Raising the Ghost of Arius - Grantley McDonald

Steven Avery

Administrator
symmetry of transmission and solid textual arguments of Thomas Smith

Grantley is a bit like a fish out of water when it comes to taxtual analysis. Ghost of Arius even had the Mark ending missing in the Peshitta line, which is estimated at 500+ or inclusion and 0 for omission. Whew. This error is in both the Dissertation and Biblical Criticism! Later Grantley learned the textual reality of the Mark ending. This surely is an example where, if the dissertation cannot be modified, it should have an errata page. (As Michael Maynard did on his book on the heavenly witnesses.)

As for how such a major error could be made by a fine scholar like Grantley, the answer to that is the word-parsing trickery of the critical text defenders, especially Metzger, Wallace and White. Grantley got duped by the word-parsing, and did not do even the simple apparatus check.

This problem of textual polemic over analysis can be seen very clearly in the discussion of Thomas Smith taking on the arguments of Richard Simon.

(to be continued)

 

Steven Avery

Administrator
The first grammatical argument for authenticity - Johann Christoph Wolf

The first grammatical argument for authenticity was missed by Grantley.

Grantley writes as if there is only one argument from grammar!
Note the definite article highlighted below:

the first to have argued for the genuineness of the comma through the argument from grammar
In fact, Thomas Fanshawe Middleton is only given in the bibliography of the dissertation, zero text is given and his grammatical argument is simply ignored in both the dissertation and the book.

And the only reference for Wolf is in the bibliography of Biblical Criticism:

Wolf, Johann Christian. Cura philologica et critica. 5 vols. Basel: Christ, 1741.
And the major section is in Volume 5:

Cura philologica et critica Vol 5
Johann Christian Wolf

http://books.google.com/books?id=Gz5BAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA293
p. 293-315
Grammatical may be here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=Gz5BAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA315

For more beyond these two (Eugenius gender argument and Wolfius-Middleton article argument) see Nathaniel Ellsworth Cornwall. And clearly there are other powerful internal, style and consistency arguments. However, let's stay on the main two grammatical for the moment.

(There are also various early allusions, like the torquebit grammaticos of Erasmus, and the ones to whom Gregory Nazianzen is writing, and the reference from Thomas Naogeorgus. As for the superb explication from Eugenius, the hand-waving attempts go on even today!)


Bulgaris seems then to be the first to have argued for the genuineness of the comma through the argument from grammar, but he advanced these arguments in the light of the critical controversies in the Latin world.160 -

An extract from the letter is reprinted in Matthaei 1782, lvi—lxii. On Bulgaris, see Tennent 1830, 2:292-295.
(correction 293-296)

Matthaei, Christian Friedrich, ed. SS. apostolorum septem epistolae catholicae ad codd. mss. Mosqq. Riga: Hartknochen, 1782.

Tennent, James Emerson. The History of Modem Greece. 2 vols. London: Colburn and Bendey, 1830.

Biblical Criticism p. 114
Franz Knittel, translated by Evanson in the 1785 edition, is important for advancing the Eugenius text, and should be included in any historical discussion.

And this clearly should have been a major topic in Travis-Porson. Travis missed it, even though available in Latin and English from two distinct authors, while Porson played cagey.

New criticisms on the celebrated text, 1 John V. 7. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one." A synodical lecture (1785)
Appendix C
https://books.google.com/books?id=kKsCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR48 (TOC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=kKsCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA206
http://archive.org/stream/newcriticismsonc00knitrich#page/206/mode/2up


Knittel's English section with the Eugenius Latin gets zero reference from Grantley in either book. And Knittel is given a typical short shrift, his strong argumentation ignored, and a snide comment from an anonymous writer in a German review is pretended to be accurate
.

A century later, Charles Forster built on much of the Knittel writing, such as in the section on Tertullian, Cyprian and Augustine, p. 167-175.
The History of Modem Greece Vol 2
James Emerson Tennent
https://archive.org/details/historyofmoderng02tennuoft/page/292
p. 293-296

The History of Modem Greece
Vol 1

https://books.google.com/books?id=HnpXKc6omfAC&pg=PA393

“The academy of Botopaidi was under the care of the celebrated Eugenius, who, being disgusted by the calumnies of the caloyers, was forced from the islands, and retired first to Constantinople, and afterwards to the court of Catherine, at St. Petersburgh, who subsequently conferred on him the see of Chersonesus. He was author of a translation of the Aeneid into Modern Greek.”—Dr. Hunt, p. 200. Zalloni, Essai sur les Fanariots, p. 16.


Matthaei (fix Matthaei urls)
http://books.google.com/books?id=AjJOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA96
(also the Bryennios Latin section is on p. 55)
http://books.google.com/books?id=AjJOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA55

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

Johann Christoph Wolf (1683-1739)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Christoph_Wolf

Monthly Repository (1828)
https://books.google.com/books?id=vEMFAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA41
Bat there is another reason why the seventh verse must be retained. Wolfius and the Bishop of Calcutta
have observed ....

To be added, various Wolf urls.
BIO

Thomas Fanshawe Middleton (1769–1822)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._F._Middleton

James Emerson Tennant (1804-1869)
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/James_Emerson_Tennent

There is grammatical material on posts 3 and 4, however this needed its own section and analysis.


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

FYI

The refs for more info on Engenius:

Marco Zalioni’s Essai stir les Fanariots (Marseille, 1824 ; 2d ed. 1830).

Philip Hunt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Hunt_(priest)

Dr. Hunt’s papers. Walpole’s Turkey, vol. i.

Robert Walpole (1781–1856)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Walpole_(classical_scholar)

In 1817 Walpole published Memoirs relating to European and Asiatic Turkey (2nd edit. 1818). He edited Travels in various Countries of the East (2 vols., 1820), consisting mainly of unpublished papers written by John Bacon, Sawrey Morritt, John Sibthorp, and Philip Hunt. ...

Dr. Hunt accompanied Dr. Carlyle to Athos : the Journal of the latter remains in MS. at the British Museum {Add, 27,604). Walpole gives extracts also from the diary of Dr. Sibthorp, who visited Athos with Hawkins in 1794.

 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Erasmus' contradictory attitude - based on wrong Paraphrases date

The Paraphrase edition chronology

Ghost of Arius, p.121-122

Running with the hares, hunting with the hounds: Erasmus' contradictory attitude towards the Johannine comma

Even after Erasmus had expressed his doubts about the comma in the Annotations to the third edition of his New Testament, he was still happy to employ it when it suited his purposes. In 1523 he published his Paraphrases of all the Apostolic Epistles, a Latin translation combined with running theological commentary.
The chronology is off here. And the same error is in Biblical Criticism, p. 41.

The Paraphrase on the Johannine Epistles were published in 1521, before the third edition, and some other epistles were earlier. My conjecture is that the Johannine Epistles was mixed up with the Paraphrase on the Gospel of John which was in fact published in 1523.


Which matches well with:

"By mid-December 1520 he had completed the Paraphrase on James, and there remained to paraphrase only the Epistles to 1-3 John and to Hebrews."

The New Testament Scholarship of Erasmus: An introduction with Erasmus' Preface and Ancillary Writings (2019)
edited by Robert D. Sider
https://books.google.com/books?id=6zOPDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA194
This was also in William Hales, a very solid writer who is not in the Grantley McDonald bibliographies.

“Erasmus not only wrote an animated paraphrase on this [disputed] verse, in A. D. 1521..."

https://books.google.com/books?id=SmcUAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA1-PA148

And this does come from Travis, 1794:
https://books.google.com/books?id=nf0qAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA274
Also we have this note to pursue, from John Jortin:
https://books.google.com/books?id=fRkyAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA219

"But in his Paraphrases we find, as it were, the result of his scriptural inquiries, wherein he explains every thing in clear and precise terms, and chooseth that sense which appears best to him,and shows the scope and connection of all the parts. It is not, as some have affirmed, a work of his younger days : the Dedications show the contrary, by the dates, of which the oldest is 1517."
It would be good to know the dedication date on the Johannine Epistles, if there is one. From the above it should be Dec, 1520 or Jan 1521.

In the 1780s, Travis had erred on the date as 1541, Porson, in a letter in 1790 had corrected it as 1520:
https://books.google.com/books?id=jPLfAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA229

The Travis error was in fact a mess, you can see it here in his 1785 publication:
https://books.google.com/books?id=fVloAAAAMAAJ&q="1541"+"Travis"+"Erasmus"&dq="1541"+"Travis"+"Erasmus"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOr-XZw47iAhXjSt8KHRFaC84Q6AEIVjAI
Albert Rabil gave many dates, but he actually manged to accidentally omit the Johannine Epistles:

Erasmus and the New Testament: The Mind of a Christian Humanist (1953)
Albert Rabil
https://books.google.com/books?id=9O4Z82Wd2ZwC&pg=PA128
 
Top