Bill Brown papers

[Steven Avery]

Facebook - Timothy Berg

https://www.facebook.com/timothy.berg.9/posts/2667088573327980

If anyone wants to try to use the writings of Bill Brown on the heavenly witnesses, I'll share here what I have as the locations.
This way those contra authenticity can try to find some usable positions, without his potty-mouth vulgarity and other problems in discussion.

Cyprian
Tertullian
Heretics
Homoioteleuton

=====

Did Cyprian Quote the Comma Johanneum?
https://www.academia.edu/29542906/Did_Cyprian_Quote_the_Comma_Johanneum

The Comma Johanneum: Did Thaschus Cæcilius Cyprianus Quote The Comma Johanneum?
Bill Brown - August, 2016
https://commajohanneum.blogspot.com/2016/08/did-cyprian-quote-comma-johanneum.html

1 John 5:7-8 Comma Johanneum – Bill Brown on Cyprian (Blog Re-Post)
https://thefathersmonarchy.wordpress.com/2018/09/27/1st-john-57-comma-johanneum-bill-brown-on-cyprian-blog-re-post/

======

Did Tertullian Quote the Comma Johanneum?
https://www.academia.edu/23948837/Did_Tertullian_Quote_the_Comma_Johanneum

======

Did Heretics Alter 1 John 5:7?
https://www.academia.edu/29962256/DID_HERETICS_ALTER_1_JOHN_5_7
======

Can Homoioteleuton Explain the Lack of Evidence For 1 John 5:7?
https://www.academia.edu/29962439/CAN_HOMOIOTELEUTON_EXPLAIN_THE_LACK_OF_EVIDENCE_FOR_1_JOHN_5_7

======

A Response To Dr. Thomas Strouse, Part 1
May 1, 2007
https://musingsfromdts.blogspot.com/2007/05/response-to-dr-thomas-strouse-part-one.html

UPDATE: A Response To Dr. Thomas Strouse
https://musingsfromdts.blogspot.com/2008/03/update-response-to-dr-thomas-strouse.html

=====

Bible Version Discussion Board
Two Papers on 1 John 5:7
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bibleversiondiscussionboard/two-papers-on-1-john-5-7-t5916.html

======

TREN
An Evaluation Of The Internal Support For The Comma Johanneum
https://www.tren.com/e-docs/search.cfm?p001-1633
13 pages in preview
https://www.tren.com/e-docs/preview-w-security.cfm (not working May 1, 2022)

======

Dallas Seminary.
Advisors were Dan Wallace and Joseph Fantin.

My position (as is theirs) is that this is a later interpolation. It covered three main issues: the so-called grammatical argument, the claim that Tertullian and Cyprian quoted what is now 1 John 5:7 (they didn't) and refuted the absurd conjectures that John wrote this passage but it vanished due to heretical tampering or falling out through homoiotelueton.

=====

There used to be a lot on CARM, - all gone.
And there are Facebook spots of interest.
And I have a few comments on PBF.

 

[Steven Avery]

Cyprian paper used on Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTT...814970808163252/?comment_id=24884635321196800

Steven Avery
This below is from a paper on the Cyprian heavenly witnesses evidence. (Written by a gentleman no longer involved in the dialogue.)
While it misses the probative factor of the non-existence of invisible allegory, which seals authenticity, the paper does give a few points fairly well.
FYI:
Cyprian should also be connected with the many Old Latin corroborative references, writers and manuscripts, and also with the super-evidences. Cyprian also has a grammatical point referenced by Nathaniel Ellsworth Cornwall, which connects with the grammatical super-evidence. (Other super-evidences include Jerome’s Vulgate Prologue and the hundreds of orthodox who affirmed the verse at the AD 484 Council of Carthage.)
============

Did Thaschus Cæcilius Cyprianus Quote The Comma Johanneum?
THE EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF CYPRIAN QUOTING THE COMMA
There are a few reasons the claim that Cyprian quoted the Comma cannot be easily dismissed.
Armfield considers it “an evident truth” that the Comma must have been “a received part of the sacred text, even before Cyprian’s time (for otherwise he would not have quoted it as such).”[7]
Secondly, pro-Comma advocates insist that Cyprian “is very little given to indulge in lax and mystical interpretations,”[8] and “adheres to the letter of Scripture.”[9]
A third reason is the claim that a second Cyprian quotation of the Comma occurs in Epistola ad Jubaianum, where Cyprian writes:
"If anyone could be baptized among the heretics, then he could obtain remission of sins. If he obtained the remission of sins, he was sanctified, and if he was sanctified, he was made the temple of God. But of what God? I ask. The Creator? Impossible; he did not believe in him. Christ? But he could not be made Christ’s temple, for he denied the deity of Christ. The Holy Spirit? Since the Three are One, what pleasure could the Holy Spirit take in the enemy of the Father and the Son?[10]
Knittel suggests that because Cyprian “knew Greek” and “translated Greek into Latin,” these two citations are sufficient proof that Cyprian had the Comma before him.[11] Armfield concurs: “Of all the Fathers, Greek or Latin, no one is more remarkable for citing Scripture verbatim than St. Cyprian.”[12]
===

[7] Armfield, The Three Witnesses, 73. The assumption that an early church father must have been quoting verbatim demonstrates a lack of familiarity with the patristic data. If there was a recognized and authoritative received text during Cyprian’s time that was so well known, why does no other Church Father quote it? This question will assume immense significance in chapter four.
[8] Ibid., 94.
[9] Ibid., 94.

[10] Cyprian, Epistula 73.12.2 (CC 3C, 542). Si baptizari quis apud haereticos potuit, utique et remissam peccatorum consequi potuit. Si peccatorum remissam consectus est, sanctificatus est: si sanctificatus est, templum dei factus est: quaero cuius dei? Si creatoris, non potuit qui in eum non credidit. Si Christi, nec huius fieri potest templum qui negat deum Christum. Si spiritus sancti, cum tres unum sint, quomodo spiritus sanctus placatus esse ei potest qui aut filii aut patris inimicus est?

Cyprian of Carthage, The Epistles of Cyprian

catholiclibrary.org

[11] Franz A. Knittel, New Criticisms on the Celebrated Text, 1 John v.7. Translated by William A. Evanson (originally published Brunswick, 1785, London: Rivington, 1829), 34.

New criticisms on the celebrated text, 1 John V. 7. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one." A synodical lecture : Knittel, Franz Anton, 1721-1792 : Free Download, Borrow, an

li, [1], 263, [1] p. 24 cm

www.archive.org

New criticisms on the celebrated text, 1 John v. 7, a lect., tr. by W.A. Evanson

books.google.com

[12] Armfield, The Three Witnesses, 137. Armfield references this citation twice (117, 155).
https://archive.org/details/threewitnessesdi00armf/page/117/mode/1up
https://archive.org/details/threewitnessesdi00armf/page/155/mode/1up
https://books.google.com/books?id=5eQCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA117
https://books.google.com/books?id=5eQCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA155

Page 117
In answer to Dr. Clarke's remark, that it ought not to be concealed that this passage does not certainly appear to have been found in the text of any Greek MS., he observes, " It ought also to be told, that it appears to have been found in the old Latin version that was used in the African church. Else how could St. Cyprian have cited it hi his Treatise " de Unitate Ecclesiae," and again in the " Epistola ad Jubaianum" (pp. 137-8).

Page 155
In 1763, Bowyer published his edition of the Greek Testament, " Ad fidem Grsecorum solum MSS. nunc primum expressum, adstipulante Jo. Jac. Wetstenio." In this edition Wetstein's emendations were adopted. Bowyer says that St. Cyprian does not quote the verse, totidem verbis, as the text is now read, though Bishop Pearson, he tells us (meaning Bishop Fell), rather too strongly asserts, " Cyprianum citasse ante Hieronymi temporal "The words of Cyprian," he says, " are . . . 4 et hi tres in unum sunt,' and in another place (' Epist. ad P. Julianum' [' Ad Jubaianum'] p. 223, Ed. Pearson [Fell]) .... 'cum tres unum sint,' " and adds, "It is certain St. Cyprian does not cite it in terms from the text, nor yet in both places agreeably to himself." Still further, that "he


Page 156
Upon Bowyer's " Critical Conjectures/' it is scarcely necessary to remark, with Travis, that, in the correct text of the " De Unitate," "Cyprian does quote the verse, totidem verbis (as far as his words are meant to be a quotation) ; and " that, therefore, Bishop Fell's assertion is not too strong ;" the other passage, in the Epistle "ad Jubaianum," being " rather an allusion or a reference than a direct quotation ;" that in the former instance he meant to quote directly only the concluding clause of the verse ; and that, a

===========

 

[Steven Avery]

In De ecclesiae catholicae unitate, Cyprian writes: “The Lord says, ‘The Father and I are one [John 10:30], and again of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit it is written, ‘And these three are one.’”[1] Pro-Comma advocates thus insist that Cyprian quoted the Comma. Armfield cites Fell’s work (1682), declaring, “the proof of the genuineness of this passage in St. Cyprian was put beyond all doubt.”[2] Forster argues, “It is undeniable that, so far as the identity of the words is concerned, the last and most peculiar clause of that verse is found, word for word, both in Tertullian and in St. Cyprian.”[3] Hills says that this “seems” to be a quotation from Cyprian and then gives a brief synopsis of the discussion.[4] Holland, who usually exhibits more aggressiveness in defending KJV readings, is similarly reserved.[5] Most critics who reject the Comma explain that Cyprian was interpreting the Spirit, water, and blood allegorically as the Trinity.[6]

[1] Dicit Dominus: ‘Ego et Pater unum sumus’, et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est: Et tres unum sunt. This is taken from the most recent critical edition, Maurice Bèvenot, Cyprian: De lapsis and De ecclesiae catholicae unitate, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1971), 66.

[2] Armfield, Disputed, 76. This alleged “proof” is found in the Prologue to the Catholic Epistles, a work allegedly by Jerome that is regarded as spurious by virtually all responsible scholarship.

[3] Forster, A New Plea, 43. Forster does acknowledge that critics of the passage argue that it comes from v. eight (54, 64-67, 110-11, 187).

[4] Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, 4th ed. (Des Moines: Christian Research, 1984), 210.

[5] Thomas Holland, Crowned With Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version (Bloomington, IN: iUniverse, 2000), 167. There is no question that Holland believes Cyprian quoted it, but his verbiage is more reserved here than regarding some of his other arguments advocating the Comma.

[6] A few who reject Comma authenticity believe Cyprian quoted it. “It is surely safer and more candid to admit that Cyprian read ver. 7 in his copies, than to resort to the explanation of Facundus (vi), that the holy Bishop was merely putting on ver. 8 a spiritual meaning” (F. H. A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament,. vol. 2, ed. Edward Miller. [London: George Bell, 1894], 405). Scrivener acknowledges that this is how the Comma entered the manuscript tradition. Cf. also Walter Thiele, “Beobachtungen zum Comma Johanneum (1 Joh 5, 7f.),” ZNW 50 [1959], 72-73.