the grammar of the heavenly and earthly witnesses

TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
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.
Click to expand...

The standard reconstruction of this Freisinger Fragment has the longer nomina sacra. If there is a specific measurement that questions the spacing, I would appreciate knowing where and by whom.

I have not checked back on the similar question on the Leon Palimpsest.

For all that writing, it looks like the Verona ms. is the only one that definitely is missing the Holy.
Then you add "possibilities". :)
How many like the Speculum should be included with Holy Spirit?
 
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
Exactly. He'll figure it out in time, but he won't be humble about it.
Click to expand...

This is deceptive.

Neither of those errors were made by yours truly.
In fact, I have taken flak from one Confessional Bibliology fellow for simply trying to correct the Stephanus error.

On the lists from TNC, the key question is why the Leon Palimpsest is not on his early ms. list.

The Holy Spirit list is obviously worthless, "possibilities", and omissions of many early Holy Spirit uses.
Yes, it has both the Freisinger and Leon Palimpsest, the focus of "possibilities."
Leaving out the most common name for a manuscript is basically silly.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
This is deceptive.

Neither of those errors were made by yours truly.
In fact, I have taken flak from one Confessional Bibliology fellow for simply trying to correct the Stephanus error.
Click to expand...
Nobody has said otherwise. Pay attention.


Steven Avery said:
On the lists from TNC, the key question is why the Leon Palimpsest is not on his early ms. list.
Click to expand...
Funny how you said TNC didnt provide the Freisinger fragment and now you act like you knew about the different numbering systems all along.
 
Unbound68 said:
Funny how you said TNC didnt provide the Freisinger fragment and now you act like you knew about the different numbering systems all along.
Click to expand...

Nope. I remembered that one was missing from the Latin ms. list. I was going by memory and thought it was the Freisinger Fragment. My error. It turns out to be the Leon Palimpsest, not the Freisinger Fragment. Adjustment made.

The key issue remains, why is the Leon Palimpsest not on the ms. list?
 
Steven Avery said:
This has the same first person evidences of Jerome that are in the Thomas Caldwell translation of Fuldensis.

https://forums.carm.org/threads/the-grammar-of-the-heavenly-and-earthly-witnesses.9748/post-741864


So you were just trying to fake it about "later remodeling", as if that created the first-person evidences for Jerome.

Again, it most be

Jerome or

A knowledgeable, skillful clever, deceptive forger, with lots of clout.
Click to expand...

"We" or "our" = first person plural = more than one person.

Did ✌️ Jerome ✌️ suffer from a split personality syndrome?
 
Steven Avery said:
The standard reconstruction of this Freisinger Fragment has the longer nomina sacra. If there is a specific measurement that questions the spacing, I would appreciate knowing where and by whom.

I have not checked back on the similar question on the Leon Palimpsest.

For all that writing, it looks like the Verona ms. is the only one that definitely is missing the Holy.
Then you add "possibilities". :)
How many like the Speculum should be included with Holy Spirit?
Click to expand...

Your really really struggling with my original questions you've never encountered before.
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
Your really really struggling with my original questions you've never encountered before.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I liked your ms. list, despite the omission of the Leon Palimpsest and placing Sinaiticus 1500 years too early. We learn that early mss. with 1 John are most common in the Syriac Peshitta (and perhaps the Philoxenian and Harklean editions, which are still Peshitta.)

Your Holy Spirit in Latin mss. question was a bit of a joke, since you omitted early church writers, and worked with "possibilities".

Your attempt to say the Vulgate writing is not a first-person Jerome writing was just your logic failure. Maybe you forgot to compare Fuldensis with the general Prologue text. Your inability to really come to grips with the Vulgate Prologue being from Jerome is typical contra fare.

You have run away from your convoluted concord questions, when my counter questions trying to work with your mode of thinking were unanswerable.

Your court of law attempts have been seen before, they remain very weak as they would need a hyper-metaphoric constructio ad sensum.

Your posturing on the Leon Palimpsest omission from your overall ms. list is just a reflection of poor posting.

Your Eugenius symbol question was fine, but he has the solecism declared and resolved before giving that interp.

Your obsessions with any use of the word mystery becomes a joke to be ignored.

Your attempt to mirror invisible allegory wrongly simply proves how strong that point is against the contra-Cyprian arguments.

Your unwillingness to go into the 16 Blunder Verses from Bill Brown shows that you are posting as a partisan hack.

Original questions can be edifying, or absurdist.
Yours tend to the latter.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
Not at all. I liked your ms. list, despite the omission of the Leon Palimpsest and placing Sinaiticus 1500 years too early. We learn that early mss. with 1 John are most common in the Syriac Peshitta (and perhaps the Philoxenian and Harklean editions, which are still Peshitta.)

Your Holy Spirit in Latin mss. question was a bit of a joke, since you omitted early church writers, and worked with "possibilities".

Your attempt to say the Vulgate writing is not a first-person Jerome writing was just your logic failure. Maybe you forgot to compare Fuldensis with the general Prologue text. Your inability to really come to grips with the Vulgate Prologue being from Jerome is typical contra fare.

You have run away from your convoluted concord questions, when my counter questions trying to work with your mode of thinking were unanswerable.

Your court of law attempts have been seen before, they remain very weak as they would need a hyper-metaphoric constructio ad sensum.

Your posturing on the Leon Palimpsest omission from your overall ms. list is just a reflection of poor posting.

Your Eugenius symbol question was fine, but he has the solecism declared and resolved before giving that interp.

Your obsessions with any use of the word mystery becomes a joke to be ignored.

Your attempt to mirror invisible allegory wrongly simply proves how strong that point is against the contra-Cyprian arguments.

Your unwillingness to go into the 16 Blunder Verses from Bill Brown shows that you are posting as a partisan hack.

Original questions can be edifying, or absurdist.
Yours tend to the latter.
Click to expand...

Make a Strawman and focus on it Steven. ?
 
Steven Avery said:
Jerome or

A knowledgeable, skillful clever, deceptive forger, with lots of clout.
Click to expand...

If Jerome was so skillful, how did he manage to blunder "Christ is the truth" instead of "the Spirit is the truth" in 1 John 5:6(Clause-D) ????????????????????????

Is he truly trustworthy if he makes such a fudemental error in Translation????????

Or is that one particular clause in the Prologue true, that he was a "forger and corruptor of Scripture"?????????
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
If Jerome was so skillful, how did he manage to blunder "Christ is the truth" instead of "the Spirit is the truth" in 1 John 5:6(Clause-D) ????????????????????????
Is he truly trustworthy if he makes such a fudemental error in Translation????????
Or is that one particular clause in the Prologue true, that he was a "forger and corruptor of Scripture"?????????
Click to expand...

Actually we do not know what was in Jerome's original Vulgate.

We also do not know whether this was a variant in the Old Latin lines.

And/or a Greek ms. he used could have confusion with its nomina sacra.

Afaik, every scholar acknowledges that Jerome was skillful.
However, not perfect, and we do not have a clear window on the materials he used.

We know the incident with the gourd in the book of Jonah where he was accused of textual corruption.and there was a riot.

A Riot in the North African Church! Augustine on Jerome's Translation of the Bible
http://thetextualmechanic.blogspot.com/2014/09/a-riot-in-african-church-augustine-on.html
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
Actually we do not know what was in Jerome's original Vulgate.

We also do not know whether this was a variant in the Old Latin lines.

And/or a Greek ms. he used could have confusion with its nomina sacra.

Afaik, every scholar acknowledges that Jerome was skillful.
However, not perfect, and we do not have a clear window on the materials he used.

We know the incident with the gourd in the book of Jonah where he was accused of textual corruption.and there was a riot.

A Riot in the North African Church! Augustine on Jerome's Translation of the Bible
http://thetextualmechanic.blogspot.com/2014/09/a-riot-in-african-church-augustine-on.html
Click to expand...

It's a textual blunder, AND a doctrinal blunder, mistaking "Christ" for "the Spirit".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top