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

[Steven Avery]

Cassiodorus was a mystery interpretation. Do you have a problem with that?

You mangled the translation, about reading the Passion, into reading into .. blah-blah.

I had to tell you five times it was wrong, and then you finally made the correction.

From that, I learned that despite your various attempts, you are not reliable on the question of Latin translation.

If you wanted to make a claim on the Prologue and the Edgecomb attempt, you would need true Latin experts. To discuss the various differing translations, you would need their input. You would have to prove that the only meaning possible is "just now".

And I remember pointing this problem out to Kevin Edgecomb about a decade back. In one place, I remember he called it a smoking gun.

 

[Steven Avery]

Missed that one.
Was he saying Victor Caupa (his hero yesterday) was dishonest (his villain today)?

Not at all. Read it again.

The point is that translators, and Victor of Capua, are generally honest, sincere Christians.

However, the forger would have to be knowledgeable, skillful, but also sneaky and dishonest.
And he also would have to have lots of clout to insert his Epistle in the Vulgate line.

Thus the dissonance, there was no forger.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

You mangled the translation, about reading the Passion, into reading into .. blah-blah.

I had to tell you five times it was wrong, and then you finally made the correction.

From that, I learned that despite your various attempts, you are not reliable on the question of Latin translation.

Cassiodorus was a mystery interpretation, do you have a problem with that?

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Not at all. Read it again.

The point is that translators, and Victor of Capua, are generally honest, sincere Christians.

However, the forger would have to be sneaky and dishonest.

Thus the dissonance, there was no forger.

How is it possible that Victor Caupa could not be fully aware of what the Canonical Epistles Prologue said about the omission ("committentes" ?) in the same Codex Fuldensis?

How is it possible that Victor Caupa could accidentally omit the Comma if he was the same copyist who penned the Canonical Epistles Prologue in the Codex Fuldensis?

 

[Unbound68]

Not at all. Read it again.

The point is that translators, and Victor of Capua, are generally honest, sincere Christians.

Assumption based on no evidence.

However, the forger would have to be knowledgeable, skillful, but also sneaky and dishonest.

More assumption.

And he also would have to have lots of clout to insert his Epistle in the Vulgate line.

More assumption. Your continued fabrication of some sort of "spy novel" is making you look more and more ridiculous. You say nothing about the Epistle to the Laodiceans.....and we all know why.

Thus the dissonance, there was no forger.

So Paul wrote the Epistle to the Laodiceans then?

 

[Steven Avery]

Was Victor Caupa the same copyist in the Prologue and in the text of 1 John 5:7-8 in the Codex Fuldensis, Steven?

Are you saying that Victor of Capua was the Fuldensis copyist?
Do you have evidence?

Clearly he worked on the Harmony issues, but that does not make him a scribe/copyist.

 

[Steven Avery]

How is it possible that Victor Caupa could not be fully aware of what the Canonical Epistles Prologue said about the omission ("committentes" ?) in the same Codex Fuldensis?
How is it possible that Victor Caupa could accidentally omit the Comma if he was the same copyist who penned the Canonical Epistles Prologue in the Codex Fuldensis?

You are spinning around. Nobody has claimed an accidental omission in Fuldensis. While remotely possible, that would be exceedingly unlikely.

The Prologue was handed down from the time of Jerome and it was copied faithfully.

The text of 1 John was in the Vulgate line, and somewhere in the transmission the heavenly witnesses was subject to the exact problem that was warned about in the Prologue, the desire to exclude the text. Once there is a split line, it is "dealer's choice", the scribe, or his overseer, makes the decision.

 

[Unbound68]

The Prologue was handed down from the time of Jerome and it was copied faithfully.

The fact that you can write that ridiculous sentence in light of all the manuscript evidence provided (which clearly shows erasure marks and other signs of tampering in the prologue) makes you the last man on earth that should be consulted on ANY topic.

 

[Unbound68]

Once there is a split line, it is "dealer's choice", the scribe, or his overseer, makes the decision.

This "split line" theory is nothing but a fabrication from within the windmills of your own mind.

 

[Unbound68]

The text of 1 John was in the Vulgate line, and somewhere in the transmission the heavenly witnesses was subject to the exact problem that was warned about in the Prologue, the desire to exclude the text.

And anyone foolish enough to believe such a made-up self-fulfilling "prophecy" is foolish enough to believe there were no Atom bombs dropped in Japan, no walk on the moon, flat earth, etc., etc. What? Wait a minute.........

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

The Prologue was handed down from the time of Jerome and it was copied faithfully.

"Committentes" in the Fuldensis?

 

[Unbound68]

The text of 1 John was in the Vulgate line,

Very telling that the Vulgate line is the ONLY line you mention. Does Avery slip up here and ADMIT the Comma was never in the Greek line at all?

 

[Unbound68]

"Committentes" in the Fuldensis?

EXACTLY!

Avery is so mesmerized by his own talking points that he doesn't even know when he steps in it!
I'll bet he hasn't looked at a single image of the various prologue mss. that you provided, to see the erasure marks and other signs of tampering for himself. He just closes his eyes to the truth.

Oooh....look, over there, squirrel!

 

[Steven Avery]

"Committentes" in the Fuldensis?

Faithfully does not mean perfectly.

You found a minor variant that Grantley McDonald and Kevin Edgecomb have told you has no practical significance.

 

[Steven Avery]

You found a minor variant that Grantley McDonald and Kevin Edgecomb have told you has no practical significance.

Kevin Edgecomb
http://bombaxo.com/2006/09/20/another-vulgate-prologue/

1 Or “include.” Numerous manuscripts read here “committentes” rather than “omittentes”. Several manuscripts shows erasures, with “committentes” as the original reading. However, “committentes” is contextually inappropriate, connoting that the author objects that with its inclusion “the Catholic faith is greatly strengthened” etc. Thus “committentes” must be considered an early scribal error.

Grantley is posted here:
https://forums.carm.org/threads/syriac-peshitta-kjvo-pure-line-and-the-comma.9270/page-4#post-693149

 

[Unbound68]

Kevin Edgecomb
http://bombaxo.com/2006/09/20/another-vulgate-prologue/



Grantley is posted here:
https://forums.carm.org/threads/syriac-peshitta-kjvo-pure-line-and-the-comma.9270/page-4#post-693149

We note that you completely ignore the other signs of tampering in the mss. TNC listed several of them in a recent post. But you don't dare touch them because you have a KJVO axe to grind when it comes to visible, verifiable evidence.

You have to close your eyes to the evidence because your KJVO belief crumbles if you allow such evidence to guide you to the conclusion, rather than starting with the conclusion of KJVO and searching backwards for "evidence" to sustain that errant belief. How utterly dishonest of you.

 

[Steven Avery]

Faithfully does not mean perfectly.

You found a minor variant that Grantley McDonald and Kevin Edgecomb have told you has no practical significance.

Here the variant was noted in an 1868 edition of Ranke.

Codex Fuldensis. Novum Testamentum latine, inte interprete Hieronymo. Ex manuscripto Victoris Capuani edidit ... (1868)
Ernestus Ranke

https://books.google.com/books?id=4wXaMspJ_N4C&pg=PA399
testimonium omittentes> In quo maxime et tides catholica

https://books.google.com/books?id=4wXaMspJ_N4C&pg=PA501
18. committentes

You can likely find other variants too.

Also, Grantley can be informed that this was not a new find, since his main interest was the question of the accuracy of editors.

 

[Steven Avery]

It is a puzzle in Kevin Edgecomb's translation text.

Kevin Edgecomb
But as we have just now corrected the Evangelists to the line of truth, so we have restored, with God helping, these to their proper order

Ben David
But as I have long since corrected the Evangelists (or preachers of the Gospel, meaning the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of Paul, as well as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), according to the rule of truth, so these Epistles I have restored to their proper order;

Thomas Caldwell
But just as we have corrected the evangelists into their proper order,

Sed sicut euangelistas dudum ad ueritatis lineam correximus ita has proprio ordine deo nos iuuante reddidimus

“some time ago”

Translation given in Grantley’s book of the Erasmus Annotationes

Biblical Criticism in Early Modern Europe (2016)
https://books.google.com/books?id=QgvFDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA317

There should also be a Wordsworth & White text.

JW Matt has a section from W&W:

“Indeed, it has come to our notice that in this letter some unfaithful translators have gone far astray from the truth of the faith, for in their edition they provide just the words for three [witnesses]—namely water, blood and spirit—and omit the testimony of the Father, the Word and the Spirit, by which the Catholic faith is especially strengthened, and proof is tendered of the single substance of divinity possessed by Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” – (Wordsworth, White and Sparks, trans., 1889-1954)

 

[Steven Avery]

Here the variant was noted in an 1868 edition of Ranke.

JW Matt (TNC) actually has a picture from an 1868 Ranke edition on his page.
https://thefathersmonarchy.wordpres...ologue-to-the-catholic-or-canonical-epistles/

The double arrow is there but it seems that TNC never checked the notes section (which uses line numbers to point back). Oops.

They probably tell you the meaning of the double arrow, I have not checked. Possibly a pointer to the note, possibly indicating a text correction.

If Hugh Houghton plans to blog on this variant, he should be told that it is in Ranke.

And I saw a few typos,
Kevin Edgecome should be Edgecomb
These have no more textual value than if I was to wright them tomorrow in the Fuldensis.
but a later ahnd

 

[Steven Avery]

JW Matt has a section from W&W:

“Indeed, it has come to our notice that in this letter some unfaithful translators have gone far astray from the truth of the faith, for in their edition they provide just the words for three [witnesses]—namely water, blood and spirit—and omit the testimony of the Father, the Word and the Spirit, by which the Catholic faith is especially strengthened, and proof is tendered of the single substance of divinity possessed by Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” – (Wordsworth, White and Sparks, trans., 1889-1954)

And I am curious where he found this text.

Here he says:

https://thefathersmonarchy.wordpres...comma-johanneum-clement-of-alexandria-part-1/
“the testimony of the Father, the Word and the Spirit, by which the Catholic faith is especially strengthened, and proof is tendered of the single substance of divinity possessed by Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”

Translation by Wordsworth, White, Sparks 1889.

And I have not seen any English translation text in editions of Wordsworth, White and Sparks.