Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Mk 6:32 Erasmus?

Expand Messages
  • Wieland Willker
    In Mk 6:32 some manuscripts read APHLQEN instead of APHLQON: f13, 2, 22, 157, 700, Maj-part(E, F, G, H, V, Y, Gamma) This is interesting because it means that
    Message 1 of 27 , Oct 21, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      In Mk 6:32 some manuscripts read APHLQEN instead of APHLQON:
      f13, 2, 22, 157, 700, Maj-part(E, F, G, H, V, Y, Gamma)

      This is interesting because it means that Jesus went alone, without his
      disciples.
      Now, the original Luther version is reading this, too:
      "Und er fuhr da in einem Schiff zu einer Wüste besonders."

      Probably this is from Erasmus. According to Swanson manuscript 2 reads
      APHLQEN, too. I have a PDF edition from some Erasmus text (Greek/Latin from
      1700) which reads APHLQEN, but I am not sure what text exactly this is.

      Stephanus and Scrivener read APHLQON.

      Which GNT editions read APHLQEN? Does the original Erasmus edition read it?
      Is it available online?
      When was it changed into APHLQON?


      Best wishes
      Wieland
      <><
      --------------------------
      Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
      http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
      Textcritical commentary:
      http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
    • Wieland Willker
      I found three texts from Erasmus online: Two are Latin and both read abiit, and one is Greek and reads APHLQEN. The links: Latin, 1522:
      Message 2 of 27 , Oct 21, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        I found three texts from Erasmus online:
        Two are Latin and both read abiit, and one is Greek and reads APHLQEN.

        The links:
        Latin, 1522:
        http://www.e-rara.ch/bau_1/content/titleinfo/504004
        Latin, 1541:
        http://www.e-rara.ch/zuz/content/titleinfo/380753
        Greek, Curio, 1545:
        http://www.e-rara.ch/bau_1/content/titleinfo/91040

        Btw, here is a little diagram showing the relationship of the various early
        GNT prints:
        http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/texte/GNT-diagram.jpg


        Best wishes
        Wieland
        <><
        --------------------------
        Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
        http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
        Textcritical commentary:
        http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
      • Jan Krans
        Wieland Erasmus has APELQEN (???????) in the 1516 edition (not yet online to my knowing); his translation also has the singular. The 1535 edition reads the
        Message 3 of 27 , Oct 21, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Wieland
          Erasmus has APELQEN (ἀπῆλθεν) in the 1516 edition (not yet online to my knowing); his translation also has the singular. The 1535 edition reads the same (online at erasmus.org), so I presume that the other editions in between also have it.
          As far as I know, only Erasmus' editions have the singular here.
          Greetings, Jan Krans

          On 21-10-10 11:14, Wieland Willker wrote:
           

          In Mk 6:32 some manuscripts read APHLQEN instead of APHLQON:
          f13, 2, 22, 157, 700, Maj-part(E, F, G, H, V, Y, Gamma)

          This is interesting because it means that Jesus went alone, without his
          disciples.
          Now, the original Luther version is reading this, too:
          "Und er fuhr da in einem Schiff zu einer Wüste besonders."

          Probably this is from Erasmus. According to Swanson manuscript 2 reads
          APHLQEN, too. I have a PDF edition from some Erasmus text (Greek/Latin from
          1700) which reads APHLQEN, but I am not sure what text exactly this is.

          Stephanus and Scrivener read APHLQON.

          Which GNT editions read APHLQEN? Does the original Erasmus edition read it?
          Is it available online?
          When was it changed into APHLQON?

          Best wishes
          Wieland

        • Wieland Willker
          ... Thank you, Jan! Interesting. The variation unit continues into verse 33, where also several witnesses have the singular, e.g. 700. Best wishes Wieland
          Message 4 of 27 , Oct 21, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            > As far as I know, only Erasmus' editions have the singular
            > here.

            Thank you, Jan!
            Interesting. The variation unit continues into verse 33, where also several witnesses have the singular, e.g. 700.

            Best wishes
            Wieland
            <><
            --------------------------
            Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
            http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
            Textcritical commentary:
            http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
          • Daniel B. Wallace
            Erasmus 1516 edition is posted at csntm.org in the Books section. Dan Wallace ... Sent: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:44:43 +0200 From: Jan Krans To:
            Message 5 of 27 , Oct 23, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Erasmus' 1516 edition is posted at csntm.org in the Books section.

              Dan Wallace


              ----- Start Original Message -----
              Sent: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:44:43 +0200
              From: Jan Krans <jlhkvu@...>
              To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Mk 6:32 Erasmus?

              > Wieland
              > Erasmus has APELQEN (???????) in the 1516 edition (not yet online to my
              > knowing); his translation also has the singular. The 1535 edition reads
              > the same (online at erasmus.org), so I presume that the other editions
              > in between also have it.
              > As far as I know, only Erasmus' editions have the singular here.
              > Greetings, Jan Krans
              >
              > On 21-10-10 11:14, Wieland Willker wrote:
              > >
              > > In Mk 6:32 some manuscripts read APHLQEN instead of APHLQON:
              > > f13, 2, 22, 157, 700, Maj-part(E, F, G, H, V, Y, Gamma)
              > >
              > > This is interesting because it means that Jesus went alone, without his
              > > disciples.
              > > Now, the original Luther version is reading this, too:
              > > "Und er fuhr da in einem Schiff zu einer Wüste besonders."
              > >
              > > Probably this is from Erasmus. According to Swanson manuscript 2 reads
              > > APHLQEN, too. I have a PDF edition from some Erasmus text (Greek/Latin
              > > from
              > > 1700) which reads APHLQEN, but I am not sure what text exactly this is.
              > >
              > > Stephanus and Scrivener read APHLQON.
              > >
              > > Which GNT editions read APHLQEN? Does the original Erasmus edition
              > > read it?
              > > Is it available online?
              > > When was it changed into APHLQON?
              > >
              > > Best wishes
              > > Wieland
              > >

              ----- End Original Message -----
            • bucksburg
              ... Thank you for this, Dan. I m glad to also see Stephanus 1550 there, http://www.csntm.org/printedbook/viewbook/RobertusStephanusNovumTestamentum1550 The
              Message 6 of 27 , Oct 26, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel B. Wallace" wrote:
                >> Erasmus' 1516 edition is posted at csntm.org in the Books section.<<

                Thank you for this, Dan. I'm glad to also see Stephanus 1550 there,
                http://www.csntm.org/printedbook/viewbook/RobertusStephanusNovumTestamentum1550

                The Comma Johanneum first appeared in its present form in Stephanus 1550, if one can call all the ligatures and lack of one movable nu 'its present form.' What's interesting to me is the apparatus in the left margin (the CJ is on page 167; electronic folio #218a). Stevens lists the following catholic mss that omit it: d, e, z, i, and ia. And he also lists ig on a separate line. According to the online index, this is a ms of the Paulines, so something must be wrong. Does the separate entry mean he just ran out of room on that line of the margin, or that his mss ig includes the CJ? Either way (and the latter is highly unlikely), it seems that ig must include at least some of the catholic epistles.

                The only variant noted is in his one source that does contain the CJ--the Complutensian Polyglot. He notes a variant in the CP of EIS TO before the EN EISIN in v. 7. Actually, there are two other variants in the CP of verse seven, and a major one in verse eight: the CP adds KAI before O LOGOS, and EIS TO is a replacement for OUTOI on the other side of OI TREIS.

                The final clause of v. 8 is missing in the CP, as it often is in mss that contain the Comma. This can be traced back to the text of the Acts of the Lateran Council, which gave the text of the CJ in full in Latin but abbreviated it in Greek. In the process of transmission, the truncated Greek version influenced a shortening of the Latin version. In the confusion, the 2nd '3 are 1' clause was moved from v. 8 to replace the one in v. 7.

                Erasmus inserted the CJ into his 3rd edition using the first clause's wording from 61, but he left the 2nd clause in v.8 as his text already had it. Ottobonianus (629) read OI TREIS EIS TO EN EISI (moved from v. 8), while Montfortianus (61) read OUTOI OI TRES EN EISI (following the Acts), and left v.8 truncated. The CP followed the former, while Erasmus 1522 and subsequent TR editions followed the latter in v. 7, but restored the former to the end of v. 8.

                Thomas Aquinas had something to say about this, as noted in a footnote below the CJ in the CP:

                . . . tres sunt qui testimonium dant in celo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus; dicit ad litteram verba sequentia. Et ad insinuandam unitatem trium personarum subditur. Et hii tres unum sunt. Quodquidem dicitur propter essentie Unitatem. . . Nam subditur ibidem: et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, S. Spiritus: Aqua: et Sanguis. Et in quibusdam libris additur; et hii tres unum sunt. Sed hoc in veris exemplaribus non habetur: sed dicitur esse appositum ab hereticis arianis ad pervertendum intellectum sanum auctoritatis premisse de unitate essentie trium personarum.

                The <url=http://books.google.com/books?id=PFwXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA505&lpg=PA505&dq=%22et+hi+tres+unum+sunt%22+lateran&source=bl&ots=nidLSAezZu&sig=w9GAgyh6GgIdDKaF1GNlxxWTOGo&hl=en&ei=zDnHTNaYPIi2sAOdoInEDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CD8Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=%22et%20hi%20tres%20unum%20sunt%22%20lateran&f=false>Acts</url> reads:
                Quemadmodum in Canonica Joannis epistola legitur, Qui tres sunt qui testimonium dant in Cælo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. Statimque subjungitur, Et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, Spiritus aqua et sanguis: et tres unum sunt.

                Now, I do have a question for the Orthodox scholars among us about Horne's allegation regarding their use of the CJ, but first I'd appreciate it if a Latin scholar could translate the above.

                Daniel Buck
              • malcolm robertson
                ... From: bucksburg Subject: [textualcriticism] apparatus of CJ in Stephanus: 1 John 5:7-8 To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com Date:
                Message 7 of 27 , Oct 29, 2010
                • 0 Attachment


                  --- On Tue, 10/26/10, bucksburg <bucksburg@...> wrote:

                  From: bucksburg <bucksburg@...>
                  Subject: [textualcriticism] apparatus of CJ in Stephanus: 1 John 5:7-8
                  To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                  Date: Tuesday, October 26, 2010, 4:32 PM

                   

                  --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel B. Wallace" wrote:
                  >> Erasmus' 1516 edition is posted at csntm.org in the Books section.<<

                  Thank you for this, Dan. I'm glad to also see Stephanus 1550 there,
                  http://www.csntm.org/printedbook/viewbook/RobertusStephanusNovumTestamentum1550

                  The Comma Johanneum first appeared in its present form in Stephanus 1550, if one can call all the ligatures and lack of one movable nu 'its present form.' What's interesting to me is the apparatus in the left margin (the CJ is on page 167; electronic folio #218a). Stevens lists the following catholic mss that omit it: d, e, z, i, and ia. And he also lists ig on a separate line. According to the online index, this is a ms of the Paulines, so something must be wrong. Does the separate entry mean he just ran out of room on that line of the margin, or that his mss ig includes the CJ? Either way (and the latter is highly unlikely), it seems that ig must include at least some of the catholic epistles.

                  The only variant noted is in his one source that does contain the CJ--the Complutensian Polyglot. He notes a variant in the CP of EIS TO before the EN EISIN in v. 7. Actually, there are two other variants in the CP of verse seven, and a major one in verse eight: the CP adds KAI before O LOGOS, and EIS TO is a replacement for OUTOI on the other side of OI TREIS.

                  The final clause of v. 8 is missing in the CP, as it often is in mss that contain the Comma. This can be traced back to the text of the Acts of the Lateran Council, which gave the text of the CJ in full in Latin but abbreviated it in Greek. In the process of transmission, the truncated Greek version influenced a shortening of the Latin version. In the confusion, the 2nd '3 are 1' clause was moved from v. 8 to replace the one in v. 7.

                  Erasmus inserted the CJ into his 3rd edition using the first clause's wording from 61, but he left the 2nd clause in v.8 as his text already had it. Ottobonianus (629) read OI TREIS EIS TO EN EISI (moved from v. 8), while Montfortianus (61) read OUTOI OI TRES EN EISI (following the Acts), and left v.8 truncated. The CP followed the former, while Erasmus 1522 and subsequent TR editions followed the latter in v. 7, but restored the former to the end of v. 8.

                  Thomas Aquinas had something to say about this, as noted in a footnote below the CJ in the CP:

                  . . . tres sunt qui testimonium dant in celo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus; dicit ad litteram verba sequentia. Et ad insinuandam unitatem trium personarum subditur. Et hii tres unum sunt. Quodquidem dicitur propter essentie Unitatem. . . Nam subditur ibidem: et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, S. Spiritus: Aqua: et Sanguis. Et in quibusdam libris additur; et hii tres unum sunt. Sed hoc in veris exemplaribus non habetur: sed dicitur esse appositum ab hereticis arianis ad pervertendum intellectum sanum auctoritatis premisse de unitate essentie trium personarum.

                  The <url=http://books.google.com/books?id=PFwXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA505&lpg=PA505&dq=%22et+hi+tres+unum+sunt%22+lateran&source=bl&ots=nidLSAezZu&sig=w9GAgyh6GgIdDKaF1GNlxxWTOGo&hl=en&ei=zDnHTNaYPIi2sAOdoInEDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CD8Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=%22et%20hi%20tres%20unum%20sunt%22%20lateran&f=false>Acts</url> reads:
                  Quemadmodum in Canonica Joannis epistola legitur, Qui tres sunt qui testimonium dant in Cælo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. Statimque subjungitur, Et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, Spiritus aqua et sanguis: et tres unum sunt.

                  Now, I do have a question for the Orthodox scholars among us about Horne's allegation regarding their use of the CJ, but first I'd appreciate it if a Latin scholar could translate the above.

                  Daniel Buck
                   
                  _________________
                   
                  Thomas Aquinas had something to say about this, as noted in a footnote below the CJ in the CP:

                  . . . tres sunt qui testimonium dant in celo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus; dicit ad litteram verba sequentia. Et ad insinuandam unitatem trium personarum subditur. Et hii tres unum sunt. Quodquidem dicitur propter essentie Unitatem. . . Nam subditur ibidem: et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, S. Spiritus: Aqua: et Sanguis. Et in quibusdam libris additur; et hii tres unum sunt. Sed hoc in veris exemplaribus non habetur: sed dicitur esse appositum ab hereticis arianis ad pervertendum intellectum sanum auctoritatis premisse de unitate essentie trium personarum.

                  "There are three who give witness in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit."  It (He) says/reads to the letter the following words:  And in order to make a way for the unity of the three persons it/there is placed under: "And these Three are One."  The same is said on account of the essential Unity...For it is added on the spot : "And there are Three who give witness in the earth, The Spirit, the Water and the Blood."  And in some books is added: "And these three are One."  But this in the true exemplars/copies is not contained.  But it is said that they are placed (there) by Arian heretics in order to pervert the healthy sense of the authority (premisse) concerning the essential unity of the three (distinct) persons.
                   
                  Quemadmodum in Canonica Joannis epistola legitur, Qui tres sunt qui testimonium dant in Cælo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. Statimque subjungitur, Et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, Spiritus aqua et sanguis: et tres unum sunt.

                  Moreover in the Canonical epistle of John it reads: Who are three who give witness in heaven, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  And these three are One.  Also there is added : And there are three who give witness in the earth, the Spirit, the water (of baptism) and the blood (of Jesus/God); at the Three are One.

                • Daniel Buck
                  Thanks, Malcom.
                  Message 8 of 27 , Oct 29, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Thanks, Malcom. 

                    <The only variant noted is in his one source that does contain the CJ--the Complutensian Polyglot. He notes a variant in the CP of EIS TO before the EN EISIN in v. 7. Actually, there are two other variants in the CP of verse seven, and a major one in verse eight: the CP adds KAI before O LOGOS, and EIS TO is a replacement for OUTOI on the other side of OI TREIS. >

                    There's another one Stephanus and I missed: EPI THS GHS vs. EN TH GH.  And Stephanus only indicated  EN TW OURANW as the missing phrase in his 7 mss--clearly a typo.

                    Now, this is what Horne 1821 writes:

                    "The confession of faith of the Greek Church thus introduces the clause:--GOD, in his nature, is true and eternal, and the creator of all things, visible and invisible: such also is the SON, and the HOLY SPIRIT. They are also of the same essence among themselves, according the the doctrine of John the Evangelist, who says, 'there are three that bear testimony in heaven, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND THESE THREE ARE ONE.'  In the liturgies of the Greek Church, among other portions of Scripture, this verse is directed, by the Greek rituals, to be read in its course, in the thirty-fifth week of the year. (footnote: Dr. Smith's Miscellanea, p. 155. London, 1636.)"

                    So, it is Smith with whom we have to deal, not Horne. Hale quoted nearly the same in 1818, but giving the date 1686, citing also Martin's La Verité, part ii ch. 5.

                    Is this true of the Orthodox Church?

                    Daniel Buck


                    From: malcolm robertson <mjriii2003@...>
                    To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Fri, October 29, 2010 1:08:45 PM
                    Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] apparatus of CJ in Stephanus: 1 John 5:7-8

                     

                    Thomas Aquinas had something to say about this, as noted in a footnote below the CJ in the CP:

                    . . . tres sunt qui testimonium dant in celo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus; dicit ad litteram verba sequentia. Et ad insinuandam unitatem trium personarum subditur. Et hii tres unum sunt. Quodquidem dicitur propter essentie Unitatem. . . Nam subditur ibidem: et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, S. Spiritus: Aqua: et Sanguis. Et in quibusdam libris additur; et hii tres unum sunt. Sed hoc in veris exemplaribus non habetur: sed dicitur esse appositum ab hereticis arianis ad pervertendum intellectum sanum auctoritatis premisse de unitate essentie trium personarum.

                    "There are three who give witness in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit."  It (He) says/reads to the letter the following words:  And in order to make a way for the unity of the three persons it/there is placed under: "And these Three are One."  The same is said on account of the essential Unity...For it is added on the spot : "And there are Three who give witness in the earth, The Spirit, the Water and the Blood."  And in some books is added: "And these three are One."  But this in the true exemplars/copies is not contained.  But it is said that they are placed (there) by Arian heretics in order to pervert the healthy sense of the authority (premisse) concerning the essential unity of the three (distinct) persons.
                     
                    Quemadmodum in Canonica Joannis epistola legitur, Qui tres sunt qui testimonium dant in Cælo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. Statimque subjungitur, Et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, Spiritus aqua et sanguis: et tres unum sunt.

                    Moreover in the Canonical epistle of John it reads: Who are three who give witness in heaven, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  And these three are One.  Also there is added : And there are three who give witness in the earth, the Spirit, the water (of baptism) and the blood (of Jesus/God); at the Three are One.


                  • schmuel
                    Hi Folks, Thank you David and Malcolm, quite interesting. Some of you might want to work the Thomas Aquinas reference back to his extant writings, and this can
                    Message 9 of 27 , Oct 30, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi Folks,

                      Thank you David and Malcolm, quite interesting.

                      Some of you might want to work the Thomas Aquinas reference back to his extant writings, and this can get a bit complex.
                       
                      The autonomy of history: truth and method from Erasmus to Gibbon (1999)
                      Joseph Levine
                      http://books.google.com/books?id=tIEGBimKQSwC&pg=RA1-PA46
                      Complutensian editors .. On the other hand, they took the authority of Thomas Aquinas seriously, who argued that the passage was genuine but had been suppressed in many of the old manuscripts by the Arian heretics
                      83... quoted Aquinas at length

                      83 St. Thomas cites the comma in his Sumna Theologica 1 q. 3 art 4 and in 1 q 30 art 2 (these numbers seem off) and in his Commentary on Boethius, de Trinitate q.3 art 4

                      Thus we begin with two references from Sumna Theologica and one from Commentary on Boëthius .  However, the Complutensian may lead us to another reference and Contra Gentiles must be added.  Let's go to the videotape.

                      ==================================================

                      THOMAS AQUINAS REFERENCES

                      ==================================================

                      COMMENTARY ON BOETHIUS .. DE TRINITATE

                      Super Boethium De Trinitate -
                      by Thomas Aquinas
                      Questions 1-4, translated by Rose E. Brennan, S.H.N. (Herder, 1946)
                      http://dhspriory.org/thomas/BoethiusDeTr.htm
                      Lectio 1 - Boethius Text
                      1.1.2 The belief of this religion concerning the Trinity is as follows: The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God.
                      1.2.1 Therefore, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God, not three Gods.
                      ...
                      Aquinas:
                      Article 3, Question 4
                      Origen, moreover, following the teachings of the Platonists, thought that after the same manner the doctrine of the true faith ought to be interpreted, because it is said, “There are three who give testimony in heaven” (1 John 5:7). And so, as the Platonists supposed that there were three principal substances, Origen held that the Son was a creature and less than the Father, in that book which is entitled Peri Archon (“Concerning the Principles”), as is made clear by Jerome in a certain epistle regarding the errors of Origen. And since Origen himself taught at Alexandria, Arius drank in his error from the things he wrote. On this account Epiphanius says that Origen was the father and font of Arius.

                      ===========

                      Another translation of this, with some helpful footnotes, is by Armand Augustine Maurer.

                      Faith, reason and theology: questions I-IV of his Commentary on the De Trinitate of Boethius (1987)
                      tr. Armand Augustine Maurer

                      http://books.google.com/books?id=RucJa3w2QrMC&pg=PA57
                      Boethius De Trinitate Chapter 1
                      The belief of this religion regarding the unity of the Trinity is as follows: the Father, they say, is God, the Son is God, and the Holy
                      Spirit is God. Therefore the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God, not three gods. 

                      http://books.google.com/books?id=RucJa3w2QrMC&pg=PA81
                      Aquinas:
                      Origen, taking his stand on the teachings of the Platonists, thought that in our faith we should maintain the existence of "three who
                      give witness in heaven" (1 John 5:7), in the way that the Platonists held for three primary substances. So he claimed that the Son is a creature and less than the Father in a book entitled Peri archon, or On Principles,
                      10 as Jerome explains in a letter concerning the errors of Origen.11 And since Origen taught at Alexandria, Arius drank in his error from his writings. For this reason Epiphanius names Origen as the source and father of Arius.12

                      10 See Origen, De principiis 1.3.5, trans. G. W. Butterworth. pp. 33-34.
                      11 St. Jerome, Ep. 124 ad Avitum, CSEL 56:97.9.26-98.3.
                      12 Si. Thomas probably derived this information from a letter of Epiphanius translated by St. Jerome. See St. Jerome. Ep. 51. 3. CSEL 54:400.7-10.

                      ================

                      Boethius (ca. 480–524 or 525) is extant directly.

                      Boethius on the Holy Trinity (De Trinitate)
                      Translated by Erik C. Kenyon
                      http://pvspade.com/Logic/docs/BoethiusDeTrin.pdf
                      Many usurp the dignity of the Christian religion, but this faith alone flourishes best which is called catholic and universal, both because of the maxims of its universal principals, by which the authority of the same religion is understood, and because its cultivation has spread through nearly all the ends of the earth. This is its statement on the unity of the Trinity: "Father." they say, "is God; Son is God; Holy Ghost is God." Therefore Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one, not three Gods. The explanatory
                      cause of this conjunction is lack of difference. 

                      For those interested, Nikolaus Haring also discusses the Gilbert of Poitiers (1076-1154) commentary on Boethius, also involving our verse.

                      Commentaries on Boethius by Gilbert of Poitiers (1966)
                      Nikolaus Haring
                      http://books.google.com/books?id=dCIs4UeMXGgC&pg=PA113

                      ==================================================

                      SUMMA THEOLOGICA (2 sections)

                      Basic Writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas: God and the order of creation (1997)
                      Anton Charles Pegis
                      http://books.google.com/books?id=BG4Ekg_WfgUC&pg=PA301

                      Question 30. The plurality of persons in God

                      Article 1. Whether there are several persons in God?

                      Objection 5. Further, everything within a determinate number is measured, for number is a measure. But the divine persons are immense, as we say in the Creed of Athanasius: "The Father is immense, the Son is immense, the Holy Ghost is immense."
                      10 Therefore the persons are not contained within the number three.

                      On the contrary, It is said: "There are three who bear witness in heaven, the father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost" (1 John 5:7). To those who ask, "Three what?" we answer, with Augustine
                      (De Trin. vii, 4), "Three persons." 11 Therefore there are but three persons in God.

                      10 Cf. Symb. "Quicumque" (Denzinger. no. 39)
                      11 De Trin VII,4;6 V 9 (PL 42, 940, 943, 913)

                      Also here, sans footnotes.

                      St. Thomas Aquinas - The Summa Theologica
                      http://www.haywardfamily.org/ccel/a/aquinas/summa/fp/fp030.htm (Benziger Bros. edition, 1947)
                      http://www.archive.org/stream/thesummatheologi02thomuoft#page/40/mode/2up/search/immense (1911)

                      =================

                      Question XXXVI
                      The Person of the Holy Ghost (In Four Articles)
                      http://books.google.com/books?id=BG4Ekg_WfgUC&pg=PA343 (with footnotes)
                      http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/dlz.htm
                      http://153.106.5.3/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP_Q36_A1.html

                      Obj. 3. Further, because the Son is the name of a divine Person He cannot be called the Son of this one or of that. But the spirit is spoken of as of this or that man, as appears in the words, The Lord said to Moses, I will take of thy spirit and will give to them ( Num. xi. 17); and also, The spirit of Elias rested upon Eliseus ( 4 Kings ii. 15). Therefore Holy Ghost does not seem to be the proper name of a divine Person.

                      On the contrary, It is said ( 1 John V. 7): There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. As Augustine says: When we ask, Three what? we say, Three persons.
                      3 ....For, as Augustine says, Because the Holy Ghost is common to both, He Himself is called that properly which both are called in common. For the Father is a spirit, and the Son is a spirit; and the Father is holy, and the Son is holy.  6

                      3 De Trin., VII, 4; 6; V, 9 (PL 42, 940; 943; 918).
                      6 De Trin., XV, 19; V, 11 (PL 42, 1086; 919).

                      ==================================================

                      SUMMA CONTRA GENTILES

                      The Summa Contra Gentiles
                      Chapter XV
                      Of the Holy Ghost - That He is in God 
                      http://www.archive.org/stream/summacontragenti04thomuoft#page/72/mode/2up/search/baptising

                      The authority of Holy Writ not only reveals the existence in God of Father and Son, but also numbers the Holy Ghost with them. Thus our Lord says (Matth. xxviii. 19) : Going, teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : and John declares (1 Jo. v. 7) : There are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. Moreover, Holy Writ witnesses to a kind of procession of this same Holy Spirit : for it says (Jo. xv. 26) : When the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me. (p. 72)

                      ==================================================

                      SUMMA TRINITATE - CONTRA ABBOT JOACHIM
                       
                      All of this still leaves open the reference used in the Complutensian Polyglot.

                      An Exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul (1875)
                      John MacEvilly
                      http://books.google.com/books?id=Yb4CAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA2-PA425
                      It is quoted in the prologue to the Canonical Epistles attributed to St, Jerome.
                      It was commented on by ancient Interpreters, without hesitation.   St. Bernard, the Master of Sentences
                      (Peter Lombard), St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas. It is to be observed that St. Thomas, in his Exposition of the Decretal, the Summa Trinitate, against the Abbot Joachim, says--as is stated in a marginal note of the Complutensian Polyglot--that the words, " hi tres unum sunt," in reference to the earthly witnesses, were added by the Arians, which shows he regarded the rest as genuine.

                      So this was related directly to the Lateran Council ... we find this here, Latin and French, Aquinas was writing about 50 years after the Council decrees contra Joachim.

                      EXPLICATION DES DEUX PREMIÈRES DÉCRÉTALES DU QUATRIÈME CONCILE DU LATRAN
                      http://docteurangelique.free.fr/livresformatweb/opuscules/23_24lesdeuxdecretales.htm

                      CORPUS THOMISTICUM
                      Saiicti Thomae de Aquino
                      Expositio super piimain et secundam Decretalem
                      http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/o2d.html

                      De articulis Fidei et Ecclesiae sacramentis ad archiepiscopum Panormitanum
                      www.lulu.com/items/volume_17/315000/315652/1/print/315652.pdf  (p. 47)

                      Fideles Christi non sic sunt unum ut sit aliqua una res quae communis sit omnibus, sed sunt quodammodo unum id est collective, idest una Ecclesia propter unitatem Catholicae fidei, et tandem erunt in patria unum regnum propter unionem indissolubilis caritatis : quia caritas viae dissolvi potest per peccatum, caritas patriae indissolubilis est. Inducebat etiam ad suae opinionis assertionem, quod dicitur I Ioan. ult.,

                      7 : tres sunt qui testimonium dant in caelo, pater, verbum, et spiritus sanctus.

                      Pater quidem, cum dixit : hic est filius meus dilectus; et hoc in Baptismo, ut habetur Matth. III, 17, et in transfiguratione, ut habetur Matth. XVII. Filius dedit testimonium fidei Christianae per doctrinam et miracula; unde dixit Ioan. VIII, 18 : ego testimonium perhibeo de meipso; et testimonium perhibet de me qui misit me pater. Spiritus sanctus testimonium perhibuit in specie columbae super Christum apparens in Baptismo, et per adventum suum in discipulos Christi. Et ad insinuandam unitatem trium personarum, subditur : et hi tres unum sunt; quod quidem dicitur propter essentiae unitatem. Sed hoc Ioachim perverse trahere volens ad unitatem caritatis et consensus, inducebat consequentem auctoritatem; nam subditur ibidem : et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, scilicet spiritus, et aqua et sanguis. In quibusdam libris additur : et hi tres unum sunt. Sed hoc in veris exemplaribus non habetur, sed in quibusdam libris dicitur esse appositum ab haereticis Arianis ad pervertendum intellectum sanum auctoritatis praemissae de unitate essentiali trium personarum. Similiter etiam Ariani utebantur illa auctoritate, ut sint unum in nobis, sicut et nos unum sumus, ad ostendendum quod pater et filius non sunt unum nisi secundum consensum amoris, sicut et nos, ut patet per Augustinum et Hilarium, qui dicunt hunc fuisse perversum sensum Arianorum. Unde manifestum est quod Ioachim in errorem Arianorum incidit, licet non pertinaciter, quia ipse scripta sua apostolicae sedis iudicio subiecit, ut infra dicitur.

                      I'll let our Latin experts determine if the Complutensian note was fair to the Aquinas wording as given and translated by Malcolm Robertson (below).

                      A significant discussion of Thomas on Joachim on the verse is by Wetstein.

                      Adnotationes Millii
                      Thomas Burgess collection of materials
                      http://books.google.com/books?id=EFgPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA70 (p. 70-72)

                      There is more here and there, often emphasizing the Complutensian, including William Carpenter, John Jones (Ben David), Thomas Fanshaw Middleton, William Orme, William Kelly and Brooke Westcott and Henry Armfield.

                      One other point our techies may find interesting .. there are discussions of the similarity between the Aquinas Latin text and that of the much earlier writer Fulgentius, who is especially well known for supporting the Cyprian citation.

                      ============================================

                      GREEK SAVVY OF THOMAS AQUIANS

                      One other point worthy of note.  Thomas would be well aware of the situation with the Greek writers and manuscripts as well, as he mastered Greek for his Catena Aurea.  In his Catena and writings he quotes Athanasius and Chrysostom and John Cassian and the Cyrils and Titus of Bostra and Gregory of Nyssa and Ps-Chrysostom and others, even with a reference to the "literal rendering of the Greek".  Once again, no Chinese wall between the languages.

                      An Aquinas reader (2000)
                      Mary T. Clark
                      http://books.google.com/books?id=ewatnJktQHYC&pg=PA101
                      He became familiar with the Greek Fathers when he edited the Catena Aurea, a string of selections from the patristic commentaries on the New Testament. ...

                      This next comment was simply a reviewer, apparently well informed .. and fits the above.

                      Roberto P. De Ferraz
                      http://www.amazon.com/Aquinass-Shorter-Summa-Thomass-Theologica/dp/1928832431
                      His access to the 500 volume library of the University of Paris, where he silently studied for many years ... was instrumental to his reading of ALL that had to be read at the time, being his mastering of the Greek language a plus he had against Saint Augustine, who never got familiar enough with that language, and got always a second hand view of the texts written by the founders of philosophy.

                      Here is an example where Aquinas was clearly concerned about which variants in the manuscripts were correct. (Even if we disagree with his conclusion :) ).

                      http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.SS_Q158_A1.html
                      For Jerome in his exposition on Mat. 5:22, "Whosoever is angry with his brother," etc. says: "Some codices add 'without cause.' However, in the genuine codices the sentence is unqualified, and anger is forbidden altogether."

                      =======================

                      Malcolm Robertson
                      Thomas Aquinas had something to say about this, as noted in a footnote below the CJ in the CP:
                      . . . tres sunt qui testimonium dant in celo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus; dicit ad litteram verba sequentia. Et ad insinuandam unitatem trium personarum subditur. Et hii tres unum sunt. Quodquidem dicitur propter essentie Unitatem. . . Nam subditur ibidem: et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, S. Spiritus: Aqua: et Sanguis. Et in quibusdam libris additur; et hii tres unum sunt. Sed hoc in veris exemplaribus non habetur: sed dicitur esse appositum ab hereticis arianis ad pervertendum intellectum sanum auctoritatis premisse de unitate essentie trium personarum.
                      "There are three who give witness in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit."  It (He) says/reads to the letter the following words:  And in order to make a way for the unity of the three persons it/there is placed under: "And these Three are One."  The same is said on account of the essential Unity...For it is added on the spot : "And there are Three who give witness in the earth, The Spirit, the Water and the Blood."  And in some books is added: "And these three are One."  But this in the true exemplars/copies is not contained.  But it is said that they are placed (there) by Arian heretics in order to pervert the healthy sense of the authority (premisse) concerning the essential unity of the three (distinct) persons.
                       
                      Quemadmodum in Canonica Joannis epistola legitur, Qui tres sunt qui testimonium dant in Cælo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. Statimque subjungitur, Et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, Spiritus aqua et sanguis: et tres unum sunt.
                      Moreover in the Canonical epistle of John it reads: Who are three who give witness in heaven, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  And these three are One.  Also there is added : And there are three who give witness in the earth, the Spirit, the water (of baptism) and the blood (of Jesus/God); at the Three are One.
                      Shalom,
                      Steven Avery
                      Queens, NY
                    • George F Somsel
                      It is notable that, although Aquinas cites the CJ and references Augustine, Augustine nowhere cites the CJ.  george gfsomsel … search for truth, hear
                      Message 10 of 27 , Oct 30, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        It is notable that, although Aquinas cites the CJ and references Augustine, Augustine nowhere cites the CJ.
                         
                        george
                        gfsomsel


                        … search for truth, hear truth,
                        learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
                        defend the truth till death.


                        - Jan Hus
                        _________



                        From: schmuel <schmuel@...>
                        To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Sat, October 30, 2010 1:51:08 AM
                        Subject: [textualcriticism] Complutensian ---> Thomas Aquinas .. references on heavenly witnesses

                         

                        Hi Folks,

                        Thank you David and Malcolm, quite interesting.

                        Some of you might want to work the Thomas Aquinas reference back to his extant writings, and this can get a bit complex.
                         
                        The autonomy of history: truth and method from Erasmus to Gibbon (1999)
                        Joseph Levine
                        http://books.google.com/books?id=tIEGBimKQSwC&pg=RA1-PA46
                        Complutensian editors .. On the other hand, they took the authority of Thomas Aquinas seriously, who argued that the passage was genuine but had been suppressed in many of the old manuscripts by the Arian heretics
                        83... quoted Aquinas at length

                        83 St. Thomas cites the comma in his Sumna Theologica 1 q. 3 art 4 and in 1 q 30 art 2 (these numbers seem off) and in his Commentary on Boethius, de Trinitate q.3 art 4

                        Thus we begin with two references from Sumna Theologica and one from Commentary on Boëthius .  However, the Complutensian may lead us to another reference and Contra Gentiles must be added.  Let's go to the videotape.

                        ==================================================

                        THOMAS AQUINAS REFERENCES

                        ==================================================

                        COMMENTARY ON BOETHIUS .. DE TRINITATE

                        Super Boethium De Trinitate -
                        by Thomas Aquinas
                        Questions 1-4, translated by Rose E. Brennan, S.H.N. (Herder, 1946)
                        http://dhspriory.org/thomas/BoethiusDeTr.htm
                        Lectio 1 - Boethius Text
                        1.1.2 The belief of this religion concerning the Trinity is as follows: The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God.
                        1.2.1 Therefore, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God, not three Gods.
                        ...
                        Aquinas:
                        Article 3, Question 4
                        Origen, moreover, following the teachings of the Platonists, thought that after the same manner the doctrine of the true faith ought to be interpreted, because it is said, “There are three who give testimony in heaven” (1 John 5:7). And so, as the Platonists supposed that there were three principal substances, Origen held that the Son was a creature and less than the Father, in that book which is entitled Peri Archon (“Concerning the Principles”), as is made clear by Jerome in a certain epistle regarding the errors of Origen. And since Origen himself taught at Alexandria, Arius drank in his error from the things he wrote. On this account Epiphanius says that Origen was the father and font of Arius.

                        ===========

                        Another translation of this, with some helpful footnotes, is by Armand Augustine Maurer.

                        Faith, reason and theology: questions I-IV of his Commentary on the De Trinitate of Boethius (1987)
                        tr. Armand Augustine Maurer

                        http://books.google.com/books?id=RucJa3w2QrMC&pg=PA57
                        Boethius De Trinitate Chapter 1
                        The belief of this religion regarding the unity of the Trinity is as follows: the Father, they say, is God, the Son is God, and the Holy
                        Spirit is God. Therefore the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God, not three gods. 

                        http://books.google.com/books?id=RucJa3w2QrMC&pg=PA81
                        Aquinas:
                        Origen, taking his stand on the teachings of the Platonists, thought that in our faith we should maintain the existence of "three who
                        give witness in heaven" (1 John 5:7), in the way that the Platonists held for three primary substances. So he claimed that the Son is a creature and less than the Father in a book entitled Peri archon, or On Principles,
                        10 as Jerome explains in a letter concerning the errors of Origen.11 And since Origen taught at Alexandria, Arius drank in his error from his writings. For this reason Epiphanius names Origen as the source and father of Arius.12

                        10 See Origen, De principiis 1.3.5, trans. G. W. Butterworth. pp. 33-34.
                        11 St. Jerome, Ep. 124 ad Avitum, CSEL 56:97.9.26-98.3.
                        12 Si. Thomas probably derived this information from a letter of Epiphanius translated by St. Jerome. See St. Jerome. Ep. 51. 3. CSEL 54:400.7-10.

                        ================

                        Boethius (ca. 480–524 or 525) is extant directly.

                        Boethius on the Holy Trinity (De Trinitate)
                        Translated by Erik C. Kenyon
                        http://pvspade.com/Logic/docs/BoethiusDeTrin.pdf
                        Many usurp the dignity of the Christian religion, but this faith alone flourishes best which is called catholic and universal, both because of the maxims of its universal principals, by which the authority of the same religion is understood, and because its cultivation has spread through nearly all the ends of the earth. This is its statement on the unity of the Trinity: "Father." they say, "is God; Son is God; Holy Ghost is God." Therefore Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one, not three Gods. The explanatory
                        cause of this conjunction is lack of difference. 

                        For those interested, Nikolaus Haring also discusses the Gilbert of Poitiers (1076-1154) commentary on Boethius, also involving our verse.

                        Commentaries on Boethius by Gilbert of Poitiers (1966)
                        Nikolaus Haring
                        http://books.google.com/books?id=dCIs4UeMXGgC&pg=PA113

                        ==================================================

                        SUMMA THEOLOGICA (2 sections)

                        Basic Writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas: God and the order of creation (1997)
                        Anton Charles Pegis
                        http://books.google.com/books?id=BG4Ekg_WfgUC&pg=PA301

                        Question 30. The plurality of persons in God

                        Article 1. Whether there are several persons in God?

                        Objection 5. Further, everything within a determinate number is measured, for number is a measure. But the divine persons are immense, as we say in the Creed of Athanasius: "The Father is immense, the Son is immense, the Holy Ghost is immense."
                        10 Therefore the persons are not contained within the number three.

                        On the contrary, It is said: "There are three who bear witness in heaven, the father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost" (1 John 5:7). To those who ask, "Three what?" we answer, with Augustine
                        (De Trin. vii, 4), "Three persons." 11 Therefore there are but three persons in God.

                        10 Cf. Symb. "Quicumque" (Denzinger. no. 39)
                        11 De Trin VII,4;6 V 9 (PL 42, 940, 943, 913)

                        Also here, sans footnotes.

                        St. Thomas Aquinas - The Summa Theologica
                        http://www.haywardfamily.org/ccel/a/aquinas/summa/fp/fp030.htm (Benziger Bros. edition, 1947)
                        http://www.archive.org/stream/thesummatheologi02thomuoft#page/40/mode/2up/search/immense (1911)

                        =================

                        Question XXXVI
                        The Person of the Holy Ghost (In Four Articles)
                        http://books.google.com/books?id=BG4Ekg_WfgUC&pg=PA343 (with footnotes)
                        http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/dlz.htm
                        http://153.106.5.3/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP_Q36_A1.html

                        Obj. 3. Further, because the Son is the name of a divine Person He cannot be called the Son of this one or of that. But the spirit is spoken of as of this or that man, as appears in the words, The Lord said to Moses, I will take of thy spirit and will give to them ( Num. xi. 17); and also, The spirit of Elias rested upon Eliseus ( 4 Kings ii. 15). Therefore Holy Ghost does not seem to be the proper name of a divine Person.

                        On the contrary, It is said ( 1 John V. 7): There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. As Augustine says: When we ask, Three what? we say, Three persons.
                        3 ....For, as Augustine says, Because the Holy Ghost is common to both, He Himself is called that properly which both are called in common. For the Father is a spirit, and the Son is a spirit; and the Father is holy, and the Son is holy.  6

                        3 De Trin., VII, 4; 6; V, 9 (PL 42, 940; 943; 918).
                        6 De Trin., XV, 19; V, 11 (PL 42, 1086; 919).

                        ==================================================

                        SUMMA CONTRA GENTILES

                        The Summa Contra Gentiles
                        Chapter XV
                        Of the Holy Ghost - That He is in God 
                        http://www.archive.org/stream/summacontragenti04thomuoft#page/72/mode/2up/search/baptising

                        The authority of Holy Writ not only reveals the existence in God of Father and Son, but also numbers the Holy Ghost with them. Thus our Lord says (Matth. xxviii. 19) : Going, teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : and John declares (1 Jo. v. 7) : There are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. Moreover, Holy Writ witnesses to a kind of procession of this same Holy Spirit : for it says (Jo. xv. 26) : When the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me. (p. 72)

                        ==================================================

                        SUMMA TRINITATE - CONTRA ABBOT JOACHIM
                         
                        All of this still leaves open the reference used in the Complutensian Polyglot.

                        An Exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul (1875)
                        John MacEvilly
                        http://books.google.com/books?id=Yb4CAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA2-PA425
                        It is quoted in the prologue to the Canonical Epistles attributed to St, Jerome.
                        It was commented on by ancient Interpreters, without hesitation.   St. Bernard, the Master of Sentences
                        (Peter Lombard), St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas. It is to be observed that St. Thomas, in his Exposition of the Decretal, the Summa Trinitate, against the Abbot Joachim, says--as is stated in a marginal note of the Complutensian Polyglot--that the words, " hi tres unum sunt," in reference to the earthly witnesses, were added by the Arians, which shows he regarded the rest as genuine.

                        So this was related directly to the Lateran Council ... we find this here, Latin and French, Aquinas was writing about 50 years after the Council decrees contra Joachim.

                        EXPLICATION DES DEUX PREMIÈRES DÉCRÉTALES DU QUATRIÈME CONCILE DU LATRAN
                        http://docteurangelique.free.fr/livresformatweb/opuscules/23_24lesdeuxdecretales.htm

                        CORPUS THOMISTICUM
                        Saiicti Thomae de Aquino
                        Expositio super piimain et secundam Decretalem
                        http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/o2d.html

                        De articulis Fidei et Ecclesiae sacramentis ad archiepiscopum Panormitanum
                        www.lulu.com/items/volume_17/315000/315652/1/print/315652.pdf  (p. 47)

                        Fideles Christi non sic sunt unum ut sit aliqua una res quae communis sit omnibus, sed sunt quodammodo unum id est collective, idest una Ecclesia propter unitatem Catholicae fidei, et tandem erunt in patria unum regnum propter unionem indissolubilis caritatis : quia caritas viae dissolvi potest per peccatum, caritas patriae indissolubilis est. Inducebat etiam ad suae opinionis assertionem, quod dicitur I Ioan. ult.,

                        7 : tres sunt qui testimonium dant in caelo, pater, verbum, et spiritus sanctus.

                        Pater quidem, cum dixit : hic est filius meus dilectus; et hoc in Baptismo, ut habetur Matth. III, 17, et in transfiguratione, ut habetur Matth. XVII. Filius dedit testimonium fidei Christianae per doctrinam et miracula; unde dixit Ioan. VIII, 18 : ego testimonium perhibeo de meipso; et testimonium perhibet de me qui misit me pater. Spiritus sanctus testimonium perhibuit in specie columbae super Christum apparens in Baptismo, et per adventum suum in discipulos Christi. Et ad insinuandam unitatem trium personarum, subditur : et hi tres unum sunt; quod quidem dicitur propter essentiae unitatem. Sed hoc Ioachim perverse trahere volens ad unitatem caritatis et consensus, inducebat consequentem auctoritatem; nam subditur ibidem : et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, scilicet spiritus, et aqua et sanguis. In quibusdam libris additur : et hi tres unum sunt. Sed hoc in veris exemplaribus non habetur, sed in quibusdam libris dicitur esse appositum ab haereticis Arianis ad pervertendum intellectum sanum auctoritatis praemissae de unitate essentiali trium personarum. Similiter etiam Ariani utebantur illa auctoritate, ut sint unum in nobis, sicut et nos unum sumus, ad ostendendum quod pater et filius non sunt unum nisi secundum consensum amoris, sicut et nos, ut patet per Augustinum et Hilarium, qui dicunt hunc fuisse perversum sensum Arianorum. Unde manifestum est quod Ioachim in errorem Arianorum incidit, licet non pertinaciter, quia ipse scripta sua apostolicae sedis iudicio subiecit, ut infra dicitur.

                        I'll let our Latin experts determine if the Complutensian note was fair to the Aquinas wording as given and translated by Malcolm Robertson (below).

                        A significant discussion of Thomas on Joachim on the verse is by Wetstein.

                        Adnotationes Millii
                        Thomas Burgess collection of materials
                        http://books.google.com/books?id=EFgPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA70 (p. 70-72)

                        There is more here and there, often emphasizing the Complutensian, including William Carpenter, John Jones (Ben David), Thomas Fanshaw Middleton, William Orme, William Kelly and Brooke Westcott and Henry Armfield.

                        One other point our techies may find interesting .. there are discussions of the similarity between the Aquinas Latin text and that of the much earlier writer Fulgentius, who is especially well known for supporting the Cyprian citation.

                        ============================================

                        GREEK SAVVY OF THOMAS AQUIANS

                        One other point worthy of note.  Thomas would be well aware of the situation with the Greek writers and manuscripts as well, as he mastered Greek for his Catena Aurea.  In his Catena and writings he quotes Athanasius and Chrysostom and John Cassian and the Cyrils and Titus of Bostra and Gregory of Nyssa and Ps-Chrysostom and others, even with a reference to the "literal rendering of the Greek".  Once again, no Chinese wall between the languages.

                        An Aquinas reader (2000)
                        Mary T. Clark
                        http://books.google.com/books?id=ewatnJktQHYC&pg=PA101
                        He became familiar with the Greek Fathers when he edited the Catena Aurea, a string of selections from the patristic commentaries on the New Testament. ...

                        This next comment was simply a reviewer, apparently well informed .. and fits the above.

                        Roberto P. De Ferraz
                        http://www.amazon.com/Aquinass-Shorter-Summa-Thomass-Theologica/dp/1928832431
                        His access to the 500 volume library of the University of Paris, where he silently studied for many years ... was instrumental to his reading of ALL that had to be read at the time, being his mastering of the Greek language a plus he had against Saint Augustine, who never got familiar enough with that language, and got always a second hand view of the texts written by the founders of philosophy.

                        Here is an example where Aquinas was clearly concerned about which variants in the manuscripts were correct. (Even if we disagree with his conclusion :) ).

                        http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.SS_Q158_A1.html
                        For Jerome in his exposition on Mat. 5:22, "Whosoever is angry with his brother," etc. says: "Some codices add 'without cause.' However, in the genuine codices the sentence is unqualified, and anger is forbidden altogether."

                        =======================

                        Malcolm Robertson

                        Thomas Aquinas had something to say about this, as noted in a footnote below the CJ in the CP:
                        . . . tres sunt qui testimonium dant in celo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus; dicit ad litteram verba sequentia. Et ad insinuandam unitatem trium personarum subditur. Et hii tres unum sunt. Quodquidem dicitur propter essentie Unitatem. . . Nam subditur ibidem: et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, S. Spiritus: Aqua: et Sanguis. Et in quibusdam libris additur; et hii tres unum sunt. Sed hoc in veris exemplaribus non habetur: sed dicitur esse appositum ab hereticis arianis ad pervertendum intellectum sanum auctoritatis premisse de unitate essentie trium personarum.
                        "There are three who give witness in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit."  It (He) says/reads to the letter the following words:  And in order to make a way for the unity of the three persons it/there is placed under: "And these Three are One."  The same is said on account of the essential Unity...For it is added on the spot : "And there are Three who give witness in the earth, The Spirit, the Water and the Blood."  And in some books is added: "And these three are One."  But this in the true exemplars/copies is not contained.  But it is said that they are placed (there) by Arian heretics in order to pervert the healthy sense of the authority (premisse) concerning the essential unity of the three (distinct) persons.
                         
                        Quemadmodum in Canonica Joannis epistola legitur, Qui tres sunt qui testimonium dant in Cælo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. Statimque subjungitur, Et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, Spiritus aqua et sanguis: et tres unum sunt.
                        Moreover in the Canonical epistle of John it reads: Who are three who give witness in heaven, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  And these three are One.  Also there is added : And there are three who give witness in the earth, the Spirit, the water (of baptism) and the blood (of Jesus/God); at the Three are One.
                        Shalom,
                        Steven Avery
                        Queens, NY


                      • Steve Puluka
                        ... Not exactly. The biblical texts in the Orthodox tradition show no knowledge of the CJ prior to the modern controversy. The reading has been variously
                        Message 11 of 27 , Oct 30, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Oct 29, 2010, at 3:59 PM, Daniel Buck wrote:

                          > Now, this is what Horne 1821 writes:
                          >
                          > "The confession of faith of the Greek Church thus introduces the
                          > clause:--GOD, in his nature, is true and eternal, and the creator
                          > of all things, visible and invisible: such also is the SON, and the
                          > HOLY SPIRIT. They are also of the same essence among themselves,
                          > according the the doctrine of John the Evangelist, who says, 'there
                          > are three that bear testimony in heaven, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND
                          > THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND THESE THREE ARE ONE.' In the liturgies of the
                          > Greek Church, among other portions of Scripture, this verse is
                          > directed, by the Greek rituals, to be read in its course, in the
                          > thirty-fifth week of the year. (footnote: Dr. Smith's Miscellanea,
                          > p. 155. London, 1636.)"
                          >
                          > So, it is Smith with whom we have to deal, not Horne. Hale quoted
                          > nearly the same in 1818, but giving the date 1686, citing also
                          > Martin's La Verité, part ii ch. 5.
                          >
                          > Is this true of the Orthodox Church?

                          Not exactly.

                          The biblical texts in the Orthodox tradition show no knowledge of the
                          CJ prior to the modern controversy. The reading has been variously
                          adopted and inserted into the text in different jurisdictions at
                          particular times, but is not found in any ancient authority or
                          liturgical manuscript.

                          What Smith/Horne are citing above is a sloppy reference to the
                          liturgical lectionary cycle in the Byzantine lectionary system. But
                          they make a number of referential errors.

                          There are no "weeks of the year" in this system. There are weeks
                          after Pentecost. The liturgical year begins on September 1st. And
                          the weeks after Pentecost end at the 33rd week.

                          There is a cycle for the 10 weeks before before Pascha (Easter)
                          called the Triodion that immediately follows the post Pentecost cycle.

                          This is then followed by the readings of the Pentecostarion cycle
                          from Pascha to Pentecost.

                          The readings taken from the letter 1 John occur during the Triodion
                          cycle. The selection from chapter 5 is inclusive of the reading for
                          Thursday on the second week of the Triodion (1 John 4:20-5:21).

                          Hence by adding the 33 + 2 we get the reference to the "35th week of
                          the year". But this is a designation that is meaningless inside the
                          tradition and not helpful either. If we were to choose a starting
                          place to count weeks in this combined three cycles, Pascha would be
                          the natural place. This is where most combined books print as the
                          starting point of the total cycle. But it is fairly rare and recent
                          that the three would even be thus combined.

                          In case anyone is wondering how this can work in practice since the
                          number of weeks each year is of course variable between the
                          celebration of Pascha one year to the next, there is a system to
                          expand/contract.

                          * The Triodion will always begin at the fixed cycle of 10 weeks
                          before the next celebration of Pascha.
                          * The 33rd week after Pentecost readings will always be the ones used
                          right before the Triodion begins.
                          * When there are more than 32 weeks between Pentecost and the week
                          before the Triodion, after taking the 31st week after Pentecost
                          readings we revert back into the cycle exactly enough weeks to fill
                          the gap and repeat the readings.
                          * When there are fewer than 32 weeks between Pentecost and the week
                          before the Triodion we skip from whatever week necessary to the 33rd
                          week readings so that the cycle ends right before the Triodion begins.

                          Steve Puluka
                          MA, Theology Duquesne University
                          Cantor Holy Ghost Church
                          Carpatho-Rusyn tradition
                          Mckees Rocks, PA
                          http://puluka.com
                        • schmuel
                          Hi Folks, ... faith of the Greek Church thus introduces the clause:--GOD, in his nature, is true and eternal, and the creator of all things, visible and
                          Message 12 of 27 , Oct 30, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hi Folks,

                             Daniel Buck wrote:
                            > Now, this is what Horne 1821 writes:  "The confession of faith of the Greek Church thus introduces the  clause:--GOD, in his nature, is true and eternal, and the creator  of all things, visible and invisible: such also is the SON, and the  HOLY SPIRIT. They are also of the same essence among themselves,  according the the doctrine of John the Evangelist, who says, 'there  are three that bear testimony in heaven, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND  THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND THESE THREE ARE ONE.'  In the liturgies of the Greek Church, among other portions of Scripture, this verse is directed, by the Greek rituals, to be read in its course, in the  thirty-fifth week of the year. (footnote: Dr. Smith's Miscellanea,  p. 155. London, 1636.)"  So, it is Smith with whom we have to deal, not Horne. Hale quoted  nearly the same in 1818, but giving the date 1686, citing also  Martin's La Verité, part ii ch. 5.

                            This below is the Thomas Smith writing from 1690, which was contra arguably the first major attack upon the verse, by Richard Simon. (I am taking pics a little beyond the spot for context, our experts can check the text before and after). 

                            This is not to reduce the import of the earlier controversies, yet Sandius and more significantly Simon and in the background the non-published Newton treatise were in many ways the first wide-orbed textual attack upon the heavenly witnesses.

                            Altera miscellanea: responsio ad Simonii cavillationes ; Integritas loci 1 Jo. V, 7 ; Defensio contra exceptiones Simonii ; Commentarius in 2am Petri epistolam. [Apendix contra Simonem] (1690)
                            http://books.google.com/books?id=0g5AAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA155
                            Latin Greek PICS HERE, will show up in HTML email.

                            Emacs!
                            Emacs!

                            For David Martin, there may be more than one section. Here is one section on the topic, in English, in which David Martin quotes letters from Mess. Oladin and Crouschof, Muscovite, attendants upon Prince Kourakin, Embassador from his Czarian Majesty at the Hague..

                            The section goes from p. 146-150 and includes documented correspondence between Constantinople and Moscow in 1643.

                            The genuineness of the text of the first Epistle of saint John. chap. v. [verse]. 7., tr. from the French (1722)
                            David Martin
                            http://books.google.com/books?id=qbIHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA146

                            Daniel
                            > Is this true of the Orthodox Church?

                            Steve Puluka
                            Not exactly. The biblical texts in the Orthodox tradition show no knowledge of the CJ prior to the modern controversy. 

                            Steven
                            This may be true for "prior to the Received Text".  And there may be difficulties documenting what was extant in what years in ancient times.

                            The phrase modern controversy is ambiguous, and could refer to Erasmus and Lee and Stunica and Valledolid, or it could refer to Simon, Smith, Emlyn, Martin and others (1680-1710).  In the later case, clearly the writings above look to be a counter-evidence.

                            Clearly in the mid-1600s there were Orthodox traditions that had incorporated the verse in liturgy and text. 

                            It would be very interesting if actual changes from 1520 to 1680 were documentable.

                            Steve
                            The reading has been variously  adopted and inserted into the text in different jurisdictions at 
                            particular times, but is not found in any ancient authority or liturgical manuscript.

                            Steven
                            Here there is a question about what is meant by "ancient authority". 

                            Steve
                            What Smith/Horne are citing above is a sloppy reference to the  liturgical lectionary cycle in the Byzantine lectionary system.  But they make a number of referential errors. There are no "weeks of the year" in this system.  There are weeks  after Pentecost.  The liturgical year begins on September 1st.  And  the weeks after Pentecost end at the 33rd week. There is a cycle for the 10 weeks before  before Pascha (Easter)  called the Triodion that immediately follows the post Pentecost cycle. This is then followed by the readings of the Pentecostarion cycle  from Pascha to Pentecost. The readings taken from the letter 1 John occur during the Triodion  cycle.  The selection from chapter 5 is inclusive of the reading for  Thursday on the second week of the Triodion (1 John 4:20-5:21).
                            (snip more date detail)
                            Thanks !

                            Shalom,
                            Steven Avery
                            Queens, NY

                          • TeunisV
                            1. In Horne, Philadelphia, 1825 (from the 4th corr. edition), vol. 4, p. 446, is referred to Smith s Miscellanea, London 1686. So correct. 2. In the modern
                            Message 13 of 27 , Oct 30, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              1.
                              In Horne, Philadelphia, 1825 (from the 4th corr. edition), vol. 4, p. 446, is referred to Smith's Miscellanea, London 1686. So correct.

                              2.
                              In the modern Greek Apostolos (=lectionary), Athens , Edition Foos, 1981, p. 254, the CJ is printed in the lesson of Thursday ths LE ebdomados. Compare Gregory's List (Textkritik vol. I, p. 360) where the week ths apokreoo is also called week 35. The week ths turofagou is even called 36!

                              3.
                              Compare the message 4792:
                              >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
                              Dogma also infected the lectionary text with the Comma Johanneum

                              So we know how the Comma Johanneum crept in the Textus Receptus.
                              In a similar way dogma brought the CJ in the lectionaries of the (Byzantine)
                              Orthodox Church. In his Prolegomena tot the NT John Mill already indicated that
                              the CJ was included in the lesson to be read Thursday of the 35th week after
                              Pentecost (or the week of Carnival, Apokreo), as printed in the Apostolos of
                              Venice, 1602. (Mill, Kuster, 1710, p. 581).
                              Griesbach (in Diatribe in loc. I Joann. 5,7-8, NT, vol. II, 1806, p. 12) knew
                              that the CJ is printed in the Greek lectionaries of the 16th century. The CJ is
                              not in mss lectionaries (p. 2-3).
                              This image is confirmed by UBS/TGNT4: the text without CJ is witnessed by (all!)
                              Lect, with the CJ is witnessed by lAD, the modern current lectionary as editied
                              by the Apostoliki Diakonia, Athens. The CJ is also in the Patriarchal edition of
                              the NT of B. Antoniades, 1904, but printed in a smaller font. Metzger (in: Greek
                              lectionaries, in : Die alten Uebersetzungen des N.T.s, ed. Aland, 1972, p. 486:
                              <Curiously enough, although the editor confesses that it did not appear possible
                              on scholarly grounds to include the passage of the "three witnesses" in John
                              5,7-8 it was fully retained on the basis of the wishes of the Holy Synod.>
                              The CJ is exported to Eastern Europe by "Roman Catholic" editions of
                              lectionaries and liturgical books of Venice and Rome in the 16th and 17th
                              century, but also by the "Lutheran" edition of the Wittenberg TR of 1622,
                              printed for the Greek market and a similar "Calvinistic" edition of the TR,
                              Geneva 1638, with a translation in New Greek.
                              <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

                              Teunis van Lopik, Leidschendam (NL)



                              --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Steve Puluka <spuluka@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > On Oct 29, 2010, at 3:59 PM, Daniel Buck wrote:
                              >
                              > > Now, this is what Horne 1821 writes:
                              > >
                              > > "The confession of faith of the Greek Church thus introduces the
                              > > clause:--GOD, in his nature, is true and eternal, and the creator
                              > > of all things, visible and invisible: such also is the SON, and the
                              > > HOLY SPIRIT. They are also of the same essence among themselves,
                              > > according the the doctrine of John the Evangelist, who says, 'there
                              > > are three that bear testimony in heaven, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND
                              > > THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND THESE THREE ARE ONE.' In the liturgies of the
                              > > Greek Church, among other portions of Scripture, this verse is
                              > > directed, by the Greek rituals, to be read in its course, in the
                              > > thirty-fifth week of the year. (footnote: Dr. Smith's Miscellanea,
                              > > p. 155. London, 1636.)"
                              > >
                              > > So, it is Smith with whom we have to deal, not Horne. Hale quoted
                              > > nearly the same in 1818, but giving the date 1686, citing also
                              > > Martin's La Verité, part ii ch. 5.
                              > >
                              > > Is this true of the Orthodox Church?
                              >
                              > Not exactly.
                              >
                              > The biblical texts in the Orthodox tradition show no knowledge of the
                              > CJ prior to the modern controversy. The reading has been variously
                              > adopted and inserted into the text in different jurisdictions at
                              > particular times, but is not found in any ancient authority or
                              > liturgical manuscript.
                              >
                              > What Smith/Horne are citing above is a sloppy reference to the
                              > liturgical lectionary cycle in the Byzantine lectionary system. But
                              > they make a number of referential errors.
                              >
                              > There are no "weeks of the year" in this system. There are weeks
                              > after Pentecost. The liturgical year begins on September 1st. And
                              > the weeks after Pentecost end at the 33rd week.
                              >
                              > There is a cycle for the 10 weeks before before Pascha (Easter)
                              > called the Triodion that immediately follows the post Pentecost cycle.
                              >
                              > This is then followed by the readings of the Pentecostarion cycle
                              > from Pascha to Pentecost.
                              >
                              > The readings taken from the letter 1 John occur during the Triodion
                              > cycle. The selection from chapter 5 is inclusive of the reading for
                              > Thursday on the second week of the Triodion (1 John 4:20-5:21).
                              >
                              > Hence by adding the 33 + 2 we get the reference to the "35th week of
                              > the year". But this is a designation that is meaningless inside the
                              > tradition and not helpful either. If we were to choose a starting
                              > place to count weeks in this combined three cycles, Pascha would be
                              > the natural place. This is where most combined books print as the
                              > starting point of the total cycle. But it is fairly rare and recent
                              > that the three would even be thus combined.
                              >
                              > In case anyone is wondering how this can work in practice since the
                              > number of weeks each year is of course variable between the
                              > celebration of Pascha one year to the next, there is a system to
                              > expand/contract.
                              >
                              > * The Triodion will always begin at the fixed cycle of 10 weeks
                              > before the next celebration of Pascha.
                              > * The 33rd week after Pentecost readings will always be the ones used
                              > right before the Triodion begins.
                              > * When there are more than 32 weeks between Pentecost and the week
                              > before the Triodion, after taking the 31st week after Pentecost
                              > readings we revert back into the cycle exactly enough weeks to fill
                              > the gap and repeat the readings.
                              > * When there are fewer than 32 weeks between Pentecost and the week
                              > before the Triodion we skip from whatever week necessary to the 33rd
                              > week readings so that the cycle ends right before the Triodion begins.
                              >
                              > Steve Puluka
                              > MA, Theology Duquesne University
                              > Cantor Holy Ghost Church
                              > Carpatho-Rusyn tradition
                              > Mckees Rocks, PA
                              > http://puluka.com
                              >
                            • jgibson000@comcast.net
                              ... Can you sum up in 25 words or fewer what the point is that you are trying to make in this post and the one on Aquinas? Jeffrey -- Jeffrey B. Gibson,
                              Message 14 of 27 , Oct 30, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On 10/30/2010 2:32 PM, schmuel wrote:
                                >
                                >
                                > Hi Folks,
                                >
                                >> Daniel Buck wrote:
                                >> > Now, this is what Horne 1821 writes: "The confession of faith of
                                >> the Greek Church thus introduces the clause:--GOD, in his nature, is
                                >> true and eternal, and the creator of all things, visible and
                                >> invisible: such also is the SON, and the HOLY SPIRIT. They are also
                                >> of the same essence among themselves, according the the doctrine of
                                >> John the Evangelist, who says, 'there are three that bear testimony
                                >> in heaven, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND THESE
                                >> THREE ARE ONE.' In the liturgies of the Greek Church, among other
                                >> portions of Scripture, this verse is directed, by the Greek rituals,
                                >> to be read in its course, in the thirty-fifth week of the year.
                                >> (footnote: Dr. Smith's Miscellanea, p. 155. London, 1636.)" So, it
                                >> is Smith with whom we have to deal, not Horne. Hale quoted nearly
                                >> the same in 1818, but giving the date 1686, citing also Martin's La
                                >> Verité, part ii ch. 5.
                                >
                                > This below is the Thomas Smith writing from 1690, which was contra
                                > arguably the first major attack upon the verse, by Richard Simon. (I
                                > am taking pics a little beyond the spot for context, our experts can
                                > check the text before and after).
                                Can you sum up in 25 words or fewer what the point is that you are
                                trying to make in this post and the one on Aquinas?

                                Jeffrey

                                --
                                Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
                                1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
                                Chicago, Illinois
                                e-mail jgibson000@...
                              • schmuel
                                Hi Folks, Empahsis added, for consideration. Teunis van Lopik Dogma also infected the lectionary text with the Comma Johanneum Steven Avery The problem here is
                                Message 15 of 27 , Oct 30, 2010
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Hi Folks,

                                  Empahsis added, for consideration.

                                  Teunis van Lopik
                                  Dogma also infected the lectionary text with the Comma Johanneum

                                  Steven Avery
                                  The problem here is that clearly many scholars, Reformation scholars, RCC and others, east and west, simply believed that the heavenly witnesses was original scripture, written by John, in harmony with the Gospels and the Epistles and Revelation. Noting that the verse was strongly represented in the Old Latin and Vulgate and the early church writers in Latin (with many interesting evidentiary considerations even in Greek).  And believing the verse had had sparse representation in Greek because it had fallen out of the Greek ms line in early days.

                                  Various theories were offered as to the root cause of the falling out, yet the basic idea of textual omission was considered quite likely among many, whether accidental or deliberate or both combined. (Especially an initial accidental omission being maintained by preference.)

                                  Note that their paradigms of the Bible text were not the same in the Reformation era as in the 1800s till today in scholarship circles. e.g. Omissions were seen as a more simple and likely textual theory (nobody tells you about the text, its not there) .. compared to the later strong embrace of lectio brevior, which became ascendent particularly with the radical textual theory overhauls of the 1800s, for better or worse. 

                                  Thus, we should avoid being anachronistic in evaluating earlier decisions and their weighing of evidence.  These differences in perspective would have a major impact on whether the scholars considered the heavenly witnesses as original scripture or an interpolation. 

                                  Another example, beyond lectio brevior, would be the evaluation of the significance of many church writer and Council evidences. A third would be the evaluation and consideration of internal and grammatical considerations.

                                  Also, the textual scholars might look at very specific collective and individual evidences, and how they felt about the significance and authority of the evidences would have a lot of weight. 

                                  As an example .. even in the 20th century the Lutheran scholar Franz August Otto Pieper considered the evidence from Cyprian essentially as probative to the verse being Johannine scripture (when placed on top of the basic evidences such as the Latin line evidences).  In the earlier days the debate on the Vulgate Prologue ascribed to Jerome was a major factor in many discussions, including that of Erasmus and Lee.  And it is very questionable whether the Vulgate Prologue accusation of forgery was ever weighed in any type of scientific manner, and especially whether it was ever properly revisited when the 1670 (Sandius) to 1800s claims of a late date for the Prologue were falsified by the discovery that the Prologue was in the ms of Codex Fuldensis of 560 AD. And thus was passed down from a date close to Jerome. And the very powerful evidences from the Council of Carthage of 481 (which I believe were not published at the time of these early debates) were examined more closely in the 1700s and had a strong impact upon many scholars looking at the textual history, even if overlooked or flippantly dismissed today by many.  Other early evidences, like Priscillian, were simply unknown. Or evidences were often not considered deeply in the context of the Latin manuscript lines, like Fulgentius and Cassiodorus, witnesses to early Old Latin and Vulgate textual strength, against modern theories. On top of various other evidences, too numerous and detailed to discuss in a short post.

                                  Since this was largely a historical scholarship issue, I believe that Teunis does a smidgen of a disservice in using charged
                                  terminology like "infect" for what were frequently very well informed scholastic and textual decisions by men who were extremely well read in the early church writings and were aware of the Erasmus and Received Text scholarship history and the Greek and Latin manuscript distinctions. 

                                  And yes, errors and questionable presentations were made, on all sides, and it is proper to point that out.  Especially on the support side in the whole question of the Stephanus notations, which may not have been fully and properly understood and accepted until the time of Thomas Burgess (1820) who did incredible work in bringing together the source materials.  On the other hand, many of the strongest evidences and arguments for the verse came forth from 1700 to 1900, and even later .. so this works on both sides.

                                  > Teunis
                                  > So we know how the Comma Johanneum crept in the Textus Receptus.

                                  Steven Avery
                                  Not exactly "crept", a term that is usually used for the difficult theory of margin entries taking over the textual line over many hundreds of years.  As we know, the CJ was in the Complutensian Polyglot and omitted from the first two Greek New Testaments of Erasmus.  Most other Received Text editions included the CJ, especially the three other editions of Erasmus (whose paraphrase remains especially interesting) and all editions of Stephanus and Beza and the Elzivirs.  And Latin editions without the CJ were extremely rare.  

                                  > Teunis
                                  > In a similar way dogma brought the CJ in the lectionaries of the (Byzantine) Orthodox Church.

                                  Steven
                                  Not sure what you mean by "dogma" except that it sounds like the idea that doctrine was the only factor.  Clearly the Lateran Council and some Greek writers way before the Reformation had an effect, as well as the strong and simple acceptance and usage in essentially all Latin writers and scholarship.  Plus the fact that many scholars from 200 AD all the way to the Reformation were both Greek and Latin proficient -- so they would have the CJ available in Latin writings.  (A point I noted with Aquinas and tends to be overlooked, and I believe this is due to some deliberate attempts to fudge issues, and not just on this verse.) 

                                  We know there was apparently (to our eyes today) a surprising warmth in the Reformation era to modifying the Greek lectionaries. And this occurred very early, even in the printed edition of 1602, as pointed out.  Yet very little hard evidence or scholarly discussion as to motives. 

                                  e.g. Did those eastern Greek language scholars write about the differences in general between the Reformation Bible (the TR) and their earlier Greek manuscripts ?  What happened with other similar verse cases like the minority reading of Acts 8:37.  Were they accepted ?  Was it always dogma or doctrine, or was Bible textual scholarship a major issues.

                                  All such would make fascinating scholarship, and I would really like to learn more about that era.  Better though without the charged rhetoric.

                                  Shalom,
                                  Steven Avery
                                  Queens, NY

                                  So we know how the Comma Johanneum crept in the Textus Receptus.
                                  In a similar way dogma brought the CJ in the lectionaries of the (Byzantine)
                                  Orthodox Church. In his Prolegomena tot the NT John Mill already indicated that
                                  the CJ was included in the lesson to be read Thursday of the 35th week after
                                  Pentecost (or the week of Carnival, Apokreo), as printed in the Apostolos of
                                  Venice, 1602. (Mill, Kuster, 1710, p. 581).
                                  Griesbach (in Diatribe in loc. I Joann. 5,7-8, NT, vol. II, 1806, p. 12) knew
                                  that the CJ is printed in the Greek lectionaries of the 16th century. The CJ is
                                  not in mss lectionaries (p. 2-3).
                                  This image is confirmed by UBS/TGNT4: the text without CJ is witnessed by (all!)
                                  Lect, with the CJ is witnessed by lAD, the modern current lectionary as editied
                                  by the Apostoliki Diakonia, Athens. The CJ is also in the Patriarchal edition of
                                  the NT of B. Antoniades, 1904, but printed in a smaller font. Metzger (in: Greek
                                  lectionaries, in : Die alten Uebersetzungen des N.T.s, ed. Aland, 1972, p. 486:
                                  <Curiously enough, although the editor confesses that it did not appear possible
                                  on scholarly grounds to include the passage of the "three witnesses" in John
                                  5,7-8 it was fully retained on the basis of the wishes of the Holy Synod.>
                                  The CJ is exported to Eastern Europe by "Roman Catholic" editions of
                                  lectionaries and liturgical books of Venice and Rome in the 16th and 17th
                                  century, but also by the "Lutheran" edition of the Wittenberg TR of 1622,
                                  printed for the Greek market and a similar "Calvinistic" edition of the TR,
                                  Geneva 1638, with a translation in New Greek.
                                  <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

                                  Teunis van Lopik, Leidschendam (NL)



                                  --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Steve Puluka <spuluka@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > On Oct 29, 2010, at 3:59 PM, Daniel Buck wrote:
                                  >
                                  > > Now, this is what Horne 1821 writes:
                                  > >
                                  > > "The confession of faith of the Greek Church thus introduces the 
                                  > > clause:--GOD, in his nature, is true and eternal, and the creator 
                                  > > of all things, visible and invisible: such also is the SON, and the 
                                  > > HOLY SPIRIT. They are also of the same essence among themselves, 
                                  > > according the the doctrine of John the Evangelist, who says, 'there 
                                  > > are three that bear testimony in heaven, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND 
                                  > > THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND THESE THREE ARE ONE.'  In the liturgies of the 
                                  > > Greek Church, among other portions of Scripture, this verse is 
                                  > > directed, by the Greek rituals, to be read in its course, in the 
                                  > > thirty-fifth week of the year. (footnote: Dr. Smith's Miscellanea, 
                                  > > p. 155. London, 1636.)"
                                  > >
                                  > > So, it is Smith with whom we have to deal, not Horne. Hale quoted 
                                  > > nearly the same in 1818, but giving the date 1686, citing also 
                                  > > Martin's La Verité, part ii ch. 5.
                                  > >
                                  > > Is this true of the Orthodox Church?
                                  >
                                  > Not exactly.
                                  >
                                  > The biblical texts in the Orthodox tradition show no knowledge of the 
                                  > CJ prior to the modern controversy.  The reading has been variously 
                                  > adopted and inserted into the text in different jurisdictions at 
                                  > particular times, but is not found in any ancient authority or 
                                  > liturgical manuscript.
                                  >
                                  > What Smith/Horne are citing above is a sloppy reference to the 
                                  > liturgical lectionary cycle in the Byzantine lectionary system.  But 
                                  > they make a number of referential errors.
                                  >
                                  > There are no "weeks of the year" in this system.  There are weeks 
                                  > after Pentecost.  The liturgical year begins on September 1st.  And 
                                  > the weeks after Pentecost end at the 33rd week.
                                  >
                                  > There is a cycle for the 10 weeks before  before Pascha (Easter) 
                                  > called the Triodion that immediately follows the post Pentecost cycle.
                                  >
                                  > This is then followed by the readings of the Pentecostarion cycle 
                                  > from Pascha to Pentecost.
                                  >
                                  > The readings taken from the letter 1 John occur during the Triodion 
                                  > cycle.  The selection from chapter 5 is inclusive of the reading for 
                                  > Thursday on the second week of the Triodion (1 John 4:20-5:21).
                                  >
                                  > Hence by adding the 33 + 2 we get the reference to the "35th week of 
                                  > the year".  But this is a designation that is meaningless inside the 
                                  > tradition and not helpful either.  If we were to choose a starting 
                                  > place to count weeks in this combined three cycles, Pascha would be 
                                  > the natural place.  This is where most combined books print as the 
                                  > starting point of the total cycle.  But it is fairly rare and recent 
                                  > that the three would even be thus combined.
                                  >
                                  > In case anyone is wondering how this can work in practice since the 
                                  > number of weeks each year is of course variable between the 
                                  > celebration of Pascha one year to the next, there is a system to 
                                  > expand/contract.
                                  >
                                  > * The Triodion will always begin at the fixed cycle of 10 weeks 
                                  > before the next celebration of Pascha.
                                  > * The 33rd week after Pentecost readings will always be the ones used 
                                  > right before the Triodion begins.
                                  > * When there are more than 32 weeks between Pentecost and the week 
                                  > before the Triodion, after taking the 31st week after Pentecost 
                                  > readings we revert back into the cycle exactly enough weeks to fill 
                                  > the gap and repeat the readings.
                                  > * When there are fewer than 32 weeks between Pentecost and the week 
                                  > before the Triodion we skip from whatever week necessary to the 33rd 
                                  > week readings so that the cycle ends right before the Triodion begins.
                                  >
                                  > Steve Puluka
                                  > MA, Theology Duquesne University
                                  > Cantor Holy Ghost Church
                                  > Carpatho-Rusyn tradition
                                  > Mckees Rocks, PA
                                  > http://puluka.com
                                  >




                                  ------------------------------------

                                  Yahoo! Groups Links

                                  <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/

                                  <*> Your email settings:
                                      Individual Email | Traditional

                                  <*> To change settings online go to:
                                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/join
                                      (Yahoo! ID required)

                                  <*> To change settings via email:
                                      textualcriticism-digest@yahoogroups.com
                                      textualcriticism-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

                                  <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                      textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                  <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                • George F Somsel
                                  Steven Avery wrote: The problem here is that clearly many scholars, Reformation scholars, RCC and others, east and west, simply believed that the heavenly
                                  Message 16 of 27 , Oct 31, 2010
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Steven Avery wrote:
                                     
                                    "The problem here is that clearly many scholars, Reformation scholars, RCC and others, east and west, simply believed that the heavenly witnesses was original scripture, written by John, in harmony with the Gospels and the Epistles and Revelation. Noting that the verse was strongly represented in the Old Latin and Vulgate and the early church writers in Latin (with many interesting evidentiary considerations even in Greek).  And believing the verse had had sparse representation in Greek because it had fallen out of the Greek ms line in early days." 

                                     

                                    What early scholars may have thought happened is really immaterial.  The question is whether the Johannine Comma was part of the original text.  If it was deemed to have dropped out then one must seek to determine when it did so and why it happened.  In this regard the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary is of interest:

                                     

                                    "Support for the reading in Gk manuscripts is meager, occurring only in 61, 629, 918, and 2318, as well as in varying forms by later hands in the margins of five others (88, 221, 429, 635, and 636), and none of these can be dated earlier than the 14th century. In ancient versions other than the Lat, the Comma is noticeably absent from all pre-14th century manuscripts of the Copt, Syr, Eth, Arm, Ar, and Slav translations of the NT. It does not occur in the Gk Fathers, who would certainly have used it to their advantage in the trinitarian controversies if only they had known it. Even in the Lat version, the Comma does not appear in OL manuscripts until after a.d. 600, nor in the Vg until after a.d. 750, and even then it is geographically limited to texts of Spanish origin or influence until the 10th century."

                                     

                                    Thus there appears to be no ms support for the reading until circa 600 ad.  As to Cyprian's supposedly citing it, it is noted in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol 5, p 388 "Scrivener says candidly, “It is hard to believe that 1 John 5:7 was not cited by Cyprian ...”

                                     
                                    Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. V : Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus,Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix. (418). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.

                                     

                                    There seems therefore to be some question whether Cyprian truly cited this or not.  Given the absence of any attestation to its presence in the mss prior to 600 ad, I am inclined to think he did not.  It is not therefore a matter of the text dropping out.  The onus to prove that it was present prior to that time rests upon those who would maintain it.  Thus far they have been unable to meet that requirement -- nor have you.

                                     

                                     

                                    george
                                    gfsomsel



                                    … search for truth, hear truth,
                                    learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
                                    defend the truth till death.


                                    - Jan Hus
                                    _________



                                    From: schmuel <schmuel@...>
                                    To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                                    Sent: Sat, October 30, 2010 3:29:49 PM
                                    Subject: [textualcriticism] approaching the historical debate on heavenly witnesses with sound mind towards evidence evaluation

                                     

                                    Hi Folks,

                                    Empahsis added, for consideration.

                                    Teunis van Lopik

                                    Dogma also infected the lectionary text with the Comma Johanneum

                                    Steven Avery
                                    The problem here is that clearly many scholars, Reformation scholars, RCC and others, east and west, simply believed that the heavenly witnesses was original scripture, written by John, in harmony with the Gospels and the Epistles and Revelation. Noting that the verse was strongly represented in the Old Latin and Vulgate and the early church writers in Latin (with many interesting evidentiary considerations even in Greek).  And believing the verse had had sparse representation in Greek because it had fallen out of the Greek ms line in early days.

                                    Various theories were offered as to the root cause of the falling out, yet the basic idea of textual omission was considered quite likely among many, whether accidental or deliberate or both combined. (Especially an initial accidental omission being maintained by preference.)

                                    Note that their paradigms of the Bible text were not the same in the Reformation era as in the 1800s till today in scholarship circles. e.g. Omissions were seen as a more simple and likely textual theory (nobody tells you about the text, its not there) .. compared to the later strong embrace of lectio brevior, which became ascendent particularly with the radical textual theory overhauls of the 1800s, for better or worse. 

                                    Thus, we should avoid being anachronistic in evaluating earlier decisions and their weighing of evidence.  These differences in perspective would have a major impact on whether the scholars considered the heavenly witnesses as original scripture or an interpolation. 

                                    Another example, beyond lectio brevior, would be the evaluation of the significance of many church writer and Council evidences. A third would be the evaluation and consideration of internal and grammatical considerations.

                                    Also, the textual scholars might look at very specific collective and individual evidences, and how they felt about the significance and authority of the evidences would have a lot of weight. 

                                    As an example .. even in the 20th century the Lutheran scholar Franz August Otto Pieper considered the evidence from Cyprian essentially as probative to the verse being Johannine scripture (when placed on top of the basic evidences such as the Latin line evidences).  In the earlier days the debate on the Vulgate Prologue ascribed to Jerome was a major factor in many discussions, including that of Erasmus and Lee.  And it is very questionable whether the Vulgate Prologue accusation of forgery was ever weighed in any type of scientific manner, and especially whether it was ever properly revisited when the 1670 (Sandius) to 1800s claims of a late date for the Prologue were falsified by the discovery that the Prologue was in the ms of Codex Fuldensis of 560 AD. And thus was passed down from a date close to Jerome. And the very powerful evidences from the Council of Carthage of 481 (which I believe were not published at the time of these early debates) were examined more closely in the 1700s and had a strong impact upon many scholars looking at the textual history, even if overlooked or flippantly dismissed today by many.  Other early evidences, like Priscillian, were simply unknown. Or evidences were often not considered deeply in the context of the Latin manuscript lines, like Fulgentius and Cassiodorus, witnesses to early Old Latin and Vulgate textual strength, against modern theories. On top of various other evidences, too numerous and detailed to discuss in a short post.

                                    Since this was largely a historical scholarship issue, I believe that Teunis does a smidgen of a disservice in using charged
                                    terminology like "infect" for what were frequently very well informed scholastic and textual decisions by men who were extremely well read in the early church writings and were aware of the Erasmus and Received Text scholarship history and the Greek and Latin manuscript distinctions. 

                                    And yes, errors and questionable presentations were made, on all sides, and it is proper to point that out.  Especially on the support side in the whole question of the Stephanus notations, which may not have been fully and properly understood and accepted until the time of Thomas Burgess (1820) who did incredible work in bringing together the source materials.  On the other hand, many of the strongest evidences and arguments for the verse came forth from 1700 to 1900, and even later .. so this works on both sides.

                                    > Teunis
                                    > So we know how the Comma Johanneum crept in the Textus Receptus.

                                    Steven Avery
                                    Not exactly "crept", a term that is usually used for the difficult theory of margin entries taking over the textual line over many hundreds of years.  As we know, the CJ was in the Complutensian Polyglot and omitted from the first two Greek New Testaments of Erasmus.  Most other Received Text editions included the CJ, especially the three other editions of Erasmus (whose paraphrase remains especially interesting) and all editions of Stephanus and Beza and the Elzivirs.  And Latin editions without the CJ were extremely rare.  

                                    > Teunis
                                    > In a similar way dogma brought the CJ in the lectionaries of the (Byzantine) Orthodox Church.

                                    Steven
                                    Not sure what you mean by "dogma" except that it sounds like the idea that doctrine was the only factor.  Clearly the Lateran Council and some Greek writers way before the Reformation had an effect, as well as the strong and simple acceptance and usage in essentially all Latin writers and scholarship.  Plus the fact that many scholars from 200 AD all the way to the Reformation were both Greek and Latin proficient -- so they would have the CJ available in Latin writings.  (A point I noted with Aquinas and tends to be overlooked, and I believe this is due to some deliberate attempts to fudge issues, and not just on this verse.) 

                                    We know there was apparently (to our eyes today) a surprising warmth in the Reformation era to modifying the Greek lectionaries. And this occurred very early, even in the printed edition of 1602, as pointed out.  Yet very little hard evidence or scholarly discussion as to motives. 

                                    e.g. Did those eastern Greek language scholars write about the differences in general between the Reformation Bible (the TR) and their earlier Greek manuscripts ?  What happened with other similar verse cases like the minority reading of Acts 8:37.  Were they accepted ?  Was it always dogma or doctrine, or was Bible textual scholarship a major issues.

                                    All such would make fascinating scholarship, and I would really like to learn more about that era.  Better though without the charged rhetoric.

                                    Shalom,
                                    Steven Avery
                                    Queens, NY

                                    So we know how the Comma Johanneum crept in the Textus Receptus.
                                    In a similar way dogma brought the CJ in the lectionaries of the (Byzantine)
                                    Orthodox Church. In his Prolegomena tot the NT John Mill already indicated that
                                    the CJ was included in the lesson to be read Thursday of the 35th week after
                                    Pentecost (or the week of Carnival, Apokreo), as printed in the Apostolos of
                                    Venice, 1602. (Mill, Kuster, 1710, p. 581).
                                    Griesbach (in Diatribe in loc. I Joann. 5,7-8, NT, vol. II, 1806, p. 12) knew
                                    that the CJ is printed in the Greek lectionaries of the 16th century. The CJ is
                                    not in mss lectionaries (p. 2-3).
                                    This image is confirmed by UBS/TGNT4: the text without CJ is witnessed by (all!)
                                    Lect, with the CJ is witnessed by lAD, the modern current lectionary as editied
                                    by the Apostoliki Diakonia, Athens. The CJ is also in the Patriarchal edition of
                                    the NT of B. Antoniades, 1904, but printed in a smaller font. Metzger (in: Greek
                                    lectionaries, in : Die alten Uebersetzungen des N.T.s, ed. Aland, 1972, p. 486:
                                    <Curiously enough, although the editor confesses that it did not appear possible
                                    on scholarly grounds to include the passage of the "three witnesses" in John
                                    5,7-8 it was fully retained on the basis of the wishes of the Holy Synod.>
                                    The CJ is exported to Eastern Europe by "Roman Catholic" editions of
                                    lectionaries and liturgical books of Venice and Rome in the 16th and 17th
                                    century, but also by the "Lutheran" edition of the Wittenberg TR of 1622,
                                    printed for the Greek market and a similar "Calvinistic" edition of the TR,
                                    Geneva 1638, with a translation in New Greek.
                                    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

                                    Teunis van Lopik, Leidschendam (NL)



                                    --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Steve Puluka <spuluka@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > On Oct 29, 2010, at 3:59 PM, Daniel Buck wrote:
                                    >
                                    > > Now, this is what Horne 1821 writes:
                                    > >
                                    > > "The confession of faith of the Greek Church thus introduces the 
                                    > > clause:--GOD, in his nature, is true and eternal, and the creator 
                                    > > of all things, visible and invisible: such also is the SON, and the 
                                    > > HOLY SPIRIT. They are also of the same essence among themselves, 
                                    > > according the the doctrine of John the Evangelist, who says, 'there 
                                    > > are three that bear testimony in heaven, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND 
                                    > > THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND THESE THREE ARE ONE.'  In the liturgies of the 
                                    > > Greek Church, among other portions of Scripture, this verse is 
                                    > > directed, by the Greek rituals, to be read in its course, in the 
                                    > > thirty-fifth week of the year. (footnote: Dr. Smith's Miscellanea, 
                                    > > p. 155. London, 1636.)"
                                    > >
                                    > > So, it is Smith with whom we have to deal, not Horne. Hale quoted 
                                    > > nearly the same in 1818, but giving the date 1686, citing also 
                                    > > Martin's La Verité, part ii ch. 5.
                                    > >
                                    > > Is this true of the Orthodox Church?
                                    >
                                    > Not exactly.
                                    >
                                    > The biblical texts in the Orthodox tradition show no knowledge of the 
                                    > CJ prior to the modern controversy.  The reading has been variously 
                                    > adopted and inserted into the text in different jurisdictions at 
                                    > particular times, but is not found in any ancient authority or 
                                    > liturgical manuscript.
                                    >
                                    > What Smith/Horne are citing above is a sloppy reference to the 
                                    > liturgical lectionary cycle in the Byzantine lectionary system.  But 
                                    > they make a number of referential errors.
                                    >
                                    > There are no "weeks of the year" in this system.  There are weeks 
                                    > after Pentecost.  The liturgical year begins on September 1st.  And 
                                    > the weeks after Pentecost end at the 33rd week.
                                    >
                                    > There is a cycle for the 10 weeks before  before Pascha (Easter) 
                                    > called the Triodion that immediately follows the post Pentecost cycle.
                                    >
                                    > This is then followed by the readings of the Pentecostarion cycle 
                                    > from Pascha to Pentecost.
                                    >
                                    > The readings taken from the letter 1 John occur during the Triodion 
                                    > cycle.  The selection from chapter 5 is inclusive of the reading for 
                                    > Thursday on the second week of the Triodion (1 John 4:20-5:21).
                                    >
                                    > Hence by adding the 33 + 2 we get the reference to the "35th week of 
                                    > the year".  But this is a designation that is meaningless inside the 
                                    > tradition and not helpful either.  If we were to choose a starting 
                                    > place to count weeks in this combined three cycles, Pascha would be 
                                    > the natural place.  This is where most combined books print as the 
                                    > starting point of the total cycle.  But it is fairly rare and recent 
                                    > that the three would even be thus combined.
                                    >
                                    > In case anyone is wondering how this can work in practice since the 
                                    > number of weeks each year is of course variable between the 
                                    > celebration of Pascha one year to the next, there is a system to 
                                    > expand/contract.
                                    >
                                    > * The Triodion will always begin at the fixed cycle of 10 weeks 
                                    > before the next celebration of Pascha.
                                    > * The 33rd week after Pentecost readings will always be the ones used 
                                    > right before the Triodion begins.
                                    > * When there are more than 32 weeks between Pentecost and the week 
                                    > before the Triodion, after taking the 31st week after Pentecost 
                                    > readings we revert back into the cycle exactly enough weeks to fill 
                                    > the gap and repeat the readings.
                                    > * When there are fewer than 32 weeks between Pentecost and the week 
                                    > before the Triodion we skip from whatever week necessary to the 33rd 
                                    > week readings so that the cycle ends right before the Triodion begins.
                                    >
                                    > Steve Puluka
                                    > MA, Theology Duquesne University
                                    > Cantor Holy Ghost Church
                                    > Carpatho-Rusyn tradition
                                    > Mckees Rocks, PA
                                    > http://puluka.com
                                    >




                                    ------------------------------------

                                    Yahoo! Groups Links

                                    <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/

                                    <*> Your email settings:
                                        Individual Email | Traditional

                                    <*> To change settings online go to:
                                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/join
                                        (Yahoo! ID required)

                                    <*> To change settings via email:
                                        textualcriticism-digest@yahoogroups.com
                                        textualcriticism-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

                                    <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                        textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                    <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


                                  • TeunisV
                                    ... Compare message 4755. Teunis van Lopik
                                    Message 17 of 27 , Oct 31, 2010
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      >>>>So we know how the Comma Johanneum crept in the Textus Receptus.

                                      Compare message 4755.

                                      Teunis van Lopik
                                    • Steve Puluka
                                      ... My apologies for the ambiguity. The demarcation I am referring to is the modern controversy about the inclusion of the verse during the creation of the
                                      Message 18 of 27 , Oct 31, 2010
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        On Oct 30, 2010, at 3:32 PM, schmuel wrote:
                                        > Daniel
                                        >
                                        >> > Is this true of the Orthodox Church?
                                        >
                                        > Steve Puluka
                                        >> Not exactly. The biblical texts in the Orthodox tradition show no
                                        >> knowledge of the CJ prior to the modern controversy.
                                        >
                                        > Steven
                                        > This may be true for "prior to the Received Text". And there may
                                        > be difficulties documenting what was extant in what years in
                                        > ancient times.
                                        >
                                        > The phrase modern controversy is ambiguous, and could refer to
                                        > Erasmus and Lee and Stunica and Valledolid, or it could refer to
                                        > Simon, Smith, Emlyn, Martin and others (1680-1710). In the later
                                        > case, clearly the writings above look to be a counter-evidence.
                                        >
                                        > Clearly in the mid-1600s there were Orthodox traditions that had
                                        > incorporated the verse in liturgy and text.
                                        >
                                        > It would be very interesting if actual changes from 1520 to 1680
                                        > were documentable.
                                        >
                                        > Steve
                                        >> The reading has been variously adopted and inserted into the text
                                        >> in different jurisdictions at
                                        >> particular times, but is not found in any ancient authority or
                                        >> liturgical manuscript.
                                        >
                                        > Steven
                                        > Here there is a question about what is meant by "ancient authority".

                                        My apologies for the ambiguity.

                                        The demarcation I am referring to is the "modern controversy" about
                                        the inclusion of the verse during the creation of the received text.
                                        This controversy brought the issue to the attention of Orthodox
                                        scholars and authorities and they each reacted as they thought best.
                                        Since there is no central authority for such textual decisions each
                                        independent jurisdiction proceeded at their own pace and their own
                                        judgement.

                                        By "ancient authority" I mean any reference to the CJ in the
                                        manuscript tradition prior to the controversy or any copies of
                                        patristic homilies that widely circulate as reference material in
                                        interpreting scripture. Naturally, this material is rare in general,
                                        plus this particular reading is assigned to a day with very little
                                        prominence in the tradition so discussions in long preserved homilies
                                        would be very rare indeed. But lectionaries are all over the place
                                        and to date none produced prior to this modern controversy in the
                                        Orthodox liturgical tradition have been found with the CJ.

                                        My basic point is that if Smith is citing Orthodox authorities as an
                                        ally in the inclusion of the CJ, he is only adding other current
                                        authorities that are agreeing with his judgement on the issue and not
                                        that the Orthodox church is bringing any new older authorities,
                                        lectionaries or manuscripts to the table with them.

                                        Steve Puluka
                                        MA, Theology Duquesne University
                                        Cantor Holy Ghost Church
                                        Carpatho-Rusyn tradition
                                        Mckees Rocks, PA
                                        http://puluka.com
                                      • TeunisV
                                        ... The poor evidence of the CJ, as described above, is also stated by the editor of the Patriarchate NT (1904), B. Antoniades. Preface, p. 7. ... From the
                                        Message 19 of 27 , Oct 31, 2010
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Steve Puluka:

                                          >But lectionaries are all over the place
                                          >and to date none produced prior to this modern controversy in the
                                          >Orthodox liturgical tradition have been found with the CJ.

                                          The poor evidence of the CJ, as described above, is also stated by the editor of the Patriarchate NT (1904), B. Antoniades. Preface, p. 7.
                                          For the English interpretation by Riddle, see http://koti.24.fi/jusalak/GreekNT/NTTexts.htm . /ANT1904.ZIP/ANTINTRO.TXT:
                                          >>>>>
                                          From the Introduction to the Antoniades 1904 Greek Patriarchal Edition, as translated in John Merle Rife, "The Antoniades Greek New Testament," in E. C. Colwell and D. W. Riddle, eds., _Prolegomena to the Study of the Lectionary Text of the Gospels_, Studies in the Lectionary Text of the Greek New Testament, vol. 1 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1933), 57-62.
                                          [Regarding passages in small print or other specialized type, pp.
                                          60-61]
                                          .....
                                          It is otherwise with the passage on the "three witnesses" in IJohn 5:7,8. It did not appear possible to include this, either by the principles of the present edition or by way of exception, since it is
                                          entirely unattested in church texts, in the fathers and teachers of the Eastern Church, in the ancient versions, in the older MSS of the Slavic version, or even in the Latin, or in any known Greek MS written independently of this addition, which was introduced gradually into the Vulgate. It is retained upon the opinion of the Holy Synod.
                                          <<<<<

                                          The CJ is in the Patriarchate edition printed in small typ and italics because of insufficient testimony, for the reasons mentioned above. A testimony of a Greek Orthodox scholar.

                                          Teunis van Lopik
                                        • schmuel
                                          Hi Folks, George Somsel It is notable that, although Aquinas cites the CJ and references Augustine, Augustine nowhere cites the CJ. Steven Correct, we have no
                                          Message 20 of 27 , Nov 2, 2010
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Hi Folks,

                                            George Somsel
                                            It is notable that, although Aquinas cites the CJ and references Augustine, Augustine nowhere cites the CJ.

                                            Steven
                                            Correct, we have no citations of Augustine extant that are direct quotes to the heavenly witnesses.  However, that is only part of the story. First, let us remember that his Homilies on 1 John stops short of the verses, ending at 1 John 5:3,, so that evidence from silence means little, even if the verse was in his Bibles we simply would not know.

                                            Then there is the heavily discussed citation in Contra Maximum where it is contended that Augustine was simply applying a  strained mystical interpretation to the spirit, the water and the blood.  The common simple conclusion can lead to confusion, as it begs the chicken-and-egg question:

                                            a) was the mystical interpretation the result of the scripture which had fallen from many manuscripts ?
                                            b) did the mystical interpretation create the heavenly witnesses verse ? 
                                            c) some other dynamic

                                            Bruce Metzger says B probably --- ("The Comma probably originated as a piece of allegorical exegesis of the three witnesses" Text of the New Testament 1968 p. 102 .. more Metzger discussion below).

                                            Also the (b) theory is one that Pieper and many others would contend falls outright to the Cyprian citation.  Historically, to combat that early reference was fabricated the anachronistic idea of early allegorizing by various writers known for careful quoting, even against the specific words of Cyprian "it is written".  (Anachronistic idea also applied by some to the Tertullian allusion that is corroborative to Cyprian and other early evidences.) Skillfully, Pieper disassembled the scholarship convolution and really showed that Cyprian stands as a verse reference. A number of others like Scrivener had de facto had taken this position earlier, Pieper was simply more willing to take the interpretative understanding to the logical textual conclusion.

                                            And (b) also bumps up against the simple fact that the extant Old Latin manuscripts are close to 100% heavily witnesses supportive. Including the Old Latin Speculum that is also part of the discussion and has been historically connected to Augustine.  All told, the Old Latin manuscripts indicate that the heavenly witnesses would likely be seen in some or all of the Augustine Latin Bibles.  And also the Greek Bibles of the period are an open question, depending partly on your respect for the Vulgate Prologue information and some other Greek evidences.   And the Old Latin is supported by the rich referencing in the period, including the hundreds of bishops at the Council of Carthage of 481, not too long after Augustine.  As well as Priscillian, Fulgentius and others.

                                            ===============================

                                            The paper by Norbert Fickermann could use, some day, an English translation, or at least the German text online. From a copyright standard it may just have hit the public domain in 2009.  We at least know one conclusion, our German skilled readers with access to the text are very welcome to share much more.

                                            Norbert Fickermann...
                                            St. Augustine gegen das "Comma Johanneum" BZ, 22
                                            (1934), 350-358.

                                            "The silence of Augustine, contrary to prevailing opinion,
                                            cannot be cited as evidence against the genuineness of the Comma.
                                            He may indeed have known it.."
                                            (Bruce Metzger - Studies and Documents - 1934 & Bibliography of TCNT )

                                            This analysis of Fickermann may have influenced Metzgers open-ended "probably" above, even where Metzger omitted the Fickermann reference later.

                                            ===============================

                                            We should remember that Augustine has a reference in City of God, that is such a clear allusion that Brooke Westcott accuses it of being part of the verse creation process ! ..
                                            "complete the gloss" ...  because of the use of Verbum.

                                            The City of God by Saint Augustine,
                                            Translated by Marcus D. D. Dods;  (New York: Modern Library, 1950) 

                                            On Seeing God
                                            On the Presence of God
                                            11. Concerning the universal providence of God in the laws of which all things are comprehended

                                            Therefore God supreme and true, with His Word and Holy Spirit (which three are one), one God omnipotent, creator and maker of every soul and of every body; by whose gift all are happy who are happy through verity and not through vanity; who made man a rational animal consisting of soul and body, who, when he sinned, neither permitted him to go unpunished, nor left him without mercy;

                                            BOOK V [XI] Deus itaque summus et verum cum Verbo suo et Spiritu sancto, quae tria unum sunt, Deus unus omnipotens, creator et factor omnis animae atque omnis corporis, cuius sunt participatione felices, quicumque sunt veritate, non uanitate felices, qui fecit hominem rationale animal ex anima et corpore, qui eum peccantem nec inpunitum esse permisit nec sine misericordia dereliquit;

                                            ===============================

                                            Returning to the concern of George.

                                            The referencing from Aquinas of Augustine in the last post was of the specific doctrinal points being made from Aquinas, points that are language-related to the heavenly witnesses.  Aquinas felt no need to use Augustine to
                                            "cite the CJ" (George) since Aquinas simply considered the verse as scripture. Aquinas was using Augustine as interpretative backdrop,  which is clear from a careful read.

                                            Basic Writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas: Volume One: God and the order of creation (1945)  this is the 1997 edition
                                            Anton Charles Pegis
                                            http://books.google.com/books?id=BG4Ekg_WfgUC

                                            The specific Augustine references that were given in that article were given by Anton Charles Pegis (1905-1978), President, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Toronto, Canada).

                                            (Q. 36 Art 1 ) The person of the Holy Ghost 
                                            http://books.google.com/books?id=BG4Ekg_WfgUC&pg=PA343 

                                            On the contrary, It is said ( 1 John V. 7): There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. As Augustine says: When we ask, Three what? we say, Three persons. 3 ....For, as Augustine says, Because the Holy Ghost is common to both, He Himself is called that properly which both are called in common. For the Father is a spirit, and the Son is a spirit; and the Father is holy, and the Son is holy.  6

                                            3 De Trin., VII, 4; 6; V, 9 (PL 42, 940; 943; 918).
                                            6 De Trin., XV, 19; V, 11 (PL 42, 1086; 919).

                                            (Q. 30 Art 2 )  The plurality of persons in God
                                            http://books.google.com/books?id=BG4Ekg_WfgUC&pg=PA301
                                            Objection 5. Further, everything within a determinate number is measured, for number is a measure. But the divine persons are immense, as we say in the Creed of Athanasius: "The Father is immense, the Son is immense, the Holy Ghost is immense."
                                            10 Therefore the persons are not contained within the number three.  On the contrary, It is said: "There are three who bear witness in heaven, the father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost" (1 John 5:7). To those who ask, "Three what?" we answer, with Augustine (De Trin. vii, 4), "Three persons." 11 Therefore there are but three persons in God.

                                            10 Cf. Symb. "Quicumque" (Denzinger. no. 39)
                                            11 De Trin VII,4;6 V 9 (PL 42, 940, 943, 913)
                                             
                                            This is a series of references in De Trinitate given by Pegis.  Our early church writer Latin scholars are welcome to pull out each one and study them for conjectured familiarity with our verse :).  Note though that Anton Pegis is not claiming any direct Augustine citations of 1 John v:7 ..  nor is Aquinas using Augustine in any type of textual analysis referencing manner.

                                            Whether the De Trinitate verses count as allusion references may depend on perspective and the specific analysis, where Charles Forster may well have had a different view than Alfred Plummer.  (You will find very little solid writing on these topics in the last century.)

                                            More could be said on Augustine.  The Contra Maximum discussion is particularly fascinating and involved, and a bit too much to add to this post.  And I hope you at least find these references interesting, though provoking.

                                            Shalom,
                                            Steven Avery
                                            Queens, NY
                                          • TeunisV
                                            I was not aware that on the site KFVtoday The patriarchate edition of 1904 is qualified as one of the weightiest Greek witnesses for the Comma .
                                            Message 21 of 27 , Nov 2, 2010
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              I was not aware that on the site KFVtoday The patriarchate edition of 1904 is qualified as "one of the weightiest Greek witnesses for the Comma".

                                              (http://sites.google.com/site/kjvtoday/home/translation-issues/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57 )
                                              I will quote in extenso:
                                              >>>>>>
                                              Testimony of the Greek Orthodox Church
                                              Perhaps one of the weightiest Greek witnesses for the Comma is its existence in the official 1904 Patriarchal Text of the Greek Orthodox Church. This text was compiled from about sixty Greek lectionaries dating from the ninth to the sixteenth century (John M. Rife, "The Antoniades Greek Testament" Prolegomena to the Study of the Lectionary Text. 57-66.). The inclusion of the Comma in the 1904 Text is strong Greek support for the Comma for the following reasons:
                                              *The Greek Orthodox Church is the successor of the Byzantine Church.
                                              *The Byzantine Church traditionally did not accept the Comma. This means the inclusion of the Comma was not based on tradition or coercion, as critics might allege concerning Erasmus' inclusion of the Comma.
                                              *Greek Orthodox collators were aware of the many Byzantine manuscripts which do not contain the Comma, and yet they included the Comma. So the inclusion of the Comma was not based on ignorance of the manuscript evidence.
                                              *The 1904 Text was reconstructed using the most trusted manuscripts from the monastic community of Mount Athos in Greece. Mount Athos is one of the rare places on earth that has had a relatively uninterrupted and continuous manuscript copying tradition since the fourth century.
                                              *The 1904 Text was authorized in the modern era when arguments against the Comma were obvious to collators.
                                              *The 1904 Text does not follow the Textus Receptus in many places, especially in Revelation. Thus the Comma in the 1904 Text did not come straight from the Textus Receptus. The 1904 Text is a critically reconstructed Byzantine text in its own right.
                                              <<<<<<<<

                                              This impression of things is not conform the intention of the editors of the patriarchate edition, I suppose. They wrote, I repeat (from Rife's translation):
                                              >>>>>>>>
                                              It is otherwise with the passage on the "three witnesses" in IJohn 5:7,8. It did not appear possible to include this, either by the principles of the present edition or by way of exception, since it is entirely unattested in church texts, in the fathers and teachers of the Eastern Church, in the ancient versions, in the older MSS of the Slavic version, or even in the Latin, or in any known Greek MS written independently of this addition, which was introduced gradually into the Vulgate. It is retained upon the opinion of the Holy Synod.
                                              <<<<<<<<

                                              So the inclusion in the NT of 1904 was for reasons of "dogma", ecclesiastical force, and the presentation by the editors in small type and italics was to express major doubt for sane textcritical reasons.

                                              Teunis van Lopik
                                            • malcolm robertson
                                              Dear Steve,   As usual you have presented a plethora of historical info for our consideration.  Jolly good! The problem is that the biblical textual data
                                              Message 22 of 27 , Nov 2, 2010
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Dear Steve,
                                                 
                                                As usual you have presented a plethora of historical info for our consideration.  Jolly good!
                                                The problem is that the biblical textual data that we have at present does not support the inclusion of these words as original to the autograpic text.  Does this deny, destroy or eradicate the entire biblical witness to the three indiviual persons in the Godhesd of biblical Christianity.  Of course not.
                                                 
                                                Ever since St Augustine noted the excise of the pericope de adulterae by some in some mss and codex Vaticanus omitted 1 Peter 5:3 as well as some slight editorial indications in P66 and 75 I have become more open to the possibility of heretical corruption.  The wickedness of Decimus and the observations of St Hippolytus make this reasonable.
                                                 
                                                The great difficulty arises when we try to pinpoint the source of allusions and references in the patristic literature.
                                                 
                                                This is why TC is still an art and not simply a mere mechanical science.  Historical reconstruction is a sine quo non for TC and once one moves away from the objective historical textual data the art of TC comes into vogue.
                                                 
                                                Our God reigns!
                                                 
                                                Malcolm
                                                 
                                                ____________________________
                                                 
                                                 
                                                --- On Tue, 11/2/10, schmuel <schmuel@...> wrote:

                                                From: schmuel <schmuel@...>
                                                Subject: [textualcriticism] Augustine and the heavenly witnesses
                                                To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                                                Date: Tuesday, November 2, 2010, 4:20 AM

                                                 
                                                Hi Folks,

                                                George Somsel
                                                It is notable that, although Aquinas cites the CJ and references Augustine, Augustine nowhere cites the CJ.

                                                Steven
                                                Correct, we have no citations of Augustine extant that are direct quotes to the heavenly witnesses.  However, that is only part of the story. First, let us remember that his Homilies on 1 John stops short of the verses, ending at 1 John 5:3,, so that evidence from silence means little, even if the verse was in his Bibles we simply would not know.

                                                Then there is the heavily discussed citation in Contra Maximum where it is contended that Augustine was simply applying a  strained mystical interpretation to the spirit, the water and the blood.  The common simple conclusion can lead to confusion, as it begs the chicken-and-egg question:

                                                a) was the mystical interpretation the result of the scripture which had fallen from many manuscripts ?
                                                b) did the mystical interpretation create the heavenly witnesses verse ? 
                                                c) some other dynamic

                                                Bruce Metzger says B probably --- ("The Comma probably originated as a piece of allegorical exegesis of the three witnesses" Text of the New Testament 1968 p. 102 .. more Metzger discussion below).

                                                Also the (b) theory is one that Pieper and many others would contend falls outright to the Cyprian citation.  Historically, to combat that early reference was fabricated the anachronistic idea of early allegorizing by various writers known for careful quoting, even against the specific words of Cyprian "it is written".  (Anachronistic idea also applied by some to the Tertullian allusion that is corroborative to Cyprian and other early evidences.) Skillfully, Pieper disassembled the scholarship convolution and really showed that Cyprian stands as a verse reference. A number of others like Scrivener had de facto had taken this position earlier, Pieper was simply more willing to take the interpretative understanding to the logical textual conclusion.

                                                And (b) also bumps up against the simple fact that the extant Old Latin manuscripts are close to 100% heavily witnesses supportive. Including the Old Latin Speculum that is also part of the discussion and has been historically connected to Augustine.  All told, the Old Latin manuscripts indicate that the heavenly witnesses would likely be seen in some or all of the Augustine Latin Bibles.  And also the Greek Bibles of the period are an open question, depending partly on your respect for the Vulgate Prologue information and some other Greek evidences.   And the Old Latin is supported by the rich referencing in the period, including the hundreds of bishops at the Council of Carthage of 481, not too long after Augustine.  As well as Priscillian, Fulgentius and others.

                                                ===============================

                                                The paper by Norbert Fickermann could use, some day, an English translation, or at least the German text online. From a copyright standard it may just have hit the public domain in 2009.  We at least know one conclusion, our German skilled readers with access to the text are very welcome to share much more.

                                                Norbert Fickermann...
                                                St. Augustine gegen das "Comma Johanneum" BZ, 22
                                                (1934), 350-358.

                                                "The silence of Augustine, contrary to prevailing opinion,
                                                cannot be cited as evidence against the genuineness of the Comma.
                                                He may indeed have known it.."
                                                (Bruce Metzger - Studies and Documents - 1934 & Bibliography of TCNT )

                                                This analysis of Fickermann may have influenced Metzgers open-ended "probably" above, even where Metzger omitted the Fickermann reference later.

                                                ===============================

                                                We should remember that Augustine has a reference in City of God, that is such a clear allusion that Brooke Westcott accuses it of being part of the verse creation process ! ..
                                                "complete the gloss" ...  because of the use of Verbum.

                                                The City of God by Saint Augustine,
                                                Translated by Marcus D. D. Dods;  (New York: Modern Library, 1950) 

                                                On Seeing God
                                                On the Presence of God
                                                11. Concerning the universal providence of God in the laws of which all things are comprehended

                                                Therefore God supreme and true, with His Word and Holy Spirit (which three are one), one God omnipotent, creator and maker of every soul and of every body; by whose gift all are happy who are happy through verity and not through vanity; who made man a rational animal consisting of soul and body, who, when he sinned, neither permitted him to go unpunished, nor left him without mercy;

                                                BOOK V [XI] Deus itaque summus et verum cum Verbo suo et Spiritu sancto, quae tria unum sunt, Deus unus omnipotens, creator et factor omnis animae atque omnis corporis, cuius sunt participatione felices, quicumque sunt veritate, non uanitate felices, qui fecit hominem rationale animal ex anima et corpore, qui eum peccantem nec inpunitum esse permisit nec sine misericordia dereliquit;

                                                ===============================

                                                Returning to the concern of George.

                                                The referencing from Aquinas of Augustine in the last post was of the specific doctrinal points being made from Aquinas, points that are language-related to the heavenly witnesses.  Aquinas felt no need to use Augustine to
                                                "cite the CJ" (George) since Aquinas simply considered the verse as scripture. Aquinas was using Augustine as interpretative backdrop,  which is clear from a careful read.

                                                Basic Writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas: Volume One: God and the order of creation (1945)  this is the 1997 edition
                                                Anton Charles Pegis
                                                http://books.google.com/books?id=BG4Ekg_WfgUC

                                                The specific Augustine references that were given in that article were given by Anton Charles Pegis (1905-1978), President, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Toronto, Canada).

                                                (Q. 36 Art 1 ) The person of the Holy Ghost 
                                                http://books.google.com/books?id=BG4Ekg_WfgUC&pg=PA343 

                                                On the contrary, It is said ( 1 John V. 7): There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. As Augustine says: When we ask, Three what? we say, Three persons. 3 ....For, as Augustine says, Because the Holy Ghost is common to both, He Himself is called that properly which both are called in common. For the Father is a spirit, and the Son is a spirit; and the Father is holy, and the Son is holy.  6

                                                3 De Trin., VII, 4; 6; V, 9 (PL 42, 940; 943; 918).
                                                6 De Trin., XV, 19; V, 11 (PL 42, 1086; 919).

                                                (Q. 30 Art 2 )  The plurality of persons in God
                                                http://books.google.com/books?id=BG4Ekg_WfgUC&pg=PA301
                                                Objection 5. Further, everything within a determinate number is measured, for number is a measure. But the divine persons are immense, as we say in the Creed of Athanasius: "The Father is immense, the Son is immense, the Holy Ghost is immense."
                                                10 Therefore the persons are not contained within the number three.  On the contrary, It is said: "There are three who bear witness in heaven, the father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost" (1 John 5:7). To those who ask, "Three what?" we answer, with Augustine (De Trin. vii, 4), "Three persons." 11 Therefore there are but three persons in God.

                                                10 Cf. Symb. "Quicumque" (Denzinger. no. 39)
                                                11 De Trin VII,4;6 V 9 (PL 42, 940, 943, 913)
                                                 
                                                This is a series of references in De Trinitate given by Pegis.  Our early church writer Latin scholars are welcome to pull out each one and study them for conjectured familiarity with our verse :).  Note though that Anton Pegis is not claiming any direct Augustine citations of 1 John v:7 ..  nor is Aquinas using Augustine in any type of textual analysis referencing manner.

                                                Whether the De Trinitate verses count as allusion references may depend on perspective and the specific analysis, where Charles Forster may well have had a different view than Alfred Plummer.  (You will find very little solid writing on these topics in the last century.)

                                                More could be said on Augustine.  The Contra Maximum discussion is particularly fascinating and involved, and a bit too much to add to this post.  And I hope you at least find these references interesting, though provoking.

                                                Shalom,
                                                Steven Avery
                                                Queens, NY

                                              • schmuel
                                                Hi Folks, Steven Avery The problem here is that clearly many scholars, Reformation scholars, RCC and others, east and west, simply believed that the heavenly
                                                Message 23 of 27 , Nov 2, 2010
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Hi Folks,

                                                  Steven Avery
                                                  "The problem here is that clearly many scholars, Reformation scholars, RCC and others, east and west, simply believed that the heavenly witnesses was original scripture, written by John, in harmony with the Gospels and the Epistles and Revelation. Noting that the verse was strongly represented in the Old Latin and Vulgate and the early church writers in Latin (with many interesting evidentiary considerations even in Greek).  And believing the verse had had sparse representation in Greek because it had fallen out of the Greek ms line in early days."

                                                  George
                                                  What early scholars may have thought happened is really immaterial.

                                                  Steven
                                                  Yet the issue of what Erasmus thought is such a prime topic of debate .. the subject of more interest in the last decades than any other question on the verse.  And it is interest is legitimate, even if the scholarship tends to be one-dimensional.  As Erasmus was the top textual scholar of his time and a prime mover in what we know as the Received Text.  Yet all the evidences actually go back earlier.  So if we criticize looking at "early scholars" we similarly should not care about Erasmus and Stephanus and Beza.

                                                  George
                                                   The question is whether the Johannine Comma was part of the original text.

                                                  Steven.
                                                  Right. That is the prime topic.  What is original text, what is scripture, what are the autographs.  (Not all the same thing, necessarily, yet in the ballpark.)

                                                  However there are other topics such as whether evidence is being weighed properly ... missed, misunderstood, misevaluated, etc. 

                                                  The heavenly witnesses is quite unique in many ways, a singularly significant verse+ of the Bible text. (Acts 8:37 has mild similarities on one end, the textual and internal evidences, 1 Timothy 3:16 on another, the historical debate),  So textually and historically I believe we can learn more from careful study of this verse than any other verse in the whole Bible.  This verse is the fulcrum verse for many Bible battles.

                                                  George
                                                   If it was deemed to have dropped out

                                                  Steven
                                                  Oops .. you probably mean dropped in.  Yet the very fact of the little wording faux pas I believe reflects a basic truth .. dropping out is far easier than dropping in. Proper reflection on this question is often neglected in the discussions of Bible verses, especially those that are fully inclusion/omission question.

                                                  George
                                                  then one must seek to determine when it did so and why it happened.

                                                  Steven
                                                  Right. For those who have a 100% conviction (or close to that) that the verse dropped in, this question of why the heavenly witnesses were interpolated would be a primary consideration.  And the inverse would be true, as well, those who really believe the verse is scripture offer fascinating reasons and debate as to why the verse dropped out. I  (Rudolph Cornely wrote about this turnabout aspect, as have others.)

                                                  Interestingly, on both sides there tends to be a lot of doctrinal favoritism involved in the analysis with scant hard evidence .. the orthodox did this, the arians did that, the sabellians wanted the other.   One common idea, Ehrman-style albeit later than his standard fare, is an orthodox interpolation .. yet Grotius and Bugenhagen even had the reverse concept .. that the Arians inserted the verse !  So such theories have to be stepped through very lightly, almost like a landmine walk, since theories based on debatable doctrinal presuppositionalism is very hard to avoid.

                                                  As to the common textcrit theories in the historical debate and today, around an interpolation, they have varied widely and even wildly, with everybody from Cyprian to Jerome to Tapensis to Priscilian to  Cassiodorus to this one and that one being the leader of the conjectured interpolators rogues gallery.  Accidental, or forgery, or a mixture. The very fact of such conflicting theories on the basics of the supposed "how" should give some pause for consideration.

                                                  George
                                                   In this regard the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary is of interest: 
                                                  "Support for the reading in Gk manuscripts is meager, occurring only in 61, 629, 918, and 2318, as well as in varying forms by later hands in the margins of five others (88, 221, 429, 635, and 636), and none of these can be dated earlier than the 14th century. In ancient versions other than the Lat, the Comma is noticeably absent from all pre-14th century manuscripts of the Copt, Syr, Eth, Arm, Ar, and Slav translations of the NT. It does not occur in the Gk Fathers, who would certainly have used it to their advantage in the trinitarian controversies if only they had known it. Even in the Lat version, the Comma does not appear in OL manuscripts until after a.d. 600, nor in the Vg until after a.d. 750, and even then it is geographically limited to texts of Spanish origin or influence until the 10th century."

                                                  Steven
                                                  Most of this is accurate, . beyond the omissions of leaving out tons of incredible evidences.

                                                  And except for some notable omissions created by word-parsing .

                                                  "
                                                  the Comma does not appear in OL manuscripts until after a.d. 600, nor in the Vg until after a.d. 750"

                                                  Now .. can you say how many extant OL mss before 600 AD omit the verse ?  Or Vulgate before 750 ?  10 ? 20 ?  What does it sound like from the wording ?  Is the impression being given sound ?

                                                  And how do you date the Speculum ?  And how do you gauge the manuscript from  546 AD, close to the life of Jerome and written in the first person as Jerome and ascribed to Jerome historically until the heavenly witnesses debate, that directly talks about the omission of the verse in the Vulgate Prologue ?

                                                  And the Spanish emphasis above is the remnant of be a long-gone scholarly red herring, the Karl Kunstle theory of Priscililan origin, which Babut and Jülicher quickly demolished around 1910 (see Brooke for references).  And overall it is a meaningless claim due to evidences like Cassiodorus in Italy and the Council of Carthage of 484 AD and more.  Maybe you can say that Carthage is "Spanish-influenced" .. yet is that really meaningful ?  In a Council with hundreds of bishops attending in North Africa, orthodox and arians in attendance, represented from a wide geographical region. 

                                                  It is the word parsing that really should make people a tad curious, even perhaps suspicious, as to whether evidence is being properly considered. 

                                                  Similar occurs with the appellation "Greek fathers" .. which can eliminate all sorts of writings and people and times in Greek. And by insisting on direct quotes, various evidences and allusions and references can be ignored (look at the Augustine City of God reference in the previous post as an example of a strong Latin allusion that can be simply dismissed technically using stringent wording).  There are such dismissals in Greek such as the Synopsis of Scripture or the Disputation between Athanasius and Arius and the Greek aspect of the Lateran Council and the later Greek writers and the and the Vulgate Prologue discussion of Greek manuscripts and many writers who were clearly bilingual.

                                                  =========================

                                                  And I will forego more on the Cyprian discussion for now.  George, your post seemed to get (snipped) a bit so it was hard to differentiate, Anchor, Scrivener you and other.

                                                  And on that topic I have previously recommended  Franz August Otto Pieper, and I will repeat that recommendation as an excellent starting point.  For more recent discussions see the Daniel Wallace and Martin Shue articles on the net, and again .. I would say as a starting point, it is a fascinating study and the Internet has made a wealth of historical and textual and interpretative analysis available.

                                                  Shalom,
                                                  Steven Avery
                                                  Queens, NY
                                                • George F Somsel
                                                  Steven, No, I definitely intended dropped OUT.   If you wish to maintain that it was originally part of the text but then dropped out of the text, you need
                                                  Message 24 of 27 , Nov 2, 2010
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Steven,
                                                     
                                                    No, I definitely intended "dropped OUT."  If you wish to maintain that it was originally part of the text but then dropped out of the text, you need to explain why.  Your Old Latin mss are really somewhat late.  I would rather go with the EARLIER uncials such as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

                                                     
                                                    george
                                                    gfsomsel


                                                    … search for truth, hear truth,
                                                    learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
                                                    defend the truth till death.


                                                    - Jan Hus
                                                    _________



                                                    From: schmuel <schmuel@...>
                                                    To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                                                    Sent: Tue, November 2, 2010 1:03:24 PM
                                                    Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] approaching the historical debate on heavenly witnesses with sound mind towards evidence evaluation

                                                     

                                                    Hi Folks,

                                                    Steven Avery
                                                    "The problem here is that clearly many scholars, Reformation scholars, RCC and others, east and west, simply believed that the heavenly witnesses was original scripture, written by John, in harmony with the Gospels and the Epistles and Revelation. Noting that the verse was strongly represented in the Old Latin and Vulgate and the early church writers in Latin (with many interesting evidentiary considerations even in Greek).  And believing the verse had had sparse representation in Greek because it had fallen out of the Greek ms line in early days."

                                                    George
                                                    What early scholars may have thought happened is really immaterial.

                                                    Steven
                                                    Yet the issue of what Erasmus thought is such a prime topic of debate .. the subject of more interest in the last decades than any other question on the verse.  And it is interest is legitimate, even if the scholarship tends to be one-dimensional.  As Erasmus was the top textual scholar of his time and a prime mover in what we know as the Received Text.  Yet all the evidences actually go back earlier.  So if we criticize looking at "early scholars" we similarly should not care about Erasmus and Stephanus and Beza.

                                                    George
                                                     The question is whether the Johannine Comma was part of the original text.

                                                    Steven.
                                                    Right. That is the prime topic.  What is original text, what is scripture, what are the autographs.  (Not all the same thing, necessarily, yet in the ballpark.)

                                                    However there are other topics such as whether evidence is being weighed properly ... missed, misunderstood, misevaluated, etc. 

                                                    The heavenly witnesses is quite unique in many ways, a singularly significant verse+ of the Bible text. (Acts 8:37 has mild similarities on one end, the textual and internal evidences, 1 Timothy 3:16 on another, the historical debate),  So textually and historically I believe we can learn more from careful study of this verse than any other verse in the whole Bible.  This verse is the fulcrum verse for many Bible battles.

                                                    George
                                                     If it was deemed to have dropped out

                                                    Steven
                                                    Oops .. you probably mean dropped in.  Yet the very fact of the little wording faux pas I believe reflects a basic truth .. dropping out is far easier than dropping in. Proper reflection on this question is often neglected in the discussions of Bible verses, especially those that are fully inclusion/omission question.

                                                    George
                                                    then one must seek to determine when it did so and why it happened.

                                                    Steven
                                                    Right. For those who have a 100% conviction (or close to that) that the verse dropped in, this question of why the heavenly witnesses were interpolated would be a primary consideration.  And the inverse would be true, as well, those who really believe the verse is scripture offer fascinating reasons and debate as to why the verse dropped out. I  (Rudolph Cornely wrote about this turnabout aspect, as have others.)

                                                    Interestingly, on both sides there tends to be a lot of doctrinal favoritism involved in the analysis with scant hard evidence .. the orthodox did this, the arians did that, the sabellians wanted the other.   One common idea, Ehrman-style albeit later than his standard fare, is an orthodox interpolation .. yet Grotius and Bugenhagen even had the reverse concept .. that the Arians inserted the verse !  So such theories have to be stepped through very lightly, almost like a landmine walk, since theories based on debatable doctrinal presuppositionalism is very hard to avoid.

                                                    As to the common textcrit theories in the historical debate and today, around an interpolation, they have varied widely and even wildly, with everybody from Cyprian to Jerome to Tapensis to Priscilian to  Cassiodorus to this one and that one being the leader of the conjectured interpolators rogues gallery.  Accidental, or forgery, or a mixture. The very fact of such conflicting theories on the basics of the supposed "how" should give some pause for consideration.

                                                    George
                                                     In this regard the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary is of interest: 
                                                    "Support for the reading in Gk manuscripts is meager, occurring only in 61, 629, 918, and 2318, as well as in varying forms by later hands in the margins of five others (88, 221, 429, 635, and 636), and none of these can be dated earlier than the 14th century. In ancient versions other than the Lat, the Comma is noticeably absent from all pre-14th century manuscripts of the Copt, Syr, Eth, Arm, Ar, and Slav translations of the NT. It does not occur in the Gk Fathers, who would certainly have used it to their advantage in the trinitarian controversies if only they had known it. Even in the Lat version, the Comma does not appear in OL manuscripts until after a.d. 600, nor in the Vg until after a.d. 750, and even then it is geographically limited to texts of Spanish origin or influence until the 10th century."

                                                    Steven
                                                    Most of this is accurate, . beyond the omissions of leaving out tons of incredible evidences.

                                                    And except for some notable omissions created by word-parsing .

                                                    "
                                                    the Comma does not appear in OL manuscripts until after a.d. 600, nor in the Vg until after a.d. 750"

                                                    Now .. can you say how many extant OL mss before 600 AD omit the verse ?  Or Vulgate before 750 ?  10 ? 20 ?  What does it sound like from the wording ?  Is the impression being given sound ?

                                                    And how do you date the Speculum ?  And how do you gauge the manuscript from  546 AD, close to the life of Jerome and written in the first person as Jerome and ascribed to Jerome historically until the heavenly witnesses debate, that directly talks about the omission of the verse in the Vulgate Prologue ?

                                                    And the Spanish emphasis above is the remnant of be a long-gone scholarly red herring, the Karl Kunstle theory of Priscililan origin, which Babut and Jülicher quickly demolished around 1910 (see Brooke for references).  And overall it is a meaningless claim due to evidences like Cassiodorus in Italy and the Council of Carthage of 484 AD and more.  Maybe you can say that Carthage is "Spanish-influenced" .. yet is that really meaningful ?  In a Council with hundreds of bishops attending in North Africa, orthodox and arians in attendance, represented from a wide geographical region. 

                                                    It is the word parsing that really should make people a tad curious, even perhaps suspicious, as to whether evidence is being properly considered. 

                                                    Similar occurs with the appellation "Greek fathers" .. which can eliminate all sorts of writings and people and times in Greek. And by insisting on direct quotes, various evidences and allusions and references can be ignored (look at the Augustine City of God reference in the previous post as an example of a strong Latin allusion that can be simply dismissed technically using stringent wording).  There are such dismissals in Greek such as the Synopsis of Scripture or the Disputation between Athanasius and Arius and the Greek aspect of the Lateran Council and the later Greek writers and the and the Vulgate Prologue discussion of Greek manuscripts and many writers who were clearly bilingual.

                                                    =========================

                                                    And I will forego more on the Cyprian discussion for now.  George, your post seemed to get (snipped) a bit so it was hard to differentiate, Anchor, Scrivener you and other.

                                                    And on that topic I have previously recommended  Franz August Otto Pieper, and I will repeat that recommendation as an excellent starting point.  For more recent discussions see the Daniel Wallace and Martin Shue articles on the net, and again .. I would say as a starting point, it is a fascinating study and the Internet has made a wealth of historical and textual and interpretative analysis available.

                                                    Shalom,
                                                    Steven Avery
                                                    Queens, NY


                                                  • schmuel
                                                    Hi Folks, Malcolm, Dear Steve, As usual you have presented a plethora of historical info for our consideration. Jolly good! Steven Welcome. I found that I was
                                                    Message 25 of 27 , Nov 2, 2010
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Hi Folks,

                                                      Malcolm,
                                                      Dear Steve, As usual you have presented a plethora of historical info for our consideration.  Jolly good!

                                                      Steven
                                                      Welcome.  I found that I was very uninformed originally about this historical info, and folks generally still are today.  To take one moderately significant example, how many really knew about the City of God reference of Augustine, or the Fickermann conclusion that Augustine may well have knowledge of the verse ?  

                                                      Or that Karl Pieper, no scholastic slouch by any means, argued for the verse authenticity based on a simple and powerful analysis of the Cyprian reference.  How many have really considered the significance of the Council of Carthage (484 AD) evidence, with literally hundreds of bishops in attendance and the verse signalled out for doctrinal consideration ? Affirmed in an environment of pressure and persecution.

                                                      And where has modern textcrit shown any inclination to really consider such evidences ?  Unless they are evidences supportive of Aleph and B, such as the Eusebius comments on the Markan ending, extant in 99.9%of Greek, Latin and Syriac manuscripts but still considered unoriginal non-scripture.  Such considerations appear to be a smidgen one-sided.

                                                      Malcolm
                                                      The problem is that the biblical textual data that we have at present does not support the inclusion of these words as original to the autograpic text. 

                                                      Steven
                                                      Well by current standards even if the Greek manuscript line supported the heavenly witnesses numerically, that would not remotely be enough support against the master uncial manuscripts

                                                      And data is meaningless without a system of interpretation.  What the textual data supports is strictly a function of that methodology, and the Reformation experts looked at the data differently than today.  At the very least, we should try to be able to understand why the paradigms and concepts were so different.  At the most we may find their concepts more sensible that those scholastically in vogue today.

                                                      The understanding in the era of the Reformation, for many scholars (even into the 1800s and for a few unto today) entailed a system that was supportive of the heavenly witnesses as scripture.  So the first question is .. why the difference ? That would make an interesting study.  How did they look at the Latin and Greek lines, the early manuscripts, the early church writings, the Councils, the many internal evidences, .. even Erasmus makes a grammatical note on the verse in his annotations on the verse, pointed out by Nathaniel Ellsworth Cornwall  (1812-1879).. annotations which, afaik, still lack an English translation despite their historical significance.

                                                      Malcolm
                                                      Does this deny, destroy or eradicate the entire biblical witness to the three indiviual persons in the Godhesd of biblical Christianity.  Of course not.

                                                      Steven
                                                      The significance of the verse is more its overall place in the Battle of the Bible than a particularly doctrinal support.  Not so much the Vulgate versus Reformation Bible battles (where it was only marginally involved, e.g. with Erasmus and Valladolid) but in the Reformation Bible (TR) defense contra the nouveau late 1700s to 1800s theories unto Westcott and Hort. 

                                                      Much of the impetus for the textual upheaval was pushed along based on the idea that the verse must go (even Hort made it a centerpiece ...
                                                      "1 John v 7 might be got rid of in a month"). The idea was basically .. how could the TR be okay ?.. look at the verse 1 John 5:7 !  The same is quite common today.

                                                      The heavenly witnesses fits beautifully within the Johannine writings, as in the Bengelius-Wesley poems, yet one of the historical mistakes in the battle (on many sides) is to try to decide the issue by doctrinal comfort !

                                                      After all, the highly-respected Grotius fought against the verse as an "Arian interpolation" and Luther's pastor-student John Bugenhagen accused the verse of being an "Arian blasphemy".  Nope, that does not make any sense to me at all, yet it shows you the difficulty of trying to work the verse decisions by doctrinal angles rather than simpler Bible consistency and textual and historical and manuscript support considerations.

                                                      Malcolm
                                                      Ever since St Augustine noted the excise of the pericope de adulterae by some in some mss and codex Vaticanus omitted 1 Peter 5:3 as well as some slight editorial indications in P66 and 75 I have become more open to the possibility of heretical corruption.  The wickedness of Decimus and the observations of St Hippolytus make this reasonable.

                                                      Steven
                                                      As an interesting aside, Knittel asserts that Decimus Ausonius (Latin poet of the 4th century) looks to be familiar with the verse, giving him as a positive, affirmative testimony !

                                                      New criticisms on the celebrated text: 1 John V. 7. (1829)
                                                      Franz Anton Knittel
                                                      http://books.google.com/books?id=QH5CAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA77
                                                      Among the Latins also, in the 4th century, this expression 'Three are one' was familiar as a sacred phrase.
                                                      Ausonius, in his Poem bearing the name of " Gryphus," says,

                                                      " Tris numerus super omnia, Tris Deus unus"

                                                      Hopefully you will not consider that a negative consideration :) .  Knittel was apparently the only writer who discussed Decimus in the context of the Bible verse.

                                                      While Charles Forster forcefully uses Hippolytus in the context of showing that the language of the heavenly witnesses came into the church writers simply because the verse was scripture.

                                                      A new plea for the authenticity of the text of the three heavenly witness .. (1867)
                                                      Charles Forster
                                                      http://books.google.com/books?id=yXIsAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA15
                                                      That his doctrine of the Godhead, and the terms for expressing it, were taken wholly and solely from Scripture, we know on Hippolytus's own authority in the following passage: in which he lays down the golden rule, that from Scripture alone we derive our
                                                      knowledge of God.

                                                      Malcolm
                                                      The great difficulty arises when we try to pinpoint the source of allusions and references in the patristic literature. This is why TC is still an art and not simply a mere mechanical science.  Historical reconstruction is a sine quo non for TC and once one moves away from the objective historical textual data the art of TC comes into vogue. Our God reigns!

                                                      Speaking of art :) .. here is one writing of John Wesley on the verse.

                                                      ============================================

                                                      5. Who is he that overcometh the world - That is superior to all worldly care, desire, fear? Every believer, and none else. The seventh verse (usually so reckoned) is a brief recapitulation of all which has been before advanced concerning the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. It is cited, in conjunction with the sixth and eighth, 1 John v, 6, 8 by Tertullian, Cyprian, and an uninterrupted train of Fathers.

                                                      And, indeed, what the sun is in the world,
                                                      what the heart is in a man,
                                                      what the needle is in the mariner's compass,
                                                      this verse is in the epistle.

                                                      By this the sixth, eighth, and ninth verses 1 John v, 6, 8, 9 are indissolubly connected; as will be evident, beyond all contradiction, when they are accurately considered. (John Wesley, with appreciation to Bengelius, Explanatory Notes, 1754)

                                                      ============================================

                                                      Shalom,
                                                      Steven Avery
                                                      Queens, NY
                                                       
                                                    • TeunisV
                                                      Erasmus 1516, Stephanus 1550, Beza 1598, Elzevier 1624, Scrivener 1887 (Critical TR) and 1894 (TR) available in PDF on: http://www.cspmt.org/?q=node/14 Von
                                                      Message 26 of 27 , Nov 4, 2010
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        Erasmus 1516, Stephanus 1550, Beza 1598, Elzevier 1624, Scrivener 1887 (Critical TR) and 1894 (TR) available in PDF on:
                                                        http://www.cspmt.org/?q=node/14
                                                        Von Soden in: Resources

                                                        Teunis van Lopik

                                                        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Jan Krans <jlhkvu@...> wrote:
                                                        >
                                                        > Wieland
                                                        > Erasmus has APELQEN (???????) in the 1516 edition (not yet online to my
                                                        > knowing); his translation also has the singular. The 1535 edition reads
                                                        > the same (online at erasmus.org), so I presume that the other editions
                                                        > in between also have it.
                                                        > As far as I know, only Erasmus' editions have the singular here.
                                                        > Greetings, Jan Krans
                                                        >
                                                        > On 21-10-10 11:14, Wieland Willker wrote:
                                                        > >
                                                        > > In Mk 6:32 some manuscripts read APHLQEN instead of APHLQON:
                                                        > > f13, 2, 22, 157, 700, Maj-part(E, F, G, H, V, Y, Gamma)
                                                        > >
                                                        > > This is interesting because it means that Jesus went alone, without his
                                                        > > disciples.
                                                        > > Now, the original Luther version is reading this, too:
                                                        > > "Und er fuhr da in einem Schiff zu einer W�ste besonders."
                                                        > >
                                                        > > Probably this is from Erasmus. According to Swanson manuscript 2 reads
                                                        > > APHLQEN, too. I have a PDF edition from some Erasmus text (Greek/Latin
                                                        > > from
                                                        > > 1700) which reads APHLQEN, but I am not sure what text exactly this is.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > Stephanus and Scrivener read APHLQON.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > Which GNT editions read APHLQEN? Does the original Erasmus edition
                                                        > > read it?
                                                        > > Is it available online?
                                                        > > When was it changed into APHLQON?
                                                        > >
                                                        > > Best wishes
                                                        > > Wieland
                                                        > >
                                                        >
                                                      • TeunisV
                                                        Excuse me: Erasmus 1516, etc. in: http://www.cspmt.org/?q=node/20 Teunis
                                                        Message 27 of 27 , Nov 4, 2010
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          Excuse me: Erasmus 1516, etc. in:
                                                          http://www.cspmt.org/?q=node/20
                                                          Teunis

                                                          --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "TeunisV" <tvanlopik@...> wrote:
                                                          >
                                                          > Erasmus 1516, Stephanus 1550, Beza 1598, Elzevier 1624, Scrivener 1887 (Critical TR) and 1894 (TR) available in PDF on:
                                                          > http://www.cspmt.org/?q=node/14
                                                          > Von Soden in: Resources
                                                          >
                                                          > Teunis van Lopik
                                                          >
                                                          > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Jan Krans <jlhkvu@> wrote:
                                                          > >
                                                          > > Wieland
                                                          > > Erasmus has APELQEN (???????) in the 1516 edition (not yet online to my
                                                          > > knowing); his translation also has the singular. The 1535 edition reads
                                                          > > the same (online at erasmus.org), so I presume that the other editions
                                                          > > in between also have it.
                                                          > > As far as I know, only Erasmus' editions have the singular here.
                                                          > > Greetings, Jan Krans
                                                          > >
                                                          > > On 21-10-10 11:14, Wieland Willker wrote:
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > In Mk 6:32 some manuscripts read APHLQEN instead of APHLQON:
                                                          > > > f13, 2, 22, 157, 700, Maj-part(E, F, G, H, V, Y, Gamma)
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > This is interesting because it means that Jesus went alone, without his
                                                          > > > disciples.
                                                          > > > Now, the original Luther version is reading this, too:
                                                          > > > "Und er fuhr da in einem Schiff zu einer W�ste besonders."
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > Probably this is from Erasmus. According to Swanson manuscript 2 reads
                                                          > > > APHLQEN, too. I have a PDF edition from some Erasmus text (Greek/Latin
                                                          > > > from
                                                          > > > 1700) which reads APHLQEN, but I am not sure what text exactly this is.
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > Stephanus and Scrivener read APHLQON.
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > Which GNT editions read APHLQEN? Does the original Erasmus edition
                                                          > > > read it?
                                                          > > > Is it available online?
                                                          > > > When was it changed into APHLQON?
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > Best wishes
                                                          > > > Wieland
                                                          > > >
                                                          > >
                                                          >
                                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.