Steven Avery
Administrator
John Wallis (1616-1703)
en.wikipedia.org
John Wallis
- Thread starter Steven Avery
- Start date
Steven Avery
Administrator
ETC
https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2026/01/cole-on-preservation-and-westminster.html
Zachary Cole
https://etsjets.org/wp-content/uploads/JETS_68.3_405_Cole.pdf
A similar example (to William Bridge) comes from John Wallis (1616-1703), who in 1691 preached three sermons in Oxford on the doctrine of the Trinity.2" In his second sermon, focusing on John 17:3, Wallis gives an extended discussion of 1 John 5:7-8, which contains the so-called Johannine Comma. “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one” (KJV). Having quoted the Comma in support of the doctrine of the Trinity, Wallis immediately responds to the well-known objection that these words are not found in older Greek manuscripts and are thus not likely to be genuine. Wallis’s answer to this objection is lengthy and detailed. He grants the fact that this text is not found in some “ancient Copies” and versions. Yet its absence is no serious problem, he maintains, since “transcribers” often mistakenly omitted text. In fact, inadvertent omission was “hardly avoidable” even for conscientious scribes. Wallis then argues at length on the basis of both internal and external evidence that omission of the phrase would have been significantly more likely than its addition.
First, he appeals to the transcriptional phenomenon of homoioteleuton, “to leap from one word, to the same recurring soon after.”28 And since this omission does not disturb the sense of the text, it would have been relatively easy to lie undetected for many years: “In such case, the Fuller Copy is likelyest to be True.”29
Second, he considers the possibility of deliberate falsification. A popular argument against the Comma was that it was a later addition by orthodox scribes to counter the errors of Arians. Wallis finds this suggestion wholly unsatisfactory. On the one hand, it is plain that Arians would have had an interest in deleting the Comma, which could explain its absence from some manuscripts. On the other hand, there is no clear reason why the orthodox seek to add it, since there are other clear statements about Jesus’s divinity in the NT, such as John 10:30: “I and the Father
are one.”30 Third, he then considers evidence from the language of the verse: the fact that Jesus Christ is called “the Word” in the Comma reflects genuine Johannine style and is not likely to be from a later writer.31 Fourth and finally, Wallis examines patristic evidence, quoting lines from the Latin fathers Cyprian and Tertullian, both of whom he cites as evidence for the Comma prior to the outbreak of the Arian controversy.32 In sum, to make Iris case for the Comma, Wallis appeals not to the authority of the received text but to text-critical criteria, including transcriptional probability, authorial style, internal likelihood, and patristic testimony.
27 John Wallis, Three Sermons Concerning the Sacred Trinity (London: Printed for Tho. Parkhurst, 1691), 42-43. As Van Dixhoorn notes, Wallis was appointed as a non-voting scribe at the Assembly, Minutes and Papers, 1.142—43.
28 Wallis, Three Sermons, 43.
29 Wallis, Three Sermons, 44.
30 Wallis, Three Sermons, 44—45.
31 Wallis, Three Sermons, 45—46.
32 Wallis, Three Sermons, 46-50.
https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2026/01/cole-on-preservation-and-westminster.html
Zachary Cole
https://etsjets.org/wp-content/uploads/JETS_68.3_405_Cole.pdf
A similar example (to William Bridge) comes from John Wallis (1616-1703), who in 1691 preached three sermons in Oxford on the doctrine of the Trinity.2" In his second sermon, focusing on John 17:3, Wallis gives an extended discussion of 1 John 5:7-8, which contains the so-called Johannine Comma. “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one” (KJV). Having quoted the Comma in support of the doctrine of the Trinity, Wallis immediately responds to the well-known objection that these words are not found in older Greek manuscripts and are thus not likely to be genuine. Wallis’s answer to this objection is lengthy and detailed. He grants the fact that this text is not found in some “ancient Copies” and versions. Yet its absence is no serious problem, he maintains, since “transcribers” often mistakenly omitted text. In fact, inadvertent omission was “hardly avoidable” even for conscientious scribes. Wallis then argues at length on the basis of both internal and external evidence that omission of the phrase would have been significantly more likely than its addition.
First, he appeals to the transcriptional phenomenon of homoioteleuton, “to leap from one word, to the same recurring soon after.”28 And since this omission does not disturb the sense of the text, it would have been relatively easy to lie undetected for many years: “In such case, the Fuller Copy is likelyest to be True.”29
Second, he considers the possibility of deliberate falsification. A popular argument against the Comma was that it was a later addition by orthodox scribes to counter the errors of Arians. Wallis finds this suggestion wholly unsatisfactory. On the one hand, it is plain that Arians would have had an interest in deleting the Comma, which could explain its absence from some manuscripts. On the other hand, there is no clear reason why the orthodox seek to add it, since there are other clear statements about Jesus’s divinity in the NT, such as John 10:30: “I and the Father
are one.”30 Third, he then considers evidence from the language of the verse: the fact that Jesus Christ is called “the Word” in the Comma reflects genuine Johannine style and is not likely to be from a later writer.31 Fourth and finally, Wallis examines patristic evidence, quoting lines from the Latin fathers Cyprian and Tertullian, both of whom he cites as evidence for the Comma prior to the outbreak of the Arian controversy.32 In sum, to make Iris case for the Comma, Wallis appeals not to the authority of the received text but to text-critical criteria, including transcriptional probability, authorial style, internal likelihood, and patristic testimony.
27 John Wallis, Three Sermons Concerning the Sacred Trinity (London: Printed for Tho. Parkhurst, 1691), 42-43. As Van Dixhoorn notes, Wallis was appointed as a non-voting scribe at the Assembly, Minutes and Papers, 1.142—43.
28 Wallis, Three Sermons, 43.
29 Wallis, Three Sermons, 44.
30 Wallis, Three Sermons, 44—45.
31 Wallis, Three Sermons, 45—46.
32 Wallis, Three Sermons, 46-50.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
Steven Avery
Administrator
Three Persons in One Man: John Wallis on the Trinity (2002)
By Jason M Rampelt
https://www.academia.edu/5634650/Three_Persons_in_One_Man_John_Wallis_on_the_Trinity
modalistic
4. Problems with Wallis’s Exegesis
1 John 5.7 Many other texts are offered with varying levels of explanation in
favor of the Trinity. Wallis argues from Jn 16.7, 8; 14.26; 15.26 for the connection
between the Son and the Spirit and for the primacy of all three from the baptismal
formula of Matt 28.19. But he makes the greatest number of references, totaled from his
Letters and Sermons, to 1 Jn 5.7-8a, “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...” (KJV). It is Wallis’s pattern in all of his writing in every field to
make the matter at hand as easy to understand as possible. For this reason he
concentrates his focus on the one text that reveals the Trinity in the most obvious terms.
Unfortunately, for Wallis, the most Trinitarian text of all of the Bible is also one of the
most dubious at the level of textual criticism. Wallis’s opponents were aware of the fact
and spared no opportunity of pointing this out to him.
Modem scholars, with the exception of a small minority, have rejected the
authenticity of the passage.1Cb Biddle and Nye both rejected the passage for some of the
same reasons. Wallis might have defused objections to the doctrine of the Trinity based
on a rejection of this text if he had placed greater emphasis on other places. This is, in
fact, his practice in dealing with Jn 17.3 where he says quite clearly that it is necessary to
draw our conclusions about a doctrine from other places when the one at hand is not
decisive. It is strange that someone so capable of drawing the doctrine out of so many
other places in the Scriptures would give so much attention to a debatable text such as
this one.
Wallis offers several arguments in favor of keeping the text: 1. Some MSS omit
other passages as well. We should not omit a passage simply because there is some
question as to its authenticity. Each needs to be judged on its own merits;104 2. An
omission is more likely than an addition; 3. An omission is easily explained by
parablepsis;105 4. If there was a willful falsification, it would more likely be on the part
of the Arians:106 5. If the text had been added, it would have been noticed the moment it
was leveled against the Arians by the Athanasian party; 6. The word “heaven” is in
natural literary' contrast to the word “earth”;107 7. The verse is cited by Cyprian in De
Unitate Ecclesiae and Epistle ad Jubaianum, and by Tertullian in ackers us Praxeam, 25,
who are both early testimonies. These arguments are of varying value. Wallis is correct,
that differing testimonies do not warrant immediate retraction of a text, but Wallis is not
well informed concerning the relative weight of various MSS. Although Wallis is clearly
in error here, his other exegetical discussions reflect a high degree of scholarship and,
being carefully argued, far outweigh his errors concerning 1 Jn 5.7.
===========================================
outcome is that the Scholastic distinctions are incapable of describing the distinction
among the persons of the Godhead. This conclusion is equivalent to saying that there is
no rational account that will satisfactorily name the distinction between the persons. The
==========================================
B. Mathematical Method
John Wallis’s skill as an innovative mathematician, an astounding government
decryptographer, and careful collator of ancient manuscripts, are all related, not merely as
the collage of occupations with which he busied himself, but in the method employed in
their engagement. Each of these tasks, as Wallis performed them, was driven by his
piercing intuition. Intuition is difficult to define as a mental capacity, but for Wallis it
involved the ability to make an accurate educated guess of the solution to a problem,
which would be fruitful in moving on to another accurate educated guess. In stepwise
being. For two things to differ as much as two distinct individual beings, they must differ
ut res et res. If the persons of the Trinity differ only as modes, then God is really only
one, yielding a Sabellian or modalistic view. However, if the persons differ as two
distinct real beings, then tritheism results. Wallis explores other possibilities, but the
parablepsis;105 4. If there was a willful falsification, it would more likely be on the part
of the Arians:106 5. If the text had been added, it would have been noticed the moment it
was leveled against the Arians by the Athanasian party; 6. The word “heaven” is in
natural literary' contrast to the word “earth”;107 7. The verse is cited by Cyprian in De
Unitate Ecclesiae and Epistle ad Jubaianum, and by Tertullian in ackers us Praxeam, 25,
who are both early testimonies. These arguments are of varying value. Wallis is correct,
that differing testimonies do not warrant immediate retraction of a text, but Wallis is not
well informed concerning the relative weight of various MSS. Although Wallis is clearly
outcome is that the Scholastic distinctions are incapable of describing the distinction
among the persons of the Godhead. This conclusion is equivalent to saying that there is
no rational account that will satisfactorily name the distinction betw een the persons. The
By Jason M Rampelt
https://www.academia.edu/5634650/Three_Persons_in_One_Man_John_Wallis_on_the_Trinity
modalistic
4. Problems with Wallis’s Exegesis
1 John 5.7 Many other texts are offered with varying levels of explanation in
favor of the Trinity. Wallis argues from Jn 16.7, 8; 14.26; 15.26 for the connection
between the Son and the Spirit and for the primacy of all three from the baptismal
formula of Matt 28.19. But he makes the greatest number of references, totaled from his
Letters and Sermons, to 1 Jn 5.7-8a, “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...” (KJV). It is Wallis’s pattern in all of his writing in every field to
make the matter at hand as easy to understand as possible. For this reason he
concentrates his focus on the one text that reveals the Trinity in the most obvious terms.
Unfortunately, for Wallis, the most Trinitarian text of all of the Bible is also one of the
most dubious at the level of textual criticism. Wallis’s opponents were aware of the fact
and spared no opportunity of pointing this out to him.
Modem scholars, with the exception of a small minority, have rejected the
authenticity of the passage.1Cb Biddle and Nye both rejected the passage for some of the
same reasons. Wallis might have defused objections to the doctrine of the Trinity based
on a rejection of this text if he had placed greater emphasis on other places. This is, in
fact, his practice in dealing with Jn 17.3 where he says quite clearly that it is necessary to
draw our conclusions about a doctrine from other places when the one at hand is not
decisive. It is strange that someone so capable of drawing the doctrine out of so many
other places in the Scriptures would give so much attention to a debatable text such as
this one.
Wallis offers several arguments in favor of keeping the text: 1. Some MSS omit
other passages as well. We should not omit a passage simply because there is some
question as to its authenticity. Each needs to be judged on its own merits;104 2. An
omission is more likely than an addition; 3. An omission is easily explained by
parablepsis;105 4. If there was a willful falsification, it would more likely be on the part
of the Arians:106 5. If the text had been added, it would have been noticed the moment it
was leveled against the Arians by the Athanasian party; 6. The word “heaven” is in
natural literary' contrast to the word “earth”;107 7. The verse is cited by Cyprian in De
Unitate Ecclesiae and Epistle ad Jubaianum, and by Tertullian in ackers us Praxeam, 25,
who are both early testimonies. These arguments are of varying value. Wallis is correct,
that differing testimonies do not warrant immediate retraction of a text, but Wallis is not
well informed concerning the relative weight of various MSS. Although Wallis is clearly
in error here, his other exegetical discussions reflect a high degree of scholarship and,
being carefully argued, far outweigh his errors concerning 1 Jn 5.7.
===========================================
outcome is that the Scholastic distinctions are incapable of describing the distinction
among the persons of the Godhead. This conclusion is equivalent to saying that there is
no rational account that will satisfactorily name the distinction between the persons. The
==========================================
B. Mathematical Method
John Wallis’s skill as an innovative mathematician, an astounding government
decryptographer, and careful collator of ancient manuscripts, are all related, not merely as
the collage of occupations with which he busied himself, but in the method employed in
their engagement. Each of these tasks, as Wallis performed them, was driven by his
piercing intuition. Intuition is difficult to define as a mental capacity, but for Wallis it
involved the ability to make an accurate educated guess of the solution to a problem,
which would be fruitful in moving on to another accurate educated guess. In stepwise
being. For two things to differ as much as two distinct individual beings, they must differ
ut res et res. If the persons of the Trinity differ only as modes, then God is really only
one, yielding a Sabellian or modalistic view. However, if the persons differ as two
distinct real beings, then tritheism results. Wallis explores other possibilities, but the
parablepsis;105 4. If there was a willful falsification, it would more likely be on the part
of the Arians:106 5. If the text had been added, it would have been noticed the moment it
was leveled against the Arians by the Athanasian party; 6. The word “heaven” is in
natural literary' contrast to the word “earth”;107 7. The verse is cited by Cyprian in De
Unitate Ecclesiae and Epistle ad Jubaianum, and by Tertullian in ackers us Praxeam, 25,
who are both early testimonies. These arguments are of varying value. Wallis is correct,
that differing testimonies do not warrant immediate retraction of a text, but Wallis is not
well informed concerning the relative weight of various MSS. Although Wallis is clearly
outcome is that the Scholastic distinctions are incapable of describing the distinction
among the persons of the Godhead. This conclusion is equivalent to saying that there is
no rational account that will satisfactorily name the distinction betw een the persons. The
Last edited: