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in translation, etc., this must have been known to some extent by Miller, other suggested corrections exist in the unpublished material of the Dean.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.
|