Steven Avery wrote:
Quote:
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).