[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