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