Steven Avery
Administrator
This PBF page is connected to the Facebook posts:
Pure Bible
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/2879802058778331/
And this is a post, April, 2020
https://evangelicaltextualcriticism...howComment=1587533786161#c3476073209667925909
responding to an important question from Maurice Robinson:
(minor editing)
Pure Bible
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/2879802058778331/
And this is a post, April, 2020
https://evangelicaltextualcriticism...howComment=1587533786161#c3476073209667925909
responding to an important question from Maurice Robinson:
(minor editing)
Steven Avery4/22/2020 6:36 am
Maurice A. Robinson
"Perhaps the larger question is why Erasmus indeed *did* include the Comma once the "Codex Britannicus" became known to him - - this particularly in view of his expressed suspicions regarding the recent nature of that manuscript."
And I agree, that is an excellent larger question. Please allow me to conjecture.
1) Lee and Stunica had given Erasmus a hard time (Valladolid was five years in the future). It is understandable if Erasmus wanted to avoid continuing controversy on a delicate and debatable textual issue. And Erasmus did at times include text based on Latin evidence, Acts 9:5-6 being an example. Plus he knew there were many dozens of Latin writers who had used and discussed the verse. Thus there was much ecclesiastical acceptance beyond simply Vulgate mss. And there is the special note of the Lateran Council publishing the verse in Greek and Latin. Followed by Joseph Bryennius publishing the full two verses in Greek in his commentary, (missing three agree in one in verse eight).
2) Erasmus did use the verse in the English Paraphrase (1521) and his 1518 Ratio seu methodus compendio perveniendi ad veram theologiam. Erasmus was having a problem being consistent!
3) Erasmus had a very hard time trying to find an explanation for Jerome's Vulgate Prologue, which is far, far more important than any late Greek mss. In the two letters and the Annotationes Erasmus was de facto accusing Jerome, who was normally written of warmly by Erasmus, of forging the verse!
(Nobody questioned that the author was Jerome, that came in the late 1600s. However, Erasmus omitted the Prologue from his Jerome work, very possibly to lessen its impact in the verse discussion. And John Fell later took this (to task.)
4) Erasmus had managed to avoid Cyprian in his discussions and Annotationes. In fact, Thomas Smith (1638-1710), aware of the Erasmus Cyprian editions starting in 1521, concluded that Erasmus had been "craftily concealing" the passage in Unity of the Church, which is the single most important Ante-Nicene reference to the heavenly witnesses. In fact, it is possible that Erasmus learned of the reference between the 2nd and 3rd editions! As for the significance, recommended is the Lutheran Franz August Otto Pieper (1852-1931) in Christian Dogmatics, Vol 1 p. 340-341.
5) Erasmus knew the short text has a solecism problem. And even tried to offer his own quirky solution re: the "torquebit grammaticos". See the Annotationes. (Note: I have not seen that this came up in his correspondence, perhaps here Erasmus placed it in the Annotationes to be 'ahead of the curve' and show off his Greek savvy.)
Note: the incredible c. 484 AD Council of Carthage evidence involving the Bible text of hundreds of orthodox and the 'Arians' under Hunneric was apparently not available until the 1541 publication by Jean Quintin (1500-1561), five years after the passing of Erasmus.
Imho, all these issues 2-5 are far more important than the theorized "promise" back and forth. Although his words there also put him in an awkward position, which is part of (1).
Your feedback most welcome!
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY, USA
Last edited: