View Single Post
  #51  
Old 07-10-2008, 11:28 AM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 462
Default

Hi Folks,

Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
Steven Avery seems to be arguing that the Dean’s work was restricted to the Greek only, and that the Dean was not advocating any change to the King James Bible. If that is more or less what Steven Avery is arguing and claiming, I believe it to be a wrong interpretation of Burgon’s work.
You are doing as poor a job with my words as you did with the Dean's.

Of course a Greek overhaul would manifest in the English, whether the change manifest in margin notes or a reference guide or in the version text.

My point was simple. The "archaisms" and "tenses" plan you gave to the Dean as a "necessity" simply did not exist.

Why don't you give some examples where the Dean actually emphasized such aspects of King James Bible revision ? "this tense should be..." "this word is archaic...".

Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
First, Burgon spoke of the necessity of “the removal of many an obscurity in the AV”..
Now this is past patch-quilting and is at the point of deliberate falsehood by Matthew. The comment about "the removal .." never declared a necessity; that is only Matthew's word. There is some deep difficulty in Matthew's writing ethics at this point. And the context was completely different, that such removals only occurred en passant during the disaster endeavor, the revision.

As I indicated, I am now warned more so to be careful about any exposition given by Matthew.
Caveat emptor.

Since the rest of the post simply says that the Dean considered the possibilities of how a revision could be accomplished in a future generation, and tries to morph the Dean's diffuse comments into a "laid out plan" and tries to shift the "plan" away from the TR question (the critical Dean Burgon component) to archaisms and tenses (the original Matthew claim, akin to the PCE) there really is little new added.

Matthew is making good points against a person who says "Dean Burgon never was in favor of a possible future generation revision of the TR-NT which would by nature revise the KJB (at the very least in margin notes)" -- however that is a straw man in this thread, since I never remotely took that view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
.... how much and to what extent he was for “representing certain words more accurately, — here and there translating a tense with greater precision, — getting rid of a few archaisms”. He certainly thought there were at least a few inaccuracies, a few imprecisions and a few archaicisms in the AV. What exactly, how many, we do not know, and it does not matter.
Please note: I am going to take this as a semi-retraction of the original claim by Matthew that the Dean laid out a plan for this as a necessity.

In fact Dean Burgon was simply saying that he felt some of the Revision work had, in the midst of tons of junque, accomplished a smidgen in this regard. That was the context.

Yes, he thought there were a few inaccuracies, that is far from declaring the necessity and laying out a plan to do a revision finding, delineating and focusing on those few inaccuracies. (The Dean never did any systematic work in this field - zilch.) The only potential revision the Dean ever discussed would be in the future and would focus primarily on the Greek text of the TR. Maybe it would respect his textual theories, which had a bit of a Majority Text component yet ironically seemed to be sympathetic to the TR on all the doctrinally-charged Majority-TR divergences.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
the Septuagint knowledge seems to have been helpful in correcting longstanding typographical errors/variations in names in the AV.
And I am willing to accept this as a possibility, apparently only a secondary aspect. This far more likely had to do firstly with Greek word meanings. This would be a complementary error of the Dean to the error of his concerns about the TR text. My conjecture above about the Masoretic Text on this point omitted consideration of the NT aspect of the quote,. so I consider that conjecture in error, pending more checking. I consider Matthew's view (only names, typography) an example of seeing the Dean's statement with PCE glasses, rather than as involving word meanings. There is certainly no reason to assume that the Dean considered all the Greek-English word meaning translations in the KJB as without error, thus the Ockham's understanding of the Greek OT comment would be that you would modify some translations based on fuller Greek OT word meanings. Of course the King James Bible translators were superb on this element themselves, so this particular concept is without either much sense or any validity, simillar to the Dean proclivity to want to conform the TR text a bit more to a Greek Majority text.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
I stand by my claim that Burgon had the specific aim and wish for the conservative revising of the KJB, which would certainly include, “representing certain words more accurately, — here and there translating a tense with greater precision, — getting rid of a few archaisms”.
And your claiming that this plan was a "necessity" "laid out" by the Dean, in a statement that even ignored the far more consequential aspect of a possible future generation TR update, remains an example of writing designed to deflect and divert (towards the PCE concept) rather than inform the reader about the Dean's views. It is good that the reader is now informed, not so good that you still insist on the same writing misrepresentation.

And such deflective historical revisionism works against the laudatory aims of the PCE
And is totally unnecessary.

Shalom,
Steven

Last edited by Steven Avery; 07-10-2008 at 11:57 AM.