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

Instead of answering my questions, you spam the forum.

How is asking for details about how complicated (= convoluted) your theory is, about the non-existent Comma in the early Syriac New Testament manuscripts, somehow equated to spamming?

I've made my statement based upon the FACTS as they really are (i.e. it isn't there now because the Comma wasn't there in the first place) so why can't you state the details about your supposedly simpler theory?

I say it's because you know that your theory (notice "theory" contra THE FACTS) is not simple at all.
 
Here's the details about my theory.

There's no Comma in this New Testament manuscript, because the Comma never was in the Syriac manuscript/manuscripts it was copied from prior to the 5th century.

St. Catherine's Monastery, Mount Sinai, Syriac Manuscripts 5 (circa. 5th century A.D./C.E.)
Contains the Catholic Epistles and the book of Acts.
[Comma Johanneum?].
https://www.loc.gov/item/00279386164-ms/
http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2017/05/syriac-new-testament-mss-at-saint.html

There's no Comma in this New Testament manuscript, because the Comma never was in the Syriac manuscript/manuscripts it was copied from prior to the 5th century.

British Library, Add. 14470, (circa. 5th-6th century A.D./C.E.)
The oldest extant Syriac manuscript of the complete New Testament (all 22 books). Contains the Catholic Epistles. Folio 174a = beginning of 1st John,
Folio 176v = end of 1st John.
(Colophon = Folio 176b).
[Comma Johanneum?].
(Cf. William Wright, “Catalogue of the Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum,” Reprinted 2002, Page 40, and Cf. Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung, INTF “Das Neue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung,” Volume 2, Part 3, Page 29).

If there's no Comma in this New Testament manuscript (because it might not contain 1st John 5:7-8), then it's because the Comma never was in the Syriac manuscript/manuscripts it was copied from prior to the 5th century.

BNF, Syr. 341 (circa. 5th-7th century A.D./C.E.)
Peshitta Old and portions of the New Testament; See the catalog entry here.
[Comma Johanneum?].
http://syri.ac/digimss/sortable?page=12
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10527102b/f3.item.r=Syriaque

There's no Comma in this New Testament manuscript, because the Comma never was in the Syriac manuscript/manuscripts it was copied from prior to the 6th century.

British Library, Add. 14473, (circa. 6th century A.D./C.E.)
Syriac manuscript of the complete New Testament. Contains the Catholic Epistles.
Folio 129r = beginning of 1st John,
Folio 139v = end of 1st John.
[Comma Johanneum?].
(Cf. William Wright, “Catalogue of the Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum,” Reprinted 2002, Pages 79-80, and Cf. Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung, INTF “Das Neue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung,” Volume 2, Part 3, Page 30).

There's no Comma in this New Testament manuscript, because the Comma never was in the Syriac manuscript/manuscripts it was copied from prior to the 6th century.

British Library, Add. 17120, (circa. 6th century A.D./C.E.)
Syriac manuscript of the complete New Testament. Contains the Catholic Epistles.
Folio 47b = beginning of 1st John.
[Comma Johanneum?].
(Cf. William Wright, “Catalogue of the Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum,” Reprinted 2002, Page 80).

There's no Comma in this New Testament manuscript, because the Comma never was in the Syriac manuscript/manuscripts it was copied from prior to the 6th century.

British Library, Add. 17121, (circa. 6th century A.D./C.E.)
Syriac manuscript of the complete New Testament. Contains the Catholic Epistles.
Folio 98r = beginning of 1st John,
Folio 106r = end of 1st John.
[Comma Johanneum?].
(Cf. William Wright, “Catalogue of the Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum,” Reprinted 2002, Page 81 and Cf. “Das Neue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung,” Volume 2, Part 3, Page 27).

There's no Comma in this New Testament manuscript, because the Comma never was in the Syriac manuscript/manuscripts it was copied from prior to the 6th century.

British Library, Add. 14472, (circa. 6th-7th century A.D./C.E.)
Syriac NT manuscript. Contains the Catholic Epistles.
Folio 67a = beginning of 1st John.
[Comma Johanneum?].
Some marginalia, but from a later hand, and unrelated to the Comma Johanneum.
(Cf. William Wright, “Catalogue of the Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum,” Reprinted 2002, Pages 81-82).

There's no Comma in this New Testament manuscript, because the Comma never was in the Syriac manuscript/manuscripts it was copied from prior to the 6th century.

British Library, Add MS 14448 (circa. 6th-7th century A.D./C.E.)
Syriac NT manuscript. Contains the Catholic Epistles.
Folio 160v = beginning of 1st John,
Folio 164r = end of 1st John.
[Comma Johanneum?].
(Cf. William Wright, “Catalogue of the Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum,” Reprinted 2002, Pages 41-42 and Cf. Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung, INTF “Das Neue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung,” Volume 2, Part 3, Page 30).

If there's no Comma in this New Testament manuscript (because it might not contain 1st John 5:7-8), then it's because the Comma never was in the Syriac manuscript/manuscripts it was copied from prior to the 6th century.

British Library, Add. 18812, (circa. 6th-7th century A.D./C.E.)
Syriac NT manuscript. Contains the Catholic Epistles.
Folio 55a = ending with chapter 2:16
[Folio 55b = is missing possibly = may be an incomplete MS of 1st John]
[Comma Johanneum?].
(Cf. William Wright, “Catalogue of the Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum,” Reprinted 2002, Page 83).

There is definitely no Comma in this New Testament manuscript (I know, because I painstakingly examined the Syriac until I found 1st John 5:7-8, - of which I have digital snapshots of), because the Comma never was in the Syriac manuscript/manuscripts it was copied from prior to the 6th century.

Goodspeed Ms. 716, (circa. 6th-7th century A.D./C.E.)
Syriac Peshitta NT Fragments, (Formerly Goodspeed Ms. Syr. 26). University of Chicago Library, Goodspeed Manuscript Collection.
Contains the Catholic Epistles.
1st John 5:7-8 = Folio 32v, (Page/Image 64).
Confirmed, by personal examination, there is no Comma Johanneum in this MS.
http://goodspeed.lib.uchicago.edu/view/index.php?doc=0716&obj=064

There is definitely no Comma in this New Testament manuscript (I know, because I also painstakingly examined the Syriac until I found 1st John 5:7-8, - of which I have digital snapshots of), because the Comma never was in the Syriac manuscript/manuscripts it was copied from prior to the 6th century.

Vat. sir. 266 (circa. 6th-7th century A.D./C.E.)
Syriac NT manuscript. Contains the Catholic Epistles (Folio's 154r-157v).
Folio 157r = 1st John 5:7-8 (starts sixth line from bottom right column).
Confirmed, by personal examination, there is no Comma Johanneum in this MS.
(Cf. Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung, INTF“Das Neue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung,” Volume 2, Part 3, Pages 28-29).
http://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.sir.266
https://roger-pearse.com/wiki/index.php?title=Vatican_Syriac_manuscripts

There's no Comma in this New Testament manuscript, because the Comma never was in the Syriac manuscript/manuscripts it was copied from prior to the 8th century.

BNF, Syr. 361 (circa. 8th-9th century A.D./C.E.)
Syriac Peshitta NT manuscript. Contains Acts, and the Catholic Epistles (Folio's 118-169).
[Comma Johanneum?].
http://syri.ac/digimss/sortable?page=13

There's no Comma in this New Testament manuscript, because the Comma never was in the Syriac manuscript/manuscripts it was copied from prior to the 8th century.

BNF, Syr. 342 (circa. 8th-9th century A.D./C.E.)
Syriac Peshitta NT manuscript. Contains the Catholic Epistles.
Folio 169v = 1st John 5:7.
[Comma Johanneum?].
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10528606c/f344.item.r=Syriaque.zoom
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10528606c/f1.item.r=Syriaque.zoom

The simple answer why there is no Comma in these Syriac New Testament manuscripts is simply because the Comma was never in the Syriac New Testament manuscripts at all.

Why can't you produce a single early Syriac New Testament manuscript that has the Comma in it Steven? Why?
 
My question was simple.

You will claim that questions are simple without proving them to be simple. You may even suggest that invalid questions that assume unproven premises are supposedly simple or that they should be answered.

Some of your own comments would suggest that your questions may not at all be simple since you have acknowledged or suggested conflicting opinions about the dates of the Syriac and Old Latin.

Can you identify any first-hand Syriac manuscript or any first-hand Old Latin manuscript that gives a direct date for when it was translated?
 
Why can't you produce a single early Syriac New Testament manuscript that has the Comma in it Steven? Why?

As I told you above, I never claimed any such manuscripts.

So you falsely claimed I had ... somewhere.

Since you blundered with the false accusation, now you have moved to repetitious spamming of the forum.
 
As I told you above, I never claimed any such manuscripts.

So you falsely claimed I had ... somewhere.

Since you blundered with the false accusation, now you have moved to repetitious spamming of the forum.

Explain how my questions (with a question mark ? at the end of my sentences) have become in your mind accusations?

How does that process work?
 
Here was your false accusation on post #28.

Anecdotal theories are worthless Steven compared to manuscripts that you can actually hold in your own hand and read with your own eyes - without having to MAKE UP DESPERATE CONVOLUTED STORIES about why something you wish was written in them - ISN'T written in them.

Your trying to INVENT A STORY about something that doesn't exist in reality - an early Syriac New Testament manuscript with the Comma in it.

Focus.

Also on post 31 you made a false claim about what is in my purebibleforum.

Your entire✌️Pure✌️ Bible Forum qualifies as that claim. ;)

Still waiting for even one quote.
 
Last edited:
More Avery speculation:

1. Jerome wrote the prologue to the canonical epistles. How do you know? Cuz it's Jerome's prologue!

2. The Comma was dropped from the Greek mss. How do you know? Because Jerome said it in his prologue!

When are you going to explain how it is that "Jerome" doesn't appear to have written OMMITTENTES in regard to the Greek mss, but COMMITTENTES? Someone else asked you how you would define the second word, and you disappeared.

Do not fear the idea that Jerome didn't write the prologue ascribed to him, nor the idea that the Comma was NOT dropped from the Greek as you claim he says. Follow the evidence. Look at the actual mss of Jerome's prologue.

Even if you can't read Latin, you can visibly see that one word was changed to another by dropping the "c."

How ironic.
Why no complaint about the "c" being ommittentes?
 
Last edited:
I said:
Even if you can't read Latin, you can visibly see that one word was changed to another by dropping the "c."
You can still see the letter, despite the fact that someone tried to erase it.

Ranke, Migne, and Chapman all read "testimonium omittentes." The manuscripts say committentes.

How do you explain this?
 
Last edited:
Here was your false accusation on post #28.



Focus.

Also on post 31 you made a false claim about what is in my purebibleforum.



Still waiting for even one quote.

Not "false", and it's not an "accusation" if it's true.

It's not like we haven't met online before and discussed/argued-out your theories Steven.

It is true (and you know it). You did speculate about the existence of Comma infected manuscripts in your post below.

There could easily have been a mixed line at the time of the Peshitta translation. [Ephasis added]

Your Comma conspiracy theories ("stories" as I call them) are extremely convoluted, and your not being up front about the details.

If it makes you feel better, I apologize that you feel hurt by some of my pointed and terse wording (which I will continue to use BTW), but there's nothing untrue in my statements.
 
Last edited:
More Avery speculation:

1. Jerome wrote the prologue to the canonical epistles. How do you know? Cuz it's Jerome's prologue!

2. The Comma was dropped from the Greek mss. How do you know? Because Jerome said it in his prologue!

When are you going to explain how it is that "Jerome" doesn't appear to have written OMMITTENTES in regard to the Greek mss, but COMMITTENTES? Someone else asked you how you would define the second word, and you disappeared.

Do not fear the idea that Jerome didn't write the prologue ascribed to him, nor the idea that the Comma was NOT dropped from the Greek as you claim he says. Follow the evidence. Look at the actual mss of Jerome's prologue.

Even if you can't read Latin, you can visibly see that one word was changed to another by dropping the "c."

How ironic.
Why no complaint about the "c" being ommittentes?

Thank you Unbound.
 
You speculate that the peshitta is a "pure line" leading to the kjv and are now forced to speculate on your speculation in order to explain why it is that no mss the peshitta was translated from contained the Comma.

Quote from Avery post #24:

"There could easily have been a mixed line at the time of the Peshitta translation."

TNC is correct. You invent stories.

"Focus."
"Think."

Your back-handed insults.
As if you do either.

Thank you Unbound68.
 
It is true (and you know it). You did speculate about the existence of Comma infected manuscripts in your post below.

Quote from Avery post #24:
"There could easily have been a mixed line at the time of the Peshitta translation.

The mixed line was referring to the source Greek manuscripts in the early centuries.
The Athanasius Dipsutation with an Arian at Nice, and Jerome's Prologue, and the solecism, and dual-language sources like Cyprian and Cassiodorus, are among many evidences of early century Greek mss.

Try to read and understand.
 
If it makes you feel better, I apologize that you feel hurt by some of my pointed and terse wording (which I will continue to use BTW), but there's nothing untrue in my statements.

So childish.

And I showed your false statements above.

Not "false", and it's not an "accusation" if it's true.
It's not like we haven't met online before and discussed/argued-out your theories Steven.

You made totally false claims about my position on the Syriac transmission history.

And then you just spam and dance.
 
More Avery speculation:

1. Jerome wrote the prologue to the canonical epistles. How do you know? Cuz it's Jerome's prologue!

2. The Comma was dropped from the Greek mss. How do you know? Because Jerome said it in his prologue!

When are you going to explain how it is that "Jerome" doesn't appear to have written OMMITTENTES in regard to the Greek mss, but COMMITTENTES? Someone else asked you how you would define the second word, and you disappeared.

Do not fear the idea that Jerome didn't write the prologue ascribed to him, nor the idea that the Comma was NOT dropped from the Greek as you claim he says. Follow the evidence. Look at the actual mss of Jerome's prologue.

Even if you can't read Latin, you can visibly see that one word was changed to another by dropping the "c."

How ironic.
Why no complaint about the "c" being ommittentes?

There's a consistent pattern of erasure and tampering with the word "COMMITTENTES" (just like the authentic Comma-less text of 1 John 5:7-8) in the Vulgate manuscripts.
 
Back
Top