# Highlights from Scrivener's Introduction to Criticism of the New Testament



## Logan (Jan 2, 2014)

I am not trying to start a discussion or debate the points of textual tradition. Think of this more as me sharing sections I found interesting in Scrivener's book as I'm in the process of reading through it. Of course those things I share will be those interesting to me, if that belies a bias then I don't deny it. I do hope it is interesting or helpful for someone else but at the very least it is helpful for me. I have found myself in admiration over Scrivener's seemingly fair treatment of the matter and cautious approach and think both sides (TR and CT) could learn from him.

Scrivener seems to be most widely known as the collator of the Textus Receptus that underlies the KJV (this is the TR published by Trinitarian Bible Society). He was also apparently a well-known and respected textual scholar, an advocate for the Majority Text, and on the committee of the Revised Version of the Bible. Scrivener, however, published much that compares the TR with other textual editions.

So here are my highlights, from the seventh chapter I believe. I will probably post more as I continue reading.

_After discussing how the oldest manuscripts, if they are in unison on a reading, should be given considerable weight as to the authenticity of the reading (but this often is not the case with the oldest manuscripts where sometimes two will agree against one and so on)._



> We freely admit that these are but a few out of many cases where the statements of ancient writers about whose date there can be no question are borne out by the readings of the more ancient codices, especially of Aleph or B, or of the two united. Undoubtedly this circumstance lends a weight and authority to these manuscripts, and to the few which side with them, which their mere age would not procure for them: it does not entitle them to be regarded as virtually the only documents worthy of being consulted in the recension of the sacred text; as qualifying to be sole arbiters in critical questions relating to the New Testament, against whose decision there can be no appeal. Yet nothing less than this is claimed in behalf of one or two of them by their devoted admirers...[dicsussion of analogy of court case being decided on one or two witnesses] In the present instance, besides the properties wherein documentary can be assimilated to oral testimony, such as general accuracy and means of information, an important element is present in the latter, to which the former has nothing parallel, namely moral character, that full persuasion of a witnesses's good faith and disinterested integrity to which a jury will often surrender, and rightly surrender, all earlier impressions and predilections. Of this we can have nothing in the case of the manuscripts which we now possess. In the second century we have seen too many instances of attempts to tamper with the text of Scripture, some merely injudicious, others positively dishonest; but all this was over long before the scribes of the fourth and fifth centuries began their happy task, as simple and honest copyists of the older records placed before them. Let their testimony be received with attention at all times; let it be accepted as conclusive whensoever there are no grave reasons to the contrary, but let no their paramount authority shut out all other considerations, external and internal, which might guide us to the true reading of a passage; nor let us be so illogical as to conclude, because Aleph and B are sometimes right, that therefore they are never in the wrong.



_After a discussion about Vaticanus:_



> It is right, however, to declare that this discussion is forced upon us through no wish to dissemble the great value of the Codex Vaticanus, which in common with our opponents we regard as the most weighty single authority that we possess, but entirely by way of unavoidable protest against a claim for supremacy set up in its behalf, which can belong of right to no existing document whatsoever.



_After admiring Westcott and Hort yet critiquing their work in relying too much on what he perceives to be errors in Aleph and B, he says _



> Enough of the weary and ungracious task of finding fault. The foregoing list of errors patent in the most ancient codices might be largely increased...Even if the reader has not gone with me in every case, more than enough has been alleged to prove to demonstration that *the true and pure text of the sacred writers is not to be looked for in Aleph, or B, in AlephB, or BD, or BL, or any like combination of a select few authorities, but demands, in every fresh case as it arises, the free and impartial use of every available source of information.* Yet after all, Cod. B [Vaticanus] is a document of such value, that it grows by experience even upon those who may have been a little prejudiced against it by reason of the excessive claims of its too zealous friends.





> The study of "groupings" has been recently and not untruly said to be the foundation of all enduring criticism. Now that theories about the formal recensions of whole classes of these documents have generally been given up as purely visionary, and the very word "families" has come into disrepute by reason of the exploded fancies it recalls, we can discern not the less clearly that certain groups of them have in common not only a general resemblance in regard to the readings they exhibit, but characteristic peculiarities attaching themselves to each group. Systematic or wilful corruption of the sacred text, at least on a scale worth taking into account, there would seem to have been almost none; yet the tendency to licentious paraphrase and unwarranted additions distinguished one set of our witnesses from the second century downwards [I take this to be the Western, LW]; a bias towards grammatical and critical purism and needless omissions appertained to another [Alexandrian? LW]; while a third was only too apt to soften what might seem harsh, to smooth over difficulties, and to bring passages, especially of the Synoptic Gospels, into unnatural harmony with each other [Byzantine? LW]. All these changes appear to have been going on without notice during the whole of the third and fourth centuries, and except that the great name of Origin is associated (not always happily) with on class of them, were rather the work of transcribers than of scholars.





> Hence it follows that in judging of the character of a various reading proposed for our acceptance, we must carefully mark whether it comes to us from many directions or from one. *And herein the native country of the several documents, even when we can make sure of it, is only a precarious guide.* [my emphasis]





> With these, and it may be with some further reservations which experience and study shall hereafter suggest, the principle of grouping must be acknowledged to be a sound one, and those lines of evidence to be least likely to lead us astray which converge from the most varied quarters to the same point. It is strange, but not more strange than needful, that we are compelled in the cause of truth to make on stipulation more: *namely that this rule be henceforth applied impartially in all cases, as well when it will tell in favour of the Received text, as when it shall help to set it aside*. To assign a high value to cursive manuscripts of the best description [examples] and to such uncials as LRDelta or even as Aleph or C, whensoever they happen to agree with Cod. B, and to treat their refined silver as though it had been suddenly transmuted into dross when they come to contradict it, is a practice too plainly unreasonable to admit of serious defence, and can only lead to results which those who uphold it would be the first to deplore.[my emphasis]





> It is hoped that the general issue of the foregoing discussion may now be embodied in these four practical rules:
> 1. That the true readings of the Greek New Testament cannot safely be derived from any one set of authorities, whether manuscripts, versions, or Fathers, but ought to be the result of a patient comparison and careful estimate of the evidence supplied by them all.
> 2. That where there is a real agreement between all documents containing the Gospels up to the sixth century, and in other parts of the New Testament up to the ninth, the testimony of later manuscripts and versions, though not to be rejected unheard, must be regarded with great suspicion, and, UNLESS UPHELD BY STRONG INTERNAL EVIDENCE, can hardly be adopted.
> 3. That where the more ancient documents are at variance with each other, the later uncial and cursive copies, especially those of approved merit, are of real importance, as being the surviving representatives of other codices, very probably as early, perhaps even earlier, than any now extant.
> 4. That in weighing conflicting evidence we must assign the highest value not to those readings which are attested by the greatest number of witnesses, but to those which come to us from several remote and independent sources, and which bear the least likeness to each other in respect to genius and general character.


----------



## Logan (Jan 2, 2014)

Scrivener cites Erasmus' Annotations in his NT



> quanquam in calae hujus libri nonnulla verba reperi apud nostros quae aberant in graecis exemplaribus ea tamen ex latinis adjecimus.



Which my rough translation is "However, I did supply some things from the Latin that were not in my Greek copies". I'd love to have a more accurate translation from someone who understands Latin.

Scrivener supports the long ending of Mark, with some reference to Burgon's defence of it and that it is only absent in Aleph and B and B leaves space for it. According to Burgon, Eusebius is the one who questioned it (and Eusebius may have been involved somewhat with Aleph and B) and subsequent doubts throughout the ages seem to be inherited from Eusebius.



> All opposition to the authenticity of this paragraph resolves itself into the allegations of Eusebius and the testimony of Aleph B. Let us accord to these the weight which is their due: but against their verdict we can appeal to the reading of Irenaeus and of both the elder Syriac translations in the second century; of nearly all other versions; and of all extant manuscripts excepting two. So powerfully is it vouched for, that many of those who are reluctant to recognize S. Mark as its author, are content to regard it notwithstanding as an integral portion of the inspired record originally delivered to the Church.



After much discussion and weighing of the evidence, Scrivener goes with the TR in John 1:18, mainly because the ancient sources are so divided but the slightly later ones almost unanimously read with the TR.

On the Pericope adulterae Scrivener says it is absent from too many excellent copies to have been present in some of the earliest, yet since it is consistent with the scriptural passage, it's possible John wrote this to be added later, and it was appended at the end of some of the existing copies and inserted into this place later. After enumerating problems with the inclusion of this passage, Scrivener adds:



> When to all these sources of doubt, and to so many hostile authorities, is added the fact that in no portion of the N.T. do the variations of manuscripts (of D beyond all the rest) and of other documents bear any sort of proportion, whether in number or extent, to those in these twelve verses (of which statement full evidence may be seen in any collection of various readings), we cannot help admitting that if this section be indeed the composition of S. John, it has been transmitted to us under circumstances widely different from those connected with any other genuine passage of Scripture whatever.



Scrivener has a lengthy discussion on 1Ti 3:16, and appears to be quite conflicted. He doesn't seem to take a firm stand.



> On a review of the whole mass of external proof, bearing in mind too that OC [os] is grammatically much the harder reading... and that it might easily pass into ThetaC [Theos], we must consider it probable (indeed, if we were sure of the testimony of the first-rate uncials, we might regard it as certain) that the second of our rules of Comparative Criticism be applied [that where there is a real agreement with earlier manuscripts the later readings must be rejected], and the Theos of the more recent many yield place to the os of the ancient few. Yet even then the force of the Patristic testimony remains untouched [supporting os]... the clear references of Ignatius and Hippolytus are not thus to be disposed of. I dare not pronounce Theos a corruption.



A warning that the ancient codices shouldn't be relied upon exclusively



> 1 Pet. i. 23. Here we have a remarkable example to illustrate what we saw in the cases of Rom. viii. 20; 2 Cor. iii. 3; Phil. ii. 1, that the chief uncials sometimes conspire in readings which are unquestionably false, and can hardly have arisen independently of each other... but that the same gross error should be found in three out of the four oldest codices, and in no other, is very suggestive and not a little perplexing.






> 1 John v. 7,8 ... [talks about various ancient versions, translations, codices that omit it] ... The Latin versions, therefore, alone lend it any support, and even these are much divided... it is found in the printed Latin Vulgate and in perhaps 49 out of 50 of its manuscripts, but not in the best...in one of the most ancient which contain it, ver. 8 precedes ver. 7 while in the margin is written "audiat hoc Arius et ceteri" as if its authenticity was unquestioned. The Patristic testimony in its favour, though quite insufficient to establish the genuineness of the clause, is entitle to more consideration. Of the Greek Fathers no one has cited it, even when it might be supposed to be most required by his argument, or though he quote consecutively the verses going immediately before and after it. The same must be said of the great Latins, Hilary, Lucifer, Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine, with others of less note. On the other hand, the African writers, Vigilius of Thapsus, at the end of the fifth century and Fulgentius of Ruspae in two places expressly appeal to the "three Heavenly Witnesses" as a genuine portion of S. John's epistle...Erasmus, after excluding the passage from his first two editions, inserted it in his third under circumstances we have before mentioned (pp. 187, 433); and notwithstanding the discrepancy of reading in ver. 8, there can be little or no doubt of the identity of his "Codex Brittanicus" with Montfort's. We have detailed the steps by which the text was brought into its present shape, wherein it long remained unchallenged by all save a few such bold spirits as Bentley, defended even by Mill, implicitly trusted in by those who had no knowledge of Biblical criticism...
> 
> On the whole therefore, we need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by S. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8: that from the Latin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim.



Erasmus' challenge to find a Greek copy that contained the passage:



> Codex Montfortianus at Trinity College, Dublin (XV or XVI century), so celebrated in the controversy respecting 1 John v. 7. Its last collator, Dr Orlando Dobbin, has discussed in his Introduction every point of interest connected with it. It contains the whole New Testament, paper leaves, only one of them---that on which 1 Jo. v. 7 stands---being glazed, as if to protect it from harm. This manuscript was first heard of between the publication of Erasmus' second (1519) and third (1522) editions of his N.T., and after he had publicly declared, in answer to objectors, that if any GREEK manuscript could be found containing the passage, he would insert it in his revisions of the text; a promise which he fulfilled in 1522. Erasmus describes his authority as "Codex Britannicus," and there is the fullest reason to believe that the Cod. Montfortianus is the copy referred to.


----------



## Logan (Jan 2, 2014)

Last ones for the day I think: these are from a series of six lectures he gave on the New Testament and manuscripts, and cover much of the same things.



> Be the various readings in the New Testament what they may, they do not in any way alter the complextion of the whole book, or lead us to modify a single inference which theologians have gathered from the common text, as it is now extant in our Authorized version. "Even put them into the hands of a knave or fool"---I employ the pointed language of Bentley, in the sequel of a passage I have cited before---"and yet with the most sinistrous and absurd choice, he shall not extinguish the light of any one chapter, nor so disguise Christianity, but that every feature of it will still be the same." Certain passages, it may be, will no longer be available to establish doctrines whose proof rests secure upon a hundred besides, and this is the very worst that can happen: others, upon whose genuineness suspicion has been rashly thrown, will be cleared and vindicated by the process of exact discussion: some will assume in their new form a vigour and beauty they possessed not before. The main result of all investigations will be a thankful conviction that God's Providence has kept from harm the treasure of His written word, so far as is needful for the quiet assurance of His Church and people.



Scrivener rejects the ending of the Lord's Prayer "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." as a later pious addition.

He rejects the phrase "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots." found in Matthew 27:35 as not having sufficient Greek support before the 9th century (but seemingly copied over from John). However, he does note that if the evidence were equally divided, it might be argued it should be included as some manuscripts may have accidentally left it out via homoeoteleuton.

He rejects the common text reading of Mark 6:20 "he did many things" in favor of the CT reading "he was much perplexed".

He rejects Mark 15:28 as having been brought in from Luke based on the combined witness of the five chief uncials.

He believes the long ending of Mark to be genuine. Even though it is not in Aleph or B (though there is space for it in B), the rest of the evidence appears to be overwhelming. He says



> we have now reached the most important passage in the New Testament upon which the researches of modern criticism have tended to throw a doubt, and we rejoice in the assurance that, the more closely it is scrutinized, the more manifestly it will be seen to form a genuine portion of the second Gospel.



As to the genitive/nominative sense in Luke 2:14, Scrivener says four of the great uncials agree, but of those Aleph and B were corrected by later hands, D, is associated with the Latin, and A may be cited on both sides. The support from the Greek fathers is overwhelmingly in support of the common text.

He affirms that the Lord's Prayer in Luke 11 should only have five petitions, instead of seven as in the common text and that in this case the ancient evidence is clear and "the mass of copies and versions must yield".

John 1:18 he argues for the common text's "begotton Son" based on the evidence and that it is a familiar term to John.

For John 3:13, he accepts it on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to the contrary. He says "Beyond all doubt, the Received text in this instance rests on far surer ground than in ch. i. 18."

For John 7:53--8:11 he says 



> We may broadly assert that modern critics have come to a unanimous, or almost unanimous, conclusion, first, that it does not belong to the place where it is usually read; secondly, that it is no idle fable, no vulgar forgery, but a genuine apostolic or primitive record of what actually took place. The state of the evidence is so utterly unlike what we have found or shall find elsewhere in the New Testament, that no other verdict than this can well be pronounced...
> 
> 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, and the deep silence of the Greek Fathers about so remarkable a narrative, forbid our regarding this most interesting and beautiful section as originally, or of right, belonging to the place wherein it stands.


----------



## Logan (Jan 3, 2014)

He contends that Acts 11:20 has a false reading: it should be "the Greeks" instead of "the Grecians", as given by the context. After an explanation he says



> The meaning being thus clear, and the Received text mistaken, we enquire what authorities maintain the true reading? They are good in themselves, although few in number ... here then is a case wherein a few witnesses preserve the only reading that can be true against a large majority which vouch for the false.



He rejects Acts 15:34.

In Acts 16:7 he says the reading should be "the Spirit of Jesus" instead of the Received text's "the Spirit". 



> the evidence in favour of this addition being so overwhelming that it is not easy to conjecture how it ever fell out of the text.



On 1 Tim 3:16 he talks about the evidence of the uncials against "Theos", the evidence of the versions against it, and only the doubtful evidence of the Fathers for it. Codex B does not contain this portion of Scripture and A/C are both uncertain as to which reading they had originally. Aleph is definite though. The Received text's "Theos" has later uncials and 200 cursives for support which Scrivener does not appear to find convincing. It should be pointed out though that these lectures were before his later statement (cited in a previous post) that he should "dare not pronounce Theos a corruption" so it is possible he was uncertain either way on this point.



> On the whole, if Codd. AC be kept out of sight (and we know not how more light can be thrown on their testimony), this is one of the controversies which the discovery of Cod. Aleph ought to have closed, since it adds a first-rate uncial witness to a case already very strong through the support of versions. 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.





> Heb. xi. 13. We noticed above a clause in this Epistle which rests on no adequate authority but which, being taken with its context from the Old Testament, can easily be accounted for. The same cannot be said for the words now before us, "and were persuaded of them," which first appeared in the Greek Testament of Erasmus (1516), were brought into the English Bible by Tyndale (1526) and have remained there ever since, not a single authority of any kind being known to support them, and the sense being rather impeded than aided by their presence. Whence they came would be hard to say, except from an ordinary cursive at Basle, which internal evidence convinces me was much used by Erasmus.



In James 2:18, the KJV translators, changed the Received Text in favor of a marginal reading "without thy works" instead of the TR's "by thy works". Scrivener says there is no doubt that the TR was incorrect here and the translators correct, as it had the weight of the older uncials. 



> What then the need of a marginal note? The fact is that our translators were doing what they seldom liked to venture on:---they were changing the Received Greek text which they usually accepted without question, to follow Beza's Greek Testaments of 1582, 1589, 1598 and the Vulgate. They knew that "by," however ill it suited the context, had appeared in every preceding English version, as well as in the edition of the Complutensians, of Erasmus, of Stephens (1550), and of Beza himself in 1565, and so they drew attention in the margin to their weighty and much-needed correction.



In 1 Pet 3:15 he says that if 1Tim 3:16 has been rendered of doubtful dogmatic value, this verse has been rendered useful. He rejects the Received Text's "Sanctify the Lord God in your hearts" replacing it with "Sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts", which since this is an OT reference to Jehovah, suggests the godhead of the Redeemer.

1 John 2:23 he argues that the KJV's marginal note should be the correct text, saying Beza properly inserted them in his edition



> Beyond doubt Beza is here right and those who omitted the clause mistaken, although the Complutensian Polyglott and Erasmus alike rejected it. The cause of its absence from some copies is easily perceived: it arose from that negligence of the scribes to which we have before given the technical name of homoeoteleuton or "like ending"...We note this as an instance of the evil consequences ensuing on the exclusive adherence to modern Greek manuscripts upon the part of our earliest editors.





> 1 John v. 7,8. We are here treading over the ashes of many a fiery debate, but the flame which once raged so fiercely is well-nigh extinct. It may be doubted whether a single person now living, who is capable of forming an intelligent judgment on critical subjects believes or professes to believe in the genuineness of that interpolated gloss, familiarly known as the "Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses." Yet Mr Charles Forster's "New Plea" for its authenticity, published only seven years since, the ingenious and, as it proved, the last effort of a veteran scholar, is as full of life and vigour as any of its predecessors in that long controversy...
> 
> The real authorities [for its inclusion] are thus reduced to two, one (Codex Ottobonianus, 162) in the Vatican, upon which, so far as it goes, no grave suspicion has been cast; the second at Trinity College, Dublin, which has not passed unchallenged. That at Rome is as late in age as the fifteenth century, and like Cod. E of the Acts, has the Latin version on the same page with the Greek, and in the post of honour on the left. This passage has therefore been set in the Greek column of the Codex Ottobonianus, for the same reason as it was a little later in the Complutensian Polyglott, because it was already extant in the parallel Latin Vulgate; and they both bear the semblance, the Complutensian very decidedly, of having been actually translated from the Latin by their side. The Dublin manuscript, Codex Montfortianus, as it is called from a former owner, stands upon a different footing. When Erasmus published his first editions of the New Testament (1516, 1519), he was censured for leaving out a passage which, as being found in their Latin Bibles, most of his readers were familiar with. His reply was that he could do no other than omit it, because he had never yet met with a Greek codex which contained it: whensoever he did meet with one, he would insert it from that copy. A transcript of the verses as read in "A British manuscript" found in England was sent to him before the publication of his third edition in 1522, and what he had sent him he then gave his readers in its proper place. Now no "British manuscript" containing the bracketed words has ever been heard of unless it is that present in Dublin, the earliest possessor of which that we can trace is Froy, a Franciscan friar, about the period of the Reformation...yet a manuscript like this, which could hardly be more than a century old when it thus came to light, which bears in parts a close resemblance to the Latin Vulgate, and has been thought to have been transcribed, at least in the Apocalypse, from the Leicester codex, can hardly be deemed of sufficient value or antiquity to bear adequate testimony to the existence of the passage in really important Greek documents.
> 
> When from manuscripts we come to versions and Fathers, the result may be stated in a word. The insertion belonged to the Latin branch of the Church, and to none other. Of the Greek Fathers not one has cited it, or made any reference to it that can be depended on, even when it might seem most required by his argument, and although he quotes consecutively of the verses immediately before and after it. It has been unhappily thrust by editors into the printed Peshito version, but is not found in a single manuscript.: it is not in the Philoxenian Syriac, the Memphitic, Thebaic, Aethiopic, or Arabic, in any shape. Scarcely any Armenian codex has it, and only a few recent Slavonic copies. To the western Church it appertains exclusively, and here too it appears with that wide variation in the reading which has several times before been alleged as unfavourable to the genuineness of a passage which exhibits it...about 49 out of 50 extant codices of the Vulgate, contain it in some shape or other: yet even here it is missing in full fifty of the best Latin copies, including those principal ones. Even the great Latin writers Hilary, Lucifer, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, all of the fourth century, know nothing of it. The Fathers who do allege it are chiefly Africans, as Tertullian in the second century not impossibly, Cyprian with greater likelihood in the third, Vigilus of Thapsus and Fulgentius of Ruspae in the fifth or sixth...That it has no right to hold a place in the body of Scripture we regard as certain. It belongs not to the whole Christian Church, but to a single branch of it, and in early times only to one fruitful offshoot of that branch.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 3, 2014)

For those interested, this book may be read on-line:

https://archive.org/details/plainintroduct00scri

Logan,

What edition are you using? The copy I have linked above is the second, Cambridge edition.


----------



## Logan (Jan 3, 2014)

Thank you Daniel. For the more recent "Six Lectures" I have been using This Copy.

For the "Plain introduction to the criticism of the New Testament" I used the last edition (1894) published after he died:



> The Received text of the Book of the Revelation is far more widely removed from that of the best critical authorities than is the case in any other portion of the New Testament. This partly arises from real variations between the few primary authorities to which we have access in this portion of our critical labours, partly to the circumstance that Erasmus had access to only one Greek copy, and that a poor one, while succeeding editors of this Book chose rather to follow Erasmus than the Complutensian Polyglott, which would have led them less astray. The general tendency of the readings of more recent codices has here been to suppress the broad Hebraisms of which the Apocalypse is full, to smooth the grammatical constructions of the Greek, to soften what is hard, and correct what is difficult; as if to prove beforehand Bengel's sweeping rule, that the harsher the reading the more likely it is to be true.





> Rev. xvi. 7. The altar, which the prophet from Judah apostrophised in the days of Jeroboam (1 Kings xiii.2), is here represented by a yet bolder figure of impassioned poetry, as rejoicing in unison with the angel of the waters (ver. 5), in that God had avenged the blood of his saints and prophets which had been shed as it were thereupon (ch. vi. 9). This of course was above the comprehension of the later scribes, who, by interpolating two words, bring us down to the prosaic statement of the common text, "I heard another out of the altar." The corrupt "another out of," as is so repeatedly the case in the Apocalypse, rests in this precise shape on almost no authority at all. It is merely the consequence of Erasmus' following ordinary copies of the Latin Vulgate against his own solitary Cod Reuchlini, which, omitting "another," retains still the feeble "out of" with the Complutensian and Cod. B of this book, a Vatican manuscript of the eighth or ninth century, beyond measure inferior to its great namesake.



In conclusion (and note that I didn't summarize every passage he talked about):



> You will easily understand that the passages which have been selected for examination in the course of the present and last preceding Lectures form numerically but a very small portion of those whose readings have been brought into question by Biblical critics. They have been specially chosen from the mass, some for their novel or interesting character, most of them either for their unusual length or their intrinsic value. I can call to mind none that through pressure of time have been over-passed, which in gravity at all approach some of those you have been invited to consider. Now, if the case be thus, surely we are entitled to claim for the existing text of the Greek New Testament such moderate exemption from avoidable imperfections, such almost entire freedom from wilful corruption, as will enable us to use it with confidence both in our theological studies and in our devotional reading. You will not, I trust, be disposed to think slightingly of the science of Textual criticism, or deem it unworthy of attention in an age when every one is trying to learn a little about everything; if while instructing us in the processes whereby a yet purer and more correct Bible may be attained to, it assures us at the same time of the general integrity and perfect honesty of that Authorized version of the Holy Scriptures, which is the happy inheritance of English-speaking nations.


----------



## Logan (Jan 3, 2014)

These quotations are from Notes on the Authorized English Version of the New Testament, specifically the introduction. His notes are quite extensive and discuss the merits and inaccuracies of specific instances.



> It is not necessary at the present day to enter upon a prolix discussion respecting the sources of the Textus Receptus. It will now be admitted on all hands that the learned persons who superintended the earlier editions of the New Testament, both possessed a very limited critical apparatus, and did not always avail themselves as they ought of the resources which were within their reach. It is therefore most satisfactory to discover that the text which they formed bears, in all probability, a closer resemblance to the sacred autographs, than that of some critics very much their superiors in Biblical science; who, moreover, had access to a vast treasure of materials, which was entirely unknown to their predecessors. I hope it is no presumptuous belief, that the Providence of God took such care of His Church in the vital matter of maintainin 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. or Codex Bezae, the influence and adoration which its high antiquity seemed to challenge? But we shall be better able to appreciate the excellency of the received text, when we have examined the principal attempts that have been made to supercede it.





> Theodore Beza's several editions of the Greek Testament contain a text essentially the same as that published by Stephens, from whose third edition he does not vary in much more than eighty places. But his critical labors claim our especial notice, from the deference paid to them by the translators of the English authorised version; who, though they did not implicitly follow Beza's text, yet have received his readings in many passages where he differs from Stephens. I subjuoin a list of those places, in which our translation agrees with Beza's New Testament, against that of Stephens. [list inserted]
> 
> In 33 of the above 60 texts Beza was followed by the Elzevir edition of 1624. The passages in which our translation agrees with Stephens against Beza are [list inserted].
> 
> In Matth. ii, 11; x, 10; John xviii, 1; Acts xxvii, 29, our version adopts a reading found neither in Stephens nor Beza, in the last two cases on the authority of the Latin Vulgate. After this examination (which I trust will be found tolerably accurate) we may safely determine the character of the text received in our translation: and it will be seen that Mr Hartwell Horne is not quite correct in his statement that "Beza's edition of 1598 was adopted as the basis of the English version of the New Testament published by the authority in 1611." It does not appear that the translators adopted any particular text as their standard, but exercised their own judgment on the several readings, as they passed successively under review.





> But whatever might be the minute diversities of the early editions, they present to us a text in substance the same: for what are eighty or a hundred variations (many of them so unimportant as not to affect the sense in the slightest degree), in such a book as the New Testament? And though, more than a century later, Mill and Wetstein spent their lives in the collation of Greek manuscripts, they both felt that the time was not yet arrived when they could securely introduce any changes into the textus receptus. It was reserved for Griesbach to publish an edition of the New Testament (1796--1806), exhibiting a totally new revision of the text, into which numberless various readings were admitted from manuscripts, versions, and ecclesiastical writers: no preference being given to the received text as such, where it was not supported by what he deemed competent authority. It is my present purpose to investigate the correctness of the principles on which Griesbach proceeds: and the celebrity which is work has attained, coupled with the magnitude of the alterations he has made in the inspired volume, will perhaps give me a claim to the reader's indulgence if I prosecute my enquiry at some length.



(he certainly had some criticisms of Griesbach's work).



> My design in the following pages limits me to the examination of such various readings of the original, as in translation affect the sense of the passage in which they stand. The deviations of our English version from the textus receptus I shall never intentionally leave unnoticed. In other cases, I by no means purpose to confine my observations to those passages, in which I acquiesce in the propriety of a change in the Greek. So many important places in the New Testament have been rashly mangled by the German editors, that I shall only be discharging a plain duty in protesting against their innovations, and in stating my reasons, as briefly and distinctly as I may, for abiding by the readings of the common text.
> 
> I would adhere as much as possible to the text of the editions of Stephens, Beza and the Elzevirs; not indeed because it is the received text (as Lachmann so unfairly insinuates); but because I believe it to bear, on the whole, a close resemblance to the best manuscripts, which have been used by the Greek Church from the earliest ages...By conceding some weight to internal evidence, and by following out Scholz's hypothesis more consistently than he has done for himself, we may hope to purge the received text of its grosser corruptions, and to approach more nearly to the Apostolic autographs than any of the illustrious scholars whose attempts have passed under our notice.



Following this are three types of error he believes the KJV translators fell into when translating the Greek, which has to do with verbs and such.

On the subject of the translator's claim that they translated the same word using several synonymous words, but were "especially careful" not "to vary from the sense of that which they had rendered before" Scrivener says



> Had they really [done so], every candid critic would freely have granted to them the use of as large a collection of synonymous words, as they might judge conducive to a variety and neatness of style. Thus we do not complain that the same word [metoikesia?] is rendered in three different ways in the very first chapter of St Matthew (vv. 11, 12, 17) or that [greek] is translated "witness" in John i, 7, and "record" in v. 19...[more examples]...Since the sense is not in the least obscured by this variation in the words, it would be captious and idle to found an objection upon it. The case is somewhat altered in another passage, in which [forgive my greek and the font is difficult to read, maztuzia and maztuzein] perpetually recur. Within the limits of nine verses (John v, 31--39) is comprised a train of close and connected reasoning on the evidences of our Lord's mission. Here he successivly appeals to the testimony born in His behalf by John the Baptist, the burning and shining light, by His own miraculous works, by His Father at His baptism, and by the prophetic Scriptures. In this last instance we cannot hesitate to declare, that the force and cogency of the argument is not a little hid from the plain English reader, by a needless change in the rendering of the above-mentioned leading words: for we have "testimony" in v. 34; "testify" in v. 39; "witness" and "bear witness" in the other places....I believe it will be found that several texts may received valuable elucidation, by the simple process of translating the same Greek by the same English word, throughout the whole passage (e.g. John xix, 28, 30; Rom. v, 2,3; 16,18; 1 Cor. ii, 14,15; 2 Cor. vii, 4,14).



He says that the Translators appear to have followed King James' guidance when presenting the names differently in the OT than in the NT:



> to the certain embarrassment of the unlearned reader, and for not better reason, as it would seem, than that the Vulgate and the preceding English version had used the same forms before our Translators. The substitution of "Jesus" for "Joshua" in Acts vii, 45; Heb. iv, 8; is a much more serious fault; and since it was avoided by most of the earlier Translators into English, it cannot be accounted for on the same grounds as the other errors which relate to Proper Names.





> More than one of the critics who have undertaken to revise our translation, have formed large collections of obsolete, vulgar, or difficult words, which they met with in the Authorised Bible. Without any wish to disparage their labors unduly, I confess that I think their diligence misplaced. An assemblage of expressions torn from their context, and strung together in a list, leave a very different impression on the mind from that which they originally produced, when read in connection with the sentences to which they rightly appertain. The word "bewray" is perhaps one of the most obsolete which we find in our version of the New Testament; yet the most unlearned reader of Scripture is at no loss for its meaning in Matth. xxvi, 73. Let us beware of admitting such alterations into our venerable translation, as without materially adding to its value, might deprive it of that air of solemn antiquity, which would be ill exchanged for the more gaudy refinements of modern phraseology.
> 
> But at however low a rate I may estimate the great bulk of the changes which Campbell and Symonds have proposed with respect to this division of the subject; I hope that I shall not fall into the opposite extreme of obstinately retaining what in point of sense or language is justly censurable (e.g. Matth. xx, 11; xxiii, 6; Acts xviii, 14; 2 Cor. viii,1). Quaint and mean expressions should at all events be avoided in speaking of the awful realities which the Bible reveals to us: and the example of the sacred writers themselves may teach us, that perfect simplicity of manner is quite compatible with a rigid abstinence from every thing which can offend the purest and most delicate taste.



On marginal notes:



> But these brief notes (for such in fact they are), are much more numerous in King James's Bible than in earlier translations. In the New Testament alone we meet with 855 marginal annotations, whereof 724 are found in the first edition of 1611; the rest (including twenty explanations of coins, measures &c), having been subsequently added by various hands, chiefly by Dr. Blayney in the Oxford editions of 1769. Of the original marginal notes about eighteen point out various readings of the Greek text
> . Much the greater part present a different rendering of a single word, or propose a change in the construction of a clause; the sense given in the margin being often, though not I think for the most part, superior to that in the text.



 

Regarding italics:



> The end proposed by the use of italics is thus explained in the Geneva edition of 1578: "Whereas the necessity of the sentence required anything to be added (for such is the grace and propriety of the Hebrew and Greek tongues, that it cannot but either by circumlocution, or by adding the verb, or some word, be understood of them that are not well-practised therein), we have put it in the text with another kind of letter." If this be the rule which the translators of our present version proposed to themselves (and we have every reason for believing that it was), it follows that such a rule should be carried out uniformly, and on all occasions. But the most superficial view of the original edition of 1611 will convince us, that consistency in this matter is not even attempted. To the numerous instances collected by Dr. Turton I shall add two or three which appear to me remarkable; and they may be greatly increased by any one who will take the trouble to investigate the subject. [here follow examples where italics are inconsistently used]



Here's a section that should please the Geneva Bible users 



> Very superior to the "Great Bible" is the English Translation made at Geneva by a few Marian exiles, and first published in that city in 1557. I know not whether King James's words at the Hampton Court Conference are truly reported, that though he had not yet seen a good English version of the Scriptures, the Geneva was the worst of them all; but unless he had reference solely to the marginal annotations, I fear that I cannot agree with the royal critic. Each of the previous versions seems to have been executed by one man; every portion of the Geneva New Testament is said to have been revised by several of the ripest scholars of the age, whose devotion to this noble work beguiled the hours of banishment and deep affliction...taking Tyndal for their model, they subjected his version to a searching examination, retaining his renderings where they deemed them satisfactory, and enver deserting his text without some adequate motive. The Geneva editors bestowed much care on the Greek particles; for although Cranmer's version had already supplied some of Tyndal's deficiencies on this head, numerous important omissions were still left for its successors to detect. Another considerable improvement was their representing in a separate character the words they found it necessary to insert, in order to complete the sense of their translation...when we reflect that the Geneva version was the Family Bible of the middle classes in England for two full generations after its first appearance, we may conceive how powerful an engine these notes became in the hands of that party, which in the next century laid the throne and altar in the dust. [note that he didn't like the marginal notes, as being strongly impregnated with the "peculiar views of Calvin and Beza".]
> 
> It is not too much to say, that their version is the best in the English Language, with the single exception of our present Authorised Bible. And even King James's revisers sometimes retain the renderings of the Bishop's Bible, where they are decidedly inferior to that of the Geneva New Testament... It is proper to state, that the version of the New Testament given in the Geneva Bible of 1560, varies considerably from that in the first edition of 1557. The alterations can scarcely have proceeded from the original translators; and, considered as a whole, are inferior to the interpretations which they displace.



Conclusion to introduction



> I have now explained at some length, my design in the present work, and have offered a short account of the materials used in executing it. In a production of this nature, composed as it is of numerous isolated details, I must unavoidably have fallen into many errors. I only presume to hope that they are not errors of rashness, or dogmatism, or wilful ignorance. A formal critique on King James's version it is not my province to attempt. It is enough if I have afforded to others the means of forming a more exact estimate of its worth, than can be gathered from the vague encomiums of our popular writers. Yet I should be acting wrongfully both to my theme and to myself, were I to suppress the conviction which the devotion of several years to this employment has fixed on my mind: that if faithfulness and perspicuity; if energy of tone and simplicity of language be the true tests of merit in a translation of Holy Scripture; our Authorised Bible is in no wise inferior to the most excellent of the other versions with which I am acquainted:---that it will be the pride and blessing of England so long as she values her privileges as a nation professing godliness.


----------



## Logan (Jan 3, 2014)

That last work I cited from was one of his earliest, in the 1840s I believe.

My summary of Scrivener: 


He believed that happily, God had preserved his word closely in the TR.
He believed in manuscript evidence but was willing to err on the side of caution and not throw out a TR reading unless the evidence was overwhelming.
He believed the TR had corruptions and interpolations and omissions. It was not perfect.
He did not believe in the "received text" simply because it had been received.
He believed some German critics had gone too far in the other direction (this is borne out by, for example, Tischendorf returning to some TR readings in his later editions after throwing them boldly out in his earlier).
He believed the Authorized Version was a monument to translation in the English language and would always be part of her heritage.
He believed the AV was outdated and had made some poor decisions in certain places, and that the underlying Greek needed updating.
He believed the revision should try to preserve continuity and not change the AV unless there was very good reason.

Note that he does not appear to be a Calvinist, for what it's worth. In my mind he struck a balanced view between unbelieving or somewhat uncritical criticism, and those who believed the TR was without error. I could wish that many CT scholars would be as cautious as he was. I could also wish that many TR advocates would be as unbiased and willing to consider the evidence as he was as well. Is the TR perfect? To me it seems that one could only conclude so by adopting the _a priori_ view that God preserved his word in the KJV or the TR that underlies the KJV, in which case *no evidence* can really be accepted in support of it. That is certainly one point of view.

But if one is willing to look at evidence, I think Scrivener has some very good things to say, both in support and in correction of the TR.


----------



## Logan (Jan 14, 2014)

As a brief appendix, I sent just the Latin phrase from Erasmus' annotations to a friend of mine (without any context or who wrote it) and this is what she sent back:

quanquam in calae hujus libri nonnulla verba reperi apud nostros quae aberant in graecis exemplaribus ea tamen ex latinis adjecimus.

"Although in the writings of this book [literally firewood of this bark], you have yet discovered, we have added only from the Latin (the) several words being absent from us in our Greek copies."


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 14, 2014)

You are a diligent student, Logan – thanks for the posts!


----------



## MW (Jan 14, 2014)

Logan said:


> Of course those things I share will be those interesting to me, if that belies a bias then I don't deny it.



I take it this qualification, together with the summary, indicates that the snippets from Scrivener are intended to address his work in relation to Beza et al. A broader presentation might have included the same kind of detail in relation to Griesbach et al. Perhaps something of this nature could be included in a future thread and help to balance out the presentation of this thread.


----------



## Logan (Jan 14, 2014)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> You are a diligent student, Logan – thanks for the posts!


Thanks Steve.



armourbearer said:


> Perhaps something of this nature could be included in a future thread and help to balance out the presentation of this thread.



Matthew, is there something in particular you feel is unbalanced? Did you read the quotes or just my summary of Scrivener's position? If you have some quotes from Scrivener you'd like to share then you're welcome to, but I didn't see much (if anything) in what I read regarding Griesbach from Scrivener.


----------



## MW (Jan 14, 2014)

Logan said:


> Matthew, is there something in particular you feel is unbalanced? Did you read the quotes or just my summary of Scrivener's position? If you have some quotes from Scrivener you'd like to share then you're welcome to, but I didn't see much (if anything) in what I read regarding Griesbach from Scrivener.



Logan, in the main, Scrivener believed Griesbach's recension theory was laid in the dust and provided examples to show its faulty nature. Later methodology has sought to revive this theory. Since this thread went into details re. the TR, it might be advantageous to provide similar details re. Griesbach.

I can't contribute piecemeal to a subject which requires such a large induction of particulars. Any contribution would be partial and therefore unhelpful.


----------



## Logan (Jan 14, 2014)

I see. The things that I read may have mentioned Griesbach, but only in passing, at least in the portions I read. I provided numerous quotes of Scrivener's own positive approach to specific passages, not just negative criticism of textual approaches. That makes up the bulk of the quotes and the ones I found most helpful and interesting. I think you'll find that in my quotes I tried to represent Scrivener fairly, and not use him selectively to support any group's views.


----------



## MW (Jan 14, 2014)

The following are some of the statements relative to Griesbach in one of the works cited in this thread:



> It is my present purpose to investigate the correctness of the principles on which Griesbach proceeds: and the celebrity which his work has attained, coupled with the magnitude of the alterations he has made in the inspired volume, will perhaps give me a claim to the reader's indulgence, if I prosecute my enquiry at some length.





> Archbishop Laurence published his "Remarks on Griesbach's Systematic Classification," which at once, and almost without an effort, laid his whole edifice in the dust.





> A desperate effort has recently been made by Tischendorf ... to retrieve the credit of Griesbach's theory, or at least to vindicate the principal changes which he introduced into the text of Scripture





> The schemes both of Griesbach and of Lachmann I feel bound to reject, since their direct tendency is to overthrow the testimony of the vast majority of our critical authorities, on grounds too precarious to admit of satisfactory defence.





> I look with much suspicion on the innovations in punctuation which have been proposed by Griesbach, and more recently by Lachmann.



The investigation of Griesbach was a main feature of the work, and the criticisms of Griesbach are accompanied with detailed and inductive analysis.


----------



## Logan (Jan 14, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> The investigation of Griesbach was a main feature of the work, and the criticisms of Griesbach are accompanied with detailed and inductive analysis.



I'm not sure which work this was but I certainly admit I may have skimmed over this portion as something of not much interest to me (I'd agree that Griesbach made some untenable conjectures). Then again, I also skipped over the extensive portions regarding Simonides as something I wasn't particularly interested in either.

If Griesbach is of interest to you, and if you'd like to post about Scrivener's views on Griesbach, would you do me the favor of using a separate thread? I'd rather not clutter this one any more. Thanks!


----------



## MW (Jan 14, 2014)

Logan said:


> If Griesbach is of interest to you, and if you'd like to post about Scrivener's views on Griesbach, would you do me the favor of using a separate thread? I'd rather not clutter this one any more. Thanks!



This is a discussion board, not a blog. If a poster finds it appropriate to comment on this subject he is free to post it here.


----------



## One Little Nail (Jan 15, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> The following are some of the statements relative to Griesbach in one of the works cited in this thread:
> 
> 
> 
> > It is my present purpose to investigate the correctness of the principles on which Griesbach proceeds: and the celebrity which his work has attained, coupled with the magnitude of the alterations he has made in the inspired volume, will perhaps give me a claim to the reader's indulgence, if I prosecute my enquiry at some length.



Matthew, Sounds like Griesbach has put Origen's pen knife to an ignominious use.


----------



## Logan (Jan 15, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> This is a discussion board, not a blog. If a poster finds it appropriate to comment on this subject he is free to post it here.



I'm not being combative, I asked for a favor: a courtesy toward me as the OP. You are of course free to do as you wish but I did ask.



One Little Nail said:


> Matthew, Sounds like Griesbach has put Origen's pen knife to an ignominious use.


Robert, You have once again taken the opportunity to post off-topic slanderous remarks. Please, please stop.


----------



## MW (Jan 15, 2014)

Logan said:


> I'm not being combative, I asked for a favor: a courtesy toward me as the OP. You are of course free to do as you wish but I did ask.



It is not right that you would ask for such a favour on a discussion board. By opening a thread you open the door to discussion. When you present "facts" on a discussion board it opens those facts up for discussion, appraisal, and even contradiction. When you ask for discussion to be taken elsewhere you are effectively saying that you are not willing for people to see a full range of views on the thread, but only your view.


----------



## One Little Nail (Jan 15, 2014)

One Little Nail said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > The following are some of the statements relative to Griesbach in one of the works cited in this thread:
> ...





Logan said:


> Robert, You have once again taken the opportunity to post off-topic slanderous remarks. Please, please stop.



Logan could you show me where it is off topic, Scrivener's exact words are "the magnitude of the alterations he has made in the inspired volume" what Scrivener is saying is that G altered the Text of Scripture.

Origen isn't even regarded as a Saint in the Apostate Eastern & Western Catholic "church" he is notorious for having made alterations to The Sacred Text, hence the pen knife "figure of speech", this is fact.
When he left Alexandria he went to Caesarea, do these 2 places ring a bell, there names are used for 2 supposed 
New Testament Textual families.

Logan you have made a false witness against me by saying I have made slanderous remarks, & would like you to retract them, you can't say that every time you don't like my post.


----------



## Logan (Jan 15, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> It is not right that you would ask for such a favour on a discussion board.



I find this rather surprising. That no one is obligated to grant it is true but that it is wrong as the OP to even ask? 



armourbearer said:


> When you ask for discussion to be taken elsewhere you are effectively saying that you are not willing for people to see a full range of views on the thread, but only your view.


 
Not at all. I even found in one of my posts where I started typing Scrivener's remarks about Griesbach and the criticisms he had. I then made the parenthetical remark "(he certainly had some criticisms of Griesbach's work)". Keep in mind that I typed up all of the quotes here and didn't feel compelled to type up extensive things that were of no interest to me. There is no attempt to suppress facts here.

I'm surprised I should even have to defend myself. I'm going to try to bow out of this now as further discussion would seemingly be fruitless.



Robert, Please consider that you have caused two threads to be closed already.


----------

