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

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The most simple explanation of complete absence of the Parenthetical text (Comma) in the early Syriac manuscripts is because it never was in the earlier Syriac manuscripts - ever. 👍

Appealing to a Latin Pseudonymous Paratext that first appears anonymously in a sixth century A.D. Vulgate manuscript, which doesn't even have the said (commented on - matching) Parenthetical text within the same manuscript (i.e. in the Scripture text itself 👀), is really grasping at straws.

Actually, the lack of the text in Codex Fuldensis is essentially a verification of what is writing in the Prologue. There was a tendency to drop the heavenly witnesses. The Prologue and the text were transmitted separately, and the text was subject to the omission.

And I tend to agree the heavenly witnesses was not in the earlier Syriac manuscripts.

Again, appealing to a Latin variant text (actually variant within a variant of a variant of a variant text) as if it somehow that changes the evidence for the actual/earliest New Testament text Syriac manuscripts which date earlier than the earliest manuscript for this council.

What date are you ascribing to the Peshitta manuscripts?

If you accept the modern view of c. AD 400 your writing does not make sense.

The Council of Carthage points to a long history of copying the heavenly witnesses verse, as does the Vulgate Prologue. Which thus supports the Cyprian usage, and others.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Mr Avery should heed Augustine's warning!

Contra Maximinum
Book 2, Chapter 22, Section 3


“Sane falli te nolo in Epistola Ioannis apostoli, ubi ait: “Tres sunt testes; spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis; et tres unum sunt.” […]
propter hoc admonui ne fallaris.”

“Certainly I do not want you to be mistaken about the letter of the Apostle John, in that place where he says: “There are three witnesses, the spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are one.” […] It is for this cause that I have admonished you,
so that you may not be mistaken.”​

You should catch up to the scholarship that says that Augustine deliberately avoided the heavenly witnesses verse.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
"And these three are one"....Isn't that the exact same phrase Athanasius used that Avery claims is a quotation of the comma?

Too vague.

There are some Athanasius references, including the Disputation with an Arian at Nicea.

Are you thinking of Potamius
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
And by Athanasius I mean pseudo.
As thinking people know, merely quoting et tres unum sunt isn't proof that the Comma is being quoted at all, and Augustine proves that above.

I would agree with that. You really have to see the context.

If there is reference to the Father, the Son or Word, and the Holy Spirit, then the evidence is strong for the heavenly witnesses. (And no reference to water, spirit and blood.)
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Steven,
did you write a book ????
whats the name so I can find a copy somewhere

Hi Buzzard,

I gave some later assistance to The Witness of God is Greater, by Mike Ferrando.
Should be on Academia.edu.

And there should be shortly a more abbreviated version that simply works with the references.
In that one I am going over every citation.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
How many Bibles have comes out - new translations - that you and Dr. McDonald have persuaded to include the Comma Johanneum?

Why would I care about Critical Text corruption versions?

And Grantley McDonald opposes heavenly witnesses authenticity.

The same that would have come out if neither of you had ever written anything on the subject. Once again, would the Spirit of God produce so little?

The Spirit of God is focused on Truth.

That is why we do not care about the hundreds of corruption versions.
 

Buzzard

Well-known member
Any reason for adding or deleting the comma in question ?
even the placement of any punctuation can alter the text in a 180
an example

Woman without her man, is a beast
--------- or ------
Woman without her, man is a beast​

same 7 words, complete different meaning
depending on where that comma is placed
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
As Eucherius and Augustine (and Cassiodorus interprets as well) mystical or symbolic interpretations of 1 John 5:7-8 go way back.

One of the reasons for symbolic interpretations is that the heavenly witnesses laid the groundwork for faith and understanding. This is also true for various doctrinal quotes that are built on the heavenly witnesses, as pointed out by Franz Knittel and Charles Forster.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
From what is claimed to be a work of Cyprian’s, which quotes a Vetus Latina text 1 John 5:6-8

It is a fascinating work, but the ideas are largely against those of Cyprian. It happens to be the strongest Jesus name baptism extant writing in the early centuries.

Your citing the quote at the bottom as Cyprian is an error.

There are some grammatical arguments based on the Rebaptism in favor of the heavenly witnesses verse.
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member




The context that confirms that Potamius' was also giving figurative interpretations of 1 John 5;8(Clause-C)

Potamius of Lisbon

Latin text of the "Epistula de Substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti" edited by A. C. Vega in Opuscula Omnia Potamii Episcopi Olisiponensis, Escurial 1934 (pp. 37-54).

Marco Conti, 1998, Page 151.

Latin Text
"Epistula de Substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti."
Chapter 2:1-15

“Igitur, quia superiori tractatu Trinitatis excussimus lumen, corusca sideris claritas rutilavit, Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum in suo sibi themate voluminum omnium interpretabile dogma collegit, superest ut indivisae Trinitatis imperium augustam refulgentis nominis substantiam praedicemus. Age ergo, adiuvante deo, cuius hoc nomen est; de conexu quid sit substantia, dilectissimi, propalemus, antistites. Prius est igitur ut ipsam substantiam legis de auctoritate doceam; ut consequenter et vim substantiae, per quam lex aeterna floruit, de figuris subiacentibus demonstremus. Ait propheta: “Non audierunt vocem substantiae, a volatilibus caeli et usque ad pecora expaverunt et vociferabantur, et dabo Iherusalem in transmigrationem.” [Hier. 9:10]. Ecce vocalis substantiae locus de Trinitate dicitur; quid ergo facient qui substantiae verba tulerunt?”

“Letter concerning the Substance of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
Chapter 2:1-15

“Therefore, because from our previous examination in the treatise [Or: “tractate”] on the Trinity we were able to elicit forth such light, (oh you flashing star [Or: "oh you flashing constellation"]), which illuminated clearly all doctrine that is capable of explanation which we gathered together into all the books [Or: “the volumes”] by their own theme, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The only thing left over is that I may attempt to make known the substance in a way which is worthy of the splendid name of the supreme authority [Lit., "of the supreme Empire"] of the undivided Trinity. So let us get on with it then, by the help of God, whose name this is, that we may make known what connection might exist with respects to the substance - oh most beloved bishops. The first thing then, that we might teach is the substance itself by the authority of the law, (through which the eternal law has flourished), and as a logical consequence of this, that we may try to prove to you the power of the substance from the figurative meanings that lay hidden beneath [Or: “from the figures that lye hidden underneath” Or: “from the underlying figurative meanings”]. Yes as the prophet says: “They have not heard of the word [Or: “the sound of”] 'substance' from the fleeing birds of heaven, and the cattle which have become terrified, and they are crying out all the time with a loud voice, and I will give Jerusalem over into captivity.” [Jeremiah 9:10 VL [from LXX 9:9(C)-10(A)]] Behold! It is capable of speaking of [Possibly: “capable of prophesying about”] the “substance” in this place concerning the Trinity; but what will they do, then, those who have removed the words about the substance..."
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
Someone quoted what I said about this, it is on the purebibleforum, so you should know that the accusation that I changed anything is untrue.

And I discussed with the book author the verse citation question when it was pointed out, and recommended changes.

What exactly did Professor Conti say in reply to your suggestion of changing the verse numbering?

Please share it with us.
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
I would agree with that. You really have to see the context.

If there is reference to the Father, the Son or Word, and the Holy Spirit, then the evidence is strong for the heavenly witnesses. (And no reference to water, spirit and blood.)

References can be mistaken when divorced of authentic context.

It is context that gives meaning to an isolated text, wouldn't you agree Steven?

Removing a phrase, sentence, or even a paragraph from it's context can distort a texts meaning, wouldn't you agree Steven?
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
odex Vat. Reg. 324, Folio 9v, and Codex Vat. Barb. 653.

References can be mistaken when divorced of authentic context.
It is context that gives meaning to an isolated text, wouldn't you agree Steven?
Removing a phrase, sentence, or even a paragraph from it's context can distort a texts meaning, wouldn't you agree Steven?

And it is easy to make an irrelevant or fake "authentic context."

The first and most important context is the simple and clear reading of the text.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The context that confirms that Potamius' was also giving figurative interpretations of 1 John 5;8(Clause-C)

It says no such thing. If Potanius was interpreting the earthly witnesses you would see a reference to the spirit, water and blood. These convoluted conjectures are a diversion, of no value. The four references from Potamius are clear as written, they have no invisible allegories.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
The Prologue and the text were transmitted separately, and the text was subject to the omission.
You fail to prove your opinion or speculation to be true.

The Latin Vulgate text would have been subject to both omission and addition, not just omission alone.

The Latin Vulgate Prologue would likely be subject to more textual corruption and change than the Latin Vulgate text was (especially it was supposedly transmitted separately), and it could have been added later than when the translation was made. If it was supposedly transmitted separately as you suggest or assert, that could suggest that it was not included with the original Latin Vulgate text and may not have been written by its translator. Someone else could have written it to try to advocate the later form or version of the Latin Vulgate text that he favored.
 
Top