Dean Burgon's Confidence
Dr. D. A. Waite
I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
II. THE INFERIORITY OF THE
ENGLISH REVISED VERSION (1881) AND VERSIONS OF TODAY
III. THE SUPERIORITY OF THE KING JAMES
BIBLE OVER VERSIONS OF TODAY
CONCLUDING REMARKS
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
A. Correction of a Current Book.
The booklet is entitled "DEAN BURGON'S CONFIDENCE IN THE KING JAMES
BIBLE." This issue was raised in the book, The King James Only Controversy by
James White. Dr. DiVietro has answered this book in his extensive book, Anything But
the King James Bible--An Answer to The King James Only Controversy by James R.
White. It is 85 large pages and is available for a GIFT of $12.00 postpaid.
Dr. DiVietro's book was featured on our "BIBLE FOR TODAY OF THE AIR"
weekly broadcasts for about five months. These radio cassettes are also available.
One thing I want to comment about in Mr. White's book was found on page 91,
the first page of his chapter 5 that he entitles: "THE KING JAMES ONLY
CAMP." In the beginning of this chapter Mr. White mentions Dean John William
Burgon. I think Dean Burgon's views on this subject should be clarified.
B. The Quotation Itself. Mr. White
wrote as follows: "It is my opinion, many of the great scholars of the past who
have defended the Byzantine textual tradition (that includes the Textus Receptus) cannot
honestly be included in the KJV camp even though they are often cited as if they were.
Men like Dean Burgon, F.H.A. Scrivener, H.G. Hoskier all of whom were true scholars
of the first rank were not KJV only advocates. All saw the need for revision in the KJV
and in the TR as well." [James White, The King James Only Controversy, 1995, p.
91] Although Dean Burgon said that there were a few minor places in the Textus
Receptus that might be changed, he NEVER said that there was any need for changing the
text of the King James Bible. Until his death Dean Burgon was, in a very real
sense, what Mr. White calls "King James Only" in that this is the ONLY English
Bible that he used and loved. In the light of the above misleading statement, I feel
we should examine anew Dean Burgon's CONFIDENCE in the KING JAMES BIBLE.
C. My Attempt to Correct This Misstatement.
The publisher of the book The King James Only Controversy by James White, at my request,
sent me some of the galley proofs of the book before it was published. I had asked
for the quotations about me and my book, DEFENDING THE KING JAMES BIBLE.
1. The Publisher's Letter to Me.
Kevin W. Johnson, Senior Editor--Adult Nonfiction of Bethany House Publishers, wrote me as
follows on February 14, 1995: "If you feel your positions have been
misrepresented we do need you to provide us with specifics. We truly appreciate your
interests in communicating your concerns with us. . . ."
2. My Reply to the Publisher.
I wrote back seven pages of "specifics" where my "positions have been
misrepresented." One of the "misrepresentations" was when James White
wrote that, for the English version of the Bible, Dean Burgon was not one of the "KJV
ONLY ADVOCATES." In other words, Mr. White implied that Dean Burgon did not
use and recommend for others to use ONLY the KING JAMES BIBLE in his preaching and
teaching. I said on page three of my suggested corrections of Mr. White's book:
"Dean John William Burgon on the `KJV only' Camp. On the first page of
chapter 5, `The King James Only Camp,' Mr. White included `Dean Burgon' as NOT being
included in the `KJV Only' camp. If you define the term properly, as I have done in
the enclosed article (I enclosed a copy of The Dean Burgon News of June-July, 1994, and
the articles, "What is 'KJB Only'" and "Burgon--Only KJB!")
Dean Burgon would have believed in `Position #2' as I have outlined it, just as the Dean
Burgon Society and I would be. Mr. White included `Dean Burgon' in the group that
`ALL saw the need for revision of the KJV and the TR as well.' This is a `factual
error' and a `misrepresentation' of his position. . . ." Apparently nothing was done
about my protest by the publisher, because the published book contains the same
misstatement. Here is the article I sent to the editor: What Is "KJB
Only"? "For many years now, opponents of our King James Bible have hurled
epithets at those of us who have the firm conviction that our KING JAMES BIBLE (KJB) is
the most accurate and only valid translation in the English language available
today. They have been against those of us who believe that the KING JAMES BIBLE is
"God's Word, Kept Intact in English." One of the epithets is the term,
"KING JAMES ONLY." There are two meanings of this term:
(1) POSITION #1: the position that we must not only use only
the King James Bible (KJB) in English for preaching, memorization, and so on, but also
that we must not ever consult the Hebrew/Aramaic or Greek texts that underlie the
KJB. That is, we must be "KING JAMES ONLY" with no recourse to the
original language texts or any other language texts. This position is taken by those
who falsely believe that the KJB was given by VERBAL INSPIRATION BY THE HOLY SPIRIT
including the italics which, in effect, makes it a NEW REVELATION rather than merely an
accurate TRANSLATION. This position the Dean Burgon Society firmly rejects.
We make this clear in our DBS "Articles of Faith."
(2) POSITION #2: The second position is that, though we can
refer to the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek texts that underlie the KJB for further
clarification and study, we use ONLY THE KING JAMES BIBLE in our preaching, memorization,
public reading from the pulpit, Bible school literature, Bible school classrooms, Bible
Institutes, colleges, universities, seminaries, and in similar areas. This is the
position of our Dean Burgon Society. It is a defensible position, and one of which
we are not ashamed. We urge friends of the KING JAMES BIBLE not to cringe when
hearing the "smear" on the part of KJB enemies, of the term "KING JAMES
ONLY"! When it is used, we would urge you to ask those using it to
"define that term, please!" Since when is it a crime to exalt the KING
JAMES BIBLE to its supreme place in the English speaking world? Since when is it a
crime to hold that the KING JAMES BIBLE is the must accurate translation available in the
English language today? What crime is it to suspect as inferior the modern versions
of the Bible? Burgon--Only KJB! In a recent letter from a Christian leader, it
was stated, in effect, that Dean John William Burgon, for whom our DEAN BURGON SOCIETY is
named, was NOT a member of the "KING JAMES ONLY" group. Well, if you mean
POSITION #1 as outlined above, Dean Burgon certainly was NOT of that position.
However, he must assuredly was an advocate of POSITION #2! This Christian leader was
wrong in this. He went on either to state or to imply that Dean Burgon would have
used publicly an altered KING JAMES BIBLE. This simply is not true, and is, in fact
completely and totally false! Burgon first said that there could be no revision of
the KJB without first having a slightly altered Greek text which has never been undertaken
in Dean Burgon's manner, nor will it ever be thus undertaken.
1. Burgon's Admiration for the King James Bible.
Dean Burgon wrote: "It may be confidently assumed that no `revision' of
our Authorized Version, however judiciously executed, will ever occupy the place in public
esteem which is actually enjoyed by the work of the translators of 1611,--THE NOBLEST
LITERARY WORK IN THE ANGLO-SAXON LANGUAGE." [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision Revised,
p. 113]
2. Burgon's Admiration for the King James Bible
Translators. Dean Burgon also wrote: "Verily,
those men understood their craft! `There were GIANTS in those days.' . . . the
Spirit of their God was mightily upon them." [Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 196]
3. Burgon's Adherence to the King James Bible, Even
If There Were a Revision of It. He wrote: "The
method of such a performance [that is, any revision of the KJB], whether by marginal notes
or in some other way, we forbear to determine. But certainly ONLY AS A HANDMAID is
it to be desired. AS SOMETHING INTENDED TO SUPERSEDE OUR PRESENT ENGLISH BIBLE, WE
ARE THOROUGHLY CONVINCED THAT THE PROJECT OF A RIVAL TRANSLATION IS NOT TO BE ENTERTAINED
FOR A MOMENT. FOR OURSELVES, WE DEPRECATE IT ENTIRELY." [Burgon, Revision
Revised, p. 114] This certainly sounds like Dean John William Burgon would
continue to use and support "ONLY THE KING JAMES BIBLE" no matter what other
revisions of that Bible might come along during his lifetime!! For other comments by
Dean Burgon on the superiority of the King James Bible, the reader is referred to B.F.T.
#804. It is available for a GIFT of $5.50. It is entitled, "Dean John
Burgon's Prerequisites for Major Revision of the New Testament Greek Textus Receptus and
the English King James Version New Testament," by this writer. This study gives
a series of quotations on this theme taken from Burgon's excellent book, Revision Revised,
which is also available as B.F.T. #611 for a GIFT of $25.00."
Let's take a look at a few of Dean Burgon's own words and discover for ourselves his
CONFIDENCE IN THE KING JAMES BIBLE.
A. The Inferiority of the English Revised Version
(E.R.V.) of 1881 Compared to the King James Bible. Dean Burgon
wrote how the English Revised Version (E.R.V.) of 1881, was INFERIOR to the King
James Bible: "The ENGLISH (as well as the Greek) of the NEWLY `REVISED
VERSION' IS HOPELESSLY AT FAULT. It is to me simply unintelligible how a company of
Scholars can have spent TEN YEARS in elaborating such a VERY UNSATISFACTORY PRODUCT.
Their UNCOUTH PHRASEOLOGY and their JERKY SENTENCES, their PEDANTIC OBSCURITY and
their UNIDIOMATIC ENGLISH, contrast painfully with `the happy turns of expression, the
music of the cadences, the felicities of the rhythm' of our AUTHORIZED VERSION. . .
." You can see from this very clearly Dean Burgon's contempt for the English Revised
Version of 1881, and--at the same time--his love for the King James Bible! He
continued as follows: "The transition from one to the other, as the Bishop of
Lincoln remarks, is like exchanging a well-built carriage for a VEHICLE WITHOUT SPRINGS,
in which you GET JOLTED TO DEATH on a NEWLY-MENDED and rarely-traversed road. But
the "REVISED VERSION" is INACCURATE as well; exhibits DEFECTIVE SCHOLARSHIP, I
mean, IN COUNTLESS PLACES." [Burgon, REVISION REVISED, op. cit., p.
vi.] If Dean Burgon were living today, would he be critical of this new
versions of our day like the Dean Burgon Society that bears his name? I believe he
would. The English Revised Version is but one example of how he would take his stand
against the versions of our day and for the same reasons.
B. The English Revised Version Silently Revised the King
James Bible. Dean Burgon wrote: "With some slight
modifications, OUR AUTHORISED ENGLISH VERSION has been SILENTLY REVISED." That has
also been done by our modern versions. They have "silently revised" our
King James Bible.. "SILENTLY, I say, for in the margin of the English no
record is preserved of the UNDERLYING TEXTUAL CHANGES which have been introduced by the
REVISIONISTS. On the contrary. Use has been made of that margin to insinuate
suspicion and distrust in countless particulars as to the authenticity of the Text which
has been suffered to remain unaltered." [Burgon, REVISION REVISED, op. cit., p.
xxx.] Notice Dean Burgon's comment on the insinuation of "suspicion and
distrust." Isn't that what we have in the "margins" of our versions
today, "suspicion and distrust"? We have the same thing in the New
American Standard Version with its footnotes, revisions, and changes, We have it in
the New King James Version, the New International Version, the Revised Standard Version,
the New Revised Standard Version, and all the others. Yes, our Authorized, King
James Bible has been "SILENTLY REVISED." That is deceptive. The
readers of these new versions don't know that in 5,604 places the Greek text that
underlies our King James Bible (the Textus Receptus) has been altered and "SILENTLY
REVISED" by Westcott and Hort and their followers! The readers don't know that
the 5,604 places include a total of 9,970 Greek words (30 words short of 10,000) which
have either been added to the Greek text, subtracted from the Greek text, or changed in
some other way. If those people pick up one of the new versions and are not aware of
these facts, then this is certainly "SILENT REVISION" is it not? Dean
Burgon would be against the versions of today for the same reasons he was against the
competing version of his own day, the English Revised Version of 1881. He would have
just as much CONFIDENCE in the King James Bible today as he had during his lifetime!
C. The Expectation of the English Revised Version to
Supersede the King James Bible. Dean Burgon wrote: "Not
unreasonable therefore is the expectation entertained by its Authors that the `NEW ENGLISH
VERSION founded on this `NEW GREEK TEXT' IS DESTINED TO SUPERSEDE THE `AUTHORIZED VERSION'
of 1611." [Burgon, REVISION REVISED, op. cit., p. 2 That was their expectation,
and that is the expectation, we dare say, of every version and perversion that has been
produced in English since the King James Bible. May the expectation of those
authors and publishers be thwarted by our God! The new versions all want to be
"king." The New International wants to be king.
D. The English Revised Version Blotted Out "Many
Precious Words" From the King James Bible. Notice what Dean
Burgon wrote about the E.R.V.'s "blotting out precious words" of the Bible:
"We shall therefore pass on, when we have asked the REVISIONISTS in turn--HOW
THEY HAVE DARED so effectually to BLOT OUT THESE MANY PRECIOUS WORDS from the BOOK OF
LIFE, that no MERE ENGLISH READER, depending on the REVISED VERSION for his knowledge of
the Gospels, can by possibility SUSPECT THEIR EXISTENCE?" [Burgon, REVISION REVISED,
op. cit., p. 118.] Some of the "precious words" that have been "blotted
out" from the "BOOK OF LIFE" are seen in John 6:47 where the Lord Jesus
said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath
everlasting life." (John 6:47 KJB) If you look at John 6:47 in these new versions,
such as the New American Standard, New International, New King James (in the footnotes at
least), New Berkeley, Revised Standard, The New Revised, you will notice that they
"blot out the precious words," "ON ME." They all say, words to
this effect: "he that believes . . . has everlasting life." They blot out
the precious words ON ME, in many cases without even a footnote to inform you that they
are gone. The poor sinner who reads John 6:47 in these perversions will go to Hell
because he thinks just by "believing" he can have everlasting life, without the
necessity of "believing in the Lord Jesus Christ." He might
"believe" in Buddhism, in Shintoism, in Muhammadanism, in Atheism, in
Communism, in the Tooth Fairy, or several other things. This is what Dean Burgon
calls "blotting out precious words." If Dean Burgon were living today,
would he not expose and criticize these new versions just as he did the English Revised
Version of 1881, and for the same or similar reasons? Yes, he would! Would he
stand up for the King James Bible as over against all these other English versions just as
he did against the English Revised Version of 1881? Yes, he would! So far as
the English Versions, would he use and be in favor of ONLY the King James Bible?
Yes, he would--ONLY the King James Bible.
E. Comparing the King James Bible with the English
Revised Version, the "Old Is Better." Dean Burgon was
referring to the King James Bible when he said: "the OLD is better."
"Thus it happens that we never spend half-an-hour over the UNFORTUNATE PRODUCTION
BEFORE US [i.e. the E.R.V. of 1881] without exclaiming (with one in the Gospel), `THE OLD
IS BETTER.'" We can say today that in regard to every one of these new versions that
continue to appear on the market, "THE OLD IS BETTER"! And the
"OLD" we're referring to is the King James Bible! "Changes of ANY
SORT are unwelcome in such a book as the Bible; but the discovery that CHANGES HAVE BEEN
MADE FOR THE WORSE OFFENDS GREATLY." [Burgon, REVISION REVISED, op. cit., p.
144.]
F. The King James Bible Translators Were Like
"Giants" in Their Abilities. What did Dean Burgon think of
the translators of the King James Bible? He called them "giants." He
wrote: "But what SUPREMELY ANNOYS US in the work just now under review is, that
the SCHOOLBOY METHOD OF TRANSLATION already noticed is therein exhibited in CONSTANT
OPERATION throughout. It becomes OPPRESSIVE. We are never permitted to believe
that we are in the company of SCHOLARS WHO ARE ALTOGETHER MASTERS OF THEIR OWN
LANGUAGE. Their solicitude ever seems to be twofold: --(1) To exhibit a SINGULAR
INDIFFERENCE to the proprieties of English speech, while they maintain a SERVILE ADHERENCE
(etymological or idiomatic, as the case may be) to the Greek:-- (2) Right or wrong, to
PART COMPANY from WILLIAM TYNDALE and the GIANTS who gave us our `AUTHORIZED
VERSION.'" [Burgon, REVISION REVISED, op. cit., p. 155.] Does that sound like Dean
Burgon wants to part company from his King James Bible? He would take his stand with
the "giants" who gave us our Authorized Version. There was no question in
Dean Burgon's mind. The English Revised Version translators of 1881 could not hold a
candle to the "giants" who gave us the King James Bible. I believe he
would say similar things about the translators of today's versions as well. This
sounds like Dean Burgon thought his King James Bible was "exclusive" among the
English Versions, does it not?
G. The King James Bible, a "Work of Real
Genius." Notice how Dean Burgon refers to the King James Bible
as a "work of real genius": ". . . the plain fact being that the men
of 1611--above all, that WILLIAM TYNDALE 77 years before them--PRODUCED A WORK OF REAL
GENIUS; seizing with generous WARMTH the MEANING and INTENTION of the sacred Writers, and
PERPETUALLY VARYING THE PHRASE, as they felt or fancied that Evangelists and Apostles
would have varied it, had they had to express themselves in English: whereas THE MEN
OF 1881 have fulfilled their task in what can only be described as a SPIRIT OF SERVILE
PEDANTRY. The GRAMMARIAN (pure and simple) crops up everywhere. We seem never
to rise above the atmosphere of the LECTURE-ROOM, . . ." [Burgon, REVISION
REVISED, op. cit., p. 167.] Praise God for the "real genius" of the King James
Bible! Dean Burgon agreed with us of the DEAN BURGON SOCIETY on this point.
H. The King James Bible's "Grace" and
"Delightful Rhythm." Notice what Dean Burgon thought about
"the grace and delightful rhythm" of the King James Bible: "Even
this, however, is not nearly all. As TRANSLATORS, full TWO-THIRDS of the
REVISIONISTS have shown themselves SINGULARLY DEFICIENT,--alike in their CRITICAL
ACQUAINTANCE WITH THE LANGUAGE OUT OF WHICH THEY HAD TO TRANSLATE, and in their
FAMILIARITY WITH THE IDIOMATIC REQUIREMENTS OF THEIR OWN TONGUE." This is the same
charge that can be made against the New International, the New American Standard, the New
King James, and all the other English versions of modern times. "They had a
NOBLE VERSION BEFORE THEM, . . ." Does this sound like Dean Burgon was against the
King James Bible? Not at all! ". . . which they have contrived to SPOIL
IN EVERY PART. Its dignified simplicity and ESSENTIAL FAITHFULNESS, its MANLY GRACE
and its DELIGHTFUL RHYTHM, they have shown themselves alike UNABLE TO IMITATE and
UNWILLING TO RETAIN. Their QUEER UNCOUTH PHRASEOLOGY and their JERKY
SENTENCES:--their PEDANTIC OBSCURITY and their STIFF, CONSTRAINED MANNER:--their FIDGETY
AFFECTATION OF ACCURACY,--and their HABITUAL ACHIEVEMENT OF ENGLISH WHICH FAILS TO EXHIBIT
THE SPIRIT OF THE ORIGINAL GREEK;--are SORRY SUBSTITUTES for the LIVING FRESHNESS, and
ELASTIC FREEDOM, and HABITUAL FIDELITY of the GRAND OLD VERSION . . ." Praise God for
the "Grand Old Version," the King James Bible! So far as the English
Versions are concerned, Dean Burgon could have been classified by James White as
"King James Only" I suppose. In English, he used and favored ONLY the King
James Bible, and never wanted to revise its printed text! This assumption is an
error in James White's book among the scores of other errors which are mentioned in Dr.
DiVietro's book mentioned above (B.F.T. #2562). ". . . which we inherited from
our Fathers, and which as sustained the spiritual life of the Church of England, and of
all English-speaking Christians, for 350 years. . . .--the AUTHORIZED VERSION, wherever it
was possible, SHOULD HAVE BEEN JEALOUSLY RETAINED. But on the contrary. EVERY
FAMILIAR CADENCE has been DISLOCATED: the CONGENIAL FLOW of almost every verse of
Scripture has been HOPELESSLY MARRED: so many of those little CONNECTING WORDS, which give
life and continuity to a narrative, have been VEXATIOUSLY DISPLACED, that a perpetual
sense of ANNOYANCE is created. The countless MINUTE ALTERATIONS which have been
NEEDLESSLY INTRODUCED into every familiar page . . ." Some scholars have
counted over 36,000 changes in the English Revised Version of 1881 when compared to the
King James Bible of 1611. These are needless "minute alterations."
". . . prove at last as tormenting as a SWARM OF FLIES to the weary traveller on a
summer's day. . . ." I like that analogy. Don't you? Flies are pesky and
tormenting. By whatever name, flying insects are extremely bothersome to us.
". . . To speak plainly, THE BOOK HAS BEEN MADE UNREADABLE. . . . We lay the
REVISERS' volume. 'down CONVINCED THAT THE CASE OF THEIR WORK IS SIMPLY
HOPELESS." [Burgon, REVISION REVISED, op. cit., pp. 225-26]. I would say
amen to that. So far as the English Revised Version of 1881 is concerned, Dean
Burgon pronounced it "hopeless." Dean Burgon would say the same for the
various versions and perversions of our day.
I. The English Revised Version Disfigures the King James
Bible. Notice what Dean Burgon says about how the English Revised
Version of 1881 "disfigures" the King James Bible: "Had the blemishes
been capable of being reckoned up, it might have been worth while to try to remedy some of
them. . . ." Just like these new versions of today. ". . . But when,
instead of being disfigured by a FEW WEEDS scattered here and there, THE WHOLE FIELD
PROVES TO BE SOWN OVER IN EVERY DIRECTION WITH THORNS AND BRIARS; above all when, DEEP
BENEATH THE SURFACE, ROOTS OF BITTERNESS TO BE COUNTED BY THOUSANDS, ARE FOUND TO HAVE
BEEN SILENTLY PLANTED IN, which are sure to produce POISONOUS FRUIT AFTER MANY
DAYS:--under such circumstances only ONE COURSE CAN BE PRESCRIBED. LET THE ENTIRE
AREA BE PLOUGHED UP,--PLOUGHED DEEP; . . ." He took a stand against the versions and
perversions of his day. Dean Burgon, for whom our Dean Burgon Society is named,
would have been a champion of our cause were he living today. He would be standing
where we are standing for the King James Bible. He would plow under all these other
English versions that are like weeds, thorns, and thistles. He would plough deep and
be a fighter just like the rest of us. He would stand firm and tall for our King
James Bible. ". . .and let the ground be LEFT FOR A DECENT SPACE OF TIME
WITHOUT CULTIVATION. It is IDLE--worse than idle--to dream of revising, WITH A VIEW
TO RETAINING, this Revision." [Burgon, REVISION REVISED, op. cit., p. 227.] The
English Revised Version was absolutely totally unsalvageable. So are the modern
perversions.
J. The Time for Revision of the King James Bible Had not
Come. Dean Burgon said that it was not the time for the revising of
the King James Bible. Notice what he wrote: "Enough has been offered by
this time to prove that AN AUTHORITATIVE REVISION OF THE GREEK TEXT will HAVE TO PRECEDE
ANY FUTURE REVISION OF THE ENGLISH OF THE NEW TESTAMENT." [Burgon,
REVISION REVISED, op. cit., p. 124.] As mentioned above, I wrote a booklet entitled, Dean
Burgon's Pre- requisites for Major Revision of the New Testament Greek Textus Receptus and
the English King James Version New Testament. In this booklet, I analyzed, from The
Revision Revised, all of Dean Burgon's arguments, prerequisites, and requirements
necessary before any major revision of the Textus Receptus. By the time a person had
finished following every one of his prerequisites, nobody in his day (and certainly not in
our own day) would have qualified for the task of revision. Our position as a Dean
Burgon Society is to leave the Textus Receptus as it is. Either do it as Dean Burgon
suggested (which no editor of any Greek text or English Version has done) or leave it
alone. Therefore we are going to stand firm on the Textus Receptus that underlies
our King James Bible for the rest of our lives. Dean Burgon says you can't change
the English until you see if there are a few places in the Greek text that need
re-arranging. Again, it should be done as Dean Burgon has suggested, or not at all!
"Equally CERTAIN is it that FOR SUCH AN UNDER- TAKING [i.e. a `FUTURE
REVISION' of the English N.T.], THE TIME HAS NOT YET COME. `It is my honest
conviction,'-- (remarks Bp. Ellicott, the Chairman of the Revisionists,)--`that for any
AUTHORITATIVE REVISION, WE ARE NOT YET MATURE; either in BIBLICAL LEARNING or HELLENISTIC
SCHOLARSHIP.'" [Burgon, REVISION REVISED, op. cit., p. 124.] Since Bishop
Ellicott didn't believe the time had "yet come" for a revision of the King James
Bible, why did he chair the revision committee of the English Revised Version of
1881? This ERV revision committee was told not to revise the English very much and
not to change the Greek Text. They violated both of these rules in many
places. The committee changed the English of the King James Bible in about 36,000
places. They changed the Textus Receptus Greek Text that underlies the King James
Bible in 5,604 places by my actual count, including 9,970 Greek words..
K. The English Revised Version Was an Example of What
Translators Should NOT Do. Dean Burgon gave his suggestions about
what NOT to do in a translation, in the light of what was done in the English Revised
Version of 1881. This is an interesting negative example. In I Corinthians
10, God gave to New Testament believers some negative examples from the experiences of the
children of Israel. He said: "Now all these things happened unto them
for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world
are come." (1 Corinthians 10:11) God said that all these evil things
that happened upon His people of old are written for us today so that we not do evil
things as they did. Sometimes we can learn as much from a bad example as from a good
one. I believe that this is a similar example of what NOT to do in a translation of
the Bible. Dean Burgon wrote: "Their well-meant endeavours have provided
an admirable TEXT-BOOK for Teachers of Divinity,--who will henceforth instruct their
pupils to BEWARE OF THE TEXTUAL ERRORS OF THE REVISIONISTS OF 1881, as well as their
TASTELESS, INJUDICIOUS, AND UNSATISFACTORY ESSAYS IN TRANSLATION. . . ." Those who
have revised the King James Bible in modern times should also "beware of the textual
errors of the Revisionists of 1881" as well as their "translation."
This includes the revisers who worked on the New Kings James, the New International, the
New American Standard, and all the others. This English Revised Version should be
like a textbook on what errors to "beware of." Were these modern editors
aware of the English Revised Version's errors in the Greek Text? They may have been, but
they did not consider them to have been "errors." Instead they swallowed
the "textual errors" hook, line and sinker. Did the English Revised
Version editors rely heavily upon manuscripts "B" (Vatican) and Aleph
(Sinai)? Yes, they did. These two false Greek manuscripts were copied around
the 4th century A.D., maybe in 350 or 375 A.D. and were used extensively in the
ERV.
If we're going to "beware of the textual errors," would Dean Burgon advise us to
use the same corrupt copies of "B" and Aleph? today? No, he
would not. Dean Burgon would warn against using them. What have the
translators done in the New International Version? They have relied heavily upon the
same two corrupt copies. What have the translators done in the New American
Standard Version? They have relied heavily upon the same two corrupt copies.
What have the translators done in the Revised Standard Version and all the others?
They have relied heavily upon the same two corrupt copies. Dean Burgon was opposed
to both of these manuscripts ("B" and Aleph).. His book, The Revision Revised,
proves his case very clearly and carefully. The editors of the modern Bible versions
have not been on guard against "textual errors" which were made by the
Revisionists of 1881. If you have ever seen or read one of these new translations I
think you can agree that there are some "tasteless, injudicious, and unsatisfactory
essays in translation" just as Dean Burgon found in the English Revised Version of
1881. Many of these new versions do not even sound like the "Bible" to those of
us who love the King James Bible. My daughter, who lives in Florida, told me about a woman
who came into a bookstore where she was shopping. This woman asked for a
"Bible." After the saleslady showed this woman several different new
versions, the woman said, "You don't understand, I want a Bible." My
daughter said, "Excuse me, ma'am, this woman means she wants a King James
Bible. Do you have one?" The saleslady said, "Well, I think we have
a few of those in the back." When the woman saw the King James Authorized
Bible, she held it in her hand and said, "This is the Bible." ". . .
This work of theirs will discharge the office of a WARNING BEACON to as many as shall
hereafter embark on the same PERILOUS ENTERPRISE with themselves." This has not been
used by the new version editors as a "warning beacon." It is likely that
these editors have not even read the English Revised Version of 1881. It is
difficult to find anywhere now. Maybe they don't even know it exists. When I
was a student at the Dallas Theological Seminary (1948-1953), the professors didn't tell
us students there was such a man as Dean John William Burgon. They didn't tell us
there was a Textus Receptus that was different from the Westcott and Hort Greek
Text. They didn't say there was anybody who fought against this terrible text of
Westcott and Hort. The very Greek text of Westcott and Hort was put in our hands as
a textbook. We were told to read it, study it, and learn our Greek from that
text. It was their exact text. It wasn't a Nestle-Aland Text. It wasn't
a Souter's text. It wasn't a United Bible Society Text. It was a Westcott and
Hort text exactly. All the omissions, all the changes, and all the additions were
there. ". . .It will convince men of the DANGER of pursuing the SAME
ILL-OMENED COURSE: trusting to the SAME UNSKILLFUL GUIDANCE: venturing too near the same
WRECK-STREWN SHORE." [Burgon, REVISION REVISED, op. cit., pp. 231-32.]
Alas! The new versions and perversions have followed the "same unskillful
guidance." I'm convinced that many have forsaken the words of God for the words
of man. That's a "wreck-strewn shore" indeed.
III.
THE SUPERIORITY OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE OVER THE ENGLISH REVISED VERSION (1881)
AND VERSIONS OF TODAY
The abundant evidence that Dean Burgon found the King James Bible superior to the
English Revised Version of 1881 (and, by implication, superior to the various versions of
today) is found in his writings.
A. The "Great Scholars of 1611."
Dean Burgon commends the King James Bible translators as follows: "The verb
aitein confessedly means `to ask.' And perhaps no better general English equivalent could
be suggested for it. But then, IN A CERTAIN CONTEXT, "ask" would be an
INADEQUATE RENDERING: in another, IT WOULD BE IMPROPER; in a third, IT WOULD BE
SIMPLY INTOLERABLE. Of all this, THE GREAT SCHOLARS OF 1611 SHOWED THEMSELVES
PROFOUNDLY CONSCIOUS. . ." [Burgon, REVISION REVISED, op. cit., p. 190.] The
King James translators knew well the various nuances and shades of meaning of that Greek
word "to ask." It is the same Greek word, but in different contexts it has
different shades of meaning. Instead of stiffly saying "ask, ask, ask," in
three different places, the context would require sometimes "ask,"
sometimes "request" and sometimes "demand." Was Dean
Burgon in favor of the King James Bible? He certainly was. He referred to the
men who gave us that Bible as "the great scholars of 1611."
B. The King James Bible Is a "Priceless
Treasure." Dean Burgon considered the King James Bible as a
"priceless treasure." Referring to that Bible, he wrote: ". .
. It will teach FAITHFUL HEARTS . . ." This is what our King James Bible will
do. Was Dean Burgon in favor of the King James Bible? Yes. Did he want
to revise the English text of the King James Bible? No. Was he in favor of
using ONLY the King James Bible? Yes. Should he be included in James White's
chapter as favoring ONLY the King James Bible as our Dean Burgon Society does?
Yes! James White wrongfully said that Dean Burgon was in favor of "revision in
the KJB" as well as the Greek Text that underlies it. Though he thought there
might be some slight revision of the Greek Text, Dean Burgon wanted to keep the English
text of the King James Bible intact without a single change! Dean Burgon was for
ONLY the King James Bible in the pulpit as well as in the pew. He held that view up
to the day of his death in 1888. ". . . to CLING THE CLOSER TO THE PRICELESS TREASURE
which was bequeathed to them by the PIETY and WISDOM OF THEIR FATHERS. It will
dispel for ever the dream of those who have secretly imagined that A MORE EXACT VERSION,
undertaken with the boasted helps of this nineteenth century of ours, would bring to light
something which has been hitherto unfairly kept concealed or else misrepresented.
Not the least service which the Revisionists have rendered has been the proof their work
affords, HOW VERY SELDOM OUR AUTHORIZED VERSION is MATERIALLY WRONG; HOW FAITHFUL AND
TRUSTWORTHY, on the contrary, IT IS THROUGHOUT." [Burgon, REVISION REVISED, op.
cit., p. 232.]
Yes, our King James Bible is indeed a precious, "priceless treasure" that God
has given to us. We must cling to it. If we do, we shall be blessed by it.
C. The King James Bible Has "Habitual
Fidelity." Dean Burgon believed that the King James Bible had
"habitual fidelity." He wrote: "They held a NOBLE VERSION
BEFORE THEM, . ." Dean Burgon was comparing only two English versions: the King
James Version of 1611 and the English Revised Version of 1881. When a man fights and
battles against this English Revised Version of 1881 and clings to, praises, and uses ONLY
the King James Bible of 1611, what do you call that man? He's a King James Bible
man! He stands for it and he exalts it. Would James White exalt the King
James Bible like Dean Burgon? No! Would any of these New American Standard
Version men, or New International Version men, or even the New King James Version men
exalt it like Dean Burgon? No! What about the people in Bible believing
colleges and universities that USE the King James Bible in their pulpit, but in their
Greek classes, tear down the Greek textual base that underlies it (as in Bob Jones
University and other places)? Would they exalt the King James Bible with the words
used by Dean Burgon? I don't think so. ". . . which they contrived to SPOIL in
every part. Its DIGNIFIED SIMPLICITY and ESSENTIAL FAITHFULNESS, its MANLY GRACE and
its DELIGHTFUL RHYTHM, they have shown themselves alike unable to imitate and unwilling to
retain. . . . are sorry substitutes for THE LIVING FRESHNESS, and ELASTIC FREEDOM, and
HABITUAL FIDELITY OF THE GRAND OLD VERSION WHICH WE INHERITED FROM OUR FATHERS, and which
has sustained the spiritual life of the Church of England, and of all English-speaking
Christians, for 350 years. . . . the AUTHORIZED VERSION, wherever it was possible, SHOULD
HAVE BEEN JEALOUSLY RETAINED." [Burgon, REVISION REVISED, op. cit., pp.
225-26.] Dean Burgon certainly favored the King James Bible in the same measure as he
opposed the English Revised Version.
D. The Spirit of God "Was Mightily Upon" the
Translators of the King James Bible. Dean Burgon believed that God's
Spirit was upon the translators of the King James Bible. He wrote: ". . .
who does not respond gratefully to the EXQUISITE TASTE AND TACT with which
"BONDMAID" itself has been exchanged for "BONDWOMAN" by OUR
TRANSLATORS OF 1611, in verses 23, 30 and 31? . . . Verily, THOSE MEN UNDERSTOOD THEIR
CRAFT! `There were GIANTS IN THOSE DAYS.' As little would they submit to be bound by
the new cords of the Philistines as by their green withes. Upon occasion, they
could shake themselves free from either. And why? For the selfsame reason:
viz. BECAUSE THE SPIRIT OF THEIR GOD WAS MIGHTILY UPON THEM." [Burgon, REVISION
REVISED, op. cit., p. 196.] That doesn't mean that Dean Burgon thought that the Holy
Spirit of God breathed out (or inspired) the exact English words to put down (including
the italics) like Dr. Ruckman and/or his followers teach. He didn't believe that the
King James English Bible (including the italics) supersedes and takes precedence over the
Hebrew and Greek. He did not believe it was a new REVELATION, but only an accurate,
faithful TRANSLATION. Dean Burgon did believe that the Spirit of God was leading and
guiding these men that gave us our Bible. "The Spirit of God was mightily upon
them." That is a good stand to make. The KJB translators were not only
intellectually superior, but they were spiritually superior to men of the English Revised
Version. Spiritual ability is a must for all Scriptural endeavors.
E. The King James Bible Is a "Sacred Bond" to
All English-speaking People. Dean Burgon believed that the King
James Bible was a "sacred bond" between all English-speaking people. He
wrote: "Whatever may be urged in favour of BIBLICAL REVISION, it is at least
undeniable that the undertaking involves a tremendous RISK. . . ." Notice that Dean
Burgon believes that it is a "risk" to tamper with the King James Bible.
Anytime you touch something that is suitable, excellent, accurate, and "God's Word
Kept Intact in English," there is a "risk" involved. I realize that
this illustration and analogy perhaps is not exact, but there is an element of truth in
it. Uzzah wanted with all his heart to steady the Ark of God that had been placed on
the "new cart" contrary to God's express wishes. He had a motivation
that he thought was sound, sane, and sensible, but it was unscriptural. He had to
lay hands upon that holy Ark of God that was moving. He never should have put the
Ark on a new cart to start with. God said that the Ark should be carried on the
shoulders of the priests. Uzzah thought he was doing a good and noble work by
touching the Ark so it wouldn't fall over. When we touch the Bible that God has
given to us as English-speaking people, "God's Word kept intact in English," our
King James Bible, I believe, with Dean Burgon, that we take a serious
"risk." Something else is true. These translators (of the ERV and also
those of today's perversions) have touched these "precious words" of the King
James Bible. They have "blotted them out," and "silently
revised" many of these "precious words" so that few people suspect that
they are gone. The words are missing in action. Like our missing servicemen
(MIA's), we have words that are "missing in action." We have sentences
missing in action. We have verses missing in action. We have whole sections
missing in actions such as: Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53--8:11. There are twelve
verses in each of those two sections. We have a "risk." I would not
want to be in their place at the Judgement Seat of Christ if they are believing
Christians. Some of these men are undoubtedly believers. If they are believers
and are to appear before the Judgement Seat of Christ to give account of that which they
have done in their body according to what they have done whether it be good or bad, I
would not want to be in their place. I would not want to face the Lord Jesus Christ
after I had laid cruel hands on the words of the precious Scripture, destroying them,
taking from the believers, and preaching from the housetops out of the false versions of
their day. Biblical revision is a tremendous "risk" Dean Burgon
said. He was right. ". . . Our AUTHORIZED VERSION is the ONE RELIGIOUS LINK
which at present. . ." He was writing in 1883. ". . . binds together NINETY
MILLIONS of English-speaking men scattered over the earth's surface. . . ." There are
many more millions of English-speaking people today. The King James Bible still
binds us today. Do you think that the NIV is ever going to bind millions and
millions of English-speaking people? Do you think it's going to be the New American
Standard or the New King James that will bind all these millions together? Versions
have come and gone. The English Revised Version of 1881 cannot even be bought,
except in a second hand book shop if you can find one that has it. They have
stopped publication. The American Standard Version of 1901, which is the American
counterpart of the English Revised Version of 1881, is out of print as far as we
know. It won't be long until these other versions have disappeared as well.
Take a look at all the old ones down through the century. It is hard to buy a good
book that is more then four or five years old. When the publishers stop making money
on a book, they stop reprinting it. The same is true with the Bibles. They
come and go. ". . . Is it reasonable that so UNUTTERABLY PRECIOUS, so SACRED A
BOND should be endangered, for the sake of representing certain words more
accurately,--here and there translating a tense with greater precision,--getting rid of a
few archaisms? . . ." Dr. Bob Doom, President of the Global Bible Society, located in
North Carolina, needs our prayers. For many years now, he has been working to
give us a special edition of the King James Bible. The text will be unaltered, but
the few words that may be outmoded, a little different, or hard to understand will be
clarified in the margin. This will enable the average reader to unlock all the
treasures of the Word of God for himself. Pray for him. He has already spent
$10,000 on this project. He said he's got the Greek words done and at least part of
it done in English from the New Testament (Matthew to Revelation). He is trying to
get out something for the Gospel of John by the end of 1995 if possible. We don't
need to get rid of a few archaisms. Just leave the words alone and put the
clarifications in the margins. This is not like the new versions that change the
words right in the text of the Bible. We should not endanger the unutterable
precious "sacred bond" of the King James Bible for any of these new versions.
". . . It may be CONFIDENTLY ASSUMED THAT NO 'REVISION' OF OUR AUTHORIZED VERSION,
HOWEVER JUDICIOUSLY EXECUTED, WILL EVER OCCUPY THE PLACE IN PUBLIC ESTEEM WHICH IS
ACTUALLY ENJOYED BY THE WORK OF THE TRANSLATORS OF 1611--THE NOBLEST LITERARY WORK IN THE
ANGLO-SAXON LANGUAGE." [Burgon, REVISION REVISED, op. cit., p. 113.]
"Ever" is a long time, isn't it. Do you think that holds for the year
of 1995? I believe it does. Do you believe Dean Burgon is for ONLY the
King James Bible? Do you believe that is a misstatement in The King James Only
Controversy book?
F. No "Rival Translation" Should Ever Take the
Place of the King James Bible. Was Dean Burgon in favor of a
revision of the text of the King James Bible? If so, how would he advise that it be
done? Dean Burgon did not want to have any "rival translation" in the
English language to compete with the King James Bible. He wrote: "To be
brief, . . ." Dean Burgon was never brief. The BIBLE FOR TODAY has reprinted
five of Dean Burgon's books on textual matters. The Dean Burgon Society has decided
to reprint in real book-type form of The Last Twelve Verses of Mark by Dean Burgon.
We had a committee meeting at supper time and we decided on that book as a beginning
project. Dean Burgon was never brief. He wrote five books: (1) The Revision
Revised, (2) The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, (3) The Traditional Text, (4) Causes of
Corruption, and (5) Inspiration and Interpretation. These five books make up almost
2,000 pages. Dean Burgon's biography is almost 1,000 pages. This makes a
total of about 3,000 pages we have put back into print either by or about Dean
Burgon. In referring to any study edition of the King James Bible, he wrote:
". . . --As a COMPANION IN THE STUDY and FOR PRIVATE EDIFICATION: as a Book OF
REFERENCE FOR CRITICAL PURPOSES, especially in respect of DIFFICULT AND CONTROVERTED
PASSAGES: . . ." Notice, this was for a limited purpose. It was to be used
"in the study" and for "private edification," and not for church
services or general use at all. ". . . --we hold that a REVISED EDITION OF THE
AUTHORIZED VERSION OF OUR ENGLISH BIBLE (IF EXECUTED WITH CONSUMMATE ABILITY AND
LEARNING,) That is a big "if." Do you believe that these new versions and
perversions have been executed with consummate ability and learning? I do not.
". . . would at any time be a WORK OF INESTIMABLE VALUE. . . . The METHOD of such a
performance, whether BY MARGINAL NOTES . . ." As mentioned above, this is what Dr.
Bob Doom is trying to do with his special edition of the King James Bible. He will
have a marginal notes with the meanings of a few words that have changed their meanings
somewhat over the years. There are only five to six hundred such words since
1611. We have almost 800,000 words in our English King James Bible. To have
only five to six hundred words that have changed their meaning slightly since 1611 is a
minute percentage indeed. ". . . or in SOME OTHER WAY, we forbear to
determine. . . . But certainly ONLY AS A HANDMAID is it to be desired. . . ." What is
a handmaid? We would call her a "maid" today. If the maid or
servant starts taking over the house, she turns into something other then a maid. We
have had some who have tried this. We must know the difference between a handmaid
and the lady of the house. You better treat the lady of the house like the lady of
the house and not like a handmaid. When you have your "priceless
treasure," our King James Bible, you HAVE the Lady of the house. You better
not treat her as a handmaid by using the new versions and perversions. ". . .
As something INTENDED TO SUPERSEDE OUR PRESENT ENGLISH BIBLE, we are THOROUGHLY CONVINCED
that the project of a RIVAL TRANSLATION IS NOT TO BE ENTERTAINED FOR A MOMENT. For
ourselves, WE DEPRECATE IT ENTIRELY." [Burgon, REVISION REVISED, op. cit., pp.
113-14. Dean Burgon did not believe that ANYTHING should "supersede our present
English Bible." Which was that? It was the King James Bible. As
for have a "rival translation" for the King James Bible, Dean Burgon
"deprecated it entirely." Is there any other language that could be
introduced to make it any clearer that for Dean John William Burgon, there was ONLY one
English Bible, and that was the King James Bible!
We have in the name of our "Dean Burgon Society," the name of Dean John
William Burgon, a man who unequivocally not only stood against the false version of his
day (the English Revised Version), but also stood in favor of the King James Bible of his
day. The King James Bible is now 384 years old. The same arguments used
against this grand old Bible in Dean Burgon's day are used today, such as: "Oh,
my, isn't the King James Bible too antiquated? We can't understand it.
Don't we need something new and fresh?" Dean Burgon stuck firmly to his King
James Bible. We ask the question again. Did Dean Burgon have confidence in his
King James Bible? He certainly did. We want, as a Dean Burgon Society, to show
forth and radiate to those around us, Christians and non-Christians alike, that we do have
confidence both in our King James Bible and the Greek and Hebrew texts that underlie it.
I always say on every one of our radio broadcasts, whether it is the five minute daily
broadcast Monday through Friday or our thirty minute weekly broadcast, "We're
building Bible confidence, confidence in the King James Bible, because the King James
Bible is the Bible for Today." My friends, the King James Bible is the Bible
for today. It was the Bible for yesterday. And it will be the Bible for
tomorrow. We praise God that we had a Dean John William Burgon who stood together
with us on this issue. We would both agree that the King James Bible is "THE
NOBLEST LITERARY WORK IN THE ANGLO-SAXON LANGUAGE"!! We would also join Dean
Burgon in his statement concerning our King James Bible (if you would permit me to repeat
it once again):
"We are THOROUGHLY CONVINCED that the project of a RIVAL TRANSLATION IS NOT TO BE
ENTERTAINED FOR A MOMENT. For ourselves, WE DEPRECATE IT ENTIRELY"!!
The author of this booklet, Dr. D. A. Waite, received a B.A. (Bachelor of Arts) in
classical Greek and Latin from the University of Michigan in 1948, a Th.M. (Master of
Theology), with high honors, in New Testament Greek Literature and Exegesis from Dallas
Theological Seminary in 1952, an M.A. (Master of Arts) in Speech from Southern Methodist
University in 1953, a Th.D. (Doctor of Theology), with honors, in Bible Exposition
from Dallas Theological Seminary in 1955, and a Ph.D. in Speech from Purdue University in
1961. He holds both New Jersey and Pennsylvania teacher certificates in Greek and
Language Arts.
He has been a teacher in the areas of Greek, Hebrew, Bible, Speech, and English for
over thirty-five years in nine schools, including one junior high, one senior high, three
Bible institutes, two colleges, two universities, and one seminary. He served his
country as a Navy Chaplain for five years on active duty; pastored two churches; was
Chairman and Director of the Radio and Audio-Film Commission of the American Council of
Christian Churches; since 1971, has been Founder, President, and Director of THE BIBLE FOR
TODAY; since 1978, has been President of the DEAN BURGON SOCIETY; has produced over 700
other studies, booklets, cassettes, or VCR's on various topics; and is heard on
both a five-minute daily and thirty-minute weekly radio program IN DEFENSE OF TRADITIONAL
BIBLE TEXTS, presently on 25 stations. Dr. and Mrs. Waite have been married since
1948; they have four sons, one daughter, and, at present, eight grandchildren.
|
