Question
I am reading “Revision Revised” by John William Burgon and have a few questions. In connection with that, I have seen a ‘family tree of the manuscripts’ and wanted your thoughts. It states:
“there are two basic lines of translations, one line came through Clement’s School in Alexandria Egypt. Origen’s corrupted text on through Rome to England. In this line you have Origen’s Hexapla (150-250 AD Alexandria Egypt) to the Septuagint LXX (Greek) to the Codex (the Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus). This is the translation from which the Roman Catholic Church produces its Bible. The line then continues to the Jerome Vulgate (400 AD) to the Westcott – Hort (Greek NT 1881), and finally from it we have all the other English translations or perversions as I call them. They would be the NIV, RSV, NASV, ASV, and so on.
The other line of scripture came by way of the Syrian Church at Antioch on through North Italy to England. They originated from the Greek vulgate (Antioch Text) through the Bysantine text (150 AD), to the Erasmus Greek NT (1516 AD), Stephen’s Greek NT (1550 AD), to Bezas Greek NT (1598 AD). There were others from these such as the Tyndale Bible and the Luther’s translations. These manuscripts from this line are known as the Textus Receptus. Thus, the 1611 King James Bible was produced.” This was written by Robert T. Weaver.
Also, I have a question that is generated from “the Revision Revised”. On page 19, first paragraph, he lists the names of the ‘principle Fathers’ and he includes Origen, who I have understood to be one of the ‘bad guys’. Is this a group of ‘deceivers’? Did any of them produce translations?
Response
First of all, yes I agree with what is stated in that ‘family tree’ article, and I understand that there are really only two families or types of manuscripts: one family or type of manuscript that is the result of the propagation and preservation of God’s word in accordance with the fulfillment of all that God has promised to do, provided to do, and will do with His written word, and the second family or type of manuscript that is the result of ones deliberately tampering with God’s written word in accordance with the goals of Satan’s policy of evil against God’s word. What God says about His word and what Satan says about God’s word make it evident that there are going to be two versions of God’s word in existence: God’s pure, preserved version, and Satan’s corrupted, tampered with version. I also believe that the general line of historical development that the man sets forth in that article is correct.
Though the modern phase to the science and study of the manuscript evidence wants to say that there are about five different “families” of manuscripts or text-types, this is because the “modern” approach either outrightly denies or greatly minimizes the fact that the Bible texts are the recipients of either Divine preservation or Satanic tampering. Hence, the “modern” approach is to evaluate the evidence no differently than would be done with any popular historical document, and so for the most part accounts for differences solely on the basis of geography, time, culture, the foibles of copyists, and the like. In fact, it is interesting to see how that even among the students of the manuscripts who do acknowledge both the fact of Divine Preservation and Satanic tampering, when they write articles challenging the Westcott and Hort theory with its multifamily text ideas etc., they frequently have to deliberately avoid any reference to these two issues because they know that their colleagues will cry foul and refuse to even listen to what they have to say. Therefore, even the proponents of the multi-family idea know that if they acknowledge the truth of Divine Preservation and Satanic tampering, then their multi-family idea is destroyed and the manuscript evidence has to be divided into only two legitimate families or text-types.
Regarding Burgon’s inclusion of Origen in his list of ‘principle Fathers’ in the opening part of his book, though he includes him in that list he is not necessarily promoting him or indicating that he should be thought of as one of the ‘good guys.’ The context at this point in the work is simply one of setting forth the error of Westcott and Hort in giving undue prominence to the testimony of one or two manuscripts (”B” and “Aleph”) over all the other available testimonies, including the writings of the Fathers where they quote from the copies of the scriptures that they had before them. In this context, Burgon lists a number of the Fathers whose own writings precede “B” and “Aleph” by sometimes more than 2-3 hundred years, and whose quotations of scripture often times show places where the copies they had before them had readings that differ from “B” and “Aleph” and agree with readings contained in the later cursives, which Westcott and Hort set at nought. though Origen is a ‘bad guy,’ without a doubt, (and that may be better understood now than it was 100 years ago), and he did corrupt the scripture and provided for the propagation of his corruptions, he did of course have access to uncorrupted copies from which to make his corruptions. And some of his writings bear witness to the previous uncorrupted readings. It is this kind of evidence from him as a “Father,” and others like him, that Westcott and Hort chose to ignore and that Burgon took them to task for so doing.
Keith Blades
Enjoy The Bible Ministries
19980915 B38 B kjv