tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post3091623932294944067..comments2024-03-03T21:51:46.662-05:00Comments on stylos: Rejoinder to Hixson on the CJ: Part Three of ThreeJeffrey T. Riddlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16374856944409335186noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-83674462364212262332020-02-07T15:27:43.588-05:002020-02-07T15:27:43.588-05:00(b) For another thing, we must take heed to our do...(b) For another thing, we must take heed to our doctrine about the inspiration and<br />authority of the Holy Scriptures. Let us boldly maintain, in the face of all gainsayers, that<br />the whole of the Bible is given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, - that all is inspired<br />completely, not one part more than another, - and that there is an entire gulf between the<br />Word of God and any other book in the world. We need not be afraid of difficulties in<br />the way of the doctrine of plenary inspiration. There may be many things about it far too<br />high for us to comprehend: it is a miracle, and all miracles are necessarily mysterious.<br />But if we are not to believe anything until we can entirely explain it, there are very few<br />things indeed that we shall believe. We need not be afraid of all the assaults that<br />criticism brings to bear upon the Bible. From the days of the apostles the Word of the<br />Lord has been incessantly ‘tried,’ and has never failed to come forth as gold, uninjured,<br />and unsullied. We need not be afraid of the discoveries of science. Astronomers may<br />sweep the heavens with telescopes, and geologists may dig down into the heart of the<br />earth, and never shake the authority of the Bible: ‘The voice of God, and the work of<br />God’s hands never will be found to contradict one another.’ We need not be afraid of the<br />researches of travelers. They will never discover anything that contradicts God’s Bible. I<br />believe that if a Layard were to go over all the earth and dig up a hundred buried<br />Ninevehs, there would not be found a single inscription which would contradict a single<br />fact in the Word of God. <br /> Furthermore, we must boldly maintain that this Word of God is the only rule of faith<br />and of practice, - that whatsoever is not written in it cannot be required of any man as<br />needful to salvation, - and that however plausibly new doctrines may be defended, if they<br />be not in the Word of God they cannot be worth our attention. It matters nothing who<br />says a thing, whether he be bishop, archdeacon, dean or presbyter. It matters nothing that<br />the thing is well said, eloquently, attractively, forcibly, and in such a way as to turn the<br />laugh against you. We are not to believe it except it be proved to us by Holy Scripture. <br /> Last, but not least, we must use the Bible as if we believed it was given by<br />inspiration. We must use it with reverence, and read it with all the tenderness with which<br />we would read the words of an absent father. We must not expect to find in a book<br />inspired by the Spirit of God no mysteries. We must rather remember that in nature there<br />are many things we cannot understand; and that as it is in the book of nature, so it will<br />always be in the book of Revelation. We should draw near to the Word of God in that<br />spirit of piety recommended by Lord Bacon many years ago. ‘Remember,’ he says,<br />speaking of the book of nature, ‘that man is not the master of that book, but the<br />interpreter of that book.’ And as we deal with the book of nature, so we must deal with<br />the Book of God. We must draw near to it, not to teach, but to learn, - not like the master<br />of it but like a humble scholar, seeking to understand it.<br /><br />Warning to the churches - Pharisees and Saducees by JC Ryle - find the link on this page - https://www.monergism.com/search?f%5B0%5D=author%3A35296&page=1<br />MarichDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14339872016997438634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-65980201489262647042020-02-06T00:54:24.647-05:002020-02-06T00:54:24.647-05:00Definitely in Western churches, and Bibles like th...Definitely in Western churches, and Bibles like the Tepl (Teplensis). They have an Old Latin lineage, and join the Vulgate in having the verse. Thus, various German Bibles had the verse. <br /><br />The idea of an independent Vaudois or Waldenses transmission from the 2nd century is quite dubious. That was pushed by Benjamin Wilkinson (1872-1968), whose textual scholarship was spotty. He tried to use the interesting material from Frederick Nolan (1784-1864), and twisted it to match what Wilkinson felt was good Adventist theory about the Waldenses. This still affects some King James Bible supporter writings, through David Otis Fuller (1903-1988), which talks of two lines, or streams, or trees. And tries to put the Old Latin on the good line and the Vulgate on the bad line. An incorrect theory.<br /><br />There was a degree of restoration on the Greek side starting from the Lateran Council of 1215 AD, however most mss. were simply copied without the verse. Codex Ottobonianus is an extant exception. The church writers Manuel Calecas and Joseph Bryennius utilized the verse in their Greek writing in the pre-Reformation days, c. 1400. <br /><br />And Erasmus would be familiar with the dozens of Latin scholars writing about the verse, including the Schoolmen. After the early 1400s there was much more dual language scholarship, Latin and Greek. <br /><br />The Orthodox scholars generally accepted the Reformation Bible correction, which you can see in the 1643 Orthodox Confession of Faith written by Peter Mogilas. <br /><br />Hope that helps on the 2-part question.Steven Averyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18019556495973817763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-38582417788489481232020-02-05T12:25:32.860-05:002020-02-05T12:25:32.860-05:00Also, wasn't 1st John 5:7 in the Bibles actual...Also, wasn't 1st John 5:7 in the Bibles actually used in churches prior to the Reformation? The Old Itala Bibles of the Waldenses in the west, and the Greek Bibles of the Greek Church in the east (of Europe)? Peter Lindstromhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14228857044037847174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-80970515414642997762020-02-05T10:07:51.418-05:002020-02-05T10:07:51.418-05:00Thanks, Jeffrey.
It is a bit annoying that Elij...Thanks, Jeffrey. <br /><br />It is a bit annoying that Elijah Hixson built his argumentation on the totally false idea that the the extant late Greek manuscripts are “the evidence”. <br /><br />And then you are supposed to “jump” .. “how high” .. and give counterpoint to his paper (which was nice, and appreciated, , but gave nothing new, David Robert Palmer had the same information documented years ago, albeit without the pics.)<br /><br />Elijah’s whole extant Greek ms. challenge to you was based on his own lack of knowledge of the heavenly witnesses history and evidences. Thus, you have no obligation to play into his scholastic void :). Elijah should first come up to speed. <br /><br />And much more can be added to the quick outline above, including the Origen Psalm scholion, and the details from Eugenius Bulgaris. <br /><br />That said, your blog posts are excellent/<br /><br />=======<br /><br />Btw, Elijah insists that Cyprian was only giving a “Trinitarian exegesis” of the spirit, water and blood. Against Cyprian’s well-known accuracy in quoting scripture.. Elijah stops there, without explaining how and when and by whom that was expanded to a beautiful Johannine-style extra verse, to the margin , to the text, heavenly and earthly elements added, and even the Greek solecism fixed when back-translated! Amazing.<br /><br />To other issues, like Jerome’s Vulgate Prologue, and the 484 Council of Carthage, afaik Elijah has said absolutely nothing.<br /><br />Thanks for the posting, explaining spot!<br /><br />========<br /><br />Steven Avery<br />Dutchess County, NY<br />.<br /><br />Steven Averyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18019556495973817763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-53377529388989985392020-02-04T23:44:39.135-05:002020-02-04T23:44:39.135-05:00Thanks for this comment and others in this series ...Thanks for this comment and others in this series Steven. I hear you on defense of the CJ based on the evidence. I am not saying it has no defense whatsoever based on evidence. Good points made.<br /><br />JTRJeffrey T. Riddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16374856944409335186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-72069479256195959922020-02-04T23:32:21.209-05:002020-02-04T23:32:21.209-05:00Thank you Jeffrey, for your fine responses.
Allow...Thank you Jeffrey, for your fine responses.<br /><br />Allow me to comment on the evidence issue.<br /><br />Jeffrey Riddle<br />"the TR position also readily acknowledges that some TR readings do not have strong or available extant external support. ... TR defense of the CJ does not depend on extant external evidence"<br /><br />In terms of the heavenly witnesses, there is strong external support in Latin and in ECW (early church writers) as well as an incredible array of grammatical, internal, harmony, stylistic and parallelism evidences.<br /><br />Thus, the sentences above need a double adjective to be accurate:<br /><br />Greek<br />manuscripts <br /><br />"extant Greek manuscript external evidence"<br /><br />In Greek, the Disputation of Athanasius with Arius at Nicea is a definite evidence, likely written in the 4th-5th century. The Synopsis of Scripture is another Greek evidence. <br /><br />Beyond that, there are evidences that point directly to early Greek manuscripts. <br /><br />Jerome's Prologue to the Canonical Epistles specifically discusses the tendency to drop the verse! And Jerome surely had access to Greek and Latin mss. from c. 200 AD, using Greek mss. to tweak and improve the Latin text. <br /><br />Eusebius ad Marcellum gives us an insight consistent to this as well, showing the doctrinal discomfit with "three are one". This helps confirm the theory of Frederick Nolan (1784-1954) that the Constantine 50 mss. deliberately omitted the verse, by the influence of Eusebius. <br /><br />Similarly, Cyprian and Tertullian utilized the verse, and had background in Latin and Greek, there was no Chinese wall separating the languages. <br /><br />One great fallacy that permeates the approach of Elijah Hixson is that somehow extant late Greek mss. are "the evidence". Generally those mss. simply represent the restoration of the verse in the Greek line that began in the Lateran Council of 1215 AD. (There was a similar restoration in Armenian around the time of the Synod of Sis.) These Greek mss. are a very minor part of the heavenly witnesses authenticity evidence.<br /><br />And learned defenders like John Mill (1645-1707) and the Lutheran Franz August Otto Pieper (1852-1931) were most happy to accept full authenticity based on what is proven by the Cyprian, and Tertullian, references. Without concern for a single extant Greek ms! Similar can be said with other super-evidences, like the Vulgate Prologue, which so flummoxed Erasmus. And the Council of Carthage of 484 with the appeal to the verse in the Bibles of hundreds of orthodox Christians from a wide Meditteranean region, and the African Bibles of the Vandals under Huneric. <br /><br />I've taken up more ink than expected, so I will pass for now on details on the grammatical, harmony, stylistic and other internal evidences. Simply mentioning that two grammatical evidences strongly support a Greek original translated to Latin, with the emphasis on the solecism that is alluded to by Erasmus "torquebit grammaticos" and described wonderfully by the world-class Greek scholar Eugenius Bulgaris (1718-1805). <br /><br />Nor can I go into comparing the simplicity of theories of omission (homoeoteleuton and doctrinal preferences) with the convoluted mish-a-mosh of the various competing and alternate interpolation theories.<br /><br />Thanks for your patience!Steven Averyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18019556495973817763noreply@blogger.com