Steven Avery
Administrator
Facebook - NT Textual Criticism
https://www.facebook.com/groups/302249746528699/?multi_permalinks=7706567142763552
Herminio Hernandez Jr. · ·
In reading Scrivener I see he does hold to both the longer ending of Mark and the pericope adulterae, however, holds the second with reservation.
“To begin with variations of the gravest kind. In two, though happily in only two instances, the genuineness of whole passages of considerable extent, which are read in our printed copies of the New Testament, has been brought into question. These are the weighty and characteristic paragraphs Mark xvi. 9-20 and John vii. 53-viii. We shall hereafter defend these passages, the first without the slightest misgiving, the second with certain reservations, as entitled to be regarded authentic portions of the Gospels in which they stand.”
A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament for the Use of Biblical Students by
Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener
Alexander Thomson
His *plain* introduction showed more *plain* sense than many of those who came after him!
Alexander Thomson
Scrivener issued a damning final verdict on Westcott and Hort's text He had issued several editions of the Greek New Testament, using Stephanus 1550 as his base and comparing to it the variances in Beza, Elzevir, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles. In October 1886, he issued his final edition, adding the variances in Westcott-Hort and the (English) Revisers. He thanked Westcott and Hort for their kind agreement to his using their text, and he acknowledged their scholarly virtues. Nevertheless, he delivered a very heavy judgment against their text, quoting Plato's Apology 18b and Thucydides's War 1.22.4. From a Classicist to Classicists, and out to a wider world, his decided - and scathing - judgment was that Westcott and Hort were guilty of the gravely mistaken charge brought against Socrates, so that they made "the worse/weaker argument [appear to be (the)]better/stronger" [Socrates]. He then added that "they [had] sent into the light [of day], not a possession for ever/all time', but 'a brilliant error'/ something brilliant but erroneous" [Thucydides]. In short, Scrivener was of the very decided view that Westcott and Hort had greatly erred!
Alexander Thomson
Scrivener's final words on the wrong direction of the critical attempts in his time:
"POSTSCRIPT. September 29, 1890.
My lamented friend and fellow student, the late Very Reverend J. W. Burgon, Dean of Chichester, very earnestly requested me, that if I lived to complete the present work, I would publickly testify that my latest labours had in no wise modified my previous critical convictions, namely, that the true text of the New Testament can best and most safely be gathered from a comprehensive acquaintance with every source of information yet open to us, whether they be Manuscripts of the original text, Versions, or Fathers; rather than from a partial representation of three or four authorities which, though in date the more ancient and akin in character, cannot be made even tolerably to agree together.
I saw on my own part no need of such avowal, yet (neget quis carmina Gallo ?) I could not deny Dean Burgon's request."
John William Burgon, Late Dean of Chichester: A Biography with ..., Volume 2
By Edward Meyrick Goulburn
https://books.google.com/books?id=sEVtAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA53
Scrivener
https://books.google.com/books?id=WDX4TpxFLa8C&pg=PR103
https://www.facebook.com/groups/302249746528699/?multi_permalinks=7706567142763552
Herminio Hernandez Jr. · ·
In reading Scrivener I see he does hold to both the longer ending of Mark and the pericope adulterae, however, holds the second with reservation.
“To begin with variations of the gravest kind. In two, though happily in only two instances, the genuineness of whole passages of considerable extent, which are read in our printed copies of the New Testament, has been brought into question. These are the weighty and characteristic paragraphs Mark xvi. 9-20 and John vii. 53-viii. We shall hereafter defend these passages, the first without the slightest misgiving, the second with certain reservations, as entitled to be regarded authentic portions of the Gospels in which they stand.”
A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament for the Use of Biblical Students by
Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener
Alexander Thomson
His *plain* introduction showed more *plain* sense than many of those who came after him!
Alexander Thomson
Scrivener issued a damning final verdict on Westcott and Hort's text He had issued several editions of the Greek New Testament, using Stephanus 1550 as his base and comparing to it the variances in Beza, Elzevir, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles. In October 1886, he issued his final edition, adding the variances in Westcott-Hort and the (English) Revisers. He thanked Westcott and Hort for their kind agreement to his using their text, and he acknowledged their scholarly virtues. Nevertheless, he delivered a very heavy judgment against their text, quoting Plato's Apology 18b and Thucydides's War 1.22.4. From a Classicist to Classicists, and out to a wider world, his decided - and scathing - judgment was that Westcott and Hort were guilty of the gravely mistaken charge brought against Socrates, so that they made "the worse/weaker argument [appear to be (the)]better/stronger" [Socrates]. He then added that "they [had] sent into the light [of day], not a possession for ever/all time', but 'a brilliant error'/ something brilliant but erroneous" [Thucydides]. In short, Scrivener was of the very decided view that Westcott and Hort had greatly erred!
Alexander Thomson
Scrivener's final words on the wrong direction of the critical attempts in his time:
"POSTSCRIPT. September 29, 1890.
My lamented friend and fellow student, the late Very Reverend J. W. Burgon, Dean of Chichester, very earnestly requested me, that if I lived to complete the present work, I would publickly testify that my latest labours had in no wise modified my previous critical convictions, namely, that the true text of the New Testament can best and most safely be gathered from a comprehensive acquaintance with every source of information yet open to us, whether they be Manuscripts of the original text, Versions, or Fathers; rather than from a partial representation of three or four authorities which, though in date the more ancient and akin in character, cannot be made even tolerably to agree together.
I saw on my own part no need of such avowal, yet (neget quis carmina Gallo ?) I could not deny Dean Burgon's request."
John William Burgon, Late Dean of Chichester: A Biography with ..., Volume 2
By Edward Meyrick Goulburn
https://books.google.com/books?id=sEVtAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA53
Scrivener
https://books.google.com/books?id=WDX4TpxFLa8C&pg=PR103
Last edited:
