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

[logos1560]

You seem to get upset over any analysis with criticism.

You seem to describe you yourself. You dodge and avoid much of the analysis of your posts.

 

[Maestroh]

So far I have noted major omissions.

Did you also note the assigned word limitations? Hmmm?
That's how the REAL WORLD works.

I was amazed that you gave the Ian Howard Marshall personalization argument without even mentioning that verse 6 spirit is not personalized.

1) I'm NOT amazed that you continue to not understand what a thesis actually is
2) I'm NOT amazed that you don't understand the broad spectrum that has to at least be reasonably mentioned and cited in footnotes, either.

If your entire argument is "but you didn't mention this," you really have nothing at all. Furthermore - I even addressed that on page 4, assuming you actually read it:

The limitations of this thesis are as follows. First, it is not my intention to mention every historical occurrence of the Comma. These include: the quotation of the Comma by North African bishops at the Council of Carthage in 484,[1] Contra Varimadum, Prologue to the Canonical Epistles, and the Cassiodorus quotation. The Commais acknowledged as early as Priscillian (d. 385), so such discussions concern the development of the Comma only within the Latin tradition. My purpose concerns whether sufficient evidence suggests the Comma was originally in Greek. Second, not every instance of Greek grammatical discord will be discussed in detail, primarily because there are so many. The primary purpose of the cited examples is to show that the grammatical disagreement used to vindicate the Comma occurs elsewhere and is not as strong an argument as its proponents suggest. Third, this is not an exhaustive treatise regarding every pro-Comma argument but focuses on the areas mentioned.

You also did NOT put in your wacky claim of sixteen verses that overthrow the grammatical argument.

The very same verses you cite are on pp. 22-23.
What are you reading that you are confusing with being MY thesis given both your claim of omissions and your claim the information is not there?

Do you seriously not realize these things are edited by readers?
Do you REALLY not know this?
Do you know so little about actual graduate school that you think it's nothing more than an Internet posting board?

Overall, btw, I like the paper.

So much so you minimize a thesis by calling it a "paper."

I could really care less. Having my paper liked by an individual who thinks that there was a typewritten note before there were even typewriters, who thinks atomic bombs may never have existed, and who cites comic book characters in his own interview video about 1 John 5:7 is just not company with which I care what the opinion of said person is.

It was far more coherent than your posting.

As opposed to your published writings, which are not.

You seem to get upset over any analysis with criticism.

You don't possess any expertise in psychology, either.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

. Your mangled translation with “we are to read into” is false, making your analysis worthless.

Nope. Three mysteries!

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

It has all the Manuscripts evidence it needs! It was never in the Greek in the first place, that's why it's missing from all Greek Manuscripts except a tiny few that had it interpolated from Latin manuscripts. Proof that in the 15th century AD a few extremely late scribes interpolated it from the Latin, several interpolating from printed editions which were themselves interpolated!

The earliest Old Latin Manuscripts and the earliest Vulgate manuscripts are without the Comma, but later manuscripts show the interpolation.

Hence both Greek and Latin both have the Manuscripts to prove it is an interpolation.

Same as all original Translations do not contain the interpolated Comma as well.

There is nothing but complete Manuscript evidence showing the Comma to be an interpolation in the Latin tradition. It was never a part of the Greek until the raw deal of Erasmus interpolating the Comma into his 3rd edition of the Greek New Testament.

Interesting time the 1500-1600's because, not only do you have Scribes putting notes in the margins of NT manuscripts and interpolating the text in some cases, but you also start to see from this time onwards Jesuits from the Society of Jesus interpolating the Comma into the printed Patristic texts (Cordia for example).

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

"one in Christ Jesus" was in some commentaries. Including Isaac the Jew (now dated before Priscillian), De Trinitate three times, the Speculum and Isidore of Seville. Not sure about extant manuscripts.

What would you like addressed?

Interestingly (here's a fact that will blow your mind Steven) Galatians 3:28-29 is partially quoted in the sacramental/symbolic context of Cyprian's De Unitate 6.5 passage, at the start of chapter 7 "put on Christ".

Galatians 3.27-28 KJV
"...as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus..."

Not many people know that. So there's an associated sacramental connection between Galatians 3:28-29 in the near/direct context of an eisegesis of 1 John 5:8(Clause-C) which can be traced back as far as Cyprian.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

. Your mangled translation with “we are to read into” is false, making your analysis worthless.

So where's Cassiodorus' "the three mysteries" Steven?

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

This is not an interesting New claim. It is the claim of all scholars. Why have you never heard of it before?

The Johannine Comma

(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied a.d. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before a.d. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).

The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text. In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onwards it is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate. In these various witnesses the wording of the passage differs in several particulars. (For examples of other intrusions into the Latin text of 1 John, see 2.17; 4.3; 5.6, and 20.

The Johannine Comma

Whatever you do don't quote Wikipedia's open source publicly editable "Johannine Comma" article. It's quite literally been hijacked and distorted beyond all recognition by our interlocutor Mr Steven Spencer Avery.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

This is your theory, but we have very few manuscripts in the early centuries, and a number of very solid evidences that point to the early Greek, some of which I have given time and again.

There's a lot more than you realise when you add, say, the 5th, 6th, 7th century Syriac manuscripts Mr Avery. ?

 

[Unbound68]

There's a lot more than you realise when you add, say, the 5th, 6th, 7th century Syriac manuscripts Mr Avery. ?

Yep, but for some reason he has been ignoring you on all the mss that you provided and he won't engage you on what that evidence means.

 

[Steven Avery]

My claim is vindicated and you asserting I lied is debunked.

And I never said you lied.
It turns out you made up the claim by your own confusion.

Anyway, thanks for posting the Youtube.

As for vanishing, when one copy has the corrupt text, the real text is still vibrant in the line.
It is vanishing when it is almost gone.

Simple English.

 

[Steven Avery]

There's a lot more than you realise when you add, say, the 5th, 6th, 7th century Syriac manuscripts Mr Avery. ?

Checking the lists, I see about five with 1 John.

Yep, but for some reason he has been ignoring you on all the mss that you provided and he won't engage you on what that evidence means.

I am very happy to engage any solid topic.

However, we know the Peshitta likely never had the heavenly witnesses.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

This warning applies to any position, including textcrit and critical text positions.

Like Klostermann perhaps?

The guy whose opinion you preferred one minute, and in the next referred to as a "text-crit dupe" ("dupe" being the word you from then on adopted as if it were your own from my post on Epiphanies on Sabellius' proof texts etc).

You never explained your theory posted somewhere else on the internet:

Steven Avery (September 10th, 2020) #279

"It is quite possible that the Gospel of the Egyptians was influenced by the "ontological one" interpretation of the heavenly witnesses verse. However, we do not have the text, so it is simply conjecture."

What shred of REAL SUBSTANTIAL evidence do you have for this theory that the Pseudo-Gospel "of the Egyptians" was genuinely influenced by the Comma?

Steven Avery (September 10th, 2020) #277

If Sabellius really used a non-scriptural source for core teachings, we would expect to see some notice of it in the many folks who wrote about his beliefs far earlier than Epiphanius. Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Dionysius of Rome, Basil .. no such reference. The Epiphanius reference is of far more importance in citing the core Bible verses, including Mark 12:29. All this would be more helpful if we actually had writings from Sabellius.

This is also a bold claim that no-one said Sabellius' core teaching on God's one-ness was based unscriptural sources.

I say this theory is wrong.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Checking the lists, I see about five with 1 John.

Compared to none with the Comma in any language from the 4th century.

Compared to none with the Comma in any language from the 5th century.

 

[Steven Avery]

The limitations of this thesis are as follows. First, it is not my intention to mention every historical occurrence of the Comma. These include: the quotation of the Comma by North African bishops at the Council of Carthage in 484,[1] Contra Varimadum, Prologue to the Canonical Epistles, and the Cassiodorus quotation. The Commais acknowledged as early as Priscillian (d. 385), so such discussions concern the development of the Comma only within the Latin tradition. My purpose concerns whether sufficient evidence suggests the Comma was originally in Greek. Second, not every instance of Greek grammatical discord will be discussed in detail, primarily because there are so many. The primary purpose of the cited examples is to show that the grammatical disagreement used to vindicate the Comma occurs elsewhere and is not as strong an argument as its proponents suggest. Third, this is not an exhaustive treatise regarding every pro-Comma argument but focuses on the areas mentioned.

This sounds like the same blunder you made in the OVERTHROW post on CARM. Where you noted 16 verses, but none of them were applicable since they included masculine and feminine nouns.

 

[Steven Avery]

What shred of REAL SUBSTANTIAL evidence do you have for this theory that the Pseudo-Gospel "of the Egyptians" was genuinely influenced by the Comma?

And I said it was simply conjecture.
The conjecture is based Epiphanius of Salamis, asserting that the Sabellians made use of this gospel.

Ephiphanius, Panarion 62.2, writing concerning the Sabellians:
But their whole deception, and the whole power of their deception, they have from certain apocrypha, especially from the gospel called Egyptian, upon which some place this name. For in it many such things are quoted mysteriously, as if in a corner, as if from the person of the savior, such as when he makes clear to the disciples that he himself is the father, that he himself is the son, and that he himself is the holy spirit.
https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1854

Interesting topic.

 

[Steven Avery]

Compared to none with the Comma in any language from the 4th century.
Compared to none with the Comma in any language from the 5th century.

I do not see any of the Peshitta in those centuries either.

 

[Steven Avery]

Interesting time the 1500-1600's because, not only do you have Scribes putting notes in the margins of NT manuscripts and interpolating the text in some cases, but you also start to see from this time onwards Jesuits from the Society of Jesus interpolating the Comma into the printed Patristic texts (Cordia for example).

You are welcome to share the Cordia details.

 

[Steven Avery]

This is also a bold claim that no-one said Sabellius' core teaching on God's one-ness was based unscriptural sources.
I say this theory is wrong.

It is only a claim about extant writings.

And I would understate this some if writing it today.
It is hard to conjecture about what people did not write.

 

[Steven Avery]

So where's Cassiodorus' "the three mysteries" Steven?

● [Commentary 1 John 5] "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God, &c." He who believeth Jesus to be God, is born of God the Fathers; he without doubt is faithful, and he who loves the Fathers, loves also the Christ who is born of him. Now we so love him, when we keep his commandments, which to just minds are not heavy : but they rather overcome the world, when they believe in him who created the world. To which thing witness on earth three mysteries, the water, the blood, and the spirit, which were fulfilled, we read, in the passion of the Lord; but in heaven the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit ; and these three is one God.
(Cassiodorus, Commentary on the Epistles. 1 John 5)

It looks like Cassiodorus is placing the crucifixion as the context of the earthly witnesses.
This is fairly common and my preferred interpretation.

 

[Unbound68]

It is hard to conjecture about what people did not write.

And yet you aren't hindered in the least when it comes to the Comma and the CE-Prologue.