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

What date do you assign for the Peshitta translation?

What date do you assign for the Old Latin?

Thanks!

1) doesn’t matter
2) doesn’t matter

I don’t know, and neither do you.

However, as I - unlike you - have experience in these matters, my guess is automatically better than yours.

I don’t hazard a guess because my position isn’t affected by such a question begging argument.
 
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.

I’ve covered this before, it’s a maxim:

“If evidence there’s no evidence existed actually did exist - he would be right.”
 
It is easy enough to check the Syriac Peshitta on about 200 variants, simply by checking the published English editions like Etheridge and Murdock. That is how I learned that the Peshitta is about 70-30 in a 3-way comparison between the Byzantine and Alexandrian texts. This I wrote up on a textual forum, and there was no objection.

How many of these are DISTINCTIVE Byzantine readings?

Also - you are no doubt aware that one reading not there is….the CJ, which renders your appeal moot.
 
Avery,

You're being deliberately obtuse here, and everyone here who has read this thread knows it.

Your constant (and I mean CONSTANT) claims of being falsely accused at this forum and elsewhere make you either the most misunderstood, vilified, and misinterpreted man in history, or you're just a liar (remember that Conti reference?) who only cries foul so that the point any given poster is trying to make gets buried under your ridiculous need to be some sort of "pure bible" martyr.


Well-stated with the exception that you didn't spell "Spencer" correctly.
The fact is, you do invent stories to try to explain the absence of readings found in the KJV.
Easily documented - from "there could have been a text-line split" to "there could have been a Latin Mark" to "there could have been a Hebrew Apocalypse" to "Christians might not have quoted it intentionally."

The creative explanations to justify poorly attested (aka flat out WRONG) readings in the KJV are amusing.
You speculate that the Revelation was written in Hebrew to explain how the kjv reads like no other Bible before or after it at 16:5.

You speculate that the Comma was dropped from the Greek by [name the group] in order to explain its absence from the Greek entirely until the 10th century.

Sometimes, he quotes Hills accusing (gasp!) the CHRISTIANS dropping the passage, which is an amusing phantom and mythical argument. What other passages did the CHRISTIANS not quote because they caused the CHRISTIANS doctrinal flubs, huh?

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."

Well, what is the EVIDENCE that there was EVER a mixed line?

Answer? There is none. Not one scrap of evidence anywhere on planet earth.

Look, folks, I hit this thing completely out of the park years ago.

1) If CHRISTIANS deliberately didn't quote 1 John 5:7, how did the CHRISTIANS botch the grammar in Greek, huh?

2) If CHRISTIANS didn't write voluminous writings about "something is clearly missing at 1 John 5:7 because genders," why in the world do modern-day folk who can't even read Greek try to make that lame argument?

3) And if SOMEONE ELSE (the so-called "heretics") removed the passage, how is it these conspiracy theorists were simultaneously SMART ENOUGH to remove the passage all over the world from Greek MSS but TOO DUMB to know they had to alter the Greek grammar that would allegedly expose the fraud????

I mean, these are not hard questions for sober thinkers.
 
The idea of a forgery was originally based on the lateness of the extant manuscripts with the Prologue.

No, the idea of a forgery came from the fact that all that was necessary to prove the claim was to say, "Hey, lookie here! In this here original, see what I actually put!!"

That never happened. The reason is obvious.

The theory of an alternate forgery author is extremely difficult.

I don't have to know the man's name was John Smith to know what's obvious - and that not one single Latin Bible scholar in the entire world (so far as we know) holds.


While the theory of Jerome's authorship is a simple Ockham's razor truth.

This is called "asserting without proof."


There are many evidences that the heavenly witnesses was dropped from the Greek line.

There isn't even one, but I learned long ago that fantastical myths like "could have been" constitute evidence for some folks.

Jerome's Prologue is incredibly powerful and straightforward since it talks specifically of the heavenly witnesses being dropped.

The Vulgate Prologue Jerome Didn't Write is LATIN, dude. LATIN.
Not Greek.

It isn't any kind of Greek evidence at all.

Indeed, the evidences are so much, you don't even list any.

We know your list, we know it has been debunked, too.
 
Factual errors
1) This “mixed line” theory is an invention without a shred of evidence.

This is a circular claim of no merit.

The topic under discussion is the authenticity of an original Greek text of the heavenly witnesses. Those who accept authenticity then logically speak of the mixed line in the centuries where it fell out of the Greek (a period where we have very few extant manuscripts.)

Bill Brown works with his presupposition that the verse is not authentic, so he simply closes his eyes to masses of evidence supporting the original Greek. This includes the Vulgate Prologue of Jerome and the solecism. Also evidences like Walter Thiele on Cyprian agreeing that his Latin came from an early Greek (although Thiele stopped short of the logical conclusion - authenticity.) Also the Athanasius Disputation and Potamius writing to Athansius and much more.

Circular claims are the main argument of the contra heavenly witnesses crew.
Plus convoluted reasoning to try to deny powerful evidences.
 
2) there is no Greek problem, which is why people who are actual Greek grammarians point out there’s no problem.

Greek grammarians who are New Testament textcrit dupes and not fluent in the Greek language are poor references. And they give contradictory and illogical arguments. As examples of modern fumbling, Bill Brown and Barry Hofstetter have used arguments that are immediately invalid upon examination.

That is why the evidences of Eugenius Bulgaris (1718-1806) and the leading Greek linguist of our day, Georgios Babiniotis, is far more important than the motley crew of most American and UK textcrit dupe grammarians. They represent actual native fluency and a wide-orbed understanding of Greek.
 
This is a circular claim of no merit.



This allegations assumes the one making it even knows what a circular claim is.



This is not a circular claim:

1) This “mixed line” theory is an invention without a shred of evidence.





a) It IS a theory - that's all it is.

b) there is ZERO evidence supporting it.



To find EVIDENCE supporting a "mixed line" (he used to call it a split line but whatever), what Avery has to produce for us is A or A SET of manuscripts that HAVE THE COMMA in the early centuries VERSUS manuscripts that DO NOT HAVE the COMMA in the early centuries.



Without that as evidence - he has a theory.



He's not arguing from EVIDENCE, he's arguing that his EVIDENCE once existed....without a shred of evidence to support that idea.



The topic under discussion is the authenticity of an original Greek text of the heavenly witnesses.


Amazing how Avery admits here he thinks the original Greek text is somehow recoverable. Perhaps since he also is arguing the necessity of a pure Bible text - at least at points in history - he can provide us with the names of the pure Bibles PRIOR to the throwing together of the TR in 1516.



Those who accept authenticity then logically speak of the mixed line in the centuries where it fell out of the Greek


No, you do not LOGICALLY SPEAK. You ASSUME THE EVIDENCE EXISTED.

That is in no way logical, you're simply appealing to invisible manuscripts that in this case there is no evidence at all they existed. Furthermore, YOU DON'T HAVE A MIXED LINE, you have ONE READING attested in every single Greek extant Greek manuscript. It's not even a 10-to-1. It's a 100% versus 0% proposition.


(a period where we have very few extant manuscripts.)



And ALL of them (in Greek, which is what Avery says we're talking about - I'm just pointing this out since his next tactic is to go running to Latin) AGAINST the Comma. ALL of them.





Bill Brown works with his presupposition that the verse is not authentic,

You have this precisely backwards in your accusation.

YOU work with the presupposition it is authentic - and then you go hunting for evidence.

YOU are using the circular argument and then gaslighting the rest of us.



I simply look at the Greek manuscripts of the first 10 centuries and say, "It isn't in ANY of them."

I look at all the other languages - and it's only in Latin.

I look at the Greek Church Fathers - nada.

I look at all the other Church Fathers - nada.

Then in Latin it pops up in the mid to late 4th century by a heretic who doesn't even quote it correctly.



And that tells me the MOST LOGICAL CONCLUSION is, "This is a Latin corruption." Then I look at the fact the OL has corruptions all over the place, so badly that within 2 centuries of so of the presumed original date of the Latin, Jerome pieces together one standard Bible, the Vulgate. Oh yeah - and he doesn't include it, either.



In other words, ALL of the evidence tells the open-minded person what this is. ALL of it.


so he simply closes his eyes to masses of evidence supporting the original Greek.


Well if there was this mass of evidenece, you'd post it.

But the reason you don't is - you don't have anything.


This includes the Vulgate Prologue of Jerome


This is Latin, not Greek.


and the solecism.


Not only is there no solecism in terms of being an insurmountable Greek error, but I wrote a thesis on this approved by a Greek grammarian and a PhD from Sheffield, while Avery himself can't even read the language.



Consequently, there's one of us who possesses the expertise to address this, and the other who lacks it.



Also evidences like Walter Thiele on Cyprian agreeing that his Latin came from an early Greek (although Thiele stopped short of the logical conclusion - authenticity.)


Thiele simply said he thought Cyprian quoted it.

HE ALSO regarded it as a corruption - so who cares?

This doesn't help your case.


Also the Athanasius Disputation and Potamius writing to Athansius and much more.



Again - you've been corrected on these, but like Donald Trump screaming about fraudulent votes he cannot prove, you continue with the false claims.



One surmises this is because the evidence is so nonexistent.


Circular claims are the main argument of the contra heavenly witnesses crew.



I just DEMONSTRATED how you argued your point in a circle.

You just demonstrated that all you can do is accuse me of things.



Plus convoluted reasoning to try to deny powerful evidences.

If the evidence is so powerful, why do you have to continually misrepresent it?
 
Greek grammarians who are New Testament textcrit dupes and not fluent in the Greek language are poor references.


Okay everybody - so every single Greek grammarian from Kittel to Funk to Robertson to Wallace to Oxlee - is a dupe according to Avery.

And in the other corner, Steven Avery - who cannot even parse a Greek verb or participle or produce the luw paradigm in any sense - insists every single one of them is wrong, and he's correct.



And they give contradictory and illogical arguments.


They give nuanced arguments - because that's the world in which we live. And none of them have ever argued that typewritten notes precede the existence of the typewriter as some have.


As examples of modern fumbling, Bill Brown and Barry Hofstetter have used arguments that are immediately invalid upon examination.



again - you, a non-Greek reader SAYING something is invalid is completely different from them actually BEING invalid. Once again, my work speaks for itself. You're welcome to learn Greek and then address this issue.





That is why the evidences of Eugenius Bulgaris (1718-1806)


1) That's not an EVIDENCE, that's a CLAIM. It’s you appealing to an authority but only selectively. Please learn the difference.

2) The rest of you quoting him 250 years after the fact don't even seem to realize that even he didn't regard that as strong an argument as do you.


and the leading Greek linguist of our day, Georgios Babiniotis, is far more important than the motley crew of most American and UK textcrit dupe grammarians.


When Mr. Babinitos puts his work in publication for other scholars to consume, then we will consider what he said. His private musings to you in emails do not constitute evidence of anything other than a guy afraid to actually step out on the limb.



They represent actual native fluency and a wide-orbed understanding of Greek.


All this means is, "They say what I like! And therefore, they're right!"
It must feel frustrating to not be able to provide your own arguments.
 
Last edited:
Bill Brown works with his presupposition that the verse is not authentic, so he simply closes his eyes to masses of evidence supporting the original Greek.


Circular claims are the main argument of thecontra heavenly witnesses crew.
Plus convoluted reasoning to try to deny powerful evidences.

I want to address this further to make it more simple for our readers. This is some world class gaslighting going on that deserves further illumination.

Steven Avery Spencer HIMSELF begins with the assumptions he imputes to me. He assumes there’s something he cannot define that he calls “the pure Bible” and “the preservational imperative”, he assumes the KJV meets that undefined standard, assumes ALL of its readings are correct, and then does TC backwards - a case of fundamentalism going literally backwards - and finds what he calls evidence. If a reading -like Rev 16:5 - has zero support, he simply lists where he can find support and calls it enough.

I, on the other hand, am forced to deal with reality. Bear in mind that as a Trinitarian, nothing would thrill me more than for this passage to be authentic. But I am forced on the basis of ALL the evidence to conclude that it is the Latin corruption it obviously is.

Bear this mind: I am a lab analyst with 30 years’ experience of objective investigation. I’ve also taken 30 graduate level hours of Greek and written a thesis on this very subject, a thesis Avery has demeaned while refusing to read despite assuring us all he would have a review posted in June 2016.

I’ve put in the legwork, he has not.
I’ve learned Greek, he has not.
I’ve collated manuscripts using the RP 2005 as a collating base, he has not.

He instead opts for quoting scholars whom he has no idea whether they’re right or not, they can simply be used to support his point. What’s amusing is he’s willing to accept the idea that people with PhDs can be wrong, but then he turns right around and boasts about what great scholars guys are if their words agree with him.

And that is why he opts for the insults while avoiding debate (rest assured - he’d never say standing a podium the nonsense that he posts here that gets edited).


When your position consists of nothing but accusation and appeals to unreliable authorities, your position is simply indefensible. Remember - one of us has done actual work with this stuff AND has offered to defend it against him in public debate.

The other one simply plays “my scholar is better than a scholar you didn’t even quote” and avoids debating the very issue. Smart given the very first question I would ask during cross exam is, “Here’s a Greek word John wrote. Can you please parse it for me, STARTING with the lexical form.”

And at that point the debate would be over. He knows this, which is why all the accusation and quotes of other people are the focus in his posts.
 
Last edited:
To find EVIDENCE supporting a "mixed line" (he used to call it a split line but whatever), what Avery has to produce for us is A or A SET of manuscripts that HAVE THE COMMA in the early centuries VERSUS manuscripts that DO NOT HAVE the COMMA in the early centuries. Without that as evidence - he has a theory.

This shows Bill’s struggle with simple logic when discussing the early centuries.

There are no 1 John 5 manuscripts extant until about 300-400 years after the NT. So the most critical period is totally silent, in terms of extant mss. The earliest mss. that are extant include Latin mss. with the verse, and with the Vulgate Prologue.

So the Vulgate Prologue of Jerome.becomes incredibly important EVIDENCE because it indicates a split lines, in the words of the most important early textual scholar.

Above, I gave other evidences to the split line, such as the Athanasius Disputation, Potamius writing to Athanasius, Cyprian as explained by Walter Thiele, the solecism in the short Greek text. Also the massive difficulties in interpolation theories, the genesis of the Old Latin evidences and how quickly the verse supposedly took over the line such as we see at the AD 484 Council oh Carthage, how the verse informed NT doctrines and much, much more.

The EVIDENCES support the theory oh heavenly witnesses authenticity.

Logic 101

Bill Brown, from his presuppositional approach, due to the deadly embrace of modern textcrit theory, will always simply handwave evidences. Thus his analysis is of no value.
 
Last edited:
3) Cyprian is a LATIN source, not a dual language source. This is not how research works.

“Cyprian read Greek (and Tertullian and Fulgentius)“
discusses the Greek skills of Cyprian.

Thus he, and other early users of the heavenly witnesses verse, would be familiar with Bibles in both languages.

Also, Walter Thiele traced Cyprian’s Latin usage of the heavenly witnesses to an earlier Greek text.

There was not a Chinese Wall between the languages.
 
Last edited:
The earliest mss. that are extant include Latin mss. with the verse, and with the Vulgate Prologue.

So the Vulgate Prologue of Jerome.becomes incredibly important EVIDENCE because it indicates a split lines, in the words of the most important early textual scholar.

Interestingly, Avery effectually puts mere paratext on pa (of equal value) with inspired Scripture as evidence!

The earliest CE-Prologue manuscript, the Fuldensis, that paratext is (wait for it...) anonymous.

It does not have the name Jerome in the heading of the paratext, or at the end of the Fuldensis paratext.

It does not say "split-line" in Latin paratext anywhere in the Codex Fuldensis.

It does not say "omitted" in the Latin Fuldensis paratext anywhere, instead, it says "COMMITTENTES".

It also says the Paratext's writer (the anonymous one) is accused of "forgery" of the Scriptures.

It is a fact that the earliest Vulgate manuscript that contains an anonymous CE-Prologue paratext does NOT have the Johannine Comma (parenthetical text) at 1 John 5:7-8.

Facts.
 
Last edited:
It does not say "omitted" in the Latin Fuldensis paratext anywhere, instead, it says "COMMITTENTES".

TNC,edit the alternate word theory was demolished by Grantley McDonald?

I doubt that “committentes” is the correct reading.

Arguing simply from the sense of the passage, I think “omittentes” must be the correct reading.

they clearly realised that “committentes” just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

His full text is on post #81
https://forums.carm.org/threads/syriac-peshitta-kjvo-pure-line-and-the-comma.9270/page-5#post-693149
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It does not have the name Jerome in the heading of the paratext, or at the end of the Fuldensis paratext.

As you should know, it is a first-person writing addressed to Eustochium.

Thus it is immediately identifiable as from Jerome.

In fact, nobody is known question Jerome's authorship until the Vulgate Prologue became a powerful evidence in the heavenly witnesses debate. Erasmus accepted his authorship, but tried to blame Jerome for adding the heavenly witnesses. And I believe his bumbling, awkward, weak attempts to counter this evidence had a lot to do with his including the heavenly witnesses in his third edition.
 
This shows Bill’s struggle with simple logic when discussing the early centuries.

Keep reading everyone - and then we'll notice reality.
There are no 1 John 5 manuscripts extant until about 300-400 years after the NT.


Notice the key point: Steven Avery is talking about EXTANT manuscripts.

So the most critical period is totally silent, in terms of extant mss.


For the second time, he just brought up EXTANT manuscripts.

Remember.....300 to 400 years.

The earliest mss. that are extant include Latin mss. with the verse, and with the Vulgate Prologue.
The earliest EXTANT Latin mss. WITH 1 JOHN 5 is.......from 541 AD.

Now I don't know about the rest of you, but the last time I looked, 541 AD was more than 300-400 years after the writings of the NT. Incidentally, the very manuscript he cites DOES NOT have the Comma Johanneum, it has the later addendum in the Prologue to justify its inclusion.
So the Vulgate Prologue of Jerome.becomes incredibly important EVIDENCE because it indicates a split lines, in the words of the most important early textual scholar.
So....LATIN from 541 NOT IN THE VERSE which is missing? Doesn't matter!

LATIN from 541 with the later claim? That's evidence!!
Now you understand why the conclusion is so obviously against the position Spencer espouses here. BY HIS OWN WORDS, the first 300-400 years are the most important (which sounds a lot like "older is better" to me, but whatever). And BY HIS OWN EVIDENCE, he cites an old Latin Vulgate MS that DOES NOT include the reading.

Above, I gave other evidences to the split line,
No, you:

a) asserted a split line exists despite by evidence it does not

b) you then glommed some quotes onto the claim that you claim supports your claim.


such as the Athanasius Disputation, Potamius writing to Athanasius, Cyprian as explained by Walter Thiele, the solecism in the short Greek text.


And every single point you gave was refuted above - so come up with something else.
Remember: just because YOU REFUSE TO ADMIT the refutation doesn't mean it wasn't refuted.

Also the massive difficulties in interpolation theories, the genesis of the Old Latin evidences and how quickly the verse supposedly took over the line such as we see at the AD 484 Council oh Carthage, how the verse informed NT doctrines and much, much more.
This is literally just throwing claims into the air without any context, without any justification, and hoping nobody notices that there really is no there there in this claim.
The EVIDENCES support the theory oh heavenly witnesses authenticity.
Again - this is a CLAIM.

But when asked for evidence to support it, he provides, well, nothing.

Bill Brown, from his presuppositional approach, due to the deadly embrace of modern textcrit theory, will always simply handwave evidences. Thus his analysis is of no value.


Excuse me, but I'm not the one who:

a) STARTED with the claim we have no Greek MSS for 300-400 years and then

b) cited a MSS from over 500 years later in another language as being so important
I mean, it's pretty obvious to any reader that your post does this.
Why isn't it obvious to you as well?

Or is it?
 
“Cyprian read Greek
Says you.

No evidence of this but wouldn't matter even if he did.
He is NOT PRESERVED in Greek, making the onus of any claim on the person making it to prove.

(and Tertullian


Which doesn't matter as he didn't quote it anyway.


and Fulgentius)“
A manuscript lacking the verse in Greek AND Latin..

discusses the Greek skills of Cyprian.
Again - doesn't matter.
You have so little evidence to support your position that you're reduced to this level of making grandiose claims on behalf of others. I mean, why not just lower your blood pressure and simply admit there is no evidence supporting your position?


Thus he, and other early users of the heavenly witnesses verse, would be familiar with Bibles in both languages.

We have here the ASSUMPTION leading to the INVENTION of invisible evidence.

If they had it in Greek - prove it. Pretty important verse for the development of the Trinity doctrine that you reject, so it shouldn't be too difficult to find.
Also, Walter Thiele traced Cyprian’s Latin usage of the heavenly witnesses to an earlier Greek text.

No, this is not what happened. He assumed Cyprian quoted the passage even though he rejected its originality.


There was not a Chinese Wall between the languages.

Doesn't matter. That doesn't prove it existed.
I can read German probably better than you read English.

And I most assuredly can read the Greek NT better than you do.
But that doesn't mean that if I write a commentary in English that it therefore is in German, either, which is precisely what you're saying here.
 
Factual errors
'''
4) Cassiodorous lived in the 5th century in Italy, he is not a help here to you other then in Latin.

You are being evasive.
First you claimed a factual error. However, Cassiodorus was in fact savvy in Greek, so your claim is false.

And thus he is yet another Latin evidence that includes knowledge of Greek manuscripts.
 
You are being evasive.
Another accusation.

Do you seriously have so little evidence that your only recourse is to attack people?

First you claimed a factual error.


And here is what I said:

Cassiodorous lived in the 5th century in Italy, he is not a help here to you other then in Latin

This in response to you saying:

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.

Neither is a dual language source until the day you produce their Greek text.


However, Cassiodorus was in fact savvy in Greek, so your claim is false.
You mean where I claimed:

a) he lived in 5th century Italy - that's true

b) his works are in Latin - also true

c) he's no help to you in Greek - also true UNTIL YOU PRODUCE HIS GREEK.
It simply doesn't matter if he spoke or read Greek if he is not preserved in Greek.

Again, I speak German, but that doesn't mean my thesis is available in German.

This shouldn't be difficult for you to understand - and I surmise it isn't.

And thus he is yet another Latin evidence that includes knowledge of Greek manuscripts.
What's amusing is you keep escalating the claims of "this guy knew Greek and that guy knew Greek!"

Then even granting you every benefit of the doubt - why didn't any of them ever comment IN ANY LANGUAGE upon this so-called bad Greek grammar that you claim exists?

If they were so Greek savvy, how did they miss what you, who by your own admission doesn't read it, noticed?
 
From your own page:
Cassiodorus of Italy (c. 485 - c. 585 AD) cited the Comma in Complexiones In Epistollis Apostolorum:

“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.” (Complexiones In Epistollis Apostolorum, Epistolam S. Joannis ad Parthos, Chapter X (MPL070, col. 1373)

===========

Now, I realize you don’t know this, but that’s not Greek you’re citing. It is Latin.

I’ve never disputed that Cassiodorus is a Latin witness for the Latin corruption of the Comma Johanneum.

Now….do you have any of his writings in Greek??????
 
Back
Top