Council of Carthagesister threads
James Snapp struggles against the heavenly witnesses - Proverbs 18:17
when James Snapp made lucid arguments on the heavenly witnesses evidemces
Gregory Nazianzen - and James Snapp on the grammatical discordance on BVDB
defense of authenticity by Nathaniel Ellsworth Cornwall
The sections below are from threads here, with minor tweaking and formatting. I hope to expand some of this into more depth on the discussions and arguments.
James Snapp commentary - Dec 27, 2012
Porter’s presentation is sketchy compared to the treatment given to the Latin evidence by N. E. Cornwall in two extensive articles written in the 1870’s. Cornwall forcefully defended the CJ as genuine, and anyone who wishes to joust with well-prepared defenders of the CJ should grapple with his writings first.
You can find Cornwall’s first meticulous defense of the CJ on pages 625-641 of Volume 26 (1874) of
American Church Review (1874)
and his even more impressive second defense of the CJ on pages 509-528 of Volume 29 (1877) of
American Church Review (1877)
I found that after reading what Cornwall had to say, Metzger’s brief dismissal of the CJ did not seem very decisive. Nor does it seem objective. Metzger is frequently selective in his evidence-descriptions but it is clear that in his comments about the CJ his selectivity is especially remarkable; for example, he mentions that the CJ is not in Codex Fuldensis but he does not mention (and this cannot have been accidental) that the CJ is specifically mentioned in the Preface to the Catholic Epistles that is contained in Codex Fuldensis.[/QUOTE]
[TC-Alternate-list] The NET, Cyprian, First John 5:7, and Nathaniel Ellsworth Cornwall
James Snapp - Nov 13, 2012
Finally, if you would like to read a nice case for the CJ, I refer you to pages 509-528 of the 1877 issue of American Church Review (Vol. 29), where N. E. Cornwall weighs in on the issue, in favor of the genuineness of the CJ. The author was no novice; his arguments are (mainly) lucid; his style is efficient; his rhetoric is fearless.Just to be clear, Azim did not refer to it as the Middleton argument, and I do not know if he has followed that whole history. James Snapp used to reference the Nathaniel Ellsworth Cornwall papers, and Cornwall has a superb section on the argument which is on p. 627 here:
The Middleton argument and history could use its own thread on the PBF.
The point is that the argument is quite strong, and is one of the many grammatical and stylistic and internal excellent arguments that go with the grammatical gender solecism.Nathaniel Ellsworth Cornwall on TC-Alternate
[TC-Alternate-list] 2013-01 - 5505 - new net fallacious accusation - do not ref scholars if not agree 100% - Nathaniel Ellis Cornwall rev
[TC-Alternate-list] 2013-01 - 5508 - Nathaniel Ellsworth Cornwall - Greek and Latin "living streams of Holy Truth and cherished knowledge of that
[TC-Alternate-list] 2013-01 - 5514 - Nathaniel Ellsworth Cornwall - h.w. - variants show Greek—>Latin independent translations, super-evidences
[TC-Alternate-list] 2013-02 - 5521 - Received Text quotes: Nathaniel Cornwall, Charles Forster, Gavin McGrath compared to piddle attacks - Mau
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/TC-Alternate-list/conversations/topics/5521BVDB - Carthage discussion - Snapp uses Cornwall to take blinded ultra-contras to woodshed
James does a great job here on the Council of Carthage.
On the grammar, he is a bit weak, even referring to feminine substantives instead of neuter.