He would not be a KJVO person today in the sense those in it would be advocating the use of the term!John William Burgon actually supported revision of the Textus Receptus and the KJV (The Revision Revised, pp. 21, 107, 114, 224, 236, 269).
For example, John William Burgon wrote: "Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, by any means, claim perfection for the Received Text. We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we shall have occasion to point out that the Textus Receptus needs correction" (p. 21, footnote 3). Burgon maintained that “in not a few particulars, the ‘Textus receptus’ does call for Revision” (p. 107). Burgon wrote: “That some corrections of the Text were necessary, we are well aware” (p. 224, footnote 1). Burgon himself asked: “who in his senses, --what sane man in Great Britain, --ever dreamed of regarding the ‘Received,‘ --aye, or any other known ‘Text,‘ --as a standard from which there shall be no appeal? Have I ever done so? Have I ever implied as much? If I have, show me where” (p. 385). Burgon himself asserted: “If, on the contrary, I have ever once appealed to the ‘Received Text,‘ and made it my standard, --why do you not prove the truth of your allegation by adducing in evidence that one particular instance?“ instead of bringing against me a charge which is utterly without foundation (p. 388). Burgon asked: “Who, pray, since the invention of printing was ever known to put forward any existing Text as ‘a final standard’?“ (p. 392). Burgon asserted: “So far am I from pinning my faith to it [the Textus Receptus], that I eagerly make my appeal from it to the threefold witness of Copies, Versions, Fathers, whenever I find its testimony challenged” (Ibid.). In 1864, Burgon maintained that “the accumulated evidence of the last two centuries has enabled us to correct it [the Textus Receptus] with confidence in hundreds of places” (Treatise on the Pastoral Office, p. 69).
After discussing the inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures, Burgon asserted: “Our remarks apply in strictness only to the sacred autographs” (Treatise on the Pastoral Office, p. 64). Burgon added: “God has not seen fit to work a succession of miracles for the protection even of His Word” (p. 64). Burgon claimed: “To some, it may seem a matter of regret that a perpetual miracle has not guarded the ispissma verba of the Spirit; but the wiser will judge differently” (p. 77). Burgon observed: “It is obvious that a really ancient Codex of the Gospels must needs supply more valuable critical help in establishing the precise Text of Scripture then can possibly be rendered by any translation, however faithful; while Patristic citations are on the whole a less decisive authority, even than versions” (Last Twelve Verses, p. 19).
In his introduction to Burgon’s book, Edward Miller wrote: “In the Text left behind by Dean Burgon, about 150 corrections have been suggested by him in St. Matthew‘s Gospel alone“ (Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, p. 5). Burgon and Miller advocated “the Traditional Text,“ not the Textus Receptus (p. 5). Burgon as edited by Miller asserted: “I am not defending the ‘Textus Receptus’” (p. 15). Burgon added: “That it is without authority to bind, nay, that it calls for skillful revision in every part, is freely admitted. I do not believe it to be absolutely identical with the true Traditional Text” (Ibid.). Burgon asserted: “Where any part of it conflicts with the fullest evidence attainable, there I believe that it calls for correction” (Ibid.). Edward Miller concluded that the Traditional Text advocated by Dean Burgon would differ “in many passages” from the Textus Receptus (p. 96). In the introduction to another of Burgon’s books, Edward Miller asserted: “The Traditional Text must be found, not in a mere transcript, but in a laborious revision of the Received Text” (Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text, p. 1).
Edward Miller maintained that Burgon thought that there were “additions to the Received Text” at Matthew 6:18, Matthew 25:13, and Matthew 27:35 (Burgon, Causes of the Corruptions of the Traditional Text, p. 171). Burgon as edited by Miller noted: “An instance where an error from an Itacism has crept into the Textus Receptus may be seen in St. Luke 16:25” (p. 60). Under the heading “Burgon and Miller’s system,” Edward Miller asserted that “The Textus Receptus, which was adopted in the revival of Greek learning, though it agrees substantially with our Canons, fails under the first, which is the virtual embodiment of them all; because some of its readings are condemned by the balance struck upon all the evidence which as been assembled under the unprecedented advantage afforded in this century” (Oxford Debate, p. xiii). Burgon wrote: “S. Luke’s history of the Temptation (4:8) contains five words which some ancient copyist must have inserted from remembering too well the parallel place in S. Matthew 4:10, and confounding it with the language of S. Matthew 16:23” (Treatise on the Pastoral, p. 76). Burgon asked: “See you not that the state of the text of the Bible has no more to do with the Inspiration of the Bible, then the stains on yonder windows have to do with the light of God’s sun?” (Inspiration and Interpretation, p. 119).
Marvin Vincent observed: “With Dean Burgon, he [Scrivener] stood for the position that all available authorities, and not the most ancient only, should be considered in the settlement of the text” (History of the Textual Criticism, p. 141). Vincent maintained that “John W. Burgon, Dean of Chichester, was the friend and coadjutor of Scrivener” (p. 142). Peter Ruckman asserted that “Burgon claimed the AV has several corrupt readings in it” (Ruckman’s Battlefield Notes, p. 100). John William Burgon referred to “what, in the A. V. is nothing worse than a palpable mistranslation” (Revision Revised, p. 72). Burgon suggested that “the inaccurate rendering” of two Greek words in the KJV at Matthew 3:10 and Luke 3:9 was “retained” in the Revised Version (p. 164). Burgon indicated that there are some places where the Revisionists remedy “an inaccuracy in the rendering of the A. V.“ (p. 220). Burgon wrote: “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” (pp. 216-217). Concerning Luke 5:2, Burgon as edited by Miller asserted: “The translators of the 1611, not understanding the incident, were content, as Tyndale, following the Vulgate, had been before them, to render [the Greek words]--’were washing their nets” (Traditional Text, p. 212). Burgon then maintained that the Revisers of 1881 retained “the incorrect translation” found in the 1611 KJV at this verse (Ibid.).
He p[probably would desire to see a completed translation off the so called majority text!
