PBF threads - omission and interpolation - the Ockham view - SA summary of contra interpolation theory

Steven Avery

All PBF on Interpolation (in subject line)

PBF threads - omission and interpolation - the Ockham view - SA summary of contra interpolation theory

Cyprian allegory - absurdities of interpolation theory

the weaknesses and absurdities of the margin note (gloss) interpolation theories

Grantley McDonald - Theory of Fabrication, Margin and Interpolation

See also

Raising the Ghost of Arius - Grantley McDonald
Tertullian supposedly causes many references

Grantley McDonald - invisible allegorizing everywhere

'rogue’s gallery' of those accuses of fabricating the heavenly witnesses verse

Irish Quarterly Review (1855)
p. 146-157
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Keep in mind that the Old Latin line is in support of the authenticity of the verse, and this is a second century line, with extant manuscripts starting from about AD 500 and citations of the full verse being abundant by the late 4th century. It is common that full verse citations are sparse in the Ante-Nicene era, especially for the Catholic Epistles. The manuscripts and the many ECW (early church writer) citations, with Tertullian and Cyprian being the Ante-Nicene fulcrum focus, corroborate each other. And the grammatical/linguistic and stylistic and textual consistency and "internal" evidences provide more corroborative proof. (Including the amazing factor of a supposed Latin interpolation fixing a Greek solecism in back-translation!! :) )

This is all before the diacritic signs in manuscripts, which are fascinating. What I am saying is that the scholarship there is appreciated, and could easily end up in The Witness of God is Greater, and other venues, but it is not a fundamental requirement for authenticity.

The contras have a real problem. They would like to pretend that the heavenly witnesses verse is a late invention, no earlier than the 4th century. This is against massive evidence, and logic and common sense, and forces them into absurd invisible allegory theory. However, that 4th century date would supply a (dubious) pious fraud motive for creation (by the "Orthodox" to counter the Arians, remember they even had competitive songfests focusing on the three are one power.)

The contras sense that the only alternative non-authenticity, not from John, position, a creation in the Old Latin line before Tertullian and Cyprian, is wildly speculative and scholastically untenable. So they avoid that like contra kryptonite.

So the contras stick with trying to claim invisible allegories for Cyprian, Potamius, etc. That they were secretly applying the three (earthly) witnesses to be the Trinity, without quoting the earthly witnesses and essentially pulling a fast one on their readers.

One of the brighter contras, Grantley Robert McDonald of Raising the Ghost of Arius, took this to absurdity where he hand-waved 13 evidences at once! And he struggles mightily to talk about the late piece-meal formulation of a verse that was used fully by a wide variety of writers in the fourth and fifth century.

The Latin line evidences combined with grammatical/internal basically prove authenticity. However, then you add three super-evidences, any one of which acts like an extra seal of authenticity.

Jerome's Prologue to the Canonical Epistles
Council of Carthage - hundreds of bishops affirming the verse.

Thus you see all the contra attempts to lessen these super-solid evidences.

Last edited: Yesterday at 10:50 PM