Summary - Complutensian Polyglot - Michael Screech cancel-sheet hypothesis countered by Ignacio García Pinilla

[Steven Avery]

Pure Bible Forum

Michael Screech theory of Complutensian cancel-sheets
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...-arius-grantley-mcdonald.421/page-3#post-6556

Complutensian Polyglot - Reprinting Hypothesis countered by Ignacio García Pinilla
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...ror-on-the-heavenly-witnesses.1702/#post-6541

problems with the idea that the Complutensian cancel-sheet was reactive to Erasmus.
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...iscuss-the-heavenly-witnesses.1110/#post-6538

Pinella on the cancel-sheet hypothesis
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...iscuss-the-heavenly-witnesses.1110/#post-6547

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

This thread.

Summary - Complutensian Polyglot - Michael Screech cancel-sheet hypothesis countered by Ignacio García Pinilla
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...sis-countered-by-ignacio-garcía-pinilla.1909/

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

Ignacio J. García Pinilla, “Reconsidering the relationship between the Complutensian Polyglot Bible and Erasmus’ Novum Testamentum”, in Kaspar von Greyerz, Silvana Seidel Menchi, Martin Wallraff (eds.), Basel 1516. Erasmus’ Edition of the New Testament (Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck), 2016, pp. 59-77
https://www.academia.edu/24403189/I...Testament_Tübingen_Mohr_Siebeck_2016_pp_59_77

 

[Steven Avery]

On the Bart Ehrman blog
https://ehrmanblog.org/how-the-trin...72cc5aff14be3bdc6b646dfbb07fad#comment-120412

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

Tom Hennell
"after Erasmus had produced his own Greek New Testament in 1516, the Complutensian folio carrying this reading was ‘cancelled’; the replacement having inserted into it a footnote referring back to citation of this verse by the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, with the clear intention of casting Erasmus’s text as implicitly heretical. "

Hi Tom, greetings!

This cancel-sheet theory from Michael Andrew Screech, given in Grantley Robert McDonald's paper, Raising the Ghost of Arius, on p. 88, is almost surely not correct. Grantley hinted at the problem in the footnote:

"My examination of the watermarks in the copy in the Bibliothèque nationale de France did not reveal any conclusive evidence."

There was even a recent discussion on Twitter on this question, which really helped in the studies!

You may have to jump around a bit, check the info here:

Pure Bible Forum
Summary - Complutensian Polyglot - Michael Screech cancel-sheet hypothesis countered by Ignacio García Pinilla
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...sis-countered-by-ignacio-garcía-pinilla.1909/

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

And if you, or anyone, needs the English of the Complutensian note, A. J. McDonald, Jr. placed that on his blog from William Orme.
https://theworldperceived.blogspot.com/2019/08/translation-of-marginal-note-at-1-john.html

Which was related to the ETC discussion:

Putting to Rest an Old Canard about Erasmus
https://evangelicaltextualcriticism...howComment=1569453275401#c5457752314960002948

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

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY, USA