Jeff Riddle review - Biblical Criticism in Early Modern Europe

Steven Avery

Administrator
Jeff Riddle
Monday, August 03, 2020
Book Review Posted:
Grantley McDonald, Biblical Criticism in Early Modern Europe: Erasmus, the Johannine Comma, and Trinitarian Debate
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2020/08/book-review-posted-grantley-mcdonald.html

I have posted my book review of Grantley McDonald, Biblical Criticism in Early Modern Europe: Erasmus, the Johannine Comma Trinitarian Debate (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016).

It was published in Puritan Reformed Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2 (July 2020): 238-241.

You can read the pdf of the review here on academia.edu.

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

Earlier from Jeffrey Riddle

Thursday, February 06, 2020
WM 151: Review: McDonald on Erasmus, the CJ, Foucault, and "Epistemes"
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2020/02/wm-151-review-mcdonald-on-erasmus-cj.html

====================================
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Three factual points.

Jeffrey Riddle:
"the comma was retained by F. H. A. Scrivener in his revised edition of the Greek New Testament, published in 1894, which became the preferred text of the Trinitarian Bible Society. "

Jeffrey is following a very bad error of Grantley here.

Scrivener AV underlying text Greek NT was not 'last years' it was published 1881 for the Revision
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...ng-the-ghost-of-arius-errata.1344/#post-5389

The mechanics of that 1881 edition required Scrivener to retain the heavenly witnesses, it was not a reflection of his textual preference, which is quite negative, allowing the excellent, pithy Cyprian comment.

The Myth of the Scrivener 1894 AV Greek text as a pro-AV text - actually it was 1881 for the decrepit Revision
https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...y-it-was-1881-for-the-decrepit-revision.1330/
Jeffrey Riddle
"Here the author points out how the authenticity of the comma was, alternately, attacked by anti-Trinitarian and rationalistic thinkers, consisting of luminaries such as John Milton, Isaac Newton, and Edward Gibbon, and defended by the orthodox and traditionalists such as John Bunyan, Jonathan Swift, and John Wesley."

John Milton (1608-1674) was not arguing against authenticity, although he pointed out some textual questions. His interpretation was for unity of agreement, rather than essence.

A Treatise on Christian Doctrine: Compiled from the Holy Scriptures Alone
Translated by Charles Richard Sumner
https://books.google.com/books?id=vnADB6zuDoAC&pg=PA96
Jeffrey Riddle:
Among the intriguing points is McDonald’s suggestion that “the first fully developed narration of the myth of Erasmus’s promise” to Edward Lee to include the comma, contingent on his being shown a Greek manuscript containing it, supposedly satisfied by Codex 61 (the so-called “rash wager” anecdote) was made in 1722 by David Martin drawing on Richard Simon (236–37).

And I show the difficulties in trying to put the Erasmus promise on Richard Simon or David Martin, it falls squarely on the heavy-drinking skeptic Richard Porson.

Erasmus Promise summary
https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/erasmus-promise-summary.1315/
=================================

Facebook
Textus Receptus Academy
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467...k/697289044450294/?comment_id=697902377722294
It is a nice, short review.

Jeffrey does not find the many blunders from Grantley, and he only explores his bias in a particular way, the episteme discussion. Thus Jeffrey does not go into the mechanics of mis-emphasis, misrepresentation, selection bias, masking evidences, etc.

And I have placed three potential (relatively minor) corrections to the review here:

Grantley McDonald - Raising the Ghost of Arius
Jeff Riddle review
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php...

Only for clarity and completeness. These are interesting topics, but not the major issues.
================================
Pure Bible Forum
Jeff Riddle Review
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/jeff-riddle-review.1388/
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Note with the Feb preview article put in Comments:

Jeffrey Riddle
Greetings, Jeffrey, would like to examine two points:

"With the development of the historical-critical method, beginning with Richard Simon and Baruch Spinoza, critical questions were disconnected from theological ones."

How about Thomas Cajetan (1469-1534)?

The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century:
The Johannine Exegesis of Wolfgang Musculus (1997)
Craig S. Farmer
https://books.google.com/books?id=USfPqoCykKAC&pg=PA109

"Although Cajetan defended himself against the charge of Protestant sympathies, there is no escaping the decidedly humanist character of his commentaries.4 He believed that the Protestant heresies could be effectively battled only when Catholic theology rooted itself firmly in the historical-grammatical meaning of Scripture."

Other than the volume of writing, is there really any significant difference between Cajetan and Richard Simon, 150 years later? He also gave the same type of concerns about the Mark ending and the woman caught in adultery and the heavenly witnesses.

And should Erasmus be considered in this group as well?
hmmm

Also Hugo Grotius (1583-1645):

Historical Criticism: Its Role in Biblical Interpretation and Church Life
Joseph a. Fitzmyer, S.J. (1989)

"In the 17th and 18th centuries the method was further developed in the work of the Dutch jurist and theologian Hugo Grotius, the French Oratorian and biblical scholar Richard Simon, and the Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza—thus in the work of a Protestant, a Catholic, and a Jew."

Personally, I do not accept the distinctions as given by Grantley, he would like all the (good-guy) philologists to be opposed to the heavenly witnesses, and the Bible-believers, "theologians" being those who affirm the verse. Then he dances around to fit the square peg into the round hole.

Thanks!

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

"the modern scholarly “consensus”, held since the mid-twentieth century"

Probably more accurate to say late 19th century, although there were a number of truly superb defenses of the authenticity of the heavenly witnesses up till around 1890. (Abbe le Hir, Charles Forster, Henry Thomas Armstrong and others.) Then there was mostly a gap until Edward Freer Hills, and then another gap until the work of Michael Maynard became a major spur to the superb research of the last 25 years.

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

Thanks for the review, and the recently more completed one!

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY
https://www.facebook.com/steven.avery.7568
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
This was discussed a bit on:

Textus Receptus Academy on Facebook:

Steven Avery note
It is a nice, short review.

Jeffrey does not find the many blunders from Grantley, and he only explores his bias in a particular way, the episteme discussion. Thus Jeffrey does not go into the mechanics of mis-emphasis, misrepresentation, selection bias, masking evidences, etc.

And I have placed three potential (relatively minor) corrections to the review here:

Grantley McDonald - Raising the Ghost of Arius
Jeff Riddle review
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php...

Only for clarity and completeness. These are interesting topics, but not the major issues.
 
Top