[bibleprotector]

I will quote two passages from my book. First, regarding the situation prior to the "Revised Version":

A. W. Pollard wrote, in the preface to the 1911 reprint of the First 1611 Edition, “It must be remembered that no copy of the version of 1611 had been ‘sealed’ as a standard ... and these attempts to increase consistency and to remove errors were wholly laudable. On the other hand it is obvious that under cover of such minor revisions more serious changes might be introduced.”

The need for a revision to the King James Bible. On one side, this was the door whereby Satan could enter, yet on the other, it seemed necessary, though just how much or what exactly was to be revised was uncertain. It was reported by Eyre and Strahan in 1806 after careful collation, that 116 errata were discovered to have existed in the 1769 Edition. Given the controversy that the neo-Puritans had stirred at the same time as the revitalisation of the Romanising movement around 1830, revision seemed to be both needful and desirable, yet impractical and possibly dangerous. Extremists would pull one way, while Romanisers would go fully another: what was needed was a conservative approach, which meant that those with good intentions decided to wait and see what Providence had in store.

Writers recognised that there was some kind of standard, such as the American scholar, Alexander McClure. In his 1858 book The Translators Revived, he stated that there was, to his understanding, “an immaculate text”, and that “It is quite certain that no portion of the work has been done over again since 1611, by any divine of England or America, in a way which, by general consent of the Christian community, could supplant the corresponding portion as it stands in our family and pulpit Bibles.” But there was a weakness in his reasoning that would allow for a supplanting, “Not that the utmost verbal perfection is claimed for the English Bible as it now stands.” And, “If ever the time shall come for a new revision of the Translation, let it be done ... by men who shall know what they are about, and how it ought to be done. It will be a vast undertaking, affecting the dearest interests of ages of time, and millions upon millions of immortals.”

Cambridge editor, Dean (later Archbishop) Trench wrote in his 1858 The Authorized Version of the New Testament, Cambridge: “I am persuaded that a REVISION ought to come: I am convinced that it will come. Not however, I would trust, as yet; for we are not as yet in any respect prepared for it. The Greek and the English which should enable us to bring this to a successful end, might, it is feared, be wanting alike.” (Trench was one of the pioneers of modernist attack on the King James Bible.) Just how much the Greek was to be revised was the most dangerous issue of all. But slight fixing seemed to be acceptable by many.

Even though several small changes had occurred in Cambridge Bibles, the Cambridge Bible of the latter half of the nineteenth century was still not quite perfect. Thus, there was a genuine need for a small revision, as Dr Christopher Wordsworth himself noted, that much less than 750 changes were needful or desirable.

Burgon spoke of the necessity of “the removal of many an obscurity in the AV”, which he laid out as, “representing certain words more accurately, — here and there translating a tense with greater precision, — getting rid of a few archaisms”.

Certainly, there were problems, such as the rendering in Joshua 19:2, where theologians and scholars knew that Beer-sheba and Sheba were one and the same, and therefore the verse should properly read “Beer-sheba or Sheba”, but such changes were not forthcoming in Victorian Bibles, simply because uncertainty and a touch-not-the-AV mentality prevailed. In fact, the King James Bible was recognised “to be the perfection of our English language”, where ideas of perfection of text and religion ran together, so that “to reform the text of the Bible would have appeared to the ignorant little less than a change in national religion”, which ultimately “would lead to resistance to any change to the received form of the text of the KJB.” And considering the turmoils Europe had passed through after the French Revolution, stability and tradition were the order of the day.

Alexander McClure wrote, “The work, though not absolutely perfect, nor incapable of amendment in detached places, is yet so well done, that the Christian public will not endure to have it tampered with. It would be impossible ... to collect at this day a body of professors and divines, from England and America together, which should be equal in numbers and in learning to those assembled by King James; and in whom the churches would feel enough of confidence to entrust them with a repetition of the work. The common version has become a permanent necessity, through its immense influence on the language, literature, manners, opinions, character, institutions, history, religion, and entire life and development of the Anglo-Saxon [nations]”. He concluded that, “The best fruits of Christianity have sprung from the seeds our translation has scattered.”

Second, I will quote in regard to how there was indeed a revision of the King James Bible which was needful, and accomplished, being the Pure Cambridge Edition of the King James Bible:

Despite imperfections, J. W. Burgon’s view of revising the King James Bible was somewhat prophetic. He said, “Whenever the time comes for the Church of England to revise her Authorized Version (1611)”. Of course, Burgon was not entirely correct in his view of revising the underlying texts, but he was correct that further work was required in the King James Bible. He also quoted the modernist Ellicott’s words, “‘No Revision’ (he [Ellicott] says) ‘in the present day could hope to meet with an hour’s acceptance if it failed to preserve the tone, rhythm, and dictation of the present Authorized Version.’” This was perfectly true, in that Ellicot’s own favoured Revised Version failed his own requirements, though what Burgon pointed out was that whatever change was to happen in the revision of the King James Bible would at the last be nothing less than a preservation of it. That the revision actually was only of some forty-eight words is a testimony of just how much the 1769 Edition as already presented by Cambridge was to meet acceptance.

Burgon made it very plain that the Revised Version could not be any factor in the work. “It is idle — worse than idle — to dream of revising, with a view to retaining, this Revision. Another generation of students must be suffered to arise. Time must be given for Passion and Prejudice to cool effectually down ... Partisanship must be completely outlived, — before the Church can venture, with the remotest prospect of a successful issue, to organise another attempt at revising the Authorized Version of the New Testament Scriptures.” Very little revision did take place in the New Testament Scriptures, and all work there was in line with the textual history of the King James Bible, mainly the 1611 Edition, and probably in reference to Scrivener’s book. There is no indication that the Revised Version was in any particular way an influence in the making of the Pure Cambridge Edition.

“Then further,” wrote Burgon, “those who would interpret the New Testament Scriptures, are reminded that a thorough acquaintance with the Septuagintal Version of the Old Testament is one indispensable condition of success.” This was a condition which was entirely lacking in the Revised Version, yet in the history of the Church, “the translation of the Seventy” had been set “forth openly to be considered of and perused by all.” (TTR, Section 12, Paragraph 2). There were two reasons why Burgon’s generally overlooked advice was actually heeded:

First, the changes to the spelling of names in the Old Testament and the affect on several nouns in the New Testament of the Pure Cambridge Edition are evidence of being done with an understanding of the original languages.

Second, the introduction of the pronunciation signs in the Pure Cambridge Edition, which would require extensive Biblical linguistic knowledge, were done by Henry A. Redpath, whose renowned work was none other than A Concordance to the Septuagint and Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament which was published in 1897–1906 by Clarendon, Oxford. Redpath, in his short statement at the front of the Bible, restricted all matter to internal considerations of the Authorized Version, stating, “so far as it is noted in the Authorized Version”, thus eliminating the introduction of external ideas onto the text. Redpath’s pronunciation system must have been adopted by Cambridge at an early stage, probably around 1900 or so.

“And finally,” Burgon concluded, “the Revisionists of the future [after 1884] (if they desire that their labours should be crowned), will find it their wisdom to practise a severe self-denial; to confine themselves to the correction of ‘plain and clear errors;’ and in fact to ‘introduce into the [English] Text as few alterations as possible.’” And that “the Authorized Version, wherever it was possible, should have been jealously retained.” It can be happily reported that the Pure Cambridge Edition does indeed commend itself in these points, and that the worthy editor brought about only those changes that were needful, which never required anything like the undertaking of a whole new version.

In summary: People in the 1800s saw the need for a revision, but to what extent was uncertain, indeed, a certain portion of people were open to far more "revision" than what was needful, and which manifested something of great harm. When the real revision occured, most never realised it, and did not understand the nature of it. That includes King James Bible supporting people right up to recent times.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

The scholarship of Dean Burgon's Revision Revised is truly amazing and of a depth rarely seen in any age. Above we have a misrepresentation of some introductory words from the Dean combined with some other words in another section. We need to have those words put back into proper punctuation and context.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Burgon spoke of the necessity of “the removal of many an obscurity in the AV”, which he laid out as, “representing certain words more accurately, — here and there translating a tense with greater precision, — getting rid of a few archaisms”.

Nope. You have the full first Dean Burgon quote (you mixed two quotes together, both parts were out of context) from the Revision Revised accurate on your own website. Please notice that you had to (snip) or (remove) or (truncate) the '?' for this forum post. A '?' that is an integral part of the punctuation. And this omission masks the fact that the Dean was asking a rhetorical-type question, not at all declaring a "necessity". And the full context had to be snipped out as well. In addition you had to patchquilt phrases out-of-context from two different articles before trying to connect them to your own acontextual fabrications ('necessity' and 'laid out').

While all of the Dean's views can be fairly analyzed and critiqued, there was no sense of Dean Burgon speaking of a revision necessity for the purposes mentioned in this quote. No necessity, and nothing laid out. Matthew, you have tampered with his text improperly to give a false impression.

http://books.google.com/books?id=eK1u8R5UNRMC&pg=PA1
Dean John Burgon - The Quarterly Review - Vol.153 #305 - (Jan, 1882)

The earlier version in the Quarterly Review had an expansion that in included in the fuller version published as The Revision Revised, including the excellent and oft-quoted : "the noblest literary work in the Anglo-Saxon language."

http://www.bibleprotector.com/Burgon_1882.pdf
http://books.google.com/books?id=nXkw1TAatV8C&pg=PA113
The Revision Revised: Article II - The New English Version p. 113 (1883)

WHATEVER may be urged in favour of Biblical Revision, it is at least undeniable that the undertaking involves a tremendous risk. Our Authorized Version is the one religious link which at present binds together ninety millions of English-speaking men scattered over the earth’s surface. 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 sense with greater precision, — getting rid of a few archaisms? 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. We shall in fact never have another ‘Authorized Version.’ And this single consideration may be thought absolutely fatal to the project, except in a greatly modified form. To be brief, — As a companion in the study and for private edification: as a book of reference for critical purpose, especially in respect of difficult and controverted passages: — we hold that a revised edition of the Authorized Version of our English Bible, (if executed with consummate ability and learning,) would at any time be a work of inestimable value. The method of such a performance, whether by Marginal Notes or in some other way, we forbear to determine. But 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.

Now the first phrase above from Matthew is from a different section. (The patchquilt job.) A section where one could easily say we see a Dean Burgon weakness, yet one where the Dean is still emphasizing foremost that the Revision was a totally bungled enterprise any he was not calling for any type of new effort. The Dean was not declaring any necessity to revise nor laying out any plans. Note that above the Dean was specifically saying no plans were possible today and even if there were plans it might simply be 'marginal notes', a ''handmaid' ! Incidentally, this section is a favorite of the no-pure-KJB author Doug Kutilek and he similarly (extracts) to mask the actual full context from Dean Burgon.

p.57
http://books.google.com/books?id=eK1...g=PA1#PPA57,M1
Quarterly Review p. 57
http://books.google.com/books?id=nXkw1TAatV8C&pg=PA217
Revision Revised p. 217

XII. It is often urged on behalf of the Revisionists that over not a few dark places of S. Paul's Epistles their labours have thrown important light. Let it not be supposed that we deny this. Many a Scriptural difficulty vanishes the instant a place is accurately translated : a far greater number when the rendering is idiomatic. It would be strange indeed if, at the end of ten years, the combined labours of upwards of twenty scholars, whose raison d'etre as Revisionists was to do this very thing, had not resulted in the removal of many an obscurity in the A. V. of Gospels and Epistles alike. What offends us is the discovery that, for every obscurity which has been removed, at least half a dozen others have been introduced : in other words, that the result of their Revision has been the planting in of a fresh crop of difficulties, before undreamed of; so that a perpetual wrestling with these is what hereafter awaits the diligent student of the N. T.

As to why Matthew wrested the Dean's writings to try to awkwardly fit into a totally different context, I will pass on that at this time.

Shalom,
Steven

I noticed that the longer quote was out of context myself, but as I review Bibleprotector's post I think perhaps what he meant to be saying was that Burgon appears to concede that the revisions did result in the removal of many an obscurity in the AV (although in context he's pointing out that they added half a dozen for each removed). Burgon didn't speak of it as a "necessity" but I think in context of his post Bibleprotector merely meant to be pointing out that Burgon did recognize that some of the revisions were clarifying (even though he considered them not worth the damage done along with them). (Of course I'd really like to know exactly which changes Burgon considered useful and that information doesn't seem to be available.)

And although he did take the other quotation out of context as well, I believe his point was only to use it to define the sort of clarifying changes Burgon would have meant by the first quote: "representing certain words more accurately, — here and there translating a tense with greater precision, — getting rid of a few archaisms” Burgon is saying that the endangerment of the Bible read by millions for the sake of even such useful corrections is not worth it, but I think Bibleprotector only meant the quote to act as a clue to what kind of corrections Burgon would have considered useful. (Again I'd love to know which words needed to be represented more accurately, which tenses needed greater precision, which words were considered to be archaisms in those days).

I did have trouble with Bibleprotector's post just because there is so little specificity. I'm not sure I know any more about specific revisions the revision committee hoped to see done, but perhaps the point is it wasn't clearly spelled out because that information is hard to come by.

[bibleprotector]

I am giving quotations of the Dean by an interpretative method, which views conference of passages and ideas as greater than mere context. (This, in its highest form, applies to Bible interpretation.) What I have stated is correct, and to take but a few lines is not to omit information (i.e. to neglect the context), but rather an attempt to give the broadest possible view of the Dean's position in the fewest possible or most pertinent of his own words. While this may be said to be making the Dean say something which he did not explicitly say in one place, in fact, it is what the Dean said, when giving the essence of his whole message.

The Scripture is full of examples of how this method may be employed honestly and truthfully. For example, James, in Acts 15:15–17 utalised the words and ideas of various passages of the Old Testament to make one statement concerning a particular doctrine: “And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.”

Upon examining Scripture, it speedily comes to light that there is a great difference between "wrest" and "rightly dividing". As for Burgon, I suspect that some folk may not agree with my view of interpreting him in a prophetic context.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by Connie

I'd really like to know exactly which changes Burgon considered useful and that information doesn't seem to be available ... I'd love to know which words needed to be represented more accurately, which tenses needed greater precision, which words were considered to be archaisms in those days.

The textual changes proposed in the Dean's analysis are in his writings. They are minor compared to the battleground verses, he even has a quote about that and I can pull it out later .. Sometimes simply unusual, eclectic textual ideas. It would be a good exercise in this friendly environment to pull out a few and even seek to show exactly how the Dean got tripped up on his own expertise, skills and scholarship. It is possible one aspect may be an overemphasis on Origen.

For stylistic or word sense or modernizing I am not sure the Dean's preferences and concerns will be as easy to discover. e.g There is one place where he discusses the issue of 'Holy Ghost' (search for the word anarchism and you can find it) however he is more defending than critiquing the Traditional Text. (In this case the TT = King James Bible an important point in harmony with the quotes that show that he was an Authorized Version defender against many translational modernist attempts. Not just a textual "Traditional Text" "underlying Greek" defender against the ultra-corrupt counterfeit underlying Westcott-Hort Greek.

My suggestion, we could have a separate thread on the Dean's critiques that might be seen as corrections (textual or translational). Nothing wrong with pointing out the few places he was wrong in the midst of such amazing and unsurpassed scholarship.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

And I expected this type of response from Matthew.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

What I have stated is correct ... the broadest possible view of the Dean's position ... it is what the Dean said, when giving the essence of his whole message.

And I strongly disagree and to me your writings now lose much credibility. At this point I will have to consider quotations that you give as under a level of suspicion for context and quotation sense and accuracy, always needing my personal checking to accept and to use.

Creative license in quoting, patch-quilts to place your conceptions in the mouths of others -- against their very words and bypassing their contrary words -- will undermine your own work. One of the greatest banes of the current King James Bible movement is inaccurate quotations and representations. And you are deliberately and consciously making a leap to the wrong side of that divide.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

As for Burgon, I suspect that some folk may not agree with my view of interpreting him in a prophetic context.

No problem with that, as long as you separate your prophetic context from mish-moshing the words and ideas of Dean Burgon or others.

Here is a quote from the Dean, which I liked because it showed that he maintained a sense of the prophetic vision and purpose about the pure and perfect and majestic Holy Bible, the King James bible, even if he at times had an mixed approach.

http://books.google.com/books?id=eK1u8R5UNRMC&pg=PA41
Revision Revised - Quarterly Review

it speedily becomes evident that, at the bottom of all this, there existed in the minds of the Revisionists of 1611 a profound (shall we not rather say a prophetic ?) consciousness, that the fate of the English language itself was bound up with the fate of their Translation.

Shalom,
Steven

[bibleprotector]

To regard the context is proper. I disagree with deception, wilful misrepresentation and misquoting people, however, I maintain that it is entirely valid to take several quotations from authors and show connections between them, despite the so-called limitations of context.

It is dangerous to make people say things which they did not say, or to make them champions of personal opinions when they are not. Whether others have done this improper thing while attempting to defend the King James Bible does not mean that I am in the same position or predicament.

To pendant upon "contextualism" is out of order when viewing the greater matters. Note how the Holy Ghost has quite a different meaning concerning the oxen than the original context seemed to indicate: "For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written" (1 Cor. 9:9, 10a). Should we accuse the Holy Ghost of impropriety because He did not actually care so much for oxen? And should we doubt that God was really speaking about Christians, when no such meaning was evident when that law was written by Moses?

Therefore, it is a greater thing to give a whole or fuller meaning, and that to be chained to context is to restrict from the proper and higher use of conference of passages. However, such a thing must be done out of wisdom, learning and lawfulness. If I have misrepresented or been mistaken concerning whom I have quoted, I would seek to rectify that. This should be a sufficient and adequate explanation of the matter at hand.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

If I have misrepresented or been mistaken concerning whom I have quoted, I would seek to rectify that.

And my view is that this is exactly what you did in the case at hand, which is why I went to some effort to carefully document the actual fuller-in-context words of the Dean, how the quotation jigsaw puzzle was put together, and how the puzzle was only held together by your words, since the Dean never talked of either a necessity or laying out a plan. Including showing such elements from the Dean as :

1) the "sacred bond" of the Authorized Version

2) "marginal notes" offered as the final result of any pure motivation endeavor, which is very different than the sense you tried to give of the Dean's views.

3) "deprecate entirely" the superseding of the Authorized Version with any revision (thus the concept that "marginal notes" may be the way to accomplish such an update end some day)

4) the actual purposes of any enterprise would be:
a) study companion
b) references for critical purposes
c) which include 'difficult and controverted passages'

And these are far more available today than in the Dean's day, with such tools and references likely used by us all.

And also showing that the Dean was not laying out any plan, in fact he was indicating that such plans were not even possible in his day and would be dicey at any time, since he had already seen how they had gone awry once in a terrible way. And showing that the Dean was speaking extremely highly of the King James Bible, the "noblest literary work in the Anglo-Saxon language", and indicated no "necessity" to revise away a few 'archaic' words and such.

We have not even been able to find even short lists from the Dean of any difficulties from his perspective (not even his own list of 'archaic words' which is such a favorite endeavor of so many) he was so uninterested in approaching the King James Bible from the perspective of textual or translational revision. Yet we do know that he disagreed textually with a few relatively minor readings (this would be more a TR question first) from his own textual analysis scholarship perspective. Incidentally, I do not think this would include even one, or at least not more than a couple, of the 200 or so KJB/TR vs MV/W-H examples given by Brandon in the Magic Marker page.

There were actually multiple elements to the quotation misrepresentation, all combined together, held together with the technique of patch-quilt jigsaw puzzle quote mining. This is why I found it necessary to confront this quickly and even a bit forcefully, the danger exists that it will become a pattern.

I will say that I have not seen such dubious quotation usage from Matthew before, to his credit. We have tried to parse quotations into fuller understanding (such as on the Greek OT issue and the idea that Greek OT expertise was a major factor in working on the editions of the King James Bible) yet I do not remember any previous cases where I felt that I had to research any quotations, like I immediately did here. Since this seemed to be a unique case, I had at least some hope that Matthew would understand the earnestness and seriousness of the objection to his usage above. And I still maintain that hope, perhaps it will be seen differently by Matthew after a time of reflection and reconsideration.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[bibleprotector]

And also showing that the Dean was not laying out any plan, in fact he was indicating that such plans were not even possible in his day

While we cannot read a particular formal plan, we certainly find throughout his works the pieces of his plan of how a revision of the Bible should be executed. He rejected the Westcott/Hort work, all the while labouring for his own. He did not write the Revision Revised just because he disagreed with WH or because he loved the KJB. He wrote it because, while he was on the side of conserving the KJB, he honestly thought that there was a way to revise it. And if the Church of England was not going to accept his own revision method, he would do his best to promote the kind he wanted for the future.

“It is idle — worse than idle — to dream of revising, with a view to retaining, this Revision. Another generation of students must be suffered to arise. Time must be given for Passion and Prejudice to cool effectually down ... Partisanship must be completely outlived, — before the Church can venture, with the remotest prospect of a successful issue, to organise another attempt at revising the Authorized Version of the New Testament Scriptures.”

This leads to an important question: who or what follows Burgon?

1. No one. (Edward Miller accomplished nothing.)

2. It was manifested in another way, namely, through:
a. Hills and the KJBO movement as the defenders,
b. The English purification which took place in the PCE, as has consequently recognised

3. Burgon's disciples, or real the revisers, are yet to come.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

He rejected the Westcott/Hort work, all the while labouring for his own.

Would you share some pages from this revision upon which you say Dean John Burgon laboured ? At least some lists of corrections, some lists of updates, some lists of verses to be modified or archaic words that he laboured to update .. the very basics .. something substantial and tangible ?

And would you give any evidence that Dean Burgon ever supported a revision that would end up being a change of text. Something much more than marginal notes and references, as the Dean specifically discusses in the quotes above.

And not simply a few scattered places where Dean Burgo thought the Received Text, and therefore the King James Bible, had the improper text. We are well aware that there were some of these. Places where he put together such elements to labour on a revision, as you assert.

Thanks.

Shalom,
Steven