What Michael Maynard wrote is clear, and this section is available as well as what is in his book.
Again - you present nothing original, no thought at all.
Maynard quoted Thiele's OPINION of Cyprian - and while he was at it, he didn't even bother to tell us what manuscript he was quoting, so how would he know? Maynard, of course, was not dumb enough to demand such information that obviously isn’t around, but his next generation Kool-Aid consumers who cannot read Latin and think the atomic bombs that ended WW2 never existed actually try to argue that way.
The article Beobachtungen zum Comma Johanneum? is helpful for both Cyprian and Augustine, so in the future I'll see about German quotes with translation.
In other words, he doesn't read German, either, and he hasn't even read this article he's citing.
Over and over and over and over again - it's the same thing.
We're not impressed with quote mining.
And I would like to see how Strouse "insists" and if he gives more information, but there is no quote and no available Strouse text.
Well, then all you have to do is buy the book from D.A. Waite like I did.
I mean, gee, is it
really this difficult? Huh?
Thiele (1923-2016) passed in 2016.
Well then he doesn't speak English then or any other language - does he?
Or will you suggest he “possibly” might if we listen closely?
Last time we discussed this, you gave no specifics.
Being accused of not giving specifics by you is about like being called a cult killer by Jim Jones.
Also - given your propensity to make stuff up out of thin air - care to tell me when this was?
You would not even take a position on whether the supposed interpolation was early in the Sabellian controversy era, or during the Arian controversies or some other time.
You mean when I told you (wait for it) it's a LATIN corruption? I mean, being told I didn’t take a position when I did is an interesting interpretation of it. Now, if your complaint is that I can’t say, “Little Nicky Sayers of the Outback inserted this passage in manuscript 867-5309 (the “Jenny” manuscript) while drunk on a three-day bender,” welcome to reality (as Dr Peter Head told you years ago when you thought you’d made some fantastic discovery in Vaticanus that everyone else already knew).
Then you never really discussed would what be involved in the supposed interpolation, which fits so beautifully with Johannine style and creates an incredible parallelism and fixes the Greek text grammatically by Latin to Greek translation and supplies the connection to verse 9 and the witness of God.
Go Google the phrase "front loading your investigation" and see what you learn.
None of what you write here is even true.
It isn't Johannine style - and since you've SUPPOSEDLY read my thesis now, you know this.
It doesn't create a parallelism - that's just a made up claim
It doesn't fix a Greek text with Latin, it doesn't fix it with Greek, either
It ignores the entire context of the book of 1 John - which if you read my thesis you know this, too.
So given that you've supposedly read it now and most of what you just said was addressed in it - why did you come here and make these claims again in your loaded question?
The interpolation theory has no actual manuscript evidence.
You mean where:
a) where it doesn't exist in early manuscripts
b) does exist in a few later ones
c) doesn't match in those cases word for word?
That is exactly what the manuscript evidence shows..............in both languages in fact.
So how can you say "there's no actual manuscript evidence" when that's the only thing the evidence actually does show?
This is your common "anger" or "rage" fabrication.
EDITED BY MOD--RULE 12