Thomas Smith - English section

Steven Avery

Administrator
Thomas Smith (scholar) - (1638-1710)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Smith_(scholar)

Bibliotheca Biblica: A Select List of Books on Sacred Literature; with Notices Biographical, Critical, and Bibliographical (1824)
Wiliiam Orme
https://books.google.com/books?id=uQoXAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA414
Grantley gives him 3 pages beginning in Biblical Criticism on p. 156, after that he shows up often in Newton.
In Ghost of Arius he is part of a section:
11. Reactions to Simon's work: Gilbert Burnet, Thomas Smith, Antoine Boucat, Thomas Firmin
p. 193-202
Earlier John Evelyn and Edmund Calamy and Stillingfleet are placed as Simon critics and responders, including sermons,

Gilbert Burnet - (own page planned)



Antoine Boucat
Dictionnaire universel des sciences ecclésiastiques (1868)
https://books.google.com/books?id=uq9DAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA325

Theologia Patrum dogmatica Scholastico-Positiva... (1726) p. 221-230 (check more exactly)
http://books.google.com/books?id=lmMNmHEN9XMC&pg=PA221
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?u=1;seq=340;view=1up;size=100;id=ucm.5319090061;q1="tres unum";page=root;orient=0;num=322

Simon found another detractor in the Franciscan Antoine Boucat (†1730), professor of theology at Paris. In his Theologia patrurn scholastico-dogmatica (1716), Boucat reheated some of Roger’s arguments against Simon, and argued strenuously for the comma as the “legitimate offspring of St John” (genuinus S. loannis foetus). Boucat bases his argument on internal grounds (the apparent coherence of the seventh and eight verses) and external evidence (the fact that the comma was quoted and taught by the Fathers from Tertullian onwards). In an appeal to the strength of ecclesiastical authority, Boucat asserts that Simon had drawn upon himself the anathema of the council of Trent for daring to challenge its affirmation of the canonicity of the Johannine epistles.117
117 Boucat, 1766, IV:321-331. Filser, 2001, 521, cites Boucat as typical of the return to dogma in early eighteenth-century Catholicism.
Boucat, Antoine. Theologia patrum scholastic-dogmatica, sed maxinte positiva. Venice: Ghirardi,
1766.

also Prudent Maran and Louis Roger are in the section

Planned: Review Section: others far more important than Firmin wrote contra Simon, eg. Martianay, Fredrich Spanheim the younger, maybe Toinard and others. Firmin is notably a bit unusual and makes an interesting side-read.



Thomas Firmin (1632-1697)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Firmin
The Life of Mr. Thomas Firmin, Citizen of London (1780)
https://books.google.com/books?id=WTcFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA126
on p. 126 is his Trinity view

Grantley gives a small quote from the 2-page section that Firmin has on the heavenly witnesses.

Anon. The Charitable Samaritan: or, a Short and Impartial Account of that Eminent, and Publick-spirited Citizen Mr. Tho. Firmin. London: [n. p.], 1698a.
https://books.google.com/books?id=YBFlAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA16
p. 16-17
Firmin is pro-Simon, although there is no indication that he was particularly involved in Bible textual matters, other than repeating from Simon. He is variously called a Unitarian, or perhaps having Sabellian tendencies.
====================


Grantley Bibliography, with urls added, Horne below gives page info of two sections in Miscellanea

Smith, Thomas. A Sermon of the Credibility of the Mysteries of the Christian Religion. London: Roycroft, 1675.
(only in Biblical Criticism)
Appendix is p. 57-76, Fini
https://books.google.com/books?id=DO9bAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA57 (1696)
http://tei.it.ox.ac.uk/tcp/Texts-HTML/free/A60/A60586.html - EEBO
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/a60586.0001.001/1:A60586.0001.001?vid=101752;view=toc
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/a60586.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext (full text)
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/a60586.0001.001/64?vid=101752&node=a60586.0001.001:A60586.0001.001&view=text

Smith, Thomas.
Miscellanea, In quibus continentur Responsio ad nuperas D. Simonii in libro super fide Graecorum de dogmate Transsubstantiationis cavillationes. Dissertatio, in qua Integritas & au0svTia istius celeberrimi loci 1. Epist. S. Joannis, cap. V. vers. 7. vindicatur. Defensio superioris Dissertationis contra exceptiones D. Simonii in Criticd histond novi Testamenti. Commentarius in secundam S. Petri Apostoli Epistolam. London: S. Smith, 1690. (both books)
kep pages are p. 57-76, p. 1 starts with quote from 1 Timothy 3:16
http://books.google.com/books?id=0g5AAAAAcAAJ
https://books.google.com/books?id=mOMAAAAAcAAJ&pg=PP9 (1686) before Simon



Thomas Horne (1846) - gives page number sections from Thomas Smith.
http://books.google.com/books?id=PLk7AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA210

2. Dissertatio, in qua Integritas et avOevria istius celeberrimi loci 1 Epist. Joannis cap. V. v. 7. a suppositions nota vindicatur.
Authore Thoma Smith, S. T. P. [in his Miscellanea, pp. 121—150.] Londini, 1690. 8vo.
https://books.google.com/books?id=0g5AAAAAcAAJ&pg=PP1

4. Defensio superioris Dissertationis contra exceptiones D. Simonii.
Authore Thoma Smith. [Miscellanea, pp. 151—173.] Londini, 1690. 8vo.
https://books.google.com/books?id=WQ1J94PzLc4C&pg=PA151
https://books.google.com/books?id=0g5AAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA151

Separate post: the Grantley analysis and attacks on Thomas Smith.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
REVIEW OF THOMAS SMITH ON PBF

Thomas Smith - English section - (this page)
https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/thomas-smith-english-section.1168/

Erasmus 'craftily concealing' the Cyprian references - Thomas Smith
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...ftily-concealing-the-cyprian-references.1125/
also in
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...-witnesses-in-the-3rd-edition.1319/#post-5308

Vulgate Prologue - super-evidence
Thomas Smith - before Martianay, responding to Sandius and Simon
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/vulgate-prologue-super-evidence.56/page-2#post-4939

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

Raising the Ghost of Arius - Grantley McDonald

symmetry of transmission and solid textual arguments of Thomas Smith
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...-arius-grantley-mcdonald.421/page-2#post-4978
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

Thomas Smith and the Socinus (and Erasmus) calumny - the Vulgate Prologue of Jerome
https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...-arius-grantley-mcdonald.421/page-2#post-5342

Thomas Smith - Latin and English
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...-arius-grantley-mcdonald.421/page-2#post-5343

SMALL ERRATA
Thomas Smith 1675 Edition - not 1690 (English not given by Grantley)
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...ing-the-ghost-of-arius-errata.1344/#post-5391

Francis Turretin and Michael Walther and Thomas Smith
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...-arius-grantley-mcdonald.421/page-2#post-5396

new questions that arise after March, 2021
https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/new-questions-that-arise-after-march-2021.1772/


Review notes the unfairness on Thomas Smith
https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/grantley-mcdonald-reviews.1351/#post-5408

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

Sabellian position
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...uted-to-the-greek-ms-line-drop.671/#post-1374

Translated Jean Daille
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/the-rise-and-fall-of-lectio-brevior.58/#post-139
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Grantley Robert McDonald comments, responds to the 2021 above

Facebook - Textus Receptus Academy
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/permalink/872845626894634/

Grantley Robert McDonald

In my book Biblical Criticism in Early Modern Europe, I summarised comments made by Thomas Smith (1690) about previous scholarship on the Johannine comma:

“Smith also made the startling claim that the evidence for the comma in both Latin and Greek manuscripts was so compelling that neither ‘Erasmus, Sozzini, Sand nor Simon have called it into doubt’”
https://books.google.com/books?id=Q6BODAAAQBAJ&pg=PA158

Steven Avery Spencer, questioning the accuracy of my summary of Smith’s argument, wrote:
“No reference is given, so I will conjecture Grantley may have misread the Latin.”
https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/new-questions-that-arise-after-march-2021.1772

So just for the record, here is what Smith says, in the pages following those which I indicated clearly in my footnote:

“Non hoc autem in dubium vocarunt Erasmus, Socinus, Sandius, aut ipse D. Simonius, an aliqui codices manuscripti Græci & Latini olim exstiterint, adhucque exstent, apud quos textus ille in suâ integritate conservatur”. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=V0Xo4Kh_YG0C&pg=PA156

I don’t believe that I have misunderstood or misrepresented Smith’s position. However, Smith was patently wrong in this claim, as I show in my book

We know from his English work that he was well aware of the opposition of Socinus and others.

(from the 2021 page)
As representative of this position Smith cites Fausto Sozzini, who wrote:
“It is clear that these words are forged, and were stuffed into
this passage by people who desired to defend their dogma of the Trinity by whatever means possible.”110
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
While this could use a good Latin translator, at least the whole sentence should be translated. Grantley has a period, there is a colon leading to more explication.

1618669882557.png
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Facebook - Textus Receptus Academy
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467...k/872845626894634/?comment_id=873033310209199

Grantley, who NEVER gave a translation of the Latin, not even the half-sentence he brought to the Facebook TRA forum, now insists that I should give a Latin translation.

What a trickster.

Grantley needs to:

a) give us his English translation of the full sentence (he changed a colon to a period in his book .. oops.)
b) take the ambiguity out of his English interpretation
c) then relate that interpretation to the Thomas Smith knowledge, highlighting exactly what is the "startling claim"

that neither ‘Erasmus, Sozzini, Sand nor Simon have called it into doubt’”

What is his "it"?
Grantley does not have the integrity to answer that question on the forum.

It could refer to Thomas Smith not doubting, it could refer to the positions of the three writers, it could refer to something about Greek and Latin mss. The "startling claim" implies the second, but we can be confident that is wrong, since Thomas Smith rips their negatory positions.

At the moment, Grantley is simply confirming that he is floundering. He can sense he blew it again on Thomas Smith, so he switches to posture mode.

He is morphing a modest error, trying to attack Thomas Smith by a misquote, into a total lack of scholarly credibility.

=========================
 
Last edited:
Top