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

[logos1560]

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

Your repeated improper attempts to attack the integrity or honesty of others is wrong.

 

[Steven Avery]

From pp. 33-34 in Maestroh's thesis:
And how about pg. 31?

The paper that Bill Brown has on Academia.edu on Cyprian is 14 pages.

 

[Steven Avery]

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.

Bill explains the grammatical argument in his paper.

His 16 Blunder Verses contradict his own explanation.

It is an embarrassment that the contras accept such an obvious blunder as including verses that do not match Bill's own explanation.
Verses with masculine or feminine substantives and neuter grammar, which are clearly totally irrelevant.

Presumably you are referencing Gregory Nazianzen as Gregorius.

 

[Steven Avery]

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.

This has been answered right above.

You are giving an absurdly circular argument, based on your personal rejection of the positions of Eugenius Bulgaris and Georgios Babiniotis and others that the heavenly witnesses inclusion resolves the grammatical issue in the earthly witnesses.

Try to actually respond in dialogue.

 

[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?

Note, I already told you that I do not accept that part of the Eugenius exposition.

Thus, it is not relevant as a mental finding of John's thinking.

However, Eugenius is claiming a visible allegory, connecting the heavenly and earthly witnesses, both in the text.

 

[logos1560]

Jerome writing the Vulgate Prologue is extremely consequent.

You do not prove that Jerome wrote that Prologue if you are referring to "the pseudo-Hieronymian Prologue to the Catholic Epistles" found in Codex Fuldensis (Houghton, The Latin New Testament, p. 56) and do not prove that Jerome actually translated the Catholic Epistles into Latin.

Are you merely trying to assume something that you do not know and prove to be a fact?

Your non-scholarly opinion is outweighed by the evidence presented by a known Latin New Testament scholar, H. A. G. Houghton.

 

[logos1560]

17 pages of 53 pages of actual text are spent on the grammatical argument.
That's nearly 1/3 of the entire thesis INCLUDING the intro.
Summary of Thesis Contents:

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

The paper that Bill Brown has on Academia.edu on Cyprian is 14 pages.

Evidently that paper is not the 53 page thesis from which another poster quoted. Is it that paper that you read instead of his thesis?

 

[logos1560]

Try to actually respond in dialogue.

Perhaps you should practice what you preach instead of wasting time trying to insult others.

 

[Steven Avery]

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

Fallacy of composition.

 

[Steven Avery]

Evidently that paper is not the 53 page thesis from which another poster quoted.

Likely not. His quote is in the 14 page paper.

The longer paper may include Cyprian and the grammatical section.

 

[Steven Avery]

And the only reason we have this rabbit trail is because of the LACK of Greek, AND LATIN AND Syriac AND every other language manuscripts in th early period.

Thanks for pointing this out!

This is why evidences like Cyprian and Tertullian and Hundredfold Martyrs, the Vulgate Prologue of Jerome, "internal evidences" including the grammatical argument and the hundreds of bishops at Carthage in unity with the verse, and the various 4th century full verse usages like Isaac the Jew and Priscillian and others, and the Old Latin mss from the second century line, and the early allusions, are all so important.

They all point to the heavenly witnesses being used and read from the Bible before the extant language manuscripts.

 

[Unbound68]

The paper that Bill Brown has on Academia.edu on Cyprian is 14 pages.

What part of the word THESIS is unclear to you? I thought you bought it and read it?

 

[logos1560]

Fallacy of composition.

Why do you use this fallacy in some of your claims if you know that it is wrong?

 

[Unbound68]

Likely not. His quote is in the 14 page paper.

The longer paper may include Cyprian and the grammatical section.

This proves you've never read Maestroh's thesis.

 

[Steven Avery]

Thanks for pointing this out!

This is why evidences like Cyprian and Tertullian and Hundredfold Martyrs, the Vulgate Prologue of Jerome, "internal evidences" including the grammatical argument and the hundreds of bishops at Carthage in unity with the verse, and the various 4th century full verse usages like Isaac the Jew and Priscillian and others, and the Old Latin mss from the second century line, and the early allusions, are all so important.

They all point to the heavenly witnesses being used and read from the Bible before the extant language manuscripts.

The related point is the comparison of the theories of inclusion and omission.

Omission is exceedingly easy, and is well-supported by Jerome's Vulgate Prologue and the earlier comment from Eusebius about the three are one. Also the common sense understanding that many writers would prefer the short text, rather than the long text, which wades right into the Christological controversies, including the Sabellian likely endorsement of the verse.

Inclusion is a very messy theory. That can be handled separately.

 

[Steven Avery]

This proves you've never read Maestroh's thesis.

I read the grammatical part carefully, and made a few important corrections.
Not the Cyprian section.

btw, it was quoted as p. 33-34, when it is p. 35-36.

 

[Unbound68]

btw, it was quoted as p. 33-34, when it is p. 35-36.

Wrong. And why not tackle what's IN the excerpt, rather than this diversionary tactic?

 

[Steven Avery]

So do you have a text line category for the Leon Palimpsest and the Frisengensis fragment?

This is basic, and I don't think this was ever answered.

You mention the Frisengensis fragment after the list, without giving the detail you give to omission mss. (largely Syriac).

Afaik, you do not discuss the Leon Palimpsest at all.

Note: I do like your list, noting the limited value, and the misplacement of Sinaiticus, and trying to omit and marginalize the incredibly important Vulgate Prologue in Fuldensis.

 

[Steven Avery]

NOTE: Hippolytus lays a competing claim that Noetus was also the first Modalist. Epiphanius says the Gospel of the Egyptians was the source of Sabellius one-ness which Steven claimed was influenced by the Comma, then disowns it when he realized he doesn't have a shred of evidence to prove it.

Why do you make things up? Tacky - "Steven claimed:
I clearly said it was just a conjecture, and I gave the quote from Epiphanius that is the source.

 

[Steven Avery]

This is the exact point Daniel Wallace was trying to get across with "written of," not "written that..." (cf. Wikipedia, Johannine Comma, Footnote 54 [which I now discover 17/05/22 has now been conveniently edited out by, most probably, Steven Avery. I have screen shots of the old one anyway.]).

This is in Wikipedia:

Daniel B. Wallace notes that although Cyprian uses 1 John to argue for the Trinity, he appeals to this as an allusion via the three witnesses—"written of"—rather than by quoting a proof-text—"written that".[56]

So I doubt anything has been changed by anybody for a long, long time.
Your editing accusation above is false.