He seems to be the patron saint of the KJVO folks, even though he was not one!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Biographical Dictionary of Bibliology
- Thread starter John of Japan
- Start date
Erasmus, Desiderius (1466-1536): This man is famous for editing a Greek New Testament, which was eventually called the Textus Receptus, Latin for “received text.” Taking monastic vows at age 25, he never became a priest and never pastored a church. After studying at the University of Paris and at Orleans, he became an independent scholar. He was a Catholic humanist, but the humanism of Erasmus was a milder version than what we have today. More problematic than his humanism is his Catholicism, which included Mariolatry and other unbiblical heresies. Having said that, his edition (or actually five editions) of the Greek New Testament was hugely successful, and led to much that is good in Greek studies, most notably being used for the German translation of Luther.
Estienne, Robert. (1503-1559). His name is Robertus Stephanus, often referred to as just "Stephanus." A Protestant printer in Paris, he is known for printing four editions of the received text of the New Testament, including 3 at Paris and one at Geneva. He mostly followed Beza's Greek NT, I believe. His 4th edition was the first to have numbering of the verses. If you don't like how some verses are numbered, blame this man! I remember hearing (in a sermon by my father I believe) that he numbered the verses while riding on a donkey from town to town, and occasionally a bump would joggle his pen, causing him to make a strange division. This story may be apocryphal--but then it does explain the matter! His edition is often called the "received text," or textus receptus in Latin, though he did not use the term himself. (It was an advertising blurb from a later edition of the Greek NT by the Elziver brothers.)
If you want to sound educated about the Greek NT, then pronounce this Latin phrase in pure Latin, with the "c" being hard, like this: textus rekeptus.
If you want to sound educated about the Greek NT, then pronounce this Latin phrase in pure Latin, with the "c" being hard, like this: textus rekeptus.
Stephens (or his son) acknowledged that the verse divisions were made on a trip from Lyons to Paris or vice versa, "inter equis" (= among horses), which probably meant during evening stays at an inn, but which led to the legend of making a verse division at each jolt of the horse.
Stephanus mostly followed the Greek text of Erasmus, and later Beza mostly followed the Greek text of Stephanus.
Edward F. Hills observed that Stephanus "placed in the margin of his 3rd edition of the Textus Receptus variant readings taken from 15 manuscripts, which he indicated by Greek numbers" (KJV Defended, p. 117).
F. H. A. Scrivener indicated that Stephanus in his preface stated that his sources were sixteen, but that includes the printed Complutensian as one of them (Plain Introduction, II, p. 189). Samuel Tregelles confirmed that “the various readings in the margin are from the Complutensian printed edition and from fifteen MSS” (Account, p. 30). Brian Walton observed that Stephanus “reckons sixteen Greek copies, which he collated, and out of them noted 2384 various readings, which he though fit to put in the margin of his edition” (Todd, Memoirs, II, p. 132).
Edwin Bissell maintained that “in the edition of 1550, indeed, the first collection of variations in manuscripts was actually published, numbering two thousand one hundred and ninety-four” (Historic Origin, p. 128). Samuel Tregelles affirmed that in Stephanus' 1550 folio edition "Erasmus was almost exclusively followed" (Account of the Printed Text, p. 30). Samuel Tregelles suggested: “The collation of MSS. had probably been made with Erasmus’s fifth edition, and thus Stephens in his principal edition used it as the basis of his text” (Ibid.). Charles E. Hammond claimed: “The influence of prescription already shows itself in the fact that Stephens often follows the text of Erasmus, in defiance of the authority of his manuscripts” (Outlines of Textual Criticism, p. 11).
Henry Stephens [Henri Estienne] (1528 or 1531-1598) worked as a corrector of the press in 1551 at the printing press of his father, but he established his own printing business in 1554. Henry Stephens would be the printer of the second [1565], third [1582], and fourth [1589] editions of Beza’s New Testament. Edwin Rumball-Petre asserted that Henry Stephens would later edit his own edition of the Greek N. T. printed in 1576 that “differs from both Beza and Robert Stephens” (Rare Bibles, p. 35). Henry Stephens also produced another edition of his Greek N. T. in 1587.
Henri Estienne is also said to be the one who did the collating of Greek manuscripts for the 1550 Greek NT edited by his father.
Scrivener asserted that “Robert Stephen professed to have collated the whole sixteen for his two previous editions,” but that “this part of his work is now known to be due to his son Henry [1528-1598], who in 1546 was only eighteen years old” (Introduction, II, p. 190). Edward Miller affirmed: “Robert Stephen did not collate his authorities himself, but employed the services of his son Henry” (Guide to the Textual Criticism, p. 10). J. Scott Porter also maintained that “the MSS. were collated, and their readings noted, by Henry Stephens, son of Robert, then a youth of eighteen” (Principles, p. 250). Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible contended that “the collations were made by his son Henry Stephens” (III, p. 2131). Irena Backus asserted that Robert Stephanus “used Henri’s collations as the sole source of Greek variants for his 1550 edition of the New Testament” (Reformed Roots, p. 3). John Michaelis as translated by Herbert Marsh pointed out that Robert Stephens “made use of several manuscripts which were collated by his son Henry” (Introduction to N. T., II, p. 448). Henry Baird quoted Theodore Beza as writing in a preface to his NT about a copy of “our Stephens which had been most carefully collated by his son, Henry Stephens” (Theodore Beza, p. 236). KJV-only author Laurence Vance acknowledged that the text of Stephanus included the “collations of his son Henry” (Brief History, p. 13). Jan Krans pointed out that “in a 1565 addition to the preface, Beza informs us that the collations were actually Henri Stephanus’, who was probably asked to do them by his father” (Beyond What is Written, p. 212). Krans also referred to another source revealing that the collations were done by the son of Robert Stephanus, which is “Henri Stephanus’ own words in the preface to his 1587 New Testament” (p. 212, footnote 6).
Henri Estienne is also said to be the one who did the collating of Greek manuscripts for the 1550 Greek NT edited by his father.
Scrivener asserted that “Robert Stephen professed to have collated the whole sixteen for his two previous editions,” but that “this part of his work is now known to be due to his son Henry [1528-1598], who in 1546 was only eighteen years old” (Introduction, II, p. 190). Edward Miller affirmed: “Robert Stephen did not collate his authorities himself, but employed the services of his son Henry” (Guide to the Textual Criticism, p. 10). J. Scott Porter also maintained that “the MSS. were collated, and their readings noted, by Henry Stephens, son of Robert, then a youth of eighteen” (Principles, p. 250). Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible contended that “the collations were made by his son Henry Stephens” (III, p. 2131). Irena Backus asserted that Robert Stephanus “used Henri’s collations as the sole source of Greek variants for his 1550 edition of the New Testament” (Reformed Roots, p. 3). John Michaelis as translated by Herbert Marsh pointed out that Robert Stephens “made use of several manuscripts which were collated by his son Henry” (Introduction to N. T., II, p. 448). Henry Baird quoted Theodore Beza as writing in a preface to his NT about a copy of “our Stephens which had been most carefully collated by his son, Henry Stephens” (Theodore Beza, p. 236). KJV-only author Laurence Vance acknowledged that the text of Stephanus included the “collations of his son Henry” (Brief History, p. 13). Jan Krans pointed out that “in a 1565 addition to the preface, Beza informs us that the collations were actually Henri Stephanus’, who was probably asked to do them by his father” (Beyond What is Written, p. 212). Krans also referred to another source revealing that the collations were done by the son of Robert Stephanus, which is “Henri Stephanus’ own words in the preface to his 1587 New Testament” (p. 212, footnote 6).
And the foundation of the English Bible, William Tyndale.
Tyndale Bibliography
Bibliography of Tyndale's New Testament and Pentateuch
Bibliography of Tyndale's New Testament and Pentateuch
Many thanks for the links!
I haven't forgotten this thread, and hope to keep adding to it. Here's one.
Scrivener, Frederick Henry Ambrose (1813-1891). Often referred to as "F. H. A. Scrivener," he was a leading British Greek scholar and textual critic of the 19th century. His life is somewhat of a mixed bag when it comes to bibliology. On the one hand, he participated in the committee for revising the KJV New Testament which resulted in the English Revised Version and the American Standard Version. (These two are essentially the same version), which were done mainly from Westcott and Hort's Greek NT, as I understand it.) Westcott and Hort were also on this committee, so Scrivener certainly was not KJVO, but should be classified as Byzantine priority. F. F. Bruce writes, "Dr. Scrivener took a generally conservative position, leaning to the support of the Byzantine text" (History of the English Bible, p. 139).
For our purposes, Scrivener is best known nowadays for his edition of the Textus Receptus Greek NT. His edition was designed to provide a Greek basis for the KJV, which was not done from any one Greek text. Thus, his Greek NT is treasured by those who love the KJV (including me!), and is faithfully printed to this day by the Trinitarian Bible Society. Regardless, he was definitely not KJVO. For example, he wrote, "From 75 per cent to 90 per cent of the italics in the King James Version are worthless" (quoted in Dewey M. Beegle, God's Word into English, p. 115).
Scrivener, Frederick Henry Ambrose (1813-1891). Often referred to as "F. H. A. Scrivener," he was a leading British Greek scholar and textual critic of the 19th century. His life is somewhat of a mixed bag when it comes to bibliology. On the one hand, he participated in the committee for revising the KJV New Testament which resulted in the English Revised Version and the American Standard Version. (These two are essentially the same version), which were done mainly from Westcott and Hort's Greek NT, as I understand it.) Westcott and Hort were also on this committee, so Scrivener certainly was not KJVO, but should be classified as Byzantine priority. F. F. Bruce writes, "Dr. Scrivener took a generally conservative position, leaning to the support of the Byzantine text" (History of the English Bible, p. 139).
For our purposes, Scrivener is best known nowadays for his edition of the Textus Receptus Greek NT. His edition was designed to provide a Greek basis for the KJV, which was not done from any one Greek text. Thus, his Greek NT is treasured by those who love the KJV (including me!), and is faithfully printed to this day by the Trinitarian Bible Society. Regardless, he was definitely not KJVO. For example, he wrote, "From 75 per cent to 90 per cent of the italics in the King James Version are worthless" (quoted in Dewey M. Beegle, God's Word into English, p. 115).
Does Beegle say from where he got this quote? I wanted to look up the context of that statement, and assumed it would be in The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611): Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives in the section on the use of italics. I did not find it there, though it may be my faulty looking rather than its lack of presence.
Thanks!
Taking a second look at Beegle, it looks like I misquoted him. What I gave as being by Scrivener was by Beegle himself. My confusion was caused by the fact that the Scrivener quote was in slightly smaller print, then Beegle continued on.
The Scrivener quote (unfortunately not sourced by Beegle) is: "The changes [meaning in the italics comparing KJV editions] introduced from time to time have been too unsystematic, too much the work of the moment, executed by too many hands, and on too unsettled principles, to hold out against hostile, or even against friendly criticism" (Beegle quoting Scrivener, pp. 114-115).
Great, thanks. I found the "too unsystematic, too much the work of the moment, etc." quote in Scrivener, p. 71. I want to get time to read that whole section, but one thing that stands out after this quote is that Scrivener says that Paris (1762) and Blayney (1769) added to rather than diminished the inconsistencies in the use of italics. He will follow up with (pp. 74-80) observations to guide us in understanding the "doubtful cases" in the use of italic type. Scrivener also says he made out a full list of (as I understand it) the corrections that needed to be made to the italics and "deposited the list for future reference in the library of the Syndics of the University Press (p. 81)." It seems to me (and I might change my mind after reading this over a couple of times), that Scrivener is saying that he had studied the issue, the italics, and the translation enough that he thought he understood the intent of the use of the italics by the KJV translators well enough to correct it properly.
Scrivener's 1873 Cambridge edition of the KJV likely followed Scrivener's corrections to the italics as it has many more words in italics than other present KJV editions.
According to The Strongest Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, the 1873 Cambridge KJV edition has 34,712 words that are in italics (p. x).
In his book entitled Old Bibles, Dore presented a table with the number of words in italics in the Gospel of Matthew in some KJV editions (p. 340).
Place of Publication Year No. of Italic words
London 1611 43
Cambridge 1629 165
Cambridge 1638 224
Cambridge 1762 352
Cambridge 1870 583