FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
1998 TOPIC: Who was Dean John William Burgon? What did he do to defend our Bible?
in 1000 - 2000 words)
CLOSING DATE: May 18, 1998 Postmark
"We believe that the study of this subject will prove profitable to our students. We have seen how clearly students have written in the past."
Further Details concerning Prizes, sources of information, etc. may be had by contacting:
High School Essay Contest
17829 Woodcrest Rd.
Hagerstown, MD 21740
THE GRACEWAY BIBLE SOCIETY presents the winners with beautiful leather Bibles. We are grateful to God for this opportunity to be part of this effort to encourage young people in Bible study and research.
-----------------------------------------------------
SECOND PLACE WINNER IN THE
THE 11th DAVID O. FULLER MEMORIAL ESSAY CONTEST
DAVID OTIS FULLER MEMORIAL ESSAY CONTEST
SPONSERED BY: Rev. & Mrs. Paul Reno
Hagerstown, Maryland USA
THE WINNER IS
EMILY SEWELL
MICHIGAN USA
May 18, 1998
CONGRADULATIONS EMILY
=====================================================
DŁAN JOHN WILLIAM BURGON AND HIS DEFENSE OF OUR BIBLE
Thesis: The purpose of this paper is to tell who Dean John William Burgon was and what he did to defend the Bible.
I. Early life
A. Family
B. Education
II. Adult life
A. College
B. Explorations for Scripture
C. Publications
III. Defense of Mark
A. Manuscript Evidence
B. Quotations of Church Fathers
IV. Contributions
DEAN JOHN WILLIAM BURGON AND HIS DEFENSE OF OUR BIBLE
Dean John William Burgon, an adamant defender of our Bible, was born on August 21, 1813, in Greece. His father was an English merchant in Turkey and his mother was of Greek and Austrian descent. 'Edward Hills said that "It was from this foreign blood, no doubt, that Burgon derived his warm and enthusiastic nature, not typically English, which expressed itself in lively literary style..."
Burgon was a high church Anglican who remained unmarried. He was taught at home by his mother, then attended Oxford when he was thirty. Although he began his studies later in life, Burgon was an intelligent man, well-versed in Greek, Latin, Scripture, and writings by the Church Fathers. From Oxford, Burgon received his BA in 1845 and his MA in 1848. Burgon spent the majority of his life at Oxford, where he was first a student, then Fellow of Oriel College, Vicar of St. Mary's, Gresham Professor of Divinity, and finally Dean of Chichester.
Burgon attended Oxford at a time when many people were bringing arguments against the Traditional Text and its validity, saying that it was inadequate as a basis for translation. Burgon knew the Bible to be the infallible Word of God, so he began studying every manuscript he could find in order to be able to knowledgeably defend the Bible and answer its critics. Burgon once said that he gave "to Textual criticism the whole of his time." It has been said of him that he "freely sacrificed health, ease, relaxation, even necessary rest, to this one object, has made it his business to acquire such an independent mastery of the subject as shall qualify him to do battle successfully for the imperilled letter of God's Word." Edward Hills said, "Throughout his career he was steadfast in his defense of the Scriptures as the infallible Word of God and strove with all his power to arrest the modernistic currents which during his lifetime had begun to flow within the Church of England."
Burgon authored numerous books and treatises on passages from the Bible. One of his most famous defenses was on the last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark. This was perhaps the apex of his work and has to this day remained unanswered. He wrote this defense for the reason "of which the declared object was to vindicate those verses against certain critical objectors, and to establish them by an exhaustive argumentative process." In later years, Burgon decided to do for the entire New Testament what he had done for Mark.
He died in 1888 in the midst of his research, but Edward Miller collected his writings and published The Traditional Text and Causes of Corruption. The Traditional Text, which is the subject for the first book, is in reality the Byzantine Text which was derived from a diligent comparison of approximately 4,489 extant Greek manuscripts. Burgon also wrote The Revision Revised (1883), which was a compilation of articles written for a magazine. As Burgon stated, this book was "to defeat the mischievous attempt which was made in 1881 to thrust upon the church and Realm a Revision of the Sacred Text, which . . . . I am thoroughly convinced, and am able to prove, is untrustworthy from beginning to end."
Much of Burgon's tenacity stemmed from two verses -Matthew 5:18: "Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law until all be fulfilled"; and Luke 16:17: "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, then one tittle of the law to fail." If God Himself placed so much emphasis upon such minute detail, how can men imagine whole portions of the Bible to be incorrect? Burgon strove to prove that God's Word is complete and infallible. He said "either the whole Bible is inspired, the words as well as the sentences, the syllables as well as the words, the letters as well as the syllables, every 'jot' and every 'tittle' of it, or the whole of it must be abandoned, since no part of it can be certainly depended upon as an infallible guide."
Burgon maintained that from the time of the New Testament Church, God has provided the means by which His Word has been preserved. Because of his high church Anglican background, Burgon. placed much emphasis on the positions of the bishops in the church. He said that the Bible was preserved through the centuries by the bishops. Because of that position, he frequently alluded to quotations of the Church Fathers, because many of them had been bishops. Burgon also refused to defend the Textus Receptus because Erasmus compiled that text and Erasmus was not a bishop. Whether by the bishops, as advocated by Burgon, or by the New Testament Church, as believed by many Christians; nevertheless, God has preserved His Word. Many people have sought-and do seek-to discredit this book, and this is what Burgon strove so hard to establish.
Burgon's method of defending the Scriptures was a combination of quotations of the Church Fathers, manuscript evidence, and historic proofs. As a demonstration of that method, the following summary of his defense of the last twelve verses of Mark is offered.
The last twelve verses in Mark have, for many years, been a point of controversy. Those who seek to discredit these verses maintain that they are contradictory to Mark's writing style and overall content. They do not necessarily claim that Mark ended the book with verse eight, as that would obviously cut the thought in the middle. They do believe, however, that the original portion must have been lost and that which we have was written by another author.
Many biblical critics have denied the genuineness of the last portion of Mark, including scholars such as Tischendorf, Tregelles, Dean Alford, and Griesbach. They believed the last part had been added. The weight of their ideas has influenced many men to believe the same. Dean Alford said, "[This passage] was placed as a completion of the Gospel soon after the Apostolic period-the Gospel itself having been for some reason unknown to us, left incomplete . . . the most probable supposition is, that the last leaf of the original Greek was torn away." Tregelles said "that the early testimony that St. Mark did not write these verses is confirmed by existing monuments." Tregelles also maintained that, because we do not know he circumstances surrounding the consummation of Mark's gospel, ending with verse eight is not as abrupt as would appear. Tischendorf said, "That these verses were not written by Mark admits of satisfactory proof." Griesbach maintained that the last portion of Mark was added by someone besides Mark. At the time Griesbach stated these opinions, Codex B was the only manuscript that left out this portion of Mark. Later, in a rather contradictory statement, Griesbach said that Codex B hould have kept the aforementioned portion.
According to Burgon, Codex B left out words or clauses from the New Testament at least 1,491 times; however, the aforementioned scholars rely upon Codex B as the basis for their arguments. Burgon's summaries of the critics' beliefs are: "1) will be found to rely on the external evidence of certain ancient manuscripts; 2) one scholia which state 'that the more ancient and accurate copies terminated the Gospel at verse 8'; 3) assure us that this is confirmed by a formidable array of patristic authorities; and that 4) internal proof is not to be wanting."11 Burgon set out to discredit those portions.
The most important evidence of all is the evidence of the manuscripts themselves. Two of the oldest manuscripts are Codex B and Codex Aleph. These two manuscripts are the only two that exclude the last portion of Mark, and there are only five, at most, which are found to possibly support the argument against the validity of Mark 16:9-20. A translation by Gothic Bishop Ulphilas fifth or sixth century AD) contains the last twelve verses in Mark. Two Egyptian translations, the Mephitic and the Thebaic, include these verses. A very old manuscript from sometime around the fifth century is the Syriac translation of Matthew through John, and it contains those verses. Scrivener said, "Literary history can hardly afford a more powerful case than has been established for the identity of the version of the Syriac now called the 'Peshito' with that used by the Eastern Church long before the Great Schism had its beginning in the native land of the blessed Gospel."12 Richard Cimono has unveiled a device used to deceive people:
The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus pulled off a neat trick. The Vatican copy stops short at the end of verse eight. BUT THE COPYIST LEFT A BLANK SPACE SUFFICIENT TO ACCOMMODATE THE MISSING VERSES. It seems that the copyist knew that there was a portion missing in the copy before him. In the Sinai copy the double page containing the end of Mark and beginning of Luke was REMOVED AT AN EARLY DATE and replace with the four sides rewritten to EXCUDE MARK 16:9-20! . . . By slightly increasing the size of the letters and spaces, the writer was able to extend his shortened version to the top of the column preceding Luke one. . . . Tischendorf, the discoverer of the Sinai copy, alleged that these pages were written by THE COPYIST OF THE VATICAN MANUSCRIPT!
The manuscripts bear witness to the validity of Mark 16:9-20. Burgon used the testimony and evidence of both the Church Fathers and manuscripts to solidify his case. Whereas men such as Tregelles and Davidson stated that the church Fathers disagree with the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20. It is unbelievable that the agreement of the manuscripts and the Church Fathers concerning Mark is incorrect and yet that someone, in copying, accidentally left the copy unfinished.
Many critics cite Jerome in support of their position. Jerome (AD 331-420) translated the Catholic Latin Vulgate in which he included verses 9-20. He also quoted from those verses in later writings. Burgon made reference to Ambrose, Archbishop of Milan (AD 374-397), who quoted from the verses at least eight times. Burgon also makes mention of Chrysostom (AD 400) who quoted verses 19 and 20 in his writings. Of these verses Chrysostom wrote, "This is the end of the Gospel. Mark makes no extended mention of the ascension." Though some have stated that the Fathers mentioned deny this portion's genuineness, one can see this is not the case.
Through his defense of the last twelve verses of Mark, Burgon has demonstrated that this portion of Scripture is completely valid. He capably defended the entire New Testament in this fashion. No one has attempted to answer this work. So great was his passion for defending the Bible that the doctor attending him at the time of his death said his death was caused by nervous strain resulting from his work. Though many people may be unaware of Burgon's work, he accomplished a phenomenal feat in defending our Bible. This was stated at his funeral: "It was his burning zeal for the Word of God which stirred him to come forward as a champion in a cause which he thought was being betrayed by those who should have been its guardians."
THIS PAGE IS UPDATED *****