinite wisdom, had ensured that the TR remained intact and was faithfully transmitted through the centuries. Burgon’s approach to textual criticism was thus not just an academic critique; it was also a theological defense of God’s providence.

For Burgon, the key issue was the integrity of the text. He believed that the TR accurately represented the Scriptures as they had been preserved throughout history and that any attempt to alter or revise the text through critical methods would result in a loss of that divine preservation. His belief in divine preservation was not merely theoretical but deeply embedded in his understanding of God’s sovereignty:

“The great truth, which I seek to defend, is that the preservation of the Word of God is as sure as the preservation of the Church itself.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 114)

Burgon’s theological commitment to the preservation of Scripture thus led him to reject modern textual criticism as a threat to the integrity of God’s Word. He believed that the TR, as the product of God’s providence, was the only reliable text for understanding the New Testament. This conviction was so strong that it overshadowed his engagement with more recent developments in textual scholarship. He rejected the growing body of evidence supporting the earlier Alexandrian manuscripts and instead clung to the Byzantine tradition of the TR as the true and uncorrupted text.

Conclusion

Burgon’s critique of Westcott and Hort, while rooted in a robust theological framework, ultimately leads to a narrow understanding of textual criticism. His insistence on the primacy of the TR and the divine preservation of the text, though grounded in legitimate theological concerns, prevents him from engaging fully with the complex realities of textual transmission. Modern textual criticism, by considering a wider range of manuscript evidence, offers a more nuanced understanding of the biblical text—one that Burgon’s methodology fails to account for.

Burgon’s rejection of Westcott and Hort’s methods and his defense of the TR serve as a reminder of the theological tensions inherent in the discipline of textual criticism. However, his critique overlooks the fact that textual scholarship is an evolving field that seeks to uncover the most accurate text of the New Testament based on all available evidence, rather than adhering to a fixed and unalterable tradition.

Examples and References

1. Burgon, John William. The Revision Revised. 3rd ed. London: George Bell & Sons, 1896.
   • “These two manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) are manifestly inferior to the great majority of other manuscripts of the New Testament… They are laden with omissions, additions, and alterations of the text.” (p. 154)
2. Westcott, B.F., and Hort, F.J.A.The New Testament in the Original Greek. Cambridge: Macmillan, 1881.
   • This work presents their critical edition of the Greek New Testament, which was grounded in the Alexandrian manuscripts and shaped modern textual criticism.
3. Metzger, Bruce M.The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
   • Metzger’s work offers a detailed analysis of textual criticism, comparing the Byzantine and Alexandrian text types, and highlights the importance of manuscript evidence in understanding the original text.
4. Epp, Eldon J.The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
   • Epp expands on the history of textual criticism and explores the implications of modern manuscript discoveries on the study of the New Testament.

Bibliography

1. Burgon, John William. The Revision Revised. 3rd ed. London: George Bell & Sons, 1896.
2. Westcott, B.F., and Hort, F.J.A. The New Testament in the Original Greek. Cambridge: Macmillan, 1881.
3. Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
4. Epp, Eldon J. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

---

Chapter 4: Manuscripts and the Development of the Text

The Importance of Manuscripts in the Debate over Textual Authenticity

In the realm of biblical textual criticism, manuscripts serve as the primary witnesses to the original text of the New Testament. The debate over textual authenticity is centered around which manuscripts best preserve the text as it was originally written by the apostles. Scholars like John William Burgon, a prominent defender of the Textus Receptus (TR), assert that certain manuscript traditions, particularly the Byzantine manuscripts upon which the TR is based, more accurately reflect the autographs than do earlier manuscripts, such as Codices Sinaiticus (א) and Vaticanus (B), favored by modern textual critics.

Burgon’s defense of the TR stands in direct opposition to modern textual criticism, which often relies heavily on older, Alexandrian-type manuscripts for textual reconstruction. In his work The Revision Revised, Burgon argues that the newer manuscripts, particularly Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, should not be given preference simply because they are older, as their age does not necessarily equate to greater accuracy. For Burgon, the TR—representing the later Byzantine tradition—was the true and divinely preserved text, and modern textual critics’ reliance on earlier manuscripts was misguided.

Burgon writes:

“The value of a manuscript is not determined by its age, but by its pedigree. The later Byzantine manuscripts are more trustworthy because they represent the faithful transmission of the text through the centuries.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 133)

This statement encapsulates Burgon’s view that textual criticism should not be based solely on manuscript age but on a manuscript’s fidelity to the authentic biblical text as preserved by the Church. He believes the TR represents that faithful transmission, an argument deeply rooted in his theological conviction that God has preserved His Word throughout history, including through the Byzantine tradition.

In contrast, modern scholars such as Bruce Metzger and Kurt Aland emphasize the importance of older manuscripts in reconstructing the original text. They argue that the age and geographical distribution of early manuscripts, such as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, provide stronger evidence of the text’s authenticity. Metzger notes that the Alexandrian text-type, to which these manuscripts belong, was likely closer to the original autographs due to its earlier date of production.

The Age of Manuscripts and Burgon’s Critique of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus

One of Burgon’s key objections to the modern textual critical approach is its preference for older manuscripts, particularly Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which are among the earliest complete manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. These manuscripts were produced in the 4th century and are regarded by many modern textual critics as more reliable due to their age. However, Burgon argues that their antiquity does not guarantee their authenticity or accuracy.

Burgon’s critique focuses on several perceived flaws in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, including numerous omissions, alterations, and differences from the later Byzantine manuscripts that underpin the TR. In The Revision Revised, he states:

“The manuscripts Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are both defective, and they are, in fact, burdened with countless errors, omissions, and interpolations that are not found in the true text of the Church.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 145)

Burgon believed that these manuscripts were not part of the faithful transmission of Scripture but rather represented a textual tradition that had undergone corruption in the early centuries of Christianity. This was a major point of contention between Burgon and the textual critics of his time, who viewed the Alexandrian manuscripts as more reliable due to their age.

Burgon’s rejection of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus stems from his theological belief in the divine preservation of Scripture. According to Burgon, God’s providence ensured that the New Testament text was transmitted accurately through the centuries, particularly through the Byzantine tradition, which provided the foundation for the TR. For Burgon, the later Byzantine manuscripts were the true and divinely preserved witnesses to the original text, and modern critics’ focus on the earlier manuscripts reflected a misunderstanding of God’s role in preserving the Bible.

Burgon also critiques the early papyri, which are considered among the earliest surviving manuscripts of the New Testament. Although these papyri are valuable for understanding the early transmission of the text, Burgon was skeptical of their reliability. He argued that the papyri were incomplete and often showed signs of corruption or deviation from the TR text, making them unsuitable for use as the basis for a critical edition of the New Testament.

Burgon’s concern with the papyri and early codices illustrates his broader theological commitment to the integrity of Scripture. He believed that the TR was the product of a faithful, unbroken transmission of the biblical text, and he viewed deviations from this tradition as evidence of textual corruption.

Examples of Variations: Burgon’s Specific Critique of Textual Variants

Burgon was particularly concerned with specific textual variants in early manuscripts that differed from the TR. One of the key areas of concern for Burgon was the omission of certain verses or phrases in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus that appeared in the TR and other later manuscripts. He argued that these omissions were not due to scribal error but were deliberate alterations that reflected theological biases or corruption in the early transmission of the text.

For example, one well-known textual variant involves the ending of the Gospel of Mark. The TR includes the longer ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20), which is absent from Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Burgon vehemently defends the longer ending as part of the original text, asserting that its omission from early manuscripts was a result of editorial intervention or corruption:

“The longer ending of Mark is attested by the overwhelming majority of manuscripts, and its omission in the earliest manuscripts is a clear sign of corruption, not preservation.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 178)

Another example is found in the Lord’s Prayer, where some manuscripts, including Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, omit the phrase “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen” (Matthew 6:13). Burgon argues that this omission represents a theological bias, as the phrase reinforces the sovereignty of God and aligns with the doxological language used throughout Scripture:

“The omission of the doxology in Matthew 6:13 is not a minor textual variant; it is a deliberate truncation of a text that affirms God’s eternal glory and sovereignty.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 155)

Burgon’s emphasis on such variations highlights his concern that modern textual critics, by favoring manuscripts like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, were inadvertently supporting a corrupted version of the text that removed key doctrinal elements. For Burgon, these textual variants were not trivial issues but matters of theological importance, as they impacted key doctrines such as the sovereignty of God and the authority of Scripture.

Conclusion

Burgon’s critique of the manuscripts and their development, particularly his rejection of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, was deeply influenced by his theological convictions. He believed that the TR was the true and divinely preserved text of the New Testament, and he viewed modern textual criticism, which emphasized older manuscripts, as a threat to the integrity of God’s Word. While Burgon’s objections to the Alexandrian manuscripts and early papyri were based on genuine concerns about the preservation of Scripture, his critique ultimately relied on a theological presupposition that modern textual critics did not share.

The modern field of textual criticism has since expanded its methodology, incorporating a broader range of manuscript evidence and more sophisticated techniques for reconstructing the original text. While Burgon’s defense of the TR and his concerns about textual corruption remain important historical markers in the development of textual criticism, his critique fails to account for the full range of manuscript evidence that modern scholarship has made available. Nonetheless, Burgon’s theological commitment to the preservation of Scripture continues to resonate with those who hold to a high view of the Bible’s authority and integrity.

Examples and References

1. Burgon, John William. The Revision Revised. 3rd ed. London: George Bell & Sons, 1896.
   • “The value of a manuscript is not determined by its age, but by its pedigree. The later Byzantine manuscripts are more trustworthy because they represent the faithful transmission of the text through the centuries.” (p. 133)
   • “The manuscripts Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are both defective, and they are, in fact, burdened with countless errors, omissions, and interpolations that are not found in the true text of the Church.” (p. 145)
   • “The longer ending of Mark is attested by the overwhelming majority of manuscripts, and its omission in the earliest manuscripts is a clear sign of corruption, not preservation.” (p. 178)
2. Metzger, Bruce M.The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
   • Metzger discusses the role of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in modern textual criticism, noting their importance but also highlighting the issues surrounding their readings.
3. Epp, Eldon J.The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
   • Epp provides a broader view of the development of textual criticism and discusses the significance of early manuscripts like the papyri and Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

Bibliography

1. Burgon, John William. The Revision Revised. 3rd ed. London: George Bell & Sons, 1896.
2. Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
3. Epp, Eldon J. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Chapter 5: Calvinism and the Preservation of Scripture

Doctrine of Preservation: Burgon’s Belief in Supernatural Preservation

A key component of John William Burgon’s theological framework is his belief in the supernatural preservation of Scripture. This doctrine is rooted in his Calvinist convictions, particularly the belief in God’s sovereignty and providence. For Burgon, the preservation of the biblical text was not a random or purely human-driven event but rather a divinely guided process that ensured the accurate transmission of Scripture throughout history. This belief in divine preservation is foundational to his critique of modern textual criticism and his staunch defense of the Textus Receptus (TR).

Burgon wrote extensively about this doctrine in The Revision Revised, asserting that God, in His sovereignty, had protected His Word from corruption, ensuring that the Church possessed an authentic and reliable text. According to Burgon, this preservation was not just a matter of human effort but the direct intervention of God:

“We hold that the great and sovereign God has preserved His Word to us throughout the ages, through the Church’s faithful transmission, and that the Textus Receptus is the true and preserved text of Scripture.” (The Revision Revised, p. 104)

This statement reflects Burgon’s deep Calvinist conviction that God’s will governs all things, including the transmission of His Word. He believed that the TR represented the culmination of this divine preservation, making it the most reliable and authoritative version of the New Testament. For Burgon, God’s providence ensured that the correct text was always available to the Church, despite the challenges posed by textual variants and manuscript differences.

Burgon’s belief in the preservation of Scripture aligns with the Calvinist doctrine of sola scriptura (Scripture alone) and the Reformed understanding of God’s sovereignty. In the Reformed tradition, God is seen as the ultimate authority over all matters, including the transmission of His Word. Thus, Burgon believed that the Bible, in its preserved form, is the final and inerrant authority for all matters of faith and practice.

This view of preservation also influenced Burgon’s rejection of certain manuscripts that were not in line with the TR. He believed that manuscripts like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which were favored by modern textual critics, did not accurately reflect the preserved text of Scripture and, therefore, were unreliable. For Burgon, the Byzantine text-type, which underlies the TR, was the true and divinely preserved text, and modern textual criticism’s reliance on older manuscripts was a betrayal of God’s preservation.

Impact of Calvinist Doctrine on Translation: The KJV and Reformed Theology

Burgon’s belief in the supernatural preservation of Scripture also had a significant impact on his understanding of biblical translation, particularly the translation of the Bible into English. The King James Version (KJV) holds a special place in Reformed theology, and Burgon, as a staunch defender of the TR, was deeply influenced by the translation philosophy behind the KJV. The KJV was produced during a time when Reformed theological convictions were central to English Protestantism, and its translators were guided by a strong belief in the authority and preservation of Scripture.

Burgon viewed the KJV as the pinnacle of biblical translation, not only because it was based on the TR but also because its translators adhered to a translation philosophy that emphasized the divine preservation of the text. He believed that the KJV faithfully represented the preserved Word of God and that its translators, many of whom shared his Calvinist convictions, had faithfully rendered the text according to God’s sovereign will.

In The Revision Revised, Burgon writes:

“The translators of the Authorized Version were men of deep faith and conviction, who, guided by the principles of the Reformation, faithfully translated the text that had been preserved by God through the ages.” (The Revision Revised, p. 122)

This statement highlights Burgon’s belief that the KJV was not just a product of human scholarship but the result of divine guidance. The translators, according to Burgon, were instruments of God’s will, and their translation of the Bible into English reflected the true and preserved text of Scripture.

Burgon’s admiration for the KJV’s translators was rooted in his belief that they had recognized the TR as the true text and had resisted the temptation to incorporate textual variants from manuscripts like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. He also believed that the KJV’s translation philosophy, which emphasized formal equivalence (a word-for-word translation), was more faithful to the original texts than the dynamic equivalence used by modern translations, which tend to prioritize readability over accuracy.

Burgon argued that the KJV’s translation of key doctrinal passages, such as those relating to the sovereignty of God, election, and predestination, reflected the translators’ Calvinist beliefs and ensured that the text conveyed the full scope of Reformed theology. For example, Burgon appreciated how the KJV rendered passages like Ephesians 1:4-5, which speaks of God’s choice of believers before the foundation of the world, in a way that upheld the Calvinist doctrine of election.

“The translators of the KJV understood that the text must reflect the truth of God’s sovereign election, and they rendered Ephesians 1:4-5 with clarity and precision, upholding the doctrine of predestination.” (The Revision Revised, p. 131)

Burgon’s endorsement of the KJV’s translation choices underscores his belief that the translators were guided by a theological commitment to preserving the integrity of Scripture and faithfully conveying the doctrines of the Reformation. He viewed the KJV not just as a literary achievement but as a theological statement, one that embodied the truths of Calvinism and the divine preservation of God’s Word.

Conclusion: The Theological Foundation of Burgon’s View on Preservation and Translation

John William Burgon’s belief in the supernatural preservation of Scripture was deeply rooted in his Calvinist theology. His conviction that God had sovereignly preserved His Word through the ages, particularly through the TR and the Byzantine text-type, shaped his critique of modern textual criticism and his defense of the KJV. Burgon saw the KJV as the faithful translation of the preserved text, guided by the hand of God and the theological convictions of the Reformed translators.

Burgon’s theological framework, which emphasized the sovereignty of God in the preservation and transmission of Scripture, led him to reject modern textual criticism’s reliance on older manuscripts, such as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and to affirm the TR as the true text of the New Testament. His belief in divine preservation also influenced his view of the KJV, which he saw as the pinnacle of biblical translation, faithfully reflecting the doctrines of the Reformation and the divine authority of Scripture.

While Burgon’s views on preservation and translation were informed by a deep commitment to Reformed theology, they also reflect a broader theological assumption: that God, in His providence, ensures the accurate transmission of His Word. This belief in the preservation of Scripture remains a central tenet of Calvinist theology and continues to shape discussions about textual criticism, translation, and the authority of the Bible.

Examples and References

1. Burgon, John William. The Revision Revised. 3rd ed. London: George Bell & Sons, 1896.
   • “We hold that the great and sovereign God has preserved His Word to us throughout the ages, through the Church’s faithful transmission, and that the Textus Receptus is the true and preserved text of Scripture.” (p. 104)
   • “The translators of the Authorized Version were men of deep faith and conviction, who, guided by the principles of the Reformation, faithfully translated the text that had been preserved by God through the ages.” (p. 122)
   • “The translators of the KJV understood that the text must reflect the truth of God’s sovereign election, and they rendered Ephesians 1:4-5 with clarity and precision, upholding the doctrine of predestination.” (p. 131)
2. Metzger, Bruce M.The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
   • Metzger discusses the role of the Textus Receptus in the history of Bible translation and its relationship to modern textual criticism.
3. Packer, J.I.A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1990.
   • Packer provides a broader understanding of the Reformed theological perspective, which influenced Burgon and the KJV translators.

Bibliography

1. Burgon, John William. The Revision Revised. 3rd ed. London: George Bell & Sons, 1896.
2. Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
3. Packer, J.I. A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1990.

Chapter 6: The Role of the King James Version

The KJV and Calvinism: The Pinnacle of Biblical Translation

The King James Version (KJV) has long been viewed as the pinnacle of biblical translation within Reformed circles, including by John William Burgon, who was one of its staunch defenders. Burgon, a 19th-century Anglican theologian and biblical scholar, was deeply committed to the idea that the KJV represented the most accurate and faithful rendering of God’s Word. In his critique of modern textual criticism and its embrace of manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, Burgon saw the KJV as a translation that embodied theological purity—an unaltered reflection of the preserved text.

The Reformed theological tradition, particularly in its Puritan form, emphasized the centrality of Scripture as the final authority in matters of doctrine and practice. Within this context, the KJV was seen not just as a translation but as the authoritative Word of God for English-speaking Christians. Burgon’s support for the KJV was deeply connected to his belief that God had preserved His Word in the Textus Receptus (TR) tradition, upon which the KJV was based. For Burgon and many others in Reformed circles, the KJV was not only an accurate translation but a divinely sanctioned one, representing the apex of theological fidelity and accuracy.

Burgon writes in The Revision Revised:

“The Authorized Version, as it has been handed down to us, is the very model of fidelity to the sacred text, reflecting the purity of the manuscripts that have been preserved for our use. It is not merely a product of human effort but the work of a divine providence which, through His faithful servants, has ensured the purity of His Word.” (The Revision Revised, p. 126)

This perspective reflects Burgon’s belief in the supernatural preservation of the Scriptures. In his eyes, the KJV was a direct result of God’s providential care in ensuring that the Church had access to a faithful translation of His Word. This conviction aligns with the broader Reformed understanding of God’s sovereignty over all matters, including the transmission and translation of the Bible.

Moreover, the belief that the KJV embodies theological purity is central to the KJV-only movement, which maintains that no modern translation can match the accuracy and doctrinal integrity of the KJV. Advocates of this view argue that newer translations, influenced by modern textual criticism and the use of older, Alexandrian manuscripts, stray from the preserved text of the New Testament. For Burgon, the KJV represented the highest standard of biblical translation, aligning perfectly with his theological framework.

The KJV and Translation Philosophy: Formal Equivalence and Theological Implications

The translation philosophy behind the KJV has been a subject of much discussion and admiration within Reformed circles. One of the key aspects of the KJV’s translation approach was its commitment to formal equivalence, which is the principle of translating a word or phrase in the original language as closely as possible to its English equivalent. This contrasts with dynamic equivalence, which prioritizes meaning over a direct word-for-word translation.

Burgon viewed the KJV’s emphasis on formal equivalence as essential to maintaining the accuracy and integrity of the biblical text. He believed that this approach ensured that the original meaning of Scripture was faithfully preserved, and that any attempt to “smooth out” or “reword” the text in a more accessible way could potentially distort its theological significance. For Burgon, the use of dynamic equivalence in modern translations, which is common in translations like the NIV or the paraphrased versions like the Message, was a dangerous practice that diluted the doctrinal purity of the Bible.

In The Revision Revised, Burgon discusses the advantages of the KJV’s formal equivalence:

“The translators of the Authorized Version were meticulous in their adherence to the text’s precise wording. They sought, with divine guidance, to render the sacred words in a manner that retained both their literal meaning and theological weight. Any deviation from this principle risks undermining the very truths that are conveyed in Scripture.” (The Revision Revised, p. 140)

This emphasis on word-for-word translation aligns with Burgon’s broader belief in the inerrancy and preservation of Scripture. For him, any translation that departed from the TR—such as those relying on the Alexandrian manuscripts—represented a departure from the true text of Scripture. The KJV, therefore, was not just a good translation but the best one available, as it adhered closely to the TR, the text Burgon believed had been divinely preserved.

Burgon’s admiration for the KJV’s translation philosophy also extended to its theological implications. The KJV translators, many of whom shared Burgon’s Reformed convictions, approached the translation not only as a scholarly task but as a theological one. In particular, they were committed to rendering the text in a way that would preserve key theological concepts, such as the doctrines of grace, election, and predestination. Burgon believed that the KJV’s translation choices were informed by these doctrines, and he argued that they contributed to the purity and theological integrity of the translation.

For example, Burgon appreciated how the KJV rendered passages dealing with God’s sovereignty and election, such as Ephesians 1:4-5:

“According to Burgon, the translators of the KJV accurately rendered the Greek text of Ephesians 1:4-5, preserving the doctrine of God’s sovereign election. They made no attempt to soften the language, as might have been the case in modern translations that emphasize human free will over divine sovereignty.” (The Revision Revised, p. 155)

This example demonstrates Burgon’s belief that the KJV not only accurately translated the text but also faithfully upheld Reformed theological concepts. For Burgon, the KJV was not merely a tool for reading the Bible; it was a theological instrument that conveyed the truths of Calvinism with precision.

Comparison with Modern Translations: A Theological Divide

Burgon’s view of the KJV as the apex of biblical translation stands in stark contrast to modern translations, particularly those produced by scholars working within the framework of modern textual criticism. The most notable example is the NIV, which relies on a different set of manuscripts, including earlier Alexandrian texts like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. These manuscripts differ in significant ways from the TR, which was the basis for the KJV. Burgon’s critique of modern translations was rooted in his belief that they were influenced by theological biases that led them to favor certain manuscripts over others.

Burgon viewed the use of these older manuscripts as problematic because, in his opinion, they represented a corrupted version of the text. He argued that the TR was a more faithful representation of the original autographs, as it was based on a larger, more consistent group of manuscripts, which he believed had been preserved by God throughout history.

In The Revision Revised, Burgon writes:

“The modern translators, in their zeal to be ‘scholarly,’ have embraced a line of manuscripts that are not only older but also more corrupt. The KJV translators, by contrast, were faithful to the received text, which had been preserved by the Church and had stood the test of time.” (The Revision Revised, p. 172)

This belief in the superiority of the TR and the KJV’s fidelity to it was one of the central points of Burgon’s critique of modern textual criticism. He saw modern translations as flawed, not only because of their reliance on manuscripts that he considered inferior but also because of their tendency to reinterpret or modify key theological passages. For Burgon, the KJV was the only translation that truly preserved the doctrinal purity of the original text.

Conclusion: The KJV as the Theological Standard

In conclusion, Burgon’s views on the King James Version reflect his deep commitment to Reformed theology and his belief in the divine preservation of Scripture. For Burgon, the KJV was not merely a good translation but the faithful rendering of God’s Word, preserved through divine providence and accurately reflecting the theological truths of the Reformation. The KJV’s emphasis on formal equivalence and adherence to the TR was seen by Burgon as essential to maintaining the integrity and theological purity of the Bible.

Burgon’s critique of modern translations and textual criticism highlights the theological divide between those who uphold the KJV and those who embrace a more critical, scholarly approach to biblical translation. For Burgon and other KJV-only advocates, the KJV remains the gold standard of biblical translation, embodying both theological purity and textual accuracy. His defense of the KJV as the pinnacle of translation reflects his broader commitment to the doctrines of divine preservation and the sovereignty of God in the transmission of His Word.

Examples and References

1. Burgon, John William. The Revision Revised. 3rd ed. London: George Bell & Sons, 1896.
   • “The Authorized Version, as it has been handed down to us, is the very model of fidelity to the sacred text, reflecting the purity of the manuscripts that have been preserved for our use.” (p. 126)
   • “The translators of the Authorized Version were meticulous in their adherence to the text’s precise wording. They sought, with divine guidance, to render the sacred words in a manner that retained both their literal meaning and theological weight.” (p. 140)
   • “The modern translators, in their zeal to be ‘scholarly,’ have embraced a line of manuscripts that are not only older but also more corrupt.” (p. 172)
2. Metzger, Bruce M.The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
   • Metzger discusses the textual differences between the TR and modern critical texts, providing insight into the scholarly approach to textual criticism.
3. Packer, J.I.A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1990.
   • Packer provides a broader understanding of the Reformed theological perspective, which influenced Burgon and the KJV translators.

Bibliography

1. Burgon, John William. The Revision Revised. 3rd ed. London: George Bell & Sons, 1896.
2. Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
3. Packer, J.I. A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1990.

1. Burgon’s Overemphasis on the Textus Receptus (TR) as the “Preserved” Text

Burgon believed that the Textus Receptus (TR) was divinely preserved and should be considered the most faithful representation of the biblical text. He argued that later manuscripts, especially the Alexandrian texts (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus), were corrupt and inferior. However, this perspective has been widely challenged by textual scholars who argue that the TR itself is not the result of a divine preservation but rather the product of a particular historical process.

Criticism:

• Historical Development of the TR: The TR was compiled by Erasmus in the early 16th century, and it reflects a particular set of Byzantine manuscripts. It is not a single, unaltered text but rather a version based on a limited number of manuscripts. In fact, the TR includes textual variants that are not present in the earlier manuscripts, which contradicts Burgon’s claim of divine preservation through the TR.
• Modern textual criticism has demonstrated that the Alexandrian texts (like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) are often closer to the original autographs of the New Testament than the TR. These earlier manuscripts contain fewer textual variations and are considered more reliable by most textual critics.

Example from Burgon’s writings: Burgon repeatedly insisted on the infallibility of the TR, claiming in The Revision Revised:

“The Received Text is the real text of the Church, and the modern critical editions are corrupt.” (The Revision Revised, p. 135).

Counterpoint: Modern scholars have found that the TR includes many readings that are not found in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts. The idea of the TR being a preserved text was challenged by many biblical scholars even in Burgon’s day, such as Fenton Hort and Brooke Westcott.

2. Misinterpretation of the Early Papyri and Manuscripts

Burgon critiqued early manuscripts such as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, labeling them as “corrupt.” He preferred the later Byzantine manuscripts, which form the basis of the TR. Burgon’s critique of early papyri and codices as being inferior reflects a misunderstanding of the historical transmission of the New Testament text.

Criticism:

• Value of Early Manuscripts: Early manuscripts such as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are extremely valuable for understanding the original text of the New Testament. They are much closer to the original autographs and contain many readings that are consistent with what is believed to be the most authentic version of the text. The evidence from these manuscripts and papyri suggests that the TR, with its Byzantine textual family, is a later development and not necessarily more faithful to the original writings.
• Burgon’s Bias Against Alexandrian Texts: Burgon’s dismissal of the Alexandrian text family is seen by many as overly simplistic. While the Alexandrian manuscripts do contain some textual variants, they are generally regarded as being closer to the original text than the later Byzantine manuscripts. Burgon failed to acknowledge that the Alexandrian texts were used by early Christians in key locations, such as Alexandria and the broader Eastern Mediterranean.

Example from Burgon’s writings: Burgon writes in The Revision Revised:

“The two great manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, are not to be trusted—they are the product of a corrupt tradition.” (The Revision Revised, p. 150).

Counterpoint: Scholars like Bruce Metzger and others have shown that these manuscripts, while containing some variant readings, are among the oldest and best preserved, and they are highly valuable in reconstructing the New Testament text. Dismissing them as “corrupt” without full consideration of their historical value is an oversimplification.

3. The KJV as “The Pinnacle” of Biblical Translation

Burgon’s defense of the KJV as the pinnacle of biblical translation has been criticized for overlooking the advancements in linguistic and textual scholarship that have taken place since the 17th century. Burgon believed the KJV was the most accurate and divinely sanctioned translation, but modern textual criticism, including the study of older manuscripts and advances in Hebrew and Greek scholarship, has demonstrated that the KJV’s translation sometimes does not reflect the best available text.

Criticism:

• Outdated Language: The KJV’s English is archaic by modern standards. Although it was a monumental achievement in its time, the KJV’s language is no longer accessible to contemporary readers without study aids or annotations. Modern translations such as the ESV, NASB, and NIV are based on more recent and comprehensive scholarship, making them more accurate and understandable to modern readers.
• Textual Accuracy: The KJV was based on the TR, which, as mentioned earlier, is not the best representation of the original Greek text. Modern translations use a wider range of manuscripts, including earlier and more reliable ones like Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and numerous papyri. These translations reflect more accurate and reliable sources than the TR.

Example from Burgon’s writings: Burgon claims in The Revision Revised:

“The Authorized Version is the best of all versions. No new translation can ever hope to surpass it in accuracy and theological purity.” (The Revision Revised, p. 126).

Counterpoint: This view is contested by modern scholars, as newer translations reflect a better understanding of the original languages and manuscripts. For example, the translation of certain key words and phrases in the KJV—such as in John 3:16 or Acts 8:37—has been shown to reflect later textual traditions rather than the most accurate ancient manuscripts.

4. Ignoring the Broader History of Biblical Translation

Burgon, in his critique, often ignores the broader historical context of biblical translation. He did not fully engage with the advancements made by scholars in the centuries after the KJV was completed, nor did he consider the full impact of the Protestant Reformation’s commitment to biblical accessibility in the vernacular. His critique was often framed in opposition to Catholic influence on textual criticism, but he failed to adequately address the development of textual criticism as an academic discipline.

Criticism:

• Advances in Biblical Scholarship: The Protestant Reformers emphasized the accessibility of the Bible in the vernacular, but they also acknowledged the need for continuous improvement in translation based on new discoveries. The Reformation did not freeze biblical scholarship in time, and Burgon’s insistence that the KJV is the final and definitive translation disregards the ongoing work of scholars in the 19th and 20th centuries.
• Historical Context of the KJV: The KJV was produced in a particular historical and theological context in the early 17th century, and its translation was influenced by the specific theological concerns of that era. Burgon’s view overlooks the fact that translations of the Bible are always products of their time and place.

Example from Burgon’s writings: Burgon writes:

“The translators of the Authorized Version were guided by the divine hand, and their work was free from error, as it is a product of the pure tradition of the Church.” (The Revision Revised, p. 132).

Counterpoint: While the KJV translators were indeed highly skilled and committed to their task, it is historically inaccurate to claim that their work was free from error or that it represents an unbroken, divinely protected tradition. Scholars today recognize that all translations, including the KJV, are influenced by the available manuscripts, the theological context, and the language of the time.

Conclusion: Why Burgon’s Views are Flawed

Burgon’s arguments for the supremacy of the Textus Receptus, his dismissal of early manuscripts like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and his defense of the King James Version as the “divinely preserved” translation of the Bible are flawed for several reasons:

• He ignored the historical development of the TR and its limited manuscript evidence.
• He misunderstood the value of early papyri and codices, which are closer to the original text.
• He overlooked the advancements in linguistic and textual scholarship since the 17th century.
• He failed to recognize the need for ongoing scholarly work in translation based on newer manuscript discoveries.

While Burgon’s theological convictions about the preservation of Scripture and his commitment to the KJV are understandable within his 19th-century context, modern scholarship has shown that the KJV is not the infallible translation he believed it to be. It is a product of its time, and later translations, based on a broader range of manuscripts and more advanced linguistic research, provide a more accurate representation of the original texts.

Part 4: Theological and Textual Bias in Translation

Chapter 7: Bias in Translation and Textual Tradition

John William Burgon, in his critique of modern textual criticism and defense of the Textus Receptus (TR) and the King James Version (KJV), often overlooks the role of theological bias in translation decisions. This chapter will analyze how theological assumptions influenced the KJV translation, particularly through the lens of Reformed theology, and examine where Burgon’s arguments on this topic were misguided or flawed.

Theological Bias in the KJV Translation

Burgon, as a staunch defender of the KJV, frequently presented the translation as not only the most accurate but also the most theologically pure. He argued that the translators of the KJV, guided by divine providence, produced a version of the Bible that was free from error. However, this position overlooks the inherent theological biases that affected the translation decisions made by the KJV translators, who were deeply influenced by the doctrines of the Church of England, particularly its Reformed (Calvinist) theology.

Burgon’s idealization of the KJV translators, presenting them as divinely inspired and free from error, ignores the fact that their translation was not without theological influence. The KJV translators, though skilled and careful, were nonetheless working within a specific theological and historical context, which impacted their translation choices. Their Calvinist convictions undoubtedly played a role in certain translation decisions, especially in passages related to doctrines like predestination, election, and the nature of salvation.

Examples of Theological Bias in the KJV

1. Romans 8:29-30: “Whom He did foreknow”
   • In Romans 8:29, the KJV translates the Greek word proegno as “whom He did foreknow,” which aligns with the Reformed doctrine of predestination. This translation reflects the Calvinistic understanding of God’s eternal choice of those who would be saved. The KJV translators, working within a Protestant context, chose a translation that would resonate with their theological convictions about God’s sovereign election.

Example from Burgon: Burgon upheld the idea that the KJV was theologically pure and free from human bias, stating in The Revision Revised:

“The translators of the Authorized Version were not influenced by the fancies of men but were guided by the purest tradition of the Church.” (The Revision Revised, p. 122).

Counterpoint: While the KJV translators were undoubtedly committed to producing a faithful translation, it is historically inaccurate to claim that they were free from theological influence. The translation of proegno as “whom He did foreknow” can be understood as a theological choice shaped by the doctrine of predestination. Other translations, such as the NASB or ESV, opt for a less theologically loaded rendering like “those whom He foreknew,” which allows for a broader range of theological interpretations.

2. Ephesians 1:4: “According as He hath chosen us in Him”
   • The phrase “according as He hath chosen us in Him” in Ephesians 1:4 echoes the Calvinistic concept of unconditional election, which holds that God predestines individuals for salvation based solely on His will, not on any foreseen merit or action. This choice in translation reflects the Reformed doctrine of election, which emphasizes God’s sovereignty in choosing those who will be saved.

Example from Burgon: Burgon supported the KJV’s faithfulness to Reformed theology, as seen in his critique of modern versions that he felt diluted doctrinal truth. He wrote:

“The text of the Authorized Version stands as the best safeguard of doctrinal purity, untainted by the heresies of modern critics.” (The Revision Revised, p. 118).

Counterpoint: The translation of eklegomai (“chosen”) in Ephesians 1:4 reflects a Calvinistic understanding of God’s sovereign election. While this translation is faithful to the Greek text, it undeniably reflects a theological framework that influenced the translators’ choices. Alternative translations, such as the NIV or NRSV, offer a more neutral translation, such as “For He chose us in Christ,” which does not carry the same doctrinal weight.

3. John 6:44: “No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him”
   • In John 6:44, the KJV translates the Greek word helkō (to draw) in a way that supports the Reformed doctrine of irresistible grace. The translation emphasizes that those who are drawn to Christ do so because the Father actively and irresistibly draws them, consistent with Calvinistic theology.

Example from Burgon: Burgon consistently emphasized the theological purity of the KJV, arguing that it accurately reflected Christian doctrine. In The Revision Revised, he stated:

“The Authorized Version represents the fullness of God’s will, without the contamination of human opinion.” (The Revision Revised, p. 134).

Counterpoint: While the KJV’s translation of helkō is accurate in terms of the Greek, it undeniably aligns with the Reformed understanding of grace as irresistible. Other translations, such as the ESV, use the phrase “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him,” which retains the same meaning but allows for a broader theological interpretation that is not limited to Calvinist doctrine.

Examples of Doctrinal Influence in KJV Translation

Burgon’s idealization of the KJV overlooks how the translators’ Reformed convictions shaped their rendering of certain key theological terms. Several passages in the KJV reflect doctrinal positions such as predestination, election, and salvation that align with Calvinist theology. However, these translations can be seen as biased in the sense that they reflect the theological framework of the translators rather than purely objective, neutral rendering of the text.

1. 2 Peter 3:9: “Not willing that any should perish”
   • The KJV translates this verse as “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” This translation has been critiqued for aligning with the Calvinist interpretation that God desires the repentance of the elect. The Greek text here uses the word boulomai, which can be translated as “to wish” or “to will.”

Example from Burgon: Burgon’s defense of the KJV as theologically pure is reflected in his dismissal of modern translations:

“Modern translations, in their departures from the KJV, fail to preserve the doctrinal clarity concerning the will of God.” (The Revision Revised, p. 150).

Counterpoint: The KJV’s translation here suggests a universalist view that God desires all to repent, which is contested by those who argue for a more particularist view of salvation, such as Calvinists. Modern translations, such as the ESV, render this verse in a way that maintains the sense of God’s patience but without making a theological statement about the extent of God’s desire for repentance.

2. Romans 9:22-23: “Vessels of wrath…vessels of mercy”
   • Romans 9:22-23 in the KJV reflects a strong Calvinist interpretation of God’s sovereignty in election and judgment, particularly the notion of God having mercy on some and hardening others. This theological emphasis supports the doctrine of double predestination, which was central to Reformed thought.

Example from Burgon: Burgon stated that the KJV translators were divinely guided in making accurate theological choices. He writes:

“The translators of the Authorized Version were most scrupulously careful in preserving the purity of the divine truth in their rendering.” (The Revision Revised, p. 158).

Counterpoint: While the KJV translation of Romans 9:22-23 is theologically consistent with Reformed views, it is important to acknowledge that the translators’ decision reflects their Calvinist convictions, which may have shaped their interpretation of divine justice and mercy. Other translations, such as the NASB, retain the same literal meaning while being less loaded with doctrinal implications.

Where Burgon Was Wrong

1. Failure to Acknowledge Theological Bias: Burgon’s defense of the KJV as being free from theological bias is flawed. The KJV translators, although highly skilled and committed to producing an accurate translation, were influenced by their Calvinistic theology. By failing to recognize this theological influence, Burgon misrepresents the translation process and the inherent biases involved in any translation.
2. Overstatement of Divine Guidance: Burgon argued that the KJV translators were divinely guided to produce an infallible translation. This overstatement ignores the historical context in which the KJV was translated, including the translators’ personal theological biases. While the KJV is undoubtedly a monumental achievement, it is not immune to theological influence, particularly from the Reformed tradition.
3. Ignoring Advances in Scholarship: Burgon’s insistence on the superiority of the KJV over modern translations overlooks the advancements in biblical scholarship since the 17th century. New manuscript discoveries, improved knowledge of ancient languages, and more refined translation techniques have led to modern translations that are more accurate and readable than the KJV in many respects.

Conclusion

Burgon’s defense of the KJV and the Textus Receptus, though passionate and rooted in a strong theological conviction, fails to account for the theological biases inherent in the translation process. While the KJV was undoubtedly shaped by the doctrinal assumptions of its translators, modern translations benefit from a broader range of manuscripts, improved linguistic analysis, and an increased awareness of the theological implications of translation choices. By recognizing these factors, modern scholars have produced translations that reflect a more accurate and nuanced understanding of the biblical text, free from the limitations of any particular theological tradition, including Calvinism.

1. Failure to Acknowledge Theological Bias

Burgon’s Defense of KJV as Free from Theological Bias:

Burgon firmly believed that the KJV was the most accurate and doctrinally pure translation. However, he consistently overlooked the fact that the KJV translators were influenced by their Calvinist theology, which affected certain translation choices, particularly in the areas of election, predestination, and salvation. The translators, operating within the Reformed theological tradition, made translation choices that aligned with their doctrinal commitments, a point Burgon either downplayed or ignored.

Example from Burgon: In The Revision Revised, Burgon defended the KJV by stating that it was faithful to the original text and free from doctrinal bias. He wrote:

“The translators of the Authorized Version were not influenced by the fancies of men but were guided by the purest tradition of the Church.” (The Revision Revised, p. 122).

Where Burgon Was Wrong: While Burgon’s praise for the KJV translators is certainly admirable, his assertion that they were not influenced by doctrinal biases is problematic. The Calvinistic convictions of the translators impacted their approach to key theological concepts. For instance, their translation of verses on election, grace, and salvation, such as Romans 8:29 and Ephesians 1:4, reflect Calvinistic doctrines of predestination and divine sovereignty. By claiming the KJV translation was free from any theological influence, Burgon ignored these underlying theological biases.

2. Overstatement of Divine Guidance

Burgon’s Overstatement of Divine Guidance:

Burgon believed that the KJV translators were not only accurate in their rendering of the Scriptures but were also divinely inspired, claiming that the process was guided by God’s providence. This perspective elevated the KJV above all other translations, implying it was inerrant, or at least divinely protected from error.

Example from Burgon: In The Revision Revised, Burgon expressed his belief that the translators were divinely guided and that their work stood as an infallible witness to the true word of God:

“The translators of the Authorized Version were most scrupulously careful in preserving the purity of the divine truth in their rendering.” (The Revision Revised, p. 134).

Where Burgon Was Wrong: While it is true that the KJV translators were dedicated scholars and that the translation itself has had a profound and lasting impact, Burgon’s assertion that the translation process was divinely inspired or infallible is unfounded. The translators were working within a specific historical and theological context—namely, the English Reformation and the Reformed tradition—which influenced their translation decisions. Their personal beliefs, such as Calvinism, shaped certain renderings in ways that are more theological than linguistically necessary. Additionally, the historical reality of the KJV translation process shows it was influenced by political factors, including the desires of the English monarchy, and the scholarly limitations of the 17th century.

Burgon’s failure to recognize the human and historical aspects of the translation process misrepresents the nature of the KJV. While it remains a faithful and monumental translation, it is not immune to the theological and cultural forces that shaped it.

3. Ignoring Advances in Scholarship

Burgon’s Insistence on the Superiority of the KJV:

Burgon’s commitment to the KJV often extended beyond a mere appreciation for its literary beauty or historical significance. He argued that the KJV was superior to modern translations, ignoring the considerable advancements in textual criticism and biblical scholarship that have been made since the 17th century. New manuscript discoveries (such as the Dead Sea Scrolls), better understanding of ancient languages, and advances in translation techniques have provided scholars with tools that were unavailable to the KJV translators.

Example from Burgon: Burgon was adamant that the KJV was far superior to any modern translation. He wrote:

“The Authorized Version stands alone—there is no need for revision. It is far above the modern versions in its textual accuracy and its doctrinal purity.” (The Revision Revised, p. 118).

Where Burgon Was Wrong: Burgon’s belief that the KJV is beyond revision fails to account for the major strides in biblical scholarship and manuscript discovery since its translation. Modern textual critics now have access to a wealth of manuscript evidence, some of which were not available in the 17th century. These include earlier manuscripts such as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, which provide crucial insights into the transmission of the New Testament text.

Additionally, advancements in linguistic and translation theory have led to more accurate and readable translations. For example, modern translations such as the ESV, NASB, and NIV make use of a more eclectic textual basis and reflect a more comprehensive understanding of the original languages. Burgon’s insistence on the KJV’s superiority, despite the progress made in textual criticism and biblical scholarship, overlooks the value and necessity of ongoing revision and improvement in Bible translation.

---

Conclusion

Burgon’s defense of the KJV, though deeply rooted in his theological convictions, fails to account for important factors that shape biblical translation. His refusal to acknowledge the theological bias in the KJV translators’ decisions, his overstatement of divine guidance in the translation process, and his neglect of advances in biblical scholarship all contributed to an overly idealized view of the KJV. While the KJV remains a significant and respected translation, modern translations benefit from improved scholarship, better manuscript evidence, and a more nuanced understanding of the biblical languages, making them valuable resources for today’s readers.

Bibliography

Burgon, John William. The Revision Revised: A Reconsideration of the Rejected Textus Receptus. London: John Murray, 1883.

Burgon, John William. The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels. London: John Murray, 1896.

Hoskier, H. C. Codex Sinaiticus and the Greek New Testament. London: British Museum, 1911.

Scrivener, F. H. A. A Full and Exact Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1864.

Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. New York: HarperCollins, 2005.

Wallace, Daniel B. The Text of the New Testament: A Student’s Handbook. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011.

King James Version of the Bible. Authorized King James Version. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1769.

Chapter 8: Theological Divides and the KJV-Only Movement

KJV-Onlyism and Theological Rejection

The rise of the KJV-only movement within Reformed and conservative evangelical circles can be traced to the belief that the King James Version (KJV) is the only reliable English translation of the Bible, often seen as divinely inspired and immune to corruption. Proponents of this view assert that the KJV, based on the Textus Receptus (TR), is the superior version, and that modern translations are not only inaccurate but even corrupt in their rendering of the original text. This movement has gained prominence in certain Christian circles, particularly those that align with the belief in the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture.

John William Burgon, in his critique of modern textual criticism, aligns with many KJV-only advocates in his defense of the Textus Receptus. Burgon’s writings often emphasized that the TR, as represented in the KJV, was divinely preserved and that any departure from it was a theological compromise. However, this position, though rooted in a high view of Scripture, fails to account for the reality of translation and textual variation. The KJV-only movement’s claim that modern translations undermine doctrinal purity is a theological stance that disregards the complexities of biblical language and textual transmission.

Burgon’s Critique of Modern Translations: Burgon’s critique of modern translations, such as the Revised Version (RV), hinges on the notion that the newer translations, which are based on different manuscript traditions like the Alexandrian text (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus), represent a corruption of the biblical text. He believed that the TR was divinely preserved and should be the standard for all translations. This stance, shared by many KJV-only proponents, led to the rejection of translations based on a broader manuscript base and more recent scholarship.

Burgon writes in The Revision Revised:

“We have a Book that has been divinely preserved in every age, in every part of the world… it is the Textus Receptus which alone can be depended upon.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 45).

This highlights his theological conviction that the Textus Receptus, embodied in the KJV, was the preserved Word of God, whereas modern translations, by relying on other manuscript families, were seen as flawed.

Burgon’s Flaw: Burgon’s assertion that only the TR is reliable ignores the complexities of textual criticism. The Bible has a rich manuscript tradition that involves various text types, including the Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine families. While the TR is certainly based on the Byzantine tradition, which was widely accepted in the Eastern Church, it is not the only tradition available for examination, and its claim to divine preservation is not universally substantiated. Moreover, Burgon’s rejection of modern translations disregards the advancements in textual scholarship, such as the discovery of earlier manuscripts and a better understanding of the languages in which the Bible was originally written.

Theological Consequences of KJV-Onlyism

The KJV-only movement, fueled by Burgon’s views and similar positions, has led to significant theological divides within the broader Christian community. The assertion that the KJV is the only valid translation has caused rifts between conservative evangelical groups and those who embrace modern translations. This divide is not just about textual preferences but touches on deeper theological concerns.

Doctrinal Purity and Division: KJV-only advocates often view modern translations, such as the NIV, ESV, and NASB, as doctrinally suspect. Theological concerns about the integrity of Scripture are at the heart of these debates. KJV-only proponents argue that newer translations water down doctrinal teachings on salvation, the nature of God, and other key biblical doctrines.

However, the theological consequences of this divide are problematic. By promoting a singular translation as the only legitimate version, KJV-only advocates foster a divisive mentality, which undermines the unity of the Church. The claim that modern translations are “corrupt” or “heretical” is a theological stance that does not allow for unity among Christians of differing theological traditions.

Burgon’s Contribution to Division: Burgon’s defense of the TR and his promotion of the KJV as the standard for English-speaking Christians contributed to this sense of division. While his arguments were largely based on his conviction regarding divine preservation, they failed to recognize the theological and scholarly nuances involved in translation and textual criticism. His critique of modern translations, based on his belief in the infallibility of the KJV, only deepened the rift between conservative and progressive evangelical factions.

In The Revision Revised, Burgon writes:

“Let us cling to the Textus Receptus, for it is the one true foundation, and it is upon this foundation alone that our faith rests.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 102).

While Burgon’s views on the TR and the KJV were motivated by a desire to preserve doctrinal purity, his emphasis on a single translation as the standard led to unnecessary divisions within the body of Christ. His work did not contribute to greater theological unity but instead reinforced the belief that any deviation from the KJV was an affront to Scripture.

Conclusion

The KJV-only movement, though rooted in a high view of Scripture, is problematic in its rejection of modern textual scholarship and the diversity of biblical manuscript evidence. Burgon’s contributions to this debate, particularly in his assertion of the exclusive validity of the KJV, have influenced the rise of this movement. However, by failing to recognize the complexities of biblical translation and textual criticism, Burgon inadvertently reinforced theological divides that hinder unity in the Church.

The promotion of KJV-onlyism as the only acceptable version of the Bible disregards advancements in textual scholarship and perpetuates theological polarization. While Burgon’s intentions were grounded in a desire to preserve doctrinal purity, his approach to translation and textual criticism was overly simplistic and, in some cases, misleading.

---

Bibliography

Burgon, John William. The Revision Revised: A Reconsideration of the Rejected Textus Receptus. London: John Murray, 1883.

Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. New York: HarperCollins, 2005.

Wallace, Daniel B. The Text of the New Testament: A Student’s Handbook. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011.

King James Version of the Bible. Authorized King James Version. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1769.

Chapter 9: Church History and the Transmission of Scripture

Early Church to Reformation: The Journey of Biblical Manuscripts

The history of biblical manuscripts is a fascinating journey that spans from the early Church, through the medieval period, and up to the Reformation. Throughout these centuries, the transmission of the biblical text involved both human and divine factors, shaping the form of the Scriptures we have today.

The Early Church Period: In the first few centuries after Christ, early Christians primarily relied on copies of the New Testament writings, which were spread across various Christian communities. The manuscripts from this period are generally fragmentary, with notable early examples like the P52 (the John Rylands fragment of the Gospel of John) dating from the early second century. Over time, Christian scribes reproduced these texts by hand, leading to the creation of numerous manuscript copies of the New Testament.

However, during this period, textual variants began to appear due to scribal errors, regional differences, and theological influences. While these variations were generally minor, they had a significant impact on the development of the biblical text. Scholars distinguish between different “text types” or families of manuscripts, such as the Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine traditions, each with its own characteristic readings.

The Medieval Period: During the medieval period, the Bible continued to be copied by hand, with the Byzantine text type emerging as the dominant form in the Eastern Church. The Western Church, meanwhile, used a different set of texts, including the Old Latin and the Vulgate. The Vulgate, produced by Jerome in the late 4th century, became the standard Bible for the Latin-speaking Western Church for over a millennium.

The Reformation and the Rise of the Textus Receptus: The Protestant Reformation brought a renewed focus on the Bible as the sole authority (sola scriptura) and led to a significant period of biblical translation and textual criticism. Reformers such as Martin Luther and William Tyndale emphasized the need for the Bible to be translated into vernacular languages to make it accessible to the masses. This era also saw the production of the Textus Receptus (TR) by Erasmus, who sought to compile a critical edition of the Greek New Testament. Though Erasmus’ work was groundbreaking, it was not without its issues, particularly due to the limited manuscript evidence available to him.

Burgon, in his defense of the TR, contended that it represented the preserved and uncorrupted text of the New Testament. He believed that the TR reflected the true, divinely preserved Word of God, and he rejected modern textual criticism that challenged its primacy. Burgon’s defense of the TR, however, was based on a selective interpretation of history and manuscripts, overlooking key historical and scholarly developments that have influenced modern biblical scholarship.

Burgon’s Flaw: Burgon’s view of the transmission of the Bible largely ignores the complex nature of manuscript transmission. His claim that the TR alone reflects the “pure” text of the New Testament overlooks the fact that the TR was based on a limited and sometimes late group of manuscripts, many of which were produced in the Byzantine tradition. By asserting that the TR alone was divinely preserved, Burgon overlooked the significance of other manuscript traditions, such as the Alexandrian text type, which provides earlier and sometimes more reliable readings.

Burgon writes in The Revision Revised:

“The Textus Receptus is the received text, accepted by the Church for centuries… it is the only version that has come down to us without corruption” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 61).

This statement, while emphasizing the reliability of the TR, fails to engage with the textual complexities of early manuscript traditions, which were not limited to the Byzantine text type alone. Modern textual criticism considers a broader range of manuscripts, including the Alexandrian and Western text types, in order to reconstruct the most accurate reading of the New Testament.

---

The Role of Church Councils in the Preservation of Scripture

Church councils played a pivotal role in the history of biblical texts, especially during the early centuries of Christianity. These councils were not primarily concerned with textual criticism, but their decisions did have a profound effect on how the Bible was transmitted and understood. The councils sought to address theological disputes and standardize the Christian canon, ensuring that the correct books were accepted as Scripture.

The Council of Nicaea (325 AD): One of the most famous early councils, the Council of Nicaea, primarily dealt with the nature of Christ, affirming His divinity in the Nicene Creed. While Nicaea did not directly address the canon of Scripture, it established the authority of the Church in defining orthodoxy, which indirectly influenced how the Bible was transmitted and preserved.

The Councils of Hippo and Carthage (4th-5th Centuries): These councils were more directly concerned with the issue of canon. The Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) confirmed the list of New Testament books that are largely accepted today. While these councils did not finalize the textual form of the New Testament, they set the stage for the development of the Christian biblical canon.

The Role of Theologians: Theologians such as Athanasius, Augustine, and Jerome played important roles in shaping the Christian understanding of the Bible. Jerome’s Vulgate translation became the standard for the Western Church for over a millennium, and his decisions on textual readings influenced the development of the Latin Bible.

Burgon, however, largely dismisses these diverse textual traditions in favor of the TR. His view of the preservation of the text seems to overlook the historical fact that the Church was often concerned with theological unity and doctrinal orthodoxy, not necessarily with recovering the earliest and most accurate texts. For example, Jerome’s Vulgate, which was translated from the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts available to him, reflects a different textual tradition than the Byzantine manuscripts that form the basis of the TR.

Burgon argues in The Revision Revised:

“It is a fact, beyond dispute, that the Church has never departed from the Textus Receptus… this is the text upheld by all the great Councils” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 75).

This claim is overstated. While the TR was widely used in the Greek-speaking Church, it was not universally recognized or upheld by all Church councils. In fact, the Vulgate was the accepted text in the Western Church, and the textual traditions represented by the Alexandrian manuscripts (like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) were highly influential in the development of the biblical text.

---

Conclusion

Burgon’s views on the transmission of Scripture, particularly his defense of the Textus Receptus as the only authentic text, are problematic for several reasons. His selective reading of history and textual evidence neglects the complexities of manuscript transmission and the role of Church councils and theologians in shaping the biblical canon. While his defense of the TR was motivated by a high view of Scripture, his stance fails to recognize the diversity of textual traditions and the advancements made in textual scholarship.

The historical development of biblical texts is far more complex than Burgon’s approach suggests. The manuscripts used by the Church over the centuries were not always identical, and the Church’s role in preserving and transmitting the text involved a range of theological and historical factors that go beyond the Textus Receptus alone. By oversimplifying the history of biblical transmission, Burgon’s critique misses important historical and scholarly developments that have influenced modern textual criticism.

---

Bibliography

Burgon, John William. The Revision Revised: A Reconsideration of the Rejected Textus Receptus. London: John Murray, 1883.

Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. New York: HarperCollins, 2005.

Wallace, Daniel B. The Text of the New Testament: A Student’s Handbook. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011.

King James Version of the Bible. Authorized King James Version. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1769.

Chapter 10: The Reformation and the Birth of the Textus Receptus (TR)

The Development of the TR: Erasmus and the Creation of the Textus Receptus

The creation of the Textus Receptus (TR) is a key moment in the history of biblical translation. It began with the work of Desiderius Erasmus, a humanist scholar in the early 16th century, who sought to produce a more accurate and accessible Greek New Testament. Erasmus’ work would later become foundational for the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible and would serve as the starting point for many Reformation-era translations.

Erasmus’ Contribution: Erasmus, a Catholic scholar, was one of the first to produce a critical edition of the Greek New Testament, published in 1516. While Erasmus’ work is credited with being the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament, his access to Greek manuscripts was limited. He primarily used just a handful of manuscripts, and most of these were late Byzantine manuscripts. Erasmus’ reliance on these texts—often older copies of the New Testament—meant that his work had inherent weaknesses.

Erasmus’ Greek New Testament was based on a small number of manuscripts, and he did not have access to some of the older and more valuable manuscripts that would later be uncovered, such as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, both of which are part of the Alexandrian text tradition. Additionally, Erasmus’ work was not perfect, and he made some controversial decisions, such as his use of the Latin Vulgate to fill in gaps in the Greek manuscripts. Despite these shortcomings, Erasmus’ work became the standard Greek text for many years.

Burgon, in his defense of the TR, argued that the text was divinely preserved through the centuries, and Erasmus, despite his limited resources, was merely doing the work of recovering the true biblical text. However, this view overlooks the complexities of Erasmus’ work and the reality that his Greek New Testament was based on a limited manuscript base. Burgon also failed to acknowledge the scholarly advancements that have occurred since Erasmus’ time.

Burgon’s Argument: Burgon, in his work The Revision Revised, writes:

“The Textus Receptus is the text which has been received and preserved by the Church. Erasmus, working under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, was the instrument by which this text was made available” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 51).

While Burgon’s admiration for Erasmus is apparent, his view that the TR was divinely guided overlooks Erasmus’ reliance on a limited number of manuscripts. Burgon’s defense fails to critically engage with the weaknesses of Erasmus’ manuscript base and his sometimes hasty decisions, such as his use of the Latin Vulgate in place of lost Greek readings.

Impact of the Reformation on Biblical Translation

The Reformation had a profound impact on the development of biblical translations, particularly in relation to the translation of the Bible into the vernacular. The Reformation was centered on the idea of sola scriptura—the belief that Scripture alone, rather than tradition or Church authority, is the ultimate source of truth. This theological stance led reformers like Martin Luther and William Tyndale to emphasize the translation of the Bible into the languages of the people.

Theological Influence on Translation: The Reformation was not just a theological revolution but also a translation movement. Reformers saw the translation of Scripture into the vernacular as essential for the individual believer’s direct engagement with God’s Word. Luther’s German translation of the Bible (1522) and Tyndale’s English translation (1525) were among the first to challenge the Catholic Church’s monopoly on biblical knowledge.

In England, the Reformation paved the way for the translation of the Bible into English, culminating in the King James Version (KJV) in 1611. The KJV translators, who were influenced by Reformation theology, relied heavily on the Textus Receptus, which was itself the product of Erasmus’ earlier work. The KJV translation was not only a theological statement about the nature of Scripture but also a political statement about the authority of the Church of England in relation to the Catholic Church.

Burgon’s Missteps: Burgon’s view of the Reformation and the development of the TR is often overly idealized. He asserts that the TR was the only faithful transmission of the biblical text, disregarding other important textual traditions such as the Alexandrian or Western texts. His defense of Erasmus’ work as divinely guided is problematic because it ignores the realities of Erasmus’ limited manuscript base and the gaps in his knowledge. Furthermore, Burgon’s rejection of modern textual criticism overlooks the considerable progress made in understanding the transmission of the New Testament through the discovery of older manuscripts.

Burgon writes in The Revision Revised:

“The Greek text of the New Testament, as preserved in the Textus Receptus, is the only true text. It is the text accepted by the Church from the beginning, and any divergence from it is an innovation, a departure from God’s Word” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 88).

This statement presents an oversimplified view of textual history. The TR, though important, was not universally accepted as the “true” text by all Christian traditions throughout history. It was, in many ways, a product of Erasmus’ work and the ecclesiastical and theological environment of his time. Moreover, Burgon’s rejection of textual variants found in older manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus represents a failure to engage with the complexity of the textual evidence.

Conclusion: The Flaws in Burgon’s Defense of the TR

While Burgon’s defense of the Textus Receptus is passionate and deeply rooted in his theological convictions, his approach to the development of the TR and the Reformation-era translations is flawed in several key ways. First, his idealized view of Erasmus’ work overlooks the limitations of the manuscript base that Erasmus had access to. Erasmus did not have access to the full range of manuscripts that we now know exist, and his decisions in compiling the TR were not always grounded in the most reliable textual evidence.

Second, Burgon’s assertion that the TR was the “only true” text disregards the diversity of textual traditions that existed throughout Christian history. The Alexandrian text tradition, for example, is represented by some of the oldest and most reliable manuscripts we have, including Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.

Finally, Burgon’s rejection of modern textual criticism ignores the tremendous advances that have been made in the field since his time. The discovery of older manuscripts, advances in understanding ancient languages, and the development of more sophisticated methods of textual criticism have all contributed to a more accurate understanding of the New Testament text than was available to Erasmus or to Burgon.

---

Bibliography

Burgon, John William. The Revision Revised: A Reconsideration of the Rejected Textus Receptus. London: John Murray, 1883.

Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. New York: HarperCollins, 2005.

Wallace, Daniel B. The Text of the New Testament: A Student’s Handbook. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011.

King James Version of the Bible. Authorized King James Version. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1769.

Chapter 11: Advances in Textual Criticism

Modern Methods of Textual Criticism

Textual criticism is the scholarly discipline concerned with determining the original wording of biblical manuscripts and texts. It involves the examination of ancient manuscripts, versions, and quotations from church fathers to reconstruct what the original authors likely wrote. The methods of textual criticism have evolved significantly since the time of Erasmus and John Burgon, with modern scholars relying on a broader array of tools, technologies, and manuscripts to establish a more accurate understanding of the biblical text.

One of the key developments in modern textual criticism is the embrace of the Alexandrian textual tradition, which is largely represented by early manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. These manuscripts, dating from the 4th century, are older than many of the Byzantine manuscripts that formed the basis of the Textus Receptus, which was favored by figures like Erasmus and John Burgon. Modern textual critics believe that these older manuscripts are more likely to preserve the original text, as they are closer in time to the original autographs and less likely to have been altered through the centuries.

Advancements in Archaeology and Manuscript Discoveries: The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the mid-20th century and the uncovering of early papyri have reshaped textual scholarship. The Dead Sea Scrolls, which include fragments of Old Testament books and some of the earliest known manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible, have provided scholars with valuable insights into the transmission of biblical texts over time. While the Dead Sea Scrolls primarily concern the Hebrew Bible, they have contributed to our understanding of the development of biblical texts and influenced the study of the New Testament as well.

In addition, the discovery of early papyri, such as the Chester Beatty Papyri and the Bodmer Papyri, has shed light on the early transmission of the New Testament. These papyri date from the 2nd and 3rd centuries and are some of the earliest known witnesses to the text of the New Testament. The discovery of these manuscripts has provided critical evidence that challenges earlier assumptions about the history of the New Testament text.

Burgon’s Critique of Modern Textual Criticism: In contrast to the advances made by modern textual critics, John Burgon remained firmly committed to the Textus Receptus and rejected many of the principles of modern textual criticism. Burgon’s critique of modern scholarship centered on the belief that newer manuscripts, particularly those of the Alexandrian tradition, were inferior to the Byzantine manuscripts upon which the TR was based. Burgon argued that the Alexandrian manuscripts were corrupted by heretical influences and that the TR represented the preserved, pure text of the New Testament.

Burgon wrote in The Revision Revised:

“The Textus Receptus is the only true and faithful text of the New Testament, as received by the Church through the centuries. The new critical text, based on the few and suspect manuscripts of the Alexandrian family, has introduced corruption and error into the Word of God” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 92).

This position reflects Burgon’s theological commitment to the preservation of Scripture through the TR, but it ignores the wealth of evidence provided by newer manuscript discoveries, which show that earlier versions of the New Testament may have been preserved in the Alexandrian tradition.

The Impact of New Manuscript Discoveries on Modern Translations

The impact of new manuscript discoveries on modern Bible translations cannot be overstated. As scholars gained access to older and more reliable manuscripts, their understanding of the New Testament text became more refined. These discoveries led to changes in the Greek text, which in turn influenced the translations of the New Testament into English and other languages.

The Alexandrian Text Tradition: The Alexandrian manuscripts, such as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, are considered by many modern textual critics to be among the most reliable witnesses to the original New Testament text. These manuscripts are older than many of the Byzantine manuscripts used in the Textus Receptus and are believed to represent an earlier, less corrupted form of the text.

Modern Translations and Manuscript Evidence: Modern translations, such as the New International Version (NIV), English Standard Version (ESV), and New American Standard Bible (NASB), incorporate a broader range of manuscript evidence compared to the King James Version (KJV). These translations rely not only on the Byzantine manuscripts that formed the basis of the TR but also on the Alexandrian and Western traditions, as well as newly discovered papyri and early Christian writings.

For example, the NIV and ESV reflect changes in the text of verses such as Matthew 6:13, where the KJV includes the phrase “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen,” a doxology that is not found in the earliest manuscripts. Modern textual critics argue that this phrase was a later addition to the text, possibly introduced to align with the liturgical practices of the early church.

Burgon’s Opposition to New Discoveries: Burgon, in his critique of modern textual criticism, opposed the use of Alexandrian manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. He believed that these manuscripts, as well as new discoveries like the Chester Beatty Papyri, represented corruptions of the true text of the New Testament. For Burgon, the Textus Receptus was the only reliable text, and he viewed any departure from it as an attack on the purity of God’s Word.

Burgon writes:

“The Textus Receptus, as preserved in the hands of the Church, is the true and faithful text. The new critical texts, based on mere fragments and unreliable manuscripts, have polluted the text of Scripture” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 104).

This view, while rooted in Burgon’s theological commitment to the preservation of Scripture, fails to acknowledge the scholarly value of newer manuscript discoveries and the broader range of evidence now available to textual critics.

Conclusion: The Value of Modern Textual Criticism

Modern textual criticism has made significant strides in our understanding of the New Testament text. Advances in archaeology, the discovery of new manuscripts, and the development of sophisticated textual criticism methods have all contributed to a more accurate and reliable reconstruction of the biblical text.

While Burgon’s defense of the Textus Receptus is a reflection of his theological convictions, it is ultimately a narrow and outdated view. The broader range of manuscript evidence, including the Alexandrian texts and early papyri, offers valuable insights into the history of the New Testament text. Modern translations, such as the NIV, ESV, and NASB, reflect these advances in scholarship, offering readers a more accurate representation of the original biblical text.

Burgon’s refusal to engage with the advances in textual criticism has led him to misrepresent the role of manuscript discoveries in shaping modern translations. His insistence on the supremacy of the TR over all other textual traditions limits the potential for deeper engagement with the richness of the biblical text, as revealed through the wealth of manuscript evidence available today.

---

Bibliography

Burgon, John William. The Revision Revised: A Reconsideration of the Rejected Textus Receptus. London: John Murray, 1883.

Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. New York: HarperCollins, 2005.

Wallace, Daniel B. The Text of the New Testament: A Student’s Handbook. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011.

King James Version of the Bible. Authorized King James Version. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1769.

Chapter 12: The Future of Biblical Translation

Textual Trends: The Change of Biblical Translation

The landscape of biblical translation has significantly changed since the time of John Burgon, and it continues to shift as new technologies, manuscript discoveries, and scholarly methodologies emerge. As we look to the future of biblical translation, several key trends are becoming apparent, particularly in the ongoing debate between literal and dynamic translation approaches. These trends will undoubtedly shape the trajectory of biblical translation and the role theological presuppositions play in this process.

The Role of Theological Presuppositions: All translations of the Bible are shaped by the theological assumptions of the translators. While translators strive for accuracy and faithfulness to the original languages, it is impossible to entirely separate theological views from translation decisions. This is particularly true when it comes to key doctrinal passages concerning issues like salvation, predestination, and the nature of God. Even within the most rigorously scholarly translations, like the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) or English Standard Version (ESV), theological commitments may subtly influence the translation of certain passages. For example, the translation of terms like “ekklesia” (church) or “soteria” (salvation) can be affected by the translator’s denominational background or theological position.

In the future, it is likely that we will continue to see both literal and dynamic approaches to translation. Literal translations, such as the New American Standard Bible (NASB), will aim to remain as close to the original text as possible, maintaining formal equivalence even if this results in awkward English phrasing. On the other hand, dynamic translations like the New Living Translation (NLT) and Good News Translation (GNT) will prioritize readability and contemporary understanding, often at the expense of a word-for-word approach.

The Tension Between Literal and Dynamic Translations: The tension between these two approaches—literal (formal equivalence) and dynamic (functional equivalence)—will likely continue to define the future of biblical translation. Literal translations prioritize preserving the exact wording and structure of the original text, which can make them ideal for in-depth study. However, they often present challenges for readers who may find such translations difficult to understand without prior knowledge of biblical languages or historical context.

Dynamic translations, conversely, are designed to communicate the meaning of the original text in a way that is easy to read and understand. While these translations are more accessible to the general public, they risk losing some of the nuances of the original languages. In the future, there may be greater efforts to bridge this gap, potentially through translations that combine elements of both approaches. For example, translations may incorporate footnotes or alternative readings to provide the reader with a more nuanced understanding of the original text.

Revisiting Burgon’s Legacy

John Burgon’s work, The Revision Revised, remains a landmark in the history of textual criticism, especially for those who adhere to a traditional, Textus Receptus-based view of the Bible. Burgon’s vehement defense of the Textus Receptus and his critique of the critical texts derived from the Alexandrian tradition have shaped the views of KJV-only advocates and those who continue to resist modern textual criticism.

However, the relevance of Burgon’s critiques has been increasingly questioned in light of modern scholarship. Burgon’s opposition to manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, and his belief in the divine preservation of the Textus Receptus, are not widely accepted today by the majority of scholars in the field of textual criticism.

Burgon’s Critique of Modern Textual Criticism: Burgon argued that modern textual criticism, which relied heavily on Alexandrian manuscripts, was corrupting the text of the New Testament. He believed that the Textus Receptus was divinely preserved and that it should be the standard for all biblical translations. In The Revision Revised, he writes:

“The Textus Receptus, handed down through the centuries by the Church, is the only trustworthy text. The so-called ‘critical text’ based on the few and disputed manuscripts, such as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, is riddled with error” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 112).

This stance has been increasingly challenged as more manuscript evidence has been uncovered, particularly in the form of early papyri and newly discovered manuscripts. Modern textual critics, while still acknowledging the value of the Textus Receptus, argue that the Alexandrian tradition represents a more reliable form of the New Testament text, as it is closer to the original autographs.

In light of new manuscript discoveries, Burgon’s critique of the critical text appears more outdated. For example, the discovery of the Chester Beatty Papyri and Bodmer Papyri has provided valuable evidence supporting the Alexandrian text’s accuracy. These manuscripts date from the 2nd and 3rd centuries, closer to the time of the original writing of the New Testament, and show that the Alexandrian tradition likely preserves a more authentic version of the New Testament text.

Burgon’s Legacy in Modern Scholarship: Despite the criticism of Burgon’s views on textual criticism, his work has not been entirely dismissed. His passion for preserving the integrity of the biblical text has made a lasting impact, particularly among those who advocate for the King James Version and the Textus Receptus. However, the scholarly consensus on textual criticism today has moved far beyond Burgon’s position. While his arguments were important for his time, modern textual critics now employ a far more comprehensive approach to manuscript evidence, which includes a broader range of manuscripts, earlier papyri, and advanced technological tools for textual analysis.

Burgon’s insistence on the infallibility of the KJV and his rejection of modern textual criticism have become increasingly irrelevant as the field of textual criticism continues to progress. His work is often viewed as a product of its time—shaped by theological presuppositions that no longer align with the broader understanding of biblical textual transmission.

The Future of Burgon’s Critiques

While modern textual criticism has largely superseded Burgon’s critiques, there are still areas where his emphasis on the preservation of Scripture resonates. For example, his emphasis on the importance of divine preservation and his critique of the “modern” critical text have made an enduring impact on those in the KJV-only movement. For these groups, Burgon’s legacy remains a touchstone for defending the use of the Textus Receptus and the KJV.

However, as scholarship changes, it is unlikely that Burgon’s approach will remain the standard in textual criticism or translation. The future of biblical translation will likely continue to embrace the wealth of manuscript evidence now available, incorporating both the Alexandrian and Byzantine text traditions in ways that seek the most faithful representation of the original text.

Conclusion: Changing Trends and New Horizons in Biblical Translation

The future of biblical translation will be shaped by ongoing advances in textual criticism, the development of new translations, and the incorporation of new discoveries in the field. While theological presuppositions will always play a role in translation choices, the continued change of textual criticism and the broader availability of manuscript evidence will likely lead to more accurate and nuanced translations.

As for Burgon’s legacy, while his influence persists among certain groups, the change in textual criticism and the discovery of new manuscripts have outpaced many of his arguments. Modern scholars, while acknowledging the historical value of Burgon’s work, recognize that his conclusions about the superiority of the Textus Receptus are no longer fully supported by current scholarship. The future of biblical translation lies in the ongoing dialogue between textual criticism, theological insight, and the pursuit of accuracy in conveying the message of Scripture.

---

Bibliography

Burgon, John William. The Revision Revised: A Reconsideration of the Rejected Textus Receptus. London: John Murray, 1883.

Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. New York: HarperCollins, 2005.

Wallace, Daniel B. The Text of the New Testament: A Student’s Handbook. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011.

King James Version of the Bible. Authorized King James Version. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1769.

Objectivity in Biblical Scholarship

As we reflect on the history and development of biblical translation and textual criticism, it becomes clear that theological objectivity is essential for scholarly integrity. Biblical scholars must approach the study of Scripture with a commitment to rigorous, evidence-based analysis, acknowledging the critical role that both tradition and manuscript evidence play in shaping our understanding of the Bible. However, it is equally important to recognize that no single theological framework should dominate the field of textual criticism or biblical translation.

John Burgon’s work, although influential, reflects a narrow theological perspective that may not fully account for the breadth of manuscript evidence now available. His insistence on the supremacy of the Textus Receptus and the King James Version ignores the richness and diversity of the early Christian manuscript tradition. Modern scholars have embraced the importance of engaging with a variety of manuscript traditions, including the Alexandrian and Western texts, in order to more accurately reconstruct the original autographs. By adhering too rigidly to one tradition, such as the Textus Receptus, scholars limit their understanding and may inadvertently distort the biblical text.

For scholars, the goal is not to defend a particular theological stance but to engage with the text itself, allowing it to speak for itself in its historical and cultural context. While theological commitments are natural, they should not overshadow or compromise the academic rigor required in textual criticism and translation. Objectivity means approaching the text as a historical document, understanding its transmission through the centuries, and interpreting it with an awareness of the diverse theological and cultural forces at play.

Burgon’s Mistakes and the Reasons Why

1. Overreliance on the Textus Receptus (TR)

Burgon’s Position: Burgon firmly defended the Textus Receptus, seeing it as the divinely preserved text of Scripture. He argued that the TR was superior to other manuscript traditions, particularly those based on earlier manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, which were used by Westcott and Hort in their critical editions.

Where He Went Wrong: Burgon’s position fails to recognise the profound differences between the TR and earlier manuscripts like those from the Alexandrian tradition. The TR and these earlier manuscripts are not easily comparable because they derive from different textual families. The Alexandrian manuscripts represent one textual stream that dates back to earlier centuries, and they are closer to the autographs of the apostles, while the TR reflects a later Byzantine tradition.

Burgon’s insistence on the TR as the definitive representation of the original text ignores the fact that the TR is a product of a later stage in the transmission of the biblical text. Modern textual criticism, relying on a broad spectrum of manuscripts, suggests that the TR includes readings that arose after the period of the earliest manuscript witnesses. For example, 1 John 5:7, found in the TR but absent in the earliest manuscripts, is a later interpolation likely influenced by theological developments. By comparing these manuscripts as if they are interchangeable, Burgon overlooks the historical and textual distinctions that make such comparisons problematic.

2. Dismissal of the Alexandrian Text Family

Burgon’s Position: Burgon was highly critical of the Alexandrian text family, particularly Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, calling them “corrupt” and “unreliable.” He argued that these manuscripts represented a departure from the true text.

Where He Went Wrong: Burgon’s outright rejection of the Alexandrian manuscripts does not take into account the vast differences in these manuscripts compared to the TR. While the TR stems from a later Byzantine tradition, the Alexandrian manuscripts represent one of the earliest forms of the text. These two families cannot be directly compared in the manner Burgon attempted because they reflect divergent textual traditions that evolved over time.

The Alexandrian manuscripts contain many early readings that align with the autographs, and scholars today recognise their significant role in preserving the original biblical text. However, comparing them to the TR, which was shaped by a different tradition, overlooks the historical and textual processes involved. The Alexandrian manuscripts were not “corrupt” but represent an early and distinct textual witness that helps shape our understanding of the New Testament. Burgon’s blanket dismissal of these manuscripts is misguided because it ignores their critical role in tracing the history of the text.

3. Failure to Acknowledge Theological Bias in Translation

Burgon’s Position: Burgon believed the KJV was divinely inspired and free from theological bias. He suggested that the translators were guided by God and that the KJV should be regarded as an infallible translation of Scripture.

Where He Went Wrong: Burgon’s view that the KJV was without theological bias overlooks the reality that the KJV translators, like all translators, were influenced by their theological context. The KJV translators were deeply committed to Reformed theology, and their translations reflect their doctrinal views, especially on issues like election and predestination.

For instance, the translation of Romans 9 and other passages dealing with God’s sovereignty and predestination is influenced by the Calvinistic convictions of the translators. The KJV translators, despite their scholarly rigour, were not immune to the theological frameworks of their time, yet Burgon failed to recognise this influence, presenting the KJV as theologically neutral. In reality, all translations—including the KJV—are shaped by the theological and historical context in which they were produced. Burgon’s claim of divine guidance that led to a purely unbiased translation is simply inaccurate.

4. Overstatement of Divine Guidance in Translation

Burgon’s Position: Burgon argued that the KJV translators were divinely guided, and that the KJV was an infallible translation of Scripture.

Where He Went Wrong: While it is true that the KJV translators were highly skilled, their work was not free from human limitations, including theological bias and historical context. The translation of the Bible is always interpretive, and no translation can escape the impact of the theological convictions held by those involved in the process.

The idea that the KJV was infallible overlooks the reality that the translators worked with the available manuscripts of their time, which were limited compared to what modern scholars have access to today. Burgon’s overstatement of divine guidance fails to recognise the complexities and human elements involved in translation. Modern translations, based on more comprehensive manuscript evidence and advanced linguistic tools, offer a more nuanced and accurate rendering of the original text than what was possible in the 17th century.

5. Failure to Engage with Advances in Scholarship

Burgon’s Position: Burgon rejected modern textual criticism and modern translations, asserting that the TR and the KJV were the only reliable texts. He dismissed advances in biblical scholarship, including discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls and early papyri.

Where He Went Wrong: Burgon’s refusal to engage with modern scholarship and new manuscript discoveries leaves him at odds with the advancements that have shaped biblical scholarship in the last century. The discovery of ancient manuscripts like the Dead Sea Scrolls and early papyri has dramatically changed our understanding of the text of the New Testament.

Modern textual criticism, by considering a broader range of manuscript evidence, including early papyri and other early witnesses, offers a more accurate reconstruction of the biblical text than what was possible during Burgon’s time. By dismissing these advances, Burgon missed the opportunity to engage with the richer, more diverse textual evidence now available. Textual scholars today recognise that the comparison between the TR and earlier manuscripts cannot be made in the same way Burgon attempted, as the textual traditions involved are fundamentally different.

---

Conclusion

Burgon’s views on the TR, the KJV, and the broader textual history of the Bible are marred by several significant oversights. He failed to account for the inherent differences between the textual families he critiqued and overestimated the role of divine guidance in the translation process. His work did not fully engage with the modern advancements in textual criticism and historical scholarship, which have provided a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of the biblical text. While Burgon’s contributions to textual debates are valuable in some respects, his insistence on the TR as the sole authoritative text and his defence of the KJV as free from bias are ultimately misguided.