[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by Connie

I'd really like to know exactly which changes Burgon considered useful and that information doesn't seem to be available ... I'd love to know which words needed to be represented more accurately, which tenses needed greater precision, which words were considered to be archaisms in those days.

The textual changes proposed in the Dean's analysis are in his writings. They are minor compared to the battleground verses, he even has a quote about that and I can pull it out later .. Sometimes simply unusual, eclectic textual ideas. It would be a good exercise in this friendly environment to pull out a few and even seek to show exactly how the Dean got tripped up on his own expertise, skills and scholarship. It is possible one aspect may be an overemphasis on Origen.

For stylistic or word sense or modernizing I am not sure the Dean's preferences and concerns will be as easy to discover. e.g There is one place where he discusses the issue of 'Holy Ghost' (search for the word anarchism and you can find it) however he is more defending than critiquing the Traditional Text. (In this case the TT = King James Bible an important point in harmony with the quotes that show that he was an Authorized Version defender against many translational modernist attempts. Not just a textual "Traditional Text" "underlying Greek" defender against the ultra-corrupt counterfeit underlying Westcott-Hort Greek.

My suggestion, we could have a separate thread on the Dean's critiques that might be seen as corrections (textual or translational). Nothing wrong with pointing out the few places he was wrong in the midst of such amazing and unsurpassed scholarship.

Shalom,
Steven