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

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
John 1:14 (AV)
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,
(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,)
full of grace and truth.

John 1:18 (AV)
No man hath seen God at any time;
the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father,
he hath declared him.

So you think Cyprian was quoting John 1:18 in De Unitate 6.5?

Interesting. Tell us more on how that works 😉
 

Unbound68

Well-known member
John 1:14 (AV)
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,
(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,)
full of grace and truth.

John 1:18 (AV)
No man hath seen God at any time;
the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father,
he hath declared him.
As usual, you completely missed the point.

Does the Comma use WORD or SON?
Does Cyprian use WORD or SON?

FOCUS.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Says who? Prove it.

Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (1901)
Sir Frederic George Kenyon
https://books.google.com/books?id=q5MwAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA181

When we come to apply this classification to our extant authorities, the African family can be tested and identified by reference to the Biblical quotations in the African Fathers; not so much Tertullian, who seems habitually to have made his own translations direct from the Greek, as Cyprian, who quotes copiously and textually.


The Text and Canon :35-36
Alexander Souter,
https://books.google.com/books?id=yQUXAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA36

Tertullian’s regular practice was to use the Greek original and to translate for himself. But, in addition to his actual mention of existing Latin translations, it is clear that he sometimes used them himself. A study of his quotations by Monceaux has shown that he must have possessed translations of Luke, John, Galatians, First Corinthians, Romans and Ephesians. The existence of a (relatively) complete New Testament in Africa first comes into clear view in the writings of Cyprian (+ 258), who quotes a Latin Bible abundantly and accurately.
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
Clear enough that any of your translations must be put aside, unless they are verified by other texts or studies.

Which Latin words are translated wrong Steven?

And how are they translated wrong?

What Latin grammatical considerations do you think prove this?

To understand the English, you need to understand the Latin first, not the other way round.
 

Unbound68

Well-known member
Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (1901)
Sir Frederic George Kenyon
https://books.google.com/books?id=q5MwAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA181

When we come to apply this classification to our extant authorities, the African family can be tested and identified by reference to the Biblical quotations in the African Fathers; not so much Tertullian, who seems habitually to have made his own translations direct from the Greek, as Cyprian, who quotes copiously and textually.


The Text and Canon :35-36
Alexander Souter,
https://books.google.com/books?id=yQUXAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA36

Tertullian’s regular practice was to use the Greek original and to translate for himself. But, in addition to his actual mention of existing Latin translations, it is clear that he sometimes used them himself. A study of his quotations by Monceaux has shown that he must have possessed translations of Luke, John, Galatians, First Corinthians, Romans and Ephesians. The existence of a (relatively) complete New Testament in Africa first comes into clear view in the writings of Cyprian (+ 258), who quotes a Latin Bible abundantly and accurately.
Proves nothing. Just 2 more dudes from the 1800s.
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (1901)
Sir Frederic George Kenyon
https://books.google.com/books?id=q5MwAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA181

When we come to apply this classification to our extant authorities, the African family can be tested and identified by reference to the Biblical quotations in the African Fathers; not so much Tertullian, who seems habitually to have made his own translations direct from the Greek, as Cyprian, who quotes copiously and textually.


The Text and Canon :35-36
Alexander Souter,
https://books.google.com/books?id=yQUXAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA36

Tertullian’s regular practice was to use the Greek original and to translate for himself. But, in addition to his actual mention of existing Latin translations, it is clear that he sometimes used them himself. A study of his quotations by Monceaux has shown that he must have possessed translations of Luke, John, Galatians, First Corinthians, Romans and Ephesians. The existence of a (relatively) complete New Testament in Africa first comes into clear view in the writings of Cyprian (+ 258), who quotes a Latin Bible abundantly and accurately.

Yes he quotes 1 John 5:8(Clause-C) accurately.

And he gave his eisegesis on 1 John 5:8(Clause-C) as being "about [Or: "with respects to"] the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit". It really is that simple.

Only "et tres unum sunt" 1 John 5:8(Clause-C) is quoted "scriptum est".

You clearly don't even understand the predicate clause in English, let alone the Latin, at De Unitate 6.5 (or how relates to the surrounding context).
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
Fire in the hole! 💥💥💥

Perhaps it might be translated as "And again, alluding to 😉the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, it is written "and these three, they are one".

Seeing you yourself, Steven, have stated clearly on numerous occasions that it is an "allusion" and or an "allusion" class text (by your system of categorisation).

The Ablative of Object construction could possibly lend itself to that sort of reference 😉.

What say you Avery? 😉 How do you feel about it?
 

Unbound68

Well-known member
Fire in the hole! 💥💥💥

Perhaps it might be translated as "And again, alluding to 😉the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, it is written "and these three, they are one".

Seeing you yourself, Steven, have stated clearly on numerous occasions that it is an "allusion" and or an "allusion" class text (by your system of categorisation).

The Ablative of Object construction could possibly lend itself to that sort of reference 😉.

What say you Avery? 😉 How do you feel about it?
Perfect!
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
Cyprian is giving a mystical eisegesis.

CYPRIAN

De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate

Chapter 6


"Dicit Dominus: 'Ego et Pater unum sum.' Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est: 'Et hi tres unum sunt'. Et quisquam credit hanc unitatem de divina firmitate venientem, sacramentis coelestibus cohaerentem, scindi in Ecclesia posse et voluntatum collidentium divortio separari? Hanc unitatem qui non tenet, Dei legem non tenet, non tenet Patris et Filii fidem, vitam non tenet et salutem."

Henry Thomas Armfeild, 1883.

“The Lord saith, 'I and the Father are One;' and again of ["concerning" J. S. Porter, 1848] the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost it is written, 'and these three are One.' And does any one believe that this unity, proceeding from the divine immutability, cohering by heavenly mysteries, can be rent in the Church, and separated by the divorce of contending wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold the law of God, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation."
Mystical!

Mystical context!

The context is not about "heavenly witnesses" but about "heavenly mysteries".

NOTE: I am appropriating Armfield's translation for my own purposes, fully aware he is a Pro-Comma Advocate and this his conclusions on this text do not agree with mine.
 
Last edited:

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
I stand by the rendering "we are to read into" in Cassiodorus, based upon sound grammatical reasons. And I'll even give you a clue on this one.

Preposition "in" + ablative case. 😉
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
Actually. Upon rereading my Latin grammar, I may have made a mistake (rejoice Avery). But no mater. Even without the "into" the sense isn't changed.

Cassiodorus (circa. 485–585 C.E.)

Complexiones In Epistollis Apostolorum, Epistolam S. Joannis ad Parthos

Chapter 10

“Cui rei testificantur in terra tria mysteria : aqua, sanguis et spiritus, quae in passione Domini leguntur impleta: in caelo autem Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus; et hi tres unus est Deus.”

“Summarized Explanations in the Epistles of the Apostles, the Epistle of St. John, at Parthos.”

Chapter 10


“To which legal matter is he testifying to? On earth, the three mysteries, “the water, the blood, and the Spirit,” which we are to read [Or: “which we interpret” “which we gather is” “which we profess”] as having a fulfillment in the suffering of the Lord, but in heaven as the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, “and these three” persons are the one [Or: “the single”] God.”
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
By the way, if you put all your stuff in a paper, just make sure you do not blunder like Bill Brown. Bill missed the most fundamental part of the heavenly witnesses grammatical gender argument in a Dallas Theological Seminary thesis, and hilariously claimed 16 verses as an OVERTHROW, and refutation, of the grammatical argument. When they were totally irrelevant. In the paper there were more than 16, and it was very interesting, we were able to see how he erred.

Now, in general I don't see any of your "mystery" obsession as really relevant to the evidences. However there are a couple of labours that you have done that I will plan on adding to the PureBibleForum. e.g. I think I have a page on Latin omitters, and for someone like Ambrose you have supplied some extra detail. And I just have to be careful, because it may be your translation, in which case I have to check for red flags. Once burned, Cassiodorus, twice shy.

And I can also use your manuscript list, although you should have both early Old Latins, and Sinaiticus is about 1500 years too soon. And I am quite skeptical of the Vaticanus dating as well, it was pushed up in the Westcott-Hort era of error. However it probably is from the early centuries.

As I always like to respect negative evidences, the contra side. So the readers and thinkers can work with all sides of the evidences.

This should be done properly with the grammatical argument. However the blunder of Bill Brown poisoned the well for the last few years, as the contras can rarely acknowledge even the most trivially obvious error. Plus he wrote the blunder with belligerent bluster on CARM, although the thesis was more subdued. The Facebook discussions were actually quite incredible, with high quality posts from two gentlemen, Azim and Ilias.

btw, my preferred term for the Cyprian Unity of the Church citation (which should be combined with Jubaianus, and also Tertullian's Praxeas) is a reference. Allusion is weak for such a strong usage. Tertullian does have a few allusions, as do other Ante-Nicene writers. Hundredfold martyrs is a good example of allusion, and even made the apparatus as Ps-Cyprian.

Do youj plan on writing about the c. 20 full verse references up to Cassiodorus?
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Milk it for every drop, Steven.
Just being honest. That's who I am. "In over [my] head", that's laughable.

A very good example of the person without Latin background understanding the issues better than the one with background. It was quite easy to see that your original translation attempts were simply wrong.

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

In that sense it is analogous to finding the blunders of Bill Brown in his attacks on the grammatical argument using verses with masculine and/or feminine nouns. Bill knew the gender of the words, but he got lost in space on what were the fundamental issues. And with his bluster posting and absolute refusal to acknowledge the error he has poisoned the fascinating discussions on the grammar of the heavenly and earthly witnesses.

And not one contra has been willing to tell Bill Brown that he is wrong. That miss is key to understanding skewed and biased argumentation from those opposed to heavenly witnesses authenticity. And that includes you, TNC.

Of course, if you have an answer that you think vindicates Bill's usage of irrelevant verses, you could share. However, the issues are extremely simple, and everyone can see from Eugenius Bulgaris that the verses used were not valid. In fact, that truth of only neuter noun verses being relevant is actually in the Bill Brown thesis paper!

And all that is why I made this thread, that has all the basics in the first four posts.

CARM
the grammar of the heavenly and earthly witnesses
https://forums.carm.org/threads/the-grammar-of-the-heavenly-and-earthly-witnesses.9748/

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

And I did have to point out the Cassiodorus translation issue about five times. And I am glad that you finally saw and fixed the error. Thanks!

Although the text you give, with many different actual attempts, like the Amplified Version, is awkward and unnecessary. Look at the simplicity of the five translations I placed on an earlier post.

=======================
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
NOTE: I am appropriating Armfield's translation for my own purposes, fully aware he is a Pro-Comma Advocate ...
'
The Three Witnesses. The Disputed Text in St. John: Considerations New and Old (1883)
Henry Thomas Armfield
http://www.archive.org/stream/threewitnessesdi00armf#page/69/mode/1up/search/cyprian

Appendix II
Does St. Cyprian Quote the Disputed Verse
p. 69-198

p. 105
“a certain mystical interpretation which he (Cyprian) has not given or alluded to, of a verse which he has not quoted!”
https://books.google.com/books?id=5eQCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA105

Armfield gets pretty close to describing the impossibility of Cyprian writing an invisible allegory.
 
Last edited:

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
Cyprian's
A very good example of the person without Latin background understanding the issues better than the one with background. It was quite easy to see that your original translation attempts were simply wrong.

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

In that sense it is analogous to finding the blunders of Bill Brown in his attacks on the grammatical argument using verses with masculine and/or feminine nouns. Bill knew the gender of the words, but he got lost in space on what were the fundamental issues. And with his bluster posting and absolute refusal to acknowledge the error he has poisoned the fascinating discussions on the grammar of the heavenly and earthly witnesses.

And not one contra has been willing to tell Bill Brown that he is wrong. That miss is key to understanding skewed and biased argumentation from those opposed to heavenly witnesses authenticity. And that includes you, TNC.

Of course, if you have an answer that you think vindicates Bill's usage of irrelevant verses, you could share. However, the issues are extremely simple, and everyone can see from Eugenius Bulgaris that the verses used were not valid. In fact, that truth of only neuter noun verses being relevant is actually in the Bill Brown thesis paper!

And all that is why I made this thread, that has all the basics in the first four posts.

CARM
the grammar of the heavenly and earthly witnesses
https://forums.carm.org/threads/the-grammar-of-the-heavenly-and-earthly-witnesses.9748/

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

And I did have to point out the Cassiodorus translation issue about five times. And I am glad that you finally saw and fixed the error. Thanks!

Although the text you give, with many different actual attempts, like the Amplified Version, is awkward and unnecessary. Look at the simplicity of the five translations I placed on an earlier post.

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

Cassiodorus gave a mystery interpretation of 1 John 5:7-8 with a fulfilment "on earth" and "in heaven". Exactly as Eucherius said "the majority" did earlier.

You're humiliating yourself, and it's going to come back and bite you. But by all means, go on blathering.

A very good example of the person without Latin background understanding the issues better than the one with background.

Keep going please. It's going to go into the hall of fame!
 
Last edited:

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
Armfield gets pretty close to describing the impossibility of Cyprian writing an invisible allegory.

Armfield's opinion. Wrong like yours. It's been busted, and thrown into the garbage here before.

Cyprian gave eisegesis of 1 John 5:8(Clause-C).

Cyprian simply stated his Trinitarian eisegesis, "with regards to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" that he saw in the words "et tres unum sunt" at 1 John 5:8(Clause-C) which was the same eisegesis he saw in "Ego et Pater unum sum" at John 10:30.

Cyprian gave a "heavenly mysteries" (not a heavenly witnesses) interpretation 1 John 5:8(Clause-C).

CYPRIAN

De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate

Chapter 6


"Dicit Dominus: 'Ego et Pater unum sum.' Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est: 'Et hi tres unum sunt'. Et quisquam credit hanc unitatem de divina firmitate venientem, sacramentis coelestibus cohaerentem, scindi in Ecclesia posse et voluntatum collidentium divortio separari? Hanc unitatem qui non tenet, Dei legem non tenet, non tenet Patris et Filii fidem, vitam non tenet et salutem."

Henry Thomas Armfeild, 1883.

“The Lord saith, 'I and the Father are One;' and again of ["concerning" J. S. Porter, 1848] the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost it is written, 'and these three are One.' And does any one believe that this unity, proceeding from the divine immutability, cohering by heavenly mysteries, can be rent in the Church, and separated by the divorce of contending wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold the law of God, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation."​

NOTE: Please note the three different links on eisegesis above for a rounded out picture of it's meaning.
 
Last edited:

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
Steven, why does Cyprian use the ablative case "Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto" for "the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" rather than the nominative case "Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus" as the Vulgate variant text does?

Cyprian "Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto" = ablative case Latin
Vulgate Variant: "Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus" = nominative case Latin

Why?

Why did Cyprian himself choose to use the different Latin grammatical case to the Comma Johanneum?
 
Last edited:

Unbound68

Well-known member
Steven, why does Cyprian use the ablative case "Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto" for "the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" rather than the nominative case "Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus" as the Vulgate variant text does?

Cyprian "Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto" = ablative case Latin
Vulgate Variant: "Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus" = nominative case Latin

Why?

Why did Cyprian himself choose to use the different Latin grammatical case to the Comma Johanneum?
Excellent! With all the arrogant blustering from Avery to both yourself and Maestroh about grammar (of which he knows nothing), he should be made to answer those questions fully.
 
Top