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

Steven Avery

Well-known member
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),

This does not make any sense. The Latin Vulgate text was subject to the wide variation in the Old Latin manuscripts, 2nd century on, even leading to hybrid manuscripts. The Prologue was a singular text, and the time period was much shorter, so its variation would be far less.

Someone else could have written it to try to advocate the later form or version of the Latin Vulgate text that he favored.

What is the "later form"?

Anyway, there have been theories of other authors, like Peregrinus, but they have been shot down.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
This does not make any sense.
Are you claiming that copiers of a Biblical text even in a translation would not heed the scriptural instructions against adding, omitting from, and changing the word of God? On the other hand, no scriptural warnings or instructions would apply to a prologue. Are you claiming that it would not make any sense to think that copiers of a Bible translation could consider scriptural instructions and warnings?
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Are you claiming that copiers of a Biblical text even in a translation would not heed the scriptural instructions against adding, omitting from, and changing the word of God? On the other hand, no scriptural warnings or instructions would apply to a prologue. Are you claiming that it would not make any sense to think that copiers of a Bible translation could consider scriptural instructions and warnings?

No, I am just telling you the facts on the ground.

There were widely varying Old Latin texts. This, in fact, was one reason for the Vulgate.
The variations in the Old Latin, often from different independent translations, would easily supply Vulgate variants.

By contrast, the Prologue was a singular text with about 140 years transmission to Fuldensis.
 
Last edited:

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
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.

Not at all.

Where did Potamius say he had to do that?

He simply gave "the hidden figurative meanings that lye underneath" 1 John 5:8(Clause-C).

That's not conjecture, that what he literally says.

He said he was explaining the "mysteries of the unity".

And that's not conjecture either, but (again) what he literally says.
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
No, I am just telling you the facts on the ground.

There were widely varying Old Latin texts. This, in fact, was one reason for the Vulgate.
The variations in the Old Latin, often from different independent translations, would easily supply Vulgate variants.

By contrast, the Prologue was a singular text with about 140 years transmission to Fuldensis.

Arian deletion theories, and Sabellian deletion theories, are not facts but conjecture.
 

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.)

It's clearly a figurative context consisting of eisegetical interpretations.

You cannot escape that no matter how hard you wiggle.
 

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.)

The great majority of which (and the most important ones) are nothing more than eisegetical references to a single clause (I.e. 1 John 5:8 Part-C).

Eisegetical context constitutes the interpretational words and thoughts of the author (the interpreter) not the author of the Bible.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Arian deletion theories, and Sabellian deletion theories, are not facts but conjecture.

However, they are sensible theories. Especially after we see the Eusebius comment.

The interpolation theories are never really described or examined by the contras.

The actual discussion above was about the Vulgate and the Prologue.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The great majority of which (and the most important ones) are nothing more than eisegetical references to a single clause (I.e. 1 John 5:8 Part-C).
Eisegetical context constitutes the interpretational words and thoughts of the author (the interpreter) not the author of the Bible.

Cyprian, Isaac the Jew, Priscillian, the Vulgate Prologue, the Council of Carthate, Fulgentius, De Trinitate and many others in the early centuries are all quoting from the Bible in a reference to the heavenly witnesses.

Your interpretational fixation on invisible allegory is humorous, but stale and goes nowhere.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Eisegesis again.
Note Cassiodorus' words "read into". Compare that with the "EIS" (Greek "into") part in the definition of eis-egesis.

To which thing witness on earth three mysteries, the water, the blood, and the spirit, which were fulfilled, we read, in the passion of the Lord; but in heaven the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit ; and these three is one God.
(Cassiodorus, translation by Richard Porson, Letters to Travis 1790)
https://books.google.com/books?id=SUg7AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA349

Simple and clear usage of the heavenly witnesses.
No surprise since there are many full references in that era.

Your translation is different, and you do not give a source.
A contra on edge?

“To which defendant [Or: “legal matter/case” “lawsuit” “legal party”] is he testifying to? On earth, the three mysteries, “the water, the blood, and the Spirit,” which we are to read into as being fulfilled [Or: “as having fulfillment”] in the suffering of the Lord, but on the other hand [Or: “but by contrast”], in heaven the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and these three persons are [the Latin text here is "unus" masculine gender not "unum" neuter gender] the single God [Or: "and these three persons constitute the single God"].”

Is it your habit, or the other contras, to rig translations to try to find an angle against the heavenly witnesses references?
Is this your translation?

Porson's translation looks so much clearer, without your convolution.
 
Last edited:

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
You are claiming that he spoke of the spirit water and blood.
Where?

Potamius only quoted "et tres unum sunt".

The rest is HIS eisegesis, i.e. HIS "underlying figurative meanings" of what "et tres unum sunt" meant to HIM.

Potamius saw "underlying figurative meanings" in everything, eyes, noses, weaving equipment etc etc etc...

Where does Potamius say "John says" then quotes 1 John 5:7(Clause-B, as distinct from Clause-C) "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit"?
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
To which thing witness on earth three mysteries, the water, the blood, and the spirit, which were fulfilled, we read, in the passion of the Lord; but in heaven the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit ; and these three is one God.
(Cassiodorus, translation by Richard Porson, Letters to Travis 1790)
https://books.google.com/books?id=SUg7AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA349

Simple and clear usage of the heavenly witnesses.
No surprise since there are many full references in that era.

Your translation is different, and you do not give a source.
A contra on edge?



Is it your habit, or the other contras, to rig translations to try to find an angle against the heavenly witnesses references?
Is this your translation?

Porson's translation looks so much clearer, without your convolution.

Nope.

The Latin is clear.
 
Top