TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
I mean, I don't mind you guys exploring this avenue. Suggestion! Maybe start another thread dedicated to this particular topic/angle you guys are discussing?
Last edited:
Actually, your link wasn't as good as it looked. The usage of this quotation by skeptics is irrelevant to its veracity, which I myself have no problems in crediting, given that it is entirely in accord with what we know of Leo X's exceedingly dubious and wordly character. Don't think there's anything more to say on this topic right now, so I will oblige TNC in signing off it.yw.
The best of about five helpful ones. Some of the Roger Pearse stuff was in Google Groups. The John Bale primary source I gave you. etc.
Against all this evidence, Erasmus openly doubted the value of the evidence supplied by ps.-Jerome’s prologue. ... Erasmus suspected that the Rhodian manuscript was a fiction - Raising the Ghost of Arius p. 90-91
Codex Rhodiensis (mmuscule Wettstein Paul 50 = Apostolos 52)
Inevitably, Stunica objected to the absence of the comma. It is well known, he says, that the Greek manuscripts were often corrupt. And in this case, Jerome’s preface to the Canonical Epistles makes it clear that the comma was in the original. The old Latin manuscripts also confirm the passage, and there is no ambiguity or inconsistency between the comma and the rest of John’s epistle, which corroborates the true catholic faith in the Trinity. Stunica had employed an ancient Rhodian manuscript throughout his work to rebut Erasmus. His opponent naturally suspected that it had been revised to accord with the Vulgate. But now Erasmus saw a better chance, for Stunica had failed to cite it—or any other Greek manuscript—as evidence for the comma.
At five places, Stunica gave readings from a manuscript Apostolos from Rhodes, then housed in the university library at Alcalá, which he believed was more authoritative than Erasmus manuscript sources. Two of Stunica’s four annotations on 1 Jn record variants from the Rhodian codex, but on the comma this codex was clearly silent.37 ‘
37 Stunica 1520, gives five readings from the Codex Rhodiensis (Wettstein Paul 50 = Apostolos 52), at Jn 3:16, 2 Cor 2:3, Jas 1:22, 2 Pt 2:2, and 1 Jn 5:20. On the basis of these readings, Rhodiensis cannot be identified with any extant manuscript. Erasmus later cited the reading from Rhodiensis in his Annotations on 2 Cor 2:3, not mentioning Stunica by name but heaping Ximénez with exaggerated praises. Here Erasmus also suggests that readings in Rhodiensis were altered to make them conform more closely to the readings of the Latin Vulgate. Further, see ASD VI-8:342–345; Delitzsch 1871, 30–32.
Your one is very different to the one you quote above. ...
- It is written "and the three are one", referring to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. (Steven Spenser Avery translation)
And nobody I know ever said that "of the Father, and of The Son, and of the Holy Spirit" was a direct QUOTE of the Bible text from Cyprian.
You are deceiving yourself that I ever made that claim.
It is a subordinate clause saying what was the referent of "and the three are one".
That is why translators do NOT put that subordinate clause in quotation marks.
e.g. in English you could use this alternate word order:
It is written (Scripture) "and the three are one", referring to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
The heavenly witnesses verse.
The Lord says, "I and the Father are one;" and again, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit it is written , "And these three are one."
The words "the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" are written, yes that's true, they ARE WRITTEN BY CYPRIAN!
They are Cyprian's words - not John's.
Where is your evidence for this?Grantley wrote anachronistically here, and super-imposed his view of the Prologue upon Erasmus. Erasmus accepted the Prologue as Jerome's writing.
What are your sources for all the above.Notes on Erasmus and the heavenly witnesses.
1) Very curious is the omission of Cyprian in the Erasmus studies of the heavenly witnesses.
2) The Council of Carthage with 400+ orthodox affirming the verse from John was not yet published.
3) Erasmus did a little dance to try to get around the solecism.
4) Old Latin sources including the Freisinger Fragment and the Speculum were not yet discovered. These match up with the Tertullian and Cyprian references.
"Erasmus is not thinking of the possibility that he would have to insert the Comma Johanneum, for he regarded it as completely out of the question that the Comma should turn up in any Greek manuscript " p.386 "Henk de Jonge in Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum," (1980).===========================
As far as I can tell, the Rhodian ms. was not a fiction.
Henk de Jonge in Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum (1980) identifies it as:
Which is identified, but not extant.
The Rhodian ms. has been thought to have been lost or accidentally destroyed, but I have never heard of a fiction claim until RGA from Grantley, where he incorrectly put it in the mouth of Erasmus. .
===========================
We have some questionable claims from Grantley on this topic in Raising the Ghost of Arius.
1. There is no specific Stunica claim relating the Rhodian ms. to the heavenly witnesses verse.
2. There is no quote from Erasmus that saw the Rhodian ms. as a "fiction".
Both of these appear to be Grantley's very dubious extrapolations.
===========================
In fact, Joseph M. Levine states very clearly that Stunica did not claim the heavenly witnesses verse in the Rhodian ms.
Erasmus and the Problem of the Johannine Comma
Joseph M. Levine
Journal of the History of Ideas
Vol. 58, No. 4 (Oct., 1997), pp. 573-596 (24 pages)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/365396...c4376e7bdb5c89c&seq=21#page_scan_tab_contents
===========================
Grantley is stronger in the later Biblical Criticism in Early Modern England, p. 25-26:
"Erasmus is not thinking of the possibility that he would have to insert the Comma Johanneum, for he regarded it as completely out of the question that the Comma should turn up in any Greek manuscript " p.386 "Henk de Jonge in Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum," (1980).
"After declaring that now that the Comma Johanneum had been brought to his attention, in Greek, in a Codex Britannicus, he would include it on the basis of that manuscript, [Erasmus] wrote "Quamquam et hunc
(sc codicem) suspicor ad Latmorum Codices fuisse castigatum" : "Although I suspect this manuscript, too, to have been revised after the manuscripts of the Latin world." ibid. p.387
Rhodian MS: ibid. p.388 Footnote 42. "See on this codex, which seems to be lost, TRFGELLES, An Account, pp 5 6,
11-18, DELITZSCH, Entstehungsgeschichte, pp 3032 39-41, J H BENTLEY Nen Light on the Editing of the Complutensian New Testament in Bibliotheque d'humanisme 11
Renaissance 42 (1980), pp 145 156, esp 146"
OPERA OMNIADESIDERII ERASMIROTERODAMI
APOLOGIA RESPONDENS AD EA QV AE
IACOBVS LOPIS STVNICA TAXAVERAT
IN PRIMA DVNTAXAT NOVI
TESTAMENTI AEDITIONE
(Apology in answer to Stunica respecting first edition of New Testament)
ed. H. J. de Jonge
1983
Footnote [723] "Rhodiensis A Greek ms. containing the
Pauline and Catholic Epistles, sent to
Ximenez from Rhodes and deposited by
him in the University Library of Alcala.
Stun. repeatedly quoted readings from this
ms. in criticizing readings and annotations
in Er.' Nov. lnstr. The ms. (min. Wettstein
PauL 50 = Apostalos 51) seems to be lost.
Since Stun. himself declared (ad 2 Cor. 2,3)
that its contents were "apostolicae episto-
lae", the present reference to it by Er. is out
of place."
EODEM II.
Ioseph autem, qui cognominatus est Barnabas. Hic mihi postulabo rursum
illud iuds, vt tametsi Hieronymus alicubi distinguit linguam Hebraicam a
Chaldaica, tamen dilatato nonnunquam vsu vocabuli liceat linguam Hebraicae
finitimam et cognatam He braeam vocare, qua vulgo Hebraeos vsos fatetur et
Stunica. Admonebam Barnabas sonare Hebraeis filium consolationis atgue ita
interpretatur ipse Lucas hoc in loco, consentiunt in voce codices omnes tum
Graeci, tum Latini, atque etiam, opinor, mirabilis ille Rhodiensis, hoc nomine
felix quod toties citetur a Stuniea. [723] Sic interpretatur Liber Hebraicorum
nom inurn interpres, sic et Hieronymus in libello in quo exponit voces
Hebraeas ex Actis collectas. Barnabas, inquit, filius prophetae, vel filius venientis,
aut vt plerique putant: filius consolationis. Stunica negat Ba rna ba s quicquam
huiusmodi significare quale Lucas interpretatur et coniectat omnes Graecorum
codices esse deprauatos atque a Luca scriptum fuisse Barnahum. An recte
diuinet Stunica, viderint alii, mihi non debet impingere errorem, qui Lucam et
Hieronymum sequutus sum autores.
Even if he did, Erasmus despised those who asserted the authority of the Latin over the Greek:
"I think no one is so cruel as not to pity, or so grave as not to laugh at that silly gloss of some on who dreamed that Jerome had asserted in his Epistle to
Desiderius, that the Latin copies are more correct than the Greek, and the Greek than the Hebrew...." Epistles of Erasmus Ep. 182, (p. 384 of THE EPISTLES OF ERASMUS FROM HIS EARLIEST LETTERS TO HIS FIFTY-FIRST YEAR ARRANGED IN ORDER OF TIME).
The reaction on (his annotation by one of his critics, Titelmans, forces Erasmus to pronounce himself on the relative quality of the Greek and the Latin texts; he writes:
... with me, who defends the translator |the Vulgate], he wants a quarrel, reproaching me that I do not prefer the Latin reading to the Greek one in many places as I do here. However, this is what I would have done, and what I do as often as it seems probable. He adds that the Greek is to he corrected from the Latin rather than the Latin from the Greek. If he had said both from both it would have been acceptable. But he wanted me to cut out from the Greek that which 1 consider to he superfluous; this task I had not assumed, namely to correct the Greek hooks, unless a place had an obvious error made by the copyists.
Where is your evidence for this?
Steven Avery said:
Notes on Erasmus and the heavenly witnesses.
1) Very curious is the omission of Cyprian in the Erasmus studies of the heavenly witnesses.
2) The Council of Carthage with 400+ orthodox affirming the verse from John was not yet published.
3) Erasmus did a little dance to try to get around the solecism.
4) Old Latin sources including the Freisinger Fragment and the Speculum were not yet discovered. These match up with the Tertullian and Cyprian references.
What are your sources for all the above.
We see you using an English translation of Cyprian (of which there are, by ECW standards, very many to chose from) that deliberately rearranges the English word order to make it appear more like the Comma (Parenthetical Text) in the King James Version.
The clause "it is written" has been deliberately (IMO) transposed (from the original Latin word order, which is perfectly comprehensible in English and does not need to be changed) and put before the clause "the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" in order to make it appear as if "the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" was written in Cyprian's Bible.
It is a false and deceptive impression.
The words "the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" are written, yes that's true, they ARE WRITTEN BY CYPRIAN!
They are Cyprian's words - not John's.
Why haven't you put your own translation Steven?
The one you made earlier:
Your one is very different to the one you quote above.
Am I to presume that you think your word order is an improvement? Providing a better sense in English?
- It is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, "And these three are one". (Robert Ernest Wallis 1868)
- It is written "and the three are one", referring to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. (Steven Spenser Avery translation)
Perhaps you would like to explain why you have transposed the word order in your translation?
Also, why you missed the Latin "et" "and" between "the Father" and "the Son"? Is this you trying to deceptively make it look more like the KJV Comma and it's missing "and"?
Either word order is totally acceptable
That's a keeper ?
It is a simple truism in English.
You dropped an "and" (between Father and Son) in your post from the Cyprian text, why?
AD 250 – Cyprian of Carthage
● On the Unity of the Church:
He who breaks the peace and concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, "I and the Father are one;" and again, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit it is written, "And these three are one."
Was Cyprian "English"? = No!
Did Cyprian speak "English"? = No!
Did Cyprian write any of his works in "English"? = No!
Does the English take precedent over the Latin original? = No!
Therefore you should try to understand the Latin grammar and syntax and meaning, instead of rearranging the "English" word order to look more like another "English" text, i.e. the Comma Johanneum in the KJV 1611, rather than looking more like the Latin original.
You are talking about a sentence I wrote in a post that was not a translation, simply a quick attempt to show an alternate word order.
The one you falsely called a translation.
If your "It is written 'and the three are one', referring to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" is NOT a translation of Cyprian, what is it then? (In the context of a pages long discussion about English translations of Cyprian)
There's definitely something not quite right about what you're saying. It just doesn't add up.
I don't quite buy what your saying Mr Avery.