[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

The scholarship of Dean Burgon's Revision Revised is truly amazing and of a depth rarely seen in any age. Above we have a misrepresentation of some introductory words from the Dean combined with some other words in another section. We need to have those words put back into proper punctuation and context.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Burgon spoke of the necessity of “the removal of many an obscurity in the AV”, which he laid out as, “representing certain words more accurately, — here and there translating a tense with greater precision, — getting rid of a few archaisms”.

Nope. You have the full first Dean Burgon quote (you mixed two quotes together, both parts were out of context) from the Revision Revised accurate on your own website. Please notice that you had to (snip) or (remove) or (truncate) the '?' for this forum post. A '?' that is an integral part of the punctuation. And this omission masks the fact that the Dean was asking a rhetorical-type question, not at all declaring a "necessity". And the full context had to be snipped out as well. In addition you had to patchquilt phrases out-of-context from two different articles before trying to connect them to your own acontextual fabrications ('necessity' and 'laid out').

While all of the Dean's views can be fairly analyzed and critiqued, there was no sense of Dean Burgon speaking of a revision necessity for the purposes mentioned in this quote. No necessity, and nothing laid out. Matthew, you have tampered with his text improperly to give a false impression.

http://books.google.com/books?id=eK1u8R5UNRMC&pg=PA1
Dean John Burgon - The Quarterly Review - Vol.153 #305 - (Jan, 1882)

The earlier version in the Quarterly Review had an expansion that in included in the fuller version published as The Revision Revised, including the excellent and oft-quoted : "the noblest literary work in the Anglo-Saxon language."

http://www.bibleprotector.com/Burgon_1882.pdf
http://books.google.com/books?id=nXkw1TAatV8C&pg=PA113
The Revision Revised: Article II - The New English Version p. 113 (1883)

WHATEVER may be urged in favour of Biblical Revision, it is at least undeniable that the undertaking involves a tremendous risk. Our Authorized Version is the one religious link which at present binds together ninety millions of English-speaking men scattered over the earth’s surface. Is it reasonable that so unutterably precious, so sacred a bond should be endangered, for the sake of representing certain words more accurately, — here and there translating a sense with greater precision, — getting rid of a few archaisms? It may be confidently assumed that no ‘Revision’ of our Authorized Version, however judiciously executed, will ever occupy the place in public esteem which is actually enjoyed by the work of the Translators of 1611, — the noblest literary work in the Anglo-Saxon language. We shall in fact never have another ‘Authorized Version.’ And this single consideration may be thought absolutely fatal to the project, except in a greatly modified form. To be brief, — As a companion in the study and for private edification: as a book of reference for critical purpose, especially in respect of difficult and controverted passages: — we hold that a revised edition of the Authorized Version of our English Bible, (if executed with consummate ability and learning,) would at any time be a work of inestimable value. The method of such a performance, whether by Marginal Notes or in some other way, we forbear to determine. But only as a handmaid is it to be desired. As something intended to supersede our present English Bible, we are thoroughly convinced that the project of a rival Translation is not to be entertained for a moment. For ourselves, we deprecate it entirely.

Now the first phrase above from Matthew is from a different section. (The patchquilt job.) A section where one could easily say we see a Dean Burgon weakness, yet one where the Dean is still emphasizing foremost that the Revision was a totally bungled enterprise any he was not calling for any type of new effort. The Dean was not declaring any necessity to revise nor laying out any plans. Note that above the Dean was specifically saying no plans were possible today and even if there were plans it might simply be 'marginal notes', a ''handmaid' ! Incidentally, this section is a favorite of the no-pure-KJB author Doug Kutilek and he similarly (extracts) to mask the actual full context from Dean Burgon.

p.57
http://books.google.com/books?id=eK1...g=PA1#PPA57,M1
Quarterly Review p. 57
http://books.google.com/books?id=nXkw1TAatV8C&pg=PA217
Revision Revised p. 217

XII. It is often urged on behalf of the Revisionists that over not a few dark places of S. Paul's Epistles their labours have thrown important light. Let it not be supposed that we deny this. Many a Scriptural difficulty vanishes the instant a place is accurately translated : a far greater number when the rendering is idiomatic. It would be strange indeed if, at the end of ten years, the combined labours of upwards of twenty scholars, whose raison d'etre as Revisionists was to do this very thing, had not resulted in the removal of many an obscurity in the A. V. of Gospels and Epistles alike. What offends us is the discovery that, for every obscurity which has been removed, at least half a dozen others have been introduced : in other words, that the result of their Revision has been the planting in of a fresh crop of difficulties, before undreamed of; so that a perpetual wrestling with these is what hereafter awaits the diligent student of the N. T.

As to why Matthew wrested the Dean's writings to try to awkwardly fit into a totally different context, I will pass on that at this time.

Shalom,
Steven