Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
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).
After a discussion about Vaticanus:
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
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.