tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post6271353225247818384..comments2024-03-28T00:45:18.442+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: The Greek Text of the English Bible between 1611 and 1881P.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-91010200088482169902023-07-19T18:57:14.416+01:002023-07-19T18:57:14.416+01:00M M Rose has kindly drawn my attention to the fol...M M Rose has kindly drawn my attention to the following remarks:-<br /><br />"POSTSCRIPT. September 29, 1890.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /> I saw on my own part no need of such avowal, yet (neget quis carmina Gallo ?) I could not deny Dean Burgon's request."<br /> See:<br /> https://books.google.com/.../Adversaria_Critica_Sacra...<br /> The Postscript is found between pg. ci and pg. 1. –MMRAlexander Thomsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09425013355019644838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-57978334027225086182023-03-05T15:52:10.887+00:002023-03-05T15:52:10.887+00:00I can't give you that but I can give you Dean ...I can't give you that but I can give you Dean Burgon's view of Westcott and Hort, here is a link to Dean Burgons book "The Revision Revised" https://archive.org/details/revisionrevisedt00burgDouglas Magillnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-4790237089426418972020-06-25T19:43:57.291+01:002020-06-25T19:43:57.291+01:00from Alexander Thomson
Last call for help in asce...from Alexander Thomson<br /><br />Last call for help in ascertaining F H A Scrivener's view of Westcott and Hort's text. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-88098059608950595842020-06-18T21:31:31.027+01:002020-06-18T21:31:31.027+01:00Does anyone have, please, any information about Sc...Does anyone have, please, any information about Scrivener's view, after the issue of the October 1886 edition? I am anxious to verify his last known or inferable position. Many thanks!<br /> Alexander Thomsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09425013355019644838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-21599601366562106072020-06-18T21:30:49.842+01:002020-06-18T21:30:49.842+01:00Does anyone have, please, any information about Sc...Does anyone have, please, any information about Scrivener's view, after the issue of the October 1886 edition? I am anxious to verify his last known or inferable position. Many thanks!<br /> Alexander Thomsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09425013355019644838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-44303342380908950272019-11-07T16:28:30.337+00:002019-11-07T16:28:30.337+00:00A couple of points, if I may, for information/clar...A couple of points, if I may, for information/clarification/comment.<br /><br />1. Do we agree that Scrivener and Burgon and Miller all seem to have been what we would characterise as Majority Text critics?<br /><br />2. Scrivener 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 (what appears to have been ) 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 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". 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" - the phrase about the possession being a reference to Thucydides War 1.22.4. in short, scrivener was of the very decided view that Westcott and Hort had greatly erred, and that their text would not stand the test of time.Does anyone know of any subsequent stuff from scrivener on the matter, please?Alexander Thomsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09425013355019644838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-51836596881622123152016-10-24T11:59:55.161+01:002016-10-24T11:59:55.161+01:00Peter,
From our position as supporters of the Tra...Peter,<br /><br />From our position as supporters of the Traditional Text (TT) i.e. Byzantine, MT and TR, we may recall the comment of Art Farstad in the John Ankerberg during the debate on the KJV about the how the basis was determined for the Revision being pushed or encouraged one might say into using the WH textual basis (and it was available already to the Committee) when it was not originally part of the mandate. Also, how skewed the WH text was to a single MS (Vaticanus) has continued to remain a problem to all TT defenders down to today with editions of the UBS/NA still largely being in favor of this text form. <br /><br />Paul Anderson<br />CSPMTUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03145254303136513631noreply@blogger.com