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

Re: Thomas Smith, David Martin, and the Greek & Russian Confessions of Faith

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.