Jerome as author-translator of the full Vulgate New Testament

Unbound68

Well-known member
Uncoincidentally from the Society of Jesus. Hmmmm. Anyone seeing a pattern here?

But what do the manuscripts show, is the more important question?

Because Catholic Counter-Reformation scholar's (in the manner of Jerome, Rufinus, Cassiodorus etc) we're not above inserting things into the printed text that aren't in the manuscripts.

P.S. I haven't checked this work yet. It's on the to do list. Just putting the question out there.
I don't believe for one second that Peltanus saw manuscripts with Cyril quoting the Comma. Not for one split second.
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
There's a post by an Italian, "Puxanto", on Avery's PBF about some 9th to 16th century Greek manuscripts of Cyril's Thesaurus which only have the earthly witnesses, and, perhaps deliberately perhaps not, have omitted the εἰς in 1 John 5:8 (Clause-D, KJV-numbering). Saves me some work tracking down manuscripts. 😉

P.S. Avery says in reply to Puxanto, that "I am passing this on to the manuscript team". Admitting that he is working with a team BTW.
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
Simply going over the Erasmus Annotationes.

As requested by cjab.
So the riddle that Erasmus doesn't solve is how the Comma arose in the first place, and the reasons for all the variations he observed. Here are GM's observations: (P.37-39, RAISING THE GHOST OF ARIUS)

Beginning with a consideration of the unusual neuter plural form of Priscillian:

Priscillian’s use of neuter plural forms (hæc tria) to refer to the divine
persons instead of the masculine plural forms (hi tres) we might naturally expect
from the Greek original of 1 Jn 5:8 (οἱ τρεῖς) is noteworthy. It has been suggested
that this grammatical peculiarity was consonant with Priscillian’s modalistic
understanding of the persons of the Trinity. However, we have seen enough
examples of identical or similar phrases being used by orthodox expositors to
realise that this conclusion is not warranted.

More interestingly, Priscillian’s reading of verse 7 contains the phrase in
Christo Iesu. The complete phrase unum sunt in Christo Iesu is derived ultimately
from Gal 3:28 (ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστὲ ἐν χριστ ῷ Ἰησοῦ), and was clearly attracted to the
end of 1 Jn 5:8 by the fact that they share the words unum sunt. The phrase unum
sunt in Christo [Iesu] subsequently occurs as a Trinitarian symbolum in two large-
scale creeds. The first is the Reply to Pope Damasus, written in or before 384 (the
year of Damasus’ death) by Priscillian or one of his followers. The second is the
Expositio fidei chatolice, an orthodox creed written probably in Spain in the fifth or
sixth century, in which this symbolum occurs as part of the wording of the
Johannine comma.

An examination of all the known citations of 1 Jn 5:7-8 in the works of the
Latin Fathers, as well as of the readings in early manuscripts of the Latin New
Testament, suggested that the variants were created through the variable
convergence of three separate elements, attracted by the shared phrase VNVM
SVNT ; this phrase acted as the “switch” at which a given Father or scribe moved
from one verbal formulation to another. It is suggested that the phenomenon that
brought about such textual combination is related to “code switching,” a
psycholinguistic phenomenon observed in conversations between bilingual
conversants, when the uttering of a word or phrase occurring in both languages
causes a transition from one language to another.

The first stage in the formulation of the comma was the simple translation
of the Greek text of 1 Jn 5:8 (ὅτι τρε ῖς ε ἰσιν ο ἱ μαρτυρο ῦντες: τὸ πνε ῦμα καὶ τὸ
ὕδωρ κα ὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν) into Latin: Quia tres sunt qui
testimonium dant, Spiritus [et] aqua et sanguis, et tres VNVM SVNT . This translation
of verse 8 is attested by Leo the Great and Codex Amiatinus. The existence of
Trinitarian allegoresis of this verse before the formulation of the comma is
demonstrated by the fact that some early writers (e.g. Facundus and Haymo) give
the spatial marker in terra in verse 8 but do not yet cite the comma
.

The “core” of the comma was then created by substituting the three
persons of the Trinity for the water, spirit and blood enumerated in verse 8, and
by inserting the spatial marker in cælo to distinguish the two sets of witnesses.
This reading can be seen in its simplest form in manuscripts such as the ninth-
century ms Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana ms B vi (Codex Vallicellanus):
Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, spiritus, aqua et sanguis, et tres
VNVM SVNT ; sicut tres sunt qui testimonium dant in cælo, pater, uerbum, et spiritus
sanctus, et tres VNVM SVNT .

Subsequently, one or both of the symbola “[hæc] tria (or [hi] tres) VNVM
SVNT (or unus [est] deus)” and “ VNVM SVNT in Christo [Iesu]” were attracted to the
“core” of the comma. The phrase VNVM SVNT , shared by the Scriptural text and
the two symbola, acted as the switch at which verse 7 or 8 could deviate into the
symbola. When this switch occured in verse 8—as testified by Ambrose, De
Spiritu sancto III.10 (Quia tres sunt testes, spiritus, aqua et sanguis, et hi tres VNVM
SVNT in Christo Iesu—it served to explain that the testimony of the three earthly
witnesses is focussed on establishing Christ’s status as son of God. This switch
could happen where the author was unaware of the comma (as we see in
Ambrose), or in conjunction with the comma, such as in the Testimonia divinæ
Scripturæ, a seventh-century work formerly attributed to Isidore of Seville.

The switch could also occur at the analagous position in the “core” form of the
comma, as seen in Priscillian and the Expositio fidei chatolice. In Priscillian and the
Expositio, the neuter forms hæc tria, borrowed from the symbolum, have even
crept back into the “core,” supplanting the original masculine forms hi tres.

The fact that the form of the comma cited by Priscillian and the author of
the Expositio fidei chatolice is identical shows how heterodox thinkers could use
the same symbola as the orthodox party as the basis of very different systems of
belief. The credal formulation unum sunt in Christo Iesu could be used by the
author of the Expositio fidei chatolice to express the orthodox belief that the Spirit,
water and blood testify unanimously to Christ as the Son of God. The same
symbolum could be used by Priscillian or the Panchristian author of the Reply to
Pope Damasus to show that the three persons of the Trinity are one God, and that
this one God is Jesus Christ.
________________________________


So the Comma can be seen as evidence for an ongoing license that the Latin Church awarded itself independently of any other church to promote its trinity doctrine (the three are co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial) by amending the text of scripture, but still leaving room for divergence, which led to the multiplicity of variant readings we discover.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
So the riddle that Erasmus doesn't solve is how the Comma arose in the first place, and the reasons for all the variations he observed. Here are GM's observations: (P.37-39, RAISING THE GHOST OF ARIUS)
https://www.growkudos.com/profile/grantley_mcdonald

The first stage in the formulation of the comma was the simple translation of the Greek text of 1 Jn 5:8 (ὅτι τρε ῖς ε ἰσιν ο ἱ μαρτυρο ῦντες: τὸ πνε ῦμα καὶ τὸ
ὕδωρ κα ὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν) into Latin: Quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant, Spiritus [et] aqua et sanguis, et tres VNVM SVNT . This translation
of verse 8 is attested by Leo the Great and Codex Amiatinus. The existence of Trinitarian allegoresis of this verse before the formulation of the comma is demonstrated by the fact that some early writers (e.g. Facundus and Haymo) give the spatial marker in terra in verse 8 but do not yet cite the comma.

You should be embarrassed to use this quote, and Grantley should have been embarrassed to write this paragraph.

Grantley has Facundus, c. AD 550, and Haymo of Halberstadt c. AD 850, helping develop the heavenly witnesses verse by adding "in terra".

Yet you know full well the full heavenly witnesses verse was quoted 15-20 times in the 200 years leading up to Facundus. So this chronology given by Grantley is a logical impossibility.

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

In fact, writer after writer pointed out the truth. That having "in terra" simply shows a lineage that included at an earlier time both heavenly and earthly witnesses.

Henry Thomas Armfield gives this special notice in terms of Facundus, who actually has "in terra" many times.

The three witnesses : The disputed text in St. John : considerations new and old - (1883)
Henry Thomas Armfield

http://www.archive.org/stream/threewitnessesdi00armf#page/88/mode/2up/
Facundus, on the other hand, makes use of a different rendering : “ Tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra: ... Even in the version, however, which Facundus makes use of, the words, “in terra,” which we read, seem to be vestiges of the sevenlh verse, and the “ in coelo” to which they correspond.

http://www.archive.org/stream/threewitnessesdi00armf#page/150/mode/2up
http://www.archive.org/stream/threewitnessesdi00armf#page/202/mode/2up
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The three witnesses : The disputed text in St. John : considerations new and old - (1883)
Henry Thomas Armfield
http://www.archive.org/stream/threewitnessesdi00armf#page/202/mode/2up

This is from a correspondence with N. B.

It is perhaps significant, what Griesbach seems to state—viz.: That “ in terra” is found in some Latin MSS. which omit verse seven implying the presence in some more ancient MS. of a correlative “ in coelo,” and of an entire correlative sentence, as having originally existed.
 

cjab

Well-known member
You should be embarrassed to use this quote, and Grantley should have been embarrassed to write this paragraph.

Grantley has Facundus, c. AD 550, and Haymo of Halberstadt c. AD 850, helping develop the heavenly witnesses verse by adding "in terra".

Yet you know full well the full heavenly witnesses verse was quoted 15-20 times in the 200 years leading up to Facundus. So this chronology given by Grantley is a logical impossibility.

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

In fact, writer after writer pointed out the truth. That having "in terra" simply shows a lineage that included at an earlier time both heavenly and earthly witnesses.

Henry Thomas Armfield gives this special notice in terms of Facundus, who actually has "in terra" many times.

The three witnesses : The disputed text in St. John : considerations new and old - (1883)
Henry Thomas Armfield

http://www.archive.org/stream/threewitnessesdi00armf#page/88/mode/2up/
Facundus, on the other hand, makes use of a different rendering : “ Tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra: ... Even in the version, however, which Facundus makes use of, the words, “in terra,” which we read, seem to be vestiges of the sevenlh verse, and the “ in coelo” to which they correspond.

http://www.archive.org/stream/threewitnessesdi00armf#page/150/mode/2up
http://www.archive.org/stream/threewitnessesdi00armf#page/202/mode/2up

The three witnesses : The disputed text in St. John : considerations new and old - (1883)
Henry Thomas Armfield
http://www.archive.org/stream/threewitnessesdi00armf#page/202/mode/2up

This is from a correspondence with N. B.
These are feeble arguments indeed. A single incuria in the Alexandrian manuscript re 1 John 15 does not justify what your author concedes to Farrar at p.202, "In the east [the Comma] was never once used in the Arian controversy."

It may well be that in terra without in coelo &etc does show evidence of the Comma being removed from some Latin codices containing the Comma, but which could only have been done with a conviction that the heavenly witnesses verse was fraudulent.

Hardly a point in your favour.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
It may well be that in terra without in coelo &etc does show evidence of the Comma being removed from some Latin codices containing the Comma

Excellent!

And do you agree that Grantley’s appeal to Facundus and Haymo about this “in terra” being part of the heavenly witnesses verse formation is anachronistic, is not scholarship and is totally illogical.

(He could remove it from his next rodeo, if it is not yet cast in stone at the printers, and he could include it in the corregidor of Raising the Ghost of Arius.)
 

cjab

Well-known member
Excellent!

And do you agree that Grantley’s appeal to Facundus and Haymo about this “in terra” being part of the heavenly witnesses verse formation is anachronistic, is not scholarship and is totally illogical.
No. I was only speculating. I conceded a possibility (not a probability) due to accepted widespread post-dated recension of Latin manuscripts. Newton reckons that the Comma was derived fromTertullian by a two stage process (a) a marginal allegoresis of the "earthly" witnesses as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, per Matt 28:19, and (b) that the insertion of the "heavenly witnesses" in 1 John 5:7 only followed later in the disputes with the Vandals.

Actually, the full Comma may have arisen from the Monarchian tendency within RC e.g. Priscillian before the Vandals arrived. We can't know (at least I don't know).

(He could remove it from his next rodeo, if it is not yet cast in stone at the printers, and he could include it in the corregidor of Raising the Ghost of Arius.)
Rather see P.204 ARA et. seq.

"Newton begins his account by noting that the spuriousness of the comma
had previously been exposed by Erasmus, Luther, Bullinger, Grotius and other
“learned and quick-sighted men” who “would not dissemble their knowledge.”

Newton was clearly impressed by Erasmus’ attitude of critical scepticism, and he
takes over several broad arguments and many details from Erasmus’ Annotationes
and his reply to Lee. But despite the doubts of such men, Newton sighs, many of
his own contemporaries hung on to the comma as a defence against heresy.

For Newton, such deceit was unforgivable, especially in a Protestant: “But whilst we
exclaim against the pious frauds of the Roman church, and make it a part of our
religion to detect and renounce all things of that kind, we must acknowledge it a
greater crime in us to favour such practices, than in the Papists we so much blame
on that account: for they act according to their religion, but we contrary to
ours.”


Yet Newton was also hostile to Socinians whom he accused for example
of dealing “too injuriously with Cyprian” when they argued that the important
passage from his De unitate was corrupt. (To distance himself explicitly from the
Socinians, even on such an innocuous critical point as this, may have been a ploy
to ward off any suspicion that he wished to promote similar ideas. But it is
important to note that he had actually read the works of several Socinians,
including Sandius and Crell.) By contrast, Newton suggested that Cyprian’s
employment of the phrase tres unum sunt rather than the comma in its fully
developed form is consistent with the conclusion that it was unknown in the
Latin text in general circulation during his lifetime.
The absence of the comma
from the biblical text known to the early apologists is suggested furthermore by
its absence from their apologies: “For had it been in Cyprian’s Bible, the Latines
of the next age, when all the world was engaged in disputing about the Trinity,
and all arguments that could be thought of were diligently sought out, and daily
brought upon the stage, could never have been ignorant of a text, which in our
age, now the dispute is over, is chiefly insisted upon.”


In support of his contention, Newton mentions Eucherius’ statement that many people
interpreted the three earthly witnesses as types of the Trinity, and the evidence
given by Facundus that Cyprian interpreted 1 Jn 5:8 as a type of the Trinity.


“Now if it was the opinion of many in the Western churches of those times, that
the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood, signified the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghost; it is plain that the testimony of Three in Heaven, in express words, was
not yet crept into their books: and even without this testimony, it was obvious for
Cyprian, or any man else of that opinion, to say of the Father, and Son, and Holy
Ghost, ‘it is written, “And these Three are One.”’” In an interesting aside,
Newton even suggests that Cyprian’s formulation “Father, Son and Holy Spirit”
rather than “Father, Word and Holy Spirit” suggests that he was referring not to
the comma as it would later become established, but to the baptismal formula
given at the Great Commission (Mt 28:19), “the place from which they tried at
first to derive the Trinity.” (At this point Bishop Horsley, the editor of
Newton’s works, added a note deflecting the suspicion that this statement
revealed any hint of Socinianism on Newton’s part.)

From Cyprian, Newton worked backwards to Tertullian. The fact that
Tertullian was the first to give a Trinitarian interpretation to the phrase tres unum
sunt led Newton to suggest that this interpretation was “invented by the
Montanists for giving countenance to their Trinity.
For Tertullian was a
Montanist when he wrote this; and it is most likely that so corrupt and forced an
interpretation had its rise among a sect of men accustomed to make bold with the
Scriptures.
” On Tertullian’s authority, Newton suggests, this interpretation was
subsequently adopted by Cyprian and other Latins. Newton then suggests that
the Trinitarian allegoresis of the earthly witnesses
led a scribe (or scribes) either
to record this allegoresis in the margin,
“whence it might afterwards creep into
the text in transcribing,” or to insert it into the text “fraudulently.”

.
.
.
For Newton, the most compelling evidence against the original presence
of the comma in the Greek text was its demonstrable absence from the text
during the time of the earliest Fathers. As to the accusation that the comma had
been excised by the Arians, Newton found this simply ludicrous:
“Yes, truly,
those Arians were crafty knaves, that could conspire so cunningly and slily all the
world over at once […] to get all men’s books in their hands, and correct them
without being perceived: ay, and conjurors too, to do it without leaving any blot
or chasm in their books, whereby the knavery might be suspected and
discovered; and to wipe away the memory of it out of all men’s brains, so that
neither Athanasius, or anybody else, could afterwards remember that they had
ever seen it in their books before; and out of their own books too; so that when
they turned to the consubstantial faith, as they generally did in the West, soon
after the death of Constantius, they could then remember no more of it than
anybody else.” Such was the absurd conclusion obtruded upon those who
asserted that the comma was penned by St John himself. Those of Newton’s
contemporaries who excused themselves for inserting the comma against the
evidence of the manuscripts thus revealed themselves as “falsaries by their own
confession, and certainly need no other confutation,” unless they could prove
that the comma had been removed early from the text “by some better argument
than that of pretence and clamour.”

But having dismissed the comma as a later intrusion into the text, Newton
was thus under an onus to explain how the comma arose. He suggested that this
first happened “by that abused authority of Cyprian […], in the disputes with the
ignorant Vandals […].”
Moreover, he suggests that while the comma became
established early in Africa, it did not become commonly accepted in Europe until
the twelfth century or so. This error can perhaps be explained by the fact that
many important texts from the early middle ages still remained unpublished until
after Newton’s time. Newton also pointed out that the evidence of the Latin
bibles is ambiguous, since earlier manuscripts were corrected according to later
recensions, causing a considerable variety amongst the texts in circulation: “the
old Latin has been so generally corrected, that it is nowhere to be found
sincere.”In the case of the Johannine comma, the inconsistent application of
these corrections—later joined by the mistaken injunctions of Aquinas against
the phrase tres unum sunt in 1 Jn 5:8—led to an astonishing variety of different
readings."
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
No. I was only speculating. I conceded a possibility (not a probability) due to accepted widespread post-dated recension of Latin manuscripts. Newton reckons that "earthly witnesseses" was actually derived fromTertullian by a two stage process (a) a marginal allegoresis of the "earthly" witnesses as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, per Matt 28:19, and (b) the insertion of the "heavenly witnesses" in 1 John 5:7 only followed later.
Rather see P.204 ARA et. seq.
"Newton begins his account by noting that the spuriousness of the comma
had previously been exposed by Erasmus, Luther, Bullinger, Grotius and other
“learned and quick-sighted men” who “would not dissemble their knowledge.”

By putting in a long quote from Newton, you manage to totally avoid the actual question about the "in terra" claims of Grantley, using Facundus and Haymo.
 

cjab

Well-known member
By putting in a long quote from Newton, you manage to totally avoid the actual question about the "in terra" claims of Grantley, using Facundus and Haymo.
Go read ARA for yourself and get back with some proper critique. There is a lot of info on Facundus if you care to read it. Not really sure what you're saying.
 

Unbound68

Well-known member
No. I was only speculating. I conceded a possibility (not a probability) due to accepted widespread post-dated recension of Latin manuscripts. Newton reckons that the Comma was derived fromTertullian by a two stage process (a) a marginal allegoresis of the "earthly" witnesses as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, per Matt 28:19, and (b) that the insertion of the "heavenly witnesses" in 1 John 5:7 only followed later in the disputes with the Vandals.

Actually, the full Comma may have arisen from the Monarchian tendency within RC e.g. Priscillian before the Vandals arrived. We can't know (at least I don't know).


Rather see P.204 ARA et. seq.

"Newton begins his account by noting that the spuriousness of the comma
had previously been exposed by Erasmus, Luther, Bullinger, Grotius and other
“learned and quick-sighted men” who “would not dissemble their knowledge.”

Newton was clearly impressed by Erasmus’ attitude of critical scepticism, and he
takes over several broad arguments and many details from Erasmus’ Annotationes
and his reply to Lee. But despite the doubts of such men, Newton sighs, many of
his own contemporaries hung on to the comma as a defence against heresy.

For Newton, such deceit was unforgivable, especially in a Protestant: “But whilst we
exclaim against the pious frauds of the Roman church, and make it a part of our
religion to detect and renounce all things of that kind, we must acknowledge it a
greater crime in us to favour such practices, than in the Papists we so much blame
on that account: for they act according to their religion, but we contrary to
ours.”


Yet Newton was also hostile to Socinians whom he accused for example
of dealing “too injuriously with Cyprian” when they argued that the important
passage from his De unitate was corrupt. (To distance himself explicitly from the
Socinians, even on such an innocuous critical point as this, may have been a ploy
to ward off any suspicion that he wished to promote similar ideas. But it is
important to note that he had actually read the works of several Socinians,
including Sandius and Crell.) By contrast, Newton suggested that Cyprian’s
employment of the phrase tres unum sunt rather than the comma in its fully
developed form is consistent with the conclusion that it was unknown in the
Latin text in general circulation during his lifetime.
The absence of the comma
from the biblical text known to the early apologists is suggested furthermore by
its absence from their apologies: “For had it been in Cyprian’s Bible, the Latines
of the next age, when all the world was engaged in disputing about the Trinity,
and all arguments that could be thought of were diligently sought out, and daily
brought upon the stage, could never have been ignorant of a text, which in our
age, now the dispute is over, is chiefly insisted upon.”


In support of his contention, Newton mentions Eucherius’ statement that many people
interpreted the three earthly witnesses as types of the Trinity, and the evidence
given by Facundus that Cyprian interpreted 1 Jn 5:8 as a type of the Trinity.


“Now if it was the opinion of many in the Western churches of those times, that
the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood, signified the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghost; it is plain that the testimony of Three in Heaven, in express words, was
not yet crept into their books: and even without this testimony, it was obvious for
Cyprian, or any man else of that opinion, to say of the Father, and Son, and Holy
Ghost, ‘it is written, “And these Three are One.”’” In an interesting aside,
Newton even suggests that Cyprian’s formulation “Father, Son and Holy Spirit”
rather than “Father, Word and Holy Spirit” suggests that he was referring not to
the comma as it would later become established, but to the baptismal formula
given at the Great Commission (Mt 28:19), “the place from which they tried at
first to derive the Trinity.” (At this point Bishop Horsley, the editor of
Newton’s works, added a note deflecting the suspicion that this statement
revealed any hint of Socinianism on Newton’s part.)

From Cyprian, Newton worked backwards to Tertullian. The fact that
Tertullian was the first to give a Trinitarian interpretation to the phrase tres unum
sunt led Newton to suggest that this interpretation was “invented by the
Montanists for giving countenance to their Trinity.
For Tertullian was a
Montanist when he wrote this; and it is most likely that so corrupt and forced an
interpretation had its rise among a sect of men accustomed to make bold with the
Scriptures.
” On Tertullian’s authority, Newton suggests, this interpretation was
subsequently adopted by Cyprian and other Latins. Newton then suggests that
the Trinitarian allegoresis of the earthly witnesses
led a scribe (or scribes) either
to record this allegoresis in the margin,
“whence it might afterwards creep into
the text in transcribing,” or to insert it into the text “fraudulently.”

.
.
.
For Newton, the most compelling evidence against the original presence
of the comma in the Greek text was its demonstrable absence from the text
during the time of the earliest Fathers. As to the accusation that the comma had
been excised by the Arians, Newton found this simply ludicrous:
“Yes, truly,
those Arians were crafty knaves, that could conspire so cunningly and slily all the
world over at once […] to get all men’s books in their hands, and correct them
without being perceived: ay, and conjurors too, to do it without leaving any blot
or chasm in their books, whereby the knavery might be suspected and
discovered; and to wipe away the memory of it out of all men’s brains, so that
neither Athanasius, or anybody else, could afterwards remember that they had
ever seen it in their books before; and out of their own books too; so that when
they turned to the consubstantial faith, as they generally did in the West, soon
after the death of Constantius, they could then remember no more of it than
anybody else.” Such was the absurd conclusion obtruded upon those who
asserted that the comma was penned by St John himself. Those of Newton’s
contemporaries who excused themselves for inserting the comma against the
evidence of the manuscripts thus revealed themselves as “falsaries by their own
confession, and certainly need no other confutation,” unless they could prove
that the comma had been removed early from the text “by some better argument
than that of pretence and clamour.”

But having dismissed the comma as a later intrusion into the text, Newton
was thus under an onus to explain how the comma arose. He suggested that this
first happened “by that abused authority of Cyprian […], in the disputes with the
ignorant Vandals […].”
Moreover, he suggests that while the comma became
established early in Africa, it did not become commonly accepted in Europe until
the twelfth century or so. This error can perhaps be explained by the fact that
many important texts from the early middle ages still remained unpublished until
after Newton’s time. Newton also pointed out that the evidence of the Latin
bibles is ambiguous, since earlier manuscripts were corrected according to later
recensions, causing a considerable variety amongst the texts in circulation: “the
old Latin has been so generally corrected, that it is nowhere to be found
sincere.”In the case of the Johannine comma, the inconsistent application of
these corrections—later joined by the mistaken injunctions of Aquinas against
the phrase tres unum sunt in 1 Jn 5:8—led to an astonishing variety of different
readings."
I am thoroughly enjoying reading McDonald, Erasmus, Newton, and all the others you've been providing here, but Avery lumps them all in the "dupe" category. Did you notice how he even said Erasmus got it wrong?

Steven Avery said:
And Erasmus does not mention lots of Latin evidences (and the Athanasius Disputation) that does show verse use in the Arian controversies. So that heresy section should be seen in the actual context. Either Erasmus was missing large amounts of information, or, if he had some of it, he preferred to leave it out.

Everyone, to a man, got it wrong, was duped, missed something, didn't mention something, etc, etc, and Avery is here to save the day!

And who better to correct those throughout history who have handled and read the manuscripts, Greek and Latin, than one who hasn't?

How arrogant.
 
Last edited:

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
  • Tertullain is anti-Sabellian (yet supposedly quotes the Comma = no hiding).
  • Cyprian is anti-Sabellian (yet supposedly quotes the Comma = no hiding).
  • Council of Carthage 484 A.D. is an anti-Sabellian creed, quotes the Comma = no hiding.
  • Phoebadius of Agen is anti-Sabellian (yet supposedly quotes the Comma = no hiding).
  • Expositio Fidei Catholicae is an anti-Sabellian creed (among other anti-Sabellian creeds) quotes the Comma = no hiding.
  • Pseudo-Athanasius, De Trinitate is anti-Sabellian (cf. Book 1, Section 55) quotes the Comma = no hiding.
  • Eusebius of Vercelli is anti-Sabellian (yet supposedly quotes the Comma = no hiding).

This is just a sampling (not exhaustive) of the supposed references that (according to Avery) use the Comma, which is inconsistent with the theory of deliberately and systematically concealing the Comma from the Sabellians.

Feel free to list other writers from the "super evidences" list who either hypothetically use the Comma, or actually do quote the Comma, showing they weren't trying to hide it from anyone.

Another question, is there any ECW writer who unambiguously articulates this (manuscript erasure and hiding with anti-Sabellian concealment motives actually stated) theory specifically about the Comma itself, exactly as proposed by Comma advocates of today? Can they produce it?

Augustine? Eucherius of Lyons? Hilary? Fulgentius? Jerome? Cassiodorus? Isadore of Seville? Are these anti-Sabellian? Yet, hypothetically (according to Avery INC) quote or allude to part of the Comma?

Has anyone done a systematic survey (numbers? percentages?) of how many of these authors are anti-Sabellian who are the ones who quote the Comma?

Check the contexts, and their other writings.
 
Last edited:

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
How many of these quotations have an anti-Sabellian clause right in the very context of a Comma quote and/or allusion?

For example, saying "he said 'unum' [neuter] not 'unus' [masculine]" etc.

That would make an interesting study or survey as well.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
“For had it been in Cyprian’s Bible, the Latines of the next age, when all the world was engaged in disputing about the Trinity, and all arguments that could be thought of were diligently sought out, and daily brought upon the stage, could never have been ignorant of a text, which in our age, now the dispute is over, is chiefly insisted upon.”
...
Moreover, he suggests that while the comma became established early in Africa, it did not become commonly accepted in Europe until the twelfth century or so. This error can perhaps be explained by the fact that many important texts from the early middle ages still remained unpublished until after Newton’s time.

The Latins of the next age were not ignorant, see the 20 full verse uses by about AD 600.

In the second claim from Newton, which Grantley acknowledges as an error, even his apology for Newton is a failure. Since many of the early church writer references had in fact been published by the time of Isaac Newton.
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
The Latins of the next age were not ignorant, see the 20 full verse uses by about AD 600.

In the second claim from Newton, which Grantley acknowledges as an error, even his apology for Newton is a failure. Since many of the early church writer references had in fact been published by the time of Isaac Newton.

List them.

With the Latin etc.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
List them.

Here are eight available to Newton, with De Trinitate having many refs.
If we go up to the 12th century date, we could add many more.

And later there are many more published.

Vulgate Prologue
Newton accepts
http://books.google.com/books?id=YsMPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA219

De Trinitate
Published by 1527

Council of Carthage
Newton accepts
http://books.google.com/books?id=myMEjZwWbssC&pg=PA512

Pseudo-Fulgentius, De Trinitate - Ad Pintam (c. AD 490)
Originally published as by Chiffet in 1649 as ”Pro Fide Catholica Adversus Pintam Episcopum Arianum” - aka Ad Pintam

Eleutherius - 1680
https://books.google.com/books?id=yvVIAAAAcAAJ&pg=RA18-PA15

Fulgentius
Newton accepts
http://books.google.com/books?id=YsMPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA206

Cassiodorus
Maffei published in 1721

Isidore of Seville
or Ps-Isidore - 1753 edition (approximate) by Zaccaria
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
Here are eight available to Newton, with De Trinitate having many refs.
Later there are many more.

Vulgate Prologue
Newton accepts
http://books.google.com/books?id=YsMPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA219

De Trinitate
Published by 1527

Council of Carthage
Newton accepts
http://books.google.com/books?id=myMEjZwWbssC&pg=PA512

Pseudo-Fulgentius, De Trinitate - Ad Pintam (c. AD 490)
Originally published as by Chiffet in 1649 as ”Pro Fide Catholica Adversus Pintam Episcopum Arianum” - aka Ad Pintam

Eleutherius - 1680
https://books.google.com/books?id=yvVIAAAAcAAJ&pg=RA18-PA15

Fulgentius
Newton accepts
http://books.google.com/books?id=YsMPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA206

Cassiodorus
Maffei published in 1721

Isidore of Seville
or Ps-Isidore - 1753 edition (approximate) by Zaccaria

Keep going.

That's not twenty.
 
Top