[bibleprotector]

Burgon was labouring upon the basis for a new revision, and never advanced to (as far as we can tell) a formal plan. However, by scouting his works, various quotations can be gathered, indicating his mind on the matter. As for specifics, i.e. which so-called archaic words to be revised, which so-called obscurities in Paul’s writings, which so-called needful alterations in translation, etc., this must have been known to some extent by Miller, other suggested corrections exist in the unpublished material of the Dean.

John Burgon himself sought to improve the Received Text by first revising the underlying text, “an authoritative Revision of the Greek Text will have to precede any future Revision of the English of the New Testament. Equally certain is it that for such an undertaking the time has not yet come.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, page 124.) He wrote, “Whenever the time comes for the Church of England to revise her Authorized Version (1611), it will become necessary that she should in the first instance instruct some of the more judicious and learned of her sons carefully to revise the Greek Text of Stephens (1550). Men require to know precisely what it is they have to translate before they translate it.” (Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, page 263.) Edward Miller recorded that, “we do not advocate perfection in the Textus Receptus. We allow that here and there it requires revision. In the Text left behind by Dean Burgon, about 150 corrections have been suggested by him in St Matthew’s Gospel alone. What we maintain is the Traditional Text. And we trace it back to the earliest ages of which there is any record.” (Burgon, The Traditional Text, page 5.)

Burgon’s plan was to gather the information which had been discovered after 1611, or had been, in his opinion, not utilised by the King James Bible translators, “my object, the establishment of the text on an intelligible and trust worthy basis.” (Burgon, The Traditional Text, page 6.) “Let 500 more COPIES of the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles be diligently collated. Let at least 100 of the ancient Lectionaries be very exactly collated also. Let the most important of the ancient VERSIONS be edited afresh, and let the languages which these are written be for the first time really mastered by Englishmen. Above all, let the FATHERS be called upon to give up their precious secrets. Let their writings be ransacked and indexed, and (where needful) let the MSS of their works be diligently inspected, in order that we may know what actually is the evidence which they afford, Only so will it ever be possible to obtain a Greek Text on which absolute reliance may be placed, and which may serve as the basis for a satisfactory Revision of our Authorized Version.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, page 125.)

He said, “Whenever the time comes for the Church of England to revise her Authorized Version (1611)”. (Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, page 263.) 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.’” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, page 226.) 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.

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.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, page 227.)

“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.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, page 128.) 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).

“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.’” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, page 128.) And that “the Authorized Version, wherever it was possible, should have been jealously retained.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, page 226.)

While it is possible to de-emphasise what the good Dean's real intentions where, it is an inescapable truth that he did seek to depart from the Authorized Version. Even the conservative new translation which he is advocating, though it would be very close to the AV, would still represent a corruption. We must see that it is God's providence which both disallowed it to proceed, and that God has yet kept alive a jealousy for the very words of the English Bible without alteration of one point in the underlying text.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Matthew, you have played three ends against the middle in trying to make some justification for your original quote misrepresentation.

Originally you tried :

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”.

You ignored what the Dean really said, e.g. about marginal notes. And now you take his discussion of needing hundreds of experts and new detailed collations and large-scale early church writer analysis and new linguistic skills in the wrong way.

Essentially the Dean was saying :

"come back in 50-100 years and we can see what is the story"

Worse, you have now switched to his own textual 'suggestions' (whatever that actually means, only a few of the 150 referenced in Matthew are likely his own declaration that the TR is not correct -- people 'suggest' all sorts of stuff) which would change the underlying text.

Totally different than what you wrote about above.
Push comes to shove because those were :

http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/DBS...y/deserves.htm
Fourteen requirements for any revision of the Textus Receptus

And a potential revision of the TR woud be a totally different labour than that indicated, created by your initial words - the words that you tried to put in the Dean's mouth about an AV update.

So it becomes a bit tiresome to dialog with a broken field runner. None of those requirements related to the potential revision you tried to put in his mouth by patching quotes and adding words he never said, it is like comparing kumquats and bicycles.

Please, you do realize, I hope, that any of his (mistaken) correction ideas about the TR are totally different than :

"representing certain words more accurately ...tenses .. anarchisms" .

They were potential or proposed textual 'corrections' to the TR itself !

To be a bit blunt, the problem here is more spiritual than logical. You have been clearly misrepresenting Dean Burgon, your original quote was wrong, and in attempting to support it you brought in totally different issues from here and there. Perhaps ther proposed or potential prophetic mantle on the pure Bible prevents you from simply acknowledging something so simple. So you go far and wide, despite the fact that your original pseudo-quote was simply wrong, the Dean did not speak of a necessity, nor did he lay out plans for the revision you tried to put into his mouth. The closest to plans was to offer a bunch of requirements that were of the "let's consider it 50-100 years from now" type, for a TR revision, discussed nicely at:

http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/DBS...y/deserves.htm
The Dean Burgon Society Deserves Its Name -Ten Reasons Why

The section on the 14 requirements.

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

The Greek OT aspect I discussed with you once before, asking you for even one verse where you believe that the Greek OT expertise would be necessary and helpful, since you emphasized that in relation to Henry Redpath's labors on the Cambridge edition. You did not offer even one verse. I will ask you again, give one example where the world's greatest Greek OT experts (e.g. Emanuel Tov, Karen Jobe, Moises Silva, if they were sympathetic, or Henry Redpath a century ago) could offer a new, helpful insight of any kind to updating any King James Bible from 1611 on. Even one example would be helpful.

The idea is simply mistaken, yet it has become an unnecessary, auxiliary them of your writing about the Cambridge Edition. If you cannot give verse examples, it is time to drop the theme.

I'll decide later, maybe shortly, whether I feel there is any purpose in spending more time on this aspect of the thread. Overall, it is excellent to read the Dean. And I would rather go into his concepts, the multi-dozens of verses where his analysis is foundational and expert and unsurpassed even today and 100% true -- as well as those lesser import verses where he was mistaken, than work with your trying to patch up a patchquilt misrepresentation.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[bibleprotector]

Essentially the Dean was saying : "come back in 50-100 years and we can see what is the story"

That interpretation of the Dean is not what he said, nor meant. I have laid out that Burgon's view was that it was necessary for the eventual correction or alteration of the King James Bible. Of course, he was not settled on how it should be finally done, so he suggested a system of marginal notes as a possibility.

The fact is that he was aiming, not only for adjustments in the TR, but that there should be (minor?) adjustments in the English also. Those who see the Dean as a champion of the King James Bible need to take this realistic view: that while Burgon does tend to support the AV, yet he does not give it his full support.

As for thorough acquaintance with the Fathers, Versions and with the Septuagint, it is clear in hindsight that this was not required for any textual correction to the AV, however, the use of this knowledge has been in another way, namely, that it has been useful for the defence (e.g. Hills) and purification (e.g. Redpath) of the King James Bible as we now have it.

For example, those who are somewhat learned in these matters should tend to support the AV, even though they may not believe it to be fully perfect. Thus, we have the favourable witness of people in this stream, which has turned to the defence of the Textus Receptus. Of course, there should be an advance to English just-is-now-going-only.

To claim that Burgon's argument was basically "come back in 50-100 years and we can see what is the story" is a whitewashed view at best. While Burgon implied that another generation should arise beyond the Revised Version, he did not have just a passive "wait and see" approach. It was all hands on deck in doing the hard work to prop up, what he hoped to be, the foundation of a needful revision.

The Dean Burgon Society seems to be a major proponent of the Burgonist view, which rather than revising the underlying texts, accepts Scrivener’s TR as the benchmark for continuing translations of the Scripture. It seems that Donald Waite’s Defined King James Bible has been made on the very principle of the necessity of “the removal of many an obscurity in the AV”, which by a series of footnotes is for the “representing certain words more accurately”. This, in the main can be helpful, but it is not perfect. I tender that this is the conservative implementation of Burgon’s plan, which had the (relatively more) radical idea of adjusting the underlying text of the English Bible.

However, in reality, the actual "revision" that took place to the King James Bible was that a few dozen words were restored to their 1611 presentation, and a few other minor grammatical or editorial points. I believe this to be the kind of revision that was actually necessary, and that the Dean was mistaken to think that his indexing of the old evidence would contribute something more.

Overall, it is excellent to read the Dean ... the multi-dozens of verses where his analysis is foundational and expert and unsurpassed even today

[bibleprotector]

Burgon, as represented by Miller, wrote, “we do not advocate perfection in the Textus Receptus. We allow that here and there it requires revision. In the Text left behind by Dean Burgon, about 150 corrections have been suggested by him in St Matthew’s Gospel alone. What we maintain is the Traditional Text. And we trace it back to the earliest ages of which there is any record.” (Burgon, The Traditional Text, page 5.)

Steven Avery wrote:

Worse, you have now switched to his own textual 'suggestions' (whatever that actually means, only a few of the 150 referenced in Matthew are likely his own declaration that the TR is not correct -- people 'suggest' all sorts of stuff) which would change the underlying text.

Please, you do realize, I hope, that any of his (mistaken) correction ideas about the TR are totally different than : "representing certain words more accurately ...tenses .. anarchisms" . They were potential or proposed textual 'corrections' to the TR itself !

150 corrections to the TR is 150, not "a few". We cannot whitewash, degrade or justify otherwise. These 150 changes in the underlying text could mean 150 changes in the English. They were designed to be so, otherwise what was the purpose of the marginal notations he suggested? Perhaps exceedingly minor, such as spelling, perhaps not so minor, such as the tense, and perhaps even quite radical, such as alteration of the sense and the text. But no matter what, it is good that the exact details of these 150 revisions are not known. (Even if they were just suggestions, which could be accepted or rejected case by case by some later "revision".)

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

I am amazed that Matthew still argues this, although at least in this post we can parse some specifics more clearly.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

That interpretation of the Dean is not what he said, nor meant.

The Dean made it very clear that neither the skills nor the colaltions were anywhere near available for a TR-revision-text in his day. That means a far future day.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

I have laid out that Burgon's view was that it was necessary for the eventual correction or alteration of the King James Bible.

And the quotes show very clearly that the interest was a TR revision, not archaisms and tenses, as you falsely put into the Dean's mouth.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

he was not settled on how it should be finally done,

And your statement that the Dean spoke of laying out a plan was very wrong.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

so he suggested a system of marginal notes as a possibility.

Which of course, from our pro-KJB perspective, would be no revision at all.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

The fact is that he was aiming, not only for adjustments in the TR, but that there should be (minor?) adjustments in the English also.

Note that you have not even given a single example of this.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Those who see the Dean as a champion of the King James Bible need to take this realistic view: that while Burgon does tend to support the AV, yet he does not give it his full support.

An obvious point that anybody who studies the Dean understands, especially as he was not settled that the TR was the pure source text.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

As for thorough acquaintance with the Fathers, Versions and with the Septuagint, it is clear in hindsight that this was not required for any textual correction to the AV, however, the use of this knowledge has been in another way, namely, that it has been useful for the defence (e.g. Hills) and purification (e.g. Redpath) of the King James Bible as we now have it.

And I asked you for even one verse, with this hindsight, where knowledge of the Greek OT was helpful for the Redpath purification. And we still await your example of even one verse.

(For defence of course, all the elements are helpful, as we see when Will and myself and others refute the no-pure-KJB crowds claim that this or that word is translated wrong, an endeavor which you appear to sometimes disdain, since we look show the truth of the source and versional languages instead of simply proclaiming English-AV triumphalism to the skeptics and doubters.)

Incidentally, it is possible that the reason the Dean mentioned the Greek OT in that context is that he had similar unsurety about the Masoretic Text as he did about the Greek TR. If that is the explanation (I do not have another, but I am listening for an example from Matthew of how Greek OT knowledge would effect English-AV editions otherwise) then Matthew has misapplied (albeit accidentally in ignorance by not thinking and researching thoroughly enough) the Greek OT statement of Dean Burgon on many articles Matthew has written that highlighted the Redpath Greek OT knowledge as of special significance.

The irony here is that none of this is necessary for the PCE purity and history and acceptance, however if the presenters make conceptual errors that remain uncorrected their work then receives an unnecessary taint, similarly to that of misreprsenting the Dean at the beginning of this thread. For purposes that are totally unclear, since a true representation would not hurt the PCE one smidgen.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

.. those who are somewhat learned in these matters should tend to support the AV, even though they may not believe it to be fully perfect. Thus, we have the favourable witness of people in this stream, which has turned to the defence of the Textus Receptus.

Right, the more knowledgable and aware they are, the more they will support the Masoretic Text (OT). And the Byzantine Text (NT), even more so the Textus Receptus (NT) and even more so the King James Bible.

Precept upon precept, line upon line, both historically and even among scholars and thinkers today. Thus, as an example even tody, Professor Maurice Robinson, albeit stuck a bit back in Byzantine-Majority-Text-land and vocal against the KJB position, writes articles that can be a tremendous support to the pure Bible since he disassembles myths and untruths of the alexandrian texts and modern versions. Similarly, those who support the TR often do incredible work, or those who support the King James Bible with a softer, derivative from the original languages, approach

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

...To claim that Burgon's argument was basically "come back in 50-100 years and we can see what is the story" is a whitewashed view at best. While Burgon implied that another generation should arise beyond the Revised Version,

At least a generation, since the skills and collations that he required were nowhere near in existence, thus confirming my understanding.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

. he did not have just a passive "wait and see" approach. It was all hands on deck in doing the hard work to prop up, what he hoped to be, the foundation of a needful revision.

He simply applied his textual views to an extent to the Greek NT TR (not to the OT) with 'suggestions'. You can say that he hoped his views would be the base, or at least considered, in some far-off Revision. That's it, and to call that "all hands on deck" is simply silly, mangling English by turning words and idioms on their head.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

.The Dean Burgon Society seems to be a major proponent of the Burgonist view, which rather than revising the underlying texts, accepts Scrivener’s TR as the benchmark for continuing translations of the Scripture.

While the DBS has weaknesses, you are, by implication combination, misrepresenting the Burgonist view yet again. Dean Burgon clearly did not accept the Scrivener TR (nor did Scrivener) at all, and that was the heart of the matter. The 150 'suggestions' of TR revision, at least a few being cases where he felt the TR was actually wrong, in Matthew, proving this point. After all that is written on this thread, by both of us, why you say the Burgonist view would accept the Scrivener TR as the benchmark is a super-perplexity.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

It seems that Donald Waite’s Defined King James Bible has been made on the very principle of the necessity of “the removal of many an obscurity in the AV”, which by a series of footnotes is for the “representing certain words more accurately”. This, in the main can be helpful, but it is not perfect.

It may be helpful, and at times it can be unnecessary, distractive, or unhelpful. Clearly not perfect.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

I tender that this is the conservative implementation of Burgon’s plan, which had the (relatively more) radical idea of adjusting the underlying text of the English Bible.

Definitely it is similar to the Burgon 'marginal footnote' idea, and conservative in that respect, and acceptable to most all King James Bible supporters. However, would you show some cases where Dean Burgon spent efforts defining or refining the English as a major endeavor (tenses, archaisms, etc) since you continually contend, from the first quote on, that this was a major concern of the Dean.

So please list a few cases where the Dean stated e.g.

" The English word would better be ____ replacing the archaic/obsolete _____ ".

Now understand, they may or may not be many such cases at hand, I am curious myself as to the answer. However Matthew's case has been all along that this was a major part of the nature of the Dean's English update concerns. So at least a few examples (3-5) would be helpful to see to what extent he worked in that field that was supposed to have been declared by the Dean a "necessity" (Matthew's word given to the Dean about the Dean's view of such relatively minor, compared to the TR issues, considerations).

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

IHowever, in reality, the actual "revision" that took place to the King James Bible was that a few dozen words were restored to their 1611 presentation, and a few other minor grammatical or editorial points. I believe this to be the kind of revision that was actually necessary, and that the Dean was mistaken to think that his indexing of the old evidence would contribute something more.

Yes, on this we agree, no 'revision' (in the sense most of use the word, a substantial altering) was at all necessary, and the Dean was mistaken in thinking that some future generation might have the tools and purpose to move in that direction. Which would have been a TR overhaul. The Dean simply was wrong, his being super-skilled in the languages and texts was actually a hindrance for him on this point.

Matthew's second post simply confirms that Matthew is unwilling to properly separate out his claims that the Dean was 'archaism oriented' rather than the truth that all his potential revision quotes were about potential TR-changes. His sort-of-correction-attempt in that post is simply agreeing with my view.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Burgon, as represented by Miller, wrote, “we do not advocate perfection in the Textus Receptus. We allow that here and there it requires revision. In the Text left behind by Dean Burgon, about 150 corrections have been suggested by him in St Matthew’s Gospel alone. What we maintain is the Traditional Text. And we trace it back to the earliest ages of which there is any record.” (Burgon, The Traditional Text, page 5.)

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Worse, you have now switched to his own textual 'suggestions' (whatever that actually means, only a few of the 150 referenced in Matthew are likely his own declaration that the TR is not correct -- people 'suggest' all sorts of stuff) which would change the underlying text. ... Quote: Please, you do realize, I hope, that any of his (mistaken) correction ideas about the TR are totally different than : "representing certain words more accurately ...tenses .. anarchisms" . They were potential or proposed textual 'corrections' to the TR itself !

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

150 corrections to the TR is 150, not "a few".

Of course not, and to write in this manner is an astonishing misrepresentation of my words. Where did I ever claim that 150 is a "few" ?

What I am asking is the nature of these 'suggestions' -- whether they really 150 'corrections' to the TR or whether Miller is taking every possible alternate reading/suggestion/consideration from Dean Burgon and elevating it to a correction for the purpose of showing distance from the TR. Is Miller giving a very accurate representation ?

Note: - I've only seen a handful of Burgon actual correction statements documented. Matthew, can you give even a dozen examples of real Dean Burgon 'corrections' to Matthew ? Do we even have extant the source text of Miller from which he made that comment ? And if not, that alone is an interesting comment on the ultra-dubious and false "all hands on deck" misrepresentation of Matthew in the previous post.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

We cannot whitewash, degrade or justify otherwise. These 150 changes in the underlying text could mean 150 changes in the English.

More puerile verbal misdirection. A claim that was never made (150==few) is then emphasized for posturing.

In fact in this thread I am the one who pointed out to you, Matthew. That the emphasis of the Dean was on TR revision, not your original very false assertion that the Dean was concerned with and laying out an archaisms and tenses necessity revision.

For clarity, Matthew's original assertion, now inoperative:

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”.

So I have been very careful not to 'whitewash' anything in this discussion, you are the one who originally hid the truth. Since you wanted to align the Dean up as an advocate for PCE-type purification rather than TR overhaul. That is now much clearer to see and I believe we may also have solved the puzzle of the "Greek OT" aspect (Burgon's comment and Redpath) as well.

So your 'whitewash, degrade' comments actually do apply, albeit to your own approach. As shown by reposting your original statement which totally ignored the most salient issues in order to give the misimpression that Dean Burgon's potential (future-generation) revision was KJB purification similar to the Cambridge edition work of Redpath and the PCE.

The irony of all this discussion is that the PCE does not need Dean Burgon misrepresented, nor does it matter whether Redpath was skilled on the Greek OT, apparently misunderstanding a Dean Burgon comment. None of my comments here are meant to disparage the PCE itself, which overall appears to be an excellent labour. The writing mistakes of Matthew in this thread could be 100% corrected and the PCE would simply be on a stronger base.

Shalom,
Steven

[bibleprotector]

Steven Avery wrote, "only a few of the 150 referenced in Matthew are likely his own declaration that the TR is not correct -- people 'suggest' all sorts of stuff) which would change the underlying text."

I pointed out that the Dean was labouring to revise the TR, and had 150 (suggested) changes for the Book of Matthew alone. That is 150 changes in the TR of St. Matthew, potentially 150 changes in the King James Bible in the Gospel of Matthew alone.

I said that, "150 corrections to the TR is 150, not 'a few'."

Steven Avery wrote: "Of course not, and to write in this manner is an astonishing misrepresentation of my words. Where did I ever claim that 150 is a 'few'?"

What I meant exactly was that Steven Avery was making Burgon's 150 TR changes down to just a few, i.e. just a small portion of that 150, rather than accepting the plain wording of Miller that there were about 150 Greek textual/English translational changes in the Book of Matthew, Miller writes, "In the Text left behind by Dean Burgon, about 150 corrections have been suggested by him in St Matthew’s Gospel alone."

[bibleprotector]

Was Burgon’s revisionary work with the Greek underlying text merely restricted to the Greek, or was he implying, indicating and revealing that the King James Bible should be altered?

Steven Avery seems to be arguing that the Dean’s work was restricted to the Greek only, and that the Dean was not advocating any change to the King James Bible. If that is more or less what Steven Avery is arguing and claiming, I believe it to be a wrong interpretation of Burgon’s work.

First, Burgon spoke of the necessity of “the removal of many an obscurity in the AV”.

Here is the full quotation (from David Cloud):

It is often urged on behalf of the Revisionists that over not a few dark places of St. 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.

In the context of that quote, he 1. agrees that there were obscurities in the English, 2. that the Revisionists of the RV have done well in having thrown important light, specifically by new so-called accurate translation and also by alterations of the English idiom, 3. that there were indeed obscurities in the AV Gospels and Epistles which he expected and agreed should be clarified.

This shows that Burgon was believing that revision to the English Bible was right, proper and good. But he favoured a vastly different kind of revision than what actually occurred.

Burgon’s plan, which was never “formalised” consisted of:
I. gaining a full picture of the underlying textual evidence with special reference to the Byzantine tradition,
II. the developing of scholarship in “sound” textual criticism, including acquaintance with the LXX, etc.,
III. making corrections to the TR,
IV. translating afresh in places, while keeping the KJB as much as possible,
V., alterations of the English idiom of the KJB where obscure or imprecise,
VI. updating a few “archaicisms” in the KJB,
VII., as to how this is to be executed, could perhaps as an auxiliary “handmaid” volume, or perhaps by marginal references, or perhaps as a new edition wherein would be introduced as few alterations as possible into the Text of the Authorized Version.

(I have constructed this outline of a planfrom a general knowledge of Burgon's printed work.)

Thus, when Burgon spoke of, “representing certain words more accurately, — here and there translating a tense with greater precision, — getting rid of a few archaisms”, he was in fact laying out what was part of his own plan. In the context of these words he does not condemn this notion at all, but says that the AV should not be endangered, for the sake of making these changes. He is seeing that these changes are right, but that they should not be used as a pretext for wholesale radical modernisation. In other words, he would rather be conservative and have no revision than to allow the needful revision he really desires, when it would be hijacked and destructive to Scripture (like the RV was).

Burgon wrote, “an authoritative Revision of the Greek Text will have to precede any future Revision of the English of the New Testament. Equally certain is it that for such an undertaking the time has not yet come.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, page 124.)

Note, he says “will have to”. He believed in not only altering the Greek, but the AV. He then uses the words “not yet come”, meaning that there would be a time when the AV would be somehow revised. He is not against a “future Revision of the English”.

Again, Burgon wrote, “Whenever the time comes for the Church of England to revise her Authorized Version (1611), it will become necessary that she should in the first instance instruct some of the more judicious and learned of her sons carefully to revise the Greek Text of Stephens (1550). Men require to know precisely what it is they have to translate before they translate it.” (Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, page 263.)

Note that he believed it inevitable that there would be a revision to the AV, and then says that it would be necessary for it to be done properly, etc. Not only is the Greek to be altered, but then men would “translate it”. That is clearing meaning that he believed and supported and even advocated change to the AV.

Edward Miller recorded that, “we do not advocate perfection in the Textus Receptus. We allow that here and there it requires revision. In the Text left behind by Dean Burgon, about 150 corrections have been suggested by him in St Matthew’s Gospel alone. What we maintain is the Traditional Text. And we trace it back to the earliest ages of which there is any record.” (Burgon, The Traditional Text, page 5.)

These 150 corrections mean 150 changes in the KJB in the Book Matthew! It does not mean less, or just the Greek, as though it would have no affect or manifestation in English. As for even a short catalogue of specific examples of any sort of alterations the Dean suggested, one can probably find allusions to examples in places in his writings.

He said, “my object, the establishment of the text on an intelligible and trust worthy basis.” (Burgon, The Traditional Text, page 6.) And, “Let 500 more COPIES of the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles be diligently collated. Let at least 100 of the ancient Lectionaries be very exactly collated also. Let the most important of the ancient VERSIONS be edited afresh, and let the languages which these are written be for the first time really mastered by Englishmen. Above all, let the FATHERS be called upon to give up their precious secrets. Let their writings be ransacked and indexed, and (where needful) let the MSS of their works be diligently inspected, in order that we may know what actually is the evidence which they afford, Only so will it ever be possible to obtain a Greek Text on which absolute reliance may be placed, and which may serve as the basis for a satisfactory Revision of our Authorized Version.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, page 125.)

Note that once all this was done, “Only so will it ever be possible to obtain a Greek Text on which absolute reliance may be placed, and which may serve as the basis for a satisfactory Revision of our Authorized Version.” He very plainly, clearly supports a “satisfactory Revision of our Authorized Version”. He is wanting to change the AV, not just the Greek, but the English.

What English was he wanting to change? Certainly not wholesale changes like the RV, because he said, “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.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, page 227.)

He wanted someone to have a “successful” venture, and “organise another attempt at revising the Authorized Version”. He was all for changing the AV. All for the success of a conservative revision.

“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.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, page 128.)

Again, Burgon sees that a new interpretation would be exectued, and gave his ideas on what would make it a “success”? He is not just talking about the Greek, but about creating changes to the King James Bible!

“And finally,” Burgon concluded, “the Revisionists of the future (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 Text as few alterations as possible.’” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, page 128.) And that “the Authorized Version, wherever it was possible, should have been jealously retained.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, page 226.)

He is not just speaking of errors in the Greek but errors or changes to be made in the Authorized Version. He said that it should be retained “wherever it was possible” meaning that he thought it was not always possible to do so, indeed, giving his blessing and the most certain implication that the work of his sort would differ to the AV as it was.

I cannot supply specific examples of what Burgon though were corrections, but it might be possible to find various throughout his writings. But I am not making a case in support of Burgon’s revising the AV, rather, that Burgon being on the side of good was not wholly wrong. Namely, that he did see the value in retaining much of the AV, and that there were a few corrections that were needful in the presentation of the AV, nothing like the types of corrections which he implied he required. And in time, the purification of the AV was complete. But so much of the Dean’s projections were never fulfilled, nor should they be, and that is why we should not bother about what exactly were his requirements for revision, how much and to what extent he was for “representing certain words more accurately, — here and there translating a tense with greater precision, — getting rid of a few archaisms”. He certainly thought there were at least a few inaccuracies, a few imprecisions and a few archaicisms in the AV. What exactly, how many, we do not know, and it does not matter.

Elements or things of the proper spirit of his requirements were fulfilled, and this can be recognised from the basis of a proper view of the AV itself. This includes that the Septuagint knowledge seems to have been helpful in correcting longstanding typographical errors/variations in names in the AV. And that greater knowledge of the Byzantine tradition connected to TR defence has afterwards confirmed the AV.

I stand by my claim that Burgon had the specific aim and wish for the conservative revising of the KJB, which would certainly include, “representing certain words more accurately, — here and there translating a tense with greater precision, — getting rid of a few archaisms”.

[bibleprotector]

Steven Avery wrote:

And I asked you for even one verse, with this hindsight, where knowledge of the Greek OT was helpful for the Redpath purification. And we still await your example of even one verse.

(For defence of course, all the elements are helpful, as we see when Will and myself and others refute the no-pure-KJB crowds claim that this or that word is translated wrong, an endeavor which you appear to sometimes disdain, since we look show the truth of the source and versional languages instead of simply proclaiming English-AV triumphalism to the skeptics and doubters.)

Incidentally, it is possible that the reason the Dean mentioned the Greek OT in that context is that he had similar unsurety about the Masoretic Text as he did about the Greek TR. If that is the explanation (I do not have another, but I am listening for an example from Matthew of how Greek OT knowledge would effect English-AV editions otherwise) then Matthew has misapplied (albeit accidentally in ignorance by not thinking and researching thoroughly enough) the Greek OT statement of Dean Burgon on many articles Matthew has written that highlighted the Redpath Greek OT knowledge as of special significance.

It is clear that the LXX, or knowledge of it, is not helpful nor has had any affect to be able to change even one word of the underlying text to the King James Bible Old Testament. This is simply because no change has been admitted to the underlying text. (It would be contradictory to be stuck upon some issue concerning the underlying text when the AV has been set forth as the final Word for the world.)

My point is that knowledge of the LXX would be (i.e. was) helpful, in that it would be a great asset to having understanding of textual and translational details, second, that this knowledge would not be a hindrance if it was rejected or not utilised in regards to making any change, third, that in purely editorial work, that is, criticism that related to English printed textual history, LXX knowledge would be an asset in identifying typographical errors/variations in obscure names (regardless of the specific LXX witness in regards to those names), and that LXX knowledge would be an aid to regularisation, especially if a person were an LXX editor, therefore in the practice of being an editor, better equipped to deal with the English.

The cause and affect between Burgon and the Pure Cambridge Edition is not literal, but signal (i.e. as a sign). It is not that Burgon said that the LXX would be helpful, and then when an LXX editor worked on the AV, that he made changes from the LXX or on the basis of the LXX, etc. Rather, Burgon, while misguided, was still very good, and had something prophetic about him, in that as little as possible changes to the AV was really his rule, and it worked out that few was far fewer than what he thought. It is not about trying to draw or disavow LXX connections between the editing of the Pure Cambridge Edition. It is about seeing the kind of spirit involved and seeing the kind of learning that would be used by God. (In mentioning Redpath’s knowledge of the LXX, I am doing so highlighting that he was scholarly and learned.)

The very reason why concentrating on the TR and underlying texts is a waste of time is because the KJB is settled now. The very reason why we go beyond Burgon, building upon him, is because we can see where he was wrong and uncertain. Therefore, to yet be labouring with the Greek is to be somewhere where things have not yet been recognised as final.

For example, those who are yet labouring with the Textus Receptus, those who support other translations yet being made from the TR, and so on, which is better than Burgon’s position, is still not fully the final position, because such people may still regard obscurities, etc. in the KJB (e.g. that the English language may alter so that another edition of the KJB be needful), and/or else think that it is obscure, etc. for people in other nations (e.g. to doubt that God is turning the world to English in time).

It is as a sign that there is a connection between those who tend to uphold Burgon in a slightly wrong light themselves tend to be slightly wrong in their view of the perfection of the King James Bible in English. The right light is to see Burgon as good (e.g. learned, prophetic), but mistaken; as furthering the principles of the cause (as few changes as possible), while misapplying the practise (the right view is that the AV is fixed for the world now since its final purification).

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

I pointed out that the Dean was labouring to revise the TR, and had 150 (suggested) changes for the Book of Matthew alone. That is 150 changes in the TR of St. Matthew, potentially 150 changes in the King James Bible in the Gospel of Matthew alone.

And I pointed out that the wording from Miller had some ambiguity. And it has been pointed out by others that one has to be careful that Miller doesn't superimpose his interpretation upon Burgon in "Traditional Text". Thus a suggestion of an alternate text or reading or a margin notation from Burgon could quite easily morph into a "correction" by Miller, if Edward Miller is wearing correction glasses.

This was clear in my original post (although I add a smidgen here) yet ignored by Matthew.

According to the Miller Preface to "The Text" Dean Burgon was making margin notes in a Scrivener NT edition.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Be5JAAAAMAAJ&pg=PR5
The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and Established
"as marked in the margin of one of Scrivener's editions of the New Testament"

And margin notes are notoriously able to be read with various glasses. And remember the Dean himself indicated textual revision could well be only margin notes. Afaik, Miller never makes clear the 'positive iinstructions solely for the publication of his Text of the Gospels' nor do we have readily available the actual Burgon Scrivener-margin material, although they may be in the British Library, since his unpublished early church writer (patristic) collations (color-coded!) I understand do reside in the British Library, as mentioned on the Evangelical Textual Criticism forum and perhaps earlier the web forums.

None of this helps Matthew's earlier error, whatever the nature of Dean Burgon TR considerations, since Matthew's primary error was ascribing to Dean Burgon a necessity and laid out plan that involved KJB archaims and tenses, not possible TR textual change considerations.

And unless we really read some pages of the Matthew-Scrivener texts it would be hard to tell whether the Dean was trying to write a new Greek TR or whether he was doing collation and scholarship work indicating the variances. Again, we do have a few places where the Dean unambigiously indicated his idea that a TR reading was actually incorrect, afaik we only have a few of that nature. When this discussion takes a lull, by the grace of God and time willing, I will be happy to try to document what we actually have. So far I have only seen individual references given on some forums and articles, if there is a group verse listing somewhere, determined by reading through the various Dean Burgon books, that would help the effort.

Shalom,
Steven