16 points - fulcrum verse in the Bible battle

Steven Avery

Administrator
While I realize that modern textcrits are trained (indoctrinated) to be clueless on this type of historical and faith-consistent type of Bible understanding, here are some basics.

=======

Heavenly witnesses in parallelism with earthly witnesses.

1 John 5:7-8
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.


And there are three that bear witness in earth,
the spirit, and the water, and the blood:
and these three agree in one.


=======

1) there is a consistent Greek testimony, evidence and undercurrent that is only explainable by early Greek mss containing the verse. (This starts with Ante-Nicene refs and includes the Athanasius disputation and the Synopsis of Sacred Scripture.)

2) there is a consistent ECW and creedal and confessional use of the heavenly witnesses phrasing that is consistent with one historical theory (fact). The heavenly witnesses verse and phrasing informed the church writers, and at times their opponents. Charles Forster skillfully emphasized this point, starting with many Ante-Nicene references and them moving to the era of Athansius, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom and others.

3) the Latin referencing and usage is indisputably early and has many evidences that point to a Greek origin leading to the Latin. These include the timing, the grammar in multiple aspects, the dual language skill of many, the special references like Jerome, and simply the early origination and wide-spread transmission. The major gender grammatical issue would represent the amazing case where a Greek solecism is solved! .. by translating to the Latin! Wonders.
.
4) there is no sensible theory of verse creation followed by an explosion vector of transmission that holds up to scrutiny. Careful analysis dissolves the various conflicting contra theories, when they are even put forth in any type of serious manner.
.
5) all variants are not created equal, in terms of the weighing of evidences. Lutheran scholar Franz August Otto Pieper (1852-1931) pointed this out, praising modern textual theory (not necessarily practice) which can highlight the great significance, above evidences, of even a single ECW usage. "Modern criticism is right in insisting that a quotation from the Fathers is often of decisive importance over against even the oldest codices." And while Pieper highlighted Cyprian, the irony is that the heavenly witnesses are supported by three distinct external super-evidences; (a) Cyprian before the Nicaea and the Arian controversies, (b) Jerome's Vulgate Prologue taking to task unfaithful translators (by context scribes in general) for their tendency to drop the verse; and (c) the hundreds of bishops from the wide Meditteranean region specifically highlighting the heavenly witnesses contra the Arians under Huneric at the Council of Carthage, 484 AD.
.
6) all variants are not created equal, in terms of the weighing of evidences. The many grammatical, stylistic and external evidences are stronger for heavenly witnesses inclusion than any other major variant discussion. The solecism in the Greek text with only the earthly witnesses, first clearly emphasized by the learned Eugenius Bulgaris, is one of the super-evidences. Which has been hand-waved due to the porsonian hail and thunder (think Shakespeare sound and fury) and the hortian fog. In a sensible faith-consistent Bible textual world, one that does not see the NT authors as bumbling and stumbling and mumbling fools, this alone, with the basic Latin evidences, would tell the tale of authenticity.
.
7) Yet, there is far more additional corroborating "internals". What are the witnesses of God in verse 9? Easy, with verse 7. Why does the offhand "interpolation" so-called from the "margin" (without a wisp of evidence) so wonderfully match Johannine style and unique wording? Think John 1:1 1:14 and Revelation 19:13, while an interpolating doctrinalist and/or margin note would have surely placed in "Son". The whole vortext of the chapter and the epistle and the Johannine writings is built around the heavenly and earthly witnesses, with the Hebraic style parallelism. Middleton pointed out one of the additional grammatical points. Some of these "internals" can only be sensed and seen by a Bible believer (ergo, the mariner's compass poem of Bengel and Wesley) others could be understood even by the deficient modern atomistic methods.
.
8 ) modern theorists have been swinging at a sharp-breaking curve ball, and missing, by the 1800-->2015 fascination with, and embrace of, a textual theory that is the opposite of reality. Lectio brevior should join with hortian blunders like various Syrian and Syriac phantom recessions, primitive corruptions, the Neutral text and the rest of the textual junk pile. Adding verses and sections to take over a text line is historically close to impossible. In addition it bumps up against all sensible theories of inspiration and preservation (noting that the unbeliever and liberal textcrit will have opposite presuppositions). Yet this false, blundering theory is still the textual undercurrent of opposition to many sections and verses, including the heavenly witnesses.
.
9) the dropping of the heavenly witnesses in the early Greek line is easily explainable by both accidental causes, homoeoteleuton, and deliberate causes. And the two are complementary, since once the bifurcation exists, then doctrinal preferences and ease of understanding will be a factor. This means that a copyist can then drop the verse without it being a deliberate corruption, rather it is a textual choice, decision and preference. The deliberate preferences are especially in view of the 2nd century Sabellian controversies, a point referenced in modern times by Armfield and Hills. Modern textual theorists are notorious for taking modern one-dimensional doctrinal stereotypes and trying to foist them back on an age they do not understand. Even in the Arian controversies, the verse could have provoked reluctance on many different sides to choose inclusion over omission, in a split textline. Note Jerome's admonition. And if Luther's pastor-teacher Bugenhagen could (somehow, and Grotius is similar) consider the verse an "Arian blasphemy" the same could have happened to some 4th century Greek writers. We should recognize when we see through a glass darkly.
.
10) There are a number of additional evidences beyond Jerome's words in the Prologue that the verse was avoided purposefully. The La Cava ms prods the Arians to hear the verse, likely in response to the Arian mockery. One respected ms. (four are known to give special commentary) mentions Augustine's reluctance to accept and utilize the heavenly witnesses. In addition, there is a complex heritage, emphasized by Frederick Nolan, of controversy around the time of Constantine that likely involved precisely this verse. Bengel put similar concerns under the heading of Disciplina Arcani. While Bengel also was skilled in understanding many verse allusions that today are pushed aside. (e.g. how many today reference the Origen Psalm scholium or the Hunderdfold Martyrs, two of many.)
.
11) The Erasmus position is totally distorted, by all sides. To give one example, Erasmus obliquely noted the grammatical problem ("torquebit grammaticos"). And, another example, Erasmus could easily have placed the powerful Cyprian Unity of the Church reference into the discussion. However, as he was generally negative towards authenticity, (while still willing to accept and utilize and give commentary on the verse) the Cyprian ref was somehow left under the covers, to come forth later in the debate. All sides in modern times have mangled Erasmus, Henk de Jonge and a couple of others excepted. (We might also mention the mangling of Cyprian, excepting Pieper. And Walter Thiele, who acknowledged, esssentially, "hey that was the heavenly witnesses, and the Latin may have come from the Greek". ) Mangling is the modern way.
.
12) the depth of the Latin evidences is glossed over by the contra charlatan teachers on the verse, who have tried to pretend this evidence barely exists till late. Even the modern apparatus shows that the Old Latin mss are strongly favoring inclusion (my count is 8-2). Approximately 95% of the Latin Vulgate ms, likely 1,000 and more, have the verse. Jerome's Prologue explains the gaps in some early Vulgate mss. And four mss have specific fascinating commentary. A shell game has been played by Metzger and parrots on these overwhelming evidences (Metzger tried to reclassify mss in a way in which they were not showing up in Old Latin or the Vulgate). The ECW speak loud and clear; Starting from the Ante-Nicene period (Cyprian, Tertullian, Hundredfold Martyrs and more) to the Expositio Fidei and Priscillian. Then to the Vulgate Prologue and to the confession of faith emphasized at the Council of Carthage of 484, contra the Arians. Then there are many clear and consistent references in the Arian controversies, such as the books of De Trinitate, Contra Varimadum and Fulgentius. Then from the learned Cassiodorus unto the literally dozens of medieval commentaries (with their own unique doctrinal aspects). It is time for the contra writers to at least try to be honest about these Latin evidences. They have been playing games. All leading up to the restorations, correcting the corrupted abbreviated text, in Greek (Lateran Council) and Armenian (Haitho, and the Synod of Sis.) And then to the textual scholarship of Erasmus (3rd ed), Stephanus and Bezae. And the use in the Bibles of Tyndale, Geneva, the AV. And the Reformation Bibles in dozens of languages distributed around the world.
.
13) The actual textual debates on the heavenly witnesses, focused largely in the 1700s and 1800s (and even before the 1700s, you can see the nascent debate in the textual writings) represent a treasure trove of information and understanding for the textual student. Yet, until the last few years, beginning with the Michael Maynard (1955-2014) book of 1995 this was completely off the radar. Even today, you can understand textual history sharply through the lens of understanding of the heavenly witnesses controversies. From the Huegenot David Martin contra the Unitarian Thomas Emlyn, from the heavy-drinking skeptic Richard Porson contra George Travis, from Frederick Nolan and his debate with John Oxlee, Thomas Burgess and Thomas Turton, to the fine treatises of Charles Forster and Nathaniel Ellsworth Cornwall and Henry Thomas Armfield, to 20th-century writings like Raymond Brown and Edward Hills and Franz Pieper, to dozens of other writings, you can have a fascinating window into Bible text theory.
.
14) Today, various sides can barely get by the "Trinity debate" aspect. See the recent paper by Juan Hernandez (often one of our better writers) where his glasses don't even make it to one-dimensional! On the opposite side, heavenly witnesses defenders often stumble. If we are realistic, we will even wonder if the Christological aspect was even primary in the Johannine mind., if that was the Bible picture he was drawing. (Perhaps it was, yet simply in the manner of John 10:30, and we should note that we have the Word rather than the Son.) Perhaps the apostle John is sharing with us the depth of the witnesses to Jesus as the Son of God, as the theme of the chapter. While the heavenly witnesses can be used as an ontological and Christological verse, we should seek to do so with depth and understanding.
.
15) The preservational imperative we know has allowed some verses to go poof for awhile from a language textline. Yet, the believer can easily believe that God would never allow a verse from man to distort and confuse and confound the Bible text (where one man's sound doctrine is another's heresy or late orthodox corruption!). I believe the preservational imperative is at play here, and the very fact that the heavenly witnesses has stood strong and clear for the almost 2000 years of the Christian scriptures testifies to the full authenticity of the verse. Think also fo the logic of faith of Edward Freer Hills. Christian believers should not allow unbelievers to intimidate us from expressing the full-orbed expression of faith when the matter at hand is the seeking of the prue and perfect word of God!
.
16) the heavenly witnesses is the fulcrum verse is this Bible battle. There is a mentality that feels that if they can simply assume that the heavenly witnesses is not scripture, the whole edifice of inspiration and preservation is gone! (See the conclusion of the Hernandez paper.) If this is one blatant interpolation, then all scripture is negotiable, here we have an orthodox corruption, there a redaction, and wait, a western one-ms change. Anything can go. On the other hand, if the heavenly witnesses is scripture, then textual theory of the last century and more has been a chimera, a mirage. And all such theories must be questioned, even to the point of rejection of virtually all the currents and themes. And the Reformation Bible comes back in view!
.
Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.
.
 
Top