A Brief Rejoinder to Mr. Sheffield on 1 John 5:7

Jonathan Sheffield recently wrote (source):

After reviewing several Francis Turretin points on the subject, his thesis amounts to a poorly constructed postmodern narrative with no basis in history. Appealing to "some scribe" is not evidence for his position, but a deus ex machina to avoid addressing the positive evidence for the passage.

After I asked if he was ok, Sheffield responded: "Francis Turretin, have you ever had the opportunity to Beta Test your thesis?" (source)

The reason for my question was that I have seen Mr. Sheffield present cogent statements in other contexts.  However, in this particular context, what he offered is hard to connect to anything I've said/written.

First: "After reviewing several Francis Turretin points on the subject, his thesis amounts to a poorly constructed postmodern narrative with no basis in history."  

Based on his follow-up message, I gather that he did not have some third party's thesis in mind. He simply misplaced his modifier.  I'm sure I've done the same in informal contexts like Facebook. However, I have no idea which of my "points" JS has in mind.  His comment is too vague for me to guess which points from the many Comma Johanneum articles I've posted he means to reference (link to tagged posts).  

Likewise, the reference to my "thesis" is not entirely clear.  My overall thesis (if one wants to call it that) on the text of 1 John 5 is that John's letter originally said (though in simple uncial without diacritical marks, spaces, and punctuation): "... ὅτι τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἡ ἀλήθεια. ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. εἰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων λαμβάνομεν, ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ θεοῦ μείζων ἐστίν ... " (see here) and specifically without the additions proposed by Erasmus, the Complutensian editors, and others over the years on the basis (directly or indirectly) of a Latin tradition.

There's a mountain of evidence to support my thesis, especially that the overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts support this thesis - particularly the non-insertion of "in earth" and of the heavenly witnesses parallel is evidenced in literally hundreds of Greek manuscripts ranging from the fourth century up to the age of printing (and beyond, for whatever little that might be worth).  (a sorted list of manuscripts can be seen here)

Further support comes from all the ancient versions, except for a subset of the Latin. For example, the Coptic versions follow the Greek (Bohairic)(Sahidic).  So does the Old Georgian (source).

Additional support comes from writings of the fathers and other early Christian authors, even amongst the Latin tradition:

• Cassiodorus' (Latin, 485–585) translation of Clement of Alexandria's (Greek 147-215) comments on 1 John (available here);
• A 3rd or 4th century opponent of Cyprian on rebaptism (available here); 
• Ambrose (339-397) in his treatise on the Holy Spirit (available here); and
• Leo the Great (391-461): the Tome of Leo (available here).

So much for "no basis in history."  It's hard to respond to the claim of poor construction or a postmodern narrative, because no specific narrative is identified. In other comments in the thread JS offered some clarification (source):

Hefin Jones, let me give you an example.

In my debate with Ehrman on Gospel Authorship, his response to the evidence I presented in support of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the actual authors was this:

Actual quote: "But once somebody puts a name on them, apparently somebody in Rome, which at this time is becoming the biggest church and the most influential church in the empire, uh, somebody puts a name on these things, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And everybody else afterwards calls them Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. So, uh, what, you know, what else are they going to call them? That's what people are starting to call them"

That is a postmodern narrative, not actual objective evidence for his position.

He doesn't produce any documentation to that effect: no letter, where the location was (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, North Africa), - note he dropped the Rome claim when I pressed him on it. Additionally, who the person was that decided, and then which churches copied. It was like a world of make-believe. No one said what he was advocating in the ancient world.

The Critical Text Scholarship uses a similar postmodern narrative in trying to defend the premise that 1 John 5:7 is not original to the epistle of John. While taking the position that 1 John 5:7 is not original is a valid position, instead of advocating a postmodern narrative, present evidence for it in the same way as we have for any other now-credible theory of the world. “Evidence” in that sense must mean facts, which are beyond dispute as they are, whose existence is more likely, more probable, if the proposed theory is true than if any competing theory were true instead. Hope that helps. Pax Christi,

I cannot see the relevance of Ehrman's theory regarding the names of the gospels to the present controversy. JS seems to concede that my overall thesis is "a valid position" and that my approach of offering evidence in support of my position is an appropriate mode of investigating the problem.

JS continued: "Appealing to 'some scribe' is not evidence for his position, but a deus ex machina to avoid addressing the positive evidence for the passage."

What positive evidence?  I've dealt with the very few, inconsistent, and late Greek manuscripts offered in support of any version of the comma (see my post).   Before the life of Erasmus, they amount to a single Greek manuscript (GA 629). The two competing theories about that manuscript are (1) that the scribe producing the manuscript copied from a now lost Greek exemplar and (2) that the scribe producing the manuscript back-translated from his Latin exemplar into Greek to supply what he assumed was an omission in his Greek exemplar. Given the popularity of the comma among Latin readers in the West by the mid-1300s when the manuscript was made, and given the absence of known early Greek exemplars, the second of the two theories is the one more supported by the evidence. However, if an advocate of the TR wanted to go with the former theory, one might reasonably ask (as I did during my recent debate) why the Greek prepositions of the TR are different from those of GA 629. I'm not sure what appeal to "some scribe" JS has in mind. Without some clarification it's basically impossible to provide a helpful response.

As for "have you ever had the opportunity to Beta Test your thesis?" Again, this seems a bit vague. The phrase "beta test" has a meaning in software development, but I'm not sure how JS means to apply that to this topic. If he's asking if I have taken this into debate - yes, I have. There is a link above to my recent debate with CJ Cox and the topic came up in my debate with Nick Sayers (link), though I don't think I offered much (if anything!) on that topic then.

Pre-Responding to the "Immaculate" => "Immaculate Conception" Argument

It's hard to know exactly how Mr. Albrecht intends to defend against the fact that so many popes taught contrary to the dogma of the immaculate conception before its definition in the 19th century. In a previous post, I discussed the specific arguments I expect to hear from Albrecht about certain contra-IC quotations, but Albrecht claimed that he was sitting on a pile of quotations on the other side. What could those be?

My best guess (based on Mr. Albrecht's arguments in other debates on the subject) is that they include quotations like these:

Leo I, Sermon 31 (link)
"After celebrating but lately the day on which immaculate virginity brought forth the Saviour of mankind, ..."

7th Ecumenical Council, Decree (link)
"With the Fathers of this synod we confess that he who was incarnate of the immaculate Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary has two natures, recognizing him as perfect God and perfect man, as also the Council of Chalcedon has promulgated, ..."

6th Ecumenical Council (link)
- Letter of Agatho
"Moreover we confess that one of the same holy consubstantial Trinity, God the Word, who was begotten of the Father before the worlds, in the last days of the world for us and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Ghost, and of our Lady, the holy, immaculate, ever-virgin and glorious Mary, truly and properly the Mother of God, that is to say according to the flesh which was born of her; ..."

- Prosphoneticus to the Emperor
"For as the Word, he is consubstantial and eternal with God his father; but as taking flesh of the immaculate Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, he is perfect man, consubstantial with us and made in time."

These and many other writings describe Mary and/or her virginity as "immaculate." A modern reader will be tempted to automatically associate the term "immaculate" with the dogma of the "immaculate conception." This is particularly tempting for Protestants, who reject the idea that Mary was sinless, and consequently would affirm that her virginity was immaculate at the incarnation, and that she had been justified by faith, but not that she was otherwise sinless. Tempting though it may be, it's an equivocation fallacy.

State vs. Event
To avoid this equivocation fallacy, note well the difference between a state and an event. The state of being sinless is one thing, and how a person became sinless is another thing. For example, there is a view of baptismal regeneration that suggests that when a person is baptized, they are made pure from original sin and all preceding actual sins. Likewise, the doctrine of justification by faith alone also teaches that in justification we are rendered guiltless. Without getting into the important distinctions between baptismal regeneration (defined that way) and justification by faith alone, the point is that a person is in some sense sinless in both cases. Likewise, both Roman Catholics and Protestants agree that those in heaven are sinless.

So, even if Scripture had said that Mary was sinless (a state) at Jesus' conception, that would not necessarily tell us how she became that way (an event). Scripture does not speak of Mary in that way, while some in the Patristic era and many in the medieval era definitely did speak of Mary as sinless. How could she be sinless if she was not immaculately conceived? She could have been purified from sin rather than being preserved from sin.

What about other possible arguments? It's hard to say. I recall Mr. Albrecht taking the position that Leo the Great exegeted Genesis 3:15 in a way that represents Mary as the New Eve, or something to that effect. Those kind of arguments should readily be seen to be a rabbit trail.

-TurretinFan

Pre-Responding to William Albrecht's Position on Popes Leo and Innocent

It's sometimes hard to pin down one's debate opponent before the debate, as not everyone has published extensively on a given topic.  Thankfully, in a recent debate with an Orthodox opponent, William Albrecht was questioned about the writings of a couple of popes in the list of popes that we hope to discuss in our debate on January 18.  The Orthodox advocate started with Leo.

Leo the Great, Fifth sermon on the Nativity (Sermon 25), Chapter 5.

... when by the condition of birth, there is one cause of perishing for all. And so among the sons of men, the Lord Jesus alone was born innocent, since he alone was conceived without the pollution of carnal concupiscence.

Albrecht responded that he agreed with this because "he is simply talking about the fact that the purification of Mary comes from the Holy Spirit. If you read farther there, it actually says nothing about-- [timer beeped] speaking of Mary's conception, it says nothing about Mary's conception. He viewed sexual intercourse as sinful, and he says the shattering (sic for shadowing?) of the Holy Spirit is a purifying one, not one for sin. There's much more to be said about Leo, but I've got all these quotes in front of me. [time was then called] (approx. 37:30-38:00 debate time)

My rebuttal is this:
1) I certainly grant that Leo is not particularly discussing Mary's conception. Indeed, technically since Leo says "sons," and Mary is a daughter, there's that.
2) Nevertheless, Leo's logic (as explained by Albrecht) undermines Albrecht's point. For Leo, as Albrecht was starting to concede, the issue is whether someone was conceived by sexual intercourse. Mary was so conceived. Therefore, Leo's position logically entails that she contracted the pollution of carnal concupiscence. Again, if someone will point out that Leo does not mention this logic here, I will concede that point as well.
3) And, of course, while the context may not explicitly address conception, the context does say this: "He took an origin in the womb of the Virgin, was placed in the baptismal font; he gave to the water, what he gave to his mother; for the power of the Most High and the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, which worked that Mary gave birth to the Savior, also worked that water regenerate the believer." The parallel here does seem to suggest a purification of Mary (as Albrecht stated), but purification is opposed to preservation. If she was preserved as the immaculate conception dogma teaches, she did not need to be purified.
4) And while Leo may say great things about Mary elsewhere, there are also many similar quotations to this as outlined in my post (link to "How Many Popes Does it Take to Deny the Immaculate Conception?).

Innocent III, Sermon on the Assumption, Sermon 2 (aka Second Discourse on the Assumption)(see the alternate translation here)

Eve was produced without sin, but she brought forth in sin; Mary was produced in sin, but she brought forth without sin.

Albrecht was asked if he agreed with Innocent III and Albrecht responded: "Pope Innocent III here says that the Holy Ghost had, before the annunciation, cleansed Mary's soul from original sin. He then says that he, in turn, appeared to cleanse her flesh from the appearance of sin. She was innately cleansed from Original Sin by God well before the Annunciation, so I do agree. There is no hint of Mary sinning here, or even having a sinful nature." 
Albrecht's opponent then reiterated the question, emphasizing the phrase "produced in sin." Albrecht responded: "No, he never uses the word 'produced in sin' here. I disagree with that interpretation - that translation - I disagree with that. And he doesn't say 'produced.' It says 'Eve was produced without sin, but she brought forth in sin.' And then he uses a different word for produced with Mary. It doesn't use that word." (approx. 45:00-45:45 debate time)

1) I suspect that Albrecht may not have listened carefully, and began by discussing the quotation from Innocent III in his Sermon on the Purification of the Virgin.
2) Nevertheless, when he switched over to the quotation from the Sermon on the Assumption, his denial of the use of the term "produced," is baffling.  The Latin as provided by Patrologiae Latina (vol. 217 - here) states:

Illa fuit sine culpa producta, sed produxit in culpam; haec autem fuit in culpa producta, sed sine culpa produxit.

Indeed, the PL editors (publishing in 1890) felt it necessary to point out in a footnote that this was said before the definition that now exists. (See footnote 21 at the bottom of the same page.)(see identical Latin here)

So, no. It's the identical word, letter for letter the same.  And the translation "produced" is the right translation from the Latin.  I would like to given Albrecht the benefit of the doubt that his eyes may have skipped back up to the other quotation, though it is mystifying how he could be so wrong.

-TurretinFan

Leo I and Gregory I vs. the Immaculate Conception

In an earlier post (link), I provided evidence that the teachings of Leo I aka Leo the Great and Gregory I aka Gregory the Great at least implicitly contradict the modern dogma of the immaculate conception. Luigi Gambero's "Mary and the Fathers of the Church" has a section on Leo I (pp. 302-09) and a section on Gregory I (pp. 366-72). While Mr. Gambero can point to teachings by Leo I and Gregory I that we would not accept (such as Leo's and Gregory's apparent idea that Mary miraculously maintained the physical evidence of virginity despite giving birth), Mr. Gambero does not present any evidence from Leo I in favor of the dogma of the immaculate conception.

Mr. Gambero's subject matter index for the immaculate conception does not point us to any Roman bishop in the patristic period (i.e. up to the time of John of Damascus) as teaching the dogma. Jurgens' "The Faith of the Early Fathers" similarly fails to provide any allegation of teaching on this subject from any Roman bishop (also within that same time period).

In addition to the materials in my previous post, I also located these further examples from Leo's letters:

Letter 31:2 – “For if the New Man had not been made in the likeness of sinful flesh, and taken on Him our old nature, and being consubstantial with the Father, had deigned to be consubstantial with His mother also, and being alone free from sin, had united our nature to Him the whole human race would be held in bondage beneath the Devil's yoke , and we should not be able to make use of the Conqueror's victory, if it had been won outside our nature.”

Letter 35:3 – “For although the Lord’s nativity according to the flesh has certain characteristics wherein it transcends the ordinary beginnings of man’s being, both because He alone was conceived and born without concupiscence of a pure Virgin, and because He was so brought forth of His mother’s womb that her fecundity bare Him without loss of virginity: yet His flesh was not of another nature to ours: nor was the soul breathed into Him from another source to that of all other men, and it excelled others not in difference of kind but in superiority of power. For He had no opposition in His flesh [nor did the strife of desires give rise to a conflict of wishes]. His bodily senses were active without the law of sin, and the reality of His emotions being under the control of His Godhead and His mind, was neither assaulted by temptations nor yielded to injurious influences.”

Ultimately, while a few RC apologists may try to excuse Leo's or Gregory's remarks, a straightforward reading of their words is that they held Jesus to be the lone exception to original sin. Indeed, to the extent they tried to explain it, they did so by reference to the virgin birth. Mary, however, was not virgin born: she was conceived in the ordinary way. Thus, in the mindset of these writers, she would not have been an exception. She could be purified from that sin, but she would have automatically contracted it by the way she was conceived.

-TurretinFan