Why can't you ask nicely and say please?
"Hey TNC, I had no idea. Could you please elaborate?"
Your sentence above comes across as arrogant.
Syriac Peshitta, KJVO "pure" line, and the Comma
- Thread starter Unbound68
- Start date
"Hey TNC, I had no idea. Could you please elaborate?"
Your sentence above comes across as arrogant.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Nonsense
You (or TNC) are welcome to share the details.
If you don’t want to, that’s fine.
You don't get it, do you? TNC didn't ask if you if he could share the info with you, so don't arrogantly presume he - or anyone else - needs your permission to educate you.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
It is simply another form of polite English, allowing the person to go either way.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
We are trying to see if Bruce Metzger gave you accurate information.
(I changed a couple of words to make it clearer.)
These manuscripts were found in the 1800s, along with other Old Latin mss. a bit later. Generally Old Latin mss. do have the heavenly witnesses, which is an important part of the evidentiary base. Since they are considered to be representing text lines from the second century, or possibly third at the latest.
This can also help us see how terrible is Bruce Metzger as a source. Dated, skewed, always looking to give arguments for the Critical Text, often against sense and logic. Word parsing extraordinaire.
Thanks!
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Where's "the mystery" in that Steven?
Latin "autem" = "but" as above in your post, but (pun intended) it also means "while", "however", "moreover" "on the other hand", "on the contrary", "whereas" etc.
So alternatively:
Latin "autem" = "while in heaven the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit"
Latin "autem" = "however in heaven the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit"
Latin "autem" = "moreover in heaven the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit"
Latin "autem" = "whereas in heaven the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit"
Latin "autem" = "on the other hand in heaven the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit"
Latin "autem" changes the sense of Cassiodorus' words to a contrasting of separate mystery interpretations.
Cassiodorus saw the three mysteries as having contrasting fulfilment both in heaven and on earth. It's really that simple.
As Eucherius says, "The majority interpret the passage here mystically, reading into that particular place the Trinity," and as Augustine also encouraged (having read this particular work of Eucherius') a variety of interpretation, he says: "And if in any other way this depth of mystery which we read in John’s epistle can be expounded and understood agreeably with the Catholic faith, which neither confounds nor divides the Trinity, neither believes the substances diverse nor denies that the persons are three, it is on no account to be rejected. For whenever in Holy Scriptures in order to exercise the minds of the faithful any thing is put darkly, it is to be joyfully welcomed if it can be in many ways but not unwisely expounded." Notice both (like Cassiodorus) mention mystery interpretation and mystically expounded etc etc.
Cassiodorus
Complexiones In Epistollis Apostolorum, Epistolam S. Joannis ad Parthos
Chapter 10
“Cui rei testificantur in terra tria mysteria : aqua, sanguis et spiritus, quae in passione Domini leguntur impleta: in caelo autem Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus; et hi tres unus est Deus.”
“To which defendant is he testifying to? On earth the three mysteries,
Footnote: the sense of "autem" is "whereas [the three mysteries have fulfilment] in heaven ... these three" [quote of 1 John 5:8(Clause-C) finish] persons [= unus (masculine) vs unum (neuter)] constitute the single God" etc.
As Maestroh said, I will not be surprised if you don't accept these facts.Complexiones In Epistollis Apostolorum, Epistolam S. Joannis ad Parthos
Chapter 10
“Cui rei testificantur in terra tria mysteria : aqua, sanguis et spiritus, quae in passione Domini leguntur impleta: in caelo autem Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus; et hi tres unus est Deus.”
“To which defendant is he testifying to? On earth the three mysteries,
“the water, the blood, and the Spirit,”
[1 John 5:7(Clause-C)]
which we are to read into as having a fulfilment in the suffering of the Lord,
whereas
[Or: “while” "however"]
in heaven the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit," and these three" [1 John 5:8(Clause-C)] persons are the single God.”
Footnote: the sense of "autem" is "whereas [the three mysteries have fulfilment] in heaven ... these three" [quote of 1 John 5:8(Clause-C) finish] persons [= unus (masculine) vs unum (neuter)] constitute the single God" etc.
P.S. Thanks for admitting Cassiodorus is "interpreti[ng]" 1 John 5:7-8 mysticallyb y saying "my preferred interpretation".
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Well, your not exactly an authority on Syriac manuscripts are you Steven. I never mentioned Peshitta BTW. I just said Syriac NT manuscripts.
You have to negate the dates because you don't have a foot stand on.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Wow. The formatting on that one came out bad. I'll repost it when I get time so it looks better.
Oh my goodness. I tried to fix it while on my phone and it looks worse.
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Since when has context been important to you?
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Don't be misleading, they have isolated Vetus Latina readings in certain phrases and verses, but they are not Vetus Latina manuscripts in themselves.
You know this, yet you continue to spread misinformation.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Cassiodorus doesn't quote "Verbum" "the Word" but eisegeticaly interprets "the Son" instead, just as Eucherius said was the "majority" interpretation in his time, and as Augustine also interprets.
Doubly backing this up is the fact that Cassiodorus doesn't quote any second or replicated "et tres qui testificantur" (or any of the variations of this clause as found in the Vulgate ms).
Doubly backing this up is the fact that Cassiodorus doesn't quote any second or replicated "et tres qui testificantur" (or any of the variations of this clause as found in the Vulgate ms).
Last edited:
Bruce Metzger was extremely helpful giving the facts. Facts which show you wrong. He quoted the earlist Vulgate manuscripts do not have the comma in the text, as well as the earlist Old Latin manuscripts. But that later on the comma was interpolated into more and more Old Latin Bibles and the Vulgate editions of Jerome. He was correct. It is manuscript evidence, just like the Greek , that the Comma was interpolated into the Bible, and is not genuine scripture.
The interpolated "Comma" also destroys the sense of what John, by the Holy Spirit was saying about Jesus.
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Potamius' "may demonstrate the hidden figurative meanings that lye underneath" the meaning of the literal text of 1 John 5:8(Clause-C) simply show's the truth of what both Eucherius and Augustine said as well.
Additionally, Cassiodorus was also well aware of Clement of Alexandria's eisegetical interpretation of the passage. In fact he personally commissioned the translation of his Greek text into Latin, which was carried out by one of the monks in his Vavarium (a Bible and Patristic writing copying centre) in Italy.
That's a fact not a theory BTW.
Additionally, Cassiodorus was also well aware of Clement of Alexandria's eisegetical interpretation of the passage. In fact he personally commissioned the translation of his Greek text into Latin, which was carried out by one of the monks in his Vavarium (a Bible and Patristic writing copying centre) in Italy.
That's a fact not a theory BTW.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Cassiodorus' eisegetical "three mysteries" interpretation of 1 John 5:7-8(Comma-less text) is also similar to Ambrose of Milan's 1 John 5:7-8(Comma-less text) interpretation in his book, un-coincidentally called: "On The Mysteries" (how about that!).
Cassiodorus
Complexiones In Epistollis Apostolorum, Epistolam S. Joannis ad Parthos
Chapter 10
“Cui rei testificantur in terra tria mysteria : aqua, sanguis et spiritus, quae in passione Domini leguntur impleta: in caelo autem Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus; et hi tres unus est Deus.”
“To which legal matter is he testifying to? On earth, the three mysteries, “the water, the blood, and the Spirit,” which in the suffering of the Lord, we are to read into [Or: "we are to interpret"] as having a fulfillment, whereas in heaven, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, "and these three" persons are the single God.”
Compare "the three mysteries" interpretation with:Complexiones In Epistollis Apostolorum, Epistolam S. Joannis ad Parthos
Chapter 10
“Cui rei testificantur in terra tria mysteria : aqua, sanguis et spiritus, quae in passione Domini leguntur impleta: in caelo autem Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus; et hi tres unus est Deus.”
“To which legal matter is he testifying to? On earth, the three mysteries, “the water, the blood, and the Spirit,” which in the suffering of the Lord, we are to read into [Or: "we are to interpret"] as having a fulfillment, whereas in heaven, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, "and these three" persons are the single God.”
Ambrose of Milan (circa. 340-397 A.D./C.E.)
Book 1, Chapter 4, Sections 18-25
“On Mysteries,”
Translated by H. de Romestin, E. de Romestin and H.T.F. Duckworth, 1896
“...[18.] That water does not cleanse without the Spirit is shown by the witness of John and by the very form of the administration of the sacrament. And this is also declared to be signified by the pool in the Gospel and the man who was there healed. In the same passage, too, is shown that the Holy Spirit truly descended on Christ at His baptism, and the meaning of this mystery is explained. [19.] The reason why you were told before not to believe only what you saw was that you might not say perchance, This is that great mystery “which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither has it entered into the heart of man.” [1 Cor 2:9] I see water, which I have been used to see every day. Is that water to cleanse me now in which I have so often bathed without ever being cleansed? By this you may recognize that water does not cleanse without the Spirit. [20.] Therefore read that the three witnesses in baptism, the water, the blood, and the Spirit, are one, [1 John 5:7] for if you take away one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism does not exist. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element, without any sacramental effect. Nor, again, is there the Sacrament of Regeneration without water: “For except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” [John 3:5] Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, wherewith he too is signed; but unless he be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, [Matt 28:19] he cannot receive remission of sins nor gain the gift of spiritual grace. [21.] So that Syrian dipped himself seven times [2nd Kings 5:14 [4th Kings LXX]] under the law, but you were baptized in the Name of the Trinity, you confessed the Father. Call to mind what you did: you confessed the Son, you confessed the Holy Spirit. Mark well the order of things in this faith: you died to the world, [Page 320.] and rose again to God. And as though buried to the world in that element, being dead to sin, you rose again to eternal life. Believe, therefore, that these waters are not void of power. [22.] Therefore it is said: “An angel of the Lord went down according to the season into the pool, and the water was troubled; and he who first after the troubling of the water went down into the pool was healed of whatsoever disease he was holden.” [John 5:4] This pool was at Jerusalem, in which one was healed every year, but no one was healed before the angel had descended. Because of those who believed not the water was troubled as a sign that the angel had descended. They had a sign, you have faith; for them an angel descended, for you the Holy Spirit; for them the creature was troubled, for you Christ Himself, the Lord of the creature, works. [23.] Then one was healed, now all are made whole; or more exactly, the Christian people alone, for in some even the water is deceitful. [Jer 15:18] The baptism of unbelievers heals not but pollutes. The Jew washes pots and cups, as though things without sense were capable of guilt or grace. But do you wash this living cup of yours, that in it your good works may shine and the glory of your grace be bright. For that pool was as a type, that you might believe that the power of God descends upon this font. [24.] Lastly, that paralytic was waiting for a man. And what man save the Lord Jesus, born of the Virgin, at Whose coming no longer the shadow should heal men one by one, but the truth should heal the whole. He it is, then, Whose coming down was being waited for, of Whom the Father said to John the Baptist: “Upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and abiding upon Him, this is He Who baptizeth with the Holy Spirit.” [John 1:33] And John bare witness of Him, and said: “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove and abiding upon Him.” [Luke 3:12] And why did the Spirit descend like a dove, but in order that you might see, that you might acknowledge, that that dove also which just Noah sent forth from the ark was a likeness of this dove, that you might recognize the type of the sacrament? [cf. Cyprian's "these heavenly sacraments", De Unitate 6.5-6] [25.] Perhaps you may object: Since that was a real dove which was sent forth, and the Spirit descended like a dove, how is it that we say that the likeness was there and the reality here, whereas in the Greek it is written that the Spirit descended in the likeness of a dove? But what is so real as the Godhead which abides for ever? Now the creature cannot be the reality, but only a likeness, which is easily destroyed and changed. So, again, because the simplicity of those who are baptized ought to be not in appearance but in reality, and the Lord says: “Be ye wise as serpents and simple as doves.” [Matt 10:16] Rightly, then, did He descend like a dove, in order to admonish us that we ought to have the simplicity of the dove. And further we read of the likeness being put for the reality, both as regards Christ: “And was found in likeness as a man;” [Phil 2:8] and as regards God the Father: “Nor have ye seen His likeness.” [John 5:37]...”
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm
Book 1, Chapter 4, Sections 18-25
“On Mysteries,”
Translated by H. de Romestin, E. de Romestin and H.T.F. Duckworth, 1896
“...[18.] That water does not cleanse without the Spirit is shown by the witness of John and by the very form of the administration of the sacrament. And this is also declared to be signified by the pool in the Gospel and the man who was there healed. In the same passage, too, is shown that the Holy Spirit truly descended on Christ at His baptism, and the meaning of this mystery is explained. [19.] The reason why you were told before not to believe only what you saw was that you might not say perchance, This is that great mystery “which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither has it entered into the heart of man.” [1 Cor 2:9] I see water, which I have been used to see every day. Is that water to cleanse me now in which I have so often bathed without ever being cleansed? By this you may recognize that water does not cleanse without the Spirit. [20.] Therefore read that the three witnesses in baptism, the water, the blood, and the Spirit, are one, [1 John 5:7] for if you take away one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism does not exist. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element, without any sacramental effect. Nor, again, is there the Sacrament of Regeneration without water: “For except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” [John 3:5] Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, wherewith he too is signed; but unless he be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, [Matt 28:19] he cannot receive remission of sins nor gain the gift of spiritual grace. [21.] So that Syrian dipped himself seven times [2nd Kings 5:14 [4th Kings LXX]] under the law, but you were baptized in the Name of the Trinity, you confessed the Father. Call to mind what you did: you confessed the Son, you confessed the Holy Spirit. Mark well the order of things in this faith: you died to the world, [Page 320.] and rose again to God. And as though buried to the world in that element, being dead to sin, you rose again to eternal life. Believe, therefore, that these waters are not void of power. [22.] Therefore it is said: “An angel of the Lord went down according to the season into the pool, and the water was troubled; and he who first after the troubling of the water went down into the pool was healed of whatsoever disease he was holden.” [John 5:4] This pool was at Jerusalem, in which one was healed every year, but no one was healed before the angel had descended. Because of those who believed not the water was troubled as a sign that the angel had descended. They had a sign, you have faith; for them an angel descended, for you the Holy Spirit; for them the creature was troubled, for you Christ Himself, the Lord of the creature, works. [23.] Then one was healed, now all are made whole; or more exactly, the Christian people alone, for in some even the water is deceitful. [Jer 15:18] The baptism of unbelievers heals not but pollutes. The Jew washes pots and cups, as though things without sense were capable of guilt or grace. But do you wash this living cup of yours, that in it your good works may shine and the glory of your grace be bright. For that pool was as a type, that you might believe that the power of God descends upon this font. [24.] Lastly, that paralytic was waiting for a man. And what man save the Lord Jesus, born of the Virgin, at Whose coming no longer the shadow should heal men one by one, but the truth should heal the whole. He it is, then, Whose coming down was being waited for, of Whom the Father said to John the Baptist: “Upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and abiding upon Him, this is He Who baptizeth with the Holy Spirit.” [John 1:33] And John bare witness of Him, and said: “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove and abiding upon Him.” [Luke 3:12] And why did the Spirit descend like a dove, but in order that you might see, that you might acknowledge, that that dove also which just Noah sent forth from the ark was a likeness of this dove, that you might recognize the type of the sacrament? [cf. Cyprian's "these heavenly sacraments", De Unitate 6.5-6] [25.] Perhaps you may object: Since that was a real dove which was sent forth, and the Spirit descended like a dove, how is it that we say that the likeness was there and the reality here, whereas in the Greek it is written that the Spirit descended in the likeness of a dove? But what is so real as the Godhead which abides for ever? Now the creature cannot be the reality, but only a likeness, which is easily destroyed and changed. So, again, because the simplicity of those who are baptized ought to be not in appearance but in reality, and the Lord says: “Be ye wise as serpents and simple as doves.” [Matt 10:16] Rightly, then, did He descend like a dove, in order to admonish us that we ought to have the simplicity of the dove. And further we read of the likeness being put for the reality, both as regards Christ: “And was found in likeness as a man;” [Phil 2:8] and as regards God the Father: “Nor have ye seen His likeness.” [John 5:37]...”
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
It also could be reandered:
Cassiodorus
Complexiones In Epistollis Apostolorum, Epistolam S. Joannis ad Parthos
Chapter 10
“Cui rei testificantur in terra tria mysteria : aqua, sanguis et spiritus, quae in passione Domini leguntur impleta: in caelo autem Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus; et hi tres unus est Deus.”
“To which legal matter is he testifying to? On earth, the three mysteries, “the water, the blood, and the Spirit,” which in the suffering of the Lord, we are to read into [Or: "we are to interpret"] as having a fulfillment, in heaven, however, as the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, "and these three" persons are the single God.”
Complexiones In Epistollis Apostolorum, Epistolam S. Joannis ad Parthos
Chapter 10
“Cui rei testificantur in terra tria mysteria : aqua, sanguis et spiritus, quae in passione Domini leguntur impleta: in caelo autem Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus; et hi tres unus est Deus.”
“To which legal matter is he testifying to? On earth, the three mysteries, “the water, the blood, and the Spirit,” which in the suffering of the Lord, we are to read into [Or: "we are to interpret"] as having a fulfillment, in heaven, however, as the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, "and these three" persons are the single God.”
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Let's allow for now this unusual claim.
Which would put the manuscripts is an unknown, unreferenced category without a real description of its textline.
(I've actually written about this little trick in the Metzger summary.)
Here is what Conan wrote, and similarly in post 312.
Please give an example of the early Old Latin ms. without the heavenly witnesses, and a later one with the verse.
Thanks!
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
The earliest extant Syriac mss. with 1 John are Peshitta mss.
The Old Syriac mss. do not have 1 John.
Here is what was said. You had mistakenly said there was no manuscript evidence that the Comma was interpolated. There is nothing but evidence that the Comma was interpolated.
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.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
You did not want to answer the straightforward question about your claim on Old Latin mss.?
If you do not know, you can simply say that you don't know, you just got fooled by Metzger.
Here is the claim. 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])
so the earliest old manuscripts did not contain the Comma, that is the ones used by Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine.
From Metzger ", 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"
Metzger is correct on this.