****The rest of the Bibles you quote are essentially based on Textus Receptus or TR, a 16th century collection of 12th century Greek texta and Staphanes’ French Greek sources (all of which are latter-day copies).****
Not quite. Those from the Revised Version onward use the Alexandrian, Vatacanus and Sinaiaticus texts of the 4th century and say “burnt” except for the Confraternity text.
Again, what of those burnt by Nero and those eaten by lions in the Arena.
The (4th c) Aexandrian text-type (Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, etc. as well as latter-day Nestle-Aland) in your own link shows the word kauchesomai (boast); the 5th cnetury Byzantine and the 16th century TR versions show kauthesomai (burned).
Subtle. Someone mistook a chi (χ) for a theta (θ)
The oldest Latin Vulgate is an 8th century copy, so we don't know if this, originally early 5th century, Latin Bible contained the word "burned" or "boast" but there is every reason to assume that +Jerome wanted to use the same Bible used by the Greek Church (since the Church was still united), which would be the 5th century Codex Alexandrinus.
Trouble is C. Alexandrinus is mix of Alexnadrian (older) and Byzantine text-types, it is highly redacted and made "smoother" than the complete (Alexandrian-type) bibles from the century prior.
Thus, +Jerome would have been using a more redacted source which contained errors of copying, additions and deletions (such as in 1 Cor 13:3 the first words kan in the 4th c. version and kai ean in the 5th c. copy). But +Jerome also ad-libed a bit too (i.e. Act 9:6), so the 5th century Vulgate is useless as comparative text. Besides, it's a translation.
And, we all know that we can't use translations, Latin or English, as evidence of what the original says. Yet, the fact is, Textus Receptus relied heavily on Vulgate for missing sections, and even on Tyndale's personal retro-translations from Latin into Greek and passing TR as a "genuine" Greek text source.