Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener was an important text critic of the New Testament and a Contributions to the criticism of the Greek New Testament: being the Edited, with a critical Introduction, Annotations, and Facsimiles, Biblical Students (published posthumously and coauthored by Edward Miller),
Table of contents
University Press, , s. Pollard, in the Supplement, A Biography , 2 vols.
- Scrivener’s Textus Receptus 1894 (TR1894).
- Page Index.
- Miss Lulu Bett.
John Murray, ; sadly, no comparable biography of Scrivener appears to exist. Hoskier was born in , 51 years after Burgon and Scrivener, outliving them by 50 and 47 years respectively. He died in Hoskier carried Burgon's torch through the first decades of the twentieth century. James Parker and Co. Burgon should be heard further on this point: John Murray, , , continued note 3, Burgon thus commends Scrivener despite their differences to his readers: Scrivener is the very best teacher and guide to whom a beginner can resort, who desires to be led by the hand, as it were, through the intricate mazes of Textual Criticism We strenuously recommend the three prefatory chapters of his Full and Exact Collation of about twenty Greek Manuscripts According to DNB , Tytler ; and 7 a History of the Colleges of Oxford There thus can be no doubt who was the predecessor and who the very late "follower.
- Naughty Little Secrets.
- Methods of Fracture Mechanics: Solid Matter Physics (Solid Mechanics and Its Applications)?
- Scrivener New Testament (TR) - Version Information - leondumoulin.nl.
He mentions in passing the variation unit 1 Tim 3: We cannot venture to adduce it in proof of anything" emphasis original. Burgon clearly at this point , age 48 was not seriously involved in the field of NT textual criticism, and would not be until a decade later with the publication of his The Last Twelve Verses of Mark. George Bell and Sons, Note that while this volume is attributed to Miller, Burgon's literary effects were the primary source, and Miller speaks in the preface as a joint author: For the record, Miller was born in and died in While such might apply to many within the KJV-only camp, scholars who support a critically-determined Byzantine, "majority," or traditional text should not be tarred with the same brush.
Those same members of the KJV-only faction appeal also to Burgon, Miller, and Hoskier in support of their position, even though all these scholars stand quite apart from anything paralleling the KJV-only claims. Charges of "historical revisionism" should stop there, and not be applied to others who do not fall under the same condemnation. Dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, , Martin, however, is careful to point out clear differences between Burgon and Scrivener, stating that neither were they parallel peas in a single pod, nor did they support a single "majority text" theory: Scrivener was much more temperate than Burgon" Martin, 57 ; also, "Scrivener allowed more weight to the old uncials than Burgon did" Martin, Waite and not those known to be "majority text" or Byzantine-priority scholars.
Charles Scribner's Sons, , Eerdmans, , 81, regarding "The final substantial scholarly defense of the Textus Receptus This defense rested largely in the hands of F. Scrivener and especially J. Macmillan, , His [Scrivener's] experience led him gradually to modify his views on some points, and to make some concessions. At the time of his death he was moving in the direction of the substitution of the older, uncial text for that of the Textus Receptus.
He gave up 1 John 5: The movement, however, was slow and hesitating. Scrivener came to see before he passed away that the received text could not be supported so unconditionally as he had once thought. But he expressed himself less distinctly in public, moved, I think, largely by a kind consideration for his friend and staunch adherent John William Burgon, whose devotion to that text scarcely knew any bounds. In reply, one should note that Vincent's comments are simply wrong , being based, I suppose, on an assumption that the traditional or Byzantine text was identical to the TR.
Scrivener's earliest published opinion regarding the Johannine Comma Plain Introduction 1 , held with the Byzantines, affirming that the Comma was a late addition, having no relation to the original text. Yet, apart from a very few key readings, there is little evidence in any of Scrivener's works to support any serious change or modification in his textual opinions, even though he always remained sensitive to the textual value and transmissional implications of newly-discovered MSS e. Gregory's statement remains speculative and unsupported, and one seriously can wonder whether it may have derived from Vincent's earlier erroneous claims or reflects mere wishful thinking on Gregory's part.
Given the list of scholars and quotations cited, it seems difficult to object to such an impression. That faction does appear to accept uncritically the concept that Burgon and Scrivener held identical views, even though Burgon himself acknowledges theoretical differences with Scrivener e. Scrivener's later writings demonstrate that some of his opinions changed over time. It is therefore inappropriate to cite only the earlier source and not to mention Scrivener's other writings which might supply contrary information.
Scrivener's lengthy discussion of evidence is generally omitted. Almost identical wording appears in the Plain Introduction 2 , One seriously should wonder how , in light of such a consistent opinion in the Plain Introduction volumes, Scrivener came to take an opposite view in his Six Lectures addressed to laypersons: It can hardly be upheld any longer as a portion of the sacred text" Scrivener, Six Lectures, , In this regard, one should note that the ERV in fact did omit the doxology in Matt 6: This supposition is supported by the anonymous writer of "The Revised Version and its Critics," Church Quarterly Review 15 While discussing Scrivener's divergent statements in Six Lectures regarding among other units Matt 6: Note once more that the statement in Six Lectures reflects a greater uncertainty during the era of the ERV Company sessions: John's Gospel" Scrivener, Six Lectures , Miller apparently here inserted bracketed references which point to the following passages: Within this third category "that remarkable verse, Jn v.
Virtually the same discussion appears in Scrivener, Plain Introduction 2 , , except at that time the Matt 6: Examples of this kind Sufficient attention has hardly been paid to a supposition which would account for discrepancies otherwise very perplexing; and it is evident that transcripts might have been made from the first issue which, being propagated in distant lands, would always keep up the difference between the several recensions, each as it came from the author's hand.
Burgon on the other hand differed sharply from Scrivener's "two-edition" hypothesis; see Burgon, Causes of the Corruption , , and especially , referencing Scrivener: It has been further proposed to regard St. John xxi besides St. But this is unreasonable The cursives fortified by other evidence are by far the more trustworthy witnesses of what St. John in his old age actually entrusted to the Church's keeping. This statement, as well as Scrivener's subsequent variant unit discussion of both the pericope adulterae and John 5: Once again, Six Lectures reflects an earlier doubtful opinion: The great preponderance of the best Greek manuscripts against it, the wide variations observed between the copies which contain it, the ambiguous verdict of the best translations [i.
Scrivener fluctuated on this particular reading over the years. This is no surprise, given that he termed it the "crux criticorum" 2: This opinion was reversed in the first three editions of the Plain Introduction , as well as in his Six Lectures , in which latter work he states Slowly and deliberately, yet in full confidence that God in other passages of His written word has sufficiently assured us of the Proper Divinity of His Incarnate Son, we have yielded up this clause as no longer tenable against the accumulated force of external evidence which has been brought against it Scrivener, Six Lectures, Yet his most recent statement quoted in the main text signals a return to a more cautious estimate: Some units which previously had appeared in Six Lectures are omitted, and a larger number of additional units has been inserted.
However, given the particular historical context, the data has to reflect exactly what appears in Six Lectures. Scrivener's discussion of these 42 readings concludes with a list of 21 additional references, "which passages the student may work out for himself. Five additional references then are provided, with the overall effect showing Scrivener continuing to reject numerous passages which are currently accepted by NA As regards point 2, our extant MSS appear to reflect a basically orthodox text from which most if not all heretical corruptions apparently have been eliminated.
Point 3 should be more concerned with "transmissional likelihood" than "statistical probability.
Available formats
Point 5 fails to recognize that internal considerations do play a significant role where Byzantine testimony is divided, and remains mandatory even when external testimony appears to be sufficient. The issue under discussion, however, is what Scrivener may have stated on those points, regardless of their later use, misuse, modification, or reinterpretation by various Byzantine or "majority text" supporters.
Compare these later , views of providential preservation with what Scrivener suggested in regarding even the early printed TR editions: I hope it is no presumptuous belief, that the Providence of God took such care of His Church in the vital matter of maintaining His Word pure and uncorrupted, that He guided the minds of the first editors, in their selection of the authorities on which they rested. It is easy to declaim on the low date and little worth of the manuscripts used by the Complutensian divines, by Erasmus, or Stephens; but what would have been the present state of the text of the Gospels, had the least among them conceded to the Cambridge MS.
Scrivener, Supplement , 6, emphasis original. Irenaeus and Origen are also mentioned in regard to complaints against heretical tampering with the Scriptures. Compare in this regard the earlier and more nuanced comment in Scrivener, Supplement , 27 differences italicized: Many codices of the ninth or tenth century were probably transcribed from others of a more early date than any which now exist: Wallace fails to note the strict limitations which Scrivener imposes on the application of internal principles, particularly their secondary role in contrast to matters regarding external evidence.
One should note in this regard Scrivener's comment regarding the harder reading canon in his discussion of Matt Those who defend the variation 'works' naturally press into their service Bengel's canon Similarly, in regard to the "shorter reading" canon, Scrivener often favors the longer Byzantine reading, e. Paradoxically, in his Six Lectures , , , Scrivener rejects the longer Byzantine "and fasting" in Matt Scrivener, Plain Introduction 2 , , n.
Scrivener's quotation regarding the variant unit at Col. The full quotation coupled with the restriction of the comment to evidence cited in a seriously-divided variant unit presents quite a different picture than Wallace's ellipsis suggests.
When the reader compares the discussion of the same variant unit in Plain Introduction 4 , 2: He still concludes that "in the presence of so many opposing probabilities [in this variant unit], a very small weight might suffice to turn the critical scale" 2: The now-known alignment of 46 with B and Hilary in this unit perhaps would have reassured Scrivener in his "last resort" decision. In the various Plain Introduction volumes, the blanket statement was first reduced to the ninth century, and finally for the Gospels to the sixth century.
Of interest in regard to this principle is that in Augiensis , xx, Scrivener also stated, "I do not lay down these propositions as any new discovery of my own, but as being even the second of them [i. Scrivener further stated in Augiensis , xx, In the far more numerous cases where the most ancient documents are at variance with each other, the later or cursive copies are of great importance, as the surviving representatives of other codices, very probably as early, possibly even earlier, than any now extant.
The passage is addressed as a challenge to Tregelles. It is not without significance that Scrivener, Adversaria Critica Sacra , xxviii, n. It is not a little curious to the person who commences the critical study of the documents of the N.
Greek NT (Scrivener-1894) UTF8
A little study soon convinces the tyro of the impossibility of determining any law by which the value of a codex can be determined in terms of its age only without reference to its history. This statement continued with only minor alterations into the Plain Introduction: The more closely the cursive copies of Scripture are examined, the more does the individual character of each of them become developed.
With certain points of general resemblance, whereby they are distinguished from the older documents of the Alexandrian class, they abound with mutual variations so numerous and perpetual as to vouch for the independent origin of nearly all of them, and their exact study has [quoting Tregelles] 'swept away at once and for ever' the fancy of a standard Constantinopolitan text, and every inference that had been grounded upon its presumed existence Scrivener, Plain Introduction 4 , 2: Burgon had died the previous year 4 Aug , and Scrivener's letter was sent while Goulburn was preparing Burgon's biography.
This explicit statement from Scrivener also establishes the fallacy in C. Gregory's claim cited above, n. To this compare Supplement , The researches of Scholz have done much towards removing the obloquy and undeserved contempt which had been cast on the received text by critics of the last century. It is not essential to our argument that the fact of [the Byzantine minuscules] being derived from ancient sources now lost should be established , though internal evidence points strongly to their being so derived: Note also that Scrivener's most recent opinion , stated in opposition to a key point of Scholz' theory, restates his earliest views nearly exactly: If as we firmly believe the less ancient codices ought to have their proper weight and appreciable influence in fixing the true text of Scripture, our favourable estimate of them must rest on other arguments than Scholz has urged in their behalf 2: The entire paragraph containing Wallace's closing statement not only concluded the "Revisionism" article but also appeared in his "History, Methods, Critique" essay , n.
An Introduction for English Readers Edinburgh: Clark, , Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration , 3rd enl. Oxford University Press, , Eminent Victorian Decatur, GA: The Almond Press, ; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, , Prentice-Hall, , Bruce, The English Bible: A History of Translations New York: Oxford, , Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts , rev. Irwin and Allen P.
Scrivener’s Textus Receptus () with Morphology
Bruce, The Books and the Parchments: Some Chapters on the Transmission of the Bible , rev. Revell, , Rivingtons, , Greenwood Press, rep. Herder, ] , Brill, , 75 [this article originally appeared in JBL 66 ]. Le Texte du Nouveau Testament , 3rd ed. Librairie Victor Lecoffre, J. Open Preview See a Problem? Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page.
Interlinear Greek New Testament Bible 4. For convenience, Strong's Numbers are included with hyperlinks. Kindle Edition , pages. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. Lists with This Book. Jan 05, Joshua Foote rated it liked it. Not good for me Good book and got for free however not useful information for me since I don't know Greek however I would recommend strong's concordance and dictionary.
HughDeLong rated it really liked it Jun 22, Calladus rated it liked it Feb 01, Denise McCord rated it really liked it Dec 23, Adam Bennick rated it it was amazing Jan 31, Chad Tronetti rated it liked it Mar 11, Simon Harvey rated it liked it Oct 07, Jerome testifies that it was found in his time 'in multis et Graecis et Latinis codicibus; '. Ambrose cites it, and Augustine de adult. When to all these sources of doubt, and to so many hostile authorities, is added the fact that in no portion of the N.
John, it has been transmitted to us under circumstances widely different from those connected with any other genuine passage of Scripture whatever. A C are defective in this place, but by measuring the space we have shown p. The reckoning, as McClellan remarks N. Yet Burgon 's caution should be attended to:. This Codex is nothing else but a commentary on the Gospel, as the Gospel used to be read in public. Of necessity, therefore, it leaves out those parts of the Gospel which are observed not to have been publicly read'.
The kindred copies Codd. The reference is to the Apostolic Constitutions ii. Yet so that the first hand of Cod. A learned friend suggests that, supposing the true place for this supplemental history to be yet in doubt, there would be this reason for the narrative to be set after Luke xxi, that a reader of the Synoptic Gospels would be aware of no other occasion when the Lord had to lodge outside the city: John's narrative before him, he would see that this was probably the usual lot of a late comer at the Feast of Tabernacles ch.
Mr J Rendel Harris thinks that the true place for the pericope is between ch. Yet on the whole this paragraph is found in more of Bp. Lightfoot 's copies than would have been anticipated: In the text of 3, 8, 14, 17, 18, 23, 24 , in the margin of 1, and on a later leaf of It is wanting in 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 19, 21, 25, Nicon lived in or about the tenth century, but Theophylact in the eleventh does not use the paragraph.
X, accuses the Armenians of rejecting Luke xxii 43 f.