[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Issues with the old Scofield: 1. Oxford text.

Apparently there was a 1911 Oxford edition for the USA, the 1911 Tercentenary, that was a bit of a quirky and unreliable Oxford. e.g. In Isaiah 9:3 it had 'increased the joy' without the 'not' and good 'ol Norris has a number of other quirks from that edition. And Norris conjectures that some of the 1911 quirks came into the (misnamed) New Scofield. Scofield is listed as on that board of that 1911, with four others. However the actual Scofield editions are listed as 1909 and 1917 and I would presume that the Bible text in his editions are far more true to the historic text than the special 1911 Oxford.

Norris used the Scofield participation on the 1911 board as an indication that Scofield had less fealty to the text than Grady (in his generally excellent book) asserts for Scofield in one quote. William Grady in a couple of places writes a bit enthusiastically, going beyond reflecting the details of the technical situation. It is all a minor matter, apparently Grady likes the Spurgeon dispensationalism and considers him therefore quite significant and he went a smidgen overboard . None of this effects the basic truth that the text of the original Scofield was generally an historically sound King James Bible (with some of the Oxford impurities, understandable at the time and place) and the socalled New Scofield, published a half-century after he lived, is very unsound. Matthew gives some of the fine Grady analysis of that above.

Oh, I tried to figure the metre of the sentence above to determine whether we have 'a' or 'an' historically. Hmmm.. subtle rhythms. Then I looked for an umlaut in metre. Does Manuel cover this in his Chicago work on Style ?

Shalom,
Steven