Geisler vs Till
Derek Pomery dpomery@cuc.edu
Wed, 3 Mar 1999 12:04:33 -0500 (EST) (00920502273, Pine.LNX.3.95.990303120301.20357A-100000@helix.cs.cuc.edu)
Sorry for not following this more carefully. I am squirreling away
tidbits from this group to use in annoying discussions when inerrantists
at school invade my privacy. What particular text was this section
referring to? Was it Luke 3:22? It's not clear from the context.
On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, Joseph Crea wrote:
> Hello, Farrell!
>
> At 12:18 AM 3/3/99 -0800, Farrell Till wrote:
> >At 03:41 AM 3/3/99 +0000, Joseph Crea wrote:
>
> -snip--
>
> >>CREA
> >> I know you have some nefarious ultimate scheme in mind for Sherman, but
> >>I can't help wondering why (with the exception of the adoptionist variants
> >>like Luke 3:22) you have even bothered with such relatively minor textual
> >>variations? After all, as far as I can tell, you haven't yet unlimbered
> >>such heavy artillery as the Comma Johanneum (and its acknowledged late and
> >>secondary nature) as a glaring example of a varia lectio which most
> >>certainly would have had an impact on Xian theology.
> >>
> >
> >TILL
> >Actually, I did mention this, didn't I? I've wasted so much time on Sherman
> >that I can't really remember every point I have introduced, so I would have
> >to go back and check. My original intention was to go through the NT from
> >the beginning and note significant variations in Matthew, then Mark, then
> >Luke, then John, etc., but I could see that this was going to take more time
> >than I could afford to devote to a project that Sherman would probably
> >dismiss with one-line comments anyway. At any rate, the Comma Johanneum (1
> >John 5:7-8) is a good example of a variation that affects Christian doctrine
> >significantly. I haven't reviewed the literature on it for a while, but if
> >memory serves me correctly, it can't be found in any early Greek manuscripts
> >and is apparently a late edition to the Greek text that was thought to have
> >been inserted from the vulgate.
>
>
> CREA
> You probably did and I missed it. As for the Comma, Metzger, in his
> __Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament__, has this to say:
>
>
> "[Metzger cites the Comma in Greek and then adds] That these words are
> spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the
> light of the following considerations:
>
> (A) EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: (1) The passage is absent from every known Greek
> manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be
> a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight
> manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as
> a later addition to the manuscript. The eight manuscripts are as follows:
>
> 61: codex Montfortianis, dating from the early sixteenth century.
>
> 88^v.r.: a variant reading in a sixteenth century hand, added to the
> fourteenth-century codex Regius of Naples.
>
> 221^v.r.: a variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript in the
> Bodleian Library at Oxford.
>
> 429^v..r.: a variant reading added to a sixteenth century-manuscript at
> Wolfenbuttel.
>
> 636^v.r.: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at
> Naples.
>
> 918: a sixteenth-century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.
>
> 2318: an eighteenth-century, influenced by the Clementine Vulgate,
> at Bucharest, Rumania.
>
>
>
> (2) The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they
> known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian
> controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a
> Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.
>
> (3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions
> (Syrian, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except for the
> Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form
> (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome
> (codex Fuldensis [copied A.D. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before
> A.D. 716] or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus
> [ninth century]).
>
> The ealiest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual
> text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled __Liber
> Apologeticus__ (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic
> Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius.
> Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to
> symbolize the Trinity (through mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the
> water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as
> a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text. In the fifth
> century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as
> part of the text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onwards it is
> found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the
> Vulgate. In these various witnesses the wording of the passage differs in
> several particulars.
>
>
> (B) INTERNAL PROBABILITIES. (1) As regards transcriptional probability, if
> the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its
> omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of
> Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.
>
> (2) As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break
> in the sense."
>
>
> CREA
> For a treatment at greater length, one may refer to Metzger's __The
> Text of the New Testament__, starting on page 101. Hope that this helps.
>
>
>
> With Mettaa,
>
> Joseph Crea
> <Joseph.Crea@worldnet.att.net>
>
>
>
>
>