Steven Avery
Administrator
This is from the fascinating later 1500s, an area where Grantley's opening up new analysis vistas has been extremely helpful. This was largely missed in the days of Butler, Horne and Orme, when they reviewed the debate history. Michael Maynard was also very limited in the 1500s. The 1600s are also a strong point, in terms of many references that otherwise would be under the radar.
Peter Carolinus
https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Károlyi_Péter_(püspök)
https://data.cerl.org/thesaurus/cnp01303589
Brevis, ervdita, et perspicva explicatio orthodoxae fidei de vno vero Deo, patre, filio & spiritu sancto, aduersus blasphemos Georgii Blandratæ et Francisci Davidis errores, libris duobus comprehensa
https://www.worldcat.org/title/brev...t_perspicva_explicatio_o.html?id=2Zb0jwEACAAJ
No text at hand for what might be a fascinating section. Since Carolinus was a grammarian, and was writing utilizing the verse, he may have a grammar note, especially if he noted the torquebit grammaticos of Erasmus.
Ghost of Arius
17 Sommer, 1582, 155v-156r: "Ideo [Iohannes] colligit tria, dicens. Qui tres sunt, qui testimonium dant. Spiritus, aqua & sanguis. [...] Quomodo irrepserint alia verba de tribus [l56r] testibus in coelo, viderit Carolius.”
An interesting question is the various spellings of Carolinus, (and Karolyi Karoli, etc.) CERL gives Carolinus and a few other forms, no Carolius yet we see that Sommer in that day used Carolius. This is likely where Grantley takes Carolius, which also has other occasional historical uses, so it probably should be in CERL.
The Sommer extract is given from:
Sommer, Johann. Refutatio scripti Petri Carolii editi Wittebergae. Ingolstadt [Krakow]: Ravisius, k8z.
========================
"crept surreptitiously " - remember how Grantley rags scholar conjectures in favor of authenticity:
The theme of pseudo-scholarly conjectures that are used in contra argumentation is one that will need careful consideration. Especially if we apply the standard above ... "what might have happenned rather than on what demostrably did". Think of all the different rogue's gallery theories, and all the various conjectured margin entries that crept into the text. We do note that on one such theory, Grantley took a strong stance against a questionable Richard Simon textual conjecture. So there can be an opening agreement on the nature of the problem.
========================
Stancarus- check out.articles like this one.
Trinitarianism versus Antitrinitarianism in the Hungarian Reformation (1944)
William Toth
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3160231?read-now=1&refreqid=excelsior:02f1243b5cd2ad6492fa8c13394a1fe5&seq=2#page_scan_tab_contents
p. 255-268
William Toth gives us a very fine overview of a fascinating era.
====================
Peter Melius Juhasz, a senior pastor of the Reformed church in Hungary, convened a synod at Debrecen in 1567 to forge a united front against Antitrinitarianism. The following year, King Janos II Zsigmond Szapolyai ...
TBC (to be continued)
Biandrata and other luminaries of the age planned on separate thread.
Peter Carolinus
https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Károlyi_Péter_(püspök)
https://data.cerl.org/thesaurus/cnp01303589
Brevis, ervdita, et perspicva explicatio orthodoxae fidei de vno vero Deo, patre, filio & spiritu sancto, aduersus blasphemos Georgii Blandratæ et Francisci Davidis errores, libris duobus comprehensa
https://www.worldcat.org/title/brev...t_perspicva_explicatio_o.html?id=2Zb0jwEACAAJ
No text at hand for what might be a fascinating section. Since Carolinus was a grammarian, and was writing utilizing the verse, he may have a grammar note, especially if he noted the torquebit grammaticos of Erasmus.
The feeble argument sounds like Ferenc David with another accusation against the rogue's gallery of supposed interpolators. Maybe we only have this aspect of David wildly accusing through Carolinus? We should check his writings.The use of such images by David and Biandrata was criticised by Peter Karolyi (Petrus Carolius) as a deliberate attempt to make the orthodox conception of the Trinity seem ridiculous.113 Karolyi believed that the Scripture is full of evidence for the Trinity, first of all the comma, which David had incorrectly dismissed as a forgery by Jerome or Athanasius.114 Karolyi claimed that Erasmus had stated that the comma is attested in the writings of many early fathers. Karolyi also argued that it did not matter much whether the phrase ‘these three are one’ refers to a unity of nature or consent. Either way, the passage showed clearly that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God bearing witness in heaven. 115 It was a feeble defence of the passage, and was soon contested by the Unitarian Johann Sommer (1540—1574). Sommer, who was influenced by Jacob Acontius’ Satanae Stratagemata as well as by his own father-in-law, Ferenc David, declared that the comma had crept surreptitiously into the text of the epistle, and therefore had no reason to be retained there.116 epistle, and therefore had no reason to be retained there."6 By defending their ideas, the Unitarians gained legal recognition in Hungary in 1571, as well as the right to hold worship services.117
113 Karolyi 1571, 31.
114 Karolyi 1571, 15.
115 Karolyi 1571, 248.
116 Sommer 1582, See also Kirolyi 1571, 248; Sommer 1583, I3ir-v. Sommer’s treatises were written in 1571-1572, and only published posthumously. Sommer was the first modern Antitrinitarian to attempt to explain the development of the doctrine of the Trinity through recourse to the history of philosophy. Further, see Pirnat 1961, 38-45.
117 Bianchi 1985, 91
Biblical Criticism p. 99
Ghost of Arius
17 Sommer, 1582, 155v-156r: "Ideo [Iohannes] colligit tria, dicens. Qui tres sunt, qui testimonium dant. Spiritus, aqua & sanguis. [...] Quomodo irrepserint alia verba de tribus [l56r] testibus in coelo, viderit Carolius.”
An interesting question is the various spellings of Carolinus, (and Karolyi Karoli, etc.) CERL gives Carolinus and a few other forms, no Carolius yet we see that Sommer in that day used Carolius. This is likely where Grantley takes Carolius, which also has other occasional historical uses, so it probably should be in CERL.
The Sommer extract is given from:
Sommer, Johann. Refutatio scripti Petri Carolii editi Wittebergae. Ingolstadt [Krakow]: Ravisius, k8z.
Sommer contra Carolnus, looking for the spot above.
Refutatio scripti Petri Carolii (1582)
Johann Sommer
http://real-r.mtak.hu/966/1/A_166_VIII.pdf
http://real-r.mtak.hu/966/
On the images, I would have liked to see some Cerebrus information discussed as well, which has a long history at least form Servetus and Calvin (Servetus was not genteel in his non-Trinitarianism) to, quite surprisingly, William Lane Craig.
While the woodcut of Ligaeus has the similar three-headed aspect, the historical aspect of the Servetus usage clashes severely with some modern uses:
"The principal accusations exhibited against Servetus were, First, his having asserted in his Ptolemee, that the Bible celebrated improperly the fertility of the land of Canaan, whilst it was unfruitful and barren. Secondly, his having called one God in three persons a Cerberus, a three-headed monster."
Memoirs of the Life and Writings of John Calvin: Compiled from the Narrative of Theodore Beza, and Other Authentic Documents : Accompanied with Biographical Sketches of the Reformation (1809)
John Mackenzie (of Huntingdon.)
http://books.google.com/books?id=rUgDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA85
========================
"crept surreptitiously " - remember how Grantley rags scholar conjectures in favor of authenticity:
So why not similarly dismiss and discount theories of what supposedly surreptitiously happened, in the textline, for which there is no evidence?"Smith’s lame attempt to refute Simon’s arguments — relying in every case on what might have happened rather than on what demonstrably did."
Biblical Criticism p. 158
The theme of pseudo-scholarly conjectures that are used in contra argumentation is one that will need careful consideration. Especially if we apply the standard above ... "what might have happenned rather than on what demostrably did". Think of all the different rogue's gallery theories, and all the various conjectured margin entries that crept into the text. We do note that on one such theory, Grantley took a strong stance against a questionable Richard Simon textual conjecture. So there can be an opening agreement on the nature of the problem.
========================
Stancarus- check out.articles like this one.
Trinitarianism versus Antitrinitarianism in the Hungarian Reformation (1944)
William Toth
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3160231?read-now=1&refreqid=excelsior:02f1243b5cd2ad6492fa8c13394a1fe5&seq=2#page_scan_tab_contents
p. 255-268
William Toth gives us a very fine overview of a fascinating era.
====================
Peter Melius Juhasz, a senior pastor of the Reformed church in Hungary, convened a synod at Debrecen in 1567 to forge a united front against Antitrinitarianism. The following year, King Janos II Zsigmond Szapolyai ...
TBC (to be continued)
Biandrata and other luminaries of the age planned on separate thread.
Last edited: