needed - a review of ECW quotes on solecisms, errors in the Scriptures

Steven Avery

One shorty post on NT Textual Criticims

A Google search found a fine book ref.
"Gregory" "nazianzen" "solecisms" - Google Search

Knowledge, Language and Intellection from Origen to Gregory Nazianzen : A Selective Survey -(2017)
(saved on disk as solecisms)

Hefin Jones
"If the comma is present then the solecism as described by Nazianzus doesn't exist."
Correct! Excellent!
If the heavenly witnesses verse exists in all (or most) manuscripts then it would be a true Bible text WITHOUT any solecism.
Exactly the point. We know that the corruption of the dropped verse had a major effect on the Greek line by the 4th century, so they DID have to discuss the solecism.
And if there was a split line, then the solecism would be a Bible issue. As it is today.

Steven Avery
Note though that textcrits of the Modern Scientific Critical Text school are by nature often NOT Bible BELIEVERS.
They will prefer a solecism (thank you for the acknowledgment Hefin) because it fits the common abuse of the "harder reading" (lectio difficilior) scribal theory.
A good example is their preferred ultra-minority Greek text of 1 Timothy 3:16. Again, it is defended because it is a solecism. Hymn theory is awkwardly, even absurdly applied since the reading makes no sense.
Thus, they can have a text that is theoretically "original", by their postulates, the later scribes spruced it up, and the original can have solecisms, contradictions, errors. (Herod's daughter being one of dozens of clear examples.)
Nobody who believes the original text is full of blunders, errors, contradictions, solecisms can really be a Bible Believer, they are more a Manuscript Manipulator.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Other posts from that Facebook thred

Steven Avery
Hefin Jones - "Joshua N Angela It is absent from well over 500 manuscripts of 1 John. It only appears within the main text of two manuscripts that might at a stretch precede the printing of the greek text of 1 John. "
All sides should agree that the Greek line had normalized on the exclusion of the heavenly witnesses, especially in the period of abundant manuscripts from c. AD 800 to the Lateran Council. Before AD 800 there are very few extant Greek manuscripts and the Athanasius Disputation and Jerome's Prologue and other evidences (e.g. Tertullian and Cyprian as bilingual, the Eusebius comment) argue strongly for some Greek manuscript activity.
The Lateran Council of c. AD 1200 published the verse in both Greek and Latin. (For some reason, the people writing of Greek manuscripts like Elijah Hixson decide to leave out this critical information, since they are blinded by "manuscript" focus.) Thus, we can see the diglot of Codex Ottobonianus ("at a stretch" does NOT apply) as a natural part of the restoration. Similarly we have the usages in Greek by Joseph Bryennios and Manuel Calecas in this pre-Erasmus era. We have some complexity in this time in the Armenian coming out of the Synod of Sis c. AD 1300 as well.
In the meantime the scholarship in the church was largely in Latin, and there are c. 100 clear usages of the verse. And some Latin scholars were able to read Greek as well, yet they were fully confident in the text.
So we have the commentary scholarship of the church, some manuscripts and even writers in Greek BEFORE Erasmus.
(Plus we had a Greek manuscript that tried to hand-wave the solecism by the famous awkward nonsense idea of seeing the Trinity in spirit, water and blood. There was often an awareness of the grammatical problem, even before Eugenius Bulgaris, it was even mentioned by Erasmus, “torquebit grammaticos”.)
The opposition of Erasmus in his first two editions was actually quite dicey, and he had a very difficult and awkward time trying to explain away Jerome's Prologue to the Canonical Epistle. The weak theory that it was not actually Jerome developed much later, used largely in a circular fashion because it was hard for "scholars" to accept his clear and powerful Prologue. Since they work with an article of faith, deeply entrenched, that the heavenly witnesses did not really exist back then. Having been duped by Metzger and unaware of the rich early usage by his omissions and deceptions. His super-trick deception was ignoring early Latin manuscripts by not including them in either his Old Latin or Vulgate reviews.
The motives of Erasmus are murky. There is a huge question why the Cyprian texts did not come up in the back-and-forth. After all, Erasmus published a Cyprian edition. Did he make a conscious decision to keep it hush-hush because his doctrinal preference was against the verse?