defense of authenticity by Nathaniel Ellsworth Cornwall
The sections below are from threads here, with minor tweaking and formatting. I hope to expand some of this into more depth on the discussions and arguments.
Porter’s presentation is sketchy compared to the treatment given to the Latin evidence by N. E. Cornwall in two extensive articles written in the 1870’s. Cornwall forcefully defended the CJ as genuine, and anyone who wishes to joust with well-prepared defenders of the CJ should grapple with his writings first.
You can find Cornwall’s first meticulous defense of the CJ on pages 625-641 of Volume 26 (1874) of
I found that after reading what Cornwall had to say, Metzger’s brief dismissal of the CJ did not seem very decisive. Nor does it seem objective. Metzger is frequently selective in his evidence-descriptions but it is clear that in his comments about the CJ his selectivity is especially remarkable; for example, he mentions that the CJ is not in Codex Fuldensis but he does not mention (and this cannot have been accidental) that the CJ is specifically mentioned in the Preface to the Catholic Epistles that is contained in Codex Fuldensis.[/QUOTE]
Finally, if you would like to read a nice case for the CJ, I refer you to pages 509-528 of the 1877 issue of American Church Review (Vol. 29), where N. E. Cornwall weighs in on the issue, in favor of the genuineness of the CJ. The author was no novice; his arguments are (mainly) lucid; his style is efficient; his rhetoric is fearless.
Just to be clear, Azim did not refer to it as the Middleton argument, and I do not know if he has followed that whole history. James Snapp used to reference the Nathaniel Ellsworth Cornwall papers, and Cornwall has a superb section on the argument which is on p. 627 here: http://books.google.com/books?id=rkQUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA627
The Middleton argument and history could use its own thread on the PBF.
The point is that the argument is quite strong, and is one of the many grammatical and stylistic and internal excellent arguments that go with the grammatical gender solecism.
Here James in 2014 was showing the homoeoteleuton possibility, a parableptic error, in a 3-page album.
And we should bring the pics over to here as well.
This album contains resources for the study of the Comma Johanneum (First John 5:7 as presented in the Textus Receptus).
How could a copyist in the 100's read an exemplar that had this
(First John 5:7-8 in the Textus Receptus)
Steven Avery - Oct, 2014
An early attempt to explain the missing elements of modern theory
Talking about my convolutions. (Who?)
.
========================
The convoluted theory is that a glaring, barbaric Greek solecism is fixed by an amazing ultra-Johannine-stylistic, super-harmonious Latin paralellism interpolation, all made by Klunk the interpolator. Almost supernaturally, the interpolation fixes the Greek when brought over the language dividing line.
========================
Convoluted theory #2 is that a good number of references, including Greek, and allusions and ECW writing and confession wording, all have no source in scripture. Despite the early reliance on scripture in the Ante-Nicene period for formulations. Yet this confessional and doctrinal wording matches to a "T" the supposed late Latin heavenly witnesses interpolation.
Convoluted theory #3 is that what is supposed to be a doctrinally motivated interpolation would have to be inserted before the period of the doctrinal battles that were supposed to have supplied the interpolation motivation.
Convoluted theory #4 are theories of late Latin interpolations that do not have any vector of transmission to explain how the full wide-geographic Meditteranean regions, Spain, Carthage, Italy, Crete, (Council of Carthage 484 AD and supporting references) all had their Bibles with a verse that was supposed to have been interpolated yesterday.
Convoluted theory #5 is how a crystal-clear Cyprian reference to the heavenly witnesses is hand-waved into ultra-convoluted allegorical mish-a-moshes.
Convoluted theory #6 is how massive amounts of corollary evidences like the Old Latin ms. line, the additional words of Tertullian and Cyprian, the allusions of Claudius Apollinaris and Origen, Hundredfold Martyrs, and other Ante-Nicene evidences are simply similarly ignored when attempting #5. Those who close their eyes have no right to complain about not being able to see.
Convoluted theory #7 is the supposed invisibility in the Greek tradition, when the evidences like ones above (from Greek and bilingual writers) are ignored, and then the additional Greek evidences (in the earlier period -- Disputation of Athanasius with Arius at Nicea, Synopsis of Sacred Scripture) are simply ignored and handwaved.
Convoluted theory #7a is supposing a type of Greek-Latin Chinese wall made the largest church and Bible body invisible (European and African Latin) while the smaller Greek world was unable to read any Latin. In fact especially in the Ante-Nicene period, yet also for many in the later periods, dual language skills was normative.
Convoluted theory #8 is taking a powerful and crystal clear writing from the Greek-Latin fluent scholar and translator Jerome, that there were scribes and translators who deliberately chose to leave out the heavenly witnesses, and then, with no non-circular evidence, claim that the Vulgate Prologue is ... poof .. a forgery. And thus ignored even though it is one of the earliest extant 1 John 5 mss. Despite absolutely compelling evidences that Jerome was well aware of the heavenly witnesses verse, collaborating Jerome as fully the Prologue capable author. Note that the Prologue itself has numerous internal evidences of Jerome authorship authenticity. Thus, ironically, the inconsistency of ignoring Johannine "internal" evidences is supported by a similar inconsistency in ignoring Jerome's Vulgate Prologue "internal" (including historical and stylistic) evidences.
Convoluted theory #8A is not noticing that the decrepit forgery theory was originally based on the lateness of the extant Prologue mss, c. 800 AD. And then not fixing the error (i.e. real scholarship) when the 545 AD ms., only one century after the passing of Jerome, written directly under the auspices of the learned Victor Capua, was discovered to have the Prologue. This was in the mid-1800s and for most of the contras only led to a thunderous silence. And for a few there were tepid attempts at alternative oddball flakey-cakey new forgery theories.
Convoluted theory #8B is not noticing direct written evidence that even Augustine was adverse to the heavenly witnesses, in a manner that is comparable to what Augustine himself reported about the Pericope Adultera.
Convoluted theory #9 is that many evidences that Johannine Alogi and heavenly witnesses concepts were specifically delicate in the early Bible and textual period, and could be bypassed or suppressed, or placed by some under the disciplini arcana secrecy, is not considered a primary aspect of study and consideration. When it should be researched as one factor in determining whether text was omitted or inserted.
Convoluted theory #10, cycling back to #1, is that an ad hoc or accidental interpolation would fill specific gaps in logic and sense in the 1John 5 schema, such as showing what is the "witness of God" or the awkward redundancy of verse 6-->8 without the heavenly witnesses. In fact, the verse fits like the marine's compass (Wesley, Bengel) in the Johannine sectopm. chapter, book and overall expression. Removed, the mangling is untenable, the center does not hold.
Convoluted theory #11, with what is common sense and now science sense about scribal habits and textual transmission, is that any late interpolation would take over any major Bible language line. Never happened. (This convoluted theory is in opposition to the basic simple concepts of inspiration and preservation.)
Convoluted theory #12 is looking at omission atomistically, that it must be all accidental, or all deliberate and purposeful, when in fact many omissions were almost surely combinations of the two elements, over time.
Convoluted theory #13 is looking at the doctrinal Christological battles through modern pablum evangelical John MacArthur style glasses, and ignoring the actual evidences of the early nascent Trinitarian vs. Sabellian battles. Battles in which both sides could find the heavenly witnesses not their cup of Bible tea, when faced with a bifurcated Greek textline. As Edward Freer Hills, and others, have pointed out, the dropping of the verse from the Greek textline would be largely in those early Greek battle times, 2nd to early 3rd century. And this is way before any negative omission ms. evidences.
Convoluted theory #14 is the claim that the heavenly witnesses were missing from the doctrinal battles when (a) the wording of the verse was everywhere (b) we do have some direct Greek evidences including the Disputation above and (c) the uses in the Latin tradition in the Arian battles was massive
