Charles Vincent Dolman

Steven Avery

Administrator
Originally in:

[TC-Alternate-list] New Testament Vaticanism - Dublin Review 1884, Charles Vincent Dolman
June, 2011
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/TC-Alternate-list/conversations/topics/4307

A very solid piece in the Dublin Review, every page is interesting.

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

Dublin Review (1884)
New Testament Vaticanism p. 186-201
http://books.google.com/books?id=zm3gAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA186

The author is given as the learned Benedictine (Dom Vincent) Dolman OSB, exegetical professor in St. Michael's Priory in the 1885 Bibliotheca sacra . (Charles Vincent Dolman, of Hereford, Canon of Newport). Some places list (Bishop) J. C. Hedley, however he was the Dublin Review editor (who was trying to eliminate unsigned articles !)

Lots on the Revision and Vaticanus as the "King of Codices, the Uncial of uncials"
Lots on Eusebius, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and the Mark ending.

Question: if there is anything in the Vaticanus-Sinaiticus-shared_scribe-Eusebius-Mark_section that is out-of-date ?
Frederick Charles Cook is largely being followed.

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


Charles Vincent Dolman was the author of three excellent Dublin Review New Testament articles by 1886 as shown here.

Downside Review, Volume 5 (1886)
http://books.google.com/books?id=y5suAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA16

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

Dublin Review (1881)

This was the first, I'll include one excerpt, adding the scripture section.

Dublin Review (1881)
New Testament Revision p. 127-144
http://books.google.com/books?id=Q2vgAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA127

... the vital integrity of sacred scripture is effected. By the sole authority of textual criticism these men have dared to vote away some forty verses of the Inspired Word. The Eunuch's Baptismal Profession of Faith is gone; and the Angel of the Pool of Bethesda has vanished; but the Angel of the Agony remains - till the next Revision. The heavenly witnesses have departed, and no marginal note mourns their loss ... We have no patience to discuss calmly their shameful treatment of the "Three Heavenly Witnesses." The Revisers have left out the whole verse in 1 John v. 7, 8, without one word of explanation. Surely no one but a textual critic could be capable of such a deed. Nor would any one critic have had the hardihood to do such a thing by himself. It required the corporate audacity of a Committee of Critics for the commission of such a sacrilege.

1 John 5:7-8
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
And there are three that bear witness -----
the Spirit, and the water, and the blood:
and these three agree in one.

But textual critics are like book-worms -- devoid of light and conscience, following the blind instincts of their nature, they will make holes in the most sacred of books.

The beauty, the harmony, and the poetry of the two verses would have melted the heart of any man who had a soul above parchment.

Fathers have quoted them, martyrs died for them, saints preached them. The Church of the East made them her Profession of Faith; the Church of the West enshrined them in her Liturgy. "

Dublin Review Vol #89 1881 p. 140-141
========================

And an excellent heavenly witnesses article as well, that includes a review of Charles Forster.


Dublin Review (1882)
Recent Evidence in Support of 1 John v. 7 - p. 426-439
http://books.google.com/books?id=twoJAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA426

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

Among those who reference the Dolman Revision material were Edward Miller (en passant).

And Benjamin Wilkinson (Our Authorized Version Vindicated).


Catholics Rejoice That the Revised Version Vindicates Their Bible
http://www.ancient-sda.org/ancient/authorised_version/chap_13.html

Wilkinson's usage of the Dublin Review material gets special note in:

In Discordance with the Scriptures: American Protestant Battles over Translating the Bible

Book by Peter J. Thuesen (2002).


Colin Standish, following Benjamin Wilkinson, and the web articles of Kevin James also reference this material.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
In Biblical Criticism, Grantley's writing on this is on p. 298
 
Top