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

Here is Grantley McDonald:

Biblical Criticism in Early Modern Europe (2016)
Grantley McDonald
https://books.google.com/books?id=Q6BODAAAQBAJ&pg=PA5

The first extant bibles containing the Johannine comma are Latin manuscripts copied in Spain during the seventh century: some fragments in Munich (BSB Clm 6436, the ‘Freising fragments’ = Vetus Latina 64) and a palimpsest in Leon (Archivo catedralicio ms 15 = Vetus Latina 67). These two fragmentary sources are closely related, and represent — at least in the Catholic Epistles — a Vetus Latina text resembling that used in the Spanish liturgy.7

7 De Bruyne 1921, 67; Ayuso 1947-1948, 57; Fischer 1985, 70, 77-78; Grson 1999-2004, 1:98-99.
De Bruyne, Donatien. Les Fragments de Freising (épître de S. Paul et épître catholiques). Rome: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1921.

Ayuso Marazuela, Teófilo. ‘Nuevo estudio sobre el Comma Johanneum.’ Biblica 28 (1947): 83-112, 216-235; 29 (1948): 52-76.


Fischer, Bonifatius. Lateinische Bibelhandschriften im frühen Mittelalter. Freiburg: Flerder, 1985.

Gryson, Roger. Altlateinische Handschriften. 2 vols. Freiburg: Flerder, 1999—2004.
 
Last edited:
Here are the posts where TNC made an effort to be including all the early mss.

The four urls give you 21 mss., 11 Syriac, and Sinaiticus should be 1500 years later.
Still it is a helpful list.

https://forums.carm.org/threads/syr...e-line-and-the-comma.9270/page-18#post-713411
https://forums.carm.org/threads/syr...e-line-and-the-comma.9270/page-19#post-713414
https://forums.carm.org/threads/syr...e-line-and-the-comma.9270/page-19#post-713421
https://forums.carm.org/threads/syr...e-line-and-the-comma.9270/page-19#post-713428

Then in the summary TNC mentioned the Freisinger Fragment, but somehow omitted the Leon Palimpsest
https://forums.carm.org/threads/syr...e-line-and-the-comma.9270/page-19#post-713506

Now the omission could have been easily corrected, but TNC has shown no interest in accuracy. And TNC simply refuses to acknowledge his error of omission. If he acknowledged the error, he would have to accept that I pointed out his error, and that is a bridge to far for most contras.

As we see with the 16 Blunder Verses of Bill Brown.
 
León Palimpsest (Palimpsestus Legionensis) (601-700 AD)

The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Texts, and Manuscripts (2016)
Hugh Houghton
https://books.google.com/books?id=CXQqCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA240


[H.A.G. Houghton: Leon Palimpsest]
VL 67 León, Archivo Catedralicio, 15 Palimpsestus Legionensis. Remains of a Latin Bible (epcar). Copied in the seventh century, possibly in Toledo. Palimpsested in the tenth century with Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius’ Historia ecclesiastica in Visigothic minuscule. Spanish half-uncial script. The original manuscript consisted of around 322 folios, of which 48 remain (original size at least 48x35 cm). Two columns of 71–6 lines (36½x28½ cm). Parchment; black ink.
(Houghton, The Latin New Testament, 2017, p. 240)

The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Texts, and Manuscripts (2016)
Hugh Houghton
https://books.google.com/books?id=CXQqCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA63

[H.A.G. Houghton]
A different combination of Old Latin and the Vulgate (of Jerome) is seen in VL 67 (the Leon Palimpsest). This is the oldest surviving Latin biblical pandect, a large format manuscript copied in Toledo in the seventh century but re-used three centuries later. The surviving pages show that, while its text of the Pauline Epistles is Vulgate, the Catholic Epistles and part of Acts have an Old Latin affiliation with similarities to Cyprian and [PAGE 64] Tyconius, as well as the fifth century Portuguese writer Orosius (Contra Varimadum).
(Houghton, The Latin New Testament, 2017, p. 63-64)


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

Thus the Old Latin connection looks solid, and the Leon Palimpsest is even in support of the Cyprian usage of the heavenly witnesses!
 
Last edited:
Here are the posts where TNC made an effort to be including all the early mss.

The four urls give you 21 mss., 11 Syriac, and Sinaiticus should be 1500 years later.
Still it is a helpful list.

https://forums.carm.org/threads/syr...e-line-and-the-comma.9270/page-18#post-713411
https://forums.carm.org/threads/syr...e-line-and-the-comma.9270/page-19#post-713414
https://forums.carm.org/threads/syr...e-line-and-the-comma.9270/page-19#post-713421
https://forums.carm.org/threads/syr...e-line-and-the-comma.9270/page-19#post-713428

Then in the summary TNC mentioned the Freisinger Fragment, but somehow omitted the Leon Palimpsest
https://forums.carm.org/threads/syr...e-line-and-the-comma.9270/page-19#post-713506

Now the omission could have been easily corrected, but TNC has shown no interest in accuracy. And TNC simply refuses to acknowledge his error of omission. If he acknowledged the error, he would have to accept that I pointed out his error, and that is a bridge to far for most contras.

As we see with the 16 Blunder Verses of Bill Brown.

He has a very real inadequacy complex with the inadequacy of the NT manuscript evidence on his side (for the counterfeit Comma).

And he has pathological issues with 22 to 1 (perhaps 2) ratio of NT manuscripts (which will be borne out by the avalanche of spam that will inevitably follow) dating far earlier, across greater geographical and linguistic boundaries in which the counterfeit Comma is not actually written in the NT text of the Apostle John's first Epistle.
 
Last edited:
He has a very real inadequacy complex with the inadequacy of the NT manuscript evidence on his side (for the counterfeit Comma).

And he has pathological issues with 22 to 1 (perhaps 2) ratio of NT manuscripts

Psycho-babble fabrication.

Finally, though, for the first time, you have gotten closer to the needed correction. "perhaps 2"

Now, why not tell us what manuscript you missed when you wrote 1 instead of 2.


Make the correction and clear the air.
You can thank me as well for helping you write accurately.
 
Sir Isaac Newton exhaustively dealt with, and debunked, the Johannine Comma, in his essay An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hw1vnb&view=page&seq=9&skin=2021

Newton suppressed his essay, and it was c. 1750 that it finally appeared in English. So it had little effect on the debate.

Richard Simon, Oratorian, the Catholic scholar, was a major source for Newton. And Richard Simon was strongly countered by Thomas Smith, Antoine Boucat and Edmund Calamy, among others. Calamy is especially available in his Thirteen Sermons, four on the heavenly witnesses.

Plus there was the major debate between David Martin and Thomas Emlyn in the early 1700s. So by the time Newton was published, it was dated. In fact, there was a lot of back-and-forth about whether Newton was an anti-Trinitarian, very little discussion of his Two Notable Corruptions. Now it has been noted in recent years by our modern Unitarians, who are generally ill-informed as to the historical debates on the heavenly witnesses verse. So Newton becomes their handy-dandy source.

Thirteen sermons (1722)
Edmund Calamy
http://books.google.com/books?id=WhwtAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA423
p. 423-559

As an example, his Cyprian section is p. 496-501, which is followed by Tertullian
http://books.google.com/books?id=WhwtAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA496

(Note: Newton was more honest about Cyprian than the modern contras.)

Newton is a good read, as long as you enrich your studies by looking at both sides of the debate :).
 
Last edited:
You have never responded to psycho-babble, because none of those you are debating posted any.
Do you try to support the struggling TNC because you have an inadequacy complex?
Or pathological issues?

(Note: I am using TNC psycho-babble to try to wake up te poor posters.)
 
Do you try to support the struggling TNC because you have an inadequacy complex?
Or pathological issues?

(Note: I am using TNC psycho-babble to try to wake up te poor posters.)
You describe your self perfectly ! Your project your self image onto others everytime you do it. It's not other's that are the problem, but you. Realize when you describe others, you are projecting your self image. You can change.
 
You describe your self perfectly ! Your project your self image onto others everytime you do it. It's not other's that are the problem, but you. Realize when you describe others, you are projecting your self image. You can change.

Then you are accusing TNC, because he is the author of the wacky words.

I only used them to show you how absurd such psycho-babble is on a Bible text discussion forum.
 
Last edited:
Then you are accusing TNC, because he is the author of the wacky words.

I only used them to show you how absurd such psycho-babble is on a Bible text discussion forum.
No, you are the accuser. See how you are projecting again? These posters are presenting evidence which goes virtually one way. Believe it or not they are trying to help you. You could use their help. There is nothing wrong with accepting it.
 
These posters are presenting evidence which goes virtually one way.

Yep. They are full-fledge textcrit dupes, BVDB Anti-Avery style. Totally uninterested in any sort of focused, balanced edifying discussion. Into posturing and psycho-babble, and deceptive avoidance of simple factual corrections, by throwing sand. Unable to handle even the concord discussion, where TNC beat a hasty retreat. Insults and bogus liar accusations the norm. They try hyena-style posting, to cover for the scholastic slippage.

Blinders on tight so as not to see the amazing and powerful evidences for authenticity,

I’m trying to help them be free.

Also, I want to see what stuff is thrown out, beyond Bill Brown and his 16 Blunder Verses.
 
Last edited:
I’m trying to help them be free.

You need help to be free from your own human, subjective, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching with its dependance upon fallacies and unjust measures [double standards]. Perhaps you have KJV-only blinders on since you do not see nearly as clearly as you assume.

You do not engage in balanced, edifying discussion. Your negative, condescending, one-sided allegations and insults that attack the honesty, integrity, and intelligence of others are not edifying.
 
Last edited:
You have never demonstrated any blunders or blinders in my positions.
Incorrect. Your posts show that you have on KJV-only blinders or that you close your eyes and avoid certain facts. You close your eyes to the scriptural truths that would contradict your human KJV-only opinions. It has been demonstrated that you make blunders in throwing out false accusations. Your entire overall modern KJV-only position is a major blunder.
 
Back
Top