the grammar of the heavenly and earthly witnesses

I'm curious why you call them all "blunder verses"

See here: https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...stantives-confuses-james-snapp.1783/post-6868

You say "None of these are remotely relevant to the heavenly witnesses solecism, which specifically involves masculine (or feminine) grammar with neuter nouns. Eugenius Voulgaris made all this exceedingly clear."

Some of these examples do contain neuters nouns.

To be relevant they would have to have ONLY neuter nouns, and masculine (or feminine) grammar.

The Blunder Verses started with Gary Hudson 20 years back, and then were greatly expanded by Bill Brown. They have worked to divert and confuse the grammatical discussions. And because Bill Brown is the leader of the contra pack (vroom, vroom) against heavenly witnesses authenticity, none of the other contras have the integrity to point out the error.
 
However it's not quite accurate to list the issues with the non Comma version in this way because there isn't a problem if you see "the Spirit, the Water and the Blood" as parenthetical, which they are, being auxilary to the meaning. For we already know the identity of these witnesses from verse 5.6.

I do not think you will find one grammarian or commentary that refers to the three witnesses in the short text as parenthetical.

1 John 5:7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood— and these three are in agreement.

"For there are three that testify and these three and in agreement" doesn't entail a grammatical solecism of any kind. Here 5.7 is grammatically aligned with 5.8.

The hypothetical solecism is in why "For there are three that testify and these three and in agreement" diverges from the gender of the parenthesis. Yet I have already suggested the reason: the witnesses are to be seen as legal witnesses in a Court of law. Their existence will be used to condemn unbelievers on that dreadful day. Here the point is being rammed home that these are legal witnesses. This requires the subject of the sentence to be masculine. I suggest a true constructio ad sensum or I suggest the nature of them being parenthetical infers their gender is irrelevant (something you have already suggested in John 14 or 15 with the Paraclete governing the masculine gender in all the passages in John which also defer to the Spirit of Truth - neuter - which you asserted was parenthetical). So I suggest an almost identical scenario in 1 John 5:7,8 with respect to the paracelete/"spirit of truth" gender discrepancy In John 14-16.

There is nothing analogous to the subordinate phrases in the Johannine paraclete verses. There is no paraclete antecedent in 1John.

Now I realize that your quirky position attacking Naselli and Gons and Wallace, and denouncing remote antecedents rather than parsing grammar, puts you in the realm of an unusual grammar interpretation. So I will leave you there, trying to avoid repetitive back and forth.

As to the ultra-metaphorical mind-reading idea that John was thinking of Jewish law practices and turning spirit, water and blood into people, subject to constructio ad sensum, you are welcome to that try. Anyone who takes that stance should try to find an analagous super-stretch in the Greek corpus.
 
Last edited:
This is more an exegetical add-on. Before he goes into symbols, Eugenius has already clearly stated the solecism and that the heavenly witnesses verse is needed for the (earthly) witnesses verse to properly stand.

No, this is embarrassing for you, because of shooting your mouth off and praising him sky high to the heavens (pun intended ?), when holds to your "invisible allegory".

That's what it is.
 
Yes, they are different, as the three (earthly) witnesses fit perfectly with the Johannine verses on the crucifixion/passion of the Lord Jesus.

==========

John 19:30 (AV)
When Jesus had tasted it,
he said, “It is finished!”
Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

John 19:34
But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side,
and forthwith came there out blood and water.

These two verses cover the three component (earthly) witnesses. And their being written by John gives us a strong indicator of the crucifixion/passion interpretation strength.

Notice that the Johannine 1John theme of bearing record comes forth in the very next verse.

John 19:35
And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true:
and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.

==========

However, I am willing to discuss it with you as if they are the same in your redundant short text. Or as your understanding of the long text.

Two questions.

(1)
Can you show any grammarian or commentary who discusses your explanation? Which has the noun pneuma (in 7 and/or 8) being in grammatical concord, as a referent, with verse 6?

(2)
Again, to your way of thinking, if you had 1 John 5:7 and there was no 1 John 5:6?
what does Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα (Holy Ghost) "concord with"?
Would it be discordant?

Some of the earliest Latin NT manuscript "evidences" (as you call them) only read "the Spirit" (with "HOLY" missing) instead of "the HOLY Spirit" in the Comma/Parenthetical text of 1 John 5:7(Clause-C).

Codex Fuldensis (circa. 7th century C.E.) in the Paratextual commentary to the "Canonical Epistles", only has "Spiritus" in reference to the specific words that are supposedly ✌️"omitted"✌️ (? actually "committentes" in the manuscript) in comparison and contradistinction to the words of the psuedographic commentator's eisegetical theological comment in the following sentence of "Patris et Fili ("and the Son") et Spiritus Sanctus" ("and the HOLY Spirit").

Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 6436 (circa. 7th century C.E.) is damaged in the Comma-inclusive text, leaving open the legitimate possibility that it may have only read "SPS" ("Spiritus" abbreviated) instead of "SPS SCS" ("Spiritus Sanctus" abbreviated). Note [ ] bracketed text in printed references to this manuscript.

León, Archivo Catedralicio Ms. 15 (first copied circa. 7th century and palimpsested 10th century C.E.) is likewise damaged, and similarly may have only read "SPS" ("Spiritus" abbreviated) instead of "SPS SCS" ("Spiritus Sanctus" abbreviated) as well as "XPS est veritas" in verse 6 (see previous post over on Syriac thread). Note [ ] bracketed text in the printed references to these verses in this manuscript.

The next oldest NT manuscript is similar, except more conclusive.

Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare X (8), (circa. 7th-8th century C.E.) 1 John 5:6-8 is found on Folio 131 [Pg 264-265 / 322].

It only reads "SPS" ("Spiritus" abbreviated) instead of "SPS SCS" ("Spiritus Sanctus" abbreviated).

“…hic est qui venit ex aqua et sanguine IHS XPS ; non in aqua solum ; sed [Folio 131] in aqua et sanguinem et SPS est qui testifcator qm XPS est veritas ; qm tres sunt qui testimonium dant in caelo Pater, Verbum, et SPS, et tres unum sunt ; Si testimonium hominum accipimus, testimonium DI maius est…”

Also, the so-called “earthly witnesses” (Spiritus, aqua, sanguine) have been completely erased and/or supplanted by the heavenly witnesses "Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus".

So, when looking exclusively at the early NT Latin manuscript evidence, it shows potentially that, rather than originality, in verse 7 (Clause-C), the Latin Comma-inclusive version in it's earliest stage of construction and subsequent development actually gives more evidence of remodeling or manipulation and/or adding/constructing onto the original Comma-less text of verse 7, by virtue of the manuscripts mirroring (and/or potentially mirroring) verse 7's original "et Spiritus" reading instead of "Spiritus Sanctus".

This is additional evidence, and strengthens the idea that "the Spirit" (with the context of water + blood) in verse 8 (KJV-numbering) and "the Spirit of the truth" in verse 6 (same context = water + blood) most probably are identical.
 
Last edited:
No, this is embarrassing for you, because of shooting your mouth off and praising him sky high to the heavens (pun intended ?), when holds to your "invisible allegory". That's what it is.

Nope.
You are swinging wildly because invisible allegory busted your Cyprian opposition.

Since Eugenius is talking about a relationship between two VISIBLE verses, both in his Bible, it is totally unrelated to the false invisible allegory claims against Cyprian.
 
Some of the earliest Latin NT manuscript "evidences" (as you call them) only read "the Spirit" (with "HOLY" missing) instead of "the HOLY Spirit" in the Comma/Parenthetical text of 1 John 5:7(Clause-C).

Codex Fuldensis (circa. 7th century C.E.) in the Paratextual commentary to the "Canonical Epistles", only has "Spiritus" in reference to the specific words that are supposedly ✌️"omitted"✌️ (? actually "committentes" in the manuscript) in comparison and contradistinction to the words of the psuedographic commentator's eisegetical theological comment in the following sentence of "Patris et Fili ("and the Son") et Spiritus Sanctus" ("and the HOLY Spirit").

Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 6436 (circa. 7th century C.E.) is damaged in the Comma-inclusive text, leaving open the legitimate possibility that it may have only read "SPS" ("Spiritus" abbreviated) instead of "SPS SCS" ("Spiritus Sanctus" abbreviated). Note [ ] bracketed text in printed references to this manuscript.

León, Archivo Catedralicio Ms. 15 (first copied circa. 7th century and palimpsested 10th century C.E.) is likewise damaged, and similarly may have only read "SPS" ("Spiritus" abbreviated) instead of "SPS SCS" ("Spiritus Sanctus" abbreviated) as well as "XPS est veritas" in verse 6 (see previous post over on Syriac thread). Note [ ] bracketed text in the printed references to these verses in this manuscript.

The next oldest NT manuscript is similar, except more conclusive.

Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare X (8), (circa. 7th-8th century C.E.) 1 John 5:6-8 is found on Folio 131 [Pg 264-265 / 322].

It only reads "SPS" ("Spiritus" abbreviated) instead of "SPS SCS" ("Spiritus Sanctus" abbreviated).

“…hic est qui venit ex aqua et sanguine IHS XPS ; non in aqua solum ; sed [Folio 131] in aqua et sanguinem et SPS est qui testifcator qm XPS est veritas ; qm tres sunt qui testimonium dant in caelo Pater, Verbum, et SPS, et tres unum sunt ; Si testimonium hominum accipimus, testimonium DI maius est…”

Also, the so-called “earthly witnesses” (Spiritus, aqua, sanguine) have been completely erased and/or supplanted by the heavenly witnesses "Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus".

So, when looking exclusively at the early NT Latin manuscript evidence, it shows potentially that, rather than originality, in verse 7 (Clause-C), the Latin Comma-inclusive version in it's earliest stage of construction and subsequent development actually gives more evidence of remodeling or manipulation and/or adding/constructing onto the original Comma-less text of verse 7, by virtue of the manuscripts mirroring (and/or potentially mirroring) verse 7's original "et Spiritus" reading instead of "Spiritus Sanctus".

This is additional evidence, and strengthens the idea that "the Spirit" (with the context of water + blood) in verse 8 (KJV-numbering) and "the Spirit of the truth" in verse 6 (same context = water + blood) most probably are identical.

Why not at least try to respond to my two questions?

Thanks!
 
Awaiting an answer.
Obviously had a similar grammatical situation arisen with a femine noun, I suspect the same grammar rules would have been applied. However it wouldn't be a gospel context. I wouldn't have supposed a similar context could easily arise with a woman - femine roles aren't equivalent to male roles. Most female roles are defined by female nouns. Hence μαία, midwife etc.

παράκλητος is masculine for a reason, for it refers to one who pleads another's cause before a judge, a pleader, counsel for defense, legal assistant, an advocate. Jesus wouldn't have selected a femine role for the Spirit, as the Spirit is of God who is himself masculine.
 
I'm curious why you call them all "blunder verses"

See here: https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...stantives-confuses-james-snapp.1783/post-6868

You say "None of these are remotely relevant to the heavenly witnesses solecism, which specifically involves masculine (or feminine) grammar with neuter nouns. Eugenius Voulgaris made all this exceedingly clear."

- Some of these examples do contain neuters nouns.

However it's not quite accurate to list the issues with the non Comma version in thisway because there isn't a problem if you see "the Spirit, the Water and the Blood" as parenthetical, which they are, being auxilary to the meaning. For we already know the identity of these witnesses from verse 5.6.

1 John 5:7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood— and these three are in agreement.

"For there are three that testify and these three and in agreement" doesn't entail a grammatical solecism of any kind. Here 5.7 is grammatically aligned with 5.8.

The hypothetical solecism is in why "For there are three that testify and these three and in agreement" diverges from the gender of the parenthesis. Yet I have already suggested the reason: the witnesses are to be seen as legal witnesses in a Court of law. Their existence will be used to condemn unbelievers on that dreadful day. Here the point is being rammed home that these are legal witnesses. This requires the subject of the sentence to be masculine. I suggest a true constructio ad sensum or I suggest the nature of them being parenthetical infers their gender is irrelevant (something you have already suggested in John 14 or 15 with the Paraclete governing the masculine gender in all the passages in John which also defer to the Spirit of Truth - neuter - which you asserted was parenthetical). So I suggest an almost identical scenario in 1 John 5:7,8 with respect to the paracelete/"spirit of truth" gender discrepancy In John 14-16.


OK.

Yes. The "two or three witnesses" concept is entirely Hebrew in origin, and therefore a foreign concept to Greek's, and therefore John departs from the usual rules of Greek grammar to express a Biblical (for want of a better word) concept (not a grammatical one). Thus, the difficulty some later Greeks may have found with the original 1 John 5:7-8 Comma-less Greek text.
 
There is nothing analogous to the subordinate phrases in the Johannine paraclete verses. There is no paraclete antecedent in 1John.

John 14:16-17
Douay-Rheims Bible
"And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another (Greek NT: Παράκλητον Vulgate: "Paracletum") Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever. (τὸ Πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας) The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you."

Nothing analogous? "Nothing" is all encompassing Steven.

Analogous in sense.

John 14:17(Clause-A) τὸ Πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας "the Spirit of the truth"
1 John 5:6(Clause-D)
τὸ Πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἡ ἀλήθεια "the Spirit is the truth"

Analogous grammatically as well.

John 14:17(Clause-A) τὸ Πνεῦμα τῆς (feminine gender) ἀληθείας (feminine gender) "the Spirit of the truth"
1 John 5:6(Clause-D)
τὸ Πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἡ (feminine gender) ἀλήθεια (feminine gender) "the Spirit is the truth"

It's pretty clear what the Apostle was pointing to.
 
Codex Fuldensis (circa. 7th century C.E.) in the Paratextual commentary to the "Canonical Epistles", only has "Spiritus" in reference to the specific words that are supposedly ✌️"omitted"✌️ (? actually "committentes" in the manuscript) in comparison and contradistinction to the words of the psuedographic commentator's eisegetical theological comment in the following sentence of "Patris et Fili ("and the Son") et Spiritus Sanctus" ("and the HOLY Spirit").

This is all one continuous writing, and the "eisegetical theological comment" is a solid reference that includes the Holy Spirit.

Thomas Caldwell translated the Fuldensis text.

Just as these are properly understood and so translated faithfully by interpreters into Latin without leaving ambiguity for the readers nor [allowing] the variety of genres to conflict, especially in that text where we read the unity of the trinity is placed in the first letter of John, where much error has occurred at the hands of unfaithful translators contrary to the truth of faith, who have kept just the three words water, blood and spirit in this edition omitting mention of Father, Word and Spirit in which especially the catholic faith is strengthened and the unity of substance of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is attested.

Your various "possible" evidences are of no value.
You use them to pad your post with big nothings.

And you omit many earlier quotes (earlier than most all of the manuscripts) that include Holy Spirit such as from De Trinitate and the Council of Carthage.

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

Cyprian

● On the Unity of the Church:
He who breaks the peace and concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, "I and the Father are one;" and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, "And these three are one."
(Cyprian. Treatise. On the Unity of the Church. Book 1.6, ANF, 1995, vol. 5, p. 423)

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

De Trinitate
● Bk I.50 since this is precisely how John the Evangelist expresses himself in his letter: "There are three who bear witness in heaven: the Father and the Word and the Holy Spirit, and in Christ Jesus they are one."

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

Eugenius - Confession of Faith for the 400+ bishops - Liber fidei catholicæ
And so, no occasion for uncertainty is left. It is clear that the Holy Spirit is also God and the author of his own will, he who is most clearly shown to be at work in all things and to bestow the gifts of the divine dispensation according to the judgment of his own will, because where it is proclaimed that he distributes graces where he wills, servile condition cannot exist, for servitude is to be understood in what is created, but power and freedom in the Trinity. And so that we may teach the Holy Spirit to be of one divinity with the Father and the Son still more clearly than the light, here is proof from the testimony of John the evangelist. For he says: 'There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.' ...

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

Eleutherius (AD 456-531)
[Confession on the Trinity]
Necessary is also that you believe the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, his birth, circumcision, preparation, Gospel, passion, death, resurrection and ascension in heaven. For this is the orthodox faith. But because a virgin conceived him, a virgin bore him, the only God in flesh, with regard to nature, so you must also profess her the mother of Christ. Not that the Word obtained it’s existence starting with the birth from flesh, for in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; and He is the founder of the heavens, the Father of universe. Certainly, there are Three who give testimony in heaven Father, Word and Holy Spirit: and these Three are One. Surely he does he not say 'three separated by a difference in quality' or 'divided by grades which differentiate, so that there is a great distance between them?' No, he says that the 'three are one.'

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

Fulgentius

[Responsio contra Arianos]
the blessed martyr Cyprian, in his epistle de unitate Ecclesiae (Unity of the Church), confesseth, saying, Who so breaketh the peace of Christ, and concord, acteth against Christ: whoso gathereth elsewhere beside the Church, scattereth. And that he might shew, that the Church of the one God is one, he inserted these testimonies, immediately from the scriptures:

The Lord said, 'I and the Father are one.' And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it is written, 'And these three are one.' "

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

Fulgentius

• [Contra Fabianus] But the holy Apostle St. John [proceeds further, for he] plainly says, "And the three are one"; which text concerning the Father, the Son [Filio] and the Holy Ghost we alleged, as we did before when ye required a reason from us [our belief].
(Fulgentius, Contra Fabianus, Fragmentum 21; Translated by George Travis, Letters to Edward Gibbon, 3rd edition, 1794, p. 3

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

AD 570 – Cassiodorus

● [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)

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

And again, where is the Freisinger Fragment in your Latin mss?

Remember, we had an omission in your earlier Latin ms. list, which you never acknowledged or corrected.
 
Last edited:
Nope.
You are swinging wildly because invisible allegory busted your Cyprian opposition.

Since Eugenius is talking about a relationship between two VISIBLE verses, both in his Bible, it is totally unrelated to the false invisible allegory claims against Cyprian.

You mean Cyprian's "heavenly mysteries"?

Henry Thomas Armfeild, 1883.

“The Lord saith, 'I and the Father are One;' and again of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost it is written, 'and these three are One.' And does any one believe that this unity, proceeding from the divine immutability, cohering by heavenly mysteries, can be rent in the Church, and separated by the divorce of contending wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold the law of God, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation. [Chapter 7] This mystery of unity, this bond of concord inseparably cohering, is shown, when in the Gospel the coat of our Lord Jesus Christ is not divided in any wise nor rent, but is received as a whole vesture, an incorrupt and undivided coat, by those who cast lots for the vesture of Christ, who should put on Christ. The divine Scripture speaketh and saith : 'But of the coat, because it was not sewed together from the upper part, but woven throughout, they said among themselves, let us not rend it, but cast lots whose it shall be.' It carried with it unity coming from the upper part, that is, coming down from heaven and from the Father, which could not in anywise be rent by him who received and possessed it, but obtained at once an entire and solid firmness. […] By the mystery and sign of the coat he declared the unity of the Church.”​
 
More evidence of Scribal remodeling of the original Comma-less text.

You should try to answer the two questions.
This has to do with your writing about concord.

Two questions.

(1)
Can you show any grammarian or commentary who discusses your explanation? Which has the noun pneuma (in 7 and/or 8) being in grammatical concord, as a referent, with verse 6?

(2)
Again, to your way of thinking, if you had 1 John 5:7 and there was no 1 John 5:6?
what does Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα (Holy Ghost) "concord with"?
Would it be discordant?

This was in response to:

An objection to the Comma text in verse 8 (KJV-numbering).

One would argue that the plural masculine gender adjectives and participle in 1 John 5:8 (KJV-numbering) are completely superfluous.

Why did the Scribes who copied the Comma in Greek keep the masculine plural adjectives and participle in verse 8 (KJV-numbering) if the verse is about "on earth, the blood and the water and the Spirit"?

It makes no sense grammatically because Steven argues they can't possibly concord with the "the blood and the water and the Spirit".

That being the case who, how and why do the plural masculine gender adjectives and participle in 1 John 5:8 (KJV-numbering) ACTUALLY CONCORD WITH in the Comma text?
 
This is all one continuous writing, and the supposed "eisegetical theological comment" is a solid reference that includes the Holy Spirit.

I said this.

Codex Fuldensis (circa. 7th century A.D.) in the Paratextual commentary to the "Canonical Epistles", only has "Spiritus" in reference to the specific words that are supposedly ✌️"omitted"✌️ (? actually "committentes" in the manuscript - See links here and here) in comparison and contradistinction to the words of the psuedographic commentator's eisegetical theological comment in the following sentence of "Patris et Fili ("and the Son") et Spiritus Sanctus" ("and the HOLY Spirit").

But are you claiming that the both Anonymous and Psuedonomynous author of the Psuedographic Paratextual commentary in the Fuldensis was saying that "Patris et Fili et Spiritus Sanctus" ('the Father and the SON and the HOLY Spirit") was "omitted"?

The manuscript has neither "Fili" nor "Sanctus" in the specific sentence clause I pointed to.

What manuscript variant for this text shows that wording?

NOTE: Links added.
 
.... are you claiming that the both Anonymous and Psuedonomynous author of the Psuedographic Paratextual commentary in the Fuldensis

Since the Vulgate Prologue is clearly a first-person writing from Jerome, writing to Eustochium, and fitting Jerome on its topics (including the accusation that he was a falsifier of scripture!) it is deceptive to call the Prologue Anonymous, etc.

It can only be:

a) Jerome

b) A highly skilled and knowledgeable scholar pretending to be Jerome, and with the clout to get his forgery writing into the ms. line, writing not long after his passing. Also the learned Victor of Capua would have to be one of those fooled by the forgery.

The attempts to find a writer for the Prologue other than Jerome have been total failures. There were efforts around 1910, which ended up refuted and abandoned.

Ironically, some have theorized that some total unknown really, really wanted to push the heavenly witnesses verse, and this led to the whole Prologue supposed forgery. :) Bridge for sale.

Thus, Ockham's Razor strongly favors Jerome on the foundational question.

Especially when the original attempt to call the Prologue a forgery was largely based on its lateness in the extant mss. At that time, around AD 1700, the Prologue was thought to have entered the ms. line very late, around AD 800. Now, since c. AD 1850 and the text by Ranke we know about Fuldensis.

If the truth of Jerome's authorship were accepted, the heavenly witnesses contras would pretty much have to close up shop. So they must throw as much sand as possible.
 
Last edited:
============================

Eugenius - Confession of Faith for the 400+ bishops - Liber fidei catholicæ
And so, no occasion for uncertainty is left. It is clear that the Holy Spirit is also God and the author of his own will, he who is most clearly shown to be at work in all things and to bestow the gifts of the divine dispensation according to the judgment of his own will, because where it is proclaimed that he distributes graces where he wills, servile condition cannot exist, for servitude is to be understood in what is created, but power and freedom in the Trinity. And so that we may teach the Holy Spirit to be of one divinity with the Father and the Son still more clearly than the light, here is proof from the testimony of John the evangelist. For he says: 'There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.' ...

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

Not exactly true.

Victor Vitensis, Historia Persecutionis Africae Provinciae

The missing "Sanctus" variant does exist for this text.

Oxford, Balliol College, 256 (circa. 12-13th century C.E.) Folio 103r (very bottom of the left column)

Reads "P[ate]r, V[erb]u[m] [e]t Sp[iritu]s" (words abbreviated in Latin) with no "Sanctus".

Also.

BNF, Latin 5796 (circa. 12th century C.E.) Folio 115r
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10541005v/f235.item.zoom

Reads "Pat[er] et Filius et Sp[iritu]s S[an]c[tu]s" (words abbreviated in Latin).

With the variant "et Filius" i.e. "the Son".

BNF, Latin 2015 (circa. 9th century C.E.) Folio 183
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10541005v/f183.item

Reads "Pat[er] et Filius et Sp[iritu]s S[an]c[tu]s" (words abbreviated in Latin).

Also with the variant "et Filius" i.e. "the Son".

Variants within variants, within variants of variants. Those are the facts.

Plus!

You omitt Moorehead's footnote.


Liverpool University Press series:
Victor of Vita: History of the Vandal Persecution, tr. John Moorhead, Liverpool (1992); series: Translated Texts for Historians 10.

Latin Text : Halms’ Edition


[82.] "Vnde nullus ambiguitatis relinquitur locus, quin clareat spiritum sanctum et deum esse et suae voluntatis auctorem, qui cuncta operari et secundum propriae voluntatis arbitrium divinae dispensationis dona largiri apertissime demonstratur, quia ubi voluntaria gratiarum distributio praedicatur, non potest videri condicio servitutis: in creatura enim servitus intellegenda est, in trinitate vero dominatio ac libertas. Et ut adhuc luce clarius unius divinitatis esse cum patre et filio spiritum sanctum doceamus, Iohannis evangelistae testimonio conprobatur. Ait namque: tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in caelo, pater, verbum et spiritus sanctus, et hi tres unum sunt. Numquid ait: tres in differenti aequalitate seiuneti aut quibuslibet diversitatum gradibus longo separationis intervallo divisi? sed, tres, inquit, unum sunt."

Moorhead's translation Page 56.

[82.] "And so, no occasion for uncertainty is left. It is clear that the Holy Spirit is also God and the author of his own will, he who is most clearly shown to be at work in all things and to bestow the gifts of the divine dispensation according to the judgment of his own will, because where it is proclaimed that he distributes graces where he wills, servile condition cannot exist, for servitude is to be understood in what is created, but power and freedom in the Trinity. And so that we may teach the Holy Spirit to be of one divinity with the Father and the Son still more clearly than the light, here is proof from the testimony of John the evangelist. For he says: ‘There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.’ Surely he does he not say ‘three separated by a difference in quality’ or ‘divided by grades which differentiate, so that there is a great distance between them?’ No, he says that the ‘three are one.’"​

Moorhead adds a comment on the text of scripture used by Victor (p. xix ff.):

"To avoid a multiplication of footnotes I have supplied references to biblical quotations and allusions in parentheses, without troubling to register minor ways, whether due to the text which Victor or the authors of the Book of the catholic faith were familiar with, faulty memory, or some other cause, in which they differ from modern printed versions of the Bible. The chapter and verse numbers of the psalms are those of the Vulgate, but the names of books of the Bible are those by which they are generally known in English. Where ‘Vulg’ is added, the text Victor cites is similar to the Vulgate and differs significantly from the modem translations readers may have at their disposal; where ‘cf’ is added, Victor’s text is significantly different from both the Vulgate and modem versions."[23]

Footnote 23. "It must be said that some of the variants which occur in the Book of the catholic faith constitute amendments in a Trinitarian direction."

Emphasis added by me.
 
Last edited:
More evidence of Scribal remodeling of the original Comma-less text.

The variant including or omitting Holy is not a remodeling of the text. It could occur whether the heavenly witnesses is authentic, or not. Symmetry of transmission. And I showed you many early evidences that attest to Holy Spirit.

If you want wacky theories about the supposed development of the heavenly witnesses text, you really have to see the writing from Grantley MacDonald.

Where is the Freisinger fragment?
 
John departs from the usual rules of Greek grammar

Thank you for acknowledging that the short text with just the three (earthly) witnesses "departs from the usual rules of Greek grammar" ie. is a solecism. It is unusual for a contra to acknowledge the clear and obvious.

From that acknowledgement we can compare and discuss the wide variety of cover stories that are used to try to justify the short text as still Scripture, despite the solecism. Notice that the creative ideas really took hold when the scholars realized they were stuck with the solecism in their preferred short text.

The Jewish law one, making spirit, water and blood personalized into masculine people because of the "bear witness" concept is about average among the various attempts. No analogy in the Greek corpus offered, built on hyper-metaphoric constructio ad sensum, and impossible to expect to be understood by the actual readers of the text. Still, a try.

Gottfried Christian Friedrich Lücke (1791-1855) in 1837 used the idea of "concrete witnesses" according to Georg Konrad Gottlieb Lünemann, (1819–1894) and/or Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer (1800-1873). Or perhaps the English translator helps, Johann Eduard Huther (1807-1880).

Commentary on the New Testament: James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude (1887)
by Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer
http://books.google.com/books?id=mSFVAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA610

The masculine is used because the three that are mentioned are regarded as concrete witnesses (Lücke, etc.) ....

Commentary on the Epistles of St. John (1837)
Gottfried Christian Friedrich Lücke
https://books.google.com/books?id=3qACAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA272
https://archive.org/details/MN41975ucmf_1/page/n297/mode/2up?view=theater

It is specially by the pneuma that the witnesses obtain vitality, according to St. John. ... In ver. 8, St. John places the pneuma first, as endowing the two others with a testifying power. He lays a stress on the witnesses being three, according to the ancient rule, Deut. xvii. 6 ; xix. 15, cfr. Matt, xviii. 16. John viii. 17, 18. This is a popular mode of demonstration, an argumentum ad hominem. ...

Note that he uses the classical idea of an argumentum ad hominem, not the modern idea.

Note that there is no phrase "concrete witnesses", so that may be a translation from the German source.

Also I have not looked at all this for awhile, so I may still be gathering info while this post locks.
I have a few notes in the PBF, and bookmarks.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top