Talk:F. J. A. Hort
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the F. J. A. Hort article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The name Fenton ?
editAnyone know the background to Hort having being named Fenton ? Is there any connection with the Richard Fenton (1746-1821), whose biography was written by Bible translator Ferrar Fenton? DFH 20:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the Revised Version
editThe statement, under "Works", that "The Revision Committee had largely accepted this text, even before its publication, as a basis for their translation of the New Testament." This is a common misconception. Bishop Charles John Ellicott, the chairman of the New Testament Committee of the Revised Version, in his book, Addresses on the Revised Version of the Holy Scriptures (1901, London, SPCK) pages 56-61,* goes into great detail to refute such a claim. He says the Committee used a Textus Receptus edition as its basis (very probably Scrivener's Novum Testamentum textus Stephanici in one or another of its many editions), F.H.A. Scrivener would present to the Committee the verse and all the evidence about it, and then Hort or Westcott might add their comments based on their own research, and eventually the Committee would vote on the text of the verse. Out of thousands of adjustments to the Textus Receptus, only 64 can be attributed to the Westcott & Hort edition without any precedents in any of three previous critical editions (and the 64 may be whittled down further if more pre-W&H critical editions are examined). Please correct the sentence in the article.
Sussmanbern (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Hort gets four pages in the Dictionary of National Biography (suppl. 1, pages 443-447) and is the subject of at least two substantial books, and was one of the greatest Bible scholars and theologians of his era, and he deserves something more than four paragraphs. Sussmanbern (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
WikiProject class rating
editThis article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Requested move 25 October 2019
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved. Uncontested nomination with supported assertion and guideline-based reasoning, no need for a relist. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Fenton Hort → F. J. A. Hort – Per WP:COMMONNAME as the subject is only rarely referred to simply as Fenton Hort. (See, e.g., this ngram.) 142.161.83.66 (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Better discuss, since it was requested by an IPA user. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Anthony Appleyard: Why would that be a reason to discuss? 142.161.83.66 (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.