steve b said:
“Interpolated and falsified”?
Steve, I just dealt with this same passage on another thread. This passage has been heavily interpolated (or attempted to) over time. I will paste here my response from the other thread, where someone seemed to be unable to go access the footnotes for themself. So I posted the footnotes for them. Note especially footnote 12 re your sentence.
Here is a link to the text. Scroll to ¶¶ 4-5
Here are the footnotes. I’ll paste a few of them here as well.
10 [On the falsifying of the text by Romish editors, see Elucidation II.] I will paste Elucidation II below, following footnote 16.
12 John xxi. 15. [Here is interpolated]: “Upon him, being one, He builds His Church, and commits His sheep to be fed.”
14 [Here is interpolated]: “And the primacy is given to Peter, that there might be shown one Church of Christ and one See; and they are all shepherds, and the Rock is one, which is fed by all the apostles with unanimous consent.” This passage, as well as the one a few lines before, is beyond all question spurious.
16 [Here is interpolated]; “Who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church is founded.” This passage also is undoubtedly spurious.
Elucidation II
Falsifying of the text, p. 422.
Cyprian
Interpolated
(The Latin of the interpolations deleted here to shorten the post. It can be accessed
here.)
Cyprian is often innocently quoted by Romanist controvertists against the very principles of Cyprian himself, of his life and his writings. This is due to the fact that they have in their hands vitiated and interpolated copies. Thus, take a famous passage as follows:-
This is but a specimen of the way in which Cyprian has been “doctored,” in order to bring him into a shape capable of being misinterpreted. But you will say where is the proof of such interpolations? The greatly celebrated Benedictine edition reads as the interpolated column does, and who would not credit Baluzius? Now note, Baluzius rejected these interpolations and others; but, dying (a.d. 1718) with his work unfinished, the completion of the task was assigned to a nameless monk, who confesses that he corrupted the work of Baluzius, or rather glories in the exploit.
829 “Nay, further,” he says, “it was necessary to alter not a few things in the notes of Baluzius; and more would have been altered if
it could have been done conveniently.” Yet the edition came forth, and passes as the genuine work of the erudite Baluzius himself.
An edition of this treatise, with valuable annotations, appeared (a.d. 1852) from the press of Burlington, N.J., under the very creditable editorship of Professor Hyde, who was soon after called to depart this life. It exhibits the interpolations, and gives a useful catalogue of codices and of editions. Though its typographical execution is imperfect, I know not where so much condensed information on the subject is to be had at so little cost.
830 I am grateful for the real advantage I derived from it on its first appearance.
says who? Another nameless person who is anonymous?
