Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Avery
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.
|
This is not what I have said. What I have shown is that Burgon had a plan (without specific details) to change both the TR and the KJB, or to agree with such things. It was not just "possible" TR changes, but the design was that some of the suggestions would actually be finally taken. And the changes to the KJB included a desire to alter some minor points, such as archaic words or modifying tenses. We do not have the fine details, because the Dean only broadly promotes this idea in his published works. He says that the TR should be changed, but we don't know fully know what those changes are. He says that the KJB should be revised, but we don't know which verses he particularly means. But we cannot deny that he was a conservative Bible corrector, and much more sound, as when comparing to even the NKJV people.
Burgon’s plan, which was never "formalised", which outline I have constructed from a general knowledge of Burgon's printed work, was promoted by the Dean because he clearly indicated the inevitability and the necessity of revision, therefore, he wished the (deferred) revision to be done soundly:
I. gaining a full picture of the underlying textual evidence with special reference to the Byzantine tradition,
II. the developing of scholarship in “sound” textual criticism, including acquaintance with the LXX, etc.,
III. making corrections to the TR,
IV. translating afresh in places, while keeping the KJB as much as possible,
V. alterations of the English idiom of the KJB where obscure or imprecise,
VI. updating a few “archaicisms” in the KJB,
VII. as to how this is to be executed, could perhaps as an auxiliary “handmaid” volume, or perhaps by marginal references, or perhaps as a new edition wherein would be introduced as few alterations as possible into the Text of the Authorized Version.
I cannot produce any particular reference off hand where the Dean said, "this particular archaic, obscure or imprecise word should be altered", etc., but we know Burgon did give hints that this was his thinking. From what he stated, it is clear that he thought some revision in the KJB was necessary. Also, he never says the opposite, namely, he never says or rules out that the King James Bible should not be revised or altered. The closest he comes to that is by pointing out the danger of altering the KJB which is a binding religious link, and a recognised monument, etc. I submit that the presentation of my view of Dean Burgon as a potential corrector of the King James Bible is based on sound reality. I emphasise that he must have been on the right side, because he was kept from actually carrying out his designs in this regard.