Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Frederick Nolan on the three witnesses short text solecism

  1. Default Frederick Nolan on the three witnesses short text solecism


    Frederick Nolan (1784-1864)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederi...an_(theologian)


    works with the material from Eugenius Bulgaris on the 1John 5 grammar, since his three quotations go right to the heart of the matter.

    Nolan is very helpful in finding two comments, one by Richard Porson, and one by Herbert Marsh, that act as types of concession speeches for the solecistic short text, that could have easily been missed.

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

    Christian Remembrancer (1822)
    The Heavenly Witnesses
    Frederick Nolan - written June 18, 1822
    http://books.google.com/books?id=i_EDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA460

    ... the introduction of the Heavenly Witnesses removes every grammatical objection to the context of the Apostle. That the suppression of them creates an insuperable objection to it, may be referred to the decision of a judge whose sentence none will deny to be impartial, and few dispute to be competent. "But what," observes Bishop Marsh*, in reference to the epistle before us, "shall we say to readings, which when connected with the context make false grammar? What shall we say to a verb singular, &c.....to a masculine adjective referring to a neuter substantive? Now the question to be asked is, is it possible, that Velez found this, and the other readings of the same stamp, in a Greek manuscript?" "Even a man," he elsewhere reasons, "who learnt Greek by mere usage and conversation, without being taught its first principles, could not possibly have written" as St. John is proved to have written, by those who reject the disputed text from his epistle.

    * Lett, to Travis, Append, iii. p. 276. sqq. comp. Pref. p. i. n. 1.
    ===================

    Letters to Mr Archdeacon Travis in vindication of one of the Translator's notes to Michaeli's Introduction (1795)
    Herbert Marsh
    http://books.google.com/books?id=CndAAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA276

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


    Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis (1790)
    Richard Porson
    http://books.google.com/books?id=SUg7AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA51

    "patched up a motley text"

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

    The "motley text" was the only known reference by Porson to the grammar of his favored short text with three witnesses. Porson, as essentially an unbeliever, did not really mind that the Johannine text he favored was "motley", so he just stuck the comment in en passant in a context about Latin-->Greek issue. Porson acknowledges that the supposed Latin interpolation, when translated to Greek, "made good Greek of their Latin". Ironically, he was also acknowledging the patching up of the "motley text" he favored as authentic.

    —"Palpable oversights in the texture of the sense, and gross solecisms in the grammatical structure, cannot be ascribed to the inspired writers. If, of two readings, one be exposed to such objections, there is but the alternative, that the other must be authentick." - Frederick Nolan
    This however, is not the view of Richard Porson and today's unbelievers, or those stuck with the apologetics of Critical Text solecisms.

    The Open Court, March 1916
    T
    he Four-Hundredth Anniversary of the Publication of the First Greek New Testament - p. 129-147
    Bernhard Pick
    http://books.google.com/books?id=RwsWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA140

    To the cry of his opponents that "solecisms are not offensive to God." Erasmus replied, "true, but neither are they pleasing to Him" (non offenditur deus soloecismis, at idem non delectatur). - Bernhard Pick
    Last edited by Steven Avery; 08-29-2018 at 01:39 PM.

  2. Default

    Facebook - Pure Bible
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/1852972874794593/?comment_id=1855642907860923&comment_tracking=%7B" tn"%3A"R"%7D

    Grammatical Insight from the learned Frederick Nolan (1784-1864).

    An insightful and fun read from Frederick Nolan in 1815! I am omitting the Greek for now with **

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

    An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate: or, Received text of the New Testament ; in which the Greek manuscripts are newly classed, the integrity of the authorised text vindicated, and the various readings traced to their origin (1815)
    Frederick Nolan
    https://archive.org/stream/a601052600nolauoft...

    3. In 1 Joh. v. 7, three masculine adjectives ** are forced into union with three neuter substantives, a grosser solecism than can be ascribed to any writer, sacred or profane. n93. And low as the opinion may be which the admirers of the Corrected Text may hold of the purity of the style of St. John; it is a grosser solecism than they can fasten on the holy Evangelist, who, in his context, has made one of these adjectives regularly agree with its correspondent substantive in the neuter: ** There seems to be consequently as little reason for tolerating this text as either of the preceding. (Acts 20:28 and 1 Timothy 3:16) .. the genuine text of scripture.

    3. In I John v. 7. the manifest rent in the Corrected Text, which appears from the solecism in the language, is filled up in the Received Text ... (

    ... Nay more, he omits them in such a manner as to create a gross solecism in his language, which is ultimately removed by the accidental insertion, as we are taught, of those witnesses, from a note in his margin. Nor is this all; but this solecism is corrected, and the oversight of the Apostle remedied, by the accidental insertion of the disputed passage, from the margin of a translation : the sense of which, we are told, it embarrasses, while it contributes nothing to amend the grammatical structure n99!

    ... Yet, on the assumption of this extravagant improbability, as matter of fact, must every attack, on the authenticity of this verse, be built, as its very foundation !

    n93 is a fine note about Eugenius Bulgaris
    "This objection was first started by the learned Abp. Eugenius, who has translated “ the Georgics” into Greek; and may be seen in a letter prefixed by M. Matthiei to his Greek Testament, Tom. XI. p. ix ...

    n99 goes into the theory of Latin to Greek transmission, which is also correction!

    Nolan also expresses the powerful internal evidence about the "witness of God".

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

  3. Default

    Similar remarks in his earlier review of Richard Laurence .
    https://books.google.com/books?id=eKg2AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA404
    ====

    In proceeding to estimate the respective merit of these texts the first attention is due to the internal evidence. In reasoning from it, we work upon solid grounds. For the authenticity of some part of the verses in dispute we have that strong evidence which arises from universal consent; all manuscripts, of whatever class or edition, supporting some part of the context of the contested passages. In the remaining parts we are given a choice between two readings, one only of which can be authentic. And in making our election, we have, in the common principles: of sense and language, a certain rule by which we may be directed.

    Gross solecisms in the grammatical structure, palpable oversights in the texture of the sense, cannot be ascribed to the language of the inspired writers.

    If of any two given readings one be exposed to such objections, there is but the alternative, that the other must be authentic.

    On applying this principle to the corrected text, in the first instance, it seems to bring the point in dispute to a speedy determination. The reading which it proposes in the disputed texts is not to be reconciled with sense, with grammar, or the uniform phraseology of the New Testament.


    . 3. In 1 Joh. v. 7, three masculine adjectives, ** s, are forced into union with three neuter substantives, ** ; a grosser solecism than can be ascribed to any writer sacred or profane *. And low as the opinion may be which the admirers of the corrected text may hold of the purity of the style of St. John, it is a grosser solecism than they can fasten on the holy Evangelist, who, in his context, has made one of these adjectives regularly agree with its correspondent substantive in the neuter: ** or. 3. There seems to be consequently as little reason for tolerating this text as either of the preceding

    * This objection was first started by the learned Abp. Eugenius, who has translated “the Georgics” into Greek; and is stated in a letter addressed by him to M. Matthaei; an extract from which is inserted by that critic in his Greek Testament. Vid. tom. xi. p. ix. “
    ... See also p. 421 and the section beginning 424, there is a Zohar reference from Selden on p. 423. Generally, this information should also be in the Inquiry, published the next year.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •