Johannine Comma and Scrivener - Revision history

Nick at 13:00, 21 August 2021

2021-08-21T13:00:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:00, 21 August 2021
Line 62:		Line 62:
	==External links==		==External links==

	[[Category: Omissions that effect the ~~diety~~ of Christ]]		[[Category: Omissions that effect the deity of Christ]]
	[[Category:Trinitarianism]]		[[Category:Trinitarianism]]
	[[Category:Comma Johanneum]]		[[Category:Comma Johanneum]]

Nick: /* A Plain Introduction 1861 */

2020-07-28T13:45:09Z

A Plain Introduction 1861

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:45, 28 July 2020
Line 27:		Line 27:

	: The authenticity of the words within brackets will, perhaps, no longer be maintained by any one whose judgement ought to have weight ; but this result has been arrived at after a long and memorable controversy, which helped to keep alive, especially in England, some interest in Biblical studies, and led to investigations into collateral points of the highest importance, such as the sources of the Received text, the manuscripts employed by R. Stephens (''see'' pp. 299-301), the origin and value of the Velesian readings (''see'' p. 156), &c. A critical ''résumé'' of the whole discussion might be profitably undertaken by some competent scholar; we can at present touch only upon the chief heads of this great debate<sup>1</sup>.		: The authenticity of the words within brackets will, perhaps, no longer be maintained by any one whose judgement ought to have weight ; but this result has been arrived at after a long and memorable controversy, which helped to keep alive, especially in England, some interest in Biblical studies, and led to investigations into collateral points of the highest importance, such as the sources of the Received text, the manuscripts employed by R. Stephens (''see'' pp. 299-301), the origin and value of the Velesian readings (''see'' p. 156), &c. A critical ''résumé'' of the whole discussion might be profitably undertaken by some competent scholar; we can at present touch only upon the chief heads of this great debate<sup>1</sup>.
	: The two verses appear in the early editions, (adopting again the notation employed above, p. 301), with the following notable variations from the common text: v.7 - ''ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ usque ad τῇ γῇ'' v. 8, Er. 1, 2. - ''ὁ prim. et secund''. Er. 3 [''non'' C Er. 4, 5]. + ''καὶ'' (''post πατήρ'') C.- τὸ Er. 3 ''τὸ καὶ ἅγιον πνεῦμα'' St. 1. ''πνεῦμα ἅγιον'' Er. 3, 4, 5. - ''οὗτοι'' C. + ''εις το'' (''ante εν'') C. v. 8. ''επί της γης C.- ''τὸ ter'' Er. 3, 4, 5 [''habent C. Er 1, 2]. - ''καὶ οἱ τρεῖς ad fin''. ''vers''. C. They are found, including the clause from ''ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ'' to ''ἐν τῇ γῇ'', in no more than three Greek manuscripts of very late date, one of the, (Cod. Ravianus, Evan. 110), being a mere ''worthless'' copy from printed books: and in the margin of a fourth, in a hand as late as the sixteenth century. The real witnesses are the Codex Montfortianus, Evan. 61 Act. 34, whose history was described above, p. 149; Cod. Vat.-Ottob. 298 (Act. 162 ''see'' p.196 and note), and for the margin, a Naples manuscript (Act. 173, p. 197). On comparing these slight and scanty authorities with the Received text we find that they present the following variations:-v. 7. (to be continued...)		: The two verses appear in the early editions, (adopting again the notation employed above, p. 301), with the following notable variations from the common text: v.7 - ''ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ usque ad τῇ γῇ'' v. 8, Er. 1, 2. - ''ὁ prim. et secund''. Er. 3 [''non'' C Er. 4, 5]. + ''καὶ'' (''post πατήρ'') C.- τὸ Er. 3 ''τὸ καὶ ἅγιον πνεῦμα'' St. 1. ''πνεῦμα ἅγιον'' Er. 3, 4, 5. - ''οὗτοι'' C. + ''εις το'' (''ante εν'') C. v. 8. ''επί της γης C.- ''τὸ ter'' Er. 3, 4, 5 [''habent C. Er 1, 2]. - ''καὶ οἱ τρεῖς ad fin''. ''vers''. C. They are found, including the clause from ''ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ'' to ''ἐν τῇ γῇ'', in no more than three Greek manuscripts of very late date, one of the, (Cod. Ravianus, Evan. 110), being a mere ''worthless'' copy from printed books: and in the margin of a fourth, in a hand as late as the sixteenth century. The real witnesses are the Codex Montfortianus, Evan. 61 Act. 34, whose history was described above, p. 149; Cod. Vat.-Ottob. 298 (Act. 162 ''see'' p.196 and note), and for the margin, a Naples manuscript (Act. 173, p. 197). On comparing these slight and scanty authorities with the Received text we find that they present the following variations:-v. 7. (to be continued...[https://books.google.com.au/books?id=6pOl5kos2O0C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=snippet&q=The%20two%20verses%20appear%20in%20the%20early%20editions&f=false])

	==Cyprian==		==Cyprian==

Nick at 13:36, 28 July 2020

2020-07-28T13:36:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:36, 28 July 2020
Line 5:		Line 5:
	[[Image:Schaff on Scrivener 1 John 5.7-8a.JPG\|thumb\|right\|Schaff on Scrivener 1 John 5.7-8]]		[[Image:Schaff on Scrivener 1 John 5.7-8a.JPG\|thumb\|right\|Schaff on Scrivener 1 John 5.7-8]]
	[[Image:Schaff on Scrivener 1 John 5.7-8b.JPG\|thumb\|right\|Schaff on Scrivener 1 John 5.7-8]]		[[Image:Schaff on Scrivener 1 John 5.7-8b.JPG\|thumb\|right\|Schaff on Scrivener 1 John 5.7-8]]
	Scrivener aligned himself with [[Richard Porson]]'s position:		[[Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener\|Scrivener]] aligned himself with [[Richard Porson]]'s position:
	:“I would fain call it a success if I could with truth. To rebut much of Porson's insolent sophistry was easy, to maintain the genuineness of this passage is simply impossible.”		:“I would fain call it a success if I could with truth. To rebut much of Porson's insolent sophistry was easy, to maintain the genuineness of this passage is simply impossible.”

	:“We need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. 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.”		:“We need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. 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.”

	Scrivener estimated that:		[[Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener\|Scrivener]] estimated that:
	:“49 out of 50 [Vulgate] manuscripts testify to this disputed Comma”. (F. H. A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the New Testament Textual Criticism, 4th Ed., Vol. 2, (New York: George Bell & Sons, 1894), p.403).		:“49 out of 50 [Vulgate] manuscripts testify to this disputed Comma”. (F. H. A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the New Testament Textual Criticism, 4th Ed., Vol. 2, (New York: George Bell & Sons, 1894), p.403).

	Scrivener said:		[[Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener\|Scrivener]] said:
	:“On the whole, therefore, we need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. 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.”		:“On the whole, therefore, we need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. 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.”

	[[Philip Schaff]] said of Scrivener:		[[Philip Schaff]] said of [[Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener\|Scrivener]]:
	:...He gives up the spurious interpolation of the three witnesses as hopelessly untenable, and on the disputed reading in 1 Tim. iii.16, where his friend, Dean Burgon, so strenuously insists on θεός, Scrivener, in his ''Lectures'', p. 192 sq., makes the following admission:		:...He gives up the spurious interpolation of the three witnesses as hopelessly untenable, and on the disputed reading in 1 Tim. iii.16, where his friend, Dean Burgon, so strenuously insists on θεός, Scrivener, in his ''Lectures'', p. 192 sq., makes the following admission:

Nick: /* References */

2020-07-28T13:33:00Z

References

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:33, 28 July 2020
Line 58:		Line 58:
	* 1. [[Philip Schaff\|Schaff, Philip]] [https://archive.org/details/acompaniontotheg00schauoft/page/284/mode/1up A companion to the Greek Testament and the English version] by , pp. 284-285 footnote, quoting Scrivener from the “Sunday-School Times” and his Six Lectures.		* 1. [[Philip Schaff\|Schaff, Philip]] [https://archive.org/details/acompaniontotheg00schauoft/page/284/mode/1up A companion to the Greek Testament and the English version] by , pp. 284-285 footnote, quoting Scrivener from the “Sunday-School Times” and his Six Lectures.

	[https://archive.org/details/acompaniontotheg00schauoft/page/284/mode/1up A companion to the Greek Testament and the English version] by [[Philip Schaff]]		* [https://archive.org/details/acompaniontotheg00schauoft/page/284/mode/1up A companion to the Greek Testament and the English version] by [[Philip Schaff]]

	==External links==		==External links==

Nick: /* The Cambridge Paragraph Bible */

2020-07-28T13:32:19Z

The Cambridge Paragraph Bible

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:32, 28 July 2020
Line 41:		Line 41:
	==The Cambridge Paragraph Bible==		==The Cambridge Paragraph Bible==
	[[image:1 John 5.7 Cambridge Paragraph Bible.jpg\|right\|x150\|thumb\|The 1873 Cambridge Paragraph Bible puts the Comma in italics]]		[[image:1 John 5.7 Cambridge Paragraph Bible.jpg\|right\|x150\|thumb\|The 1873 Cambridge Paragraph Bible puts the Comma in italics]]
			The [[1873 AD\|1873]] ''[[New_Cambridge_Paragraph_Bible#The_original_Cambridge_Paragraph_Bible\|Cambridge Paragraph Bible]]'', which is found in the New Testament Octapla, and which is the base text of the ''[https://www.zondervan.com/9780310929901/kjv-zondervan-study-bible-large-print-hardcover/ Zondervan KJV Study Bible]'' and many of their other recent KJVs, throws the words in question into italics. This is reflected in the detail below from the original edition of CPB, 1873; by the New Testament Octapla's reproduction of Scrivener's CPB text, and by Scrivener’s book ''[https://archive.org/details/authorizededitio00scri/page/68/mode/2up The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives]'' which verifies that this was a deliberate change that Scrivener made on his own authority:

	~~The 1873 Cambridge Paragraph Bible~~, which is ~~found in~~ the ~~New Testament Octapla, and which is the base text of the Zondervan KJV Study Bible and many of their other recent KJVs, throws the words~~ in ~~question into~~ italics~~. This is reflected~~ in the ~~detail below from the original edition of CPB~~, ~~1873;~~ by the ~~New Testament Octapla's reproduction of Scrivener's CPB text, and by Scrivener’s book The Authorized Edition~~ of the ~~English Bible~~ (~~1611), Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives [~~Cambridge, 1884, p. 69~~] which verifies that this was a deliberate change that Scrivener made on his own authority.~~ The Zondervan reprints, however, silently reverse Scrivener's decision and put the words back into regular type. The prefaces to these reprints give no indication regarding this change, although other changes regarding spelling are acknowledged.		:“The portion of i John v. 7, 8 which is now for the first time set in italics in the Cambridge Paragraph Bible, is probably no longer regarded as genuine by any one who is capable of forming an independent judgment on the state of the evidence.” (Cambridge, 1884, p. 69)

			The Zondervan reprints, however, silently reverse Scrivener's decision and put the words back into regular type. The prefaces to these reprints give no indication regarding this change, although other changes regarding spelling are acknowledged.

	==1881 Greek Textus Receptus==		==1881 Greek Textus Receptus==

Nick: /* A Plain Introduction 1861 */

2020-06-10T10:19:39Z

A Plain Introduction 1861

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:19, 10 June 2020
Line 27:		Line 27:

	: The authenticity of the words within brackets will, perhaps, no longer be maintained by any one whose judgement ought to have weight ; but this result has been arrived at after a long and memorable controversy, which helped to keep alive, especially in England, some interest in Biblical studies, and led to investigations into collateral points of the highest importance, such as the sources of the Received text, the manuscripts employed by R. Stephens (''see'' pp. 299-301), the origin and value of the Velesian readings (''see'' p. 156), &c. A critical ''résumé'' of the whole discussion might be profitably undertaken by some competent scholar; we can at present touch only upon the chief heads of this great debate<sup>1</sup>.		: The authenticity of the words within brackets will, perhaps, no longer be maintained by any one whose judgement ought to have weight ; but this result has been arrived at after a long and memorable controversy, which helped to keep alive, especially in England, some interest in Biblical studies, and led to investigations into collateral points of the highest importance, such as the sources of the Received text, the manuscripts employed by R. Stephens (''see'' pp. 299-301), the origin and value of the Velesian readings (''see'' p. 156), &c. A critical ''résumé'' of the whole discussion might be profitably undertaken by some competent scholar; we can at present touch only upon the chief heads of this great debate<sup>1</sup>.
	: The two verses appear in the early editions, (adopting again the notation employed above, p. 301), with the following notable variations from the common text: v.7 - ''ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ usque ad τῇ γῇ'' v. 8, Er. 1, 2. - ''ὁ prim. et secund''. Er. 3 [''non'' C Er. 4, 5]. + ''καὶ'' (''post πατήρ'') C.- τὸ Er. 3 ''τὸ καὶ ἅγιον πνεῦμα'' St. 1. ''πνεῦμα ἅγιον'' Er. 3, 4, 5. - ''οὗτοι'' C. + ''εις το'' (''ante εν'') C. v. 8. ''επί της γης C.- ''τὸ ter'' Er. 3, 4, 5 [''habent C. Er 1, 2]. - ''καὶ οἱ τρεῖς ad fin''. ''vers''. C. They are found, including the clause from ''ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ'' to ''ἐν τῇ γῇ'', in no more than three Greek manuscripts of very late date, one of the, (Cod. Ravianus, Evan. 110), being a mere ''worthless'' copy from printed books: and in the margin of a fourth, in a hand as late as the sixteenth century. The real witnesses are the Codex Montfortianus, Evan. 61 Act. 34, whose history was described above, p. 149; Cod. Vat.-Ottob. 298 (Act. 162 ''see p.196 and note), and for the margin, a Naples manuscript (Act. 173, p. 197). On comparing these slight and scanty authorities with the Received text we find that they present the following variations:-v. 7. (to be continued...)		: The two verses appear in the early editions, (adopting again the notation employed above, p. 301), with the following notable variations from the common text: v.7 - ''ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ usque ad τῇ γῇ'' v. 8, Er. 1, 2. - ''ὁ prim. et secund''. Er. 3 [''non'' C Er. 4, 5]. + ''καὶ'' (''post πατήρ'') C.- τὸ Er. 3 ''τὸ καὶ ἅγιον πνεῦμα'' St. 1. ''πνεῦμα ἅγιον'' Er. 3, 4, 5. - ''οὗτοι'' C. + ''εις το'' (''ante εν'') C. v. 8. ''επί της γης C.- ''τὸ ter'' Er. 3, 4, 5 [''habent C. Er 1, 2]. - ''καὶ οἱ τρεῖς ad fin''. ''vers''. C. They are found, including the clause from ''ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ'' to ''ἐν τῇ γῇ'', in no more than three Greek manuscripts of very late date, one of the, (Cod. Ravianus, Evan. 110), being a mere ''worthless'' copy from printed books: and in the margin of a fourth, in a hand as late as the sixteenth century. The real witnesses are the Codex Montfortianus, Evan. 61 Act. 34, whose history was described above, p. 149; Cod. Vat.-Ottob. 298 (Act. 162 ''see'' p.196 and note), and for the margin, a Naples manuscript (Act. 173, p. 197). On comparing these slight and scanty authorities with the Received text we find that they present the following variations:-v. 7. (to be continued...)

	==Cyprian==		==Cyprian==

Nick: /* A Plain Introduction 1861 */

2020-06-10T10:18:59Z

A Plain Introduction 1861

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:18, 10 June 2020
Line 27:		Line 27:

	: The authenticity of the words within brackets will, perhaps, no longer be maintained by any one whose judgement ought to have weight ; but this result has been arrived at after a long and memorable controversy, which helped to keep alive, especially in England, some interest in Biblical studies, and led to investigations into collateral points of the highest importance, such as the sources of the Received text, the manuscripts employed by R. Stephens (''see'' pp. 299-301), the origin and value of the Velesian readings (''see'' p. 156), &c. A critical ''résumé'' of the whole discussion might be profitably undertaken by some competent scholar; we can at present touch only upon the chief heads of this great debate<sup>1</sup>.		: The authenticity of the words within brackets will, perhaps, no longer be maintained by any one whose judgement ought to have weight ; but this result has been arrived at after a long and memorable controversy, which helped to keep alive, especially in England, some interest in Biblical studies, and led to investigations into collateral points of the highest importance, such as the sources of the Received text, the manuscripts employed by R. Stephens (''see'' pp. 299-301), the origin and value of the Velesian readings (''see'' p. 156), &c. A critical ''résumé'' of the whole discussion might be profitably undertaken by some competent scholar; we can at present touch only upon the chief heads of this great debate<sup>1</sup>.
	: The two verses appear in the early editions, (adopting again the notation employed above, p. 301), with the following notable variations from the common text: v.7 - ''ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ usque ad τῇ γῇ'' v. 8, Er. 1, 2. - ''ὁ prim. et secund''. Er. 3 [''non'' C Er. 4, 5]. + ''καὶ'' (''post πατήρ'') C.- τὸ Er. 3 ''τὸ καὶ ἅγιον πνεῦμα'' St. 1. ''πνεῦμα ἅγιον'' Er. 3, 4, 5. - ''οὗτοι'' C. + ''εις το'' (''ante εν'') C. v. 8. ''επί της γης C.- ''τὸ ter'' Er. 3, 4, 5 [''habent C. Er 1, 2]. - ''καὶ οἱ τρεῖς ad fin''. ''vers''. C.		: The two verses appear in the early editions, (adopting again the notation employed above, p. 301), with the following notable variations from the common text: v.7 - ''ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ usque ad τῇ γῇ'' v. 8, Er. 1, 2. - ''ὁ prim. et secund''. Er. 3 [''non'' C Er. 4, 5]. + ''καὶ'' (''post πατήρ'') C.- τὸ Er. 3 ''τὸ καὶ ἅγιον πνεῦμα'' St. 1. ''πνεῦμα ἅγιον'' Er. 3, 4, 5. - ''οὗτοι'' C. + ''εις το'' (''ante εν'') C. v. 8. ''επί της γης C.- ''τὸ ter'' Er. 3, 4, 5 [''habent C. Er 1, 2]. - ''καὶ οἱ τρεῖς ad fin''. ''vers''. C. They are found, including the clause from ''ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ'' to ''ἐν τῇ γῇ'', in no more than three Greek manuscripts of very late date, one of the, (Cod. Ravianus, Evan. 110), being a mere ''worthless'' copy from printed books: and in the margin of a fourth, in a hand as late as the sixteenth century. The real witnesses are the Codex Montfortianus, Evan. 61 Act. 34, whose history was described above, p. 149; Cod. Vat.-Ottob. 298 (Act. 162 ''see p.196 and note), and for the margin, a Naples manuscript (Act. 173, p. 197). On comparing these slight and scanty authorities with the Received text we find that they present the following variations:-v. 7. (to be continued...)

	==Cyprian==		==Cyprian==

Nick at 07:34, 10 June 2020

2020-06-10T07:34:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:34, 10 June 2020
Line 3:		Line 3:

	==Some quotes from Scrivener==		==Some quotes from Scrivener==
			[[Image:Schaff on Scrivener 1 John 5.7-8a.JPG\|thumb\|right\|Schaff on Scrivener 1 John 5.7-8]]
			[[Image:Schaff on Scrivener 1 John 5.7-8b.JPG\|thumb\|right\|Schaff on Scrivener 1 John 5.7-8]]
	Scrivener aligned himself with [[Richard Porson]]'s position:		Scrivener aligned himself with [[Richard Porson]]'s position:
	:“I would fain call it a success if I could with truth. To rebut much of Porson's insolent sophistry was easy, to maintain the genuineness of this passage is simply impossible.”		:“I would fain call it a success if I could with truth. To rebut much of Porson's insolent sophistry was easy, to maintain the genuineness of this passage is simply impossible.”
Line 16:		Line 17:

	[[Philip Schaff]] said of Scrivener:		[[Philip Schaff]] said of Scrivener:
	~~[[Image:Schaff on Scrivener 1 John 5.7-8a.JPG\|thumb\|right\|Schaff on Scrivener 1 John 5.7-8]]~~
	~~[[Image:Schaff on Scrivener 1 John 5.7-8b.JPG\|thumb\|right\|Schaff on Scrivener 1 John 5.7-8]]~~
	:...He gives up the spurious interpolation of the three witnesses as hopelessly untenable, and on the disputed reading in 1 Tim. iii.16, where his friend, Dean Burgon, so strenuously insists on θεός, Scrivener, in his ''Lectures'', p. 192 sq., makes the following admission:		:...He gives up the spurious interpolation of the three witnesses as hopelessly untenable, and on the disputed reading in 1 Tim. iii.16, where his friend, Dean Burgon, so strenuously insists on θεός, Scrivener, in his ''Lectures'', p. 192 sq., makes the following admission:

Nick at 07:33, 10 June 2020

2020-06-10T07:33:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:33, 10 June 2020
Line 28:		Line 28:

	: The authenticity of the words within brackets will, perhaps, no longer be maintained by any one whose judgement ought to have weight ; but this result has been arrived at after a long and memorable controversy, which helped to keep alive, especially in England, some interest in Biblical studies, and led to investigations into collateral points of the highest importance, such as the sources of the Received text, the manuscripts employed by R. Stephens (''see'' pp. 299-301), the origin and value of the Velesian readings (''see'' p. 156), &c. A critical ''résumé'' of the whole discussion might be profitably undertaken by some competent scholar; we can at present touch only upon the chief heads of this great debate<sup>1</sup>.		: The authenticity of the words within brackets will, perhaps, no longer be maintained by any one whose judgement ought to have weight ; but this result has been arrived at after a long and memorable controversy, which helped to keep alive, especially in England, some interest in Biblical studies, and led to investigations into collateral points of the highest importance, such as the sources of the Received text, the manuscripts employed by R. Stephens (''see'' pp. 299-301), the origin and value of the Velesian readings (''see'' p. 156), &c. A critical ''résumé'' of the whole discussion might be profitably undertaken by some competent scholar; we can at present touch only upon the chief heads of this great debate<sup>1</sup>.
	: The two verses appear in the early editions, (adopting again the notation employed above, p. 301), with the following notable variations from the common text: v.7		: The two verses appear in the early editions, (adopting again the notation employed above, p. 301), with the following notable variations from the common text: v.7 - ''ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ usque ad τῇ γῇ'' v. 8, Er. 1, 2. - ''ὁ prim. et secund''. Er. 3 [''non'' C Er. 4, 5]. + ''καὶ'' (''post πατήρ'') C.- τὸ Er. 3 ''τὸ καὶ ἅγιον πνεῦμα'' St. 1. ''πνεῦμα ἅγιον'' Er. 3, 4, 5. - ''οὗτοι'' C. + ''εις το'' (''ante εν'') C. v. 8. ''επί της γης C.- ''τὸ ter'' Er. 3, 4, 5 [''habent C. Er 1, 2]. - ''καὶ οἱ τρεῖς ad fin''. ''vers''. C.

	==Cyprian==		==Cyprian==

Nick: /* Some quotes from Scrivener */

2020-06-10T07:12:35Z

Some quotes from Scrivener

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:12, 10 June 2020
Line 14:		Line 14:
	Scrivener said:		Scrivener said:
	:“On the whole, therefore, we need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. 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.”		:“On the whole, therefore, we need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. 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.”

			[[Philip Schaff]] said of Scrivener:
			[[Image:Schaff on Scrivener 1 John 5.7-8a.JPG\|thumb\|right\|Schaff on Scrivener 1 John 5.7-8]]
			[[Image:Schaff on Scrivener 1 John 5.7-8b.JPG\|thumb\|right\|Schaff on Scrivener 1 John 5.7-8]]
			:...He gives up the spurious interpolation of the three witnesses as hopelessly untenable, and on the disputed reading in 1 Tim. iii.16, where his friend, Dean Burgon, so strenuously insists on θεός, Scrivener, in his ''Lectures'', p. 192 sq., makes the following admission:

			::“On the whole, if Codd. A, C, 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. א 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.” <sup>[1]</sup>

			[https://archive.org/details/acompaniontotheg00schauoft/page/284/mode/1up A companion to the Greek Testament and the English version] by [[Philip Schaff]]

	==A Plain Introduction 1861==		==A Plain Introduction 1861==