Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer  You commented, "going on playful tangents like Scrivener's to make a TR that approximates the KJV." It called for a defence of the scholarly nature of Scrivener's work. |
OK, I can see how you misunderstood that. However, a tangent is absolutely something that scholars frequently "go on". Is the tangential work important? Often! Like I said, those who know and love the KJV are very interested to know where it came from.
But is that work important for establishing the text of the autographs as closely as we can? That's a different criterion, and it has nothing to do with his level of scholarship, for which again, I have the highest regard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TsonMariytho It is very telling that the conversation has shifted from Greek NT manuscripts and printed editions, over to an English translation. This kind of thing should not really happen in a discussion on textual criticism. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer Yes, but you were the one who brought up the AV in relation to Scrivener's work; you need to keep better control of where you steer the discussion and ensure you do not bring up issues which you yourself know are not germane to the question being discussed. |
Hmmmm. I read the following...
Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer First, why should I be obliged to bring forth examples of variation where you yourself have recognised variants in the TR tradition, and Scrivener's work itself testifies of the need to clarify which form of the TR was employed by the translators of the AV? Supposing I came to the conclusion that Scrivener's TR provides the original reading, does that make it impossible to conclude that I have arrived at that decision by an exact discrimination of all the evidence which can be sifted? If so, then obviously there is prejudice from your side of the debate which refuses to examine the evidence in the remote possibility that the TR might be correct. |
... and concluded that you held the position that a move from the TR of Erasmus to the TR of Scrivener was a move closer to the autographs. My apologies if I assumed that in error. As I read your post again, I may have been too hasty and click-type-happy. :^(