Matthew 10:8 - raise the dead - Burgon flip

Steven Avery

Administrator
Facebook - Textus Receptus Academy
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/2785542114870993/?comment_id=3015574101867792

Btw, Burgon later considered the evidence close to even, and you can say he flipped on the verse.

Traditional Text
http://books.google.com/books?id=ajQ1AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA41

Facebook - Pure Bible
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/2785542114870993/?comment_id=3015574101867792

The other possible Burgon flip I know is Matthew doxology,

========================================


https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/2785542114870993/?comment_id=3015574101867792

Burgon flip
.
Matthew 10:8 (AV)
Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead,
cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.

Sawbones and Euthymius on Burgon
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...even-more-1-john-5-7-nonsense-t6143-s150.html

While Burgon oppiosed "raise the dead" in

Revision Revised
http://books.google.com/books?id=nXkw1TAatV8C&pg=PA108

And

Causes of the Corruption
http://books.google.com/books?id=ye1JAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA172#

In an interesting section in

Traditional Text
https://books.google.com/books?id=fX9CAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA51

Burgon actually sort of approves the text, after a twisting and turning analysis. Read p. 40 and 51-53

Burgon falls into one of the common textcrit weaknesses here, thinking that the inclusion/omission analysis is just like alternate variants.

The phrase is clearly scripture.

=============

M. M. R., Matthew Rose, endorsed the Euthymius error. above.However, he gets a nod for actually thinking and speaking respectfully, very rare on BVDB:

MMR
"Beyond this, historical insight can sometimes be drawn from their testimony, which again, Burgon paid close attention to. (This is what I think Mr. Avery is trying to point out.)

In some of these cases Burgon believed that the testimony of various revered ancient Father(s) was of paramount importance, so Avery does have a point."

" .... My statement:(This is what I think Mr. Avery is trying to point out.)

Was in regards to the contents of the whole paragraph, especially: "...each Patristic quotation was given proper acknowledgment, and their respective weight applied. These would naturally add "number", "continuity", and more importantly "antiquity" to offset the hyper focus that was (and oftentimes still is) given to the age of א/B primarily."

==

Thank you, MMR, for approaching the topic sensibly.

" technically speaking, Burgon was Majority Everything--for his object was to follow the *most* evidence; MSS, Versions, Fathers and internal considerations in every instance. Robinson is more nuanced in his methodology, and it would take a bit of time to work out the differences."

This is true, however, he seemed to have one major failling, viewing omission/inclusion the same as an alternate variant. It is virtually impossible for an interpolation to take over various different language lines as well as early church writers

As for Maurice Robinson (followed by Borland) remember, their methodology starts as straight nose-counting. Only in that mixed range where no variant is over 70% do they even look at other evidences. And there is no particular methodology used in those cases.

At times, Maurice has acknowledged this is essentially a fideistic approach, the pure word of God could not leave the Greek sources.

Contra the Hortian textual apostasy, men like Maurice Robinson, Jonathan Borland and even James Snapp can be very helpful, but their systems are essentially nothings.

==============

Heavenly witnesses, Acts 8:37 and Burgon placed on another page.

==============
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Luke 4:8 (AV)
And Jesus answered and said unto him,
Get thee behind me, Satan:
for it is written,
Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God,
and him only shalt thou serve.


Luke 4:8 looks like another Burgon flip.

LaParola - Luke 4:8
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php?rif1=49&rif2=4:8

Laparola.jpg


A Treatise on the Pastoral Office

S. Luke’s history of the Temptation (iv. 8.) contains five words which some ancient copyist must have inserted from remembering too well the parallel place in S. Matth. iv. 10 ,and confounding it with the language of S. Matth. xvi. 23.

Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
1621762319967.png

 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
And Warfield noticed Burgon flips:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bxh3NXdr4NYmQXNtSnBLZWVKZDg/view

This was noted here:
https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2016/05/warfields-review-of-westcott-hort.html

And this discusses more possible Burgon FLIPS!

nor is it merely that they reopen the question as to the right reading in a number of very important passages of Scripture, and sometimes present considerations which cast doubt upon or reverse previous decisions — as we think is the case in a number of instances, as for example in

Acts xx. 24; Mark vi. 22; Matt, xxvii. 17; Titus ii. 5
(see Vol. II. pp. 28, 32, 54, 65).

Acts 20:24

https://books.google.com/books?id=ye1JAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA28

Mark 5:22
https://books.google.com/books?id=ye1JAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA32

Matthew 27:17
https://books.google.com/books?id=ye1JAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA54

Titus 2:5
https://books.google.com/books?id=ye1JAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA65
 
Top