heavenly witnesses - full use in extant writings before Priscillian - Isaac the Jew

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The textual writers seem to be stuck on the idea of Priscillian as the first full heavenly witnesses evidence. Since his quote of both the heavenly and earthly witnesses is quirky, and he was executed for sorcery or magic, with lots of controversy, this identification of the heavenly witnesses with Priscillian allows a type of hand-waving dismissal.

Similarly, earlier references using the heavenly witnesses like Cyprian and Potamius (4 times, including one to Athanasius) are dismissed by uninformed textual critics on the very weak grounds that these writers did not spell out the full verse. This is a type of negative special pleading, since partial references are common in the textual apparatus.

The Ambrosian ms., with the Muratonian canon, has a work Confessio fidei Catholicae, where the author is likely Isaac the Jew, writing around 370, connected with the AD 366 election dispute between Damasus and Urbanus.

[Exposition of our Universal Faith]
As the Evangelist testifies, that it is written, “there are three, that are witnessing in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus.”

… sicut evangelista testatur, quia scriptum est:”Tres sunt, qui dicunt testimonium in caelo : pater, verbum et spiritus, et haec tria unum sunt in Christo Iesu.”
Expositio Fidei Catholicae (CCSL 9:347, Lines 1-26)

This identification of Isaac the Jew as the author was explained by Dom Germain Morin, and affirmed by Cuthbert Hamilton Turner and Theodor Zahn, and three is a superb review by Andrew Eubank Burn.

Lewis Ayres of Durham affirms this authorship in:

Augustine and the Trinity, 2014
https://books.google.com/books?id=LpyG7YnkqokC&pg=PA99
p. 99-100.

While neither writing can be dated precisely, and both connect to Damasus, the quotation from Isaac the Jew is likely earlier than that of Priscillian by about a decade.

All those textual articles and books that place Priscillian as the first extant usage should be corrected.

Some even have tried to make him the originator of the verse!
 
As a reminder, just because he's "ignoring" me doesn't mean he gets a free pass.

He's "ignoring" me because it's a whole lot easier than answering questions above his pay grade.


The textual writers seem to be stuck on the idea of Priscillian as the first full heavenly witnesses evidence.

This statement is absolutely 100% incorrect.

As far as we know as of the time of writing the manuals, Priscillian is the first undisputed witness to what is now called the Johannine Comma. This does not mean that this is a final conclusion. It is entirely possible that someone did, in fact, quote this corrupt reading prior to Priscillian. It's just that to make that big of a claim, you have that big of evidence, too.


Since his quote of both the heavenly and earthly witnesses is quirky,

"Quirky" in this case is just a euphemism for "it has words in it that are not in the AV, and I don't like this, so I have to invent a way around the problem."

Steven Avery knows full well that to argue that Priscillian was actually quoting a Bible text creates a big problem for his viewpoint, so he dismisses him other than holding to him quoting the passage. The passage is an embarrassment to anyone who wishes to be taken seriously that the Church Fathers quoted it.


and he was executed for sorcery or magic, with lots of controversy,

He was killed as a Oneness heretic. Given some of the things I've read on this board concerning this individual's alleged views on the Trinity, it is entirely understandable why he would not wish to disclose the truth of Priscillian.

this identification of the heavenly witnesses with Priscillian allows a type of hand-waving dismissal.

Poster who dismisses Priscillian's heretical addendum to the quotation and who also dismisses the reason for Priscillian's execution now projects his dismissal fallacy onto others.

Similarly, earlier references using the heavenly witnesses like Cyprian and Potamius (4 times, including one to Athanasius) are dismissed by uninformed textual critics on the very weak grounds that these writers did not spell out the full verse.

This is called a straw man. He knows this, too.

This is a type of negative special pleading, since partial references are common in the textual apparatus.

I don't think there's a single variant in the apparatus that is complete. This can't be done in a reasonable fashion when one is talking about the massive number of total variations. This objection isn't worth the time it took to make, and it was only made to attack the integrity of the very same scholars whose work he uses when it's convenient. Kinda like how the AV cult rips Catholics - and he quotes from a Catholic on this very post.


The Ambrosian ms., with the Muratonian canon, has a work Confessio fidei Catholicae, where the author is likely Isaac the Jew, writing around 370, connected with the AD 366 election dispute between Damasus and Urbanus.

The same poster demanding explicit details concerning who inserted the passage reverts to adverbs to cover the fact he never names the author for certain, and he never names a date, either. (Reminder: my calling out this level of hypocrisy is his problem with me).


This identification of Isaac the Jew as the author was explained by Dom Germain Morin, and affirmed by Cuthbert Hamilton Turner and Theodor Zahn, and three is a superb review by Andrew Eubank Burn.

That doesn't mean they're right. "Explained" is another word meaning "Maybe, maybe not."

Lewis Ayres of Durham affirms this authorship in:

Augustine and the Trinity, 2014
https://books.google.com/books?id=LpyG7YnkqokC&pg=PA99
p. 99-100.

In Lewis Ayres' opinion, Isaac the Jew wrote this. Of course, nowhere does he discuss this passage to make his point, either.
:)

While neither writing can be dated precisely,

Says the person who insists people prove which scribe in which year on which manuscript inserted what is now 1 John 5:7.

and both connect to Damasus, the quotation from Isaac the Jew is likely earlier than that of Priscillian by about a decade.

"Neither writing can be dated precisely, but since I want to move this date back closer to the time of John, here's a time it might be. Or it might not be, I don't really know, but I'm not going to admit I don't know.

All those textual articles and books that place Priscillian as the first extant usage should be corrected.

A man who admits he doesn't even know the date now demands that his opinion of the date be honored by textbook writers as the real date.

Why doesn't Steven Avery simply publish his own textbook that corrects all this stuff?

Some even have tried to make him the originator of the verse!

Who is this some? Other than Kunstle, who did this?
 
As a reminder, just because he's "ignoring" me doesn't mean he gets a free pass.

He's "ignoring" me because it's a whole lot easier than answering questions above his pay grade.




This statement is absolutely 100% incorrect.

As far as we know as of the time of writing the manuals, Priscillian is the first undisputed witness to what is now called the Johannine Comma. This does not mean that this is a final conclusion. It is entirely possible that someone did, in fact, quote this corrupt reading prior to Priscillian. It's just that to make that big of a claim, you have that big of evidence, too.




"Quirky" in this case is just a euphemism for "it has words in it that are not in the AV, and I don't like this, so I have to invent a way around the problem."

Steven Avery knows full well that to argue that Priscillian was actually quoting a Bible text creates a big problem for his viewpoint, so he dismisses him other than holding to him quoting the passage. The passage is an embarrassment to anyone who wishes to be taken seriously that the Church Fathers quoted it.




He was killed as a Oneness heretic. Given some of the things I've read on this board concerning this individual's alleged views on the Trinity, it is entirely understandable why he would not wish to disclose the truth of Priscillian.



Poster who dismisses Priscillian's heretical addendum to the quotation and who also dismisses the reason for Priscillian's execution now projects his dismissal fallacy onto others.



This is called a straw man. He knows this, too.



I don't think there's a single variant in the apparatus that is complete. This can't be done in a reasonable fashion when one is talking about the massive number of total variations. This objection isn't worth the time it took to make, and it was only made to attack the integrity of the very same scholars whose work he uses when it's convenient. Kinda like how the AV cult rips Catholics - and he quotes from a Catholic on this very post.




The same poster demanding explicit details concerning who inserted the passage reverts to adverbs to cover the fact he never names the author for certain, and he never names a date, either. (Reminder: my calling out this level of hypocrisy is his problem with me).




That doesn't mean they're right. "Explained" is another word meaning "Maybe, maybe not."



In Lewis Ayres' opinion, Isaac the Jew wrote this. Of course, nowhere does he discuss this passage to make his point, either.
:)



Says the person who insists people prove which scribe in which year on which manuscript inserted what is now 1 John 5:7.



"Neither writing can be dated precisely, but since I want to move this date back closer to the time of John, here's a time it might be. Or it might not be, I don't really know, but I'm not going to admit I don't know.



A man who admits he doesn't even know the date now demands that his opinion of the date be honored by textbook writers as the real date.

Why doesn't Steven Avery simply publish his own textbook that corrects all this stuff?



Who is this some? Other than Kunstle, who did this?
Finally, someone who will call KJVO's on their double standards.

Great post.✝️
 
Prof. Lewis O. Ayres of Durham agrees:

When I asked him if this should be considered the earliest extant full heavenly witnesses citation.

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

Dear Steven,

I think you are right. The dates there are all rather shaky, but it does look as if the fixation of Priscillian is unwarranted. Of course, this might only make a difference of 10-15 years in the citation of 1John 5.7, but it is a difference!

Best,
Lewis

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

The idea is that the Isaac quote would be about 365.

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

Priscillian would be about AD 380. He was executed in 385. It is worthwhile to study the details, and how the sorcery and magic accusations were handled. The accusations and the reality remain fuzzy, since events can be seen from opposite glasses. And from what I have read, it was not a heresy trial, as it was in a secular court under Maximus. In general, the attack on him doctrinally centered on Manichaeism,

Priscillian and his associates were condemned, not as "Priscillianists," but as Manichaeans and sorcerers.
The Making of a Heretic - Virginia Burrus

https://books.google.com/books?id=l7jADwAAQBAJ&pg=PA102

Also interesting is:

Was Priscillian a ModalistMonarchian?
Tarmo Toom
Catholic University of America
https://www.academia.edu/3045552/Was_Priscillian_a_Modalist_Monarchian

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

Returning to the Heavenly Witnesses.

So it is time to change the scholarship!

The heavenly witnesses are quoted in full before Priscillian.

There are additional quotes in that time period, of the full verse. One is well known (Ithacius Clarus in Contra Varimadum) and is apparently connected with Priscillian as the opposition.

And the other has authorship uncertain. De Trinitate Books 1-7, which has multiple usages of the verse – ascribed to Eusebius Vercelli. However, the Eusebius Vercelli as author citation is uncertain, and not accepted in a paper by Junghoo Kwan. Many have said Vercelli, some have opposed it, and I felt that the arguments of Kwan are substantive.

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA
 
Last edited:
Prof. Lewis O. Ayres of Durham agrees:

When I asked him if this should be considered the earliest extant full heavenly witnesses citation.

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

Dear Steven,

I think you are right. The dates there are all rather shaky, but it does look as if the fixation of Priscillian is unwarranted. Of course, this might only make a difference of 10-15 years in the citation of 1John 5.7, but it is a difference!

Best,
Lewis

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

The idea is that the Isaac quote would be about 365.

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

Priscillian would be about AD 380. He was executed in 385. It is worthwhile to study the details, and how the sorcery and magic accusations were handled. The accusations and the reality remain fuzzy, since events can be seen from opposite glasses. And from what I have read, it was not a heresy trial, as it was in a secular court under Maximus. In general, the attack on him doctrinally centered on Manichaeism,



Also interesting is:

Was Priscillian a ModalistMonarchian?
Tarmo Toom
Catholic University of America
https://www.academia.edu/3045552/Was_Priscillian_a_Modalist_Monarchian

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

Returning to the Heavenly Witnesses.

So it is time to change the scholarship!

The heavenly witnesses are quoted in full before Priscillian.

There are additional quotes in that time period, of the full verse. One is well known (Ithacius Clarus in Contra Varimadum) and is apparently connected with Priscillian as the opposition.

And the other has authorship uncertain. De Trinitate Books 1-7, which has multiple usages of the verse – ascribed to Eusebius Vercelli. However, the Eusebius Vercelli as author citation is uncertain, and not accepted in a paper by Junghoo Kwan. Many have said Vercelli, some have opposed it, and I felt that the arguments of Kwan are substantive.

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA

A guy who claims to have me on "ignore" insists on responding to what he allegedly cannot see.

So much that myth.

:)
 
Prof. Lewis O. Ayres of Durham agrees:

When I asked him if this should be considered the earliest extant full heavenly witnesses citation.

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

Dear Steven,

I think you are right. The dates there are all rather shaky, but it does look as if the fixation of Priscillian is unwarranted. Of course, this might only make a difference of 10-15 years in the citation of 1John 5.7, but it is a difference!

Best,
Lewis

So this man with a PhD says, "The dates are shaky" and then says it "might only make a difference of 10-15 years." Of course, it might not make a difference at all, but we don't see either Ayres or Avery bringing that point out.

The idea is that the Isaac quote would be about 365.

Except that's your idea, not his. You took the longest date and assume this argument to even be true.


Priscillian would be about AD 380.

You don't know this, so don't even try to make this argument. Ayres is saying the date is shaky, in your OP you admit as much - and now you assign it an arbitrary date of 380.

He was executed in 385.

Are you 100% sure of that or that he didn't cite this passage after he died?
How do you know this?

It is worthwhile to study the details,
Except both of you admit we don't know the details....

and how the sorcery and magic accusations were handled.

I'm not sure how this alters anything about this citation from Isaac the Jew...

The accusations and the reality remain fuzzy, since events can be seen from opposite glasses.

What cannot be seen with any other view is that Priscillian also quotes a part of the text you insist cannot possibly be original.

And from what I have read, it was not a heresy trial, as it was in a secular court under Maximus. In general, the attack on him doctrinally centered on Manichaeism,

You seem to be making the fundamentalist error (among the many that you make) that if Priscillian was executed for something other than heresy, this somehow proves he was not a heretic.




Also interesting is:

Was Priscillian a ModalistMonarchian?
Tarmo Toom
Catholic University of America
https://www.academia.edu/3045552/Was_Priscillian_a_Modalist_Monarchian

"Let me throw out as much as I can to distract you from how weak my argument truly is!"




So it is time to change the scholarship!

We look forward to you joining the reality-based side that John didn't write this.

The heavenly witnesses are quoted in full before Priscillian.

Says who? You? Ayres didn't say that. Ayres admitted the dates are shaky and quite frankly, I'll dismiss anyone PhD or not who says anyone is fixated on Priscillian because nobody is fixated, it is what the evidence shows.


There are additional quotes in that time period, of the full verse.
One is well known (Ithacius Clarus in Contra Varimadum) and is apparently connected with Priscillian as the opposition.

And the other has authorship uncertain. De Trinitate Books 1-7, which has multiple usages of the verse – ascribed to Eusebius Vercelli. However, the Eusebius Vercelli as author citation is uncertain, and not accepted in a paper by Junghoo Kwan. Many have said Vercelli, some have opposed it, and I felt that the arguments of Kwan are substantive.

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA

"I have a bunch of quotes here that prove what we already know!"

Now that we know you do, in fact, read my posts (we knew it previously, of course, you just confirmed it), we look forward to you explaining the question asked you about the Greek genitive absolute.

It's a first semester Greek question. Don't hide out and pretend you don't read my posts anymore.
 
Also - unless he specifically told you he's in favor of 1 John 5:7 as authentic, this doesn't mean anything anyway.

(You can drop the pretense that you're not reading my posts, and you can man up and respond like a grown up).
 
Let me add something else to the mix here.

How in the world does this really help any of the AV Only cult? Seriously, how does it?

They already claim Cyprian quoted it a century earlier, so what exactly is the significance of this? It adds nothing to their position at all. I guess the argument is supposed to be that two people quoted portions of it instead of one, but we're talking within 15 years max by even Steven Avery's own admission. So you move up Priscillian 15 years, which doesn't matter to folks who already claim Cyprian.

Fifteen years in an arena where the dates are disputed means nothing.
 
So this man with a PhD says, "The dates are shaky" and then says it "might only make a difference of 10-15 years." Of course, it might not make a difference at all, but we don't see either Ayres or Avery bringing that point out.



Except that's your idea, not his. You took the longest date and assume this argument to even be true.




You don't know this, so don't even try to make this argument. Ayres is saying the date is shaky, in your OP you admit as much - and now you assign it an arbitrary date of 380.



Are you 100% sure of that or that he didn't cite this passage after he died?
How do you know this?


Except both of you admit we don't know the details....



I'm not sure how this alters anything about this citation from Isaac the Jew...



What cannot be seen with any other view is that Priscillian also quotes a part of the text you insist cannot possibly be original.



You seem to be making the fundamentalist error (among the many that you make) that if Priscillian was executed for something other than heresy, this somehow proves he was not a heretic.






"Let me throw out as much as I can to distract you from how weak my argument truly is!"






We look forward to you joining the reality-based side that John didn't write this.



Says who? You? Ayres didn't say that. Ayres admitted the dates are shaky and quite frankly, I'll dismiss anyone PhD or not who says anyone is fixated on Priscillian because nobody is fixated, it is what the evidence shows.




"I have a bunch of quotes here that prove what we already know!"

Now that we know you do, in fact, read my posts (we knew it previously, of course, you just confirmed it), we look forward to you explaining the question asked you about the Greek genitive absolute.

It's a first semester Greek question. Don't hide out and pretend you don't read my posts anymore.
Talk about a spanking!

The posts by yourself and Theo1689 to Avery in several threads at this forum are very informative and well worth the time to read! I enjoy it immensely!

Another "Averism" is when he posts a blurb or two and then says something is "worth further investigation," "looking into," etc.

That's his way of trying to convince us that he's read more of the work he quotes than what he actually has. "Stolen achievement" is what I like to call it.
 
From another thread.

Nothing is really as you make it out to be. It is only one author attributing something to Isaac the Jew a long time afterwards. It isn't known for certain that it was Isaac the Jew.
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edit...c+the+Jew"+Comma&pg=PA159&printsec=frontcover

See above. The scholarship for about AD 370 is basically settled.

The identity of Isaac the Jew is very reasonable, the strength of the citation as the earliest extant full verse would be the same if the author was Evagrius or another writer.

Brooke wrote on this over a century back, and there is a lot of study since that time. However, he is in fact giving decent support to the Isaac the Jew identification.

This is a url to his p. 158-159
https://archive.org/details/criticalexegetic00broo/page/158/mode/2up
 
Last edited:
As for Eusebius: he was clearly not acknowledging the authenticity of the Comma, as he was saying it was heretical.

The likeliest explanation is a split line. Some "Sabellians" using the verse, Eusebius responding that it is often missing in the Greek and is a "heretical" addition. Later Jerome tells us specifically that there was a tendency to drop the verse.
 
Next, Cyprian didn'tquote the Comma: He wrote "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.’”

So no direct quotation. Again we can infer that the Spirit, water and blood were employed as tokens to defer to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as I have already pointed out. Any reference to "Son" (i.e. the blood) must be a reference to 1 John 5:8 and not the Comma of 1 John 5:7.
https://bible.org/article/comma-johanneum-and-cyprian

This is the absurd invisible allegory that Cyprian is supposed to have written.

It is desperation by the contras because they can not accept the simple truth, that Cyprian had the heavenly witnesses verse in his Bible.

The Three Witnesses. The Disputed Text in St. John: Considerations New and Old (1883)
Henry Thomas Armfield
https://books.google.com/books?id=5eQCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA105
https://archive.org/details/threewitnessesdi00armf/page/105/mode/1up

"a certain mystical interpretation which he has not given or alluded to, of a verse which he has not quoted!"

Response to Daniel Wallace Regarding 1 John 5:7
by Martin A. Shue
https://web.archive.org/web/20091021122956/http://www.geocities.com/avdefense1611/wallace.html

Wallace answered.

See also Franz Pieper, who is superb on Cyprian, as is Henry Thomas Armfield.

Wait, do any contras really try to learn? hmmm
 
Last edited:
Another "Averism" is when he posts a blurb or two and then says something is "worth further investigation," "looking into," etc.
That's his way of trying to convince us that he's read more of the work he quotes than what he actually has. "Stolen achievement" is what I like to call it.

This is like your bogus liar accusations.

All you are complaining about is my honesty in dealing with information. If someone makes a reasonable point, rare as it is, I am happy to acknowledge it as worthy of consideration. If the contras were not all posturing politicians, it would then lead to an edifying dialogue, iron sharpeneith..
 
Last edited:
The likeliest explanation is a split line. Some "Sabellians" using the verse, Eusebius responding that it is often missing in the Greek and is a "heretical" addition. Later Jerome tells us specifically that there was a tendency to drop the verse.
False. Jerome did not write the prologue. The Comma wasn't in Jeromes original Vulgate. You know that's everones position here. Saying it over and over does not make it true. Pseudo-Jerome.
 
False. Jerome did not write the prologue. The Comma wasn't in Jeromes original Vulgate. You know that's everones position here. Saying it over and over does not make it true. Pseudo-Jerome.

And I have offered to go over the discussion of Vulgate Prologue authenticity. And also helpful is the history of how the difference of opinion developed. My studies have absolutely confirmed Jerome's authorship. The positions against authenticity are largely circular, using a presupposition that Jerome did not know the heavenly witnesses verse.

The only other option than Jerome is a very skilled, knowledgeable and deceitful forger, with lots of clout. The attempt to try to find such a forger came to the fore c. 1910. and has been a total failure. The whole scenario falls down to the ground upon examination.

So I will state my true and well-supported position again and again. :)

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

Similarly the original Vulgate almost surely had the heavenly witnesses.
 
And I have offered to go over the discussion of Vulgate Prologue authenticity. And also helpful is the history of how the difference of opinion developed. My studies have absolutely confirmed Jerome's authorship. The positions against authenticity are largely circular, using a presupposition that Jerome did not know the heavenly witnesses verse.

The only other option than Jerome is a very skilled, knowledgeable and deceitful forger, with lots of clout.
Are you using the fallacy of false dilemma? You fail to prove that is "the only other option". You fail to prove that the evidence that Jerome did not write the prologue to the Catholic epistles is "largely circular." You are not a scholar and expert concerning the Latin New Testament.

H. A. G. Houghton, who is a scholar concerning the Latin New Testament, does not agree with your non-scholarly opinions.

H. A. G. Houghton wrote: "There are several indications that Jerome was responsible for the revision of the Gospels only and not the rest of the New Testament. When he [Jerome] discusses questions of translation affecting the Gospels he quotes forms matching his revised version, but he never cites readings characteristic of the Vulgate in the other New Testament books. What is more, in his commentary on four of the Pauline Epistles, he criticizes the existing Latin translation and provides his own alternative" (The Latin New Testament, p. 34).

Houghton wrote: "There is a noticeable difference in translation technique between the Gospels and the other writings: while Jerome introduces various forms for which no basis can be discerned in Greek, almost all of the innovations in the Vulgate of the other books represent Greek readings. What is more, the alterations made to Acts and the Catholic Epistles appear to reflect a Greek text similar to that of the early majuscule manuscripts rather than the later Greek text used by Jerome in the Gospels" (p. 41).

You did not demonstrate that the reasons that a Latin NT scholar H. A. G. Houghton referred to "the pseudo-Hieronymian Prologue to the Catholic Epistles" are circular.

If someone rather than Jerome was the translator the Catholic Epistles in the Latin Vulgate and wrote his own prologue to those Epistles, does that mean that person was a forger for writing a prologue to his own translation of the Catholic Epistles? A different translator of the Catholic Epistles could possibly seek to imply Jerome's approval or that translator could have been translating under Jerome's approval and authority.
Perhaps some have assumed that Jerome himself translated the Catholic Epistles of the Latin Vulgate and then in effect used a circular argument to assume that Jerome wrote the prologue to those epistles.
 
Are you using the fallacy of false dilemma? You fail to prove that is "the only other option". ...

If someone rather than Jerome was the translator the Catholic Epistles in the Latin Vulgate and wrote his own prologue to those Epistles, does that mean that person was a forger for writing a prologue to his own translation of the Catholic Epistles? A different translator of the Catholic Epistles could possibly seek to imply Jerome's approval or that translator could have been translating under Jerome's approval and authority.
Perhaps some have assumed that Jerome himself translated the Catholic Epistles of the Latin Vulgate and then in effect used a circular argument to assume that Jerome wrote the prologue to those epistles.

A true dichotomy.
The forger would be pretending to be Jerome by writing to Eustochium, who passed in AD 420.

He also would have to be a translation scholar who was accused of corrupting scripture, as Jerome was accused.

And he should be elderly like Jerome.

In the unlikely event that he was writing with Jerome's approval to pretend to be like Jerome, then he was like an assistant, and Jerome's approval would extend to the heavenly witnesses section.

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

When John Chapman discussed the possibility of Peregrinus being the author, he rejected it largely because Peregrinus was not a forger.
"In the first place, Peregrinus was not a forger".

Similarly, when the non-authenticity claim first came forth, the supposed lateness of the Prologue was a big issue in accusing of forgery:
https://books.google.com/books?id=dVqwFG_y_4kC&pg=PA74
"We believe this work to have been a forgery of the eighth century."

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

Ironically, the testimony of the Prologue is so strong for heavenly witnesses authenticity that Jerome was actually accused of forgery in creating the verse! Erasmus implied as much. Today, we know that the heavenly witnesses is extant from multiple writers before Jerome, putting that canard to rest.
 
Last edited:
A true dichotomy.
The forger would be pretending to be Jerome by writing to Eustochium, who passed in AD 420.

He also would have to be a translation scholar who was accused of corrupting scripture, as Jerome was accused.

And he should be elderly like Jerome.

In the unlikely event that he was writing with Jerome's approval to pretend to be like Jerome, then he was like an assistant, and Jerome's approval would extend to the heavenly witnesses section.

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

When John Chapman discussed the possibility of Peregrinus being the author, he rejected it largely because Peregrinus was not a forger.
"In the first place, Peregrinus was not a forger".

Similarly, when the non-authenticity claim first came forth, the supposed lateness of the Prologue was a big issue in accusing of forgery:
https://books.google.com/books?id=dVqwFG_y_4kC&pg=PA74
"We believe this work to have been a forgery of the eighth century."

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

Ironically, the testimony of the Prologue is so strong for heavenly witnesses authenticity that Jerome was actually accused of forgery in creating the verse! Erasmus implied as much. Today, we know that the heavenly witnesses is extant from multiple writers before Jerome, putting that canard to rest.
You are pretending. Everything you say goes against good scholarship, always. You always come to the wrong conclusions. Always, to support the error of KJVOnlyism.
 
This is like your bogus liar accusations.

All you are complaining about is my honesty in dealing with information. If someone makes a reasonable point, rare as it is, I am happy to acknowledge it as worthy of consideration. If the contras were not all posturing politicians, it would then lead to an edifying dialogue, iron sharpeneith..
You are what you accuse others of. You project your lack of trust onto others.
 
From another thread.

See above. The scholarship for about AD 370 is basically settled.

The identity of Isaac the Jew is very reasonable, the strength of the citation as the earliest extant full verse would be the same if the author was Evagrius or another writer.

Brooke wrote on this over a century back, and there is a lot of study since that time. However, he is in fact giving decent support to the Isaac the Jew identification.

This is a url to his p. 158-159
https://archive.org/details/criticalexegetic00broo/page/158/mode/2up
All it amounts to are conjectures built upon conjectures. As it's all in Latin anyway, what does it matter?

The likeliest explanation is a split line. Some "Sabellians" using the verse, Eusebius responding that it is often missing in the Greek and is a "heretical" addition. Later Jerome tells us specifically that there was a tendency to drop the verse.
Ok, but how does it help you.
Sorry, but Cyprian used "son" in place of Word and he didn't refer to "heavenly witnesses." That invalidates all claims he was citing 1 John 5:7 Comma directly. May be there is a connection between Cyprian and the Old Latin reading of 1 John 5:7. So what? It doesn't relate to the lack of evidence in Greek.

All speculation is worthless: you can't prove anything, and the KJV can't show itself as authenticated by any Greek texts. KJV idolatry is baseless.

Get back to me in 5 years time, if you have made any progress on this.....for me, just a waste of precious time.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top