Scrivener and Revelation 22: The Citation Is Not the Case
Scrivener’s observations about Erasmus and Revelation are important but often made to carry conclusions they do not state. A citation is the beginning of an inquiry into a…
Open record →Category: Erasmus and Scrivener: Expansion Articles
7 published records in this controlled archive.
Scrivener’s Reconstruction: Greek Authority and English Evidence
F. H. A. Scrivener reconstructed the Greek textual basis represented by the Authorized Version. His method began with the English historical question but required Greek authority for the…
Open record →
The Back-Translation Charge: Evidence, Not Enumeration
A claim that Erasmus invented Greek from Latin must identify the Greek form, Latin source, edition, and later transmission. Counting “five” or “six” verses without that work is…
Open record →The Rush to Print: Speed Is Not a Textual Theory
Erasmus’s 1516 edition was produced quickly. That fact does not prove the familiar commercial-race story, nor can it establish a particular reading without a reading-specific argument.
Open record →Revelation’s Missing Ending: Evidence, Limits, and Later Editions
The alleged back-translation of Revelation’s ending is regularly stated as a fixed fact, although the number of verses changes with the retelling. Erasmus’s own statements establish a narrower…
Open record →Erasmus and Codex Vaticanus: The Claim Must Be Tested
The claim that Erasmus ignored or never had access to Codex Vaticanus usually confuses a physical codex, readings reported from it, and Erasmus’s own stated judgment about those…
Open record →