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

it is provided right in the article

From Bill Brown:

Strouse insists on a date around AD 165.20
20 Strouse, Critique, 18.
Strouse, Thomas. A Critique of D. A. Carson’s “The KJV Only Debate: A Plea for Realism. ” Collingswood, NJ: Bible for Today, 1980.

And I would like to see how Strouse "insists" and if he gives more information, but there is no quote and no available Strouse text.
 
Last edited:
The contras are so weak they can not even formulate and defend a sensible interpolation theory.

More gaslighting.

Last time we discussed this, you gave no specifics. You would not even take a position on whether the supposed interpolation was early in the Sabellian controversy era, or during the Arian controversies or some other time.

Then you never really discussed would what be involved in the supposed interpolation, which fits so beautifully with Johannine style and creates an incredible parallelism and fixes the Greek text grammatically by Latin to Greek translation and supplies the connection to verse 9 and the witness of God.

The interpolation theory has no actual manuscript evidence.
 
The interpolation theory has no actual manuscript evidence.

It has all the Manuscripts evidence it needs! It was never in the Greek in the first place, that's why it's missing from all Greek Manuscripts except a tiny few that had it interpolated from Latin manuscripts. Proof that in the 15th century AD a few extremely late scribes interpolated it from the Latin, several interpolating from printed editions which were themselves interpolated!

The earliest Old Latin Manuscripts and the earliest Vulgate manuscripts are without the Comma, but later manuscripts show the interpolation.

Hence both Greek and Latin both have the Manuscripts to prove it is an interpolation.

Same as all original Translations do not contain the interpolated Comma as well.

There is nothing but complete Manuscript evidence showing the Comma to be an interpolation in the Latin tradition. It was never a part of the Greek until the raw deal of Erasmus interpolating the Comma into his 3rd edition of the Greek New Testament.
 
It has all the Manuscripts evidence it needs! It was never in the Greek in the first place

This is your theory, but we have very few manuscripts in the early centuries, and a number of very solid evidences that point to the early Greek, some of which I have given time and again.
 
What Michael Maynard wrote is clear, and this section is available as well as what is in his book.

The Burning Bush (Jan 1997)
https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/27849518/the-burning-bush-far-eastern-bible-college
Walter Thiele was my professor at Tubingen. He works at the Vetus Latina Institute in Beuron, Germany. I was delighted to discover his article in 1959 where he argued against the common view of Tischendorf and Griesbach who said that Cyprian, one of the oldest Church Father, quoted it—What did Griesbach and Tischendorf say? They said that Cyprian was just looking at the eighth verse and he just allegorized those witnesses as heavenly ones. But Thiele in 1959 argued,”No, Cyprian did not merely allude to verse 8, he actually had a Latin manuscript in his hand which had 1 John 5:7.” So Thiele is going against the crowd. Yet Thiele is a Hort-Westcott advocate! Further, Thiele is regarded as the foremost scholar of Latin Biblical manuscripts. Yet he is in favour of the view that Cyprian actually had 1 John 5:7 in that Latin manuscript he held in his hands, although Thiele still regards the verse as an interpolation. Now I asked Dr Thiele ”That was your view 30 years ago. Do you still believe this today?” He replied ”Ja, aber ich bin allein”which means”Yes, I am alone.”(with respect to the view that Cyprian quoted verse 7, instead of alluding to verse 8.) Thus, when it comes to issues on Latin manuscripts, all the professors in Germany consult Thiele, but when it comes to his view on the Johannine Comma, they do not want to listen to him!
(Michael Maynard,”In Defence of the Johannine Comma", in The Burning Bush, Far Easter Bible College vol 3, no. 1, January 1997, p. 36-37


The article Beobachtungen zum Comma Johanneum? is helpful for both Cyprian and Augustine, so in the future I'll see about German quotes with translation.
Strong evidence against the Comma. Thanks for providing!
 
The same guy who has claimed this think was vanishing within 40 years NOW says it would take HUNDREDS of years for the wrong reading to wind up in the Latin.

You just made this up.
The dropping of the text was over hundreds of years. In AD 400 and the Vulgate Prologue the line was mixed.
 
This is an interesting new claim.

Fuldensis has the Prologue and text mixture so it is argued as evidence on both sides.

What mss. do you see as before:

Frisingensia Fragmenta (r) or (q)
León palimpsest (l) Beuron 67
This is not an interesting New claim. It is the claim of all scholars. Why have you never heard of it before?


(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied a.d. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before a.d. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).

The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text. In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onwards it is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate. In these various witnesses the wording of the passage differs in several particulars. (For examples of other intrusions into the Latin text of 1 John, see 2.17; 4.3; 5.6, and 20.

 
Metzger did not answer my question.
It does not matter if someone chooses not to answer your question. Questions can be invalid. Questions do not determine nor establish truth. You do not answer many questions that you are asked.

It is easy to be duped by Metzger.

It is easy for KJV-only advocates to be duped or deceived by the speculations and opinions of other biased, misinformed KJV-only advocates who believe claims that are not true.
 
This is your theory, but we have very few manuscripts in the early centuries,


1) says the guy who repeatedly appeals to the early centuries on church fathers, NONE of whom we have manuscripts pre-dating about the ninth century or so..

2) says the guy who just tells us the scribe would just copy what was there

3) it's 100% against the CJ in every language INCLUDING Latin early on.


and a number of very solid evidences that point to the early Greek, some of which I have given time and again.
Change "given" to "asserted without one ounce of proof" and your claim here is correct.



MAESTROH:
The same guy who has claimed this thing was vanishing within 40 years....

You just made this up.

Nope. Keep reading.

The dropping of the text was over hundreds of years.


"There's two ways that things can get omitted. One is you have a similar dropping off at the end - and somebody sees it and they drop...so they would drop from they would drop and skip to the earthly witnesses. Easy to happen! It could have happened in a couple of manuscripts in 80 AD. I think John was probably written about 40 to 50 AD. So it COULD have happened."
Steven Avery
February 29, 2020

Available on You Tube - "More on 1 John 5:7 - Covering Contra-Arguments and More With Steven Avery"

Starts at 1:23:52.


40 to 50 AD is 30 to 40 years from 80 AD.
1) YOU assert the date written.
2) YOU assert that it BEGAN VANISHING by 80 AD ("could have happened")

My claim is vindicated and you asserting I lied is debunked.

But one wonders how this happened so widespread as to be the ONLY evidence left if (as you assert) the Greek is so awfully bad.........


In AD 400 and the Vulgate Prologue the line was mixed.

Mixed creates the false idea that it was some sort of 50/50 split.

The reading was known by the time of Priscillian. So, too, his addendum, but again - you never address that addendum yet you want us to believe he was quoting from what was in front of him.
 
Here is what Bill Brown wrote in the earlier CARM.



Still your claim?

If it were true, why not make the claim in your “Internal Support” paper?



It's on page 22.

Did you not actually read this thesis, either?



So you were not really trying to do a scholarly paper,



Hey wait, I responded and refuted Frederick Nolan whom you said - and I QUOTE you directly - " A very learned scholar named Frederick Nolan".



This false "one audience" dichotomy exists only in your polemics.



you were only concerned with countering some AV defenders from c. 2000.



And guess what folks?



I was limited to 17,000 words and had to make an appeal to get some added - and still had to cut out 2,000 words and yet make THREE basic points via thesis structure. If I had spent all my time on Bulgaris, he'd complain about "but you didn't mention this" and "you didn't mention that."



This. Is. Not. How. Academics. Works.



This is the "guilty before tried" fallacy, which I thoroughly expected from Mr. Spencer, but the attempt to put words in my mouth fails, too.





This omission (looking at Nolan and Dabney rather without Eugenius) was fixed by our posting the Eugenius text.



"Our"?



Who is "our"?



Any actual language scholars who are fluent in the language in that group or did you just cram it into Google Translate?



I retierate: I have to work within the limits of what I can do personally. That's how this works.I don't get to be a phony Internet scholar who PRETENDS I know a language I do not or that I have a source I do not, and I'm on time limitations as well. I don't have the 20-plus years you've spent regurgitating the same misinformation over and over.



You could simply acknowledge that when you wrote that OVERTHROW piece you simply did not understand the grammatical argument.



This is being written by a guy who doesn't understand Greek grammar, folks.



This might be related to an unfamiliarity with Eugenius.



If I was unfamiliar with him - why is his name in my thesis? Huh?



I mean, even YOU (hardly a bastion of objectivity) said this in response to my pointing out I DID mention Eugenius



Clearly....



So you're whining about nothing here.



I responded to Nolan's claims about Bulgaris. Not my fault he was an idiot, who was refuted soundly when he was alive. Not my fault the average KJVO moron in the pew doesn't have a clue what he's parroting, eiter.







Here is where Eugenius shows the solecism question applies to masculine or feminine grammar, with neuter nouns.



3) "That it is certainly a peculiar virtue of our language that masculine and feminine nouns, in reference to τὰ πράγματα [ta pragmata], are constructed with adjectives and pronouns expressed in the neuter gender, is well known to all who are practised in the language. But no one would say that conversely neuter nouns substantive are also indicated by masculine and feminine adjectives or pronouns."



He made a claim.



A claim refuted by literally thousands of years, hundreds of scholars, and the fact you can't produce all these manuscript copyists saying, "Wait a minute, this is IMPOSSIBLE! Something is missing!"



What's funny is this:

The actual people who HAVE LEARNED Greek? They know this argument is nonsense.

You - who by your own admission cannot read it? You're taking in by this argument.



And yet you call the people who have done the legwork and know the language "dupes."



As a reminder: I must have missed that part of your life where you miraculously obtained some sort of academic credential to decide how a thesis is supposed to be structured. Did this happen like when the Millennium Falcon was in hyper-drive sometime last night between say 10 and midinight?
 
It is amusing to be accused of omitting something by a guy who nowhere on his rage page ever qualifies his arguments on the Greek text with “I can’t actually read this text or language.”
 
It does not matter if someone chooses not to answer your question.

The question was not to you, your are not in the discussion. And you are not the moderator.

It is easy for KJV-only advocates to be duped or deceived by the speculations and opinions of other biased, misinformed KJV-only advocates who believe claims that are not true.

This warning applies to any position, including textcrit and critical text positions.

And it is why I have corrected AV defenders on fundamental issues like the two lines theory and the Stephanus manuscripts. Sometimes they get upset when corrected.
 
As a reminder: I must have missed that part of your life where you miraculously obtained some sort of academic credential to decide how a thesis is supposed to be structured. Did this happen like when the Millennium Falcon was in hyper-drive sometime last night between say 10 and midinight?

So far I have noted major omissions. I was amazed that you gave the Ian Howard Marshall personalization argument without even mentioning that verse 6 spirit is not personalized.

You also did NOT put in your wacky claim of sixteen verses that overthrow the grammatical argument.

Overall, btw, I like the paper. It was far more coherent than your posting.

You seem to get upset over any analysis with criticism.
 
The reading was known by the time of Priscillian. So, too, his addendum, but again - you never address that addendum yet you want us to believe he was quoting from what was in front of him.

"one in Christ Jesus" was in some commentaries. Including Isaac the Jew (now dated before Priscillian), De Trinitate three times, the Speculum and Isidore of Seville. Not sure about extant manuscripts.

What would you like addressed?
 
Back
Top