[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

I pointed out that the Dean was labouring to revise the TR, and had 150 (suggested) changes for the Book of Matthew alone. That is 150 changes in the TR of St. Matthew, potentially 150 changes in the King James Bible in the Gospel of Matthew alone.

And I pointed out that the wording from Miller had some ambiguity. And it has been pointed out by others that one has to be careful that Miller doesn't superimpose his interpretation upon Burgon in "Traditional Text". Thus a suggestion of an alternate text or reading or a margin notation from Burgon could quite easily morph into a "correction" by Miller, if Edward Miller is wearing correction glasses.

This was clear in my original post (although I add a smidgen here) yet ignored by Matthew.

According to the Miller Preface to "The Text" Dean Burgon was making margin notes in a Scrivener NT edition.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Be5JAAAAMAAJ&pg=PR5
The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and Established
"as marked in the margin of one of Scrivener's editions of the New Testament"

And margin notes are notoriously able to be read with various glasses. And remember the Dean himself indicated textual revision could well be only margin notes. Afaik, Miller never makes clear the 'positive iinstructions solely for the publication of his Text of the Gospels' nor do we have readily available the actual Burgon Scrivener-margin material, although they may be in the British Library, since his unpublished early church writer (patristic) collations (color-coded!) I understand do reside in the British Library, as mentioned on the Evangelical Textual Criticism forum and perhaps earlier the web forums.

None of this helps Matthew's earlier error, whatever the nature of Dean Burgon TR considerations, since Matthew's primary error was ascribing to Dean Burgon a necessity and laid out plan that involved KJB archaims and tenses, not possible TR textual change considerations.

And unless we really read some pages of the Matthew-Scrivener texts it would be hard to tell whether the Dean was trying to write a new Greek TR or whether he was doing collation and scholarship work indicating the variances. Again, we do have a few places where the Dean unambigiously indicated his idea that a TR reading was actually incorrect, afaik we only have a few of that nature. When this discussion takes a lull, by the grace of God and time willing, I will be happy to try to document what we actually have. So far I have only seen individual references given on some forums and articles, if there is a group verse listing somewhere, determined by reading through the various Dean Burgon books, that would help the effort.

Shalom,
Steven