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

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Sure, especially when they make an obvious blunder that only requires simple logic.

1) The grammatical argument is related only to neuter nouns working with masculine (or feminine) grammar.
See Eugenius Bulgaris, and this was even stated by Bill Brown in the thesis.
"The grammatical issue concerns whether a masculine adjective or participle may modify neuter substantives." - p. iii
Also on p. 7
Bulgaris makes it clear that the inverse is not a concern.

2) The 16 verses from Bill Brown all have either masculine or feminine nouns, and they have neuter grammar.

3) Ergo, they are irrelevant to the earthly witnesses grammatical gender argument.

The embarrasment is only on those contras who are unwilling to speak the truth and allow this blunder to stand without comment.

I say, you don't fully comprehend (not just understand) the full scope and logical implications of the grammatical argument's that either Bill, or Eugenius', or Gregorios put forward.

Which will be borne out over time.

I've got an extremely busy schedule over the next few days, so I doubt I will be able to do this justice right now. I'll return to read post's later. I might be able to squeeze out a something on my phone during breaks (but only with limited resources available).

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Sure, especially when they make an obvious blunder that only requires simple logic.

1) The grammatical argument is related only to neuter nouns working with masculine (or feminine) grammar.
See Eugenius Bulgaris, and this was even stated by Bill Brown in the thesis.
"The grammatical issue concerns whether a masculine adjective or participle may modify neuter substantives." - p. iii
Also on p. 7
Bulgaris makes it clear that the inverse is not a concern.

2) The 16 verses from Bill Brown all have either masculine or feminine nouns, and they have neuter grammar.

3) Ergo, they are irrelevant to the earthly witnesses grammatical gender argument.

The embarrasment is only on those contras who are unwilling to speak the truth and allow this blunder to stand without comment.

So you say it is wise for someone to comment on the intricacies and nuances of Koine grammar, even though you most likely can't even read the Greek alphabet.

All I can say Steven, is, you deserve everything that's coming to ya.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

To start with, Eugenius is for a fact, a subscriber to what YOU describe as "invisible allegory".

 

[Steven Avery]

So you say it is wise for someone to comment on the intricacies and nuances of Koine grammar, even though you most likely can't even read the Greek alphabet.

There are no “intricacies” in the three points above.

Sure, especially when they make an obvious blunder that only requires simple logic.

1) The grammatical argument is related only to neuter nouns working with masculine (or feminine) grammar.
See Eugenius Bulgaris, and this was even stated by Bill Brown in the thesis.
"The grammatical issue concerns whether a masculine adjective or participle may modify neuter substantives." - p. iii
Also on p. 7
Bulgaris makes it clear that the inverse is not a concern.

2) The 16 verses from Bill Brown all have either masculine or feminine nouns, and they have neuter grammar.

3) Ergo, they are irrelevant to the earthly witnesses grammatical gender argument.

The embarrasment is only on those contras who are unwilling to speak the truth and allow this blunder to stand without comment.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

There are no “intricacies” in the three points above.

So there is no nuances or intricacies to grammatical concord with all it's Greek gender, number, case morphological factors involved?

Are you sure we're talking about the same language?

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

There are no “intricacies” in the three points above.

Sorry, I forgot you think it's wise for someone who doesn't even know the Greek alphabet to comment on Koine grammar.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

This doesn't change the fact that Eugenius is a subscriber to what YOU describe as "invisible allegory" BTW.

 

[Steven Avery]

Sorry, I forgot you think it's wise for someone who doesn't even know the Greek alphabet to comment on Koine grammar.

It would not be necessary if there was integrity in the contra camp and the blunder was pointed out be his contra compatriots. So I happen to be the individual cleaning up the scholastic rubbish.

 

[Steven Avery]

This doesn't change the fact that Eugenius is a subscriber to what YOU describe as "invisible allegory" BTW.

Again, the Eugenius comments are in the context of the text with both the heavenly and earthly witnesses.

Imvisible allegory is seen in the pretense that Cyprian mentioned Father, Son and Holy Spirit when his text had no such reference, AND the additional pretense that he was making an invisible allegory from spirit, water and blood without any reference to those three items anywhere in Cyprian’s writing.

See the superb Henry Thomas Armstrong quote.

 

[Steven Avery]

So there is no nuances or intricacies to grammatical concord with all it's Greek gender, number, case morphological factors involved? Are you sure we're talking about the same language?

Nothing that can effect the Bill Brown Blunder 16.

 

[Steven Avery]

And I appreciate your attempt to add more dimension to the grammatical argument dialogue.
That is rare, and refreshing, agree and disagree.

However it is limited in effect because you, so far, lack the integrity to call out the Bill Brown Blunder 16.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

And I appreciate your attempt to add more dimension to the grammatical argument dialogue.
That is rare, and refreshing, agree and disagree.

However it is limited in effect because you, so far, lack the integrity to call out the Bill Brown Blunder 16.

So where exactly does the Apostle John VISIBLY explain what each one of Eugenius' "symbols" represents, VISIBLY in his Epistle? If it's not an IN-VISIBLE allegorical explanation that Eugenius promoted?

 

[Steven Avery]

So where exactly does the Apostle John VISIBLY explain what each one of Eugenius' "symbols" represents, VISIBLY in his Epistle? If it's not an IN-VISIBLE allegorical explanation that Eugenius promoted?

The allegory theory of Eugenius is based on John writing the heavenly and earthly witnesses. Thus he is conjecturing a visible allegory, However, I do not accept his theory.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

The allegory theory of Eugenius is based on John writing the heavenly and earthly witnesses. Thus he is conjecturing a visible allegory, However, I do not accept his theory.

Take note everyone!

Avery just ditched Bulgaris, because he does not accept his grammatical argument.

 

[Maestroh]

The allegory theory of Eugenius is based on John writing the heavenly and earthly witnesses. Thus he is conjecturing a visible allegory, However, I do not accept his theory.

You’d do well to simply abandon him altogether given you’ve already admitted we’ve got the very example you insisted didn’t exist in verse 8.

The guy whom you called a world class scholar simply didn’t know diddly.

 

[Unbound68]

Cyprian would look like a total fool if he wrote that the Bible had an important phrase that it actually did not have.
Especially as he was known for accurate Bible quoting.

From pp. 33-34 in Maestroh's thesis:

Such reasoning, however, cannot explain the following words from Cyprian, an instance that begs for a reference to the Comma if indeed he had it:


In the forty-fourth Psalm: “My heart has breathed out a good Word. I tell my works to the King.” Also in the thirty-second Psalm: “By the Word of God were the heavens made fast; and all their strength by the breath of His mouth.” Also in Isaiah: “A Word completing and shortening in righteousness, because a shortened word will God make in the whole earth.” Also in the cvith Psalm: “He sent His Word, and healed them.” Moreover, in the Gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. The same with in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.” Also in the Apocalypse: “And I saw the heaven opened, and lo, a white horse; and he who sate upon him was called Faithful and True, judging rightly and justly; and He made war. And He was covered with a garment sprinkled with blood; and His name is called the Word of God.”

Cyprian finds references to Christ as “the Word of God” in Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, the Gospel of John, and Revelation but never mentions the Comma, the most explicit testimony to Christ as “the Word” outside of John’s gospel. While many other instances could be considered debatable, this lack of quotation strongly suggests that Cyprian never saw the Comma. Given his chain reference method of citing every instance of Christ as the Word in this treatise, his failure to cite the Comma is best explained by the lack of the phrase in his text(s).



Other than the excellent points made by Maestroh proving Cyprian never saw the Comma, is Cyprian even quoting the above scriptures accurately, as you claim? How does your KJV read at John 1:1?

And how about pg. 31?

 

[Maestroh]

Bill Brown, you try to use Horne as an additional early reference that is contra-Nolan and the grammatical argument, however you erred.

It will be demonstrated that I did not, in fact, make any error at all, but Steven Avery Spencer once again simply doesn't know what he's talking about. You'd think that somebody so sure of everyone else's errors would ensure he understood the subject BEFORE he said something incorrect. But you'd be wrong.

When this was first written, in the early 1820s, Horne supported authenticity and thus he was saying that the heavenly witnesses is necessary for the grammar.

Actually, he wasn't saying that at all.

You just didn't understand what he DID say.

Horne's first edition was in 1821. Even then, his "advocacy" of this passage hardly reaches the absurd lengths of the KJVOs. What Horne was doing was (wait for it) what ACTUAL SCHOLARS do. He was weighing the arguments on both sides of the issue and in both cases, he is objecting to what are obvious problems with saying such nonsense.

And the proof that what I am saying is correct is in the difference between the 1821 edition, where he seems to come out in favor of it, and the 1869 edition where he comes out against it.

1821 edition (choose page 561 of 720)

An introduction to the critical study and knowledge of the Holy Scriptures. v. 4.

babel.hathitrust.org

1) The connexion of the disputed clause requires its insertion, inasmuch as the sense is not perfect without it.
2) The grammatical structure of the original Greek requires the insertion of the seventh verse, and consequently that it should be received as genuine.

Otherwise the latter part of the eighth verse, the authenticity of which was never questioned, (as indeed it cannot be, being found in every known manuscript that is extant,) must likewise be rejected

Now compare with the 1869 edition I cited (on page 415 of 844)

An introduction to the critical study and knowledge of the Holy Scriptures / by Thomas Hartwell Horne, edited by Thomas Hartwell Horne (the author), John ... v.4.

babel.hathitrust.org

1) The connexion of the disputed clause requires its insertion, inasmuch as the sense is not perfect without it.
'This argument is rebutted by the fact that the context admits of an exposition, which makes the sense complete WITHOUT the disputed clause.

2) The grammatical structure of the original Greek requires the insertion of the seventh verse, and consequently that it should be received as genuine.

Otherwise the latter part of the eighth verse, the authenticity of which was never questioned, (as indeed it cannot be, being found in every known manuscript that is extant,) must likewise be rejected

Horne is listing the POINT IN FAVOR of authenticity FOLLOWED BY his objection to that point. He does this throughout and in quite a bit of detail.

This is obvious to anyone reading it precisely what Horne is doing. And the point is further proven simply by looking at the next page in the 1869 edition. Horne is indisputably citing an argument and REFUTING it.

You read this opposite of the reality.

No, you did. And I just demonstrated it.

Thus far, we've seen that you:
a) hide information
b) didn't know 1 John 5:8 was a series of neuter nouns until I told you
c) didn't know the full argument of Bulgaris
d) don't have your facts straight regarding Horne, either

So pardon me for not really thinking that the man who claims he understands this subject better than the seminarian really knows very much about the subject at all. You clearly have no progressed beyond talking points.

Ironically, you seem to understand your difficulty by equating his argument with that of Pappas.

Except I had no difficulty.
You just didn't know what Horne was saying because you didn't read it in context.
And again we see why the cowardice and lack of debate. Leveling you here is easy - it would be even easier verbally and with full force of the language, and you know this.

Here you can see that when this section is used, after the Horne flip, and later editions, it is placed within the pro-authenticity arguments.

For starters, Avery is claiming to refute me by NOT CITING THE ACTUAL SOURCE THAT I CITED. But since it says the same thing, I'll let it pass.

Now everyone - click on the link he provided and notice something.

1856 Tregelles and Davidson edition
https://books.google.com/books?id=DgEVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA381

Go up to the previous page.

Avery IS correct about ONE thing: he's correct that this is listed under the authenticity arguments for 1 John 5:7. But then notice starting with the very first point - in EVERY case, he cites the claim and the smaller print UNDER the claim is a REBUTTAL to that claim, just as I used it in my thesis

In other words, he didn't read this ANY better than he read the thesis, he just wanted to fight without making sure of his facts first.

A simple read vindicates what I'm saying here, so I don't know why he wasted our time with yet another false allegation against me. But you can certainly see here why I've informed him his critique means nothing - because he's not an expert, and he doesn't understand the subject at all. He didn't even get this basic point correct.

This was not a "solecism anyway", with heavenly and earthly witnesses, argument.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, which means I understand this willy-nilly verbiage about as well as you understand what Horne said.

 

[Maestroh]

It would not be necessary if there was integrity in the contra camp and the blunder was pointed out be his contra compatriots. So I happen to be the individual cleaning up the scholastic rubbish.

Except buddy boy this whole thing ASSUMES Bulgaris was right.

And verse 8 proves he wasn’t. At that point - your whole system imploded which I guess it’s that realization that has influenced puffed out comments like yours above.

Whether you like it or not, solecisms are all over the Bible in Greek. I told you this years ago and you became more stubborn each time you posted. You’re going with “but Bulgaris” and yet Bulgaris wasn’t even the central focal point of my thesis. He’s mentioned because Nolan admitted getting that idiocy from him but Bulgaris never influenced the church wreckers like yourself, either. Nolan’s article was reproduced (in part) by Fuller. It doesn’t affect me whether you like this or not. Pointing out solecisms are all over the Greek became necessary because of ignoramuses that argue as you do. And yet rather than admit this, you continue to deceive everyone here with your cherry picking.

The spirit of God never produced so little from a movement of zealots as he has from KJVO.

 

[Steven Avery]

However, the missing five books are definitely an evidence for an early Peshitta, likely 2nd century. This is mentioned in p. 42 of the Oxford Debate, by Edward Miller.

Oxford Debate of 1897 (1999)
J. L. North
https://books.google.com/books?id=nmNIAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA42

Some more tweaking on trying to evaluate the five book evidence. The five books were noted as special, disputed even from the time of Origen to the time of Eusebius.

Eusebius put those five books in a special category of disputed books.

Origen while at Alexandria had doubted 2 Peter, 2-3 John, James, and Jude, the same books Eusebius listed as “disputed,” but apparently during his stay in Caesarea these doubts were removed, for his writings from this later time include these books in the “scriptures.”104 Moreover, Origen considered the writing of scripture had ceased and regarded its contents as “complete.”105

The Early Church at Work and Worship, Vol I: Volume 1: Ministry, Ordination, Covenant, and Canon (2014)
Everett Ferguson
https://books.google.com/books?id=lefkDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA278

These were twenty-two books, lacking James, 2 Peter, 2–3 John, and Jude from the present canon. Following the literary criticism of the time, Eusebius had three categories: acknowledged, disputed, and spurious books.99 Within the “disputed” books (antilegomenai) he distinguished those that met the criteria of deriving from apostolic times and authorship by apostles or apostolic men from other works that, although
not being “spurious” (nothoi), did not.
https://books.google.com/books?id=n3ZMAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA277

 

[Steven Avery]

In July 2015, I very explicitly asked you whether or not the Apostle Paul wrote the Epistle to the Laodiceans.

See - here's the difference: EVEN IF Jerome wrote it, it doesn't matter. It simply constitutes his fifth century opinion of a Latin corruption rooted in the 4th century.

And finally - not one single Latin scholar living on planet earth (or even Houghton, who passed away recently) sees it the way you do. And not all of them are anti-Comma Johanneum as you're insisting here, either.

Bear something in mind: when it comes to Mark 16:9-20, Steven Avery bleats self-righteously about “the 99.9%” of manuscripts. But when it comes to this, he avoids the 99%, some of which are the exact same manuscript!!!!! Why? Because the 99.9% is a ruse. It just doesn’t matter, he begins with the KJV and works backwards. Fundamentalism hitting hyper-drive…..in reverse.

Do you have a url for the question about the Epistle to the Laodecians? I have no idea why you consider it a special question, but I would like to see the original question.

Jerome writing the Vulgate Prologue is extremely consequent. At c. AD 400, Jerome worked with earlier manuscripts, Greek and Latin. So that makes the heavenly witnesses pre-Nicea and with an existing dispute which led to scribes dropping the verse. Obviously this is a game-changer, even for the textual critics approach. This is why none of the textual critics have an intelligent discussion on the Prologue, they simply look for a hand-wave.

Textual criticism has infected the heavenly witnesses discussion. Even Walter Thiele saying that Cyprian's Latin likely came from Greek is too hot for them to handle, since it means a Greek heavenly witnesses 2nd century or earlier. If so early, authenticity immediately becomes very likely.

Most of the textual critics know very little about the evidences (e.g. see my discussion with Ehrman on his blog-forum.) We have men like Forster, Cornwall and Armstrong in the late 1800s who were excellent. Also the French debates with Jean Pierre Paulin Martin, Rambouillet, Maunoury, Vacant and Didiot c. 1890. Moving to the 20th century, after Edward Freer Hills and Raymond Brown, ignorance has been the norm. Michael Maynard spurred a change with his book, all of a sudden readers saw the evidences throughout the centuries. Then we have Grantley McDonald, whose logic and reasoning (and facts) were often faulty. At least Grantley added extensively to the history, albeit with a very skewed approach.

Bill Brown forgets that the 99.9% on the Mark ending is all three major language lines, Greek, Latin and Syriac. And the heavenly witnesses is strong in Old Latin and Vulgate Latin, clearly from the 2nd century through history There is no valid comparison. Bill has been told this again and again, so he really does need to focus.

Anyone who actually considers the Mark ending as non-authentic, not originally written by Mark, should, to the thinking mind, be automatically disqualified and worthless on other textual issues. That includes most textual critics, remembering that the idiots who assigned an A-B-C-D-E grade consider its non-authenticity "certain".