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

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
He's over on


I posted a doozy question for him!

I asked him this:

What, and whose grammar works would the ECW/ANF/PNF compared John's supposed "solecism" against Steven, in order for them to actually know it was a Greek "solecism"?

I don't think you can name the work's or author's of Greek grammars (or Grammarians) from the first 5 centuries A.D. or going back several centuries B.C. either!

Can you name the works? The authors?

Who were the authorities on Greek grammar in the time of the apostles and after Steven?

What grammar book's could the earliest Christians compared 1 John 5:7-8 with?

If you're such an authority on the subject of Greek gender concord, then, educate US on the subject of who, and what grammar works the earliest Christians could/would have used?

He'll be Googling like crazy right now.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Vasileios Tsialas, Athens, Greek
"Grammar books do not make language; it is language that makes grammar books. In other words, language existed long before grammar books came into existence. So language is a natural phenomenon that cannot be enclosed in a technical enchiridion."

===============================

There is no reason to think that the writers of the New Testament needed grammar books, and there is no reason to think that any Greek grammars at the time of the New Testament specialized on the ins and outs of gender discord, rather than morphology.

===============================
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
Vasileios Tsialas, Athens, Greek


===============================

There is no reason to think that the writers of the New Testament needed grammar books, and there is no reason to think that any Greek grammars at the time of the New Testament specialized on the ins and outs of gender discord, rather than morphology.

===============================

So what are we to gather from this vague, out of context, unreferenced snippet from Mr Vasileios (from Hellenic Open University) above?

That YOU (I doubt he is) are implying that Greek grammar rules were not important to the grammar of the New Testament or to the apostle John?

Are you implying John was ignorant of the intricacies of the grammar of the Greek language?
 
Last edited:

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
Vasileios Tsialas, Athens, Greek


===============================

There is no reason to think that the writers of the New Testament needed grammar books, and there is no reason to think that any Greek grammars at the time of the New Testament specialized on the ins and outs of gender discord, rather than morphology.

===============================

Where and how did the Hebrew speaking, native born Israelite, the apostle John, learn the rules on Greek Concord from? About the agreement of gender, number, case, (which you effectively say the apostle John at 1 John 5:7-8 has violated) in the Greek language Steven?

Because it is >>> YOU <<< who is saying he must not violate the rule of concord, Steven.
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
Steven Avery said:
The Macedonians noticed the discord in the 300s in their discussions with Gregory Nazianzen, so it is not a new grammar discovery. Erasmus gave us a pithy note about it as well, since he was, at first, trying to defend the short solecism text.

And where and how did both the Macedonians and Gregory Nazianzen learn the rules on Greek gender-case-number concord from?
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
So what are we to gather from this vague, out of context, unreferenced snippet from Mr Vasileios (from Hellenic Open University) above?

We notice that you spam the forum by taking a question from another thread and duplicating your questions.
What a waste of time and a way to create confusion.

You duplicated my enchiridion reference on another thread.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/the-grammar-of-the-heavenly-and-earthly-witnesses.9748/#post-716243

And I answered it there.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
We notice that you spam the forum by taking a question from another thread and duplicating your questions.
What a waste of time and a way to create confusion.
You do not read very carefully. The quotation of the poster in your post [#386] was actually from a post [#383] where that poster directly quoted a post [#382] that you made in this very thread. That demonstrates that your accusation was not true. It seems that you quoted from the wrong post.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
You do not read very carefully. The quotation of the poster in your post [#386] was actually from a post [#383] where that poster directly quoted a post [#382] that you made in this very thread. That demonstrates that your accusation was not true. It seems that you quoted from the wrong post.

You are not paying attention. Yes, my quote was in this thread. However, TNC quoted it BOTH on this thread and another thread, where I gave the answers. So that is where it should best continue. Duplicate posting on two different threads, for no reason. That duplication by TNC caused the problems.

Focus.
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
Origen, Cyprian's contemporary, his references (two definite, one definitely pseudonymous) to 1 John 5:8(Clause-C) show's that his contemporary (Cyprian) shared the same kind of mystical eisegesis during the same time period, in close geographical proximity.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Thank you for your opinion about supposed eisegesis, for the Cyprian invisible allegory idea, that has no substance.
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
Thank you for your opinion about supposed eisegesis, for the Cyprian invisible allegory idea, that has no substance.

It's eisegesis ;) not "invisible allegory".

Potamius' mystical eisegesis consisted of, quote: "the hidden figurative meanings that lye underneath" the literal text of 1 John 5:8(Clause-C), just like Cyprian's sacramental eisegesis and Facundus' symbolic eisegesis.
 
Last edited:

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
The predicate in Cyprian's De Unitate 6.5, consisting of the ablative case words "Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto" preceded by the preposition "de" (called "the Ablative of Object" in Basil Gildersleeve, section 417.5) is a very very common construction which you will find in the Latin ECW/ANF/PNF over and over again.

This predicate statement "de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto" is/constitutes Cyprian's eisegesis "about" "concerning" "regarding" 1 John 5:8(Clause-C) "et tres unum sunt" (which is the only part of the clause that actually constitutes a quotation).

This is eisegesis in action.

This is the exact point Daniel Wallace was trying to get across with "written of," not "written that..." (cf. Wikipedia, Johannine Comma, Footnote 54 [which I now discover 17/05/22 has now been conveniently edited out by, most probably, Steven Avery. I have screen shots of the old one anyway.]).
 
Last edited:

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
Cyprian's contemporary Origen, his references (two definite, one definitely pseudonymous) that quote 1 John 5:8(Clause-C), show that, contemporaneously, Cyprian did in fact share the same kind of mystical eisegesis as Origen, in the same time period, in very close proximity.

Facundus also confirms it is eisegesis, and so does Fulgentius, by directly connecting - and stating so (Latin "nam et") - that Cyprian's De Oratione Dominica Chapter 34 is another example of the same kind of sacramental eisegesis (Fulgentius reading "sacramentis coelestibus" in De Unitate 6.5-6 i.e. same sentence, and also Cyprian's "sacramento scilicet trinitatis" and "sacramenta" in De Oratione Dominica 34 which Fulgentius no doubt saw as the connecting factor).

And I will point out that the De Oratione Dominica 34 passage, was deliberately hidden by Pro-Comma commentators in the past, and no Pro-Comma advocates today ever go into any real depth about him connecting it to Cyprian's De Unitate 6.5 passage.
 
Last edited:

Unbound68

Well-known member
It's eisegesis ;) not "invisible allegory".

Potamius' mystical eisegesis consisted of, quote: "the hidden figurative meanings that lye underneath" the literal text of 1 John 5:8(Clause-C), just like Cyprian's sacramental eisegesis and Facundus' symbolic eisegesis.
It seems to me that Avery thinks what was actually written by those you've been citing is nothing more than your opinion.

He's reading right past you.
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
Note carefully the import of Cyprian's eisegesis which Fulgentius connected to Cyprian's De Unitate 6.5 reference.

Cyprian of Carthage

De Oratione Dominica

Latin Text by Tauchnitz, 1839

Chapter 34


“In orationibus vero celebrandis invenimus observasse cum Daniele tres pueros in fide fortes et in captivitate viefcores horam tertiam, sextain, nonam, sacramento scilicet trinitatis, quae in novissimis temporibus manifestari habebat. Nam et prima hora in tertiam veniens consummatum numerum trinitatis ostendit, itemque ad sextam quarta procedens declarat alteram trinitatem, et quando a septima nona completur, per ternas horas trinitas perfecta numeratur. Quae horarum spatia iampridem spiritaliter determinantes adoratores Dei statutis et legitimis ad precem temporibus serviebant. Et manifestata postmodum res est, sacramenta olim fuisse, quod ante sic iusti precabantur. Nam super discipulos hora tertia descendit Spiritus sanctus, qui gratiam dominicae repromissionis implevit. Item Petrus hora sexta in tectum superius adscendens signo pariter et voce Dei monentis instructus est, ut omnes ad gratiam salutis admit teret, cum [Page 26] de emundandis gentilibus ante dubitaret. Et Dominus bora sexta crncifixus ad nonam peccata nostra sanguine suo abluit et, ut redimere et vivificare nos posset, tunc victoriam suam passione perfecit.”

Cyprian of Carthage

“On The Lord's Prayer”

By T. H. Bindley, 1914

Chapter 34


“Now in the offering of prayer we find that the Three Children with Daniel, being strong in faith and victors even in captivity, observed the third, sixth, and ninth hours,[Daniel 6:10] in as it were a symbol of the Trinity which would be revealed in these last times. For the progress of the first hour to the third shows the perfected number of the Trinity; likewise from the fourth to the sixth declares another Trinity; and when the period from the seventh to the ninth is completed, the perfect Trinity is numbered through a triad of hours each. These spaces of hours were long ago fixed upon by the worshippers of God, who observed them as the appointed and lawful times for prayer. After-events have made it manifest that from of old these [Page 67] were types, inasmuch as righteous men formerly prayed thus. For at the third hour, the Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples and fulfilled the gracious promise of the Lord. Likewise at the sixth hour Peter, going up to the house-top, was instructed by the sign as well as by the voice of God bidding him to admit all to the grace of salvation, when previously he was doubtful whether Gentiles ought to be cleansed. And from the sixth to the ninth hour the Lord, being crucified, washed away our sins in His own Blood; and that He might redeem and quicken us, He then perfected His victory by His Passion.”
This is eisegesis in action.

An example of the same kind (as Fulgentius literally said with the words, Latin "nam et") of eisegesis Cyprian used at De Unitate 6.5.
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
Facundus' eisegesis:

Facundus of Hermiane (circa 546-548 AD)

LIBER PRIMUS. (PL 67 0534C)

CAPUT III.

[Capitula]


Quod unus de Trinitate passus contra Nestorianos aptius dicatur, quam una de Trinitate persona. Personarum nomen in Trinitate Sabellii causa usurpari coeptum; et de baptismo in nomine Domini Iesu.

[Text]

"...(0535D) [9.] Nam et Ioannes apostolus in Epistola sua de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto sic dicit: Tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, spiritus, aqua, et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt (I Ioan. V) : in spiritu significans Patrem, sicut Dominus mulieri Samaritanae secundum ipsius Ioannis Evangelium loquitur, dicens; “Crede mihi, quia veniet hora quando neque in monte hoc, neque in Hierosolymis adorabitis Patrem. Vos adoratis quod nescitis, nos adoramus quod scimus: quia salus ex Iudaeis est. Sed venit hora, et nunc est, quando veri adoratores adorabunt Patrem in spiritu et veritate: nam et Pater tales quaerit qui adorent eum.” (0536A) Spiritus est Deus, et eos qui adorant eum, in spiritu et veritate oportet adorare (Ioan. IV, 21). [10.] In aqua vero Spiritum sanctum significans, sicut in eodem suo Evangelio exponit verba Domini dicentis: “Si quis sitit, veniat ad me, et bibat. Qui credit in me, sicut dicit Scriptura, flumina de ventre eius fluent aquae vivae." Ubi subsecutus adiecit: Hoc autem dicebat de Spiritu, quem accepturi erant credentes in eum. Nondum enim erat Spiritus datus, quia Iesus nondum fuerat glorificatus (Ioan. VII, 37). [11.] In sanguine vero Filium significans, quoniam ipse ex sancta Trinitate communicavit carni et sanguini. Non ergo ait Ioannes apostolus loquens de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto, tres sunt personae quae testificantur in terra, spiritus, aqua et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt..."

The Witness of God is Greater. 1500 years of the Heavenly and Earthly Witnesses. A Source Book.

By Mike Ferrando [Updated: 6/6/2021]

Page 251

Facundus of Hermiane (circa 546-548 AD)

FIRST BOOK. (PL 67 0534C), Chapter 3.

[Chapter Heading]


"Which one of the Trinity suffered."

[Text]

"...[9.] In fact, the apostle John also in his letter writes about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit: "There are three who testify on earth, spirit, water and blood and these three are one" [1 John 5:8]. With "spirit" it indicates the Father, as does the Lord, who in the Gospel of John himself says to the Samaritan woman: "Jesus saith to her: Woman, believe me that the hour cometh, when you shall neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, adore the Father. You adore that which you know not: we adore that which we know. For salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father also seeketh such to adore him. God is a spirit: and they that adore him must adore him in spirit and in truth." [John 4:21-24]. [10.] By "water" it indicates [TWOGG, Page 65] instead of the Holy Spirit, as explained by the words of the Lord who reports in his Gospel: "If any man thirst, let him come to me and drink. He that believeth in me, as the scripture saith: Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." [John 7:37-38]. Continuing, he adds: "Now this he said of the Spirit which they should receive who believed in him: for as yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified." [John 7:39]. [11.] By "blood" instead it indicates the Son, since he was part of the flesh and blood of the Holy Trinity. So the apostle John speaking of Father, Son and Holy Spirit does not say that there are three ‘persons’ who testify on earth, that is spirit, water and blood, and that these three are one..."
My comments.

NOTE: Latin "in terra" "on earth", but not the rest of the Comma, is in the earliest manuscript of this work, dated 6th-7th century A.D.
NOTE: Examples of the Ablative of Object construction with the Latin preposition "de" is highlighted in red throughout.
NOTE: Other key words are highlighted in red, or bolded, or italicized.
NOTE: Emphasis added, and some minor reformatting by me.
NOTE: This translation is inadequate, and ignores the Latin grammar in many places, and has added an entire clause not in the Latin text of Migne (the Latin text they used in TWOGG), which is not included here.
NOTE: It's interesting that Facundus reads Latin "in Spiritu", "in Spirit", and "in aqua" "in water", and "in sanguine" "in blood" (Latin "in...in...in") when introducing his eisegetical explanations/interpretations. Which the anonymous TWOGG translator renders "with...with...with".
NOTE: Most of the Chapter heading has been left out of the translation, which talks about baptism and the heresy of Sabellianism. Which I would translate as: “Against the Nestorians, that it is more suitable to say concerning the Trinity, that only one person suffered, and which person it must have been from out of the Trinity. The case of the Sabellians seizing upon the [singular] name “Trinity” for the Persons; and about baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
 
Last edited:

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
Ambrose of Milan's eisegesis:

Ambrose of Milan (circa. 340-397 A.D./C.E.)

Book 1, Chapter 4, Sections 18-25

“On Mysteries,”

Translated by H. de Romestin, E. de Romestin and H.T.F. Duckworth, 1896


“...[18.] That water does not cleanse without the Spirit is shown by the witness of John and by the very form of the administration of the sacrament. And this is also declared to be signified by the pool in the Gospel and the man who was there healed. In the same passage, too, is shown that the Holy Spirit truly descended on Christ at His baptism, and the meaning of this mystery is explained. [19.] The reason why you were told before not to believe only what you saw was that you might not say perchance, This is that great mystery “which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither has it entered into the heart of man.” [1 Cor 2:9] I see water, which I have been used to see every day. Is that water to cleanse me now in which I have so often bathed without ever being cleansed? By this you may recognize that water does not cleanse without the Spirit. [20.] Therefore read that the three witnesses in baptism, the water, the blood, and the Spirit, are one, [1 John 5:7] for if you take away one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism does not exist. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element, without any sacramental effect. Nor, again, is there the Sacrament of Regeneration without water: “For except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” [John 3:5] Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, wherewith he too is signed; but unless he be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, [Matt 28:19] he cannot receive remission of sins nor gain the gift of spiritual grace. [21.] So that Syrian dipped himself seven times [2nd Kings 5:14 [4th Kings LXX]] under the law, but you were baptized in the Name of the Trinity, you confessed the Father. Call to mind what you did: you confessed the Son, you confessed the Holy Spirit. Mark well the order of things in this faith: you died to the world, [Page 320.] and rose again to God. And as though buried to the world in that element, being dead to sin, you rose again to eternal life. Believe, therefore, that these waters are not void of power. [22.] Therefore it is said: “An angel of the Lord went down according to the season into the pool, and the water was troubled; and he who first after the troubling of the water went down into the pool was healed of whatsoever disease he was holden.” [John 5:4] This pool was at Jerusalem, in which one was healed every year, but no one was healed before the angel had descended. Because of those who believed not the water was troubled as a sign that the angel had descended. They had a sign, you have faith; for them an angel descended, for you the Holy Spirit; for them the creature was troubled, for you Christ Himself, the Lord of the creature, works. [23.] Then one was healed, now all are made whole; or more exactly, the Christian people alone, for in some even the water is deceitful. [Jer 15:18] The baptism of unbelievers heals not but pollutes. The Jew washes pots and cups, as though things without sense were capable of guilt or grace. But do you wash this living cup of yours, that in it your good works may shine and the glory of your grace be bright. For that pool was as a type, that you might believe that the power of God descends upon this font. [24.] Lastly, that paralytic was waiting for a man. And what man save the Lord Jesus, born of the Virgin, at Whose coming no longer the shadow should heal men one by one, but the truth should heal the whole. He it is, then, Whose coming down was being waited for, of Whom the Father said to John the Baptist: “Upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and abiding upon Him, this is He Who baptizeth with the Holy Spirit.” [John 1:33] And John bare witness of Him, and said: “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove and abiding upon Him.” [Luke 3:12] And why did the Spirit descend like a dove, but in order that you might see, that you might acknowledge, that that dove also which just Noah sent forth from the ark was a likeness of this dove, that you might recognize the type of the sacrament? [cf. Cyprian's "these heavenly sacraments", De Unitate 6.5-6] [25.] Perhaps you may object: Since that was a real dove which was sent forth, and the Spirit descended like a dove, how is it that we say that the likeness was there and the reality here, whereas in the Greek it is written that the Spirit descended in the likeness of a dove? But what is so real as the Godhead which abides for ever? Now the creature cannot be the reality, but only a likeness, which is easily destroyed and changed. So, again, because the simplicity of those who are baptized ought to be not in appearance but in reality, and the Lord says: “Be ye wise as serpents and simple as doves.” [Matt 10:16] Rightly, then, did He descend like a dove, in order to admonish us that we ought to have the simplicity of the dove. And further we read of the likeness being put for the reality, both as regards Christ: “And was found in likeness as a man;” [Phil 2:8] and as regards God the Father: “Nor have ye seen His likeness.” [John 5:37]...”
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm
 
Top