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

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

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

You mean Cassiodorus was fixated with "the three mysteries".

 

[Maestroh]

However the Sabellian controversy omission theory is far more important than the Arian theory.

Well, in your opinion, but it's kind of hard to prove a negative, isn't it?

And the Eusebius quote gives this lots of support.



That's not support, it's a quote. That's all it is.

Have you not learned that yet?

Bill Brown's emphasis on the Arian issues at that point was obviously skewed and faulty.

So now rather than you even admittin YOU ARE 100% WRONG when you FALSELY ACCUSED ME of not even bringing it up, you go right back to gaslighting.



I responded to the arguments PRESENTED BY KJVOs.

If you have a problem with the emphasis, you need to look at the response to what people actually wrote rather than what you wish they had written.

(Also the original dropping could easily have been homoeoteleuton.)

Also 100% untrue since you didn't bother to read my paper on THAT subject, either.

It's on the same site, I'm really not sure why you can't simply click and read to be better informed before making false allegations.

And the Peshitta original translation could be between c. AD 200 and c. AD 400.

Yes, and I had to deal with what people actually wrote - not what some guy on the Internet DECADES AND CENTURIES later wrote.

So there is no impossibility, even if the Peshitta is early.

It is impossible for the Arians to be the ones who excised the passage (an accusation without one shred of evidence mind you) ORIGINALLY if it was actually gone in the SECOND CENTURY in Syriac. Jeez, this is bad thinking from top to bottom.

The Peshitta was omitting Acts 8:37, even though it is given in the 2nd century by Irenaeus (and in the 3rd century by Cyprian.)

But you're the one that ties these two passages together......nobody responsible and scholarly even tries that bad argument....now you want to separate them......how versatile are ye?

It is an error to come to dogmatic conclusions about how exactly the early text and translation decisions developed.

Says the poster who dogmatically claims John wrote the Comma Johanneum.........

By the logic above there would be no explanation as to why Acts 8:37 is not included in the Peshitta.

Again, you're changing the subject from one passage to another that has nothing to do with 1 John 5:7 at all.

And I don't think Bill Brown claims the Peshitta was 2nd century, or even 3rd.

The date I give the Peshitta is irrelevant to the discussion.

And I've already said that I don't know, and neither do you nor does anyone.

That would help destroy the Critical Text.

Not really, but I've gotten used to this being a combative level of nonsense from KJVOs, too.

He was arguing in a classical ad hominem approach, (to the man, accepting his argument) that some AV supporters claim the 2nd century,

This is today's entry in how do you say, "I don't even understand what an ad hominem argument is without actually saying 'I don't know what an ad hominem argument is'"?

noting Thomas Strouse with a AD 165 date.

Which is exactly what Strouse said.

Hills went with "long before the 5th century," and the 4th century isn't "long before," so when exactly did he mean? The third century?



Do you really think a date of, say, 275 it was removed helps explain the alleged later Arian removal???

He attacked the Strouse date.

I didn't attack anything, I just documented what the dude said.

It seems your tension is because of the obvious embarrassment associated with that date.

The convoluted special pleading interpretations are generally worthless.

You're correct - that is exactly what KJVOism is.

(Let me find the word figurative somewhere and make ridiculous speculations.)

I have no idea what you even mean, which there's no real surprise in that.

He simply wants to ignore the clear words of passages, and will support the absurd invisible allegory attempts.

Says the guy who can't produce these "clear words of passages" and is constantly creating manufactured evidence with equivocating words like "possibly."

This can dupe the contras.

Back to the ad hominem and "oh yeah, that person is motivated by evil things."

My goodness, you'd think if your side was the godly one, you'd have something a lot stronger than this.

Plenty of early church writers give the full text,

You list none - because there aren't any.

starting in the fourth century,

Priscillian even adds to it!! But for some reason you want me to accept the idea, "Well, the part that wound up in the KJV he's quoting out of his Bible, but the part that defends my Oneness views that DID NOT wind up in the KJV, he just pulled out of thin air or from somewhere!"



Why should I NOT think he had the Oneness addendum if I'm supposed to believe he had the other?

and this supports the earlier allusions since it is clear the text was in the Latin Bibles.

For those of you watching from at home on television, what he just did was START with:

a) Plenty of early church writers give the full text,



and then CHANGED HIS POSITION mid-sentence and went with:

b) earlier allusions



and added

c) it is clear the text was in the Latin Bibles.



This is 100% false in every single thing he says right here.



Nobody quotes the critical passage before Priscillian, and he adds to it.

It MIGHT (and that's all we can say) have been in a Latin MS in front of Priscillian, but that doesn't mean anything at all since the entire reason Jerome compiled the Vulgate - and WITHOUT the Comma mind you - is because of the complete wreck of the Latin MS tradition by the 380s.



Or Priscillian MIGHT have made it up.

Or the entire corruption including the part Steven Avery Spencer shrinks from defending might have been ina manuscript or in (whatever he means when he says) "the Latin Bibles."

This is also proven by the AD 484 Council of Carthage showing the universality of the heavenly witnesses

100% unproven.

An assertion, a claim without evidence.



Try again.

in a wide geographical region.

Try again. CLAIMING this is the only interpretation of reality is not the same as it actually being reality.

It would take hundreds of years to take over a line with an interpolation, if it were even possible.

The same guy who has claimed this think was vanishing within 40 years NOW says it would take HUNDREDS of years for the wrong reading to wind up in the Latin.



Aren't we versatile?



My goodness, Stretch Armstrong didn't have this much uh "flexibility" in mid-sentence.

There was no Chinese Wall between Latin and Greek.

This doesn't change the fact if you don't actually HAVE EVIDENCE in Greek, you don't get to make grandiose claims about it.



YOUR BIG CLAIMS mandate REALLY BIG EVIDENCE.

In the early centuries many read both languages.

Doesn't change the fact they:
a) don't quote it

b) don't quote it in Greek

c) aren't preserved in Greek

d) don't argue that there's a different reading in Latin vs Greek

e) don't claim there's a Greek grammatical problem



I mean, you'd think even in LATIN - if Avery's postulation is true - there'd "man, the Greek is royally jacked up here," but it's nowhere to be found.



Remember - HE is the one boasting about how great they were in Greek, so the fact they didn't notice this....

The Council of Carthage basically proves that the Latin text from the time of around Tertullian and Cyprian and forward would have the heavenly witnesses

Ths is called a non-sequitor.



One has to wonder why neither quoted it the way they did - if your theory of the missing link is true.

. In order to become universal in the Latin line.

You keep asserting this, but all this so-called universality is LATE, LATE, LATE.



And you keep wanting to have your argument both ways. You want us to believe that the Greek dropped and the OMISSION WAS UNIVERSAL in 1 John 5:7, but that doesn't matter at all.



In other words, your appeal to "universal" is as cherry picked as your appeals to the Church Fathers, whom you first claim quote it and then claim alluded to it - and you ignore the addendum of Priscillian.

 

[Unbound68]

Arian theories.
Sabellian theories.
Fickermann theories.
Mixed manuscript theories.
Vanished manuscript theories.

Such is the pattern of a position that is completely bankrupt.

"Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
--Alice in Wonderland

 

[Steven Avery]

Arian theories.
Sabellian theories.
Fickermann theories.
Mixed manuscript theories.
Vanished manuscript theories.

Such is the pattern of a position that is completely bankrupt.

The contras are so weak they can not even formulate and defend a sensible interpolation theory.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

This has been helpful.

We learn you will
1) rig a translation and
2) your Latin is weak.

Your oddball translation is clearly grating, out of order and false. You should have stopped when you saw Richard Porson, hyper-contra, has the correct translation and does not have your wacky alterations.

Very similar to Richard Porson is Abraham Taylor, George Travis, Joseph Jowett and KJVToday.
Porson and Jowett are contras.

So mysteriously Cassiodorus' "three mysteries" and "we are to read into" and "but in contrast" (= Latin autem) and "the Son" constitute neither an eisegetical interpretation or... a mysterious interpretation?

Explain?

 

[Maestroh]

The theories of Fickermann are built around a manuscript discovery.

Folks,

When he goes for the “but Fickermann” argument, we are at the end of the Roman candle.

He can’t read German, either, but he invokes this long rejected theory as if it has any meaning at all.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Verbum "the Word" would perhaps constitute a quote (depending on the context of course) and Filius "the Son" is clear evidence of eisegetical interpretation (a reading into) of/into the Scripture text.

And seeing Cassiodorus actually says "we are to read into" we have clear and unmistakable evidence of eisegesis (a reading of one's personal interpretation into the text which isn't literally stated by the target Scripture itself).

 

[Maestroh]

The contras are so weak they can not even formulate and defend a sensible interpolation theory.

More gaslighting.

This whole thread started with you angry at me for QUOTING what KJVO ignorant apologists said, their own words. I’d quote you but you’ve never written a book spelling out an actual position - and from the poor quality of argumentation in your posts, it isn’t difficult to fathom why.

It’s not my fault KJVO folks can’t make up their minds grounded in reality.

 

[Unbound68]

Folks,

When he goes for the “but Fickermann” argument, we are at the end of the Roman candle.

He can’t read German, either, but he invokes this long rejected theory as if it has any meaning at all.

I do believe he's under the impression that all of his name dropping impresses, rather than tricking the unwary reader into thinking he has actually read or studied the works of any of them.

For example, Walter Thiele? How much has Avery actually read of this man's work, to intelligently judge his conclusions one way or the other?

Is any of it even in English?

 

[Maestroh]

I do believe he's under the impression that all of his name dropping impresses, rather than tricking the unwary reader into thinking he has actually read or studied the works of any of them.

For example, Walter Thiele? How much has Avery actually read of this man's work, to intelligently judge his conclusions one way or the other?

Is any of it even in English?

What he’s doing is dropping the names he finds in Maynard’s nonsensical book about the subject. All of those names are in that book including several misquotations I’ve caught Avery Spencer making here that he has subtly altered and dropped.

Never actually admitted he was wrong but just stopped using the verbiage.

Fickermann’s work is rejected as unfounded wild-eyed speculation by everyone who has ever read it - and it’s clear he has not read it, too.

 

[Maestroh]

I do believe he's under the impression that all of his name dropping impresses, rather than tricking the unwary reader into thinking he has actually read or studied the works of any of them.

For example, Walter Thiele? How much has Avery actually read of this man's work, to intelligently judge his conclusions one way or the other?

Is any of it even in English?

I don’t know if Thiele even speaks English.

 

[Unbound68]

Steven Avery:
Also evidences like Walter Thiele on Cyprian agreeing that his Latin came from an early Greek (although Thiele stopped short of the logical conclusion - authenticity.)

I don't believe any of that Avery, until you provide me with a direct quote from Thiele himself.

Avery's generic reference to Thiele without any bibliographic info several times on this forum shines a spotlight on his hypocrisy as he says the following, toward the start of this thread:

Steven Avery:
The Thomas Strouse sentence needs a quote and reference.

As was pointed out to you, it is provided right in the article that you didn't read. (I did.)

Now, reciprocate.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

I do believe he's under the impression that all of his name dropping impresses, rather than tricking the unwary reader into thinking he has actually read or studied the works of any of them.

For example, Walter Thiele? How much has Avery actually read of this man's work, to intelligently judge his conclusions one way or the other?

Is any of it even in English?

Fickermann’s work consists mostly of his Latin critical text ("text-crit dupe" 😉 stuff) of a group of Latin letters from mediaeval Germany. Published (going by memory - which could be wrong) during (or at least leading up to) WWII. Was it perhaps for das Furher? 😉.

 

[Unbound68]

I don't believe any of that Avery, until you provide me with a direct quote from Thiele himself.

Avery's generic reference to Thiele without any bibliographic info several times on this forum shines a spotlight on his hypocrisy as he says the following, toward the start of this thread:


As was pointed out to you, it is provided right in the article that you didn't read. (I did.)

Now, reciprocate.

And if you are, as Maestroh said, regurgitating Maynard and wouldn't know a work by Thiele from a prologue by Jerome, simply say so.

 

[Maestroh]

Fickermann’s work consists mostly of his Latin critical text ("text-crit dupe" 😉 stuff) of a group of Latin letters from mediaeval Germany. Published (going by memory - which could be wrong) during (or at least leading up to) WWII. Was it perhaps for das Furher? 😉.

It was in the mid-30s of Nazi Germany, which is part of why it’s so hard to find.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

It was in the mid-30s of Nazi Germany, which is part of why it’s so hard to find.

I've got it on my PC, but I'm on my phone right now. I've got images of the manuscript of the text in question as well.

 

[Maestroh]

I've got it on my PC, but I'm on my phone right now. I've got images of the manuscript of the text in question as well.

I have a copy in my gmail too that someone sent me. Then again I can actually read German too.

 

[Steven Avery]

So mysteriously Cassiodorus' "three mysteries" and "we are to read into" and "but in contrast" (= Latin autem) and "the Son" constitute neither an eisegetical interpretation or... a mysterious interpretation?
Explain?

. Your mangled translation with “we are to read into” is false, making your analysis worthless.

 

[Steven Avery]

What he’s doing is dropping the names he finds in Maynard’s nonsensical book about the subject. All of those names are in that book including several misquotations I’ve caught Avery Spencer making here that he has subtly altered and dropped.

Specifics on supposed misquotations.

Thanks!

 

[Steven Avery]

Avery's generic reference to Thiele without any bibliographic info

What Michael Maynard wrote is clear, and this section is available as well as what is in his book.

The Burning Bush (Jan 1997)
https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/27849518/the-burning-bush-far-eastern-bible-college

Walter Thiele was my professor at Tubingen. He works at the Vetus Latina Institute in Beuron, Germany. I was delighted to discover his article in 1959 where he argued against the common view of Tischendorf and Griesbach who said that Cyprian, one of the oldest Church Father, quoted it—What did Griesbach and Tischendorf say? They said that Cyprian was just looking at the eighth verse and he just allegorized those witnesses as heavenly ones. But Thiele in 1959 argued,”No, Cyprian did not merely allude to verse 8, he actually had a Latin manuscript in his hand which had 1 John 5:7.” So Thiele is going against the crowd. Yet Thiele is a Hort-Westcott advocate! Further, Thiele is regarded as the foremost scholar of Latin Biblical manuscripts. Yet he is in favour of the view that Cyprian actually had 1 John 5:7 in that Latin manuscript he held in his hands, although Thiele still regards the verse as an interpolation. Now I asked Dr Thiele ”That was your view 30 years ago. Do you still believe this today?” He replied ”Ja, aber ich bin allein”which means”Yes, I am alone.”(with respect to the view that Cyprian quoted verse 7, instead of alluding to verse 8.) Thus, when it comes to issues on Latin manuscripts, all the professors in Germany consult Thiele, but when it comes to his view on the Johannine Comma, they do not want to listen to him!
(Michael Maynard,”In Defence of the Johannine Comma", in The Burning Bush, Far Easter Bible College vol 3, no. 1, January 1997, p. 36-37)

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.