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

Steven Avery said:
Are you retracting your claim about Old Latin manuscripts?
Click to expand...
No. The manuscripts known to Tertullian, Cyprian and Augustine's Old Latin manuscripts are older than any dated existing OL Manuscripts, and the Oldest Vulgate manuscripts that we have do not contain the Comma. In other words, Metzger and I believe that the first Old Latin Manuscripts, as well as the earliest Vulgate manuscripts did not Contain the Comma.
 
Steven Avery said:
The earliest extant Syriac mss. with 1 John are Peshitta mss.

The Old Syriac mss. do not have 1 John.
Click to expand...

Thank you for reiterating the obvious. The earliest surviving Syriac NT manuscripts do not have the Comma.

Cassiodorus gave two contrasting (by the Latin word "autem" being sandwiched between "in heaven" and "as the Father" etc exactly where it should be according to Latin grammar) eisegetical interpretations of 1 John 5:7-8(Comma-less text) in harmony with the earlier interpreter's Ambrose of Milan, Eucherius and Augustine etc.
 
Last edited:
Conan said:
No. The manuscripts known to Tertullian, Cyprian and Augustine's Old Latin manuscripts are older than any dated existing OL Manuscripts, and the Oldest Vulgate manuscripts that we have do not contain the Comma. In other words, Metzger and I believe that the first Old Latin Manuscripts, as well as the earliest Vulgate manuscripts did not Contain the Comma.
Click to expand...

You are confusing Early Church Writer references with manuscripts.
Your false claim was about Old Latin manuscripts.

Also you are assuming the contra positions against lots of evidence, especially on the dynamic duo of Tertullian and Cyprian.
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
Thank you for reiterating the obvious. The earliest surviving Syriac NT manuscripts do not have the Comma.

Cassiodorus gave two contrasting (by the Latin word "autem" being sandwiched between "in heaven" and "as the Father" etc exactly where it should be according to Latin grammar) eisegetical interpretations of 1 John 5:7-8(Comma-less text) in harmony with the earlier interpreter's Ambrose of Milan, Eucherius and Augustine etc.
Click to expand...

Earlier I was explaining to you that the earliest surviving NT Syriac manuscripts with 1 John are Peshitta mss. Your posts seemed confused.

Since you still have the wacky "read into" text for Cassiodorus, against every English translation I have seen, about five, I can not take your Latin interpretations seriously. .
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
Give us your (not someone else') definition of what qualifies as an extant (contra conjectural or lost) "Old Latin manuscript"?
Click to expand...

The Leon Palimpsest is the earliest extant Old Latin ms. with 1 John, and has the heavenly witnesses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/León_palimpsest

The Frisingensia Fragment I believe is listed in the apparatus as Old Latin, although it, like many Latin texts, is mixed Old Latin and Vulgate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisingensia_Fragmenta

If you viewed it as Vulgate, which I believe is an error, you would be around the time of Fuldensis, the earliest Vulgate ms, and Fuldensis has the wonderful Prologue of Jerome's.

The idea of not including a Latin ms. in any category is a shell game.
 
Steven Avery said:
The Leon Palimpsest is the earliest extant Old Latin ms. with 1 John, and has the heavenly witnesses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/León_palimpsest

The Frisingensia Fragment I believe is listed in the apparatus as Old Latin, although it, like many Latin texts, is mixed Old Latin and Vulgate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisingensia_Fragmenta

If you viewed it as Vulgate, which I believe is an error, you would be around the time of Fuldensis, the earliest Vulgate ms, and Fuldensis has the wonderful Prologue of Jerome's.

The idea of not including a Latin ms. in any category is a shell game.
Click to expand...

This post still doesn't define how, or by what means YOU categorise what is and isn't (i.e. what does and doesn't qualify as) an "Old Latin manuscript"?

Does the Leon Palimpsest read "Spiritus est veritas" or "Christus est veritas" at 1 John 5:6?

Is the text at 1 John 5:6 in the Leon Palimpsest fully legible? Or missing, and therefore a conjectural reading?

Both are 7th century, not 6th. The Fuldensis is older than these two (it's dated).

And all this means is someone corrupted the reading in the 7th century. Nearly four hundred years after the Vulgate was completed, and six hundred years after the Greek original.
 
Last edited:
So which Syriac NT manuscript was copied from the Leon Palimpsest?

And which Syriac NT manuscript was copied from the Codex Frisingensis, or Fragment of Freising?
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
And all this means is someone corrupted the reading in the 7th century. Nearly four hundred years after the Vulgate was completed, and six hundred years after the Greek original.
Click to expand...

Conan claimed the earliest Old Latin ms. (extant) omitted the heavenly witnesses.

Conan's error, which he never acknowledged, was why I put up this information.

The Old Latin is considered to be an early textline, even 2nd century.
You claim a corruption on zero evidence.

You seem to like to play 20 questions.

Maybe you can find the word mystery somewhere in the text.
 
Steven Avery said:
Conan claimed the earliest Old Latin ms. (extant) omitted the heavenly witnesses.

Conan's error, which he never acknowledged, was why I put up this information.

The Old Latin is considered to be an early textline, even 2nd century.
You claim a corruption on zero evidence.
Click to expand...
False witness. I claimed the Old Latin Bibles used by the oldest Old Latin witnesses, Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, never had the interpolation. That it was later, 5th century Bibles and on that contained the Comma. I claimed that the Oldest manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate did not contain the Comma, which they do not. The Oldest Old Latin witnesses, and the Oldest Vulgate witnesses give evidence that the Comma was never in the first Old Latin Bibles to begin with, but were interpolated later. Just Like the Greek from the 1st century AD until now testifies, just like all the other Versions from the Greek.
 
Conan said:
I claimed the Old Latin Bibles used by the oldest Old Latin witnesses, Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, never had the interpolation.
Click to expand...

Before that, you made the claim.

Conan said:
The earliest Old Latin Manuscripts and the earliest Vulgate manuscripts are without the Comma, but later manuscripts show the interpolation.
Click to expand...

And I am still waiting for you to identify the earliest Old Latin manuscripts and the later ones.

Please, stop dancing around.
It does not makes sense to discuss your new position when you do not deal with your original claim.

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
Conan claimed the earliest Old Latin ms. (extant) omitted the heavenly witnesses.

Conan's error, which he never acknowledged, was why I put up this information.

The Old Latin is considered to be an early textline, even 2nd century.
You claim a corruption on zero evidence.

You seem to like to play 20 questions.

Maybe you can find the word mystery somewhere in the text.
Click to expand...

I'm not Conan.

Yes I ask a lot questions.

Perhaps you'll discover the mysterious meaning of the words "sacramentorum caelestium" in the very same contextual sentence in Cyprian's "allusion"!
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
Perhaps you'll discover the mysterious meaning of the words "sacramentorum caelestium" in the very same contextual sentence in Cyprian's "allusion"!
Click to expand...

Bevenot has a reference to the phrase :

sacramentorum caelestium (ratione) would seem to mean ‘ the heavenly truths of our Faith ’

Seems to be one of your rabbit trails to avoid the clear and simple evidence.
 
Steven Avery said:
Before that, you made the claim.



And I am still waiting for you to identify the earliest Old Latin manuscripts and the later ones.

Please, stop dancing around.
It does not makes sense to discuss your new position when you do not deal with your original claim.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
The ones used by Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine. It's not hard to understand.
 
Steven Avery said:
Bevenot has a reference to the phrase :

sacramentorum caelestium (ratione) would seem to mean ‘ the heavenly truths of our Faith ’

Seems to be one of your rabbit trails to avoid the clear and simple evidence.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's an out of context snippet of only a small part of what Bevenot says. But that's not all of what Bevenot said, is it Steven!

Your disingenuous appeal to an authority you don't genuinely believe, nor trust, who neither agrees with your conclusions, is misleading to say the least.

Tell us the rest of what Bevenot says about Cyprian's mysterious "sacramentorum caelestium" in connection with your "allusion"!
 
Steven Avery said:
Bevenot has a reference to the phrase :

sacramentorum caelestium (ratione) would seem to mean ‘ the heavenly truths of our Faith ’

Seems to be one of your rabbit trails to avoid the clear and simple evidence.
Click to expand...

Here's what Bevenot said.

[Footnote] 53. 1 John 5.8. One might be forgiven for thinking that Cyprian read the famous Johannine comma' (v. 7) in his text. In fact, he was only giving an allegorical interpretation of 'the spirit and the water and the blood' in terms of the Trinity, as did several of the Latin Fathers after him (including St. Augustine), though they certainly did not read the interpolation. However, it is likely enough that the subsequent creation of verse 7 (in Spain, middle of the 4th century) was prompted by Cyprian's words here. On the whole question, see T. Ayuso's articles in Biblica 28 and 29 [Rome 1947-48] `Nuevo estudio sobre el "Comma Joanneum,'" especially 29.53 f. 70 ; and, for more detail on Cyprian, A. Bludau: 'Das "Comma Johanneum" bei Tertullian and Cyprian,' Theol. Quartalschr. ioi (1920) 1-28.

Note: this is from a image to text convert, so some individual letters may be inaccurate. On my phone so don't have access to all my files.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top