The following is a quotation (or rather a misquotation) from Michael Maynards,
The History of The Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8.
Buchsel was one of the few scholars of the 20th century who deviated from the popular view that Cyprian made an allegorical reference to the Trinity. Instead, Buchsel regarded the Cyprian reading as an actual citation of the verse.
R. Brown (1982) would have us believe that since the nineteenth century no recognized authority upon the Greek text of the NT would hold such a view. However, the following recognized authorities have had their comments on this matter published in the respective years, that the Cyprian reading was an actual citation of 1 John v.7f: Buchsel (1933), Pieper (1950), Hills (1956), and Thiele (1959). (Maynards History p. 237)
Maynard would have us to believe that Raymond Brown is in error concerning 20th century scholars who believe that Cyprian was referring the heavenly witnesses.
Here is the actual quote of Raymond Brown, Even if the Comma had won the battle for acceptance in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the war was not over: for in 1764 J.S. Sembler challenged it, thus opening a new campaign of rejection. Doubts increased, and since the nineteenth century no recognized authority upon the Greek text of the NT has accepted the authenticity of the Comma. (Raymond E. Brown, The Epistles of John, The Anchor Bible, 1982, p. 780)
The Brown quotation has nothing to do with the Cyprian quote. Brown is entirely correct in his statement and Maynard has once again proven he has no credibility on this subject.
The following is an apt description of Maynards work (though the original quotation was review of another work of significantly higher quality.)
This book serves as an example of a particular genre of pseudo-scholarship, which finds its way into certain schools and churches and then into students. This is unfortunate, for the unlearning of this volume's half-truths and outright untruths will be a painful experience for the student and an unwarranted waste of time for the professor. The publisher and external reviewers are to be rebuked for allowing such nonsense into print." [The Late William L. Petersen]
Buchsel was one of the few scholars of the 20th century who deviated from the popular view that Cyprian made an allegorical reference to the Trinity. Instead, Buchsel regarded the Cyprian reading as an actual citation of the verse.
R. Brown (1982) would have us believe that since the nineteenth century no recognized authority upon the Greek text of the NT would hold such a view. However, the following recognized authorities have had their comments on this matter published in the respective years, that the Cyprian reading was an actual citation of 1 John v.7f: Buchsel (1933), Pieper (1950), Hills (1956), and Thiele (1959). (Maynards History p. 237)
Maynard would have us to believe that Raymond Brown is in error concerning 20th century scholars who believe that Cyprian was referring the heavenly witnesses.
Here is the actual quote of Raymond Brown, Even if the Comma had won the battle for acceptance in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the war was not over: for in 1764 J.S. Sembler challenged it, thus opening a new campaign of rejection. Doubts increased, and since the nineteenth century no recognized authority upon the Greek text of the NT has accepted the authenticity of the Comma. (Raymond E. Brown, The Epistles of John, The Anchor Bible, 1982, p. 780)
The Brown quotation has nothing to do with the Cyprian quote. Brown is entirely correct in his statement and Maynard has once again proven he has no credibility on this subject.
The following is an apt description of Maynards work (though the original quotation was review of another work of significantly higher quality.)
This book serves as an example of a particular genre of pseudo-scholarship, which finds its way into certain schools and churches and then into students. This is unfortunate, for the unlearning of this volume's half-truths and outright untruths will be a painful experience for the student and an unwarranted waste of time for the professor. The publisher and external reviewers are to be rebuked for allowing such nonsense into print." [The Late William L. Petersen]
Ken Willy
