the grammar of the heavenly and earthly witnesses

Steven Avery said:
For all that writing, it looks like the Verona ms. is the only one that definitely is missing the Holy.
Then you add "possibilities". :)
How many like the Speculum should be included with Holy Spirit?
Click to expand...

Funny you mention that!

Speculum is also missing the "Holy" in some manuscripts.

Two examples (not an exhaustive "list").

Bibliothèque nationale de France. Département des Manuscrits. Latin 15082 (circa. 11th-15th century A.D.)
Folio 156 = earthly witnesses first before the heavenly
1 John 5:7 "SPS, aqua, et sanquis" i.e. "Spiritus" abbreviated as a Nomina Sacra "SPS" in verse 7
1 John 5:7 “in XPO IHU" i.e. "in Christo Jesu” variant
1 John 5:8 "Pater, verbum, et spiritus" i.e. "Spiritus" is not abbreviated, and spelt out, and "Sanctum" "Holy" is missing in verse 7!
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b9068100s/f156.item.zoom
Folio 159 = no earthly witnesses
1 John 5:8 “Spiritus est qui dicit” i.e. "it is the Spirit which says" variant
1 John 5:8 "Pater, verbum, et SPS" i.e. "Spiritus" is abbreviated as a Nomina Sacra, but "Sanctum" "Holy" is missing in verse 8!
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b9068100s/f159.item.zoom

Avranches, BM (Bibliothèque municipale), ms. 87 (circa. ? 9-10th ? century A.D.)
Folio 11r, [Digital Viewer 27/276] = earthly witnesses first before the heavenly
1 John 5:7 "SPS, aqua, et sanquis" i.e. "Spiritus" abbreviated as a Nomina Sacra "SPS" in verse 7
1 John 5:7 “in XPO IHU" i.e. "in Christo Jesu” variant
1 John 5:8 "Pater, verbum, et SPS" i.e. "Spiritus" is abbreviated as a Nomina Sacra, but "Sanctum" "Holy" is missing in verse 7!
Folio 15v-15r, [Digital Viewer 27/276] = no earthly witnesses
1 John 5:8 “Spiritus est qui dicit” i.e. "it is the Spirit which says" variant
1 John 5:8 "Pater, verbum, et SPS" i.e. "Spiritus" is abbreviated as a Nomina Sacra, but "Sanctum" "Holy" is missing in verse 8!
https://www.unicaen.fr/bvmsm/img-vi...e001_1C.jpg&ns=Avranches_BM_087_vue001_1C.jpg

I haven't done an exhaustive examination of all the ANF/PNF Comma-inclusive references with "Holy" missing from verse 7-8, yet. But I'll get there one day.

You shouldn't speculate about Speculum Steven ;)!

EDITED BY MOD
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
Was in the list, just like the Freisinger Fragment.
Go do your homework.
Click to expand...

You are mixing up your two lists.
The first list, the more important list of mss. of all languages, I covered here:

Steven Avery said:
Sure, and it simply confirms what I have said above.
You list 21 mss. (20 when we date Sinaiticus properly) about 11 are Syriac, without the heavenly witnesses.
.... No Leon Palimpsest in the list or the summary.
Click to expand...
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
You shouldn't speculate about Speculum Steven ;)
Do your homework first, before shooting your mouth off.
Click to expand...

Your style is to try not to show all the evidence.
Crafty.
Why not tell us how many Speculum mss. do have the Holy.

You are doing an incredible amount of sand throwing to avoid acknowledging the absence of the Leon Palimpsest in your list and summary of 20+ manuscripts. It feels likes Jones Beach on a windy day.
 
Steven Avery said:
Your style is to try not to show all the evidence.
Crafty.
Why not tell us how many Speculum mss. do have the Holy.

You are doing an incredible amount of sand throwing to avoid acknowledging the absence of the Leon Palimpsest in your list and summary of 20+ manuscripts. It feels likes Jones Beach on a windy day.
Click to expand...

Strawman Extraordinaire can you ever stop creating Strawmen?

Go do your homework. ;)
 
Actually many Vulgate NT manuscripts show considerable corruption in the counterfeit Comma and in the surrounding verses, including examples of the missing "Holy" with "Spirit" omission ? and Jerome's theological confusion of "Christus est veritas" instead of"Spiritus est veritas" in 1 John 5:6.
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
Actually many Vulgate NT manuscripts show considerable corruption in the... Comma and in the surrounding verses, including examples of the missing "Holy" with "Spirit" omission ? and Jerome's theological confusion of "Christus est veritas" instead of"Spiritus est veritas" in 1 John 5:6.
Click to expand...

Actually, we should add flipping verses as well.

As I pointed out, we do not know the origin of "Christus est veritas" since we do not have Jerome's Vulgate until 150 years later, and the phrase is never used directly by Jerome.

However, I appreciate that you and Matt are accepting Jerome's authorship of the Latin Vulgate canonical/catholic epistles.

1 John 5:6 (AV)
This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ;
not by water only, but by water and blood.
And it is the Spirit that beareth witness,
because the Spirit is truth.

There are also corruptions in the Greek manuscripts.
One of many examples
In 1 John 5:6 we have variants like:
(by water and blood and the Holy Spirit)
(by water and blood and spirit)
(by water and spirit and blood)
(by water and spirit)
These corruptions actually have fairly wide support.

Ehrman writes about it as well, I'll try to include that separately.

When there is a split line, inclusion and omission, variants are more likely.
The Pericope Adulterae is a good example.
One reason is that you will have restoration of what was omitted, and the restoration may add new variants.
 
Steven Avery said:
However, I appreciate that you and Matt are accepting Jerome's authorship of the Latin Vulgate canonical/catholic epistles.
Click to expand...
Good grief.

1. "He" and "Matt" have accepted no such thing.
2. "He" IS Matt!

Too many senior moments to take anything you say seriously.
 
Unbound68 said:
1. "He" and "Matt" have accepted no such thing.
2. "He" IS Matt!
Click to expand...

I wondered if he is JW Matt, it was not clear. e.g. All the posturing to avoid acknowledging the omission of the Leon Palimpsest from the ms. summary.. I did not think that Matt would be quite that obtuse.

Thanks for the info.

It was implied in his comment that he accepts Jerome’s authorship/translation of 1 John, by accusing Jerome of being the source of the “Christus est veritas” variant.

A very nice acknowledgement, which also helps with the Vulgate Prologue authenticity from Jerome.
 
Unbound68 said:
Edit
Click to expand...

Nope. Check the quotes.
I referred to TNC getting info from JW Matt.

Fabricated railing accusations, the contra style.

This is my first direct posting contact. And I did not think that Matt would be so obstinate, tricky and obnoxious, so I went by the safer assumption of two people.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Steven Avery said:
I wondered if he is JW Matt, it was not clear. e.g. All the posturing to avoid acknowledging the omission of the Leon Palimpsest from the ms. summary.. I did not think that Matt would be quite that obtuse.

Thanks for the info.

It was implied in his comment that he accepts Jerome’s authorship/translation of 1 John, by accusing Jerome of being the source of the “Christus est veritas” variant.

A very nice acknowledgement, which also helps with the Vulgate Prologue authenticity from Jerome.
Click to expand...

Oh Strawman Creator Extraordinaire.
 
Steven Avery said:
Actually, we should add flipping verses as well.

As I pointed out, we do not know the origin of "Christus est veritas" since we do not have Jerome's Vulgate until 150 years later, and the phrase is never used directly by Jerome.

However, I appreciate that you and Matt are accepting Jerome's authorship of the Latin Vulgate canonical/catholic epistles.

1 John 5:6 (AV)
This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ;
not by water only, but by water and blood.
And it is the Spirit that beareth witness,
because the Spirit is truth.

There are also corruptions in the Greek manuscripts.
One of many examples
In 1 John 5:6 we have variants like:
(by water and blood and the Holy Spirit)
(by water and blood and spirit)
(by water and spirit and blood)
(by water and spirit)
These corruptions actually have fairly wide support.

Ehrman writes about it as well, I'll try to include that separately.

When there is a split line, inclusion and omission, variants are more likely.
The Pericope Adulterae is a good example.
One reason is that you will have restoration of what was omitted, and the restoration may add new variants.
Click to expand...

Vulgate, 1 John 5:5-6

Paris, National Library MS. Latin 9380 (circa. 9th century A.D.)
“IHS est filius Di. Hic est qui venit per aquam et SPM [= "et Spiritum"] et sanguine, IHS XPR non in aqua solum sed in aqua et sanguine, et SPS est qui testificantur quoniam XPR est veritas."

Fulda, Hochschul-und Landesbibliothek, Aa 11 (circa. 9th century A.D./C.E.)
“IHS [margin IHS XPS] est filius Di. Hic est qui venit per aquam et sanguine et SPM [= "Spiritum"], IHS XPR non in aqua solum sed in aqua et sanguine [margin “non in aqua solum in aqua et sanguine”], et SPS est qui testificantur, quoniam XPS est veritas. Quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant, SPS et aqua et sanguis, et tres unum sunt. Sicut in celo tres sunt Pater, Verbum, et SPS, et hi tres unum sunt.”

Note this last one is from Fulda, the same monastery where the Codex Fuldensis was kept, yet look at the difference in the text three centuries later.
 
Last edited:
Codex Toletanus (circa. 10th century A.D./C.E.)
“quia IHS filius Di est. Hic est qui venia per aquam et sanguine et SPM [= "Spiritum"], IHS XPR et non in aqua solum sed in aqua et sanguine et SPM [= "Spiritum"], et SPS est qui testificantur, quoniam XPS est veritas. Quia tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt et terra, SPS et aqua et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt in XPO IHU. Et tres unum sunt qui testimonium dicunt in celo, Pater, Verbum, et SPS, et hi tres unum sunt.”
 
My observations and research show that there are the same (or similar) 1 John 5:6 "Spiritus" variants in some Vulgate manuscripts. ?

B.T.W. These are my direct transcripts from images of the manuscripts themselves.

P.S. Certainly not exhaustive either.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top