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

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

John (note "John") doesn't actually say "allegory" "symbols" or "mystery" or "sacrament" or "sacraments" in 1 John 5:7 or 1 John 5:8.

So where did you and Bulgaris get the allegory from?

καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἕν τῇ γῇ, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσὶν.

I left out one point.

Invisible allegory will confuse the reader who actually checks the text and finds out that there is nothing to substantively match the allegory. They will feel deceived.

TNC tries to make analogies that simply are not in this ballpark.

Why are you quoting and arguing with yourself?
 
Here's a relevant question for you Avery.

To which plural masculine persons or what things, then, are οἱ μαρτυροῦντες BACKWARDS looking to by "attraction" in 1 John 5:7 (note verse 7) Clause-A?

What three masculine persons are in the preceding context to 1 John 5:7 (note verse 7) Clause-A who both perform the action denoted by μαρτυροῦντες and who by gender and number concord with μαρτυροῦντες BACKWARDLY?

1 John 5:7
[Part-A] ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [Part-B] εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, [Part-C] ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· [Part-D]
καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν

1 John 5:8
[Part-A] καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [Part-B] ἕν τῇ γῇ, [Part-C] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα [Part-D] καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσὶν
 
Last edited:
Here's a relevant question for you Avery.

To which plural masculine persons or what things, then, are οἱ μαρτυροῦντες BACKWARDS looking to by "attraction" in 1 John 5:7 (note verse 7) Clause-A?

What three masculine persons are in the preceding context to 1 John 5:7 (note verse 7) Clause-A who both perform the action denoted by μαρτυροῦντες and who by gender and number concord with μαρτυροῦντες BACKWARDLY?
Perfect OP for the non-Greek reading Steven Avery Greek grammar thread! "Greek Grammar for Dummies...." (I would be an observer and learner myself, so relax Avery).
 
Last edited:
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.
And again, you would be wrong. Observe:

33 (<---- that's the page number)
The most devastating argument suggesting that Cyprian did not quote the Comma is found by reading Cyprian’s other references to the Trinity. The most likely place to find an explicit reference to the Comma is in a Trinitarian polemic. Although he never wrote an extended treatise on the doctrine, Cyprian referenced the Trinity numerous times. In one epistle he writes:

The Lord, when, after His resurrection, He sent forth His apostles, charges them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.126

This verbiage is obviously drawn from the end of Matthew’s Gospel. 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.”127

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
_____________________________
126 Cyprian, Epistle XXIV.2, trans. Ernest Wallis, in A. Cleveland Coxe, The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Buffalo: Christian Literature, 1886), 5: 302.
127 Cyprian, Treatise XII, 2.3, in ANF 5:516.


34 (<---- again, page number)
instances could be considered debatable, this lack of quotation strongly suggests that Cyprian never saw the Comma. Given his chain reference method128 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).129
_____________________________
128 The chain reference method occurs when an author combines texts from different books or sections that focus upon a central point the author is trying to make. The use of such passages is more topical than exegetical and often violates the original context of the author. In this instance, Cyprian grabs references that can be used to refer to Christ as “the Word” from the Psalms, Isaiah, John’s Gospel, and the Apocalypse. His failure to mention 1 John 5:7 here speaks loudly.
129 I note the plural because one cannot assume that Cyprian or any other church father used only one text.
 
And again, I thought you said Cyprian was KNOWN for accurate Bible quoting? Did he accurately quote John 1:1 above?


Did he quote Rev. 19:11, 13 accurately?
KJV:
And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war....And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Cyprian:
“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.”

Also, I thought you said he didn't interpret allegorically or mystically?
 
Last edited:
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).

And he never mentions dozens of similar examples of the word of God (five times in Revelation total).

And he never mentions a more salient usage of the Word, ontological, in the New Testament, potentially a far better fit for the chapter.

John 1:14 (AV)
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,
(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Plus, the heading of the chapter, which you omitted is:
"3. That the same Christ is the Word of God."
https://books.google.com/books?id=mIwsAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA516

Assuming his copy of the Latin Bible had Word instead of Son, it is quite unclear whether this would be to purpose.

It is a fine section, interesting, but to claim it as some sort of proof that Cyprian did not have the heavenly witnesses verse is silly.
 
Also, I thought you said he didn't interpret allegorically or mystically?

Really?

Find me a quote where I said anything like that.

I did say he did not employ invisible allegories that would confuse and fool his readers when they looked at the Bible. In fact, we have not found invisible allegories in any writer.
 
To which plural masculine persons or what things, then, are οἱ μαρτυροῦντες BACKWARDS looking to by "attraction" in 1 John 5:7 (note verse 7) Clause-A?

What three masculine persons are in the preceding context to 1 John 5:7 (note verse 7) Clause-A who both perform the action denoted by μαρτυροῦντες and who by gender and number concord with μαρτυροῦντες BACKWARDLY?

You should indicate who you are quoting, if anybody.

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

Since you write of "three masculine persons", note that I do have a post about Bill Brown saying about Frederick Nolan:

Nolan insists that the masculine participle and adjective demand masculine substantives. His solution is to insert the Comma because he claims it has three masculine witnesses.24 p. 13

24 In reality, the Comma has two masculines and a neuter, a fact that would seem to refute his argument. Nolan acknowledges this but as we will see shortly, he presents an ingenious answer to that objection.

This is a phantom refutation.

Nowhere is it shown that Nolan talked of three masculine witnesses.
There is no footnote, and my search has not found any such spot.

Earlier placed here:

Hi Bill Brown,

Here is an interesting question from your thesis.

Looking at the thesis, I did not see a reference for Nolan referring to three masculine witnesses or three masculine substantives. And I did not find it on my own search. If there is a reference, please share. Thanks!

And if there is such a reference, it would be a surprising error from Nolan.

And I did not see the ingenious answer as well, although before there is an answer there would need to be a question. Granted, I did not look as hard for the ingenious answer.

Any help appreciated!

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

Also, Bill Brown, it would be wonderful if you would acknowledge that the 16 verses really are irrelevant to the grammatical argument!
 
Last edited:
Martin, who was the contra in the heavenly witnesses debate, is said to have written a superb book on the Mark ending, defending authenticity, comparable to Burgon. If I remember, his books have unusual script and formatting.

tom. II. 18#4 (554 pp.), is devoted to the disputed section of Mark xvi. 9-20, which he defends with as much learning and ingenuity as Dean Burgon;

Phillip Schaff
https://books.google.com/books?id=EBlVAAAAMAAJ&pg=PR13

Introduction à la critique textuelle du Nouveau Testament - Vol 2 - (1884)
Jean Pierre Paulin Martin
http://books.google.com/books?id=RqoGAAAAQAAJ
 
Here is a good example of worthless junk posting from Bill Brown.

Thus, in comparison, I was surprised that the thesis was mostly readable and the factual errors, other than those around the 16 Blunder Verses, were mostly not too bad. They were based in his limited understanding of the historical debate, along with scholastic sloppiness from Bill Brown. On the plus side, the thesis did not have the belligerent, bluster approach of his forum and blog posting.

1) and 89% of it is from the 8th century or later (which you suddenly want to invoke when it's 1 John 5:7)
2) and the CJ is missing 100% - not 99% - from TWO of those lines and 99% of the early Latin as well

1) is about the Mark ending, which has so much evidence that even if we used the AD 700 date, would have dozens of mss. with the ending. If you include all mss. In the 3 languages, you will have over 3,000.

Anyway, while (1) is throwing sand, at least it is factually reasonable, putting aside the false precision of 89% (Greek, 3 language lines, what are the numbers in reality?)

2) is typical Bill Brown bluster disinformation nonsense. It is unclear what is the cut-off date of the “early Latin.” However, we have discussed two early Latin mss. with the heavenly witnesses, the Leon Palimpsest and the Freisenger Fragment. Usually placed in the Old Latin line, a text-line sourced from the second century. So by the Bill Brown phony numbers, there would be at least 198 “early Latin” mss. with 1John 5:8 but no heavenly witnesses. Bridge for sale.

In reality, one Vulgate text ms. with a similarly early date is Fuldensis, which has the incredible Vulgate Prologue of Jerome. The next Latin (Vulgate) ms. without the heavenly witnesses is Amiatinus, which is dated as after the two inclusion mss. (All dates are scholarly conjectures.)

So the reactive posts from Bill Brown are often like this, simply worthless.

This is why I actually prefer counterpoint from the other posters, even without their giving, so far, a response to the 16 Blunder Verses from Bill Brown. They are unlikely to just bluster with absurd made-up numbers.
 
Last edited:
And he never mentions dozens of similar examples of the word of God (five times in Revelation total).
Irrelevant to the fact that he cites those references IN THE ORDER THEY APPEAR, but no Comma.

Assuming his copy of the Latin Bible had Word instead of Son, it is quite unclear whether this would be to purpose.
A ridiculous supposition in light of the fact that he uses SON instead of WORD in his supposed citation of tbe Comma in The Unity of the Church!

It is a fine section, interesting,
I'm sure Cyprian would be pleased that he has your approval.

but to claim it as some sort of proof that Cyprian did not have the heavenly witnesses verse is silly.
The truth hurts, I know.
 
Back
Top