... These are fascinating issues but quite different than the abject corruptness of the manuscripts lifted up today
as the "most reliable", Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. In fact, despite protestations, those two manuscripts were essentially the proof-text base for the Westcott-Hort NT.
Dean John Burgon's book is a major historical writing, much of which isIt is "historical writing" only in the sense that it is of purely historical interest, and is irrelevant to discussions of the 21st century state of textual criticism.
available
on the web. Perhaps you should read his material instead of looking for any cause of offense.
Cite what is actually written in the original document that you state is full of "blunders." If you do not cite the originals, then you will have to tell us how you know that X is a "blunder" and not a later emendment..
Again, reread above what Dean Burgon said and comment directly. Explain
how such types of errors could generally be purposeful, since they are well
known as textual errors. They are even given their own special names.
The late ...
... Dean John Burgon is ...
... a primary source scholar of incredible skill. There is absolutely nothing wrong with quoting from his examination.You are welcome to quote. There is also absolutely nothing wrong with me pointing out that his work is old and obsolete, as well as trying to refute a proposition which no one has proposed.
Nothing.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.