Thomas Smith - Grantley McDonald 'digs in' to still defend the shoddy scholarship in BCEME - all to falsely accuse Smith

Steven Avery

After lots of blah-blah, and omitting the Latin from his book and not giving an English translation, and posturing that I should give the translation he never gave .. finally Grantley is fleshed out.

Facebook - Textus Receptus Academy

Thomas Smith passage, translation finally given by Grantley
"So Erasmus, Sozzini, Sand, and even Dr Simon himself did not raise any doubt about this: whether there once existed, or still exist, any manuscript codices in Greek or Latin in which that text [i.e. the Johannine comma] is preserved in its entirety. This has been demonstrated above from the editions of Robert Estienne, Lucas Brugensis and others, who exercised extreme care and faithfulness in collating and comparing manuscript codices."

No startling claims, especially when the full sentence is given. Thomas Smith did not say they accepted authenticity, as Grantley implied. Simply that some texts have the verse in entirety. You could find similar in c. 1,000 Latin texts and almost all TR editions. Also ECW evidences from c. 400 to 1,500. Notice that Smith said "Greek or Latin" in case you are not happy with the degree and nature of the Greek evidences.

Grantley McDonald
In my book (p. 158), I summarised this passage as follows:

"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’."

I don't think that I misrepresented Smith. I simply summarised and evaluated his claim simultaneously.

Tricky Grantley left out the key second part of the same sentence in the book in his supposed summary and his false and fake evaluation.

Grantley actually thinks this biased, inaccurate and incompetent representation of Thomas Smith is scholarship. Grantley wanted to give the implication that Thomas Smith weirdly claimed the three men had no doubts about authenticity. And that Thomas Smith was thus a charlatan or ignoramus or something.

None dare call this scholarship.

It is bad to do shoddy scholarship.
It is much worse to dig in your heels when exposed.

This was Grantley's common theme in the book, to twist the history and use word-parsing to deprecate defenders. As an example, see how many times he fabricates "horror" in the minds and hearts of Bible believers. He use the "lame" nonsense against the learned Thomas Smith.


If Grantley wants to complain about "Tricky" and "shoddy scholarship", he should simply acknowledge that how he wrote in BCEME in this Thomas Smith case was wrong.


One of the extra deceptions in the TRA thread.

”And I only cited that part of the sentence that concerns the point on which you say that I am mistaken. The rest deals with printed editions, not manuscripts.”

Yet more proof of deliberate chicanery.

Last edited: