Michael Massing on Erasmus and 1 John 5:7

On Erasmus and his (correct) rejection of 1 John 5:7 (the comma Johanneum), Michael Massing wrote:

In the Vulgate, this verse read, “And there are three that give testimony in one.” Known as the comma Johanneum (“phrase of John”), this verse was the scriptural foundation for the doctrine of the Trinity. Yet none of the Greek manuscripts examined by Erasmus had it. Instead, they simply said, “There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one.” Jerome had conjectured that the comma had been inserted into the text by Latin scribes after the Council of Nicaea in 325 to refute the Arians. This early-fourth-century movement, which held that the Son, though the first creature, was neither equal to nor coeternal with the father, had set off one of the most wrenching of all wrenching of all Christian disputes. In Erasmus’s day, Arianism remained a heretical offense, and Church theologians relied on this passage to rebut it; omitting it would open Erasmus to charges of anti-Trinitarianism. Nonetheless, he decided to follow through on his scholarly instincts and drop it from his revised translation, explaining in his annotations that the words were missing from the Greek codices. (Michael Massing, Fatal Discord: Erasmus, Luther, and the Fight for the Western Mind [New York: Harper, 2018], 251)

Elsewhere, we read:

In the spring of 1521, he was occupied with revising the Latin translation for the third edition of this New Testament. Among the major questions he faced was what to do about the comma Johanneum—the passage at 1 John 5:7 about the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit that he had omitted from his first two editions. In his dispute with Edward Lee, he had written that if he had found this passage in even a single Greek manuscript, he would have retained in the text. Not long afterward a Greek codex was duly discovered in England that did contain it. Erasmus suspected that the manuscript had been corrected against the Vulgate—that a scribe had inserted the clause into the codex so that it would conform to the authorized Latin text. Because he remained under attack for dropping the passage, however, he decided to restore it. He was going to, he explained, not for reasons of scholarship but to ensure that there was “no cause or making malicious accusations.” He raised questions about the integrity of the Codex Britannicus, as he called it, and described the vast scriptural and patristic evidence against the passage, including its absence from the Greek codices he examined.

Erasmus’s suspicions have been borne out by modern scholars. Among the thousands of Greek New Testament manuscripts examined since Erasmus’s time, only a handful are known to contain the verse, and it appears in no manuscript of the Vulgate prior to the ninth century. In the huge literature this subject has generated, there has been much debate (ultimately inconclusive) about whether the manuscript was actually produced for the express purpose of refuting Erasmus. (The manuscript in question has been identified as the Codex Montifortianus, named after one of its owners and is housed in the library of Trinity College in Dublin.) Whichever the case, Erasmus’s scholarly instincts were correct, but because of the explosive environment in which he was working, he felt compelled to make this concession. (Ibid., 475-76)

Michael Massing on Erasmus and Romans 5:12

Commenting on Erasmus on Rom 5:12 and its implications for the doctrine of Original Sin, Michael Massing wrote:

In the Vulgate, this passage reads, "Wherefore as by one man sin entered the world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned." Augustine had maintained that the "one man" in question was Adam, and that it was he "in whom all have sinned." In other words, all men were doomed to sin because of Adam's original sin. Thus interpreted, this passage had become the foundation of the doctrine of original sin. In examining the Greek, however, Erasmus saw that the underlying term for the Latin in quo ("in whom") was εφ ω (eph 'ho) and from the context he concluded that it was being used in the sense of "inasmuch as" or "since" we have all sinned. In other words, Erasmus explained, Paul meant to say not that man is doomed to sin because of Adam's original transgression but rather that death is a companion to sin and, inasmuch as all sin, death comes to all. Through this grammatical adjustment, Erasmus was challenging a central tenet of the faith. (Michael Massing, Fatal Discord: Erasmus, Luther, and the Fight for the Western Mind [New York: Harper, 2018], 250)

Johannes Reuchlin's Exalted View of the Hebrew Language

There is a minority of people within the broad Christian spectrum who argue that the New Testament was not just inspired by the Holy Spirit, but that the Greek underlying the New Testament was a new dialect of Greek (“Holy Spirit Greek,” if you will, distinct to “Koine Greek”). Interestingly, a “super exalted” view of Hebrew also existed among some Christians. Michael Massing wrote the following about Johannes Reuchlin (1455-1522):

Almost single-handedly, Johannes Reuchlin helped usher in the new era of Hebraic studies in Christian Europe. At a time when scholars saw Hebrew as alien and subversive, and few wanted anything to do with it, Reuchlin extolled it as holding the key to ancient truths. Hebrew, he declared, is simple, pure, sacred, concise, and eternal. It was the language that man used to communicate with the angels and that had been spoken on earth before the chaos of Babel. When reading it, Reuchlin wrote, he seemed to see God himself speaking. “We Latin people drink from the morass, the Greeks drink from the brooks, the Jews drink from the wells.” (Michael Massing, Fatal Discord: Erasmus, Luther, and the Fight for the Western Mind [New York: Harper, 2018], 176, emphasis added)

While reading the above passage today, I was reminded of a very interesting book I read a few years ago:

Shalom L. Goldman, God's Sacred Tongue: Hebrew and the American Imagination (University of North Carolina Press, 2004)

Latter-day Saints will find this book to be of interest as there is a chapter discussing Joshua Seixas and the early LDS interaction with (Sephardic) Hebrew.

Interesting Excerpts from the Commonitorium by Vincent of Lérins

I recently read the Commonitorium (c. AD 434) by Vincent of Lérins. The following are some interesting excerpts from the text (found in the Nicene Post-Nicene Fathers [series 2] volume 12 [a Latin text of the volume is available here]).  A good volume on the theology of this book and its reception by John Henry Newman (1801-1890) is that of Thomas G. Guarino, Vincent of Lérins and the Development of Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2013)

Note how that, while Lérins did allow for some (organic) development in doctrines and held to a material (not formal) understanding of Scripture’s sufficiency, there is no “wriggle room” for Catholics to appeal to Lérins as there is no consistent way to use his writings as a “spring board” to support belief in dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception which was not an apostolic tradition by any stretch of the imagination:

Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consenting definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors. (Chapter II, 6 [NPNF 2 XII:132])

To preach any doctrine therefore to Catholic Christians other than what they have received never was lawful, never is lawful, never will be lawful: and to anathematize those who preach anything other than what has once been received, always was a duty, always is a duty, always will be a duty. (Chapter IX, 25 [NPNF 2 XII:137])

Condemnation of “secret” traditions:

For thou mayest hear some of these same doctors say, “Come, O Silly wretches, who go by the name of Catholics, come and learn the true faith, which no one but ourselves is acquainted with, which same has lain hid these many ages, but has recently been revealed and made manifest. But learn it by stealth and in secret, for you will be delighted with it. Moreover, when you have learn it, teach it furtively, that the world may not hear, that the Church may not know. For there are but few of whom it is granted to receive the secret of so great a mystery.” Are not these the words of that harlot who, in the proverbs of Solomon, calls to the passengers who go right on their ways, “Whoso is simple let him turn in hither.” And as for them that are void of understanding, she exhorts them saying: “Drink stolen waters, for they are sweet and eat bread in secret for it is pleasant.” What next? “But he knoweth not that the sons of earth perish in her house.” Who are those “sons of earth”? Let the apostle explain: “Those who have erred concerning the faith.” (Chapter XXI, 52 [NPNF 2 XII:146-47])

But some one will say perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ’s Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith . . . that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning. (Chapter XXIII, 54 [NPNF 2 XII:147-48])

There is a wide difference between the lower of youth and the maturity of age; yet they who were once young are still the same now that they have become old, insomuch that though the stature and outward form of the individual are changed, yet his nature is one and the same, his person is one and the same . . . . In like manner, it behoves Christian doctrine to follow the same laws of progress, so as to be consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age, and yet, withal, to continue uncorrupt and unadulterated, complete and perfect in all the measurement of its parts, and, so to speak, in all its proper members and senses, admitting no change, no waste of its distinctive property, no variation in its limits . . . For it is right that those ancient doctrines of heavenly philosophy should, as time goes on, be cared for, smoothed, polished; but not that they should be changed, not that they should be maimed, not that they should be mutilated. They may receive proof, illustration, definiteness; but they must retain withal their completeness, their integrity, their characteristic properties. (Chapter XXIII, 55, 56, 57 [NPNF 2 XII:148])

Material but not Formal Sufficiency of the Bible

Here, possibly, some one may ask, Do heretics also appeal to Scripture? They do indeed, and with a vengeance; for you may see them scamper through every single book of Holy Scriptures . . . (Chapter XXV, 64 [NPNF 2 XII:150])

 . . . they must interpret the sacred Canon according to the traditions of the Universal Church and in keeping with the rules of Catholic doctrine, in which Catholic and Universal Church, moreover, they must follow universality, antiquity, consent. (Chapter XXVII, 70 [NPNF 2 XII:152])

We said above that it has always been the custom of Catholics, and still is, to prove the true faith in these two ways; first by the authority of the Divine Canon, and next by the tradition of the Catholic Church. Not that the Canon alone does not of itself suffice for every question, but seeing that the more part, interpreting the divine words according to their own persuasion, take up various erroneous opinions, it is therefore necessary that the interpretation of divine Scripture should be ruled according to the one standard of the Church’s belief, especially in those articles on which the foundations of all Catholic doctrine rest. (Chapter XXIX [NPNF 2 XII:153])

[Someone who wishes to stay clear of heresy] should ascertain whether any decision has been given in ancient time as to the matter in question by the whole priesthood of the Catholic Church, with the authority of a General Council: and, secondly, if some new question should arise on which no such decision has been given, they should then have recourse to the opinions of the holy Fathers, of those at least, who, each in his own time and place, remaining in the unity of communion and of the faith, were accepted as approved masters; and whatsoever these may be found to have held, with one mind and with one consent, this ought to be accounted the true and Catholic doctrine of the Church, without any doubt or scruple. (Chapter XXIX, 77 [NPNF 2 XII:154])

Fans of John Dehlin and/or the CES Letter be like . . .

Some Friday humour (grounded in fact . . . )!

Staníslaus Lyonnet on Expiation and Intercession

Commenting on the topic of intercession and the placating of God’s anger against sins, Staníslaus Lyonnet wrote the following:

Expiation and Intercession

In those rare passages where the two terms “expiation” and “anger” are found together, we notice that it is in association with prayer. This is true in the expiation of Moses (Ex 32:30; cf. 32:11), and in the case of Aaron (Nm 17:11ff.) according to the interpretation of Wis 18:21-25; see that of Phineas according to the Targum (cf. Ps 106:30); and it is especially clear in the case of the Servant of Yahweh whose role as intercessor is mentioned four times (Targum Is 5:4, 7, 11, 12). St. Jerome had this notion of expiation in mind when (following the usage of the old Latin versions) he translated the stereotyped phrase which concludes the description of the sacrifices for sin, “to make atonement for them,” (Lv 4:20, 26, 31, etc.) by a verb which had the meaning “to pray” or “to intercede.”

It is not surprising, then, to find in the Epistle to the Hebrews the essential function of the priestly activity of Christ as he enters into heaven described in terms of “intercession” (Heb 7:25; 9:24). He is seen as the High Priest who has gone beyond the veil to perform the sacrificial rite par excellence, the sprinkling of his blood on the propitiatory.

This underscores the importance of the interior dispositions of the one who is making the expiation. The external gesture is only the expression of the internal spiritual act, and it is no substitute for it. It is also evident that man’s expiatory acts are not some kind of an attempt to force God to be propitious. When Wisdom describes the intercession of Aaron, it is careful to note that his prayer consists in recalling to God the oaths and agreements given to the forefathers (Wis 18:22). Such a prayer is basically an act of faith in the faithful love of Yahweh. Seen in this way, expiation has for its purpose not to change the dispositions of God (except as man sees it), but to dispose man to receive the gift of God. (Staníslaus Lyonnet, “Expiation,” in The Theology of the Atonement: Readings in Soteriology, ed. John R. Sheets [Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967], 99-101, here, pp. 100-1)

While it is hard to find as it is unfortunately out of print, one should try to get Lyonnet’s book on the atonement and related topics:

Sin, Redemption, and Sacrifice: A Biblical and Patristic Study (Analecta Biblica 48; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970)

On Moses' intercession in Exo 32-33 and other similar events, as well as their theological implications, see my lengthy critique of Reformed theology:

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology

The "Exaltation" of the Humanity of Jesus and the Doctrine of Christification

Commenting on the “exaltation” of Jesus in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Peter C. Orr, lecturer in New Testament, Moore College, Sydney, Australia, wrote the following:

Although the focus is on Christ’s superiority over the angels following his exaltation (‘having become as much superior’), the author also maintains the exalted status of Christ before creation (1:2; 1:10). The author seems to be using angels as ‘midpoint’ between humanity and God. As such,

[t]hey mark out the cosmic territory. They function, so to speak, as measures of ontological status. To be above the angels is to be God, to be below the angels is to be human. Above the angels is to be human. Above the angels, Jesus transcends all creation, sharing the divine identity as Creator and Ruler even of the angels. Below the angels, Jesus shares the common identity of earthly humans in birth, suffering, and death. (Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: ‘God Crucified’ and Other Studies in the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity [2008],241)

The Son, who was with God from the beginning of creation (1:2; 1:10), is in his incarnation made lower than the angels (2:9). Following his purification of sins, he is exalted and so made higher than them again. In that sense, he becomes again—as a human being—higher than the angels. (Peter Orr, Exalted Above the Heavens: The Risen and Ascended Christ [New Studies in Biblical Theology 47; London: Apollos, 2018], 21, emphasis in bold added)

Such shows that in New Testament theology, there is a positive view of the potential of humans. As Jesus, who is a single person, is exalted with reference to his humanity (in Orr’s Trinitarian theology), believers should expect, to some degree, a similar exaltation, too (cf. 1 John 3:1-3; Rev 3:9, 21).

We can see this doctrine of “Christification” of believers in Col 2:9:

For in him dwells the fullness of deity bodily. (NRSV)

Commenting on this verse, as well as vv.10-15, Clinton Arnold wrote:

Participating in Christ’s Fullness Christ has not only delivered his people from the domain of darkness, but he has brought them into his kingdom and bestowed on them his salvation . . . What Paul says about Christ [in Col 2:9] he immediately applies to the church by declaring, “in him you are filled” (εστε εν αυτω πεπληρωμενοι). The “in him” (εν αυτω) marks a major motif of the entire theological section of 2:9-15. Paul is hereby attempting to help these believers understand the full significance of being in Christ, especially as it relates to their concern about supernatural powers and their temptation to follow the solution offered by “the philosophy.” His solution is for them to gain a fuller- appreciation for their resources in Christ and to grasp hold of their leader and supplier (2:19) and to concentrate on the things above where Christ is at the right hand of God (3:1).

The fullness of God—his power and his grace—are bestowed on believers by virtue of their incorporation into Christ. As Lightfoot has said, God’s πληρωμα is “transfused” into them. The perfect periphrastic construction (εστε . . .πεπληρωμενοι) emphasises their share in the divine fullness as part of their present experience. (Clinton Arnold, The Colossian Syncretism [Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1995], 293-95; square brackets added for clarification)

For more on Col 2:9 and its Christology, see my article:

Christology and Colossians 2:9

So we see that in Hebrews and Colossians, there is a positive view of mankind and our divine potential, something consistent with Latter-day Saint theology.