[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

If I have misrepresented or been mistaken concerning whom I have quoted, I would seek to rectify that.

And my view is that this is exactly what you did in the case at hand, which is why I went to some effort to carefully document the actual fuller-in-context words of the Dean, how the quotation jigsaw puzzle was put together, and how the puzzle was only held together by your words, since the Dean never talked of either a necessity or laying out a plan. Including showing such elements from the Dean as :

1) the "sacred bond" of the Authorized Version

2) "marginal notes" offered as the final result of any pure motivation endeavor, which is very different than the sense you tried to give of the Dean's views.

3) "deprecate entirely" the superseding of the Authorized Version with any revision (thus the concept that "marginal notes" may be the way to accomplish such an update end some day)

4) the actual purposes of any enterprise would be:
a) study companion
b) references for critical purposes
c) which include 'difficult and controverted passages'

And these are far more available today than in the Dean's day, with such tools and references likely used by us all.

And also showing that the Dean was not laying out any plan, in fact he was indicating that such plans were not even possible in his day and would be dicey at any time, since he had already seen how they had gone awry once in a terrible way. And showing that the Dean was speaking extremely highly of the King James Bible, the "noblest literary work in the Anglo-Saxon language", and indicated no "necessity" to revise away a few 'archaic' words and such.

We have not even been able to find even short lists from the Dean of any difficulties from his perspective (not even his own list of 'archaic words' which is such a favorite endeavor of so many) he was so uninterested in approaching the King James Bible from the perspective of textual or translational revision. Yet we do know that he disagreed textually with a few relatively minor readings (this would be more a TR question first) from his own textual analysis scholarship perspective. Incidentally, I do not think this would include even one, or at least not more than a couple, of the 200 or so KJB/TR vs MV/W-H examples given by Brandon in the Magic Marker page.

There were actually multiple elements to the quotation misrepresentation, all combined together, held together with the technique of patch-quilt jigsaw puzzle quote mining. This is why I found it necessary to confront this quickly and even a bit forcefully, the danger exists that it will become a pattern.

I will say that I have not seen such dubious quotation usage from Matthew before, to his credit. We have tried to parse quotations into fuller understanding (such as on the Greek OT issue and the idea that Greek OT expertise was a major factor in working on the editions of the King James Bible) yet I do not remember any previous cases where I felt that I had to research any quotations, like I immediately did here. Since this seemed to be a unique case, I had at least some hope that Matthew would understand the earnestness and seriousness of the objection to his usage above. And I still maintain that hope, perhaps it will be seen differently by Matthew after a time of reflection and reconsideration.

Shalom,
Steven Avery