Frederick von Nolan
From Textus Receptus
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | Frederick von Nolan (1784-1864) was a 19th century Greek and Latin scholar, and historian, who defended the [[Textus Receptus]] and said it was superior to all of other editions of the [[Greek New Testament]]. He also defends the work of[[ Erasmus]] as a “great undertaking”. He spent 28 years | + | Frederick von Nolan (1784-1864) was a 19th century Greek and Latin scholar, and historian, who defended the [[Textus Receptus]] and said it was superior to all of other editions of the [[Greek New Testament]]. He also defends the work of[[ Erasmus]] as a “great undertaking”. He spent 28 years tracing the [[Textus Receptus]] to apostolic origins. He argued that the first editors of the printed Greek New Testament intentionally selected the texts they did because of their superiority and disregarded other texts which represented other text-types because of their inferiority. |
It is not to be conceived that the original editors of the New Testament were wholly destitute of plan in selecting those manuscripts, out of which they were to form the text of their printed editions. In the sequel it will appear, that they were not altogether ignorant of two classes of manuscripts; one of which contains the text which we have adopted from them; and the other that text which has been adopted by M. Griesbach. | It is not to be conceived that the original editors of the New Testament were wholly destitute of plan in selecting those manuscripts, out of which they were to form the text of their printed editions. In the sequel it will appear, that they were not altogether ignorant of two classes of manuscripts; one of which contains the text which we have adopted from them; and the other that text which has been adopted by M. Griesbach. | ||
Revision as of 12:22, 19 December 2015
Frederick von Nolan (1784-1864) was a 19th century Greek and Latin scholar, and historian, who defended the Textus Receptus and said it was superior to all of other editions of the Greek New Testament. He also defends the work of Erasmus as a “great undertaking”. He spent 28 years tracing the Textus Receptus to apostolic origins. He argued that the first editors of the printed Greek New Testament intentionally selected the texts they did because of their superiority and disregarded other texts which represented other text-types because of their inferiority.
It is not to be conceived that the original editors of the New Testament were wholly destitute of plan in selecting those manuscripts, out of which they were to form the text of their printed editions. In the sequel it will appear, that they were not altogether ignorant of two classes of manuscripts; one of which contains the text which we have adopted from them; and the other that text which has been adopted by M. Griesbach.
Contents |
Support of Erasmus
Regarding Erasmus, Nolan stated:
- "Nor let it be conceived in disparagement of the great undertaking of Erasmus, that he was merely fortuitously right. Had he barely undertaken to perpetuate the tradition on which he received the sacred text he would have done as much as could be required of him, and more than sufficient to put to shame the puny efforts of those who have vainly labored to improve upon his design. With respect to Manuscripts, it is indisputable that he was acquainted with every variety which is known to us, having distributed them into two principal classes, one of which corresponds with the Complutensian edition, the other with the Vatican manuscript. And he has specified the positive grounds on which he received the one and rejected the other."
He concluded that it was "indisputable" that Erasmus knew about the Alexandrian documents.[1] He also found that the Vaticanus and the Vulgate have a number of remarkable similarities:
- "The striking coincidence of the Greek of the Vatican manuscript with the Latin of the Vulgate leads to the establishment of the same conclusion. This version received the corrections of St. Jerome during his abode in Palestine; it is thus only probable that the Greek copies, after which he modeled it, were those, which far from being current in Palestine, were used in the monastery into which he had retired: but these he assures us were of the edition of Eusebius. For this edition he had imbibed an early partiality, through Gregory of Nazianzum, who first put the Scriptures into his hands, who had been educated at Caesarea in Palestine."2
Comma Johanneum
Nolan stated in 1815 concrning the Comma:
- "'instead of "the Father, Word, and Spirit,' the remaining passage would have been direct concessions to the Gnostics and Sabellians, who, in denying the personal difference of the Father and the Son, were equally obnoxious to those avowed adversaries, the Catholics and the Arians. Nor did the orthodox require these verses for the support of their cause; they had other passages which would accomplish all that they could effect; and without their aid, they maintained and established their tenents."3<\sup>
Nolan gives two reasons why 1 John 5:7 is seemingly scanty in reference to quotations from the church fathers: One - The passage in I John 5:7 is among those like 1 Timothy 3:16 and Acts 20:28 that have all been tampered with in the manuscript tradition, all three having to do with the deity of Christ as "God." Two - That the major reason for not quoting 1 John 5:7 was based on its wording, chiefly, purporting Jesus Christ as the "Word" instead of the "Son." Hence, with the Sabellian heresy being debated that Jesus Christ is the Father with no distinction, 1 John 5:7 would further propagate that notion. Therefore it wasn't quoted.
See Also
References
- 1. Hills, The King James Version Defended, 198. Frederick Nolan, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate. 1815, 413-415 (63).
- 2. Frederick Nolan, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, or Received Text of the New Testament, pp. 83-84.
- 3. An Inquiry Into The Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament, Rev. Frederick Nolan, 1815, pg. 278-279
==External Links==
