Walter Thiele - Cyprian - Beobachtungen zum Comma Iohanneum (I Joh 5,7f.)

Steven Avery

Administrator
Let's take Grantley McDonald and try to focus on this question.

RGA p. 26-28
.... Walter Thiele (1959) suggested that this passage gives evidence that the comma was already present in the text known to Cyprian. Most modern scholars before Thiele had argued that Cyprian’s invocation of Pater, Filius, Spiritus Sanctus rather than Pater, Verbum, Spiritus Sanctus—the form usually encountered in the comma—suggests that he did not know the comma, but Thiele showed that several Fathers (ps.-Augustine, Eugenius of Carthage, Cassiodorus) also cite the comma with Filius, as does the León palimpsest, the Theodulfian recension and the Vulgate ms Dijon, Bibl. munic. 9bis. Furthermore, Thiele pointed out that the comma was one of a number of interpolations in the Catholic Epistles found in a type of text quite close to that used in North Africa (Jas 1:1, 2:16, 2:25, 4:1; 1 Pt 1:16, 1:19, 2:23, 3:22, 5:4, 5:14; 1 Jn 2:5, 2:17, 2:26, 5:7-8, 5:9, 5:20; 2 Jn 11; Jud 11), which often draw their material from parallel passages elsewhere in the New Testament. Several of these interpolations are of a dogmatic nature (1 Pt 1:19, 3:22; 1 Jn 5:9, 20). .... Thiele to suggest that these interpolations, including the Johannine comma, may derive from a very early form of the Greek text.31

However, Thiele’s hypothesis rests on the assumptions that all the interpolations entered this text-type simultaneously from a Greek original, and that all were present uniformly in all exemplars of this text-type. These assumptions cannot necessarily be made. Moreover, Thiele’s hypothesis does not adequately explain the absence of the comma from the works of the Greek Fathers or from other Latin writers before Priscillian, notably Augustine, who seems to have been familiar with this text-type. With the greatest of respect to Thiele, I am not convinced by his explanation of why Facundus (see below) should have mentioned Cyprian as one of those who provided a Trinitarian interpretation of the phrase tres unum sunt. Nor does his hypothesis explain why the author of De rebaptismate—someone close to Cyprian in space and time, using a very similar biblical text—should also have cited 1 Jn 5:8 without the heavenly witnesses. While Thiele was certainly correct to draw attention to the presence of a complex of interpolations present in this North African text-type (as far as it can be reconstructed), the passage from Cyprian does not seem to allow us to conclude anything more definite than the fact that he interpreted the phrase tres unum sunt in a Trinitarian sense, just like many others before and after him. But whether or not Thiele’s hypothesis about Cyprian is correct, it should be emphasised that he has never maintained that the comma was anything but an interpolation.

31 Wachtel, 1995, 317, notes that Thiele’s hypothesis has found little support in the subsequent literature.

RGA p, 308

49 ... Maynard, 1997, 36-37, likewise co-opts Walter Thiele as an unwitting ally: “Walter Thiele was my professor at Tubingen. […] Thiele in 1959 argued, ‘No, Cyprian did not merely allude to verse 8, he actually had a Latin manuscript in his hand which had 1 John 5:7.’ So Thiele is going against the crowd. Yet Thiele is a Hort-Westcott advocate!”

Bibliography - RGA

Thiele, Walter. “Beobachtungen zum Comma Iohanneum (I Joh 5,7f.).” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 50 (1959): 61–73.

Possible Spots Online

Beobachtungen zum Comma Johanneum (1 Joh. 5, 7 f.)
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/zntw.1959.50.1.61/html

Beobachtungen zum Comma Johanneum (1 Joh. 5, 7 f.)
http://www.findingaugustine.org/Record/70432

1960, maybe they have 1959
http://idb.ub.uni-tuebingen.de/opendigi/thlz_085_1960/pdf/thlz_085_1960.pdf

My conjecture is that Grantley was fairly thorough on Thiele and Cyprian in RGA (while omitting and messing up so many other references) because his thesis readers were in that academic clique. When it came to BCEME - all gone!
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
This was the BVDB intro:

BVDB Intro
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...7-and-greek-manuscripts-t6223-s10.html#p79843

Raymond Brown note
https://books.google.com/books?id=u...a=X&ei=NZU4T6ywHOjt0gHts9GrAg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAQ

gconan:
Steven Avery
How do you view the scholarship of Walter Thiele on Cyprian, the heavenly witnesses, and Greek origin
Cyprian was an Old Latin witness. I have not read Walter Thiele on Cyprian, but I don't think he was quoting the Comma, but giving an allusion. But even if he was quoting an Old Latin Bible fully it is no evidence that it was in Greek. And if in Greek why did no Greek Fathers support it? Let us assume Walter Thiele said Cyprian was translating from the Greek, or had gotten it from the Greek .....

========================================================
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
The Scholarship on the Old Latin Versions

1620220334967.png

The Cambridge History of the Bible: Volume 1, From the Beginnings to Jerome (1963)
https://books.google.com/books?id=QnG2067meU0C&pg=PA370
p. 370-373

1620220457014.png


1620220545102.png

1620220595952.png

1620220622287.png


1620220681452.png
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Grantley McDonald
Before leaving Augustine we should note two points. Firstly, in 1934 Norbert Fickermann drew attention to a note in a twelfth-century manuscript of the Regensburg Epistolæ rhetoricæ, which makes the following claims: “St Jerome argued that that verbal repetition [replicatio] in the [first] Epistle of John—‘And there are three that bear witness, the Father, the Word and the Spirit’—was established as certain. By contrast, St Augustine prescribed that it should be removed, on the basis of the Apostle’s meaning and the authority of the Greek.”34 Given the relatively recent date of this text (eleventh century), its erroneous attribution of the Prologue to the Catholic Epistles to Jerome, and the fact that the statement about Augustine seems not to reflect anything in the Father’s extant works, it is difficult to know how much confidence to place in this assertion. Probably not much. Secondly, it has often been claimed that Augustine cited the comma in a work called Speculum, but this claim is based on a confusion between two treatises called Speculum, sometimes found together in the same manuscripts, only one of which—Speculum “Quis ignorat”, the one that does not contain the comma—was written by the great African Father.35


1651823910880.png

1651825005489.png

1651825218308.png


1651825548497.png
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
p. 69 Beo
1659122531536.png

b)| Was unter a) als allgemeines Ergebnis der Textgeschichte ausgesprochen wurde, findet seine Bestätigung, wenn wir die Zitate Cyprians zu I Johannes untersuchen. Cyprians Bibeltext für I Johannes ist durch zahlreiche Zusätze gegenüber dem Griechischen gekennzeichnet.

b)| What under a) as a general result of the textual history was pronounced finds its confirmation if we examine Cyprian's quotations from I John. Cyprian's biblical text for I John is marked by numerous additions to the Greek.


Same page has Hundredfold Martyrs
1659122600745.png

filius wird außer bei Cyprian belegt in den Hss 67 0ÜD, in den Zitaten bei Pseudo-Augustinus (Solutiones diversarum quaestionum ab haereticis obiectarum, Biblica 23 [1942] 263), Eugenius von Karthago (CV 7, 60 im Überlieferungszweig ß>) und Cassiodor (PL 70, 1373 A), ferner in einer Anspielung bei Pseudo-Cyprian (De centesima, sexagesima, tricesima 44, ZNW 15 [1914] 87), um nur die ganz sicheren Zeugen zu nennen.

p. 66
1659140898191.png

1659140951768.png

2. Die Zusätze gehören zum alten Bestand der lateinischen Bibel. Für I Joh 217 ist das Alter durch Cyprian erwiesen. Für die übrigen Stellen ist die äußere Bezeugung allein nicht so offenkundig, hier hilft die Textgeschichte weiter. Sie zeigt, daß der von den ältesten Zeugen (Cyprian und Pseudo-Cyprian) gebotene Text zahlreiche Frei- heiten gegenüber dem überlieferten griechischen Text, insbesondere auch Zusätze, aufweist, während die folgende Entwicklung einen immer stärkeren Anschluß an die griechische Vorlage erstrebt.

So ist es durchaus typisch, daß von den hier behandelten Zusätzen auch nicht einer mehr von der Vulgata belegt wird5 und daß die Zeugen für die Zusätze auch sonst Beziehungen zum alten afrikanischen Text aufweisen.


Das gilt für das pseudo-augustinische Speculum (Jac 2 ie 41

2. The additions belong to the old stock of the Latin Bible. For I Joh 217 the age is proved by Cyprian. For the other passages, the external evidence alone is not so obvious; the textual history helps here. It shows that the text offered by the oldest witnesses (Cyprian and Pseudo-Cyprian) shows numerous freedoms compared to the traditional Greek text, especially additions, while the following development strives for an ever closer connection to the Greek original.


So it is quite typical that not one of the additions discussed here is documented by the Vulgate5 and that the witnesses for the additions also show connections to the old African text in other respects.

p. 71
1659141267433.png

Wichtig ist es uns als Hinweis darauf, wie früh die Tendenz, Zusätze gegen das Griechische auszuscheiden, schon eingesetzt hat.

It is important to us as an indication of how early the tendency to discard additions against the Greek began.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
cjab on CARM
https://forums.carm.org/threads/hundredfold-martyrs.10873/#post-829175

Walter Thiele Beobachtungen zum Comma Johanneum (1959), p. 69.
__________________________________________________________________________
Thiele does make the argument that Avery alleges, but on slender grounds viz. The retrospective introduction of an addendum as long and widespread as the C.J. is would be a very singular exception. The problem for Thiele is that the C.J. has proved to be just such a very singular exception, which he seems to ignore. Another problem for Thiele is that he hasn't taken into account Augustine's point which is that Latin translations of the Greek were unregulated: anyone could make a translation, and anyone did. There were therefore, according to Augustine, many Latin variants floating around in North Africa: it was never the case of the Latin translation being performed just once, as Thiele presupposes.

(If I can recall, Thiele does also have dogmatic views on other matters that others disagree with.)

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

Folgende Gründe bestimmen mich, im Gegensatz zu der bisher allgemein üblichen Auffassung (11) in diesen Stellen eine Anspielung Cyprians auf das C. I. zu sehen und damit das C. I. als Bibeltext für die älteste lateinische Bibel zu beanspruchen:

a) Zusätze sind charakteristisch für den alten Bibeltext. Die Textgeschichte strebt ihre Ausscheidung an. Die nachtr gliche Einführung eines so langen und weit verbreiteten Zusatzes, wie es das C. I. ist, wäre eine ganz singuläre Ausnahme. Es gibt keinen Anhaltspunkt, für das C. I. eine solche Sonderstellung zu fordern: der Zusatz der Himmelszeugen steht durchaus in einer Reihe mit anderen »dogmatischen« Zusätzen der Katholischen Briefe, cf I Ptr 1:19; 3:22; I Joh 5:9, 20.

b) Was unter a) als allgemeines Ergebnis der Textgeschichte ausgesprochen wurde, findet seine Best tigung, wenn wir die Zitate Cyprians zu I Johannes untersuchen. Cyprians Bibeltext für I Johannes ist durch zahlreiche Zus tze gegen ber dem Griechischen
gekennzeichnet:
1:9 εάν] + autem; δίκαιος] + dominus';
2:16 σαρκός] + est; ουκ Ιστιν] quae non est; εκ του κόσμου] ex concupiscentia saeculi;
2:17 αίωνα] + quomodo (et) ipse (deus) manet in aeternum;
2:23 καΐ τον πατέρα] et filium et patrem;
4:3 το του αντίχριστου] de antichristi spiritu;
4:4 ὁ ἐν υμϊν] qui in vobis est; ἐν τφ κόσμορ] in hoc mundo. cf. auch II Joh 1:1 Sententiae episcoporum numero LXXXVII de haereticis baptizandis 81: ταύτηv την διδαχήv] doctrinam christi; οἰκίαν] + vestram.

Aus welchen Gründen ist nun die Auffassung, bei Cyprian liege das C. I. vor, bestritten worden? Maßgebend war vor allem die Beobachtung, daß die 2. Person der Trinität bei Cyprian "filius", und nicht wie in den bekannten Texten des C. I. "verbum" heißt. Aber die Erfassung des gesamten Materials zeigt offenkundig, daß filius ebenso wie verbum Lesart des C. I. ist (12).

filius wird außer bei Cyprian belegt in den Hss 67 ΘΩ(D) in den Zitaten bei Pseudo-Augustinus (Solutiones diversarum quaestionum ab haereticis obiectarum, Biblica 23 [1942] 263), Eugenius von Karthago (CV 7, 60 im überlieferungszweig β) und Cassiodor (PL 70, 1373 A), ferner in einer Anspielung bei Pseudo-Cyprian (De centesima, sexagesima, tricesima 44, ZNW 15 [1914] 87), um nur die ganz sicheren Zeugen zu nennen.
_____________________
11. Die überwiegende Mehrzahl der Forscher sieht in Cyprian, de unitate 6 nur einen Beleg dafür, daß Cyprian Geist, Wasser und Blut allegorisch auf die Trinität gedeutet habe, nicht aber das C. I. voraussetze; vgl. C. Tischendorf, N. T. Graece (8) II (1872) zu I Joh 5:7f., ferner in der unter Anm. l genannten Literatur Künstle 6—8, Chapman 263, Bludau, Theol. Quartalschrift 101, 13f., Riggenbach 398, Ayuso, Biblica 29, 53 f. Nur F. Büchsel, Die Johannesbriefe (Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament 17), Leipzig 1933, 82f., rechnet mit einem Zitat des C. I. bei Cyprian.

12. Vgl. dazu schon B. Fischer, Biblica 23 (1942), 264.

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

The following reasons determine me, in contrast to the hitherto generally accepted view (11), to see Cyprian's allusion to the C.J. in these passages and thus to claim the C.J. as the Bible text for the oldest Latin Bible:

a) Additions are characteristic of the old Bible text. The textual history strives for their elimination. The retrospective introduction of an addendum as long and widespread as the C.J. is would be a very singular exception. There is no evidence to demand such a special position for the C.J.: the addition of the heavenly witnesses is quite in line with other "dogmatic" additions to the Catholic Epistles, cf I Ptr 1:19; 3:22; I John 5:9, 20.

b) What was stated under a) as a general result of the history of the text is confirmed when we examine Cyprian's quotations from I John. Cyprian's Bible text for I John differs from the Greek in numerous additions marked:
1:9 εάν] + autem; δίκαιος] + dominus';
2:16 σαρκός] + est; ουκ Ιστιν] quae non est; εκ του κόσμου] ex concupiscentia saeculi; 2:17 αίωνα] + quomodo (et) ipse (deus) manet in aeternum;
2:23 καΐ τον πατέρα] et filium et patrem;
4:3 το του αντίχριστου] de antichristi spiritu;
4:4 ὁ ἐν υμϊν] qui in vobis est; ἐν τφ κόσμορ] in hoc mundo. cf. also II Joh 1:1 Sententiae episcoporum numero LXXXVII de haereticis baptizandis 81: ταύτηv την διδαχήv] doctrinam christi; οἰκίαν] + vestram.

On what grounds has the view that Cyprian had the C.J. been disputed? The decisive factor was above all the observation that the 2nd person of the Trinity is called "filius" in Cyprian and not "verbum" as in the well-known texts of C.J. But gathering all the material evidently shows that "filius", like "verbum," is a reading of C.J. (12).

Apart from Cyprian, "filius" is documented in Hss 67 ΘΩ(D) in the quotations from Pseudo-Augustinus (Solutiones diversarum quaestionum ab haereticis obiectarum, Biblica 23 [1942] 263), Eugenius von Karthago (CV 7, 60 in the tradition branch β) and Cassiodorus (PL 70, 1373 A), also in an allusion in Pseudo-Cyprian (De centesima, sexagesima, tricesima 44, ZNW 15 [1914] 87), just to name the most reliable witnesses.
________________________
11. The overwhelming majority of researchers sees in Cyprian, de unitate 6 only a proof that Cyprian has allegorically interpreted spirit, water and blood as referring to the Trinity, but does not presuppose the C.J..; cf. C. Tischendorf, N. T. Graece (8) II (1872) on I Joh 5:7f., also in the literature cited under note 1 Künstle 6-8, Chapman 263, Bludau, Theol. Quarterly publication 101, 13f., Riggenbach 398, Ayuso, Biblica 29, 53f.

Only F. Büchsel, Die Johannesbriefe (Theologischer Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 17), Leipzig 1933, 82f., counts on a quotation from C.J. in Cyprian.

12. See in addition B. Fischer, Biblica 23 (1942), 264.

Last edited: Today at 4:28 AM
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
F. Büchsel, Die Johannesbriefe (Theologischer Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 17), Leipzig 1933, 82f.

Friedrich Büchsel (1883-1945)
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Büchsel

Friedrich Büchsel was born as the son of the pastor and later general superintendent Johannes Büchsel in Stücken (today a district of Michendorf) near Potsdam. He attended high school in Cottbus and the Paulinum high school in Münster. From 1901 he studied theology at the University of Tübingen. After two semesters, Büchsel moved to the University of Halle, where he passed his first theological examination in 1904. The second theological examination followed in Stettin in 1907. Büchsel then received his doctorate with the dissertation The Christology of Revelation John for Dr. theological

Friedrich Büchsel began his professional career as an inspector at the preacher seminary in Soest. From 1909 he held the same position at the Tholuck Konvikt in Halle (Saale). In June 1911 he habilitated at the University of Halle with the work The concept of truth in the Gospel and the letters of John for the subject New Testament. A first draft had been rejected by Wilhelm Lütgert in 1910. The rejection was justified with the accusation of a tendency towards "speculative theology". After that, Büchsel worked as a private lecturer in Halle.

During the First World War, Friedrich Büchsel served as a field chaplain. He was a bearer of the Iron Cross, second class. In 1916 he received an associate professorship at the University of Greifswald and in 1918 a professorship at the University of Rostock. Friedrich Büchsel was a member of the German National People's Party and the National Socialist Teachers' Association. He was shot by looters during the turmoil at the end of the war and died from his injuries.[1]

Buchsel (1933), Pieper (1950), Hills (1956), and Thiele (1959).

Die Johannesbriefe
http://books.google.com/books?id=I26BQgAACAAJ

Die Johannesbriefe (Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament 17). Leipzig : Deichert 1933

Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament: Die Pastoralbriefe. XIII
http://books.google.com/books?id=Tr9btwAACAAJ

Die Johannesbriefe - 1933
Open Library -
http://openlibrary.org/works/OL11232233W/Die_Johannesbriefe

Worldcat - Die Johannesbriefe - 1933
Princeton and Library of Congress
https://www.worldcat.org/title/johannesbriefe/oclc/4024816&referer=brief_results
both
https://www.worldcat.org/title/theo...-buchsel/oclc/492482115&referer=brief_results

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

Büchsel on μονογενής

Ehrman on 1 John 4:3
1659444145977.png
 
Last edited:
Top