Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Article critiques the historical revisionism of Scrivener's text-critical views, implying misinterpretation by supporters.
In an article published in 1995, Daniel Wallace correctly pointed out that Scrivener's text-critical views were not identical to those of Dean Burgon; also, that it is misleading for certain “majority text” supporters simply to lump Burgon and Scrivener together as though they supported the traditional text in precisely the same manner. Unfortunately, in making the point regarding revisionist misuse of Scrivener, Wallace has himself caricatured Scrivener in a revisionist manner.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maurice A. Robinson (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: