Steven Avery
Administrator
www.facebook.com
Facebook - Fulgentius and Cyprian in the 1500s-1600s - Erasmus, Hessels, Estius, Bengel
- Thread starter Steven Avery
- Start date
www.facebook.com
Steven Avery
Administrator
Daniel J. Wood
Third-Century Cyprian of Carthage Citing I John 5: 7. The wisdom of old books
Martin Vickers
Some would argue that this is not a critical edition, that it may reflect a later copy where a copyist inserted Byzantine readings to line up with the current presiding text. (I do not make that argument, but I have heard it a lot.).
How would we respond to that?
===
Steven Avery
“Why do they say...?”
The verse was used again and again in the Latin trinitarian controversies. In Greek the heavenly witnesses is referenced in Athanasius contra Arius at Nicea. To get around that, they fabricated a claim that it was written much later. They distort, fabricate and fudge, with a special degree in word parsing.
Steven Avery
As for changing an ECW text, that is extremely unlikely when the meaning and variant is interwoven into the context and flow, as here.
Arguments of convenience are often quite irrelevant.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/834...y2UtIGqPZaELFhoJvhO-RHx6riLz9xOGK&__tn__=R]-R
Billy Ferrell
The Cyprian quote was not known during Erasmus time ... had it been known the discussion would have been far shorter.
Steven Avery
Some evidences, like the amazing Council of Carthage reference, were not published until later in the 1500s.
Erasmus seems to have hidden the major Unity of the Church ref from the discussions with Stunica and Lee, and from the annotations.
Erasmus definitely should have known about it from his Cyprian edition. It would be good to check the actual 1500s writing.
This has not been noticed in most public writings simply because the scholarship has been mediocre at best, it is actually a fundamental question.
Why was the Cyprian reference not given in any discussions about the heavenly witnesses until later in the 1500s, e.g. possibly Alfonsus Salmeron, c. 1580, or maybe Jean Hessels, 1568? There are a number of writings in Latin to check.
There are some complexities, including the possible faux writing that Erasmus, if I remember, ascribed to Cyprian, also the secondary Epistle to Jubaianus reference had a textual issue.
I'll plan on adding some primary source references tonight.
Steven Avery
Steven Avery
Here you can see a 1520 edition of Fulgentius with his Cyprian Unity of the Church reference:
Opera: Item opera Maxentii Johannis
By Claudius Gordianus Fulgentius, Willibald Pirckheimer
https://books.google.com/books?id=JGBKAAAAcAAJ&pg=PT40
Third-Century Cyprian of Carthage Citing I John 5: 7. The wisdom of old books
Martin Vickers
Some would argue that this is not a critical edition, that it may reflect a later copy where a copyist inserted Byzantine readings to line up with the current presiding text. (I do not make that argument, but I have heard it a lot.).
How would we respond to that?
===
Steven Avery
“Why do they say...?”
The verse was used again and again in the Latin trinitarian controversies. In Greek the heavenly witnesses is referenced in Athanasius contra Arius at Nicea. To get around that, they fabricated a claim that it was written much later. They distort, fabricate and fudge, with a special degree in word parsing.
Steven Avery
As for changing an ECW text, that is extremely unlikely when the meaning and variant is interwoven into the context and flow, as here.
Arguments of convenience are often quite irrelevant.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/834...y2UtIGqPZaELFhoJvhO-RHx6riLz9xOGK&__tn__=R]-R
Billy Ferrell
The Cyprian quote was not known during Erasmus time ... had it been known the discussion would have been far shorter.
Steven Avery
Some evidences, like the amazing Council of Carthage reference, were not published until later in the 1500s.
Erasmus seems to have hidden the major Unity of the Church ref from the discussions with Stunica and Lee, and from the annotations.
Erasmus definitely should have known about it from his Cyprian edition. It would be good to check the actual 1500s writing.
This has not been noticed in most public writings simply because the scholarship has been mediocre at best, it is actually a fundamental question.
Why was the Cyprian reference not given in any discussions about the heavenly witnesses until later in the 1500s, e.g. possibly Alfonsus Salmeron, c. 1580, or maybe Jean Hessels, 1568? There are a number of writings in Latin to check.
There are some complexities, including the possible faux writing that Erasmus, if I remember, ascribed to Cyprian, also the secondary Epistle to Jubaianus reference had a textual issue.
I'll plan on adding some primary source references tonight.
Steven Avery
Steven Avery
Here you can see a 1520 edition of Fulgentius with his Cyprian Unity of the Church reference:
Opera: Item opera Maxentii Johannis
By Claudius Gordianus Fulgentius, Willibald Pirckheimer
https://books.google.com/books?id=JGBKAAAAcAAJ&pg=PT40
Steven Avery
Administrator
Steven Avery
And here is the Erasmus edition of 1521 that shows the Cyprian reference directly, the key evidence that indicates that the fix was in, or Erasmus was hit by an incredible blindness:
Opera divi Caecilii Cypriani episcopi Carthaginensis, ab innumeris mendis repurgata, adiectis nonnulis libellis ex uetustissimis exemplaribus, quæ hactenus no[n] habebantur (1521)
Erasmus
https://books.google.com/books?id=sQVcAAAAQAAJ&pg=PT200
https://books.google.com/books?id=lbpSAAAAcAAJ&pg=PT58
Steven Avery
My reference to a controversial book is De Duplicio Marytrio, which has two allusions to the section (earthly, however one implies heavenly) in 1 John.
Jortin here discusses the question as to whether it was authentic.
https://books.google.com/books?id=CpVCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA113
Steven Avery
Estius in 1614, edited by Joannes Holzammer in 1859, is very strong on evidences for the heavenly witnesses:
Guilielmi Estii in omnes d. Pauli epistolas item in catholicas commentarii, curavit J. Holzammer.Ed (1859)
https://books.google.com/books?id=k40EAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA764
This should be checked to see that it is direct Estius.
We see Athanasius contra Arius at Nicea, Cyprian in Unity of the Church, Fulgentius using Cyprian (notice that this is response to Arian objections), the Vulgate Prologue by Jerome and more.
This may be the strongest defense of the heavenly witnesses up to that time, and maybe into the 1700s, and might still yield gems of study today.
Here is the Estius 1845 Sausen edition.
https://books.google.com/books?id=aKIrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA498
Steven Avery
I'm trying to keep this part of the thread focused on Cyprian and Erasmus mostly, although I did take a detour to Estius right above. I suggest theories of what happened around the 300s be kept distinct from what happened with the Reformation scholarship, even if both are on this thread.
Steven Avery
Bengel noticed a surprising Erasmus omission on Jubaianus, where he omitted "cum tres unum sunt" - see this referenced by George Travis, questioning the "candor of Erasmus". From my studies, the ms evidence strongly supported the words.
Letters to Edward Gibbon (1794)
https://books.google.com/books?id=nf0qAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA351
===
Later, around 1700 and before Bengel, also Majus and George Bull have a fair amount on the Cyprian questions, and how they were handled by Richard SImon.
=============
A little side-note is that Erasmus was normally quite attentive to Cyprian, and specifically referenced what he wrote on 1 John 4:3, which has an important support or maybe variant in the "every spirit that confesses" section.
================
Steven
Steven Avery
In the correspondence, around 1519-1520, Erasmus was taking a real beating on the Vulgate Prologue of Jerome, which essentially proves the authenticity of the heavenly witnesses. Erasmus had swung wildly, virtually accusing Jerome of fabricating and inserting the verse, even though normally he was pro-Jerome.
The absurd idea that the Vulgate Prologue was not Jerome came later, and is basically a frivolous no-evidence (and against all evidence) assertion. The supposed lateness of the Prologue being disproved by Codex Fuldensis. The Prologue is a first-person Jerome composition, consistent with his knowledge and style.
Erasmus saw the Cyprian reference no later than 1521 and would most certainly have realized that this would disprove his position on Jerome. And be quite awkward in any attempt to defend the omission of the verse. So I will conjecture that the Cyprian reference made quite an impact on Erasmus, and he was not running to tell anybody about the citation. And although all the emphasis of writers focuses on the British ms, the Cyprian reference may well have contributed to Erasmus placing the verse into the third edition of 1522.
His omission in Jubaianus (which was corrected in all the later post-Erasmus editions) is also puzzling, and may well be connected.
One thing has not been checked, and there is a scholar or two who might help, and this is whether Cyprian came up in Valladolid.
Is it possible that Erasmus missed the reference? Possible, but unlikely. And if he did see it, at the very least it should have been in the Annotations.
Steven
Daniel J. Wood
Author
Steven Avery I cannot thank you enough for your astute guidance in these discussions on the Comma and for your staunch and learned defense of orthodoxy
https://www.facebook.com/groups/834...y2UtIGqPZaELFhoJvhO-RHx6riLz9xOGK&__tn__=R]-R
Steven Avery
Thanks, Daniel. I am not necessarily so orthodox, however, I believe very strongly that we need to have the pure Bible to have any solid doctrines at all !
Steven Avery
Btw, this is the first time I have tried to go into this Erasmus-Cyprian situation in a quasi-methodical way. It really is fascinating. The scholar who best knows Valladolid should be Lu Ann Homza, although Peter Bietenholz may help as well.
Jan Krans should have studied that for his works, but gave no indication of knowledge of that council/questioning of Erasmus. Grantley McDonald references the Lu Ann Homza book but I don't remember him offering much. All of his scholarship is skewed, but still sometimes you get good refs.
Daniel J. Wood
Author
It's compelling, for sure. A rather innocent post garnered interesting results
Steven Avery
Oh, I did not bother with the stupid paper by Daniel Wallace.
Marty Shue wrote a nice paper in response:
Response to Daniel Wallace Regarding 1 John 5:7
http://www.avdefense.webs.com/wallace.html
Basically I see the Wallace paper as a convoluted self-destruction, but if anybody wants a little more, please read Shue and more, or ask a specific question.
And I really like Franz Pieper, who basically hung his acceptance of the heavenly witnesses on what is essentially the ironclad Cyprian reference.
You have to be a bit of an ignoramus to try to take a position that Cyprian was not referencing the heavenly witnesses. Scrivener faced some of that nonsense, and even though he was a contra, he acknowledged that it was "safer and more candid" to accept the Cyprian reference.
Steven Avery
One problem is,that the theories of interpolation include the idea of a 4th century fabrication in the Arian controversies by the Orthodox. Clearly the Cyprian reference (and many corroborations) destroy that theory, and there is no replacement. Plus Cyprian had Latin and Greek background and was a major church leader and was careful in referencing scripture.
Then you add the grammatical evidences that prove the Greek original had the heavenly witnesses. Erasmus alluded to this with "torquebit grammaticos".
Daniel J. Wood
Author
I didn't feel competent addressing the notion that the Greek demands the Comma, but I posted videos of Robert Wieland for interested forum members
https://www.facebook.com/groups/834...y2UtIGqPZaELFhoJvhO-RHx6riLz9xOGK&__tn__=R]-R
Steven Avery
There has been a fog of disinformation on the grammar. It really is a proof of authenticity, as pointed out by Eugenius Bulgaris c. 1780. Eugenius was world-class in Greek scholarship, classical, Biblical and modern conversational, ultra-fluent with full tonal range. Today we have motley lexicon scholars, which makes New Testament language studies a joke field.
It did take a bit more study there to unravel some of the spaghetti.
And here is the Erasmus edition of 1521 that shows the Cyprian reference directly, the key evidence that indicates that the fix was in, or Erasmus was hit by an incredible blindness:
Opera divi Caecilii Cypriani episcopi Carthaginensis, ab innumeris mendis repurgata, adiectis nonnulis libellis ex uetustissimis exemplaribus, quæ hactenus no[n] habebantur (1521)
Erasmus
https://books.google.com/books?id=sQVcAAAAQAAJ&pg=PT200
https://books.google.com/books?id=lbpSAAAAcAAJ&pg=PT58
Steven Avery
My reference to a controversial book is De Duplicio Marytrio, which has two allusions to the section (earthly, however one implies heavenly) in 1 John.
Jortin here discusses the question as to whether it was authentic.
https://books.google.com/books?id=CpVCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA113
Steven Avery
Estius in 1614, edited by Joannes Holzammer in 1859, is very strong on evidences for the heavenly witnesses:
Guilielmi Estii in omnes d. Pauli epistolas item in catholicas commentarii, curavit J. Holzammer.Ed (1859)
https://books.google.com/books?id=k40EAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA764
This should be checked to see that it is direct Estius.
We see Athanasius contra Arius at Nicea, Cyprian in Unity of the Church, Fulgentius using Cyprian (notice that this is response to Arian objections), the Vulgate Prologue by Jerome and more.
This may be the strongest defense of the heavenly witnesses up to that time, and maybe into the 1700s, and might still yield gems of study today.
Here is the Estius 1845 Sausen edition.
https://books.google.com/books?id=aKIrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA498
Steven Avery
I'm trying to keep this part of the thread focused on Cyprian and Erasmus mostly, although I did take a detour to Estius right above. I suggest theories of what happened around the 300s be kept distinct from what happened with the Reformation scholarship, even if both are on this thread.
Steven Avery
Bengel noticed a surprising Erasmus omission on Jubaianus, where he omitted "cum tres unum sunt" - see this referenced by George Travis, questioning the "candor of Erasmus". From my studies, the ms evidence strongly supported the words.
Letters to Edward Gibbon (1794)
https://books.google.com/books?id=nf0qAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA351
===
Later, around 1700 and before Bengel, also Majus and George Bull have a fair amount on the Cyprian questions, and how they were handled by Richard SImon.
=============
A little side-note is that Erasmus was normally quite attentive to Cyprian, and specifically referenced what he wrote on 1 John 4:3, which has an important support or maybe variant in the "every spirit that confesses" section.
================
Steven
Steven Avery
In the correspondence, around 1519-1520, Erasmus was taking a real beating on the Vulgate Prologue of Jerome, which essentially proves the authenticity of the heavenly witnesses. Erasmus had swung wildly, virtually accusing Jerome of fabricating and inserting the verse, even though normally he was pro-Jerome.
The absurd idea that the Vulgate Prologue was not Jerome came later, and is basically a frivolous no-evidence (and against all evidence) assertion. The supposed lateness of the Prologue being disproved by Codex Fuldensis. The Prologue is a first-person Jerome composition, consistent with his knowledge and style.
Erasmus saw the Cyprian reference no later than 1521 and would most certainly have realized that this would disprove his position on Jerome. And be quite awkward in any attempt to defend the omission of the verse. So I will conjecture that the Cyprian reference made quite an impact on Erasmus, and he was not running to tell anybody about the citation. And although all the emphasis of writers focuses on the British ms, the Cyprian reference may well have contributed to Erasmus placing the verse into the third edition of 1522.
His omission in Jubaianus (which was corrected in all the later post-Erasmus editions) is also puzzling, and may well be connected.
One thing has not been checked, and there is a scholar or two who might help, and this is whether Cyprian came up in Valladolid.
Is it possible that Erasmus missed the reference? Possible, but unlikely. And if he did see it, at the very least it should have been in the Annotations.
Steven
Daniel J. Wood
Author
Steven Avery I cannot thank you enough for your astute guidance in these discussions on the Comma and for your staunch and learned defense of orthodoxy
https://www.facebook.com/groups/834...y2UtIGqPZaELFhoJvhO-RHx6riLz9xOGK&__tn__=R]-R
Steven Avery
Thanks, Daniel. I am not necessarily so orthodox, however, I believe very strongly that we need to have the pure Bible to have any solid doctrines at all !
Steven Avery
Btw, this is the first time I have tried to go into this Erasmus-Cyprian situation in a quasi-methodical way. It really is fascinating. The scholar who best knows Valladolid should be Lu Ann Homza, although Peter Bietenholz may help as well.
Jan Krans should have studied that for his works, but gave no indication of knowledge of that council/questioning of Erasmus. Grantley McDonald references the Lu Ann Homza book but I don't remember him offering much. All of his scholarship is skewed, but still sometimes you get good refs.
Daniel J. Wood
Author
It's compelling, for sure. A rather innocent post garnered interesting results
Steven Avery
Oh, I did not bother with the stupid paper by Daniel Wallace.
Marty Shue wrote a nice paper in response:
Response to Daniel Wallace Regarding 1 John 5:7
http://www.avdefense.webs.com/wallace.html
Basically I see the Wallace paper as a convoluted self-destruction, but if anybody wants a little more, please read Shue and more, or ask a specific question.
And I really like Franz Pieper, who basically hung his acceptance of the heavenly witnesses on what is essentially the ironclad Cyprian reference.
You have to be a bit of an ignoramus to try to take a position that Cyprian was not referencing the heavenly witnesses. Scrivener faced some of that nonsense, and even though he was a contra, he acknowledged that it was "safer and more candid" to accept the Cyprian reference.
Steven Avery
One problem is,that the theories of interpolation include the idea of a 4th century fabrication in the Arian controversies by the Orthodox. Clearly the Cyprian reference (and many corroborations) destroy that theory, and there is no replacement. Plus Cyprian had Latin and Greek background and was a major church leader and was careful in referencing scripture.
Then you add the grammatical evidences that prove the Greek original had the heavenly witnesses. Erasmus alluded to this with "torquebit grammaticos".
Daniel J. Wood
Author
I didn't feel competent addressing the notion that the Greek demands the Comma, but I posted videos of Robert Wieland for interested forum members
https://www.facebook.com/groups/834...y2UtIGqPZaELFhoJvhO-RHx6riLz9xOGK&__tn__=R]-R
Steven Avery
There has been a fog of disinformation on the grammar. It really is a proof of authenticity, as pointed out by Eugenius Bulgaris c. 1780. Eugenius was world-class in Greek scholarship, classical, Biblical and modern conversational, ultra-fluent with full tonal range. Today we have motley lexicon scholars, which makes New Testament language studies a joke field.
It did take a bit more study there to unravel some of the spaghetti.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
Jean Hessels
Sirlets is another 1500s.
And the Vulgate edition.
Fulgentius editions
Coccius
Thomas Smith
craftily concealing
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...ftily-concealing-the-cyprian-references.1125/
==========================
Facebook - with Grantley
www.facebook.com
Complutensian
Steven Avery
All-star contributor
Fulgentius also affirmed the Cyprian usage. The 1520 Cyprian edition was by Erasmus, the 1521 Fulgentius edition by others.
Steven Avery
All-star contributor
Flip those dates, Fulgentius 1520 and Cyprian 1521.
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/erasmus-craftily-concealing-the-cyprian-references.1125/
Note though that my reference to a scholar talking about concealing Cyprian turns out to maybe not be Erasmus.
Jean Hessels - notices Cyprian evidence - (not given in Erasmus correspondence and annotations)
Jean Hessels (1522-1696) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Hessels Jan Hessels, Jean Leonardi Hasselius or Jean Hessels[1] Name also: Lenaert van der Eycken, Johannes, Joannes, Jan, John Hessels or Hessel, Hesselius or Hasselius. (Hasselt, 1522 – 1566) was a Flemish theologian at the...
www.purebibleforum.com
Sirlets is another 1500s.
And the Vulgate edition.
Fulgentius editions
Coccius
Thomas Smith
craftily concealing
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...ftily-concealing-the-cyprian-references.1125/
==========================
Facebook - with Grantley
Textus Receptus Academy | Just a thought: | Facebook
Just a thought: So much ado is made about Codex Monfortianus and its influence for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum in Erasmus’ 1522 edition, but wouldn’t Comma in the Complutensian Polyglot...
www.facebook.com
Complutensian
Steven Avery
Fulgentius also affirmed the Cyprian usage. The 1520 Cyprian edition was by Erasmus, the 1521 Fulgentius edition by others.
Steven Avery
Flip those dates, Fulgentius 1520 and Cyprian 1521.
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/erasmus-craftily-concealing-the-cyprian-references.1125/
Note though that my reference to a scholar talking about concealing Cyprian turns out to maybe not be Erasmus.
Last edited: