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:
Quote:
|
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 !
|
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".)