Heuer; An Evaluation Of John W Burgons Use Of Patristic Evidence, E-book, do posegregowania
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
JETS
38/4 (December 1995) 519–530
AN EVALUATION OF JOHN W. BURGON’S
USE OF PATRISTIC EVIDENCE
MARK H. HEUER*
Undoubtedly John W. Burgon, Dean of Chichester, was a Christian gen-
tleman and scholar. In fact Kenneth W. Clark places Dean Burgon along-
side Tischendorf as a textual scholar.
1
Burgon compiled an astounding index
of Scripture quotations from the Church fathers totaling 86,589. It resides
in the British Museum but unfortunately has never been published, leaving
these patristic citations inaccessible for critical study.
2
Burgon held what is
at least a reasonable position in that he accepted only the inspiration of the
apostolic autographs and not the inerrancy of the Textus Receptus edition
or any version, including the KJV. For example, he does not defend the KJV
reading of Acts 8:37 and 1 John 5:7, which do not appear in any credible
Greek MSS.
3
Burgon’s mission was to use his massive amount of patristic
evidence to prove the inferiority of the Alexandrian and Western text types
and the MSS that primarily support them, while defending the superiority
and authority of the “Majority” or Byzantine text type, from which the Tex-
tus Receptus was compiled and the KJV eventually translated. Although all
MS text types present all the fundamental doctrines of orthodox Christianity,
Burgon unfortunately equates the debate over NT text types with the mod-
ernistic controversies that began to surface in his day.
4
Since Burgon is the
source many modern Majority Text defenders look to for their methodology,
it is helpful to evaluate the problems with Burgon’s use of patristic evidence
more speci˜cally.
* Michael Heuer is a United States Air Force chaplain at Buckley Air National Guard Base
and lives at 18922 East Kent Circle, Aurora, CO 80013.
1Ù
See
New Testament Manuscript Studies
(ed. M. Parvis and A. P. Wikgren; Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago, 1950) 9.
2Ù
Burgon does cite patristic references throughout his key works that have been published:
The Revision Revised
(1883; Paradise: Conservative Classics, reprint 1977);
The Last Twelve
Verses of the
Gospel According to Saint Mark
(1871; Ann Arbor: Sovereign Grace Book Club,
reprint 1959);
The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text
of the Holy Gospels
(London:
George Bell, 1896). E. Miller was a supporter of Burgon who authored a work espousing the
Majority Text view:
A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament
(London: George Bell,
1886).
3Ù
Burgon mentions 1 John 5:7 in
The Revision Revised
on p. 483 but does not defend its au-
thenticity. He does not deal with Acts 8:37 at all and omits it from his Scripture index of well
over 500 passages, which he does defend and explain.
4Ù
See E. F. Hills, “The Magni˜cent Burgon,”
Which Bible?
(ed. D. O. Fuller; Grand Rapids:
Grand Rapids International, 1978) 87.
This page run one pica short
520
JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY
I. A PRESUPPOSITIONARY APPROACH
1.
Theological assumption: divine preservation of one
text type
. Through-
out his works Burgon seems to labor under certain assumptions that cloud
the objectivity of his arguments. First, he begins with the assumption that
God has specially preserved the true NT text through the majority of manu-
scripts in use through the ages of the Christian Church, an assumption not
supported in the NT data on inspiration and inerrancy.
5
Besides being un-
Biblical, this view of Burgon never faces the insurmountable problem of how
the thousands of diˆerences that exist even among Byzantine manuscripts
could be reconcilable with this kind of divine textual preservation.
Next, based on his view of preservation, Burgon contends that the
Majority Text (which he usually calls the “traditional text”) preserves the
reading of the original NT except for a few rare instances (which should,
incidentally, cast some doubt on the entire theory). On this basis he sug-
gests that orthodox Christians should defend “traditional” readings.
6
Again,
Burgon fails to recognize and resolve the problem of which “traditional”
text MSS preserve the true text in the many instances in which they diˆer
from one another.
2.
Consequent bias against
other text types
. Burgon’s theological pre-
suppositions as to how God preserved his infallible Word lead him from the
very beginning of his key work to manifest a bias that detracts from the
obvious depth of the research he has done. He refers to the Westcott-Hort
text underlying the 1881 English Revised Version (ERV) as “the systematic
depravation of the underlying Greek” which he says is “a poisoning of the
River of Life at its sacred source.”
7
Burgon thinks the traditional text is
“the imperilled letter of God’s Word.”
8
He charges that “the Old Latin and
the two Egyptian Versions are constantly observed to conspire in error.”
9
Frequently he emotionally attacks the quality of the most ancient uncial ma-
nuscripts in existence, calling them “outrageously depraved documents.”
10
In a later attack on the early uncials he spares few words:
We venture to assure him [Bishop Ellicott of the ERV translation committee],
without a particle of hesitation, that Aleph B D are
three of the most scan-
dalously corrupt
copies extant
:—exhibit
the most shamefully mutilated
texts
5Ù
See chap. 5, “Bibliology and New Testament Citations,” in M. H. Heuer,
New Testament
Textual Variants and the Bibliology of the Church Fathers to A.D. 450: An Historical and Theo-
logical Contribution to the Modern English Controversy
(dissertation; Bob Jones University, 1988).
6Ù
See J. W. Burgon,
The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
Vindicated and Established
(ed. E. Miller; London: George Bell, 1896) 29–30.
7Ù
Burgon,
Revision
vi.
8Ù
Ibid. xvii.
9Ù
Ibid. xxii-xxiii.
10Ù
Ibid. xix. On p. 15 he speaks of “the
depraved text
of codices Aleph A B C D,—especially of
Aleph B D” (italics his). Perhaps Burgon does not consider uncial A “especially” depraved be-
cause of the fact that it is historically the earliest example of a partially Byzantine text in the
existing MS evidence.
This spread run one half pica short
AN EVALUATION OF JOHN W. BURGON’S USE OF PATRISTIC EVIDENCE
521
which are anywhere to be met with:—have become, by whatever process (for
their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of
fabricated readings
, ancient
blunders
, and
intentional
perversions of
Truth
,—which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of God.
11
Because of his obvious predilection for the Byzantine text and against all
other text types, Burgon tends to minimize the conclusions of other equally
conservative scholars who disagree with him.
Benjamin B. War˜eld was an American contemporary of Burgon who at
least equaled him in his scholarship, theological conservatism, and opposi-
tion to rationalistic, liberal higher criticism. War˜eld, however, held textual
views directly opposed to Burgon’s. Rather than defending all the readings
in one text type
a priori
, War˜eld agreed with the Westcott-Hort approach
of choosing the correct reading variant by variant.
12
Disagreeing with Bur-
gon’s partiality to the Byzantine text, War˜eld notes that the textual ten-
dencies of the ante-Nicene fathers are primarily Western and Alexandrian
rather than Byzantine:
The Ante-Nicene patristic citations are prevailingly Western; this is true of
those of Marcion, Justin, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Methodius, Eusebius, and even
to some extent of Clement of Alexandria and Origen. A large non-Western pre-
Syrian [i.e. Alexandrian] element is found also, however, in the Alexandrian
fathers, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Dionysius, Peter, and also in a less
degree in Eusebius and others.
13
War˜eld further observes that the post-Nicene fathers begin to prefer the
Syrian (Byzantine) text, which concurs historically with the rise of a con-
sistent Byzantine text during the fourth century.
The Post-Nicene fathers generally present a Syrian text in their citations, al-
though Cyril of Alexandria, Apollinaris, . . . and less markedly Epiphanius, and
even John of Damascus, are to greater or less extent exceptions to this rule.
14
While the majority of the ante-Nicene fathers (who are most signi˜cant
in a study of early development of the text) tend to prefer one text type,
there is no doubt that they use a mixture of texts, as War˜eld implies. For
example, Bruce Metzger notes that “in the
Stromata
Clement’s quotations
of Matthew and John are twice as often from the Egyptian (i.e., Alexan-
drian) text as from the Western text.”
15
Even E. F. Hills admits that in
John 1–14 Origen largely uses an Alexandrian text.
16
11Ù
Ibid. 16 (italics his). Compare Burgon’s sweeping statement that Clement of Alexandria’s
early text of Mark 10:17–31 is the foulest text imaginable (p. 328).
12Ù
See B. B. War˜eld,
Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament
(London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1896).
13Ù
Ibid. 169.
14Ù
Ibid.
15Ù
B. Metzger,
The Text of the New Testament
(2d ed.; New York: Oxford University, 1968) 214
n. 1. Metzger points out that this impression of Clement’s mixed text is based on research done
by R. J. Swanson in
The
Gospel Text of Clement of Alexandria
(dissertation; Yale University,
1956).
16Ù
Introduction to Burgon,
Twelve Verses
58.
522
JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY
II. PROBLEMS CONCERNING THE ACTUAL PATRISTIC CITATIONS
1.
Use of noncritical texts
. Since few patristic critical texts were avail-
able in the 1800s when Burgon wrote, he was forced through no fault of his
own to use noncritical texts. Kenyon observes that Burgon’s patristic “ref-
erences are to comparatively uncritical texts of the Fathers (generally those
in Migne).”
17
Kenyon summarizes the problem well:
In the ˜rst place, the true text of the writer in question has to be ascertained,
just as the text of the Bible or of the classical authors has to be ascertained,
by the comparison of authorities. The texts of the Fathers, as they have gen-
erally been read until recently in the editions of the Benedictines or Migne’s
Patrologia
, were based (like the received text of the New Testament itself )
upon comparatively few and late manuscripts.
18
Gordon Fee a¯rms that Burgon’s lack of access to trustworthy critical texts
of the Church fathers makes the patristic support for his theory ineˆectual.
J. W. Burgon is often praised by his followers for his monumental index of
patristic citations [over 80,000], deposited in the British Museum. But many of
these as they appear in his
The Traditional
Text of the Holy Gospels
(London,
1896) are useless because they re˘ect not the fathers’ texts but the conforma-
tion of that text to the ecclesiastical text of the Middle Ages.
19
Wilbur Pickering, one of Burgon’s more scholarly modern followers, re-
fers to the problem of noncritical patristic editions as a mere “quibble.”
20
An example of the diˆerence a critical patristic text can make appears in
the list of patristic references Burgon uses in his support for the reading
“God” rather than the earlier “he who” in 1 Tim 3:16. One of the many
patristic references he cites is Ign.
Eph
. 7.2. Burgon quotes the pertinent
phrase from Ignatius as follows:
en sarki genomenos theos
(“God coming in
˘esh”). If Burgon can prove that Ignatius de˜nitely quotes 1 Tim 3:16 ac-
cording to the Majority Text, it would be a signi˜cant piece of evidence for
17Ù
F. G. Kenyon,
Handbook to the Textual
Criticism of the New Testament
(2d ed.; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951) 244 n. 1.
18Ù
Ibid. 243.
19Ù
G. D. Fee, “Modern Textual Criticism and the Revival of the
Textus Receptus
,”
JETS
21
(March 1978) 27 n. 32. This by no means implies that Burgon’s patristic citations for the Byzan-
tine text are wrong in every case. For example, at John 17:24 the earliest available NT Greek MSS
(
a
B D W) read
ho ded
o
kas
moi
(literally “that which you have given me”) while the Majority Text
reads
hous ded
o
kas moi
(“the ones you have given me”). In this case Clement of Alexandria (
The
Instructor
1.8), according to Barnard’s critical text, reads
hous
along with other Church fathers,
disagreeing with the earliest Greek MSS extant today. The interpretation of the passage is not ne-
cessarily aˆected, and Metzger thinks the original reading must have been
ho
, which would likely
have been smoothed out grammatically to the easier reading
hous
. See B. Metzger,
A Textual
Com-
mentary on the Greek New Testament
(3d ed.; New York: United Bible Societies, 1975) 250. Also
see P. M. Barnard,
The Biblical Text of Clement
of Alexandria
(Cambridge: Cambridge University,
1899) 61; Burgon,
Revision
217–218. F. C. Burkitt, in the introduction to Barnard’s critical text,
notes that the apparent agreement of Clement with the Textus Receptus in the John 17:24–26
passage is something of a quirk. He writes: “The length and general accuracy of Clement’s citation
of this passage . . . might lead some [such as Burgon] to build on it more than it can legitimately
be made to bear” (p. xvii).
20Ù
W. N. Pickering,
The
Identity of the New Testament Text
(Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1977) 69.
AN EVALUATION OF JOHN W. BURGON’S USE OF PATRISTIC EVIDENCE
523
the originality of this text since Ignatius wrote only about a decade after the
apostle John (around AD 105–110).
This is, however, not the case at all. First, this passage in Ignatius deals
with Christology in general, and Ignatius is making a general statement
drawn from Christology. Ignatius does not mention Paul’s epistle to Timo-
thy in this context, and there is no evidence that he is referring to 1 Tim
3:16 at all. For this reason it is not valid for Burgon to use such a statement
as de˜nite proof for whatever reading this Church father happened to have
in his scroll at 1 Tim 3:16.
21
For our purposes here, however, there is a second problem with Bur-
gon’s use of Ignatius to support the “traditional” reading. Burgon’s quota-
tion of Ignatius at least sounds remotely similar to 1 Tim 3:16. But
Kirsopp Lake has produced a critical text by using earlier patristic manu-
scripts and comparing the existing MSS of the apostolic fathers, including
Ignatius. Lake’s critical edition disagrees with Burgon’s quotation of Igna-
tius and reads
en anthr
o
p
o 4
theos
(“[who is] God in man”).
22
Again, since
there is no indication at all that Ignatius is quoting 1 Tim 3:16, we cannot
logically construe even from the critical text reading that Ignatius reads
“God” there. He merely makes a general Christological statement on the
deity of Christ. Yet it is signi˜cant that the critical text moves Ignatius’
phraseology here further away from the Majority Text by omitting
en sarki
.
This is clearly an example in which a critical text of a Church father’s
writings can diˆer from the noncritical text Burgon uses, thereby moving
a reading away from the Majority Text readings—if indeed Ignatius was
thinking of 1 Tim 3:16 at all.
2.
Vague,
incomplete footnotes
. Due to the character of Burgon’s foot-
noting it is extremely di¯cult for modern readers personally to check the
patristic references in his various published works. When referring to a fa-
ther to support the Majority Text, Burgon normally cites only a page num-
ber or volume and page number from the noncritical edition of the father’s
work he happens to have used.
23
Occasionally Burgon’s works refer to page
numbers from a speci˜c editor’s issue of a Church father’s writings. Even
then, however, they are noncritical editions that were perhaps popular in
Burgon’s day but no longer in print or easily accessible for examination
today.
24
Only rarely does Burgon cite the actual patristic work by name so
that modern readers can easily ˜nd the reference in more modern critical
patristic editions and verify the accuracy of Burgon’s evidence. In the rare
21Ù
Further examples of this kind of mistreatment of patristic evidence by Burgon are listed
later in the article.
22Ù
The Apostolic Fathers
(LCL; 2 vols.; ed. K. Lake; Cambridge: Harvard University, 1912–1913)
180. In a footnote Lake explains that some patristic MSS follow the reading favored by Burgon.
23Ù
For examples of this kind of incomplete footnoting see Burgon,
Revision
91, 123, 219, 356;
Causes
105, 219.
24Ù
Cf. e.g. Burgon’s reference to an editor of Clement of Alexandria by the name of Potter in
Revision
327. He customarily gives no publication information that would help a modern reader
follow the patristic citations he refers to.
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]