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

Steven Avery said:
Invisible manuscripts and the invisible allegory.
Click to expand...

Nope. Based on visible manuscripts.

British Library, Add. 14470, (circa. 5th-6th century A.D./C.E.)
The oldest extant Syriac manuscript of the complete New Testament (all 22 books). Contains the Catholic Epistles.
Folio 174a = beginning of 1st John,
Folio 176v = end of 1st John.
(Colophon = Folio 176b).
(Cf. William Wright, “Catalogue of the Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum,” Reprinted 2002, Page 40, and Cf. Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung, INTF “Das Neue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung,” Volume 2, Part 3, Page 29).

BNF, Syr. 341 (circa. 5th-7th century A.D./C.E.)
Peshitta Old and portions of the New Testament; See the catalog entry here.
No Comma Johanneum.
http://syri.ac/digimss/sortable?page=12
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10527102b/f3.item.r=Syriaque

Egypt, Sinai, Saint Catherine's Monastery, N.E. ΜΓ Σπ. 48, 53, 55, 0296.1 [GA 0296] (circa. 6th century A.D./C.E.)
Uncial 0296 (Gregory-Aland numbering) is one of a number of New Testament uncial manuscripts discovered at St. Catherine's Monastery in the 1970's. Palaeographically it has been assigned to the 6th century.
The codex contains 1 John 5:3-9 on folio 1r (Munster Page Id 30) and 1 John 5:9-13 on folio 1v (Munster Page Id 40) and 2 Corinthians 7:3-4 on folio 2r (Munster Page Id 10) and 2 Corinthians 7:9-10 on folio 2v (Munster Page Id 20). The manuscript is written on two parchment leaves measuring 29 cm by 23.5 cm, with two columns of script per page/folio.
1 John 5:3-9 on folio 1r (Munster Page Id 30)
1 John 5:9-13 on folio 1v (Munster Page Id 40)
Folio 1r (Page Id 30) = 1st John 5:7 image
http://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/transcribing?docID=20296&pageID=30
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
Invisible manuscripts and the invisible allegory.
Click to expand...

Nope. Based on visible (i.e. real - extant) manuscripts!

Codex Fuldensis, Hessian State Library, Codex Bonifatianus I, (circa. 6th century A.D./C.E.)
Officially known as Hessian State Library, Codex Bonifatianus I, also known as the: “Victor Codex.”
Latin Vulgate New Testament manuscript.
Epistulae Catholicae, [Folio 463r, Page 929 = 1st John 5:7-8 Comma Excluded].
Codex Cover Image
http://fuldig.hs-fulda.de/viewer/resolver?urn=urn:nbn:de:hebis:66:fuldig-2624930
Folio 917 = 1st John text begins
https://fuldig.hs-fulda.de/viewer/image/PPN325289808/917/
1st John 5:7-8 Codex Fuldensis = Folio 929:463r
http://fuldig.hs-fulda.de/viewer/fullscreen/PPN325289808/929/
http://fuldig.hs-fulda.de/viewer/image/PPN325289808/929/

British Library, Add. 14473, (circa. 6th century A.D./C.E.)
Syriac manuscript of the complete New Testament. Contains the Catholic Epistles.
Folio 129r = beginning of 1st John,
Folio 139v = end of 1st John.
(Cf. William Wright, “Catalogue of the Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum,” Reprinted 2002, Pages 79-80, and Cf. Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung, INTF “Das Neue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung,” Volume 2, Part 3, Page 30).

British Library, Add. 17120, (circa. 6th century A.D./C.E.)
Syriac manuscript of the complete New Testament. Contains the Catholic Epistles.
Folio 47b = beginning of 1st John.
(Cf. William Wright, “Catalogue of the Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum,” Reprinted 2002, Page 80).

British Library, Add. 17121, (circa. 6th century A.D./C.E.)
Syriac manuscript of the complete New Testament. Contains the Catholic Epistles.
Folio 98r = beginning of 1st John,
Folio 106r = end of 1st John.
(Cf. William Wright, “Catalogue of the Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum,” Reprinted 2002, Page 81 and Cf. “Das Neue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung,” Volume 2, Part 3, Page 27).

British Library, Add. 14472, (circa. 6th-7th century A.D./C.E.)
Syriac NT manuscript. Contains the Catholic Epistles.
Folio 67a = beginning of 1st John.
Some marginalia, but from a later hand, and unrelated to the Comma Johanneum.
(Cf. William Wright, “Catalogue of the Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum,” Reprinted 2002, Pages 81-82).

British Library, Add MS 14448 (circa. 6th-7th century A.D./C.E.)
Syriac NT manuscript. Contains the Catholic Epistles.
Folio 160v = beginning of 1st John,
Folio 164r = end of 1st John.
(Cf. William Wright, “Catalogue of the Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum,” Reprinted 2002, Pages 41-42 and Cf. Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung, INTF “Das Neue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung,” Volume 2, Part 3, Page 30).

British Library, Add. 18812, (circa. 6th-7th century A.D./C.E.)
Syriac NT manuscript. Contains the Catholic Epistles.
Folio 55a = ending with chapter 2:16
[Folio 55b = is missing]
(Cf. William Wright, “Catalogue of the Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum,” Reprinted 2002, Page 83).
 
Last edited:
In the same period where the Syriac mss. do not have heavenly witnesses, about 20 Latin commentaries use the full verse. Including the Carthage reference which represented hundreds of orthodox.
 
Steven Avery said:
Invisible manuscripts and the invisible allegory.
Click to expand...

Nope. Based on real tangible and visible (in museums or online) manuscripts!

Goodspeed Ms. 716, (circa. 6th-7th century A.D./C.E.)
Syriac Peshitta NT Fragments, (Formerly Goodspeed Ms. Syr. 26). University of Chicago Library, Goodspeed Manuscript Collection.
Contains the Catholic Epistles.
1st John 5:7-8 = Folio 32v, (Page/Image 64).
Confirmed, by personal examination, there is no Comma Johanneum in this MS.
http://goodspeed.lib.uchicago.edu/view/index.php?doc=0716&obj=064

Vat. sir. 266 (circa. 6th-7th century A.D./C.E.)
Syriac NT manuscript. Contains the Catholic Epistles (Folio's 154r-157v).
Folio 157r = 1st John 5:7-8 (starts sixth line from bottom right column).
Confirmed, by personal examination, there is no Comma Johanneum in this MS.
(Cf. Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung, INTF“Das Neue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung,” Volume 2, Part 3, Pages 28-29).
http://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.sir.266
https://roger-pearse.com/wiki/index.php?title=Vatican_Syriac_manuscripts

Paris Bibliothèque nationale de France ms. Lat. 9427, (circa. 6th -7th century A.D./C.E.)
Guelferbytanus or Gallican lectionary, Luxeuil lectionary
1 John = begins Folio 172r,
1st John 5:7-8 = Folio 177, [Digital Screen 363/522, MSS Page 177]
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b84516388
http://www.bombaxo.com/gallican.html
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b84516388/f363.item.zoom

The Codex Amiatinus, [= ( am or A )], Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, MS. Amiatino I (circa. 7th century A.D./C.E.)
Currently located at the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, in Florence, under the shelf-mark: Cat. Sala Studio 6.
Named after the location in which it was found in modern times, Mount Amiata in Tuscany, at the Abbazia di San Salvatore.
MSS = Carta 1012r 1st John Begins!
MSS = Carta 1014r 1st John 5:7 = No Comma!
https://www.wdl.org/en/item/20150/view/1/2026/

Borg.copt.80, Sahidic Coptic, Fragmentary MS (circa. 7th century A.D./C.E.)
Also known as “Sacrorum Bibliorum Fragmenta Copto-Sahidica Musei Borgiani,” n. LXIII. [number 80].
1st John 5:7(8) Comma definitely Ex-cluded
Folio 14r, Top of Coloumn 2
[Prolegomena (Introduction), Page XXXII]
https://archive.org/details/sacrorumbiblior00borggoog/page/n38/mode/2up?view=theater
First John begins
https://archive.org/stream/sacrorumbiblior00borggoog#page/n573/mode/1up
1st John 5:7(8) Text, Page 456-457
https://archive.org/details/sacrorumbiblior00borggoog/page/456/mode/2up?view=theater
https://archive.org/stream/sacrorumbiblior00borggoog#page/n584/mode/1up
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
In the same period where the Syriac mss. do not have heavenly witnesses, about 20 Latin commentaries use the full verse. Including the Carthage reference which represented hundreds of orthodox.
Click to expand...

That's an approximate ratio of 22 Comma-less NT manuscripts to 1 ✌️Vetus Latina✌️ manuscript (Friesing, where the Comma first appears in the 7th century, six hundred years after the original, in any ACTUAL extant non-conjectured NT ms, in any language - anywhere) either before the 7th century or contemporary with this 7th century Comma-inclusive manuscript, across multiple geographic boundaries and languages.

Even if we ditched the Fuldensis because of the Prologue, that's still circa 20 to 1.

The ✌️contra✌️stance (as you call it) is not based on slim evidence at all. But on substantial and REAL manuscript evidence.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
As you should know, that was simply a question about the Old Latin mss.

Focus.
Click to expand...
Do you claim to be an expert and authority concerning Old Latin mss?

Have you read the research and evidence written by an actual scholar and expert H. A. G. Houghton concerning the Latin New Testament in his 2016 book entitled The Latin New Testament: A Guide to its Early History, Texts, and Manuscripts?
 
Steven Avery said:
It is hard to conjecture about what people did not write.
Click to expand...
Says the poster who repeatedly conjectures Christians intentionally didn’t quote 1 John 5:7 during the age of the Sabellian heresy (in the 3rd century) but wants me at the same time to think a Christian named Cyprian didn’t get the text message to not quote and therefore did (also in the 3rd century).

This is a tautology for those watching at home.
 
Steven Avery said:
"one in Christ Jesus" was in some commentaries. Including Isaac the Jew (now dated before Priscillian), De Trinitate three times, the Speculum and Isidore of Seville. Not sure about extant manuscripts.

What would you like addressed?
Click to expand...

So you’re saying Priscillian was NOT quoting a text in front of him?

How would you know?
 
Latin NT scholar H. A. G. Houghton noted: “The Latin translation of the New Testament is not a word-for-word equivalent which can easily be retroverted to reconstruct its Greek source” (Latin NT, p. 143).

Houghton maintained that “certain elements of Greek cannot be rendered directly into Latin” (p. 147). Houghton claimed: “The oldest surviving manuscripts of the Latin New Testament were copied in the fourth century” (p. 19). Houghton asserted that “even in the earliest Latin tradition there is a degree of harmonizing interference” (p. 144). Houghton claimed that “the earliest Latin version was the loosest, often paraphrasing and sometimes even omitting material which appeared to be superfluous” (pp. 143-144). Houghton pointed out several examples of interpolations, glosses, or additions in Latin manuscripts (pp. 158, 159, 161, 163, 167-169, 174, 179).
 
In chapter ten of his book, H. A. G. Houghton, professor of New Testament Textual Scholarship at the University of Birmingham, where he is also Director of the Institute for Textual Scholarship, provides a "Catalogue of Latin New Testament manuscripts" (pp. 209-281).

H. A. G. Houghton wrote: "The Latin translation of the Catholic Epistles is characterized by interpolations to an even greater extent than the Pauline Epistles" (Latin NT, p. 179).

Houghton wrote: "The most debated verses of the Catholic Epistles are 1 John 5:7-8, also known as the Johannine Comma. The additional mention of 'the Father, the Word, and the Spirit' (pater verbum et spiritus) appears to have originated in Latin Tradition, possibly as a gloss at the end of the fourth century" (p. 178).

Houghton wrote: "The Greek version found in the Textus Receptus and some later minuscule manuscripts is a translation of a secondary Latin form present in a handful of later Vulgate manuscripts and a correction to VL 54" (Ibid.).

Houghton maintained that Codex Fuldensis by Victor bishop of Capua "is the oldest witness to the Latin version of the pseudepigraphical Epistle to the Laodiceans, inserted between Colossians and 1 Timothy, and also to the pseudo-Hieronymian Prologue to the Catholic Epistles, although the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8) is absent" (p. 56).
 
Maestroh said:
Says the poster who repeatedly conjectures Christians intentionally didn’t quote 1 John 5:7 during the age of the Sabellian heresy (in the 3rd century) but wants me at the same time to think a Christian named Cyprian didn’t get the text message to not quote and therefore did (also in the 3rd century).

This is a tautology for those watching at home.
Click to expand...

And of course, Cyprian writes from Carthage, the hot-bed of Sabellianism.

Don't forget Tertullian's supposed quote in "Against Praxaes", exposing the Comma to the original Modalist Monarchian himself! How does that work?

Or Eusebius' supposed quote in "On Ecclesiastical Theology" against Marcellus of Ancyra...

Text message, LOL.

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.
 
logos1560 said:
Latin NT scholar H. A. G. Houghton noted: “The Latin translation of the New Testament is not a word-for-word equivalent which can easily be retroverted to reconstruct its Greek source” (Latin NT, p. 143).

Houghton maintained that “certain elements of Greek cannot be rendered directly into Latin” (p. 147). Houghton claimed: “The oldest surviving manuscripts of the Latin New Testament were copied in the fourth century” (p. 19). Houghton asserted that “even in the earliest Latin tradition there is a degree of harmonizing interference” (p. 144). Houghton claimed that “the earliest Latin version was the loosest, often paraphrasing and sometimes even omitting material which appeared to be superfluous” (pp. 143-144). Houghton pointed out several examples of interpolations, glosses, or additions in Latin manuscripts (pp. 158, 159, 161, 163, 167-169, 174, 179).
Click to expand...

"The loosest" is an interesting phrase ;)
 
logos1560 said:
In chapter ten of his book, H. A. G. Houghton, professor of New Testament Textual Scholarship at the University of Birmingham, where he is also Director of the Institute for Textual Scholarship, provides a "Catalogue of Latin New Testament manuscripts" (pp. 209-281).

H. A. G. Houghton wrote: "The Latin translation of the Catholic Epistles is characterized by interpolations to an even greater extent than the Pauline Epistles" (Latin NT, p. 179).

Houghton wrote: "The most debated verses of the Catholic Epistles are 1 John 5:7-8, also known as the Johannine Comma. The additional mention of 'the Father, the Word, and the Spirit' (pater verbum et spiritus) appears to have originated in Latin Tradition, possibly as a gloss at the end of the fourth century" (p. 178).

Houghton wrote: "The Greek version found in the Textus Receptus and some later minuscule manuscripts is a translation of a secondary Latin form present in a handful of later Vulgate manuscripts and a correction to VL 54" (Ibid.).

Houghton maintained that Codex Fuldensis by Victor bishop of Capua "is the oldest witness to the Latin version of the pseudepigraphical Epistle to the Laodiceans, inserted between Colossians and 1 Timothy, and also to the pseudo-Hieronymian Prologue to the Catholic Epistles, although the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8) is absent" (p. 56).
Click to expand...

"Characterized by interpolations"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top