tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post6978152182446869271..comments2024-03-03T21:51:46.662-05:00Comments on stylos: WM 151: Review: McDonald on Erasmus, the CJ, Foucault, and "Epistemes"Jeffrey T. Riddlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16374856944409335186noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-16304321417369839982020-08-05T12:26:11.638-04:002020-08-05T12:26:11.638-04:00Jeffrey Riddle
Greetings, Jeffrey, would like to e...Jeffrey Riddle<br />Greetings, Jeffrey, would like to examine two points:<br /><br />"With the development of the historical-critical method, beginning with Richard Simon and Baruch Spinoza, critical questions were disconnected from theological ones."<br /><br />How about Thomas Cajetan (1469-1534)?<br /><br />The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century: <br />The Johannine Exegesis of Wolfgang Musculus (1997)<br />Craig S. Farmer<br />https://books.google.com/books?id=USfPqoCykKAC&pg=PA109<br /><br />"Although Cajetan defended himself against the charge of Protestant sympathies, there is no escaping the decidedly humanist character of his commentaries.4 He believed that the Protestant heresies could be effectively battled only when Catholic theology rooted itself firmly in the historical-grammatical meaning of Scripture."<br /><br />Other than the volume of writing, is there really any significant difference between Cajetan and Richard Simon, 150 years later? He also gave the same type of concerns about the Mark ending and the woman caught in adultery and the heavenly witnesses.<br /><br />And should Erasmus be considered in this group as well?<br />hmmm<br /><br />Also Hugo Grotius (1583-1645):<br /><br />Historical Criticism: Its Role in Biblical Interpretation and Church Life <br />Joseph a. Fitzmyer, S.J. (1989)<br />http://cdn.theologicalstudies.net/50/50.2/50.2.2.pdf<br /><br />"In the 17th and 18th centuries the method was further developed in the work of the Dutch jurist and theologian Hugo Grotius, the French Oratorian and biblical scholar Richard Simon, and the Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza—thus in the work of a Protestant, a Catholic, and a Jew."<br /><br />Personally, I do not accept the distinctions as given by Grantley, he would like all the (good-guy) philologists to be opposed to the heavenly witnesses, and the Bible-believers, "theologians" being those who affirm the verse. Then he dances around to fit the square peg into the round hole. <br /><br />Thanks! <br /><br />======================<br /><br />"the modern scholarly “consensus”, held since the mid-twentieth century"<br /><br />Probably more accurate to say late 19th century, although there were a number of truly superb defenses of the authenticity of the heavenly witnesses up till around 1890. (Abbe le Hir, Charles Forster, Henry Thomas Armstrong and others.) Then there was mostly a gap until Edward Freer Hills, and then another gap until the work of Michael Maynard became a major spur to the superb research of the last 25 years. <br /><br />======================<br /><br />Thanks for the review, and the recently more completed one! <br /><br />Steven Avery<br />Dutchess County, NY<br />https://www.facebook.com/steven.avery.7568Steven Averyhttps://www.facebook.com/steven.avery.7568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-18881961514546402292020-02-16T12:18:13.525-05:002020-02-16T12:18:13.525-05:00Hi Jeff!
Thanks for this indication, I started to...Hi Jeff!<br /><br />Thanks for this indication, I started to think about textual issues several years ago after I read Metzger's comments concerning the comma in Lee Strobel's work, "The case for Christ". Thinking about the genuineness of the comma led me to defense of the Traditional Text. So, McDonald's book is a good addition into the debate about that precious verse. <br /><br />Blessings!Victor Leonardo Barbosahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17375083645018833817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-49923331442573412972020-02-10T01:13:16.743-05:002020-02-10T01:13:16.743-05:00Here is a link J. C. Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on...Here is a link J. C. Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospel of John with Notes<br /><br />- http://www.tracts.ukgo.com/ryle_gospel_of_john.htm<br /><br />Once you have clicked on the link, click on the pdf link for the preface and you'll find a very edifying read of JC Ryle's position on the inspiration of scripture and on translations and variants.<br /><br />Excerpt from the preface - "The vexed question of “various readings,” I have deliberately left alone. It is not <br /><br />because I have no opinion on the subject. But the real extent to which all the various <br />readings would affect the meaning of Scripture, if they were admitted, is so much ex- <br />aggerated, that it does not seem to me worth while to mix up the question with such a <br />work as that which I have undertaken. The Greek text which I have been content to <br />use throughout is that of the third Edition of Stephens (1550), edited by Scholefield. I <br />do not say for a moment that it is the best text. I only say I have used it. <br />The occasional shortcomings of our authorised English translation I have not <br />hesitated to notice. I have frequently pointed out expressions which in my judgment <br />are not rendered so literally or accurately as they might have been There is nothing <br />perfect on earth. Our excellent translators undoubtedly fail occasionally to give the <br />full sense of Greek words, and are not always sufficiently careful about tenses and the <br />article. But it is useless to expect perfection in any translation. Translators are not in- <br />spired, and are all liable to err. The “plenary verbal inspiration” which I firmly main- <br />tain, is that of the original text of Scripture, and not of any translation.—I have no <br />sympathy however with those who wish to have a new authorised English version of <br />the Bible. I concede the shortcomings of the old version, but judging by the specimens <br />of “new and improved” versions which I have seen, I doubt much whether we should <br />gain anything by attempting to mend it. Taking it for all in all, the authorised English <br />version is an admirable translation. I am quite content to “let well alone.” <br />I now conclude this preface with an earnest prayer, that it may please God to par- <br />don the many deficiencies of this volume, and to use it for His own glory and the <br />good of souls. It has cost me a large amount of time and thought and labour. But if the <br />Holy Ghost shall make it useful to the Church of Christ, I shall feel abundantly repaid. <br />Ignorance of Scripture is the root of every error in religion, and the source of <br />every heresy. To be allowed to remove a few grains of ignorance, and to throw a few <br />rays of light on God’s precious Word is, in my opinion, the greatest honour that can <br />be put on a Christian. <br />J. C. RYLE, B. A., <br />CHRIST CHURCH, OXFORD. <br />Stradbroke Vicarage, Suffolk, <br />February, 1865."<br />MarichDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14339872016997438634noreply@blogger.com