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

Steven Avery said:
Conan claimed the earliest Old Latin ms. (extant) omitted the heavenly witnesses.

Conan's error, which he never acknowledged, was why I put up this information.

The Old Latin is considered to be an early textline, even 2nd century.
You claim a corruption on zero evidence.

You seem to like to play 20 questions.

Maybe you can find the word mystery somewhere in the text.
Click to expand...

Cyprian gives his eisegesis and sacramental interpretation of the words "et tres unum sunt" from 1 John 5:8(Comma-less text).
 
By the way, for people other than Steven who might be reading this, that footnote about Cyprian's eisegesis and sacramental interpretation of 1 John 5:8(Clause-C) "et tres unum sunt" was from S. J. Maurice Bèvenot's translation, 1957, on Page 109.

PDF of his translation with valuable footnotes is available online here:
https://ia803104.us.archive.org/13/items/st.cyprian/St. Cyprian.pdf

“Our Lord says: “I and the Father are One”;[52] and again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit it is written: “And the three are One.”[53] Does anyone think then that this oneness, which derives from the stability of God[54] and is welded together after the celestial pattern,[55] can be sundered in the Church and divided by the clash of discordant wills? If a man does not keep this unity,[56] he is not keeping the law of God; he has lost his faith about Father and Son, he has lost his life and his soul.”
[FOOTNOTE] 52. John 10.30
[FOOTNOTE] 53. 1 John 5.8. One might be forgiven for thinking that Cyprian read the famous 'Johannine comma' (v. 7) in his text. In fact, he was only giving an allegorical interpretation of 'the spirit and the water and the blood' in terms of the Trinity, as did several of the Latin Fathers after him (including St. Augustine), though they certainly did not read the interpolation. However, it is likely enough that the subsequent creation of verse 7 (in Spain, middle of the 4th century) was prompted by Cyprian's words here. On the whole question, see T. Ayuso's articles in Biblica 28 and 29 [Rome 1947-48] `Nuevo estudio sobre el “Comma Joanneum,”' especially 29.53 f., 70 ; and, for more detail on Cyprian, A. Bludau: 'Das “Comma Johanneum” bei Tertullian and Cyprian,' Theol. Quartalschr. 101 (1920) 1-28.
[FOOTNOTE] 54. “from the stability of God” : de divina firmitate; cf. Watson 244.
[FOOTNOTE] 55. “after the celestial pattern”: sacramentis caelestibus, i.e. the oneness in the Trinity. Poukens (in de Ghellinck 199 f.) translates: 'resting on divine precepts.' But the examples which he quotes do not bear him out, and though it is true that there is only one God, yet the three Persons provide a basis for the plural here. The thought is developed in the following chapter (e.g. “from the upper parts,” that is, from His Father in heaven').—In Ep. 74.10 (which has several reminiscences of De unit.), sacramentorum caelestium (ratione) would seem to mean “the heavenly truths of our Faith”.
 
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
1 John 5.8. One might be forgiven for thinking that Cyprian read the famous 'Johannine comma' (v. 7) in his text. In fact, he was only giving an allegorical interpretation of 'the spirit and the water and the blood' in terms of the Trinity, as did several of the Latin Fathers after him (including St. Augustine), though they certainly did not read the interpolation.
Click to expand...

This shows that Bevenot was in way over his head on the textual authenticity issue.
There are about 20 Latin full verse references just up to Cassiodorus.

Likely duped by Metzger.

And the absurd invisible allegory.
 
Steven Avery said:
Since there were about ten uses of the heavenly witnesses extant in the century before Cassiodorus, it is clear the verse would be in his Bible, and thus commentators generally accept that his usage was from the Bible.

Any theory otherwise is extremely difficult.
Click to expand...

Cassiodorus' simply followed the orthodox eisegesis and sacramental interpretation of 1 John 5:7-8(Comma-less text) that was used by "the majority" ;) of writers before him.
 
P.S.

According to the Vetus Latina die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel, Vol. 26/1, Page 359 the Leon Palimpsest is defective at 1 John 5:6 (Clause-D).

It reads "PS est veritas” with the "S" in brackets [ ].

Meaning, like verse 7 and 8 in this defective manuscript, the text of 1 John 5:6(Clause-D) "Spiritus est veritas" "the Spirit is the truth", is mutilated and has letters missing.

Therefore the bracketed in the nomina sacra abreviation PS is a conjectural reconstruction and could very well have been the signature Vulgate [X]PS or "Christus" i.e. “Christus est veritas”.

So, IMO, the León, Archivo Catedralicio Ms. 15 (circa. 7th century [Palimpsested 10th century] C.E.) could be just another corrupted Vulgate ms with the Comma (with significant variation i.e "et hii tres unum sunt in XPO IHU" "and these three are one in Christ Jesus") interpolated into the text.
 
Last edited:
Don't know what's going on with the formatting there. It looks awful.

According to the Vetus Latina die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel, Vol. 26/1, Page 359 the Leon Palimpsest reads PS with in brackets [ ].

Which is a conjectural reconstruction.

It could very well have been the signature Vulgate reading "XPS est veritas" with an X (Latinized Greek Chi).
 
Last edited:
P.S. according to the Vetus Latina die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel, Vol. 26/1, Page 359 the Leon Palimpsest is defective at 1 John 5:6 (Clause-D).

It reads “PS est veritas” with the "S" in brackets [ ].

Meaning, like verse 7 and 8, the text of 1 John 5:6(Clause-D) "Spiritus est veritas" "the Spirit is the truth", is mutilated and has letters missing.

Therefore the bracketed in PS is a conjectural reconstruction and could very well have been the signature Vulgate [X]PS or "Christus" i.e. “Christus est veritas” "the Christ is the truth".
 
Are you arguing for the original Vulgate to have the heavenly witnesses, as explained in Jerome's Vulgate Prologue?

Not bad. However, if the Leon Palimpsest is considered Old Latin, based on its text in general, you can't overthrow that conclusion on a conjecture sans evidence.

Are you trying to make a third category of Latin mss. that can be invisible, neither Old Latin or Vulgate? In that case, you would have to remove a large number of mss. from the apparatus.

Invisible manuscripts and the invisible allegory.
 
Steven Avery said:
Are you arguing for the original Vulgate to have the heavenly witnesses, as explained in Jerome's Vulgate Prologue?

Not bad. However, if the Leon Palimpsest is considered Old Latin, based on its text in general, you can't overthrow that conclusion on a conjecture sans evidence.

Are you trying to make a third category of Latin mss. that can be invisible, neither Old Latin or Vulgate? In that case, you would have to remove a large number of mss. from the apparatus.

Invisible manuscripts and the invisible allegory.
Click to expand...

Nope.

Don't agree.

Nope.

And, to the last one, definitely not.
 
Based on visible manuscripts.

Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209, (circa. 4th century A.D./C.E.)
Gregory-Aland no. ( B or 03 ), Von Soden ( δ 1 ).
Unicial, Greek Bible, complete Old and New Testaments.
Folio 1441, 2nd/Middle Coloumn, Bottom seven lines = 1st John 5:7-8
http://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209
http://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1445?sid=a049efaed672a9d37b7523414ca65dc2

Codex Sinaiticus, British Library Add MS 43725 (circa. 4th century A.D./C.E.)
Gregory-Aland no. ( א [Aleph] or 01 ), Von Soden ( δ 2 ). Contains the entire New Testament.
Commonly known as: “the Sinaitic Manuscript.”
Quire 8, Folio 9r, 1st/Left-Coloumn, lines 13-18, = 1st John 5:7-8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=55&chapter=5&lid=en&side=r&verse=7&zoomSlider=0

Ann Arbor Library, Michigan University, Library P. 3520 [Papyrus Michigan 3520] Coptic Fayumic dialect F4, (circa. 4-5th century A.D./C.E.)
Pages 24v (verso) = Eccl. 8:8-13 and
Page 57r (recto) = 1st John 5:1, 2-9)
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/a/apis?s...humbfull;rgn1=apis_pn;select1=phrase;q1=16722

Codex Alexandrinus, British Library, MS Royal 1. D. V-VIII (circa. 5th century A.D./C.E.)
Gregory-Aland no. ( A or 02 ), Von Soden ( δ 4 ). Currently located in the Ritblat Gallery of the British Library.
Commonly known as: “the Alexandrian Manuscript.”
Folio 83r, Second Coloumn, Bottom 10 or so lines, = 1st John 5:7-8
http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Royal_MS_1_d_viii
http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=royal_ms_1_d_viii_fs001r

Codex Vaticanus Graecus 2061 [GA 048], (circa. 5th century A.D./C.E.)
Gregory-Aland ( 048 ), Von Soden ( a1 ), Tischendorf-Scrivener (
Beth
(ap)).
Also known as the Codex Basilianus 100, earlier as Codex Patriniensis 27.
Now located at the Vatican library.
Double palimpsest (i.e. the biblical text that has been overwritten twice), = very difficult to read.
Folio 308v, Top Left = 1st John 4:6-5:13
Folio 308v = 1 John 5:7-8
https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.2061.pt.A
https://thefathersmonarchy.wordpres...us-graecus-2061a-circa-5-6th-century-c-e-a-d/

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.
https://www.loc.gov/item/00279386164-ms/
http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2017/05/syriac-new-testament-mss-at-saint.html
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top