Syriac Peshitta, KJVO "pure" line, and the Comma

Here is Grantley McDonald to JW Matt two years ago, March 2020.

This post should have put the speculation of a different meaning to rest.

=======================

Grantley McDonald


=======================

I doubt that “committentes” is the correct reading.

Arguing simply from the sense of the passage, I think “omittentes” must be the correct reading.

they clearly realised that “committentes” just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

Grantley is entitled to his opinions (which I respect highly -EDITED BY MOD). :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
all the committentes stuff is a waste of time, and it was just a scribal error, corrected in the manuscript line.
So you're saying here and now that the majority of Vulgate mss contained scribal errors in the prologue -- at the same exact word?

Prove to us the erasures in the mss were corrections rather than tampering to produce a false reading.
 
So you're saying here and now that the majority of Vulgate mss contained scribal errors in the prologue -- at the same exact word?
Prove to us the erasures in the mss were corrections rather than tampering to produce a false reading.
Why?
See Grantley McDonald above, post #81.

We have a total waste of time, an attempted diversion, rather than accepting the evidence of Jerome’s Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles.
 
Without that, all the committentes stuff is a waste of time, and it was just a scribal error, corrected in the manuscript line. [Emphasis Added]

Thanks for finally admitting clearly that the Canonical Epistles Prologue has for a fact been corrupted!!!

Well done Steven. :D Applause all around! ???

To which I will add that it had the name "Jerome" fictitiously/falsely attributed to it in the centuries after Jerome's death - particularly from the seventh century onwards.

Yes, it is true that the Latin copyist's (Scribes) corrupted the actual text of 1 John 5:7-8, and in later centuries of the transmission, misattributed (pseudonymity) the originally anonymous Canonical Epistles Prologue (See how the Prologue is in fact anonymous in the oldest manuscript the Codex Fuldensis here) and then they corrupted the word "COMMITTENTES" within the Prologue itself (along with other variant readings which Steven doesn't have a clue about, but will beg for information about).

You realize also Steven that Potamius' “Letter concerning the the Substance of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” is also falsely attributed to Jerome in all (every single one in existence) the manuscripts?

The manuscript title is not just

"Epistula de Substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti"
“Letter concerning the the Substance of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,”

But is actually:

“Epistola Beati Jheronimi de Substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti”
“The Epistle of Saint Jerome about the the Substance of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,”


But you accept it as genuine Potamius of Lisbon.

Explain your reasons why you accept the "Epistola Beati Jheronimi de Substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti" as being a genuine work of Potamius' own authorship, and why it was not in fact authored by Jerome?
 
Why?
See Grantley McDonald above, post #81.

We have a total waste of time, an attempted diversion, rather than accepting the evidence of Jerome’s Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles.

Happy to discuss pseudonymity (i.e. falsely attributed) of works to ✌️Jerome✌️ along with the falsely attributed Vulgate CE-Prologue.

Falsely (and/or in some cases mistakenly) attributing names to works of different authors was very common in the centuries in and around the publishing of the Vulgate.

Potamius' “Letter concerning the the Substance of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” for example (Steven), was also falsely attributed to Jerome in all the manuscripts.

The manuscript title is not the same as in the edited printed version of Conti below:

"Epistula de Substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti"
“Letter concerning the the Substance of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,”

But the real title found in all the manuscripts is:

“Epistola Beati Jheronimi de Substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti”
“The Epistle of Saint Jerome about the the Substance of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”


But you accept it as genuine Potamius of Lisbon, Steven.

Explain your reasons why you accept the "Epistola Beati Jheronimi de Substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti" as being a genuine work of Potamius' own authorship, and why it was not in fact authored by Jerome?
 
Wake up. I accept the traditional translations (there are about three available.) If you, or your sources, think the original was different, then you would need a new alternate theory of the translation text. Without that, all the committentes stuff is a waste of time, and it was just a scribal error, corrected in the manuscript line.

Matt actually offered:



Since he does not have an alternate translation that fits the context, the speculation is worthless.



If it is awkward, then it likely was NOT the original intended word.

That was 2019, three years ago Steven.

Interestingly Roger Pearse offered:

Committentes, “bring together, unite/join, connect/attach; put together, construct; entrust;”… include would be a possible meaning perhaps?
 
He makes many errors in his books, however in this case he did an excellent job on the specific question.

We actually considered an in depth dialog or debate on the authenticity of Jerome’s Vulgate Prologue.

You made the error for years Steven of not knowing that the Codex Fuldensis said (and still says) "COMITTENTES" not "omittentes".

You didn't have a clue "COMMITTENTES" was there.
 
Mr. Spencer has made his choice.


No such "demand". If the 165 date is true, it helps decimate the textual theories behind the Critical Text.


The 165 date has not one shred of evidence to support it.

Not. One.
However, it is a fascinating discussion, between the 2nd, 3rd or 4th centuries.
Not really. It's the epitome of a "who cares" discussion.

The Thomas Strouse sentence needs a quote and reference.
Or you could just read the cited paper.

It's online - it's free.

But nevertheless, the article is "Did Heretics Alter 1 John 5:7?"
On page 5 of the article, the citation from Strouse comes from his conspiratorial mind-boggling nonsense called "A Critique of D.A. Carson's 'The KJV Debate: A Plea for Realism" on page 18. Feel free to actually look it up if you hope to prove me incorrect.
I really trust nothing from Bill Brown without proper referencing.


Right to the personal attacks and insults, presumably because this position you hold has nothing to support it at all.


Apparently Bill Brown did not even read Edward Freer Hills, who he referenced earlier.
Now - if you SUBSTANTIATE this, it's not a personal attack.

Don't - and it is.

I wonder why you didn't bother to substantiate it. We'll read further and see why.


SPENCER QUOTE:
Edward Freer Hills - King James Version Defended

It is possible, therefore, that the Sabellian heresy brought the Johannine comma into disfavor with orthodox Christians. The statement, these three are one, no doubt seemed to them to teach the Sabellian view that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were identical. And if during the course of the controversy manuscripts were discovered which had lost this reading in the accidental manner described above, it is easy to see how the orthodox party would consider these mutilated manuscripts to represent the true text and regard the Johannine comma as a heretical addition. In the Greek-speaking East especially the comma would be unanimously rejected, for here the struggle against Sabellianism was particularly severe.

Thus it was not impossible that during the 3rd century amid the stress and strain of the Sabellian controversy, the Johannine comma lost its place in the Greek text, but was preserved in the Latin texts of Africa and Spain, where the influence of Sabellianism was probably not so great.
 
Interesting quote that is, in fact, REFERENCED in the paper you did not bother to read before you wrote this response.

On page 2, while discussing the list of insane suspects that KJVOs list to accuse - without one scintilla of evidence - of changing the Bibles - I wrote this:

Hills does not explicitly advocate removal by heretics but suggests that Christians refused to quote the Comma because the text can be interpreted favorably by Sabellians.

And I cited the very pages from which you lifted the quote and made the false allegation.
Bill Brown is always weak on logic.


This, of course, is why you've steered clear of a public mano a mano debate with me for 13 years now.

Nevertheless, the post has proven the truth of this situation.


There could easily have been a mixed line at the time of the Peshitta translation.

Or not.

This is NOT how one conducts a historical inquiry. I mean, there COULD have been Klingon manuscripts in which the apostles wrote the original text, too, right?
Then he makes the same Arian blunder.


You mean where I QUOTE KJVOs SAYING THE ARIANS REMOVED THE TEXT????

Oh that's right, you didn't read the paper before responding.

It is a rather crass blunder since he already had referenced Hills.


An amusing interpretation of reality given that the clear picture is now present.
I reiterate: the offer to debate this subject with you deprived of your computer to go checking out Greek parsing cases (etc) still stands.
 
The mixed line was referring to the source Greek manuscripts in the early centuries.
The Athanasius Dipsutation with an Arian at Nice, and Jerome's Prologue, and the solecism, and dual-language sources like Cyprian and Cassiodorus, are among many evidences of early century Greek mss.

Try to read and understand.

Factual errors
1) This “mixed line” theory is an invention without a shred of evidence.
2) there is no Greek problem, which is why people who are actual Greek grammarians point out there’s no problem.
3) Cyprian is a LATIN source, not a dual language source. This is not how research works.
4) Cassiodorous lived in the 5th century in Italy, he is not a help here to you other then in Latin.
5) there is zippo reason to endorse Jerome authorship of the VP. None.

The only need for such exaggerations is the pitiful “evidence” upon which this advocacy is based. And I reiterate: there is more probability that Mark wrote “angry” at 1:41 than that John wrote this centuries later insertion.
 
Ah, I found it:

@TwoNoteableCorruptions
Don't forget, though, that Steven Avery Spencer fraudulently changed the verse numbering (recalcitrantly, deliberately, and consciously) in Marco Conti's translation of Potamius (in the English and the Latin) from 1 John 5:8-Part-D (KJV-numbering) to John 5:7-Part-D (KJV-numbering).
 
If (note "IF") Jerome was the author of LSB (as it pseudonymously says in all the manuscripts of Potamius' LSB) and therefore it was✌️Jerome✌️ who gave the figurative eisegesis of 1 John 5:8(Clause-C) in LSB and LA, then what it says in the CE-Prologue is DEFINITELY false.

That's the implication.
 
I, for one, don't criticize W&H reasoning ... but technology has affected their work. Westcott & Hort had to deal with 19th century photographs of manuscripts, including the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which were of such primitive quality that it made it difficult or impossible to detect erasures or changes. Also, a great wealth of papyri were discovered shortly after publication of the W&H Greek NT, and more mss continue to be made available for examination. The same reasoning the W&H used in 1881 could be used today and result in a (slightly) different Greek text.

The KJVOs are stuck with “but Westcott and Hort” because none of their betters has produced anything dealing with anything covered the last 140 years by others.

Bear in mind there’s as much evidence for the Lucianic recension as there is for the mythical, not one shred of evidence idea of the CJ text-line split. MORE actually since we can look at manuscripts and at least see some standardization around that time. That doesn’t lend itself (in my view) to endorsing the idea, but it’s evidence completely lacking by those arguing “X COULD have happened.”
 
Last edited:
Back
Top