Admin
|
"Dr" C. I. Scofield's 1919 Notes On the "Two Best Manuscripts"
Posted : 23 Dec, 2012 11:05 AM
"Dr" C. I. Scofield's 1919 Notes On the "Two Best Manuscripts"
In 1881 Westcott and Hort published their Greek New Testament text based upon the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, out of which the English Revised Version in England (1881) was translated.
C.I. Scofield would have used the Revised Version, based on the Westcott-Hort Greek text rather than the Textus Receptus which was the Greek text used for the Tyndale Bible (1525), the Geneva Bible (1560) and the King James Version (1611). But Scofield knew that if he was to get dispensationalism accepted, he would have to use the time honored King James Version.
So Scofield used the King James Version - but he inserted notes right on the pages of the Bible indicating his (Scofield's) preference for the verse wordings of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Scofield even goes so far as to say for II Thessalonains 2: 2 in the A.V. or Authorized Version - the King James Version - is a mistranslation.
Apparently in 1892 for �Sermon preached by Dr. C.I. Scofield,� was the first time the world was told that Scofield had a doctorate degree. But - on http://pilgrim-platform.org/2010/c-i-scofield/ they say "his is the first known instance of Scofield�s use of the title, �Dr.� However, there is no indication anywhere that he ever received any doctorate from any school, not even an honorary doctorate. For that matter there is no evidence that he ever attended or graduated from any institution of higher learning, neither in law nor in religion. Its not that such degrees are all that important, but that he claimed to have something he did not have."
http://pilgrim-platform.org/2010/c-i-scofield/ says "The other act of 1901 that has escaped public attention was his admission into the Lotos Club in New York City. The Lotos Club, an exclusive social literati club, sponsored and mentored various kinds of artists. Article I, Section II of its Constitution reads, �The primary object of this Club shall be to promote social intercourse among journalists, artists, and members of the musical and dramatic professions, and representatives, amateurs, and friends of Literature, Science, and the Fine Arts: and at least one third of the members shall be connected with said classes� (Canfield, p. 173). Not the usual domain of Fundamentalist Christians.
Scofield�s participation in the Lotos Club is beyond denial. The 1912 Who�s Who in America lists the Lotos Club as Scofield�s address. A letter written in 1905 to A.C. Gaebelin was written on Lotos Club stationery........It is also interesting to note that Samuel Untermeyer, a notorious criminal lawyer, was on the Literary Committee of the Lotos Club at the time of Scofield�s induction. Canfield tells us that Untermyer was particularly interested in The Zionist Movement. Coincidence?....... But what in the world was Scofield doing in the Lotos Club?"
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/scofield-reference-notes/
Scofield Reference Notes (1917 Edition)
Below are some of the comments of "Dr" Scofield saying
the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which he refers to as "the two best manuscripts," or "the best manuscript," have better verse wordings.
Page 1022, Matthew 16:20, margin note "c"
Omit "Jesus."
Page 1023, Matthew 17:21, margin note "j"
The two best MSS. omit verse 21.
Page 1031, Matthew 23:14, margin note "s"
The best MSS. omit verse 14.
Page 1057, Mark 9:29, margin note "u"
The two best MSS. omit "and fasting."
Page 1061, Mark 11:26, margin note "i"
Verse 26 is omitted from the best MSS.
Page 1325, 1 John 5:7, margin note "o"
It is generally agreed that v.7 has no real authority, and has been inserted.
Page 1069, Mark 16:9-20, footnote "1"
The passage from verse 9 to the end is not found in the two most ancient manuscripts, the Sinaitic and
Vatican, and others have it with partial omissions and variations.
Page 1201, Romans 8:1, margin note "b"
The statement ends with "Christ Jesus"; the last ten words are interpolated.
Page 1212, 1 Corinthians 1:8, footnote "2"
A.V. has "day of Christ," #2Th 2:2 incorrectly, for "day of the Lord"
1216, 1 Corinthians 5:5, margin note "d"
Some ancient authorities omit "Jesus."
Page 1271, 2 Thessalonians, Introduction
The theme of Second Thessalonians is, unfortunately, obscured by a mistranslation in the A.V. of 2:2 where "day of Christ is at hand" See [1Co 1:8] should be, "day of the Lord is now present" (See [Isa 2:12], ref).
The issue of the Westcott-Hort versus the Textus Receptus remains a matter of opinion unless people are willing to read and understand posts longer than a few sentences. One issue is the difference in verse wordings between the Westcott-Hort and the Textus Receptus.
There are also New Testament verses which are not in the Westcott-Hort text that are in the Textus Receptus.
You have to see a number of verses to get any idea about the differences between the texts, and what these differences can mean. And then you might wonder why C.I. Scofield at the turn of the century liked the Westcott-Hort Greek text more than the Textus Receptus. And was Scofield even well trained in Greek?
Post Reply
|
