View of providence in the CT approach

[Jerusalem Blade]

The Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8 KJV) was cited a proof text for the Trinity in the following confessions and catechisms:

Westminster Confession of Faith 1646 2.3
Westminster Larger Catechism Q&A 6
Westminster Shorter Catechism Q&A 6
The London Baptist Confession of 1689 2:3
The Belgic Confession of 1561, Article 9 quotes the passage: “There are three who bear witness in heaven– the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit– and these three are one.”
The Heidelberg Catechism of 1563, Lord’s Day 8, Q&A 25, footnote 5

 

[Hugues Pierre]

Good afternoon, Logan.

Thank you for answer. I still appreciate this discussion.

a. I agree that Beza had Stephanus apparatus into his hand. That is not a matter of debate. And to be still more exact we should say that Beza had two different apparatus: one standard and the other, given to him after Stephanus' death, which was a private copy.

b. Then we have Stephanus affirming that Beza had into his hand all the manuscripts which were in the Royal Library (in the same note you alluded from the 1556 edition). We have also many claims from Beza himself: either in the Prefaces of his Greek New Testament (see especially the 1598 edition where Beza says his New Testament text was compared with nineteen Greek old manuscripts, which were the seventeen manuscripts of Stephanus together with the manuscripts found in Lyon and Clermont), or directly in his annotations. Nobody says he has read, compared and found things in manuscripts when he only worked with an apparatus. Beza had also Erasmus apparatus and he didn't claimed to have read, compared and found variants in Erasmus manuscripts. He didn't called Erasmus' manuscripts "our manuscripts".

c. Finally, we have to deal with the fact that some of Stephanus' manuscripts were in Paris. And it is only because some people see an irreconcilable difficulty between this fact and the previous one that they are not willing to receive Beza's words in their plain sense. But look, David Martin believed both were true. Jean Morin (1591-1659, a Reformed turned papist) who was a scholar in Paris believed both facts to be true. For these men there were no contradiction or difficulty. Both could be true at the same time. So we do not need to separate these two plain facts. There are actually many possibilities to explain how Beza could have had access to these manuscripts though they were basically in Paris during the 50'.

Fact: Stephanus said in 1550 that the manuscripts in question were in the Royal Library in Paris.
Fact: The printer's note for Beza's edition said that the manuscripts in question were in the Royal Library in Paris.
Fact: The manuscripts are said to still reside in the Royal Library and no one has ever shown that they left.
Fact: Beza said in his 1556 preface that he had a copy from the library of Stephanus "collated as accurately as possible" (he doesn't mention manuscripts but the collation).
Fact: Beza said in his 1565 preface "In addition to all this came a copy from the library of our Stephanus, collated by Henri Stephanus" (he doesn't mention manuscripts but the collation)

To that we have the one you have focused on (or at least this is what I presume you are referring to):
Fact: Beza said in his 1582 edition "we collated these books...again with the various readings from the seventeen Greek books cited by Robert Stephanus".

There is only one way to interpret this information consistently. They can only all be true if Beza is referring to the collation as representative of the manuscripts. And if he believed that the collation and critical notes were representative of the manuscripts, then there was no need for him to consult the manuscripts personally but could sincerely talk about them as if he had. That's not dishonest, we do the same when we use the critical apparatus even though none of us personally saw the manuscripts behind it. This fits all the facts quite well and does no violence to any of Beza's words.

But for your claim to be true you have to:
- ignore the other five facts,
- assume that Stephanus and Beza's printer were lying or mistaken and that
- the manuscripts in question actually did somehow make it to Beza and
- The Papists in all their accusations against Protestants never bothered to claim that the Protestants stole their manuscripts,
- That Beza looked at them and either managed to smuggle them back into Papist-controlled Paris
- or that forgeries or other copies were put in their place and everyone covered it up,
- then Beza lost the manuscripts.
- And no one has ever seen them except for Beza.

All of those leaps of logic based on what you say must be the only interpretation of some of Beza's words; which interpretation doesn't match other things Beza and his printer said.

 

[Hugues Pierre]

Question: are all the Stephanus mss cited still in the royal library in Paris? Or whatever the successor library at the revolution?

No. In fact these manuscripts were lost at some point in the past. In the eighteenth century they were already considered as lost. Yet at the beginning of this century a Roman Catholic priest, Jacques LeLong, claimed to have found them anew in the Royal Library. He found several manuscripts which were numbered exactly as Stephanus' ones. Yet they were finally proved to be forgeries. First because they wore Henry II's seal while Septhanus' manuscripts were taken from Francis I's Library. Then because the content was also proved to be different from Stephanus' own manuscripts.

 

[Logan]

No. In fact these manuscripts were lost at some point in the past. In the eighteenth century they were already considered as lost. Yet at the beginning of this century a Roman Catholic priest, Jacques LeLong, claimed to have found them anew in the Royal Library. He found several manuscripts which were numbered exactly as Stephanus' ones. Yet they were finally proved to be forgeries. First because they wore Henry II's seal while Septhanus' manuscripts were taken from Francis I's Library. Then because the content was also proved to be different from Stephanus' own manuscripts.

Lucas Brugensis had notes on the manuscripts in 1580, Simon in 1689, Le Long in 1720, and Marsh in 1795. When were these manuscripts considered lost? And by whom?

Even the Wikipedia page listing the manuscripts used by Stephanus has links to each individual one with none of them showing any suspicion of being a forgery or lost at any point in time. Is the entire world duped? Who is making this claim?

This entire line of reasoning really seems like begging the question to me. The conclusion is set, but the evidence has to be dismissed, so all kinds of narratives are being created.

 

[Hugues Pierre]

Lucas Brugensis had notes on the manuscripts in 1580, Simon in 1689, Le Long in 1720, and Marsh in 1795. When were these manuscripts considered lost? And by whom?

Even the Wikipedia page listing the manuscripts used by Stephanus has links to each individual one with none of them showing any suspicion of being a forgery or lost at any point in time. Is the entire world duped? Who is making this claim?

This entire line of reasoning really seems like begging the question to me. The conclusion is set, but the evidence has to be dismissed, so all kinds of narratives are being created.

You can read D. Martin on this. Lelong pretended to have found all Stephanus' manuscripts in the Library (with the exception of the Complute) which is strange since Stephanus had taken only eight manuscripts from there. The manuscripts have the wrong seal. And their content is not conform to Stephanus' notes, for example there is no manuscript containing Revelation but Stephanus claimed to have had three such manuscripts.